(The following translation is taken from Owada Tetsuo’s “Mōri Motonari – The strategy and tactics of a master general”, published by Mikasa Shobō in 2013. The book is a general introduction to the character of Mōri Motonari, considered one of the most influential rulers during the era of the Warring States and who had a profound impact on those daimyō and jitō families located in Aki and Nagato provinces (what would eventually be known as Chōshū).  The extract below, from the introduction to the book, is an exploration of the genealogy of the Mōri and how they came to occupy the lands from which they would earn their fame. The numbers in parenthesis after paragraphs refers to the location of the information in the Kindle version of the book). 
 
Chapter One
 
Motonari in his youth, and the limits of endurance
 
Birth of the Mōri clan - the founding period of the Kamakura Bakufu
 
The Mōri clan traces its origins to Ōe Hiromoto, a retainer of merit who emerged during the formative period of the Kamakura Bakufu. Following receipt of an invitation extended by Minamoto no Yoritomo, Ōe travelled from Kyoto to Kamakura in the 1st year of Ganreki (1184). He was appointed as the head of the Kumonjō (which later became known as the Mandokoro, in other words the centre for the administration of the Bakufu), and served as an aide to Yoritomo, later being assigned to positions such as shugo and jitō (both of which in the Kamakura era referred to retainers granted estates originally belonging to aristocratic families, and overseers of those estates). 
 
Such was the value of Ōe’s service that he was granted the territory of Mōri-no-shō (毛利荘) in Sagami province, Shimazue-no-shō (島末荘) in Suō province (now known as Tōwa-chō, in Ōshima-gun, Yamaguchi Prefecture), Yamamoto-no-shō (山本荘) in Higo province (Uekimachi, Kamoto-gun, Kumamoto Prefecture, now part of Kumamoto City), and Kuruma-no-shō (栗真荘) in Ise province (now Shiroko, Suzuka City, Mie Prefecture). 
 
The Ōe clan had served generations of emperors as imperial tutors (jidoku), fulfilling their role at court as instructors in letters and literature in the same manner as the Sugawara clan.  Yet it was Hiromoto’s generation who first underwent the transition from ‘tutor’ to ‘retainer’.  Hiromoto had six sons and five daughters. His eldest son, Chikahiro, was adopted into the household of Kuga Michichika, Minister of the Interior (naidaijin), while his second son Tokihiro and third son Masahiro adopted the surnames of the Nagai clan and Nawa clan respectively. His fourth son, Suemitsu, took the surname Mōri, while his fifth son Tadanari took the surname Kaitō. His sixth son entered the priesthood. (Loc.303)  
 
So, the surname Mōri finally made an appearance. Its origins lay in the name of the Mōri-no-shō (毛利荘) in Sagami province, bestowed by Ōe Hiromoto upon his family. In other words, as a consequence of the division of inheritance among Hiromoto’s various offspring, the fourth son of the family, Suemitsu, took up residence in the above area and adopted the shōen’s name as his own. (Loc.334)
 
The Mōri-no-shō from which the Mōri clan took its name is believed to extend from the northern part of Atsugi City in Kanagawa Prefecture, all the way through to the southwest of Aikawa-machi in Aikō-gun in the same prefecture.   It is important to note, however, that one shouldn’t read the name ‘Mōri-no-shō’ with the lengthened vowel, but should instead read it as ‘Mori-no-shō’. This is because in some documents from the period, the character for ‘woods’ (森, mori) is used (thereby giving an indication of how the title was pronounced).
 
No historical documents survive that explain when the Mori-no-shō was founded,  however in the “Sonbi Bunmyaku” and volume three of the “Heiji Monogatari”,  there is a record that the Mori-no-shō in Sagami province was ruled by Minamoto no Yoshitaka, the younger brother of Minamoto no Tameyoshi. We know that Yoshitaka was referred to as the ‘ruler of Mori’, and so it appears that the it had been established as a shōen around the end of the Heian period. (Loc. 334)
 
Minamoto no Yoritomo is entertained at Mori-no-shō
 
Furthermore, it appears that there was another lineage who bore the name Mōri separate to that of Mōri Suemitsu at Mori-no-shō.  The existence of a warrior retainer who went by the name of Mōri Kageyuki has been confirmed, who lived from the late Heian to the early Kamakura periods.  It’s been hypothesized that this individual might have belonged to one of the pioneer families that developed the region (Loc.334), however this theory is scant on details.  Mōri Kageyuki appears to have been affiliated with the army that Minamoto no Yoritomo took with him to attack the Taira at the Battle of Ishibashi-yama. (Loc.353)
 
The entry in the “Azuma-kagami” marked for the 18th day of the 1st month of the 1st year of Yōwa (1181) states that “At Mori-no-shō in Sagami province there is a tale a monk who resided there and went by the name of Inkei”. This makes it clear that a monk known as Inkei lived at the shōen, and is believed to have been a member of the family of Mōri Kageyuki mentioned earlier. The use of the title “Mori-no-shō” in this manner also reveals that it had already been established by the time the entry was made. (Loc.353)
 
As we continue to read the “Azuma-kagami”, we learn that the Mori-no-shō was divided into an upper and lower half.  For example, when we examine the entry for the 8th day of the 8th month of the 5th year of Genkyū (1194), it reads “it is said that Inaba Zenji…received guests in lower Mori-no-shō”. In other words, what this tells us is that Inaba Zenji, otherwise known as Ōe Hiromoto, played host to Minamoto no Yoritomo.  The same entry records that on that day, Yoritomo made a pilgrimage to Hinata Yakushi. While on the way there, he dropped by the residence of Ōe Hiromoto in lower Mori-no-shō and received Ōe’s hospitality.
 
Now, even though it is said that the shōen had been divided into upper and lower sections, there is no mention in either any literature or records, starting with the “Azuma-kagami”, of an upper Mori-no-shō. Also, it is said that the remains of Mōri Suemitsu’s residence are located at Iiyama in Atsugi City, which would put it in the middle of Mori-no-shō. (Loc.353)
 
Were the Mōri descended from the Imperial family?
 
Although Mōri Suemitsu became a member of the Council of State (hyōjōshū) from the 1st year of Tenpuku (1233), before this time, in the period from the 6th year of Kenpo (1218) to the 3rd year of Shōkyū (1221), he became a member of the priesthood at Chōrakuji after meeting Ryūkan (a renowned priest of the late Heian – early Kamakura period), adopting the priestly name of ‘Saia’.  In the 1st month of the 1st year of Hōji (1247), the same year as the Battle of Hōji (which will be discussed later), an inscription was made on the base of a statue of Prince Shōtoku kept by the temple of Tenshūji (located in modern Gyōda City in Saitama Prefecture). The inscription reads “Offered by the venerable Saia”. This is the same ‘Saia’ as referred to above, - i.e., Mōri Suemitsu. (Loc.378)
 
Furthermore, Ryūkan was invited to the Mōri estate belonging to Suemitsu and spent his final years there, passing away at Iiyama on the Mōri estate.  The remains of that residence became the foundation for the temple of Kōfukuji at Iiyama. As such, we can suppose that Iiyama in Atsugi City served as the site for Mōri Suemitsu’s residence. (Loc.378)
 
While we have revealed most of the details of the origins of the Mōri clan, one further point remains to be clarified.  That concerns what came before the appearance of Ōe Hiromoto (Loc.378). 
 
When we examine the Mōri clan genealogy, we find that it claims Ame-no-hohi-mikoto (a god of Japanese mythology) as its founder. Part way through this genealogy, after claiming descent from Nomi-no-Sukune (regarded as the father of Sumo wrestling) and Ōe no Otondo (a courtier and Confucian scholar of the Heian period), it arrives at the famous Ōe Masafusa (a famed poet, scholar, and tutor to emperors Shirakawa, Horikawa and Toba). Hiromoto is allocated the position of grandson of Masafusa. (Loc.404)
 
However, the “Genealogy of the Ōe clan” in the 7th volume of the “Zoku Gunsho Ruijū” claims that the Emperor Heizei founded the family, thus confirming a clear difference with other theories. In truth, even the genealogy that Mōri Motonari himself wrote had notes of caution, stating “the grandchild of Emperor Heizei was the son of Prince Abo Shinnō” and that “25 generations have passed from Emperor Heizei to Motonari”. In other words, the Mōri had become separated from the Imperial family. However, if we pursue the theory that the line of the descent came from the Emperor Heizei, then the explanation for the clan name Ōe vanishes into thin air.
 
In the 1st year of Meiji (1868), scholars Kondō Yoshiki and Kondō Kiyoshi made a submission to the Mōri clan, which determined that Ame-no-hohi-mikoto was the founder of the family, thereby giving it a divine genealogy.  Despite this, the theory of descent from Abo Shinnō could not be dismissed, leading to a division of usage which established that ‘the lineage comes from the gods, while the bloodline comes from the Emperor.” (Loc. 404)
 
The Mōri enter Yoshida-no-shō in Aki province

So how was it that a noble family like the Mōri, that grew and developed in the Kantō region, came to plant themselves in Aki province (in the far west of Japan)? One of the main reasons is thought to have been the “Battle of Hōji” that broke out in the 1st year of Hōji (1247). According to records, a leading figure within the Kamakura Bakufu, Miura Yasumura, got into an argument with the Shikken Hōjō Tokiyori, thereby transforming Kamakura into a battleground.  Miura was defeated, and the conflict was later regarded as the catalyst for the monopoly that the Hōjō would hold over the office of Shikken. (Loc. 420)
 
At the time, the household of the Mōri was under the control of Suemitsu.  Suemitsu’s wife was the daughter of Miura Yoshimura, aka Yasumura’s younger sister. This particular point would prove crucial in what was to follow.
 
When he learned that Yasumura was engaged in conflict against Hōjō Tokiyori, Suemitsu joined Yasumura’s army without hesitation. Nevertheless, at the battle on the 4th of the 6th month, Suemitsu was beaten and fled to the sanctuary of the temple of Hokedō (法華堂). In the aftermath of the battle, Suemitsu’s eldest son, Hiromitsu, his second son Mitsumasa (also styled Jirō Kurabito Nyūdō), and his third son, Yasumitsu were all forced to commit ritual suicide.
 
Suemitsu had one son left by the name of Tsunemitsu. At the time of the Battle of Hōji, he was in residence at Sakyo (Sahashi)-no-shō in Echigo province (Kariwa-gun, Niigata Prefecture), and so had nothing to do with Yasumura’s uprising. Hōjō Tokiyori chose not to exact revenge on him, and so settled for appointing him as the steward (jitō) to Yoshida-no-shō in Aki province. However Mori-no-shō was still confiscated by Tokiyori.
 
Ordinarily, because of his involvement in Yasumura’s revolt, all of Suemitsu’s property and holdings would have been seized by the Shikken. Possibly out of a sense of guilt for having eliminated so many influential retainers on his own side, the punishment due for Tsunemitsu was set aside by Tokiyori. In the end, this decision ensured the continuation of the Mōri clan. (Loc.420)    
 
Unfortunately there is no information available that tells us when and under what circumstances Suemitsu was granted either Sahashi-no-shō in Echigo and Yoshida-no-shō in Aki.  It may be that in relation to Sahashi-no-shō, this was inherited from Hiromoto, however as for Yoshida-no-shō, it may have been given as a reward for Suemitsu’s involvement in the Jōkyū War.  At any rate, Tsunemitsu later divided Sahashi-no-shō into its northern and southern parts, with everything south of the Nagatori River becoming Minami-jō shō, and everything north of the same river becoming Kita-jō shō. (Loc.439) The division of property by inheritance continued under Tsunemitsu, with his eldest son Motochika inheriting the property of Kita-jō shō, while his fourth son Tokichika inherited Minami-jō shō. Indeed, Tokichika managed to gain possession of both Minami-jō shō and Yoshida-no-shō. This occurred around the 15th day of the 7th month of the 7th year of Bunei (1270).  (Loc.439)   
 
Having inherited both properties, Tokichika found himself appointed as a member of the Hyōteishū, one of the highest councils of the Kamakura Bakufu located at Rokuhara in Kyoto.  In order to pay for his upkeep while resident in the capital, the Bakufu granted Tokichika the property of Kagata (加賀田) in Kawachi province (now part of Kawachi-Nagano City in Osaka Prefecture).  Minami-jō shō had a production rate of 2000 kan, while Yoshida-no-shō produced 1000 kan.  Kagata added another 200 kan to this. In the 4th year of Einin (1296), Yoshida-no-shō was divided up, with the southern part at Toyoshima and Takehara going to a resident pioneer family (the Kazanin), while the northern half of Yoshida and Asahara remained under the control of the jitō (the Mōri themselves).
 
Tokichika bore witness to many pivotal events in Japanese history, from the downfall of the Kamakura Bakufu, the establishment of the Kenmu Imperial government, through to the founding of the Muromachi Bakufu by Ashikaga Takauji. He eventually gave Kagata to his eldest son Sadachika, while Minami-jō shō was divided up between his second son Chikamoto (who subsequently gave it to his son Iechika), as well as his third son Hiroaki and Sadachika’s son Chikahira. Tokichika himself also placed the son of Chikahira, Motoharu, in residence at Yamada village in Yoshida-gō, which was part of Yoshida-no-shō (now part of Kamiobara, Kōda-chō, Hiroshima Prefecture). All this took place in the 7th month of the 1st year of Engen (1336), immediately after the defeat of Kusonoki Masashige by Ashikaga Takauji at the battle of Minato-gawa (Minato River). (Loc.462)    
 
Tokichika retained overall control of Yoshida-no-shō, which consisted of 4 gō (sub-divisions) named Yoshida-gō, Asahara-gō, Toyoshima-gō, and Takehara-gō.  His main residence (or fortress) was not at Kōriyama (which would later become the seat of power for the Mōri) but instead was located at the peak of Tōnanroku, to the south-east of Kōriyama. The Mōri at the time focused their attention on Yoshida-no-shō, and endeavoured to unite its scattered parts under one rule. (Loc.262)

History, as an old axiom goes, it written by the victors. Through either good fortune, careful planning, meticulous execution (in all meanings of that word) or some other advantage, certain persons are destined to be remembered for their merits while others stand condemned for their sins. Yet the wheel of history sometimes turns in favour of the ‘wicked’, and on occasion reputations can be raised up from the mire of infamy and cast into the light of redemption. Japanese history is no exception to this trend, and recent scholarship has brought about a reinterpretation of the motives and methods used by certain historical individuals in pursuit of their interests. This blog has explored one of those figures, Akechi Mitsuhide, whose name was synonymous with ‘traitor’ for having rebelled against and ultimately caused the death of Oda Nobunaga (who himself might be regarded as a historical ‘villain’), yet many others come to mind – from Fujiwara no Kaneie, to Taira no Masakado, Taira no Kiyomori, Nichiren, Hōjō Masako, Hōjō Takatoki, Kō no Moronao, Ashikaga Takauji, Ashikaga Yoshimitsu, Ashikaga Yoshimasa (noticing a trend here?), Hino Tomiko, Saito Dōsan, Kennyo, Tokugawa Tsunayoshi, the list goes on.

The figures outlined above are notable for the fact that in some way or another they fought against and on occasion prevailed against the perceived wisdom and authority of their day, whether it be the Imperial court, other warrior houses, influential religions, or social mores. In insisting on their rights and views, they collided with other prominent historical figures of their day, and their misfortune was to be on the losing side when the historical record came to be written (or lost).
Take, for example, the case of Hino Tomiko.  Here was a woman born into an aristocratic family tied to the Ashikaga shōgunate, who was married to the 8th Ashikaga Shōgun Yoshimasa at the age of 16. In the early 1460s Tomiko gave birth to a number of girls, but was unable to have any sons. This state of affairs was obviously a concern for the continuation of the Ashikaga household, so much so that Yoshimasa’s brother, originally known by his Buddhist name Gijin (as he had taken the tonsure and retired from public life), was brought back from the monastery, given the name Ashikaga Yoshimi, and was expected to succeed Yoshimasa in the position of shōgun.

