著者
堀川 康史
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.125, no.12, pp.1-24, 2016 (Released:2018-01-28)

応永2年(1395)閏7月、九州探題今川了俊は京都に召還され、翌年2月までに解任された。室町幕府の九州政策の大きな転換点となったこの解任劇は、足利義満期の政治史や地域支配を論じるうえで不可欠の事件として知られているが、その政治過程、とりわけ解任に至った理由・経緯については不明な点が少なくない。本稿は、1390年代前半の九州情勢との関わりを重視する立場から、これらの点について検討を加えるものである。 検討の結果、解任の理由は了俊と九州大名との協力関係の断絶とそれにともなう九州経営の崩壊に求められることが明らかになった。その経緯は以下の通りである。 まず両島津氏との関係について見ると、長く対立関係にあった了俊と両島津氏は、明徳2年(1391)に和平を結んだものの、探題派国人の権益保護と両島津氏との和平は両立せず、和平の成立後まもない時期から南九州では局地的紛争が発生した。了俊は反島津氏を掲げる南九州国人一揆の意向もあって和平の破棄を決断し、明徳5年(1394)2月以降、再び両島津氏との戦いに突入していった。 ついで大友氏との関係に目を転じると、応永初年に大友親世と有力庶家の田原・吉弘両氏の間で内訌が生じた際、了俊は反親世派を支援したことで親世と断交した。親世は大内義弘・両島津氏と結ぶことで了俊に対抗し、結果として応永2年までに了俊は大友・大内・両島津の三者と敵対関係に陥った。この九州大名との協力関係の断絶が、了俊の九州経営を崩壊に導いていくことになった。 最後に足利義満はというと、通説とは異なり京都召還の直前まで了俊を支援していた様子が読みとれる。しかし、有力大名が揃って了俊に敵対し、九州経営の崩壊が徐々に明らかになったことにより、最終的に義満は了俊の解任を決断したと考えられる。応永3年(1396)2月、渋川満頼の探題就任が九州諸氏に報じられ、20年以上に及んだ了俊の九州経営はここに終わりを迎えることになったのである。
著者
池田 勇太
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.115, no.6, pp.1041-1078, 2006

The present article attempts to clarify the birth of monarchical constitutionalism on the occasion of a debate over a popularly elected parliament in 1874, by focusing on Motoda Nagazane (or Eifu) 元田永孚, who was Emperor Meiji's tutor in Confucianism. The introduction of a constitutional polity in the absence of a government not only displayed the strong character of a modernization measure and was thought to realize a political society supported by the masses and open public opinion, but also a parliament, constitution and separation of the legislative and administrative branches of government were expected to solve real problems that existed in local administration and politics at the time. The article begins with an examination of the actions taken by the Governor of Fukushima Prefecture Yasuba Yasukazu 安場保和 in order to clarify the era's parliamentary movement against the background of local administration and to argue that the fair and just nature (ko 公) of a constitutional polity was thought to be identical to traditional Confucian political ideals. Secondly, the introduction of a constitutional polity at that point in time was not the result of power politics fought along vertical, class lines, but was rather a specific political expression of what the Restoration bureaucracy thought desirable. On the other hand, the introduction of such a polity under well-meaning auspices from above also meant that the bureaucracy did not always seek broad pluralistic opinions on the subject, but rather tended to make policy decisions in a more theoretical manner. The 1874 debate over a popularly elected parliament brought the issue of mass popular political participation to the forefront in terms of "joint rule by king and citizen." It was here that Motoda Eifu suggested that in a monarchical state it was necessary to make a distinction between "public opinion" and "the just argument," arguing that it was the monarch who should employ the latter. Any parliamentary system in which the monarch enjoys ultimate prerogative, moreover, demands that the monarch have the ability to exercise that prerogative properly, which necessitated the development of a system of imperial advisors and educators. At that time there was also the idea that the position of senior political advisor (genro 元老) should be created outside of the cabinet to perform such a function. Motoda, on the other hand, reformed such an idea based on the necessity of a monarch performing his duties with the final say within a constitutional polity. This is why it can be said that both monarchical constitutionalism and the establishment of the emperor's prerogative within it was born out of the 1874 debate over a popularly elected parliament.
