The Battle of Sekigahara (15th September 1600) remains one of those pivotal events in Japan’s past that defines the start of one age and the end of another.  Twelve years of Toyotomi dominance of national affairs was brought to a sudden halt at a non-descript crossroads in Mino province (now Gifu Prefecture) by forces allied to Tokugawa Ieyasu, and set in motion events that would lead to the eventual downfall of the Toyotomi at the Battle of Osaka Castle in 1615. 

The general understanding of the public in relation to the Battle of Sekigahara has been shaped over the centuries by popular narratives, plays, and (more recently) television dramas and movies.  Last year the most recent of these cinematic endeavours was shown to audiences throughout Japan, and took as its inspiration the novel “Sekigahara” written by Shiba Ryōtarō in the mid-1960s. 
The novel examines events primarily from the point of view of Ishida Mitsunari, a retainer and (in many ways) acolyte of Toyotomi Hideyoshi, who gathers together households still loyal to the Toyotomi as Hideyoshi’s health deteriorates in anticipation of the inevitable clash with Ieyasu.

The Battle of Sekigahara in popular memory has by and large focused on a number of events that highlight the various stages of the battle itself. Those have been (for example): the opening gun battle between the forces of Ukita Hideie and Fukushima Masanori, fighting between the forces of Shima Sakon and Kuroda Nagamasa,  the “Toi-deppō” (or “probing shot”) made at the forces of Kobayakawa Hideaki, thereby forcing Hideaki to choose whether to remain loyal to Mitsuhide or defect to Ieyasu, the battlefield death of Ōtani Yoshitsugu (a consequence of Hideaki’s defection to Ieyasu), and the final desperate charge of the Shimazu at the Tokugawa forces in the closing stages of the battle.   

It was in anticipation of obtaining a copy of the 2017 film that I recently purchased a book titled “The Truth of the Battle of Sekigahara” (関ケ原合戦の真実) by Beppu University academic Shiramine Jun (白峰旬).  What I’ve read so far has been revelatory in explaining just how historical memory and popular fiction can combine to completely distort the truth of an historical event.  Professor Shiramine points out that most of what is commonly known about the Battle of Sekigahara, namely the events described above, derives from so-called “Gunki” or “war tales” that were written during the Edo period (in other words, after Tokugawa rule had established itself at the centre of power in early modern Japan).

The purpose of these “war tales” was not so much to accurately re-tell the events of history as they were to entertain readers with stories of heroism and betrayal, and so the historical evidence for such tales was not as important as the ability to captivate the reader. As a consequence, the popular understanding of the events of September 15th 1600 became tinged with a degree of sensationalism removed from the historical record. 

For example, the common belief among the public is that the Battle of Sekigahara lasted the entire day, with initial fighting commencing around 8 in the morning and continuing until the late afternoon. However historical records of the time note that fighting was initiated after the fog cloud sitting over the battlefield dissipated, which would have been around 10am. In addition, while the battle began with both sides firing muskets at one another, it very quickly descended into what is known as a “白兵戦”, or “pure infantry battle” involving spears and swords.  The battle itself was over in the space of 2 to 3 hours, yet in order to make it seem as though an epic struggle had occurred, later “war tales” spun the timespan of the battle out to an entire day.

As Professor Shiramine goes to extraordinarily lengths to prove, the most famous incident of the Battle of Sekigahara, the “probing shot” at the forces of Kobayakawa Hideaki by troops belonging to Tokugawa Ieyasu, which apparently forced Kobayakawa to reveal his true allegiances and support the Tokugawa in attacking nearby forces belonging to Ōtani Yoshitsugu (allied to Ishida Mitsuhide), is a work of pure fiction.  Nowhere in the contemporary sources of the period is there any mention of any “probing shot” being made at the forces of Hideaki. Moreover, contemporary sources of the period show that Tokugawa Ieyasu had been in correspondence with Hideaki long before the battle began, and Hideaki did not wait until midday before revealing his loyalty to Ieyasu but initiated his attack against Yoshitsugu much earlier in proceedings.

Another point backing up this evidence is the fact that Kobayakawa was suitably rewarded after the battle for his contribution to the Tokugawa victory, whereas other less prominent generals located near the Kobayakawa camp at Matsu-oyama only defected once it became clear they would be overrun by Kobayakawa’s forces, and suffered the consequences of their treachery by later having their lands confiscated by the Tokugawa.    

It is these revelations, and the close examination of primary sources to back up such claims, that makes Professor Shiramine’s book such an interesting read.  While there is undoubtedly some disappointment that episodes one has always assumed to be based on history never in fact existed, or existed in a much more basic form than referred to in popular literature, one can at least glimpse the true nature of the Battle of Sekigahara (incidentally, the name “Sekigahara” as it applies to the battlefield is somewhat misleading, as contemporary sources from around 1600 note that most fighting took place in an area known as “Yamanaka” (山中) and not in the village of Sekigahara itself. “Yamanaka” lies around 2-3km to the west of Sekigahara Station and nowadays is a quiet residential area not far from the gravesite marker of Ōtani Yoshitsugu).

