| The edict is often cited within a narrative of "Japan's" [[sakoku|isolationist]] and aggressive attitudes and actions against Western interaction, a precursor or even cause for the later supposed "opening" of Japan by [[Commodore Matthew Perry]]. The shogunate, however, was not truly able to exercise full control over such matters, and it was coastal domains (and the [[Ryukyu Kingdom|Ryûkyû Kingdom]]), not the shogunate, or "Japan" as a unitary actor, which had to effect the actual enforcement of this edict. | | The edict is often cited within a narrative of "Japan's" [[sakoku|isolationist]] and aggressive attitudes and actions against Western interaction, a precursor or even cause for the later supposed "opening" of Japan by [[Commodore Matthew Perry]]. The shogunate, however, was not truly able to exercise full control over such matters, and it was coastal domains (and the [[Ryukyu Kingdom|Ryûkyû Kingdom]]), not the shogunate, or "Japan" as a unitary actor, which had to effect the actual enforcement of this edict. |
− | In practice, the Edict was enforced only on an ''ad hoc'' basis. On at least one occasion (that of the American ship ''[[Morrison]]'' in [[1837]]), Ryûkyû not only did not fire on the foreign vessel, but in fact provisioned it. [[Satsuma han]] fired on that same vessel a few months later, driving it away, but it is unclear if Satsuma fired on any other ships during this period. Similarly, cannon batteries prepared at [[Matsumae han]] fired upon foreign vessels in [[1831]] and [[1834]], but did not fire upon other vessels which appeared in [[1832]] and 1834. | + | In practice, the Edict was enforced only on an ''ad hoc'' basis. On at least one occasion (that of the American ship ''[[Morrison]]'' in [[1837]]), Ryûkyû not only did not fire on the foreign vessel, but in fact provisioned it. [[Satsuma han]] fired on that same vessel a few months later, driving it away, but it is unclear if Satsuma fired on any other ships during this period. Similarly, cannon batteries prepared at [[Matsumae han]] fired upon foreign vessels in [[1831]] and [[1834]], but did not fire upon other vessels which appeared in [[1832]] and 1834. The ''Morrison'' may have been the only time this edict was actually officially invoked in firing upon a foreign vessel.<ref>Constantine Vaporis (ed.), "Sizing up the Foreign Threat: Aizawa Seishisai's Shinron (New Theses, 1825)," ''Voices of Early Modern Japan'', Westview Press (2012), 119.</ref> |
| *Robert Hellyer, ''Defining Engagement'', Harvard University Press (2009), 150-151. | | *Robert Hellyer, ''Defining Engagement'', Harvard University Press (2009), 150-151. |