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.
In 1683, the Edo Bakufu under Shogun Tokugawa Tsunayoshi ordered its feudal vassals (daimyo) to submit all documents in their possession related to the Tokugawa family. The purpose of this order was to collect source materials for the compilation and edition of a new, more authoritative history of the origins of the Tokugawa Family and the accomplishments of its founder Tokugawa Ieyasu. Those daimyo who complied with the order quickly had the requested documents drawn up, and submitted to the Bakufu what is known as the “Jokyo-Kakiage Collection”, which would form the historiographical basis for the compilation and edition of the work Butoku Taiseiki (Chronicle of Great Military Achievements). This project would set a trend in the compilation of a series of histories published by the Edo Bakufu during in the latter half of the 17th century. Despite being a very interesting historical development, very little research has been done on the historiographical compilation ordered by the Edo Bakufu. Here the author examines the purpose behind the project and the details involved in the work itself.
To begin with, the documents making up the Jokyo-Kakiage Collection were influenced greatly by the political milieu of the time, in that the daimyo who submitted them were interested in demonstrating their particular historical relationships to the Tokugawa Shogunate. Thus, the Collection's content is quite selective in emphasizing longstanding friendships with the Shogunate, while excluding any inconvenient facts to the contrary. The author shows that the Bakufu compilers were well aware of such selective biases, but turned a blind eye to the fact that the Jokyo-Kakiage Collection by no means reflected an accurate historical picture of the origins of the Tokugawa Family and its feudal relationships with it vassals.
Despite its lack of objectively, the Collection, the author argues, still remains a very interesting topic of study, for the very act of composing historiography to be submitted to the Bakufu constitutes none other than presenting historical ideas, or experience, concerning the subject matter at hand. That is to say, by analyzing the Jokyo-Kakiage Collection, the historian discovers a interesting body of knowledge telling him to how each daimyo viewed the Edo Bakufu in historical terms.
The author then goes on to discuss the influence that the Jokyo - Kakiage Collection exerted on later generations.