著者

上杉 和彦

出版者

公益財団法人史学会

雑誌

史學雜誌 (ISSN:00182478)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.99, no.11, pp.1855-1877, 1970-1971, 1990-11-20

---

The Kamakura Bakufu from its inception carried out and tried to maintain three fundamental policies concerning its house vassals (gokenin): 1)the prohibition on unlimited official appointments; 2)an emphasis on the jogo 成功 insitution of selling official appointments; and 3)a commitment to continued service in the capital after appointments were made. However, the above three measures should not be regarded as a policy inherent only to the Bakufu, but rather as common to all the bureaucratic institutions urider the ruling elite (kenmon 権門) during those times. However, while these three measures continued to form the Bakufu's basic policy concerning its bureaucracy, amendment no.96 to its Joei Shikimoku 貞永式目 law code, which was promulgated in 1243 by Shogun Minamoto-no-Yoritsune while visiting the capital, contains language that significantly alters the existing customs governing the operation of the jogo institution. This amendment was epoch-making in the sense that efforts were now being made to follow the spirit of the traditional bureaucratic system more strictly than what the Bakufu had done up to that point. The jogo custom as practiced by the Bakufu increased in importance as a means of garnering revenues for the support of the court at Kyoto. However, on the other hand, due to the self-seeking attitudes of the functionaries in charge of selling official appointments, the actual fees paid were often reduced below the officially established rates. This in turn was causing a very unstable flow of funds into the royal treasury. While amendment no.96 quite correctly assesses the actual situation, in the background of its successful promulgation stood the royal court led by Kujono-Michie, who was closely connected to the Kamakura Shoguns. And so in this sense we can see the move to correct jogo practices as part of an overall effort in the movement for mutual cooperation between the aristocracy and the warrior class in controlling the capital bureaucracy. With respect to a bureaucratic polity centering around the jogo institution from this time on, we can observe quite contrasting approaches adopted by the court and the Bakufu. On the one hand, the court showed little initiative in preventing the reduction of fees paid for appointments, while the Bakufu took far more positive steps to insure that such fees were maintained at their official rates. In the background of this positive attitude taken by the Bakufu was the deepening involvement by the Hojo regents in appointing Kamakura house vassals to official positions, a practice that had traditionally been the sole perogative of the Shogun himself.