Shizuo Katsumata's recent work on the history of the laws enacted during the Warring Era (Sengoku-ho Seiritsu-shiron (戦国法成立史論), Tokyo, 1979) seems to be the most outstanding study in this field, produced after the World War II. His analysis of the Warring Era is versatile, sharp and accurate. Moreover, his approach is logical and clear-cut. Inspite of the prominence of his historical sense, some defects should be found in Katsumata's work. There is a question in his analysis of the real state of the land survey which was carried on during the latter half of the 16th century, by such "sengoku daimyo" as the Imagawa, Takeda and Hojo. There have so far been two theories on the historical character of the "sengoku daimyo." The one was that of Kichiji Nakamura, who had explained it in his studies in the agrarian policy at the beginning of the age of Kinsei (Kinsei-shoki Nosei-shi Kenkyu (近世初期農政史研究), Tokyo, 1938). The other is my own, which has opposed to Nakamura's theory. Whether the "sengoku daimyo" was homogeneous to the "kinsei daimyo," or not, is the polemic point between the two. Nakamura asserted that the "sengoku daimyo" was homogeneous to the "kinsei daimyo." I have, however, asserted that the "sengoku daimyo" was rather of the same quality as the "shugo daimyo," and thus the "sengoku daimyo" was not homogeneous to the "kinsei daimyo." The key to solution of the problem is to know whether the principles of the land survey of the "sengoku daimyo" was the same as those of the "kinsei daimyo," or not. Toyotomi Hideyoshi, or the Taiko, and all the "kinsei daimyo" prohibited the peasants to sublet the land each other. While conducting the land survey, they did not admit to pay or receive "sakuai" or the rent of subletting. Then, did the "sengoku daimyo" prohibited the peasants to pay or receive the rent, too? Katsumata asserted, acknowledging Nakamura as true, that the survey works conducted by the Imagawa, Takeda and Hojo were the same as those of Hideyoshi and the "kinsei daimyo." and the Imagawa and Takeda did not admit to give and take "sakuai." However, I wonder if Katsumata may misinterpreted the historical source materials concerning the Imagawa and Takeda. The present article asserts that the land survey works carried on by the "sengoku daimyo" was different from those of the Taiko and the "kinsei daimyo," and the "sengoku daimyo" admitted the "sakuai" as the materials approve it.

抄録全体を表示

In this essay, the author attempts to reply to the criticism levelled at him by Mr.Araki Moriaki in a recent article entitled "The Land Survey by the Sengoku Daimyo (戦国大名) and the Sakuai (作合) (Subletting Rent)" (see Shigaku Zasshi, Vol XC, No 8: Aug. 1981). In that article, Mr.Araki judged as empirically unprovable the key point to the author's Sengoku daimyo land survey theory (see Katsumata Shizuo 勝俣鎭夫, Sengoku-ho Seiritsu-shiron 戦国法成立史論) which states that the fundamental principle underlying said surveys was to negate tax unit managers' rights under the previous shoen (荘園) system to reap supplementary land rent income and incorporate such income into a system of monetary evaluation of land yields (kandaka-sei 貫高制). That is to say, as opposed to the author's schema which equates tax additions gained by land surveying (kenchi mashibun 検地増分) tax unit manager appropriation of supplementary land rents tax unit field management income, Mr.Araki attempts to resurrect his outdated formula which equates gains by surveying tax unit management income "off the record" fields (onden 隠田) hidden from the shoen tax system. In the present essay, the author, after investigating Mr.Araki's own empirical evidence, makes clear the impossibility of proving the existence of such a formula. Howeverr Mr.Araki is mistaken not only because of the low level of his empirical proof, but mainly because he ignores the great historical significance which lay in the Sengoku daimyos' method of "on paper" surveying (sashi-dashi kenchi 指出検地) in favor of "field" surveys (joryo kenchi 丈量検地), which, he purports, were carried out in order to discover previously concealed taxable land. Moreover, because it is now possible to conceive of Hideyoshi's cadastres (Taiko Kenchi 太閤検地), which were fundamentally "on paper" surveys, as having adopted the Sengoku daimyos' method for carrying out their own land surveys -that is, as a grand finale to the surveying done by those feudal powers -the time has finally come for a radical re-investigation of the long established explanation proposed by Mr.Araki concerning the origins of Taiko Kenchi.

