弥助関連史料とその英訳 / YASUKE in historical materials

※和文はほぼ完成しているものの英文の翻訳については不備が残っています。
! The Japanese version is almost complete, but the English translation is incomplete.

はじめに
Introduction by the author

　この男が生まれつき何と言う名であったか私たちには知る由もない。この男は黒い肌を持ち、背は高く、力強かった。この黒人はイエズス会宣教師アレッサンドロ・ヴァリニャーノに連れられて1579年（天正7年）に来日した*1。当時の日本は戦国大名たちが群雄割拠する戦乱の時代、戦国時代*2の真っ只中であった。武将たちは武勇に秀でた侍たちを家臣に取り立てて力を蓄え、雄を争い覇を競い合っていた。そしてこの黒人は当時の日本で最強の戦国大名、織田信長と出会い、歴史にその名を残すことになる。彼の名を弥助という。

There is no way for us to know what the man's birth name was. He was dark-skinned, tall, and strong. This black man was brought to Japan in 1579 (7th of Tensho)*3 by a Jesuit missionary Alessandro Valignano. Japan at that time was a warring arena of powerful rival warlords, a period known as the Sengoku era(the Warring States Period).*4 The warlords became stronger by adding samurai of valor to their own vassals, and competed for power and honor. The black man met Oda Nobunaga, the most powerful warlord in entire Japan, and left his name in history. His name was Yasuke.

　本記事では筆者が見つけることができた弥助に関する全ての文献と、それらを理解する上で参考になる史料を取り扱う。基本的に原文、現代日本語訳、英訳の三種を掲示する。英訳の多くは学術的背景の無い筆者が浅薄な知識と貧弱な英語力でもって翻訳したものであることに注意してほしい。また外国語史料は欧州の言語で書かれているが、筆者による英訳はすべて日本語訳からの重訳である。

This article covers all primary materials about Yasuke as far as I have been able to find, and several other materials that help understand them. For each text, I will show you the original, its modern Japanese translation, and its English translation in a row. Please be warned that many of the English translations are made by me, who is not an academic researcher and have a only limited English ability. Also please note that, as to European historical materials, all of my English translations are secondhand translation via Japanese translations.

　弥助に関する史料と直接は関係ないものの、その背景を考える上で重要と思われる事柄についてはこれを脚注に記した。また本記事中では歴史学者の考察を何箇所か引用しているが、その他に私自身の推測もいくらか含まれている。後者は翻訳と同様にアカデミックな背景を持たないことを断っておきたい。

My footnotes provide background knowledge that is not directly related to but useful for interpreting Yasuke materials. Throughout this article I will quote a number of historians' observations, but I will add some of my own speculations. I would like to clarify that the latter, like some of the translations, come from me, not a professional historial.

　謝辞
　Acknowledgment

　欧文史料の原文は東京大学史料編纂所准教授の岡美穂子氏から入手した他、使用する日本語訳についてなど多くのご教示を得た。この場を借りて感謝申し上げる。また英文の見直しにあたって翻訳者の長谷川珈氏から多大なご助力を得ることができた。合わせて感謝申し上げたい。

I would like to thank Mihoko Oka, an associate professor of the Historiographical Institute at the University of Tokyo, for providing me some of the European texts, and advising me on Japanese translations, for example which one of existing Japanese translations should I adopt here. I would also like to thank Kou Hasegawa, a translator, for helping me out reviewing my English.

　言うまでもなく記事の内容に誤りがあれば、それらは全て筆者の責任である。

Needless to say, I am the one responsible for any and all errors in this article.

筆者の連絡先
How to contact me

　この打越眠主主義人民共和国というブログは基本的に日常的な記録のためのブログで、今回の記事は例外的なものです。誤りの指摘やご感想があれば、ぜひ筆者までお知らせください。連絡手段は以下の通りです。基本的にはブログのコメント欄での連絡お願いします。

ブログのコメント欄：記事末尾の「コメントを書く」からどうぞ。
ツイッター：@WL641884Sでやってます。
reddit：MarxArielinusというユーザー名でやってます。

拙文を引用する際の筆名は「打越の易者」でお願いします。

II usually write this blog, "Sleepcratic People's Republic of Uchikoshi," as my private record, which makes this article an exception. Please share your thoughts with me, and let me know if you find any errors. My contact details are below. The comment section is the best way to reach me.

Blog Comments: Click "Write a comment(コメントを書く)" at the bottom of this article.
My Twitter account: @WL641884S.
My reddit account: MarxArielinus.

When you cite and credit my article, please use Marx Arielinus as my pseudonym.

太田牛一『信長記』
The Chronicle of Oda Nobunaga

　『信長記』*5は弥助の主君である織田信長の一代記であり、信長に関する最重要史料の一つだ。著者は信長家臣であった太田牛一である。織田家の吏僚*6であった彼は主君を深く尊敬し、信長の栄光を後世に伝えるために『信長記』を著したと言われている。牛一は自身の著作姿勢について「故意に削除したものはなく、創作もしていない。これが偽りであれば神罰を受けるであろう」とまで述べている。『信長記』の成立は信長死後に年月を経てからのことであるが、歴史学者の間ではその信頼性は高く評価されている。

“Shincho-ki” (literally, Nobunaga Chronicle; Shincho is another pronouncion of the Kanji characters for Nobunaga) is a biography of, and one of the most important historical material on, Oda Nobunaga, the lord of Yasuke.*7 The author is Ota Gyuichi, one of Nobunaga’s vassals. As a bureaucrat (吏僚 riryo)*8 of the Oda clan he had a deep respect for Nobunaga, and apparently he wrote it to pass on the glory of his lord to future generations. He wrote in the book that "I did not intentionally delete anything, nor did I create anything. If this is false, I will receive divine punishment."  Although Shincho-ki was compiled several decades after Nobunaga’s death, historians highly evaluate its reliability.

　本書の主人公、織田信長は今日の日本で最も著名な戦国武将である。若い時期の彼は奇矯な振る舞いが目立ち、周囲からは「うつけ」と呼ばれていたが、やがてその軍事的カリスマによって台頭していくことになる。永禄3年（1560年）の桶狭間の戦いではわずか三千の兵を率いて今川軍二万五千を破り武名をあげた。信長27歳のときの出来事であった。

Before examinig the text of “Shincho-ki,” a quick background summary from me. Nobunaga is undoubtedly the most famous Japanese warlord of the Sengoku period. In his youth, Nobunaga was called "the fool" because of his eccentric behavior, but he eventually rose to prominence with his military charisma. In the 1560 (3rd of Eiroku) Battle of Okehazama, he led just 3,000 soldiers and defeated 25,000-strong Imagawa clan army. At the time, Nobunaga was 27 years old.

　有力大名となった信長は永禄11年（1568年）に形骸化していた足利幕府を復活させたが、将軍*9足利義昭との関係が悪化したことをきっかけに周囲のあらゆる勢力と敵対してしまう。だが信長は生涯戦争に明け暮れて主要な敵をほとんど討ち滅ぼし、天正9年（1581年）には畿内一帯を支配する日本最強の戦国大名となっていた。

Now a powerful warlord, in 1568 (11th of Eiroku) he restored the Shogunate, whose authority had been a mere shell after the Onin war in the previous century. However,  his relationship with Shogun*10 Yoshiaki Ashikaga deteriorated, which made Nobunaga the enemy of all surrounding powers. Despite that, Nobunaga spent his entire life waging war, destroyed most of his major enemies, and by 1581 (9th of Tensho) became the strongest warlord in Japan, ruling the capital Kyoto and its surrounding Kinai region.

　信長は当時日本で広まりつつあったキリスト教に対して彼らの布教活動を許可する姿勢を採っていた。日本でキリスト教を広めていたイエズス会*11は好機を見出し、信長と関係を強化するため巡察師ヴァリニャーノ*12を長とする使節団を派遣。彼らは信長に謁見する機会を得た。ヴァリニャーノの従者だった弥助はこの日、後の自分の主君と出会うことになる。

Nobunaga tolerated Christianity, a new religion to Japan at that time and fast-spreading. The Society of Jesus*13, which engaged in missionary work in this country, saw an opportunity. A mission headed by Valignano, the Jesuit Visitador*14, departed the northern Kyushu region to pay a visit to Nobunaga to strengthen their relationship. They were granted an audience with Nobunaga. On this day, Yasuke, who was Valignano’s valet, would meet his future lord.

池田家本『信長記』
Ikeda-hon, a autograph copy

　『信長記』の写本は確認されている限りで72本存在し、それぞれに内容上の違いがあることで知られている。これらのうち信頼性がもっとも高いとされるのが牛一の自筆本である。ほぼ完全な形で現存するものが二冊現存し、かつての所蔵者の名に因んでそれぞれ池田家本、建勲神社本と呼ばれている。二つの自筆本間にも異同があるため、研究者はこの両者を参照することが多い。

There are 72 hand copies, so far as confirmed, of "Shincho-ki." Each one of them varies to some degree. The most reliable among them are two existing autograph copies, the ones made by Gyuichi himself,  and both of them are in almost perfect condition. (Here, I mean by “autograph copy” the copies of “Shincho-ki” Gyuichi himself transcribed presumably from some of his own manuscripts. Usually all of the copies, autograph or not, are just called “copy” (“hon” in Japanese), which will confuse you a bit but I will try to distinguish them as clearly as I can.) One of the two is called the Ikeda copy (Ikeda = House Ikeda), and the other the Kenjin-jinja copy (jinja = shrine), respectively after the name of their owners. Historians often utilize both of the  two autograph copies for their study, since even the two are known to have subtle differences between them.

　ここではインターネットで全文を閲覧できる池田家本の記述を見てみよう。天正9年を取り扱う巻十四には弥助が信長に謁見した際の記録がある。

In this section, let us look at the text of the Ikeda autograph copy, the full text of which we can browse on the Internet. Volume 14 has a record of the scene Yasuke had an audience with Nobunaga in 1581 (9th of Tensho).

二月廿三日、きりしたん国より黒坊主参候。年之齢よわい廿六七と相見え、惣之身之黒き事、牛之如く、彼男健すくやかに器量也、しかも強力十ツヾ之人に勝スクレたる由候、伴天連召列参、御礼申上候。誠以御威光古今不承及、三国之名物か様に珍奇之者共、餘多拝見仕候也。

池田家本『信長記　巻第十四』（岡山大学附属図書館所蔵）
Shincho-ki vol.14 (the Ikeda copy) (in the collection of the library of Okayama University）

二月二十三日、キリシタンの国から黒坊主が参上した。年のころは二十六、二十七歳でもあろうか、全身の黒いことは牛のようである。見るからにたくましく、みごとな体格である。その上、力の強さは十人力以上である*15。伴天連（ヴァリニャーノら）がこの男を召し連れて参上し、信長公に、布教のご許可にたいしてお礼を申し上げた。まことに、信長公ほどのご威光は今も昔もうかがったこともなく、日本はもとよりインド・中国にもめずらしい異人どもを、親しく拝見できるのも、めったにないできごとである。

（榊山潤『現代語訳　信長公記（全）』P378）*16
（Jun Sakakiyama, Gendaigo yaku Shincho Koki (zen), p. 378）*17

On the 23rd of the Second month, a blackmoor came from the Kirishitan Country. He appeared to be twenty-six or twenty-seven years old. Black over his whole body, just like an ox, this man looked robust and had a good demeanor. What is more, his formidable strength surpassed that of ten men.*18 The Bateren brought him along by way of paying his respects to Nobunaga. Indeed, it was owing to Nobunaga's power and his glory that yet unheard-of treasures from the Three Countries and curiosities of this kind came to be seen here time and again, a blessing indeed.

(The Chronicle of Lord Nobunaga, translation by J. S. A. Elisonas and J. P. Lamers, Brill Academic Pub, 2011, 385P)*19

　弥助の大まかな年齢、肌が黒かったこと、力が強かったことなどが記録されている。牛一は彼の外見に大変驚いたようだ。なお、この史料を読む際に注意すべき点が二つある。

As we can see, Shincho-ki briefly but plainly records Yasuke's approximate age, how dark his skin was, and how powerful he was. Ota Gyuichi seems to have been very surprised at his appearance. Now, we have to be careful about two points when we read this kind of historical materials.

　まず日付の2月23日は旧暦であり、欧文史料が使用しているユリウス歴とは日付が一致しない。天正9年2月23日はユリウス暦1581年4月14日にあたる。和文史料は年については元号を使用し、日付については九世紀に中国で発明された太陽太陰暦である宣明歴を使用している。本記事では両者を併記するものとする。

First, the date “the 23rd of the Second Month” refers to the old calendar system, which do not match with the Julian calendar system used in European historical documents. “The old calendar system,” which premodern Japanese documents used, means using the imperial era name (元号 gengo), which is often used even today, for the years and the Senmyo calendar, which is a lunisolar calendar invented in China in the ninth century, for the dates. The old calendar system dropped roughly a month behind that of the Julian calendar. In this article, I will describe years and dates in both calendar systems.

　また弥助の年齢について26、27歳との記述があるが、当時の日本では年齢を記述する歳に数え年という方法を使用していた。これは生まれた時点の年齢を一歳とし、以後元日のたびに一歳を加算する方式である。現代の年齢表現でいえば当時の弥助は24、25歳ぐらいということになる。ただし異人種の年齢を外見から推測することはいつの時代でも難しいので、これも正確ではないだろう。

Second, though Gyuichi estimated the age of Yasuke as 26 or 27, premodern Japanese people used the East Asian age reckoning, in which your age at the time of birth is one year old, and one year is added every New Year's Day. It means that in terms of our modern age reckoning, Yasuke at that time seemed about 24 or 25 years old. That being said, in any historical period people would not be so good at guessing the age of foreign races from their appearances. Gyuichi's guess, too, might not be so accurate.

尊経閣本『信長記』
Sonkeikaku copy

　次に池田本とは別の『信長記』写本を見てみよう。取り上げるのは尊経閣文庫本と呼ばれる写本で、同本には他の『信長記』には見られない独自の記述があることで知られている。

Next, let's take a look at another version of "Shincho-ki." This time, not one of Ota Gyuichi’s autograph copies. It is called the Sonkeikaku copy, and known for its extra passages that we cannot find in any of the other copies.

尊経閣文庫とは江戸時代に日本最大の藩であった加賀藩前田家の文書庫であり、尊経閣本は同文庫が所蔵する『信長記』写本のうちの一つだ。同本は太田牛一の四代あとの子孫、太田弥左衛門一寛が自家に伝来していた『信長記』を書き写して、享保4年（1719年）に主君前田綱紀へ献上したものと考えられている*20。一寛が書写した原本は『和泉守編輯之信長記』という名前が伝わっており、太田牛一の自筆本の一つだった可能性があるが、宝暦9年（1759年）の太田家居宅火災によって焼失したため確かめるすべはない。

Its name came from Sonkeikaku-bunko (bunko = library or archive), which was a library belonged to the Maeda clan who ruled the Kaga Domain, the largest Domain [藩 han = a large unit of fief, roughly overlap with but smaller than today’s prefectures] throughout the Edo period, meaning that it was one of the copies of “Shincho-ki” preserved in the collection of the library. Ota Yazaemon Kazuhiro, the fourth generation descendant of Gyuichi and a vassal of the Kaga Domain, supposedly transcribed the version of "Shincho-ki" handed down in his family and presented as a gift to his lord, Maeda Tsunanori, in 1719 (4th of Kyoho).*21 As to the original copy of Shicho-ki from which Hirokazu transcribed, we only know the name as "Izumi no kami henshu no Shincho-ki" (Izumi no kami = the pseudonym post of Gyuichi, henshu no = edited by), and possibly it was one of Gyuichi’s autograph copies or even the original manuscript itself, but we cannot confirm it anymore because it was lost in a fire that burned the Ota family's residence in 1759 (9th of Horeki).

　尊経閣本は現在の尊経閣文庫管理者である前田育徳会からの許可を得た研究者でなければ閲覧できない。本記事では金子拓『織田信長という歴史』内の同本抜粋を引用した。尊経閣本では、弥助と信長の出会いを記述した部分で下線部の内容が追加されている。

Not everyone can read the Sonkeikaku copy. Only the researchers who have been granted permission from Maeda Ikutokukai, the current manager of the Sonkeikaku-bunko collection, can access it. In this article, I’ll quote the Sonkeikaku copy via Professor Hiraku Kaneko's book "Oda Nobunaga toiu rekishi." Below is one of such extra passages in the Sonkeikaku copy, which is added to the scene of Yasuke’s first meeting with Nobunaga.

二月廿三日、きりしたん国より黒坊まいり候、齢廿六七と相見へ、惣之身之黒キ事牛之ことく、彼男器量すくやかにて、しかも強力十人に勝れたる由候、伴天連召列参、御礼申上候、誠以御威光古今不及承、三国之名物又かように珍奇之者共拝見仕候、然に、彼黒坊被成御扶持、名をハ号弥助と、さや巻之のし付幷私宅等迄被仰付、依時御道具なともたさせられ候、

（金子拓『織田信長という歴史』P311）
（cited via: Hiraku Kaneko, Oda Nobunaga toiu rekishi, p. 311）

二月二十三日、キリシタンの国から黒坊主が参上した。年のころは二十六、二十七歳でもあろうか、全身の黒いことは牛のようである。見るからにみごとな体格でたくましい。その上、力の強さは十人力以上である。バテレンがこの男を召し連れて参上し、信長様に、布教のご許可にたいしてお礼を申し上げた。まことに、信長様ほどのご威光は今も昔もうかがったこともなく、日本はもとよりインド・中国の名物やめずらしい異人どもを、親しく拝見できるのも、めったにないできごとである。
そうして、この黒坊主は信長様からお扶持を与えられ、名前を弥助と号され、装飾刀並びに私邸なども与えられた。彼はときどき信長様のお道具などを持たせられた。

（複数の歴史学者の書き下しを参考にしつつ筆者が訳した）
（My modern Japanese translation, made consulting existing translations by historians）

On the 23rd of the Second Month, a black man came from a Christian country. The age of this man seemed to be perhaps around 26 or 27, and his whole body was black like an ox. Even at a glance his body was impressively of good build. What is more, he was so strong that he could beat ten people. Jesuit Padres brought him along, to thank Lord Nobunaga for his permission for their missionary work. Indeed, we know nothing comparable to Lord Nobunaga's power and glory, such that allows us to see so closely yet unheard-of treasures and curios people from the world, a blessing indeed.

And then, Nobunaga bestowed a stipend on this black man, gave the name Yasuke (弥助), a sword (鞘巻 sayamaki) with a gold-encrusted sheath, and even a private residence. He was sometimes seen in the role of Lord Nobunaga's weapon bearer.

(My English translation)

　これらは弥助の身分を考える上で極めて重要な情報だ。まず扶持とは主君が家臣に与える俸禄の一種であり、ここでは信長と弥助の間に主従関係が成立したことを意味している。ただし扶持は大名のお抱え能役者など、幅広い種類の家臣に支給されていたので、この記述だけでは彼の詳しい身分はまだ確定しない。

These pieces of information in this extra passage are so important for considering Yasuke’s status. Let’s check them one by one. First, stipend is a kind of salary given by a lord to his retainers , and here it means that a homage was established between Nobunaga and Yasuke. However, stipend alone does not tell Yasuke’s exact status, since stipend was given to a broad variety of retainers, for example Noh actors who were employed as personal retainers of feudal lords.

　次に弥助という名前だ。信長が「号した」とある。イエズス会の従者は全員がキリスト教徒なので、弥助はすでに洗礼名を持っていたはず。しかし信長は彼に新しい日本語の名前を与えたようだ。その一方で名字は記録されておらず、弥助は名字を持っていなかったと思われる。名字を公的に名乗ることは前近代日本の身分制度上大きな意味を持っており、これは弥助の身分に一定の限度があったことを示している。庶民が名字を持っていなかったわけではないが、それらを公的な場で名乗ったり文書において署名することは上流階級の特権だった。ただし最下層の「侍」には名字を持たない者もいたから、名字がなければそれ則ち「侍」にあらず、というわけではない。*22

The valets of the Jesuits were always Christians, so Yasuke must have had a Christian name. Nevertheless, Nobunaga appears to have given him a new Japanese name. However, no surname is mentioned, suggesting that Yasuke did not have one. Bearing officially a surname had a great meaning in the premodern Japanese social status system, and that limits the status of Yasuke to some degree. It is not that commoners never had surnames, but using them publicly and signing documents with them was a privilege of the upper classes. It is also true, however, that some of the lowest-ranking "samurai" did not have a surname, so the absence of a surname does not necessarily mean Yasuke was not a samurai.*23

　次に装飾刀*24だ。これは信長が弥助の帯刀を認めたということなので、武家社会の構成員に弥助が仲間入りしたことを意味している。帯刀すること自体が特別なわけではない。秀吉による刀狩令以前の日本では帯刀は成人の証であり、百姓も武器を所有していた。ここで重要なのは主君から刀を授かることが儀礼上大きな意味を持つということだ。

Next is the “decorated sword.”*25 This means that Nobunaga allowed Yasuke to wear a sword, signifying that Yasuke joined a warrior household (武家 buke) as a member of it. However, wearing swords itself is not so special. Before the “sword banning” for commoners issued by Toyotomi Hideyoshi in 1588, wearing swords was the sign of adulthood, and even peasants owned swords. But a crucial point is that rerceiving swords from one’s lord had a important symbolic meaning.

　加えて弥助は私邸も拝領した。この点も弥助が一定の地位を持つ家臣として処遇されたことを示している。というのも武士身分に満たない、武士に仕える武家奉公人身分の者は通常は私邸に住むことは出来ないからだ。彼らは借家、今風にいえば賃貸集合住宅に住んだり、主君の屋敷に住み込みで働くのが普通だった。*26

Finally, the “private residence.” This fact also indicate that Yasuke was treated as a retainer with a certain status. The servant class (buke-houkou-nin), by which I mean workers who served the warrior class (bushi), usually could not have one’s own residences. They lived in what we would now call rented apartment houses (長屋 nagaya), or were live-in workers in their lord’s residence.*27

　弥助はときどき信長の道具持ちをしたという記述も興味深い。道具持ちとは主君の武器、多くの場合は槍を持ち運ぶ役職をいう。中間と呼ばれる下級の奉公人がこの役割を担う場合が多い。ただし中間だけが道具持ちをするわけではなく、近習と呼ばれるような主君に近侍する高位の家臣、例えば小姓*28などが状況に応じて主君の荷物を持つこともあった。弥助は”ときどき”道具持ちをしたとあるから、ここから分かるのは弥助が信長に近侍していたということだ。

Other than these bestowed gifts, this passage tells us Yasuke sometimes served Nobunaga as a “weapon bearer.” A weapon bearer was a post that carries the lord's weapon, usually a spear. In many cases, a lower-ranking servant called chugen (中間 mid-servant) played this role. However, mid-servants were not the only ones who served as a weapon bearer. High-ranking vassals called kinju (近習 adjutant) such as pages (小姓 kosho)*29, who served their lord in close distance, carried their lord's weapon and other luggages depending on the situation. This passage says Yasuke “sometimes” served as a weapon bearer, which at least indicates Yasuke served Nobunaga in close distance.

　二人の歴史学者、武田氏研究会副会長の平山優氏と国際日本文化研究センター助教の呉座勇一氏が、尊経閣本のこれらの記述に従えば弥助は明らかに「侍」として処遇されていると指摘している。ただしここでは「侍」は戦闘員資格を持つ高位の武家奉公人を含む広い意味で用いられており、通俗的な「侍」の定義とは必ずしも一致していない。この点については付録を参照のこと。

Two historians, Yu Hirayama, the vice president of the Takeda Clan Study Society, and Yuichi Goza, an assistant professor at the International Research Center for Japanese Studies, concur in pointing out that Yasuke was clearly treated as a “samurai” according to this description. I would like to ask the reader’s attention here, though. Their definitions of “samurai” in this case include high-ranking servants in a warrior household who qualified as a combatant, which is not necessarily identical with the popular definition of “samurai”. This point would lead you to arguments regarding what was “samurai” in the first place. If interested, see Appendix: Definitions of "Samurai."

尊経閣本の信頼性に関する議論
Discussion on reliability of Sonkeikaku copy

　しかしながらこの独自記事が尊経閣本にしか見られないことには留意する必要がある。尊経閣本の独自記事は信頼に値する情報源なのだろうか？

However, we should be a little careful here: we find this Yasuke extra passage only in the Sonkeikaku copy. Are those extra passages in the Sonkeikaku copy, including this one, a reliable source of information?

　まず重要な点は、太田家に伝わる『信長記』を牛一の子孫が書写したという伝来経緯である。太田牛一は日頃から覚書を残し、それらを集成する形で『信長記』の稿本を編纂していた。そして他者の求めに応じて、都度その稿本を清書することで、配布用の自筆本を認めたと考えられている。史料学を専門とする歴史学者で東京大学史料編纂所教授である金子拓氏は一寛が書写した原本『和泉守編輯之信長記』こそ、かつて生前の牛一が用いていた稿本だったのではないかと考えている。

First of all, an important point is the processes of how this copy came to existence. A descendant of Ota Gyuichi made this copy, and its presumed original was a version of Shincho-ki that had been handed down in the Ota family. Gyuichi supposedly made memoranda on a daily basis and compiled the original manuscript of "Shincho-ki" from them. And presumably, he published a new autograph copy transcribing from the manuscript every time someone wanted one. (Here I mean by “publish”  something like today’s on-demand publication, written by hand at that. All 72 copies of “Shincho-ki” are hand copies, not printed.) Professor Hiraku Kaneko, a historian specializing in historical materials at the Historiographical Institute of Tokyo University, surmises that "Izumi-no-kami Henshu no Shinchoki," from which Kazuhiro transcribed, might be none other than the original manuscript that Gyuichi himself used for publication.

　金子氏は『信長記』伝本の網羅的な研究に取り組み、尊経閣本を牛一の初期の稿本の内容を反映した貴重な写本と判断し、同本の史料的価値を高く評価している。そう判断する根拠はいくつか挙げられるが、主たるものとしては上に説明した伝来の経緯、徳川家康に敬称を付していないという初期の写本に共通する特徴*30、そして独自記事の性格の三つが挙げられる。

Professor Kaneko has conducted a comprehensive study on the copies of Shincho-ki, determined that it is a copy that preserves the contents of some earlier version of Gyuichi's manuscript, and highly evaluated its value as a historical material. There are a number of but mainly three reasons:  first, its legitimacy that its original had been handed down in generations in the Ota family as I have already explained; second, the fact it shares the common feature of the earlier copies, that is, they refer to Tokugawa Ieyasu without a title of honor*31; and thirdly, the nature of its extra passages.

　『信長記』が太田牛一の覚書や稿本から書き起こされたことはすでに述べた。金子氏は断片的に現存する最初期の牛一自筆の草稿の内容を分析し、こうした覚書や稿本は重要性のない些細な出来事が多く記録されており、それらが後の時代の写本では省略されていることを発見した。

As I have said earlier, Gyuichi made clean copies (autograph copies) compiling his memoranda, or transcribing from some of his manuscripts. Professor Kaneko analyzed the earliest manuscripts, which only fragmentally survive today, and found that they often recorded trivial events of little importance, many of which were omitted in the copies made in later years.

　これらの枝葉末節は牛一が稿本を清書する際、あるいは他人が牛一の自筆本を書写して写本を作成する過程で、不要と見なされて削除されたものと考えられる。だが尊経閣本には元亀3年2月13日に信長が鹿狩に出かけた*32というような、明らかにどうでもいい情報が含まれており、これらは弥助の独自記事と同じように他本に記されていないのである。

Apparently, these trivialities were doomed unnecessary and deleted in the most of the copies – in the case of autograph copies Gyuichi must have deleted them when transcribing from his manuscript, and in the case of not-autograph copies the transcribers must have done so transcribing from some of then existing autograph copies. Remarkably, however, the Sonkeikaku copy has obviously insignificant details, such as on March 26th 1572 (13th of 2nd month, 3rd of Genki), Nobunaga enjoyed a deer hunting excursion.*33

　以上のことから尊経閣本は牛一が生前に用いた稿本の内容を削除省略せず忠実に保存した極めて貴重な写本であると考えられる。この金子氏の説に従えば、弥助に関する独自記事も牛一の使用していた稿本から受け継がれたものであって、自筆本と同様に高い信憑性があると考えられるのだ。

From this analysis of Professor Kaneko, we can say that the Sonkeikaku copy may be an extremely valuable copy that faithfully preserves the contents of Gyuichi's manuscript without deletion. If we adopt this theory, it means that the extra passage on Yasuke, too, tells us information faithfully preserved from the original manuscript Gyuichi himself completed.

独自記事増補説
Were extra passages added later?

　この金子氏の評価に対する異論もある。呉座氏は尊経閣本の独自記述は稿本から削除されずに残った古態というよりも、後世に加筆されたものなのではないかと疑っている。以下は尊経閣本の引用で下線部は同本の独自記事、［］内は池田本にはあるが尊経閣本には見られない異同、ただし仮名遣いの異同は省略されている。

However, there is an objection to Professor Kaneko’s theory. Professor Goza suspects that the extra passages in the Sonkeikaku copy may be additions of later years, rather than survivors of elimination of the original trivialities. Professor Goza highlighted two passages from the Sokeikaku copy, which I will show you now. The underlined parts indicate them. (The [square brackets] in the Japanese text indicate the words present in the Ikeda copy but not in the Sonkeikaku copy: they are insignificant for English readers.)

七日目に大将之頸を切、残党一命被助候様にと［歎申］色々雖御侘言申候、同心無之付而、不及是非腹を仕候、則［上月］城主之頸安土へと致進上、

（金子拓『織田信長という歴史』P311）
（cited via: Hiraku Kaneko, Oda Nobunaga toiu rekishi, p. 311）

城攻め七日目に城中の者が、大将の首を切り取り持参して、残党らを助命してくれるよう［嘆願したが］色々と詫び言を申し上げたが、秀吉は同意しなかったので、是非もなく（残党らに）腹を切らせた。そして［上月（こうつき）］城主の首は安土へと進上された。

（榊山訳を参照しつつ筆者が訳した）
（My modern Japanese translation, based on the translation by Sakakiyama）

On the seventh day of the siege, men came from the castle, bringing the severed head of their commander, and desperately pleaded with Hideyoshi to spare the lives of the surviving defenders, and made apologies. But Hideyoshi would not allow it, and forced them (the remnants of the enemy) to kill themselves. He immediately forwarded the Kozuki castellan's head to Azuchi for Nobunaga to view.

(My English translation)

　巻十における、秀吉（当時は羽柴秀吉と名乗っていた）*34が天正5年（1577年）に播磨国の上月城を陥落させた際の記事である。包囲下の城主が自らの命と引き換えに城兵の助命を乞うことは当時の武士たちの習いであったが、上月城の者はなんと不届きにも城主を裏切り、その首と引き換えに自分たちの助命を願ったのである。しかし、秀吉は彼らの背信を許さなかったらしい。というのも、この箇所の後には秀吉が「残党をことごとく引き出して」「磔にかけた」との記述があるからだ。尊経閣本ではそれに加えて、秀吉が降伏を許可しなかったという具体的な記述が追加されていることがわかる。

This part is in the 10th volume of Shincho-ki, and describes how Hideyoshi (then known as Hashiba Hideyoshi)*35 took Kozuki Castle in Harima Province in 1577. (The “head” part means that Azuchi was the Oda clan's home castle town, and Hideyoshi proved his success by sending enemy leader’s head to Nobunaga). For a castle lord under siege, begging to spare the lives inside the castle in exchange for his own head was a common practice. This part tells us, however, that the vessels of the Kozuki Castle cowardly offered, of all things, the head of their own castle lord pleading to spare them. A blatant betrayal. But, the description after this part tells us that Hideyoshi “forcibly dragged out the enemy remnants to the last one of them” and “crucified them,” suggesting that  he was not amused by their cowardly offer. Adding to that, the underlined extra passage in the Sonkeikaku copy let us know the specific fact that Hideyoshi did not allow them to surrender. Let’s take a look at another extra passage.

五月廿八日、丹羽国亀山へ帰城、去程に今度信長中国表御動座に付而、五月廿九日、［信長］御上洛、

（金子拓『織田信長という歴史』P311）
（Hiraku Kaneko, Oda Nobunaga toiu rekishi, p. 311）

五月二十八日、（明智光秀は）丹波の亀山へ帰城した。ところでこのたび信長様は中国攻めでお移りになるので、五月二十九日に［信長様は］京都へご上洛になった。

（榊山訳を参照しつつ筆者が訳した）
（My modern Japanese translation, based on Sakakiyama’s translation）

On the 28th of Fifth Month Akechi Mitsuhide returned to his castle at Kameyama in Tanba Province. On the other hand, Lord Nobunaga’s plan was to march to attack Chugoku, therefore, on the 29th of the Fifth Month, he left for Kyoto.

(My English translation)

　巻十五のこの記事は本能寺の変の直前、信長が中国攻め*36に出陣するため安土から京都へ上洛したことを記すものである。自筆本でも他の箇所で信長が中国攻めに備えて上洛したことは記述されているが、上洛の目的を明記した下線部は尊経閣本にのみ存在する。

This article in volume 15 describes the fact that, just before the Honnoji Incident, Nobunaga came to Kyoto from Azuchi (his home castle) in order to prepare the army and lead it himself to Chugoku region (the western tip of the main island in Japan).*37 Of course the autograph copies, too, describe the same fact that Nobunaga came to Kyoto, but the underlined part that explains the poupose of it appears only in the Sonkeikaku copy.

　これらの記述を見ると、自筆本と内容上の食い違いがあるわけではないものの、独自記事には枝葉末節とは言いがたいものもあるということがわかる。呉座氏はこれらの記述が無い場合、文章の前後の意味を取りづらくなると指摘。枝葉末節なので削除されたというよりも、意味を通りやすくするため後世に加筆された可能性を示唆している。

Looking at these two extra passages, we notice that while they do not contradict the content of the autograph copies, they are not exactly so trivial. Professor Goza points out that we would struggle to grasp the context without these extra passages. This argument suggests the possibility that the passages unique to the Sonkeikaku copy might be later additions intended to provide the reader with context, rather than surviving trivialities of the elimination processes.

　こうした考えを踏まえれば、弥助に関する尊経閣本の独自記事が牛一の稿本から受け継がれた信頼すべき古態であったが、枝葉末節と見られて他本からは削除されてしまったという説は揺らぐことになる。加えて尊経閣本の信頼性を高く評価する金子氏もこの弥助に関する独自記事については「創作という見方も不可能ではない」として留保を付しているのだが、それについては『家忠日記』の章で後述する。

If we adopt Professor Goza’s line of thought, Profesor Kaneko’s theory, that the extra passage about Yasuke’s treatments is faithful to Gyuichi’s manuscript, would be shaken. In fact, while Professor Kaneko highly evaluate the general reliability of the Sokeikaku copy, he expressed a reservation as to the particular Yasuke passage, saying that “Is it not impossible to be a later invention.” I defer this point until the section I will discuss Ietada Diary.

