I had a brief break from work this evening, so I've expanded and modified this entry, which was in rather rough form.
There are two interrelated aspects of the early
Japanese court and political power with respect to which I will provide explanatory background in order to expose the
faults and perhaps deliberate obfuscations in the book by Mr. Bialock. Both
aspects can be tied to the intricately woven social fabric that evolved in
relation to the custom of polygamous marital relations practiced by the court.
One aspect also had a direct impact on the court’s
coffers, in that it enabled a reduction in the amount of allowance received by
children of an emperor that were removed from the line of succession. Such
children were given a family name of either Taira (clan name, Heike) or Minamoto
(clan name, Genji). This policy was brought into effect by the Fujiwara, as I
recall.
I am not aware of any other such names, and according
to the standard historical account, the Taira served in the Kebishi (the
capital city police force), and the Genji in the Palace Guard; both families
evolved into clans that became the leaders of the Samurai.
The second aspect relates to having one of the Emperor’s
sons named crown prince, i.e., the son who was to succeed the Emperor. The
Fujiwara sought to marry as many of their daughters into the imperial family as
possible in order to facilitate maneuvering to place one of the sons of one of
their daughters on the throne.
These efforts to both have sons of other mothers removed
from the imperial family—and thus from the line of succession—and to marry as
man of their own daughters into the imperial family bore fruit for the Fujiwara
by effectively doubling their leverage over influencing the succession to the
throne. And when they did manage to have one of their grandchildren accede to the
throne, they then proceeded to convert the court into a sphere facilitating an outright exercise of
nepotistic prerogative, installing family members at high posts, regardless of
their ability to perform the duties of officialdom associated with the post.
The case of the Fujiwara launched plot against
Sugawara no Michizane represents perhaps the epitome of their success in achieving
exactly that, and marks the beginning of the end of Heian Kyoto.
So, before even moving onto the nominal topic of the
book, that is, the Tale of the Heike, it is necessary to elucidate the
background of social development in Japanese society during the period under
examination. Only then will the reader be able to comprehend the clan-like
system and the place of the namesake clan—the Taira—of the Tale of the Heike.
Wikipedia is accessible and expedient means, and includes enough information
to support the basic arguments I’m presenting (and facilitate fact checking for interested readers). I hope that it is apparent from the
occasional reference I make to other books at relevant junctures, however, that
I have studied the history to a level that enables me to engage
recently published studies coming out of Western institutions of higher
learning. It is necessary to try and limit the scope of argument from becoming expansive, while at the same time providing adequate reference to enable people to evaluate the remarks I make, many of which are highly critical.
…Koko Tenno in 884. Koko was 55 years old but the regency
still continued, as it did when Uda became emperor at the age of 21. It only
lapsed when Mototsune died in 891 and Uda refused to appoint a replacement.
The office remained in abeyance through the reigns of Uda
and Daigo, which is to say up to 930. However, it resumed under Fujiwara
Tadahira, Mototsune's son, who was the grandfather of Suzaku Tenno, age 8. This
time the office remained permanent, even outlasting the power of the Fujiwara
clan. It was abolished in 1868 but revived again in 1889 in the Meiji
Constitution, but it was taken away from the Fujiwara clan and restricted to
the imperial clan...
As briefly as possible, here are some relevant
passages from Borgen’s book. On p. 271:
“Another source of conflict, in this instance between
Tokihira and Michizane, was their respective marital ties with the imperial
family. As already noted, one of Michizane’s daughters became a consort of Uda’s
in 895, Uda came to favor her… …another of Michizane’s daughters was serving as
principle handmaid, the highest woman ofical at court. Finally, when Uda’s son
Prince Tokiyo celebrated his coming of age in the eleventh month of 898, he
took yet another daughter of Michizane’s as his wife. Members of the Fujiwara
regents’ family… four of Mototsune’s daughters married into the imperial
family, and over a century later, five of his descendant Michinaga’s daughters
were to do so. For a Sugawara, however, such ties were unprecedented…
He continues in the next paragraph (in its entirety):
In contrast, Tokihira’s relations with the
imperial family were less than ideal, at least when compared to those of his
predecessors Yoshifusa and Mototsune. At the time of the Ako incident,
Mototsune had forced Uda to marry his daughter Haruko, who was Tokihira’s elder
sister. Although she did not produce a son, she was named Daigo’s adoptive
mother, probably on the day of his accession. This fabricated relationship
alone was hardly satisfactory to Tokihira. That same day, Tokihira attempted to
have his younger sister Yasuko (Onshi) accepted as a consort of the new
emperor, but Uda’s mother, Princess Nakako (Hanshi) objected. Instead, she had
arranged to have her own daughter Tameko (Ishi) selected as consort: Daigo was
married to his own aunt. Less than two years later, however, Tameko die in
child birth. Her mother heard rumors that it was due to Yasuko’s “angry spirit”,--such
beliefs were then common, and once more Nakako blocked an attempt by Tokihira
to have his sister named Daigo’s consort. Thus, whereas Michizane developed
closer marital ties with the imperial family than any previous Sugawara,
Tokihira was not able to retain what for the Fujiwara had become their
customary close relationship with the reigning emperor. At the time, the rule
of primogeniture was not followed, and the imperial succession usually went to
the prince with the most powerful backing. A grandson of Michizane could have
possibly become emperor, whereas Tokihira would have had trouble manipulating a
blood relative into the imperial line. Tokihira’s comparative weakness in this
respect gave him all the more reason to be suspicious of Michizane.
