University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Tools of authority: the Saionji family and courtier society in early medieval Japan

(USC Thesis Other)

Tools of authority: the Saionji family and courtier society in early medieval Japan

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content TOOLS OF AUTHORITY: THE SAIONJI FAMILY AND COURTIER SOCIETY IN EARLY MEDIEVAL JAPAN by Rieko Kamei-Dyche A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (HISTORY) May 2013 Copyright 2013 Rieko Kamei-Dyche iii Table of Contents Acknowledgements vi Introduction: Courtier Society and “Tools of Authority” in Early Medieval Japan 1 Historiographical Context I: Approaching Medieval Japan 5 Historiographical Context II: Concerning Courtiers 20 What is a Courtier? 21 Courtier Society around the World 25 Courtiers in Japan, Part I: Background and Issues 35 Courtiers in Japan, Part II: Studies in English 43 Courtiers in Japan, Part III: Studies in Japanese 49 Methodology and Organization 55 Chapter 1: Who Were the Saionji? The Political Background and the Emergence of the Family 62 Introduction 62 The Playing Field: The Saionji and the Structure of Medieval Courtier Society 64 Saionji Kintsune 71 A Time of Discord and Opportunity: The Rise and Fall of Taira no Kiyomori and the Heike Polity (c.1156-1192) 76 The Rise of the Saionji Family 98 Conclusion 114 Chapter 2: The Economic and Spatial Power of the Saionji 116 Introduction 116 The Historiography to Date 118 The Wealth of the Saionji: Saionji Kintsune’s Luxurious Lifestyle 125 Estates and Trade 134 I: Expanding a Family’s Landed Portfolio – Estates and Estate Acquisition 135 II: Human Resources in Estate-Management & Wealth Accumulation 146 iv III: Trade 151 Chosen Locations: The Spatial Power of Estate and Villas 156 Conclusion 173 Chapter 3: Cultural Capital of the Saionji 177 Introduction 177 The Saionji as Poets 187 The Saionji as Patrons of Anthologies (I): Patronage and Courtier Culture 193 The Saionji as Patrons of Anthologies (II): Ōmiya-in and the F ūy ōsh ū, A Case Study 199 The Biwa as a Royal Instrument 204 The Saionji and the Biwa 212 Conclusion 221 Chapter 4: Social Capital of the Saionji – Marriage Strategies and Familial Networks 224 Introduction 224 Social Capital: Theory and Historical Applications 225 Marriage Strategies and Early Medieval Courtier Society 238 Part I: Relations with Kamakura 243 Part II: Relations with the Royal Family 252 Part III: Relations with the Regental Families – The Kuj ō and Konoe 265 Conclusion 272 Chapter 5: Social Capital of the Saionji – Cultural and Information Networks 273 Introduction 273 Relations between Saionji Social Capital and Cultural Capital 273 The Saionji Information Network: The Role of Women 287 Conclusion 297 Conclusion: The Saionji After Kamakura and the Legacy of Courtier Society 299 v Appendix 314 Bibliography 317 1. Primary Sources 317 2. Secondary Sources: Japanese-language 320 3. Secondary Sources: English-language 341 iv Acknowledgements This project would not have been possible without the contribution of many people. First, my supervisor Joan R. Piggott not only introduced me to much of the English scholarship on premodern Japanese history, but she also consistently provided me with advice on all manner of issues and helped rescue me during innumerable crises both academic and otherwise. I would also like to express my appreciation to my other two committee members, Gordon M. Berger and David Bialock. Both of them provided me with a lot of knowledge and guidance in their seminars and also helped guide me through trouble spots. I am truly grateful to the Historiographical Institute at the University of Tokyo and the many scholars there who helped my research along. Kato Tomoyasu, Ishigami Eiichi, and Endo Motoo became my mentors in reading kambun over the course of several kambun workshops held in summers at USC. Yoshida Sanae became my mentor at the Historiographical Institute while I was conducting my primary dissertation research there. I want to thank Kond ō Shigekazu and Hong ō Kazuto, who were willing to find time to give me advice about my dissertation despite their busy work schedules. Although during my time there the Historiographical Institute was under re-construction for earthquake proofing, it was nevertheless a highly productive experience because of these scholars’ help, as well as the support of my fellow researchers. The numerous discussions which I had with Shimizu Akira, Daniel Shely, and Lucio about our work as well as both academic and non-academic issues were truly unforgettable. I would like to express my appreciation to Hitotsubashi University, both for their library services and for permitting me to pursue my research in-between my duties. I also want to thank Meiji University, where I was a visiting scholar for a year, and Tsuda College, where I was able to present some of my research and discuss issues with students during a series of invited lectures. The Japanese Studies Association of Canada, British Association of Japan Studies, International Association of Historians of Asia, Ochanomizu University, and Sophia University were all venues at which I presented some part of this project, and I am grateful for the encouragement and feedback I received there. I also appreciate the Society for Research on Women’s History and the Meigetsuki Kenky ūkai. I am indebted to Joan Piggott and the USC Project for Premodern Japan Studies for helping fund my research; I also appreciate the Foulke Award and other scholarships that enabled me to focus on my research both during and after my time in the United States. The History Department, especially Joe Styles and Lori Rogers, deserve special thanks for their ceaseless struggles fought on my behalf with bureaucracy, and for their patience. I also want to thank Tomoko Bialock, the Japanese librarian at USC, for her assistance and support during my time there. v There are many other individuals whose advice, encouragement, and friendship over the years made this project possible. I want to thank especially Jan Goodwin, Herman Ooms, Judith Bennett, Sachiko Kawai, Michelle Damian, Jason Webb, Roger Brown, and Maria Petrucci, as well as two couples among my friends who understand the difficulties of a two-academic marriage: Gaye Rowley and Thomas Harper, and Miki Wheeler and Joseph Sorensen. Miki also deserves special thanks for permitting me to quote her translation of the Tamakiharu. I want to thank Hitomi Tonomura for encouraging me to work on the Saionji. I also want to extend a special thank you to G. Cameron Hurst III, whose masterful Insei was the first work of English-language scholarship I read on premodern Japan. Encountering his work led me to pursue the path of a premodern historian, and for that and his kind encouragement offered to me, an embarrassed fan meeting her hero, I am truly grateful. I would also like to my parents for being understanding and tolerant of their daughter and her seemingly peculiar career choices. They trusted me and let me take my life in the direction I chose, despite their worries. I owe my last and greatest debt, and wish to extend my greatest appreciation, to my husband, Andrew T. Kamei-Dyche. He consistently supported me throughout this project in every possible way. He was always willing to discuss almost anything with me, proofread many of my drafts, and assisted me with finding relevant scholarship, all of which I sincerely appreciate. However, his biggest contribution was simply being there, standing by me no matter what happened. He has always been, and I hope always will be, my first reader – although hopefully not my last. vi Dedication To Andrew, with all my love 1 Introduction: Courtier Society and “Tools of Authority” in Early Medieval Japan This study is a reassessment of the strategies employed by Japanese courtier families in the twelfth through fourteenth centuries to enhance their status and power among other families. 1 These strategies centered on the creation and expansion of various networks of relationships which became their “tools of authority,” spanning wide areas of the nobility’s world, beyond merely the political to encompass the economic and spatial, cultural, and social. Each of these arenas of courtier society 2 corresponds to a form of capital as outlined in the work of sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, whose conception of the various shapes in which capital can be embodied, and the fundamental interconvertibility among these underlies much of my approach. This will be discussed further towards the end of this chapter. Early medieval Japan is an era historians have until recently described in terms of decline for the court, thus giving rise to the establishment of military government (the bakufu) in Kamakura in the late twelfth century. Such an approach, positing a fundamental conflict between a faltering court and a rising military power, is grounded in a long tradition of Marxist historiography, and a more general tendency in the scholarship to describe a process whereby 1 Throughout this project, Japanese names are given in Japanese order, that is, family name first. All translations are my own unless otherwise indicated. All translations from the Masukagami are taken from George W. Perkins, trans. The Clear Mirror: A Chronicle of the Japanese Court During the Kamakura Period (1185-1333) (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1989). 2 I understand courtier society to refer to the social relations and social structures that shaped the lives of courtiers; in this way courtier society has considerable overlap with, but remains somewhat distinct from, court society. 2 feudal martial power supplanted the primacy of the court aristocracy. My work, conversely, stands in the camp of scholars who more recently have argued that the decline of court power and authority has been overstated. In addition to the tendency to play up a presumed transition in modes of rule or authority (following the Marx-Weber perspective), much of the conventional view of medieval courtier society in Japan is bound up with assumptions from later times. Takahashi Masaaki, in his study considering the image of Japanese warriors, notes how during the Edo Period (1600-1867) the court was regulated by the Tokugawa Bakufu and pursued cultural activities almost exclusively because few other avenues were left open to them. 3 This view of a weakened court that existed only to pursue artistic pastimes of negligible merit was then read back into the medieval era, a process heightened by the Meiji state. The Meiji oligarchs may have invoked a revival of the court, but they were largely ex-warriors themselves, and their national policy of fukoku ky ōhei (“enrich the country and strengthen the army”), and emphasis on soldiers and martial valor, was accompanied by a dismissive attitude towards the court and its place in Japanese history. 4 3 Takahashi Masaaki, Bushi no Seiritsu Bushiz ō no S ōshutsu [The Birth of the Warriors: The Invention of the Image of Warriors] (Tokyo: Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai, 1999). 4 Ibid. Several other scholars have endorsed Takahashi’s perspective; for example, see Okano Tomohiko, Ch ūsei Kogake to Kogake-ry ō Sh ōen [The Koga Family and Their Estates in Medieval Japan] (Tokyo: Zoku Gunsho Ruiju Kanseikai, 2002), 4. 3 Recent scholarship (particularly that of Jeffrey P. Mass and his students) has clearly demonstrated the persistence of court influence, but the major courtier families which comprised courtier society, and the roots of their power, have not been substantially examined. Moreover, the presumption that courtier families dwelt in a fossilized social and cultural landscape circumscribed by ancient values hopelessly out of touch with the realities of the time remains a theme in many treatments of the era. A reconstruction of the strategies leading courtier families employed to cement and expand their influence, however, demolishes this view: families were successful across a range of arenas in contemporary society because they cultivated wealth, valuable knowledge and status-bearing achievements, and worked hard to build connections with other families possessing these. Courtier families could be entirely pragmatic in matters affecting their influence, even in cultural areas such as poetry or music, which may appear on the surface to be more idealistic pursuits. This study offers a challenge to conventional views by drawing attention to a complex and vibrant courtier society flourishing long after it was said to have “declined.” One aspect of medieval courtier society that warrants special attention is the role of women, who were vital in linking families together through networks of marriage, information exchange, and cultural patronage. The women of a courtier family were often an essential component of 4 many of its tools of authority – women were front and center as families worked to cement and expand their influence across a wide spectrum of political, economic, and cultural spheres in response to changing circumstances. Re-assessing the role of courtier women in this way opens a new perspective on medieval Japanese society, shaping a corrective to the enduring male-focused and warrior-centered perspective. The core of the present project is a case study of the tools of authority created and deployed by the Saionji, one of the most significant courtier families of early medieval Japan. The Saionji were well connected to both the court and the military government, as evidenced by their extensive blood and marital relations with both sides, and their hereditary hold on the position of special liaison between them as Kant ō M ōshitsugi. They also worked to develop and maintain significant power and influence in a variety of economic and social arenas. The specific tools of authority the family wielded constitute an impressive range of strategic endeavors. Saionji family members carefully cultivated their estate holdings, acquiring land in strategic ways that gained them considerable control over trade networks and the attendant wealth. They also directly participated in and patronized cultural endeavors in order to shore up vast amounts of cultural capital and to expand their influence. They gained and sustained political connections, not only with established figures in the court and military 5 government but also with those who might be future power holders. And they exchanged information with each other. Even after marriage into other families, Saionji women formed networks through which they shared information and connections that could benefit their natal family. The family secured alliances, both socially and through marriage, with other influential families. These families included the royal family, prominent courtier and warrior families, and families having access to desirable economic or cultural assets. All of these efforts directly contributed to the standing of their family. By using the Saionji as a lens in this study, I delineate the various arenas of medieval courtier society and the strategies courtier families employed to increase their influence in those arenas. At the same time, because families in medieval Japan have received little scholarly attention, my project also reveals ways in which the study of families can be productively incorporated into a broader rethinking of the Japanese medieval experience. Historiographical Context I: Approaching Medieval Japan In order to contextualize my inquiry, it is important to first briefly discuss the historiography of early medieval Japan, comprising the Kamakura (1192-1333) and early Muromachi Periods (1336-1392). The earliest studies of medieval Japan were undertaken at the start of the twentieth 6 century by two Japanese scholars, Fukuda Tokuz ō (1874-1930) and Hara Katsur ō (1871-1924), both of whom had experience studying in Europe. 5 Their approach was to look for parallels to medieval Europe in Japan’s history, in order to demonstrate that Japan was following the European path of development. The earliest English-language studies were those of Asakawa Kan’ichi (1873-1948), who wrote in the 1910s and situated the medieval era within a long feudal period. 6 Although Asakawa and other early historians writing in English like James Murdoch (1856-1921) 7 and George Sansom (1883-1965) 8 disagreed about the nature of feudalism in Japan, they all emphasized warrior authority. In both English-language and Japanese-language scholarship, historical studies of medieval Japan were so thoroughly warrior-oriented that the era was frequently reduced to just the history of warrior government, the bakufu. 9 5 On the earliest medieval studies, consult Ishii Susumu’s article, “Nihon no H ōkensei to Sei ō no H ōkensei” [The Feudal System in Japan and the West], in Horikomi Y ōz ō, ed. Rekishigaku no Sususme [Encouraging Historical Studies] (Tokyo: Chikuma Shob ō, 1973). Also see Hara Katsur ō’s monograph, Nihon Ch ūseishi [Medieval Japanese History] (Tokyo: Seibonsha, 1969). Hara also wrote a study of Japanese history in English, entitled An Introduction to the History of Japan (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1920). 6 See, for example, Asakawa’s “Some Aspects of Japanese Feudal Institutions,” Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Japan 46 (1918): 77-102; and “The Early SHO and the Early Manor: A Comparative Study,” Journal of Economic and Business History 2 (February 1929): 177-207. 7 James Murdoch, A History of Japan (Tokyo: Asiatic Society of Japan, 1916), 3 vols. 8 George Sansom first wrote Japan: A Short Cultural History (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1931), but the key work to consult is A History of Japan to 1334 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1958). 9 The earliest works of English-language writing on Japanese history tended to eschew “medieval” for terms that explicitly painted the era in military colors, such as Brinkley’s “military epoch.” See F. Brinkley, Japan: Its History, Arts and Literature, V olume II (Boston: J. B. Millet Company, 1901). One frequently overlooked work that represents a pioneering effort in early English-language scholarship on Japan was Chitoshi Yanaga’s “Source Materials in Japanese History: The Kamakura Period, 1192-1333,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 59.1 (Mar., 1939), 38-55. This was one of the first attempts to provide the English-language academic audience with a guide to primary sources for researching medieval Japanese 7 After Japan’s defeat in the Pacific War, the way began to be cleared for new approaches. In Japan, Ishimoda Sh ō (1912-1986) 10 developed a solidly Marxist framework for examining Japan’s medieval world. He argued that classical elements continued to exist in the medieval age, resulting in an antagonistic relationship with medieval elements. In English-language scholarship, John W. Hall (1916-1997) attempted to assess Japan’s medieval on its own terms rather than through the imported Marxist economic framework used by Ishimoda. 11 Hall still understood medieval history largely as a story of powerful warriors, but instead of economic institutions, he tracked changing forms of authority, emphasizing a fundamental shift from civil government by the court to military government by warriors. Around the same time as Hall, Paul Varley 12 and Shinoda Minoru (1915-2006) 13 also produced studies of aspects of early medieval Japan based largely on military chronicles as sources. history, and its coverage was impressive for its time. 10 Ishimoda Sh ō, Ch ūseiteki Sekai no Keisei [The Formation of the Medieval World] (Tokyo: Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai, 1967). In English, see Joan R. Piggott, trans., “Japan’s Medieval World,” in Joan R. Piggott, ed., Capital and Countryside in Japan, 300-1180: Japanese Historians Interpreted in English (Ithaca, NY: East Asia Program, Cornell University, 2006), 326-361. 11 John W. Hall, Government and Local Power in Japan, 500-700: A Study Based on Bizen Province (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966). Also see Hall’s “Terms and Concepts in Japanese Medieval History: An Inquiry into the Problems of Translation,” Journal of Japanese Studies 9.1 (winter 1983): 1-32, which assesses some key issues and also contains a short glossary. 12 Paul H. Varley, Imperial Restoration in Medieval Japan (New York: Columbia University Press, 1971). 13 Shinoda Minoru, The Founding of the Kamakura Shogunate, 1180-1185: with selected translations from the Azuma Kagami (New York: Columbia University Press, 1960). 8 The next major historian was Jeffrey P. Mass (1940-2001), who made major contributions to medieval scholarship and began to problematize conventional views of warriors. 14 Mass approached warriors as not exclusively militaristic in character but also as bureaucratic, although his focus remained squarely on warrior government. Unlike previous English-language historians, Mass based his studies on extensive document collections, and undertook an in-depth study of the bakufu bureaucracy and legal system. At the same time, his strict focus on these materials led him to downplay nonconventional materials, such as works of literature, which stood to offer insights into courtier culture. Following Mass’ trailblazing, however, other historians soon introduced courtiers back into their narratives, rethinking the role of warriors and the shape of Japan’s medieval as they did so. Two major figures to note here are G. Cameron Hurst and Cornelius Kiley. Hurst challenged notions of the Insei era (situated between the heyday of the court and the establishment of the bakufu) as representing a clear break with what came before or after, and by extension, he problematized the transition into the medieval era. He demonstrated that the court and courtier families continued to occupy a significant role in the Kamakura Period, although the nature of 14 See in particular Mass’ original monograph, Warrior Government in Early Medieval Japan: A Study of the Kamakura Bakufu, Shugo, and Jit ō (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974) as well as its revised version, Yoritomo and the Founding of the First Bakufu (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999). On the topic of shugo and jit ō, also see in Japanese Yoshie Akio’s Kamakura Bakufu Jit ō-shiki Seiritsu-shi no Kenky ū [Studies of the History of the Establishment of the Kamakura Bakufu’s Jit ō Agency] (Tokyo: Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai, 1978), and the partner volume Kamakura Bakufu Shugo Seiritsu-shi no Kenky ū [Studies of the History of the Establishment of the Kamakura Bakufu’s Shugo] (Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 2009). 9 this role changed over time. Hurst also introduced the idea of the “K ōbu Polity” (Court-Bakufu Polity) paradigm, which replaced the old idea of a sharp change from rule by the court to rule by the bakufu. The K ōbu Polity paradigm allowed for a form of “dual polity” whereby Japan was seen to have been governed by a sort of coalition of the court and the bakufu, in an unstable relationship that evolved through several stages. 15 Cornelius Kiley makes a similar point, revealing that in the Kamakura Period, the court retained a role not only as a symbolic authority but also as a legal authority. 16 Around the same time, several conference volumes emerged that had a significant impact, bringing together new English-language scholars working on medieval Japan. Most significant were Medieval Japan: Essays in Institutional History 17 (1972) and Court and Bakufu in Japan: 15 G. Cameron Hurst III, Insei: Abdicated Sovereigns in the Politics of Late Heian Japan, 1086-1185 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1976); and “The Structure of the Heian Court: Some Thoughts on the Nature of “Familial Authority” in Heian Japan,” in John W. Hall and Jeffrey P. Mass, eds., Medieval Japan: Essays in Institutional History (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1974), 39-59; and “The K ōbu Polity: Court-Bakufu Relations in Kamakura Japan,” in Jeffrey P. Mass, ed., Court and Bakufu in Japan: Essays in Kamakura History (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1982), 3-28. Hurst was not the first to postulate notions of dual government – W.E. Griffis, for example, had argued that during the Kamakura Period there was a dual system in place wherein the tenn ō represented spiritual authority and the shogun represented secular authority. See “Creation of the Dual System of Government” in The Mikado’s Empire (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1886), 5th ed., 140-141. This conception dated back to at least Engelbert Kaempfer, whose account was published in 1727, as The History of Japan, Together with a Description of the Kingdom of Siam, 1690-1692, trans. J. G. Scheuchzer (Glasgow: James MacLehose and Sons, 1906). However, Hurst’s articulation was both more sophisticated and more persuasive than that of his predecessors’, and set out how the court continued to wield not merely ceremonial authority but genuine power through the Kamakura era. 16 Cornelius Kiley, “The Imperial Court as a Legal Authority in the Kamakura Age,” in Court and Bakufu, op.cit., 29-44. 17 John W. Hall and Jeffrey P. Mass, eds., Medieval Japan: Essays in Institutional History (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1974). 10 Essays in Kamakura History (1982). 18 Collectively, these volumes, edited by Jeffrey P. Mass and featuring the work of many of his colleagues, presented new perspectives on the emergence of “the medieval” in Japan, and emphasized continuities more than previous scholarship had done. New perspectives regarding the role of warriors, the notion of the K ōbu polity, and a recognition of the continuing relevance of the court produced in turn a new generation of English-language scholars with a different take on medieval Japan. 19 These scholars shaped genuinely novel approaches to the field instead of depending on Japanese scholars to lead the way. The conference volume The Origins of Japan’s Medieval World showcased this new generation of scholars, including Andrew Goble, Hitomi Tonomura, Thomas Conlan, and Mikael Adolphson. 20 The pieces therein collectively argued for pushing back the medieval era to the 18 Jeffrey P. Mass, ed., Court and Bakufu in Japan, op. cit. 19 A sort of contrast was represented by the more conventional Cambridge History of Japan, which, while thorough in its coverage, ended up being closer in tone to the older perspective in its treatment of the medieval era, likely due to the time required for its completion. See Kozo Yamamura, ed., The Cambridge History of Japan, Volume 3: Medieval Japan (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990). 20 Jeffrey P. Mass, ed., The Origins of Japan’ s Medieval World (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1997). For examples of the range of work undertaken by these new medievalists, see Andrew Goble, Kenmu: Go-Daigo’s Revolution (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997); Hitomi Tonomura, “Women and Inheritance in Japan’s Early Warrior Society,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 32.3 (July 1990): 592-623, and Community and Commerce in Late Medieval Japan: The Corporate Villages of Tokuchin-ho (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1992); Tonomura, Anne Walthall, and Wakita Haruko, eds., Women and Class in Japanese History (Ann Arbor: Center for Japanese Studies, University of Michigan, 1999); Thomas D. Conlan, State of War: The Violent Order of Fourteenth-Century Japan (Ann Arbor: Center for Japanese Studies, University of Michigan, 2003), and From Sovereign to Symbol: An Age of Ritual Determinism in Fourteenth Century Japan (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011); and Mikael S. Adolphson, The Gates of Power (Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, 2000) and The Teeth and Claws of the Buddha: Monastic Warriors and S ōhei in Japanese History (Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2007). 11 fourteenth-century, an argument inspired by the work of Andrew Goble, 21 who argued that Japan’s medieval actually began with the Kenmu regime in 1333 (more than a century after the conventional date of 1192). This represented a revolutionary idea, unheard of in Japan where the tendency had been to push in the other direction by seeking an earlier start date for the medieval period. 22 At the same time, these scholars were also influenced by Japanese-language scholarship. Particularly notable is the scholarship of Nagahara Keiji (1922-2004), who argued that Japan’s medieval experience needed to be understood on its own terms, as Hall had done in English earlier; Murai Sh ōsuke, who put medieval Japan in a world perspective; and Amino Yoshihiko (1928-2004), who challenged presuppositions about the cultivator class and drew attention to divisions and regional distinctions within Japan. All contributed to the efforts of English-language scholars to overturn conventional assumptions. 23 21 Goble, Kenmu, op. cit. For a brief outline of Goble’s thoughts concerning the concept of “medieval,” see his chapter “Medieval Japan,” in William M. Tsutsui, ed., A Companion to Japanese History (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2007), 47-66. The past two decades have also witnessed new assessments of medieval Japan that are strongly driven by approaches informed by critical theory, such as Thomas Keirstead’s The Geography of Power in Medieval Japan (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992), which draws extensively on the theories of Foucault. 22 Some English-language scholars have adopted even more radical periodizations based on criteria such as ecology and the environment, or social structures and demographics. See Conrad Totman, A History of Japan (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2005), 2nd ed.); and William W. Farris, Japan to 1600: A Social and Economic History (Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2009). 23 See for example Nagahara Keiji, Nihon no Ch ūsei Shakai [Medieval Japanese Society] (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1968); Nagahara, Nihon Ch ūsei Shakai K ōz ō no Kenky ū [Studies in the Structure of Medieval Japanese Society] (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1973); Murai Sh ōsuke, Ajia no naka no Ch ūsei Nihon [Medieval Japan in Asia] (Tokyo: Azekura Shob ō, 1988); and Amino Yoshihiko, Higashi to Nishi no Kataru Nihonshi [Japanese History through East and West] (Tokyo: K ōdansha, 1982). For work by some of these scholars in English, see 12 Perhaps the most influential of these Japanese scholars, however, was Kuroda Toshio (1926-1993), whose “kenmon theory” represented a major theoretical challenge to warrior-centered views of history. 24 Kuroda held that multiple hierarchies – comprising warriors, monks, and courtiers – called kenmon, all had influence over the center and struggled amongst themselves for power, in the process forming a set of power-sharing relationships. In this paradigm, the bakufu was displaced from the center of the medieval picture by a vision of multiple power holders, including the court. But while conventional scholarship emphasized the conflict between court and bakufu, kenmon theory emphasized a complimentary and more diffuse system of power parties and negotiations. This theory, which allowed for different forms and expressions of power in medieval Japan, was highly influential not only in Japan but also among English-language scholars, notably Mikael S. Adolphson. 25 Adolphson adapted the theory and used it as a tool to discuss religious institutions in terms of their political and social roles. Acta Asiatica 81 “Studies in Medieval Japanese History” (2001) and Joan R. Piggott, ed., Capital and Countryside in Japan, 300-1180, op.cit., which features the work of some medievalists. Also see Nagahara Keiji’s “The Decline of the sh ōen System,” trans. Michael P. Birt, in Yamamura, ed., The Cambridge History of Japan, Volume 3, 260-300; and “The Medieval Peasant,” trans. Suzanne Gay, in the same volume, 301-343; as well as Amino Yoshihiko, “Medieval Japanese Constructions of Peace and Liberty: Muen, Kugai and Raku,” trans. William Johnston, International Journal of Asian Studies 4.1 (Jan. 2007): 3-14. 24 Kuroda Toshio, Kuroda Toshio Chosakush ū 1, Kenmon Taisei Ron [Collected Works of Kuroda Toshio, V olume 1: Discussions of the Kenmon System] (Tokyo: H ōz ōkan, 2001). Kuroda’s influence is impressive. See James C. Dobbins, “Kuroda Toshio and His Scholarship,” Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 23.3-4 (1996): 217-232. 25 Adolphson, The Gates of Power, op. cit. 13 The emphasis on power relations at the center of Kuroda’s analysis meant that questions remained regarding the applicability of Kuroda’s theory to later periods of Japanese history. However, his theory helped explain the continuing role of the sovereign and court in legitimating power; for indeed, the traditional court ranking system continued to be counted on for status, and military activities were authorized through the name of the ruler, showing how the ruler and court system continued their influential role. The theory also helped shed light on other institutions and groups that had wielded various forms of power in the Kamakura era but had previously been overlooked in historiography. However, this did not mean that the field whole-heartedly adopted Kuroda’s theory. Ishii Susumu, for example, criticized Kuroda for apparently bringing in the perspective of a modern state, and assuming a “state” existed in medieval Japan. 26 Hotate Michihisa responded by offering a counter-critique, arguing that Kuroda was seeking an original conception of a state to help explain medieval Japan, not counting on the universal applicability of the modern state. 27 An ongoing debate over to what extent we can speak of a “state” having existed in medieval Japan, and to what extent such a state resembles our contemporary conceptions of the state, has 26 Ishii Susumu, “Nihon Ch ūsei Kokka-ron no Shomondai” [Issues on the Theory of the State in Medieval Japan], in Nihon Ch ūsei Kokkashi no Kenky ū [Studies on the History of the State in Medieval Japan] (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1970), 13. 27 Hotate Michihisa, “Kuroda Gakusetsu no Iso” [Phases of Kuroda’s Scholarship], Jinmin no Rekishigaku 135 (1998): 1-11. 14 continued to shape the field, as we will see. A helpful perspective is offered by Nitta Ichir ō. 28 Nitta explains how Kuroda’s theory developed as an alternative to the old dialectical perspective that posited the medieval age as a result of warriors emerging to overturn the old ruling class. 29 The idea of a warrior polity emerging as an antithesis of, and replacement for, the “ancient state” (kodai kokka) was, however, problematic. As Nitta rightly points out, assuming the existence of a medieval state represented by the bakufu as completely original and distinct from an ancient state represented by the court does a disservice to the political landscape of medieval Japan. 30 The kenmon theory attempted to resolve these problems, allowing for a model of a medieval state centered on the tenn ō and in which warriors played a major, but not unique or all-powerful, role. 31 28 Nitta Ichir ō, Ch ūsei ni Kokka ha atta ka [Was There a State in the Medieval Era?] (Tokyo: Yamakawa Shuppansha, 2004). 29 In particular, Nitta associates this perspective with Ishimoda Sh ō, discussed above. Nitta refers to Ishimoda and others who shared this perspective as “historians following historical materialism” (Ibid., 38-39). 30 Ibid., 38-41. The strong assumption embraced by the previous generation of historians – that the tenn ō was merely a sort of anachronism left over from the ancient system – did little to encourage studies of the court in the medieval era. In fact, as Nitta suggests, for these scholars the persistence of the court and tenn ō after they had reputedly “declined” and been supplanted by warrior rule was something of a nuisance. Marxist historians struggled to explain how the institution survived and expressed exasperation at the regard shown it by subsequent generations of Japanese. In this way the limits inherent in applying a European-derived model to Japan’s medieval experience become readily apparent. 31 Needless to say, the kenmon theory had the benefit of explaining why the tenn ō persisted into the medieval era and beyond: because, in short, the tenn ō remained essential to the evolving political system of the time. Nitta clarifies the disagreement between Kuroda and Ishii, moreover, by explaining that the former attempted to “grasp what existed in Japan’s medieval,” and thus did not use “state” in a modern conception, whereas the latter understood “state” within the context of Japanese historiography derived from the European context and was concerned by what he saw as an attempt to fit the Japanese medieval experience into such a category (Ibid., 44-45). Nitta appears sympathetic to Kuroda’s perspective, but he does agree that it could invite images or conceptions associated with the modern state, which he considers problematic. 15 An earlier theory to which the kenmon theory has often been contrasted is the “Independent East” theory (Kant ō dokuritsu seiken-ron, alternatively t ōgaku kokka-ron), which held that the bakufu constituted a separate state within Japan. The roots of the theory lay in an article by Yamamoto Hiroya, “Kant ō M ōshitsugi to Kamakura Bakufu” (The Kant ō M ōshitsugi and the Kamakura Bakufu), published in 1977. 32 In this article the notion that the bakufu basically followed a policy of nonintervention in the affairs of the court was proposed for the first time. This idea was then taken up and developed further by Sat ō Shin’ichi, and it came to fruition as a full-fledged theory in his 1983 monograph Nihon no Ch ūsei Kokka (Japan’s Medieval State). 33 Since Sat ō argued that “the relationship between the bakufu and the court shifted from one of mutual dependence to one of mutual nonintervention/independence,” it is clear that his theory functioned as a counterargument to the kenmon theory, which emphasized how the three power holders – the court, religious institutions, and the military – supported each other in a single system. 34 Kuroda had argued for multiple power centers (as Hurst had argued for two), but he did not hold that these represented multiple states; instead he saw them as constituent factions comprising a single state. 32 Yamamoto Hiroya, “Kant ō M ōshitsugi to Kamakura Bakufu” [The Kant ō M ōshitsugi and the Kamakura Bakufu], Shigaku Zassshi 8618 (1977): 1145-1182. 33 Sat ō Shin’ichi, Nihon no Ch ūsei Kokka [The Medieval Japanese State] (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1983). 34 Ibid., 163-172. 16 These two theories have continued to shape the field in Japan. In fact, in his landmark 1982 monograph, Amino Yoshihiko divided historians specializing in the Kamakura state into two groups based on these theories. 35 Many scholars occupied a position somewhere on a scale between the two, depending on the degree of autonomy they identified in the power centers and how they understood the relationship among them. Uwayokote Masataka accepted the kenmon theory as valid for the early Kamakura Period, and paid careful attention to cases of concrete intervention between court and bakufu. 36 Hong ō Kazuto a similar vision. 37 In Hongō’s view, the J ōkyū Incident marked the turning point when the kenmon theory ceased to match the real historical conditions, arguing that after the Incident, “The bakufu, which was in charge of the “military branch,” denied all of the capacities of the court – including political and economic – through exerting their military force. Thereafter, the bakufu, having denied the court any military power, possessed great influence over the court in every way with its own significant military power. Such a situation should well be interpreted as the emergence of a new ‘public polity’ (k ōken).” 38 Examining both the kenmon and “Independent East” theories, Hong ō asserted that “both [by themselves] seem to be inappropriate” if we “are seeking the nature of the medieval Japanese 35 Amino, Higashi to Nishi no Kataru Nihonshi, op.cit., 210-228. 36 Uwayokote Masataka, Nihon Ch ūsei Kokkashi Ronk ō [Studies on the History of the State in Medieval Japan] (Tokyo: Hanawa Shob ō, 1994). 37 Hong ō Kazuto, “Ch ūsei Ch ōtei Sosh ō ni tsuite no H ōh ō-ron – Arata na Jissh ōteki Seika ni moto tsuite” [On Methods Pertaining to Lawsuits at the Medieval Court: Based on New Empirical Findings], Harukanaru Ch ūsei 18 (2000): 60-68. 38 Ibid., 68. 17 state through the eyes of the contemporary people.” 39 Based on his own understanding, he then set out the following two points: 1. There were two public polities – court and bakufu – during the Kamakura Period. 2. These two polities held close relations, and the history of Kamakura Japan should be discussed in the context of their interaction. 40 The first point he made here echoes the “dual polity” conception found in the work of Hurst, Mass and other English-language scholars. In other words, from the two dominant theories in Japanese-language scholarship, a new synthesis has gradually emerged which dovetails with developments in English-language scholarship. I myself have mixed feelings about this approach, which still begins with the assertion that the court and bakufu represent distinct polities (the “dual polities” approach). While the division of power holders between courtiers centered on one power axis in the west and warriors centered on another in the east was a historical reality, in my understanding these two “poles” still constituted part of a greater whole. The medieval “state,” if we can apply the term, would have ceased to function were these two poles and their uneasy, but crucial, relationship to break down. The efforts of Go-Daigo in the 1330s to upset the balance between these two poles in his favor 39 Ibid., 66. 40 Ibid. 18 (following Go-Toba’s failed attempt in the 1220s) predictably brought the entire mechanism crashing down. From this perspective, I favor a “dual-centered polity” approach. I am wary of embracing the kenmon theory entirely because I do not see sufficient evidence that religious institutions, though powerful, constituted a power axis on the same level as the court and bakufu. Moreover I share Ishii Susumu’s skepticism about the applicability of modern conceptions of the “state” to medieval Japan. 41 The difficulty here is in trying to articulate the structure and function of the medieval polity without imposing modern notions that are already deeply ingrained in our views on politics. Ultimately, which side of the divide (dual polities or a dual-centered polity) scholars fall on may depend largely on how much credence one gives to the independence of court and bakufu. In light of all these developments, it should be clear that a thorough consideration of the court and courtier society is essential to understand medieval Japan. The defining characteristics of the courtier class, the source of their privilege, and their continuing influence, are all aspects of Japanese history that can be better explained when grounded in this newer historiography. While these recent works have demonstrated a continuing role for the court and have begun to mark out the complexities of power and social relations in medieval Japan, a study of the courtier society that occupied such a key role at the time has yet to 41 On this topic I was inspired not only by Japanese historians like Ishii, but also Patrick J. Geary, who problematizes the tendency of Europeans to read back modern notions of nation and state into medieval history. See The Myth of Nations: The Medieval Origins of Europe (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993). 19 be undertaken. Without a firm understanding of the courtiers, and the human networks through which they exercised influence in various spheres of activity, our map of early medieval Japan remains partial. The present study takes up this challenge by tracing the elements and evolution of courtier society through the lens of the Saionji family, employing an interdisciplinary approach to effectively articulate their complex historical role, as discussed below. My perspective builds on recent scholarship by tracing continuities with the classical era as well as on observing the changes brought by the emergence of the bakufu. Such changes represented not the end of courtier society, but new challenges and opportunities, to which some courtier families were better at responding than others. Nevertheless, I continue to refer to the Kamakura era as Japan’s “early medieval age” because, despite the continuities, with the onset of the bakufu a new system actually did emerge. While different from what followed as it evolved, it was nonetheless distinct from the past. Specifically, I hold that it is helpful to think of the medieval in terms not of the rise of warriors but rather in terms of the decentralization of authority. In the early medieval era, the court did not cease to be influential, but lost its claim to a monopoly on authority. The Kamakura Bakufu did not hold a monopoly on authority either, but instead participated in a power-sharing arrangement with the court. Even the Muromachi Bakufu represented more of an ad hoc system based on negotiation among various power groups than a 20 total re-centralization of authority. When this ceased to be viable in the late fifteenth century, the system collapsed altogether and ushered in a century of intermittent warfare between competing domains. The real break occurred only around 1600 with the emergence of a strong, genuinely warrior-based centralized authority in Edo, bringing with it the end of the medieval era and the onset of the early modern era. From this perspective, I hold that postulating an early medieval (Kamakura), high medieval (Ashikaga), and late medieval (late 15th century through Sengoku) in Japan may be a helpful approach to conceptualizing Japanese history from the twelfth through sixteenth centuries. Historiographical Context II: Concerning Courtiers In this section, I aim to situate this study in a broad context of scholarship on courtier society in Japan and elsewhere in the world. After briefly discussing just what constitutes a “courtier,” I will consider what can be learned from studies of courtier society in a range of historical societies. I will then proceed to consider previous studies of Japan’s courtier society, sketching first the background and some key issues, and then discussing in turn scholarship in English and in Japanese. 21 What is a Courtier? In moving towards a discussion of the historiography of courtiers and courtier society, it is necessary to think of what we mean by “courtiers.” A courtier, broadly, is one who serves a sovereign. Moreover, a courtier is a member of the sovereign’s court, a socio-political entity in which many other people may also participate without being termed “courtiers” (I use “courtier” here in a gender-neutral sense, as the term “courtesan” is problematic). In Japan, these individuals serving the sovereign and comprising the court were normally called kizoku (貴族) in ancient times, kuge (公家) in the medieval and early modern eras, and then kazoku or kizoku in modern times. The term used in medieval times – “kuge” – itself originally referred to the house of the sovereign, and by extension, it was also used to refer to the government in ancient China. In medieval Japan it came to refer to nobles or high-class bureaucrats of the court, in contrast to warriors (buke, 武家) which referred to the shogun or the bakufu and those who served them. In this dissertation, I will treat kuge as synonymous with kizoku to avoid confusion. Correspondingly, I will treat “courtier” and “noble” as roughly synonymous in early medieval Japan, while being aware of the limitations this may impose for comparison with other historical contexts. 42 42 Of course, the distinction between courtiers and nobles is blurred in some historical contexts and sharper in others. For the purposes of studying early medieval Japan, however, I argue that it is fair to collapse these two categories while being aware that direct comparisons with other contexts that have divergent traditions must be 22 Scholarship on the historical development of the nobility and courtier society in Europe and elsewhere has been enormously influenced by the work of Marc Bloch (1886-1944). Specifically, in his landmark work The Feudal Society, tracing the “ties of dependence” that he identified as the hallmark of a feudal order, Bloch discussed the qualifications one needed in medieval Europe to be a noble (or for our purposes in medieval Japan, a courtier). 43 He argued that in particular, one needed two things: first, a claim to high status which was actualized and confirmed through distinct legal status; and second, the ability to inherit this status. 44 In other words, what mattered was not power or wealth per se but a distinct status which had institutional grounding and could be transmitted through blood. Bloch elaborated on further characteristics of nobles, such as the landed nature of the class and the fact that they, by necessity, depended upon the labor of others as the “warrior” changed from a profession to a social class. 45 undertaken with care. When considering the broader question of what constitutes a courtier, one work to consider is Kasaya Kazuhiko, ed., Kuge to Buke: Sono Hikaku Bunmei-shi Kenky ū [with the English title: Courtiers and Warriors: Comparative Historical Perspectives on Ruling Authority and Civilization] (Tokyo: International Research Center for Japanese Studies, 2004). This is a conference volume based on an international conference held in 2003, that “examined the social systems of premodern societies by concentrating investigations on the special elite classes found in those societies, namely the courtiers (aristocracy, nobility) and warriors.” (Kasaya, “Preface,” iii). The third part of the work is specifically dedicated to the question, “what is a courtier?”, and it features three scholars taking up the issue: Oboroya Hisashi for Japan, Ikeda On for East Asia, and Egawa Atsushi for medieval Western Europe. Egawa in particular discusses the significance of the work of Bloch, and emphasizes that even if scholars disagree over Bloch’s transitions in the development of the nobility, few would quibble with his conception of the nobility as rooted in status guaranteed by bloodline (Egawa Atsushi, “Kizoku to ha Nani ka? Nishi Y ōroppa Ch ūsei no Baai” [What is a Courtier? The Case of Western Europe], in Kasaya, ed., Kuge to Buke, op.cit., 209-216). 43 Marc Bloch, The Feudal Society, trans. L. A. Manyon (London: Routlege, 1962), 2nd ed., 2 vols. 44 Ibid., II. 2. 45 Ibid., II.7-11. 23 The applicability of the concept of “feudalism” (in Japanese, hōken) to medieval Japan has been the subject of considerable debate over the years, particularly as scholars have moved away from Marxist interpretations, which assumed a feudal stage as a given in the trajectory of historical development. 46 John W. Hall, who suggested that the usage of the term dated from nineteenth-century Westerners who saw in Tokugawa Japan something akin to the idealized notions of feudalism from the European context, cautioned against using the term uncritically in the context of Japanese history. 47 However, he felt that when understood in a general sense, the term was indeed applicable to the Japanese case. He gave the following as a useful definition of feudalism: a condition of society in which there is at all levels a fusion of the civil, military, and judicial elements of government into a single authority. This fusion of public and private functions being achieved in the person of the locally powerful military figure, it is also natural that military practices and values become predominant in the total society. It is probably true, as Asakawa has suggested, that the appearance of feudal conditions requires certain preconditions: a land-based economy, the “ghost” of a previously centralized state which can provide a legal base or framework, and the existence of a sharp gap in military technology between the fully equipped fighter and the rest of society. 48 46 On the development of, and debates over, feudalism in Japanese historical scholarship, see Ishii Susumu’s aforementioned article, “Nihon no H ōkensei to Sei ō no H ōkensei” [The Feudal System in Japan and the West], op.cit. For a treatment of the concept in Europe, see David Herlihy, ed., The History of Feudalism (New York: Harper & Row, 1970). 47 John W. Hall, Japan, from Prehistory to Modern Times (New York: Delacorte Press, 1970), 76. At the same time, a significant role in the spread of the concept was no doubt played by the first generation of post-Restoration Japanese historians, who adopted and popularized Western historiographic models in Japan. 48 Ibid., 77. 24 This general definition certainly appears to apply to medieval Japan, particularly late medieval Japan. 49 How Japanese courtiers adjusted to the (gradual rather than immediate) onset of a new socio-political order by working to secure their influence in a variety of arenas is indeed one of the principal concerns of this study. This historical reality needs to be a concern, even if “feudal” may not always be the best way in which to describe it. Naturally one can detect points of divergence between the Japanese courtiers and their European counterparts. In Bloch’s view, for example, the European nobility was a relatively new phenomenon of the medieval era; needless to say, Japanese courtiers were already long-established by the dawn of Japan’s medieval world. However, Japanese courtiers clearly fulfilled Bloch’s two principal criteria. Moreover, Bloch’s articulation would seem to apply to premodern courtiers as a category around the world, although each specific context would require further elucidation based on its own singular experience. In the case of Japan, Ōkubo Toshiaki (1900-1995), who worked on the modern Japanese nobility, set out five characteristics for their premodern forbears. 50 Premodern Japanese courtiers…. 49 The association of “feudal” with “medieval” could, in this case, lend support to a later date for the onset of the medieval era, as discussed in the previous section. 50 Ōkubo Toshiaki, Kazoku-sei no S ōshutsu: Ōkubo Toshiaki Rekishi Chosakush ū 3 [The Formation of the Peerage System: Collected Historical Works by Ōkubo Toshiaki, Volume 3] (Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 1993). Ōkubo’s perspective was doubtless informed by his own experience as a courtier in the modern Japanese nobility. He was a grandson of Ōkubo Toshimichi, one of the founding fathers of the Meiji state. 25 1). were the offspring or matrilineal relatives of a sovereign; 2). legitimated the lines of a noble and/or powerful family; 3). were able to maintain political power and position due to the rank of their family; 4). [created and took part in] court culture which is the foundation of Japanese culture; 5). held sufficient economic power to back up their position and authority. 51 Clearly, Ōkubo’s understanding assesses the general characteristics of the Japanese case while also reflecting an emphasis on bloodlines analogous to Bloch’s conception. At the same time, Ōkubo draws attention to the emphasis on relations with the royal family, which were pivotal to Japanese courtiers from ancient times through to the modern era. I find this conception to be adequate for my purposes, particularly since it provides something of a benchmark for comparing Japanese courtiers to their counterparts elsewhere. Courtier Society around the World At this point it would be helpful to consider how courtiers and courtier society have been studied in a range of historical contexts around the world. One of the most influential works has been Norbert Elias’ (1897-1990) The Civilizing Process, originally published in German in the 1930s but achieving prominence since the 1960s. 52 In this work (primarily the first volume), which is as much a sociological project as it is a historical one, and also in his The Court Society, Toshiaki himself held the rank of Marquis. 51 Ibid., 4-7. 52 Norbert Elias, The Civilizing Process, trans. Edmund Jephcott (New York: Pantheon Books, 1978-1982), 2 vols. 26 Elias traced the development of cultural mores and ways of thinking in Europe, while being convinced that much of these had developed out of the practices associated with court life in the past. 53 This notion is broadly endorsed in contemporary Japanese society, which frequently tends to celebrate the Heian court as the origin of a uniquely “Japanese” culture, which then diffused and developed across the country over time. It is this perspective that Ōkubo recalls with his fourth point, asserting that Japanese culture has its roots in the culture of the court. As the historical trajectories of cultural development are multi-layered and complex, it is difficult to fully accept such a model as sufficiently explanatory. However, it is worth noting that the primacy accorded the court as a cultural originator in Elias neatly dovetails with one of the dominant perspectives among Japanese historians. There have been several comparative works about issues related to courtier society or courtiers that have helped inspire my own study. One is Rhetoric and the Discourses of Power in Court Culture: China, Europe, & Japan, a collection of essays concerned with the various roles 53 The Court Society, which focuses on the French court especially that of Louis XIV , was originally completed before The Civilizing Process, but it was not rediscovered, reworked and published until 1969. In English, see Elias, The Court Society, trans. Edmund Jephcott (Oxford: Blackwell, 1983). It inspired a generation of European historians to investigate courts anew. The work also inspired comparative projects, such as Charles Lindholm’s “The Social Structure of Emotional Constraint: The Court of Louis XIV and the Pukhtun of Northern Pakistan,” Ethos 16.3 (Sep. 1988): 227-246. Elias has also influenced studies of the premodern Japanese court. See especially Joan R. Piggott, The Emergence of Japanese Kingship (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1997). On Elias’ contributions to sociology, see Raymond A. Morrow’s review piece, “Norbert Elias and Figurational Sociology: The Comeback of the Century,” Contemporary Sociology 38.3 (May 2009): 215-219. For a recent critical assessment of Elias’ approach to the early modern European court, see Jeroen Duindam, Myths of Power: Norbert Elias and the Early Modern European Court, trans. Lorri S. Granger and Gerard T. Moran (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 1995). 27 of language – including such things as forms of writing, literature, and historiography – in courts from three major traditions. 54 Chronologically (although the pieces are divided thematically), articles in the volume span the 3rd to 15th centuries, matching up to the broadest European conception of the medieval era. The Chinese entries discuss aspects of the Han, Wei, Tang, and Song courts, while the European entries consider the 9th-century Carolingian, early 14th-century English, and 15th-century Burgundian courts, as well as how court and nobility were dealt with by Dante. The two Japanese pieces, by Robert Borgen on the role of classical Chinese in the Japanese court during the 8th and 9th centuries and Steven D. Carter on the 15th-century scholar Ichij ō Kaneyoshi’s analysis of the Tales of Ise, enhance the volume but unfortunately provide no coverage of the late classical or early medieval periods. 55 In terms of its treatment of literary sources the consideration given the varied roles of literature in court culture around the world has provided inspiration for my own work. 54 David R. Knechtges and Eugene Vance, eds., Rhetoric and the Discourses of Power in Court Culture: China, Europe, & Japan (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2005). The order of contexts discussed in the subtitle actually reflects the amount of material given to each context: of the twelve pieces that comprise the volume, six discuss China, four Europe, and two Japan. 55 Robert Borgen, “The Politics of Classical Chinese in the Early Japanese Court,” in Knechtges and Vance, 199-238; and Steven D. Carter, “Claiming the Past for the Present: Ichij ō Kaneyoshi and Tales of Ise,” 94-116. Also on language issues and related matters at court, see Edward Kamens, “Terrains of Text in Mid-Heian Court Culture,” in Mikael Adolphson, Edward Kamens, and Stacie Matsumoto, eds., Heian Japan, Centers and Peripheries (Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2007), 129-152. 28 Another comparative work which helped inspire the current study is Servants of the Dynasty, which collects a range of pieces concerned with royal women in the early modern era. 56 The coverage is broad, with fifteen pieces covering women connected to the classical Mayan, Byzantine, and Song dynasties in premodern times; and to Southeast Asian, Ottoman, Mughal, Nigerian, Qing, French, Russian, Mexican, and Tokugawa dynasties in early modern times. It is unusual, and welcome, to have a Tokugawa contribution to court studies writ large, although the absence of a treatment of classical or medieval Japan is regrettable. 57 Taken collectively, the essays draw attention to the role of women in enabling and perpetuating male-dominated systems of rule. While courtier families are not a focus, the multiple roles played by women in courts around the world, and the (often unofficial) gateways to power and influence they provided confirms my own findings about women in medieval Japanese courtier society. 58 Projects focused on particular regions have also proved enlightening. The European context has much to offer in terms of studies of courtier society, although only in the last several 56 Anne Walthall, ed., Servants of the Dynasty: Palace Women in World History (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008). 57 Hata Hisako’s piece, “Servants of the Inner Quarters: The Women of the Shogun’s Great Interior,” 172-190, is concerned with the late Edo Period and describes conditions and life in the Great Interior ( Ōoku) of the Tokugawa shogun’s palace. It makes no attempt to consider points of convergence or divergence with the royal court. 58 While there is a strong interest in royal women, queenship, and gendered conceptions of power among early modern scholars, there have also been studies taking up these issues for the medieval era, notably J. L. Nelson’s Courts, Elites and Gendered Power in the Early Middle Ages (London: Ashgate, 2007). Although royal women per se and gendered conceptions of power are not a primary concern in my current project, I find studies encouraging reassessments of the role of women in courtier society welcome considering the vital roles played by women in cementing and expanding the influence of courtier families in medieval Japan, as well as their ability to function as an information network (discussed in Chapter 4). 29 decades has the topic received thorough attention. The historian A.J.S. Spawforth attributes this neglect to negative images of monarchy in contemporary society, an issue with which historians of courtier society in Japan must also wrestle. 59 However, recent years have seen the growth of the subfield of “court studies” in early modern history, 60 as well as numerous works on courts in the medieval era and earlier times. 61 59 “Taking the field of ancient history as a whole, including the Middle and Far East as well as Europe and the Mediterranean, the monarchical court cannot be said to have occupied center-stage in a way that might seem justified by the prevalence of monarchy as a system of power in antiquity. The reasons for this relative neglect are complex and cannot all be unpacked here. But one, certainly, is the sense of the court as a ‘moribund social formatio[n]’ [Elias, The Court Society, 8] which has permeated western consciousness since the French Revolution. Backstairs influence, intrigue and flattery: these generic phenomena of courts have earned themselves a bad reputation in western democracies which pose as the mirror-opposites of ‘old-regime’ arrangements of power, and in the study of ancient monarchies they are often sidelined, or their association by ancient writers with ‘bad’ or ‘weak’ rulers, or with whole societies classed as degenerate, as the ancient Persians were by the ancient Greeks (Brosius in this volume), taken at face value” (A.J.S. Spawforth, introduction to Spawforth, ed., The Court and Court Society in Ancient Monarchies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 1. 60 See, for example, C. Scott Dixon, “Urban Culture and Court Culture in the European Past,” The Historical Journal 40.3 (Sep. 1997): 825-833; and Hannah Smith, “Court Studies and the Courts of Early Modern Europe,” The Historical Journal 49.4 (Dec. 2006): 1229-1238. Smith writes, “While the first wave of Anglophone court historians, writing in the 1970s and 1980s, considered it necessary to state explicitly, as David Starkey did in his introduction to the seminal The English Court, that the study of the early modern court was a legitimate historical activity, such a stance is no longer necessary (David Starkey, ed., The English Court: From the Wars of the Roses to the Civil War (London: Longman Group,1987; Harlow, 1996), 1–2, 24). Indeed, few political historians would now omit the court from their narratives, even if their principal focus was directed elsewhere” (1229). For more on early modern European courts, see Starkey (op.cit.); Ronald Asch and Adolf M. Birke, eds., Princes, Patronage, and the Nobility: The Court at the Beginning of the Modern Age, c. 1450-1650 (Oxford: The German Historical Institute London, 1991); and John Adamson, ed., The Princely Courts of Europe: Ritual, Politics and Culture Under the Ancien Régime, 1500-1750 (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1999). Also consider the extensive Europeanist scholarship on queenship during the early modern era, such as R. Schulte’s The Body of the Queen: Gender and Rule in the Courtly World 1500-2000 (New York: Berghahn, 2006); and R. O. Bucholz’s The Augustan Court: Queen Anne and the Decline of Court Culture (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1993). 61 On ancient courts, see A.J.S. Spawforth’s edited volume, The Court and Court Society in Ancient Monarchies, op.cit., which collects seven pieces about ancient courts, six of which pertain to societies around or near the Mediterranean Sea (the exception being Han China). While the pieces all have particular foci, they are united in their attempts to broadly outline the characteristics of each court under consideration, making the work a useful reference for comparative studies. For a look at ancient courts across the Atlantic, see Takeshi Inomata and Stephen D. Houston, eds., Royal Courts of the Ancient Maya (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2000-2001), 2 vols. Inomata also contributed a piece to Walthall’s Servants of the Dynasty volume. 30 An issue of particular interest to scholars is the transformation of European elites over time, often building on the work of Norbert Elias and his successors in its concern with the emergence of the European nobility. 62 Other works such as C. Stephen Jaeger’s The Origins of Courtliness have built even more closely on Elias’ perspectives, applying a historical lens to the ideals and practices of court life that had previously tended to be largely the purview of literary scholars. 63 Incorporating a range of literary and historical materials, as well as case studies of specific individuals (the courtier bishops with whom he is primarily concerned), Jaeger deftly examined the character of European court culture, how it was criticized by other institutions such as the Church, and how it was portrayed in both historical chronicles and romantic literature. In this way, Jaeger’s work is an inspiration for my own which navigates the stormy waters between history and literature in seeking to unpack the many roles played by literature in shaping courtier life. To be more specific, Jaeger’s focus on several representative individuals as entryways into the world of the court encouraged me to put Saionji Kintsune and his offspring, most responsible for the rise of the Saionji to prominence as a courtier family, at the center of my story. 64 Jaeger’s 62 For example, see D. Couch, The Birth of Nobility: Continuity and Aristocracy in England and France, 900-1300 (London: Pearson Longman, 2005). 63 C. Stephen Jaeger, The Origins of Courtliness: Civilizing Trends and the Formation of Courtly Ideals, 939-1210 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985). 64 My interest in the biographies of individuals as doorways into historical worlds was also encouraged by the work of Tsunoda Bun’ei (1913-2008), who wrote, “The fundamental force moving history is none other than 31 courtier bishops, who negotiated a cultural position for themselves between the expectations and mores of the court and those of the Church, also suggest possible future comparative studies, given how part of the reason for Saionji success was the ability of leading family members to situate themselves between the needs of the court and the bakufu. While some subsequent works continued to investigate the terrains around the relationship between courtly ideals and the historically lived experience of courtiers in Europe, 65 others engaged more directly with the lifestyle, politics, and structure of courts and courtier life. Of these latter works, I have found R. Cost Gomes’ The Making of a Court Society to be particularly helpful. She focuses on the whole court as a cultural complex, and considers the roles of various people within court society and their relations with one another. 66 Gomes is concerned with articulating the structure of court society and the proscribed roles within, whereas I am more concerned with families and their influence-aggrandizement strategies. Nonetheless, her work human beings. It is not nature itself, or socio-economics either. Thus, thorough studies on individuals are required” (quoted in Got ō Kuniharu, “Heian Jidai no Jinbutsu-shi” [Biographies in the Heian Era], Kodai Bunka 60.4 (2009): 527. 65 See, for example, Joachim Bumke, Courtly Culture: Literature and Society in the High Middle Ages, trans. Thomas Dunlap (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991); and Aldo Scaglione, Knights at Court: Courtliness, Chivalry, & Courtesy from Ottonian Germany to the Italian Renaissance (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992). Also on the relationship between the ideals and practice of medieval European warfare, see Richard W. Kaeuper, Chivalry and Violence in Medieval Europe (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999). 66 R. Costa Gomes, The Making of a Court Society: Kings and Nobles in Late Medieval Portugal (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003). Also see Stephen Kolsky, Courts and Courtiers in Renaissance Northern Italy (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003); V. J. Scattergood and J. W. Sherborne, eds., English Court Culture in the Later Middle Ages (London: Duckworth, 1983); and Malcolm Vale, The Princely Court: Medieval Courts and Culture in North-west Europe, 1270-1380 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001). 32 illustrates how research into families and individuals can shed light on the courtier society in which they moved. Aside from Europe, there has also been a growing body of scholarship on courts and courtiers in Byzantium, 67 India, 68 and Southeast Asia. 69 But the most obvious point of comparison with Japan is China, which experienced a range of courts and witnessed evolving courtier society over the course of several millennia. China witnessed major transformations in the composition of its courtier class, from warrior-noble attendants at royal courts in ancient times to highly-trained bureaucrats. And from the mid-Tang Dynasty (618-907) onwards, the latter increasingly needed to prove themselves fit for governance by way of the civil service examinations. Although in practice usually only the large landowning families endowed with noble rank possessed the time and resources necessary to train their sons to pass the examinations, the theoretically meritocratic nature of the system and the chance (however slim) for those of low 67 On the early Byzantine court, see for example Kenneth G. Holum, Theodosian Empresses: Women and Imperial Dominion in Late Antiquity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989). And on the later court, see Henry Maguire, ed., Byzantine Court Culture from 829 to 1204 (Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, 1997). 68 See for example Daud Ali, Courtly Culture and Political Life in Early Medieval India (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004); and Gavin R. G. Hambly, Babur’s Women: Elite Women in Late Medieval Central Asia and North India (Basingstroke: Palgrave, 2005). There are also specific case studies such as Ali’s “Between Market and Court: The Careers of Two Courtier-Merchants in the Twelfth-century Deccan,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 53.1-2 (2010): 185-211. Work on early modern Indian courtiers includes that of Bhagat Singh, for example, “Court and Courtiers of Maharaja Ranjit Singh,” Punjab Past and Present 14.2 (Oct. 1980): 68-104. For modern court studies see Angma Dey Jhala, Courtly Indian Women in Late Imperial India (London: Pickering & Chatto, 2008). 69 See for example the two-part early modern study, Ann Kumar, “Javanese Court Society and Politics in the Late Eighteenth Century: The Record of a Lady Soldier,” Indonesia 29 (April 1980): 1-46, and 30 (Oct. 1980): 67-111. 33 social standing to rise to the top distinguished the makeup of the Chinese courtier world, and hence the characteristics of courtier society, from those of Western Europe or Japan. Eras in which the civil service exams were valued comparatively less or suspended, as during the Mongol-led Yuan Dynasty (1279-1368), saw a corresponding shift in courtier society as courtier families adapted to the new circumstances. Aside from coaching sons along the examination route, courtier families in China could position daughters in the imperial household as concubines or servants, as they could in Japan as well. 70 Moreover, both countries employed a gendered division of space whereby the monarch’s consorts resided in a “back palace,” that delineated their space at court. Here too, however, there were some significant differences: the institutionalized dependence of the Chinese court on eunuchs to run general palace affairs, manage provisions, and control access to royal women, had no parallel in Japan. Correspondingly, daughters of Japanese courtier families had a relatively broader range of options, both in terms of entering the court (since many service roles occupied by eunuchs in China were taken by women in Japan), and in terms of managing their affairs once ensconced there. Considering these intriguing points of convergence and divergence, comparative 70 There is a growing body of scholarship on medieval Chinese women. Of particular relevance, see Priscilla Chung, Palace Women in the Northern Sung, 960‑1126 (Leiden: Brill, 1981); Patricia Ebrey, The Inner Quarters: Marriage and the Lives of Chinese Women in the Sung Period (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993); and Bret Hinsch, Women in Early Imperial China (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002). 34 studies of Chinese and Japanese courtier society, particularly with regard to the role of women, are certainly needed. When considering the available scholarship on the Chinese court, one finds that, as is the case with medieval Europe and Japan, many of the early studies were primarily concerned with literature or artwork. 71 Although there is extensive material on individual Chinese rulers and their dynasties, 72 and the life (and, receiving frequent attention, suffering) of the peasantry under imperial rule, there has been far less interest in courtiers and their social world in the capitals. Official histories and personal writings left behind by courtiers may be a helpful starting point, and gradually more of these are being translated into English. 73 There has also been a developing literature on court and courtier from ancient through modern China, including some essays in conference volumes already touched on above. 74 In sum, scholarship on China has produced a good foundation, but a solid study of courtier society comparable to those on Europe is needed. 71 See, for example, Stephen J. Goldberg, “Court Calligraphy of the Early T’ang Dynasty,” Artibus Asiae 49.3/4 (1988-1989): 189-237; and Sabrina Rastelli, ed., China at the Court of the Emperors: Unknown Masterpieces from Han Tradition to Tang Elegance (25-907) (Milano: Skira, 2009). Because the focus remains on the works, the connection to the social world of the court in most of the chapters of such works is often tangential. 72 To give but one example, Hok-lam Chan’s study, Ming Taizu (r. 1368-98) and the Foundation of the Ming Dynasty in China (Surrey, UK: Ashgate, 2011), is a collection of pieces treating the founder of the Ming and how the institutions he established shaped later Chinese history. 73 See for example the Indiana University Press translation of Sima Qian: William H. Nienhauser, Jr., ed. The Grand Scribe’s Records (Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1994-present), 9 vols; as well as Pan Ku [Ban Gu], Courtier and Commoner in Ancient China: Selections from the History of the Former Han, trans. Burton Watson (New York: Columbia University Press, 1974). 74 For a study of an ancient state see Barry B. Blakeley, “King, Clan, and Courtier in Ancient Ch’u,” Asia Major, 3rd series 5.2 (1992): 1-39. On the Han Dynasty, see Han Van Ess, “The Imperial Court in Han China,” in Spawforth, op. cit., 233-266; and Stephen Owen, “One Sight: The Han shu Biography of Lady Li,” in 35 Courtiers in Japan, Part I: Background and Issues What, then, about scholarship on Japanese courtier society writ large? One would expect it to be enormous given the long duration of the court and the overlapping political, economic, and cultural roles played by courtiers in premodern Japanese society. Unfortunately, this is not the case: while the literary pursuits and aesthetic sense of the court may have received sustained attention from scholars, in both Japanese-language and English-language scholarship there is far less work on courtiers, courtier families, and courtier society itself. Even this limited amount rapidly drops to almost nothing as one leaves the classical era and considers the work of medievalists, whose era has overwhelmingly been framed, as discussed above, in terms of warriors. Knechtges and Vance, op. cit., 239-259. The work of David R. Knechtges is particularly significant; see especially his collection of pieces on the Han-era court, Court Culture and Literature in Early China (Surrey, UK: Ashgate, 2002). On courts of the Three Kingdoms era, see Knechtges’ “The Rhetoric of Imperial Abdication and Accession in a Third-Century Chinese Court: The Case of Cao Pi’s Accession as Emperor of the Wei Dynasty,” in Knechtges and Vance, op.cit., 3-35; and Robert Joe Cutter’s essay in the same volume, “Personal Crisis and Communication in the Life of Cao Zhi,” 149-168, both of which pertain to the kingdom of Wei. On the role of poetry in the Chinese court, see for example Kuo-ying Wang, “Poetry of Palace Plaint of the Tang: Its Potential and Limitations,” in Knechtges and Vance, op. cit., 260-284; and Pauline Yu, “Poems for the Emperor: Imperial Tastes in the Early Ninth Century” in the same volume, 73-93. On the court, scholar-officials and their cultural milieu in later times, see for instance Anthony Deblasi, “Quan Deyu and the Spread of Elite Culture in Tang China,” in Kenneth J. Hammond, ed., The Human Tradition in Premodern China (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2002), 77-92; Dieter Kuhn, The Age of Confucian Rule: The Song Transformation of China (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 2009); Ronald Egan, “The Emperor and the Ink Plum: Tracing a Lost Connection between Literati and Huizong’s Court” in Knechtges and Vance, op. cit., 117-148; Anne Gerritsen, “Liu Chenweng: Ways of Being a Local Gentleman in Southern Song and Yuan China,” in Hammond, op. cit., 111-126; Beverly Bossler, “Gender and Entertainment at the Song Court” in Walthall, op. cit., 261-279; and David M. Robinson, ed., Culture, Courtiers, and Competition: The Ming Court (1368-1644) (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008). Also, on issues related to families that can inform studies of courtier society, see Beverly Bossler, Powerful Relations: Kinship Status and the State in Song China (960-1279) (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Council on East Asian Studies, 1998); and Courtesans, Concubines, and the Cult of Female Fidelity in China, 1000-1400 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center, 2013). 36 This is not a new state of affairs by any means. In fact, in the earliest dedicated treatment of courtier culture, Kojima Kogor ō (1904-?)’s 1942 Kuge Bunka no Kenky ū (Studies on Courtier Culture), the author began his preface by lamenting, “Although courtiers have ranked alongside warriors in national history, is it just to my eyes that the culture of courtiers has been so little treated compared to that of warriors?” 75 He went on to argue that “Courtiers outclassed warriors both in their range of work and their knowledge, and I believe that for a total understanding of the development of Japanese culture, courtier culture should never be neglected.” Furthermore, “From the perspective of our intellectual and cultural tradition based on the national essence [kokutai], courtier culture has to be completely reevaluated.” 76 In other words, the first work dedicated to the study of courtier culture in Japan – primarily continuing Kojima’s analysis of the characteristics of courtier culture through analyzing courtier diaries – called for scholars to step away from the overly warrior-focused narrative. In spite of Kojima’s effort, however, the development of studies of courtiers and courtier society has lagged terribly, and nowhere is this more true than in the case of the medieval era. 77 75 Kojima Kogor ō, Kuge Bunka no Kenky ū [Studies on Courtier Culture] (Tokyo: Ikuh ōsha, 1942), 1. 76 Ibid., 1-2. 77 On courtier society in ancient times, Takeuchi Riz ō (1907-1997) has discussed courtier society in the context of the ritsury ō system. See Takeuchi Riz ō, Takeuchi Riz ō Chosakush ū 4: Ritsury ō-sei to Kizoku [Collected Works of Takeuchi Riz ō, Volume 4: The Ritsury ō System and the Nobility] (Tokyo: Kadokawa Shoten, 2000). And Hashimoto Yoshihiko has examined the structures of courtier politics as well as their economic base: Hashimoto Yoshihiko, Heian Kizoku Shakai no Kenky ū [Studies on Courtier Society during the Heian Period] (Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 1976). 37 Discussing the reasons for why the study of courtier society in medieval Japan has remained a largely neglected, underdeveloped field even in Japanese scholarship, Sugawara Masako set out the following three causes: 1) Political power shifted from the court to the bakufu from medieval times (i.e., once their existence lacked political significance, historians did not deem courtiers worthy of study); 2) Postwar historiography, strongly influenced by Marxism, has developed in such a way as to focus on the “people” as the fundamental actors in society. This approach emerged from a reaction against the tenn ō-centered state system in prewar Japan; 3) There exists a bias against courtiers. The popular image of courtiers in contemporary society is of them as weak or sneaky figures (i.e., in contrast to the strong, “honorable” image of warriors). 78 In response to Sugawara’s first point, it is clear that the position that the court lost political agency, and can therefore be safely ignored by historians, is no longer tenable. The kenmon theory formulated by Kuroda Toshio, as discussed above, represents a call to reevaluate the tenn ō and court. Firstly, this theory, which explains medieval society as having been structured by complimentary relations among multiple centers of power – namely the court, bakufu, and 78 Sugawara Masako, Ch ūsei Kuge no Keizai to Bunka [The Culture and Economics of Medieval Courtiers] (Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 1998), 6-7. Sugawara points out that such images of courtiers are false images of later vintage, but she agrees that they have discouraged the development of scholarship on courtiers. 38 religious institutions – returns the court to the picture of medieval society. However, at the same time, the court’s significance goes even further. It served to underlay the whole system. Specifically the bureaucratic systems developed at the court since the introduction of the ritsury ō system were adopted by the bakufu to form the basic components of their own institutions, while other aspects of the courtly framework such as rituals or ceremonies continued to serve as the much of the foundation, and as a source of legitimacy, for warrior society and religious institutions. Broadly speaking, as Hong ō Keiko points out, these courtly systems were the foundation for what became a shared sense of identity across the whole society. 79 In light of such continuities, the world of the court can no longer be ignored by those seeking to understand medieval Japan. On Sugawara’s second point, concerning how medieval courtiers have been victims of postwar historiographical trends, it is worth questioning whether an overwhelming focus on “real people” is really the only legitimate way to approach the era. 80 To study courtiers is not to deny the existence of other social groups, no more than the study of those groups should deny that of courtiers. In this regard, Hayashiya Tatsusabur ō (1914-1998) writes that “historical studies in 79 Hong ō Keiko, Sh ōgun Kenryoku no Hakken [The Discovery of Shogunal Power] (Tokyo: K ōdansha, 2010), 19. 80 While much has been made of the need to focus “real people,” this is an extremely problematic term. Precisely who represents the “real people” in the history of a particular regional context? To reduce medieval cultivators, for example, to a Marxist category does no more justice to the complexities of their historical experience than it does to that of courtiers’. 39 postwar Japan had to be scientific studies based on the masses, and the historical perspective changed drastically. Previous scholarship that had focused on the nobility, or had approached the people only from the perspective of the ruling system, was severely criticized.” 81 As we saw from Kojima, this is not quite accurate since previous scholarship had barely focused on the courtiers at all. But Hayashiya is correct in that prewar scholars did overwhelmingly focus on the tenn ō when discussing the Heian Period, and warrior aristocrats when discussing the medieval era, and demonstrated far less interest in the historical experience of other social classes. This is not to say that Hayashiya is overly sympathetic to courtiers. He argues that courtiers occupied but a part of the state system, and that it is the perspective of the masses constituting the broad foundation of that system that will provide the clues needed to unlock the secrets of history. But he also supports studying courtiers and says, “the perspective of the masses does not, however, mean neglecting or denying the existence of courtiers,’” and he concludes that courtiers need to be discussed accurately from different perspectives. 82 It is this sort of recognition among historians more broadly, coupled with important new formulations such as Kuroda’s, that can help make way for a refreshing new look at courtier society in medieval Japan. While the number of works concerning courtiers has been slowly increasing in recent years, as I will discuss below, 81 Hayashiya Tatsusabur ō, Nairan no Naka no Kizoku: Nanbokuch ō to ‘Entairyaku’ no Sekai [Courtiers in the Civil Wars: The World through the Entairyaku [the Journal of Toin Kinkata] during the Time of the Southern and Northern Courts] (Tokyo: Kadokawa Shoten, 1991), 11-12. 82 Ibid. 40 there is much more room for development before the potential of new approaches can be truly realized. As for Sugawara’s third point, concerning the image of courtiers, I believe that there are multiple causes at work here. One is surely the profound influence of Heian literature, represented by the Tale of Genji and its variants as well as other literary works by ladies-in-waiting, on Japanese culture over the generations. It was thus the literature and refined court style that took hold of popular imagination over the centuries and shaped the image of courtiers. That this image persisted was likely also due to a combination of factors. Courtiers retained positions of cultural power long after their political influence went into decline, and clung to it as a way to support their positions vis-à-vis the warrior aristocracy. They were also to a considerable degree forced to follow literary pursuits in subsequent generations, when other options became increasingly limited, as Takahashi Masaaki has argued. At the same time, the image of courtiers was shaped by subsequent generations of early modern warriors, modern state-builders, and postwar democrats and Marxists, who saw courtiers as the unapproachable “other”: tied to the past not the present, effeminate and artistic rather than masculine and military-minded, and treacherously sneaky as opposed to heroically forthright. It is no surprise 41 that generations of medievalists appear to have found approaching historical Japanese courtiers requires an approach like peeling off many layers from an onion. In this way, a consideration of Sugawara’s three points can be a helpful starting point for considering how courtier society has been treated in the scholarship. It is worth noting, moreover, that Sugawara’s second and third points dovetail with complaints Europeanists have made about people not taking courts and courtiers seriously until recently. This suggests that broader issues may be at stake in the intersection between historiography and historical memory, stocked as the latter is with negative images that not only cloud understanding but divert attention away from vitally important political, social, economic and cultural institutions. Moreover studies on courtiers have been dominated by a focus on the Heian Period and its literature or aesthetics, a field in which literary scholars rather than historians have tended to dominate. This is true not only among Japanese-language scholars but also those working in English. 83 Ivan Morris’ (1925-1976) landmark 1964 World of the Shining Prince, one of the first English-language studies of Heian court culture, proceeded from the standpoint that it would explain the historical context behind the Genji, and in doing so, draw students into Japanese history through using the classic as a doorway. 84 While this approach cannot be depended upon 83 The earliest historical writing in English adopted this viewpoint. For example, see Brinkley, Griffis, and Hara, all op.cit. 84 Ivan Morris, The World of the Shining Prince: Court Life in Ancient Japan (London: Peregrine, 1964). 42 exclusively, the use of literature as an avenue into courtier society has merit. The increasing number of studies concerned with the connection between poetry and politics at court, for example, can bridge the gap between literary studies and history by considering how poetic composition and political circumstances interacted and shaped each other. 85 Official chronicles and courtier diaries are vital sources for insight into courtier society, but while I draw extensively on these for information, in this project I also consider the production and role of literary works, especially courtier diaries and poetry. 86 Indeed, the use of literary sources in historical research is an issue that has been of great interest to me, and literary materials as well as related issues of editing, patronage, and so on, have featured in much of my own work. 87 The problem is the tendency of scholars to limit their gaze to the Heian Period, and to frequently limit their focus to literary concerns and those elements of the cultural context needed to interpret the literary text in question. What is needed 85 On this topic, see for example Akiko Hirota, “ Ex-Emperor Go-Toba: A Study in Personality, Politics and Poetry” (PhD diss., University of California at Berkeley, 1989); Robert N. Huey, The Making of Shinkokinsh ū (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center, 2002); and Gustav Heldt, The Pursuit of Harmony: Poetry and Power in Early Heian Japan (Ithaca, NY: Cornell East Asia Program, 2009); as well as Ivo Smits’ review article, “Teika and the Others: Poetics, Poetry, and Politics in Early Medieval Japan,” Monumenta Nipponica 59.3 (Autumn 2004): 359-389. 86 There have been an increasing number of sources translated into English that can offer insight into courtier society alongside literary enjoyment, although here too the focus is usually on Heian texts. See for example William H. & Helen C. McCullough, trans., A Tale of Flowering Fortunes: Annals of Japanese Aristocratic Life in the Heian Period (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1980), a translation of the Eiga Monogatari (栄花物語) that celebrates the life and career of the greatest of Heian regents, Fujiwara no Michinaga. One notable exception is George W. Perkins’ masterful translation of the Masukagami, namely The Clear Mirror (op.cit.). 87 For my own discussion of some of the issues pertaining to intersections between history and literature and the use of literary sources in historical research, see Rieko Kamei-Dyche, “Sailing Between Two Seas: A Discussion of Recent Japanese Writing on the Integration of Literature and History,” Nihon Kodaigaku 3 (March 2011): 1-25. 43 are studies that first of all take the story beyond Heian times, by drawing on medieval sources to approach the later development of the court, and secondly, studies that move through and beyond the text to explore in greater depth the society that produced it. Courtiers in Japan, Part II: Studies in English Among English-language scholarship on the early court, from the 1970s there was also a gradual trend towards more historically-focused works that depended less on literary points of departure. Specific studies like Richard J. Miller’s on the kabane ranking system were followed by G. Cameron Hurst’s groundbreaking Insei, the first monograph to undertake a thorough historical study of the Insei court in English. 88 Another important work was Robert Borgen’s Sugawara no Michizane and the Early Heian Court, a biography that took Michizane as a lens through which to examine the cultural world of the court at the time. 89 Borgen has also authored several shorter pieces on Heian court culture, often emphasizing the importance of kambun and Chinese concepts, such as in the edited volume Rhetoric and the Discourses of Power in Court 88 Richard J. Miller, Ancient Japanese Nobility: The Kabane Ranking System (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974); Hurst, Insei, op.cit. 89 Robert Borgen, Sugawara no Michizane and the Early Heian Court (Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 1994). On the earliest era of the Japanese court, see Joan R. Piggott, The Emergence of Japanese Kingship, op.cit. 44 Culture discussed above. 90 Collectively, these works point towards the sort of foundation that is needed for studies of the medieval court. In terms of English-language scholarship on the medieval court, early efforts at correctives were made by literary scholars, such as Donald Keene. 91 The efforts of Keene in literature, and of Hurst, Mass, and their successors on the history side, have drawn attention to the court at the onset of the early medieval era, and have fueled moreover a renewed interest in the Kenmu era as a turning point. 92 This interest in both the start and end of the Kamakura Period will hopefully continue to motivate research on the era, including through edited volumes in the spirit of Court and Bakufu in Japan, which brought together a range of perspectives. 93 It contains important pieces such as Hurst’s succinct articulation of his conception of the k ōbu (court-bakufu, i.e. dual-centered) polity, and Cornelius J. Kiley’s evidence that the court remained not merely a 90 Borgen, “The Politics of Classical Chinese in the Early Japanese Court,” op.cit. For more on courtiers and texts at the time, see Ivo Smits, “China as Classic Text: Chinese Books and Twelfth-century Japanese Collectors,” in Andrew Goble, Kenneth R. Robinson, and Haruko Wakabayashi, eds., Tools of Culture: Japan’ s Cultural, Intellectual, Medical, and Technological Contacts in East Asia, 1000-1500s (Ann Arbor: Association for Asian Studies, 2009), 185-210. Smits’ piece focuses on Fujiwara no Yorinaga and Fujiwara no Michinori. 91 Donald Keene, “A Neglected Chapter: Courtly Fiction of the Kamakura Period,” Monumenta Nipponica 44.1 (Spring, 1989): 1-30. Scholars of literature and art have also provided some of the few studies available in English on aspects of early modern courtier culture, such as Elizabeth Lillehoj, “Tōfukumon’in: Empress, Patron, and Artist,” Women’s Art Journal 17.1 (spring & summer 1996): 28-34; and James McMullen, “Courtier and Confucian in Seventeenth-century Japan: A Dialogue on the Tale of Genji between Nakanoin Michishige and Kumazawa Banzan,” Japan Review: Journal of the International Research Center for Japanese Studies, 21 (2009): 3-32. 