抄録全体を表示

When considering the conditions at Toji temple's Kuzeno-sho (estate) 久世庄 from the 'Nanboku-cho period through the Sengoku period, and especially when trying to understand the economic aspects of the changes which took place in the land rent (kaji-shi ) system, problems concerning the nature of the the estate's tax unit holder status ("myoshu-shiki" 名主職) should first be taken up. In this essay the author reexamines the nature of the estate's "myoshu-shiki", and the establishment of which previous research has attributed to the break up of the myo system itself ; through this reexamination elucidates the estate's tax collection mechanism. Three points can be made about the "myoshu-shiki" at Kuzeno-sho. First, Toji temple created the "myoshu-shiki" to gain control of the land rent collection rights resulting from actual land possession rights and distribute the tax burden in a new way under the shoen tax collection mechanism. Therefore this "myoshu-shiki" is not a descendant of the low level "shoen" official called "myoshu" who existed under the traditional "myo" system. Second, in the early Muromachi period the larger part of the "myoshu"s were rent collectors who lived outside of the "shoen". Therefore, what Toji temple was trying to keep a continuous hold on was the direct cultivator (hyakusho 百姓) ; and only when the temple thought it necessary did it order function aries (satanin 沙汰人) to report the holders of the myoshu-shiki. Third, the "myoshu" was given documents by Toji temple attesting to his legal land posession rights of his "myoshu" status, but he was also bound to bear the water use tax (iryo 井料) and also the unpaid land tax when farmers absconded or at times of flooding or drought. However, in the latter half of the Muromachi period the kind of "myoshu" who lived outside the "shoen" decreased and those who lived on the "shoen" gradually increased, and therefore was furthered in two ways the land rent was retained by residents of the "shoen." This one was the movement of the rent collection rights from outside holders into the shoen. This tendency was in the interest of both Toji temple and the "shoen" habitants. The other tendency was the development of a new production surplus, which, despite the selling of its rent collection rights, tended to remain inside the "shoen." This was encouraged ones idealy by local cultivators (sakunin 作人), who were trying to strengthen their cultivation rights. With such an increase of local "myoshu"s the nature of the "myoshu-shiki" began to change, and from the standpoint of Toji temple tax collection became less efficient than in the early period. In response to this, the temple tried to regain control of the local "myoshu" by making him an "ukenin" 請人 (guarantor). However, even under the "ukenin" system, with the rise of "kumon" 公文 and the samurai class from the local "myoshu" population, "ukenin" lost its meaning and Toji temple's control of Kuzeno-sho steadily weakened.

抄録全体を表示

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.

抄録全体を表示

In recent years the subject of Tokusei (Moratorium on Debts) has become a major topic of debate, with attention focusing on the peculiarity of land-holding in Medieval Japan ; i.e. the right of original ownership (honshuken). This paper approaches this problem by comparing the sale with the pawn of land. The main points argued are as follows. The first point made is that while transfers of land ownership in the Middle Ages may be strictly divided into perpetual sales (eitai baibai) and pawn (where the mortgaged land passes into the hands of the lender for the duration of the loan, and which is called ireshichi, honsenkaeshi, and so on.), both forms of transfer are basically the same in function. However, the legal distinction between sale and pawn is valid at the level of ordinary life, but in an extraordinary situation -the prime example of this is a Tokusei Edict, but violation by a third party is another example- this distinction may disappear and a landsale may be treated as a mortgage. In such a case the original owner can assert the right of redemption. The second point made concerns the process whereby the above relation between the sale and the mortgage of land came about. As Kikuchi Yasuaki has pointed out, in ancient society the sale of land functioned as a mortgage with the right of use passing to the "buyer", but as the medieval system of landownership developed, the right of redemption was lost, and the medieval system of "perpetual sale" developed. In ancent society, pawn was not thought of as a form of mortgage, but with the rise of a new urban class of money-lending merchants, it came to be recognised as one form of mortgage. Thus sales retaining the right of redemption came to be thought of as mortgage contracts, and the legal relation between perpetual sales and mortgages, based on the distinction between whether the right of redemption was retained or not, became established sometime around the late Kamakura or Namboku Cho Period.

抄録全体を表示

Hizen wares, widely known today as 'Koimari', were manufactured mainly at Arita in the domain of Saga and had a high reputation. Between the mid-17th and mid-18th centuries they were exported in large quantities to Europe and to other parts of Asia through Dejima in Nagasaki by the Dutch East India Company. At that time Hizen-ware industry already at the manufacture stge, obtained funds and materials from the local porcelain traders. Porcelain traders in Imari and Arita used their resulting wealth to buy up land, becoming 'parasitic landlords', deepening the misery of the lower class peasants In the 1st year of Tempo, the domain, being in great financial difficulties, embarked on a policy of economic reform known as the 'Saga-han Tempo kaikaku'. The kernel of this policy, the 'Kinden' system involved the confiscation of land from the 'Parasitic Landlords', through the separation of agriculture and commerce. This system strengthened the productive base of agriculture and guaranteed a stable income from land taxes for the domain. It is commonly accepted that it was this system which enabled Saga to become an influential domain(yuhan) at the end of the Edo era. However, a close examination reveals that the system did not in fact lead to any significant increase in land taxes. This being so, what was the real aim of this policy? At the same time as the 'Kinden' system, Saga-han established a monopsony in porcelain. Up till now, the income from this monopsony has tended to be underestimated. The aim of this article is to examine the relationaship between the 'Kinden' system and the policy of industrial development, represented by the monopsony in porcelains in the political reforms carried out in the domain of Saga at the end of Edo era.

