<論説>武家諸法度と諸士法度 --末期養子の禁緩和の再検討を手がかりに--

Abstract

大名を対象とした武家諸法度と同様の発布方法により、三代将軍徳川家光・四代将軍徳川家綱は、旗本対象の諸士法度を発布した。これまで大名対象の政策として理解されてきた末期養子の禁は、諸士法度にのみ規定され、慶安四年（一六五一）の緩和は、諸士法度の改訂というのが実態であったので、緩和に慶安事件の影響をみる通説は成り立たない。ただし、武家諸法度と諸士法度は、法制上の対象範囲をこえて、当時の武家社会に広く影響力を及ぼしていた。末期養子の禁およびその緩和についても、大名にもその影響が及んだと考えられる。五代将軍徳川綱吉は、従来の両法度を統合した武家諸法度天和令を発布した。両法度から引き継いだその内容には独自性はなく、大名・旗本を等しく対象とした点にこそ天和令の歴史的意義がある。「文武忠孝」で始まるその第一条も、従来の諸士法度の第一条を取り入れたものであり、そこに文治主義的な志向性を読み取るべきではない。

The buke shohatto 武家諸法度(regulations governing military houses), issued by the Edo shogunate, were aimed at the daimyō, lords of local domains. In contrast, the shoshi hatto 諸士法度(regulations governing warriors) that were directed at the hatamoto, who were direct retainers of the shogun. The shoshi hatto were promulagated by the third and fourth Tokugawa shoguns, Iemitsu and Ietsuna, in the same manner as the buke shohatto. Thus, the prohibition on the adoption of an heir on one's deathbed (matsugo yōshi 末期養子), which has heretofore been understood as a policy directed at the daimyō, was in fact only stipulated in the shoshi hatto. The relaxation of the prohibition on matsugo yōshi in 1651 (Keian 4) differs from the general understanding, and it was, in fact, a revision of the shoshi hatto. In other words, the usual explanation that the relaxation was influenced by the Keian Incident cannot be maintained. However, the scope of the buke shohatto and the shoshi hatto exceeded the specific legal boundaries over which they were meant to apply, and they widely influenced contemporary warrior society in general. It can be surmised that the prohibition of matsugo yōshi as well as its relaxation also influenced the daimyō. The fifth shogun, Tokugawa Tsunayoshi, issued the Tenna-era regulations (Tenna rei 天和令) revising the buke shohatto with the intention of integrating the existing buke shohatto and shoshi hatto. Because the Tenna-era regulations simply maintained the buke shohatto and shoshi hatto, there was nothing unique in the content of the regulations. The historical significance of the Tenna-era regulations was that they treated the daimyō and the hatamoto equally. The first article of the Tenna-era regulations that spoke of the promotion of “literary and martial arts as well as loyalty and filiality” (bunbu chūkō 文武忠孝) was established by incorporating the same wording from the first article of the shoshi hatto. Therefore, the first article of the Tenna-era regulations should not be interpreted as displaying a preference for civilian government (文治政治 bunchi seiji).