Biographies LV: Prince Masami, Yamada-no-Haruki, Sanuki-no-Naganao, and Tomo-no-Narimasu

Prince Masami

¶Prince Masami was a son of Imperial Prince Manda. From early childhood he was intelligent and quick, and after entering the university he read the Shiji (Records of the Grand Historian) and the Hanshu (Book of Han) and excelled at composition. At the age of eighteen he passed the examination for Monjō-shō, student of letters. During the Tenchō era he was granted Junior Fourth Rank Lower, and he went on to hold in turn the posts of Danjō-no-daihitsu (Senior Assistant Minister of the Board of Censors), Gyōbu-no-taifu (Senior Assistant Minister of Justice), and Ukyō-no-daibu (Master of the Right Capital Office); he then went out to the provinces as Governor of Tanba. His government prized integrity and simplicity, so that none of the people dared to deceive him. In the seventh year of Jōwa (840) he was appointed Sangi, Consultant, and concurrently served as Sadaiben (Senior Controller of the Left), Governor of Yamato, and Governor of Tōtōmi (Note: following the Sandai Jitsuroku).

¶In the thirteenth year of Jōwa (846), the monk Zengai of Hōryūji accused his patron (danotsu), the Shōnagon (Minor Counsellor) Tomi-no-Naona, of "forcing the sale of cheap goods and wrongfully collecting payment for a house." Masami, together with his colleagues, reported the matter upward and sought to bring Naona to account. However, Tomo-no-Yoshio, Ushōben (Junior Controller of the Right), thought that "Masami is taking Zengai's side," and secretly submitted a memorial to the throne saying that Masami and the others had improperly accepted Zengai's unlawful complaint. The throne therefore had the myōbōka, the experts in law, deliberate on the matter.

¶The opinion of Sanuki-no-Naganao, Daihanji (Senior Judge), and of the doctor Misuke-no-Nagamichi was as follows. "Having examined the written complaint, we find that the offence committed by Naona corresponds to illicit gains (zōmotsu) of twenty-two tan and three jō of cloth. Under the Shokusei-ritsu (Statute on Official Duties), this is equivalent to the crime of bending the law and carries distant exile. This is the very offence of which he was accused. The Tōsō-ritsu (Statute on Quarrels and Litigation) states: 'In accusing another of a crime, one must always state the year and month and set out the facts concretely; one may not accuse on suspicion alone. If an official office accepts the case and tries it, the punishment for the offence charged is reduced by one degree.' Now, examining the claims of the various officials of the Controllers' Office, the two sides contradict each other, and it is hard to tell whether the conduct arose from public duty or from private feeling. Yet if we trace how the offence came about, it is an offence that arose in connection with official business, and we should hold that there was no private distortion in it. We therefore apply the law on public offences (kōzai) and reduce the punishment of exile by one degree to two and a half years of penal servitude. However, because the offence is minor and does not reach the point of loss of office, we permit redemption by fifty kin of copper."

