著者

坂井 孝一

出版者

公益財団法人 史学会

雑誌

史学雑誌 (ISSN:00182478)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.97, no.6, pp.1063-1082,1157-, 1988

---

『元興寺事八衆中与門跡別当三方之入勝也』(All cases involving the district of Gango-ji will be decided by "irekachi" between the district secular council, the patriarch of Daijo-in, and the abbot of Gango-ji.) This entry from the medieval diary entitled Daijo-in Jisha Zojiki 大乗院寺社雑事記) indicates that with respect to enforcing the law (kendan 検断) in the Gango-ji district of the medieval city of Nara, a process called irekachi 入勝 (literally, the first party to arrive on the scene has the right to enact the law) was carried out among the three authorities governing the district. In this article the author attempts to clarify the actual patterns, basic character and historical significance of this unique law enforcement institution of irekachi. In the conventional research on irekachi, there are still at least three points that remain to be clarified. First, despite the entry 七郷八衆中使与寺務使入勝也 (irekachi occurred between the representatives of the district secular councils of Nara and the office of Temple affairs), scholars have contended that irekachi was geographically limited specifically to the Gango-ji district alone. Secondly, even though there are examples of irekachi being enacted in the case of minor offenses like illegal residency (kishuku-no-ka 寄宿の過), scholars have continued to insist that the institution was reserved specifically for inflicting wounds with a sword and murder. Finally, the previous research on the subject has failed to clarify the true reasons why such a unique custom was adopted. The present article focusses on these three problem points in an attempt to shed more light upon the acutal procedures making up irekachi and to discover the fundamental precedents of law enforcement rights in medieval Nara. However, due to the nature of the existing documentation on the subject the author first takes up points two and three using the case of Gango-ji district, and then, after establishing the conditions for the existence of "the irekachi system," goes into his discussion on problem point one. Concerning the actually nature of illegalities handled through irekachi, the author first investigates the problem of procedure. The main feature of the system was that the complete legal process was controlled from beginning to end by the legal enforcement agency that was first on the scene. This feature was also true for cases involving the jurisdiction of the aristocratic patriarch (monzeki 門跡) of Daijo-in himself. Furthermore, with regard to the crimes dealt with via irekachi, not only was it enacted in the cases of stealing, gambling and the "three great crimes" (san-ka-taibon 三ヶ大犯), but also in all kinds of minor incidents that occurred in and around the city of Nara. Concerning the particualar character of irekachi, after investigating the actual political power of and foundations underlying the rights of law enforcement agents in Nara, the author argues that there existed an overall balance of power between these agents, and that the fundamental rationale underlying the institution of irekachi lay in its effectiveness for satisfying on an equal basis the desire of these powers to rule the city. Moreover, irehachi was the only method of guaranteeing one incident / one agent unitary legal procedures. On the basis of the above discussion the author then introduces the three conditions underlying the existence of the "irekachi" system. Concerning the problem of geographic limitations, the author investigates these three existential conditions in relation to the law enforcement agents in the seven districts (shichigo 七郷) of Nara. After proving that both the office of Temple affairs and district secular councils did in fact fulfill these conditions, he concludes that irekachi was carried out by these two agencies in all seven of the districts ; and because these seven districts made up the greater part of Nara between the thirteenth and sixteenth centuries, we can be assured that irekachi