Abstract
Since the early seventeenth century, Chan monks from Jiangnan and Fujian traveled to Japan amid a commercial boom in maritime East Asia starting from the late sixteenth century. After the promulgation of Sakoku (鎖国, closed country) by the Tokugawa shogunate in the 1630s and 1640s, Nagasaki turned out to be the first stop for these incoming Chan monks. From 1654 to 1658, the Nagasaki magistrate revealed a supportive stance and demonstrated a high level of on-the-ground political authority in regulating the Chan monks from 1658 to 1692. However, because of rapidly increasing incoming Continental merchants in the mid-1680s, the shogunate tightened Nagasaki trade policies by adopting the Jōdaka system. Around the time when Kawaguchi Munetsune left the position of the Nagasaki magistrate in 1693, the shogunate took a more active stance on Nagasaki affairs thereafter, and the Nagasaki magistrate's on-the-ground political authority fell into decline.
Introduction
Since the late sixteenth century, maritime trade among Jiangnan, Fujian, and Japan started to flourish, which encouraged Chan monks from Jiangnan and Fujian on board commercial ships to travel to Japan from the early seventeenth century.1 As the Tokugawa shogunate promulgated a series of orders that were deemed as Sakoku in the 1630s and 1640s to restrict international trade to Nagasaki only, Nagasaki turned to be the first stop for all the Chan monks traveling to Japan from the mid-seventeenth century to the early eighteenth century.2 Upon arriving in Nagasaki, they were usually accommodated at one of the three Chan temples, namely, Kōfuku-ji, Sōfuku-ji, and Fukusai-ji. After staying in the temple, they would pursue different career paths, including staying in Nagasaki for the rest of their life, moving to Uji to serve at Manpuku-ji, moving to a local region to serve in a local temple, and returning to Jiangnan or Fujian.3 However, whichever career path a Chan monk took, the Nagasaki magistrate represented the authority that no Chan monk was able to avoid.
As the only shogunal proxy in charge of foreign trade, the Nagasaki magistrate was key to the shogunate's external policies. The Nagasaki magistrate's regulation of the Chan monks’ movements had a direct bearing on how the monks operated. It should be noted that the Nagasaki magistrate, usually appointed directly from Hatamoto 旗本 as a shogunal proxy, was primarily responsible for carrying out instructions of the shogunate and exercising political authority in Nagasaki. To demonstrate this delegated political authority, though, was far from straightforward. Instead of simply following instructions from Edo, the Nagasaki magistrate had a certain degree of latitude, which can be described as “on-the-ground political authority.” As will be discussed, the year 1693 marked a turning point for the Nagasaki magistrate in terms of the latitude in decision-making powers regarding the Chan monks. After that year, the magistrate was no longer able to regulate the Chan monks to the same degree.
Pertaining to the Nagasaki magistrate in general, Suzuki Yasuko published a systematic evaluation of the evolution of the position of the Nagasaki magistrate from the late seventeenth century to the mid-eighteenth century (Suzuki 2007: 17). For the Nagasaki coastal defense system, Noell Wilson discussed how Fukuoka and Saga daimyos expanded their authority beyond that of the Nagasaki magistrate by deploying their domainal troops to the Nagasaki coastal defense system (Wilson 2015: 9). In addition, Louis Berger wrote a general introduction of the Chan monks in Nagasaki, yet he did not discuss how the Nagasaki magistrate regulated the Chan monks (Berger 2003: 103–30). Since the Nagasaki magistrate served as a proxy of the Tokugawa shogunate in Nagasaki, it has often been assumed that the decision-making at the forefront of the Nagasaki magistrate's role merely involved executing instructions from Edo. Consequently, no scholar has thoroughly discussed how the Nagasaki magistrate performed decision-making when regulating the Chan monks. Yet the answer to this question is vital, as it would shed light on how the dynamics of the Nagasaki magistrate kept changing. Thus, this article uses the Chan monks as an observational lens to turn the focus to the front line of the interactions in order to learn how Nagasaki magistrates made their decisions and why they kept changing.
The Stance of the Nagasaki Magistrate in Regulating the Chan Monks, 1654–1658
At the outset, it is important to have an overview of the Nagasaki magistrate, who was one of the Ongoku magistrates (遠国奉行, magistrates who were placed at the demesnes of the shogunate) under the administration of senior counselors of the shogunate. The first Nagasaki magistrate appointed by the Tokugawa shogunate was Ogasawara Ichian 小笠原一庵, who served the Nagasaki magistrate from 1603 to 1606. Since 1633 the number of Nagasaki magistrates was capped at two throughout the Tokugawa period, excluding the years from 1686 to 1713 as well as the years from 1843 to 1845 (Toyama 1988: 29). Generally, one of the two Nagasaki magistrates stayed in Nagasaki with the other in Edo at the same time. Besides the role as the governor of Nagasaki, the Nagasaki magistrate supervised Christians in Kyushu, cooperated with Kyushu daimyos on coastal defense, administered trade in Nagasaki, and so on (Kimura 2016: 11–12).
Regarding the historical context of inviting Chan monks from Jiangnan and Fujian to Japan in the mid-seventeenth century, it is well-known that the political transition from the Ming to Qing Empire on the continent formed a major backdrop. The turbulent circumstances on the continent understandably led some Chan monks to seek new opportunities and travel to Japan. At the same time, the residents from the continent residing in Nagasaki also required Chan monks to fulfill their ad hoc community requests, such as folk deity worship and funeral services.
Among the Chan monks, Yinyuan Longqi 隱元隆琦 (1592–1673; Hokkien: Unguan Liongki) was deemed the most successful, who arrived in Nagasaki with his disciples and later founded a Buddhist sect to be known as the Ōbaku sect.4 Before the shogunate granted Yinyuan Longqi's group permission to stay in Fumon-ji in Settsu (the present-day northern part of Osaka Prefecture and eastern part of Hyōgo Prefecture) in 1655, it did not promulgate any regulations pertaining to Yinyuan Longqi's group. However, the shogunate had received reports about Yinyuan Longqi's arrival right after his arrival in Nagasaki in the seventh month of 1654. According to a letter from Duli Xingyi 獨立性易 (1596–1672; Wu: Dohlieh Shinyeh) to the Japanese Confucian scholar Andō Seian 安東省菴 (1622–1701) and Andō Yasouemon 安東弥三右衛門 (Andō Seian's father), on the second day of the eighth month of 1654, Duli Xingyi claimed, “The day before, I heard that the Nagasaki magistrate sent messages to the shogunate. If there are predestined opportunities, [the shogunate would] invite Yinyuan Longqi for his Chan teachings. [In such a situation, Yinyuan Longqi] would have to travel to Edo” (Shyu 2004: 140).5
Yinyuan Longqi's letter to the incumbent Nagasaki magistrate Kurokawa Masanao 黒川正直 (1602–1680), who was then in Edo and served as the Nagasaki magistrate from 1650 to 1665, in the spring of 1655 underscores Yinyuan Longqi's appreciation of the support that he was given by Japanese authorities. In his letter, he acknowledged Kurokawa Masanao's respect for Buddhist principles, noting in particular that Kurokawa Masanao's support ensured that the group had a favorable environment in Nagasaki (Hirakubo 1979, 5: 2189–90). Another incumbent Nagasaki magistrate, Kainoshō Masanobu 甲斐庄正述 (?–1660), who served as the Nagasaki magistrate from 1652 to 1660, adopted the same stance. Yinyuan Longqi wrote of a banquet that Kainoshō Masanobu hosted in his honor as well as for other Chan monks in the first month of 1655 in Nagasaki (Hirakubo 1979, 6: 2811). Duzhan Xingying 獨湛性瑩 (1628–1706; Hokkien: Toktam Sing'ing), who accompanied Yinyuan Longqi during his Nagasaki stay and later served as the fourth abbot of Manpuku-ji from 1682 to 1692, also composed a poem indicating that he attended Kainoshō Masanobu's party. The first half of this poem is as follows: “[Kainoshō Masanobu] politely welcomed me to his party. It turned to be cloudy at noon, [and the venue was] surrounded by green plants. I really appreciate that he, as such a respected and smart [official], had a strong belief in the Way [Dao]. Although he speaks a foreign language, [it still] reveals his admiration.” (Tanaka n.d., 2: 438). Duzhan Xingying acknowledged Kainoshō Masanobu's personal support for Continental-style Chan.
The shogunate was still some way from formulating long-term policies for the Chan monks before Yinyuan Longqi held his audiences with the fourth shogun, Tokugawa Ietsuna 徳川家綱 (1641–1680, r. 1651–1680), in 1658. Nevertheless, the shogunate sent directives to Kainoshō Masanobu and Kurokawa Masanao on the first day of the sixth month of 1655 to inform them of the invitation to Yinyuan Longqi's group to the Kyoto-Osaka area (Tsuji 1961: 328–30). Yinyuan Longqi conceded, upon his arrival in late 1654, that he faced communication problems due to the language barrier. The Nagasaki magistrate sought to remedy this situation, ordering Liu Daoquan 劉道銓 (Hokkien: Lau To Chuan) to act as an interpreter, accompanying Yinyuan Longqi to Fumon-ji in 1655 (Hirakubo 1979, 4: 2045–48). Upon receiving the shogunate's directives, the Nagasaki magistrate followed suit in helping Yinyuan Longqi's group's travel to Fumon-ji.
