Version classiqueVersion mobile

Encyclopédie des historiographies : Afriques, Amériques, Asies

 | 
Nathalie Kouamé
, 
Éric P. Meyer
, 
Anne Viguier

S

Sûden’s Anti‑Christian Edict (The) (1614)

Édit antichrétien de Sûden (L’) (1614)

Nathalie Kouamé

Résumé

L’édit antichrétien d’Ishin Sûden (1614) est l’un des textes historiques les plus célèbres du Japon. Ce texte important est d’ordinaire présenté par les historiens comme marquant un tournant dans l’histoire de l’archipel : ce serait le point de départ de la politique antichrétienne des shôgun Tokugawa (1603‑1867). Cette notice évoque le contenu de ce texte et le contexte dans lequel il a été écrit et propose une nouvelle hypothèse concernant les raisons pour lesquelles il fut promulgué au début de l’année 1614 sur ordre de Tokugawa Ieyasu. La notice présente également une traduction intégrale en anglais et en français du texte de Sûden.

Texte intégral

Introduction

And that is when that crew of Christians came to Japan. They were not content sending their trading ships and introducing their goods, they also wanted to disseminate a heretical doctrine, disrupt orthodox religion and, in this way, overturn the government of our country and take it over. This is the early warning sign of great troubles. Therefore, it is necessary to suppress them.

  • 1 Ebisawa et alii, 1970, p. 420‑421.

1This searing indictment of the Christian religion and its followers appears in one of the most famous Japanese historical texts: “Statement on the Expulsion of the Padres” (Bateren tsuihô no bun 「伴天連追放之文」). This text from 1614 was written by the Zen monk Ishin Sûden 以心崇伝 (1569‑1633), at the behest of Tokugawa Ieyasu 徳川家康 (1542‑1616). The text can be found today in the Register of Foreign Affairs 『異国日記』written by Sûden, as well as in a number of anthologies of historical documents. The Japanese version which is given at the end of this entry (for the original text is in Chinese) is that of the historian Ebisawa Arimichi who edited the text in the collection Nihon Shisô Taikei published by Iwanami Shoten Press1 (see below, document 3).

2This important text is generally presented by historians as marking a watershed in Japanese history: this text was the starting‑point for the anti‑Christian policy of the Tokugawa shôgun (1603‑1867).

3This text has intrigued me personally for a long time. Indeed, when we read it for the first time, we are first struck by its cryptic nature; the text is not easy to understand. It appears to be without any clear logic; it interweaves all kinds of notions, ideas, and learned citations from various sources; it makes obscure allusions – one Japanese historian of the Taishô era referred to this text as “gibberish”! As far as I am concerned, I would say rather that it resembles a patchwork.

4Moreover, I have never really understood why Tokugawa Ieyasu ordered Sûden to write this text so suddenly. In fact, Sûden makes it clear in his Register of Foreign Affairs that, and I quote, “the evening of the 22nd day of the 12th moon of the 18th year of the Keichô era [namely, the 31st of January 1614], because (Tokugawa Ieyasu) gave me the order in the new palace of Edo, I wrote a text concerning the expulsion of Christian missionaries”. In other words, Sûden wrote the text in just one night! One night is very little time to write a text announcing not only that all foreign missionaries were to be expelled from Japan, but also that the Christian religion would be banned throughout the national territory; quite simply, at the time, many people were followers of this religion! The Jesuits estimated that in the years 1600 to 1610 there were 300 000 Christians in the archipelago. In addition to their numbers, the importance of Christians was due as well, of course, to the part they played in commercial enterprises. At the beginning of 1614, Portuguese merchants and their associates, the Jesuit missionaries, were still major commercial partners with Japan. How can we understand Tokugawa Ieyasu lashing out against people who were in fact indispensible to him?

5Indeed, this text has intrigued me for a long time because I have also often asked myself the following question: how can we understand the interdiction of Christianity in 1614 when we know that, three months before Sûden wrote his text, Ieyasu had demonstrated a certain religious tolerance in authorizing the embassy, organized by the daimyô Date Masamune 伊達政宗 (1567‑1636) together with the Franciscan missionary Luis Sotelo (1574‑1624), to leave for Mexico and Europe? Indeed, one of the objectives of this embassy was to obtain authorization to create a Franciscan bishopric in north‑east Japan.

6The contents of this text and the context within which it was written raise an entire set of questions. But, before getting to the heart of the subject, I would like to note that this text was officially signed by Hidetada 秀忠 (1579‑1632), the shôgun in office from 1605 onwards. Because of this signature, the text possessed immediate legislative value. According to Sûden himself, as soon as the text received the approval of Ieyasu, Itakura Shigemune 板倉重宗 (1586‑1656), the son of the shoshidai of Kyôto 京都所司代 , Itakura Katsushige 板倉勝重 (1545‑1624), immediately went to the imperial capital to bring it to his father, who in turn made numerous copies of it.

A purely ideological discourse

7The Sûden’s text appears as a purely ideological discourse. In fact, Sûden never enters into the details of concrete measures to be taken to eradicate the Christian religion in Japan; this function had been relegated to another text that had been written three days earlier (on the 19th day of the 12th moon) and that addressed the very practical questions of rounding up in Nagasaki all the missionaries dispersed throughout the archipelago, destroying Christian churches, and forcing the faithful of the foreign religion to apostatize.

8I think that we can say that Sûden’s text is primarily about the problem of the identity of Japan. Sûden poses the problem of knowing what Japan is. What is it that defines the country, how is it different from other countries, what are the dangers that confront it, and what must be done to preserve its integrity? The central theme of the text is the idea that the identity as well as the political order of Japan are threatened by the presence, the activities, and the ambitions of Christian missionaries and that, as a consequence, the Japanese must expel these missionaries, ban the foreign religion, and punish those who rebel. With regard to the foreign menace, the passage I quoted at the start of this paper is pertinent. The same idea is taken up again: “These are truly the enemies of the gods and the enemies of Buddhas. If [their presence, their doctrine, and their activities] are not rapidly forbidden, then in the future the State will necessarily have cause to lament.”

9As a matter of fact, Sûden’s rhetoric here on the Christian threat had already become, by the time he was writing his text, a stereotype. Indeed, that these missionaries represented a threat to the Japanese political order was an idea that had already been expressed by the Buddhist clergy in the era of Oda Nobunaga 織田信長 (1534‑1582) and then later by Toyotomi Hideyoshi 豊臣秀吉 (1537?‑1598), as well as by the Europeans themselves at the end of the 16th century. For example, when Hideyoshi explained to the General Governor of Manilla why he had executed 26 Christians in Nagasaki in 1597, he told him it was because he was afraid that the Christian missionaries were a threat to the unity of the Japanese nation; this explanation was, in fact, also taken up during the period, first by the Portuguese and the Jesuits, on the one hand, and then by the Spanish and the Franciscans on the other, all of them reporting the facts while accusing each other of having infected Hideyoshi with the idea that the missionaries were preparing the terrain for the conquistadors.