92 See Hall and Mass, Medieval Japan, Mass, Origins, and Goble, Kenmu, all op.cit. Goble, and more recently Conlan in his From Sovereign to Symbol, were responding to the old view of Kenmu as a doomed reactionary venture, a perspective best represented in English by H. Paul Varley’s Imperial Restoration in Medieval Japan, op.cit. 93 Jeffrey P. Mass, ed., Court and Bakufu in Japan, op.cit. 45 center of symbolic authority during the Kamakura era but also a continuing source of legal authority. 94 The court has been re-assessed as both a cultural and a political institution during the early medieval period, but the people who comprised this institution – the courtiers themselves – remain shadowy figures. 95 It is here that this project will add significant substance and depth to the world of the medieval court, building on the earlier institutional treatments of the medieval polity by shedding light on the world of medieval courtiers. For the late medieval era, there is at present even less work on courtiers, 96 with the notable exception of contributions by the literary scholar, Steven D. Carter. Starting with an interest in literary patronage, he moved on to conduct a study of the Muromachi-era courtier scholar Ichij ō 94 G. Cameron Hurst, “The K ōbu Polity: Court-Bakufu Relations in Kamakura Japan,” in Mass., ed., Court and Bakufu, op.cit., 3-28; and Cornelius J. Kiley, “The Imperial Court as a Legal Authority in the Kamakura Age,” in the same volume, 29-44. 95 The degree to which the reassessment has influenced the field at large has varied. In spite of the scholarship on court-bakufu relations, the kenmon theory, and other developments; for example, a crumbling court and rising military class remains the dominant narrative among many modern scholars, and even some premodernists. See for example, Pierre Francois Souyri, The World Turned Upside Down: Medieval Japanese Society, trans. Käthe Roth (London: Pimlico, 2002). One would assume that English-language scholarship would, if lacking in studies of medieval courtiers, include extensive work on warriors, but despite a plethora of popular works on Japanese warrior weaponry and imagery, there have only recently been reliable academic studies of warrior society carried out in English. In addition to the aforementioned Conlan, State of War, see William Wayne Farris, Heavenly Warriors: The Evolution of Japan’s Military, 500-1300 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center, 1996); Karl F. Friday, Hired Swords: The Rise of Private Warrior Power in Early Japan (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996); and Friday’s Samurai, Warfare and the State in Early Medieval Japan (New York: Routledge, 2004). 96 Many earlier works, such as John W. Hall and Toyoda Takeshi, eds., Japan in the Muromachi Age (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977), did not discuss the court or tenn ō at all, although following the broad shift in the field later publications showed more interest, such as in John W. Hall, Nagahara Keiji, and Kozo Yamamura, eds., Japan Before Tokugawa: Political Consolidation and Economic Growth, 1500 to 1650 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991). It includes an essay on the relationship between tenn ō and shogun, and the nature of their prescribed roles within the late medieval order (Asao Naohiro with Marius B. Jansen, “Shogun and Tenn ō,” 248-270). 46 Kaneyoshi (1402-1481) in Regent Redux. 97 Drawing on courtier diaries and the various writings Kaneyoshi left behind, Carter combined literary analysis with historical insight to portray the political, economic and cultural environment of the late medieval court. He demonstrates that while courtiers even then retained a degree of influence politically and economically, those avenues were becoming increasingly limited as the era wore on. This perspective dovetails with the work of the historian Takahashi Masaaki, who has shown how the strictly regulated and much less influential courtiers of the Tokugawa Period came to represent medieval courtiers as a whole. The actual historical experience of medieval courtiers, however, reflects a gradual decline over the late medieval era, and culminating in the repressive regulation of the Tokugawa Bakufu, which feared permitting the court any more authority than absolutely necessary lest it become a rallying point for anti-Tokugawa dissent (a fear that ultimately proved justified). An earlier work in a similar vein was Robert N. Huey’s treatment of the courtier poet Ky ōgoku Tamekane (1254-1332), representing one of the few in-depth studies of a courtier from the Kamakura Period. 98 Huey’s study of Tamekane and Carter’s of the late medieval regent Kaneyoshi represent an alternative to the older literary studies in that they are strongly informed 97 Steven D. Carter, Literary Patronage in Late Medieval Japan (Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Japanese Studies, University of Michigan, 1993); and Regent Redux: A Life of the Statesman-Scholar Ichij ō Kaneyoshi (Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Japanese Studies, University of Michigan, 1996). 98 Robert N. Huey, Ky ōgoku Tamekane: Poetry and Politics in Late Kamakura Japan (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1989). 47 by historical motivations that go beyond merely setting out a context for reading literary works. Instead, they portray their central figures as complex individuals for whom cultural and political pursuits were inextricably linked, and as worthy of attention as historical actors as much as authors. It is unfortunate that such works tend to slip under the radar because they eschew grand arguments in favor of focusing on individual narratives. However limited this approach may itself be, the works remain helpful English-language resources for the topic of medieval courtier society. My own project is comparatively less focused on one individual, although Saionji Kintsune is a central figure, but nevertheless this dissertation is strongly inspired by the work of Huey and Carter in that it attempts to portray courtiers as complex individuals engaging in a range of pursuits related to furthering their the influence of their families. I believe that in this way it is possible to balance treatments of individuals, their families, and their broader historical context in a way that sheds light on the nature of courtier society without denying the agency and personality of individual historical actors. Finally, Carter has also produced a study of the Reizei family, representing one of the few, or perhaps even the only, full study of a Japanese courtier family in English. 99 In this study, Householders: The Reizei Family in Japanese History, Carter traces the history of the 99 Steven D. Carter, Householders: The Reizei Family in Japanese History (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center, 2007). 48 descendants of Fujiwara no Shunzei (1114-1204) and Teika (1162-1241), and their efforts over the centuries to retain and renew their poetic tradition. His study deftly combines the history of a family with the study of literary transmission, and more broadly it is concerned with the creation and perpetuation of what is now considered a fundamental component of Japanese cultural tradition, affecting how people read, interpret, and write tanka poetry to this day. While Carter tends to discuss this process in terms of the family sustaining its authority, from my perspective it represents a clear example of a courtier family building, and then working to renew, great amounts of cultural capital, just as I portray the Saionji doing in this project. Specifically, Carter is primarily concerned with tracing over time the Reizei family’s deployment of what I would consider one tool of authority – a poetic tradition representing an immense multi-generational investment in cultural capital. My concern here, however, will be with the whole range of such tools available to courtier families during the medieval era. And while Carter focuses on the maintenance of a particular cultural tradition through a courtier family’s history, my own focus here is on the society in which early medieval courtier families were embedded and moved. 100 100 For works on courtiers and court society in later times, see Lee Butler, Emperor and Aristocracy in Japan, 1467-1680: Resilience and Renewal (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002); Herschel Webb, The Japanese Imperial Institution in the Tokugawa Period (New York: Columbia University Press, 1968); and Takie Sugiyama Lebra, Above the Clouds: Status Culture of the Modern Japanese Nobility (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993). Modern courtiers who were also political figures have received scholarly attention, most especially Saionji Kinmochi. On Kinmochi, see Yosaburo Takekoshi, Prince Saionji, trans. Nariaki 49 Courtiers in Japan, Part III: Studies in Japanese What, meanwhile, of the state of Japanese-language scholarship on courtier society? The trajectory of the field can be teased apart into several strands. Sugawara Masako classifies studies on medieval courtier society into six categories based on their topic of inquiry: 1) Individual Courtiers 2) Courtier Families 3) Economic Foundations of Courtiers 4) Lifestyle and Culture of Courtiers 5) Court Politics 6) Courtier-Warrior Relations 101 For Sugawara’s first category, the individual courtier who has received the most attention for the Kamakura Period is undoubtedly Fujiwara no Teika. This is most likely due to the fact that he was a representative poet of the time, and because his journal Meigetsuki survives to the present. In the field of literature, significant scholarship on Teika has been carried out by Ishida Yoshisada (1890-1987); while in history, contributions have been made by Murayama Sh ūichi (1914-2010), Tsuji Hikosabur ō, and Gomi Fumihiko. 102 I myself am particularly inspired by Kozaki (Kyoto: Ritsumeikan University, 1933); Bunji Omura’s quasi-fictionalized dramatic account, The Last Genro: Prince Saionji (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott, 1938); and Lesley Connors, The Emperor’s Adviser: Saionji Kinmochi and Pre-war Japanese Politics (Oxford: Nissan Institute for Japanese Studies, University of Oxford, 1987). Other examples include Yoshitake Oka, Five Political Leaders of Modern Japan: It ō Hirobumi, Ōkuma Shigenobu, Hara Takashi, Inukai Tsuyoshi, and Saionji Kinmochi, trans. Andrew Fraser and Patricia Murray (Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press, 1986); Gordon M. Berger, “Japan’s Young Prince: Konoe Fumimaro’s Early Political Career, 1916-1931,” Monumenta Nipponica 29.4 (Winter 1974): 451-475; and Yoshitake Oka, Konoe Fumimaro: A Political Biography, trans. Shumpei Okamoto and Patricia Murray (Tokyo: Tokyo University Press, 1983). 101 Sugawara, 10-11. 102 See for example Ishida Yoshisada, Fujiwara no Teika no Kenky ū [Studies on Fujiwara no Teika] (Tokyo: 50 Gomi’s work because of the value he accords literary sources, which is an issue I touched on above. In addition to Meigetsuki, Gomi has carried out studies of Tsurezuregusa and Heike Monogatari, in which he emphasized the value of literary sources for historical inquiry. 103 Rather than approaching works strictly from a concern with accuracy, he approaches them as a window on the society that produced them, gaining insights thereby into contemporary thought and social concerns. While Teika has received the lion’s share of attention, he is not the only medieval courtier who has been the subject of dedicated study. Sanj ōnishi Sanetake (1455-1537) is another significant figure who is often the focus of research, again likely because his journal is extant. 104 Generally speaking, more studies of individual courtiers exist for the later medieval era. For the second category, courtier families, studies focus mainly on the early medieval era. Hirayama Toshijir ō and Takahashi Hideki have both examined family inheritance issues, while Takamura Itsue worked on individual families. 105 My own project, taking as its focus the Saionji Bunkad ō Shoten, 1957); Murayama Shuichi, Fujiwara no Teika (Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 1962); Tsuji Hikosabur ō, Fujiwara no Teika Meigetsuki no Kenky ū [Studies on Fujiwara no Teika’s Meigetsuki] (Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 1977); and Gomi Fumihiko, Fujiwara no Teika no Jidai: Ch ūsei Bunka no K ūkan [The Time of Fujiwara no Teika: The World of Medieval Culture] (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1991). 103 Gomi Fumihiko, Tsurezuregusa no Rekishigaku [A Historical Study of Tsurezuregusa] (Tokyo: Asahi Shinbunsha, 1997), 2nd ed.; and Heike Monogatari: Shi to Setsuwa [The Tale of the Heike: History and Anecdotes] (Tokyo: Heibonsha, 1987). 104 For example, see Haga Koshir ō, Sanj ōnishi Sanetaka (Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 1960); and Hara Katsur ō, Higashiyama Jidai ni okeru Ichi Kishin no Seikatsu [The Life of a Noble during the Time of Higashiyama] (Tokyo: K ōdansha, 1978), originally published in 1917. 105 See for example Hirayama Toshijr ō, Nihon Ch ūsei Kazoku no Kenky ū [Studies on Families in Medieval Japan] (Tokyo: Hosei Daigaku Shuppan-kyoku, 1980); Takahashi Hideki, Nihon Ch ūsei no Ie to Shinzoku 51 family during the early medieval era, fits into this category, as does Steven D. Carter’s aforementioned Householders. At the same time, the present work is a study of medieval courtier society approached through the lens of the Saionji family rather than primarily a history of the family per se. Neither is it a study of the “family” as an institution or the family (ie) system in Japanese history, although these are important topics and the subject of much research. 106 Sugawara observes that studies on the economic foundation of courtier families (category three) and court-bakufu relations (category six) 107 now provide coverage for the whole medieval period. Work on court politics (category five) has generally focused on early medieval times, whereas for lifestyle and culture (category four), more studies are available for the later medieval period. 108 Here we should also consider work on women in courtier society, which has also been [Families and Relatives in Medieval Japan] (Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 1996); and Takamure Itsue, Heian Kamakura Muromachi Kazoku no Kenky ū [Studies on the Family in the Heian, Kamakura and Muromachi Periods] (Tokyo: Kokusho Kank ōkai, 1985). 106 On the ie system, see Fukut ō Sanae, Ie Seiritsushi no Kenky ū [Studies on the History of the Establishment of Ie] (Tokyo: Azekura Shob ō, 1991); the aforementioned Takahashi Hideki, Nihon Ch ūsei no Ie to Shinzoku, op.cit.; Nishitani Masahiro, “Sekkan-ke ni Miru Ch ūseiteki ‘Ie’ no Tenkai” [The Development of “Ie” as Seen through the Sekkan-ke], Ky ūsh ū Shigaku 99 (March 1991): 1-26, and 101 (August 1991): 1-34; and Minegishi Sumio, “Ch ūsei Shakai no ‘Ie’ to Josei” [“Ie” and Women in Medieval Society], in Sakata Satoshi, ed., Kazoku to Shakai (Nihon Kazokushi Ronsh ū, Volume 4) (Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 2002), 159-193. Also for a perspective related to religion, see Ky ōraku Mahoko, “Heian Jidai no ‘Ie’ to Tera” [Ie and Temples during the Heian Period], Nihonshi Kenky ū 346 (1991): 1-25. 107 It is in this context that the Saionji are often mentioned in scholarship, since they held the position of Kant ō M ōshitsugi, and therefore they enter into almost any discussion about political relations and/or economic and cultural exchange between the court and bakufu. The rise of the Saionji in this context is the focus of the next chapter. 108 Sugawara, 10. For general studies, see Takeuchi Riz ō’s “Sh ōen to Kizoku” [Sh ōen and Courtiers], Nihon Rekishi 143 (1960.5): 93-101; 144 (1960.6): 104-109, 145 (1960.7): 117-125; 146 (1960.8): 112-117; 147 (1960.9): 138-143; 149 (1960.11): 88-94; 151 (1961.1): 114-120; 152 (1961.2): 92-98; 156 (1961.6): 67-73; 157 (1961.7): 59-64; 158 (1961.8): 93-98; 159 (1961.9): 92-97; 161 (1961.11): 90-95; 162(1961.12): 86-90; and Yoshie Akio, “Sekkan-kery ō S ōzoku no Kenky ū J ōsetsu” [An Introduction to the Inheritance of the Regental 52 rather limited as well as focused on the Heian era, even if recent years have seen more work pushing these boundaries. 109 Family’s Landholdings], Shigaku Zasshi 76.4 (1967), 1-45; Nagahara Keiji, Nihon H ōkensei Seiritsu Katei no Kenky ū [Studies on the Formation Process of the Feudal System in Japan] (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 2004); and Maki Michio, “Kugery ō no Seiritsu to Sono Ryoyu K ōz ō” [The Establishment of Courtier Landholdings and the Structure of their Posession], Nihon Rekishi 460 (1986): 47-65, for example. Many works are available on significant courtier families. For example, on regental families see the aforementioned Yoshie article, “Sekkan-kery ō S ōzoku no Kenky ū J ōsetsu”; on the Koga family, see Okano Tomohiko, Ch ūsei Koga-ke to Kogakery ō Sh ōen, op.cit.; and on the Yamashina family, see Wakita Haruko, Nihon Ch ūsei Sh ōgy ō Hattatsu-shi no Kenky ū [Studies on the History of Commercial Development in Medieval Japan] (Tokyo: Ochanomizu Shob ō, 1969), and Sugawara Masako, Ch ūsei Kuge no Keizai to Bunka, op. cit. Kanai Shizuka offers broad coverage on families such as the Konoe, Hiromashi, and others in Ch ūsei Kugery ō no Kenky ū [Studies on Courtier Landholdings in the Medieval Era] (Tokyo: Shibunkaku Shuppan, 1999). Her book touches on the Saionji a little. As for work on the Saionji specifically, see Amino Yoshihiko’s article “Saionji-ke to Sono Shory ō” [The Saionji Family and Its Landholdings], in Amino Yoshihiko Chosakush ū, Volume 3 (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 2008), 293-320 (originally published in Kokushigaku 146 (1992). On court-bakufu relations, see Uwayokote Masataka, Nihon Ch ūsei Seijishi Kenky ū [The Political History of Medieval Japan] (Tokyo: Hanawa Shob ō, 1970); and Mori Shigeaki, Kamakura Jidai no Ch ōbaku Kankei [Court-Bakufu Relations during the Kamakura Period] (Tokyo: Shibunkaku Shuppan, 1991). Mori also discusses court-bakufu relations for the Nanbokuch ō Period as well: Mori, Nanbokuch ō-ki K ōbu Kankeishi no Kenky ū [Court-Bakufu Relations during the Era of the Southern and Northern Courts] (Tokyo: Bunken Shuppan, 1984). On courtier culture and lifestyle, see for example End ō Motoo and Yamanaka Yutaka, eds., Nench ū Gy ōji no Rekishigaku [Historical Studies on Annual Events] (Tokyo: Kobund ō, 1981), which discusses annual events at court; Inoue Muneo, Ch ūsei Kadanshi no Kenky ū [Poetry Circles in the Medieval Era] (Tokyo: Meiji Shoin, 1987) on waka from the Nanbokuch ō to Muromachi eras; and Matsuzono Hitoshi, Nikki no Ie: Ch ūsei Kokka no Kiroku Soshiki [The House of Journals: Organization of Records in the Medieval State] (Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 1997) on diary-keeping. On court politics, see Mitobe Masao, Kuge Shinsei no Kenky ū [Studies on New Laws by the Court] (Tokyo: S ōbunsha, 1961) in general; Sat ō Shin’ichi, Nihon no Ch ūsei, op. cit., which is a reassessment of court and bakufu authority from ritsury ō times to the Nanbokuch ō era; and on the legal system and litigation issues, see Mikawa Kei, Insei no Kenky ū [Studies on Insei] (Tokyo: Rinsen Shoten, 1996) and Hong ō Kazuto, Ch ūsei Ch ōtei Sosh ō no Kenky ū [Studies on Lawsuits at the Medieval Court] (Tokyo: Tokyo University Press, 1995). 109 Tsunoda Bun’ei was something of a trailblazer in this area. An unconventional scholar who started out as an archaeologist, he tried to look behind the scenes of conventional history to uncover the role of women in the Heian era while considering the importance of familial relations. In addition to works on Murasaki Shikibu, such as Murasaki Shikubu to Sono Jidai [The Lady Murasaki and Her Time] (Kadokawa Shoten, 1966), he studied Taikenmon-in Shoshi, or Fujiwara no Motoko (dates unknown; she was a consort of Ichij ō Tenn ō): see J ōky ōden no Ny ōgo: Fukugensareta “Genji Monogatari” no Sekai [Court Women of the J ōky ōden: The Restored World of The Tale of Genji] (Tokyo: Ch ūō K ōronsha, 1963). The journal Kodai Bunka (Cultura Antiqua) dedicated a special issue (60.4, in 2000) to the celebration of Tsunoda’s scholarship and achievements. Another scholar worthy of particular mention here is Tabata Yasuko, who has written extensively on medieval women’s history with an eye to familial linkages. See for example Nihon Ch ūsei no Josei [Women in Medieval Japan] (Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan 1987); Nihon Ch ūsei Josei Shiron [Essays on Women in Medieval Japan] (Tokyo: Hanawa Shob ō, 1994); Nyonin Seiji no Ch ūsei: H ōj ō Masako to Hino Tomiko [Women’s Politics in the Medieval Era: H ōj ō Masako and Hino Tomiko] (Tokyo: K ōdansha, 1996); and Nihon Ch ūsei no Shakai to Josei 53 On the topic of the court’s status as a political center, in his monograph Nihon Ch ūsei Kuge Seiji-shi no Kenky ū (Studies on the Political History of Courtiers in Medieval Japan), Ichikawa Tetsu argues that “There was an unspoken assumption that it was only for the pre-J ōkyū Incident era that the courtier polity had any meaning as a research object.” 110 Under this assumption, during the postwar era the court from the late Kamakura through Nanbokuch ō Periods had not received much attention in the field of history, although this state of affairs began to change during the 1980s. During this decade, as Ichikawa observes, much of the scholarship concerning the court in the Kamakura era focused on lawsuits or issues pertaining to the legal system; moreover, these themes were also focused on by scholars of the Insei era around the same time. 111 From this perspective, the work of Jeffrey Mass in English concerning the legal framework of the Kamakura Bakufu dovetailed with one of the major concerns of Japanese scholarship at the time. 112 [Women and Japanese Medieval Society] (Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 1998). 110 Ichikawa Tetsu, Nihon Ch ūsei Kuge Seiji-shi no Kenky ū [Studies on the Political History of Medieval Courtiers] (Tokyo: Azekura Shob ō, 2011), 13. 111 Ibid., 13-14. See, for example Kasamatsu Hiroshi, Nihon Ch ūsei H ōshi-ron [The Legal History of Medieval Japan] (Tokyo: Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai, 1979). 112 According to Ichikawa, issues concerning legal structures and lawsuits should be recognized as a main issue for medieval political history since it is transitions in these areas that demonstrate institutional change within the historical transition of the nation – change in legal structures, in other words, can be a clue that a new era has dawned (14). As examples of such scholarship, Ichikawa refers to Toda Yoshimi, “Ch ūsei Shakai Seiritsuki no Kokka” [The State during the Formation of Medieval Society], in Toda Yoshimi, Nihon Ch ūsei no Minsh ū to Ry ōshu [People and Lords in Medieval Japan] (Tokyo: Azekura Shob ō, 1994), 33; and Tanahashi Mitsuo, Ch ūsei Seiretsuki no H ō to Kokka [Law and the State at the Dawn of the Medieval Age] (Tokyo: Hanawa Shob ō, 1983). 54 The continuing political and economic significance of courtiers throughout the Kamakura Period is one reason to advocate for further scholarship on the court and courtier society. Another is the extent to which courtier society can be a lens to access different aspects of Japanese society writ large at the time. As Sugawara writes, Medieval courtier society was medieval society in microcosm, just as were warrior society and zaichi [local proprietor] society, [all] with the universal characteristics of medieval society at the base. We need to consider the uniqueness of courtiers and the historical reasons why courtiers continued to exist as a privileged class even after they lost their political and economic power after the medieval period. 113 At the same time, we cannot forget that courtier society developed along its own trajectory, changing along with the time period, so that despite the misperceptions or stereotypes of later generations, courtier culture was neither static nor uniform from one era to the next. Similarly, proscribed rules and regulations varied over time, and both individuals and institutions as a whole did not always follow them consistently. 114 To sum up, the lack of a thorough treatment of medieval Japanese courtier society akin to the studies that have emerged from the European context is felt not only in English-language scholarship, but also in Japanese-language scholarship, where there are a number of studies of aspects of courtier families and the court as an institution but no comprehensive assessment. By 113 Sugawara, 11. 114 For example, as Hong ō Keiko argues, there was an official rule to the effect that all negotiation between the court and bakufu needed to go through the liaison, a policy designed to prevent those associated with the court from ceaselessly bringing requests or appeals to the bakufu. However, she continues, in reality there were many cases where appeals reached the bakufu without going through the proper process (Hong ō, Sh ōgun Kenryoku no Hakken, op.cit., 36). 55 examining the tools of authority that one major courtier family employed to build and expand their influence, I hope to show that medieval Japanese courtier society was a vibrant, active and important social world well deserving of more attention. Methodology and Organization It can be a challenge to effectively conceptualize the various tools of authority that courtier families like the Saionji used to enhance their influence and power. The situation is particularly complex because seemingly unrelated areas of human activity were connected in courtier society, where developments in one arena of social activity could generate gains in another. In making sense of the situation, the work of French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (1930-2002) can be insightful. 115 In particular, Bourdieu’s conception of a variety of forms of capital produced in different social contexts fits nicely with the situation of medieval Japanese courtier families. First discussed in an essay in the early 1970s, Bourdieu went on to articulate his concept more clearly 115 For a brief overview of Bourdieu’s life and key ideas, see Loïc J.D. Wacquant, “Pierre Bourdieu,” in Rob Stones, ed., Key Sociological Thinkers (New York: Macmillan, 2008), 261-277. For Bourdieu’s thoughts on the applicability of his approach to various societies, see Bourdieu, “Social Space and Symbolic Space: Introduction to a Japanese Reading of ‘Distinction’,” trans. Giasele Sapiro, ed. Brian McHale, Poetics Today 12.4 (winter 1991): 627-638. For a comparative consideration of Bourdieu and Elias, see Bowen Paulle, Bart van Heerikhuizen, and Mustafa Emirbayer, “Elias and Bourdieu,” in Simon Susen and Bryan S. Turner, eds., The Legacy of Pierre Bourdieu: Critical Essays (London: Anthem Press, 2011), 145-172. 56 in “The Forms of Capital” (1986). 116 Bourdieu distinguished among three different types of capital, which he defined as “accumulated labor”: economic, which is the most tangible of the set, and consists of economic resources such as money, material assets, and so forth; social, referring to resources derived from groups and social networks; and finally cultural, referring to forms of knowledge and skills which provide one with higher status. 117 Crucially, he held that not only could each form of capital be institutionalized in society, but moreover, that it was possible to transform one form of capital into another: Depending on the field in which it functions, and at the cost of the more or less expensive transformations which are the precondition for its efficacy in the field in question, capital can present itself in three fundamental guises: economic capital, which is immediately and directly convertible into money and may be institutionalized in the form of property rights; as cultural capital, which is convertible, in certain conditions, into economic capital and may be institutionalized in the form of educational qualifications; and as social capital, made up of social obligations (“connections”), 116 Pierre Bourdieu, “Cultural Reproduction and Social Reproduction,” in R. Brown, ed., Knowledge, Education and Social Change: Papers in the Sociology of Education (London: Tavistock Publications, 1973), 71-112; Bourdieu “The Forms of Capital,” in J. Richardson, ed., Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1986), 241-258. “The Forms of Capital” originally appeared in German in 1983. 117 Later Bourdieu also formulated a fourth type called symbolic capital (resources that, perhaps echoing Weber’s charismatic authority, afford one honor or recognition). He understood the first three forms, however, to be the most fundamental. Later scholars drawing on Bourdieu’s theory have advanced other forms of capital as well, such as political capital (e.g. Kimberley L. Casey, “Defining Political Capital: A Reconsideration of Bourdieu’s Interconvertibility Theory,” Critique: A Worldwide Student Journal of Politics (Spring 2008) <http://lilt.ilstu.edu/critique/Spring%202008/Casey.pdf>; environmental capital (e.g. Justin Karol and Trevor Gale, “Bourdieu’s Social Theory and Sustainability: What is ‘Environmental Capital’?” presented at AARE International Education Research Conference (Melbourne, 2004) <http://www.aare.edu.au/04pap/kar041081.pdf>; moral capital, and more. If we understand political capital to be a type of influence at court then it was a desired commodity among courtier families in early medieval Japan. However, this project eschews the term for two reasons. First, there were many types of influence and authority sought after by courtier families, including but not limited to political capital. Second, the focus in this project is not on the influence itself so much as the strategies pursued by families to acquire such influence. 57 which is convertible, in certain conditions, into economic capital and may be institutionalized in the form of a title of nobility. 118 In other words, the different forms of capital are fundamentally connected together and transmutable (“interconvertible”). Labor invested in one social arena can generate profit that is immediately valuable within its own right, or it can be transformed into profit in another arena. The applicability of this approach in helping to clarify the mechanics of medieval courtier society in Japan is immediately apparent. Economic capital generated by landholdings, for example, could be invested in educating one’s daughter or gaining her access to exceptional opportunities, which in turn could enhance a family’s status. A well-spoken and sophisticated daughter would in turn have a higher “value” on the marriage market, opening doors to a match with a scion from a wealthy, powerful, well-connected or otherwise influential family. Such a match could then in turn produce more wealth, political connections, or cultural achievements, which itself could enhance the family’s reputation. At any point in the process, the capital generated could be accumulated or “re-invested” in another social arena, netting a family still further wealth or prestige. Both in the short-term and especially in the long-term, medieval courtier families competed in a variety of social arenas to generate and convert forms of capital that could benefit them. 118 Bourdieu, “The Forms of Capital,” 243. 58 The tools of authority that a family could deploy depended upon what amount of the various forms of capital they had at their disposal at a given time: some was readily available, and some would have been tied up in long-term investments, such as marriage strategies. The Saionji, and in particular Saionji Kintsune, were masters within courtier society not because they drew upon unique tools of authority, but because they handled those tools available to them deftly, planning for all foreseen eventualities while quickly responding to new circumstances with what resources they had available. The rest of this study is devoted to uncovering how the Saionji family effectively wielded tools of authority that can be loosely categorized as those generating economic capital, cultural capital, and social capital. In doing so, I will analyze various aspects of courtier society in early medieval Japan, through the experience of one of the most important and influential courtier families of the time. In terms of the organization of this dissertation, Chapter 1 is dedicated to briefly setting the scene by setting out the historical context of early medieval Japan and situating the rise of the Saionji to prominence within that context. This will then serve as the backdrop for the subsequent chapters, each of which takes up one of the tools of authority wielded by the family in its quest to develop and expand its influence across the many arenas of medieval courtier society. 59 Chapter 2 covers their aggrandizement of economic power and how it overlapped with spatial-geographic authority. It then moves on to a consideration of Saionji wealth, the cultural importance of villas, and the significance of the location of villas and other landholdings both in asserting status (through scenic landscaping and access to luxuries) and in control over trade routes. Chapter 3 addresses the various forms of cultural capital which were accumulated in courtier society, and the role of Saionji women as consumers, producers, and patrons of various cultural activities, particularly literature and music, which increased the status of their family considerably. Lastly, Chapter 4 examines human networks, and particularly the marriage alliances and information networks that helped the family gain a range of benefits while responding effectively to rivals and challenges posed by changing circumstances. In undertaking this study, I make use of a wide range of sources. I draw upon official histories, most especially the Masukagami (増鏡, fourth of the “Four Mirrors” series of historical tales; an account of the major developments of the Kamakura era written in the mid-to-late fourteenth century) and Azuma Kagami (吾妻鏡, an account of the early Kamakura era, compiled at the command of the Kamakura Bakufu itself in the late thirteenth century), which provide a 60 range of vital information. I make use of courtier diaries, which are excellent ways of accessing courtier society from the vantage point of an individual experiencing it at the time. If Saionji Kintsune kept a journal it is not extant, 119 but it is possible to trace his life, career, and reputation through the writings of other courtiers. 120 First among these is Teika’s diary Meigetsuki, but I also make use of other diaries, as well as genealogies like the Sonpi Bunmyaku (尊卑分脈), a late fourteenth century text that includes the genealogies of many prominent families, and other contemporary documents written for both public and private consumption. While these materials are essential, they are not sufficient by themselves to shed light on numerous aspects of courtier society. Therefore, I also utilize other materials that can shed light on the Saionji and their world, especially literary sources. These include the poetry anthologies that contain works by prominent members of the Saionji family; and miscellaneous prose works like Tsurezuregusa (徒然草), a collection of essays by the monk Yoshida Kenk ō written between 1330 and 1332. Works of prose and poetry are important for two reasons. First, as contemporary works they offer personal insights into the structure and social milieu of families at the time. Second, as cultural products, they represented considerable cultural capital. In addition to producing literary works or serving as a patron for writers, courtiers might also form marriage 119 Unfortunately, there is no conclusive evidence that Kintsune did or did not keep a journal. 120 The situation with Kintsune applies equally to his son Saneuji. In fact, it is not until Saionji Kinhira (公衡, 1264-1315), the son of Sanekane, that we have an extant journal by a Saionji family member. 61 alliances with families known for such works, and thereby gain prestige for their natal family as well. 62 Chapter 1: Who Were the Saionji? The Emergence of the Family in Political Context Introduction On the afternoon of the 29th day of the 8th month of the 2nd year of Kangen (1244), Saionji Kintsune passed away at the ripe old age of 74. One of the most powerful and well-known figures of his era, his passing prompted the entire Saionji family to sequester themselves indoors in mourning, while outside the capital buzzed with gossip. Not all of it was kind. Amidst the voices offering normal platitudes accorded the dead, the courtier Taira no Tsunetaka (1180-1255) allowed that Kintsune’s passing was sad, but sniped that the late minister “feasted on our realm, a traitorous rodent in our midst.” 1 Success had made Kintsune the focus of much attention, and he clearly had detractors as well as supporters. Like his predecessor and distant relative Taira no Kiyomori, Kintsune had gained immense influence and raised the status of his family to the top echelons of courtier society. Success aroused strong emotions. It remains questionable to what extent Saionji Kintsune was conscious of being a descendent of the Taira family, although Ry ō Susumu has argued his heritage all but predestined him for greatness. 2 His life certainly recalled some of the footsteps of his famous predecessor. One was the establishment of familial relations with the royal family and regental families 1 Mori Shigeaki, Kamakura Jidai no Ch ō-baku Kankei [Court-Bakufu Relations during the Kamakura Period] (Tokyo: Shibunkaku Shuppan, 1991), 12. 2 Ry ō Susumu, Kamakura Jidai [The Kamakura Period], V olume 2 (Tokyo: Shunj ūsha, 1957), 172. 63 (Sekkan-ke) as an avenue to great influence at the court. Another notable link was trade with Song China – Kiyomori had established a massive villa in Fukuhara to serve as a base for trade, and organized a sea route in order to engage in trade with Song China. Likewise, Saionji Kintsune tried to gain control over the waterways in the same area and gain profits from the China trade, as will be discussed in Chapter 2. Furthermore, women featured significantly in the rise of Kiyomori’s family, and this was even more so the case with the Saionji, as will be seen in later chapters of this project. Regardless of Kintsune’s awareness of his links with Kiyomori, there is no doubt that the two shared many similarities as entrepreneuring figures who, through their use of tools of authority, raised the status of their families tremendously. The greatest difference between the two lay in Kintsune’s ability to more successfully navigate the political waters of his time, ensuring that the Saionji had a chance to reproduce his tactics and retain their influence long after the Taira, by contrast, had been all but wiped out. Although I touch on other important Saionji figures in the course of this study, such as Ōmiya-in, Kitashirakawa-in, and others, Kintsune is the central figure in this study. Kintsune was primarily noteworthy for his skill at deploying a range of tools of authority and rapidly adapting his strategies to changing circumstances, creating familial strategies that subsequent generations of Saionji repeated to reproduce their influence over time. Because his success was due to the 64 highly effective use of common tactics – rather than developing iconoclastic or truly innovative strategies from scratch – his case is perhaps the best illustration of the tactics employed by Japanese courtier families to gain and expand their influence during the early medieval era. In order to understand what these tactics were and how they responded to particular circumstances at the time, it is necessary to discuss briefly the emergence of the Saionji family in its historical context, considering previous historiography as well as political developments at the time. The Playing Field: The Saionji and the Structure of Medieval Courtier Society Historiographically speaking, the first systematic study of the Saionji family was completed by Ryō Susumu (1890-1964) in 1957. Ryo discussed the emergence of the Saionji family and their influence as liaisons between the Kyoto court and the Kamakura bakufu. 3 His study effectively set the tone for how subsequent generations of scholars would see the family. Following Ry ō’s work, Taga Munehaya (1909-1994) discussed the rise of the family in his own 1972 study, 4 while Uwayokote Masataka also discussed the importance of the Saionji in Kamakura politics in his work. 5 Uwayokote argued that, “Within courtier politics, it was Saionji Kintsune who 3 Ry ō Susumu,“Saionji-ke no K ōry ū to Sono Zairyoku” [The Rise of the Saionji Family, and Their Financial Power], and “Go-Saga-In no Soi to Kant ō M ōshutsugi” [The Kant ō M ōshitsugi and the Will of Retired Sovereign Go-Toba], in Ry ō, Kamakura Jidai [The Kamakura Period] (Tokyo: Shunj ūsha, 1957), Volume 2, 171-182 and 201-251 respectively. 4 Taga Munehaya, “Saionji-ke no Tait ō” [The Rise of the Saionji Family], Nihon Rekishi 284 (1972): 1-14. 5 Uwayokote Masataka, “Kamakura Bakufu to Kuge Seiken” [The Kamakura Bakufu and the Courtier Polity], 65 wielded the most political power.” 6 Evaluating Kintsune’s skill and dedication highly, Uwayokote has asserted that Kintsune gained the absolute trust of the bakufu and was loyal to that commitment even at the risk of his life, while also gaining enormous influence over the court. 7 In the work of Ry ō and Uwayokote, the Saionji in general and Kintsune in particular are portrayed as unique among courtier families because of the continuity of their successful politics. This perspective, framing the Saionji as an exceptional courtier family worthy of mention in a dominantly warrior-centered medieval narrative because of their monopolization of the post of Kant ō M ōshitsugi, became accepted wisdom. On the one hand, it ensured that a prominent courtier family received recognition in the literature. On the other hand, it reduced their historical experience to their political function, 8 ignored other courtier families, and neglected to consider the extent to which the tactics employed by the Saionji family to cement and expand their influence were pursued by other courtier families, even if less effectively. My study seeks to correct all of these shortcomings and paint a more vivid and multi-layered image of the family and their milieu. in Uwayokote, Kamakura Jidai Seiji-shi Kenky ū [Studies on the Political History of the Kamakura Period] (Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 1991), 2-45. Originally published in 1975. 6 Ibid., 30. 7 Ibid., 30-31. 8 The tendency to separate out political influence from economic, cultural or social concerns is particularly troubling given the extent to which political authority depended upon capital generated from these other arenas. 66 The Saionji originated from one of the branch houses of the Fujiwara called the Kan’in branch (閑院流), which became independent in the era of Fujiwara no Kinsue (藤原公季, 956-1029), the son of Fujiwara no Morosuke (師輔, 909-960), who is normally known as Lord Kuj ō. Later, the Kan’in branch split into three houses headed by the sons of Fujiwara no Kinzane (藤原公実, 1053-1109) 9 : the Sanj ō (by Saneyuki, 実行, 1080-1162), the Ōmiya (by Michisue, 通季 1090-1128), 10 and the Tokudaiji (by Saneyoshi, 実能, 1096-1157) houses. 11 Of these three, it was the Ōmiya house which was to become known as the Saionji in the time of Kintsune, when he built the Saionji Temple (菩提寺 Bodaiji) that gave the family its name. 12 9 One of the daughters of Kinzane (公実) was a royal consort of Toba Tenn ō, Taikenmon-In Sh ōshi (待賢院環子), who entered Toba’s back palace as a foster child of Shirakawa. 10 Michisue was the second son of Kinzane, but he was chosen as a legitimate son by Kinzane himself because his mother, Mitsuko, was a wet nurse of Horikawa Tenn ō. Aside from Michisue, two other sons of Kinzane established new houses: the Sanj ō and the Tokudaiji. The Saionji and Tokudaiji families seem to have maintained a close relationship until later times: Saionji Kinmochi, who is known as the last Genr ō, was born the second son of Tokudaiji Kinito and was adopted into Saionji family. 11 Among these three branch houses, the descendants of both the Sanj ō and the Saionji established their own branch houses which continued into later periods. The only main line to continue until later periods was the Tokudaiji. In the case of the Saionji, the line had already separated in the generation of Kintsune’s sons: Sanefuji established the Yotsutsuji house, Saneari the Shimizudani house, and Saneo the Toin house. The Toin house come to wield more power than the main line of the Saionji at some points. The Imadegawa house, founded by Kanesue, the son of Saionji Sanekane (grandson of Saneuji), also come to hold a significant position at court. There were a number of other branch houses of the Saionji; some of them died out, but many sub-branch families continued. 12 The In-title of Kitsushi, the mother of Go-Fukakusa and Kameyama, was Ōmiya-in; this directly comes from the Saionji having been called “the Ōmiya” until the time of Kintsune. Families taking their names from residences and the like was by no means unusual. For example, the Konoe originated with Fujiwara no Motozane (1143-1166), but the family name came from the fact that his son Motomichi (1160-1233) named his residence, located in the north of Kyoto east of Muromachi, the “Konoe residence” (近衛殿). 67 Development of the Saionji Family Fujiwara no Morosuke(藤原師輔) Koretada(伊尹) ―Kanemichi(兼通) ―Kaneie(兼家) Michinaga(道長) ―Tamemitsu(為光) ―Kinsue(公季)―Sanenari(実成)―Kinnari(公成) Sanesuke(実季)―Kinzane(公実) Saneyuki(実行) ―Sanetaka(実隆) ―Michisue(通季)―Kinmichi(公通) ―Saneyoshi(実能) Sanemune(実宗) Kintsune(公経) Division of the Kan’in Branch of the Fujiwara Branch Originator Sanj ō Saneyuki (1080-1162) Kan’in Ōmiya [Saionji] Michisue (1090-1128) Tokudaiji Saneyoshi (1096-1157) Which courtier family they hailed from had major effects on a courtier’s career. From the late Heian to early Kamakura Periods, the rank of courtier houses came to be set, and promotions also became determined by family rank. The highest ranking of these courtier families were known as the Regental Families (Sekkan-ke) – specifically by Kamakura times they were the Konoe, Kuj ō, Takatsukasa, Ichij ō and Nij ō; and members of these families could be appointed to 68 the post of regent. 13 The Regental Families with the founders of each branch are outlined in the following diagram. 13 Since there are five families, they are often called “the Five Regental Families” (Go-Sekke). The post of regent was originally held by the offspring of Fujiwara no Yoshifusa of the Northern Fujiwara house, but later on, the primary offspring of Fujiwara no Michinaga came to monopolize the post. However. the succession later became divided between the Konoe and the Matsudono families in the late Heian Period because of the sudden death of Fujiwara no Motozane (the primary son of Fujiwara no Tadmaichi), when Motozane’s brother Matsudono Motofusa succeeded Motozane. Furthermore, due to the later downfall of both Motofusa and Motomichi, Matsudono Motofusa’s brother, Kuj ō Kanezane, became regent, which led to the establishment of the Kuj ō regental house. At this point, there were three families whose members were qualified to be regent – the Konoe, Matsudono and Kuj ō. However the Matsudono failed to produce any regents after Moroie. The offspring of the Konoe produced the Takatsukasa line, while those of the Kuj ō produced the Ichij ō and Nij ō lines. 69 Beneath these Regental Families existed a second tier of courtier families, called Flourishing Families (Seiga-ke) — they were the Koga, Kazan-in, Ōimikado, Saionji, Tokudaiji, and Imadegawa. 14 Members from these families had the opportunity to be appointed as high as the post of chancellor (daijo daijin) cum major captain. Beneath these families were the Minister Families (Daijin-ke), who could see members appointed as high as chancellor but could not combine this position with that of a major captain, unlike those from the Flourishing Families. 15 Beneath these three tiers were the Guarding Families (Urin-ke), members of which could be promoted as high as senior counselor. 16 Then came the Civil Families (Mei-ke), 17 and finally the Half Families (Han-ke). 18 Members of Civil Families could be promoted as high as the post of senior counselor, like members of the Guarding Families. However, whereas Guarding Families saw their members promoted to military posts such as middle captain, those from the Civil Families were promoted to civil (administrative) posts such as royal secretaries. 19 As for the Half 14 During the Tokugawa Period, two more families – the Hirohata and the Daigo — were added to the Flourishing Families category. 15 The Daijin-ke included the Nakanoin-ke (which was one of the branch houses of Koga), the Ōgimachi-Sanj ō-ke, and the Sanj ōnishi-ke (which was a branch of Ōgimachi-Sanj ō). However, the Sanj ōnishi was not established until the 14th century. 16 There were many families which belonged to this rank. They were normally branches of upper-ranking courtier families, and some of the houses of this rank had offspring of the Saionji as founders, like the Shimizudani, Yotsutsuji, Hashimoto, and Ōmiya (not to be confused with the original root family). 17 Members of these families could also be promoted as high as senior counselor. However, unlike the Guarding Families which normally gained promotion through military posts such as the court guards’ captainicies, the Civil Families were promoted through administrative posts, such as those of the controllers or royal secretariats. The Guarding Families and Civil Families were equal in terms of rank. 18 They could be counselors, but not captains or controllers. 19 This was the general regulation, but there were some exceptional cases, such as the Hino family that produced a minister of the left on one occasion. 70 Families, some of the families in this category could see members promoted to posts as high as that of senior counselor, and without passing through periods of service as middle captain of the Inner Palace Guards (konoe ch ūj ō) or senior controller (daiben), although most members remained advisors-at-large (hisangi) even after becoming senior nobles (kugyō). Courtier Family Categories, Late Heian through Kamakura Periods Category Meaning Appointment Ceiling Sekkan-ke 摂関家 Regental Familes Regent Seiga-ke 清華家 Flourishing Families Chancellor cum major captain Daijin-ke 大臣家 Minister Families Chancellor Urin-ke 羽林家 Guarding Families Senior counselor (military stream) Mei-ke 名家 Civil Families Senior counselor (civil stream) Han-ke 半家 Half-Families Senior counselor (in principle) As the rank of families had been set, so too did families begin to have fixed specializations. 20 Houses of lower rank – Guarding Houses, Civil Houses, and Half-Houses – were especially keen to succeed at specialized skills such as calligraphy, fashion, or poetry, in order to secure their position within courtier society. 21 As for the Saionji family, it became known as “the house of the biwa” (Japanese lute), as we will see later. 20 Sat ō Shin’ichi argues that the perpetuation of this house specialization system contributed to the fall of the ritsury ō political system (Sat ō Shin’ichi, Nihon no Ch ūsei Kokka [The State in Medieval Japan] (Iwanami Shoten, 1983)). It is unclear precisely when house specializations became set, but as with the family hierarchy it appears to be during the late Heian Period. 21 Sugawara Masako, Ch ūsei Kuge no Keizai to Bunka [The Economics and Culture of Medieval Courtiers] (Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 1998), 4. 71 Saionji Kintsune What kind of person was Saionji Kintsune, the recognized founder of the Saionji house? The biographical sketch set down by the contemporary courtier Taira no Tsunetaka records: 今日殿下御渡禅門云々、及申剋遂以閉眼云々。京中物忩、春秋七十四云々、年来富貴栄華、皆以如夢、哀哉々々、朝之蠧害、世之奸臣也。春宮外曽祖、関白殿・右大臣殿外祖也、於身不賤、然而無常之理難遁歟、前右府以下子息等皆以喪籠云々、近年大旨任意行世事、上下側目、遂以如此、天譴猶可恐云々。 22 Today, I heard that the Lord [Nij ō Yoshizane, a son of Kuj ō Michiie] visited the place of the Lay Buddhist Monk [Kintsune]. It is said that [Kintsune] finally closed his eyes around 3-5 pm. The whole of the capital fell into confusion. His age at his passing was seventy-four, they say. He had been wealthy and enjoyed glory for years; [yet] everything is like a dream. 23 How sad it is! He feasted on our realm, a traitorous rodent in our midst. 24 He was a matrilineal great-grandfather of the crown prince, and matrilineal grandfather of the regent and the minister of the right. He was no ordinary person, but it was impossible for even him to escape the ways of this transient world. Starting from the previous minister of the right [Kintsune’s son, Saneuji] on down, all of his [Kintsune’s] descendants confined themselves due to mourning, I hear. In recent years, he [Kintsune] carried out governance in the way he liked, so high- and low-ranked alike frowned. It [his death] finally occurred: the wrath of Heaven should be feared. (Heikoki, 29th day of the 8th month of the 2nd year of Kangen) 22 Mori Shigeaki, Kamakura Jidai no Ch ō-baku Kankei, 12. See Dai Nihon Shiry ō (Tokyo: Tokyo University Historiographical Institute), Volumes 5-18, 30; or Shiry ō Taisei (Tokyo: Rinsen Shoten), Volume 327 for detailed descriptions before and after this entry. The Heikoki is a journal written by Taira no Tsunetaka (1180- 1255). The name “Heiko” comes from his family name Taira (平, read as “hei”) and the Chinese reading of his post as minister of civil affairs, or Kobu Sh ōsho (戸部尚書). The work is also called Tsunetakaky ō-ki based on his first name. The extant contents cover from 1227 to 1246. Although many parts of the journal are missing, its historical value is considered to be high since there are few contemporary historical sources for the early Kamakura Period. See Z ōho Shiry ō Taisei, Volume 32: Heikoki (Kyoto: Rinsen Shoten, 1983). 23 A reference to how, according to traditional Buddhist thought, all earthly achievements are ultimately fleeting. Whatever Saionji Kintsune’s achievements may have been, at the end his life, like that of all sentinent creatures, seemed a brief dream that would fade and end. As with the author(s) of the Heike Monogatari, Tsunetaka feels justified in reminding his readers that all life achievements are transient. 24 Tsunetaka reveals his distaste for the pinnacle of influence Kintsune reached in his life, reminding us that the various arenas of courtier society were contested terrain where even the dead could be deployed to buttress or assault an individual’s or family’s reputation. 72 Even from this short comment, it is clear that Kintsune’s power was substantial, and that he was not universally loved by his fellow courtiers. Tsunetaka’s language is rife with both grudging respect for a grand courtier and disgust at how he governed the state as he saw fit (whether this is an outright condemnation of such governance in principle, or merely governance by the Saionji rather than Tsunetaka’s own family, is, needless to say, left unclear). Notably this language also recalls Taira no Kiyomori, later immortalized in the Heike Mongatari, because he too was seen as one who governed as he liked and was struck down by the wrath of Heaven for his reputed sins in doing so. Contemporary accounts, whether critical of Kintsune or not, are united in recognizing his power and influence. Mori Shigeaki, who has researched the historical record for expressions pertaining to the situation of Kintsune’s power, reminds us of some other notable statements from the time: “[the power of Kintsune] could exceed [that of] the Taira Lay Monk of Fukuhara [i.e. Kiyomori],” and “There was no other person of importance in this contemporary society who could be compared to him: he was the one who did whatever he wished.” 25 The Masukagami, meanwhile, states: 25 Mori, op.cit., 19, citing Fujiwara no Teika’s Meigetsuki (22nd day of the 3rd month of the 3rd year of Kangi) and Koipponki (3rd day of the 6th month of the 3rd year of Ninji), respectively. 73 峯殿の御しうと、東の将軍の御祖父にて、よろづ世の中御心のまゝに飽かぬ事なゆゝしくなんおはしける。今の右の大臣、をさゝゝ劣り給はず。 26 As father-in-law to Michiie and grandfather to the shogun in Kamakura, Kintsune occupied a position of awesome influence. Everything went as he wished; nothing gave him cause for dissatisfaction. And his son Saneuji, the prominent minister of the right, was no less powerful. 27 That Kintsune achieved great heights within courtier society and amassed great power by the time of his death seems beyond dispute. Kintsune’s powers were the result of a long period of development for the Saionji family’s fortunes. However, it was certainly not the case that the Saionji family wielded great power from the beginning. The highest position that Michisue (通季, 1090-1128), the originator of the house, reached, given his early passing, was provisional middle counselor. Even Sanemune (実宗, 1144-1212), who was Kintsune’s father, only managed to reach the post of inner palace minister, with the second rank. 28 It fell to Kintsune to truly raise the stature of the family. Ry ō Susumu, who as we have seen was the first scholar to conduct systematic research on the Saionji family during the Kamakura era, evaluates Kintsune’s political ability highly, arguing that “it would not 26 Iwasa Masashi, et al., comps., Masukagami, in Nihon Koten Bungaku Taikei, Volume 87 (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1965), 299. 27 George W. Perkins, trans. The Clear Mirror: A Chronicle of the Japanese Court During the Kamakura Period (1185-1333) (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1989), 73. 28 Sonpi Bunmyaku, Volume 1; Volume 58 of Shintei Z ōho Kokushi Taikei (Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 2005), 146. 74 be going too far to say that the prosperity of the Saionji family was built in one generation by Kintsune.” 29 Regarding the context of Kinstune’s expansion of his political power, Ry ō, as mentioned above, stresses the importance of blood relationships. He emphasizes that “Kinstune was a son of Sanemune (実宗). His [Kinstune’s] mother was a daughter of Jimyoin Motoie (持明院基家, 1132-1214), as well as a maternal granddaughter of Taira no Yorimori (平頼盛). This blood relationship seems to have determined that Kintsune should move towards politics.” 30 What Ry ō means is not that Kintsune’s blood relations determined his entry into politics itself – as the scion of a courtier family, he would have had little choice in this regard unless he could justify entering a monastery instead – but rather that it determined the direction of his political future. Jimyoin Motoie was in the service of Prince Morisada (later Go-Takakura-in), as one of his relations was the prince’s wet nurse. 31 As Motoie’s primary wife was a granddaughter of Taira no Yorimori, who was Kiyomori’s half-brother, 32 Kintsune enjoyed a strong link with both royals and the 29 Ry ō Susumu, Kamakura Jidai, 172. On the descriptions in Taira no Tsunetaka’s diary, Mori Shigeaki states that “[they] suggest that Kintsune was an astute politician” (Mori, 13). 30 Ry ō, 172. 31 Serving as a wet nurse to high officials or royalty often brought a woman prosperity and opportunity not only for herself but also for her relatives. In the case of Motoie, it is not clear if his primary wife was the wet nurse in question. Prince Morisada’s primary wet nurse was the wife of Taira no Tomomori – Kiyomori’s son – and the prince was raised in Tomomori’s residence when he was young. 32 Taira no Yorimori was a son of Taira no Tadamori (平忠盛). Since Ike no Zenni (池禅尼), Yorimori’s mother, saved Minamoto no Yoritomo from execution, Yorimori was considered a benefactor of Yoritomo’s, and was consequently treated very well even after the fall of the Taira family. 75 Taira through his maternal grandparents. 33 When Minamoto no (Kiso) Yoshinaka went to Kyoto, Yorimori and Jimyoin Motoie, along with the latter’s nephew Ichij ō Yoshiyasu, went to Kamakura. Young Kintsune’s relations thus provided him with connections to both poles of the nascent dual-centered polity, and it is logical that to some extent he built his career and the fortunes of his family by linking those poles. Kintsune’s Extension of his Political Power Fujiwara no Michimoto――Jimyoin Motoie (藤原通基) (持明院基家) Kitashirakawa-in Nobuko (北白河院陳子) ―Taira no Kiyomori(平清盛) Daughter(基家女) ―Taira no Yorimori(平頼盛)―Daughter(頼盛女) Kintsune(公経) Daughter(通基女)――Sanemune(実宗) Regardless of his degree of awareness of his connection to the Heike (Taira), it is undeniable that from the moment of his birth, Kintsune was witness to a political order 33 Motoie’s wife gave birth to not only Kintsune’s mother but also to Kitashirakawa Nobuko (Chinshi), who became the consort of Go-Takakura and the mother of Go-Horikawa. 76 undergoing dramatic changes. Ry ō argued that Kintsune decided to pursue cooperative relations with the warriors in light of the contemporary political situation. 34 What, then, was the political situation during Kintsune’s time? We have to go back to the mid-twelfth century and follow the narrative of his predecessor, Taira no Kiyomori, for answers. A Time of Discord and Opportunity: The Rise and Fall of Taira no Kiyomori and the Heike Polity (c. 1156-1192) 35 In this section, I aim to outline the political context within which the Saionji family rose to prominence, and show that their path was in many ways modeled after the ascent of the Taira family a generation earlier. In particular, Taira no Kiyomori’s masterful deployment of the tools of authority available to him, and his family’s rapid advancement at court had strong echoes in Kintsune’s career and the fortunes of his family. It is vital to understand the rise and fall of the Taira, and of Kiyomori in particular, because they provide both a clear example and a context for Kintsune’s own success. Moreover, the strategies employed by Kiyomori and his rivals are an excellent introduction to the various arenas of early medieval courtier society and the tools of authority utilized by courtier families, which are the main concern of this present study. 34 Ry ō, 172. 35 For a chart depicting the royal succession from the 72nd through 90th sovereigns (by traditional reckoning), see the Appendix. 77 Kinstune was born in 1171, during what could be referred to as the rise of the Heike polity. 36 The Heike – by which I mean the family of Tadamori and Kiyomori – developed their immense influence by serving retired sovereigns, and in the time of Taira no Kiyomori, the family emerged as a powerful household. Two major political upheavals – the H ōgen Disturbance in 1156 and the Heiji Disturbance in 1159 – became triggers that shot Kiyomori to high political status. The first of these two crises, the H ōgen Disturbance, was caused by conflicts over succession inside the royal family and among the Regental Families, prompted by the passing of the retired sovereign Toba (1103-1156). The disturbance itself reached a resolution after only two hours of battle, and when the smoke cleared, Kiyomori was on the winning side. The Heiji Disturbance, which happened just three years later, was caused by the resistance (led by Fujiwara no Nobuyori) towards Fujiwara no Michinori (Shinzei), who had been in charge of the political arena following the H ōgen Disturbance. Kiyomori, whose position during the chaos was rather neutral in spite of his connection with Shinzei, was able to accommodate the situation, defeating Nobuyori and his ally Minamoto no Yoshitomo. This was significant because the outcome left Kiyomori, rather than either of the original factions, in the strongest position. 36 There are two theories concerning when the Heike polity was established. Nishida Tomohiro argues that it was in 1167; but in general, it is considered to have been 1179, when Taira authority was firmly established. For Nishida’s argument, see his monograph Kamakura Bakufu no Kendan to Tokusei [Trials and Benevolent Rule under the Kamakura Bakufu] (Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 2011), 211. 78 Ultimately, as Motoki Yasuo observes, the Heiji Disturbance ended with “Kiyomori being the only winner.” 37 In 1158, the year following the H ōgen Disturbance, Go-Shirakawa Tenn ō had abdicated the throne in favor of his son, Nij ō. This abdication had been planned even before Go-Shirakawa’s enthronement; however, it did not mean that all of the political power promptly shifted to Nijō. As a retired tenn ō (In), Go-Shirakawa would retain power and influence through the reigns of the next five rulers, a situation that ended only with his death in 1192. 38 Nij ō, however, did not intend to just accept this situation, and he chafed against his father’s authority. The tension was exacerbated by the fact that Nij ō had a reputation as a “wise sovereign at the end of world,” 39 and made a good contrast with his father, who was regarded as something of an 37 Motoki Yasuo, “Insei to Buke Seiken no Seiritsu” [Insei (Governance by Retired Sovereigns) and the Formation of the Warrior Polity], in Uwayokote Masataka, Katsuyama Seiji, and Motoki Yasuo, Nihon no Ch ūsei 8: Insei to Heishi, Kamakura Seiken [Medieval Japan, V olume 8: Insei and the Taira, and the Kamakura Polity] (Tokyo: Ch ūō K ōronsha, 2002), 37-150. 38 In the Insei system, first instituted by Shirakawa Tenn ō in 1086, a sovereign stepped down from the throne but retained real power behind the scenes, complete with their own circle of followers and channels of authority. Once understood as a sign of desperation as the royal family began to go into decline, the system has more recently been understood as a sign of the confidence and stability of the royal family. For further details, see G. Cameron Hurst III, Insei: Abdicated Sovereigns in the Politics of Late Heian Japan, 1086-1185 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1976); Motoki Yasuo, “Insei to Buke Seiken no Seiritsu,” op.cit.; Mikawa Kei, Insei: M ō hitotsu no Tenn ō-sei [Insei: Another Tenn ō System] (Tokyo: Ch ūō K ōronsha, 2006); and Okano Tomohiko, Insei to ha Nan datta ka [What was Insei?] (Tokyo: PHP Kenky ūj ō, 2013). 39 Takahana Isao, trans., Imakagami, Chapter 3, section 122 (Tokyo: K ōdansha, 1984), V olume 1, 514-518. The passage means that Nij ō Tenn ō was a wise ruler during a degenerate age, an expression used to explicitly contrast his personality and style of rulership with that of his father, Go-Shirakawa, while suggesting that Nij ō was out of step with an era more typically characterized by people of his father’s disposition. The original expression runs 「末の世の賢王におはします」 (Sue no Yo no Keno ni ohashimasu). Here, “Sue no Yo” might be taken to imply mapp ō (the latter days of Buddhism when the wheel of dharma has slowed down, the Buddha’s teachings have become thoroughly distorted, and salvation through conventional Buddhist means is no longer attainable), but it was a broader term and its use in reference to an era of political decline or bad rulership was not uncommon. 79 idiot. 40 Within the court, several factions emerged, one of them being Nij ō’s, led by Kiyomori. The confusion and upheaval brought with it opportunities. This fortuitous situation, which in the course of the disturbance enabled Kiyomori to gain immense power, largely came about because Nij ō’s wet nurse had been Taira no Tokiko, Kiyomori’s primary wife. Having gained such power, the challenge now facing Kiyomori was to respond effectively to changing political tides. Subsequently, Nij ō Tenn ō passed away at the age of only 23 in the year 1165. Aware that the end was nigh, and unwilling to have his father, Go-Shirakawa, monopolize political power through his position as retired sovereign, Nij ō abdicated, turning the throne over to his 2-year old son Rokuj ō. He asked his trusted regent, Fujiwara no (Konoe) Motozane, to support the young ruler as his guardian. At first this bode well for Kiyomori’s position. He had already made a strong bond with Motozane by marrying off his daughter Moriko to him in 1164, as depicted in the following genealogy: 40 Fujiwara no Shinzei describes Go-Shirakawa as follows: “He is the stupidest sovereign, comparable [in this way] to very few sovereigns in both Japan and China. Although he is served by rebellious subjects, he is not aware of it at all. Even if someone makes him aware of this, he does not remember it. I have never seen nor heard of such a foolish sovereign, in the past or the present!” (Kuj ō Kanezane, Gyokuy ō, entry for the 16th of the 3rd month of 1184 (Tokyo: Kokusho Kank ōkai, 1906), 16. 80 Taira Family and the Fujiwara Regental Family Kanshi(完子) Taira no Kiyomori(平清盛)――Moriko(盛子) Fujiwara no Tadamichi(藤原忠通)―Konoe Motozane(近衛基実)―Motomichi(基通) ―Matsudono Motofusa(松殿基房)―Moroie(師家) ―Kuj ō Kanezane(九条兼実) However, Motozane himself passed away in 1166, only one year after Nij ō. This promptly put Kiyomori’s influence at risk. The death of Motozane looked like it would mean that Kiyomori would lose ties with the Regental Families as well as with the royal family all at once. However, Kiyomori quickly acted to take advantage of the situation while also managing to obtain the enormous estates of the regent’s family. He did so through drawing on good advice, effectively utilizing family links, and acting quickly – all these were essential ingredients for success in courtier society, as we shall see later in the story of the Saionji. When Motozane passed away at the age of 24, his senior wife Taira no Moriko was only 11 years old. Naturally, the Gukansh ō tells us, her father Kiyomori was extremely disappointed. 41 41 Jien, The Future and the Past: A Translation and Study of the Gukansh ō, an Interpretive History of Japan 81 The post of regent for young Rokuj ō Tenn ō passed to Motozane’s brother, Matsudono Motofusa, but the issue of the inheritance of the estates was still up in the air. The key figure who assisted Kiyomori in this situation was Fujiwara no Kunitsuna (1122-1181). Being a house manager of the regent’s family, Kunitsuna had access to inside information that turned out to be most valuable for Kiyomori. Kunitsuna advised Kiyomori to permit Motofusa to inherit only parts of estates that were directly attached to the post of regent, while leaving the remaining estates under the control of Moriko. This was possible because Moriko was the widow of Motozane and the acting adoptive mother of Motozane’s 7-year old son Motomichi (himself only four years younger than his adopted mother!). Kiyomori gladly accepted this advice, and quickly moved to send many family members or retainers to the administrative office of the Fujiwara regental family, seizing control of the estates in question as well as their associated family treasures. Fujiwara no Kunitsuna helped enable all this by becoming the guardian (as in, taking custody) of Moriko, who now found herself as the family head of the regent’s family. This strategy proved highly successful, but its somewhat underhanded character did not go without comment. When Moriko herself passed away on the 17th of the 6th month in 1179 at the age of 24 (the same age as her late husband Motozane had Written in 1219, trans. Delmer M. Brown and Ichir ō Ishida (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979), 120. Jien (1155-1225), a son of Fujiwara no Tadamichi, became the archbishop of the Tendai Sect of Buddhism. His Gukansh ō was a work approaching Japanese history through a religiously-inspired framework, tracing what he identified as the greater forces at work behind the unfolding of history. 82 been), Kuj ō Kanezane, hearing the news, wrote in his journal Gyokuy ō that people were saying Moriko’s death was a punishment from the Kasuga Deity for her having inherited the estates of the Fujiwara family despite coming from a different clan. 42 While all this was going on, the relationship between Go-Shirakawa and Kiyomori, which had previously not been particularly close, also changed. Taira no Shigeko (建春門院 Kenshunmon-in, 1142-1176; a sister of Kiyomori’s primary wife, Tokiko) had become Go-Shirakawa’s favorite consort. Now that his sister-in-law was directly connected to the retired sovereign, Kiyomori was securely in the latter’s immediate orbit, but when she gave birth to Prince Norihito in 1161 the connection was strengthened tremendously. Were the newborn prince to become sovereign, as was expected, this would make Kiyomori uncle of a sitting monarch. 42 Gyokuy ō, entry for the 18 day of the sixth month in 1179, 283-284. For more details on his inheritance incident, see Takahashi Fumihide, Heishi Seiken no Kenky ū [Studies on the Heike Polity] (Tokyo: Shibunkaku Shuppan, 1993); Takahashi Masaaki, Taira no Kiyomori: Fukuhara no Yume [Taira no Kiyomori: Dreams of Fukuhara] (Tokyo: K ōdansha, 2007); and Kawai Yasushi, Nihon Ch ūsei no Rekishi 3: Genpei no Nairan to K ōbu Seiken [Japanese Medieval History, Volume 3: The Internal Wars between the Minamoto and the Taira, and the K ōbu Polity] (Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 2009). 83 The Taira Family and the Royal Family Go-Shirakawa(後白河)―――Nij ō(二条) Takakura(高倉) Prince Tohikito(=Antoku:安徳) Kenshunmon-in Shigeko(建春門院滋子) Taira no Tokinobu(平時信)―Tokiko(時子) Tokushi(徳子) Taira no Kiyomori(平清盛) Moriko(盛子) Kiyomori’s continued rise was thus expected, and in the second month of 1167, still four years before Kintsune’s birth, Taira no Kiyomori became chancellor, that is, the monarch’s extraordinary premier minister. 43 But then exactly one year after the appointment, he renounced the world, even though he still exerted great influence over the court. We can see this in the case involving his daughter Tokushi entering the back palace of Takakura Tenn ō (that was, his nephew Prince Norihito) not long after the latter’s enthronement. Positioning a daughter in the back palace was a way to secure even more direct influence over the royal family by opening the possibility of a child, who, were they to become sovereign, would make Kiyomori the grandfather of the ruler. This tactic – engineering a series of relationships that would increasingly 43 “Chancellor” (daij ō daijin) was the highest post available in the ritsury ō system; however, it was considered merely an honorary or symbolic position without any real power. Kiyomori was appointed to the post in the second month, and only three months later, he retired from it. 84 bring the head of the family into closer and closer immediacy to the ruler – was one effective strategy among courtier families. It was a tactic that the Saionji would in later years thoroughly master. However, things did not go as well as Kiyomori had hoped. The friendly relationship between himself and Go-Shirakawa did not long endure. After the death of Kenshunmon-in, who was the person most strongly connecting them, in 1176 the conflict between the two men and their followers became worse; and in 1177, the Shishigatani plot occurred. The plot, named after the villa where the plan was hatched, was engineered by conspirators opposed to Kiyomori’s rule. Go-Shirakawa was not directly involved but was likely aware of the situation. Then the plot was revealed due to the betrayal of Tada Yukitsuna, and the ringleaders were severely punished with execution or exile. Any trust that had remained between Kiyomori and the retired sovereign evaporated. No attempt was made to tie Go-Shirakawa to the plot, but another later development opened a great gulf between him and Kiyomori. In the sixth month of 1179, the aforementioned Moriko (Kiyomori’s daughter who had become the regent Konoe Motozane’s wife) passed away. After her death, Go-Shirakawa confiscated her estates without any consultation with Kiyomori. This had the effect of undoing Kiyomori’s scheme described above, and it also poured salt in 85 Kiyomori’s wounds after he lost his daughter. Furthermore, Go-Shirakawa confiscated the proprietary province (chigyokoku) 44 of Shigemori (Kiyomori’s first son and heir) after Shigemori’s death just a month later. These moves against the Taira family on the part of Go-Shirakawa seriously annoyed Kiyomori. And then still one more issue truly fired the latter’s anger. At the time of Fujiwara no Motozane’s death at the age of 24, his son Motomichi (also the adopted son of Kiyomori’s daughter, Moriko, and presumed heir to the regency), was only 7 years old. This was why Motofusa, a half-brother of Motozane’s, was appointed regent as a temporary measure, and even if young Motomichi was considered the proper heir of the regent’s family. 45 This meant Kiyomori still enjoyed a strong link with the person held to be the legitimate regent. But, as time passed, it became evident that Go-Shirakawa had his own ideas. He appointed Fujiwara no (Matsudono) Motofusa’s son, Moroie, as provisional middle counselor, favoring the eight-year-old while overlooking Motomichi, who was by now nearly 20 years of age. This was no minor slight. The appointment clearly demonstrated that Go-Shirakawa was 44 As John W. Hall explained, “An entire province held in proprietorship by a ranking court noble or religious institution during the late Heian and Kamakura Periods. The province proprietor (kokushu) could appoint governors (kokushi) and other officials to the province and received income from the cultivated “public lands” (kokugary ō) in the province” (Hall, “Terms and Concepts in Japanese Medieval History: An Inquiry into the Problems of Translation,” Journal of Japanese Studies 9.1 (Winter 1983): 1-32; 23-24. 45 Kuj ō Kanezane referred to Motomichi as “a person who should inherit important family documents and estates,” and he considered Motomichi as the proper heir of the regental family (Gyokuy ō, entry for the 18th of the 6th month of 1179), 284. Although this was written in response to the opposition to Taira no Muneko who inherited the estates, his opinion about the heir is noteworthy nonetheless. 86 favoring Motofusa and his offspring as the head of the regent’s family instead of Motomichi. This infuriated Kiyomori, who had strongly backed Motomichi due to their relationship through Moriko. Were the situation to continue unchecked, all of Kiyomori’s efforts and considerable social capital invested in Motomichi would have been wasted. The retired sovereign was clearly seeking to sever the links between Kiyomori and the regental family, and this was not something that Kiyomori was willing to tolerate. Unable to put up with Go-Shirakawa any longer, Kiyomori came to Kyoto from Fukuhara, where he had retired, leading troops himself in the 11th month of 1179 to stage a coup d’etat. 46 It is important to understand why Kiyomori felt such drastic action was justified. Aside from the confiscation of the estates and the promotion of Moroie, one of the issues pointed out in the journals of contemporary courtiers (such as Gyokuy ō and Sankaiki) is the confiscation of Echizen Province, which Kiyomori’s son Shigemori had held for over a decade until his passing on the 28th of the seventh month of 1179. The Tale of the Heike, which summarizes Kiyomori’s motivations, also emphasizes the death of Shigemori as the trigger that pushed Kiyomori over the 46 For more on this series of events and Kiyomori’s coup, see Takahashi Masaaki, Taira no Kiyomori, op.cit.; Motoki Yasuo, Taira no Kiyomori no Tatakai [The Struggles of Taira no Kiyomori] (Tokyo: Kadokawa Shoten, 2011); Takahashi Fumihide, Heishi Seiken no Kenky ū, op.cit.; Kawai Yasushi, Nihon Ch ūsei no Rekishi 3, op.cit.; and Gomi Fumihiko, Taira no Kiyomori (Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 1999). On the use of the Heike as a historical source and related issues, see Uwayokote Masataka, Heike Monogatari no Kyoko to Shinjitsu [Fictions and Truth in the Tale of the Heike] (Tokyo: Hanawa Shob ō, 1985), 2 vols, esp. V olume 1; and David T. Bialock, Eccentric Spaces, Hidden Histories: Narrative, Ritual, and Royal Authority from the Chronicles of Japan to The Tale of the Heike (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2007). 87 edge and prompted his dramatic uprising against Go-Shirakawa. 47 The Heike, in other words, depicts a man who had given loyal service to his master only to see himself spurned and detested, and who was finally pushed over the edge by frustration and grief at the death of his son and the 47 “When J ōken went to Kiyomori’s Nishihachij ō residence, he was kept waiting from morning until evening with no explanation. Concluding that it would be useless to stay longer, he sent in the gist of the Retired Emperor’s message through Genday ū no Hangan Suesada and excused himself. Kiyomori emerged as he was leaving. “Summon the Dharma Seal,” he said. And when J ōken had been recalled, he addressed him in these words. “Come, now, Dharma Seal, tell me if I’m wrong. In the first place, I have been struggling to contain my grief over the death of Shigemori, which is also a matter of grave import to our family’s future. Please imagine how I feel. Since the H ōgen era, there has been one insurrection after another to disturb His Majesty, but in every case I have merely looked after things in a general way; it was Shigemori who involved himself personally and labored to restore the imperial equanimity. Nor can many Ministers of State have equaled his meritorious serviced at times of special ceremonial importance or in ordinary matters of administration. “Now, if we look at the past, we see that Tang Taizong, overcome with grief when Wei Zheng predeceased him, went so far as to erect a monument at the Minister’s shrine, on which he wrote in his own hand, ‘In antiquity, Yinzong discovered a good counselor while he dreamed; today, I awakened to find that I had lost a sage Minister.’ And in Japan there has been a very recent similar example. The later Retired Emperor Toba, deeply saddened by the death of Popular Affairs Minister Akiyori, postponed a pilgrimage to Yawata and refrained from holding musical entertainments. “All Emperors have lamented the deaths of subjects, which must be why we say of lord and man that one is to the other ‘dearer than a parent, closer than a child.’ And yet Retired Emperor Go-Shirakawa made a pilgrimage to Yawata and held musical entertainments while Shiemori was still in the intermediate existence. He showed no sign of grief. Even if he lacked sympathy for me in my misery, how could he have forgotten Shigemori’s faithful service? Or even if he had forgotten Shigemori’s faithful service, how could he have failed to sympathize with me in my grief? It is humiliating to me that father and son should both have lost His Majesty’s esteem. That is one thing. “Next, Shigemori received Echigo Province from his Majesty with the promise that it would be kept for his sons and grandsons, yet it was taken back as soon as he died. What kind of oversight was that? That is another thing. “Next, I gave strong support to Middle Captain Motomichi when he sought appointment to a vacant middle counselorship, but His Majesty turned a deaf ear to my recommendation and chose the Regent’s son instead. Why did he do that? Why shouldn’t he have done me one favor, even if my request was unreasonable – which it certainly was not? Motomichi was the heir of a great family, and he was clearly suitable by office and rank; yet the Retired Emperor turned around and picked someone else, an action I find most disappointing. That is another thing. “Next, the revolt plotted at Shishi-no-tani by Major Counselor Narichika and others was by no means a private plan; they would not have gone ahead without Retired Emperor Go-Shirakawa’s permission. I scarcely need point out that the Retired Emperor ought to have stood by the house of Taira even unto the seventh generation. Instead, he wants to destroy us even before I die – I an old man in his seventh decade with only a short time to live. Of course, my sons and grandsons can have no further hope of court service. “An aged father who loses his son is like a withered tree without limbs. It will do no good to exert myself in the little time remaining to me. I have decided to let matters take their own course.” (Helen Craig McCullough, trans., The Tale of the Heike (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1988), 121-122). 88 retired sovereign’s seeming lack of concern over this tragic event. 48 Seen alternatively from the point of view of courtier society as a whole, Kiyomori’s situation represented a courtier who had deployed his tools of authority effectively and invested heavily in building up the influence of his family, only to see it jeopardized. 49 Facing complete loss, Kiyomori resorted to drastic measures to protect his investments. As a result of Kiyomori’s coup in 1179, as many as 39 courtiers who were seen as anti-Taira – including Motofusa and his son Moroie – were dismissed. Go-Shirakawa was confined in his villa at Toba and completely prevented from taking part in politics. This altered the political situation significantly. Moreover only a few months later, in the 2nd month of 1180, Takakura Tenn ō abdicated in favor of his son Prince Tokihito, who was none other than Kiyomori’s grandson. Kiyomori’s old plans, which had been undone by Go-Shirakawa, now appeared to be back on track. He was back at the top of contemporary courtier society, with his grandson on the throne. Nonetheless, the drastic revolutionary actions he had relied on to make this possible made the legitimacy of his position tenuous at best. The political order may have been nominally headed by Retired Sovereign Takakura, but it was readily apparent that his rule 48 Although the Tale of the Heike is generally unkind to Kiyomori, he is described sympathetically here, and even the retired sovereign is depicted as aware that Kiyomori’s complaints were justified (McCullough, The Tale of the Heike, 122). 49 On a related note, for a consideration of the Tale of the Heike Taira as courtiers, see Paul Varley, “Warriors as Courtiers: The Taira in Heike monogatari,” in Amy Vladeck Heinrich, ed., Currents in Japanese Culture: Translations and Transformations (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), 53-70. 89 was basically a puppet government controlled by the Taira. The confinement of Go-Shirakawa and the Taira control over governance, meanwhile, invited huge opposition, and many rebellions began to break out, starting with a royal edict issued by Prince Mochihito in 1180. The situation of the Taira family became increasingly perilous as its enemies increased. Due to the death of Takakura in the first month of 1181, Go-Shirakawa began to take a leadership role in politics again. 50 Meanwhile, Kiyomori passed away not long afterwards, during the leap second month 51 of the same year. His death left a void that the surviving Heike leadership was unable to fill. Having lost the head of the family and become disorganized, Kiyomori’s Heike were totally defeated by the troops of Kiso Yoshinaka in 1183, and they decided to flee from the capital taking little Antoku Tenn ō with them. With the Taira in retreat, the court selected a new sovereign, Prince Takahira. 52 However, he needed to be enthroned without the three royal treasures, which the Heike had shown the foresight to retrieve and take with them when they fled. Only a small child at the time, the new sovereign, Go-Toba Tenn ō, 50 Starting from an analysis of the context of Buddhist rituals sponsored by the royal family, End ō Motoo argues that Go-Shirakawa’s taking up a leadership role in politics clearly reveals continuity with the past, and that in this regard, he was a successor to the politics pursued by Shirakawa and Toba. For more details, see End ō Motoo, Ch ūsei Ōken to Ōch ō Girei [Medieval Kingship and Court Rituals] (Tokyo: Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai, 2008), esp. 270-282. 51 閏 2月 ur ū nigatsu – the intercalary second month – inserted to enable the calendar to stay in sync with the seasons. 52 Takahira (Takanari) was the fourth prince fathered by Takakura. His mother Shokushi was a daughter of B ōmon Nobutaka. Nobutaka is considered to be the founder of the B ōmon family, descended from Fujiwara no Michitaka (Michinaga’s older brother) of the Northern Fujiwara family. The B ōmon gained prominence through their connections to retired sovereigns. 90 would soon make a name for himself. The Heike, meanwhile, faced destruction in the west after a series of final battles in 1184 and 1185. In the wake of the fall of Kiyomori’s Heike and their supporters in the capital, Go-Shirakawa continued to hold political power until his death in 1192. And with the establishment of the Kamakura Bakufu, an uneasy new system emerged that saw power divided between the west and the east of the archipelago. In the west, Kuj ō Kanezane took the leadership role in politics at the court, while in the east Minamoto no Yoritomo headed up the newly-established military government. The relationship did not start off in antagonistic fashion. Yoritomo valued the respect and authority of the court, and Kanezane was willing to fulfill Yoritomo’s wish to be appointed seii taish ōgun (barbarian-subduing generalissimo), 53 an honor which Go-Shirakawa had avoid bestowing. The early signs suggested that the relationship between the two centers, reflected in the relationship of these two figures, would develop nicely. However, before the Kuj ō, an ambitious courtier family in their own right, could entertain fantasies of dominating the new political arena, they were tripped up by back palace politics at Go-Toba’s court. The results would wreck the family’s short-term ambitions, and help facilitate 53 Originally a special term for military commanders heading expeditions against the emishi people during the early Heian Period, seii taish ōgun (shortened to “sh ōgun”) became the title given to the head of Japan’s three military governments from the medieval through early modern eras. 91 the rise of a young Saionji Kintsune, who was later to establish marital alliances with the family and draw considerable benefits from doing so. The crisis that set off this situation was due to various families struggling to maneuver their daughters into the back palace in an attempt to secure their position through a future grandson inheriting the throne. While this situation within courtier society was not unusual in itself, the unsteady new political order meant that securing influence over the royal family – which was assumed to retain a vial role whatever shape the developing polity took – took on added urgency. The following genealogy will help make sense of the situation: 92 Go-Toba and Those Around Him Konoe Motozane(近衛基実) Motomichi(基通) Yoshitsune(良経) Kuj ō Kanezane(九条兼実) Gishumon-in Ninshi(宜秋門院任子) Jien(慈円) Fujiwara no Kanefusa(藤原兼房) Shunkamon-in Shoshi(春華門院昇子) Go-Toba(後鳥羽) Tsuchimikado(土御門) Minamoto Hanshi(源範子) Shomeimon-in Zaishi(承明門院在子) Minamoto/Tsuchimikado Michichika(源/土御門通親) Minamoto Kaneko(源兼子) Ōimikado Yorizane(大炊御門頼実) Morotsune 師経 →indicates serving relations (from lower to higher) ……indicates adoption On one side of the struggle was Kuj ō Kanezane, and on the other was Minamoto no Michichika (1149-1202), a powerful rival who had been building his power and biding his time. When Minamoto no Yoritomo was planning to have his daughter Ōhime enter Go-Toba’s back palace, Yoritomo discussed the plan not with Kanezane, but with Michichika. The well-connected 93 Michichika was the husband of Go-Toba’s wet nurse, Minamoto no Hanshi. This posed a problem for the Kuj ō because Kanezane’s daughter, Kuj ō Ninshi (1173-1239), had already become Go-Toba’s Queen Consort. Ninshi had entered the back palace in the first month of 1190, upon the coming-of-age ceremony of Go-Toba, and she was promoted to the rank of Queen Consort in the fourth month of the same year. Given that this followed Fujiwara no Tadamichi – he was Kanezane’s father – having made his daughter Ikushi the Queen Consort of Nij ō Tenn ō, it is safe to assume that Kanezane had high hopes for Ninshi producing a prince. 54 Ninshi ill needed more rivals, especially any connected to her father’s enemy Michichika. The situation was worsened by the fact that Hanshi’s daughter Zaishi was also serving as a consort of Go-Toba. The situation was potentially explosive: Michichika was situating himself in a perfect position to challenge his rival Kanezane, but he needed to wait for the right opportunity. Michichika’s chance came towards the end of 1195. In the 8th month, Queen Consort Ninshi had given birth to Princess Sh ōshi, but in the 12th month, Zaishi gave birth to Prince Tamehito (later Tsuchimikado Tenn ō). Zaishi’s son offered Michichika the opportunity to be the matrilineal grandfather of the next sovereign, in addition to being the husband of the sitting 54 There are two theories concerning Ikushi’s parentage. The Sonpi Bunmyaku compendium of genealogies relates that she was a daughter of Tokudaiji Saneyoshi (1096-1157) and adopted by Tadamichi. On the other hand, the Sankaiki, Masukagami, and Gukansh ō all relate that she was in fact Tadamichi’s biological daughter. Given that the author of Gukansh ō, Jien, was a son of Tadamichi, it would stand to reason that his explanation is the more likely of the two. 94 sovereign’s wet nurse. Seizing that opportunity, Michichika formulated a plot with other anti-Kanezane figures to disgrace Kanezane and force him from the political stage. 55 The plot was a success, and as a result Queen Consort Ninshi found herself dismissed from the back palace on the 23rd of the 11th month in 1196. Her father Kanezane was discharged from his post as regent a mere two days later. Fujiwara no (Konoe) Motomichi took the place of his hated rival Kanezane as regent, and Ichij ō Takayoshi 56 (the son of Ichij ō Yoshiyasu and Yoritomo’s sister) was appointed sangi (an adviser on the Council of State). The Tendai Abbot Jien was ordered to live in seclusion, and Chancellor Fujiwara no Kanefusa was also dismissed, the two being full brothers of Kanezane. Minamoto no Michichika’s plot to cause the downfall of the Kuj ō family appeared to have ended in complete success. This dramatic change at the highest levels of the court had implications for Saionji Kintsune. Kintsune’s wife was a daughter of Ichij ō Yoshiyasu and Yoritomo’s sister; in other words, Ichij ō Takayoshi and Kintsune were brothers-in-law. His family connections having landed him on the winning side in this struggle at the court, Kintsune was appointed head of the Royal Secretariat (Kur ōdo no to). As he began to amass influence and work his way up to the top echelons of courtier society, he needed to be careful to avoid the fate that had befallen Kiyomori. 55 The other ringleader was Tango no Tsubone (Takashina no Eiko). She became Go-Shirakawa’s favorite consort later in his life. 56 Ichij ō Takayoshi died shortly thereafter in 1198, however, due to illness. 95 While Kiyomori’s spectacular rise and fall was one particularly dramatic narrative, it was not uncommon for families to rise, fall, and rise again on a more modest scale. Such a case is actually illustrated by the Kuj ō family. With Go-Toba’s abdication at the age of 19 in 1198, his son Tsuchimikado came to the throne, making Minamoto no Michichika matrilineal grandfather of a sovereign. However, Go-Toba, as the retired sovereign, remained the most powerful individual within the political realm of the court. When he decided to forgive the Kuj ō and invite Kanezane’s son Yoshitsune, who had been living in seclusion, back to the court, Michichika was unable to intervene. 57 Struggles between Michichika and Go-Toba lasted for several more years, but following the former’s death in 1202, Go-Toba was far and away the undisputed master of the court’s political arena. 58 Meanwhile, in the east Kamakura had also been experiencing significant political changes. After Yoritomo passed away in 1191, his oldest son — Yoriie — succeeded him as shogun, but this did not last long. A conflict developed between the H ōj ō family, which was the natal family of Masako, the wife of Yoritomo, as well as the mother of his sons Yoriie and Sanetomo, and the Hiki family, which was the family of Wakasa no Tsubone, Yoritomo’s wet nurse who had 57 Among the positions which Yoshitsune had held – those of inner minister and senior captain of the left — the latter was canceled at the time of the enthronement of Tsuchimikado, but there was no change in the status of the former one. Moreover, after he was allowed to return to court, he was appointed to the post of minister of the left in 1199. 58 Kintsune was one of the figures involved in anti-Michichika machinations towards the end of the latter’s life, which may have endeared the former to Go-Toba. 96 supported him from the start and who was also Yoriie’s wife. The conflict between the two families ended with the defeat of the Hiki in 1203. As a result, Yoriie was deposed from the position of shogun, 59 and his younger brother, Sanetomo, was selected to succeed him. It was in these circumstances that the real power in the bakufu was grasped by the H ōj ō family, who monopolized the post of shogunal regent (shikken), 60 thus leaving the actual shogun as more of a figurehead. This was the situation at the turn of the century when Saionji Kintsune set about cementing and expanding his family’s influence for generations to come. The Kamakura Shogunal Family and Relations Hiki Ama(比企尼) Hiki Yoshikazu(比企能員) Wakasa(若狭) Ichiman(一幡) Minamoto no Yoritomo(源頼朝) Yoriie(頼家) Kugy ō(公暁) H ōj ō Masako(北条政子) Sanetomo(実朝) H ōj ō Yoshitoki(北条義時) Yasutoki(泰時) B ōmon Nobukiyo(坊門信清) Daughter(信清女) Daughter(信清女) Shichij ō-in Shokushi(七条院殖子) Go-Toba(後鳥羽) 59 After being deposed, Yoriie was forced to renounce the world and go into confinement in Izu, but he was killed in the following year. The son of Yoriie who was born to Hiki Yorikazu’s daughter was also killed when the Hiki family fell, but Yoriie’s other children were saved. 