著者
上里 隆史
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.114, no.7, pp.1179-1211, 2005-07-20 (Released:2017-12-01)

This article investigates the migration of Japanese in the China Sea region, especially in and around Naha, the capital of the Kingdom of Ryukyu, between the 16th and 17th centuries. Previous research on the Japan-Ryukyu relations during medieval times has chiefly focused on the diplomatic relations between the Muromachi government, the Shimazu family of Satsuma, and the Ryukyus. It goes without saying, however, that the focus on state trade alone does not fully explain the historical relations between the two states. It is also necessary for us to consider such private aspects of trade as the activities of people who participated as well as recent findings on medieval maritime trade for a proper understanding of the relationship between medieval Japan and the Ryukyus. The migration of people from Japan to the Ryukyu Islands dates back to the 15th century. The "Ryukyu Kokuzu 琉球国図", a map of the Kingdom in those days depicts Japanese and Ryukyuans living together in Naha. According to the genealogical data on the Ryukyus, Japanese who had emigrated there during the 16th and 17th centuries through the transportation mode which had evolved at that time, can be divided into three groups, based on their places of origin: Kinai, Hokuriku, Kyushu groups. Those people were probably maritime merchants who commuted between the Ryukyus and Japan, but resided permanently in the Ryukyus and engaged in certain occupations, such as the administration of Naha, foreign affairs, medicine, and the tea ceremony. As for the structure of the port city of Naha, Naha-Yomachi 那覇四町, literally, the four townships of Naha, had developed on the fringe of the Chinese settlement of Kumemura 久米村, which was the core of Naha. The fact that Japanese institutions, such as a Shinto shrine, were located on the periphery of Naha-Yomachi shows that, like the goddess Mazu 媽祖 for the Chinese people, Naha was one of the overseas territories of Japanese merchants. Japanese immigrants resided together with Ryukyuans in Naha-Yomachi. During the 16th century, wajin (倭人), or armed Japanese merchants would throng into Naha in quest of the Chinese goods when ever Chinese envoys visited the Ryukyus. The Ryukyu royal government tried to restrict armaments, but failed. Japanese trading facilities called Nihon Kan 日本館 were set up in Naha. During the latter half of the 16th century, Kumemura, the center of Naha and the Chinese settlement, declined, while Naha-Yomachi prospered. During this period, the trade route between Japan and Fujian via Manila was established based on the active circulation of Japanese and new continental silver and Chinese raw silk. The Ryukyus functioned in it as an entrepot between Japan and Manila. It has been thought that the route from the Ryukyus to Southeast Asia was completely abolished in 1570, however, this is not true, for the Ryukyus changed its form of trade from state-sponsored trade to private trade carried out by wajin maritime merchants. The Ryukyus thus become a node connecting East to Southeast Asia.
