Akutō

Akutō (悪党) is a Japanese term that refers to:

1. Generally, a term meaning evil person or villain. In this context, "evil" (悪) refers to actions that deviate from humanity or concepts related to harmful things. Synonyms include akunin (evil person), akkan (scoundrel), narazumono (rogue), and gorotsuki (ruffian).
2. In medieval Japan, a term for individuals or groups who rebelled against the ruling class or established order and caused disturbances. This article focuses on this meaning.^[1]

Overview

The term came into use to describe the samurai who were encroaching upon and causing the collapse of the ancient shōen (manorial) system.

Within the shōen system, individuals who held the position of shōkan (manor official), having been subcontracted by the shōen lords (the honke (main family) and ryōke (lord of the manor)) for local management, later came to be known as samurai. From the mid to late Kamakura period, these samurai, sometimes in alliance with local peasants, rebelled against the shōen lords, excluded the intervention of the Kamakura shogunate (via the Rokuhara Tandai), and established de facto control over their own lands.

Eventually, as the Kamakura shogunate collapsed and the subsequent turmoil of the Nanboku-chō period prolonged and intensified, samurai who traveled nationwide seeking rewards for military merits appeared. Their demeanor changed drastically from the time they were shōkan managing manors backed by the religious authority of the honke; they now relied on their own military force, sometimes engaged in plunder, and favored flamboyant dress and behavior (basara). This ethos was perceived, in contrast to traditional values, as symbolizing the collapse of the order established since the ancient Ritsuryō system and the ensuing social disorder, leading them to be labeled as "evil" (aku).

Meaning of the Term

In this context, "aku" (evil) refers to a value judgment against those who "disobey commands or rules." Notably, this term did not necessarily carry the nuance of a villain or rogue, and even members of the upper social classes could be included among the akutō. For example, Hirano Shōgen Nyūdō was a retainer of the court noble Saionji Kinsuke, held the court rank of Konoe Shōgen (equivalent to Junior Sixth Rank, Upper Grade), and was a court official just one step away from the nobility (Fifth Rank, Lower Grade and above).^[2]

Precursors

The first appearance of the term akutō in historical records is in an edict dated May 21, 716 (Reiki 2) in the Shoku Nihongi, referring to "counterfeiting akutō," but this is likely a different phenomenon from the subject of this article. The second example does not appear until the late 12th century in the "Lost Document Case of Urabe no Yasumitsu" (dated March 21, 1165 (Eiman 1)), after which it begins to appear frequently.

The 12th century was when the medieval socio-economic system of the shōen-kōryō sei (manorial and public land system) was finally established. The uses of the term akutō seen in the latter half of that century all referred to those who infringed upon the governing structure or ideology of the shōen or public lands from the outside. The honjo (proprietors) who owned the shōen were often large temples, and their control was justified based on the religious authority of the honjo.

Even when conflicts of interest arose between the honjo and the shōmin (manor residents), the shōmin were guaranteed the right to petition the honjo authorities or, if negotiations broke down, to engage in chōsan (flight and dispersal). Rituals like ichimi shinsui during petitions were part of a system designed for smooth manorial management underpinned by the honjo's religious authority. The shōmin took for granted their sense of unity with this religious authority and, in its name, engaged with the honjo authorities while sharing a role in manorial management.^[3]Rebellions by akutō against the shōen-kōryō system could also be defined as acts of destroying Buddhism by violating the sanctity of the shōen from the outside,^[4] and they could even be expelled at the behest of the shōmin. The reality of akutō conflicts was territorial disputes between different honjo ichienshi (areas under direct honjo control) or between honjo ichienshi and the jitō class. From the perspective of one honjo, the akutō were the lords of the opposing honjo ichienshi involved in the dispute.

Emergence and Proliferation of Akutō

The stability of this shōen system began to break down from the mid-13th century. The following motives have been pointed out:

First, from the mid-Kamakura period, some among the gokenin (shogunal retainers) began to experience economic decline. Since the shogunate's inception (during the overthrow of the Taira in the Genpei War), chronic warfare had led to continuous redistribution of territories among the gokenin, satisfying their desire for self-aggrandizement. However, after the Hōji War of 1247 (Hōji 1) completed the tokusō dictatorship and achieved political stability, opportunities for redistribution through war ceased. Thereafter, inheritance of gokenin lands shifted from divided inheritance among the sōryō (head) and shoshi (cadets) to sole inheritance by the sōryō alone. Simultaneously, consolidation of scattered landholdings and local land management progressed. In this process, the decline of the gokenin class, particularly the shoshi, occurred, while territorial disputes between the honjo and local lords intensified.

