Table of Contents
井上 鉄夫、一向一揆の研究、吉川弘文館、東京、1968 (Inoue Toshio, Studies on Ikkō Ikki, Yoshikawa Kōbunkan, Tokyo, 1968)


「坊主の社会的地位」 (The Social Position of the Priesthood)

Jitsugō(実悟) (writing nearly one hundred years after Rennyo`s death), according to his own record, divided the peasantry into the priesthood (坊主衆) and the Monto (門徒衆)(実悟記拾(しゅう)遺(い)). The former he designated as priests in general (僧侶そうろう), and the latter as `laity` (在家, meaning either of samurai or peasant status). They were further divided by the usage of priestly names (法名) and secular names (俗名). Permission to name a dōjō was done in a similar fashion to the practice of granting surnames and the right to bear swords to commoners, hence in documents the name of a dōjō would be added above either the priestly name, common name, or clergy name, and it would be granted the right to place a wooden statue within the main hall.(207)

Yet what was the social position of temples? Some clues as to the answer to this question lie within the Tenbun Nikki (天文日記), which indicates that temples and their inhabitants were of the same status as hatamoto. When examining the Tenbun Nikki (article 12.2.1), we find a meeting held between all of the priesthood and sixty-two members of the Kaga province `otona shū` 長衆. For the 12th day, it states that “諸坊主衆、為祝儀太刀又鳥目遺之、and then states 加州長衆 旗本衆、又此類程なる衆にも遺之”. At a performance of Nō that occurred on the 19th within the Goeidō, the clergy sat on the southern end of the performance space, whilst at the northern end sat sixty or so members of the 加州長衆. What this tells us is that the clergy were of equal or similar status to that of the 加州旗本 and the 長衆 (otona shū). Whilst we may question whether the hatamoto group themselves were part of the retainers serving the Togashi or Sasaki, what can be said for them is that they were of samurai status, with a large proportion of them coming from among the leadership of villages, and were tied with the bantō (番頭) of the village through marriage. In the medieval period, temples were often given the appellation of `lord` 殿様, hence those persons who named temples came from a status above that of 殿様. As Prof.Inoue illustrates through a diagram, the Shinshū temples of the late medieval era were divided into two sections. Those were:

A  Direct Lineage (from Shinran), Related(連枝)
イ Newly Formed (temples)           (Yoshizaki Gobō, Kanazawa Gobō, Nimata Honzenji, Sakai Shinshōin)
ロ Advocated(chosen) by Monto (Fujishima Chōshōji 藤島超勝寺)
ハ Continuation of ties with clergy (Kai family → Shōgoji, Omachi family → Senjūji)
二  Conversion (through blood ties)   (Tendai shū → Nyojun (如順) no Genshōji 厳照寺)

B  Affiliated Temples
イ  Established by noble (priest) families (Keikakuji, Ankichijōdōji)
ロ  Praying temples (Hōkei dōjō → Zenshōji, Wada Honkakuji 和田本覚寺)
ハ  Change to direct affiliation by temple under control of major temple (大坊)
(Yoshifuji Senkōji, Kichō Kōtokuji)
二  Promotion of a peasant dōjō (Kawajiri Shōkū dōjō → Seikōji)
ホ  Conversion
- through obeying an outside protector (Shōnin Honseiji)
- by casting out old ties (Gunjō Anyōji)

Of those temples detailed above, part of the イ、ロ、ハ、and ホ groups from A and B had very close ties to those of samurai status. Of course, we cannot judge for certain whether the origins of the temples themselves (or the legends surrounding them) are verifiable, yet by looking at the examples of Fujishima Chōshōji and Wada Honkakuji, we find that influential temples from regional areas held a status equivalent to that of kuni samurai. Fujishima Chōshōji was founded by 頓円 (Tonen), whilst Wada Honkakuji of Echizen was derived from Honshōji of Mikawa province, which itself had been founded by Keien 慶円. Both of these temples, together with Omachi Senjūji and Setsuritsu Shōmyōji, constituted the oldest and largest Shinshū temples in the northern provinces. Most of the Ikkō Ikki raised among the Honganji affiliated temples in the northern provinces fell under the control of Chōshōji and Honkakuji(208-209) (there follows on pgs.210-211 a diagram outlining the entire list of priests under Chōshōji and Honkakuji as of the 19th year of Tenshō (1591).

Also note that the Monto itself consisted of samurai or those of an equivalent class. In the 18th year of Tenbun (1549), the Monto of Honshōji (本証寺), part of the Mikawanodera (三河野寺) wrote a pledge to Shōnyo offering salutations and prayers for good health. Many in this particular Monto bore the name of Ishikawa (石河), yet other names included Torii (鳥居), Abe (阿部), Naitō (内藤), Sakakibara (榊原), Sakai (酒井), Honda (本多), Kamiya (神谷), and Ina (伊奈), and a number of 譜代 samurai from the Tokugawa household, thus bringing a total of 115 signatories. When we look at the origin of the abode of these samurai, we find them in places such as 小河, Watari, Okazaki (岡崎), Mito (水戸), Kachihama, Imakawa, and Achisaki. What we can see is that many of these place names were related to `渡り`, hence the names included above were not `a priori` samurai, but those persons who had been elevated from the 渡り to samurai status.(204)

To further this point, in the 如光弟子帳(上宮寺蔵), there are few names that suggest a traditional samurai heritage, yet upon examining names such as Sakazaki Shūri Ryō (坂崎修理亮), Nagazawa Toshosuke (長沢図書助), and Tazu Danshō (丹津弾正), we can see that these samurai had official positions despite their relatively low status, and thus were the same type of samurai as those found in the Honshōji Monto. Of more interest is the case of Kamiakanabe (上茜部) and Shimoakanabe (下茜部), two villages each of which had their own dōjō. The Ikkō priest serving in the Kamiakanabe dōjō was Kujo/Hisasuke (久助), who subsequently changed his name to Hori Kutarō Hidemasa (堀久太郎秀政), whereas the priest of Shimoakanabe, Sanjo/Sansuke (三助), changed his name to Okuda Sanuei`mon Naomasa (奥田三右衛門直政), and went on to serve the Oda household, eventually becoming a daimyo. This example demonstrates the local character and role of the Ikkō shū (in other words, each priest was well versed in arms, and upon leaving the dōjō took up the position of samurai). A portrait within the possession of Chōkeiji (長慶寺) in Fukui City also depicts Hori Hidemasa in his priestly garb, thus demonstrating that the priests of the dōjō could function in a dual capacity.(204-205)

The dōjō as the means to control and extension of authority:

The dōjō of the Gokeyama of Etchū certainly utilized images derived from the Monto of Wada Honkakuji of Echizen, and we can see that when Fujishima Chōshōji was being constructed, much of the clergy of Kaga province aided in hastening its completion.(212) Overall, the impression that one gains from the sources is that with the breakdown of the shōen system and the changes this wrought for temples and the leading families of the region, together with the invitation extended to Rennyo to proselytize and the spread of the Shinshū faith in the Hokuriku region, so too did the influential temples of the region and their Monto gather priests for their dōjō, which hastened the control that they possessed over the peasantry. Moreover, the temples themselves and the families who administered them were, by and large, of warrior status and descended from the upper echelons of local leaders. The Wada family gave their nomaclature to Wada Honkakuji (itself located within Wada ward of Fukui City), although Honkakuji itself had, before the Tenshō era, belonged to the Hatano family. The Hatano had been part of the family descended from Fujiwara Toshihito(仁). During the Kamakura era Hatano Yoshishige had served as the jitō to the Shi(be) (志比) shōen, and had been invited by Dōgen to build Eiheiji (永平寺). The Hatano also served as guardians to Honkakuji, Koetsu Shōseiji and Sabae Seishōji, temples which themselves came under the jurisdiction of Ōmachi Senjūji (itself a part of the Senjūji temples of Takada). Honkakuji had expanded its political power through its association with the Hatano, and had been close to both Daijōin Keikaku (経覚) and Asakura Toshikage (both of whom were affiliated with Honganji).(217) Honkakuji and Keikaku held an agreement between them and shared their holdings within the Kawaguchi shōen. In the third year of Chōroku (1459), both sides united their holdings, and proceeded to keep their tithe for themselves (note the 大乗院寺社雑事記長禄三・四・二十三「河口庄田地引付」).(217)

This particular Honkakuji was not of the same status as Chōshōji, yet most of the dōjō of the Etchū Gokayama (during the Eishō 永正) period were under the jurisdiction of this Honkakuji. Together with Echizen and Kaga, this temple spread its influence as far as Kawakami no Shō in Mino, Kojima gō, and Hida Shirakawa gō (note that in reference to 祗園社領加賀国苅(かり)賀野村 and the 文明十三年(一四八一年)十一月九日幕府奉行人連署奉書, which was sent to Honkakuji from the Bakufu regarding the actions of 木越光徳寺(河北郡一揆中), both this temple, and 光琳寺(こうりんじ), which were part of the local ikki, were under the control of Honkakuji).(214-216) (Note that pgs.213-214 outline the marriage of Tonen (founder of Chōshōji) to a member of the local aristocracy, the Sugahara family (菅原). This act in itself was another means by which temples could ingratiate themselves with authority, and guarantee their support).

The emphasis that Prof Inoue wished to give by illustrating the kuni samurai status of the priesthood in Honganji affiliated temples was not that all of these temples functioned as prayer and devotional centers for village dogō, but that the temples and their administrators held samurai status, and their role as local leaders provided them with their authority over the peasantry (and the villages affiliated with them, as shown later on). While some may debate whether or not authority derived from Honganji gave these temples the basis for the kuni samurai status rights that they enjoyed, both of these entities (Honganji and the regional temples) had the figure of Amida Buddha, the pinnacle of a saviour to the medieval mindset, in their background, which allowed for the extention of teaching over the peasantry and the capture of affiliated Monto.(218)

Originally, Shinshū had emphasized that both the priesthood and the followers were to be of the same status, and that in the act of prayer there would be no reference to either the rulers or the ruled, for such relations did not exist within the Pure Land. However, the qualification for transmission of the faith and the idea of a `equal knowledge` (知識の同行) were at odds with one another, for `knowledge` (or the equal spread of this concept) became privatized, leading to affiliated Monto to venerate knowledge and equate this with the figure of Amidha Nyorai. This practice was allowed under the authority of the head of Honganji, thus leading to the creation of a relationship whereby the head of the Honganji sect held the ultimate `knowledge` regarding faith. This was the basis for the creation of the Honganji organization.

Hence since those who possessed knowledge were of samurai status, what emerged was a relationship in which the temple ruled over the dōjō (Monto) in the same manner as a ruler (名主) ruled over the peasantry. The power of the priesthood did not derive from how much territory their temple might have administered according to legal registers (as was the case with older sects), but came from the number of dōjō and Monto that they were able to capture. Hence the teachings of Shinshū provided the avenue for the priesthood to secure the faithful from among affiliate (villages).(218-219)

The dōjō:

The dōjō had a central part in the lives of villagers, for it was a meeting place for the practice of faith and the storage of pictures and objects for veneration. However, the private quarters of the priest who administered the dōjō was separate from the main building itself, as shown by the division of property that occurred within Tamochimura in Harima province (保村) (古代取集記録). The housing for the priest was known as the `inner dōjō or uchi dōjō`. The priest himself led the services of the dōjō, with attendants known as `dōjō mamori` (専修念仏名帳). Many of the priestly names used by the head of the dōjō were secular names, hence such priests were known as kebōzu (毛坊主) or arigami no sō(有髪の僧). As for their social position in the village, whilst the early modern period saw most priests drawn from among the peasantry, in the medieval period the head priest of the dōjō would be one of the village leaders (村殿) of 名主 status.(231)

As Prof Inoue points out, it was precisely because influential village leaders were able to secure positions as village priests that Shinshū was able to permeate village society to such an extraordinary depth.(234) When the village was still being formed as a joint organization, it was the priesthood who played a leading role in bringing this to fruition, hence it was only after the establishment of precepts for the unification of the village that the support would be available to streamline the transformation of the village leadership and the implementation of feudal rule (exercised by temples in the case of the Hokuriku). This is shown in part by an example taken from Kotaku-shō in Harima and the argument it had in Eishō 11 (1514) surrounding rights to water. Representatives were called to the residence of the shugo Akamatsu Yoshimura within Okishio-jō. These representatives were taken from among the Shōkan, Myoshu, and the hikan of the Akamatsu. As the record states `the representative for the peasants was Okumura Jirōeimon` who, despite having had to dismantle his dōjō in February of the same year, was chosen as the desired representative of the peasantry at the meeting to resolve the problem (東大史料編簒(へんせん)所蔵「古代取集記録」(243)

Relations between the major temples and Honganji:

As we have already seen, the basis for the creation of the system of control exercised by Honganji came through the use of knowledge, and the expansion of the organization came as a direct result of the relationship that Honganji held with its affiliated temples. At the outset of the Shinshū faith the concept had been that small groups of believers would share in their equality, yet necessity had given rise to the veneration of Honganji at the head of a pyramid organization that through its ties with groups of believers would constitute a considerable presence within society at large. Within the development of the Honganji organization, we can see the fundamental difference of opinion between Shinran and Rennyo in the proselytization of the faith. Whereas Shinran believed in the exercise of individual will in conversion to Shinshū, Rennyo placed greater emphasis on the temple = dōjō = believer system of conversion. Hence by the late medieval period, the Shinshū organization was essentially composed of two layers – that of the temple and the dōjō (although in some instances this expanded to three layers or more).

