6/10/1867

What exactly happened on 6/10/1867? I've found vague references to
"105 Shinsengumi members [being] "employed" by the Bakufu", but what
is this refering to, and what did it mean in concrete terms? I've
flipped through hillsoborough's book trying to find it, but since I
don't know what to look for, I haven't had much luck. At first I
thought it might mean they were given "official" status, but the
Japanese term used in the Shinsengumi Rekishi Gunzo book is
"Meshikakae", which seems to mean someone hired for thier martial
ability, like a mercenary, so that seemed a bit odd, although the
actual verb means "To make one a vassal/retainer", or to "take one
into employment" - so I'm trying to figure out exactly what this edict
or whatever it was... was. If anyone with Hillsborough's book knows
what page it is covered on, that would be great too.

Thanks!

If I recall correctly (am away from my notes) this was probably the date of
the Shinsengumi's "Bakushin-toritate"-- in other words, they were made
direct retainers of the Shogun. I have a reproduction of the full, original
document that hired them, and that's the word used for it there.

-M.

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

--- In SHQ@yahoogroups.com, "Hirotada Tokugawa" wrote:

>
> If I recall correctly (am away from my notes) this was probably the

date of

> the Shinsengumi's "Bakushin-toritate"-- in other words, they were made
> direct retainers of the Shogun. I have a reproduction of the full,

original

> document that hired them, and that's the word used for it there.
>
> -M.
>

That sounds exactly it. Does one interpret this to mean that they
were granted Samurai status (at least those who weren't already), or
was this simply and official notice that thier actions were directly
sanctioned by the Shogun?

>That sounds exactly it. Does one interpret this to mean that they
>were granted Samurai status (at least those who weren't already), or
>was this simply and official notice that thier actions were directly
>sanctioned by the Shogun?

No....that's not really it. You can't really talk about "samurai status" as
a hard and fast rule. In many domains, you had to buy the right of bearing
swords, but by the 1860s, just the fact that you could have people from ANY
status join a group like Shinsengumi and carry swords, without (barring
knowledge to the contrary) needing to buy "samurai" status, shows that just
by joining Shinsengumi and carrying swords, one could have de facto samurai
"status". The issue of sword-carrying and name-bearing is a problematic one,
and yes, even despite the image of four airtight classes, there is no
ironclad rule, and there are a lot of exceptions. But I'm getting off-topic
here, so I'll continue with a definition of "bakushin-toritate".

Bakushin-toritate roughly rendered, means "Conferring of the status of
Shogunal retainers". Shogunal *sanction* they already had-- why else would
they be included in the myriad of samurai who guarded the rivers that the
Shogun traversed to get to Kyoto in the early period? (1863-ish-- this is in
a map Hijikata drew, and included in a letter) Bakushin-toritate means that
they were now shogunal retainers, just like anyone else who was born into
that status (e.g. hatamoto like Takenaka Shigekata, and any of the myriad
gokenin).

It was that status of Tokugawa retainer that allowed, for instance, Kondou
Isami to meet face-to-face with someone like Nagai Naoyuki, who was a
high-ranking hatamoto (senior Tokugawa retainer). Nagai started out as
Kondou's senior in terms of rank, back in early '63, but by late 1867,
following the aforementioned bakushin-toritate, he could meet with Nagai
face to face. Nagai, a man born into a daimyo family and adopted by a
high-ranking hatamoto, who had been involved with supervising naval training
in Nagasaki, commanding one of the Shogunate's first Western-style warships,
and was a wakadoshiyori (junior councilor) and at one time (during
Matsudaira Katamori's, and later Kondou's, arrival in Kyoto) city magistrate
of Kyoto, was most definitely WAY above Kondou in terms of birth status.
However, thanks to this promotion, they were essentially equals in rank.

-M.

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/

--- In SHQ@yahoogroups.com, "Hirotada Tokugawa" wrote:

>
> >That sounds exactly it. Does one interpret this to mean that they
> >were granted Samurai status (at least those who weren't already), or
> >was this simply and official notice that thier actions were directly
> >sanctioned by the Shogun?
>
> No....that's not really it.

It was obvious that they already had de facto sanction, but thanks for
clarifying that this was the official "announcement" - What was the
motivation behind this? I assume the Shogun saw some sort of advantage
of making them official vassals. As for the social classes, it looks
like they got pretty hazy near the end of the Edo period. Thanks for
the clarifications.

The origins of Yamanami Keisuke are unclear. Several sources record him as
being the son of "Yamanami, a sword instructor of the Sendai domain". It
just so happens that I have copies of sections from "Sendai Boshin-shi"
(written by Fujiwara Ainosuke, published (or more correctly, REpublished) in
1980) that may have the answer to who his father was.

