¹ See, for example, Kung-chuan, Hsiao, Rural China, Imperial Control in the Nineteenth Century (Seattle, 1960), p. 269Google Scholar; De Young, John E., Village Life in Modern Thailand (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1955), pp. 1–21Google Scholar; Leach, Edmund R., Pul Eliya, A Village in Ceylon (London, 1961), pp. 28–30Google Scholar; Sanders, Irwin T., Rainbow in the Rock., the People of Rural Greece (Cambridge, Mass., 1962), pp. 218–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

² This view of rigidly controlled and heavily oppressed peasantry of the Tokugawa period is particularly prevalent among those who interpret history primarily from the point of view of the Shogunate and daimiate administrative system. See, for example, Jichirō, Tokutomi, Kinsei Nihon Kokuminshi [History of the Early Modern Japan] (Tokyo, 1924), vol. 15, pp. 507–533Google Scholar; Jirō, Numada, Nihon Zenshi [Complete History of Japan] (Tokyo, 1959), vol. 7, Kinsei, part II, pp. 192–194Google Scholar. Not even Sansom was free, at times, from such an interpretation when he speaks of the “heavily oppressed” peasants and cites—in illustrating the condition of the peasants—Honda Masanobu's dictum that the peasant “must be allowed neither too much nor too little, but just enough rice to live on and to keep seed in the following year.” Sansom, George B., A History of Japan, 1615–1867 (Stanford, 1963), pp. 98–100Google Scholar.

³ It should be noted that for the problem under consideration, the villages of the Tokugawa period are not to be equated with the modern rural communities of Japan, commonly called burakfi. For the mode of political articulation of the modern Japanese state to the buraku is vastly different—due to factors I cannot go into here—from that of the Tokugawa state.

⁴ As Smith, Thomas has ably demonstrated in the Agrarian Origins of Modern Japan (Stanford, 1959)Google Scholar, a great deal of change did take place during the Tokugawa period. Also, it is well known that there were important differences between the Shogunate and daimiate administration. We shall, nonetheless, attempt to generalize about the structure of control at a level of generality applicable throughout the period, both in the Shogunate and daimiate domains.

⁵ The nature of the headman's position is discussed more fully by the author in “Duty, Reward, Sanction, and Power—Four-cornered Office of the Tokugawa Village Headman,” (Manuscript. 1964).

⁶ How effectively the delegates carried out their duties we do not know. Because their historical and economic backgrounds were very similar to those of other officials whom they were to watch, one may suspect that they more often than not allied themselves with the headman and the elders against the common peasants, rather than representing the peasants' interests. An examination of documents on peasant riots in which the village headman was the target of attack shows no clear evidence that delegates tended to side with the ordinary villagers against the headman. For documentation and analysis of peasant riots of Tokugawa period, see Borton, Hugh, “Peasant Uprisings in Japan of the Tokugawa Period,” Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Japan, Ser. 2, XVI (1938), 1–219Google Scholar; Iwao, Kokushō, Hyaktishō lkki no Kenkyū [A Study of Peasant Riots] (Tokyo, 1928)Google Scholar; Keiichirō, Aoki, Nihon Nōmin Undōshi [A History of Peasant Movements in Japan] (Tokyo, 1959).Google Scholar

⁷ Ken'ichi, Asakawa, “Notes on Village Government in Japan after 1600, Il” Journal of American Oriental Society, XXXI (1911), 168Google Scholar.

⁸ Elders and delegates, generally received lighter punishment than the headman, if they were punished at all for the same crime as the headman.

⁹ Kōta, Kodama, Kinsei nōmin seikatsushi [A History of Peasant Life in the Tokugawa Period] (Tokyo, 1951), pp. 161–184Google Scholar.