The organization that Honganji devised consisted of many units of dōjō, yet the usage of `uragaki` for objects received from Rennyo led to the creation of much closer ties between temples, their dōjō, and Honganji itself. For the practice, say, of a temple displaying an object received from Rennyo cemented the relationship of that dōjō to the main branch of the Honganji line, which in a sense provided relief and solace to the priesthood of the dōjō and to the Monto. This practice was virtually the same at the practice of providing solace to small groups of warriors at the local level by making them part of one`s entourage, thus leading to the development of regional daimyo. The further development of the faithful in this capacity came through the strengthening of amicable ties between Honganji and major temples(249)

Events leading up to the Ikki of Chōkyō 2:

Apparently, those kokujin ryōshu of Kaga who had been unsuccessful in obtaining complete authority over local lands understood that in order to gain such control they had to form a bond with both the Honganji religious organization and the various otona shū that existed throughout the province. The `Tokuryō Sode Nikki` (徳了袖日記) describes the situation of one Kaburayagi Shigetsune (or Shigenobu) (鏑木繁常), who was the ruler of Matsutō (松任) castle. He had been an ally of the Togashi, but chose to convert to Honganji under the influence of Rennyo, and subsequently became involved in the ikki that took place in Kuratsuki shōen in unison with Nishigō Shirō (西郡四郎). So what emerges is a pact between those samurai opposed to the shugō`s rule and villagers, who through their ties to the Honganji faith cooperated with one another, thus helping the kokujin along the path to local lordship.(356)

Many of these kokujin held the status of jitō and daikan, and did actually rule over the villagers on their shōen. Yet their conversion, whilst spreading the faith further up the social ladder, was not done out of a sense of malice or rank opportunism, but gave them an affinity for the peasantry. Those organizations that comprised of kokujin and jizamurai warriors, the kumi and gun chū that were spread out over a wide area, thus came to be imbued with a much greater degree of religious and Monto affiliated characteristics. What occurred in Kaga over a fourteen year period was thus: samurai (kokujin, jizamurai) who had originally invaded the property belonging to temples and aristocratic families joined the Ikkō sect. By doing so, the original protests of the Ikkō Ikki (non payment of tithes, non performance of public duties – predominantly village based protests) changed to that of invasion of shōen property. Disputes between samurai over territory thus appeared in the midst of religious activities. The Monto itself, in the wake of the Ōnin War, had divided itself in supporters of the eastern and western camps. However in the 14th year of Bunmei (1480), Shiba Yoshiro (斯波義良), stationed at Nagasaki castle, was attacked by Asakura Takakage. Shiba fled to Kaga in the following year, showing that the Ikkō shū was certainly in favour of the western camp and opposed to the shōgun.(356)

The union of kokujin samurai, muradono, and toshiyori/otona was known at the time as a `shū` (衆). There were a number of shū within Kaga – such as the jūninshū (十人衆), the Kawahara shū (河原衆), and the Mino shū (蓑衆). When we read of `ikki`, what we should understand is that this was no more than a `shū`. In later years the shū would be transformed into the `kumi` (組, mentioned in the Kanchiron and subsequent Honganji literature). This institution, together with the Monto `kō` (講) that united villages together, would be the basis of the organization tying together large expanses of territory. The `kumi` and the `kō` would thus come to control the gun, gō, and village, and made the possibility of a wide-scale uprising a reality.(356)

By the 1480s, Kaga was divided into two camps. On the one hand, there was Togashi Masachika, who was engaged in flaunting his authority as the shugo and affiliated with the shogunate. On the other hand there were kokujin samurai opposed to the Bakufu and its officials, who were drawn closer to the absolute yet (in theory) equal authority espoused by Rennyo and the figure of Amida Nyorai. Kaga was thus a province of competing interests. One has to remember that the Ikkō Ikki had originally been a supporter of Masachika and helped him to obtain the position of shugo, yet that support had been overruled by other concerns over personal authority. Kaga therefore became a staging ground for conflict between the Honganji sect and the Takada sect, between the Jōdo Shinshū sect and the shugo. The relationship between these factors and the ties between the kokujin and villages are areas of latter medieval history that deserve further scrutiny.(357)

Professor Inoue traces the beginnings of the eventual uprising against Togashi Masachika back to Bunmei 9 (1477) in a document sent from Naka no In Michihide to Sanjō Nishi (Sei) Mitsutaka (実隆), who mentioned the following:

(実隆公記 文明九・二・二十六)(357)

What Naka no In was referring to here were events that had taken place at Nukata no Shō and Hatta no Shō, in which a messenger had been dispatched from Kajūji Masaaki (or Masataka) (政顕) to Honganji on the 6th day of the 2nd month (found in the 中院文書). Apparently Rennyo had not been present at the time, and the messenger had thus reported this to Masaaki. Ōgimachi (正親町) Sanetomo (or Kingen) (of the Ōgimachi Sanjō family) had agreed with the content of the missive. What we can understand from this is that aristocratic families with holdings in Kaga were threatened by the activities of the Ikki. They expected Honganji to deliver a message to its followers in Kaga and bear the responsibilities due to the court, Bakufu, aristocracy, and temples.(358)

Yet at the same time, the shugo himself was engaged in confiscating property that belonged to the court, nobility, and temples in an attempt to unify Kaga under his direct control. A number of missives were issued by the estate owners ordering the shugo (and his deputies) to cease invading territory and return that which had already taken, as evidenced by the following order:

文明九年二月廿日                 右中将実隆 奉
謹上 按 察 殿 (あんさつどの)        (実隆公記 文明九・二・二十)

This document was directly addressed to a hikan of the shugo, Chikanaga, whose own record stated things as thus:
(大桑・豊田)          (違)
知行分加賀[ ][ ][ ][ ]守護被官人及遣乱云々。仍申請勅裁奉聞。勅許。
仰頭中将了。                                   (親長(喞)記 文明九・二・二十)(358)

In the 11th month of Bunmei 6, right after Masachika had expelled Yukichiyo from the province, he gave his kokujin advisor Tsukihashi Hyōgo Masashi (Mitsuru, or Tadashi) (Tsukihashi) the following territory: 能美郡上土室并河北郡英田庄内指江村等 (北村文書). This territory of Kami Tsuchimura had originally been bought by Kamimura Nyudō Shūkei (秀慶), who appealed to the Bakufu, stating that the land had been `seized without warrant`(無謂押領) (親元日記 文明八・十二・二十七) (358)

This event was thus recorded by Chikamoto in the following manner:

上村入道秀慶、三秀院領加州上土室事、去長禄二永代以二百三十二貫文買得之処、槻橋兵庫無謂押領云々。此沽却(こきゃく)之儀、檀那畠山匠作時有書状、為肝要之上者、可被成奉書歟之由、各奉行衆意見尤(もっとも)之由頭人御返事、文明九・七・十三有之。翌日以奉状布弾へ申遣之、被成奉書畢。    (親元日記)(359)

Masachika did attempt to ingratiate himself with the Bakufu though in the wake of these events, for on the 22nd day of the 10th year of Bunmei (possibly from the Chikamoto Nikki) it states that he sent 「公方へ御帷 梅染十端、御方御所へ五端」and on the 10th day of the 4th month of Bunmei 12 he sent 「御方御所様へ月毛御馬一疋」「葦(あし)毛馬一疋」. Yet at the same time, Masachika granted lands to hikan and continued with the practice of solidifying his rule. Indeed, he went so far as to invade the territory of Kuramitsu ho (倉光保) which housed a pay station (料所) belonging to the Bakufu (and which was administered by the Kuramitsu family, part of the hōkōshū, or close retainers of the Bakufunate). This `outrage` was castigated in the following missive to the Isshiki:

文明十二年十月二日               英 基(花押)
貞 康(花押)
一色式部少輔殿           (一色家文書 加能古文書 一○○四)(359)

By looking at this situation, the Honganji group of faithful, comprised of peasants refusing to pay tithes and kokujin engaged in invading estates, was bound to clash head-on with a shugo in the process of becoming a sengoku daimyo. The Bakufu at this time appears to have tried to appeal to any authority it believed could stabilize the social and political situation within the province. In the 1st month of Bunmei 13, the Bakufu wrote a missive to Honkakuji (Hongakuji) and its priests, asking them to intervene in order to force the peasants of Karugano village to pay their annual tithe. By this we can infer that the peasants addressed in the missives (both dated for Bunmei 13, and part of the 祇園社記 and 八坂神社文書, with one addressed to the temple and another to the priesthood) were members of the Ikkō sect, and that Honkakuji was Wada Honkakuji, under which so many Monto were affiliated.(359-360)

It would have been in the interests of the shugo and the shugo dai Tsukihashi Ōmi no Kami to obey missives from the Bakufu and avoid being tarnished as violators of property rights, yet Kigoshi Kōtokuji (木越光徳寺), around which the Kahoku gun Ikki was arranged, charged that the shugo had forged a document from the Bakufu and lied about the circumstances involved at Karugano village. The Bakufu had thus sent out missives to all those involved, castigating Masachika and Tsukihashi for their behaviour.
(These particular documents are quoted elsewhere in my records; two are addressed to Togashi Jirō Dono and Tsukihashi Ōmi Dono, and both dated for Bunmei 14, while the third is addressed to Kigoshi temple and the Kahoku gun Ikki chū. It is not dated, but does refer to events in the previous year (去文明十三年…) (, suggesting it was written in Bunmei 14 as well. It was issued by the same officials who sent the missives to Masachika and Tsukihashi).(362)

The Kaetsu Tōsōki:

It was at this time (Bunmei 13) that the Monto of Inami, Tsuchiyama, Futamata, and Yuwaku, all areas along the Etchū Kaga border, raised an ikki in Inami gun within Etchū and subsequently went on to cause the downfall of Ishiguro Sakin Mitsuyoshi and the followers of Sōkaiji (惣海寺), a Tendai affiliated temple of Ikuōzan (育王山) (as recorded in the Zuisenji Kiroku (瑞泉寺記録) and the Kaetsu Tōsōki). Note that records belonging to Tōdaiji make mention of events that occurred within Takase shō (高瀬庄), which neighbored Inami, in the following manner:

高瀬地頭方去年御年貢事、連々地下人一行衆以向心之儀、年々過分無沙汰候。殊去年中未進分、春中可致沙汰之由地下人申候間、其趣内々申候処、去三月郡内土一揆不思議企候。地頭方百姓為本人(張本人)造意事候間、去年未進之儀、一向不及沙汰候(八月十三日付下長勘解由左衛門尉直宗書状、「東大寺文書 第四回探訪三六」). (362)

誠今度越中忩劇不可有其隠候。高瀬地頭方百姓等依(より)張本人、少々令誅、数多逐電候(八月二十五日付順[ ](憲か)書状、東大寺文書、第四回探訪五二)(362)

The disturbances in Etchū during Bunmei 13 had apparently been arranged by Masachika, who had asked Ishiguro to burn down Zuisenji. This may have been related to the activities of the Kahoku gun Ikki, as Kahoku gun bordered Inami gun. The Yamada river separated the two gun, with the western part of Inami gun under the control of Anyōji (安養寺), while the eastern part was ruled by Zuisenji. The ikki apparently broke out in the mountainous region of southern Inami gun, territory that belonged to the Honganji Monto and which Karugano village bordered, hence the involvement of the Kahoku gun Ikki in Karugano`s affairs. Tsukihashi, who had been given authority over territory in Kahoku gun, had been at odds with the Shinshū faith since 1474, and thus he had probably tried to apply force against Karugano village, which would have earned him the ire of the Kahoku gun Ikki. (362) In the above example, the shugo had attempted to surpress an uprising by the Monto, yet the shugo himself was guilty of engaging in the same acts that he condemned the Monto for, as shown through the example of Kuratsuki shōen and the village of Aozaki (363)


文明十七                        (松田)
九月廿一日                       数 秀 (花押)
宗 勝 (花押)

松岡寺                     (美吉文書 三)(363)

According to Professor Inoue, Aozaki village was an influential member of the local Monto group, hence when looking at this document, in times past the Bakufu would have sent such a missive to Shōkōji in order to demand that the temple castigate its followers. Yet in this instance the Bakufu is requesting aid from the temple to prevent Masachika`s incursions into the property of Kuratsuki shōen, a property that the Settsu family were no longer capable of governing themselves. Thus with such examples, it appears that the forces of the shugo and those of the Ikkō Ikki were going to come to a head – it was only a matter of time as to when this would happen.(363)

Professor Inoue also points to the ties between the Ikki and the Kai family of Echizen to demonstrate the growing influence of Ikki forces. In the 11th month of the 16th year of Bunmei, a force of Kai troops had met in battle against Asakura Ujikage in Kawaguchi shō. According to records of Daijōin, 「新庄郷・大口郷・関郷・細呂宜郷・溝江郷、此五ヶ所ハ悉以両陣之構ニ成之間、荒作毛払竹木了。百姓等逐電」, thus meaning that in the  various gō of Hyogo, Ōmi (王見), Arai (荒居), and Honshō (本庄), fields had been raised and burnt, and bamboo and trees cut down. The record continues…「甲斐方為合力ニ、加州一キ可入国云々」(大乗院寺社雑事記、文明十六・十一・七). What we have here, then, is an instance of an Ikki force from Kaga crossing the border into Echizen.(363)
Rennyo had spoken out against such activities, for in Bunmei 6 and 7 he had advocated that 「守護地頭を疎略(そりゃく)にすべからず」(文明七・七・十五ヶ条篇目、蓮如上人遺文 八三)and 「かぎりある年貢所当をねんごろに沙汰」, yet by the end of the Bunmei era, we can see a definite change overcoming the Monto. In the O-fumi directed at the 能美郡四講宛(文明十八・正・四)Rennyo stated that 「守護地頭方江可有慇懃之振舞候。同く寺社本所之所領押領之儀、堅可有成敗候也」. Obviously by this stage, non-payment of tithes and property invasions had become a serious headache for Rennyo, particularly as he was trying to improve the standing of his sect and its dealings with aristocratic houses. (364)

This point is shown through the activities of the Ikkō shū otona, Sunozaki Keigaku, who in Bunmei 17 invaded the property of Rinsenji Miyanokoshi (臨川寺宮ノ腰), as revealed in the following:

臨川寺領賀州宮腰江慶覚強入部。可被成御奉書之由、自寺家以一行被白。其一行供台覧、命寺奉行諏方信濃守、可成奉書由堅可申付之台命有之。仍召彼雑掌、伝台命。雑掌佐波越後入道也。                 (蔭涼軒日録 文明十七・十・二十四)

The 強入部 that the Inryōken was discussing here was the invasion by Keigaku of Kosaka shōen in the company of 「代官佐毘田」and various peasants (大乗院寺社雑事記 明応四・一・十一 See below). Hence along with the invasion of property by what Professor Inoue describes as `jizamurai`, there were Monto peasants demanding the removal and exemption of all tithes.(364)

A more curious piece of evidence emerges from the records of Bukkōji (仏光寺) (also known as 妙法院門侶(ろ)) for Bunmei 14. In this year, Keigō (径豪), the head priest of this temple, lead his followers into the fold of Rennyo`s Honganji. The Sanmon Daishū (山門大衆) warned other subsidiaries not to follow this example, yet in the midst of the missive sent to Bukkōji it touches upon the situation in Kaga at the time. The document itself is quoted in full below:

文明十四年八月  日山門大講堂集[ ]儀曰、


右、渋谷仏光寺事、当住花恩院大納言無[ ]光衆本願寺位随遂、被放御被官、以正法興行仁躰御補任云々。偏治国利民大底不過之者哉。然上者、諸国未流輩、不組無[ ]光之邪法、可守本寺渋谷之行儀旨、可触送由、可被加厳密之御成敗者也。[ ]見本願寺一流之所行、誹正法、破滅仏像経巻、顚(いただき)例(倒)神社仏閣、無仏世界張行、前代未聞濫吹也。剰近年加州為躰、追伏国務之重職、為无主之国、土民之族致遵行、挿(さす)武将守護職同輩之所存之条、下刻(剋)上基、落日月泥土道理、可為眼前者哉。戒(いましめ)而猶有余者歟。此等子細任旧貫、為山門、雖可令禁遏(あつ)、就世上忩劇、先閣之処也。若邪法同意大納言於御許容者、対御門跡、可含欝(ふさぐ、うつ)胸由詳儀訖。(仏光寺文書) (365)