¶The opinion of Tomo-no-Yoshita-no-Muraji Mune, Sadaishi (Senior Secretary of the Left), was as follows. "In deliberating on Zengai's complaint, the various controllers ought, in accordance with the provisions of the Codes, first to have had him put on lay clothing and only then to have accepted the complaint. Yet Prince Masami and the others claim that 'although the Sōni-ryō (Code on Monks and Nuns) lays down a provisional method for returning monks to lay life, it was never actually enforced.' But all affairs of government take the laws and ordinances as their root. Now that a provisional method of laicization has been established, how can one say that 'it was never enforced'? They also claim that 'he was placed in an inner room in preparation for detention, to prevent his flight, and not to show him favor.' But the method of confining a person is known even to commoners. How can merely putting someone in an inner room be called confinement? They also claim that 'Naona is a treacherous and villainous minister at court, and at home a greedy and unprincipled son.' Further they say, 'Naona, hoping to escape exposure, wished the matter to be passed down to the Sōgō, the Office of Monastic Affairs, and, relying on his own skill at argument, sought to choose an opponent who was poor at speaking; Masami and the others saw through this scheme and did not allow him to submit a document himself.' But the very reason officials are established and duties divided is that each has an office responsible for its own matters. In principle, matters should be entrusted, according to the law, to the office in charge; how could one call an official 'poor at speaking' and, in breaking the law, usurp another's duties? An official who judges a prison case must keep a fair and unbiased mind and must not mix in likes and dislikes. To raise objections at random and fabricate an offence is what is called bending the law to serve private feeling. Moreover, Yoshio submitted a written statement setting out concretely the grounds of illegality. In response, Narimasu and the others claim that 'for the Controllers' Office to hear litigation is an old custom and not a recently begun innovation, and that is precisely why we reported to our superiors and awaited their decision.' It is true that this plea of 'old custom' is a fact. But if one erred by following an old precedent without knowing the purport of the law, then once instructed, one should accept it and correct oneself, and must not go on following an unlawful old practice. Yet to stubbornly refuse to change one's claim must be called knowingly breaking the law with full knowledge of its purport. Under the provision of the Meirei-ritsu (Statute of Definitions and Penalties), 'a private offence (shizai) means an offence committed privately and not through public business; even if connected with public business, where the heart is given to flattery or distortion, it is the same as a private offence,' it is only reasonable to treat this as comparable to the crime of theft of fifty tan or more, and, reducing the punishment of kayaku-ru (exile with added labor) by one degree, to impose three years of penal servitude. For those of Fifth Rank or above, it is reduced by one more degree to two and a half years; since one office is the equivalent of two years of penal servitude for those of Fifth Rank or above, the remaining half year is to be converted into redemption by ten kin of copper, and they should be removed from office."

¶The opinion of Kanbe-no-Matsunaga, Danjō-no-daisakan (Senior Clerk of the Board of Censors), was as follows. "Examining the claims of Narimasu, Takeo and the others, the affair rested on public discussion, and there was no distortion of private feeling. Although the conduct was unlawful, it should still be called a public offence. As for the claims of the other controllers, however, tracing their grounds, there are not a few parts that touch on private feeling. Measured against the text of the statute, it should be called a private offence."

¶The emperor, since the two sides' arguments conflicted and the judgments on sentencing did not agree, ordered that a further detailed inquiry be made and reported. Naganao and the others all answered: "Examining the claims of the various controllers, it may be said that there was private feeling, but it cannot yet be said that there was distortion; therefore they should be treated as having committed a public offence. For under the statute, only when both private feeling and distortion are present together is it a private offence." The emperor further asked Matsunaga, "Narimasu and Takeo, though they likewise heard the litigation, why do you treat theirs as a public offence?" Matsunaga answered: "On re-examining the matter just now, I find that my earlier judgment was mistaken, and the guilt of that error cannot be avoided. For although Yoshio's written statement cites several articles of the Codes to argue why the case should not have been accepted for hearing, it does not cite the statutory article requiring 'the year and month to be stated and the facts to be set out concretely.' Had he cited this statute to admonish the controllers and they had still refused to listen, then of course the law on private offences should be followed. But examining all the claims, no such wording is to be found. Further, concerning the documents in which Naganao and others examined the monk Zengai's complaint and whether the Controllers' Office ought to have accepted the case for hearing, Prince Masami and the others claim: 'On the day Zengai first submitted his complaint, a shujitsu (certifying document) and a kechige (statement of accounts) were attached. By these documents the year, month and facts were already clear. Yet Naganao and the others still insisted they were unclear and in the end pronounced the matter unlawful. From this it follows that it was Naganao and the others alone who dragged the matter into the open, and not Yoshio's intention. Therefore, as to this one matter, Yoshio and the controllers alike were involved in an error, not an intentional crime; measured against the text of the statute, it should be treated as a public offence. As for their other unlawful acts, however, although connected with public business, the heart was given to flattery and distortion, so under the law they are all private offences.'" The deliberation of the Daijōkan (Grand Council of State) was as follows. "Having now examined the replies, we find that all of them uniformly state that there was private feeling. Moreover, when asked why Zengai was sentenced to forty strokes of the light rod (chi), Naganao, Nagamichi and the others answered: 'He should indeed be given forty strokes, because, according to the report of the Controllers' Office, he had not been made to take on the appearance of a layman.' If so, it was the controllers who allowed this and did not have him put into lay form. Under the statute, where an official and a commoner commit an offence together, the official is treated as the principal. The controller who permitted it should therefore be treated as the principal in the offence and given fifty strokes, and the monk, one degree lower, forty strokes. Since they themselves say 'permitted,' is this not an instance of admitting private feeling? If so, the two sides agree on the claim that private feeling was present. Only on the ground that distortion was not yet present do they still treat it as a public offence. When we questioned them further, it became clear that their application of the statute defining public and private offences was upside down, and that their gloss on the phrase 'aisu' (to be mutually required, i.e. both together) had misread its meaning. Naganao and the others realized this and made no further rebuttal. Reasoning from this, it is no longer a public offence. For the Meirei-ritsu says: 'A public offence is one that arose in connection with public business and is free of private distortion.' Its note says: 'To say that private feeling and distortion are mutually required is to set out, in order to make clear the principle of public offences, a separate wording concerning private distortion.' The two characters shikyoku (private distortion) are still unclear in meaning; therefore the note 'aisu' was placed beneath the words private and distortion. Hence it is only when the two matters, private feeling and distortion, bear on each other and neither of them is present at all, that it is called a public offence. Since the text already says 'there is no private distortion,' if either one of these two is present, it cannot be put into the category of public offence. This principle is already clear. What is not public is private, and what turns against private is public. That public and private do not mix is as natural as white and black being different. How then can there be private feeling within a public offence? Nor may there be anything public within a private offence. Yet Nagamichi and the others say, 'There is private feeling but no distortion, or distortion but no private feeling, and therefore we treat it as a public offence.' This confuses both wording and reasoning, and the error is grave. They also say, 'Only when private feeling and distortion are mutually required does it become a private offence,' but examining the article on private offences, the phrase 'aisu' is nowhere to be found in it. How can one recklessly disturb an unambiguous written text on the strength of a groundless tradition? Root and branch are inverted, and the meanings of public and private are confused. This too is contrary to reason. Several days later Naganao and the others further supplemented the points their reply had left short and said: 'Shikyoku means "the distortion of the private." The phrase aisu means to combine the two characters shikyoku into a single meaning and read them in sequence.' But if this account were correct, shikyoku would be one single thing. If it were a single thing, the statutory words 'aisu' would in the end be a meaningless empty phrase. Moreover the Eikin-ritsu (Statute on Palace Guards and Prohibitions) says 'bow and arrow are mutually required (kyūsen aisu).' If the theory of 'the distortion of the private' were right, would 'bow and arrow' also have to mean 'the arrow of a bow'? From this one error, the rest may be inferred. Cases where things are mutually required and cases where they are not are both fine usages of the law, and such phrases occur in great number in the histories as well. They are all of the same usage, with no difference in meaning. To suddenly bring forward a new interpretation and forcibly disturb an old phrase would not merely be a warning for its time but would leave doubt for later ages. Furthermore, Nagamichi and the others first said that 'only when private feeling and distortion are mutually required does it become a private offence,' but afterwards changed to the theory of 'the distortion of the private.' Being experts in the law, how can they offer such vague arguments? Their later argument differs from their earlier, and their claims contradict each other. If this is not corrected, it may end in toying with the law. Matsunaga's reply too does not accord with reason. For most of the complaints the controllers accepted violated the legal forms, and in the hearings they repeated the violations again and again. Tracing their intention, all of it amounted to nothing other than showing favor to the accuser and manipulating the matter. If so, the state of mind that sought to show favor must have been the same from beginning to end. As to the fault of accepting the complaint, how can intent and negligence be distinguished? Yet Matsunaga changed what he said between earlier and later, and his judgments of public and private offences are not consistent either. In the end he says: "The single article of accepting the complaint may be called negligence, but all the other matters must be called flattery and distortion." He forcibly draws a dividing line within one and the same matter and creates differences of gravity within one and the same intention. In trying to distinguish public from private, he has instead thrown the judgment of crooked and straight into confusion. He also answered: 'Prince Masami and the others claim that "on the day Zengai submitted his complaint, a shujitsu and a kechige were attached, and by these documents the year, month and facts were already clear." But examining the written interrogation put to the controllers, within Yoshio's questioning there is already an article stating that "the year, month and facts are not stated."' If so, Prince Masami and the others ought at that moment to have realized that the complaint they had accepted already violated the legal forms. Yet afterwards, when the doctors of law returned the complaint, Prince Masami and the others still went on claiming that the shujitsu and kechige were clear evidence. This was plainly an intentional offence; how can it be called mere negligence? This is precisely a statement by which Matsunaga himself betrays his own argument. Further, when the written interrogation was handed to Naganao and the others so that they could judge its rights and wrongs, Naganao and the others afterwards answered: "The controllers' written interrogation shows the two sides' claims in conflict, and contains an inquiry into doubtful points. We therefore investigated on the basis of the complaint and reported." If so, then Yoshio's questioning had in the first place already detected the problem. How can it be said that "it was Naganao and the others who dragged the matter into the open"? With so many errors and falsehoods, where is there any standard of judgment? In truth, reason has only one path and law has no two conclusions. Yet now the experts in law differ in their arguments over public and private offences and also diverge in their judgments of severity, each holding his own view to be right and the other's wrong. This causes those who see and hear to doubt, and robs them of any basis for choosing. The present deliberation has truly exhausted our humble views. Reverently examining the Meirei-ritsu, it says: 'A private offence means an offence committed privately and not through public business; even if connected with public business, where the heart is given to flattery or distortion, it is the same as a private offence.' Measured by this statute, from the time they first accepted the complaint down to the day of the hearing, the controllers' violations were already bound up with private distortion. It is therefore truly in accord with the facts to sentence them as having committed a private offence. This is our view, and we dare conceal or falsify nothing." (Note: following the Shoku Nihon Kōki.)

¶Ono-no-Takamura, Shikibu-no-shō (Junior Assistant Minister of Ceremonial), likewise sided with Yoshio's argument, and in the end was himself charged with the offence of accepting Zengai's unlawful complaint (Note: following the Montoku Jitsuroku and the Sandai Jitsuroku). Masami, together with Tomo-no-Narimasu, Sachūben (Middle Controller of the Left), Fujiwara-no-Toyotsugu, Uchūben (Middle Controller of the Right), and Fujiwara-no-Takeo, Sashōben (Junior Controller of the Left), were all made to pay ten kin of copper, and were stripped of office and had their ranks removed. In the first year of Kashō (848), by edict, Masami was restored to Junior Fourth Rank Lower, Narimasu to Junior Fifth Rank Upper, and Toyotsugu to Junior Fifth Rank Lower (Note: following the Shoku Nihon Kōki).

¶Before long Masami became Jibu-kyō (Minister of Civil Affairs). At the beginning of Saikō (854) he became Dazai-no-daini (Senior Assistant Governor-General of Dazaifu) and advanced to Senior Fourth Rank Lower. He took great care in the selection of his subordinates, and recommended Tachibana-no-Yoshimoto and Kose-no-Natsui as Shōgen (Junior Inspectors). In the second year of Jōgan (860) he returned to the capital. The following year (861) he was appointed Sangi and concurrently served as Danjō-no-daihitsu.

¶Masami submitted a memorial to the throne, saying: "I, Masami, have no reputation worth mentioning, and my virtue and standing are not worth speaking of. Yet unexpectedly I have received generous favor and have taken on a heavy duty beyond my deserts. Though I am attached to the twigs and leaves of the imperial house and have entrusted my name to the flow of the River of Heaven, bearing the favor of a mountain upon my shoulders, I am ashamed not to have achieved merit even as small as a speck of dust. All the more so now that my years and the hair at my temples are failing and my grandchildren are gradually multiplying. My name is entered in the register of the imperial house, but my person only consumes the resources of the national treasury. Though I am poor in talent and wisdom, I nonetheless wish to serve the country even at the cost of my house. When I think of the public expense, I am inwardly overcome with shame. I therefore beg that the title of Prince be removed from my sons, that they be placed in the same rank as the other subjects, and that the overgrown twigs and leaves of the imperial house be pruned, so that the burden of annual stipends and rewards be reduced. As for my daughters, however, I ask that their privilege of rank by inheritance (on'i) be retained for their own single generation. That stipends will not reach my children and their status will descend is indeed a matter of sorrow to me. Humbly I observe that there are many examples of members of the imperial house being granted a family name, and the name I desire is Taira-no-Ason. I beg that all my sons, daughters excepted, be granted the name Taira-no-Ason. I likewise ask the same for those nephews who wish it." The request was granted.

¶His sons, twelve in all, Prince Yukiyo, Prince Tsugiyo, Prince Motoyo, Prince Ieyo, Prince Masuyo, Prince Sukeyo, Prince Koreyo, Prince Tsuneyo, Prince Namiyo, Prince Naoyo, Prince Nariyo, and Prince Yasuyo, as well as his paternal uncle Prince Masayuki and Masayuki's son Prince Takafumi and others, were granted the name Taira-no-Ason. In the fifth year of Jōgan (863) he was transferred to Gyōbu-kyō (Minister of Justice) and Provisional Governor of Echizen. He died in office, at the age of sixty-five.

¶Sumiyo served four reigns, those of Montoku, Seiwa, Yōzei, and Kōkō; he became Assistant Governor of Higo and Governor of Kai, and rose to Junior Fifth Rank Upper. Motoyo served the two reigns of Yōzei and Kōkō; he became Jibu-no-shō (Junior Assistant Minister of Civil Affairs) and Provisional Deputy Governor of Sagami, and rose to Junior Fifth Rank Lower (Note: following the Sandai Jitsuroku. That Sumiyo served in the reign of Emperor Montoku follows the Montoku Jitsuroku).

Yamada-no-Haruki

¶Yamada-no-Haruki, whose courtesy name (azana) was Renjō, was a man of the Right Capital. His great-grandfather Shirogane served as Myōbō-hakase (Doctor of Law) and was thoroughly versed in the Codes; all who discussed the law relied on him. Haruki entered the university at the age of fifteen. When the Retired Emperor Saga set his son Minamoto-no-Akira to his studies, he decided to choose an outstanding student from among the university students to keep him company, and Haruki was chosen for this. Haruki read the writings of the various masters and the hundred schools together with Akira. He was appointed, in absentia (yōnin), Provisional Doctor of Tanba, as funds to support his diligent study. After the Retired Emperor died, Emperor Ninmyō continued his studies for him; he served at the Kyōshoden (Hall of Book Collation), read the secret treasured books, received his food from the Kuraryō (Bureau of the Imperial Storehouse), and was appointed, in absentia, Provisional Junior Clerk of Bingo, and then Provisional Junior Clerk of Bitchū. In the twelfth year of Jōwa (845) he sat the taisaku, the examination by questions on policy, but was graded in the lower class (geka, a result close to failure). The following year (846) he became Shōgeki (Junior Secretary of the Council of State). In the first year of Ninju (851) he was granted Outer Junior Fifth Rank Lower. Soon afterward he was appointed, in absentia, Assistant Governor of Suruga, and in the third year of Ninju (853) he petitioned to go in person to his post. His government was intelligent and discerning, and officials and people alike held him in awe. Within his jurisdiction, in Suruga district, there was a god called Aketa-no-Ōkami, which had newly been moved there from Izu. The provincial governor had reported this to the court and built a shrine to worship it, but the negi and hafuri, the shrine priests, had been fabricating strange tales and misleading the people. Haruki investigated this and exposed the fraudulent reality. Thereafter only one festival a year was held, and in the end both officials and people complied. In the autumn of that year, when he went up to the capital on business, the Confucian scholars reassessed the grade of Haruki's earlier taisaku, and all said: "Even a little wood or jade has its flaws. How much more so with great talent, about which even the ancients were unsure." They raised the grade to Otsu-dai (second class) (Note: the original text writes "otsu" as "ichi" or as "tei." But given that it was stated earlier that in the twelfth year of Jōwa he received a lower grade in the taisaku, "tei-dai" would be inconsistent here. Writing "ichi" seems to be a mistaken form of the character "otsu," so it has been corrected here). He was granted Junior Fifth Rank Lower and held in turn the posts of Kageyu-no-suke (Assistant Director of the Office of Examiners of Provincial Governors) and Genba-no-kami (Director of the Bureau of Buddhists and Foreign Guests). In the second year of Ten'an (858) he was transferred to Sakyō-no-suke (Assistant Governor of the Left Capital) and concurrently served as Daigaku-no-suke (Assistant Director of the University). At that time he was lying ill and could not manage the heavy duties of the Left Capital Office, so he resigned the post of Assistant Governor. Soon afterward he died, at the age of forty-nine. Haruki was by nature extremely generous and easygoing, but in debate he was forthright and severe and flattered no one. He did not trouble himself with petty arts, did not believe in superstitious omens of good and ill, and had the air of a true Confucian (Note: following the Montoku Jitsuroku).

Sanuki-no-Naganao

¶Sanuki-no-Naganao was a man of Samukawa district in Sanuki province. From childhood he entered the university and loved to study the Codes. He was by nature exceptionally intelligent, and could recite at once whatever he heard once. During the Kōnin era he was appointed Myōbō-tokugōshō (Graduate Student of Law) and concurrently served as Provisional Doctor of Tajima. A few years later he sat the examination and passed. During the Tenchō era he became Myōbō-hakase and held in turn the posts of Sashōshi (Junior Clerk of the Left) and Ushōshi (Junior Clerk of the Right), and concurrently served as Kageyu-hangan (Judge of the Office of Examiners of Provincial Governors) (Note: following the Sandai Jitsuroku). During the Jōwa era he was granted Outer Junior Fifth Rank Lower (Note: following the Shoku Nihon Kōki and the Sandai Jitsuroku) and became Daihanji, though he continued to hold the post of Myōbō-hakase as before. In the same year he also served concurrently as Kageyu-no-suke (Note: following the Sandai Jitsuroku). Soon afterward, together with his kinsman Naganari and others, Ushōshi, he had his surname changed from Sanuki-no-Kimi to Sanuki-no-Ason, which was granted to him, and was registered in the Right Capital (Note: following the Shoku Nihon Kōki). After that he held in turn, concurrently, the posts of Provisional Assistant Governor of Izumo and Provisional Junior Secretary of Awa.

¶In the matter of the monk Zengai of Hōryūji, who accused Tomi-no-Naona, Shōnagon, of offences, Tomo-no-Yoshio, Ushōben, and Prince Masami, Sadaiben, took opposing positions; but Yoshio was a skilled speaker and enjoyed the emperor's favor, and in the end he falsely accused Prince Masami and the others of having tolerated Zengai's unlawful complaint and had their offices and ranks stripped. At this time, the doctors of law had been asked in advance to judge the offence of Masami and the others, but Naganao, fearing and shrinking from power, did not wish to speak plainly. But because he clung to the interpretation of the statutory phrase "private feeling and distortion are mutually required," he ended by going against Yoshio's wishes. In the first year of Kashō (848), Wake-no-Nariyuki, Gyōbu-no-shō (Junior Assistant Minister of Justice), committed the crime of great disrespect (daifukei), which was punishable by strangulation, but by edict the sentence was reduced by one degree and he was exiled to Izu. Naganao was implicated in this affair and exiled to Sado (Note: following the Sandai Jitsuroku. The Shoku Nihon Kōki writes Sado as Tosa). When the emperor lay ill, exiles benefited from an amnesty, and Naganao also had his place of banishment changed to a nearer one and was permitted to enter the capital (Note: following the Shoku Nihon Kōki). Soon afterward he was restored to his former rank (Note: following the Sandai Jitsuroku). During the Saikō era he again became Myōbō-hakase (Note: following the Montoku Jitsuroku and the Sandai Jitsuroku) and Daihanji. Because of his old age he repeatedly asked to resign, and this was granted. He was to recuperate at home while remaining Myōbō-hakase.

¶An edict said: "The Myōbō-hakase is the master of the study of the Codes. We regret that as he has grown old the correct doctrines may fail to be handed down. Let the students of his school go to his house and receive his lectures." Naganao recuperated at home, and his students went there to receive instruction. The Shikibu-shō (Ministry of Ceremonial) went as far as his gate to perform the ceremony marking the end of the lectures, and the jurists regarded this as an honor. At the beginning of Jōgan he was granted Junior Fifth Rank Lower. He died in the fourth year of Jōgan (862), at the age of eighty.

¶Naganao held many posts, and his judgments often got to the heart of matters, so that later officials all took them as models. Okihara-no-Toshihisa, Daihanji, and Nukata-no-Imahito, Myōbō-hakase, once listed several dozen points of difficulty in the interpretation of the penal law and were about to send a man to Tang China to inquire. Naganao saw this and explained them one by one, and all their doubts melted away like ice. Such was the breadth of his learning. His son Tokihito inherited his father's learning and changed his surname to Wake-no-Ason (Note: following the Sandai Jitsuroku). He rose to Saemon-no-daijō (Senior Secretary of the Left Gate Guards) (Note: following the Ruijū Kokushi) and to Junior Fifth Rank Lower (Note: following the Sandai Jitsuroku).

Tomo-no-Narimasu

¶Tomo-no-Narimasu was a man of the Right Capital. His father, Ujihito, was of Junior Fifth Rank Upper. Narimasu entered the university while still young, and when grown excelled at composition; he passed the Shinshi (Advanced Scholar) examination and became Sakyō-no-shōjō (Junior Secretary of the Left Capital Office). During the Tenchō era he held in turn the posts of Shikibu-no-shōjō (Junior Secretary of the Ministry of Ceremonial) and Ukyō-no-shōjō (Junior Secretary of the Right Capital Office), and was granted Junior Fifth Rank Lower. During the Jōwa era he held in turn the posts of Ōkura-no-shō (Junior Assistant Minister of the Treasury), Ushōben, and Sachūben, and was promoted to Junior Fourth Rank Lower. Narimasu was an upright man by nature, devoted to keeping the law, and did not flatter the powerful and noble (Note: following the Montoku Jitsuroku). He took part in the deliberation of the monk Zengai's lawsuit and was stripped of his office and rank (Note: following the Shoku Nihon Kōki and the Montoku Jitsuroku). During the Kashō era he was granted Senior Fifth Rank Upper (Note: following the Shoku Nihon Kōki). After Emperor Montoku's accession he advanced to Junior Fourth Rank Lower and went out to the provinces as Provisional Governor of Tanba. The province was cleanly governed, and he was praised for his integrity. He died in the second year of Ninju (852), at the age of sixty-four (Note: following the Montoku Jitsuroku).