the Struggle for Lordship in Late Heian Japan; The Case of Aki' by Peter J. Arnesen, 1984

7/28/2019 'the Struggle for Lordship in Late Heian Japan; The Case of Aki' by Peter J. Arnesen, 1984

1/42

The Society for Japanese Studies

The Struggle for Lordship in Late Heian Japan: The Case of AkiAuthor(s): Peter J. ArnesenSource: Journal of Japanese Studies, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Winter, 1984), pp. 101-141Published by: The Society for Japanese StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/132183

Accessed: 02/06/2010 10:39

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sjs.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The Society for Japanese Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Journal of Japanese Studies.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/132183?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sjshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sjshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/132183?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/42

PETER J. ARNESENThe Strugglefor Lordshipin Late Heian Japan:The Case of Aki

Sometime duringthe sixth month of 1139, FujiwaraNaritaka,thescion of a once-powerfulAkifamily,commendedhis landholdingsoa minor Kyoto noble namedNakaharaMoronaga.The Fujiwara'sfortunes were no longer what they had been, and Naritakahopedthat throughMoronagahe would obtain the patronageof someonepowerful enough to reverse the decline. As it happened, his hopewas forlorn. Moronaga was not as well-connected as Naritakathought,and thoughNaritaka'sheirs may have retained an interestin at least some of their lands as late as the Muromachiperiod, by1167they hadbeen forced to surrendermany of their rightsto oneSaeki Kagehiro.Naritaka,thoughhe shared the surnameof the Regents' Housein Kyoto, was a man of merely local importance.The historyof hisfamily's decline would therefore be of little interest were it not fortwo facts. First, the Aki Fujiwaraprovide us with one of the bestdocumented cases of local lordshipto be found anywherein HeianJapan, with the evidence being particularlyrich for the eleventhcentury. Second, while Naritaka was a nonentity outside of Aki,Saeki Kagehiro enjoyed a certain prominence.His prominence, however, was derivative; it arose becauseKagehiro enjoyed close ties to one of the great men of the twelfthcentury.The man in question, TairaKiyomori, was the scion of anobscure branch of a none too influential amily, but both his fatherand grandfatherhad been trusted retainers of the ex-emperors

Research for this study was supported at various times by fellowships from theJapan Foundation, the Social Science Research Council, and the Center for JapaneseStudies of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Journalof JapaneseStudies, 10:1 1? 1984Society for JapaneseStudies


3/42

Journal of Japanese StudiesShirakawa and Toba.' Kiyomori's own career had begun fairlyquietly--he served in his youth as a member of Shirakawa's house-hold, then worked in a variety of the government offices that minis-tered to the imperial family, and later acted as both governor andToba's cat's-paw in the provinces of Higo and Aki. Because of hiscrucial role in suppressing the Hogen and Heiji Rebellions, however,Kiyomori entered the 1160s as one of the most powerful members ofthe Heian Court.

Indeed, from 1160 to 1181 Kiyomori's influence was so great thathistorians used to argue that his rise marked the beginning of warriorrule inJapan. This view has come under increasing attack of late, forit is now clear-that Kiyomori's hegemony developed more graduallythan we used to think, and that his ties to local warriors weretenuous. Yet while there is a growing tendency to treat Kiyomori asa mutant courtier, rather than as a rising warrior, most historianswould concede that there were some provinces where Kiyomori'sties to the local warriors were fairly close. Aki, it is argued, wasamtongthe strongest of these local bases, and in Aki, it was SaekiKagehiro who led the Taira's partisans.2Kagehiro was himself a prominent official in the Aki provincialoffice and the hereditary priest-administrator (kannushi) of the Itsu-kushima Shrine. During a ten-year stint as governor of Aki (1046-56), however, Kiyomori had conceived an intense devotion to theDeity of Itsukushima--going so far as to name it the tutelary deityof his family-and had made Kagehiro his retainer.3 ThoughKiyomori's direct ties to Aki were severed when he surrendered thegovernorship in 1156, his brothers held this post for the next twoyears, and an official in Kiyomori's household was governor fromroughly 1166 to 1173. Even during the few years when the governor

1. Kiyomori'sbranchof the KanmuHeike, which was descended from PrinceTakami,seems to have abandonedthe capital and producedlittle but provincialgovernorsbeforethe rise of Kiyomori'sgrandfather.The descendantsof Takami'sbrotherTakamunewere somewhatmore prominent,but the family really did notamountto muchbefore the twelfthcentury.See Sonpi bunmyaku,4 vols., Shinteizoho Kokushitaikei 58-60.2 (YoshikawaKobunkan, 1962-64), 4:3-34.2. See JeffreyP. Mass, "TheEmergenceof the Kamakura akufu,"in MedievalJapan, ed. JohnW. Hall andJeffreyP. Mass (New Haven:Yale UniversityPress,1974), pp. 127-34; and Jeffrey P. Mass, Warrior Government in Early MedievalJapan (New Haven:Yale UniversityPress, 1974),chap. 1.3. Kiyomori'sdevotionto Itsukushimas not fully understood,but see KokuraToyofumi,"Heikeno Itsukushimahinkoni tsuite," in Seto.naikaino shakaishitekikenkyu,ed. Uozumi Sogoro (Kyoto: YanagiharaShoten, 1952),pp. 1-34.

102


4/42

Arnesen: Heian Lordshipwas not one of his cronies, Kiyomoriwas quite capableof influenc-ing a governor's decisions, and his relationshipto Kagehiromustoccasionally have allowed him to bypass the governor altogether.Most scholars areconvinced, therefore,thatfrom 1146on Akiwas aTairaenclave. We know, afterall, that the Tairawere able to carveout an interest in at least three Aki sh6en, that Kagehirowas thededicated instrumentof Kiyomori'swill, and that Aki longheld outagainstthe Genji.4Andif none of these pointsis conclusive, thereisanotherthat seemingly is.Specifically,it is widely believed thatin Akithe Tairasucceededin installing jito, those bailiff-likeofficials who, in later times atleast, were the quintessentialmanifestationof theirpatrons'abilityto controlthe countryside.5One bit of evidence for this thesis, thatrelatingto the shoen of Mibuin northwesternAki, is provocative,but too fragmentaryo be very revealing.The task of characterizingthe Taira's use of jito has therefore been heavily dependent ondocuments that reflect Saeki Kagehiro'slordshipover the formerholdingsof FujiwaraNaritaka.It is scarcely surprising,then, that, small fish though Naritakamay have been, the history of his family's lordship-and of Kage-hiro's succession thereto-has been intensivelyexamined.The sub-ject has attractedthe attentionof our most eminent Japanesecol-leagues, has been woven into the standard heorieson the evolutionof local lordship n Japan,and has even won lengthytreatmentat thehands of Jeffrey Mass.6Since Mass's writingsare both readilyaccessible and similar noutlookto much of the best Japanesescholarship, t behooves us toreview his findings. According to Mass, the Fujiwara'sholdingspassed uneventfullyandprimogenitallyhroughat least five genera-tions of the family. Thoughthese holdingswere sadlydiminishedbythe time Naritakagot his hands on them, the Fujiwara'sancientclaims were sufficiently potent that their inheritance by SaekiKagehirowas enough to enable the latter to win appointmentasjito of the entire district of Takada in 1176. Indeed, even afterKagehiro's stock fell with the collapse of the Taira, his heirs were

4. See, e.g., Ishii Susumu, "Heishi-Kamakura y6seikenkano Aki kokuga,"Rekishigakukenkylu 57 (September1961):1-12.5. See Mass, WarriorGovernment,chap. 4.6. See, in addition o the workscitedin notes 2 and5, JeffreyP. Mass, "Patternsof ProvincialInheritance n Late Heian Japan,"Journalof Japanese Studies 9.1(Winter 1983):67-95.

103


5/42

Journal of Japanese Studiesable not only to maintain their hold over at least parts of Takada, buteven to win enrollment as shogunal vassals.7Mass's views are not only seconded by the Japanese scholarshipof the past three decades, they are also based on a substantial, andhitherto unquestioned, body of documentation. Indeed, the weightof scholarly opinion supporting this view of Fujiwara-Saeki lordshipis so enormous that it may seem blasphemous to challenge it. Never-theless, the entire thesis is dependent on the credibility of a crucialseries of inheritance documents that were assembled by the Fuji-wara and their heirs, and inheritance documents are among the mostfrequently forged of medieval sources.What I shall argue, in fact, is that on at least three occasions theFujiwara found it necessary to lie about the history of their lordship,and that, in order to give substance to their falsehoods, they had toforge a number of inheritance and land transfer documents. It isthese, unfortunately, that have lain at the center of virtually alldiscussions of late Heian Aki and of the Taira's place there. Still,while it is a bit of a shock to have to discard hitherto unquestionedsources and assumptions, the history of the Fujiwara's landholdingsremains extraordinarily well documented and has a good deal to tellus about the growth of local lordship in early medieval Japan.Indeed, given the extent that we continue to think about thehistory of early warrior lordship in terms of the essential bankruptcyof the late Heian state and the enormous de facto power of aprovincial warrior class, the picture that emerges from the Fuji-wara's documents is both novel and interesting. To anticipate pointsthat I shall elaborate below, the Fujiwara were district magistrateswhose local influence was heavily dependent upon their beingconfirmed in office by the provincial government. Even when theywere successful in obtaining this confirmation, they faced severecompetition for control of the countryside from other families enjoy-ing both official connections and close ties to the land. By themid-twelfth century, when the Fujiwara were no longer successful inwinning appointment as district magistrates, and when their localrivals were successfully commending large portions of the Fuji-wara's former bailiwick to shoen proprietors, the Fujiwara's posi-tion was so shaky that even the transfer of their rights to Saeki

7. I should point out that Mass speaks of Kagehiro as the jito of seven go inTakada, not of the district itself. There were but seven go in Takada, however, and Idoubt that what I have said above distorts what Mass meant to say in 1974.

104


6/42

Amesen: Heian LordshipKagehiro,and Kagehiro'sties to Kiyomori,were insufficient o winback their prerogatives.The Aki Fujiwara,in other words, afford us a picture of howsevere, and how diverse, were the difficultiesbesettingthose whoaspiredto local lordshipin Japan.Of course, we have long knownthat local lords had to worry about the possibilityof militaryattackby theirfellows, or of the denialof their immunitiesfromtaxation,but it does not appearthateitherconquestor the loss of immunitiesundidthe Fujiwara.Beforeassessingwhatdid undothem, however,we needto examinesome of the conventionalwisdom on the originsof local lordship.

Lordship and the Public DomainTo understand he growthof local lordship,we mustfirstdiscardthe notionthatby 1025or so the productiveland of Japanhad beenlargely made over into immune estates, or sh6en. It is true thatshoen were beingcarved out as early as the eighthcentury,but thetotal numberin existence by the eleventh century seems to have

been fairly small.8 Thus, while it is legitimate to argue that theproliferationof shoen had an enormous impact upon the develop-ment of local lordshipfrom 1100on, it appearsthat the local sei-gneuriesof the eleventh centurygrew up largelywithinthe provin-cial domain. Indeed, most scholars would agree that it was essen-tiallyfromthe localofficialdom hatprovincial ordlingswere drawn.Three centuries earlier, of course, such a developmentwouldhave seemed impossible. Japan'sprovinces (kuni), districts (gun),and subdistricts(go) had then been arrayed in a rigid territorialhierarchy,and local governancehad been closely controlledby the

8. This point, which finds vigorous expression in, e.g., Amino Yoshihiko,"Sh6en-k6ry6seino keisei to k6oz," in Tochi seidoshi 1, ed. TakeuchiRiz6, TaikeiNihonshi s6sho 6 (YamakawaShuppansha,1973),pp. 178-79, has been only indi-rectly expressed in the Englishliterature.(See, e.g., G. CameronHurst, III, Insei[New York:ColumbiaUniversityPress, 1976],p. 259.) Precisefigureson eleventh-centurysh6en areelusive, but it now looks as thoughT6daijimayhave hadroughlythirty sh6en (Joan R. Piggott, "Hierarchy and Economics in Early MedievalTodaiji," in Courtand Bakufuin Japan, ed. JeffreyP. Mass [New Haven: YaleUniversityPress, 1982],pp. 54, 77-83), and that even the mightyRegents' Housemayhave hadas few as 100 or so (YoshieAkio, "Sekkanke-ry6no s6zoku kenkyfjosetsu," Shigakuzasshi 76.4 [April 1967]:1-44).In contrast, the imperialfamilyalone is thoughtto have establishedmore than 1,000shoen after roughly1090.

105


7/42

Journal of Japanese StudiesImperialCourt.9By the mid-eleventhcentury, however, local gov-ernance had been alteredin at least three ways.First, the complextax system adaptedfromChinesemodelshadbeen radically simplified.Insteadof levyingfour distinctcategoriesof taxes directly from individualhouseholds-a practice that re-quiredprovincialgovernmentsto maintainelaboratecensus regis-ters and update them regularly-the Japanesenow levied but twobroadcategoriesof imposts,bothof which were basedon landarea.For purposesof the presentstudy, these categoriesmaybe referredto as "taxes" (shoto kanmotsu) and "miscellaneous services"(manz6kuji, or kokuyaku),Second, it was becomingincreasinglyrare for provincialgover-nors to spend much time in the provinces. Instead, a governornormallyentrusted he routinemattersof provincialgovernanceto apermanentstaff of "residentofficers" (zaicho, or zaicho kanjin)inthe province to which he had been appointed.This resultedin thevestingof considerablymorepowerin local figuresthanwouldhavebeen permittedby eighth-centurylaw codes, but few governorsallowed that to worry them. The typical governor thoughtit quiteenoughto send a personalrepresentative mokudai) o presideoverthe residentofficers, and to handlewhateverextraordinarymattersmight arise by dispatching"governor'sedicts" (chosen) from hisprivate secretariatin the capital.11Finally, by the mid-eleventhcenturythe old territorialhierarchyof province, district, and subdistricthad broken down, and theadministration f the provinces'taxableland was being completelyrestructured.The details of this reorganizationare elusive, but thefollowing generalizationsare fairly well accepted.12First, taxableland was increasinglyadministeredthroughunits of two distinct

9. A note ontranslations in order.Although hewordgo is generallyrenderedas"village," or "township,"the relationship f theg6 to anynaturalagrarian ommu-nityis problematic.Sinceit is clear,moreover, hatthe ancientgo covereda far argerarea than the medieval "village" (mura), I have thoughtit best to call the go a"subdistrict."10. These categoriesare essentiallythe same as the "taxes" and "corvee" ofNagaharaKeiji's"LandownershipUndertheShoen-Kokugaryo ystem,"JournalofJapaneseStudies 1:2(Spring1975):270, ote 6. I dislikethecomparativemplicationsof the term "corvee," however.11. TakeuchiRiz6, "Zaich6kanjinno bushika,"in Nihon hokenseiseiritsunokenkytu,d. TakeuchiRiz6 (YoshikawaK6bunkan, 1957), pp. 3-11.12. Whatfollows is based upon SakamotoShozo, Nihon 6cho kokkataisei ron(T6ky6 DaigakuShuppankai,1972),pp. 266-305.

106


8/42

Arnesen: Heian Lordshipsorts. The first were made up primarily of land that had been on thetax rolls since the remote past. While such land was to be foundthroughout the country, there were pronounced regional differencesin the way it was managed. In two areas-the first extending fromthe provinces of Kaga, Mine, and Owari eastward, and the secondcomprising the provinces of Satsuma and Osumi in Kyushu-the olddistricts had retained their political significance, and it was throughthe district magistrates (gunji) that the ancient public domain wascontrolled.13 In central, and most of western Japan, however, theimportance of the district was fading, and it was increasinglythrough the subdistricts and their magistrates (g6ji) that the ancientdomain was administered.14 For instance, Aki lay in this region, andmost scholars believe that it was as subdistrict magistrates that theAki Fujiwara rose to power.Alongside the old districts and subdistricts, however, land unitsof an entirely different sort were emerging as well. These went by avariety of names-including betsumyo, beppu, betsuno, mura, andho-but they all shared the following characteristics. First, theywere made up not of the anciently cultivated public domain, butrather of newly reclaimed land. Second, their relationship to the olddistricts and subdistricts was a horizontal one-the new lands laylargely outside the jurisdiction of district and subdistrict magistrates,and rendered their taxes directly to the provincial office. Third, theywere generally established in the following manner. An individual,whether a person or a religious corporation, would ask the provin-cial government for permission to reclaim a specificed body of landfor cultivation. Typically, he would profess a desire to foster theweal of the province by his actions, and would stipulate that while hewould of course render the proper taxes (shoto kanmotsu) on thelands he reclaimed, he wished-as a reward for meritorious service,perhaps, or in order to endow a pious foundation-to be exemptedfrom the miscellaneous services (manzo kuji) levied on them. If hispetition were granted, and if he succeeded in his reclamation proj-ect, he would thereby have established what amounted to a semi-

13. In a numberof these provinces,however,landunitscalled n weredividedofffrom the old districts.Satsuma'sIriki-in s a famous case in point.14. A cautionarynote is in order here. Not all the g6 appearing n medievaldocumentsareancientsubdistricts.Some arein fact madeup of reclaimed andandarea species of thebetsumy6discussed n the nextparagraph.Forexample,virtuallyall the g6 in Hitachifall into this betsumyocategory,as do many otherg6 in theKanto.

107


9/42

Journal of Japanese Studiesimmunepropertywithinthe provincialdomain. His holdingwouldbe subjectto taxation,but he would have clear title andwould owethe government substantiallyless than was owed on comparableportionsof the ancient domain.15There can be little doubt that semi-immuneholdings of thissort-which Japanese scholars tend to lump together under thename betsumyo16-were an importantelement in the creation ofeleventh-centuryseigneuries.Indeed, to the extent that one regardsthe reclamation of land by provincial figuresas the foundationof"feudal lordship" in Japan, the emergence of the betsumyo willseem morenearlycrucialthanimportant.But no matterhow potentwe assume the lordshipof a manover his betsumyo,we have still tomake sense of a ratherdifferentsort of local lordship.The factis thatthe greatest local seigneurs-men whose later commendationswould create the enormous shoen of the twelfth century, forexample-claimed dominionover areas that extended well beyondthe confinesof their reclaimed ands.17Typically,the scale of theselordships was on the order of one or more subdistricts,or evendistricts, of the provincial domain, and their holders were eitherdistrictof subdistrictmagistrates (gunji or goji).Unfortunately, it is far from clear what the relationshipwasbetweenthe prerogatives uchmenenjoyedas magistratesand thosethey enjoyedas landholders.Most scholarsassume, however, thatitwas the reclaimed andsof the betsumyothat formed the indispens-able core of even a districtmagistrate's ordship.Accordingto thisview, the creation of betsumyo and the grantingof immunitiestothemrepresentedthe concedingto local magnatesof effective con-trol over both peasantry and agriculturein order to obtain themagnates' cooperation in increasingthe flow of regulartaxation

15. Neither the predominanceof reclaimedland nor the autonomyof the be-tsumyois nearlyas clearcutas the conventionalwisdomwouldhaveit, however. SeeTamuraHiroshi,"Suo-no-kuniYoda-hono seikaku o kokugabunin iti noseiritsunitsuite," Shigakukenkyu112(August1973):1-22;Nishik6riTsutomu,"Wakasa-no-kuniTara-no-shojito-shikio keifu ni tsuite,"Shigakukenkyu132(June1976):1-22;andidem, "Otabuminojiisokeikisai to furetsukisaini tsuite," HiroshimaDaigakuBungakubu kiyo 38 (December 1978):24-51.16. Taking t as giventhat amyowas a unit of taxaccountabilityneitherashoenorthe publicdomain,a betsumyomaybe seen as amyothat accounted"separately"from those subjectto a magistrateor to his shoen counterpart.17. I amhereusing"seigneur"as a translationorthe termryoshu,andamdoingso because it seems clear that historiansuse both termsto refer to men who werelords of both land and the men inhabitingt.

108


10/42

Arnesen: Heian Lordship(shoto kanmotsu).'8 Such concessions, it is argued, allowed a be-tsumyo's holder to secure personal lordshipover all peasants cul-tivating his betsumyo, and ultimately to exert control even overlandsthey cultivatedelsewhere. It was this personallordship, manyscholars would argue, that made a man an effective and usefulmagistrate.But even if we assume that a man's position as lord of abetsumyocontributed o his effectiveness as a magistrate, ust howstrongcanwe assume thathis holdwas over the whole of his districtor subdistrict?Thisquestionis farfrombeingresolved, butthere is agrowingbody of scholarshipthat argues that the lordshipof suchmagistratescannot have been very strong. Specifically,it is arguedthat, however strong a magistrate'scontrol of his betsumyo, hisauthorityover the rest of his bailiwickwas not the personaldomin-ion of a proprietor,orof a masterover his dependents,butrather heclosely circumscribed,public authorityof a governmentfunction-ary. Such "lordship," it is suggested, depended heavily upon theman'soffice, andwouldcollapseif thatoffice were deniedhim.19Ofcourse, since mostmagistrateswere also warriors, he acceptanceofthis view requiresthat we also believe that sword and bow were aless potentdefense againstgovernmental iatthan most of us used tothink,but thenMass has arguedvery muchthe same pointfor morethan a decade. As we shallsee shortly,moreover,the lordshipof theAki Fujiwarawas, if anything,even moreprecariousthanthe abovemodel would suggest.

