Were the Takayamas and Naitos involved in Hideyori's Plot?

Author(s): Johannes Laures

Source: Monumenta Nipponica, Vol. 6, No. 1/2 (1943), pp. 233-244
Published by: Sophia University
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2382857
Accessed: 03-01-2016 19:17 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Sophia University is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Monumenta Nipponica.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 150.135.239.97 on Sun, 03 Jan 2016 19:17:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Were the Takayamas and Naitos
involved in Hideyori's Plot?
By Johannes Laures, S.J., Tokyo.

When ToyotomniHideyori i the only son of the great Taiko

to
%M,resolved fight his great adversary Tokugawa Ieyasu IIllg, he
appealed to the numberless samurai, who had been deprived of their land
as a result of the civil war in 1600. " The response of this class," writes
Murdoch," with much to gain and nothing to lose, to Hideyori's invitation
was at once large and prompt. Within a week a constant stream of
r6nin iMh was flowing in through the gates of Osaka castle - and
within a month 90 000 determined nmenwere either within its ramparts or
garrisoning its outposts "'1). Steichen inaintains that the first-born sons
of the well-known Christian lords Takayama Ukon ?ihllt (Justo) and
Naito Yukiyasu PVhW,05i' (Joam) had likewise joined Hideyori s army2).
'
With regard to old akayama and old Naito Steichen remarks that Hide-
yori's efforts to make them take refuge in the fortress of Osaka were in
vain3). For all of his statements Steichen fails to give his sources, but
it is evident that Charlevoix4)was his authority for Takayama's and
Naito's refusal to accept Hlideyoris invitation.
In the following Steichen's views will be examined with regard to the
best sources under three heads: (1) Did Naito's eldest son Thomas fight
in Hideyori's army ? (2) Did Takayama's first-born son Joam take part in
the Osaka struggle? (3) Did flideyori invite Takayama Ukon or old Naito
or both to join his service ?

1) Murdoch-Yamagata, A History of Japan, Kabe, 1903, p. 325.

2) M. Steichen, Les Daimy6 Chretiens, Hongkong. 1904, pp. 354, 353.
3) " Vaines resterent egalement les instances des envoyes de Hideyorl, venus exprhs ?
Sakamoto afin d'offrir aux exiles, dans la forteresse d'6saka, un refuge contre toute pour-
suite ". Steichen, op. cit., p. 355.
4) " On ass-ureque peu de jours apres leur depart, un Expres de l'Empereur Fide-Jory
arriva a Sacamoto, avec un ordre secret de proposer ?t Ucondono de venir s'enfermer avec lui
darLsOzaca. Ce jeune Prince s'ennuyoit plus que jamais de la longue captivite, oui son
Tuteur le retenoit, & dont il ne voyoit aucune apparencede sortir. Il songeoit donc serieuse-
ment a secouer un si indigne joug; & il est certain qu'il ne pouvoit pas acquerir un Homme
plus capable d'accrediter son Parti, & de ten.i tete a son Tyran, que Juste Ucondono; mais
son Envoy6 arriva trop tard ". Charlevoix, Histoire du Japon, Paris, 1754, v. IV, p. 381.

This content downloaded from 150.135.239.97 on Sun, 03 Jan 2016 19:17:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
234 Johannes Laures, S.J.

1) Did Thomas Naito fight in Hideyori's Army?

There is an overwhelming evidence based upon a good many first
sources that Thomas NaitO went to Manila into exile, togother with his
father and all of his near relatives. Trigaiilt says that he was explicitly
exiled by his overlord Maeda Toshinaga i.TIjfJ1*UhR(Fiyendono), who acted,
of course, according to Ieyasu's orderN. Trigault mentions, moreover,
Thomas Naito among the exiles, who arrived at Manila6). Although
Trigault's work cannot strictly be called a first source, it is, nevertheless,
of the greatest authority, as the author was not only a contemporary of
his heroes but was also thoroughly acquainted with conditions in the Far
East, where he spent by far the greater part of his life, and had at his
disposal the best contemporary records; he could even, if he wanted, meet
many an acquaintance of both Nait6 and 'Takayama at Nlacao.
Nor are we at a loss to prove our thesis from first-hand sources,
in first place from the annual letter of 1615 (Jap. Sin., 46, f. 372).
Pedro Morejon reports that Maeda by order of the Shogun, though
much against his own will, had Justo Takayama, Joam and Thomas
Naito together with their wives, children and grandchildren taken
to Miyako (Kyoto) and entrusted to Itakura *97, governor of that
city7). From this text it appears that all the nearest relatives of both
Takayama and NaitO had to leave Kanazawa ?it and that, apart from
the two leading figures Justo and Joam, Thomas Naito is the only person
mentioned by name. That Morej6n means Thomas Naito and not
Thomas Ukita E 4, who according to Steichen8) was exiled to Macao,
becomes clear from another text in Morej6n's work9) and especially from
Trigault quoted above.