10For Sûden, there was only one way to parry the Christian threat: “Let us cast them out quickly so that they occupy not one bit of Japan. We will punish those who continue to transgress the orders.” In this last sentence, it seems that Sûden refers to all Christians, foreign missionaries as well as faithful Japanese, but on this point the text remains ambiguous.

11In any event, the idea that national identity needs to be preserved at all costs against foreigners is perhaps expressed again in the following sentences: “For his part, Confucius said: ‘We have received our body from our father and our mother. Filial piety begins by not bringing harm to it in wounding it.’ Perfectly conserving our body means honoring the gods.” It is worth noting that in the last two sentences, Sûden slips in the Confucian notion that filial piety must be shown toward shintô notion, that it is necessary to respect the kami 神.

12I will return to this confusion of genres, or to the fundamental syncretism that marks Sûden’s entire discourse. For now, I would like to hold onto the idea that Sûden is first and foremost preoccupied with raising the question of Japanese identity, to the point where he does not even seem interested in Christians’ actual doctrine; in fact, the monk does not even attempt to refute the dogmas of the foreigners in his text, such as their beliefs in the nature of their god, in the immortality of the soul, or in the mystery of the resurrection of Christ and so on. In this respect, Sûden’s text distinguishes itself from the account of the quarrel between the Christian Fabian ハビアン (1565‑1621) and the Confucian Hayashi Razan 林羅山 (1583‑1657) from a few years previous (1606), or from the anti‑Christian treatises of the first half of the Keichô era, such as the Kirishitan yurai ki 『吉利支丹由来記』 or the Bateren ki 『伴天連記』.

13The only passage in which Sûden explicitly attacks the heart of Christian doctrine is this one: “When they see that someone is the object of a punishment, they are delighted and run after him. [Once they are before him] they bow down and give thanks to him. They assert that this behavior is the primary goal of religion. If this is not heresy then what is?” Sûden here is clearly alluding to specific historical events that refer to the cult of Christian martyrs; we know, for example, that in the fall of 1613 in Kyôto, during the public execution of a Christian from Nagasaki, some Christians in the crowd knelt before his corpse; on this occasion, in a report addressed to the bakufu (i.e. shogunate) on the dangers inherent in Christian proselytizing, the Nagasaki prefect of the period, Hasegawa Sahyôe 長谷川左兵衛 (1567‑1617), denounced the tendency of Japanese Christians to relish in anything that reminded them of the ordeal of Christ. In short, in Sûden’s text, the attack against Christianity is rather of a political nature, for in the end, Sûden reproaches Christians not for their dogma but for siding with criminals. Reading Sûden, we find that the error of the Christians does not consist in disseminating false, erroneous, absurd or incredible doctrine. No, Sûden rather reproaches the Christians for three things:

  • First, Christians disrupt the political order, a political order that is guaranteed, it goes without saying, by the Tokugawa (an idea that is in part expressed in the passages that I have already quoted, but one finds it elsewhere as well).
  • Second, Christians reject shintô and Buddhism.
  • Third, they do not respect the moral virtues or the fundamental religious injunctions.

14Of these three attacks against Japanese identity, the second one, concerning the traditional religion of Japan, is the most important in Sûden’s line of argument. I will therefore concentrate my analysis on this point.

Christians reject shintô and Buddhism

15To begin, I would say that Sûden asserts as axiomatic that Japan is shinkoku 神国, “the land of the gods”; he expresses this idea quite clearly when he writes: “Japan has been from its origins the land of the gods.”

16In fact, the concept of shinkoku can signify many things. In part, it means that Japan is blessed by the gods‑kami and receives their protection. In part, in a more general way, it means that Japan possesses a divine, sacred character; that it is of a divine essence, because, for example, it is ruled by an imperial line descended from the gods. Finally, the notion of shinkoku can signify that the Japanese people has shintô, or belief in the kami, as their traditional religion. Sûden writes clearly that: “Japan is the land of gods and the land of Buddhas: we revere the kami here, we venerate the Buddhas”.

17Before turning to this idea that Japan is also the country of the Buddhas, I think it is key to consider for a moment this notion of shinkoku, which is essential. The first thing that needs to be said is that this word had become quite a cliché by the time Sûden was writing. In fact, the expression was used for the first time in the Nihon Shoki 『日本書記』 (Chronicle of Japan, 720), in a passage concerning the conquest of the three Korean kingdoms by the empress Jingû 神功皇后; in this passage, the king of Silla, who has just learned of the arrival of an impressive war fleet, says: “I have heard it said that in the East there is a land of the gods called Japan”. Of course, we also find the expression shinkoku in the Middle Ages in the very first sentence of the famous Jinnô Shôtôki 『神皇正統記』 (Chronicle of the Direct Descent of Divine Sovereigns) of the aristocrat Kitabatake Chikafusa 北畠親房 (1293‑1354). In the epoch of Hideyoshi and Ieyasu, this expression is far from falling into disuse, since the two men use it in their diplomatic correspondence in which, here and there, they assure their European interlocutors that Japan is the land of the gods; we even find this notion in books of Christian propaganda such as the Myôtei Mondô 『妙貞問答』 (The Myôtei Dialogue) written in 1605 by Fabian who represents his adversaries as being partisans of the ideology of Japan as land‑of‑the‑gods.

18So, given this philological history, it is not at all surprising to see Sûden in 1614 define Japan as the “land of the gods”. I even think that Sûden felt a bit obliged to take up this formulaic expression which had already been adopted by Hideyoshi in 1587 in the first text banning at the national level the proselytizing activities of Christians and ordering missionaries to leave Japan within 20 days; in this famous edict, Hideyoshi justified his anti‑Christian measures from the very outset by the fact that Japan was the land‑of‑the‑gods.

19That said, if the expression in which Japan is shinkoku is already a stereotype in Sûden’s time, then it appears that Sûden gives this expression a strange semantic twist by associating it with the concept of shin 神 ‑ yet it is strange only in appearance.

20The semantic shift in meaning is foregrounded by the historian Takagi Shôsaku in his work entitled Shôgun kenryoku to tennô (The Power of the Shôgun and the Emperor) published by Aoki shoten Press in 2003. Takagi brings up the fact that in the first lines of his text Sûden establishes a correlation between the notion of divinity as it is conceived in the shintô and the concept of divinity as it is understood in the Way of Yin and Yang. In fact, at the very beginning of the text, this shift in meaning is not yet present: “The trigram qian [symbol of heaven] is the father; the trigram kun [symbol of earth] is the mother; man is born in between them; the three [cosmic] powers are these [heaven, earth, man].” Of course, the trigrams are the divinatory symbols that are found in the great handbook of Chinese divination called Book of Changes (Yi jing 易経); yet, this Book of Changes is also one of the “Five Classics” of Confucianism, to which it furnished concepts of cosmology. This point is very important to note in order to understand the fundamentally syncretic character of Sûden’s discourse.

