是月、加賀の国那谷寺本泉坊周応、渡部四郎兄弟が同国額田荘内得丸名の知行を競望するを、幕府に訴える。（Kano Historical Resources, Records of the Naka no In Household, In this month, Honsenbō Shūō of Nayadera and Watanabe Shirō, in competition to assume control of Tokumarumyō on the Nukata estate, send their respective claims to the Bakufu）


Pre-Modern Japanese Resource Page

Table of Contents 是月、加賀の国那谷寺本泉坊周応、渡部四郎兄弟が同国額田荘内得丸名の知行を競望するを、幕府に訴える。（Kano Historical Resources, Records of the Naka no In Household, In this month, Honsenbō Shūō of Nayadera and Watanabe Shirō, in competition to assume control of Tokumarumyō on the Nukata estate, send their respective claims to the Bakufu） Back	是月、加賀の国那谷寺本泉坊周応、渡部四郎兄弟が同国額田荘内得丸名の知行を競望するを、幕府に訴える。（Kano Historical Resources II, Records of the Naka no In Household, In this month, Honsenbō Shūō of Nayadera and Watanabe Shirō, in competition to assume control of Tokumarumyō on the Nukata estate, send their respective claims to the Bakufu）「中院家文書」(Records of the Naka no In Household) 那谷寺（能美郡）本泉坊周応謹言上抑（そもそも）額田の庄内得丸（とくまる）名の事、帶刀（たてわき）の方先祖知行の名也、子細有るに依り、古八木（やぎ）入道の方に與奪（よだつ）せられおわぬ、然る間八木入道子息古本泉坊全尊（ぜんそん）に彼名を與奪せられ、數年知行其の隠れ無き者也、爰（ここに）愚僧（ぐそう）全尊之弟子爲（たる）に依り相續（そうぞく）の處、彼渡部の方・同じく舎弟（しゃてい）八木の方、去（さる）文明五年、額田の庄御代官・御百姓中へ、彼名競望（けいもう）有るべき之由彼申さるると雖も、更に以って其の謂れ（いわれ）無き之由放されおわぬ、但し渡部の方計會之條、縦（たとえ）古本泉坊追善（ついぜん）は懈怠有ると雖も、彼仁（人）少ない扶持を加えて合力（ごうりき）有るべきの由、庄官衆により色々愚僧の方へ御口入（くにゅう）有ると雖も、更に以って承引に致さざる之處、彼渡部の方兄弟之一行（ひちぎょう）を、庄官衆により愚僧の方へ給え而、平五貫文（もん）之分扶持を加え之由承る（うけたまわる）間、力に及ばず御口入に任せ、其分兄弟之方へ渡しおわぬ、此如（かくのごとし）落居（らっきょ）之處、又次の年文明六年十一月當國一亂之刻み（きざみ）、彼名之事額田御百姓中へ、渡部子息法躰之時押し取るべき之由、庄家之御返事を申されると雖も、既に（すでに）去年一途（いちず）落居之處、此の子細取立て、當本泉坊へ申されるる事叶う（かなう）べからず之由申さるる處、渡部四郎の方其の時申さるる旨は、今度土合城籠もり申す（こもりもうす）事、此名之莅により之由度々（たびたび）申さるる處、當國之一亂は、佛法當敵を責め失い、廉直弓箭のための處、無理に知行をせしめ押領有るべきの事、勿体無く子細之由惣庄御返事之間、其の時彼四郎の方重而是非に及ばず申す事閉口しおわぬ、左様の時支證（ししょう）に一通（いっつう）も出躰をせられず者也、其の時我々惣庄百姓中へ樽をもって御禮（ごれい）を申しおわぬ、其の後渡部四郎の方御本所（ほんじょ）（中院通秀）様之御被官に參り、又去年彼名田（みょうでん）歎き申さるる條、言語道斷の所行（しょぎょう）也、惣而（そうじて）渡部の方名田知行に於ける事、先規其の謂れ（いわれ）有るべからず、古八木入道之實子は、古本泉房全尊也、今渡部「　　」親父（おやじ）は、八木入道之継子之孫也、然る上は私（わたくし）申す事虚言（きょげん）有るべからず、所詮手継（てつぎ）に任せ相續す、當知行相違無ければ畏れ（おそれ）存すべき者也、渡部兄弟一行の如しは、子孫爲（として）此の名田莅（のぞみ）有れば、堅く御成敗有るべき者歟、猶々（なおなお）御不審の子細は、御尋ねに預かり申し披く（もうしひらく）べき也、條々（じょうじょう）支證之案文（もん）三通之を進上す、忝く（かたじけなく）此の趣（おもむき）具に（つぶさに）上覽に備えるため、粗（あらあら）言上の件の如し(pp.332-333)　（1477） This particular Monjo is interesting because it gives an insight into the means by which two dogō status families, the Watanabe and the Yagi, had attempted to seize land previously belonging to Nayadera temple. These two families had made their intention clear to the priesthood of the temple that they intended the take the land for themselves. However the temple had refused their demand. The Watanabe had consulted with numerous authorities in relation to their demand. The first attempt at reconciliation had ended in the temple paying a sum to the Watanabe to drop their demand. However in the wake of the ikki of Bunmei 6, the son of the first claimant from the Watanabe (Watanabe Shirō) again renewed the demand for the land, and stated his intention to the sō organization within the shōen. The sō had replied, however, that as the recent conflict had been part of a religious war to overthrow an enemy of the Buddha, it wasn`t proper for this land and thus refused to acquiesce to the demands of the Watanabe. Watanabe Shirō had then proceeded to shut himself up in his castle (or fort), repeatedly making his claim to the territory of Tokumaru and generally making things difficult for all concerned. Up until this point the Watanabe had not produced any evidence of their right to the land, and had attempted to bribe the sō into accepting their position by sending a gift of a sake barrel. Watanabe Shirō had then traveled to see the deputy of the Naka no In to state his case, again repeating his claim to the territory. At this, the Naka no In had expressed their indignation, stating that the Watanabe should not have been dealing with the sō over the question of property rights. Watanabe had claimed that his (Shirō) `s father was the grandson of Yagi Nyudō and thus they had a right to continue to carry on the rule over Tokumaru (as the Yagi had originally fulfilled this role for the temple). Naka no In instisted that what Shirō had written up until this point was in no way false or misleading, and would thus leave the matter to the officials of the estate, judging that if there was nothing untoward with their claim (which they would need to produce proof of) then the land would be handed to them (at which point proof of ownership over generations would be necessary). If any details remaind unclear, the Watanabe were to be questioned and drafts of their proof were to be sent to Naka no In in order to be presented to the Shōgun.
© Greg Pampling. This page was modified in December 2011

