不審 　Doubt 　　

　このころの小栗上野介の行動を見ると・・・
1868慶応四年
・一月十五日に江戸城で執務中に呼ばれて、勘定奉行及び陸軍奉行・海軍奉行などを免職となると、
・一月二十八日には権田村への「帰農願」を幕府に提出して
・翌二十九日に許可を得ました。
問題の２月６日ごろは、権田村への移住の準備に入っていた時期です。　（『小栗日記』）

A look at Kozukenosuke Oguri's activities around this time (1868 Keio 4) shows the following:
January 15: While in office at Edo Castle, he was summoned and relieved of his duties as an Accounting Magistrate, Army Magistrate, Navy Magistrate, and others.
January 28: He submitted to the shogunate an "application to go to Gonda Village to start farming.
January 29: He received permission from the shogunate for his "Application to go to Gonda Viallge.

Around February 6, the date in question, is when he was preparing to move to Gonda Village.　("Oguri Diary")

１、これから家族を連れて上州の山村に移住し、江戸からお茶の木や庭の植木を運び、農業をするつもりで準備し、用人塚本真彦も幼児を含めた家族を連れて移住しようとしている時期の言動に照らすと、上記の勝部氏の話を加えれば
「家来ともども家族連れで庭の植木まで運んで、いくさに出かける」
という、つじつまが合わない話になる。

２、幕府の公職を解かれた後に、「小銃千丁弾薬八万発購入」のような裁量をする権限や資金があるものだろうか。

1. Oguri was preparing to move to a mountain village in Jyoshu (today's Gunma Prefecture) with his family, intending to bring tea trees and garden plants from Edo and to farm, and his servant, Masahiko Tsukamoto, was also about to move with his family, including an infant. In light of Oguri's words and actions during such a period, if we add Katsube's story above, "Oguri and his family, including his retainers, even carried their garden plants with them and were about to go off to war. This story does not make any sense at all.

2. After being relieved of his official position in the shogunate, would he have the authority or funds to make such a discretionary decision as "purchasing 1,000 rifles and 80,000 rounds of ammunition"?

▼屋敷を建て始めた観音山は、中央の丘の最上部の杉木立のあたり（倉渕村権田）・背景は榛名山
Kannonyama, where Oguri began to build his residence, is located at the top of the hill in the center around a grove of cedar trees (Gonda, Kurabuchi Village). Mt. Haruna is in the background.

　　西暦と和暦の読み違いで着せられた濡れ衣
　　　　　　　　・・・と判明

It turned out to be a frame-up against Oguri, which was made by the author's misreading of the Western and Japanese calendars.

　勝部氏の文章は、次の本の史料を元にして書いています。

法学博士尾佐竹猛著『国際法より観たる　幕末外交物語』（大正１５年）、および
同『幕末外交秘史考』（昭和１９年）…にある史料（フランス人書簡）　
▼　両書ともフランス語原文を写真で掲載している。

Mr. Katsube bases his writing on historical documents (French letters) from the following books:
"Kokusaiho-yori Mitaru Bakumatsu Gaiko Monogatari (A Tale of Diplomacy at the End of the Edo Period from the Perspective of International Law)" written by Takeshi Osatake, Doctor of Law (1926, Taisho 15)
"Bakumatsu Gaiko Hishikou" (Secret History of Diplomacy at the End of the Edo Period) written by Takeshi Osatake, Doctor of Law (1944, Showa 19)
▼ Both books contain photographs of the original French text.