The Fujiwara and MitaLet us returnto FujiwaraNaritaka. In the documentwith whichNaritakacommendedhis landholdingsn 1139,he claimed thatwhilehis familyhadtraditionallybeen magistratesof all seven subdistrictsin the district of Takadain Aki, he himself controllednothingbe-yond the two Takada subdistricts of Mita and Kazahaya. It wasthese that he was commending,and as proof of his title he wassurrenderinga large number of evidentiary documents-amongwhich were eight documentsprovingthe descent of the Fujiwara's

18. The classic expositionof this view is OyamaKy6hei, "Kokugary6ni okerury6shusei no keisei," in Nihon chuisei n6sonshi no kenkyu, by Oyama Ky6hei(IwanamiShoten, 1978),pp. 70-102.19. See, e.g., NagaharaKeiji, "Sh6enseino rekishitekichii," inNihon hokenseiseiritsukatei no kenkyui,by NagaharaKeiji (IwanamiShoten, 1961),pp. 40-64.

109


11/42

Journal of Japanese Studiesholdings, a ananother eight showing that he and his forebears hadindeed been magistrates of Takada.20All sixteen of these documents survive, and they trace the storyof the Fujiwara's lordship all the way back to 1031. However, therealso survive a number of documents that Naritaka did not surrenderin 1139, but which have nonetheless loomed large in most studies ofthe Fujiwara. These include: (1) a 1053/2/5 governor's edict appoint-ing Fujiwara Yorikata district magistrate (gunji) of Takada; (2) a1078/9/2 edict appointing Yorikata subdistrict magistrate (g6ji) ofMita and Kazahaya; (3) a 1078/10/3 settlement (yuzurijo) in whichYorikata releases Mita and Kazahaya to his son Yorinari; and (4) an1110/3/10 settlement in which Yorinari releases Mita and Kazahayato his son Naritaka,2'While the mere fact that these documents were not surrenderedto Nakahara Moronaga in 1139 is peculiar, and while one of themdisplays some striking stylistic anomalies, most historians havetrusted them implicitly. In 1981, however, Yamada Sh6 made aconvincing argument that all four documents were forgeries, andthat they must have been concocted when Naritaka's heir rereleasedthe Fujiwara's lands to Saeki Kagehiro in 1167. His demonstrationhas made such a hash of the generally accepted chronologies ofFujiwara lordship that we had best retrace the chronology thatemerges from the documents Naritaka did give to Moronaga.22The first four generations of Fujiwara are easily dealt with. On1031/6/3, Fujiwara Morinaka released Mita and the beppu ofShigeyuki to his son Morimitsu, commanding him to seek appoint-meit as district magistrate (tairyo) when the governor was next inthe province. On 1048/7/2, Morimitsu, who was then district magis-trate (gunji) of Takada and a man of eighty or ninety, released thesathe properties to his son Moriyori. Nine years later, Moriyori, who

20. Asano Tadasuke-shi kyuzo Itsukushima monjo (hereafter, Asano Itsukushimamonjo), no. 1, in Hiroshima-kenshi, Kodai-chtusei shiryo hen (hereafter, HKKS), 5vols., ed. Hiroshima-kenshi Hensanshitsu (Hiroshima: Hiroshima-ken, 1974-80),3:1467-71.

21. Gohanmotsu-chq, nos. 1-3, 12 (HKKS 3:3-4, 10). I favor "settlement" or"release" as a translation for yuzurijo, notwithstanding Mass's use of the term'will." Not only is "release" closer in meaning to the original Japanese, but yuzurijowere often used to effect inter vivos, as well as post mortem, settlements.22. Yamada Sh6, "Aki-no-kuni Takada gunji to sono shoryo kishin: monjo nonagare wo chishin to shite," Shigaku zasshi 90.1 (January 1981):36-66. Mass wasunaware of this article at the time he wrote, and so made free use of the suspectdocuments. See "Provincial Inheritance," pp. 86-87.

110


12/42

Arnesen:Heian Lordshipwas by then districtmagistratehimself, released these lands to hisson Morito, and in 1068 Moritoreleasedthe same lands to his sonYorikata.23WithYorikata's succession, the story gets more detailed. Fouryears after succeeding Morito, Yorikata was officially appointedsubdistrictmagistrate (g6ji) of Mita, but on 1077/12/10he releasedMita and Shigeyukito his son Yorinari.He must have remainedactive, though, for on 1083/3/10 he was appointed magistrate(tairyo) of Takada, and his appointmentwas proclaimed to theprovince by the Great Council of State.24

By 1095, Yorinari had come into his own. On 1095/8/15 hepetitionedfor provincialconfirmationof lands in all seven of Taka-da's subdistricts; in 1096/6 he was appointed district magistrate(gunji) of the four Takada subdistrictsof Mita, Kazahaya, Ohara,and Kotachi;and on 1097/3/15he was appointedsubdistrictmagis-trate(g6ji) of Awaya andFunakias well. His careerwas not entirelysmooth, for at some point he fell into a dispute with his youngerbrother,but ultimatelyhe was twice confirmedas districtmagistrate(tairyo) by the Great Council of State. On 1114/3/10he releasedmost of his Mitaholdingsto his son Naritaka,andin 1139/1Naritakawas appointedsubdistrictmagistrateof Mita.25Such, at any rate, is the storythat Naritakasoughtto perpetuatein 1139, and which most scholars would now accept. Shortly, weshall have to considerwhetherthis story is reallycredible,but firstlet us examine two of the lessons that have been drawn from thestory as it stands. The first of these is that every FujiwaraexceptNaritakawas districtmagistrate gunji)of Takada,andthatby 109623, Shinshutsu Itsukushima monjo, nos. 1-4 (HKKS 3:157-59). Note that myreadingof Morinaka'srelease differsfrom Mass's.24. Ibid., no. 5 (HKKS 3:160); Aki-no-kuni Choko zassho, no. 12 (HKKS

5:1366-67); and Gohanmotsu-cho, no. 4 (HKKS 3:5). Mass was unaware of theexistence of the Chokozassho documentsat the time he wrote.25. Shinshutsu Itsukushima monjo, no. 14 (HKKS 3:166-67); Gohanmotsu-cho,nos. 7-11 (HKKS 3:7-9); Shinshutsu Itsukushima monjo, no. 6 and Itsukushimamonjo bui, no. 1 (HKKS 3:160-61, 1542); and Aki-no-kuni Choko zassho, no. 69(HKKS5:1404).Thereareactually hreeversions of Yorinari'spetition o releasehisholdings-a 1098petition Shinshutsu,no. 6), an 1114petitionwith aslightlydifferenttext (Bui,no. 1), andan unpublished ersionin the Chokozassho that bears the dateof the second, but has the contentof the first. This last versionis surelythe mostreliable. See Yamada,"Aki-no-kuni,"p. 60, note 43; and SakaueYasutoshi,"Aki-no-kuniTakadagunjiFujiwara-shi o shory6shfiseki o denry6,"Shigakuzasshi91.9(September1982):36,note 41.26. This last point emergesfromGohanmotsu-cho,no. 7 (HKKS3:7).

111


13/42

Journal of Japanese Studiestheir hereditary claim to the office was explicitly recognized.26 Thismagistracy, however, was not very potent. On the contrary, theFujiwara's authority seems at first to have been restricted to thesingle subdistrict of Mita, and even there to have been conditionedby the higher authority of still another line of district magistrates.Thus, the district magistrates who approved the sale of certain Mitapaddies in 1056 and 1070 bore the surname of Oshi, not Fujiwara.27This situation is puzzling, but not inexplicable. As MatsuokaHisato has argued, the term gunji, or "district magistrate," probablyencompassed a variety of men during the eleventh century, few ofwhom enjoyed district-wide authority. The majority of these menwould instead be charged with the administration of a particularsubdivision of the district. If, as was often the case, a man's chargehappened to correspond to one of the old go, or subdistricts, therewould be two perfectly sensible ways to refer to him. The first wouldbe to call him the subdistrict's gunji, or the particular "districtmagistrate" who was responsible for that subdistrict. The second,however, would simply be to call him the "subdistrict magistrate,"or goji.28It is possible to argue, therefore, that the Fujiwara's "districtmagistracy" was in fact a hereditary right to administer Takada'sMita subdistrict, and that it was this right the Fujiwara transmittedwhen they spoke of releasing "Mita-go" to their sons. This argu-ment not only draws support from the fact that it was to the Mitagoji-shiki, or "subdistrict magistracy," that Fujiwara Yorikata wasappointed in 1072, it also explains why Fujiwara Yorinari could beappointed to the "district magistracy" of four Takada subdistricts in1096, but to the "subdistrict magistracy" of two others a year later.Yorinari's six posts, in other words, would all appear to have beensubdistrict magistracies. In contrast, the Oshi who emerge as districtmagistrates in 1056 and 1070 may well have had a district-wideauthority, though the extent of their power over the Fujiwara isobscure.29But if the subdistrict magistracy was a major component of theFujiwara's lordship over Mita-and later over other lands as well-itwas not quite all. They also held the beppu of Shigeyuki, and the

27. Shinshutsu Itsukushima monjo, nos. 10, 34 (HKKS 3:163-64, 203).28. Matsuoka Hisato, "G6ji no seiritsu ni tsuite," Rekishigaku kenkyu 215 (Janu-ary 1958):18-32.29. Ibid.

112


14/42

Arnesen:Heian Lordshiplanguageused to refer to this landmakesit clearthat theirrightsherewere far strongerthan theirrightsover Mita as a whole. While theprecise character of this "beppu" does not emerge fromour docu-ments, most scholars assume that Shigeyukiwas a betsumy5of thesort discussed above. They have been forced to make a majorqualificationhere, since it is clear that Shigeyukiwas created bypurchase,rather hanby reclamation,butby andlarge they thinkasfollows.30Until the 1070s, the Fujiwara ordshiphad extended no fartherthanMita, and hadconsistedof two sorts of rights.Over Shigeyuki,a betsumyo createdby purchase, the Fujiwara'srightswere prob-ably quite extensive. If Shigeyukiwas treated as were most otherbetsumyo,for example, it would have been exemptfromthe levyingof miscellaneous services (manz5 kuji) by the province, and theFujiwarawouldthemselves have enjoyedthese services. Over Mitaas a whole, however, and later over most of Kazahaya, the Fuji-wara's rightscan have amounted to no more than the prerogativesassigned a subdistrictmagistrate.The Fujiwarawere presumablyresponsiblefor collectingandforwarding axes, and they may havebeen allowed to imposea smallsupplementary evy (kajishi)of theirown, but they can have done little else.This view of the Fujiwara's ordshiphas proved compellingfortwo reasons. First, it is in excellent accord with the storytoldby thedocumentsthatFujiwaraNaritakareleased to NakaharaMoronaga;and second, it correspondsclosely to the view that most scholarshave of the natureof subdistrictmagistrates'seigneuries.Let us see,however, whether this view can really be maintained.

The Fujiwaraand TakadaAlthoughI have thusfardescribeda fairly peaceful transmissionof landsthroughseven generationsof Fujiwara, t is clear that in factthere was a severe shake-up n the family'sholdingsduring he 1080sand '90s. We have alreadyseen thaton 1083/3/10FujiwaraYorikatawas appointeddistrict magistrate(tairyo) of Takada, and that theGreat Councilof State proclaimed his appointment o the province

on 1083/6/7. What I have not yet mentioned, however, is that theprovince failed to act on this appointmentuntil 1085/2/16.3130. For a particularly clear exposition of the following view, see MatsuokaHisato, "Kaisetsu," HKKS 3:9-15.31. Gohanmotsu-cho, nos. 4, 5 (HKKS 3:5-6).

113


15/42

Journal of Japanese StudiesThe reasonfor this delay is never explicitlystated, but we knowthat a month after he was finallyconfirmedas district magistrate,Yorikataalso sought confirmationof his title to extensive tractsofdryfieldin Mita and Kazahaya. In one of the documents that hesubmittedat this time, Yorikata isted several cho of dryfield n oneof Kazahaya's villages, and then made the following claim.The Kazahayadryfields,he maintained,were his hereditaryan-cestralproperty.Yet ever since the late provisionalgovernor(gon-no-kami),one Morit6sukune, had died withouta son of any merit,these fields had suffered extensive encroachments. Thus, even

though Yorikata, who was Morito's descendant (matsuyo), hadultimatelysucceeded to the districtmagistracy,he still heldnothingof the dryfields.The problem,he continued,was that the precedingdistrict magistrate,one Yoriyuki, had been extremely ill and hadeitherhimself sold off hisprerogatives,or else hadhadthem embez-zled. In any case, Yorikata wished now to have them restored.32This claim is surely linked to the events of 1083-85, but thelinkagesmust be understoodin termsof several fairlystrikingele-ments of Yorikata's story. The first is his identification of hisforebear as "Morit6sukune." Sukune is a "ranktitle," or kabane,but it happensto be an inappropriateanktitle for a Fujiwara.True,the Aki Fujiwarawere not necessarilytied to the Kyoto Fujiwara,whose rank title was ason, but it is clear that Yorikataand his linewereason, nonetheless.33 t is impossibleto avoidsuspecting,there-fore, that Yorikatawasnot a paternaldescendantof Morito,andthatMorito was not a Fujiwara.This suspicion is strengthened by Yorikata's statement thatMorit6 had died withouta capable son, and that ultimatelyit wasYorikata-a more remote descendant-who had succeeded to hisestate. This claimdirectlycontradictswhat purports o be Morito's1068/3/10release of his holdings to his "son" Yorikata, as doesYorikata'sstatement hata certainYoriyukihad been districtmagis-tratebefore Yorikatawas. Indeed, the three claimswe have exam-ined belie not only Morit6'srelease, but virtuallythe entire historyof "Fujiwara"lordshipdown to 1083.It maybe, of course, that it is the storythatYorikata oldin 1085that is false, ratherthan the documentshis story belies. Thereare,however, at least three considerations hatmakehis story credible.

32. ShinshutsuItsukushimamonjo, no. 53 (HKKS3:264-68).33. See, e.g., Gohanmotsu-ch, nos. 4, 5, 7-11 (HKKS3:5-10).

114


16/42

Arnesen: Heian LordshipFirst, while it is easy to imagine why Yorikata'sdescendantsmighthave foundit desirable to forgea set of documentsthat would showthe transmissionof Mita lands fromMorinakadownto Yorikata, t isdifficult o imaginewhy Yorikatashouldhavewished to tell the storyhe did if such a set of documents-whether spuriousor genuine-had alreadybeen in existence in 1085.It is even more difficult toimaginewhy Yorikata'sdescendantsshould have thoughtit worth-while to concoct a documentthatputthis storyinYorikata'smouth.Second, Yorikata'sstorysheds lighton whatareotherwisesomeratherpuzzling phenomena. It is difficultto imagine, for example,why the Great Council of State shouldhave deignedto act upon anappointment o a districtmagistracyunless there had been such anenormous conflict over the post thatthe issue could notbe resolvedat the provincial evel. The fact thatthe provincethenwaitednearlytwo yearsbeforeaccedingto the Council's decision would also seemto bespeak a bitter conflict. Furthermore,there are several docu-ments of the 1080sthat may well reflect-albeit somewhatdimly-the prioralienationof some of the magistracy'sMita landholdings.34Finally the sequence of transmissions from Morinaka, toMorimitsu,to Moriyori, to Morito, to Yorikatathat is reflected inexisting documents would seem peculiar even without Yorikata'sstory. If we accept it, afterall, we must then believe that MitaandShigeyukiwere held by five generationswithin the space of thirty-eight years (1031-68).On balance, therefore, it seems best to conclude that FujiwaraYorikatasucceeded to an estate that had previouslybeen held by acompletely differentfamily. Neither the identity of this family northe extent of its holdingscan be firmlyestablished,but the followingpoints are suggestive. First, the Oshi who was districtmagistrate n1070was referred o as thegon-no-osuke,a title thatmeantpreciselythe same thing as did Morito's title of gon-no-kami. We know,moreover, that the Oshi, who were an ancientAki family, bore theranktitle of sukune.35

34. Thus, Aki-no-kuni Choko zassho, nos. 1$, 23, 31 (HKKS 5:1368-70, 1372),referto certainMitalandsas the formerholdingsof Shir6Taifu-dono,a designationthatbespeaks someone of the rightrank for one of Yorikata'skinsmen.If this wasYoriyuki, henhis sellingoffof hisprerogativesmust haveextendedto Mitaas well asKazahaya.35. Shinshutsu Itsukushima monjo, no. 34 (HKKS 3:203). Technically, an osukewas not a kami, but by the late Heian period governors(kami)were signingtheiredicts as osuke, and thus the two termsin the text must be seen as equivalent n thepresent context. For the Oshi's status as sukune, see Shinshutsu Itsukushima monjo,no. 43 (HKKS3:234-47).

115


17/42

Journal of Japanese StudiesSecond, we know that in 1095 Yorikata's son Yorinari claimed tohave inherited land in all seven of Takada's subdistricts, and that in1096-97 he was confirmed in the magistracy of six of them. Ittherefore seems possible that the estate to which Yorikata hadsucceeded was scattered across all of Takada, and that the Fuji-wara's district magistracy was a real one, not just an inflated title forthe control of one or two subdistricts. While such a hypothesis mayseem to depart recklessly far from the conventional wisdom on theemergence of the subdistrict as the basic unit of provincial adminis-tration, we know of at least two Aki families that enjoyed much the

sort of authority that I am here postulating for the Fujiwara.These families were the Fujiwara of Nuta and the Oshi ofYamagata. Nuta was the easternmost of Aki's districts, and theNuta Fujiwara were apparently its district magistrates. In any case,they are known to have had virtually the entire district convertedinto a single shoen, of which they then became hereditary bailiffs(geshi). The Yamagata Oshi achieved rather less than this, but stilldid well for themselves. They were almost surely district magistratesof Yamagata, in northwestern Aki, and held large tracts of landthere. Their commendations created the shoen of Mibu, Terahara,Shijihara, and Hirata, and still left them land in the villages ofHaruki, Ichiori, Misumino, and Kawado.36What I am suggesting, in other words, is that by perhaps thesecond half of the eleventh century there were at least three districtsin Aki where single families had managed to achieve district-wideauthority. These were the districts of Nuta, administered by aFujiwara family, the district of Yamagata, administered by an Oshifamily, and the district of Takada, which seems also to have beenadministered by a branch of the Oshi. Moreover, in at least two ofthese districts, the magisterial dynasties eventually adopted thenames of their bailiwicks as their own surnames. Thus, by the 1180sthe Yamagata Oshi were calling themselves Yamagata and the NutaFujiwara were calling themselves Nuta. While it is unclear whether

36. On the Nuta, see Kawai Masaharu,"Kobayakawa-shino hatten to Setonaikai,"in Chuseibukeshakaino kenkyu,by Kawai MasaharuYoshikawaKobun-kan, 1973), pp. 359-61. An introduction o the Oshi's lordshipmay be found inTamuraHiroshi,"HeianmakkinoAki-no-kuniMibu-no-sh6,"Geibichihoshikenkyu106and 107(JointNumber, 1976):1-12.

116


18/42

Arnesen: Heian Lordshipthe TakadaOshiever styledthemselvesTakada,we know thattheirFujiwaraheirs did so style themselves.37To those acquaintedwith warriordevelopments in the Kanto,where families like the Chiba of Shimofusa's Chiba district werebothdistrictmagistratesandwarloadsof considerablepower, allthiswill seem strikingly familiar. Indeed, the emergence of districtmagisterialdynasties in Aki as well as in the Kanto will seem all themore striking n view of the fact that Aki was in a regionwhere theadministrativemportanceof the district s thoughtto have declined.Yet while it is important o recognize that genuine district magis-tracies survived in Aki, and that it was to one of these thatFujiwaraYorkata had succeeded by about 1085,it would not do toassume that his positionwas one of much power. On the contrary,his own successionhadbeen won only aftera bitterstruggle,andhisestate would not long survive him.

The Beginnings of DecayIn the sixth month of 1096, the governorof Aki appointedFuji-

waraYorinaridistrictmagistrateof Takada. He did so, he declared,because Yorinari-in accordance with the release of his fatherYorikata-had been so listed in the previous governor'scalendarofappointments.38Had the governor himselfbeen a recent appointeein 1096, his action in this matter would seem the straightforwardconfirmationof a rightthatwas unquestioned.We know, however,that the governor, one FujiwaraAritoshi, had been in office since1090, and we ought therefore to wonder what had kept him fromconfirmingYorinariearlier.39One possibility is that Yorikatahaddied recently, and that it now seemed desirable to reconfirm arelease that hadtakenplaceearlier.Anotherpossibility,however, isthat Aritoshi'sappointmentas governorhad providedthe opportu-nity for someone to contest Yorinari'sposition as magistrate,andthat it was only now that Aritoshi had managed to sort out thedispute.Thata disputearose sometime is quite beyonddoubt.According37. Onthe Nuta andYamagata ee notes 36 and91. On the TakadaFujiwaraasTakada, see Shinshutsu Itsukushima monjo, no. 54 (HKKS 3:268-70), and Itsu-kushima Nosaka monjo, nos. 1702, 1804 (HKKS .2:1206, 1277-78).38. Gohanmotsu-cho, no. 7 (HKKS 3:7).39. Aritoshi was governor from 1090 until 1098/1/27. See Chuiyuki,1102/1/6(HKKS 1:221,no. 868);andKugyobunin, 1124(HKKS 1:212-13, no. 847).

