The Land Survey by the Sengoku Daimyo (戦国大名) and the Sakuai (作合) (Subbettingrent)

Abstract

Shizuo Katsumata's recent work on the history of the laws enacted during the Warring Era (Sengoku-ho Seiritsu-shiron (戦国法成立史論), Tokyo, 1979) seems to be the most outstanding study in this field, produced after the World War II. His analysis of the Warring Era is versatile, sharp and accurate. Moreover, his approach is logical and clear-cut. Inspite of the prominence of his historical sense, some defects should be found in Katsumata's work. There is a question in his analysis of the real state of the land survey which was carried on during the latter half of the 16th century, by such "sengoku daimyo" as the Imagawa, Takeda and Hojo. There have so far been two theories on the historical character of the "sengoku daimyo." The one was that of Kichiji Nakamura, who had explained it in his studies in the agrarian policy at the beginning of the age of Kinsei (Kinsei-shoki Nosei-shi Kenkyu (近世初期農政史研究), Tokyo, 1938). The other is my own, which has opposed to Nakamura's theory. Whether the "sengoku daimyo" was homogeneous to the "kinsei daimyo," or not, is the polemic point between the two. Nakamura asserted that the "sengoku daimyo" was homogeneous to the "kinsei daimyo." I have, however, asserted that the "sengoku daimyo" was rather of the same quality as the "shugo daimyo," and thus the "sengoku daimyo" was not homogeneous to the "kinsei daimyo." The key to solution of the problem is to know whether the principles of the land survey of the "sengoku daimyo" was the same as those of the "kinsei daimyo," or not. Toyotomi Hideyoshi, or the Taiko, and all the "kinsei daimyo" prohibited the peasants to sublet the land each other. While conducting the land survey, they did not admit to pay or receive "sakuai" or the rent of subletting. Then, did the "sengoku daimyo" prohibited the peasants to pay or receive the rent, too? Katsumata asserted, acknowledging Nakamura as true, that the survey works conducted by the Imagawa, Takeda and Hojo were the same as those of Hideyoshi and the "kinsei daimyo." and the Imagawa and Takeda did not admit to give and take "sakuai." However, I wonder if Katsumata may misinterpreted the historical source materials concerning the Imagawa and Takeda. The present article asserts that the land survey works carried on by the "sengoku daimyo" was different from those of the Taiko and the "kinsei daimyo," and the "sengoku daimyo" admitted the "sakuai" as the materials approve it.