Furthermore, within the shōen administration, the honjo embarked on strengthening control to prevent encroachment by local lords. However, the shōkan (who were also part of the local lord class) handling practical shōen management on-site sought to establish their own managerial rights. Thus, conflict between the honjo and shōkan was also brewing.^[5]

Additionally, the penetration of a monetary and distribution economy into society progressed rapidly. This spread the concept of private ownership for each individual rice paddy, making the purpose of levies from each land more visible – not for spiritual, abstract purposes like "offerings to the temple" but for more concrete, secular uses like "income for the land steward (azukari dokoro)." This led to a situation where the shōmin could no longer sustain a spiritual sense of unity with the honjo, and the honjo's religious authority declined.

The various contradictions within the gokenin class and the shōen administration, as seen above, led to the fluidization of medieval society and the activation of akutō from the late 13th century. Furthermore, the contemporary Mongol invasions of Japan also exacerbated these contradictions, promoting further activation of akutō activities.^[6]

Development

Besides akutō who intruded into shōen control from the outside, groups like the Emishi (Ebisu) and maritime people engaged in piratical activities were also called akutō, based on the concept of viewing people outside the ruling system as akutō. It is believed that itinerant performers and wandering monks were also considered to have akutō characteristics for similar reasons. The Emishi, maritime people, performers, and wandering monks were all itinerant people living outside the shōen-kōryō system's control structure, often characterized by eccentric clothing indicating their outsider status – i.e., they were often igyō no mono (those of unusual appearance). Yoshihiko Amino argued that these "akutō" were the bearers of the rapidly growing distribution/capital economy from the mid-13th century and were one of the agents that opened a new stage in medieval society.^[7]

A change in the situation, where only invaders from outside the control system were called akutō, occurred during the Kōan period (1278–1288). By this time, internal conflicts within the shōen administration finally surfaced, and resistance activities by the shōkan (local lord) class against the honjo became uncontrollable. Shōkan and local lords in conflict with the honjo began to be called akutō by the honjo and engaged in territorial disputes with them. However, even before this, jitō had been in conflict with honjo, advancing into shōen, and making contracts like jitō ukesho and shitaji chūbun. Essentially, local lord classes who advanced into shōen without the backing of the Kamakura shogunate were called akutō.

Even looking at the gokenin class, instances occurred where landless gokenin (musoku gokenin) who lost their lands due to sole inheritance remained in their former territories, obstructed the control of new jitō, and were called akutō. Not only non-gokenin, but even gokenin came to be treated as "akutō," representing a significant conceptual shift.

At this stage, it is believed that the shōkan class in conflict with the honjo also included the itinerant akutō mentioned above. Among them were those who engaged in trade while traveling, accumulating capital as bearers of the distribution economy, some becoming known as tokunin (virtuous men, i.e., wealthy individuals). Such tokunin, backed by economic power, were sometimes appointed as shōkan and embarked on land management. Conversely, honjo in conflict with local shōkan found themselves compelled to secure their own distribution routes for transporting nengu (tribute goods) without relying on shōkan. It was the itinerant akutō who undertook the transportation of these nengu goods.

From the late 13th century onward, akutō were active in regions like the Kinai, Tōhoku, and Kyushu. Instances of collaboration between akutō and jitō, prohibited by the Goseibai Shikimoku, became visible. Akutō activities led to the fluidization of the control system, prompting the shogunate to begin actively engaging in suppressing akutō from the end of the 13th century.

Originally, police and judicial powers within honjo ichienshi fell under the jurisdiction of the honjo, with the imperial court serving as the arbiter. However, due to rampant akutō activity, the honjo strongly requested the shogunate to conduct suppression. From the shogunate's perspective, it could not overlook non-gokenin independently engaging in "shōen encroachment" or the existence of shogunal retainers (gokenin) who obstructed shogunate control. Thus, by the early 1290s, the following suppression procedure was established: First, the honjo would bring a suit to the imperial court. If the defendant (= akutō) did not respond to the court's summons, the court would order the shogunate to conduct a trial (kendan) on grounds of violation of an imperial decree (ichō). The command received by the shogunate in such cases was called an ichō rinji or ichō insen. Upon receiving the rinji or insen, the shogunate appointed two gokenin as envoys (ryōshi). The ryōshi were permitted entry into honjo ichienshi, which were normally exempt from shugo entry (shugo funyū), for their mission. They were sometimes also given the authority to order the honjo side to implement land transfer (shitaji jungyō). This procedure, initiated for capturing akutō, was also adopted in miscellaneous lawsuits (zasso sata) between temple and shrine powers brought before the imperial court and became the root of the envoy implementation authority (shikiji jungyō ken) in the Muromachi period.

However, once an ichō rinji or ichō insen was issued, based on the official policy of cooperating with the imperial court for maintaining public order, even if the defendant was a gokenin with legitimate claims, designating them as "akutō" made it difficult for the shogunate to protect its retainer. The shogunate had no choice but to delay the trial, persuade the gokenin during that time to comply with the court's decision, and thus realize the content of the rinji/insen. This system had the aspect of potentially undermining the trust of gokenin, who received insufficient protection, in the shogunate.^[8]

A famous akutō of this period were the Ōe clan, the "Kuroda Akutō" active from the 12th to the 14th century in the Tōdai-ji-owned Kuroda Estate (Iga Province). The Ōe clan, who had served for generations as the geshi (low-level administrator) of the estate since the 12th century, schemed to strengthen their control over the Kuroda Estate in the late 13th century, came into conflict with Tōdai-ji, were eventually labeled akutō, and were finally suppressed by the Rokuhara Tandai at Tōdai-ji's request. However, a branch of the Ōe clan who subsequently took up the shōkan position in the estate also deepened their conflict with Tōdai-ji by failing to pay nengu, claimed to be kugonin (purveyors to the imperial household) to establish direct ties with the court, and allied with the Iga shugo (constable) and local gokenin – who were supposed to suppress them – effectively gaining control of the Kuroda Estate. Although the Ōe clan were suppressed again by the Rokuhara Tandai, this case is a classic example showing how local lords seeking economic growth became akutō when oppressed by the shōen lords. Additionally, figures like Masashige Kusunoki (Kawachi Province), Norimura Akamatsu (Harima Province), Nagatoshi Nawa (Hōki Province), and pirate bands in the Seto Inland Sea who sided with Emperor Go-Daigo during the fall of the Kamakura shogunate are believed to have been people labeled as akutō.

Also, according to a classical theory, the shitsuji (deputy) of the Muromachi shogunate, Kō no Moronao, by proposing innovative policies, gained support from akutō (though he himself was not one) and became a major force.^[9]

Nanboku-chō Turmoil

After the Kamakura shogunate fell and Japan soon entered the Nanboku-chō period, samurai from the gokenin class began to engage in large-scale military campaigns on an unprecedented scale, led by powerful commanders of both Northern and Southern Courts. This was because the shōen system, the traditional base of the gokenin class, was collapsing due to the rampant activities of gokenin who had turned akutō, which ironically destabilized their own positions. Therefore, these gokenin joined these armies aiming to acquire new territories as rewards for military service and merit.^[10]

However, the disorderly and large-scale enlistment of gokenin led to a situation where army leadership could not manage personnel effectively. Marches to battlefields were plagued by constant shortages of provisions. In the early stages of the civil war, supplying provisions for the army was considered a military service meriting reward, but as the war prolonged, such rewards ceased. Consequently, plunder during marches became commonplace. Armies that swelled to unmanageable sizes sometimes disintegrated en route, and samurai who dropped out turned to banditry, further contributing to social disorder.^[11]

Furthermore, among these gokenin and those who rose to become shugo, some, in their display of power by breaking through the old order, began to exhibit extravagant, licentious, and unrestrained behavior as an expression of that power, manifesting in lavish and eccentric tastes in leisure. This cultural aspect came to be referred to as "basara."^[12]

Demise

With the end of the Nanboku-chō turmoil through the Meitoku Compromise (1392), the shugo appointed by the Muromachi shogunate subjugated the local lord class, the kokujin, within their provinces, strengthening their control as shugo daimyō. Samurai who had been called akutō also chose the path of becoming retainers of the shugo, receiving land confirmations (ando) to secure the tōchigyō (current land rights) they claimed, and were incorporated into this control structure.^[13] Furthermore, shōen encroachment began to be led by the shugo daimyō. The honjo, whose control had already been weakened by akutō, lost the power to resist this trend. Amid these developments, the reality of "akutō infringing upon honjo control" gradually disappeared.^[14]

Research History

The concept of akutō was introduced by Naka Naokatsu in the 1930s (Shōen no Kenkyū, 1939). After the war, scholars like Imoda Masashi (Chūseiteki Shakai no Keisei, 1946) clarified its nature.

In postwar historiography, akutō were positioned within the framework of the feudal lord system. However, when scholars like Yoshihiko Amino and Shin'ichi Satō presented a new image of medieval history focusing on artisans, entertainers, and others whose social base was outside agriculture, the existence of akutō began to be discussed in relation to them. From the late 20th century, scholars like Kazuo Kaizu have attempted to situate akutō within social transformations such as the Mongol invasions and the virtue administration orders.

On the other hand, there is also a critique suggesting that the above theories assume "class struggle as a given, with akutō as its bearers," and that in reality, the term "akutō" might have been used merely as a label for opponents in disputes like lawsuits.^[15]

List of Notable Figures

A list of individuals regarded as akutō.

• Masashige Kusunoki (13th century–1336)^[16]