■フランス人から小栗上野介宛の書簡　 Letter from a Frenchman to Kozukenosuke Oguri

横浜　１８６８年２月６日 　　　小栗上野介閣下 　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　江戸 　　　大　臣　殿 小生は三浦敬之助氏により小生に届けられたる手紙を受け取るの光栄を有す。小生はこの役人にすでに述べたるごとく貴下ご要求のシャスポー式小銃千挺弾薬の引渡しは八万ドルの額に対して引き換えにあらざれば、なすことを得ず。小生は貴下の望みを容るることあたわざるを悲しむ。しかれども小生が貴下に渡したる仕切り書は、小生が貴下に前もって指示せられたる送金なくして貴下のお話ありし交付の責任をとるために非常に重要なり。 　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　敬意を以って　　　Ｆ．ビグエー Yokohama, February 6, 1868 His Excellency Kozukenosuke Oguri 　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　 　　　　　　Edo Dear Minister, I gratefully received the letter delivered to me by Mr. Keinosuke Miura. As I have already stated to this official in charge, I can only deliver the 1,000 Chassepore guns and ammunition you request in exchange for $80,000. I regret that I am unable to meet your request. However, the letter I have given you is very important so that I can take responsibility for the delivery of the money you mentioned without the remittance I have instructed you to make in advance. Respectfully, F. Biguey

＜尾佐竹猛著『国際法より観たる　幕末外交物語』（大正１５年）より引用。＞
<Quoted in “(Kokusaiho-yori Mitaru) Bakumatsu Gaiko Monogatari (A Tale of Diplomacy at the End of the Edo Period - from the Perspective of International Law)," Takeki Osatake 1926, Taisho 15.>

　
　この史料を根拠として書いているわけだが、ここで書簡の「１８６８年２月６日」という日付に注意されたい。

　当時日本では和暦（太陰暦･旧暦）、西洋では西暦(太陽暦･新暦)を用いていたことはご存知のとおり。そのために日本在住歴の長い外国人は手紙に日付を書くとき

「１８６８年○月○日即日本○月○日」（1868年○月○日イコール日本では◯月○日、という意味）

と、西暦と和暦に日数の誤差があることを考慮して、西暦のあとに和暦の日付けを並べて書く人もいた。（尾佐竹氏の上記の著にもその例がいくつか見られる。）

Mr. Katsube is writing on the basis of this historical document, but please note the date of "February 6, 1868" in Mr. Biguey's letter. 　

As you know, the Japanese calendar (lunar or old calendar) was used in Japan at that time, while the Western calendar (solar or new calendar) was used in the West. Therefore, when writing dates on letters, some foreigners who had lived in Japan for a long time would write the Japanese calendar date side by side with the Western calendar date after the Western calendar date, taking into consideration the fact that the Western calendar and the Japanese calendar had an error in the number of days. (Some examples of this can be found in the above book by Mr. Osatake)

　ここで問題にしているビグエー氏の手紙のように、西暦だけが書いてある場合は、もちろん西暦の日付である。

　ではこの日（西暦の1868年２月６日）は和暦では何日か、
　調べると「慶応四年一月十三日」である。

If, as in Mr. Biguay's letter in question here, only the western calendar is written, then of course it is the date in the western calendar. 　

Let us check what day this date (February 6, 1868 in the western calendar) is in the Japanese calendar. It is "January 13, Keio 4."

　この十三日は小栗上野介は勘定奉行・陸軍奉行・海軍奉行在職中で、鳥羽伏見の戦いから逃げ帰った将軍慶喜を含め西軍と戦うか恭順するか幕府として決めかねていた最中のこと。新しい政府の青写真は示さないまま攘夷と討幕を主張する西軍との戦いに備え、武器を調達していたのは在職中の幕府責任者の職務として当然のこと。
　しかも上記の書簡は武器引き渡しの条件を伝えるものだから、銃器の発注は当時の交通通信運輸事情から見てこれよりも最低数ヶ月以前と考えられる。銃器の発注も受取り条件提示もすべて在職中の当然の仕事であるのに、勝部氏が
「退職後も武器購入に奔走していた」　　
と書くのは、和暦と西暦の日数の誤差を無視して年号だけ「１８６８→明治元年」とし、小栗上野介にマイナスイメージを植え付けた乱暴な話といえよう。
　繰り返し確認するが、小栗上野介が勘定奉行その他役職を免職になったのは（１８６８年2月6日＝慶応四年一月十三日）の翌々日の一月十五日である。

On January 13, Keio 4, Kozukenosuke Oguri was in the midst of his tenure as the magistrate for accounts, the army, and the navy, and was in the midst of deciding whether the shogunate would fight the Western forces, including Shogun Yoshinobu who had escaped from the Battle of Toba-Fushimi, or whether it would respect the Western forces. It was only natural for the head of the shogunate to procure weapons in preparation for a battle against the West, which insisted on expelling the barbarians and defeating the shogunate without presenting a blueprint for a new government.

