Kinsei Onmyodo soshiki no kenkyu [Research on early modern Onmyodo organization]

Abstract

Hirokatsu reviews Kinsei Onmyodo soshiki no kenkyu (Research on early modern Onmyodo organization) by Umeda Chihiro.

(ProQuest: ... denotes non-US-ASCII text omitted.)

Umeda Chihiro ... Kinsei Onmyodo soshiki no kenkyu ... [Research on early modern Onmyodo organization] Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kobunkan, 2009. 328 pages. Cloth, ¥11,000. isbn 9784642034364.

While the Onmyodo ... craze that accompanied the one-thousandth anniversary of Abe no Seimei's ... death has died down, Onmyodo research, especially on the Edo period, is thriving. Kinsei Onmyodo is the first monograph of historian Umeda Chihiro, who along with scholar of religion Hayashi Makoto and ethnologist Koike Jun'ichi, has taken a leading role in Edo period Onmyodo research. Kinsei Onmyodo primarily contains previously published research along with some new material.

Unlike research on Buddhism and Shinto, Onmyodo scholarship is not connected to sectarian universities. Partially due to this situation, basic work such as the uncovering of internal documents from Onmyodo communities and organizations has been comparatively slow. On the other hand, since scholars from a wide variety of fields such as religious studies, ethnology, literature, astronomy, and history have been able to engage in research based on their own interests, Onmyodo scholarship has taken a different path to that of Buddhist and Shinto research (even if not to the same extent as research on Shugendo). However, until recently the focus had primarily been on medieval times and earlier: as is the case overall with scholarship on religion in Japan, there was a tendency to neglect the "disenchanted" Edo period and later times. Umeda's work comes at a time when Onmyodo scholarship itself has made great progress and research on Edo period religious history is regularly published.

Following the scholarship of Kiba Akeshi ... and Takano Toshihiko ... research on Edo period Onmyodo has largely adopted their framework, progressing considerably from analyses of individual cases to consideration of these cases' relationships to state and society. Three publications deserve particular mention. First, Endo (1985) comprehensively introduced historical documents related to Onmyodo from the Imperial Household Agency's Archives and Mausolea Department (Kunaicho Shoryobu ... the Cabinet Library (Naikaku Bunko ... and the Kyoto Prefectural Library and Archives (Kyoto Furitsu Sogo Shiryokan ... Second, Murayama's (1992) edited volume was released, covering from state to regional issues and Onmyodo festivals to calendars. Third, Hayashi (2006) focused on Edo period Onmyodo and calendars, a topic that he was unable to cover in Hayashi 2005. Of course, scholarship on onmyoji ... Second, Murayama's (1992) edited volume was released, covering from state to regional issues and Onmyodo festivals to calendars. Third, Hayashi (2006) focused on Edo period Onmyodo and calendars, a topic that he was unable to cover in Hayashi 2005. Of course, scholarship on onmyoji ... (Onmyodo practitioners) from various localities is steadily progressing as well (Hayashi 2005, 15-22), and research is even being done that seeks to uncover Onmyodo in popular knowledge and religious activities (for example, that of Koike Jun'ichi).

First I would like to note that in the midst of the flourishing of Onmyodo research described above, Umeda has produced a solid body of research. At a time when scholars senior to him have been publishing works one after another, he has not been satisfied with just adding new case studies. Instead, he offers new frameworks that are supported by a solid sense of the issues. Partially due to Umeda's efforts, in a short period of time the individual research of scholars has advanced the field as a whole through a process of mutual influence and growth.

Next, let us consider several points related to the content of the book. It is necessary to first mention that Umeda almost entirely sticks to Hayashi's definition of Onmyodo and onmyoji: "Edo period onmyoji refers to those who were under the rule of the Tsuchimikado ... family. Edo period Onmyodo refers to the activities, rituals, and knowledge that onmyoji were involved in" (Hayashi 2005, 22). In addition, Umeda creates an Onmyodo-specific periodization of the Edo period, emphasizing that the reorganization of the honjo ... (social status group head) system in Tenmei ... 4 (1784) was an even more epoch-making event than the events of the Tenna ... (1681-1683) and Jokyo ... (1684-1687) periods, as has been claimed by Takano, Kiba, and others from a state-based perspective. Hayashi, pointing out the epoch-making nature of the Tsuchimikado family carrying out a reform of the honjo system at the Edo government offices during the Meiwa ... period (1764-1771), is critical of this Tenmei-focused approach. Regardless of which is correct, both Umeda and Hayashi should be commended for moving a step beyond Takano and others by drawing attention to the transformation of the Tsuchimikado family itself as well as the very organization of Onmyodo.

