Lecture 11: Early Modern History III “The Urban Neighborhood: A Case Study of Doshōmachi 3-chōme”

Hero Image: “The 1856 Doshōmachi 3-chōme Cadastral Map”
owned by the Osaka Municipal Library
道修町三丁目水帳絵図 安政3年5月 大阪市立中央図書館所蔵

The Cadastral Map shows land parcels and the names of owners of each parcel (ieyashiki) in the neighborhood. Every time an owner of each parcel changed due to inheritance, buying and selling, the name of new owner was written on a label stuck on the name of the previous owner.
水帳絵図は、町内の土地区画と、各区画(家屋敷)の所持者が示された絵図である。相続や売買で所持者が替わると、そのつど名前の上に貼紙を付けて訂正した。


 Introduction

  The chō, or urban neighborhood (association), was the basic unit of daily life in the early modern Japanese city.  The character of the urban neighborhood varied widely from one city to the next.  In the three megacities of Edo, Osaka, and Kyoto, chō were essentially communal associations of urban landowners known as iemochi.  Landowners were not, however, the only residents of urban neighborhoods.  Rather, neighborhoods had a diverse population, which included landowners’ family members, servants, and tenants.  This session will examine the socio-spatial structure and administrative system of Osaka’s Doshōmachi 3-chōme neighborhood.  Our analysis will focus particular attention on the internal documents produced by urban neighborhoods and the methods whereby they were managed.

 

1. What is a chō?

 As I noted in lecture nine, during the mid-eighteenth century, there were 620 chō=urban neighborhoods or neighborhood associations in Osaka’s three commoner districts.  The Edo-era chō is fundamentally different, however, from the contemporary chō.  More than simply a geographic designation, the early modern chō was a communal association of urban landowners.  Although other groups resided in urban neighborhoods, landowners were the chō‘s only formal constituents.  As we will learn today, the neighborhood occupied an important position in urban society, serving as the basic unit of daily life for many urban denizens. 

 As we observed during session nine, the city’s commoner lands, in particular the Senba area, were arranged in a chess-like pattern with crisscrossing streets running north-south and east-west.  Using a map from the 1830s, let us examine the internal composition on the Senba area.

Partially quoted from “The Map of Osaka’s Three District (Jōkyō-era)”
owned by the Osaka Museum of History

As the map indicates, between the Kōraibashi and Hiranobashi Bridges, which span the Higashi-yokobori River, a major street named Doshōmachi Boulevard runs east-west through the Doshōmachi area towards the Nishi-yokobori River.  The residential areas lining both sides of that street are partitioned into five chō or urban neighborhoods (Doshōmachi 1~5-chōme). 

The 1856 Doshōmachi 3-chōme Cadastral Map,
traced based on the document of the Osaka Municipal Library
(Reprinted from Tsukada Takashi, Osaka minsyū no kinseishi, Chikuma Shobō, 2017, p. 49)

Let us examine the state of land ownership in Doshōmachi 3-chōme, using a cadastral register (mizuchō) from 1856.  As you will immediately notice, the two blocks comprising Doshōmachi 3-chōme are partitioned into long, narrow residential tracts, which line a shared central street.  Referred to as ieyashiki, these narrow parcels of land served as the basic unit of landownership within the urban neighborhood.  Written on each parcel is the name of the individual who owned it. These landowners were the lone formal constituents of the neighborhoods in which they owned land.  In other words, landowners were the only true members of the urban neighborhood association. 

 In Osaka, neighborhoods like Doshōmachi, which were located along an east-west thoroughfare, were commonly dual-sided, meaning that they were comprised of residential lots lining both sides of a shared street.  In the Senba area, individual neighborhoods were commonly broken into two-block segments.  In southwestern Osaka’s Horie area, however, individual neighborhoods were sometimes comprised of as few as one or as many as three residential blocks.  In addition, there were some single-block neighborhoods which lined streets running north-south.  Also in areas like Dōtonbori, which were located along rivers and canals, some chō were single-sided. Commonly, neighborhood associations held meetings during which their constituents discussed and addressed neighborhood issues.  Accordingly, many neighborhoods maintained meeting halls on a plot of land within the neighborhood.

