兵糧米・地頭加徴米小考

概要

論文の詳細を見る
It is a very important event for the establishment of Kamakura-Shogunate that the retired emperor Goshirakawa permitted Yoritomo Minamoto to place the "Shugo"(protector) and the "Jito"(steward) and to collect the "Hyoromai"(military provisions) in 1189 (I of Bunji). Many scholars have studied on this subjject but some problems are now still open ; Kaoru Nakada maintaioned that the Jito-Shiki placed in Bunji is the right of collecting the "Hyoromai" and Kenji Maiki denied it. Nakada's thesis assumes that the Kachomai collected by Jito, on of the forms of Jito's share in the Kamakura period is nothing but the "Hyoromai". So I think, it is necessary, for the determination of Nakada-Maki controversy to define the relations between the "Kachomai" collected by Jito and the "Hyoromai". Following essay is an attempt to clear up the character of both "Kachomai" and "Hyoromai" and to explain the difference between the two. Concerning these problems I reexamined the classical studies on Jito hitherto accepted to be unquestionable and came to the conclusion that none of these studies are convincible. Nakada's theory is founded on the assumption that the taxation of "Kachomai" by Jito is the right peculiar to the so-called "Shimpo-Jito" (Jito placed after the Rebellion of Jyo Kyu) and has its origin in the "Hyoromai" permitted in Bunji. But I think it is certificable fact that the taxation of the "Kachomai" is not neccessarily the function of "Shimpo-Jito" but one of the forms of Jito's share collected throughout the Kamakura period. On the other hand, the Hyoromai is the military tax imposed at the time of rebellion and collection of it is not necessarily the function of the Jito. So each Kachomai and Hyoromai have very different characters. If there is any fundamental difference between the two, as I concluded, the assumption that the Jito-Shiki is the right of collecting "Hyoromia" must be abandoned.
北海道大学の論文
1960-06-30

兵糧米・地頭加徴米小考

スポンサーリンク

概要

著者

関連論文

スポンサーリンク