Muromachi vs Ashikaga

[kktr...@me.com]

Dear All,

I recently got a question from a colleague who is helping a Japanese colleague with a book to be published in English for people in environmental politics.  She has had questions about terminology.  

One question concerned terminology related to the medieval period in Japan.  She wondered if he referred to “Middle Ages” if people would think of the European Middle Ages or the Japanese ones (his chapter is on Japan).  I suggested using medieval Japan.  Then again, I think he needs to define the medieval period for his audience or at least give it a time frame.   I suggested both a date range 1185-1600 and a reference to the traditional periods: Kamakura, Nambokucho, Muromachi and Sengoku as well as a description of the salient characteristics (all of which could be debated and refined ad infinitum but that does not seem sensible given the audience of the book).  My colleague wondered why Muromachi rather than Ashikaga.  It seems a valid question and I don’t know what the received wisdom is.  (I have not been immersed in the study of medieval Japan for over 40 years).  

So any and all comments welcome.

Kris

Kristina Troost, PhD

Retired librarian

Kktr...@me.com

Get Outlook for iOS

[Andrew Goble]

Hi Kris,

I think you're on the right track.

Re. Muromachi/Ashikaga; what's the person doing with Edo/Tokugawa?

Andrew

Andrew Edmund Goble

Kawasaki Fellow in Japanese History

Professor of Japanese History
Department of History
University of Oregon
Eugene, Oregon 97403-1288
Office Phone: 541-346-4800
Fax: 541-346-4895
plat...@uoregon.edu

---

From: 'kktr...@me.com' via PMJS: Listserv <pm...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 10:42 AM
To: PMJS <pm...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [PMJS] Muromachi vs Ashikaga

 

--
PMJS is a forum dedicated to the study of premodern Japan.
To post to the list, email pm...@googlegroups.com
For the PMJS Terms of Use and more resources, please visit www.pmjs.org.
Contact the moderation team at mod...@pmjs.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PMJS: Listserv" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pmjs+uns...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pmjs/BY5PR08MB6294F469D473FF937A06EC34FF989%40BY5PR08MB6294.namprd08.prod.outlook.com.

[kfrida...@gmail.com]

Kristina (et al),

 

Andrew Goble has a good article on the meaning of “medieval” in the Japan Emerging textbook I edited a few years back (there’s also my introductory essay on periodization in the same volume). I’ve never been a big fan of the idea of an “Ashikaga period,” in part because it over emphasizes the role of the single family, but mainly because it breaks the parallel with Heian, Kamakura, Nanbokucho  . . . Sengoku, which are all basically geographic labels.

 

--

Best,

 

--Karl

 

======================================

カール・フライデー 歴史学博士

Karl Friday, PhD

Professor Emeritus 名誉教授

        

 

    

 ==================================

 

From: 'kktr...@me.com' via PMJS: Listserv <pm...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 4, 2021 3:43 AM
To: PMJS <pm...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [PMJS] Muromachi vs Ashikaga

 

Dear All,

--

[S. Tsumura]

As to why Muromachi rather than Ashikaga—the place names are used to indicate periods from the Asuka period, Nara period, through the Edo period, even including Azuchi-Momoyama period, so using Muromachi is more consistent. One does hear Fujiwara or Tokugawa period, but not Hôjô or Minamoto Period or Hideyoshi period.

Susan Tsumura

> On Mar 4, 2021, at 03:42, 'kktr...@me.com' via PMJS: Listserv <pm...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
> I recently got a question from a colleague who is helping a Japanese colleague with a book to be published in English for people in environmental politics. She has had questions about terminology.

[David Eason]

Dear All,

On the other hand, although it perhaps encourages one to avoid
overemphasizing the power of a single family, the label “Muromachi” is not
without problems. An obvious one is that the “Muromachi” government was
not located at Muromachi for much of the period… As Matthew Stavros has
discussed in detail in both essays and his book _Kyoto: An Urban History
of Japan’s Premodern Capital_ (Hawai’i, 2014), it was not until the time
of the third Ashikaga shogun - Yoshimitsu - that the family headquarters
was relocated to Muromachi. In addition, as most of you know, for much of
the late fifteenth century and into the sixteenth century Ashikaga leaders
regularly resided in places other than Muromachi because of power
struggles that kept them out of the capital and/or forced them into exile
(look, for instance, at the careers of Ashikaga Yoshitane, Yoshiharu,
Yoshiteru, and Yoshiaki…).