Another point that Professor Shiramine makes is that the terms used to refer to the armies of Tokugawa Ieyasu and Ishida Mitsunari, “East Army” and “West Army” respectively, were inventions of writers in the Edo period and were not used by contemporaries (this is less surprising, given that such terminology abounds in historical studies in order to more neatly codify a broad or complex phenomenon).
This is just some of the details of the Professor Shiramine’s book, which has received mostly positive reviews on Amazon.jp (although there are some complaints that Professor Shiramine tends to repeat himself and his points, which is a point that can be brought up concerning a number of Japanese academic studies).  For an exploration on the use of primary source materials to establish the “truth” of an historical event, and a study on the Battle of Sekigahara in general, Professor Shiramine’s book is a great place to start and highly recommended.

In what has become a time-honoured tradition on this particular blog, I do apologise for the very, very long hiatus between posts. In a sense this is a good thing, because it does give me more time to be able to absorb more subject matter and then think about it on a deeper level. On the other hand it means that weeks go by before I actually get around to writing anything, which is a tad tardy of me and for which I can only ask forgiveness.  The reason I have decided to update the ol’ blog is because I finally got around to watching Martin Scorsese’s version of Endo Shusaku’s “Silence” (沈黙) on the weekend. My initial reaction to the film was that it certainly kept to the mood of the book, with some liberties taken in order to ensure the narrative didn’t become too stuck in existential questions on the meaning of faith.

The film did address the subject matter well, and Andrew Garfield and Adam Driver did a very good job conveying the devoted yet ultimately doomed Jesuit priests making their way to Nagasaki (or Bizen province) in the early 1600s to find out the fate of a Father Ferreira (played by Liam Neeson), a Jesuit who is reported to have abandoned his faith in the face of interrogation and torture at the hands of provincial officials.  The film (and original novel) take place in the aftermath of the Shimabara Rebellion, a Christian inspired uprising (covered in this blog) by lower caste samurai and peasants against Bakufu rule. The rebellion itself was brutally crushed, which was in part a response to the nearly two centuries of warfare that Japan had been subjected to in which religion had played a role in prolonging and intensifying the conflict.  Given that the Christian (or more accurately, Catholic) population of the Shimabara peninsula acted in defiance on central rule, the Tokugawa Bakufu was in no mood to compromise with what were regarded as lower caste rebels with affiliations with foreign powers (i.e., Portugal and Spain) and which might ultimately undermine the relative stability that the Tokugawa had imposed on Japan.

Of course the historical threads behind the edict banning the teaching of Christianity in Japan are diverse and originate further back into sixteenth century Japanese history. As to whether the average person would be aware of this background when they watch the film is unknown, but I think the context behind the novel needs to be understood if one is to get the most out of watching the film. There is a very good element of suspense and danger hanging in the air throughout the film, as you the viewer are made aware of just what sort of risk these Jesuits are taking in attempting to preserve the Christian faith of those Japanese who still consider themselves Christian and who carry out masses and confessions in secret.  Discovery can be fatal, although it does seem somewhat odd that it is the Kakure Kirishitan who undergo a majority of the suffering in the film. The existence of Catholic priests in Nagasaki, in defiance of a Bakufu edict, would itself be a cause for execution, yet these priests are kept alive and questioned, and (at least in the case of Father Rodrigues) are persuaded to apostatize .

While I can see the logic behind using former priests to persuade other Christians to abandon their faith, we (the viewers) have no idea whether this strategy actually worked, and so we are left to draw our own conclusion about its efficacy. What we are really meant to focus on is how, having abandoned their faith, these former priests have become shadows of their former selves, broken in spirit and resigned to living out their days in a land that views them with suspicion. Without giving too much away, the film also illustrates to how faith can sustain one in the most trying of circumstances and what one sacrifices in order to keep their faith. It is a profoundly spiritual film, however by running in at nearly 3 hours in length, only those who wish to learn the fate of its main characters will watch it through to its conclusion.  It can be ponderous at times, and visceral in its depiction of torture, but that violence is necessary to convey the dangers present and the degree of courage necessary to transcend it.

If I have a particular gripe about the film (apart from its length), it is the fact that you have supposed Portuguese priests speaking English but pretending they are speaking Portuguese (although they do have accents!). While the Japanese cast deliver much of their dialogue in English (which, again, is supposed to be Portuguese), the Japanese that they do use is very much in the modern vernacular. Not that there is anything wrong with this. If they spoke in the language of officialdom of the mid-seventeenth century, most contemporary Japanese viewers would have a hard time understanding what they were saying. The use of English is a bit jarring, but then again the film wasn’t sponsored by Portuguese backers or featured Portuguese actors so I suppose they could speak in whatever language they wish.    

The film is ultimately worth watching, just don’t have anything urgent to do while you do so.

Once more, as is the case in so many of my past posts, I must issue an apology for being so lax in my updates of this blog. In truth, my computer went on the blink, then work suddenly picked up, and I have been exploring a myriad of extra-curricular activities. So one could say that the distractions have been overwhelming. Nevertheless, in the interim I have indulged in a bit of reading, and managed to obtain a copy of Oizumi Koichi’s “Masamune’s conspiracy” 政宗の陰謀. This book, released last year, seeks to explore the reasons why Date Masamune, a prominent daimyō of Mutsu and Dewa provinces in far northern Honshū, sought to send a mission to Spain and Italy in 1613 (the Hasekura Tsunenaga Mission 支倉常長使節, also known as the 慶長遣欧使節).

