Abstract
The institutional foundations of the Tokugawa daimyo have been obscured by the lack of insight which historians have traditionally shown into the history of the Ashikaga period and, in particular, into the late Ashikaga, or Sengoku, age. Like the Dark Ages in Europe, this chapter of Japanese history has been accepted in historiography as a dark and formless era of war and trouble. Japanese historians have dismissed the Sengoku period as a time of ge-koku-jō when the political order was capriciously turned upside down by unworthy leaders. The colorful Western historian, James Murdoch, has heaped his most caustic invectives upon the main figures in Ashikaga history. Of the founder of the Ashikaga shogunate he claimed, “Takauji may indeed have been the greatest man of his time, but that is not saying very much, for the middle of the fourteenth century in Japan was the golden age, not merely of turncoats, but of mediocrities.”1 To Murdoch the Sengoku period was a “vile” age when the Japanese people showed, as he put it, a “lust for war and slaughter … utterly beyond human control,” and only the timely arrival of the “great trio” of daimyo, Nobunaga, Hideyoshi, and Ieyasu, saved the day for Japan.
1
Murdoch
James
,
History of Japan
(3 vols.,
Kōbe and London
,
1903
–
1926
),
I
,
580
.
3
Dening
Walter
,
The Life of Toyotomi Hideyoshi (1536–98)
(
Kōbe
,
1930
), pp.
6
–
7
.
4
Kichiji
Nakamura
,
Hōkfnsei saihenseishi [History of the Re-establishment of the Feudal System]
(
Tokyo
,
1939
).
5
Tsunoda
Ryusaku
,
de Bary
Wm. Theodore
,
Keene
Donald
, comp.,
Sources of the Japanese Tradition
(
New York
,
1958
), p.
322
.
6Suzuki Ryōichi, “Shokuhō-seiken ron” [“On the Shokuhō Political Structure”],
Kenkyūkai
Rekishigaku
and
Kenkyūkai
Nihonshi
,
Nihon rekfthi kōza [Lectures on Japanese History]
(8 vols.,
Tokyo
,
1952
),
IV
,
86
.
7For a selection of the more accessible and generalized writings of these historians see:
Keiji
Nagahara
, “
Shugo ryōkokusei no tenkai
” [“The Changing Structure of the
Shugo Domain”],
Shakpikeizaishigaku
,
XVII
(Feb.
1951
),
103
–
104
;
Shinʻichi
Satō
, “Shugo ryōkokusei no tenkai” [“The Changing Structure of the
Shugo Domain”],
Shin Nihon rekishi taikei [New Series on Japanese History]
(6 vols.,
Tokyo
,
1952
–
1954
),
III
,
81
–
127
;
Takeshi
Toyoda
, “
Sengoku-daimyo-ryō no keisei
” [“The Structure of the Sengoku Daimyo Domain”],
Shin Nihon rekishi taikei
,
III
,
197
–
223
;
Takeshi
Toyoda
, “
Shokuhō seiken
” [“The Shokuhō Political Structure”],
Nihon rekishi kpza
,
III
,
185
–
208
;
Tasaburō
Itō
, “
Kinsei daimyō kenkyū josetsu
” [“Introduction to die Study of the Modern Daimyo”],
Shigaku zasshi
,
LV
, nos.
9
and 11 (Sept., Nov.
1944
)
;
Kichiji
Nakamura
, “
Kokudaka seido to hōkensei—Bakuhan taisei no seikaku—
” [“The
kokudaka System and Feudalism—The Nature of the Shogunal-Daimyo System—”],
Shigaku zasshi
,
LXLX
, nos.
7–8
(July, Aug.
1960
).
8
Sansom
George B.
,
Japan—A Short Cultural History
(rev. ed.,
New York
,
1943
), pp.
362
–
365
.
9
Kanʻichi
Asakawa
, tr. and ed.,
The Documents of Iriki, Illustrative of the Development of the Feudal Institutions of Japan
(
New Haven
,
1929
).
10Satsuma, the scene of the Asakawa's study of the Iriki house documents, is one of the few regions in which a shugo family of Kamakura origin, the Shimazu, managed to retain its power and continue as a daimyo under the Tokugawa hegemony.
11
Tasaburō
Itō
,
Nihon hōkenseido shi
[
History of Feudal Institutions in Japan] (
Tokyo
,
1951
), p.
142
;
Shigeki
Yoshimura
,
Kokushi-seido hōkai ni kansuru kenkyū
[
A Study of the Decline of the System of Provincial Governorships] (
Tokyo
,
1957
)
. For a case study of a
shugo family in the vicinity of Okayama see:
Hisato
Matsuoka
, “Ōuchi-shi no hatten to sono ryōkoku shihai” [“The Emergence of the Ōuchi House and its System of Territorial Control”], in
Sōgorō
Uozumi
,
Daimyō-ryōkoku to jōamachi
[
Daimyo Territories and castle towns] (
Kyōto
,
1957
).
12These figures were compiled by Madoka Kanai from the following sources:
Usaburō
Nagayama
,
Okayama Ken nōchishi [History of Agricultural Land in Okayama Prefecture]
(
Okayama
,
1952
),
394
–
452
;
Naokatsu
Nakamura
,
Shōen no kenkyū [Studies on shōen]
(
Tokyo
,
1939
),
601
–
643
;
Rizō
Takeuchi
,
Jiryō shōen no kenkyū [Studies on Temple Shōen]
(
Tokyo
,
1942
),
63
–
64
, 77, 471–472
;
Toranosuke
Nishioka
,
Shōenshi no kenkyū [Studies on Shōen History]
(3 vols.,
Tōkyō
,
1956
–
1957
),
III
,
882
–
886
;
Masatake
Shimizu
,
Shōen shiryō [Documents on Shōen]
(2 vols.,
Tōkyō
,
1933
),
1121
ff.
13
Kyōichirō
Mizuno
, “
Shugo Akamatsu-shi no ryōkoku shihai to Kakitsu no hen
” [The Territorial Administration of the
shugo Akamatsu House and the Kakitsu Incident],
Shirin
,
42
(
1959
),
254
–
281
.
14For an analysis of the institutional weaknesses of a shugo house similar to the Akamatsu see:
Yoshio
Koyamada
, “
Muromachi jidai no Mōri-shi ni tsuite
” [“On the Mōri House during the Muromachi Period”]
Rekjshi kyōiku
,
7
.
8
(
1959
),
24
–
26
;
Sakuji
Fukui
, “
Mōri-shi no daimyō ryōshusei no hatten” [“The Development by the Mōri House of its System of Daimyo Territorial Control]
,
Geibi chihōshi kenkyū
,
V–VI
(
1954
),
17
–
24
.
Hiroshi
Sugiyama
,
Shōen kaitai katei no kenkyū [Studies on the Dissolusion of the Shōen]
(
Tōkyō
,
1959
),
138
–
192
.
15
Usaburō
Nagayama
,
Okayama Ken tsūshi [Survey History of Okayama Prefecture]
(2 vols.,
Okayama
,
1930
),
II
,
987
–
1011
.
16
Shiyakusho
Okayama
,
Okayama Shi shi [History of Okayama City]
(6 vols.,
Okayama
,
1938
),
II
,
1195
ff
.
Seiichi
Tanaka
, ed.,
Kibi gunsho shūsei dai san shū (Senki bu)
[
Collected Writing on Kibi, Volume 3, (
Military Chronicles)] (
Tokyo
,
1921
).
17lkeda-ke monjo [lkeda-house Archives], Urakami Ukida ryōke bugenchō [House Rolls of the Urakami and Ukida], doc. Zatsu, 717.
18Okayama Shi shi, II, 1325.
19The Ukida House has left behind only a very few documents relating to its rise as the first great daimyo of Bizen, perhaps due to its violent demise in 1600. The available records are fairly well assembled in Okayama Shi shi, II, 1403 ff. A few house rolls recovered from the archives of the Ōoka family are found in the Okayama Kenritsu Toshokan (Okayama Prefectural Library).
20Urakami Ukida ryōke bugenchō.
21See Ōoka-ke monjo [Ōoka House Archives], Ukida Chūnagon Hideie Kyō kashi chigyōchō [Roll of Fiefs of the Housemen of the Middle Counsellor, Lord Ukida Hideie], Okayama Kenritsu Toshokan, doc. 692.8/132.