60 Shikken was “A term for important managerial posts like the head of a mandokoro. Post of shogunal regent in the Kamakura bakufu, held by members of the H ōj ō house. He exercised power in behalf of the sh ōgun” (Hall, “Terms and Concepts,” 29, citing Mass’ glossary in Court and Bakufu). 97 Above, I have sketched out the political background behind the dawn of early medieval Japan that served as the backdrop to the Saionji rise to prominence. In particular, I drew attention to the important role played by Taira no Kiyomori in shaping this context. As an outstanding example of the dramatic rise and fall of a courtier family and its paragon, his case represents a clear predecessor for Kintsune and the Saionji family. Moreover I have introduced the tumultuous environment of courtier society at the dawn of the Kamakura age. Courtier families able to take advantage of changing political tides by skillfully deploying their tools of authority could rise to the very top of society, but the higher one climbed, the greater the threat posed by rivals and the higher the costs (in economic, cultural, and social capital) needed to maintain one’s position. Even enormous resources, however, did not necessarily guarantee success: an uncooperative monarch could undo strategies by refusing to play along and give courtiers their due, or throw a spanner in the works by, for example, bringing one’s enemies back from exile. Back palace politics, the ups and downs of court-bakufu relations, and plain luck also influenced this world. Finally, there was also a sense of impermanence lingering over a courtier family’s fortunes. A family on the rise needed to remember the Taira and the threat of an impending fall; while families going through hard times could take heart in the 98 fact that even disgrace was not permanent, and, as in the case of the Kuj ō, tomorrow could bring a chance to start anew. The Rise of the Saionji Family While Go-Toba chafed against the bakufu, there was still hope early on that the situation could be improved. Unsurprisingly, marriage and family linkages were seen as one way to ease the tension. In 1204, a daughter of B ōmon Nobukiyo (坊門信清, 1159-1216), who was a royal intimate of Go-Toba’s, went down to Kamakura to become the primary wife of the third shogun, Sanetomo. B ōmon Nobukiyo had a sister who was Go-Toba’s mother, while his other daughter (the older sister of Sanetomo’s wife) was serving as a consort of Go-Toba. This marriage, in short, made Go-Toba and Sanetomo brothers-in-law, and appeared to improve relations between the court in Kyoto and the bakufu in Kamakura at a stroke. Sanetomo’s devotion to poetry, which became apparent after his marriage, also seems to support this. 61 His anthology Kinkai Wakash ū contains a poem that runs, “Even if the world turns so chaotic / as mountains fall asunder / and oceans dry up / how should I be likely to hatch / a mind of betrayal to my Lord?” 62 Sanetomo’s respect for 61 The first poem by Sanetomo that we can confirm is dated the fourth month of 1205, which is four months after his marriage (Uwayokote, “Go-Toba Insei to Bakufu,” in Uwayokote et al., Nihon no Ch ūsei 8, op. cit., 198). 62 Ogawa Kiyoko, “Sanetomo as a Poet in Absolute Solitude: In Search of Contemporary Meanings,” <http://www.revistaair.net/ciele4kiyoko.htm> (accessed 4 Sep., 2011). The original is: 「山は裂け海はあせなん世なりともきみに二心わがあらめやも」 99 court culture and the norms of courtier society could have gone a long way towards stabilizing the uneasy situation. Unfortunately, the apparently peaceful relations between the two sides of the dual-centered polity encouraged by having Sanetomo as shogun did not last for long. As the situation gradually degenerated, worsened by demands from the court that impinged on bakufu profits or authority such as the discharge of provincial constables (shugo) or military stewards (jit ō), 63 an incident occurred in 1217 that aroused Go-Toba’s anger. It was caused by none other than Saionji Kintsune. Kintsune had hoped to be appointed a senior captain of the inner palace guard, something with which Go-Toba had initially agreed. However, it was not only Kintsune who wished to gain the position. The husband of Go-Toba’s famous wet-nurse Fujiwara no Kaneko (藤原兼子, 1155-1229), Ōimikado Yorizane (大炊御門頼実, 1155-1225), also wished to have his own adopted son Morotsune appointed to that position. Yorizane began drumming up support for the appointment. Although ultimately neither contender ended up with the position, Kintsune took the setback personally, believing that Go-Toba had broken his promise. 63 As Hall, drawing on the work of Mass, explains, a shugo was “In the Kamakura period, a province-level “constable” appointed by the bakufu who acted as liaison officer between the bakufu and its provincial vassals, and held primary responsibility for the suppression of local rebellions and major crimes,” and a jit ō was a “Warrior overseer appointed by the Kamakura bakufu to collect sheen taxes and supervise local police duties. The most important local figure during the Kamakura period…” (“Terms and Concepts in Japanese Medieval History,” 30 and 25 respectively). 100 According to the Gukanshō, Kintsune said, In that case, I will become a lay priest in some out-of-the-way place. People in this physical world – high or low – are concerned about their wives and children, and since I have ties [through my wife] with Sanetomo, I will simply send my family to Kamakura and prolong their lives. 64 Kintsune’s brash words incurred the wrath of Go-Toba, who had Kintsune confined. After learning of Kintsune’s predicament, Sanetomo became convinced that the entire situation was due to Fujiwara no Kaneko’s instigation, and he gave her a strongly-worded warning. 65 Kaneko’s intervention managed to rescue Kintsune from confinement, but the incident not only worsened relations between Kintsune and Go-Toba but also between Go-Toba and Sanetomo. 66 In spite of this, Sanetomo continued to be promoted, reaching the high post of minister of the right in the 12th month of 1218. But then, at the ceremony celebrating this promotion at Tsurugaoka Hachiman Shrine in the first month of the following year, Sanetomo was assassinated 64 Jien, Gukansh ō, 187. Jien was a son of Fujiwara no Tadamichi, and was also Kuj ō Michiie’s uncle. 65 Ibid., 188. The text runs as follows: “Minamoto Sanetomo eventually heard about these developments [Kintsune’s confinement] and was greatly surprised. His thoughts ran like this: Because Kintsune has close family relations with me, he has – at a time of trouble – entrusted his own wife and children to me, apparently saying to his family that he only wanted them to stay alive. And because of this, he was immediately subjected to imperial censure. My father-in-law Nobukiyo has been my liaison officer with the Retired Emperor for years, but Senior Counselor Kintsune’s reports to me have also been reliable. There is no reason why he should now be placed under house arrest. Becoming thoroughly convinced that [Yorizane’s wife], Lady Second Rank, had turned against him, Sanetomo sent word to the capital that her part in this [action against Kintsune] was regrettable. Lady Second Rank was surprised and upset. She therefore asked that the Retired Emperor pardon Kintsune, and her request was granted on the 18th day of the 2nd month of 1218” (parentheses by Brown and Ishida). 66 Kintsune eventually received the position in 1219, according to Jien’s Gukansh ō, 194-195. Brown and Ishida do an excellent job summarizing Kintsune’s key relations and his significant influence at court (195-196, fn.69), although they do not seem to clearly understand why Kintsune kept the bakufu informed of Go-Toba’s actions, when we know this was simply part of his duty as liaison. 101 by his nephew Kugy ō (公暁), Yoriie’s son. 67 Since Sanetomo did not have a son to succeed him, with his death the Minamoto family’s control over the position of shogun was terminated. This left a precarious situation. Various candidates to succeed Sanetomo were quickly crossed out for various reasons. H ōj ō Masako herself attempted to bring one of Go-Toba’s princes down to Kamakura to be the next shogun, but the plan failed because of strong opposition from Go-Toba. Eventually, it was decided that a son of Minister of the Left Kuj ō Michiie (九条道家, of the restored Kuj ō family), Fujiwara no Mitora, would move to Kamakura to be the next shogun. As the Masukagami relates, いまだ子もなければたち継ぐべき人もなし。事しづまりなん程とて、故大臣の母北の方二位殿といふ人。二人の子をも失ひて、涙ほすまもなく、しをれ過ぐすをぞ将軍に用ゐける。かくてもさのみはいかがみて、「公達一ところ下し聞えて将軍になし奉らせ給へ」と公経の大臣に申しのぼせければ、「あへなん」と思す所に、九条右大臣殿の上はこの大臣の御女なり。その御腹の若君の二つになり給ふを下し聞えんと、九条殿のたまへば、御孫ならんも同じ事と思し定め給ひぬ。 68 Sanetomo left no children, so there was nobody to succeed him. As a temporary measure until things quieted down, the shogunal responsibilities were delegated to his mother, Lady Masako – she who had had no time even to dry her tears, and who spent every day despairing over the loss of both her sons. Because it would hardly have done to leave matters in such a state, a messenger was dispatched to Minister of State Kintsune, asking him to send one of his sons to Kamakura to serve as shogun. Kintsune was about to acquiesce when his son-in-law, Kuj ō Minister of the Right Michiie, suggested his own two-year-old son, Yoriie, instead. 67 The Appendix contains a genealogy depicting the shogunal succession. 68 Masukagami, op.cit., 270-271. 102 Kintsune thought that it would be just as desirable to have a grandson in the office as a son, so he agreed. 69 As indicated, this development was particularly significant for the Saionji family because Mitora was the son of Kintsune’s daughter, Rinshi. The influence Kintsune stood to gain by being directly linked to the Kamakura shogun was considerable. The choice did not, however, meet with universal acclaim. Although Go-Toba did not show the same degree of opposition to Mitora as he did with previous candidates, he was not pleased with the decision. The priest Jien, author of the aforementioned Gukanshō, wrote in a letter to Kintsune that “To tell the truth, the Retired Sovereign Go-Toba is extremely upset at this outcome. He is not fully behind Mitora’s heading down to Kamakura. He believes that it was plotted by people like Kintsune, and it is unsatisfactory that he [Go-Toba] cannot control the warriors as he wishes.” 70 Generally, it is understood that Mitora was chosen as the next shogun due to his having been a distant relative of the first shogun Yoritomo, but we cannot neglect the fact that Mitora was an matrilineal grandson of Saionji Kintsune. In fact, Mitora’s heading down to Kamakura only became possible due to Kintsune’s efforts. 71 69 Perkins, op.cit., 50. 70 Jien, letter to Kintsune, in Taga Munehaya, ed., Jien Zensh ū (Tokyo: Shichij ō Shoin, 1927), 881-886; 883. 71 Mitora’s having been a distant relation of Yoritomo played an important role in his being chosen as a candidate to succeed to the position of shogun. However, given the fact that the first candidate was a prince of Go-Toba’s who had no blood relations with the Minamoto, it is unlikely that the bakufu, which was mainly run by the H ōj ō family, required a blood tie with the Minamoto as a fixed requirement for the next shogun, who was expected to function as a figurehead. Such a blood relation did, however, work in favor of the Kujō family and Saionji Kintsune, who pushed Mitora in order to make a strong tie with the bakufu. 103 Go-Toba’s resentment shortly manifested itself in militaristic form. Before Mitora’s procession had even arrived at Kamakura, Go-Toba sent his troops to subjugate Minamoto no Yorishige (aka Yorimochi, 源頼茂, ??-1219), who was the ōuchi shugo (royal protector of the Inner Palace). 72 Regarding the reason for this act, Uwayokote states that “it can be understood as Go-Toba [making a] threatening demonstration toward the bakufu, to [express] his wrath at [things like] having been forced to accept Mitora going to Kamakura,” although he also adds that “the real reason is unclear.” 73 It was a sign of things to come. In the 4th month of 1221, Juntoku Tenn ō (1197-1242, r. 1210-1221), who had taken the throne a mere three years earlier, abdicated in favor of his son, Kanenari. 74 But Go-Toba’s hostile plans continued unabated. On the fifteenth of the fifth month, Go-Toba issued an order to all of the provinces to subjugate H ōj ō Yoshitoki (北条義時, 1183-1242), the bakufu regent. This amounted to a declaration of war on the bakufu, and the J ōkyū War began, but it was ended within a month. At the start of the conflict the advantage seemed to lie with Go-Toba’s side, which moved quickly to detain Saionji Kintsune and his son Saneuji because of their closeness to 72 This post, responsible for guarding the inner palace of the greater palace precincts, is of unclear origins. The first example of someone with this title is Minamoto no Yorimitsu (aka Raiko), in the Sonpi Bunmyaku. The post appears to have been subsequently passed down to his descendants as a hereditary position. 73 Uwayokote, “Go-Toba Insei to Bakufu,” op.cit., 206. 74 Since Prince Kanenari did not have a proper enthronement ceremony, for a long time he was not considered to have been in the order of succession, and he was referred to as a “dethroned sovereign” or “half-sovereign.” It was only in 1870 that he came to be counted in the line of sovereigns. His reign name as a sovereign – Ch ūky ō — was given to him at that time. 104 the bakufu, and to subjugate Iga Mitsusue (伊賀光季, ?- 1221), H ōj ō Yoshitoki’s brother-in-law, who had been staying in Kyoto to protect the city. 75 However this impressive beginning was undermined somewhat by Kintsune, who managed just before his capture to warn Kamakura via his house manager, Miyoshi Nagahira (三善長衡, 1168-1244). 76 The court troops, despite their strong start, continually lost battles, with their ultimate defeat becoming apparent when bakufu forces entered the capital on the 15th day of the sixth month. Go-Toba’s attempt to radically undo the dual-centered polity by wiping out the bakufu had failed. And it was none other than Saionji house manager Miyoshi Nagahira who welcomed the victorious bakufu forces led by H ōj ō Yoshitoki to Kyoto. The bakufu’s punishment for the ringleaders behind the conflict was more severe than expected. Go-Toba was exiled to Oki Island after renouncing the world, while his son Juntoku was exiled to Sado Island. Tsuchimikado, who was also a son of Go-Toba’s, was not supposed to 75 The retired sovereign had already had reason to question Kintsune’s loyalty, given that Kintsune was one of the few people in the capital who had refused to cooperate with the disastrous plan. As the Masukagami states, 都にも思しまうけつることなれば、武士ども召しつどへ、宇治・勢多の橋をひかせて、敵を防ぐべき用意、心ことなり。公経の大将ひとりのみなん、御孫のこともさることにて、北の方は一条中納言能保といふ人の女なり。その母北の方は故大将のはらからなれば、一方ならず東を重く思してさしいらへもせず、「院の御心の軽き事」と危ながり給ふ。(273). In the capital, the shogunate’s actions had been anticipated. Retired Emperor Go-Toba had mobilized warriors, destroyed the bridges at Uji and Seta, and taken other extraordinary precautions again the approach of enemy forces. The only person who failed to answer his call was Kintsune, a man who held the shogunate in high esteem because his grandson was the shogun, and also because his wife was a daughter of Ichij ō Major Counselor Yoshiyasu and because his wife’s mother, Yoshiyasu’s wife, was Yoritomo’s sister. Kintsune considered the imperial plans ill-advised and dangerous (Perkins, 52). 76 The details of this incident and the relationship between the Saionji and the Miyoshi are touched on in Chapter 5. 105 be exiled since he had not supported the insurrection, but he willingly chose to be sent into exile himself. 77 Juntoku’s son, Prince Kanenari – who had barely ascended the throne before the conflict began — was dethroned after ruling for only eighty days. With all the retired sovereigns in exile and the sovereign dethroned, the court was left leaderless. The vital question of the day became, who was to lead the court now? The bakufu had their eyes on Prince Morisada, an older brother of Go-Toba. He was free of the taint of involvement in the J ōkyū War. The bakufu had Morisada’s son Yutahito enthroned as Go-Horikawa Tenn ō, and it had Morisada govern as a retired sovereign, despite the latter’s never having occupied the throne himself. 78 Morisada’s wife was none other than Kintsune’s aunt; and her marriage, previously but a minor investment of social capital on the part of the Saionji, suddenly offered an enormous return: namely, the influence that a retired sovereign could wield. The following genealogy helps visualize the situation: 77 Tsuchimikado initially went into exile on Tosa, and later on moved to Awa. 78 Prince Morisada was the second son of Takakura Tenn ō, and shared the same mother as Go-Toba. When the Taira family left the capital in 1183 with the sitting sovereign Antoku, Morisada accompanied them as a potential crown prince. Antoku died at Dannoura Bay in the 3rd month of 1185, but Morisada returned to the capital safely. After returning to the capital, he became an adopted son of Josaimon-in who was a sister of Retired Sovereign Go-Shirakawa (Morisada’s grandfather: Go-Shirakawa and Josaimon-in shared the same mother), and was given the title of royal prince. In 1191, he had his coming-of-age ceremony at the age of 13, but he did not go on to be fortunate at court, partially because his strongest patron Go-Shirakawa passed away only as year after his ceremony. He renounced the world in the 3rd month of 1212 at the age of 34. 106 The Court after the J ōky ū War Go-Shirakawa(後白河)―Takakura(高倉) Go-Toba(後鳥羽) Tsuchimikado Shichijo-in Shokushi Juntoku(順徳) Prince Kanenari (七条院殖子) (懐成親王) J ōsaimon-in Muneko (上西門院統子) Prince Morisada (守貞親王) Go-Horikawa(後堀河) Shij ō(四条) Kitashirakawa-in Nobuko(北白河院陳子) Jimy ōin Motoie’s Daughter(持明院基家女) Saionji Kintsune(西園寺公経) Sanemune(実宗) After the J ōkyū War, Saionji Kintsune gained more influence over the court. He was appointed chancellor in 1222, but the expansion of his influence was hardly limited to that; in fact he stepped down from the position in the following year. 79 As both the matrilineal grandfather of the new shogun Yoritsune (Mitora) and the bakufu’s trusted courtier who remained well-connected at court, his importance stood out in both capitals. Hayashiya writes that, 79 As mentioned earlier, by this time the position of chancellor was more of a formality than a source of real power. Kintsune being appointed to the post and abandoning it after but a short duration also reminds us of Taira no Kiyomori. 107 Since Saionji Kintsune was appointed as the liason, this house – the Saionji – had been in close contact with the Kamakura side. Especially around the time of Sanekane, who was a grandson of Kintsune’s, the power of the Saionji became overwhelmingly influential in both Kyoto and Kamakura: even the decision of the bakufu concerning the succession of sovereigns largely depended on Sanekane’s opinion. 80 Hayashiya’s perspective is that the Saionji gained immense power over politics on both sides of the dual-centered polity because of their monopolization of the post of liason – the aforementioned Kant ō M ōshitsugi. The Kant ō M ōshitsugi, as an official channel for communication and negotiation between court and bakufu, played an important role in the dual-centered polity system. However, there is some debate over when the position came into being, depending on whether one begins with the institutionalization of the role or with those performing it. This warrants a brief explanation. For example, the Y ōk ōki relates: 自関東時頼使｛安藤左衛門光成｝上洛、関東申次可為相国之由、是定云々 (寛元4年10月13日) 81 The messenger from [H ōj ō] Tokiyori came up to the capital from the east. He said that the Kant ō M ōshitsugi should be the prime minister [Saionji Saneuji], and it has been [so] decided. (13th Day of the Tenth Month in 1246) 80 Hayashiya Tatsusabur ō, Nairan no Naka no Kizoku: Nanbokuch ō to ‘Entairyaku’ no Sekai [Courtiers in the Civil Wars: The World through the Entairyaku [the Journal of Toin Kinkata] during the Time of the Southern and Northern Courts] (Tokyo: Kadokawa Shoten, 1991), 19-20. 81 Y ōk ōki (Tokyo: Yagi Shoten, 2004). The Y ōk ōki is the journal of Hamur ō Sadatsugu (1208-1272), a courtier of the early thirteenth century. The name of the work (葉黄記) is attributed to a combination of his family name (reading the “ha” in Hamur ō as “y ō”) and the Chinese name for his post, which was middle counselor (middle counselors being “黄門 k ōmon” in Chinese, meaning “yellow gate”). Aside from its coverage for the two-year period from 1246 to 1248, the work only survives in fragmentary condition, but it is significant because it covers court rituals and the political situation at the time. Hamur ō was close to the retired sovereign Go-Saga, about whom he wrote a considerable amount, making the work important for those researching Go-Saga’s rule. More generally, as a source written by a contemporary courtier, the work is an important historical source for understanding court society during his time. 108 Here we can tell that Saionji Kintsune’s son Saneuji was officially appointed as Kant ō M ōshitsugi in late 1246; however, prior to Saneuji, there was no one officially appointed to the position. Historian Yamamoto Hiroya argues that by appointing Saneuji to the position, “we could say that the bakufu established the Kant ō M ōshitsugi [as a] new system.” 82 Here, Yamamoto is not arguing that Saneuji was the first Kant ō M ōshitsugi; rather, he means that Saneuji’s appointment was a turning point because with it, the position became institutionalized. Previously there had been several individuals who served “Kant ō M ōshitsugi” roles without being officially recognized with the term. As Mori Shigeaki has pointed out, for the development of the bakufu, which was established far away from Kyoto, it was unavoidable to have mediators with the court. For the court as well, it was important to have a solid pipeline of communication with the bakufu. In such a political situation, having people take on the role of negotiating and communicating between the court and the bakufu was an expected development. 83 These people included Yoshida Tsunefusa (吉田経房, 1142-1200), B ōmon Nobukiyo (坊門信清, 1159-1216), and Saionji Kintsune. Yoshida Tsunefusa was described as an “exceptionally close friend” (膠漆御知音, k ōshitsu go-chiin) of Minamoto no Yoritomo’s, 84 while both B ōmon Nobukiyo and Kintsune enjoyed close relations with the bakufu as a result of marriage strategies. 85 From the start, one of the prime qualifications for the liaison post was a strong 82 Yamamoto Hiroya, “Kant ō M ōshitsugi to Kamakura Bakufu” [The Kant ō M ōshitsugi and the Kamakura Bakufu] Shigaku Zassshi 8618 (1977): 1145-1182; 1158. 83 Mori, op.cit., 29. 84 Ibid., 8. 85 B ōmon Nobukiyo arranged for one of his daughters to become a consort of Go-Toba, and for another to 109 connection with the bakufu. As Mori argues, quite simply “this role could not be performed by someone who had no connection with the bakufu.” 86 It is not clear precisely how and when Saionji Kintsune came to mediate between the court and the bakufu. Yamamoto Hiroya lists six specific cases which involved Kintsune as a mediator, from 1213 onward. 87 Since that time, Kintsune’s service as “a window of political negotiation between the court and the bakufu” is cited several times. 88 Following his son’s later service in the same role, the post of Kant ō M ōshitsugi became monopolized by the Saionji family. The view that the family’s influence was primarily due to this monopolization of the liaison post remains widespread. 89 But Hong ō Kazuto has argued that the retired sovereigns and regents acted as decision makers in the negotiation process, and that the role of the Saionji head as a liason was therefore only relative. 90 On the other hand, it is also clear that the Saionji did not depend entirely upon the position of liaison for their power. Rather this was but one component become Minamoto no Sanetomo’s wife. From the bakufu’s perspective, Nobukiyo was father-in-law to the third shogun, and stood in an excellent position to connect Sanetomo and Go-Toba. As for Kintsune, as already mentioned his wife was a daughter of Ichij ō Yoshiyasu and a niece of Yoritomo, and Kintsune’s grandson Mitora became shogun in 1219. Moreover, his aunt Nobuko was a consort of Go-Toba’s elder brother Go-Takakura. These relations and their significance as social capital are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 4. 86 Mori, op.cit., 29. 87 Yamamoto, op.cit., 1150. In the first case, involving an extraordinary amount of dues levied on one of the bakufu’s holdings in western Japan, Sanetomo requested that the court notify the bakufu of such matters in advance through Kintsune. 88 Ibid. 89 Indeed, the fact that the Saionji are one of the few courtier families to appear in conventional warrior-focused narratives of medieval Japan is largely due to their role in court-bakufu relations. 90 Hong ō Kazuto, “Saionji-shi Saiko,” [Rethinking the History of the Saionji], Nihon Rekishi 633 (2001): 27-43. 110 of a series of strategies aimed at cementing and expanding the family’s status. The influence that the Saionji family gained through the liaison post therefore needs to be seen in the context of courtier culture and the interwoven strategies that families deployed to secure their status through various means – indeed demonstrating such is the focus of this project. A new crisis presented itself to the courtier families when a tragic event prompted a subsequent and unexpected succession dispute. On the 9th of the first month in 1242, Shij ō Tenn ō, who had ascended the throne in 1232, passed away suddenly at the age of 12, following an accident in which he fell down in the corridors of the palace. The line of royal succession, which in the wake of the J ōkyū War had continued from Prince Morisada (Retired Sovereign Go-Takakura) through Go-Horikawa and Shij ō, was thus terminated since the young sovereign had no offspring. There were two candidates for the throne: one was Prince Kunihito, the son of Tsuchimikado, and the other was Prince Tadanari, the son of Juntoku. Both princes were grandsons of Go-Toba. Saionji Kintsune and Kuj ō Michiie – now the persons of most influence in the court – supported Prince Tadanari for the succession. Tadanari was Michiie’s nephew, so if he succeeded to the throne, Michiie would have been able to maintain the position of matrilineal family to the royal family. The same logic explains Saionji Kintsune’s position, since Michiie 111 was his son-in-law. Since the general consensus at court favored Tadanari, it seemed a settled matter. But the bakufu was afraid that the enthronement of Prince Tadanari might lead to the return from exile of his father Juntoku, and opposed the idea. They backed Kunihito instead, since his father Tsuchimikado had not been directly involved in the J ōkyū War. 91 Thus Kunihito was put on the throne and became Go-Saga Tenn ō. The following genealogy clarifies the situation: 91 The Masukagami skips most of the political background but does stress the importance of the bakufu in the succession decision and the gravitas attached to the arrival of the messenger from the bakufu conveying this decision: “People whispered that this unbroken series of tragic events might well have been caused by the angry spirits of those who had died on distant islands, their souls unpurged of repressed bitterness. It was also being said that Emperor Shij ō’s illness had not arisen from natural causes: no, he had injured himself in a juvenile prank. Since he had left neither sons nor brothers, people had no idea who might succeed him. The situation could not be allowed to rest: Kamakura would have to be informed. The shogun, Michiie’s son, was a major counselor at the time. His regent was H ōj ō Yasutoki, the warrior who had come to the capital in the J ōky ū era. Yasutoki was relaxing with Tokifusa, drinking and watching an archery contest, when someone announced the arrival of an urgent message from the capital. In surprise, he summoned the messenger and learned the startling facts. It was not a matter to be neglected: he began religious rituals the moment he left his seat. Later, he drew lots at the Tsurugaoka Hachiman Shrine. Meanwhile in the capital, groundless rumors flew as people backed one favorite or another. Upon hearing that the succession might go to one of Retired Emperor Juntoku’s sons, Shumeimon-in secretly undertook appropriate preparations, her heart racing. Sh ōmeimon-in offered hopeful prayers of her own. It isn’t surprising that on the day when the messenger from the east was expected to enter the city, each of those imperial ladies sent someone to Shirakawa to see which way he would go. Of course, they would soon have known anyway, but people always act like that when they’re anxious” (Perkins, 69). 112 The Saionji and the Court Higashi Ichij ō-in Ritsushi(東一条院立子) Go-Toba(後鳥羽) Juntoku(順徳) Prince Tadanari(忠成) Tsuchimikado(土御門) Go-Saga(後嵯峨) Minamoto no Tsushi (源通子) Prince Morisada(守貞親王) Go-Horikawa(後堀河) Shij ō(四条) Kitashirakawa-in Nobuko (北白河院陳子) Kuj ō Michiie(九条道家) S ōhekimon-in (藻壁門院) Saionji Kintsune(西園寺公経)―Rinshi(綸子) Saneuji(実氏) Ōmiya-in Kitsushi (大宮院) Go-Fukakusa(後深草): Originator of the Senior Line Kameyama(亀山): Originator of the Junior Line Being on the losing side in a succession dispute could have been disastrous for many courtiers, but Saionji Kintsune had not survived and built his family’s influence to great heights by passively accepting defeat. Instead, in typical fashion he moved to immediately respond to the 113 new situation. He presented a set of official clothing, originally prepared for Tadanari, to Go-Saga, whose coming-of-age ceremony occurred just prior to his enthronement. Moreover, with Go-Saga’s enthronement, Kintsune gained the opportunity to be part of the matrilineal side of the royal family. That was because in the sixth month of that same year, his granddaughter Kitsushi entered Go-Saga’s back palace, and she was promoted to Queen Consort shortly thereafter, in the eighth month. 92 In the sixth month of 1243, she gave birth to Prince Hisahito, who became crown prince in the eighth month, only two months after his birth. He was later to become Go-Fukakusa Tenn ō, making Saionji Kintsune great-grandfather to the sitting monarch. Kintsune had, in other words, made the best of a bad situation and still come out ahead. The common theme underlying his strategies was an ability to plan ahead for many eventualities, coupled with the ability to quickly respond to changing circumstances. This enabled him to survive and prosper through numerous crises. One more prince was born to Go-Saga and Kitsushi, and he later became Kameyama Tenn ō. Considering that the history of two rival royal lines (Daikakuji/Junior and Jimyōin/Senior, between which the throne alternated for a time following Go-Saga’s reign) began from these brothers, it might be said that the Saionji were involved in the origins of the Era of the Southern 92 As I will discuss in Chapter 4, not only Kitsushi ( Ōmiya-in) but also many Saionji women contributed to expanding and securing the family information network, which was valuable because it could obtain and circulate information relevant to, for example, political disputes or the status of rival families’ domestic affairs. 114 and Northern Courts. 93 In the wake of Go-Daigo Tenn ō’s defeat of the Kamakura Bakufu in 1333, disputes between the sovereign and the powerful new hegemon Ashikaga Takauji led to the court splitting into two camps – one in the south loyal to Go-Daig ō Tenn ō and one in the north backed up by the new Muromachi Bakufu led by the Ashikaga family. 94 Although by the high medieval era the Saionji family had lost much of its influence, it remained a significant force in courtier society long after Kintsune’s time and was briefly restored to broader prominence in the modern era. Conclusion The late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries were times of great turbulence and upheaval in Japan. Tension developed both within the court itself and between the court and the newly-established military government in Kamakura. As the political climate shifted under the pressures of war and the emergence of the dual-centered polity, shockwaves rippled through 93 The Jinn ō Sh ōt ōki highly evaluates the importance of Saionji Kitsushi regarding the royal succession. After the passing of Go-Saga, Go-Fukakusa and Kameyama were competing over power. Confused, the bakufu sought the opinion of Kitsushi, the mother of the feuding brothers, concerning who should take the throne. Since she answered that the late Go-Saga favored Kameyama as his successor, it was decided that Kameyama would succeed to the throne (Kitabatake Chikafusa, A Chronicle of Gods and Sovereigns: Jinn ō Sh ōt ōki of Kitabatake Chikafusa, trans. H. Paul Varley (New York: Columbia University Press, 1980), 232). However, some Japanese scholars question the explanation given in the Jinn ō Sh ōt ōki, and argue that it was expected that Kameyama would succeed to the throne since only a lineal ascendant was qualified to rule as a retired sovereign. See, for example, Kond ō Shigekazu, Nihon no Jidaishi 9: Mongol no Shurai [A History of Japan, V olume 9: The Mongol Invasions] (Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 2003), 73-74. 94 For more on this era in English, and especially Go-Daig ō’s reign, see Andrew Goble, Kenmu: Go-Daigo’s Revolution (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997). 115 courtier society that facilitated the rapid rise, and the dramatic fall, of families, often within a generation or two. Kiyomori and the Taira family represent the most spectacular example of this phenomenon, although the experience of the Kuj ō family was closer to normative. It was in this environment – of turbulent change, crisis, and also opportunity – that Saionji Kintsune set about assembling and deploying his tools of authority to amass influence for his family for generations to come. The reaction of Saionji Kintsune’s contemporaries to his life and death, as mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, reflected the passing of a powerful figure who had succeeded as a courtier while mastering the new political landscape of the dual-centered polity to advance his family’s status to great heights. 116 Chapter 2: The Economic and Spatial Power of the Saionji Introduction On the second day of the twelfth month in 1224, Saionji Kintsune held a great banquet to celebrate the completion of the massive villa that he had constructed in Kitayama. The banquet was attended by many luminaries, such as Kitashirakawa-in Chinshi (北白河院陳子) and her daughter Ankamon-in Kuniko. 1 They were treated to an amazing sight, for Kintsune had transformed what had been just countryside into a site of luxurious splendour. Even by the standards of the time, Saionji Kintsune’s Kitayama villa was impressive. Located high in the hills overlooking the capital, the villa consisted of a series of halls replete with beautiful images and pictures of Buddhist themes. It was the surroundings, however, that truly awed his fellow courtiers: the villa was situated in the middle of an elegant park, complete with waterfalls and a giant artificial lake. Moreover, the luxurious villa and exquisitely landscaped surroundings, by virtue of their location, represented an expression in physical space of Saionji influence and prestige. It towered above the rest of the capital like the refuge of an 1 Fujiwara no Teika, Meigetsuki, on the 2nd day of the twelfth month, in 1220, in Dai Nihon Shiry ō, V olume 5, Section 2 (Tokyo: Tokyo University Historiographical Institute, 1922), 445. Kitashirakawa-in Chinshi (1173-1238) was a queen consort of the retired sovereign Go-Takakura, as well as the mother of Go-Horikawa Tenn ō. She received the title of Nyoin in the 7th month of 1222. Her father was Jimy ōin Motoie, a provisional middle counselor of the second rank, and her mother was a daughter of Taira no Yorimori. She is discussed further in Chapter 4. Ankamon-in Kuniko (安嘉門院邦子, 1209-1283) was the third daughter of the retired sovereign Go-Takakura. She was given the rank of royal princess of the blood four months after her brother Go-Horikawa was enthroned in the wake of the J ōky ū Rebellion of 1221. One month later she also gained the position of queen consort, as the acting mother (准母) of the tenn ō. She also inherited the majority of the Hachij ō-in estate cluster. 117 immortal. Nor was this the family’s only villa: additional residences and retreats dotted the landscape. To say that Kintsune lived a luxurious life at such residences would be a gross understatement. For instance, at his Suita 2 villa Kintsune, eager to enjoy the restorative waters from the hot spring in Arima, had the hot spring brought to him: during his time there, he had porters carry two hundred buckets of water from the spring to his villa, a distance of 25 miles, on a daily basis. 3 Such a lifestyle was possible because of the immense economic capital commanded by leading courtier families like the Saionji. In this chapter I will examine the economic and spatial power 4 of the Saionji by exploring the economic and social base upon which their lifestyle depended. What kind of life did the Saionji lead, where did their wealth come from, and what 2 Suita was located in Shimashimo District in Settsu Province, in what is now the southern part of Suita City, Osaka. 3 Meigetsuki, on the 16th day of the ninth month, in 1230 (Tokyo: Kokusho Kank ōkai, 1912, Volume 3, 319). Teika mentions that he went to the Suita Villa accompanying Saneuji, who had the hot water carried from Arima and enjoyed bathing there on the 30th day of the 8th month in the same year as well (314). 4 I define “spatial power” as control over geographic space, with the attendant resources, wealth, and authority that such control brings. I favor the term “spatial power” over “geographic power” or “territorial power” because the latter two terms are tied too closely to the physical terrain and neglect the wealth and symbolic authority that are essential components of land and space in courtier society. The ability to define space constitutes a significant form of power that can reproduce social hierarchies and assert status. This has been well-established by sociologists concerned with the construction of social space as a stage for all social interaction – most famously associated with the concept of “dramaturgia” advanced by Erving Goffman in The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (New York: Anchor Books, 1959). More recently it has also been a subject of historical inquiry. For example, see Albrect Classen, ed., Urban Space in the Middle Ages and the Early Modern Age (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2009). The delineation of social space was also bound up with cultural and religious notions of space, as David Bialock has shown in “Reimagining Late Heian and Early Medieval Space,” in Eccentric Spaces, Hidden Histories: Narrative, Ritual, and Royal Authority from The Chronicles of Japan to The Tale of the Heike (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2007), 217-271. From enclosed spaces to entire regions, space in early medieval Japan was experienced through multiple, and often contradictory, cultural geographies. Bialock reveals that changing notions of spatial power and the defilement of space were informed by social and economic transformation, and sheds light on how these notions were then reproduced in the textual record of the era. 118 constituted this wealth? How did it provide them with influence? Furthermore, instead of examining a few particular estates held by the Saionji, I will employ a macro-level approach to trace how the family acquired their estates, where they were located, and what, if any, elements these estates had in common. In addition, trade played a significant role in providing a strong economic foundation for the Saionji family. In assessing this issue, I will examine not only what kinds of goods were being traded 5 but also how these goods were received in contemporary society and the particular roles that courtier families played in that process. Finally, I will investigate the spatial power which the Saionji carefully cultivated to further expand their influence. The Historiography to Date The economic foundation of courtier society has received considerable attention in the scholarship. A good source covering the historiography of this area is Sugawara Masako’s monograph, Chūsei Kuge no Keizai to Bunka (The Economics and Culture of Medieval Courtiers), which focuses on the Yamashina Family. 6 Although Sugawara is mainly concerned with the later medieval era, her work is impressive because it is one of the few studies that 5 In uncovering what types of goods were circulated and how, sources like Shin Sarugakuki may be informative. A range of works that touch on patterns of consumption can collectively serve to flesh out this aspect of the world of medieval Japan. For examples of scholarship on these issues, see notes 8 and 11 in this chapter. 6 Sugawara Masako, Ch ūsei Kuge no Keizai to Bunka [The Economics and Culture of Medieval Courtiers] (Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 1998). 119 attempts a holistic treatment of a particular courtier family. She considers both the economic and cultural foundations of the family, avoids focusing only on one or two specific estates, and does not neglect to discuss the significance of the managers who contributed to a courtier family’s economic operations. Some of the earliest studies were by Nakamura Naokatsu (1890-1976), especially Kajuji-ke ry ō ni tsuite (Concerning the Land Property of the Kajuji Family), which examined the holdings of the Kajuji. 7 Also, general studies covering economic issues in medieval Japan include the works of Hong ō Keiko and Akamatsu Toshihide. 8 Sakurai Eiji has departed from conventional economic history with its focus on agriculture, and has authored an image of medieval Japan as a networked society, with a focus on artisans, merchants, and distribution channels in Nihon Ch ūsei no Keizai K ōz ō (The Structure of the Economy in Medieval Japan). 9 In a similar vein, Ishii Kanji has worked on the history of distribution, focusing on production and consumption. 10 The interest in studying distribution systems in medieval times was pioneered by Sasaki Ginya and Wakita Haruko, who both proposed as the defining characteristic of medieval distribution 7 Nakamura Naokatsu, Kajuji-kery ō ni tsuite [Concerning the Land Property of the Kajuji Family] in Nakamura, Naokatsu Chosakush ū, V olume 4 (Kyoto: Tank ōsha, 1978). 8 Hong ō Keiko, Ch ūseijin no Keizai Kankaku: Okaimono kara Sagaru [The Economic Sense of People in Medieval Japan: Through Their Shopping] (Tokyo: Nihon H ōs ō Shuppan Ky ōkai, 2004); and Akamatsu Toshihide, Kodai Ch ūsei Keizaishi Kenky ū [Studies on Economic History in Ancient and Medieval Japan] (Tokyo: H ōz ōkan, 2012). Additionally, on trade in earlier times, see Watanabe Makoto, Heian Jidai B ōeki Kanri-seido-shi no Kenky ū [Studies on the History of the Trade Regulation System in the Heian Era] (Tokyo: Shibunkaku Shuppan, 2012). 9 Sakurai Eiji, Nihon Ch ūsei no Keizai K ōz ō [The Structure of the Economy in Medieval Japan] (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1996). 10 Ishii Kanji, Nihon Ry ūts ūshi [A History of Distribution in Japan] (Tokyo: Y ūhikaku, 2003). 120 networks the role of the Kinai region as a centripetal structure. 11 They have conclusively demonstrated that it is important to consider how distribution routes connected to Kyoto. Their work serves as a reminder that understanding the medieval economy of courtier society requires a consideration of locations and the links, especially through trade, between them. In English, Ethan Segal’s Coins, Trade, and the State examines the development of political and social institutions in the context of trade and money. 12 While my own treatment of the economic basis of the Saionji in this chapter depends largely on examining their land holdings, I am inspired by this recent scholarship to pursue the traces of economic networks, while approaching Saionji-held estates in relation to each other rather than just individually. The importance of control over land has long been recognized by historians of Japan, and numerous studies of estates (sh ōen) have been produced in both Japanese and English. 13 The Japanese-language scholarship specifically dedicated to estates is substantial, although only a relatively small part is dedicated to the study of courtier estates. 14 As Kanai Shizuka has pointed 11 Sasaki Ginya, Nihon Sh ōhin Ry ūts ūshi no Kenky ū [Studies on the History of Distribution of Commercial Goods in Medieval Japan] (Tokyo: H ōsei Daigaku Shuppankai, 1972); and Wakita Haruko, Nihon Ch ūsei Sh ōgy ō Hattatsushi no Kenky ū [Studies on the History of Commercial Development in Medieval Japan] (Tokyo: Ochanomizu Shob ō, 1969). 12 Ethan Segal, Coins, Trade, and the State: Economic Growth in Early Medieval Japan (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2011). 13 In English, the oldest study concerning sh ōen in medieval Japan is Asakawa Kan’ichi’s “The Origin of the Feudal Land Tenure in Japan,” American Historical Review 20.1 (1914): 1-23. Pioneer works in postwar scholarship were Elizabeth Sato, “The Early Development of the Sh ōen,” in John W. Hall and Jeffrey P. Mass, eds., Medieval Japan: Essays in Institutional History (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1974), 91-108; and Cornelius J. Kiley, “Estate and Property in the Late Heian Period,” in the same volume, 109-124. In Japanese, the most significant work is the K ōza Nihon Sh ōenshi series, edited by Amino Yoshihiko, et al. (Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 2005). 14 On sh ōen in general, see Nagahara Keiji, Sh ōen (Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 1998). 121 out, research on estates focused on the internal structure of the sh ōen system before moving towards issues of inheritance and the management system employed on estates by proprietors based on their political and social status. 15 According to Kanai, the comparatively recent increase in work on courtier estates was stimulated by increased interest in the courtier polity as a result of Kuroda Toshio’s kenmon theory (discussed in the introductory chapter), as well as the ongoing publication of courtier-related documents and journals in recent years. 16 With a greater interest in courtiers came a concern with their economic foundation. Kanai categorizes the scholarship into three broad categories, namely 1) case studies based on a particular estate, 2) studies aimed at understanding the structure of property rights for medieval estates, including (but not limited to) courtier estates, and 3) studies of related issues such as the retired sovereign-led court system (Insei) or the Ie (household) system. 17 Here I wish to focus primarily on the first category, which Kanai further subdivides into three types depending on estate holders: the royal family, the 15 Kanai Shizuka, Ch ūsei Kugery ō no Kenky ū [Studies on the Land Holdings of Courtiers in the Medieval Era] (Tokyo: Shibunkaku Shuppan, 1999), 3. 16 Ibid. 17 Ibid., 3-19. The ie system was a form of familial organization that privileged primogeniture and patrilineal descent, and which, beginning with warrior families in the medieval era, gradually became dominant in Japan, supplanting older systems that allowed for divided inheritance and women heirs. For more on this, see, for example, Wakita Haruko, Nihon Ch ūsei Joseishi no Kenky ū: Seibetsu Yakuwari Buntan to Bosei, Kasei, Seiai [Studies in Medieval Japanese Women’s History: Gender-role Division and Motherhood, Household Economy, and Sexuality] (Tokyo: Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai, 1992). This study is also available in translation (Alison Tokita, trans., Women in Medieval Japan: Motherhood, Household Management and Sexuality (Victoria, AU: Monash Asia Institute, 2006); Hitomi Tonomura, “Women and Inheritance in Japan’s Early Warrior Society,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 32.3 (July 1990): 592-623; and Hitomi Tonomura, Anne Walthall, and Wakita Haruko, eds., Women and Class in Japanese History (Ann Arbor: Center for Japanese Studies, University of Michigan, 1999). 122 regental families, and other courtier families. 18 I will employ this division to briefly discuss the scholarship on land holdings of each type of family. Studies of royal holdings have mainly focused on the Hachij ō-in and Ch ōkōdō estate clusters. While there have been intensive studies of these two blocks of estates, other holdings of the royal family have received scant attention. 19 There are, by contrast, thorough and varied studies of the estates held by the regental families, beginning with general treatments by Nakamura Naokatsu and Takeuchi Riz ō. 20 Based on their research, more focused studies on the holdings of the regental families have gradually appeared, such as the work of Yoshie Akio on changes in estate inheritance, or that of Kawabata Shin on estate formation and inheritance. 21 As discussed in Chapter 1, by the late Kamakura Period the regental families separated into distinct 18 In the case of nyoin, their land holdings can be treated from the perspective of the royal family or regental families depending on their background. 19 See, for example, Kyoto Daigaku Bungakubu Hakubutsukan no Komonjo 1: Ch ōk ōd ōry ō to Shimadake Monjo [Documents in the Museum of the Faculty of Arts at Kyoto University, Volume 1: Ch ōk ōd ō Estates List and the Shimada Documents] (Tokyo: Shibunkaku Shuppan, 1987). Nomura Ikuyo focuses on the Ch ōk ōd ō and Hachij ō-in Estates and discusses the inheritance of the royal family from the Heian through Nanbokuch ō Periods in “Ch ūsei ni okeru Tenn ō-ke” [The Royal Family in Medieval Japan], in Zen Kindai Joseishi Kenky ūkai, ed., Kazoku to Josei no Rekishi: Kodai Ch ūsei [The History of the Family and Women: Ancient and Medieval Times] (Tokyo. Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 1989), 294-319. 20 Nakamura, op.cit., and Takeuchi Riz ō’s extensive 14-part series “Sh ōen to Kizoku” [Estates and Nobles], Nihon Rekishi 143 (1960.5): 93-101; 144 (1960.6): 104-109; 145 (1960.7): 117-125; 146 (1960.8): 112-117; 147 (1960.9): 138-143; 149 (1960.11): 88-94; 151 (1961.1): 114-120; 152 (1961.2): 92-98; 156 (1961.6): 67-73; 157 (1961.7): 59-64; 158 (1961.8): 93-98; 159 (1961.9): 92-97; 161 (1961.11): 90-95; 162(1961.12): 86-90. Also see Kamihara Eiko, “Kamakura Jidai Sekkan-ke no Keizaiteki Kiso” [The Economic Base of the Regental Families in the Kamakura Period], Rekishi Kyoiku 11-6 (1963): 45-51, 59. 21 Yoshie Akio, “Sekkan-kery ō S ōzoku no Kenky ū J ōsetsu” [Preliminary Studies on the Inheritance of Land Holdings by the Regent Families], Shigaku Zasshi 76-4 (1967): 1-45; and Kawabata Shin, “Sekkan-kery ō Sh ōengun no Keisei to Denry ō: Konoe-kery ō no Seiritsu” [The Formation and Inheritance of the Estates of a Regent Family: The Case of the Konoe Family’s Property], in Inoue Mitsuo, ed., Kodai Ch ūsei no Seiji to Bunka (Tokyo: Shibunkaku Shuppan, 1994), 121-148. Also see Ihara Kesao, “Ch ūseiteki Sh ōyu ni kansuru Ichikosatsu [An Examination of Property Rights in the Medieval Era], Nihonshi Kenky ū 260 (1984): 32-51. 123 houses. While there are some studies of the Konoe family, particularly for the Sengoku era, 22 studies of land holdings by the regental family after its division focus largely on the Kuj ō family due to the availability of abundant primary sources. 23 As for work on specific courtier families, aside from Nakamura Naokatsu’s aforementioned pioneering work on the Kaj ūji family, there have been studies for the early medieval era on a range of families. These include Nagahara Keiji on Fujiwara no Teika, 24 Usui Nobuyoshi and Sugawara Masako on the Yamashina, 25 Okano Tomohiko on the Koga, 26 Abe 22 See, for example, Kawabata Shin, op. cit., Yoshimura Toru’s “Sengoku-ki no Konoe-kery ō ni tsuite” [Concerning the Land Holdings of the Konoe Family during the Sengoku Period], Chiiki Kenky ū Itami 7 (1977): 10-45; and “Konoe-ker ō Kenky ū J ōsetsu” [Preliminary Studies on the Land Holdings of the Konoe Family], in Nihonshi Kenky ūkai Shiry ō Kenky ūbukai, ed., Ch ūsei Nihon no Rekishi-z ō (Tokyo: S ōgensha, 1978), 47-80; as well as Yukawa Toshiji’s “Sengokuki Konoe-ke no Kasan Keizai no Kiroku” [The Record of the Family Finances of the Konoe Family during the Sengoku Period], Shisen 57 (1982): 13-34; and “Sengokuki Konoe-ry ō Echizen-koku Usakasho ni tsuite” [Land Holdings of the Konoe Family and Their Usaka Estate in Echizen during the Sengoku Period], Shisen 60 (1984): 31-46. 23 On the Kuj ō see, for example, Kamihara Eiko, op. cit., Tanuma Mutsumi, “Muromachi-ki Sh ōen Kenky ū no Ichi Ni no Shien” [One or Two Perspectives on Studies of Estates during the Muromachi Period], in Wakamori Tar ō Sensei Kanreki Kinen Ronbunsh ū Hensh ū Iinkai, ed., Kodai Ch ūsei no Shakai to Minzoku Bunka (Tokyo: Kobund ō, 1976), 539-574; Iikura Harutake, “Kujō-kery ō no Seiritsu to Michiie S ōshobunjo ni tsuite” [The Formation of the Kuj ō Family’s Land Holdings and Michiie’s Deeds of Assessment], Shory ōbu Kiyo 29 (1978): 1-19; Nishitani Masahiro, “Kugery ō Sh ōen no Henyo: Kuj ō-kery ō Sh ōen no Kobetsuteki Kenky ū wo Ch ūshin ni” [The Changes in Courtiers’ Estates: Focusing on an Individual Examination of the Kuj ō Estates], Fukuoka Daigaku Jinbun Rons ō 29-4 (1998): 2771-2833; and Anzai Kinji, H ōkaiki Sh ōenshi no Kenky ū [The Historiography of Estates at the Time of (the) Fall (of the Estate System)] (Tokyo: Iwata Shoin, 1994). 24 Nagahara Keiji, “Kugery ō Sh ōen ni okeru Ry ōshuken no K ōz ō” [The Structure of Proprietorship on Courtier Estate Holdings], Hitotsubashi Rons ō 40-6 (1958): 532-560. 25 Usui Nobuyoshi, “Chisei no Kotai to Teishin Shory ō no Henten: Yamashina-ke no Keis ō” [Reign Change and Its Influence over the Land Holdings of Retainers: The Disputed Case of the Yamashina Family], Nihon Rekishi 460 (1986): 45-54; and Sugawara, op.cit. Also see Wakita Haruko, op.cit., Tabuchi Yasuko, Nihon Sonraku no K ōz ō to Ry ōshusei [The Structure of Villages and Rulership in Medieval Japan] (Tokyo: H ōsei Daigaku Shuppankai, 1986); and Imatani Akira Tokitsuguky ōki: Kuge Shakai to Machish ū Bunka no Setten [The Journal of Yamashina Tokitsugu: The Meeting Point of Courtier Society and the Culture of Commoners] (Tokyo: Soshiete, 1980). 26 Okano Tomohiko, “Koga-kery ō Sh ōen no Denry ō to Sono S ōzoku” [The Inheritance and Succession of the Estates of the Koga Family], Shigaku Zasshi 96-4 (1988): 458-478, 572-573. 124 Takeshi on the Ōimikado, 27 and most significantly for this project, Amino Yoshihiko on the Saionji (to which I will return shortly). 28 Studies focused on the later medieval period include those on the Sanj ōnishi, 29 Madenokōji, 30 Asukai, 31 and Hirohashi families. 32 While the individual treatments vary, most of this scholarship focuses on transitions in the estate system or on analyses of particular estates. Inheritance issues and case studies tracking how an estate developed over time are popular topics. However, in between treatments of the estate system as an economic institution and the history of specific estates, something has fallen through the cracks: the possibility of a macro-level approach considering how estates were developed by families as a set, not just as separate entities. Little attention has been paid to the locations of sh ōen, even though these families considered location to be of great importance 27 Abe Takeshi, “Shiry ō Sh ōai: Ōimikado-kery ō ni tsuite” [Introducing New Historical Sources: Concerning the Land holdings of the Ōimikado Family], Teiky ō Shigaku 12 (1997). 28 Amino Yoshihiko, “Saionji-ke to Sono Sh ōry ō” [The Saionji Family and Its Landholdings], in Amino Yoshihiko Chosakush ū, Volume 3 (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 2008), 293-320 (originally published in Kokushigaku 146 (1992). 29 See Haga Koshiro, “Ch ūsei Makki ni okeru Sanj ōnishi-ke no Keizaiteki Kiban to Sono H ōkai” [The Economic Foundation of the Sanj ōnishi Family and Its Collapse in Late Medieval Japan], Nihon Gakushi Kiy ō 13-1 (1955): 23-63; Inui Naoko, “Muromachi K ōki Kuge Keizai no Ichi K ōsatsu: Sanj ōnishi-ke no Sh ōry ō Shihai wo Ch ūshin ni” [A Reassessment of the Economics of Courtiers in the Late Muromachi Period: Focusing on the Control of Land by the the Sanj ōnishi Family], Nenp ō Ch ūseishi Kenkyū 5 (1980); and Ono Hiroshi, “Muromachi K ōki ni okeru Sanj ōnishi-ke no Denry ō to Shihai” [The Inheritance and Control of Land by the Sanj ōnishi Family during the Late Muromachi Period], H ōsei Shigaku 35 (1983): 41-55. 30 See, for example, Nitta Eiji, “Muromachi Jidai no Kugery ō ni okeru Daikan Ukeoi ni kansuru Ichi K ōsatsu” [Concerning the Deputy-entrusted System on Courtier Land Holdings during the Muromachi Period], in H ōgetsu Keigo-Sensei Kanreki Kinenkai, ed., Nihon Shakai Keizaishi Kenky ū: Ch ūsei-hen (Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 1966), 179-202. 31 See, for example, Imaizumi Yoshio “Bunmei ni-nen shichi-gatsu muika zuke Asukai Masachika Shoj ō wo Megutte” [Concerning the Letter of Asukai Masachika dated on the 6th day of the 7th month in 1470] Nihon Rekishi 369 (1979): 1-21. 32 See, for example, Kanai Shizuka, “Hirohashi-kery ō no K ōsei to S ōzoku” [The Structure and Inheritance of the Hirohashi Family] in Kanai Shizuka Ch ūsei Kugery ō no Kenky ū (Tokyo: Shibunkaku Shuppan, 1999), 273-296. 125 when considering the value of an estate. From their perspective, the ability to provide reliable access to a desirable location was a key function of estates, not an incidental feature. In other words, economic and spatial power (that is, control over a location and its attendant qualities, such as economic value) were closely intertwined. Moreover, the emphasis on individual estates alone has resulted in the neglect of other elements like trade, which also constituted the economic base of courtier society in medieval Japan. Thus, the study of the economic foundation of most courtier families has not only lagged behind that of the regental families, but moreover the field as a whole has neglected the importance of location when analysing estates. My treatment of the economic foundation of the Saionji family in this chapter seeks to address this shortcoming. In doing so, I take inspiration from the work of Amino Yoshihiko, who is one of the few medievalists of Japan to emphasize the important role of estate location in shaping economic networks and trade. The Wealth of the Saionji: Saionji Kintsune’s Luxurious Lifestyle When attempting to grasp the wealth of medieval courtier families, sparse or fragmentary sources frustrate attempts at detailed inventories. It is far more productive to employ a qualitative approach through considering the lifestyle that courtiers led. In this section, through focusing primarily on Saionji Kintsune, I will attempt to trace the signs left by the Saionji family’s wealth. 126 As I wrote in Chapter 1, the journal of Taira no Tsunetaka (平経高, 1180-1255) notes Saionji Kintsune’s luxurious life. However, the details of what such a life entailed are not clearly described. Other sources, however, provide a sense of what his life was like. This project has particular value because by examining the luxurious lifestyle of Kintsune, we can begin to shed light on the lives of other medieval courtiers, which remain rather obscure in contrast to those of their Heian predecessors, who are depicted in works such as the Tale of Genji. The best-known example of Saionji wealth was undoubtedly the Kitayama villa. As noted earlier, it was built in the hills northwest of Kyoto. The Kitayama area was considered an appealing site because it had a spectacular view overlooking the center of the old capital. At the same time, its immediate surroundings were aesthetically pleasing: colorful foliage covered the hills, while ponds and rivers drew water down from the heights. While previous families had by and large cultivated crops there, the Saionji family engaged in extensive landscaping in the area. The Masukagami states that this was because Kintsune had a dream in which he learned that this area was the same “Kitayama” where Shining Prince Genji in The Tale of Genji had gone to recuperate. 33 Thus, Kintsune exchanged one of his estates in Owari – Matsueda Estate – for this 33 “Quite a long time earlier, the late Chancellor Kintsune – the father of Saneuji, whose daughter, as I have mentioned, was the current empress – had been inspired by a dream to build a religious hall of unparalleled splendor, called the Saionji, in those same northern hills where the hero of The Tale of Genji went to seek a ritual cure for his chills and favors” (George W. Perkins, trans., The Clear Mirror: A Chronicle of the Japanese Court During the Kamakura Period (1185-1333) (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998), 72). 127 one in Kitayama. 34 He then built the villa on the site now occupied by the world-famous Golden Pavilion. Needless to say, the Golden Pavilion was built later by the third Muromachi shogun, Ashikaga Yoshimitsu (足利義満, 1368-1394). 35 However it was Saionji Kintsune himself who first built a luxurious residence on the site, and the original form of the pond in front of the pavilion was constructed by him. 36 Moreover, the family name “Saionji” originates from the family temple (菩提寺 Bodaiji) established there. The villa itself, however, was the focus of attention in Kintsune’s time. From the time of its establishment, its gorgeousness was celebrated in contemporary records. 37 Fujiwara no Teika, who visited Kitayama, left the following account: 巳時許中将相共向北山、見勝地景趣、禮新佛尊容、毎事以今案被營作、毎物珍重、四十五尺瀑布瀧碧。瑠璃池水、又泉石之清澄、實無比類、未時許歸蘆。（『明月記』嘉録元年正月14日条） 38 34 Iwasa Masashi, et al., comps., Masukagami, in Nihon Koten Bungaku Taikei, Volume 87 (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1965), 298. In English, the text runs “Kintsune had exchanged his Matsueda Estate in Owari Province for the site, which was the property of Prince Sukenaka, the head of the Department of Shrines” (Perkins, 72). Concerning the location of “Kitayama” in The Tale of Genji, it has been argued that this was in fact the Daiunji Temple in Iwakura, not the area where Kintsune built his villa. 35 Ashikaga Yoshimitsu gained the Kitayama Villa, which had not been well taken care of since the collapse of the Kamakura Bakufu, in exchange for his estate in Kawachi in 1397, in order to establish his own residence there. 36 How many workers were involved and who was charged with specifically designing and carrying out the task is unfortunately not known. 37 Later literary works also describe the magnificent beauty of the villa. Lady Nij ō (1258-??), the author of The Confessions of Lady Nij ō, accompanied the retired sovereigns Go-Fukakusa and Kameyama on their visit to the villa in 1285, and described the scenery there as follows: “We had rowed out from the fishing pavilion to where the sight of tangled, gnarled branches of ancient pine covered with lichen made it hard to believe that we were in a garden pond. It seemed as though we had come upon some distant land. ‘Have we perhaps come over two hundred li and more?’ mused Kameyama,” (The Confessions of Lady Nij ō, trans. Karen Brazell (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1973), 176). From such a description, we can have a good sense of the enduring quality of the magnificent view offered by Kitayama, and that the villa and its surroundings served as a symbol of the Saionji’s flourishing wealth and glory. On the relationship between the Saionji family and members of the royal family such as Go-Fukakusa and Kameyama, please see Chapter 4. 38 Meigetsuki, V olume 2, 404. 128 Around the Hour of the Rat, I headed to Kitayama along with the Middle Captain. We viewed the wonderful charm of this beautiful site, and paid respect to the newly-built Buddha. Whatever we saw, it was made just the way it should be. Every single thing there was extraordinary. There was a waterfall forty-five [Japanese] feet high with a greenish colour. There was a pond the colour of lapis lazuli. Moreover, the clearness of the water from the spring was truly incomparable. Around the Hour of the Sheep, I returned home. (Meigetsuki, 14th Day of the First Month in 1225) The villa and its surroundings, so highly praised by contemporaries, were not things that the Saionji just inherited. While the Saionji were not the first to occupy the site, they were the ones who transformed it into a glorious landscape that filled contemporaries with awe and envy. The Masukagami (The Clear Mirror) describes how Kitayama changed from mere countryside to an extraordinary villa, comparable to the H ōj ōji temple established by Fujiwara no Michinaga (藤原道長, 966-1027) in the past: もとは田・畠など多くて、ひたぶるにゐなかめきたりしを、さらにうち返しくづして、艶ある園につくりなし、山のたたずまい木深く、池の心ゆたかに、わたつ海をたたへ、峰より落つる滝の響きも、げに涙もよほしぬべく、心ばせふかき所のさまなり。本堂は西園寺、本尊の如来まことに妙なる御姿、生身もかくやといつくしうあらはされ給へり。また善積院は薬師、功徳蔵院は地蔵菩薩にておはす。池のほとりに妙音堂、滝のもとには不動尊、この不動は津の国より生身の明王、蓑笠うちたてまつりて、さし歩みておはしたりき。その蓑笠は宝蔵にこめて、三十三年に一度出さるとぞ承る。石橋の上には五大堂、成就心院といふは愛染王の座さまさぬ秘法とか行はせらる。供僧み紅梅の衣、袈裟、数珠の糸まで同じ色にぞ侍るめる。又、法水院、化水院、無量光院とかやとて、来迎の気色、弥陀如来、廿五の菩薩、虚空に現じ給へる御姿も侍るめり。北の寝殿にぞ大臣は住み給ふ。めぐれる山の常盤木ども、いとふりたるに、なつかしき程の若木の桜なども植ゑわたすとて、大臣うそぶき給ひける。山桜峰にも尾にも植ゑおかんみぬ世の春を人やしのぶと 129 かの法成寺をのみこそいみじきためしに世継もいひためれど、これはなほ山のけしきさへおもしろく、都はなれて眺望そひたれば、いはん方なくめでたし。 39 It had been a typical stretch of countryside, filled with cultivated fields and rice paddies, but he [Kintsune] had cleared, leveled, and transformed it into an elegant park, its every aspect in perfect taste – the densely forested hills, the vast lake, ample as a sea, and the waterfall plunging from the heights with a sound that evoked tears of emotion. In the main hall of worship, [known as] the Saionji, there stood the central image, a representation of Amida, its dignity and sublime beauty suggesting that the Buddha must have looked much the same in his earthly manifestation. In the hall called Zenshaku-in, there was an image of Yakushi; in the Kudokuz ō-in, an image of Jiz ō. Near the lake, there was the My ōondō; at the base of the waterfall, there was a statue of Fud ō. (That statue had come to be there because the mystic king himself had walked to the spot from Settsu Province in his earthly manifestation, wearing a straw raincoat and a rain hat. I understand that the raincoat and hat are kept in the treasury storehouse, whence they are brought out once every 30 years.) On a stone bridge, there was a structure dedicated to the five great mystic kings. 40 There was also a hall called the J ōj ūshin-in, where monks constantly performed the esoteric ritual dedicated to Aizen. The robes of the officiants were red, as were their surplices and even their rosary cords. There were also other halls – the Hosu-in, the Kesu-in, and one called something like the Mury ōk ō-in, which seems to have contained a picture of Amida, appearing in the sky with 25 bodhisattvas to welcome believers to his paradise. Kintsune lived in a residence to the north. He had decided to scatter appealing young cherry trees throughout the surrounding hills, where all the evergreens were ancient. A poem came to his mind: On the mountain peaks and at the foot of the hills, I plant wild cherries, that others may yearn to have seen yesteryear’s unknown springtimes. 39 Masukagami, op.cit., 298-299. 40 The five mystic kings – Fud ō, G ōzanze, Gundari, Dai’itoku, and Kong ōyasha – are manifestations of the Buddhas of wisdom and are associated with the four cardinal directions and the center. They are the most famous members of the My ō’ ō, the mystical spirits often depicted in an aggressive and warlike manner symbolizing the ability to overcome evil and the passions that lead people astray. 130 Yotsugi describes Michinaga’s H ōj ōji as the most magnificent temple anyone could imagine, but the Saionji was splendid beyond words, for it possessed the added advantages of delightful mountain scenery and excellent views (it being at a distance from the city). 41 The wealth of the Saionji can be clearly imagined from such descriptions. Kintsune had gone to great effort not only to build a luxurious villa in a prime location, but also to transform the landscape to provide an appealing experience for visitors. In this regard, the location not only represented the lifestyle of the Saionji, but also served as a visible embodiment of their status. Visitors were impressed not only by the beauty of the site but also by the efforts taken to landscape the area. Teika mentions, for example, that an enormous stone called Hokury ū-seki was brought to the villa’s garden for decoration, a task that required the strength of no less than 17 cows. 42 Kintsune also had some help with decorating: as Ry ō Susumu points out, people eager to develop close relations with Kintsune tended to offer help or presents for the villa – one impressive example was the aristocrat Tsuchimikado Michichika, who reportedly presented Kintsune with a stone upon which a pine tree grew. 43 In addition to the lovely Kitayama villa, Kintsune owned other villas inside and outside of Kyoto. 44 One was called the Yoshida Spring Villa (吉田泉殿), and it was located at the corner of 41 Perkins, op.cit., 72-73. 42 Meigetsuki, entry for the 9th day of the sixth month in 1229 (V olume 3, 53). 43 Ry ō, Kamakura Jidai [The Kamakura Period], V olume 2 (Tokyo: Shunj ūsha, 1957), 176. 44 The Tale of Five Sovereigns records that “[Saionji Kintsune] established well-known sights such as Tennoji, Suida, Makinoshima, and Kitayama. The fortune of the family appeared to be incomparable” (Godai Tei ō 131 Hyakumanben in present-day Kyoto. 45 According to contemporary records, it was established in the late 1220s, 46 and many courtiers and members of the royal family visited it to escape the hot summer, or to enjoy watching horse racing. 47 Recent archaeological excavations have discovered the remains of magnificent architecture as well as evidence of streams and flagstones on the site, all speaking to the magnificence of the villa there. 48 Because beautiful villas could attract visits from other courtiers and the royals in addition to facilitating Kintsune’s elite lifestyle, they served as important status symbols within courtier society. But villas could also serve other purposes. In the case of Kintsune, his vast wealth was demonstrated not only by his possession of many such villas but also by how he used them. For example, in the case of one villa in Suita, which was located in the northern part of present-day Osaka, it is clear that he visited it on stopover as he made his way to Arima hot spring in Monogatari [The Tale of Five Sovereigns], in Gunsho Ruij ū, V olume 3 (Tokyo: Gunsho Ruij ū Kanseikai, 1960), 429). 45 Hyakumanben is the southern part of Sakyo-ku in Kyoto, around where Higashi Oji Street and Imadegawa Street cross. This is very close to the Yoshida campus of Kyoto University. The area was named Hyakumanben (“one million Nenbutsu”) after the Chion Temple, which was located in the northeastern part of the intersection. 46 For example, see the entry for the 3rd day of the fourth month in 1226 in the Meigetsuki (Volume 2, 494), and for the 22nd day of the sixth month in 1226 (516). 47 On the 15th day of the eighth month in 1231, Kuj ō Michiie, Norizane (Michiie’s son) and Saionji Saneuji (Kintsune’s son) were all invited to this villa to enjoy watching horse racing (Meigetsuki, Volume 3, 310-311). This villa seems to have played such a role during the time of Kintsune’s son, Saneuji, when, for example, both retired sovereigns (Go-Fukakusa and Kameyama) visited the villa and enjoyed watching horse racing there on the 10th day of the fourth month in 1278. See Tokyo University Historiographical Institute, ed., Shiry ō S ōran, V olume 5, Section 905 (Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai, 2011), 232. On the 17th day of the seventh month in 1231, retired sovereign Go-Horikawa and the royal consort Sohekimon-in (Fujiwara no Sonshi, 1209~1233) visited this villa as well. The consort gave birth to a royal prince on the 18th of the ninth month (two months after this visit), so their visit to the Yoshida villa may have been intended to let her escape from the hot and dry weather of the season in order to protect her during the late stage of her pregnancy (Meigetsuki, V olume 3, 375). 48 For example, see Arima Raitei, ed., Rokuonji to Saionji (Tokyo: Shibunkaku Shuppan, 2004). 132 present-day Kobe. This hot spring is known to be one of the three oldest in Japan, and due to its fame as a therapeutic spa for curing disease, it had welcomed numerous guests since as early as the seventh century. 49 It is therefore not at all surprising that Kintsune would want to enjoy this famous hot spring, and he developed a villa en route to enable comfortable travel back and forth. However, his extravagance exceeded merely visiting the hot spring many times: as mentioned in the introduction, he had people carry two hundred buckets of hot water from Arima to his villa in Suita – a distance of 25 miles – to enjoy bathing right there. Nor was this a single occurrence: 昨日被始湯、不可有他出行云々、以桶二百毎日運有馬湯云々。（『明月記』寛喜3年9月16日） 50 Yesterday, [he] began bathing. It is said that he should not go to any other place, 51 so he had two hundred of buckets of hot water from Arima hot spring carried in every day. (Meigetsuki, 16th Day of the Ninth Month in 1230) In other words, Kintsune went to great expense to ensure that he could enjoy the regenerative hot spring water in the comfort of his home, and on a daily basis. Goto Michiko, who has examined the lives of courtiers during the Muromachi Period – more than a century after Kintsune’s own time – points out that around that time the enjoyment of bathing as a form of 49 Many notable figures visited Arima hot spring over the years. For example, Jomei Tenn ō (631), Kotoku Tenn ō (647), Monk Gy ōgi (747), Fujiwara no Michinaga (1024), Fujiwara no Yorimichi (1042), the retired sovereign Shirakawa (1128), the retired sovereign Go-Shirakawa (1178), Shomeimon-in (1230), Ankamon-in (1231), Shikikenmon-in (1231), and Fujiwara no Teika (1240). 50 Meigetsuki, V olume 3, 319. 51 This was most likely due to a taboo against going out for a specific duration, although this is unclear. 133 entertainment had begun to spread among courtiers. 52 However, even then only a very few families actually had baths in their residences. The fact that over a century earlier Kintsune not only enjoyed bathing at home but moreover went to the extraordinary measure of having vast amounts of water regularly carried to him from his favourite hot spring clearly reveals how much wealth he had at his disposal. In addition to enabling indulgences like Kintsune’s hot spring water, the wealth of the Saionji also made it possible to acquire luxurious and rare items. For example, consider the following report concerning Saionji Saneuji, one of Kintsune’s sons: 八幡之時木笏也、牙笏相國進之、仍被用之、爲年預沙汰可調進之由、被仰之處、牙難得者、仍干今不調進之（『葉黄記』寛元4年4月29日） 53 When [the retired sovereign Go-Saga] paid a visit to Hachiman Shrine, he was carrying a wooden baton. But the minister [Saionji Saneuji] presented a baton made of ivory, so this ivory one was used [when Go-Saga visited Kamo Shrine]. Fashioning an ivory baton had been commanded [by the monarch] for a long time; but, since it was hard to obtain ivory, it could not be made until now. (Y ōk ōki, 29th Day of the Fourth Month in 1246) The statement that ivory was hard to come by was not an exaggeration. Hong ō Keiko argues that there is no question that ivory was extremely difficult to obtain, since every entry in 52 Got ō Michiko, Sengoku wo Ikita Kuge no Tsuma-tachi [The Wives of Courtiers Who Lived During the Sengoku Period] (Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 2009), 164. 53 Y ōk ōki (Tokyo: Yagi Shoten, 2004), 141. For background on the Y ōk ōki, see Chapter 1, note 80. 134 historical records concerning the need for ivory specifically mentions that “it is hard to obtain.” 54 Even at the highest echelons of the court, wealth alone was not sufficient. It was necessary to have the means to obtain such treasures. This means that the Saionji possessed not only vast wealth – enabling the construction of numerous beautiful villas that served as sites for a luxurious lifestyle and embodiments of their status – but also access to rare and desirable goods, which in turn supported their luxurious life both in terms of profit and in terms of the luxury goods that further marked them as sophisticated elites. This then prompts another question: how did the family amass such great riches, what routes did they use, and how did they establish those routes? In the next section I will consider the Saionji family’s estates and their significance for generating wealth, particularly through trade. Estates and Trade Successful medieval courtier families needed a solid economic foundation to support their lavish lifestyles. An inability to live the life appropriate to an elite courtier (or to take it to the utmost extent, as in the case of Kintsune) would restrict the family’s status and limit opportunities for economic and political advancement. 54 Hong ō Keiko, Chuseijin no Keizai Kankaku, op cit., 205. She further points out that the retired sovereign Go-Fukakusa also carried an ivory baton when paying a visit to the Iwashimizu Shrine on the 9th of the eighth month in 1260; however, in this case the baton was presented by the Minister of the Left, Saionji Kinsuke (1223-1267), a grandson of Kintsune. 135 What did such a foundation consist of? Courtier families depended heavily upon estates to finance their lifestyles. They did this both by generating wealth from the individual estates, including their local industries, and by accumulating and developing estates in strategic fashion in order to take advantage of transportation and trade networks to turn a profit. In this section, I will examine the Saionji estates, the role of human resources in managing their estates and accumulating wealth, and their involvement in trade. I: Expanding a Family’s Landed Portfolio – Estates and Estate Acquisition As was the case with other powerful courtier families, the Saionji owned a large number of estates across the realm. A thorough assessment of the Saionji holdings was carried out by Amino Yoshihiko, whose work I will draw on here to consider the ways the Saionji utilized their estates and the importance of the strategic location of those properties. 55 Considering the wealth and political influence of the Saionji, it seems unusual that before Amino there was no real attempt to study their estates. The primary reason is a problem with sources. While a significant number of writings by the Saionji and their contemporaries have survived as valuable materials for reconstructing the historical experience of the family, documents pertaining to family holdings and inheritance were mostly lost long before the modern 55 Amino, “Saionji-ke to Sono Sh ōry ō,” op. cit. 136 era. This makes it difficult to try and grasp the big picture of the Saionji land holdings, let alone conduct more detailed studies on the various estates the family held. 56 Tracing the numbers of Saionji estates that are identifiable from the surviving records – including estates they administered (知行 chigy ō) temporarily – Amino noted a total of 53, almost all of which were located in western Japan. 57 A significant number (33 out of the 47 in the west) were in the Kinai, Sany ō, Nankai, and Saikai regions (see map below). 58 A smaller number were located in the San’in and Hokuriku regions, and many of the estates administered by the Saionji (as ry ōke, estate proprietors) were land holdings that belonged to members of the royal family. 59 This was not a pattern unique to the Saionji: in fact, many courtiers concentrated 56 Amino himself admits the source limitations are “the reason why the family’s economic base has been hardly examined, compared to the significance of their political influence” (Ibid., 294). That being said, some scholars have touched on the subject in their work, starting from the prewar era with Ono K ōji (1904-1942). See Ono K ōji, Nihon Ch ūsei Sh ōgy ōshi no Kenky ū [Studies in the History of Commerce in Medieval Japan] (Tokyo: H ōsei University Press, 1989; see the chapters entitled “Sanj ōnishi-ke to A ōs ōza no Katsud ō” and “Oroshiuri Ichiba to shite no Y ōd ō Uoichi no Hattatsu”). Ono, however, only mentioned the Saionji estates briefly when discussing the Muromachi era, and he neither elaborated on them nor considered the situation in Kamakura. Inui Naoko, meanwhile, discussed the Saionji estates to some extent in her work on the Sanj ōnishi family (Inui Naoko, op cit.). The work of these two scholars – both of whom focused on the Muromachi and Sengoku Periods, neglecting the formation of the Saionji estates and their situation prior to the Muromachi age – was basically all that existed at the time Amino published his own study of the Saionji estates in 1992. However, with what scattered documents are available, there is a little in the way of some newer scholarship. Kanai Shizuka examined estates of royal ladies (nyoin) estates in her Ch ūsei Kugery ō no Kenky ū [Studies on the Land Holdings of Courtiers in the Medieval Era], op.cit.; while Okano Tomohiko mentions the Saionji (although those of a much later time than Kintsune’s) in his immense study Ch ūsei Koga-ke to Koga-kery ō Sh ōen [The Medieval Koga Family and Its Estates] (Tokyo: Zoku Gunsho Ruij ū Kenseikai, 2002), which focuses on the estates of the Koga family. 57 Amino, “Saionji-ke to Sono Sh ōry ō,” 295. Amino defined western Japan as the area west of Owari, Mino, and Kaga. Among the 53 estates, only 6 were located in the east. 58 Ibid., 296. 59 Ibid. For example, Hachiyakita Estate (Mino), Tottori Estate (Bizen), Kuga Estate (Suo), and Inazumi Estate (Hoki) were in the Hachij ō-in estate cluster; Matsubara-shin Estate (Harima) belonged to the Ōmiya-in estate cluster; and Kotakase Estate (Kawachi), Hioki Estate (Ise) and Tanaka Estate (Omi) belonged to the Muromachi-in estate cluster. Many of them were proprietary holdings of the royal family. 137 their estates in the west, as Nagahara Keiji observed when discussing the holdings of Fujiwara no Teika (1162-1241). 60 The Tobadono (鳥羽殿領, Toba estates) in Yamashiro Province in particular contained a large number of land holdings. 61 Why did many courtier families invest so much in this region? Amino argues that this pattern of land distribution was clearly connected to marine transportation routes, namely from the Uji/Yodo River through the Seto Inland Sea to northern Kyushu. 62 Indeed, as will be discussed below, such routes factored heavily into estate accumulation by courtier families. Before moving on to discussing trade, however, it is necessary to consider the Saionji estates and how the family acquired and managed them. 60 Nagahara Keiji, Nihon H ōkensei Seiritsu Katei no Kenky ū [Studies on the Formation Process of the Feudal System in Japan] in Nagahara Keiji Chosakush ū, V olume 2 (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 2004), 112. 61 Amino, “Saionji-ke to Sono Sh ōry ō,” 296. He states that the Tobadono was later referred to as the “thirteen estates” (一三箇荘). 62 Ibid. 138 Estates of the Saionji (Based on map from Jeffrey P. Mass, The Origins of Japan’s Medieval World) 63 63 Jeffrey P. Mass, The Origins of Japan’s Medieval World: Courtiers, Clerics, Warriors, and Peasants in the Fourteenth Century (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1997), xviii. A full-size version of this map is given in the Appendix. 139 This map indicates all the estates that the family is known to have owned, from Kintsune’s time up to and including the Muromachi Period, as seen in the following chart: Land Holdings of the Saionji Family (西園寺家領一覧) Region Province Name (Can be checked in the royal edict by Go-Daigo dated on the 12th day of the 7th month, 1335) (Can be seen in the letter of Saionji Sanekane dated on the 16th of the 8th month, 1322) During the Muromachi Period Others Kinai Yamashiro Toba-dono Katsura Shinmen Uji-Makishima Kamishimo Toyoda-no-sh ō Yodouoichi Mizuno-maki Koga-no-sh ō Ishihara-no-sh ō Shimomisu-no-sh ō Hatsukashi-no-sh ō Uji Makidono Katsura Shinmen Toba-no-sh ō Uda-no-sh ō Settsu Tomimatsu-no-sh ō Suitanishi-no-sh ō Kuradono Tomimatsu-no-sh ō Mizokui-no-sh ō Kawachi Shinga-no-sh ō Ikeda-no-sh ō Kodakase-no-sh ō Shingai-no-sh ō (one Go within) Ikeda-no-sh ō Shingai-no-sh ō Ega-no-maki Fukuchi-no-maki Takafuchi-no-g ō Tokaido Ise Hioki-no-sh ō Kuroita Owari Kuroda-no-sh ō 140 Kitsuneana Mikawa Proprietary province of Sanehira Suruga Oyaizu-no-Mikuriya Proprietary province of Kinhira Musashi Hangaya-no-Mikuriya Shimousa Int ōno-no-sh ō Tosando Omi Tanaka-no-sh ō Takashimano-sh ō Okunino Kamishimono-sh ō Yamazakino-sh ō Mino Hidase-no-sh ō Koudo-no-sh ō Shimokiri Mino-Kokuga Hidase-no-sh ō Hachiyakiita-no-sh ō Shimotsuke Sano-no-sh ō Hokurikudo Echizen Tomita-no-sh ō Wakasa Proprietary province of Saneuji Noto Shitodo-no-sh ō Ōshimizu-no-sh ō San’indo Niwa Tokitsune-no-ho Tajima Hoki Inadzumi-no-sh ō Inaba Iwami Sanyodo Harima Ōta-no-sh ō Goka-no-sh ō Ōta-no-sh ō Matsubara-no-sh ō Kikkawashimo-no- sh ō, Matsubara-no-sh ō Mimasaka Bizen Kayoo Honj ō Tottori-no-sh ō Bicchu Oishi-no-sh ō 141 Aki Nuta-no-sh ō Suo Yamashiro-no-sh ō Koga-no-sh ō Nagato Nankaido Kii Nakamura K ōnami-g ō Hashimoto Kawabe Kishi-no-sh ō Awa Tai-no-sh ō Ura-no-sh ō Sanuki Iyo Uwano-sh ō Umano-sh ō Uwano-sh ō Province where they held hereditary proprietorship Tosa Tamurano-sh ō Saikaido Chikuzen Kusubashino-sh ō Kantano-sh ō Munakata Shrine Bungo Ananno-sh ō Hizen Uno-Mikuriya Higo Yamagano-sh ō (Chart adapted from Amino, “Saionji-ke to Sono Sh ōryō,” 315) 64 Not all of these estates were inherited as hereditary holdings. In addition to inheritance and chance occurrence, an influential courtier family could at times acquire estates from other individuals or families seeking to gain influence or curry favour. For example, the provincial 64 For information pertaining to individual estates, please refer to the K ōza Nihon Sh ōenshi series (eds. Amino Yoshihiko, Ishii Susumu, Inagaki Yasuhiko, and Nagahara Keiji, op. cit.). The first four volumes deal with general issues concerning estates (Volume 1: Sh ōen Ny ūmon [Introduction to Estates], Volume 2: Sh ōen no Seiritsu to Ry ōsh ū [The Establishment of Estates and Their Posessions], Volume 3: Sh ōen no K ōz ō [The Structures of Estates], Volume 4: Sh ōen no Kaitai [The Collapse of the Estate System]). Volume 5 is dedicated to estates in the T ōhoku, Kant ō and T ōkai regions, Volume 6 is dedicated to Hokuriku and parts of the Kinki region, and Volumes 7 and 8 are dedicated to rest of the Kinki region. Volume 9 is dedicated to the Ch ūgoku region, and the last volume, 10, is dedicated to estates in Shikoku and Ky ūsh ū, and also includes an index. 142 governor of Bungo commended a holding called Anan to Kintsune. Gomi Fumihiko argues that this demonstrates that the provincial governor was servile to Kintsune. 65 For Gomi, this case is reminiscent of how Ōta Estate in Bizen Province became a Taira holding due to the cooperation of the provincial governor, and Gomi observes that after the Joky ū Incident, the Saionji family was as powerful as the Ise Taira had been earlier. 66 As courtier families gained spatial power over an area, it was not uncommon for them to establish relationships like this that rewarded local officials with connections while assuring the courtiers themselves of still further spatial reach. In this way one can describe the phenomenon as “wealth making wealth.” Aside from inherited estates and estates commended to them by those seeking their influence, courtier families could also seek to actively expand their land holdings. Saionji members certainly undertook plans to develop estates in strategic ways, as the following case illustrates. Among the provinces where the Saionji owned estates, Iyo had been under their control as a hereditary proprietary province (chigy ōkoku) for generations, and later it even produced warrior Saionji from family members who had settled there. 67 But one of the estates in the province, 65 Gomi Fumihiko, Bushi to Bunshi no Ch ūseishi [Warriors and Courtiers in the Medieval Era] (Tokyo: Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai, 1992), 117. 66 Ibid. 67 The first Saionji who came to settle in Iyo was Saionji Kinyoshi (公良, dates unknown), a brother of Saionji Kinmune (公宗 1310~1335) who had died as a result of his attempt to assassinate Go-Daigo. This is discussed in more detail in this project’s conclusion. On the Iyo Saionji, see Ishino Yae, “Nanbokuch ō Muromachich ō no Iyo Saionji: Kuge Daimyō Seiritsu no Zentei” [The Saionji in Iyo Province during the Nanboku and 143 Uwa, was originally under the control of the Tachibana family. Saionji Kintsune became obsessed with claiming this estate, and he attempted to take it from the Tachibana. The Azuma Kagami (The Mirror of the East), the official historical record of the Kamakura Bakufu, records that the Bakufu did not initially acquiesce to Kintsune’s wishes, despite his repeated insistence, since there was simply no reason for the estate to be taken from the Tachibana. Kintsune, however, was relentlessly stubborn, and eventually the Bakufu gave in and accepted his request, making the Uwa Estate a proprietary holding of Kintsune’s son Saneuji, who was Minister of the Right at the time. The Azuma Kagami makes it clear that Kintsune had been willing to go to any length to gain the estate: 二月廿二日、己酉、伊豫國宇和郡事、止薩摩守公業（小鹿島）法師領掌、所被付于常盤入道（公経）大政大臣家之領也、是年来彼禪閣雖被望申之、公業先祖代々知行、就中遠江掾遠保承勅定、討取當國賊徒純友以来、居住當郡、令相傳子孫年久、無咎而不可被召放之由、頻以愁歎、御沙汰太難顯。是非、無左右不被仰切之處、去此禪閣御書状重參著、此所望不事行、似失老後眉目、於今者態令下向、可被申所存之趣被載之、御下向之條、還似可爲事煩、早可有御管領之旨、今日被仰遣于彼。（『吾妻鏡』嘉禎２年２月２２日条） 68 Muromachi Eras: The Prerequisites for the Establishment of Courtier Lords], Kokugakuin Zasshi 88.10 (1987.10): 40-56; and Yamauchi Harutomo, “Eiky ō Kakitsu-ki no Iyo Saionji-shi no Kakushitsu to Bakufu Kenryoku” [The Struggle of the Saionji Family in Iyo and the Power of the Bakufu during the Eiky ō Kakitsu Eras], Chih ōshi Kenky ū. 62.2 (2012.4): 23-38. 68 Azuma Kagami, Volume 3 (Shintei Z ōho Kokushi Taikei, Volume 33-1), ed. Kuroita Katsumi (Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 1988), 173. It is not clearly stated why the bakufu was involved in this matter. However the Tachibana family had become retainers of Yoritomo since Kiminari’s father Kinnaga moved to Kamakura along with his two sons (Kintada and Kinnari) in 1180: Azuma Kagami, entry for the 19th day of the twelfth month in 1180, in Azuma Kagami, Volume 1 (Shintei Z ōho Kokushi Taikei, Volume 32-1), ed. Kuroita Katsumi (Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 1989), 59. Also Kiminari participated in battle with the Fujiwara clan in northern Japan in 1189: Azuma Kagami, V olume 1, 357. From this we can tell that he was under the administrative system of the bakufu. Saionji Kintsune’s appeal was based on his authority and personal relations with the bakufu, so it would have been reasonable for Tachibana no Kinnari, facing the loss of his stewardship, to bring the issue to the bakufu, 144 The 22nd day of the second month. 69 Regarding Uwa Estate in Iyo Province, it was decided that the stewardship of the monk Kiminari, the provincial governor of Satsuma, would be stopped, and proprietorship of the land rights would be given to the family of the prime minister at Tokiwai [Saionji Kintsune]. 70 This [parcel of] land had been requested by the priestly minister [禪閣; Kintsune] for years. However, Kiminari had held the proprietorship for generations. Furthermore, since his ancestor T ōyasu (遠保?-944), 71 the third-level officer of the T ōt ōmi provincial office, subdued Fujiwara no Sumitomo (893-941), the pirate ravaging the area, ordered by royal edict, Kiminari’s family had been living in the province. It has been ages that they have passed it down in the family hereditarily. [Kiminari] is endlessly anxious and complains that the land should not be taken away from him without any particular crime. For the bakufu, making a decision on this matter has been extremely hard. While they were not able to take either side, some time ago, a letter from Kintsune concerning this matter arrived at the bakufu again. In the letter, he wrote that “if my request is not accepted, it will be like losing face in my old age. Now, I intend to come all the way down to Kamakura and make an appeal myself.” Since his coming down to Kamakura will cause much more trouble, the bakufu sent a messenger to [Kintsune’s] house manager, the novice Mutsu D ōbyū [i.e. Miyoshi Nagahira], saying that the land would become a holding of the Saionji. (Azuma Kagami, 22nd Day of the Second Month, 1236) Precisely why Kintsune was so obsessed with this estate – to the extent that he continually harassed the bakufu and threatened to go to Kamakura with his demands – is something that will become clearer when I discuss the estate in its broader context below. Here, however, the important thing to note is how powerful courtiers could actively pursue rights to desired estates. whereupon the bakufu got involved in the matter. 69 At this time, the Kamakura regent was Hojo Yasutoki (北条泰時 1183~1242), and the shogun was Fujiwara no Yoritsune (藤原頼経), a grandson of Saionji Kintsune. He was 19 years old at the time. The shogunal consort, Takegosho, who was a daughter of the second shogun Yoriie and 15 years older than Yoritsune, had passed away in 1234, two years before this happened. 70 In place of the Uwa Estate, Kiminari was given stewardship of the Nagashima Estate in Hizen. See Yamauchi Yuzuru, “Iyo no Kuni,” in K ōza Nihon Sh ōenshi 10: Shikoku Ky ūsh ū Chih ō no Sh ōen (Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 2005), 62. 71 He was the son of Tachibana no Nariyuki (橘成行). He subdued Fujiwara no Sumitomo in 941. 145 Kintsune’s land holdings were not just the product of inheritance, donations, or fortuitous coincidence, but also the result of his own will. As with the human networks that will be discussed in a later chapter, Kintsune had particular goals in mind in shaping his estate portfolio – they were a key component of the economic power of courtier families, which would go to considerable lengths to defend their interests and enlarge their holdings. Kintsune’s struggle for Uwa Estate is remarkable in this respect only for his stubborn attitude that here resulted in a victory. Increasing their land holdings was not a task that major courtier families handled by themselves. They frequently depended upon managers and staff, often drawn from other families with which they had forged a mutually beneficial (and hierarchical) relationship. In the case of the Saionji, the Miyoshi family is particularly well-known. Miyoshi Nagahira (三善長衡, 1168-1244) served Saionji Kintsune loyally as his house manager, and he gained considerable prestige as a result. 72 It was Nagahira who successfully conducted negotiations over the control 72 The Miyoshi family had long been known as a house of arithmetic, but it was not until Nagahira, a son of Yukihira (行衡), that the family came to serve as house managers for the Saionji. The specifics of how this relationship came about are not known. However, Ry ō Susumu points out that there is a document, dated the eleventh month of 1220, that has Nagahira’s name as director of Kintsune’s household (Ry ō, op.cit., 179), so it is certain that Nagahira served Kintsune before then. Considering his role in the J ōky ū War, as mentioned in Chapter 1, it is obvious that there was a strong and trusting relation between Nagahira and Kintsune by the time of the war in 1221, and it is thus likely that Nagahira had been serving Kintsune for at least several years before then. 146 of Uwa Estate. 73 Even at the time, Nagahira’s role in supporting Kintsune’s economic power was well-recognized. The Heikoki relates: 「伝聞、長衡法師昨日入滅（七十七）云々、算道之長也、相国禅門専一無双之者也、陶朱之類也、無常之理、誠難遁事歟、可哀々々」 74 The monk Nagahira passed away yesterday, they say. He was very skilled at arithmetic, and was beyond comparison with anyone [else] who served the Priestly Minister [Kintsune]. [Nagahira] was like T ōshu. [But] the law of impermanence is impossible to escape. How sad! (26th Day of the 3rd Month in 1244) Nagahira managed the Saionji household effectively and supported Kintsune’s plans, helping him generate enormous wealth. The Saionji family’s success at developing their economic foundation depended not only on their own strategic planning, which I will pursue in more detail momentarily, but also the skill of families that supported them: the Miyoshi family, and another family that also provided them with house managers – the Tachibana family, as we will now see. II: Human Resources in Estate-Management & Wealth Accumulation In addition to acquiring estates through a variety of means, courtier families needed to cultivate strong human resources in order to manage those estates effectively. As we have seen, in the case 73 Gomi, op.cit., 117. 74 Heikoki, entry for the 26th day of the third month in 1244 (Z ōho Shiry ō Taisei, Volume 32: Heikoki (Kyoto: Rinsen Shoten, 1983), 280). T ōshu (陶朱) was a nickname for Fan Li (范蠡), a respected Chinese statesman of the state of Yue during the Spring and Autumn Period (c. 771 - c. 475 BCE). Known for his business acumen, he retired as an immensely wealthy man and later became a folk deity associated with prosperity. A business guide containing 12 golden rules to follow and 12 pitfalls to avoid when doing business was ascribed to him by later generations. 