From classical to medieval?through the ingenious division of rights to income reflecting an inclusive approach to property.
Viewed from a different perspective, the local managerial class, aiming to increase their own
control and income, found it more advantageous to align themselves with noble proprietors and
patrons than to try and disengage themselves from the capital elites. Just as provincial powers
might gain authority by aligning themselves with more powerful central rulers, so, too, were
lesser local notables willing to seek patronage from central elites, thereby strengthening the
presence of the center in the provinces. This patronage was, in short, essential for local powers to
survive when the laws of the statutory state provided less protection than they were intended to
do. Consequently, any attempt to disregard the central elites prior to the Genpei War of
1180–1185 was doomed to fail, as evidenced by numerous instances in the tenth and eleventh
centuries. Although often noted as a sign of the rise of provincial powers, the failed uprising of
Taira no Masakado (?–940) in 935–939 stands out as a particularly representative example of the
court’s ability to suppress dissidence and retain control.^21
Whereas the regency would seem to correspond to the idea of a court- centered state, it cannot
be denied that other changes took place during that very same period. Some of them were inti-
mately connected to the regency itself, such as the slow and gradual spread of private estates
discussed above. Another important development during the first half of the Heian period was
the establishment of Buddhist temples throughout Japan’s main islands (except for Hokkaido,
which was not claimed until the Tokugawa age). This period saw the construction of numerous
cloisters and smaller temples in the capital region as well as at more distant places, such as along
the Japan Sea coast, often close to areas with an already strong tradition of kami (local deities)
worship.
Nevertheless, even though the establishment of a new temple was easy for those with means
to do so (in other words, for those able to donate property and resources to the new temple),
such patronage was difficult to guarantee over time, and many temples ran into problems
because of a lack of institutional and religious affiliations when the state or the founding patron
could no longer provide protection or support. These insecurities resulted in a large number of
requests from patrons or their descendants to have temples recognized as special imperial
temples (goganji, imperial- vow temples), but the state could not keep up with the demand.
Instead, in the Heian period, it was to the major temples—such as Enryakuji, Kōfukuji, Tōdaiji,
Onjōji, and Tōji—that smaller temples turned for protection. This resulted in the establish-
ment of hierarchical ties between smaller and larger temples throughout Japan, making the
former into branches (matsuji).^22 As occurred in the case of shōen, this was part of a process of
privatization that shifted control of assets away from the imperial state. And yet, the new hier-
archical ties that developed between local strongmen and the central elites in fact strengthened
the center’s influence in the provinces, giving those who constituted the imperial court more
direct control over land.
In this context, both religious and courtly rituals took on a new level of importance. While
always crucial in legitimizing rulers and others within the circle of power, rituals became an
indispensable tool during the Heian period as factional struggles intensified and private assets
played a larger role in determining one’s sociopolitical position. Owing to their early influence,
the Northern Fujiwara had promoted their family temple, Kōfukuji and dominated the three
most important Buddhist rituals for close to three centuries. Of course, this did not prevent other
branches and families from attempting to promote alternative rituals, many of which benefitted
the two Tendai centers of Enryakuji and Onjōji. In some cases, we also find nobles promoting
different centers and ceremonies without any thought of doctrinal conflicts, as they were more
interested in the efficacy of different ceremonies and the institutional patronage than in the details
of doctrine. As temples benefitted from such support, they also grew more independent, looking