Seven Demon Stories from Medieval Japan

by Noriko T. Reider

  Yoshinobu (996–1075), Michigana’s sons ( Oyamachō-shi 205; Fujiwara, Midō

  kanpakuki zen chūshaku Kankō yonen 37). Shimotsuke no Kintoki seemed to

  have a good reputation for his singing and dancing skills. on the entry for

  the sixteenth day of the ninth month of the second year of Chōwa (1013),

  Fujiwara no Sanesuke (957–1046) wrote in his diary, Shōyūki, that Kintoki

  served as a dancer after winning a horserace (Fujiwara no Sanesuke, Shōyūki

  1: 356). That is why, in the Suntory version of Shuten Dōji, Kintoki is

  described as “a renowned dancer in the capital” whose voice and dancing

  captivated Shuten Dōji to the point that he paid no attention to the song’s

  intent of killing oni.

  Shimotsuke no Kintoki was also good at horse riding. on the thir-

  teenth day of the ninth month of the same year, that is, in 1013, when

  Fujiwara no Michinaga privately held a horserace at his residence, Kintoki

  won the race (Fujiwara no Sanesuke, Shōyūki 1: 352–53). This must have

  been a famous topic in those days because Fujiwara no Tadazane (1078–

  1162) talked about this matter (and it was written down by Nakahara no

  Moromoto [1109–75] in Chūgaishō [Selection from What Tadazane Said,

  twelfth century] Chūgaishō 352–53). Similarly, Minamoto no Akikane (1160–

  1215) recounts this story in Kojidan (Tales of olden Times, ca. 1212–15)

  (Minamoto, Kojidan 585).

  On the first year of Kannin (1017), Fujiwara no Michinaga wrote in his

  diary that he learned of the death of Kintoki, a recruiter for sumo wrestlers,

  on the twenty-fourth day of the eighth month. As an annual court function,

  a sumo match was performed in the seventh month in the presence of the

  emperor, and it was one of the low-ranking Konoe s’ jobs to recruit sumo

  wrestlers in various provinces for this court event (Wada and Tokoro 198).

  Michinaga notes, “That man is my Escort, the best among the Left and

  Right Imperial Guards ( Konoe), he is terribly missed by everyone” (Fujiwara,

  Midō kanpakuki zen chūshaku Kannin gannen 156). Kintoki’s untimely death,

  missed by everyone as Michinaga put it, may have paved the way for the

  legendary figure of Kintoki.

  While Kintoki was a contemporary of Raikō and Hōshō, working for

  Michinaga, there is no record or evidence that he was Raikō’s subject.

  So why is he known as Sakata no Kintoki? When one goes back to the

  original text of “Yorimitsu’s Retainers Go Sightseeing at Murasakino” of

  Konjaku monogatarishū, where Raikō’s three retainers are introduced, while

  32

  Part I: Samurai

  Sadamichi and Suetake are given their surnames, the part where Kintoki’s

  surname is supposed to be written is missing. It is described as “Taira no

  Sadamichi, Taira no Suetake, and [ . . . ] Kintoki.” The annotation to this

  lacuna in the various texts, however, states “this is Sakata no Kintoki.”34

  Similarly, when one looks at “Minamoto no Raikō Kills Kidōmaru” of

  Kokon chomonjū, where Tsuna’s name appears for the first time, Kintoki’s

  name is written simply as Kintoki without a surname. The surname Sakata

  does not appear anywhere. But again his name is annotated in a headnote as

  Sakata no Kintoki (see Nishio and Kobayashi 410).

  Torii Fumiko, the author of the book Kintarō no tanjō (Birth of Kintarō,

  2002), writes that Kintoki’s birth, life, and other information are not pre-

  cisely known because no record of his birth and biography remains. His

  surname, Sakata, started to be used during the Edo period, and no one

  knows how he acquired it (Torii 7). Torii writes that the surname Sakata

  appears for the first time in the literature with Genji no yurai (origin of the

  Genji clan, 1659), a jōruri (puppet theater) text; Kintoki is introduced as

  Sakata no Minbu Kintoki (Torii 26). Zen-Taiheiki (Chronicle of Pre-Grand

  Pacification, 1692?), a popular historical narrative widely read throughout

  the Edo period, describes Kintoki as Sakata no Kintoki (Itagaki 1: 328),

  and Chikamatsu Monzaemon’s (1653–1725) popular play Komochi Yamauba

  (Mountain Ogress with a Child, first performed in 1712) also has Sakata

  no Kintoki.35

  Kintoki must have been known as Shimotsuke no Kintoki during the

  medieval period. But because of the influence of Edo literature and perfor-

  mances, Kintoki in earlier works from Konjaku monogatarishū through Shuten

  Dōji is retrospectively called Sakata no Kintoki by modern audiences.

