天文五年（一五三六）に戦国大名伊達稙宗が制定した「塵芥集」は全一七一条にもおよぶ最大の分国法だが、小論はその成立過程を、主としてテキストに残された痕跡を手がかりに探ろうとするものである。
「塵芥集」は法としての一般化、抽象化が不十分なうえ、同じ規定が二ヵ条存在するなどの不備もあって長大化したが、その原因は稙宗がブレインに頼らず、一人でこつこつと書きためていったことにあった。
「塵芥集」の成立過程に関する研究としては小林宏の三段階成立説が有力である。小林は条数の少ない伝本ほど古いという前提に立ち、現存する四つの一次伝本を古いほうから順に猪熊本・狩野本（全一六三条）→佐藤本（全一六九条）→村田本（全一七一条）という三段階に分け、もっとも古い形状を示す猪熊本・狩野本の祖本に二度の改定が加えられた結果、最新版である村田本が誕生したとする仮説を提示した。
この三段階成立説は、通常の分国法にはまずみられないようなきわめて不自然な改定方法を想定しており、日付や稙宗の花押から得られる所見も改定がおこなわれた事実を支持していないことから、小論はこの三段階成立説を否定し、あらためて一回で完成したとする説を提示している。条数の少ない伝本は「塵芥集」の古い形状を示しているのではなく、たんなる誤脱という解釈である。
一方、「塵芥集」には排列の悪さというもうひとつの問題があり、とくに一五一条以降には孤立した条文が増えることに加え、本来ならもっと早い位置に置かれてしかるべき条文がいくつもあることから、小論は、一五一条以降の条文は一五〇条までの排列がいったん確定したあとに追加された条文であると結論している。ただしそれは追加とか改定というレベルのことではなく、あくまでも完成までの長い途次に訪れた一時的な中断にすぎなかったと考えられる。

抄録全体を表示

There were a lot of various cases in which the retainers' settlement in the castle town had been built up in the time of Civil Wars. Among them the undermentioned two have a particularly important meaning.
1) Functional group settlement
2) Military group settlement
Usually special retainers started to settle in at the early stage of the group settlement and then non-regular or common retainers followed. The former established themselves impromptu and brief, the latter periodically and extending over a long period of time. At its commencement initially the aboding sections were occupied by small number of chief retainers, confidential vassal class and servants of lower ranks.
The group settlement of retainers in the age of Civil Wars is assorted in two types: Koso type and Himenono type.
Dwelling place of Koso type settlement differed from the other for its comparatively closer density, but it was quite dissimilar to the farm village. In the Himenono type settlement the feudal lord's mansion was surrounded with a great many group of retainer's residence. That is really becoming to its appellation “group settlement”. The chief retainers' dweling places, building up the clan group or mass group in form of the coarse agglomerated group settlement (Lockere Dorf), are irregularly distributed here and there.
The local differenciation, usually accompanying to the feudal social strata and craftmanship was immature at the retainers' settlement. This locally undifferenciated phenomena and the appearance of the feudal class group or mass group were resulted from the special ruling structure at that time.
At the age of Civil Wars, the retainers did not yet live a complete way of the urban consumers' life. Generally speaking, their life was rather tinctured with rural colour. It might be traced to the social condition such as “Heinô mibunri” (warriors class not yet differenciated from that of farmers), which also had restricted the number of retainers in the castre town.
Through the latter half of the 16th century, numerous castle towns began to develop on a larger scale; the Koso type settlements were turning into that of Himenono type more and more. Decline of social system of the mediaeval age brought about structural deterioration of the early castle towns and then in the 17th century the modern castle town came out.