Moreover, the above letter conveys the conditions for the delivery of weapons, so the order for firearms is thought to have been placed at least several months earlier than this, given the transportation and communications situation at the time. While ordering firearms and presenting the conditions for receiving them were all Oguri's natural duties while in office, Katsube's statement that "Oguri was busy purchasing weapons even after his retirement" is a wild exaggeration that ignores the error in the number of days between the Japanese and Western calendars and only uses the year "1868→1st year of Meiji," thereby creating a negative image of Kozukenosuke Oguri. 　

As I have repeatedly confirmed, Kozukenosuke Oguri was relieved of his position as an accounting magistrate and other posts on January 15, Keio 4, two days after the date of F. Biguey's letter (February 6, 1868, which is January 13, Keio 4 in Japanese calender).

年号の使用に不自然な策意

　こまかく言えば、年号が慶応から明治元年になったのは慶応四年九月八日からだから「明治元年２月６日」という月日は存在せず、勝部氏の書き方は、こういう歴史を論ずる文章の場合は正確を欠く。一歩譲って、もしすべてさかのぼって「明治」で統一するなら、退職月日も明治元年一月十五日とすべきであろう。

　それなのに冒頭に引用した『勝海舟』文中で
小栗上野介は慶応四年一月十五日に勘定奉行を退職後……明治元年２月６日（実は一月十三日）付けの小栗上野介宛書簡に≪小銃千挺と弾薬八万発≫の請求書…
と書いたのは、慶応四年一月十五日〜明治元年２月６日の間は実質わずか三週間足らずだが、慶応〜明治と書くことで
「（一月十三日だから実は退職後ではないが）退職後たいそうな日にちが経過してもなお銃器の購入に奔走していた小栗上野介」
という錯覚イメージを読者に抱かせるためではなかろうか、と疑ぐりたくなる。

Unnatural Strategic Intent in the Use of the Year

To put it more precisely, since the year changed from Keio to the first year of Meiji on September 8, Keio 4, the date "February 6, the first year of Meiji" does not exist, and Mr. Katsube's writing style is inaccurate when discussing history. If we were to go back one step and use "Meiji" for all the dates, Oguri's retirement date should also be set to January 15, the first year of Meiji.

Nevertheless, in the "Kaishu Katsu" quoted at the beginning of the article, the author wrote the following:
"Kozukenosuke Oguri, after retiring as an account magistrate on January 15, Keio 4, ...... a request for '1,000 rifles and 80,000 rounds of ammunition' in a letter from F. Biguey to Kozukenosuke Oguri dated February 6 (actually January 13) of the first year of Meiji..."

Here, I am tempted to suspect that the author wrote this in order to create an illusory image in the reader's mind. In other words, the period between January 15, Keio 4 and February 6, the first year of Meiji was actually less than three weeks, but by writing "Keio-Meiji," the reader is given the illusion that "Kozukenosuke Oguri was still busy purchasing firearms even after a considerable period of time had passed since his retirement (January 13, Keio 4, which was not actually after his retirement).

　　　　小栗上野介を矮小化で → 勝海舟礼賛
　　　　　　　Trivializing Kozukenosuke Oguri to praise Kaishu Katsu

　歴史家の勝部氏は、尾佐竹博士が西暦と和暦の差を無視しているのをそのまま鵜呑みにして、
１８６８年＝明治元年とし、西暦の日付をそのままくっつけて「明治元年２月６日」　
と論じていることが判明した。わかってみれば単純かつお粗末な間違いだが、勝部氏がこの間違いを元に、小栗上野介を評して次のように書いているのを見ると、ただの間違いではすまなくなる。
　　　　　　　　（＊下記の太字は史実無根･根拠不明の箇所である＊）

Historian Mr. Katsube, taking Dr. Osatake's disregard for the difference between the Western and Japanese calendars at face value, has taken "1868 = the first year of the Meiji Era," and he argued that the date "February 6, the first year of the Meiji Era" is the same as the date in the western calendar.

