吉野林業研究 (その1) : 「吉野における借地林業の形成と展開」

Abstract

吉野林業地帯における林地所有の形成, とくにその中でのいわゆる「借地林業」の役割については, さきに笠井恭悦氏によって1つのテーゼが提示された。けれどもこの問題に関しては, なお実証的資料の発掘検討を通じて考察を深めるべき点が少なくないように思われる。この研究は, そのような試みのための第1段階として, 近世・近代および戦後を通じて, 借地関係の成立と移動の状況を解明したものである。各章の内容を要約すると, 次のごとくである。(1) 借地林業の本質が立木年季売買であることは, すでに笠井氏の明らかにしたところだが, それが, 市場における特権的木材問屋の影響下に, 村持山の分解→農民的育林業の形成と挫折→村外資本への流出, なる基本コースをとって展開していったという見解は疑問である。徳川後期には, 吉野の農民は小商品生産的育林業を展開できるほどの階層分化の状態に達していなかったし, 当時の売買証文によっても, 村が村外資本に直接売却したケースが少なくない。またそのさいの買手は, 村外在住者といっても主体は山方木材商人と目される者で, 特権的木材問屋の直接的な介在はあまりみられない。(2) 明治以後の借地林業 (法形式としては地上権) の展開状況をあとづけてみても, 通説のようにこの制度が植林のための村外資本導入の役割を果たしてきた, とは考えがたい。地上権の設定・売買にみられる傾向は, 土地所有権の場合とまったく同様で, 単に財産として取引されているように思われる。しかも, とりわけ大山林所有者にあっては, 経営としての内容を充実させていくに伴ない, できるだけ所有地中心に組織をつくりあげてゆこう, との指向がみられる。

One thesis has been presented by Kyōetsu Kasai as to the formation of forest-land ownership in Forestry Area Yoshino and the role of so-called 'silviculture by lease' in it. But, about this theme we think there are many problems to resolve through discovery and examination of facts. In this study, as the first step of such attempts, we intend to research how the forest leases have been contracted, sold and bought since about 1800. The summary of each chapter is as follows; (I) It has already been made clear by Dr. Kasai that the intrinsic nature of 'silviculture by lease' consists in sales of standing trees for the limited term of years ('RYUBOKU NENKI HANBAI'). And he declears that under the power of priviledged great wholesale timber merchants in large cities, its course of development was fundamentally as follows; 'division of the communally owned forest-land to its member' → 'formation and collapse of peasant type arboriculture' → 'its outflow to absentee capitalists'. Is this thesis correct? At the end of Tokugawa period, the peasants in Yoshino had not yet experienced the class diferentiation, so that we can rarely find the arboriculture by the small independent producers. And according to the deeds of the sales in those days, we often find the case that community sold their lands directly to the absentee capitalists. On that occasion the purchasers were the absentees, but they were mainly middle-class timber merchants who live in near the village, and the priviledged wholesale timber merchants had not direct interposition. (II) By tracing the trend in 'silviculture by lease' since Meiji era ('şurface rights' as leagal term), the popular view cannot be accepted that this system has played a role to introduce the outside capital for afforestation. Establishment and trade of surface rights of land shows the same tendency as that of land properties. It seems that both of them are for the building of assets, not the forest management. Large forest owners rather endeavor to get the forest-land in their possession, in order to establish the organization of management.