In fact, I would suggest that at least with regards to this issue, Umeda's analysis of onmyoji who formed the Onmyodo organization is more precise than that of Hayashi. In the case of Hayashi, who mainly analyzes historical documents from disputes, his point is that onmyoji in various localities were organized (or excluded) by the Tsuchimikado family. On the other hand, in the case of Umeda, since he carefully analyzes historical documents of Wakasugi ... Daikoku ... and traditional onmyoji (rekidai kumi ... he is able to offer a perspective that does not necessarily understand Onmyodo as a story of "regulation from above" but rather "participation from below." In other words, he makes clear that each onmyoji had strong reasons for participating in the Onmyodo organization. By offering this viewpoint, it allows him to organically connect issues surrounding the organization (Part i) and academic knowledge (Part ii) of Onmyodo. Above all, Umeda, who mainly deals with the honjo system in Kyoto, skillfully focuses on areas that Hayashi, who mainly deals with Edo yashiki ... (warrior residences), does not. This goes for his work on individual regional onmyoji as well. Specifically, the regional analysis centering on onmyoji villages in Chapter 4 of Part i is methodologically significant, and work based on this type of analysis on onmyoji from other regions needs to be done.

Lastly, I would like to draw attention to the fact that Umeda is keenly aware of the relationship between medieval shomonshi/shomoji ... (lower class entertainers) and Edo period onmyoji, an issue that scholars engaged in Edo period onmyoji research have not always considered. Umeda thereby succeeds to an extent in charting the development of the medieval social status system in the Edo period. This perspective enables him to offer a new viewpoint on the jige kanjin ... (Imperial Court bureaucrats below the third rank). In this way, this book is an important contribution to research on the social status system of the Edo period.

Umeda, following Hayashi's definition above of onmyoji and Onmyodo as people and activities under the rule of the Tsuchimikado family, has produced a work focused on Edo period Onmyodo honjo that brilliantly depicts the Tsuchimikado family and those who surrounded it. However, as a result of this approach, the discussion of Onmyodo knowledge that developed in the Edo period is almost entirely limited to astronomy and calendar studies. Granted, in Chapter 3 of Part ii the Onmyodo rites of the Tsuchimikado family and the Kyoto kogumi ... onmyoji1 are considered. There, Umeda describes these rites as carryovers of Muromachi ... period Onmyodo festivals (with which they share many points of similarity) in the form of "conventionalized prayer cycles." However, while he carefully carries out his analysis of objects of prayer, tribute money, and so on, analysis of the contents of the rites themselves is not necessarily as good as it could be. This becomes even clearer when it is compared to his analysis of astronomy and calendar studies. There is certainly no problem with having astronomy and calendar studies represent the knowledge of the honjo that was centered around the Tsuchimikado family. Yet, since Part ii of the book is on Onmyodo knowledge, even readers who do not possess a full understanding of Onmyodo and onmyoji and are not specialists in Edo period religious history will probably wonder concretely how the (religious) Onmyodo knowledge of previous eras changed in the context of the Edo period honjo system, or if it did not change, why not, and so on.

My next point is closely related to the above. While this book succeeds in offering a new framework to understand the honjo of Onmyodo by emphasizing "participation from below" of those who were in the Onmyodo organization instead of the "view from above" of the Tsuchimikado family, it should be noted that the reason that these Onmyodo organizations were able to continue to exist through the Edo period was because there were those who adopted popular Onmyodo knowledge. People not only adopted the Onmyodo that took the form of the centralized authority of knowledge of astronomy and calendar studies, but they also adopted religious Onmyodo and knowledge of Onmyodo outside of these fields. What I wish to highlight is that Umeda does not consider how we should think about the Edo period Onmyodo (organization) that spread centered around this type of Onmyodo religious belief and popular knowledge. His book focuses on the Tsuchimikado honjo, and almost nowhere is there any analysis of those who adopted Onmyodo on a popular level. As I stated previously, since Umeda limited his research in this way, he was able to produce this work of importance. However, perhaps it would have been best if Umeda had in his own way offered some sort of consideration of the issue of popular Onmyodo knowledge and religious practice. As described above, research on Onmyodo that transcends the boundaries of scholars' specialized fields is thriving and at present positive interdisciplinary scholarship is possible. Research would certainly progress even further if it were carried out on the religious and popular knowledge side of Onmyodo from a historical perspective, instead of just leaving it to ethnology and religious studies. This could be an opportunity to begin to make clear the relationship between "belief " and "knowledge" in various eras throughout history.

