<論説>鎌倉・南北朝期における朝廷の官司制度とその変遷

Abstract

本稿は中世朝廷社会の中における官司制度や官司諸職の特質とその変遷を分析するものである。まず、官司知行の問題を再検討し、知行の実質は官司諸職に付随する「務」の知行であるとして、「務」の概念を提起した上で、鎌倉期の官司運営の体制を「務―年預」と捉え直した。後嵯峨治世期以降の鎌倉後期、治天が務や年預の補任、相伝を改変することで官司運営に介入するようになった。それを官司領の復興などを目指す朝廷徳政としての諸司興行の一環と捉えることが可能である。諸司興行は南北朝期以後も存在し、戦乱の十四世紀中頃をピークに治天が拡大させる形で運用した結果、勅裁による官司諸職の個別的改変は多発し、官司制度に大きく影響を与えた。一部の官司では「務―年預」体制が分断され、務や年預の内実も特定の官司領へと一円化・同質化した。こうした細分化、錯綜した官司諸職の知行関係は応安年間の諸司興行の公的停止により定着し、室町期に継承されていく。

This article focuses on the bureaucratic system (官司制度kanshi seido) of the medieval Japanese court and specific government positions (kanshi shoshiki 官司諸職) within it, including their structure and transformation. As the author points out in the introduction, where he systematically review earlier research, previous research on this problem has too often linked the transformation to individual families and neglected the top-down influence of royal power. This shortcoming has its roots in Satō Shinichiʼs theory of the kanshi ukeoi sei 官司請負制(the system of families inheriting government posts). According to this theory, official positions were closely related to family occupations and income, which was a key feature of the Ōchō kokka 王朝国家(the dynastic state, which started in the 10th century). In recent years, Endō Tamaki, one of the most prominent researchers on the official bureaucracy of the imperial court, has advanced Satōʼs conclusions in her analysis of the structure of the official bureaucratic system, but the problems mentioned above remain unsolved. Studies of the political history of the late Kamakura court has progressed in recent years, and the author draws on these results to expand our understanding of the bureaucratic system and shift it from the focus on individual families to the political history of the court. In this regard, the author questions how the intervention of kingship gradually dissolved the bureaucratic hierarchy in the officialdom of the imperial court, and how the dissolution of the hierarchy further led to changes in the ʻownershipʼ of official positions. In the first section, the author focuses on the characteristics of the imperial bureaucracy and official positions in the early Kamakura period, and redefines the concept of kanshi chigyō 官司知行(control of official positions) proposed by scholars such as Satō and Endō. The author stresses the importance of mu 務, or actual operation, and argues that the essence of the kanshi chigyō was the control of mu. Originally, the term mu referred to the actual operation of each office, but in the medieval period it also referred to the person in charge of these affairs, usually the chief of the department. In fact, it could either be the person who held the title of chief, or a person without the title but who exerted influence over the department externally. Based on this finding, the author then explores the lower-level bureaucrats who were responsible for the actual operation of each department during the medieval period and who were generally called nenʼyo 年預, and then proposes the concept of a mu-nenʼyo system 務年預体制. As the mu was authorized to appoint a nenʼyo, this demonstrates a kind of bureaucratic hierarchy. Although mu and nenʼyo were relatively independent in the beginning, the chiten 治天(the emperor or retired emperor, who was the de facto ruler) exerted increased influence over the appointment of both positions as time went on.

In the second section, the author discusses the changes in the mu-nenʼyo system, mainly in the context of currents in the political history of the court in the late Kamakura period. Endōʼs study does not take note of this dynamic aspect, but merely focuses on the static hierarchy between the nenʼyo and superior nobles. However, the author argues that the influence of the chiten was evident in the late Kamakura period. Clearly, this could be linked to the context of ryōtō tetsuritsu 両統迭立(alternating rule of the two imperial factions), but more importantly, it was the result of the courtʼs own initiative to implement the policy of shoshi kōgyō 諸司興行(promoting the restoration of the privileges to officials in the bureaucracy). With the aim of shoshi kōgyō, the chiten began to intervene in the personnel appointment of the mu and the nenʼyo, and to the extent of allowing the inheritance of the nenʼyo. This significantly altered the traditional structure of the mu-nenʼyo system and led to the collapse of the hierarchy and the homogenization of mu and nenʼyo, both of which began to develop into a form of property that was closely linked to the lands tied to these posts. In the third section, the author goes on to consider how the tumultuous period of the Northern and Southern Courts impacted the mu-nenʼyo system. During this period, there was an accelerated appearance of the phenomena observed in the late Kamakura period, as the chiten of both the Northern and Southern Courts began to dominate the aristocracy and frustrated lower bureaucrats by controlling and granting mu and nenʼyo posts. This resulted in the fragmentation of the mu-nenʼyo system and the change in inherent nature of mu and nenʼyo. At that time, the mu and nenʼyo came to be tied to specific official territories. The intricate official relationship of control of mu and nenʼyo that had resulted from the changes of the chiten became fixed in the Ōan 応安era with the formal cessation of shoshi kōgyō policy of the court, which also marked the beginning of the official bureaucratic system of the Muromachi period. Through the above examination, the author would like to point out not only the influence of the kingship on the changes in the official bureaucracy in the medieval times, but also the correlation between the changes in the bureaucratic system and the concurrent deterioration of the shōen kōryōsei 荘園公領制(the system of communal lands and private estates). This signifies, moreover, that the study of the court bureaucracy can be an important bridge to the larger subject of medieval society and kingship.