117


19/42

Journal of Japanese Studiesto Yorinari'sson Naritaka,Yorinarihadhadtwice to be appointeddistrict magistrate-and that by order of the Great Council-because of a dispute between Yorinariand "his youngerbrother"(shatei).40This statement has traditionallybeen interpretedas anexplanation orthe fact that,even thoughthe CouncilhadconfirmedYorinarias magistraten 1098, t hadhadto issue asecond confirma-tion in 1109. It is equally possible, however, that Naritaka'sstate-mentis an explanation or the fact thatany such orderswere issued.Indeed,a proclamation f theGreatCouncil s suchanextraordinaryvehicle foranappointmento a districtmagistracy hatI think ts usehere mustreflect the existence of a severe conflict atthe local level.What I am suggestingis this. At Yorikata's death-which hadsurely taken place by 1095/8/15--one of his kinsmen had beensufficiently disgruntledabout Yorinari'sinheritance to have chal-lenged that inheritance in court.41 Whether this challenge waslodged before 1096-and the series of gubernatorial dicts confirm-ing Yorinari'sprerogativesmay thus be seen as a judgmenton thecase-or whetherit was the very issuanceof these edicts in 1095-97that had elicited a suit, is ultimately unimportant.In either case,Yorinari would have been embroiledin a dispute by 1097,and weought probably o regard he GreatCouncil's 1098/2/20proclamationof Yorinari'sappointmentas districtmagistrate(tairyo) as a judg-ment in Yorinari'sfavor.Thisjudgmentcan scarcely have stuck, for a similarone hadtobe issued in 1109,and there is preciouslittleevidence thatYorinariever enjoyed manyof the prerogativeshe claimed in the 1090s. Hisson, moreover, seems never to have controlledmuchmorethan thesubdistrictof Mita. Yet while the fact of collapse is obvious, itscauses are not. The Fujiwara'sdocuments simply fail us at thispoint, and we must look to evidence of a ratherdifferent sort.Thephenomenon hatmostmeritsourattention s the conversionof immensetractsof Takada'spublicdomaininto shoen. We knowthatthisprocess was well underway duringYorinari's ifetime,foradocumenthe drewup in 1127revealsthat the subdistrictof Toshima

40. Asano Itsukushimamonjo, no. 1 (HKKS 3:1467-71).The term "youngerbrother" s not necessarilyto be takenliterally.It would be natural or Yorinariandhispartisanso claimthata rivalclaimant o theirrightswaseitherYorinari'syoungerbrotheror the youngerbrotherof someonefromwhom Yorinari raced his rights.41. I deduce thatYorikatawas deadby 1095/8/15romthe fact that on thatdateYorinariwas seeking to claim lands by rightof inheritance. See ShinshutsuItsu-kushimamonjo, no. 14 (HKKS3:166-67).

118


20/42

Arnesen:Heian Lordshiphad become a shoen, and that this shoen had drawn in parts ofKazahaya.42By 1138, the subdistrictof Funakihad probablybeenjoined with Kurubeki-go, n the neighboringdistrictof Takamiya,toproducethe shoen known as Yoshishige-no-sh6,43 ndby 1149stillanothershoen hadabsorbedbetween two and fourof Takada'sothersubdistricts.These shoen were surelythe productsof commendations,butthecommendorsare obscure.The most likely candidates, however, arethe Fujiwara'sfellow officials. Such men are known to have beenpurchasing and in Takada from a very early date, and they evenspringup amongthe "cultivators"of Fujiwaraholdings.For exam-ple, there are three registers of Mita and Kazahaya dryfieldsthatYorikatadrew up in 1085,and which have traditionallybeen inter-pretedas reflectingpeasantlandholdingn the Fujiwaradomain.Bycomparingthe names of the men appearing n these registerswiththose of menappearingn certaineleventh- andtwelfth-centurybillsof sale, however, it is possible to show thatsome of these men wereanything but peasant-like. To cite but one example here, FujiiChikahiro,who appears in the 1085 registers as the "cultivator"(sakunin)of eighttan of Mitadryfield, s knownto have been at leasta scribe (shosho), andperhapseven an administratorhogandai)inthe provincialoffice.44A non-bucolic auraalso surroundsmany of the cultivatorsap-pearing n an 1154registerof Mitalands.Of the sixty-six cultivatorslistedthere, ten arepriests, andso are not listed by surname.Of thefifty-sixmen whose surnames are known, however, fully thirty-six

42. Ibid., no. 15 (HKKS3:167-74).43. Yoshishige'shistory s obscure,butfrom the descriptionof landsit is thoughtto have covered (see Hiroshima-kenno chimei, Nihon rekishi chimei taikei 35[Heibonsha,1982],pp. 713-14) andfrom the fact thatFunaki-godisappearsrom ourrecords duringthe Heian and Kamakuraperiods, I deduce that Yoshishige hadabsorbedFunaki.Furthermore,inceTairaChikanoriwas itsryoke,I suspectthatthesh6en must have been commended o Chikanori'sgrandfather,FujiwaraKiyotaka,while thelatter'sson, Mitsutaka,wasgovernorof Aki in 1136-38.SeeKugyobunin,5vols., Shinteizoho Kokushitaikei 53-57 (YoshikawaK6bunkan,1964-66), 1:450;and Sonpi bunmyaku, 2:44-48, 4:6.44. The registers are in Itsukushima Nosaka monjo, no. 1876 (HKKS 2:1344-59)and Shinshutsu Itsukushima monjo, nos. 35, 53 (HKKS 3:203-29, 264-68). For FujiiChikahiro, see Koji ruien shoshu monjo, nos. 2, 3 (HKKS 3:1519-21), and Aki-no-kuniChokozassho 50, 51(HKKS5:1378-79).Theregisterscontainonly given names,butthere seems to be littledoubt of the identityof peopleappearingn bothregistersand land transfers.

119


21/42

Journal of Japanese Studiesbear the names of families known to have had membersservinginthe provincialgovernment.45While thereis butone case inwhich a specificcommendorcan beidentified, hatone is quite significant.By 1149,the Fujiwaraived inthe shadow of an immense estate known as Yoshida-no-sho.Yoshidasprawledacross the borderbetweenTakadaandthe neigh-boringdistrictof Takamiya,encompassingnot only the Takamiyasubdistrictsof TakaharaandTakamiya by then renamedYoshida),but also the Takadasubdistrictsof Oharaand Toshima.46Until theKamakuraperiod, however, it also included a portionof Kotachithat was controlledby a family that would ultimatelysupplanttheFujiwaraas lords of Kazahaya.The first memberof this family of whom much is known is acertain "Saeki" Tamehiro.In 1177,Tamehirowas a shoen official nTakadahara,a section of Kotachi that then belonged to Yoshida-no-sho, but in 1216 he was appointed ito, or bailiff by shogunalappointment,over three areas-Takadahara n Kotachi,and Nagataand Mehogakiin Kazahaya. By that time, moreover, all three ofthese lands belongedto the ItsukushimaShrine.47Because Nagata and Mehogaki comprised a large part of oldKazahaya,one naturallywonders how Tamehirogot his hands onthem. One possibility,of course, is that Tamehirowas a kinsmanofSaeki Kagehiro,and that he hadthereforereceived a portionof therights that FujiwaraNaritaka's heir commended to Kagehiro in1167. This is the implicit assumption underlyingMass's assertionthat Kagehiro'sdescendants were enrolled as shogunalvassals.48

45. A convenient able of the individualsappearingn thisregister forwhichseeAki-no-kuni Choko zassho, no. 68 [HKKS 5:1384-1404]) appears in Okuyama Kenshi,"Mita-go Fujiwara-shino ryoshusei," Geibi chihoshi kenkyui131 and 132 (JointNumber,August1981):7-8.The familieswhose memberscan be shownto haveheldlocal officeare the Fujii,Fujiwara,Hata,Izumi(Izube),Minamoto,Oshi, Saeki,andTajibe.46. See Mori-ke monjo, no. 15, in Dai Nihon komonjo, lewake 8, Mori-ke monjo,(hereafter,DNK 8), 4 vols., ed. Tokyo TeikokuDaigaku(Shiryo Hensangakari,1920-24), 1:18-34.47. Ibid., nos. 1487-92(DNK 8.4:390-95);andHagi-hanbatsuetsurokuhereaf-ter, HB) 58: Nait6 Jirozaemon, nos. 35, 62-64, in Hagi-han batsuetsuroku, 4 vols.,ed. Yamaguchi-ken Monjokan (Yamaguchi: Yamaguchi-kenMonjokan, 1967),2:422-23, 427-28. All subsequentcitationswill be to this edition.48. Mass, "ProvincialInheritance,"p. 89. Tamehirois the individualwhoseyuzurijoMass cites in note 78 on that page.

120


22/42

Arnesen: Heian LordshipUnfortunately, his thesis dependson the fact that Tamehiroandhissuccessors referred o themselves as Saeki, and thereare a numberof indications that the designationwas spurious.In the first place, we know that Tamehiro's son and grandsonwere styled Ko T6jiand Ko Heiji, respectively, a fact that suggeststhat they were really members of the Takashinafamily, not theSaeki.49Second, we know that Tamehiro'sline was relatedto theIbara amily,who werejit6 of the villageof Ibara n Mita. TheIbara,however, do not claim Saeki ties; instead, they trace theirdescentfrom a youngerbrotherof K6 Moronao. What is interestingaboutthisclaimis not the tie to Moronao-which is notto be believed-butrather he implicitassertion of Takashinadescent. Finally,a geneal-ogy of Tamehiro'sbrother'sdescendants also gives their name asKo, or Takashina.50Furthermore, here is ample reason to believe that Tamehiro'sforebears had been in Takadalong before the advent of Kagehiro.The point to be noted here is that in every case where we canidentifyone of Tamehiro'smalerelatives,the man has the character"tame" as the initial element of his given name. This includesmembersof three different lineages across a span of at least twocenturies. The consistency in naming is so strikingthat it seemsreasonableto suspect thatany man in the Mita and Kazahayalandregisterswho has a "tame" as the initialelement in his given'namemay well be a relative, too.51As it happens,there are four such individuals n an 1127registerof Kazahaya ands,at least threeof whommerit ourattention.Thesemen, namedTametake,Tameyuki,and Tamet6, held 13cho 3 tan180 bu of land between them, all but 6 tan of it in paddy. Of this,Tameyukiheld 3 cho 9 tan of paddy in an area called Yanagi, and

49. HB 58: Naito Jirozaemon,nos. 64, 66 (2:428-29). "K6" is an abbreviatedrenderingor "Takashina,"ust as "Gen" is for "Minamoto,"or "Sei" for "'Kiyo-wara."50. For the ties to the Ibara,see HB 58:Naito Jirozaemon,nos. 36, 79 (2:423,434);andTojihyakugomonjo,no. 35 (HKKS5:827).The Ibara'sgenealogy appearsinFuroku, -67, and that of Tamehiro'sbrother nFuroku,mi-49.Theoriginalof theFuroku s in the Mori-keBunko in Hofu, Yamaguchi-ken, utI was allowedto copyphotographs f the originaln the Hiroshima-kenshi ensanshitsu. hereemploythenumberingystemusedinYamaguchi-kenMonjokan, d., Yamaguchi-kenMonjokanshiryomokuroku : Mori-kebunkomokuroku (Yamaguchi:Yamaguchi-kenMonjo-kan, 1965).51. Ibid. Use of name evidenceis an extremely mportantechnique,but not allfamilies are as readilyamenableto it as is this one.