In this sense “Muromachi” might be thought of as problematic in its own
way for suggesting a degree of centralized power focused on or around a
single geographic location not unlike the problem with implying the
Ashikaga wielded more authority than they actually did.


Best,

David Eason

---
Dr. David Eason (デービット・イーソン)
准教授、外国語学部、関西外国語大学
david...@gmail.com / easo...@kansaigaidai.ac.jp
「己が分を知りて及ばざる時は速かに止むを智といふべし」





On 3/4/21, 8:30 AM, "S. Tsumura" <pm...@googlegroups.com on behalf of

>--
>PMJS is a forum dedicated to the study of premodern Japan.
>To post to the list, email pm...@googlegroups.com
>For the PMJS Terms of Use and more resources, please visit www.pmjs.org.
>Contact the moderation team at mod...@pmjs.org
>---
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>"PMJS: Listserv" group.
>To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>email to pmjs+uns...@googlegroups.com.
>To view this discussion on the web visit

>https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pmjs/102D63C4-341A-435B-ACC8-03D54203A08
>2%40music.email.ne.jp.

[Christopher Mayo]

Dear Kristina,

Periodization is a fascinating topic, with lots of interesting implications, depending on the reference points that we choose. Andrew Goble’s work was the first thing that came to mind when I saw the question, and in both of the essays below he gives a clear and concise discussion of the issue. I’ve included the passage I think is most relevant to your question.

Andrew Edmund Goble, "Defining 'Medieval'," in *Japan Emerging*, edited by Karl F. Friday, 32–41 (Philadelphia, PA: Westview Press, 2012).
- "Chronologically, we fruitfully locate it between the late twelfth and the late sixteenth centuries. Conceptually, while the notion of medieval is an appropriation from European historiography, it can be meaningfully applied to the events and rhythms of Japanese history, and its use has enhanced our understanding of the Japanese past” (40–41).

Andrew Edmund Goble, "Medieval Japan," in *A Companion to Japanese History*, William M. Tsutsui, ed., 47–66 (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2009).

Given the intended audience for the publication (researchers interested in environmental politics), “Medieval” sounds the most appropriate to me. “Middle Ages” (the middle of what?) is probably not as useful, unless everyone else in that volume is using it. At any rate, as Andrew Goble suggested in his chapter, locating it in those centuries (whatever name you apply) should be fine for non-specialists. “Muromachi” and “Ashikaga” may be unnecessary in this case, especially considering David Eason’s points about pinning everything on a geographical location (cutting Kamakura out as well?) or a single family.

May I suggest a somewhat bolder, and definitely not mainstream alternative? How about the "Age of Intensive Agriculture” (1250–1890)? This is a framework that Conrad Totman suggested in his *A History of Japan* (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2000), which was told from an ecological perspective. Although this periodization might be an outlier within the field of Japanese studies, it could be especially well-suited for this particular project on environmental politics. Of course, a periodization like this carries with it some provocative ideas, and may require substantial reframing in order to fit the rest of the book to it, but the shift in perspective may be worth the effort if they have time (on this project or in a future one).

Best Regards,
CM
-----
Christopher M. Mayo
Professor, Kogakkan University
1704 Kōdakushimoto-chō, Ise-shi, Mie-ken 516-8555, Japan
-----
メイヨークリストファー
皇學館大学文学部コミュニケーション学科 教授
〒516-8555 三重県伊勢市神田久志本町1704
E-mail：c-m...@kogakkan-u.ac.jp
-----

> 2021/03/04 10:42、David Eason <david...@gmail.com>のメール:

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pmjs/DC6665C5.48F2F%25davidaeason%40gmail.com.

[Thomas D. Conlan]

Dear All,

Thanks for bringing up this question Kris. 