著者
草生 久嗣
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.109, no.7, pp.1297-1318,1429-, 2000-07-20 (Released:2017-11-30)

Several attempts have been made by scholars to interpret the Bogomils. J.Gouillard(1965)and A.Rigo(1989)have regarded them as members of Byzantine mysticism. H.G.Beck(1993)explained them as ordinary men who led a life with holy modesty and with an attitude of passive resistance against the extravagant Orthodox church. However, many scholars have thought them to be one type of dualist heretic or a revival of the Manichaeans, following St.Runciman(1947), D.Angelov(1947)and D.Obolensky(1948). The author believes that the Bogomils were not only a group of intellectuals, but also an expression of contemporary theological and social problems in 12th century Byzantine History. However, if we presuppose the Bogomils to have been like a school of thought, dualists or mystics or whatever, we cannot understand the real Bogomils on the historical scene. When we examine a social problem regarding"heresy", we have to understand first the reasons why contemporaries treated someone as a heretic. The author, focusing on this way of understanding and treating the Bogomils, surveys them in trials held during the first half of the 1100's in Constantinople. In so doing, this article shows several points that differ from the views of former theses. First, 12^<th> Century contemporaries were unaware of the two precedent sources, the Presbyter Cosmas's Discourse against the Heresy of Bogomil and the Euthymius of Acmonia's Contra Phundagiagites. Secondly, the name"Bogomils"is just one of the criminal labels, which the Orthodox-Byzantines could apply to non-conformers arbitrarily. Thirdly, for the Byzantines, Gnostical cosmology or demonology was not an essential element of the teaching of the Bogomils. There is no identity with thought, theology, moral-code, sectarian movement under the label of Bogomils. On the other hand, in the trials at Constantinople, we find that all of the accused Bogomils equally respected monastic life. The Bogomil-problem first appeared on the official documents after the 10^<th> century. From that time, the power of the monasteries rose, and the number of monks increased. From antiquity, Monks had been very popular in the Byzantine Empire. There were some deviational monks prior to this period, but the subsequent increase in"bonafide"monks also brought its faire share of deviants. This caused growing concern for the Orthodox Church, and in particular regarding their non-controlled activities. If some of them preached heterodoxical sermons to the people, heresy could be easily spread. The insecurity of the Church can be seen clearly in contemporary sources. In conclusion, Byzantines constructed a new type framework for understanding heresy, namely"the Bogomils". They thought deviational monks should be controlled under the heretical label of"Bogomils"as a tool for moral control. In the Constantinople in the 1100's, they were not considered to be dualists. The Bogomils were an indicator of the existence of behavioral problem in those days.
著者
板垣 哲夫
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.86, no.11, pp.1597-1628,1689-, 1977-11-20 (Released:2017-10-05)

By examining with whom and how frequently Okubo Toshimichi met with different people during the December 1867 (Keio 3)-March 1877 (Meiji 10) period, the author has come to the following conclusions about Okubo's political relationships. First, his political relations with court nobles and feudal lords (daimyo) who had held high places in the traditional hierarchy of status and authority, including Iwakura Tomomi and Sanjo Sanetomi, became gradually estranged. The decline of the influence of nobles and feudal lords in politics and the contrasting rise of Okubo's influence can be regarded as causes of that trend. Second, Okubo's relations with those who came from the same Kagoshima clan were very intimate throughout this period. After around January 1876, however, he came to rely slightly less on these relations, because with his rise in politics it became more and more possible for him to win over competent officials directly without using intermediaries based on factional ties. Third, those who came from the Yamaguchi, Saga and Kochi clans worked in cooperation with Okubo during the period of the Boshin Wars. After the Boshin Wars antagonism between Okubo and Kido Takayoshi increased. At the same time opposition to the government led by these two men increased from those outside the government. Many men from these three clans played important roles in this arena of political rivalry, and it seems that the inclination towards supporting Okubo was comparatively strong among those from Saga compared to the other two clans. As his relations with the Kido group improved from around December 1870 and the centralization of the government increased, the number of officials from the three clans who attempted to secure closer relations with Okubo increased gradually. However, this trend was also influenced by Okubo's rivalry with the Kido group, the Saigo group and others in the government. Especially after the debate on the expedition to Korea, the status of Okubo rose while the strength of those who had opposed him declined and officials from the three clans tried to consolidate their relations with Okubo. Fourth, clans other than Kagoshima, except for the above-mentioned three, had relatively few persons of importance in the government. Few from such clans played important roles in the political rivalries after the Boshin Wars to 1871. On the whole the relationships between Okubo and those from such clans were not intimate. But as his political status rose rapidly after the expedition to Korea debate, many of them developed closer relationships with him as officials in the middle rank. Fifth, those who had intimate political relations with Okubo shifted, from those who held a high rank in pre-Restoration organizations to those in lower ranks.