147 of the Saionji, two families, the Miyoshi and the Tachibana, served this role. Here I will consider the Tachibana, who are far less well known, but who played a vital role facilitating Saionji wealth accumulation. Partial Genealogy of the Tachibana Family (橘氏系図) Mochizane(以実)――Mochitoshi(以俊) Tomonobu(知宣)－Tomoie(知家) －Tomonaka(知仲)－Tomoshige(知茂)－Tomotsugu (知嗣) －Tomosuke(知資) (adapted from Gomi, Bushi to Bunshi no Ch ūseishi, 119) Tachibana no Tomonobu (橘知宣, dates unknown) was the first member of the family whose name appears as a house manager of the Saionji family. Tomonobu was the third son of a Prince Kaneyasu (兼康王) of the Hakke (伯家), 75 but he was adopted by Tachibana no Mochizane (橘以実). It is not clear when and how he came to serve the Saionji, but his name 75 The Hakke (or Hakuke) family was a courtier family that originated with Prince Nobuzane (延信王, dates unknown), a grandson of Kazan Tenn ō. Nobuzane was appointed head of the Department of Divinities (神祇伯 jingihaku) in 1045, and his son was appointed to the same post. Following the appointment of Prince Akihiro (顕広王, 1095-1180), Nobuzane’s great-grandson, to the same position, it became a hereditary post of the family. The family subsequently was called “Hakke,” the name deriving from the “haku” of “jingihaku.” 148 appears listed as an outrider (前駆, zenku) for Saionji Sanemune (Kintsune’s father) in 1205. 76 Sometime later he became the Su ō provincial resident deputy (目代, mokudai) under Kintsune, 77 and after the latter was appointed as chief administrator of the retired sovereign Go-Toba’s palace (後院庁別当, Go-in no ch ō bett ō), Tomonobu was entrusted with running the Toba pavilion, and he also came to be involved in the management of Saionji estates. 78 In 1230 he was also in charge of repairing H ōj ōji Temple, a task he is said to have completed very quickly. 79 Tachibana no Tomonaka (?-1246) is the next member of the family to be featured in the Saionji record. He was a son of Tomonobu. After the J ōkyū Incident in 1221, the Saionji became the proprietors (領家職, ry ōkashoku) of Nuta Estate in Aki Province, and Tomonobu conducted a survey 80 as official inspector (正検使, seiken-shi). 81 Thereafter, his descendants occupied the position of custodian (預所, azukari dokoro) there. Like his father, Tomonaka developed a reputation for reliable oversight of construction projects. One example is recounted by Gomi: Tomonaka was resident-deputy (目代, mokudai) of not only Wakasa Province, but also Bizen Province, which was administered by [Saionji] Saneuji. Now what is interesting is 76 Gomi, op.cit., 120, and Sakurai Eiji, “Mittsu no Sh ūrishiki” [Three Repair Agencies], Harukanaru Ch ūsei 8 (1987): 15-28. 77 Su ō became a proprietary province of Kintsune in 1206. This remained the case until 1215, whereafter it became a proprietary province of T ōdaiji temple. 78 Gomi, op. cit., 120. 79 Ibid. H ōj ōji Temple was established by Minamoto no Michinaga (藤原道長, 966-1028). Construction began in 1020 and lasted for two years. The temple burned down in 1058 but was rebuilt. It was one of the biggest temples during Michinaga’s time and was famed for its luxury. This is the same temple invoked in the Masukagami (see the quotation above) as a comparison for the Saionji villa at Kitayama. 80 A survey (検注 kench ū) was a formal assessment of a sh ōen. Such surveys were used to record land quality, economic output, residents, and so on, and to make value assessments that could then be used to calculate appropriate taxation. 81 Gomi, op. cit., 120. 149 that he was also appointed construction commissioner (作所奉行, sakusho bugy ō) for the residence of Retired Sovereign Go-Saga. This proves that the skills Tomonobu possessed for temple-building had been passed along to Tomonaka as well. 82 Tomonaka’s son, Tachiaba no Tomoshige (?-1263), also served as a house manager for Saionji Saneuji, or for his daughter, the influential Ōmiya-in. Tomoshige, like his father before him, became deputy provincial governor of Bizen Province, which was held as a proprietary province by Saneuji. Tomoshige also became the manager of the aforementioned Nuta Estate, and the manager of Munakata Shrine in Chukuzen Province, both of which were under direct Saionji control. 83 Through effectively managing these posts, Tomoshige generated great wealth both for his own family and for his Saionji masters. He was likely deeply involved in the marine transport network that the Saionji family operated in the Seto Inland Sea, as well as in the trade with Song China, both of which I will examine here. He also carried on the Tachibana tradition in construction management. Notably he built – and then rebuilt – the Goj ō Pavilion that served as Ōmiya-in’s residential palace, as related in The Tale of Five Sovereigns: 「去年二月十九日法成寺の金堂回禄、康元元年二月十日官庁焼亡、同廿八日五条殿炎上、打ちつづきあさましかりき。五条殿は大宮院の御所なるべしとて、常磐井の大相国の造られしかば、橘知茂が沙汰にて造りしに、閑院の外京中になきほどの御所を造りたてて、御移徙に両院（後嵯峨・大宮）御幸ありて、めでたかりしに、程なくやけたりしを、なじかは又つくり侍らざらんと橘知茂申しけるに 82 Ibid., 121. 83 Gomi has shown that a document dated 1265 proves Tomoshige was the manager of the Nuta Estate at the time, and moreover that an examination of the signature reveals it to be identical to the one of “Lord Tachibana” who signed the compromise agreement (和与状 wayoj ō) in his capacity as manager of Munakata Shrine (119-120). 150 よりて、又同じき程につくりて、常に内裏にもなりしうへに、将軍御昇りあらば、これが御所になるべしなど沙汰ありて、障子には年中行事を絵にかかれて、経朝の御言葉がきなどして、ゆゆしき御所にてありしに、文永七年八月に折ふし主上もこの御所にわたらせ給しに又焼けぬ。」 84 On the 19th day of the second month last year, the cloister of the Golden Hall of H ōj ōji Temple burned down. On the 10th of the second month in 1256, administrative offices burned down, and the Goj ō Pavilion also went up in flames on the 28th of the same month. Unexpected misfortunes happened one after another. The Goj ō Pavilion had been built on the orders of the Tokiwai Minister 85 in order to make a residence for Ōmiya-in. The person responsible for the construction was Tachibana no Tomoshige [who was the house manager]. He made the pavilion so wonderful as to be incomparable to any other residence in Kyoto, aside from the Kan-in. When [ Ōmiya-in’s household] moved in, both the Retired Sovereign Go-Saga and Ōmiya-in were present, which was auspicious. However, it burned down before long. Tachibana no Tomoshige regretted [what had happened], and saying “Why not built it again?” he constructed the residence on the same scale as before. The residence was normally used as a residential palace, but when the Kamakura shogun came up to Kyoto, it was ordered that it be a residence for him. Because of that, the residence was extremely luxurious, and it [featured] pictures of annual events as well as calligraphy by [Sesonji] Tsunetomo on screens. Although the sitting sovereign [Kameyama] also visited this residence on occasion, in the eighth month of 1270, it burned down again. Tachibana no Tomotsugu succeeded his father, and by the second month of 1269, he was signing documents as the manager of the Munakata Shrine estates in Chikuzen. 86 Furthermore, his name appears as the manager of Nuta Estate in 1281. Gomi Fumihiko points out that the offspring of the Tachibana family were promoted regularly, and in 1311, Tachibana no Tomonao (the son of Tachibana no Tomotsugu), became a member of the Council of State. 87 Moreover, 84 Godai Tei ō Monogatari, 439-440. For more on Tomoshige and Tachibana management of Saionji estates, see Gomi, op.cit., and Amino, “Saionji-ke to Sono Sh ōry ō,” op. cit. 85 Saionji Saneuji, Kintsune’s son and Ōmiya-in Kitsushi’s father. 86 Gomi, op.cit., 121. 87 Ibid. The Kugyōbunin records of senior noble appointments indicates that he received the junior third rank 151 Tomonao’s mother was a daughter of the chief priest of the Munakata Shrine, which Tomotsugi was managing as part of the estate. 88 As will be discussed later in this chapter, this shrine was an important base of maritime trade, and the wealth the Tachibana were able to acquire through managing this area for their Saionji masters no doubt contributed to their rise in courtier society – since great economic success on the behalf of a senior courtier family could translate, under the right circumstances, into increased status, a classic case of the interconvertibility of capital. In sum, the Tachibana family played an important role managing estates and supporting Saionji wealth accumulation, demonstrating that the network of cliental relationships between courtier families with regard to managing estates and other economic resources certainly warrants close attention. III: Trade Certainly estates supported the luxurious lives of the Saionji. Careful accumulation and management of estates was vital if a courtier family wished to secure its economic base. However, it was not only estates that comprised the foundation of Saionji economic power. We also need to pay close attention to the profits generated through trade with Song China. Since Sugawara on the 15th of the fourth month in the year 1311, but it does not indicate his post. He had previously been the minister of the ministry of Justice, a post he resigned on the 4th of the third month (nearly a month before his promotion to junior third rank) since this former post was given to those of the senior fourth rank (Kugy ōbunin, Volume 2, in Kuroita Kazumi and Kokushi Taikei Hensh ūkai, eds., Shintei Z ōho Kokushi Taikei, Volume 54 (Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 2001), 421-422. 88 Ibid. 152 Michizane’s (845-903) proposal to cancel the sending of official emissaries to Tang China in 894, official trade relations between Japan and the continent had ceased. However, this did not mean that relations no longer existed. Rather, trade continued unofficially, and courtier families played a significant, if understudied, role. To go back a bit in time, one of the most famous examples of trade relations between Japan and the continent after 894 was the trade conducted by Taira no Kiyomori (1118-1181). Kiyomori was typical in that he openly displayed the profits of his dealings with China. Since trade with the continent required initial investments in ships and so forth, just engaging in trade could by itself testify to a family’s wealth. Rare and luxurious treasures from China also served as visible indicators of the procurer’s elite status. 89 In the first chapter of the Heike Monogatari, in the section entitled “Kiyomori’s Flowering Fortunes,” a description of precious goods from China provides evidence of the great wealth the Taira family enjoyed: “They lacked none of the Seven Treasures or myriad precious things – Yangzhou gold, Jingzhou pearls, Wujun damask, Shujiang brocade.” 90 These luxury items were only obtainable through trade with Song China. The profit to be made through such trade represented a substantial economic base for courtier families alongside the wealth generated from their estates. How important this trade was to individual families depended on their wealth, connections, and 89 On the trade with China, see Charlotte von Verschuer, Across the Perilous Sea: Japanese Trade with China and Korea from the Seventh to the Sixteenth Centuries, trans. Kristen Lee Hunter (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2006), and Bruce L. Batten, “Cross-border Traffic on the Kyushu Coast, 794-1086,” in Heian Japan, Centers and Peripheries, eds. Mikael Adolphson, Edward Kamens, and Stacie Matsumoto (Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2007), 357-383. 90 Helen Craig McCullough, trans., The Tale of the Heike (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1988), 30. 153 control over areas conducive to managing such trade. In the case of the Saionji, like their Ise Taira forebears, they invested heavily in trade with the continent and generated a great amount of wealth in doing so. Courtier families engaged in the China trade could normally deal with maritime merchants who served as middlemen, but on occasion the wealthiest families could more directly participate in the trade. Like Kiyomori, Saionji Kintsune sent a Chinese-style ship (唐船 karafune) 91 to Song China. However, while acting as a private individual, his ship set off to meet not merchants but rather the Song court itself. According to a contemporary record, 七月四日、或者云、一条入道相国所沙汰渡之唐船帰朝、銭十万貫渡之、其上種々珍宝等有之云々、其内能言鳥一羽・水牛一頭渡之、鳥ハ如楽令舞云々、又人詞不違一字言之、水牛ハ、有普通牛廿頭力云々、入道相国以檜木木材、三間四面屋一宇造之、令渡之間、異朝帝賞玩之余、珍宝等云々（任治三年七月） 92 On the fourth day of the seventh month, someone said that the Chinese-style ship which the Ichij ō Novice [Kintsune] had sent [to Song China] has returned. The ship has brought back one hundred thousand strings of cash. Moreover, various exotic treasures were included, they say. Among them was a bird that can speak human languages well and a water buffalo. The bird flies when music is played, and it speaks human languages without making any mistakes. It is said that the water buffalo is twenty times stronger than a regular cow. The Monk Minister [Kintsune] sent cypress trees in order to build a pavilion as a gift for the Emperor in the foreign land [the Southern Song]. The Emperor was overjoyed at the gift, and gave various exotic treasures in exchange. (Minkeiki, 4th Day of the Seventh Month in 1242) 91 Literally it means “Tang vessel,” but it was actually a general term for Chinese ships, other foreign ships, or ships built in such a style. 92 Tokyo University Historiographical Institute, ed., Minkeiki, in Dai Nihon Kokiroku, Volume 8 (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 2001), 142. The Minkeiki is a journal written by Hirohashi Tsunemitsu (広橋経光 1213-1274), minister of civilian affairs (minbuky ō). The diary covers a period of more than forty years, from 1226 to 1268. 154 In other words, by choosing to participate directly in the Chinese tributary system – which was still active and governed all trade relations with the Song court irrespective of the Japanese court’s decision to no longer be officially involved – Kintsune received all manner of valuables from the continent. His gift to the Song emperor of cypress lumber 93 to make a pavilion – in all likelihood chosen with care by his Tachibana managers with their reputation as successful building contractors who could recruit and manage skilled craftsmen – was reciprocated many times over. In addition to the more than 100,000 strings of cash, 94 an immense sum by any stretch, Kintsune received a bird capable of understanding speech (possibly a parrot) and a water buffalo. These animals deserve particular attention. As the eleventh-century Shin-Sarugakuki (New Monkey Dance) mentions, numerous goods were imported to Japan from the continent 95 almost 93 Construction wood seems to have been a common export good from Japan to China. Charlotte von Verschuer writes, “the list of products exported to China reveals several new Japanese export items, among them construction wood: pine (matsu), cryptomeria (sugi), and Luo tree. The last was mentioned in two other Chinese texts.” She also cites phrases from the “Treasure on Barbarian Countries”(Zhufan zhi), which report “[The Japanese] grow a lot of cryptomeria and Luo trees, which reach heights of fourteen to fifteen zhang [41 to 44 meters] and up to four feet [1.2 meters] in diameter. The inhabitants of the regions concerned cut them into rectangular planks and load them into large vessels to sell them in Quanzhou. The men of Quanzhou go to Japan only rarely” (Across the Perilous Seas, op.cit., 69). This citation clearly demonstrates how popular Japanese wood was in China. Verschuer also points out that several monks sent wood to the continent to help repair certain temples there during the thirteenth century (70). 94 1 kan consisted of 1000 coins, so 100,000 kan constituted an extremely large amount of money. Tanaka K ōji calculated the approximate value of 1 kan in current currency values in his essay “Nihon Ch ūsei ni okeru Zeni no Shakaiteki Kino wo megutte” [Concerning the Social Functions of Coins in Medieval Japan], in N ōgaya Shutsudosen Ch ōsa H ōkokusho, ed. N ōgaya Shutsudosen Ch ōsakai (Tokyo: Machidashi Kyoiku Iinkai, 1996). According to his article, 1 kanmon is equivalent to about 156,000 Yen in today’s currency. Even after allowing for some adjustments, 100,000 kan works out to more than 100 million yen. Needless to say, we cannot treat the monetary value in Kintsune’s time as equivalent to that of modern society, but this calculation nonetheless serves to show just how much money was brought back to Japan on Kintsune’s ship. 95 The section entitled “Hachiro Mahito” in Shin Sarugakuki (New Monkey Dance), which was written by Fujiwara no Akihira in the mid-eleventh century, describes the goods which were imported by a Japanese 155 two centuries earlier. However, imported exotic animals appear to have been quite new in Kintsune’s time. They represented considerable cultural capital far in excess of their economic value, and conferred high status in Japanese courtier society. Several contemporary sources such as Tsurezuregusa or Meigetsuki indicate that people were enthusiastic about these animals arriving in the capital, a phenomenon that was later to invite cynical comments from the monk (and sometime social critic) Yoshida Kenk ō (c.1283-c.1352) – he reminds us that not everyone thought the China trade was worth the trouble. 96 Yet the Saionji no doubt gained considerable influence socially by being able to display exotic animals from China right when such things were in vogue. 97 In spite of Kenk ō’s distaste for this boom in exotic animals, it soon spread to Kamakura as well: merchant. There were “Aloe wood, musk, a blend of incense (ehi), cloves, nardostachys, frankincense, birthwort root, camphor, white sandalwood, cloves of a different type than the first, white sandalwood of another sort, red sandalwood, bishopwood [Bischofia javanica Blume], sapanwood, alum, “red snow,” “crimson snow,” two kinds of cinnabar-based ointments, a “purple gold” pigment, croton, orpiment, Indian myrobalans, areca nut, a resin-based yellow red pigment, a cochineal-based pigment, verdigris, a copper-ore-based medicine, cinnabar, another type of cinnabar, a lead-based white powder, leopard and tiger furs, wisteria-patterned tea bowls, bamboo boxes, rhinoceros horn, buffalo horn nyoi [a Buddhist ritual scepter], a belt adorned with agates, glass jars, twill damask, brocade and silk gauze of different kinds, kuretake and kanchiku bamboo, and blow glass pearls” (Charlotte von Verschuer, Across the Perilous Sea, 51). 96 “Even if we were deprived of Chinese goods, we should not miss them, except for medicines. Many Chinese books are available all over the country, and anyone who wishes can copy one. It is the height of foolishness that Chinese ships should make the dangerous journey over here, crammed with cargoes of useless things. I believe it is written in the classics somewhere, ‘He did not prize things from afar,’ and again, ‘He did not value treasures that were hard to obtain’,” (Yoshida Kenk ō, Essays in Idleness: The Tsurezuregusa of Kenk ō, trans. Donald Keene (New York: Columbia University Press, 1967), 101; episode 120). Elsewhere, Kenk ō wrote, “It is stated in the classics, ‘Rare birds and strange beasts should not be kept in this country’,” (104), and “As a rule, oddities and rarities are enjoyed by persons of no breeding. It is best to be without them,” (126; episode 139). In this instance he is offering his criticism concerning plants and flowers; however, we can tell his critical perspective towards people who overly appreciate rare or exotic goods. 97 Of course, the family may have also endeavored to encourage the fashion in exotic animals themselves for the purpose of increasing their status. 156 十月十八日晴今日武蔵太郎主自京都献唐鳥一羽（其号愛子）献之。翼青。頭赤。々色之中有白筋。廻頸如環。御賞翫甚深云々（『吾妻鏡』嘉録2年10月） 98 The eighteenth day of the eighth month. Clear weather. Today, Musashi Tar ō [H ōj ō Tokiuji] presented a Chinese bird which he brought back from Kyoto to the shogun [Yoritsune] (the bird was called Aishi). Its wings were blue, and its head was red. There was a white line around the red head, like circles around its neck. They say that the shogun deeply appreciated it. (Azuma Kagami, 18th Day of the Eighth Month in 1226) The ability of Saionji family members to proffer rare imported items like the aforementioned ivory baton and exotic animals can be easily understood in light of the trade relations that the family established with the continent. Whether it was rare treasures or exotic creatures, trade with China offered both profit and heightened status in courtier society. Kintsune recognized the importance of these trade relations and worked to maintain them, on one occasion going so far as to go one better than Kiyomori, by sending a ship directly to the Chinese court. So it is no exaggeration to say that his wealth depended considerably upon controlling the maritime routes along which trade between Japan and the continent had been conducted since ancient times. Chosen Locations: The Spatial Power of Estates and Villas It is in this context of wealth accumulation, human resource management, and trade that Saionji estate accumulation and development strategies need to be understood. Referencing the map in 98 Azuma Kagami, 46. 157 the previous section, one notices that many of the estates are located on or near the sea. Special attention should be paid to the estates located around the Seto Inland Sea, including the aforementioned Uwa Estate in Iyo Province. The Seto Inland Sea had been a major artery of transportation since ancient times. It developed into a hub of maritime transportation for the purposes of conveying tributes from local areas to the capital and for sending emissaries to the continent or peninsula. 99 Maritime Trade Routes in Early Medieval Times (Based on map from Jeffrey P. Mass, The Origins of Japan’s Medieval World, op.cit.) 99 Matsubara Hironobu argues that marine transportation on the Seto Inland Sea during the eighth and ninth centuries was not just limited to transport between the south and west of Japan and the capital regions, but was also closely connected to the overseas trade with Silla and Tang China. See Matsubara Hironobu, Kodai Kokka to Setonaikai K ōts ū [Transportation in the Seto Inland Sea and the Ancient State] (Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 2004). See especially Chapter 2. 158 And Taira no Kiyomori had developed this Seto Inland Sea route in order to safely bring ships from Song China, which were unable to come around northern Kyushu, into the Kinai region. 100 He even built Itsukushima Shrine for the protection of this valuable maritime route. Kintsune was clearly Kiyomori’s successor, in that he sought to control this maritime route and secure his trade with China. Kintsune and his descendants even took steps to ensure, like Kiyomori, that his enterprise would benefit from spiritual protection. The best example of this was the family’s efforts to gain control of the Munakata Estate. The Munakata Estate was located in Chikuzen Province in Kyushu, and it was significant as the location of the Munakata Shrine (宗像大社). Since ancient times, the shrine, which actually consists of a set of three shrines, had been regarded as a source of protection for maritime transportation. 101 Worship of the deities there may have been initially concerned with 100 Chinese ships had a difficult time in the area around northern Kyushu because routes were disorganized and provisioning was difficult. Verschuer points out the important role that Taira no Kiyomori played in maintaining the sea route in the Inland Sea in order to invite a Chinese merchant to come as far as Owada on the coast, the port of which Kiyomori had reconstructed (78). 101 The Munakata deity first appears in the historical record in the Nihon Shoki, as “Michinushi-no-muchi” (道主貴), meaning the highest deity associated with transportation. Specifically, however, the shrine claimed to enshrine three daughters of the sun goddess Amaterasu Ōmikami, named in the Nihon Shoki as Tagori Hime no Kami (田心姫神), Tagitsu Hime no Kami (湍津姫神), and Ichikishima Hime-no-Kami (市杵島姫神). The text says, Upon this Ama-terasu no Oho-kami asked for Sosa no wo no Mikoto’s ten-span sword, which she broke into three pieces, and rinsed in the true-well of Heaven. Then chewing them with a crunching noise, she blew them away, and from the true-mist of her breath Gods were born. The first was named Ta-gori-bime, the next Tagi-tsu-bime, and the next Ichiki-shima-bime, three daughters in all (W.G. Aston, trans., Nihongi: Chronicles of Japan from the Earliest Times to A.D. 697 (Tokyo: Tuttle, 1972), V olume I, 35). The situation is further complicated by the long tradition in the area of mariners seeking protection from Susano- Ō as the god of the sea and storms, a phenomenon that can perhaps be explained by the Nihon Shoki, wherein the sun goddess presents her unruly brother with the three daughters to care for at Munakata (ibid., I, 36). She reasoned that since they were born from his sword, they were more his daughters than hers. 159 land transportation, but this was soon superseded by association with the sea and maritime travel. In ancient times when official relations were carried on between Japan and the Korean kingdoms, and between Japan and China, envoys as well as traders prayed at the shrine for protection for their voyages before setting sail. The traditional association of the shrine with spiritual protection further encouraged the growth of maritime facilities in the area. At the time of Kintsune’s death in 1244, the estate was a holding of Sh ūmeimon-in (修明門院, 1182-1264), Go-Toba’s consort. 102 Furthermore, its custodianship belonged to Miura Yasumura, but after his defeat at the Battle of H ōji in 1247, his rights were forfeited. 103 In the wake of these events, the Y ōk ōki relates, Saionji Saneuji seized the opportunity and succeeded in wresting control of the estate away, whereupon it became a holding of Ōmiya-in. 104 Saneuji himself took the custodianship of the property. The actual day-to-day management was taken care of by the Tachibana. 105 This ensured that the Saionji would exercise control over the shrine and could count on its protective properties for their maritime activities. Developing estates in relation to maritime transportation routes could be an excellent way to generate wealth not only from the route itself but also from domestic trade and distribution 102 Sh ūmeimon-in was a daughter of Fujiwara no Norisue (藤原範季, 1130-1205), who raised Go-Toba at his residence. She gave birth to several princes, including Prince Morinari (later Juntoku Tenn ō). 103 The Battle of H ōji was an internal struggle in the Kamakura Bakufu between the H ōj ō regents and the Miura, who were vassals of the Minamoto. The defeat of the Miura meant the end of the family. 104 Y ōk ōki, op.cit., entries for the 18th and 27th days of the eighth month in 1247. 105 Ishii Susumu, Nihon Ch ūsei Kokkashi no Kenky ū [Studies on the History of the State in Medieval Japan] (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1970), 453-492. 160 networks linked to the main routes. 106 Controlling land at points where networks connected gave a family flexibility and opportunities for profit from handling goods or supervising those who did. Family access to transportation routes could also be of benefit during unforeseen or difficult circumstances. In this regard, the case of Kase Estate is instructive. Yamauchi Shinji, who has considered the Japan-Song commerce from the perspective of sulphur trade, analyzes part of the Heike Monogatari with an eye to trade and distribution issues. 107 The Heike relates how following the failed anti-Taira coup of 1177, three vassals of Retired Sovereign Go-Shirakawa – Shunkan, Taira no Yasuyori, and Fujiwara no Naritsune – found themselves exiled to Kikai Island off Satsuma. 108 After a while, a letter of pardon arrived for Yasuyori and Naritsune, who returned to the capital, leaving Shunkan on the island alone. 109 Shunkan complained to his apprentice Ari ō that “There is nothing to eat on this island. When I still had the strength, I used to go to the mountains and dig sulfur, which I gave to Nine Provinces traders in exchange for food, but I am too weak to keep it up now.” 110 106 There was considerable wealth to be generated from both maritime and land transportation. Gomi Fumihiko gives a good example of this in his discussion of the introduction of the “baj ō” (馬上) system that assigned wealthy merchants to pay the costs of the Gion Goryo festival. He points out that the first baj ō were assigned to stablehands (厩舎人) in Kyoto and teamsters (馬借) of Shimizuzaka in 1179, and explains that both were groups of immensely wealthy merchants who had made fortunes in transportation (Bunshi to Bushi, 244). 107 Yamauchi Shinji, Nisso B ōeki to “I ō no Michi” [Japan-Song Trade and the “Sulphur Road] (Tokyo: Yamakawa Shoten, 2009). 108 McCullough, trans., The Tale of the Heike, 82. 109 Ibid., 98-100. 110 Ibid., 111-112. The “Nine Provinces,” naturally, refers to the island of Kyushu (九州). “Nine-Province 161 Clearly, Shunkan had been struggling to survive with few if any basic necessities. However, the situation had not been as bad when Yasuyori and Naritsune had still been with him: Meanwhile, the Kikai-ga-shima exiles survived like dewdrops on the tips of grasses. Although life was not to be prized under such circumstances, there were regular shipments of food and clothing to the island from Kase-no-sh ō, a Hizen property belonging to Lesser Captain Naritsune’s father-in-law, Norimori, and this Bishop Shunkan and Yasuyori were also able to stay alive. 111 The “Kase Estate” referred to here was a property located in the vicinity of what is now Saga city. In sum, the exiles were regularly receiving food and clothing from the estate of Yasuyori’s relative in Hizen Province. From this description, and the fact that both Naritsune and Yasuyori stopped to stay at the Kase Estate first on their way back to Kyoto, Yamauchi argues that Hizen Province and Kikai Island were connected via a maritime route. 112 Furthermore, he argues that we can safely postulate that Yasuyori and Naritsune, upon leaving the estate, were heading north along the west coast of Kyushu, whereupon they entered the Seto Inland Sea via the Kanmon Straight. 113 The ability of the exiles to regularly acquire food and clothing on Kikai Island via ship, and smoothly travel up the coast when departing, depended not only on the kindness of relatives but also on having family-held estates located near maritime routes. Such estates could provide significant benefits for a family when it needed to move people and commodities. traders” (九国より通う商人) would be traders hailing from somewhere in Kyushu. 111 McCullough, op.cit., 89. 112 Yamauchi Shinji, op.cit., 56. 113 Ibid. 162 Considering the wealth that could be generated through trade and control over transportation routes, as well as the other benefits that estates near maritime routes could provide, it is clearly important to think about the location of estates in space: that is to say, how estates were situated in relation to each other, and to adjacent trade and transportation routes. Thus one should not neglect the implications of the fact that the Saionji held many estates around the Seto Inland Sea, given its historical background as a key route for maritime transportation. In fact in this context, Saionji actions in the region take on deeper meaning. Seemingly disconnected actions come together to reveal a careful attention to areas conducive to making maximum profits from this long-established trade route. The family’s successful efforts to gain control of the Munakata Estate because of its shrine is one example: the estate by itself may appear to be of negligible economic value, but its significance for a family that already commanded adjacent maritime routes becomes readily apparent. Families neglected certain geographic areas to focus on others, fighting tooth and nail for control over certain estates and not others. The reasoning behind their actions only becomes clear when their holdings are considered collectively, revealing some insight into their broader estate strategy. 114 114 As Amino points out, “The proprietors of estates were not just [idly] waiting for land commendations in order to collect them; they [each] had their own frantic assertiveness, and competed with each other in order to obtain estates or public land in various provinces based on their own strategies. The distribution of their lands must tell the outcome of their strategies” (Saionji-ke to Sono Sh ōry ō,” 297. 163 The Saionji also managed to choose the locations of their estates in such a way that they provided effective physical distribution along the Seto Inland Sea. Within this context, Kintsune’s obsession with the Uwa Estate, discussed earlier, can be understood as part of a program for systematic spatial control. It is worthwhile considering Uwa and several other important estates in order to better understand this Saionji strategy. In doing so I will draw considerably on Amino’s excellent research. 115 The Uwa Estate was located in Iyo Province, the most significant of the several proprietary provinces that the Saionji family controlled. 116 Kintsune himself became the provincial proprietor (chigy ōkokushu) of Iyo in 1203, after which the honor was passed along the main line of the Saionji throughout the Kamakura Period. 117 This made Iyo Province unique among the Saionji proprietary provinces. It is not surprising that Kintsune wished to couple this authority with direct proprietary power by gaining control over major estates like Uwa. As discussed earlier, he went to great lengths to take Uwa Estate away from its previous holders. The end result saw the Saionji with the rights to the Uwa district, including the estate. 115 Amino, op.cit. 116 Saionji Sanemune, Kintsune’s father, held Wakasa Province as a proprietary province from 1192 to 1205. Kintsune’s son, Saneuji, also held this province from 1242 to around 1247, as well as Bizen Province around the same time. Later on, Sanekane (Kintsune’s great-grandson) received Mikawa Province from Retired Sovereign Go-Saga in 1288, while Sanehira received the same province in 1321. 117 Ibid., 297-299. There were occasional intervals when the proprietorship of Iyo passed outside of the family’s control. In 1231, Kintsune declined this post, but he was provincial proprietor again by 1241. This proprietorship was held by his son Saneuji in 1246, Kinsuke from 1253 to 1265, Sanekane from 1269 to 1303, and Kinhira after 1306. 164 Why, though, was Kintsune so obsessed with Uwa? Amino writes that while we cannot be certain, the fact that Fujiwara no Sumitomo chose Hiburi Island in this vicinity for his base strongly suggests Kintsune was following suit and grasping the area as a key locale on the maritime transport routes to the Kyushu region. 118 Fujiwara no Sumitomo, as we have seen earlier in this chapter, was an infamous pirate who had finally been suppressed by the previous owners of Uwa. Hiburi Island, where Sumitomo had his base, was already an important point along the Bungo maritime route. That is to say, controlling Uwa Estate was tantamount to controlling those wishing to come and go between the Seto Inland Sea and northern Kyushu. Considering Saionji control over neighboring estates in Iyo, 119 and Kintsune’s involvement in trade, the value of Uwa Estate for the Saionji spatial strategy becomes readily understandable. As Amino argues, while Iyo Province was the central base for the Saionji estate strategy, they held numerous other land holdings distributed around northern Kyushu and the Seto Inland Sea, most of which were also related to maritime transportation. 120 I will discuss their estates around northern Kyushu first. The estate in that vicinity that seems to have been most strongly connected to the family’s proprietorship of Iyo Province is Anami Estate, in Bungo Province. 118 Ibid., 299. 119 The Saionji owned not only Uwa Estate but also Uma Estate in the same vicinity, for example. 120 Ibid., 300. 165 Being located just across from the Uwajima District in Iyo, it gave the Saionji the ability to oversee the main Bungo maritime route from both sides of the waterway. 121 Of no less significance was Uno no Mikuriya. 122 Like Uwa, this area had a long history of maritime activity. It was famous as a base of the Matsuura League, whose members were local sea lords in the region around Hizen. 123 Although it is not clear how the estate became a Saionji holding, it is worth mentioning that while many Saionji estates were connected to maritime routes, two major estates – both Uwa and Uno – were historical bases for pirates or naval forces. This suggests that the Saionji were not overly innovative in their regional strategy, but rather, they were aware of the historical importance of these areas and pursued control over them as a result. It was their ability to identify, and then grasp and utilize every tool of authority that made the Saionji leaders in the property accumulation game. The Saionji strategy in northern Kyushu left them in a position of considerable control over the maritime routes in the vicinity. 124 121 Amino (ibid.) points out that Kintsune gained Anami Estate in exchange for a commendation to Yusuhara Hachiman Shrine in the 9th month of 1230, suggesting that the estate was highly desired and surely related to Saionji strategies concerning Iyo. 122 On Uno no Mikuriya in the early medieval era, see Fujimoto Yorihito, “Ch ūsei Shoki ni okeru Uno no Mikuriya no K ōz ō to Henshitsu” [The Structure of and Changes in Uno no Mikuriya in Early Medieval Japan], Aoyama Shigaku 20 (2002): 7-28. 123 The Matsuura League was a group of families based in the Matsuura area of northwest Kyushu. This region was known from ancient times for being rich in seafood, and residents were mostly engaged in fishing. Drawing on this region as a power base, the Matsuura League was formed as a sort of local naval force. On the Matsuura family and their activity in northwest Kyushu, see Sotoyama Mikio, Ch ūsei Nagasaki no Kisoteki Kenky ū [Preliminary Studies on Nagasaki in Medieval Japan] (Tokyo: Shibunkaku Shuppan, 2011). For more on sea lords, piracy, and maritime commerce, see Peter D. Shapinsky, “Lords of the Sea: Pirates, Violence, and Exchange in Medieval Japan,” PhD diss., University of Michigan, 2005. 124 As Amino observes, “There is no question that, through seizing Munakata Shrine and Uno no Mikuriya, the Saionji had [gained] great influence over the maritime routes of northern Kyushu” (302). 166 The second area where the Saionji focused on acquiring estates was the Seto Inland Sea, which in addition to being a venue of major maritime networks and a gateway to the continent, was also important as a domestic maritime route that linked northern Kyushu and the capital region. From this perspective, the Saionji controlled important estates linked to water transportation such as Matsuuara Estate in Harima Province and Tai Estate in Awa Province. Unfortunately the details of these estates remain largely unknown. Thankfully, there is a better documentary trail left for two sh ōen in the region, Nuta Estate in Aki Province and Kay ō Honj ō Estate in Bizen Province, both of which Amino has examined. Earlier I discussed how the Tachibana family had managed Saionji estates, Nuta Estate among them. It is not clear how Nuta Estate became a Saionji holding. However, as Amino points out, an inspection record (検注目録 kench ū mokuroku) for 1243 and 1252 features the signature of Tachibana Tomonobu as the official inspector. 125 As Tomonobu was a house manager for the Saionji and also managed the estate for them, these records confirm that the estate was under Saionji control by at least the mid-13th century. Moreover, Amino draws on Ishii Susumu and Takahashi Masaaki, who have pointed out that Kobayakawa Shigehira, the estate steward who signed the document along with Tomonobu, became a Saionji vassal and developed a deep relationship with the family. 126 Amino concludes that the Kobayakawa warrior family served as 125 Ibid., 302-303. 126 Ibid., 303. The family also had a close relationship with Shigehira’s son, Masakage. 167 resident deputies of Iyo Province, and that the Saionji employed a tactic of organizing families – such as the Kobayakawa, who also became sea lords in later years – in local areas. 127 A significant part of estate strategy was not just passively depending on pre-existing connections between areas but also reinforcing them. Nuta Estate was already linked to Iyo, both by the Seto Inland Sea route, and by a chain of locations that served as bases for locals engaged in fishing. Amino points out that by keeping the area under control while clientizing the Kobayakawa family – a family, recall, that had been granted positions in Iyo by the Saionji – the Saionji neatly tied the estates together by means of maritime transportation networks. 128 A similar argument can be applied to the case of the Kay ō Honj ō Estate in Bizen. This estate was yet another pivotal point along the main Seto Inland Sea maritime transportation network, and when this is considered in light of the fact that Saionji Saneuji also gained proprietary rights over Bizen Province, there is no question that the Saionji succeeded in exercising great influence over Seto Inland Sea transportation. Neither was Saionji influence limited to the sea. Many Saionji estates occupied key positions on rivers that functioned as major waterways in the domestic transportation network. In particular, the locations of Kintsune’s villas are notable. The Suita villa, where he enjoyed 127 Ibid. For more on the Kobayakawa family and their stewardship of Nuta Estate, see Takahashi Masaaki, “Saigoku Jit ō to Ōch ō Kizoku: Aki no Kuni Nuta-sh ō Jit ō Kobayakawa-shi no baai” [Estate Stewards of Western Provinces and Nobles in Court: The Case of the Kobayawa Family of Nuta Estate in Aki Province], Nihonshi Kenky ū 231 (1981): 1-33. 128 Ibid., 303. 168 bathing in the water from the Arima hot spring, was located on the banks of the Kanzaki River, an estuary of the Yodo River, as shown on the following map: Map of the Yodo River and Vicinity (source: Tanaka Bun’ei, “Kanzaki-kawa Ry ūiki no Hattatsu to K ōshin”) 129 The Yodo River, the headwaters of which meet Lake Biwa, joins the Uji, Katsura, and Kizu Rivers in Kyoto, and then flows out into Osaka Bay, which is connected to the Seto Inland Sea. It functions as the main artery connecting west and south Japan. In the medieval era, the Suita area was a popular leisure spot for courtier visits. 130 More importantly, it was situated along a main waterway which connected western Japan to Kyoto and Nara, where the households of powerful families were concentrated. Many of the estates and 129 Tanaka Bun’ei, “Kanzaki-kawa Ry ūiki no Hattatsu to K ōshin” [The Development and Harbors of the Kanzaki River Basin], <http://www.archives.city.amagasaki.hyogo.jp/chronicles/visual/02chuusei/ chuusei1-1.html>. 130 The Suita area was a leisure spot for courtiers from the late Heian Period onward. Kuj ō Kanezane’s journal Gyokuy ō (玉葉) records that he had a villa in the area which he occasionally visited: Gyokuy ō, entry for the 27th day of the third month in 1189, and 20th day of the fourth month in 1194 (Tokyo: Kokusho Kank ōkai, 1906). 169 pastures along the Yodo River and its estuaries had long played important roles in transportation and distribution networks as a result. Since earlier times, estates there served as locations for storehouses or administrative offices that temporarily safeguarded tribute sent from estates in the western part of Japan. 131 In other words, Kintsune’s villa was in a prime location: it was located at a vital transportation point that connected the capital with west Japan, as well as with the peninsula and the continent. The estate on which Kintsune’s Suita villa was located was the Suita Nishi Estate. It is speculated that it may have been people from this estate who carried the buckets of hot water from Arima. Amino argues that since ships must had been used to carry the hot water, the Saionji not only had a base here, but also had the power to utilize local elites in the vicinity who were engaged in marine transportation and distribution. 132 Another of Kintsune’s villas, Makishima in Uji, 133 was located due south of the Heian capital on the east coast of Ogura Pond, where the Katsura River joins the Kizu and Uji Rivers. Located around the estuary where the Uji River flows into Ogura Pond, it too was a prime location. The area was a base for niebito, royal provisioning officials who, in addition to depending on transportation routes, also engaged in fishing in the vicinity. 131 K ōza Nihon Sh ōen-shi, op. cit., V olume 7, 301-2. 132 Amino, op. cit., 304-305. 133 The Makishima villa, built by Kintsune in 1242, was in an area that was passed down through the Saionji family until the Sengoku Period. 170 Map of the Waterways around Heian-ky ō (source: Crown Prince Naruhito Shinn ō, “Ky ōto to Chih ō wo Misubu Mizu no Michi”) 134 In addition to their own villas, the Saionji managed some places for members of the royal family, which offered opportunities for influence as well. Especially important in this regard was the Toba villa, located south of Kyoto. The Saionji family managed both the villa itself and the attached lands with their stables. In Amino’s assessment, the Toba villa was a central institution controlling bridges and the passage of ships on adjacent land, making it an important place for 134 Crown Prince Naruhito Shinn ō, “Ky ōto to Chih ō wo Misubu Mizu no Michi: Kodai Ch ūsei no Biwa-ko Yodogawa Suiun wo ch ūshin toshite” [Waterways Connecting Kyoto and Local Regions – Focusing on Ancient and Medieval Water Transport on Lake Biwa and Yodo River (official translation)] <http://www.kunaicho.go.jp/okotoba/02/koen/koen-h15az-mizuforum3th.html>. 171 river transportation. 135 Once the Saionji family had acquired the right to manage this area, they retained this privilege hereditarily. Finally, although this discussion has focused primarily on maritime trade and transportation, land transportation was another area in which courtier families could invest. Although the Saionji did not have the same degree of economic interest in land transportation, they nevertheless cultivated influence in this arena as well. The family controlled numerous pastures near the capital, where horses and cows presented to the royal family from local areas were looked after. Some of their estates were also recognized for their ability to produce cows or horses of fine stock. Uno no Mikuriya, discussed above in relation to maritime transportation, was known for its tributes of fine cows. 136 The Shungy ū Ekotoba (駿牛絵詞, Picture Scroll of Fine Cows) 137 mentions how Saionji Saneuji presented a cow from this estate to Retired Sovereign Go-Saga, for example. 138 All this is significant from the point of view of land transportation because cows and horses were vital to such networks and represented solid economic capital as a result. 139 The family also had access to positions of influence that they 135 Amino, op. cit., 306. 136 Ibid., 309-312, esp. 311-312. 137 This picture scroll was made around the end of the Kamakura Period, but only the text portion is now extant. It records explanations about fine cows since the end of the Heian Period, which indicates that cows were valued and that good cows were considered something precious. 138 Amino, op. cit., 311-312. 139 One imagines, then, that Kintsune got excellent use out of the strong water buffalo given to him by the Chinese emperor. 172 could draw upon with regards to land transportation, such as gaining a near-monopoly over the post of Director of the Royal Stables. 140 The Saionji had a particular advantage when it came to generating profit from trade and transportation because they could link their investments in land transportation to their more established maritime ones. Major pastures were located near rivers, and they were almost always linked with ports as a result. Managing stables required organizing provisions via cart or boat as well as maintaining routes to move horses around quickly and reliably. Cows and horses were carried to distant locations via ships. Human resources were also essential. Ship crews, shipping agents, and workers at stables and villas needed to collaborate effectively, and the Saionji were effective in this regard. Through their management of the stables, the family had strong links with teamsters and shipping agents who ran carts to serve the transportation needs in the greater capital region. Ships the Saionji arranged to head upstream from Suita to the Minase detached royal palace 141 were crewed by people mobilized from their pastures, the Toba Villa, as well as 140 Amino, op. cit., 309-310. Control over court positions concerned with stable management and pastures also gave the family influence over pastures and tribute lands in various provinces. Amino explains that as the Saionji controlled positions of managing royal estates for the retired sovereign (such as the Toba Estate with its villa and stables) as well as positions enabling them to recommend or appoint the head of the Bureau of Horses of the Left, they were acting as major figures in concerns of land transportation (ibid., 312). 141 The Minase Palace was a detached palace built as a summer retreat around 1199. It was located where the Minase River joins the Yodo River. The palace was washed away in heavy rains in 1216, but was then rebuilt by Minamoto no Michiteru (源通光, 1187-1248) in an even more luxurious form than before. Go-Toba seems to have been particularly fond of this palace; the Meigetsuki alone records no fewer than thirty of his visits. The palace appears in Go-Toba’s poetry as well, for example: 「見渡せば山本霞む水無瀬河夕べは秋となに思ひけむ」 Shin Kokinsh ū (V olume 1, spring 36). In English, “As I gaze out / Over the Minase River, misted / At this mountain’s base / I wonder why one ever thought / That “evenings are for autumn” (trans. Robert N. Huey, in Huey, The Making of the Shinkokinsh ū (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002), 156). 173 members of the Bureau of the Horses of the Left, thus revealing how seamlessly the whole system came together. In sum, the Saionji depended upon their estates to support their lifestyles, but under Kintsune’s leadership they also gathered and developed their estates and villas not just for their own sake but also for the valuable role they played in trade and transportation routes. They secured pivotal points on transportation routes between the capital and west and south Japan, thereby constituting a spatial foundation upon which to effectively manage both land and maritime routes domestically and abroad. Conclusion This chapter has explored the great wealth of the Saionji and the lavish lifestyle it supported, as well as the economic foundations that made it possible. It also showed the extent to which economic and spatial power were intertwined. On the one hand, spatial power could be symbolic, as seen in the reworking of the land around the Kitayama villa to produce a scenic landscape that manifested the high status of the Saionji and brought recognition from other courtiers and the royal family. Economic power, in other words, could be transformed into spatial power through the creation of a landscape that reflected Saionji status and ensured its continuation. 174 On the other hand spatial power directly overlapped with economic power, as seen in the geographical location of Saionji estates or villas that offered effective control of both domestic and international trade routes. Through control of significant geographical points for both water and land transportation, the Saionji family presided over major distribution routes that served as the foundation of their wealth. And in addition to the efforts of Saionji family members themselves to develop this spatial network, a key role was also played by the families that provided managers for their households and estates, namely the Miyoshi and Tachibana. Through skilled service managing local workers, construction, and estate operation, these families contributed greatly to Saionji wealth accumulation, and accordingly increased their own status within courtier society. Estates, whether owned or managed on behalf of others, were not passively held valuables. They were economic generators that were actively developed by courtier families and their associated families. It is in the broader economic context that the fabulous Kitayama villa with which I began my discussion also needs to be understood. Considering how carefully the Saionji worked to establish spatial networks based on his estates, villas, and pastures, we can safely conclude that Kintsune’s choice of Kitayama was motivated by such concerns. 175 The impressive location retained its significance in later years, when it was taken over by the third Muromachi shogun, Ashikaga Yoshimitsu (1358-1408), 142 who called himself the “King of Japan.” 143 Imatani Akira argues that “Here at the Kitayama pavilion, the top political decisions were made, and rituals at the national level also come to be conducted there. It is a huge mistake to call the Golden Pavilion (Rokuonji) the remains of Yoshimitsu’s villa; the site was rather the political centre for the country, and deserves to be called a palace.” 144 The reason why Yoshimitsu chose this site in order to establish his own “palace” is not clear; however, considered alongside Kintsune’s careful cultivation of spatial network strategy, there is no doubt that it was a prime location – situated in a lofty, scenic wonderland looking down on the capital – that demonstrated the owner’s authority. At the same time, the history of the location, bound up with the influential Saionji family and their numerous important visitors, likely accrued cultural capital (the subject of the following chapter) at the site. If nothing else, Saionji reworking of the landscape reflected their legacy long after they left. That the Saionji were able to enjoy great wealth while commanding considerable influence in and beyond courtier society was due to a large extent to their careful cultivation of strong links 142 It was in 1397 that Yoshimitsu acquired the Kitayama site from the Saionji and began renovating it to suit his purpose. He demanded that daimy ō all over the country send a fixed number of workers to work on the project, but Ouchi Yoshirio refused to do so. This refusal led to the conflict between Yoshimitsu and Yoshirio later on. 143 Akira Imatani and Kozo Yamamura, “Not for Lack of Will or Wile: Yoshimitsu’s Failure to Supplant the Imperial Lineage,” Journal of Japanese Studies 18.1 (winter 1992): 45-78. 144 Imatani Akira, Muromachi no Ōken: Ashikaga Yoshimitsu no Oken Sandatsu Keikaku [Kingship in the Muromachi Era: Ashikaga Yoshimitsu’s Plan to Usurp the Kingship] (Tokyo: Ch ūō K ōronsha, 1990), 77. 176 between space and power. This association has received little scholarly attention, but the fusing of space and power, most obviously seen in control over trade routes, represented the forging of an impressive tool of authority. Understanding that adds significantly to our understanding of early medieval history, and the role of Saionji courtiers therein. 177 Chapter 3: Cultural Capital of the Saionji Introduction On the fifteenth day of the seventh month in the year 1200, the leading poet Fujiwara no Teika learned from Saionji Kintsune, his brother-in-law, that Retired Sovereign Go-Toba planned to compile a collection of one hundred poems. 1 Teika was immensely pleased to hear that Kintsune was arranging to have Teika chosen as one of the poets invited to contribute to the collection, and immediately he wrote back thanking him for his help. 2 Kintsune’s efforts on behalf of Teika, of which this was but one example, contributed to the poet’s growing reputation. Unsurprisingly, Kintsune’s actions were not motivated merely by altruistic leanings. The Saionji had invested substantial time and financial resources in Teika’s family, already known as “a house of poetry.” The Saionji thus held what amounted to a 1 Fujiwara no Teika, Meigetsuki, entry for the 15th day of the seventh month in 1200 (Tokyo: Kokusho Kank ōkai, 1911), V olume 1, 160. For Teika, this hundred-poem compilation, the Sh ōji shodo hyakushu (正治初度百首) represented his first opportunity to be included in a collection compiled at royal command. He had contributed to a previous hundred-poem collection in 1192, but it had not been compiled at royal command. 2 Ibid. Conversely, he became quite depressed to later learn that he was not to be included after all, a situation only resolved by his father Shunzei’s intervention. The collection had been limited to senior poets, and despite his talents Teika had simply been too young to contribute. His father Shunzei, an established and influential poet, managed to get an exception made for his son’s case. For more on Teika’s life and works, see Ishida Yoshisada, Fujiwara no Teika no Kenky ū [Studies on Fujiwara no Teika] (Tokyo: Bunkad ō Shoten, 1957); Murayama Shuichi, Fujiwara no Teika (Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 1962); and Kubota Jun, Fujiwara no Teika (Tokyo: Sh ūeisha, 1984). And in Western languages, see Roselee Bundy, “Poetic Apprenticeship: Fujiwara Teika’s Shogaku Hyakushu,” Monumenta Nipponica 45.2 (Summer 1990): 157-188; David T. Bialock, “Voice, Text, and the Question of Poetic Borrowing in Late Classical Japanese Poetry,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 54.1 (June 1994): 181-231; Michel Vieillard-Baron, Fujiwara no Teika (1162-1241) et la notion d'excellence en poésie. Théorie et pratique de la composition dans le Japon classique (Paris: Collége de France 2001); and Ivo Smits, “Teika and the Others: Poetics, Poetry, and Politics in Early Medieval Japan,” Monumenta Nipponica 59.3 (Autumn 2004): 359-389. 178 controlling interest in Teika’s career. There was every expectation that as Teika rose through the ranks, he would glorify his Saionji patrons – a relationship cemented through marriage – and offer them opportunities to spread and legitimate the Saionji’s own literary efforts. Teika represented just one opportunity for the Saionji to invest social and economic capital in order to generate not an economic windfall, but rather a cultural one, befitting their reputation for cultural sophistication and influence on the literary scene. In other words, this was a classic example of the Saionji generating cultural capital. The previous chapter examined the economic and spatial power held by the Saionji family, and how these particular tools of authority, carefully cultivated and maintained, helped support the family’s influence and reputation while enabling its luxurious lifestyle. Needless to say, influence and power are not the products of economic endeavors alone. Cultural pursuits can also provide an enduring legacy of influence, for culture is never just about culture but is necessarily bound up with political and other concerns. In this chapter, I will assess the cultural activities of the Saionji family and consider how these efforts expanded and reinforced their status and influence. But first, I will provide some background on Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital as it can be applied to the study of medieval Japan. 179 Bourdieu subdivided cultural capital into three types (or “states”): embodied, objectified, and institutionalized. Embodied cultural capital refers to knowledge (including knowledge formally derived from schooling as well as that gained through experience), skills, and tastes or senses; i.e. aspects embodied in an individual that are acquired through education or family environment. Objectified cultural capital refers to cultural goods such as paintings, books, or tools. As material objects, these may also have economic value. Finally, institutionalized cultural capital refers to an individual’s career or qualifications, that is, official recognition of an individual’s achievements or “quality,” as certified by an institution (such as an academic degree). 3 In Bourdieu’s Distinction, the significance of this approach for thinking about culture is made clear: there he shows how taste (in music, for example) is formulated by social environment, and how the cultural pursuits and values afforded works of art by individuals reflect their social class. Aristocratic taste, in other words, is a direct product of aristocratic upbringing, which inculcates forms of socialization particular to that class. 4 Cultural capital, then, functions as a form of authority that enables bearers to distinguish themselves from others, employing not economic labels like “rich” vs. “poor” but rather “cultured” or “sophisticated,” vs. “uncultured” or “unsophisticated.” 3 Ibid., 243-248. 4 Bourdieu, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, trans. Richard Nice (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984). Distinction was originally published in French in 1979. 180 While Bourdieu focused on the role of the French education system in perpetuating the class system in this way, his arguments about culture have been held to be equally valid for other places and times, and they have exerted a profound influence on a broad range of historians. 5 Bourdieu’s theories contributed to encouraging interest in the historical study of matters such as taste and everyday life. 6 Cultural capital is a concept that has spread far and wide, and informed a significant number of studies of medieval Europe. To take one recent example, Kevin Wanner shows in Snorri Sturluson and the Edda (2008) that the production of one of the great Scandinavian medieval texts, the 12th-century Edda (a guide to poetics), was bound up with political concerns, and that the historian and poet Snorri was concerned less with preserving 5 What Loïc Wacquant observes regarding Bourdieu’s The State Nobility can be taken to apply to the influence of Bourdieu’s approach to capital as a whole: “Even more so than Distinction, which it builds upon and extends in a number of directions, this study [The State Nobility] of the logic of social domination in advanced society, and of the mechanisms whereby it disguises and perpetuates itself, is anchored deep in the specificities of the French system of class, culture, and education in the two decades following the upheaval of May 68. At the same time, as in every good ethnological report according to Marcel Mauss, “what may appear as futile detail is in fact a condensation of principles” [Marcel Mauss, Manuel d’ethnographie (Paris, Bibliothèque Payot, 3rd ed., 1989, orig. 1947), p. 7.] that Bourdieu contends are equally operative in other countries and epochs” (Loïc J.D. Wacquant, Foreward to Bourdieu, The State Nobility: Elite Schools in the Field of Power, trans. Lauretta C. Clough (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996), ix. 6 Consider such varied works as Kocku von Stuckrad, Locations of Knowledge in Medieval and Early Modern Europe: Esoteric Discourse and Western Identities (Leiden: Brill, 2010), which is informed by Bourdieu’s ideas about identity formation; and Rudy Kosher, ed., Histories of Leisure (Oxford: Berg, 2002), in which many scholars discuss and respond to Bourdieu’s theories about culture and art. Not everyone has been impressed with historians’ use of Bourdieu’s conceptual frameworks. For example, Daniel Wickberg writes that “Much of Bourdieu’s social and cultural theory, deriving its orientation from Émile Durkheim’s concern with collective and unconscious representation of social forms, is opaque and lacking in definition. It is impossible, for instance, to find a clear definition of habitus in his writings, despite the centrality of the idea to his sociology” (Daniel Wickberg, “What is the History of Sensibilities? On Cultural Histories, Old and New,” American Historical Review 112.3 (June 2007), par 23, <http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ahr/112.3/wickberg.html> (11 Aug. 2011). For a more neutral assessment of historians’ use of Bourdieu focusing on social capital, see Nagashima Takeshi, “Historians and the Social Capital Debate: A Preliminary Survey,” The Senshu Social Capital Review 1 (2010): 93-104. 181 poetic tradition for its own sake and more with generating cultural capital to be exchanged for benefits at the Norwegian court. 7 Similarly, among historians of Japan, in addition to a number of scholars who directly draw on Bourdieu’s theories, such as Mark McNally in his recent study of kokugaku, there are many more researchers who have been inspired to investigate the complex links between the cultural and the political. 8 Wakita Haruko has drawn attention to these links in medieval Japan, pointing out the political characteristics and influence of cultural activities by observing that, “In many cases, culture or literature constitutes a person’s political expression. […] To the extent that manipulating culture makes it possible to manipulate people’s minds, culture has a strongly political characteristic, so the activities of literary people have a gentle but powerful influence on society.” 9 7 Kevin Wanner, Snorri Sturluson and the Edda: The Conversion of Cultural Capital in Medieval Scandinavia (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2008). Other works that take up the theme of cultural capital in medieval Europe include Valerie L. Garver’s Women and Aristocratic Culture in the Carolingian World (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2009). 8 Mark McNally, Proving the Way: Conflict and Practice in the History of Japanese Nativism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center, 2005). Among historians of Japan, Bourdieu has been perhaps most influential among those who work on the Edo Period, informing the work of scholars such as Herman Ooms (Tokugawa Village Practice: Class, Status, Power, Law (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996)) and Ann Walthall (“The Cult of Sensibility in Rural Tokugawa Japan: Love Poetry by Maeda Tatsuko,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 117.1 (Jan.-Mar. 1997): 70-86). But also consider the work of historical sociologist Eiko Ikegami, who while more directly inspired by Marc Bloc, has been seen as providing an analysis of (primarily early modern) Japanese culture that is comparable to Bourdieu’s treatment of the origins of French culture (Bonds of Civility: Aesthetic Networks and the Political Origins of Japanese Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005). 9 Wakita Haruko, Tenn ō to Ch ūsei Bunka [Sovereigns and Medieval Culture] (Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 2003), 150. 182 To what extent the Saionji family as a whole can be categorized as such literati (bunjin) is debatable; however, given that the family originated from one of the branch families of the Northern Fujiwara regental family, a certain degree of cultural capital was both expected and valued. The Saionji counted among their heritage two forms of cultural activity in particular, and worked to transmit them – as well as the attendant cultural capital they generated – from one generation to the next. It is these two elements that I will focus on in this chapter. The first of these is waka (classical Japanese poetry). The importance of waka in the early Kamakura Period (1192-1333) reflects the influence of the Retired Sovereign Go-Toba (1180-1239), who was himself the main editor of the Shin Kokinshū (New Poems Old and New) and who even established an office for waka in his own palace. 10 These developments brought waka, and composers thereof, considerable status. Indeed, Uwayokote Masataka argues that Go-Toba “elevated this poetry, the social rank of which was originally low, and which was non-royal intimates (jige-nin)-centered, to become royal-intimates (tenj ōbito)-centered.” 11 After Go-Toba was sent into exile following his ill-fated attempt to overturn the bakufu with the 1221 10 The Office of Waka (和歌所 wakadokoro) was established in the 7th of 1201. In establishing this office, Go-Toba also enforced poetry examinations (Gomi Fumihiko, Nihon no Rekishi Shin Shiten Ch ūsei 5: Yakudosuru Ch ūsei [New Perspectives on Japanese Medieval History, Volume 5: Dynamic Medieval] (Tokyo: Sh ōgakukan, 2008), 149). Also see Akiko Hirota’s dissertation on the intersections of poetry and politics at Go-Toba’s court for more insight into the development of waka in court culture (“Ex-Emperor Go-Toba: A Study in Personality, Politics and Poetry” (PhD diss., University of California at Berkeley, 1989). 11 Uwayokote Masataka, Sh ūkan Asahi Hyakka Nihon no Rekishi 4: Ch ūsei 1-4 – Kamakura Bakufu to J ōky ū no Ran [Asahi Weekly Magazine of the History of Japan, V olume 4: Medieval 1-4 – The Kamakura Bakufu and the J ōky ū Incident] (Tokyo: Asahi Shinbunsha, 2002), 186. 183 J ōkyū Disturbance, this literary tradition also seems to have faced loss of unity and authority. Yet the ninth royal anthology, the Shin Chokusen Wakash ū (New Collection of Poems [Compiled at] Royal Command, 1235), was compiled after the Disturbance, and courtier society soon underwent a renaissance of sorts, culturally rejuvenated under the reign of Go-Saga who himself commissioned the tenth and eleventh royal anthologies, the Shoku Gosen Wakash ū (Continued Later Collection of Poems, 1251) and Shoku Kokin Wakash ū (Continued Collection of Ancient and Modern Poems, 1265). Waka composition was not merely a literary activity. Rather, it represented considerable cultural capital in the world of the court where cultural sophistication and political acumen went hand-in-hand. Unsurprisingly, waka composition became tightly connected to the political situation of the time. 12 To a considerable extent, this was because poetry composition by a monarch was never considered irrelevant or divisible from his or her characteristics as a ruler, making said composition a “kingly,” and therefore necessarily a political act. 13 The ties between poetry and 12 For instance, Robert N. Huey, in his comprehensive study of Teika’s great-grandson Ky ōgoku Tamekane (京極為兼), argues for the importance of political context, observing that Tamekane’s works “cannot be discussed – would not even exist today – apart from the political and social context in which they were created” (Ky ōgoku Tamekane: Poetry and Politics in Late Kamakura Japan (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1989), 1). Uwayokote simply states outright that “Waka was a political literary art” (4-114). Also see Mark Morris’ “Waka and Form, Waka and History,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 46.2 (Dec. 1986): 551-610. 13 For recent work on this issue, see Ogawa Toy ō, “Waka to Tei ō” [Waka and Sovereigns] in Watanabe Yasuaki, et al., eds., Waka no Chikara [The Power of Waka] (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 2005), 51-73. However, this argument cannot be applied to all monarchs. Also see Terashima Tsuneyo, who examines the literary activities of Tsuchimikado Tenn ō from the perspective of monarchs and poetry composition, and who argues that the content and feeling of “kingly poems” was different from that of others (Terashima Tsuneyo, “Tenn ō to Waka: Tsuchimikado-in no Itonami wo toshite” [Sovereigns and Waka: Through the Poetic Activities of the Retired 184 politics became increasingly emphasized and unified during the reign of Go-Toba. 14 Living in that era, Saionji Kintsune was both a courtier and a poet in an environment that valued the integration of these two roles. Some of Kintsune’s poetry survives him. 15 Other major members of the Saionji family were also known as poets, and they played significant roles in the composition of royal and non-royal anthologies alike. In this regard, they had an impressive literary reputation, including experience as contributors, colleagues of compilers, and literary patrons. The second form of cultural activity that was important for cultural capital for the Saionji was expertise as masters of the Japanese lute, known as the biwa. Indeed the Saionji became known as “the house of the biwa.” Such “familial specialties” among courtier families had existed since around the early 12th century, and a family recognized for a particular art or skill became strongly associated with the practice. 16 The Saionji association with music was particularly beneficial for them because of the association between music and kingship. As recent Sovereign Tsuchimikado], Tokyo Ika Shika Daigaku Ky ōy ōgakubu Kenky ū Kiy ō 37 (2007): 1-13). 14 Inoue Muneo, “Seiji to Bungaku: Waka no Baai” [Politics and Literature: The Case of Waka], Kokubungaku 32.7 (June 1987): 70-75; 73. He argues that while the ties between political power and poetic activities existed, there was no clear consciousness of them until the time of Go-Toba. For earlier periods, Mezaki Tokue points out the political influence of compiling a royal anthology by discussing the case of Sugawara Michizane. See Mezaki Tokue, Kizoku Shakai to Koten Bunka [Courtier Society and Classical Culture] (Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 1995), 91. 15 Kintsune’s poetic activities have been recognized by English-language scholars as well. For example, Mostow writes that “Kintsune was active in poetry circles” and “He has 114 poems in the Shinkokinsh ū and later anthologies.” See Joshua Mostow, Pictures of the Heart: The Hyakunin Isshu in Word and Image (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1996), 424. 16 On the establishment of familial specialties among courtier families, see Sugawara Masako, Ch ūsei no Buke to Kuge no Ie [Medieval Warrior and Courtier Houses ] (Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 2007). 185 studies show, this connection had existed since ancient times, and the sovereign’s love for music, especially for a particular instrument such as the zither, flute or lute, had long made an enormous impact on not only cultural but also political aspects of society. 17 Such a situation was by no means unique to Japan, as studies on European courts have shown: the association between music and royalty, and the considerable cultural capital that musical pursuits represented at royal courts, appears to have been influential in many medieval societies. 18 Taste in music has itself long been understood as emblematic of the aristocracy and thereby, of distinction within society. Bourdieu argues that nothing more clearly affirms one’s ‘class,’ nothing more infallibly classifies, than tastes in music. This is of course because, by virtue of the rarity of the conditions for acquiring the corresponding dispositions, there is no more ‘classifactory’ practice than concert-going or playing a ‘noble’ instrument… […]. But it is also because the flaunting of ‘musical culture’ is not a cultural display like others: as regards its social definition, ‘musical culture’ is something other than a quantity of knowledge and experiences combined with the capacity to talk about them. Music is the most ‘spiritual’ of the arts of the spirit and a love of music is a guarantee of ‘spirituality.’ 19 17 Most notably, see Toyonaga Satomi, Ch ūsei no Tenn ō to Ongaku [Medieval Sovereigns and Music] (Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 2006). 18 Consider, for example, Fiona Kisby, “A Mirror of Monarchy: Music and Musicians in the Household Chapel of the Lady Margaret Beaufort, Mother of Henry VII,” Early Music History 16 (1997): 203-234. Kisby argues that Lady Margaret Beaufort’s musical patronage not only enhanced her reputation but also stimulated musical activity. Kisby’s study also helps us to understand the effects of patronage on local culture, and how relations between courts could affect, and be affected by, musical patronage. 19 Bourdieu, Distinction, 18-19. In the last line, Bourdieu means that music is regarded as a sophisticated art that reaches beyond the physical world; to be sufficiently versed in music brings with it the social perception that one is a ‘spiritual’ (and therefore superior) being worthy of high regard. 186 It is not surprising that in many medieval societies music became strongly associated with the monarch – the ability of music to lift the spirit and transcend the everyday was seen to reflect the sovereign’s special qualities not only as a secular but also as a spiritual figure. This would have been particularly apt in the case of the tenn ō, where from the beginning the priestly elements of rulership and the ability to unify the people culturally was of greater import than military or economic power. Unsurprisingly then, as Soma Mariko points out, “for the tenn ō, there was much value in mastering music as one of the kingly pursuits, rather than it being limited to a mere hobby or taste.” 20 In this context, it is important to consider how the Saionji utilized their status as “the house of the biwa,” and what this status meant for them in courtier society. Investigating this issue will also reveal the practical role of music in connecting people and its contribution to the formation of information networks, which I will discuss in a later chapter. Having briefly set out the two primary forms of cultural activity upon which the Saionji depended, I will now proceed to examine each of these in turn in more depth, discussing the makeup of these cultural arenas, Saionji expertise and human resources invested and achieved therein, and how they drew upon these cultural activities to generate significant amounts of cultural capital. 20 S ōma Mariko, “Biwa no Jidai kara Sh ō no Jidai he: Ch ūsei no Tenn ō to Ongaku” [The Tradition of Biwa to Sh ō: Japanese Emperors in the Middle Ages and the Imperial Music (official translation)], Shory ōbu Kiy ō 49 (1998), 13-33; 14. 187 The Saionji as Poets The Saionji family was heavily invested in the world of poetry, and pursued this interest through a variety of roles. First, they were poets themselves, and a considerable number of their poems survived them. For example, there are 118 extant poems by Saionji Kintsune, and more than 245 by his son Saneuji. The following list covers seven royal waka anthologies beginning with the Shin Chokusen Wakash ū, listing the editor and the Saionji family member who contributed the most poems to that anthology. Also indicated are the number of poems the Saionji family member contributed, and how they rank in terms of those who contributed the most poems to the anthology in question. Waka Anthologies 21 Anthology Editor Saionji Contributor # of poems Shin Chokusen Wakash ū Fujiwara no Teika Saionji Kintsune 30 (#4) Shoku Gosen Wakash ū Fujiwara no Tameie Saionji Saneuji 35 (#2) Shoku Kokin Wakash ū Fujiwara no Tameie Saionji Saneuji 61 (#2) Shoku Sh ūi Wakash ū Nij ō Tameuji Saionji Saneuji 28 (#4) Shin Gosen Wakash ū Nij ō Tameyo Saionji Sanekane 27 (#4) Gyokuy ō Wakash ū Ky ōgoku Tamekane Saionji Sanekane 62 (#3) Saionji Sh ōshi 49 (#11) (Eifukumon-in) Shoku Senzai Wakash ū Nij ō Tameyo Saionji Sanekane 51 (#2) 21 Information in this chart was confirmed with the following source: Ema Tsutomo, et al., eds., Shinsh ū Kokugo S ōran [Newly-edited General Survey of the Japanese Language] (Tokyo: Kyoto Shob ō, 1985). The Saionji members and the number of their poems listed here are limited to the top ten contributors in a given anthology, except for the Gyokuyosh ū. If one were to extend the range further, there is a higher possibility that more Saionji members would appear in this list. 188 Clearly, the number of poems in royal anthologies by members of the Saionji family is quite significant. 22 As many as 30 poems by Kintsune were selected for inclusion in the Shin Chokusen Wakash ū, making him fourth among all the other poets in terms of numbers of poems. 23 Given the fact that the total number of Kintsune’s extant poems is only 118, that nearly one quarter of them appear in a royal anthology is worthy of note. Kintsune’s son Saneuji was even more prominent, ranking as one of the top poets in no less than three different royal anthologies. Meanwhile Saionji Sanekane 24 – Saneuji’s grandson – is known as a particularly famous poet: the number of his extant poems exceeds 200, and he is ranked as one of the best poets in the royal anthologies of subsequent generations. Needless to say, the anthologies reflected particular concerns which shaped which poems were included. Some of these concerns may have been thematic, or inspired by ideological or other concerns. For instance, in an article that points out the significance of the collection within 22 Although the number of her poems included in royal anthologies is not as significant as the other members of the Saionji family listed here, there is one Saionji woman whose poetic talent is highly regarded. This is Saionji Sh ōshi, better known as Eifukumon-in (1171-1342), a daughter of Saionji Sanekane. In addition to her 49 poems in the Gyokuy ō Wakash ū (as indicated in Figure II), her poems also appear in the Shin Gosen Wakash ū (3 poems), and the Shoku Senzai Wakash ū (11 poems). Her poems were also incorporated into other anthologies which were compiled after her passing. On Eifukumon-in’s life, see Sasaki Harutsuna, Eifukumon-in (Tokyo: Seikatsusha, 1943); and Maeda Taeko, “Eifukumon-in,” in Nihon Kajin K ōza 4: Ch ūsei no Kajin ( Tokyo: K ōbund ō, 1961), 193-262. 23 The poet with the most poems in the anthology was Fujiwara no Ietaka (藤原家隆) with 43, followed by Kuj ō Yoshitsune (九条良経) with 36, and Fujiwara no Shunzei (藤原俊成) with 35. 24 Saionji Sanekane’s name is quite well-known since he appears in The Confessions of Lady Nij ō as one of the author’s lovers. His poems appear in the same work as well, and there is no small number of studies concerning him as a poet. For instance, see Ishikawa Kazushi, “Sanekane-sh ū no Seiritsu to Sono Seikaku” [The Creation and Characteristics of the Collection of Sanekane], Waka Bungaku Kenky ū 87 (Dec. 2003): 27-37. 189 the history of Japanese literature from the perspective of comparative literature, Earl Miner once called attention to such “hidden meanings” in ideology in royal anthologies such as the Kokinsh ū. 25 While some members of the Saionji family were clearly talented poets, their poems being included in royal anthologies does not by itself testify to their talent since other factors played a considerable role in the selection process. By far the most important issue at work aside from talent was surely politics. As mentioned earlier, literary activities, and especially waka composition, was strongly connected to one’s political power. One’s political influence and networks played a significant role in poetry endeavors because just as cultural accomplishments could open the door to political advancement, politically prominent individuals and families sought cultural recognition that would further legitimate or reinforce their noble image. This is a clear example of Bourdieu’s “interconvertibility” of cultural and political capital. Royal anthologies demonstrate this particularly well. It is vital to understand the royal anthologies in the context of the political structure that shaped all such cultural activities. 26 What 25 Earl Miner, “The Collective and the Individual: Literary Practices and its Social Implications,” in Earl Miner, ed., Principles of Classical Japanese Literature (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985), 17-62. 26 As Tabuchi Kumiko observes, “royal anthologies compiled during the medieval era represented the value or consciousness of contemporary people, and [the anthologies] transmitted their [ideas] to their own and later societies. The organization and expressions are foundations of commonalities and standardization, and are filled with social meanings” (Tabuchi Kumiko, “Kamakura Jidai no Kadan to Bungei” [Poetry Circles and Literature during the Kamakura Period], in Kond ō Seiichi, ed., Nihon no Jidaishi 9: Mongoru no Sh ūrai [History of Japan, V olume 9: The Mongol Invasions] (Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 2003), 157). 190 mattered when compiling royal anthologies was not merely literary achievement. Rather, the anthologies were intended to represent the political scene of the era that produced them, both for the purpose of reinforcing that structure and for the purpose of preserving it as an officially-endorsed image of the era for veneration by later generations. As Tabuchi Kumiko argues, the selection of poets for inclusion “shows the consciousness and strategies of their society […] [which means] that, the [included] poets clearly demonstrate who was respected among poets from the poetic houses, royal family, and power holders.” 27 The Shin Chokusen Wakash ū is a particularly good example, since it was particularly deeply colored by the turbulent political situation of its time. The anthology was compiled right after the J ōkyū Disturbance, and consequently it features not a single poem by Go-Toba, despite his having been regarded as the leading poet of the time. 28 Thus, it could be said that the anthology sought to erase Go-Toba from the cultural record just as he had been exiled from the political scene. His near-total loss of political capital took with it all his cultural capital as well, leaving him absent from the anthology as a cultural “snapshot” of the political structure it represented, which was meant to be passed down to future generations in the form of the 27 Ibid. 28 Likewise, there are no poems by either of the other two retired tenn ō – Juntoku and Tsuchimikado – who were exiled. Indeed, the anthology contained so many poems by warriors in the East, starting with Minamoto no Sanetomo, that it became dubbed “Ujigawash ū” and did not enjoy a good reputation. It is said that a daughter of Fujiwara no Shunzei (藤原俊成, 1114-1204, actually a niece of Teika’s) severely criticized the work, saying that she did not even want to see it because it did not contain any poems by Go-Toba, although it contained poems by Go-Horikawa, whose poetic talent was not even comparable (Uwayokote, 227). 191 anthology. 29 One would be hard-pressed to find a more immediate, even shocking, example of the conflation of cultural and political authority. The picture is still further complicated by the matter of the compiler. Anthology compilers may have been expected to portray the dominant political elements of their time through the compilation, but just being politically prominent did not guarantee one’s inclusion. Compilers would have had their own networks or even agendas that they wanted to advance; and so courtiers, especially those with a poetic reputation to protect, often needed to prevail on the compilers to insure that their works would be included. Saionji Kintsune went above and beyond in this regard. Uwayokote has pointed out that although during the compilation of the Shin Chokusen Wakash ū many people pushed Teika, the only editor, to include their poems, Kintsune in particular plugged many of his poems tirelessly, one after another. 30 Kintsune would have had several motives for doing so: protecting the Saionji reputation for poetry, representing (and reproducing) the political influence of the family both to his contemporaries and descendants, and seeking further social advancement through the attendant recognition. Because political and cultural capital can be exchanged, he could simultaneously use poems to gain political recognition while also using political influence to ensure that his poems became prominent. 29 Of course, for his part Go-Toba sought to hold on to what cultural capital he could by clinging to the Shin Kokinsh ū which he had commissioned, and which he continued to edit in exile. 30 Uwayokote, 226. 192 Not every member of the Saionji family was as obvious as Kintsune in arranging these transactions, but the strategy was a common one. Fujikawa Yoshikazu has illustrated the Saionji’s use of poems as political tools through a study of Saionji Saneuji. After carefully examining the content of the waka composed by Saneuji at a poetry contest, Fujikawa concludes that his poems can be read as making the claim to the other poets in attendance – including the Retired Sovereign Go-Saga – that his (Saneuji’s) importance would surely grow as a leading political figure at the court under Go-Saga, which was also sure to flourish. 31 Fujikawa’s argument emphasizes how the Saionji’s activities as poets functioned as a method of appealing to sovereigns for political status. 32 The ability of poetry to function as a powerful tool that could be converted back and forth from cultural to political capital was recognized beyond the court as well. For instance, Ogawa Takeo relates how “[Minamoto no] Yoritomo utilized the power of poetry in order to deepen the 31 Fujikawa Yoshikazu, “H ōji Gannen ‘In On’uta Awase’ no Saionji Saneuji” [Saionji Saneuji at the Poetry Competition in the Presence of a Retired Sovereign in the First Year of the H ōji Era], Kokugo to Kokubungaku 83.6 (2006): 27-42; and Fujikawa Yoshikazu, “Saionji Saneuji ‘H ōji Hyakushu’ no Hana Goshu” [The Five Poems on Flowers in ‘One Hundred Poems in the Hōji Era’ by Saionji Saneuji], Onomichi Daigaku Nihon Bungaku Rons ō 5 (2009): 43-53. 32 One of the poems by Saneuji that Fujikawa takes as a demonstration of such political claims by Saneuji is the following:「皇の御代さかゆべき春なれば霞をこめてたちや出でまし」(Since it is spring / your reign will flourish / I will take the lead / while gathering mist). Fujikawa analyzes this poem as Saneuji celebrating Go-Saga – who had abdicated and was preparing to rule as a retired sovereign – while claiming that he (Saneuji) himself would be the one to take the leadership role on the political stage (Fujikawa, “Saionji Saneuji ‘H ōji Hyakushu’ no Hana Goshu,” 43). Furthermore, after careful analysis of the ten poems by Saionji Saneuji from the poetry competition, he concludes that “both the first and the last poem by Saneuji include celebratory remarks for Go-Saga as well as Saneuji’s claims to take the leadership in politics, while the beginning and the end of the two poems are set as a pair. In sum, Saneuji paid careful attention to how to place these, and how to reflect his political claims in his series of ten poems […] In other words, his composition of the poems was based on his political strategy,” (Fujikawa, “H ōji Gannen ‘In On’uta Awase’ no Saionji Saneuji,” 38). 193 humanistic bond between him and his retainers, or to negotiate with leading figures in Kyoto.” 33 The Saionji family was clearly not the only family to understand the links between waka and politics, or to utilize them strategically, but they were particularly effective at doing so. In the final analysis, it is not possible to accurately discuss the Saionji family’s role as poets, and especially their contribution to royal anthologies, without considering their political power and influence. The Saionji as Patrons of Anthologies (I): Patronage and Courtier Culture The cultural roles of the Saionji were not limited to their being poets. Their contribution as cultural patrons was just as significant. And while many forms of cultural patronage were open to medieval courtier families, it made sense to primarily patronize activities that were connected to the aspirations of family members, or those in which they had a degree of proficiency. This was because successful patronage would generate considerable cultural capital for related efforts by family members through strengthening their association with the activities in question. It was logical for the Saionji, with their demonstrated skill and reputation at waka, to patronize waka anthologies, as I will show below. 33 Ogawa Takeo, Bushi ha Naze Uta wo Yomu ka: Kamakura Sh ōgun kara Sengoku Daimy ō made [Why Did Warriors Compose Poetry? From Kamakura Sh ōguns to Sengoku Lords] (Tokyo: Kadokawa Gakugei Shuppan, 2008), 17. 194 It was essential to be appointed by royals or nobles, or to be directly patronized by them, to create a special “brand.” 34 Skill at poetry composition, and the act of composition itself, did not generate a brand; rather the brand was created through the recognition that compositions received from noble patrons or their granting of appointments. In this context, the role of cultural patrons was vitally important. Nobles or power holders patronized various activities in a cultural field. In the case of waka, for instance, they hosted occasions for the composition of poems, which poems could then be drawn on for royal anthologies. Patronage of an anthology itself was in all likelihood the most immediate and respected way to engage in cultural patronage. 35 The crucial importance of patronage in the compilation of an anthology is well demonstrated by the following episode. In 1232, Fujiwara no Teika received a royal order from Go-Horikawa Tenn ō on the 13th day of the sixth month to compile the ninth royal anthology, the Shin Chokusen Wakash ū. Teika went to work by himself, without the assistance of any other compilers. The project was almost completed on the 12th day of the third month in 1234, and a decent copy of the text was even presented to Kuj ō Michiie (九条道家, 1193-1252). In the eighth month of the same year, however, Teika himself burned his own draft of the anthology. 34 On this, see Yamada Toyoko, Burando no J ōken [The Condition of Brands] (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 2006). 35 For more on this generally, see Steven D. Carter, Literary Patronage in Late Medieval Japan (Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Japanese Studies, University of Michigan, 1993). 195 What could have prompted him to take such a drastic action, destroying the results of two years of intense effort, and with it the honor he had been promised as a compiler of a royal anthology? It was none other than the passing of Go-Horikawa, who had issued the order to Teika. In 1234 Teika wrote: 辰時許勅撰愚草廿巻縿置南庭焼之、已為灰燼、奉勅未調巻軸以前此遭如此事、更無前蹝、無冥助無機縁之條、已以露顕、徒可蒙誹謗罵辱、置而無詮者也。 36 Around the hour of the dragon, I put twenty volumes of my own draft of the royal anthology in the southern garden and burned it. It has already turned to ash. To have received a royal order and then encountered such misfortune 37 before I could carry it out – such a thing is without precedent! It has already been clearly revealed that I was not fortunate enough to have divine protection or assistance for this [project]. I am sure to be the target of slander and disgrace. There is nothing to be done about it. (Meigetsuki, 7th day of the eighth month in 1234) Referring to Fujiwara no Kiyosuke (藤原清輔, 1104-1177), who lost the opportunity to have his compiled anthology Shoku Shiika Wakash ū become a royal anthology, Kubota Jun observes that “[Teika] must have bitten his lip with the same frustration [as Kiyohara experienced].” 38 The anthology compiled by Teika, however, survived in the copy given to Michiie, and it was further edited under Michiie’s support and that of his son Norizane. It was eventually completed on the 28th day of the second month in 1235. Nevertheless, Teika’s 36 Meigetsuki, entry for the 7th day of the eighth month in 1234 (Tokyo: Kokusho Kank ōkai, 1912), Volume 3, 412. 37 The misfortune being the death of his patron. 38 Kubota Jun, Fujiwara no Teika, 237. 196 impulsive decision to destroy his draft – the only case on record where the compiler of a royal anthology decided to burn the final draft just a day after a patron passed away – clearly demonstrates the vital importance of strong patronage. Without a proper patron, a work would not only fail to perform its function as cultural capital, but moreover it effectively lost legitimacy as a cultural product altogether. Kuj ō Michiie’s role in rescuing Teika’s project was not something that occurred by chance. Michiie was in fact already an established patron. As Tabuchi points out, the Kuj ō family had been keenly involved in poetry for generations, and claimed it as an aspect of their identity as a regental family, something that is well-illustrated by the fact that traditionally Kuj ō family heads held poetry gatherings when they reached their early 20s. 39 Moreover, such concern with poetry was not limited to the regental families. Tabuchi notes that other power holders were also actively involved in poetry activities and produced poets of their own, as did, for instance, the Tsuchimikado family. 40 This observation is particularly noteworthy since it shows that while holding poetry gatherings was not a privilege limited to members of regental families, one needed to be a powerholder, and serving as the sponsor of such a gathering was a good occasion to demonstrate one’s cultural (and political) authority. To head such gatherings was to demonstrate 39 Tabuchi, 163. 40 Ibid., 164. 197 that one was qualified to be a cultural patron, and that one wielded sufficient power and influence to patronize other poets. In fact, examining the circumstances of various poetry gatherings reveals that almost all of the sponsors were leading figures in the court or bakufu, retired sovereigns, or those from powerful courtier families. On the other hand, participating in such gatherings supported by proper patrons (i.e. those with recognized political and cultural authority) was essential for both emerging and established poets, as Huey has pointed out: “Patronage was another historical issue with repercussions for poetry. A poet without imperial backing had little hope of making a mark on the literary scene, since the imperial anthologies and many of the major poetry gatherings and contests were sponsored by members of the imperial family.” 41 Although not a member of the immediate royal family, Saionji Kintsune was not an exception among these elite cultural sponsors. As befitted his ambitions and his family’s reputation, he held poetry gatherings on several occasions, a few of which were conducted at his own residences. 