Meanwhile, a dramatic policy change took place in 1655 in regard to trade in Nagasaki. Up until 1655, trade in Nagasaki operated along the lines of the Itowappu 糸割符 trade system, which had been established in Nagasaki in 1604, so that the first shogun, Tokugawa Ieyasu 徳川家康 (1543–1616, r. 1603–1605), could regulate Portuguese trade. Under this trade system, the shogunate appointed toshiyori (elders) in the five cities of Nagasaki, Kyoto, Sakai, Edo, and Osaka and granted them the privilege of monopolizing the purchase of imported raw silk. The Itowappu toshiyori also controlled the Itowappu nakama, influential townsmen who followed their directives. Imported raw silk was purchased at a price that was set and was then distributed to Japanese domestic markets. This monopolistic trade system generated spectacular profits for the Japanese, but as merchants from the continent in particular managed to manipulate sale prices of raw silk, Japanese merchants lost their tremendous advantage. Thus, Japanese merchants petitioned the shogunate, which then in 1655 abolished the Itowappu trade system in Nagasaki, replacing it with the Aitai Shōhō 相対商法 system, under which privileges granted to Itowappu toshiyori and Itowappu nakama were canceled (Toyama 1988: 118–20). Consequently, free trade in raw silk was to thrive in Nagasaki from 1655 albeit in an environment of free trade that would mean reduced intervention by the shogunate in Nagasaki affairs.
The Nagasaki magistrate continued to support the Chan monks in Nagasaki. Muan Xingtao 木庵性瑫 (1611–1684; Hokkien: Bok'am Singtho), who arrived in Nagasaki in the seventh month of 1655, continued to uphold the religious reputation of the Chan monks in Nagasaki (Hirakubo 1992, 8: 3534–36). Further, Jifei Ruyi 即非如一 (1616–1671; Hokkien: Cik'hui Juit) was welcomed by the Nagasaki magistrate as soon as he arrived in Nagasaki in 1657 (Hirakubo 1993, 3: 947). At a time when the Chan monks were no more than a temporary presence, the Nagasaki magistrate's stance toward Muan Xingtao and Jifei Ruyi was one of continuous support.
The On-the-Ground Political Authority of the Nagasaki Magistrate in Regulating the Chan Monks, 1658–1692
As will be discussed, from 1693 onward, the shogunate adopted a more active stance in directly regulating the Chan monks in Nagasaki. Between 1658 and 1692, the shogunate had not been directly involved in the regulation of the Chan monks. Whenever the shogunate was not directly involved in Nagasaki issues, the Nagasaki magistrate would perform de facto decision-making authority on the ground.6 Only when the Nagasaki magistrate hesitated to make a vital decision would he seek the shogunate's instructions.
In addition to understanding the motivation of the Chan monks to travel to Japan as discussed, it is necessary to consider the shogunate's stance in granting permission for the Chan monks to stay. The title of the information collection from incoming commercial ships from the continent, known as Ka-i Hentai (literally meaning “Chinese turned to barbarians”), reveals that the newly established Qing Empire, which replaced the Ming Empire, was deemed incapable of representing itself as the central empire in East Asia. For the shogunate, associating with the Chan monks, particularly the elite culture they represented, provided a sense of authenticity that was needed to shape its own political status in East Asia after the political transition from Ming to Qing on the continent. As Wu Jiang argued, Yinyuan Longqi was seen as “a symbol of religious authenticity,” “a symbol of political authenticity,” and “a symbol of cultural authenticity” (Wu 2015: 7–13). Therefore, the permission granted by the shogunate to promote its international political legitimacy can be clearly understood in this context.
The shogunate formally supported the Chan monks’ stay after the 1658 audiences. In a letter to Yinyuan Longqi, Muan Xingtao mentioned that he was greatly saddened by the recent death of Kainoshō Masanobu in 1660, as Kainoshō Masanobu was one of very few who was devoted to Zen beliefs (Chen, Wei, and He 1995: 302). Kainoshō Masanobu was the Nagasaki magistrate until the sixth month of 1660. His support for the Chan monks and the shogunate's stance after 1658 became as one.
Yinyuan Longqi's personal records contain a poem written for the newly appointed Nagasaki magistrate Tsumaki Yorikuma 妻木頼熊 (1604–1683), who served as the Nagasaki magistrate from 1660 to 1662 and visited Yinyuan Longqi in Fumon-ji in 1660.7 Like daimyos, who visited Yinyuan Longqi during his stay in Fumon-ji, the Nagasaki magistrate's visit beyond Nagasaki was not a problem either. In addition, in around 1661, when Manpuku-ji was established, the Nagasaki magistrate sent imported wood to Manpuku-ji as a gift (Xiaotang n.d., 1: 10). The latitude that the Nagasaki magistrate had in taking initiatives for the Chan monks outside Nagasaki was noticeable.
Before the arrival of Yinyuan Longqi's group in 1654, the Nagasaki magistrate regulated a small number of Chan monks in Nagasaki. However, the details of precisely how the Nagasaki magistrate regulated the Chan monks were not available until 1663. In that year, the Continental-related interpreters in Nagasaki received an invitation from Manpuku-ji for an interpreter of their group, Sakaki Kyūbei 彭城久兵衛 (1639–1709), to visit (Tokyo Daigaku shiryō hensansho 1984, 1: 11–12).8
The interpreters discussed how to make payment to Sakaki Kyūbei within their own circle and negotiated with the Nagasaki magistrate. The incumbent Nagasaki magistrate Shimada Tadamasa 島田忠政 (1624–1699), who served in the office from 1662 to 1666, indicated that in previous cases, the other incumbent Nagasaki magistrate, Kurokawa Masanao, who was then in Edo, gave the interpreters latitude to make their own decisions. Consequently, the interpreters decided to pay Sakaki Kyūbei thirty silver coins from their own budget (Tokyo Daigaku shiryō hensansho 1984, 1: 11–14). Upon receiving permission from the Nagasaki magistrate, the interpreters began making independent decisions.
The Nagasaki magistrate's regulation of the Chan monks was not always performed in a linear manner that involved only relevant parties in Nagasaki. The Nagasaki magistrate found that it had to communicate with daimyos on occasion as part of the process of regulation, and when that happened, the political authority of the Nagasaki magistrate was tested. The case of Duli Xingyi's visits to Iwakuni (the present-day southeastern part of Yamaguchi Prefecture) was a representative example.
Duli Xingyi was renowned for his expertise in medicine, and was, at the same time, highly respected by Kikkawa Hiroyoshi 吉川広嘉 (1621–1679), the daimyo of Iwakuni. While Duli Xingyi was renowned in Nagasaki and other parts of Kyushu, it did not mean that he would not be placed in an unfavorable position when the interests of the Nagasaki magistrate and daimyos were not aligned. Indeed, this state of affairs caused troubles for Duli Xingyi's visits to Iwakuni.
Duli Xingyi visited the Iwakuni domain a total of four times: for the first time in 1664, the second from 1665 to 1666, the third in 1667, and the fourth from 1668 to 1669.9 During his second visit to Iwakuni in 1665, Duli Xingyi was unexpectedly stopped by Ogasawara Tadazane 小笠原忠真 (1596–1667), the daimyo of Kokura, en route from Nagasaki to Iwakuni. However, since Duli Xingyi's visit to Iwakuni had been approved by the Nagasaki magistrate in advance, Shimada Tadamasa urged him to continue on his travel to Iwakuni. Although Ogasawara Tadazane tried to stop Duli Xingyi, he was not able to do so due to Shimada Tadamasa's instruction (Chen, Wei, and He 1995: 504).
During the aforementioned stay, the other incumbent Nagasaki magistrate, Inō Masatomo 稲生正倫 (1626–1666), who served as the Nagasaki magistrate from 1665 to 1666, became unexpectedly ill on the twenty-eighth day of the first month of 1666, thus disrupting Duli Xingyi's journey. An express messenger was sent to Iwakuni to request Duli Xingyi to return to Nagasaki. On the eleventh day of the second month of the same year, another express messenger was sent, and just four days later, a third was. However, Duli Xingyi did not respond to the request to return to Nagasaki immediately, and Inō Masatomo died on the seventeenth day of the second month of 1666 (Tokyo Daigaku shiryō hensansho 1984, 1: 40). The fact that Duli Xingyi ignored Inō Masatomo's order and remained in Iwakuni indicates that at least Kikkawa Hiroyoshi allowed Duli Xingyi to do this, since it was impossible for Kikkawa Hiroyoshi to have been unaware that Duli Xingyi's stay in Iwakuni was regulated by the Nagasaki magistrate. In other words, Duli Xingyi, through his intransigence, and Kikkawa Hiroyoshi, through his stance, challenged the Nagasaki magistrate's political authority.
However, although there was room for the Nagasaki magistrate's authority not to be obeyed to the letter, at the same time it was not meant to be disrespected. In one of his letters written later in the same year, Duli Xingyi apologized to Yinyuan Longqi for not being able to visit Manpuku-ji in time. He also confessed that he had asked Kikkawa Hiroyoshi to prepare a ship for him to visit Manpuku-ji. However, his plan was stopped by Inō Masatomo's order to return to Nagasaki, as discussed above (Chen, Wei, and He 1995: 504–5). On the eighteenth day of the first month of 1667, Duli Xingyi returned to Nagasaki.10 However, within two days of arriving, Kikkawa Hiroyoshi again sent an invitation to him to come to Iwakuni. The next day Duli Xingyi went to the Nagasaki magistrate's office when the incumbent Nagasaki magistrate gave him a clear signal that he did not favor Duli Xingyi's lengthy stay in Iwakuni (Tokyo Daigaku shiryō hensansho 1984, 1: 41). Duli Xingyi arrived in Iwakuni on the seventh day of the second month of 1667 for his third visit to Iwakuni (Shyu 2015, 1: 55). In addition to Kikkawa Hiroyoshi, Nabeshima Mitsushige 鍋島光茂 (1632–1700), the daimyo of Saga, sent invitations to Duli Xingyi requesting his help on medical matters. The invitations arrived at the Nagasaki magistrate's office on the twenty-eighth day of the fifth month of 1667. In a similar vein, Duli Xingyi was informed of an invitation from Ogasawara Tadazane on the second day of the eighth month of 1667, when he was summoned to the Nagasaki magistrate's office (Tokyo Daigaku shiryō hensansho 1984, 1: 40–42). It is clear then that daimyos had to approach the Nagasaki magistrate before inviting Duli Xingyi to their domains.
