<論説>番役に見る鎌倉幕府の御家人制

Abstract

本稿は、京都大番役などの番役の検討により、鎌倉幕府御家人制の地域的な差異・時代的な変化についての考察を行ったものである。第一章では、東国と西国の違いについて述べた。西国で守護が大番催促を行うのに対し、東国では各番の責任者であり、催促を受ける御家人と同じ勤仕者としての立場にある「番頭」が催促を行うことを論じた。ここから、「番頭-東国御家人」=臨時的・共同勤仕的性格が濃厚、「守護-西国御家人」=恒常的・統属関係的性格が濃厚、という大番役と御家人制の構造を見出した。第二章では、時代による変化について述べた。一三世紀半ばに御家人の枠が拡大するが、これは宮騒動・宝治合戦という政情不安のなかで幕府が番役勤仕の武力を確保するための方策と考えることができる。この際、建久年間(一一九〇-九九)以来の東国・西国御家人間の格差が解消する可能性も生まれた。だが、これは却下され、御家人制の根本的な閉鎖性は温存された。

This paper addresses the gokenin system, the organization of the retainers of shogun who headed the Kamakura bakufu. In particular, it examines the issues of what were the special characteristics of gokenin in specific regions and how they changed over time, using the banyaku, the guard duty performed by gokenin at various locations, as a primary resource. In the first section, I address the differences in the implementation of the Kyōto Ōbanyaku (the duty of guarding the imperial palace by gokenin) between those from Tōgoku (Eastern Japan, roughly present-day Shizuoka and Nagano prefectures and those further east) and Saigoku (other provinces in Western Japan.) In general Kyōto Ōbanyaku duties were carried out by the gokenin whom were led by the shugo, the military commanders placed in each province by the Kamakura bakufu. In contrast, this paper makes clear that this was the form in the case of the Saigoku gokenin, but there were intermediaries called bantō, and not the shugo, when the Tōgoku gokenin served as Kyōto Ōbanyaku. Both the shugo and bantō relied on the Tōgoku gokenin, but in contrast to the Saigoku gokenin whose fealty to the shugo was strong, the relationship between the bantō and the Tōgoku gokenin was nearly one of equals. In this manner, viewed in terms of the form of the Kyōto Ōbanyaku, the standpoint of the Saigoku gokenin was weaker than that of the Tōgoku gokenin. In the second section, I address the changes in the chief form of those who served as banyaku duringthe Kamakura period. Originally, it was the duty of the gokenin alone to serve as the Kyōto Ōbanyaku, but in the mid 13th century the bakufu recognized the participation of samurai other than the gokenin in the Kyōto Ōbanyaku system. Furthermore, it permitted samurai who were not gokenin to serve as the banyaku guarding the Kamakura shogun's residence at the same time. In either case this was the result of political turmoil and fighting over the leadership of the Kamakura bakufu that broke out just prior to 1246 and though 1247. Due to this, the bakufu permitted the participation of samurai who were not gokenin to serve as banyaku, and they were treated as equivalent of the gokenin. In this way, in this paper I have argued from the reality of the banyaku that gokenin system was expanded. The possibility arose of eliminating the gap between the Tōgoku and Saigoku gokenin, which was demonstrated in the first section of this paper, but this was put off by the bakufu and the differences were preserved. I believe that in the above I have been able to clarify the regional characteristics of the gokenin system and an aspect of the changes in each historical period by concretely examining the banyaku.