Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-02T19:36:12.509Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Women and Inheritance in Japan's Early Warrior Society

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2009

Hitomi Tonomura
Hitomi Tonomura
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the second half of the Kamakura age (1190–1333), Japan's elite warrior society began to undergo a gradual but radical structural transformation. The outline of this change was the shift from a divided to a unitary inheritance practice, with a progressive consolidation of family property and authority into one “chief” (sōryō), to the exclusion of his brothers and sisters. Kinship relations changed accordingly. As in the twelfth-century Mâcon described by Georges Duby, there was a progressive emphasis on lineal solidarity, along with a trend toward multiplication of independent branch lines. Through this shift, each warrior family sought territorial and organizational cohesion—a requirement for survival in an atmosphere of intensified social unrest and competition.

Type
CSSH Discussion
Information
Comparative Studies in Society and History , Volume 32 , Issue 3 , July 1990 , pp. 592 - 623
Copyright
Copyright © Society for the Comparative Study of Society and History 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 This paper is a condensed and revised version of my M.A. thesis, “Women and Property in a Warrior Society: Patterns of Inhe?tance and Socio-Political Change in Early Medieval Japan,” which was completed at the University of Oregon (Michigan: University Microfilms, 1979). The author appreciates the helpful comments and suggestions received from Kate Wildman Nakai, Umezama Fumiko, Kurushima Noriko, Sally Humphreys, Diane O. Hughes, and the members of the Midwest Japan Seminar.Google Scholar

2 Georges Duby describes “… a double trend that affected kinship relations, a trend that involved both the spreading of the family tree into divergent branches and the drawing together of lineages through marriage alliances…” (“Lineage, Nobility, and Chivalry in the Region of Mâcon during the Twelfth Century,” in Family and Society: Selections from the Annales, économies, Sociétiés, Civilisations, Forster, Robert and Ranum, Orest, eds. [Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976] 16–40, especially p. 19).Google Scholar This situation is changing rapidly, especially among works by Japanese scholars. In English, see a recent survey by Hareko, Wakita, “Marriage and Property in Premodern Japan from the Perspective of Women's History,” Journal of Japanese Studies, 10:1 (Winter 1984), 77–99Google Scholar. Also Mass, Jeffrey P., Lordship and Inheritance in Early Medieval Japan: Study of the Kanvakura Sōryō System (Stanford: Stamford University Press, 1989) includes discussions on inheritance by women.Google Scholar

4 Women in the merchant class enjoyed greater economic and personal rights, often inheriting the family's business.

5 The count is based on the two-volume compilation of litigation documents by Seiichirō, Seno, Kamakura bakufu saikyojō shü (jō) and (ge) (Tokyo: Yoshikawa kōbunkab, 1970), hereafter cited as KBSS (jō) and (ge). In assessing these statistics, one should keep in mind that the total number of cases itself reflects the documents' chances of survival, as well as a possibility of unintended omission by the compiler of KBSS.Google Scholar

6 Hiroshi, Kasamatsu and Norihiko, Haga, “Chōsei hō,” in Iwanami kōza Nihon rekishi, 2 (Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1963), 335–7Google Scholar. For examining the Shikimoku codes, I have used, in the main: Hiroshi, Kasamatsu, ed., “Goseibai Shikimoku,” in Chūsei seiji shakai shisō (jō) (Nihon shisō taikei, 21; Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, [1972] 1976), 8–176 [hereafter cited as CSSS].Google Scholar

7 Hiroko, Nishimura, “Kodai makki ni okeru josei no zaisa ken,” in Nihon josei shi, kai, Josei shi sōgō kenkyū, ed., 5 vols. (Tokyo: Tokyo daigaku shuppan kai, 1982), I: 211–16.Google Scholar

8 McCullough, William, “Japanese Marriage Institutions in the Heian Period,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, 27 (1967), 103–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar. This well-known article reenforces some of the findings in the pioneering studies by Takamure Itsue. See, for example, her Bokei sei no kenkyū (Tokyo: Kōseisha, 1948)Google Scholar; Shōseikon no kenkyū, 2 vols. (Tokyo: Rironsha repr., 1966)Google Scholar; and Nihon kon'in shi, 2 vols. (Tokyo: Shibundō repr., 1963)Google Scholar. According to Sekiguchi Hiroko, uxorilocal marriage was widespread among provincial elites and upper-level peasants alike in the Heian period. “Nihon kodai no kon'in keitai ni tsuite—sono kenkyū shi no kentō,” Rekishi hyōron, 311 (03 1976), 46.Google Scholar