  Taira no Sadamichi (Usui no Sadamitsu)

  At the beginning of the twelfth century, when Konjaku monogatarishū was

  compiled, Taira no Sadamichi (Tadamichi, or Sadamitsu, also known as

  Usui no Sadamitsu) was probably the leader of Raikō’s retainers because

  the aforementioned episode “Yorimitsu’s Retainers Go Sightseeing at

  Murasakino” lists Taira no Sadamichi first, followed by Taira no Suetake,

  then [ . . . ] Kintoki. But as time passed, Sadamichi’s position was replaced

  by Tsuna.

  Sadamichi also appears in another story in Konjaku monogatarishū titled

  “Yorinobu no koto ni yorite Taira no Sadamichi hito no kashira o kiru koto”

  (Told by Yorinobu, Sadamichi Beheaded a Man).36 In the story Yorinobu,

  Raikō’s younger brother, publicly orders Sadamichi to get some insolent

  man’s head for him. Sadamichi thinks the request is odd because he is serving

  Drunken Demon

  33

  Raikō, not his brother, and it is unusual to hear such a personal request in

  public. Sadamichi is not going to pursue the matter, but the rude person

  boasts that Sadamichi is not strong enough to kill him. Angered, Sadamichi

  ends up killing him, realizing Yorinobu’s wish. The narrator’s major intent

  was perhaps to describe Sadamichi’s swordsmanship and Yorinobu’s bold-

  ness. But it is interesting to have Sadamichi specifically say he is Raikō’s

  retainer while at the same time have him do a service for Raikō’s brother,

  even though unintentionally.

  Sadamichi was allegedly a son of Taira no Yoshifumi (mid-Heian period,

  ?–?). According to the Sonpi bunmyaku, Taira no Yoshifumi was a son of

  Takamochi-ō, or Taira no Takamochi (?–?), a founder of the Kanmu Heishi

  clan. Yoshifumi’s final official rank was junior fifth rank, upper grade. The

  annotation to his name states he is also known as Muraoka no Gorō (Tōin

  4: 12), and Nichūreki (Combination of Two History Books, early thirteenth

  century) lists Muraoka no Gorō under musha (warriors) ( Nichūreki 3: 107).

  Recent scholarly studies indicate that Taira no Sadamichi was an ancestor of

  the Miura clan, a powerful military clique of the eastern province that was

  loyal to Minamoto no Yoritomo. While Yoshifumi was called Muraoka no

  Gorō, Sadamichi seemed to have been called Muraoka no Kogorō (Muraoka

  Gorō minor) or simply also Muraoka no Gorō (Noguchi 19).

  Yoshifumi may have been an influential warrior in the east province.

  Number 3 of volume 25 of Konjaku monogatarishū tells a story of his duel

  with Minamoto no Mitsuru. Titled “Minamoto no Mitsuru to Taira no

  Yoshifumi no Kassen seru koto” (Minamoto no Mitsuru and Taira no

  Yos
hifumi: The Duel),37 the tale describes the like-mindedness of two great

  warriors, their recognition of each other’s excellent archery skills, and how

  they fostered their friendship. Minamoto no Mitsuru was considered to have

  been Watanabe no Tsuna’s father and Taira no Yoshifumi was Sadamichi’s

  father; they were in the same generation, and according to setsuwa, both

  sons became Raikō’s shitennō. It is ironic that Sadamichi, written as Raikō’s

  retainer in a number of places in Heian literature and originally the first

  among Raikō’s outstanding retainers, ceded his leading position to Tsuna,

  whose name does not appear in any Heian literature.