A majority of theories put forward for this decision tend to focus on the burgeoning trade links between Spain and Japan at the time, particularly through the Spanish territories of The Philippines and Nueva Espana (Mexico). These theories emphasize Masamune’s ambitions for the northern territories to maintain a degree of financial independence from the Tokugawa Bakufu and thereby possess the capacity to remove the Tokugawa from their position at some point in the future. To realize this ambition, Masamune needed trade to flourish between Mutsu and the Spanish colony in Mexico, and allowed Spanish and Portguese merchants and missionaries to reside in his domains long after they had been expelled from other parts of Japan.

Yet as Oizumi illustrates in his book, Masamune may have had broader ambitions than this. Missionaries that were present in Mutsu and who later returned to Europe baring Masamune’s correspondence to the Spanish royal family and the Papacy emphasised that Masamune planned to have missionaries establish churches in the north to act as focal points for the more than 300,000 Christians that were believed to be in Japan at the time. The combined effect of these converts, together with technical and financial aid from the Vatican and Spanish Empire, would ensure that Masamune would possess the power to overthrow the Tokugawa and have the Date named as shōgun.

None of this was, of course, to be conveyed to the Tokugawa, who were to be convinced that the Date meant no more than trading with the Spanish than the Tokugawa did in their growing trade with the Dutch out of the East Indies. Yet the growing conviction of Tokugawa Ieyasu that the presence of Catholic missionaries in Japan presented a clear threat to the continued existence of the Tokugawa Bakufunate (a conviction fed by reports given to him by Dutch and English merchants regarding Spanish and Portguese conquests in Central and South America, India, and The Philippines), and so issued the first of a series of edicts banning the practice of proselytization in Japan, which were extended to eventually ban the presence of Catholicism in Japan in general.

Oizumi uses an extensive series of records, Japanese, Spanish, and Italian, along with French and German, to trace the manner in which Masamune sought to bring about a revolt in Japanese religious and social history. It is a work that Oizumi himself admits has taken close to half a century to bring to fruition, not least because it involved both comprehending and then translating a vast range of sources written in pre-modern versions of modern European languages. It is an impressive work, and certainly well worth reading if one has the time. It also provides more context surrounding the persecution of Christians in Japan, and why the determination of the Tokugawa to stamp out this potential threat within their midst created the social conditions depicted in Endō Shūsaku’s 沈黙, or Silence.

The role of women in helping to avoid war
 
The marriages that we have examined up until now, such as that between O-ne and Hideyoshi, could be categorised as marriages of love. Yet in the Sengoku period, as in periods before that time, marriages based on love were exceedingly rare. Parents would choose whom their offspring would marry, and the marriage would not be between individuals on the basis of love, but formed the basis of binding two households together. The most typical of such practices were strategic marriages. From a modern perspective, such marriages are regarded simply as tragedies, yet for the people of previous ages, these kinds of marriages, whereby one`s parents chose one`s partner, were a matter of course.  For the people concerned, they certainly did not regard themselves as victims.(223)
 
It was Nagai Michiko who pointed this particular phenomenon out at a relatively early stage. Her book `A unique portrait of women of the Sengoku era` (published by Rekishi to Tabi in 1992) said the following with regard to this point.
 
“Women were not the tools of men.  Women from households of the daimyō class were joint administrators of that household. If a male was, for example, the prime minister, his sisters would be the deputy prime minister, and one of those deputies would serve as a diplomat. Her service to her country would be in the form of marriage. In other words, she was a female ambassador who also engaged in sex. It might seem somewhat crude to describe a woman in such terms, yet this was part of that reality. In truth, because women were married off, it meant that provinces that had been fighting up until then would cease fighting each other and was a prime example whereby peace could be maintained.(224)
 
In order to prove proof of that peace, the sisters of the head of the household would be married off to other provinces. Oda Nobuhide of Owari province and Saitō Dōsan of Mino province had what could be described as a `love/hate` relationship. No matter how many times they fought, neither came out as victor.  It was around this time that Oda Nobuhide decided that he wanted to make an alliance both with Dōsan and with Imagawa Yoshimoto, lord of Tōtōmi and Suruga provinces, and who was looking to expand into Mikawa province. Deciding that it would not be a good idea to have enemies on both sides of his province`s borders, Nobuhide took the advice of his retainer Hirate Masahide and made an alliance with Dōsan. To cement this, Dōsan`s daughter Princess Nō was sent as a bride to Nobuhide`s son and heir Nobunaga, and was a stereotypical political marriage.(224)
 
