nd why did Ieyasu, having full
knowledge of these intrigues, grant asylum? Possibly an answer to the
former question can be furnished by the fact that Ishida was in sore
straits. Attending Maeda Toshiiye's death-bed, he had seen the
partisans of the deceased baron transfer their allegiance to Ieyasu
through the intervention of Hosokawa Tadaoki, and he had learned that
his own life was immediately threatened by the seven generals. Even
if he succeeded (which was very problematical) in escaping from Osaka
to his own castle of Sawa-yama, in Omi province, the respite could
have been but brief and such a step would have been equivalent to
abandoning the political arena. Only a very strong arm could save
him, and with consummate insight he may have appreciated the Tokugawa
chief's unreadiness to precipitate a crucial struggle by consenting
to his death.

But what is to be said of Ieyasu? Unwilling to admit that his
astuteness could ever have been at fault, some historians allege that
the Tokugawa chief saved Ishida's life with the deliberate purpose of
letting him discredit himself and his partisans by continued
intrigues. These annalists allege, in fact, that Ieyasu, acting on
the advice of Honda Masanobu, by whose profound shrewdness he was
largely guided, saved the life of Ishida in order that the latter's
subsequent intrigues might furnish a pretext for destroying Hideyori.
That, however, is scarcely conceivable, for Ishida had many powerful
confederates, and the direct outcome of the leniency shown by Ieyasu
on that occasion was an armed struggle from which he barely emerged
victorious. The truth seems to be that, for all his profound wisdom,
Ieyasu erred in this instance. Ishida Kotsushige outwitted him. For,
during the very days of his asylum in Fushimi, under the protection
of Ieyasu, Ishida opened secret communication with Uesugi Kagekatsu
and invited him to strike at the Tokugawa. Uesugi consented. It must
be observed that the character of Ishida has been portrayed for
posterity mainly by historians who were under Tokugawa influence.
Modern and impartial annalists are by no means so condemnatory in
their judgment of the man. In whatever arts of deception Ishida
excelled, Ieyasu was at least his equal; while in the matter of
loyalty to the Toyotomi family, Ishida's conduct compares favourably
with that of the Tokugawa leader; and if we look at the men who
attached themselves to Ishida's cause and fought by his side,