  There is a famous setsuwa story of Sadamichi, nicknamed Muraoka no

  Gorō (Noguchi 19), in Konjaku monogatarishū titled “Hakamadare, Sekiyama

  ni shite sorajini o shite hito o korosu koto” (Hakamadare, Pretending to

  Be Dead, Kills People at Mt. osaka).38 In the story, Hakamadare (?–?) was

  pretending to be dead on Mt. Ōsaka in his attempt to kill and rob samurai

  of their belongings. When a fine-looking warrior accompanied by many of

  his retainers saw Hakamadare, the warrior warned his men to be cautious in

  34

  Part I: Samurai

  passing by the man who appeared to be dead. onlookers thought the war-

  rior’s behavior unworthy of samurai, as the man was apparently dead. Later,

  another warrior came near Hakamadare and pitied him, believing he was

  dead, whereupon Hakamadare immediately killed the warrior and robbed

  him of his clothes and armor. People later learned the warrior who was cau-

  tious about Hakamadare was Muraoka no Gorō, officially named Taira no

  Sadamichi, and they admired his alert behavior.

  This Hakamadare is the notorious robber who tried to rob Fujiwara no

  Hōshō and failed to do so. Hōshō in that episode instead gave Hakamadare

  some clothes and advised him not to steal, as he could get in trouble. Various

  characters in the Shuten Dōji story appear in earlier setsuwa; the scribes of

  the Shuten Dōji stories used these setsuwa well.

  Taira no Suetake (Urabe no Suetake)

  Taira no Suetake (also known as Urabe no Suetake, 950?–1022?) is also

  allegedly a descendant of the Kanmu Heishi clan, though it is not certain—

  his name does not appear in the Sonpi bunmyaku.

  While Raikō and the rest of his shitennō were engaged in varying degrees

  with the supernatural in the world of setsuwa from the fourteenth century

  on, Suetake had already encountered a female ghost in the early twelfth

  century, Konjaku monogatarishū. The forty-third story of volume 27, titled

  “Yorimitsu no rōtō Taira no Suetake ubume ni au koto” (Taira no Suetake,

  Raikō’s Retainer, Meets an ubume, SNKBZ 38: 134–38), describes a test of

  courage in which Suetake dares to meet an ubume, the ghost of a pregnant

  woman or a woman who died in childbirth. While Raikō is governor of Mino

  Province, his retainers gather at night talking about an ubume who appears

  at a river; the ubume tries to give her baby to anyone crossing the river. She

  is so frightening that no one can cross the river at night. Suetake then says

  that he can easily do it. The warriors wage their armor on Suetake not being

  able to make the crossing. Suetake leaves, and, as expected, an ubume appears

  while he is crossing the river. She hands him her baby. Suetake receives it,

  and now she wants the baby back. But Suetake ignores her plea and comes

  back to the gathering place with what he thinks is a baby. The baby turns

  out to be some leaves. The warriors are going to give their armor to Suetake,

  who declines it by saying the task was simple. The story ends with praise for

  Suetake for his bravery as well as his bigheartedness.

  Again, there is no record that Suetake was serving Raikō, but he is cer-

  tainly described as worthy of his shitennō—brave, generous, and undaunted

  by ghastly supernatural creatures.

  Drunken Demon

  35

  extra-Literary sOurCes: reLatiOn Between

  the narrative anD histOriCaL events

  In the picture scrolls of Ōeyama ekotoba, Shuten Dōji makes an interesting

  statement that no other extant texts have: “When the king is wise, our power

  thrives too. The reason is that when the imperial authority declines, the

  power of his subjects also wanes; when divine protections become enfee-

  bled, the land decays.” At a glance, this statement may sound odd because

  when the imperial authority declines and divine protections are enfeebled, it

  seems logical that evil would take advantage of the situation and overwhelm

  the feeble forces. Shuten Dōji in this scroll brings calamities. According

  to the Buddhist scripture Konkō myōkyō (Golden Light Sutra), one of the

  three sutras for protecting the country, when the king does not rule with

  correct law and lets evil go unharmed, the deities will abandon the king and

  natural disasters such as famine and pandemics will occur (Mibu 267–76).39

  Similarly, according to the Chinese concept of the Mandate of Heaven,

  calamities are considered signs of the ruling emperor’s unjustness and can

  be legitimate reasons for the ruler to be replaced. The Japanese emper-

  ors were well aware of the Mandate of Heaven, though they were exempt

  from such a concept because the lineage of the imperial family was what

  counted. Perhaps Shuten Dōji’s logic is like that of a good competitor draw-

  ing strength from a worthy opponent. As Ii Haruki writes, his statement

  expresses admiration for the prosperity of Emperor Ichijō’s court (Ii 86).