According to p. 717, which lists all the hereditary sword instructor
families of the Sendai domain, there is *no* Yamanami. However, at the end
of the list of instructor families, there is a name that is given-- family
*and* given name, as though compared to the rest, he was a newcomer.

"Sakurada Keisuke, instructor in Hokushin-ittoryu"

Now, according to the Japanese Wikipedia article on Yamanami, he was
certified in Ono-ha Ittoryu, and later studied Hokushin-ittoryu under Chiba
Shusaku. I have no further confirmation of this; however, it is notable that
"Keisuke" is spelled the same way, and that Yamanami did have training in
the same style. This is my theory (connected to the comments on his
name-reading in the Japanese Wikipedia article)-- the family name "Yamanami"
can also be read "Sannan"-- which, this site elaborates, could be spelled
one of several ways, one of which reads "Third son".

Furthermore, "Keisuke" is a "common name," (I believe the Japanese is
"tsuumyou") which in some families can be inherited. Case in point-- the
senior Aizu retainer Saigo Tanomo. There were many men in his ancestry who
carried the "common name" Tanomo-- his formal name sets him apart from them
(Chikanori). For those who didn't know, Yamanami's formal name was Tomonobu.

Something else that any potential researchers should be on the lookout for,
if possible, is if Sakurada Keisuke also claimed descent from the Fujiwara,
as Yamanami did.

Given this preliminary evidence, it is my belief, and my tentative theory
about Yamanami-- that it would not be ridiculous at all, if Yamanami was the
"Sannan"-- third son-- of Sakurada Keisuke, that he inherited the "common
name" of Keisuke, and that when he left Sendai-- something that was
tantamount to treason and often necessitated name-changing for the sake of
safety-- he made a pun on "Sannan", changing the characters that spell that
sound-- which gives us the "Yamanami" that we know today.

Just a theory, but I believe it to be a not entirely meaningless one.

-M.

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

Hello Kitsuno, Seven and Hirotada Tokugawa, thanks for reviving the
list.
Happy New Year everyone and...Happy B-day Saitou
Saitou "yeah sure whatever"
Tokio "some people are grumpy the whole darn year..."

I just wanted to comment that indeed many social classes were greatly
blurred in 19th century Japan. Although on one hand it seemed to be a
mark of distinction to obtain the samurai status, economically speaking
many people, including the samurai themselves, knew that the money can
be found in the purportedly "lower" classes. For example during the
Meiji era a survey of families who sent their daughters to a public
school---across the board claimed samurai descent, but many *before
1868 had engaged in clearly merchant class businesses (this flies
against the widespread abhorrance of samurai to engage in such work).
By far the most econommically dynamic classes were the upper peasant
and merchant classes. What killed the samurai class was their obsolete
role and drain on the economy---samurai no longer and never did
produced "anything" unlike the lower classes, although as we now they
fulfilled critical administrative roles.

I haven't finished this page yet but when I'm done I'll upload it to
shinsengumihq.com:

Before Boshin 1868: A Survey of the Feudal System
http://1happyturtle.com/Hosting/BakumatsuBackground.htm

It's really important to note this article
The Farmers of Edo and the Warriors in Kyoto
http://www.shinsengumihq.com/FarmersofEdo.htm

Because the Shinsengumi, for the first time are mentioned in a non-
warrior context, were right smack in the middle of the social pyramid
blur---they were close friends/associates/adopted siblings to ELITE
PEASANTS, WELL EDUCATED PEASANTS. Thus people like Kondou and Hijikata
had a deep understanding of what was going on because they valued these
social relationships and clearly, in no way abandoned their associates
after attaining that feudal "dream" of samuraihood so to speak.

I did pose the question to Mr. Hillsborough of whether or not he would
address what was going in Tama at the time and if he would discuss in
depth the social background of these figures. Specifically, rural Edo
where many members from the Shinsengumi call home has been studied by
scholars specifically for all that social blurring. During the Meiji
Era that region produced incredibly politically active farmers who
pushed for *real democratic change and surprisingly opposed some of the
victors of 1868. Hillsborough asked if I was a sociology major. I'm
not---just a concerned and curious member of his audience, but the
point was ... it is absolutely important to get into the "mindset" of
Kondou and Hijikata. Because they did see things differently, after
all, travelling from rural Edo to Kyoto was an eye opening
experience...trying to navigate the capital's bureaucracy must've been
rather difficult for a bunch of "nobodies". They were fish out of
water and treated as such.