21Sûden jumps from the religion of Yin and Yang to that of shintô in the following sentences:

Japan has been from its origins the land of the gods. We call ‘divinity’ [shin] the unfathomable character of yin and yang. That which is holy is holy, that which is spiritual is spiritual: who would not wish to respect this? If man receives life, it is because yin and yang have willed it to be so. The five parts of the body and the six dusts as well as movements are never far from divinity. Divinity must not be sought for elsewhere; men have divinity in themselves; each one expresses it perfectly. In other words, they are the body of divinity.

22Clearly, Sûden is mixing ideas from different religious traditions: the passage may therefore be called, as I mentioned previously, a kind of patchwork:

  • First, as the historian Takagi Shôsaku has already noted, there is a very syncretic definition of the idea of “divinity” in the passage.
  • I would add myself that the triad of “three powers” is a concept that pertains both to the Way of Yin and Yang and to Confucianism. In effect, the triad Heaven-Earth-Man is a concept that was put forward by the Chinese Confucian Xunzi 荀子 as early as the 3rd century B.C.
  • Finally, strictly Buddhist ideas are inserted to support the line of argument that man’s essence is divine. For example, Sûden used the term rokujin 六塵, the “six dusts”.

23Such theoretical mixing can be seen in action again when Sûden defends the idea that Japan is also the land of the Buddhas! “Moreover, [Japan] is [also] called the land of Buddhas. This is not without good reason. For it is written that: ‘It is the land where Buddhas appear in the form of gods [of shintô]; it is the original land of Dainichi’.”

24Here again Sûden is simply taking up old ideas, for the shintô‑Buddhist fusion existed since ancient Japan. This syncretism had two aspects at the beginning of the 17th century. On the one hand, it was the fruit of the reflection of thinkers who, starting from Buddhism, created a synthesis between Buddhism and shintô; in this case, the reflection gave greater weight to Buddhism. This, of course, is the theory of honji‑suijaku 本地垂迹; according to this theory, the kami are the Japanese incarnations of Indian Buddhist divinities which changed their forms temporarily to reveal themselves in Japan in the shape of kami (or gongen 権現) so as to disseminate the Buddhist Law and save all living things. On the other hand, this blending was also the result of reflection that took as its starting point shintô thought. I am thinking here of Yoshida Kanetomo 吉田兼倶 (1435‑1511), the founder of the branch of Yoshida Shintô 吉田神道, which asserted in the 15th century that the kami were the original prototypes and that the Buddhas and the Bodhisattvas were only their Indian manifestations.

25In the passage that I have just quoted, Sûden of course refers to the theory of honji‑suijaku; yet, thanks to the work of the historian Takagi Shôsaku, we also know that this passage is taken from a shintô work called Jingi shôjû 『神祇正宗』, “The True Doctrine Concerning the Divinities [of shintô]”, a work of uncertain date, but which was most probably written in the 15th or 16th century.

26Takagi Shôsaku gives us as well an original interpretation of the following long passage, which appears right after that one I have just quoted:

As to the Lotus Sutra, it is said that: ‘The Buddhas save the world by means of their supernatural capacities. They manifest a divine and limitless force to give joy to all living beings.’ Here are the noble words [which emanate from Buddha]. Gods and Buddhas are designated by different names, which nevertheless have the same content: it is as if two halves of the same document, cut in two, are reunited. In the past, with the help of the gods, monks and lay people crossed the ocean and came to faraway China; there, they were assiduous in searching out the doctrine of the Buddhists and the teaching of the way of humanity. It is in this manner that they brought back [to Japan] all kinds of books, some Buddhist, some not. As the scholars [of our country] then transmitted this teaching from master to master in an uninterrupted succession, Buddhism prospered [in Japan] better than in other countries. Do we not see in this the progressive advancement of Buddhist law towards the East?

27There are three ideas concerning Buddhism that are developed in this passage:

  • First, the idea of a correspondence between kami and Buddhas.
  • Second, the idea that Japan is the end point of the expansion of Buddhist teaching: this teaching began in India, was developed in China, and was transmitted from there to Japan (where it flourished).
  • Finally, third, the idea that the kami contributed to the introduction of Buddhism in Japan (by protecting the monks during their journeys).

28Takagi Shôsaku demonstrates that all of Sûden’s ideas had already been stated a century and a half before, in the 15th century, in exactly the same way, in a passage using the same arguments and even the same citations (notably from the Lotus Sutra)! Takagi refers to the preface of a work by the Zen monk Zuikei Shûhô 瑞渓周鳳 (1391‑1473). Shûhô’s work was entitled Zenrin kokuhô ki 『善隣国宝記』, “The Precious Chronicle of Managing Good Relations with Our Neighbors”. According to Takagi, Sûden must have known this 15th century work which had served as a reference for those writing diplomatic documents, which was in fact one of Sûden’s official tasks.

29Yet, even beyond this borrowing, the historian Takagi also sees, in this amalgam of diverse notions and ideas characterizing Sûden’s text, the influence of Yoshida Shintô (in other words, shintô as it was interpreted by the Yoshida family).

30The theories of Yoshida Shintô were based in a work probably written in the second half of the 15th century by the founder of the branch, Yoshida Kanetomo. His work was called Yuiitsu shintô myôhô yôshû 『唯一神道名法要集』, “An Anthology of the Doctrines of the Only Shintô”. According to Takagi, Kanetomo’s work very probably influenced Sûden in giving him the idea that it was completely legitimate to define shintô ideas (notably that of “divinity”) in association with Confucian or Buddhist ideas or texts. In Kanetomo’s theory, shintô constituted the basis of various existing teachings. Shintô represented the roots, Confucianism the branches and the leaves, Buddhism, the flowers and the fruits. In other words, according to Kanetomo, the three religions appeared in succession, with shintô coming first, then Confucianism, and finally Buddhism; to express the idea that Buddhism had ended up by reaching Japan and flourishing there, Kanetomo had used imagery, saying “when the flowers fall, they go back to the roots”, meaning that for Kanetomo, Buddhism had been born of the kami, the kami which had come to the world well before Shakyamuni.

31Therefore, Takagi Shôsaku believes that Sûden was inspired both by the ideas of Zuikei Shûhô and the ideas of Yoshida Shintô; there is not, in this double influence, any contradiction according to Takagi, for Shûhô himself had been very close to Yoshida Shintô. I would like to emphasize that fact that Suden’s discourse is completely “abstract”; it is abstract because it is made from purely theoretical and textual elements; yet, it is also abstract because we could well raise the question as to whether Sûden “believed” what he wrote: “believed” in the religious, spiritual and, let us even say, private sense of the term.

32Tokugawa Ieyasu, who had commanded the text, certainly did not adhere to the letter of this discourse. But in what way, then, could this very abstract discourse interest a politician such as Ieyasu? I come now to the second major point of the text, the one that states that, as legitimate rulers of Japan, the Tokugawa must punish Christians.

33By calling into question Japanese beliefs, and, in fact, all beliefs - since Sûden builds on universal truths when he says that the world is made up of “three powers” or when he speaks of Japan as the country of the gods - Christians necessarily disrupt the political order of Japan which rests upon these beliefs. For Sûden, the political order rests upon fundamental virtues that consist, in part, in the respect of laws (see the passage mentioned previously in which the Christians rush to venerate the martyrs), and, in part, in humanity and moral sense, and finally, in the capacity to distinguish good from bad: “[In Japan] we consecrate ourselves to the way of humanity and moral sense; we study the law of good and evil.” What is important to understand here is that Confucian moral values are repudiated by Christians whose religion is of foreign origin. “This crew of Christian missionaries deviate from these above‑mentioned laws. They call into questions the way of the gods and slander the right law [Buddhism]. They destroy all moral sense and harm all good.” Here, clearly, there is a question as to whether Sûden is purely and simply slandering all Christians in Japan with the same brush or if he is specifically referring to historical events.

34In my opinion, he is alluding to real events. In fact, just a short while before writing his edict of proscription, two incidents had stained the reputation of Christians in Japan. I am thinking, for example, of the Madre de Deus Incident; Madre de Deus was the name of a Portuguese vessel which was shipwrecked off the coast of Nagasaki in 1610 following a settling of scores between the Japanese and the Portuguese; implicated in this affair were a number of actors: the Portuguese Governor of Macao, André Pessoa (d. 1610), Arima Harunobu 有馬晴信 (1561?‑1612), kirishitan‑daimyô of the island of Kyûshû, Murayama Tôan 村山等安 (1562‑1619), one of the representatives of bakufu at Nagasaki (and also a Christian), as well as an handful of Jesuits. But Sûden may well have been thinking about the affair of Okamoto Daihachi 岡本大八事件 in 1612; according to the historian Ueda Jun’ichi, this incident was in fact the direct cause of Sûden’s edict of proscription against the Christians.

35The Okamoto Daihachi Incident concerns the misappropriation of public funds. It was a purely Japanese affair, as no foreigners were directly involved; it was simply that the two protagonists happened to be Christians. These two protagonists were, first, the daimyô Arima Harunobu – him again! –, and second, Okamoto Daihachi (d. 1612), vassal and commercial agent of Honda Masazumi本多正純 (1565‑1637), Ieyasu’s right hand man. First, Okamoto Daihachi convinced Arima Harunobu that he, Daihachi, could serve as Harunobu’s intermediary to obtain a reward from the bakufu for having handled the Madre de Deus Incident (the reward would have been the recovery of all the lands once belonging to Arima family); to obtain this reward, Harunobu had only to pay a substantial bribe! But this arrangement was discovered and Daihachi was thrown in prison; it was there that he then accused Harunobu of planning to assassinate Hasegawa, the prefect of Nagasaki! Our two Christians were therefore guilty of all kinds of infractions: land trafficking, forgery, and plotting to assassinate a senior official.

36In essence, this Okamoto affair offered the bakufu a good pretext to ban the Christian religion in territories under his direct jurisdiction: this became the edict of the 3rd moon of the 17th year of the Keichô era (1612). However, there was another edict, promulgated five months later, which also banned the Christian faith; on this occasion, a certain number of concrete repressive measures were taken. For example, at Kyûshû, in the fiefdom of the Arimas 有馬氏, Christian vassals were pursued and Jesuits were hunted down; at Edo, churches belonging to the Franciscan order were destroyed; at Kyôto, the churches built without the authorization of Ieyasu were seized; but, at Nagasaki, the Christian city par excellence, nothing was done; no anti‑Christian measures were taken! In short, it would be difficult to speak of a massive repression of Christians in Japan in the year 1612.

37Yet, the question arises: is there a direct link between the anti‑Christian measures of 1612 and those of 1614? The question arises because, between the Okamoto affair and the moment when Sûden is writing his text, that is to say, during nearly two years, only one tiny incident would tarnish the reputation of the Christians, namely, that one, already mentioned, of the swindler from Nagasaki who was executed in Kyôto in 1613. In other words, from 1613 to 1614, nothing occurred to justify the toughening of the anti‑Christian policy of the Tokugawas, and our edict of 1614 cannot therefore be seen as the logical and inevitable consequence of the anti‑Christian dispositions of 1612. What was it then that caused Ieyasu to harden his position at the beginning of the year 1614?

38Quite truthfully, it is not easy to decipher his motives from Sûden’s theoretical discourse; nevertheless, we can at least note that Sûden insists a lot on the problem of the political legitimacy of the Tokugawa clan. In fact, in his text, Sûden advances the idea – originally Chinese – that the Tokugawa received a Mandate of Heaven:

…we have the duty to legislate; if we do not suppress them we will be censured by heaven. (And then) …we have heavenly instructions thanks to which we have ruled Japan and have directed the country for many years. With regard to the exterior world, we show the supreme virtues that are the Five Constants; with regard to our interior world, we believe in the great teaching of baskets. This is why our country is rich, and our people, peaceful. For it is said in the [Lotus] Sutra that: “[Those who possess faith in the Buddhist law may] enjoy a tranquil life in this world and be reborn in pure land in the hereafter” [ in other words, in the paradise of a Buddha].

39Here again Sûden bases his discourse on a fundamentally syncretic approach since the Buddhist references are associated with the Confucian idea of the Five Constants which refer to the moral virtues, namely, humaneness, righteousness, propriety, wisdom and faithfulness. We find this syncretic approach again in the long passage concerning the punishments reserved for those who refuse to obey.

To elicit the sympathy of the Dutch and the English?

40In fact, the most subtle analysis of the content of this text cannot answer two very simple, but essential historical questions: why did Tokugawa Ieyasu ask Sûden to write this text at the beginning of 1614? Why were not the measures foreseen by this text and the text written three days previous to it enforced in the archipelago with all due rigor? These two questions may well have the same answer.

41An historian such as Murai Sanae (2002) supports Charles Boxer’s idea that Tokugawa anti‑Christian repression was rather moderate in the 1610s. Of course, some churches of Kyôto were destroyed. Additionally, seen and known by all, a good number of foreign missionaries, their Japanese personnel and certain great kirishitan‑daimyô, Takayama Ukon 高山右近 (1552?‑1615), Naitô Tokuan 内藤徳庵 (d. 1626), were rounded up in Nagasaki and effectively left Japan in 1614 to take refuge in Manilla, Macao or Siam. Let us note that this measure was not difficult to undertake given the limited number of clerics of the Catholic community (fewer than 150 individuals, all religious orders taken together). Under the guidance of the bakufu representatives, certain daimyô from Kyûshû implemented repressive measures, but this was not the case for all of them: for example, the great fiefdom of Satsuma did nothing in particular. Even at Nagasaki, the Christian city par excellence as we have noted, some Christian buildings and cemeteries were not destroyed before 1618. Let us note as well that during Ieyasu’s lifetime no cleric of a foreign nation died as a “martyr” (the first missionaries condemned to death were in 1617). As to the number of Japanese Christian “martyrs” listed in the missionary reports of the period 1614‑1620, there are very few given the substantial Christian community in Japan at the time: ‘’only’’ 282 victims. We even see senior bakufu officials closing their eyes to the activities of missionaries who had taken the risk to stay in Japan, passing themselves off as merchants.

  • 2 Kouamé, 2011, p. 149‑182.

42This relative “laxism” cannot be explained by the bakufu’s fear of attacking powerful kirishitan‑daimyô; in 1614, after the death of Arima and the exile of Takayama, no Christian daimyô remained in Japan. Of course, the moderate nature of Ieyasu’s repression reminds us of that of Toyotomi Hideyoshi, three decades earlier. In fact, Hideyoshi had not shown, either in 1587, when he promulgated his first anti‑Christian edict, or ten years later, in 1597, when he executed 26 Christians in Nagasaki, a real desire to eradicate the Christian community, nor go after his foreign officials, who were for the most part at the time, Jesuits working for the Portuguese crown. It is possible that Ieyasu, who had consecrated his life to war and diplomacy - that is to say, deal‑making, lies, and tricks - it is possible, in fact, that Ieyasu wanted to use the same tactic as Hideyoshi: keep the missionaries and their flock on a leash without annihilating them completely2.

43In Hideyoshi’s time, this compromise can be explained by the fact that the Jesuits were still indispensable to the Japanese; closely linked to the Portuguese merchants coming from Macao, they served as interpreters, commercial intermediaries, and sellers. Of course, with time, the Jesuit missionaries become less crucial; at the beginning of 1614, a certain number of Portuguese merchants spoke Japanese fluently and some Japanese could speak Portuguese; the Dutch had begun to send their commercial vessels to Japan; the English had recently come to establish a trading post in Hirado; and, generally, within the framework of the shogunate license to trade, the Japanese themselves had become increasingly active actors in Japanese international commercial transactions.

44That said, even as late as 1614, Ieyasu still needed Iberian missionaries to guarantee the commercial revenues coming into Japan and to himself. So, after the Madre de Deus Incident (in 1610), Ieyasu gave up on the idea that he could do without the Portuguese to obtain Chinese silk. At the beginning of 1610, only the Portuguese had direct access to the silk market of Canton; this is why, in 1611, Ieyasu received an envoy from the city of Macao, thus letting him understand that he was ready to reestablish commercial relations with the Portuguese. The annual arrival of the black Portuguese shipping vessel was instituted under the same conditions as those before 1610; this agreement was confirmed in writing by Hidetada in 1612; in the same year, the ship Sao Felipe e Santiago arrived in Japan: business was back.

45How was it, then, that Ieyasu, who had already threatened the Christian community in 1612, wished to get tough with them in 1614, without however engaging in a radical repression that could have led to a rupture in commercial relations with Catholic nations? We may be able to answer this question if we consider the political and economic context at the beginning of 1614.

46With regard to the political situation, it is important to remember that Japan was still at the beginning of 1614 in a state of civil war. In fact, opposing the political legitimacy of the bakufu was the political legitimacy of the successor to Toyotomi Hideyoshi, namely, his son, Hideyori 秀頼 (1593‑1615). The legitimacy of Hideyori was still fairly strongly felt at a time when tens of thousands of samurai, for the most part rônin, gathered together under the leadership of Hideyori in the Ôsaka castle. (Let us note here that among these samurai, there were some Christians) It is certain that Ieyasu sought for a long time to get rid of Hideyori. In 1611, Ieyasu had already succeeded in bringing Hideyori to the shôgun’s Nijô castle in Kyôto; Ieyasu was exercising his authority, but of course this was not enough to rid him of his rival.

  • 3 Cited by Asao Naohiro, Asao, 2004.

47And so, an English ship arrives in Japan on the 5th moon of the 18th year of the Keichô era, some months before Sûden writes his text. The captain of this ship is John Saris (1580?‑1643) and it is he who then initiates the first diplomatic relations between England and Japan. 5 months later, that is, 2 months before Sûden writes his text, the English set up a trading post in Hirado, clearly with the authorisation of the bakufu. According to the historian Okada Akio3, one of the goals of this captain of the English ship, John Sarris, was to dominate the Japanese market of lead. At the time, lead was used to make musket bullets and to treat other metals such as gold or silver. It was therefore a very important raw material. One of the major concerns of the bakufu at the time was to gain direct control over international transactions having to do with military equipment. Such control was clearly vital for the new shogunate, which was, I repeat, contested by the numerous followers of Hideyori. This dispute led the bakufu to lay siege to the Ôsaka castle from 1614 to 1615.

48We know that the teppô (muskets) and the artillery were decisive in this campaign, at least in the first part of it, which took place between the 10th and the 12th moons of the 19th year of the Keichô era, around one year after the Sûden’s composition of the edict of proscription. For example, at the beginning of the first campaign, the principal strategist of the Toyotomi, who was present in the Ôsaka castle, Sanada Yukimura 真田幸村 (1567‑1615), won the first battles because he knew how to use the fire power of the muskets in massive doses. We also know that, subsequently, Ieyasu used cannons against the Ôsaka fortress; these cannons were of Japanese make, but also English and Dutch; Ieyasu even employed a Dutch cannon gunner! It was the use of cannons that ultimately convinced Hideyori’s supporters to agree to negotiations, negotiations that, in the end, were favorable to the Tokugawa, since the truce enabled Ieyasu to fill all the moats of the castle! All this makes it tempting to think that, in establishing stronger measures with regard to Iberian Catholic missionaries at the beginning of 1614, Ieyasu was above all looking to elicit the sympathy of the Dutch and the English, who were apt to furnish him with the weaponry that was indispensable to the survival of his shogunate.

  • 4 Thompson, 1883.

49To support this hypothesis, it is obviously important to remember that at the beginning of the 17th century the climate in which these commercial relations between countries existed was extremely tense and that commercial ships also defended national interests; allow me to mention that for religious reasons as well as political and commercial ones, European nations were tearing each other apart at the time: the Netherlands against Spain, and so, naturally, against Portugal; the English against the Dutch and so on; on the high seas throughout the world, these rivalries translated into acts of piracy; and each day in Japan Ieyasu and Hidetada got wind of the slanderous remarks made by one country against another. We know that, throughout the 1610s., Ieyasu was listening carefully to what his English counselor, William Adams (1564‑1620), was saying to him; in fact, at the start of 1614, Adams had a particular interest in casting aspersions on the Portuguese and their Jesuit associates. From the beginning of the Anglo‑Japanese commercial alliance, William Adams had been hired by the British East India Company. A letter written by Richard Cocks (1566‑1624), director of the English trading post in Hirado, proves that Adams already had a contract with this Company at the end of November 1613, one month before the composition of Sûden’s text4. The hypothesis that the English and the Dutch may have played a decisive role in the hardening of Ieyasu’s anti‑Christian position in 1614 does not seem to me any less plausible than the generally accepted idea found in most books attempting to explain the proscription of 1614, according to which this repression was due to Ieyasu’s growing exasperation with regard to Christians. The idea that Ieyasu wanted to shore up his relations with northern Europeans in the context of a civil war in Japan seems to me less vulnerable than a psychological explanation based on the so called “exasperation” of Ieyasu.