As a result of this marriage, the conflict that until then had been waging between Owari and Mino ceased.  This is why the example using women as a means to avoid war is so easily understood. Those `female ambassadors who also engaged in sex` performed their role admirably.(226) Yet a strategic marriage is a strategic marriage, and certainly different to a standard marriage. When the characters for `strategy` are added to marriage, that implies use as a strategic tool, used for strategic purposes. As a result of a change in circumstances from peaceful times, there were many examples of such marriages ending in tragedy.(226)”         

Nowadays, we use the characters `意見` in phrases such as `意見をいう` (express an opinion) or `意見をする` (give an opinion), yet it historical records dating from the Sengoku era, there are many examples of these characters being rendered as `異見`. Regardless of what its original meaning may have been, it has been thought that this version of the characters matches the meaning of the current characters.  There are many examples of wives expressing their `opinion` 異見` to their husbands. There are examples of Sengoku era warriors changing their strategy after adopting their wives` `opinion`, and there are examples of warriors ignoring their wives and thus finding themselves in difficult situations. (216)
 
One example of a warriors deciding to change of mind on his wife`s advice involves Hashiba Hideyoshi. Hideyoshi, who was one of Oda Nobunaga`s retainers, was granted the lands of Ōmi Sangun (Ika, Higashi Asai, and Sakata) in northern Ōmi province in the first year of Tenshō (1573), lands that formerly belonged to the Asai family. He also acquired Odani castle as his residence, which formerly belonged to Asai Nagamasa. (217) One problem was that Odani castle was located on mountain, hence Hideyoshi decided to build a new castle in the vicinity of Lake Biwa and move his household there. (217) This castle would be known as Nagahama.
 
In order to build a town around Nagahama, a proposal was made whereby `if you move to and reside at Nagahama, you will be exempt from all forms of tithes and taxes`. It was a strategy to attract merchants and workers to the town. Many took up the offer, and soon merchants and workers had made their way to Nagahama to live and took up residence in the town, which arose a short time later. No sooner had they done this, then an order was issued whereby `both annual tithes and land taxes will now be collected`. (217)
 
Hideyoshi`s wife O-ne (お禰), once she heard of this change of plan, urged Hideyoshi to rescind the order via way of her `opinion`. I will quote from part of a letter of Hideyoshi`s associated with the `Kawaji Bunsho` collection, which is thought to record these events in Tenshō 5 (1577). To continue on from the part of the document that includes the decision to impose tithes and taxes…
 
“Although I tried to explain to her otherwise, O-ne refused to agree, and as before told me that if I were to forgive all taxes, this would be an act of good governance`.  (217-218)
 
 In short, Hideyoshi conceived of the idea to exempt all tithes and taxes in order to ensure that the town of Nagahama rose quickly by enticing merchants and workers to live there.  However once this goal had been achieved, and given that tithes, land taxes and other forms of taxation were an important source of revenue, the decision was made to change the policy on tax collection. We don`t really know the extent to which O-ne was involved in the creation of the town of Nagahama, yet when she learned of Hideyoshi`s change of plan, she aired her opinion, which was `what you are proposing is different to what you told the merchants and workers`. In the end, Hideyoshi accepted O-ne`s opinion, rescinded his order, and exempted the townspeople from tithes and land taxes.(218)
 
The above example of Hideyoshi and O-ne is one of the head of the household accepting his wife`s `opinion`, yet in the case of Maeda Toshiie and his wife Matsu, we have an example of a husband dismissing his wife`s opinion.  This event in recorded in the `Kawasumi Taikakuki`, and is quite a fascinating episode linked to the Battle of Komaki and Nagakute in Tenshō 12 (1584). (218-219) The Battle of Komaki and Nagakute was, as is well known, was a conflict that took place in both Owari and Ise between the forces of Tokugawa Ieyasu and Oda Nobukatsu on one side and Hideyoshi on the other. Yet it was not confined to these areas, and also spread as far as the Hokuriku region (which housed the Maeda family). (219)
 
Maeda Toshiie, as lord of Kaga and Noto and allied to Hideyoshi, and Sasa Narimasa,as the lord of Etchū and allied to Ieyasu and Nobukatsu, began to fight one another along the border area to Etchū. When Toshiie began to assemble his forces, he was thinking of nothing else, and was somewhat flummoxed by the whole process. Toshiie`s wife Matsu, seeing him like this, took gold and silver from the treasury in Kanazawa castle, placed it in a leather pouch, and then spread it out at Toshiie`s feet. It was said…
 
“Matsu gave her opinion both day and night, saying that right now, you (Toshiie) have no need for the gold and silver of the treasury. If you are going to meet a formidable enemy, you first need to train people. This is indeed the best way. When you finally subdue a country, then you will find that you have need of funds.  This is both the beginning and end of countries, and you will need to store both silver and gold. Right now, this money will not be able to thrust a spear”.        
 