In this document, the phrase 土民之族致遵行, if taken at its word, means that Honganji, rather than making problems for aristocratic houses and temples, was actually being asked by these aristocratic families to secure their territories for safe-keeping. The Ikkō shū was thus acting as a `daikan` for these estates.(365) This is further illustrated by an example taken from the Gohōgyō-in records:

家門領加州安江保事、百姓致緩怠間、申武家奉書、今日到来。松岡(しょうこう)、二俣一向衆両人可沙汰居本所代官之由、被仰付訖。(後法興院記 文明十八・八・二十四)(365)

The Shōkō referred to here was Hokurinbō, which was under the rule of Rennyo`s third son Renkō, whereas Futamata referred to Honsenji, under the rule of Rennyo`s second son Renjō. What these Kenmon temples were asking was for both Ikkō shū temples to intervene in order to force those peasants of Yasue-ho to pay their tithes. Yet another example of both Shōkōji and Honsenji being called upon to act for the benefit of aristocrats and Kenmon temples comes from the Inryōken Nikki:

立町伊豆守為彼在所之代官、六年間不致寺納、剰引遣千余貫文有之白。太不直也。早々致参洛可遂六ヶ年之勘定由、自寺家堅可被仰下。然者立町伊豆守・北隣坊・米郡一揆中(江沼)・当所名主百姓中、此四処江可被召符之由白之。 (蔭涼軒日録 文明十八・十一・三)

In this instance, the Tachimachi (Chika 千秋) Izu no Kami family, who were the daikan of Rinkōin Yokokita shōen, had not paid any dues for six years. As a result, the daikan, plus representatives of Hokurinbō, the Ikki Chū of Yone gun, plus local landowners had been ordered to travel to the capital. Non-payment of tithes was not simply a case of the breakdown of organization on the shōen, but was the basis of protest by members of the Ikkō sect. These landowners had a duty to pay their tithes, but had not done so. The evidence for Yokokita shōen suggests that it was under the influence of the Ikkō sect, for the Bantō of Yokokita gō (all 10 of them) were members of the Ikkō sect.


林光院領賀州横北郷、御寄進以来致本役請取有之、無相違之処、自安楽光院掠(かすめる)給 勅裁、不経公儀、相語一向衆、本役百貫文仁五千疋増分契約。剰相残領家方年貢、配当一向宗十員、于今押領。言語道断子細也。然間度々雖被成御奉書、承引不仕候。御動座刻、為郡并地下逐払一向宗、如先規可致院納候由注進候処、尚以安楽光院致奸(かん、おかす)訴云々。此趣早々可預御披露候。恐惶敬白。
(長享二年)                            (鹿苑院)
卯月十九日                     瑞 智 (判)
侍衣禅師               (蔭涼軒日録 長享二・五・六)

彼在所御寄進林光院以来七十年、地頭・領家為直務。安楽光院公用百貫文事者、自寺家致其沙汰処、近年号本役無沙汰、以勅裁地頭・領家一具押領、百貫文仁加増五十貫取之。剰其余分地下番頭十員に切クレ、任雅意之条、為上意可預御成敗之由、雖経公義、于今不事行、寺家愁(しゅう、うれえる、うれい)訴也。(蔭涼軒日録 長享二・九・二十八)(366)

Professor Inoue explains the situation as thus: The shōen of Yokokita was owned by Anrakukō-in, and its annual tithe was 100 kanmon. Rinkōin, which was a landowner on the shōen, also had an income of 100 kanmon. Rinkōin had originally appointed Nishikie Kazuhiko as daikan to the estate, yet for five successive daikan (Nishikie, Tsukioki(ogi), (unknown), Ibaramine(楚岫), and Omoaki惟明) had been unable to collect any tithes because of the activities of the Chikanin (地下人) and Chika Izu no Kami. The ten Bantō members had made a contract with Anrakukō-in, whereby an extra 50 kanmon would be raised in addition to the regular 100 kanmon. 150 kanmon to be paid to Anrakukō-in, with the extra 50 kanmon to eventually go to Rinkōin. Yet it appears that Anrakukō-in made a further secret agreement with the 10 Bantō, whereby the extra 50 kanmon would be distributed amongst the Bantō themselves. However we can see from this that the Bantō did collect their tithes, and took a lead role in negotiations over distribution of the money.(367)

At this time, Togashi Masachika and Tsukihashi Ōmi no Kami had traveled to the capital. According to the Inryōken Nichiroku, on the 22nd day of the 7th month of Bunmei 18…”薄暮、富樫次郎入洛”. Then on the 23rd day it records the following: 富樫次郎出仕、伴本折・槻橋三郎左衛門尉. It appears that Masachika had gone to pledge his loyalty to the shogun and had attempted to increase his legal authority as shugo over half of Kaga province. On the 12th day of the 9th month of the following year (Chōkyō 1), the shogun, having tired of the activities of the Rokkaku family (Sasaki) of Ōmi, attempted to raise an army to castigate the Rokkaku. However as the following entry states: 但諸大夫一向不参。富樫介一人打前陣. The only daimyo to partake in the expedition was Togashi Masachika. Those that followed him from Kaga included Motoori (本折), Tsukihashi(槻橋) and Kuramitsu(倉光), Karuno(狩野), Ōuchi(大内), and Aigawa(相河 (all of whom were kokujin) (長享元年九月十二日常徳院殿様江州御動座当時在陣衆着到). As can be seen from this example, the strength of the shugo force within Kaga had been seriously weakened by the move to support the shogun`s campaign in Ōmi. (367)

In order to pay for the expedition, revenue became important. How this revenue was raised is shown through a record derived from the 鹿苑日録:

長享元年閏十一月八日。侍衣入洛。等持寺院兼帯所領加賀国粟津(あわず)保守護代山川参川守出令曰、兵粮米弐百石、人夫一百人、不日可出之。若以免許之儀拒之、則令吏卒責之。且曰、相公御進発、昔等持寺院殿有之、其已来百数十年不聞。其事而今府君自将撃兇徒。何不戮(ころす)力乎。予承乏、幸而侍衣与山川有俗録。以故遣侍衣。百計誘之。遂許以十五貫弐百文。寺院歓喜、出于意外云  (鹿苑日録 一 等持寺日件)(368)

What this tells us is that Yamakawa Mikawa no Kami and a lay Zen priest by the name of Ji-i (侍衣) negotiated over payment of 200 koku of rice and the provision of 100 men for a price of 15 kan, 200 mon. Yet this does not mean that the entire shōen, gō, nor ho would honour the decision. In this instance, both Yamakawa and Ji-i may have been anticipating a backlash against the negotiation by members of the Ikkō shū.(368)

In both Kaga and Etchū, the warrior houses had proven themselves unable to control revolts by the Monto. The shugo of Etchū, Hatakeyama Masanaga sent a request to Seirenin Sonō (青蓮院尊応), asking him to intervene with Honganji in order to bring the Monto of Kaga and Etchū to heel:

(文明十九年)                         (青蓮院尊応)
三月六日                      御判
本願寺法印御房             (華頂要略 門主伝二二 大日本仏教全書)(368)

As a result of the increased activity on the part of the Ikkō Ikki, in the 12th month of Bunmei 19 Masachika was appointed as shugo over the entire province of Kaga by the shogunate. He made his way back from the camp at Ōmi Magari (鉤) to Kaga and at once set about trying to subdue the Ikkō shū. The Shinshū record (今古独語) describes the situation that awaited Masachika in Kaga: (368)


The problem came down to one involving shōen belonging to temples and aristocratic landowners. The shugo faction had continued to try and unify the province by using hikan to invade local properties and seize them for the shugo. On the other hand, the Ikki force had pledged to `restore the lands` to their rightful, original owners. The bantō, myōshu, and satajin behind this move were all members of the Ikkō shū, and expected the traditional estate owners to grant them status to administer the estate on behalf of the owner. Yet if these social groups became daikan, actual control over the local territory would pass into the hands of Honganji`s followers. This was certainly how non-Honganji observers regarded the situation, as seen in the 朝倉始末記:

本願寺門徒等一揆ヲ起シ、国主富樫介政親ヲ追出シ、押領シテ、国郡残ラズ本願寺ノ支配トセリ。然レバ武家ヲ地頭ニシテ、手ゴハキ仕置二アハンヨリハ、一向坊主ヲ領主二シテ、我マヽヲイヒテアヒシラハン事、土民ノ為ニハ一段ヨキ国守ナリ (369)

To retain control over Kaga, Masachika knew that he either had to subdue the Ikkō shū and its kokujin followers, or remove them altogether. On the other hand, those kokujin who were opposed to Masachika formed an alliance around Togashi Yasutaka. The situation within the shōen of Kaga, however, remained much the same. Turning out attention once again to the shōen of Enuma gun, Yokokita, we see that the problems that had beset it in the past vis-à-vis the shugo continued. At the same time that Chika Izu no Kami voluntarily withdrew from overseeing the property in the first year of Chōkyō (1487) (10th day, 11th month), Tōfuku Eian Soshun Zōshū (東福永安祖舜蔵主) was appointed as his successor for a period of five years.  However, when Masachika returned to Kaga in 1488, Saitō Goen Chikuzen no Kami (斎藤御園筑前守) forged a letter of appointment and stole the position of daikan to the estate:

十九日。林光院領賀州横北郷事、就斎藤御園筑前守代官職事、掠賜(たまう)御奉書、自鹿苑院訴状有之、供台覧。必江之相公江堅可被仰下之由御返答有之。(蔭涼軒日録 長享二・四)。(370)

Saitō Chikuzen no Kami had also made a contract with the `守護被官月橋`, in which Tsukihashi had described Saitō as a `close ally` (蔭涼軒日録 長享二・七・十五). In all likelihood, Yokokita shōen had fallen into the hands of the shugo forces. As the head of Tōjiin (等持院) had stated, 「国中一揆帰責於庄中、或守護成禍(わざわい)於庄中。為之若何」(鹿苑日録 一), meaning that as far as he was concerned, all of the shōen of Kaga had been overtaken by either the shugo or Ikki forces. There was now a three-way conflict broiling in the province, between Masachika and his shugo force, Honganji, and the original estate owners. All this came to a head in the 5th month of Chōkyō 2, with the outbreak of revolt 「賀州土一揆蜂起、相囲富樫介城(高尾城)」(蔭涼軒日録 長享二・五・二十六). From Ōmi, the shogun sent a messenger (叔和(瑞順)西堂) to the Asakura, requesting that they send aid to Masachika Zuijun arrived at the seat of the Asakura on the 5th day of the 6th month, yet as the following record shows, he was too late…「其以前越前合力勢赴(おもむく)賀州。雖然一揆衆二十万人取回富樫城、以故同九日被攻落、落城、皆生害。而富樫一家者一人取立之」(蔭涼軒日録 長享二・六・二十五)(370)

Kinei Masaie(近衛政家) described the situation as thus…「去八日於加州、富樫介令生涯云々。加賀国一揆衆、其外能登・越中之一揆衆相加間、及数万人云々。」(御法興院記 長享二・六・十五), thereby stating that Monto participants from throughout the Hokuriku joined in on the attack on Masachika.(370)

又謹白。林光院領賀州横北庄事、斎藤御園筑前守代官職事白。掠給奉書、守護被官月橋仁契約、月橋又我傍(かたわら)輩江白付処、今度為国之一揆月橋一党又[ ]悉討殺之。然間彼横北事、打棄置(きち)条、為無主之地。早々自寺家可下置上使之由、自地下百姓二人致
上洛訴訟有之。月橋并御園悉被打殺之事、併円修院殿御罰之由、皆白之。不及御糺明(きゅうめい)、早々可被成返奉書之由、大館弾正少弼(すけ)殿・結城越後守・二階堂山城守此三人江被召上、直堅被仰付者、可然云々。相公御許諾有之。(蔭涼軒日録 延徳二・四・十五)(pp.370-371)

Saitō Goen Chikuzen no Kami, Tsukihashi Ōmi no Kami and the rest of their immediate retainers, along with many within Masachika`s army, had been killed. The positions of daikan that they held vanished with their deaths, thus leaving their estates `leaderless`. As the Inryōken Nichiroku states, two peasants then traveled to the capital and asked that a representative (or representatives) of the temple owner be sent to the estate of Yokokita. What this means is that the estate itself had not fallen under direct rule by members of the Ikkō shū. What it also means is that estate residents, following the deaths of the warrior daikan, wished for the owners to take direct control over their property. This was, as Professor Inoue pointed out, the situation that invited Honganji rule within Kaga. As per usual, Ikkō shū invasions of property continued:(371)

六月三日                    集  証 判
斎藤大蔵入道殿御宿所             (蔭涼軒日録 延徳三・五・晦)(371)

The shogun however was furious at what had happened to Masachika (as Professor Inoue shows by quoting the passage from the 蓮如上人一期記 related to the shogun Yoshihisa`s demand that those responsible for the shugo`s death be excommunicated from the Monto, thus causing Rennyo great consternation). (371) What saved Rennyo during this difficultly was the intervention of Hosokawa Masamoto, who was on friendly terms with Togashi Yasutaka. The 空善記 (from the 蓮如上人行実 (八六)) states that Masamoto 「われにまかせよとて、これ(本願寺)とか(加賀)の門徒の中をなをし、永代の御門徒のよしまで申シさた(沙汰)」. As a result, Rennyo was able to issue the お叱りの御書 (stored at 吉籐専光寺 in Kanazawa City). It was Masamoto who allowed Rennyo to overcome the crisis with a mere reprimand to the Monto. As far as Rennyo was concerned, Masamoto was the incarnation of Shōtoku Taishi and the voice of Kannon and Hachiman (空善記 三八、八六)。 (372)

According to the same 空善記, Shimotsuma Aki Hōgan Rensō had asked Masamoto to intervene on his behalf in order to ask for Rennyo`s forgiveness for his transgressions in Bunmei 7 (四七). Thus as far as Honganji was concerned, Masamoto was indeed a figure of importance. Such was his standing that while Honganji would ordinarily prepare temple food (shōjin ryōri) for guests, when Masamoto was staying at Fukakusa Zuirinin, he heard that Honganji ate fish and thus decided he would visit the temple for such a meal. To serve temple food under such circumstances would be problematic for Honganji, so in a break with tradition, fish was served to Masamoto (本願寺作法之次第 蓮如上人行実 五四四). As would later been seen by the request by Masamoto for the Monto to be raised to support his attack on Kawauchi 誉田 castle, both Honganji and Masamoto had close relations which had arisen from Masamoto`s assistance in the aftermath of the uprising of Chōkyō 2.(372-373).

