Manor - shoen (English spelling) manor English

Japanese: 荘園 - しょうえん（英語表記）manor 英語

It is a private ownership of large tracts of land that has existed since the 8th century in the West and Japan, and since the Han Dynasty (around the time of Christ) in China, and the owner had certain privileges. In the West, the English manor and the German Grundherrschaft are usually translated as shoen.

[Ichiro Tochigawa]

Western

origin

Its origin dates back to the late Roman Republic (around the 3rd century BC onwards), when influential people such as senators had farms around their villas (villas) and had slaves cultivate them. Even in the Middle Ages, manors were called willa in Latin. At the end of the Roman Republic and the beginning of the Empire (around the time of Christ), influential people acquired vast tracts of land, subdivided parts of which they began to rent to many peasants. Such rented lands were also called villas, and gradually increased in number. Moreover, large landowners exerted increasing pressure on tenant peasants, eventually reducing them to the status of colonus (semi-free peasants). Around the time of the fall of the Western Roman Empire (5th century AD), the kings and generals of the Germanic tribes who occupied the empire also inherited their large landholdings as a result of confiscating parts of the land of the Romans.

During that time, large landowners obtained the privilege of tax exemption (Immunität), and in the Frankish Kingdom period (around the 8th century), they obtained judicial and administrative powers over tenant farmers. These two major privileges, namely the right of non-entry (inmunität in the broad sense), established the manor system, and the king, nobles, local large churches, and monasteries each exercised control as manor lords, and manors came to appear as independent political entities, like small nations.

The forms of control and management of manors have varied over the ages, and based on these differences they are divided into classical manors and rent manors.

[Ichiro Tochigawa]

The structure and character of classical manors

Classical manors were considered to be the predominant form in France until about the 10th century, and in Germany until about the 12th century, and consisted of land directly managed by the lord, land owned by farmers, and communal land. Directly managed land further consisted of the lord's residence and directly managed farms, and the residence and administrative office and warehouses of the lord or the manorial official were located on the manorial site. According to the 9th century Cadastre of the Abbey of Saint-Germain in Paris (edited by B. Guérard, 1844), 22 out of 24 manors had directly managed farms, averaging about 230 hectares per manor. Most of these were wheat fields, with vineyards and hay fields. Farmers' land (perpetual tenancies) was mostly measured in units of Hufe (German, French: manse), and one Hufe consisted of wheat fields of about 10 to 15 hectares, as well as farmer's residences and vineyards. According to the above-mentioned Saint-Germain Abbey Land Register, each manor had an average of about 60 huffes of peasant land, and there were almost equal cases where one farmer owned one huffe and two or three farms jointly owned one huffe. The estates of these farmers were mostly concentrated in one or several villages for each manor, but sometimes a small number of peasants belonging to one manor lived in various villages, and therefore the manor could not become an independent political entity. In addition, there were many cases where the classical manors in Germany did not include a village, and according to the 11th century Worms Bishopric Manorial Regulations (Grimm J. Grimm, "Village Laws", Weistümer , 1840-78), there remained a considerable number of free peasants outside the manor. This is thought to be because German manors expanded little by little throughout the Frankish Kingdom period, as free peasants joined manors seeking the protection of the lord.

Rent consisted of product rent in the broad sense, such as grain, wine, livestock, and currency, and corvée (labour rent). The common explanation is that the characteristic of classical manors was that they were directly managed by the government through corvée, but there is also a powerful opposing theory from Dopsch and others. When verified using the above-mentioned Saint-Germain Abbey land register, 10 of the 24 manors collected corvée from peasants for 2-3 days per week per houffée, or an equivalent amount, while the other 14 manors mainly collected product rent, with the ratio of this to production (rent rate) being around 10%.

The feudal jurisdiction included civil jurisdiction over the inheritance and sale of peasant land, as well as criminal jurisdiction over crimes, and large feudal lords who received immunity from the king had the supreme judicial power, Hochgerichtsbarkeit, including jurisdiction over serious crimes. Church lords such as monasteries often entrusted their judicial powers to secular feudal lords, who were called Vogt in German (advocatus in Latin).

The general consensus regarding the social structure of the classical manorial period is that it was a typical example of feudalism (serfdom), with manorial lords as feudal lords and manorial peasants as serfs. The main reason for this is said to be that manorial peasants were obligated to pay excessively heavy labor, usually three days per week per houffe. However, it has been discovered that such labor obligations were not necessarily common, and criticism of the general consensus arose. In particular, Dorangel focused on the existence of manors with small labor amounts and large directly managed land, and believed that the management of such directly managed land was mainly based on the use of slave labor. His theory is accepted in the historical academic world of France, but has been largely ignored in other countries. On the other hand, Bloch considered the peasant family of the time to be a large family, and viewed classical manorial society as a patriarchal pre-feudal society. Dorangel, on the other hand, suggested that peasants owned slaves, which is confirmed by Article 2 of the above-mentioned Worms Bishopric Manorial Rule. In other words, the unit of land owned by a peasant, the hufe, is rephrased as "land and slaves," and there is no doubt that a typical hufe-owning peasant was a slave owner and a kind of wealthy farmer. Therefore, the seemingly excessive corvée of three days per week per hufe was actually only a relatively light burden, providing half the labor out of the several people in the household, including slaves.

By carefully reading historical materials with reference to such new research, the common belief that peasants in classical manors were serfs is quite doubtful, and it is possible to see classical manorial society as a slave society. In other words, it is possible to think that the lords and peasants at that time formed the same class as slave masters, and that the lords, although they had judicial power, were not in a position to rule the peasants, but were content with the position of protector. For example, looking at Article 30 of the above-mentioned Worms Bishopric Manorial Rule, the lord, Bishop of Worms, lacked the ability to try murder cases and left the outcome of the case to the peasants' revenge, and the lords were only recognized as having the function of mediating in advance the fighting of revenge.

[Ichiro Tochigawa]

The structure and nature of rented manors

According to Bloch, rent manors were widespread in France from about the 11th century to the 18th century, and their characteristic was the dominance of product rent and therefore the disappearance of directly managed land. A manorial peasant usually owned 2 to 3 hectares (almost a quarter of a houfé), which he cultivated with the labor of a small family. These peasants were called vilain (manors) in the legal terminology of the time, and serfs (serfs) in the common name, and paid high rents of over 30% of their product to their lords. Thus, peasants in the rent manor era were typical small peasants, and compared to the wealthy houfé-owning peasants of the classical manor era, they had a stronger sense of servitude to their lords and were clearly considered feudal peasants, i.e. serfs. In addition, manorial lords exercised both civil and criminal jurisdiction over peasants, and used this to increase the rents they collected. This is manifested in the high rents known as arbitrary rents (taille à plaisir) in the 11th and 12th centuries.

In response to this, the peasants' resistance intensified, and as a result, the arbitrary rent was reduced slightly and made fixed. On the other hand, from around the 12th century, a small monetary rent called a poll tax, chevage, was imposed on the peasants, but in the 13th century, it was abolished due to the peasants' resistance and the large feudal lords' appeasement measures. In the 14th century, a large peasant rebellion called the Jacqueline Rebellion broke out against the increase in rent due to the Hundred Years' War, and although the rebellion itself was suppressed, the status of the peasants gradually improved thereafter. As a result, in the 18th century, peasants of medium or higher rank, known as laboreurs, became de facto landowners (self-cultivating farmers), and some even rose to become agricultural capitalists as large tenant farmers. In 1789, these peasants participated in the French Revolution, expelled feudal lords, dissolved manors, and became truly free peasants.

The period of rent manors in Germany is considered to have been around since the 13th century. The lower limit is unclear because the March Revolution (1848) ended in failure as a civil revolution, but it can be considered to be the 19th century. The difference from classical manors is not significant, but the overall reduction in corvée and the expansion of the scope of manors to include the remaining free peasants are distinctive features. The core of manorial peasants was still wealthy peasants who owned at least one or half a huve, but in southwestern Germany, small peasants similar to French rent manorial peasants came to make up the majority between the 12th and 17th centuries. In other words, the social structure of the German rent manor period can be said to have gradually transitioned to a serfdom society in southwestern Germany, but in the north and southeast, as in the classical manor period, it is difficult to conclude that it was a serfdom society, and there were rather many elements of slavery. That is, in the latter regions, as seen in the aforementioned "Murahori" (Village Laws), wealthy peasants, as the heads of large families, controlled their younger siblings and their second and third sons, and further employed servants (Gesinde, maids). Moreover, in legal terms, farm servants were called slaves (mancipia) (Grimm's "Murahori", Vol. 3, Articles 1 and 5 of the 1348 Meppen Manor Regulations), and the heads of households exercised the right to punish servants, including by execution (private death penalty) ( Österreichische Weistümer , Vol. 13, Article 7 of the 16th century Steil Manor Law). This patriarchal slavery in rural areas was dismantled by the Industrial Revolution in the late 19th century, when the second and third sons of farmers and servants were absorbed into factories.

In the northeastern German colonies that were established after the Germans conquered the Slavic peoples, the corvée manor Gutsherrschaft, which is said to be a remake of the classical manor, was established around the 16th century. There, too, the employment of a large number of servants on land directly managed by the lord was permitted, and the servants took on a slave-like character, being subject to the master's private right of punishment. The Gutsherrschaft was dissolved during the Prussian agricultural reform in the first half of the 19th century, but the employment of servants by the former lords was inherited by the subsequent Junker farms, which continued until the great reforms after World War II.