著者
金子 龍司
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.125, no.12, pp.25-46, 2016 (Released:2018-01-28)

本稿は、太平洋戦争末期の娯楽政策について考察する。具体的にはサイパンが陥落した一九四四年七月に発足した小磯国昭内閣期以降終戦までの政策に注目する。 小磯内閣期の思想・文化統制については、先行研究により、東條内閣期の言論弾圧が見直されて言論暢達政策が採用され、思想・言論統制の緩和によって戦意昂揚を目指したことが指摘されている。娯楽統制についてもこの枠組みで語られ、従来強化一方だった統制がサイパン陥落・同内閣の成立を契機として一転して緩和されたと整理され、その画期性が指摘されている。 しかし、この統制緩和は小磯内閣が娯楽に対して講じた措置のひとつに過ぎないし、画期といっても、この統制緩和に限らなければ、娯楽への積極的な措置は小磯内閣発足以前からすでに講じられていた。つまり先行研究は、統制緩和の画期性を重視するあまり、小磯内閣の娯楽政策の全容を明らかにしておらず、しかも従前の政策との連続性も見過ごしているきらいがある。 したがって本稿は、小磯内閣期の娯楽政策をできるだけ詳しく分析することで右の二点を明らかにし、同政策を歴史的に位置づける試みを行う。具体的には、当事者たちの問題認識や政策決定過程や政策の実効性を検討材料とする。 本稿が明らかにするのは以下の事柄である。第一に、娯楽統制史上、小磯内閣期の統制緩和は個別の措置としてはたしかに画期的であったが、娯楽に対する積極的な姿勢や問題認識に関してはむしろ前内閣との連続性が目立っていたこと。第二に、政策の実効性といった観点からは、個別具体的な措置については一定の成果が見られ、戦争末期にあっても興行の機会は確保され盛況も珍しくなかったこと。第三に、それにもかかわらず、政策全体の評価としては、絶望化する戦況下で観客や興行者たちが娯楽を供給・享受して戦意昂揚に結びつけるだけの精神的余裕を失っていたため、失敗に終わったと結論せざるを得ないことである。
著者
旗手 瞳
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.123, no.1, pp.38-63, 2014

This article focuses attention on the Mgar Family, which during the late 7th century monopolized power within the Tibetan Empire (吐蕃) after it rose up on the Tibetan Plateau and embarked on the conquest of the kingdom of Tuyuhun 吐谷渾, which was accomplished in 670. Specifically, the author analyzes 1) how the Mgars were involved in ruling Tuyuhun, 2) what policies the Tufan Empire enacted after its invasion of Tuyuhun and 3) how the purge of the Mgars in 698 influenced the way in which Tuyuhun would be ruled. With respect to objective 1), Mgar Stong rtsan acted as commander-in-chief of the Tuyuhun expedition between 659 and 666; and after his death in 667, military activities in the occupied areas of Tuyuhun were commanded by his sons Mgar Khri 'bring and ^*Mgar Btsan ba. Next, regarding objective 2), after the conquest, the Tibetan Empire enthroned its own king of Tuyuhun, while at the same time embarking on a proactive agenda aiming at taking full advantage of Tuyuhun as a base of operations for the invasion of Tang China. The author argues that in the Mgars played a leading role, similar to their military command, in the implementation of this agenda. Finally, concerning objective 3), as the result of the 698 purge, the Mgar Family, which had taken charge of the Tibetan agenda for Tuyuhun, was for all intents and purposes completely removed from power, and the incident also provided the Tuyuhun people with the opportunity for a large scale estrangement from the Tibetan Empire. Consequently, the author argues that a major crisis in Tibetan rule over Tuyuhun followed from the 698 purge. After the fall of the Mgar Family, the 'Bro, Dba's and Cog ro Families took control of the Tibetan Empire's central government; and during almost every year between 706 and 714 dispatched ministers appointed from among their family members to Tuyuhun, in addition to arranging the marriage of a Cog ro woman to the king. The author argues that through these diplomatic moves, the Tibetan Empire was able to reestablish relations of trust with Tuyuhun. Consequently, around 714 the Tibetan Empire was once again able to reopen its invasion of Tang China with Tuyuhun as its front line base of operations.