「中院家文書」(Records of the Naka no In Household)
那谷寺（能美郡）本泉坊周応謹言上
抑（そもそも）額田の庄内得丸（とくまる）名の事、帶刀（たてわき）の方先祖知行の名也、子細有るに依り、古八木（やぎ）入道の方に與奪（よだつ）せられおわぬ、然る間八木入道子息古本泉坊全尊（ぜんそん）に彼名を與奪せられ、數年知行其の隠れ無き者也、爰（ここに）愚僧（ぐそう）全尊之弟子爲（たる）に依り相續（そうぞく）の處、彼渡部の方・同じく舎弟（しゃてい）八木の方、去（さる）文明五年、額田の庄御代官・御百姓中へ、彼名競望（けいもう）有るべき之由彼申さるると雖も、更に以って其の謂れ（いわれ）無き之由放されおわぬ、但し渡部の方計會之條、縦（たとえ）古本泉坊追善（ついぜん）は懈怠有ると雖も、彼仁（人）少ない扶持を加えて合力（ごうりき）有るべきの由、庄官衆により色々愚僧の方へ御口入（くにゅう）有ると雖も、更に以って承引に致さざる之處、彼渡部の方兄弟之一行（ひちぎょう）を、庄官衆により愚僧の方へ給え而、平五貫文（もん）之分扶持を加え之由承る（うけたまわる）間、力に及ばず御口入に任せ、其分兄弟之方へ渡しおわぬ、此如（かくのごとし）落居（らっきょ）之處、又次の年文明六年十一月當國一亂之刻み（きざみ）、彼名之事額田御百姓中へ、渡部子息法躰之時押し取るべき之由、庄家之御返事を申されると雖も、既に（すでに）去年一途（いちず）落居之處、此の子細取立て、當本泉坊へ申されるる事叶う（かなう）べからず之由申さるる處、渡部四郎の方其の時申さるる旨は、今度土合城籠もり申す（こもりもうす）事、此名之莅により之由度々（たびたび）申さるる處、當國之一亂は、佛法當敵を責め失い、廉直弓箭のための處、無理に知行をせしめ押領有るべきの事、勿体無く子細之由惣庄御返事之間、其の時彼四郎の方重而是非に及ばず申す事閉口しおわぬ、左様の時支證（ししょう）に一通（いっつう）も出躰をせられず者也、其の時我々惣庄百姓中へ樽をもって御禮（ごれい）を申しおわぬ、其の後渡部四郎の方御本所（ほんじょ）（中院通秀）様之御被官に參り、又去年彼名田（みょうでん）歎き申さるる條、言語道斷の所行（しょぎょう）也、惣而（そうじて）渡部の方名田知行に於ける事、先規其の謂れ（いわれ）有るべからず、古八木入道之實子は、古本泉房全尊也、今渡部「　　」親父（おやじ）は、八木入道之継子之孫也、然る上は私（わたくし）申す事虚言（きょげん）有るべからず、所詮手継（てつぎ）に任せ相續す、當知行相違無ければ畏れ（おそれ）存すべき者也、渡部兄弟一行の如しは、子孫爲（として）此の名田莅（のぞみ）有れば、堅く御成敗有るべき者歟、猶々（なおなお）御不審の子細は、御尋ねに預かり申し披く（もうしひらく）べき也、條々（じょうじょう）支證之案文（もん）三通之を進上す、忝く（かたじけなく）此の趣（おもむき）具に（つぶさに）上覽に備えるため、粗（あらあら）言上の件の如し(pp.332-333)　（1477）

