The Study of local seigneurs in the Late Medieval Age in Japan is not as popular as the research on such middle classes as landowners and local gentry. Recently, however, their distinctive character has been made clear, particularly by N.Kurushima and H.Ishida in their studies of the Yamanaka clan at Koga-gun in Omi Province. But, as the revenue of the local seigneurs as their financial foundation has not been investigated, it is not clear how exactly they do differ from the middle class. In this paper, the author attempts to elucidate this point by investigating the revenue and finances of the Kutsuki clan at Takashima-gun in Omi Province, which is known as a typical local seigneur. For that purpose, he analyzes the ledgers of that clan documents which have been ignored so far. Since coming into the possesion of Kutsuki Estate, the Kutsuki clan received the revenue from the annual land payment (Hon-nengu) under the manorial system, and put the principal part of the fields under their direct management. The clan kept this seignorial revenue together with its organizational structure until the 15th and 16th centuries. In the second half of 15th century, the Kutsuki clan accumulated surtax ground rent (Kajishi) through land purchases in and out of Kutsuki Estate. The revenue consisted of both the traditional seignorial revenue and the surtax ground rent, which was similar to land-owner's revenue. In the author's view, since there were middle class persons and villages in Kutsuki Estate that could also accumulate surtax ground rent through purchase, the Kutsuki clan was not always dominant in the accumulation of this rent. Partly because of this, and partly because of its animated military and political activities, the Kutsuki clan suffered from chronic deficit financing. Under this financial condition, what the Kutsuki clan received as constant revenue was the seignorial levy called "Kuji" (which included the annual land payment). This tells us that the seignorial levy was public in character, which was the basis of its constancy, while the surtax ground rent was private. Accordingly, it follows that the financial foundation of the local seigneurs was Kuji revenue, while that of the middle class was the revenue from the surtax ground rent. Moreover, the public character of "Kuji" was vital to the subsistence of the local seigneurs.

View full abstract

From the late Republic to the early Empire there lived some people called provinciales in the Mediterranean World. And sometimes they were juxtaposed to Italici, who had originated from Italy or still dwelled in there. Most scholars think that they were peregrini (foreigners), who dwelled in the provinces. But a few scholars oppose them and assert that provinciales were the Roman citizens who resided in the provinces, and that Roman citizens who dwelled in Italy were called Italici. This paper is concerned with the following three problems : I.What was the status of provinciales? II.Were the Roman citizens who dwelled in Italy called Italici? And what is the nature of privilege called ius Italicum? III.Under what conditions could both provinciales and Italici exist? I.The author examines the usage of provinciales in the Latin literature and finds that some Roman citizens were called provinciales, but no foreigners were called provinciales. In turn the author scrutinizes the usage of the designations of foreigners, and concludes that in the Latin literature provinciales is carefully distinguished from the terms for the foreigners. This confirms that the term provinciales designates those Roman citizens who dwelled in the provinces. II.In the Latin literature, there are some Italici juxtaposed to provinciales, and they seem to be Roman citizens who dwelled in Italy. But under the Republic, some negotiatores doing business in provinces were also called Italici. So they might be thought of as men of Italian origin who resided in the provinces. The author investigates the designation of the Italian negotiatores in provinces using Latin inscriptions. He finds that they referred to themselves in two ways, 'Italici' and 'cives Romani (Roman citizens)'. Also he finds that the former designation was used before the 60's B.C. and the latter appeared after the 30's B.C. Hence, the author concludes that Italici from the late Republic were not men of Italian origin in provinces, but Roman citizens who dwelled in Italy. Next, the author attempts to reconsider the nature of ius Italicum. It usually is considered as (1)a communal privilege granted to communities whose status was identified with that of Italian municipalities, (2)communities, on which the privilege was conferred, which were regarded as the highest in the provinces, and which enjoyed autonomy, immunity, and the special right that their land could be held ex iure Quiritium by Roman citizens, (3)a privilege which was devised in the age of Augustus, in order to compensate the inhabitants of some communities for their loss of Italian status. However, the privilege appeared first in the middle of the 1st century A.D. And a Greek inscription records a Roman citizen woman as a person of Italian right without any mention of her community. Hence the author makes the following assumptions : i)The privilege granted to the groups of Roman citizens whose status was identified with that of those who dwelled in Italy ; ii)The privilege was devised in the middle of 1st century A.D., in order to reconcile the conflict between provinciales and Italici ; iii)From the 2nd century the discrimination between them became obsolete, so the ius Italicum began to be thought of as a communal privilege. III.Finally, the author considers the historical and social conditions on which both provinciales and Italici could exist. The distinction between them requires certain conditions ; i.e., that almost all inhabitants in Italy were Roman citizens but in provinces Roman citizens dwelled among foreigners. Under these conditions the idea that Roman citizens had to dwell in Italy became fixed, and Italici began to discriminate against provinciales. This discrimination soon disappeared, and in A.D.212 almost all the inhabitants of the Roman Empire became Roman citizens. After that, provinciales came to mean the inhabitants in provinces.

View full abstract

In my book The Status System in Ancient China -Liang and Jian, I argued that the legal statuses called liangren ("good people") and nubi (slaves) appeared during the Three Kingdoms period in the 3rd century. On the contrary, Prof.Kawamoto asserted that the above statuses appeared under the Northern Wei dynasty in the 5th century in his essay printed in Shigaku-Zasshi vol.XCVI no.12. The aim of this paper is to refute his view. In fact, Prof.Kawamoto's opinion can already be seen in the article of Prof.Isamu Ogata. Therefore this paper criticizes mainly the historical materials used by Prof.Ogata. As a result, I have shown that the materials do not prove the appearance of the new statuses, but demonstrate the way of solving lawsuits concerning the statuses of people after the disorder caused by the barbarian invasions and the famine. This paper also argues that the word liangren, meaning common people, had already become popular under the Han dynasty, and that after its fall, that is during the Three Kingdoms period, the legal statuses of liangren and nubi were established. The idea that nubi, or jianren ("humble people") were the property of liangren was also established after that period.

View full abstract