After the publishment of "The Nihon Fudosan Senyuron" (1952) by Prof. Ryosuke Ishii, it occurred the famous argument called ‘The Chigyo Dispute’ which Prof. Kenji
Maki
and Prof. Shinzo Takayanagi raised against the Ishii-theory. In this treatise I intend to investigate about the dispute, deeply concerned with the character of ‘chigyo’ in the middle age of Japan.
(1) Dispute between Ishii and
Maki
Points under discussion are to be divided into three items as follows: a) Whether the character of ‘chigyo’ can be considered as "possession" or not;
While Prof. Ishii considered ‘chigyo’ as possession, Prof.
Maki
regarded it as the authorized control over the land. When both of these viewpoints resulted in the problem of the existence or nonexistence of illegal ‘chigyo’, Ishii-theory, acknowledging its existence, led
Maki
-theory which denied it, besides the former was more suitable to historical facts. From this limited viewpoint, however, we have to recognize that it is the other question whether we can directly make conclusion about the propriety of "Chigyo=possession theory".
b) Whether ‘to-chigyo’ (_??__??__??_, the present chigyo) recorded in the Act 8 of "Goseibaishikimoku" was originally written as ‘fu-chigyo’ (_??__??__??_, the un-chigyo) or not;
Though a word ‘to-chigyo’ had be written in the Act 8 of "Goseiba-ishikimoku", Prof. Ishii understood it must be originally written as ‘fuchigyo’, and therefore, the Act 8 had prescribed on the negative prescription. On the contrary, Prof.
Maki
accepted that the word ‘to-chigyo’ had been written in the original text. I don't think such an issue is worth arguing.
c) On the etymology of ‘chigyo’;
Prof.
Maki
intended to explain the essential character of ‘chigyo’ from the viewpoint of its etymology, but Prof. Ishii didn't attach importance to this point. While the former understood that the word ‘chigyo’ meant ‘business’ (_??__??_) which had originated in the Ritsuryo Code, the latter took it as ‘profit’ (_??__??_) . Since I think that the word ‘chigyo’ was the unified conception of ‘business’ and ‘profit’, and that ‘profit’ was always founded on ‘business’, it can be said that the viewpoint of Prof.
Maki
, emphasizing business-side of ‘chigyo’, is superior. However ‘chigyo’ in the middle age must not be simply combined to that of Ritsuryo.
As I mentioned above, I agree with Ishii-theory on the first item, and at the same time, with'
Maki
-theory on the third. But I never take the compromise between Ishii and
Maki
theories, for the first item belongs to the problem of essence while the third of origin. I rather want to point out the undeniable fact that ‘chigyo’ in the middle age shows an aspect of ‘business’ in both sides of the essence and the origin, though leaving room for illegal elements. Such a complicated feature of ‘chigyo’ comes from circumstances throughout the formation of feudalism in Japan; the feudal system in Japan was deeply connected with the Ritsuryo system when it came into existence under the provincial situation—the development of lord system in manors. In other words, the formation of feudalism in Japan contained both of the authorized and illegal factors from the standpoint of the Ritsuryo State. Therefore it is not proper only to emphasize the continuity from the Ritsuryo system to the feudal, as well as to separate them. After all, it is necessary to unify both of these two elements—continuity and separation between the Ritsuryo system and the feudal system.
抄録全体を表示