Conclusion

501. First of all, I think that the historical importance of Sûden’s text from the point of view of the anti‑Christian repression in Japan should not be exaggerated, as it is all too often. We can very well see this text as having been written for reasons that were quite circumstantial and material, in this case, specifically to please the Dutch and the English. Indeed, before 1614, Ieyasu had already shown that he could announce severe anti‑Christian measures without implementing them; this was the case in 1605, when he had written to the Spanish governor of the Philippines to let him know that he was banning proselytizing missionaries in Japan, without ever taking any concrete steps in this direction. If we start from the idea that the proscription of 1614 was not conceived as definitive or irrevocable and that is was in fact more tactical than ideological, this allows us to see the repressive measures taken after 1614 as less a confirmation of a viscerally anti‑Christian position than the result of the realization that, in the end, a strategy of proscription was more advantageous than disadvantageous. This could also explain the way in which the anti‑Christian measures were spaced out in time: first, the edict of 1616 limited ports of access to Japan from Hirado and Nagasaki; then, the spectacular execution of about fifty Christians in Nagasaki in 1622, followed by the expulsion of Spaniards in 1624, and so on. Each step taken brought on and facilitated the next step in the absence of a preconceived plan.

512. Even if Sûden’s text is a mish‑mash of stereotypes and citations, and even if he, doubtless, wrote it for tactical reasons, it is not less important from the point of view of the history of the Japanese state: in fact, Sûden did nothing less than furnish the new Tokugawa state with a religious orthodoxy, very much inspired, as we have seen, by the syncretism of Yoshida shintô. But there is something else as well: Sûden defines the identity of Japan solely in religious terms. This move is no doubt the result of the history of 16th century Japan, one of the major characteristics of which was the religious engagement of a large part of the population. I am thinking here of the enormous power of Buddhist schools and movements such as Ikkô‑shû 一向宗 or Nichiren‑shû 日蓮宗 which occupied center stage for a good part of the century; I am also thinking about the rise of Christianity in Japan, but also the unprecedented development of religious pilgrimages, particularly that of Ise 伊勢参宮. In this context, perfectly naturally, those in power were necessarily led to accord a particular importance to religious matters; the religious policy of the three great generals of reunification represents a history as rich as it is complex. Indeed, we find in Sûden’s text a preoccupation that exists even today in the West confronted by Islam. All those who had forgotten the importance of religion in human society are rediscovering that the West is Christian (or that it had been for a long time) and, in some cases, rediscovering faith itself. Sûden seems to discover for us just how much the Japan of his own time was marked by religion.

Document 1: Unpublished English translation of Sûden’s edict

52The trigram qian [symbol of heaven] is the father; the trigram kun [symbol of earth] is the mother; man is born in between them; the three [cosmic] powers are these [heaven, earth, man]. Japan has been from its origins the land of the gods. We call “divinity” the unfathomable character of yin and yang. That which is holy is holy, that which is spiritual is spiritual: who would not wish to respect this? If man receives life, it is because yin and yang have willed it to be so. The five parts of the body and the six dusts [colors, sounds, odors, tastes, tangible objects, dharma] as well as movements are never far from divinity. Divinity must not be sought for elsewhere; men have divinity in themselves; each one expresses it perfectly. In other words, they are the body of divinity. Moreover, [Japan] is [also] called the land of Buddhas. This is not without good reason. For it is written that: “It is the land where Buddhas appear in the form of gods [of shinto]; it is the original land of Dainichi.” As to the Lotus Sutra, it is said that: “The Buddhas save the world by means of their supernatural capacities. They manifest a divine and limitless force to give joy to all living beings.” Here are the noble words [which emanate from Buddha]. Gods and Buddhas are designated by different names, which nevertheless have the same content: it is as if two halves of the same document, cut in two, are reunited. In the past, with the help of the gods, monks and lay people crossed the ocean and came to faraway China; there, they were assiduous in searching out the doctrine of the Buddhists and the teaching of the way of humanity. It is in this manner that they brought back [to Japan] all kinds of books, some Buddhist, some not. As the scholars [of our country] then transmitted this teaching from master to master in an uninterrupted succession, Buddhism prospered [in Japan] better than in other countries. Do we not see in this the progressive advancement of Buddhist law towards the East? And that is when that crew of Christians came to Japan. They were not content sending their trading ships and introducing their goods, they also wanted to disseminate a heretical doctrine, disrupt orthodox religion and, in this way, overturn the government of our country and take it over. This is the early warning sign of great troubles. Therefore, it is necessary to suppress [these people, their doctrine and their subversive activities].

53Japan is the land of gods and the land of Buddhas: we revere the gods here, we venerate the Buddhas; we consecrate ourselves to the way of humanity and moral sense; we study the law of good and evil. Those who violate [these principles] are punished in proportion to the gravity of their crimes, according to the five punishments: branding, cropping of the nose, amputation of the legs, castration‑confinement, capital punishment. For as it is said in the Record of Ritual: “As the degrees of mourning are numerous, so too are there five ways to observe it; as the degrees of criminal behavior are numerous, so too there are five forms of punishment.” Those who are suspected of having committed a crime will take an oath before the gods as witnesses. We will establish in writing the nature of crimes and punishments, and, to distinguish between innocence and guilt, we will make no error. Those who commit one of the five deadly sins [kill his mother, kill his father, kill a holy man, wound a Buddha, destroy the community of the faithful] or one of the ten grave errors [kill a living thing, steal, commit adultery, etc.] are abandoned by the Buddhas and the gods, by the three treasures [Buddha, dharma, the Buddhist community] and by men and celestial beings. It is difficult for them to escape from misfortunes stemming from evil actions accumulated over the years. They are punished either by decapitation or by the ordeal by fire. This is how to encourage good deeds and punish bad ones. We would like to suppress evil, but evil accrues easily; we would like to progress towards the good, but the good is maintained with difficulty. Is it not right to give clear warning? This world is made so. With regard to the afterlife, the Buddhas of three worlds [past, present, future] struggle to protect us from the judgment of the king of hell. And if we do not venerate the succeeding generations of our ancestors, we must tremble in terror.

54This crew of Christian missionaries deviate from these above‑mentioned laws. They call into questions the way of the gods and slander the right law [Buddhism]. They destroy all moral sense and harm all good. When they see that someone is the object of a punishment, they are delighted and run after him. [Once they are before him] they bow down and give thanks to him. They assert that this behavior is the primary goal of religion. If this is not heresy then what is? These are truly the enemies of the gods and the enemies of the Buddhas. If [their presence, their doctrine and their activities] are not rapidly forbidden, then in the future the State will necessarily have cause to lament. In particular, we have the duty to legislate; if we do not suppress them we will be censured by heaven. Let us cast them out quickly so that they occupy not one bit of Japan. We will punish those who continue to transgress the orders. Today, happily, we have heavenly instructions thanks to which we have ruled Japan and have directed the country for many years. With regard to the exterior world, we show the supreme virtues that are the five constants [humaneness, righteousness, propriety, wisdom and faithfulness]; with regard to our interior world, we believe in the great teaching of baskets [the teaching of Shakyamuni]. This is why our country is rich, and our people, peaceful. For it is said in the [Lotus] Sutra that: “[Those who possess faith in the Buddhist law may] enjoy a tranquil life in this world and be reborn in pure land in the hereafter.” For his part, Confucius said: “We have received our body from our father and our mother. Filial piety begins by not bringing harm to it in wounding it.” Perfectly conserving our body means honoring the gods. So, if we quickly reject this heresy, our right law will flourish. The world has already entered an epoch of moral decadence, but we have a good government which continues to help foster the way of the gods and the teaching of Buddha. The entire world needs to know this! We will make no mistake!