42 The fact that Kintsune held numerous poetry gatherings indicates that he – and indeed the Saionji family as a whole – possessed considerable power as patrons in the world of waka. 41 Huey, 6. 42 For example, Kintsune held poetry gatherings on the 27th of the first month and the 13th of the fifth month in 1230 (Tokyo University Historiographical Institute, ed., Dai Nihon Shiry ō, Volume 5, Section 5 (Tokyo: Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai, 1969), 574 and 725, respectively. 198 Direct patronage of poets and gatherings was but one of the forms of patronage strategy employed by the Saionji, and whenever these proved limited or unsuitable, they turned to other methods – such as making use of their influence over other families by various means – to ensure that their authority in the world of waka, and the cultural capital it generated, would endure. An excellent example is how Kintsune and other prominent members of the Saionji family influenced the compilation of royal anthologies by drawing on the strong links they had with Teika’s own family, the Mikohidari family, from which hailed all of the editors of the royal anthologies listed above. The Saionji gained considerable status in the world of poetry due to Teika’s father, Shunzei, who came to be respected as a leading poet. Ever since Shunzei had set a precedent by editing the Senzaish ū in 1183, the descendants of Shunzei and Teika monopolized the post of principle editor of each royal anthology through the course of the whole Kamakura Period. Saionji patronage of the Mikohidari, and the familial relations the Saionji developed with the Mikohidari – a subject that I will discuss further in the next chapter – provided the Saionji with a route to having many of their poems included in the royal anthologies. 43 Thus we see that 43 Saionji patronage of the Mikohidari is well-known. Huey, for example, writes that Kintsune’s son Saneuji was an “important patron of the Mikohidari line” (57). The role of strong connections with the Mikohidari in gaining the Saionji cultural capital is further supported by the fact that the Saionji cease to appear as superior poets in any of the later royal anthologies, such as Shoku Goshui Wakash ū, contemporaneous with the weakening of Saionji influence over the Mikohidari. 199 the cultural patronage practiced by the Saionji family took many forms, but was consistently aimed at securing and expanding the family’s reputation. The Saionji as Patrons of Anthologies (II): Ōmiya-in and the F ūy ōsh ū, A Case Study In terms of cultural patronage, the role played by Saionji women is particularly noteworthy. Here I undertake a case study of one particular Saionji woman who utilized her family’s connections, exerted considerable influence, and generated an impressive degree of cultural capital through patronizing a waka anthology. Her case illustrates the various issues at play and the important role that such patronage had for courtier families intent on preserving and reproducing their influence through cultural capital. The woman in question was the most significant Saionji woman patron, Saionji Kitsushi. She was Kintsune’s granddaughter, and she became the queen consort of Go-Saga Tenn ō (1220-1272), known as Ōmiya-in. While not known as a poet herself, unlike other members of the family, Ōmiya-in was nevertheless engaged in cultural patronage, and in fact she established herself as one of the more prominent cultural patrons of her era. Her most significant accomplishment in this capacity was to commission the F ūy ō Wakash ū, an anthology of waka collected exclusively from fictional tales (tsukuri monogatari). The completed F ūy ōsh ū consists 200 of more than one thousand poems that were collected from more than two hundred tales produced from the Heian through the early Kamakura eras. It occupies a unique position in the long tradition of waka anthologies because of its particular thematic emphasis, and it holds a status akin to a royal anthology. The preface of the work reveals that it was in the sixth month of 1271 that the editor was ordered by Ōmiya-in to “divide the poems into sections based on theme, and reshape it as an anthology.” 44 The work was then completed and presented to Ōmiya-in in the tenth month of the same year. Scholarly consensus holds that the editor of the F ūy ōsh ū was Fujiwara no Teika’s son, Tameie. The degree of involvement by Ōmiya-in cannot be conclusively ascertained due to a lack of sources. However the majority of scholars agree that not only did Ōmiya-in commission the project, but moreover that she and women around her 45 undertook the actual work as well, with Tameie being responsible for the final editing of the anthology. 46 44 The preface does not provide a precise date, but it indicates it approximately through seasonal expressions which are frequently employed in the poems. For details, please see Higuchi Yoshimaro, “F ūy ō Wakash ū,” in Mitani Eiichi, ed., Taikei Monogatari Bungakushi 5: Monogatari Bungaku no Keifu III – Kamakura Monogatari 2 (Tokyo: Y ūseido, 1991), 267-8. 45 Ky ōgoku Tamekane’s sister, Tameko (1251?-1316?), was serving in the household of Ōmiya-in, so her contribution to the project would have been considerable. Tameko was a famous poet herself by this time. She attended almost all of the poetry gatherings and competitions held by the Ky ōgoku school. She also had her own poetry anthology, T ō-dainagon Naishi-no-suke Sh ū, and more than 1200 poems of hers were included in royal anthologies. Huey’s study Ky ōgoku Tamekane, op.cit., provides more information about her life and work. Higuchi Yoshimaro argues that it is highly likely that Ky ōgoku Tameko was one of the main individuals involved in compiling the F ūy ōsh ū since her poetic skill was the best among all the ladies-in-waiting serving Ōmiya-in (Higuchi Yoshimaro, “Sumiyoshi Monogatari to F ūy ō Wakash ū,” Kokugo Kokubungakuh ō 42 (1985.3): 11-22; 11. For further details, see Higuchi Yoshimaro, Heian Kamakura Jidai San’itsu Monogatari no Kenky ū [Studies of Lost Tales of the Heian and Kamakura Eras] (Tokyo: Hitaku Shob ō, 1982). 46 See Yoneda, who discusses the views of numerous scholars and endorses the consensus on this point 201 One of the ways in which Ōmiya-in contributed to the project was that she made extensive use of her family ties. Vital to the compilation of an anthology at the time was access to a wide range of texts from which relevant materials could be copied. While temple complexes were utilizing woodblock printing to some extent, the court did not, and works of literature were circulated as scrolls (maki) that were copied by hand. This drastically limited the amount of literature to which a person had access, because of the great amount of effort and wealth needed to enable the careful duplication of texts. Since consequently even a wealthy family would only have a limited number of works, collecting the texts needed to prepare an anthology was a tremendously difficult and time-consuming endeavor that required much borrowing, not to mention the work involved in convincing would-be lenders to part with their precious texts for a while. To give but one example, Fujiwara no Teika had to go through Kuj ō Yoshitsune to borrow copies of tales held by Seny ōmon-in (宣陽門院, 1181-1252) 47 in order to compile the Go-hyaku-ban Uta-awase. 48 (507-524). One of the biggest reasons for not affording Tameie too great a role in the compilation process is the timeline. According to the preface, only five months passed between the date when the editor was ordered to edit the anthology and the date when it was completed and presented to Ōmiya-in. This length of time would never have been sufficient for an editor to undertake the compilation from the beginning, and so it is reasonable to assume that most of the work locating and preparing texts had already been completed by the time the editor was commissioned. 47 Seny ōmon-in was a daughter of Go-Shirakawa. It is not known why she held copies of tales which were supposedly quite rare; however, the fact that she received the title of nyoin in 1191 at the age of 11, and inherited extensive land holdings including the Ch ōk ōd ō estate cluster in 1192 – only a few months prior to the death of her father Go-Toba – should be considered. 48 Higuchi Yoshimaro, “Monogatari Uta-awase to Monogatari Kashu” [Poetry Competitions Based on Tales and Poetry Collections from Tales] in Waka Bungaku Ronsh ū Hensh ū Iinkai, ed., Waka to Monogatari [Poetry 202 The gathering of the numerous tales needed for the F ūy ōsh ū at Ōmiya-in’s palace was a monumental task. 49 Ōmiya-in’s position 50 and her family background as a daughter of the Saionji family proved to be essential factors in its success. Her family connections provided her with access to various courtier families, while her authority enabled her to gently but firmly request that they lend her their texts to be copied. As discussed in the previous chapter, the Saionji had acquired abundant property and wealth. Moreover, the Saionji had established family connections with various other power holders such as the royal family, the regental families, and the shogunal family. A key role in maintaining all of these connections was played by networks of Saionji women, of which Ōmiya-in is one prominent example. These women maintained strong links with their natal family and exchanged information with each other, functioning as a source of Saionji quasi-“intelligence” that operated across regions and political divisions. 51 Patronage by courtly woman, especially queens, is a phenomenon well-studied by historians of medieval Europe, who have examined the range of patronage activities and motivations in relation to the socio-cultural sphere, and how these women were able to and Tales] (Tokyo: Kazama Shob ō, 1993), 263-265. 49 Despite these efforts, there were still tales which Ōmiya-in was unable to obtain, as stated in the preface: “There are many [tales] of which the titles are known, but which could not be obtained” (なのみをききてもとめ得ぬもおほく). However, this likely indicates that some tales were simply not available because they had been long lost, rather than suggesting that she was unable to access some which were available somewhere. 50 She was both the queen-consort of the retired sovereign, Go-Saga, and the mother of the reigning monarch, Go-Fukakusa. Furthermore, she was connected to the fourth shogun, Yoritsune (her cousin), and the sixth, Prince Munetaka (a son of Go-Saga’s by another mother), making her one of the most well-connected women of her time. 51 The information network of Saionji women is a topic discussed in the last chapter. 203 manipulate or transcend those spheres through patronage. 52 A key element identified by European scholars is the use of patronage by courtly women to celebrate court and family. 53 This phenomenon was also common among courtly female patrons in medieval Japan. In the case of 52 See for example Loveday L. Gee, Women, Art and Patronage From Henry III to Edward III: 1216-1377 (Woodridge: The Boydell Press, 2002), which discusses the motives and forms of patronage of noblewomen in 13th and 14th-century England; Erin L. Jordan, Women, Power, and Religious Patronage in the Middle Ages (New York: Palgrave, 2006), which through a study of thirteenth-century sisters Jeanne and Marguerite (rulers in Flanders and Hainaut) overturns the idea that women were limited to the domestic space by showing they could in fact exercise considerable secular and sacred power through patronage; and June Hall McCash, ed., The Cultural Patronage of Medieval Women (Georgia: University of Georgia Press, 1996), an excellent work that brings together studies of women patrons across Europe and Byzantium. There is also impressive scholarship on patronage by queens and noblewomen from the renaissance and early modern eras, most notably Catherine E. King, Renaissance Women Patrons: Wives and Widows in Italy, c .1300-1550 (New York: Manchester University Press, 1998); Clarissa C. Orr, ed., Queenship in Britain 1660-1837: Royal Patronage, Court Culture, and Dynastic Politics (Oxford: Manchester University Press, 2002); and Cynthia Lawrence, ed., Women and Art in Early Modern Europe: Patrons, Collectors, and Connoisseurs (Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1997). Although much less studied in Japan, patronage by queens and noblewoman has been studied. See, for example, Hong ō Masatsugu, “State Buddhism and Court Buddhism: The Role of Court Women in the Development of Buddhism from the Seventh to the Ninth Centuries,” in Barbara Ruch, ed., Engendering Faith: Women and Buddhism in Premodern Japan (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2002), 41-61. Therein Hong ō examines the role of individual court women in patronizing Buddhism during an era when the focus of scholars normally lies upon the state, suggesting that previous studies positing simple dichotomies between state and court and male and female are flawed. There is also Fukumori Naomi, “Sei Sh ōnagon’s Makura no s ōshi: A Re-visionary History,” Journal of the Association of Teachers of Japanese 31.1 (Apr. 1997): 1-44, which reassess Sei Sh ōnagon’s relationship with her patron Teishi and the portrayal of the latter in the former’s work, a depiction that celebrates Teishi and her cultural melieu in spite of her family falling on hard times. She suggests that a selective treatment by Sei Sh ōnagon was intended to glorify her patron. And for more recent times, see Elizabeth Lillehoj, “T ōfukumon’in: Empress, Patron, and Artist,” Woman’s Art Journal 17.1 (1996): 28- 34, which examines seventeenth-century T ōfukumon’in’s use of patronage to celebrate the royal family and court culture during an era strongly associated with powerful military men. 53 See for example, John Carmi Parsons, “Of Queens, Courts, and Books: Reflection on the Literary Patronage of Thirteenth-Century Plantagenet Queens,” in June Hall McCash, ed., The Cultural Patronage of Medieval Women (Georgia: University of Georgia Press, 1996): 175-201, a study of two queens, Eleanor of Provence and Eleanor of Castile, who through their literary patronage glorified their ancestors and helped legitimate their dynasty; Alice-Mary Talbot, “Empress Theodora Palaiologina, Wife of Michael VII,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 46, “Homo Byzantinus: Papers in Honor of Alexander Kazhdan” (1992): 295-303, a treatment of Empress Theodora Palaiologina that argues her patronage of the convent of Lips was motivated primarily not by a desire to assert her authority but rather by a desire to preserve her family and descendants both practically and spiritually; and Matthew J. Clear, “Maria of Hungary as queen, patron and exemplar,” in Janis Elliott and Cordelia Warr, eds., The Church of Santa Maria Donna Regina: Art, Iconography and Patronage in Fourteenth Century Naples. (London: Ashgate, 2004), 45-60, a study of Maria of Hungary whose patronage of religious and secular artwork was driven by familial motivations and moreover established a family tradition of women’s patronage that was then passed on to her descendants. 204 Ōmiya-in and the F ūy ōsh ū, it is highly likely that some poems were included to celebrate the patron and her family, as Yoneda Akemi has also argued. 54 This focus on poetry as a tool to both celebrate and perpetuate the status of one’s family was not limited to women: recall that Ōmiya-in’s father, Saionji Saneuji, had used poems as rhetorical devices to assert his importance and express his wish for his family flourishing at court. Whether by engaging in the production of poetry themselves, or undertaking patronage efforts, the Saionji generated considerable cultural capital. Through their efforts, they simultaneously claimed and exercised political influence, while producing and reproducing a vision of themselves as sophisticated and cultured elites worthy of an exalted degree of political authority. The Biwa as a Royal Instrument Music was the second great source of cultural capital that the Saionji possessed. Since ancient times, music had occupied a zone that connected the artistic and the practical. As Ogi Mitsuo observes, throughout Japanese history “…music has been playing a significant role 54 Yoneda Akemi, F ūy ō Wakash ū no K ōz ō ni Kansuru Kenky ū [Studies concerning the Structure of the F ūy ō Wakash ū] (Tokyo: Kasama Shoin, 1996), 511-515. Yoneda examines not only the content of the poems but also their organization and situation within the text, and holds that some were clearly inserted to celebrate the glory of Go-Saga, Ōmiya-in, and the Saionji family. 205 socio-economically, and religio-culturally as well, in human society.” 55 This was particularly pertinent to court life. The significance of music for creating cultural capital and conveying status-based ideas of taste was already discussed above, as was the significance it held at court for its associations with the sovereign. As with waka, musical skills were valuable assets that could be transformed into political capital at court, making investment in musical training and the building of musical reputation a good strategy for capable courtier families. Ivan Morris observed that, “Music also played a great part in the daily life of the Heian aristocrats,” and he also noted that this was well reflected in literary accounts of the time: “Both The Tale of the Hollow Tree and The Tale of Genji emphasize the music endowments of their heroes and the success that such talents bring them at court.” 56 In light of this, the Saionji’s association with the biwa, and their status as “the house of the biwa,” is worthy of examination. To do so, it is first necessary to explore in more depth the connection between the biwa and kingship and how it developed. The association between musical composition, performance, and kingship did not mean that all musical activities were treated equally. Among the various instruments, the biwa was not originally considered a noble instrument, and it was sometimes given to a person of lower rank to 55 Ogi Mitsuo, Nihon Kodai Ongaku Shiron [The History of Music in Ancient Japan] (Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 1977), 3. 56 Ivan Morris, The World of the Shining Prince: Court Life in Ancient Japan (London: Peregrine, 1964), 200, 201. 206 play, as depicted in the Tale of Genji. 57 However, over time the biwa became strongly associated with kingship. There is considerable scholarly debate concerning precisely when the biwa became regarded as a kingly musical instrument. Mikawa Kei attributes the elevation of the biwa to the retired sovereign Go-Toba’s passion and talent. 58 Gomi Fumihiko echoes this point, 57 It was Lady Akashi, the lowest ranking among Genji’s women, who played the biwa at a women’s concert in the “Spring Shoots II Chapter” of the Tale of Genji (Murasaki Shikibu, trans. Royall Tyler, The Tale of Genji (New York: Viking Penguin, 2001), 639). The Genji occupies a special place in historical consciousness because it in many ways reflected court life, and subsequently became an ideal for real courtiers to aspire to. This is why scenes in the Genji were imitated, including the concert scene in question. At Go-Fukakusa’s court the scene was replicated in a sequence that made Lady Nij ō extremely upset because she was forced to take the role of Lady Akashi playing the biwa, a position which she felt, because of Akashi’s rank among Genji’s women, was beneath her. Her account hints at the intertwining of cultural and political elements at court, as well as the importance of family connections and musical education: As was only proper, the leading role of Murasaki no Ue was to be played by Lady Genki; but the secondary role of Onna Sannomiya was, to my dismay, awarded to Takachika’s daughter, a newcomer to the palace. To make matters worse, an easy-to-play thirteen-string koto was substituted for the more difficult seven-string koto actually played by Onna Sannomiya in the novel. When I learned that Takachika had specifically requested this role for his daughter, I was so upset that I did not want to appear; but I was ordered to take the minor role of Lady Akashi no Ue and play the biwa because Kameyama knew me by sight and had spoken to me personally at the kickball game. I had begun biwa lessons when I was seven, learning two or three pieces from my uncle Masamitsu, although I never put my heart into it. When I was nine I continued for a while under GoFukakusa’s tutelage, and while I did not get as far as the Three Secret Airs, I mastered all the usual court pieces; and when I was only ten I played the biwa at the Shirakawa Palace rehearsal for GoSaga’s fiftieth birthday party. GoSaga found my playing charming enough to present me with a biwa made from Chinese quince with rosewood pegs and a red brocade case. Since then I had not put much effort into practicing it, and the order to perform for this occasion made me uneasy, yet I took no special care with my preparations. I was told to wear light blue and crimson gowns under a yellowish green gown and a russet and yellow short robe; but I still smarted from resentment at having to take the lowly role of Akashi no Ue. (Karen Brazell, trans., The Confessions of Lady Nij ō (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1976), 96-97). In the tale, Lady Akashi’s talent at playing the biwa was a skill passed down from her own father. This distinguishes her from the other ladies at the concert. As for the other three musical instruments present at the women’s concert – the kin played by Her Highness, the wagon by Lady Murasaki, and the so no koto by the Consort Akashi – Genji takes credit for their skills, but even he comments “I cannot comment very well on the biwa” (642). In fact, there is no scene in the tale in which Genji himself plays the biwa. Elsewhere in the Genji, during an improvised musical gathering the biwa was played by a lady-in-waiting, while other instruments were played by a provincial middle counselor, a royal prince, and Genji himself. This confirms that while the biwa was an important instrument considered part of a standard courtly ensemble, it also started out with a lower social status viz. other instruments (330). 58 Mikawa Kei points out that Go-Toba came to show great enthusiasm for the biwa after reaching adulthood. In the first month in 1205, Go-Toba was taught a secret tune for the biwa by the Middle Counselor Fujiwara no 207 arguing that it was Go-Toba who made the biwa an instrument fit for a sovereign. 59 Further celebrating the idea that the biwa was a kingly instrument was none other than Go-Toba’s son Juntoku Tennō (1197-1242; r. 1210-1221), who asserted in his Kinpish ō (禁秘抄) that the biwa was one of the musical instruments in which skill was desirable for a monarch, and that it was by no means inferior to others: 第二管弦、延喜天暦以後、大略不絶事也、必可通一曲、円融一条ノ吉例ニテ今に笛ハ代々ノ御能也。和琴又延喜天暦ノ吉例、筝同之、琵琶雖無殊例可然事也、笙篳篥未聞（略）又後白川今様無比類御事也、何モ只可在御心、笛、堀川鳥羽高倉法皇代々不絶事也、但筝琵琶何劣哉。 60 The second [element that a tenn ō should master] 61 is music. Since the time of Engi and Tenryaku, 62 it has not ceased to be important. [A sovereign] should master some kind of music. Due to the excellent example set by the monarchs En’y ū and Ichij ō, the flute has been played by sovereigns for generations. There are also good precedents for the monarch to play the wagon [Japanese zither], since the time of Engi and Tenryaku. Sadasuke (1163-1227). Three days later, Go-Toba played the tune very well on a precious biwa called “Genj ō.” His commitment to biwa seems to have lasted until just before the J ōky ū Incident in 1221. In the spring of 1220, there was a competition that featured traditional instruments passed down by the court or regental families for generations versus newly-made instruments. The Retired Sovereign offered a comprehensive judgment concerning the shapes, tones, and volume of sound of each instrument by playing all of them himself, along with his master Fujiwara no Sadasuke and Fujiwara no Takamichi (1166-1237) who was in the music section of the Headquarters of the Inner Palace Guards. On top of that, the Retired Sovereign even wrote a detailed report on the decisions. The instrument that received the highest evaluation was the aforementioned “Genjo,” as well as “Makiba.” Both of these were said to have been played by the idealized Daigo Tenn ō during the Engi era, and both were regarded as “great treasures under Heaven.” Next followed the “Genkoji,” which was stored in the treasure storehouse of the By ōdoin. This matching contest was far from being simply an example of biwa entertainment. It is obvious that this contest was staged to demonstrate the status order of the royal family and regental families (Mikawa Kei, Insei no Kenky ū [Studies on Insei] (Tokyo: Rinsen Shoten, 1996), 204-205). 59 Gomi, 262. 60 Kinpish ō K ōch ū, Sh ūkaish ō in Kojitsu S ōsho, Volume 22 (Tokyo: Meiji Tosho Shuppan, 1952), 99. The Kinpish ō (also known as the Kinch ūsh ō禁中抄, or Kenryaku Onki建暦御記) is a text written by Juntoku Tenn ō concerning practices at the court necessary for a sovereign, such as daily rituals, extraordinary rituals, royal edicts, the royal secretariat, female attendants, and the like. It is not clear when it was completed, but it is likely to have been between 1219 and 1221. 61 Juntoku lists various skills that a tenn ō should master as a monarch. Music was listed second, following studies (gakumon). 62 Referring to two previous eras, namely the Engi (延喜, 901-923) and Tenryaku (天暦, 947-957). 208 The same holds for the so no koto as well. Even if there is no particular precedent for the biwa, it should be a musical instrument included in [the list of royal instruments]. I have never heard of a precedent for sho and hichiriki. [Omission] Furthermore, Go-Shirakawa loved imayo [popular music] more than anything. Nonetheless, what a tenn ō should care about [most] is the lute; it has never ceased being important during the eras of Horikawa, Toba, and the Retired Sovereign Takakura. 63 Nevertheless, neither are the so and biwa inferior to the lute. Juntoku Tenn ō states here that although there was yet to be a good precedent for it (excepting his father), the biwa should be counted among the musical instruments which a tenn ō should master, and it should by no means be seen as inferior to other instruments such as the wagon. 64 Regardless of how much Go-Toba may have loved the biwa, it was no doubt his son’s playing of 63 Horikawa Tenn ō (堀河天皇, 1079-1107, r. 1087-1107); Toba Tenn ō (鳥羽天皇, 1103-1156, r. 1107-1123); Retired Sovereign Takakura (高倉院, 1179-1223). 64 Imamura Mieko points out that since Juntoku mastered the biwa by himself, “this sentence might imply his intention to claim that his mastery of the biwa was a good enough example to be compared to other good precedents – the wagon and so on by Daigo and Murakami, and the lute by En’y ū and Ichij ō” (Imamura Mieko, “Juntoku Tenn ō to Ongaku” [Juntoku Tenn ō and Music], Meigetsuki Kenky ū: Kiroku to Bungaku 7 [Studies on the Meigetsuki: Records and Literature] (2002), 155). There has been considerable debate over whether an individual monarch was respondible for the rise of the biwa. Toyonaga Satomi strongly supports Go-Toba as the key figure in elevating the biwa, but she also raises the possibility of Nij ō Tenn ō’s importance, based on the fact that Nij ō practiced the biwa quite eagerly and played Genj ō, one of the biwa treasured for generations at court (Toyonaga, op. cit., 70). On the other hand, Imamura Mieko holds that it was Juntoku himself who elevated the status of the biwa, consciously playing it as a royal act (Imamura, op. cit., 167). In response to Imamura, however, S ōma Mariko argues that there was in fact no single individual wholly responsible for the development. It was successive tenn ō in the Jimyoin line who caused the biwa to become recognized as a kingly instrument. From S ōma’s perspective, the fact that Juntoku does not emphasize mastering the biwa itself is instructive; in other words, Juntoku’s defence of the biwa suggests that it was in the process of being elevated, but the sovereign’s positioning of the flute as first and foremost shows that this process was not yet complete. See S ōma Mariko, “‘Daidai Biwa Hikyoku Godenju no koto’ to Sono Zengo: Jimy ō-in-to Tenn ō no Biwa” [The Context of the ‘Initiation into the Secret Songs of the Biwa for Generations’: The Sovereigns in the Senior Line and Biwa], Shory ōbu Kiy ō 36 (1984):26-39. 209 the instrument as a consciously kingly act, rather than as a hobby or indulgence, that signaled the change in status of the instrument. A work called Chin’y ōki (椿葉記), which was presented to Go-Hanazono Tenn ō by his father, Prince Sadafusa (1372-1456), 65 confirms that the process of the elevation of the biwa was by then long complete: music is listed as the first thing a tenn ō should master, with the sovereign being strongly encouraged to play the biwa in particular: 絃管をあひならへてあそはさるる先例のみこそあれは、相構て御琵琶をもあそはさるへきなり、上古の例はをきぬ、中古以来後深草院・伏見院・後伏見院・後光厳院・崇光院・故親王なと、殊更に御沙汰ありつる事なれは、いかにも遊さるへきなり。 66 Although there have been precedents for tenn ō to learn and play stringed and wind instruments, be sure to play the biwa. Lay aside the examples in ancient times; since the old days, [many retired sovereigns] starting from Go-Fukakusa, Fushimi, Go-Fukakusa, Go-Kogon, Suko, and the late Prince 67 have all particularly played biwa, and you should play it too. 65 Although Prince Sadafusa himself never ascended the throne, he was later given the title of retired sovereign (In) as the father of Go-Hanazono, and was called Go-S ūk ō-In. 66 Chin’y ōki, cited by Murata Masashi in Murata Masashi Chosakush ū, Volume 4 (Tokyo: Shibunkaku Shuppan, 1984), 248. This record was written in order to assert the legitimacy of the line of S ūk ō Tenn ō, who was dethroned and exiled to Yoshino by the Southern Court in 1351 due to internal battles within the Muromachi Bakufu. Ashikaga Takauji had surrendered to the Southern Court in order to obtain their support, whereupon the sitting monarch of the Northern Court – S ūk ō Tenn ō – and Crown Prince Naohito were exiled. Later on, the Northern Court regained the throne; however, it was not the descendents of S ūk ō, but rather those of his brother Go-K ōgon, who were treated as the legitimate line. 67 “The late Prince” here refers to Prince Yoshihito (1351-1416, 伏見宮栄仁親王), the father of Prince Sadafusa himself. 210 Although this record emphasizes the tradition of playing biwa within the Senior Line, it also distinctly attributes royal association to the line’s founder, Go-Fukakusa. 68 In short, while this is a debated issue, the development of the biwa as a particularly royal instrument was not far removed from the time of the rise of Saionji Kintsune and the flourishing of the Saionji family. We know too that the biwa came to hold a particularly prestigious status at court. For instance, there were two musical instruments that had first priority for being rescued when the court experienced a crisis such as fire or other disaster. One of them was a Japanese zither named “Suzuka,” and the other was the biwa named “Genj ō,” mentioned above. 69 The monk Ry ūen wrote that Genj ō was considered “The foremost spiritual instrument under Heaven, and a great treasure unparalleled in this world.” 70 There are several different theories concerning the origin of the biwa Genj ō, aside from the fact of its journey from Tang China. It was a possession of Daigo Tenn ō along with another biwa 68 The division of the royal family into two lines was discussed in Chapter 1. 69 Ōmura Takuo, “10-13 Seiki ni okeru Kasai to Kuge Shakai” [Fires from the 10th to 13th Centuries and Courtier Society], Nihonshi Kenky ū 412 (1996): 3-30. 70 Iwasa Miyoko, ed., Bunkidan Zench ūshaku [A Complete Annotated Commentary of Bunkidan] (Tokyo: Kasama Shoin, 2007). The Bunkidan is a text on music written by Ryuen sometime after 1272, likely around 1283. Almost nothing is known about him aside from that he was an apprentice of Fujiwara no Takatoki (藤原孝時, 1189-1266), who was a master player of the biwa. The title of the work is said to have come from Ry ūen’s nickname Bunkib ō (文机房), which comes from all the time he spent copying texts for his master at his desk. The structure of the whole work is unclear since it has survived only in fragmentary form and is missing some major parts. However, it is similar to the Ōkagami (大鏡 The Great Mirror) in that it features a narrator relating a story while including reactions or comments from the audience. In this way, unlike other texts concerned with music, the Bunkidan contains many stories about various people who loved music over the course of a century or more. 211 called Bokuba, and it was stored in the Sery ō Pavilion in the residential palace. 71 Toyonaga Satomi argues that Genj ō was an “unparalleled, treasured instrument that had a special divine power unlike other rare musical instruments,” 72 and that “even for tenn ō, it was [considered] extremely elegant to play this treasured instrument.” 73 Omura lends support to this argument by pointing out that Genj ō was considered one of the royal possessions in addition to the Three Royal Treasures (the three sacred objects which prove the legitimacy of the tenn ō), as confirmed by an incident when the Ise Taira faction left Kyoto in 1183 and took the instrument to assure its protection. 74 This was not an exceptional case. As the unofficial residential palace system developed from the time of Go-Sanj ō (r.1068-1073) and was more firmly established during the reign of Toba, it became necessary for the court to decide what should be moved to an unofficial palace as vital possessions of the monarch, and those “symbols” were also prioritized for protection in a time of crisis. Genj ō’s status was clearly elevated by its being considered one such “royal possession.” 75 So do we see that by the time of the emergence of the Saionji family, the biwa had gained a strong association with the sovereign. Performing on the biwa was praised as a royal skill that 71 For details, see Toyonaga, Ch ūsei no Tenn ō to Ongaku, 63. 72 Ibid., 64. Ōmura also makes a similar argument (18). 73 Ibid. 74 Ōmura, 16. 75 Ibid., 17-18. In examining the relation between Go-Toba and music, Toyonaga has also argued that Genj ō was used as a tool to demonstrate divine authority and thereby strengthen the sovereign’s status, since he was the first tenn ō who had to occupy the throne without the benefit of the three royal treasures (Toyonaga, 66). 212 proffered authority, and specific biwa held special sacred (and politically legitimating) status comparable to the Three Royal Treasures. It was within this context that the Saionji family’s relation with biwa, and their status as masters of the biwa, needs to be considered. The Saionji and the Biwa The Saionji relationship with the biwa originated in the time of Kintsune’s father, Sanemune (1143-1212). He received instruction in the two schools of biwa performance – the Katsura (桂) and the Sai (西) 76 – as the best disciple of Fujiwara no Moronaga (藤原師長 1138-1192), then known as the leading person in music. 77 This was the cornerstone on which the Saionji family fashioned themselves into “the house of the biwa.” Later, as formal biwa instructor 78 for Prince Morisada (守貞親王, 1179-1223), Sanemune was able to perform at the prince’s initiation ceremony for biwa playing, called the Biwa Hajime, before the prince’s coming-of-age ceremony on the fourteenth of the second month of 1191. He even taught the prince two secret biwa melodies – Ishigami Ry ūsen and Manshūraku – in 1194. And six years later, in 1200, he taught 76 Around the end of the Heian Period, the biwa tradition split into two schools due to differences in playing the instrument. However, Fujiwara no Moronaga learned the techniques from both schools and united them. In this regard, Moronaga’s contribution is quite significant. For details, please see S ōma, “‘Daidai Biwa Godenju no Koto’ to Sono Zengo,” 27-28. 77 Toyonaga, 186. 78 There were both formal and informal biwa instructors for tenn ō, although both were official appointments. It was the formal post that the Saionji focused on monopolizing. 213 the prince the melody Takuboku, which was regarded as the most secret of all biwa melodies. It is not surprising, then, that Sanemune was known to be an excellent player of the biwa. 79 Having served as a formal instructor for Prince Morisada, Sanemune’s status as a biwa authority was significantly elevated, but it was by no means assured. When a formal instructor was chosen for Go-Toba, Sanemune was not selected. According to the Bunkidan, preparations for the initiation ceremony for playing biwa began when the future Go-Toba reached 12 or 13 years of age. 80 Sanemune was indeed listed as one of the candidates for formal instructor, along with Kuj ō Kanezane, but it was Nij ō Sadasuke (二条定輔, 1163-1227) who secured the appointment, because he implored Go-Toba to consider him based on not only his own skill at playing the biwa but also his having served Go-Toba since the latter was little. 81 The use of the biwa as a political tool in early medieval courtier society would conceivably have encouraged study and practice of the instrument even among those with no love of music. But since the Saionji cultivated their biwa expertise as a prime source of cultural capital over generations, this was clearly not the case for them. On this point I disagree with Iwasa Miyoko, who while affirming that “the Saionji were major patrons of biwa after [Fujiwara no] Moronaga,” states that Sanemune abandoned playing the biwa due to his defeat by Sadasuke. And Iwasa 79 S ōma, “Biwa no Jidai kara Sh ō no Jidai e,” 15. 80 On the Bunkidan, see note 71 above. 81 Toyonaga, 59. 214 continues, “[Sanemune]’s son Kintsune was also Moronaga’s favorite disciple, and he was initiated into both the Katsura and Sai Schools. However he totally discarded the biwa and neglected it after becoming an influential politician who managed the negotiations between Kyoto and Kamakura as a liason.” 82 While for many courtiers biwa skill may have been a disposable talent developed for short-term gain, Iwasa seems to imply that musical skill was almost a hindrance in the political realm. Such a perspective is problematic, firstly because no contemporary source mentions Kintsune abandoning the biwa due to his political advancement, and secondly because, as we have already seen, not only were music and politics not incompatible, they were in fact deeply bound together in the culture of the court. While Kintsune and his father both employed the biwa as a tool to advance their political careers, there is no indication that they abandoned it once they achieved their objectives; moreover, considering the time, effort, and cost involved in mastering the biwa tradition, it would have been an immense waste of cultural capital to have abandoned it. 83 Like his father, Kintsune did not receive the honor of serving as the formal instructor of a tenn ō, but this should not be taken to mean that he simply abandoned the biwa altogether. 84 On 82 Iwasa Miyoko, Bunkidan, 424. 83 Toyonaga also highlights Kintsune’s talent at the biwa, but he does not suggest that Kintsune ever abandoned the instrument (Toyonaga, 186). 84 As discussed below, the only source referring to a possible disenchantment with the biwa on the part of Kintsune comes from the much later Saionji Kinsue, a grandson of Kintsune, who wrote that his grandfather gave up playing the biwa over his disappointment at not being chosen as a formal instructor for either Go-Toba 215 the contrary, when building the family temple that gave the family its “Saionji” name, Kintsune built the Myoon Hall which displayed an enshrined Benzaiten (Sarasvati). Benzaiten, a deity associated with good fortune particularly in the areas of music, scholarship, or wealth, is often depicted holding a biwa, and is regarded as the patron deity of biwa as well. Kintsune building such a hall within his Kitayama villa implies that at no point was he uninterested in biwa. 85 It was not until the time of Saionji Kinsue (西園寺公相, 1223-1267), a grandson of Kintsune’s, that a Saionji was able to serve as a formal biwa instructor for a tenn ō. Kinsue’s journal clearly demonstrates his delight at achieving what had been denied to several earlier Saionji heads: 建長四年四月廿一日、甲戌、天晴。主上今日始可令習御琵琶御、公相可為御師匠之由、兼日有院御気色、此道面目何如之、故六条大臣殿・入道殿多年嗜此芸、堪能無双之由、世以称之、然而後鳥羽両院・順徳院両代御師匠定輔参仕之間、且棄此道給了、公相今不肖之身練習日浅、而参御師匠之条、可恥々々、可悦々々、且為此等事祈請、今朝参妙音院（西園寺南廊）、念誦之後、取琵琶弾撥合一・楽一（五常楽急三反）・手一反奉廻向本尊并本願聖霊、即帰京、此事妙音天定有御計歟、可尊々々。 86 The twenty-first of the fourth month in 1252, Kojutsu. Sunny. Today the Tenn ō [Go-Fukakusa] began learning to play the biwa. It was decided in advance by the retired or Juntoku. This would show his father’s frustration, but there is no reason to assume a public distancing from biwa meant that he abandoned playing it altogether. Neither is there any reason to accept the assumption that music or other cultural pursuits are incompatible, when in fact the reverse has been clearly demonstrated to often be the case. 85 On the link between Benzaiten and biwa performers, see David T. Bialock, “Outcasts, Emperorship, and Dragon Cults in The Tale of the Heike,” Cahiers d'Extrême-Asie 13 (2002): 227-310. 86 Saionji Kinsue, Kangen On Denju Ki (管弦御伝授記), entry for the 21st day of the fourth month in 1252, in Kunaich ō Sho-misasagi-bu, ed., Fushimi no Miya Ky ōz ō Gakusho Sh ūsei, Volume 1 (Tokyo: Meiji Shoin, 1991), 82. 216 sovereign [Go-Saga] that Kinsue should serve as a formal instructor. This is the greatest honor in this specialty. The late Minister of Rokujo [Sanemune] and the Novice [Kintsune] enjoyed playing it [the biwa] for many years. Their talents were incomparable, and people praised them. However, since Lord Sadasuke came to serve as a formal instructor for both retired sovereigns – Go-Toba and Juntoku – others gave up playing it. [Today,] I, Kinsue, although being unworthy and needing more practice, was appointed as formal instructor. This is really embarrassing, but also a cause for celebration. Previously, I had been praying this would happen. This morning, I paid a visit to Myoon-in Hall (located in the southern corridor of the Saionji family temple). After praying, I took up the biwa and played one prelude, one song (Gojoraku no Kyu) three times, and one interlude one time. Then, I turned around to [face] the image and prayed for my intentions. Afterwards, I returned to Kyoto. This honor [of being chosen as a formal instructor of biwa for the Tenn ō] must be the blessing of Myoonten. 87 All thanks be to her, all thanks be to her! (Kangen Ondenju Ki, entry for the 21st day of the fourth month in 1252) Kinsue’s visit to the Myoon-in Hall and his prayer to Benzaiten concerning his selection as formal biwa instructor for the tenn ō clearly confirms that Kintsune’s choice of this deity for the villa was no coincidence. The enshrinement of Benzaiten, and Kinsue’s offering of music as part of his prayer to her specifically seeking advancement within the world of biwa (and thereby also the attendant world of politics), shows to what extent the Saionji were already strongly associating themselves with the instrument while foreshadowing their eventual status as “the house of the biwa.” 87 Myoonten is another name for Benzaiten. 217 After Kinsue, the Saionji monopolized the position of formal biwa instructor to the tenn ō, as shown in the following chart: Saionji Biwa Instructors Tenn ō Saionji Member Who Became Biwa Instructor Go-Fukakusa Saionji Kinsue Kameyama Saionji Kinsue Go-Uda Toin Kinmori 88 Fushimi Saionji Sanekane, and Kinaki (1274-1321, a son of Sanekane) Go-Fushimi Saionji Kin’aki, Sanekane Go-Nijo Saionji Kin’aki Go-Daigo Saionji Sanekane, Imadegawa Kanesue 89 Controlling the position of formal biwa instructor to the tenn ō brought immense prestige to the Saionji, marking them officially recognized musical authorities. This in turn allowed them to amass still more cultural capital through the influence they wielded over the world of music generally, above and beyond the world of the biwa. For example, when there was some trouble between the courtly musicians and the tenn ō, Sanekane acted as a mediator between both sides 88 Toin Kinmori (洞院公守, 1249-1317) was a son of Toin Saneo. Saneo was himself a son of Kintsune, making Toin Kinmori a grandson of Kintsune like Kinsue. Strictly defined, Kinmori was not a member of the Saionji since his father Saneo became the progenitor of the Toin family. However, given his descent and the cultural weight bestowed by his Saionji heritage, I listed him here as a member of a branch family of the Saionji. 89 Imadegawa Kanesue (今出川兼季, 1281-1339) was a son of Saionji Sanekane. He was called “Kikutei Kanesue” until he became a senior counselor. After he was promoted to minister, he became known as “Imadegawa.” His descendents were subsequently known as Imadegawa until the Meiji Period. However, following the Meiji Restoration they again took the name Kikutei after a period of almost 600 years. The eldest son of Sanekane was Kinhira (公衡), but he reputedly did not play the biwa. Instead, according to the records in the Shigen S ōsh ō no koto (四絃相承事), it was Kanesue, a younger brother of Kinhira, who became the successor in the proper line of biwa descent and continued the family tradition (Fushimi no Miya Ky ōz ō Gakusho Sh ūsei, V olume 1, op.cit.). 218 and resolved the issue. 90 Of course, it is possible to argue that the Saionji became strongly identified with mediation because of their monopolization of the post of Kant ō M ōshitsugi, but here their mediation bound the overtly political with the musical. Toyonaga has recounted how Sanekane acted as a mediator for warriors who desired initiation into the secret songs of the biwa tradition, and how “[he] was one of only a few, and probably even the only, person who could act as a go-between among the royal family, warriors, and courtly musicians.” 91 Mastery of the biwa was not a pursuit limited to Saionji men. Some royal women from the Saionji – notably the aforementioned Ōmiya-in, Higashi Nij ō-in 92 who was a royal consort of Go-Fukakusa, and Eifukumon-in 93 who was a royal consort of Fushimi – all appear in the authoritative Biwa Ketsumyaku (Lineage of Biwa). 94 90 Toyonaga, 187-188. The case Toyonaga refers to here concerned the selection of lute players. 91 Toyonaga, 188. 92 Higashi-Nijo-in (東二条院,1232-1304) was a daughter of Saionji Saneuji, making her a younger sister of Ōmiya-in. Go-Fukakusa was her nephew, and he was eleven years her junior. 93 Eifukumon-in (永福門院, 1271-1342), as mentioned earlier, was a daughter of Saionji Sanekane. She entered the back palace of Fushimi on the 2nd day of the 6th month in 1288, and she was promoted to queen consort on the 20th day of the 8th month in the same year. Although she was not able to produce any children with Fushimi, she raised Prince Tanehito (later Go-Fushimi) under her protection. As mentioned earlier, she was famous as a poet and many of her poems survived, so most scholarship concerning her pertains to her poetic abilities. Although her name appears in the Biwa Ketsumyaku, almost nothing is known about her in relation to biwa. The only exception in this regard is Iwasa Miyoko, “Ongakushi no naka no Ky ōgoku-ha no Kajin-tachi: Biwa S ō denju Keifu ni yoru K ōsatsu” [Poets of the Ky ōgoku School in the History of Music: An Examination from the Transmission of Biwa and S ō], Waka Bungaku Kenky ū 37(1977): 37-49. Since other Saionji women whose names appear in the Biwa Ketsumyaku – Ōmiya-in and Higashi-Nij ō-in – did not belong to the Ky ōgoku school as poets, there does not seem to be any scholarship concerning their relation to the biwa (aside from the observation that they received biwa instruction from Fujiwara no Hiroko (藤原博子, dates unknown). See Sakaki Taijun, “Ch ūsei Ky ūtei Josei no Ongaku no Ba to Biwa Denju” [The Place of Music for Medieval Courtly Women and Initiation into the Biwa (Tradition)], Kokubungaku T ōsa 7 (1963.3), 53. 94 The Biwa Ketsumyaku is a work that depicts the lineage of biwa transmission. Nothing is known about its date or authorship. It claims that Fujiwara no Sadatoshi (藤原貞敏, 807-867) went to Tang China as an emissary and received training in biwa techniques there from a Doctor of Biwa called, in Japanese, Rensh ōbu 219 Having secured a prominent position in the music world through the biwa tradition, the Saionji naturally sought to reinforce their influence through further enhancing the cultural status of the biwa. 95 In a sort of feedback loop, the rise of the Saionji also brought prestige to others associated with the tradition of the biwa, including former teachers and colleagues. In this regard the rise of the Saionji and their receiving the status of “the house of the biwa” contributed to elevating the rank of the leading biwa family, the Sai School (琵琶西流師範家). 96 This family counted among its members the aforementioned Fujiwara no Moronaga, who was the head of the family and who had been Saionji Sanemune’s teacher, as well as Fujiwara no Takamichi (藤原孝道, 1166-1237), who sought to raise the school’s status with the support of Moronaga. Neither were relations between the Saionji and the leading Sai school masters’ family limited to sharing the same teacher. Ever since Saionji Kinsuke, members of the Saionji and the Sai masters’ family acted reciprocally as masters and apprentices in terms of initiation into secret songs. 97 And they had marriage relations as well. The first case occurred when Saionji Kinsuke married Yasomae, a daughter of the aforementioned Fujiwara no Takamichi from the leading Sai (簾承武). The line of descent passed from this mysterious Chinese figure to Sadatoshi, then Prince Sadayasu (貞保親王, a son of Seiwa Tenn ō), and then on through more than 70 names until the mid-Kamakura Period. Other extant versions of the Biwa Ketsumyaku cover even later times, and list more than hundred names. See Murata Masashi, Sh ōch ū Chin’y ōki, in Murata Masahi Chosakush ū, Volume 4 (Tokyo: Shibunkaku Shuppan, 1984), 317-318. 95 Indeed, as S ōma argues, “the biwa gained even more authority through the Saionji’s deep involvement with it,” (“‘Daidai Biwa Hikyoku Godenju no Koto’ to Sono Zengo,” 28). 96 For more on this see Toyonaga, op. cit., 189. 97 Ibid. Also see S ōma, “Daidai Biwa Hikyoku Godenju no koto’ to Sono Zengo,” 28. 220 school family. This union produced Saionji Sanekane, as well as Imadegawa-in (今出河院、 1253-1318, queen consort of Kameyama Tenn ō). Sanekane himself then married a woman from the leading Sai family as well, namely Fujiwara no Takako (藤原孝子), 98 a union that resulted in the birth of the aforementioned Imadegawa Kanesue. 99 The links between the families were thus reinforced in various ways. The relationship with the Saionji brought the Sai school leading family great fortune and respect. Not being royal intimates, their members could not, like the Saionji, serve as instructors to tenn ō. The rising status of the biwa, bound up with Saionji influence, did contribute to some special cases, however. Specifically, the Sai came to be appointed as extraordinary royal instructors from the time of Go-Fukakusa. 100 With the backing of the Saionji as their patrons, the leading family was able to establish its own prestigious status in the world of biwa at court, while the Saionji, as the recognized patrons of the Sai as the head biwa family, benefitted from increased authority for their status as “the house of the biwa.” 98 Takako was a daughter of Fujiwara no Takayasu (藤原孝泰, also known as孝頼 Takayori), who was in turn a son of Fujiwara no Takatoki (藤原孝時), a brother of Yasomae’s mother. Takayasu was thus Yasomae’s cousin, meaning Saionji Sanekane married his great uncle’s granddaughter. Marriage relations between the Saionji family and the leading Sai school family are also discussed in Chapter 4, with a genealogy. 99 For more on this see Toyonaga, op. cit., 189-191. Toyonaga provides a family tree showing links between the Saionji and the head family on pages 190-191. 100 Toyonaga explains the differences between a formal instructor of a tenn ō and other instructors in detail in his Chapter 1, Section 2, “Ongaku no Onshi” [Instructors of Music for Sovereigns]. Toyonaga also argues that there were several reasons why a member of the head family was appointed as an extraordinary instructor: one was the lack of a suitable (Saionji) person since Saionji Kinsuke was ill, and the other is the fact that Fujiwara no Hiroko from the head family had served Go-Fukakusa as a private tutor and had even given birth to two of his children. Although the member of the head family was just serving as a private tutor, it was still unprecedented for someone who was not a royal intimate to be appointed as an instructor. 221 To conclude this section, in mastering the biwa and rising to a position of prominence within the musical world of the court – which increasingly centered on the biwa and its associations with the sovereign – the Saionji acquired yet another tool to enhance their position at court. Biwa skill reflected refined taste and elegance, and it was taken as a mark of sophistication and cultural superiority that by itself represented a source of considerable cultural capital. However, the Saionji achievement of direct and formally sanctioned association with the instrument, as well as their monopolization of the position of formal biwa instructor to the sovereign, took them leaps and bounds ahead of other skilled musicians. They could dominate the world of music, and thus command considerable respect and influence. In addition to providing another route to dominance at court, their biwa mastery opened the way to other avenues of power. As the Saionji rose within the world of music, they became vital middlemen for anyone else wishing access to that musical world. Conclusion In order to develop and then sustain their authority and influence, it was not sufficient for the Saionji to simply become wealthy and display this wealth in a manner keeping with the lifestyle of the most affluent courtier families. It was also vital for members of the Saionji family to 222 showcase their learning and mastery of cultural pursuits, demonstrated through activities in literature and music. In the case of the Saionji, their performances in these areas were carefully orchestrated and aimed at firmly establishing themselves as court leaders. In a complex web of self-promotion, Saionji members pursued cultural activities that would show them worthy of the highest political influence, while they simultaneously used this influence to further their cultural reputation and enhance their political dominance. This chapter has assessed these activities through the lens of Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital, arguing that the Saionji understood the various forms of authority that made up court life and the links between cultural activities and power. They generated considerable amounts of cultural capital, forming a system of production in which their economic, cultural, and political activities not only overlapped but directly depended one upon another in ways which can be best understood through considering the “intraconvertibility” of capital as theorized by Bourdieu. Understanding how one form of production could transform into another, the Saionji invested heavily in cultural activities that would both legitimate and further advance their political ambitions. As was the case with economic capital, these strategies were by no means limited to the Saionji: they were simply one of the most effective families at deploying them. The same 223 applied to their impressive formation and utilization of human networks, the topic of the next chapter, which bound together many of their activities from different arenas of courtier society. 224 Chapter 4: Social Capital of the Saionji – Marriage Strategies and Familial Networks Introduction In mid-1221, the Kyoto court was shaken by the J ōkyū Incident and its aftermath, the dethronement of the sitting monarch and the exile of no less than three retired sovereigns. It its wake, Prince Yutahito (茂仁, 1212-1234) was chosen to ascend the throne as Go-Horikawa Tenn ō, creating a problem because neither the court nor the bakufu wished to see the system of court leadership by retired sovereigns (insei) scrapped. In the absence of any retired sovereigns, Yutahito’s father, Prince Morisada (守貞親王, 1179-1223), was asked to become a “retired sovereign” despite never having been a sovereign at all. The Tale of Five Sovereigns relates how Morisada was less than enthusiastic about the idea, having planned to renounce the world, until his consort Nobuko (or Chinshi, later 北白河院陳子 Kitashirakawa-in Nobuko) pushed him, saying “What are you waiting for? This is great news for our child as well, so there should be no hesitation!” 1 Nobuko was not only the new ruler’s mother, but also Saionji Kintsune’s aunt. With Morisada becoming a retired sovereign, she suddenly gained great influence for the Saionji, her 1 Godai Tei ō Monogatari [The Tale of Five Sovereigns], in Gunsho Ruij ū, Volume 3 (Tokyo: Gunsho Ruij ū Kanseikai, 1960), 425. The Godai Tei ō Monogatari is a historical tale that was written in chronological style during the late Kamakura Period. The author and exact date of completion are unknown. It begins its account with the enthronement of Go-Horikawa and carries the narrative up through the One-Hundred-Day Buddhist Ceremony (百ヵ日仏事) conducted after the passing of Go-Saga. The “Five Sovereigns” in the title refers to Go-Horikawa, Shij ō, Go-Saga, Go-Fukakusa, and Kameyama. 225 natal family, although there had initially been little expectation that the effort invested in her marriage would “pay off.” Courtier families invested immense resources in establishing links with other families, first and foremost through marriage. The desired return on such investments was social capital. In the previous two chapters, I examined two forms of capital – economic and cultural, respectively – that the Saionji possessed, and I assessed how they utilized these in order to elevate and maintain their status as a prominent and influential courtier family. In this chapter, I shall consider the last of the three major types of capital identified by Bourdieu, social capital, and the crucial role that it played in enabling Saionji prosperity. Social Capital: Theory and Historical Applications By way of introduction to the theory itself, unlike cultural capital, social capital existed as a concept long before Bourdieu’s fuller articulation of it. The concept first came to prominence in the late 19th century, although the term “social capital” itself did not emerge until around the 1920s. 2 From that point, it evolved into an inclusive term for social cohesion and the value accorded group dynamics. In this way, the term “social capital” became the subject of works by prominent political theorists and public intellectuals like Robert D. Putnam and Francis 2 See, for example, John Dewey, The School and Society: Being Three Lectures by John Dewey, Supplemented by a Statement of the University Elementary School (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1899), 1907 printing. 226 Fukuyama, and it has been frequently used in studies of contemporary societies. 3 Regional development and even responses to major events, such as the catastrophic earthquake in Japan on March 11, 2011, have been assessed through this framework. 4 The treatment of social capital as a form of social value that strengthens society can be seen in Francis Fukuyama’s work: …social capital is an instantiated informal norm that promotes cooperation between two or more individuals. The norms that constitute social capital can range from a norm of reciprocity between two friends, all the way up to complex and elaborately articulated doctrines like Christianity or Confucianism. 5 But given that it is overly general and inclusive, this approach has limited applicability for historical analysis. 6 3 Robert D. Putnam, “Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital” Journal of Democracy 6.1 (1995): 65-78; Francis Fukuyama “Social Capital and Civil Society,” IMF Conference on Second Generation Reforms (October 1, 1999), <http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/seminar/1999/reforms/fukuyama.htm>. This politico-economic conception of social capital continues to receive much attention. For an exhaustive treatment of this approach, see Dario Castiglione, Jan. W. Van Deth, and Guglielmo Wolleb, eds., The Handbook of Social Capital (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008). 4 See, for example, Marc Hooghe and Dietlind Stolle, eds., Generating Social Capital: Civil Society and Institutions in Comparative Perspective (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003); and Harada Hiroo, “Social Capital in Disaster: From the Great East Japan Earthquake,” Second World Congress of the Public Choice Societies (March 8-11, 2012). Carlo Trigilia distinguishes between types of social capital that benefit economic development and those that hinder it, in “Social Capital and Local Development,” European Journal of Social Theory 4.4 (2001): 427-442; and Giles Mohan and John Mohan consider social capital and geography (“Placing Social Capital,” Progress in Human Geography 26.2 (2002): 191-210). 5 Fukuyama, op. cit. 6 This is not to say that such an approach cannot be helpful if it is sufficiently narrowed down, such as in particular studies of social development based on Putnam’s approach. For one example, see Robert I. Rotberg, ed., Patterns of Social Capital: Stability and Change in Historical Perspective (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2001). One work that attempts to apply Putnam’s approach to medieval and early modern Europe is Nicholas A. Eckstein and Nicholas Terpstra, eds., Sociability and Its Discontents: Civil Society, Social Capital, and Their Alternatives in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe (Turnhout: Brepols, 2009). The focus on the medieval world being significant because it serves as the origin of modern formulations such 227 On the other hand, Bourdieu’s formulation is more applicable for two reasons. That is because Bourdieu is concerned with how social capital is generated in a society, and he is ambivalent about its presumed benefits for the whole of society. Rather than focusing on a sense of social cohesion or the general “good of society” that identifies social capital (or at least the “right type” of social capital) with progress, Bourdieu follows Marx in conceiving of all forms of capital as direct products of some form of labor, which are naturally open to a range of uses including exploitation. Moreover, Bourdieu’s conception is more carefully delineated, distinguished from elements such as inherited traditions, learned skills, and so forth, which are considered cultural capital (as discussed in the previous chapter). Bourdieu first articulated his conception of social capital in Outline of a Theory of Practice (1972), his landmark work on practice theory that also made famous his notion of habitus – basically, the social skills, attitudes and behaviors that are socially gained by individuals through experiencing daily life in society. 7 In this work, Bourdieu discusses social capital as a means of providing a foundation for domination in society, noting how forms of social relations may be as civil society, however suggests a limitation with this approach. 7 Pierre Bourdieu, trans. Richard Nice, Outline of a Theory of Practice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977). For a later treatment by Bourdieu of habitus, see his “Structures, Habitus, Power: Basis for a Theory of Symbolic Power,” in Nicholas B. Dirks, Geoff Eley, and Sherry B. Ortner, eds., Culture / Power / History: A Reader in Contemporary Social Theory (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), 155-199. Finally, for Bourdieu’s own take on his work in relation to Japanese society, see Bourdieu, “Social Space and Symbolic Space: Introduction to a Japanese Reading of Distinction,” trans. Giasele Sapiro, ed. Brian McHale, Poetics Today 12.4 (Winter 1991): 627-638; and the subsequent “The New Capital: Introduction to a Japanese Reading of State Nobility,” trans. Gisele Sapiro, ed. Brian McHale, Poetics Today 12.4 (Winter 1991): 643-653. 228 continually renewed so as to form a system of domination where more conventional models (state apparatus, education system, etc.) may be lacking. 8 Hence, …it is in the degree of objectification of the accumulated social capital that one finds the basis of all the pertinent differences between the modes of domination: that is, very schematically, between, on the one hand, social universes in which relations of domination are made, unmade, and remade in and by the interactions between persons, and on the other hand, social formations in which, mediated by objective, institutionalized mechanisms, such as those producing and guaranteeing the distribution of “titles” (titles of nobility, deeds of possession, academic degrees, etc.) relations of domination have the opacity and permanence of things and escape the grasp of individual consciousness and power. 9 In other words, for Bourdieu, social capital is bound up with systems of relations providing a form of social control, but the extent to which these are continually renewed at the individual level, or alternatively given a more institutionalized form, depends on the society. The specific definition, however, remains vague, and to some extent, social capital still appears to overlap with cultural capital. Bourdieu more clearly defined his understanding of social capital in an essay, “The Forms of Capital” in 1983. 10 Here, he writes: Social capital is the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual 8 Ibid., 183-184. 9 Ibid., 184. 10 Pierre Bourdieu, “The Forms of Capital,” in J. Richardson, ed., Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1986), 241-258, reprinted in Stephen J. Ball, ed., The RoutledgeFalmer Reader in Sociology of Education (New York: RoutledgeFalmer, 2004), 15-29. 229 acquaintance and recognition—or in other words, to membership in a group – which provides each of its members with the backing of the collectively owned capital, a “credential” which entitles them to credit, in the various senses of the word. 11 Moreover Bourdieu is explicit that these relationships must be continually maintained, undergoing a constant renewal through fresh exchanges, or they will cease to exist. An individual therefore generates social capital through his or her active association with various groups (families, tribes, factions, friends, etc.), thereby building a network of social relations (i.e. social “connections”) that brings with it access to such desirables as prestige, wealth, or political influence. Bourdieu argues that those possessing high amounts of social capital gain tremendous advantages across society, such as being afforded access to desired schooling, occupations, or social positions of high rank. 12 Moreover, social capital can be “multiplied”: strong connections with individuals who in turn possess strong connections themselves can exponentially increase the social capital available to the individual. 13 To “socialize” effectively is thus to generate considerable social wealth. It is therefore in an individual’s own interest to work at establishing a reliable network of influence, for which considerable labor is required. Such a network “is the product of investment strategies, individual or collective, consciously or unconsciously aimed at establishing or 11 Ibid., 21. 12 In this regard also see Pierre Bourdieu, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste, trans. Richard Nice (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984). 13 Bourdieu, “The Forms of Capital,” 21. 230 reproducing social relationships that are directly usable in the short or long term,” and the pursuit of such strategies requires considerable investments of effort, skill, and at times, economic capital as well. 14 Bourdieu’s conception of social capital proved appealing to historians of Europe, who recognized in his emphasis on carefully constructed and maintained networks of influence precisely the sorts of strategies pursued by groups such as guilds or leading families in medieval and early modern times. Medievalists began to produce studies inspired by Bourdieu and other theorists of social capital in the 1990s, at around the same time as works attempting a historical sociology of medieval states, such as James Given’s State and Society in Medieval Europe (1990). 15 One example is Marjorie K. McIntosh’s “The Diversity of Social Capital in English Communities, 1300-1640,” which traces forms of organization in medieval and early modern English communities. 16 McIntosh argues that such organizations generated social capital that benefitted not only the members themselves but also society at large. They did so by reinforcing vertical and horizontal ties and supporting legal and ideological structures in the process, which 14 Ibid., 22, 22-23. 15 James Given, State and Society in Medieval Europe: Gwynedd and Languedoc under Outside Rule (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1990). 16 Marjorie K. McIntosh, “The Diversity of Social Capital in English Communities, 1300-1640 (With a Glance at Modern Nigeria),” The Journal of Interdisciplinary History 29.3 (Winter, 1999): 459-490. 231 in turn strengthened social cohesion and ultimately contributed to the emergence of the modern state. 17 Some of the most insightful work in this area has been produced by Sheilagh Ogilvie, who draws on the concept of social capital to assess the roles of guilds in European society. In “Guilds, Efficiency, and Social Capital,” she finds the notion that guilds helped correct economic shortcomings like the quality of products overstated. Instead she argues that guilds played major social roles: they were social networks that generated social capital. 18 Because this social capital helped spread shared norms and forms of political engagement, it also had a considerable economic impact. For Ogilvie, social capital helps explain why guilds were widespread in European society: it was not their directly economic function or efficiency (which she says has been overstated), but rather the social functions that they performed that made them important. In another article with T. K. Dennison, Ogilvie takes on the more widespread view of social capital that sees it as an unqualified good benefitting society as a whole. 19 Examining pre-emancipation Bohemia and Russia, the authors argue that serfs generated social capital but that it was exploited by local elites and turned against the best interests of the serfs. 20 This assessment can be taken as 17 McIntosh is particularly interested in female social credit systems, and makes her case for the broader utility of her assessment by drawing a comparison with women in Nigeria during the first half of the twentieth century. 18 Sheilagh Ogilvie, “Guilds, Efficiency, and Social Capital: Evidence from German Proto-Industry,” Economic History Review 57.2 (2004): 286-333. 19 T. K. Dennison and Sheilagh Ogilvie, “Serfdom and Social Capital in Bohemia and Russia,” Economic History Review 60.3 (2007): 513-544. 20 Ibid. 232 a validation of Bourdieu’s emphasis on social capital as akin to other forms of capital in that it is the product of labor: just as the economic capital of others may be manipulated or stolen, so too can the social capital they generate, putting the lie to the idea of social capital as a simple “good.” Ogilvie has also recently produced a full-length study of merchant guilds, Institutions and European Trade: Merchant Guilds, 1000-1800, which builds on her earlier treatments. Therein she argues that rather than aiding economic efficiency and expansion, guilds tended to hinder both, but that guilds continued to develop because of the vital roles they played for their members. 21 Other Europeanists have also applied the concept of social capital to the study of guilds in medieval Europe. For example, in “Two is Company, N is a Crowd? Merchant Guilds and Social Capital,” Roberta Dessi and Salvatore Piccolo argue that the social capital generated by guilds was important because it enabled merchants to collude with rulers and thereby gain benefits. 22 Here again the emphasis is on how considering social capital enables scholars to reassess institutions and relationships between people in medieval society. 23 Alternatively, other scholars 21 Sheilagh Ogilvie, Institutions and European Trade: Merchant Guilds, 1000-1800 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011). 22 Roberta Dessi and Salvatore Piccolo, “Two is Company, N is a Crowd? Merchant Guilds and Social Capital,” Center for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) Working Paper #7374 (July 2009), <http://www.cepr.org/pubs/dps/DP7374.asp>. 23 For other recent approaches to guilds in medieval Europe that consider their varied roles anew, see Ian Anders Gadd and Patrick Wallis, eds., Guilds, Society and Economy in London, 1450-1800 (London: Centre for Metropolitan History, Institute of Historical Research, 2002); and Hugo Soly, “The Political Economy of European Craft Guilds: Power Relations and Economic Strategies of Merchants and Master Artisans in the Medieval and Early Modern Textile Industries,” International Review of Social History 53 (2008), Supplement, 45-71. This issue of the IRSH is a special issue dedicated to assessments of guilds from various regions and 233 have coupled Bourdieu’s concepts with more established frameworks to enable a more thorough understanding of such relationships. For example, Marxist historian Jan Dumolyn combines Jean-Philippe Genet’s notion of “state feudalism” (a centralized form of Marx’s feudal mode of production, embodied in the medieval state) with Bourdieu’s notion of social capital to approach the medieval state of Flanders both as a socio-political system and a network of human relationships. 24 Meanwhile, Sandro Carocci finds in Bourdieu’s concepts (along with those of some other sociologists) a way of illuminating social mobility, an understudied but important component of medieval society. 25 Finally, Bourdieu’s emphasis on social relations and human networks has been one of the major influences encouraging network studies more generally and related pursuits in recent years. 26 In all these ways, scholars of medieval Europe have found Bourdieu’s formation of social capital, and its ability to shed new light on social relations, illuminating. eras as an attempt at a “global history of guilds.” See Jan Lucassen, Tine De Moor, and Jan Luiten van Zanden’s preface, “The Return of the Guilds: Towards a Global History of the Guilds in Pre-industrial Times” (5-18), as well as the Japan contribution from Mary Louise Nagata, “Brotherhoods and Stock Societies: Guilds in Pre-modern Japan” (121-142). 24 Jan Dumolyn, “The Political and Symbolic Economy of State Feudalism: The Case of Late-Medieval Flanders,” Historical Materialism 15 (2007): 105-131. 25 Sandro Carocci, “Social Mobility and the Middle Ages,” Continuity and Change 26.3 (2011): 367-404. 26 See for example Jelle Haemers, “Urban History of the Medieval Low Countries: Research Trends and New Perspectives (2000-10),” Urban History 38.2 (2011): 345-354. The essay discusses the increase in studies employing social capital and social network theory. See also Franz Mauelshagen, “Networks of Trust: Scholarly Correspondence and Scientific Exchange in Early Modern Europe,” The Medieval History Journal 6.1 (2003): 1-32 for an example of a network studies piece directly inspired by Bourdieu. 234 Scholarship on Japan has to some extent mirrored these trends. As in the case of scholarship on Europe, there are plentiful studies that consider social capital as a vital aspect of the social world. But both in Japanese and English such research has been overwhelmingly concerned with contemporary society. 27 Nonetheless, there has been an increasing number of historical studies, primarily in English, that specifically draw on Bourdieu’s concepts, including a growing body of work on social networks. The bulk of these are concerned with intellectual developments in the Edo Period. For example, in Proving the Way, Mark McNally draws upon Bourdieu’s concepts of capital and fields of cultural production to reassess kokugaku. He emphasizes the role of Hirata Atsutane, who was successful in making his school the dominant form of kokugaku tradition not because of scholarly superiority but rather because of his ability to “sell” his school more effectively than could competitors. 28 In terms of network studies, a leading work is Anna Beerens’ Friends, Acquaintances, Pupils and Patrons, which examines networks of intellectuals in the late eighteenth century. And in Tokugawa Village Practice, Herman Ooms undertakes an assessment of village behavior with regards to political and social institutions, drawing significantly on Bourdieu’s conception of social structures and capital. 29 27 For example, Sakamoto Haruya, S ōsharu-kyapitaru to Katsud ōsuru Shimin: Shin Jidai Nihon no Shimin Seiji [Social Capital and Active Citizens: Governance of Citizens in a New Era in Japan] (Kanda: Y ūhikaku, 2010); Nishide Yuko, Social Capital and Civil Society in Japan (Sendai: Tohoku University Press, 2009); and Inoguchi Takashi, “Social Capital in Japan,” Japanese Journal of Political Science 1.1 (2000): 73-112. 28 Mark McNally, Proving the Way: Conflict and Practice in the History of Japanese Nativism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center, 2005). 29 Herman Ooms, Tokugawa Village Practice: Class, Status, Power, Law (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996). 235 Scholarship on the medieval era using the concept of social capital is still thin, and what exists tends to be concerned with the social networks out of which contemporary social structures emerged. A good example is the work of sociologist Eiko Ikegami. In The Taming of the Samurai, Ikegami investigates the history of Japanese warriors not because of their own significance, but rather to gain “a more adequate understanding and appreciation of the tensions between individuality and collectivism in modern Japan, as well as in the past several centuries of Japanese history.” 30 Ikegami, engaged in her own struggle against stereotyped notions of contemporary Japanese society as collectivist and overly repressive of the individual, is concerned with uncovering the defining tensions she identifies in modern Japanese society and then explaining their historical origins. Similarly in Bonds of Civility, she attempts to do for Japanese society and its early modern antecedent what Bourdieu did for French society and its precursor. 31 Here her emphasis is on aesthetic networks and how their values and tastes became normalized and then contributed to the development of modern Japanese cultural and social institutions. And for the early medieval age, in his The Geography of Power in Medieval Japan, Thomas Keirstead draws on a range of theoretical perspectives including Bourdieu to rethink medieval sh ōen as contested spaces that were represented in different ways for varying political 30 Eiko Ikegami, The Taming of the Samurai: Honorific Individualism and the Making of Modern Japan (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995), 3. 31 Eiko Ikegami, Bonds of Civility: Aesthetic Networks and the Political Origins of Japanese Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005). 236 purposes. 32 Other scholars of medieval Japan influenced by Bourdieu include the art historian Chino Kaori and the scholar of aesthetics Michael F. Marra. 33 As for Japanese-language historical scholarship, however, Bourdieu has yet to make a dent, even though anthropologists and archaeologists in Japan have had some success in applying his thought in their work. 34 Sakurai Eiji, however, is one researcher who has begun to think about medieval networks. 35 And as I will show below, my view is that much could be gained by applying Bourdieu’s insights on social capital to the study of Japan’s medieval society. In this regard, however, I should note that the historian Tanahashi Mitsuo has offered sharp criticism of previous historical scholarship while stressing the importance of networks. 36 His criticism is directed towards a common tendency in historical studies to conclude that a given “system,” “organization,” or “law” can be seen in themselves to reflect the social realities of the 32 Thomas Keirstead, The Geography of Power in Medieval Japan (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992). 33 See, for example, Chino Kaori, J ū-j ūsan seiki no Bijutsu: Ōch ōbi no Sekai [Art in 10th- to 13th-century Japan: The World of Beauty during the Heian Period] (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1993); and Michele Marra, Representations of Power: The Literary Politics of Medieval Japan (Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 1993). 34 Together with Bourdieu, the work of other Western social theorists has been used occasionally by Japanese scholars. Some Japanese archaeologists, for example, have made use of Niklas Luhmann, a German sociologist who remains relatively unknown in the English-language scholarship. See, for instance, Koji Mizoguchi, An Archaeological History of Japan: 30,000 BC to AD 700 (Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press, 2002). 35 Sakurai Eiji, “Dos ō no Jinmyaku to Kiny ū Network” [The Connections between Money-Brokers and Finance Networks], in Murata Sh ōsuke, ed., ‘Hito no Tsunagari’ no Ch ūsei [Medieval Japan Through Human Networks] (Tokyo: Yamakawa Shuppansha, 2008), 172-187. 36 Tanahashi Mitsuo, Go-Shirakawa Hōō [The Retired Sovereign Go-Shirakawa] (Tokyo: K ōdansha, 1995). This monograph ended up incomplete due to the author’s passing in December 1994. Some of the sections of the work were almost complete; however, the section on human networks remained a work-in-progress. But his argument on this issue is quite clear, and was intended to be one of the key aspects of his work on Go-Shirakawa, to which he had devoted his life. 237 time. 37 By this he means to problematize scholarship that studies such institutions while neglecting the people and social conditions that made them. Tanahashi argues that medieval history is not immune to this tendency to resort to an uncritical “belief in systems” or “belief in institutions.” 38 In doing this, Tanahashi is not dismissing institutional history; neither is he suggesting social systems or institutions are just chimeras that emerge from the minds of later writers or historians. Rather, it is how structures can limit a historian’s perspective that is problematic. Institutions have often been seen as independent and isolated mechanisms, studied without adequate reference to the people who created and enabled them to function. Institutions do not function independently, Tanahashi argues, but instead they function through broad human networks, and we neglect the importance of human networks at our peril. 39 We moderns tend to think that human networks, created through marriage relations for instance, were accidental or arbitrary things that do not accord with scientific principles. However, we historians must locate the principles [behind] such networks – what kind of political power the parties concerned recognized in particular familial relations, what kind of functions of systems or institutions were expected in particular networks (mutually-beneficial structures), instead of finding fault with the various marriage relations and human networks that we accidentally ‘discover.’ 40 37 Ibid., 130. 38 Ibid., 131. 39 Ibid. 40 Ibid. Here Tanahashi refers to a tendency for modern scholars to discuss networks in a dismissive fashion, emphasizing how they were “illogical” (by modern standads), instead of considering the important role they played in the contemporary society. 238 So, according to Tanahashi, broad human networks are “one of the important keys to untangling a class society.” 41 Understanding a social or political system necessitates understanding the connections between people that serve as its foundation. While he does not appear to specifically draw inspiration from Bourdieu, Tanahashi’s argument dovetails with Bourdieu’s view of social networks and the role of social capital in sustaining them. Marriage Strategies and Early Medieval Courtier Society Clearly, among the various sets of human relations created and maintained in order to generate social capital, marriage relations, as Tanahashi argues, stand out as particularly important. Bourdieu helps shed light on marriage as a familial strategy: In other words, given that matrimonial strategies (at least in the most advantaged families) were always designed to bring about a ‘good marriage’ rather than just any marriage, that is, to maximize the profits and/or to minimize the economic and symbolic costs of the marriage as a transaction of a very particular kind, these strategies are in every case governed by the value of the material and symbolic patrimony that can be committed to the transaction and by the mode of transmission of the patrimony, which established the systems of interests of various claimants by assigning differential rights to the property to each of them according to sex and birth rank. 42 In other words, marriage strategy is rarely, if ever, merely about arranging a marriage; it aims to bring about a “good marriage,” one that, as an exchange of social capital, will bring about 41 Ibid., 132. 42 Pierre Bourdieu, trans. Richard Nice, The Bachelors’ Ball: The Crisis of Peasant Society in Bearn (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008), 138. 239 maximum profit at minimum expense. From a family’s perspective, the purpose of marriage is thus the expansion of profits. The profits a family stands to gain from marriage can vary, from economic capital to symbolic authority, but overwhelmingly, marriage represents a major transaction of social capital that can dramatically expand a family’s social reach by tying networks together. 43 In the broad sweep of early Japanese history, one finds a plethora of examples of families obtaining and expanding their social capital through marriage. The political system which became dominant during the mid-Heian Period, which is sometimes called the Regental Polity (Sekkan Seiji), is an extreme example. It is well known that in this system, high-ranking courtier families had their daughters enter the back palace of the sovereign, give birth to a prince, and then strive to gain political power as matrilineal grandparents of a sitting sovereign. 43 On strategies of maintaining families through marriages, see Kunikata Keiji, Hasebe Hiroshi, and Nagano Yukiko, eds., Ie no Sonzoku Senryaku to Kon’in: Nihon, Ajia, Yoroppa [The Strategies of Perpetuating House and Marriage: Japan, Asia and Europe] (Tokyo: T ōsui Shob ō, 2009) which collects several articles discussing marriage strategies in various areas of the world. Aside from the work of scholars like Hitomi Tonomura and translated work by Wakita Haruko noted in the first chapter, there is little in English specifically concerned with marriage in premodern Japan, although one exception is H. Mack Horton’s case study, “Portrait of a Medieval Marriage: The Domestic Life of Sanj ōnishi Sanetaka and His Wife,” Japanese Language and Literature 37.2 (Oct. 2003)]: 130-154. For a look at the situation in European history, see Frances Gies and Joseph Gies, Marriage and Family in the Middle Ages (New York: Harper & Row, 1987),which is a good overview; as well as Georges Duby, Love and Marriage in the Middle Ages, trans. Jane Dunnett (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994) for a rather conventional Europeanist perspective; and Anthony Molho, Marriage Alliance in Late Medieval Florence (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994). Molho considers the connection between marriage and the depletion or preservation of family fortunes. Duby’s view of medieval European women as repressed and generally lacking in agency has been challenged by Martha C. Howell, in The Marriage Exchange: Property, Social Place, and Gender in Cities of the Low Countries, 1300-1550 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998). 240 The most famous example of this strategy is no doubt Fujiwara no Michinaga (藤原道長, 966-1028). Michinaga’s first daughter Sh ōshi (彰子, 988-1074) became a royal consort of Ichij ō Tenn ō, despite his already having had a royal consort, Teishi (定子, 977-1001). Sh ōshi gave birth to two princes, both of whom later became sovereigns. Michinaga then repeated the strategy a second time, matching another daughter, Kenshi (妍子, 994-1027), to the next sovereign Sanj ō (三条天皇, 976-1017, r. 1011-1016). Sanj ō was in turn succeeded by Go-Ichij ō, one of the sons of Sh ōshi and Michinaga’s grandson. Go-Ichij ō’s royal consort was Ishi (威子, 1000-1036), yet another daughter of Michinaga. At this point, Michinaga had managed to make three of his daughters into royal consorts of successive monarchs. Having one family produce three royal consorts, one after another, was an unprecedented feat in Japanese courtier society up to that time. Michinaga also arranged for Sh ōshi’s second son, i.e. another of his grandsons, to become Go-Ichij ō’s crown prince. 44 Another example is Taira no Kiyomori (平清盛, 1118-1181), Saionji Kintsune’s more immediate predecessor as a court leader. Kenshunmon-in (建春門院), a sister of Kiyomori’s wife (Taira no Tokiko 平時子, 1126-1185), became a favorite consort of the retired sovereign Go-Shirakawa, and made her niece, Kiyomori’s daughter Taira no Tokuko (平徳子, 1155-1213) a 44 For the classic contemporary account of Michinaga’s rise and prosperity, see William H. & Helen C. McCullough, trans., A Tale of Flowering Fortunes: Annals of Japanese Aristocratic Life in the Heian Period (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1980). 241 royal consort of her son with Go-Shirakawa, the sovereign Takakura (高倉天皇, 1161-1181). Takakura and Tokuko (later known as Kenreimon-in) then had a son, Antoku (安徳天皇, 1178-1185), who ascended to the throne, making Kiyomori the grandfather of the reigning tenn ō. Such marriage strategies represented multi-generational investments, with all the attendant risks (a prince who died early or failed to inherit the throne, a daughter who failed to produce a son, etc.) and potential profits (unparalleled political and social power) of a major financial venture. Familial strategies aimed at increasing power or influence through marriage relations with power holders are not limited to a particular time period, location, or group. Hong ō Keiko observes that, “In premodern society, it is quite common to expand one’s influence through marriage relations; such a method was often used in Kamakura,” pointing out that such a practice was not limited the Kyoto aristocracy but was common among Kamakura warriors as well. 45 In a similar vein, Tabuchi Yasuko argues that, It is a well-known fact that blood ties had a significant meaning, and that these bonds were strong in medieval warrior society. However, this was not just [limited to blood] relatives, for the ties that connected in-laws through marriage were also very tight. There were warriors like Mori Motonari who put great emphasis on affinity by marriage, and made [marriage unions] last for generations in the form of “multiple relations. 46 45 Hong ō Keiko, Sh ōgun Kenryoku no Hakken [The Discovery of Shogunal Power ] (Tokyo: K ōdansha, 2010), 23. She lists the cases of Hiki family, Miura family, and Adachi family as examples of families who gained and extended their power through their marital relations. 46 Tabata Yasuko, Uba no Chikara: Rekishi wo Sasaeta Onnatachi [The Power of Wet-Nurses: Women Who Supported History] (Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 2005), 1. 242 The historian Sakurai Eiji, in discussing later medieval moneylenders and financial networks, also notes that “For people in medieval times, the most reliable thing, and that upon which they placed the most value, were marriage relations and relations with relatives.” 47 Collectively, these examples support the important role accorded kinship ties through marriage during the medieval era. In terms of contributing to the prosperity of a family by connecting people, marriage best exemplifies a tool for creating the Saionji’s social capital. Therefore in the following discussion of the social capital of the Saionji, I will focus in particular on their marriage relations. Each of the following three sections concerns a particular set of networks that the Saionji developed with several different power holders. 48 One linked them to Kamakura, expectedly, because of the strong association the Saionji enjoyed given their position as Kant ō M ōshitsugi. 49 Indeed, Saionji Kintsune has been referred to as “the person located at the hub of the court-bakufu relationship” 47 Sakurai Eiji, 181. He further relates that, “It is true that the importance of relations based on geographical factors or solidarity increase in the later medieval period; however, it does not directly mean that the importance of marriage relations decrease. Rather, it was the most fundamental of human relations. I would like to emphasize this fact, which tends to be forgotten due to its obviousness.” (ibid.). 48 While the marital relations of Saionji Kintsune and his descendents have been touched on occasionally in scholarship, there is no synthetic study. The leading scholar on familial history, Takamure Itsue, neglects not only Saionji Kinstune but also the Saionji family itself, Heian Kamakura Muromachi Kazoku no Kenky ū [Studies on the Family in the Heian, Kamakura and Muromachi Periods] (Tokyo: Kokusho Kank ōkai, 1985). She does, however, deal with families related to the Saionji. 49 Regarding the power of the Kant ō M ōshitsugi, Kanai Shizuka argues that their power was strong enough to lead the whole governmental business at court since they were in a position to receive the requests of the Kamakura Bakufu directly in the first place. See Kanai Shizuka, Ch ūsei Kuge-ry ō no Kenky ū [Studies of the Land Holdings of Medieval Courtiers] (Tokyo: Shibunkaku Shuppan, 1999), 158. 243 from the J ōkyū Incident to the Ninji era (1221 to 1242), when the relationship collapsed. 50 But it is important to remember too that the Saionji also developed relations with two more major power holders: the royal and regental families. The sum of these networks brought the Saionji tremendous influence and enabled them to weather any political storm that might occur. 51 Part I: Relations with Kamakura As we have seen, among the prominent courtier families of medieval Japan, the Saionji family is one of the few to warrant mention in the conventional warrior-centered narratives of the Kamakura era, given that the family monopolized the heritable position of Kant ō M ōshitsugi, a liaison between the Kamakura and Kyoto polities. Needless to say, the Saionji hold on this position did not materialize out of thin air. It was the result of relations that the family forged with Kamakura, ensuring that they were seen as trustworthy. The position was only given to courtiers who were close to Kamakura, and this began with Kintsune’s taking a niece of Minamoto no Yoritomo as his wife. 52 50 Mori Shigeaki, Kamakura Jidai no Ch ō-baku Kankei [Court-Bakufu Relations during the Kamakura Period] (Tokyo: Seibunkaku Shuppan, 1991), 12. In this regard, Mori also follows the evaluation of Kintsune made by Sat ō Shiichi, namely that after the J ōky ū War, it was most certainly Kintsune who was in charge of the court political scene. 51 As Uwayokote confirms, “The foundation of Kintsune’s power was the trust of the bakufu as well as matrilineal marital relations with the royal family, the regental families, and the shogun”: Uwayokote Masataka, et. al., eds., Nihon no Ch ūsei 8: Insei to Heishi, Kamakura Seiken [Medieval Japan, Volume 8: Insei and the Taira, and the Kamakura Polity] (Tokyo: Ch ūō K ōronsha, 2002), 222. 52 For example, Von Verscheur writes “Kintsune had taken Minamoto no Yoritomo’s niece as a wife and occupied key posts at the court. He thus maintained close ties with both the court and the Bakufu”: Charlotte Von Verscheur, Across the Perilous Sea: Japanese Trade with China and Korea from the Seventh to the 244 The marital relationship between Kintsune and his wife, Ichij ō Zenshi, is quite well-known. It is not clear precisely when their marriage began, sometime around the end of the Bunji era (1185-1190). But what Kintsune gained through this marriage was considerable. His father-in-law, Ichij ō Yoshiyasu (一条能保, 1147-1197), held the position of Kyoto Shugo (governor of Kyoto) and was highly influential. When Kinstune became director of the Royal Secretariat as well as the left middle captain on the 25th of the twelfth month of 1196, the Sanch ōki relates how this good fortune was brought about by his marriage: 「超中将上臈六人、（中略）以謂中納言入道（能保）婿有此恩」 53 The Middle Captain [Kintsune] was promoted over six other middle captains who were his superiors. [omission]. It is said that this promotion was due to the benefit of [his] being a son-in-law of the Middle Counselor, [Ichij ō] Yoshiyasu. 54 Furthermore, due to this marriage Kintsune came to count as cousins Minamoto no Yoritomo’s sons Yoriie (源頼家, 1182-1204) and Sanetomo (源実朝, 1192-1219), while Yoritomo’s wife Sixteenth Centuries, trans. Kristen Lee Hunter (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2006), 83-84. She also implies that this marriage is one of the key reasons for the establishment of a close relationship. Furthermore, this view is quite standard. Ry ō Susumu argues too that the first step in Kintsune’s pursuit of cooperative relations with warriors was brought about by his own marriage. See Ry ō Susumu, Kamakura Jidai [The Kamakura Period], V olume 2 (Tokyo: Shunj ūsha, 1957), 172. 53 Sanch ōki, entry for the 26th day of the twelfth month of 1196, in Z ōho Shiry ō Taisei (Tokyo: Rinsen Shoten, 1986), 99. The Sanch ōki is a journal written by Fujiwara no Nagakane (藤原長兼, dates unknown), who was a grandson of Fujiwara no Michinori (famous for his monastic name, Shinzei 信西, 1106-1160). He served as a house manager for the Kuj ō family. 54 Saionji Kintsune was appointed middle captain of the left in 1193. In 1196, he was promoted to director of the Royal Secretariat (Kur ōdo no T ō). There were two directors, one of whom was a controller, and the other of whom was a captain. As William H. and Helen Craig McCullough explain, these two occupied the highest seats in the Courtiers’ Hall, taking precedence over even men of superior rank (A Tale of Flowering Fortunes, op.cit., Volume 2, 817). They were allowed to wear the forbidden color, and were given precedence for promotion to advisors on the Council of State as soon as there were seats available. In this regard, being a director of the Royal Secretariat was considered a major step in promotion at court. 245 H ōj ō Masako (北条政子, 1157-1225) and her brothers became his affinal aunt and uncles. Saionji relations with Kamakura are shown in the following genealogy: Saionji Relations with Kamakura H ōj ō Masako(北条政子) Yoriie(頼家) ―Minamoto no Yoritomo(源頼朝) Sanetomo(実朝) ―Yoritomo’s sister(頼朝妹) Zenshi(全子) Ichij ō Yoshiyasu(一条能保) Rinshi(綸子) Saionji Kintsune(西園寺公経) ―Daughter of Yoriyasu(能保女) Michiie(道家) Kuj ō Kanezane(九条兼実) Yoshitsune(良経) ―Ritsushi(立子) Ch ūky ō(仲恭) Juntoku(順徳)―Prince Tadanari(忠成王) Such firm connections as Kintsune gained through his marriage were not merely a beneficial asset for one seeking to rise in the new order of the dual polity: rather, they were a necessary prerequisite. Those wishing to gain a prestigious position needed to first acquire an appropriate amount of social capital with the family that served as gatekeepers of the position in question. Kintsune’s promotion to director of the Royal Secretariat is a good example of this. The 246 substantial social capital Kintsune gained with Kamakura by marrying into its leading family enabled him to gain this high-status position. However, to qualify for the post of liaison also necessitated established ties with both the royal and shogunal families, according to Mori Shigeaki, who has examined the cases of both B ōmon Nobukiyo (坊門信清, 1159-1216) 55 and Saionji Kintsune, who were acting as liaisons between the court and bakufu for various matters, and thereby functioned as negotiators during the time of Sanetomo. Both Nobukiyo and Kintsune had marital relationships with both the royal family and the shogunal family, and Mori argues that “their marital relationship with both the retired tenn ō and the shogun’s family,” were central. 56 The following genealogy charts the B ōmon family. The B ōmon Family H ōj ō Masako (北条政子) ――Yoriie(頼家) Minamoto no Yoritomo(源頼朝) ――Sanetomo(実朝) B ōmon Nobutaka(坊門信隆)―Nobukiyo(信清)――――――Nobuko(信子) ――B ōmon no Tsubone(坊門局) Shichij ō-in Taneko(七条院殖子) Go-Toba Takakura Tenn ō (高倉天皇) Prince Morisada 55 B ōmon Nobukiyo was the father of Sanetomo’s wife. One of his daughters served Go-Toba as consort. The relations between Saionji Kintsune and the royal family will be discussed later. 56 Mori, 10. While previously being a “close acquaintance” may have been sufficient qualification for the liaison post, by Kintsune’s time the required relatinship had changed to “familal relation.” 247 Kintsune’s marital linkage with Yoritomo was merely the beginning of Saionji familial relations with the shogunal family. After Sanetomo met a violent death in 1219, the individual selected to be the next shogun was none other than of Kintsune’s grandson, Fujiwara no Mitora (藤原三寅, later Yoritsune 頼経; 1218-1256). Mitora was a boy born between Kuj ō Michiie (九条道家, 1193-1252) and Saionji Rinshi (西園寺綸子), who was Kintsune’s daughter with Ichij ō Zenshi. As the Gukanshō relates, “Michiie’s two-year-old son Yoritsune – the one being brought up by his mother’s father (senior counselor Saionji Kintsune) – was selected.” 57 From this it is evident that Kintsune initially raised the boy at his home. 58 In considering Mitora’s connections in Kyoto, the role of his father, Kuj ō Michiie, is often emphasized. However, the role of his grandfather Kintsune, who raised him until he moved to Kamakura at the age of two, must also be kept in mind. Mitora represented another major step forward for Kintsune, because through the young shogun, Kintsune established a direct blood tie with the Kamakura polity, with which he had previously enjoyed only an in-law relationship. Also notable is the fact that Kuj ō Michiie’s mother (that is to say, Mitora’s paternal grandmother) was one of Ichij ō Yoshiyasu’s daughters (i.e. Kintsune’s sister-in-law), meaning that Kintsune gained multi-generation relationships with the Kamakura polity through the Ichij ō family. 57 Delmer M. Brown and Ichiro Ishida, trans. and eds., The Future and the Past: A Translation and Study of the Gukansh ō, an Interpretive History of Japan Written in 1219 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979), 194. 58 Mori also points this out (17). 248 However, while the familial network that Saionji Kintsune built with Kamakura opened doors to choice appointments and brought considerable influence, it had limits. It was certainly not the case that this set of Saionji-Kuj ō-Kamakura relationships brought absolute influence over Kamakura policy. For example, in 1242 the young Shij ō Tenn ō passed away, and having been too young to have had children, another successor had to be chosen. The major Kyoto courtiers who had grasped the reins of power during Shij ō Tenn ō’s rule, foremost among them Kuj ō Michiie and Saionji Kintsune, strongly supported Prince Tadanari (忠成王, Juntoku’s son) for the throne. But the bakufu rejected their thinking and supported Prince Kunihito (邦仁王, Tsuchimikado’s son) instead. This incident has normally been explained by bakufu concerns over the possibility of the exiled Juntoku returning to the capital from Sado Island if his son were enthroned. 59 But Mori suggests another possible reason for bakufu support for Prince Kunihito – the influence of Minamoto no Sadamichi (源定通 1188-1247), who had a strong marital relationship with the H ōj ō family. 60 Sadamichi’s wife was a daughter of H ōj ō Yoshitoki (北条義時 1163-1224) and a sister of both H ōjo Yasutoki (泰時 1183-1242) and Shigetoki (重時 1198-1261). Prince Kunihito himself was a son of one of Sadamichi’s nieces, Michiko (通子) and the retired tenn ō Tsuchimikado (himself the son of Go-Toba and Zaishi (在子), the latter being none other than 59 Juntoku Tenn ō, of course, had been in exile as punishment for his involvement in the 1221 J ōky ū Incident, which is also discussed in the next section. Juntoku remained on Sado Island and died there in 1242. 60 Sadamichi was the fourth son of Minamoto no Michichika (源通親), who wielded political power during the reign of Tsuchimikado (who was Michichika’s grandson since she was born to Michichika’s adopted daughter, Zaishi). 249 Sadamichi’s sister). Furthermore, the wife of Sadamichi’s brother, Michikata (通方), was a daughter of Ichij ō Yoshiyasu, like the wives of Saionji Kintsune and Kuj ō Yoshitsune (九条良経, the father of Kuj ō Michiie). The upshot of these multiple, overlapping marital connections is that, while Saionji Kintsune was indeed connected with the Minamoto, Sadamichi enjoyed the same connections but was also connected to the H ōj ō, who held the real power in the bakufu. Consequently, it was a matter of who had the most powerful relations. As Mori observes, “It was Prince Kunihito who had familial relationships with both the Minamoto shogun family and the H ōj ō regental family.” 61 In other words, the social capital that Sadamichi could “spend” on behalf of his faction’s candidate, Prince Kunihito, was greater than that which Kintsune could offer on behalf of Prince Tadanari. The incident can therefore be seen as a clash between two major “family groupings” – loose alliances of families with linkages and often shared goals – over who would wield the greatest influence over the royal succession. The matter was decided by which grouping had the greater social capital, i.e. the strongest network of links with the most important Kamakura power holders. The situation gains yet another layer of complexity when one realizes that each side supported candidates who were themselves bound up in familial relations with their sponsors: in other words, even the choice of candidates for selection was strongly shaped by family networks. 61 Mori, 23. Emphasis mine. 250 This is obvious not only in hindsight; in fact, there were rumors at the time that the enthronement of Go-Saga Tenn ō was due to a scheme of Sadamichi’s, and founded on the basis that his wife was a sister of H ōj ō Yasutoki and Shigetoki. 62 As the Heikoki relates, 「陰晴不定、今日被相待東脚云々、然而無音空暮了、及晩大府卿立過間、一条殿只今退出云々。談世事、阿波院宮依武士縁、一定御出立之由、世以風聞、件縁者、前内府（言通公）、妻者泰時重時等姉妹也、如此之間、私差遣使者於関東、有慇勤之旨云々、彼公執世務者天下之至極歟。世以為歎云々」（仁治 3年正月 17日条） 63 The weather was changeable. Today, a messenger from the East was expected; however, while no sign [of the messenger] appeared, the sky became dark. In the evening, when the Minister of Financial Affairs was waiting, Lord Ichij ō [Kintsune] withdrew from the palace, we heard. To speak [now] of worldly affairs, Prince Awa-no-in [Prince Kunihito], was selected [to ascend the throne], due to his relations with the warriors [i.e. Kamakura]. According to rumor, the relative in question is the former Minister of the Inner Palace [Kotomichi], 64 and his wife is a sister of [H ōj ō] Yasutoki and Shigetoki. Since this decision was made, [Sadamichi] sent a messenger secretly to the East in order to deliver polite thanks. It is totally appropriate that he [Sadamichi] will administer affairs of state. All the world agrees. (17th day of the 1st month of the 3rd year of Ninji (1242) Likewise, on the other side of the struggle, Saionji Kintsune and Kuj ō Michiie supported Prince Tadanari for the succession because his mother, Tatsuko (立子), was a sister of Michiie’s. Were he to have become sovereign, Kintsune and Michiie could have looked forward to continuing to dominate the court. But the Saionji-Kuj ō-Minamoto familial alliance was forced to 62 Hashimoto Yoshihiko, Minamoto no Michichika (Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 1992), 190. 63 Heikoki, V olume1, in V olume 32 of Z ōho Shiry ō Taisei (Tokyo: Rinsen Shoten, 1975), 136. 64 That is to say, Sadamichi. 251 admit defeat in the face of the enormous social capital wielded by Sadamichi, who could also bring to bear the weight of the H ōj ō shogunal regental family. While the relations between Tsuchimikado Tenn ō and the H ōj ō family has received very little scholarly attention, they must not be overlooked in an examination of Saionji family relations with Kamakura. Relations between the H ōj ō and the Tsuchimikado (Minamoto) Go-Toba(後鳥羽天皇) Tsuchimikado(土御門天皇) Go-Saga(後嵯峨天皇) Sh ōmeimon-in Zaishi(承明門院在子) (formerly Prince Kunihito) *1 Michimune(通宗) Ts ūshi(通子) Minamoto Michichika(源通親) Tsuchimikado Sadamichi(土御門定通) H ōj ō Yoshitoki(北条義時)―Yasutoki(泰時) ―Shigetoki(重時) Takedono(竹殿) *1: Sh ōmeimon-in Zaishi was an adopted daughter of Michichika. She had the same mother (Hanshi) as Michimune and Sadamichi. In sum, Kintsune developed ties with Kamakura that brought him considerable social capital and enabled him to gain the prestigious position of Kant ō M ōshitsugi which would soon 252 become one of his family’s hallmarks, but there were limits to what he could effect through his Kamakura network. Despite his considerable influence, he still had to admit defeat in the face of opponents who had amassed greater social capital. Part II: Relations with the Royal Family The second set of power holders with which the Saionji family built an affinal network was the royal family. Ties with the royals brought not only great prestige, but also, within the dual-polity structure, opportunities for considerable political influence. From the Kamakura era (1192-1333) through the era of the Southern and Northern Courts (1336-1392), the Saionji family sent their daughters to both the Jimy ōin (senior/northern) and the Daikakuji (junior/southern) lines, and gained the title of queen consort for many of them. As with relations with Kamakura, this royal-Saionji network was established and expanded over time. No daughter of Saionji Kintsune entered the back-palace of a tenn ō. It was not until the following generation that his direct descendant entered the back-palace – she was one of Rinshi’s daughters, and Kintsune’s granddaughter, and she became the queen-consort of Go-Horikawa Tenn ō. This does not mean, however, that Kintsune did not have any familial relations with the royal family until then. 253 In fact Kintsune and his family gained their first solid connection with the royal family in the wake of the Joky ū Incident, which had seen Ch ūkyō Tenn ō (仲恭天皇, 1218-1234) 65 dethroned and the three retired monarchs – Go-Toba, Tsuchimikado, and Juntoku – all exiled. As mentioned earlier, it was Prince Yutahito (later Go-Horikawa Tenn ō, r. 1221-1232), the grandson of Takakura Tenn ō, who was then chosen to ascend the throne. 66 The new tenn ō’s father, Prince Morisada, then became Go-Takakura-In. And as discussed above, an important role was played by Kitashirakawa-In Nobuko in this process. Nobuko was not only the mother of Go-Horikawa Tenn ō. She was also a younger sister of Kintsune’s mother, and Kintsune’s aunt. When the bakufu requested that Morisada take up the position of head of the royal family (Chiten no Kimi), at first he firmly rejected the idea, claiming it would be an obstacle in his afterlife. But he ultimately took the position because Nobuko earnestly pushed him to accept it. 67 Consequently Nobuko suddenly emerged as a person of singular consequence in the royal family, and the Saionji gained immense influence as a result. The following genealogy, which covers Saionji relations with the royal family, helps to clarify matters. 65 Ch ūky ō Tenn ō was the fourth prince of Juntoku. He was enthroned in the fourth month of 1224, but due to the J ōky ū Incident in the following month, he was forced to abdicate in the seventh month. His actual reign was approximately seventy days in length. 66 Because Prince Yutahito had become an apprentice of Ninkei at Jujoin, a memorial temple within Myokenji, Uwayokote assumes that he had been planning to renounce the world (Uwayokote, 214). Of course, entering a monastery could also be a survival tactic if one’s family situation or chances for promotion turned sour at court – such circumstances were ameliorated to some extent by the opportunity for promotion and status within the monastic world. 67 Godai Tei ō Monogatari, 425. 254 Saionji Relations with the Royal Family (I) Jimy ōin Motoie(持明院基家) Daughter of Taira no Yorimori(平頼盛女) Kashi(嘉子) Sanemune(実宗) Genshi(彦子) ―Kintsune(公経) Rinshi(綸子) Norizane(教実) Jimy ōin Motoie’s Daughter(基家女) Shunshi(竴子) Michiie(道家) Shij ō(四条) Takakura(高倉)―Prince Morisada(守貞親王) Go-Horikawa(後堀河) Kitashirakawa-in Nobuko(北白河院陳子) Sanj ō Y ūshi(三条有子) Konoe Ch ōshi(近衛長子) Go-Takakura-In passed away in 1223, so that his tenure lasted less than two years. But it was nonetheless of great significance that Kintsune’s aunt was his consort. Even during this brief span, there were discussions of greater opportunities that hinted at the kind of access to power and influence a marriage like this could bring about. At one point earlier the monk Mongaku (文覚 1139-1203) had plotted to place Morisada on the throne, and it was said that he was also 255 considered for a royal shogun. 68 While neither of those possibilities came to be, they point to how political shifts offered opportunities for courtier families able and willing to capitalize (quite literally, in the sense of social capital) on them. It is important too to consider the full extent of the family dynamics at work in this situation. We must keep in mind that when Morisada was married to Nobuko, he was merely a prince, whereas Kintsune had already emerged as a powerful leading courtier. 69 For Prince Morisada, marriage to Kintsune’s aunt likely enabled reciprocal opportunities – his selection as retired monarch and royal family leader may itself even have been the result of Kintsune’s influence. 70 In other words, Morisada stood to gain much from marrying Nobuko; and conversely, upon his obtaining the preeminent position of retired monarch, the Saionji gained a massive return on their initial, risky investment in marrying their daughter to him. 71 68 Gomi Fumihiko, Taikei Nihon no Rekishi 5: Kamakura to Ky ō [Compendium of Japanese History, V olume 5: Kamakura and Kyoto] (Tokyo: Sh ōgakukan, 1988), 203. 69 Go-Takakura had his coming-of-age ceremony in 1191, and married Nobuko not long afterwards. The marriage tie was partially due to the fact that her father Motoie’s wife, was a nanny of Go-Takakura’s, writes Uwayokote (214). 70 Uwayokote introduces this theory, which holds that the reason why the Bakufu chose Go-Takakura to rule as the retired monarch was due to Kintsune’s pressuring the Bakufu. Uwayokote may be referring to Ry ō Susumu, who argued that Kintsune played a major role in pushing Go-Takakura forward. It is unclear how much influence Kintsune wielded in terms of the decision to select the next tenn ō; however, Uwayokote is rather unfavorable in his assessment. He concludes that it was probably not due to Kintsune’s plotting that Go-Takakura and Go-Horikawa were chosen, and that more likely, due to Go-Toba and all of his princes having been involved in the J ōky ū Incident, there was simply no other candidate to be tenn ō aside from the princes in Go-Takakura’s line (Uwayokote, 218). This is a logical view, but Ry ō’s raising of the possibility of Kintsune’s involvement based on his familial relations nevertheless deserves noting, even if it were not the primary factor in the decision. 71 This is especially true considering how the Saionji also financially supported Morisada for much of his life. It is important to remember that any marriage alliance was subject to what might be called cost analysis, as a family weighed the costs and effort needed to arrange the union versus the potential returns in the future. 256 Nobuko’s marriage to Morisada nicely demonstrates the “social economics” at work in familial marriage strategies: a family could spend a high amount of social capital in marrying a daughter to a high-status power-holder, but they could also spend far less by marrying a daughter to someone who had the potential, but not the guarantee, of great influence in future. The latter case could at times represent an initial loss, since the cost (socially and even economically) might be much greater than the short-term gains (although the expense would be less than that required to obtain marriage to someone already in a high-status position since there might be less competition involved and the male would also be eager to gain social capital for his own family via his new wife). It also entailed a degree of risk because the individual could fail to access much power or influence. But if he succeeded, then the returns could be enormous. The long-term goal of a family’s marriage strategy, therefore, was to generate more social capital over the generations than they were spending, creating what a business enterprise might call a healthy “profit margin.” The family needed to make shrewd long-term investments, taking into account the potential and pitfalls of unforeseen future events such as political upheaval. While all the major courtier families participated in such strategies to some extent, the Saionji were exceptionally skilled at it. Familial ties between Kintsune and the royal family expanded not only because of the link with Go-Takakura but also because the ascension of Prince Yutahito (as Go-Horikawa Tenn ō) – 257 born to Go-Takakura and Nobuko – meant that Kintsune (Nobuko’s nephew) was now cousin to the reigning tenn ō. Moreover, Kintsune shortly became the tenn ō’s grandfather-in-law as well, when in 1229 (as mentioned briefly above) Shunshi (竴子), daughter of Kuj ō Michiie and Kintsune’s daughter Rinshi, entered the back-palace of Go-Horikawa. Go-Horikawa was therefore tied to the Saionji both through his mother and one of his consorts. Back-palace politics often rested on shifting sands, with consorts rising and falling as their families gained and lost influence. The frequent changing of Go-Horikawa’s senior queen consorts (ch ūgu), for instance, was a drama that in the words of Uwayokote “directly shows the whereabouts of political power.” 72 The first senior queen consort was Y ūshi (有子), a daughter of the previous prime minister, Sanj ō Kinfusa (三条公房). Y ūshi entered the back palace in 1222 and was elevated to the position of senior queen consort the following year. However, when Chōshi (長子), the daughter of regent Konoe Iezane, entered the back-palace in 1226, she took this position and Y ūshi was demoted to the lesser status of k ōgō instead. But Ch ōshi enjoyed that honor for only a few years, because Shunshi was elevated to the position only a year after her own entrance to the back palace. And thereafter, Shunshi retained her influence. It was not merely by accident that Shunshi, whose father was Michiie and whose grandfather was Kintsune, gained the final victory in this drama of changing queen consorts. 72 Uwayokote, 220. 258 Shunshi’s position also presumably brought further privilege to Kintsune, who ultimately became a maternal great-grandfather of Shunshi’s son, Shij ō Tenn ō (四条天皇, born in 1231). The Saionji family then executed the same tactic a second time: Genshi (彦子, later called Gijinmon-in宜仁門院, 1227-1262), a daughter of Norizane (son of Michiie and Rinshi), entered the back palace of Shij ō Tenn ō. 73 While Genshi was Shij ō Tenno’s cousin, the two were also great-grandchildren of Kintsune (Genshi also managed to be his granddaughter at the same time, due to the fact that her father Norizane married Kinstune’s daughter). She therefore served a role analogous to that of Shunshi: both were daughters directly descended from Kintsune who became consorts of tenn ō descended from Kintsune’s aunt Nobuko. Since the resulting tenn ō themselves had Saionji mothers, with each generation that the Saionji could repeat the tactic, they became more closely intertwined with the royal line. Considering these complex, multi-layered relations that Kintsune developed with the royal family, it is readily apparent that Kintsune’s family surrounded the royal family like a web. In this regard, Kintsune was working in a long tradition of courtly predecessors, such as Taira no Kiyomori, or the great regent of the mid-Heian Period, Fujiwara no Michinaga. The success of the Northern Fujiwara family in earlier times was also due to establishing family networks with the royals along similar lines, although it could and did cause conflict between competing 73 The acting mother of Shijo Tenn ō was Shikikenmon-in Toshiko (式乾門利子, 1197-1251), a daughter of Kitashirakawa-in. 259 brothers. There were some points of difference between Kintsune and his predecessors, however. In earlier times, courtier families had focused more intensely on building links with the royal family as the most secure route to status and influence, whereas Kintsune and subsequent generations of Saionji had wider-ranging strategies in which the royal family was but one network, albeit an important one. Naturally some of this was due to the changing political circumstances: mid-Heian courtier families could afford to throw more resources into relations with the royal family because they did not have other major centers – like a bakufu – to be concerned about. Consequently, unlike the Soga and the regental Northern Fujiwara of the past, the status and influence of the Saionji family did not depend so heavily upon one set of relations. Neither did the Saionji marriage strategy stop with Shij ō Tenn ō. Kintsune had to respond quickly when Shij ō Tenn ō passed away at a young age in 1242, prompting the succession conflict described above between factions backing Prince Tadanari and Prince Kunihito. Saionji plans were nearly foiled when Kunihito’s faction gained the final victory, leaving Kintsune and Kuj ō Michiie in a difficult situation. Because Prince Tadanari was a nephew of Michiie, defeat in this conflict lost Michiie and Kintsune the chance to cement a strong familial tie with the royal family anew, and threatened to throw the previous marriage strategy off the rails after only two sovereigns. 260 While Michiie and Kintsune had kept in step up to this point, Kintsune was quick to modify his approach and adapt to the new situation. When the winning prince, Kunihito, was enthroned as Go-Saga, Kintsune promptly moved to make his granddaughter Kitsushi (姞子) the new sovereign’s consort. A daughter of Kintsune’s son Saneuji, Saionji Kitsushi entered the back palace and was elevated to queen consort within the same year. Kitsushi, later known as Ōmiya-in (大宮院), became the mother of both Go-Fukakusa and Kameyama, who originated the Jimy ōin and Daikakuji lines respectively. In other words, rather than hunker down with his faction and attempt to undermine the current situation, Kintsune rushed to take advantage by applying the same tactic he had used with Go-Horikawa and Shij ō, immediately tying the new ruler to the Saionji. Kintsune thereby managed to retain influence where Michiie did not, due to the former’s ability to adjust to the changing politics at court. 74 74 K ōchi Sh ōsuke argues that Saionji Kitsushi was chosen as a consort of Go-Saga since the Kuj ō family did not have any daughters suitable for this purpose: K ōchi Sh ōsuke and Nitta Ichiro, eds., Tenn ō no Rekishi 4: Tenn ō to Ch ūsei no Buke [History of the Tenn ō, V olume 4: The Tenn ō and Warriors in Medieval Japan] (Tokyo: K ōdansha, 2011), 149. This may have been one of the reasons, but we cannot neglect the established practice whereby families seeking connections with power holders, such as the royal family, often adopted daughters from branch families or other families for this purpose. There are many examples of this. Fujiwara no Morozane (藤原師実, 1042-1101) had an adapted daughter, Kenshi (賢子, 1057-1082), who was a birth daughter of Minamoto no Akifusa (源顕房,1037-1094). Kenshi was married to Shirakawa Tenn ō, gave birth to the future Go-Horikawa Tenn ō, and was promoted to the rank of queen consort. Kenshi’s role was essential to the success of Morozane’s strategy to gain influence via the back palace. The two consorts of Konoe Tenn ō – Fujiwara no Yorinaga’s daughter, Masaruko (藤原多子,1140-1202), and Fujiwara no Tadamichi’s daughter, Teishi (呈子, 1131-1176), were both adopted. Masaruko had been adopted when she was still little, but Teishi was adopted specifically for the reason of pairing her with Konoe. See Hashimoto Yoshihiko, Fujiwara no Yorinaga (Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 1974). As heir of a regental family, Kuj ō Michiie must have known of such precedents, and it is difficult to conclude that he failed to make a match with Go-Saga simply because he lacked daughters or granddaughters of a suitable age. Moreover, even having daughters to deploy in a situation was no guarantee of success, for many families could (and did) compete to get daughters into, and elevated within, the back palace. Saionji success in this area was due not only to ensuring a ready supply of daughters but also to quickly using influence 261 Saionji Relations with the Royal Family (II): Go-Fukakusa and Kintsune’s Offspring Saionji Kintsune(西園寺公経)――――― Seishi(成子) Go-Saga後嵯峨 ――Prince Tokihito(常仁親王) ―――Go-Fukakusa(後深草) ―Saneuji(実氏)――Omiya-in Kitsushi (大宮院姞子) ―Kameyama(亀山) Higashi-Nij ō-in Kimiko(東二条院公子) ――Prince Akihito (煕仁親王) ―Toin Saneo(洞院実雄)―――――――――――――Genkimon-in Inshi (玄輝門院愔子) Fortunately for her family, Saionji Kitsushi subsequently gave birth to a boy the following year, and the prince was immediately selected as crown prince, a development that promised the Saionji continuing prominence as relatives of the royal family, and the next tenn ō in particular. Additionally, although it was after Kintsune’s death, another daughter of Saneuji’s, Saionji Kimiko (公子), entered the back palace of her nephew, Go-Fukakusa. In this regard, Saneuji followed in his father’s footsteps, employing the same strategies of directly connecting Saionji women with the royal family. As Kanai Shizuka has observed, and connections, which often gave them an edge. 262 The fact that the Saionji family had their daughters enter the back palace to serve the tenn ō and produce a prince with him, who would become crown prince – just as the regental family had done traditionally – had no small influence on the Kuj ō-Saionji relationship. 75 Saionji Kintsune may not have been able to become a regent himself, but his marriage strategy with the royal family certainly reminds one of Fujiwara no Michinaga in the mid-Heian Period. 76 Finally, it should also be pointed out that one more daughter of Kintsune’s entered the back-palace of Go-Fukakusa (whose queen consort Kimiko was, remember, a granddaughter of Kintsune). 77 This daughter, Seishi (成子), was apparently born between Kintsune and the mother of Saionji Saneyo (西園寺実材, one of Kintsune’s lesser-known sons), right after Kintsune’s passing. 78 Saionji Seishi is said to have been around the age of 23 or 24 when she gained the favor of the retired tenn ō Go-Fukakusa. While only girls were born between Kimiko and Go-Fukakusa, Seishi gave birth to Prince Tokihito (常仁). 79 Unfortunately, the prince died young, and it was the second prince, Akihito (煕仁, later Fushimi) who succeeded Go-Fukakusa. This 75 Kanai, 159-160. 76 The Masukagami implies that Kintsune echoed Michinaga. See Masukagami, Volume 14 of Kansh ō Nihon Koten Bungaku (Tokyo: Kadokawa Shoten, 1976), 236. Scholars have also made parallels between later Saionji lords and Michinaga; for example, Huey writes that “[Saionji] Sanekane’s position vis-à-vis the imperial court was analagous to that of Fujiwara no Michinaga at the turn of the eleventh century, which is to say that he was the most powerful man in the Kyoto court. And like Michinaga, he had achieved his power through intimate ties with the imperial family,” Robert N. Huey, Ky ōgoku Tamekane: Poetry and Politics in Late Kamakura Japan (Stanford CA: Stanford University Press, 1989), 15. 77 Another of Kintsune’s daughters later became the nanny of Ch ūky ō Tenn ō (Uwayokote, 206). For more on nannies, please see the last section of this chapter. 78 This daughter, Seishi, has been identified as one of the women who were called “Dainagon-Nii” in the Clear Mirror: Inoue Muneo, “Masukagami S ōsetsu: Oboegakif ū ni” [General Remarks on the Masukagami: As a Memorandum], in Rekishi Monogatari K ōza 6: Masukagami [Series on Historical Tales, Volume 6: The Clear Mirror] (Tokyo: Kazama Shoin, 2002), 47-48. 79 He is also referred to as Yukihito. See Iwahashi Koyota, Hanazono Tenn ō (Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 1962), 4. 263 did not slow down the Saionji for even a moment, however, for the mother of Akihito, Genkimon-in Inshi (玄輝門院愔子), was Kintsune’s granddaughter (her father was Saneo 実雄, Kintsune’s son). In sum, one of Kintsune’s daughters (Seishi) and two of his granddaughters (Kimiko and Genkimon-in Ishi) served in the back palace of Go-Fukakusa. Saionji influence on the Jimy ōin royal line was thus secure. On the other hand, over in the Daikakuji royal line, Kameyama Tenn ō also had in his back palace Saionji Kitsushi (佶子, later Ky ōgoku-in; not to be confused with Saneuji’s daughter Kitsushi 姞子, who was Go-Saga Tenn ō’s queen consort, Ōmiya-In), who was a daughter of Saneo (making her Genkimon-in Inshi’s sister), and Kishi (嬉子, later called Imadegawa-in 今出川院), who was a granddaughter of Saneuji. 80 Clearly the Saionji had not risked putting all their eggs in one basket by favoring one line over the other. 81 The following genealogy shows Saionji relations with the royals in the Daikakuji lineage, especially Kameyama: 80 Later on, Eishi, one of Saneuji’s great granddaughters and a daughter of Sanekane, also served Kameyama. 81 Of course, even in classical times savvy courtier families like the Northern Fujiwara were always careful to avoid tying themselves to one side whenever there were succession disputes or competing branches such as between brothers. 264 Saionji Relations with the Royal Family (III): Kameyama and Others ―Saionji Saneuji(実氏)――Kinsuke(公相)―――――Imadegawa-in Kishi(今出川院嬉子) Go-Saga(後嵯峨)――Go-Fukakusa(後深草) ― Ōmiya-in Kitsushi(大宮院姞子)――Kameyama(亀山) ―T ōin Saneo(洞院実雄)――Genkimon-in Inshi(玄輝門院愔子) ―Prince Yohito(世仁親王) (Later Go-Uda) ――――――――――――Ky ōgoku-in Kitsushi(京極院佶子) Examining the familial relationships that the Saionji developed with the royal family, it is clear that Kintsune and his kin adhered closely to the royal family, and that steps were taken, primarily through the strategy of marrying Saionji women to royal men, to ensure that, regardless of which royal line was on the rise and what political developments were underway, the Saionji would retain their influence at court. These relations were both a sign of, and a tactic to preserve, the prosperity of Saionji Kintsune and his family. As shown by their successes and defeats, and how they capitalized on the former and responded to the latter, the Saionji strategies to secure relations with the royal family were not unique: it was their skill at making careful use of these strategies that enabled them to win greater influence than did other families over the long term. In short, Saionji skill at both long-term investing and quick strategizing ensured that the social 265 capital generated through these familial relations would cover the expense of the social capital used to make them. Part III: Relations with the Regental Families – The Kuj ō and Konoe Saionji Kintsune had shrewdly built relations with two of the major power holders of his era: the Kamakura bakufu and the royal family. In the latter case, the strategy of marrying Saionji daughters to men in both royal lines and working to dominate the position of queen consort proved so effective that it became a hallmark of Saionji marriage strategy in subsequent generations. While this strategy was in itself hardly new, the Saionji excelled at deploying it over generations. Kintsune also sought, however, to build familial relations with a third major group of power holders: the regental families. His first opportunity to advance this cause came through his own marriage to Ichij ō Zenshi, which, as discussed above, established a firm link with the Kamakura shogunal family and brought him considerable benefits. Because one of Zenshi’s sisters married Kuj ō Yoshitsune, a son of Kuj ō Kanezane (九条兼実, 1149-1207), Kintsune became a brother-in-law of Kuj ō Yoshitsune. And as discussed earlier, Yoshitsune and a daughter of Yoshimasa had a son, Kuj ō Michiie, who married Rinshi, the daughter of Kintsune and Zenshi (that is to say, the marriage between Michiie and Rinshi was between cousins). Michiie and Rinshi then had a son of their 266 own, Mitora, who became the fourth shogun, Yoritsune. In addition to their influence vis-à-vis Kamakura, Kintsune and Michiie became powerful courtiers who together led the Kyoto court, as we have seen. However, the relations between Kintsune and the Kuj ō family were even more extensive. Another son born to Michiie and Rinshi, Norizane (教実), married one of Kintsune’s daughters (a sister of Rinshi; i.e. Norizane married his aunt). Through marital relations developed over generations, the ties between Kintsune and the Kuj ō family became ever stronger. These relations are charted in the following genealogy. Saionji Relations with the Regental Families Kintsune(公経) Kashi(嘉子) Rinshi(綸子) Ichij ō Yoshiyasu(一条能保) Zenshi(全子) Norizane(教実) Nij ō Yoshizane(二条良実) Yoritsune(=Mitora,頼経) ―Daughter(能保女) Ichij ō Sanetsune(一条実経) Michiie(道家) Shinshi(竴子) Kuj ō Kanezane(九条兼実)―Yoshitsune(良経) Ninshi(仁子) Konoe Motomichi(基通) Iezane(家実) Kanetsune(兼経) It was Saionji Rinshi’s children which really represented the payoff for her father having married her to Michiie in 1208. As Uwayokote argues about the marriage, “At the time, it was no 267 more than just a marriage between pro-bakufu courtier families who were close to the retired Tenn ō Go-Toba; however, the influence that this marriage brought later was enormous.” 82 He points out that among the well-known children born between Michiie and Rinshi – four sons and one daughter – three of the sons became regents (Norizane 教実, Yoshizane 良実, and Sanetsune 実経), the other son became a shogun, and the daughter became the queen consort of Go-Horikawa. All this strengthened Kintsune’s position based on familial ties. 83 In considering Saionji Kintsune’s relations with the regental families and how these contributed to his family’s rise, it is important to recognize the official rank of the Saionji family. As discussed in Chapter 1, the Saionji family was one of the families later called “Seiga-ke” (清華家 “Flourishing Families”) 84 that ranked just under the regental families. 85 The highest post that a member of the Seiga-ke could reach was chancellor (daij ō daijin, a sort of extraordinary premier minister), but they were prohibited from holding the post of regent. It is not surprising that a leading courtier from a Seiga-ke family might chafe against this guideline, which arbitrarily limited the heights of prestige to which they could aspire. Indeed, 82 Uwayokote, 222. 83 Ibid. 84 As mentioned in the first chapter, the Seiga-ke comprised the seven familes: the Koga (久我), Kazan-in (花山院), Sanj ō (三条), Saionji (西園寺), Tokudaiji (徳大寺), Ōinomikado (大炊御門), and the Imadegawa (今出川). 85 The regental familes were limited to the descendants of the Northern Fujiwara family, in particular the descendants of the first regent, Fujiwara no Yoshifusa (藤原良房). These families were the Konoe (近衛), Kuj ō (九条), Ichij ō (一条), Nij ō (二条), Takatsukasa (鷹司). 268 Uwayokote argues that Kintsune felt competitive towards the regental families. 86 As discussed above, Kintsune himself came to hold the position of maternal grandfather to the sitting monarch, and he created the precedent of the Saionji producing queen consorts throughout the Kamakura Period. Nonetheless, Saionji Kintsune was never able to become regent himself due to the fundamental limitations imposed on his house. It would be easy to understand if he suffered some form of psychological complex due to his not being from a regental family. Furthermore since such restrictions were fundamental in a hierarchical ranking system, no amount of social capital could overcome them: one’s best bet (unless one wished to violently overturn the existing system) was to marry into the family or families with access to the desired post so that over time one’s descendants could become eligible, although this might not remove the pangs of one’s own inability to acquire the position. This was the strategy that Kintsune pursued. Perhaps assuaging his disappointment, Kintsune enjoyed familial relationships with almost all of the people who became regents during this period. Around the time that Kintsune married Ichij ō Zenshi (some point between 1186 and 1189) and when Rinshi was born (1191), the regent was Kuj ō Kanezane, father of Kuj ō Yoshitsune and grandfather of Kuj ō Michiie. Kanezane served as regent until 1196, when he was replaced by Konoe Motomichi (近衛基通 1160-1223). 86 Uwayokote, 221. 269 During this time, the position of regent alternated between the Kuj ō and Konoe families, as explained in Chapter 1. Correspondingly, Kuj ō Yoshitsune, Kanezane’s son and Kintsune’s brother-in-law, held the position after Motomichi. The next regent was Konoe Iezane (近衛家実), Motomichi’s son, who was in turn followed by Kuj ō Michiie (Kintsune’s son-in-law). Michiie and his son Norizane (who was Kintsune’s grandson as well as his son-in-law) alternated in the position until the third month of 1237, whereupon Konoe Kanetsune (近衛兼経), the son of Iezane, became regent. This system of alternating regents represented a problem for the Saionji because the family enjoyed tight familial bonds with the Kuj ō but not with the Konoe, meaning that the family’s influence over the regency was relatively limited half the time. So when Kanetsune came into office, Kintsune prepared to rectify this situation. Through his intermediacy, Kanetsune married Ninshi (仁子, b. 1211), another daughter of Rinshi and Michiie. With this marriage, Kintsune cleverly linked both regental families together. Furthermore, the regent after Kanetsune was once again a son of Kuj ō Michiie, Yoshizane (the ancestor of the Nij ō family), who had also been raised at Kintsune’s residence. The following list of the regents around the time of Kintsune shows these transitions. 270 Regents, 1186-1246 Name Duration of Position Sessh ō/Kanpaku Kuj ō Kanezane Bunji 2 (1186) /3/12 ~ Kenky ū 2 (1191) /12/17 Sessh ō Kuj ō Kanezane Kenky ū 2 (1191) /12/17 ~ Kenky ū 7 (1196) /11/25 Kanpaku Konoe Motomichi Kenky ū 7 (1196) /11/25 ~ Kenky ū 9 (1198) /1/11 Kanpaku Konoe Motomichi Kenky ū 9 (1198) /1/11 ~ Kennin 2 (1202) /12/25 Sessh ō Kuj ō Yoshitsune Kennin 2 (1202) /12/25 ~ Kenei 1 (1206) /3/7 Kanpaku Konoe Iezane Kenei 1 (1206) /3/10 ~ Kenei 1 (1206) /12/8 Sessh ō Konoe Iezane Kenei 1 (1206) /12/8 ~ J ōky ū 3 (1221) /4/20 Kanpaku Kuj ō Michiie J ōky ū 3 (1221) /4/20 ~ J ōky ū 3 (1221) /7/8 Sessh ō Konoe Iezane J ōky ū 3 (1221) /7/8 ~ J ō’ ō 2 (1223) /12/14 Sessh ō Konoe Iezane J ō’ ō 2 (1223) /12/14 ~ Antei 2 (1228) /12/24 Kanpaku Kuj ō Michiie Antei 2 (1228) /12/24 ~ Kangi 3 (1231) /7/5 Kanpaku Kuj ō Norizane Kangi 3 (1231) /7/5 ~ J ōei 1 (1232) /10/4 Kanpaku Kuj ō Norizane J ōei 1 (1232) /10/4 ~ Katei 1 (1235) /3/28 Sessh ō Kuj ō Michiie Katei 1 (1235) /3/28 ~ Katei 3 (1237) /3/10 Sessh ō Konoe Kanetsune Katei 3 (1237) /3/10 ~ Ninji 3 (1242) /1/9 Sessh ō Konoe Kanetsune Ninji 3 (1242) /1/20 ~ Ninji 3 (1242) /3/25 Kanpaku Nij ō Yoshizane Ninji 3 (1242) /3/25 ~ Kangen 4 (1246) /1/28 Kanpaku 271 Kintsune was clearly working towards determining that those eligible for the post of regent in future generations would be of Saionji descent or tied to the family through marriage, but the degree to which he exerted influence over the appointment of specific regents is unclear. Uwayokote argues that Kintsune worked for the appointment of regents with whom he could get along, and that he placed Kuj ō Michiie or Norizane, who were his son-in-laws, in the post for that reason. 87 Whether or not the appointment of a regent was fully under his control, taking into consideration the relations between each regent and Kintsune, it is likely that he exercised a significant degree of influence. From the perspective of the Kuj ō family, they too could strengthen their positions at court by backing the Saionji family; even the Konoe family, which had previously had antagonistic relations with the Kuj ō, were able to retake the post of regent that had been held by the Kuj ō for approximately eight years, by establishing a martial tie with a daughter of Kuj ō Michiie as mediated by Kintsune. For the Saionji, the marriage between Konoe Kanetsune and Ninshi represented more than just a beneficial familial tie with the Konoe. It meant a great opportunity to show their importance at the Kyoto court by bringing about harmony between two formerly antagonistic families. 88 87 Uwayokote, 219. 88 Although the specifics of this case are unfortunately not known, Kintsune likely succeeded by employing the 272 Conclusion To conclude, just as Saionji Kintsune had worked to gain influence over the shogunal family and the royal family, so he undertook efforts to gain influence over regents as well. Saionji Kintsune carefully forged relations with three major groups of power holders – the bakufu, the royal family, and regental families – and in the process he generated a degree of social capital while also planning strategic marriage “investments” as the foundation for still greater social capital in the future. These strategies aimed at gaining the Saionji advantages over other families, enabling them to secure and expand their influence and prestige, not only through political power (i.e. control over choice appointments) but also by situating Saionji family members in as many sensitive and influential positions as possible. In the case of the royal family, this approach reached its mature form in the Saionji’s near monopoly over the position of the tenn ō’s queen consort for generations. And so within a few generations, Saionji blood was flowing through the veins of various shoguns, tenn ō, and regents. Kintsune’s strategies, which carefully acquired and re-invested social capital over generations, dramatically expanded Saionji networks and brought greater and greater influence and prestige, while setting precedents which his descendants continued to follow to ensure their family’s continued prominence. same tactics he used elsewhere to pursue arrangements that benefitted the family: calling in favors, prudently negotiating, and if necessary, exerting pressure through his connections and/or through deploying one or several forms of capital. 273 Chapter 5: Social Capital of the Saionji – Cultural and Information Networks Introduction In the previous chapter, I discussed how the Saionji family was able to generate a great range of social capital by making a series of “investments” in familial relations with the major power holders of the time – the shogunal family, the royal family, and regental families – while at the same time “cashing in” some of this capital to build other relationships. However, social capital could also be exchanged to gain commodities such as cultural capital or information. I will now continue this treatment of the family’s social capital by considering other forms of networks that the Saionji cultivated, namely the role of social capital in supporting their cultural networks and information networks, which also proved to be of great benefit to the family. Relations between Saionji Social Capital and Cultural Capital As has already been hinted at, there is a degree of overlap among the various strategies that the Saionji, beginning with Kintsune, undertook to amass the great amounts of economic, cultural, and social capital, thereby enabling the family’s rise to prominence in the Kamakura era. The interconvertibility of capital explains how capital generated in one area could be re-invested in another: extensive social capital, for example, could be turned into economic opportunities or 274 chances for high cultural status because of the doors opened by the resulting networks. This was particularly true of the relationship between the Saionji’s social and cultural capital. As discussed in the Chapter Three, the Saionji masterfully wielded two sources of cultural capital, poetry and music, both of which were significant aspects of contemporary court life. Their human networks had enormous influence in these fields, as well as in the political sphere. Previously I have also discussed how many leading members of the Saionji family had significant numbers of poems included in royal anthologies. As we have seen, it was largely left up to the compiler(s) whose poems, and how many poems, were to be included, and that calculus represented an important achievement that influenced not only cultural fame but also political position. And if a family enjoyed relations with the compiler(s) of an anthology, its members could count on having some of their works included. This represents a classic example of social capital being converted into cultural capital. In this section I will focus on relations between members of the Saionji family and compilers of royal anthologies. The names of the primary editors of each royal anthology were already introduced in the Chapter Three, but for convenience I will list their names again: 275 Royal Poetry Anthologies Anthology Editor Shin Chokusen Wakash ū Fujiwara no Teika Shoku Gosen Wakash ū Fujiwara no Tameie Shoku Kokin Wakash ū Fujiwara no Tameie Shoku Sh ūi Wakash ū Nij ō Tameuji Shin Gosen Wakash ū Nij ō Tameyo Gyokuy ō Wakashū Ky ōgoku Temekane Shoku Senzai Wakash ū Nij ō Tameyo At first glance, there may not appear to be any obvious connections between each of these editors and the Saionji. However, following Fujiwara no Teika (藤原定家 1162-1241), who was the sole editor of Shin Chokusen Wakash ū, all of the other main editors listed here were Teika’s descendants. 1 Given the fact that Teika’s family, the Mikohidari, came to be recognized as a “house of waka poetry,” 2 it is not surprising that his descendants became primary editors of royal anthologies. How, though, were they related to the Saionji? To discuss this situation, it is best to 1 Tameie was a son of Teika, and Nij ō Tameuji was a son of Tameie. Nij ō Tameyo was a son of Tameuji, and Ky ōgoku Tamekane was a son of Nij ō Tamenori, the third son of Fujiwara no Tameie. That makes both Nij ō Tameyo and Ky ōgoku Tamekane grandsons of Fujiwara no Tameie as well as great-grandsons of Fujiwara no Teika. 2 The Mikohidari family was descended from Fujiwara no Nagaie (藤原長家), the sixth son of Fujiwara no Michinaga in the Northern Fujiwara family: Nagaie’s great-grandson was the well-known poet Fujiwara no Shunzei (藤原俊成), whose son, in turn, was Fujiwara no Teika. The family established their status as a “house of waka” from around the time of Shunzei, who is famous for his role in editing the Senzai Wakash ū. Following on in his father’s footsteps, Teika edited the Shin Kokin Wakash ū and Shin Chokusen Wakash ū. Their tradition as a house of waka was then carried on by Teika’s son Tameie, but the house tradition split into three different branches among Tameie’s sons – the Nij ō style with Tameuji, Ky ōgoku style with Tamenori, and Reizei style with Tamesuke (1263-1328). There were conflicts over the styles of waka and authenticity of the house of waka among the branches, especially between the Nij ō and Ky ōgoku. Their conflicts were in turn intertwined with contemporary royal conflicts. The Nij ō were supported by the Senior (Daikakuji) line, and the Ky ōgoku were supported by the Junior (Jimy ōin) line. For details concerning these conflicts, see Ton’a, Seiash ō, in Sasaki Nobutsuna, ed., Nihon Kagaku Taikei [Compendium of Japanese Poetics], Volume 5 (Kazama Shob ō, 1957); as well as Paul S. Atkins, “Nij ō v. Reizei: Land Rights, Litigation, and Literary Authority in Medieval Japan,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 66.2 (Dec. 2006): 495-529. 276 begin by examining the relationship between Fujiwara no Teika and his son, Tameie (藤原為家, 1198-1275). Fujiwara no Teika, needless to say, has been thoroughly studied in the field of literature, and the particulars of his family are also well-known. Briefly, in terms of his marriage relations, there are two women known to have been his wives. One of them, Teika’s first wife, was a daughter of Fujiwara no Sueyoshi (藤原季能, 1153-1211). While it is unclear precisely when they married, it may have been around 1183. 3 Several children were born to them. 4 However, Teika divorced this wife and took a new one around 1195. 5 This second wife is significant because she was an older sister of Saionji Kintsune, and through her, Teika and Kintsune became brothers-in-law, as the following genealogy depicts. 6 3 Ishida Yoshisada, Fujiwara Teika no Kenky ū [Studies on Fujiwara no Teika] (Tokyo: Bungad ō Gink ō Kenky ūsha, 1975), 72-73. 4 Ishida speculates that she may have been a “rather ordinary,” or even “mediocre,” woman given that all of the children born to her and Teika were unremarkable (73). 5 Ibid. 6 Her name is unknown, as is which wife of Fujiwara no Sanemune was her mother. 277 Connections with Cultural Capital: Poetry Links (I) Saionji Kintsune(公経) Saneuji(実氏) Kinsuke(公相) Sanemune(実宗) Daughter(実宗女) Daughter(定家女) Tameie(為家) Fujiwara no Shunzei(藤原俊成) Teika(定家) Mitsuie(光家) Fujiwara no Sukeyoshi(藤原季能)―Daughter(季能女) Nij ō Tameuji(二条為氏) Tameyo(為世) Ky ōgoku Tamenori(京極為教) Tamekane(為兼) Tameko(為子) It remains unclear precisely what brought this second marriage about. There was a significant status imbalance in this marriage, as Murayama Shuichi has noted: There must have been some reason why a daughter of Sanemune [Kintsune’s father], who was a Major Counselor at the time, married into the Mikohidari family, which was not even a part of the senior nobility. 7 But Maruyama leaves the matter unresolved. Ishida Yoshisada points out that Sanemune’s uncle, Kinnaga (藤原公長), was actually a brother of Fujiwara no Shunzei, and he speculates that Sanemune and Teika might have already known each other. 8 Another possibility is that Teika, who had been serving the Kuj ō family, may have had numerous opportunities to become close to the Saionji family, and that this might have 7 Murayama, as cited in Imatani Akira, Ky ōgoku Tamekane: Wasurerarenubeki Kumo no Ue kaha [Ky ōgoku Tamekane: Being on Top of the Unforgettable Clouds] (Tokyo: Minerva Shob ō, 2003), 20-21. 8 Ishida, 75. 278 led to the marriage. 9 Unfortunately, the entries around the time when Teika married Kintsune’s sister are missing from his diary Meigetsuki, so whether or not he wrote about this matter at the time is something we cannot know. Both Murayama and Ishida agree that this marriage with the Saionji family brought great benefits to Teika. 10 Furthermore, Imatani Akira, building on Maruyama’s view that this marriage was a source of great happiness for the Mikohidari family, points out that the Mikohidari came to receive premier protection from the Saionji on every occasion following the rise of the Saionji as a powerful courtier family, from around the time of the J ōkyū Incident (1221), and for some two decades later. 11 This proved of immense benefit as Teika increasingly came into conflict with Go-Toba. Even after Teika faced direct accusations from Go-Toba due to arguments over waka just before the J ōkyū Incident, his career at court was not terminated: he was able to retain his position and was even promoted to supernumerary middle counselor with the second rank. Inoue Muneo argues that “It is because of none other than the great support from these two powerful households [the Kuj ō and the Saionji] that both Teika and Tameie succeeded in their careers at court, and were able to obtain the position of leaders in the world of poetry.” 12 Moreover we 9 Ibid. 10 Ishida writes, in fact, that this marriage was “probably one of the greatest [strokes of] luck that Teika was able to seek out at the end of his love affairs” (76). 11 Imatani, 20-21. 12 Inoue Muneo, Ky ōgoku Tamekane (Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 2006), 9. 279 have already seen how links between the Saionji and Teika’s family were mutually-beneficial, and how they generated considerable cultural capital for the Saionji. Tameie, being born to Kintsune’s sister and Teika, was Kintsune’s nephew, and thus counted Kintsune’s sons among his cousins. The cousins appear to have had a close relationship. For example, Inoue points out that “[Saionji] Saneuji and Tameie were very close to each other as cousins.” 13 Moreover, Tameie is even recorded as “a son of the Chancellor, Lord Kinstune” (太相国公経公子) in the Sonpi Bunmyaku. 14 Tameie in fact became a foster son of Kintsune, suggesting that Tameie was quite close to his uncle. 15 Clearly this relationship deserves consideration. While the highest post reached by Teika at the end of his life was supernumerary middle counselor, Tameie’s highest post was supernumerary senior counselor, a significant difference. The advance of his career to this point also went quite smoothly – that Tameie’s mother was Kintsune’s sister made all of this possible. 13 Ibid., 10. 14 Sonpi Bunmyaku, Volume 1, in Volume 58 of Shintei Z ōho Kokushi Taikei (Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 1966), 290. The Sonpi Bunmyaku is one of the fundamental resources to examine genealogy. It was compiled by Toin Kinsada (洞院公定, 1340-1399) in the late 14th century. However, there were many further editions with new additions produced by the Toin family after Kinsada’s death as well. Some of the genealogies which seem to have existed at the time of its initial compilation are no longer extant, but the genealogies of the Minamoto and the Fujiwara families have survived. It traces individuals based on patrilineal descent, with most of the women (except royal consorts and other notables) only listed as “daughters” (女子). A short biography accompanies males listed therein, covering their dates, birth mothers, and careers. 15 Onoe Yosuke writes that “[Tameie] was protected by his becoming a foster son of Kintsune” (Ch ūsei no Nikki no Sekai [The World of Courtier Diaries in the Medieval Era] (Tokyo: Yamakawa Shuppansha, 2003), 85). 280 Familial relations between the Saionji and the principal editors of the royal anthologies during the Kamakura Period had begun with the marriage between Kintsune’s sister and Teika, but they did not end with Teika and Tameie. One of Teika’s daughters became a consort of Kintsune’s grandson Kinsuke (公相), and she gave birth to Saneaki (実顕, ?-1274). 16 Relations between Nij ō Tameuji (二条為氏, 1222-1286), who edited the Shoku Shui Wakash ū, and the Saionji are unclear, but there was a direct link with his son Tameyo (二条為世, 1250-1338) who was responsible for both the Shin-Gosen Wakash ū and the Shoku Senzai Wakashū. Specifically, Tameyo had a daughter 17 who married Saionji Sanehira (西園寺実衡, 1290-1326), a grandson of Sanekane. Connections with Cultural Capital: Poetry Links (II) Saionji Kintsune(西園寺公経) Saneuji(実氏) Kinsuke(公相)―Sanekane(実衡)―Kinhira(公衡)―Sanehira(実衡) Teika(定家) Daughter(定家女) Kinmune(公宗) Tameie(為家)―Nij ō Tameuji(為氏)―Tameyo(為世)―Shokunmon-in Kasuga (昭訓門院春日局) 16 Sonpi Bunmyaku, V olume 1, 153. 17 She is normally referred to as Shokunmon-in Kasuga no Tsubone (昭訓門院春日局) due to her serving Shokunmon-in Saionji Eishi (西園寺瑛子) as a lady-in-waiting. Saionji Sanehira was a nephew of Shokunmon-in. She gave birth to Saionji Kinmune (西園寺公宗), who plotted to overturn the new polity led by Go-Daig ō Tenn ō through his assassination. Kinmune was killed in 1335, but his son was able to survive due to her protection. 281 Moreover, the relationship between Ky ōgoku Tamekane (京極為兼, 1254-1352), who edited the Gyokuy ō Wakashū, and the Saionji is particularly noteworthy. Tamekane was a son of Tamenori, who was a son of Teika’s son Tameie and the founder of the Ky ōgoku house. According to the Seiash ō, a treatise on waka poetry by the monk Ton’a (頓阿, 1289-1372), Tamenori was taken by his father Tameie to a linked-verse gathering at the Saionji’s Yoshida Izumi Villa, and there he showed a great deal of wit in poetically capturing the loud roar of the waterfall. 18 Now as we have seen, Tameie was particularly close to Saionji Saneuji – he was said to have followed Saneuji around like a lieutenant (家礼 kerei). 19 Tamenori even allowed Saneuji to inspect secret documents concerning the precedents for compiling royal anthologies that were written by his father Tameie. 20 Episodes like these clearly point towards a close relationship. Indeed Ky ōgoku Tamekane was born to a father who was already very close to Saionji Saneuji. And his mother was a daughter of Miyoshi Masahira, the house manager for the Saionji. 18 According to the Seiash ō, Tameie took Tamenori to a linked-verse meeting that was held at Yoshida Izumi, a villa of the Saionji. Since the sound of the falls there was distracting, Tamenori, being quick-witted, blocked the sound: Seiash ō, in Nihon Kagaku Taikei, Volume 5 (Tokyo: Kazama Shob ō, 1957), 103-104. However, Tamenori’s rank in poetic circles was relatively low compared to that of his brother Tameuji. The Seiash ō states that there was dissension between them, which influenced Ky ōgoku Tamekane, who established the Ky ōgoku school in the next generation (ibid.). 19 Inoue Muneo, Ky ōgoku Tamekane, 14. 20 Seiash ō, 103-104. As evidence of their intimate relations, Inoue further points out that Tamenori accompanied Saionji Saneuji to Arima Hot Springs to compose linked-verses there, and that Tamenori became the house manager of Saneuji’s wife Teishi (貞子) in the seventh month of 1254 (Inoue, 14). 282 Tamekane was thus already strongly connected to the Saionji family from birth. 21 The journal of Hanazono Tenn ō (花園院記 Hanazono-Shinki) refers to Tamekane as follows: 「（為兼は）入道大相国（実兼公）自幼年扶持之、大略如家僕」 22 (Tamekane) has been sustained by the Priest-Minister (the lord [Saionji] Sanekane) since he was small. He was like a house assistant [of the latter]. The following genealogy shows Saionji links with Ky ōgoku Tamekane. Relations with the Cultural Capital: Links with Poetry (III) Teika(定家)―Tameie(為家)―Kyogoku Tamenori(京極為教) ―Tamekane(為兼) Sanemune’s Daughter(実宗女) ―Tameko(為子) Miyoshi Masahira(三善雅衡)―Daughter(雅衡女) Saionji Kintsune(公経)―Saneuji(実氏)―Kinsuke(公相)―Sanekane(実兼) Ōmiya-in Kitsushi(大宮院姞子) ← indicates serving relations. (The Miyoshi family was serving for the Saionji as house managers) Furthermore, Ky ōgoku Tameko (京極為子, 1251-1316?), an older sister of Tamekane, served Ōmiya-in, Kintsune’s granddaughter and Go-Saga’s queen consort) who, as we have seen, 21 Huey relates that “Tamekane’s family had long been retainers of the Saionji house” (6), but does not mention his mother being a daughter of Miyoshi Masahira, who was a house manager of the Saionji. 22 Hanazono Tenn ō Shinki, entry for the 24th day of the third month in 1332 (in Z ōho Shiry ō Taisei, Volume 3: Hanazono Tenn ō Shinki, Volume 2 (Kyoto: Rinsen Shoten, 1982), 199. 283 commissioned the F ūy ō Wakashū and was instrumental in its completion. 23 Later on Tameko also served the retired sovereign Fushimi as well as his queen consort Eifukumon-in (永福門院), herself a daughter of Saionji Sanekane. Although there is no clear evidence explaining how Ky ōgoku Tameko came to serve as a lady-in-waiting for Ōmiya-in, it is likely that the close relationship between the Saionji and the Ky ōgoku was at least partly responsible. Although the relationship between Ky ōgoku Tamekane and Saionji Sanekane fractured later in their lives, 24 by then Tamekane already had numerous and strong relations with the family through other family members as well. Such familial relations with the Saionji brought the leading waka families economic security, political promotions, and protection during turbulent times. However, it was in no way a one-way relationship, because, as we have seen, such relations enabled the Saionji to cultivate considerable cultural capital while elevating their status socially. This kind of mutually beneficial relationship reflects why families were willing to enter into such relations – both stood to gain something – as well as how these relations represented the interconvertibility of capital. The same could be said of the Saionji’s other major source of cultural capital, namely the family’s status as the leading house of the Sai School of biwa instruction. This cultural status was 23 The contribution of Tameko to the compilation of the F ūy ōshu has also been pointed out. See also Yoneda Akemi, F ūy ō Wakash ū no K ōz ō ni Kansuru Kenky ū [Studies Concerning the Structure of the F ūy ō Wakash ū] (Tokyo: Kasama Shoin, 1996) for details. 24 While wielding power as the husband of the wet-nurse of Hanazono Tenn ō, Ky ōgoku Tamekane was distancing himself from Saionji Sanekane and the retired sovereign Go-Fushimi. Even after renouncing the world along with Fushimi during the tenth month in Sh ōwa 2 (1313), Tamekane was still active in court. 284 also strongly shaped by the Saionji’s social capital. As discussed in the previous chapter, it was not until the time of Kintsune’s grandson Kinsuke that the Saionji family was recognized as the source of formal biwa instructors for tenn ō. In this regard, it bears mentioning that marriage relations between the Saionji and the Sai School family began with Kinsuke. Specifically, Kinsuke took as his wife Yasomae (八十前), a granddaughter of Fujiwara no Takamichi (藤原孝道, 1166-1237) and the founder of the Sai School. This marriage produced Saionji Sanekane and Kishi (西園寺嬉子), the latter of whom become a consort of Kameyama Tenn ō (1249-1305) and came to be called Imadegawa-in. Sanekane himself followed in his father’s footsteps and married Takamichi’s great-granddaughter, Takako (孝子). This means that Sanekane married his mother’s niece (that is, his cousin). As mentioned in the previous chapter, their son Imadegawa Kanesue eventually became the inheritor to the family biwa tradition. Thus, from the time when the Saionji first came to hold the position of formal biwa instructors to the tenn ō, the two families became closely linked through marriage. These relations are shown in the following genealogy: 285 Connections with Cultural Capital: Music Links Saionji Kintsune(公経)―Saneuji(実氏)―Kinsuke(公相) Sanekane(実兼)―Eifukumon-in (永福門院) Fujiwara Takamichi(孝道)―Sanuki(讃岐)―Yasomae(八十前) Kanesue(兼季) Takatoki(孝時)―Takayasu(孝泰)―Takako(孝子) Hiroko(博子) One more woman from the family of the Sai School warrants attention here as well. This is Fujiwara no Hiroko (藤原博子, dates unknown), 25 mentioned briefly in the last chapter. Like Yasomae, she was a granddaughter of Fujiwara no Takamichi (however, Yasomae was an matrilineal granddaughter whereas Takako was a patrilineal granddaughter, making them cousins). Saionji Sanekane’s wife Takako was a niece of Hiroko, 26 so here too was a connection between the families. As we have seen previously, there were two different “instructors” involved in initiating the tenn ō into musical traditions – a formal one and an informal one. Saionji Kintsune served as 25 Not to be confused with Go-Reizei Tenn ō’s consort, she was born into a family of biwa masters. She also demonstrated her talent in playing the biwa at a young age. Moreover, she served Ōmiya-in since the age of seven, and was very close both to Ōmiya-in and her sister, Higashinij ō-in (Sakaki Taijun, “Ch ūsei Ky ūtei Josei no Ongaku no Ba to Biwa Denju” [The Place of Music for Medieval Courtly Women and Initiation into the Biwa (Tradition)], Kokubungaku T ōsa 7 (1963.3): 43-57; 53-54). For detailed studies on Fujiwara no Hiroko, please see Sakaki, op. cit., and S ōma Mariko “ ‘Sankyoku Hifu’ Okugaki to Fujiwara no Hiroko” [The Postscript of “The Secret Scores of Three Melodies” and Fujiwara no Hiroko], Report Kasama 33 (1992):1-5. 26 Takako’s father Takayasu (孝泰) was Hiroko’s brother. 286 the formal biwa instructor for Go-Fukakusa, but the latter had been learning biwa from an informal instructor long before he began his “official” training under Kintsune. The informal instructor was none other than Fujiwara no Hiroko. It has been argued that this came about because Hiroko was an object of Go-Saga’s affections, the latter being Go-Fukakusa’s father. 27 Toyonaga points out that it was Hiroko who initiated the sovereign into the secret songs of the family’s biwa tradition in 1267 and 1268. 28 This was because Saionji Kintsune, the formal instructor, was by then in delicate health, and he soon passed away in the tenth month of 1267, 29 a mere two months before Go-Fukakusa was first initiated into the secret songs. Toyonaga argues that both the formal and informal instructors worked together in order to support the musical activities of the sovereign. 30 Such cooperation was no doubt facilitated by the strong familial relations between the instructors’ families. The family of the Sai School of biwa was able, like Fujiwara no Teika and his family, to elevate its status considerably and benefit economically through their connection with the Saionji family. However what the Saionji received in exchange for their direct patronage of the Sai School was also significant. Having come to depend upon their status as a house of biwa as a 27 Sakaki, 43-44. Three children were born to them. One of them, Royal Princess Ekishi (懌子内親王, 1262-1289), entered the back palace of Kameyama Tenn ō. 28 Toyonaga Satomi, Ch ūsei no Tenn ō to Ongaku [Medieval Sovereigns and Music] (Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 2006), 193. 29 Chapter 7 of the Masukagami, “The Snow of Kitano,” relates how Kinsuke sensed by himself that he would pass away before his own father, Saneuji (327). 30 Toyonaga, “Ongaku no Onshi,” 169. 287 vital source of cultural capital, the Saionji needed to ensure that this status could be preserved. It could have collapsed within a single generation had the family not shored it up through strong links with the Sai School family, which gave the Saionji continuing support and legitimacy in this arena. Thus social capital invested in building familial relations with the Sai School family was a carefully calculated move to secure Saionji supply of cultural capital. The Saionji Information Network: The Role of Women The familial networks that the Saionji established and reinforced through their marriage relations provided them with effective connections with other key aristocratic families in the political and cultural spheres. Each network contributed to other networks in patterns that lasted for generations. Moreover, as these networks became more solidified through repetition and precedent, the social capital they generated became ever richer. Clearly, key players in this ongoing process of building the family’s social capital included the women of the family. It has already been made clear how Saionji women played the most vital role in linking families together, whether they were originally born into the family or entered it from other families. In this section, I will focus on another important role played by these women, namely establishment of and participation in an information network that greatly aided Saionji activities. 288 Women in courtier families were well-situated to amass and exchange vital information to benefit their families. 31 Insight into the role of women in collecting and sharing information at court can be gained by focusing our gaze on a relative of Fujiwara no Teika, his sister Kengozen (健御前), 32 who is known for having authored a journal called Tamakiharu. This journal features some passages suggestive of how women at court gained access to information: 心及ぶまじき際、事どもの、聞き定めぬ程は、あきれいたくのみ思明かし暮らすに、明日定まらせ給と聞こへて、さまざま心の引きびきに言ひ騒ぐ。何となく心騒ぎのみせられしに、院渡らせおはしますとて、人々は立ち退けど、分きて立てられずば、おぼつかなき事や聞くと、さかしく憎き心の中に思て、言ふかひなく心なき人になり果てて、立たぬを、少納言殿という老ひ尼の、かたはらいたしと思て、通りに立ちて招き騒ぎしが、おかしけれど、心得ぬ様に見もやらでゐたり。 33 Back when we had no idea what would come of it all, we worried both day and night, not quite knowing what to do with ourselves while we awaited their decision. When we heard that they would settle the matter on the following morning, there was an uproar, each putting forth a case for their patron. My heart was pounding so hard when they announced that Retired Emperor Goshirakawa would make his appearance. All the ladies got up and left, but I could not leave, especially now, for if I stayed where I was, I might hear something about the matter at hand, so I cleverly misbehaved. I became a real dimwit, and I did not get up to go. An old nun called Shônagon saw that I was being rude, and she stood there in the doorway waving and calling at me to come along. She 31 Neither was the importance of access to information through such methods important only in the court; the overhearing and conveyance of crucial information also affected Kamakura on numerous occasions. 32 She was six years older than Teika, and they shared the same mother. It is said that Teika was particularly close to her. In 1168, when she was 12 years old, she began serving Kenshunmon-in, who produced Takakura Tenn ō with Go-Shirakawa Tenn ō. After Kenshunmon-in passed away, she served Hachij ō-In, a sister of Go-Shirakawa, and raised Hachij ō-In’s foster child, Shunkamon-In (Tamakiharu, Shin Nihon Koten Bungaku Taikei, V olume 50 (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1994), 252. 33 Tamakiharu, 310. The situation prompting such concern was the matter of selecting who would ascend to the throne given that the Ise Taira had taken young Antoku Tenn ō west with them. From the fifth through the eighteenth of the eighth month of 1183, the matter was discussed, and on the twentieth, Go-Toba Tenn ō was enthroned. 289 looked so funny, but I continued to pretend that I did not know what was going on, and looked the other way. 34 Although it refers to a time before the Saionji family achieved prominence at court, this description from the Tamakiharu suggests the existence of information networks among ladies-in-waiting. Moreover reading Teika’s journal Meigetsuki thoroughly, it is readily apparent that Teika had an extensive range of informants, from the lower to the upper echelons of the nobility. Whether or not it was Kengozen’s intention to eavesdrop in order to pass along information to Teika, the closeness of the siblings and Teika’s ability to access a wide range of information are likely connected. In any event, Teika no doubt drew upon information that circulated among women who, like his sister, served as ladies-in-waiting at the court. In fact, the Meigetsuki itself contains another entry describing women passing along information. 35 Given that ten of the eleven daughters of the Mikohidari family were serving members of the royal family, Teika would have been in an excellent position to make use of information from these women close to him. 34 Miki Wheeler, trans. Tamakiharu (unpublished translation), episode 45, page 1. I am grateful to Miki Wheeler for allowing me to cite her translation. 35 On the seventeenth day of the twelfth month of 1201, Teika saw a chief lady-in-waiting (Naishi) secretly call in Minamoto no Kanesada (源兼定), who appeared pleased while shuffling his hands when he withdrew, prompting Teika to suspect that it was probably because Kanesada had been informed that he would be promoted at the next ceremony for assigning posts: Fujiwara no Teika, Meigetsuki (Tokyo: Kokushi Kank ōkai,1911), V olume 1, 231. Onoe also refers to this incident (41). 290 To turn to the Saionji family, they demonstrated great skill at making use of their extensive network of women that linked the leading families in both Kyoto and Kamakura. It was a vital tool because for the Saionji, situated between two polities that often chafed against each other, early information could have a significant impact. Consider this particularly dramatic example. On the 14th day of the fifth month in 1221, just one day before Go-Toba’s army attacked the residence of the Kyoto shugo Iga Mitsusue, both Saionji Kintsune and Saneuji were imprisoned in the residential palace at Go-Toba’s command, due to their having been in close communication with Kamakura. 36 Although Go-Toba was careful not to permit any leaking of information about his anti-bakufu plot, he suspected that the Saionji might alert Kamakura. But in spite of Go-Toba’s precautions, a leak nonetheless occurred. Kintsune somehow managed to find out Go-Toba’s plans just before he was caught, and tried to let Iga Mitsusue know. At the same time, Kintsune had his house manager, Miyoshi Nagahira, send a messenger to Kamakura with information about the situation in Kyoto, including Go-Toba’s issuance of a royal edict overturning the bakufu, and the capture of himself and his son. The messenger arrived at Kamakura on the 19th, at the same time that another messenger from Iga Mitsusue arrived. Ry ō 36 Azuma Kagami, entry for the 19th day of the fifth month in 1221 (in Shintei Z ōho Kokushi Taikei, Volume 32-2: Azuma Kagami, Volume 2 (Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 1989), 766. 291 Susumu argues that one of the important factors enabling the bakufu to respond and gain such a quick victory over Go-Toba was this information. 37 The resulting situation worked in favor of Kintsune and his family. As signs of the impending defeat of the court became obvious, Kintsune and his son were released, despite strong opposition. 38 We cannot know precisely how Kintsune was able to obtain vital information when pains had been taken to carefully hide it from him, but the role of the Saionji women bears consideration. As discussed above, many Saionji women became connected to various families as part of the broad Saionji strategy to build relations with top power holders and significant families. Connections among Saionji women resulted in a human network that provided the family with a most vital commodity, information. As we have seen, Fujiwara no Teika had a range of information available to him through the network of his sisters. Furthermore, his wife was Kintsune’s sister, and while her existence does not stand out in historical sources, as Teika’s wife she likely had access to information her husband gathered. She would have served as a bridge between Teika and Kintsune in terms of transmitting information, in ways that brought profit to both sides. 37 Ry ō, 174. 38 Ry ō speculates that this is because the court side expected Kintsune to negotiate with the Kamakura side in the event that the court side was defeated (ibid., 174). 292 Moreover, one of the daughters born to Teika and Kintsune’s sister, Inshi (因子 1195-?), had been serving Go-Toba as a lady-in-waiting since 1205. Although it pertains to a slightly later time, the Meigetsuki records that she reported to her father what transpired around her, 39 indicating that father and daughter were relatively close and engaged in constant communication. Together with any information gleaned from Teika’s sisters, information from Teika’s daughter who served Go-Toba could have played an important role at the time of the J ōkyū Incident. Furthermore, as discussed in the previous chapter, Kintsune had as aunt Kitashirakawa Nobuko, who was the consort of Go-Toba’s brother, Prince Morisada. Morisada had married Nobuko in 1191, but in despair at apparently having no future at court, he renounced the world during the third month of 1212. However, as we have seen, his destiny changed radically after the J ōkyū Incident when his son Prince Yutahito was chosen to ascend the throne, and he received the title of retired sovereign as Go-Takakura-In. Although Morisada and his sons had renounced the world, it is hard to imagine that they were unconcerned when Go-Toba was gathering warriors to overthrow the bakufu, especially considering how the Saionji family had been close to Morisada since his youth. 40 39 Meigetsuki, entry for the first day of the 12th month of Tenpuku 1 (1234). See Meigetsuki (Tokyo: Kokusho Kank ōkai, 1912), Volume 3, 408. The deceased Sohekimon-in appeared in Inshi’s dreams and because of that, her fellow ladies-in-waiting began paying visits to Shaka-Nyorai at Saga. 40 Kintsune’s father, Saionji Sanemune, played important roles at several of Morisada’s ceremonies, such as his coming-at-age ceremony. 293 Moreover, Kitashirakawa Nobuko’s relationship with Go-Toba and those around him was not limited to her husband being Go-Toba’s full brother by the same mother. Her father, Jimy ōin Motoie – that is to say, Saionji Kintsune’s grandfather – was a nephew of Ichij ō Yoshiyasu, whose daughter Ichij ō Zenshi was Kintsune’s wife. The opportunities for Kintsune to establish close links with the Kamakura Bakufu which that marriage occasioned have already been discussed, but here it is pertinent to consider the possible role of another daughter of Yoshiyasu, Ichij ō Yasuko (一条保子). Specifically, in 1186 Minamoto no Yoritomo recommended Yoshiyasu’s wife as a nurse for Go-Toba. 41 For some reason this plan did not come to fruition, but much later Yoshiyasu’s daughter Yasuko entered the court as a nurse. By then this role was just a formality rather than a duty that entailed suckling a baby, 42 but in any event it is noteworthy that Kintsune’s sister-in-law was serving Go-Toba in some capacity. And there were still more women connected to the Saionji who could have tipped off their family during the J ōkyū War. One of Kintsune’s daughters was serving the royal prince Kanenari (懐成, 1218-1234), who was later Ch ūkyō Tenn ō. 43 Chūkyō Tenn ō was a son of Juntoku, making 41 Azuma Kagami, entry for the 6th day of the second month in 1186, in Shintei Z ōho Kokushi Taikei, Volume 32-1: Azuma Kagami, Volume 1 (Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 1991), 199. 42 Hashimoto Yoshihiko discussed the details of this matter in “Menoto Kanken” (in his monograph Heian Kizoku Shakai no Kenky ū [Studies on Courtier Society during the Heian Period] (Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 1976), 493). 43 Akiyama Kiyoko explains the background for Kintsune becoming the father of Ch ūky ō Tenn ō’s wet nurse in the context of discussing the changes in the menoto institution (husband/father of a nurse, as distinct from the homonym menoto meaning nurse). See “Menoto ni tsuite” [Concerning the Husbands of Wetnurses], Shigaku 294 him Go-Toba’s grandson. 44 There was also Juntoku’s consort Ritsuhi (立子, later called Higashi Ichij ō-in) who, as mentioned earlier, was a daughter of Kuj ō Michiie. 45 The role of wet nurses bears particular consideration. Hashimoto Yoshihiko points out that the relationship between wet-nurses and the children they suckled was extremely intimate and enduring. He further relates that there are many cases in which nurses of members of regental families, retired sovereigns, and sovereigns received exceptional favor along with their husbands and children, allowing them to gain political power. 46 Nishimura Hiroko also emphasizes the importance of wet-nurses and their information networks in courtier society by quoting a dreadful rumor concerning the death of Fujiwara no Genshi (one of Sanj ō’s consorts) in the Tale of Flowering Fortunes. 47 On that basis, she argues that, In courtier society, in which entrapping and being trapped happened all the time, the wife of [Fujiwara no] Michinaga, Rinshi, placed her milk-siblings (乳母子 menotogo) or Zasshi 99-7 (1990): 42-67. 44 Through his mother’s side, Ch ūky ō was a cousin of the Kamakura shogun Kuj ō Yoritsune. 45 Kintsune was appointed as commissioner (大夫) of her household when she was promoted to royal consort. 46 Hashimoto, 492. 47 “It was of course an unhappy period, but nevertheless everyone was startled when a rumor spread that the Shigeisha Consort Genshi had died. This happened shortly after the Twentieth of the Eighth Month. Many people were skeptical at first. “Really, what a story,” they scoffed. “She can’t have died as suddenly as all that. Nobody even said she was ill.” But others replied, “It’s true enough. Blood gushed from her nose and mouth, and in an instant she was dead.” It would be idle merely to call the event shocking or terrible. Life is uncertain, to be sure, but few go in such a bizarre and distressing manner. Society never tired of gossip, and people began to whisper some very unpleasant things about the relationship between the recovery of the Sen’yoden Consort Seishi, who had been so desperately ill, and the sudden death of Genshi. “Genshi died because Seishi did something dreadful to her,” many said. Others argued that Seishi herself would not have thought of such a thing. “It must have been the nurse Sh ōnagon”: McCullough, trans., A Tale of Flowering Fortunes, op. cit., V olume 1, 249-250 (Chapter 7, Toribeno). Nishimura uses this episode to demonstrate that a nurse took almost any risk for her mistress. The rumor that Seishi might have done something dreadful to Genshi was denied, but the name of her nurse was whispered with some certainty. This implies that the relation between a mistress and her nurse was very strong, so that the latter was considered identical to the former in action. 295 family members as wet-nurses for sovereigns, consorts, and princes. Through them, she made an information network and coordinated among them, and by doing so, supported Michinaga’s political power from behind. 48 She continues by arguing that, Among the husbands of Rinshi’s milk-sisters and the women who became nurses to sovereigns or consorts, there were the house managers whom Michinaga trusted the most, namely Minamoto no Takao [源高雄] and Fujiwara no Korenori [藤原惟憲, 963-1033]. The milk-sisters of Rinshi were closely serving sovereigns or consorts as nurses, and Michinaga’s house managers also had free access to the residences of sovereigns or royal princes and princesses as husbands of the nurses, and they were active as officials of the households of crown princes or royal consorts. In sum, Michinaga and Rinshi always got hold of information in courtier society and had a significant network through which they could deal with any situation promptly. 49 In short, nurses were essential components of the information networks of court power holders. 50 Tabata Yasuko argues too that, During the Insei era, there emerged new rising courtiers who became intimate with retired sovereigns quickly. Such families had their women promoted from ladies-in-waiting to nurses. Marrying a nurse was a goal for male courtiers. Among nurses, the nurse of a 48 Nishimura Hiroko, Kodai Ch ūsei no Kazoku to Josei [The Family and Women in Ancient and Medieval Japan] (Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 2002), 312. By “entrapping and being trapped,” Nishimura simply means that courtier society was a world wherein participants deceived and ensnared one another to advance their own careers, reputation or influence. 49 Ibid. 50 In fact by Kintsune’s time the use of nurses as a strategy for power aggrandizement had become widely-recognized. In this regard, see for example the work of Thomas D. Conlan, who discusses nurses as a route to power for families: Thomas D. Conlan, “Thicker than Blood: The Social and Political Significance of Wet Nurses in Japan, 950-1330,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 65. 1 (2005.6): 159-205. As Conlan accurately observes, “A menoto doted on her charge and was concerned for his welfare in a way that his parents could not be, because his achievements could translate into unprecedented wealth, power, and prestige for her and her family” (160-161). 296 sovereign was the object of desire for male courtiers as an ideal marriage partner, and [being a nurse was considered] an ideal position for a woman. 51 Being a nurse of a power holder was another way to gain social capital, and it resulted in information, power, and privilege. In this regard, Kintsune’s position – having access to Saionji women serving as nurses in the midst of the central figures of the J ōkyū Incident – provided him with an enormous advantage for obtaining up-to-date information. Finally, I would also like to touch on the Miyoshi family, who were house managers for the Saionji. Ry ō Susumu strongly emphasizes the importance of this family, arguing that “we cannot neglect the existence of the Miyoshi family – which was famous for both its political strategies and its investment of Saionji wealth – as supporters of Saionji family prosperity.” 52 In terms of information networks, it was Miyoshi Nagahira who acted quickly to dispatch a messenger to Kamakura to report on the situation in Kyoto at the start of the J ōkyū Incident. While Nagahira had not become a house manager of the Saionji due to his connection with Saionji nurses, 53 judging from the events that transpired during the J ōkyū Incident, clearly he was trusted by Kintsune. Furthermore, although it occurred more than ten years after the Incident, Nagahira’s daughter married Ichij ō Tadatoshi (一条忠俊) through Kintsune’s mediation. Tadatoshi was a 51 Tabata, 204. 52 Ry ō, 182. 53 Miyoshi Nagahira’s name first appears in historical sources in 1198 as a Doctor of Mathematics, a position inherited from his father Yukihira. It is not known when he became a house manager of Kintsune, aside from it having been some time before the eleventh month in 1220. For details, please see Ry ō, 178-182. 297 grandson of Ichij ō Yoshiyasu, Kintsune’s father-in-law, meaning that through this marriage the trusted house manager became his lord’s nephew. In sum, the Miyoshi family was also part of the Saionji’s human networks, not only through master-servant relations, but also through familial relations. Conclusion We have seen how in addition to generating social capital by building relations with major power holders, the Saionji used social capital to support their cultural networks or gain valuable information. The strategies undertaken by the Saionji were not unique. They were practiced by most courtier families at the time. Saionji success was due less to pure innovation than to skill at wielding the tools. Once these various strategies were in play, they served as precedent for subsequent generations of Saionji who repeated them, renewing the relationships and expanding their family’s reach. Women played an essential role in these strategies. We have already seen how the Saionji utilized their daughters to establish familial relations with power holders or to strengthen cultural networks, placing their daughters in positions that had the potential to prove valuable whatever the future might bring. Moreover, Saionji women, who were the keys to holding the family-based networks together, functioned as bridges, channeling information to each other and back to the 298 main family. Here again, while networks among women who married into other families, or networks among nurses, were common sources of support for many families, the numbers and effective placement of Saionji women made them particularly beneficial to their family. The more complex and overlapping connections between people and families that emerge from focusing on these women sheds bright light on the interplay between and among families. It also provides a much fuller and richer image of the circumstances behind political or cultural developments from the twelfth through fourteenth centuries. 299 Conclusion: The Saionji After Kamakura, and their Legacy in Later Courtier Society Saionji efforts to cement and expand their influence in courtier society by deploying a range of tools of authority and aimed at generating vast amounts of economic, cultural, and social capital proved successful and enduring. Members of the Saionji family took the strategies mastered by Kintsune and continued to use them over generations. Although future generations of Saionji did not always possess Kintsune’s sharp political instincts and ability to rapidly adapt to changing circumstances, their established reserves of immense wealth, cultural sophistication, and solid social networks ensured that they could weather most any storm that battered their society. This capacity to endure changing circumstances was to be strenuously tested. On the 26th day of the second month in 1318, Hanazono Tenn ō ( 花園天皇, 1297-1348) of the senior royal line, the Jimy ōin, abdicated, and a new sovereign was enthroned from the junior royal line, the Daikakuji. By this time, the two lines of royal descent were participating in a power-sharing arrangement overseen by the bakufu, whereby the accession alternated between them – heirs from each line took turns sitting on the throne. This system was articulated in the Bunpo Agreement in 1318, 1 just one year prior to the enthronement of the new monarch, Go-Daigo 1 It had conventionally been understood that both senior and junior lines had agreed to alternate the throne every ten years, starting in 1317. However, recent scholarship on the era has argued instead that the royal lines did not in fact reach such an agreement. For new perspectives, see, for example, Kuroda Toshio, M ōko Sh ūrai [The Mongol Invasions] (Tokyo: Chūō K ōronsha, 2004); and Amino Yoshihiko, M ōko Sh ūrai [The Mongol Invasions] (Tokyo: Sh ōgakukan, 2001). 300 Tenn ō ( 後醍醐天皇, 1288-1339). 2 Already 31 years of age at his enthronement, he was the second son of Go-Uda ( 後宇多天皇, 1267-1324), and his accession was understood to be but a temporary measure until Prince Kuniyoshi, the posthumous child of his brother Go-Nij ō, was old enough to take the throne. From the beginning there was thought to be no possibility that Go-Daigo’s descendants could take the throne. But discontent with this arrangement, Go-Daigo plotted to overthrow the bakufu, and thereby, he planned to scrap not only the alternating enthronement system but also the entire dual-centered polity system. Go-Daigo’s first attempt was discovered in advance by the bakufu deputies for central and western Japan, based at the Rokuhara headquarters. Thus it ended in failure. 3 Not content to give up, however, Go-Daigo made another plan, but it too failed when in the eighth month of 1331 one of his aides, Yoshida Sadafusa ( 吉田定房, 1274-1338), informed the bakufu. Although Go-Daigo was able to escape from the palace and start raising an army, he was quickly defeated and captured by the bakufu, along with another of his aides, Chigusa Tadaaki ( 千種忠顕, ?-1336). This time the bakufu was less forgiving of the upstart sovereign. Go-Daigo was dethroned and 2 For more on Go-Daigo, see especially Andrew Goble, Kenmu: Go-Daigo’s Revolution (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997). 3 Go-Daigo himself was pardoned, but Hino Suketomo ( 日野資朝, 1290-1332), one of his aides, was exiled to Sado Island. 301 exiled to Oki Island in the third month of 1332, while K ōgon ( 光厳天皇, 1313-1364) from the senior line was enthroned. 4 Nonetheless, Go-Daigo still refused to admit defeat. With the help of Nawa Nagatoshi’s family, he escaped from Oki Island in 1333, and then he and his supporters raised an army in the Funakami mountains in H ōki Province. 5 In response Ashikaga Takauji ( 足利尊氏, 1305-1358) was dispatched by the bakufu to subjugate Go-Daigo’s forces, but Takauji was disillusioned with the H ōj ō regency and joined the rebellion, subsequently launching an attack on the Rokuhara headquarters. Immediately thereafter, Nitta Yoshisada ( 新田義貞, 1301-1338), another powerful warrior in the east, defeated the H ōj ō forces and besieged Kamakura itself. Most of the members of the H ōj ō regent family died in battle. The survivors, including the fourteenth regent H ōj ō Takatoki ( 北条高時, 1303-1333), sealed themselves in their family temple, T ōsh ōji, and committed suicide. The Kamakura Bakufu had fallen. 6 4 This situation, where a sovereign was captured by the bakufu, an institution ostensibly comprised of his subjects, shocked even the senior line that was competing with Go-Daigo. Concerning these developments, the Retired Sovereign Hanazono stated, 「王家之恥何事如之哉、天下静謐尤雖可悦、一朝之恥辱又不可不歎」 What could be a greater shame than this for the royal family? Although it should be a joy that peace is restored to the country, such a stain on the court should not be! (Hanazono Tenn ō Shinki, entry for the 1st day of the tenth month in 1331. See Z ōho Shiry ō Taisei, Volume 3: Hanazono Tenn ō Shinki, Volume 2 (Kyoto: Rinsen Shoten, 1982), 163-164). 5 This area is present-day Kotoura-machi in the Higashi Hoki district of Tottori prefecture. The Nawa family were the local lords in Hoki, and had made a fortune through maritime trade. 6 According to the Taiheiki, the H ōj ō family and the retainers who concealed themselves in the temple committed suicide through sepekku one by one, the last to do so being H ōj ō Takatoki and his father-in-law, Adachi Tokiaki. The Taiheiki relates that the number of people who killed themselves included 283 H ōj ō kinsmen and 870 of their retainers. However, this number is likely to be the result of literary exaggeration. See Taiheiki, in Nihon Koten Bungaku Taikei 35 (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1961), Volume 1, 360. In English, see Helen McCollough, trans., The Taiheiki: A Chronicle of Medieval Japan (Boston: Turtle Publishing, 2003), 302 Upon his triumphant return to Kyoto, Go-Daigo nullified the enthronement of K ōgon, cancelled the latter’s era name (Sh ōki), and asserted that any royal edicts signed by K ōgon or any ranks bestowed by him were to be null and void. He dismissed the regent Takatsukasa Fuyunori ( 鷹司冬教, 1305-1337) and began his own rule anew. The fall of the Kamakura Bakufu in 1333 came as a shock to the Saionji family, and it threatened to immediately weaken their position. Having inherited the post of Kant ō M ōshitsugi for generations and depended upon an uneasy power balance between two centers of Kyoto and Kamakura, the loss of the bakufu and its attendant liaison post was a heavy blow. Had the Saionji put all their eggs in one basket and depended entirely upon that post as their power base, it is unlikely that they could have recovered from the catastrophe. However, while Saionji Kinmune, the head of the family at the time, temporarily lost his post, before long he found himself comfortably back in the position of supernumerary senior counselor. The family may have had their influence substantially lessened, but they were nevertheless secure at court for the time being. This cannot be explained without considering the significance of the family at court, as well as the existence of Saionji women around Go-Daigo. In 1313, five years prior to his enthronement, Go-Daigo, who was still a crown prince at the time, took Saionji Sanekane’s 310-311. 303 daughter Kishi (西園寺禧子, 1303-1333) as his wife. 7 Following his enthronement in the second month of 1318, she received the title of junior consort (ny ōgo) in the fourth month, and was then elevated to senior royal consort (ch ūgū) in the eighth month of the following year, 1319. The marriage was not quite conventional: the Masukagami states that it was a “marriage by stealing”; in other words, she had been kidnapped by Go-Daigo. 8 Considering the drastic steps taken to acquire her in the first place, and the frequent prayers Go-Daigo offered in the hopes of her giving birth, K ōchi Shōsuke argues that Go-Daigo was desperate for her to give birth to a prince. 9 He holds that this was because the bakufu would be unable to ignore a son born from a Saionji mother, even if the father was Go-Daigo who had been excluded from royal succession. 