121


23/42

Journalof Japanese StudiesTametakeheld another 3 cho 8 tan in areasknownas Nagata, Saki,Yokoo, Taguchi,and"theshoen's paddy."Tameto's land was evenmore scattered, but he held 6 tan of dryfieldin Nagata.52What is striking about this is that in 1212 one of TakashinaTamehiro'skinsmenheld lands inNagata that had "YanagiMoun-tain's Takayokoo"on their southernborderand Yoshida-no-sho othe east. Unfortunately,place namessuch as Yanagiand Yokoo areambiguousenoughthatwe cannotbe surethatthe sameplaceswerebeing referredto in 1127 and 1212, but it sounds very much asthough these men lived in precisely the area where Tamehiro'sdescendantswere based until the sixteenthcentury.53Still anotherinteresting point is that a notation appended to the entry forTametake's"shoen paddy" states that that particularholdinghadbeen absorbed by Toshima-no-sho. We know that Toshima waseventuallyabsorbedby Yoshida-no-sho,andthata partof Kazahayaknownas Aritomiwas also regardedas a partof Yoshida's Toshimasubdistrict.Given the exampleof Tametake's"shoen paddy," onewonders whether Aritomi was also a part of Toshima-no-shoby1127, and whether it too was held by Tamehiro's kinsmen.54Indeed, one wonders whetherit was in fact the Takashinawhohad created the shoen under discussion. The evidence here is farfrom conclusive, but there are at least some indications that theycould have done so. We know, for example, that Tamehiro'shold-ings in Takadaharawere a partof Yoshida duringthe twelfth cen-tury,and it is quitepossiblethathis Kazahayaholdingswereas well.If so, then virtuallythe whole of Kazahayawould have been in-cluded in Yoshidaat some point, and it is difficultto imaginewho,otherthan the Takashina,could have commended his land out fromunder the Fujiwara.Furthermore,the men who were hereditarylordlings of Kunishi, a village in central Yoshida-no-sh6, alsoclaimedTakashinadescent, and one wonderswhetherthey too maynot have beenTamehiro'skinsmen.55 nany case, there can be little

52. Shinshutsu Itsukushima monjo, no. 15 (HKKS 3:167-74).53. Mori-ke monjo, no. 1491 (DNK 8.4:393-94); HB 58: Naito Jirozaemon, no. 73(2:432);and Geihan tsushi, 5 vols., comp. Rai Gyohyo (Hiroshima:HiroshimaToshokan, 1907-15) 3:983, 1064(referringo Taya Castle).54. On Aritomi'sposition within Yoshida, see Mori-kemonjo, no. 1359(DNK8.4:363).55. The Kunishi, for whom see HB 15: Kunishi Hayato-ke (1:406-09), claimdescent from Ko Moroyasu'sson Morotake,but their evidence is not persuasive.

122


24/42

Arnesen:Heian Lordshipdoubt that the Takashinawere heavily involved in activities thatwould result in the creation of Yoshida-no-sh6and the removal ofKazahayafrom Fujiwarahands.Whilethe natureof the Takashina'spenetration ntothe Fujiwaradomainis obscure, the beginningsof the process can be tracedbackat least as far as 1085.56 n other words, by the time he was beingconfirmedas districtmagistrateof Takada,FujiwaraYorikatamustalreadyhave hadto dealwith a familythatwouldultimatelyremovea substantialchunkof his estate fromthe controlof his descendants.Moreover, while it is unclear how many such nascent lordlingsYorikatamayhave hadto contendwith, the fact thatthe majorityofTakada was commendedout fromunder Yorikata'sson and grand-son surelyreflects both the existence of a profoundchallengeto theFujiwara'sauthority,and the Fujiwara'scomplete inabilityto copewith this challenge. Indeed, by the time poor Naritakawas on thescene, not even the patronageof TairaKiyomoriwouldbe enoughtoreyerse the decay.

The Tairaand the Advent of Jit6In 1114,FujiwaraYorinarigrantedNaritakathe majorityof hisMita holdings, but apparentlyreserved Kazahayato himself. It isYorinari,at any rate, whom we see attempting o assert the Fuji-wara'sauthorityover Kazahaya n 1127,and it is over Mitaalonethatwe see Naritakabeinggranteda subdistrictmagistracy n 1139/1.Infact, by the time Naritaka was about to commend his family'sholdingsto NakaharaMoronaga,he could show title to but a smallfractionof what his father had claimedsome four decades earlier.Despite the diminished position to which he had succeeded,however, Naritakaat least hadbeforehima model for consolidatinghis hold over what little remainedto him. Just as others had en-gineeredthe conversionof FunakiandToshima ntosh6en, Naritakacould himselfattemptthe conversion of Mita and whatever he heldof Kazahaya,andcould stipulatethathe andhis heirsbe kept on asbailiffs. This, in fact, is preciselywhat he attemptedwhen he com-mended his lands to Moronaga.57

56. IndividualsnamedTamesada,Tamesue,Tametoki,and Tameyukiappear nYorikata's 1085registers.57. Asano Itsukushima monjo, no. 1 (HKKS 3:1467-71). In making this commen-dation,Naritakacitedthe recentcreationofshoen in "thisandotherprovinces,"notmerelyin "otherprovinces,"as Mass suggestsin "ProvincialInheritance,"p. 87.

123


25/42

Journal of Japanese StudiesThings did not work out, however. The precise reasons are

unclear,but the following points are worthnoting.First,Naritaka'sdocumentationwas not very good. For whatever reason-but prob-ably because of the succession disputes in which his father andgrandfatherhad been embroiled-he had no chain of documents toprovethe succession of his forebears o their Mitaholdings.True,hedid have enoughevidence to establish his family's rightsfrom 1083on-though he probably ackedanexplicittransferof the estate fromhis grandfather o his father58-but the period before that was ablank. He thereforehad little choice but to forge a series of docu-ments that would fill in this gap as well as possible, andwould alsoshrinkhis ancestors' estate down to the size of the holdingsthat hethen enjoyed.59Furthermore,althoughhe had an enormous bundleof genuinedocumentswith which to prove his forebears'purchaseof Mita and Kazahaya paddy, these didnot always makeit possibleto trace the landall the way into Fujiwarahands. It must have beendifficult, therefore, for Nakahara Moronagato convince the au-thorities that Naritaka's title was as good as he said it was.60Kazahayamust have been particularly ticky. We have alreadyseen that in 1127Yorinarisought to registerhis title to Kazahayalands, and thatby thattimepartsof it were already ost to Toshima-no-sho. We do not know what the result of Yorinari'sactions was,but in 1144Naritakasubmittedhis father'sseventeen-year-oldpeti-tion to NakaharaMoronaga.61Clearly, an attemptwas being madeto sortoutjust whatNaritaka'srightswere, butbeforethat-or any

58. Releases do exist, but they are almost surely forgeries. Furthermore,helanguage of Gohanmotsu-cho, no. 7 (HKKS 3:7) and Shinshutsu Itsukushima monjo,no. 14(HKKS3:166-67)impliesan intestate succession.59. It cannotbe provedthat it was Naritakawho did the forging,or thatthis iswhen he did it, but this seems the most plausible explanation or when the eventoccurred.See also below.60. SakaueYasutoshi,in his "Aki-no-kuni,"pp. 11-33, makes a gallantattemptto explainawaythe anomalies ntheFujiwara'sbills of sale,butI feel thathe hasreadtoo much ntohisTajibeevidence,andhaspushedanextremelyprovocativeanalysisbeyond what his evidence can support.61. At the end of what appears o be a partial,and incompetentlydrafted,copyof Yorinari'spetition,Naritaka tates that the "original" shomon)was submitted oMoronaga n 1144(see Nosaka monjo, no. 77 [HKKS3:684-87]).It is not entirelyclear that Yorinari'spetitionis the originalreferred o, but since a documentthatNaritaka's adopted son drew up in 1167 (Shinshutsu Itsukushima monjo, no. 40[HKKS3:233-34])reflectsa total ignoranceof the petition, it is apparent hat theNakaharamusthave had the petitionthen, and hadprobablyreceivedit in 1144.Seealso Matsuoka,"Kaisetsu,"HKKS 3:17;and note 65 below.

124


26/42

Amesen: Heian Lordshipother issue-could be resolved, TairaKiyomoribecame Aki's gov-ernor.In 1146,which is when he was grantedAki, Kiyomoriwas notyet very powerful. We would be mistaken, therefore, to expect torelateNaritaka'scontinuingdifficulties n Mitato some policy goalof Kiyomori's.On the other hand, Kiyomoriwas a trusted retainerof the ex-emperorToba, and he must therefore have championedToba's policyof increasing he imperial amily'sholdings nsh6en.62Underthe rightcircumstances-if NakaharaMoronagahadbeen ongood termswith either Kiyomorior Toba, for example-this policymight have redounded to Naritaka's favor. In fact, however, itseems to have cost Naritaka his rights in Kazahaya.The crucial development here was the establishment ofYoshida-no-sho. This cannot be dated precisely, but a chronicle ofKyoto's Gion shrine states that in 1149 the "patron's rice"(honke-mai)due to the ex-emperorfrom Yoshida was commendedto the shrineas anendowment.At the time, the chroniclecontinues,Yoshida'spatronwas the ex-emperor,and its proprietor ryoke)wasthe Kazan'in family.63If this account is to be believed, the man who was proprietorofYoshida-no-shomust surely have been Kazan'inTadamasa,a sec-ond cousin of the reigning emperor and a former official in hishousehold. But Tadamasa's ties were not solely to the imperialfamily;he also would eventuallytake one of Kiyomori's daughtersas a wife for his heir.64Giventhese connections, it seems likelythatYoshida-whose relationship o the Fujiwara'sholdingshas alreadybeen noted-was establishedthroughthe commendationof a largebody of land to the Kazan'in and imperial families, and thatKiyomori may have served as a go-between. It was, after all, pre-cisely so thatthey could foster such commendations hat Tobamademen like Kiyomori governor.By failing to convert their own holdings into a shoen before

62. Toba's lust for sh6en is treated in Ishii Susumu, "Insei jidai," in Hokenshakai no seiritsu, edited by the Rekishigaku Kenkyukai and Nihonshi Kenkyiikai,Koza Nihonshi 2 (T6ky6 Daigaku Shuppankai, 1970), pp. 207-9.63. Shake jjo6 kiroku (HKKS 1:269, nos. 1079, 1080). For a strikingly differentversion of the shoen's history, however, see the passage of the same source quoted inHKKS 1:289-90, no. 1146, where the sh6en's commendation is ascribed to 1156, andKiyomori is made the ryoke. In 1156, however, Kiyomori is unlikely to have been ofhigh enough rank to be a ryoke.64. On the Kazan'in, see Sonpi bunmyaku, 2:197-98.