In addition to Matthew’s fine work, I recommend Momosaki Yuichirō’s recent monograph on Yoshimitsu (室町の覇者 足利義満

 桃崎 有一郎) which came out in 2020. His research provides insights regarding this question.  

Momosaki argues that there was a shift in that Takauji and Yoshiakira were referred more as Kamakura dono (or in Takauji’s case the Kamakura dainagon) (even though Yoshiakira was the one who purchased the Muromachi lands), but during Yoshimitsu’s time that the Ashikaga leader was referred to as Muromachi dono irrespective of whether he lived at Muromachi or not.  

Why the Kamakura age is not named after a family stems from the biological breaks in the shogunal line—after three Minamoto (1192-1219), one sees two Fujiwara (1226-52) and four imperial princes (1252-33). The Minamoto-Fujiwara-X (because the princes had no surname) age would not go.

Convention, or personal preferences allow for a variety of options regarding Ashikaga or Muromachi, or for that matter Tokugawa or Edo, but as Andrew suggests, some consistency does seem in order if one were to favor either shogunal names (Ashikaga or Tokugawa) or places (Muromachi or Edo).

If one were to focus on the institution of the shogunate, and in particular decide to ignore Nanbokuchō there are sound reasons for favoring Ashikaga, as Takauji became shogun in 1338 and the institution continued, with considerable ups and downs, until 1573. To start the Muromachi era in 1338 (or 1336) not only ignores 60 years of the Nanbokuchō civil war, but it also introduces the anachronism that Muromachi gives name to an age decades before the place had any significance. But if one were to rely on a narrow view of an age as coinciding with the office of shogun, then for consistency’s sake the Tokugawa era should be bound by the years 1603 to 1867. 

The Waseda “Dainihon jidaishi” of 1908 is interesting because it explicitly relies on political divisions. Its volumes are: Nihon kodaishi, Nara chōshi, Heian chōshi, Kamakura jidaishi, Nanbokuchō jidaishi, Muromachi jidaishii, Azuchi Momoyama jidaishi and Tokugawa bakufu jidaishi.  

In their schemata, Muromachi follows  Nanbokuchō  and roughly coincides with the period of dominance of the powerful Ashikaga Yoshimitsu, Yoshimochi and Yoshinori and then Yoshimasa. 

Kodai scholars have effectively come up with good new era names such as  Asuka, or ritsuryō, and abandoned the Waseda organization of historical ages.  As far as I know, few have a problem with Tokugawa/Edo or /Meiji work, but the middle eras have issues. I  find that in addition to Muromachi/Ashikaga as being unsatisfactory to many, so too is Sengoku (after all it is based on a historical analogy with Chinese history), Heian, which has three distinct “periods” namely the collapse of ritsuryō, the dominance of the Fujiwara and their ritual state circa 960-1068, and the dominance of the In (1068-1185, although I would favor 1068-1221).One could even question if the “Kamakura age” is the best way to describe these years, but the weight of convention is heavy enough to make any changes unlikely. 

Best wishes,

Tom

Thomas D. Conlan
Professor of East Asian Studies & History
207 Jones Hall
Princeton University
Princeton, NJ 08544-1008

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pmjs/DC6665C5.48F2F%25davidaeason%40gmail.com.

[William Farris]

Hi folks:

       It is just morning here in Cape Town.

       I have been following the discussion of Muromachi/Ashikaga and Edo/Tokugawa periodization with chagrin.  The question of which of the traditional names to use for the period 1333-1573 seems trivial to me.  It's all based on either a political or elite cultural definition of what's important during that time.   All periodization schemes inevitably carry political connotations.

      IMHO, I think that Professor Mayo is on the right track by looking at more basic factors and using the term "Age of Intensive Agriculture", although I would use different dates, perhaps 1350-1850.  This schema might fit better with the ecological emphasis of Kris' friend's essay.

     I would also like to direct followers of pmjs to my own essay on the historiography, ecology, politics, economy, society, and culture of medieval Japan, defined as 1100-1600.