Whether or not their later success contributed to their "their
conviction of self-importance and their unyielding will to power"
(Hillsborough 147) and so forth is a possibility, but a slightly
difficult abstraction to gauge accurately by any historian.

Then again, lust for power is a universal, human trait, not something
the Shinsengumi monopolized.
Hillsborough probably has not studied the aftermath of 1868 in great
detail. His heroes are the most shockingly ruthless men to hold and
maintain, political, social, military and educational power.

--- In SHQ@yahoogroups.com, "Kitsuno" wrote:
As for the social classes, it looks
> like they got pretty hazy near the end of the Edo period. Thanks for
> the clarifications.
>

--- In SHQ@yahoogroups.com, "secretary" wrote:

>
> What killed the samurai class was their obsolete
> role and drain on the economy---samurai no longer and never did
> produced "anything" unlike the lower classes, although as we now they
> fulfilled critical administrative roles.
>

I think it was like that for most of the Edo period, although I think
a good thesis paper idea would be to look at the Samurai of the Edo
period, and examine what factors kept them functioning as a class -
was it social, economic, or cultural?

>I think it was like that for most of the Edo period, although I think
>a good thesis paper idea would be to look at the Samurai of the Edo
>period, and examine what factors kept them functioning as a class -
>was it social, economic, or cultural?

That's actually something that would necessitate a large monograph to get
through, since the samurai of each domain, the samurai under the Shogunate,
and the ronin and quasi-samurai such as doctors and "goshi" were all
different, had different circumstances, different setup, and so on. For
instance, many domains operated by a system of paying retainers from the
rice storehouses and making them live within the castle town or elsewhere in
terms of important domain/municipal locales, but some, like Sendai, actually
allowed their men to reside on their own land.

But you're right, a work on the topic would be useful.

-M.

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

--- In SHQ@yahoogroups.com, "Hirotada Tokugawa" wrote:

>
> >I think it was like that for most of the Edo period, although I think
> >a good thesis paper idea would be to look at the Samurai of the Edo
> >period, and examine what factors kept them functioning as a class -
> >was it social, economic, or cultural?
>
> That's actually something that would necessitate a large monograph

to get

> through, since the samurai of each domain, the samurai under the

Shogunate,

> and the ronin and quasi-samurai such as doctors and "goshi" were all
> different, had different circumstances, different setup, and so on.

I think a case study approach would work for one domain, and could
afford to be more focused and detailed than a big general examination.
It would be far more manageable and would illustrate the thesis even
if it wasn't completely generalizable to the entire country, and would
probably make a valid masters or Phd thesis, sort of like Dr. Luke
Robert's book "Mercantilism in a Japanese Domain: The Merchant Origins
of Economic Nationalism in 18th-Century Tosa" - focused on one domain,
during one period, but used to illustrate the topic. It's actually
pretty interesting, a combination of history and economics.

Just a reminder, Saitou was born on February 18, 1844 (lunar calendar date: Tenpo, the
first day of the first month.) This year, the Lunar New Year is also February 18 (which
happens once in 19 years.)

