¹¹ The author cites volume 1, but likely meant to refer to chapter 1 of volume 2.

¹² Ihara Keaso, Nihon chūsei no kokusei to kasei [State rulership and family governance in medieval Japan] (Tokyo: Azekura shobō, 1995). For a critique of Ihara's interpretation, see, e.g., Endō Motoo, Chūsei ōken to ōchō girei [Medieval royal authority and court ceremonies] (Tokyo: San'yōsha, 2008).

¹³ See, e.g., Kuroda Toshio, Jisha seiryoku: Mō hitotsu chūsei no shakai [The secular power of temples and shrines: Another medieval society] (Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1980). Oddly enough, while Stavros refers to kenmon on numerous occasions, Kuroda's works are not mentioned.

¹⁴ Keirstead, Thomas questions the use of “medieval” in the Japanese context in his “Inventing Medieval Japan: The History and Politics of National Identity,” Medieval History Journal 1, no. 1 (1998): 25–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁵ For recent critiques of applying the feudal paradigm to Japan, see, e.g., Mikael Adolphson, “Social Change and Contained Transformations: Warriors and Merchants in Japan, 1000–1300,” in Eurasian Transformations, Tenth to Thirteenth Centuries: Crystallizations, Divergences, Renaissances, eds. Johann P. Arnason and Björn Wittrock (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 309–37; and Friday, Karl, “The Futile Paradigm: In Quest of Feudalism in Early Medieval Japan,” History Compass 8, no. 2 (2010): 179–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a Japanese critique, see Hotate Michihisa, Rekishigaku o mitsumenaosu: Hōkensei gainen no hōki [Reflecting on the discipline of history: The renunciation of the concept of feudalism] (Tokyo: Azekura shobō, 2004). In Europe, Susan Reynolds's study, Fiefs and Vassals: The Medieval Evidence Reintepreted (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), launched a scathing critique of the assumptions underlying the use of the feudal paradigm. See also Hyams, Paul, “The Death of Feudalism,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 27, no. 4 (1997): 655–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar.