I would like to thank Marius B. Jansen, Sheldon M. Garon, Helen Hardacre, and Michael Tsin, all of Princeton University, for their advice and comments on this paper.

¹ Sadanobu, Matsudaria, Uge no hitokoto, ed. Matsudaira, Sadamitsu (Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1943, repr. 1975), pp. 113–14, 131.Google Scholar

² Smith, C. Thomas, ‘Farm Family By-employments in Preindustrial Japan’ Journal of Economic History 29 (1969), pp. 687–715, discussed Chōshū.CrossRefGoogle ScholarSaitō, Osamu, ‘The Rural Economy: Commercial Agriculture, By-employment, and Wage Work’, Japan in Transition: From Tokugawa to Meiji, ed. Marius, B. Jansen and Gilbert, Rozman (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986), pp. 400–20, dealt with Yamanashi and Osaka.Google Scholar

³ There is an extensive literature on the Kantō. Although they disagree strongly on specifics, the authors listed below all share a common concern with the dynamics of structural transformation. See, for example, Keiji, Nagahara and Tamotsu, Nagakura, ‘Kōshin jikyūteki nōgyō chitai ni okeru murakata jinushisei no tenkai—kita Kantō no jirei o chūshin ni’, Shigaku zasshi 64: 1–2 (01–02 1955), pp. 1–20, 36–48;Google ScholarShirō, Kitoda, ‘Ishinki no gōnōsō, Ibaragi ken shi kenkyū 10–11 (03–07 1968) pp. 5–20, 24–47;Google ScholarTamotsu, Nagakura, ‘Kantō nōson no kōhai to gōnō no mondai’, Ibaragi ken shi kenkyū 16 (03 1970), pp. 1–17 (a response to Kitoda's article);Google ScholarKitoda, , ‘Kantō nōson no kōhai to burujoateki hatten—gōnōsō kenkyū no ichi shikaku’, Shakai keizai shigaku 36 (1971), pp. 425–49;Google Scholar and Shinzō, Hasegawa, ‘Kinsei kōki kita Kantō nōson no kōhai o megutte’, Shigaku zasshi 81: 9 (09 1972), pp. 37–64.Google Scholar

⁴ ‘Yūjoya toritsubushi no gi ni tsuki Ōta mura hoka muramura negaigaki’, Chiba ken shiryō: kinsei hen Shimōsa no kuni, ed. Chiba, ken shi hensan kyōgikai (Chiba, Chiba ken, 1958), vol. I, pp. 322–3.Google Scholar

⁵ See Noboru, Kawana, Kashi ni ikiru hitobito: Tonegawa suiun no shakaishi (Tokyo: Heibonsha, 1982), for a fascinating description of life on the Tone river.Google Scholar

⁶ Genba, Tanaka [Shigeaki], ‘Genba sendaishū’, ed. Shinozaki, Shirō, Nihon toshi seikatsu shiryō shūsei (Tokyo: Gakushū kenkyūsha, 1976), vol. 7 (minatomachi hen II), p. 720. This document was written by the fifth head of the Tanaka family, which operated the Higeta shōyu brewery in Chōshi, discussed below. See Shinozaki's introduction, pp. 37–8.Google Scholar

⁷ Ibid., p. 721.

⁸ ‘Kōdaishū bassho’, Chiba ken shiryō: kinsei hen Shimōsa no kuni, vol. I, p. 481. This document was compiled sometime after 1755 by later members of the Tanaka family.

⁹ ‘Takagami mura kyūki’, ibid., p. 508. The breakdown of outside laborers is as follows: 134 men and sixty-four women worked for landed peasants (hyakushō); 1,545 men worked as sardine fishermen; and 536 men worked for dried-sardine merchants. For the migration of Kii fishermento Takagami, see ‘Takagami’, Kadokawa Nihon chimeidaijiten (Tokyo: Kadokawa shoten, 1984), vol. 12 (Chiba ken), p. 513.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Hisao, Shinoda, ‘Chōshi tsukurijōyu nakama no kenkyū—Edo chimawari keizai no ichi danmen’, Chihōshi kenkyū 129 (06 1974), pp. 25–43, especially pp. 27–36.Google Scholar

¹¹ Shōyu in its modern form is a sixteenth-century development. It was produced commercially in the Kii area as early as the late sixteenth century, elsewhere around the turn of the eighteenth century. Motoi, Kimura, ‘Nōmin seikatsu no shosō’, Taikei Nihon shi sōsho, ed. Morisue, Yoshiaki, Hōgetsu, Keigo, and Kimura, Motoi (Tokyo: Yamakawa shuppansha, 1965), vol. 16 (seikatsu shi II), p. 203.Google Scholar See also, Fruin, W. Mark, Kikkoman: Company, Clan, and Community, Harvard Studies in Business History 35 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1983), pp. 14–16.Google Scholar

¹² ‘Nojiri mura meisaichō’ [1628], Chiba ken shiryō: kinsei hen Shimōsa no kuni, vol. I, pp. 331–8.