天正9年のイエズス会書簡
Jesuit Documents in 1581

　ここからはキリスト教宣教師たちの残した記録を見ていく。彼らの記録は日本文化の誤解や翻訳の誤りなどに由来する間違いが散見され、しかも最終的に書簡を取りまとめてヨーロッパへ送る立場にいたイエズス会士ルイス・フロイスには話を膨らませる悪い癖があった*38から、彼らの記述を一概には信頼できない。それでもイエズス会は日本国内の政治的利害対立から一歩離れた立場で、外部の目線から記録を残しており、これらの書簡は戦国時代の日本を研究する上で重要な史料であると考えられている。

Next, we will look at records of Jesuit missionaries, in particular two letters. Sometimes Jesuit documents contain misunderstandings of Japanese culture and mistranslations of Japanese language. On top of that, Luis Frois, a Jesuit missionary in Japan who was in a position to put together report letters and send them to Europe, had the bad habit of exaggerating stories.*39 We, therefore, cannot fully rely on their descriptions. That being said, the Jesuits kept records from an outside, neutral standpoint, at least in the meaning that their agenda was different from conflicts of political interests within Japan. Historians have regarded their historical materials extremely valuable for the study on the Sengoku period.

　本記事で使用するイエズス会書簡の原文には『エヴォラ版書簡集』を利用した。これは宣教師たちがイエズス会本部に宛てて送った報告書簡が取りまとめられて、1598年にリスボンで出版されたものだ。本記事内の日本語訳もこのエヴォラ版を底本としている。エヴォラ版は原書簡と同じポルトガル語を用いていることから誤訳が比較的少ないことを期待できる良質な史料だ。ただしエヴォラ版は原書簡に意図的な編集を加えたものであり、原文と異なる部分も相当存在する。本当に正確を期するためには原書簡から直接翻刻する必要があるが、現時点の筆者にはその手段が無いことを断っておく。

I will use in this article the texts of Jesuit letters via "Cartas de Evora," a collection of missionary report letters published in Lisbon in 1598. All of their Japanese translations (works of Japanese historians) that I will quote in this article, too, are based on it. "Cartas de Evora" is a high-quality historical material with presumably relatively few mistranslations, as it is  in Portuguese, the same language the original letters were written. However, we have to be aware that "Cartas de Evora" contains intentional edits, differing from the original letters in considerable parts. I really should have, in order to be truly accurate, checked out the original letters directly, but at the moment I do not have the means.

天正9年3月11日フロイス書簡
Frois's Letter of April 14, 1581

　以下に引用するのはルイス・フロイスが1581年4月14日（天正9年3月11日）に日本在留の宣教師に宛てた書簡だ。前述したようにイエズス会は巡察使ヴァリニャーノを長とする使節団を信長に派遣しており、フロイスは通訳として使節団に同行していた。書簡では弥助と思わしき人物が初めて信長と面会するまでの出来事が描写されている。

The first Jesuit letter I will show you is a letter written by Fróis on April 14, 1581 (11th of 3rd month, Tensho) to missionaries residing in Japan. As I have mentioned earlier, the Society of Jesus, whose base was in northern Kyusyu region, despatched a mission headed by Visitador Valignano to meet Nobunaga, and among the traveling party was Fróis as the interpreter. This letter tells us the unexpected course of events which ultimately led the black man, who seems to be Yasuke, to his first meeting with Nobunaga.

No mesmo Domingo de Ramos, nos partimos pera Vocayama & ao sair pola cidade de Sacay fora, avia infinidade de gente que estava esperando pollas ruas pera verem a extraordinaria estatura do Padre Visitador, & a cor de Cafre que hia comnosco, era tanta a gente, & tantos os fidalgos que com ser o Sacay tam livre com quanto a multidão da nossa gente não podia passar sem derrubarem algumas tendas polas ruas estreitas. Todavia não ouve falarem palavra desconcertada, fora do Sacay avia mais de trinta e cinco bestas dalbarda, & alguns trinta ou quarenta homens de carga pera o fato, & outros tantos cavalos pera os nossos, fizerão muita instancia que o cafre tambem cavalgasse, & cada passo nos saião por aquelles caminhos, acompanharão nos muitos fidalgos provedendo-nos de todas as cavalgaduras necessarias, & por aquelles caminhos saião muitos fidalgos a cavalo que vinhão a nosso encontro.

（『エヴォラ版日本書簡集』）
（cited via: “Cartas de Evora”）

堺の市を出る時、無数の人々が巡察師の並外れた背丈と我らに同行していた黒人*40の（膚の）色を見ようと街路で待ち受けていた。堺は極めて自由（の市）であったが、多数の民衆と武士が集まったので、我らの一行が狭い道を通る際に数軒の店を壊したにもかかわらず苦情を言う者はなかった。堺を出ると三十五頭を超える駄馬、三、四十名の荷持人足、ほぼ同数の乗馬が居り、黒人もまた乗馬するようしきりに勧められた。道行くごとに人々が我らを出迎え、多数の貴人が同行して必要な乗馬を整えた。また、我らに相見えんとする多数の貴人が馬上から出迎えた。

（松田毅一監訳『十六・七世紀イエズス会日本報告集第Ⅲ期第5巻』P288）
（Japanese translation by Kiichi Matsuda, “16 - 17 seiki Iezusu kai nihon houkokusyo dai 3 ki dai 5 kan,” p. 288）

On leaving the city of Sakai, countless people were waiting for us in the streets to see the extraordinary height of Padre Visitador and the (skin) color of the Cafre*41 who was accompanying us. Although Sakai was a very free (city), when our party passed through a narrow road, a large number of people and warriors gathered and causing damage to several shops, but no one complained. When we left Sakai, there were more than thirty-five packhorses, thirty to forty luggage carriers, and about the same number of riding horses, and they were very insistent that the Cafre should also ride on one. On every road people greeted us, and many gentries accompanied us to arrange the necessary riding horses. Many gentries who wanted to see us also came out to greet us from horseback.

(My English translation, bracketed words are supplementary notes by Matsuda’s Japanese translation)

　堺を通過する際、宣教師一行と弥助の珍しさゆえか、見物しようとする人々が大勢集まったことが記録されている。また弥助が乗馬を勧められたという記述があることから、彼に乗馬の心得があった可能性がある。なおここで登場する貴人とは前後を読む限り武家の上級家臣のことで、公家などのことではないようだ。*42

We can see from this letter that as they passed through Sakai, a free city near Kyoto, the rarity of the missionary group and Yasuke earned attention, and that many people gathered to see them. The description that Yasuke was recommended to ride a horse might imply he knew how to ride a horse. I guess from the context that the “gentries” mentioned here were high-hanking vassals of warrior households, rather than court nobles (公家 kuge).*43

Logo à segunda feira, primeira oitava foi a gente tanta a nossa porta, por estar aqui
Nobunanga no Miaco, todos a ver o Cafre que ouve alguns principios de arroidos, & alguns feridos de pedradas, & outros que estavão pera se matar, & quebravão as portas, & com aver muita gente de guarda às portas, com difficuldade se lhe podia resistir, & todos dizião que se mostrasse pera ganhar dinheiro, que polo menos ganharia hum homen com elle com grande facilidade oito ou dez mil cruzados em breve tempo, & he grande , & excessivo o desejo que tem de o ver, Nobunanga o mandou chamar, & levou lho o Padre Organtino, fez estranha festa com elle fazendo-o despir da cinta pera riba, não se podendo persuadir que era aquillo cousa natural se não artificiosa: tambem o mandarão chamar os filhos de Nobunanga, & com cada hum delles ouve extraordinarias graças, & hum sobrinho de Nobunanga que agora he capitão de Ozaca lhe deu dez mil caixas, folgou em estremo de o ver, & temos bem de trabalho com suas vistas.

（『エヴォラ版日本書簡集』）
（cited via: “Cartas de Evora”）

復活祭日に続く週の月曜日、信長がこの都にいたため、多数の人々が我等の門前へやって来た。皆、黒人を見ようとしてのことで、騒動が始まり、投石により数名が負傷し、他にも殺し合いに発展しそうな人々がいた。そして彼等は門を破壊せんとしたが、門には警固する者が大勢いたため、それに抵抗するのは困難であった。皆が言うには、もし金儲けをするために（黒人を）見せ物にしたならば、その人は彼を用いて短期間に最低でも八千乃至一万クルザードをいとも容易に稼ぐであろう、とのことであった。〔彼は〕巨体で、彼を見ることに対する信長が抱く願望は凄まじいものであった。信長は彼を召喚し、オルガンティーノ師が彼の許に連れて行った。信長は彼に会って奇妙なまでに大騒ぎし、（黒人の）腰から上の衣服を脱がせた。というのも、その者が自然のものであって、人工のものでないことに納得しなかったからである。信長の息子たちもまた彼を呼び寄せ、それぞれが大げさに褒め称えた。今は大坂の指揮官である信長の甥も彼を見て非常に喜び、彼に銭一万を与えた。我等にとってそれらの御目見えは大いに面倒なことであった。

（岡美穂子訳）
（Modern Japenese translation by professor Mihoko Oka）

On the Monday of the week following Easter, when Nobunaga was in the capital, a great number of people came to our gates. They were all trying to see the Cafre, and a disturbance began. Some were wounded by stone-throwing, and a few were about to kill each other. They tried to destroy the gate, and despite so many guards protecting the gates, it was difficult to resist the crowd. Everyone said that if you exhibited a Cafre as a spectacle in order to make money, you would very easily earn at least 8,000 to 10,000 cruzados with one in a short period of time. The Cafre’s body was huge, and Nobunaga’s desire to see him was tremendous. Nobunaga summoned him, and Padre Organtino took him to Nobunaga. Nobunaga met him and made a strangely great fuss, and made the Cafre undress from the waist up, for Nobunaga was not convinced that he was natural and not artificial. Nobunaga’s sons also summoned him, and each of them greatly praised him. The nephew of Nobunaga, who is now the commander of Osaka, was very happy upon seeing him, and gave him ten thousand sen. These audiences were a great trouble to us.

(My English translation)

　イエズス会一行は堺を平和的に通行したが、京都では大混乱を巻き起こしてしまったようだ。群衆は黒人を一目見ようとするあまり、恐るべきことに完全に暴徒化してしまった。フロイスが話を盛っている可能性もあるが、弥助が人々の注目を集めたことは確かなのだろう。フロイスらはこうした状況を金儲けに利用できるだろうと考えており*44、当時のイエズス会の黒人への見方を伺うことができる。信長もこの黒人をひと目見てみたいと考え、謁見の場が設けられることになった。

In contrast to Sakai, through where the Jesuits passed relatively peacefully, in Kyoto they seemed to have created quite a commotion. The crowds were so eager to catch a glimpse of the Cafre that they became, to the Jesuit party’s horror, complete mobs. Frois might have dramatized the story, but Yasuke certainly attracted the attention of people of the capital. From Frois’s reverie that he could take advantage of the situation to make a big money, we might catch a glimpse of the attitude of the Society of Jesus toward black people at that time.*45 Nobunaga also wanted to see this black man, which led to an audience being arranged.

　まず目につくのは日付である。「復活祭日に続く週の月曜日」はユリウス歴で1581年3月27日を差し、旧暦では天正9年2月23日となる。従って弥助と信長が初めて会った時の日付は『信長記』とイエズス会史料で一致しており、二つの史料が同じ出来事を記録していることがわかる。

An important point is the date. 'the Monday of the week following Easter' means March 27, 1581 in the Julian calendar and 2nd month 23, Tensho 9 in the Japanese old calendar. That means, the date of Yasuke's first meeting with Nobunaga is consistent between Shincho-ki and this Jesuit letter.

　またここで信長が自身の求めによって弥助と対面していることも重要だ。当時の信長は朝廷の位階制度において正二位の位にいた。これは彼が天下人、つまり日本における事実上の最高権力者の地位にあったことを反映している。*46。前近代日本の身分制社会において、こうした正式な場で貴人に謁見することは一定の地位を有する者だけに許される特権だった。

We can also see the significant point that it was the will of Nobunaga himself to meet Yasuke face-to-face.*47 Nobunaga at that time held the “Senior Second Rank” (正二位 sho ni-i) in the Imperial Court’s hierarchical system, which reflected his position as the de facto supreme authoriy (天下人 tenkabito) in Japan. In premodern Japanese society with the class system, the occasion of such a formal audience with nobility was in itself a privilege granted only to those with a certain position.

　公家社会では一定以上の位階を有するか、特定の役職に就いていない限り内裏への昇殿が許可されなかった。昇殿できる堂上家の家系と昇殿が許されない地下家の家系の間には超えられない壁があった。同様の文化は公家社会だけではなく武家社会にもあり、幕府では上級幕臣と下級幕臣の区別は前者が将軍に謁見できること、つまり御目見以上であることにあった。この史料では信長側から弥助との面会を求めていることから、弥助がこのとき御目見得身分を得たことがわかる。

For example, in the Imperial Court, people were not even allowed to enter the Imperial Palace unless they had a certain rank or held a certain post. There was an insurmountable barrier even among courtiers between the families who were allowed to enter the palace (known as 堂上家 tosho-ke) and those who were not (地下家 jige-ke"). The culture of warrior households also had similar system. For example in the Tokugawa shogunate, the basis for distinguishing bannerguards (旗本 hatamoto), who were high-ranking vassals, from household vassal (御家人 goke-nin), who were low-ranking vassals, was that the former had "audience with one’s lord (御目見得 omemie)" status, which meant they were allowed to have an audience with the Shogun. In

天正9年9月11日メシヤ書簡
Mexia's letter of Octover 8, 1581

　次に引用するのはイエズス会宣教師ロレンソ・メシヤの書簡である。この書簡は1581年10月8日（天正9年9月11日）に送られたものだが、先に引用したのと同じように弥助と思われる人物と信長の出会いを書き記している。

Now, let me show you another Jesuit letter, one by Lourenço Mexia, a Jesuit missionary, sent on October 8, 1581. This letter too, like the one I have cited above, describes the first encounter between Nobunaga and a man we believe to be Yasuke.

Levou o Padre hum Cafre, o qual porque nunca foi visto no Miaco, fez pasmar a todos, era a gente que o vinha ver que não tinha conto, & o mesmo Nobunanga pasmou de o vernem se podia persuadir que naturalmente era negro, mas que era artificio de tinta, & assi não se fartava[sic] de o ver muitas vezes, & falar com elle, porque sabia mediocremente a lingoa de Iapão, & tinha muitas forças, algumas manhas boas, de que elle muito gostava, agora o favorece tanto que o mandou por toda a cidade com hum homem seu muito privado pera que todos soubessem que elle o amava: dizem que o fará Tono.

（『エヴォラ版日本書簡集』）
（cited via: “Cartas de Evora”）

司祭は黒人を一人同伴していたが、都においては初めて目にするものであったがため、誰もが驚嘆し、彼を見に来た人は無数であった。信長自身、彼を見て驚き、生まれつき（膚が）黒いのであって墨による細工でないことを納得しなかった。たびたび、彼を観、中程度に（mediocremente）日本語を解したので彼と話して飽くことがなく、また黒人は非常に力がありまた良い資質（manhas boas）があって、信長はそれらを気に入っていた。彼はあまりに（信長の）お気に入りとなったので、その旨を諸人に知らせるため、腹心の家臣一人を付けて市中を巡らせた。人々が言うには、（信長は）彼を殿にするであろうとのことである。

※上記の日本語訳は松田毅一監訳『十六・七世紀イエズス会日本報告集第Ⅲ期第6巻』（同朋者出版）を基に岡氏の指摘に従って修正を施したものである。修正点は以下の通り。典拠はラファエル・ブリトー『Vocabulario portuguez, e latino』（1712-1728）より。なお英訳はこれらの修正を反映している。

幾らか日本語を解したので→中程度に（mediocremente）日本語を解したので
いくらかの芸ができたので信長は大いに喜んだ。→良い資質（manhas boas）があり、信長はそれらを気に入っていた。
今では彼を厚く庇護しており→彼はあまりに（信長の）お気に入りとなったので

Padre was accompanied by a Cafre, but since the capital had never seen one, everyone was amazed and countless people came to see him. Nobunaga himself was surprised upon seeing him and was not convinced the black color (of his skin) was natural, not painted with ink. Nobunaga saw him often and spoke with him insatiably because the Cafre understood Japanese moderately, and also the Cafre was very strong and had good qualities which Nobunaga liked. Now that he became Nobunaga's favorite so much, Nobunaga sent him with a trusted retainer around the city to let people know. People said that Nobunaga would make him a Tono.

*The Japanese translation presented above is basically that of Dohosha Publishing, whose translations I cited in several places in this article. But as to this particular citation, I added my revisions which followed Professor Oka’s suggestions. My English translation above is a secondhand translation via this Japanese translation with my revisions.

　この書簡によれば弥助は中程度に日本語を話すことができ、信長は彼との会話を楽しんでいたという。また信長は彼の力の強さや、詳しくは書かれていないがなんらかの資質を気に入ったと書かれている。そして信長は弥助を大変厚遇するに至り、京都の人々が将来彼は殿になるのではないかと噂したことが記録されている。

This letter says that the man we believe to be Yasuke was able to speak mildly fluent Japanese, and that Nobunaga enjoyed talking with him. It also says that Nobunaga liked his power and some qualities that are not described in detail. It even says that Nobunaga treated him so well to the point that people in Kyoto rumored that he would become a “Tono”.

　殿とは武将に付せられる敬称である。武将とは上級武士のうち、知行を取る領主であり、自らの家臣を抱える軍事指揮官のことをいう*48。そうした噂が立つほど弥助は厚遇されていたのかもしれない。ただしこれは人々の噂を宣教師が又聞きして記録したものに過ぎないし、そうした噂があったということは、裏を返せば弥助が武将ではなかったことも示している。

“Tono” is an honorific title in Japanese language which was generally used for warrior lords (武将 busho). Warrior lords means the highest echelon among the warrior class (bushi), a combined figure of a feudal lord who governed his own fiefdom and a military commander of his own vassals.*49 Such a rumor of Yasuke certainly seems to indicate Nobunaga treated him so favorably, but it should also be noted that this is a record of mere hearsay which the missionaries had heard of. We can also surmise that this rumor, if true, proves Yasuke’s status was not so high as a warrior lord.

松平家忠『家忠日記』
Matsudaira Ietada's Diary

　『家忠日記』は徳川家康の家臣が一人、松平家忠が綴った個人的日記である。彼の日記は当時の武家の風習や歴史的出来事を同時代に記録した一次史料であり、歴史家たちはその価値を非常に高く評価している。これは弥助に関する記録のなかで最も信頼できる史料といってよい。『家忠日記』は原本が現存し駒沢大学図書館がインターネットで公開しているものの、二次利用が禁止されている。そこで本記事では二次利用が許可されている茨城大学図書館所蔵写本を見ることにする。写本の内容が原本と同一であることは確認済みである。

"Ietada Nikki" (nikki = diary) is the diary of Matsudaira Ietada, a vassal of the Tokugawa clan. Historians have highly valued it as a primary historical material of the same period. Regarding Yasuke, too, we could say Ietada Nikki is the most reliable historical material. The original manuscript of Ietada Nikki do exists today, and we can see it online on the site of the library of Komazawa University, but unfortunately they do not allow secondary use. In this article, therefore, I will show you one of its hand copies that allows us secondary use, a copy in the collection of the library of Ibaragi University. I have confirmed the two have no diferrence in the text.

　『家忠日記』の記録によれば天正10年4月19日（1582年5月11日）に松平家忠は、武田征伐*50を終えて東海道を通って帰還する途上の信長と、彼に付き添っている弥助を目撃している。

According to the entry of Ietada Nikki on May 11, 1582, Ietada saw Yasuke accompanying Nobunaga on his way back home on Tokai-do Road (a major route along the east coast of the main island of Japan) after the subjugation campaign of the Takeda clan.*51 The following is how Ietada described Yasuke.

十九日 丁未 雨降

上様御ふち候大うす進上申候くろ男御つれ候、身ハすみノコトク、タケハ六尺二分、名ハ弥介ト云。

『家忠日記』茨城大学図書館所蔵写本
Copy of Ietada Nikki (in the collection of the library of Ibaraki University)

十九日　ひのとひつじ　雨

信長様は扶持を与えている宣教師から進上された黒人をお連れしていた。黒人の体は墨のようで、身長は六尺二分、名前は弥介という。

（拙訳）

On the 19th, fire goat (chinese sexagenary cycle), rainy.

Ue-sama (Nobunaga) was accompanied by a black man who was a present from Cristians to him and to whom he give a stipend. The man's body was the color of black ink, and his height six shaku two bu (182.42406 centimeters). His name was Yasuke (弥介).

(My English translation)

 　黒人が信長に同行していたこと、黒人の身長*52と特徴的な皮膚の色、彼が信長から扶持を与えられていたこと、そして「弥介」という名前が記録されている。

(Ue-sama was an honorific for the head of warrior household.) As we can see, Ietada Nikki clearly records Yasuke's specific height*53 and characteristic skin color, the fact that he was given a stipend, and the name Yasuke.

　名前と彼が扶持取りであったという点について『家忠日記』と尊経閣文庫本『信長記』が一致していることは興味深い。『家忠日記』という信頼できる史料がこれらの点を裏付けている事実は重要だ。なお武田征伐において彼が実戦に参加したかどうかについては、史料がなく定かではない。

It is also interesting that the "Ietada Nikki" and the Sonkeikaku-bunko version of "Shincho-ki" agree on the name and the stipend. It is important that the reliable historical material "Ietada Nikki" supports these points. There is no historical material to confirm whether he participated in the actual battle in the Takeda conquest.

尊経閣本家忠日記依拠説
Sonkeikaku discussion again

　尊経閣本には独自記事が存在し、その信頼性について議論があるということを先に述べた。独自記事は古態であり信頼できるのか、それとも後世に創作されたものであって信頼できないのだろうか。金子氏は全体として前者の立場を取りつつ、弥助の身分に関する記述については後者の可能性を排除していない。というのも彼の名前が『家忠日記』にも記録されているからである。

As I mentioned earlier, the Sonkeikaku copy has its unique extra passages, and their reliability could be controversial. Are they reliable? Or are they questionable inventions added in later years? Professor Kaneko, who generally takes the former position, does not rule out the latter possibility as to the particular description on Yasuke's status. The reason is that the name of Yasuke had been already recorded in none other than Ietada Nikki.

　欧文史料には弥助という名前は一切登場しないため、彼の名前が記された史料はこの『家忠日記』と尊経閣本『信長記』の二つしか存在しない。『家忠日記』は同時代史料である一方、尊経閣本は後世に書写されている。よって尊経閣本の弥助に関する記述が『家忠日記』に依拠した創作であると考えることは、不可能ではないことになる。

We cannot find the name Yasuke at all in the European historical materials. We have only two historical materials in which the name appears, namely, Ietada Nikki and the Sonkeikaku copy of Shincho-ki. Ietada Nikki was a contemporary document, and Shincho-ki was completed after Nobunaga’s death. Which means, perhaps Ota Gyuichi, or his descendant Kazuhiro, might had somehow read Ietada Nikki and recognized about Yasuke. In that case, the hypothetical writer might have used a touch of creative license to flesh out the status of Yasuke, and finally incorporated it into the Sonkeikaku copy or the original of it. Was that possible? In terms of the chronological order of events, we cannot exclude this possibility. Let us call this hypothesis, hereinafter, the “Ietada Nikki-based-Sonkeikaku copy theory.”

　しかしこの依拠説に対して平山氏が反論している。平山氏は「太田牛一が存命中の慶長11年までに、『家忠日記』が広く公表されていた事実は確認できない」と指摘している。大前提として『家忠日記』は一個人の私的な日記であって、広く刊行されるような性質の書物ではない。この家忠日記は松平家に保管され、その史料的価値に最初に気がついたのは家忠の孫、松平忠房であった。彼は元和5年（1619年）生まれなので、そのときには太田牛一はもう故人である*54。つまり、牛一が生前に家忠日記を参照することは不可能なのだ。

Professor Hirayama flatly refuted this theory. He pointed out that, if we assume in the same way with Professor Kaneko that the extra passages of the Sonkeikaku copy are surviving original trivialities and not addition of later years, he (Professor Hirayama) ”cannot confirm that Ietada Nikki had been widely accessible during the lifetime of Ota Gyuichi, who died in the 11th year of the Keicho (1606).” First of all, the nature of Ietada Nikki. It was, literally, a diary. It was personal and private, not something random people could get to see. It was left in the Matsudaira family, and its value as a historical document was first noticed by Ietada's grandson, Matsudaira Tadafusa. Tadafuta was born in 1619 (5th of Genna), supposedly after Gyuichi had passed away.*55 Professor Hirayama concluded that, all things considered, Ota Gyuichi could not have possibly read Ietada Nikki in his lifetime.

太田家は家忠日記を読めたのか？
Could the Ota family read Ietada's diary?

　では牛一の子孫である一寛の場合はどうだろうか。彼が享保4年（1719年）尊経閣本を書写したとき『家忠日記』を参照することは可能だったのだろうか？　歴史学者の岩沢愿彦氏による研究によれば、忠房による発見以来『家忠日記』原本は島原藩主松平家の秘蔵であった。文化元年（1804年）に将軍徳川家斉が上覧して以降は、将軍の意向に従ってより一層の秘蔵となり、門外不出となったという。なお上覧の際には複本が作成され幕府の文書庫に納められているが、これは尊経閣本の書写より後の時代の出来事なので無関係である。よって一寛が『家忠日記』原本を参照することも、ほとんど不可能に近い。

Then, what about Kazuhiro, a descendant of Gyuichi? Was it possible for him to see Ietada Nikki before he made the Sonkeikaku copy in 7th of Kyoho (1719)? According to a study by historian Yoshihiko Iwasawa, the original manuscript of Ietada Nikki had become, ever since Tadafusa’s discovery, a near-secret heirloom of the Matsudaira family, the ruler of the Shimabara Domain. On top of that, in 1804, the shogun at that time Tokugawa Ienari himself took a look at Ietada Nikki, and ordered that it be kept under strict care, which made the diary even more treasured and virtually out of public accessibility. It is true that a duplicate copy was made at the occasion of the presentation for shogun and it was kept in the library of the shogunate, but this happened after the production of the Sonkeikaku copy in 1719, making it unrelated to our problem here either way.

　では原本以外についてはどうだろうか。松平忠冬が『家忠日記』を元に万治3年（1660年）頃に『家忠日記増補追加』を選述したほか、徳川義直も正保3年（1646年）ごろ成立した『神君御年譜』の編纂に『家忠日記』を利用したという。だが実はそのどちらからも、弥助が登場する天正10年4月19日の記事は省かれているのである*56。原本は秘蔵の品、二次文献には弥助の記録が記載されていないとなれば、依拠説成立の前提となる「牛一か、一寛たち子孫が『家忠日記』の弥助に関する記述を参照することが可能だった」という仮定は成り立たないのだ。

Okay, then, what about any other duplicate copies of Ietada Nikki? We know that Matsudaira Tadafuyu, a grandson of Ietada, compiled a supplemented version of Ietada Nikki around 1660 (3rd of Manji), and Tokugawa Yoshinao, a relative of shogun family, supposedly made use of this version of Ietada Nikki in his editing work of "Shinkun Gonenpu," a chronology of Tokugawa Ieyasu, which was completed around 1646 (3rd of Shoho). But, in both works the entry of the 19th of 4th month, Tensho 10, wherein Yasuke appears, was omitted.*57 In summary, if we aim to establish the “Ietada Nikki-based-Sonkeikaku copy-theory,” we have to assume that Kazuhiro directly read the original manuscript of "Ietada Nikki." But, I would say it was impossible for Kazuhiro, who was serving the Maeda clan, to access the near-secret treasure of the Matsudaira family before 1719 (4th of Kyoho).

　では牛一や一寛が家忠日記を参照せず、完全なでたらめをでっち上げた可能性についてはどうだろうか。この場合、弥助の名前（の読み*58）と信長から扶持を貰ったという二つの情報が、まったくの偶然に符合することは考えられない。そもそもの問題として、仮に尊経閣本の独自記事が創作だったと仮定するにしても、加筆者には弥助のことをわざわざ誇張する動機は無いはずである。そのような動機があった事例も確かにある。例えば池田本『信長記』は牛一が池田家に献呈したもので、所有者である池田家の事績が少し加筆されている*59。しかし、尊経閣本と弥助の間にこれと同様の関係を見出すことは出来ない。

We can think of one last possibility. Could it be that Gyuichi or Kazuhiro wrote mere fabrication from the thin air, and that had nothing to do with Ietada Nikki? In this case, the coincidences between the Sonkeikaku copy and Ietada Nikki, such as the name Yasuke*60and the description that he received stipend, would become really mysterious. In the first place, I must say, even if we hypothesized that the extra passages in the Sonkeikaku copy were mere whimsical creation of someone, we can imagine no motivation whatsoever to inflate the status of Yasuke, who was obviously not a very impotant figure throughout this period. For example, When Gyuichi made the Ikeda autograph copy of "Shincho-ki," he slightly added lines to emphasize the achievements of the Ikeda family, because it was a present for the Ikeda family, who became the owner of this copy.*61 But I believe it is impossible to find a similar relationship between Yasuke and the Sonkeikaku copy.

　以上の議論から尊経閣本の弥助に関する記述は『家忠日記』に依拠した創作であるという考えは退けられた。当該記事は太田家に伝来していた『信長記』稿本から受け継がれた古態であるとする説には十分な説得力がある。ただし、前述の通り呉座氏は同本について慎重な態度を取っており、尊経閣本の信頼性に関する議論は現時点では未だ結論が出ていない。弥助に関する同本の独自記事のうち名前と扶持を受け取ったこと以外の情報については、書写段階で何らかの別の一次情報源を元に加筆された可能性は、完全には否定できない。

Based on the above reasons, I argue against the “Ietada Nikki-basedSonkeikaku copytheory,” which claims that the description of Yasuke in the Sonkeikaku copy was a fabrication made based on Ietada Nikki. I also believe that it is a persuasive theory that the description in question has its origin in Gyuichi’s original manuscript or autograph copy of "Shincho-ki" handed down in the Ota family. However, as I mentioned earlier, Professor Goza took a cautious stance on the Sonkeikaku copy, and historians seems to be still not in agreement about the general reliability of the Sonkeikaku copy presently. I have to admit it is marginally possible that the information in the extra passage on Yasuke, except the part of his name and stipend, was addition made in the process of transcription.

本能寺の変
the Honnoji incident

　中国地方で毛利家と激戦を繰り広げる秀吉を増援するため、自ら出陣することを決意した信長は天正10年5月29日、出師に備えるために僅かなお供――『信長記』には「御小姓衆二、三十人」だったとある――だけを引き連れて上洛した。一方その頃、明智光秀は中国攻めに加わるため、およそ一万三千の軍勢を動員して本拠亀山城を出発したばかりだった。だがしかし、光秀は道半ばで突如として部将たちに主君信長を裏切ると告げて、軍の進路を京都へ向けたのである。以下は『信長記』のクライマックス、本能寺の変の部分の抜粋である。6月2日（西暦6月21日）早朝、信長らは自分たちの宿泊している本能寺が敵に包囲されていることに気がついた。

Nobunaga decided to go to the front lines himself in order to reinforce Hideyoshi, who was engaged in a fierce battle with the Mori clan who ruled almost entire Chugoku region (western tip of the mainland of Japan). To arrange the army for departure, Nobunaga came to Kyoto with only a few escort, on 29th of 5th month, Tensho 10 (1582).  "Shincho-ki" tells us that there were "twenty or thirty pages". Meanwhile, Akechi Mitsuhide, a corps commander who left his headquarters with about 13000 troops he mobilized to attack Chugoku region, suddenly told his officers that he would betray Nobunaga and directed his corps to Kyoto. The following is an excerpt from the climax of "Shincho-ki," the Honnoji Incident. In the early morning of 2nd of 6th month (June 21 in the Julien calender), Nobunaga realized that Honnoji-temple, where he was staying, was surrounded by Akechi's men.

敵勢はときの声をあげ、御殿に向かって鉄砲を撃ち入れてきた。信長公が「さては謀反か、いかなる者のしわざか」とお尋ねになったところ、森乱（蘭丸〈長定〉）が、「明智の手の者と思われます」と申し上げると、「やむをえない」と覚悟なされる。敵勢は間を置かずに、つぎつぎと御殿に進入してくるので、表御堂のご番衆も退いて、御殿の人々と一手になった。おうまやからは矢代勝介・伴太郎左衛門・伴正林・村田吉五らが切って出て討ち死にした。このほかお中元衆（戦死者10名の名が列挙されるが中略）をはじめとして、二十四人がおうまやにおいて討ち死にした。

　また御殿の中で討ち死にした人々は（戦死者26名の名が列挙されるが中略）これらのお小姓衆が敵勢に立ち向かい、渡りあって討ち死にしたのである。（中略）

　信長公ははじめ弓を取って、二つ三つととりかえひきかえ、矢を放たれたが、いずれも時が経つうちに、弓の絃が切れてしまったので、その後は槍を取って戦われた。しかし御ひじに槍傷を受けて、引き退かれる。それまでおそばに女中衆が付き添い申していたが、「女たちは構わぬ、急いで脱出せよ」と仰せられて、女たちを御殿から追い出されたのであった。
　すでに御殿に火がかかり、燃えひろがって来た。最後のお姿を見せまいと思われたのであろうか、殿中奥深くお入りになって、中からお納戸の戸口にカギをかけ、あわれにもご自害なさったのである。

（榊山潤『現代語訳　信長公記（全）』P459）
（Jun Sakakiyama, Gendaigo yaku Shincho Koki (zen), p. 459）

The enemy raised the battle cry and blasted Nobunaga’s residential quarters with their guns. “This is treason!” Nobunaga stated. “Whose plot is it?” “They look like Akechi’s men,” Mori Ran replied. Nobunaga’s response was, “What’s done is done.”

Attacking relentlessly, Akechi’s men quickly forced their way into Nobunaga’s residence. Nobunaga’s guards at the front hall fell back to join forces with the defenders of his personal quarters. From the stables Yashiro Shōsuke, Ban Tarōzaemon, Tomo Shōrin, and Murata Kitsugo rushed forward, slashing away with their swords, to their death. Apart from these men, twenty-four of Nobunaga’s grooms*62 [...] were killed at the stables.

The following men were killed inside Nobunaga’s residence: [...]

Nobunaga’s pages went at the enemy again and again, until all were killed in battle. [...]

Nobunaga first grabbed his bow, but when he had let fly two or three times, the string broke, its time apparently having come as well. He continued the fight with a spear but suffered a spear wound to his elbow and retreated. Up to that point his women had remained by him but now he ordered them, “Get out, hurry! They won’t harm women.” Once the women had been chased away, he had his personal quarters set on fire, and soon the entire building was aflame. Not wanting anyone to see his final moments, it would seem, Nobunaga retired deep into his residence, shut the door of a utility room from the inside, and coolly cut his own belly.