However fate can sometimes conspire to play cruel tricks on mere mortals. In 1465 Tomiko gave birth to a son, Yoshihisa, which set off a series of events that would eventually lead to the Ōnin War. You see, Yoshimi had a powerful supporter in the form of Hosokawa Katsumoto, who believed that Yoshimi’s claim to the position of shōgun superseded that of Yoshihisa and so Yoshimi should become the 9th Ashikaga shōgun and was prepared to back him in that claim.

Tomiko had other ideas, however. Having tried for years to have a son, and with one finally available, Tomiko declared that Yoshihisa, as the son of Yoshimasa, had more claim to the shōgunate than Yoshimi. In order to support her claim, she appealed to Hosokawa rival Yamana Sōzen as well as her own Hino aristocratic family. This led to a direct standoff between the Hosokawa and Yamana clans, which in turn branched out to affect relations between other warrior and aristocratic families not only in the capital but also in the provinces, leading in turn to an outbreak of violence between supporters of the Hosokawa and Yamana in Kyoto in 1465.   

This conflict, known as the Ōnin War, would last for approximately 11 years, during which much of Kyoto burnt to the ground, Katsumoto and Sōzen both died, and the power of the central aristocratic and military families waned as regional warlords rose to take their place. Tomiko would survive all of this, and would see Yoshihisa succeed as the 9th shōgun, albeit to a much weakened government and an unstable realm.  Nonetheless, in her capacity as the wife of one shōgun and the mother to another, for which she was normally referred to as the ‘Midai-dokoro’ (御台所), she wielded considerable power for a woman in an age when women were not expected to play a prominent role in political and societal affairs (it certainly helped that she may, or may not, have also been secretly corresponding with Emperor Go-Tsuchimikado and carrying on a relationship with him, thus increasing her authority among the organs of state in the capital).

This in part explains why Tomiko’s reputation underwent such a hammering by later generations of historical scholars. Other causes are related to the fact that in the aftermath of the Ōnin War, Tomiko, as the real source of authority, ordered the installation of toll gates at the seven entrances to Kyoto in order to collect funds for the rebuilding of the Imperial palace – the ‘Dairi’ (内裏) – as well as to celebrate the end of hostilities and the return of peace to the capital. It does appear, however, that the collection of tolls was used to increase Tomiko’s personal fortune, a situation that created resentment and resulted in 1480 in the outbreak of a tokusei ikki (a form of protest which demanded the forgiving of debts and other financial burdens) during which the toll gates were destroyed. Not to be thwarted, Tomiko ordered the toll gates to be re-established at the city entrances, thereby making her a target of anger from not only commoners but also members of the aristocracy.
For a state still recovering from the effects of war and famine, and given the precarious state of the Ashikaga shōgunate at this period in time, it does seem foolish of Tomiko to have provoked popular anger by imposing financial hardship on the residents of the capital (Tomiko was also linked to the decision by Yoshimasa to embark on the construction of the ‘Hana no Gosho’ (Ginkakuji) during the great famine of Chōroku-Kanshō from 1459 to 1461, a move for which Yoshimasa was harshly criticized and admonished by Emperor Go-Hanazono).   On the other hand, the Imperial palace was restored, although it would be another 30 years before any festivals were held in the capital.

It does seem that historical memory has conspired to ensure that Hino Tomiko’s memory remains forever tied to villainy, for her selfishness, her greed, and her indifference to the suffering of the people. Yet for around 40 years she managed to thrive in a society in a state of chaos, at the focal point of political and military power, dominating the shōgunate in a manner never to be repeated by any of the male successors to that position. Her rapacious nature may have been one born of necessity, given that the relative power of the shōgunate was waning in the face of challenges from other military houses which forced her to be ruthless. Yet she was loyal to those who served her interests, and her fortune enabled the Ashikaga shōgunate to continue into the sixteenth century until its eventual demise in the 1570-80s.  As stated at the outset, history is written by the victors, and Tomiko’s misfortune was to be a powerful woman in an era where the instruments of state, overwhelmingly dominated by men, were falling apart. Her like would not be seen again until the emergence of Yodo-dono (also known as Cha-cha, concubine of Toyotomi Hideyoshi, and mother of Toyotomi Hideyori) in the late sixteenth century, whose reputation would be the subject of slander in the same manner as Tomiko.  

This particular post has been a long time coming. Sure, I could keep trying to update it on a week to week basis, but with little to say that other blogs, particularly blogs that are able to comment on events as they happen, have already explained in detail, to follow these up seems a little redundant. So at the risk of losing followers, I am going back to what I started this blog for in the first place, as a outlet for my observations of pre-modern Japan and its various unique traditions. As part of that process, I am once again looking at Shimizu Katsuyuki`s 「大飢饉、室町社会を襲う！」, which I introduced in a previous blog post.  This book examines the effects of natural and other disasters on people of the Muromachi period, and how they responded to such dangers and calamities. The particular translation included below comes from the final chapter, that dealing with the coming of Spring, which for the people of the era was a period of hardship before Summer brought with it the promise of more produce. As it was in Europe so was it in Japan. With the passing of Winter all of the food stocks remaining in villages across the nation would have been exhausted, and thus a number of weeks had to be endured with little to nothing to eat, thus bringing on a ravenous, desperate level of hunger that could not be satiated.
 
The climax of the great famine
 
Many people of the Middle Ages period died with the coming of Spring. Tamura Noriyoshi shed light on this phenomenon using the Kakochō records (this was a book that recorded the year, month, and day of death, along with the posthumous name of the deceased)  of the Nichiren-sect affiliated Hondoji located in Matsudo City in Chiba Prefecture. According to Tamura, for those people of the Middle Ages who weren`t able to harvest enough produce during Autumn, they would engage in planting, suppress their appetite, and try to stay alive until the following year. Yet unable to wait until the wheat harvest at the beginning of Summer, when Spring came these people began to die one by one.  During the Middle Ages period, even if a famine was not in progress, in the period between the harvesting of rice (in Autumn) and the harvesting of wheat (at the beginning of Summer) there were an extraordinarily large number of deaths stemming from either starvation or else from disease that often accompanied the weakening of the immune system from malnutrition. The Middle Ages certainly played host to cruel famines (p.170)    
 
As we see from the origins of the great famine of the Ōei period, the real tragedy did not start following the harvest season, but began in the Spring of Ōei 28 (1421). The `Yearly Record of Eikōji` of Noto province noted in Ōei 27 that the region had suffered from a `great drought`, and recorded in the following year that `many have died of starvation`. At the estate of Fushimi in the same year, it was recorded on the fifteenth day of the first month (under the modern calendar the 26th day of February) that the scale of the estate`s traditional procession (in which a number of residents of the estate ordinarily dressed up in costumes and took part in a procession) was smaller than usual.  The reason given was that `in this year a famine throughout the realm robbed the people of their strength`. In the 2nd month, rather than lacking in strength it seems a number of people appeared who were suffering from illnesses.  On the evening of the 30th of the 2nd month (the 11th of April), a fire suddenly broke out in the house belonging to one of the shrine maidens of Go Gōnomiya, the guardian of Fushimi estate. Embers from the fire intermingled with acrid black smoke that rose up into the air (pg.170-171)
 
At the time, there were a lot of ill people within the village of Ishii on the Fushimi estate. Sadanari (the author of the Fushimi estate diary) saw this thick, black smoke accumulate over the village of Ishii, and concluded in his diary that the `fire wagon` of hell, used to transport the dead to the underworld, was making a stop at Ishii. (pg.171)  On the 10th of the 3rd month (the 21st of April), the residents of the Fushimi estate petitioned Sadanari to postpone the `Sarugaku` entertainments of Go Gōnomiya, which would normally take place in Spring, until Autumn. The reason given was that there was `a great famine in the realm`. Indeed, within the estate a large number of residents had already `looked towards Shuyō` (meaning they had died from starvation), and so those that were left did not have enough revenue to be able to afford a professional `Sarugaku` performer to take part in proceedings (up until now, most historians have interpreted the phrase 「首陽に赴く」as meaning that people `headed towards Kyoto`, yet the phrase is an idiom whose origins lie in the incidents at Shuyōzan in China, which meant `death from starvation`).(pg.172)
 
On the 24th of the 3rd month (the 5th of May), one of the shrine officials at Go Gōnomiya came down with a fever from a virulent disease. A rumour soon spread that this was `divine judgment` for postponing the Sarugaku activities indefinitely. The people of the estate, rendered speechless by the suddenness of this `divine judgment`, quickly assembled for a meeting in front of the shrine of Go Gōnomiya. (pg.172) As a result of this meeting, a decision was made to not to wait until Autumn and have the Sarugaku performed on the 10th day of the 4th month (the 19th of May).  This particular episode demonstrates just how much confusion the people at the time experienced, and how their lives were disrupted by the arrival of a natural disaster.  Until the wheat was harvested at the beginning of Summer the people of the time had to try to survive the Spring as best they could. It was something that everyone of the time had to go through.  And so the great famine headed towards its climax. (pg.172)   

一向一揆の構造を研究のテーマとして取り扱うつもりの場合には、学者の前にはかなり難題が待ち受けている。表向きに一向一揆は十四世紀の土一揆の後継者として認められるにもかかわらず、宗教的な動機を一揆の原因として紹介する場合には、これは一揆の根本的な構造を変更し、一向一揆の蜂起に関する動機の研究をあと少し複雑にさせると言わざるを得ない。

しかも、土一揆に係わる研究と違って、下級の参加者の身分制をはっきり見分けられてから、宗教や精神的な動機も研究の作業に織り込まなければいけない。つまり、一向一揆の研究は各一揆の特徴を分析し、それは他の一揆の構造と言動とどういうふうに似ていたか、どういうふうに地元の社会に取り組まれたか、そして地域には一向宗と真宗思想はどんな形成を取ったのか、それでこの宗教的な影響は以前の一揆と後期の地元の一揆に対する構想をどう変っていたのか。この質問と共に中世時代の流動的な社会構造と絶え間なく変っている身分制を歴史的な要素として研究に加えたら、明らかに一向一揆の構造に勤めた人物（特に下級の門徒員）を明確にする過程は極めて難しい[1]。

その例文の一つとして、「地侍」の概念とこれに関する歴史的な思想を取り上げてみたい。各中世社会と一向宗に関する書類には、「地侍」という名称は定期的に出ていることがあるが、地域と当時の状況によって「地侍」と名付けられた者の形が随分異なる。辞書の「地侍」に関する定義によると、そう呼ばれた下級的な侍身分を持っていた者は「幕府や守護などの家臣として組織された武士ではなく、在郷土着して郷村内に勢力をもつ武士をいう」[2]、または「室町中期以降、彼らは用水管理・得分取得の保証など、連合して郷村の実質的支配権を握り、小領主化していく者が多かった」[3]という。稲葉継陽氏が指摘したように、十五世紀から現れた下層の武士は元々「凡下」の身分を持っていて、主に百姓として村落の経営を担当していたが、十五世紀の移行期と共に変更している社会状況は新たな身分制度を要求していた。その対策として既成武士団が荘園に勤めている村落の上層部から人材を利用し、この者に名字を付けて表向きに「侍」という身分を取ったが、こういう進行は主に主従関係を構造するためなので、被官関係にてこの「侍」はまだ半分百姓であり、文書には「侍分」として呼ばれることがほとんどなかった[4]。

 史料などを探る結果として中世時代から出る「地侍」は確かに歴史学上の厳密な形態を持たず、状況次第にて種々の形態に変更していたと分かるようになった。およそ百年以上の一向一揆の歴史を追いかけそうであっても、めったに上記の「地侍」に関する例が出てこない。そして、その出る場合には人格と役割はそんなに異なっているほど、同じ身分の者であるかどうかを正直窺わざるを得ない。現在まで読んだ資料の中には「侍分」の者は村落にも現れたが、自分の役割にて本当に門徒の指導者として行動していたか、それとも村落の外部関係にて活動していたかどうかははっきり判断できない。この現状を見て考えてみれば、「地侍」という概念の未決定的な部分によって、その名称の代わりにもっとはっきり定義済みの人物の概念を探った方がよいではないだろうか。もしそうであれば、二つの選択性として「土豪」と笠原一男氏が主張した「乙名」の概念を利用し、そしてこれは村落にどんな影響を与えたのかということについて分析してみたい。

先ず、「土豪」と呼ばれる人物は歴史学には「地侍」よりもっと根強く認められているし、しかも「土豪」の特性は「地侍」と酷似していることによって、両方の概念を同じ現象を描写する傾向が結構多い。峰岸純夫氏が指摘していただいたように、「土豪」は「農奴主的地主」として中世の前期には荘園の直営田経営を在地領主と領主のために担当したり、中世の後期から生産力発展によって生じた土地売買の盛行、「地主―小作関係成立の一般的動向を背景として次第に一般百姓とは土地所有者という面で同一性を持ち、支配権力からは「地下百姓」として年貢・公事を収奪される存在である。また土豪層の中には荘園の問丸・倉本などを兼帯し、流通の機能を掌握しているものもある」[5]。その上、「土豪」は必ず有力外部団体と支配組織との関連を持ち、「土地所有者という面で同一性を持ち、支配権力からは「地下百姓」として年貢・公事を収奪される存在である。また土豪層の中には荘園の問丸・倉本などを兼帯し、流通の機能を掌握しているものもある」[6]。この人格と比較して、「地侍」は歴史的に幕府や守護の組織には武士として含まれてないので[7]、庄園の支配組織の最下端の経営者として「土豪」はその庄園領主との間接的な主従関係に結ばれているからこそ、「土豪」を「地侍」として認められない[8]。ただ、自力救済の時代には武器持ちの農民は一般的な現象なので、｢地侍｣の流動的な意味を参考にしてから、「土豪」は「地侍」として村落の経営を担当したり、村の存続を務めていたという結論に着する[9]。

　ただ、もう一つの村落の構造に係わっている人物が残っている。笠原一男氏と他の六十年代の学者にとって一向一揆の動機は基本的に｢講｣という寄り合いにて決まっていて、その会議に活躍した「乙名」、または「年寄」の説得力と村落内の支配力によって門徒の指導者として十五世紀の一向一揆に付いた指導力の原因だったではないだろうかと[10]。確かに一見でみると、「乙名」は中世の惣村には用水管理・得分取得の保証に務めて、寄り合いと会合には村の出来事について決定権を持っていた。「乙名」は「土豪」とほとんど同じように、下級の荘官層にて中世前期には荘園の村落を経営して、そして内乱の深刻化につつあり「村落自体の発達した惣村における＜おとな＞衆は代表として惣村政を指導した」[11]。つまり、「乙名」は次第に土豪層の人格を取り組んで、大筋で「土豪」として活動するようになった。そう考えてみると、これはもっと論理的な結果である。村落の組織を指導するために、先ず指導者は外部関係との強い結びが必要で、しかも村落内には自らの田畠からの収穫とともに自分の経済的と政治的な立場を強めるように、被官として年貢の納集を果して、村落外内にも信頼関係を設定した[12]。ということで、「土豪」「乙名」の立場は本願寺派にとって重要な改宗させる目的であり、もしこの身分の村民が改宗できたら、後に村の全民は門徒化するという論理は一向宗の中世時代からの迅速な拡大の原因ではないだろうかと認めている。しかし、この経過を証明するためにまず本願寺派の宗教的な影響と社会的な立場を探ってから、本願寺からの宣言は地元にどういうふうに伝えたのか、そして伝えている人物はどんな身分制から現れて、具体的に門徒化に通じて地元の村落からどんな一向宗（後に一向一揆）の形成が出たのかをまた検索してみる。

