Very little research has been done to date on central government officials who resided in provincial administrative districts (
bunaikyoju-kanjin 部内居住官人 ; hereafter,
bunai-kanjin), from their standpoint as members of the bureaucracy. This article reexamines an intra-bureau directive issued by the Grand Council of State (
Dajokanpu 太政官符) dated April ll Engi 2 (902 CE), in order to review several issues regarding
bunai-kanjin in relation to the ancient Japanese bureaucracy as a whole. In addition, the author also discusses problems facing the Ritsuryo bureaucracy from 902 on.
The author's analysis of insubordination on the part of
bunai-kanjin towards provincial governors, including a case of refusing corvee imposed by a low-class military officials (
efu-toneri 衛府舎人 ) and one of not paying land taxes and interest of rice seed loans imposed by lower-ranking officials in the Kinai region, leads him to the conclusion that such insubordination differed in substance according to the bureaucratic classification of
bunai-kanjin and the regions where they were stationed. Further investigation makes clear that the system of tax exemption under the Ritsuryo Codes, at least until the time of issuance of the
Dajokanpu of 902, covered
bunai-kanjin.
However, the
Dajokanpu of 902 emphasizes the fact that since the mid-9th century 1) records existed showing that
bunai-kanjin had been “singled out for duties” by provincial authorities and 2) had been subjected to various tax impositions. However, this did not mean that
bunai-kanjin had been stripped of their tax exempt status. Rather, based on the research arguing that the directive was related to the formation of a new type of local administrator, which historians call
“zoshikinin-gunji” 雑 色 人 郡 司 , the author suggests that the directive's reference to
bunai-kanjin should be interpreted as a comment concerning a portion of local elites with ambitions to certain provincial level government appointments, and a mere statement of the fact that in the process,
bunai-kanjin were being incorporated into such nespotic administrative mechanisms by local authorities.
Concerning
bunai-kanjin in general, the
Dajokanpu of 902, while admitting that in fact they had been subjected to various corvee impositions, in principle they were obliged to conduct their duties as bureaucrats. The author suggests that what made this institutional distinction necessary was a logic that had developed since the mid-9th century, to the effect that the public obligations of bureaucrats who had been incorporated into provincial level administrative mechanisms were the same as those imposed on ordinary tax paying subjects.
Given these findings, the historical significance of the
Dajokanpu of 902 lies not in making us aware of the changes that had occurred in corvee obligations at that time, but rather in pointing out that changes had occurred within the whole system that was supposed to be functioning based on the status hierarchy established under the Ritsuryo Codes.
View full abstract