5) N. Trigault, De Christianis apvd laponios Trivmphis, Monachii MDCXXIII, p.

219: " Parentem secutus est Thomas iam familiae suae caput, ab ipso quoque Fyendono
nominatim proscriptus".
6) " lustus enim cum uxore, filia, nepotibus quinque, animae omnes octo exscendebant.
Sequebatur eum cum fam familia loannes ac deinde Thomas, cum ceteris neophytis quan-
quam horum uxores & filiae, simul cum Iulia, & quas Miaco pulsas pari exilio multatas
fuisse commemoravi ". Ibid., p. 280.
7) "'I res dias despues que se partiron mando Fijendono, por orden del Xogun, bien
contra su voluntad; que Don lusto, Don luan, y Don Thome, con sus Mugeres, hijos y niet(s
fuessen Ilevados al Miaco, y entregados a Itacuradono: y que toda su gente futsse desterrada,
sino dexassen de ser Christianos ". P. Morej6n, Relacion de la persecvcion qve vvo en la
yglesia de lapon, En Mexico, Anio 1616, p. 50.
8) op. cit., p. 357.
9) " Fueron tambien desterrados Don lusto Ucondono, con su Muger, Hija, cinco
Nietos, y familia: y Don luan Nayto, con sus Hij(,s y Nietos: y lulia con sus Companieras
Morejon, op. cit., p. 95.

This content downloaded from 150.135.239.97 on Sun, 03 Jan 2016 19:17:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Were the Takayamas and Naitos involved in Hideyori's Plot ? 235

Ledesma gives some more information about Naito's family; Taka-

yama's group consisted of eight persons, but Nait6's family was larger10).
More exact figures are found in Colin's work: Joam Naito left Kanazawa
with his wife and his four children and his son Thomas with just as
many11). Francisco Colin, although not an eye-witness, is, nevertheless,
one of the weightiest authorities of those times, having had at his disposal
a wealth of first sources, particularly by Ledesma and Caro, who had
themselves seen the illustrious exiles from Japan. He arrived in the
Philippines in 1625, just ten years after Takayama's death12),although his
work appeared only in 1663, i.e. three years after his death13). Hence he
must be considered one of the best sources of the first half of the seven-
teenth century.
From all these texts it follows most certainly that Thomas Naito was
exiled to Manila together with his fathet and the entire NaitO family.
Consequently, he could not have been in Hideyori's army from February
15, until December 11, 1614. It would, however, not have been altogether
impossible for him to leave Manila and return to Japan in order to join
Hideyori's army. The great Osaka struggle (the so-called winter cam-
paign) started in November 1614; on January 19, 1615, a temporary peace
was concluded, but towards the beginning of May hostilities were resum-
ed once more (the so-called summer campaign), and in the decisive battle
of June 3-4, 1615, Hideyori was defeated and killed14). Thus Thomas
Nait6 could have returned to Japan during the brief lull between the
winter and summer campaign, but there is not even a hint to this effect in
any of the sources. In any case, Steichen's assertion that he was in
Hideyori s army at the beginning of the year 1614 is clearly contradicted
by many sources, as has been shown above.
2) Was Takayama's Eldest Son in Hideyori's Army?
This has been maintained by Steichen and was recently repeated by