What deserves our attention here is the fact that whether at night or during the day, Matsu said to Toshiie `Don`t just collect money, train your troops`, thereby giving her opinion.  As gold and silver itself could not wield a spear, Matsu, as a result of the household not listening to her opinion, expressed her indignation at the Maeda household for panicking because they lacked military preparedness. (219-220
 
In this age of dominant fathers as head of the household, and when it was said that `if the hen crows, the household will fall`, it was considered improper for a woman to express her opinions on matters concerning the household. Women were to be silent and obey the will of their husbands. Hideyoshi`s wife O-ne, and Toshiie`s wife Matsu, were two special exceptions to this belief.(220)

Imagawa Jukeini and Akamatsu Tōshōinni were both `female daimyō`, yet at the kokujin level of society (less than that of a daimyō) there were examples of female rulers of households. Most warrior families who belonged to the kokujin class had their origins in the Kamakura era, when many families began as jitō (or estate managers), hence the term `female jitō`. (212)
 
During the Sengoku era there was a kokujin-class family known as the Ii who were located in Tōtōmi province. From this family came Ii Naomasa, one of the `four great teachers` of the Tokugawa shōgunate and the family that later became the provincial rulers of Ōmi province from Hakone during the Edo period. The family itself arose to kokujin status in the aftermath of the civil war that occurred during the Nanbokuchō period, and were located in Iinoya in Tōtōmi province. In the Sengoku era, the power of the Imagawa extended as far as Tōtōmi, hence the Ii family became bound to the Imagawa as one of their retainers.(212)
 
On the 19th day of the 5th month of Eiroku 3 (1560) at the Battle of Okehazama, the head of the Ii household, Ii Naomori, was part of the forces that made up the spear point of the Imagawa army, and was subsequently killed in the battle. Naomori had no male heirs, hence Naochika, the grandson of Naomori`s grandfather Naohira, succeeded as head of the household. (214) However, after the death of (Imagawa) Yoshimoto, the head of the Imagawa household, Ujizane, began to believe that Naochika was secretly corresponding with Matsudaira Motoyasu (later known as Tokugawa Ieyasu), and thus had Naochika killed.(214)
 
The death of Naochika plunged the Ii household into a succession crisis. Given the way that Naochika had died, there were fears that his son Manchiyo (later known as Naomasa)`s life was also in danger. Manchiyo was thus hidden away, and after consultations within part of the family, Naomori`s daughter was declared to be head of the household.  The `Records of the Ii Household` (Ii Ke Denki) state that `Jirō Hōshi was a woman, and while ruling over the territory of the Ii household, would take on the priestly name of Jirō Hōshi, to which there were no objections`.(214)
 
The name `Jirō Hōshi` sounds like that of a man, but the reality was that this `he` was a `she`. It was the beginning of the concept of `female jitō`. According to related documents of the Ii household, there are items that bare the signature of `Jirō Hōshi` and a black seal of the same name. What this tells us is that `female jitō` Jirō Hōshi did actually rule over territory.  While Imagawa Jukeini, a female daimyō, would sign documents using her own name, `female jitō` Jirō Hōshi continued to use a man`s name. (214).
 
Jirō Hōshi began by having documents stamped with a seal under this name, but eventually she took on the male name of `Jirō Naotora`, and changed her signature to the same effect. This was a highly unusual case of a woman taking on both a man`s name, and using a form of signature that was only used by adult males. (215) The fact that the daughter of Ii Naomori took on a man`s name and ruled over the Ii territory certainly went against the thinking of the age. After the role of women as a wife and mother became established as a concept, it was thought that that women had no right to carry on the household, although it wasn`t completely out of the question. Yet if we gather together some of the historical records of the time, there are quite a number of cases of women being given the responsibility of running a household.(215)   
 
One example of this was Tachibana Dōsetsu, who handed over the affairs of his household to his daughter Ginchiyo. Tachibana Dōsetsu was originally known as Betsugi Akitsura, and was a retainer of the household of Ōtomo Sōrin and well known as a military strategist. Dōsetsu had no sons and only one daughter - Ginchiyo. On this point, Dōsetsu went to Sōrin and said `I wish for my daughter Ginchiyo to be allowed to take over my household, and I would like you to approve this`. Unfortunately the document that Dōsetsu used to make his request has not survived the ravages of time, but what we do know is that in a response signed by Sōrin and his son Yoshimune, the request was acknowledged and made known to all the other retainers of the Ōtomo household. (215)   
 
Incidentally, this document was signed on the 18th day of the 6th month of Tenshō 3 (1575), which means that Ginchiyo was only 7 years old at the time it was signed. We do have to wonder whether Dōsetsu was in his right mind when he handed over the running of his household to young girl of seven. On this point we just do not know what he was thinking. In later year, however, Ginchiyo would become the wife of Tachibana Muneshige (a famous figure in the latter Sengoku era history of Kyushu). (216)

Well, this has been a long time in coming.  After many weeks of hectic work schedules, I have been able to return to what I might describe as my first interest - studies into the medieval period of Japanese history. I have been considering shifting some of the information provided here onto my website, for lord knows it needs an update, but for the time being I shall make do with this format.  Bar anything else grabbing my attention, I shall be posting translations of a chapter from the book `Sengoku no Gunzo` by Owada Tetsuo, the first part of which appears below. It will be a slightly on and off operation, as it will depend whether I have sufficient time to get an entire chapter translated, but I do hope that by translating this section, another facet of the medieval/early modern period of Japan`s history might be illuminated. 