抄録全体を表示

The purpose of this paper is to elucidate the local ruling methods of the Asakura-shi who gained supremacy in Echizen-no-kuni, mainly through their struggle in the Onin-Bunmei rebellions in the late fifteenth century. The special features of the local rule of the Asakura-shi are presented in five major points below. First, by analysing local rule in the manors Kawaguchi-no-sho and Tsuboe-no-sho (河口・坪江庄), which were of principal significance to the Asakura-shi in ruling Echizen-no-kuni, the following three points become clear. One, Kofuku-ji, Daijo-in (興福寺大乗院), the original owner of these manors was dependent on the ruling organization of the Asakura-shi to get the tribute of these manors. Two, this function which the ruling organization of the Asakura-shi held originated in the power that the Asakura-shi were able to govern the jige-uke (地下請), an autonomous method of organizing tribute work done by the peasants. Three, the peasants' jige-uke was carried out through the myo (名), a tribute collecting organization under the manor system. Second, we further argue that the three features shown above are also applicable to local rule of the Asakura-shi in other areas of Echizen-no-kuni. For this purpose the methods used by the Asakura-shi to ensure the security of the possessions of temples and kyunin (local lords controlled by the Asakura-shi) are analysed and the following conclusion was reached. The function of the Asakura-shi in guaranteeing the security of the possessions of temples and kyunin derives from the fact that the Asakura-shi had power to control the peasants' jige-uke. Third, we examine the question of why the Asakura-shi were able to direct the jige-uke of the peasants. As an answer we indicate the fact that the Asakura-shi were able to organize the manor lords, temples and Kyunin with their own structure by supporting the common position of manor lords, temples and Kyunin against peasants in regard to the harvest of the land. Fourth, we point out that Ikko-ikki (一向一揆) existed as an antagonistic force which shook the ruling system of the Asakura-shi whose existence was founded on the situation outlined in the third major point. Fifth, another basis of the Asakura-shi ruling system was found in the policy of the Asakura-shi in regard to transportation and distribution. We show that the Asakura-shi controlled the means of transport which were points of contact where transport and distribution activity in Echizen-no-kuni met their counterparts from other domains.

抄録全体を表示

The main aim of this essay is to examine the characteristics of the political strength of the Imagawa family, Sengoku Daimyo of Suruga and Totomi Provinces, by inquiring into the land surveys (kenchi) which it carried out in the late 16th century. The author examines the land surveys of the Imagawa from two dimensions : from their scope -how broadly the survey could cover the land at one time -and this depth -how thoroughly the lord could survey the territory. With respect to the scope of the surveys, examining critically the views put forth by Mr. Arimitsu Yugaku in his essay in the journal, Nihonshi Kenkyu #138 (Jan. 1974), the author concludes that the surveys covered much wider areas than his local theory permits, and that his attempt to explain the motivation of the surveys from the content of the first article of the Imagawa Kana Mokuroku (the Imagawa family code), which provides guidelines for local lords concerning the conditions under which they could force customary cultivators to quit their tenancies in favor of cultivators who would pay higher rents, is itself in error. As to the depth of the surveys, the author investigates both their form and contents. She concludes that: 1)the surveys were not merely redigested reports from local land lords, but were actually carried out in a positive manner, including on-the-spot inquiries by Imagawa functionaries. 2)the surveys, by calculating the incomes from a strip of land -nengu (tribute) and kajishi (additional rents)- in terms of currency (kanmon), and by unifying these incomes into a monetary tax assessment system, represent a certain thoroughness which, while not directly related to "the abolishment of saku-ai" (those intermediary sub-rents abolished by Hideyoshi's surveys), can clearly be interpreted as a foreshadowing that the Imagawa would soon put an end to the multi-strata shiki-system characteristic of Japan's medieval period. With the help of an examination of commercial policies of the Imagawa, the author concludes that the Sengoku Daimyo represents an epoch-making type of political power, a power which grew by bringing under its span of control new areas heretofore out of the reach of the locally based lords (zaichi ryoshu) of the previous period ; and it is in this sense that she is able to see a Kinsei-type political power born, out of the chusei period.

抄録全体を表示

The aim of this paper is to examine the collapse of the early modern salt industry of the Inland Sea from the period after the development of the practice of kyuhin (giving beaches rest periods), with special reference to the role of management. Kyuhin was a method of controlling production which was developed in the Inland Sea area in the early-modern period because at that time taxes and farm rents accounted for a relatively small amount of total expenses. However, taxes and farm rents later began to rise and an increased demand for coal and labor led to higher prices for coal and higher wages. This had a bad effect on the salt industry. Finally, while the industry did regain profitability in the late Tokugawa and early Meiji periods, a failure to use this revenue to invest in equipment and increase productivity meant that it did not become sufficiently competitive. These factors made it particularly difficult for the industry to withstand the deflationary policies adopted by Finance Minister Matsukata in the early 1880s.

抄録全体を表示