著者
大谷 伸治
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.124, no.2, pp.237-260, 2015-02-20 (Released:2017-12-01)

This article discusses the development of political scientist Yabe Teiji's ideas about democracy in relation to the debate over how Japan's constitutional monarchy should function (kokutairon), based on an analysis of a critique of Yabe's seminar at Tokyo Imperial University submitted in 1938 by one of his students, Odamura Kojiro, as the answers to the final examination. The author begins with an examination of the copy of Odamura's list of criticisms about the seminar, which contain corrections and revisions made in Yabe's handwriting prior to Odamura's expulsion from the university after the publication of his ideas in the national press. Yabe's glosses pertained more to adding comments about the kokutai question than merely correcting a student's final exam. With the exception of the comments devoted to Japan's "sovereign dictatorship", Yabe's comments attempted to substantiate the kokutai question in more concrete terms, in an attempt to place it within the context of the discourse regarding democracy. In the correspondence that ensued between teacher and student, Yabe was again challenged by Odamura and again made revisions to his ideas, upon examination of which, the author of the present article notices wide-ranging changes occurring in Yabe's approach to democratic institutions. In sum, in response to Odamura's demands Yabe, while not referring specifically to Japan, is found emphasizing his patented understanding of "democracy as an institutional mechanism", but also attempting to more accurately describe its connections and interaction with the idea of "kokutai". However, an even more significant change occurred in Yabe's thinking on the subject after his study of the legalistic arguments on the rule of law posed by National Socialist German Workers Party jurist Otto Koellreutter and a consequent attempt to place kokutai within the fundamental norms prioritizing the positive (as opposed to natural) constitutional legal order. Therefore, Yabe offered the possibility of providing legal legitimacy to interpretations and constitutional amendments indispensable to the implementation of the further centralization of executive powers desired by the new regime. This development in Yabe's political science was, the author argues, first given impetus by Odamura's critique. Nevertheless, since Yabe was of the fundamental opinion that kokutai was a non-entity, he did not go into concrete detail on the subject. That is to say, although kokutai exists as a fundamental norm, it has no actual function as a frame of reference for constitutional interpretation. Consequently, Yabe came to the rather illogical conclusion that constitutional interpretation was ultimately determined extra-legally within the struggle for political power, an idea that became, quite unintentionally on Yabe's part, fraught with the danger of having the reverse effect on the actual process of kokutai-based reforms.
著者
村井 章介
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.87, no.4, pp.411-453,552-55, 1978

The machinery which the Kamakura Bakufu set up in Kyushu to govern a large area has been much studied from the point of view of institutional history, with priority given to its judicial aspect. In the present article, attention is given to two aspects which have been largely overlooked, namely, its close relationship with the office of county shugo 守護 (Protector) in Kyushu, and its connection with the "tokusei" (徳政 : political innovation), especially the protection of the estates of Shinto shrines. As to the first point, at least eleven counties saw their shugo replaced at the same time towards the end of 1275. This reshuffle formed part of the plan for a counter-attack on Ko-ryo, which had been used by the Yuan as a base for their invasion of Japan. In the reshuffle, the arrival in Kyushu of Kanesawa Sanemasa 金沢実政 as deputy for the shugo of the county of Buzen 豊前 was the starting-point of the political process leading to the establishment of the office of Chinzei-tandai 鎮西探題. There followed the arrival of Hojo Tokisada 北条時貞 as shugo of Hizen 肥前 in 1281 and the exercise of military power over the whole of Kyushu by Hojo Kanetoki 北条兼時, who was appointed shugo of Higo 肥後 in 1293. These appointments were made directly in response to the external tension caused by the Mongol invasion, and resulted in