~Seven

--- In SHQ@yahoogroups.com, "secretary" wrote:
>
> Hello Kitsuno, Seven and Hirotada Tokugawa, thanks for reviving the
> list.
> Happy New Year everyone and...Happy B-day Saitou
> Saitou "yeah sure whatever"
> Tokio "some people are grumpy the whole darn year..."
>
> I just wanted to comment that indeed many social classes were greatly
> blurred in 19th century Japan. Although on one hand it seemed to be a
> mark of distinction to obtain the samurai status, economically speaking
> many people, including the samurai themselves, knew that the money can
> be found in the purportedly "lower" classes. For example during the
> Meiji era a survey of families who sent their daughters to a public
> school---across the board claimed samurai descent, but many *before
> 1868 had engaged in clearly merchant class businesses (this flies
> against the widespread abhorrance of samurai to engage in such work).
> By far the most econommically dynamic classes were the upper peasant
> and merchant classes. What killed the samurai class was their obsolete
> role and drain on the economy---samurai no longer and never did
> produced "anything" unlike the lower classes, although as we now they
> fulfilled critical administrative roles.
>
> I haven't finished this page yet but when I'm done I'll upload it to
> shinsengumihq.com:
>
> Before Boshin 1868: A Survey of the Feudal System
> http://1happyturtle.com/Hosting/BakumatsuBackground.htm
>
> It's really important to note this article
> The Farmers of Edo and the Warriors in Kyoto
> http://www.shinsengumihq.com/FarmersofEdo.htm
>
> Because the Shinsengumi, for the first time are mentioned in a non-
> warrior context, were right smack in the middle of the social pyramid
> blur---they were close friends/associates/adopted siblings to ELITE
> PEASANTS, WELL EDUCATED PEASANTS. Thus people like Kondou and Hijikata
> had a deep understanding of what was going on because they valued these
> social relationships and clearly, in no way abandoned their associates
> after attaining that feudal "dream" of samuraihood so to speak.
>
> I did pose the question to Mr. Hillsborough of whether or not he would
> address what was going in Tama at the time and if he would discuss in
> depth the social background of these figures. Specifically, rural Edo
> where many members from the Shinsengumi call home has been studied by
> scholars specifically for all that social blurring. During the Meiji
> Era that region produced incredibly politically active farmers who
> pushed for *real democratic change and surprisingly opposed some of the
> victors of 1868. Hillsborough asked if I was a sociology major. I'm
> not---just a concerned and curious member of his audience, but the
> point was ... it is absolutely important to get into the "mindset" of
> Kondou and Hijikata. Because they did see things differently, after
> all, travelling from rural Edo to Kyoto was an eye opening
> experience...trying to navigate the capital's bureaucracy must've been
> rather difficult for a bunch of "nobodies". They were fish out of
> water and treated as such.
>
> Whether or not their later success contributed to their "their
> conviction of self-importance and their unyielding will to power"
> (Hillsborough 147) and so forth is a possibility, but a slightly
> difficult abstraction to gauge accurately by any historian.
>
> Then again, lust for power is a universal, human trait, not something
> the Shinsengumi monopolized.
> Hillsborough probably has not studied the aftermath of 1868 in great
> detail. His heroes are the most shockingly ruthless men to hold and
> maintain, political, social, military and educational power.
>
> --- In SHQ@yahoogroups.com, "Kitsuno" wrote:
> As for the social classes, it looks
> > like they got pretty hazy near the end of the Edo period. Thanks for
> > the clarifications.
> >
>

Oops, make that "lunar calendar date: Tenpo 15, the first day of the first month."

~Seven

--- In SHQ@yahoogroups.com, "Seven" wrote:
>
> Just a reminder, Saitou was born on February 18, 1844 (lunar calendar date: Tenpo, the
> first day of the first month.) This year, the Lunar New Year is also February 18 (which
> happens once in 19 years.)
>
> ~Seven
>
>
> --- In SHQ@yahoogroups.com, "secretary" wrote:
> >
> > Hello Kitsuno, Seven and Hirotada Tokugawa, thanks for reviving the
> > list.
> > Happy New Year everyone and...Happy B-day Saitou
> > Saitou "yeah sure whatever"
> > Tokio "some people are grumpy the whole darn year..."
> >
> > I just wanted to comment that indeed many social classes were greatly
> > blurred in 19th century Japan. Although on one hand it seemed to be a
> > mark of distinction to obtain the samurai status, economically speaking
> > many people, including the samurai themselves, knew that the money can
> > be found in the purportedly "lower" classes. For example during the
> > Meiji era a survey of families who sent their daughters to a public
> > school---across the board claimed samurai descent, but many *before
> > 1868 had engaged in clearly merchant class businesses (this flies
> > against the widespread abhorrance of samurai to engage in such work).
> > By far the most econommically dynamic classes were the upper peasant
> > and merchant classes. What killed the samurai class was their obsolete
> > role and drain on the economy---samurai no longer and never did
> > produced "anything" unlike the lower classes, although as we now they
> > fulfilled critical administrative roles.
> >
> > I haven't finished this page yet but when I'm done I'll upload it to
> > shinsengumihq.com:
> >
> > Before Boshin 1868: A Survey of the Feudal System
> > http://1happyturtle.com/Hosting/BakumatsuBackground.htm
> >
> > It's really important to note this article
> > The Farmers of Edo and the Warriors in Kyoto
> > http://www.shinsengumihq.com/FarmersofEdo.htm
> >
> > Because the Shinsengumi, for the first time are mentioned in a non-
> > warrior context, were right smack in the middle of the social pyramid
> > blur---they were close friends/associates/adopted siblings to ELITE
> > PEASANTS, WELL EDUCATED PEASANTS. Thus people like Kondou and Hijikata
> > had a deep understanding of what was going on because they valued these
> > social relationships and clearly, in no way abandoned their associates
> > after attaining that feudal "dream" of samuraihood so to speak.
> >
> > I did pose the question to Mr. Hillsborough of whether or not he would
> > address what was going in Tama at the time and if he would discuss in
> > depth the social background of these figures. Specifically, rural Edo
> > where many members from the Shinsengumi call home has been studied by
> > scholars specifically for all that social blurring. During the Meiji
> > Era that region produced incredibly politically active farmers who
> > pushed for *real democratic change and surprisingly opposed some of the
> > victors of 1868. Hillsborough asked if I was a sociology major. I'm
> > not---just a concerned and curious member of his audience, but the
> > point was ... it is absolutely important to get into the "mindset" of
> > Kondou and Hijikata. Because they did see things differently, after
> > all, travelling from rural Edo to Kyoto was an eye opening
> > experience...trying to navigate the capital's bureaucracy must've been
> > rather difficult for a bunch of "nobodies". They were fish out of
> > water and treated as such.
> >
> > Whether or not their later success contributed to their "their
> > conviction of self-importance and their unyielding will to power"
> > (Hillsborough 147) and so forth is a possibility, but a slightly
> > difficult abstraction to gauge accurately by any historian.
> >
> > Then again, lust for power is a universal, human trait, not something
> > the Shinsengumi monopolized.
> > Hillsborough probably has not studied the aftermath of 1868 in great
> > detail. His heroes are the most shockingly ruthless men to hold and
> > maintain, political, social, military and educational power.
> >
> > --- In SHQ@yahoogroups.com, "Kitsuno" wrote:
> > As for the social classes, it looks
> > > like they got pretty hazy near the end of the Edo period. Thanks for
> > > the clarifications.
> > >
> >
>