  Emperor Ichijō’s period was one of the ideal times for the nobil-

  ity. Various medieval women’s instructional texts such as the jokunsho

  “Menoto no sōshi” consider Empress Shōshi or Jōtōmon-in (988–1074)

  to be the exemplar of court ladies (Hanawa, Gunsho ruijū 27: 240). She was

  Emperor Ichijō’s empress, the mother of Emperors GoIchijō (1008–36)

  and GoSuzaku (1009–45), and Fujiwara no Michinaga’s daughter. Empress

  Shōshi’s time was at the peak of the Fujiwara Regency, politically and eco-

  nomically the height of aristocratic power. Shuten Dōji’s statement there-

  fore constitutes a narrator’s admiration for Emperor Ichijō rather than a

  defense of the Ichijō court. This narrator or narrators represent established

  noblemen and aspiring aristocrats. The narrator(s) may also be saluting

  the contemporary imperial court that wishes to exercise strong imperial

  authority. This could also be a reflection of the contemporary court’s desire

  for managing political affairs directly—possibly during the time of the

  Southern and Northern Courts (1336–92), simultaneously hailing Raikō as

  an imperial subject.

  While acknowledging that the Ōeyama ekotoba is a fictional story, Ii sur-

  mises that there must have been some frightening events and occurrences

  36

  Part I: Samurai

  during the Shōryaku era (990–94), as the narrator specifically notes the dates

  (Ii 85). The text reads “From the early days of [ . . . ] through the Shōryaku

  era (990–995).” I surmise that the lacuna indicated by the square brackets is

  Eiso
(989–90), the time immediately preceding the Shōryaku era, because

  disastrous events such as the disappearance of many people could not have

  been left unattended without taking swift measures. When one looks at the

  events of Eiso in Nihon kiryaku, in the eighth month of the first year of

  Eiso (989) a devastating typhoon caused a flood, killing people and animals

  and destroying paddy fields in the coastal areas of the provinces in the

  vicinity of the capital. Nihon kiryaku describes it as “unprecedented deaths

  and damages, devastating disaster” (2: 167). The event was so devastating

  that “Typhoon of Eiso” was used later as a simile for natural disasters.

  In the eighth month of 990, the first year of the Shōryaku era, there were

  natural disasters, including typhoons and floods (Kuroita, Nihon kiryaku 2:

  169). In 991, the second year of Shōryaku, there was famine in the sixth

  month (ibid. 171). In the sixth month of the third year of Shōryaku (992),

  thunder and lightning, earthquakes, and floods occurred (ibid. 173). In the

  sixth and seven months of 993, diseases spread widely, and thunder and

  lightning struck; in the eighth month there was a solar eclipse (ibid. 175–

  76). In the fifth year of Shōryaku (994), an epidemic wiped out more than

  half of Kyoto’s population, including sixty-seven courtiers with the fifth

  rank and above, between the fourth and seventh months. In the twelfth

  month there was another solar eclipse (ibid. 178).

  The Shōryaku era is followed by the Chōtoku era (995–99). In the first

  year of Chōtoku (995), a widespread epidemic that had started in the last

  year of Shōryaku killed Fujiwara no Michitaka (953–95), the chief adviser to

  the emperor, and his younger brother, Michikane (961–95). The atmosphere

  of the court became tense, primarily because of the power struggle between

  Fujiwara no Michinaga (Michitaka and Michikane’s younger brother) and

  Fujiwara no Korechika, Michitaka’s eldest son and Michinaga’s nephew, for

  the chief adviser position. The conflict ended with Michinaga’s victory. It is

  intriguing to postulate that there is some relationship between the backdrop

  of the story and historical events that led to Michinaga’s prosperity. In the

  story, it is Michinaga who recommended that the emperor reward Raikō and