Borgen proceeds to details appointments to both honorary
and actual high offices that made other members of the court from more well
connected families envious. Michizane submitted two petitions to the court to
be relieved of those titles, but was refused. He also outright rejected Uda’s
moves to have him appointed chancellor, the highest public office after emperor.
On p. 275 Borgen writes:
In the
tenth month of 900, just one day after Michizane declined the title of general,
he received a letter from Kiyoyuki, whom he had ordered to resume lecturing
only four months earlier. The letter offered disturbing proof that his concerns
were justified:
Humbly, I, Kiyoyuki wish to state:
Superficial acquaintances who speak with
familiarity are false. Those who today talk of the future are dishonest. No
doubt I will have to endure accusations of falsehood and dishonesty, but I feel
I must warn you to be cautious.
While
a student at the university, I secretly immersed myself in the occult sciences.
Since ancient times, diviners have investigated the occasions when the mandate
of heaven changes and retainers overthrow their lords. Most recently, the
Classic of the K’ai-yuan Era (K’ai-yuan ching) has presented their theories in
detail. Determining the years of such momentous events is as easy as pointing
to the palm of one’s hand. This is something you surely know and I need not
further explain...
…It
is my humble observation that you have risen above your status as a scholar and
surpassed others to become a great minister. You have received imperial favor
and flourished in your scholarly endeavors. There is no one whose virtue can
compare with yours, except for Lord Kibi. It is my hope that you will know
contentment and recognize your proper status. You ought to retire to the
mountains and devote yourself to the beauties of the clouds and mist. Would it
not be great for later generations to admire you for this?
On p.276:
…In his second petition declining his
military title, Michizane had noted that there had been complaints about his
promotions and that he wished to devote himself to “serving the flowers and the
moon”. When Kiyoyuki suggested that Michizane was overly ambitious, he employed
the same phrase—“to know contentment”—that Michizane had used three years
earlier in his poem ensuring Tokihira that he was not ambitious. The phrase was
adopted from LaoTzu and would soon reappear to plague Michizane.
…Ten days
after sending Michizane the above letter, Kiyoyuki presented to the court his
prediction that a “revolution” (kakumei) was imminent. He was using the term in
its Confucian sense of a change in the mandate of heaven, a disruption of the
imperial succession… Then he supported the Chinese theories of numerology and
astrology that supported his prediction and maintained that the fats of both
Chinese and Japanese history proved his case…
Borgen goes on to elaborate the case that Michizane
was the victim of a plot that was likely conceived and coordinated by Tokihira,
employing Kiyoyuki, as a scholar frontman for leveling accusations against
Michizane, lending an air of scholarly authority to the superstitions and
fortune telling that served as the basis of the accusations, which aimed to
have Michizane exiled from the capital, excluding him from sphere of the imperial
court.
On p.283:
…after
Michizane was pardoned, Daigo burned the records relating to his banishment. Presumably
Daigo did this to hide his own culpability for having participated in the
impeachment of an innocent man. Had Michizane been guilty, he would not have
needed to destroy evidence…
We can’t be sure exactly what motivated Daigo to
basically betray his father Uda (Borgen pp. 278-9, 286, etc.), and collaborate
in the conspiracy against Michizane.
However, in light of Daigo’s apparent blatant disregard
for a fundamental principle of Confucianism (i.e., fidelity between father and
son), it would be difficult to say that he represented a paragon of Confucian
virtue. It would seem questionable, too, as to whether it would be appropriate
to characterize him as a “sagely king” in some sort of Daoist sense, as Bialock
attempts to do. I suppose it depends on the interpretation of Daoist “sageliness”,
but as with most other “points” made in the book, Bialock makes no definitive
statement as to his interpretation of critical terms. Moreover, he provides no catalog
of concrete definitions for sageliness found in Daoism through the ages, so it
is nearly impossible or an uninformed reader to judge the verity of his
statements. Among the too-many-to-count spurious statements I find in Bialock’s
text, there are several related to well-studied aspects of Japanese history that
can serve to illustrate what I’ve described above.
A first startling set of assertions by Bialock is
found on p.49:
…yin-yang
knowledge and omen-lore derived from the weft-texts also appear to have
informed the symbolic code of Suiko’s cap-ranks and the Seventeen Articles, The
Seventeen Articles attributed to Shotoku Taishi, for example, reveal an
extensive use of yin-yang symbolism and numerological theory in their
construction and content that exceed a merely formal or ornamental
function.
He then drops the names of a couple of Japanese
scholars, and makes some inane comments on their esoteric observations about
the number seventeen with respect to the Articles. It would seem to be such a
trivial point, even assuming that there were a semblance of historical veracity
to it, as to be simply an obvious part of the cultural background, not the
foreground as defined by the intentional promulgation of the Seventeen
Articles.
In other words, Bialock makes the ludicrous statement in the above-quoted passage that:
“The Seventeen Articles... reveal an extensive use of yin-yang symbolism and numerological theory in their construction and content that exceed (s) a merely formal or ornamental function”,
and then he provides no concrete grounds for making such an astounding yet inaccurate assertion about one of the crowning accomplishments of one of the most celebrated figures in Japanese history. The extent of the "symbolic code" he claims to be hidden in the cap-ranks system and Articles is limited toexceed a merely formal or ornamental function the number seventeen and associations with the color scheme of the cap-ranks system; accordingly, though he makes an explicit claim that the "symbolic code" he has uncovered is of a degree of import that "exceed (s) a merely formal or ornamental function", it remains a mystery to the reader as to exactly what contribution to the content of the cap-ranks system or the Articles the supposed "symbolic code" makes.
In fact, insofar as Bialock falsely assigns credit to "yin-yang symbolism and numerology" while denying the prevalent roles of Buddhism and Confucianism, his assertion is implicitly hostile to Confucianism and Buddhism, of which the overwhelmingly tangible influences in this extremely important historical document are plainly evident. I find the aforementioned assertion of Mr. Bialock to be delusional and basically bigoted.
“The Seventeen Articles... reveal an extensive use of yin-yang symbolism and numerological theory in their construction and content that exceed (s) a merely formal or ornamental function”,
and then he provides no concrete grounds for making such an astounding yet inaccurate assertion about one of the crowning accomplishments of one of the most celebrated figures in Japanese history. The extent of the "symbolic code" he claims to be hidden in the cap-ranks system and Articles is limited toexceed a merely formal or ornamental function the number seventeen and associations with the color scheme of the cap-ranks system; accordingly, though he makes an explicit claim that the "symbolic code" he has uncovered is of a degree of import that "exceed (s) a merely formal or ornamental function", it remains a mystery to the reader as to exactly what contribution to the content of the cap-ranks system or the Articles the supposed "symbolic code" makes.
In fact, insofar as Bialock falsely assigns credit to "yin-yang symbolism and numerology" while denying the prevalent roles of Buddhism and Confucianism, his assertion is implicitly hostile to Confucianism and Buddhism, of which the overwhelmingly tangible influences in this extremely important historical document are plainly evident. I find the aforementioned assertion of Mr. Bialock to be delusional and basically bigoted.
He proceeds to attempt to deny Shotoku Taishi credit for
creating the cap-rank system (adapted from a Chinese model), and calls the authorship of the Seventeen Articles into question. These covert slights are repugnant, and I find it hard to believe that Stanford University Press published this book as it is.
First, he refers to the cap-ranks in the above-quoted passage as “Suiko’s cap-ranks”, attempting to assign credit for the system to Suiko, the Empress for whom Shotoku Taishi was regent. Then, on p. 50:
First, he refers to the cap-ranks in the above-quoted passage as “Suiko’s cap-ranks”, attempting to assign credit for the system to Suiko, the Empress for whom Shotoku Taishi was regent. Then, on p. 50:
…whether
we accept Okada’s and Takigawa’s view that the dating of the constitution’s
promulgation to a revolutionary year was a deliberate strategy of its putative
framer, Shotoku Taishi…it is reasonable to assume that yin-yang cosmological
principles…played a role in shaping its conception of ancient royal authority,
although it doesn’t rule out Takeda’s arguments that more Confucian-like
principles were also a factor.
It would appear that he is referring to Shotoku Taishi as a “putative
framer” as opposed to the author because he wants to deny the fundamental Buddhist
and Confucian principles underpinning the Seventeen Articles, because he wants
to covertly assert that it was more of a document in which “yin-yang cosmological principles…played a role in shaping its conception
of ancient royal authority“.
It is plainly evident, however, that the Seventeen Articles (often referred to as a constitution) are not primarily about “royal authority”, but about ethical behavior, propriety, social harmony, etc.
In a footnote (p. 336) to the above-quoted passage, Bialock states:
Well, arguments in a scholarly work are not generally left at the level of "feeling", and I don't recall any substantial comparison of "rationalizing Confucianism and a more mystical trend exemplified in the weft-texts", at least nothing that would support his critical statement that the observations of the three Japanese scholars he cites are "colored by the false opposition". Instead, he tells us what we are really dealing with is "however, we are dealing rather with a clash between competing symbolic orders (one premised on binary and the other on circular logic)", although he avoids the use of that taboo term "really", because he is a dealer of the field of the symbolic order, not a scholar attempting to approach truth and elucidate reality. Of course, he would probably claim that it is the "competing symbolic orders" that constitute reality, nothing more. Would there be a little "circular logic" in that, Mr. Bialock?
In relation to the cap-ranks system, he states on p.49:
What is at issue here is the recurrent theme of meritocracy versus nepotism. One of the hallmarks of Confucianism is meritocracy, whereas the positions supported by Bialock fall under the heading of nepotism promoted in conjunction with religious affiliation by some priest caste or another. Is Bialok a Freemason? A member of some Kabal? Considering the thematic parallels between his work and that of John Dougill, for example, I would say that the possibility can't be ignored.
It is plainly evident, however, that the Seventeen Articles (often referred to as a constitution) are not primarily about “royal authority”, but about ethical behavior, propriety, social harmony, etc.
In a footnote (p. 336) to the above-quoted passage, Bialock states:
"...It
is my feeling that the arguments of Okada, Takigawa, and Takeda, valuable in
their details, continue to be colored by the false opposition, discussed
earlier, between a rationalizing Confucianism and a more mystical trend
exemplified in the weft-texts. As I will argue in Chapter 3, however, we are
dealing rather with a clash between competing symbolic orders (one premised on binary
and the other on circular logic), which partly accounts for peculiar workings
of defilement in relation to in-yang five agents principles."
Well, arguments in a scholarly work are not generally left at the level of "feeling", and I don't recall any substantial comparison of "rationalizing Confucianism and a more mystical trend exemplified in the weft-texts", at least nothing that would support his critical statement that the observations of the three Japanese scholars he cites are "colored by the false opposition". Instead, he tells us what we are really dealing with is "however, we are dealing rather with a clash between competing symbolic orders (one premised on binary and the other on circular logic)", although he avoids the use of that taboo term "really", because he is a dealer of the field of the symbolic order, not a scholar attempting to approach truth and elucidate reality. Of course, he would probably claim that it is the "competing symbolic orders" that constitute reality, nothing more. Would there be a little "circular logic" in that, Mr. Bialock?
In relation to the cap-ranks system, he states on p.49:
“…Okada and Takigawa further argued that the moral qualities assigned to
the six pairs of twelve cap-ranks, in the order of toku (virtue), jin
(benevolence), rei (courtesy), shin (sincerity), gi (justice), and chi
(wisdom), were arranged to accord with in-yang five agents principles rather
than the Confucian order of virtue, benevolence, justice, courtesy, wisdom, and
sincerity; and that the distribution of the five colors likewise harmonized
with yin-yang principles in an arrangement intended to ward off calamities and
assure good fortune…”
Here, too, as the Wikipedia entry (link provided below) states:
."..was adapted from similar systems that were already in place in Sui dynasty China,Paekche and Koguryŏ. The officials wore silk caps that were decorated with gold and silver, and a feather that indicated the official's rank. The ranks in the twelve level cap and rank system consisted of the greater and the lesser of each of the six Confucian virtues: virtue (徳 toku), benevolence (仁jin), propriety (礼 rei), sincerity (信 shin), justice (義 gi) and knowledge (智 chi).