     It may be found at www.bloomsburymedievalstudies.com

     Your university needs to have the database for Bloomsbury Publishing, however.  Or, you can join as an individual.

     Time for coffee!

Wayne

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pmjs/94F87290-108C-4B04-A637-159CD0E343C9%40gmail.com.

[Michael Pye]

Dear colleagues and fellow students,
On this theme I would like to pick up on Christopher Mayo's last
point, namely that there are valid ways around this problem (which I
always found particularly irritating following the collapse of the
Hojo regency).
Depending on what the chapter (or article) is about and how it fits
into the whole publication, why not simply ignore nanbokucho,
muromachi, ashikaga and warring states, and also mediaeval which has
its own problems. (After all, wouldn't Kamakura also be mediaeval in
its own way?).
To illustrate, I'm currently trying to finish off a long-planned
history of Japanese religions. There are eleven chapters, and only
three have traditional designations within their titles: namely Nara,
Heian and Edo. (No Meiji and no Kamakura....)
For the period under discussion I have "Religion in Restless Times"
(actually: Religion in unruhigen Zeiten). The chapter includes six
sections on topics which overlap (as all history does). None of those
six headings includes "Muromachi" or "Ashikaga" etc. Of course these
terms all come in here and there, but they are not in themselves my
theme/s.
I must admit that since this is a book in itself there is also a
chronology so that people used to traditonal periodisations will find
their way. There is also a modest discussion of the problems of
periodisation, mainly to justify the way the shift into "modernity" is
handled.
For the enquirer, much depends on the role of the contribution in
the wider book, and above all on what it's really about. I would
advise a simple and distinctive heading which covers precisely that,
without getting bogged down in the political meanderings (assuming
they are not themselves the subject).
That reminds me, must get stuck into what I was doing!
best wishes,
Michael Pye

Zitat von Christopher Mayo <mayo.christo...@gmail.com>:

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pmjs/94F87290-108C-4B04-A637-159CD0E343C9%40gmail.com.



.................................................................................................................
Professor of the Study of Religions (em.), University of Marburg, Germany

[Judith Fröhlich]

Dear list members,

A follow-up on the question of periodization according to a “longue durée”:
Was already suggested by Japanese and German constitutional historians in the early twentieth century:
Shinmi Kichiji (1874–1974): “military rule” (buke seiji) in Japan, twelfth to nineteenth century
Otto Brunner (1898 – 1982) e.a.: “old Europe” (Alteuropa), ca. twelfth to eighteenth century 

The debate was of course ideological (Brunner saw the origins of old Europe in Homer’s times). 
Using terms to designate a long period, such as the “Age of Intensive Agriculture” leads to thinking about environmental, economic, social, cultural and political processes 
(including “decentralized” and “centralized feudalism,” applicability of the terms “premodern” vs. “early modern”, the formation of a market economy etc.), 
which is stimulating as well as challenging.  

If the point is the usage of terms for the sake of convenience, 
the definition of medieval Japan from the twelfth to the sixteenth century might be conventional and convenient enough?

A few more references, for a short comparative overview, Wikipedia Japanese, (chūsei) 中世

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%B8%AD%E4%B8%96#%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC

Jo [Introduction]. Nihon to Doitsu no chūsei wo hikaku suru [Comparing the Japanese and German Middle Ages ]. In: Taranczewski, Detlev et al. 2009, pp. 1-29.
and other publications by the same author.
Keirstead, Thomas, “Inventing Medieval Japan: The History and Politics of National Identity,” The Medieval History Journal 1:1 (1998): 47–71.
Keirstead, Thomas, “Medieval Japan: Taking the Middle Ages Outside Europe,” History Compass 2 (2004), 1–14.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pmjs/CAFSdm5Qc82f7sXPARPK0trywFG%3DC7BL%3DWvM9Z%2Bne81n8NPPTjw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Howell, David L]

Dear all,

This discussion of periodization is fascinating. In addition to Andrew Goble’s essay, I heartily recommend Thomas Keirstead’s “Inventing Medieval Japan,” in the Medieval History Journal 1:1 (1998), which looks at how Hara Katsurō and other late Meiji scholars essentially invented a Middle Ages for Japan. For those dubious about the whole idea of periodization, a fun, provocative read is Jacques Le Goff, Must We Divide History into Periods?, which looks at European history but makes a worthwhile argument against the tyranny of periodization that speaks to all historians. 