抄録全体を表示

In contrast to the modern technical usage of the term "komonjo." as an academic discipline, "komonjo" in the Middle Ages simply meant "old documents", that is, outdated documents of no value. This essay looks into the standards of value that set aside some documents as "komonjo", in other words, the reasons for "monjo" being devalued to "komonjo". In the late Kamakura period, "Heike Io Monjo" (平家以往文書), which appeared in legal documents of the Bakufu courts, were the prime example of "komonjo" or "the outdated documents". The Bakufu evaluated these documents simply according to the time of issue, excluding other factors such as the political importance of the issuers. Only the documents issued after the establishment of the Bakufu had legal power, while the pre-Bakufu documents were regarded as valueless "komonjo". In contrast, the Kenmu Government set up by Godaigo Tenno evaluated documents, not on the basis of the dates of issue but on the basis of the political ties it had with the issuers. Moreprecisely, the criterion for evaluation was the degree of antagonism in relations between the issuer and the Kenmu Government. The courts of the Muromachi Bakufu, on the other hand, did not classify any documents as legally valueless "komonjo", whether based on time factors or on political factors. As we have seen, the standard for defining documents as "komonjo" related closely to the character of the power structure of the time. An understanding of the term "komonjo" as used in the Middle Ages and the basis for its definition provides a clue for discovering, in concrete terms, the meaning that the transfer of political power had at that time.

抄録全体を表示

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.

抄録全体を表示

In this essay, the author attempts to reply to the criticism levelled at him by Mr.Araki Moriaki in a recent article entitled "The Land Survey by the Sengoku Daimyo (戦国大名) and the Sakuai (作合) (Subletting Rent)" (see Shigaku Zasshi, Vol XC, No 8: Aug. 1981). In that article, Mr.Araki judged as empirically unprovable the key point to the author's Sengoku daimyo land survey theory (see Katsumata Shizuo 勝俣鎭夫, Sengoku-ho Seiritsu-shiron 戦国法成立史論) which states that the fundamental principle underlying said surveys was to negate tax unit managers' rights under the previous shoen (荘園) system to reap supplementary land rent income and incorporate such income into a system of monetary evaluation of land yields (kandaka-sei 貫高制). That is to say, as opposed to the author's schema which equates tax additions gained by land surveying (kenchi mashibun 検地増分) tax unit manager appropriation of supplementary land rents tax unit field management income, Mr.Araki attempts to resurrect his outdated formula which equates gains by surveying tax unit management income "off the record" fields (onden 隠田) hidden from the shoen tax system. In the present essay, the author, after investigating Mr.Araki's own empirical evidence, makes clear the impossibility of proving the existence of such a formula. Howeverr Mr.Araki is mistaken not only because of the low level of his empirical proof, but mainly because he ignores the great historical significance which lay in the Sengoku daimyos' method of "on paper" surveying (sashi-dashi kenchi 指出検地) in favor of "field" surveys (joryo kenchi 丈量検地), which, he purports, were carried out in order to discover previously concealed taxable land. Moreover, because it is now possible to conceive of Hideyoshi's cadastres (Taiko Kenchi 太閤検地), which were fundamentally "on paper" surveys, as having adopted the Sengoku daimyos' method for carrying out their own land surveys -that is, as a grand finale to the surveying done by those feudal powers -the time has finally come for a radical re-investigation of the long established explanation proposed by Mr.Araki concerning the origins of Taiko Kenchi.

抄録全体を表示

The main aim of this essay is to examine the characteristics of the political strength of the Imagawa family, Sengoku Daimyo of Suruga and Totomi Provinces, by inquiring into the land surveys (kenchi) which it carried out in the late 16th century. The author examines the land surveys of the Imagawa from two dimensions : from their scope -how broadly the survey could cover the land at one time -and this depth -how thoroughly the lord could survey the territory. With respect to the scope of the surveys, examining critically the views put forth by Mr. Arimitsu Yugaku in his essay in the journal, Nihonshi Kenkyu #138 (Jan. 1974), the author concludes that the surveys covered much wider areas than his local theory permits, and that his attempt to explain the motivation of the surveys from the content of the first article of the Imagawa Kana Mokuroku (the Imagawa family code), which provides guidelines for local lords concerning the conditions under which they could force customary cultivators to quit their tenancies in favor of cultivators who would pay higher rents, is itself in error. As to the depth of the surveys, the author investigates both their form and contents. She concludes that: 1)the surveys were not merely redigested reports from local land lords, but were actually carried out in a positive manner, including on-the-spot inquiries by Imagawa functionaries. 2)the surveys, by calculating the incomes from a strip of land -nengu (tribute) and kajishi (additional rents)- in terms of currency (kanmon), and by unifying these incomes into a monetary tax assessment system, represent a certain thoroughness which, while not directly related to "the abolishment of saku-ai" (those intermediary sub-rents abolished by Hideyoshi's surveys), can clearly be interpreted as a foreshadowing that the Imagawa would soon put an end to the multi-strata shiki-system characteristic of Japan's medieval period. With the help of an examination of commercial policies of the Imagawa, the author concludes that the Sengoku Daimyo represents an epoch-making type of political power, a power which grew by bringing under its span of control new areas heretofore out of the reach of the locally based lords (zaichi ryoshu) of the previous period ; and it is in this sense that she is able to see a Kinsei-type political power born, out of the chusei period.