The primary distinction between this new system and the old kabane system by which a person's rank was determined based on heredity, was that the cap and rank system allowed for promotion based on merit and individual achievement (my emphasis)..."
The system was introduced to promote meritocracy, not “too ward of calamities and assure good fortune”. It is also highly likely that Shotoku Taishi did not want to completely mimic the Chinese system, and adapted it accordingly, which would account for the slight variation in the order of the ranks.
."..was adapted from similar systems that were already in place in Sui dynasty China,Paekche and Koguryŏ. The officials wore silk caps that were decorated with gold and silver, and a feather that indicated the official's rank. The ranks in the twelve level cap and rank system consisted of the greater and the lesser of each of the six Confucian virtues: virtue (徳 toku), benevolence (仁jin), propriety (礼 rei), sincerity (信 shin), justice (義 gi) and knowledge (智 chi).
The primary distinction between this new system and the old kabane system by which a person's rank was determined based on heredity, was that the cap and rank system allowed for promotion based on merit and individual achievement (my emphasis)..."
The system was introduced to promote meritocracy, not “too ward of calamities and assure good fortune”. It is also highly likely that Shotoku Taishi did not want to completely mimic the Chinese system, and adapted it accordingly, which would account for the slight variation in the order of the ranks.
The differences held up by the above-quoted text would seem to be so
trivial as to be somewhat desperate in an academic context. What would be the
motivation—even on the part of Japanese scholars—to make such unsubstantiated
claims. I don’t think anyone would find it objectionable to state that there
may have been some degree of consideration given to other schemas of knowledge
in putting the finishing touches on the system. Bialock, however, completely
neglects
the Confucian context and content with regard to promoting meritocracy in
officialdom, which I find indisputable, and instead seems to be intent on imbuing
the official enactment of the cap-ranks with the character of a superficial
ritual “intended to ward off
calamities and assure good fortune…”, as opposed to securing a
foundation for the future stability and prosperity of society.
What is at issue here is the recurrent theme of meritocracy versus nepotism. One of the hallmarks of Confucianism is meritocracy, whereas the positions supported by Bialock fall under the heading of nepotism promoted in conjunction with religious affiliation by some priest caste or another. Is Bialok a Freemason? A member of some Kabal? Considering the thematic parallels between his work and that of John Dougill, for example, I would say that the possibility can't be ignored.
References:
Here is
the link to the Wikipedia entry on the cap-ranks.
Here is the Wikipedia entry on the Seventeen Articles,
followed by translations of the first two of the Seventeen Articles, from among
the numerous versions available online.
(1) Harmony should be valued and
quarrels should be avoided. Everyone has his biases, and few men are
far-sighted. Therefore some disobey their lords and fathers and keep up feuds
with their neighbors. But when the superiors are in harmony with each other and
the inferiors are friendly, then affairs are discussed quietly and the right
view of matters prevails.
(2) The three treasures, which are
Buddha, the (Buddhist) Law and the (Buddhist) Priesthood; should be given
sincere reverence, for they are the final refuge of all living things. Few men
are so bad that they cannot be taught their truth.
I Harmony
is to be valued, and an avoidance of wanton opposition to be honored. All men
are influenced by class-feelings, and there are few who are intelligent. Hence
there are some who disobey their lords and fathers, or who maintain feuds with
the neighboring villages. But when those above are harmonious and those below
are friendly, and there is concord in the discussion of business, right views
of things spontaneously gain acceptance. Then what is there which cannot be
accomplished!
II Sincerely
reverence the three treasures. The three treasures, Buddha, the Law and the
Priesthood, are the final refuge of the four generated beings, and are the
supreme objects of faith in all countries. What man in what age can fail to
reverence this law? Few men are utterly bad. They may be taught to follow
it. But if they do not betake them to the three treasures, how shall their
crookedness be made straight ?
Bialock claims that an object of the book is to
explore the neglected influence of Daoism and the like in the affairs of the
Japanese court. Although he quotes Borgen, he makes no reference of the K’ai-yuan ching used by Kiyoyuki and
Tokihira. His reasoning for selecting to address or neglect various relevant
historical factors demonstrates a lack of scholarly rigor, at the very least; at
the worst, it represents the effort of an ideologue trying to support some
hidden political agenda on an academic level through highly flawed scholarship.
