M.S. Adolphson
for patrons and allies of their own accord, something that came to the fore in the late eleventh
century, when the imperial family staged a comeback vis- à-vis the Fujiwara.^23
As noted earlier, many scholars interpret the changes that took place in the tenth century as
being part of a larger trend toward privatization. For example, Furuse Natsuko pointed out that
the relationships between the emperor on the one hand and the regent, members of the Imperial
Secretariat (Chamberlain’s Office, kurōdo dokoro), and the high- ranking nobles, on the other,
became more “private” from the late ninth century. Although she did not specify in detail how
those changes took place or how they were different from “public” relations, it is a point worth
considering, given how the regents interacted with sitting and future emperors.^24 Building on
this theme, G. Cameron Hurst III (b. 1941), in an early essay focusing on the familial authority
of the Heian state, effectively described how the household organizations of the larger noble
families in the capital became private means of power and administration. Directors (bettō) and
household officials (keryō, later keishi) from the ranks of mid- level aristocrats originally held
public positions as well, but already by the early Heian age, these officials were largely seen as
having a private private- client relationship with their lords.^25
Considering these developments, it would be no exaggeration to claim that there is a broad
consensus about the substantial changes that occurred in the tenth century. But there is far less
agreement about what this transition actually meant in a larger historical perspective. Some have
emphasized the resilience of the old system by pointing to the continued importance of the
throne (if not always the emperor himself since he tended to be a minor under the control of the
Fujiwara chieftain), its various organs and rituals, thus placing the tenth century within the
classical period. Others argue that the royal- court state was an entirely new way of rule with new
institutions and titles, thus belonging to something we might call the early medieval or “feudal”
age as noted above.^26
In the former camp, we find Satō Sōjun (b. 1939), who labeled the new polity one of “noble
rule” (kizoku seiken). As such, he argued that it was based on the statutory state rather than depart-
ing from it, and thus constituted a development of the system that had been established in the
seventh and eighth centuries. The central point in this interpretation is the role played by the
regents, who, by ruling on behalf of the emperor, were seen as continuing a system dominated
by the same elites, even if some of the mechanism was located outside the structures of the bur-
eaucratic state.^27
On the opposite side, we find scholars who have stressed the medieval (chūsei-teki) character of
the second half of the Heian age. The well- known historian Satō Shin’ichi (b. 1916), for example,
equated ōchō kokka with the medieval state, although he maintained that the transition took place
in the twelfth century when certain imperial offices, such as scribes and record keepers, became
associated with specific families. In other words, he saw yet another aspect of privatization as a
key trend.^28 Toda Yoshimi revised this argument, claiming that ōchō kokka was not equal to the
medieval state, but merely the early stage of feudalism, a period of transition toward a medieval
period.^29
Different interpretations of the nature of Japan’s royal- court state naturally have a direct
impact on how scholars define the end of it. Both Toda and Sakamoto saw the royal- court state
as continuing to the establishment of the Kamakura Bakufu in the late twelfth century, thus
including also the insei period.^30 In contrast, Kawane Yoshiyasu regarded the insei period as
fundamentally different from that of the royal- court state, and so concluded the end to have
come in 1086, when Shirakawa resigned as emperor, beginning what many have seen as rule by
retired emperors. Kawane argued that the main difference lay in the emergence of a warrior
aristocracy and local warriors as landlords during that period, and therefore concluded the insei
age to be “medieval.”^31 It is, however, difficult to see any kind of warrior state emerging at that