10) " Vino tambien con 6l otro muy antiguo xpiano liamado Naitodono Juan . . .
con toda su casa, hijos y nietos, aun en mas ni6mero que Justo, y quinze mugeres honradas
que vivian en el Meaco recojidas en Congregacion . . . cuya cabeza era Julia . . . hermana
del sobre dicho Naytodono...." Ledesma's letter is found in Catalogo de los Docu-
mentos relativos a las Islas Filipinas. . . . Precedido de uno Historia General de Filipinas,
by Pastells-Torres y Lanzas-Navas del Valle, Barcelona, 1930. v. VI, p. CCXLVII. We
shall quote this source henceforth ,Pastells', op. cit.
11) ' Salieron assimismo D. luan Nayto con su muger, y quatro hijos, y Don Tome
con otros tantos. Colin-Pastells, Labor Evangelica, v. III, Barcelona, 1992, p. 478.
12) Streit, Bibliotheca Missionum, v. V. Aachen, 1929, p. 279.
13) Ibid.. n. 891.
14) Murdoch-Yamnagata,op. cit., pp. 528-550.

This content downloaded from 150.135.239.97 on Sun, 03 Jan 2016 19:17:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
236 Johannes Laures, S. J.

Kataoka ,)fIA5), who adds that young Takayama had with him 300 of his
father's vassals. Neither of these authors gives any written source, and
Kataoka admits that he must rely on tradition only. Nor is there even
a hint in the sources which would point in this direction, but at the same
time it must also be admitted that nowhere we learn that Ukon's eldest
son or any son of his at all followed him into exile. This much, however,
seems to follow from the sources that Ukon's entire family, viz, his wife,
his children and grandchildren not only went with him to Manila but
were explicitly and nominally included in Ieyasu's sentence of exile.
Morejon writes, as was stated above'6),that Justo, Joam and Thomas
were to be sent to Miyako together with their wives, children and grand-
children; a little later he enumerates all menmbersof Takayama's family,
who left Kanazawa, viz. Justo himself, his wife Justa, five grandchildren
and one daughter, who was married to the son and heir of the governor of
Maeda's three provinces17). Hence one may rightly conclude that there
were no other children or grandchildren than those mentioned in More-
jon's work. An entirely identical text in the annual letter of 1615 may be
considered a confirmation of this conclusion18).
Steichen asserts that Ukon's daughter followed her father into exile
because of the apostasy of her husband Yokoyama Yasuharu &WiM19),
but just the opposite is stated in the best sources, viz. that Yokoyama not
only kept his faith but even wanted to accompany his father-in-law into
exile, and if he did remain at Kanazawa, it was only upon the latter's ad-
vice20M.Moreover, he wasnot included inIeyasu's sentence of exile, beingnot
generally known as a Christian, and was consequently urged by Takayama
to remain at Kanazawa as the only hope of the family, as is expressly
stated by Trigault21). From this one may safely conclude that all of Ta-

15) Y. Kataoka, Takayama Ukontayt2 Nagafusa-den J%1 Toky8,

11th year of Showa (1936), p. 166.
16) Footnote 7.
17) " Salio Don lusto . . . con su Muger lusta, y cinco nietos, que el mayor era de
diez y seis afnos,y el menor de ocho: i y una hija, casada con (sic !) hijo del Gouernador de
aquellos tres Reynos, y que luego heredaua la Casa, y renta que son quarenta mil ducados."
Morej6n, op. cit., p. 50.
18) This letter has never been published. An Italian version is kept in the Roman
archives of the Society of Jesus (Jap. Sin., 46, f. 372).
19) Steichen, op. cit., p. 354.
20) Cf. J. Laures, Takayama Ukon, in Mon. Nipp, v. V, pp. 100-01.
21) "qui (viz. Yokoyama) volebat ipse quoque dimissis omnibus eandem fortunram
sequi, sicut utriusque suasu occulte quidem fidem susceperat, nisi lustus socer generum
impedisset, quem ad spem familiae superesse voluit, c'um minime pelleretur ". Trigault,
op. cit., pp. 218-9.