> Just a reminder, Saitou was born on February 18, 1844...

Precisely-- 18 February 1844 by the Gregorian calendar ("our"
calendar). However, the predominant works of scholarship in English
and Japanese usually operate by lunar date and they call the lunar
month by the name of the Gregorian calendar month. Also, many Japanese
sites, even accurate ones, give "1.1.1844" without giving any
explanation about the nuances of Gregorian vs. Lunar calendar. Hence
"January 1, 1844". But yes, in the end, you're correct-- 18 February
1844. Which, coincidentally, is only three days after Matsudaira
Katamori's birthday (by Gregorian reckoning).

Also, when dealing with dates prior to the changeover of 3 Dec 1872
(lunar) to 1 January 1873 (Gregorian), in order to avoid confusion, it
is safer to simply use lunar dates and indicate at the start of one's
work that they are being used-- as is the common practice amongst many
prominent Western scholars of Japanese history such as Harold Bolitho,
Conrad Totman, Frank Chance, Karl Friday, and others.

-M.

--- In SHQ@yahoogroups.com, "Shimazu Masayoshi" wrote:

> Precisely-- 18 February 1844 by the Gregorian calendar ("our"
> calendar).

Exactly!

>However, the predominant works of scholarship in English
> and Japanese usually operate by lunar date and they call the lunar
> month by the name of the Gregorian calendar month.

Cool! I usually call the lunar month by the name of the Gregorian calendar month as well.

~Seven

Someone is saying same theory.
http://homepage2.nifty.com/ishinnokiseki/toshizo/toshizo4.html

Interesting discussion here
http://www.motodoc.jp/cgi-bin/bbs/read.cgi?end=694

Just an interesting contribution from the other side
of the globe:

> Interesting discussion here
> http://www.motodoc.jp/cgi-bin/bbs/read.cgi?end=694

In this site, there is a discussion whether
1) Sakurada Sakuramaro, chief kenjutsu instructor of
Sendai, is Yamanami (Sannan) Keisuke or not

2) The kenjutsu style praticed by Sakurada is Hokushin
Itto or Chuka Itto (it is written as "Chuwa", but read
as "Chuka", according to Watatani Kiyoshi - Bugei
Ryuha Daijiten).


Well, there are records here in Brazil related to one
of Sakurada Sakuramaro's grandsons. His name was
Sakurada Matsumaro, and he was alive till some 20
years ago (he was a friend of my grandfather, who was
from Aizu). Before WWII, he was one of the kendo
instructors in Brazil.

According to the records,

1) His grandfather was Sakurada Sakuramaro and he was
one of the kenjutsu instructors of Sendai. This
implies that Yamanami Keisuke most probably wasn't
Sakurada Sakuramaro himself.

2) Their kenjutsu style was Hokushin Itto ryu. This
implies that either Chuka Itto ryu was abandoned (at
least its name) or it was something that was passed
only to the head of the family, which I think it's
more likely. So, the head (first son) would inherit
Chuka Itto ryu and all the others would learn Hokushin
Itto. According to this hypothesis, Yamanami Keisuke
would have been proficient in Hokushin Itto, not
Chuka, which explains why the name Chuka Itto ryu
isn't associated with Keisuke.



