In his article which appeared in Shigaku Zasshi (Vol. LXXXVIII No.1), Mr.Yasuda, after having examining four basic land registers for Yokota-no-sho (namely the Tori-cho, Do-cho, Mokuroku, and Myo-yose-cho), made the following observations : 1)The cadastral survey of Yokota-no-sho was carried out under the kinto-myo system, in this case, a ten myo system. This system was organized on the basis of the Tori-cho, which with some alteration was then transformed into the Myo-yose-cho in 1306. 2)It was intended that kinto-myo should be carried out by joining together the de facto private landholdings of 43 different peasants. 3)This kinto-myo system was merely a fictitious tax system instituted for the purpose of imposing on the peasants corvee carrying labor between Nara and Kyoto. 4)Consequently, together with clarifying when and why kinto-myo were established, the Yokota-no-sho registers make clear the realities of medieval peasant land ownership and management under the myo system. However, Mr.Yasuda's interpretation that Yokota-no-sho's Myo-yose-cho was drawn up from the Tori-cho is, I believe, mistaken for the following reasons : 1)From the available records, we can see that an overwhelmingly large number of Kofukuji kinto-myo shoen (including Ikeda, Izumo and Yanagimoto manors) were created between the end of the Heian Period and the beginning of the Kamakura Period. 2)Kinto-myo can be seen in the Do-cho for Wakatsuki-no-sho, which was drawn up in 1307, the same year as the Do-cho for Yokota-no-sho ; however, it is clear that the system was already in decline. 3)The Myo-yose-cho was not drawn up based on the Tori-cho but, on the contrary, existed before the latter. 4)If the kinto-myo of Yokota-no-sho did exist at all, it must have been in existence from the late Heian or early Kamakura eras. However, this fact is impossible to confirm. 5)If the existence of kinto-myo cannot be thus ascertained, and if there is no evidence that the system was actually established in 1306, Mr.Yasuda is certainly in no position to "lay bare the realities of peasant land ownership and management lying beneath the surface of the myo system." 6)Finally, the fact is that corvee labor was equally imposed on each kinto-yashiki (equally portioned houses and lots) of the ten-myo, not on the myo themselves.
Many historians of seventeenth century England have talked of the "Puritan" and "Puritanism," and these terms are said to be key words in understanding that period. But there have always been serious disagreements on the characteristics of the "Puritan" and "Puritanism." One view says that the Puritans were enemies of the Church and that Puritanism was both the main ideology of the English Revolution and "the origin of radical politics" in the modern world. Another asserts that the Puritans were conservative members of the Church and that Puritanism was nothing more than traditional conservatism which defended the social order. If both interpretations are valid, is there any consistency in the concepts of the "Puritan" and "Puritanism"? We tend to think that "Puritanism" is a bad concept which should be abapdoned. Contemporaries, however, did use the word, so we have to consider these terms first of all. To avoid linguistic difficulties the author intends to explain "Puritanism" without using the concept of "Puritanism." How is it possible to explain "Puritanism" without using the concept of "Puritanism"? It is possible because the author thinks of "Puritanism" not as an independent idea but as a part of English Protestantism. Therefore, if one understands the intellectual climate of English Protestantism, one can understand the essence of "Puritanism" at the same time. In this article the author examines the casuistical works of William Perkins, one of the most influential Protestant divines in Elizabethan England, and investigates the inner logic of Protestant ethics in seventeenth century England. In consequence it can be said that the main logic in Perkins' thought comprised the concepts of "Public" and "Private" from which many important ethics were derived. And what is remarkable here is that there is a fundamental contradiction in his logic. Nevertheless, it is just this contradiction that gives his thought a dynamic possibility. From this contradiction he derived ambivalent conclusions, and because of their ambivalence his conclusions appeared real to contemporaries. If we understand the characteristics of English Protestantism in the above fashion, we can get another perspective on "Puritanism." It can be seen as one aspect of English Protestantism which contained a fundamental contradiction within itself. So it could be both the ideology of the English Revolution and a part of traditional conservatism. It was like a silhouette which Protestantism threw upon the intellectual climate of seventeenth century England. Therefore, it is no wonder that Puritanism disappeared out of sight when English Protestantism overcame its contradictions. Puritanism was a system of thought which could exist only in seventeenth century England.
In its last stage of government, especially in the midst of foreign and domestic tensions, the Tokugawa shogunate intended particularly to strengthen its diplomatic and military institutions by means of expansion and reform of them. The Bansho Shirabesho 蕃書調所 (Institute for the Investigation of Barbarian Books) was among the institutes newly created out of such diplomatic and military necessity. As a shogunal research and training center for Western learning, it was opened in 1856 and renamed as the Kaiseijo 開成所 (Institute of Enlightenment) in 1863. However, in the early stages, the organization seems to have attained no significant difference from that of the old-established shogunal research and training institute for Chinese learning : Shoheizaka Gakumonjo 昌平坂学問所. Rather, a remarkable change in the principles of organization and its practices started in the latter half of 1866 and lasted until the beginning of the following year. In the first chapter of this essay the author clarifies the motivations, circumstances, and intentions surrounding the so-called gakusei kaikaku 学政改革 (reform in the educational administration), which carried on a bureaucratic rationalization of the composition of the teaching faculty at the Institute. The second chapter elucidates the actualities of other reforms conducted in its educational performances including (1)the opening of a separate facility to teach students of daimyo vassal families and the adoption of a tuition system for them, and (2)the inauguration of open lectures on subjects of Western learning in Japanese even for those not affiliated with the Institute. The author further discusses that the above-mentioned kaikaku and other changes at the Kaiseijo should be examined in the light of the "Keio reforms" : various efforts made by the shogunate during the mid-1860s. She (now Mrs. F.Umezawa) enphasizes, especially, the close relationship between these academic reforms and the expanding reorganization in military structure in Edo.