１．本願寺派の未寺・寺と村落道場

本願寺派の地域組織には土豪、または乙名の真宗布教に対する姿勢が本願寺の急速的な発展に大きな貢献に与えたということは真宗史には常識として見られているが、十五世紀中の改宗過程と本願寺の改善と進行の影響にて、本願寺派の村落はどういうふうに現れたか、そして村落内には布教の効果としてどんな的な支配制度が力を振るうようになっただろうか。この状況をもう少し把握するために、先ず「土豪」（乙名）の組織的な立場と本願寺の布教方法も検討しなければいけない。先に見たように、「土豪」は村落の上層部には特権を握っていたり、名主化と惣村の発展と共に、条々に自分の田畑と水用に対する権利を拡大しつつあった。争乱の十五世紀には一つ（たまには唯一）の安定的な支配力は村落級の「土豪」の手に握っているし、社会の秩序の変更によって土豪は「古い宗教的権威や政治権力の世界を否定する念仏に解放の道を見出した」[13]。この世に登場した本願寺派の布教は門徒数の拡大のために村落の上層部に集中し、土豪には野心的な信者を見つけた後、本願寺派の布教に地元での有力的な同心者と共同するようになった。もっとも、このような解説は以前の一向宗の構造に対する説明と幾つかの点にて窺っているー特に笠原一男氏の「村下層からの改革」の仮説[14]。一般農民の改宗によって村落上層部がその傾向に対して戦うか、それとも自らも改宗かという意見より、おそらく村落、とくに惣村の上層部に集中して改宗させる方法は中世の社会的な秩序から見ると、もっと論理的で、結局上層部の協力にて本願寺派が以前より早く地元を通って普及した原因ではないかと考えられる（もっとも、これも地元の寺の影響と経済的な理由にも繋がっているが、その解説を後にする）。

土豪の改宗によって、条々に畿内と北陸の村落が本願寺派へ向き合ったとともに、現地にある本願寺派の寺が周辺にある村に未寺の関係を作り上げて、以前の荘園被官組織の代わりに新たな宗教団体に基づいた主従関係を利用するようになった。井上鋭夫氏が指したように、村落には本願寺派の「道場」が設立した場合には、その道場の経営者として村の内からの上層部員、特に安定的な職業を持ち、村の中心的な存在を持つ者を道場の「坊主」、または「毛坊主」や「有髪の僧」や「オ坊主サマ」になった[15]（その証拠として、近江金森には旧な土豪の屋敷は後に本願寺派の道場として利用されるようになって、それには土豪は判坊主として村落の経営を担当していた[16]。三河には道場は土豪の名前の下に登録されて、地元の講に係わる資料から、参加している人の多半数は名字を持って自分の道場と同じ名前にて文書を署名していた。この現象を越中の五ヶ山の資料にも見える）[17]。この職位の変化は村落には新たな展開を開けて、以前荘園の村々は守護の被官員に年貢や贈り物を落上した代わりに、その年の収穫の内一部を寄付物として本願寺に送って、残りの部品を村落内に保管した。これは経済的に村落の土豪にはもっと誘惑的な展開だが、本願寺派の地元のお寺に主従の関係に結ばれたから、不安定的な守護と守護代の権利から放して、地元にて自分の社会身分を保ちながら、村民の生前と生後の見込みをきちんと守ってあげることができた[18]。

土豪の半俗坊主の形にて惣村の形成に主導的な役割を果しながら、新たな村落の秩序にて他の上層部員から援助をいただいてから、封建制度の展開の始まりとして認められる。その展開の一面として道場と寺との関係を少し探ってみる。社会的な身分組織には地元のお寺とそれに勤めた坊主は旗本のような身分を持っていたということを「天文日記」から打ち明ける。天文十二年弐月一日には加賀州の坊主衆が六十二人の加賀長衆に談合をしていた。その寄り合いについて次の記録が残っていたー「諸坊主衆、為祝儀太刀又鳥目遺之」、さらに「加州長衆　旗本衆、又此類程なる衆にも遺之」[19]。そして、十九日には御栄堂にて能楽を見ながら、坊主衆は南側の空間に座った代わりに、六十人の旗本衆や長衆が北側に座っていたそうである。こう見ると、この坊主衆の身分は少なくても旗本の身分と一緒であり、つまり上層侍分であり、もしかして国人身分にも近い。どちらにしても、真宗の坊主衆は封建制度には上層武士や武家に結ばれていたと判断できる[20]。

真宗の寺々は各構成方法から建築されたが、主な寺は元々貴族であって、下部の未寺との主従関係を強く継続していた。この状況に基づいて、村落の道場坊主は地元の寺の上層部とのつながりによって自分の説得力を向上しながら、自分の社会的な立場も強めた。代官と地頭の代わりに地元の寺々、または本願寺からの裏書の部品をいただいた場合、道場には真宗本願寺派に忠義を見せながら、阿弥陀如来への信仰を確かめることができた[21]。そのような宗教と社会的な迫力を手に持っている道場の坊主にとって、旧公家と守護の組織の代わりにこの寺との密接な関係は新たな秩序を作って、旧な制度（社会的と宗教的）への忠義を破ってしまった。そして、判土豪・判坊主の人格にて、その道場の経営者はかなりねたましい立場を持っていた。しかも、地元の寺とのつながりに通じて、以前よりこの土豪たちが新たな秩序により経済的な発展を期待していた[22]。

　この展開について、高島幸次氏が次の意見を披露したー「寺社は地域に根ざした存在へと変質し、「地方寺社」として成立するというのである。この「地方寺社」の規定について、「その経済力は土豪・地侍層に比べ圧倒的に大きく、総体として地域社会に君臨する「領主」である」。その地域社会には、変更している主従関係の中にて、それで高島氏が指摘してくれたように、「未知数の統一政権による新秩序編成などは期待されるはずもなく、現実には、村堂・村社の地域祭祝であっても、惣村秩序の要となることを期待され、「地方寺社」なら、より一層、広い地域社会の新秩序の中心となるべき期待が集まり、その結果、「地方寺院」降盛の時期を迎えたのである。「惣道場」の建立も、蓮如の布教に応えるものであるとともに、新たな地域秩序編成の時代的要請に応えることでもあったとの視点が重要である」[23]。つまり、新たな地域秩序の設定と共に、「地方寺社」が自らの有力的な経済力と社会立場に通じて地域の武家と公家の権利をライバルとして現れて、寺々の布教力にて周辺の村落との主従関係を結んで、徐々に宗教に基づいた政治力を世の沙汰に普及しはじめた。この展開とともに、道場を経営している土豪にとって新たな社会的な役割に村落の経済的な継続を保証しながら、寺社と本願寺派の組織の一部としてもっと広大な団体と結ばれて、これにて村落以上のいままでの形式を一気に乗り越えた。

　ただ、もし新たな秩序が設定される場合には、それはどういうふうに物理的発現されただろうか。上記の例文とともに、蓮如上人の御文を取り上げてみたい。

２．御文の目的、理念、と地元の反応

吉崎の滞在期中発行した御文には蓮如の門徒に対する欲求不満は文書の中に条々に出ているということは一向一揆研究界にてよく知られているが、もう一つの研究のテーマとしては御文と他の資料に通じてどの程度まで寺社（特に北陸の本願寺派のお寺）の僧侶と村落の道場の「オ坊主サマ」が本願寺派の門徒を刺激させて、当地の領主者に対して抗議を行なったかということである。蓮如の吉崎の滞在期と後の難波の時期にも、掟の御文には地元の大法に従い、他宗派に対して侮辱の言動をしない、ちゃんと地頭や守護には年貢を払い、本願寺派の根本的な秩序を守れと蓮如が何回もいさめたが、効果がめったに現れなかったといえる。蓮如の血筋と影響力はいわれた通り輝しければ、なぜ加賀（とくに加賀）の門徒はこれに従わず、勝手に当時の支配制度に対して抵抗したんだろうか。御文の内容と一代記聞書を分析した上、各数の文書には現地の僧侶に対する批判が挙がっていて、ここに一向一揆の指導構造が設立されたと考えるようになっている[24]。先ず、当時の寺々は経済的で社会的に強い影響力を持ち、僧侶の国人ぐらいの身分によって、周辺の村落に対して（特に道場を持っていた村落）極めて大きな説得力を持っていた[25]。十五世紀の内争と中央政府の権力の崩壊とともに、既存の宗教派に対して批判をして領主の弱体を指摘することは本願寺寺社の影響力を拡大するような機会として見られて、数年間の内に布教に通じて本願寺派の地元での支配組織が設立されて、押領や公家、または武家などに対する抗議は中央支配からの解放の初の進歩であった。

　その上、神田千里氏が指摘していただいたように、中世の寺社は武士との密接な関係を持ち、よく一揆が蜂起された場合、帰依した武士の寺社は大きな役割を果たしていた。神田氏にようと「寺院を中核として形成された武士たちの一揆が十四世紀から十六世紀にかけて散見されることが注目される。南北朝期の観応元年（1350）八月、伊予国の越智氏を名乗る武士たち三十五名が、大通寺と宗昌寺の規式を定めている（宗昌寺文書）「当寺は、始めより方丈に寄進し奉り候上は、諸事につき、未代たるといへども、方丈御計らひを違背申すべきからず、ともかくも当寺旦那方より子細を申すべからず」[26]との第一条にはじまる。連署起請文の形式で書かれたこの規式は、越智氏を名乗る「旦那」の武士たちによる一揆契約によって作成されたものである」。それとともに「武士たちの一揆が結成される際、彼らの帰依する寺院がその中核となることは、中世後期には珍しくない現象であるということにな（る）」[27]。

　加賀（または越中と越前）の寺々は現地の有力な武士（被官）を改宗させたり、同盟を結んでいる間、門徒の悪質な傾向を抑えようとするように、蓮如が「掟」御文に通じて本願寺組織内の重要者に対して門徒から期待している秩序を伝えようとした[28]。その人物の特徴はまだ村落に滞在しているし、改宗と身分変換によって既在地領主との結付きをもってないし、上層部の一員として村落の宗教的な場面を担当していて、他の上層員に対して影響力を持っていた「オ坊主サマ」、つまり道場の判武士（土豪出身）、判僧侶の者であった。「掟」の御文にはどうしても定めなければいけない条件が明確に書いてあって、特に宗教的な行動にも注意点が中心になっていた。

掟の御文の研究の中には特に興味深いところの一つは御文の対象者。唯一の漢文御文以外、ほとんどの御文はカタカナと一般的な漢字にて作成されて、明らかに村落の道場の経営者に対象されていた。その経営者は少なくても宗教的な訓練を受けて、字ぐらいが読めた人物であったので、もし御文の相手は上の身分を持てば、そんなはっきりした文書を書く理由がないと窺える。ただ、蓮如と本願寺の秩序に従うより、現地の状況を見て自分の村落にどの手段が必要なのかを思考した道場の判坊主は少なくない。御文を道場で議論しても、もしそれは惣村の経済的と政治的な計画に合わない場合には、御文の内容は単に無視された。このような行動はまた「講」と呼ばれる本願寺派の組織的な習慣にて裏付けられた。

　笠原一男氏が示したように、本願寺の｢講｣は目的と長さによって変わっていたが、基本的に「講」は門徒に伝える「寄合」である。｢講｣に収集された門徒は地域の道場から来られて、地元の寺々には宗教的な議論を行なうはずであったが、主な内容は政治的な問題に触れた。「講」は周辺の各村落から上層部員、特に「オ坊主サマ」に結成されて、趣に「信案」を議論するはずだったが、普段の「講」は地域の政治的な状況を討論するような機会として利用された[29]。その上、「講」で議論された宗教的な場面も必ずしも本願寺に主張された論理と同じく受け取ったかぎりではなかった。蓮如がよく強調したように、吉崎に集めた門徒の中には「異教」を抱いている者もいて、その影響にて門徒は不正な布教をうけている。おそらくこの傾向が地元の宗教的な習慣と村落内の活動に現れた特徴であり、間違っているというより、阿弥陀如来に忠実な信仰を見せるために他宗を貶したり、寄付を坊主に払ったり、つまり自力の行動に頼っているのは常識であると思われていたので、その信仰を薦めていたのは道場の「オ坊主サマ」、または地元の寺々であった。その信仰は旧寺社領主（つまり、公家、守護、と既存宗派―天台宗、真言宗、禅宗）へのつながりを破って、しかも地元の道場やお寺に新たな収入の源流を作る上に、道場の「オ坊主サマ」は地元のお寺との縁を持って、周辺の宗教的で社会的に有力な領主との主従関係に結ばれていることが証明できるようになった。

　「講」は従来一向一揆の基盤として認められたようであれば、「組」も「各村々の門徒講を基礎にもつ地域的結合であり、一向衆はこの組と講をもつことによって郡・郷・村を制圧し、広範な郷民蜂起を可能にした」[30]。ただし、藤木久志氏は最近｢講｣の従来の役割と幅を窺うようになって、一向門徒の一揆蜂起に対する影響も疑問として取り上げている。藤木先生によると、中世村落の講の範囲は以前の仮説が指摘したより大幅に大きい（その証明として御文に出る四日講と六日講を引用している）[31]。その上、｢講｣の組織は主に「道場坊主」と「坊主衆」へ向き、史料上には一般村落民より、坊主身分の者を対象にした組織のようであるという。しかも、また藤木氏が説明したように、「加賀では郡・組などの地域の一揆組織に支えられた存在であり、本願寺が自前の基盤として講を確立しえていたとはいいがたいからである」[32]。

もし本願寺派ではなく、地域自体が「講」の組織を以前より利用したら、それはどんな本来から現れただろうか。確かに「講」という概念は蓮如が吉崎に到着した後に文書に載っているし、基礎構想として「門徒化された土豪・地侍と農民からなる「村落結合（惣的結合）」に代わる「門徒惣中（講的結合）」ということだったが、このような現象は以前近江の「番」と「斎・非事」という飲食会にも映っていた[33]。この結合にて本願寺の基本的な理念は惣に伝えたが、また惣村の自治体の権利を再確認するために宗教的な習慣も含まれた（いわゆる「一味同心」と「一味神水」の式）。地域の展開によってこのような習慣が異なっていたが、北陸の村落には同じような惣的結合が行なわれて、地域の政治的な状況を確認しながら起請文の作成など宗教的な場面も利用したようである。

この中には蓮如が「講」を基本的な信心に関する公議として利用するつもりであったら、これはまるで両刃の剣であった。確かに「講」は本願寺派の思想を門徒の主導員に伝える機会であったが、そのような結合は歴史的に地元状況や政治に関する不満の場として使用されたことによって（そして、掟御文に現れるように）普段の会議、または「講」に参加している者は信仰より世間の用事に語る傾向があった。

　この「講」は地元のお寺にて行なわれたことも重要な意味を持っていた。上記の内容のように、地元の寺は国人のような身分を持ち、普段的に地域の国人家との密接な関係も持っていた。「講」には地元の政治状況が道場の支配者に伝えられたら、この土豪や半坊主は主従の影響にて寺の立場を取って、それを門徒にも伝えるはずであった。そして、道場にてこの状況は「講」にて教えた真宗の思想と混ぜられた結果として、蓮如が批判した「異教」のもう一つの原因になったではないだろうか。結局、「講」を理念的な道具として門徒に刺激させた主導員は世俗の土豪や地侍より、村落の道場の経営者（乙名、土豪）、または周辺の有力的な僧侶であったと窺える。