This particular Monjo is interesting because it gives an insight into the means by which two dogō status families, the Watanabe and the Yagi, had attempted to seize land previously belonging to Nayadera temple. These two families had made their intention clear to the priesthood of the temple that they intended the take the land for themselves. However the temple had refused their demand. The Watanabe had consulted with numerous authorities in relation to their demand. The first attempt at reconciliation had ended in the temple paying a sum to the Watanabe to drop their demand. However in the wake of the ikki of Bunmei 6, the son of the first claimant from the Watanabe (Watanabe Shirō) again renewed the demand for the land, and stated his intention to the sō organization within the shōen.

The sō had replied, however, that as the recent conflict had been part of a religious war to overthrow an enemy of the Buddha, it wasn`t proper for this land and thus refused to acquiesce to the demands of the Watanabe. Watanabe Shirō had then proceeded to shut himself up in his castle (or fort), repeatedly making his claim to the territory of Tokumaru and generally making things difficult for all concerned. Up until this point the Watanabe had not produced any evidence of their right to the land, and had attempted to bribe the sō into accepting their position by sending a gift of a sake barrel. Watanabe Shirō had then traveled to see the deputy of the Naka no In to state his case, again repeating his claim to the territory. At this, the Naka no In had expressed their indignation, stating that the Watanabe should not have been dealing with the sō over the question of property rights. Watanabe had claimed that his (Shirō) `s father was the grandson of Yagi Nyudō and thus they had a right to continue to carry on the rule over Tokumaru (as the Yagi had originally fulfilled this role for the temple). Naka no In instisted that what Shirō had written up until this point was in no way false or misleading, and would thus leave the matter to the officials of the estate, judging that if there was nothing untoward with their claim (which they would need to produce proof of) then the land would be handed to them (at which point proof of ownership over generations would be necessary). If any details remaind unclear, the Watanabe were to be questioned and drafts of their proof were to be sent to Naka no In in order to be presented to the Shōgun.