  • 5 Translated by Nathalie Kouamé from Ebisawa’s Japanese version (see Document 3).

55The twelfth moon of the eighteenth year mizunoto‑ushi of the Keichô era5.

Document 2: Unpublished French translation of Sûden’s edict

56Le trigramme qian [symbole du ciel] est le père, le trigramme kun [symbole de la terre] est la mère, l’homme est engendré en leur milieu ; les trois puissances [cosmiques] sont celles‑ci [ciel, terre, homme]. C’est que le Japon a été dès les origines le pays des dieux. On appelle « divinité » le caractère insondable du yin et du yang. Ce qui est saint est saint, ce qui est spirituel est spirituel : qui ne voudra pas respecter cela ? Si l’homme reçoit la vie, c’est parce le yin et le yang l’ont voulu. Les cinq parties du corps et les six poussières [couleurs, sons, odeurs, goûts, objets tangibles, dharma] ainsi que les mouvements ne s’éloignent jamais de la divinité. La divinité ne doit pas être recherchée ailleurs ; les hommes ont en eux la divinité, chacun d’eux la réalise parfaitement. Autrement dit, ils sont le corps de la divinité. Par ailleurs, [le Japon] est [aussi] appelé pays des bouddhas. Cela n’est pas sans raison. Car il est écrit que : « C’est le pays où les bouddhas apparaissent sous la forme de dieux [du shintô], c’est le pays originel de Dainichi. » Quant au Sûtra du Lotus, il y est dit que : « Les bouddhas sauvent le monde par leurs capacités surnaturelles. Ils manifestent une force divine incommensurable pour donner la joie à tous les êtres vivants. » Voilà de nobles paroles [qui émanent du Bouddha]. Dieux et bouddhas sont désignés par des noms différents, qui cependant ont un même contenu : c’est comme lorsqu’on réunit les deux moitiés d’un document coupé en deux. Autrefois, avec l’aide des dieux, des moines et des laïcs ont traversé l’océan et se sont rendus dans la lointaine Chine ; ils se sont appliqués à y rechercher la doctrine des bouddhistes et l’enseignement de la voie de l’humanité. C’est ainsi qu’ils ont rapporté [au Japon] toutes sortes d’ouvrages, les uns bouddhiques, les autres non. Les savants [de notre pays] s’étant ensuite transmis cet enseignement de maîtres en maîtres en une succession ininterrompue, le bouddhisme a mieux prospéré [au Japon] que dans les autres contrées. N’est‑ce pas là l’avancée progressive vers l’Est de la loi bouddhique ? C’est alors que la clique des chrétiens est venue au Japon. Ils ne se sont pas contentés d’envoyer leurs bateaux de commerce et d’introduire leurs marchandises, ils ont aussi voulu répandre une doctrine hérétique, troubler la religion orthodoxe, et de cette façon renverser le gouvernement de notre pays et se l’approprier. C’est là le signe avant‑coureur de grands malheurs. Il faut donc réprimer [ces gens, leur doctrine et leurs activités subversives].

57Le Japon est le pays des dieux et le pays des bouddhas : on y révère les dieux, on y vénère les bouddhas ; on s’y consacre à la voie de l’humanité et du sens moral, on y étudie la loi du bien et du mal. Ceux qui enfreignent [ces principes] sont punis, en fonction de la gravité de leur forfait, selon les cinq châtiments : tatouage, amputation du nez, amputation des jambes, castration‑confinement, peine capitale. Car comme il est dit dans le Traité des rites : « Les degrés du deuil étant nombreux, il est prévu cinq manières de le porter, les degrés du crime étant nombreux, il est prévu cinq châtiments. » Ceux qui seront suspectés d’avoir commis un crime prêteront serment en prenant les dieux à témoin. On établira par écrit quels sont les crimes et les peines et, pour distinguer culpabilité et innocence, l’on ne commettra aucune erreur. Ceux qui se rendent coupables des cinq péchés capitaux [tuer sa mère, tuer son père, tuer un saint, blesser un bouddha, détruire la communauté des fidèles] et des dix fautes graves [tuer un être vivant, voler, forniquer, etc.] sont abandonnés par les bouddhas et les dieux, par les trois joyaux [bouddha, dharma, communauté bouddhique] et par les hommes et les êtres du monde céleste. Il leur est difficile d’échapper aux malheurs dus aux mauvaises actions accumulées pendant des années. Ils sont châtiés soit par la décapitation soit par le supplice du feu. Voilà comment encourager les bonnes actions et punir les mauvaises. On voudrait réprimer le mal, mais le mal s’accumule facilement ; on voudrait avancer dans le bien, mais le bien se maintient difficilement. N’est‑ce pas là donner un clair avertissement ? Ce bas monde est ainsi fait. Pour ce qui est de la vie future, les bouddhas des trois mondes [passé, présent, futur] ont du mal à nous épargner les reproches du roi des enfers. Et si l’on ne vénère pas les générations successives de nos ancêtres, il faudra trembler d’effroi.

58Cette clique de missionnaires chrétiens déroge aux susdites lois. Ils mettent en doute la voie des dieux et calomnient la loi correcte [le bouddhisme]. Ils ruinent le sens moral et nuisent au bien. Lorsqu’ils voient que quelqu’un est l’objet d’une sanction, ils s’en réjouissent et courent à lui. [Une fois devant lui,] ils s’inclinent et le remercient. Ils prétendent que ce comportement est l’ambition première de la religion. Si cela n’est pas une hérésie, qu’est‑ce donc ? Ce sont vraiment les ennemis des dieux et les ennemis des bouddhas. Si l’on n’interdit pas rapidement [leur présence, leur doctrine et leurs activités], à l’avenir l’État s’en lamentera nécessairement. En particulier, nous avons la charge de légiférer ; si nous ne les réprimons pas, nous recevrons un blâme du ciel. Chassons‑les rapidement de sorte qu’ils n’occupent aucune parcelle du Japon. On châtiera ceux qui s’obstinent à transgresser les ordres. Aujourd’hui, par bonheur, nous avons des instructions célestes grâce auxquelles nous dominons le Japon et dirigeons le pays depuis plusieurs années. À l’extérieur, nous déployons les vertus suprêmes que sont les cinq invariants [humanité, sens moral, sens des rites, discernement, confiance] ; à l’intérieur, nous croyons au grand enseignement des corbeilles [enseignement de Shakyamuni]. Voici pourquoi notre pays est riche, et notre peuple, paisible. Car il est dit dans le Sûtra [du Lotus] que : « [Ceux qui ont foi en la loi bouddhique peuvent] jouir d’une vie tranquille en ce bas monde et renaître en une terre pure dans l’au‑delà. » Pour sa part, Confucius a dit que : « Nous avons reçu notre corps de notre père et de notre mère. La piété filiale commence par le fait de ne pas y porter atteinte en le blessant. » Conserver parfaitement notre corps, c’est honorer les dieux. Ainsi, si l’on rejette rapidement cette hérésie, notre loi correcte prospèrera. Le monde est déjà entré dans une période de décadence morale, mais nous avons une politique juste qui continue à faire prospérer la voie des dieux et l’enseignement du Bouddha. Il faut que le monde entier le sache ! On ne commettra aucune faute !