It is a simple and poor mistake, but when we see that Mr. Katsube wrote the following comment on Kozukenosuke Oguri based on this mistake, it can no longer be considered just a mistake.

(*The bolded texts below indicate that the sections are historically ungrounded or have no known basis.*)

「上野介は・・・権田村に帰って土地の博徒をいじめたりしたので、官軍に密告され…つまらぬことで処刑されてしまった」（『勝海舟』下ｐ１８３）

「勘定所で不用となった千両箱の払い下げを受け、これに銃器･弾薬を入れ…大砲まで持って権田村へ移った。・・・会津藩からの密書を奪われて…大音竜太郎の手で斬首された。養子又一と二人…二分金百五、六十両づつ肌身に付けていた。・・・金時計も身につけていた。…夫人は信州に逃れ…」（『勝海舟』下ｐ１24）

別の本でも
「観音山に陣地を作り…博徒を酷使し…密告され、大音竜太郎（だいおん　→　おおとりょうたろう）の手で斬られた。」（『歴史群像徳川慶喜』ｐ１１４･学研）

Kozukenosuke... returned to Gonda Village and bullied the local expats, so he was tipped off by the government forces... and was executed for the trivial matter." ("Kaishu Katsu," p183, below)

Oguri received disposable senryobakos (boxes for a large sum of money) from the account office, filled them with firearms and ammunition, and even took a cannon with him to Gonda Village. He was beheaded by Ryutaro Ohto after being robbed of a secret letter from the Aizu clan. Oguri and his adopted son, Mataichi, each had 150-160 ryo of 2-bu gold coins between their underwear. Oguri also wore a gold watch... Mrs. Oguri fled to Shinshu. ("Kaishu Katsu", p124 below)

In another book, he writes "Oguri set up a battle position on Kannonyama... and used gamblers so severely... that he was betrayed and cut down at the hands of Ryutaro Ohto (大音龍太郎)." ("Historic Images of Tokugawa Keiki," p. 114, Gakken)

陣地や博徒の話は史実無根であり、大砲は後日川船で倉賀野河岸に着いたのを運んだが、弾のない飾り物であることは周知のこと。密書や千両箱、二分金、金時計、信州などの話は聞いたことのない新説である。斬首した人物は大音竜太郎ではない。

The stories about the battle posision and the gamblers are untrue. The cannon arrived at the Kuragano riverbank by riverboat and it was brought to Gonda village, but it is well known that it was a decorative object with no bullets. The stories of secret letters, Senryobakos, 2-bu gold coins, gold watch, and Shinshu are new theories never heard of. The person who beheaded Oguri was not Ryutaro Ohto.

　問題はこのあとに続けて
「勝は江戸育ちで博徒の扱いに慣れ人の気持を見抜くのがうまい」（『歴史群像徳川慶喜』ｐ１１４）
としていること。

The problem is that it is followed by the following statement:
"Katsu grew up in Edo (Tokyo) and is accustomed to dealing with gamblers and is a good judge of people's feelings." ("Rekishi Gunzo Tokugawa Yoshinobu," p. 114).

