The court and its provincesfunctions of the kirokusho was the regulation of such disputes between holders of rights on shōen. Kawa-
bata Shin, Shōensei seiritsushi no kenkyū, 367–423 gives an overview of the administration of justice
within kuge class. A good indicator of the escalating contradictions between members of the elites may
be discerned in the increasing number of institutions of jurisdiction, kirokusho being one of it. The main
subject of litigation was rights to income from shōen or similar institutions. Classic studies on the changes
in land system include Inagaki Yasuhiko, “Ritsuryōsei-teki tochi seido no kaitai”; Amino Yoshihiko,
Nihon chūsei tochi seido; and Murai Yasuhiko, Kodai kokka, 373–396. A more recent overview can be
found in Gomi Fumihiko et al., Chūsei zenki no tochi shoyū, 124–130. For changes in tax system, Kat-
suyama Seiji, Chūsei nengusei seiritsushi no kenkyū, 171–222, is especially useful.
44 Sakamoto Shōzō, Nihon ōchō kokka, 241–336 conducted a systematic study of these new institutions,
showing their characteristics as officials and as tax farmers. On this point, see also Toda Yoshimi, Nihon
ryōshusei, 241–277.
45 Zaike is a phenomenon crucial to understanding the transition from classical to medieval society. It is,
however, a good example of how difficult it is to detect the social and economic conditions of produc-
tive labor forces often hidden under the institutional superstructure, which was built up primarily in
order to meet the revenue interests of state and central elites. Investigations are difficult not only because
of this special character of institutions like zaike, but also for reasons of the relatively small quantity of
relevant sources extant from the era we are treating here. Toda Yoshimi, Nihon ryōshusei, 241–277,
advanced the discussion considerably, revealing the socioeconomic reality behind the institutional
curtain. Until the 1960s zaike were sometimes discussed as if they represented relics of ancient slavery,
unable to establish even de facto rights of usufruct over the land the occupants of zaike were tilling. One
of the most prominent discussants supporting a slave- origin hypothesis concerning zaike (which was
based on the assumption that a slave- owning society existed in classical Japan) was Nagahara Keiji,
Nihon hōkensei seiritsu katei no kenkyū, 151–180 and 222–283). For this discussion and for an overview of
formation and structure of zaike, especially their connection with paddies and dry fields, see also Taranc-
zewski, Lokale Grundherrschaft, 97–151. For a discussion on slavery see also Amino Yoshihiko and Ishii
Susumu, Kome.
46 For a comprehensive analysis of this phenomenon, see Taranczewski, Lokale Grundherrschaft, especially
pp. 61–64. On ōtabumi, see Ishii Susumu, Nihon chūsei kokkashi no kenkyū, 118–178.
47 Kudō Keiichi’s 1975 article, “Shōensei no tenkai,” already stressed the importance of central authorities
in the process of establishing shōen. This line has been further developed in recent studies on shōen system,
including Kawabata, Shōensei seiritsushi no kenkyū and Takahashi Kazuki, Chūsei shōen sei. There is a
strong trend in Western and in Japanese historical research to view shōen as a form of private property,
something akin to a foreshadowing of modern capitalist society. Voices criticizing this opinion have
increased since the late 1950s. Takahashi Kazuki is one recent representative of this viewpoint. Satō
Yasuhiro, “Shōensei to tohi kōtsū” elaborates on the relations between shōen and the capital.
48 “Estate proprietor” is one of the translations used for this Japanese term by Western researchers. On the
problems of a historical terminology proper for expressing the premodern structures of a social relation
we often describe by terms derived from our modern conditions see the concluding section of this
chapter and note 47.
49 The most common English translation for “shōen ryōke” is “estate proprietor.” But this expression intro-
duces problematically modern and capitalistic nuances, and for that reason, I prefer to avoid it. For more
on issue of translation of terminology, see the concluding section of this chapter. Takahashi Kazuki,
“Shōensei” points out that the competences shōen ryōke were holding were public, and derived from the
competences of provincial governors.
50 For chigyōkoku, see Murai Yasuhiko, Kodai kokka, 337–349; and Takahashi Kazuki, Chūsei shōen sei,
39–75. A useful summary of the chigyōkoku and bunkoku systems, and the differences between them,
appears in Morita Tei, Zuryō, 178–183.
51 In addition to Ishimoda’s classic studies on “Asiatic Mode of Production” or “Oriental Despotism” we
have—among others—the work of Karl August Wittfogel (Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft Chinas, Versuch der
Analyse einer großen asiatischen Agrargesellchaft and Oriental Despotism: A Comparative Study of Total Power),
Hara Hidesaburō (“Ajiateki seisan yōshiki hihan josetsu, ‘shokeitai’ no rikai ni motozuku kisoteki shog-
ainen no saikentō”), Shiozawa Kimio (Ajiateki seisan yōshiki ron), and Adachi Keiji, Sensei kokka shi ron:
Chūgoku shi kara sekai shie. For the original texts see Karl Marx, Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of
Political Economy (Rough Draft); Teshima Masaki, Shihonshugiteki seisan ni senkōsuru shokeitai; Iida Kan’ichi,
“Shihonsei seisan’yōshiki ni senkōsuru shokeitai”; and Iida Kan’ichi and Okamoto Saburō, “Atarashiku
happyōsareta Marukusu no sōkō ni tsuite.”