9 Saae, Fukutō, “Heian jidai no sōzoku ni tsuite—toku ni joshi sōzoku ken o chūshin to shite,” Kazoku shi kenkyū, 2 (10 1980), 157–73. Fukutō adds that titled property (shiki) with implied rights and duties remained outside the purview of women, with only two percent of them being female donors and six percent female donees. She attributes this pattern to the “public” character of Heian shiki shaped by the influence of Chinese-inspired patriarchal principles adopted du?ng the period of centralization in the seventh and eighth centuries. In the Kamakura period, shiki progressively gained a “private” character and became divisible, similar to stock shares.Google Scholar

10 Mass, Jeffrey P., “Patterns of Provincial Inhe?tance in Late Heian Japan,” Journal of Japanese Studies, 9:1 (Winter 1983), 67–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 According to Tabata Yasuko, peasant couples held property jointly, unlike warrior couples. See her Nihon chūsei no josei (Tokyo: Yoshikawa kōbunkan, 1987), 58–60.Google Scholar Although peasant women had property rights, only male names appeared on tax registers. See Haruko, Wakita, “Marriage and Property,” 94–95. Courtier women enjoyed inheritance, but this came to be curtailed in a similar pattern to that of the warrior-class women. Tabata Yasuko, p. 97. The prevalence of intermarriage and other forms of interaction between the warrior and courtier classes probably explain this parallel pattern.Google Scholar

12 Calling someone “non-gokenin” was tantamount to insult, even causing some warriors to lodge suits against the offender. For an example of this type of suit, see “Chinzei gechijō an,” 1314/4/16, Hizen Matsuura tō Ariura monjo, document 17, pp. 42–43Google Scholar. Sefichirō, Seno discusses this issue in Chinzei gokenin no kenkyū (Tokyo: Yoshikawa kōbunkar, 1975), 159.Google Scholar

13 According to Satō Shin'ichi, the bakufu differentiated the type of confirmatory documents, depending on the importance of the recipients: They issued shōgunke mandokoro kudashibumi for the sōryō (chief) and Kantō gechijō for shoshi (other brothers); but this distinction disappeared by 1303, when one form (ando no gedai) came to be used for everyone. See his classic article “Bakufu ron,” in Shin Nihon shi kōza (Tokyo: Chūō kōron sha, 1957), 21.Google Scholar

14 Some of the debated issues are: (1) the extent of the control exercised by the sōryō over shoshi; (2) the origins of the sōryō system; (3) its stage in historical development, and whether it was an early form of feudalistic lord-vassal relationship, a more primitive patriarchal kinship structure, or a nonpatriarchal and still matrilineal kinship structure; (4) comparability with French parage, English gavelkind, and German gessamelthands, and many more. Literature on this topic is abundant. Apart from Satō Shin'ichi's work above, several examples include Takeshi, Toyoda, “sōryō-sei oboegaki,” Hitotsubashi ronsō, 38:4 (10 1957), 49–64Google Scholar; Tatsuo, Akutagawa, “Kyūshū ni okeru sōryō sei no henshitsu katei-Bun'ei Koan zengo no Shiga shi,” Hōsei shigaku, 9 (01 1957), 37–56Google Scholar; Hideo, Suzuki, “Sōryō-sei ni kansuru ni san no mondai,” in Nihon hōken sei seiritsu no shozentei, Motohisa, Yasuda, ed. (Tokyo: Yoshikawa kdbunkan 1960), 365–405Google Scholar; Keiji, Nagahara, Nihon hōken sei seiritsu katei no kenkyū (Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1961)Google Scholar; Kunihiro, Suzuki, “Chūsei zenki ichizoku ketsugō no kenkyō shikaku-sōryō sei o dō mondai ni suruka,” Nikon rekishi, 281 (10 1970), 13–33Google Scholar; Seikan, Abe, “sōryō sei kenkyū nōto—Sagara shi no baai,” Sundai shigaku, 30 (03 1972), 133–50.Google Scholar For explication in English, see Mass, Jeffrey P., Lordship and Inheritance in note 3.Google Scholar

15 “Taira no Sueyasu yuzui jō utsushi,” 1260/7/15, Kobayakawa ke monjo 2, 318–9, document 510.Google Scholar

16 1287/9/1, Nakatō Atsushi shi shozō monjo in KBSS (jō), 217–8, document 163.

