著者

佐藤 宏之

出版者

国立歴史民俗博物館

雑誌

国立歴史民俗博物館研究報告 = Bulletin of the National Museum of Japanese History (ISSN:02867400)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.182, pp.75-87, 2014-01

---

元和四年(一六一八)四月九日、幕府は大名改易後の居城の収公にさいし、城付武具はそのまま城に残し置くこととの方針を定めた。さらに、軍事目的のために備蓄した城米も引き継ぎの一環として、備蓄の有無と備蓄方針の確認を求めた。本稿は、国立歴史民俗博物館所蔵の石見亀井家文書のなかにある、元和三年の津和野城受け取りに関する史料を素材に、城受け取りのさいに引き継ぎの対象となる財(モノ)に着目する。城受け取りのさいには、城内諸道具の目録が作成され、それに基づいて引き継ぎが行われる。その目録化の過程において、武家の財は公有の財と私財とに峻別される。公有の財とは城付の武具・道具や城米であり、大名自身の私有物ではなく、幕府から与えられたモノといえる。すなわち、その帰属権が最終的に将軍に収斂していくものである。一方、私財とは大名や家臣の武具・家財や雑道具などであり、その処分は個々人の裁量に任せられたモノといえる。こうした動向の契機となったのが、天正一八年四月二九日に真田昌幸宛てに出した豊臣秀吉の朱印状ではないかという仮説を提示する。秀吉は、降伏した城々は兵粮・鉄砲・玉薬・武具を備えたままで受け取るという戦闘力を具備した城郭の接収確保を指示し、接収直後に破城とするのではなく、無抵抗で明け渡す城の力(兵粮・鉄砲・玉薬・武具)を温存した。秀吉は、その後の奥羽仕置を貫徹するなかで、諸国の城々は秀吉の城という実態と観念を形成していったのである。こうした城付の武具や城米を目録化することによって把握することは、城の力を把握することでもあった。したがって、近世の城の構成要素は、城付の武具と城米であったということができよう。このような城付の武具と城米を把握・管理した江戸幕府は、国家権力を各大名に分有させ、それを背景とした統治業務の分業化を行いつつも、幕府の国家的支配の体系のなかに編成していったと考えられる。On April 9, 1618, with reference to the seizure of a castle where a daimyo ( feudal lord) usually resided, the Shogunate decided on a policy that after daimyo kaieki (punishment by removal of samurai status and expropriation of territories) , any arms belonging to a seized castle must be left in place. Moreover, the Shogunate demanded to know the quantity and any storage conditions of jomai (rice originally reserved for military purposes) .Employing historical evidence concerning the seizure of Tsuwano Castle in 1617, which is found in documents relating to the Kamei family of Iwami Province in the possession of the National Museum of Japanese History, this paper focuses on possessions (assets) that were handed over upon seizure of the castle.Before accepting a castle, a complete inventory of all goods and materials within the castle was created, and based on this list, the castle was handed over. In the preparation process of the inventory, the assets of a samurai family were divided and assessed as belonging to either the government or the family.Government ownership concerned arms, tools, and jomai that belonged to the castle; they can be considered as possessions originally given by the Shogunate, not a daimyo's private possessions. That is to say, any right of possession was in the end attributed to the shogun. On the other hand, family possessions were arms, household goods, and miscellaneous tools of retainers, and their disposal was left to the individual daimyo's discretion.Such a trend was probably triggered by a shuinjo ( shogunal charter for trade) given by Hideyoshi Toyotomi to Masayuki Sanada on April 29, 1590. Hideyoshi gave directions to seize and secure a castle sufficiently provided with a military capability, more specifically, to receive surrendered castles complete with all food provisions, firearms, ammunition, and armor, in order to maintain the military power of any castle delivered without resistance, and not to destroy the castle immediately after seizure. Hideyoshi carried through the subsequent Punishment of the Ou region, during which he was actually putting into practice the concept that the castles in the provinces belonged to Hideyoshi.Understanding the quantity of military equipment and jomai that belonged to a castle by creating an inventory also allowed the assessment of the military capability of the castle. Therefore, one can safely state that the component parts of a castle in early-modern times were the weapons of war and jomai belonging to that castle.It can be considered that the Edo Shogunate, which understood and controlled the arms and jomai belonging to a castle, allocated some state authority to each loyal daimyo, and against the background of such a policy, while promoting the specialization of ruling and administrative work, the Shogunate was incorporating the policy into its own state ruling system.