Owada Tetsuo, Sengoku no Gunzō (A Mass Portrait of the Era of the Warring States), Gakken Shinsho, Tokyo, 2009
 
Chapter 6  The major role played by women
 
`The appearance of female daimyō` and `female jitō`
 
Female Daimyō – the case of Imagawa Jukeini (寿桂尼)
 
I have considered writing a chapter about women in this book, which takes as its theme the various people of the Sengoku era. When considering the chaotic world of the Sengoku era, there has been a tendency to have preconceptions of men fighting on the battlefield, while women are regarded as `a protector after the guns cease firing`, with their presence both beginning and ending with them in a supporting role. For the women of the Middle Ages period who lived in a society of warriors, particularly from the Muromachi era onwards, it became more common for them to live a more cloistered life, whereby they would be married off and as wives be relegated to a less-prominent position in the household dominated by the male patriarch. She would then be expected to adhere to the `lessons of the three stages of life`, which meant that as a child she would obey her father, after she was married she would obey her husband, and then as an old woman she would obey her son.(pg.208)
 
While there were many such women during that era, when we look more closely at the women of the Sengoku period, there appear women who strapped on their husband`s armour in order to fight in battle, and women who desperately defended their family`s castle in place of their still infant male children. Hence one particular characteristic of this period is the appearance of such women who could be called `female lords`, or female daimyō. One such woman who could be described as thus was Imagawa Jukeini. Allow me to go into a little more detail about her. (pg.209)
 
As we can tell from her name, Imagawa Jukeini was the wife of Sengoku daimyō Imagawa Ujichika, a lord of two provinces – Suruga and Tōtōmi. The Imagawa family were renowned for their affinity for the arts and held strong relations with Kyoto. Hence Ujichika`s wife was sent from the aristocratic Nakamikado family of Kyoto, the daughter of Nakamikado Nobutane. However we do not know what her name was (Jukeini was the name she adopted after taking vows following her husband`s death). Ujichika was at the time engaged in land surveying and quantification, and it was he who created the `Imagawa Kana Mokuroku`, a detailed work on the laws governing the Imagawa lands. It was Ujichika who elevated the Imagawa family from their previous position as shugo daimyō into the ranks of the Sengoku daimyō.(pg.209)
 
However, in the sixth year of Taiei (1526), Ujichika passed away.  Ujichika had six sons, but because he had married relatively late, his eldest son Ujiteru was still only a youth of 14 years. There are examples of 14 year old youths taking on the reins of government, inheriting the position as head of the household and doing quite an admirable job. However Ujiteru was not only young, he was also sickly. In such times as these, what would usually occur would be that one of the senior levels of retainers would take on the role of an advisor to their young charge. However in the case of Ujiteru, Ujichika`s widow took on the name of Jukeini and became his advisor. She also happened to be Ujitane`s mother.(pg.209-210)
 
So how did Jukeini come to occupy a position that would normally be held by a man? There are no records that detail how this situation came about, so we must deduce its origins from the situation that existed at the time. The most commonly believed reason was that ten years before he died, Ujichika was stricken by disease which kept him confined to his private quarters. While nursing her husband, Jukeini also began to take responsibility for the political dealings of the household. The retainers of the household also believed that `in the same manner while Ujichika was still alive, Jukeini became an advisor to Ujiteru`.(210)
 
Two years after Ujichika`s death, a seal bearing the mark of Jukeini began to appear on public documents released by the Imagawa household. Until Ujiteru began issuing documents from the eighth year of Taiei onwards, Jukeini was head of the household. It is for this reason that scholars of the Sengoku period have come to generally use the term `female daimyō` to refer to such women.(pg.210)
 
In much the same way, the daughter of Hosokawa Katsumoto was married to Akamatsu Masanori, the lord of three provinces of Harima, Bizen, and Mimasaka. She was referred to a `Madam Meshi`, and after her husband`s death, she too issued documents instead of her son Yoshimura and then her grandson Saishōmaru. In much the same manner as Imagawa Jukeini, after her husband`s death this woman also took her vows and became known as Akamatsu Tōshōinni.(pg.211-212)   

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

So, who was it that first started propagating this fiction as “fact”? It was none other than Hashiba Hideyoshi, or as he later became known, Toyotomi Hideyoshi. 

The strange thing about this is that virtually no one knows about it.

“Now is the time, the fifth month, when I stand beneath the rain”

The above verse is widely regarded as evidence of Mitsuhide’s decision to plot against Nobunaga. The verse was composed at a “Renka” (or poetic verse) gathering known as the “Atago Hyakuin” (because it took place on Mt Atago). The location was close to Mitsuhide’s home castle at Tanba Kameyama (now part of Kyoto Prefecture), and occurred three days before the Honnōji Incident. (p.23)

Why was it that this verse in particular became so widely known? In modern times, when a major incident takes place news organisations rapidly gather up information while local information takes a little longer to reach the community.  At the time of the Honnōji Incident there were no mass media organisations.  It should have been impossible for the specific circumstances of an incident to be so widely known in such a short space of time. Yet the above verse, known as “Mitsuhide’s verse”, was widely acknowledged as revealing Mitsuhide’s mindset before the events at Honnōji took place. (p.24)

And where was this particular verse to be found? In a document known as the Koretōtaijiki (A Record of the Elimination of Koretō). 

