Taika Reforms

Japanese: 大化改新 - たいかのかいしん

Domestic reforms began with the overthrow of the main branch of the Soga clan in 645 (Taika 1). In June of the same year, a coup d'état led by Prince Nakano Oe (later Emperor Tenji) and Nakatomi Kamako (later Fujiwara Kamatari) was successful, and the father and son Soga Emishi and Iruka, who held power, were overthrown. This is called the Isshi Incident, and the domestic reforms that began with this and continued until around 650 (Hakuchi 1) are called the Taika Reforms. However, there is currently a great deal of division and conflict in academic opinion regarding the credibility of related records, including the four articles of the Taika Reforms Imperial Edict included in the entry for January 1st of the second year of the Taika era in the Nihon Shoki, as well as the historical significance of the reforms. The divisions lie over many points, but if we focus on three points - (1) the existence of a national ideology based on the citizenship system in the mid-640s, (2) the authenticity of the Taika Reforms, and (3) their historical position - they can be broadly summarized into the following four views. Needless to say, within each view, there are many conflicting speculations on various points of contention.

[Tadao Nomura]

Basic Positive Theory

The first view, represented by Sakamoto Taro and Seki Akira, acknowledges the detailed arrangement of dates and textual modifications made by the editors of the Nihon Shoki, but basically accepts the Taika Reforms as described in the Nihon Shoki. In other words, the Taika Reforms were issued around January 646, starting with the Isshi Incident, and the various clauses in the edict, although modified by sources such as the Kanshu, are assumed to be from 646 in content, and were proclaimed as a concrete plan for a system that would eventually be realized. For example, it was suggested that kuni no miyatsuko be replaced by gunji, but in reality the koori no miyatsuko system was implemented, and the gunji system was first established with the Taiho Code in 701 (the first year of the Taiho era). Supported by the understanding that the various laws and regulations would not necessarily be realized immediately, the idea and concept of the reforms were, after many twists and turns, completed with the Taiho Code. From this perspective, the Taika Reforms are understood to have an important historical position as the starting point for the Ritsuryo state system.

[Tadao Nomura]

Contents of the revised Imperial Rescript

The Imperial Reforms recorded in the Nihon Shoki consist of the following four articles. [1] Private land and private citizens were confiscated and a system of public land and public citizens was established. Ministers and their subordinates who participated in national politics were given hehito (feudal titles). [2] As central and local administrative organizations, capitals, provincial governors, county governors, checkpoints, border guards, and other officials were established, and in capitals, town chiefs and town lawmakers were established. In addition, post horses and relay horses were established as public transportation. [3] For the first time, laws were created for household registration, accounting books, and land distribution. In addition, 50 households were designated as villages and village chiefs were established. A field was 360 bu in one tan, 10 tan in one cho, and the field tax was set at two bundles and two bamboos per tan. [4] The old tax system was abolished and instead a rice field tax and a household tax were collected. One official horse was collected from every household, and weapons were provided to each person. In addition, sisters and daughters of the rank of junior lord or higher in a county were required to provide court ladies as tribute, and one servant and one kuriya were required to provide tribute for every 50 households. One focal point that divides the various theories is whether or not this reform edict was issued, and if so, how much it was modified and altered from the original edict.

[Tadao Nomura]

Affirmative of the Basic Principles

The second view is represented by Inoue Mitsusada, who believes that the original Imperial Reforms Edict, which had a simple outline, was issued in January 646, following the Isshi Incident in June 645. The original edict was written in the style of a decree, and it is assumed that the text as well as the content were significantly modified and altered using later ryobun. However, the contents of the edict include a national ideal based on the Sui-Tang style citizenship system, a realistic regional system that replaced kuni no miyatsuko with hyo no miyatsuko, and a uniform tax system of rice field taxes and household taxes that differed from the later ritsuryo system. There is no framework for the various systems that could be considered the concept for the later ritsuryo system, and the framework was created by the people involved in the reforms and their successors through repeated trial and error, and was completed with the Taiho Code of 701. This view affirms the existence of a Ritsuryo-based national ideal to overcome the weakness of the system in response to the situation in East Asia during the Reform period in the mid-640s, but there is no concrete framework for the Ritsuryo system in the original Reform Edict, and the emphasis on its establishment is shifted to the period around the Jinshin War in 672. From this perspective, the Taika Reforms occupy a smaller position in history than in the first view.

[Tadao Nomura]

New Fiction and Negation

The third view, represented by Kadowaki Teiji and Hara Hidesaburo, is a denialist that the Taika Reforms described in the Nihon Shoki were fabricated by the editors and are nothing more than fiction. This view believes that the overthrow of the main branch of the Soga clan in the Isshi Incident is a fact, but that it is essentially the same as the political events that occurred before and after it, such as the annihilation of the Jōguō royal family, that is, the annihilation of the Yamashiro no Oe royal family by Soga no Iruka, and the Prince Arima Incident. It also holds that the Reform Edicts were fabricated by the editors of the Nihon Shoki, and that in the mid-7th century there was no sense of crisis as an international nation, and no national ideal based on the Ritsuryo code of citizenship did not exist. In other words, there was no Taika Reforms that had a significant historical significance, and instead there was merely a series of homogenous steps from the reign of Suiko in the early 7th century until around the Jinshin War in 672. The path to the establishment of a Ritsuryo state in Japan began with a sense of crisis over an invasion from the continent, triggered by the complete withdrawal from the Korean Peninsula following the defeat at Baekgang in 663. A series of domestic reforms enacted by the Kasshi decree in February of the following year, 664, particularly the establishment of the Ministry of Civil Affairs and the Ministry of Household Affairs, gave rise to a trend toward turning the people into citizens, and after the Jinshin War, the abolition of the Ministry of Finance in 675 marked the full-scale move toward a Ritsuryo state. The Ritsuryo state was then established with the Taiho Code in 701. This view denies the existence of the Taika Reforms, which were considered to have had important historical significance in the mid-640s, and claims that the reforms were merely a deliberate fabrication by the editors of the Nihon Shoki, and seeks to understand the beginnings of the establishment of the Ritsuryo state by tracing it back to the time of the Kanshi Imperial Edict in February 664.

[Tadao Nomura]

New Reform Affirmation

The fourth view is a new view of affirming the reforms presented by Ishimoda Sho. Ishimoda argues that the contents of Article 1, the core of the Reform Edict, were not related to the confiscation of private land and private citizens or the emergence of the Land Distribution Law, but rather to the abolition of individual measures such as the abolition of government-run farms and rice loans in Kibishima Sumemioya, and the implementation of general measures such as the investigation and registration of school fields and private households in order to collect unstable rice tax. However, he argues that the reforms were a series of important domestic reforms in response to the urgent challenge posed by the changing situation in East Asia for our country, which had structural flaws such as a patchwork of military structures. In other words, the reforms were the starting point for a shift from a "vertical" clan-based order in which clans were given kabanena (family names) and were subordinate to and served the royal authority to a Ritsuryo state system with a civic-based system of households. This view denies the issuance of the public land and citizenship system in Article 1 of the Reform Edict, but highly values the historical significance of the Taika Reforms as a turning point from a royal citizenship system to a citizenship system, and is a new form of affirmation of the reforms.

[Tadao Nomura]

One hypothesis at this stage

Based on the above opinions, let us present one hypothesis. The Tang Dynasty's decision to send a large army to attack Goguryeo in 644, together with the knowledge of students sent to Sui and monks who had experienced the transition from Sui to Tang and returned to Japan, made the reformists such as Nakatomi no Kamako realize the weakness of the royal system. In addition, the annihilation of the Kamimiya royal family by Soga no Iruka in 643 increased the momentum against the main branch of the Soga clan. At this point, the reformists including Prince Nakano Oe and Nakatomi no Kamako, with the addition of Soga no Kurayamada no Ishikawa no Maro, a member of the Soga clan, succeeded in defeating Emishi and Iruka and his son in June 645. This was followed by the issuance of the simple-sounding Reform Imperial Edict in January of the following year, 646, which was endorsed. In terms of content, it is assumed that there was a change from kuni no miyatsuko to hyō no miyatsuko, and a uniform tax system that differed from the later Taiho and Yoro codes, but it seems that the ritsuryo-like ideal existed in the mid-7th century. The central government system, which was not included in the original reform edict, was put in place in 649, and the previous 12 ranks of ranks of caps and ranks evolved into the 13 ranks of caps and ranks in 647, and then into the 19 ranks of caps and ranks in 649, which became a cap and rank system that could organize all powerful clans and below. However, the real step towards a ritsuryo state began with the Koshi Edict of 664, which added state power to the widespread private rule of the various powerful clans, and registered them as Minbu and Kabu. Then, after the Jinshin War in 672, the Bukyoku (Minbu) were made public citizens in 675, and the ritsuryo state based on the public citizen system was completed with the Taiho Code of 701.

[Tadao Nomura]

"Study of the Taika Reforms" by Sakamoto Taro (1938, Shibundo)" ▽ "Study of the Ancient Japanese State" by Inoue Mitsusada (1965, Iwanami Shoten)" ▽ "The Theory of the Taika Reforms - A Study of Its Prehistory" by Kadowaki Teiji (1969, Tokuma Shoten)" ▽ "The Taika Reforms, revised edition by Inoue Mitsusada (1970, Kobundo Shobo)" ▽ "Ancient Japanese State" by Ishimoda Tadashi (1971, Iwanami Shoten)" ▽ "Research History: The Taika Reforms, expanded edition by Nomura Tadao (1978, Yoshikawa Kobunkan)" ▽ "Study of the History of the Ancient Japanese State - A Criticism of the Taika Reforms Theory" by Hara Hidesaburo (1980, University of Tokyo Press)

[Supplementary Material] | Taika Reforms

Source: Shogakukan Encyclopedia Nipponica About Encyclopedia Nipponica Information | Legend

Japanese:

645年（大化1）の蘇我(そが)氏本宗の打倒に始まる内政改革。同年6月に中大兄(なかのおおえ)皇子（後の天智(てんじ)天皇）や中臣鎌子(なかとみのかまこ)（後の藤原鎌足(かまたり)）らを中核にしたクーデターが成功し、権力を握っていた蘇我蝦夷(えみし)・入鹿(いるか)父子が打倒された。これを乙巳(いっし)の変とよぶが、これを発端にして650年（白雉1）ごろまでの内政改革を大化改新とよんでいる。しかし、『日本書紀』大化2年正月朔(ついたち)条が載せる大化改新詔四か条をはじめ関係する諸記載の信用度、および改新の歴史的意義については、現在、学界での見解が大きく分裂・対立している。その分裂は数多くの問題点にわたっているが、〔1〕640年代なかばごろでの公民制に基礎を置く国家理念の有無、〔2〕いわゆる大化改新詔の信憑(しんぴょう)性、〔3〕その歴史的な位置づけ、という3点に焦点を絞ってみると、大局的に次の四つの見解に集約される。それぞれの見解の内部に、さまざまな論点について、多くの推測が対立していることはいうまでもない。

［野村忠夫］

基本的肯定論

第一の見解は坂本太郎、関晃(せきあきら)らによって代表され、『日本書紀』の編者による細かな年月日の配置や、文章上の修飾は認めながら、『日本書紀』が描く大化改新の経過を基本的に承認する見方である。つまり乙巳の変を端緒にして、646年正月ごろに大化改新詔が発せられたが、詔に載る諸条項は、『漢書(かんじょ)』などによる修飾はあるにせよ、内容的には646年当時のものと推測し、やがて実現されるべき体制の具体的な構想として宣示されたとする。たとえば、国造(くにのみやつこ)を郡司に切り換えることが示されたが、現実には評造(こおりのみやつこ)制が実施され、701年（大宝1）の大宝律令(たいほうりつりょう)で初めて郡司制が達成された。このように諸法令がかならずしもただちに達成されるとは限らないという理解に支えられて、改新の理念・構想は、曲折を経ながら大宝律令に至って完成されたとする。この立場では、大化改新は律令国家体制への出発点として、重要な歴史的位置づけをもつと理解することになる。

［野村忠夫］

改新現詔の内容

『日本書紀』が載せる改新現詔は次の四か条からなる。〔1〕私地・私民を収公して、公地・公民体制とする。そして大臣とそのもとで国政に参与する大夫(まえつきみ)には食封(へひと)を与える。〔2〕中央・地方の行政組織として、京師(みさと)、畿内国司(うちつくにのみこともち)、郡司(こおりのみやつこ)、関塞(せきそこ)（関所）、辺境守備の防人(さきもり)などを置き、京師には坊長(まちのおさ)、坊令(まちのうながし)を置く。また公的な交通機関として駅馬(はいま)・伝馬(つたわりま)を設ける。〔3〕初めて戸籍(へのふみた)、計帳(かずのふみた)、班田収授の法をつくる。また50戸を里(さと)として、里長(さとおさ)を置く。田は360歩を一段、10段を一町とし、田租は段ごとに二束二把とする。〔4〕旧の賦役(えつき)をやめて、田(た)の調(みつぎ)、戸別(へごと)の調(みつぎ)を徴収する。一定の戸ごとに官馬一匹を徴し、兵器を各自に納めさせる。また郡の少領(すけのみやつこ)以上の姉妹・娘から采女(うねめ)を貢上させ、50戸ごとに仕丁(つかえのよぼろ)1人・廝(くりや)1人を貢進させる。この改新詔が発令されたか否か、また発せられたとする場合、その原詔への造作・修飾の度合いへの認定が、諸説を大きく分裂させる一焦点になっている。

［野村忠夫］

基本理念の肯定論

第二の見解は井上光貞(みつさだ)によって代表され、645年6月の乙巳の変とともに、646年正月に素朴な骨子的内容の改新原詔が発令されたと理解する。その原詔は宣命(せんみょう)体で、文章だけではなく、内容的にも後の令文(りょうぶん)を用いた大幅な修飾・造作があると推測するが、その内容には、隋(ずい)・唐的な公民制に基づく国家理念と、現実的な国造を評造に切り換えるという地方制度や、後の律令制とは異なる田(た)の調(みつぎ)・戸の調の画一的な税制などが規定されたとみるのである。そして後の律令体制の構想といえる諸制度の枠組みはみられず、その枠組みは、改新当事者およびその後継者たちが、試行錯誤を繰り返しながら創造していき、701年の大宝律令で完成したとみる。この見解は、640年代なかばころの改新期に、東アジアの情勢に対応すべき体制の弱さを自覚し、これを克服する律令制的な国家理念の存在を肯定するが、改新原詔に律令体制の具体的な枠組みはなく、その成立を672年の壬申(じんしん)の乱前後からに比重を移して理解するのである。この立場での大化改新が歴史上に占める位置づけは、第一の見解に比べて、比重が小さくなるといわねばならない。

［野村忠夫］

改新虚構・否定論

第三の見解は門脇禎二(かどわきていじ)、原秀三郎に代表され、『日本書紀』が描く大化改新が、その編者による造作であり、虚構にすぎないとする改新否定論である。この見解は、乙巳の変による蘇我氏本宗家の打倒は事実であるが、前後にみられる政争的な諸事件、たとえば上宮王家(じょうぐうおうけ)討滅事件、つまり蘇我入鹿による山背大兄(やましろのおおえ)王家の討滅や、有間(ありま)皇子事件などと、本質的に同性格の事件にすぎないと理解する。また改新詔は『日本書紀』の編者が造作したものであり、7世紀なかばころに国際的な国家としての危機感はなく、公民制に基礎を置く律令的な国家理念は存在しなかったとみるのである。つまり歴史上に重要な位置づけをもつ大化改新という事件は存在せず、7世紀初めの推古(すいこ)朝から672年の壬申の乱前後までは、一連の同質的な歩みにすぎなかったとみる。ここで、わが国に律令国家が成立する歩みは、663年における白村江の敗北による朝鮮半島からの全面的撤退を契機に、大陸側からの侵攻という危機感を踏まえて出発する。翌664年2月の甲子(かっし)の宣による一連の内政改革、ことに民部(かきべ)・家部(やかべ)の設定を端緒にして、人民の公民化という方向が生まれ、壬申の乱を経て、675年の部曲(かきべ)の廃止で、律令国家への歩みが本格化した。そして701年の大宝律令によって、律令国家が成立したとするのである。この見解は、640年代なかばに重要な歴史的意義をもつとされた大化改新の存在を否定し、改新は『日本書紀』編者の意図的な造作にすぎないとするのであって、律令国家成立の端緒を664年2月の甲子の宣の時期まで降ろして理解しようとする。

［野村忠夫］

新改新肯定論

第四の見解は石母田正(いしもだしょう)が提示した新しい意味での改新肯定論である。石母田は、改新詔の中核である第1条の内容は、私地・私民の収公や班田収授法の登場とは関係がなく、官司の屯田(みた)や吉備嶋皇祖母(きびのしまのすめみおや)の貸稲(いらしのいね)などの個別的な停廃と、不安定である田(た)の調(みつぎ)を徴収するための校田・民戸の調査と登録という一般的施策の実施であったとする。しかし、改新は、変動する東アジアの情勢が、軍事的にも寄木細工的な構造的欠陥をもつわが国の体制に切実な課題として受け止められ、それに対応した一連の重要な内政改革であったとするのである。つまりカバネナ（姓名）を与えられて、王権に従属・奉仕する諸氏という「たて割り」の族姓的な秩序から、公民的な編戸による律令国家の体制への起点が改新であったとする。この見解は、改新詔第1条の公地・公民制の発令を否定しながら、王民制から公民制への転換点として、大化改新の歴史的意義を大きく評価するという、新しい意味での改新肯定論である。

［野村忠夫］

現段階での一仮説

以上の諸見解を踏まえて、一つの仮説を示そう。644年に唐が大軍を発して高句麗(こうくり)征討に踏み切ったことは、隋から唐への変転を体験して帰国した遣隋留学生・僧らの知見とともに、中臣鎌子らの改革派に王民制がもつ体制の弱さを自覚させた。また643年、蘇我入鹿による上宮王家討滅事件は、反蘇我氏本宗家の気運を高めていたのである。ここで中大兄皇子、中臣鎌子らの改革派は、蘇我氏一族の蘇我倉山田石川麻呂(そがのくらのやまだのいしかわのまろ)を加えて、645年6月に蝦夷・入鹿父子の打倒に成功した。ついで翌646年正月、素朴な内容をもつ改新原詔の発令が肯定される。内容的に国造から評造への切り換えや、後の大宝・養老令制とは異なる画一的税制などが推測されるが、この7世紀なかばに律令制的な理念が存在したとみたい。そして改新原詔になかった中央官制は、649年にいちおう整えられ、またこれまでの冠位十二階制は、647年の冠位十三階制を経て、649年の冠位十九階制に発展し、全豪族以下を組織できる冠位制になった。しかし、律令国家への本格的な歩みは、664年の甲子の宣で、広範に残る諸豪族の私民的支配に国家権力による統制を加え、民部・家部として登録させたことに始まる。ついで672年の壬申の乱を経て、675年に部曲（民部）が公民化され、701年の大宝律令で、公民制に基づく律令国家が完成したのである。

［野村忠夫］

『坂本太郎著『大化改新の研究』（1938・至文堂）』▽『井上光貞著『日本古代国家の研究』（1965・岩波書店）』▽『門脇禎二著『「大化改新」論――その前史の研究』（1969・徳間書店）』▽『井上光貞著『大化改新』改訂版（1970・弘文堂書房）』▽『石母田正著『日本の古代国家』（1971・岩波書店）』▽『野村忠夫著『研究史・大化改新』増補版（1978・吉川弘文館）』▽『原秀三郎著『日本古代国家史研究――大化改新論批判』（1980・東京大学出版会）』

[補完資料] | 大化改新詔

出典　小学館　日本大百科全書(ニッポニカ)日本大百科全書(ニッポニカ)について　情報 | 凡例

<<: Refractories

>>: Fire clay