Expansion of the Ikkō Ikki in the aftermath of Chōkyō 2:

With the downfall of Masachika and the Tsukihashi, Togashi Yasutaka, who had been in retirement(蔭涼軒日録 寛正五・八・七), returned to Kaga to take up the seat of shugo. As a consequence, those kokujin who had previously supported Masachika (Yamakawa, Motoori, Nuka (額), Kosugi, and Karuno) eventually became part of the Monto. In the 大館常興書礼抄(しょう)(群書類従 文筆部) it states that 富樫殿内 ぬか・山河, who had been carrying out property invasions of Karugano ho (property of Gion shrine) were to cease and desist. The two Bakufu officials who wrote this, 飯尾貞連・松田英, then sent the missive to 本折式部少輔 (建内文書 加能古文書 一一三五). This Motoori was the father of 本折治部 mentioned in the Tenbun Nikki (visiting Honganji) (本折治部少輔為礼来間、以一献会也。敷居之内へ呼入之)(天文日記 二十一・十・十). (375)

The Tenbun Nikki also mentions a `Kosugi` 「就当番之儀、直参衆小杉方、(吉藤方内云々)也。人体者ロ教西、是ハ専光寺へ直之坊主也ト申之 樽持参第五」(天文日記 二十・四・二十三). This Kosugi was descended from the same family of Kosugi who had been killed in the uprising of Bunmei 6. In the Kanchiron, it states that 「利波郡之軍兵打寄蓮沼。爰(ここに)当国牢人阿曾孫八・小杉新八郎被申、我等為本人間、一番合戦可仕」。 It is therefore possible that the Kosugi in the Tenbun Nikki was this same `Kosugi Hachirō`. He had already entered the temple of Senkōji, had become a representative for Nikō Kyōsai, a priest in service to Senkōji, and was a member of the Monto working as part of the Godō Banshū (御堂番衆)(375).

In the case of the Yamakawa, they were kokujin who derived from the Yamakawa district of Katagawa village (犀川) in Ishikawa gun. The Yamakawa who emerged from the aftermath of the uprising of Chōkyō 2 was the grandson of Yamakawa Hachirō, a shugodai in the service of Yasutaka who had been forced to commit ritual suicide (instead of Yasutaka) on the 28th day of the 2nd month of Kakitsu 3 (1443):

至夜山川八郎八郎カ父若党三人庭上ニて五人切腹云々。八郎切腹之後辞世之歌。(題書)後聞八郎カ父詠云々以血書扇後聞碩を召寄せて書云々 あつさ弓五十をこゆる年浪の まことの道に入にけるかな 
八郎ハ大力勇士也。主を扶けて(たすけて)一身切腹之条、忠功之至不堪感嘆者歟。(看聞御記 嘉吉三・二・二十八)(378)

The Yamakawa family were thus seen favourably by the Ikki forces, especially as they had acted to save Yasutaka, a point reflected in the Kanchiron:

According to Professor Inoue, in reality 山川三川守高藤 (両足院文書) had been attached to Yasutaka from the beginning of the conflict. He was a kokushū who had been forced to resign by Tsukihashi, and had suffered the indignity of having his place as shugodai taken from him. In Eishō 2 (1505), it appears that the Yamakawa family re-emerged as a shugodai:
永正弐                                                  (山川)
五月廿五日                   高 次 (花押)
法慶入道殿          (善性寺文書 加能古文書 一一二)

Takatsugu is thought to have been the son of Takafuji, and the fact that he makes reference to an `Oyakata-sama` is proof that Takatsugu held a position as shugodai. . Furthermore, Keiō Nyūdō was the founder of Zenshōji (善性寺), and the `Oyakata-sama` was Togashi Taneyasu, thus showing a relationship between the shugo and a Shinshū dōjō. Togashi Yasutaka also donated the Bunyashiki of Daizenji to Keiō Nyūdō, as seen from the following documents:

本庄四十万村之内大仙寺分之屋敷并山林之事[ ]本庄[ ][ ]同村[ ]法慶道場江所寄附也。然上者、可全知行之状如件。           (富樫泰高)
明応八年九月晦日                 (花押)
(善性寺文書 加能古文書 一○九三)
本庄四十万村之内、大仙寺屋敷・同山林等之事、[  ]法慶道場江任真幸御寄進状之旨、永不可有相違者也。仍状如件。
永正元年三月五日                 (花押)
(善性寺文書 加能古文書 一一一○)(377)

The Honshō referred to here was territory directly belonging to the Togashi family, hence Daizenji, which had been a Zen temple affiliate, was donated as a Shinshū dōjō in order to venerate the Togashi family. Hence the Honganji faithful had created close ties with the shugo. In the aftermath of Chōkyō 2, the shugo, jizamurai, and villagers continued to engage in acts of territorial invasion of property belonging to temples and aristocrats. The territory of Fukuda shō, belonging to Kitano-gū was an important piece of land, yet in the first year of Entoku (1489), it was invaded by Shikichi Hikouei`mon Jō (敷地彦右衛門尉). This Shikichi belonged to the Shikichi family from Ganshō Ishibe Jinja (菅生石部神社), while in reference to Hikoei`mon himself…「加賀国福田庄・管波郷惣領地頭兼菅生神社主狩野彦五郎頼広」(元弘三年六月二十五日藤原頼広着到状、狩野文書). Hikouei`mon was therefore most likely a successor to Karuno Iga Nyūdō who had been forced to commit seppuku in the Shirayama Haiden in Bunmei 6 (378).

In order to counter this development, the Bakufu sent orders to Chika Izu no Kami, Shibayama Kurō Saei`mon Jō and the head of Kumazaka shōen (belonging to Tōfukuji) ordering them to cooperate with one another. In relation to 「当所名主沙汰人等中」, the Bakufu stated that 「年貢諸公事以下、如先々可致其沙汰。若有彼押領人同意族者、可被処其罪由」(北野神社長享三年引付). The Chika(千秋) family were fee collectors (tansen) on Kumazaka shōen 「康正二年造内裏段銭国役引付」(群書類従 雑部)and served as its jitō, however Izu no Kami was the same Izu no Kami that had carried out a property invasion while daikan of Yokokita shōen. Shibayama Kurō Saei`mon Jō had carried out a property invasion of Tomizuka (富墓) shōen in Enuma gun, part of the territory of Kitano-gū, during the same year the Bakufu had released the above missive (北野神社長享三年引付).

In sum, those who committed property invasions in the past were now being told to combine their forces to prevent property invasions (a policy not likely to produce positive results). What is more, it appears that myōshu and satajin were in favour property invasions. Those hyakushō shū of Monto followers who refused to pay tithes were now seen in the same light by property owners as jitō and daikan who committed property invasions. How this trend emerged can be seen through documents related to Tomizuka shōen: (378) as follows:

一、先日申付候竹内殿御領 冨墓庄依超勝寺違乱、不入手御手候間重而折紙所望候

竹内殿御門跡領加州江沼郡富墓庄事、度々被仰下処、于今不事行云々。以外不可然。所詮早退押妨族、年貢諸公事物以下、如先規、可致其沙汰御門跡上使。聊(いささか)不可有難渋旨堅被仰出候也。謹言。            (下間頼慶)
天文六年八月五日                 上野法橋
当所名主百姓中                   蓮秀 (花押)
(曼殊院文書 加能古文書 一二七二)(379)

天文九年八月廿三日                  盛 秀(花押)
当所名主百姓中                    為 時(花押)
(曼殊院文書 加能古文書 一二八九)(379)

天文拾弐九月廿二日                  盛 秀 在判
江沼郡組中                      貞 兼 在判
(曼殊院文書 加能古文書 一二九七)(379)

(天文日記 十ニ・十・九)(379)

従室町殿、就御台御料所芝山事、超勝寺違乱之儀御内書被成候也。杉原七郎晴盛持下也。超勝寺上洛之間可申付由候            (天文日記 十ニ・九・十九)(380)

杉原七郎へ、超勝寺放状柴山庄事向後不可存知由也遣之。(天文日記 十ニ・十・十)(380)

In short, Shibayama Yasushiki (康職) had caused disruption to both Tomizuka and Shibayama shōen while performing his duties for Chōshōji. At the same time, Shōnyo of Honganji, Shimotsuma Ueno, and the Bakufu had issued demands to the `myoshu・hyakushō chū`, and `kumi chū` of Tomizuka on behalf of Takeuchi Monseki, ordering them to cease withholding payment of tithes. By looking at this evidence, it appears that the both the Shibayama family and the hyakushō had taken the same stance. In the background to the property invasions by the Shibayama were the non-payment of tithes by myoshu-level peasants. If the authority of Honganji was not brought to bear in this situation, then it would be difficult to enforce any sort of payment (as the evidence suggests). On the 5th day of the 8th month of Chōkyō 3 (1489), the Bakufu wrote a missive to 頭代 of 山門本院北谷学, ordering him to cease his invasion of 摂津政親所領倉月庄内礒部二○町 (美吉文書). This property had been subject to an Ikkō shū property invasion in the past. Again, in Innami gō (忌波郷), ever since it had been donated by

                         義満      義政
Togashi Suke Masaie, 「自鹿苑院殿様至慈照院殿様、代々被成御判、百余年無相違当知行之処、園宰相家号雲門庵押領由、掠公儀、申賜御奉書、代官入部」(蔭涼軒日録 延徳二・十一・五 )(380)

In relation to this, Inryōken Shūshō (集証) stated that…「如何にも地下於堅可被拘事簡要候。以此旨地下江可被御聞候」. In sum, although this was a property invasion, Shūshō denied that it was an illegal act, for the 地下 were just, acted in the law, and were the driving force behind the property invasion. Here then lies the fundamental difference between 非法 acts committed by jitō during the Kamakura period and the 押領 and 違乱 of the late Muromachi era. The shugo Togashi Suke Masaie (昌家) carried out a number of property invasions of Ōura mura on Kuratsuki shōen and Karugano-ho (美吉文書 明応九・十・十三、永正二・十・十八幕府奉行人奉書・祗園社記 文亀三・九・二十三幕府奉行人奉書 「生源寺文書」玉寿書状) yet such acts were predominantly seen as property invasions being perpetrated by the Ikkō shū acting as shugo hikan. Yokokita Ryō Kebun (横北庄領家分 – that was the 大知院殿様御祈祷所) also saw things this way…「近年一向衆押領」(蔭領軒日録 延徳三・五・晦). The temple of Anrakukō-in eventually appointed Shimotsuma Raikei (頼慶) as daikan to its estate and ordered that he secure payment of tithes (守光公記 二) (380-381)

Sunozaki Keigaku, who had carried out a property invasion of Miyanogoshi (part of the territory of Rinsenji), this time invaded Kosaka shōen in order to press for the payment of tithes:
当庄三百石ト八十貫ト知行也。近来有名無実旨申。此庄京覚乱入、年貢共催促。百姓等迷惑旨参申。是併祐粱代官佐[毘]田所行之間、代官不可用云々。佐毘田申分ハ、百姓等所行云々。両方申只今糺明最中云々。  (大乗院寺社雑事記 明応四・二・十ニ)(381)

The western part (西方) of Kosaka shōen had been donated to Daijōin by the Nijō family, and it was where Keigaku`s (経覚) acolyte Jinjitsu (尋実) (小坂殿) resided. In relation to the affairs of `Fukuzuka shōen Kosaka shōen Nishi hō`, a letter had been sent to Rennyo at Yoshizaki from Jinson (大乗院寺社雑事記 文明七・六・十一). The daikan of Kosaka, Saita (佐[毘]田), was a jizamurai of Kahoku gun Nakajō mura Saita (才田). Honsenji Rengō opened Saita (崎田) Bō within this area, hence there is a very strong possibility that the above Saita (佐[毘]田) was tied to the `otona` of the Ishikawa gun Ikkō shū Keigaku (慶覚) through an association with Saita Bō. What is undeniable is that the daikan appears to have formed a bond with the hyakushō and seized the western part of Kosaka shōen. (381)

By looking at the circumstances at the local level, the Bakufu eventually ordered the Ikkō shū temples to continue administration of other temple and shrine territories in the provinces: (381)

七月五日                      基 雄 (花押)
松岡寺                        英 致 (花押)(381)
(生源寺文書 加能古文書 一一五九)(382)

In the intercalculary 9th month of the 11th year of Bunmei, when 土岐長沢治部少輔明長 placed 300 kanmon in the care of 加州大野村小中左衛門五郎, Kigoshi Kōtokuji and a Heitarō (平太郎) of Kanaura were sent to collect the money (親元日記 文明十三・五・二十八). Heitarō was an influential member of Monto within Kanaura, and in the 「天十物語」(富山県、道善寺蔵) it states that 「賢心様御山ヨリ御下向ニカナ浦へ御越候」, thereby showing that Kanaura was a focal point of Shinshu activity. Like Kigoshi Kōtokuji, Kanaura was officially under the rule of Hongakuji, however it obeyed the directives of the three temples of Kaga, hence the reason the Bakufu sent the order to desist in property invasions to Shōkōji. When Shōkōji was moved from Nomi gun Ikejiro (池城) to 波佐谷, it is unlikely that it began to engage in property invasions of Kahoku gun Kanaura, hence this was very much the work of the Ikkō shū of Kanaura. Thus in this manner, the gun and gō of Kaga were gradually brought under the control of the Ikkō shū, and this dynamic then spread to Etchū, Echizen, and Noto.(382)

The Eishō Ikki:

In the first year of Entoku (1489), the shogun Yoshihisa died while in camp at Ōmi Magari (鉤). In the following year, Yoshimasa passed away, and thus the title of shogun was handed to Yoshiki, the son of Ashikaga Yoshimi(視, one time claimant to the position of shogun). Yoshiki carried on the wishes of Yoshihisa and proceeded to quell both Rokkaku Takayori and Hatakeyama Yoshinari(義就). He was aided in this task by the Kanrei Hosokawa Masamoto and Hatakeyama Masanaga. However, in the 2nd year of Meiō (1493), Masamoto regarded the son of Ashikaga Masatomo (政知), Yoshitaka, as a better candidate for the title of shogun and thus betrayed Yoshiki. With the assistance of Hatakeyama Yoshitoyo, Masamoto killed Masanaga in Kawachi and hounded after Yoshiki`s supporters. Yoshiki himself first took refuge in Ryūanji, however with the assistance of Jinbō Naganobu (神保長誠), he managed to flee to Etchū. On the 27th day of the 5th month of same year (1493), Shiba Yoshihiro (Yoshitō), Akamatsu Masanori, and Kyōgoku Kimune declared their support for the Bakufu (meaning Yoshiki). Togashi Taneyasu (稙泰), upon hearing a rumour that the Bakufu had granted Kaga to Akamatsu (via an Andojō), secretly left the capital and returned to his province (後法興院記、蔭涼軒日録). In the following year (Meiō 3 – 1494), Yoshitaka was declared shogun. (387-388)