The “Koretōtaijiki” was composed four months after the Honnōji Incident in the 10th month of Tenshō 10 (1582). It was written by one Ōmura Yūko, a member of Hashiba Hideyoshi’s Otogishū group of retainers. It is a relatively short document, only 20 pages long, but contains all of the details of the Honnōji Incident from start to finish, thus making it a compact “after-action report”.  Incidentally, the “Otogishū” were retainers who prided themselves on their talent for writing, and who often became conversation partners for their lord. They fulfilled a role not unlike that of a modern day PR firm.(p.24)

“Koretō” was a surname given to Mitsuhide by the Imperial Court, while “Taiji” refers, just as the title suggests, to Hideyoshi’s defeat and destruction of Mitsuhide following the battle of Yamazaki, and is a kind of “propaganda” tool. This document was the earliest to be distributed after the Honnōji Incident, and was the ‘official’ version of the events surrounding the incident according to Hideyoshi.  The document publicly established Mitsuhide as the sole conspirator in the plot against Nobunaga, portrayed Mitsuhide as being driven by a personal grudge against Nobunaga, and declared that Mitsuhide harboured his own ambition to gain control of the realm.(pp.24-25)

The evidence that Hideyoshi produced to prove that Mitsuhide was bent on seizing the realm was “Mitsuhide’s verse”. The Koretōtaijiki described it as thus:

「光秀発句に曰く、時は今あめが下しる五月かな」”As Mitsuhide said, now it is the time, the fifth month, when I stand beneath the rain” (p.25)

This particular verse could be interpreted as saying that “Now I am intent on betrayal, and am prepared to go ahead with it with whomever will join me”. Then again, if we interpret “Mitsuhide’s verse” exactly as written, it says “Right now, as a stand beneath the rain of the fifth month, I am aware that it is indeed the fifth month”. In other words, Mitsuhide was commenting on the characteristics of the rain in the fifth month. (p.25)

However Hideyoshi, using the Koretōtaijiki, did not ascribe to this ostensible interpretation, and changed the meaning of the characters so that “時” instead referred to “土岐” (the surname of a daimyo family related to Mitsuhide, pronounced the same as 時), “あめが下” meant “天下” (or realm),  and “しる” meant “統べる” (to pacify). Hence according to Hideyoshi’s reading, the verse read “I (Mitsuhide), of the Toki family, should pacify the realm in this the fifth month”, and was evidence of Mitsuhide’s conspiracy against Nobunaga.(p.25)

Yet the “Mitsuhide’s verse” quoted above is not the only one in existence. In truth, there are around 10 or so copies of the Atago Hyakuin collection of poetic verse. In one copy, kept in the vaults of the Kyoto University Library collection, the section that contains the verb “下しる” is rendered as “下なる”.  That particular version’s verse reads as follows:

「時は今あめが下なる五月かな」”It is now the fifth month when the rain falls”

In other words, this verse is saying “Now it is the fifth month, when the rain of the fifth month falls”. If Mitsuhide intended the verse to be read as “beneath the rain”, then this would literally mean “I am beneath the rain”, and so would be in accordance with the Koretōtaijiki’s interpretation of the verse, which was “It is now the fifth month when I must pacify the realm”. (p.25)

So, which reading of the verse was the one that Mitsuhide intended? Why don’t we make a blank slate of the almost four hundred year reading of “下しる” and give this issue a bit of consideration?  To jump to the conclusion first, it is beyond doubt that Mitsuhide intended the verse to be read as “the fifth month when the rain falls”.  As for why this is the case, the fact is that the reading in the Koretōijiki, i.e., “beneath the rain of the fifth month”, is completely contradictory. (p.26)

Let us accept for a moment the reading of the verse in the Koretōtaijiki, that which says “I, of the Toki family, will pacify the realm in this the fifth month”. Well then, what month did the Honnōji Incident occur in? The Honnōji Incident took place on the second day of the sixth month; not the fifth month, the six month.  If the Honnōji Incident took place in the sixth month, then it does not match the time frame included in the Koretōtaijiki.  It is a minor point, but in investigating history one cannot afford to overlook any minor points. It is the same as any criminal investigation carried out in modern times. (p.26)

Even if the Atago Hyakuin had been donated to Atago shrine, given that the god of the shrine was venerated for bringing victory in battle, such a ridiculous offering would be completely out of order. The Koretōtaijiki reading should be regarded as a blatant attempt to re-interpret the words of the verse, a re-interpretation that gave way to a contradiction. (p.26)

Quite some time ago, I introduced on this blog a book written by Akechi Kensaburō titled ‘本能寺の変―四二七年目の真実’ (The ‘427 year truth of the Honnōji Incident’). This book outlined Kensaburō’s own theory as to why Akechi Mitsuhide chose to attack the temple of Honnōji in Kyoto, an act that led to the death of Oda Nobunaga and temporarily derailed the course of unification pursued by a generation of warriors from Owari and Mikawa provinces. According to Kensaburō’s theory, Akechi Mitsuhide shared blood ties with members of the Gifu province elite who swore allegiance to Shōgun Ashikaga Yoshiaki. When Nobunaga planned to invade Shikoku in order to overthrow some of these relatives (namely the Chōsokabe family), Mitsuhide had no choice but to act in defence of familial interests, eliminating Nobunaga and preparing for the restoration of the Ashikaga shōgunate.