(The Chronicle of Lord Nobunaga, Brill Academic Pub, 2011, 469P)

　かくして「かつては声はおろかその名（を聞く）だけで諸人を畏怖させていた人が毛髪一本残すことなく灰塵に帰した」（イエズス会書簡）のであった。一方、このときの京都には信長の嫡男信忠と織田家の馬廻衆も駐留していた。本能寺の騒ぎを聞きつけた彼らの様子がイエズス会書簡に記録されている。

In this way, “A man who used to frighten people only by his name, let alone by his voice, was reduced to ashes without leaving a hair” (a Jesuit letter). At that time, Nobunaga's heir Nobutada and the horse guards of the Oda clan were actually in Kyoto. The state of those who heard the disturbance at Honno-ji Temple was recorded in the Jesuit letters.

（明智勢は）このように迅速に信長を倒した後、同じく宮殿内に宿泊していた青年武士数人を殺害し、また僧院をことごとく焼き払ったが、これはたちまち都中に知れわたり、内へ入ろうとして駆けつけた数人の殿は街が占領されていたために（入ることが）できず、世子の邸へと向かった。世子はまだ就寝中であったが、知らせを聞くと起き上がり、彼が宿泊している僧院も安全ではないと考えたので駆けつけた兵士ともども同僧院に近い内裏の御子の邸へ移った。これは安土山の邸に次ぐ立派なもので、三、四年前、信長が建て、内裏の御子の住いとするため贈った邸であった。世子は同邸に身を落ち着けたがいとも急なことであったので刀以外には携えておらず、また同所は内裏の御子の住居なので、ほとんど武器は無く、ただ女性がいるのみであった。

（松田毅一監訳『十六・七世紀イエズス会日本報告集第Ⅲ期第6巻』P128）
（Japanese translation from: Kiichi Matsuda, 16 - 17 seiki Iezusu kai nihon houkokusyo dai 3 ki dai 6 kan, p. 128）

After quickly overthrowing Nobunaga in this way, the Akechi forces killed several young warriors who were also staying in the palace, and burned down all of the monasteries, but this quickly became known throughout the capital, and several people who had rushed to get inside were unable to enter because the city was occupied, so they went to the residence of the heir. The heir was still sleeping, but when he heard the news, he got up and thought that the monastery where he was staying was not safe either, so he and the soldiers who had rushed to it moved to the residence of the crown prince in the Imperial Palace, which was close to the monastery. This was the second most magnificent residence after Azuchi catsle, and was built by Nobunaga three or four years ago and given to crown prince to live in. The heir settled in the residence, but it was so urgent that he had no other weapons with him except swords, and since it was the residence of crown prince, there were almost no weapons, only women.

(My English translation)

　信忠のもとへ集った馬廻の総兵力は千から千五百ほど。一万を超える明智軍を前に多勢に無勢は明らかだった。堅固とはいえ武器の蓄えのない御所で明智を迎え撃つか、それとも京都を脱し安土へ逃れるべきか。信忠は決断を迫られた。『信長記』には以下のようにある。

The total strength of the horseguards who had gathered for Nobutada at that time was between 1,000 and 1500. However, it was clear that they were outnumbered by the Akechi army, which numbered more than ten thousand. Nobutada faced a critical decision: whether to stand and fight in the secure but poorly armed palace, or to flee Kyoto and make for Azuchi. Shincho-ki describes as follows.

三位中将*63信忠卿は、「このような謀反を起こすほどであるから、敵はまさかやすやすとは逃がしはしないであろう。雑兵の手にかかって死んでは、のちのちまでとやかく言われるであろうし、それも無念である。ここで腹を切ろう」とおっしゃられた。

（榊山潤『現代語訳　信長公記（全）』P462）
（Jun Sakakiyama, Gendaigo yaku Shincho Koki (zen), p. 462）

To this Sanmi no Chūjō*64 Nobutada responded: "Those involved in a revolt such as this are not apt to let me get away. The thought of the infamy I would incur if I fell into the hands of common foot soldiers is more than I can bear. I will rather cut my belly right here!"

(The Chronicle of Lord Nobunaga, Brill Academic Pub, 2011, 471P)

　このとき、御所にいた誠仁親王は明智方に使者を送っている。親王は自分も「同様に切腹すべきかと問うたところ」（イエズス会書簡）明智は親王一家と朝廷関係者の脱出を許可した。ただし信忠を逃さないために馬と駕籠の使用を禁じたため、親王たちは徒歩で御所から逃れなければならなかった。かくして親王ら朝廷関係者が避難すると、戦闘が再開された。イエズス会書簡によれば彼らは猛々しく戦った。

On this occasion, crown prince Sanehito, who was in his Palace, sent an emissary to Akechi's side. Crown prince himself' asked if he should commit seppuku in the same way' (Jesuit letter). Akechi allowed the crown prince's family and people of the Imperial Court to escape. However, in order not to let Nobutada escape, he prohibited the use of horses and palanquins, so crown prince and others had to escape from the Palace on foot. Thus, when they evacuated, the battle resumed. According to the Jesuit letter, they fought fiercely.

（世子がいる）邸内の人々は選りすぐった大身たちであったのでよく防戦し、一時間以上に及んだが、邸外のほうがきわめて多勢でよく武装しており、鉄砲を多く備えていたため、これに抵抗することは困難であった。しかし世子はきわめて勇敢に戦い、鉄砲と矢によって幾つもの傷を受けた。

（松田毅一監訳『十六・七世紀イエズス会日本報告集第Ⅲ期第6巻』P128）
（Japanese translation from: Kiichi Matsuda, 16 - 17 seiki Iezusu kai nihon houkokusyo dai 3 ki dai 6 kan, p. 128）

The people in the residence were selected men of great stature, so they fought well for more than an hour, but it was difficult to resist them because the enemy were very numerous and well armed, and had many guns. However, Nobutada fought bravely and suffered many wounds from guns and arrows.

(My English translation)

　しかし、明智方には次の一手があった。また『信長記』を見てみよう。

However, Akechi's side took the next move. Let's look at "Shincho-ki" again.

そうこうしているうちに、敵は近衛殿（前久）の御殿の屋根に上がり、御所の構内を見下ろし、そこから弓・鉄砲を撃ち込んでくる。そのため手負い・死人が多数続出し、しだいしだいに無人となり、ついに敵は御所内へ侵入して、火を放った。三位中将信忠卿は、「私が腹を切ったら、縁の板を引きはがしてその中に私を入れ、死骸を隠すように」とお命じになり、介錯を鎌田新介に命じられた。ご一門の方々、主だった家の子、郎党らは枕を並べて討ち死にした、死体が散乱しているありさまをご覧になって、信忠卿はなんともかわいそうにお思いになる。御殿まぢかに火が燃え移ってきたので、このとき、ご切腹になり、恐れ多いことではあるが、鎌田新介が御首を打ち落とし申した。

（榊山潤『現代語訳　信長公記（全）』P464）
（Jun Sakakiyama, Gendaigo yaku Shincho Koki (zen), p. 464）

As this was taking place, enemy soldiers climbed atop Lord Konoe’s residence. From its roof they overlooked the fortifications and took aim with their bows and harquebuses at those inside. The defenders suffered many dead and wounded, and gradually their ranks were depleted. Before long Akechi’s men forced their way inside the fortifications and set Nijō Castle ablaze. Lord Sanmi no Chūjō Nobutada gave orders to pull apart the planking of the verandah once he had committed hara-kiri and lay him underneath to hide his remains. The task of assisting at his suicide he assigned to Kamata Shinsuke [Gozaemon]. Feelings of pity overwhelmed Lord Nobutada as he witnessed the stalwarts of the Oda clan falling side by side, together with their leading housemen and retainers, their bodies lying scattered about like so many little sticks. As the fire closed in on his quarters, Nobutada cut his own belly, and Kamata Shinsuke, overwhelmed with gratitude at the special honor granted him by his lord, struck off his head.

(The Chronicle of Lord Nobunaga, Brill Academic Pub, 2011, 472P)

　二条新御所が陥落すると、明智軍は京都中を捜索し残党の狩り出しを行ったことがイエズス会書簡に記録されている。

It is recorded in the letters of the Society of Jesus that when the Palace fell, the Akechi army searched all over Kyoto to hunt out the remnants.

明智の兵は多数であったので、街路や家屋ごとに巡回して信長の家臣や貴人、殿たちを見つけ出したが、彼らの首を斬り明智に差し出すためであった。明智の面前には今や首が山と積まれ、死体は街路に放置された。

（松田毅一監訳『十六・七世紀イエズス会日本報告集第Ⅲ期第6巻』P129）
（Japanese translation from: Kiichi Matsuda, 16 - 17 seiki Iezusu kai nihon houkokusyo dai 3 ki dai 6 kan, p. 129）

Since Akechi's troops were numerous, they patrolled the streets and houses to find Nobunaga's vassals, nobles, and lords, cutting off their heads and presenting them to Akechi. The heads were piled in heaps before him, while their bodies were left scattered throughout the streets.

(My English translation)

　こうして天下にその精強を誇った織田家御馬廻衆はわずか数時間のうちに主君もろとも壊滅したのであった。

In this way, the Oda horse guards, who were once proud of their power throughout the country, were annihilated along with their lord in just a few hours.

　以上は『信長記』とイエズス会書簡から再現した本能寺の変の経過である。このとき弥助はどこで何をしていたのだろうか。『信長記』本能寺の変での織田家戦死者約90人強を列挙して顕彰しているが、そのなかに弥助の名はない。しかしイエズス会書簡によれば彼もまた、この本能寺の変を戦った一人だったのだ。

So, the above was from first to last of the Honnoji Incident, which I reconstructed (with considerable dramatization) from "Shincho-ki" and a Jesuit letter. Where was Yasuke, and what was he doing during this whole time? "Shincho-ki" lists and praises more than 90 people who died in the Honnoji Incident, but the name Yasuke is not among them. However, according to a Jesuit letter, he was also one of those who fought in this  incident.

京都発カリヨン報告
Carrion's report about the honnoji incident

　これまで本能寺の変に関するイエズス会の記録として引用してきた書簡は、ルイス・フロイスが1582年11月5日（天正10年10月20日）にイエズス会総長へ宛てたものだ。この書簡には弥助の戦闘に関する唯一の記録が含まれている。

According to a Jesuit record, Yasuke was one of those who fought in the Honnoji Incident. it is the only record we know of Yasuke engaged in an actual battle, as well as the last record of him in history. Now let’s see the letter, which Luís Fróis wrote to the President of the Society of Jesuit on November 5, 1582.

Temiamos mais porque hum Cafre que o Padre Visitador deixou a Nobunânga polo desejar, depois de Nobunánga ser morto se foi a casa do principe, & ali esteve pelejando hum grande pedaço: hum criado de Aquechí se chegou a elle, & lhe pedio a cataná, que não tivesse medo elle lha entregou, & o outro foi perguntar a Aquechì, que faria do Cafre, respondeo: esse Cafre he bestial, que não sabe nada, nem he Iapão, não no matem, la o depositem na igreja dos Padres da India, polo qual nos começamos aquietar alguma cousa,

（『エヴォラ版日本書簡集』）
（cited via: “Cartas de Evora”）

信長の求めによって巡察師が彼の許に残していった黒人が信長の死後、世子の邸へ行き同所で長い間戦っていたので我らは少なからず心配していたが、明智の一家臣が彼に近づき、恐れずに刀を（棄てるよう）求めたところ、彼はこれを差し出した。別の家臣が明智の許に行き、黒人をいかにすべきか問うたところ、その黒人は動物であって何も知らず、また日本人でもないから彼を殺さず、インドの司祭たちの教会に置くように命じた。これによって我らは幾分落ち着き始めたが（後略）

（松田毅一監訳『十六・七世紀イエズス会日本報告集第Ⅲ期第6巻』P129）
（Japanese translation from: Kiichi Matsuda, 16 - 17 seiki Iezusu kai nihon houkokusyo dai 3 ki dai 6 kan, p. 129）

After the death of Nobunaga, the Cafre, whom Visitador had left to Nobunaga at his request, went to the residence of Nobunaga's heir and had been fighting there for a long time, which made us a more than little worried, but when a vassal of Akechi approached him and demanded him to hand over his sword without fear, the Cafre offered it to him. Another vassal went to Akechi and asked him what to do with the Cafre, and Akechi said 'the Cafre is an animal and don't know anything, and he is also not a Japanese, so don't kill him and send him to the church of Padre of Indies.' This made us calm down a little.

(My English translation)

　記述からわかることは信長の死後に弥助が信忠の元へ向かい、明智軍を相手に長時間戦ったが、ついには降伏したということである。彼は助命され京都の教会に送られた。この教会は本能寺から通りを二つ隔てた東に位置していた。

What is known from the description is that after Nobunaga's death, Yasuke went to Nobutada and fought against the Akechi army for a long time, but he surrendered. He was spared and sent to the Jesuit church in Kyoto, located two streets east of Honno-ji.

　尊経閣本には弥助が信長に近侍していたことを示唆する記述があることは先に述べたが、この報告もそれと符合している。『信長記』によれば信長はごく少数の小姓たちだけを伴って上洛しているので*65、弥助が彼らと行動を共にしていたと仮定しなければ弥助が本能寺の変で戦闘したことを説明するのは難しいのだ。もっとも、その場合本能寺での襲撃をどうやって生き延びたのかという難問も浮上する。

I mentioned earlier that the Sonkeikaku copy contains a description that suggest Yasuke served Nobunaga closely, and this report is consistent with that. Since Nobunaga came to Kyoto with only a small group of pages (御小姓衆)*66, if we do not assume Yasuke accompanied him, it would become difficult to explain why Yasuke fought in the Honnoji Incident at all.

　信長に近侍していたはずの弥助が、どうやって信長のいた本能寺から「世子の邸」に移動したのか、また弥助が戦っていた場所がどこなのかは定かでない。書簡の直前の部分で「世子の邸」という単語は信忠が寄宿していた妙覚寺を指す言葉として使われているため、文字通りに解釈すれば弥助は妙覚寺で戦っていたことになる。しかし信忠たちは妙覚寺から二条御所へ移動してそこで戦闘しており、弥助が一人だけで妙覚寺に残って戦ったとは考えにくい。

It is unknown how and why Yasuke, who we suppose was at the side of Nobunaga, could move to ”the residence of the heir.” It is also unknown exactly where Yasuke fought. In a part immediately before this part, the phrase ‘the residence of the heir’ appears referring to Myokakuji temple where Nobutada was boarding, which means if we interpret the phrasing literally, Yasuke fought at Myokakuji. However, actually Nobutada moved from Myokakuji to Nijo Imperial Palace and fought there. It is difficult for us to imagine Yasuke stayed and fought at Myokakuji all by himself.

　書簡の記述から呉座氏は次のような状況を想定している。弥助は信長の側にいたが、信長が自害すると本能寺を脱出して、信忠のもとに向かった。信忠を討つべく明智軍が攻め寄せると、弥助は信忠方として奮戦するが、信忠が自害したため、明智方に降伏した。なお「邸へ行き同所で」の原文は岡氏によれば「邸へ行きその辺りで」と翻訳することも可能であるとのことである。当時の妙覚寺と二条御所は通りを一本隔てた隣同士にあったことを踏まえれば、やはり弥助は御所で信忠らと共に戦ったのかもしれない。

Professor Goza speculates the situation, from this letter, like this: Yasuke was at the side of Nobunaga, but after the death of his lord somehow escaped from Honno-ji Temple, and went to join Nobutada. When the Akechi army closed in on him, Yasuke fought hard with Nobutada’s men, but when Nobunaga’s son died too, Yasuke surrendered. According to Professor Oka, the original sentence of 'fought there' could be translated as 'went to the residence of the heir and fought around there.' Myokakuji and Nijo Imperial Palace were located just one street away from each other at that time.

　助命されて教会に送られた弥助の消息は途絶えてしまう。彼のその後については何もわかっていない。史料では西日本にいくらか黒人が現れる例もある*67が、彼らと弥助を結びつけるものは何も見つかっていない。

After his life was spared and sent to the Jesuit church, Yasuke was never heard from again. We know nothing about his life after that. Several black people do appear in historical materials of western Japan in the near period, but nothing is found to connect them with Yasuke.*68

カリヨン報告の持つ文脈
The context of Carrion's report

　この報告を起草したのはイエズス会士フランシスコ・カリヨンである。彼は本能寺の変の間、京都にある教会にいた。書簡自体はフロイスのものだが、文中で私という一人称が使われていることから、フロイスはカリヨンの報告をそのまま書き写していると考えられる。教会は本能寺のすぐ近くにあるので、光秀の発言に登場する教会とはここのことだろう。間近から目撃しただけあり、本能寺の変に関するこの報告の記録は詳細で真に迫るものがある。この書簡の信頼性は比較的高いとみてよいだろう。

The one who drafted this report letter was Francisco Carrion, a Jesuit missionary who was in the church in Kyoto at the time of the incident. The letter itself was authored by Frois, but the use of the first person 'I' in the letter suggests that Frois copied Carrion's report as it was. The church was very close to Honno-ji temple, and "the church of Padre of Indies" mentioned in Mitsuhide's statement must have meant here. Having seen it closely himself, Carrion’s record of the Honnoji Incident is detailed and close to reality. I presume the credibility of this letter relatively high.

　信長は生前イエズス会の活動に寛容だったが、彼が死亡したことによってイエズス会が活動していた畿内は混乱に陥った。またイエズス会の見方では信長は日本の伝統的な宗教勢力と対立的だったのに対して*69、明智光秀は仏教との関わりが強いと見なされており、イエズス会は今後の日本での活動に不安を抱いていた。

Nobunaga generously allowed the activities of the Society of Jesus during his lifetime, but his demise caused confusion in Kinai region (the capital and its surrounding areas), where the Jesuits were active. On top of that, in constrast to Nobunaga who was loath of traditional religious forces in Japan, from the Jesuit point of view*70, Akechi Mitsuhide was apparently strongly involved in Buddhism, which made the Jesuits worried about their future activities in Japan.

　宣教師たちは明智軍が教会を掠奪することさえ危惧したが、実際には光秀は京都の治安維持に努め、教会も無事であった。弥助が生還したことを伝えるこの記述もそうした文脈の一部として理解できる。弥助が助命され教会に送り返されたことから、イエズス会は光秀が自分たちに害意を持っていないと判断して安心したのだろう。光秀が弥助を助命した理由は謎である。明智光秀は本能寺の変の後間もなく豊臣秀吉の軍勢に敗死してしまったため、謀反の動機は戦国時代最大の謎となっている。*71

The missionaries feared that Akechi army might seize or even plunder their church, but in fact Mitsuhide tried to maintain order in Kyoto, and the church remained unscathed. We can interprete the account of Yasuke's survival in this letter as a part of this context. On seeing the fact that Yasuke was spared, the Jesuits must have judged that Mitsuhide had no malice against them and felt relieved. However, the real reason why Mitsuhide spared Yasuke remains a mystery for us. As it turned out, Mitsuhide was defeated by the army of Toyotomi Hideyoshi shortly after the Honnoji Incident, and the whole reason why he rose in revolt itself remains the greatest mystery in the history of the Sengoku period.*72

　中国地方で毛利家と戦闘中だった秀吉は、変の報せを受けると主君の死を秘匿して毛利方とすぐさま講和した。彼は強行軍で京都に向かい、たった十日ほどで明智軍と接敵した。天正10年6月13日（1582年7月2日） 山崎の戦いである。未だ態勢の整わぬ光秀は一万六千の兵力で秀吉軍二万六千を迎え撃ったが、戦闘は一日のうちに秀吉軍の勝利に終わった。光秀は落ち武者狩りに遭ったと言われている。主君の仇を討ち取った秀吉は勢いに乗り、激しい権力闘争に勝利して織田家の実権を簒奪するに至った。

Toyotomi Hideyoshi was fighting against the Mori clan in the Chugoku region. When he was informed of the incident, he returned to Kyōto in forced march, and within mere ten days he engaged Mitsuhide's army. This was the Battle of Yamazaki which was held on July 2, 1582 (6th month 2, Tensho 10). Akechi Mitsuhide, who had 16,000 troops but was unable to prepare himself for Hideyoshi's swift action, fought Hideyoshi's army of 26,000. The battle ended in a victory for Hideyoshi's army within one day. The conventional story says Mitsuhide was attacked and killed by random armed locals during his retreat. Hideyoshi, who avenged his lord's death, gained momentum and emerged the victor of the following fierce power struggle, and eventually succeeded the whole power of the Oda clan.

後世の欧文史料
European documents in later period

　これまで見てきたイエズス会書簡はいずれも同時代史料だった。本章では後世に作成された欧文史料を見ていくことにしよう。初めに取り扱うのは17世紀フランスで刊行された日本におけるキリスト教布教史の記録の抜粋である。このなかには弥助を日本に連れてきたヴァリニャーノに関する記録があり、弥助と見られる黒人男性の出身地や来日以前の軌跡について記録されている。

The three Jesuit letters we have seen so far were contemporary historical materials. Now, let us take a look at European historical materials of later years. The first one I’ll show you is a passage from a 17th-century French book of the history of Christian missionary work in Japan. This book includes a record about Valignano, who brought Yasuke to Japan, as well as some clues for the homeplace of a black man we believe to be Yasuke and his life before he came to Japan.

フランソワ・ソリエー『日本教会史』
Book by François Solier 1627

　1627年にイエズス会士フランソワ・ソリエーが著した『日本教会史』には以下の記述がある。原文はインターネットで閲覧できる。

"The History of the Church in Japan," written by Francis Solier, a Jesuit, in 1627, have the following description. We can see the original text on the Internet.

Or auoit le Pere Alexandre mené auec ſoy des Indes vn valet More, auſli noir que ſont les Ethiopiens de la Guinee, mais natif du Mozambic, & de ceux qu'on nomme proprement Cafres, habitans vers le Cap de Bonne eſperace. 

(François Solier. Histoire ecclésiastique des isles et royaumes du Japon, 1627)

アレクサンドル司教はインドからムーア人を連れてきた。その男はギニアのエチオピア人のように黒い肌で、モザンビーク出身だった。その国は喜望峰の近くにある国で、カフレと呼ばれる人々が暮らしている。

（拙訳）

Padre Alexander brought a Moor from India. The man was dark-skinned, like the Ethiopians in Guinea, and he was from Mozambique, a country near the Cape of Good Hope inhabited by a people called Cafre.

(My English translation)

　ヴァリニャーノが弥助と思われる男性をインドから連れてきたこと、そしてこの黒人男性がモザンビーク出身であると書かれている。しかし一見すると、この記述におけるアフリカの地理認識はでたらめのようだ。エチオピアは東アフリカにあるのに対しギニアは正反対の西アフリカだし、モザンビークは喜望峰から離れている。

It says that Valignano brought a man from India who seems for us to be Yasuke, and that this black man was of Mozambican origin. At first glance, however, Solier’s geographical perception appears to be rather confused. Ethiopia is in East Africa, while Guinea is in the far west, and Mozambique is actually located far from the Cape of Good Hope.

　実際にはそれほどいい加減なわけでもない。岡氏によればギニアは北アフリカを除くアフリカ全般を指す言葉として用いられていた時期もあった。また現在のモザンビークの近くに当時存在したモノモタパ王国は喜望峰の近くまでを勢力圏に含んでいた。そしてヴァリニャーノが欧州から日本へ向かう途中に、ポルトガル植民地だったインドのゴアに立ち寄ったことはイエズス会史料によって裏付けられている。

But actually, this is not so entirely random. According to professor Oka, the word “Guinea” was, for a time, used to refer to all of Africa except North Africa, and the kingdom of Monomotapa, which existed near present-day Mozambique, extended its sphere of influence as far as the Cape of Good Hope. Also, the fact that Valignano stopped at Goa in India, which was a Portuguese colony, on his way from Europe to Japan is supported by Jesuit historical materials.

　もっともソリエーの用いた一次情報源が何なのかはわからないため、信頼性を評価するのは難しいと言わざるを得ない。なお同書には本能寺の変で弥助が戦ったことの記録は含まれていない。

At first (before revisions) I had evaluated Solier’s description as unreliable because of his warped perception of Africa, but I was incorrect. Solier’s statements are perhaps not so random, though his source of information is unclear. By the way, this book does not include any record of Yasuke's fight in the Honnoji Incident.

ジャン・クラセ『日本教会史』
Book by Jean Crasset 1689

　1689年には日本教会史の増補版が刊行された。同書にはヴァリニャーノを含む宣教師一行の日本への渡航経緯が詳細に記されている。同書の記述もまた、彼がリスボンからモザンビーク経由でゴアに立ち寄ったことを記録している。次に引用するのは増補版における弥助と見られる人物と信長との会合の場面である。原文は岡氏から提供していただいた。

In 1689, an enlarged edition of this book was published by Jean Crasset, a French Jesuit theologian. It contains the details of the trip to Japan of the missionary group including Valignano. It matches with the original edition in that he stopped in Goa, India, on the way from Lisbon via Mozambique. The following is a scene of the first meeting between a person who seems to be Yasuke and Nobunaga in this enlarged edition. Professor Oka provided me with the original text.

Aprés les Festes de Pasques, le Pere Valignan se transportara à Meaco pour y falüer Nobunanga & pour le remercier des faveurs continuelles qu’il répandoit sur les Chrétiens & sur les Peres qui preschoient dans son Royaume. Il avoit amené des Indes un valet More. Aussi-toft qu’il parut dans la Ville tout le monde courut pour le voir. Le Pere Organtin le presenta à Nobunanga, qui en sut surpris & ne pouvoit croire que cette couleur sût naturelle: Mais il se persuadoit qu’on l’avoit peint de la forte, ce qui obligea le More de se dépoüiller jusqu à la ceinture. Aprés l’avoir bien examine il en demeura convaincu. Il receut le Pere tres favorablement & luy assigna un jour pour entretenir le Pere Visiteur.

(Jean Crasset. Histoire de L’ Eglise du Japon, 1689)

復活祭の後、ヴァリニャーノ師は京都に行って信長に挨拶し、彼の領国で宣教する信徒と聖職者たちに与えてくれた絶え間ない引き立てに感謝した。彼（ヴァリニャーノ）はインドからムーア人（黒人）の召使いを連れていったが、彼が町に現れるとすぐに人々が彼を見ようと押し寄せた。オルガンティノ師が彼を信長に紹介したところ、信長は驚いて彼の（肌の）色が自然なものだとは信じられなかった。だが彼はその男がこのように（黒い墨で）塗られていると信じたので、ムーア人は腰から上の服を脱がなければならなかった。彼（黒人）をよく調べた後、彼（信長）は（黒人の肌の色が人工でないと）確信した。彼はとても好意的に宣教師らを受け入れ、次に巡察師と会見する日程を定めた。

（拙訳）

After the Easter celebrations, Padre Valignano went to Kyoto to pay respect to Nobunaga and to thank him for the constant favors he bestowed upon the Christians and its priests who preached in his kingdom. He (Valignano) had brought a Moor (black people) valet from India, but as soon as the man appeared in the city, everyone rushed to see him. Padre Organtino introduced him to Nobunaga, who was surprised and could not believe that his (skin) color was natural. In fact, he was so convinced that the man had been painted (with black ink) in this way, the Moor was compelled to undress from the waist up. After examining him closely, he (Nobunaga) was convinced (that the skin color was not artificial). He received the group of Padre very favorably and set a day for the next meeting with Visitador Padre.

(My English translation)

　内容は基本的に天正9年のイエズス会書簡とほぼ一致している。加えて、弥助と思しき黒人男性がインドから連れてこられたという記述はソリエー版と一致している。

Basically it matches the contents of the Jesuit letters of 9th Tensho I have cited earlier, but as to the point that Yasuke was brought from India it inherits the description from Solier’s edition.

　イエズス会が各地から本部へ送った報告書簡は整理され公開されていたため、欧州にいるイエズス会士でも容易に閲覧できた。クラセの記述がイエズス会書簡と概ね一致しているのは、彼がそれらに依拠してこの本を著したことを示唆している。にも関わらず、ソリエーの著作と同様にクラセの『日本教会史』もまた、本能寺の変での弥助の戦いについては記していない。

It was easy for the Jesuits to read the reports their members sent from various places to their headquarters because these reports were stored in a organized and accessible way. The general consistensy of Crasset's description with contemporary Jesuit historical materials suggests that he relied on such materials to write this book. Nevertheless, like Solie's book, Crase's "History of the Japanese Church" does not describe Yasuke's battle in the Honnoji Incident.

信長は弥助の肌を洗わせたのか？
Did Nobunaga make Yasuke’s skin washed?

　信長が弥助と初めて対面した際に、弥助の肌の色が本物だと信じられず皮膚を洗わせたという逸話は有名である。この逸話を裏付ける史料を岡氏に提供していただいたので、ここで紹介しようと思う。

Anyone who knows about Yasuke has heard of the anecdote that Nobunaga wouldn’t believe his skin color and made it wash before his own eyes. Professor Oka provided me with the text of a book, a historical material that supports this anecdote, which I will show you now.

Vay o Padre Visitador pera o Meaco e leva consigo o Padre Luis Froes e outros companheiros e chega ao Sacay, he recebido com muita festa. Chega o Padre Visitador a Meaco, e vay visitar a Nobunanga, elle fez honras extraordinarias, admirão-se muito os japonezes de tres cousas ninca vistas em Japao; a primeira da estatura do Padre Visitador que ainda entre os Europeus era de marca mayor, e de hum Cafre pequeno que o acompanhava e bom trabalho deo aos Padres pela muita gente que comcorria a ve-llo como era couza que não tinha visto, huns se admiravão do cabello trizado, outros dos narizes, e outras arengas, não se podia Nobunaga persuadir que as corres erão naturaes, mandou o despir da cinta para cima, e lavar com muita curiosidade, e quanto mais, e quanto mais o lavavão mais negrejava. A terceira novidade erão huns orgãos que forão de Goa que sendo este instrumento montado por Jubal Sexto neto de Adam, ainda não tinhão os Japões dado neste invento.

『キリスト教に関する導入書、すなわち日本宣教の始まりとその上長たちについての書　1549年8月15日から1744年8月31日まで』アジュダ図書館所蔵史料
Biblioteca da Ajuda, Lisboa. Jesuítas na Ásia 49-IV-55. Livro Primeiro da Christandade, digo do principio da Missão do Japão e Superiores della, começando em quinze de agosto de mil quinhentos e quarenta e nove, annos 1549 athe o trinta e hum de agosto de mil settecentos e quarenta e quatro 1744 annos.

巡察師パードレ（ヴァリニャーノ）は、ルイス・フロイス神父や他の仲間を連れて都へ向かい、堺に到着すると、盛大に歓迎された。巡察師パードレは都に到着し、信長を訪問した。信長は彼に特別な敬意を示し、日本人たちは日本では見られたことのない3つの事柄に非常に驚いた。第一に、巡察師パードレの身長がヨーロッパ人の中でも非常に大きいこと、さらに彼に同行していた取るに足らないカフル人に対してであった。一度も見られたことのないものであったので、彼を見ようと多くの人が押し寄せたため、司祭たちはかなり苦労をした。ある者はその縮れた髪に、また他の者はその鼻や他の様々な特徴に驚嘆した。信長は、その肌の色が自然のものであるとは納得せず、ベルトから上を裸にして、念入りに洗わせた。しかし、洗えば洗うほど肌はますます黒くなった。第三の初物は、ゴアから齎された数台のオルガンであった。これらの楽器はアダムの6代目の孫ユバルによって組み立てられた（発明された）もので、日本人はまだこれらの楽器のことを知らされていなかった。

（岡美穂子氏の訳を元に筆者が文体を調整した）

Visitador Padre (Valignano) took Father Luis Frois and other companions to the capital (Kyoto), and when they reached Sakai, they were enthusiastically welcomed. On arriving the capital, Visitador Padre paid a visit to Nobunaga, who showed him special respect, and the Japanese were very surprised by three things that had never been seen in Japan. Firstly, by the height of Visitador Padre, which was very tall even among the Europeans, and secondly, by the insignificant Cafre who accompanied him. Cafre was something that had never been seen, and so many people rushed to see him that the priests had quite a hard time. Some marveled at his curly hair, others at his nose and various other features. Nobunaga, not convinced that his skin color was natural, stripped him naked above his belt and commanded to wash him scrupulously. But the more they washed, the darker and darker his skin became. The third new thing was the several organs from Goa, which had been invented by Adam's sixth grandson Yuval, and of which the Japanese had not yet know.

(My English translation)

　信長が弥助の肌を洗わせたことに加えて、髪質など弥助の外見的特徴も記述されており。事実であれば興味深い。しかし、この史料の信頼性を評価するのは難しい。というのも著者が誰なのかわからないからだ。本史料は主にヴァリニャーノの事績について書かれたものだが、書簡中にフロイスが登場することから、岡氏は誰かがフロイスの書簡を参照し著したものなのではないかと推測している。*73

This text not only tells us the fact that Nobunaga made Yasuke's skin washed, but also describes Yasuke's other external features. I’d say it is a very valuable historical source. This book describes mainly about Valignano's achievements, but we currently do not know who was the author of this historical document. Since Frois appears in this letter, Professor Oka suspects that it was someone who had read Frois’s letters.*74

　ちなみに複数の文献が本史料の著者をアントニオ・フランシスコ・カルディンに比定しているがこれは間違いである。本史料が収録されている文書集には五つの文書が収録されており、カルディンは二つ目の文書の著者ではあるが本文書とは関係がない。カルディンは1645年頃にイエズス会日本管区の管区長に就任した人物だが、この時期の日本はキリスト教布教に極めて敵対的で、密入国は確実な死を意味した*75。そこで彼は日本に入国する代わりにマカオで日本に関する情報を集め、多くの歴史書を著したのであるが、その中に弥助と関係するものは今のところ発見されていない。

I’ve noticed that several documents incorrectly identified the author of this material as Antonio Francisco Cardin. This book, a collection of documents including this historical material, is composed of five documents, and Cardin is the author of only the second document, but not of the others. Cardin assumed the position of Prefect of the Japanese Territory of the Society of Jesus around 1645, but at that time Japan were extremely hostile to the propagation of Christianity, and smuggling onself into the country meant certain death.*76 Instead of entering the Japanese territory, he gathered information about Japan in Macau and wrote many history books, but none of which seems to related to Yasuke so far as I know.

弥助の事績は省略されていた
Yasuke's ommition in later ages

　ところでこの弥助が肌を洗わせられたという文書だが、同文書は1938年に出版されたルイス・フロイス『日本史』第二部（Segunda parte da Historia de Japam : que trata das couzas, que socedarão nesta V. Provincia da Hera de 1578 por diante, começãdo pela Conversão del Rey de Bungo (1578-1582)）にも収録されている。この文書の著者はフロイスではないようだが、ここで『日本史』についても軽く触れておきたい。フロイス『日本史』は彼が1594年までに執筆した編年体の歴史書で、日本史における重要史料の一つだ。またフロイスはこれまで見てきたように自身の書簡の中で弥助に触れているし、そもそも彼はヴァリニャーノを長とする使節団に同行していたのだから、フロイスと弥助の間に面識があったことは間違いない。

By the way, this same document, which says Yasuke was forced to wash his skin, is also included in the second part of Luis Frois's “History of Japan” (Segunda parte da Historia de Japam : que trata das couzas, que socedarão nesta V. Provincia da Hera de 1578 por diante, começãdo pela Conversão del Rey de Bungo 1578-1582),  a book published in 1938. Frois does not seem to be the author of this document, but I would like to briefly explain about this book. Frois’s "History of Japan" is a chronological history completed before 1594 and is one of the most important historical materials in Japanese history. As we have seen already in this article, Frois mentioned Yasuke in his letters, and since he was a member of the missionary headed by Valignano in the first place, there is little doubt that Frois was personally aquainted with Yasuke.

　それにも関わらず弥助はフロイス『日本史』には一切登場しない。また二つの「日本教会史」は部分的に弥助と見られる黒人に触れているものの、本能寺の変における弥助の戦闘はやはり記録していない。このように欧文史料の場合においても『家忠日記』の事例と同様、二次文献が作成される際に弥助の事績は省略されるのが常だったのだ。

In spite of that, Yasuke does not appear at all in Frois's "History of Japan." And although both versions of "The History of the Church in Japan," Solier’s and Crasset’s, mentions Yasuke, they do not record Yasuke's battle in the Honnoji Incident. In the case of Sollier it is understandable, since his focus was obviously not on the “Moor,”  but Crasset also omits Yasuke's action, even though he clearly relies on Jesuit letters. Thus, not only in Japanese documents, but also in European historical sources, Yasuke's action was always omitted when secondary literature was created.

関係史料その他
Other materials and considerations

　ここでは弥助は登場しないものの、彼と関係がある史料を紹介する。またここまで論じてこなかったものの、史料を解釈するために補足的な解説を行う。

So far, I have dealt, as a rule, only with historical materials in which Yasuke directly appears, but in this section I’d like to make exception and introduce some historical materials which are related to Yasuke but he does not directly appear. I’ll also provide supplementary explanations you might need when interpriting historical documents but I haven’t discussed so far.

1574年ヴァリニャーノ書簡
Valignano's letter of 1574

　以下に引用するのは1574年8月7日付モザンビーク発のヴァリニャーノの自筆書簡の一部である。イタリア語で書かれている。岡氏は本史料から弥助はモザンビーク出身だと推測している。

Professor Oka provided me with a historical material, in which Yasuke does not directly appear but we can use to infer his background. Based on this material, Professor Oka surmises that Yasuke came from Mozambique. The following is a part of Valignano's own Italian handwriting letter from Mozambique dated August 7, 1574.

Gli schiavi poi che erano stati dall’ istesso governatore donati per servitio de Padre
ancora all’istesso ho restituiti et gl’altri, che gl’erano stati dati per elemosina, o, gli
menaro me co che sono tre, o, un paro d’essi gl’inviato à donare alla casa di San
Rocco in Lisboa, p.che se gl’há molto bene meritati con la molta spesa, che con la
nostra dimora ha fatta

（Archivum Romanum Societatis Iesu, Jap Sin 7 III, fl. 225v. ローマイエズス会文書館所蔵史料）

その〔モザンビークの〕司令官から寄付された奴隷たちは、パードレ達に奉仕するために与えられたものであった。そのうち幾らかはすでに他人に譲渡し、その他の者たちは喜捨として〔他者に〕与えられた。私は三人だけを自分の元に残し、うち二人をリスボンのサンロケ修道院に喜捨として送った。というのもその修道院では多大な出費が必要で、彼らはそれに使われるに相応しいからである。

（岡美穂子訳）

The slaves, donated by the commander of the (Mozambican) fortress, had been given to serve Padres. Some of them had already been transferred to others, and the rest was given [to others] as alms (alms = charity, donation). I left only three to myself, and had sent two of them as alms to San Roque abbey in Lisbon, where great expense was needed, and they were fit to be used for it.

(My English translation)

　この手元に残った一人の元奴隷が後の弥助である証拠は一切存在しないものの、岡氏は彼が弥助と同一人物なのではないかと推測している。当時のアフリカの黒人奴隷の供給源は主に黒人国家同士の戦争から生じた戦争捕虜だったことから、彼らも元は捕虜だった可能性が高い。

Although we have no evidence that this remaining former slave was Yasuke, Professor Oka guesses that they were one and the same person. Since the sources of black slaves in Africa at that time were mainly prisoners of war resulting from wars between black states, it is highly likely that the ones the commander donated were also former prisoners of war.

イエズス会は奴隷制度に反対していた？
Did the Jesuits oppose slavery?

　イエズス会は公的には奴隷制に反対していたことがよく知られているが、この書簡ではヴァリニャーノが奴隷を使役しているようにも見える。というのも「譲渡」や「喜捨」といった言葉が使用されているからだ。だが実際のところ法的には彼らのこの時点での身分は”元”奴隷である可能性が高い。

Although it is a well known fact that the Jesuits ostensibly opposed slavery, apparently in this letter Valignano allocates and employs slaves as he pleases. However, I’d like to note that, though this letter certainly uses words such as “transfer” and “alms,” it is highly likely that their legal status was “former” slave.

　欧州の奴隷法において、債務奴隷が奴隷である根拠は所有者に対して負っている負債である。この負債は債権として、奴隷を所有し使役する権利と一体化している。従って奴隷がその身分を維持して次の所有者へ渡る際は、必ず債権の移動を伴う。だが要塞司令官は奴隷たちをヴァリニャーノに無償でプレゼントしている。このため、奴隷たちの債権は要塞司令官によって担保され消滅したのではないかと岡氏は考えている。この場合、奴隷たちはヴァリニャーノに負債を負っていないため、もはや奴隷ではないことになる。

In European slave law, the foundation of a debt slave was that they owed a debt to the owner. This debt was an obligation which was integrated with the right of the owner to own and use the slave. Therefore, if and when the slave maintained their status as a slave while passed over to the next owner, it involved the transfer of the obligation, too. However, the fortress commander gave the slaves to Valignano without compensation. Thus, Professor Oka believes that the obligation of the slaves were secured and extinguished by the commander. In this case, the slaves were no longer slaves because they did not owe a debt to Valignano.

　ただしこの奴隷たちがそもそも債務奴隷ではなく、従って奴隷身分を維持させるかどうかをヴァリニャーノが自由に選択できた可能性もある。その場合は奴隷たちを自由にすると宣言して教会で証文を作成することで、後から奴隷たちの身分を変更できた。イエズス会が表向きは奴隷制度に反対していたことを考えると、いずれにせよ彼らが非奴隷身分で使役された可能性は高いだろう。岡氏は彼らの身分をmoçoと呼ばれる、明確な奴隷契約を伴わない給金付きの下僕だったと考えている。なおイエズス会の従者がキリスト教徒でないことはありえないため、彼らは洗礼名を持つ改宗者に違いない。そのことから来日時の弥助も、身分はともかくキリスト教徒ではあったはずだ。

It seems possible, however, that these slaves were not debt slaves, and in that case Valignano would have been free to choose to keep them as a slave ot not. He could have changed their status by declaring that they were free and writing a document in a church. Either way, given that the Jesuits’ official stance was against slavery, it is likely that they were employed in a non-slave status. Professor Oka speculates their status to be “moço,” which meant paid servants without a explicit slave contract. And, since it was impossible Jesuit servants were not Christians, they must have been converts with Christian names. That makes, technically, Yasuke at the time of his arrival in Japan a Christian, too.

　イエズス会は公的には奴隷制度に反対していた。それにも関わらず実際には黒人たちを商品同然に扱っていた。本史料はそのことを如実に記録しており、注目に値する。

It is worth noting that despite the Jesuits ostensibly opposed to slavery, in reality they transferred black people as if they were commodities. That fact is well documented in this historical source.

弥助マネー考察
How much money were those?

　ところで、上記のヴァリニャーノ書簡を読んでフロイス書簡の「黒人を見世物にすれば大金を稼げる」という一文を思い出さなかっただろうか。これもまた当時のイエズス会が黒人を商品同然に考えていたことを示す傍証なのだが、それはそれとして、あの8,000から10,000クルザードというのはいくらくらいなのか、気にならないだろうか？　また弥助は信長の甥から銭一万を受け取っている。これもどのくらいの価値なのか？　結論から言ってしまうと、イエズス会士が噂した8,000から10,000クルサードは米15トンから20トンに相当する大金で、実際に弥助が貰った銭一万は米3トンに相当する。

By the way, when you read the above Valignano's letter, didn't you remember the line in the Frois’s letter, "if you made a spectacle of a Cafre in order to make money, you would very easily earn at least 8,000 to 10,000 cruzados"? This is also a supporting evidence of how the Jesuits at that time viewed black people. But, by the way, don't you wonder how much was 8,000 to 10,000 cruzado worth? Also, according to the same Frois’s letter, Yasuke received ten thousand sen from Nobunaga's nephew. How much was this worth? To cut to the chase, the 8,000 to 10,000 cruzado the Jesuits dreamed of was a large sum of money worth 15 to 20 tons of rice, and 10,000 sen Yasuke actually got was worth 3 tons of rice.

　何故急に米が出てきたのかと困惑した読者のために説明すると、この時代の日本は石高制といって、米を本位貨幣とする通貨制度を使用していた。言い換えると、武士の経済力の単位は米の量だった。石高とはある土地の一年間の標準的な米の収穫量を意味する。一石は約180リットルの容積を意味し、それは米の場合は約150キロの重さとなって、これは成人が一年間に消費する米の量とおおまかに等しいとされていた。例えばある武士が百石の所領を持っているなら、その土地の経済的価値はだいたい一年間で15トンの米の収穫に相当すると考えられる。これに税率をかけたものが領主たる武士の年収になるわけだ。

The reader may be puzzled, why did I suddenly mention rice? It is because, in Japan at that time, namely from the end of the Middle Ages to the Early Modern period, the economic power of a warrior was measured with a system known as the “kokudaka” system. Kokudaka (koku = a volume unit of rice, daka = amount) meant the standard annual rice yield of a certain land. One koku meant a volume of about 180 liters, and if weighed in rice about 150 kilograms, which was roughly the amount of rice consumed by an adult per year. For example, if a warrior owned an fief of 100 koku, the economic value of the land would be equivalent to a harvest of 15 tons of rice per year, which, multiplied by the tax rate, would become the warrior's annual income.

　ところで当時の織田家は領地を急拡大したことから領国内の経済制度を統一できておらず、石高制と別に貫高制という仕組みも併用されていた。土地の収穫量を基準とする点では石高制と同じだが、石高制が税として米をそのまま物納するのに対して、貫高制は収穫を換金して貨幣で納税する点が異なる。単位として銭千枚を意味する貫文という単位を使用した。貫文と石の為替比率は時期と地域によってかなり変動が激しいが、貨幣史家である川戸貴史氏によればこの時期の織田領内ではだいたい一貫文が二石に相当したという。弥助はこの書簡で銭一万を受け取っていて、これは十貫文すなわち二十石なので、米3トン分というわけだ。

By the way, since the Oda clan was rapidly expanding its territories at that time, they also used a system called the “kandaka” (kan = a unit of money, daka = amount) system in addition to the kokudaka system. Both systems were the same in that they made culculation based on the amount of land harvests, but the difference was that in the kokudaka system people paid tax with rice itself, whereas in the kandaka system people paid with money worth the culculated rice. The monetary unit was “kanmon,” which meant a thousand coins. The exchange rate between a kanmon and a koku varied considerably depending on the time period and region, but according to monetary historian Takashi Kawato, a kanmon was roughly equivalent to two koku in the Oda clan fiefs during this period. Yasuke received 10,000 coins in this letter, which was 10 kanmon, and that equaled 20 koku, 3 tons of rice.

　クルサードはポルトガルの金銀貨の単位で、1クルサードは銀35gに当たる。イエズス会日本支部の報告書簡は日本における金銭のやり取りをすべてクルサードに換算して表記している。クルサードと日本の貨幣の為替レートについては、取り上げた書簡の引用部のすぐ後に30,000クルザードは200貫文に、50,000クルザードは300貫文に相当するという記述があるので、この為替比率に従って「8,000から10,000クルザード」を換算するとだいたい米15トンから20トンになる。これはちょっとした武士の年収に相当する大金だ。

Cruzado was the Portuguese unit of gold and silver coinage, and one cruzado equaled 35 grams of silver. Jesuits report letters from Japanese branch converted all monetary exchanges in Japan into cruzado. In fact, the letter I cited earlier explains, immediately after this part, the exchange rates as 30,000 cruzado equals 200 kanmon, and 50,000 cruzado equals 300 kanmon. According to these exchange rates, 8,000 to 10,000 cruzado would be roughly equivalent to 15 to 20 tons of rice. A fortune, worth the annual income of a decent warrior.

　石高制と貫高制はどちらも知行制、すなわち土地の租税収納権（とそれに付随する支配公権）によって俸禄を与える仕組みだ。武士は自らの所領を領主として経営して収入を得る。そして所領を封与されたことへの対価として、所領の規模に応じた重さの軍役を主君から課せられるのだ。*77

Both systems, the kokudaka system and the kandaka system, were the foundation of the feoffment (知行 chigyo) system, the practice in which warrior lords paid a salary to his vassels through bestowing them the right to govern a fief. The vassels, in other words warrior households, earned their income through managing this fief as a lord themselves, and in return, the warrior lords imposed on them military services according to the size of their fiefs.

*78 The warrior lords used, in addition to the feoffment system, the system of stipend (扶持 fuchi), too. Yasuke’s was such a case, meaning that Nobunaga paid Yasuke a stipend directly and it did not involve control of land.

　武士は本来領主である。それゆえ一人前の武士とは知行取りであるとの観念は近世以降も根強く残った。しかし大名の家臣団が量的に急拡大した戦国時代以降は、知行とは異なる俸禄の方法も広く行われるようになった*79。近世における武士の俸禄としては、知行の他に切米・扶持・給金の三つが主に挙げられる。切米（蔵米とも称する）とは、本来は主君の親族や分家、新参の家臣に対して一年に数回米を支給するものであった。これは後には知行に一段劣るもののそれに準じる格式として定着している。扶持は切米同様に米を現物支給するものだが日割り単位、一日につき玄米五合を基準として支給する点が異なる。元来は奉公人らに与えられるものであったようだが、比較的下級の武士らにも幅広く給付されるようになった。最後に格式でもっとも劣るのが給金で、これは奉公人らに給付された。

Bushi (武士 warrior) were originally land owners. Therefore, there was a deep-rooted notion that a full-fledged bushi was enfiefed. However, after the Sengoku period, when the number of feudal lord's retainers increased rapidly, the method of salary, which was different from feoffment, became widely used, and rather, feoffment became only a small part (about 10%) of all warriors. In addition to feoffment, there were mainly three types of salary for warriors in the early-modern times: storehouse rice (切米 kirimai), stipend (扶持 fuchi), and wage (給金 kyukin). Storehouse rice was a form of salary similar to, but inferior to, feoffment, in which rice in kind was provided several times a year to the relatives of the lord, branch families, and new vassals. The stipend was different in that rice was provided in kind as in the case of storehouse rice, but on a per-diem basis, with a standard of five go (about 750g) of brown rice per day. Originally, it seemed to be given to servants, but it was also given to a wide range of retainers. Finally, the most inferior form of salary was wage, which was given only to servants by money.

　武家の階層と俸禄の形態はおおまかに連動しており、最上位層が知行取りであり、多くの中下級武士が切米と扶持を支給され、武士に満たない奉公人層は扶持と給金を受け取っていた。したがってこの基準から考えれば扶持を受け取っていた弥助は、少なくとも最上位層の武士ではなかったということになるだろう。もっとも彼の扶持の具体的な量は不明であり、扶持が幅広い層の家臣に対して支給されていたことを考えると、この点から弥助の身分を考察することには限界があるだろう。しかもこの俸禄の仕組みの分類法は近世のものであり、信長の時代にどの程度適用しうるかは、なんともいえないところだ。

The hierarchy of warriors and the form of salary were roughly linked, and the highest class was feoffment, and many warriors were provided with storehouse rice and stipend, and the servant class, which was less than warriors, received stipend and wage. Therefore, according to this standard, Yasuke, who received a stipend, would not have been at least the highest class of warriors. However, the specific amount of his stipend was unknown, and considering that stipend was provided to a very wide range of vassals, there would be a limit to considering the status of Yasuke from this point. Moreover, this classification method of the structure of salary was from the early-modern times, and it is not clear to what extent it can be applied to the vassals of Oda in the Sengoku period.

『信長記』天正6年相撲大会
Sumo Tournament in "Shinchi-ki"

　ここまでいくつかの史料において弥助の織田家における身分について度々触れてきた。ここでは『信長記』のなかから、弥助は登場しないものの彼の立場を考える上で参考になる箇所をピックアップしてみたい。原文は我自刊我本である。同本は牛一自筆本の建勲神社本を祖とする写本系統に連なり、読み下しをつけたものが出版され幅広く流通した。現代日本語訳も同本を底本としているものが多い。

I have already discussed a number of times Yasuke's position in the Oda clan using several materials. Here, I would like to highlight some parts of "Shincho-ki" useful for considering his position, although Yasuke does not appear in them. The text I’ll show you now is from a reprint copy of the “Gajikanga copy.” This copy belongs to the line derived from the “Kenkun-Jinja autograph copy,” one of the autograph copies of Gyuichi, and one of the widely circulated versions of Shincho-ki. Many of modern Japanese translations of Shincho-ki, too, have used it as their original.

　信長が大変な相撲好きであった。『信長記』にはそのことを示す相撲大会の記録がいくつかある。とりわけその規模が大きかったことで知られているのが天正6年8月15日の大会だ。以下にその部分を抜粋しよう。

It is a well known fact that Nobunaga loved sumo so much, and “Shincho-ki” frequently records sumo tournaments. Especially famous one for its large scale is the tournament held on 16th June 1578 (“6th of Tensho, 8th month, 15th.”) The following is an excerpt from the tournament.

八月十五日　江州國中京都︀の相撲取を初として千五百人安土へ被召寄　御山にて辰刻より酉刻迄とらせて御覽候（中略）

度々能相撲仕候に付て被召出人數之事

東馬二郞　たいとう　づかう　妙仁　ひし屋　助五郞　水原孫太郞　大塜新八　あら鹿　山田與兵衞　圓淨寺源七　村田吉五　麻生三五　靑地孫治　以上十四人 

右御相撲取被召出何れものし付之太刀脇差衆御服かみ下御領中百石宛私宅等まて被仰付都︀鄙之面目忝次第也 

我自刊我書『信長公記』ウィキソース

　八月十五日、信長公は、近江・京都をはじめとして、千五百人の相撲取りを安土へお召しになって、お城で午前八時ごろから午後六時ごろまで相撲を取らせてご覧になった。（中略）

　たびたびよい相撲をとったとして召し出された人びと、東馬二郎・大藤・づこう・妙仁・ひし屋・助五郎・水原孫太郎・大塚新八・荒鹿・山田与兵衛・円浄寺源七・村田吉五・麻生三五・青地孫次の十四人であった。

　右の相撲取りを召し出されて、いずれものし付きの太刀・脇差・御服のかみしもを賜り、ご領中にそれぞれ百石ずつとそれに私宅まで下され、名誉この上なくかたじけない次第であった。

（榊山潤『現代語訳　信長公記（全）』P281）

Eighth Month, 15th day: Nobunaga summoned fifteen hundred sumo wrestlers, beginning with men from all over Ōmi Province and Kyoto, to Mount Azuchi, where he watched them compete from the Hour of the Dragon [around 8 a.m.] until the Hour of the Bird [around 6 p.m.]. [...]

The following were summoned before Nobunaga on account of their repeatedly demonstrated excellence:

Tōma Jirō, Taitō, Zukō Myōnin, Hishiya, Sukegorō, Mizuhara Magotarō, Ōtsuka Shinpachi, Arashika, Yamada Yohyōe, Enjōji Genshichi, Murata Kitsugo, Sasō Sango, and Aoji Magoji. Fourteen men in all.

Having called these wrestlers before him, Nobunaga ordered each of them to be given a sword and a dagger with gold-encrusted sheaths, a full set of clothing, an income of one hundred koku from Nobunaga's demesne, and even a private residence. This redounded to their fame in town and country, and they were full of gratitude.

(The Chronicle of Lord Nobunaga, Brill Academic Pub, 2011, 291P)

　信長は畿内中から相撲取りを集め、なんと1,500人もの力士が文字通りぶつかり合う巨大相撲大会を開催した。そして優秀な成績を収めた14人の力士が召し出されて、彼らは太刀と脇差、衣服、百石の所領、そして私宅を与えられたという。そう、この力士たちは侍として取り立てられたのだ。またこのなかには名字を持たない者も含まれていることから、当時は侍に取り立てられる上で必ずしも名字を必要としなかった事実がうかがえる。

This description tells us that Nobunaga gathered sumo wrestlers from oll over the Kinai region (Kyoto and its surroundings) and held a grand sumo tournament in which as many as 1,500 wrestlers literally clashed with each other. He took 14 wrestlers who achieved excellent performance as his retainers and gave them a pair of swords, a suite of clothes, a fief, and a private residence. Yes, they were treated as samurai. Above all, it says they were "summoned” to an audience. Also, many of them do not have a surname, so you can see that a surname is not essential for being promoted to a retainer.

　弥助が扶持、装飾刀、私邸を与えられたとする尊経閣本の独自記事と、上記の相撲取りたちの処遇がよく似ていることは一目瞭然だ。彼らは刀が大小二本であり、扶持ではなく所領を受け取るなど、弥助よりも高待遇であるようにも見える。ただし弥助は信長から名前を貰っており、ときどき信長の道具持ちをしたという記述がある点は違っている。

The similarity is obvious. Yasuke received a stipend, a decorated sword, and a residence according to the extra passage in Sonkeikaku copy. The sumo wrestlers in the above description received quite similar things. More exactly, the latter seem to be treated better than Yasuke because they were given a pair of swords, one large and the other small, and a fief instead of stipend. However, Yasuke was different with the wrestlers in two points, that he was given a name by Nobunaga and was described as sometimes seen in the role of Nobunaga's weapon bearer.

　では彼ら力士も他の武士たちと同じように、侍や奉公人を引き連れて戦場で戦ったのだろうか。実のところ、そういうわけでもないようだ。呉座氏が新聞取材において、弥助の侍身分について問われた際に以下のように述べている。

Did these wrestlers fight in the battlefield, with an entourage of their own servants like genuine warriors (bushi)? That is not the case. Professor Goza said, when asked about Yasuke's samurai status in a newspaper interview, as follows.

「また、侍だったとしても『形の上では』ということもあります。例えば江戸時代、相撲好きの大名にはお抱えの力士がいた。形式的には家臣、侍として召し抱えて帯刀を許可していましたが、たとえ戦（いくさ）が起きたとしても、お抱え力士が戦場で戦うようなことはもちろん、想定されていませんでした」

（弥助問題「本人は芸人のような立場」「日本人の不満は当然」　歴史学者・呉座氏に聞く（上）産経新聞電子版令和6年8月5日付記事）

"Moreover, even if Yasuke was recognized as a samurai, it could have been largely symbolic. For example, during the Edo period, some daimyo [feudal lords] who were sumo enthusiasts employed wrestlers as "personal retainers." These wrestlers were nominally considered retainers and were permitted to carry swords like samurai. However, they were not expected to actually fight in battles."

("INTERVIEW | Yasuke and Assassin's Creed Shadows: A Japanese Historian's Perspective" JAPAN forward. August 22, 2024.)

　「お抱え」とは一定の年限を定めて武家に召し抱えられる特殊な家臣を指す語である。有名な例は上記にもあるような力士と、士分格で大名に仕える御典医だ。この他にも能役者が大名から扶持を与えられていた例、職人を徒士身分で家臣にしていた例などがあり、特定分野の専門家を藩が雇用する際にこの形態を用いる場合が多い。この身分に就くにあたって武士階級出身者であることは必要とされないが、多くの場合において家臣としての地位は一代限りで世襲はできなかった。そして形式上は武士として処遇されていても、戦争の際に生まれついての武士たちと一緒に戦ったりはしないのだ。

Personal retainers (お抱え okakae) is a term used to refer to a special kind of retainers employed by a feudal lord under a contract of a certain period of time. Famous examples are sumo wrestlers, as I mentioned above, and doctors who personally served feudal lords. They were treated as having “the status of warrior” (士分 shibun). Other than that, there were examples of Noh actors who were given a stipend by feudal lords, and skillful craftsmen who served with the status of “foot warriors” (徒士 kachi). They were treated as samurai in a symbolic sense, but they did not fight shoulder-to-shoulder with real, natural-born warriors in war. The status of personal retainer was usually limited to one generation, which was different from that of ordinary warriors who could inherit the status of vassal in their families.

　するとここで名前の挙がった14人の力士たちもやはり形式上の侍で、家臣として仕えた実態はなかったのだろうか。そうとも限らないらしい。引用部には出てこないが、信長が取り立てた相撲大会出身者のうち、目立った出世を遂げた者に青地与右衛門と伴正林がいる。青地は信長が最初に開催した相撲大会で家臣に取り立てられ、以降は相撲大会を所管する相撲奉行という役職に就いた。彼はこの天正6年の大会でも奉行を務めている。また伴正林は翌年の大会で七人抜きをやってのけた剛の者だが、彼と村田吉五郎はその後厩番に出世している。この二人は本能寺の変で信長と共に戦い『信長記』の戦死者名簿に名を連ねている。*80またたいとうとひし屋の二人は天正9年2月28日（1581年4月1日）に信長が京都で行った観兵式、京都御馬揃えにおいて、信長の長刀持ちを勤めたと『信長記』にある。

We might wonder if the 14 wrestlers mentioned here were also samurai merely as formality, without actually serving as retainers. But, it seems that was not always the case. Although it is not described in the part I have quoted, among the ones whom Nobunaga recruited as retainers from sumo tournaments, two wrestlers, Aochi Yoemon and Tomo Shorin, got remarkable promotions afterwards. Aochi was promoted to a vassal in the first sumo tournament held by Nobunaga, and since then he held the post called “sumo commissioner,” which oversees sumo tournaments, and he served as the directors in the tournament in Tensho 6, too. Tomo Shorin, who pulled off the feat of defeating 7 wrestlers in a row in the tournament following year, and Murata Kichigoro were promoted to stablemen (厩番 umayaban) after that. These two fought together with Nobunaga in the Honnoji Incident and are on the list of the war dead in Shincho-ki.*81 According to Shincho-ki, Taito and Hishiya served as Nobunaga's polearm bearers at the big military parade Nobunaga held in Kyoto.

　一方で相撲大会以外にはまったく名の現れない者もおり、彼らは形式上のお抱え家臣だったようだ。そう思ってみれば「あら鹿」などは名前というよりリングネームみたいに見えるから、彼は一種のセミプロだったのかもしれない。要するに、引用した部分だけを見ても個々の相撲取りが内実を伴うれっきとした家臣なのか、それとも形式上だけの侍なのか、いまいちよくわからないのである。なお歴史家の谷口克広氏は目立って出世した青地、村田、伴の三人がもとからの武士身分であったことを指摘し、そうでない相撲取り出身者の出世には一定の限界があったことを指摘している。

On the other hand, some sumo wrestlers appear only in sumo tournaments, and they seem to have been retainers just as formality. Come to think of it, for me the name "Arashika (the wild deer)" sounds more like a ring name than a real name, so he might have been a kind of semi-pro wrestler. In short, how hard we look at the quoted part, we cannot decide clearly whether each of the sumo wrestlers was a real retainer or a nominal retainer. Historian Katsuhiro Taniguchi points out that the remarkably promoted three wrestlers, namely, Aochi, Murata, and Ban, were born in warrior families, and that there was a certain limit of promotion for former sumo wrestlers who were not born in warrior families.

　弥助も本当の武士というより、形式上の侍だったに過ぎないのかもしれない。そもそもの話、形式上の身分と家臣としての勤務実態は別の問題なのだ。ただし弥助が信長に近侍していたことを伺わせる史料がいくつかあることを考えると、家臣としての実態がまったくなかったとは思えない。弥助の織田家での立場を考えるためには『信長記』だけではなく複数の史料を総合して考える必要があるだろう。

I suspect, in summary, that Yasuke might have been more of a nominal warrior (bushi) than a real warrior. In the first place, the questions of his formal status and of his actual roles as a retainer are separate stories. However, when we consider the fact that multiple historical materials suggest that Yasuke served at the side of Nobunaga, it is unlikely that he did not actually work as a retainer at all. In order to think about Yasuke's position in the Oda clan, we have to consider not only "Shincho-ki" but also other historical materials comprehensively.

史料からわかること
What can we say about him?

　本章ではこれまでの総括として、取り上げてきた史料から伺える情報を整理していきたい。まず初めに注意を促したいのは、弥助に関係する史料は大変限られているため、考察にあたって制限を逃れ得ないということである。もっとも、複数の史料が彼の存在に触れている（信長記とイエズス会史料における弥助と信長の対面の日付は一致）ことから、少なくとも弥助という黒人男性が戦国時代の日本に実在したことは疑いようがない。

To round up our examination so far, in this section I’d like to summarize the information we can glean from all of the historical documents. First of all, we have to note that there are very few historical documents directly related to Yasuke, which means any discussion about him is accordingly under severe limitations. His true character and life remain shrouded in mystery. However, multiple historical documents do mention his existence (the dates of Yasuke’s meeting with Nobunaga match between Shincho-Ki and Jesuit documents), so there is no doubt that at least a black man named Yasuke existed in Sengoku-period Japan.

　彼はイエズス会士ヴァリニャーノがインドのゴアから連れてきたモザンビーク人であり（日本教会史）信長から弥助という名を授かった（尊経閣本）イエズス会史料は彼をカフレと呼称しており、このことから彼はアフリカ系黒人である可能性が高い。『信長記』に記された年齢がおおむね正しいとすれば、1550年代生まれである。

He was a Mozambican brought from Goa, India by the Jesuit Valignano (History of the Church of Japan), and his name was Yasuke (the Sonkeikaku copy and Ietada diary). Jesuit documents call him a Cafre, which makes it likely that he was racially a black African. If his age recorded in "Shincho-ki" is approximately correct, he was born in the 1550s.

　弥助の人となりについて特に強調されているのは、やはりその肌の黒さである。日本人はそれまで黒人を見たことがなく（複数史料）信長を初め多くの人々が彼を一目見ようと押し寄せた（天正9年イエズス会書簡）身長はおそらく平均的な日本人よりは高く（家忠日記）髪は縮れていたらしい（アジュダ図書館文書）

What these documents particularly emphasize about Yasuke's character is, predictably, his dark skin. The Japanese had never seen a black man before (Sincho-Ki and other documents), and many people flocked to see him (Frois’s letter). He was probably taller than average Japanese (Ietada Nikki), and his hair was curly (Ajuda library document)

　また牛一は弥助の印象的な外見と合わせて力の強さを記録している（信長記とメシヤ書簡で符合）彼は中程度に日本語を話すことが出来、信長は弥助に何らかの資質を見出して彼を気に入って（メシヤ書簡）家臣に取り立てた（家忠日記と尊経閣本で符合）そのように信長が彼を厚遇したことは京都の人々の間で噂になった（メシヤ書簡）弥助は信長の話し相手になり（メシヤ書簡）信長に近侍していた可能性がある（尊経閣本とカリオン報告）

Gyuichi recorded Yasuke's strength, as well as his impressive appearance (Sincho-Ki and Mexia's letter). He was able to speak Japanese moderately well, and Nobunaga found some favorable qualities in him (Mexia's letter) and made him a retainer (Ietada Nikki and the Sonkeikau copy). Nobunaga treated him so well that  people in kyoto rumored about it  (Mexia's letter). Yasuke is said to have served as a conversation companion to Nobunaga, and it is possible that he served Nobunaga in close distance.

　ただしこれらは全て他者の目線からの記録である。弥助本人が著した文書などは一切発見されていないため、彼の実際の人間性について我々が知ることは出来ない。

However, these are all records from the perspective of others. Since no documents written by Yasuke himself have been discovered, we have no way of knowing his actual personality.

弥助は伝説の戦士だった　か？
Yasuke was a legendary warrior?

　弥助は戦国大名信長の家臣であった。本能寺の変で織田家が危機に陥った際、弥助は刀を持って戦闘に加わっている（カリヨン報告）少なくとも本能寺の変における彼は決して臆病者ではなかった。しかしながら一方で、彼がもし侍だったのであれば、助命されて主君の死後も生き残ったことは恥ずべき事態だと考えることもできるかもしれない。*82

Yasuke was a retainer of Nobunaga, who was a warrior himself. In the crisis of the Oda clan  when the Honnoji temple was attacked, Yasuke joined the battle with his sword (Carrion’s report). At least in the Honnoji Incident, he was not a coward. On the other hand, however, some people argue that if he was a samurai, it was a shameful fact that he was spared and survived the death of his lord.*83

　カリヨン報告を除くと弥助の戦闘に関する記録は一切存在しない。武田征伐に同行したことは確か（家忠日記）なのだが、戦闘の記録はない。他の戦役、例えば第二次天正伊賀の乱などに彼が従軍したかどうかはまったくわからない。この点で重要なのは弥助は信長に近侍していた可能性があることだ。信長はしばしば陣頭指揮を執って戦ったが、弥助が仕えた晩年の頃には最前線に姿を見せなくなっていたから。だからもし弥助が彼に近侍していたなら、戦闘に加わる機会はなかったはずだ。

Except the Carrion’s report, we have no record of Yasuke's combat. It is true that he accompanied the campaign that destroyed the Takeda clan (Ietada Diary), but we do not find his name in any of the documents related to its battles per se. Also, though Nobunaga often took command himself in the battlefield, we know that by the time Yasuke served him, he no longer appeared on the front lines. Yasuke served Nobunaga for only a little over one year. When we surmise from the above facts, it is quite possible that Yasuke did not participate in any battle other than the Honnoji Incident.

　またしばしば形式上の侍として家臣に取り立てられる人々が居たことを考えれば、そもそも弥助は戦闘員資格者だったのかどうかという疑問も生じる。例外的な状況においては非戦闘員資格者の武家奉公人が戦闘に加わる場合もあったからだ。しかしもし弥助が戦闘員ではなく、単なるお抱え身分だったのだとすれば、本能寺の変で彼が「信長の死後、世子の邸へ行き同所で長い間戦っていた」ことをどう解釈すればよいのだろうか。

In addition, considering the fact that there were people who were retained as a samurai just in the symbolical meaning, we even could question if he ever actually served Nobunaga. However, since he actually accompanied Nobunaga in the campaign against the Takeda clan (Ietada diary), we cannot deny he did have a status as a retainer. On top of that, if Yasuke was a samurai in name only, how should we interpret the description that he “went to the heir's residence after Nobunaga's death and fought there for a long time” in the Honnoji Incident?

弥助の身分は侍だったのか
Was Yasuke a samurai?

　尊経閣本の記述が真実であれば彼は明らかに「侍」として処遇されている。主君から刀と私邸を受け取ったことは彼が相応の身分にあったことを如実に示している。しかし同本には信頼性の疑義があり、その評価は未だ確定していない。そこで一旦尊経閣本の記述を棚上げし、まずは他の史料を見てみよう。

If we take the description in the Sonkeikaku copy as true, Yasuke was clearly treated as a “samurai.” The fact that he received a sword and a private residence from his lord indicates more than enough that his status was above that of a ordinaly household servant. However, I have to say that doubts still remains about the reliability of this copy, and its true value is yet to be determined. Now, let us shelve the Sonkeikaku copy for a whole and look at other historical documents first.

　力の強さが記録されたこと、そして本能寺の変で戦ったことを考えると弥助が一種の戦闘員資格者であった可能性はある。もしそうなら彼は少なくとも下級の武家奉公人ではなかったと考えられる。というのも下級の武家奉公人には戦闘員資格が無いからだ。また信長は弥助と会いたがり対面したという（フロイス書簡）この事実から弥助は御目見以上であったと考えられる。前近代日本において貴人と正式に会見できることは身分制度上重大な意味を持っていた。

When we consider the recorded strength of his strength and the fact that he fought in the Honnoji Incident, it is plausible that Yasuke was a kind of a combatant. Which implies that he was at least not one of ordinary household servants, who did not qualified as combatants and would not actively participate in battle except under emergency. In addition, Nobunaga was eager to meet Yasuke, and they met face to face (Frois’s letter). This fact makes it highly likely that Yasuke was of “audience with one’s lord” (御目見得 omemie) status. In pre-modern Japan, the right to formally meet with nobility was extremely important in the class system.

　では弥助は織田家の重要人物だったのかというと、そうとは言えない。弥助は扶持を受け取っており（家忠日記と尊経閣本で符合）、知行を受けた形跡は無い。つまり土地所有者ではない。彼は武将ではなく（メシヤ書簡）名字を持っていない。なにより膨大な数が残っている織田家の関連文書に弥助の記録がまったく見られないという明白な事実がある。

However, I would not say that Yasuke was a very important figure in the Oda clan. What Yasuke received was a stipend (Ietada Nikki and the Sonkeikaku copy), and there is no evidence he received any land. In other words, he was not a landowner. Also, he didn’t have a surname, which was not strictly necessary if he was a lower-ranking warrior (bushi), but certainly suggests he was not a higher-ranking warrior. Neither he was a warrior lord (武将 busho) (Mexia’s letter).  Above all, we have the plain fact that we cannot find his name in the Oda clan-related documents, which have survived until today in vast amount.

　以上のことから、彼はおそらく下級の武家奉公人ではなかったが、上級武士未満ではあったと考えられる。もし尊経閣本が真であるならば、これらの推論は決定的な根拠を獲得することになる。その場合彼が「サムライ」なのかどうかは、「侍」をどう定義するかに拠るのではないか。しかしこの点はもはや弥助関連史料の域を超えるので、付録で取り扱うこととしたい。もっとも彼の身分が侍だったとしても、実際に家臣として何をしていたのかは別問題だ。

From the above factors, we can infer that he was probably not a mere household servant, but less than a high-ranking warrior. If we approve the veracity of the Sonkeikaku copy, that would decisively endorses this inference. In that case, whether or not he was a “samurai” would simply depend on what definition of samurai you choose. However, this point exceeds the scope of this article, the examination of direct documentations on Yasuke. So I’ll pass over this subject to Appendix. But, apart from he was a samurai or not, I’d like to discuss what his actual roles was as a retainer of the Oda clan, as the last point of this section.

弥助の仕事は何だったのか？
What was Yasuke's role?

　彼が形式上一定の地位にいたことは確かだが、織田家中で実際に果たしていた役割についてはよく分からない。ただ彼は武田征伐からの帰路と本能寺の変直前の信長上洛に随行しており、尊経閣本には「ときどき道具持ちをしていた」ともあるので、信長に近侍していたことはうかがえる。そのことから、彼の地位を比定する上での最有力候補は信長の近習たちだ。

It is true that he had a certain position, at least formally, but it is not clear what roles he played in the Oda clan on a daily basis. However, he accompanied Nobunaga on his way home from the Battle of Takeda, and also on his trip to Kyoto just before the Honnoji Incident. The Sonkeikaku copy, too, says “he was sometimes seen in the role of Lord Nobunaga's weapon bearer.” So we have to say he certainly seems to have served Nobunaga closely. Then, it is also plausible that he have spent his days mingled with Nobunaga's adjutants (近習 kinju).

　近習とは当時の用語で主君に側仕えし、身の回りの世話や秘書的業務に携わる者をいう。代表的な近習は小姓であり、彼らは主君の世話をすることが本来の役割だ。戦時にはボディガードも務め、事実本能寺では信長の小姓たちは討死している。この他にも馬廻や吏僚が信長の側で勤務していれば、それも近習に含まれる。加えて同朋衆といって、僧籍にある下級家臣も信長の近習に含まれるが、弥助は明らかに仏僧ではないからこれは取り上げなくてよいだろう。

Adjutant (近習 kinju) was a general term used at that time to refer to people who served at his lord’s side and was engaged in personal care and secretarial work. Among adjutant, the most typical position was page (kosho), and their essential duty was to take care of and do choirs for their lord. Pages also served as bodyguard during the war, and in fact, they died in the battle at Honno-ji Temple. Horse guards and bureaucrats too, if they worked at Nobunaga's side, were called adjutants. Other than that, priests who had a position as a lower-ranking retainer, called Doboshu (同朋衆), was also a part of Nobunaga's adjutants, but since Yasuke was clearly not a Buddhist priest, it is irrelevant here.

　谷口氏によればこれら信長配下の近習の仕事は以下の七つに分けられるという。まず最も基本的な仕事は来客を信長に取り次ぐ「奏者」だ。次に信長の朱印状に前後の文脈や詳細を補足する書状を書き添える「副状の発給」これは送り先によって担当が決まっている場合が多い。敵味方への「使者」も重要で、これは敵地へ派遣されれば命の保証はない危険な任務である。次に信長のいない戦場で武将たちの戦いぶりを監察する「検使」この立場は基本的に戦闘には加わらない。そして使者と並んで外交的業務と言えるのが来客や使者をもてなす「接待役」だ。その他に種々の行政的業務を担う「奉行」と、最後は信長の身の回りの雑用をこなす「世話係」以上の七つが挙げられる。谷口氏は挙げていないが、戦場での「身辺警護」を加えて八つとしてもよいのではないかと筆者は思う。

According to historian Taniguchi, the duties of adjutants under Nobunaga's command can be divided into the following seven categories. First, the most basic job was the intermediation to relay visitors to Nobunaga. Second, “issuance of a supplementary letter,” which meant to supplement Nobunaga’s orders and notifications with the surrounding context and details. In many cases, the assignment of this duty was determined by each of the destination of the orders. Third, the role of envoy to the enemy and his allies was also important, and there was no guarantee of life if dispatched to the enemy territory. Fourth, the field inspector, who watches over the fighting of warrior lords in the battlefield when Nobunaga was not present. This position basically did not involve taking a part in the battle. Fifth, receiving and entertaining visitors and messengers, a similar role with the messenger in that it was a diplomatic duty. Sixth, there were various administrative duties. And seventh, Nobunaga's personal caretaker. Taniguchi did not mention it, but I think it would be good to add the duty of bodyguard in the battlefield to make an eighth.

　こうしてみると、武家の家臣といっても戦うことばかりが仕事ではないことがよくわかる。これらの役割のうち行政的・外交的業務を、中程度の日本語力しかない弥助がこなすのは難しそうだ。すると世話係と身辺警護が残り、この二つは小姓の仕事ということになる。ただし小姓は普通若い武士の仕事で、弥助は少し年嵩だ。また小姓とて行政外交業務を出来ないというのも問題ではないか。そう考えると、小姓も弥助にいまいち合致しないように思える。

When we look at it this way, you will see that even if you are a vassal of a warrior clan, your job is not all about fighting. Of these roles, Yasuke wouldn’t be suitable to handle administrative or diplomatic duties, considering his medium ability of Japanese tongue. That leaves the roles of personal caretaker and bodyguard, and these two were the work of pages. However, pages were usually the role of young sons of warriors, and Yasuke was a little older than that. And even if one was a page, that entailed to be able to handle administrative and diplomatic duties. A page did not quite match Yasuke.

　弥助が侍だったという見方に抵抗を持つ意見は根強いが、現実問題として彼が実際に信長の元で担っていた役割には謎が多い。にも関わらず、史料からは彼が一定の地位を持つ家臣として処遇されていたことがうかがえる。結局のところ外国人である彼は一種の特別待遇家臣なのであって、日本の武家社会の仕組みに単純に当てはめようとしても、うまく行かないということなのかもしれない。例えばマルムーク出身でナポレオンに護衛として仕えたルスタム・レザを、フランス大陸軍の階級でいったら士官か下士官なのか論じても、うまく行かないのと同じことなのではないだろうか。

Some people firmly resist to the view that Yasuke was a samurai, but as a matter of reality, many mysteries remains about the roles he actually played under Nobunaga. Nevertheless, historical materials show that he was treated as a retainer with a certain rank. After all, I presume that he was, as a person of foreign origin, a kind of special appointment, and our attempt to simply try to shove him into somewhere in the structure of the Japanese warrior households might not work. If I may make a rough analogy, it would be rather pointless to argue whether Roustam Raza, who was from Mamluk and served as a bodyguard and valet for Napoleon I, was a commissioned officer or a non-commissioned officer in the French Grande Armée.

歴史学者たちの意見
Opinions of historians

　管見の限り、確かな経歴と実績を持ち、弥助について意見を発信している歴史学者を筆者は四名知っている。それは岡美穂子氏、平山優氏、呉座優一氏、金子拓氏の四名だ。本記事では彼らの考察をたびたび参照してきた。彼ら歴史学者たちは弥助のことをどう評価しているのだろうか。

To the best of my knowledge, there are four academic historians with solid backgrounds and accomplishments who have shared their opinions on Yasuke: Mihoko Oka, Yu Hirayama, Yuichi Goza, and Hiraku Kaneko. I have already quoted their arguments a number of times in this article. What do they think of Yasuke?

金子拓氏の意見
Opinion of Hiraku Kaneko

　金子拓氏は弥助に関連する史料を参照し、彼の立場について「本当に侍という立場だったかどうかは、ここ（各史料）に書かれていることからははっきりは言えない」と述べ、史料の少なさから来る著しい制約のために明言できないという立場を示した。

Professor Hiraku Kaneko said about Yasuke's position, referring mainly to Shincho-ki and Ietada Nikki, that “I can't say for sure whether he was really in the position of samurai from what is written here (in those historical materials).” That makes Professor Kaneko’s position a non-committal one. that is, due to the conspicuously scarce amount of historical materials, a definite statement is impossible..

　ただし金子氏は尊経閣本の信頼性を全体的に高く評価しており、弥助がときどき信長の道具持ちを務めることがあったという記述から弥助の織田家での職務を小姓に比定している他、私邸を受け取ったという記述から「それなりの侍といっていい立場という”推測”もできる」と述べている。侍の定義については金子氏は戦国時代における侍と武士を基本的には同じものと考えている。

That being said, it is also true that Professor Kaneko highly evaluate the general reliability of the Sonkeikaku copy, and from the description that Yasuke sometimes served as a weapon-bearer for Nobunaga, he surmise Yasuke's duty in the Oda clan as a page (小姓 kosho), and from the description that he received a private residence, he said, “you could 'guess' that he was in the position of a decent samurai.” As for the definition of samurai, Professor Kaneko basically regards samurai and warrior (武士 bushi) in the Sengoku period as the same thing.

平山優氏の意見
Opinion of Yu Hirayama

　平山優氏は史料に基づけば弥助は信長に仕える「侍」身分であると断定した。その最重要の根拠は尊経閣本の独自記事と弥助が信長に御目見した事実である。また平山氏は尊経閣本の記述が家忠日記に依拠した創作であるという考えは否定している。

Professor Yu Hirayama has asserted that historical records indicate Yasuke was a “samurai” in the service of Nobunaga. The most important evidence is the extra passage of the Sonkeikaku copy and the fact that Yasuke had an audience with Nobunaga. Professor Hirayama also rejects the idea that the description in the Sonkeikaku copy was a fabrication made based on Ietada Nikki.

　平山氏は弥助の身分を論ずるにあたって「侍」を「武家に武芸をもって仕える従者の総称」という定義で使用しており、逆に弥助が「武士」であったとは考えていない。平山氏は本項で触れる四名のなかでは弥助の身分を比較的低く見積もっているようだ。

However, I am aware that professor Hirayama uses “samurai” as the general term that refers to retainers who serve warrior households with combatant status, and that he did not call Yasuke a warrior (武士 bushi). Professor Hirayama seems to have estimated Yasuke's status as relatively low among the four historians I mentioned in this section.

呉座勇一氏の意見
Opinion of Yuichi Goza

　呉座氏は尊経閣本の記述が真であれば弥助は明らかに武士（侍）として処遇されていると指摘している。この点で呉座氏と平山氏の考えはほぼ一致している。

Professor Goza points out that if the description in the Sonkeikaku copy is true, Yasuke was clearly treated as a warrior (武士 bushi) or samurai. In this respect, Professor Goza and Professor Hirayama are basically in agreement.

　呉座氏はしかしながら、弥助が武士（侍）として取り立てられたと明確に記す史料は尊経閣本のみであることに注意を促している。呉座氏は尊経閣本の独自記事には重要な内容が含まれていると指摘し、弥助に関する独自記事が重要でないため他の『信長記』写本から削除されたという説に慎重な姿勢を示している。

Professor Goza, however, cations that the only historical document that clearly indicate that Yasuke was retained as a warrior (武士 bushi) or samurai is the Sonkeikaku copy. He points out that the Sonkeiaku copy's extra passages contain important information, and cautious about the theory that the passage on Yasuke were deleted from other copies of “Shincho-Ki” because of its insignificance.

　呉座氏は弥助の身分を論じるにあたって、外国人である彼を日本の身分制度に当てはめようとすること自体に懐疑的である。ただし呉座氏は弥助が信長のボディガード的役割を担っており、弥助が信長の死後に信忠の元にへ駆けつけて戦ったという考えには一定の信憑性があるとも評している。またこの他に呉座氏が注目するのが信長が弥助と「話して飽くことがな」かった（メシヤ書簡）ことである。

On discussing the status of Yasuke, Professor Goza is skeptical about the very idea of trying to impose the Japanese status system on Yasuke. However, Professor Goza also gives a certain credit to the belief that Yasuke played the role of Nobunaga's bodyguard, rushed to Nobutada's side after Nobunaga's death, and fought with him. Other than that, Professor Goza highlights the description that Nobunaga “spoke with him insatiably” (Mexia’s letter), too.

　以上から呉座氏は弥助の家臣としての役割を「ボディガードと御伽衆を合わせたようなもの」と結論付けた。御伽衆とは主に知識人や文化人から構成され主君を会話で楽しませることを業務とする特殊な家臣である。彼らは大名の家臣でありつつも、武家社会の秩序からは一歩外れた存在だった。*84このように呉座氏は弥助の地位は一種の特別待遇であり、彼の武士（侍）身分は外形的なものだったと考えている。なお彼の地位が一種の特別待遇だったという見方については平山氏と次に述べる岡氏も同様の意見を発信している。

Based on the above points, Professor Goza concludes that Yasuke's role as a retainer was “like a combination of bodyguard and otogisyu.” This “otogishu” refers to a group of intellectuals and cultural figures who entertained their lord with conversation, and they were one step aside from the class system of warrior household society.*85 In this way, Professor Goza believes that the position of Yasuke was a kind of special appointment, and that his samurai status was something of formality. This view of Professor Goza, that Yasuke's position was a kind of special treatment, is in common with Professor Hirayama, and Professor Oka, whom I will discuss next, too, have expressed a similar opinion.

岡美穂子氏の意見
Opinion of Mihoko Oka

　岡氏は戦国時代の「侍」身分は曖昧なもので明確な定義付けは出来ないと指摘しており、弥助の身分については詳述していない。ただし史料において彼がしばしばポジティブな評価を受けていることから「選りすぐりの人」だったと考えている。本章でまだ触れていない点としては「器量健やか」（信長記）や弥助が乗馬するよう促された（フロイス書簡）などが挙げられるだろう。逆に彼が明確に貶められている記述は光秀の「獣」発言（カリヨン報告）だけなのだ。*86

Although Professor Oka does not elaborate on Yasuke's status in details, she believes that he was a “selected man” because of his often positive reputations in the historical records. Some of the points that I have not mentioned yet in this section include his “looked robust and had a good demeanor” (Shincho-ki) and the fact that Yasuke was urged to ride horse (Frois’s letter). Conversely, the only description in which he is clearly undermined is Mitsuhide's “beast” remark (Carrion’s report).*87

　そもそもイエズス会宣教師の従者というのは基本的に選りすぐりの人材である。彼らは少人数で完全な異国を行動し、かつ当時のヨーロッパ人には優れた従者を引き連れることで自身を権威付ける文化もあった。イエズス会の重要人物であり貴族出身者でもあるヴァリニャーノが弥助のもとの主人であったことを考えれば、彼が信長の目に止まるような優れた資質を持っていたと想像することは不自然ではない。

To begin with, the valets of the Jesuit missionaries were carefully selected ones. Jesuit missions traveled and took actions in completely foreign countries, and Europeans at that time had a culture of showing off prestige by bringing along impressive entourage. Considering that Yasuke was a former valet of Valignano, it is not unnatural to imagine that Yasuke had some superior qualities that would have caught Nobunaga's attention.

付録「侍」の定義について
Appendix: Definition of "Samurai"

　大手ゲーム会社であるUBIソフトから発売される新作ゲームソフト『アサシンクリードシャドウズ』の主役として弥助が抜擢されたことを受けて、2024年のインターネットでは弥助に関する議論が紛糾している。その焦点は彼が「サムライ」身分だったのか、そうでないのかという点であるようだ。だが、そもそも「侍」とは何なのだろうか。弥助が「サムライ」に含まれるか含まれないかは、どんな「侍」の定義を採用するかによって判断が分かれるだろう。ここでは付録として「侍」という概念の定義について考察していきたい。

Ever since the announcement of featuring Yasuke as (one of) the main characters of “Assassin's Creed: Shadows,” a new video game by a major game company Ubisoft, controversy about Yasuke never ceases on the Internet in 2024. The main focus of it seems to be whether or not he was a “samurai.” But what exactly was a samurai in the first place? Whether Yasuke had or had not a “samurai” status would depend on what definition of “samurai” you adopts.

　侍という言葉の語源は貴人に仕えることを意味する「さぶらう」という動詞が転訛したものである。中世初期における彼ら「侍」は貴族に仕える家来であり、貴族身分に満たない存在だった。やがて後には「侍」は武家に仕える者の総称となり、近世に至ると侍と武士は同義語となった。江戸時代の学者である小山田与清が19世紀前期から中頃にかけて記した随筆集『松屋筆記』にはこう記されている。

The word “samurai” is a corruption of the verb saburau, which meant “to serve” nibilities. In the early Medieval period, samurai were retainers who served nobility but were below the rank of nobility themselves. Later, this word became a generic term for retainers who served a warrior household, and in the Early Modern period, the terms “samurai” and “bushi (武士 warrior)” became almost synonymous. (The period Yasuke served Nobunaga was the end of the Middle period, or beggining of the Early Modern period, depending on how you look it.) We know of an explanation by Oyamada Tomokiyo, a scholar in the Edo period. It is in his “Matsuya-writing,” a series of essays written from the early to mid-19th century.

「武家を侍（サフラヒ）といふ事、侍はもと近侍の臣をいふ事なるに後世は武家を皆さむらひといへり」

『松屋筆記』（第95巻・頁169）
Matsuya Hikki vol. 95, 169P

「武家を侍というのは、侍はもともと主君に近侍する家臣をいったのが後の時代は武家をみな侍というようになった」

（拙訳）

The reason we came to call a warrior "samurai" is that, the word "samurai" originally referred to a retainer who attended nobility, but in later years, all warriors came to be called "samurai".

(My English translation)

　武士とは中近世日本を実質的に支配していた世襲の職能戦士たちを意味する言葉で、彼らを総称して武家という。武芸に秀でていたことや、血縁と封建制度を基軸にした共同体を組織していたことから、西洋の騎士や帯剣貴族と似た存在としても知られている。

The term “bushi (武士)” meant hereditary professional warriors, who effectively ruled Medieval to Early Modern Japan, and people called them collectively as “buke (武家),” a warrior households. They were known to be similar to knights or banded aristocrats in the West, in that they excelled in military arts and they organized communities based on blood and feudal system.

　戦国時代は伝統的な身分制度が流動化した時期だったため侍と武士の境界線は明確ではなかった。そこで伝統的に日本史学界には戦国時代における両者をほぼ同じものと考える傾向があった。これを①侍≒武士説と呼ぼう。

The Sengoku period was an era where the traditional class system became fluid, and the boundary between samurai and bushi was accodingly not clear. That‘s way Japanese historians tended, traditionally, to consider the two during the Sengoku period were one and the same. Let us call this the theory of (1) "Samurai ≒ warrior."

　一方で、侍とは本来身分秩序の上層と結びついた言葉であったことから「武士階級のうち特に上位層のみを侍と呼ぶ」という定義も盛んに流布している。この場合、侍は知行取りであること、あるいは乗馬本分者であることなどよって、より下級の武士と峻別されることになる。このとき侍は武士の一部なので、これを②侍⊆武士説と呼ぼう。

On the other hand, another definition, currently rather popular one, hold this view: since the word samurai was originally associated with the upper classes of social order, only the upper echelon of warriors (bushi) were samurai. If we adopt this view, we would distinguish samurai from lower-ranking bushi by the privileges such as bearing a surname, waring two swords at his side, and so on. In this definition, samurai are only a part of bushi. So let's call it the theory of “(2) samurai ⊆ bushi.”

　この二つの説はどちらも幅広く普及している。例えば自動翻訳で「武士」と入力すると"samurai"と出力される。では弥助が信長に仕えた時代にはどちらが正しい定義だったのだろうか？　現在の日本史学界はどちらの定義を採用しているのだろうか。答えはどちらももはや定説ではない、である。歴史学者の高木昭作氏が1980年代に行った研究によれば「侍」とはそもそも武士ではなく「若党」のことなのだ。

Both of these two theories are widespread. For example, if you type in “武士 bushi” into machine translation, it will outputs “samurai.” Now, which one is correct? Which definition do our contemporary academic Japanese historians adopt? The answer is neither. As academic theories both stand no more. Shosaku Takagi, a historian, conducted a study in the 1980s and concluded that “samurai” meant, legally, “wakato.”

幕府法令の中の侍
Samurai in shogunate's acts

　高木氏の研究によれば、法令用語としての「侍」は戦闘員資格を有する上位の武家奉公人である「若党」の同義語である。武家奉公人とは個々の武士に仕える従者であり、彼ら自身は武士ではない。奉公人の役割は武士のための下働きであり、戦時には主君の荷物を運ぶことが主な役割だった。*88

According to Takagi's research, as a legal word “samurai” was synonymus with the word “wakato” (若党; waka = young, to = party; hereinafter I will translate it as “esquire,” for it is the best analogy in the West). Wakato refered to high-ranking “buke-houkou-nin” (武家奉公人 warrior’s household servant; buke = warrior household, houkou = serve, nin = person) who qualified as combatants. Generally, household servants served a particular bushi, their lord, but were without a bushi (warrior) status themselves. Their daily job was to do chores for their lord, and in wartime, their main role was just to carry luggeges and weapons for their lord, the warrior.*89

　若党が武士に仕える奉公人であることは以下の史料から伺える。昭和17年に刊行された加賀・能登二国の歴史・地理辞典である『加能郷土辞彙』を見てみよう。

The fact that esquire (若党 wakato) were servants of warriors be seen from the following historical materials. Let's take a look at "Kano Kyodo Ji-i," a history and geography dictionary of Kaga and Noto Provinces published in 17th of Showa (1942).

　ワカトウ　若黨　諸士に使役せられる陪臣で（中略）若黨は士格であるから、足輕よりも上列と見られてゐた。

『加能郷土辞彙』（金沢市図書館所蔵）
Kano Kyodo Ji-i (in the collection of Libraries of Kanazawa City）

Wakato. They were vavasors who were employed by warriors. (ommited) Since Wakato have status of warriors, they were regarded as superior to infantrymen (足軽 ashigaru).

(My English translation)

　若党は「諸士に使役」されるとあり、彼らが武家奉公人の一種であることがわかる。そしてこれを裏付ける別の史料として元和9年（1623年）徳川秀忠上洛の際の行軍法度の記述を見てみよう。

It is described that wakato were' employed by warriors, which shows that they were a kind of household servant. As another historical material to support this, let's look at the description of the notification about the marching when Tokugawa Hidetada went to Kyoto in 1623 (9th of Genna).

一馬上の際に召列かちものゝ事、馬取二人・沓持壱人・草履取壱人・持鑓壱本、此外若党を可召連事、

『東武実録　巻九』国立公文書館デジタルアーカイブ（該当部分は28/84に記載）
Tobu Jitsuroku vol.9 (In the collection of National Archives of Japan. The relevant part is given in 28/84.)

「一つ、騎乗して行進する際に引き連れる徒歩の従者については、馬丁二人、くつ持ち一人、草履持ち一人、槍持ち一人（一本）、この他に若党を召し連れてもよい」

（拙訳）

As for the entourage on foot who are to accompany a mounted troop on the march, you may bring along two horsemen, one shoe-bearer, one sandal-bearer, and one spear-bearer (one spear). Other than that, you may bring along a wakato.

(My English translation)

　ここでは武士が行進する際の従者の人数が規定されており、若党は武家奉公人と並んで言及されている。そして若党だけが持つ荷物を指定されておらず、「連れてもよい」という書き方からすると連れてこなくても構わないらしい。このことから高木氏は、若党は他の武家奉公人とは異なり主人の荷物や武器を運搬する必要がなかったと指摘している。これに加能郷土辞彙の「足軽より上列」という記述を合わせて考えれば、若党が他の武家奉公人よりも上位の存在であることがわかるだろう。ではこの若党が「侍」の同義語であると何故わかるのだろうか。以下に引用するのは高木氏の論考において取り上げられている徳川幕府の法令である。

In this document, the number of attendants accompanying a warrior during a procession is stipulated, and wakato are mentioned alongside other household servants. Notably, only wakato are not assigned any specific luggage to carry, and the wording “may be brought along” implies that their presence was optional. Based on this, Professor Takagi points out that wakato, unlike other servants, were not required to carry their lord’s belongings or weapons. When we also consider the description from the Kano Kyodo Ji-i that wakato ranked above infantrymen (ashigaru), it becomes clear that wakato held a higher status than other household servants. Then, how do we know that wakato was synonymous with “samurai”? The following is a citation from a Tokugawa shogunate law that Professor Takagi discusses in his study.

◯慶長十五年（一六一〇）四月二日「定」（『大日本史料』一二―七、一三九頁）
　（原文）
一、侍之輩者不及沙汰、中間・小者に至迄、一季者を一切置へからさる事、
　附、奉公望之者、一季と相定出すものハ可為曲事事、
（中略）（現代語訳）
一、侍の者たちは言うにおよばず、中間・小者にいたるまで、一季者を一切置くべきではない。
　付則：奉公したいと望む者は、一季のみの契約とするのは違反であり処罰する。

◯元和二（一六一六）年一〇月日「定」（『大日本史料』一二―二五、七〇二頁）　
　（原文）
一、武士の面々、若党之儀不及申、中間・小者に至迄一季居一切拘置へからさる事、
（中略）（現代語訳）
一、武士たちは、若党のことは言うにおよばず、中間・小者にいたるまで、一季者を一切抱え置くべきではない。

（平井上総『兵農分離はあったのか』P98）

The act of “15th of Keicho, 4th month, 2nd”
That, you are not allowed to employ any seasonal servant, including, not to mention samurai, but mid-servants and menials as well.
　Supplementary provision: If you seek to serve anyone, it is illegal, and will be punished, to do so with signing a contract for a single season only.
(source: ”Dai nihon siryo” 12-7, 139P)

The act of “2nd of Genna, 10th month”
That, warriors should not keep any seasonal employees, including, not to mention wakato, but also mid-servants or menials.
(source: ”Dai nihon siryo” 12-25, 702P)

(My English translation)

　この二つの条文は文面がほぼ同一であり、侍と若党を言い換えているに過ぎない。このことから侍と若党が同義語であることがわかる。これらの条文はいずれも一季居禁令として知られるものの一部で、同様の文面の法令が大量に残っている。*90

These two legal clauses are nearly identical in wording and merely substitute the term “samurai” for “wakato,” indicating that the two terms were used synonymously. Both clauses are part of what are known as ikkiori kinrei (seasonal servant prohibition edicts), and many similar edicts with nearly the same wording have survived. *91

　また一季居禁令以外で侍と若党が同義語であることがわかる史料として、次に掲げるものでは同一の法令内で侍が若党と言い替えられている。
In addition to the seasonal servant prohibition, the following historical document also shows that the terms samurai and wakato were synonymous: it uses samurai interchangeably with wakato in the same one law.

　定
一　弐百石　侍壱人
一　三百石ゟ四百石迄　同二人（中略）

一　一千石ゟ千七百石迄　同四人（中略）

右之通、出仕幷江戸中往還之時、若党召連へし、是より少なき事は不苦、おほくつるゝ儀可為無用（後略）

　寛永五年二月九日

「江戸幕府朱黒印御内書留」京都大学所蔵史料
Edo Bakuhu Syukokuin Ouchi-kakidome (in the collection of Kyoto University）

　お定め
一つ、二百石の武士なら侍一人
一つ、三百石より四百石までなら侍二人（中略）

一つ、一千石より千七百石までなら侍四人（中略）

右の通り、出仕並びに江戸を行き来するとき、若党を召し連れてもよい。これより少なくしてもいいが、多くするのは無用である。

（拙訳）

The ordinance of “5th of Kan-ei, 2nd month, 9th”
That, you can be accompanied by one samurai (侍) if you are a warrior (武士 bushi) of 200 koku or below.
That, you can be accompanied by two samurai if you are a warrior of 300 to 400 koku [...]
That, you can be accompanied by four samurai if you are a warrior of 1,000 to 1,700 koku. [...]
As stated above, when traveling to and from Edo, you may take some wakato (若党) with you. You may take fewer than this, but may not exceed it.

(My English translation)

　武士は平時でも戦場においても自らの奉公人を引き連れている。この法令は武士が役人になったときなど特殊な場面を除いた平常時において、そうした供回りを一定以下の人数で済ませることを要請するものである。ここで侍と若党の両者が同じものを指していることは明白だ。

We all know that warriors (武士 bushi) took servants with them when they went out. This decree required them to constrain their entourage under a certain number of people in ordinary times, except on special situations such as when the warrior has a post of government official. We can clearly see that samurai and wakato refers to the same thing here in this law.

『雑兵物語』の若党
Esquire in the Tale of Common Sodiers

　若党はなぜ他の武家奉公人とは異なる待遇を受けたのだろうか。この点について高木氏は若党が戦闘員資格者であった事実に注目している。そこで今度は江戸時代前期に成立した軍記物『雑兵物語』の記述を見てみよう。同書は近世前期の成立といわれ、架空の足軽や武家奉公人ら約30人が会話調で自分たちの従軍体験を語り合い、戦場の実態やその教訓を平易に解説したものだ。まずは草履取りの体験談からだ。

Why did wakato (若党 esquire) receive different treatment from other ordinary household servants (武家奉公人 buke-houkou-nin)? On this point, Professor Takagi draws attention to the fact that wakatō were qualified to serve as combatants. Let us now turn to a passage from "Zohyo Monogatari" (雑兵物語 The Story of Common Soldiers), a military chronicle compiled in the early Edo period. This work is believed to have been written in the early modern period and presents a series of dialogues among about thirty fictional common soldiers, in which they recount their wartime experiences and share lessons learned on the battlefield in plain and accessible language. Let us begin with the account of a sandal bearer.

草履取　嘉助（中略）

互におつゝめた所て、旦那が云なさつたは、この鉄砲を腰に引はさめ、一番鑓を合せべいと云なさつた所て、左候はゝわつちめも此鉄砲で脇鑓を追詰申べい、玉薬を一放分下されいとのべたれば、おのれが脇鑓推参なやつだとて血目玉を出してしかりなさつたに依て、是非なく見物してねまつた

（深井一郎『雑兵物語研究と総索引』P152）

草履取り　加助（中略）

　こうして敵味方が押し詰まったところで、旦那がいいなさるには、この鉄炮を腰に差せ、一番槍を合わせべえという。そこで、そんならわっちめが鉄炮で槍脇をつとめますべえ、弾薬を一発分くだされといったところ、お前が槍脇などとなまいきなやつだと、大目玉をむいてお叱りになった。

　そこで仕方なく、ぼんやりと見物していると（後略）

（平井上総『兵農分離はあったのか』P44）

Sandal-bearer Kasuke (嘉助)

When the hand-to-hand combat began, my master said, "Keep this gun to your waist, I am now charging into the battle and I will be the spearhead!" Then I said, "Then, I will do flank spear (assist your attack) with this gun. Give me a bullet and gunpowder." He scolded me furiously, saying, "You’re no flank spearer , you cheeky one!" I had no choice but to sit around and watch…

(My English translation)

　草履取りである嘉助は気を利かせて主人のため一緒に戦おうとするのだが、それは越権行為と見なされ、哀れにも彼は主人に激怒されてしまう。彼の仕事は白兵戦では不要となった鉄砲を預かっておくことなのだ。一方若党の場合は次のように記されている。

Kasuke, a sandal-bearer, thoughtfully offered his direct assistance to his master’s battle, but for his master, that was nothing but overstepping of the line of authority, and this poor sandal-bearer dude got a severe reprimand for that. His job was just to carry around the gun which his master had no use during in close combats. In contrast, in the same book esquires (wakato) are described as follows.

（若党である）加助どのは、よい働きをした。歴々の武士にも勝る脇槍をし、首を取られた。

（平井上総『兵農分離はあったのか』P46）

Kasuke-dono (a wakato character in this book: 加助; the name’s pronounciation is same but it’s a different Kasuke from the Sandal-bearer Kasuke) did a good job. He took off enemy's head as his master's flank spearer, even outshining all other illustrious warriors.

(I made this English translation from historian’s modern Japanese translation. The differences between the original text and this translation will be explained later.)

　若党である加助は援護に留まらず、敵の首を討ち取ったことで同僚から称賛されている。草履取りとは大違いだ。若党が戦闘員資格者であるということは、主君の武器を持つ必要がないという特徴とも整合している。

A esquire Kasuke was praised by his peers not only for providing support on the battlefield but also for taking the head of an enemy soldier. This stands in stark contrast to that sandal bearer. The fact that wakato were qualified as combatants also aligns with the characteristic that they were not required to carry their lord’s weapons.

　これらの史料を踏まえた上で、高木氏は「侍」とは戦闘員資格者である高位の武家奉公人である「若党」の同義語であり、武士は別個の存在であることを明らかにした。この考えはそれまでの通説と真っ向から対立するものであって、大きな衝撃を持って受け止められた。しかしながら幕府の成分法を根拠とする同説の説得力は強固であり、高木氏の説は現在の日本史学界において広く同意を得るに至っている。これを③侍=若党説と呼ぶことにしよう。

Based on these historical sources, Professor Takagi clarified that the term “samurai” was synonymous with wakato—high-ranking warrior-household servants who were qualified as combatants—and that bushi (武士 warriors) were a distinct category. This interpretation directly contradicted the prevailing scholarly consensus at the time and was received with considerable shock. However, because the theory is grounded in the statutory laws of the Tokugawa shogunate, its persuasiveness is exceptionally strong, and Professor Takagi’s view has come to be widely accepted in the current field of Japanese historical studies. Let us refer to this theory as the the theory of (3) samurai = wakato.

天正19年8月令
Order of 8th month, Tensho 19

　③侍=若党説は弥助が信長に仕えた時期の織田家を考察する上でも有効なのだろうか？　これらの法令を幕府が制定した時代と弥助が信長に仕えた時代は離れている。だが高木氏は少なくとも、この法的「侍」定義は豊臣政権期にも通用したと考えている。秀吉が制定した次の法令を見れば、条文が幕府法令と似通っていることは一目瞭然だ。

Is the (3) “samurai = wakato” theory valid for examining the Oda clan during the period Yasuke served Oda Nobunaga? The two periods, when these laws were enacted by the shogunate and when Yasuke served Nobunaga, has a gap. Professor Takagi believes, though, that this legal definition of samurai was valid as early as during the Toyotomi administration. The wording of following statute enacted by Toyotomi Hideyoshi clearly shows similarity to that of the shogunate statutes.

奉公人、侍・中間・小者・あらしこに至るまで、去七月奥州へ御出勢より以後、新儀ニ町人百姓ニ成候者有之者、其町中地下人として相改、一切をくへからす、若かくし置ニ付而ハ、其一町一在所、可被加御成敗事、

（『毛利家文書』935、『浅野家文書』258、『小早川文書』504）

一、奉公人、侍・中間・小者・荒し子にいたるまでは、去る七月に奥州に御出陣以後、新たに町人・百姓になる者がいたならば、町中・地下人（＝町人・村人）が調べ、一切居住させるべきではない。もし隠しおいたならば、その町・村を成敗する。

（平井上総『兵農分離はあったのか』P93）

That, If and when any former servants, including samurai, mid-servant, menials, and arashiko, were found to have became new townspeople or peasants after the Oshu campaign in July of this year, they should be investigated by local townspeople and villagers, and should not be allowed to live in the town or village. If they hide it, the town/village will be punished.

(My English translation)

　高木氏は先述した幕府法令との文面の共通性から、「奉公人、侍・中間・小者・あらしこ*92」は武家奉公人をまとめたもので、この法令の主旨は彼らが武士の元から逃亡するのを防ぐことだったと喝破した*93。なお法令が制定された天正19年（1591年）は秀吉が朝鮮へ派兵する前年のことであり、高木氏はこの法令には日本軍の戦力を維持する意図があったと考えている。*94

Based on the phrasing of this statute, and on the similarity with the aforementioned shogunate statutes, Professor Takagi proclaimed that the said “servants, samurai, mid-servant, menial, arashiko”*95” in this statue were all subtypes of warrior household servants, and that the main purpose of this statute was to prevent them from fleeing from warrior households.*96 In this connection, Takagi also believed that another purpose of this statute was to keep human resources for a future war, since the timing of this statute was just one year before Hideyoshi invaded the Korean Peninsula.*97

　豊臣秀吉は織田家の権力を簒奪し天下を統一した人物であり、彼の政権は制度的に信長のそれと連続している。その秀吉の政権が発した法令においても「侍」は若党の同義語として使用されているのである。この点からすると、弥助の織田家における身分を考察する上で高木説を無視することはできない。

Toyotomi Hideyoshi was the figure who usurped power from the Oda clan and unified the realm, and his regime was institutionally continuous with that of Nobunaga. Even in the laws issued under Hideyoshi’s government, the term “samurai” was used synonymously with wakato (若党 esquire). In light of this, Professor Takagi’s theory cannot be ignored when considering Yasuke’s status within the Oda clan.

　では③侍=若党説の出現によって①侍≒武士説と②侍⊆武士説は完全に陳腐化してしまったのだろうか。そうとも言い切れない。これらの説にも無視しがたい根拠があるのだ。

So, have the emergence of the “samurai = wakato” theory made the theories of "samurai ≒ bushi" and "samurai ⊆ bushi" completely obsolete? I don’t think quite so. These old theories also have their bases that are hard to ignore.

『雑兵物語』の侍
Again, samurai in the Tale of Common Sodiers

　まずは①侍≒武士説を再検討しよう。大前提として③侍=若党説の根拠は法令であり、法令用語としての「侍」の定義と口語的な「侍」の用法は一致していなかった可能性がある。再び『雑兵物語』を見てみよう。

First, let's re-examine the theory of (1) samurai ≒ bushi. As a basic premise, the basis for this theory is the laws. It is quite possible that the definition of samurai as a legal term and the general usage by people did not match. Let's take another look at the Story of Common Soldiers.

鎗擔小頭　長柄源内左衛門（中略）

先鑓の内ても、はやく勝負のはじまるは、御侍衆の鎗からだそ。扨また、鑓を突もんだと斗り思ひなさるな。各心を一つにして、穂先の揃ひ申すやうに拍子を合せて、上やりに成やるにたゝきめされい。必すつくべいと思ひなさるな。それは壹人貳人の出合の時はよし、鑓數のおほくそろつた時は、拍子を揃へてうつより外はないぞ。（中略）惣じて御持鎗かつきは、江戸廻りでは御道具のものとて高給金とりてやつこはすれど、物まへでは預かりものだ所で、我役にはたゝない。數鑓は、おのかまゝに鎗をふりくり廻すさかひて、歴々の御侍衆と替事はないもんだ程に、能々腰骨をつよくして、おくれないやうに覚悟をしろ。又御持鑓かつぎは、かならず――我用に立たらば、うろたへ者の腰ぬけ同前だ程に、後生一大事にひつかついて、働かないか手柄だぞ。此二色のわけを、よく――ぼてつ腹へつゝこんておけ。

（深井一郎『雑兵物語研究と総索引』P109）

槍担ぎ小頭　長柄源内左衛門（中略）

　槍の合戦でも、まず勝負が始まるのは、お侍衆の槍からだぞ。
　それからまた、槍は突くもんだとばかり思っちゃあならねえ。一同、心を一つにして穂先がそろうように拍子を合わせ、上から敵と叩き伏せなされ。決して突くべえと思いなさるな。一人、二人での出会いがしらの戦いなら突くのもいいが、槍数のそろった合戦とあれば、拍子をそろえて叩くのがなによりだ。（中略）

　およそ、お侍の槍を持つ役は、江戸あたりではお道具を持たせるからといって高給を払って、槍持ち奴の姿をさせるが、いざ合戦となれば、槍はご主人からの預り物だによって、てめえの役には立てられねえ。そこへいくと槍足軽のほうは、てめえの思うままに槍を振り回すんだから、お歴々のお侍衆と変わりはねえ。よくよく腰骨を強くして、遅れを取らねえように覚悟しろ。
　また、お侍の槍を担ぐ役では、それをてめえの用に立てたりしたら、うろたえ者の腰抜け同然だで、後生大事にひっ担いで、戦わねえのが手柄だぞ。この二つの道理を、よくよく腹へぶちこんでおけ。

（吉田豊訳『原本現代語訳　雑兵物語他』P40）

Gennaizaemon the pikeman, the platoon sergeant of a pike infantry

[...]You know, battles with spears open with the charge of samurai!
Also, never think like spears are only for thrusting. Sync your movements with everybody around you, keep your spearhead aligned with theirs, and strike down the enemy from above. Don’t even think about thrusting! If ever you’re one-on-one, or one-on-two, on a sudden encounter, thrusting may be fine. But in a battle of many spears, it's best to swing down in time with the others! [...]

In places like Edo city, the guys who carry the “tools” for his samurai is dressed as if they were spear-wielders like us, and paid a high salary for. But in the real battlefield, these guys’re just carrying the spear for their master, not for their own use. On the other hand, pike infantry (槍足軽 yari-ashigaru) like us can wield our pikes as we please, so we're no different from illustorious samurai. You'd better brace yourself and make sure you don't fall behind!.
Also, when you are just a spear-bearer for your samurai, using the spear for yourself means you're no better than a coward who panics. Just carry it carefully and never fight! Make sure you understand these two principles!

(My English translation)

　長柄源内左衛門は長柄足軽たちの小頭*98として、部下たちに気合を入れているようだ。足軽とは文字通りフットワークが軽いことを意味し、最初期の彼らは武家に金で雇われ放火や掠奪に従事する準軍事的傭兵だったと言われている。戦国時代に長柄槍や鉄砲といった集団戦術に適した武器が広まると、彼らは武士の戦闘を援護する補助戦力になった。一応戦闘員なので草履持ちのような下級の奉公人よりは偉いが、武士より下の存在であることに変わりはない。

Apparently, Gennaizaemon is pepping up and teaching ropes for his men as the ploon sergeant (小頭 kogashira)*99 of pike infantry. Infantry (足軽 ashigaru) literally means “light foot” in Japanese, and historians believe they were originally no better than mercenaries hired by warrior households for arson and looting. But during the Sengoku period, weapons suitable for group tactics such as pikes (long spear) and guns became widespread, and they became a kind of foot soldiers fighting side-to-side with warriors (武士 bushi). As combatants, their rank was higher than that of lower-ranking servants such as sandal bearers, but they were still lower than warriors.

　この長柄源内左衛門が部下たちに語っているところによれば、長柄槍隊よりも先に「お歴々のお侍衆」が戦闘に加入するのだという。彼らが足軽とは別個の集団であることは明らかだが、高木説に従って考えれば彼らは若党なのだろうか？　ここで、先程引用した若党である加助の部分の「原文」を見てみよう。

According to Gennaizaemon the pikeman, usually the “illustrious samurai” will engage in the battle before pike infantries. Clearly “illustrious samurai” are a separate group from the infantrymen (足軽 ashigaru). If we follow Takagi's theory, these samurai are the same with esquires. Are they really? Let's take a look at the “original text” of the part about Kasuke the esquire that I quoted earlier.

若黨　左助

加助どの――、扨々能はたらきをした。れき――の侍衆にもまさつた鑓脇を引詰、首とられた。そちか旦那も被官も手柄した、（中略）おれが旦那はニ番鑓た所て、加助が旦那の一番鑓をぶつこみなさるをも、加助が鑓脇をおつつむるをも、能みとヾけた。

（深井一郎『雑兵物語研究と総索引』P149）

若党　左助

さてさて加助、立派な働きをした。槍脇（武士の槍の勝負を脇から助ける）をつとめて歴々のお侍衆にもまさる働きで首をとった。おまえの旦那も、家来のおまえも手柄をした。（中略）おれの旦那はニ番槍だったから、加助の旦那が一番槍を突っこみなさるのも、加助が槍脇をつとめるのも、よくよく見届けたが、（後略）

（吉田豊訳『原本現代語訳　雑兵物語他』P77）

Esquire Sasuke (左助)
Bluh, Esquire Kasuke(加助), you did a splendid job. You served as a flank spearer and, with the exloits that surpassed even the most illustrious of the samurai, you took an enemy's head. You, a retainer, and your master both did a great job. [...] As my master was in the second echelon, I saw very clearly that your master was the first one to thrust his spear in, and that you assited him as his flank spearer.

(My English translation. In the original text, it is written as "侍 (samurai)", but in the modern Japanese translation quoted earlier, it was translated as "bushi (武士 warrior)".)

　若党である加助の活躍が「歴々のお侍衆」にも勝るものと賞賛されているので「侍衆」は若党ではない。そして「侍衆」は同じ戦闘員である足軽や若党から仰ぎ見られる存在として描かれている。よって『雑兵物語』において「侍」が武士を指す言葉として使用されていることは明らかである。『雑兵物語』には「侍」という語が頻出するが、筆者が確認できた限りでは、その全てが文脈的に武士を意味しているようだ。

The esquire Kasuke was praised for his exploits that even surpassed “samurai” around him, so the “samurai” were not esquires here. Also, the samurai here are depicted as being looked up to by the infantrymen and esquires, even though the latter two are combatants themselves. Therefore, clearly the word “samurai” refers to warriors (武士 bushi), at least in the Story of Common Soldiers. The word “samurai” frequently appears in this story, and as far as I have confirmed and judging from the context, all the instances refers to warriors (武士 bushi).

　『雑兵物語』は17世紀半ばに成立し、その文章は当時の東国の庶民が使っていた話し言葉で書かれている。そのため本史料における侍の用法が高木氏の論考において立証された法令用語における「侍」定義と一致しないとしても不思議ではない。口語的な用法では侍と武士が同義語として使われる例もあったのだ。

The Story of Common Soldiers was written in the mid-17th century, and the manner of talking is extremely colloquial,  the way common people of the eastern Japan at the time spoke. For this reason, it is not surprising that the usage “samurai” in this historical document does not match the definition of the word “samurai” as a legal term, as established in Takagi's treatises. It plainly indicates that in general usage there were cases the word “samurai” was a synonym with “bushi”.

『日葡辞書』の侍
"Samurai" in the Jesuit dictionary

　次に②侍⊆武士説を取り扱う。この説の有力な典拠は『日葡辞書』イエズス会が作成したポルトガル語による日本語辞書である*100。この辞書は彼らが日本での宣教活動に役立てるために数年がかりで編纂したもので、成立したのは弥助が活動していた時期にほど近い1600年代初頭である。辞書では武士と侍は次のように書かれている。

Next, we will look at the theory of (2) "samurai ⊆ warrior." The main source for this theory is the "Vocabulário da Língua do Japão," a Japanese-Portuguese dictionary created by the Jesuits.*101 It was compiled over several years to help with their missionary work in Japan, and was completed in the early 1600s.

Buxi (武士 bushi) Soldado (Soldier 軍人または兵士)

Saburai (侍 Samurai) Fidalgo (Gentry フィダルゴ)

（日葡辞書より抜粋し括弧内は筆者が補った。Quoted from "Vocabulário da Língua do Japão". I have supplemented English-Japanese in parentheses.)

　Soldado は現代英語のソルジャーに相当する語である。Fidalgoはスペイン・ポルトガルにおいて貴族と平民の間に位置する中間的階級を意味する語だ。これはおおむね前近代イギリスの階級制度におけるジェントリ層と重なり、岡氏によれば爵位のない上流階級のような意味合いであるとのことである。

Soldado is equivalent to the modern English word “soldier.” Fidalgo refers to a social class that existed between the nobility and commoners in Spain and Portugal. This roughly corresponds to the gentry class in the pre-modern British social hierarchy, and according to Professor Oka, it connotes an upper class without noble titles.

　フィダルゴは上位貴族には及ばないものの一種の貴人ではある。それに対して兵士を意味する武士は一見してそれほど高い身分とは思えない。この『日葡辞書』の記述を素直に受け取れば、侍は武士よりも上位の存在だと受け取るほかはないだろう。これは幕府法令とは真っ向から矛盾している。イエズス会が日本語を誤解した可能性は否めないものの、日葡辞書は一定の信頼性を持つ史料であり、単なる錯誤として退けることも難しい。

Although fidalgo did not reach the level of the high nobility, it was still considered a type of aristocratic status. In contrast, buxi, which means “soldier,” does not immediately suggest such a high social rank. If we take the description in Vocabvlario da Lingoa de Iapam (Japanese-Portuguese Dictionary) at face value, we are left with no choice but to conclude that samurai were regarded as higher in status than bushi. This directly contradicts the legal definitions found in Tokugawa shogunate law. While it is possible that the Jesuits misunderstood the nuances of the Japanese language, Vocabvlario da Lingoa de Iapam is considered a relatively reliable historical source, and thus it is difficult to dismiss this interpretation as a simple error.

北条家定書（天正15年7月晦日）
Go-hojo conscription order of 1587

　当初筆者はsaburaiとはfidalgoである、というのは「地侍」のことではないかと考えていた。地侍とは当時の村落共同体の上位層を指す言葉である。彼らは名字を名乗り、刀を二本指し*102して、一般農民であるところの凡下と自分たちを区別していた。次に掲げるのは後北条氏が天正15年（1587年）七月晦日付で領内に発した「北条家定書き」のうち、相模西郡の栢山（かやま）村に出された一通である。

As I said just now, This Portuguese-Japanese dictionary tells us that “saburai (samurai)” was “fidalgo (nobleman),” but I first suspected that perhaps this “saburai” might have meant country samurai (地侍 jizamurai; ji = local). Country samurai meant the upper class of the village community at the time. They had surnames, wore two swords*103, and distinguished themselves from the commoners (凡下 bonge), which meant ordinary peasants. The following instruction is an instance of the “Hojo clan Regulations” issued by the Go-Hojo clan in their territory in 1587 (15th Tensho), on the last day of the 7th month, for Kayama village in the west Sagami county (a west part of Kanagawa prefecture now).

一、於当郷不撰侍・凡下、自然御国御用之砌、可被召仕者撰出、其名可記事、但弐人、

一、此道具、弓・鑓・鉄炮三様之内、何成共存分次第、但鑓ハ竹柄にても、木柄にても、二間より短きハ無用に候、然者号権門之被官、不致陣役者、或商人、或細工人類、十五、七十を切而可記之事、

一、腰さし類之ひら――武者めくやうニ可致支度事、

一、能者を撰残し、夫同前之者申付候者、当郷之小代官、何事も聞出次第可切頸事、

一、此走廻心懸、相嗜者ハ、侍にても、凡下にても、随望可有恩賞事、

『北条家定書（天正15年7月晦日）』小田原市郷土文化館所蔵史料

（現代語訳）

①この郷村では、侍と凡下を区別せず、もしもの御国の御用の時のために、動員すべき人員二名の名を書いて提出すること。

②武器は弓・鑓・鉄砲の三つのうち、好きなものを使うように。ただし槍は竹柄でも木柄でも、二間（＝約三・六メートル）より短いものは不要である。権門（＝権力を持つ者。貴族や寺社、武士など）の被官（＝家来・家臣・奉公人）や、陣夫役をしていない者、あるいは商人・細工人（＝職人）などを、一五歳から七〇歳までの間で記すこと。

③腰に指す旗指物は、武士であるかのように支度すること。

④良い者（＝屈強の者）を選んで（村に）残し、（弱々しい）人足のようなものを提出するようであれば、判明次第この村の小代官の首を斬る。

⑤この働きをしっかりと勤めれば、侍でも凡下でも、望みに従って恩賞を与える。

（平井上総『兵農分離はあったのか』P63）

One. The village must submit names of two men who in the event of a state emergency should be conscribed, and regardless of the two being samurai (侍) or commoners (凡下 bonge).
Two. The two men may use any of the following weapons: bow, spear, or gun. However, spears shorter than two ken (approx. 3.6 meters) unacceptable, regardless of bamboo or wooden handles. The two men should be the age between 15 and 70, and should be selected from the ones such as retainers or servants of the gates of power (権門 kenmon = houses of power; such as nobles, temples, shrines, and warriors), ones who are not currently serving as a soldier, and merchants and artisans.
Three. The two men should be equipped with a banner on their waist as if they were warriors (武者 Musha).
Four. If you submit weak men such as coolies and deliberately keeps the good men (ones with strong build) in the village for your own good, we will cut the head of the minor official in charge of this village as soon as we find it.
FIve. If the two men work hard and well, we will reward them with things of their wishes, regardless of they are a samurai or a commoner.

(My English translation)

　武家が百姓たちに発した徴兵令*104であるこの文書を見れば、武家側が百姓のなかの上層を「侍」と呼んでいることは明らかである。また武者らしく支度させろという一文から、この「侍」が武士でないことも明白である。

It is a conscription order that mainly targetted peasants issued by the Go-Hojo clan, one of the powerful warrior households at that time. When we look at this text,*105 clearly “samurai” refer to the upper class of peasants. And it is also clear that the instruction to euip them “as if they were warriors (bushi)” indicates these “samurai” are not same with warriors (bushi).

　だがそもそもの話、なぜ村落の上流層が「侍」などと名乗っているのか。それは「侍」の語源と関わりがある。この言葉は本来貴人に仕えることを意味すると先に説明したが、平安時代後期から鎌倉時代にかけて「侍」は朝廷の位階制度で六位に位置する人々の呼称として使用されていた。貴族の基準は五位以上なので、そのすぐ下ということになる。そうはいっても曲がりなりにも朝廷の位階を授かっている彼らは一般大衆からすれば上流階級であった。*106

But why in the world did the upper class in rural villages call themselves “samurai”? It has something to do with the etymology of the word samurai. I have already explained that the word originally meant “to serve (nobility).” But before the Sengoku period, to be exact from the Heian period to the Kamakura period, people used the word “samurai”  for people with a position of sixth rank or lower in the court rank system of the Imperial Court. Nobles had  fifth rank or above, so “samurai” were just below them, but having a court rank meant they were government officials, which made them above the general public.*107

　この用法が発展して鎌倉時代以降「侍」は社会的上流全般を指す用語となり、一般大衆を指す「凡下」の対義語となったのだ。こうした社会的上流を「侍」と呼ぶ用法を耳にした宣教師たちが同じく高位貴族と平民の中間階級を意味する「フィダルゴ」を「侍」の訳語とした。そうは考えられないだろうか？　もしそうなら『日葡辞書』の「侍」は必ずしも武家社会のなかの特定階層を指すわけではないことになる。ではイエズス会は実際に「フィダルゴ」という言葉をどのような人々に対して使用していたのだろうか。ここで本記事でもすでに取り扱った1581年4月14日付のフロイス書簡を再び見てみよう。

This usage of the term evolved, and from the Kamakura period onward, "samurai" came to refer broadly to the upper classes of society, becoming the antonym of bonge (凡下 commoner). Could it not be the case that Jesuit missionaries, upon hearing this usage of saburai to denote members of the social elite, chose the word fidalgo—which likewise referred to a class between high-ranking nobility and commoners—as its translation? If so, then the term saburai in Vocabulário da Língua do Japão does not necessarily indicate a specific rank or class within the warrior hierarchy. In that case, what kinds of people did the Jesuits actually apply the term fidalgo to? To explore this, let us once again look at the letter written by Luís Fróis dated April 14, 1581, which was previously discussed in this article.

acompanharão nos muitos fidalgos provedendo-nos de todas as cavalgaduras necessarias, & por aquelles caminhos saião muitos fidalgos a cavalo que vinhão a nosso encontro.

（『エヴォラ版日本書簡集』）
（cited via: “Cartas de Evora”）

多数の貴人が同行して必要な乗馬を整えた。また、我らに相見えんとする多数の貴人が馬上から出迎えた。

（松田毅一監訳『十六・七世紀イエズス会日本報告集第Ⅲ期第5巻』P288）
（Japanese translation from: Kiichi Matsuda, 16 - 17 seiki Iezusu kai nihon houkokusyo dai 3 ki dai 5 kan, p. 288）

and many gentries accompanied us to arrange the necessary riding horses. Many gentries who wanted to see us also came out to greet us from horseback.

(My English translation)

　ここでは「フィダルゴ」（和訳では貴人と翻訳されている）がイエズス会一行を出迎えているのだが、彼らが前後の文脈を読む限りでは武家の上級家臣のことらしいということは、すでに記事内で触れた通りだ。つまりイエズス会はここで「フィダルゴ」を上級武士の意味で用いているのである。『日葡辞書』が「侍」の訳語として「フィダルゴ」を当て、その「フィダルゴ」が上級武士を指して用いられている以上――途中に重訳を挟んではいるものの――侍が上級武士を指して用いられる場合もあったと考えることは可能だということになる。

In this passage, it is fidalgos who come out to greet the Jesuit party, and as previously mentioned in this article, the context suggests that these individuals were senior vassals of the warrior household. In other words, the Jesuits are using the term fidalgo here to refer specifically to high-ranking warrior. Given that the Vocabulário da Língua do Japão uses fidalgo as the Portuguese translation of saburai, and that fidalgo is in fact being used to refer to senior warriors in this context—even though some layers of re-translation may exist—it becomes plausible to conclude that the term saburai could also have been used, at times, to denote high-ranking members of the warrior class.

「武士」と「侍」
Bushi or Samurai

　こうした「侍」と「武士」という言葉の関わりについて歴史学者の野口実氏は次のように述べている。

Regarding the relationship between the words' samurai' and' bushi,' historian Minoru Noguchi said as follows.

　一般に武士は侍（サムライ）と同じ存在として理解されている。しかし、侍（令制の位階では六位クラス）は平安後期の貴族社会における下層の身分を示すもので、職業身分としての武士とイコールではない。軍事警察を担当する権門貴族（武門の棟梁）の家人で、主家の機能を分担するために武（騎射を職能とすることによる）を担う者の多くが侍身分に属していたために生じたことである。武士の代表とされる源平の「武門の棟梁」は、王朝身分秩序の上では公達（キンダチ＝公卿・三位以上）であり、その上級の家人には諸大夫（ショタイフ・四位～五位）の身分に属する者もあった。しかし、彼らも武士なのである。

　とはいえ、こうした身分秩序が実質的な意味を持ったのはせいぜい中世前期（～十四世紀半）頃までのことで、とくに戦国時代以降になると出自においても職能においても雑多な存在が武士を名乗るようになる。そしてその正当化をはかるために自らのルーツを中世前期の武士に結びつけようとしたのである。

　したがって、中世の武士とはいっても、前期と後期では様相を異にするし、さらに近世に至っては、完全に国家権力と化した武家権門たる幕府のもとで、その行政を担う官吏としての機能を担う存在となった。

（野口実「「坂東武士」のイメージ」『貴族とは何か、武士とは何か』）

Generally speaking, bushi (warriors) are commonly understood to be synonymous with samurai. However, the term samurai (which corresponded to the sixth rank under the Ritsuryō rank system) originally referred to a lower stratum within the aristocratic society of the late Heian period, and it was not originally identical with the occupational class of bushi. The term came to be associated with bushi because many of those who bore arms—primarily engaging in martial skills such as mounted archery—served as retainers of powerful court nobles, particularly the military houses (bumon no tōryō), and held the social rank of samurai. The prominent military families of the Minamoto and Taira clans, often seen as archetypes of the bushi, were in fact themselves high-ranking nobles (kindachi, i.e., kugyō, or holders of the third court rank and above) in the court hierarchy. Among their more senior retainers were even those of the shōtaifu rank (fourth to fifth rank). Nevertheless, they were all still considered bushi.

That said, this status-based hierarchy only held practical significance up until the early medieval period (roughly until the mid-14th century). From the Sengoku period onward, people of increasingly diverse backgrounds, both in terms of birth and profession, began to identify themselves as bushi. To justify their claim to warrior status, many sought to connect their lineage to bushi of the early medieval period.

Thus, even within the medieval era, the nature of the bushi class changed significantly between its early and late stages. By the early modern period, under the rule of the shogunate—now a centralized state authority dominated by military aristocrats—the bushi had fully transformed into bureaucratic officials responsible for administering government functions.

(My English translation)

　整理すれば、中世初期において「侍」は貴族社会の下層を指す言葉であった。それに対して「武士」は職能戦士を指す言葉であり、後の時代にそれらを同じ存在と見なす見解が広まった、ということになる。そして身分制度が大きく流動化した戦国時代を経て、近世には「武士」と「侍」の内実も大きく変化するに至った。では結局のところ、弥助が信長に使えていた頃の、戦国時代の「侍」とはいったいなんなのか？

To summarize: in the early medieval period, the term samurai referred to the lower stratum of aristocratic society. In contrast, bushi referred to professional warriors. Over time, the view that these two were essentially the same came to be widely accepted. Then, through the social upheavals of the Sengoku period, both the meanings and roles of bushi and samurai underwent significant transformation by the early modern era. So ultimately, what did the term samurai mean during the Sengoku period—the time when Yasuke served under Nobunaga?

結論：よくわからない
Conclusion: We simply don’t know

　実をいうと、日本の歴史学者の間でも戦国時代の「侍」の定義について一致した見解は存在しないのである。これまでに見てきたように「侍」は非常に幅広い層の人々を指す言葉として用いられている。法令では武家奉公人の一種である若党だが、他の史料では武士だったり、武士のなかでも上位の階層であったり、なんなら武家社会の構成員ですらない百姓の上位層までもが「侍」を名乗っている。語源と用法がまだ分離していなかった中世や、身分制度が固定化した近世ならともかく、戦乱の時代にあって身分秩序が混乱流動化していた戦国時代における「武士」「侍」の画一的定義を定めることは、極めて困難であると言わざるを得ないのだ。

In truth, even among Japanese historians, there is no consensus regarding the definition of samurai during the Sengoku period. As we have seen throughout this article, the term samurai was used to refer to a remarkably broad range of people. In legal codes, it denoted wakatō, a type of household servant in warrior families. In other sources, however, it referred to bushi (warriors), to upper-ranking warriors, and even to affluent farmers who were not members of the warrior class at all. While in the medieval period (when etymology and usage had not yet fully diverged) and in the early modern period (when the class system was firmly institutionalized), the term had more stable meanings, it is extremely difficult to define bushi or samurai in a fixed way during the Sengoku period, when social status was highly unstable and fluid due to the ongoing wars.

　インターネット上で弥助は「サムライ」なのか、そうではないのかという議論が巻き起こったことはすでに述べたが、弥助自身の史料が量的に非常に限られたものしかない上に、このように「侍」の定義も大変曖昧なものであることを踏まえると、この議論に明確な答えを出すことは容易ではないと思われる。

As mentioned earlier, there has been some debate online over whether or not Yasuke should be considered a samurai. But given the extremely limited number of historical records about Yasuke himself, and the ambiguity surrounding the very definition of samurai, it is unlikely that this question can be answered definitively.

　ただし呉座氏によると近年の日本史学界には「侍」の定義を広義に設定する風潮があるという。そして平山氏は高木氏の論考を踏まえつつ「侍とは武芸をもって武家に仕える従者たちの総称であり、その上位層が武士である」という定義、つまり「侍⊇武士説」を提唱している。この定義を使用した場合は一言に「侍」といっても、その内部の上下格差はかなり幅広いということになるのだが、筆者としては非常に多様な「侍」の用法を踏まえればこの定義がもっとも妥当なのではないかと考える。

That said, according to Professor Goza, there has been a growing trend in recent Japanese historiography to define samurai in broader terms. Professor Hirayama, building on Professor Takagi’s research, has proposed that samurai should be defined as “retainers who served warrior households through martial skill,” with bushi occupying the upper ranks of that category. In other words, a “samurai ⊇ bushi” model. If we adopt this definition, then samurai encompasses a wide range of internal hierarchies—and in the author’s opinion, considering the many diverse usages of the term samurai, this interpretation is the most convincing.

　すでに本論でも見てきたように、弥助は信長の直臣であり、本能寺の変では戦闘に加わったことも記録されている。であれば「侍とは武芸をもって武家に仕える従者」であるという定義を採用したとき、彼を「侍」に位置づけることは十分可能なのではないだろうか。以上をもって、弥助の身分に関する議論に対しての、筆者なりの結論としたい。むろん他の「侍」定義を採用すれば、異なった結論に達することもありえる。

As we have already seen, Yasuke was a direct retainer of Nobunaga and is recorded as having taken part in combat during the Honnoji Incident. If we accept the definition of samurai as “retainers who served warrior households through martial skill,” then there is sufficient reason to regard Yasuke as a samurai. This, then, is the author’s own tentative conclusion on the question of Yasuke’s status. Of course, if one were to adopt a different definition of samurai, a different conclusion might well be reached.

　武家社会には、名字の名乗り、俸禄の形態、乗馬本分か否か、御目見以上か未満か、主君の直臣かそれとも陪臣かなど様々な身分標示がある。弥助は名字がなく、扶持取り、御目見以上の信長直臣である。よって一例を上げれば、知行取りでないなら武士でも侍でもないという最狭義の定義を採用すれば、弥助は武士でも侍でもないことになろう。

In the world of the warrior household, there were many indicators of one’s rank and role: whether one had a surname, the type of salary received, whether one was entitled to ride a horse, whether one had the status of omemie (entitled to an audience), whether one served the lord directly or was a subordinate of another vassal, and so on. Yasuke had no family name, received a stipend (fuchi), and served Nobunaga directly with the status of omemie. If we were to apply the narrowest definition—which excludes anyone who did not receive a fief (chigyō)—then Yasuke would not be considered a bushi or a samurai at all.

　そして仮に弥助が侍身分だったとしても、その実態が通俗的な意味での「サムライ」とは大いに異なった可能性は十分ある。弥助が特別待遇の家臣であってその「侍」身分が外形的なものであったという可能性については、呉座氏が指摘していることをすでに述べた。

And even if we do regard Yasuke as having samurai status, there remains the strong possibility that his role differed significantly from the popular image of a “samurai.” As previously noted by Professor Goza, Yasuke may have been a specially treated retainer whose status as samurai was largely formal or symbolic.

　弥助の実像は、今なお謎に包まれているのである。

In the end, the true nature of Yasuke remains shrouded in mystery.

典拠
Sources and Reference

出典
Sources

池田家本『信長記　巻十四』岡山大学附属図書館所蔵史料

榊山潤『現代語訳　信長公記（全）』ちくま学芸文庫（2017）

The Chronicle of Lord Nobunaga, Brill Academic Pub, 2011

尊経閣本『信長記』前田育徳会尊経閣文庫所蔵史料

『エヴォラ版日本書簡集』（1598）
Cartas que os padres e irmãos da Companhia de Jesus escreverão dos reynos de Japão & China aos da mesma Companhia da India & Europa, desdo anno de 1549 atè o de 1580, etc. (Segunda parte das cartas de Japão, do anno 1581-1589.). Evora, 1598

松田毅一監訳『十六・七世紀イエズス会日本報告集第Ⅲ期第5巻』同朋舎出版（1992）

『家忠日記』茨城大学図書館所蔵写本

松田毅一監訳『十六・七世紀イエズス会日本報告集第Ⅲ期第6巻』同朋舎出版（1991）

フロンソワ・ソリエー『日本教会史』（1627）François Solier. Histoire ecclésiastique des isles et royaumes du Japon, 1627

ジャン・クラセ『日本教会史』（1689）Jean Crasset. Histoire de L’ Eglise du Japon, 1689

『キリスト教に関する導入書、すなわち日本宣教の始まりとその上長たちについての書　1549年8月15日から1744年8月31日まで』アジュダ図書館所蔵史料
Biblioteca da Ajuda, Lisboa. Jesuítas na Ásia 49-IV-55. Livro Primeiro da Christandade, digo do principio da Missão do Japão e Superiores della, começando em quinze de agosto de mil quinhentos e quarenta e nove, annos 1549 athe o trinta e hum de agosto de mil settecentos e quarenta e quatro 1744 annos.

ローマイエズス会文書館所蔵史料 Archivum Romanum Societatis Iesu, Jap Sin 7 III, fl. 225v.

我自刊我本『信長公記』ウィキソース

『加能郷土辞彙』金沢市図書館所蔵史料

「東武実録」国立公文書館デジタルアーカイブ

「江戸幕府朱黒印御内書留」京都大学所蔵史料

深井一郎『雑兵物語研究と総索引』武蔵野書院（1973）

吉田豊訳『原本現代訳　雑兵物語他』教育社新書（1987）

「天正19年8月令」（『毛利家文書』935、『浅野家文書』258、『小早川文書』504などに記載）

『日葡辞書』Vocabulário da Língua do Japão

『北条家定書（天正15年7月晦日）』小田原市郷土文化館所蔵史料

To non-Japanese readers

You can read (or at least, view) the Ikeda autograph copy of "Shincho-ki" and "Ietada Nikki" on the Internet, but they are written in cursive style characters in medieval Japanese that can only be read by those with special training. The Sonkeikaku copy is under a special care and accessible only for researchers who have submitted an application. I did not read the original texts directly but relied on professional transcriptions.

In short, it would be extremely difficult for foreigners to access the original Japanese materials directly. However, it seems there is an English translation of "Shincho-ki," which is "The Chronicle of Lord Nobunaga" published by Brill Academic Pub in 2011. Although I don't know which version of "Shincho-ki" this translation used as its original texts, I recommend that you check it out if you are interested.

"Zohyo Monogatari" (The Story of Common Soldiers) is the most important historical material on the actual life of low-ranking soldiers and servants in the Sengoku Period, as well as on the spoken language of the eastern Japan at that time. We cannot avoid this historical material when researching the armies of the Sengoku warriors.

主要参考図書
References

岩沢愿彦『家忠日記の原本について』東京大学史料編纂所報（1967）

金子拓『織田信長という歴史』勉誠出版（2009）

川戸貴史『戦国大名の経済学』講談社現代新書（2020）

倉本一宏編『貴族とは何か、武士とは何か』思文閣出版

鈴川博「菱田春草先祖の才能と堀飯田藩仕官の背景」『飯田市美術博物館研究紀要22:59-96』（2012. 3）

高木昭作『日本近世国家史の研究』岩波書店（1990）

竹本幹夫「江戸時代諸藩における能役者の身分」『国文学研究第108集』（1992.10）

谷口克広『信長の親衛隊』中公新書（1998）

西股総生『戦国の軍隊』学研プラス（2012）

西股総生『東国武将たちの戦国史』河出書房新社（2015）

根岸茂夫『近世武家社会の形成と構造』吉川弘文館（2000）

平木上総『兵農分離はあったのか』平凡社（2017）

ルシオ・デ・ソウザ／岡美穂子『大航海時代の日本人奴隷　増補新版』中公選書（2021）

和田裕弘『織田信長の家臣団』中公新書（2017）

『日本国語大辞典　第二版』小学館の以下の記事を参照した。
”御抱””御目見””さむらい””鞘巻””道具持”

『日本大百科全書』小学館（1994）の以下の記事を参照した。
”イエズス会””織田信長””御伽衆””豊臣秀吉””苗字帯刀”

To non-Japanese readers

Unfortunately, all materials I have listed above in this "References" section are in Japanese. I don't know of any good books on Yasuke written in any languages other than Japanese.

Almost all information in English concerning Yasuke, including articles of famous media outlets, is under the influence of Thomas Lockley, whose writings and speeches are sometimes not so easy to distinguish between historical facts, plausible inferences thereof, and his own speculations extended thereof.

I highly recommend Professor Hiraku Kaneko (金子拓)'s book, a tour de force of the comparative study of Shincho-ki, for readers who want to know more about discussion about the reliability of the Sonkeikaku copy, although reading it may not be easy for non-Japanese.

For the discussion on the definition of samurai, see the article by Shosaku Takagi and Kazusa Hiragi’s book.

ネットで読んだ
The Internet things I've read

呉座勇一「信長に仕えた黒人「弥助」とは何者か（1）」日本関係欧文史料の世界
呉座勇一「信長に仕えた黒人「弥助」とは何者か（2）」日本関係欧文史料の世界
呉座勇一「信長に仕えた黒人「弥助」とは何者か（3）」日本関係欧文史料の世界

平山優氏のSNSアカウント@HIRAYAMAYUUKAINの弥助に関する発言

岡美穂子氏のSNSアカウント@mei_gang30266の弥助に関する発言

和文史料の読み下しと現代語訳については北見花芽「弥助全資料　～『信長公記』『家忠日記』『イエズス会日本年報』『日本教会史』～」（うきよのおはなし～江戸文学が崩し字と共に楽しく読めるブログ～）が大変参考になった。

desaixjp「尊経閣本と家忠日記」「弥助を洗った史料など」（祖国は危機にあり(La patrie en danger) 関連blog）は『家忠日記』とアジュダ文書の来歴について極めて重要な情報を提供している。

K'sBookshelf「資料 本能寺の変」

本能寺の変において信長が引き連れた少数の手勢に弥助が同行していた可能性についてはa3dayo「トーマス・ロックリーの著作について」（三分の一）が指摘しており、本記事もこの考えを参照した。

呉座優一氏が運営に関わるユーチューブチャンネル春木で呉座います。に投稿された弥助に関係する複数の動画を参考にした。

ゲームさんぽ /よそ見「【基礎知識】そもそも「史料」ってどういうものですか？／さんぽ史料学📚前編」「弥助に関する史料をちゃんと読んでみよう／さんぽ史料学📚後編」では金子拓氏が弥助に関連する史料について解説しており、参考にした。

negi.moe「弥助に関する全歴史的資料 All historical documents related to Yasuke」は私が本記事を執筆するきっかけを与えてくれた。ただしこの動画の翻訳と史料解釈については同意しがたい部分が多々ある。

To non-Japanese readers

The online sources I have listed above are relatively accessible to non-Japanese. With the use of machine translation, you will be able to grasp the contents to some extent. I recommend the essays by Professor Yuichi Goza (呉座勇一) in particular, whose opinions I have cited three times in a row at the beginning of this article, because his writings are well-organized sources of information.

In the blog post of Haname Kitami (北見花芽), Japanese historical materials on Yasuke are translated into modern Japanese. If you can't read the original texts, but at least want to check out the modern Japanese translations, this post is there for you.

The last video listed at the bottom has a lot of translation problems. However, this video inspired me to write this article, and I have listed it here as a token of my respect.

編集履歴
Editing history

　令和6年9月下旬に記事の大幅な増補を書き換えを行った。主要な論旨を変更した点も少なくない。追記部分は以下の通り：尊経閣本関連の議論、戦国時代の経済制度の概観、歴史学者らの意見のまとめ、信長が弥助の肌を洗わせたとする新発見史料、さらに直接弥助とは関係ないものの「侍」の定義に関してまとめた付録を増補した。この他にも既存の部分を大幅に変更しているが、変更があまりに多岐に渡るためここに逐一記すことはしない。なお和文は9月28日現在ほぼ完成しているが、新規に追加した英文はほとんど機械翻訳をそのまま出力した状態であり、非常に多くの問題を残している。これについては今後修正していくものとしたい。同日追記：侍≠武士説が現在の定説だと解説していた箇所、地侍が土豪の類義語だとしていた箇所を訂正した。

In late September 2024, the article was significantly expanded and rewritten. There were quite a few changes in the main points of the argument. The added parts are as follows: discussions related to the Sonkeikaku copy, an overview of economic systems in the Sengoku period, a summary of opinions of historians, newly discovered historical materials that Nobunaga ordered to wash Yasuke's skin, and an appendix on the definition of' samurai' that is not directly related to Yasuke. In addition, the existing parts were significantly changed, but the changes were so extensive that they are not described here in detail. The Japanese text was almost completed as of September 28, but the newly added English text is almost exactly the output of the machine translation, and there are a lot of problems. This will be corrected in the future. P.S. on the same day: He corrected the part where he explained that the theory that samurai was not bushi is the current established theory, and the part where jizamurai (country samurai) said it was a synonym of dogo (gentry).

9月29日、『信長記』の和訳と英訳を見直した。また尊経閣本家忠日記参照説に関する議論をより整理した。この他にも細かい修正点が無数にあり、ここに全てを書き切ることができない。

On September 29, I revised the Japanese and English translations of "Shinchoki." I also organized the discussion on the theory of referring to the Ietada diary of Sonkeikaku. There are countless other minor corrections that I can't write all of here.

10月1日、章立てを変更した。また尊経閣本の信頼性に関する筆者自身の試論を追加した。他にも細かい変更点は多数あるが論旨に関わりがないので記さない。

On October 1, the chapter structure was changed. In addition, the author's own essay on the reliability of the Sonkeikakubon was added. There are many other minor changes, but they are not related to the thesis and are not described.

令和7年4月8日、全体的に文章を改善した他、付録の結論部を修正した。英文の改善はかなり進展しており、明白な誤訳の類はなくせたものと思うが、依然作業中である。

On 8 April 2025, the overall text was improved and the concluding section of the appendix was revised. I have made considerable progress in improving the English text, and I believe I have eliminated any obvious mistranslations, but I'm still working on it.

脚注
Footnotes

*1:弥助が来日した経緯や時系列を詳述する史料は発見されていない。ただし彼はヴァリニャーノに帯同していたため、イエズス会の記録から彼らが来日したのは1579年であると考えられる。

*2:中世日本には朝廷と幕府という二つの中央政府が並立していた。朝廷は先史時代から存在する名目上の最高権威だったが、13世紀頃から次第に武家に政治的権力を奪われていった。代わって実質的にこの国を支配していたのが、封建制によって武士たちを統制する武家政権、幕府である。戦国時代以前、日本を支配していた室町幕府は朝廷とともに京都に本拠を置いていた。極めて複雑な経緯から応仁元年（1467年）に幕府の内乱、応仁の乱が勃発すると、京都は完全に荒廃してしまう。これによって朝廷と幕府という二つの中央政府が同時に機能不全に陥ったことで、戦国時代が始まったのであった。

*3:No historical materials directly testifies how and when Yasuke came to Japan. However, he accompanied Valignano, and we can assume from Jesuits records that they came to Japan in 1579.

*4:In medieval and early modern Japan, there were two central governments concurrently: the Imperial Court (朝廷 chotei) and the Shogunate (幕府 bakufu). Although the Imperial Court, composed of nobles centered around the emperor, had been the formal supreme authority since prehistoric times, from around the 13th century the political power was gradually taken over by warriors. Eventually the Shogunate, a government by warriors that controlled warriors through the feudal system, wielded real power. Before the Sengoku era, the Muromachi shogunate, which governed Japan, was based in Kyoto alongside the Imperial Court. But, due to extremely complicated circumstances, when the Onin War broke out in 1467 (1st of Onin), it thoroughly devastated Kyoto. As a result, the both governments, the Imperial Court and the Shogunate, became dysfunctional at once, and the Warring States Period begun.

*5:この書物は『信長公記』というタイトルでも知られている。これは『信長記』を元に小瀬甫庵という人物が著したいわゆる『甫庵信長記』と区別するためである。『甫庵信長記』は江戸時代に牛一『信長記』以上に流通し、織田信長の世間的なイメージに大きな影響を与えたが、その著作は儒教思想の強い影響下にあり、事実の歪曲が見られるため史料としての価値は低い。金子氏は太田牛一の著した信長一代記を『信長記』と呼称することを提案している。本記事もそれに従うことにする。

*6:吏僚とは武家において文書業務や行政的な仕事をこなす者である。太田牛一は若いころ弓の名手として知られ、信長配下の六人衆の一人に選ばれたこともある。だが後には主に文書業務に携わるようになり、織田家宿老である丹羽長秀のもとで吏僚として働くようになった。

*7:Shincho-ki is usually known by the title "Shincho ko-ki" (where “ko” is an honorific) to distinguish it from "Hoan Shincho-Ki," which was written by Hoan Oze and is an adaptation of the former. Hoan Shincho-Ki was circulated more widely than Gyuichi’s "Shincho-ki" during the Edo Period and greatly influenced the iconic image of Oda Nobunaga. However, historians consider its value as a historical material to be low because of its strongly Confucian ideas and distorted facts. Professor Kaneko advocates the position that we should call Gyuichi’s biography of Oda Nobunaga "Shincho-ki," and I follow his position in this article.

*8:The term "bureaucrat (吏僚 riryo)" refers to people who were in charge of documents and administrative works in a warrior household. Ota Gyuichi was known as a master archer in his youth and was once selected as one of the Rokuninshu (Six Martial Masters) under Nobunaga. Later, however, he worked more in the field of documents, and became a bureaucrat (吏僚 riryo) under Niwa Nagahide, one of the elder vassals of the Oda clan.

*9:将軍とは正式名を征夷大将軍といい、元は古代において朝廷が北方の異民族を討伐するため任命した遠征軍の最高司令官をいった。武家の棟梁だった源頼朝が建久3年（1192年）にこの官職を得て以来、将軍は日本における事実上の最高権力者の称号となった。ところで古代において北方異民族の征服に多大な軍功を挙げた著名な将軍として坂上田村麻呂という人物がいるが、延暦16年（797年）に将軍に任命された彼は中世の武家とは関係がない。海外にはこの坂上田村麻呂が黒人だったと主張する珍説が存在する。カナダの人類学者アレクサンダー・フランシス・チェンバレンが、優生学の影響を強く受けた学術雑誌「人種開発ジャーナル」に投稿した論文『人類文明への黒人の貢献』（同誌第1巻、1911年4月）において「田村麻呂はネグロ（黒人）だった」と無根拠に記述したのが同説の起源らしいのだが、日本ではこの説はまったく相手にされていない。坂上氏は渡来系氏族である東漢氏から分かれた枝氏族の一つだが、田村麻呂の人種については確かな史料がなく知りようがない。

*10:The title of “shogun” is formally “Seii Taishogun” (the barbarian-subjugating general), which originally referred to the commander-in-chief of the expeditionary army of the Imperial Court to subdue the northern barbarians in ancient times. After Minamoto no Yoritomo, the head of a warrior household, was appointed as shogun in 1192 (3rd of Jokyu), the title became the de facto supreme authority in Japan. By the way, one of the famous shogun is Tamuramaro Sakagami, who became shogun in 797 (16th of Enryaku), but he was unrelated to the warrior class, which emerged in later ages. There is a strange theory, in the West, that Tamuramaro was a black man. The origin of this theory seems to be a paper entitled “The Contribution of the Negro to Human Civilization” (The Journal of Race Development, Vol. 1, No. 4. Apr, 1911) written by Alexander Francis Chamberlain. No one in Japan seriously considers this theory. Sakanoue clan is surely one of the branch clans that split off from the Yamatonoayauji clan, which have a foreign origin, but we have no certain historical records about Tamuramaro's race, so it is impossible to know.

*11:イエズス会は16世紀前期に結成されたカトリック教会の修道会である。宗教改革の時代にあってカトリック復興を目指した彼らは高等教育の振興と非キリスト教徒への宣教を行っていた。イエズス会士フランシコ・ザビエルが1549年（天文18年）に初めて来日して以来、イエズス会は日本での布教活動を続けていた。

*12:巡察師とはこの時代にイエズス会が布教状況を査察するため各地に派遣した宣教師の称号である。アレッサンドロ・ヴァリニャーノは現在のイタリア南部にあったナポリ王国の貴族出身で、当時のイエズス会における重要人物だった。

*13:The Society of Jesus aka Jesuits is a religious order of the Catholic Church that was formed in the early 16th century. During the period of the Protestant Reformation, they aimed at the revival of Catholicism, promoted higher education and carrying out missionary work among non-Christians. The Society of Jesus had continued missionary work in Japan since Francis Xavier, a Jesuit who came to Japan as the first evangelist  in 1549 (18th of Tenbun).

*14:“Visitador” is a title given to missionaries dispatched by the Society of Jesus to various regions to inspect the state of missionary work during this period. Alessandro Valignano, who was born into a noble family in the kingdom of Naples(now southern Italy), was an important figure in the Society of Jesus at that time.

*15:本当に十人に勝てたわけではなく、あくまでそういう表現である。十人力という慣用表現は現在でも使われている。乃至政彦氏は池田本の「強力十（つづ）之人に勝たる」という部分を「力強さは、普通の人に勝る様子であった」と訳している。ただし我自刊我本を底本とする諸現代語訳はいずれも「十人力に勝る」と翻訳しており、乃至氏の意見は無視されている。本記事も定訳に従い十人力とする。

*16:同現代語訳の底本は建勲神社本系統に連なる我自刊我本。引用部については内容上の大きな異同はない。

*17:This modern Japanese translation by Sakakiyama is made from “Gajikanga copy,” which belongs to the similar copies with the Kenjin-jinja copy, not from the Ikeda copy. But this particular description do not have significant difference with it.

*18:It does not mean he was literally able to beat ten people, but is rather a common phrase. Even today, a similar idiomatic expression, "the power of ten," is used.

*19:The translation cited above is not based on the Ikeda autograph copy, but this description is the same with the Ikeda copy.

*20:昭和14年（1939年）に前田侯爵家が編んだ「尊経閣文庫国書分類目録」には七点の『信長記』伝本が掲載されている。このうち一寛が書写したという伝来経緯に合致しないものを取り除いた『信長記』十五冊本が尊経閣本である。ただし一寛が書写した写本が目録作成までに紛失していて、実は一寛の写本と尊経閣本が別物であるという可能性も皆無というわけではない。なお目録に掲載されている七点の内の一つである『安土記』十冊本は現在所在不明であるという。

*21:According to the "The book catalog of Sonkeikaku-bunko (Sonkeikaku-bunko Kokusho Bunrui Mokuroku)" compiled by the Marquis Maeda family in 1939 (14th of Showa), this library had seven archival copies of "Shincho-ki."  Among them, “the Sonkeikaku copy” means the fifteen volumes set of "Shincho-ki," excluding those that do not match the history that Kazuhiro transcribed. However, it is not impossible to think that Kazuhiro’ copy had been lost before the catalog was made, and therefore the true transcriber of the Sonkeikaku copy was not Kazuhiro. For example, the ten volume set of "Azuchi-ki," which is one of the seven listed in the catalog, is currently missing.

*22:欧州人で後に徳川家康に仕えて外交貿易顧問となった人物として、三浦按針ことウィリアム・アダムズとヤン・ヨーステンの二名が知られている。二人は旗本待遇だったが、ウィリアム・アダムズが仕官から数年を経て三浦という名字を拝領したのに対して、ヤン・ヨーステンは名字を持たなかった。

*23:Two Europeans, William Adams and Miura Anjin, is well known for serving as diplomatic and trade advisors for Tokugawa Ieyasu in later ages, the former is known by the name Miura Anjin in Japan. Both were given the status of bannerguards (旗本 hatamoto, direct retainers of the shogun), but while William Adams was granted the Japanese surname "Miura (三浦)" a few years after entering Tokugawa’s service, Jan Joosten never received a surname.

*24:平山氏によればのし付とは薄く伸ばした金銀を使用した高価な装飾である。またこの刀は従来は腰刀であると見なされてきたが、平山氏はこの刀が太刀である可能性もあると考えている。主君から刀を賜ることは、刀のサイズに関係なく大きな名誉だった。

*25:This “gold-encrusted sheath” (のし付 noshitsuki) meant, according to Professor Hirayama, an expensive decoration that used thinly stretched gold and silver. He also pointed out that although people conventionally considered this kind of swords to be a dagger (腰刀 koshi-gatana), it could have mean a long sword (太刀 tachi). In any case, receiving a sword from one's lord was an honor regardless of the size of the sword.

*26:信長記ではより上位の武士の住居として屋敷という言葉が使用される例が多い。英訳版『信長記』ではこの「屋敷」と「私邸」が訳し分けられていない。

*27:Shincho-ki writes it as “shitei (私邸)” in Japanese, which simply means “private residence.” Noticeably, the book often refers to high-ranking warrior’s residences as “yashiki (屋敷), which means a mansion or an estate, which possibly suggests Yasuke’s residence was not so grandeur as a mansion. However, the English translation of Shincho-ki by J. S. A. Elisonas and J.P. Lamers does not differentiate between yashiki and shitei.

*28:小姓とは主君に近時し身辺の雑用をこなす武士である。戦時には主君を護衛する親衛隊として本陣に配置される。歴史家の谷口克広氏によれば織田家の御小姓衆は家臣の次男以下から信長が自ら選抜した精鋭集団であり、信長はもう一つの親衛隊である馬廻と小姓を自ら率いてしばしば陣頭指揮を執った。こうした親衛隊には幹部候補生集団の性格もあり、前田利家のように小姓から大名に昇った例もある。弥助が信長の小姓であったと明示する史料は発見されていないが、金子氏は弥助の身分を小姓に比定している。一方で呉座氏は小姓としては弥助は歳を取りすぎていると指摘し、弥助が小姓だったという説には懐疑的である。

*29:Pages (小姓 kosho) were a post for the warrior class (武士 bushi). They did various choirs for their lord in close attendance, and during wartime they were positioned in the main camp as bodyguards of their lord. According to historian Katsuhiro Taniguchi, the Oda clan's pages were an elite group personally selected by Nobunaga from among the second and younger sons of his vassals. Nobunaga often led his troops in battle, personally commanding his pages and another group of bodyguards, the horseguards (馬廻 umamawari). These guard units were also a kind of potential candidates for executives; there are examples like Maeda Toshiie who rose from a page to a warlord (大名 daimyo). No historical sources have been discovered that explicitly state Yasuke was Nobunaga's page, but Professor Kaneko surmises Yasuke's status as comparable to that of a page. On the other hand, Professor Goza points out that Yasuke was too old to be a page, and is skeptical of the theory that Yasuke was one of them.

*30:信長存命の頃、徳川家は織田家から見て格下の同盟相手だった。しかし徳川家康は戦国時代を勝ち残り、260年続いた徳川幕府の初代将軍になった。『信長記』写本の研究では、初期に成立した写本ほど家康を呼び捨てにする傾向があり、徳川氏の権力が確立した後の時代に成立した写本では、家康へ敬称をつける傾向が強まることが分かっている。池田本では家康は46回中呼び捨てはわずかに2回のみである。対して尊経閣本は44回中26回呼び捨てとなっている。このことは尊経閣本が古態を残す写本であるという金子氏の説と整合的だ。ただし尊経閣本はそもそも家康以外の人物にも全体的に敬称をあまり使わない傾向がある。また『信長記』諸伝本の間で規則性があると見なされているのは基本的に家康の敬称だけで、信長へ敬称を付す頻度は不規則であることが知られている。

*31:During Nobunaga’s lifetime, the Tokugawa clan was an ally but a lesser clan than the Oda clan. However, Ieyasu survived and won out the Sengoku period, becoming the first shogun of the Tokugawa shogunate, which lasted for 260 years. Research on "Shincho-ki" proves that the copies made in the earlier years, for this reason, tend to name Ieyasu without a title of honor, while the ones in the later years tend to give some title of honor to Ieyasu. In the Ikeda copy (I will explain about this copy later), Ieyasu is named without a title only twice out of 46 times, whereas the Sonkeikaku copy gives a title to him 26 times out of 44 times. This is consistent with Professor Kaneko's theory that the Sonkeikaku copy preserves older details. However, we have to note that the Sonkeikaku copy generally tends not to use titles of honor, Ieyasu or not, in the first place. In addition, historians point out that  this kind of regularity is relevant only to the name of Ieyasu, and that the frequency of giving a title of honor to Nobunaga shows no such pattern.

*32:該当箇所は巻五の巻頭。金子拓『織田信長という歴史』の308ページを見よ。

*33:You find this deer hunting passage at the beginning of volume 5 of the Sonkeikaku copy. See Hiraku Kaneko, “Oda Nobunaga toiu rekishi,” p. 308

*34:後に天下統一を成し遂げた豊臣秀吉は、卑賤の身から成り上がり位人臣を極めた人物であった。天文23年（1554年）秀吉18歳のとき信長に小者として仕えたのを振り出しに、やがて足軽に昇進。永禄4年（1561年）の結婚の前後から木下の名字を名乗るようになり、美濃攻めにおける功績から永禄9年（1566年）には部将の地位を得る。天正1年（1573年）には12万石の大名となり、名字を羽柴と改めた。弥助が信長に仕えていた時期の秀吉は織田家最有力武将の一人として数万の兵力を率いていた。身分制の影響が強かった中世日本において、これほどの立身出世は他に類を見ない。

*35:It is a well known story that Toyotomi Hideyoshi rose from a humble beginning to the highest among the imperial subjects. In 1554 (23th of Tenbun), when Hideyoshi was 18 years old, he served Nobunaga as a menial servant (小者 komono) and was later promoted to an infantryman (足軽 ashigaru). Around the time of his marriage in 1561 (4th of Eiroku), he began to use the surname of Kinoshita, and in 1566 (9th of Eiroku), he was promoted to a commanding officer (武将 busho)by merit of the trust he earned with his great achievement in the Mino campaign. In 1573 (1st of Tensho), he became a feudal lord (大名 daimyo) with 120,000 koku and changed his surname to Hashiba. At this time, he led tens of thousands of troops as one of the six major corps commanders of the Oda army. In medieval Japan, where the class system strongly dominated, such a successful career was utterly unheard of.

*36:信長によって京都から追放された将軍足利義昭は諸大名に対する政治工作を行い、その結果複数の戦国大名が織田家と敵対した。中でも中国地方に勢力を築いた毛利家は義昭の亡命政権と深く繋がり、この方面の織田軍を率いる秀吉と激しく争っていた。天正10年に入り重要拠点である高松城を巡る争いで毛利軍主力が出動すると、秀吉は信長に応援を請い、信長は自らの出陣を決断した。

*37:Shogun Ashikaga Yoshiaki, who had been banished from Kyoto by Nobunaga, carried out political maneuvers to various warlords, successfully making some of them hostile against the Oda clan. Among them was the Mori clan, who had established their power in the Chugoku region. They were deeply connected to Yoshiaki's exile shogunate, and fiercely fought against Hideyoshi, who led the Oda clan army in this area. In 1582 (10th of Tensho), when the main force of the Mori army mobilized for the battle over Takamatsu Castle, an important stronghold, Hideyoshi asked Nobunaga for support, and Nobunaga decided to go into battle himself.

*38:1588年10月30日付でヴァリニャーノがイエズス会総長宛てに送った書簡のなかで彼はフロイスについて「彼は物事を完全にかつ詳細に書くことを好み、自分が言っていることすべてが真実かどうかを確認することを怠っている」と記したという。ただし筆者はこの記述をまだ確認できていない。

*39:Valignano wrote in his letter, on October 30, 1588, to the President of the Society of Jesus, about Frois that "He prefers to write things in full and in detail, and fails to examine whether all of what he describes is true." I have not saw this letter myself, though.

*40:原文ではCafre。カフレとは当時のポルトガル人たちが黒人を呼ぶのに使った言葉である。この語は村上直次郎訳では黒奴と翻訳されているが、カフレという語自体には奴隷の意味合いはないため誤訳といってよい。

*41:The word “Cafre” was used by the Portuguese at the time to refer to black people.

*42:公家とは朝廷の官人、とりわけ上層の廷臣をいう。彼らは武家勃興以前の、古代以来の上流階級の後裔である。この時代には政治的実権を武士に奪われ、経済的基盤であった荘園も戦乱によって喪失し、困窮していた。

*43:The term "court nobles” (公家 kuge) refers to officials of the Imperial Court, particularly the upper ranks of courtiers. They were the descendants of the ancient aristocracy that had held power before the rise of the warrior class. By this period, however, they had lost their political authority to the warriors, and their economic base, the manor (荘園 shoen), had also been devastated by ongoing warfare, leaving them impoverished.

*44:フロイスは現地での活動で資金を自己調達する方法を模索していたのかもしれない。戦国時代を通じてイエズス会日本支部は厳しい財政難にあった。そのため、フロイスが本部宛に送った報告は本部からの支援を期するため誇張される傾向があった。したがってイエズス会史料に記述された彼らの現地有力者との繋がりや布教活動の成功などは過大評価されていると考える必要がある。

*45:Frois might have been looking for ways to self-finance their activities in the field. Throughout the Sengoku period, the Japanese branch of the Society of Jesus was in severe financial difficulties. The reports Frois sent to the headquarters of the Jesuits, therefore, tended to exaggerate things in order to seek more supports from them. This factor necessitates us to suspect the connections with local dignitaries and successful missionary works described in Jesuits documents were often overstated.

*46:信長は武家であって公家ではないものの、困窮していた朝廷を庇護し経済的に援助していたため、朝廷から高位の官位を授けられていた。正二位は戦前の官位制度では総理大臣や陸海軍元帥が叙せられ、現在では在任期間の長かった総理大臣が没後に追贈される例が多い。また信長は位階とは別に名目上の官職として右大臣兼右近衛大将にも就いていたが、天正6年（1578年）に何故かどちらも辞任した。辞任の理由も、彼が将来どのような官職に就いて政権を運営するつもりだったのかも、まったくの謎となっている。

*47:Although Nobunaga was the head of a warrior household and not a court noble, he acted as a protector and financial supporter of the impoverished Imperial Court, being bestowed in return a very high rank in the Imperial Court. The court rank system continues even today. In the pre-WW2 Japan, the rank of Senior Second Rank (正ニ位 sho ni-i) was bestowed upon the Prime Minister and the marshals of the army and navy. Today, Prime Ministers who served extended periods have often been posthumously awarded this rank. Other than this rank, Nobunaga held the Imperial Court posts of the “Minister of the Right” (右大臣 udaijin) and the “major captain of the right division of the Inner palace guards”  (右近衛大将 ukone-no-daisho), but he resigned both posts in 1578 for some reason. It remains complete mysteries why he did so and what post he intended to hold in the future to control the administration.

*48:信長や秀吉など著名な武士の多くはこうした武将なので、武士ないし侍とは武将のことだと誤解されることもあるが、実際にはこうした高位の武士は全体のうち一握りである。多くの武士は数人の侍や奉公人だけを引き連れて、個人戦闘員として自ら戦わなければならなかった。

*49:Almost all of today’s famous and admired Japanese warriors, like Nobunaga and Hideyoshi, were warrior lords (武将 busho). For this reason, some modern people misunderstand that all of the warrior class (bushi) or all of samurai were a warrior lord. But in reality, there were only a handful warriors who had so high a status as warrior lord. Ordinary warriors had to fight as an individual combatant, with only a few servants in tow.

*50:この年に織田家と徳川家の連合軍は長年の宿敵であった武田家を滅亡させた。戦役に参加した織田軍の主力は信長の嫡男信忠の軍勢であった。織田信忠は天正3年（1575年）に織田家督を譲られ、当時は織田家最有力武将の一人だった。信長は名目上の総大将として出征したものの戦線の後方に留まった。

*51:In this year, the allied forces of the Oda clan and the Tokugawa clan destroyed the Takeda clan, which had long been their archenemy. The main force of the Oda army was the corps of Nobunaga's eldest son, Nobutada. Nobutada was formally handed over the reigns of the Oda clan by his father in 1775, and was one of the commanders of the six major corps of the Oda army at this time. Nobunaga went to this campaign technically as the the highest commander, but he remained behind the front lines.

*52:六尺二分は182.42406cmで約6フィートとなる。参考までに戦国時代の日本人男性の平均身長は155cm程度とされている。これは同時期の欧州のそれとあまり変わらない。ただし欧州の貴族たちがそうであったように、日本の武士も一般人よりも栄養状態が良かったから、彼らの平均身長はもっと高かったはずだ。織田信長の身長は約170cm、前田利家の身長は約180cmだったと言われている。ところでこの弥助の身長の記述はデータとしてあまりに詳細なため不自然である。これについては二つの説がある。一つは六尺二分はある種の定型表現ではないかというもので、非常に有名な僧兵である武蔵坊弁慶の身長がしばしば六尺二分と言及されることから、家忠が弥助を見て弁慶を連想したのではないかという説である。もう一つは当時家忠の領地において検地のために使われていた長さを測る棒、検地竿の長さが六尺二分だったので、家忠はだいたいその長さと同じくらいだと当たりをつけたという説である。ただし検地竿の長さは時期や地域によってかなり異同があるため、それほど確かではない。

*53:Six shaku and two bu equals 182.42406 centimeters, which is about six feet. For your information, the height of Japanese men in the Sengoku period averaged about 155 centimeters. The Europeans at the same time averaged about the same, too. However, warriors were generally taller than ordinary people because they were better nourished. The height of Oda Nobunaga, for example, was supposedly about 170 centimeters. But to return to the height of Yasuke, this data provided by Ietada feels unnaturally precise. It would have certainly been difficult for Ietada, in such a situation, to measure Yasuke's exact height. There are two plausible theories about this number. One is that six shaku two bu might have been a kind of conventional phrase which came from the height of Musashibo-Benkei, a very famous monk warrior, which was often described as six shaku two bu. This theory implies that Ietada might have associated Yasuke with Benkei when he saw him, making the phrase a kind of epithet rather than objective data. Admittedly, though, it is difficult to judge the validity of such a guess from the context. The other theory is that the length of the “kenchi-zao,” literally the measuring stick for land survey, in Ietada's territory at that time, might have been six shaku two bu, and that Ietada estimated Yasuke’s height as about the same with it. However, the length of the kenchi-zao varied considerably depending on the era or the region, which do not help this theory.

*54:太田牛一の没年は不詳であるが、金子氏によれば慶長18年（1613）に比定されているという。彼は晩年まで非常に活発な文筆活動を続けたが、その時期以降記録が途絶えるからである。彼の子孫は二つの家に分かれ、それぞれ加賀藩前田家と摂津麻田藩青木家に仕えた。

*55:The year of Ota Gyuichi's death is unclear, but according to professor Kaneko it was probably 1613 (18th of Keicho). The reason is that he continued to be a very productive writer even in his old age, but after that year we have no record of it. His descendants split into two families, and served the Maeda clan who ruled Kaga Domain and the Aoki clan who ruled Settsu-Asada Domain, respectively.

*56:『家忠日記増補追加』については旧内務省所蔵写本と早稲田大学所蔵写本の二つで確認、いずれも4月18日の次は21日。内務省本はNo3の44/102、早稲田本は13/104が該当箇所。『神君御年譜』については茨城大学図書館所蔵史料で確認、4月18日の次は5月に入る。該当箇所は38/108。

*57:As for the Supplemented Ietada Nikki (“Ietada Nikki Zoho Tsuika”), I have confirmed it with two versions of hand copies, one owned by the former Home Ministry and one owned by the library of Waseda University. In both of the copies, the next entry of the 18th of 4th month jumps to 21 of 5th month. The relevant parts are No. 3, 44/102 in the former copy and 13/104 in the latter. As for "Shinkun Gonenpu," I have confirmed it with the hand copy owned by Ibaraki University Library, and the next entry of 18th of 4th month jumps to 5th month. The relevant part is 38/108.

*58:尊経閣本と家忠日記ではヤスケの漢字表記が異なる。尊経閣本では弥助で、これは今日の人々が彼を表記する際の表記だが、家忠日記では弥”介”になっている。もっとも前近代の日本ではこうした表記揺れはまったく珍しいものではなかった。そこで筆者が平山氏に確認したところ、尊経閣本の加筆者が直接『家忠日記』を参照したと仮定したとき、表記揺れが起こることはありえないと回答された。

*59:池田本『信長記』は太田牛一自筆本でありその信頼性は高く評価されている。だが同本は池田家の要請に晩年の牛一が応えて著したものであり、実は池田輝政の事績が他本に比べて少し誇張されている。池田輝政のための加筆部分のうち目立つものとしては、天正8年閏3月2日摂津鼻熊城下の合戦で池田輝政が戦功を挙げた旨を記す「忝も御成御感状、後代之面目也」（かたじけなくも賞状を貰い、後の代まで続く名誉だ）という記述が巻十三のなかにある。ところでこの加筆は実は尊経閣本にも共通して存在する。新しい時期の自筆本と尊経閣本に共通点がある事実は、後者が牛一の初期の草稿の内容を反映する古態写本であるという説にとって無視できない矛盾だ。その一方で池田本と尊経閣本の異同は細かい言い回しや送り仮名などの点で非常に大きいこともまた事実であり、両本の関係についてはまだ解明が進んでいない。

*60:The Sonkeikaku copy and Ietada Nikki have a difference as to what Kanji characters they use for the name Yasuke. In the former, Yasuke is 弥"助", which is also the way we usually write his name today, but in the latter, it is 弥"介." In premodern Japan, such fluctuations in Kanji writing themselves were pretty common. However, when I asked Professor Hirayama about it, he replied that if the hypothetical person who added the passage to the Sonkeikaku copy actually could have directly read Ietada Nikki, such a fluctuation could not have happened.

*61:The Ikeda autograph copy of “Shincho-Ki” was written by Ota Gyuichi in his own hand, and historians highly regard its reliability. However, Gyuichi wrote this copy in his old age in response to a request from the Ikeda family, and in fact, the achievements of Ikeda Terumasa, a feudal lord, were slightly exaggerated compared to the other copies. But, I find it impossble to discover similar relationship between the Sonkeikaku copy and Yasuke. I will show you just one of the major additions made for the Ikeda family here. It is a passage in volume 13 that reads “I (Terumasa) am deeply grateful for the letter of commendation, which is an honor that will last for generations of my family to come,” which describes how Ikeda Terumasa distinguished himself in the Battle of Hanakuma Castle in Settsu province on the 2nd of leap 3rd month in 8th Tensho (1580). I’d like to say one more thing in passing. The Sokeikaku copy also shares this passage. The fact that the relatively new Ikeda copy and the Sonkeikaku copy have similarity is a nonnegligible contradicttion to Professor Kaneko’s theory that the latter was transcribed from Gyuichi's manuscript with the original trivialities. On the other hand, though, it is also true that the differences between the Ikeda copy and the Sokeikaku copy are very large in terms of minor wording. I have to say, at this moment, the relationship between the two copies is still not clear for us.

*62:In the original text, it is referred to as chugen (中間), and in this article, mid-servant is used for chugen.

*63:このときの信忠は従三位、左近衛中将。

*64:This means that he was at Junior Third Rank (従三位) in imperial rank system, and Lieutenant General of the Left Division of Inner Palace Guards (左近衛中将).

*65:信長が上洛に伴って安土から引き連れてきたのは「御小姓衆二、三十人」だったと『信長記』に記されているが、人数が記載されていない武家奉公人たちも含めれば総数はもう少し多かったはずだ。谷口氏によれば信長と共に戦った護衛は小姓を中心とし総数は50人から60人ほどだったという。この数字には本来非戦闘員である中間たちも含まれる。このように緊急時に奉公人が戦闘に加わるケースも稀にあった。

*66:According to Shincho-ki, Nobunaga brought only 20 to 30 pages (御小姓衆 Okosho-syu; o = honorific, kosho = page, syu = group) from Azuchi, his home castle, to Kyoto. The total number might have been a little larger if we count in unmentioned household servants, but it would still be a small group. According to historian Katsuhiro Taniguchi, the total number of the escort who fought with Nobunaga at Honno-ji was only about 50 to 60 men, the core of which was his pages. This number includes household servants, who were essentially non-combatants. It was rare but not unheard-of for them to join the battle in an emergency, though, and this was such a case.

*67:平戸のイギリス商館長であったリチャード・コックスの日記には当時の長崎に多くの黒人がいたことが記録されている。例えば彼の日記にはアントニオという名前のカフル人が登場する。アントニオは元は平戸領主松浦隆信に所有されていて、日本語とポルトガル語に堪能であったが、解放されてイギリス商館にいた。1617年11月の日記によると、マニラからやってきたスペイン人が大金を払ってでもアントニオを買い入れたいと申し出てきたという。記録の多くは貿易港である長崎の周辺におけるものだが、『続無名抄』には慶長12年（1607年）頃に因幡鹿野藩に「黒坊」がいたという記録がある。藩主亀井氏が朝鮮出兵から連れ帰ったらしい。当時編纂されたポルトガル語による日本語辞書『日葡辞書』によるとクロボウ（Curobō）はカフル人のことなので、これは黒人のことだと思われるが、詳細は不明である。

*68:Richard Cox, the chief of British merchant house in Hirado, recorded in his diary that there were many black people in Nagasaki at the time. For example, in his diary, a man named Antonio appears. Antonio was originally owned by Matsuura Takanobu, the lord of Hirado fiefdom, and was fluent in Japanese and Portuguese, but he stayed at the British trading house after he was freed. According to his diary in November 1617, a Spaniard from Manila offered to buy Antonio for a large sum of money. Although most of such records are from around Nagasaki, a trading port, the “Zoku Mumyōshō” (a book in the Okanishi Ichu’s series of essay) contains a record of a “Kurobō” in the Inaba Shikano Domain around 1607. It seems that a feudal lord Kamei brought him back from the Korean invasion. According to "Vocabulário da Língua do Japão" (the Japanese-Portuguese dictionary compiled by the Jesuits at the time), the Japanese word “Curobō” meant “Cafre”, so I think this was a black person, but the details are unknown.

*69:これはイエズス会の一方的な見方であって事実とはすこし異なる。イエズス会報告のなかにおける信長は信仰を持たない無神論者であるかのように描写されているが、実際には伝統的な日本宗教との関係もあった。谷口氏の著作には織田家の近習が神社の修繕を怠る家臣を叱責する記録が登場する。ただし信長が激しく敵対した勢力のなかに仏教勢力も含まれていることは事実である。

*70:This was a onesided view of the Jestuits and not true. In the Jesuit reports, Nobunaga was described as an atheist without any faith, but in reality he was associated to traditional Japanese religions. Historian Taniguchi highlightes in his book a scene in a historical record that an adjutant (近習 kin-ju) of the Oda clan scolded a vassal who neglected to repair a shrine. That being said, it is very true that Buddhists were among the forces that Nobunaga fiercely fought against.

*71:明智光秀は信長に下剋上を試みたことで非常に著名な人物である。もっとも戦国時代には武士の裏切りは日常茶飯事だったし、信長は家臣や親族にしばしば裏切られていたので、光秀が特別卑劣な人間だったわけではない。もともと彼は室町幕府の下級幕臣で、信長が上洛し幕府を後見するようになると、形式上幕臣の身分を維持しながら、事実上は織田家の指揮系統に組み込まれるようになった。信長が将軍足利義昭と決裂した際に光秀は織田方につき、以降は織田家中で昇進を重ねている。彼が信長を裏切った理由については様々な説があり、信長に叱責された恨み説、幕府への隠れた忠誠心説、最初から天下を取る野心があった説、果ては陰謀論的なものとして朝廷黒幕説、イエズス会黒幕説なども提唱されたが、いずれも根拠に乏しい。呉座氏は光秀の突発的な犯行だっただろうと考えている。信長は大規模な軍勢を伴わず、信忠と同じとき同じ場所に集まるという決定的なミスを犯した。そして光秀は京都にほど近い丹波国にあって、信長たちの居場所を偶然知ることができた。

*72:Akechi Mitsuhide is very famous for his half-succeeded attempt to overthrow Nobunaga. However, in the Sengoku period, betrayal by vassals was a daily occurrence. Nobunaga, too, was often betrayed by his vassals, and that makes Mitsuhide a not-so-particularly despicable person. Mitsuhide was originally a low-ranking vassal of the Muromachi shogunate, and when Nobunaga went to Kyoto and took the position of the guardian of the shogunate, he was practically incorporated into the chain of command of the Oda clan even though he was still a vassal of the shogunate formally. But when Nobunaga broke off with Shogun Ashikaga Yoshiaki, Mitsuhide actually took the side of the Oda clan, and since then he was promoted in the Oda clan. There are various theories as to why he betrayed Nobunaga, such as the theory of a grudge for being scolded by Nobunaga, the theory of hidden loyalty to the shogunate, the theory that he had an ambition to rule whole country from the beginning, and even conspiracy theories that feature a mastermind like the Imperial Court or the Society of Jesus. But all of them have little basis. Professor Goza believes that Mitsuhide did it on the spur of the moment. Nobunaga and Nobutada made the crucial mistake of gathering in the same place at the same time without an army, and Mitsuhide got to find it out by chance, since he happend to be in Tanba, a nearby region.

*73:この弥助を洗わせたという内容の記述が1710年にリスボンで出版された『Oriente conquistado a Jesu Christo pelos Padres da Companhia de Jesus』という著作にもほとんど同じ文面で登場する。この二つの書物の奇妙な符合は、二人の著者が同じ内容の報告書簡を別の場所、別のタイミングで参照した可能性を示唆しているのかもしれない。当時イエズス会は同じ内容の報告書簡を最低でも三つ作成し一通はマカオで保管、他はヨーロッパへ送信していた。

*74:This description of washing Yasuke appears almost in the same expression in “Oriente conquistado a Jesu Christo pelos Padres da Companhia de Jesus,” a book published in Lisbon in 1710. This curious consistency of two books may suggest that the two authors may have referred to a report letter of the same content in different places and times. The Jesuits at that time wrote at least three report letters of the same content, one of which was kept in Macau, and the others were sent to Europe.

*75:秀吉は信長の死後もしばらくの間キリスト教を容認する姿勢を維持していたが、天正15年（1587年）に宣教師の追放と南蛮貿易の禁止を宣言した。ただしこの伴天連追放令は不完全なもので、実際には宣教師たちはキリシタン大名の領内へ逃れて活動を継続している。後の三浦按針ことウィリアム・アダムズとヤン・ヨーステンが乗ったオランダ商船リーフデ号が慶長5年（1600年）に日本へ漂着した際にも、イエズス会の日本支部はまだ活動を続けていた。この後、イエズス会以外のキリスト教勢力による布教活動が活発化すると、当時成立したばかりだった幕府はキリスト教に対する姿勢をさらに硬化させていった。最終的に慶長18年（1613年）幕府は全国規模の禁教令を発し、教会は破壊されて宣教師たちは追放された。それから二十年以上経った寛永14年（1637年）になると島原・天草地域のキリシタン信徒たちが大規模な反乱を起こした。幕府は十二万の大軍を動員し、オランダ武装商船による艦砲射撃などあらゆる手段を用いて非戦闘員を含む信徒たちを根絶やしにした。ごく僅かな信徒だけが地下組織化し生き延びることができた。幕府が再びキリスト教を許可したのは安政6年（1859年）のことであった。

*76:After Nobunaga's death, his successor Hideyoshi also kept the stance of tolerating Christianity for a while, but he declared banishment of missionaries and prohibition of trade with the West in 1587. However, this so-called "Bateren edict" (Bateren = a phonetic transcription of Padre) was incomplete, and in fact, evangelistic activities of the Jesuits and trade with the West continued. The Japanese branch of the Society of Jesus was still active even when the Dutch merchant ship Liefde with William Adams on board washed ashore in 1600. But, soon after that, when Christian orders other than the Jesuits, such as Dominicans, the Augustinians, and the Franciscans, began to propagate Christianity in Japan, things have changed. The newly established Tokugawa Shogunate (徳川幕府 tokugawa-bakufu), the last warrior government in history, gradually hardened its stance against Christianity. Finally, in 1613, the Shogunate declared severe banning of Christianity on a nationwide scale, and began destroying churches and expelling missionaries. In 1637, the Christians in Shimabara and Amakusa areas staged a large-scale rebellion. The Shogunate mobilized a large force of 120,000 troops and exterminated the Christians, including non-combatants, by any means such as naval bombardment from a Dutch armed merchant ship. A mere small number of Christians who organized underground groups survived thereafter. It was in 1859 that the Shogunate permitted again Christian propagation.

*77:徳川幕府は石高に応じた戦時動員兵力を詳細に規定していた。一例として（実際には施行された幕令ではないのだが）いわゆる「慶安軍役令」を見てみよう。同令は二〇〇石から一〇万石までを三七段階に分け、軍役の人数と武器数を規定している。一万石の場合には次の通り。「一万石　二百三十五人　馬上十騎　弓十張　鉄砲二十挺　槍三十本　旗三本（細目規定は中略）用人・物頭、騎士ノ内ニ有ベシ、此外小荷駄幷医者・文者・勘定役・大工・金堀等ハ、知行高ニ応シテ相応可召連、忍之者ハ押足軽之内ニ有ベシ」「1万石、総兵力235人。馬上10騎、弓10張、鉄砲20挺、槍30本、旗3本（中略）用人と物頭は騎士のうちに含むこと。この他に小荷駄、医者、書記、経理官、大工、鉱夫などは、石高に応じて連れてきても良い。忍者は足軽のうちに含むこと。」（筆者訳）一方、信長存命当時の織田家にはこのような客観的基準は一切存在せず、家臣たちは信長の期待に応えるために国力の限界まで軍拡することを余儀なくされていた。そして信長から「この家臣にはあれだけ石高をくれてやったのに、その割にはなんだか軍功がぱっとしないなあ」などと思われるとたちまち悲惨な目にあった。事実、佐久間信盛は織田家筆頭家老かつ最有力武将の一人だったが天正8年（1580年）に信長から激しく罵倒され追放処分を受けている。彼は信長の期待に答えられなかったらしい。彼の軍団を引き継いだのが明智光秀だった。

*78:The Tokugawa shogunate stipulated in detail the number of troops to be mobilized in wartime according to a lord’s kokudaka (assessed rice yield). One example of this—although it was never actually enacted as an official shogunal edict—is the so-called "Keian Military Service Code" (慶安軍役令 Keian Gunyakurei). This regulation divided lords into 37 tiers ranging from 200 koku to 100,000 koku, and prescribed the number of troops and weapons they were expected to provide. For instance, a domain assessed at 10,000 koku was required to supply the following: “For 10,000 koku: 235 troops; 10 mounted warriors; 10 bows; 20 guns; 30 spears; 3 flags. (Details omitted.) Personal attendants and officers must be included among the mounted warriors. In addition, auxiliary personnel such as packhorse drivers, doctors, clerks, accountants, carpenters, and miners should be brought along in accordance with the size of the fief. SHINOBI are to be counted among infantrymen (足軽 ashigaru).” (Author’s translation.) By contrast, during Oda Nobunaga’s lifetime, the Oda clan had no such objective standards. Instead, vassals were compelled to expand their military forces to the very limits of their domain’s capacity in order to meet Nobunaga’s expectations. If Nobunaga felt that a vassal’s military achievements did not measure up to the size of his fief, he would quickly fall out of favor and face dire consequences. In fact, Sakuma Nobumori, who had been the Oda clan’s elder vassals and one of the six major corps commanders of the Oda army, was harshly reprimanded and expelled by Nobunaga in 1580 (Tenshō 8), seemingly for failing to meet Nobunaga’s expectations. His military corps was later taken over by Akechi Mitsuhide.

*79:近世に入ると知行取りは武士全体のなかのごく一部（約10%程度）に過ぎなくなった。さらにはその知行も形式だけのものとなり、名目上は知行取りでありながら実際には切米と同様に藩から米を支給する形態が広まった。加えて平和が続いた江戸時代の武士は戦士としての実態さえ喪失し、事実上は役人と化していた。中世における武士は領主身分である職能戦士だったが、近世にはどちらの特徴も失ってしまったのである。

*80:『信長記』によれば、矢代勝介という信長家臣は、伴・村田と共に厩で戦ったと記録されている。彼は武士ではなく馬術家であることがわかっている。ところで『甫庵信長記』には明智方の者が矢代に対して「汝は他に異なり、退かじ」（お前は他の者とは違うから逃げろ）と言ったが、矢代はそれをあざ笑って戦い、討死するという場面がある。『甫庵信長記』は信頼性に問題のある史料なので字面通りには受け取れないが、事実なら戦闘員でない矢代は見逃してもらえたのに自ら戦いを選んだことになる。

*81:Among those who died in the Honnoji Incident with Nobunaga was a retainer named Yashiro Shosuke, who was an equestrian. Shincho-ki tells us that Yashiro, Tomo Shorin, and Murata Kichigo fought in the stable. By the way, "Hoan Shinchoki," a popular version of Shincho-ki, depicts a scene in which an Akechi's soldier said to Yashiro,“You are different from the others, run away,” but Yashiro scoffed at that and fought to his death in the battle. "Hoan Shinchoki" is a historical material with credibility problems, so we cannot take it literally, but if it was true, it means that Yashiro, who was not a combatant, chose to fight even though he had the right to be overlooked.

*82:弥助以外にも変の生存者は数多くいた。御所にいた皇族の誠仁親王はじめ朝廷の関係者、信長に帯同していた女性たち、寺の僧侶たちなどである。変に遭遇した織田家臣は大部分が討死した。名のある武士のうち数少ない例外は、稲葉貞通、水野忠重、織田長益（有楽斎という別名で有名）の三者である。特に長益は信長の弟だったにも関わらず逃亡して生き残ったため、大きな非難に晒されている。歴史家の和田裕弘氏はこの三者を「武将としての名を汚してしまった」などと厳しく評している。

*83:In fact, there were many survivors of the Honnoji Incident other than Yasuke. For example, His Highness Prince Masahito, officials and court ladies of his court, women who accompanied Nobunaga, and the monks of the temple. But it is also true that most of the Oda clan vassals who took part in the incident died. The few exceptions who ran away was Sadamichi Inaba, Mizuno Tadashige, and Oda Nagamasu (also known as Urakusai). In particular the last one, Nagamasu, who escaped and survived despite being Nobunaga's younger brother, came under heavy criticism. Historian Yasuhiro Wada describes these three as having 'tarnished their reputation as a warrior lord.'

*84:豊臣秀吉は多くの御伽衆を抱えていたことで知られている。小瀬甫庵の記した『甫庵太閤記』には800人（！）もいたとあり、甫庵の著述は疑わしいが多かったことは確かなのだろう。秀吉の御伽衆は没落した元大名など由緒ある血筋の者が多いことが特徴で、最後の室町将軍足利義昭や、本能寺の変から逃亡して生き残った信長の弟、織田長益も秀吉の御伽衆に加わっている。

*85:Toyotomi Hideyoshi is known to have had many otogisyu. Oze hoan's “Hoan Taiko Ki” (Chronicles of Toyotomi Hideyoshi by Hoan) describes that Hideyoshi had 800 otogisyu, and although the accuracy of this number is questionable, he did seem to had many. One of the characteristics of Hideyoshi's otogisyu was that many of them were from prestigious families, such as former feudal lords who had fallen from grace. For example, among them were Ashikaga Yoshiaki, who was the last shogun of the Muromachi period, and Oda Nagamasa, who was Nobunaga's younger brother and who fled and survived the Honnoji Incident.

*86:当該発言が宣教師によって記録されたことを考えると、獣という表現は宣教師たちの弥助への評価から出てきたものかもしれない。岡氏はイエズス会に一度入信したが脱会した日本人が、脱会以来イエズス会側の記録において罵詈雑言で形容されるようになったという事実を踏まえて、急激に身分が上昇した弥助と彼の元主人であるイエズス会の間で関係が悪化した可能性を示唆している。または、これが実際に光秀の発言であった場合、黒人に対する人種差別というより外国人全般に対する偏見に由来するものであると考えるのが妥当である。というのも当時の日本には外国人全体に対する差別は存在したが、そのなかで特定の人種を他の人種と区別する風潮はなかったからだ。例えば朝廷において天皇は外国人と面会する際に「穢れ」を避けるため必ず御簾ごしに対面する決まりがあったが、この規則は中国人や朝鮮人に対しても適用されていた。なおこの規則は明治維新の折に撤廃されている。

*87:Considering that this remark was recorded by Jesuit missionaries, it is possible that the expression “beast” reflected their own negative evaluation of Yasuke. Professor Oka points out that Japanese people who once joined the Society of Jesus but later left were often described with abusive language in Jesuit records after their departure. Based on this fact, she suggests the possibility that Yasuke’s relationship with the Jesuits, who had once been his masters, may have deteriorated as his status rose rapidly. Alternatively, if the remark truly originated from Mitsuhide himself, it would be more reasonable to interpret it not as a form of racial discrimination against Black people, but rather as a manifestation of prejudice against foreigners in general. This is because, although discrimination against foreigners existed in Japan at the time, there was no prevailing attitude of distinguishing one race from another. For example, at the Imperial Court, when the emperor met with foreigners, there was a fixed rule that they had to be received from behind a bamboo curtain (御簾 misu) in order to avoid ritual impurity (穢れ kegare). This rule was applied equally to Chinese and Korean envoys as well. It is worth noting that this custom was abolished at the time of the Meiji Restoration.

*88:代表的な武家奉公人として挙げられるのは中間と小者である。小者は雑用に従事する下級の奉公人で、個々の武士の私的使用人であるため軍役の対象にならない。中間は小者と足軽の間の地位であることにその名が由来し、非戦闘員で主君の世話を務める点で小者と変わりはないが地位は小者より高い。

*89:The two most common types of household servants were the mid-servant (中間 chugen) and menials (小者 komono). The menials were low-ranking servants for miscellaneous works, and they were not subject to military service because they were merely personal servants of individual warriors. Mid-servant, whose name derives from their position between the menials and infantrymen (足軽 ashigaru), were the same with menials in that they were non-combatants who take care of their lord, but were a rank higher than menials.

*90:一季居とは一年季で雇用される奉公人、あるいは一年季で奉公人を雇用すること。中世の武家奉公人は主君である武士と代々続く主従関係を結んでおり、その母体は武士の所領地の住民だったと考えられている。しかし近世に入ると、武家はこうした譜代奉公人に代わって町人や百姓を期間雇用することによって奉公人を確保するようになった。これが一季奉公人である。なお法令の文面は一見すると一季居を禁止しているように読めるが、この法令における一季者とは厳密には雇用期間の切れた元奉公人「一季之窂人」のことを指している。彼らは契約期限が切れると元の居場所、基本的には農村に帰ることが想定されていたが、元一季者がそのまま都市部に滞留して人口過密や治安悪化を引き起こすなどして、当時社会問題化していたのである。一季居禁令は幕府が農業人口確保の観点から、彼らを農村へ還流させることを意図したものだったが、ほとんど同じ文面の法律が大量に制定されたことを鑑みると効果が上がったのか疑わしい。高木氏の論考では十五本の一季居禁令が取り上げられている。このうち「侍」にも「若党」にも言及しないものが二つ、若党を使用しているものが一つ（本文で取り上げた）そして残りの十二本が「侍」を使用している。ちなみにその十二本のうち九本は条文の文面がまったく同一である。手抜き立法も甚だしい。

*91:The term ikkiori (一季居) refers to household servants employed on a one-term contract, or to the system of employing such servants on a yearly basis. In the medieval period, warrior-household servants were generally engaged in long-term hereditary relationships with their lords, often originating from the residents of the lord’s territory. However, in the early modern period, warrior households increasingly replaced such hereditary retainers with townspeople or peasants hired for fixed terms—these were ikkiori servants. At first glance, the edicts appear to prohibit ikkiori employment itself. However, the term “ikkyo-mono” as used in these laws actually referred more precisely to former household servants whose contracts had expired—“ikkyo no rōnin” (literally, “seasonal masterless men”). These individuals were expected to return to their home villages—typically rural agricultural communities—once their service had ended. However, many of them remained in urban areas, contributing to problems such as overpopulation and deteriorating public security, which became a social issue at the time. The purpose of the edicts was for the shogunate to promote the return of these people to rural areas in order to secure agricultural manpower. Still, considering that a large number of these edicts were issued with virtually identical wording, one might question how effective they actually were. In Professor Takagi’s study, fifteen examples of ikkyo kinrei are analyzed. Among these, two make no reference to either “samurai” or “wakato,” one (cited earlier) uses “wakato,” and the remaining twelve use “samurai.” Incidentally, of those twelve, nine contain exactly the same wording. This is bureaucratic laziness at its finest.

*92:荒仕事を受け持つ最下級の奉公人の一種である。

*93:天正19年（1591年）に秀吉が定めたこの法令は日本各地の大名家に文書が残っており、日本全国を対象にしていたことがわかっている。かつてこの法令は侍（武士）と町人や百姓といった各身分の間の移動を禁じたものと解釈され、歴史家によって身分統制令と呼ばれてきた。高木氏の研究はそれまでの通説を覆すものであり、前近代日本の身分制度研究は転機を迎えることになった。

*94:武士の軍隊における非戦闘員比率は一般に想像されているよりも遥かに高い。高木氏はこのことを18世紀初頭の前橋酒井家の陣立書を用いて説明している。陣立書によれば12万5千石を誇る酒井家の軍勢は総勢約5,880人と馬930匹から成り、その内訳は騎馬の士350人、徒士200人、足軽1,050人、中間・小者計300人、又者（騎馬の士などの従者）1,800人、人足1,200人、馬の口取（馬子）570人、その他（職人・医者・坊主・台所方など）、そして乗馬360匹と駄馬570匹である。戦闘員である武士と足軽の合計はたったの1,600人に過ぎない。ただしこの陣立書には若党（侍）が記載されていない。彼らは個々の武士の家臣であり藩主からみれば陪臣なので又者のなかに含まれているのだ。高木氏は又者1,800人のうち、武士の人数と大まかに同数の若党がいると推測しているが、その場合でも戦闘員が2000人を超える程度で総勢の三分の一ほどにしかならない。

*95:Arashiko was a kind of lowest-ranking servants who are in charge of rough work.

*96:This statute enacted by Hideyoshi in Tensho 19 covered entire Japan. We know of that because documents remained in the families of feudal lords in various regions of Japan. In the past, historians interpreted this statute as prohibition of trespassing the lines of social caste, such as samurai (warrior), townspeople and peasants, and referred to it as the “social status control edict.” Professor Takagi's study overturned this conventional theory and marked a turning point in the study of the class system in premodern Japan.

*97:The ratio of non-combatants in Japanese armies in this period is much higher than we might imagine.  Professor Takagi illustrated this point using a military mobilization plan of the Maebashi Domain from the early 18th century. According to this plan, the army of Sakai clan, who boasted its Domain’s rice production of 125,000 koku, consisted of a total of approximately 5,880 soldiers and 930 horses. Its breakdown was as follows: 350 mounted warriors, 200 foot warriors, 1,050 infantrymen, 300 household servants, 1,800 vavasours (servants of mounted warriors, etc.), 1,200 coolies, 570 horsemen, and others (craftsmen, doctors, priests, kitchen staff, etc.), plus 360 riding horses and 570 packhorses. As we can see, the total number of warriors and infantrymen, who were the combatants, was only 1,600. However, this list does not include esquires (若党 wakato). They were retainers of individual warriors, and as they were, from the viewpoint of feudal lords,  vavasours (retainers of a retainer), they were included in the “vavasours” part of this list. Professor Takagi estimates that, among the 1,800 vavasours, the number of esquires would have been roughly the same with warriors, but even in that case, the number of combatants would only be a little over 2,000, or about one third of the total.

*98:酒井家の1840年頃の陣立表では、一種類の武器を装備する足軽隊には指揮官と思しき武士一名とその従者、そして小頭一名が置かれている。この事から小頭は現代の軍曹のような叩き上げの現場リーダーだったのではないかと思われるのだが、これは専門的知識のない筆者の想像に過ぎないことを断っておく。

*99:According to another mobilization plan of the Sakai clan around 1840, each ashigaru unit, with only one type of weapon such as pikes or guns, included one warrior (who seems to be the commander), the warrior’s servants, and one kogashira (小頭). I suspect from this setup that the position of kogashira was a kind of platoon sergeant in modern armies, but it is only my speculation without much evidence.

*100:イエズス会は日本で宣教を行うにあたって、当時日本と交易があったポルトガル商人のネットワークに相乗りすることを選んだ。そのため宣教師にはポルトガル語を話せる者が選ばれ、日本語との翻訳もポルトガル語を通して行われた。本記事で紹介したイエズス会書簡の原文もポルトガル語である。

*101:When the Jesuits came to Japan to spread Christianity, they chose to piggyback on the network of Portuguese traders who had trading connections with Japan at the time. For this reason, the headquarters of the Jesuits chose missionaries who could speak Portuguese, and translations into other European languages were made via Portuguese translation.

*102:中世の自力救済社会にあって、農村共同体が自衛のために武装することは常識だった。明智光秀を殺害したのもこのような武装した地元住人であった可能性が高い。豊臣秀吉は天正16年（1588年）に刀狩令を発し、こうした武士以外の階層の武装権を大幅に制限した。

*103:In the Middle Ages, whose legal principe was essentiallly that of self-help, it was just a common sense that even rural peasant communities armed themselves for self-defense. It is highly likely that it was these armed local people who killed Akechi Mitsuhide, by the way. Toyotomi Hideyoshi issued the famous order of “sword banning” in 1588, which almost unconditionally deprived the right to arm oneself for all classes except the warrior class.

*104:かつて日本史学界は戦国時代の足軽の母体が徴兵された百姓だったと考え、この史料がその根拠だと考えてきた。だが徴兵令と思しき史料は少なく、そのどれもが徴兵を非常事態のための緊急的措置だと弁明している。実際には百姓が戦闘員として招集されることは非常に稀だったようだ。武士の軍隊は職能戦士である武士とその奉公人、そして武士が募兵した傭兵である足軽から組織されていた。そして百姓が徴発されること自体はあったが、想定される持ち場は小荷駄隊における陣夫である。つまり武家奉公人が非戦闘員といえども主君に随伴して戦場の第一線に進出するのに対して、百姓はあくまで後方に留まるのが本来の形なのである。この文書が発給された当時、天下統一に王手をかけた豊臣秀吉の圧倒的な大軍を目前にして、後北条氏は質を問わず兵力をかき集めようとしていた。軍事史に明るく城郭研究で知られている歴史家の西股総生氏は、これらの百姓を徴兵した民兵部隊を後方拠点の守備に用いることで、後北条氏は軍主力を有効活用できるようになったと説明している。後北条氏はこのようにあらゆる手段を尽くして戦ったが、当主北条氏直は天正18年7月5日（1590年8月4日）小田原城において降伏し、豊臣秀吉が天下を統一した。

*105:Academic historians believed, in the past, that common soldiers in the Sengoku period were merely conscripted peasants, and that this historical document is an evidence of that. However, there are only a few historical documents that seem to be conscription orders, and all of them make excuses that they are just an emergency measure, like this one. In reality, recruiting peasants as combatants was very rare. The armies at this period were made up from the following: warriors (bushi), who were professionals of war; their servants; and infantrymen, who were mercenaries the warriors recruited. The conscripted peasants merely served as a part of luggage train. This fact is  consistent with the timing of this conscription order, when the Go-Hojo clan was desperately preparing for the coming war with Toyotomi Hideyoshi, who was within the reach of unification of entire Japan. Nishimata Sosei, a historian well-versed in military history and known for his research into castle architecture, explains that by using these peasant militia to defend the clan's rear bases, the Go-Hojo clan were able to make effective use of their main military force. The Go-Hojo clan fought against Hideyoshi with every means possible, but Hojo Ujinao, the head of the Go-Hojo clan, surrendered at Odawara Castle on July 5th, 1590 (4th of 8th month, Tensho 18). Shortly after that, Hideyoshi unified Japan.

*106:位階制度は朝廷の法制度である。古代の日本は天皇を元首とする氏族の連合体であったが、そうした門閥政治を改めて中央集権体制を確立するため、七世紀以降の朝廷は古代中国の法制度である律令を採り入れた。律令において官職の世襲は（形式上は）廃止され、氏族長の地位と国家の官職の地位は分離された（しかし実態としては分離できなかった）そして個々人の官人は三十階に序列化され、位に応じた官職に任命される建前になっていた。律令制は10世紀末ごろには実態を喪失するが、身分表示としての位階制度は武家の時代に入ってからも長く生き残った。現行の位階制度は大正15年（1926年）に制定された位階令に基づくもので、戦後の運用では叙位の対象となるのは生前に功績の大きかった、皇族を除く日本国民の故人である。

*107:The ikai (位階 court rank) system belongs to the legal framework of the Imperial Court. In ancient Japan, society was structured as a federation of clans ruled by the emperor. However, in an effort to abolish this clan-based political order and establish a centralized government, the Imperial Court adopted the ritsuryo (律令) system—an ancient Chinese legal code—starting in the 7th century. Under the ritsuryo system, the hereditary succession of government positions was (at least formally) abolished, and clan leadership roles were separated from official state offices—though in practice, this separation was not fully realized. Individual officials were classified into a hierarchy of thirty ranks and were, in principle, appointed to government posts in accordance with their rank. Although the ritsuryo system lost its practical function by the end of the 10th century, the court rank system as a form of social status indicator continued to survive well into the age of the warriors. The current ikai system is based on the Court Rank Ordinance established in 15th of Taisho (1926). In its postwar application, court ranks are conferred only posthumously upon Japanese citizens (excluding members of the imperial family) who have made significant contributions during their lifetimes.