抄録全体を表示

The research on the system of litigation under the Kamakura Bakufu has been accumulating since before the War in a very well arranged fashion of comparing and fitting this system within the framework of modern systems of litigation. However, in this tendency one can descern no attempt by researchers to grasp medieval society as a wholistic phenomenon. In this essay the author investigates the Bakufu's way of administering justice by concentrating on the characteristically medieval institution of teichu (庭中), or directly petitioning the Bakufu's court from "within the garden." The accepted explanation of teichu had heretofore been offerred by the legal historian, Ishii Ryosuke, who defined the institution as a remedial procedure classed along with appeals over the generally allowed three petitions (osso 越訴) for reduesting a re-trial on grounds of errors in legal procedure by the court. However, through an investigation of petitions delivered through the procedure of teichu to the Bakufu prefects (tandai 探題) in Kyoto (Rokuhara 六波羅) and Kyushu (Chinzei 鎮西), the author was able to establish that rather than a request for redress in procedural errors, teichu was actually a form of directly filing petitions with the court's clerk (hikitsuke tonin 引付頭人). Therefore based on this evidence combined with consideration of the "spacial order of things" within the architecture of the Bakufu headquarters in the Kanto plain, the term teichu can be thought of as expressing the action of directly petitioning the Bakufu's court verbally from the environs of its garden. Next in consideration of the two important elements of teichu, the garden and verbal communication, the author was able to establish that originally filing (shinsei 申請) of petitions was done orally and that the stage for this oral presentation was a garden. That is to say, the origins of this garden-staged, orally-presented petitioning procedure of the Kamakura Bakufu are to be found in the classical period when such filing procedures were of an everyday nature and also when litigation procedures possessed a magical aspect related to the world of mythology. Also within the Bakufu trial system written oaths (kishomon 起請文) served an extremely important function as court evidence, showing that this trial system ultimately rested on the magical force of native deities (kami 神) and the buddha. In the Muromachi period, as well, this aspect is present in such facts that during teichu of persons accused of causing the illness of the Tenno (天皇) by witchcraft, the procedure of testimony by boiling water (yugisho 湯起請) was carried out to determine innocence or guilt. The custom of teichu, the symbol of classical magic which lay within the medieval trial system, survived until the Sengoku period at which time Oda Nobunaga, the herald of things to come in the Early Modern era, finally put an end to the mythological aspects of legal procedure, thus marking an important turning point in the history of Japanese jurisprudence. It is for this reason that the view of a medieval trial system which fails to take into account the important element of classical magic should be revised.

抄録全体を表示

Munabetsusen (棟別銭 : ridge beam tax) instituted in medieval Japan was levied on individual houses in certain neighborhoods at a fixed rate. It was essentially an unscheduled tax levied during the Muromachi era and became an important source of revenue for the Muromachi Bakufu's descendants, the Sengoku daimyo. However, munabetsu-sen has seldom been studied as a topic in itself, and thus has yet to be examined on an empirical level. In the present paper, the author attempts to view munabetsu-sen within the broad context of medieval society, beginning with an investigation of the institution during the Kamakura and Muromachi eras. Munabetsu-sen originated as a method of raising funds to cover the repair of temples an shrines and was collected during those eras mainly on such a pretext. What is interesting, however, its that munabetsu-sen was not incorporated into the Muromachi Bakufu's system of taxation, but remained as a provisional tax earmarked for religious purposes. Turning to the fate of munabetsu-sen within the fiscal affairs of the Sengoku Daimyo, the Takeda Clan of Kai Province made it its main source of revenue, while at the same time collecting munbetsu-sen to cover the construction costs of Daizenji temple. However, the construction of this temple was a measure related to the Takeda family's munabetsu-sen fiscal structure, in the sense that temple construction was carried out in order to generalize the purpose of a tax originally earmarked for religious purposes. In additin, as an unscheduled tax, munabetsu-sen became involved in edicts for the remission of debts (tokusei-rei 徳政令). That is to say, in contrast to a similar tax knows as tansen 段銭 levied on land to pay for coronations, road construction, etc., munabetsu-sen did not easily adapt or change in accordance with the development of medieval taxation, maintaining its unscheduled, religious character even during the Sengoku era.

