將軍から都督へ --都督制に對する誤解--

Abstract

There exists an enormous amount of research on the dudu 都督, military commanderships, established at the beginning of the Cao Wei 曹魏 dynasty. However, these studies contain some serious misunderstandings, so it cannot be said that the content of the dudu system has been made sufficiently clear. This paper corrects these prior misunderstandings and presents a more nuanced examination of the dudu. For example, a common error is to treat those who occupied the post of dudu as independent officials. It is also wrong to say, as some scholars have argued, that, "the cishi 刺史 held the post of dudu concurrently". In fact, dudu was merely a title, and it was given exclusively to the jiangjun 將軍. Further, it is also incorrect to state that the rank of dudu was established because at the end of the Later Han 後漢, jiangjun was becoming an empty title. Of course, it is a fact that the title of jiangjun was issued excessively at the end of the Later Han, and jiangjun "started" to become an empty title. However, the dudu was not established to take the place of the jiangjun that had already become meaningless, but instead the dudu was a newly founded system created to support the jiangjun, which was in the process of losingactual power. About 150 years later, from the end of the Western Jin 西晉 to the beginning of the Eastern Jin 東晉 dynasty, the jiangjun had almost entirely lost power, and the dudu eventually shed the role of supporting players to become de facto military commanders. But we must note that in terms of political institutions, the dudu was not an independent official but the title given to the jiangjun even at this time. In addition, there is a misunderstanding in regards to the dudu as unequivocally decentralized. However, the central regime, which tended toward centralization, would never have sought to create a decentralized military system. In fact, the dudu was originally a centralized system, but from the end of the Western Jin to the beginning of the Eastern Jin dynasty, it dramatically shifted into a decentralized system. This change of character is concerned with the change of relationship of the jiangjun to the dudu, mentioned above. This paper clarifies the process, cause and the background of this change. To investigate the origin of these misunderstandings, I critically examined the Nanqishu 南齊書. Later historical records, such as the Tongdian 通典, inherited the mistake made there, misleading researchers ever since. We must adopt a critical stance toward such historical records.