Source: blog.livedoor.jp Ashigaru This post follows on from that made last week, in that it continues with another chapter taken from Shimizu Katsuyuki’s 「喧嘩両成敗の誕生」, specifically that which deals with an attempt by the Muromachi Bakufu to change the mores of the mid-medieval period away from reliance on ‘Jiriki Kyūsai’ (自力救済, or ‘self-preservation’) to enforcement of central authority in disputes between rival retainers of various households. (156) The legislation that the Muromachi Bakufu adopted in order to do this was known as 「本人切腹制」”Honnin Seppuku Sei”, or “System for the Ritual Suicide of the Person (s) Concerned”. In his introduction to the chapter, Shimizu relates a specific example of this system at work. (156)
In the sixth month of Bunmei 11 (1479), there occurred an incident out the front of Kitano Shrine in Kyoto. A retainer of Isshiki Yoshinao by the name of Nariyoshi, with a number of accomplices, attempted to steal bamboo roots that were growing amid the piles of wood out the front of the shrine. The attendants of Kitano Shrine (known as Miyaji, or 宮仕, themselves a lower class of attendant), upon catching Nariyoshi’s mob in the act, tried to stop them from making off with their loot. Nariyoshi and his group did not take kindly to this, and so a fight broke out among the two groups. It appears as though Nariyoshi’s group had the advantage in numbers, for three Miyaji from Kitano Shrine were killed with no apparent losses to Nariyoshi. Other Miyaji from Kitano Shrine that witnessed the violence were so incensed by Nariyoshi’s act and the senseless deaths of their colleagues that they resolved to shut themselves up in the inner sanctum of the shrine. They then used the divine authority vested on the shrine as a shield to send a message of protest to the Bakufu, demanding that Nariyoshi and his group be dealt with promptly. (156-157)
The Muromachi Shōgun at the time, Ashikaga Yoshihisa, was unusual in that he took a particular interest in administrative and legal matters and so moved rapidly to deal with the culprits. Yoshihisa handed down a missive to the Nariyoshi’s master, Isshiki Yoshinao, ordering him to punish Nariyoshi and the others based on ‘their equivalent crime’ (相当の罪). As a consequence, Nariyoshi was forced to order one of his followers to commit ritual suicide, given that this person was the instigator or ‘person concerned’ of both the theft of the bamboo roots and the violence that followed. Nariyoshi himself later fled the capital. (157)
In the medieval period, the term 「相当」(Sōtō) meant ‘damage or loss to the same degree or extent’. Since three Miyaji of Kitano Shrine had been killed during the incident, the punishment to be metered out based on ‘equivalent crime’ meant that three members of Nariyoshi’s retinue would also have to die. However in this instance, the only person forced to commit ritual suicide was the one who had sparked the violence out the front of Kitano Shrine. On this basis, one could not say that is was ‘punishment based on an equivalent crime’. Yet this measure appears to have satiated the desire for revenge by the Miyaji of Kitano Shrine, who then came out from the inner sanctum, thereby bringing the entire incident to a peaceful conclusion. From the point of view of traditional medieval social logic, which demanded punishment of an equal kind in retaliation, this conclusion was completely nonsensical. Yet it was indicative of the system used by the Muromachi Bakufu, that of the Honnin Seppuku Sei. (157)
There were three particular characteristics of this system at work which explain why it was implemented. The first, and most important, was the fact that no matter how many victims there were, the ‘instigator’ directly responsible for causing the incident would be the only one punished. The second was that the punishment metered out against the ‘instigator’ would not be carried out on a direct order from the Bakufu. Instead the Shōgun would send an order to the lord or master of the ‘instigator’, demanding that he deal with his retainer. The third was the fact that in the end, the instigator would accept the order from his master and commit ritual suicide (or jigai, 自害). (157)
These were the characteristics of the system. It’s now worthwhile exploring each in turn. First, let’s take a look at the second characteristic, the more ‘roundabout’ system of punishment whereby the Shōgun would not pass sentence against the ‘instigator’ directly but instead would order the master of that ‘instigator’ to carry out the punishment. As was outlined in Chapter Two, the area within the private residence of shugo daimyō during the Muromachi period possessed a strong degree of independence, to the extent that the Shōgun himself could not enter it the residence without prior permission from the owner concerned. This exactly mirrored the system of control that the shugo daimyō themselves exercised against their retainers. (158)
From a logical point of view, as the Shōgun was the master over the shugo daimyo and they were his vassals, and as the retainers of the shugo daimyō were vassals of those daimyō, then the Shōgun should have been able to exercise direct control over the retainers of the shugo daimyō as well. Yet in principle this was not permitted. In the 5th month of the 23rd year of Ōei (1416), a retainer of Hatakeyama Michiie and another of Uramatsu (Hino) Yoshisuke became involved in a fight while returning from the Kamo Kurabeuma ( 加茂競馬, a religious event held at Kamigamo Shrine in May), which resulted in bloodshed. The Shōgun at the time, Ashikaga Yoshimochi, thereafter reprimanded (突鼻, totsupi) the masters of these retainers, Hatakeyama and Uramatsu, but did no more than this. (158)
In medieval Europe, “the retainer of a retainer is not your vassal” was an often said phase, yet the same could also be said of medieval Japanese society. Although the master of a criminal might be his own vassal, in principle the Shōgun did not have the power to transcend his vassal’s authority in order to punish the criminal. Under the mores of the day, what the Shōgun could do was to order his vassal to punish the transgressor, yet there was no direct way through which the Shōgun could question the authority of his vassal or punish his vassal.(158) It was the same no matter what level of society it occurred at.(158)
In order to punish the ringleader of the violence at Kitano Shrine, Yoshihisa first issued an order to Nariyoshi’s master Isshiki Yoshinao demanding that he punish the perpetrator. Isshiki then issued his own order, demanding that Nariyoshi punish the guilty party. The circuitous administration of the Honnin Seppuku Sei was entirely in keeping with the master-retainer system that existed at the time. Such administration was an unavoidable fact of life at the time, and may in fact have been encouraged. A particularly asute and intelligent aristocrat of the mid-to-late Muromachi period, Ichijō Kaneyoshi, in his collection of political essays dedicated to Shōgun Ashikaga Yoshihisa known as the Shō Danchō (樵談治要), paid particular attention to the growing menace of “ashigaru” (or foot soldiers, 足軽) that began to appear on the streets of the capital following the Ōnin and Bunmei periods (late fifteenth century). Kaneyoshi called the ashigaru “extreme villains” and launched into damning criticism of them in his writing.(159)
Kaneyoshi’s writing is a particularly valuable historical resource given its recount of the activities of these ashigaru and how these contrasted to the prejudiced views of the aristocracy. As such, it is often quoted in historical studies although the writing itself is not very well known. I offer the advice Kaneyoshi put forward to getting rid of the ashigaru as an example of his work. (159)
“No matter who the ashigaru happens to be, every ashigaru has a master. If such things happen again from here on, the masters of each of the ashigaru should be made to take responsibility and punish their ashigaru. If a system existed whereby an ashigaru, if he happened to be either a peasant or a merchant, would be subjected to punishment after an order was sent to his ‘place of residence’ (either a village or town), ashigaru as a profession would cease to exist.” (159)
In the sixth month of Bunmei 11 (1479), there occurred an incident out the front of Kitano Shrine in Kyoto. A retainer of Isshiki Yoshinao by the name of Nariyoshi, with a number of accomplices, attempted to steal bamboo roots that were growing amid the piles of wood out the front of the shrine. The attendants of Kitano Shrine (known as Miyaji, or 宮仕, themselves a lower class of attendant), upon catching Nariyoshi’s mob in the act, tried to stop them from making off with their loot. Nariyoshi and his group did not take kindly to this, and so a fight broke out among the two groups. It appears as though Nariyoshi’s group had the advantage in numbers, for three Miyaji from Kitano Shrine were killed with no apparent losses to Nariyoshi. Other Miyaji from Kitano Shrine that witnessed the violence were so incensed by Nariyoshi’s act and the senseless deaths of their colleagues that they resolved to shut themselves up in the inner sanctum of the shrine. They then used the divine authority vested on the shrine as a shield to send a message of protest to the Bakufu, demanding that Nariyoshi and his group be dealt with promptly. (156-157)
The Muromachi Shōgun at the time, Ashikaga Yoshihisa, was unusual in that he took a particular interest in administrative and legal matters and so moved rapidly to deal with the culprits. Yoshihisa handed down a missive to the Nariyoshi’s master, Isshiki Yoshinao, ordering him to punish Nariyoshi and the others based on ‘their equivalent crime’ (相当の罪). As a consequence, Nariyoshi was forced to order one of his followers to commit ritual suicide, given that this person was the instigator or ‘person concerned’ of both the theft of the bamboo roots and the violence that followed. Nariyoshi himself later fled the capital. (157)