¹⁰ For documents of the five-man group and discussion of this institution, see Nobushige, Hozumi, Goningumi Hōkishū [Collection of Five-man Group Codes] (Tokyo, 1921)Google Scholar; Hozumi, N., Goningumi Seidoron [Five-man Group System] (Tokyo, 1921)Google Scholar; Shigetō, Hozumi, Goningumi Hōkishū Zokuhen [Collection of Five-man Group Codes, a Supplement] (Tokyo, 1944)Google Scholar; Kanetarō, Nomura, Goningumichō no Kenkyū [Study of Five-man Group Records] (Tokyo, 1943)Google Scholar. For brief discussions in English, see Asakawa, 1911, pp. 196–198; Simmons, D. B. and Wigmore, John, “Notes on Land Tenure and Local Institutions in Old Japan,” Transactions of Asiatic Society of Japan, XIX (1891), 95–100Google Scholar; and Sansom, George B., A History of Japan, 1615–1867 (Stanford, 1963), pp. 101–103Google Scholar.

¹¹ Such variation was inevitable, in part because of the constant fluctuation in the number of families in any village due to such factors as establishment of branch families, disolution of families through bankruptcy, and migration in and out of the village.

¹² Because both the elders and the heads of five-man groups were sometimes called kumigashira in the same village, some writers have regarded these two positions as identical. In some places they were the same, at least in origin; see Kiyoto, Hirazawa, “Kumigashira to kinseiteki mura yakunin seido no kakuritsu” [“Kumigashira and the Establishment of Village Offices in the Tokugawa Period”], Shinano, V (1958), 696–701Google Scholar. But in some villages there were fewer elders than five-man groups. Also, it is not clear whether some of the heads of the five-man groups also served as elders, or whether the elders were an entirely different group of individuals. For these reasons, when we read in legal documents about kumigashira we are not certain whether they refer to elders or to heads of five-man groups.

¹³ Although Sansom states that the document “was signed by the headman,” it was more often “signed” by all members of all five-man groups of die village. Cf. Sansom, 1963, 102.

¹⁴ For a discussion of various methods, see Hozumi N., Goningumi Hōkishū, pp. 90–129.

¹⁵ Hozumi N., Goningumi Seidoron.

¹⁶ Kiichi, Hosokawa, Rimpo Seidoshi [History of Neighborhood Association Organization] (Tokyo, 1939)Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Nomura, p. 87.

¹⁸ Kodama Kōta, p. 155.

¹⁹ Sansom, George B., Japan, a Short Cultural History (New York 1943), p. 461Google Scholar; Asakawa, p. 188.

²⁰ Space limitations preclude any extended discussion of the legal codes of the Tokugawa period pertaining to the peasantry. Those interested in them will find the following standard documentary sources useful. Tokugawa Kinreikö Kōshū [Prohibitions of the Tokugawa Shogunate, a Supplement], ed., Shunsuke, Kikuchi, (Tokyo, 1931–32)Google Scholar; Kinsei Hampō Shiryō Shūsei [Collection of Han Legal Materiel from the Tokugawa Period], ed., Kenji, Maki, (Tokyo, 1944), III, 131–205Google Scholar; Kinsei Hōsei Shiryō Sōsho [Collection of Legal Historical Material from the Tokugawa Period] ed. Ryōsuke, Ishii, (Tokyo, 1938), II, 301–357 and III, 257–276Google Scholar; Hampōshū II: Tottori-han [Collection of Han Laws II: Tottori-han], ed., Ryōsuke, Ishii, (Tokyo, 1961)Google Scholar. For examples of such edicts translated into English, see Simmons and Wigmore, “Notes on Land Tenure and….,” 177–210; Asakawa, 1911, 202–216.

Regulations listed in five-man group records are also an excellent source. See footnote 10 for references.

²¹ Kenʻichi, Asakawa, “Notes on Village Government in Japan after 1600, I,” Journal of American Oriental Society, XXX (1910), 269Google Scholar.

²² For example, fields were never to be left fallow and rice fields never to be turned into dry fields or house lots; emigration of peasants was discouraged or prohibited for fear of decrease of crop yields; and severe restrictions were placed on growing luxury crops like tobacco, if it was not outlawed.

²³ For example, ordinary peasants were not allowed to wear silk clothes or kamishimo, a formal dress for ceremonial occasions; peasants were to subsist as much as possible on grains other than rice, the premium crop of the state; and as for shelters, the size of house, number of rooms, kinds of furnishings, and materials to be used for construction were all minutely regulated.

²⁴ The most obvious and visible regulation of this category was the universal law prohibiting peasants (except the village officials) from bearing swords and using surnames. In many domains, the warrior enjoyed the right to execute any peasant who did not behave properly toward him.

