宮島　敬一「荘園体制と「地域的一揆体制」, pp.401-428 (Miyajima Keiichi, "The Shoen system and the format for regional Ikki", pp.401-408)

The purpose of this particular study was to examine the place of those village members below the rank of dogō, what Prof Miyajima refers to as the `middle sort` of village member. He categorizes this social class according to the following precepts:
Politically, at the beginning of the medieval period these persons were in a fealty relationship with the village myōshu class, and thus served in positions at the very bottom of the authority hierarchy of the village. However, they did not hold a position within the framework of the shōen system of authority. Consequently they did not hold any direct authority equivalent to a ryōshu.(401)

Economically, this class collected the excess produce of the peasantry, excess that was not part of the yearly tithe. More specifically, this refers to the interest on loans, or via the accumulation of lands they collected the interest from produce, thus making them part of the `exploiter` class. Their administration led the way for the development of affiliated small scale manufacturing and organization of the peasantry.(402)

Socially, these people belonged to the upper echelons of the village community, and thus operated as the representatives of the village, taking responsibility for everyday life within the village. As for the development of this particular class, there are two predominant theories:

The first states that these villagers underwent a process of vassalage to upper level landowners (kokujin landowners, or Sengoku daimyō), and eventually ended up as landowners in their own right (the Nagahara Kenji thesis). The other states that these villagers, of the middle sort, formed horizontal relations, binding each other into a sort of union, which then led to a gradual process of accumulation of territory under this organization (the Fujiki Hisashi thesis). There is little consensus among most historians as to the actual status of these villagers – Fujiki refers to them as `landed lords`, Ōyama Kyōhei referred to them as `village landlords`, whereas Murata Shūzō refers to them as `small landlords`. As far as the author is concerned, he intends to examine these villagers from the point of view of their right to accumulation of interest (Kajishi). Those who possessed this right and accumulated wealth via use of such measures are referred to as `small landowners`, whereas the producers are referred to as `ordinary peasants, or commoners`. These small landowners created their own independent `system of accumulation of interest`. At the local level, they also created their own independent position as small landowners.(402-403)

The author offers three reasons why he decided to concentrate on Ōmi province for an analysis of such landowners. The first reasons lies with the fact that this region was at the centre of political and economic life for medieval society, and was the most productive area in terms of agricultural output within the entire nation. The second reason stems from the fact that shōen owners, kokujin land owners, and Sengoku daimyō, the growth of villagers and the village system, and most aspects of medieval society are more discernable in this area – there are, in other words, more records for examination. In addition, the historical contradictions of medieval society are quite pronounced in this area. Finally, the Ōmi region served as the basis for what would become the system of rule for the early modern (Edo) period. The author also intends to concentrate on the latter medieval period (after the Ōnin and Bunmei wars), for this is when the glaring contradictions of medieval society came to the fore.(403)

According to the author, the `authority to possess land`(土地所有権) was not held by the myōshu but by the peasantry themselves. In other words, land was not something to be administered but was a unit of tax production, thus the myōshu was an `accumulator of taxes`, and nothing else. The right to plough land and harvest produce was already in the hands of the peasantry. Although no direct historical resources exist to back this claim, the author does note that land was bought and sold as private property among villagers themselves. The author also believes that `interest` referred simply to the excess produce of the peasantry, and that the `myōshu shoku tokubun` was a completely separate entity. He also does not equate `interest` with the sale of working positions within the shōen – it was, in other words, non-transferable and did not change although the position of peasants and their roles may have undergone changes.(405)