17 For example, the daughter Himewakame appearing in 1305/9/26, Sogi monjo, KBSS (ge), 135–38, document 20.

18 Ibid.

19 “Myō'amidabutsu yuzuri jō,” 1231/3/25, Tōji hyakugō monjo in Kamakura Ibun 6, p. 251,Google Scholar document 4118 for a chakujo with another daughter in the family. For a chakujo along with at least one son not designated as chakushi and three other daughters, see “Madarashima sōden keizu” (n.d., estimated 1360s), Hizen Matsuura tō Ariura monjo, p. 94, document 91.Google Scholar

20 “Fujiwara no Nakako atebumi,” 1278/10/20, Kōyasan monjo 3, p. 566, document 718.Google Scholar

21 Chakujo continued to receive special considerations even in the late medieval period. This topic is discussed below.

22 Hideo, ōtake, Ie to josei no rekishi (Tokyo: Kōbundō, 1977), 198. It is extremely difficult to assess the comparative value of inheritance portions. They not only included various types of land, residential structures, mulberry trees, and so on, but the actual productivity of each land parcel and the percentage of profit accrued from it is also often unknown.Google Scholar

23 Assessment of this property division is based on “Ama Shinmyō sō haibun jō,” and so forth, 1240/4/6, Bungo no kuni ōno no shō shiryō, pp. 9–11Google Scholar, documents 13–15; and Table 2 in Tatsuo, Akutagawa, “Kyūshū ni sōryō sei,” 40. Warrior families usually had at least two “surname” equivalents: (1) a name such as Taira, Minamoto, Fujiwara, or Tachibaa, which denoted their origins of prestige (that is, a link to an offshoot of an imperial family member); and (2) a name associated with the location of the most important family holding. “Otomo” was the latter. Women were usually identified by the former type of name—for example, “Taira uji no nyo (a Taira-line female).”Google Scholar

24 “Sagara Renbutsu Nagayori yuzuri jō,” 1246/3/5 and 1251/3/22, Sagara ke monjo, 1, pp. 26–34, 40; documents 7, 8, 9, 12.Google Scholar

25 “Tachibana Kinnari yuzuri-jō,” 1239/6/n.d., Ogashima monjo in Saga ken shiryō shūsei, 17, pp. 254–5, documents 34 and 35.Google Scholar

26 Keiji, Nagahara and Shōzō, Kishi, comp., Zenyaku Azuma kagami, 6 vols. (Tokyo: Shinjinbutsu ōrai sha, 1976–1979), V (1977), 44Google Scholar; an entry dated 1248/7/10. Noted in Itsue, Takamure, Shōseikon, 2, p. 1050Google Scholar. The Chinese-inspired and more conservative law for the courtiers (kuge-hō) prescribed the opposite: A deceased wife's property belonged to her husband. Fumihiko, Gomi, “Josei shoryō to ie,” in Nihon josei ski 2, kai, Josei shi sōgō kenkyū, ed. (Tokyo: Tokyo daigaku shuppankai, 1982), 31–38.Google Scholar

27 Shikimoku, no. 11, CSSS, p. 14.Google Scholar

28 “Dōsei yashiki denchi yuzmi jō,” 1308/3/17, Chikugo Konctō monjo in Kamakura ibun 30, pp. 245–6, document 23202.Google Scholar

29 “ōtomo Yoshinao yuzuri jō an,” 1223/11/2, Ship monjo in Bungo no kuni Ono no shō shirvō, pp. 8–9, document 10.Google Scholar

30 1324/8/13, Tashiro monjo, in KBSS (ge), p. 80, document 63.Google Scholar

31 Shikimoku no. 21, CSSS, pp. 20–21. If divorce occurred due to her misconduct, she had no claim to it.

32 1264/10/10, yūki monjo, in KBSS (jō), pp. 145–46, document 112. The logic behind the argument of the court was that a former wife had no kinship ties to a former husband.Google Scholar

33 In the Heian period, courtier men commonly visited women at whose residences children were raised.

34 Shikimoku no. 23, CSSS, pp. 21–22. Courtiers' law (kuge-hō) did not allow the practice of women adopting heirs.

35 Such independent actions, it seems, ran counter to the interests of some husbands. An entry of 1248 in Azuma kagami admonished against the female practice of adoption without the consent of the husband, a governmental view perhaps reflecting the chronicler's bias but unaccompanied by a related legal measure. See Azuma kogami, P. 44, note 26 above.

36 According to Takamure Itsue, Hōjō Masako, the famous wife of the first shogun, adopted many children. Shōseikon, 2, p. 1050.

37 1265/int.4/18, Ichikawa monjo, KBSS (jō), pp. 150–3, document 114.

38 1305/9/26, Sogi monjo, note 17, above.

39 1325/6/n.d. Kan'ichi, Asakawa, comp. and trans., The Documents of Iriki (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1929; rpt., Westport: Greenwood Press, 1974), 213–4, document 64. Also in CSSS, pp. 65–66, reference document 44. Taketsurume was the younger sister of Shigena's real father, that is, his aunt.Google Scholar

40 Yasuko, Tabata, Nihon chusei, 6–9.Google Scholar

41 See the twelfth-century collection of tales, Konjaku monogatari 4 (Nihon koten bungaku taikei 25; rpt., Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1979) 469–71, ch. 26, Tale 21, for an example of the use of “otto” as it relates to rape. For examples of “yome” used in the meaning of a sexual act, see articles 162 and 163 in “Jinkai shO,” the house law of the Date family, which dates from 1536 (CSSS, p. 237).

42 See note 37.

43 Shikimoku, no. 24, CSSS, p. 22.Google Scholar

44 Shikimoku addendum 121, 1239/9/30, CSSS, p. 60. This emphasis on household management seems to parallel the function of women in medieval West who “characteristically supervised the household's `inner economy',” allowing their husbands to pursue war and expansion. See David Herlihy, “Land, Family, and Women in Continental Europe, 701–1200,” in Women in Medieval Society, Stuard, Susan Mosher, ed. (University of Pennsylvania Press, 1976), p. 24.Google Scholar

45 Shikimoku, addendum 597, 1286/7/25, CSSS, p. 63.

46 On this question Takamure emphasizes the role passion played in wife-husband relationships in early medieval times. A man might reject pressure to acquire a new woman by threatening to take a religious vow because of his love for the current wife. This was, according to Takamure, an attitude that would be viewed as cowardly by late medieval times (Itsue, Takamure, Shōseikon 2, pp. 1024–7Google Scholar). In a well-known legend Hōjō Masako walked all night in the rain to pursue Yoritomo, the first shogun (Yasuko, Tabata, Nihon Chūsei, 157–8).Google Scholar

47 ōtake Hideo, pp. 78–79.

48 Azuma kagami records an incident in which Masako ordered a Yoritomo's vassal to destroy the house in which Yoritomo's favorite mekake was staying. Masako was in advanced pregnancy when Yoritomo had “increased fondness” for this woman. Entries for 1182/6/1, 10/17, 11/10, 11/12, Azuma kagami 1, pp. 127, 133, 134.

49 “Sag-shō” is a compound of the two Chinese characters for tsuma and mekake.

50 Shikimoku 21, CSSS, pp. 20–21.

51 Note 37.

52 TYasuko, abata, Nihon Chūsei, 54–55Google Scholar. Also see Cogan, Thomas J., trans., The Tale of the Soga Brothers (Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press, 1987), genealogical charts on pp. 301–2. Of the three husbands, however, the charts only show the two relevant to the story.Google Scholar

53 Another example would be the fight by two daughters with two different fathers over the property of their common mother. See Miura Wada monjo, 1325/9/7, KBSS (jō), p. 381, document 307.

54 Ryōsuke, Ishii, “Chūsei kon'in hō,” Hōgaku kyōkai zasshi, 60:12 (12 1942), 22–23.Google Scholar

55 Fumio, Imagawa, ed., Kundoku Meigetsuki, 6 vols. (Tokyo: Kawade shobō, 1977–1979) especially v. 6 (1979), 49. See the entry dated 1233/5/18 and noted by ōtake Hideo (le to josei, p. 124) and Takamure Itsue (Shōseikon 2, p. 877). This statement, which was made by the high-ranking courtier and author Fujiwara Teika, may have contained an implied criticism of the “uncivilized” behavior of warrior-class women, who were regarded as more self-willed and unruly than courtier women at this point in history.Google Scholar

56 Amnia kagami 2, p. 257, an entry of 1192/9/25. It is cited in Ishii Ryōsuke, p. 29. The shogun family recommended the bride-to-be to obtain this pledge. The entry describes the daughter as “a woman with unparalleled power” in addition to being a “considerable beauty.” The husband, on the other hand, “had been engaged in many love affairs in the last year or two.”Google Scholar

57 Itsue, Takamure, Josei no rekishi (jō), 10th reprint (Tokyo: Kōdansha, 1977), 389–90Google Scholar. Also Shōseikon 2, pp. 940–1.Google Scholar

58 Itsue, Takamure, Shōseikon 2, pp. 976–7.Google Scholar

59 According to Takamure Itsue, marriage ceremonies became more formalized and public in the mid-fifteenth century with the advent of more firmly established virilocal principles. Josei no rekishi (jō), pp. 394–5. The subject of endogamy is discussed later.

60 Yoshihiko, Amino, “ChOsei ni okeru kon'in kankei no ichi kōsatsu-Wakasa Ichininomiya shamu keizu o chOshin ni,” Chihō shi kenkyū, 107 (10 1970), 1–24.Google Scholar Genealogies of other warrior houses often show descent via females if they held important jitō-shiki, such as the daughter of a Mongol battle victim, confirmed in the jitō position in 1279. See Matsuura, Hizen tō Ariura monjo, p. 286 (genealogical chart) and “Kantō gechijō,” 1279/10/8, pp. 34–37, document 10.Google Scholar

61 Shikimoku no. 41, CSSS, p. 31.

62 CSSS, p. 437. “Notes” for Shikimoku 41.

63 Kaoru, Nakada, Tokugawa jidai no bungaku ni mietaru shihō (1925; rpt. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1984), 139–40.Google Scholar

64 Descriptions by Robin Fox and comments from Sally Humphreys were helpful in formulating this statement. Fox, Robin, Kinship and Marriage: An Anthropological Perspective (New York: Penguin, 1967; rpt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983) 138–9, 146, 150.Google Scholar

65 “Jōen bb goke ato shobun jō,” 1284/2/last day, Kōyasan monjo 6, p. 293, document 1278.

66 “Ama Myōgo yuzuri jō,” 1292/10/24, Kutsuki monjo 1, pp. 57–58, document 107. We do not know if she was the son's natural mother. Subsequently, this jitō-shiki went first to her nephew, then to his daughter. “Yokoyama Yorinobu yuzuri jō,” 1304/8/5, p. 59.

67 “Ama Ryōkai Kikkawa Tsuneshige goke yuzuri jō” 1349/8/15, Kikkawa ke monjo, pp. 179–80, document 1005. Also see: 1334/2/10, pp. 176–7, document 1001 and 1351/6/11, pp. 181–2, document 1006.

68 “Shibuya Jōshin okibumi,” 124515/11, CSSS, pp. 370–72, especially item 13.

69 Goke were involved in approximately one-third of the extant suits related to women.

70 Motoo, Endō, “Chūsei no bushi sō josei ni tsuite,” Nihon rekishi, 212 (01 1966),35. The term “father/mother” alone demonstrates the historical distance traveled from the more female-centered ancient period (circa seventh century) in which “mother/father (omo-chichi)” was used, as well as “wife/husband (me-oto) and ”sister/brother (imose).“ See ōtake Hideo, Ie to josei, p. 22.Google Scholar

71 Shikimoku 18, CSSS, p. 18. According to the courtiers' law, grants to daughters could not be rescinded.

72 For example, a son who had been disinherited due to “his love of gambling” contrived a forged document, committing “layers of unfiliality.” In another, a disinherited son challenged his brother, sister, and his father's goke over his father's property but lost. Finally, a disinherited daughter, who had sought to reverse this dishonor earlier, lodged a losing suit against her father's goke over his property. See 1308/3/17, note 28, above; 1279/12/23, /riki-i? monjo, KBSS (jō), p. 199–200, document 151; 1238/10/27, Matsuura Yamashiro monjo, KBSS (ge), p. 16, document 8.

73 Shikimoku no. 20, CSSS, p. 20. It is unclear if the code refers only to the father's grant. If it includes the mother's grant as well, it would go against the practice of the wife's autonomy in handling her property. A trial document, dated 1328 and found by Nagahara Keiji, demonstrates the discrepancy in codal provisions and actual practice. It describes how a mother, instead of the father (who was the son's real father and his mother's second husband) took possession of the land of a deceased son. See ”Josei shi ni okeru Nanboku chō-Muromachi ki,” in Nihon josei shi 2, Joseishi sōgō kenkyO kai, ed., 147–8.Google Scholar

74 A possible exception is the self-claimed “Sōryō goke Jimyō,” a signature which could be interpreted as either “sōryō's goke Jimyō” or “Goke Jimyō, the sōryō,” “Goke Jimyō denbata yashiki chObun jō an,” 1320/6/1, Sagara ke monjo 1, pp. 88–92, document 44.

75 A point suggested by Goody, Jack in Production and Reproduction: A Comparative Study of the Domestic Domain (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 61.Google Scholar

76 For instance, an accusation against a widow-nun lodged by her stepson cost her the penalty of banishment. 1328/7/23, Kumagai ke monjo, KBSS (jō), pp. 390–3, document 313. The bakufu's attitude toward the practice of accusing parents was one of disapprobation. One confrontation between a man's widow and his son led to the proclamation of a codal addendum in 1240 that proscribed suits against parents or grandparents. See Shikimoku addendum 143, CSSS, p. 60. Although the wording of the provision referred to both parents, its practical application was with mothers, as Kasamatsu Hiroshi explains: “In a warrior society where patriarchal authority was absolute, father-son confrontations could not have occurred in practice, irrelative to legislative measures.” See CSSS, p. 440.