10 This confirms how the Saionji marriage strategies had been so successful that by Go-Daigo’s time they had become normalized, in that a child born of a Saionji mother had legitimacy as an heir. 7 Her sisters were Saionji Sh ōshi / Eifukumon-in ( 鏱子 / 永福門院, Fushimi’s royal consort) and Saionji Eishi / Sh ōkunmon-in ( 西園寺瑛子 / 昭訓門院, consort of Kameyama). Also, Kishi had Saionji Kinhira and Imadegawa Kanesue as brothers. 8 Masukagami, ed. Inoue Muneo (Tokyo: K ōdansha, 1983), V olume 3, 58-59. The girl was only ten years old at the time, and her disappearance threw her father Sanemune into a panic. When she was discovered, she was already several months pregnant. To say there was something of a scandal would have been putting it mildly. Hanazono Tenn ō recorded in his diary both that the girl was pregnant and that the crown prince (Go-Daigo) had stolen and hidden her in the previous autumn (See Hanazono Tenn ō Shinki, entry for the 20th day of the first month in 1314 (in Z ōho Shiry ō Taisei, Volume 2: Hanazono Tenn ō Shinki, Volume 1 (Kyoto: Rinsen Shoten, 1982), 88). 9 K ōchi Sh ōsuke, Nihon Ch ūsei no Ch ōtei Bakufu Taisei [The Court and Bakufu System in Medieval Japan] (Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 2007), 336. By contrast, the standard historical narrative understands Go-Daigo’s prayers as excuses to curse the bakufu. 10 Ibid. 304 The Masukagami states that Kishi was loved by Go-Daigo, but even if this may have been the case, her status as his royal consort was not particularly strong. 11 She gave birth to Go-Daigo’s second princess, Kinshi( 懽子内親王, 1315-1362), 12 in 1315, but then she did not have any more children. Meanwhile, Go-Daigo’s affections were mainly heaped on Ano no Renshi ( 阿野廉子, 1301-1359) who had originally served Kishi as a lady-in-waiting. After Go-Daigo was exiled to Oki Island in 1332, Kishi was given the title of nyoin by the new sovereign K ōgon from the senior line, and came to be called Reiseimon-in ( 礼成門院) from the fifth month of 1332. In the eighth month she renounced the world, but upon Go-Daigo’s return to the capital in the sixth month of 1333, her retirement title was cancelled and she was returned to the position of queen consort. She was made grand queen consort ( 皇太后 k ōtaig ō) shortly thereafter. 13 However, on the 12th day of the tenth month that same year, a mere four months after Go-Daigo’s return to Kyoto, she passed away at the age of 31. 14 Her death caused further consternation to the Saionji family. The Saionji woman closest to the sovereign, who was 11 Masukagami, op. cit., Volume 3, 58-59. However, on the other hand, the Taiheiki relates how, “Assuredly did it seem that she would enjoy the sovereign’s gracious regard beyond all others; yet her life was spent in vain waiting, nor ever did she draw near the august countenance, for the favor of an emperor is more fragile than a leaf,” (Helen McCullough, trans., The Taiheiki, op. cit., 8). 12 Princess Kinshi later become the consort of Retired Sovereign K ōgon, and was given the title of Senseimon-in ( 宣政門院). 13 This term referred to the mother of a sovereign, the same term that in relation to China is usually rendered as “empress dowager.” 14 She was given a new title as nyoin, Go-Ky ōgoku-in ( 後京極院) by the junior line. She is thus the only individual to have received two titles as nyoin. 305 supposed to preside over the Saionji women’s network and act as a key player linking her natal family to the royal family had died young not long after Go-Daigo’s reign had begun. After the passing of Kishi, the woman selected as Go-Daigo’s new queen consort was Princess Junshi ( 珣子内親王, 1311 －1337, later titled Shin-Muromachi-in 新室町院). She was the first daughter of Go-Fushimi. Since Princess Junshi’s mother was K ōgimon-in Neishi (広義門院寧子, 1292-1357), a daughter of Saionji Kinhira, it was hoped that she would quickly assure a strong bond between the two families. However, it was not to be. Like her predecessor Kishi, Junshi did not give birth to any sons with Go-Daigo, 15 and she passed away in 1337 at the age of 27. To make matters even worse, in the first month of 1334, approximately three years prior to Junshi’s death, Prince Tsuneyoshi ( 恒良親王, 1324-1338) became the crown prince. His mother was Ano no Renshi, and with his rise, the ties between the Saionji and the royal family weakened further. It seemed like misfortune was washing away several generations of careful Saionji planning to perpetuate their influence. The specter of Taira no Kiyomori, whose spectacular rise was matched only by his equally spectacular fall, likely haunted the Saionji family. They must have feared that, as Kakuichi’s Heike Monogatari intones, “the prosperous must decline. The proud do not endure, they are like a 15 Saionji Kishi gave birth to a royal princess, Kinshi, in 1315, and Royal Princess Junshi gave birth to a daughter in 1335. 306 dream on a spring night; the mighty fall at last, they are as dust before the wind.” 16 Nevertheless, the Saionji were not prepared to quietly accept this inevitable doom. Aiming to restore the influence of his family, now shorn of their connections with the two major power holders – court and bakufu – Saionji Kinmune ( 西園寺公宗, 1310-1335), resorted to a desperate measure. Specifically he plotted to overthrow the new polity altogether. He invited Go-Daigo to his residential villa at Kitayama in order to assassinate him, intending to replace him with Go-Fushimi from the senior line. He partnered with H ōj ō Yasuie ( 泰家, aka Tokioki, dates unknown), a brother of the last Kamakura regent H ōj ō Takatoki, whom the Saionji had sheltered. 17 However, the plot was revealed by Saionji Kinshige ( 西園寺公重, 1317-1367), a half-brother of Kinmune, who warned Go-Daigo in advance. H ōj ō Yasuie was able to escape, but Kinmune was captured along with his accomplice Hino Ujimitsu, and he was executed by Nawa Nagatoshi ( 名和長年, ?- 1336) on his way into exile in Izumo in the eighth month. Hino Meishi ( 日野名子, 1310-1358), 18 Kinmune’s wife, was pregnant when he was executed. Their son, Sanetoshi ( 西園寺実俊, 1335-1389), was said to 16 Helen Craig McCullough, trans., The Tale of the Heike (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1988), 23. 17 The Taiheiki relates how the assassins intended to set up many swords pointing upright underneath the floor of the bathing room and then collapse the floor underneath the sovereign, leading to a most painful and messy death (Taiheiki, op.cit., V olume 2, 22). 18 She wrote a diary called Takemukigaki which recollects her life, including her experience as a lady-in-waiting, her relationship with Saionji Kinmune, and the growth of her son, Sanetoshi. On the Takemukigaki, see Hitomi Tonomura, “Re-envisioning Women in the Post-Kamakura Age,” in Jeffrey P. Mass, ed., The Origins of Japan’s Medieval World: Courtiers, Clerics, Warriors and Peasants in the Fourteenth Century (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1997), 138-169. 307 have been born exactly 100 days after Kinmune’s execution. 19 According to the Taiheiki, a messenger arrived from the royal palace, inquiring about the baby, for it was demanded that the baby be taken to the palace if it were a boy. His mother Meishi broke down crying in tears, and Sh ōkunmon-in Kasuga no Tsubone ( 昭訓門院春日局, dates unknown) 20 – Kinmune’s mother – told the messenger that the baby had been born but had died, due to the sin of having been born the son of a criminal. She handed over a poem to send to the sovereign, which read: 偽を糺の森に置露の消しにつけて濡るゝ袖哉 21 Like the dewdrops of the forest of Tadasu, Which correct falsehood, So perishes the life of the posthumous child, Soaking my sleeves [with tears]. Whether because he was moved by Kasuga no Tsubone’s pleas, it is said that Go-Daigo pursued the matter of Kinmune’s son no further. The headship of the family then passed to Kinshige, since he had warned the sovereign about the murder plot. Kinmune’s son Sanetoshi grew up under the protection of his great aunt K ōgimon-in Neishi, received court rank, and was elevated to the junior third rank in 1344. With the split between the Southern and Northern Courts, many courtier families were divided. While 19 Taiheiki, V olume 2, 27. 20 Sh ōkunmon-in Kasuga no Tsubone was a daughter of Nij ō Tameyo. She served for Sh ōkunmon-in Eishi (her name came from this service). She married Saionji Sanehira, a nephew of Sh ōkunmon-in Eishi, and gave birth to Kinmune in 1309. 21 Taiheiki, V olume 2, 28. 308 there has been a tendency to categorize courtier families based on which side they supported, this is largely a post-facto distortion, since when the royal line split in two, the most skilled courtier families never risked losing influence by favoring only one royal line. When Go-Daigo fled to Yoshino in 1353, Saionji Kinshige went with him. Meanwhile back in Kyoto, Sanetoshi regained the headship of the Saionji and was appointed court liaison to the Muromachi Bakufu (Buke Shiss ō). Of course his post replicated his ancestors’ hold on the post of Kant ō M ōshitsugi in the previous era. His offspring continued to succeed to the headship of the main branch of the Saionji family, which served the Northern court. While the main Saionji family continued serving in the Northern court, another Saionji member took a branch of the family in a different direction. He was Saionji Kinyoshi ( 西園寺公良), one of Kinmune’s brothers. In Chapter 2, I discussed Uwa Estate in Iyo Province, which was passed down in the family for generations after its acquisition. In the late 14th century, Kinyoshi, perhaps responding to the uneasy political situation, headed down to Uwa and began to rule the area, making the local lords his subjects. This was the beginning of the Iyo Saionji family. The family soon evolved into a warrior family. 22 Indeed, during the Sengoku Period, the head of the Iyo Saionji ruled Iyo as a daimy ō. However, the warrior Saionji faced constant struggles and 22 On the Iyo Saionji, see Ishino Yae, “Nanbokuch ō Muromachich ō no Iyo Saionji: Kuge Daimy ō Seiritsu no Zentei” [The Saionji in Iyo Province during the Nanboku and Muromachi Eras: The Prerequisites for the Establishment of Courtier Lords], Kokugakuin Zasshi 88.10 (1987.10): 40-56; and Yamauchi Harutomo, “Eiky ō Kakitsu-ki no Iyo Saionji-shi no Kakushitsu to Bakufu Kenryoku” [The Struggle of the Saionji Family in Iyo and the Power of the Bakufu during the Eiky ō and Kakitsu Eras], Chih ōshi Kenky ū. 62.2 (2012.4): 23-38. 309 gradually declined in the wake of invasions by the Ichij ō family of Tosa and the Ōtomo family of Bungo. In 1584, Saionji Kinhiro ( 西園寺公広), the head of the family, surrendered to Ch ōsokabe Motochika of Tosa. And in 1585, when the three provinces of the Ch ōsokabe family’s lands were confiscated by Toyotomi Hideyoshi during his assault on Shikoku, the Saionji surrendered to the Toyotomi. A new lord, Toda Katsutaka, was appointed to Uwa; and he killed Saionji Kinhiro in 1587, thereby ending the Iyo Saionji line. The Iyo Saionji are not very well known as Sengoku daimy ō due to this outcome, but as members of the courtier Saionji who came to live as warriors, they are a significant part of the story of late medieval Japan. The existence of the Saionji family is hard to trace from the end of the Sengoku through Tokugawa eras because of a scarcity of sources, due to the family’s reduced influence. Their earlier political rise had depended to a significant extent on balancing court and bakufu. But during the Muromachi era, they lacked the firm connections with the Ashikaga that they had built with the Minamoto and the H ōj ō. This was even more the case in the Edo Period, when the court lost most of its remaining authority under the third military government, and one with which the Saionji had no real connection. The heads of the family tended to die young, and the family needed to depend on adopting heirs from related families to perpetuate its main line. Only at the end of the early modern era did the Saionji name once more come to prominence, with Saionji Kinmochi ( 西園寺公望, 1849-1940). Kinmnochi was not born a 310 Saionji. He was adopted from the Tokudaiji family, which shared the same ancestors as the Saionji. 23 Raised in close proximity to the court, he was appointed chancellor and commander (kanpaku sh ōgun) at the age of 13. During the Boshin War (1868-1869), Saionji Kinmochi, supposedly replete with ancestral Saionji garb and carrying a sword bestowed by the monarch, was one of the royalist leaders charged with defending Kyoto from attack by bakufu forces. He became active as a politician during the Meiji Restoration, rising through the ranks of the new nobility (from marquis in 1884, when the system was implemented, to duke in 1920) and the political order. He served as premier twice and carried immense weight in politics during the Taish ō and early Sh ōwa eras as the “last genr ō” (elder statesman) 24 Although he was a modern political leader, Saionji Kinmochi had to wrestle with his courtier family heritage throughout his life. He had to face the difficult task of engaging in building a modern political system while holding true to family traditions and identity upon which his legitimacy, especially as a confident of the ruler, depended. His opponents could criticize the activities of his ancestors, especially the would-be regicide Kinmune, to suggest he 23 As explained in the introductory chapter, the Tokudaiji were also one of the Seiga families like the Saionji. Kinmochi was only three years old when he was adopted into the Saionji family. His adopted father, Saionji Morosue ( 西園寺師季, 1826-1851), who was already nearing death, told Kinmochi upon meeting him for the first time, “Oh, the next head of the Saionji looks very ugly!” (Saionji Kinmochi, ed. Kimura Takeshi, Saionji Kinmochi, re-edited Mikuriya Takashi (Tokyo: Dai Nihon Y ūbenkai K ōdansha, 1947), 5. 24 The genr ō ( 元老) were a group of senior statesmen who had been leaders during the Boshin War and played major roles as oligarchs in the new Meiji political order. They functioned as a sort of unofficial council of state that advised the monarch and directed political decisions from behind the scenes. Kinmochi became a genr ō in 1913. 311 was a disloyal subject. His relations with his sometime protégé, Prince Konoe Fumimar ō ( 近衛文麿, 1891-1945), were strongly influenced by courtier society. Although Konoe was much younger, Kinmochi treated him as his superior based on the traditional ranking of the courtier families – the Konoe, recall, were the main regental family whereas the Saionji were a Seiga family, and thus subordinate. 25 While Konoe’s youth and outspoken nature, or ideological differences, are often pointed to as causes for the splintering of the relationship between the two men, the older Saionji’s frustrated expectations for Konoe based on the latter’s role of a regental family head may have played a role as well. Kinmochi was also not particularly skilled at playing the biwa, having neglected his lessons as a youth, and he failed to live up to expectations, given his family’s reputation as a house of biwa masters. During his term as prime minister, he was asked by Meiji Tenn ō to play the biwa as head of the Saionji family, alongside the musicians of the Imperial Music Agency. Although Kinmochi gave it his best and managed to play, he was by no means a good performer. Of course, Meiji Tenn ō was well aware of this, but was taking advantage of the Saionji tradition to make fun of him. Even upon his adopted father’s death, Kinmochi situated his parent in the 25 In his autobiography Saionji Kinmochi discusses his family’s court status and lists the various ranks and duties that he and his family members had (Saionji Kinmochi, op. cit.). 312 world of courtier society, observing that “my adopted father ended his career as a middle captain of the third rank.” 26 In this way, the medieval past of courtier society continued to echo in later times, making its legacy known in subtle ways. While the army’s (mis)use of warrior tradition during the imperial era and the prevalent imagery of “samurai” in popular culture represent a fantastical reimagination of the medieval era, medieval courtier society has remained beneath the radar of mainstream consciousness. However, there is clearly much to be learned by examining medieval courtier families, their political, economic, cultural and social worlds, and the ways in which they sought to gain and keep authority, and in so doing, to forge an enduring legacy that would last for all time. By shifting attention away from a preoccupation with warriors, our view of the world of medieval Japan becomes far richer and more complex, filled with groups of people trying to deal with changing circumstances in various ways. This was not merely a world ordered by military men and their disputes. Only through considering groups such as courtiers can we avoid the sort of reductionist treatment that has seen the vibrant and complex society of medieval Japan painted in monochromatic brushstrokes, as a single landscape dominated by warriors and warrior politics. With no clear clue as to how developments would occur in the future, courtier families worked to generate and make investments of economic, cultural, and social capital in ways that, given good 26 Saionji Kinmochi, 4. 313 fortune, would guarantee their descendants’ survival and continuing influence no matter what troubles might loom on the horizon. Studying the case of the Saionji not only enables us to reconstruct one family’s efforts to do so, but moreover it offers us a window on a fascinating landscape that has too often been obscured. 314 Appendix Royal Succession (from the 72nd to the 90th Sovereigns) Shirakara(72,白河)―Horikawa(堀河,73)―Toba(鳥羽,74)― Sutoku(崇徳,75) ―Go-Shirakawa(後白河,77)― ―Konoe(近衛,76) ―Nij ō(二条,78)―Rokuj ō(六条,79) ―Prince Mochihito(以仁王) ―Takakura(高倉,80)―Antoku(安徳,81) ―Prince Morisada―Go-Horikawa(後堀河,86)―Shij ō(四条天皇, 87) (守貞親王) ―Go-Toba(後鳥羽,82) ―Tsuchimikado(土御門,83)―Go-Saga(後嵯峨,88)―Prince Munetaka(宗尊親王) ―Go-Fukakusa(後深草,89) ―Kameyama(亀山,90) ―Juntoku(順徳,84)―Ch ūky ō(仲恭,85) ―Prince Tadanari(忠成王) 315 Shogunal Succession (from Yoritomo to Yoritsune) Ichiman(一幡) Minamoto no Yoritomo(1.源頼朝) Yoriie(2.頼家) Kugy ō(公暁) ―Sanetomo(3.実朝) Takegosho(竹御所) Yoritomo’s sister(頼朝妹) Zenshi(全子) Ichij ō Yoshiyasu(一条能保) Rinshi(綸子) Saionji Kintsune(西園寺公経) Mitora(Yoritsune) Yoshiyasu’s Daughter(能保女) (4. 三寅・源頼経) Michiie(道家) Kuj ō Kanezane(九条兼実) Yoshitsune(良経) 316 Map of Saionji Estates (based on map from Jeffrey P. Mass, The Origins of Japan’ s Medieval World: Courtiers, Clerics, Warriors, and Peasants in the Fourteenth Century (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1997), xviii) 317 Bibliography 1. Primary Sources Aston, W. G., trans. Nihongi: Chronicles of Japan from the Earliest Times to A.D. 697. Tokyo: Tuttle, 1972. Brazell, Karen, trans. The Confessions of Lady Nij ō. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1973. Fujiwara, Nagakane. Sanchōki. In Z ōho Shiry ō Taisei, V olume 31. Tokyo: Rinsen Shoten, 1986. Fujiwara, Teika. Meigetsuki. Tokyo: Kokusho Kank ōkai, 1911-1912. 3 vols. _____. Meigetsuki. In Dai Nihon Shiry ō, V olume 5, Section 2. Tokyo: Tokyo University Historiographical Institute, 1922. Godai Tei ō Monogatari [The Tale of Five Sovereigns]. In Gunsho Ruij ū, V olume 3. Tokyo: Gunsho Ruij ū Kanseikai, 1960. Hamur ō, Sadatsugu. Y ōk ōki. Tokyo: Yagi Shoten, 2004. Hanazono Tenn ō. Hanazono Tenn ō Shinki. In Z ōho Shiry ō Taisei, V olumes 2-3. Kyoto: Rinsen Shoten, 1982. 2 vols. _____. Wayaku Hanazono Tenn ō Shinki. Trans. Murata Masashi. Tokyo: Zoku Gunsho Ruij ū Kanseikai, 1999-2003. 3 vols. Heike Monogatari. In Nihon Koten Bungaku Taikei, V olumes 32-33. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1959-1960. 2 vols. Hirohashi, Tsunemitsu. Minkeiki. In Dai Nihon Kokiroku, V olume 8. Ed. Tokyo University Historiographical Institute. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 2001. Imagawa, Fumio, trans. Kundoku Meigetsuki. Tokyo: Kawaide Shob ō Shinsha, 1977. 6 vols. Inomue, Muneo, ed. Masukagami. Tokyo: K ōdansha, 1979. 3 vols. 318 Iwasa, Masashi, et al., comps. Masukagami. In Nihon Koten Bungaku Taikei, V olume 87. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1965. Iwasa, Miyoko, ed. Bunkidan Zench ūshaku [A Complete Annotated Commentary of Bunkidan]. Tokyo: Kasama Shoin, 2007. Jien. Letter to Saionji Kintsune. In Jien Zensh ū. Ed. Taga Munehaya. Tokyo: Shichij ō Shoin, 1927. 881-886. _____. Gukanshō. In The Future and the Past: A Translation and Study of the Gukansh ō, an Interpretive History of Japan Written in 1219. trans. Delmer M. Brown and Ichir ō Ishida. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979. Juntoku Tenn ō. Kinpish ō. In Kinpish ō K ōch ū, in Kojitsu S ōsho, V olume 22. Tokyo: Meiji Tosho Shuppan, 1952. Kengozen. Tamakiharu. In Shin Nihon Koten Bungaku Teikei, V olume 50. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1994. _____. Tamakiharu. Trans. Miki Wheeler. Unpublished partial translation. Kitabatake, Chikafusa. A Chronicle of Gods and Sovereigns: Jinnō Shōt ōki of Kitabatake Chikafusa. Trans. H. Paul Varley. New York: Columbia University Press, 1980. Kuj ō, Kanezane. Gyokuy ō. Tokyo: Kokusho Kank ōkai, 1906-1907. 3 vols. Kuroita, Katsumi and Kokushi Taikei Hensh ūkai, eds. Azuma Kagami. In Shintei Z ōho Kokushi Taikei, vols. 32-1, 32-2, 33-1, 33-2. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 1988-1989. 4 vols. _____, eds. Kugy ōbunin. In Shintei Z ōho Kokushi Taikei, V olumes 53-57. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 2001. Kyoto Daigaku Bungakubu Hakubutsukan no Komonjo 1: Ch ōk ōdōry ō to Shimadake Monjo [Documents in the Museum of the Faculty of Arts at Kyoto University, Volume 1: Chōkōdō Estates List and the Shimada Documents]. Tokyo: Shibunkaku Shuppan, 1987. 319 McCullough, Helen C., trans. The Taiheiki: A Chronicle of Medieval Japan. Boston: Tuttle Publishing, 2003. _____, trans. The Tale of the Heike. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1988. McCullough, William H. and Helen C. McCullough, trans. A Tale of Flowering Fortunes: Annals of Japanese Aristocratic Life in the Heian Period. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1980. Masukagami. In Kansh ō Nihon Koten Bungaku, V olume 14. Tokyo: Kadokawa Shoten, 1976. Masukagami. In Nihon Koten Bungaku Taikei, V olume 87. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1976. Murasaki, Shikibu. Genji Monogatari. In Nihon Koten Bungaku Taikei, V olumes 14-18. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1958-1963. 5 vols. _____. The Tale of Genji. Trans. Royall Tyler. New York: Viking Penguin, 2001. Murata, Masashi, ed. Biwa Ketsumyaku. In Shōch ū Chiny ōki, in Murata Masashi Chosakush ū, V olume 4. Tokyo: Shibunkaku Shuppan, 1984. _____, ed. Shōch ū Chin’y ōki. In Murata Masashi Chosakush ū, V olume 4. Tokyo: Shibunkaku Shuppan, 1984. Perkins, George W., trans. The Clear Mirror: A Chronicle of the Japanese Court During the Kamakura Period (1185-1333). Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1989. Saionji, Kinsue. Kangen On Denju Ki. In Fushimi no Miya Ky ōz ō Gakusho Shūsei, V olume 1. Ed. Kunaich ō Sho-misasagi-bu. Tokyo: Meiji Shoin, 1991. Sonpi Bunmyaku. In Shintei Z ōho Kokushi Taikei, V olumes 58-60. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 2005. 3 vols. Takahana, Isao, trans. Imakagami. Tokyo: K ōdansha, 1984. 3 vols. 320 Taiheiki. In Nihon Koten Bungaku Taikei, V olumes 34-36. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1961. 3 vols. Taira, Tsunetaka. Heikoki. In Z ōho Shiry ō Taisei, V olumes 32-33. Kyoto: Rinsen Shoten, 1975. 2 vols. Tokyo University Historiographical Institute, ed. Dai Nihon Shiry ō, V olume 5, Section 5. Tokyo: Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai, 1969. _____, ed. Shiry ō Sōran, V olume 5. Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai, 2011. Ton’a. Seiash ō. Ed. Sasaki Nobutsuna. In Nihon Kagaku Taikei, V olume 5. Tokyo: Kazama Shob ō, 1957. Yoshida, Kenk ō. Essays in Idleness: The Tsurezuregusa of Kenk ō. Trans. Donald Keene. New York: Columbia University Press, 1967. 2. Secondary Sources: Japanese-language Abe, Takeshi. “Shiry ō Sh ōai: Ōimikado-kery ō ni tsuite” [Introducing New Historical Sources: Concerning the Land holdings of the Ōimikado Family]. Teiky ō Shigaku 12 (1997). Akamatsu, Toshihide. Kodai Ch ūsei Keizaishi Kenky ū [Studies on Economic History in Ancient and Medieval Japan]. Tokyo: H ōz ōkan, 2012. Akiyama, Kiyoko. Chūsei Kuge Shakai no K ūkan to Geino [Space and Entertainment in Medieval Courtier Society]. Tokyo: Yamakawa Shuppansha, 2003. _____. “Menoto ni tsuite” [Concerning the Husbands of Wetnurses]. Shigaku Zasshi 99-7 (1990): 42-67. Amino, Yoshihiko. Higashi to Nishi no Kataru Nihonshi [Japanese History through East and West]. Tokyo: K ōdansha, 1982. _____. M ōko Sh ūrai [The Mongol Invasions]. Tokyo: Sh ōgakukan, 2001. 321 _____. “Saionji-ke to Sono Shory ō” [The Saionji Family and Its Landholdings]. In Amino Yoshihiko Chosakush ū, V olume 3. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 2008. 293-320. _____, Ishii Susumu, Inagaki Yasuhiko, and Nagahara Keiji, eds. K ōza Nihon Sh ōenshi [Lectures on the History of Estates in Japan]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 1989-2005. 10 vols. Anzai, Kinji. H ōkaiki Sh ōenshi no Kenky ū [The Historiography of Estates at the Time of (the) Fall (of the Estate System)]. Tokyo: Iwata Shoin, 1994. Arima, Raitei, ed. Rokuonji to Saionji. Tokyo: Shibunkaku Shuppan, 2004. Chino, Kaori. J ū-j ūsan Seiki no Bijutsu: Ōch ōbi no Sekai [Art in 10th- to 13th-century Japan: The World of Beauty during the Heian Period]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1993. Classen, Albrecht, ed. Urban Space in the Middle Ages and the Early Modern Age. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2009. Egawa, Atsushi. “Kizoku to ha Nani ka? Nishi Y ōroppa Ch ūsei no Baai” [What is a Courtier? The Case of Western Europe]. In Kuge to Buge: Sono Hikaku Bunmei-shi Kenky ū [Courtiers and Warriors: Comparative Historical Perspectives on Ruling Authority and Civilization (official translation)]. Ed. Kasaya Kazuhiko. Tokyo: International Research Center for Japanese Studies, 2004. 209-216. Ema, Tsutomo, et al., eds. Shinshū Kokugo S ōran [Newly-edited General Survey of the Japanese Language]. Tokyo: Kyoto Shob ō, 1985. End ō, Mot ō. Chūsei Ōken to Ōch ō Girei [Medieval Kingship and Court Rituals]. Tokyo: Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai, 2008. _____ and Yamanaka Y utaka, eds. Nench ū Gy ōji no Rekishigaku [Historical Studies on Annual Events]. Tokyo: Kobund ō, 1981. 322 Fujikawa, Yoshikazu. “H ōji Gannen ‘In Onuta Awase’ no Saionji Saneuji” [Saionji Saneuji at the Poetry Competition in the Presence of a Retired Sovereign in the First Year of the H ōji Era]. Kokugo to Kokubungaku 83.6 (2006): 27-42. _____. “Saionji Saneuji ‘H ōji Hyakushu’ no Hana Goshu” [The Five Poems on Flowers in ‘One Hundred Poems in the H ōji Era’ by Saionji Saneuji]. Onomichi Daigaku Nihon Bungaku Ronsō 5 (2009): 43-53. Fujimoto, Yorihito. “Ch ūsei Shoki ni okeru Uno no Mikuriya no K ōz ō to Henshitsu” [The Structure of and Changes in Uno no Mikuriya in Early Medieval Japan]. Aoyama Shigaku 20 (2002): 7-28. Fukut ō, Sanae. Ie Seiritsushi no Kenky ū [Studies on the History of the Establishment of Ie]. Tokyo: Azekura Shob ō, 1991. Goffman, Erving. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Books, 1959. Gomi, Fumihiko. Bushi to Bunshi no Ch ūseishi [Warriors and Courtiers in the Medieval Era]. Tokyo: Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai, 1992. _____. “En ni miru Ch ō-baku Kankei” [Court-Bakufu Relations through Human Relations]. Meigetsuki Kenky ū 5 (2000): 158-170. _____. Fujiwara no Teika no Jidai: Ch ūsei Bunka no K ūkan [The Time of Fujiwara no Teika: The World of Medieval Culture]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1991. _____. Heike Monogatari: Shi to Setsuwa [The Tale of the Heike: History and Anecdotes]. Tokyo: Heibonsha, 1987. _____. Nihon no Rekishi Shin Shiten Ch ūsei 5: Yakudosuru Ch ūsei [New Perspectives on Japanese Medieval History, Volume 5: Dynamic Medieval]. Tokyo: Sh ōgakukan, 2008. _____. Taikei Nihon no Rekishi 5: Kamakura to Ky ō [Compendium of Japanese History, V olume 5: Kamakura and Kyoto]. Tokyo: Sh ōgakukan, 1988. _____. Taira no Kiyomori. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 1999. 323 _____. Tsurezuregusa no Rekishigaku [A Historical Study of Tsurezuregusa]. Tokyo: Asahi Shinbunsha, 1997. 2nd ed. _____, et al. Nihon no Jidaishi, 8: Ky ō Kamakura no Ōken [History of Japan, V olume 8: Rulership in Kyoto and Kamakura]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 2002. Got ō, Kuniharu. “Heian Jidai no Jinbutsu-shi” [Biographies in the Heian Era]. Kodai Bunka 60.4 (2009): 527. Got ō, Michiko. Sengoku wo Ikita Kuge no Tsuma-tachi [The Wives of Courtiers Who Lived During the Sengoku Period]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 2009. Haga, Koshir ō. “Ch ūsei Makki ni okeru Sanj ōnishi-ke no Keizaiteki Kiban to Sono H ōkai” [The Economic Foundation of the Sanj ōnishi Family and Its Collapse in Late Medieval Japan]. Nihon Gakushi Kiy ō 13-1 (1955): 23-63. _____. Sanj ōnishi Sanetaka. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 1960. Hara, Katsur ō. Higashiyama Jidai ni okeru Ichi Kishin no Seikatsu [The Life of a Noble during the Time of Higashiyama]. Tokyo: K ōdansha, 1978. _____. Nihon Ch ūseishi [Medieval Japanese History]. Seibonsha, 1969. Hashimoto, Yoshihiko. Fujiwara no Yorinaga. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 1974. _____. Heian Kizoku Shakai no Kenky ū [Studies on Courtier Society during the Heian Period]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 1976. _____. Heian no Kyutei to Kizoku [Court and Courtiers in the Heian Era]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 1996. _____. Minamoto no Michichika. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 1992. _____. “Saionji Sanekane, Saionji Kinhira.” In Sho no Nihonshi 3: Kamakura Nanbokuch ō-ki. Tokyo: Heibonsha, 1975. 324 Hayashiya, Tatsusabur ō. Nairan no Naka no Kizoku: Nanbokuch ō to ‘Entairyaku’ no Sekai [Courtiers in the Civil Wars: The World through the Entairyaku during the Time of the Southern and Northern Courts]. Tokyo: Kadokawa Shoten, 1991. Higuchi, Kentar ō. Chūsei Sekkan-ke no Ie to Kenryoku [The Houses and Authority of the Medieval Sekkan-ke]. Tokyo: Azekura Shob ō, 2011. Higuchi, Yoshimaro. “F ūy ō Wakash ū.” In Taikei Monogatari Bungakushi 5: Monogatari Bungaku no Keifu III –Kamakura Monogatari 2. Ed. Mitani Eiichi. Tokyo: Y ūseid ō, 1991. 262-282. _____. Heian Kamakura Jidai San’itsu Monogatari no Kenky ū [Studies of Lost Tales of the Heian and Kamakura Eras]. Tokyo: Hitaku Shob ō, 1982 _____. “Monogatari Uta-awase to Monogatari Kashu” [Poetry Competitions Based on Tales and Poetry Collections from Tales]. In Waka to Monogatari. Ed. Waka Bungaku Ronsh ū Hensh ū Iinkai. Tokyo: Kazama Shob ō, 1993. 255-286. _____. “Sumiyoshi Monogatari to F ūyō Wakash ū.” Kokugo Kokubungakuh ō 42 (1985.3): 11-22. Hirayama, Toshijr ō. Nihon Ch ūsei Kazoku no Kenky ū [Studies on Families in Medieval Japan]. Tokyo: Hosei Daigaku Shuppan-kyoku, 1980. Hong ō, Kazuto. “Chūsei Ch ōtei Sosh ō ni tsuite no H ōhō-ron – Arata na Jissh ōteki Seika ni Moto tsuite.” [On Methods Pertaining to Lawsuits at the Medieval Court: Based on New Empirical Findings]. Harukanaru Ch ūsei 18 (2000): 60-68. _____. Chūsei Ch ōtei Sosh ō no Kenky ū [Studies on Lawsuits at the Medieval Court]. Tokyo: Tokyo University Press, 1995. _____. Jinbutsu wo Yomu Nihon Ch ūseishi: Yoritomo kara Nobunaga he [Reading Medieval Japan through Individuals: From Yoritomo to Nobunaga] Tokyo: K ōdansha, 2006. _____. “Saionji-shi Saiko.” [Rethinking the History of the Saionji]. Nihon Rekishi 633 (2001): 27-43. 325 Hong ō, Keiko. Chūseijin no Keizai Kankaku: Okaimono kara Sagaru [The Economic Sense of People in Medieval Japan: Through Their Shopping]. Tokyo: Nihon H ōs ō Shuppan Ky ōkai, 2004. _____. Shōgun Kenryoku no Hakken [The Discovery of Sh ōgunal Power]. Tokyo: K ōdansha, 2010. Hoshi, Shizuko. “Kamakura Jidai no Kon’in to Rikon: Meigetsuki Karoku Nenkan no Kijutsu wo Chūshin ni.” [Marriage and Divorce in the Kamakura Period: Focusing on the Account of the Karoku Era in the Meigetsuki]. In Onna to Kodomo no Ochoshi: Kokyu, Girei, En. Ed. Fukut ō Sanae. Tokyo: Shinwasha, 2007. 261-292. Hotate, Michihisa. “Kuroda Gakusetsu no Iso” [Phases of Kuroda’s Scholarship]. Jinmin no Rekishigaku 135 (1998): 1-11. Ichikawa, Tetsu. Nihon Ch ūsei Kuge Seiji-shi no Kenky ū [Studies on the Political History of Medieval Courtiers]. Tokyo: Azekura Shob ō, 2011. Ihara, Kesao. “Ch ūseiteki Sh ōyu ni kansuru Ichikosatsu” [An Examination of Property Rights in the Medieval Era]. Nihonshi Kenkyū 260 (1984): 32-51. Iikura, Harutake. “Kuj ō-kery ō no Seiritsu to Michiie S ōshobunjo ni tsuite” [The Formation of the Kuj ō Family’s Land Holdings and Michiie’s Deeds of Assessment]. Shory ōbu Kiyo 29 (1978): 1-19. Imaizumi, Yoshio. “Bunmei ni-nen shichi-gatsu muika zuke Asukai Masachika Shoj ō wo Megutte” [Concerning the Letter of Asukai Masachika dated on the 6th day of the 7th month in 1470]. Nihon Rekishi 369 (1979): 1-21. Imakawa, Fumio. Meigetsuki Jinmei Sakuin [Index of People in the Meigetsuki]. Kyoto: Hatsune Shob ō, 1972. Imamura, Miweko. “Juntoku Tenn ō to Ongaku” [Juntoku Tenn ō and Music]. Meigetsuki Kenky ū: Kiroku to Bungaku 7 (2002): 152-168. 326 Imatani, Akira. Ky ōgoku Tamekane: Wasurerarenubeki Kumo no Ue kaha [Ky ōgoku Tamekane: Being on top of the Unforgettable Clouds]. Tokyo: Minerva Shob ō, 2003. _____. Muromachi no Ōken: Ashikaga Yoshimitsu no Oken Sandatsu Keikaku [Kingship in the Muromachi Era: Ashikaga Yoshimitsu’s Plan to Usurp the Kingship]. Tokyo: Ch ūō K ōronsha 1990. _____. Tokitsuguky ōki: Kuge Shakai to Machish ū Bunka no Setten [The Journal of Yamashina Tokitsugu: The Meeting point of Courtier Society and the Culture of Commoners]. Tokyo: Soshiete, 1980. Inoue, Muneo. Chūsei Kadanshi no Kenky ū [Poetry Circles in the Medieval Era].Tokyo: Meiji Shoin, 1987. _____. Ky ōgoku Tamekane. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 2006. _____. “Masukagami S ōsetsu: Oboegaki f ū ni” [General Remarks on the Masukagami: As a Memorandum]. In Rekishi Monogatari K ōza 6: Masukagami [Series on Historical Tales, V olume 6: The Masukagami]. Tokyo: Kazama Shoin, 2002. 29-49. _____. “Masukagami to Waka.” In Masukagami. Tokyo: Kadokawa Shoten, 1975. 365-374. _____. “Seiji to Bungaku: Waka no Baai” [Politics and Literature: The Case of Waka]. Kokubungaku 32.7 (June 1987): 70-75. Inui, Naoko. “Muromachi K ōki Kuge Keizai no Ichi K ōsatsu: Sanj ōnishi-ke no Sh ōryō Shihai wo Chūshin ni” [A Reassessment of the Economics of Courtiers in the Late Muromachi Period: Focusing on the Control of Land by the the Sanj ōnishi Family]. Nenp ō Chūseishi Kenky ū 5 (1980). Ishida, Yoshisada. Fujiwara no Teika no Kenky ū [Studies on Fujiwara no Teika]. Tokyo: Bunkadō Shoten, 1957. Also Bungad ō Ginkō Kenky ūsha, 1975 reprint. Ishii, Kanji. Nihon Ry ūts ūshi [A History of Distribution in Japan]. Tokyo: Y ūhikaku, 2003. 327 Ishii, Susumu. Nihon Ch ūsei Kokkashi no Kenky ū [Studies on the History of the State in Medieval Japan]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1970. _____. “Nihon no H ōkensei to Sei ō no H ōkensei” [The Feudal System in Japan and the West]. In Rekishigaku no Sususme [Encouraging Historical Studies]. Ed. Horikomi Y ōz ō. Tokyo: Chikuma Shob ō, 1973. Ishikawa, Kazushi. “Sanekane-sh ū no Seiritsu to Sono Seikaku” [The Creation and Characteristics of the Collection of Sanekane]. Waka Bungaku Kenky ū 87 (Dec. 2003): 27-37. Ishimoda, Sh ō. Chūseiteki Sekai no Keisei [The Formation of the Medieval World]. Tokyo: Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai, 1967. _____. “Japan’s Medieval World.” Trans. Joan R. Piggott. In Capital and Countryside in Japan, 300-1180: Japanese Historians Interpreted in English. Ed. Joan R. Piggott. Ithaca, NY: East Asia Program, Cornell University, 2006. 326-361. Ishino, Yae. “Nanbokuch ō Muromachichō no Iyo Saionji: Kuge Daimy ō Seiritsu no Zentei” [The Saionji in Iyo Province during the Nanboku and Muromachi Eras: The Prerequisites for the Establishment of Courtier Lords]. Kokugakuin Zasshi 88.10 (1987.10): 40-56. Iwahashi, Koyata. Hanazono Tenn ō. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 1962. Iwasa, Miyoko. “Eifukumon-in no K ōhansei: Hanazono-in Shinki wo toshite” [The Latter Years of Eifukumon-in: Through the Hanazono-in Shinki]. Kokugo Kokubun 35.8 (1966): 35-56. _____. “Ongakushi no naka no Ky ōgoku-ha no Kajin-tachi: Biwa S ō denju Keifu ni yoru K ōsatsu” [Poets of the Ky ōgoku School in the History of Music: An Examination from the Transmission of Biwa and S ō]. Waka Bungaku Kenky ū 37 (1977): 37-49. Kamihara, Eiko. “Kamakura Jidai Sekkan-ke no Keizaiteki Kiso” [The Economic Base of the Regental Families in the Kamakura Period]. Rekishi Kyoiku 11-6 (1963): 45-51, 59. 328 Kanai, Shizuka. Chūsei Kugery ō no Kenky ū [Studies on Courtier Landholdings in the Medieval Era]. Tokyo: Shibunkaku Shuppan, 1999. Kasamatsu, Hiroshi. Nihon Ch ūsei H ōshi-ron [The Legal History of Medieval Japan]. Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai, 1979. Kasaya, Kazuhiko, ed. Kuge to Buke: Sono Hikaku Bunmei-shi Kenky ū [Courtiers and Warriors: Comparative Historical Perspectives on Ruling Authority and Civilization (official translation)]. Tokyo: International Research Center for Japanese Studies, 2004. Kawabata, Shin. “Sekkan-kery ō Sh ōengun no Keisei to Denry ō: Konoe-kery ō no Seiritsu” [The Formation and Inheritance of the Estates of a Regent Family: The Case of the Konoe Family’s Property]. In Kodai Ch ūsei no Seiji to Bunka. Ed. Inoue Mitsuo. Tokyo: Shibunkaku Shuppan, 1994. 121-148. Kawai, Yasushi. Nihon Ch ūsei no Rekishi 3: Genpei no Nairan to K ōbu Seiken [Japanese Medieval History, Volume 3: The Internal Wars between the Minamoto and the Taira, and the K ōbu Polity]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 2009. K ōchi, Sh ōsuke. Nihon Chusei no Chotei Bakufu Taisei [The Court and Bakufu System in Medieval Japan]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 2007. K ōchi, Sh ōsuke and Nitta Ichiro, eds. Tenn ō no Rekishi 4: Tenn ō to Ch ūsei no Buke [History of the Tennō, Volume 4: The Tennō and Warriors in Medieval Japan]. Tokyo: K ōdansha, 2011. Kodai Bunka 60.4 (2000). Special Issue: Tsunoda Bun’ei. Kojima, Kogor ō. Kuge Bunka no Kenkyū [Studies on Courtier Culture]. Tokyo: Ikuh ōsha, 1942. Kond ō, Shigekazu. Nihon no Jidaishi 9: Mongol no Shurai [A History of Japan, V olume 9: The Mongol Invasions]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 2003. 329 Kuboki, Keiichi. “Seigake ‘Oimikadoke’ no Seiristu: Shis ō Fujiwara Tsunezane no Kon’in Kankei wo Ch ūshin ni” [The Establishment of the Seigake “Oimikado Family”: Focusing on Matters Related to Fujiwara Tsunezane’s Marriage]. Nihon Rekishi 697 (June 2006): 1-17. Kubota, Jun. Fujiwara no Teika. Tokyo: Sh ūeisha, 1984. Kunikata, Keiji, Hasebe Hiroshi and Nagano Yukiko, eds. Ie no Sonzoku Senryaku to Kon’in: Nihon, Ajia, Yoroppa [The Strategies of Perpetuating House and Marriage: Japan, Asia and Europe]. Tokyo: T ōsui Shob ō, 2009. Kuroda, Toshio. Kuroda Toshio Chosakush ū 1: Kenmon Taisei Ron [Collected Works of Kuroda Toshio, V olume 1: Discussions of the Kenmon System]. Tokyo: H ōz ōkan, 2001. _____. M ōko Sh ūrai [The Mongol Invasions]. Tokyo: Ch ūō K ōronsha, 2004. Ky ōraku, Mahoko. “Heian Jidai no ‘Ie’ to Tera” [Ie and Temples during the Heian Period]. Nihonshi Kenky ū 346 (1991): 1-25. Maeda, Taeko. “Eifukumon-in.” In Nihon Kajin K ōza 4: Ch ūsei no Kajin. Tokyo: K ōbundō, 1961. 193-262. Maki, Michio. In Kinshin no Kenky ū [A Study of the Vassals of Retired Sovereigns]. Tokyo: Gunsho Ruij ū Kanseikai, 2001. _____. “Kugery ō no Seiritsu to Sono Ryoyu K ōz ō” [The Establishment of Courtier Landholdings and the Structure of their Posession]. Nihon Rekishi 460 (1986): 47-65. Matsubara, Hironobu. Kodai Kokka to Setonaikai K ōts ū. [Transportation in the Seto Inland Sea and the Ancient State]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 2004. Matsuzono, Hisashi. “Nikki.” In Nihon Ch ūseishi Kenky ū Jiten. Eds. Sato Kazuhiko, et al. Tokyo: T ōkyōdō Shuppan, 1997. 188-189. Matsuzono, Hitoshi. Nikki no Ie: Ch ūsei Kokka no Kiroku Soshiki [The House of Journals: Organization of Records in the Medieval State]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 1997. 330 Mezaki, Tokue. Kizoku Shakai to Koten Bunka [Courtier Society and Classical Culture]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 1995. _____. Shiden Go-Toba In [The Retired Sovereign Go-Toba]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 2001. Mikawa, Kei. Insei: M ō hitotsu no Tenn ō-sei [Insei: Another Tenn ō System]. Tokyo: Ch ūō K ōronsha, 2006. _____. Insei no Kenky ū [Studies on Insei]. Tokyo: Rinsen Shoten, 1996. Minegishi, Sumio. “Chūsei Shakai no ‘Ie’ to Josei” [“Ie” and Women in Medieval Society]. In Kazoku to Shakai (Nihon Kazokushi Ronsh ū, Volume 4). Ed. Sakata Satoshi. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 2002. 159-193. Mitobe, Masao. Kuge Shinsei no Kenky ū [Studies on New Laws by the Court]. Tokyo: S ōbunsha, 1961. Mori, Shigeaki. Go-Daigo Tenn ō. Tokyo: Ch ūō K ōron Shinsha, 2000. _____. Kamakura Jidai no Ch ō-baku Kankei [Court-Bakufu Relations during the Kamakura Period]. Tokyo: Shibunkaku Shuppan, 1991. _____. Nanbokuch ō-ki K ōbu Kankeishi no Kenky ū [Court-Bakufu Relations during the Era of the Southern and Northern Courts. Tokyo: Bunken Shuppan, 1984. Motoki, Yasuo. “Insei to Buke Seiken no Seiritsu” [Insei and the Formation of the Warrior Polity]. In Nihon no Ch ūsei 8: Insei to Heishi, Kamakura Seiken [Medieval Japan, Volume 8: Insei and the Taira Family, and the Kamakura Polity] Eds. Uwayokote Masataka, Katsuyama Seiji, and Motoki Yasuo. Tokyo: Ch ūō K ōronsha, 2002. 37-150. _____. Taira no Kiyomori no Tatakai [The Struggles of Taira no Kiyomori]. Tokyo: Kadokawa Shoten, 2011. 331 Murai, Sh ōsuke. Ajia no naka no Ch ūsei Nihon [Medieval Japan in Asia]. Tokyo: Azekura Shob ō, 1988. Murayama, Shuichi. Fujiwara no Teika. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 1962. Nagahara, Keiji. “Kugery ō Sh ōen ni okeru Ry ōshuken no K ōz ō” [The Structure of Proprietorship on Courtier Estate Holdings]. Hitotsubashi Rons ō 40-6 (1958): 532-560. _____. Nihon Ch ūsei Shakai K ōz ō no Kenky ū [Studies in the Structure of Medieval Japanese Society]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1973. _____. Nihon H ōkensei Seiritsu Katei no Kenky ū [Studies on the Formation Process of the Feudal System in Japan]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 2004. _____. Nihon no Ch ūsei Shakai [Medieval Japanese Society]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1968. _____. Shōen. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 1998. Nakamura, Naokatsu. Kajuji-kery ō ni tsuite [Concerning the Land Property of the Kajuji Family]. In Nakamura Naokatsu Chosakush ū, V olume 4. Kyoto: Tank ōsha, 1978. Nishida, Tomohiro. Kamakura Bakufu no Kendan to Tokusei [Trials and Benevolent Rule under the Kamakura Bakufu]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 2011. Nishimura, Hiroko. Kodai Ch ūsei no Kazoku to Josei [The Family and Women in Ancient and Medieval Japan]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 2002. Nishitani, Masahiro. “Kugery ō Sh ōen no Henyo: Kuj ō-kery ō Sh ōen no Kobetsuteki Kenky ū wo Chūshin ni” [The Changes in Courtiers’ Estates: Focusing on an Individual Examination of the Kuj ō Estates]. Fukuoka Daigaku Jinbun Rons ō 29-4 (1998): 2771-2833. _____. “Sekkan-ke ni Miru Ch ūseiteki ‘Ie’ no Tenkai” [The Development of “Ie” as Seen through the Sekkan-ke]. Ky ūsh ū Shigaku 99 (March 1991): 1-26; Ky ūsh ū Shigaku 101 (August 1991): 1-34. 332 Nitta, Eiji. “Muromachi Jidai no Kugery ō ni okeru Daikan Ukeoi ni kansuru Ichi K ōsatsu” [Concerning the Deputy-entrusted System on Courtier Land Holdings during the Muromachi Period]. In Nihon Shakai Keizaishi Kenky ū: Chūsei-hen. Ed. H ōgetsu Keigo-Sensei Kanreki Kinenkai. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 1966. 179-202. Nitta, Ichir ō. Ch ūsei ni Kokka ha atta ka [Was There a State in the Medieval Era?] Tokyo: Yamakawa Shuppansha, 2004. Nomura, Ikuyo. “Ch ūsei ni okeru Tenn ō-ke” [The Royal Family in Medieval Japan]. In Kazoku to Josei no Rekishi: Kodai Ch ūsei [The History of the Family and Women: Ancient and Medieval Times]. Ed. Zen Kindai Joseishi Kenky ūkai. Tokyo. Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 1989. 294-319. Ogawa, Takeo. Bushi wa Naze Uta wo Yomu ka: Kamakura Sh ōgun kara Sengoku Daimy ō made [Why Did Warriors Compose Poetry? From Kamakura Shoguns to Sengoku Lords]. Tokyo: Kadokawa Gakugei Shuppan, 2008. Ogawa, Toy ō. “Waka to Tei ō” [Waka and Sovereigns] In Waka no Chikara. Ed. Watanabe Yasuaki, et al. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 2005. 51-73. Ogi, Mitsuo. Kodai Ch ūsei Ongakushi no Kenky ū [Studies on the History of Ancient and Medieval Music]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 2007. _____. Nihon Kidai Ongaku Shiron [The History of Music in Ancient Japan]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 1977. Okano, Tomohiko. Chūsei Kogake to Koga-kery ō Shōen [The Koga Family and Their Estates in Medieval Japan]. Tokyo: Zoku Gunsho Ruiju Kanseikai, 2002. _____. Insei to ha Nan datta ka [What was Insei?]. Tokyo: PHP Kenky ūj ō, 2013. _____. “Koga-kery ō Sh ōen no Denry ō to Sono S ōzoku” [The Inheritance and Succession of the Estates of the Koga Family]. Shigaku Zasshi 96-4 (1988): 458-478, 572-573. 333 Ōkubo, Toshiaki. Kazoku-sei no S ōshutsu: Ōkubo Toshiaki Rekishi Chosakush ū 3 [The Formation of the Peerage System: Collected Historical Works by Ōkubo Toshiaki, Volume 3]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 1993. Ōmura, Takuo. “10-13 Seiki ni okeru Kasai to Kuge Shakai” [Fires from the 10th to 13th Centuries and Courtier Society]. Nihon Rekishi 412 (1996): 3-30. Ono, Hiroshi. “Muromachi K ōki ni okeru Sanj ōnishi-ke no Denry ō to Shihai” [The Inheritance and Control of Land by the Sanj ōnishi Family during the Late Muromachi Period]. H ōsei Shigaku 35 (1983): 41-55. Ono, K ōji. Nihon Ch ūsei Sh ōgy ōshi no Kenky ū [Studies in the History of Commerce in Medieval Japan]. Tokyo: H ōsei University Press, 1989. Onoe, Yosuke. Chūsei no Nikki no Sekai [The World of Courtier Diaries in the Medieval Era]. Tokyo: Yamakawa Shuppansha, 2003. Ryō, Susumu. Kamakura Jidai [The Kamakura Period]. Tokyo: Shunj ūsha, 1957. 2 vols. Saeki, Tomohiro. “Ch ūsei Kizoku Shakai ni okeru Kakaku no Seiritsu” [The Establishment of Families in Medieval Courtier Society]. In Kamakura Jidai no Kenryoku to Seido. Ed. Uwayokote Masataka: Tokyo: Shibunkaku Shuppan, 2008. 3-30. Saiki, Kazuma. “Shogun-ke no Sokushitsu” [Concubines in the Shogunal Family]. In Komonjo no Kenky ū: Saiki Kazuma Chosakush ū 3. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 1989. 182-184. _____. “Tokugawa Shogun Seibo Narabi ni Saish ōkō” [Considering the Wives and Consorts of Tokugawa Shoguns]. In Komonjo no Kenky ū: Saiki Kazuma Chosakush ū 3. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 1989. 104-156. Saionji, Kinmochi. Saionji Kinmochi. Ed. Kimura Takeshi. Re-ed. Mikuriya Takashi. Tokyo: Dai Nihon Y ūbenkai K ōdansha, 1947. Sakaki, Taijun. “Ch ūsei Ky ūtei Josei no Ongaku no Ba to Biwa Denju” [The Place of Music for Medieval Courtly Women and Initiation into the Biwa (Tradition)]. Kokubungaku T ōsa 7 (1963.3): 43-57. 334 Sakamoto, Haruya. Sōsharu-kyapitaru to Katsud ōsuru Shimin: Shin Jidai Nihon no Shimin Seiji [Social Capital and Active Citizens: Governance of Citizens in a New Era in Japan]. Kanda: Y ūhikaku, 2010. Sakata, Satoshi. “Namae to Keizu” [Names and Genealogies]. In Nihon Ch ūseishi Kenky ū Jiten. Eds. Sato Kazuhiko, et al. Tokyo: T ōkyōdō Shuppan, 1997. 178-179. Sakurai, Eiji. “Dos ō no Jinmyaku to Kiny ū Network” [The Connections between Money-Brokers and Finance Networks]. In ‘Hito no Tsunagari’ no Ch ūsei [Medieval Japan Through Human Networks ]. Ed. Murata Sh ōsuke. Tokyo: Yamakawa Shuppansha, 2008. 172-187. _____. “Mittsu no Shūrishiki” [Three Repair Agencies]. Harukanaru Ch ūsei 8 (1987): 15-28. _____. Nihon Ch ūsei no Keizai K ōz ō [The Structure of the Economy in Medieval Japan]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1996. Sasaki, Ginya. Nihon Shōhin Ry ūts ūshi no Kenky ū [Studies on the History of Distribution of Commercial Goods in Medieval Japan]. Tokyo: H ōsei Daigaku Shuppankai, 1972. Sasaki, Harutsuna. Eifukumon-in. Tokyo: Seikatsusha, 1943. Sat ō, Shin’ichi. Nihon Ch ūseishi Ronshū [Essays on the History of Medieval Japan]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1990. _____. Nihon no Ch ūsei Kokka [The Medieval Japanese State]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1983. Sat ō, Yoshio. Ōch ō Kizoku no Konin to Kazoku [Individuals and Familes of the Royalty and the Nobility]. Tokyo: Sisutemu Faibu, 2006. Seno, Seichir ō, ed. Nihon Sh ōenshi Daijiten [Great Encyclopedia of the History of Japanese Estates]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 2003. 335 Shinn ō, Crown Prince Naruhito. “Ky ōto to Chih ō wo Misubu Mizu no Michi: Kodai Ch ūsei no Biwa-ko Yodogawa Suiun wo ch ūshin toshite” [Waterways Connecting Kyoto and Local Regions – Focusing on Ancient and Medieval Water Transport on Lake Biwa and Yodo River (official translation)] <http://www.kunaicho.go.jp/okotoba/02/koen/ koen-h15az-mizuforum3th.html>. Accessed 11 June 2012. S ōma, Mariko. “Biwa no Jidai kara Sh ō no Jidai e: Ch ūsei no Tenn ō to Ongaku.” [The Tradition of Biwa to Sh ō: Japanese Emperors in the Middle Ages and the Imperial Music (official translation)]. Shory ōbu Kiy ō 49 (1998): 13-33. _____. “ ‘Daidai Biwa Hikyoku Godenju no Koto’ to Sono Zengo: Jimy ō-in-to Tenn ō no Biwa” [The Context of the ‘Initiation into the Secret Songs of the Biwa for Generations’: The Sovereigns in the Senior Line and Biwa]. Shory ōbu Kiy ō 36 (1984): 26-39. _____. “ ‘Sankyoku Hifu’ Okugaki to Fujiwara no Hiroko” [The Postscript of “The Secret Scores of Three Melodies” and Fujiwara no Hiroko]. Report Kasama 33 (1992): 1-5. Sotoyama, Mikio. Chūsei Nagasaki no Kisoteki Kenky ū [Preliminary Studies on Nagasaki in Medieval Japan]. Tokyo: Shibunkaku Shuppan, 2011. Sugawara, Masako. Chūsei Kuge no Keizai to Bunka [The Culture and Economics of Medieval Courtiers]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 1998. _____. Chūsei no Buke to Kuge no Ie [Medieval Warrior and Courtier Houses]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 2007. Sugita, Yoshie. “Shiry ō ni yoru Higashi-Nij ō In: ‘Towazugatari’ ni Egakarenakatta mono” [Higashi-Nij ō In According to the Documents: Matters Not Described in Towazugatari]. Gengo Bungaku Kenky ū Ronshū 8 [Shirayuri Joshi Daigaku Gengo Bungaku Kenky ū Senta] (2008): 23-31. Suzuki, Akira and Higuchi Kunio, eds. Go-Toba In no Subete [Everything about the Retired Sovereign Go-Toba]. Tokyo: Shin Jinbutsu Ōraisha, 2009. Tabata, Yasuko. Nihon Ch ūsei Josei Shiron [Essays on Women in Medieval Japan]. Tokyo: Hanawa Shob ō, 1994. 336 _____. Nihon Ch ūsei no Josei [Women in Medieval Japan]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 1987. _____. Nihon Ch ūsei no Shakai to Josei [Women and Japanese Medieval Society]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 1998. _____. Nyonin Seiji no Ch ūsei: H ōj ō Masako to Hino Tomiko [Women’s Politics in the Medieval Era: H ōj ō Masako and Hino Tomiko]. Tokyo: K ōdansha, 1996. _____. Uba no Chikara: Rekishi wo Sasaeta Onnatachi [The Power of Wet-Nurses: Women Who Supported History]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 2005. Tabuchi, Kumiko. “Kamakura Jidai no Kadan to Bungei” [Poetry Circles and Literature during the Kamakura Period]. In Nihon no Jidaishi 9: Mongoru no Sh ūrai [History of Japan, Volume 9: The Mongol Invasions]. Ed. Kond ō Seiichi. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 2003. 151-189. Tabuchi, Yasuko. Nihon Sonraku no K ōz ō to Ry ōshusei [The Structure of Villages and Rulership in Medieval Japan]. Tokyo: H ōsei Daigaku Shuppankai, 1986. Taga, Munehaya. “Saionji-ke no Tait ō” [The Rise of the Saionji Family]. Nihon Rekishi 284 (1972): 1-14. Takahashi, Fumihide. Heishi Seiken no Kenkyū [Studies on the Heike Polity]. Tokyo: Shibunkaku Shuppan, 1993. Takahashi, Hideki. Nihon Ch ūsei no Ie to Shinzoku [Families and Relatives in Medieval Japan]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 1996. Takahashi, Masaaki. Bushi no Seiritsu Bushiz ō no S ōshutsu [The Birth of the Warriors: The Invention of the Image of Warriors]. Tokyo: Daigaku Shuppankai, 1999. _____. “Saigoku Jit ō to Ōch ō Kizoku: Aki no Kuni Nuta-sh ō Jit ō Kobayakawa-shi no baai” [Estate Stewards of Western Provinces and Nobles in Court: The Case of the Kobayawa Family of Nuta Estate in Aki province]. Nihonshi Kenky ū 231 (1981): 1-33. 337 _____. Taira no Kiyomori: Fukuhara no Yume [Taira no Kiyomori: Dreams of Fukuhara]. Tokyo: K ōdansha, 2007. Takamure, Itsue. Heian Kamakura Muromachi Kazoku no Kenky ū [Studies on the Family in the Heian, Kamakura and Muromachi Periods]. Tokyo: Kokusho Kank ōkai, 1985. Takeuchi, Riz ō. “Shōen to Kizoku” [Sh ōen and Courtiers]. Nihon Rekishi 143 (1960.5): 93-101; Nihon Rekishi 144 (1960.6): 104-109; Nihon Rekishi 145 (1960.7): 117-125; Nihon Rekishi 146 (1960.8): 112-117; Nihon Rekishi 147 (1960.9):138-143; Nihon Rekishi 149 (1960.11): 88-94; Nihon Rekishi 151 (1961.1): 114-120; Nihon Rekishi 152 (1961.2): 92-98; Nihon Rekishi 156 (1961.6): 67-73; Nihon Rekishi 157 (1961.7): 59-64; Nihon Rekishi 158 (1961.8): 93-98; Nihon Rekishi 159 (1961.9): 92-97; Nihon Rekishi 161 (1961.11): 90-95; Nihon Rekishi 162 (1961.12): 86-90. _____. Takeuchi Riz ō Chosakush ū 4: Ritsury ō-sei to Kizoku [Collected Works of Takeuchi Riz ō, V olume 4: The Ritsury ō System and the Nobility]. Tokyo: Kadokawa Shoten, 2000. Tanahashi, Mitsuo. Chūsei Seiretsuki no H ō to Kokka [Law and the State at the Dawn of the Medieval Age]. Tokyo: Hanawa Shob ō, 1983. _____. Go-Shirakawa H ōō [The Retired Sovereign Go-Shirakawa]. Tokyo: K ōdansha, 1995. Tanaka, Bun’ei. “Kanzaki-kawa Ry ūiki no Hattatsu to K ōshin” [The Development and Harbors of the Kanzaki River Basin]. <http://www.archives.city.amagasaki.hyogo.jp/chronicles/ visual/02chuusei/chuusei1-1.html>. Accessed 11 June 2012. Tanaka, K ōji. “Nihon Ch ūsei ni okeru Zeni no Shakaiteki Kino wo megutte” [Concerning the Social Functions of Coins in Medieval Japan]. In N ōgaya Shutsudosen Ch ōsa H ōkokusho. Ed. N ōgaya Shutsudosen Ch ōsakai. Tokyo: Machidashi Kyoiku Iinkai, 1996. Tanuma, Mutsumi. “Muromachi-ki Sh ōen Kenkyū no Ichi Ni no Shien” [One or Two Perspectives on Studies of Estates during the Muromachi Period]. In Kodai Ch ūsei no Shakai to Minzoku Bunka. Ed. Wakamori Tar ō-Sensei Kanreki Kinen Ronbunsh ū Hensh ū Iinkai. Tokyo: Kobund ō, 1976. 539-574. 338 Terashima, Tsuneyo. “Tenn ō to Waka: Tsuchimikado-in no Itonami wo toshite” [Sovereigns and Waka: Through the Poetic Activities of the Retired Sovereign Tsuchimikado]. Tokyo Ika Shika Daigaku Ky ōy ōgakubu Kenky ū Kiy ō 37 (2007): 1-13. Toda, Yoshimi. Nihon Ch ūsei no Minsh ū to Ry ōshu [People and Lords in Medieval Japan]. Tokyo: Azekura Shob ō, 1994. Toyonaga, Satomi. Chūsei no Tenn ō to Ongaku [Medieval Sovereigns and Music]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 2006. _____. “Heian Jidai ni okeru Tenn ō to Ongaku” [Sovereigns and Music in the Heian Period]. Kenky ū Kiy ō [Tokyo Ongaku Daigaku] 25 (2001): 1-20. Tsugita, Kaori. “Eifukumon-in.” In Waka Bungaku K ōza 7: Ch ūsei Kinsei no Kajin. Ed. Waka Bungakkai. Tokyo: Ōf ūsha, 1976. Tsuji, Hikosabur ō. Fujiwara no Teika Meigetsuki no Kenky ū [Studies on Fujiwara no Teika’s Meigetsuki]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 1977. Tsunoda, Bun’ei. J ōky ōden no Ny ōgo: Fukugensareta “Genji Monogatari” no Sekai [Court Women of the J ōkyōden: The Restored World of The Tale of Genji]. Tokyo: Ch ūō K ōronsha, 1963. _____. Murasaki Shikubu to Sono Jidai [The Lady Murasaki and Her Time]. Kadokawa Shoten, 1966. Usui, Nobuyoshi. “Chisei no Kotai to Teishin Shory ō no Henten: Yamashina-ke no Keis ō” [Reign Change and Its Influence over the Land Holdings of Retainers: The Disputed Case of the Yamashina Family]. Nihon Rekishi 460 (1986): 45-54. Uwayokote, Masataka. “Go-Toba Insei to Bakufu.” In Nihon no Ch ūsei 8: Insei to Heishi, Kamakura Seiken [Medieval Japan, Volume 8: Insei and the Taira, and the Kamakura Polity]. Eds. Uwayokote Masataka, Katsuyama Seiji, and Motoki Yasuo. Tokyo: Ch ūō K ōronsha, 2002. 198. 339 _____. Heike Monogatari no Kyoko to Shinjitsu [Fictions and Truth in the Tale of the Heike]. Tokyo: Hanawa Shob ō, 1985. 2 vols. _____. “Kamakura Bakufu to Kuge Seiken” [The Kamakura Bakufu and the Courtier Polity]. In Uwayokote, Kamakura Jidai Seiji-shi Kenky ū [Studies on the Political History of the Kamakura Period]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 1991. 2-45. _____. Nihon Ch ūsei Kokkashi Ronko [Studies on the History of the State in Medieval Japan]. Tokyo: Hanawa Shob ō, 1994. _____. Nihon Ch ūsei Seijishi Kenky ū [The Political History of Medieval Japan]. Tokyo: Hanawa Shob ō, 1970. _____. Shūkan Asahi Hyakka Nihon no Rekishi 4: Ch ūsei 1-4 – Kamakura Bakufu to J ōky ū no Ran [Asahi Weekly Magazine of the History of Japan, Volume 4: Medieval 1-4 – The Kamakura Bakufu and the J ōkyū Incident]. Tokyo: Asahi Shinbunsha, 2002. _____, et. al., eds., Nihon no Ch ūsei 8: Insei to Heishi, Kamakura Seiken [Medieval Japan, V olume 8: Insei and the Taira, and the Kamakura Polity]. Tokyo: Ch ūō K ōronsha, 2002. Wakita, Haruko. Nihon Ch ūsei Joseishi no Kenky ū: Seibetsu Yakuwari Buntan to Bosei, Kasei, Seiai [Studies in Medieval Japanese Women’s History: Gender-role Division and Motherhood, Household Economy, and Sexuality. Tokyo: Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai, 1992. _____. Nihon Ch ūsei Sh ōgy ō Hattatsu-shi no Kenky ū [Studies on the History of Commercial Development in Medieval Japan]. Tokyo: Ochanomizu Shob ō, 1969. _____. Tennō to Ch ūsei Bunka [Sovereigns and Medieval Culture]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 2003. Watanabe, Makoto. Heian Jidai B ōeki Kanri-seido-shi no Kenky ū [Studies on the History of the Trade Regulation System in the Heian Era]. Tokyo: Shibunkaku Shuppan, 2012. Yamada, T ōyoko. Burando no J ōken [The Condition of Brands]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 2006. 340 Yamamoto, Hiroya. “Kant ō M ōshitsugi to Kamakura Bakufu” [The Kant ō M ōshitsugi and the Kamakura Bakufu]. Shigaku Zassshi 8618 (1977): 1145-1182. Yamauchi, Harutomo. “Eiky ō Kakitsu-ki no Iyo Saionji-shi no Kakushitsu to Bakufu Kenryoku” [The Struggle of the Saionji Family in Iyo and the Power of the Bakufu during the Eiky ō Kakitsu Eras]. Chih ōshi Kenky ū 62.2 (2012.4): 23-38. Yamamoto, K ōji. Yoritomo no Tenka S ōs ō [The Creation of Order by Yoritomo]. Nihon no Rekishi, V olume 9. Tokyo: K ōdansha, 2009. Yamauchi, Shinji. Nisso B ōeki to “I ō no Michi” [The Japan-Song Trade and the “Sulphur Road”]. Tokyo: Yamakawa Shoten, 2009. Yamauchi, Yuzuru. “Iyo no Kuni.” [The Country of Iyo]. In K ōza Nihon Sh ōenshi 10: Shikoku Ky ūsh ū Chih ō no Shōen. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 2005. 52-62. Yasuda, Tokuko. “Go-Saga In Nenpujo” [Chronological Record of Go-Saga In]. Gifu Shotoku Gakuin Daigaku Kokugo Kokubungaku 21 (March 2002): 81-102. Yoneda, Akemi. ‘F ūy ō Wakash ū’ no K ōz ō ni Kansuru Kenky ū [Studies concerning the Structure of the F ūy ō Wakash ū]. Tokyo: Kasama Shoin, 1996. Y oshie, Akio. Kamakura Bakufu Jit ō-shiki Seiritsu-shi no Kenky ū [Studies of the History of the Establishment of the Kamakura Bakufu’s Jit ō Agency]. Tokyo: Tokyo University Press, 1978. _____. Kamakura Bakufu Shugo Seiritsu-shi no Kenky ū [Studies of the History of the Establishment of the Kamakura Bakufu’s Shugo]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa K ōbunkan, 2009. _____. “Sekkan-kery ō S ōzoku no Kenkyū J ōsetsu” [An Introduction to the Inheritance of the Regental Family’s Landholdings]. Shigaku Zasshi 76.4 (1967), 1-45. Yoshimura, Toru. “Konoe-kery ō Kenky ū J ōsetsu” [Preliminary Studies on the Land Holdings of the Konoe Family]. In Chūsei Nihon no Rekishi-z ō. Ed. Nihonshi Kenky ūkai Shiry ō Kenky ūbukai. Tokyo: S ōgensha, 1978. 47-80. 341 ____. “Sengoku-ki no Konoe-kery ō ni tsuite” [Concerning the Land Holdings of the Konoe Family during the Sengoku Period]. Chiiki Kenky ū Itami 7 (1977): 10-45. Yukawa, Toshiji, “Sengokuki Konoe-ke no Kasan Keizai no Kiroku” [The Record of the Family Finances of the Konoe Family during the Sengoku Period]. Shisen 57 (1982): 13-34. _____. “Sengokuki Konoe-ry ō Echizen-koku Usakasho ni tsuite” [Land Holdings of the Konoe Family and Their Usaka Estate in Echizen during the Sengoku Period]. Shisen 60 (1984): 31-46. 3. Secondary Sources: English-language Adolphson, Mikael S. The Gates of Power: Monks, Courtiers, and Warriors in Premodern Japan. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, 2000. _____. The Teeth and Claws of the Buddha: Monastic Warriors and S ōhei in Japanese History. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2007. Acta Asiatica 81 (2001). Special Issue: “Studies in Medieval Japanese History.” Adamson, John, ed. The Princely Courts of Europe: Ritual, Politics and Culture Under the Ancien Régime, 1500-1750. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1999. Ali, Daud. “Between Market and Court: The Careers of Two Courtier-Merchants in the Twelfth-century Deccan.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 53.1-2 (2010): 185-211. _____. Courtly Culture and Political Life in Early Medieval India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Amino, Yoshihiko. “Medieval Japanese Constructions of Peace and Liberty: Muen, Kugai and Raku.” Trans. William Johnston. International Journal of Asian Studies 4.1 (Jan. 2007): 3-14. 342 Arnesen, Peter J. “Su ō Province in the Age of Kamakura.” In Court and Bakufu in Japan: Essays in Kamakura History. Ed. Jeffrey P. Mass. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1982. 92-120. Asakawa, Kan’ichi. “Some Aspects of Japanese Feudal Institutions.” Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Japan 46 (1918): 77-102. _____. “The Origin of the Feudal Land Tenure in Japan.” American Historical Review 20.1 (1914): 1-23. Asao, Naohiro with Marius B. Jansen. “Shogun and Tenn ō.” In Japan Before Tokugawa: Political Consolidation and Economic Growth, 1500 to 1650. Eds. John W. Hall, Nagahara Keiji, and Kozo Yamamura. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991. Asch, Ronald and Adolf M. Birke, eds. Princes, Patronage, and the Nobility: The Court at the Beginning of the Modern Age, c. 1450-1650. Oxford: The German Historical Institute London, 1991. Atkins, Paul S. “Nij ō v. Reizei: Land Rights, Litigation, and Literary Authority in Medieval Japan.” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 66.2 (Dec. 2006): 495-529. Batten, Bruce L. “Cross-border Traffic on the Kyushu Coast, 794-1086.” In Heian Japan, Centers and Peripheries. Eds. Mikael Adolphson, Edward Kamens, and Stacie Matsumoto. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2007. 357-383. Berger, Gordon M. “Japan’s Young Prince: Konoe Fumimaro’s Early Political Career, 1916-1931.” Monumenta Nipponica 29.4 (Winter 1974): 451-475. Bialock, David T. Eccentric Spaces, Hidden Histories: Narrative, Ritual, and Royal Authority from the Chronicles of Japan to The Tale of the Heike. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2007. _____. “Outcasts, Emperorship, and Dragon Cults in The Tale of the Heike.” Cahiers d'Extrême-Asie 13 (2002): 227-310. 343 _____. “V oice, Text, and the Question of Poetic Borrowing in Late Classical Japanese Poetry.” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 54.1 (June 1994): 181-231. Blakeley, Barry B. “King, Clan, and Courtier in Ancient Ch’u.” Asia Major, 3rd series 5.2 (1992): 1-39. Bloch, Marc. The Feudal Society. Trans. L. A. Manyon. London: Routlege, 1962. 2 vols. 2nd ed. _____. “The Early SHO and the Early Manor: A Comparative Study.” Journal of Economic and Business History 2 (February 1929): 177-207. Borgen, Robert. Sugawara no Michizane and the Early Heian Court. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 1994. _____. “The Politics of Classical Chinese in the Early Japanese Court.” In Rhetoric and the Discourses of Power in Court Culture: China, Europe, & Japan. Eds. David R. Knechtges and Eugene Vance. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2005. 199-238. Bourdieu, Pierre. “Cultural Reproduction and Social Reproduction.” In Knowledge, Education and Social Change: Papers in the Sociology of Education. Ed. R. Brown. London: Tavistock Publications, 1973. 71-112. _____. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Trans. Richard Nice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984. _____. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Trans. Richard Nice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. _____. “Social Space and Symbolic Space: Introduction to a Japanese Reading of Distinction.” Trans. Giasele Sapiro. Ed. Brian McHale. Poetics Today 12.4 (winter 1991): 627-638. _____. “Structures, Habitus, Power: Basis for a Theory of Symbolic Power.” In Culture / Power / History: A Reader in Contemporary Social Theory. Eds. Nicholas B. Dirks, Geoff Eley, and Sherry B. Ortner. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994. 155-199. 344 _____. The Bachelors’ Ball: The Crisis of Peasant Society in Bearn. Trans. Richard Nice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008. _____. “The Forms of Capital.” In Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. Ed. J. Richardson. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1986. 241-258. _____. “The New Capital: Introduction to a Japanese Reading of State Nobility.” Trans. Gisele Sapiro. Ed. Brian McHale. Poetics Today 12.4 (Winter 1991): 643-653. Bossler, Beverly. Courtesans, Concubines, and the Cult of Female Fidelity in China, 1000-1400. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center, 2013. _____. “Gender and Entertainment at the Song Court.” In Servants of the Dynasty: Palace Women in World History. Ed. Anne Walthall. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008. 261-279. _____. Powerful Relations: Kinship Status and the State in Song China (960-1279). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Council on East Asian Studies, 1998. Brinkley, Frank. Japan: Its History, Arts and Literature. Boston: J. B. Millet Company, 1901. V ol. II. Bucholz, R.O. The Augustan Court: Queen Anne and the Decline of Court Culture. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1993. Bumke, Joachim. Courtly Culture: Literature and Society in the High Middle Ages. Trans. Thomas Dunlap. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991. Bundy, Roselee. “Poetic Apprenticeship: Fujiwara Teika’s Shogaku Hyakushu.” Monumenta Nipponica 45.2 (Summer 1990): 157-188. Butler, Lee. Emperor and Aristocracy in Japan, 1467-1680: Resilience and Renewal. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002. 345 Carocci, Sandro. “Social Mobility and the Middle Ages.” Continuity and Change 26.3 (2011): 367-404. Carter, Steven D. “Claiming the Past for the Present: Ichij ō Kaneyoshi and Tales of Ise.” In Rhetoric and the Discourses of Power in Court Culture: China, Europe, & Japan. Eds. David R. Knechtges and Eugene Vance. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2005. 94-116. _____. Householders: The Reizei Family in Japanese History. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center, 2007. _____. Literary Patronage in Late Medieval Japan. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Japanese Studies, University of Michigan, 1993. _____. Regent Redux: A Life of the Statesman-Scholar Ichij ō Kaneyoshi. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Japanese Studies, University of Michigan, 1996. Casey, Kimberley L. “Defining Political Capital: A Reconsideration of Bourdieu’s Interconvertibility Theory.” Critique: A Worldwide Student Journal of Politics (Spring 2008). <http://lilt.ilstu.edu/critique/Spring%202008/Casey.pdf>. Accessed 10 August 2011. Castiglione, Dario, Jan. W. Van Deth, and Guglielmo Wolleb, eds., The Handbook of Social Capital. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Chan, Hok-lam. Ming Taizu (r. 1368-98) and the Foundation of the Ming Dynasty in China. Surrey, UK: Ashgate, 2011. Chung, Priscilla. Palace Women in the Northern Sung, 960‑1126. Leiden: Brill, 1981. Clear, Matthew J. “Maria of Hungary as queen, patron and exemplar.” The Church of Santa Maria Donna Regina: Art, Iconography and Patronage in Fourteenth Century Naples. Eds. Janis Elliott and Cordelia Warr. London: Ashgate: 2004. 45-60. Conlan, Thomas D. From Sovereign to Symbol: An Age of Ritual Determinism in Fourteenth Century Japan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. 346 _____. State of War: The Violent Order of Fourteenth-Century Japan. Ann Arbor: Center for Japanese Studies, University of Michigan, 2003. _____. “Thicker than Blood: The Social and Political Significance of Wet Nurses in Japan, 950-1330.” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 65. 1 (2005.6): 159-205. Connors, Lesley. The Emperor’ s Adviser: Saionji Kinmochi and Pre-war Japanese Politics. Oxford: Nissan Institute for Japanese Studies, University of Oxford, 1987. Couch, D. The Birth of Nobility: Continuity and Aristocracy in England and France, 900-1300. London: Pearson Longman, 2005. Cutter, Robert Joe. “Personal Crisis and Communication in the Life of Cao Zhi.” In Rhetoric and the Discourses of Power in Court Culture: China, Europe, & Japan. Eds. David R. Knechtges and Eugene Vance. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2005. 149-168. Deblasi, Anthony. “Quan Deyu and the Spread of Elite Culture in Tang China.” In The Human Tradition in Premodern China. Ed. Kenneth J. Hammond. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2002. 77-92. Dennison, T. K. and Sheilagh Ogilvie. “Serfdom and Social Capital in Bohemia and Russia.” Economic History Review 60.3 (2007): 513-544. Dessi, Roberta and Salvatore Piccolo. “Two is Company, N is a Crowd? Merchant Guilds and Social Capital.” Center for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) Working Paper #7374 (July 2009) <http://www.cepr.org/pubs/dps/DP7374.asp>. Dewey, John. The School and Society: Being Three Lectures by John Dewey, Supplemented by a Statement of the University Elementary School. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1899. 1907 printing. Dixon, C. Scott. “Urban Culture and Court Culture in the European Past.” The Historical Journal 40.3 (Sep. 1997): 825-833. 347 Dobbins, James C. “Kuroda Toshio and His Scholarship.” Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 23.3-4 (1996): 217-232. Duby, Georges. Love and Marriage in the Middle Ages. Trans. Jane Dunnett. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994. _____. The Chivalrous Society. Trans. Cynthia Postan. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977. Duindam, Jeroen. Myths of Power: Norbert Elias and the Early Modern European Court. Trans. Lorri S. Granger and Gerard T. Moran. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 1995. Dumolyn, Jan. “The Political and Symbolic Economy of State Feudalism: The Case of Late-Medieval Flanders.” Historical Materialism 15 (2007): 105-131. Ebrey, Patricia. The Inner Quarters: Marriage and the Lives of Chinese Women in the Sung Period. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993. Eckstein, Nicholas A. and Nicholas Terpstra, eds. Sociability and Its Discontents: Civil Society, Social Capital, and Their Alternatives in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe. Turnhout: Brepols, 2009. Egan, Ronald. “The Emperor and the Ink Plum: Tracing a Lost Connection between Literati and Huizong’s Court.” In Rhetoric and the Discourses of Power in Court Culture: China, Europe, & Japan. Eds. David R. Knechtges and Eugene Vance. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2005. 117-148. Elias, Norbert. The Civilizing Process. Trans. Edmund Jephcott. New York: Pantheon Books, 1978-1982. 2 vols. _____. The Court Society. Trans. Edmund Jephcott. Oxford: Blackwell, 1983. Farris, William W. Heavenly Warriors: The Evolution of Japan’ s Military, 500-1300. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center, 1996. 348 _____. Japan to 1600: A Social and Economic History. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2009. Friday, Karl F. Hired Swords: The Rise of Private Warrior Power in Early Japan. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996. _____. Samurai, Warfare and the State in Early Medieval Japan. New York: Routledge, 2004. Fukumori, Naomi. “Sei Sh ōnagon’s Makura no s ōshi: A Re-visionary History.” Journal of the Association of Teachers of Japanese 31.1 (Apr. 1997): 1-44. Fukuyama, Francis. “Social Capital and Civil Society,” IMF Conference on Second Generation Reforms (October 1, 1999). <http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/seminar/1999/ reforms/fukuyama.htm>. Accessed 11 June 2012. Gadd, Ian Anders and Patrick Wallis, eds. Guilds, Society and Economy in London, 1450-1800. London: Centre for Metropolitan History, Institute of Historical Research, 2002. Garver, Valerie L. Women and Aristocratic Culture in the Carolingian World. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2009. Geary, Patrick J. The Myth of Nations: The Medieval Origins of Europe. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993. Gee, Loveday L. Women, Art and Patronage From Henry III to Edward III: 1216-1377. Woodridge: The Boydell Press, 2002. Gerritsen, Anne. “Liu Chenweng: Ways of Being a Local Gentleman in Southern Song and Yuan China.” In The Human Tradition in Premodern China. Ed. Kenneth J. Hammond. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2002. 111-126. Gies, Frances and Joseph Gies. Marriage and Family in the Middle Ages. New York: Harper & Row, 1987. Given, James. State and Society in Medieval Europe: Gwynedd and Languedoc under Outside Rule. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1990. 349 Goble, Andrew. Kenmu: Go-Daigo’ s Revolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997. _____. “Medieval Japan.” In A Companion to Japanese History. Ed. William M. Tsutsui. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2007. 47-66. Goldberg, Stephen J. “Court Calligraphy of the Early T’ang Dynasty.” Artibus Asiae 49.3/4 (1988-1989): 189-237. Gomes, R. Costa. The Making of a Court Society: Kings and Nobles in Late Medieval Portugal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Griffis, W.E. The Mikado’ s Empire. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1886. 5th ed. Haemers, Jelle. “Urban History of the Medieval Low Countries: Research Trends and New Perspectives (2000-10).” Urban History 38.2 (2011): 345-354. Hall, John W. Hall. Government and Local Power in Japan, 500-700: A Study Based on Bizen Province (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966). _____. Japan, from Prehistory to Modern Times. New York: Delacorte Press, 1970. _____. “Terms and Concepts in Japanese Medieval History: An Inquiry into the Problems of Translation.” Journal of Japanese Studies 9.1 (winter 1983): 1-32. _____, and Jeffrey P. Mass, eds. Medieval Japan: Essays in Institutional History. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1974. _____, Nagahara Keiji, and Kozo Yamamura, eds. Japan Before Tokugawa: Political Consolidation and Economic Growth, 1500 to 1650. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991. _____, and Toyoda Takeshi, eds. Japan in the Muromachi Age. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977. 350 Hambly, Gavin R. G. Babur’ s Women: Elite Women in Late Medieval Central Asia and North India. Basingstroke: Palgrave, 2005. Hara, Katsur ō. An Introduction to the History of Japan. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1920. Harada, Hiroo. “Social Capital in Disaster: From the Great East Japan Earthquake.” Second World Congress of the Public Choice Societies (March 8-11, 2012). Hata, Hisako. “Servants of the Inner Quarters: The Women of the Shogun’s Great Interior.” In Servants of the Dynasty: Palace Women in World History. Ed. Anne Walthall. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008. 172-190. Heldt, Gustav. The Pursuit of Harmony: Poetry and Power in Early Heian Japan. Ithaca, NY: Cornell East Asia Program, 2009. Herlihy, David, ed. The History of Feudalism. New York: Harper & Row, 1970. Hinsch, Bret. Women in Early Imperial China. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002. Hirota, Akiko. “Ex-Emperor Go-Toba: A Study in Personality, Politics and Poetry.” PhD diss. University of California at Berkeley, 1989. Holum, Kenneth G. Theodosian Empresses: Women and Imperial Dominion in Late Antiquity. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989. Hong ō, Masatsugu. “State Buddhism and Court Buddhism: The Role of Court Women in the Development of Buddhism from the Seventh to the Ninth Centuries.” In Engendering Faith: Women and Buddhism in Premodern Japan. Ed. Barbara Ruch. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2002. 41-61. Hooghe, Marc and Dietlind Stolle, eds. Generating Social Capital: Civil Society and Institutions in Comparative Perspective. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003. Horton, H. Mack. “Portrait of a Medieval Marriage: The Domestic Life of Sanj ōnishi Sanetaka and His Wife.” Japanese Language and Literature 37.2 (Oct. 2003): 130-154. 351 Howell, Martha C. The Marriage Exchange: Property, Social Place, and Gender in Cities of the Low Countries, 1300-1550. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998. Huey, Robert N. Ky ōgoku Tamekane: Poetry and Politics in Late Kamakura Japan. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1989. _____. The Making of Shinkokinshū. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center, 2002. Hurst, G. Cameron III. Insei: Abdicated Sovereigns in the Politics of Late Heian Japan, 1086-1185. New York: Columbia University Press, 1976. _____. “The K ōbu Polity: Court-Bakufu Relations in Kamakura Japan.” In Court and Bakufu in Japan: Essays in Kamakura History. Ed. Jeffrey P. Mass. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1982. 3-28. _____. “The Structure of the Heian Court: Some Thoughts on the Nature of “Familial Authority” in Heian Japan.” In Medieval Japan: Essays in Institutional History. Eds. John W. Hall and Jeffrey P. Mass. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1974. 39-59. Ikegami, Eiko. Bonds of Civility: Aesthetic Networks and the Political Origins of Japanese Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. _____. The Taming of the Samurai: Honorific Individualism and the Making of Modern Japan. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995. Imatani, Akira and Kozo Yamamura. “Not for Lack of Will or Wile: Yoshimitsu’s Failure to Supplant the Imperial Lineage.” Journal of Japanese Studies 18.1 (winter 1992): 45-78. Inoguchi, Takashi. “Social Capital in Japan.” Japanese Journal of Political Science 1.1 (2000): 73-112. Inomata, Takeshi and Stephen D. Houston, eds. Royal Courts of the Ancient Maya. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2000-2001. 2 vols. Jaeger, C. Stephen. The Origins of Courtliness: Civilizing Trends and the Formation of Courtly Ideals, 939-1210. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985. 352 Jhala, Angma Dey. Courtly Indian Women in Late Imperial India. London: Pickering & Chatto, 2008. Jordan, Erin L. Women, Power, and Religious Patronage in the Middle Ages. New York: Palgrave, 2006. Kaempfer, Engelbert. The History of Japan, Together with a Description of the Kingdom of Siam, 1690-1692. Trans. J. G. Scheuchzer. Glasgow: James MacLehose and Sons, 1906. Kaeuper, Richard W. Chivalry and Violence in Medieval Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Kamei-Dyche, Rieko. “Sailing Between Two Seas: A Discussion of Recent Japanese Writing on the Integration of Literature and History.” Nihon Kodaigaku 3 (March 2011): 1-25. Kamens, Edward. “Terrains of Text in Mid-Heian Court Culture.” In Heian Japan, Centers and Peripheries. Eds. Mikael Adolphson, Edward Kamens, and Stacie Matsumoto. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2007. 129-152. Karol, Justin and Trevor Gale. “Bourdieu’s Social Theory and Sustainability: What is ‘Environmental Capital’?” Presented at AARE International Education Research Conference (Melbourne, 2004). <http://www.aare.edu.au/04pap/kar041081.pdf> Accessed 10 August 2011. Keene, Donald. “A Neglected Chapter: Courtly Fiction of the Kamakura Period.” Monumenta Nipponica 44.1 (Spring, 1989): 1-30. Keirstead, Thomas. The Geography of Power in Medieval Japan. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992. Kiley, Cornelius. “Estate and Property in the Late Heian Period.” Medieval Japan: Essays in Institutional History. Eds. John W. Hall and Jeffrey P. Mass. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1974. 109-124. 353 _____. “The Imperial Court as a Legal Authority in the Kamakura Age.” In Court and Bakufu in Japan: Essays in Kamakura History. Ed. Jeffrey P. Mass. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1982. 29-44. King, Catherine E. Renaissance Women Patrons: Wives and Widows in Italy, c .1300-1550. New York: Manchester University Press, 1998. Kisby, Fiona. “A Mirror of Monarchy: Music and Musicians in the Household Chapel of the Lady Margaret Beaufort, Mother of Henry VII.” Early Music History 16 (1997): 203-234. Knechtges, David R. Court Culture and Literature in Early China. Surrey, UK: Ashgate, 2002. _____. “The Rhetoric of Imperial Abdication and Accession in a Third-Century Chinese Court: The Case of Cao Pi’s Accession as Emperor of the Wei Dynasty.” In Rhetoric and the Discourses of Power in Court Culture: China, Europe, & Japan. Eds. David R. Knechtges and Eugene Vance. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2005. 3-35. _____ and Eugene Vance, eds. Rhetoric and the Discourses of Power in Court Culture: China, Europe, & Japan. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2005. Koji, Mizoguchi. An Archaeological History of Japan: 30,000 BC to AD 700. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press, 2002. Kolsky, Stephen. Courts and Courtiers in Renaissance Northern Italy. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003. Kosher, Rudy, ed. Histories of Leisure. Oxford: Berg, 2002. Kuhn, Dieter. The Age of Confucian Rule: The Song Transformation of China. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 2009. Kumar, Ann. “Javanese Court Society and Politics in the Late Eighteenth Century: The Record of a Lady Soldier.” Indonesia 29 (April 1980): 1-46; Indonesia 30 (Oct. 1980): 67-111. Lawrence, Cynthia, ed. Women and Art in Early Modern Europe: Patrons, Collectors, and Connoisseurs. Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1997. 354 Lebra, Takie Sugiyama. Above the Clouds: Status Culture of the Modern Japanese Nobility. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993. Lillehoj, Elizabeth. “T ōfukumon’in: Empress, Patron, and Artist.” Women’ s Art Journal 17.1 (spring & summer 1996): 28-34. Lindholm, Charles. “The Social Structure of Emotional Constraint: The Court of Louis XIV and the Pukhtun of Northern Pakistan.” Ethos 16.3 (Sep. 1988): 227-246. Lucassen, Jan, Tine De Moor, and Jan Luiten van Zanden. “The Return of the Guilds: Towards a Global History of the Guilds in Pre-industrial Times.” International Review of Social History 53 (2008), Supplement: 5-18. Maguire, Henry, ed. Byzantine Court Culture from 829 to 1204. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, 1997. Marra, Michele. Representations of Power: The Literary Politics of Medieval Japan. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 1993. Mass, Jeffrey P. Warrior Government in Early Medieval Japan: A Study of the Kamakura Bakufu, Shugo, and Jit ō. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974. _____. Yoritomo and the Founding of the First Bakufu. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999. _____, ed. Court and Bakufu in Japan: Essays in Kamakura History. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1982. _____, ed. The Origins of Japan’ s Medieval World. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1997. Mauelshagen, Franz. “Networks of Trust: Scholarly Correspondence and Scientific Exchange in Early Modern Europe.” The Medieval History Journal 6.1 (2003): 1-32. McCash, June Hall, ed. The Cultural Patronage of Medieval Women. Georgia: University of Georgia Press, 1996. 355 McIntosh, Marjorie K. “The Diversity of Social Capital in English Communities, 1300-1640 (With a Glance at Modern Nigeria).” The Journal of Interdisciplinary History 29.3, Patterns of Social Capital: Stability and Change in Comparative Perspective, Part I (Winter, 1999): 459-490. McMullen, James. “Courtier and Confucian in Seventeenth-century Japan: A Dialogue on the Tale of Genji between Nakanoin Michishige and Kumazawa Banzan.” Japan Review: Journal of the International Research Center for Japanese Studies 21 (2009): 3-32. McNally, Mark. Proving the Way: Conflict and Practice in the History of Japanese Nativism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center, 2005. Miller, Richard J. Ancient Japanese Nobility: The Kabane Ranking System. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974. Miner, Earl. “The Collective and the Individual: Literary Practices and its Social Implications.” In Principles of Classical Japanese Literature. Ed. Earl Miner. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985. 17-62. Mohan, Giles and John Mohan. “Placing Social Capital.” Progress in Human Geography 26.2 (2002): 191-210. Molho, Anthony. Marriage Alliance in Late Medieval Florence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994. Morris, Ivan. The World of the Shining Prince: Court Life in Ancient Japan. London: Peregrine, 1964. Morris, Mark. “Waka and Form, Waka and History.” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 46.2 (Dec. 1986): 551-610. Morrow, Raymond A. “Norbert Elias and Figurational Sociology: The Comeback of the Century.” Contemporary Sociology 38.3 (May 2009): 215-219. 356 Mostow, Joshua S. Pictures of the Heart: The Hyakunin Isshu in Word and Image. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 1996. Murdoch, James. A History of Japan. Tokyo: Asiatic Society of Japan, 1916. 3 V ols. Nagahara, Keiji. “The Decline of the sh ōen System.” Trans. Michael P. Birt. In The Cambridge History of Japan, Volume 3: Medieval Japan. Ed. Kozo Yamamura. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. 260-300. _____. “The Medieval Peasant.” Trans. Suzanne Gay. In The Cambridge History of Japan, Volume 3: Medieval Japan. Ed. Kozo Yamamura. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. 301-343. Nagashima, Takeshi. “Historians and the Social Capital Debate: A Preliminary Survey.” The Senshu Social Capital Review 1 (2010): 93-104. Nagata, Mary Louise. “Brotherhoods and Stock Societies: Guilds in Pre-modern Japan.” International Review of Social History 53 (2008), Supplement: 121-142. Nelson, J. L. Courts, Elites and Gendered Power in the Early Middle Ages. London: Ashgate, 2007. Nishide, Y uko. Social Capital and Civil Society in Japan. Sendai: Tohoku University Press, 2009. Ogawa, Kiyoko. “Sanetomo as a Poet in Absolute Solitude: In Search of Contemporary Meanings.” <http://www.revistaair.net/ciele4kiyoko.htm>. Accessed September 4 2011. Ogilvie, Sheilagh. “Guilds, Efficiency, and Social Capital: Evidence from German Proto-Industry.” Economic History Review 57.2 (2004): 286-333. _____. Institutions and European Trade: Merchant Guilds, 1000-1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Oka, Yoshitake. Five Political Leaders of Modern Japan: It ō Hirobumi, Ōkuma Shigenobu, Hara Takashi, Inukai Tsuyoshi, and Saionji Kinmochi. Trans. Andrew Fraser and Patricia Murray. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press, 1986. 357 _____. Konoe Fumimaro: A Political Biography. Trans. Shumpei Okamoto and Patricia Murray. Tokyo: Tokyo University Press, 1983. Omura, Bunji. The Last Genro: Prince Saionji. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott, 1938. Ooms, Herman. Tokugawa Village Practice: Class, Status, Power, Law. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996. Orr, Clarissa C., ed. Queenship in Britain 1660-1837: Royal Patronage, Court Culture, and Dynastic Politics. Oxford: Manchester University Press, 2002. Owen, Stephen. “One Sight: The Han shu Biography of Lady Li.” In Rhetoric and the Discourses of Power in Court Culture: China, Europe, & Japan. Eds. David R. Knechtges and Eugene Vance. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2005. 239-259. Pan, Ku [Ban Gu]. Courtier and Commoner in Ancient China: Selections from the History of the Former Han. Trans. Burton Watson. New York: Columbia University Press, 1974. Parsons, John Carmi. “Of Queens, Courts and Books: Reflection on the Literary Patronage of Thirteenth-Century Plantagenet Queens.” The Cultural Patronage of Medieval Women. Ed. June Hall McCash. Georgia: University of Georgia Press, 1996. 175-201. Paulle, Bowen, Bart van Heerikhuizen, and Mustafa Emirbayer. “Elias and Bourdieu.” The Legacy of Pierre Bourdieu: Critical Essays. Eds. Simon Susen and Bryan S. Turner. London: Anthem Press, 2011. 145-172. Piggott, Joan R. The Emergence of Japanese Kingship. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1997. _____, ed. Capital and Countryside in Japan, 300-1180: Japanese Historians Interpreted in English. Ithaca, NY: East Asia Program, Cornell University, 2006. Putnam, Robert D. “Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital.” Journal of Democracy 6.1 (1995): 65-78. 358 Rastelli, Sabrina, ed. China at the Court of the Emperors: Unknown Masterpieces from Han Tradition to Tang Elegance (25-907). Milano: Skira, 2009. Robinson, David M., ed. Culture, Courtiers, and Competition: The Ming Court (1368-1644). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008. Rotberg, Robert I., ed. Patterns of Social Capital: Stability and Change in Historical Perspective. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2001. Sansom, George. A History of Japan to 1334. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1958. _____. Japan: A Short Cultural History. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1931. Sato, Elizabeth. “The Early Development of the Sh ōen.” Medieval Japan: Essays in Institutional History. Eds. John W. Hall and Jeffrey P. Mass. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1974. 91-108. Scaglione, Aldo. Knights at Court: Courtliness, Chivalry, & Courtesy from Ottonian Germany to the Italian Renaissance. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992. Scattergood, V . J. and J. W. Sherborne, eds. English Court Culture in the Later Middle Ages. London: Duckworth, 1983. Schulte, R. The Body of the Queen: Gender and Rule in the Courtly World 1500-2000. New York: Berghahn, 2006. Segal, Ethan. Coins, Trade, and the State: Economic Growth in Early Medieval Japan. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2011. Shapinsky, Peter D. “Lords of the Sea: Pirates, Violence, and Exchange in Medieval Japan.” PhD diss. University of Michigan, 2005. Shinoda, Minoru. The Founding of the Kamakura Shogunate, 1180-1185: with selected translations from the Azuma Kagami. New York: Columbia University Press, 1960. 359 Sima, Qian. The Grand Scribe’ s Records. Ed. William H. Nienhauser, Jr. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1994-present. 9 vols. Singh, Bhagat. “Court and Courtiers of Maharaja Ranjit Singh.” Punjab Past and Present 14.2 (Oct. 1980): 68-104. Smith, Hannah. “Court Studies and the Courts of Early Modern Europe.” The Historical Journal 49.4 (Dec. 2006): 1229-1238. Smits, Ivo. “China as Classic Text: Chinese Books and Twelfth-century Japanese Collectors.” In Tools of Culture: Japan’s Cultural, Intellectual, Medical, and Technological Contacts in East Asia, 1000-1500s. Eds. Andrew Goble, Kenneth R. Robinson, and Haruko Wakabayashi. Ann Arbor: Association for Asian Studies, 2009. 185-210. _____. “Teika and the Others: Poetics, Poetry, and Politics in Early Medieval Japan.” Monumenta Nipponica 59.3 (Autumn 2004): 359-389. Soly, Hugo. “The Political Economy of European Craft Guilds: Power Relations and Economic Strategies of Merchants and Master Artisans in the Medieval and Early Modern Textile Industries.” International Review of Social History 53 (2008), Supplement: 45-71. Souyri, Pierre Francois. The World Turned Upside Down: Medieval Japanese Society. Trans. Käthe Roth. .London: Pimlico, 2002. Spawforth, A.J.S., ed. The Court and Court Society in Ancient Monarchies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Starkey, David, ed. The English Court: From the Wars of the Roses to the Civil War. London: Longman Group, 1987. Takekoshi, Yosaburo. Prince Saionji. Trans. Nariaki Kozaki. Kyoto: Ritsumeikan University, 1933. Talbot, Alice-Mary. “Empress Theodora Palaiologina, Wife of Michael VII.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 46, “Homo Byzantinus: Papers in Honor of Alexander Kazhdan” (1992): 295-303. 360 Tonomura, Hitomi. Community and Commerce in Late Medieval Japan: The Corporate Villages of Tokuchin-ho. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1992. _____. “Re-envisioning Women in the Post-Kamakura Age.” In The Origins of Japan’ s Medieval World: Courtiers, Clerics, Warriors and Peasants in the Fourteenth Century. Ed. Jeffrey P. Mass. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1997. 138-169. _____. “Women and Inheritance in Japan’s Early Warrior Society.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 32.3 (July 1990): 592-623. _____, Anne Walthall, and Wakita Haruko, eds. Women and Class in Japanese History. Ann Arbor: Center for Japanese Studies, University of Michigan, 1999. Totman, Conrad. A History of Japan. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2005. 2nd ed. Trigilia, Carlo. “Social Capital and Local Development.” European Journal of Social Theory 4.4 (2001): 427-442. Vale, Malcolm. The Princely Court: Medieval Courts and Culture in North-west Europe, 1270-1380. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Van Ess, Han. “The Imperial Court in Han China.” In The Court and Court Society in Ancient Monarchies. Ed. A.J.S. Spawforth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. 233-266. Varley, Paul H. Imperial Restoration in Medieval Japan. New York: Columbia University Press, 1971. _____. “Warriors as Courtiers: The Taira in Heike monogatari.” In Currents in Japanese Culture: Translations and Transformations. Ed. Amy Vladeck Heinrich. New York: Columbia University Press, 1993. 53-70. Vieillard-Baron, Michel. Fujiwara no Teika (1162-1241) et la notion d'excellence en poésie. Théorie et pratique de la composition dans le Japon classique. Paris: Collége de France 2001. 361 Von Stuckrad, Kocku. Locations of Knowledge in Medieval and Early Modern Europe: Esoteric Discourse and Western Identities. Leiden: Brill, 2010. V on Verschuer, Charlotte. Across the Perilous Sea: Japanese Trade with China and Korea from the Seventh to the Sixteenth Centuries. Trans. Kristen Lee Hunter. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2006. Wacquant, Loïc J.D. Foreward to Pierre Bourdieu, The State Nobility: Elite Schools in the Field of Power, trans. Lauretta C. Clough. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996. _____. “Pierre Bourdieu.” In Key Sociological Thinkers. Ed. Rob Stones. New York: Macmillan, 2008. 261-277. Wakita, Haruko. Women in Medieval Japan: Motherhood, Household Management and Sexuality. Trans. Akison Tokita. Victoria, AU: Monash Asia Institute, 2006. Walthall, Ann. “The Cult of Sensibility in Rural Tokugawa Japan: Love Poetry by Maeda Tatsuko.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 117.1 (Jan.-Mar. 1997): 70-86. _____, ed. Servants of the Dynasty: Palace Women in World History. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008. Wang, Kuo-ying. “Poetry of Palace Plaint of the Tang: Its Potential and Limitations.” In Rhetoric and the Discourses of Power in Court Culture: China, Europe, & Japan. Eds. David R. Knechtges and Eugene Vance. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2005. 260-284. Wanner, Kevin. Snorri Sturluson and the Edda: The Conversion of Cultural Capital in Medieval Scandinavia. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2008. Webb, Herschel. The Japanese Imperial Institution in the Tokugawa Period. New York: Columbia University Press, 1968. Wickberg, Daniel. “What is the History of Sensibilities? On Cultural Histories, Old and New.” American Historical Review 112.3 (June 2007) <http://www. historycooperative.org/ journals/ahr/112.3/wickberg.html>. Accessed 11 Aug. 2011. 362 Yamamura, Kozo, ed. The Cambridge History of Japan, Volume 3: Medieval Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Yanaga, Chitoshi. “Source Materials in Japanese History: The Kamakura Period, 1192-1333.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 59.1 (Mar., 1939): 38-55. Yu, Pauline. “Poems for the Emperor: Imperial Tastes in the Early Ninth Century.” In Rhetoric and the Discourses of Power in Court Culture: China, Europe, & Japan. Eds. David R. Knechtges and Eugene Vance. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2005. 73-93.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Late medieval Japan's Seto Inland seascape: shipping, sailors, and seafaring