On the thirteenth day of the tenth month of 1668, Duli Xingyi left Nagasaki for his fourth and last visit to Iwakuni (Tokyo Daigaku shiryō hensansho 1984, 1: 43). Late at night on the first day of the second month of 1669, Duli Xingyi arrived in Nagasaki from this visit. The following day, Duli Xingyi reported his arrival at the Nagasaki magistrate's office; however, due to unexpectedly heavy snow, he arrived later than the deadline issued by the incumbent Nagasaki magistrate Kōno Michisada 河野通定 (1620–1692), who served as the Nagasaki magistrate from 1666 to 1672, and was, as a consequence, heavily berated by Kōno Michisada when reporting in. Even though Duli Xingyi insisted that it was the heavy snow that held him up, his explanations failed to placate the magistrate, who suggested that while the snow was indeed heavy, it should not have caused the kind of delay that Duli Xingyi said he experienced. Kōno Michisada also suspected that Kikkawa Hiroyoshi had his own reasons for delaying Duli Xingyi's return trip and indicated that if Duli Xingyi knew that he could not return to Nagasaki in time, he should have informed in advance (Tokyo Daigaku shiryō hensansho 1984, 1: 44–45). The heavy snow that Duli Xingyi encountered was certainly unexpected, yet Kōno Michisada was furious when Duli Xingyi arrived late considering his history of ignoring orders. It is true that Nagasaki magistrates differed from one another in terms of their personalities, but Kōno Michisada was determined to enforce regulations regarding the movements of the Chan monks. This is evident in Duli Xingyi's comments about Kōno Michisada written in the early second month of 1669 after being chastised by him: “After I reported to Kōno, Kōno's look turned ferocious. It is because he recently took the position [of the Nagasaki magistrate]. Therefore, he demonstrated his arrogance and brutality fully. I, as an individual monk in a foreign country, can only submit my fate to the will of the heaven. [Kōno's]arrogance fails to burden me, an old monk. If Kōno was a good-hearted person, he would never demonstrate arrogance and brutality [toward me]” (Shyu 2015, 1: 324). Duli Xingyi's confession reflected the fact that Kōno Michisada flew into a rage after Duli Xingyi reported in. According to his statement, Duli Xingyi blamed Kōno Michisada and made a promise to himself that Kōno Michisada's arrogance would no longer bother him. However, as will be discussed, later developments dismayed him. Duli Xingyi's description of Kōno Michisada's outrage reflected the great anxiety that came about when Kōno Michisada felt his political authority was being challenged.
Duli Xingyi's lengthy stay in Iwakuni made Kōno Michisada feel embarrassed and angry, which resulted in another serious sanction against the monk the following month. On the twenty-ninth day of the third month of 1669, Arima Yorimoto 有馬頼元 (1654–1705), the daimyo of Kurume, sent an invitation to Duli Xingyi to treat the illness of a retainer of the Kurume domain. On this occasion, Kōno Michisada ordered Duli Xingyi to desist from providing medical assistance and not accept any further such invitations. Duli Xingyi accepted Kōno Michisada's order (Tokyo Daigaku shiryō hensansho 1984, 1: 45–46). It was a natural response for Duli Xingyi, who sought to avert any further confrontation from Kōno Michisada. His acceptance illustrates that even if he did have leeway, Kōno Michisada's order was authoritative.
Prior to the establishment of Manpuku-ji in 1661, Yinyuan Longqi had requested the abbotship to be conferred on Chan monks from Jiangnan and Fujian, which was endorsed by the shogunate and followed by a continuous flow of invitations to Chan monks in Jiangnan and Fujian. By the tenth month of 1667, the records of invitations to Chan monks in Jiangnan and Fujian regulated by the Nagasaki magistrate could be confirmed. In that same year, the incumbent Manpuku-ji abbot Muan Xingtao sent an official inquiry to Nagasaki inviting two to three Chan monks to Kōfuku-ji in Nagasaki, as recorded in the memoirs of the Nagasaki magistrate on the twelfth day of the tenth month of 1667 (Tokyo Daigaku shiryō hensansho 1984, 1: 124). Since this inquiry had to be processed in Nagasaki, it would have been natural for the Nagasaki magistrate to be involved. Before arriving in Nagasaki, Chan monks should have no connection with the Japanese. Thus, the Nagasaki magistrate would act as a powerful de facto authority in the eyes of newly arrived Chan monks, as there was no alternative authority implementing such regulations.
There are other instances besides that of Duli Xingyi that attest to the Nagasaki magistrate's on-the-ground political authority. On the eleventh day of the eighth month of 1668, Jifei Ruyi requested an audience with the incumbent Nagasaki magistrate Matsudaira Takami 松平隆見 (?–1682), who served as the Nagasaki magistrate from 1666 to 1671, which was duly answered. In his response, Matsudaira Takami indicated that he did not have time to meet Jifei Ruyi until the seventeenth day of the eighth month of this year, although in the event it was not until the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month that Jifei Ruyi finally managed to meet Matsudaira Takami (Tokyo Daigaku shiryō hensansho 1984, 1: 47–48). It is the first time that Jifei Ruyi returned to Nagasaki to serve in one of the three Chan temples after his years of serving as abbot of Fukujū-ji in Kokura. This audience was a way for the Chan monks to formally register their residence in Nagasaki. Matsudaira Takami's handling of the matter here indicates that the audience with the Chan monks was not a priority for him and could, therefore, be delayed. However, the fact that Matsudaira Takami managed to meet Jifei Ruyi on a later date was testament to the fact that the procedure of regulating the Chan monks was not a matter to be taken lightly either.
The Nagasaki magistrate's regulation of Jifei Ruyi encountered problems the next year. In 1669 an unexpected incident took place within the circle of the Chan monks in Nagasaki. On the second day of the intercalary tenth month of this year, a commercial ship arrived in Nagasaki with two Chan monks on board. According to them, the purpose of their journey to Japan was to meet Yinyuan Longqi and thank him for his Buddhist teachings. The arrival of the two monks did not cause any trouble in itself, but Sōfuku-ji in Nagasaki's invitation to them sowed Matsudaira Takami's discontent. The invitation was proposed by Qiandai Xing'an 千呆性侒 (1636–1705; Hokkien: Chiantai Sing'an), the incumbent abbot of Sōfuku-ji, whose abbotship had not been made known to Matsudaira Takami.11 Matsudaira Takami flew into a rage and castigated Jifei Ruyi, the noble Chan monk who was responsible for Qiandai Xing'an's ascendancy to the abbotship, as well as the interpreters. Furthermore, Matsudaira Takami ordered a thorough investigation of the letters that were brought by merchants from the continent (Ōtsuki, Katō, and Hayashi 1988: 134–36).12 When Jifei Ruyi appointed Qiandai Xing'an as the abbot of Sōfuku-ji, Matsudaira Takami did not learn of the appointment for almost a year. Jifei Ruyi had not overseen the transition of the abbotship with due care, which, from the perspective of Matsudaira Takami, was a serious breach of rules, as the Nagasaki magistrate had political authority in regulating the three Chan temples in Nagasaki. This incident took place despite the fact that after 1661, when the temples were officially affiliated to Manpuku-ji, they had to follow the instructions of the Nagasaki magistrate initially. This matter was finally resolved by way of an apology from the relevant monks of Sōfuku-ji, leaving Qiandai Xing'an's abbotship intact (Tokyo Daigaku shiryō hensansho 1984, 1: 135–36; Ōtsuki, Katō, and Hayashi 1988: 183). This incident demonstrates that the Nagasaki magistrate's political authority in regulating the Chan monks was effective, as he could choose to meet Jifei Ruyi at a later date and exhibited political muscle when an important appointment had not been communicated to him.
However, as a shogunal proxy, whenever the Nagasaki magistrate deemed that some decisions could not be made on his own, the shogunate's directives would be necessary, as can be seen in the case of the Buddhist sculptor Fan Daosheng 范道生 (1636–1670; Hokkien: Huan To Sing) from Fujian. On the eighth day of the ninth month of 1670, Muan Xingtao, the incumbent abbot of Manpuku-ji, sent a letter to Matsudaira Takami requiring Fan Daosheng, who was staying in Nagasaki, to serve Manpuku-ji. But in his letter Matsudaira Takami indicated that the decision on the issue went beyond his authority, whereupon he sought advice from the shogunate. According to the shogunate's instruction, if Fan Daosheng would agree to permanently settle in Japan, he should be allowed to serve Manpuku-ji. Otherwise, the request could not be permitted. Unfortunately, before this instruction was put into effect, Fan Daosheng died in Nagasaki on the third day of the eleventh month of 1670 (Tokyo Daigaku shiryō hensansho 1984, 1: 154–57). When the Nagasaki magistrate considered that a final decision should be made by the shogunate, he would seek the shogunate's instructions. Likewise, Duli Xingyi's overly long stay in Iwakuni indicates that the Nagasaki magistrate's political authority alone was not sufficient to regulate Duli Xingyi's movements outside Nagasaki. As early as 1663, Manpuku-ji sent a request to Nagasaki to invite Buddhist sculptors from the continent who traveled to Japan to come to Manpuku-ji. Upon receiving permission from the Nagasaki magistrate, Fan Daosheng set out for Manpuku-ji on the thirteenth day of the ninth month of 1663 (Tokyo Daigaku shiryō hensansho 1984, 1: 157). In this case the Nagasaki magistrate's decision alone was enough to allow Fan Daosheng to travel from Nagasaki to Uji and suggests that for most of the time, the authority of the Nagasaki magistrate sufficed in common cases. However, when it came to granting a residence permit to a foreign Buddhist sculptor, the Nagasaki magistrate needed to seek the shogunate's permission.
Meanwhile, trade in Nagasaki witnessed another change of policy in 1672. As outlined earlier, the shogunate replaced the Itowappu trade system with Aitai Shōhō in 1655. However, the implementation of the latter resulted in a rapid outflow of silver from Japan. To stymie this, the incumbent Nagasaki magistrate Ushigome Shigenori 牛込重忝 (1621–1688), who served as the Nagasaki magistrate from 1671 to 1681, stipulated Shihō Shōhō 市法商法. According to this trade law, the Nagasaki magistrate set a low price for purchasing goods brought to Nagasaki by Continental and Dutch merchants. If the merchants agreed to these predetermined prices, their goods would be purchased by the Japanese, but if not, they would have to leave Nagasaki with their unsold goods (Toyama 1988: 127–28). Shihō Shōhō was an example of dwindling direct intervention by the shogunate in Nagasaki trade.
Moreover, the authority of the Nagasaki magistrate alone was insufficient for travel to Edo. No scholar to date has examined the letter written by the Japanese Zen monk Tetsugyū Dōki 鉄牛道機 to the Chan monk Donggao Xinyue 東皋心越 (1639–1695, Wu: Tonkau Shinyoh) on the sixth day of the twelfth month of 1679.13 In this letter, Tetsugyū Dōki wrote:
According to my country's law, Tang [Continental] monks’ random entry into the Eastern Capital [Edo] is always prohibited. The previous year, Ōbaku monk Nanyuan [Xingpai] visited Tōtōmi, and monk Duzhan [Xingying] came straight to Edo. Public opinions were harsh, and things turned to be serious and tough. Because of these, the two temples of Zuishō-ji and Kaifuku-ji [in Edo] were both subject to official jurisdiction. Since then, the regulations became tougher, with severe prohibition against Tang monks’ travel to the Eastern Capital without official permission. If you come to my temple [Zuishō-ji], not only will you be subject to official jurisdiction, but also Zuishō-ji will breach severe prohibition. In addition, you are a monk in Nagasaki. Without official engagement, how can the authorities grant you permission [to travel to Edo]? If you have something that make you have to travel to the Eastern Capital, let the Nagasaki magistrate report it to the shogunate. Upon receiving official permission, you come here. No trouble should arise then. Otherwise, I am afraid that things may not go well.14
Tetsugyū Dōki's reply clearly proved the need to obtain the shogunate's permission prior to entering Edo.
The Nagasaki magistrate's political authority was indeed insufficient to make decisions in this scenario, yet it did allow the Chan monks to return to Nagasaki when the case was deemed to be under the aegis of the Nagasaki magistrate. In 1680, at the Nagasaki magistrate's office, a punishment related to the involvement of a monk named Eigen 恵厳 with Donggao Xinyue was decided for Eigen. In order to be accepted in Nagasaki, Donggao Xinyue, a Chan monk of the Sōtō (Caodong) sect, had to pretend to be a disciple of Chengyi Daoliang 澄一道亮 (1608–1692, Wu: Dzenieh Daulian), the incumbent abbot of Kōfuku-ji.15 After being accepted as an Ōbaku monk, Donggao Xinyue was sent by Chengyi Daoliang to Manpuku-ji. However, after arriving in Osaka in the first month of 1680 and staying there for some time, Donggao Xinyue confessed that he actually was a Sōtō monk, instead of an Ōbaku monk. Such a confession caused consternation after which Donggao Xinyue was sent back to Nagasaki in the fifth month of 1680. Due to this incident, Chengyi Daoliang's disciple Eigen was found culpable for this and duly punished (Morinaga 1958, 1: 37; Ōtsuki, Katō, and Hayashi 1988: 162). This incident is interesting because after Donggao Xinyue made this confession in Osaka, it was decided that he was not to be accommodated in temples in the Kyoto-Osaka area. Instead, Donggao Xinyue was sent back to Nagasaki for his unacceptable behavior. He would not be unreservedly accepted in the Kyoto-Osaka area and his now known true identity compromised his interactions with potential counterparts in the Kyoto-Osaka area. Moreover, Nagasaki turned out to be an appropriate place to send a foreign Chan monk. The arrangement of Donggao Xinyue's return to Nagasaki and the publishment meted out to Eigen demonstrated the Nagasaki magistrate's on-the-ground political authority.
Moreover, well into the 1680s, the on-the-ground presence of the Nagasaki magistrate's political authority managed to circumvent the shogunal authority. While not a study of the Chan monks, in her discussion about the merchant Wei Zhiyan 魏之琰 (1617–1689; Hokkien: Gui Tsi Iam) from Fujian, who was granted a permanent residence permit in Nagasaki in 1672, Iioka Naoko contended that by having cordial connections with Nagasaki officials and Nagasaki magistrates, Wei Zhiyan successfully conducted overseas trade between Nagasaki and Tonkin (the present-day northern Vietnam) until the 1680s, which was illegal for permanent residents as well as common Japanese people in Tokugawa Japan according to the national isolation directives of the shogunate, without being punished by the shogunate (Iioka 2013: 244–51).
Trade in Nagasaki witnessed a major turning point that began in the mid-1680s. This shift was at first triggered by the Qing Empire's maritime policy. In 1683 the Zheng organization in Taiwan militarily surrendered to the Qing Empire. One year later, in 1684, the Qing Empire formally removed the ban on Southeastern coastal merchants’ overseas trade. In order to regulate an expected increase in the number of commercial ships from the Continent, the incumbent Nagasaki magistrate Kawaguchi Munetsune 川口宗恒 (1630–1704), who served as the Nagasaki magistrate from 1680 to 1693, participated in formulating a new Nagasaki trade policy, the Jōdaka 定高 system, which was put into effect in 1685. According to this trade policy, the permissible annual maximum trade amount for commercial ships from the Continent was six thousand taels of silver, while that of Dutch ships was three thousand taels. If the maximum amount was surpassed, no further ships coming to Nagasaki would be allowed to trade (Toyama 1988: 133). The introduction of the Jōdaka system was seen as prejudicial to the interests of merchants from the Continent, resulting in a serious smuggling incident taking place in the first month of 1686 (Suzuki 2007: 28–29). In the same year the shogunate added one more official to the position of the Nagasaki magistrate, making it a total of three, in an attempt to improve supervision in Nagasaki. Because of this change, two incumbent Nagasaki magistrates would be stationed in Nagasaki, with the other incumbent Nagasaki magistrate staying at Edo.
Alongside these policy changes came the intensified regulation of residents from the Continent in Nagasaki. The reasons for the increased regulation can be attributed to three main factors: preventing the residents from disrupting social order in Nagasaki, curbing smuggling activities, and preventing collaboration with Christians. Additionally, the significant increase in incoming commercial ships from the Continent since 1684 provided further rationale (Yamamoto 1983: 199–204). As these changes show, it was the first time since 1655 that the shogunate started to exert more direct influence on Nagasaki affairs.
However, the Nagasaki magistrate's relatively strong on-the-ground political authority continued until 1692. On the ninth day of the third month of 1692, a joint petition from Yuefeng Daozhang 悅峰道章 (1655–1734, Wu: Yuehfon Dautsan), Yugang Haikun 玉岡海崑 (1642–1693; Hokkien: Giokkong Haikhun), and Donglan Zongze 東瀾宗澤 (1640–1707; Hokkien: Tonglan Congtik), incumbent abbots of Kōfuku-ji, Sōfuku-ji, and Fukusai-ji, respectively, was sent to the Nagasaki magistrate.16 In this petition, the three abbots related their concerns about the extremely small number of Chan monks from Jiangnan and Fujian currently serving in the three Chan temples. Thus, these three abbots sought permission to bring two Chan monks to each of the three Chan temples. This petition was approved by the incumbent Nagasaki magistrates Kawaguchi Munetsune, Miyagi Tomosumi 宮城和澄 (?–1696), who served as the Nagasaki magistrate from 1687 to 1696, as well as Yamaoka Kagesuke 山岡景助 (1624–1705), who served as the Nagasaki magistrate from 1687 to 1695, about two months later on the seventh day of the fifth month of 1692 (Nagasaki rekishi bunka hakubutsukan 2014: 46–47).
The On-the-Ground Political Authority of the Nagasaki Magistrate in Regulating the Chan Monks from 1693 Onward
For the Ōbaku sect, the 1680s were a turning point, during which its distinctly appealing high culture was not as convincing as before. This was pointed out by the fifth Manpuku-ji abbot, Gaoquan Xingdun 高泉性潡 (1633–1695; Hokkien: Kocuan Singtun), who served as the abbot of Manpuku-ji from 1692 to 1695, in a subtle way. When he was serving as the abbot of Manpuku-ji, he himself admitted that Ōbaku Zen traditions were in decline (Ōbaku bunka kenkyūsho 2014: 283).
As discussed above, from 1685 onward, the shogunate sought more active direct participation in Nagasaki affairs, although this shift was not immediately reflected in the Nagasaki magistrate's regulation of Chan monks. Until 1692, the Nagasaki magistrate demonstrated de facto political authority pertaining to the Chan monks.17 However, a change in the political landscape came in 1693.18 On the second day of the seventh month of 1693, two commercial ships from the Continent docked in Nagasaki (Tokyo Daigaku shiryō hensansho 1984, 1: 343). On the ninth day of the same month, one of these ships offered some gifts to be given to Manpuku-ji. However, this issue was not handled by the Nagasaki magistrate (Tokyo Daigaku shiryō hensansho 1984, 1: 346–47). Whether these gifts could be passed to Manpuku-ji was at the discretion of the shogunate. On the thirteenth day of the eighth month of the same year, the shogunate gave permission to two newly arrived Chan monks, Daheng Haiquan 大衡海權 (1651–1716; Hokkien: Taihing Haikhuan) and Lingyuan Haimai 靈源海脈 (1653–1717; Hokkien: Lingguan Haibik), who were candidates to be Sōfuku-ji abbots to stay in Nagasaki (Tokyo Daigaku shiryō hensansho 1984, 1: 363).19 Unlike the period before 1692, when the Nagasaki magistrate made effective decisions regulating the Chan monks, the shogunate was now seen to be making direct decisions.
Although it is difficult to provide a definite explanation for why the year 1693 marked a major shift, it was likely related to Kawaguchi Munetsune, who served an unusually long term as the Nagasaki magistrate until 1692. In addition to his supervisory role in Jōdaka policy, Kawaguchi Munetsune performed the central role of overseeing regulation policies in Nagasaki. These included an intensification of a monitoring system of ships coming to and leaving the Nagasaki harbor in 1688, and the concentrated regulation of continental residents in Tōjinyashiki 唐人屋敷 in Nagasaki starting from 1689. Because of his contributions to the reforms in Nagasaki trade, Kawaguchi Munetsune's stipend was increased by five hundred koku in 1686, and he was conferred the lower fifth rank in 1690 by the shogunate, marking the first instance since the late Kanei period (1624–1644) (Suzuki 2007: 38–41). Thus, it is reasonable to infer that while the shogunate began paying more attention to Nagasaki affairs from the mid-1680s, due to Kawaguchi Munetsune's central role in Nagasaki affairs, it allowed the Nagasaki magistrate a high degree of latitude in regulating the Chan monks as usual until 1692.
These shifting sands started to have an influence on travels to Manpuku-ji. On the fourth day of the eleventh month of 1695, two Japanese Zen monks arrived in Nagasaki to invite Qiandai Xing'an, who was then serving in Sōfuku-ji, to Manpuku-ji to assume the abbotship. Since it was an arrangement of the shogunate, the Nagasaki magistrate mandated that he had to have a formal notice before proceeding to dispatch Qiandai Xing'an to Manpuku-ji (Tokyo Daigaku shiryō hensansho 1984, 2: 169). As was typical within the circle, the Chan monks in the three Chan temples in Nagasaki had better opportunities to be considered candidates for the abbacy of Manpuku-ji. With a declining number of suitable Chan monks, those in Nagasaki became even more important. Consequently, on the eighth day of the eleventh month of 1695, Qiandai Xing'an submitted a request to the Nagasaki magistrate seeking permission for Donglan Zongze at Fukusai-ji as well as Xueguang Hairun 雪廣海潤 (1649–1708; Wu: Sihkuaon Hezen) at Kōfuku-ji to accompany him to Manpuku-ji; yet the Nagasaki magistrate suggested that the shogunate's endorsement was needed (Tokyo Daigaku shiryō hensansho 1984, 2: 175).20 As discussed above, when the Chan monks either sought permission to travel to Manpuku-ji, or were invited by Manpuku-ji to travel there, express authority from the Nagasaki magistrate was required. However, at this point, the Nagasaki magistrate was unable to grant permission unilaterally, a situation that persisted for some time.
In 1695 three abbots, each from one of the three Chan temples in Nagasaki (Yuefeng Daozhang of Kōfuku-ji, Donglan Zongze of Fukusai-ji, and Daheng Haiquan of Sōfuku-ji), applied to travel to Uji. At first they sought permission from the Nagasaki magistrate for their plan, but prior to the applications, Donglan Zongze had also submitted his application to the Nagasaki magistrate to travel to Manpuku-ji. The Nagasaki magistrate consulted the shogunate on this matter, resulting in the shogunate denying the application. Consequently, the Nagasaki magistrate followed the shogunal decision made in Donglan Zongze's case and denied the three abbots’ applications to travel to Manpuku-ji (Tokyo Daigaku shiryō hensansho 1984, 2: 50–51). How the decisions were made reflected the changing de facto on-the-ground political authority of the Nagasaki magistrate.
The shogunate's direct involvement in Nagasaki-related matters constrained the Nagasaki magistrate's on-the-ground authority. Like the Manpuku-ji abbots’ audiences with the shogunate, the Chan monks in Nagasaki proposed formal meetings with the Nagasaki magistrate. In 1696, after acceding to the abbotship of Fukusai-ji, Helang Fangjing 喝浪方淨 (1663–1706; Hokkien: Hatlong Hongcing) submitted an application for a formal audience with the Nagasaki magistrate.21 After receiving this application, the incumbent Nagasaki magistrates Miyagi Tomosumi and Kondō Mochitaka 近藤用高, who served as the Nagasaki magistrate from 1694 to 1701, asked the interpreters to discuss whether a precedent existed, on the twenty-ninth day of the sixth month of 1696. Even though the interpreters confirmed that a precedent did not exist, the west office of the Nagasaki magistrate decided to allow an audience. However, this decision later was rescinded, and the audience was disapproved (Tokyo Daigaku shiryō hensansho 1984, 2: 132). The changing and contradictory attitudes toward this issue, as well as the fact that Miyagi Tomosumi and Kondō Mochitaka asked for the confirmation of precedents, imply that this cannot simply be considered a minor issue and that the Nagasaki magistrate was wary of making a wrong move.
The Nagasaki magistrate could no longer make autonomous decisions regarding travel from Nagasaki to Manpuku-ji. Yuefeng Daozhang would face the same denial of his application that Donglan Zongze had. In the second month of 1697, Yuefeng Daozhang, the incumbent abbot of Kōfuku-ji, submitted his request to the incumbent Nagasaki magistrate Suwa Yorikage 諏訪頼蔭 (1643–1725), who served as the Nagasaki magistrate from 1696 to 1698. His request included participating in a ceremony marking the twenty-fifth anniversary of Yinyuan Longqi's death in Manpuku-ji, as well as the ceremony of Qiandai Xing'an's official ascendancy to the role of the sixth abbot of Manpuku-ji. However, upon receiving this request, another incumbent Nagasaki magistrate, Niwa Nagamori 丹羽長守 (1643–1726), who served as the Nagasaki magistrate from 1695 to 1702, indicated that he lacked the political authority to deal with it and had to pass it to Edo. Suwa Yorikage cited a recent case in an effort to explain why he felt compelled to defer the decision, saying that Donglan Zongze at Fukusai-ji had made a request to participate in the official ceremony for Gaoquan Xingdun's succession to the abbotship as well as a visit to Arima Spring. The result was a denial by the shogunate. Following on from Donglan Zongze's precedent, Yuefeng Daozhang's application was denied (Tokyo Daigaku shiryō hensansho 1984, 2: 211–14).
Pertaining to Nagasaki affairs, starting from 1699, a direct participation of the ministry of financial affairs of the shogunate was consolidated, which was represented by the visit of Ogiwara Shigehide 荻原重秀 (1658–1713), the incumbent commissioner of financial affairs, to Nagasaki (Suzuki 2007: 80). The invitation of new Chan monks, as well as the appointment of abbots by the three Chan temples in Nagasaki, saw direct shogunal involvement, reflecting the shift of authority and a trend that accelerated in the early eighteenth century.
In 1707 the three Chan temples in Nagasaki were all experiencing a shortage of suitable candidates as future abbots. Consequently, in the fourth month of this year, all three temples sent invitations to new Chan monks in Jiangnan and Fujian that they had identified capable. These requests would be discussed by the interpreters and the Nagasaki magistrate and later processed by the shogunate (Tokyo Daigaku shiryō hensansho 1984, 4: 211–12). On the nineteenth day of the tenth month of this year, approval from the shogunate arrived in Nagasaki, revealing that each of the three Chan temples was to be permitted to invite one new Chan monk from Jiangnan and Fujian (Tokyo Daigaku shiryō hensansho 1984, 4: 274–75). In the twelfth month of 1708, however, an issue with the abbotship of Fukusai-ji came up. On the eighteenth day of this month, the Chan monk Duwen Fangbing 獨文方炳 (1656–1725; Hokkien: Tokbun Hongping) at Fukusai-ji was summoned to the Nagasaki magistrate's office for a discussion about the abbotship.22 The incumbent Nagasaki magistrates Komakine Masakata 駒木根政方, who served as the Nagasaki magistrate from 1706 to 1714, and Bessho Tsuneharu 別所常治, who served as the Nagasaki magistrate from 1702 to 1711, made it clear that a Japanese Zen monk named Rantei 蘭亭 in Edo facilitated in Duwen Fangbing's ascendancy to the role of abbot of Fukusai-ji. However, the magistrates declared that since Duwen Fangbing had not been permitted to assume the abbotship after Donglan Zongze, the previous abbot of Fukusai-ji, who died on the thirtieth day of the fifth month of 1707, it was still difficult to appoint Duwen Fangbing to be the abbot (Tokyo Daigaku shiryō hensansho 1984, 5: 104). In this case, Rantei made the issue of Duwen Fangbing's application to take Fukusai-ji's abbotship clear to authorities in Edo. Finally, on the fourth day of the eighth month of 1709, an official order from the incumbent Nagasaki magistrates Komakine Masakata and Sakuma Nobunari 佐久間信就 (1646–1725), who served as the Nagasaki magistrate from 1703 to 1713, along with Bessho Tsuneharu, appointed Duwen Fangbing to assume the abbotship of Fukusai-ji (Tokyo Daigaku shiryō hensansho 1984, 5: 177–78).23
In addition to direct control over invitations sent to new Chan monks, the shogunate also imposed noncontact orders on newly arrived Chan monks. In the fifth month of 1709, two Chan monks from Fujian arrived in Nagasaki. Prior to receiving the two Chan monks in Sōfuku-ji, the Nagasaki magistrate ordered that before the confirmation order of the shogunate would arrive (the confirmation finally came on the twenty-second day of the seventh month), the two Chan monks were not allowed to have any interaction with the Japanese (Tokyo Daigaku shiryō hensansho 1984, 5: 113–14). On the eleventh day of the intercalary eighth month of 1710, a commercial ship from Ningbo arrived at the Nagasaki outer harbor. On board this ship was a Chan monk from Fuzhou named Yi Guan 一貫 (Hokkien: It Kuan), who carried on letters from monks in Mount Gu 鼓 (Hokkien: Koo) in Fuzhou, which he was to hand to Duwen Fangbing in Fukusai-ji. As was the custom, this commercial ship had to undergo checks before it was allowed to anchor at the Nagasaki harbor. However, on this occasion the shogunate decreed that the new arrival be considered a candidate for Fukusai-ji's abbotship in the near future. In addition to this order, the shogunate ordered that prior to receiving any further notice from the shogunate, the newly arrived Chan monk would be prohibited from interacting with the Japanese (Tokyo Daigaku shiryō hensansho 1984, 5: 292–95). These regulations stood in stark contrast to those in place when Yinyuan Longqi's group arrived in Nagasaki in 1654. The shogunate's order to regulate interactions between the group and the Japanese was issued on the twenty-sixth day of the seventh month of 1655, not long before Yinyuan Longqi's group left for Fumon-ji (Kyoto National Museum 1993: 152). The shogunate chose not to intervene when the group arrived in Nagasaki in 1654. By contrast, the shogunate's regulations in this case were a clear sign that it was acknowledging the shortage of Chan monks in both Manpuku-ji and Nagasaki and preferred to address the problem in its own way. Some decades after its establishment, Manpuku-ji experienced a decline in the number of well-qualified Chan monks. By instigating a direct check on accommodating new Chan monks in Sōfuku-ji, the shogunate sent out a clear message that it was in direct charge of newly arrived Chan monks. The takeover of de facto political authority by the shogunate, on the one hand, reflects the changes that occurred amid the dwindling influx of Chan monks and, on the other, is indicative of a shogunate that was exerting greater authority at will. When it was not deemed necessary for the shogunate to implement more direct regulations, the Nagasaki magistrate handled issues without objection. However, when the shogunate did deem it necessary to demonstrate political authority of its own, it managed to do so.
Since the shogunate directly regulated newly arrived Chan monks, there came about a relative change in the status of the Chan monks in Nagasaki. In 1711 Chan monk Xuru Lianfang 旭如蓮昉 (1664–1719; Wu: Shiuehzu Liefaon) arrived in Nagasaki on board Cheng Yifan's 程益凡 (Wu: Jin Ih Vae) commercial ship.24 Upon his arrival, he submitted a request on Cheng Yifan's behalf to expand the merchant's sales limit, which was approved (Tokyo Daigaku shiryō hensansho 1984, 5: 244). At first glance, there was nothing unusual about this. A Chan monk intending to stay in Nagasaki sought to help a traveling merchant who offered him a mode of transport. In other words, Xuru Lianfang seemed to be simply appreciating what the merchant had done for him, though it might not have been a small matter for Cheng Yifan. However, such a supposition cannot fully explain why Xuru Lianfang felt it necessary to submit the request himself; a merchant from the Continent or an agent interpreter likely could have performed a similar favor, which means that there must have been particular reasons for Xuru Lianfang to have done so. Cheng Yifan may have recognized the increasing importance of the Chan monks in Nagasaki and understood that if he entrusted Xuru Lianfang with his appeal, it would probably succeed. It is a vivid example of how the changing circumstances that the Chan monks experienced could have influenced the merchants from the Continent who had commercial interests in Nagasaki.
In 1715 a Nagasaki trade policy proposed by the shogunal senior councillor Arai Hakuseki 新井白石 (1657–1725) was put into effect. In addition to the trade regulations dealing with Continental merchants’ smuggling, this trade policy stipulated the establishment of Nagasaki supervisors. During the Kyōhō period (1716–1736), many supervisors were sent to Nagasaki, and largely from whom Nagasaki magistrates were appointed. Since these supervisors were affiliated to the shogunate's supervision system, the shogunate's surveillance in Nagasaki was strengthened during the Kyōhō period (Suzuki 2007: 81).
In the early eighteenth century, the shogunate continued to give considerable attention to the Chan monks and certainly appreciated their service as abbots of Manpuku-ji. However, several factors led to the decline in the arrival of new Chan monks from Jiangnan and Fujian. First, as the shogunate noticed a decline in religious discipline and authenticity, it began requiring Chan monks arriving from the continent in the early 1720s to have already obtained dharma transmission, whereas previously it was not a requirement. As a result, senior monks in Manpuku-ji had to comply with the shogunate's new policy, even if they preferred the previously prevalent practice of conferring dharma transmission upon the arrival of junior monks from the Continent in Japan. Second, the enactment of the Shōtoku Shinrei 正徳新例 in 1715 led to a gradual decline in trade between Japan and the Continent. Third, Emperor Yongzheng 雍正 (1678–1735, r. 1722–1735) tightened supervision of commercial activities with Japan on the continent, which ultimately resulted in the failed invitaion of Zhongqi Daoren 仲琪道任 (Hokkien: Tiongki Tolim) by the Japanese side, as will be discussed (Wu 2015: 209–39).
Even though the Chan monks stopped traveling to Japan after 1723, the position of Manpuku-ji abbot was to be kept by successive Chan monks in the eyes of the shogunate during the reign of the eighth shogun Tokugawa Yoshimune 徳川吉宗 (1684–1751, r. 1716–1745). Thus, the shogunate did not stop initiatives to invite new Chan monks.
In 1724, Gaotang Yuanchang 杲堂元昶 (1663–1733; Wu: Kaudaon Nyoetshan), the incumbent abbot of Manpuku-ji, received an order from the shogunate to invite Chan monks to Japan.25 In response to this order, Gaotang Yuanchang admitted that he did not have any acquaintance of Yinyuan Longqi's lineage in Wanfu (Hokkien: Banhok) temple (Gaotang n.d.: 2). It is understandable that at the early stage of the Ōbaku sect's development, since the Chan monks had newly arrived in Japan, their connections with their counterparts in Jiangnan and Fujian remained close. In the case of Gaotang Yuanchang, a native of Zhejiang—a region where the religious influence of Yinyuan Longqi's lineage was not strong—the religious influence of Wanfu temple declined accordingly. Even though there was a close connection between Manpuku-ji and Wanfu temple in broad terms, it does not necessarily mean that all the Continental (not all were from Fujian) Manpuku-ji abbots had close personal connections with Wanfu temple. For Gaotang Yuanchang, Wanfu temple did not have any symbolic meaning; yet because of its significance, the shogunate still tried to maintain Manpuku-ji's connection with Wanfu temple.26 Furthermore, the emphasis on this invitation indicates that as long as the shogunate took the initiative to handle the issue of the Chan monks, the shogunate's intervention in Nagasaki affairs would just grow.
For securing a Continental Chan lineage for Manpuku-ji, the shogunate ordered the Nagasaki magistrate to invite Zhongqi Daoren's group according to the manner in which Yinyuan Longqi's group was accommodated in Nagasaki in 1654. The invitation sent in 1727 to Zhongqi Daoren, who was affiliated to Yinyuan Longqi's lineage at Wanfu temple in Fuqing, was almost successful, even though this invitation ultimately failed. This resulted in Zhongqi Daoren and his fellow counterparts being sent back to their home temples, as well as the merchant Ke Wancang 柯萬藏 (Hokkien: Kua Ban Cong) being jailed in Hangzhou for attempting to provide a ride to Zhongqi Daoren and his fellow counterparts, due to the tightened Qing control of ships for Japan (Nagasaki rekishi bunka hakubutsukan 2014: 81).27
The dearth of new Chan monks seemed to make the shogunate cherish the existing Chan monks even more. In 1738, when Zhu'an Jingyin 竺庵淨印 (1696–1756; Wu: Tsoh'oe Jin'in) submitted a letter to the shogunate to retire from the abbacy of Manpuku-ji, the shogunate persuaded him, instead, to stay on.28 The shogunate continued to work actively on its Manpuku-ji policies. An official document submitted by Kōfuku-ji to the incumbent Nagasaki magistrates Tsubouchi Sadao 坪内定央, who served as the Nagasaki magistrate from 1754 to 1760, and Suganuma Sadahide 菅沼定秀, who served as the Nagasaki magistrate from 1751 to 1757, in the ninth month of 1755, references a prescribed manner for handling the affairs of the abbots of the three Chan temples in Nagasaki until three decades prior (in the 1720s). That is, the three Chan temples would first submit their proposals for invitations to the Nagasaki magistrate, after which the Nagasaki magistrate would seek the shogunate's instructions and proceed to assign invitations to particular merchants from the continent (Nagasaki rekishi bunka hakubutsukan 2014: 80–81). Even a few decades after 1723, when new Chan monks ceased traveling to Japan, the shogunate had been keeping up the practice of inviting new Chan monks.
The cases discussed above highlight the shogunate's active stance in regulating the Chan monks with one exception. In the tenth month of 1701, a commercial ship from southeastern Jiangsu arrived in Nagasaki. This ship carried Buddhist statues earmarked for Kōfuku-ji as well as Qiandai Xing'an, the incumbent abbot of Manpuku-ji. After a review by the Nagasaki magistrate, the request made by the ship was accepted (Tokyo Daigaku shiryō hensansho 1984: 172–73). In this case obtaining the permission of the Nagasaki magistrate meant that delivery of the Buddhist statues would not be impeded, although this was the only case after 1693 where the Nagasaki magistrate's political authority of itself was sufficient to make a Manpuku-ji related decision.
Conclusion
This essay discusses the on-the-ground political authority of the Nagasaki magistrate in regard to the Chan monks from Jiangnan and Fujian in Tokugawa Japan. I have argued that the actual regulation of the Chan monks by the Nagasaki magistrate underwent a major shift after 1693 and that the changing attitude of the shogunate toward Nagasaki shaped the on-the-ground political authority of the Nagasaki magistrate. Between 1658 and 1692, the Nagasaki magistrate demonstrated a high level of on-the-ground political authority in regulating the Chan monks, but this changed from 1693 when the shogunate adopted a more active stance in directly regulating the Chan monks. Although the shogunate actively formulated and introduced policies regarding merchants and residents from the continent since 1685, a significant shift in the regulation of the Chan monks occurred only in 1693. Regarding the reasons for this major shift in 1693, this article contends that Kawaguchi Munetsune, who served as the Nagasaki magistrate from 1680 to 1693 and played a central role in trade reforms in Nagasaki from 1685, likely influenced the shogunate to keep its approach to Nagasaki affairs until 1692.
As a shogunal proxy, the political authority of the Nagasaki magistrate was subordinate to that of the shogunate. However, when the shogunate was not directly regulating the Chan monks, de facto political authority was passed to the Nagasaki magistrate. Until the shogunate's formal stance toward Yinyuan Longqi's group was revealed in 1658, the Nagasaki magistrate adopted a supportive stance that facilitated the accommodation of Yinyuan Longqi's group. The Nagasaki magistrate maintained this stance beyond 1658. When discussing de facto political authority in the Nagasaki coastal defense system of the Tokugawa period, Noell Wilson (2015: 10) observed that the Fukuoka and Saga daimyos gradually outgunned the Nagasaki magistrate, who was theoretically the higher authority, as “domains exploited ambiguities in the distribution of military authority to aggrandize their own power.” This explains why the on-the-ground Fukuoka and Saga coastal defense forces had an advantage over the Nagasaki magistrate, who did not have a direct control of on-the-ground forces. Such an example reveals similarity for the on-the-ground authority of the Nagasaki magistrate pertaining to the Chan monks discussed in this article. The Nagasaki magistrate demonstrated a high level of on-the-ground authority when the shogunate did not pay enough attention to Nagasaki before 1693.
Suzuki Yasuko (2007: 306) argues that “from financial and diplomatic perspectives of the late seventeenth century, especially since the late 1680s, trading city Nagasaki would be granted an extremely high evaluation compared to a previously extremely low evaluation and particularly paid attention to by the shogunate.” Such a turn corresponded with the growing importance of the Nagasaki magistrate's status in the Tokugawa political system, which was evidenced in the seating order of the Nagasaki magistrate at Fuyōnoma (the room of lotus) in the Edo Castle designated before that of the Kyoto city magistrate from 1699 until the end of the Tokugawa period (Suzuki 2007: 46–48). Ironically, the shogunate's reevaluation of Nagasaki's status weakened the Nagasaki magistrate's on-the-ground political authority in regulating the Chan monks. Even though the shogunate itself took a direct lead in inviting new Chan monks to travel to Japan, the fact that they stopped arriving after 1723 was an inevitability.
This essay is a revised version of chapter 4 of my PhD thesis, “Chan Monks, Warriors, and Imperial Aristocrats: Southeastern East Asian Continental Chan Monks’ Interactions with Japanese Political Players and the Accommodation of the Chan Monks from the Mid-Seventeenth Century to the Mid-Eighteenth Century,” submitted to the Department of History, National University of Singapore, in 2021.
Notes
While the definition of “Jiangnan” (South of the lower reaches of the Yangtze River) varies, this article refers “Jiangnan” to southeastern Jiangsu (Wu: Kaonsou) and Zhejiang (Wu: Tsehcian).
This excludes incidents when the Chan monks accidentally landed in another port at first. For example, there is a case of a commercial ship that departed from Ningbo (Wu: Nyinpou) on the eighth day of the seventh month of 1693. This ship stopped at nearby Mount Putuo (Wu: Phudou) on the sixteenth day of the same month. Five days later, this ship departed again from Mount Putuo for Nagasaki. Unfortunately, this ship encountered high winds at sea on the twenty-ninth day of the same month and had to stop at Tsushima on the second day of the eighth month of the same year. On the twenty-third day of the same month, this ship departed again from Tsushima and finally arrived in Nagasaki six days later. The Fujianese Chan monk Duwen Fangbing, the would-be eleventh abbot of Manpuku-ji, was on board the ship and described his experience when the ship stopped at Tsushima upon arriving in Nagasaki. See Hayashi and Hayashi 1981, 2: 1600–1606.
Established in 1661, Manpuku-ji, which served as the headquarters of the Ōbaku sect in Japan, provided the Chan monks a base to frame a network of branch temples. Its close connection with three Chan temples in Nagasaki helped shape its Continental-style Chan continuously until the early eighteenth century, and this distinct style attracted those interested in Ōbaku teachings to visit Uji.
The Hokkien spellings of names of the Chan monks from Fujian and places in Fujian in this article are based on the following dictionary. See Dong 2001. Moreover, the birth years and death years of historical figures have been converted according to the Gregorian calendar. Additionally, as is well known, there are numerous records related to influential Chan monks like Yinyuan Longqi. However, since this article discusses the period from the mid- to late seventeenth century to the early eighteenth century, the emphasis will be placed on the changes that occurred during this time period rather than focusing primarily on influential Chan monks like Yinyuan Longqi.
Duli Xingyi was a native of Hangzhou (Wu: Ghantsei), who traveled to Nagasaki in the first month of 1653 and arrived in Nagasaki in the third month of the same year. In the twelfth month of 1654, he became a disciple of Yinyuan Longqi. Duli Xingyi followed Yinyuan Longqi's group to Fumon-ji in 1655. However, in 1659, he left Yinyuan Longqi's group and returned to Nagasaki. In the 1660s he was invited to the Iwakuni domain four times for his medical service. He died in Nagasaki in 1672. See Ōtsuki, Katō, and Hayashi 1988: 283–84. The Wu spellings of names of the Chan monks from Jiangnan and places in Jiangnan in this article are based on the online dictionary of the Wu Chinese Society (http://wu-chinese.com/minidict/). Names (of historical figures and places) in Wu language are spelled according to specific vernaculars. For example, as Duli Xingyi (Dohlieh Shinyeh) was from Hangzhou, his name was spelled according to the Hangzhou vernacular.
In Nagasaki, however, the Chan monks were more than just passive players. When the Chan monks participated in social relief in Nagasaki, the Nagasaki magistrate welcomed and supported the participations. When a great famine hit Nagasaki in the fifth month of 1675, the incumbent Sōfuku-ji abbot Qiandai Xing'an led his fellow disciples to ask for donations to support those who had suffered. See Ōtsuki, Katō, and Hayashi 1988: 183. Gaoquan Xingdun also commented on Qiandai Xing'an's such deeds. In a letter sent to Qiandai Xing'an, Gaoquan Xingdun praised Qiandai Xing'an's generous help for the common people who suffered when a drought struck, arguing, “Those who are in court and those who are not in court heard it, all of whom praised [your] deeds.” See Ōbaku Bunka Kenkyūsho 2014, 2: 1002–3. Six years later, in 1681, when a famine once again struck Nagasaki, the Chan monks joined a team supporting the local people, of which the incumbent Fukusai-ji abbot Ciyue Dingchen 慈岳定琛 (1632–1689; Hokkien: Cugak Tingthim) was a member. The Nagasaki magistrate supported the Chan monks who helped local people. See Ciyue n.d., 2: 12.
In this poem there is a sentence that states, “I am hardly aware that yellow flowers bloom six times.” See Hirakubo 1979, 6: 2960. This sentence indicates that when this poem was written, Yinyuan Longqi had been in Japan for six years. Therefore, it could be inferred that this poem was written in 1660.
The interpreters discussed in this article can be divided into two groups according to their birthplaces. One group of interpreters traveled directly from Jiangnan or Fujian to settle in Nagasaki on their own. The other group was born in Nagasaki to a father from Jiangnan or Fujian and a Japanese mother or were born in Nagasaki as descendants of families from Jiangnan or Fujian.
Shyu Sing-ching gave a detailed introduction of the four visits. However, his introduction focused on clarifying the details of these visits. By contrast, this article discusses Duli Xingyi's visits from the perspective of the demonstration of the Nagasaki magistrate's political authority. See Shyu 2015, 1: 49–61. In addition, Hayashi Rokurō mentioned Duli Xingyi was late in returning to Nagasaki in 1666, as well as in 1669. See Hayashi 2000: 63–64.
This return was not a return from Iwakuni, as Duli Xingyi indicated that at least in the autumn of 1666, he was staying in Nagasaki. See Chen, Wei, and He 1995: 504. Thus, Duli Xingyi traveled to another place in late 1666 and returned from there to Nagasaki in the first month of 1667.
Qiandai Xing'an was a native of Fuzhou (Hokkien: Hokciu) who traveled to Nagasaki with Jifei Ruyi in 1657. Upon arriving in Nagasaki, he stayed at Sōfuku-ji. In the seventh month of 1668, he became the second abbot of Sōfuku-ji. Before inheriting the position of Manpuku-ji abbot in late 1695, Qiandai Xing'an decided to stay in Nagasaki. He became the sixth abbot of Manpuku-ji in the first month of 1696 and died on the first day of the second month of 1705 while serving as abbot. See Ōtsuki, Katō, and Hayashi 1988: 182–83.
Hayashi Rokurō also briefly mentioned this. See Hayashi 2000: 64–65.
Donggao Xinyue was a native of Jinhua (Wu: Cinwo), who arrived in Nagasaki on the thirteenth day of the first month of 1677. His life after moving to Japan can be divided into the following six periods: residing at Kōfuku-ji in Nagasaki, residing at Manpuku-ji, returning to Nagasaki and leaving for Edo, and residing successively in Edo, Mito, and at Tentoku-ji in Mito until his death. See Ōtsuki, Katō, and Hayashi 1988: 162–63; Chen 1994: 7–9.
In this letter, only the day and the month were recorded. However, as indicated in this letter, Donggao Xinyue was about to travel to Manpuku-ji to celebrate Muan Xingtao's seventieth birthday. As Muan Xingtao was born in early 1611, Muan Xingtao's seventieth birthday was in early 1680. Thus, it could be concluded that this letter was written in late 1679. In addition, Tōtōmi is the present-day western part of Shizuoka Prefecture. Chen 1994: 35.
Chengyi Daoliang was a native of Hangzhou. In the sixth month of 1653, he arrived in Nagasaki and proceeded to stay in Kōfuku-ji. In the first month of 1656, he became the second abbot of Kōfuku-ji. In 1686, Chengyi Daoliang retired from the position of Kōfuku-ji abbot and died in Nagasaki in 1692. See Ōtsuki, Katō, and Hayashi 1988: 239.
Yuefeng Daozhang was a native of Hangzhou. He arrived in Nagasaki on the seventh day of the fifth month of 1686 and became the third abbot of Kōfuku-ji this year. In 1707, after serving at Kōfuku-ji for more than two decades, Yuefeng Daozhang became the eighth abbot of Manpuku-ji. In 1716, he retired from the position of Manpuku-ji abbot and died in 1734 in Manpuku-ji. See Ōtsuki, Katō, and Hayashi 1988: 43–44. Yugang Haikun was a native of Fuqing (Hokkien: Hokching) who arrived in Nagasaki on the thirtieth day of the eighth month of 1674 and stayed in Sōfuku-ji. Yugang Haikun died in Nagasaki in 1693. See Ōtsuki, Katō, and Hayashi 1988: 82–83. Donglan Zongze was a native of Quanzhou (Hokkien: Cuanciu) who arrived in Nagasaki in the eighth month of 1673 and stayed in Fukusai-ji. On the fifteenth day of the third month of 1689, Donglan Zongze became the third abbot of Fukusai-ji and retired from this position in 1695. However, in the seventh month of 1706, he again became the abbot of Fukusai-ji and died in 1707. See Ōtsuki, Katō, and Hayashi 1988: 267.
In 1692 the Chan monk Donglan Zongze beseeched the Nagasaki magistrate not only to travel to Manpuku-ji but also to visit a spring in Settsu. See Tokyo Daigaku shiryō hensansho 1984, 1: 275–76.
As discussed, the regulation of Duli Xingyi's movements did not go smoothly due to Kikkawa Hiroyoshi's disobedience. However, after 1693 daimyos respected the Nagasaki magistrate's authority in regulating the Continental Chan monks because of increased shogunal involvement. On the eighteenth day of the first month of 1695, when the would-be Ōmura daimyo Ōmura Sumimasa 大村純尹 (1664–1712) traveled to Nagasaki, he visited the Chan monk Donglan Zongze after first visiting the Nagasaki magistrate. See Donglan n.d.a., 1: n.p. After acceding to the position of Ōmura daimyo, Ōmura Sumimasa visited Dejima and Tōjinyashiki in Nagasaki again on the sixteenth day of the ninth month of 1707 upon receiving permission from the Nagasaki magistrate. See Tokyo Daigaku shiryō hensansho 1984, 4: 260.
Daheng Haiquan, a native of Xinghua (Hokkien: Singhua), arrived in Nagasaki in the seventh month of 1693 before proceeding to stay in Sōfuku-ji and becoming its abbot some five years later. He retired from the position of Sōfuku-ji abbot in 1710 and died in 1716. See Ōtsuki, Katō, and Hayashi 1988: 202–3. Lingyuan Haimai, a native of Fuzhou, arrived in Nagasaki in the seventh month of 1693 together with Daheng Haiquan, before proceeding to stay in Sōfuku-ji. He became the ninth abbot of Manpuku-ji in 1716 and died in 1717. See Ōtsuki, Katō, and Hayashi 1988: 397–98.
Xueguang Hairun was a native of Suzhou (Wu: Soutseu) who arrived in Nagasaki in the first month of 1677. In the twelfth month of 1695, he traveled to the Kyoto-Osaka area. In 1698, he was invited by Matsudaira Sadanao to Iyo-Matsuyama and served there until his death. See Ōtsuki, Katō, and Hayashi 1988: 176.
Helang Fangjing was a native of Quanzhou. In the eighth month of 1694, he arrived in Nagasaki and became the fourth abbot of Fukusai-ji in 1695. He retired from the position of Fukusai-ji abbot in his later years and died in 1706. See Ōtsuki, Katō, and Hayashi 1988: 68.
Duwen Fangbing, a native of Quanzhou, was allowed to enter Nagasaki in the ninth month of 1693. On the fourth day of the eighth month of 1709 he became the fifth abbot of Fukusai-ji and in the eleventh month of 1719 he became the eleventh abbot of Manpuku-ji. In the second month of 1723 Duwen Fangbing retired from the position of abbot of Manpuku-ji and died in 1725. See Ōtsuki, Katō, and Hayashi 1988: 282–83. Regarding Duwen Fangbing's travel to Japan, see note 2.
In another case pertaining to Donglan Zongze, when Helang Fangjing died while serving as the abbot of Fukusai-ji in the seventh month of 1706, the Nagasaki magistrate appointed Donglan Zongze to be the abbot of Fukusai-ji again. See Donglan n.d.b, 2: n.p. Prior to Helang Fangjing's stint as Fukusai-ji's abbot, from 1695 to 1706, Donglan Zongze served from 1689 to 1695. See Nagasaki rekishi bunka hakubutsukan 2014: 4–5. At first glance, this case indicates that the shogunate left the appointment of the abbots of the three Chan temples to the Nagasaki magistrate's discretion. However, given that Donglan Zongze previously had served Fukusai-ji's abbot, the decision was an expedient one.
Xuru Lianfang was a native of Hangzhou who arrived in Nagasaki in the fifth month of 1711 and became the seventh abbot of Kōfuku-ji in the tenth month of 1711. In the eleventh month of 1717, he became the tenth abbot of Manpuku-ji and died during his tenure in the third month of 1719. See Ōtsuki, Katō, and Hayashi 1988: 83–84.
Gaotang Yuanchang was a native of Jiaxing (Wu: Ciashin) who arrived in Nagasaki on the twenty-seventh day of the seventh month of 1721. He became the abbot of Kōfuku-ji in the ninth month of 1722. In the second month of 1723, he accepted the appointment to become the twelfth abbot of Manpuku-ji. Gaotang Yuanchang died in 1733. See Ōtsuki, Katō, and Hayashi 1988: 118.
In response to continuous invitations, in 1727 Zhongqi Daoren at Wanfu temple wrote a letter to Manpuku-ji indicating his opinion about the invitations. His letter was sent to Manpuku-ji, while Zhongqi Daoren indicated that the invitation was directly ordered by the shogunate. See Ōbakusan Manpuku-ji 1968.
Wu Jiang gave a detailed introduction of inviting Zhongqi Daoren. See Wu 2015: 231–39.
In Zhu'an Jingyin's letter replying to the decision made on his application for retirement (the application was submitted in 1738), Zhu'an Jingyin indicated that his application was denied because of unsuccessful attempts to invite new Chan monks from Jiangnan and Fujian. See Zhu'an 1968. Zhu'an Jingyin was a native of Huzhou (Wu: Wutse), who arrived in Nagasaki on the fifteenth day of the seventh month of 1723 and became the abbot of Kōfuku-ji on the twelfth day of the ninth month of the same year. He became the thirteenth abbot of Manpuku-ji in the spring of 1735. In the twelfth month of 1739, he retired from the position of Manpuku-ji abbot and moved to Kaihō-ji. He again retired as abbot of Kaihō-ji in 1751 and died in 1756. See Ōtsuki, Katō, and Hayashi 1988: 140–41.