77 Ishii Ryōsuke, , “Kon'in hō,” p. 19.Google Scholar

78 I counted thirty-four cases in which women used proxies. Many men were also represented by proxies, though here I lack precise figures.

79 1298/7/13, Sagami monjo, KBSS (jō), pp. 279–80, document 215 and 1302/12/1, Ichi-kawa monjo, KBSS (jō), pp. 307–8, document 237. In this latter instance, the husband took over the suit only after the wife (defendant) had died.

80 “Rokuhara gechijō,” 1239/1/27, Matsuura Yamashiro monjo in Kamakura ibun 8, p. 18, document 5375.

81 1322/7/7, Miura Wada monjo, KBSS (jō), pp. 366–8, document 292.

82 Fumihiko, Gomi, “Josef shoryō,” pp. 42–43.Google Scholar

83 1317/12/12, Yamanouchi Sudá monjo, KBSS (jō), pp. 346–7, document 273.

84 “Sagas Nagayori nyo Ama Myōa dai Dōgan mōshi jō narabi ni gusho an,” 1318/4/26, Sagara ke monjo 1, pp. 99–104, (esp. p. 104), document 48.Google Scholar

85 See note 29.

86 1330/10/27, Katsura monjo, KBSS (jō), pp. 394–5, document 316.

87 Shikimoku 25, CSSS, p. 22.

88 Katsuo, Gomi, “Kamakura gokenin no banyaku gonshi ni tsuite,” Shigaku zasshi, 63:9 (09 1954), 33.Google Scholar

89 Ibid., 34.

90 “Minamoto Yorinaga shotai yuzuri-jō,” 1260/3/15, Manzawa ke monjo in Kanvakura ibun 11, p. 390, document 8488.

91 See note 80.

92 Other possible causes include population growth, devaluation of rice as a result of rapid commercialization, bad climatic conditions affecting harvest, inefficient modes of surplus extraction from cultivators, and unfavorable policies instituted by the Hōjō regime in Kamakura, among others.

93 For example, Shikimoku addenda 139 (1240/4/20), 145 (1240/5/25), 433 and 434 (1267/12/26), 530 (1284/5/27), 598 (1286/8/n.d.) and 662 (1297/7/22, first issued on 1297/3/6, which ordered the return of all previously sold or pawned vassal land to its original owner). See CSSS, pp. 111–2, 115, 117, 118–9.

94 This was particularly true of (native) eastern warriors with additional land grants located elsewhere. It took only two generations of the ōtomo house (of Sagami province in the east), for instance, before the collateral members with land in Kyūshū (Bongo province) had their own sōryō system. See Tatsuo, Akutagawa, “Kyūshū ni okeru,” 42–43.Google Scholar

95 Shikimoku 21, CSSS, pp. 20–21.

96 Shikimoku 24, CSSS, p. 22. The power of this rule was tested in 1241 when a remarried goke was accused of keeping her deceased husband's property. The bakufu upheld the goke's right because she had remarried prior to the issuance of the above provision in 1232. See Azuma kagami 4, p. 336, in an entry dated 1241/6/28.

97 Shikimoku addendum 98, 1238/12/16. See CSSS, p. 59.

98 See note 44 above.

99 1239/5/25 and 1244/4/23, Matsuura Yamashiro monjo, KBSS (jō), pp. 55–56, document 60 and p. 74, document 75. See the English translation, as well as the discussion of these and related documents, in Mass, Jeffrey P., The Development of the Karvakura Rule: 1180–1250 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1979), 270–6.Google Scholar

100 Shikimoku addendum 435, 1267/12/26, CSSS, p. 61.

101 One example was the Sagara family, which was unable to pay its tax. It owed the bakufu 135 kan 560 mon out of 165 kan 866 mon in 1315. See Abe Seikan, Sōryō sei kenkyū, p. 146.