 In the case of Doshōmachi 3-chōme, the third residential lot from the left on the neighborhood’s northern side served as the site of the neighborhood meeting hall.  Urban neighborhoods also established their own internal regulations, including neighborhood by-laws and agreements.  In addition, cadastral registers, which detailed local landownership rights, were composed on the neighborhood level.  During the Edo period, ownership of a residential lot within a specific neighborhood community was, at its most basic level, a relationship of mutual recognition and protection binding local iemochi to one another.  In addition, registers of sectarian affiliation and population records were produced annually within individual neighborhoods and submitted to the City Governor’s Office.  Furthermore, copies of official proclamations issued by the Osaka City Governor were produced and maintained on the neighborhood level, as were official petitions and reports.

 

2. Chō Administration

 An individual referred to as the neighborhood administrator (toshiyori) was the central figure in the system of chō administration.  That administrator served as the representative of the neighborhood association’s constituents.  In addition, the neighborhood administrator was commonly assisted by two secretaries who rotated every month.  The cadastral register from the fifth month 1856 that we examined above bears the seals of neighborhood administrator Kamiya (Yamamoto) Chūsuke and neighborhood secretaries Yamatoya Seibē and Shionoya Seisuke. 

 In order deepen our understanding of chō administration, let us examine a neighborhood agreement from the intercalary eighth month of 1824 (owned by the Osaka Prefectural Nakanoshima Library). The document, which is sealed by neighborhood administrator Kamiya Chūsuke and 25 local landholders (including four on-site managers serving as proxy for absentee landholders), is a 37-article agreement detailing rules that constituents of the neighborhood are obligated to uphold.  Importantly, the rules were established “on the basis of a consultation in which all of the neighborhood’s formal constituents participated.”  

 Let us examine the agreement’s thirteenth article.  It states, “When meetings are held to discuss neighborhood issues, neighborhood constituents are required to attend unless they have a legitimate excuse.”  The term neighborhood constituent refers here to the local landholders who have sealed the agreement.  Importantly, tenants are not included in that category.  As this suggests, landowners were the only formal constituents of neighborhood communities.  This passage also indicates that the constituents of urban neighborhoods were obligated to attend meetings during which neighborhood-wide issues were discussed. 

  Let us turn now to article 26.  It states, “Landowners living outside of the neighborhood must employ on-site managers to administer their properties.  However, landowners residing in neighboring chō are exempt from this rule.  In such instances, the landowner in question should consult with the neighborhood.”  As this indicates, even when a landowner resided outside the neighborhood, they still maintained the rights and duties held by neighborhood constituents.  In order to fulfill their obligations as members of the neighborhood association, absentee landholders were required to hire a proxy in the form of an on-site manager. 

 Article 25 of the agreement states, “Residential tracts may not be bought or sold at a price lower than appropriate for the area.”  It is likely that this regulation was included in the agreement because of fears that below-market transactions would ultimately lead to a decline neighborhood property values.  This article contains a proviso which I did not include.  That proviso mandates that individuals buying or selling a property are first required to secure the consent of other neighborhood constituents in the form of their seal.   

 Lastly, let us examine article 15.  It states, “When leasing a rental property, neighborhood constituents are required to report the tenant’s previous address and occupation to the neighborhood administrator and the other members of their five-household association, and thereby obtain the consent of the neighborhood association.  Once they have done so, they must then obtain a document (ieuke issatsu) certifying the tenant’s identity.  Only then can they formally lease the property.” 

  As this article indicates, in the case of Doshōmachi 3-chōme, landholders who wished to lease a rental property under their control were obligated to confirm the identity and occupation of the prospective tenant and obtain the consent of the neighborhood association as a whole.  However, consent was obtained by filing a report to the neighborhood administrator and other members of one’s five-household association, rather than by obtaining the seal of other neighborhood constituents or submitting some sort a formal document. 

 The foregoing articles represent rules independently established by the constituents of Osaka’s Doshōmachi 3-chōme neighborhood.  Such by-laws and agreements are not unique to Doshōmachi.  In the early modern period, individual neighborhoods established their own rules and regulations.  The fact that urban neighborhoods had such rules and regulations is an expression of the fact that they were highly-autonomous, internally stratified social organizations.

 

3. The Chō’s Socio-Spatial Structure

 In early nineteenth-century Doshōmachi 3-chōme, there were more than 100 tenant households.  At the time, the neighborhood had a resident population of over 600, including the families of landowners and tenants, and servants.  Let us begin this section by examining the residential mode of Doshōmachi 3-chōme’s residents. 

The Meiji-era Doshōmachi 3-chōme Map Showing the Locations of Dwellings and Other Buildings
drawn based on Zusyū Nihon toshishi, University of Tokyo Press, 1993
(Reprinted from Tsukada Takashi, Osaka minsyū no kinseishi, Chikuma Shobō, 2017, p. 54)

This map shows the locations of dwellings and other buildings in the northern part of Doshōmachi 3-chōme during the early-Meiji period (Include a citation for the map in which its author, Professor Tani, is mentioned).  Although this map is from a different period, if we compare it with the 1856 cadastral map examined, it is clear that the location of buildings corresponds almost perfectly with the locations of individual lots depicted in the cadastral map.  As in the 1856 map, Doshōmachi 3-chōme’s blocks are comprised of long, narrow tracts of land with uniform lengths of 36.6 meters and frontages of between 5.5 and 18.2 meters. 

 The areas that are identified as ōdana, or large merchant houses, occupied and utilized entire residential tracts for their own purposes.  As the Meiji-era map indicates, large merchants houses commonly maintained dwellings in the front and storehouses in the rear.  In addition to living on the tract of land that they owned, such merchants also commonly maintained an on-site commercial space.  In such cases, no rental dwellings were constructed on the property.   The mesh-covered area of the dwelling shows the location of an unpaved passage leading to the rear of the residence.  Here, the landowner resided with his family and a small number of servants. 

 Let us now focus our attention on the area lining Sendannokibashi Street labeled “front-street rental dwellings.”  In the front section facing Doshōmachi Avenue, there are four three-room rental dwellings, each containing an unpaved passage.  In the case of rental dwellings located along a front street, it was possible to open a shop and engage in on-site commerce.  Long, narrow residential tracts included both front sections, which lined streets like Doshōmachi Avenue, and rear sections located along back alleys.  In the case of both large merchant houses and front-street tenants, one’s place of residence also served as the site of one’s occupation.  In contrast, because back-alley tenement dwellers did not live along a main street, they were unable to engage in revenue-generating commerce at their place of residence.  In that sense, back-alley tenements served only as residential spaces rather than spaces that combined the functions of occupation and residence.  In Doshōmachi 3-chōme, which was located in the central part of Senba, there were only a small number of back-alley tenements.  However, if we take Osaka as a whole, there were many back-alley rental dwellings of the sort depicted in Edo-period dramas.  For example, in Horie’s Miike-dōri 5-chōme neighborhood, there were a large number back-alley rental dwellings and tenements.     

The area labeled “neighborhood meeting hall” served as the site of Doshōmachi 3-chōme’s aforementioned meeting hall.  The tract of land on which the hall was located and the on-site buildings were the collective property of the neighborhood’s constituents.  The structure in the rear is the site of the meeting hall, while the front section lining the street is the location of a block of rental dwellings.  Neighborhood meetings were held at the meeting hall.  In addition, it served as an office where paid neighborhood employees known as chōdai carried out duties related to the neighborhood’s administration.  In Osaka’s urban neighborhoods, chōdai supervised various lower-ranking employees, including clerks, who assisted them with their duties, and night watchmen. 

 

4. Summary

  Article 37 of the aforementioned 1824 neighborhood agreement states, “Neighborhood records and the various tools and implements stored in the neighborhood meeting hall should be written down in a register and that register should be entrusted to the annual representative.” As this indicates, the various sorts of internal records that were produced in urban neighborhoods were stored in the neighborhood meeting hall.  Registers containing a list of important neighborhood records, as well as tools and implements stored in the neighborhood meeting hall were produced and maintained on the neighborhood level.  In addition, a system existed whereby these lists were placed in the care of an annual representative, who served as the neighborhood’s chief financial administrator for the year.  Presently, Doshōmachi 3-chome’s records are held at the Osaka Prefectural Nakanoshima Library.  In addition to the documents mentioned today, that collection of documents also contains registers of sectarian affiliation, ledgers containing copies of official proclamations, and documents related the quartering of arriving guard units.  Those sorts of documents were preserved under the above system.

 As the regulations contained in the neighborhood agreement examined above indicate, Osaka’s urban neighborhoods were self-governing communal organizations.  They were administered on the basis of neighborhood by-laws and consultations in which all neighborhood constituents were obligated to participate.  Those constituents shared ownership of the meeting hall and the land on which it was located.  At the same time, various important neighborhood records were stored in the meeting hall.  This itself is an expression of the unique character Edo-era society, which, unlike so many other premodern societies, bequeathed to future generations of vast body of written records, many of which were composed by ordinary people and preserved by the social organizations of which they part.