125


27/42

Journalof Japanese Studiessomeone else could convert Yoshida, therefore, the FujiwaraandNakaharamust have doomed their claims to Kazahaya.The merefact that Naritakahadbeen forced to submitfurtherdocumentationon Kazahaya n 1144suggeststhattherewas some ambiguity n histitle, thoughwe cannot tell where it lay. In any case, it appearsthatKiyomorimust have creditedthe competingtitle of someonewillingto commend his rightsto Toba and Tadamasa.While it cannot beproved that all of Kazahaya was thereby absorbed into Yoshida,Aritomimust have been, and the example of Takadahara uggeststhat not only was the rest of Kazahayaabsorbed,but that it mayhave been the Takashinawho madethe commendation.The Naka-haraandFujiwara annothavegiven upwithouta struggle, orin 1153NakaharaMoronagareturnedYorinari's 1127petition to Naritakafor updating,but by then it was too late. Kazahayawas thereafteroutside the Fujiwara'scontrol.65Yet Kiyomori's influence cannot have been entirelybaleful,forthoughNaritaka's claims to Kazahayawere quashed, the conver-sion of Mita into a shoen was permitted.The conversionwas com-pleted in 1154, while Kiyomori was still governor,but the subse-quent history of the sh6en is a bit of a mystery.66It is clear,however, that withina few years Mita-no-sh6 ost the protectionofvirtually everyone associated with its creation. The ex-emperorToba, whose edict hadestablished the shoen in the firstplace, diedin 1156. In 1158, Taira Kiyomori, who had been succeeded asgovernorof Aki firstby his brotherTsunemori,and thenhis brotherYorimori,replaced FujiwaraSueyukias Deputy Governor-Generalof Kyushu(Dazai daini). Because it was felt thatSueyukiwas owedcompensationfor the loss of Kyushu, the governorshipof Aki wasbestowed on his son, andthe Taira's direct hold over the provinceended.67In 1162, moreover, Nakahara Moronagaeither died or

65. At the tail of Yorinari'spetition, there is an addendumdated 1153/12andbearing Naritaka's signature (Shinshutsu Itsukushima monjo, no. 15 [HKKS 3:167-74, at 174]).The most likely explanation or its presencethere is that by 1153theNakaharawere finallyaboutto get some of the Fujiwara's ands made over into ashoen, andthereforesoughtadditionalnformation n Kazahaya romNaritaka.YetwhileMitawas converted nto ashoenin 1154,Kazahayawasnot. ThoughNaritaka'sheir wouldstill claimtitleto Kazahaya n 1167,the document n which he made thisclaim shows complete ignoranceof the extent of the Fujiwara's ormer intereststhere. See above, note 61.66. Mita's conversion into a shoen at Toba's order is clear fromAki-no-kuniChoko zassho, no. 68 (HKKS 5:1384-1404).67. On FujiwaraSueyukiand his son, see Kugyo bunin, 1:447,and Sankaiki,

126


28/42

Arnesen: Heian Lordshipretired, and his estate was allowed to pass to his uncle, rather than tohis adopted son.68Somewhere along the way, Mita reverted to the public domain.By 1166, however, an officer in Kiyomori's household had becomegovernor of Aki, and the Taira were reascendant in the province.69In 1167, therefore, Minamoto Yorinobu, who had been adopted asNaritaka's heir during the 1140s, decided to forget the Nakahara andseek out Kiyomori's patronage. Rather than approach Kiyomoridirectly, however, he commended his lands to the ItsukushimaShrine-the principal Shinto establishment (ichinomiya) of Aki andthe object of Kiyomori's intense devotion. He was aided in this bythe fact that he was related by marriage to Saeki Kagehiro-thepriest-administrator (kannushi) of Itsukushima and a trusted Tairaretainer-but was hampered by the fact that he had never gottenback his evidentiary documents from the Nakahara. He was not oneto be hindered by trifles, however; he simply submitted whatevercopies he had of documents previously granted the Nakahara, drewup enough forgeries to establish the titles of Yorikata, Yorinari, andNaritaka, and sweetened the deal with a proposal to endow prayerservices for Kiyomori.70But neither loftiness of purpose nor a sympathetic governor wasenough to resurrect a corpse. Kagehiro did manage to win theexemption of at least a part of Mita from miscellaneous services

1158/8/10 (HKKS 1:294, no. 1163). Tamura Hiroshi has argued-in "Shoen-koryoseino seiritsu to tenkai," in Hiroshima-kenshi: Genshi-kodai (Hiroshima: Hiroshima-ken, 1980), p. 451-that Aki was the Taira's proprietary province even underTakayuki, but that thesis is based upon a misidentification of the Fujiwara Takayukiwho became governor in 1158.68. Moronaga's (actually, by 1162 he was called Moronari) sudden disappearancefrom office, and his uncle's inheritance of his estate, are apparent from Geki bunin:tsuika, in Zoku Gunsho ruiju, vol. 4.2, ed. Hanawa Hokinoichi (Zoku Gunsho RuijuKanseikai, 1904), pp. 965-66; and Nakahara keizu, in Gunsho keizubu-shu, vol. 6, ed.Hanawa Hokinoichi (Zoku Gunsho Ruiju Kanseikai, 1973), p. 31. Moronaga'sadopted son Narinaga is a shadowy-and perhaps shady-figure known mainly fromhis dealings with Saeki Kagehiro (see below, note 72). His sudden disappearancefrom office in 1162 (Geki bunin: tsuika) would seem to bespeak a scandal.69. The governor was Fujiwara Yoshimori, on whom see Ishii, "Heishi-Kamakura," pp. 11-12, notes 24-25. Yoshimori eventually developed stronger ties toGo-Shirakawa than to Kiyomori, however, and in 1179/11 Kiyomori had him purged.See my "Suo Province in the Age of Kamakura," in Court and Bakufu in Japan, ed.Mass, p. 100.70. Shinshutsu Itsukushima monjo, nos. 17, 40 (HKKS 3:176-77, 233-34); andYamada, "Aki-no-kuni," pp. 44-56.

127


29/42

Journal of Japanese Studies(manzo kuji) to the province, but taxes (shoto kanmotsu) had still tobe paid, and Kazahaya remained out of reach. Furthermore, theadvent of a new governor in 1173 brought a demand for servicesfrom one of Mita's villages, and Kagehiro had to petition for itsexemption all over again.7'In 1174, however, a man named Nakahara Narinaga approachedKagehiro. He was, he declared, the adopted son of NakaharaMoronaga, and though Moronaga had died too suddenly to leave awill, Narinaga had nonetheless inherited his father's lands inTakada. He had hitherto hesitated to press his claim, but with thedeath of his master, the prior of Hosshoji, he was now free to pursuehis own interests. Having recently had a vision of the Deity ofItsukushima, however, he wished not to keep the land himself butinstead to commend the entire district of Takada to the ItsukushimaShrine. His only stipulation was that he and his heirs be kept on asstewards (azukari dokoro), and that Fujiwara Naritaka's heirs bekept on as bailiffs (geshi).72Itsukushima was delighted to accept this commendation, and itsofficials immediately set about petitioning to have the whole ofTakada made over into shrine property. Yet while it was clearlyNarinaga and the shrine's hope that Kiyomori's devotion to Itsu-kushima would lead him to push this petition through the court,that hope was forlorn. Although Narinaga could easily endow theshrine with the documents that Fujiwara Naritaka had presented toNakahara Moronaga, Takada was not his to give. Of Takada's sevensubdistricts, Toshima and Ohara pertained to Yoshida-no-sho-asdid at least parts of Kazahaya and Kotachi-and Funaki had beenabsorbed by Yoshishige-no-sho. Moreover, both shoen enjoyed ex-tremely strong patrons-Yoshishige was an imperial shoen, andYoshida's proprietor was related by marriage to Kiyomori himself.This left only Mita and Awaya up for grabs, and of those it was onlyto Mita that Narinaga could even pretend to enjoy a claim.73

71. Gohanmotsu-cho, no. 17 (HKKS 3:14-15).72. Itsukushima Nosaka monjo, no. 1769 (HKKS 2:1249-50); ShinshutsuItsukushima monjo, nos. 42-43 (HKKS 3:247-49); and Gohanmotsu-cho, no. 18(HKKS 3:15). The identity of Narinaga's master is clear from Sonpi bunmyaku, 3:525.Given the inheritance of most of Moronaga's estate by his uncle (see above, note 68),Narinaga's claims sound slightly fishy, but then it was not in Kagehiro's interest todoubt them.73. Although most scholars assume that it was Mita and Kazahaya that Narinagacould most readily commend, there is absolutely no evidence that Itsukushimaenjoyed an interest in Kazahaya during the Heian period, whereas it is quite clear thatit had rights in Mita and Awaya.

128


30/42

Arnesen: Heian LordshipIt is not surprising,herefore,thatthe shrine'spetitionmet withafairlycool reception. The earliest indicationwe have of any action

on the shrine'srequestdates from1176/7,when FujiwaraYasufusa,who was then governorof Aki, is supposedto have orderedthattheseven subdistrictsof Takadabe made over to the shrine,andthat itbe obligedto renderonly the taxes on these lands, not the miscel-laneous services. Yasufusa had alreadybeen in office for eight ornine monthsby the time this order was issued, however, and it isdifficultto believe that even a neophyte would have been foolishenough to confirm the shrine in lands that were already in thepossession of well-placednobles. Indeed, it looks very much asthoughit was 1179before Saeki Kagehirocould get any meaningfulaction on the shrine'spetition, and that even then he could lay hishands on no more than Mita and Awaya.74Our evidence on this point begins with a letter that a certainGyoren, who was FujiwaraYasufusa's agent (mokudai) for thegovernanceof Aki, wrote to Kagehiroon 1179/10/18.In it, Gyoreninformed Kagehiro that he was sending him two governor'sedicts-one confirming he ItsukushimaShrine'sresidualauthorityover lands it hadpreviously exchangedfortwo villages inthe districtof Yamagata,andthe second grantingKagehiroauthorityover thesubdistrictof Awaya. Awaya, he noted, had hithertobeen accordedto Gyorenhimself,buthe was now readyto admit the superiorityofKagehiro's claims.75This last statementnotwithstanding, t is clear that Kagehiro'smajorclaimto Awayalay in the fact thatFujiwaraYorinarihadbeenappointedto the subdistrict'smagistracyin 1096. This can havegiven Kagehirolittle basis for a plea to controlAwaya in 1179,andthere are hints in Gyoren'sletterthatYasufusa andhe were swayedmoreby pressurefromKiyomorithanthey were by legalarguments.Furthermore,Yasufusa's edict grantingKagehiro authority overAwaya did not afford the latter much room to profit by this ap-pointment. True, Kagehirowas made the subdistrict'smagistrate(goji), but he was also requiredto renderboth taxes and miscella-neous services.76In fact, it was not until 1180 that Kagehiroestab-lished a meaningful ordshipover either Mita or Awaya.