Borgen has demonstrated the deception and lies
employed by such people under the guise of religion to further their political
agenda in order to serve their private interests, at the expense of individuals
such as Sugawara no Michizane, whose meritorious contributions are also
described by Borgen and who was basically a scholar exerting himself in the
service of the truth that sought to advance the public interest.
Insofar as Bialock appears determine to elevate and
applaud the role played in the political sphere of Daoism (i.e., primarily of
the alchemical type), divination, and other practices which fall under the rubric
of religion but are manifestly based on forms of what can only be characterized
as superstitions in academic discourse, it can be said that he adopts a
position that basically supports the type of people like Fujiwara Tokihira, who
was the leader of the conspiracy against eminent scholar Sugawara no Michizane.
Furthermore, Bialock doesn’t explicitly tie the use of
such superstition-based teachings to the Fujiwara’s quest for political power,
though he does mention that members of the Fujiwara were students of Daosim,
were in possession of libraries, etc., as if to portray them as scholars,
instead of the power hungry priest caste that they basically were.
Bialock
continually tells the reader, in prefatory or followup remarks, what it is that
he is going to explain in the text or what he just explained. Apparently, either
he doesn’t
think that the readers can “read” for themselves, or that they won’t arrive at
the meaning at which he intends to send them. The comments seem a bit neurotic,
but what would the fact that the reader doesn’t understand the meaning intended by the
author of a text would mean to someone as influenced by Derridea and Foucault
as Mr. Bialock would seem to be. But I digress.
Bialock
also makes a couple of disclamatory like statements early in the book.
On
p.9:
“As a literature specialist with
cross-disciplinary interests, I have drawn on a number of approaches from the
fields of literary and cultural studies, which sharply distinguish my work from
the approach of man historians who have covered the same material and time
periods… In focusing on representation and performance rather
than a narrative of “facts” and “events,” I am interested in the ways in which power
and authority are mediated through a variety of symbolic practices that cut
across the false barrier that has been erected between “documents,” which are
held to transmit “facts” and reliable “evidence,” and “literature,” which is
treated as an epiphenomenon.
On
p. 34:
“…As a
literature specialist with a strong interest in ritual, ceremonial, and
symbolic activity, I am less concerned with the historian’s concern with provable
realities than with how power gets expressed in narrative, ritual, and symbolic
thinking about space…”
There
is too much to unpack in these statements, but I have chosen passages from
Bialock’s text that address renowned historical personages and their deeds, as
well as well-studied period of Japanese history and written records. I have
limited the scope of passages that were selected in order to more easily
illustrate the flaws and fallacies in his interpretations and assertions.
Although
I have nothing against novel interpretations of historical records, literary
and other art works, and so on, Bialock claims to being doing that while he
provides extremely little support for his assertions; moreover, he neglects
what has been established by scholars over the years to an extent that he
basically seems intent on effacing history, not contributing to an enhanced
understanding of it. In fact, it could be said that he offers interpretations
that attempt to supplant history with a delusional, parallel
universe type of esoteric world that is grounded in another world, not this one.
I will explain that statement in the future entry that will address Bialock’s
discussion of the Tale of the Heike.
In
relation to the history of the Seventeen Articles, etc. more needs to be said
at this juncture about Shotoku Taishi, so I will expand a little on what I’ve
said above, and add a reference:
In
the corresponding Wikipedia entry at the above-posted link:
“His parents were relatives of the ruling Soga clan, and was involved in the defeat of the
rival Mononobe Clan.”
The
following is from the Wikipedia entry on the Mononobe:
“The Mononobe were
opposed to the spread of Buddhism…. The Nakatomi clan,
ancestors of the Fujiwara,
were allies with the Mononobe in this.
The Mononobe, like
many other major families of the time, were something of a corporation or guild
in addition to being a proper family by
blood-relation. While the only members of the clan to appear in any significant
way in the historical record were statesmen, the clan as a whole was known as
the Corporation of Arms or Armorers.”
Basically,
one could venture an interpretation to the effect that efforts against the
combination of superstition and violence used for political purposes in
Japanese society can be traced to the struggle between the Soga clan and their
adversaries from two nativist priest castes, the Mononobe and the Nakatomi
(from whom the Fujiwara were derived).
No comments:
Post a Comment