the extension of the influence of the Hojo clan. This process reached its peak when in a short space of time the offices of shugo of four counties, Hizen, Higo, Buzen and Osumi 大隅, were monopolized by Kanesawa Sanemasa, who returned to Kyushu as Chinzei-tandai in 1296, and his close relatives. The development of regional power, pointing to the future territorial government system under the shugo, had already begun. As for the second point, the Tokuso (得宗 : head of the Hojo clan) government, which dominated the Kamakura Bakufu, framed a series of policies called Koan-tokusei 弘安徳政 in 1284 after the Mongol invasion. These policies were an attempt to elevate the Bakufu into a central power ruling over the whole of Japan by having the Bakufu decide cases concerning the land-tenure problems of shrine estates and by organizing the people under the control of manor lords into a new feudal hierarchy. The policies were, however, upset by a coup-d'etat in November 1285 in which the leader of the innovatory movement, Adachi Yasumori 安達泰盛, was killed. What the post-coup Tokuso government inherited from the Koan-tokusei and developed still further was a policy of almost blind protection of the Shinto shrines. Although the Tokuso government was prematurely possessed of several characteristics of the Muromachi Bakufu, it did not attempt to reform the shogun-gokenin (将軍-御家人 : lord-vassal) relationship which was the institutional backbone of the Kamakura Bakufu. Lacking any legitimate claim to exercise domination over the gokenin, it sought to enhance its power by obtaining a huge material base. But this was only to estrange the vassals and to intensify the isolation of the government. The Tokuso government even feared that the Kanesawa family, which belonged to the Hojo clan, might extend its influence in Kyushu, and a step was taken to check the process by which the Kanesawa were becoming a territorial power. In this way, the government could not avoid continually giving rise to its own critics and opponents, and so it deepened its reliance on divine protection in order to escape from the sense of isolation.
著者
吉村 忠典
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.108, no.3, pp.344-367,463-46, 1999-03-20 (Released:2017-11-30)

It is well-known that many translations of European concepts were made in Japan during the 19th century in order to adapt to European ways of thinking, and then were adopted by the Chinese. One example of this is the term teikoku 帝国 as the translation of the English word empire. This is a Sino-Japanese word, which the Japanese of the 30th century believed to have authority in the Chinese classics, but which the Chinese did not know until the end of the 19th century when they learned it from Japan. The word teikoku seems to have been invented in the 18th century as the literal translation of the Dutch word keizerrijk ([Germ. Kaiserreich]; keizer = tei, rijk = koku), and then the compilers of English-Japanese dictionaries of the 19th century (since 1814) adopted this word as the translalion for empire, for they misunderstood the European dictionaries available to them; and, moreover, a great political unity without a monarch (such as the Athenian Empire of the 5th century B.C. and the Roman Empire of the 2. century B.C.) was inconceivable for the people of East Asia at that time. (Incidentally, the Sino-Japanese term for the "republic", 共和政治, first appeared in 1845). Ever since, this translation of empire prevailed in Japan. Even now, many high school teachers in Japan cannot understand why the British Empire was an Empire, since it had no emperor. They believe also that the Roman Empire was not yet known to Pompey and Caesar, because the first emperor Augustus came later. As the word teikoku, understood as equivalent to keizerrijk, spread in Japan from the middle of the 19th century,the Sino-Japanese version (1865) of H. Wheaton's "Elements of International Law" was enthusiastically received in Japan. According to modern international law, an "empire" was now nothing but a kind of modern sovereign "state" stricto sensu alongside kingdoms and dukedoms and so on, while the empire once stood over and embraced such principalities and feudal lords. Thus, even now, the Japanese are not free from confusion over the usage of the word teikoku. In this paper the author tries to disentangle the confusion, which arose from the equation: keizerrijk = teikoku = empire, modern and pre-modern.