My third point concerns Umeda's use of the phrase minkan onmyodo ... (private Onmyodo). In the last chapter he states, "While there was not much of a difference between the Onmyodo functions of Edo period Kyoto court nobility and the Onmyodo of medieval court nobility, this is also true with regards to Onmyodo functions carried out in towns and villages on the periphery. The overall picture of Edo period Onmyodo should be reconsidered, including this supposed split between Imperial Court Onmyodo and minkan Onmyodo" (301-2). According to Umeda, such a dichotomy is problematic considering the lack of difference in the content of the Onmyodo rites of these respective spheres. I found this to be a convincing claim supported by his analysis. However, when it comes to the classification of onmyoji themselves, Umeda refers to Onmyodo practitioners other than the Tsuchimikado and Kotokui ... families as minkan onmyoji. Should Wakasugi, Daikoku, and other Kyoto kogumi onmyoji who became the center of the honjo organization, were frequently in contact with the Tsuchimikado family, worked as keishi ... (officials who oversaw higher-ranking nobility), and so on, really still be called minkan onmyoji? This is doubtful. Furthermore, Umeda states that in the future he hopes to investigate the religious activities of onmyoji in the Kinai region. They were organized by the honjo organization as part of the rekidai kumi, and in most cases were basically edamura hyakusho ... (hamlet farmers). If one were to use the category minkan onmyoji, it should be applied to them; however Umeda does not do so. In this way, in his classification scheme that uses the nature of an onmyoji's existence as benchmarks for analysis, there is a problem with the division between Imperial Court onmyoji and minkan onmyoji. Umeda, focusing on the social status system, holds the development of medieval shomonshi in the Edo period to be an important issue, and understands those who were part of this development to be minkan onmyoji. However, in many ways this does not correspond to the actual situation in the middle- and late-Edo period. It would have been easier to understand if Umeda had offered his own definition of these terms after having pointed out that there is a problem with the benchmarks uncritically used in previous research.

Besides this, there are other points that I would have liked to have had explained in more detail. Throughout the Edo period, how were the furegashira ... (local administrative representatives) appointed? Were the widespread requests for special prayers submitted to the Tsuchimikado family from warrior families and merchants that became readily apparent in the Bunka ... period (1804-1818) and later related to the adjustment of the honjo sytem due to changes in Edo period society itself? I hope that these and other points will be considered in Umeda's future research.

Limiting himself to an analysis of the Onmyodo honjo organized around the Tsuchimikado family, Umeda has considerably advanced Onmyodo research within this framework. On the other hand, as I outlined above, I have several issues regarding the book. I expect research on Edo period Onmyodo to continue to advance not only in the field of history, but also ethnology, religious studies, and intellectual history. Furthermore, I hope that research on Onmyodo will further progress from comparative research on Edo period religion that transcends the framework of Onmyodo to comprehensive research (as the author has done here by comparing research on honjo to Shinto scholarship).

[translated by Dylan Luers]

Sidebar

1. Kyoto kogumi (old group) onmyoji refers to the Wakasugi, Daikoku, and other onmyoji who had their roots in the shomonshi that had existed in Kyoto since medieval times.

References

REFERENCES

Endo Katsumi ...

1985 Kinsei Onmyodoshi no kenkyu ... Hino-shi: Mirai Kobo.

Hayashi Makoto

2005 Kinsei Onmyodo no kenkyu ... Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kobunkan.

2006 Tenmongata to onmyodo ... Tokyo: Yamakawa Shuppansha.

Murayama Shuichi ... et al., eds.

1992 Onmyodo sosho 3: Kinsei ... Tokyo: Meicho Shuppan.