The Aristocratic Calligrapher Konoe Nobutada
Japanese art historical texts often refer to a seventeenth-century revival of 'native' or 'classical' themes in art. Artists sought inspiration from what is often described as a golden age of Japanese art from the tenth to the thirteenth centuries, considered a monument to the taste of the aristocratic families.
By LEE BRUSCHKE-JOHNSON
In the early seventeenth century, Konoe Nobutada (1565-1614), a main line descendent of the most powerful of these families, the Fujiwara, and one of the most influential members of the court, contributed to Japanese art history by re-evaluating the art of his ancestors and establishing fresh approaches to long-established themes. Yet, most studies of the revival of interest in classical themes begin and end with the artistic activity of Hon'ami K¯oetsu (1558-1637) and the painter Tawaraya S¯otatsu (active c. 1600-1640), who were members of the machishu, an elite group of businessmen and artisans. In analysing Nobutada's works, it becomes clear that while the objects created by K¯oetsu and S¯otatsu are innovative and undeniably beautiful, they are part of a much larger picture. The role aristocrats like Nobutada played in the art and history of early modern Japan has been overlooked for far too long.There are many definitions of the term machishu, but the most often used is that of 'townsman, merchant, or artisan.' Historians have used this term to designate a new group of wealthy, culturally astute citizens whose family backgrounds were of somewhat humble origins, although even this type of definition is simplistic since, for example, K¯oetsu had a much more established pedigree than S¯otatsu. When describing the cultural world of Kyoto and its vicinity, many scholars focus on machishu contributions. In his recent book The Last Tosa: Iwasa Katsumochi Matabei, Bridge to Ukiyo-e (University of Hawai'i Press, 1999), Sandy Kita includes an extensive section about the machishu, beginning with the statement (page 141):
'it was possible for an artist such as Matabei to bridge the court and commoner traditions of art because in his time there existed a powerful social group composed of aristocrats and commoners intermingled. That group was called the machishu... one of their most outstanding features as a group was their egalitarianism, for the machishu cut across class lines to embrace all levels of society.'
Power
Thus, Kita justifies the continuing focus on the machishu when considering the art of the seventeenth century, by broadening the definition of the term to include not only men like Nobutada, but also priests, warriors, in essence, just about everyone involved in the arts in Kyoto. While applauding Kita's recognition that the usual definition of the term does not adequately describe the cultural elite of this time, I disagree with his portrayal of an egalitarian utopia, and feel that by making the term machishu all-inclusive there is threat that it will be stripped of all meaning. Rather than define the word to fit the situation, should we not question the wisdom of emphasizing and perpetuating the inappropriate use of such a term?
Clearly, members of various groups contributed to the tapestry of Kyoto cultural life at this time, and when we turn away from terminology to focus on individual's lives, their roles in history, a fascinating new picture appears. To take this step, a critical examination of their contemporary history is essential: art is not created in a vacuum. The years 1600 to 1615, although generally overlooked entirely by historians and art historians alike, are years when leadership was in flux, thus you see various groups lobbying for power. Tokugawa Ieyasu (1542-1616), the warrior who pulled ahead of the pack, is often seen as having won the war for supremacy in Japan with the Battle of Sekigahara in 1600. Although Ieyasu was the founder of a shogunate that lasted longer than two centuries, his hold over Japan was not secure until he defeated his predecessor, Toyotomi Hideyoshi's (1536-1598) son, Hideyori (1593-1615), in 1615. My research suggests Nobutada, and likely some other members of the court and cultural elite of the Kyoto area, supported the Toyotomi cause. Much of the art created in Kyoto during the early years of the seventeenth century, then, was arguably influenced by the push and pull for power characteristic of a society suffering from undecided leadership. Certainly no one living in Kyoto could have been oblivious to Hideyori's legitimate claim to become his father's successor as ruler of Japan, and the efforts of emperors Go-Y¯ozei (1571-1617) and Go-Mizunoo (1596-1680) to strengthen the court and restore imperial rule were equally obvious to all. Nobutada, related by marriage to both emperors, and close friends with a number of Hideyori supporters, cannot be considered a disinterested bystander, as evidenced by letters he wrote, literally on his deathbed, to inquire about the status of the imminent conflict between Hideyori and Ieyasu.
Culturally active
So, we have an aristocrat whose role in history and art history has largely been overlooked. Why? The answer is simple: primarily because he was an aristocrat. Although the tide has begun to shift, until recently many modern scholars have discounted any role Japanese aristocrats played in history after the thirteenth century. Although the transition to military rule eroded many levels of power traditionally held by the emperor and court, the aristocracy was not the group of impoverished, spineless aesthetes commonly portrayed in literature. If we look at the Konoe family, for instance, although there were certainly peaks and nadirs in their level of influence, it remained culturally and, in many respects politically, active. In addition, materials concerning members of the machishu presented scholars with none of the conundrums involved with traditional taboos against commenting on the aristocracy, which have only recently been relaxed in the scholarly community. Nobutada, as a high-ranking member of the aristocracy and ancestor to members of the still politically active Konoe family, was not someone to be treated lightly.
This disregard for the aristocrats in the realms of arts and politics is paralleled by an underestimation of calligraphy as an element of art history. As a result, calligraphy, traditionally considered the ultimate scholar-gentleman's means of expression, is often treated as though it were created in a vacuum. Written inscriptions are an integral part of art objects in Japan as in China and Korea but many modern scholars of Japan still tend to treat calligraphy as a separate entity, even when an inscription is written on a painting. Since Nobutada was primarily a calligrapher, it is not surprising that his role in the history of Japanese art has generally been underestimated.
This shows that we need to shed global assumptions like 'the court was essentially dead after the assumption of warrior rule,' and to circumvent the inappropriate use of buzzwords like 'machishu.' We can greatly enrich our knowledge of the history of Japanese art by unburdening ourselves of such bias, and instead see a world of individuals with a rich history and colourful present. Studying Nobutada, one of the most creative aristocratic talents in the history of Japanese visual arts, is an ideal place to begin this journey. *
Reference:
- Sandy Kita
The Last Tosa: Iwasa Katsumochi Matabei, Bridge to Ukiyo-e, Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1999,
259 pp.
isbn 0-8248-2087-8
concentration upon aristocratic contributions to early modern Japanese history and art history.
E-mail Bruschke@let.leidenuniv.nl