102 Seiichirō, Seno, Chinzei gokenin, pp. 317, 327–8 (note 8).Google Scholar

103 “Moribe Michimasa yuzuri jō,” 1308/1 / 16, Chikugo Kondō monjo, in Kamakura'bun 30, p. 223, document 23150; cited by Nirō, Aida, “Ikoku keigo bayaku no kenkyū,” in his Mōko shūrai no kenkyū (Tokyo: Yoshikawa kōbunkan, 1982 ed.) p. 403,Google Scholar which was originally published in Rekishi, chine, 58:1, 3, 5 (1931).Google Scholar

104 “Tachibaa Satsuma ichizoku shoryō shihai chtimon,” n.d., Ogashima monjo in Saga ken shiryō shūsei 17, pp. 262–70Google Scholar, document 47. Hattori Hideo approximates the date of the document to be around 1337. See his “Kaihatsu, sono shinten to ryōshu shihai-Hizen no kuni, Nagashima no shō no Tachibaa Satsuma ichizoku,” Chihōshi kenkyū, 152 (04 1978), 11–38.Google Scholar The pattern of reward was extremely complex. Rewards came mostly from land held by the Hōjō themselves. See Nirō, Aida, “Mōko shūrai gassen no onshō ni tsuite,” in Mōko shūrai, pp. 527–39Google Scholar, which was originally published in December 1936 in Kokushigaku 29. Seiichirō, Seno, Chinzei gokenin, 352–5Google Scholar, adds to and reinterpretes Aida's findings. In English, we have, Hon, Kyotsu, “The Economic and Political Effects of the Mongol Wars,” in Medieval Japan: Essays in Institutional History, Hall, John W. and Mass, Jeffrey P., eds. (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1974), 184–98.Google Scholar

105 Nirō, Aida, “Ikoku keigo banyaku,” p. 416.Google Scholar

106 Shikimoku addendum 596, 1286/7/25, CSSS, p. 62.

107 Her father and his two brothers also died in battles along with the grandfather. Her right was contested by her cousins. “Kantō gechijō an,” 1279/10/8 (for the bakufu's earlier confirmation) and “Kantō migyō sho an,” 1291/4/26 and “Hōjō Sadamune segyō jō an,” 1291/6/29 (for the reconfirmation after the passage of the code in question), Hizen Matsuura tō Ariura monjo, pp. 34–37, document 10; p. 39, document 14; p. 40, document 15.

108 “Takerube uji nyo yuzuri jō,” 1289/2/10, 'ōsumi Ikenohata monjo in Kamakura ibun 22, p. 186, document 16879.

109 Shikimoku addendum 597, 1286/7/25, CSSS, p. 63.

110 Duby, Georges, Medieval Marriage: Two Models from Twelfth-Century France (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978), 9.Google Scholar

111 Goody, Jack, Production, 21.Google Scholar

112 Tachibana Satsuma Kōren shoshiki yuzuri jō,“ 1341/9/6, Ogashima monjo 17, pp. 222–4, document 8. Cited in Akio, Okada, “Chūsei buke shakai ni okeru josei no keizai teki chii (jō),” Rekishi chiri, 603 (09 1932), p. 241.Google Scholar

113 See Ka'ichi, Asakawa, The Documents of lriki, p. 175Google Scholar for a diagram in English; documents 87, 93, 97 on pp. 49, 51–53, for related documents (in Japanese); pp. 114–5 for a genealogical chart (in Japanese); and also Akio, Okada, “buke shakai,” 240–1.Google Scholar

114 See Ryōsuke, Ishii, ”kon'in hō,“ 19Google Scholar; and Kan'ichi, Asakawa, “Iriki,” 122.Google Scholar The contrasting (and more correct) view comes from Akio, Okada and Takeichirō, Fukuo;. See “buke shakai,” 228Google Scholar, and “Kamakura jidai ni okeru josei no zaisan ni tsuite,” Yamaguchi daigaku bungaku kai shi, 4:1 (1953), especially page 9, respectively.Google Scholar

115 For most historians, “the Middle Ages” extend from the end of the twelfth to about the mid-sixteenth centuries.

116 A reference to this grant is made in the trial document from 1239/5/25. See note 99 above, document 60. The “son” in this case was an adopted son (yūshi) of the late husband.

117 “ Sō Jōsei yachi yuzuri jō,” 1205/3/18 and 1208/3/7, Yamato Tsutsui Kansei shi monjo, in Kamakura Ibun 3, p. 233, document 1528 and p. 342, document 1719.