²⁵ Each village was required to prepare a temple registry, called shūmonchō, shūmon aratamechō, etc., in which the names of the villagers were listed under the name of the temple of which they were parish members. This list, presumably brought up to date each year, was accompanied by an oath to the effect that none of the villagers espoused Christianity.

²⁶ Asakawa, 1911, p. 161; Kichiji, Nakamura, Nihon no Sonraku Kyōdōtai [Village Community in Japan] (Tokyo, 1957), pp. 108–112Google Scholar.

²⁷ Kaoru, Nakata, “Tokugawa jidai ni okeru mura no jinkaku,” [The Personality of the Village in Tokugawa Period], Hōseishi Ronsō, II (1938), 963–990Google Scholar.

²⁸ For specimens of village codes, see Masaharu, Maeda, Nihon Kinsei Sompō no Kenkyū [A Study of Village Codes of Tokugawa Japan] (Tokyo, 1950)Google Scholar.

²⁹ Maeda, Nihon Kinsei Sompō no Kenkyū; Meada Masaharu, “Hō to sonraku kyōdōtai—Edo jidai ni okeru sompō o chushin to shite,” [“Law and Village community—Primarily a Discussion of Village Codes of the Tokugawa Period”], in Hōken Shakai to Kyödotai [Feudal Society and Community], eds. Morimitsu, Shimizu and Yūji, Kaida (Tokyo, 1961), pp. 169–214Google Scholar.

³⁰ It is interesting to note here that there are few sanctions perscribed in village codes against violations of sumptuary laws, indicating that economy and saving were virtues for peasants, but their opposite were not crime in their eyes.

³¹ In case a matter was brought to the attention of the magistrate and could not be proved to his satisfaction, the plaintiff was often punished for no other reason than having disturbed the authority without just cause.

³² For a recent discussion of the modern practices, see Smith, Robert J., “The Japanese Rural Community: Norms, Sanctions, and Ostracism,” American Anthropologist, LXIII (1961), 522–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³³ Toshimi, Takeuchi, “Mura no scisai” [“Village sanctions”] Shakai Keizai Shigaku, VIII (1938), no. 6, 603–633, no. 7, 743–772Google Scholar.

³⁴ The concept of common responsibility, as used by the village assembly, was by and large limited to the cases in which punishment was a fine of money or rice. When mura hachibu or banishment was the punishment, the sanction applied only to the culprit and his family.

³⁵ Mitsuru, Miyakawa, “Sonraku kyōdōtai no kinseiteki tenkai” [“Transformation of the Village Community in the Tokugawa period”], in Hōken Shakai to Kyōdōtai, ed. Shimizu, M. and Kaida, Y., pp. 93–168Google Scholar.

³⁶ Seiichi, Andō, Kinsei Miyaza no Shiteki Kenkyū [Historical Study of the Shrine Association in Tokugawa Japan] (Tokyo, 1960), p. 115Google Scholar.

³⁷ Andō, S., Edo Jidai no Nōmin [Peasants of the Tokugawa Period] (Tokyo, 1959), pp. 117–156Google Scholar; Andō, S., Kinsei Miyaza no Shiteki KenkyūGoogle Scholar; Kazuo, Higo, Miyaza no kenkyū [A Study of Shrine Associations] (Tokyo, 1941)Google Scholar; Thomas C. Smith, The Agrarian Origins, pp. 187–200.

³⁸ Wakamono Seido no Kenkyū [A Study of the Youth Association], ed. Seinendan, Dai Nihon Rengō, (Tokyo, 1936)Google Scholar; Dainihon Seinendanshi [History of the Japanese Youth Association] ed. Tatsurjirō, Kumagaya, (Tokyo, 1943), pp. 13–41Google Scholar; Tarō, Nakayama, Nihon Wakamonon Shi [History of the Japanese Youth], (Tokyo, 1956)Google Scholar.

³⁹ A threatening neighboring village could be dealt with either through appealing to higher authorities for arbitration or through armed conflict, illegal though the latter method might be. These means promised at least some chance of favorable resolution of the conflict. But the state offered no such chance; its law, its demands were absolute as well as unilateral.