#NOTE: there's also a possibility this is justa one time thing | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

pamphletstoinspire · 6 years

Photo

BOOK OF JOB - From The Douay-Rheims Bible - Latin Vulgate

Chapter 31

The Book of Job shows how human affairs are ruled by Divine Providence using probable arguments.

"Although you hide these things in your heart, I know that you still remember everything." - (Job speaking to God)

***

INTRODUCTION. This Book takes its name from the holy man, of whom it treats; who, according to the more probable opinion, was of the race of Esau, and the same as Jobab, king of Edom, mentioned Gen. xxxvi. 33. It is uncertain who was the writer of it. Some attribute it to Job himself; others to Moses, or some one of the prophets. In the Hebrew it is written in verse, from the beginning of the third chapter to the forty-second chapter. Ch. --- The beginning and conclusion are historical, and in prose. Some have divided this work into a kind of tragedy, the first act extending to C. xv., the second to C. xxii., the third to C. xxxviii., where God appears, and the plot is unfolded. They suppose that the sentiments of the speakers are expressed, though not their own words. This may be very probable: but the opinion of those who look upon the work as a mere allegory, must be rejected with horror. The sacred writers speak of Job as of a personage who had really existed, (C.) and set the most noble pattern of virtue, and particularly of patience. Tob. ii. 12. Ezec. xiv. 14. Jam. v. 11. Philo and Josephus pass over this history, as they do those of Tobias, Judith, &c. H. --- The time when Job lived is not clearly ascertained. Some have supposed (C.) that he was a contemporary with Esther; (D. Thalmud) on which supposition, the work is here placed in its chronological order. But Job more probably live during the period when the Hebrews groaned under the Egyptian bondage, (H.) or sojourned in the wilderness. Num. xiv. 9. The Syrians place the book at the head of the Scriptures. C. --- Its situation has often varied, and is of no great importance. The subject which is here treated, is of far more; as it is intended to shew that the wicked sometimes prosper, while the good are afflicted. H. --- This had seldom been witnessed before the days of Abraham: but as God had now selected his family to be witnesses and guardians of religion, a new order of things was beginning to appear. This greatly perplexed Job himself; who, therefore, confesses that he had not sufficiently understood the ways of God, till he had deigned to explain them in the parable of the two great beasts. C. xlii. 3. We cannot condemn the sentiments expressed by Job, since God has declared that they were right, (ib. v. 8) and reprimands Elihu, (C. xxxviii. 2.) and the other three friends of Job, for maintaining a false opinion, though, from the history of past times, they had judge it to be true. This remark may excupate them from the stain of wilful lying, and vain declamation. Houbigant. --- However, as they assert what was false, their words of themselves are of no authority; and they are even considered as the forerunners of heretics. S. Greg. S. Aug. &c. T. --- Job refutes them by sound logic. S. Jerom. --- We may discover in this book the sum of Christian morality, (W.) for which purpose it has been chiefly explained by S. Gregory. The style is very poetical, (H.) though at the same time simple, like that of Moses. D. --- It is interspersed with many Arabic and Chaldaic idioms; (S. Jer.) whence some have concluded, that it was written originally by Job and his friends (H.) in Arabic, and translated into Heb. by Moses, for the consolation of his brethren. W. --- The Heb. text is in many places incorrect; (Houbig.) and the Sept. seem to have omitted several verses. Orig. --- S. Jerom says almost eight hundred, (C.) each consisting of about six words. H. --- Shultens, in 1747, expressed his dissatisfaction with the labours of all preceding commentators. To explain this book may not therefore be an easy task: but we must be as short as possible. H. --- Those who desire farther information, may consult Pineda, (W.) whose voluminous work, in two folios, will nearly (H.) give all necessary information. C.

The additional Notes in this Edition of the New Testament will be marked with the letter A. Such as are taken from various Interpreters and Commentators, will be marked as in the Old Testament. B. Bristow, C. Calmet, Ch. Challoner, D. Du Hamel, E. Estius, J. Jansenius, M. Menochius, Po. Polus, P. Pastorini, T. Tirinus, V. Bible de Vence, W. Worthington, Wi. Witham. — The names of other authors, who may be occasionally consulted, will be given at full length.

Verses are in English and Latin. HAYDOCK CATHOLIC BIBLE COMMENTARY

This Catholic commentary on the Old Testament, following the Douay-Rheims Bible text, was originally compiled by Catholic priest and biblical scholar Rev. George Leo Haydock (1774-1849). This transcription is based on Haydock's notes as they appear in the 1859 edition of Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary printed by Edward Dunigan and Brother, New York, New York.

TRANSCRIBER'S NOTES

Changes made to the original text for this transcription include the following:

Greek letters. The original text sometimes includes Greek expressions spelled out in Greek letters. In this transcription, those expressions have been transliterated from Greek letters to English letters, put in italics, and underlined. The following substitution scheme has been used: A for Alpha; B for Beta; G for Gamma; D for Delta; E for Epsilon; Z for Zeta; E for Eta; Th for Theta; I for Iota; K for Kappa; L for Lamda; M for Mu; N for Nu; X for Xi; O for Omicron; P for Pi; R for Rho; S for Sigma; T for Tau; U for Upsilon; Ph for Phi; Ch for Chi; Ps for Psi; O for Omega. For example, where the name, Jesus, is spelled out in the original text in Greek letters, Iota-eta-sigma-omicron-upsilon-sigma, it is transliterated in this transcription as, Iesous. Greek diacritical marks have not been represented in this transcription.

Footnotes. The original text indicates footnotes with special characters, including the astrisk (*) and printers' marks, such as the dagger mark, the double dagger mark, the section mark, the parallels mark, and the paragraph mark. In this transcription all these special characters have been replaced by numbers in square brackets, such as [1], [2], [3], etc.

Accent marks. The original text contains some English letters represented with accent marks. In this transcription, those letters have been rendered in this transcription without their accent marks.

Other special characters.

Solid horizontal lines of various lengths that appear in the original text have been represented as a series of consecutive hyphens of approximately the same length, such as ---.

Ligatures, single characters containing two letters united, in the original text in some Latin expressions have been represented in this transcription as separate letters. The ligature formed by uniting A and E is represented as Ae, that of a and e as ae, that of O and E as Oe, and that of o and e as oe.

Monetary sums in the original text represented with a preceding British pound sterling symbol (a stylized L, transected by a short horizontal line) are represented in this transcription with a following pound symbol, l.

The half symbol (1/2) and three-quarters symbol (3/4) in the original text have been represented in this transcription with their decimal equivalent, (.5) and (.75) respectively.

Unreadable text. Places where the transcriber's copy of the original text is unreadable have been indicated in this transcription by an empty set of square brackets, [].

Chapter 31

Job, to defend himself from the unjust judgments of his friends, gives a sincere account of his own virtues.

[1] I made a covenant with my eyes, that I would not so much as think upon a virgin. Pepigi foedus cum oculis meis, ut ne cogitarem quidem de virgine.

[2] For what part should God from above have in me, and what inheritance the Almighty from on high? Quam enim partem haberet in me Deus desuper, et haereditatem Omnipotens de excelsis?

[3] Is not destruction to the wicked, and aversion to them that work iniquity? Numquid non perditio est iniquo, et alienatio operantibus injustitiam?

[4] Doth not he consider my ways, and number all my steps? Nonne ipse considerat vias meas, et cunctos gressus meos dinumerat?

[5] If I have walked in vanity, and my foot hath made haste to deceit: Si ambulavi in vanitate, et festinavit in dolo pes meus,

[6] Let him weigh me in a just balance, and let God know my simplicity. appendat me in statera justa, et sciat Deus simplicitatem meam.

[7] If my step hath turned out of the way, and if my heart hath followed my eyes, and if a spot hath cleaved to my hands: Si declinavit gressus meus de via, et si secutum est oculos meos cor meum, et si manibus meis adhaesit macula,

[8] Then let me sow and let another eat: and let my offspring be rooted out. seram, et alium comedat, et progenies mea eradicetur.

[9] If my heart hath been deceived upon a woman, and if I have laid wait at my friend's door: Si deceptum est cor meum super muliere, et si ad ostium amici mei insidiatus sum,

[10] Let my wife be the harlot of another, and let other men lie with her. scortum alterius sit uxor mea, et super illam incurventur alii.

[11] For this is a heinous crime, and a most grievous iniquity. Hoc enim nefas est, et iniquitas maxima.

[12] It is a fire that devoureth even to destruction, and rooteth up all things that spring. Ignis est usque ad perditionem devorans, et omnia eradicans genimina.

[13] If I have despised to abide judgment with my manservant, or my maidservant, when they had any controversy against me: Si contempsi subire judicium cum servo meo et ancilla mea, cum disceptarent adversum me:

[14] For what shall I do when God shall rise to judge? and when he shall examine, what shall I answer him? quid enim faciam cum surrexerit ad judicandum Deus? et cum quaesierit, quid respondebo illi?

[15] Did not he that made me in the womb make him also: and did not one and the same form me in the womb? Numquid non in utero fecit me, qui et illum operatus est? et formavit me in vulva unus?

[16] If I have denied to the poor what they desired, and have made the eyes of the widow wait: Si negavi quod volebant pauperibus, et oculos viduae expectare feci :

[17] If I have eaten my morsel alone, and the fatherless hath not eaten thereof: si comedi buccellam meam solus, et non comedit pupillus ex ea

[18] (For from my infancy mercy grew up with me: and it came out with me from my mother's womb:) ( quia ab infantia mea crevit mecum miseratio, et de utero matris meae egressa est mecum) :

[19] If I have despised him that was perishing for want of clothing, and the poor man that had no covering: si despexi pereuntem, eo quod non habuerit indumentum, et absque operimento pauperem :

[20] If his sides have not blessed me, and if he were not warmed with the fleece of my sheep: si non benedixerunt mihi latera ejus, et de velleribus ovium mearum calefactus est :

[21] If I have lifted up my hand against the fatherless, even when I saw myself superior in the gate: si levavi super pupillum manum meam, etiam cum viderem me in porta superiorem,

[22] Let my shoulder fall from its joint, and let my arm with its bones be broken. humerus meus a junctura sua cadat, et brachium meum cum suis ossibus confringatur.

[23] For I have always feared God as waves swelling over me, and his weight I was not able to bear. Semper enim quasi tumentes super me fluctus timui Deum, et pondus ejus ferre non potui.

[24] If I have thought gold my strength, and have said to fine gold: My confidence: Si putavi aurum robur meum, et obrizo dixi : Fiducia mea :

[25] If I have rejoiced over my great riches, and because my hand had gotten much. si laetatus sum super multis divitiis meis, et quia plurima reperit manus mea :

[26] If I beheld the sun when it shined, and the moon going in brightness: si vidi solem cum fulgeret, et lunam incedentem clare,

[27] And my heart in secret hath rejoiced, and I have kissed my hand with my mouth: et laetatum est in abscondito cor meum, et osculatus sum manum meam ore meo :

[28] Which is a very great iniquity, and a denial against the most high God. quae est iniquitas maxima, et negatio contra Deum altissimum.

[29] If I have been glad at the downfall of him that hated me, and have rejoiced that evil had found him. Si gavisus sum ad ruinam ejus qui me oderat, et exsultavi quod invenisset eum malum :

[30] For I have not given my mouth to sin, by wishing a curse to his soul. non enim dedi ad peccandum guttur meum, ut expeterem maledicens animam ejus.

[31] If the men of my tabernacle have not said: Who will give us of his flesh that we may be filled? Si non dixerunt viri tabernaculi mei : Quis det de carnibus ejus, ut saturemur?

[32] The stranger did not stay without, my door was open to the traveller. Foris non mansit peregrinus : ostium meum viatori patuit.

[33] If as a man I have hid my sin, and have concealed my iniquity in my bosom. Si abscondi quasi homo peccatum meum, et celavi in sinu meo iniquitatem meam :

[34] If I have been afraid at a very great multitude, and the contempt of kinsmen hath terrified me: and I have not rather held my peace, and not gone out of the door. si expavi ad multitudinem nimiam, et despectio propinquorum terruit me : et non magis tacui, nec egressus sum ostium.

[35] Who would grant me a hearer, that the Almighty may hear my desire; and that he himself that judgeth would write a book, Quis mihi tribuat auditorem, ut desiderium meum audiat Omnipotens, et librum scribat ipse qui judicat,

[36] That I may carry it on my shoulder, and put it about me as a crown? ut in humero meo portem illum, et circumdem illum quasi coronam mihi?

[37] At every step of mine I would pronounce it, and offer it as to a prince. Per singulos gradus meos pronuntiabo illum, et quasi principi offeram eum.

[38] If my land cry against me, and with it the furrows thereof mourn: Si adversum me terra mea clamat, et cum ipsa sulci ejus deflent :

[39] If I have eaten the fruits thereof without money, and have afflicted the soul of the tillers thereof: si fructus ejus comedi absque pecunia, et animam agricolarum ejus afflixi :

[40] Let thistles grow up to me instead of wheat, and thorns instead of barley. pro frumento oriatur mihi tribulus, et pro hordeo spina. Finita sunt verba Job.

Commentary:

Ver. 1. I made. Job is compelled to proclaim his own praises, for his vindication, as S. Paul was, being at the same time convinced that he had only done his duty. Luk. xvii. 10. This is the third part of his discourse. Having given a picture of his prosperous and of his miserable condition, he observes that the latter was not inflicted in consequence of any misconduct, since he had always been attentive to avoid (C.) the most remote danger of offending God, or his neighbour. H. --- That I. Heb. "for why should I think upon a virgin?" H. --- Why should I expose myself, (C.) by indiscreet looks, (H.) since the passage from the eye to the heart is so easy. Eccles. ii. 10. M. --- In the warfare between the flesh and the spirit, Job deemed this precaution necessary, (W.) and was thus preserved from carnal thoughts. S. Greg. xx. 2.

Ver. 2. High, if I should give way to such unchaste thoughts. M.

Ver. 3. Aversion of God. Hebrew "strange punishment." Prot. Incontinence is a source of much mischief, and of the most dreadful punishments, as the deluge and fate of Sodom evince. H.

Ver. 5. Vanity, or hypocrisy, (C.) so as to overreach others. M.

Ver. 6. Simplicity, and "uprightness." Tummathi. H.

Ver. 7. Eyes. Sixtus V. read, "If my eye hath followed my heart." C. --- Job kept the utmost restraint both upon his eyes and heart, that no evil impressions from exterior objects might cause his ruin. Num. xv. 39. H. --- Hands, from presents, (C.) or injustice, particularly that of impurity. H.

Ver. 9. Door, to seduce his wife. C. M.

Ver. 10. Let. Heb. "Let my wife grind for another, and let others bend over her," urging her to work like the meanest slave. C. --- Sept. "Let my wife please (Grabe substitutes l of r, and reads alesai, grind for) another, and my little children be brought low." H. --- Yet the sense of the Vulg. is most followed. Eccli. xlvii. 21. Lam. v. 13. Ausonius (epig. 5) says, molitur per utramque cavernam. C.

Ver. 11. This adultery, to which I might have given way, and that of others with my wife, (H.) which would have been a requital, of which I could not indeed have complained, (M.) but which is nevertheless a most heinous offence. H. --- Iniquity. Heb. "a crime of judgment," or capital. Gen. xxxviii. 24. C. --- The canons of the Church (H.) have ranked adultery with murder and idolatry, which shews the horror in which it is held. C.

Ver. 12. Spring; the children. Eccli. xxiii. 35. Wisd. iv. 3. C. --- Prot. "all mine increase." H. --- Adulteresses were formerly consigned to the flames. The injured husband would resent the offence, and even dislike her former children. Love is also like a fire, and those who entertain it, may soon consume all their substance (M.) in feasting and presents. Above all, the fire of God's indignation in hell will still pursue the libidinous.

Ver. 13. Me, in private; as slaves had no redress in the common courts of judicature. We cannot but admire Job's humility, and noble sentiments of God, (C.) whose majesty will eclipse all human grandeur, and place the master and the servant on the same level. S. Greg. S. Aug. de Civ. Dei. x. 25. Eph. vi. 9. Col. iv. 1.

Ver. 16. Wait, and not give sentence in due time, (H.) but frustrated her expectation. M.

Ver. 17. Alone. This was objected to S. Chrysostom. C. --- But his conduct proceeded not from pride or avarice. H. --- The ancient patriarchs delighted much in the exercise of hospitality; and Tobias (iv. 17.) exhorts his son to invite the poor. Cœna, or "supper," received its name from many eating "together," while people dined alone. Plut. Sym. viii. prob. 6.

Ver. 18. Womb. I was of a compassionate disposition, with which I always corresponded. S. Greg. --- Heb. "from my youth, pity (ceab, which Prot. translate "as with a father." H.) grew up with me; and from my birth I have preserved it!" C. --- Prot. "From my youth he was brought up with me, as with a father, and I have guided her (the widow, margin) from my mother's womb." Sept. "I fed him as a father, Theodotion adds, and was his leader from," &c. It was my earliest delight to assist the afflicted orphan and widow. H.

Ver. 20. Blessed me for clothing. M.

Ver. 21. Gate, in judgment, (C.) where I was the supreme judge, (H.) and none could resist me.

Ver. 22. With. Heb. "from its bone," at the elbow. Sept. C.

Ver. 23. Bear. I knew that he would resent the injury, though I might, for a time, oppress the weak.

Ver. 24. Fine obrizo. Heb. cethem. C. xxviii. 15. H.

Ver. 27. Rejoiced. Heb. and Chal. "been seduced" to idolatry. M. --- The worship of the sun and moon was most ancient. Ezec. viii. 16. --- Mouth, to testify respect and admiration. This custom prevailed in many nations. Lucian (dial. de sacrif.) observes that this only sacrifice of the poor was not disregarded. The Syrians still extend their hands towards the altar, and then apply them to their mouth and eyes, when the body and blood of Christ are offered in the Mass. Life of M. de Chateuil. C. --- Sept. (26) "Do I not see the shining sun eclipsed, (H.) and the moon disappear, for light does not belong to them," but to the Creator, from whom we have every thing; (C.) so that we should not swell with pride. Theodotion adds, (27) "and if my heart was secretly deceived." Sept. continue, "if indeed, putting my hand to my mouth, I kissed, (28) this would also be imputed to me as a great transgression, because I should have acted falsely before the most high God." H. --- He will admit of no rival; hence the man who admits another god, denies Him. M. --- Job repels the charge which had been indirectly brought against him. W.

Ver. 29. Rejoiced. Heb. "lifted up myself." Sept. "said in my heart, well, well;" euge. H. --- These sentiments of perfection shew that the same Spirit animated those who lived under the law of nature, as well as those who were favoured with the Mosaic or Christian dispensation. C.

Ver. 30. For. Sept. "Then let mine ear hear my curse, and may I fall a prey to the whispers of my people."

Ver. 31. Filled. If my servants have not testified sufficient affection for me, (H.) because I kept them under restraint, and obliged them to wait on my guests, (M. S. Greg.) I still would not omit that duty; (v. 32. H.) or if they gave way to the greatest excesses of rage, so as to threaten to devour me, I refrained from wishing any evil to my enemy, v. 30. C. --- Others suppose that Job's domestics urged him on to revenge, and spoke as if they were ready to eat his enemies; (Cajet. T.) while some explain the expression in a contrary sense, to denote the extreme attachment of Job's servants to his person; in which manner the Church uses it, speaking of Christ's feeding us with his own body and blood. C. --- Sept. "If frequently my maids said who?" &c. Heb. "said not, oh! that we had of his flesh! we cannot be satisfied." Prot. H. --- Have I given my servants any reason to utter these expressions?

Ver. 33. A man. Heb. "Adam," who, to excuse himself, threw the blame upon Eve. Gen. iii. 12. C. --- His posterity have too frequently imitated his example. The name of Adam often designates any man. H. --- It was requisite that Job should assert his sincerity, that his friends might not suppose that he was actuated by self-love or obstinacy to defend his innocence. C. --- Sept. "If falling into an involuntary fault I hid my sin, (for I feared not the crowd of people, that I should not plead before them) but if I let the needy pass my gate with his bosom empty." Theod. xxxv. subjoins, "who would give me a hearer? but if I did not revere the hand of the Lord." Sept. go on, "the bond which I had against any one, if I placed on my shoulder, as a crown, and read, an did not rather tear it, and give it up, taking nothing from my debtor. If," &c. v. 38. According to this version, Job insists on his pity for the distressed, and shews that he had no reason to fear. But the Hebrew is more conformable to the Vulg.

Ver. 34. Have not. Heb. "that I kept silence, not going out of doors" to defend the innocent. H. --- Moses commands judges to do their duty without fear. Ex. xxiii. 2. People in such situations ought to be uninfluenced by hatred, love, &c. Cæsar says, justly, (in Sallust) "qui de rebus dubiis consultant, ab adio, amicitiâ, irá atque misericordia vacuos esse decet. Haud facilè animus verum providet, ubi illa officiunt." H.

Ver. 35. He himself. Heb. "my adversary would write a book." His very accusation would establish my cause, provided he adhered to the truth. C. --- I would carry it about as a trophy. H. --- A book. The judge wrote down the sentence. Job appeals to God, and fears not being condemned.

Ver. 36. Crown. This shews that something pliable was then used to write on. The people of the East still lift up to their heads such letters as they respect. Chardin Perse, p. 218. See 4 K. xi. 12. C.

Ver. 37. To a. Heb. "as a prince would I approach to him," and not fear my adversary. H.

Ver. 38. Mourn, as if I possessed the land unjustly, or had committed some crime.

Ver. 39. Money. Or paying for them. M. --- And have. Prot. "or have caused the owners thereof to lose their life."

Ver. 40. Thorns. Prot. "cockle." Marg. "loathsome weeds." H. --- The precise import of the word is not known; but it means something "stinking." C. --- Sept. Batos, "a briar." H. --- Ended. Many Latin editions omit these words with S. Gregory, &c. The old Vulg. has & quieverunt verba Job, as a title. C. --- Sept. place at the beginning of the next chapter, "And Job ceased to speak. His three friends also left off contending with Job; for Job was just before them." Grabe substitutes "himself," as they were not perhaps yet convinced. H. - Job, however, addresses his discourse no more to them, but only to God, (C.) acknowledging some unadvised speeches; (W.) or want of information. H.

#book of job

3 notes · View notes

jibuyo · 7 years

Text

Konishi Yukinaga

For some time I’ve been interested in Konishi Yukinaga and collecting information about him. And this is the result.✩ It’s long and kind of a mess. I didn’t really touch individual battles in Korea, because the material is readily available anyway and I have very limited knowledge of Imjin war.

I knew almost nothing about him before I started, so some things were surprising, some not. It’s actually really hard to grasp what kind of person Yukinaga was. I know that the West seems to have this “the nicest guy around” image, but that isn’t really my impression.

FAMILY

Konishi Yukinaga was born in 1558✶1 as a second son of a Sakai’s Christian merchant and drug seller Konishi Ryūsa. It is said he was born in Kyoto and was taught Christianity from early years in a church. (Luis Frois) There’s a possibility he was baptized at birth.

His mother’s name was Wakusa/Magdalena. Magdalena is said to serve as a maid to Toyotomi Hideyoshi’s wife Nene in Osaka castle.

His wife’s name was Kiku-hime, who was also an enthusiastic Christian known as Justa. Nothing is known about her, though. (comes from Ukita clan’s records)

Now, Yukinaga also had a concubine 立野殿 (Tatsuno-dono???), who was also a Christian called Katarina. And they did have a child or two together. However, she later became a wife of Shimazu Tadakiyo. After Tadakiyo died, she was banished to Tanegashima as a Christian. (comes from Shimazu clan’s record, where the wife of Tadakiyo is written as former Yukinaga’s wife)

He had several children, but I’ll mention only two.

His daughter Maria married Sō Yoshitoshi in 1590, but he divorced her after Yukinaga was beheaded after Sekigahara. Maria and her son, later known as Konishi Mansho (1600-1644), were banished to Kyūshū (and his father never acknowledged him). In 1614 he was exiled to Macao, after that he visited Africa, Rome, entered the Society of Jesus. He returned to Japan in 1632 and started missionary activities. He was later captured, executed and martyred. He was the last officially ordained Japanese priest on Japanese grounds until Meiji period.

After the battle of Sekigahara, Mōri Terumoto executed his eldest son, he had promised to keep safe, and sent his head to Ieyasu. When Ieyasu saw it, he got angry, because he didn’t plan to kill Yukinaga’s son, because he was not guilty of anything, but the messenger told Ieyasu that the son committed suicide (he didn’t). He’s said to be 12 years old at that time. There was absolutely no reason for the son to be executed. Mitsunari’s children were all left alone.

He adopted a Korean girl and raised her as her own (or his wife did). In Japan she was given the name Otaa. Her Christian name was Julia. After the battle of Sekigahara, Konishi clan was destroyed, she caught Ieyasu’s eye and served him in Sunpu, receiving his affections. But because she refused to give up her faith and refused to become Ieyasu’s concubine, she was exiled from Sunpu in 1612. She kept her faith and was helping sick and abandoned.

During his whole life Yukinaga was donating to churches, building orphanages and hospitals, especially in Ōsaka and Sakai. Together with his father he built a hospital for people who suffered from the Hansen disease (leprosy) where they could be sheltered and taken care of.

LIFE

Yukinaga was adopted into a merchant family (father’s name 魚屋九郎右衛門) in Okayama. (in 1572 ???)✶2

He got noticed by a current lord of Okayama, Ukita Naoie, (when visiting him for business) and started to serve him. During peace negotiation with Nobunaga, Naoie sent Yukinaga to Hideyoshi, who took liking to him and made him his retainer. But because of his service in Ukita clan, he’s said to be close to Hideie.

We know for sure that in 1581 he served Hideyoshi who mentions him in a letter. So it was around this time when Yukinaga and his father Ryūsa✶3 started to serve Hideyoshi. This was at the end of Nobunaga’s invasion to Chūgoku. Yukinaga was involved with Kuroda Kanbee.

In 1582 he was made to supervise Shōdoshima (an island in Setōuchi) and by 1585 he was an owner and managed the harbour connecting the ships to Sakai and was also involved in development of rice fields. He was also collecting materials to build a church in a harbour. (Luis Frois)

It is said he was baptized in 1583, but considering he was born into a Christian family it’s speculated it was sooner or at birth.

In 1585 he participated in Kishū campaign and Shikoku campaign.

Around this time, his father Ryūsa became a magistrate of Sakai. His coworker was Sakichi-dono. Frois was such a good guy to tell us all about them: “Ryūsa was the best, ideal person, the first Christian in the capital and friend of all Christians and a father of the navy captain Yukinaga. His coworker was Sakichi-dono, Kampaku-dono’s vassal, big enemy of Ryūsa, who didn’t take any pleasure from Kampaku’s tyranny, and enemy of Christians. He was jealous, ambitious, arrogant and overall just corrupt.” (side note: Mitsunari did repress Christians on Hideyoshi’s orders, and there was an incident in 1586 he was involved in, which is around the time Frois wrote about him)

Yukinaga’s mother might have become Nene’s maid around this time, too.

In 1586 he was transporting weapons and food via Setōuchi. And he also dispatched a war ship for the attack on Shimazu.

In April 1587 Yukinaga met with Frois and Gaspar Coelho.

During the attack on Shimazu he was in charge of navy.

He was also acting as an agent between Hideyoshi and Sō clan of Tsushima, who were leading negotiations with Korea to let Hideyoshi pass through their territory to China (later, in 1590, Yukinaga’s daughter Maria became a wife of Sō Yoshitoshi - she might be married to him as a hostage and/or on Hideyoshi’s orders - according to Frois. A year into the marriage Yoshitoshi was baptized. Yoshitoshi fought for Western army, but because Ieyasu wanted to restore diplomatic relations with Korea after Sekigahara, he was forgiven and became the first lord of Tsushima-han. Because of this (?) after Yukinaga was beheaded at Rokujōgawara, he divorced Maria. He worked with Yukinaga on establishing peace with Korea during the Imjin war and continued with peace negotiation after the withdrawal. According to Kang Hang it was Yoshitoshi’s schemes that started the war, just a point of interest - Yoshitoshi was the main guy who communicated with Korea trying to make them let Japanese pass to China several years before the invasion).

Until 1587 he was using the name/pseudonym Yakurō (弥九郎), from 1586 he was called by his title Settsu no kami.

In June 1587 Hideyoshi forbids Christianity in Hakata and orders all missionaries to leave Japan in 20 days. Takayama Ukon gave up his property and rank and shocked everyone. It is said that Yukinaga was hiding Takayama Ukon and Organtino at Shōdoshima for a while. The reason Yukinaga wasn’t treated the same way was because he was useful for his merchant and Europeans connections, naval skills, and dealings with Korea. Hideyoshi most likely knew that he was hiding Ukon, but looked away anyway.

May 15 1588, after Hideyoshi dealt with Sasa Narimasa, Yukinaga was given the south part of the Higo province. The northern one went to Katō Kiyomasa and together they were supposed to rule over the whole province and consult with each other. The reason why Yukinaga got this province might be because it would serve as a base for marine transportation and he was best with navy. And it was also a good starting point to go to Korea.

In 1589, there was a riot on Amakusa. The local influential lords would only listen to Hideyoshi, not to Yukinaga. Yukinaga demanded that they restore Uto castle, but they refused. Yukinaga got a permission from Hideyoshi to pacify them and Katō Kiyomasa came with reinforcements. The riot was suppressed with their combined forces.

There are different stories. 1. Yukinaga asked for Kiyomasa to come 2. Hideyoshi said that they should not leave Higo both at the same time, so Yukinaga said to Kiyomasa to not come, so he would stay in Higo. But Kiyomasa came anyway and there appears to be a letter that says that Kiyomasa came on his own written by Yukinaga to Hideyoshi in some collections of letters.

During the attack on Hondo castle (where several Christians resided; Amakusa was a very Christian region), that Yukinaga had surrounded and the fall was only a question of time, Kiyomasa attacked quite brutally and killed everyone including women. This seems to be the start of their antagonistic relationship and then it got worse in Korea.

(When it comes to siege of Hondo castle, three hundred women were protecting it and all of them but two were killed by Kiyomasa’s forces.)

Yukinaga still served as a line to negotiations with Korea (i.e. Yoshitoshi was going through him to get to Hideyoshi).

In December 1589, there was a misunderstanding (caused by Asano Nagamasa??? misunderstanding a letter from Yukinaga???) that Korean king would visit Hideyoshi in Japan. Hideyoshi was expressing his joy in the letter to Sō Yoshitoshi (who was probably all wtf I’m gonna get killed, he was in Seoul at that time). Before the misunderstanding, Yukinaga with Shimai Sōshitsu (a merchant and tea master from Hakata) were supposed to visit Hideyoshi to talk about the visit from Korea??? (Yukinaga wrote to Nagamasa), but Yukinaga was unexpectedly caught up with the Amakusa riots, so he didn’t manage to come. After that Hideyoshi attacked Odawara and Yukinaga didn’t manage to clear the misunderstanding still being in Higo. Because the misunderstanding was big (a king wouldn’t be coming, just an envoy expressing congratulations), it was probably needed to clear it in person and not by letter or a messenger. (During this time, Yukinaga married his daughter to Yoshitoshi... i.e. it appears he made a secret alliance with Yoshitoshi and Sōshitsu to not tell anything, but wrote an explanation to the magistrates? anyway. Frois says that Yukinaga hated that he had to marry his daughter to Tsushima’s lord and that it was on Hideyoshi’s orders, but Frois didn’t know all circumstances. Probably. And Yukinaga is always made better by Jesuits. Yoshitoshi and Yukinaga seemed to work pretty closely and Yoshitoshi converted, so I don’t think Yukinaga was against it. This whole paragraph is from some article, so take it with a grain of salt; the letter background is correct, though, the rest could be the author’s interpretation and the actual historian’s version might be different. But it sounded quite legit. The author, however seemed to have a previous bias of “two-faced” Yukinaga, which seems to be his image, so it could be written to fit that image.) However, two days before the fall of Odawara, when Hideyoshi was in a good mood, someone (most likely someone from the magistrates who knew) told him the true (Hideyoshi wrote to Yoshitoshi again). But when the envoy came, he didn’t meet with them for two months.

Around this period (from 1588?? earlier), Yukinaga seemed to communicate with Hideyoshi through Asano Nagamasa (Murdoch says that he was his intimate friend and very influential person at Hideyoshi’s court, this was in 88, but I couldn’t find any Japanese source that they would be friends, according to (some) Jesuits during Sekigahara, they didn’t get along at that time).

In 1592, Yukinaga led the first division to Korea. While trying to demand clear path to China from Koreans, which were ignored, his army fought pretty brutally. They brought many victories, but soon the army became exhausted. (Apparently until the early Edo period, the evaluation of Yukinaga was pretty high as a commander, but after that the emphasize on Kiyomasa got stronger and Yukinaga took a back seat - probably because he was a Christian and was one of the “ringleaders” at Sekigahara; him being Christian is probably also a reason why there are less Edo created stories about him in relation to Sekigahara)

Yukinaga led the first division, Kiyomasa the second and they were trying to outdone each other who enters Seoul first. Yukinaga won.

During the capture of Pyongyang, Yukinaga again asked to be granted a free path to China:

"If you will send this army back to Japan we can confer about the matter, but we will listen to nothing so long as you are on Korean soil." Konishi continued: "We have no wish to harm you. We have wished such a conference as this before, but have not had such an opportunity until today." "Turn about and take your troops back to Japan," repeated the Korean. Konishi lost his temper at this, and cried out: "Our soldiers always go forward, and know nothing about going backwards." (Murdoch, p.331)

In the second half of 1592, Ishida Mitsunari with Mashita Nagamori and Ōtani Yoshitsugu described the current situation on the battlefield which saw the Japanese side losing with provisions and weapons lacking. At the beginning of 1593, both sides entered stalemate and after that Yukinaga, with Mitsunari and others began to seriously go for peace negotiations.

In May, Yukinaga with Mitsunari, Nagamori and Yoshitsugu returned to Japan with imperial envoy. They met Hideyoshi, who offered them a list of seven conditions. One of them was a marriage between Chinese and Japanese imperial family.

Yukinaga’s father Ryūsa seemed to be in charge of logistics on Japanese side, but he got sick in Hizen’s Nagoya and in 1592 died in Kyoto.

In 1595 a petition asking to bestow a title of a king to Hideyoshi included in a fake surrender conditions was sent to China. What’s interesting about this are the signatures:

Konishi Yukinaga, Ishida Mitsunari, Mashita Nagamori, Ōtani Yoshitsugu and Ukita Hideie are asking as a wide governor-generals/commanders in chiefs.

Tokugawa Ieyasu, Maeda Toshiie, Mōri Terumoto, Uesugi Kagekatsu, Kobayakawa Takakage, Maeda Gen’i, Natsuka Masaie, Sō Yoshitoshi, Ishida Masazumi, Konishi Suekito, Yanagawa Shigenobu are asking as sub-governor-generals.

This is estimated to be a plan with Yukinaga and Mitsunari in the center and it can be seen as one of the factor for Yukinaga joining the Western army - not only was he on good terms with Mitsunari, but he also had strong ties to the magistrates who helped him carry out the peace negotiations.

So the final result of that was a Chinese convoy that met with Hideyoshi offering him a position of King of Japan. And because the interpreter started to read even the surrender conditions, Hideyoshi got angry and ordered Yukinaga to be executed, but he was talked out of it (by a monk Saishō Jōtai, Maeda Toshiie ?). In Murdoch (that goes mostly by Jesuits accounts) it also states that Yukinaga had not much trouble to convince Hideyoshi that Mitsunari, Yoshitsugu and Nagamori were equally to blame as him (and I guess executing half of your administrative force wouldn’t be a good thing).

Yukinaga can be considered a good diplomat, but he was not above lying - to the enemies or to his own side (there are also instances where he lied to the missionaries in his letters, too). To his enemies he claimed that the Emperor and the ruler of the land are the same person, i.e. Hideyoshi.

In 1597 a new wave started. This time Yukinaga was ordered as a vanguard together with Kiyomasa.

In August 1598 Hideyoshi died and the troops were ordered to return back by the Council. Yukinaga was one of the last ones to return, still hoping to achieve a peace treaty before the withdrawal (it seems trade was especially important to him). On the way home the Korean ships were blocking his way, but with Shimazu Yoshihiro’s help, he managed to safely return home at the end of December.

Kang Hang has a bit to say about this. Because Kiyomasa arrived earlier, he was laughing at Yukinaga's cowardice.

“Kiyomasa did not hold on to the royal princes of whom he had taken as prisoners of war, burned his camp, and hurriedly left Chōson. He destroyed the opportunity for peace negotiations just when it was at hand. Shimazu and I led the Chinese hostages and, calmly serving as a rear guard, returned to Japan after everyone else. Did I exhibit cowardice, or did Kiyomasa exhibit cowardice?” Terumoto and the others blamed Kiyomasa for the failure to begin peace negotiations. Kiyomasa, as expected, of course blamed Yukinaga, saying that Yukinaga was of two minds regarding negotiations with our country. The discussion grew ever more entangled, and the enmity grew deeper and deeper.” (p. 87-88)

After the return from Korea, the dispute between two factions appeared. On one side, Konishi Yukinaga and his Christian daimyō friends that were fighting together with his division - Arima Harunobu, Ōmura Yoshiaki - Shimazu Yoshihiro, Tachibana Muneshige, Kobayakawa Hidekane (also Christian) centered around Ishida Mitsunari. This faction was for a complete withdrawal from Korea. In the other faction there were Katō Kiyomasa, Kuroda Nagamasa centered around Asano Nagamasa, who were still for continuation.

The dispute grew, others joined, and ended with the attack on Mitsunari later (and that the starting point could be an argument between Yukinaga and Kiyomasa makes much more sense than Kiyomasa getting angry that Mitsunari offered him tea after his return from Korea). [This comes from Jesuit reports, but since something similar is also mention by Kang Hang, I guess something happened.]

In January, Mitsunari publicly condemned Ieyasu and all other tairō, bugyō (including Asano Nagamasa) sided with him (so officially it was Council vs Ieyasu. The rest depends on how a person interprets it). Ieyasu talked himself out of it (it seems that forces on both sides were prepared to clash, but they made up before it could escalate).

Now, there is also a version where various daimyō would split between Maeda Toshiie’s residence and Ieyasu’s residence, because it was Toshiie who condemned Ieyasu. (with some theories that there were 3 factions, and Mitsunari just joined in with Toshiie)

Tokugawa side: Fukushima Masanori, Kuroda Yoshitaka (Kanbei) and Nagamasa, Ikeda Terumasa, Tōdō Takatora, Kyōgoku Takatsugu, Date Masamune, Mogami Yoshiaki, Mori Tadamasa, Wakizaka Yasuharu, Ōtani Yoshitsugu etc.

Maeda side: the rest of Elders - Uesugi Kagekatsu, Ukita Hideie, Mōri Terumoto; magistrates: Asano Nagamasa, Maeda Gen’i, Ishida Mitsunari, Mashita Nagamori, Natsuka Masaie, Katō Kiyomasa, Konishi Yukinaga, Asano Yukinaga, Hosokawa Tadaoki, Katō Yoshiaki, Tachinaga Muneshige, Oda Hidenobu, Chōsokabe Morichika etc.

While this list was made up later, it’s probably more or less correct, but the actual situation could have been different (fun fact: Kang Hang also mentions this event and Masamune and Mogami Yoshiaki are on Toshiie’s side).

Around this time Yukinaga is invited to a tea ceremony organized by Mitsunari. Other guests are Ukita Hideie, Date Masamune and Kamiya Sōtan. After they finished enjoying the tea and talking, Mitsunari also gives his guests wine originated in Nagasaki. Wine was a totally expensive indulgent at that time. (This is from Kamiya Sōtan’s diary, a merchant and tea master from Hakata. Some people consider the diary a fabrication, because of inconsistencies in few dates, but the description of tea utensils and tea ceremony is legit...) If Masamune and Mitsunari in one room seem weird, well... (but remember Kang Hang :D) Mitsunari probably wanted to persuade him to join him. (and their relationship wasn’t exactly hateful anyway, the one Masamune couldn’t get along with was Asano Nagamasa, from the bugyō)

Then Toshiie died and Mitsunari got attacked by Kiyomasa and his friends. With the help of Satake Yoshinobu (at least that’s the common view), Mitsunari managed to escape from Ōsaka to Fushimi. According to Jesuits, Yukinaga took arms to help him and followed him to Fushimi. Mitsunari wanted to counterattack more heavily and asked Terumoto for reinforcements by sending Yukinaga to Terumoto, but Ōtani told him not to send them (because the situation was unfavourable).

Ieyasu intervened (either by himself, or someone went to him, or he just tried to pacify Kiyomasa’s group who demanded that Mitsunari was dealt with) and Mitsunari lost his job and was sent to Sawayama. According to Murdoch some missionaries wrote that Yukinaga either accompanied him (I doubt that) or visited him soon after (why not). When he visited him, Mitsunari managed to talk him into joining his little alliance (him + Uesugi Kagekatsu + Terumoto + Ukita Hideie). I don’t think Yukinaga needed to be talked (or induced) into anything (some Jesuits (or maybe Franciscans? They apparently blamed Jesuits for not telling Yukinaga to side with Ieyasu or for actually telling him to go against Ieyasu, but nothing like that can be confirmed from Jesuits reports... I read) also apparently expressed their dissatisfaction with Yukinaga joining Mitsunari. Other Jesuit, you can’t believe Jesuits when it comes to Yukinaga, it’s contradictory lmao say that Yukinaga was with Mitsunari from the beginning because they were BFFs, and because Yukinaga was loyal to Hideyori and they created this amazing alliance. Some recent researchers are also adopting the view of Yukinaga being a part of planning from early on). As for the alliance, there might have been one. It might just be a reference to the Council vs Ieyasu, or it could be all just rumours based on everyone returning home, followed by rumours of Ieyasu’s assassination (fun fact: Kang Hang says that Kiyomasa wanted to kill Ieyasu too). Mitsunari could have been behind all of them or not. But one thing that’s interesting is that if there was an alliance between Mitsunari and Uesugi prior to Sekigahara (historians are still debating, pro-Tokugawa are usually like nope and pro-Mitsunari are yeah, because they want Naoe-Mitsunari friendship to be true... that’s the image I’m getting anyway) it started before he got fired. That’s the common point of Kang Hang and Jesuits, but other Jesuits and Kang Hang also have Maeda Toshinaga in the alliance. This got confusing, sorry.

So Mitsunari got fired, and Ieyasu started to make friends with Yukinaga trying to get him on his side. He was apparently praising his achievements in Korea and his loyalty to Mitsunari. (He might have also offered his granddaughter to Yukinaga’s son - the one that Terumoto killed.) He basically wanted Yukinaga to pledge himself to his cause (he wanted this from most daimyō), but Yukinaga refused. Out of his friendship for Mitsunari, out of his loyalty to Hideyori, out of his dislike for Kiyomasa, out of his relationship with Ukita Hideie, out of his political view whatever suits your boat. We will never know anyway.

And then he returned to Higo and when an internal strife occurred in Shimazu clan (1599), he was dispatched there by Ieyasu together with other Kyūshū daimyō (e.g. Tachibana Muneshige and many more). Some people see this as him becoming closer to Ieyasu and then they’re all wtf why did he join Mitsunari, but I mean... he’s right there on Kyūshū, of course he’s gonna be asked to help (like Mitsunari dispatched forces during Ieyasu x Maeda Toshinaga conflict).

In June 1600, Ieyasu started the subjugation of Uesugi. Yukinaga was ordered by Ieyasu to stay in Osaka(-Kyoto).

At the beginning of July, Mitsunari and Yoshitsugu rebelled (around 11th or 12th of July). By 15th July, thanks to Shimazu Yoshihiro’s letter to Kagekatsu, we know that Yukinaga was a part of the whole anti-Ieyasu coalition. July 17, Ieyasu was impeached.

Yukinaga participated in the siege of Fushimi castle, then entered Ōgaki castle in early August, and in the evening of September 14, he moved to Sekigahara.

In the morning of the 15th he engaged in battle and thanks to Kobayakawa Hideaki’s betrayal, he was defeated and escaped to the surroundings of Mt. Ibuki.

Right on the 15th, Ieyasu ordered his men to capture him, Mitsunari, Hideie and Yoshihiro.

The most famous story you can find around: he was found on the 19th. Instead of running, he went forward and gave his name: “I’m Konishi Settsu no kami. Take me to Naifu and receive a reward.” The guy who found him told him to run, but Yukinaga said that because he was Christian, he couldn’t commit suicide. The guy took him to Takenaka Shigekado and got some money.

He was paraded around Ōsaka together with Mitsunari and Ankokuji Ekei being pronounced a rebel. After that they were moved to Kyōto.

On the 1st October, the three of them were executed in Kyōto. Because he was a Christian, he refused buddhist monks to cleans him and chant sutra for his sake, instead he took out a small picture of Christ and Maria and prayed. Then he got beheaded. His head (with Mitsunari and Ekei’s ones) was displayed on the Sanjō bridge. Before his death, he asked for a priest, but he was denied by Ieyasu. According to Jesuits records, his body was taken by the church and given a proper burial. The place is unknown.

In 1607 in Genova (Italy), an opera (?) was created with Yukinaga as the main character.

✶1 The year is based on a Korean document that states he was 38 in 1595.

✶2 comes from a source from 17th century, so he might never have been given out for adoption, but it’s used as his background often.

✶3 this basically makes the whole adoption thing weird, imo

✩ Yukinaga was beheaded as one of the key figures after Sekigahara and he was a Christian, so there are not many documents left. There are Jesuits notes, but those are heavily biased in favour of Christians, there are some mentions of him in the writings of Kang Hang, but those are understandably biased as well, even though he does not really paint him necessarily in a negative light, but as someone who wants peace to save Sō Yoshitoshi’s face. But it does come off as negative. For the Korean campaign, I just used Turnbull’s The Samurai Invasion of Korea 1592–98 and some stuff from Murdoch’s A History of Japan. The rest comes from various articles I read on the world wide web and some of it was “consulted” with wikipedia.

If anyone actually read the whole thing, I’m impressed. Thank you!

#konishi yukinaga #japanese history #samurai warriors #because i think yukinaga would be a nice add #but it could also end up horribly wrong #because koei can't write rivals without them also being friendly to some degree #and they would probably ignore his friendship with mitsunari #or it would be really really light like the one with nobuyuki #and they would put kiyomasa at sekigahara again #and most likely making him kill yukinaga because koei won't show mitsunari and him getting beheaded #and they will just turn into new takatora and yoshitsugu

17 notes · View notes