118 For example, “Shibuya Shigemasa okibumi,” 1349/int.6/23, Iriki monjo, p. 22, document 6.

119 “Fukabori Jigan Tokinaka okibumi,” 1302/6/1, Hizen Fukabori ke monjo in Kamakura ibun 28, p. 12,Google Scholar document 21090. This is cited by many authors, including Hideharu, Nitta, “Chūsei no sbzoku sei,” in Kazoku seido no kenkyū (jō) (Tokyo: Yūhikaku, 1956), 48.Google Scholar

120 By 1274, life grants had become common enough that the bakufu was compelled to legislate on the stipulated rights of the future heir in case of criminal conduct committed by the lifetime holder. When the guilty lifetime holder was a direct vertical relation of the future heir, the punishment would fall on the entire house, and the government would confiscate the property. In other words, if the future heir-designate was the stepmother, brother, or non-kin to the lifetime grant holder, the property could descend as planned; but if the life grant was being transmitted vertically from a grandparent to a parent to a child, then the property would be confiscated by the government. See Shikimoku addendum 462, 1274/6/1, CSSS, pp. 61–62.

121 “Kobayakawa Saneyoshi jihitsu yuzuri jō,” 1363/3/18, Kobayakawa ke monjo 1, p. 47; however, the secondary brother received only “sustenance” out of sympathy.Google Scholar

122 “Shibuya Shizushige yuzuri jō,” 1327/8/18, Iriki monjo, p. 166, document 14.Google Scholar

123 Takerube Kiyotsuna's testament dated 1259/int.10/5. Described in 1323/11/29, Nejime monjo, KBSS (ge), pp. 238–41, document 147.

124 If Morimichi and his wife should bear a son, however, the land in question was to be divided between Myōtsū's two grandchildren (SS and SS). See “Yamanouchi Myōtsū Michisue yuzuri jō,” 1355/7/16, Yamanouchi Sucō monjo, pp. 504–6, document 534.Google Scholar

125 1325/6/12, Yanwnouchi Sudō monjo, KBSS (jō), pp. 378–80, document 305. The senior goke even demanded that the junior goke forward clothing for the child in the former's “custody.”

126 “Sagara Rendō okibumi,” 1311/2/25 and “Sagara Hironaga okibumi,” 1343/3/12, Sagara ke monjo 1, pp. 77–84, document 39 and pp. 151–52, document 114.

127 “Sagara Rendō okibumi,” Ibid., p. 82.

128 His command was not, however, strictly carried out. His chakushi (the next sōryō) granted, in 1333/2/26, lifetime property to his granddaughter (the daughter of his chakushi), explaining that “despite female [sex], … she is the daughter of Sadayori,” and stipulated the next sōryō as the future heir. See “Sagara Yorihira yuzuri jō,” Sagara ke monjo 1, pp. 106–17, document 52.Google Scholar

129 “Imagawa Ryōshun kakikudashi,” 1387/10/10 and a few other documents are addressed to this “onna (female) jitō.” See Hizen Matsuura td Ariura monjo, p. 122, document 141, as well as 142, 143, and the genealogical chart on p. 288, in which she is a carrier of the line.Google Scholar

130 “Shami GishO yuzuri jō,” 1413/6/25, Minagawa monjo 2. Noted by Teruo, Tsujimura, “chūsei buke josei no ichigo jōyo,” Shinshū diagaku kyōiku gakubu kenkyū ronshū 10 (1959), p. 44, note 50.Google Scholar

131 Yasuko, Tabata, Nihon chūsei, 88Google Scholar. “Nagai Toyosato okibumi,” 1485/2/9, Tabuso monjo in Hiroshima ken shi: kodesi chūsei shiryō hen, V, pp. 157–8, document 16.Google Scholar

132 “Settsu Chikahide yuzuri jō,“ 1341/8/7, Dainihon shiryō 6:6, pp. 881–8Google Scholar. Cited in Kaoru, Nakada, “Chūsei no zaisan sōzoku hō,” Hōsei shi ronshū 1 (Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1926), p. 234, note 22. The jitō in note 129 was also a chakujo.Google Scholar

133 See note 60 above, especially page 21. A subtheme of this evolutionary trend is the fate of secondary sons (shoshi) whose property rights also diminished or disappeared. Apart from seeking to set up their own bases of power, they most commonly became incorporated into the territorially based feudal structures under a kin or non-kin sōryō. Some went into religious orders as well. There was no social group equivalent to the “bachelor” community of the West, since marriage was never forbidden. See Duby, Georges, La Société aux XIe et XIIe siécles dans la region Mâconnaise (Paris: Touzot, 1971), ch. 5, pp. 215–33. Whatever the case might be, the relative social positions of the two sexes differed greatly: A vassalized male under the subjection of a lord still held control over their wives.Google Scholar

134 Duby, Georges, Medieval Marriage, p. 10.Google Scholar

135 Ibid.

136 “Kumagai Naotsune okibumi,” 1346/6/1, Kumagai ke monjo, p. 107, document 91.Google Scholar

137 Ibid. The Chakujo was not entirely disentitled in this case and nonetheless received a small portion.