抄録全体を表示

Recent studies of the late medieval Japanese constitutional history focus on regional communities, and place special focus on the fact that the structure of social order was autonomous and self-enforced by the people themselves. These viewpoints are based upon the concept of the Kubo, which has a meaning of keeping the village community peace. Examining the term Kubo mainly, I will reconsider the position of the feudal lord in the late medieval village community.
From the research of the Kubo in Suganoura during the Muromachi era, I found that the concept of the public (Oyake, [_??_]) in the late medieval regional community has a strong relationship with the govern-mental authorities. This means that we have to attach more importance to the substance of the Kubo - the governmental authorities, to say more, being the lord of the manor.
Considering above, I carried out the research on the position of the feudal lord by examining Kujo Masamoto, who was a lord of Hine-no-sho. Kujo was struggling with the Hosokawa family (Shugo, _??__??_) and the heads of the Negoro-temple for the dominance of the Hine-no-sho. Kujo's power base was not as strong as Hosokawa's, but the regional community never prevented Kujo from being the lord of the manor. This was because of the legitimacy derived from his position as the Kubo. I can also find that the Negoro-temple possessed the necessary qualities for the position as lord, as they had not only sufficient military forces but also religious authority accepted by the regional community. The Negoro-temple therefore succeeded Kujo as the next lord with few complications.
In conclusion, although recent studies place too much emphasis on the said concept of the Kubo, it is impossible to clarify the whole constitutional situation during the late medieval period from these onesided views. It is therefore necessary to regard the feudal lord from a more holistic perspective, in other words, by attaching importance not only to the concept of the Kubo but also to the substance of it.

抄録全体を表示

In this article, the author examines the relationship between feudal powers during Japan's Sengoku period (sengoku daimyo) and local society under their rule from the aspect of taxation, focussing on the function and actual operation of "kura" 蔵 (storehouses), which were the centers for the collection, inventory control and fiscal allocation of taxes. In the first chapter, the author offers the case of kura in the territory of the Gohojo 後北条 family in order to examine their fundamental role during the period. The Gohojo established kura at all of the castles in its territories, including the family's main residence, for covering its fiscal expenditures, particularly okuradashi 御蔵出, the salaries paid to its vassals. The management of kura was relegated to either an administrator/vassal (kura-bugyo 蔵奉行) or local deputies (daikan 代官). Next, the author focuses on how kura dealt with taxes in arrears. The most important function of local deputies was the collection of taxes and duties, to the extent that they were made responsible for the payment of all taxes, whether actually collected or not. In consideration of such a heavy burden, local deputies were allowed to take security in place of unpaid taxes or deal with arrears as unpaid loans and charge interest on them until they were remitted in full. Moreover, the Gohojo carried out normal lending activities on the local level using the rice and currency stored in their kura. In the second chapter, the author pursues the function of usury centering around kura, and discovers various forms, such as kuramoto 蔵本, kurakata 蔵方, senshu 銭主 and doso 土蔵. For example, kuramoto were borrowers protected by the Gohojo itself, the daimyo assuming responsibility for "loans" in the case of tax arrears. This indicates a position of privilege within the daimyo's sociopolitical structure. In chapter three, the author presents similar examples in the management of kura within the territories of the Kai-Takeda, Imagawa, Tokugawa, and Asai families. He also shows cases in which usurers were appointed to the position of daikan under exemptions from provisions in edicts cancelling debts (tokuseirei 徳政令). On the other hand, daikan were able to use security and interest accumulated in the collection of unpaid taxes for their own personal lending activities. It was in this way that kura under the Sengoku daimyo functioned as tax storehouses, fiscal organs and usurious lending institutions. In conclusion, the author reviews the role and significance of kura in premodern Japan, tracing the history of its lending functions back to ancient times, when it was a clearing house for agricultural promotion and reclamation (kanno 勧農) loans.

抄録全体を表示