22
Sumio
Taniguchi
, “Bizen hansei no kakuritsu katei,” [“The Establishment of the Bizen Domain Administration”],
Okayama Daigaku Kyōikūgakūbu kenkyū shūrokū
[
Collected Research Papers from the School of Education,
Okayama University
],
II
(
1956
),
1
–
3
.
23Okayama Shi shi, II, 1492, 1504. The significance of the shuinjō is discussed in
Takahiro
Okuno
,
Nobunaga to Hideyoshi
[Nobunaga and Hideyoshi] (
Tōkyō
,
1955
),
61
–
63
. But the technical study of the legal issues involved in the transfer of authority from the Ashikaga Shogun's consent to the “red seal” of Nobunaga and Hideyoshi has yet to be made.
24This is revealed in the structure of the Ukida house rolls. See especially: Ukida Chūnagon Hideie Kyō kashi chigyōchō.
25Disregarding the controversy over whether the resulting condition should be interpreted as more “feudalistic” than the previous situation, Japanese studies have agreed upon the importance of certain basic changes in the organization of rural and urban communities. See
Mitsuo
Shimizu
,
Nihon chūsei no sonraku [The Medieval Village in Japan]
(
Tokyo
,
1942
)
;
Mitsuru
Miyagawa
,
Taikō kenchi ron [On the Cadastral Survey of Hideyoshi]
(2 vols.,
Tokyo
,
1957
)
;
Gakkai
Shakaikeizaishi
,
Hōken ryōshusei no kakuritsu—Taikō kenchi wo meguru shomondai [The Establishment of Feudal Proprietorship—Various Problems Related to the Hideyoshi Cadastral Survey]
(
Tokyo
,
1957
)
;
Moriaki
Araki
, “
Taikō kenchi no rekishiteki zentei” [“The Historical Foundations of the Hideyoshi Cadastral Survey”]
,
Rekishigaku kenkyū
,
163
and 167 (
1954
).
26For studies of the effects of the reorganization of the land system under the Ukida see
Madoka
Kanai
, “
Shokuhō-ki ni okeru Bizen
” [“Bizen during the Shokuho Period”],
Chihōshi kenhyū
,
XLII
(
1959
),
9
–
20
;
Hajime
Shibata
, “
Sengoku dogōsō to Taikō kenchi
” [“The Sengoku Local Gentry and Hideyoshi's Cadastral Survey”],
Rekishi kyōiku
,
VI
, No.
8
(
1958
),
52
–
63
.
27For an analytical treatment of the stabilization of the Bizen domain under the Ibeda see Taniguchi, “Bizen hansei,” pp. 4–14.
28See
Hall
J. W.
, “The Confucian Teacher in Tokugawa Japan,” David S. Nivison and Arthur F. Wright,
Confucianism in Action
(
Stanford
,
1959
), pp.
272
–
277
.
29
Sumio
Taniguchi
, “
Han kashindan no keisei to kozō—Okayama-han no baai” [“The Structure and Organization of the han Houseband—The Case of Okayama”]
,
Shigaku zasshi
,
LXVI
, No.
6
(June
1957
),
594
–
615
.
30See
Kenkyūkai
Hampō
, ed.,
Hampōshū, I, Okayama-han [Collected han laws, I, Okayama-han]
(2 vols.,
Tokyo
,
1959
–
1960
)
;
Okayama Shishi, vols. III and IV, for the most extensive published sources on Okayama legislation.
31Hampō Kenkyūkai, op. cit., I, 186, 263;
Madoka
Kanai
, “
Ōjoya no gyōseki kuiki ni tsuite—Bizenhan no baai
” [“On the Administrative Jurisdiction of the
ōjōya—The Case of Bizen-han”],
Shigakji zasshi
,
LXII
, No.
1
(Jan.,
1953
),
66
–
71
.
32Nakamura Kichiji, in his article “Kokudaka seido to hōkensei” (cited in note 7) has recently reversed the dominant academic trend in Japan led by Araki and Miyagawa who have taken the stand that the Tokugawa period brought a true serfdom to the Japanese peasant and therefore represents the final attainment of feudalism in Japan. Nakamura has emphasized the many “non-feudal” aspects of the Tokugawa political and social structure.
The text of this article is only available as a PDF.
Copyright © The Association for Asian Studies, Inc. 1961
1961