  • 6 Translated by Nathalie Kouamé from Ebisawa’s Japanese version (see Document 3).

59La douzième lune de la dix‑huitième année mizunoto‑ushi de l’ère Keichô6.

Document 3: Japanese version of Sûden’s edict

60乾を父となし坤を母となし、人その中間に生じ、三才これに定まる。それ日本はもとこれ神国なり。陰陽不測、名づけてこれを神と謂ふ。聖の聖たる、霊の霊たる、誰か尊崇せざらん。いはんや人の生を得る、ことごとく陰陽の感ずる所なり。五体六塵、起居動静、須臾も神を離れず。神は他に求むるものにあらず、人々具足し、箇々円成す。すなはちこれ神の体なり。また仏国と称す。よるところなきにあらず。文に云く、「これ神明応迹の国にして大日の本国なり」。法華に曰く、「諸仏世を救ふは大神通に住し、衆生を悦ばせんための故に、無量の神力を現ず」。これ金口妙文。神と仏とその名異なりてその趣き一なるは、あたかも符節を合するが如し。上古、緇素、おのおの神助を蒙り、大洋を航して遠く震旦に入り、仏家の法を求め、仁道の教へを求むること孜々屹々。しかうして内外の典籍を負ひ将来す。後来の末学、師々相承、的々伝受し、仏法の昌盛なる、異朝に超越す。あにこれ仏法東漸にあらずや。ここに吉利支丹の徒党、たまたま日本に来る。ただに商船を渡して資財を通ずるにあらず、みだりに邪法を弘め、正宗を惑はし、以て域中の政号を改め、おのが有となさんと欲す。これ大禍の萌しなり。制せずんばあるべからざるなり。

61日本は神国、仏国にして神を尊び仏を敬ひ、仁義の道を専らにし、善悪の法を匡す。過犯の輩あれば、その軽重に随ひ、墨劓剕宮大辟の五刑に行ふ。礼に云く、「喪多くして服五、罪多くして刑五」。罪の疑ひあれば、すなはち神を以て証誓をなす。罪罰の条目を定め、犯、不犯の区別、繊毫も差はず。五逆十悪の罪人は、これ仏神、三宝、人天大衆の棄損するところなり。積悪の余殃、逃れ難し。或いは斬罪、或ひは炮烙、罪を獲ることかくの如し。勧善懲悪の道なり。悪を制せんと欲すれど悪積み易し。善に進まんと欲すれど、善保ち難し。あに炳誡を加へざらんや。現世なほかくの如し。後世冥道閻老の呵責、三世の諸仏も救い難し。歴代の列祖を祭らず、畏るべし畏るべし。

62かの伴天連の徒党、みな件の政令に反し、神道を嫌疑し、正法を誹謗し、義を残なひ、善を損なふ。刑人あるを見れば、すなはち欣び、すなはち奔り、自ら拝し自ら礼す。これを以て宗の本懐となす。邪法にあらずして何ぞや。実に神敵仏敵なり。急ぎ禁ぜずんば後世必ず国家の患ひあらん。ことに号令を司る。これを制せずんば、かへつて天譴を蒙らん。日本国のうち寸土尺地、手足を措くところなく、速かにこれを掃攘せん。強ひて命に違ふ者あれば、これを刑罰すべし。いま幸ひに天の詔命を受け、日域に主り、国柄を秉ること、ここに年あり。外五常の至徳を顕はし、内一大の蔵教に帰す。この故に国豊かに民安んず。経に曰く、「現世安穏、後生善処」。孔夫子また曰く、「身体髪膚、父母に受く。あへて毀傷せざるは孝の始めなり」。その身を全うするは、すなはちこれ神を敬ふなり。早くかの邪法を斥けば、いよいよわが正法昌んならん。世すでに澆季に及ぶといへども、ますます神道仏法紹隆の善政なり。一天四海、よろしく承知すべし。あへて違失するなかれ。

63慶長十八竜集癸丑臘月 日

64Source: Ebisawa et alii, 1970, p. 420‑421.

Bibliographie

Books

Asao Naohiro 朝尾直弘, 2004, Asao Naohiro chosaku shû 3. Shôgun kenryoku no sôshutsu 『朝尾直弘著作集、3巻、将軍権力の創出』, Iwanami shoten, Tôkyô.

Boxer Charles R., 1974 (First edition: 1951), The Christian Century in Japan, 1549‑1650, University of California Press, Berkeley, 499 p.

Ebisawa Arimichi 海老沢有道 et alii (ed.), 1970, Nihon shisô taikei 25 Kirishitan sho haiya sho 『日本思想大系、25、キリシタン書・排耶書』, Iwanami shoten, Tôkyô.

Murai Sanae 村井早苗, 2002, Kirishitan kinsei to minshû no shûkyô 『キリシタン禁制と民衆の宗教』, Yamakawa Shuppansha, Tôkyô.

Takagi Shôsaku 高木昭作, 2003, Shôgun kenryoku to tennô. Hideyoshi Ieyasu no shinkoku kan 『将軍権力と天皇—秀吉・家康の神国観』, Aoki shoten, Tôkyô.

Thompson Edward Maunde (ed.), 1883, Diary of Richard Cocks, Cape‑Merchant in the English Factory in Japan, 1615‑1622, with Correspondance, The Hakluyt Society, London.

Contribution to book

Kouamé Nathalie, 2011, « Une ‘‘drôle de répression’’. Pour une nouvelle interprétation des mesures antichrétiennes du général Toyotomi Hideyoshi (1582‑1598) », in Brotons Arnaud, Bruneton Yannick & Kouamé Nathalie (dir.), État, religion et répression en Asie. Chine, Corée, Japon, Vietnam.xiiiexxie s., Éditions Karthala, Paris, p. 149‑182, 354 p. [9782811104443]

Notes

1 Ebisawa et alii, 1970, p. 420‑421.

2 Kouamé, 2011, p. 149‑182.

3 Cited by Asao Naohiro, Asao, 2004.

4 Thompson, 1883.

5 Translated by Nathalie Kouamé from Ebisawa’s Japanese version (see Document 3).

6 Translated by Nathalie Kouamé from Ebisawa’s Japanese version (see Document 3).

Le texte et les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont sous Licence OpenEdition Books, sauf mention contraire.

Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search