One of the chapters in this particular work deals with the question of `freedom` as it would have meant to commoners (defined as either the peasantry, and thus members of a joint organization, ie the village, or artisans and craftsmen). Within the medieval period, the nation was essentially divided into two halves, with the Court presiding over the west, while the Bakufu (based in Kamakura) ruled over the east. Those commoners who existed in either part of the country understood that they had certain rights to protection from either the Court or Bakufunate. However `protection` could be construed as a form of `rule`. Commoners who believed that their rights to a degree of freedom were being infringed by those higher on the social scale could choose to abscond or resist (in the form of ikki).
One interesting thing said about ikki on pg.55 is that the process itself depended on formulaic rituals (the drinking in Shinsui, for example), and those persons who put their name to a kishōmon and then participated in the ceremony of Ichimi Shinsui were essentially cutting off those ties that bound them to other organizations within society, ie master and servant, parent and child. Each member now stood as an individual, but decisions would be made according to the majority within the group. This in itself was a form of liberation for the commoner, for the ikki organization was born from a group of individuals who had become aware of their liberation from the `collective` (which in this sense meant societal ties. They chose to break their obligations by appealing to a higher power).
Amino also makes mention of artisans and craftsmen, who in the case of those living in and around the capital were protected by the authority of the court. They were originally thought of as being `without ties (muen) or masterless (mushu)` yet did organize themselves into collectives such as the `za` or `ya`. This was their equivalent of the joint organization that existed in rural areas. Also, on pg 53 he mentions that within Kyoto there were certain areas (ie, the riverbanks) that were under the control of the court affiliated `non levy` (検非違使庁) office, which meant that together with those areas directly administered by temples and shrines, both the poor and destitute could reside there without fear of prosecution for tithes. In both cases, these people would be considered to be in direct servitude to the temple or court, and were thus exempt from the burdens that applied to other commoners. It should be said, though, that this clemency was applied to those with some form of craft and who could exercise it for the benefit of the temple or court (such as `jinnin`). These people also lost their `freedom`, as they were tied to service either a temple or shrine as either `jinu` (寺奴) or `shinnu` (神奴), positions that Amino ascribes to the social class of `shokujin` (職人).
In terms of rural areas, Amino states that in the medieval period, the village would be represented by heads who were responsible for the collection and payment of tithes – this system evaporated by the early modern era, when the entire village would be liable for payment of tithes and would be taxed accordingly. He also points out (again on pg.53) that in the early medieval period, although the Court and Bakufu exercised completed rule over the east and west, this did not mean that they collected income from administration of cities, ports, or lodgings, or from tolls. Instead they managed a system in which the right of passage (通行許可証, or 過所 かしょ) would guarantee free license to operate a business and to pass along the roads. In time, the right to establish a toll gate (関所設定権) would appear in order to allow the collection of tolls. As artisans depended on upon free movement in order to practice their trade (which would then be used as profit for the court, shogunate, and temples/shrines), they demanded that they be given a special right of free access and be exempt from the taxes of other commoners, which was approved.
One further point made by Amino is on the meaning of ōyake (公). In its original context, it referred to a large meeting area or hall, yet was gradually expanded to cover a range of `public duties`, a point that was not lost on local landowners, who (as explained on pgs.47 and 48) saw the idea of `public obligations` as a means to solidify their control over commoner communities.
One interesting thing said about ikki on pg.55 is that the process itself depended on formulaic rituals (the drinking in Shinsui, for example), and those persons who put their name to a kishōmon and then participated in the ceremony of Ichimi Shinsui were essentially cutting off those ties that bound them to other organizations within society, ie master and servant, parent and child. Each member now stood as an individual, but decisions would be made according to the majority within the group. This in itself was a form of liberation for the commoner, for the ikki organization was born from a group of individuals who had become aware of their liberation from the `collective` (which in this sense meant societal ties. They chose to break their obligations by appealing to a higher power).
Amino also makes mention of artisans and craftsmen, who in the case of those living in and around the capital were protected by the authority of the court. They were originally thought of as being `without ties (muen) or masterless (mushu)` yet did organize themselves into collectives such as the `za` or `ya`. This was their equivalent of the joint organization that existed in rural areas. Also, on pg 53 he mentions that within Kyoto there were certain areas (ie, the riverbanks) that were under the control of the court affiliated `non levy` (検非違使庁) office, which meant that together with those areas directly administered by temples and shrines, both the poor and destitute could reside there without fear of prosecution for tithes. In both cases, these people would be considered to be in direct servitude to the temple or court, and were thus exempt from the burdens that applied to other commoners. It should be said, though, that this clemency was applied to those with some form of craft and who could exercise it for the benefit of the temple or court (such as `jinnin`). These people also lost their `freedom`, as they were tied to service either a temple or shrine as either `jinu` (寺奴) or `shinnu` (神奴), positions that Amino ascribes to the social class of `shokujin` (職人).
In terms of rural areas, Amino states that in the medieval period, the village would be represented by heads who were responsible for the collection and payment of tithes – this system evaporated by the early modern era, when the entire village would be liable for payment of tithes and would be taxed accordingly. He also points out (again on pg.53) that in the early medieval period, although the Court and Bakufu exercised completed rule over the east and west, this did not mean that they collected income from administration of cities, ports, or lodgings, or from tolls. Instead they managed a system in which the right of passage (通行許可証, or 過所 かしょ) would guarantee free license to operate a business and to pass along the roads. In time, the right to establish a toll gate (関所設定権) would appear in order to allow the collection of tolls. As artisans depended on upon free movement in order to practice their trade (which would then be used as profit for the court, shogunate, and temples/shrines), they demanded that they be given a special right of free access and be exempt from the taxes of other commoners, which was approved.
One further point made by Amino is on the meaning of ōyake (公). In its original context, it referred to a large meeting area or hall, yet was gradually expanded to cover a range of `public duties`, a point that was not lost on local landowners, who (as explained on pgs.47 and 48) saw the idea of `public obligations` as a means to solidify their control over commoner communities.
RSS Feed