Medieval society

Japanese: 中世社会 - ちゅうせいしゃかい

Europe

Image of Medieval European Society and European History

The trend towards establishing a picture of medieval society

It was only in the 20th century that Europeans became aware of medieval society as something unique.

Already in the 18th century, Vico and Herder, in opposition to the Enlightenment's tendency to ignore the Middle Ages, called for the extension of sympathetic imagination to all eras and all civilizations, and the 19th century Ranke, at least in his younger years, also declared that "all eras are directly connected to God," and made it the duty of historians to understand the intrinsic nature of past eras. Similarly, Burckhardt attempted to recognize a unique type of society and culture, taking 15th and 16th century Italian society as an example.

However, in general, 19th century historiography showed a tendency to think that history leads to modern society or the state. In the face of this progressive view of history, "pre-modern" could only mean pre-modern history. This was the position taken by Ranke in his later years and his predecessors, Burckhardt's followers, and French "positivist" historiography.

The "Lamprecht Controversy" of the 1890s, regardless of the quality of Lamprecht's writings, should have played a role in putting a stop to the rampant spread of such a modernist view of history as progress, but the time for European historical consciousness to awaken had not yet come. In the twilight, however, attempts were made to recognize the uniqueness of medieval aesthetics, particularly in the field of art history (Wallinger), Huizinga described the "Autumn of the Middle Ages" in northern Europe in the 14th and 15th centuries, and Haskins sensed the stirrings of medieval culture in the 12th century. Bloch examined the medieval constitution that persisted in French rural society, and eventually came to conceive of an image of "feudal society."

These are only a few of the people who criticized the modernist view of European history in the first few generations of the 20th century. Dannenbauer, Mayer and others also began to criticize German "classical theory," which projected the modern nation-state onto the Middle Ages, in the 1930s and 1940s. These criticisms were accompanied by truly "empirical" research on medieval society, and Europe gained an incomparable wealth of information and accurate interpretations of that information about Europe's "pre-modern" period. At this point, a complete reassessment of the image of "medieval society" was inevitable.

[Koichi Horikoshi]

The Middle Ages as the roots of European society

Moreover, the anxiety of the "interwar" generation toward European ideals and systems, and the skepticism of the post-World War II generation, prompted Europeans to reconsider European history. What historical structure makes Europe what it is? This question placed the issue of the image of "medieval society" within the issue of the image of "European history." The validity of the traditional division into three major periods was called into question. When and under what circumstances did Europe come into being as a unique society? From this perspective of development, the historical image of medieval European society must be conceived as a picture that predicts the formation of European society. To give just one example, the report of a symposium held in 1957 at the Institute of Medieval and Renaissance Studies at the University of Wisconsin was titled "Twelfth-Century Europe and the Foundations of Modern Society" (1961).

[Koichi Horikoshi]

Medieval European Society: Its Establishment and Development

The impact of foreign invasions

Bloch describes the "invasion of foreign tribes" at the beginning of his book Feudal Society (1939, 40). From the 8th to the 10th centuries, inland Europe, which was under pressure from three directions by the Vikings, the Magyars, and the Muslims, fell into chaos, which coincided with the disintegration of the Frankish Empire's political organization. This chaos brought about major changes in the forms of social cohesion and worked to create a unique type of society in inland Europe.

Bloch's theory of medieval society began here, and his overview is now considered valid. There was no break with "pre-invasion" European society. However, from the mid-11th century, castle estates with several to a dozen villages sprang up in the lands west of the Rhine, known as Neustria and Aquitania. The villages changed form from before the invasion, becoming clusters with cultivated land expanding around residential settlements. Between the Rhine and the Loire, three-field dairy farming with communal cultivation was common, and there was a marked movement towards innovation in agricultural technology, such as the spread of iron farming tools and the use of waterwheel power, compared to before the invasion. In the 12th century, the use of windmill power also began.

[Koichi Horikoshi]

New developments in castle and county territories

The relationship between castle lords and peasants was one of mutual complementarity between defense and production, and the relationship of rights and obligations that took shape as customary practice was eventually codified as customary law in the 13th century. This also meant the establishment of the status group known as peasants, and by that time the knighthood had already become more closed. Knighthood was a status concept that included castle lords, their vassals (general lords), and even those who held the title of king, prince, or count.

The lords of the castles were established in the Pagus, which was a local administrative district of the Frankish Kingdom before the invasion. Therefore, some of the lords borrowed the name of the governor of the Pagus, Comus, or his deputy Vicarius. However, most of them were the real rulers of the land, and the "strong ones" took the title of Comus, or count. Or they took the title of ducatus, or marquis, which was also an official title established by the Carolingian dynasty of the Frankish Kingdom.

These counts united the castle lords and managed the feudal territories. Medieval Europe was an international relationship of feudal territories. However, already in the second half of the 10th century, when the lineage of the Frankish royal families became extinct, they elected kings. These were the House of Capet in the Île-de-France and the House of Saxony east of the Rhine. The idea of kingship originated from Frankish monarchy and, by extension, from the Roman Empire, and is seen as a continuation of the idea of social cohesion that existed before the invasion. Therefore, "feudal monarchy" was a contradictory concept, and medieval Europe used this contradictory relationship as a springboard to write its history.

Even east of the Rhine, where the tradition of tribal unity was deeply rooted, a process of reorganization aimed at a village-feudal domain (castle domain)-county system progressed after the Investiture Controversy in the mid-11th century. The royal authority that began with the House of Saxony advocated the revival of the Roman Empire, but in reality, the reality of the international relations of the counts solidified the division of the territories.

In England, the equivalent of the Frankish Kingdom was the Anglo-Saxon Kingdom. Its local administrative districts of shires and hundreds remained strong even after the Norman Dukes' conquest of England in the mid-11th century and the establishment of the Norman dynasty as a result, and the manors and counties established by the royal family did not negate the existing system, but rather used them to achieve success in controlling the kingdom. After the establishment of the Anjou (Plantagenet) dynasty in the mid-12th century, the feudal class defined itself as a status group in relation to the royal authority, and used parliament as a consultative body with the royal authority. The stage of the tribal system was reached at an early stage in England.

[Koichi Horikoshi]

The formation of cities

Class refers to status, and city dwellers, along with knights and peasants, also formed a status. Pirenne's idea that the revival of commerce and the settlement of merchant groups after the invasion were the causes of the formation of "medieval cities" is open to criticism. Old Roman cities, the "castle towns" of Comes and Vicarius in the Frankish Kingdom, towns formed around monasteries at the time of invasion, and city towns. Although the origins and prototypes were different, the same dynamics were at work in the formation of villages/castle territories and in the formation of towns. The experience of invasion worked in certain circumstances to create an urban environment.

Subsequent developments created a class group called burghensis (townspeople). After the invasion, the revitalization of the monetary economy led to the leading position of the mercatores (merchants) class among the townspeople, who came into contact with the feudal and counties, and even the kingship. The strength of the relationship with these dynastic powers was one of the factors that led to the formation of unique urban areas in each region, such as the communes of northern Italy, the royal cities of northern France, the cities of the Netherlands and Flanders that coexisted with the feudal and counties, and the Hanseatic cities of northern Germany.

On the other hand, the development of local specialties such as Flemish woolen textiles led to the expansion of the artisan class, and the participation of the professional associations (guilds) they formed in city government became an issue in every urban area from the 13th century onwards. The conflict between merchant guilds and artisan guilds meant the closure of the status associations of townspeople as a whole, and showed the development of a European-style urban environment.

[Koichi Horikoshi]

Church revitalization and its role

What about the other status group, the church? The Christian church was also an element that continued from before the invasion. However, it would be a mistake to think that the church regained its pre-invasion prosperity after the invasion. In reality, after the invasion, faith communities were finally formed in inland Europe, and the core of this revitalization was the local churches and monasteries that sought to protect local residents at the time of the invasion. After the invasion, parish organizations were established, and the relationship between villages, castle lords, and parishes was adjusted. The mid-11th century was the first period of prosperity for Romanesque church architecture in art history. Inland European society had finally entered an era of development, and villagers cleared forests and swamps to expand arable land, built stone castles, and erected stone churches. All aspects of society followed a common rhythm.

The primary role of the churchmen (clergy) is to save the souls of the faithful. For medieval people, who were steeped in the idea of supernatural power, this role assignment was beyond doubt. The order of the words in the Benedictine Rule, "Pray and work," shows this. However, "work" was also at the root of the rule, and these monks, following the example of the Irish monks in the Frankish Kingdom, worked to cultivate land and provide agricultural guidance. Church and monastic lands became models for land management wherever they were located.

Churchmen were also the bearers of social welfare. In the 16th century, the increase in social problems accompanying the expansion of cities prompted the "secularization" of poor relief, that is, the taking over of the relief by city authorities. This marked the decline of an important part of the social role of the medieval Catholic Church.

The Church was also an institution of education and culture, preserving Latin, passing on the classical arts and sciences, and writing history in the form of chronicles. The head of the archives in the households of kings, counts, and counts was monopolized by churchmen until the end of the 13th century. The 12th century was a time of the intake of the classical arts and sciences through the Islamic cultural sphere, and the 13th century saw the formation of another status organization in cities, the "universities." This process was also the formation of a uniquely European way of thinking, namely, the formation of scholastic philosophy.

[Koichi Horikoshi]

Language establishment

Languages were finally separated into the Teutonic region in the northeast and the Romance region in the southwest, with the border "between the Rhine and the Maas" separating them. The latter was born from Latin influenced by Celtic languages and split into Oiuil in the north and Occitan in the south, with the production of the former's epic poetry and the latter's lyric poetry dating back to the end of the 11th century. From the 13th century onwards, the Occitan region broke up, leading to the formation of various Romance languages. Teutonic languages spread from southern Germany to England, and in the 13th century, memories from before the invasion were codified into epic poetry. European society had finally become self-conscious enough to think in its own language and to write history.

[Koichi Horikoshi]

India

Various theories about the setting of medieval society

In Indian history, which period is called the Middle Ages varies from person to person. Traditionally, the period of Hindu dynasties up to the 11th century was often called the ancient period, and the period of Muslim dynasties from the 12th to 18th centuries was often called the Middle Ages. However, in recent years, the view that the Middle Ages = feudalism, using economic structure as a landmark, has become common. Even among those who take this position, there are various theories about the beginning of the Middle Ages, such as the 6th century when the Gupta dynasty collapsed, and the 8th century after the collapse of the Harsha dynasty. What these theories have in common is that the establishment of the Middle Ages in India was due to (1) the establishment of a feudal hierarchy in the provinces, (2) the formation of various castes (i.e., castes = jatis. Unlike the ancient Indian surname system of Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and Shudras, castes = jatis are actual social groups of people) and the completion of the caste system, (3) the formation of village communities, which are the flip side of the caste system, and (4) the formation of Hinduism and Hindu culture. In this way, almost all of the features that are today considered to be timeless characteristics of Indian society actually appeared around the 8th to 10th centuries, during the establishment of the so-called Middle Ages, and are by no means things that have existed since ancient times.

[Otani Hiroyuki]

History and characteristics

The Indian medieval society thus formed basically continued to exist and further develop during the period of rule of the Muslim dynasties from the 12th to 18th centuries. After the first Muslim dynasty (Slave Dynasty) established in North India in the early 12th century, four dynasties, including the Khalji Dynasty and the Tughluq Dynasty, followed in North India, and are known as the Delhi Dynasties. Although historical materials are scarce and little is known about the society during the rule of these dynasties, it is known that various sects of Islamic mysticism (Sufi) penetrated into rural areas and achieved a certain degree of penetration of Islam into the lower classes. During this period, a Muslim government was established in the Deccan Plateau region in the mid-14th century (the Bahmani Dynasty), and later dynasties known as the Five Deccan Muslim Dynasties were established and fought against the Vijayanagar Dynasty in South India, but Vijayanagar declined in the early 16th century, and Muslim power extended further south. When the Mughal Empire was established in the early 16th century, it gradually expanded its territory and ruled almost the whole of India. However, as its territory expanded, Mughal rule began to weaken, and it began to be shaken by the growth of Sikh feudal lords in North India, the growing power of Jat feudal lords, and the rise of Maratha forces in the Deccan region. At the current stage of research, it is not possible to fully clarify whether these feudal lords are directly connected to the feudal lords that had been established since the 8th to 10th centuries, or whether they are of a different nature from them. However, it is almost certain that they grew out of the transformation process of village communities that were formed during the establishment of the Middle Ages. Thus, after the death of Aurangzeb in 1707, the Mughal Empire began to rapidly disintegrate. However, it was the British colonial rule of India from the mid-18th century that decisively disintegrated Indian medieval society.

[Otani Hiroyuki]

China

The significance and problems of periodization

As global integration has progressed since the 19th century, even in non-Western countries that have their own traditional cultures, joining the pace of modernization is becoming an almost universal and irreversible task. This inherent situation gives rise to questions such as how far back we should go to explore the roots of modern times, at the intersection of the universal history of development and the uniqueness of each world culture, and if we are to place the Middle Ages there, and what kind of transformations in medieval society are important in relation to modern times.

The idea of dividing world history into three periods, ancient, medieval, and modern, is important in determining the universality of human history, but the development history of the Western world has been used as an implicit model for the scale of comparison. However, today, when the relative and unique circumstances of feudal and capitalist civilizations have become more and more recognized, even if the three-division system is used for the non-Western world, the scale of comparison must be flexible and conscious of the individuality of cultures. Such an attempt to do so for China has only just begun.

[Yoshinobu Shiba]

China's historical uniqueness

First, looking at the lower limit, it is generally believed that China's modernization began with the Opium Wars in the mid-19th century. However, because 19th-century China was in a unique situation in which the peak and collapse of the old society existed side by side, it is also possible to say that a clear path to modernization began after the Treaty of Xiaguan in 1895. This raises the question of the upper limit of early modernity, and even the origins of medieval society, but before that, it is necessary to consider cultural continuity and the existence of bureaucracy.

It is natural to divide the 3,000 years of Chinese history into two major periods: the pre-Qin classical period or city-state period, which was based on a clan system and marked the establishment of early traditions, and the 2,000 years of the Qin, Han and Qing dynasties, during which the Chinese were bureaucratic. The indicator is the uniqueness of the principles of state formation, and China's precocious achievement of a huge population, high productivity and production, economic, military and organizational technology, and a political unit of vast space, and its 2,000-year long bureaucratic empire, are exceptional in comparative history. This type of bureaucracy is as unusual as ancient Egypt in the premodern world, and the empire lasted longer than the Roman Empire in the East and the West. The structure of unitary rule, backed by the Chinese worldview, which could be called culturalism, was also different from that of Western Europe, where a dual society of church and state was balanced under the law, and the nation-state, a product of Western experience, was also incompatible with China.

[Yoshinobu Shiba]

A historic turning point in Chinese history

Now, assuming the precociousness, continuity, and uniqueness of culture, it is possible to mark turning points in the development and evolution of China's socio-economic system, state organization, and technological correlations. Excluding the Classical Period, the Chinese Empire can be divided into three periods: the early period (Qin/Han to Tang), the middle period (late Tang to late Ming), and the late period (late Ming to late Qing). In this case, the Tang-Song Transition Period (9th to 13th centuries), which is usually considered a watershed period for the empire, is the medieval revolutionary period and medieval transition period.

First, from the viewpoint of the principles of state formation, the origins of an efficient administrative organization can be found in the Qin and Han dynasties, but the content has evolved, and the method of appointment of officials (Imperial Examination) has been established, and the appointment of new personnel, promotion, administrative inspection, the hierarchy of duties (three ministries and six departments), and the thorough implementation of civil governance have led to a dictatorial system, and in particular, through the Imperial Examination, competitive talent-based systems based on education, wealth, and talent have been established as universal values in society, strengthening the integration and stability of society. Thus, the exclusive power of the aristocratic families and warriors that had existed since the Six Dynasties was swept away, and the new landlords, wealthy merchants, and the local elites (town gentry) that were their mothers, emerged as the ruling class, and the social support base for politics became broad and fluid. The two tax laws (late Tang to late Ming) responded to this expansion, and the government's control over secular forces (landlords and wealthy merchants) became more flexible, while the monetary economy expanded and strengthened the country's financial base, a huge standing army and a large group of bureaucrats were born, and transportation, industrial development, and educational and cultural facilities were expanded, bringing stability and vitality to society. Meanwhile, society also evolved to become more urbanized and autonomous. In society after the Song Dynasty, the differentiation of cities and rural areas and their complementary and antagonistic relationships became clear. The total number of prefectures remained unchanged without correlation with population increase = production increase, but countless towns and market areas appeared in rural areas, and small socio-economic spatial blocks consisting of villages and markets created by daily exchanges spread like cells, and were incorporated into the mesh of the inter-urban economy through towns and prefectures. Society moved away from self-sufficiency and showed a differentiated, organic, and fluid situation, guilds and associations grew, and regional and socio-economic autonomous organizations developed. Although the people remained under the centralized control of the state in terms of taxation, public order, education, and imperial examinations, they gained greater autonomy in social and economic life under the aforementioned market blocs, associations, guilds, gentry, and township tribes.

This vitality and stability led to the development of production, technology, commerce, and transportation, population growth, and urban folk culture (novels, plays, etc.), allowing for the growth of a coherent society even under the rule of foreign ethnic groups such as the Yuan and Qing dynasties. This situation indicates a social fullness that preceded that of Western Europe during the period of primitive industrialization by several centuries. However, the highly advanced differentiation of society absorbed the enormous population pressure and produced conservative inertia, and the administration and economy, which at first glance appeared monolithic, lacked real integration, hindered by pre-modern transportation bottlenecks. While the semi-self-sufficient market bloc survived until the end of the Qing and the Republic, the administrative framework and organization continued to maintain their old scale despite the steadily growing population.

It was at the end of the Ming Dynasty that socio-economic development, which grew gradually with the size of the population, began to show signs of being out of sync with the inertia of the administration. The social integration and circulation effects of the imperial examinations were still in effect, but the number of government positions available to the swelling provincial elite was limited, and the rapid growth of commerce due to the influx of silver created conflict between the city and the countryside and an uneven distribution of wealth, causing the budding seeds of capitalism that had emerged locally and sporadically to miscarry. The reason the population continued to grow during this period was due more to the development of remote areas than the development of production technology, and the amount of undeveloped land that could be developed efficiently became increasingly scarce.

Although these new seeds were emerging at the end of the Ming and beginning of the Qing, they were repeatedly miscarried due to the inertia of the state organization, indicating a transition towards early modernity.

Apart from these views, in Chinese academia there is a division into modern and pre-modern, with the period from the Song dynasty onwards considered to be a late feudal society, and in Japan there is a theory that the period from the Song dynasty onwards was a medieval serfdom, or that it was an early modern society, with the period from the Five Barbarians to the Sui and Tang dynasties being a medieval society centred around aristocratic clans. There is also a theory in Western sinology that the period from the Song dynasty onwards is considered to be early modern, but most consider it to be the middle period of the Chinese Empire, and take a view close to the above explanation.

[Yoshinobu Shiba]

Japan

The Concept of "Medieval Japan"

In Japan, the so-called three-division legal designation of history, such as "Ancient (Archaeological)," "Middle Ages," and "Modern (Early Modern)," has been used for a long time, but the concept of "Middle Ages" currently used in history was established during the development of modern history after the Meiji period. It is generally defined as the period from the beginning of samurai government under Minamoto no Yoritomo to the emergence of the national unified government under Oda and Toyotomi, and in terms of period names based on the location of the government, it refers to the Kamakura, Nanboku-cho, Muromachi, and Sengoku periods, or about 400 years from the 1180s to the 1560s in the Gregorian calendar. However, the late Heian period (the Insei period), when samurai activities became prominent in society, is often considered to be the beginning or establishment of the Middle Ages, and the Sengoku period is often treated as a period leaning toward the "Early Modern" period.

This view of the period is based on the historical view of Meiji intellectuals who saw political power mainly held by the nobles (emperors and aristocrats) in ancient times, while samurai governments emerged in the middle of the period and returned to an emperor-centered political system after the Meiji period. The other view is based on the view that Japanese history is likened to the three stages of Western history: ancient, medieval, and modern. However, the Edo period, in which the economy and culture of the common people developed, is considered to be the "modern period" for the Meiji period because it is close to the same period. In the history of Japanese historiography, it is said that the first author of the concept of the "medieval period" in Japanese history was Hara Katsuro's "Nihon medieval history" (1906), and the view that the Edo period is the "modern period" can be seen in Uchida Ginzo's "Nihon kinseikishi" (1903). Thus, the Japanese Middle Ages is generally understood to be an era of samurai government, feudalism, and a society of manors, but in reality the influence of aristocrats, temples, and shrines cannot be overlooked politically and socially. Additionally, because social structures and lifestyles also underwent gradual changes, the period up to the end of the Kamakura period is often divided into the Early Middle Ages and the period thereafter as the Late Middle Ages.

[Toshio Kuroda]

The nature of farm management and rural areas

The main productive activity that supported medieval society was agriculture, with rice cultivation being given special importance. There were farmers who owned relatively large-scale operations, each with several hectares of cultivated land, small farmers who were only assigned a few acres, and even unstable farmers who only subcontracted land owned by powerful farmers or land attached to village halls. In advanced regions such as Kinai, the independence of small farmers was quite widespread in the early Middle Ages. In such places, manor lords such as nobles, temples, and shrines dispatched manor officials such as zassho (general manager) to the manors to promote agriculture by allocating cultivated land and farm fees, and made powerful farmers myoshu (headmans), organized the cultivated land and farmers into several "myo" (name), and had them levy and reduce taxes and public duties (lotteries). In the underdeveloped regions such as the eastern provinces and Kyushu, which are relatively far from the center and where the power of local clans and samurai is strong, peasants were not very independent, and they were personally subordinate to local lords such as jito (land stewards) as "lay people" with houses and fields of a certain standard, and were used not only to cultivate the fields assigned to them, but also to cultivate land directly managed by the lord, do household work, and perform odd jobs such as construction and transportation. The level of peasant independence varied considerably from region to region, but in the developed regions, the small peasant class became more widespread in the mid-medieval period (14th century), the monetary economy also spread, village ties progressed around the headman class, and resistance to manor lords and shugo powers was also seen. Even in the borderlands, where local lords such as jito (land stewards) had strong control, village order was centered around the mansions of the lords and magistrates. However, the boundaries of villages did not necessarily coincide with manors or the territories of local lords, and villages always represented the base of agricultural management and peasant life. However, in addition to these peasants, there seem to have been a considerable number of weak, wandering peasants who did not settle and own land, and in addition to agricultural people, there were also nomadic non-agricultural people in various places who made a living in the mountains, forests, rivers, and seas.

[Toshio Kuroda]

Cities and Transportation

Medieval cities developed first as cities under the powerful family system based on the manorial society, and then commercial and industrial cities developed around ports, post stations, and castles in various regions. Kyoto was the imperial capital under the Ritsuryo system, and then developed into a royal capital under the powerful family system around the 11th century. There were government offices such as the Benkan Bureau, Kurodosho, and Kebiishi Office, as well as their attached Kuriyamachi, the Imperial Palace, the palace buildings of powerful aristocrats, offices for the stewards, chamberlains, and miscellaneous servants, kitchens, craft shops, lodgings, and warehouses. Along with these, artists in writing, crafts, prayer, and music, merchants, and other miscellaneous arts people lived in the city blocks, and markets and show shelves also appeared. In the eastern and northern suburbs, there were rows of temples and shrines, including the Goganji temples and Bodaisho temples of powerful families, as well as Imamiya, Kitano, Gion, and other temples and shrines. These basic characteristics of a city of powerful families were also seen in Nara, centered around Kofuku-ji and Todai-ji temples, and Kamakura, where the shogunate's mansions and residences were located.

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

[Toshio Kuroda]

Family and social groups

In medieval society, the foundations of stable living were "noe" - family unions, houses (homes) and family. The families that were the main subjects of "noe" saw various forms of family, depending on the era, region, and class. In other words, they were diverse, ranging from large families, including slaves such as subordinates and soughts, relatives and dependents, to small families with only married couples and children. However, there were also many other incomplete families, such as father and son, mother and child, who lived in a stable, unfamiliar hut or half-roamed houses. "noe" or individuals were usually affiliated with some kind of social group (organization). Social groups were generally called "shu", "tomogara", or "party", and especially groups that acted in unity and unity were called "Ikki". One group based on "noise" or blood relations, the "yakara", "man", and "Ichimon", and was led by the family head Soryo. In particular, the groups with great political and social influence, such as the court nobles and samurai, were called "Gonmon". The "mura" which is a collection of "noise" of farmers, were also their own social groups. People involved in commerce and industry and entertainment also formed groups, but these were generally formed by the "za" led by the older brothers and chief priests. Furthermore, the monks who became monks away from the "noise" and secular groups were also united by the "daishu" organizations and the "mass" relationships, including the Daiji Shrines, and the "mass" groups, and formed a huge group of genocides. Inside these, there were many groups called "such" and "kata" organized not only by public temple control organizations, but also by various occupations, rights and beliefs, and within these groups there was a hierarchical order of individual status depending on the number of years since becoming a monk. There were also private groups called "monry" and "denominations" by masters, disciples, guardians, and blood relatives. Many of the groups of shrines and shrines at shrines were similar to the secular "tribes" and "mystery". Thus, since all people's lives were guaranteed by affiliation with groups, the saints who abandoned the world lived in "bessho" in the mountains, and beggars and hinto often formed groups that were seated at "saka", "shun", and "sanjo".

[Toshio Kuroda]

Control system and status

Medieval society was complex with various rule and collective relations, but overall, the fundamental principles were the rulership of all kinds of lords, including the royal family (the imperial family), the court nobles of the Reikan family, the renowned courts, the large temple shrines such as the Nanto Hokurei, and the samurai, or the shogunate. The gates divided their official vocational authority based on their traditional authority, customs and social abilities, and entitled "sic" of vast manors and territories, and under their powers they organized middle-lower aristocrats, local lords, and peasants or under their working force.

In medieval society, status was never uniformly enacted by the laws of the state, but hierarchical orders and hierarchies of status were customarily established in accordance with the order of governance. The Kamakura Shogunate Law shows the distinction (strata) of "samurai-people-people," but from the viewpoint of court nobles, samurai and temples, the basic classifications are (1) noble species, (2) chief priests and samurai, (3) commoners (people), (4) subordinates, and (5) uninu. Of these, (1) and (2) formed the ruling class, which is a feudal lord class, and (5) were basically considered to be dropouts and alienated people from the social order.

This medieval status order was like this, as the collapse of the manor system caused noble species to fall, and became more or less like partial customs or nominal names, and with the emergence of the Shokuho administration, it began to shift to an early modern status structure.

[Toshio Kuroda]

になったんです。 English: The first thing you can do is to find the best one to do . Methuen, London & Stanford University Press, Stanford) ▽ Hori Toshikazu, "The Establishment of the Medieval World in China" (included in Medieval History Course 1: The Establishment of the Medieval World, 1982, Studentsha) ▽ Kuroda Toshio, "Manorous Society" (System History 2, 1967, Nihon Hyoronsha) ▽ Kuroda Toshio, "Temple and Shrine Forces - Another Medieval Society" (Iwanami Shinsho) ▽ Nagahara Keiji, "Societies and States of the Middle Ages" (1982, Nippon Broadcasting Publishing Association) ▽ Oyama Kyohei, "Study on the History of Medieval Rural Villages" (1978, Iwanami Shoten) ▽ Amino Yoshihiko, "Not Entire, Public, and Raku" (1978, Heibonsha)

[Reference Item] | Gonmon System | Manor | Fedumination

Source: Shogakukan Encyclopedia Nipponica About Encyclopedia Nipponica Information | Legend

Japanese:

ヨーロッパ

ヨーロッパ中世社会像とヨーロッパ歴史像

中世社会像確立への潮流

ヨーロッパ人が中世社会をそれ独自のものと意識するようになったのは、20世紀に入ってからのことである。

　すでに18世紀においてビーコあるいはヘルダーは、啓蒙(けいもう)主義の中世無視の風潮に抗して、共感的想像力をすべての時代、すべての文明に対して及ぼすことを要請し、19世紀のランケも、少なくとも若いころには、「すべての時代は神に直結する」と、過去の時代の内在的理解を歴史家の務めとした。あるいはブルクハルトは、15、6世紀のイタリア社会を見本にとって、一つの独特の型の社会と文化を認知する試みを示した。

　けれども概して19世紀の歴史学は、歴史は近代社会ないし国家に帰結すると考える傾向をみせた。この進歩史観の前に、「近代以前」は近代前史としての意味しかもちえなかった。晩年のランケとその祖述者たち、ブルクハルトの亜流、またフランス「実証主義」史学の立場がこれであった。

　1890年代の「ランプレヒト論争」は、ランプレヒトの著述のでき・不できはともかくも、そのような近代主義的進歩史観の横行に歯止めをかける役割を担うべきはずであったが、ヨーロッパの歴史意識はいまだ目覚めの時を迎えていなかった。その薄明にあって、しかし、とりわけ美術史の分野において中世的美意識の独自性を認知する試みがなされ（ウォリンガー）、あるいはホイジンガは14、5世紀の北ヨーロッパを対象に「中世の秋」を記述し、ハスキンズは12世紀に中世文化の胎動を覚知した。ブロックはフランス農村社会に持続する中世的体質を洗い、やがて「封建社会」像を構想するに至る。

　以上は、20世紀初期の数世代においてヨーロッパ史の近代主義的見取り図を批判した人々のうち、ほんの少数の名前をあげたにすぎない。中世に近代国家を投影させたドイツの「古典理論」に対するダンネンバウアー、マイヤーなどの批判も1930、40年代に開始されている。これらの批判は中世社会についての、まさに「実証的」調査研究を伴い、ヨーロッパはヨーロッパの「近代以前」について、それまでとは比較にならないほど豊富な情報と適正な情報の読みを獲得するに至った。ここに「中世社会」像の全面的見直しは必然の事態であった。

［堀越孝一］

ヨーロッパ社会のルーツとしての中世

しかも、およそヨーロッパ的理念と体制に対する「大戦間」の世代の不安、第二次世界大戦後の世代の懐疑は、ヨーロッパ人をしてヨーロッパ史の見直しを促すものであった。ヨーロッパがヨーロッパであるのはいかなる歴史的構造に基づくか。この疑問は「中世社会」像の問題を「ヨーロッパ史」像の問題のうちに位置づけるものとなった。旧来の三大時代区分の有効性に疑問符が打たれた。ヨーロッパはいつ、いかなる状況において、一つの独特の社会として成立したか。この発生論的観点にたつとき、ヨーロッパ中世社会の歴史像は、ヨーロッパ社会の成立を占う図絵として構想されなければならないであろう。ほんの一例をあげれば、1957年にウィスコンシン大学の中世・ルネサンス研究所で催されたシンポジウムの報告書は「12世紀のヨーロッパと近代社会の基礎」（1961）と題されたのであった。

［堀越孝一］

ヨーロッパ中世社会――その成立と展開

外民族侵入の影響

ブロックはその著『封建社会』（1939、40）の冒頭に「外民族の侵入」を記述している。8世紀から10世紀にかけてバイキング、マジャール、イスラム教徒と三方向から外圧を受けた内陸ヨーロッパは、たまたまこの時期がフランク王国の政治組織の分解と同調したこともあって、混乱に陥った。この混乱は社会的結合の諸形態に多大の変更をもたらし、ヨーロッパ内陸に、一つの独特の型の社会をつくる方向に作用した。

　ブロックの中世社会論はここに立論の起点を求めていて、その見取り図は現在妥当なものと考えられている。「侵入以前」のヨーロッパ社会との間に断絶はない。しかし、11世紀なかばを境に、ネウストリア、アクィタニアなどとよばれたライン川の西の土地に、数個ないし十数個の村を抱えた城主領が群生した。村は、侵入以前と形態を変え、居住集落の周辺に耕地を広げる集村型である。ライン川とロアール川の間では、共同耕作による三圃(さんぽ)制酪農経営が一般であり、侵入以前に比べて鉄製農具の普及、水車動力の利用など、農業技術革新の動きが著しい。12世紀に入れば風車動力の利用も始まる。

［堀越孝一］

城主領と諸侯伯領の新展開

城主と農民の関係は防衛と生産との相互補完関係であり、慣行として形を整えていく権利・義務の関係は、やがて13世紀に入ると慣習法として成文化されることになる。それは同時に農民という身分団体の成立を意味し、そのころにはすでに騎士身分もその閉鎖的性格を強めている。騎士身分はすなわち、城主と、その家臣である一般の領主と、さらには王侯伯を名のるほどの存在をも含めた身分概念である。

　城主は、侵入以前のフランク王国の地方行政区であるパグスを分け取って城を構えた。したがって、城主のなかにはパグスの長官コメスあるいはその代官ウィカリウスに名分を借りたのもある。だが多くその実体はその土地の実権者であって、とりわけ「強いやつ」が改めてコメスすなわち伯を名のる。あるいは、これまたフランク王国カロリング王家が設定した官職ドゥカトゥスすなわち侯を名のる。

　彼ら諸侯伯が城主層を束ね、諸侯伯領を経営する。中世ヨーロッパは諸侯伯領の国際関係である。ところがすでに10世紀後半、フランクの分国諸王家の家系が絶えたのを機に、彼らは王を選挙していた。イル・ド・フランスのカペー家であり、ライン川の東のザクセン家である。王権の理念はフランク王権に、ひいてはローマ帝権に由来し、これは侵入以前の社会的結合理念の持続とみなされる。したがって「封建王政」とは矛盾した概念であり、中世ヨーロッパはこの矛盾の関係をむしろばねとして歴史を刻む。

　部族的結合の伝統の根強いライン川以東にあっても、11世紀なかばの聖職叙任権闘争以後、村―領主領（城主領）―諸侯伯領の体系を目ざす再編成の過程が進む。ザクセン家に始まる王権はローマ帝国の復活を標榜(ひょうぼう)したが、その実、諸侯伯の国際関係の現実は領邦分裂を固定せしめた。

　イングランドにおいては、フランク王国に相当するのがアングロ・サクソン王国である。そのシャイア‐ハンドレッドの地方行政区は、11世紀なかば、ノルマンディー侯家のイングランド征服とその結果としてのノルマン王家の成立以後も強固に残り、王家によって設定された領主領（マナー）、伯領（カウンティ）は既存の体制を否定するものではなく、王家はむしろそれを利用して王国支配の実をあげた。12世紀なかば、アンジュー（プランタジネット）王家の開幕以後、領主層は王権に対して一個の身分団体と自己規定し、議会をもって王権との協議機関とする。等族制の段階はイングランドにおいてもっとも早い時期に到達されたのである。

［堀越孝一］

都市の形成

等族とは身分のことであって、騎士、農民と並んで、都市住民もまた一個の身分をつくる。侵入以後、商業の復活と商人団体の定住を「中世都市」形成の原因とみるピレンヌの考えは批判の余地がある。旧ローマ都市、フランク王国のコメスないしウィカリウスの「城下町」、侵入時に修道院を核として形成された町、市(いち)の町。発生と原型は異なっても、村‐城主領の形成と大根(おおね)においては同質の力学が町の形成において働いた。侵入の経験が、ある状況において都市的環境をつくる方向に作用した。

　その後の展開がブルゲンシス（町人）という身分団体をつくった。侵入以後、貨幣流通経済の活性化が町人のうちメルカトーレス（商人）層の指導的立場を導き、諸侯伯権、さらにはこれを越えて王権がこれと交渉をもつ。これら王朝的諸権力との関係の強弱が一つの要因として働いて、北イタリアのコムーネ都市、北フランスの国王代官都市、諸侯伯権と共存したネーデルラント・フランドル諸都市、あるいは北ドイツのハンザ都市と、各地に特有の都市圏が形成される。

　他方、フランドルの毛織物など各地特産物の展開は職人層の充実を結果し、彼らのつくる職能団体（ギルド）の市政参加が、13世紀以降どこの都市圏にあっても問題になる。商人ギルド、職人ギルドの対立は、全体としてみれば町人という身分団体の閉鎖化を意味し、都市的環境のヨーロッパ的型の展開を示している。

［堀越孝一］

教会の活性化とその役割

もう一つの身分団体「教会」はどうか。キリスト教会もまた侵入以前から持続する要素である。けれども、教会は侵入以後、侵入以前の隆盛をふたたび取り戻したと考えては、事態を見誤ることになる。実情は、侵入以後、ヨーロッパ内陸にようやく信仰共同体の形成がみられたのであって、活性化の核となったのは、侵入に際し地域住民の保全を図った地方教会と修道院であった。侵入後、教区組織が整備され、村‐城主領と教区の関係が調整された。11世紀なかばは美術史でいうロマネスク教会堂建築の第一次隆盛期である。ヨーロッパ内陸社会はようやく開発の時代に入り、村人は森林沼沢を開墾して耕地を広げ、石の城を築き、石造りの教会堂を建てた。社会の全局面が共通のリズムにのっていた。

　教会人（聖職者）身分の第一の役割は信者の霊魂の救済にある。超自然的な力の観念に浸されていた中世人にとって、この役割指定は疑念の余地のないところであった。ベネディクト修道会の戒律「祈り、そして働け」のことばの順序がこれを示している。しかし「働け」もまた戒律の根本にあり、彼ら修道士は、フランク王国時代のアイルランド教会系修道士に範をとって、開墾に、農事指導に働いた。教会領、修道院領は、どこの土地にあっても領地経営の範型となった。

　教会人はまた社会福祉の担い手であった。16世紀に入り、都市の肥大化に伴う社会問題の増大は、貧民救済の「世俗化」、すなわち都市当局による肩代りを促した。ここに中世カトリック教会の社会的役割の重要な部分が滑落したのである。

　教会はまた教育と文化の機関であって、ラテン語を保守して古典の学芸を伝承し、年代記の形で歴史を記述した。王侯伯の家政の文書部局の長は13世紀末に至るまで教会人が独占した。12世紀はイスラム文化圏を介する古典の学芸摂取の時代であり、13世紀に入れば都市におけるもう一つの身分団体「大学」の形成をみる。その過程はまた、ヨーロッパ固有の思考の形成、すなわちスコラ哲学形成の過程でもあった。

［堀越孝一］

言語の定着

言語は「ラインとマースの間」を境にして北東のチュートン語圏、南西のロマンス語圏がようやく定まった。後者はケルト語に洗われたラテン語を母胎とし、北のオイル語、南のオック語に分かれ、前者の叙事詩、後者の叙情詩の制作は11世紀の末にまでさかのぼる。13世紀以降、オック語圏が分解し、ロマンス語系諸国語の形成をみる。チュートン語は南ドイツからイングランドにかけて展開し、13世紀には、侵入以前の記憶を叙事詩に成文化する。ヨーロッパ社会はようやく自前の言語で思考し、歴史を記述するまでに自意識を高めたのである。

［堀越孝一］

インド

中世社会設定に関する諸説

インド史において、どの時代を中世とよぶかは人によって違いがある。旧来は、11世紀までのヒンドゥー諸王朝時代を古代、12世紀から18世紀までのムスリム諸王朝の時代を中世とよぶ場合が多かった。しかし、近年、経済構造をメルクマールとして、中世＝封建制と理解する立場が一般化してきた。この立場にたつ人々の間にも、中世の始期については諸説に分かれ、グプタ朝解体期の6世紀、ハルシャ朝崩壊後の8世紀を始期とする説などがある。これらの諸説に共通しているのは、インドにおける中世の成立を、〔1〕地方における領主的階層の成立、〔2〕諸カースト（＝ジャーティのこと。いわゆるバラモン、クシャトリア、バイシャ、シュードラという古代インドの種姓制とは異なり、カースト＝ジャーティとは現実的な人々の社会集団のことである）の形成とカースト制の完成、〔3〕それと表裏をなす村落共同体の形成、〔4〕ヒンドゥー教あるいはヒンドゥー的文化の形成、に求めることである。このように、今日ともすれば超時代的なインド社会の特徴とされるものは、ほとんどすべて、8～10世紀ごろ、いわゆる中世の成立期に姿を現すのであって、太古以来存続したというようなものではけっしてない。

［小谷汪之］

経過と特徴

こうして形成されてきたインド的中世社会は、12世紀から18世紀のムスリム諸王朝の支配期にも基本的にはそのまま存続し、さらに発展していったと考えられる。12世紀初頭、北インドに初めて成立したムスリム王朝（奴隷王朝）ののち、北インドではハルジー朝、トゥグルク朝など四王朝が続き、デリー諸王朝と称せられる。これらの王朝支配期の社会については、史料が乏しく、あまりよくわからないが、イスラム神秘主義（スーフィー）の諸派が農村部にまで進入し、イスラム教の底辺への浸透をある程度実現していったことが知られている。この時代、14世紀中ごろにはムスリム政権がデカン高原地方にも成立（バフマン朝）し、こののちデカン・ムスリム五王朝と称される王朝が成立して、南インドのビジャヤナガル王朝と抗争したが、ビジャヤナガルは16世紀初め衰退し、ムスリム権力がさらに南にまで及んだ。16世紀初めムガル帝国が成立すると、しだいに版図を拡大し、ほぼインド全域を支配した。しかし、ムガルの支配は版図の拡大の裏で弱体化し始めており、北インドにおけるシク教徒領主層の成長、ジャート人領主層の強大化、デカン地方におけるマラータ諸勢力の台頭によって足元から動揺し始めた。これらの領主層が、8～10世紀以来成立してきた領主層と直接につながるものなのか、あるいはそれらとは性格の異なるものなのか、今日の研究段階では十分明らかにすることができないが、ただ、中世成立期に形成された村落共同体の変質過程から成長してきたものであることは、ほぼ明らかとなっている。こうして、ムガルは1707年アウランゼーブの死後、急速に解体に向かうことになった。しかし、インド的中世社会を決定的に解体したのは、18世紀中ごろからのイギリスのインド植民地支配であった。

［小谷汪之］

中国

時代区分設定の意義と問題点

19世紀から世界の一体化が進むなかで、固有の伝統文化を背負う非西欧世界においても、近代化の歩調に加わることは、ほぼ普遍で不可逆の課題となりつつある。こうした内在状況が、発展の普遍史と各世界文化の独自性の交差のなかで、近現代のルーツを探り、そこに中世を設けるとすればどこまでさかのぼったらよいか、また中世社会のどのような転換が近現代との関連でだいじなのかという問題を生み出すのである。

　世界史を古代、中世、近代と3分する構想は、人類史の普遍性を見定めるうえで重要であるものの、比較の尺度には西欧世界の発展史が暗黙のモデルとされてきた。しかし、その封建制や資本主義文明の相対的で特殊な状況が自覚されてきた今日では、かりに三区分法を非西欧世界に用いるにしても、その比較の尺度は文化の個別性を意識した柔軟なものでなければならない。中国についてこうした試みはまだ緒についたばかりである。

［斯波義信］

中国の歴史的独自性

まず下限からみると、普通、中国の近代化は19世紀なかばのアヘン戦争が起点とされている。ただし19世紀の中国は、旧社会の絶頂期と破局期が並び立つ特異な状況であったから、明確な近代化の歩みは1895年の下関(しものせき)条約以後とする見解も成り立つ。こうすると初期近代の上限、さらに中世社会の始源はという問題が生ずるが、その前に文化の連続と官僚制の存在を考えておく必要がある。

　三千余年の中国史は、初期伝統の成立期であり氏族制にたつ先秦(しん)千余年の古典期ないし都市国家期と、秦・漢～清(しん)二千余年の官僚的中華帝国期とに二大分するのが自然である。その指標は国家形成原理の特異性にあり、中国が早熟的に巨大人口規模と高度の生産力・生産量、経済・軍事・組織の技術、そして巨大空間の政治単位を達成し、二千年の官僚政治の帝国を持続したことは、比較史上の特例なのである。この種の官僚制は前近代世界では古代エジプトと並ぶ異例であり、帝国は東西ローマより長命であった。また文化主義というべき中華的世界観に裏づけられた一元支配の構造も、教会と国家の二元社会が法の下に均衡する西欧とは異質であり、西欧的経験の所産である国民国家も中国にはなじまない存在であった。

［斯波義信］

中国史における歴史的転期

さて文化の早熟、連続、独自性を前提としたうえでなら、中国の社会経済体制、国家組織、技術関連の相関において、発展と進化の転期を画することは可能である。古典期を除けば中華帝国期は初期（秦・漢～唐）、中期（唐末～明(みん)末）、晩期（明末～清末）に3分できる。この際、普通、帝国の大分水嶺(ぶんすいれい)的転換期とされる唐・宋(そう)変革期（9～13世紀）が、中世革命期、中世的転換期となる。

　まず国家の形成原理からみると、効率的な行政組織の始原は秦・漢にあるが、内容が進化を遂げ、官吏登用法（科挙(かきょ)）が確立し、新人登用、昇進、行政監察、職務の系列化（三省六部(りくぶ)）、文治が徹底して独裁機構がなり、ことに科挙を通じて教養、富、才能による競合的才能主義が社会の普遍価値として定着し、社会は統合と安定を強化した。こうして六朝(りくちょう)以来の門閥貴族、武人の専権が一掃され、新興の地主、富商、その母胎の地方エリート（郷紳(きょうしん)）が支配層に登場し、政治の社会支持層が広くかつ流動的となった。両税法（唐末～明末）はこの拡大に対応し、政府の世俗勢力（地主、富商）に対する統制が柔軟化するとともに、貨幣経済が国の財政基盤を拡大強化し、膨大な常備軍、官僚集団が生まれ、交通、産業開発、教育文化の施設も拡充し、社会に安定と活力を与えた。一方、社会の都市化と自律化も進化した。宋以後の社会では、都鄙(とひ)の分化や相補・相克関係がはっきりしてきた。県城の総数は人口増＝生産増に相関せず不変であったが、地方農村に鎮(ちん)（町）や市場地が無数に発生し、日常の交換でつくられる村々と市場からなる小社会経済空間ブロックが細胞状に広がり、鎮を介し、さらに県を介して都市間経済の網の目に組み込まれ、社会は自給性を脱して分化した有機的、流動的な状況を呈し、ギルド、結社が育ち、地域的、社会経済的な自律の組織が発達した。民衆は徴税、治安、教化、科挙については国の一元支配の下にたったが、社会経済生活では前述の市場ブロック、結社、ギルド、郷紳、郷族(きょうぞく)の下で自律の幅を広げた。

　こうした活力と安定は、生産、技術、商業、交通の発達、人口増、都市民衆文化（小説、戯曲など）を導き、元・清という異民族の支配下でも一貫した社会の成長を許した。この状況は、原基工業化期の西欧に数世紀は先行する社会の充実を示している。しかし社会の高度に進んだ分化は、巨大な人口圧を吸収して保守的惰性を生み、一見して一枚岩にみえる行政、経済は、前近代交通の隘路(あいろ)に妨げられて実質的統合を欠いていた。半自給的市場ブロックが清末・民国まで生き続ける一方、着実に増加する人口に対し、行政枠組みと組織は依然旧規模を保守し続けた。

　人口規模とともに漸増する社会経済の発達が、行政の惰性とのずれを露呈し始めるのは明末である。科挙の社会統合・周流作用はまだ働いていたが、膨れた地方エリート層に供給できる官職は限られ、銀の大量流入による商業の躍進は都鄙の相克、富の分配の不均衡を生み、局地的、散発的に発生した資本主義萌芽(ほうが)の状況は流産した。この期になお人口増が続いたのは、生産技術の開発よりはむしろ辺地拓殖のゆえであり、しかも開発効率の期待できる未開地はますます乏しくなった。

　明末清初はこうした新しい芽が生じつつも、国家組織の惰性の下で流産を繰り返す状況がみられ、初期近代へ向けての過渡を示している。

　こうした見方とは別に、中国学界では近代・前近代を二分し、宋以後を後期封建社会とする区分法などがあり、日本でも宋以後を中世農奴制とする説、あるいは近世社会とみ、五胡(ごこ)十六国から隋(ずい)・唐を門閥貴族中心の中世社会とみる説がある。西欧の中国学でも宋以後を初期近代とみる説もあるが、多くは中華帝国中期とし、以上の説明に近い見方をとっている。

［斯波義信］

日本

「日本中世」という概念

日本でも歴史を「古代（上代）」「中世」「近代（近世）」などに分ける、いわゆる三区分法的呼称は古くから行われていたが、現在歴史学で用いられている「中世」という概念は、明治以後の近代歴史学の発達のなかで成立したものである。それは一般的には、源頼朝(よりとも)の武家政治開始のころから、織田・豊臣(とよとみ)の全国統一政権の出現以前までの期間であり、政権所在地を指標とする時代名称でいえば鎌倉・南北朝・室町・戦国の諸時代、西暦では1180年代から1560年代までの約400年間をさす。しかし、武士の活動が社会的に顕著になった平安後期（院政期）を中世の初期または成立期とみたり、戦国時代を「近世」に傾いた時期として扱うことも多い。

　このような時代区分観は、一つには、古代（上代）はおおむね公家(くげ)（天皇・貴族）が政治権力を掌握していたのに対し、中ごろに武士の政権が現れ、明治以後はまた天皇中心の政治体制に復した、とみた明治期の知識人の歴史観に基づいており、もう一つには、西欧の歴史における古代・中世・近代の三段階に日本の歴史をなぞらえる見方に基づいていた。ただし、庶民の経済・文化が発展した江戸時代は、明治にとっては同時代に近いので、「近世」とみなされたのである。日本史学史上、日本史に「中世」の概念を確立した最初は、原勝郎(かつろう)『日本中世史』（1906）といわれ、江戸時代を「近世」とする見方は、内田銀蔵『日本近世史』（1903）にみられる。こうして日本の中世は、一般に武家政治、封建制の時代であり、荘園(しょうえん)制の社会と理解されているが、実際には貴族や寺社の勢力も政治上・社会上軽視できないものがある。また社会の体制や生活形態も段階的に変化したので、鎌倉末期ごろまでを中世前期、以後を中世後期と区分することが多い。

［黒田俊雄］

農民経営の性格と農村

中世社会を支える生産活動の基本的なものは農業であったが、なかでも米作が重視されていた。農民には、数町歩の耕地を保有して比較的大規模な経営をもつ者も、数段歩をあてがわれているだけの小経営農民も、さらには有力農の保有地や村堂の付属地を下請けするだけの不安定な農民もあったが、畿内(きない)などの先進地域では、中世初期には小経営農民の自立がかなり広くみられた。そういうところでは、公家・寺社などの荘園領主が、雑掌(ざっしょう)などの荘官を荘園現地に派遣して、耕地や営農料の割当てをする「勧農(かんのう)」にあたらせるとともに、有力農民を名主(みょうしゅ)にして耕地と農民をいくつかの「名」に編成し、年貢や公事(くじ)などの賦課・減免にあたらせていた。また、中央から比較的遠く、地方豪族や武士の勢力の強い東国・九州などの後進地域では、農民の自立が弱く、農民は一定規格の屋敷・田畠(でんばた)とともに「在家(ざいけ)」として地頭(じとう)などの在地領主に人格的に隷属し、自分にあてがわれた田畠の耕作だけでなく、領主直営地の耕作や家内労働、建設・運搬などの雑役にも駆使された。農民の自立性は地域によってかなり格差があったが、先進地域では中世中期（14世紀）には小農民層がさらに広範に成立し、貨幣経済も浸透して、名主層を中心に村落結合も進み、荘園領主や守護勢力への抵抗もみられた。また地頭などの在地領主の強い支配の下にあった辺境でも、領主や代官の館(やかた)を中心に村落の秩序があった。だが村落の区域は、荘園や在地領主の所領とはかならずしも一致せず、村はいつでも農業経営と農民生活のよりどころを意味していた。ただし、このような農民のほかに、定住して保有地をもつことのない、浮浪的な弱小農民もかなりあったとみられ、また農耕民のほかに山林・河海で種々の生業を営む漂泊的な非農業民も各地にみられた。

［黒田俊雄］

都市および交通路

中世の都市は、荘園制社会を基盤に、まず権門体制下の都市として発達し、やがて各地の港湾・宿駅・城郭を中心として商工都市が発展していった。京都は律令(りつりょう)体制下の帝都から、11世紀を境に権門体制の王都として新しく発展した。弁官(べんかん)局・蔵人(くろうど)所・検非違使(けびいし)庁その他の官衙(かんが)とその付属の厨町(くりやまち)、内裏(だいり)や権門貴族の殿舎、その家司(けいし)・舎人(とねり)・雑仕(ぞうし)などの執務所・厨房・細工所・宿衛所・倉庫が建ち並び、これに付随して文筆・工芸・祈祷(きとう)・音曲などの芸能者、商人、雑芸民などが街区に住み、市場・見世棚(みせだな)も現れた。東・北の郊外には権門の御願寺・菩提(ぼだい)所はじめ今宮・北野・祇園(ぎおん)その他の寺社が建ち並んでいた。このような権門の都市としての基本的特色は、興福寺・東大寺を中心とした奈良および幕府の館・邸のあった鎌倉にもみられた。

　地方では、諸国の国府で国衙が在地武士勢力によって維持されるようになり、さらに大工・織工・仏師・図師など高級技術者や職人が住み、市場が発達したりして、中世都市に変貌(へんぼう)していた。また、京都から地方に延びる大路や河川・海上などの交通・運輸の道も、一種の都市的空間で、その要所には宿(しゅく)・泊(とまり)・津(つ)が発達し、問丸(といまる)が栄えた。中世末には、城下町・寺内(じない)町・門前町も新たに出現した。これらの都市は、農村が個別領主の各種所領または村落共同体の領域としてその強力な統制下にあったのに対し、いわば国家公権のもとに雑多な階層が比較的自由に居住し往来する地域であった。そして中世後期には、商工業者を主とする都市共同体が成立して、自治都市的傾向の著しいところも各所にみられた。

［黒田俊雄］

家族および社会集団

中世社会で安定的な生活のよりどころとなっていたのは「いえ」――家族的結合と住屋（城館）と家産――であった。「いえ」の主体である家族には、時代・地域・階層により種々の形態がみられた。すなわち、下人(げにん)・所従(しょじゅう)などの隷従者や親類・扶養人などを含む大家族的なものから、夫婦と子供だけの単婚小家族まで、多様であった。しかしこのほかにも、安定した「いえ」とはいえない小屋住みまたは半浮浪の、父子・母子・やもめなど不完全な家族や独住者も少なからずあった。「いえ」または個人は、通常なんらかの社会集団（団体）に所属していた。社会集団は一般的には「衆(しゅう)」「輩(ともがら)」「党(とう)」などとよばれ、とくに盟約し結束して行動する集団は「一揆(いっき)」といわれた。集団のうち一つの「いえ」ないし血縁関係を基本にしたものを「族(やから)」「氏」「一門」などといい、家長である惣領(そうりょう)に率いられていた。とくに顕貴の公家・武家などの政治的、社会的に大きな勢力をもつ集団は「権門」とよばれた。また農民の「いえ」の集まりである「村」も、独自の社会集団であった。商工業や芸能に携わる人々もそれぞれ集団をつくっていたが、これらは一般に兄部(このこうべ)・長吏(ちょうり)などに率いられて「座」を結成していた。さらに、「いえ」や世俗の集団から離れて出家した僧侶(そうりょ)も、大寺社をはじめとする「大衆(だいしゅ)」の諸組織および本末関係で結ばれ、巨大な権門的集団を構成していた。そしてその内部には、公的な寺院統制機構だけでなく、種々の職掌や権利や信仰によって組織されたいくつもの「衆」「方(かた)」とよばれる集団があり、その集団内部にも普通、﨟次(ろうじ)（出家後の年数）により個々人の地位に序列があった。また別に師弟・被護・血縁などによる「門流」「門徒」といわれる私的な集団もあった。神社の社司・祠官(しかん)の集団には、世俗の「族」「氏」に近いものも多かった。このように、すべて人々の生活が集団への所属によって保証される社会であったので、世を捨てた聖(ひじり)たちも山間の「別所(べっしょ)」に集団生活をし、乞食(こじき)・非人も「坂(さか)」「宿(しゅく)」「散所(さんじょ)」などに座的な集団をつくっていることが多かった。

［黒田俊雄］

支配体制と身分

中世社会は各種の支配と集団関係から複雑に成り立っていたが、総体的にみれば、その根幹になっていたのは、王家（天皇家）、摂関家をはじめとする顕貴の公家、南都北嶺(ほくれい)をはじめとする大寺社、武家すなわち幕府など、もろもろの権門の支配体制であった。権門はその伝統的権威と慣例と社会的実力とによって、それぞれに公的な職能的権限を分掌し、広大な荘園・公領の諸「職(しき)」を領有し、その勢力下に中下級貴族・在地領主および百姓以下勤労人民を組織していた。

　中世社会では、国家の法によって身分が統一的に制定されたことはなかったが、この権門支配の秩序に応じて身分の序列・階層が慣習的に成立していた。鎌倉幕府法には「侍―百姓―下人」の身分的区別（階層）がみられるが、公家・武家・寺社を通じてみれば、（1）貴種、（2）司・侍、（3）平民（百姓）、（4）下人、（5）非人、が基本的な身分階層であった。このうち（1）（2）が封建的領主階級である支配階層を形成し、（5）は基本的には社会秩序からの脱落者・被疎外者とみなされていた。

　このような中世的な身分秩序は、戦国時代になると荘園体制の崩壊によってなによりも貴種が没落したため、部分的な慣習や名目的な呼称に近いものになり、ついで織豊(しょくほう)政権の登場によって近世的な身分構成に移行し始めるのである。

［黒田俊雄］

『堀米庸三・堀越孝一著『ヨーロッパ世界の成立』（1977・講談社）』▽『今野國雄著『西洋中世世界の発展』（1979・岩波書店）』▽『マルク・ブロック著、新村猛監訳『封建社会1・2』（1973、76・みすず書房）』▽『山崎利男著『インドにおける中世世界の成立』（『中世史講座1　中世世界の成立』所収・1982・学生社）』▽『『世界の歴史24　変貌のインド亜大陸』荒松雄・小谷汪之執筆分（1978・講談社）』▽『E. Reischauer, J. Fairbank & A. Cr A. CraigEast Asia, Tradition and Transformation (1973, George Allen and Unwin Ltd., London)』▽『M. ElvinThe Pattern of the Chinese Past (1973, Eyre Methuen, London & Stanford University Press, Stanford)』▽『堀敏一著『中国における中世世界の成立』（『中世史講座1　中世世界の成立』所収・1982・学生社）』▽『黒田俊雄著『荘園制社会』（『体系日本歴史2』1967・日本評論社）』▽『黒田俊雄著『寺社勢力――もう一つの中世社会』（岩波新書）』▽『永原慶二著『日本中世の社会と国家』（1982・日本放送出版協会）』▽『大山喬平著『日本中世農村史の研究』（1978・岩波書店）』▽『網野善彦著『無縁・公界・楽』（1978・平凡社）』