Loan certificates in the middle ages were coupled with shichiken (pledge certificates 質券) or nagashibumi (pledge forfeiture certificates 流文) and were passed on from generation to generation as kugen (official certificates 公験) and tetsugi (documents certifying transfer of real estate 手継). In content, they had the compound function of loan contracts and at the same time shichiken or shichinagarejo (pledge forfeiture certificates 質流状). The origin is evident in the shakusenge (loan certificates 借銭解) preserved in the Shoso-In repository, though there were two formats, one with and one without the original signature of the debtor. Loan certificates did not exist in the 8^<th>, 9^<th> and 10^<th> centuries, when shisuiko (private usury 私出挙) real estate pledges and trade in pledged goods were prohibited-but they were revived during the Insei (Cloistered Emperor) Period. The kaihotsubumi (開発文) or shichiken, appended as document pledge, as well as nagashibumi, watashibumi (渡文) and hanachibumi (放文), which certified the transfer of real rights, were considered to be important as tategami (independent formal documents 竪紙) and, in combination with the loan certificate, were treated as tetsugi documents certifying transfer of real estate, as the honken (actual certificate 本券) and honkugen (actual official certificate 本公験), and were kept in safekeeping and passed on to later generations. An examination of the function of such loan certificates as shichiken and nagashijichi mongon (流質文言) shows that, in actual practice, pledges were not forfeited when the deadline passed and loan certificates themselves did not demonstrate binding force like nagashibumi. There was a local law dealing with pledge certificate, called as "shichiken no ho" and, as long as debtors had the intention to repay an obligation or make redemption, the creditor had the obligation to return the pledged item, hostage or pledge certificate. This law also applied to warrior law and became incorporated in the law of the imperial court that obestate proprietors. Furthermore, the common custom that "laws of property inheritance do not apply to pledged land" also functioned and, in the middle ages, pledged articls were not forfeited contrary to the wishes of the debtor. The right of pledge redemption, even for items that were forfeited based on the ichibai (double payback一倍法) law, continued on for a long time. It could be said that loan forfeiture certificates in the middle ages were simple security documents that did not in themselves automatically demonstrate the binding force of pledge forfeitures.

View full abstract

We usually believe the articles of the latter part of "Nihonkiryaku" 日本紀略 (Abbreviated History of Japan) but cannot do so completely. Also, we do not know its editor or purpose. Such material facts would be very benefical when using this document, and we will be able to make conjecture about the editor. We also have "Shinkokushi"新国史 (Neo-National History), the sourcebook of the latter part of "Nihonkiryaku." The ancient and medieval Japanese aristocracy was very interested in astronomical anomaly, so there are many related articles in "Nihonkiryaku, " it does not cover all of the important anomaly that occured. Because information was secret and sources of articles limited, we can know the peculiarities of sources of the latter part of "Nihonkiryaku" from articles of astronomical anomaly and earthquakes, which had similar significance. The results of the present author's examination are (1) "Shinkokushi" was nearly completed as early as the Shoutai 昌泰 era (898〜901). (2) The "Shinkokushi" which the editor of the "Nihonkiryaku" used has serious omissions for the Kampyou 寛平 era (889〜898). He entered articles in large numbers, for example from copies of tenmonmissou 天文密奏, secret reports about astronomical anomaly and earthquakes for the Emperor. (3) He used a comparatively complete gekinikki 外記日記 (diary of the geki). However, the editor was not geki, the secretary of the prime minister's office. (4) The editor was not In院 (an associate Emperor) or of the Sekkanke 摂関家 (regent's house). (5) In spite of using many copies of tenmonmissou, the editor was not a member of an astrologer's family. Rather the editor, in the opinion of the present author, was a member of Ooe-Clan 大江氏, which a close relationship to the "Shinkokushi" and historical literature. Especially, Ooe no Masafusa 大江匡房 probably participated in the edition of much circumstancial evidence. (6) The editing of the "Shinkokushi" began to give historical legitimacy for the Uda宇多 lineage's heredity to the Emperor's position, and the more concrete its right became, the lesser need for completing this book. (7) The main reason for the stagnation the editing was that the editor could not explain the trouble over relegation of Sugawara no Michizane 菅原道真. (8) The author found that rekidou 暦道 (masters of the almanac) had been forecasting solar eclipses rigidly according to the Semmyoureki 宣明暦 almanac during the first half of the 10th century, and then revising from the latter half. Forecasting by rekidou became more correct with this revision. This is an important discovery for the history of Japanese astronomy.

View full abstract

After the beginning of the 18th century, Ottoman historical writing was dominated by official historians ("Vekayi'-nuvis"), who continued to record Ottoman history and were consecutively appointed from the beginning of the 18th century to the end of Ottoman empire. Their style of historical writing is very rare not only under the Ottoman dynasty but also in all the whole of the Islamic world. Regarding the research to date on this subject, not many scholars have examined the careers of "official historians" thoroughly, and consequently regard the process of their formation as static. The purpose of this paper is to reconsider the process of that formation through examining the careers of the first four historians, Na'ima (d.1716), Sefik (d.1715), Rasid (d.1735) and Kucukcelebizade (d.1769). Na'ima was appointed by grand vezir Amcazade Huseyn in order to complete a draft of sarihu'l-Menarzade. Sefik was probably nominated twice, firstly by grand vezir Rami (though this appointment is very doubtful), secondly by grand vezir Sehid 'Ali. Sefik wrote two works, but neither is a normal chronicles and have no relationship the chronicles of Na'ima and Rasid. Rasid was firstly appointed by Sehid 'Ali in order to chronicle the reign of Sultan Ahmed III in 1714/5. Reappointed by Nevsehirli Ibrahim in 1717,Rasid was ordered to continue his work. But soon after that, Nevsehirli changed his order from recording the reign of Sultan Ahmed III to continuing the chronicle of Na'ima. This change is important because continuous chronicling of Ottoman history began from this time. Kucukcelebizade became a successor to Rasid and began to write from the end of Rasid's chronicle in 1723,after which continuous chronicling and appointment of official historians was normalized. In the Ottoman empire, there were many "temporary official historians" appointed by Sultans or influential persons before the "continuous official historians" i.e.vekayi'-nuvis. For example, we can identify Nergisi, Nulhimi and Abdi. Of course they were officially appointed, but never composed continuous chronicles or were appointed consecutively. The author considers the appointments of Na'ima, Sefik and Rasid (until Nevsehirli's changing his order) as "temporary". "Continuous official historians" only appeared after Nevsehirli changed his order in 1717. The result of this survey shows that a change from "temporary official historian" to "continuous official historian" happened around so-called "Tulip era" (1718-1730). This process of a formation of the official historians may parallel the development of the bureaucracy from the 17th century on.

View full abstract