This content downloaded from 150.135.239.97 on Sun, 03 Jan 2016 19:17:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Were the Takayamas and Nait5s involved in Hideyori's Plot? 237

kayama's nearest relatives (viz. his wife, his children and grandchildren)
had to leave and did leave Kanazawa; thus his son-in-law, who was spared
by Ieyasu, being not known to him as a Christian, was to remain at Kana-
zawa as the only hope of the Takayama family.
To this may be objected that in none of the texts quoted is there any
reference to Takayama's sons and that, consequently, one may rightly
infer that his eldest son could very well fight in Hideyori's army. This
inference might be legitimate if any clue to it could be found in any im-
portant document, but this is not the case. Moreover, if Ukon's supposed
sons had not been at Kanazawa or, at all events, in anyone of Maeda's
three provinces, this fact would have to be mentioned to prevent the
readers from concluding that Takayama had no other dependents than
those who accompanied him to Manila. If, finally, Yokoyama was the
only hope of the family, one must necessarily conclude that none of
Ukon's children, least of all his first-born son, remained in Japan.
If our theory is correct, it follows that Takayama had no longer any
son at all when he left Kanazawa. It is not exactly known how many
children were born to him, but it is beyond any doubt that he had at least
one son, whose Christian name was Joam (John), and possibly another,
whose Christian name is not recorded. If he had one son only,
it is out of question that he should have joined Hideyoshi's ranks, for in
1609 Ukon had lost one son. Since a great deal of the present discussion
depends upon this text, we shall give it in its context and quote in full.
Maeda Toshinaga was very friendly disposed towards the Christian re-
ligion and would have been more so and eventually have become himself
a Christian, had he not feared thereby to offend the Shogun e. This
was a great source of consolation for Takayama (Alinaminob3 p 4), who
just at that time had to undergo a hard trial, " having lost within a few
months one son, whom he had, his mother Maria, who was already very old,
and one daughter-in-law, the wife of the son."22) From this text it does
not follow with absolute certainty that Takayama had one son only, al-
though this is probable. If the particles 'hui' and 'huia ' are to be taken
as indefinite articles, it is doubtful; if, however, as numerals, it is almost as
good as certain that he had one son only, at least at that time (viz. in
1609).
From other texts a few more details may be gathered about Ukon's
first-born son. In a letter of Frois, dated from Miyako, April 4, 1581, it
22) "0O que se da grande animo & forgas pera aquelles Christaos e em particular pera
Minaminobo Justo cuja fe & paciencia prouou N(ostro) Senhor mais este anno leuando Ihe
perasi a hu filho que tinha, a sua may Maria ja muito velha, & a husanora molher do filho ".
Annual Letter of 1609, manuscript (Jap. Sin., 56, f. 69).

This content downloaded from 150.135.239.97 on Sun, 03 Jan 2016 19:17:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
238 Johannes Laures, S. J.

is stated that Ukon's brother Taroyemon Li-%Vfl and his little son Joam
came to meet Father Valignano on his way to Takatsuki ?%jA23)* Kataoka
quotes from a Japanese source to the effect that in 1582 Takayama brought
his son of eight years with hinmas an hostage, as it were, when he met
Hideyoshi after Nobunaga's 1K-- death so as to show his fidelity to his as-
sassinated lord24). If this source is reliable, Ukon's first-born son must
have been bom about 157525). When in 1579 Araki Murashige made war
against Nobunaga, Takayarmiagave to Araki his " first-born son " as well
as his little sister as hostages; this is the version of the History of
Yapan26), whereas other sources clearly say that it was his 'only son '27).
In a letter of Cespedes (Osaka, October 30, 1585) Ukon's eldest soil is said
to equal his father, his mother and his uncle in virtue28).
From these texts it does not necessarily follow that Takayama had
more than one son, although one might be inclined to assume this; that in
1582 he had certainly two children is clearly stated in a letter of that
year. There the expression dous filhinhos is used, which literally
means two little sons but may just as well mean two little children2g).
Now as in 1614 one daughter followed Takayama into exile and a son had
died in 1609, it would be easy enough to account for two children of his,
but it is no more than probable that he had no more. Possibly the matter
may be cleared up on the basis of the age of Ukon's five grandchildren,
who went with him into exile.
The eldest of the five was, according to nearly all sources, no more
than 16 years old, but the annual letter of 1614 (by Father Mattos) gives
the higher age of 18 years30). Charlevoix would have five 'sons' of
Takayama go with their father to Manila, the eldest of whom was 18
years old3l),which is, of course, an error. If the eldest of the five was 16
or even 18 years old, it would be rather difficult to have him be the child
of anyone else but Ukon's first-born son, who was born about 1575 and,

23) Cartas de lapao, Evora, 1598, v. II, f. 3.