However Hashiba (later Toyotomi) Hideyoshi, having received word of Akechi’s betrayal, withdrew from a campaign against the Mōri in western Japan to return to the central provinces (中国大返し) and confront Mitsuhide, a lightening campaign that ended in the battle of Yamazaki and the death of Mitsuhide.

This conclusion was quite revelatory for its time, as most history textbooks in Japan emphasise that Mitsuhide was ‘acting alone’, that he bore a grudge against Nobunaga out of some perceived slight, and so his treachery was all the more heinous considering the trust that Nobunaga had shown in him.  Mitsuhide was, in other words, justly punished for his betrayal.

In his latest work titled 「本能寺の変 431年目の真実」, Kensaburō explores the premise of his theory a little further in light of recent evidence. As part of that process, Kensaburō explains why it was that the ‘villain’ theory came to be so widely believed and who had a hand in perpetrating it. All evidence, or at least the evidence that Kensaburō chooses to detail in his work, points towards Hashiba Hideyoshi commissioning historical records that lay all of the blame for the incident on Mitsuhide. I’ve translated part of the first chapter of the book, mainly because this is the part that details Hideyoshi’s attempt at historical revisionism, and because it’s a fairly interesting introduction to the subject.

  Chapter One  “Who was responsible for creating the established myth?”

In the early hours of the 2nd of the 6th month, Tenshō 10 (1582), the temple of Honnōji in Kyoto was surrounded by the forces of Akechi Mitsuhide. After a brief fight, the temple was engulfed in flames, and Oda Nobunaga, who dreamt of one day uniting the nation, met his fate at the age of 49.  Mitsuhide’s army then moved on to surround the palatial residence at Nijō which housed Nobunaga’s son and heir, Nobutada. With no means of escape, Nobutada ended his life by his own hand, and thus Mitsuhide brought the ‘Honnōji Incident’ to a successful conclusion. (p.21)

Just 11 days later on the 13th of the 6th month, Mitsuhide fought the battle of Yamazaki against Hashiba Hideyoshi.  Mitsuhide was defeated, and it was while he was retreating to his residential castle at Sakamoto in Ōmi province (modern day Shiga prefecture) that Mitsuhide was slain by a person or persons unknown.  These then are the predominant details of the Honnōji Incident, and the battle of Yamazaki. (p.21)

While the above information is certainly true, many people share theories and stories concerning both events that are accepted as historical fact. For example, Nobunaga apparently offered some harsh criticism of Mitsuhide’s actions. Incensed by this, Mitsuhide plotted Nobunaga’s downfall.  This decision was apparently foretold in a poem written by Mitsuhide, which said that ‘perhaps the time is now, when the rains of the 5th month (Satsuki) are falling’. Mitsuhide was alone in his plan to remove Nobunaga, and did not reveal this to his retainers until immediately before setting out for Honnōji, uttering the words “the enemy is in Honnōji” (敵は本能寺にあり). Hashiba Hideyoshi, who was in camp at Takamatsu in Bichū province at the time, learnt of Nobunaga’s demise, and with tears in his eyes solemnly vowed that he would display his loyalty by cutting down his lord’s killer. (p.22)

Everything that has just been outlined about the Honnōji Incident is an invention. They are no more than fabricated stories included in a war tale written some decades after the Honnōji Incident, during the Edō period (1615-1868).

Why is it that written records of the Honnōji Incident, whether they were written decades or centuries after the events they portray, all say the same thing? Was it because they were closest to the truth?

The reality is that these tales were ‘promoted as the truth’.  A certain person, a mere four months after the Honnōji Incident, invented the idea that Mitsuhide held a grudge against Nobunaga and had ambitions of his own to become ruler of the nation. This person also wrote that Mitsuhide acted alone in his conspiracy, and promoted this view to the public. In an age when mass communications and a liberal media were unheard of, whomever held power could create whatever ‘truth’ they wished and this would be accepted as the ‘truth’.  War tales in particular would pick up whatever information was available and then use it to expand a story – for example “Mitsuhide became a close confidant of Tokugawa Ieyasu at Azuchi castle which was resented by Nobunaga”, “Mitsuhide was bad mouthed by Nobunaga and physically assaulted by him”, “Mitsuhide was forced to relinquish much of his territory by order of Nobunaga”, “It was Nobunaga’s fault that Mitsuhide’s mother was killed” etc.  All of these stories were gradually inflated.

Even today, there are a number of people who continue to attach new theories to the reasons why Nobunaga hated Mitsuhide and why Mitsuhide loathed Nobunaga – there’s even one which says that the reason Nobunaga disliked Mitsuhide was because he (Mitsuhide) was short-sighted. It seems that as long as it’s entertaining then anything goes. (p.22)

(TBC)