¹³ ‘Nojiri mura sashidashichō [1717], ibid., pp. 338–44.

¹⁴ ‘Nojiri mura kakiagechō’ [1733], ibid., pp. 344–50.

¹⁵ Kanetarō, Nomura, Mura meisaichō no kenkyū (Tokyo: Yūhikaku, 1949), contains an extensive collection of village surveys (mura meisaichō) and reports on nonagricultural by-employments (nōkan yogyō or nōkan akinai), taken mostly from the Kantō region. As Nomura stressed repeatedly (see pp. 35–6), the documents must be used with caution because they were compiled only in response to specific inquiries from higher authorities, usually on the occasion of a fief transferal or a tour of inspection by bakufu officials. The best surveys are intricate accounts of the characteristics of the villages. The worst are verbatim repetitions of older surveys.Google Scholar

¹⁶ ‘Kamo mura meisaichō’ [1793], Chiba ken shiryō: kinsei hen Awa no kuni, vol. 2, pp. 360–5.

¹⁷ See Hanley, B. Susan, ‘The Material Culture: Stability in Transition’, in Jansen and Rozman, Japan in Transition, pp. 447–70.Google Scholar

¹⁸ ‘Kamo mura sashidashi meisaichō’ [1843] and ‘Kamo mura murakagamichō’ [1868], Chiba ken shiryō: kinsei hen Awa no kuni, vol. 2, pp. 366–71, 371–8.

¹⁹ See Tanaka, Michiko, ‘Village Youth Organizations (Wakamono Nakama) in Late Tokugawa Politics and Society’ (Unpublished PhD. dissertation, Princeton University, 1982), esp. pp. 202–37;Google Scholar also Susumu, Kitahara, ‘Minshū no seikatsu to shakai’, Rekishi kōron I: I (12 1975), pp. 46–58.Google Scholar

²⁰ Compare a typical Bunsei injunction, (‘Nōkan shōnin shichitori toseimono kakiage ikken shorui’ [1828]) and one from the Tenpō period (‘Naraihara mura nōkan akinai tosei torishirabe ikken shorui’ [1843]) in Chiba ken shiryō: kinsei hen Awa no kuni, vol. 2, pp. 225–6 and 40–2.

²¹ Nomura, , Mura meisaichō no kenkyū, pp. 113–16, based on analysis of forty-three villages.Google Scholar

²² ‘Amatsu mura nōkan akinai tosei no mono namae narabini shichitori kindaka torishirabegaki’ [1827], Chiba ken shiryō: kinsei hen Awa no kuni, vol. 2, pp. 218–25. Nomura, , Mura meisaichō no kenkyū, p. 117, notes that bath houses and hairdressers were found most frequently in post towns and other transportation centers.Google Scholar

²³ ‘Nōkan akinai tosei torishirabe no gi ni tsuki Hachiman mura hoka jūyonkason kumiai kakiagechō’, Chiba ken shiryō: kinsei hen kazusa no kuni, vol. 2, pp. 10–31.

²⁴ ‘Sashiagemōsu issatsu no koto’ [1827], Chiba ken shiryō: kinsei hen Awa no kuni, vol. 2, p. 228.

²⁵ Tanaka, , ‘Village Youth Organizations’, pp. 272–309, contains a partial translation of the injunctions. Tanaka stated (p. 273) that the injunctions with commentary had not yet been published in Japanese;Google Scholar actually, a copy can be found in Tōgane shi shi: shiryōhen, ed. Tōgane, shi (China: Tōgane shi, 1976), vol. I, pp. 583–624.Google Scholar

²⁶ Shigeru, Suda, ‘Kinsei kōki Jōsō nōson ni okeru botsuraku nōmin’, Chihōshi kenkyū 163 (02 1980), p. 14.Google Scholar

²⁷ Suda, ibid., erroneously placed the interest at 7.75 percent. Compare the original document, ‘Murakata sōzoku no gi ni tsuki Minami Oyumi mura sōbyakushō torikiwamegaki’, Chiba ken shiryō: kinsei hen Shimōsa no kuni, vol. 2, pp. 9–13, especially p. 10. Moreover, Suda (p. 14) implied that the interest was charged against the entire 300 ryō, but the original document (pp. 9–10) distinctly states that interest would be charged against only 100 ryō.

