Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T02:55:13.319Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Meiji Landlord: Good or Bad?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2011

R. P. Dore
Get access

Extract

It seems impossible anywhere in this century of the common man for history to remain a mere matter of recording and analysing the deeds of uncommon men. The most traditional of historians finds himself obliged to assess not only the influence exerted on the course of events by individual statesmen and generals, but also the collective influence of the wishes, the fears, the interests, or the prejudices of large numbers of anonymous individuals, grouped generally, for purposes of convenience, under such rubrics as “the urban middle classes,” “the city,” “the workers,” “the farmers,” “the discontented intellectuals,” or “the electorate.” Sometimes the statistical implications of such terms are recognised, as by the English Namierites, in the use of openly statistical methods of approach. Other historians use less tedious, and it must be admitted less convincing, means of summation. In any case, the business of writing history has become more complicated. The purpose of this paper is to give some account of the treatment Japanese historians have afforded one such large category of individuals who can no longer be ignored in recounting the history of Meiji Japan, namely “the landlords.”

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Asian Studies , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , May 1959 , pp. 343 - 355
Copyright
Copyright © The Association for Asian Studies, Inc. 1959

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 Dai nihon kensei shi, II (1927), 351ff.

2 See Furushima Toshio's introduction to Meiji Shiryō Kenkyū Renrakukai, ed., Jinushi set no keisei in Meiji shi kenkyū sōsho, V (1957), 22.

3 Later published as Eikpsakui ron (1937).

4 Nihon jiyū shugi hattaisushi (1924), p. 52.

5 Nihon shihon shugi hattatsushi kōza.

6 Nihon shihon shugi shakai no kikō (1934). Much of this work was a reprint of his kōza articles of 1932.

7 Shakai Keizai Rōdō Kenkyūjo, ed., Nihon shihon shugi ronsō shi (1947), p. 186.

8 Toya Toshiyuki, “Kinsei kosaku seido no teiyō to sono henshitsu ni tsuite,” in Teikpku nōkai hō, XXXII, 4, 5, 8. Reprinted in Jinushi sei no keisei (n. 2).

9 Norman, E. H., Japan's Emergence as a Modern State (New York, 1940), pp. 172–173Google Scholar.

10 Kada Tetsuji, Meiji shoki shakai keizai shisō shi (1937), p. 520.

11 See the recorded discussion in Rekishigaku Kenkyūkai, ed., Rekishi to gendai (1955), pp. 167–171, and the article in the same volume by Shimoyama Saburō, “Meiji jūnendai ni okeru jinushi sei,” pp. 150–155. In the latter, for instance, Shimoyama denies that the gōnō—the large-scale farmer-landlords—could have had any connection with the People's Rights Movement, because, in so far as they employed a self-type of labourer they represented an older economic form than, and therefore could not have been more politically progressive than, the commercially inclined landlord (p. 152). In his later general survey of the People's Rights Movement Shimoyama contrasts the opposing theories, on the one hand of Hattori Shiso who argues that the movement was a bourgeois democratic one and therefore there must have been capitalist development in Japan on such a scale that it could not be accommodated in the feudal structure, and on the other that of Horie Hideichi who holds that since there was no such capitalist development the movement could not have been a bourgeois democratic one. This remains for him “the greatest point of difficulty” in the study of the People's Rights Movement. While he feels that Hattori is right about its political character and Horie about the economic context it seems to be still not proper for a Marxist to suggest that in a world with increasing international traffic in ideologies, the rules governing the import of finished ideas may not necessarily be the same as those governing their independent creation, that, in other words, in “late-developing countries” ideas can run ahead of their economic time. Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai, ed., Nihon rektshi kōza, V (1956), 99–100.

12 See Professor Toyama's summary of recent research contained in his introduction to Meiji Shiryō Kenkyū Renrakukai, ed., Jiyū minken undō, in Meiji shi kenkyū sòsho, III (1956). A list of the most important monographs will be found in that introduction.

13 With some variations, holding, for instance, that a separate class of middling farmers must be recognised as the leaders of the small farmers (Gotō Yasushi, “Iida jiken,” in Jimbun gaktihō, II [1952]), or that the real force behind the Chichibu incident was the discontent, not of tenants, as Hirano suggested, but of handicraft silk producers oppressed by landlord middlemen (Inoue Kōji, “Chichibu jiken,” in Rekjshi hyōron [Nov. 1950]). Both of these articles are reprinted in Jiyū minken undō.

14 Inoue Kiyoshi, “Jiyū minken undō o meguru rekishiteki hyōka ni tsuite,” Shisō (Jan. 1956).

15 See his article “Gendai shi kenkyu hoho no mondai ten,” Shisō (May 1957).

16 See, for instance, Gotō Yasushi, “Jiyū minken undō to nōmin ikki,” Jitnbun gakuhō, VII (1957). Gotō accepts Inoue's strictures and tries to show how the “upper class popular rightists” were transmogrified between 1874 and 1877 by contact with the anti-land-tax movements of the peasants whom they had formerly despised. The incident which he describes is a petition movement for reduction of land tax assessments in the Ina district in 1876. It was led by landlords, though a great part of its success is attributed o t their creation of a unified “fighting front” which mobilised the fiercer energies of the cultivating farmers. This theme of the amalgamation of the “stream from above” and the “stream from below” and of the role of anti-land-tax objections has apparently been taken up in other studies of the Okayama and Niigata districts. (See the summary of historical writing in 1957 in Rekishigaku kenkyū, No. 221 [July 1958], p. 19.)

17 Jinushi set no keisei (n. 2), pp. 10–11.

18 Horie Hideichi, rev. of Furushima's Nihon nōgyō shi in Shisō (Jan. 1957), p. 139.

19 See, for instance, the articles in Rekishigaku Kenkyūkai, ed., Meiji ishin to jinushi set (1956), by Furushima Toshio, Takao Kazuhiko, Abiko Rin, Shiozawa Kimio, Nakai Nobuhiko, and Shoji Kishino-suke, the review of the Fukushima Daigaku Keizai Gakkai's Kisei jinushi sei no kenfyū (1955) by Okada Yokō inRekishigaku kenkyū, No. 189, the reply by two of the authors in No. 191, the intervention of the heavy guns of Ōtsuka Hisao in No. 192, and the note of Ōishi Shinsaburō in No. 205. The latter controversy has ranged far and wide, dealing at times with such esoteric matters as whether Watt Tyler, in 1381, was really bent on the bourgeois democratic revolution.

20 See, for instance, Shiozaw a Kimio and Kawaura Kōji, Kisei jinushi sei ron (1957), especially Ch. 3, and the even more pointed references to the bright and the dismal sides of their story in Yamada Shun's review of their book in Shigaku zasshi, LXVII (Jan. 1958), 83–94.

21 Furushima Toshio and Morita Shirō, “Meiji ki ni okeru jinushi seido tenkai no chiikiteki seishitsu,” in Jinushi sei no keisei (n. 2), p. 98. (Article originally published in Keizai hyōron, May 1951.) See also articles in Nihon Nōgyō Hattatsushi Chōsakai, Nihon nōgyō hattatsushi (1953—57) by Tobata Seiichi (IX, 567), Inoue Haremaru (I, 107—118), and also the biographies of some of these landlords in Vols. II and V.

22 Though in the latter regard Ogura Buichi, in a recent article, imputes to the Government the motive (in fostering agricultural associations) not so much of advancing agricultural techniques as of bolstering its own power. These organisations were to give official position to, and win over by official honours, the strata of landlords most subject to People's Rights disaffection. He quotes an interesting memorandum of Iwakura, dated 1882, in support of his thesis. Nihon nōgyō hattatsu shi, III, 300.

23 Kushida Tamizō suggested this in an article, “Nihon nōgyō ni okeru shihon shugi no hatten,” included in Kushida Tamizō zenshū, III (1935). More evidence was brought by Tsuchiya Takao in two articles published in 1934 and reprinted in his Nihon shihon shugi ronshū (1937), which led to considerable controversy whether Tsuchiya was right in categorising the employment relations of these landlords as modern and capitalistic.

24 See, e.g., Kisei jinushi sei no kenbyū (n. 19), pp. 235–242, or Shiozawa and Kawaura (n. 20), p. 191. The term “up-grading transformation” (jōshō) was Fujita Gorō's.

25 Yamaguchi Kazuo, Meiji zenki keizai no bunsehj (1956), pp. 73–79. Sec also Furushima and Morita, “Meiji ki…” (n. 21), p. 112.

26 Yamaguchi, loc. cit., Furushima and Morita, loc. cit., and Shiozawa and Kawaura, pp. 191–192.

27 E.g., Shiozawa and Kawaura, p. 269, and Shiozawa, “Bisai chihō ni okeru kisei jinushi sei no seiritsu,” in Meiji ishin to jinushi sei (n. 19), p. 110.

28 Koike Motoyuki in Nōchi Kaikaku Kiroku Iinkai, Nōchi kaikaku temmatsu gaiyō (1951), p. 36.

29 Ogura (n. 22), p. 301, and Hattori Shisō, “Jiyū minken undō ni okeru gōnō to chūnō,” Hattori Shisō chosaku-shu, V (1955), 327.

30 Furushima and Morita, “Meiji ki…” (n. 21), p. 96.

31 Ibid., p. 98, For an account of these grading measures see Ogura (n. 22), p. 329.

32 Yamaguchi (n. 25), pp. 82–83.

33 Introduction to Jinushi sei no keisel (n. 2), p. 27.

34 Nihon jinushi sei shi ron (1957), p. 6.

35 Recent controversy on the significance of this event points up the difficulties which arise from the ambiguities of such terms as the “landlord system.” Shimoyama Saburō, in criticism of Hirano and Yamada, pointed out that it was not really until the late nineties that this provision had any substantial effect in giving landlords the benefit of general price rises. “Meiji jūnendai no tochi shoyū kankei o megutte,” in Rekishigaku kenkyū, No. 176 (Oct. 1954), p. 2. Shiozawa Kimio quotes Hattori Shisō's refutation to the effect that it may have had no immediat e effect, but the change of 1884 meant the “legal perfection of the system.” “Bisai chihō ni okeru kisei jinushi sei no seiritsu,” in Meiji ishin to jinushi sei (n. 19), p. 107. This argument has recently been attacked on its own ground by the thesis that it was not until the enactment of the Civil Code in 1897 that even the “system” was effectively guaranteed. Shiomi Toshitaka et al, Nihon no nōson (1957), p. 309.

36 On the discontinuity of technical research in the Meiji period, see Tobata (n. 21), p. 578.

37 Kamagata Isao, Yamagata-ken Inasaku-shi, 1955, p. 219.

38 Tobata (n. 21), pp. 585–587.

39 See the article by Ogawa Makoto in Nihon nōgyō haltatsu shi, IV, 197–233.

40 Hoshino Makoto in Kisei jinushi sei no kenkyū (n. 19).

41 Nihon jinushi sei shi ron (1957), Ch. 3.

42 Furushima Toshio, Nihon jinushi sei no kenkyū (1958).

43 Shisō (May 1957), p. 208.

44 See for instance the contributions by Inoue Kiyoshi and Nagahara Keiji.

45 Introduction to Meiji Shiryō Kenkyū Renraku-kai, ed. Minkenron kara nashonarizumu e in Meiji shi kenkyū sōsho, IV (1957), 21.