24) This is stated in Kawakado Taik6-ki )II,A 18 and quoted by Kataoka, op. cit.,
p. 60.
25) In Japan the age is given by the number of years started, not completed.
26) Luis Frois, Segunda Parte da Historia de Japam, T8quio, 1938, p. 192.
27) Annual Letter of 1615 (Jap. Sin. 46, f. 269); Trigault, op. cit., p. 284.
28) " seu pai Dario estAbem desposto, & em virtude nAo he inferior a seu filho, o ass
mesmo Taralemon (sic !), & sua molher Iusta, & o filho mais velho. Cartas, v.
II, f. 167 v.
29) . . . per ser Iusto Vcondono partido pera a guerra do Mori, & verse Iusta sua
molher, de dous filhinhos seus quasi desemparada. .. ." Cartas, v. II, ff. 68 v-69.
30) Lettera Annva del Giappone, In Roma, M. DCXVII, p. 69.
31) Charlevoix, op. cit., v. IV, p. 363.

This content downloaded from 150.135.239.97 on Sun, 03 Jan 2016 19:17:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Were the Takayamas and NaitOs involved in Hideyori's Plot? 23)

according to Frois, married in 1596 (Nagasaki, December 13, 1596, in Hay,

De Rebus Japonicis, Indicis, et Peruanis . . . Antverpiae 1605, p. 473).
Ukon's daughter, who followed her father into exile, did not marry earlier
than 1603 and probably even later and thus could have no ofifspringolder
than ten years in 161433). If Takayarna had no more than two children,
viz. a son (born about 1575) and a daughter (born not earlier than 1579
but not later than 1582), it is very likely that the five grandchildren were
the orphans of the couple that had died in 1609, since no mention what-
ever of their parents is made in 1614. Thus everything concerning
Ukon's family would be well explained, except perhaps the rather late
marriage of his daughter. But this might very well have been due to the
difficulty of finding a young nobleman who was willing to marry a Christian
lady; for Takayama would not even have consented to her nmarriagewith
Yokoyama, if the latter's father had not assured him that his daughter
would in no way incur the danger of losing her Christian faith33).
Finally the matter may be cleared up by the motive for which Taka-
yama and Naito were exiled to Manila. Expulsion from the native coun-
try was considered in Japan such an unheard-of punishment that it called
for an explanation why it was inflicted in the present case. If Ukon's son
had been allied with Hideyori, it would be easy to understand why Ieyasu
inflicted such a severe punishment upon old Takayama, but the fact that
the sources give an altogether different explanation would seem to deny
any entanglement in Hideyori's affairs. Andrds Caro and Valerio de
Ledesma, although admitting that it is difficult to know the exact motives
why Takayama was exiled to Manila, nevertheless believe that those nmay
be right, who attribute it to Ieyasu's fear of this great man of war. Caro
stresses above all Ieyasu's hope that Ukon might die as a result of the
fatigue of the long voyage and his preference of this indirect method of
destroying his potential foe34). Ledesma's discussion is most interesting
and deserves a somewhat more detailed treatment: In Japan it is an alto-
gether unheard-of thing to exile criminals to a foreign land, but it is quite
ordinary to relegate criminals as well as political offenders to some far-off
islands in Japan, a method which Ieyasu had appiied with regard to ad-
versaries in the recent civil war (of 1600); thus he might have relegated
Takayamna in the same way as the 200 Christians who, in these
days were sent to the most distant parts of the country (viz. to
Northern Japan); yet Ieyasu's fear of Ukon was so great that he did not
32) Annual letter of 1693 (Jap. Sin. 54, f. 209).
33) ibid., ff. 208v-209.
34) Caro's letter was dated Manila, July 15, 1615 and never published. A manuscript
copy is in the Roman archives of the Society o. Jesus (Philipp. 11, ff. 67-68).

This content downloaded from 150.135.239.97 on Sun, 03 Jan 2016 19:17:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
240 Johannies Laures, S. J.

feel sure as long as this great general was to live in Japan, while on the
other hand he did not dare to kill bim; thus he chose to destroy him in-
directly, but no less surely, by sending him into exile abroad, and in ordet
skilfully to cover up his fear, he exiled some less prominent men and even
the 15 women of Naitos congregation together with him35).
According to Kataoka Takayama s second son Sukenoshin #&JjZA was
entrusted to Otomo Yoshimune *A:&V when Ukon proceeded to Kana-
zawa in 1588 or 158936). If this statement is true, it would not be surpris-
ing that this child was not entangled in his father's exile, for he was
probably adopted into the Otomo family. Yet it is almost impossible to
believe that the staunch Christian hero Takayama Ukon should have en-
trusted his son to flimsy young Otomo, who just about that time had not
only denied his faith but even turned a persecutor of the Church. More-
over, what would have become of " Sukenoshin " when Otomo was stripped
of his fief because of his cowardice in the Korean war87)? It is out of
question that he should have remained in the Province of Bungo "a, nor
do we find any indication in the sources that he followed Otomo into mis-
ery. It is easy to understand that the would-be descendants of the Taka-
yamas in Ky-ushfuJLJIf should endeavor to trace back their lineage to the
valorous hero Ukon, but it is hard to see how this " strong pillar of the
Church " in Japan should have entrusted his son to an apostate like Otomo
Yoshimune or how a side-line of either Otomo or Takayama could have
maintained itself in Bungo after the downfall of the Otomos. Apart from
this, one would expect to find such an important event recorded in the
Jesuit annals, which is not the case.
3) Was Ukon invited by Hideyori?
Charlevoix relates that a few days after Takayama's departure from
Sakamoto tk* a messenger from Hideyori arrived there to invite him to
seek shelter in the fortress of Osaka, but that the messenger arrived too
late38). Charlevoix does not give his sources, and Steichen repeats, in the
main, what was said by Charlevoix without any reterence to a first
source39). The very fact that Hideyori, if he was anxious to secure Taka-
yama's cooperation, did not dispatch another messenger to Nagasaki R014
shows that the report is erroneous. Hideyori sent indeed a messenger who
at his arrival found out that Ukon had left a few days before, yet this
messenger was not sent to Sakamoto but to Nagasaki, where he learrned
35) Pastells, v. VI, pp. 247-8.
36) Y. Kataoka, Takayama Ukon, in Mon. Nipp.. v. I, n. 2, p. 463.
37) Cf. Steichen, op. cit., p. 211.
38) See text in footnote 4.
39) See quotation in footnote 3.

This content downloaded from 150.135.239.97 on Sun, 03 Jan 2016 19:17:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Were the Takavamas and NaitOs involved in Hideyori's Plot? 241

that the ship had left a few days before. This is stated in various sources
and cannot be doubted.
Only one of the first sources (viz. the annual letter of 1615) says that
Hideyori's message reached Takayaiiia at Nagasaki and that he refused to
accept the invitation, as he would not exchange his exile for anything in
the world40). Substantially the same is maintained by Cardim41),whose
treatise on Takayama, being inaccurate in various other respects, cannot
be accepted either in this point. Although the annual letter of 1615 is,
generally considered, a very reliable source, in the present matter Ledesma
was evidently better informed. His version was accepted by Colin and
Bartoli, who independently of each other arrived at the same conclusions,
apart from the fact that they are the best Jesuit historians of that period.
Ledesma writes that Hideyori and his captains placed such trust in
Ukon's ability that they firmly believed not even the power of the entire
country would throw him out of Osaka castle, once Takayama were to
direct its defence. Consequently, Hideyori sent a most honorable invita-
tion to Ukon at Nagasaki, but his messenger arrived only three or four
days after Ukon's departure. All who knew Takayama were of the opin-
ion that he would have refused the offer, even if Hideyori's messenger
had arrived in time, because he would have preferred the crown of martyr-
dom, which until the last moment seemed to await him, to anything in
this world42).
Both Colin and Bartoli give, moreover, some very interesting aspects
of Hideyori's embassy. Colin states some of the reasons by which the son of
the TaikL endeavored to secure the help of the valiant hero Ukon, showing

40) " Alcuni signori suoi amici le mandarono a visitare a Nangasacchi; offerendosi a
negotiare la restitutione di lui, et il figliolo di Taicosama desider6 grandemente di condurle
p(er) suo Capitam generale di Ozacca; ma egli di tutto si rideva, dicendo, che non haverebbe
cdmbiato il suo bando con tutto il Mondo ". Jap. Sin. 36, ff. 372v-373.
41) Fasci.cvlvs e laponicis Floribvs. . . . Romae, 1646, p. 251.
42) " y pareciendo a el (viz. Hideyori) y a los capitanes que si metiese a Justo en aquella
Fortaleleza que todo el poder del Jap6n no le podria contrastar, despacho luego a Nangasa-
qui a Ilamarlo con recaudos de grande estima y honra; y quando llego este Embajador, ya
Justo havia tres o quatro dias que era partido. Mas aunque lo tomara en Nangasaqui,
dizen los que bien le conocian, que no se auia de mouer para tal empresa, porque era tal su
prudencia y asiento, que no se movi'a a qualquier viento. y como 61 veia que enia como en
la mano la corona del martirio, no havia de dexar por ning6n estado del mundo lo que cada
dia esperava, y levantandose en Nangasaqui algunos dias antes de que sc embarcase, un
rumor, de que hauia orden secreta de matarle, con toda su familia, al tiempo de la embar-
cacion llegando a su noticia respondi6: 'Oxala que assi fuese, mas no merezco yo de Dios
tanto bien y merced que de yo mi vida por su amor y por la confesion de su santa fee".
Pastells, v. VI, p. CCLII.

This content downloaded from 150.135.239.97 on Sun, 03 Jan 2016 19:17:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
242 Johannes Laures, S. J.

how just his cause was, how many Christians had espoused it and of what
great importance his victory would be for the future of Christianity in
Japan. Nevertheless, Colin is convinced that Ukon would not have ac-
cepted Hideyori's offer since he preferred to suffer for the sake of Christ
to anything in the world43).
Bartoli gives two more motives why Takayama would undoubtedly
have rejected Hideyori's offer: 1) because he was an extremely loyal
vassal; 2) because he would not irritate Ieyasu all the more against
Christianity. On the other hand, according to Bartoli's opinion, the
Japanese firmly believed that Ieyasu would have been defeated, if Taka-
yama had fought against him44).
Bartoli believes that Ukon, being after all Ieyasu's vassal, would never
have taken up arms against his feudal lord. Be this as it may, one can-
not say that he was bound more to Ieyasu, the de-facto ruler of Japan, than
to Hideyori, who undoubtedly had a much juster claim and had been de-
prived of his rights by his unfaithful tutor Ieyasu. If Takayama would not
fight for the son of the Taik6 because of his loyalty, it would seem that this
was rather with regard to his feudal lord Maeda Toshinaga, who had

43) " Y para que se vea mejor la opinion, y credito en qne estaua Dio lusto, respecto
de los mayores Principes de Iapon, y lo mucho que se podia prometer de aumentos, y glorias
humanas, sino aspirara mas las Diuinas, basta saber que tres dias despues de embarcado, y
salido de Nangasaqui, lleg6 a aquel puerto vn despacho de Findeyori (viz. Hideyori), hijo
vnico, y heredero de Taycosama (Hideyoshi), con vn Embaxador, que de parte suya, y de
los Capitanes que con 61 estauan, le pedian fuesse a gouernar sus armas, y exercito, que iban
juntando en Osaca para resistir al .Tirano (viz. Ieyasu), que quebrantando la Fe dada con
tantos j uramentos, y solemnidades a su padre, se pretendia,alsarcon el Reyno; representandole
el Principe la justificacion de su causa, y los Christianos que en copioso numero se le iban
agregando; la gran conueniencia que resultaria a la Christiandad en Iapon, si preualeciesse la
parte de Findeyori. Mas quando llego este Embaxador ya auia salido del puerto el baxel en
que vino embarcado Don Iusto. Y los que bien le conocian, dixeron quando esto se supo en
Manila, que no huuiera mudado de intento, por ser Capitan tan prudente, que no se mouia a
qualquier viento; y principalmente por lo que queda dicho de no malograr la ocasion que
tenia de padecer por Christo, lo que el mas estimaua ". Colin-Pastells, v. III, pp. 479-81.
44) " Ma se Giusto punto piu indugiaua il partire di Nangasachu, haurebbe il barbaro
(Ieyasu) conosciuto, quanto leal vassallo egli mandaua a perdersi condannandolo come
nemico, sol perche era christiano. Appena erano iti tre di dalla partenza di Giusto. che iie
soprauennero in cerca gentilhuomini, inuiatigli da Findeiori, che con larghissime offerte
metteuano in sua mano a diffenderla contra l'assedio dliDaifusama, la Fortezza d'Ozaca,
cioe la chiaue mastra.di tutto l'Imperio del Giappone, e per cui sola, egli si teneua in isperanza,
e in forze di rihauerlo. Indubitata cosa e, che Giusto, e come lealissimo Caualiere, e per non
mettere in piu odio a Daifusama la Fede, non si sarebbe condotto ad accettar quel offerta: e
indubitato altresi fra' Giapponesi era, che se Giusto sostenea Findeiori, Daifusama cadeua gin
dall' Imperio ". D. Bartoli, Dell' Historia della Compagnia di Giesv. 11 Giappone....
In Roma, M. DC. LX., v. I, p. 789.