３．天災の影響

近年、峰岸純夫氏と藤木久志氏の研究の結果として中世時代の天災状況は一揆の原因として認められるようになって、災禍の十五世紀の背景には災いがどの程度まで社会の変更に責任を持っていたという疑問に対して、各集の意見や統計が浮かび上がっている。この中には面白い話題の一つは災害の村落に対する被害の影響である。災害、そしてそれを継続した飢饉は普段的に地元の鎮守といままで存続した秩序を混乱させて、ある身分の者（農家、塗屋、家具屋、衣服屋）にかなり強く打った[34]。生き残るためにこのような被害者はよく自分の土地を地元の寺に売買し、それによって寺の村落に対する影響力が拡大し、地元の支配力も膨大した。例文として、出雲州の中家文書をさし上げてみる。十五世紀から中家氏は熊取庄の中心的な支配者（土豪身分）として近隣の庄園から土地を獲得しつつあった。支配拡大の作戦として自らの家から親戚を寺（根来寺清心院）に出家して、それに通じて寺の領地も中家に結んだ。長享と寛正の飢饉によって小百姓は次々と土地を寺に売っていて、それで中家の支配力を増やしながら旧な村落構造を崩壊して新たな地元の規制を誕生したといえる[35]。もっとも、これは十六世紀の前半に行なわれて、北陸には同じような現象があったかどうかは現在あまり明確ではないが、飢饉の年と寺の記録を分析してみれば、もし門徒の村落が土地を地元の寺にも販売したら、これは寺の支配力にはどんな影響をもたらしただろうか。しかも、もしこの傾向は普段的であったら、それは一向衆の信仰にはどの効果があっただろうかというところをもう一つの研究点として追求してみたい。

４．真宗の心理と一揆

この話題は主に金龍静氏の研究に基づいているが、中世一揆の理論史の中には一向一揆をどの基準によって判断できるかということについて、幾つかの意見を持っている。先ず、蓮如の教説には、概念はよく個人の「心の安泰」を求めて、あまり地元の宗教的勧農機能への言い及ばなかったし、しかも「国家や権力の安泰を願ったり、庇護を求めて特定の権力により寄ることはなく、乱世の克服のための政治的・精神的な処分箋も提示していない」[36]ということより、信仰は「一人なりとも信をとるべきならば、身命をすてよ」[37]。単刀直入にいうと、国家、権力の安泰、世の騒乱などについて心配せず、「命が助かる、助からないという現世利益的レベルの是非よりも、信を得て「仏」になるという教材の是非（「後生の一大事」）こそ重要という出張が（御文から）読み取れよう」[38]。この論理によって、おそらく身体や世俗の事は誠の信仰には関係なし。戦死、また侘しい死に合っても、それを怖がらず、阿弥陀如来の恩寵により必ず救われる。

このような進展は宗教史の中にはかなり重要な位置を持っているに違いない。「王法・仏法」に従う秩序より「信仰を武器として」への理念的な移動はなぜ本願寺派にて現れたのか。そして、前例として他の宗派は乱世の中には暴力はどのように正当化されただろうか。その展開を探りながら、長享の乱の前後の信仰性を明確にして、本願寺派に関する心理と一揆にある影響を分析してみる。


[1]石田善人、中世村落と仏教、思文閣史学叢書、東京、一九九六年、207

[2]日本史用語大辞典　（全２巻）I用語編、柏書房株式会社、東京、一九七八年、327

[3]上記同書、327

[4]稲葉継陽、戦国時代の荘園制と村落、校舎書房、東京、一九九八年、238

[5]峰岸純夫、「村落と土豪」、歴史学研究会、講座日本史・第３巻・封建社会の展開、東京大学出版会、東京、一九七○年、144-145

[6]上記同書

[7]日本史用語大辞典　（全２巻）I用語編、柏書房株式会社、東京、一九七八年、327

[8]峰岸純夫、上記同書、144-145

[9]坂田聡、榎原雅治、稲葉継陽、村の戦争と平和（日本の中世12）、中央公論新社、東京、二○○二年、217

[10]笠原一男、一向一揆の研究、山川出版社、東京、一九六三年、134

[11]高島幸次、「戦国期の近江と本願寺教団」、浄土真宗教学研究所、講座蓮如　第六巻、平凡社、東京、一九九八年、384

[12]峰岸純夫、上記同書、146

[13]千葉乗隆、真宗教団の組織と制度、同朋舎、東京、一九七八年、37

[14]笠原一男、上記同書、124-126

[15]井上鉄夫、一向一揆の研究、吉川弘文館、東京、一九六八年、231

[16]小島道裕、「平地城館趾と寺院・村落―近江の事例から―」、中世城郭研究論集（抜刷）、一九九○年五月、422-423

[17] 笠原一男、上記同書、575-577

[18] 高島幸次、上記同書、390-391

[19] 井上鋭夫、上記同書、208-209

[20] 上記同書、218-219

[21]上記同書、218

[22]千葉乗隆、上記同書、37。金龍静　「戦国期一向衆教団の構造」、千葉乗隆（編）本願寺教団の展開、永田文昌堂、京都、一九九五年、135

[23]高島幸次、上記同書、390-391

[24]笠原一男、井上鋭夫、蓮如一向一揆、日本思想大系17、岩波書店、東京、一九七二年、38-39, 48-50

[25]横尾國和、「本願寺の坊官下間氏」、峰岸純夫編集）、戦国大名論集 13: 本願寺・一向一揆、吉川弘文館、一九八六年, 東京、50（脚注）

[26]神田千里、「寺院による武力行使」, 小野正敏、五味文彦、萩原三雄、中世寺院：暴力と景観、高志書院、東京、二○○七年、277

[27]上記同書

[28]特に笠原一男、井上鋭夫、上記同書、38-39, 48-50, 69-70

[29]笠原一男、一向一揆の研究、363

[30] 井上鋭夫、一向一揆の研究、502

[31]藤木久志、「一向一揆論」、梯　實圓、名畑　崇、峰岸純夫、蓮如大系第五巻　蓮如と一向一揆、法蔵館、京都、一九九六年、166

[32] 上記同書

[33] 高島幸次、上記同書、386

[34]藤木久志、土一揆と城の戦国を行く、朝日新聞社、東京、二○○六年、44

[35]峰岸純夫、「蓮如の時代―その社会と政治」、講座蓮如　第一巻、平凡社、東京、一九九六年、71

[36]金龍　静、「宗教一揆論」、梯　實圓、名畑　崇、峰岸純夫、蓮如大系第五巻　蓮如と一向一揆、法蔵館、京都、一九九六年、196

[37]上記同書

[38]上記同書、196-197

Recognised as a social norm

On a certain morning in the eighth month of the 24th year of Ōei (1417), in a space beside the entrance to a private house between the Kyoto avenues of Ayano Kōji Ōmiya and Shijō Ōmiya, an incident occurred whereby a priest of the Hokke sect was assassinated by two individuals.  The assassinated priest had been chased along Ōmiya road and had made his way north, finally seeking refuge in a private house.  His assailants had made their way into that house, and there they had assassinated the priest.  There was, however, no way that the people of the surrounding township would silently allow someone`s private home to be violated and a murder take place.  They immediately flew out of their houses and apprehended the assailants.  They then made their way to the samurai-dokoro of the Bakufu, and there presented the two culprits. (p.37)

As became clear during the subsequent investigation, the murderer was the leader of the two, who in the guise of a priest had killed the Hokke priest with a `great sword` (or daitō). The other member had apparently placed a bow and its case (or utsubo, 靫) in the vicinity of the crime.  According to the testimony of the accused, the murdered priest had been a `katakiuchi`. What is particularly interesting about this case is that the person who recorded it their diary, Nakahara Yasutomi, was a highly regarded official who wrote down his impression of the case.  In Nakahara`s view, it was an example of “the mysteries of divine will”.  In other words, upon hearing that the murdered priest had been a `katakiuchi`, Nakahara chose to praise the murderers.  So how about that.  Nakahara did not consider what the two individuals had done as a bad thing, but appears to have thought that they should be thanked for their deed. (p.37)

