The Chosŏn Court’s Perception of the Edo Bakufu: Tokugawa Ieyasu and the Genji

This article asks how the Joseon court perceived the Edo shogunate, specifically focusing on its understanding of Tokugawa Ieyasu and the nature of his regime. It seeks to move beyond existing studies that have largely examined internal Japanese changes, regional administration, or the Japanese view of Joseon, to instead center on how Joseon officials viewed key figures of the opposing power. The work argues that Joseon came to understand Ieyasu and the Edo shogunate as a quasi-dynastic state exhibiting continuity with the Kamakura and Muromachi periods. To comprehend this new political reality, the court focused on the shogun’s clan, the Genji (Minamoto), using it to establish legitimacy in contrast to the previous ruler, Hideyoshi.

The author traces a clear evolution in Joseon perception, moving from initial suspicion to a rationalized acceptance of the Tokugawa line. In 1599, King Seonjo remarked that although Hideyoshi had died, another bandit chieftain named Ieyasu existed in the Kantō region, making it impossible to predict whether the bandits would resume their movements. Officials like No In submitted memorials asserting the possibility of renewed invasion. However, a shift occurred as officials began to distinguish Ieyasu from Hideyoshi. Yu Yeong-gyeong argued that while Hideyoshi was an eternal enemy, Ieyasu had not transported troops from the Kantō region during the Imjin War, suggesting he belonged to a different faction. The Bibyeonsa (Border Defense Council) later stated that Ieyasu acted in direct opposition to Hideyoshi, noting that he did not prohibit the return of captives.

Joseon officials constructed a specific narrative to validate Ieyasu’s rule by analyzing his lineage. The Seungmunwon interpreted Ieyasu’s use of the Minamoto clan name, seen in his signature as Minamoto no Ieyasu, as evidence of a deliberate contrast with Taira no Hideyoshi. Scholars systematically documented Japanese surnames, noting that Hideyoshi had requested one of the four great clans but was denied, eventually styling himself as Taira or Toyotomi. In contrast, they traced Ieyasu’s lineage to Minamoto no Yoritomo. Heo Mok, for instance, traced Ieyasu as the eleventh-generation descendant of Yoshimasa, linking him to the legitimate Minamoto line. This genealogical work allowed Joseon to view the Genji family’s long-standing power as a sign of stability. King Injo observed that while previous Japanese regimes collapsed within one or two generations, power had now been transmitted across three generations, distinguishing the current regime from the transient power of Hideyoshi.

The article highlights how this lineage-based distinction served a diplomatic purpose. Officials like Im Ui-bak reported that the Genji family had subdued Hideyoshi, charging him with regicide and the indiscriminate killing of Joseon people. They reasoned that the Genji’s descendants would not violate ancestral teachings, so their long hold on power benefited Joseon. This allowed Joseon to relegate the Imjin War to the status of an abnormal disturbance instigated by a temporarily deranged leader. By doing so, they imagined a “normal Japan” distinct from Hideyoshi, mediated through Ieyasu and the Edo shogunate. The work notes that while the Taira clan continued as an aristocratic noble family, the Toyotomi line was the only one completely exterminated, so the Joseon picture of a Minamoto Ieyasu who had destroyed the Taira did not match the situation in Japan.

The connection to the broader Nanban context remains indirect in this specific analysis. While the text references the Imjin Waeran, it does not explicitly detail Portuguese or missionary links in the court’s perception of Ieyasu. The focus remains strictly on how Joseon intellectuals used the Genji lineage to categorize the Edo shogunate as a stable, hereditary dynasty rather than a transient military regime.

This journal article covers the late Joseon period, from the aftermath of the Imjin War to the late 18th century, focusing on the court’s perception of Ieyasu and the Genji lineage. It explicitly leaves aside the internal information networks within Japan and the factual realities of the Edo shogunate, concentrating instead on Joseon’s system of perception. Readers interested in how Joseon officials rationalized peace with Japan by recasting Ieyasu as a legitimate dynastic heir will find the most value here. The work is a 39-page journal article written in Korean, published in The Korea-Japan Historical Review in 2026. As it is paywalled, access requires a subscription to the journal or a payment of 7,370 Korean won.

Find it at the publisher ↗ (opens in a new tab)

Related articles on Nanban.pt

• The Imjin War: Hideyoshi’s Invasion of Korea and the War That Broke an Empire
• The Patient Conqueror: The Life of Tokugawa Ieyasu
• The Monkey Who Became God: The Life and Personality of Toyotomi Hideyoshi

Reviewed by Nanban.pt editorial, 2026-10-06.

← All reviews