This content downloaded from 150.135.239.97 on Sun, 03 Jan 2016 19:17:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Were the Takayamas and Nait&sinvolved in Hideyori's Plot? 243

espoused Ieyasu's cause and to whom he was bound by very strong ties
during many years of faithful service. For this reason also it is very im-
probable that he would have allowed his eldest son to fight for Hiievori's
cause and much less to lead 300 of his own vassals to Hideyori's army.
Takayama Ukon was bound by no ties to either Ieyasu or Hideyori,
for Hideyori's father had deprived him of all he had and refused his ser-
vice, and Ieyasu was just on the point of sending him into exile or rather
into certain death; may be that his heart was rather in favor of the son of
the Taiko, his former overlord, and if he, nevertheless, declined to fight
for his cause, it was either because he would not go against Maeda, his
immediate feudal lord, or because he would no longer concern himself
with earthly affairs and rather suffer for the sake of Christ, or because he
was not altogether convinced that Hideyori, having defeated his rival with
the help of the Christians, would grant to them freedom of conscience45.
At all events, the very fact that Takayama never made any attempt to
approach Hideyori, either before or after leaving Kanazawa, is sufficient
proof that he would not have anything to do with this affair and that he
would have refused to accept Hideyori's offer, even if it had reached him
in time.
Conclusions.
From the foregoing discussion it follows most clearly that Thomas
Nait6 was not in Hideyori's army when his father was expelled from Ka-
nazawa and that he himself as well as his children went to Manila into
exile in November 1614. Moreover, there is not the slightest indication
in the sources that he left Manila to take part in the second half of the
Osaka struggle. Nor is there any evidence that Takayama's first-born
son fought in Hideyori's army, although the opposite cannot be proved
with absolute certainty. It is, however, very probable that Ukon's eldest
son died already in 1609: firstly, because one daughter only followed her
father into exile, although all of his children (and grandchildren) were
comprised in the sentence of exile; secondly, because Yokoyama Yasu-
haru was urged by his father-in-law to stay at Kanazawa as the hope of
Takayama family; thirdly, because the age of Ukon's grandchildren in-
dicates that they most probably were the orphans of his first-born son.

45) Steichen is very sceptical about Hideyori's 'sympathy' with Christianity, as he

frankly tells his readers: "Si quelques-uns, par trop optimistes, attendaient de lui la
liberte religieuse, d'autres,-et ce fut le grand nombre,-avaient plus d'une raison ('e doutcr
de sa since ite, nonobstant toutes ses promesses. En effect, tres fervent bouddhiste et cov-
tinuellemeut entoure de bonzes, Hideyori avait peu de sympathie pour la religion etrangire
et ses adherents. Op. cit. p. 369.

This content downloaded from 150.135.239.97 on Sun, 03 Jan 2016 19:17:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
244 Johanues Laures, S.J.

That Takayama Ukon did not espouse Hideyori's cause is clear beyond
doubt: he never tried to get in touch with the Taiko's son; the latter's in-
vitation arrived too late at Nagasaki, and even if it had come in time, it is
as good as certain that Takayama would have refused to accept it.

This content downloaded from 150.135.239.97 on Sun, 03 Jan 2016 19:17:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions