In the early seventeenth century, the then newly founded Tokugawa Shogunate confiscated the purple robes of the priests of Daitokuji Temple in Kyoto, and banished them to the remote Tohoku Region. Since the purple robe was the symbol of the highest status given to a priest by the Emperor, the Shogun. was thought to have challenged the Emperor's power. However, since it later became apparent that the Shogun, along with the Emperor, had collaboratively schemed to gain control of society and religious institutions, the people gradually became aware that the conflict between the Shogun and the Emperor had been staged. What became an important historical issue, then, was not the conflict over control of the temple, but what significance Daitokuji Temple had for to the Shogun and the Emperor. The Ashikaga Shogunate, in the process of restructuring the Gozan System, ranked Nanzenji Temple in Kyoto at the top of the religious institutions, while placing Daitokuji among the second rank institutions. Under this system, the purple robe was granted to the chief priest of Nanzenji. However, by the midfifteenth century the chief priest of Daitokuji had attained the right to wear the purple robe as well. The reasons why Daitokuji was given such special treatment are two-fold: first, it had historically been of equal rank to Nanzenji; and second, the founder of Daitokuji had been a prominent religious leader, who was endowed by the successive chief priests of the Daitokuji with the right to wear the purple robe without undergoing a formal ritual. Even the Emperor could not deny this right. On the other hand, the right to the purple robe held by Nanzenji included the nuance of political/economical favoritism. Incidentally, it was Rokuon-Soroku, the governor of the Gozan System, who played a key role in forcing the Shogun to concede to favoritism toward Nanzenji. The existence of Rokuon-Soroku and Daitokuji were thus instrumental in threatening the status quo of the State-temple system. The Tokugawa Shogunate acted to eliminate any attempt to profane the dignity of the State-Temple institution, by first dismissing Rokuon-Soroku for the Hokoji Temple Incident of 1614, and secondly be dishonoring Daitokuji as described above.
It is well known that Liu Zhao 劉昭 of the Liang Dynasty 梁朝 added the eight treatises of Sima Biao's 司馬彪 Xu Hanshu 続漢書 to Fan Ye's 范曄 Hou Hanshu 後漢書, which had hitherto lacked treatises. In his previous research, the author examined Liu Zhao's character and the work of completing the Ji Zhu Hou Han with the intention of clarifying the process by which Liu Zhao chose the eight treatises of Sima Biao's Xu Hanshu for Fan Ye's Hou Hanshu, by analyzing why Liu Zhao added those treatises to Hou Hanshu, and discussing his view of history books. In this paper, he confirms the relationship between the "Jizhuanbu" 紀伝部; Annals and Biographies and "Bazhi" 八志; eight treatises in the 180 volumes of the ji Zhu Hou Han, examines the contents of Liu Zhao's notes and his intention apparent in them, and clarifies whether or not Liu Zhao's made notes for the Xu Hanshu. His conclusions are as follows. (1) Upon examining how in the Ji Zhu Hou Han, Liu Zhao treated "Jizhuanbu" of the Hou Hanshu and "Bazhi" of the Xu Hanshu, both of which constituted the one book, Ji Zhu Hou Han, he concludes that when "Bazhi" was added to "Jizhuanbu" the author's name and the title were completely cut from the book, and the book was recognized as an absolutely different book. from the original and as a part of the Hou Hanshu. (2) The 180 volumes of the ji Zhu Hou Han were a combination of the 30 volumes of the Xu Hanshu, which is considered to have been originally 8 volumes, the nearly 150 volumes of the Hou Hanshu, which is considered to have been originally 90 volumes, and some other passages. He also concludes that the number of volumes increased because Liu Zhao inserted quite a few notes right after each word and phrase in the text. (3) "Jizhuanbu" and "Bazhi" were complementary in the contents of Liu Zhao's notes for the Ji Zhu Hou Han, and the notes were aimed at collecting and describing various events and occurrences that had not been referred to in either of the parts, not at interpreting and explaining the words and sentences in the Hou Hanshu. Liu Zhao's intention evident in the notes coincided with the purpose of complementing the Hou Hanshu. His intention was (a) to reproduce Fan Ye's Hou Hanshu, which he recognized as the best historical material of for the Hou Han Era, as the authentic chronicles of the age both in name and reality, (b) to complete Ji Zhu Hou Han, which was a great compilation of historical materials, by inserting his own notes to the Hou Hanshu, and (c) to pass on the ji Zhu Hou Han to generations to come and contribute to future study. (4) The author assumes indirectly that Liu Zhao did not write the notes for the Xu Hanshu.
The purpose of this paper is to make clear the evolution and logic of the repeal movement against licensed prostitution by the Japan Women's Christian Temperance Union (JWCTU) during the 1930s in Nagano prefecture. At that time licensed prostitution was declining, while, according to the newspapers, "modern" private prostitution solicited by hostesses in cafes was increasing. In Nagano Prefecture, a motion in the prefectural assembly calling for the repeal of licensed prostitution was passed in 1930. At the same time, a motion permitting and regulating private prostitution tacitly was passed. After that, the prefecture and the police required cafe hostesses to pay a tax and be inspected for venereal disease. The JWCTU, which made much of monogamy and child-rearing, insisted that licensed prostitution was sexism and exerted a bad influence on children, because it encouraged human traffic, venereal disease, and demoralization. Therefore, the JWCTU felt that repealing licensed prostitution was the first thing to do to root out all prostitution, and lobbying passage of the motion against licensed prostitution was given the highest priority. In order to get the support of the many members in the prefectural assembly who were not against prostitution, the repealers changed the main point of the motion; but this change was only a strategy, as the goals of the movement themselves did not change. The fact that the JWCTU was against a motion reflecting licensed brothel keepers' interests proves this point. After the passage of the motion, the JWCTU held a lecture on sex education attempting to improve girls' self-confidence about sex and boys' respect for girls. The idea of sex education in the 1930s was almost the same as the logic of the repeal movement during the 1920s. The plan of a "women's home" was also based on this idea of sex education. On the other hand, the idea of sex education encouraged the JWCTU to demand to the regulation of hostesses and cafes, in order to keep them out of their residential areas.