In the 8th month of Meiō 3, Yoshiki raised his banner in Etchū. The shugo of Kaga, Taneyasu, responded to this call, as did the leaders of the Ikkō shū Sunozaki Keigaku and Kawai Norihisa. In the 10th month of the same year, these forces advanced into Echizen in order to confront Asakura Sadakage who was in league with Rokkaku Takayori (the same Takayori whom Yoshiki had suppressed three years earlier). The `Daijōin Jisha Zatsujiki` (明応三・十・十五) recorded the combatants of the two sides in the following manner:

先陣後陣連間八里計賓(浜か)悉勢と申 (388)

Those troops who were challenging the Asakura were seen as rōnin of the Kai family, however it is more likely that these troops were in the service of Togashi Taneyasu (as Taneyasu would later receive a character from Yoshiki`s name, Yoshi, thus making him Togashi Yoshitane. Yoshiki had also called upon Shiba Yoshihiro to suppress the Asakura). According to a certain Yagorō (弥五郎) who had traveled to the capital from Kaga: (389)

越前事無為儀、越中事来三月ニ御延引、去月廿一日被上御幡(はた)了。大内参仕不一定云々。江州ハ六角方迷惑云々(大乗院寺社雑事記 明応三・十・二十一)

(義材)              (長誠)

With no reinforcements to aid them, the Kai forces` attack was blunted, a situation that the Asakura took advantage of, thus defeating the Kai and sending them back to Kaga:

越前国事、去月廿七日三乃国へ注進。甲斐方打入及合戦、朝倉方三百人打死。重而又合戦、甲斐方五百人打殺。甲斐名字二人被打、加賀国ニ引退了。朝倉方高名、持是院成祝了。(大乗院寺社雑事記 明応三・十一・六)

(大乗院寺社雑事記 明応三・十一・九)(389)

At this stage, what Hosokawa Masamoto feared most was the arrival in the capital of retainers of the western families of the Ōuchi, Kikuchi, Ōtomo, and Shimazu in response to Yoshiki`s call for support. An `ukebumi` to this end had arrived at the capital on the 20th day of the 7th month, and on the same day a messenger from the aristocratic families of the capital by the name of Tamura had been dispatched to Yoshiki (presumably with the news of the movement of the western lords). At the same time, a rumour was circulating about Akamatsu, ally to the Hosokawa, to the effect that 「癩病(らいびょう)之間、去月ヨリ美作之湯ニ罷入、近日自害之由」. (389)

At the same time, the Daijōin Zatsujiki recorded the following regarding Kawai Norihisa:

賀州一向宗長、川合他界、俄死。鏡(慶)覚ハ公方ニ参申」(大乗院寺社雑事記 明応四・八)(389).

The Kawai mentioned here was a leader of the Ikkō shū along the lines of Sunozaki Keigaku. In the 8th month of the 1st year of Bunshō (1466), when Ichijō Yasutoshi was chased from Echizen by members of the Asakura household, on the 2nd day of the following month the Daijōin Zatsujiki states that…

河井并加州之勢地下一統就推寄而、追出久侍者還住 (大乗院寺社雑事記 文正元・九・十) (389)

If the Kawai mentioned in the above passage was from the same clan as that mentioned in Meiō 4, then the Kawai had been an illustrious family in Kaga for some time. Apparently they derived from the area of Kawai belonging to Kawauchi mura in Ishikawa gun. In the wake of Kawai`s death, Keigaku had been `persuaded` to change his allegiances to the forces of Yoshitaka. In this development, we can see the machinations of Masamoto and his dealings with Honganji. Moreover, it is clear that the Honganji groups of faithful were not only now engaged in withdrawing from and seizing territory within Kaga, but they had developed to the point where they were becoming involved in a conflict that was shaking the foundations of central government. In choosing to support Yoshitaka, the Ikkō shū of Kaga and Echizen had made enemies of Nagao Yoshikage (能景) and Jinbō Naganobu, and now Asakura Sadakage and Rokkaku Takayori had allied themselves with Yoshiki. Yoshiki, with the Asakura on his side, moved into Ichijōtani castle in Echizen and indicated that he was planning to march on the capital.(390)

Hosokawa Masamoto was highly regarded by religious figures (his own father Katsumoto had thought of him as `a little priest`) and was famous for having performed the rites of succession for the Gokashiwara Emperor. He was a `protector` of Honganji, and well knew of the military potential of the Ikkō Ikki. Honganji for its parts greatly valued his protection, and both Rennyo and Jitsunyo had looked upon him as the re-incarnation of Shōtoku Taishi and the embodiment of Bōsatsu and Hachiman.(390)

This individual, regarded as more powerful than the shogun, in the 2nd year of Bunki (文亀) (1502) clashed with shogun Yoshizumi (Yoshitaka). In the 1st year of Eishō (1504), Masamoto was betrayed by Akazawa Tomotsune, who together with Settsu no Kami Shugodai Yakushiji Motokazu, pledged their support for Masamoto`s adopted son Hosokawa Sumimoto. It certainly looked as though Masamoto was finished.(390)
At this time, the former shogun Yoshiki had left Echizen and was planning to make his way through Ōmi and on to the capital. However he was defeated in Ōmi and was forced to flee to Suo.(390)

Up until this stage, the Asakura had been a sworn enemy of the Hosokawa. However, Asakura Motokage, and the son-in-law of Asakura Sadakage, Kagetoyo, declared their support for Masamoto which set off an inter-family dispute with Sadakage. In the 3rd year of Bunki (1503), Asakura Norikage (Sōteki) deserted Motokage and pledged his support for Sadakage. As a result, Kagetoyo was forced to flee and was eventually killed at Suruga.(390)

Motokage, having fled Echizen, first traveled to Ōmi and then on to Hida before arriving in Kaga. Here he joined forces with Shiba Yoshiro and the Kaga Ikki, and then in the 7th month of the first year of Eishō (1504) invaded Echizen at Tsubo Egami Gō (坪江上郷):

不断光院慶乗自越前上洛、相語云、朝倉孫五郎以下牢人衆自加賀口七月始ヨリ入、越前国三寸尾(みそのをと)云所ニ 取陣。其勢五千余云々。越前国中五里許責入云々。於合戦者、未甲斐々々無之云々。越前国者、六日以来相続十日許地震不休云々。如先年大地震。
(後法興院記 永正元・八・二十二)(Continuous earthquakes in Echizen, following on from a large earthquake the year before) (390)

Sadakage, with the assistance of Norikage, defeated this force, thus once again forcing Motokage to flee. Motokage eventually made his way to the Saitō residence in Noto Haruki, where he died in the following year (朝倉始末記). This victory unified the Asakura household under the authority of Sadakage, and strengthened their control over the entire province of Echizen.(391)

In the 2nd year of Eishō, Hatakeyama Yoshihide, who had been a strong supporter of Masamoto`s military endeavours, decided to make a truce with his (former) enemy (and cousin) Hatakeyama Hisayori and pledged his support to Yoshiki. For Masamoto, this meant that Yoshihide, who was lord of Kawachi Takaya castle, was now his enemy, thus placing him in a predicament. In order to seize the moment, Masamoto penned a request to Jitsunyo asking for the assistance of the Monto of Settsu and Kawachi, whom he wanted to assemble at Yoden (Yoda) (誉田城) castle. Unable to refuse, Jitsunyo gave his consent to this action, yet the Monto of Settsu and Kawachi refused to move. This defiance clearly irritated Jitsunyo (made evident by subsequent actions by Honganji against Kawachi and Settsu), however the Monto of Kaga, who were clear supporters of Masamoto, raised around 1,000 troops in response to Jitsunyo`s order and pledged to perform whatever duties were required of them. (実悟記). (391)

At the same time, the priests of Kawachi and Settsu, together with the Monto shū, voiced their opposition, stating that `As we have never previously performed such a service, we have no weapons, so why are we suddenly being called upon (now)? Since the time of the Shinran, our sect has never done such a thing` (実悟記 蓮如上人行実 四五八). As explained by Prof Inoue, the Hosokawa and Hatakeyama were both shugo of Settsu and Kawachi and held close ties to the Ikkō shū of those provinces. Again, Rennyo`s `beloved son` Jikken (実賢) had inherited the position of head of the Osaka Bō. After consulation with others, he signed a response to Jitsunyo`s missive, saying that `(it is a request) that has never before been countenanced since the time of Shinran`, thereby denying Jitsunyo aid from both provinces.(391)

At this point, the Jitsugo Ki continues:
同太方殿・同御料人いちやく~・左衛門督未児之時大坂殿をば御退候(実悟記 蓮如上人行実 四五八)(391)

Hatakeyama Owari no Kami (Hisayori) appears to have contributed to Jikken`s establishment as the head of Osaka Bō, thus the actions of Osaka Bō were greatly influenced by both Hatakeyama Hisayori and the Noto shugo Hatakeyama Yoshimoto (蓮能実家) (who was tied through fealty to Hisayori). There were no voices of discontent against Jikken himself, however Honganji decided that the priests of Osaka Bō had been responsible for engaging in `malicious deeds` (曲事), hence 56 of these priests were excommunicated. Neither Jikken nor his mother Rennō-ni were allowed to stay in Osaka, and neither were they given permission to reside in Kyoto. Hence for three years they wandered throughout the Kinai (after being forced to relinquish residence in the Osaka Bō). In the end, Jikken reached an agreement with Jitsunyo, where he was allowed to reside at the southern end of the Yamashina Gobō complex with his mother. After Rennō-ni passed away in the 15th year of Eishō (1518), Jikken moved to Katada Shinzaike Gobō (in 1519), which was renamed Shōtokuji. Osaka Bō was renamed Kyōonin and became a `retirement` residence for Jitsunyo. The Sakai Gobō that Jikken had inherited from Rennyo was passed on to Jitsuju (実従).(392)

What these developments show is that there was definitely a divide amongst the Ichimon between those sons born of Rennō-ni and those of Renyū (daughter of Ise Sadafusa), such as Jitsunyo and Renjun. (392)

So why did Honganji Jitsunyo decide to throw in his lot with Masamoto? Obviously the `Osaka Ichiran – 大坂一乱` and the `Yodenjō Jintachi 誉田城陣立` had been the tip of the iceberg, and it had become quite clear that the fate of Honganji, centered as it was on the northern provinces, was now intertwined with the actions of Masamoto. Although the assembly of an armed force at Yoden castle had been in response to a request from Masamoto, in the provinces of Echigo, Noto, Etchū, and Echizen, conflict between groups of faithful and shugo forces had become unavoidable. In the 8th year of Tenshō (1580), Jitsugo of Ganshōji recorded the following:

蓮如上人御七年は隣国にて各上洛申、ありがたく候き。八年に成候明の年は錯乱出来候。それは永正三年也。越前国一揆おこり候。河内国錯乱いでき。それに大坂には兄にて候宰相実賢住持候つるが、不慮の申事出来、大坂五人坊主以下牢人の事に候つる。其砌以来当宗御門弟の坊主衆以下具足かけ始めたる事にて候。(本願寺作法之次第 蓮如上人行実 六六九)(392)

As far as Jitsugo was concerned, the 大坂一乱, 河内錯乱, and 越前国一揆 were all part of the same historical phenomenon, and he saw this period as the start of armed uprisings by members of the Honganji faithful. He describes each individual action using the phrase `出来`, although we do not know if each were performed under instructions from Jitsunyo. Yet each event was alike, and was either related to a development in the secular power of the Honganji faithful or an attempt to stifle that power. This not only involved the Echizen Ikki, but also those events in Noto and Etchū. It is difficult to believe that Jitsunyo would have remained nonchalant and unconcerned with the growth of the Honganji groups through such action at this time. (393)

In the past, and certainly in the aftermath of the Ōnin War, the Ikkō Ikki had been influenced by fighting amongst groups of warriors, yet on this occasion the Honganji group of faithful themselves were directly facing off against the power of a shugo (the reader is meant to draw a conclusion here. The uprising of Chōkyō 2 was warrior based, whereas the events in Eishō involved the entire Honganji institution. However the difference is difficult to judge). At any rate, Prof Inoue judges this to be emergence of a true Ikkō Ikki. The 東寺光明講過去帳 〔越佐史料〕states that the conflict between Masamoto, Honganji, Yoshiki, and Hatakeyama involved the entire Kinki and central region:


In the 2nd month of 3rd year of Eishō, Jitsunyo sent letters to Etchū Dosan Shōkōji and Hida Shirakawa Shōrenji in an attempt to shore up their fealty and make preparations (for an upcoming conflict). By the 3rd month of the same year, Honganji Monto uprisings were occuring in Etchū and Echizen. These particular uprisings were a result of orders from Honganji:
かみの   摂津    王
近松殿御内衆佐久良九郎左衛門尉宗久ウチ死ニス (本福寺跡書)(393)

The shū from Settsu and Ōmi had raised a total of 300 men. The reason for the uprising by the Tennōji shū was related to the actions of the shugodai of Echigo, Nagao Yoshikage. In the 6th year of Meiō (1497) he had abolished the right of merchants from Tennōji to be exempt from toll taxes (毛利安田家文書). At the same time, Rengo (蓮悟), the head of Wakamatsu Honsenji which led the faithful in the northern provinces, issued the following missive urging (if not demanding) members of the Monto to participate in uprisings:

(熱)    (上)
(度)            (遂 給)          (類)

 (潰)                                       (蒙)



三月十六日                   蓮 悟(花押)
志人数衆中                 (浦賀「乗誓寺文書」)(394)

The sum total of the message was to apply oneself `to the burning flame`. The Monto that had been subjugated and humiliated would be merciless, and would give their lives gladly in order to receive the grace and blessings of Amida. It was a provocative message meant to inflame the passions of the Monto. This document was (for many years) thought to have been the work of Rennyo and was included within the 「相州文書」. Yet as Prof Tsuji Kinosuke revealed, the signature resembled that of Rennyo but was not the same, and thus concluded that it was in all likelihood Rengo`s. Indeed, a document stored within Jōseiji can be read as having belonged to Rengo. From ages past, Jōseiji had been a waystation (or `watari` 渡り) to the Kanto region, and it was through this temple that Rengo`s missive had traveled to the eastern provinces.(395)

As a result of Echizen Ikki, those priestly leaders of the Honganji temples of Ōshio (Ōjiho 王子保) Enkyūji, Arakawa Kogyōji, Ishida Seikōji, and Hisami (久未) Shōgenji were arrested and expelled from the northern provinces. Nagao Yoshikage, at the request of the shugo of Etchū, Hatakeyama Hisayori, made clear his intention to crush the Etchū Monto and returned to his province (all the while rumours persisted that he would then invade Kaga). (395)

(内) (形)
河合両屋戒可為無為云々。珍重々々。    (大乗院寺社雑事記 永正三・四・五)(396)

The `両屋形` referred to here, if 河合 is in fact 河内, are the two principal members of the Hatakeyama family. According to the 石川県史, the above passage refers to Togashi Taneyasu and his eldest son Yasutoshi. There is probably no need to consider Akamatsu Masanori (who received Kaga in return for services via an Andojō in Meiō 2) as a candidate for the expression `屋形`, however the expression itself does point towards a shugo. Hence the 両屋形 were probably Hatakeyama Hisayori and Yoshihide, and weren`t the father and son members of the Togashi family.(396)

It is not immediately clear why the Uesugi and Nagao of Echigo became involved in punishment of the Ikkō sect. Echigo had been one of areas in which Shinran had resided, and was the focalpoint for a number of the earliest incarnations of the Ikkō shū, intertwined as they were with practices of Shūgendō, Zenkōji beliefs, Taishi beliefs, and Tendai Fudan Nembutsu practices. What evidence Prof Inoue then presents with regard to this area mostly deals with the movements of the Gojūarashi family (五十嵐) of Shokunimachi Narasawa. In the 3rd year of Eishō, those Ikkō shū affiliated families of Gojūarashi, Ishida, and Ōsuga on the Etchū Echigo border answered the call of the Ikkō Ikki in Etchū, which is why they became the focus of a crackdown led by Tamekage (successor to Yoshikage). On the 15th day of the 11th month of Eishō 3, a number of swords were sent by the Hatakeyama to 28 samurai within Echigo, a majority of whom were influential retainers under the Uesugi. Although Nagao Yoshikage had been killed fighting against the Ikkō sect, the defeat and subjugation of the `treacherous` Gojūarashi had been worthy of celebration.(397)

At this point, it would be worth pointing out that many regional families of repute in Echigo were tied to the Ikkō sect. On the occasion of Tamekage`s release on an order banning the sect within the province (in the 2nd month of Eishō 18), the Uesugi records state that 「於許容領主者、可被改其所事」(上杉家文書).(398)
The ban on the Ikkō sect that Tamekage released in Eishō 18 「無碍光宗、任高岳御下知、未代被払之事」was based on proscriptions against the sect that Nagao Yoshikage had introduced during the Meiō era (as stated by Rengo…数年長尾に申合られ) (蓮悟書状). At this time, Uesugi Fusayoshi (房能) inherited the position of shugo of Echigo from his father, Fusasada (房定). In the 7th year of Meiō (1498), Fusayoshi abolished the priviledge of (郡司不入) and embarked on a series of measures aimed at bringing the kokujin of the province further under his control.(399)

The visit to Echigo by Rennyo in the 1st year of Hōtoku (1449) was probably responsible for the latter growth of the Shinshū sect in that region. The conversion of regional families like the Mitsuyoshi (三善) in areas such as Kubishiro (頸城) meant, however, that they could combine their forces with other Ikkō shū devotees in other provinces. This in itself was a threat to the Uesugi`s control over Echigo. What is more, the Ikkō shū in Etchū had certainly been used by their fellow believers in Echigo. In Etchū itself, while the eastern part of the province belonged to the Shina family (椎名), the central region belonged to the Jinbō family of Toyama, and parts of the western region were controlled by the Yūsa family, a majority of the west and the southern region was in the hands of the Ikkō shū, who were in the process of invading the central `gun`. This situation is the reason behind the ban issued by the Nagao against the Ikkō shū in Echigo, and the measures taken by the Nagao together with Hatakeyama Yoshimoto to quell the Etchū Monto.(399)

In the 3rd month of Eishō 3, however, the Ikkō Ikki of Etchū managed to drive the `kuni samurai` of Etchū out of the province. This then became the reason for Nagao Yoshikage`s counter-attack against the Ikkō shū. The 「尚通公記」(永正三・四・十六および十八)stated events as thus…

「越中本所領渡由、有其沙汰」 and 「越中国如加州、一向衆等相計云々。寺社本所領如形可返付之由有其沙汰」(399)

The 史料綜覧(そうらん)put things like so:

越中一向宗徒、侵奪スル所ノ地ヲ其主ニ還サンコトヲ請フ。幕府、公家及ビ寺社ニ令シテ之ヲメシム  (although in this case, the invasion was carried out by kuni samurai, not the Ikkō shū).(399)

Until this point, the Ikkō shū had either been appointed as overseers to temple and shrine lands (in other words, kokujin affiliated with the Ikkō shū had been appointed as daikan), or as a result of receiving a missive had taken over the administration of entire shōen. With the breakdown in the shōen system and the rise of united village organizations, orders from distant provinces had little to no effect, and the desire for direct administration of land by aristocratic families and temples was a wish that had no chance of being fulfilled: (399)

As the following diary entry illustrates, a letter from Sonkai (尊海) to Sanetaka (実隆) reveals what the situation was for aristocratic holdings in the northern provinces:
(実隆公記 永正三・六・三十裏)

依無差事、此間不申入候。背本意存候。抑今度越中一変、不思議之題目候。門跡領等大略可有御還著分候。時刻到来、有其憑様に候。乍去、御到来時ならてハ、不可為治定候。次能州以同事候。相応院門跡知行分当国に候をハ、正体なき候人候て、悉放券しハ(果)て候。園国知行ハ有名無実にて候。然而能州少分御領候間、只今此砌、自然事行事もや候へき。彼方へ罷下候者にことつけ候て、可申驚之由存候。あまりに無証拠に候へハ、如何に候。元来門跡御管領左右に不能事に候へ共、内々被経 奉聞、勅裁一紙申請度候。当国御知行なとも、又ハりうけんからにて、御耳に入事もあるへき事にて候歟。尊海恐惶謹言。
六月廿一日                    尊 海 (399-400)

From the use of the phrases 「能州以同事候」and 「能州少分御領」, we can see that what was occurring in Etchū was occurring elsewhere in the Hokuriku. To quote from the Daijōin Jisha Zatsujiki:

諸国土一キ(揆)発。珍事云々。但一道(北陸道)也 (大乗院寺社雑事記 永正三・七・二十六)(400)

For the Doi (土肥) family who served as daikan of Rokuō-in, Aratagawa gun, the uprisings had caused the peasantry to flee into the mountains thus leaving the fields barren, as the records for the temple state:

一揆乱以来不作と申、帳も失候間、御公用以下一向不納候 (鹿王院文書 永正三・十一・十一 常仙書状)(400)

Rural society was thus split between those Kenmon temples (Honganji included) who criticized the invasion of property by daikan, and those living in rural areas that moved with the times. As a result of invasions by warriors, shōen tithes could not be paid by peasants to aristocratic families (who clamoured for such payments). The Eishō Ikki was thus not simply a question of fighting between shugo and kokujin over political authority, yet was a dramatic upheaval that was changing the nature of society itself.(400)

The Ikkō Ikki of Etchū, having suffered a defeat at the hands of the Nagao, swept out of their province and into Echizen to support their breatheren against the Asakura. At the same time, the Kaga Ikki, fearing being caught in a pincer attack from the Nagao and the Asakura, decided to go on the attack, instead trying to trap the Asakura in a pincer attack of their own launched from the upper and lower regions of the border. According to the 朝倉始末記, Kaza no Oshiō Manji Myōshu, a priest of the Takada sect, heard of the invasion of Echizen by the Honganji Ikki, and quickly rode to Honryūin located at Owada. He explained to Jūji (住持) Masataka (the head of the Takada temple) that this conflict was between the Takada and Honganji sects. He stated that the Takada temples were different to the newly established affiliate temples of Honganji, and that these Takada temples were the true descendents of warriors that had served Shinran. This speech apparently convinced Masataka to pledge both himself and other Takada temples within Echizen to the service of the Asakura army.(400-401)

The fighting reach a climax on the 2nd day of the 8th month (of Eishō 3) at the battle of Kuzuryūgawa (九頭竜川). This battle saw the forces of Zuisenji and Shōkōki from Etchū, Kurose, Kosugi, Ishiguro, Sunozaki, and Kaburaki (鏑木) and Kigoshi Kōtokuji from Kaga, Ichinomiya priests and Kijirō of Suzu no Gozaki from Noto, together with forces from Chōshōji, Hongakuji, Hosono Aku Mototsugu and various rōnin from Echizen (representing the Ikki) against the Asakura, the Takada sect, and the Kanemaki Shōzōbō.(401) On the 6th day of the 8th month the ferocious battle came to an end with the retreat of the Honganji Monto. Asakura Sadakage and Norikage then proceeded to destroy places such as the Yoshizaki Gobō and other affiliated Honganji temples, as well as expel Monto members from the province and seize their assets. The Monto from Hongakuji and Chōshōji fled back to Kaga, while the Ōmi shū (近江衆) that had invaded Echizen from Kami no guchi found that their route of retreat had been cut off. It was only through the intervention of Myōshū of Katata Honpukuji, responding to a plea from Jitsunyo, that the Ōmi shū were saved (as recorded by the本福寺跡書)                           (加賀衆)       (仕崩)         (西 組) (玄任)(打)
(天王寺衆)  (場)
(調法)                      (ママ)        

(十カ)      (船)

(退 離)

ノセタリ。           (本福寺跡書)(401-402)

As the 朝倉始末記 and the 朝倉宗滴話記 record, the Kaga Ikkō Monto was defeated at Kuzuryūgawa and fled to Etchū. Nagao Yoshikage, who had already invaded Etchū to surpress the Monto, met an Ikki force at Rentaiji on the 18th day of the 8th month, defeated it, and proceeded to head westwards. However, of the 15th day of the previous month, Hosokawa Masamoto had been at Yamashina Honganji urging that Honganji spread it forces further towards the eastern provinces. Yet on the following day, the shogun Yoshizumi visited Yamashina and made a truce with Masamoto, thus allowing him to return to Kyoto. This truce removed the difficult relationship that had existed between the shogun and Masamoto. However the events in Etchū still continued. A combined army of Jinbō, Yūsa, and Nagao was involved in a life or death struggle against the Monto of the northern provinces. On the 19th day of the 9th month at the battle of Seritani (芹谷) (富山県般若野村), the Echigo force was defeated, and Nagao Yoshikage was killed in battle. This was reported by Sanjō Nishi Sanetaka in the following diary entry:

(実隆公記 永正三・十・二十一)(402)  And in the following manner by other diarists and officials:

永正参年閏十一月廿六日                房 能(花押)
水原禰々(ねね)松女    (反町十郎氏所蔵文書)(403)


永正三                                遊佐新右衛門尉
九月廿六日                       慶 親 (花押)
「於越後山之下書之」                       (護国八幡宮文書)(403-404)

According to these sources, as Yoshikage had been killed on the 19th, the force from Echigo, together with that of Yūsa Yoshichika, had returned to Echigo on the 26th. The phrase 越後山之下 probably referred to the castle below Mt. Kasuga. However, the theory that Yoshikage had been killed at Hasunuma emerged because Yūsa Yoshichika`s `letter of gratitude` contained incorrect information. As Nagao Tamekage explained in later years regarding the loss in Etchū:
(尚順)                           (迄)

This document tells us that there was a lack of cooperation among members of the Echigo force, with particular blame being placed on Jinbō Yoshimune. Afterwards Yoshimune, together with the Ikkō Ikki, would become the target of Nagao Tamekage`s campaign of suppression. This tells us that the power of the Ikkō sect had spread from the western gun to the centre of the province, and that it was encroaching on the eastern territory of the Shina family, as it indicates that calls for assistance had gone out to members of the Monto in the Kubishiro region.(404)

Overall, although the Ikkō Ikki had lost control of Echizen, it had managed to expel Nagao Yoshikage and secure (for a brief time) control over Etchū and Noto. The person responsible for all of this chaos, Jitsunyo, urged the fealty of the priests of Etchū and clamoured for the need for defensive measures:

十一月十五日                実 如 (花押)

下 源
頼 慶 (花押)
十一月十五日                下 丹
頼 玄 (花押)
越中四郡中   (松雲公採集遺編類纂(さん)「北国鎮定書礼類」金沢市立図書館蔵)(404-405)

The 若松殿様 referred to in the above documents was Kaga Wakamatsu Honsenji Rengo. Apparently he had been the driving force behind the Ikki within the northern provinces, and had been involved in strategy against the three forces of Nagao, Hatakeyama, and Asakura. The fate of the Etchū Monto thus rested with Rengo. (405)

The disorder of Kyōroku

The standoff of the Daishō Ikki

The disorder of the 4th year of Kyōroku (1531), known as the Daishō Ikki, in which Honganji faced off against the three temples of Kaga, has until recently been treated as merely a local incident in spite of the wealth of sources available for it, and has thus been cut off from the mainstream of Ikkō Ikki studies and produced little by way of research. When compared to the Chōkyō Ikki, Mikawa Ikkō Shū Ran, and the Battle of Ishiyama, clearly the Daishō Ikki has fallen behind in terms of interest. In order to resolve this situation, one must at the very least correctly grasp the course of political events behind this disturbance, and then attach meaning to its social and economic aspects (in that order). As such, this chapter approaches this large-scale yet forgotten disturbance with an eye to re-evaluating it on a national scale. It will demonstrate the paths taken by the various factions and their relationships and hopefully will lead to new light being shed on the basis for the Ikkō Ikki. (434)

The various sources that touch upon the Kyōroku disturbance do not agree on which side was known as the `Dai Ikki` and which bore the name `Shō Ikki`. Those sources which describe Honganji as the `Dai Ikki` are predominantly made up of war tales, such as the 「朝倉始末記」and the 「加越闘争記」. This seems perfectly reasonable, however those sources which derive from the 「越登始末記」take the opposite view. The former edition of the 石川県史 was based on this latter view, however the reprint follows the 朝倉始末記・加越闘争記 line. In any case, it isn`t a particularly meaningful dispute, hence this study will follow the lead of one of the most influential post-Meiji historical scholars, Tsuji Zennosuke (善之助) and his work (日本仏教史 中世篇之五), in which Honganji is described as the `Dai Ikki` and the forces of Wakamatsu are described as the `Shō Ikki`. (435)

