手日記と意見状 : 将軍足利義晴治世期の御前沙汰手続
スポンサーリンク
概要
- 論文の詳細を見る
This paper attempts to elucidate the gozensata 御前沙汰 proceedings during the late Muromachi era centering on Ashikaga Yoshiharu's regime, by analyzing two documents, tenikki 手日記 and ikenjo 意見状. The gozensata proceedings during this time worked as follows. When a suit was instituted, a group of bugyoshu 奉行衆 tried the case. Following this, the results of the trial and other information were announced to the shogun through the naidanshu 内談衆, the staff closest to him. The naidanshu was authorized to report their collective views about a variety of topics to the shogun. Until these collective views were compiled by the naidanshu, they had to undergo one of at least three types of proceedings. Once a consensus was reached, a nichigyoji 日行事, an official appointed from among the naidanshu, made a final draft of the collective statement in the form of a tenikki and reported it to the shogun. The naidanshu seems to have reported such consensus opinions whenever it liked. However, these views did not restrict the shogun's discretion, and the shogun had every power to reject any tenikki. Now, if a tenikki was a report from the naidanshu to the shogun, an ikenjo was a sort of report prepared by the bugyoshu, hereditary legal officials in the shogunate. Hiroshi Kasamatsu has analyzed these ikenjo records and voiced his view that the outcome of the shogunate proceedings during the late Muromachi era came to depend largely on the bugyoshu. However, a close look at gozensata records dating back to that time reveals some cases where the shogun rejected an ikenjo half-way during a trial and made a decision on his own. And it is difficult to say that the submission of an ikenjo "became a universal formality". Moreover, in the formality of report submission, it has been surmised that it was not the bugyoshu but the shogun (and the naidanshu) that took the leadership. For these reasons, the author cannot help but challenge Kasamatsu's view. However, it is true that an "ikenjo-centered principle" was on the rise in the shogunate during the late Muromachi era. It may be surmised that this is because of the following: in order for the shogunate to survive the serious political unrest during the late Muromachi era, it was essential for the shogunate to make itself more reliable as a dispute arbitrator. And, to that end, it had become vital to leave all decisions to ikenjo statements issued by the bugyoshu, who were legal experts, rather than the shogun and naidanshu. However, letting all decisions depend on ikenjo would have denied the shogun's discretion. In order to avoid this, one preventive measure was taken. While the rise of the "ikenjo-centered principle" resulted in some restrictions on the shogun's power to reject an ikenjo, provision was made to allow the leadership in handling the ikenjo to be taken not by the bugyoshu but by the shogun (and the naidanshu). This measure maintained the shogun's discretion somewhat. It is true that respect for the ikenjo was originally incompatible with the shogun centered principle, but the above preventive measure balanced these two elements in the gozensata proceedings during the late Muromachi era, thus keeping them somewhat compatible.
- 財団法人史学会の論文
- 1995-02-20