著者
坂口 太郎
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.122, no.4, pp.459-497, 2013-04-20 (Released:2017-12-01)

In recent years, particular attention has been drawn to the retired Emperor Go-Uda's 後宇多 promotion of esoteric Buddhism and it surrounding cultural and political environment as the staging ground for the "anomalous (igyo 異形) monarchical regime" of his son Emperor Go-Daigo 後醍醐. This paper discusses the relation between the Daikakuji 大覚寺 line of imperial descent and its "monzeki" 門跡 (Buddhist temples designated for tonsured members of the imperial family, also referred by the title of monzeki) during the late Kamakura and Kenmu 建武 Regime periods, by focusing on prince-monk Shoen 性円 (Go-Daigo's brother), who was chosen as the Daikakuji Monzeki. Little is known about the early life of Shoen, who is generally referred to as "Daikakuji-miya"; however, the author's investigation of yet unpublished historical sources place him at Yasui Monzeki 安井門跡 (Rengeko-In 蓮華光院), which was affiliated to the Ninnaji-Goryu 仁和寺御流 branch of Shingon Buddhism. Given the additional fact that Go-Uda originally planned to take control of Ninnaji-Goryu, the author concludes that Shoen's assumption of Yasui Monzeki was part of his father's overall religious policy. Then Go-Uda founded the Daikakuji Monzeki, providing it with proprietary estates and sub-temples, and transfered his son to Daikakuji, making Shoen his possible successor. The author also points out that in his struggle with Ninnaji, Go-Uda bestowed on Shoen the second highest princely rank and such imperial household treasures as the cintamani jewel. Moreover, in his later years Go-Uda repeatedly performed esoteric Buddhist rituals for the protection of the Daikakuji line, and had Shoen participate in them to train him for his future calling. After Go-Uda's death, Shoen became the abbot of Daikakuji, supporting Go-Daigo, who sent his own son Gosho 恒性 to serve as a priest at Daikakuji, and the fact that Gosho would later be banished to Etchu 越中 Province by the Kamakura Bakufu and then assassinated shows without a doubt that he was part of the plan to overthrow that military regime. Hence, it is likely that because of its control over a large number of proprietary estates, Go-Daigo depended heavily on the Daikakuji Monzeki in his plans to overthrow the Bakufu. As for Shoen during the Kenmu era, in addition to his performance of esoteric Buddhist rituals, he served as a general on the field of battle. Moreover, after the fall of the Kenmu regime, Shoen continued to serve the Southern Court. Since the publication of Amino Yoshihiko's seminal work on the period in question, the research has been focused on the Shingon priest Monkan 文観, in order to elucidate the religious aspects of Go-Daigo and his reign. However, if one considers the historical developments from the time of Go-Uda, it becomes clear, as this article shows, that it was not Monkan, but rather the Daikakuji Monzeki allying with the Daikakuji line of descent led by Shoen, which lent the primary support to Go-Daigo's regime from within the walls of Shingon Buddhism.
著者
的場 匠平
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.123, no.9, pp.1613-1640, 2014-09-20 (Released:2017-07-31)

The study of the development of funereal rites among Japan's aristocracy from antiquity through late premodern times has not only been made possible by the availability of ample historiographic sources, but is also helpful in examining both the peculiar and universal aspects of imperial funereal rites in late premodern times. That being said, no serious attempt has been made yet to trace the process of aristocratic funerals and burials throughout Japan's premodern history. The present article is intended to shed light upon the late premodern transformation of Japanese funereal rites in both substance and perception, using the case of closed funerals (misso 密葬) among the aristocracy of that time. The closed funeral (hereafter misso) was the rite of secretly transporting the body of the deceased to be either buried or cremated prior to the official funeral to be held several days later, and was also a method of avoiding the putrefaction of the corpse in the case of long delays in scheduling the official funeral. The rite itself, which had already been in existence prior to the beginning of the 17th century, became universally known as "misso" by the mid-18th century. Rites similar to misso were often conducted during ancient and medieval times under the name of "heisei-no-gi" 平生之儀 (ordinary ceremony), the difference between the two being that heisei-no-gi was not conducted in secrecy or as an abridgement of the official funeral. Therefore, the transition from the popularity of heisei-no-gi in medieval times to the widespread diffusion of misso in late premodern Japan represents a change in the perception of funerals from a relatively unimportant ritual in medieval times to a ceremony arranged to befit the status of the deceased and carefully planned in advance to take place on the most auspicious day possible. In other words, funereal rites experienced a significant increase in social value. In the opinion of the author, this increase in social value was felt throughout all social classes and became the rationale for the lavishness of funerals among the common people of late premodern Japan, as well as the huge scale on which imperial funerals came to be conducted during the time.