The oldest and most influential of the theories surrounding the origins of the divisions that occurred during the Daishō Ikki is found in the 加越闘争記, which tells of a desire by Shimotsuma Chikuzen and his brother Bichū for land. To borrow the expressions used within this popular work of history…「飽くまで驕(おごる)を極めて大樹の御相伴衆に成りけるが、猶大官高位をのぞみ、天下の武士を責亡して本願寺の聖人を国主とし、我身は将軍と成るべしと思う企あり」「先つ゛賀州に下着して三山の大坊主・四郡の傳(おとな)どもに此事を内談」. In response to the revolt by otona of the four gun and the three temples, the Shimotsuma raised troops and advanced as far as Hasa(se)tani (波佐谷), where they set fire to the 上法印御房 and killed those defending it. They set their sights on the Wakamatsu Bō, first attacking the Yamada Bō in Enuma gun (where they encountered and fought the Asakura (加越闘争記). This tale bares many traces of the influence of later generations and cannot be trusted at its word, particularly if one examines the events both before and after the outbreak of hostilities, however the main argument is consistent with the 「反故裏書」and 「今古独語」of 山田光教寺顕誓, and the 「拾塵記」of 清沢願得寺実悟. The problem lies in the records made by these relatives of the head priests of the three temples, who state that the conflict began as a result of the `disloyalty` displayed by Jikken of Chōshōji and the Shimotsuma brothers of Chikuzen and Bichū (反故裏書). From the outset of the Kyōroku period, Shimotsuma Chikuzen had been entrusted with rule over territories in Kaga:


越中ノ諸侍神保・椎名領中マデソノ望ヲナス族出ル。コレニヨテ隣国ノ武士イヨイヨアヤフミヲナシ、諸州穏ナラス。コノ旨加州ノ老者心ヲ同クシテ、本寺ヘソノ嘆ヲナシ奉ルト雖モ、却テ本寺違背ニトリナサレ、悪徒ノ讒訴アヒカサナリ、執奏(ジッソ)ノ人コレナシ (今古独語). With this in mind, we can critically examine and establish the truth behind these historical documents. (435-436)

From the beginning, it is quite obvious that there are some problems with the sources, seeing as they were derived from the memoirs of their authors and only completed after time and the incidents themselves had passed. The author of the 本願寺通紀, who drew upon the 今古独語 in order to convey the events of the Daishō Ikki, himself confessed that he could not understand Kensei`s (顕誓) logic, remarking that…「原文稍(やや)難読、賢者察之」. Hence it was only to be expected that he could not understand Kensei`s position. However, both the records of Kensei and Jitsugo are highly valued as historical works, and the content of the 今古独語 does match that of the 白山宮荘厳講中記録, whose editor believed the cause of the conflict to be 「依本願寺下知之悪」. The content of the 反故裏書, which states that:


This also reflected in the records for countless numbers of shōen.(436)

Yet rather than taking the records at face value, there is a need to interpret the reasons why certain `facts` were chosen over others. We must examine the `evils` of the victorious side as described by those who lost, and the conclusions reached condemning the Shimotsuma, Chōshōji and Hongakuji whilst praising the peaceful stance of the three temples of Kaga. There are, for example, a number of contradictions in the logic and the facts present in Kensei`s memoir. Five siblings (Renjun, Rengo, Renkei, Kensei, and Jitsuen) apparently joined together to critize the actions of Chikuzen and Jikken, yet Honshūji (本宗寺) Jitsuen (実円) is recorded as having traveled together with Shimotsuma Raisei (頼盛) (Chikuzen) to Kaga. Furthermore, Jitsugen (実玄) of Shōkōji (勝興寺) was originally in favour of the stance taken by the five siblings, yet is recorded as having deserted the three temples as a result of `nefarious mascinations`. If so, why do Jitsuen, Jitsugen, and Jikken (実顕) later come to offer thanks to Kinshōbō (近松坊) Renjun? (436)

In addition, the otona of Kaga had, ever since receiving Jitsunyo`s 「御遺言ノスチメ」, supported the young head of the sect and would have been able to decide on Honganji`s policies, so why would they have turned their backs on Honganji? Were they really expelled as a result of the schemes of the Shimotsuma and Jikken? Who was responsible for the decisions taken by Honganji? These are questions that still remain to be answered. (436)

In order to evaluate the historical significance of the 反故裏書 and the 今古独語, when one looks at the positions taken by the author and the unique characteristics of his writings, the following points emerge. In sum, although the 今古独語 was completed on the 22nd day of the 12th month of Eiroku 10 (1567) and the 反故裏書 was completed on the 18th day of the 6th month of Eiroku 11, there are some notable differences in the attitude and stance taken by Kensei:
(1) At the end of the Sengoku era, Honganji was gradually caught up within the power politics of the Uesugi, Takeda, Oda, Tokugawa, Asai, and Asakura, hence the right to ownership of a shōen was, by this time, an outdated concept. Kensei`s position, in which he hopes for a peaceful resolution of conflict between warriors and aristocrats and the intervention of the capital, was more suited to Jitsunyo`s time, and thus is an anachronism.
(2) In the 10th month of Eiroku 10, Kensei was confined to his quarters by Kennyo (顕如) for violating the rules of the sect. It was during this time that both records were written.
(3) In the period in which both records were written, the Mikawa Ikki had been suppressed, a truce had been metered out between Kaga and Echizen by Shimotsuma Rairyō (頼良), as a result of the flight of Kyōhō (教芳) from Chōshōji the scheming of the various gun had come to an end, in sum the conflict that had marked previous years was in remission.
(4) The pardon issued to Kensei for the Shō Ikki was a result of Renjun`s last will and testament.
(5) After receiving his pardon in the middle of the 12th month of Tenbun 19 (1550), as a result of his familial relations with 実妹妙祐, Kensei was allowed to reside in Hontokuji (本徳寺) in Aga located in Harima province. This was also the residence of Jitsuen (実円).
(6) The Shimotsuma brothers, who supposedly caused the dispute, were excommunicated in Tenbun 4 (1535) and were subsequently put to death. This removed one of the important links to Chōshōji Jikken, Keijuin (慶寿院), Shōnyo (証如), and Renjun. (437)

To further evaluate the 反故裏書 as a historical source, a number of important aspects must be unearthed for analysis:

(1) Keisei `praised` (讃嘆さんたん) Rennyo`s advocacy of the Ōbō and Jitsunyo`s pacifism.
(2) Keisei displayed a hanging scroll depicting Renjō (蓮乗), and although he was a son of Rensei (蓮誓), he conducted services every month in memory of Renjō and held close ties to Renjō`s temple of Wakamatsu Honsenji. On the other hand, Kensei`s brother, Jitsugen of Shōgyōji, did not display a picture of Renjō, and railed against Honsenji, stating that 「本泉寺へモ疎遠ノ儀ハ愚存ニハ不審オホキ事也」(437)
(3) Keisei referred to Kenyū (兼祐) and Kengen (兼玄) in respectful terms, such as 「親シクナレムツヒ侍ル」, as the daughter of Kengen (who was in charge of Shōkōji (松岡寺) was Myōshōni (妙照尼), who was Keisei`s mother-in-law.(438)
(4) Keisei was particularly scathing in his remarks directed against the Ichimon of Chōshōji, but was full of high praise for Honrenji (本蓮寺) and Zuisenji (although Honrenji was itself was an Chōshōji Ichimon temple).(438)

What all of the above information states is that Keisei was in favour of Wakamatsu Bō and Shōkōji, and that Jitsugen (実玄) of Shōgyōji (勝興寺) had distanced himself from the three temples faction. To cut a long story short, the content of the反故裏書 does indeed verify the events of the disorder of Kyōroku. What it also does is paint the Shimotsuma brothers as the culprits of the disorder based on Keisei`s own emotional and political stance. (439)

At the time of the outbreak of the disorder of Kyōroku, Shōnyo was a youth of 16 years (or in the Japanese system, fully 15 years). Yet did his youth meant that he had a fair degree of dependence upon the three temples of Kaga and upon the otona shū of the four gō, whilst also controlling the Shimotsuma brothers? Such was the political atmosphere within Honganji that it is not easy to outline why Shōnyo would have undergone a complete change in his political stance. Furthermore, only a few months had passed after the suppression of the three temples before both brothers were excommunicated by Honganji and then tracked down and killed. Hence one cannot ignore the fact that during this time Shōnyo must have grown in political tact whilst the Shimotsuma had plotted against him. If Shōnyo did not possess this degree of wisdom, who had acted on his behalf to suppress the three temples of Kaga and villanized the Shimotsuma? These questions in themselves still remain unsolved.(440)

Previously, Prof Inoue explained the events of the Daishō Ikki by pointing out the ties between those Daibōzu (heads of prominent temples) who possessed daimyo-esque levels of influence and the power of the gun and gumi who were directly under the leadership of Honganji, Chōshōji, and Hongakuji. He had also pointed out the power of the Daibōzu, which had previously played an intermediary role between Honganji and the Monto, and secured for Honganji the right of authority during the disagreement between the three temples and Chōshōji and Hongakuji. The developments of the time show that five sons of Rennyo played an important role in bringing about the standoff between the main temple and its branches, that Renjun (蓮淳) and Jitsuen were opposed to the three temples of Kaga, and that Renjun, as Shōnyo`s grandfather (from his mother`s side), played a large role in laying the groundwork for the outbreak of hostilities.(440)

Prof Inoue also explained that the character of Chōshōji was influenced by the rōnin of Echizen, and that the three temples of Kaga (under the authority of their prominent leaders) had brought about a standoff with the main temple.(440)  Prof Kitanishi Hiromi had a different theory. In his mind, there was a fundamental difference in the natures of both sides. Both clamoured for the support of the local Otona shū and Monto, and while Chōshōji and Hongakuji invaded properties in order to damage the right of ownership of temples and aristocrats and confer holding rights on middle to small sized myōshu, the three temples of Kaga had attempted to block the movements of the Monto, preserve the rights of ownership as they belonged to shōen ryōshu, and create closer ties between themselves and the regional peasantry by appropriating a title of myōshu such as that held by Kigoshi Kōtokuji. He thus believed that there was a `gap` between the religious and authoritarian natures of both sides.(441)

Prof Inoue was not convinced by this argument, noting that both the three temples of Kaga and Chōshōji・Hongakuji shared a common characteristic in that both sides consisted of significant heads of temples that were closely affiliated with Honganji, and that both sides possessed status as `daikan` for shōen estates and the position of myōshu. Furthermore, the Kokushū and Zaishoshū were confirmed by both sides, and there is no evidence to suggest that Chōshōji was any closer in sentiment to the Zaishoshū than the three temples were.(441) For example, the Monto shū and Bōzu shū were divided between both sides. Honrenji (本蓮寺), a Ichimon subsidiary of Chōshōji, and the Tochigawa (栃川) family of rōnin from Etchū were allied to the three temples of Kaga. Honkōji of Nōmi province, an ally of the three temples, held relations with the Karuminogō (軽海郷) and Yamanouchi shū. It is also not clear what type of actions Kigoshi Kōtokuji actually took as a myōshu, hence the evidence itself seems to be telling a different story to the theory put forward by Prof Kitanishi.(441) The evidence available for the period in question states quite objectively whether the securement of daikan positions come about as a result of illegal action or property invasions, and to what degree the kokushū were aligned with Chōshōji.(442)

Prof Kitanishi, in his analysis of the 反故裏書, explains the term 不義 as meaning an `invasion of the main estates`, and thus sees an inevitability in the clash with the kokushū. After the defeat of the three temples `who attempted to protect the integrity of the proscriptions (or okite)`, the religious organization that emerged `was not a devoted group of followers centered around religious precepts`. However, the kokujin Sunozaki, who belonged to the three temple faction, conducted property invasions of Miyanogoshi and Kosaka shōen, not to mention Taikai no gō in Etchū. Furthermore, Kigoshi Kōtokuji, which had close relations to Tsukihashi Ōmi no Kami (who was a relative of the Togashi family) and Wakamatsu Honsenji, which had close ties to Gaku Tango no Kami (額丹後守), had both been leaders during the Chōkyō ikki and the Eishō ikki. In the aftermath of the Chōkyō disturbances, orders issued from Honganji had been made without any contradictions regarding the existence of Chōshōji.(443)

Any claim that the stand off that occurred during the Daishō Ikki was because of a gap between the characters of Wakamatsu Bō and Chōshōji must pay particular attention to statements that declare that the regional ties of the three temples of Kaga were `predominantly political`. For the Honganji group, whose origins lay in the continuation of blood ties, such ties were important in deciding the firmness with which Honganji ruled over the Monto and the degree of prestige that came with different offices. The power relations within the Ikkeshū were, as Keisei stressed, measured by the familial ties between parent and child and between elder and younger members. (442)

Changes within Honganji

We have already seen how the three temples of Kaga had preserved a superior position to the locally established Hongakuji and Chōshōji and how they had been backed by the authority of Honganji. However, the 5th year of Daiei (1525) saw a number of events that would shake the Honganji organization, including the retirement of Rengō, the death of Rensei, and then the death of Jitsunyo. `Five illustrious brothers`, namely Renjun, Rengo, Renkei, Jitsuen, and Keisei, had all been appointed as guardians to the 12 year old Shōnyo. Amongst these brothers, Renjun was by far the eldest, and together with Rengo had been one of the `five wise brothers` that had attended to Rennyo on his deathbed. Renjun had organized and administered the Ichimon and Ikke systems whilst Jitsunyo was still alive, and had elevated the son of his daughter, Keijuin Chin`ei, to the position of head of the sect. As a grandfather to the young Shōnyo and father of Chin`ei, Renjun held the authority of Honganji in his hands. (443)

When one looks at the relationships that Renjun forged for his other daughters, we see that his eldest daughter, Myoshō (妙勝) became the wife of Jitsugen of Shōgyōji (勝興寺), his second daughter Senkō (杉向) became the wife of Jikken of Chōshōji. His third daughter, Hokkō (北向), became Keijuin Chin`ei and the wife of Ennyo (円如). This meant that Renjun had ties to Kinshō Kenshōji, Nagashima Ganshōji and Shōgyōji, as well as Chōshōji. Furthermore, Chōshōji had a direct link to the head of the sect. The protection of Renjun and the as yet unaffiliated members of the Monto within the Hokuriku were to prove the foundation for the development of Chōshōji.(443)

On the other hand, a crack had appeared in the Renjō – Rensei block under the leadership of Wakamatsu Honsenji (which included Tsuchiyama Shōgyōji, the Nakata Bō, Zuisenji, Futamata Bō, Kiyozawa Gantokuji, Yamada Kōkyōji and Hasatani Shōkōji). Tsuchiyama Bō, which had been founded by Renjō and Shōnyoni (勝如尼), had been handed down to Rensei. After Renjō`s death, a picture of him had been placed in Tsuchiyama Bō. Although Rensei later moved to Yamada, it is said that he dutifully carried out his monthly mourning ceremonies (which suggests that he continued to venerate the memory of Renjō). After Rensei came his second son, Jitsugen, who took up residence in Wakamatsu、and who succeeded in gaining one of Renjun`s daughters as his wife as a result of the intervention of Rengo (蓮悟). In the 14th year of Eishō (1517), Jitsugen had received the title of `Shōgyōji` for his temple from Jitsunyo, and in his will Rensei stated that…`滅後ニモ法義ヲ蓮悟ニ談合申スヘキヨシ`. After Jitsugen took up residence in Shōgyōji, a portrait of Renjō was no longer displayed in the temple. As a result of a fire in Eishō 16, Jitsugen moved to the village surrounding Anyōji within the same shōen.(443-444)

Ikkō force organisation

The `kumi` 組:

The kumi (or `bands`) were not exclusively confined to Kaga, for the 本願寺文書 reports the existence of 5 bands in the era of the Kii peninsula. However unlike the 講, the kumi did not initially derive from among the organization of the Honganji faithful.(501) As Prof Inoue stated, the kumi, in those areas designated as either a gō, shō, ho (保), or mura were formed from a fixed `momentum` for a fixed period of time. A large part of this momentum was gradually provided through ties with Honganji, and thus the kumi, like the gun (郡), came to fulfill a specific role within the control apparatus of Honganji.