Serizawa Kamo

"I am the bone of my sword.
Steel is my body,and fire is my blood.
I have created over a thousand blades.
Unknown to Death.
Nor known to Life.
Have withstood pain to create many weapons.
Yet, those hands will never hold anyting.
So as I pray, unlimited blade works."

(Fate/Stay Night)

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

--- In SHQ@yahoogroups.com, "Hirotada Tokugawa" wrote:

>
> If I recall correctly (am away from my notes) this was probably the

date of

> the Shinsengumi's "Bakushin-toritate"-- in other words, they were

made

> direct retainers of the Shogun. I have a reproduction of the full,

original

> document that hired them, and that's the word used for it there.
>

In Hillsborough's book, somewhere around page 60 or so (I don't have
the book here), he is talking about events roughly around 1863 and
then basically says that they were made "direct vassals" of the
shogun, but Kondo himself declined it (but I think the implication is
that others didn't[?]) - was the Bakushin toritate just round 2 of
this? Or does Hillsborough just jump around too much in his book?

>In Hillsborough's book, somewhere around page 60 or so (I don't have
>the book here), he is talking about events roughly around 1863 and
>then basically says that they were made "direct vassals" of the
>shogun, but Kondo himself declined it (but I think the implication is
>that others didn't[?]) - was the Bakushin toritate just round 2 of
>this? Or does Hillsborough just jump around too much in his book?

I've never seen Hillsborough's book (yet) but I think he's mixing two
events. After Ikedaya, the Bakufu offered to give Kondou a position as a
"yoriki"-- a police inspector. This would have made him a functionary of the
Bakufu and for all practical purposes, at least a gokenin (2nd-tier vassal)
if not a hatamoto (direct vassal). He refused at that point. However, a few
years later when the bakushin-toritate of 1867 happened, he did not refuse--
he became a hatamoto, and even became a wakadoshiyori (junior councilor).
This is, in my opinion, yet another instance of Hillsborough getting very
cocky with his limited understanding of (a) Shogunal procedure and protocol
and (b) his confused and confusing narrative, and creating something that,
while not a lie, is not really the truth, either.

-M.

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

--- In SHQ@yahoogroups.com, "Hirotada Tokugawa" wrote:

> I've never seen Hillsborough's book (yet) but I think he's mixing two
> events. After Ikedaya, the Bakufu offered to give Kondou a position

as a

> "yoriki"-- a police inspector. This would have made him a

functionary of the

> Bakufu and for all practical purposes, at least a gokenin (2nd-tier

vassal)

> if not a hatamoto (direct vassal). He refused at that point.

However, a few

> years later when the bakushin-toritate of 1867 happened, he did not

refuse--

> he became a hatamoto, and even became a wakadoshiyori (junior

councilor).

> This is, in my opinion, yet another instance of Hillsborough getting

very

> cocky with his limited understanding of (a) Shogunal procedure and

protocol

> and (b) his confused and confusing narrative, and creating something

that,

> while not a lie, is not really the truth, either.
>

Here is the quote - tell me what you make of it:

(P. 63)

"In October (it doesn't say when, but I assume the month following the
execution of Serizawa Kamo) in recognition of thier loyalty, the Roshi
of the Shinsengumi were invited to officially join the ranks of the
hatamoto, the so-called eighty thousand knights of the Tokugawa
Shogun. A generous monthly stipend was attached. Although the entire
corps, from Kondo and Hijikata on down, undoubtably and indisputably
coveted the official ranking within the Tokugawa Hierarchy, Kondo
refused the offer."

This says right out that they were *all* offered a position, and it
seems that he is also saying that Kondo unilaterally declined it. He
goes on to say that this is because he felt that the Shinsengumi had
not fulfilled all of its objectives because it still had not me the
goal of removing the foreigners. His included footnote only describes
hatamoto, but doesn't give any sort of source for the above.

This is as an aside, but I'm pretty sure that the book "Blood and
Makoto etc." states that only 105 members were included in the
bakushin toritate. I don't have it on hand at the moment - but, was
this so, and/or what was the 105 referring to? I'll find the actual
section when I get a chance.

Do you mean primary source of the bakushin toritate 105 members?

Shikisoku

2007/1/11, Kitsuno <samurai-listowner@...>:

>
>
>
>
>
>
> This is as an aside, but I'm pretty sure that the book "Blood and
> Makoto etc." states that only 105 members were included in the
> bakushin toritate. I don't have it on hand at the moment - but, was
> this so, and/or what was the 105 referring to? I'll find the actual
> section when I get a chance.
>
>

--- In SHQ@yahoogroups.com, "k kobayakawa" wrote:

>
> Do you mean primary source of the bakushin toritate 105 members?
>
> Shikisoku
>

I was wondering if it was all shinsengumi members, or only 105
members. 105 seems like an arbitrary number, unless there was some
method for choosing them. Or, if it was all members, and this 105 is
something else.

