<論説>戦国・秦代の県 : 県廷と「官」の関係をめぐる一考察 (特集 : 都市)

Abstract

戦国末期から秦代にかけての県については、かねてから睡虎地秦簡が法制に関する情報を提供していたが、近年の里耶秦簡の出土によって行政運用の実態面をも捉えることが可能になった。とりわけ、県令・丞・令史が構成する県廷と、その下で実務を担当する諸部局である「官」の区別が確認されるようになったことは重要である。従来の所説は、この県廷と「官」とを自律した別個の組織と捉え、それらの間の「距離」を専ら強調してきた。しかし県廷・「官」の問に「距離」があったとしても、それらは行政機関としてひとつの複合体を成していたはずであり、これを成立せしめた条件こそが問われねばならない。本稿では、県行政の一体性を支えたのは県廷の「官」に対する絶対優位構造であったことを、(1)人事権、(2)連帯責任、(3)文書行政回路という三つの側面から論証する。出土秦簡によって県廷と「官」の関係はより克明になり、複数の官衙が立ち並ぶ県の政治的景観が浮かび上がってきたが、県行政はあくまで県廷の絶対優位構造を基調としていたのであった。

Excavated materials from the Warring States and the Qin periods have revealed the organization of the prefecture (xian) at that time. The Shuihudi Qin bamboo strips have already provided us much information about Qin law, and the Liye Qin wooden strips, which have been partially revealed in recent years, additionally enabled us to know the actual situation of local administration during the Qin. The administration of the xian (prefecture) was basically divided into two parts; one was the xianting (the prefectural court), which consisted of a xianling (prefect), cheng (assistant prefect), and lingshi (prefectural clerk), and the other were the guan (the bureaus), which took charge of administrative practices under the guidance of xianting. This paper discusses the relationship between the xianting and the guan. Previous studies have considered the xianting and guan to be independent organizations distinct from one another, and have emphasized the distance between the two. Although there must have been some spatial distance, the xianting and guan were unified as an administrative unit. Therefore we need to inquire what were the conditions that supported its unification. In this paper, I demonstrate that the condition supporting the idea of the unity of the xianting and guan was the xianting's absolute superiority over the guan. First, I focus on the xianting's power to appoint guan officials. Taking on the role of leader in prefectural administration, the xianting supervised the guan, and had the power to appoint guan officiais. The guansefu, the chief of a guan, could not appoint his own staff. When he was transferred to another guan, he was not allowed to take his old staff to the new guan. Thus there were regulations that helped maintain the xianting's primacy in the personnel affairs of the prefecture, and they prevented extension of the guan's influence. Second, I examine the joint responsibility of the xianting and guan. The xianting, especially the xianling and cheng, took responsibility for any negligence on the part of the guan. But the xianting's responsibility was limited, whether the xianting would take responsibility or not depended on the details of the negligence. Third, I point out the system of document administration was monopolized by the xianting. Guan could not communicate with organizations outside the prefecture, for instance, they were not permitted to send administrative documents directly to the jun (commandery) and bypass the xianting. The xianting always relayed documents from the guan, as it served as an intersection in the documentary administration of the Qin. While the xianting monopolized the routing of documents to higher administrative units, the guan relied heavily on the xianting for its documentary communication. Excavated Qin bamboo strips have helped define the relationship between the xianting and the guan. The prefecture's governmental landscape, made up of local government buildings, has also now been disclosed. Moreover, it is now clear that the xianting's absolute superiority over the guan formed the keynote of the prefectural administration in these periods.