The author thus categorizes those persons who collected `interest` as `small land owners`. The reasons for this are that the peasantry produced `interest`, yet they did not undergo the process of vassalage neither did they become affiliated `small producers`. They were `ordinary peasants, or commoners`. As for the direction of growth that small landowners who accumulated interest went in, the author does not believe that they were determinedly set out from the beginning to make themselves landowners (or ryōshu). They merely began as simple property owners, or a person with a plot of land to themselves. As these `property owners` had the right to collect interest from their fields, they underwent a process of development, strengthening their economic system (based on the preservation of right to collect interest) in order to build an independent financial basis for themselves. In medieval society, you thus had the landowners (those responsible for the collection of public and annual tithes in the shōen system) and then the smaller landowners, who collected interest separate to the tithes collected by the landowner.  Hence these smaller landowners, before they set out to accumulate interest, were already thinking on a much broader scale of administration than the average peasant. Yet in order to be able to accumulate interest, certain regional laws had to be amended. How was this done?(409)

The creation and development of regional laws and strictures did not occur because of `fall` into privately applicable law, but because inspections and the rule of landowners was either denied by the locals or removed altogether. It was then replaced by a self-appointed internal bureau within the village. Moveover, the change in local conditions that brought about this transformation of the `law` was the class conflict that existed surrounding the right to interest. In sum, the birth of the `interest` exploiter class brought them into conflict with the landowner class (through jigeuke, and shōke ikki) over the preservation of interest at the local level (this included administration of water resources, organizations within the village dealing with political matters, tithes and other public duties).(411)

The author also notes that the usage of `tickets of sale` 売券, were often employed in the collection of interest in order to prove that the land in question did belong to a small landowner. For example, in the shōen of Katata, when a ticket of sale went missing, the bantō shū of the shōen put their signatures to a `certificate of loss` 紛失状 (大徳寺文書一六八二). This document was proven legal by the fact that although the original document was not available, 「為支証、番頭衆之連判取渡申処也」thus proving that the sale had in fact occurred. This `certificate of loss` was thus valid at the local level, and applicable among the bantō and sō village upper echelons (in other words, these documents were valid among those claiming rights to the collection of interest, and as the system was not challenged by landowners, it became established as `law`).(413)

The sale of lands was thus judged at the sō village level, based upon those precepts that had been established through local custom. For example, in the 下丹生神社 (Shimonyū Jinja) 文書 under a `guarantee` (支証) for Bunmei 2, a certain Minami no Yajirō had gotten into an argument with Naka Saburō and Mago Jirō over the sale of some land. Both Naka Saburō and Mago Jirō had protested the legitimacy of their claims. The crux of the arugment was over the ownership of the document pertaining to the land, and a vow made to the gods over this document. We do not know who submitted the `guarantee` to the land, yet the guarantee was left in the possession of the shrine, moreover as a document punishing the transgressors (signed by public officials and lesser vassals) also accompanied the guarantee, we know that these had been submitted to the regional `executors` of the law – in sum, the village hierarchy.(413) A further example is made related to a document of donation in the possession of the same shrine, again surrounding the sale of lands. This documents thus states…「此地下者、道義房と山田衛門大夫さうらん（相論）在、仍地下十四人御百姓中と志て、ひはん二まかせて、西仏房の後生井為、寄進申也」. The shrine to which this donation was made was the center of political gatherings within the sō village (as a Miyaza 宮座), and thus together with the system of `criticism` from the fourteen villagers elected to hear the case, the shrine played an important role in resolving local issues dealing with the interpretation of the law.(413)

The use of `local tokusei`:
Tokusei were another of those problems involving the sale of lands (and collection of interest) and interpretation of the law. This is predominantly because the laws dealing with collection of tithes were created and maintained at the local level. From an examination of documents into this phenomenon, what we can say about those who called for local tokusei was that they were `satajin` of the small landowner class. An example of local tokusei comes from Koga gun. Those selling the land, at the same time as issuing a ticket of sale, would also pass on a `guarantee from tokusei` 「徳政落居状」which confirmed that the seller had received from the buyer a `tokusei rate`, and that a tokusei would not be demanded in the future. What is equally interesting in this case is the use of a `messenger` in matters involved the sale of lands and the issue of tokusei. There are numerous instances of vassals (or hikan) making use of messengers (including the above document and the guarantee from tokusei). On most occasions those employed in the task of carrying messages on sales were from the `interest accumulating class` in sum, small landowners.(414-415)