PDF

Power of the purse: estates and the religio-political influence of Japanese royal women, 1100-1300

PDF

Crafting legacies in print: Natsume Sōseki, intellectual networking and the founding of the publisher Iwanami Shoten in prewar Japan

PDF

Sick days in the Konjaku monogatari-shū: healing and epidemics in late Heian Japan

PDF

The stars and the state: astronomy, astrology, and the politics of natural knowledge in early medieval Japan

PDF

Going offshore: studies of the maritime zone in East Asia from the eleventh to the fifteenth centuries

PDF

An investigation of factors associated with reliability and validity of family history reports of alcohol‐related problems

PDF

Art into everyday life: department stores as purveyors of culture in modern Japan

PDF

Three perspectives on the Hōjō: a warrior family in early Medieval Japan

PDF

Making the realm, transforming the people: foreign subjects in seventh- through ninth-century Japan

PDF

Exposing humanity: slavery, antislavery, and early photography in America, 1839-1865

PDF

Spying and surveillance in the early modern state and stage

PDF

On being bound: law, authority, and the politics of obligation

PDF

The lady of the eighth ward: political, economic, and military power of nyoin during the twelfth century, Japan

PDF

Compromise, coalition, and conflict: the Nichiren sect in sixteenth-century Kyoto

PDF

Taking their place: Benedictine child oblates at eleventh-century Canterbury Cathedral priory

PDF

The vacant throne: authority and authorial absence

PDF

Authority and the failed justification of evil in Cormac McCarthy's Blood meridian, or The evening redness in the West

PDF

Networks of space and identity: origin narratives and manifestations of the Itsukushima deity

PDF

Popular jurisprudence in early modern England

Asset Metadata

Creator Kamei-Dyche, Rieko (author)

Core Title Tools of authority: the Saionji family and courtier society in early medieval Japan

School College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program History

Publication Date 04/26/2013

Defense Date 03/14/2013

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Bourdieu,courtier,families,Japan,medieval,OAI-PMH Harvest,Saionji

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Piggott, Joan R. (committee chair), Berger, Gordon M. (committee member), Bialock, David T. (committee member)

Creator Email kameidyche.rieko@dm.hit-u.ac.jp,rkamei@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-246709

Unique identifier UC11287892

Identifier etd-KameiDyche-1598.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-246709 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-KameiDyche-1598.pdf

Dmrecord 246709

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Kamei-Dyche, Rieko

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA