We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 March 2011
The parish guild, or miyaza, has been studied by Japanese scholars from various perspectives and disciplines. While not wishing to disparage other approaches to the subject, in this paper I shall treat the institution as a socio-religious monopoly. A monopoly, by definition, is a group that restricts or denies resources, services, or markets to other segments of a society. While the word is generally confined to economics—where one thinks of medieval guilds and modern cartels—the concept can be profitably extended to other areas of society. The sociology of religion, for example, provides us with a wide variety of monopolies. These groups restrict access to the sacred, just as economic monopolies corner markets. Access to the sacred can be controlled in various ways—e.g., by maintaining an exclusive kinship tie with the gods (clans), by means of a purity-pollution complex (caste), or by control of a sacramental system necessary for salvation (sacerdotal priesthoods).
This study was made possible by grants from the Center for East Asian Studies and the Center for Research in Internationa] Studies (both of Stanford University) and a fellowship from the National Endowment for the Humanities.
1 For example, Ichirō, Hori in his Minkan shinkō (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1951, pp. 169–85)Google Scholar treats the miyaza in terms of the dōzoku. This is certainly an important aspect of the institution and is especially significant when dealing with the older, more conservative guilds (sometimes called ichizokuza; ibid., p. 171). In some places the dōzoku itself was called kabu (stock), cf. kabuza. Others have concentrated on a developmental schema, identifying each stage with a particular type of religious affiliation, Hagiwara Tatsuo, for example, in his “Kinsei saishidan seiritsu josetsu” (Nihon bunka kenkyūjo kiyō, Kokugakuin Daigaku [hereafter NBKK,], 4 (1959), pp. 22–26), develops a typology that begins with the ujibito (roughly the “ancient” period). goes through a miyaza stage (medieval) and culminates in the ujiko (modern). Tarō, Wakamori, in Chūsei kyōdōlai no kenkyū [hereafter CKK] (Tokyo: Kiyomizu Kōbundō Shoten, 1967), pp. 106–50Google Scholar, develops an interesting developmental hypothesis based upon various types of leadership within the parish. The classical work on the miyaza, Kazuo's, HigoMiyaza no kenkyū [hereafter MK] (Tokyo: Kōbundō, 1942)Google Scholar, distinguishes two basic types: the kabuza and the later muraza. Seiichi, Andō, in Kinsei miyaza no shiteki kenkyū (hereafter KMSK] (Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kōbunkan, 1960)Google Scholar, bases his analysis of the miyaza on basic historical, political, and geographical units of administration: the shōen (manor) of the medieval period and the mura (village) of the Tokugawa period. He argues persuasively that Higo's muraza is not really a guild at all, but is actually synonymous with the village-wide parishes (ujiko seido) which, he believes, develop only in the Meiji period.
2 Harada Toshiaki points out that since the way of reading the characters for this word (jūbakoyomī) was very rare before the Tokugawa period, the word miyaza itself is not particularly old (“Miyaza no matsuri: kannushi no hensen ni tsuite” [hereafter “MM”]. NBKK, 26 (1970), p. 62). There is a wide variety of words used for such groups, some of them considerably older than “miyaza” —e.g., kessbü, ketsuban, shake, shin'yakuza, shin'ya, jingan, mo-roto, murabito, nakama, and mura. The word za was first used among government officials and Bud-dhist priests when referring to the place of a ritual or to seating arrangements in that place; see Hagiwara Tatsuo. Chusei saishi soshiki no kenkyū [hereafter C55K] (Tokyo: Yoshigawa Kōbunkan. 1965), pp. 196–97. Higo Kazuo, in his study of the miyaza, points out that while the word originally may have referred to the act of gathering in the shrine for worship, it ultimately came to be used for the group that met there; he suggests by way of a minimal definition that the miyaza is a group that meets in a shrine to worship the village deity (MK, pp. 26, 42). My own translation of the term miyaza as “parish guild” is, I believe, justifiable in light of the obvious parallels between these groups and those commercial and artisan guilds in Japan and elsewhere whose members, according to Weber, Max, “make a vocation out of monopolizing the disposition of spiritual, intellectual, social and economic goods, duties and positions” (Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, Roth, Guenther & Wittich, Claus (eds.), New York: Bedminster Press, 1968, Vol. I, p. 344)Google Scholar.
3 One cannot say, however, that wherever there was tezukuri there were miyaza.
4 In Tanba and Ōmi, kabu was a synonym for maki or make, meaning a 'household'; see Higo, MK, p. 50.
5 A successful shinza (or New Guild) often changed the characters of its name to mean True Guild or Sacred Guild (see Higo, MK, p. 62).
6 There seems originally to have been no difference between sacred and profane entertainment in Shinto rituals. Because of the close connection between festivals and the arts, the miyaza became an important patron of local culture. For the relationship between the miyaza and performers' guilds, see Tatsusaburō, Hayashiya, Chūsei geinōshi no ken-kyū (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1960), pp. 417–30Google Scholar.
7 Masaji, Chiba, Matsuri no hoshakaigaku (Tokyo: Kōbundō, 1970), p. 38Google Scholar. Myōga-kin and other terms used in the miyaza are identical with words and customs found in the medieval economic guilds (za).
8 Hori (n. 1 above), p. 174.
9 Chōshū, Takeda. “Kinsei sonraku no miyaza to kō,” Nihon shūkyōshi koza, Vol. III (Shūkyō to minshū scikatsu). Saburō, Ienaga et al. (eds.) (Tokyo: San'ichi Shobō, 1971), p. 165Google Scholar.
10 Harada Toshiaki, “Miyaza no iroiro” [hereafter “MI”], Shakai to denshō [hereafter SD], VI, pt. 3 (Oct. 1962), p. 116.
11 Only in the Meiji period did jinja without a truly regional ujiko become regarded, officially, as ujigami centers. From that time on, the jinja and the miya began to overlap. Harada, “MI.” p. 117; also Harada, “MM,” p. 62. When the miyaza met in a Buddhist temple, it was sometimes called a teraza or dōza.
12 Andō, KMSK, p. 114.
13 Takeda (n. 9 above), p. 162. During the middle ages, many village festivals had become spectacles attracting outsiders and trade from the surrounding countryside. The growing complexity of these events encouraged the division of ritual labor among the sub-guilds of younger and older men, and the professionalization of the priesthood (Harada, “MM,” p. 74).
14 Harada, “Miyaza ni tsuite,” SD, VI, pt. 1 (Apr 1962), p. 1.
15 Andō, KMSK, p. 114.
16 Since the order of enrollment was important for status within the guild, these ceremonies sometimes created heated disputes. Some parents even registered their children while still in utero, in order to avoid conflict. Kazuo, Higo, “Ujiko soshiki,” Min-zokugaku Kenkyū, n.s. III, 2 (1946), p. 37Google Scholar.
17 Takeshi, Toyoda, “Chūsei ni okeru jinja no saishi soshiki ni tsuite,” Shigaku zasshi, LIII, 11 (1942), pp. 1371–75Google Scholar.
18 Toyoda, same title as n. 17, Shigaku zasshi, LIII, 10 (1942), p. 1230.
19 Note 1 above, p. 121.
20 Toyoda (n. 18 above), p. 1222.
21 Wakamori, CKK, p. 143.
22 Wakamori, “Shinkō shūdan,” Nihon minzokugaku taikei, Vol. III, Shakai to minzoku (Tokyo: Heibonsha, 1962), pp. 263–67.
23 Ibid., p. 108. This division of sacred labor goes back to the ancient clan system when the Inbe functioned as oblationers, the Nakatomi as celebrants.
24 Ibid., p. 273.
25 Wakamori, CKK, p. 132. In some areas in Kansai, the tōya was not allowed to work at all during his year in office.
26 In the seventh century, a Chinese drinking ceremony, the kyōinshu, was introduced in Japan, where it became amalgamated with the traditional toshigoimatsuri held in the spring. Since people were seated and served wine according to age and rank, the kyōinshu may have been influential in the formation of the early Japanese parish guilds.
27 Wakamori, CKK, p. 141.
28 Tatsuo, Hagiwara, “The Position of the Shinto Priesthood: Historical Changes and Developments,” in Dorson, Richard M. (ed.), Studies in Japanese folklore (Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press, 1963), p. 229Google Scholar.
29 “MM,” p. 71.
30 Higo, MK, p. 579.
31 Toyoda (n. 18 above), pp. 1211–13.
32 Ibid., p. 1214.
33 Higo, MK, p. 569.
34 Andō, KMSK, pp. 70–72.
35 Hori (n. I above), p. 173.
36 Wakamori points out that the contemporary expression “the ujigami of such-and-such a place” is a clear indication of the complete territorialization of the clan god (CKK, p. 42). The fictitiousness of the kinship relation between the ujigami and the ujiko is also to be seen in the custom of taking the ujigami as the temporary or ritual parent of children when they go through puberty rites. Were the village deity truly related to the child, it would make no sense to regard the relationship as “temporary” (ibid., p. 91). However, the territorialization of the clan god was no simple transformation. The ancient principles of lineage ideology wer e often inextricably mixed with the territorial symbols of authority (e.g., the tutelary gods) that develop especially after the rise of the sōson.
37 Eijirō, Fukuda. “Sōson no hatten,” Nihon re-kishi kōza, (Tokyo: Tokyō Daigaku Shuppankai, 1957) III, pp. 69–75Google Scholar.
38 Hagiwara Tatsuo, CSSK, pp. 167–230. For an example of the political intricacies of the medieval miyaza, see Mori Ryūkichi, “Miyaza no shōchō o meguru kankyū to jōken,” Nihonshi kenkyū, XXII (Oct 1954), pp. 10–21.
39 For example, kumon, tone, shōji, myōshu, bantō, jō, bajōtō; see Takeda (n. 9 above), p. 155.
40 For example: tonobaraza, tonoza, samuraiza, musokuninza, chōyaza, choyashu, shiza, yumikō. Samuraiza were often associated with Hachiman shrines, and were sometimes divided internally between high-class samurai and their retainers (who sometimes were farmers); see Higo, MK, p. 4.
41 Smith, Thomas C., The Agrarian Origins of Modern Japan (New York: Atheneum, 1966), p. 147Google Scholar.
42 Ibid., p. 5 et passim.
43 Ibid., p. 148.
44 Ibid., p. 188.
45 See George M. Foster, “Interpersonal Relations in Peasant Society,” with comments by Oscar Lewis & Julian Pitt-Rivers, Human Organization, XIX (1960–61), pp. 174–85.
46 Andō, KMSK, pp. 11–17. See also Toyoda (n. 17 above), pp. 13630”.
47 Andō, KMSK, passim; also his Edo Jidai no Nomin [hereafter EJN] (Tokyo: Shibundō, 1966), pp. 116–56.
48 This new emphasis on the individual, albeit often rhetorical, was sometimes made at the expense of the traditional stress on lineage (iegara); Ando, KMSK, p. 20.
49 Kunio, Yanagida, Japanese Manners and Customs in the Meiji Era (Tokyo: Ōbunsha, 1957), pp. 295–96Google Scholar.
50 When men of samurai descent who were not part of the kaisaigumi met with its members, they were forced to take the lower seats; Ando, KMSK, p. 121.
51 Chiba (n. 7 above), p. 43.
52 Andō, KMSK, p. 124.
53 Karl Marx: Early Writings, ed. and trans, by T. B. Bottomore (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964). p. 115.
54 Kitagawa, Joseph M., Religion in Japanese History (New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1966), p. 19Google Scholar.
55 Tokutarō, Sakurai, Nihon minkan shinkō ron (Tokyo: Yōzankaku, 1958), p. 87Google Scholar; and Harada Toshiaki, “Buraku saishi no hensen,” SD, I, 6 (1957). P. 15.
56 Andō, KMSK, p. 28.
57 Note 41 above, p. 197.
58 EJN, p. 154.