　江戸育ちの勝海舟が優れていると主張するため、（田舎者の）小栗上野介が「権田村に帰って」と、実際は神田駿河台生まれの江戸っ子小栗忠順を上州出身とする誤解まで付け足し、小栗上野介を評して
「組織（幕府とか藩とか〇〇隊とか）を守るために国家を忘れて」（『歴史群像徳川慶喜』ｐ１１４･学研）しまった人物

の例として虚説を以て小栗上野介の人物像を矮小化し、勝海舟称賛の材料としている。

In order to claim that Kaishu Katsu, who grew up in Edo, is superior, the author trivializes the character of Kozukenosuke Oguri with several false theories and uses them as materials for praising Kaishu Katsu. In other words, the author adds the misconception that Kozukenosuke Oguri (Tadamasa) "went back to Gonda Village" and that Oguri, who was actually born in Surugadai, Kanda and was an Edo native, was a countryman from Joshu (today's Gunma Prefacture), and he commented that Kozukenosuke Oguri "forgot the nation in order to protect organizations (such as the shogunate, clans, or parties)" ("History Group Images of Tokugawa Yoshinobu" p114, Gakken).

　天皇の政府に反対したから幕府側は逆賊、明治維新が近代国家を造り、幕府政治は暗黒時代、とする幕府政治矮小化に基く歴史教育が明治以降続いた。小栗上野介も濡れ衣を着せられ、誤解され、学者もその歴史観で現地を歩かないまま小栗上野介を語る時代がまだ続いている。　　　

Since the Meiji era (1868-1912), historical education has continued to be based on a trivialization of shogunate politics, stating that the shogunate side was treasonous because it opposed the Emperor's government, that the Meiji Restoration established the modern nation, and that shogunate politics was the dark age. Kozukenosuke Oguri was also falsely accused and misunderstood, and scholars are still talking about Kozukenosuke Oguri based on this view of history, without having visited the site of his death.　　　 　　　　　　

（２０００平成１２年10月「上毛新聞」オピニオン・に加筆）
(Additions were made to my contribution to "Opinion" in the Jomo Shimbun, October 2000)

太字部分の間違いの出典が判明

　上記の太字部分の史実無根の話の出典が『旧幕府』(第4巻七号･明治33年７月)に拠ったものであることがわかりました。
　雑誌『旧幕府』の小栗上野介論は、江戸にいただけの旧幕臣による後世の虚実取り混ぜの回顧談で無責任かつ偏頗な史料ですから、これをもとに文章を書く場合は現地やほかの史料と校合吟味することが欠かせません。小栗上野介は、得た地位にあぐらをかいている幕臣を「製糞器」といってました。
　他にも「風聞記」といわれるうわさを書き留めた資料があり、小栗上野介について根拠のない話を展開、殺されて当然の悪代官扱いし西軍の主張に沿ったものになっています。
(２００３平成１５年１月追記)

We have found the source of the error in the bolded portion above. 　

We have discovered that the source of the above bolded part is based on "Kyu-Bakufu (The Old Shogunate)" (Vol. 4, No. 7, July, 1900). 　

The Kozukenosuke Oguri article in "The Old Shogunate" magazine is an irresponsible and highly partial historical document that is a retrospective account by a former shogunate retainer who was only in Edo and mixed up falsehoods in later years. Therefore, when writing a text based on it, it is essential to compare it with other historical sources.

Kozukenosuke Oguri called the shogunate vassals who were resting on their laurels "feces makers." 　

There is another document called "Fumon-Ki," in which the author wrote down rumors about Kozukenosuke Oguri. The author developed a baseless story about Kozukenosuke Oguri and treated him as a bad government official who deserved to be killed, which is in line with the claims of the Western forces. (Added January 2003)

ビグエーは何者？

・ビグエーは「ヴァンリード」説あり
・当時横浜にあった「仏国合同会社の代理人ヒツゲー及ワッソール」…『横須賀海軍船廠史』ｐ94
・ソシエテ・ゼネラール商会の代理人「ビグエー」「ビッゲー」「ビケー」…高村直助『明治の経済』p38、39

Who is Biguey?

Theory 1: Biguey was "Van Reed".
Theory 2: Biguey was "Hitsugey and Wassall" who were the agents of the French Joint Stock Company in Yokohama at that time... "Yokosuka Naval Shipyard History", p94.
Theory 3: Biguey was "Biguey", "Biggey", or "Bikey" who was the agent of Societe Generale Commerce, according to "Meiji-no-Keizai (The Economy of Meiji Era) by Naosuke Takamura, p38, 39