第11回:近世史③「町―道修町3丁目」

まえおき

 「町」(ちょう)は、日本の近世都市の基礎的な住民生活の単位でした。都市によって、それぞれ固有性がありますが、江戸・大坂・京都の三都ではいずれも家持を構成員とする共同組織でした。しかし、町内に居住する住民には、家持の家族・奉公人や借屋人など多様な人たちがいました。今回は、「町」の一例として、道修町3丁目を取り上げ、町の社会=空間構造と運営のあり方を見ていきます。その際、「町」で作成される様々な史料のあり方とその管理に注目したいと思います。

 

1.町とは何か

 第9回目に触れたように、大坂三郷には18世紀半ばで三郷合わせて620の「町」がありました。江戸時代の「町」は、現在のような単なる住居表示とは異なり、家持を正規の構成員とする共同組織・団体であり、都市の住民生活の基礎単位として重要な位置を占めていました。

 第9回で紹介した大坂三郷町絵図にも見られたように、大坂では、とりわけ船場地域では40間の間隔で碁盤の目状に道が通っていました。船場の部分を取り出してみましょう。

「大坂三郷町絵図(貞享)」より(部分拡大)
大阪歴史博物館所蔵

 例えば、東横堀に架かる高麗橋と平野橋の間に、西横堀に向かって東西に通る道修町の通りに沿って、道修町1丁目から5丁目が並んでいます。これらの1丁目~5丁目のそれぞれが「町」です。

安政3年 道修町三丁目水帳絵図
大阪市立中央図書館所蔵の史料をもとに作成
(塚田孝『大坂 民衆の近世史』筑摩書房、2017年、49頁より転載)

 安政3(1856)年の水帳と呼ばれる土地台帳から道修町3丁目の家屋敷所持の状況を復元しました。通りに面して並ぶ細長い区画に人名が記されていますが、この区画が家屋敷と呼ばれる土地所持(売買)の単位(細胞)であり、それを所持する人が家持です(図内の人名)。この家持がその町の町人であり、共同組織=団体としての「町」の構成員はこの家持=町人でした。

 なお、大坂では、道修町通りのような東西の道路に沿った両側で一つの町を構成する両側町が多かったのですが、船場地域では、2つのブロックで1町のことが多く、堀江などでは3ブロックで1町ということも、ままありました。中には南北道路沿いの町や1ブロックで1町のところもあり、前回見た道頓堀周辺のように堀川沿いでは、家屋敷が道路の片方にしかない片側町の場合もありました。

 町は、町人による運営のための寄合が持たれ、そのための空間である町会所を持つことが一般的でした。道修町3丁目では、北側の西から3番目の家屋敷が会所屋敷でした。また、町式目・町内格式申合せなどと呼ばれる独自の法を持っています。土地台帳である水帳も、町ごとに作成されました。家屋敷の所有は第一次的に町人相互に確認・保証しあう関係だったのです。また、町奉行所に提出する宗旨人別帳や宗旨巻は毎年作られ、奉行所から出される町触を書き写したり、願書や届書を記録したりした御用留なども、町単位で作られました。

 

2.町の運営

 町の運営の中心には、家持の代表である年寄がおり、毎月交代する2人の月行司が当番で年寄を補佐するのが普通でした。安政3(1856)年5月の道修町3丁目の水帳には、年寄紙屋(山本)忠助と月行司大和屋清兵衛・塩野屋清助が連印しています。町の運営のあり方を、文政7(1824)年閏8月に作成された「町内申合書」(大阪府立中之島図書館所蔵「道修町三丁目文書」)のいくつかの箇条から窺ってみましょう。これには、年寄紙屋忠助と家持25名(家守4名を含む)が「町中一統相談之上」申し合わせた37ヶ条を必ず守るということで連判しています。

 13条目:「町儀寄会」(町の問題に関する寄合)の際は、「町人」(=家持) はわがままに欠席してはいけない。

 ここで「町人」と表現されているのは、連印している家持たちのことなので、そこには借屋人は含まれず、家持がすなわち町人であることが確認できます。そして、彼らには寄合への参加が義務づけられていることがわかります。

 26条目:「他町持(の)家屋敷」には、家守を置くこと。但し、隣町持の場合は例外とするので、その時に相談すること。

 「他町持」とは、町外に住んでいる者が所持している家屋敷のことですが、その場合も家持(=町人)には町運営に参加する権利と義務があり、その責任を果たすため、代理人としての家守を置くことが求められていたのです。

 25条目:家屋敷は、周辺と不相応に安く売買してはいけない。(中略)

 この規定は、家屋敷の資産評価の下落を危惧したものだろうと思います。省略した但し書では、家屋敷の売買を行う際には、事前に町内家持の実印での同意が必要とされています。

 15条目:借屋を貸すときには、これまでの居住町・職業を年寄・五人組に届けて、町内の了承を得たうえで、「家請一札」を取ってから貸すこと。

 ここでの家請一札とは、借屋を借りる人の身元を保証する証文です。道修町三丁目では、家持が自分の借屋を貸す場合も、相手の身元・職業を確認し、町内の同意を必要としたことが分かります。但し、それは年寄・五人組への「届け」であり、家屋敷売買のような実印・書面によるものではありません。

 以上のような規定は、あくまで道修町三丁目の規定であり、それぞれの町ごとに独自の規定を取り決めていました。こうした独自の町法を持つところに「町」の自律的な団体としての性格が表現されていると言えるでしょう。

 

3.町の社会=空間

 町内申合せ書が作成された19世紀前期の道修町三丁目には、借屋は100軒以上あり、家持・借屋の家族・奉公人も含めた町内居住の総人数は600人余りでした。次に、彼らの町内での居住のあり方を見ましょう。

明治期の道修町三丁目の建物配置図
『図集日本都市史』(東京大学出版会、1993年)をもとに作図
(塚田孝『大坂 民衆の近世史』筑摩書房、2017年、54頁より転載)

 この図は、明治期の船場の北部地域の建家取調図から復元された道修町三丁目の部分の建物配置です。時期が違うのですが、水帳絵図と合わせると、建物配置が家屋敷の区画にほぼ照応していることがわかります。道修町通りを表として間口が3~10間ほどに分割され、奥行きは20間の長方形の区画が並んでいます。

 「大店」と書き込んだ区画は、家屋敷全体を利用して、表側に町家が建てられ、奥に蔵が建てられています。これは家持が自分で居住するとともに、店舗として用いており、借屋は置かれていません。町家部分に網掛けされているところは通り土間で、台所が設置されています。ここには、家持とその家族だけでなく、何人もの奉公人が住み込んでいます。こうした商家を大店と言います。

 栴檀木橋筋沿いの「表借屋」と書き込んだ区画を見てください。道修町通りに面する表側には、3部屋の座敷と通り土間をセットとする4軒がありますが、こうした表通りに面した借屋の場合には、店舗として用い、商売を行うことができました。

 細長い家屋敷で、道路に面した表に対して、路地を入った奥の部分を裏と言います。大店や表借屋は職住一致と言っていいのですが、裏借屋は通りに面しておらず、商売を行うことはできず、居住(生活)だけの空間でした。船場の中心部にあった道修町三丁目には、裏借屋と想定されるものは、ごくわずかしか存在しません。しかし、大坂全体で見れば、時代劇で裏長屋として描かれるような情景は、広く存在していました。堀江新地の御池通五丁目などでは、多数の裏借屋・裏長屋が展開していました。

 「会所屋敷」と書き込んだ家屋敷が、先に話した町中共有の会所が設置されたところです。奥の建家がもともとは町会所だった建物で、通りに面した表の部分は借屋に貸し出されていました。会所では、町内の寄合が開かれ、また給料をもらって町の仕事を行う町代と呼ばれる町の雇用人が執務する場でもありました。「町」には、町代の指揮の下で、下役 (補助者)や夜番人が抱えられていました。また、非人身分の者が勤める垣外番と呼ばれる番人が置かれることもありました。

 

4.まとめ

 先に見た文政7年の町内申合せ書の37条目には、次のようにあります。

 ㊲町内の「諸書物類」や会所の諸道具などは、帳面に書き記し、その帳面は年番のところに預かること。

 町内で作成された多くの「諸書物」(文書・帳面)などは町会所において保管され、諸道具とともにそのリストを記した帳面が作成されたことが分かります。このリストはその年度の会計監査役である年番が保管するという管理システムが取られていたのです。

 現在、道修町三丁目の史料は、大阪府立中之島図書館に所蔵されていますが、そこには17世紀後半からの宗門人別帳や宗旨巻なども含まれ、触留や御用宿関係の史料も数多く残されています。それは、この箇条に記されたような管理システムの下で伝えられえてきたものなのです。

 道修町三丁目の町内申合せ(町法)の規定に窺えるように、大坂の町は町人たちによる自律的な運営が行われる共同組織であり、町法と寄合(会議)に基づいて運営されていました。彼らは共有(財産)の会所屋敷を持ち、多数作られた文書・帳面などは、町会所で管理・保存されていました。ここには膨大な歴史史料を残した、世界的にも稀な江戸時代の社会の特質が示されているのです。