In England, classical manorial corvée manors were formed by the 11th century, and continued to exist in the southeast until the 14th century. However, looking at the whole country, typical rent manors based mainly on money rent were established from around the 13th century, and from around the end of the 15th century, serfs became de facto free peasant yeomen, and manors rapidly disintegrated. In other European countries, manors also existed widely from the Middle Ages until the 19th century.

[Ichiro Tochigawa]

China

form

In China, the equivalent of a manor was called a villa, a villa, a field villa, a mountain villa, a village villa, a garden, a garden villa, a ... When manors were established by developing uncultivated land, they also built buildings for the farmers to live in. The terms shu, zhu, zhuoshu, zhuangzi, and zhuan were originally used to refer to these administrative facilities located in rural areas, and manor lords named their manors after the place where the manor was located or an auspicious name. The land included orchards for planting vegetables and fruit trees, fields for growing grain, and bamboo and forests for obtaining bamboo and firewood needed for the manufacture and repair of agricultural equipment, as well as building materials. In its original form, manors are thought to have had a manor garden in the center with fields and forests surrounding it.

[Yasushi Kusano]

Emergence and Transition

It is not clear when and how such manors came into being. They had already appeared at the end of the Western Han Dynasty (around the 1st century B.C.). At that time, farmland was developed on the gentle slopes of the foothills and on the flat land in the mountain valleys, using springs and streams, but powerful nobles sought new land in places far from their current residences, such as prefectures, townships, and pavilions, and carried out large-scale development to establish manors. The terms "villa" and "village" were used to refer to the rural mansions established in these places. The development of manors progressed greatly when noble families led their people of the same clan and hometown to move to new lands during the chaotic period at the end of the Eastern Han Dynasty and the beginning of the Three Kingdoms period, and further progressed during the civil war at the end of the Western Jin Dynasty and the invasion of the Five Barbarians, when aristocratic nobles from northern China moved to Jiangnan. In Jiangnan under the rule of the Southern Dynasty, aristocratic nobles vigorously enclosed mountain forests and marshes to accommodate refugees and promote development, which became a major political issue. From the middle of the Tang Dynasty, the commodity-based economy developed and the number of refugee households increased, and central and local bureaucrats and wealthy temple families accommodated them as farmers and developed them. In addition to mountainous and hilly areas, the muddy land along the coasts of the rivers, rivers, lakes, and seas was chosen for development, and uden and iden, which were cultivated by surrounding sandy and muddy land with sturdy embankments, appeared. In addition to manors that developed new land, there were also manors that purchased land from fallen farmers.

During the Han, Wei and Jin Dynasties, manors developed on newly built land were large in scale, and many of them concentrated farmers within the manors. The manors of aristocrats also served as villas and were used as places for socializing. Some manors during the Song Dynasty also had schools where the children of the family could study. However, as the commodity economy developed, some manors were established in small towns between villages, such as prefectures and prefectures, or towns and cities, for the convenience of storing and selling land taxes. This tendency was particularly noticeable in manors established by purchasing the land of fallen peasants. In this type of manor, the land was scattered, so there was no need to concentrate farmers, and the manors only needed a storehouse to store the land taxes.

The management style and cultivation relationship of manors became somewhat clearer after the middle of the Tang Dynasty, especially in the Song Dynasty. Usually, several servants lived in the manors to manage them, and when it was time for cultivation and harvest, the manor's lord or his representative would be there to supervise the work and collect the land tax. The representative was generally called the kanjin, and was responsible for managing the accounts, collecting taxes, paying taxes, and selling the land tax. The kanjin and the manor's lord were in an employment relationship, and for the convenience of paying taxes and selling the land tax, experienced prefecture and county officials or small merchants were selected. There were no social restrictions for the cultivators, and they were called shokyaku, shoko, denkyaku, tsuko, etc., and when they cultivated the manor's fields with their own oxen, farm tools, seeds, etc., they usually paid a fixed amount of land tax (approximately half of the harvest), and when they cultivated the fields using the lord's oxen, seeds, or farm tools, they shared the harvest with the lord in a ratio of 7:3 or 6:4. In addition to farming, they were also required to perform some odd jobs. It is assumed that before the Northern and Southern Courts, farmers were treated as servile, but the details are unknown.

Manors also existed during the Republic of China period. According to many rural surveys conducted in the 1920s and 1930s, large landlords often lived within the city for convenience of consumer life and for security reasons, but in Shandong, Jiangsu Jiangbei, Anhui, Jiangxi, Huguang, and other areas, in areas where a relatively large number of land for rent were concentrated, warehouses and residences called storehouses, zhuangfang, storehouses, and kefangs were built and servants lived there, and when the harvest season came, managers called laozi (old general) and guanbei (official officials) were dispatched to collect the taxes, and the collected land taxes were first deposited in the storehouses and then transported to the landlord's house within the city. In southern Jiangsu and parts of Zhejiang, large landowners set up tax offices within their cities and employed staff members including a chief accountant to handle such tasks as lending out land for rent and collecting land taxes, while also acting as agents for small and medium-sized landowners to collect taxes on their land. This can be seen as the most highly developed form of the manor's storehouse function.

[Yasushi Kusano]

Japan

A form of large land ownership by aristocrats, temples, and shrines that emerged in the Nara period and continued until the Sengoku period. From the late Heian period onwards, when it began to fully develop, manors came to occupy a position that determined the foundations of politics, society, and the economy, and such societies are often called manorial societies. The history of manors, which spans approximately 800 years, is usually divided into three periods: (1) the formative period from the late 8th century to around the mid-11th century, (2) the established and developed period from the late 11th century to around the early 14th century, and (3) the period of unrest and disintegration from the late 14th century to the Taiko land survey at the end of the 16th century.

[Keiji Nagahara]

Early manors

The turning point was the Konden Einen Shizaiho (Act on Permanent Private Property of Reclaimed Land) enacted in 743 (Tenpyo 15). From the second half of the 8th century onwards, under the ties between the central aristocracy, temples and shrines, and local feudal lords, the enclosure of uncultivated land in the mountains and fields was promoted, and reclamation was carried out around warehouses and development bases called manors, which marked the beginning of manors. The manors established in large numbers in the Hokuriku region, such as Echizen, under the domain of Todaiji Temple are representative of this. These were also called reclamation manors, as they were managed based on reclaimed land. However, even though they were manors, these early manors were imported land and did not have exclusive vassals, and were managed mainly by renting land to the surrounding citizens and collecting land rents. To that extent, early manors did not fundamentally deny the principle of public land and public citizens under the Ritsuryo system, but in the 9th century, due to financial difficulties, the government also established directly controlled land similar to manors, called Chokushiden (imperial land) and Kanden (official land), and the enclosure of uncultivated land by the ruling class put pressure on the common usufruct land of the peasants, accelerating their decline. As a result, some peasants fled and flowed into manors, and the number of those who became manors increased, and the increase in manors gradually became a serious political and social problem.

[Keiji Nagahara]

Increase in manors and consolidation of manors

In 902 (Engi 2), the government issued the so-called Shoen Reorganization Order, prohibiting aristocrats, temples, and shrines from enclosing mountains and fields, and purchasing cultivated land and residential land from peasants. However, around this time, the family registration system collapsed, the land allotment system was abolished, and the Ritsuryo land system began to completely change in nature. When the abandoned public fields were redeveloped, not only was the burden reduced, but this, along with the developed land, was also allowed to be sold and transferred as "private land," and although it was not called a manor, it was essentially something close to one. Cultivated land of public land that was cultivated by manors from manors was often incorporated into manors, and there were even a number of manors where the land was larger than the original manor due to illegally taking over public land, known as "dezakunou." Also, from the 10th to the 11th century, the so-called Zoyakumen manors, which were manors that were exempt from miscellaneous duties, began to rapidly increase, as the lords of the land used to privatize the peasants designated as the fiefs of aristocrats, temples, and shrines, and turned the land related to the fiefs into manors. Zoyakumen manors were manors where human control preceded land control, so to speak, and they were territories that belonged to both the state and the feudal lord, with official property being sent to the state and miscellaneous duties being taken by the aristocrats, temples, and shrines. In 1070 (Enkyu 2), the manors of Kofukuji Temple included 151 manors with a total area of over 2,357 cho, of which up to 1,854 cho were manors that were exempt from miscellaneous duties. Furthermore, with the collapse of the Ritsuryo financial system, iden (ranked fields) and shikiden (official fields) were also hereditary and turned into manors, and government fields were divided and made into shoshogekiden (fields of various offices) to be used for the expenses of various government offices. Eventually, as the heads of these government offices made their positions hereditary, the shoshogekiden became manors owned by the heads' families.

As manors began to increase in this way through various routes, the government tried to curb the increase by repeatedly issuing orders to consolidate manors in 984 (Eikan 2), 1040 (Chokyu 1), 1045 (Kantoku 2), 1055 (Tenki 3), 1065 (Jiraku 1), and 1069 (Enkyu 1). However, the confiscations made through consolidation were only temporary, and kokushi often used their positions to establish new manors, so in the end the measures were ineffective.

[Keiji Nagahara]

The popularity of donations and the nationwide expansion of manors

From the 11th to the 12th century, the movement of local feudal lords donating their "private lands" to central aristocrats, temples, and shrines, and turning them into manors, was promoted nationwide. In order to avoid having their "private lands" confiscated by the kokushi, local feudal lords donated their "private lands" to central powerful aristocrats, temples, and shrines, and tried to secure their "private lands" through their authority. However, when establishing manors, it was common for aristocrats, temples, and shrines to incorporate not only their "private lands" but also the surrounding public lands into their manors. This is called a "donated land" type of manor. The reality of donated land type manors was not limited to simply developing private lands, but also had a broad nature of dividing public lands. For example, Ota Manor in Bingo included the entire public land of Kuwabara-go and Ota-go, which were in the eastern half of Sera County, as its manor, and Kikuta Manor in Mutsu included Kikuta County as its manor.

Although the established manors were nominally donations, they received state approval and were issued certificates with the Dajokanfu (Grand Council of State) and Minbushofu (Ministry of Civil Affairs). The recipient of the donation became the ryoke (higher-ranking feudal lord), and the donor became the geshi (lower official) who was the local administrator. The geshi was granted control over a small amount of tax-exempt land (provided fields) and over the peasants who were allowed to perform miscellaneous duties, and was responsible for the management of the land for the entire manor, promoting agriculture, and collecting and delivering taxes and miscellaneous duties. The ryoke had the right to inspect, collect taxes and miscellaneous duties, and had judicial powers, and was called the honjo (main office). When the lord was an ordinary aristocrat or a temple or shrine, in order to receive even greater authority, he would make additional donations to the regent family or the imperial family, and this would be regarded as the honke (main family), but the honke's share of the estate was generally small. As a result, the land control over a single manor took on a multi-layered structure of honke - lord - lower official, and each position with its own authority and share was expressed as a shiki (official position). The donated manors that were established in this way were exempt from all economic burdens to the state, except for the temporary duties of the Imperial Court's Daishokunin (major and minor provincial duties), and were so-called non-taxable, and also had the right of non-entry, which excluded the police powers of the kokushi (provincial governors).

In parallel with the nationwide expansion of donated manors, koryo were also divided into ruling units called go (village) and ho (provincial governor), reflecting the sphere of influence of local feudal lords, who assumed the positions of goji (local governor) and hoji (provincial governor), and the fundamental right to govern a country was often allocated to the central government aristocrats, temples and shrines as chigyo koku (domains of a fief). Although chigyo kokushu no fussiai appointed their own trusted proteges as kokushi, they came to have a similar nature to manor lords in that the basic portion of the economic profits was their personal share. The system of manors and koryo that developed in this way by the end of the Heian period is usually called the manor-public land system, and the ratio of manors to koryo is estimated to have been around 6:4 nationwide.

[Keiji Nagahara]

Ownership and inheritance of manors

The Fujiwara clan, the regents, were initially active in the ownership and accumulation of manors. This was likely an attempt to strengthen the economic foundations of the Fujiwara clan, as Emperor Gosanjo's direct rule suppressed the regents and the retired Emperor Shirakawa's cloistered government also sought to concentrate power in the imperial household. However, in response to the accumulation of manors by the regents, the imperial household also accumulated a huge number of manors during the Toba and Goshirakawa periods, and established numerous fiefdoms (ingu bunkoku). These manors were scattered throughout the country, and each manor only held a part of the multi-layered territorial rights, making it difficult to maintain them by their own strength alone. In the event of an invasion from the surrounding areas or other threats to their territorial rights, they had no choice but to rely on the national system and eliminate them by the military force of the kokuga (provincial government office) based on a trial at the central court. This is a significant difference from the later cases of daimyo territorial domains. In addition, in the case of middle-ranking or lower aristocrats, only a very small number of them owned "Keryo" manors, which they could manage as their own honjo (main estates), and most of them were temporarily appointed as custodians of the manors as a reward for serving the regent family or the imperial family as stewards, and received benefits from these stipends, which were a kind of stipend. Powerful manorial lords focused on organizing a patrimonial economic system to cover various annual expenses, mainly from the taxes and miscellaneous public items paid by manors in various regions.

Thus, the form of ownership of manors varied depending on the rank of the nobility, temples, and shrines, but in cases where the number of manors, including those with and without manorial rights, such as the Imperial family and the Fujiwara clan, exceeded several hundred, they were often divided among Goganji temples and Ujidera temples, and distributed among the family. Many of the Imperial manors took the form of Goganji land or Nyoin land, and later, the manors and chigyokoku that were inherited by the Daikakuji and Jimyoin lines were fixed.

[Keiji Nagahara]

Manors and taxes

Looking at individual manors, the cultivated land of a manor was broadly divided into myoden and isshikiden, in addition to the fields and names given to manor officials such as geshi. Myoden was the area for which the myoshu was responsible for collecting and paying taxes and other miscellaneous duties, and not all of it was owned by the myoshu in the strict sense. In manors in the Kinai region, where feudal lordship was strong, the myoshu were sometimes organized into equal-sized fields, as in the so-called equal myoshu. In some cases, the myoshu had ownership rights, known as sakute, over most of the myoden, but it was not uncommon for a single myoden to be divided and owned by several sakute farmers. Distinguishing from the mall's official Nada, ordinary malls were also called farmers' names, but farmers' names had a burden on annual tax rice of about 3 to 5 bits per row of rice (annual tax is not always limited to rice, but may also be cloth, silk, timber, etc.), various miscellaneous products and husband's duties. The latter two were also called miscellaneous or public affairs. Isshikida was a rice field other than that formed in Nada, and was a type of direct-legged lord who had no name owners, and only a large annual tax was levied here. In addition, tsukuda was sometimes set up as a tsukuda with the nature of a direct-legged lord, but in Japan, Tsukuda was large like the directly managed land of the European etiquette manor, and did not take the form of a large number of farmers' Shuyuu.

になったんです。 English: The first thing you can do is to find the best one to do. These new farmers were called Moto and were considered to be a little lower than the farmer's status, but in manor rural areas where management conditions were unstable, the number of devastated and uncooked fields increased, and the number of uncooked fields increased, so the majestic officers made efforts to "mansaku" manor cultivated fields by "inviting ronin." However, since the majestic officers such as Shimoji also had a direct land called Majestic Officer Tsukuda and had a large patriarchal management, it was not rare for them to confront the farmer's management, by arbitrarily collecting the role of the farmer's husband or by retrieving the water in a convenient way to the farmer's land. For this reason, the farmers of the first rank countered this through community unity.

になったんです。 English: The first thing you can do is to find the best one to do. This was not necessarily opened in any manor, but as a majesty officer, he was able to secure the conditions for reproduction within the villa, and he was able to strengthen his control by seizing the distribution functions himself, so he often focused on opening markets and bidding merchants. The city was often opened about once or three times a month, but in the late Middle Ages, a settled merchant called Zake appeared in a prominent market, and it also developed into Rokusai City, which was six times a month.

[Keiji Nagahara]

Kamakura Shogunate and manor system

になったんです。 English: The first thing you can do is to find the best one to do. However, in any case, the position of the jito was a special position for the samurai, newly established by a charter, and was given only to the sermons under the presidency of master and servanthood, and in reality it exerted enormous pressure on the sovereignty of manors, and took away the authority such as collecting annual tributes, termination of grounds, and kendan. However, in principle, it was positioned within the order of the manor's official position. Yoritomo's military campaign and the establishment of the Kamakura Shogunate meant the establishment of a samurai government that was independent from the court noble government, but on the other hand, Kamakura Hall (shogun) himself was also a great manor's lord and a lord of many nations in the country, so he did not fundamentally deny the manor's system. Yoritomo tried to take the real power of local rule by establishing the jitomo, while still maintaining the framework of the manor's official rule. Furthermore, the protection placed by country did not directly deny the administrative power of the national governor, but with its establishment, the protection effectively absorbed the authority of the national governors one after another, and the real power of the national control gradually shifted to the hands of the national control. The zudencho, the basic ledger of national control, which investigated the area, lords, and territories of manors, by country, was also created and managed through protection during the Kamakura period, and this became a lever that later became a daimyo of the archaeological territories. Thus, after the establishment of the Kamakura Shogunate, the real power of local control of the manor's Origin was transferred to the hands of the warlords and guardians, who were sacrificed by the shogun under the master-servant system, so the manor's system of change was inevitable.In particular, in the eastern provinces where the central government's governing power was weak, manor lords often took over the control of the manor's rule, and in many cases the manor's lords would take over the control of the manor's rule.

[Keiji Nagahara]

Development of local lordship and the turmoil of manor systems

になったんです。 English: The first thing you can do is to find the best one to do.になったんです。 English: The first thing you can do is to find the best one to do. There was also a method called Shijichubun, in which the land of the manor was divided into half or two or two to one. The Shijichubun was divided into the soujichichu and handed over as a whole jitsuko land, which was a major blow, but in the later period of Kamakura, it was still considered necessary to secure the remaining portion by eliminating the Jitsuko, and the Nakabun was requested by the manor lords.

This kind of illegality of the jito was particularly intense when new jito after Joku began to migrate to the Western country's office, or send magistrates to try to expand their lords. In addition, in the Kinai (Kinai), the base of the central lords, and in the surrounding areas, the manor lords were also extremely reluctant, so the jito often joined local and local lords, and it was no longer rare for them to move into force, kicking out majestic officials. The manor lords called this a villain and feared it, and demanded that the shogunate suppress it. Through these diverse opportunities, the lordship of the lordship progressed rapidly from the mid-Kamakura period, but during this period, the shogunate did not focus solely on deterring the illicit jito, and especially with the invasion of the Mongolia, it was imposed on military provisions and troops to all the temples and shrines where no jito had been installed, and the overall pressure on the manor system was increased, by making it into officials of local powerful clans whose protection was linked to the kingdom, making this agitated.

[Keiji Nagahara]

Deconstruction of manor system

After the North and Southern Court period, manor systems began to be in full-scale demolition stage. Among the Sorcerer, the independence of the small farmers increased, and the battle for the reduction of annual taxes and husbands was caused by the so-joint combination, including the noble and peasants, and it was no longer rare for the manor to be called out to be removed from the manors, and the removal of magistrates who tried to suppress them became less common. Furthermore, the results of the demand for annual tax reduction and the increase in land production capacity led to surplus formed within the rural areas, and the relationship between renting out arable land and leasing a kind of tenant-funded crop fees began to expand. Moreover, the amount of Kajiko per unit area exceeded the amount of annual tax (at this time the manor's annual tax was called a "hon-annual tax" to Kajiko), which significantly retreated the lord's control over the land.

Meanwhile, the invasion of manors to be protected and protected were even more diversified during the civil war period of the North and Southern Court. The invasion of manors promoted the invasion of manors through the detention of taxes and shores of the ground, and at the time of the Zito shore, they seized full control of the manors. Moreover, this was not about the territory scattered throughout the past, but rather acquired the right to the Shokyo town, adjacent to the base territory, and in fact began to form a system of regional control. Such local lords were no longer called Jito, and were called Kokujin (Kokujin lords). They also expanded their protection, and they were given temporary guardians (sold rice and husbands) over the manors' shores within the country, and the amount of such sought was gradually exceeded this year's tax. By this time, not only the powers of the states but also the organization itself were absorbed by the guardians, so the official territory was turned into a guardian territory, and the average national authority, which had previously belonged to the right to charge the national governor, was also converted into protection authority, and eventually the guardian ban monies were constantly imposed within the country.

The Hanzei Ordinance further promoted these trends. The first Hanzei Ordinance issued in 1352 (Shohei 7, Bunwa 1) originally had only three countries, including Omi, and eight countries, handing over half of the annual tax for the year to the samurai as food and food, but the Hazei Ordinance in 1368 (Shohei 23, Oan 1) without a deadline set, and the guardian divided half of the land itself in the manor's territories and half were paid to the nationals of the land, so even if there was a reservation that the entire land of the temple and shrine, which had a strong privilege, would not apply, the manor system as a whole. This means that the stage in which the dynasty and the shogunate defended the manor system as one-piece, as in the Kamakura period, was over, and this was a stage in which the dynasty and the shogunate were shaking from the core.になったんです。 English: The first thing you can do is to find the best one to do.

Therefore, as the Muromachi period began, the economic poverty of the manor lords became serious, and it became common for them to borrow money from Doso using the futures taxes from that year and from next year onwards as collateral. However, it was almost difficult to return debt, and Doso became the magistrate of the manor that was pawned as collateral and was directly collected. Even in manors that were not pawned as collateral and were not pawned for borrowing, the lords were unable to collect them on their own, so they were able to collect them on their own by collecting them as magistrates, including the mountain monks on Mount Hiei who were engaged in financial activities at the time, and practical monks called Tohanshu of Gosan Zenji, who had financial abilities and negotiating power with the shogunate guardians, and they were only able to obtain a certain amount of annual tax.

[Keiji Nagahara]

The manor disappears

になったんです。 English: The first thing you can do is to find the best one to do.

The Taiko land survey accompanied by Toyotomi Hideyoshi's unification ultimately wiped out any such remaining remains. Even Kofuku-ji Temple, which had dominant abilities and possessed a large number of manors, was only given a certain level of stone height as the temple territory, and everything else was denied and left. The Taiko land survey meant Hideyoshi concentratedly exerted the land survey rights and the right to address the Ishikochi group, which in principle resulted in the manor system being eliminated, and even the place name "Sou" was deleted.

[Keiji Nagahara]

になったんです。 English : The first thing you can do is to find the best one to do . "Utsunomiya Kiyoyoshi, "Survey on the Study of the Manors" (included in the Study of Social and Economic History of the Han Dynasty, 1955, Kobundo)" ▽ "Muramatsu Yuji, "The Modern Tall of the Jiangnan: A Study of the Chinese Landowner System" (1972, University of Tokyo Press)" ▽ "Watanabe Sumio, "The Basic Structure of the Kinai Shoen" (1956, Yoshikawa Kobundo)" ▽ "Sasaki Ginya, "The Commercial of Manors" (1964, Yoshikawa Kobundo)" ▽ "Abe Takeshi, "The Study of the History of Medieval Japanese Manors" (1966, Shinseisha)" ▽ "Inagaki Yasuhiko, "The World of Manors" (1973, University of Tokyo Press)" ▽ "Takeuchi Yoshizo, "The History of Land System 1" (1973, Yamakawa Publishing)" ▽ "Nagahara Keiji, "Manors" (1978, Hyoronsha)"

[参照項目] |農奴制|賦役|領主

Source: Shogakukan Encyclopedia Nipponica About Encyclopedia Nipponica Information | Legend

Japanese:

西洋および日本では8世紀ごろから、中国では漢代（紀元前後）から行われた私的大土地所有のことで、所有者がなんらかの特権をもっていた。西洋ではイギリスのマナー、ドイツのグルントヘルシャフトが、普通、荘園と訳される。

［橡川一朗］

西洋

起源

起源は、共和政後期（ほぼ紀元前3世紀以後）のローマで、元老院議員など有力者が別荘（ビラvilla）の周辺に農園をもち、これを奴隷に耕作させたことに始まり、中世でも荘園はラテン語でウィラとよばれた。ローマ共和政末期・帝政初期（紀元前後）には、有力者が広大な土地を獲得し、その一部を細分して多数の農民に賃貸し始めた。かかる賃貸地もビラとよばれ、しだいに増大した。しかも賃借農民（小作農）に対する大土地所有者の圧力が増し、小作農をコロヌス（半自由農）の地位に落とすに至った。西ローマ帝国滅亡（紀元後5世紀）の前後から、帝国領を占領したゲルマン諸族の王や将軍も、ローマ人の土地の一部を没収した結果、その大土地所有を継承した。

　その間、大土地所有者は免税特権（インムニテートImmunität）を得、フランク王国時代（8世紀ごろ）には小作農に対する裁判権、行政権を得た。この二大特権すなわち不輸不入権（広義のインムニテート）によって荘園制度は確立され、国王、貴族および各地の大教会、修道院は、荘園領主として、それぞれ支配権を行使し、荘園は独立した政治体として小国家の観を呈するに至った。

　荘園は、時代によって支配・経営の形態に差を生じ、その差異によって古典荘園および地代荘園に分けられる。

［橡川一朗］

古典荘園の構造と性格

古典荘園は、フランスではほぼ10世紀まで、ドイツでは12世紀ごろまで優勢な形態とみられ、領主直営地と農民保有地および共同地からなっていた。直営地はさらに領主屋敷地と直営農場からなり、屋敷地には領主自身もしくは荘官の住居兼管理事務所や倉庫があった。直営農場は、9世紀のパリのサン・ジェルマン修道院土地台帳（ゲラールB. Guérard編、1844）では、24荘園のうち22荘園までが備え、荘園ごとに平均約230ヘクタールに及んだ。その大部分は麦畑で、ほかにブドウ園、採草畑があった。農民保有地（永代小作地）は、多くはフーフェHufe（ドイツ語、フランス語ではマンスmanse）を単位とし、1フーフェは10～15ヘクタール程度の麦畑を主として、農民屋敷地・ブドウ畑などからなった。前記サン・ジェルマン修道院土地台帳では、各荘園に平均約60フーフェずつの農民保有地が属し、1戸の農家が1フーフェを保有する事例と、2～3戸で1フーフェを共同保有する事例とが、ほぼ相なかばしている。これら保有農の屋敷地は、多くは荘園ごとに1ないし数村落にまとまっていたが、ときには1荘園に属する農民が少数ずつ諸村落に分散して住み、したがって荘園が独立の政治体となりえない場合もあった。なお、ドイツの古典荘園は1村落を包摂しない事例が多く、11世紀のウォルムス司教領荘民団規則（グリムJ. Grimm編『村法類』Weistümer,1840～78）などによれば、荘園外の自由農民がかなり残存していた。これは、ドイツの荘園が、フランク王国時代を通じて、自由農民が領主の保護を求めて荘園に所属することにより、少しずつ拡大したためと思われる。

　地代は、穀物、ぶどう酒、家畜や貨幣など広義の生産物地代と賦役（労働地代）とからなっていた。通説では、古典荘園の特徴は賦役による直営地経営にあった、と説明されるが、ドプシュらの有力な反対説もある。前記サン・ジェルマン修道院土地台帳によって検証すると、1フーフェ当り週2～3日またはそれに相当する賦役を農民から徴収したのは、24荘園中の10荘で、他の14荘は生産物地代を主とし、その生産量に対する比率（地代率）は10％前後とみなされる。

　領主裁判権は、農民保有地の相続、売買などに関する民事裁判権のほか、犯罪に関する刑事裁判権を含み、国王から不輸不入権を得た大領主は、重罪裁判権を含む最高裁判権Hochgerichtsbarkeitをもっていた。なお修道院など教会領主は、しばしばその裁判権を俗人大領主に委託し、委託された俗人領主はドイツ語でフォークトVogt（ラテン語ではアドウォカートゥスadvocatus）とよばれた。

　古典荘園時代の社会構成については、これを封建制（農奴制）の典型と考え、荘園領主は封建領主、荘園農民は農奴、とみるのが通説である。そのおもな根拠は、荘園農民が普通1フーフェ当り週3日という過重な賦役義務を負ったから、とされる。しかし、かかる賦役義務がかならずしも一般的ではなかったことが判明し、通説への批判が生まれた。とくにドランジェルは、賦役量が少なくてしかも広い直営地をもつ荘園の存在に着目し、このような直営地の経営はおもに奴隷の使役によったと考えた。彼の学説は、フランスの歴史学界では承認されているが、他の諸国ではほとんど無視されたままである。他方ブロックは、当時の農民家族を大家族と考え、古典荘園社会を家父長制的な前封建社会とみた。これに対してドランジェルは、農民の奴隷所有を示唆したが、それを確証するのは前記ウォルムス司教領荘民団規則第2条である。すなわち、そこでは農民保有地の単位フーフェは「土地と奴隷たち」と言い換えられており、標準的農民たるフーフェ保有農が奴隷所有者であり一種の富農だったことは、疑いの余地がない。したがって1フーフェ当り週3日という一見過重な賦役は、実は奴隷を含めて数人に及ぶ家内労働力のなかから半人分を提供するだけの、比較的軽微な負担にすぎなかったこととなる。

　かように新しい研究を参考にして史料を精読すれば、古典荘園の農民を農奴とする通説は、かなり疑わしく、古典荘園社会を奴隷制社会とみることも可能である。すなわち、当時の領主と農民とが、奴隷支配者として同一の階級をなしたと考え、領主はいちおう裁判権をもちながら、農民を支配する立場にはなく、保護者の地位に甘んじたと考えることもできる。そこで、たとえば前記ウォルムス司教領荘民団規則第30条をみると、領主ウォルムス司教は、殺人事犯を裁判する能力を欠き、事件の結末は農民間の仇討(あだうち)にゆだねており、領主としてはせいぜい仇討の交戦を事前に調停する機能を認められていたにすぎない。

［橡川一朗］

地代荘園の構造と性格

地代荘園は、ブロックによれば、フランスではほぼ11世紀から18世紀に至るまで広く存在し、その特色は、生産物地代の優位、したがって直営地の消滅にあった。荘園農民は普通2～3ヘクタール（ほぼ4分の1フーフェ）を保有し、小家族の家族労働力をもってこれを耕作した。これらの農民は、当時の法律用語ではビランvilain（荘民）、俗称ではセルフserf（農奴）とよばれ、生産物の30％以上に及ぶ高率の地代を領主に支払った。かように地代荘園時代の農民は、典型的な小農民であり、古典荘園時代の富農的なフーフェ保有農民に比べて、領主への隷属性が強く、明らかに封建農民すなわち農奴とみなされる。また荘園領主は農民に対して民事、刑事両面の裁判権を行使し、それを利用して地代の増徴を図った。11～12世紀の恣意(しい)地代（恣意タイユ）taille à plaisirという高率地代がその表れである。

　これに対して農民の抵抗が激化し、その結果、恣意地代は若干軽減されるとともに定額化された。他方、12世紀ごろから人頭税シュバージュchevageとよばれる少額の貨幣地代が農民に課せられたが、13世紀には農民の抵抗と大領主の農民懐柔策とによって廃棄された。14世紀には百年戦争による地代増徴に対して大農民反乱「ジャクリーの乱」が起こり、反乱そのものは鎮圧されたが、以後、農民の地位はしだいに改善された。その結果、18世紀にはラブルールlaboureurとよばれた中農以上の農民は、事実上の土地所有者（自作農）となり、なかには大借地農として農業資本家に上昇する者も現れた。1789年これらの農民はフランス革命に参加し、封建領主を追放し、荘園を解体して、真の自由農民となった。

　ドイツの地代荘園時代はほぼ13世紀以降とされる。その下限は、市民革命としての三月革命（1848）が失敗に終わったため明確でないが、いちおう19世紀と考えてよい。古典荘園との違いは顕著ではないが、全体として賦役がやや減少した点と、荘園の範囲が広がって、残存自由農民を包摂した点は、特色といってよい。荘園農民の中核は、依然1フーフェもしくは半フーフェ以上を保有する富農であったが、ただ西南ドイツでは12～17世紀の間に、フランス地代荘園農民に類似の小農民が大部分を占めるに至った。すなわち、ドイツ地代荘園時代の社会構成は、西南ドイツでは徐々に農奴制社会に移行したといえるが、北部および南東部では、古典荘園時代と同様、農奴制社会とは断定しがたく、むしろ奴隷制の要素が多かった。すなわち、後者の諸地方では、前記『村法類』などをみると、富農は大家族の家長として、弟妹や次三男を支配し、さらに下人(げにん)Gesinde（下男、下女）を使役した。しかも農家の下人は法律用語で奴隷mancipiaとよばれ（グリム編『村法類』第3巻、1348年のメッペン領民規則第1条・第5条）、家長は下人に対して手討ち（私死刑）を含む懲罰権を行使した（『オーストリア村法類』Österreichische Weistümer第13巻、16世紀のシュタイル荘民法第7条）。このような農村の家父長的奴隷制が解体されたのは、19世紀後半の産業革命によって、農家の次三男や下人が工場に吸収されたためである。

　なおドイツ人がスラブ人を征服して成立した東北ドイツ植民地では、16世紀ごろから古典荘園の再版といわれる賦役制荘園グーツヘルシャフトGutsherrschaftが成立した。そこでも領主直営地における大量の下人使用が認められ、下人は、主人の私的懲罰権に服するなど、奴隷的性格を帯びていた。グーツヘルシャフトは19世紀前半のプロイセン農業改革によって解体されたが、旧領主の下人使用はその後のユンカー農場に継承されて、第二次世界大戦後の大改革まで続いた。

　イギリスでは11世紀までに古典荘園型の賦役制荘園が形成され、南東部には14世紀まで存続した。しかし全国的にみると、13世紀ごろから貨幣地代を主とする典型的な地代荘園が成立し、さらに15世紀末ごろから農奴は事実上の自由農民ヨーマンyeomanとなって、荘園は急速に解体した。他のヨーロッパ諸国でも中世以降19世紀まで、荘園は広く存在した。

［橡川一朗］

中国

形態

中国で荘園にあたるものは、墅(しょ)、別墅、田墅、山墅、村墅、園、園墅、別業(べつぎょう)、荘、荘子、荘田、荘園などとよばれ、王公、貴人、百官、富豪など前近代封建社会の大土地所有者が所有地の経営のために設けた家屋建造物、もしくは家屋建造物とこれに付属する田地とを一般的にさし、不輸不入の特権をもつ特殊な経済的組織体を意味するものではなかった。家屋建造物は、農耕の督察と田租の取り立てを行うための施設で、土塀(どべい)で囲み門楼を設けた屋敷内に、荘園主もしくはその代理人の住む荘屋、田租を収納する倉廩(そうりん)、耕牛、農器具、車両を置く舎屋、常時荘内にあって雑役に従う僮僕(どうぼく)を住まわせる客屋などが置かれていた。荘園が未開地を開発して置かれる場合には、このほかに、耕作者を集住させる屋舎がつくられていた。墅、荘、荘墅、荘子、荘院は、本来、郷村(ごうそん)に置かれたこれらの管理施設をさして用いられた呼称で、荘園主は荘園所在地の地名や縁起のよい美名を選んで某々荘と名づけていた。土地は、蔬菜(そさい)・果樹を植える園圃(えんぽ)、穀物をつくる田地、農器具の製造補修に必要な竹木や柴薪(さいしん)建築物料などをとる竹園山林があった。荘園は、本来の形態をいえば、中心部に荘院園圃があって周辺に田地山林が広がるものであったと考えられる。

［草野　靖］

発生・変遷

このような荘園がいつごろどのようにして発生したか明らかでない。前漢末（前1世紀ころ）にはすでに出現していた。当時、耕地は泉源や渓流を利用して山麓(さんろく)丘陵地帯の緩やかな傾斜地や山あいの平地に開かれていたが、有力な豪族たちは県、郷(きょう)、亭などの現住地から遠く離れた場所に新しい土地を求めて大規模な開発を行い、荘園を設けていた。別墅、別業はこうして別所に設けられた田園屋舎をさす呼称であった。荘園の開発は、後漢(ごかん)末三国初の混乱期に豪族の家が同族同郷の人々を率いて新しい土地に移住し、さらに西晋(せいしん)末の内乱や五胡(ごこ)の侵入期に華北の貴族豪族層が江南に移ったことによって、大いに進展した。南朝治下の江南では貴族豪族が盛んに山林沼沢を囲い取って流民(るみん)を収容し開発を進め、重大な政治問題となっている。唐のなかば以後は、商品貨幣経済が発達して流民客戸が増え、中央地方の官僚や寺院富豪の家が、これを耕作者として収容し開発を進めた。開発地は山陵丘陵地帯のほかに江河湖海沿岸の泥地が選ばれるようになり、砂泥地を堅牢(けんろう)な堤防で囲んで開墾した圩田(うでん)、囲田(いでん)が出現。新地を開発した荘園のほかに、没落した農民の土地を買い集めて置かれるものも現れた。

　漢および魏晋(ぎしん)南北朝時代に新地に開発された荘園は規模が大きく、荘内に耕作者を集住させたものが多く、また貴族の荘園は別荘を兼ねて交遊の場とされていた。宋(そう)代の荘にも書楼学舎を設けて一族子弟の勉学の場としたものがみられた。しかし商品経済が発達してくると、田租の保管販売の便宜上、荘院を州県城内や鎮市(ちんし)などの郷間の小都市に置くものが現れた。この傾向は、没落農民の土地を買い集めて置かれた荘においてとくに著しかった。この種の荘では、地段は散在していて耕作者を集住させる必要もなく、荘院は田租を収納する倉房さえあれば用が足りたからである。

　荘園の管理形態や耕作関係がやや明らかになるのは唐のなかば以後、とくに宋代である。荘院には平常、家僕数名が住んで管理にあたり、耕種収穫時には荘園主かその代理人が出向いて作業を督察し田租を収納していた。代理人は一般に幹人(かんじん)とよばれ、帳簿を管理し、収租・納税、田租の販売などにあたっていた。幹人と荘主は雇用関係にあり、納税や田租の販売の便宜上、州県の吏員の経験者や小商人が選ばれていた。耕作者には身分的な制約はなく、荘客、荘戸、佃(でん)客、佃戸などとよばれ、自ら耕牛、農具、種子などを所有して荘田を耕す場合は通常、定額の田租（およそ収穫の半分にあたる）を納め、荘主の耕牛、種子あるいは農具を使用して耕作する場合は7対3とか6対4とかの比率で主家と収穫を分かっていた。また農耕のほかに若干の雑役に従っていた。南北朝以前では耕作者は隷属的性格が強かったものと推測されるが、詳しいことはわからない。

　荘園は民国時代にも存在した。1920～1930年代の多くの農村調査によると、大地主は消費生活の便宜や治安の関係から多く城内に住んでいたが、山東、江蘇(こうそ)江北、安徽(あんき)、江西、湖広などでは、比較的に多くの租田がまとまって存在する場所に、倉屋、荘房、倉房、禾房(かぼう)とよぶ倉庫兼住屋を置いて家僕を住まわせ、収穫期になると、老総(ろうそう)、管賬(ちょう)などとよばれる管理人を派遣して収租にあたらせ、収納した田租はいったん倉房に納めたのちに城内の地主の家に運んでいた。江蘇南部や浙江(せっこう)の一部では、巨大地主は城内に租桟(そさん)を設けて賬房（経理主任）以下の職員を雇用し、租田の貸出しや田租の収納などの業務にあたらせ、かたわら中小地主の依託を受けて、その所有地の収租事務を代行していた。これは、荘院の倉廩としての機能が最高度に発展した形態を示すものとみてよいであろう。

［草野　靖］

日本

　奈良時代に発生し戦国時代まで存続した、貴族・寺社の大土地所有の形態。本格的展開をみた平安時代後期以降は、荘園が政治・社会・経済の根幹を規定する地位を占め、その社会はしばしば荘園制社会とよばれる。およそ800年に及ぶ荘園の歴史は、通常、(1)形成期＝8世紀後半から11世紀なかばころまで、(2)確立展開期＝11世紀後半から14世紀前半ころまで、(3)動揺解体期＝14世紀後半から16世紀末の太閤(たいこう)検地まで、の3期に区分される。

［永原慶二］

初期荘園

743年（天平15）の墾田永年私財法(こんでんえいねんしざいほう)を転機として、8世紀後半以降、中央貴族・寺社と地方豪族との結び付きのもとに、山野未墾地の囲い込みが進められ、荘所とよぶ倉庫兼開発拠点を中心に開墾が行われ、これが荘園の発端となった。越前(えちぜん)など北陸地方に数多く設定された東大寺(とうだいじ)領の荘園群はその代表的なものである。これらは墾田を基軸とした経営であることから、墾田地系荘園ともよばれた。しかし荘園とはいっても、これらの初期荘園は輸租(ゆそ)地で専属荘民はおらず、主として周辺の公民(こうみん)に賃租に出し、地子(じし)を収める経営方式をとった。その限りでは初期荘園はまだ律令制(りつりょうせい)の公地公民原則を基本的に否定するものではなかったが、9世紀には財政難から政府も勅旨田(ちょくしでん)・官田などとよぶ荘園類似の直轄地を設定することもあり、支配層の未墾地囲い込みが農民の共同用益地を圧迫し、その没落を促した。その結果、農民のなかには流亡して荘園に流入し、荘民化するものも増え、荘園増加はしだいに深刻な政治社会問題となりだした。

［永原慶二］

荘園の増加と荘園整理

902年（延喜2）、政府はいわゆる荘園整理令を発して、貴族・寺社の山野囲い込みや農民の墾田・宅地の買取りを禁止した。しかしこのころを境に戸籍制度は破綻(はたん)し、班田制も廃棄されて、律令制土地制度の全面的変質が進みだした。荒廃した公田を再開発すると、負担が軽減されるばかりか、これも開発地とともに、「私領」として売買譲与することが許され、荘園と称さないが実質はそれに近いものとなった。荘園から荘民が出作(でづくり)している公領の耕地も荘園に取り込まれることが多くなり、本来の荘地よりも出作加納(かのう)とよばれる公領の不法取り込みによる荘地のほうが広い荘園さえ続出した。また10世紀から11世紀にかけて、貴族や寺社の封戸(ふこ)に指定された百姓を封主(ふうしゅ)が私民化することを梃子(てこ)として、その封戸のかかわる土地を荘園化してしまういわゆる雑役免(ぞうやくめん)荘園が急増し始めた。雑役免荘園はいわば土地支配よりも人間支配が先行した荘園で、官物(かんもつ)は国に出し雑役を貴族・寺社がとる、国と領主とに両属する所領であった。1070年（延久2）の興福寺(こうふくじ)領の荘園は151荘で面積計2357町余、うち1854町までが雑役免荘であった。さらに律令財政制度の崩壊につれて位田(いでん)・職田(しきでん)なども世襲されて荘園化し、官田は分割され、諸官衙(かんが)の経費にあてる諸司要劇田(しょしようげきでん)とされ、やがてその官衙の長官がその地位を世襲化するにつれて、要劇田は長官家の所領荘園化していった。

　このようにさまざまの経路で荘園が増加し始めると、政府は984年（永観2）、1040年（長久1）、1045年（寛徳2）、1055年（天喜3）、1065年（治暦1）、1069年（延久1）と、繰り返し荘園整理令を発し、その増勢を抑えようとした。しかし、整理による収公が一時的なものに終わり、国司がその地位を利用して立荘することさえ少なくなく、結局その効果はあがらなかった。

［永原慶二］

寄進の盛行と荘園の全国的展開

11世紀から12世紀にかけて、地方豪族が「私領」を中央貴族・寺社などに寄進し、荘園化する動きが全国的に推進された。地方豪族は、国司の手による「私領」の収公を免れるため、中央権門貴族・寺社に「私領」を寄進し、その権威によって「私領」を確保しようとしたのであるが、立荘にあたっては、貴族・寺社は「私領」ばかりでなく、その周辺の公領をも広く荘域に取り込むのが普通であった。これをいわゆる寄進地系荘園という。寄進地系荘園の実態は、単なる開発私領に限らず公領の分割という性質を広くもっていたのであり、たとえば備後(びんご)の大田(おおた)荘は世羅(せら)郡の東半にあたる公領の桑原(くわばら)郷・大田郷をそっくり荘領としており、陸奥(むつ)の菊多(きくた)荘は菊多郡を一括して荘園化したのである。

　立荘は名目的には寄進とはいえ、国家の承認を得、太政官符(だいじょうかんぷ)、民部省符(みんぶしょうふ)によって立券(りっけん)された。寄進を受けたものは上級領主たる領家(りょうけ)となり、寄進者は現地管理者たる下司(げし)となった。下司は、若干の免租地たる給田(きゅうでん)と下司が雑役をとることを許された雑免百姓に対する支配権を認められ、荘園全体の下地(したじ)管理、勧農、年貢雑役の徴取納入などにあたった。領家は検注(けんちゅう)権、年貢雑役の収納権、裁判権などを内容とする荘務権をもち、本所(ほんじょ)とよばれた。領家が一般の貴族・寺社である場合、さらに最高の権威をいただくため、摂関家・皇室などに重ねて寄進し、これを本家(ほんけ)と仰ぐこともあったが、本家の得分(とくぶん)は概して少額であった。その結果、一つの荘園に対する土地支配権は本家―領家―下司というように重層的な構成をとり、職権と得分を伴うそれぞれの地位は職(しき)として表現された。このような形で成立した寄進地系荘園は、臨時役たる勅事院事大小国役(ちょくじいんじだいしょうくにやく)以外は、国家に対していっさいの経済負担を免除されていわゆる不輸租であるとともに、国司の警察権をも排除した不入権ももつようになった。

　寄進地系荘園の全国的展開と並行して、公領も、在地豪族の勢力範囲を反映しつつ、郷(ごう)、保(ほ)などとよぶ支配単位に分割され、彼らが郷司、保司などの地位につくとともに、国支配の基本たる国務権も中央権門貴族・寺社に知行(ちぎょう)国として配分されることが多くなった。知行国主は自分の腹心の者を形のうえでは国司に任命したが、経済的収益の基本部分を私的得分とした点で、荘園領主と似た性質をもつようになった。こうして平安末期ころまでに展開した荘園および公領のあり方を、通常、荘園公領制とよぶが、荘園と公領の割合は全国的にみるとほぼ6対4前後と推定されている。

［永原慶二］

荘園の領有と伝領

荘園の領有・集積は、初め摂関家藤原氏が積極的だった。これは、後三条(ごさんじょう)天皇が親政して摂関家を抑え、白河(しらかわ)上皇の院政も皇室への権力集中を図ったので、これに対抗して経済的基礎を固めるねらいがあったようである。しかし摂関家の荘園集積に対抗し、皇室も鳥羽(とば)・後白河(ごしらかわ)時代には膨大な荘園を集積し、多数の知行国（院宮分国(いんぐうぶんこく)）を設定した。それらの諸荘園は全国に分散し、個々の荘園についていえば重層的な領有権の一部をもつにすぎなかったから、その維持は独自の力だけでは困難で、周辺からの侵犯その他領有権が脅かされる場合は、国家体制に依存し、中央法廷での裁判に基づく国衙(こくが)の武力によってそれを排除するほかなかった。この点が後の大名領国の場合などと著しく異なるところである。また中位以下の貴族の場合、荘務権をもち自らが本所となりえた「家領(けりょう)」荘園の所有はごく少数で、他は、摂関家や皇室に家司(けいし)などとして仕える報酬として、その荘園の預所(あずかりどころ)などに一時的に任ぜられて得分を得る、一種の俸禄(ほうろく)的性質のものが多かった。有力荘園領主は、各地の荘園から上納されてくる年貢・雑公事物を中心に毎年の諸経費をまかなう家産経済体制を編成することに力を入れた。

　こうして荘園の所有形態は、貴族・寺社のなかでも格式により多様であったが、皇室や摂関家のように荘務権のあるもの・ないものを含めその数が数百以上にも及んだ場合、それらは御願寺(ごがんじ)や氏寺(うじでら)などに分け付すとともに、一族に配分されることが多かった。皇室領荘園の多くが御願寺領・女院領などの形をとったのがそれでのちには、大覚寺(だいかくじ)統・持明院(じみょういん)統に伝領される荘園群や知行国が固定されるようになった。

［永原慶二］

荘民と年貢など

個々の荘園についてみると、荘園の耕地は下司など荘官の給田・給名のほかは、大別して名田(みょうでん)と一色田(いっしきでん)とに区別された。名田は名主(みょうしゅ)に年貢・雑役などの徴収・納入責任を負わせた部分で、そのすべてが厳密な意味での名主の保有地ではない。領主権の強い畿内(きない)の荘園では、いわゆる均等名荘園のように名を均等規模に編成することもあった。名主は名田の大部分について作手(さくて)とよばれる保有権をもつ場合もあったが、一つの名田が何人もの作手農民に分割保有されていることも少なくなかった。荘官の名田と区別して、一般の名田は百姓名ともいわれたが、百姓名には田地1段当り3～5斗程度の年貢米（年貢はかならずしも米に限らず、布、絹、材木などのこともある）と、名単位にかけられる雑多な各種生産物および夫役(ぶやく)の負担があった。後二者はあわせて雑役(ぞうやく)あるいは公事(くじ)とよばれた。一色田は名田に編成された以外の田地で、名主が存在しない一種の領主直属地で、ここには概して高額の年貢だけが賦課された。このほか荘園領主直営地としての性質をもつ佃(つくだ)が設定されることもあったが、日本の場合、佃は、ヨーロッパのマナーmanorの直営地のように規模が大きく、農民の週夫役を大量に投入するような形をとることはなかった。

　農民の基本的身分階層としては、名主と小(こ)百姓があった。両者は広い意味ではともに百姓という身分であるが、名主は百姓上層の有力経営農民であることによって、名主としての地位・特権を認められたのであり、年貢雑役などを納入したあとに余剰分である内徳(ないとく)を手元に残す可能性もあった。小百姓は名田や一色田の作手農民で、その保有権は強固なものでなく、しばしば散田(さんでん)という形で割り替えされることさえあった。名主クラスの有力農民は傍系親族や下人(げにん)という奴隷的従属労働力を従え、家父長制的な大経営を行い、それなりに安定していたが、小百姓層の経営は不安定で、しばしば経営が破綻し流亡化した。流亡民は下人に転落する場合のほか、縁を求めて移動し、他村に住み着くこともあった。そうした新入の農民は間人(もうと)とよばれ百姓身分より一段低いものとされたが、全体に経営条件の不安定な荘園農村では、絶家・流亡が反復的に発生し、荒廃、不作付田(ふさくつけでん)が増大したため、荘官は「浪人(ろうにん)を招きすえる」という形で荘園耕地の「満作(まんさく)」に努力した。しかし下司などの荘官も荘官佃という直営地をもち家父長制的な大経営をもっていたため、荘民の経営を全体的に安定させるよりも、百姓の夫役を恣意(しい)的に取り立てたり、用水を自分の田地に都合のよいようにかってに引き直したりするなどして、百姓の経営と対立することもまれでなかった。このため名主級の百姓は共同体的結合によってこれと対抗した。

　これら農民のほか、荘園には若干の職人が存在することが多かった。番匠(ばんしょう)、鋳物師(いもじ)、鍛冶(かじ)、皮造(かわつくり)、土器作(どきつくり)、檜物師(ひものし)、紺掻(こんかき)などである。彼らは荘園領主側から、小面積ではあるが給免田(きゅうめんでん)を与えられるという形で保護を受け、半農半工の生活を営み、現地の需要に応ずる手工業生産を行った。しかし、一つの荘園内に、必要なすべての手工業者が居住するというわけではなく、彼らはいくつかの荘園公領などを含む一定の地域内に出職(でしょく)し、地域としての必要に応ずる活動形態をとっていた。さらに荘内には梶取(かじとり)とよぶ年貢輸送業務のかたわら商人的性質をもつ者も存在した。当時の年貢輸送には河川が広く利用されたから、そのような地理的条件をもつ所では梶取が活動し、荘園市場も設けられた。これもどの荘園にもかならず開設されるというものではないが、荘官としても荘内の再生産条件を確保するとともに、自らが流通機能を掌握することを通じて支配力を強めることができたから、市場の開設や商人の招致には力を注ぐことが多かった。市(いち)は月に一～三度程度開かれることが多かったが、中世後期になると、有力な市場には、市場在家(ざいけ)という定住商人が出現し、定期市でも月6回の六斎市(ろくさいいち)に発展した。

［永原慶二］

鎌倉幕府と荘園制

鎌倉幕府が成立したころに、荘園の寄進の動きはほとんど停止した。おそらく寄進の主体たる在地豪族層が御家人(ごけにん)となることによって国司の収公圧力を排除できる条件が成立してきたからであろう。源頼朝(よりとも)は平氏を滅ぼしたのち、義経追捕(よしつねついぶ)を名目に守護、地頭(じとう)設置を朝廷側に認めさせた。地頭設置は公家(くげ)・寺社の強い反対にあったが、しだいに荘郷に広く設置され、とくに承久(じょうきゅう)の乱（1221）以降は新補(しんぽ)地頭によって、その設置はほとんど全国に行き渡った。本補(ほんぽ)地頭の職権は先に存在した下司（先(せん)下司）の権限を継承するものとされ、新補地頭にはいわゆる新補率法(りっぽう)が適用された。しかしいずれにせよ地頭の地位は勅許によって新設された武家専属の職(しき)であるとともに、主従制を前提として御家人にだけ与えられるものであり、実質的には荘園領主権に対して巨大な圧力を加え、年貢徴収・下地進止(したじしんし)・検断(けんだん)などの権能を奪い取るものであった。とはいえ原理的には荘園公領制の職の秩序のなかに位置づけられるものであった。頼朝の挙兵、鎌倉幕府の成立は、一面では公家政権から独立の武家政権の樹立を意味するが、半面では鎌倉殿（将軍）自身も大荘園領主であり多数の知行国の国主であったから、荘園制を根本的に否定するものではなかったのである。頼朝は荘園公領制の枠組みを存続させたまま、地頭設置によって現地支配の実権を握ろうとしたのである。また国別に置かれた守護も国司の行政権を直接否認するものではなかったが、その設置により守護は事実上国司の権能を逐次吸収し、国支配の実質を掌握する方向に進んだから、国支配の実権はしだいに守護の手に移っていった。国ごとに荘園公領の面積・領主・地頭などを調査した国支配の基本台帳たる図田帳(ずでんちょう)も鎌倉時代には守護を介して作成管理されるようになり、これがのちに守護の領国大名化していく梃子ともなった。こうして鎌倉幕府の成立以降は、荘園公領の現地支配の実権が、主従制に基づいて将軍から補任(ぶにん)された御家人たる地頭・守護の手に移ったから、荘園制の変質は避けられなかったし、とくに元来中央政府の統治力の浸透が弱かった東国では、荘園領主はその支配を地頭に請け負わせ、地頭が荘園支配の実権を完全に掌握してしまう場合が多かった。

［永原慶二］

在地領主制の発展と荘園制の動揺

鎌倉中期以降、地頭は荘園公領制の職の秩序の枠を乗り越えて、領主的権限を拡大し現地支配権を独占しようとする動きをとった。その種の動きはさまざまであるが、なかでも、百姓名を地頭名(じとうみょう)に取り込み、その百姓を身分的に隷属させ夫役を奉仕させる動き、荘園領主に送るべき年貢を「抑留(よくりゅう)」したり「押領(おうりょう)」したりする動き、検断権を梃子に百姓から科料銭(かりょうせん)を取り立て、あるいはその妻子を召し捕り下人にしてしまう動き、などがおもなものであった。名主・小百姓層もこうした地頭の行為を新儀非法(しんぎひほう)として領主へ申状(もうしじょう)で訴えたり、さらに逃散(ちょうさん)などによって抵抗し、荘園領主側の荘官である雑掌(ざっしょう)などは、地頭非法をしばしば幕府に訴えた。幕府も職の枠を超えた地頭の行為に対しては一貫してこれを抑制する方針で臨んだが、地頭の領主化を抑えることはほとんど困難であった。地頭は公然たる非法といった形でなくとも、荘園領主側が実施しようとする検注を拒否して、多くの隠田(おんでん)を支配し、場合によっては新田は地頭の進止という主張を公然と認めさせた。また田地の裏作につくる麦に対して地頭が麦年貢を賦課したり、山野河海所出物(さんやかかいしょしゅつぶつ)とよぶ農地以外の土地生産物ないし収穫物に対しても追求の圧力を強めていった。そのような各種の動きによって荘園領主側の支配が事実上麻痺(まひ)状態に置かれると、領主側はやむなく、法的にも譲歩を与えて、それ以上の地頭の侵略的行為を食い止めようとした。その方式もさまざまあったが、領主側が幕府法廷に訴え、法廷において領主と地頭との間の和与(わよ)すなわち和解関係を確定するのが一つであった。また下地中分(したじちゅうぶん)といって、荘園の土地を半々とか2対1といった形で分割してしまう方式もあった。下地中分は、荘地を分割して地頭一円地として引き渡すことになるからその打撃は大きいが、鎌倉後期になると、それでも残り部分が地頭を排除した形で確保できればよいとされ、中分は荘園領主側から求められた。

　このような地頭の非法は、承久以後の新補地頭が西国の任地に一族をあげて移住したり、代官を送り込んで、新たに領主権を拡大してゆこうとする場合とくに激しかった。また中央領主の拠点である畿内(きない)やその周辺地帯では、荘園領主側の抵抗も激しかったため、地頭は在地土豪層とも結んでしばしば武力行動に乗り出し、荘官を追い出すなどのこともまれでなくなった。荘園領主側はこれを悪党とよんで恐れ、幕府にその鎮圧を要求した。このように多様な契機を通して地頭の領主化は、鎌倉中期以降急速に進展してゆくのであるが、この間、幕府ももっぱら地頭非法の抑止だけに力を入れていたわけではなく、とくに蒙古(もうこ)襲来を契機に、従来地頭が設置されていなかった寺社本所一円地にも兵糧や兵員の賦課を行い、守護が国衙に結び付いていた在地豪族を被官化するなどの形で、荘園制に対する全体的圧迫を強めたから、その動揺は避けられないものとなった。

［永原慶二］

荘園制の解体

南北朝期以降、荘園制は本格的な解体段階に入った。荘民のなかでは小百姓の自立性が強まり、名主・小百姓を含む惣(そう)結合によって年貢や夫役の減免を要求する戦いが至る所の荘園で引き起こされ、それを抑圧しようとする代官の罷免を要求することもまれでなくなった。またそのような年貢減免要求の成果と土地生産力の上昇によって農村内部に剰余が成立するようになり、耕地を貸し付け加地子(かじし)という一種の小作料をとる関係が拡大し始めた。しかも単位面積当りの加地子の額は年貢（このころは荘園領主年貢を加地子に対し本(ほん)年貢というようになった）の量を上回るほどになったから、領主の土地に対する支配力は著しく後退したわけである。

　一方、地頭および守護の荘園侵略も南北朝内乱期には一段と多角化した。地頭は年貢抑留・下地押領などによって荘園侵略を推進するとともに、地頭請によって荘園の全面的支配権を掌握した。しかもそれは従来からの各地に散在する所領についてでなく、拠点所領に隣接する荘郷の請所(うけしょ)権を獲得し、事実上地域的にまとまりある領域支配体制を形成し始めたのである。このような在地領主はもはや地頭とはいわなくなり、国人(こくじん)（国人領主）とよばれた。また守護も守護請を拡大するとともに、管国内の諸荘園公領に対し臨時の守護役（兵糧米や人夫）をかけ、その量もしだいに本年貢を上回る場合さえあるほどになった。このころになると国衙の権能のみならず機構そのものも守護側に吸収されてしまったから、公領は守護領化し、従来国司の賦課徴収権に属していた一国平均国役(へいきんのくにやく)の類も守護の権限に転化し、やがて守護段銭(たんせん)は管国内一律に恒常的な形で賦課されるものとなっていった。

　こうした動向をさらに促進したのが半済(はんぜい)令である。1352年（正平7・文和1）に出された最初の半済令は、初め近江(おうみ)以下3か国、ついで8か国に限り、その年1年の年貢米半分を兵糧米として武家方に引き渡させるものであったが、1368年（正平23・応安1）の半済令は、国も期限も定めず、守護が荘園公領の土地そのものの半分を分割して、半分をその地の国人に給付するというものであったから、特権的な性質の強い寺社本所一円地は適用外という留保があったにしても、全体としては荘園制に強烈な打撃を与えることになった。このことは、鎌倉時代のように荘園制の職の秩序を王朝と幕府とが一体として擁護する段階が終わり、それが根幹から揺るがされる段階に入ったことを意味する。それにつれて中央貴族・寺社の全国散在的な荘園所有は不可能になり、遠隔地の荘園の多くが国人に抑えられ、「不知行」あるいは「相論(そうろん)（訴訟）中」という状態に陥った。とくに皇室や摂関家のように最高の権門として、荘務権をもたず、得分だけを入手していた本家職が多かった場合の打撃は決定的だった。荘園領主側は、散在・重層という特徴をもつ職の知行がその国家的保障をまったく失った事態に達すると、重層関係を清算し、同時に地頭職も入手して、一円的な支配関係の確保できる荘園所領を少数でもつくりだそうと努力した。しかし直接武力をもたない貴族にはそれは事実上不可能なことであって、わずかに比叡山(ひえいざん)や高野山(こうやさん)のような大寺院が本寺の周辺地帯において荘園支配の立て直しに一定の効果をあげたにとどまった。

　そのため、室町時代に入ると、荘園領主の経済的窮乏は深刻となり、その年および明年以降の先物年貢を担保として土倉(どそう)から借財することが恒常化した。しかし負債の返還はほとんど困難であり、土倉は担保として質入れされた荘園の代官となって直接取り立てにあたった。土倉に借財の担保として質入れされない荘園でも、領主側は自力による取り立てが不可能なため、当時金融活動を行っていた比叡山の山僧や、財務能力と同時に幕府守護側と交渉力をもつ五山禅寺の東班衆(とうはんしゅう)とよばれた実務僧たちを代官に取り立てるなどして、一定の年貢を入手するだけの状況に陥った。

［永原慶二］

荘園の消滅

このような荘園制の解体の動きは、応仁(おうにん)・文明(ぶんめい)の乱（1467～1477）を経て戦国時代に進むとともに最終局面を迎えた。戦国大名の権力は国人領主の地域連合的な性質をもっており、その初期においてはまだ国人の荘園請負関係が基盤に存在することもあり、初めから荘園制を全面的に清算した存在とはいえなかった。しかし、戦国大名は結集した国人領主をしだいに強固な家臣団に組織し、領域支配権力を固めるにつれて、逐次検地を行い、「守護使不入」という形で大名権力を排除していた寺社領などに対しても上位権力としての立場を確立していった。また畿内やその周辺で中央貴族の荘園得分をある程度保障する場合も、新たに大名がそれを安堵(あんど)するという形をとったから、もはや荘園は国家的職秩序のもとで独自に存続しているのでなく、領国大名によって個々に保障されつつ残存しているだけになった。

　豊臣(とよとみ)秀吉の統一に伴う太閤検地は、そのような残存物をも最終的に一掃するものであった。大和(やまと)一国に支配的実力をもち多数の荘園を保有した興福寺でさえ、一定の石高(こくだか)を寺領として与えられただけで、ほかはすべて否定し去られた。太閤検地は、全国の検地実施権、石高知行の宛行(あておこない)権を秀吉が集中行使することを意味しており、それによって荘園制は原理的に消滅するとともに、荘という地名表示さえも抹消されることになったのである。

［永原慶二］

『ドプシュ著、野崎直治・石川操・中村宏訳『ヨーロッパ文化発展の経済的社会的基礎』（1980・創文社）』▽『マルク・ブロック著、飯沼二郎・河野健二訳『フランス農村史の基本性格』（1959・創文社）』▽『Ph. DollingerEvolution des classes rurales en Bavière (1949, Société d'édition : Les Belles Lettres, Paris)』▽『橡川一朗著『西欧封建社会の比較史的研究』増補改訂版（1984・青木書店）』▽『草野靖著「大土地所有と佃戸制の展開」（『岩波講座　世界歴史9』所収・1970・岩波書店）』▽『周藤吉之著『中国土地制度史研究』（1954・東京大学出版会）』▽『宇都宮清吉著『僮約研究』（『漢代社会経済史研究』所収・1955・弘文堂）』▽『村松祐次著『近代江南の租桟――中国地主制度の研究』（1972・東京大学出版会）』▽『渡辺澄夫著『畿内庄園の基礎構造』（1956・吉川弘文館）』▽『佐々木銀弥著『荘園の商業』（1964・吉川弘文館）』▽『阿部猛著『中世日本荘園史の研究』（1966・新生社）』▽『稲垣泰彦編『荘園の世界』（1973・東京大学出版会）』▽『竹内理三編『土地制度史1』（1973・山川出版社）』▽『永原慶二著『荘園』（1978・評論社）』