As we can further see from the 天文日記, the existence of the kumi allowed it to take responsibility for administration of the payment of tributes and all financial duties (such as 志納, and 勧進). The hatamoto of the kumi were often given orders directly from Honganji, for the establishment of kumi and the existence of the hatamoto needed the seal of approval from Honganji before they could undertake their tasks. The two characteristics that came to signify the kumi, namely the existence of the medieval gō and shō and their combination with the control apparatus of Honganji meant that the very concept of kumi (as it was originally used) changed in accordance to its accommodation with the nature of Honganji rule.

Originally, kumi meant the binding of individuals (or groups) together, which in turn implied the temporary synthesis of a number of individual goals. In the Tenbun era, as we can see through titles such as the 石黒源左衛門組, (天文日記断簡), the kumi themselves began to be named after prominent individuals, or else called according to the number of participants such as the 十人衆組 (天文日記・六・四・二十七など), which itself reveals a strongly founded ideal of `equality`, thus differentiating these latter kumi with the earlier incarnation of the term. Again, within the Tenbun diary we may note that 加州河北郡五番半金津之庄 (天文五・四・二十四) retained such kumi as the 六ヶ組武守(寺)村(天文七・八・二十八)and the 加州石川下組永寿院 (天文二十二・五・十八) which demonstrates that these kumi were arranged through amicable relations at the regional level between the gun and villages. As further demonstrated by the `ten villages kumi` of Kaga and the five kumi of 宮郷、中川郷、南郷 and so forth, these new kumi didn`t just stop at identifying a temporary congregation of many individuals, but went on to expand the term of the `kumi-gun` concept beyond a fixed area. This in turn led to the `kumi-gun` units of the early modern period.(502-503)

As might be discerned by looking at the early record for the development of the Monto, the events surrounding the internal strife within the Togashi family led to the greater expansion of the message of Shinshū to the peasantry (through the head of the dōjō, who was either a leading villager or priest) which in turn reached the kokujin level. In order to discern the social level of the Monto at the time of Rennyo`s period of stay within Yoshizaki, one need merely read the O-fumi to note the relationship he held with the Togashi and Asakura shugo, the tribute payments to military houses, and payments for public works. Gradually a change overcomes to the Monto, from non-payment of yearly tithes by the original lower members of the Monto through to the outright attempt to capture territory by the kokujin (with jizamurai/dōgō) status members. This then leads to the appearance of a socially charged Ikkō sect and the drive to control each 庄、郷, and 郡 within their jurisdiction.(504-5)

One can see the existence of pre-cursors to the formation of kumi within the shū (衆) and ikki that were practiced by jizamurai, bantō, and members of the toshiyori class. One would be wise to remember that a local community or region could be designated as a kumi if, say, persons of kokujin status aimed at increasing their control as local rulers (領主), gathered the support of the peasantry and then insisted upon the saving grace of Amidha, or else the Ikkō sect itself came to establish control over a fixed region.(508)

Characteristics of the formation of the Shinshū groups of faithful:

It is pretty much taken as given that in the formation of the Honganji groups of faithful and ikki, the peasantry (hyakushō) played an overwhelmingly prominent lead. Yet history is not built upon a simple matter of numbers, hence we must also investigate the `quality` or make up of the groups of faithful in order to better discern their nature. It is no secret that the kyōdan (as the groups of faithful were known) contained kokujin and merchant classes, each with their own production and political platforms to preserve and expand. If we do not properly evaluate their historical role, then we cannot correctly state what the historical role of the ikkō ikki were. Moreover, consider that the kyōdan contained members of the kokujin class who exercised control over all matters outside of the villages themselves, and members of the merchant class (with commercial interests and pseudo land owner status) – both of these groups clashed on occasion with the peasant members of the kyōdan. Hence we must consider how these competing social classes managed to form the basis of the Honganji organization in spite of their internal contradictions. Thus in order to understand the historical progress of the formation of the Honganji organization, and to assess its social basis, we must illuminate the institutions of the temples and dōjō and the forms they took in the course of formation of the kyōdan.(197)

千種有房 states that in the beginning 「彼上人門徒一向在家下劣輩」{在覚一期記}. Thus from its outset, the Monto had been formed around the peasantry. The further spread of the faith and its development did depend upon conversion of higher ranks of society, yet as 実悟 wrote 「松任(奉公衆)上野守は御門徒弟に被参けり」「国中の武士の輩迄まいり」(実悟記). What we see here then are what might be regarded as something of an irregularity. When we examine the transformation of Kaga into a province controlled by Honganji, we note the appearance of the Togashi, Asakura, Motoori, Ishiguro, and Iie, all families of shugo, shugodai, and kokujin samurai status, and all of whom became members of the Monto.  No matter how much the evidence shows that the land owning class converted to the Monto, the prominent idea that the Monto = peasantry has been a hard one to shift.(196-197)

Rennyo himself, in an address to the shugo and jito, put things in the following terms: 「殊略ノ儀ユメユメアルヘカラス、イヨイヨ公事ヲモハラニスヘキモノナリ」(御文、二ノ一○)whereas Jitsunyo, on speaking about rebirth in the Pure Land, stated that 「諸国の武士を敵にせらるる儀不可然。何之国守護等にも入魂せられ和与ありと云々」{本願寺作法之次第}. Quite obviously, the preachers of the Honganji message did not have the samurai classes in mind as converts, and focused their attention of the hyakushō bent under the weight of their tithe obligations. However, the `warriors` referred to by Jitsunyo pointed towards the shugo, shugodai, jitō, and bukōshū classes, whereas the peasantry (土民) would mean `rōnin`, the opposite of `refugees`. Just as the terms `domin` and `hyakushō` showed that there was no set definition for farmers, the terms for warrior and medieval warrior houses did not denote the same concept. As far as Rennyo and Jitsunyo were concerned, it appears that jizamurai did not enter into the range of terms for warriors.(197)

Within the Ofumi for Bunmei 5, 6, 7, and 10, Rennyo repeatedly called for obedience to the shugo and jitō and the fulfillment of one`s quota of tithes, however in the Ofumi dated for the 18th year of Bunmei (1486) and addressed to the four Kō lectures held within Nomi gun, it says 「寺社本所之所領押領之儀堅可有成敗候也」{蓮如上人遺文 一二○}(197) In the following 19th year, as though to make a point, Seirenin Monseki Sonō received an instruction from Hatakeyama Masanaga, stating that through Rennyo of Honganji the Kaga and Etchū Monto were to be `restrained` (華頂要略). Moreover, both before and after this event, there are a number of different articles that point towards attempts as seizing territory by both priests and the Monto. What we can deduce from this is that the Honganji Monto did not consist merely of peasants who produced their tithes on time and performed their public deeds as in the past, for from Bunmei 10 onwards, the Monto had begun to engage in attempts at seizing territory from within their shōen. Considering that seizure of land within the shōen is such an important part of ikkō ikki studies, we must conclude that the kokujin = jizamurai, the two groups that most advocated seizure of land, had an important role within the development of the structure of the Honganji kyōdan .(198)

Hence what was the social rank of Shūzaki Nori(覚) (大乗院寺社雑事記), Kawai 宣久, 松任右衛門大夫(加州公用日記 天理図書館蔵)、藤丸勝俊(かつとし), who all functioned as the otona (長) of the Ikkō shū? For this we need to take a look at the remains of their residences (屋敷) and the records that pertain to them 「三州古城跡」「三州志故墟(あと)考」「江沼郡古城跡」. In a similar manner, we can compare them to the records for the residence of Akao Dōshū of the Gokayama of Etchū. Gyōtokuji (administered by the 角淵 - Kadofuchi) was the oldest temple within the Gokayama. Within its records lie many documents related to Akao Dōshū, as does Higashi Akao Atarashiya Dōzenji (administered by the Hirase 平瀬). The Ofumi also have lithographed sections titled 「道宗筆写本」「蓮如真蹟(しんせき)本」。 Within the collection of Gyōtokuji, many records relate to Akao Dōshū (the same goes for Dōzenji). Both of these temples claim to have been founded by Dōshū, yet Dōzenji was no more than a dōjō up until the end of the Kyohō era under the control of Honkakuji, which means that Akao Dōshū main residence was within Gyōtokuji. At any rate, what we do know is that the Kadofuchi, Hirase, and Takakuwa (of Urushitani dōjō) were all recognized as muradono (村殿). Muradono were, during the Muromachi period, of a category below a jitō in possession of either a 館 (residence) or castle. They had their own residence or small abode, and directly served the Donohara hyakushō (殿原). During the Kinsei era many muradono were categorized as jitō, yet they were substantially different. With a residence of their own, claim to land, labourers to work the land and responsibility as administrator over that land, they were close in sympathies to the peasantry. The donohara (or muradono) was thus the same in all respects to the otona hyakushō, and as a person subject to tithes they came into conflict with the shōen ryōshū and jitō.(199-200)

Table 6: The dōjō of the villages of Gokayama (Akao`dan` 谷)
・ denotes a Kadofuchi affiliate

Village Name

Dōjō Owner

Affiliated Temples


Temple Name

  • Urushitani(漆谷)
  • Shimojima (下嶋)
  • Kōzo (楮)
  • Arataya(新屋)

Tsugi Ueimon (次右衛門)
Fusa Kurō(惣九郎)
Hachi Hyoe (八兵衛)
Ichi Jurō (市十郎)


Manpōji (万法寺)

Hosojima (細島)
Kohara (小原)

Jirō Ueimon (次郎右衛門)
Shichirō Ueimon (七郎右衛門)


Manpōji (万法寺)
Manpōji (万法寺)

Looking at Table 6 and 7 (to follow) and the relationship between the three village dono and their dōjō and jidan (寺壇), we see that the Kadofuchi lands were under the control of Gyōtokuji, that the Hirose lands were controlled by the dōjō of Honkakuji, and the lands of the Takakuwa were under the jurisdiction of the Urushitani dōjō (of Manpōji). From the distribution of control that these dōjō and temples had, we may state that the rapid spread of Shinshū belief in such a short period of time came about less because of individuals converting by chance, but because of a general social trend together with the use of coercion (in other words, the conversion of the village itself via means of its dōjō, and the relationship of that dōjō to a regional temple). Table 7 Early Meiji records for Akaodan Jidan relations (based upon registered households for Gokayama from Meiji 5-9)

Table 7 Early Meiji records for Akaodan Jidan relations (based upon registered households for Gokayama from Meiji 5-9)

Hamlets (部落)
(present registered households - 1968)

Affiliated Temples

Number of Danka (檀家)

  • Katsura(桂)(6)
  • Uchikoshi (打越)

⊿  Naride (成出) (10)
⊿  Kōzo (楮) (27)

⊿  Shingi (真木)(7)
⊿  Ueno (上野) (13)
⊿  Arataya (新屋) (16)
⊿  Tanoshita (田ノ下)(5)

  • Nishi Akao (西赤尾)(58)

X  Urushitani (漆谷)(12)

  • Shimojima (下嶋)(18)

X  Kose (小瀬)(5)
⊿  Suganuma (菅沼)(13)

Kyōonji (教恩寺)
Gyōtokuji (行徳寺)
Honkakuji (本覚寺)
Honkakuji (本覚寺)
Manpōji (万法寺)
Honkakuji (本覚寺)
Honkakuji (本覚寺)
Honkakuji (本覚寺)
Honkakuji (本覚寺)
Gyōtokuji (行徳寺)
Manpōji (万法寺)
Honkakuji (本覚寺)
Gyōtokuji (行徳寺)
Manpōji (万法寺)
Honkakuji (本覚寺)
Manpōji (万法寺)


Hosojima (細島)(20)
Kohara (小原)(30)

Manpōji (万法寺)
Manpōji (万法寺)
Honkakuji (本覚寺)


・=Kadofuchi, ⊿=Hirose, X = Takakuwa (200)

Hence under the direction of the authority of Honganji, the power that came with this association gradually fell into the hands of Akao Dōshū. At the same time, the peasantry of his lands gradually came to feel coerced into joining the Honganji sect. By the time of the Tenbun era, the Gokayama were completely in the hands of Honganji, with cotton sent as a tithe to Honganji. The organization of the Gokayama sō was based around the 10 day kō. Within the 10 day kō `letter of receipt` (stored by the Shōta 生田 of Gokayama Kaminashiya Hosojima) (copy stored within 下梨瑞願寺), it states that as the public tithe from the 10 day kō (the Monto organization of the Gokayama) had not reached Honganji, they were castigated by Shōnyo (証如), and had to promise that they would fulfill all of their vows as the Gokayama Sōchū. Moreover, all of the muradono and haradono myōshu signed the pledge. Their signatures varied from the use of `kaō` in the Ashikaga style to more simple stamps, from which we can discern the jizamurai and regional nature of these signatories. Moreover, the dōjō noted within the pledge were zokudōjō (meaning they were run by kebōzu). In the same manner as Hida Shirakawa Gō, these villages were in an economically underdeveloped area, which means that the nanushi (名主) and the head of the dōjō were one and the same. As not all attendees would have signed the pledge, it appears that these signatories held a vassal relationship with poorer members of the villages.(Table is quoted on pp.201,202 and 203)

According to these joint signatures, the sōchū of Gokayama was formed from muradono, donohara, kina (公名) and otona (乙名). Their strength was thus derived from the heads of the local households and the muradono that ruled over them. Their sōchū was thus a joint community formed around a gō mura. Compared to more developed regions in which the ratio of donohara=otona hyakushō was heavy, the muradono of more economically depressed areas continued to act in a warrior/genin administrator capacity, and like the wheels on a vehicle, the group of believers incorporated two social strata and continued to expand.(203-204)

Return to Top

© Greg Pampling. This page was modified in December 2011