As for Edo/Tokugawa, it’s true that we early modernists are pretty flexible, probably because the identification of the central ruling family and the city was valid and long-lived. I’ve found that scholars of literature and art overwhelmingly favor Edo, while historians tend less markedly to favor Tokugawa. But during the last couple of decades, historians have increasingly embraced “early modern” to make the period legible to folks outside the field. Not everyone is on board with that (the term obviously carries its own baggage), but I am one of the true believers in early modernity.

As always, the audience and purpose of the periodization is key. In my sweeping survey course of Japanese history I don’t burden my students with learning Azuchi-Momoyama (or Shokuhō) as a period name, partly just to avoid saddling them with something else to remember but mostly because I don’t want them to think of those decades in isolation from what came before and after. One could make a case for doing so, but the institutional and social-economic focus of my course favors emphasizing continuities over severe disruptions.

Best,

David Howell

David L. Howell
Robert K. and Dale J. Weary Professor of Japanese History
Chair, Department of East Asian Languages and Civilizations
Professor of History

Editor, Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies
Harvard University

Department of East Asian Languages and Civilizations
2 Divinity Ave.
Cambridge, MA 02138
dho...@fas.harvard.edu

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pmjs/FE5D7C00-0B21-41C2-9F1A-925A9667ED33%40swissonline.ch.

[William Farris]

Hi folks:

       I'm sorry if I was a bit testy in my last email, but I've been having computer problems from Cape Town, always enough to drive one crazy.

       The late Jerry Bentley, a world historian, was the one to point out to me that all periodizations inherently serve a (usually political) agenda, particularly ancient, medieval, early modern, and modern.  The argument over conventional periodizations for Japan seems to me to be unending and not worthwhile.  They all derive from the time when historians did elite history only, either political or cultural. 

      My entire career has been an attempt to assist scholars and students to see that these two perspectives are of limited usefulness, and social and economic history adds much needed depth and understanding to Japanese history, or any history.

      As it happens, I just finished reading Fernand Braudel's MEDITERRANEAN IN THE AGE OF PHILLIP II.  It's quite a read, but notably Braudel does geographical/ecology first, then society and economy, and lastly diplomatics a la von Ranke.  He terms diplomacy and politics as "epi-phenomena", but he does include all three perspectives.

     I have always thought that historians/students need all kinds of history, but that the areas that have received the least attention should be a major focus of on-going research and writing and teaching.  That is why I have devoted my energy to doing social/ecological/economic history, and not political or cultural history.

     Yet even with social and economic history, one finds elites and political/cultural history cropping up and presenting interesting questions.

     So, for example, did elites in Japan lead peasants in their land clearance schemes and was the pressure of elite macroparasitism what drove agricultural growth?  Was it bottom up, or top down?

     Food for thought.

Best wishes,

Wayne

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pmjs/CF51C4C0-7BBA-4CF7-A759-64819B4EAB04%40fas.harvard.edu.

[Kristina Troost]

Dear All,

This has been an interesting discussion perhaps, though I don’t know, well beyond the needs of the author who, I think, was looking for a shorthand way to refer to what the Japanese call chuusei (I am obviously an intermediary here and have not seen the original document).  I agree with the emphasis on agricultural intensification which continues into the succeeding period and fits with what I know of the author’s emphasis on the origins of the commons.

Wayne, apropos of your comment, I think that there was a lot of bottom up though not exclusively.

Kris

 

From: PMJS <pm...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Wayne Farris <wfa...@hawaii.edu>

Reply-To: PMJS <pm...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Thursday, March 4, 2021 at 9:01 AM
To: PMJS <pm...@googlegroups.com>

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pmjs/CAFSdm5TWeGmhDh_ciRg_9jsb_XY%2B%2Bowpqyueota2bwoJBibOhw%40mail.gmail.com.