In order to prove that this was not a peculiar characteristic of Nakahara`s way of thinking, Nakahara continued with the following  “ただし、かくのごとき仮りごと、つねにあるのあいだ、信ずるにおよばず” (However, this is a commonly repeated lie (that the murdered person was a katakiuchi), and so it cannot simply be believed). In other words, whether or not this was an example of katakiuchi was beside the point. The murdered priest clearly wasn`t a true katakiuchi, and there were many examples of people murdering others and then claiming the other party was a katakiuchi in order to escape punishment. (p.37-38)

For example, in the 4th year of Eikyo (1432) on the estate of Nishi Kawai in the province of Harima (now part of Kasai City in Hyogo prefecture), two samurai by the name of Nakamura Sado Nyūdō and Kōzuki Yamato no Kuni killed another local samurai named Kōhana Hikozaemon Nyūdō and appropriated his tribute. At least, this was the charge that the Bakufu made against the owner of the estate, the shrine of Iwashimizu Hachimangū.  Iwashimizu then attempted to come up with a variety of counter arguments to justify the killing.  They claimed that Kōhana had been their own retainer in the service of a local official, and part of the younger band of retainers, while also being a `katakiuchi`.  In the end Iwashimizu lost the case. They had been prepared to claim that Kōhana was a katakiuchi despite the fact that it wasn`t true.  Given this state of affairs, it is fairly clear that for the society at the time, to kill a katakiuchi was not itself regarded as illegal.  (p.38-39)

By using these social mores, each party attempted to justify murder.  As Nakahara had written, it was fairly common to see people who claimed that they had killed a `katakiuchi` in order to justify the killing. When one considers that they were brazen enough to use this defence in the Bakufu`s own law courts, then there is a very high probability that killing a katakiuchi was regarded by society as normal. In the second month of the 2nd year of Kenan (1362), a legal official for the Muromachi Bakufu, when asked to give an opinion on the criminality of katakiuchi,  wrote about a precedent in the `Goseibai Shikimoku` (御成敗式目) as ratified by the Kamakura Bakufu.  According to this document, if the offspring of an individual kill their father`s enemy, they will be found innocent. Yet if one digs a little deeper, one finds that in the original Goseibai Shikimoku, there is no such clause.  Rather, Article 10 of the original document states the exact opposite. (p.39)

If the offspring of an individual should kill their father`s enemy, both the father and his offspring shall be punished. This error in interpretation can either be attributed to a simple mistake on the part of the legal official, or else it might have been a deliberate attempt by the official to change the meaning of Article 10.  In truth, it is difficult to decide either way.  Nevertheless, while the practice of katakiuchi may have been banned within the original Goseibai Shikimoku, by the Muromachi era even officers of the law had diverted from the original interpretation (or else ignored it) and thus there began to appear people attempting to justify katakiuchi. (p.39)

The legitimacy of `Shin Katakiuchi`

Was killing an enemy `officially sanctioned`?

Research dealing with revenge and `killing one`s enemies` has a long history in this country, at least from the Meiji period onwards.  Although it is complicated, this is an important problem area, hence an explanation of a bit of the history of this research is in order. 

The first direct commentary on the phenomenon of `killing one`s enemy` was made by Nitobe Inazō (1862-1933), the author whose visage appeared on the old five thousand yen note.  In the middle of his literary work `Bushidō`, which was the first to convey to the outside world the Japanese concept of beauty (English version 1899, Japanese translation 1908), Nitobe touched upon `killing one`s enemy`, or katakiuchi, 敵討.  Nitobe wrote that the pre-Early Modern samurai use of `katakiuchi` was a means to preserve the mores of society in a `world without law courts`, and so it functioned as a `logically equitable system of justice`.  Nitobe thereby placed the samurai social practice of `katakiuchi` amid the universal history of mankind.(34-35)

The next person to deal with this issue from a legal perspective was the so-called `giant` of the Meiji and Taishō legal world, Hozumi Nobushige (1855-1926). In his work `Revenge and the Law` (Fukushū to Hōritsu, published posthumously in 1931), Hozumi took the view that the transcendence of revenge killings by the law was an important development in the history of mankind, and so established `katakiuchi` as a product of an era in which revenge was officially sanctioned. According to Hozumi, the history of mankind evolved from `an era in which revenge was sanctioned` to `an era in which revenge was limited`, and finally to `an era in which revenge was banned`. (35)

This study was followed by that of Hiraizumi Kiyoshi (1895-1984), the author of `The Imperial View of History` (Kōkoku Shikan) which promoted an ultra nationalistic view of history during the Pacific War.  In his work `Social temples and society in the medieval period` (published in 1926), Hiraizumi examined the question of sanctuary and revenge in medieval Japan.  While declaring that the social temples of medieval Japan performed a role similar to that of monastic sanctuaries in Western Europe, he also pointed out that the existence of revenge killings in medieval Japan led to the development of the concept of sanctuary.  It was Hiraizumi who also posited that the gradual elimination of revenge killings by the courts in turn led to the elimination of sanctuary from society.  For Hiraizumi, sanctuary existed in tandem with katakiuchi .(35)

These three theories may be termed `the traditional academic definition` of katakiuchi, and as is clear from a reading of all three, Nitobe developed his in order to promote recognition among Western society of the Japanese concept of beauty, while Hozumi and Hiraizumi both created their theories using the context of the nineteenth century theory of evolution and how this led to the development of the law (as well as the development of Japanese history).  All three writers formed their views from the historical material available to them at the time, and the abundance of collateral evidence is truly astounding.  Yet the danger in their theories lies in their excessive praise of the conquest of revenge by the state. This probably stems from the age in which all three writers lived, yet one cannot help feeling that they attempted to simplify and pre-establish a linear pattern for what is a complicated historical development.  (36)

In conclusion, this means that as far as their historical research was concerned, the development of a unique law such as `mutual punishment` (Kenka Ryōseibai) was deliberate. All three writers` theories were in keeping with the age in which they lived.  They saw the law leading society out of the dark ages into a brighter age of social mores.  At the time the writers lived in, the practice of mutual punishment was regarded as the force that changed society, despite a lack of evidence to collaborate this. The theory was then simply inserted into the framework of the theory of evolution, thus giving it an overly positive reputation. The dangers of forming such a glorified theory on the creation of order by the state can be seen in the way that Hiraizumi advocated the `Imperial View of History` and leaned towards ultra nationalism. (36)

In response to this `traditional academic definition`, the criticisms of postwar Japanese legal history turned towards the basic facts that all three writers insisted upon, that is, that the practice of `katakiuchi` in Japanese history was `officially sanctioned` as a `logically equitable system of justice`.  Ishii Ryōsuke, who built the foundations of postwar Japanese legal history, stated that the within the annals of Japanese history, the first appearance of `katakiuchi` as sanctioned by law was in the `Precepts of the Chōsokabe Family`, a document drawn up in Keichō 2 (1597) by the Chōsokabe of Tosa province (modern Kōchi prefecture), and therefore of the Edo period. In no way was katakiuchi `officially sanctioned` in general before this time, and thus the legal theory of evolution as promulgated by the traditional academic definition did not fit the Japanese model. (37)

In truth, the existence of katakiuchi as a legally sanctioned form of authority and its incorporation into the exercise of public authority, as in the `trials by combat` of medieval Europe, is almost impossible to confirm before the early modern period in Japan. Moreover, while katakiuchi might have been a statutory law during the medieval period, one is forced to conclude that before the early modern period, katakiuchi was banned in all but statutory law. For this reason, for a long time after the war researchers believed that katakiuchi of the medieval period was an illegal activity, and thus there wasn`t much interest in examining the phenomenon in detail. (37)

However research after this period led to a rejection of this point of view, and at present the view is that katakiuchi was not necessarily an illegal act.  The author has found a number of examples from the Muromachi period to illustrate this point, which shall be examined in detail next week. (37)