>Here is the quote - tell me what you make of it:
>
>(P. 63)
>
>"In October (it doesn't say when, but I assume the month following the
>execution of Serizawa Kamo) in recognition of thier loyalty, the Roshi
>of the Shinsengumi were invited to officially join the ranks of the
>hatamoto, the so-called eighty thousand knights of the Tokugawa
>Shogun. A generous monthly stipend was attached. Although the entire
>corps, from Kondo and Hijikata on down, undoubtably and indisputably
>coveted the official ranking within the Tokugawa Hierarchy, Kondo
>refused the offer."
>

Simple. I don't have my text resources on me, but according to the
biographies of THIS site: http://www.bakusin.com/taishi10.html (which I can
vouch for as being unbelievably thorough and accurate-- checks out with
pretty much all the texts I've seen) the Bakushin-toritate that they DID
accept was in the 6th month of Keio 3. What Hillsborough probably refers to
is another occasion.

>This says right out that they were *all* offered a position, and it
>seems that he is also saying that Kondo unilaterally declined it. He
>goes on to say that this is because he felt that the Shinsengumi had
>not fulfilled all of its objectives because it still had not me the
>goal of removing the foreigners. His included footnote only describes
>hatamoto, but doesn't give any sort of source for the above.

Also, I am hardly surprised that he makes a blanket statement like "Although
the entire corps, from Kondo and Hijikata on down, undoubtably and
indisputably coveted the official ranking within the Tokugawa Hierarchy,
Kondo refused the offer." Note the key words there: "...undoubtably and
indisputably coveted the official ranking..." How can he back this up? Am I
supposed to take the word of a man who openly considers Shinsengumi no
better than ravenous dogs? Does he have a journal or record where Kondou
says "I want this post really really bad"?

"A generous monthly stipend was attached." makes it sound like the Shogunate
was throwing a side of beef to hungry wolves. If you worked for the Shogun,
compared to being a poor dojo master, a medicine peddler, or what have you,
to have a stable stipend (at least on paper) in and of itself was generous.
Yes, there were retainers of the shogun who were low-ranking and low-paid,
but Shinsengumi wasn't just any group of people-- if the Shogunate was going
to take the trouble of retaining them and giving them rank as *hatamoto*,
which I take as being roughly equivalent in some cases to a cavalry officer
(I base this conclusion on the hatamoto data in "Edo Machi Bugyo-jiten," by
Sasama Yoshihiko, ISBN: 978-4760124947), then the stipend *would* be
"generous". Also, since he doesn't cite his sources I suppose it's pointless
to ask if he knows what the stipend level was.

"He goes on to say that this is because he felt that the Shinsengumi had not
fulfilled all of its objectives because it still had not me the goal of
removing the foreigners..." He gives no sources or footnotes for this one,
right? The Shinsengumi believed in "sonno-joi," but then again, so did
(ultimately) people in the Bakufu, as well as Choshu "radicals," and so on.
However, I would like to see Mr. Hillsborough produce *one* solid piece of
incontrovertible evidence that Shinsengumi had "removal of foreigners" as an
objective. Shinsengumi was not formed to drive out foreigners; it did not do
anything to drive out foreigners in its entire existence, it did not engage
in slaying foreigners as the assassins serving the "enlightened" Meiji
rulers of later years did. It even received training from foreigners in
later years, and following the return to Edo, its uniform, as attested to by
Ikeda Shichisaburo and quoted in Kikuchi Akira's "Shinsengumi Hyakuichi no
Nazo" (ISBN 978-4404019981) and "Shinsengumi Jitsuroku" (ISBN
978-4480056788), was Western-style. Is Mr. Hillsborough weaving fact with
his own fiction?

The full roster of men-- in fact, a copy of the very same bakushin-toritate
order-- who accepted Bakushin-toritate (it's been awhile since I looked at
it, but I believe that 105 is the number of the Shinsengumi who accepted,
while a handful rejected it, captured, and were made to commit suicide in
the Aizu offices) appears in "Shinsengumi Seishi," by Tsuri Yoichi
(Published by Shin Jinbutsu Oraisha, 1998, ISBN 978-4404025708). Kondou is
on it, Hijikata is on it, and others....now I just have to be sure to make
scans next time I go to the nearest library that has it, so you can all see.

-M.