In the medieval period, the term 「相当」(Sōtō) meant ‘damage or loss to the same degree or extent’. Since three Miyaji of Kitano Shrine had been killed during the incident, the punishment to be metered out based on ‘equivalent crime’ meant that three members of Nariyoshi’s retinue would also have to die. However in this instance, the only person forced to commit ritual suicide was the one who had sparked the violence out the front of Kitano Shrine. On this basis, one could not say that is was ‘punishment based on an equivalent crime’. Yet this measure appears to have satiated the desire for revenge by the Miyaji of Kitano Shrine, who then came out from the inner sanctum, thereby bringing the entire incident to a peaceful conclusion. From the point of view of traditional medieval social logic, which demanded punishment of an equal kind in retaliation, this conclusion was completely nonsensical. Yet it was indicative of the system used by the Muromachi Bakufu, that of the Honnin Seppuku Sei. (157)
There were three particular characteristics of this system at work which explain why it was implemented. The first, and most important, was the fact that no matter how many victims there were, the ‘instigator’ directly responsible for causing the incident would be the only one punished. The second was that the punishment metered out against the ‘instigator’ would not be carried out on a direct order from the Bakufu. Instead the Shōgun would send an order to the lord or master of the ‘instigator’, demanding that he deal with his retainer. The third was the fact that in the end, the instigator would accept the order from his master and commit ritual suicide (or jigai, 自害). (157)
These were the characteristics of the system. It’s now worthwhile exploring each in turn. First, let’s take a look at the second characteristic, the more ‘roundabout’ system of punishment whereby the Shōgun would not pass sentence against the ‘instigator’ directly but instead would order the master of that ‘instigator’ to carry out the punishment. As was outlined in Chapter Two, the area within the private residence of shugo daimyō during the Muromachi period possessed a strong degree of independence, to the extent that the Shōgun himself could not enter it the residence without prior permission from the owner concerned. This exactly mirrored the system of control that the shugo daimyō themselves exercised against their retainers. (158)
From a logical point of view, as the Shōgun was the master over the shugo daimyo and they were his vassals, and as the retainers of the shugo daimyō were vassals of those daimyō, then the Shōgun should have been able to exercise direct control over the retainers of the shugo daimyō as well. Yet in principle this was not permitted. In the 5th month of the 23rd year of Ōei (1416), a retainer of Hatakeyama Michiie and another of Uramatsu (Hino) Yoshisuke became involved in a fight while returning from the Kamo Kurabeuma ( 加茂競馬, a religious event held at Kamigamo Shrine in May), which resulted in bloodshed. The Shōgun at the time, Ashikaga Yoshimochi, thereafter reprimanded (突鼻, totsupi) the masters of these retainers, Hatakeyama and Uramatsu, but did no more than this. (158)
In medieval Europe, “the retainer of a retainer is not your vassal” was an often said phase, yet the same could also be said of medieval Japanese society. Although the master of a criminal might be his own vassal, in principle the Shōgun did not have the power to transcend his vassal’s authority in order to punish the criminal. Under the mores of the day, what the Shōgun could do was to order his vassal to punish the transgressor, yet there was no direct way through which the Shōgun could question the authority of his vassal or punish his vassal.(158) It was the same no matter what level of society it occurred at.(158)
In order to punish the ringleader of the violence at Kitano Shrine, Yoshihisa first issued an order to Nariyoshi’s master Isshiki Yoshinao demanding that he punish the perpetrator. Isshiki then issued his own order, demanding that Nariyoshi punish the guilty party. The circuitous administration of the Honnin Seppuku Sei was entirely in keeping with the master-retainer system that existed at the time. Such administration was an unavoidable fact of life at the time, and may in fact have been encouraged. A particularly asute and intelligent aristocrat of the mid-to-late Muromachi period, Ichijō Kaneyoshi, in his collection of political essays dedicated to Shōgun Ashikaga Yoshihisa known as the Shō Danchō (樵談治要), paid particular attention to the growing menace of “ashigaru” (or foot soldiers, 足軽) that began to appear on the streets of the capital following the Ōnin and Bunmei periods (late fifteenth century). Kaneyoshi called the ashigaru “extreme villains” and launched into damning criticism of them in his writing.(159)
Kaneyoshi’s writing is a particularly valuable historical resource given its recount of the activities of these ashigaru and how these contrasted to the prejudiced views of the aristocracy. As such, it is often quoted in historical studies although the writing itself is not very well known. I offer the advice Kaneyoshi put forward to getting rid of the ashigaru as an example of his work. (159)
“No matter who the ashigaru happens to be, every ashigaru has a master. If such things happen again from here on, the masters of each of the ashigaru should be made to take responsibility and punish their ashigaru. If a system existed whereby an ashigaru, if he happened to be either a peasant or a merchant, would be subjected to punishment after an order was sent to his ‘place of residence’ (either a village or town), ashigaru as a profession would cease to exist.” (159)
RSS Feed