²⁸ Naomi, Hoya, ‘Minami Oyumi mura: haishakukin to nanushi tsuikyū ikken nitsuite’ and id., ‘Minami Oyumi mura Tenpō 6-nen haishakukin o meguru deiri nitsuite’, unpub. mss. (n.p.[Tokyo], 1985). I wish to thank Luke Roberts of Princeton University for bringing Hoya's work to my attention.Google Scholar

²⁹ See Bellah, N. Robert, Tokugawa Religion (New York: The Free Press, 1957), for a detailed discussion of Shingaku and its founder, Ishida Baigan.Google Scholar

³⁰ Hardacre, Helen, ‘Creating State Shintō: The Great Promulgation Campaign and the New Religions’, Journal of Japanese Studies 12: 1 (Winter 1986), pp. 29–64, esp. pp. 37–40.Google Scholar

³¹ Shinzō, Hasegawa, ‘Kita Kantō nōson no kōhai to nōminsō’, Ronshū Kantō kinseishi no kenkyū, ed. Murakami, Tadashi (Tokyo: Meicho shuppan, 1984), pp. 266–77.Google Scholar

³² [Ōtaka Zenbei], ‘Kazusa no kuni Musha gun Tomida mura, taka, iekazu, ninbetsu, shōni umaredaka torishirabechō’, Kinsei jinkō mondai shiryō, comp. Honjō Eijirō (Osaka: Seibundō, 1971). Zenbei came from a major land-holding family that was also involved in sake brewing.Google Scholar See ‘Ōtaka Zenbei’, Chiba daihyakka jiten (Chiba: Chiba nippōsha, 1978), p. 112.Google Scholar

³³ ‘Kazusa no kuni Musha gun Tomida mura, taka, iekazu, ninbetsu, shōni umaredaka torishirabechō’, Kinsei jinkō mondai shiryō, pp. 5–6.

³⁴ Ibid., p. 11. The figures themselves are not accurate, since, as Zenbei explains (p. 11), he merely extrapolated the statistics for his home village (p. 4), where thirteen of twenty-six children died, five unavoidably, eight by suspected infanticide.

³⁵ See Hardacre, , ‘Creating State Shintō’, p. 40.Google Scholar

³⁶ Tomohiko, Shinomaru, ‘Shimōsa no zaigō shōnin—kinsei kōki Kujukurihama no hoshika o torihiki shite daitō shita’, Bōsō chihōshi, ed. Chihōshi, kenkyū kyōgikai (Tokyo: Yūzankaku, 1973), pp. 187–208, esp. pp. 187–95.Google Scholar

³⁷ ‘Hyakushōdomo konkyū ni satoshisōrō shimatsusho’, Kinsei jinkō mondai shiryō, pp. 51–78.

³⁸ Ibid., pp. 51–2.

³⁹ Ibid., p. 52.

⁴⁰ As part of the Tenpō Reforms, the peasants of Naraihara village, Shimōsa, were ordered to lower wages and prices by 10 to 15 percent. Artisans were to get I bu (one-fourth ryō) for nine days' work, which translates to 252 days' work for 7 ryō. (‘Naraihara mura nōkan akinai tosei torishirabe ikken shorui' [1843], Chiba ken shiryō: kinsei hen Awa no kuni, vol. 2, pp. 40–2). Even allowing for the artifically low level of the officially mandated wages and inflation between 1842 and 1860, 7 ryō was a considerable sum.

⁴¹ ‘Kazusa no kuni, Musha gun, Tomida mura, taka, iekazu, ninbetsu shōni umaredaka torishirabegaki’, Kinsei jinkō mondai shiryō, pp. 13–17.