74. Gohanmotsu-cho, no. 19 (HKKS 3:15-16). That Yasufusa was already gover-nor in 1175 is clear from Shinshutsu Itsukushima monjo, no. 45 (HKKS 3:251-52),and Itsukushima Nosaka monjo, no. 1554 (HKKS 2:1023).75. Kanshi-bon Itsukushima monjo, nos. 61-62 (HKKS 3:95-96).76. Aki-no-kuni Ch6ko zassho, no. 72 (HKKS 5:1405), and ShinshutsuItsukushima monjo, no. 55 (HKKS 3:269-70).

129


31/42

Journalof Japanese StudiesThe crucial event here was Kagehiro's appointmentas jit6 ofMita and Awaya on 1180/8/27.Whilejito are rare enough in theHeian literaturethat we cannot be sure what this appointmentmeant, most scholarsbelieve that it affordedKagehiroa positionmoreor less equivalent o that of a geshi, or "bailiff."77To assumethis, however, is to assume thatKagehirohadobtainedpreciselytheposition that the Fujiwarahad sought to reserve to themselves in1139, and one ought therefore to wonder what the Fujiwara'sMinamotoheirs thoughtof this development.The answer is clear. On 1180/9/7,one day after the provincial

office issued an order confirmingKagehiro'sappointmentas jito,MinamotoYorinobu'ssonYoritsunadashed a letteroff to Kagehiro,demanding o know by what warranthe had obtainedthis appoint-ment. His father, he pointed out, had renderedthe miscellaneousservices on these landsforthirtyyears, and in thethree orfouryearssince Yorinobu'sdeath, Yoritsunahadarranged or his retainerstoadministerthese lands, render all payments due from them, andserve in the capital at the shrine's behest. His present attainder,therefore,was patently unjust.78What this letter suggests-beyond the obvious fact that Yori-tsuna was irritated-is that until 1180/8,Kagehiro's authorityoverMitaand Awaya musthave been extremelyloose, while that of theFujiwara'sMinamotoheirs must have been fairly strong. We shallsoon want to ponderthe sources of the Minamoto's strength,butfirst let us considerthe ways in which Yoritsuna'sletterchallengesthe conventional wisdom on twelfth-centuryAki.Most scholars,as we have seen, are convincedthat SaekiKage-hirowasjiti of all Takadaas earlyas 1176,andthereforeprovidesuswith a particularly trikingexample of a Heian period ito.79 As ithappens, however, this thesis is based upon an 1174 documentostensibly releasingthe seven subdistricts of Takada to Kagehiropersonally,andon an 1176edict in whichKagehiro s appointed itoof these subdistrictsby FujiwaraYasufusa. Both documents arecopies, and both are peculiar.In the first place, the 1174 document, a copy of a release by

77. See Shinshutsu Itsukushima monjo, nos. 20, 56 (HKKS 3:180, 270); andUwayokoteMasataka,"Itsukushima hary6to Heishi no jit6sei," in Nihon chulseiseijishikenkyu,by UwayokoteMasataka HanawaShob6, 1970),p. 273.78. Shinshutsu Itsukushima monjo, no. 54 (HKKS 3:268-70), and ItsukushimaNosaka monjo, nos. 1702, 1804(HKKS2:1206,1277-78).79. Mass, Warrior Government, pp. 107-11.

130


32/42

Arnesen: Heian LordshipNakaharaNarinaga,closely parallelsa similarrelease of the samelandsto the ItsukushimaShrine.However, the release to the shrine,whichbearsthe samedate as that to Kagehiro,explicitlystates thatNarinaga'sadoptivefatherdid not leave a will, while that to Kage-hiro implieshe did. Since the very existence of parallelreleases toItsukushimaandKagehiro s peculiar,since it is likelythatMoronaridid not leave a will in Narinaga's avor,and since it was the shrine'sother officials, rather than Kagehiro himself, who petitioned forconfirmationof Narinaga'sdonation, the 1174release to Kagehiromust be regardedwith suspicion.80

The 1176edict is suspiciousas well. We have alreadyseen that itis difficultto believe that Yasufusacan have releasedthe whole ofTakada to anyone in 1176, and Gy6ren's 1179letter to Kagehiroimpliesthat it was only in that year that Yasufusa's administrationtook cognizanceof Kagehiro'sclaimsto Awaya.81Buteven suppos-ing that Yasufusa could have blundered badly enough to haveconfirmedItsukushiman a temporarypossession of Takada,wouldhe also have appointedKagehiroito of allTakadaon the same day?And if he did, why would the Minamotowait until 1180to expresstheir opposition to such a development?82The most likely answer is that Kagehiro'spre-1180 ito-shikiis amyth. If Kagehirowasjito of anythingbefore 1180,it can only havebeen of the villageof Okoein Mita-a post to which he was ostensi-bly appointed in 1173-and the office cannot have been terriblysignificant.83To suggest this, of course, is also to arguethat SaekiKagehirowas something ess thanthe strongmanof Aki he is gener-

80. See Shinshutsu Itsukushima monjo, nos. 42-44 (HKKS 3:247-51); and notes68 and 72, above.81. Indeed,it looks as though t was only in thatyearthat his claimseven to theMitamagistracywere recognized.See Gohanmotsu-cho,nos. 22, 23 (HKKS3:18-19); and Shinshutsu Itsukushima monjo, no. 46 (HKKS 3:252).82. UwayokoteMasataka aised hisquestion n connectionwithKagehiro's1179appointmento ajito-shiki,but for some reasondid not raiseit for the 1176appoint-ments.83. On Kagehiro'ssupposed post asjito of Okoe, see Gohanmotsu-cho,nos. 16,15(HKKS3:12-14);andMass, WarriorGovernment,p. 109.One of these documentsis extremelypeculiar,however-it is halfthe oldkokufu orm,and half a rusudokorokudashibumi-and an 1176 confirmation of Itsukushima's rights in Okoe(Gohanmotsu-cho, o. 25 [HKKS3:20])makes no mentionof jito post. On the otherhand,Kagehiro's1179appointment sg6ji-jitoof Mita Gohanmotsu-cho,nos. 22, 23[HKKS 3:18-191),which has always puzzled historians,would seem to be easilyunderstood f one assumes that thejit6 post was over the betsumy6of Okoe.

131


33/42

Journal of Japanese Studiesally thought to have been, but the fact is that this heretical thesis is inbetter agreement with the sources than is the orthodox one.

Indeed, the overwhelming impression that emerges from thedocuments of the 1170s is of the looseness of Kagehiro's authority,rather than of its strength. The decade began well enough, for underFujiwara Yoshimori's governorship the Itsukushima Shrine ob-tained the shoen of Mibu in Yamagata, and was also awarded semi-immune holdings in the Yamagata villages of Haruki and Ichiori, andthe Mita village of Okoe.84 There was intense opposition within theprovincial office to the immunity of these villages, however, andKagehiro had to seek the reconfirmation of Okoe in 1173, whenTakashina Nariakira was governor, and all three villages whenNariakira was succeeded by Yasufusa in 1175. The 1175 confirma-tions did not stick, however, and by 1179the shrine's authority overHaruki, Ichiori, and probably over Okoe was again challenged byelements within both the provincial office and the villages them-selves. Indeed, even the shoen of Mibu was getting out of hand.85It is against this background that the events of 1179-80 must beinterpreted. On the same day that Fujiwara Yasufusa grantedKagehiro the magistracy of Awaya, he also forbade Aki's residentofficials to abridge Itsukushima's residual authority over lands it hadexchanged for Haruki and Ichiori. In the next month he not onlyconfirmed Kagehiro's authority over the shrine's semi-immune hold-ings in Mita, but also recognized Kagehiro's claim to succeed to theFujiwara's subdistrict magistracy there. And it was only when op-position continued under Yasufusa's successor that Kagehiro wasmade jito of Mita and Awaya.86But who were these defiant rustics, and what was the source oftheir strength? In Yamagata, the rebels were probably descendants

84. Yoshimori's role in the creation of Mibu, Haruki, Ichiori, and Okoe isreflected in Shinshutsu Itsukushima monjo, no. 41 (HKKS 3:234-47), Fulkanmonjosanjo-shu monjo, no. 1 (HKKS 3:1531-32), and Gohanmotsu-cho, nos. 15-17 (HKKS3:12-15).85. Gohanmotsu-cho, nos. 15-17, 21, 23, 25 (HKKS 3:12-15, 17-20); Kanshi-bonItsukushima monjo, nos. 61, 62 (HKKS 3:95-96); Shinshutsu Itsukushima monjo, no.55 (HKKS 3:269-70); Futkanmonjo sanjo-shta monjo, no. 1 (HKKS 3:1531-32); andAki-no-kuni Choko zassho, no. 72 (HKKS 5:1405).86. These events may be traced by reading the documents in the followingsequence: Aki-no-kuni Ch6ko zassho, no. 72 (HKKS 5:1405); Fuikan monjo sanjo-shu monjo, no. 1 (HKKS 3:1531-32); Gohanmotsu-cho, nos. 23, 22 (HKKS 3:18-19);Kanshi-bon Itsukushima monjo, no. 63 (HKKS 3:97); Gohanmotsu-cho, no. 24(HKKS 3:19-20); and Shinshutsu Itsukushima monjo, nos. 20, 56 (HKKS 3:180, 270).

132


34/42

Arnesen:Heian Lordshipof the Yamagata Oshi whose commendations had created theshrine's holdings there. If so, their defiance may well have beendealtwithin conjunctionwith the suppressionof their Mibukinsmenin 1179/11.87In Mita,ourlist of candidates s rather onger.We havealreadyseen that there may have been a largenumberof provincialofficialsholdingland in Mita, and the same may have been true ofAwaya. But while any one of these men may have bridledat Kage-hiro's pretensions, the single most likely source of Kagehiro'sdifficultiesin Takadais MinamotoYoritsuna.Yoritsuna was a memberof an extremely powerfulAki family,albeit one whose influencehasonly recentlycome to be appreciated.His kinsmen's commendationscreated the shoen of Uchibe andKabe, andthey heldfurther andsinthe districtsof Anan andKamo,as well, perhaps,as in the provinceof Bingo. His kinsmanYorimunewas head of the provincial armed forces-and may briefly haveserved as Aki's shugo under the Minamotoshogunate-and it islikely that the Minamoto who

Documents

the Struggle for Lordship in Late Heian Japan; The Case of Aki' by Peter J. Arnesen, 1984