Family, women, and gender in medieval society15 See Nishioka Toranosuke, Shōenshi no kenkyū, Minshū seikatsushi kenkyū, and Nihon joseishi kō. A popular
general survey of family history, published two decades later, is Fukuo Takeichirō, Nihon kazoku seidoshi
gaisetsu.
16 Nomura Ikuyo, “ ‘10–18 seiki ie to kon’in, sōzoku’ no seika to kadai,” 111. The position that women’s
history exists today to question academia’s “patriarchal essence” is repeated in various works. See the
introduction to Joseishi sōgō kenkyūkai, Nihon josei seikatsushi 1, v.
17 Nihon kokugo daijiten, entry for “kazoku,” 71–72. According to the Joseigaku jiten, “kazoku” initially
included household servants. Today’s meaning of the term, focused on blood relations, began only after
World War II. For anthropological views, see a special issue of Journal of Japanese Studies, titled “Sympo-
sium on Ie Society,” which includes Obayashi Taryo’s “Uji Society and Ie Society from Prehistory to
Medieval Times.” The emphasis on ie emerged in Japan’s ideological and political push for a rapid,
Western- style modernization, coupled with the need to “preserve” a pristine Japanese cultural identity.
Emiko Ochiai, “Debates over the Ie and the Stem Family: Orientalism East and West,” 105–106.
18 For example, Article 772, which granted to the woman’s previous husband the legal paternity of the
child born within 300 days of divorce, regardless of who the biological father is. Carl F. Goodman, The
Rule of Law in Japan: A Comparative Analysis, 133–135. The high economic growth of the 1970s and
1980s raised woes that “traditional ie” was breaking down and led to the revival of the ie ideology in the
corporations, educational policies, and cultural practices. Minegishi Sumio, “Chūsei shakai no ‘ie’ to
josei,” 335–336.
19 The classical law of the household (koryō) prescribed who would be the primary son in relation to the
primary wife. Gradually, the wife’s status began to matter less, and eventually birth order also became
irrelevant, as long as the line could continue. Takahashi Hideki, Chūsei no ie to sei, 6–8.
20 Conventionally, the “formation of ie” has meant the displacement by ie of uji (lineage/clan), which had
organized the classical, elite society, but had split into subunits or dissolved, and ushered in a new patri-
archal phase in the evolutionary track. Arguing against this notion is Takahashi Hideki, who asserts that
uji and ie co- existed throughout premodern times. Takahashi, Chūsei no ie to sei, 9. In support of this is
the pattern that medieval documents show women always using their natal family’s uji name, never that
of their husband, as signatories. Iinuma Kenji, “Joseimei kara mita chūsei no josei no shakaiteki ichi,”
52–53. But in late medieval times, with the loss of independent property rights, women began to be
identified by their husband’s surname (sei). Sakata Satoshi, “Chūsei no ie to josei,” 201–202.
21 Nagahara explains that in kafuchōsei, “we find father rights, husband rights, property rights.” But more
difficult is the meaning of “patriarchal authority (kafuchōken), which could include traditional authority
deriving from the patrilineal blood connections, as well as the power and authority vested in the house-
hold head as an individual person.” Nagahara and his colleagues found a potentially wide range of mean-
ings, including a kind of control (shihai) or governing authority called “patriarchal style control
(kafuchōseiteki shihai).” Discussion on the etymology of “patriarchy” ensued, involving the analysis of
works by Bachofen, Morgan, Engels, and Babel, as well as ideas offered by Ishimoda Shō and Takamure
Itsue. Nagahara Keiji, “Hajimeni,” 6 and 1–4.
22 Nagahara, “Hajimeni,” 7.
23 Gomi Fumihiko, “Chūsei no ie to kafuchōsei,” 45–46.
24 Jack Goody, “Introduction to Women, Family, and Inheritance in China and Japan,” 199.
25 Inoue Kiyoshi, Nihon joseishi.
26 See for example, Tabata Yasuko, Nihon chūsei no shakai to josei, 1–2.
27 Ueno Chizuko, “Takamure joseishi o dō uketsuguka: jendā to ‘gensetsu no seiji’ o megutte,” 253.
28 Takamure Itsue, Dai Nippon josei jinmei jisho; Bokeisei no kenkyū; and Josei nisen roppyaku nen shi.
29 Kurihara Hiromu, Takamure Itsue no kon’in joseishizō no kenkyū, 3–4.
30 Takamure Itsue, Shōseikon no kenkyū. The reviews were by Ienaga Saburō and Nakagawa Zennosuke.
Kurihara, Takamure Itsue no kon’in joseishi zō, 6. Modern scholars have described Takamure’s life. See
Patricia E. Tsurumi in her “Feminism and Anarchism in Japan: Takamure Itsue, 1894–1964”; Ronald
P. Loftus, “Female Self- Writing: Takamure Itsue’s ‘Hi no kuni no onna no nikki’ ”; Nishikawa Yūko,
Mori no ie no miko Takamure Itsue; Jeanette Taudin Chabot, “Takamure Itsue: The First Historian of
Japanese Women,” among others.
31 As Kurushima Noriko notes, Takamure’s treatment of the period beyond the fourteenth century was
less thorough than her work on the earlier period, probably because Takamure’s effort was more focused
on challenging the long- held notion that Japanese society was always patrilineal in descent and virilocal
in marriage. Kurushima, “Marriage and Female Inheritance in Medieval Japan,” 224.
32 For example, in Josei nisen roppyaku nen shi.