⁴² Sontoku's collected works, Ninomiya Sontoku zenshū, 36 vols, ed. Ninomiya, Sontokuigyō sen'yōkai (repr. ed. Tokyo: Ryūkei shosha, 1977 [1927–1931]), is, of course, the most complete account of his life and philosophy.Google Scholar See also the biography by Shintarō, Sasai, Ninomiya Sontoku den, 8th ed. (Tokyo: Nihon hyōronsha, 1940),Google Scholar and Toshio', Iwasaki study of Sontoku's work in the Sōma domain in the Tōhoku region, Ninomiya Sontoku shihō no kenkyū: Sōma han o chūshin to shite, Kokugaku kenkyū sōsho 2 (Tokyo: Kinseisha, 1970).Google Scholar

⁴³ ‘Todoroku mura nengu waritsukejō’ [1634], Tochigi ken shi: Shiryōhen, ed. Tochigi, ken shi hensan iinkai (Utsunomiya: Tochigi ken, 1977), vol. 14 (kinsei 6), p. 243.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ See the series of documents in ibid., pp. 281–304.

⁴⁵ Ibid., pp. 270–80.

⁴⁶ ‘Murakata torishimari ni tsuki Todoroku mura sōbyakushō ukegaki’ [1782], ibid., pp. 401–2.

⁴⁷ ‘Todoroku mura tsuburekoku kakiagechō’ [1814], ibid., pp. 368–70.

⁴⁸ ‘Todoroku mura shūmon aratamechō’ [1824], ibid., pp. 371–8; ‘Todoroku mura shūmon aratamechō’ [1837], ibid., 371–85; ‘Todoroku mura shūmon aratamechō’ [1853], ibid., pp. 385–9; ‘Todoroku mura arahata ninbetsu umakazu kakiagechō’ [1852] ibid., pp. 395–6.

⁴⁹ ‘Tsubure hyakushō toritate nin tsuki Todoroku mura murayakunin negaigaki’ [1817], ibid., pp. 398–9.

⁵⁰ ‘Todoroku mura tahata meisaichō’ [1822], ibid., pp. 391–5.

⁵¹ See Sasai, , Ninomiya Sontoku den, pp. 433–65.Google Scholar

⁵² ‘Nikkō goshinryō Todoroku mura tsubureshiki toritate negaigaki narabi ni mōshiwatashi ukegaki torishirabechō’ [1857], Ninomiya Sontoku zenshū, vol. 28, pp. 922–4.

⁵³ ‘Todoroku mura shūmon aratamechō’ [1824], Tochigi kin shi: shiryōhen, vol. 14 (kinsei 6), pp. 373–8; ‘Todoroku mura shō’ [1837], ibid., pp. 378–85; ‘Todoroku mura shūmon aratamechō’ [1854], ibid., pp. 385–91; ‘Shinryōgumi uriki nakama kitei narabi ni renmeichō’ [1837], ibid., pp. 301–3.

⁵⁴ Nobuhiko, Nakai, ‘Kinsei toshi no hatten’, Iwanami kōza Nihon rekishi (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1963), vol. II (kinsei 3), pp. 36–100.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ As summarized by Saitō, , ‘The Rural Economy’, pp. 400–1, who critiques this view for his own reasons.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ For example, a 1790 document from Shimōsa complains of generally high prices, ‘particularly wages for seasonal male and female servants, day laborers, and artisans’, at a time when artisans were paid I bu for twelve or thirteen days’ work and male agricultural day laborers 100 mon per day(about I bu for sixteen days’ work). (‘Shoshiki nedan no gi ni tsuki Gogōnai mura hoka muramura ren'inchoō’ [1790], Chiba ken shiryō kinsei hen Shimōsa no kuni, vol. I, pp. 189–90.) By the Tenpō Reforms, artisans were ordered to lower wages to I bu for six or seven days’ work. (‘Shoakinaimono narabi ni shoshokunin temachin nesage kakiagechō’ [1840], ibid., vol. 2, pp. 326–8.) Laborers hired by Ninomiya Sontoku were paid 200 mon plus 1.25 shō (2.41 liters) of rice per day. (‘Horibushin ninsoku chingin fuchimai torishirabe kakiagechō’ [1856], Ninomiya Sontoku zenshū, vol. 28, pp. 730–1.)

⁵⁷ This is, of course, the major premise of the substantivist school (to use Philip C. C. Huang's term), represented by Scott, C. James, The Moral Economy of the Peasant (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976).Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Saitō, , ‘The Rural Economy’, p. 416.Google Scholar