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

--- In SHQ@yahoogroups.com, "Hirotada Tokugawa" wrote:

>

>
> The full roster of men-- in fact, a copy of the very same

bakushin-toritate

> order-- who accepted Bakushin-toritate (it's been awhile since I

looked at

> it, but I believe that 105 is the number of the Shinsengumi who

accepted,

> while a handful rejected it, captured, and were made to commit

suicide in

> the Aizu offices) appears in "Shinsengumi Seishi," by Tsuri Yoichi
> (Published by Shin Jinbutsu Oraisha, 1998, ISBN 978-4404025708).

Kondou is

> on it, Hijikata is on it, and others....now I just have to be sure

to make

> scans next time I go to the nearest library that has it, so you can

all see.

>

That clears up a lot. My interpretation of the book so far is that
the "expulsion of foreigners" was way up on the shinsengumi "to do"
list according to hillsborough. As for the 105 - now I get it - there
were only 105 members (aside from the ones who declined or fled) - I
was thinking that only a percentage were chosen. And I'd LOVE to see
the list. UH might have the book, but I don't know when I'll be
getting up there again, probably not for a few weeks anyway.

OK, I think I have copy(not photo copy) of the list(Letter from
Itakura Iga-no kami dated June 23, 1867)
It is in Bakumatsushi Kenkyu #39 issue.
I counted, and there were only 99 members.(Included the members who
didn't want it)
hmm?


Shikisoku



2007/1/12, Kitsuno <samurai-listowner@...>:

>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In SHQ@yahoogroups.com, "Hirotada Tokugawa" wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > The full roster of men-- in fact, a copy of the very same
> bakushin-toritate
> > order-- who accepted Bakushin-toritate (it's been awhile since I
> looked at
> > it, but I believe that 105 is the number of the Shinsengumi who
> accepted,
> > while a handful rejected it, captured, and were made to commit
> suicide in
> > the Aizu offices) appears in "Shinsengumi Seishi," by Tsuri Yoichi
> > (Published by Shin Jinbutsu Oraisha, 1998, ISBN 978-4404025708).
> Kondou is
> > on it, Hijikata is on it, and others....now I just have to be sure
> to make
> > scans next time I go to the nearest library that has it, so you can
> all see.
> >
>
> That clears up a lot. My interpretation of the book so far is that
> the "expulsion of foreigners" was way up on the shinsengumi "to do"
> list according to hillsborough. As for the 105 - now I get it - there
> were only 105 members (aside from the ones who declined or fled) - I
> was thinking that only a percentage were chosen. And I'd LOVE to see
> the list. UH might have the book, but I don't know when I'll be
> getting up there again, probably not for a few weeks anyway.
>
>

> OK, I think I have copy(not photo copy) of the list(Letter from
> Itakura Iga-no kami dated June 23, 1867)
> It is in Bakumatsushi Kenkyu #39 issue.
> I counted, and there were only 99 members.(Included the members who
> didn't want it)
> hmm?

That's the one-- Itakura, Ogasawara Iki no Kami Nagamichi, and a
couple other people (Inaba Mino no Kami Masakuni of Yodo, and one or
two others, I think) signed it. My copy has 105 people including the
people who rejected it and were made to commit suicide.

-M.

My copy has 105 people too.

--- In SHQ@yahoogroups.com, "Shimazu Masayoshi" wrote:
>
> > OK, I think I have copy(not photo copy) of the list(Letter from
> > Itakura Iga-no kami dated June 23, 1867)
> > It is in Bakumatsushi Kenkyu #39 issue.
> > I counted, and there were only 99 members.(Included the members who
> > didn't want it)
> > hmm?
>
> That's the one-- Itakura, Ogasawara Iki no Kami Nagamichi, and a
> couple other people (Inaba Mino no Kami Masakuni of Yodo, and one or
> two others, I think) signed it. My copy has 105 people including the
> people who rejected it and were made to commit suicide.
>
> -M.
>

Sorry.
I just miscounted.


2007/1/13, Seven <nlf7@...>:

>
>
>
>
>
>
> My copy has 105 people too.
>
> --- In SHQ@yahoogroups.com, "Shimazu Masayoshi" wrote:
> >
> > > OK, I think I have copy(not photo copy) of the list(Letter from
> > > Itakura Iga-no kami dated June 23, 1867)
> > > It is in Bakumatsushi Kenkyu #39 issue.
> > > I counted, and there were only 99 members.(Included the members who
> > > didn't want it)
> > > hmm?
> >
> > That's the one-- Itakura, Ogasawara Iki no Kami Nagamichi, and a
> > couple other people (Inaba Mino no Kami Masakuni of Yodo, and one or
> > two others, I think) signed it. My copy has 105 people including the
> > people who rejected it and were made to commit suicide.
> >
> > -M.
> >
>
>