Hiroyuki Hashikawa^*
Published in BBBS 2002

Introduction

In this short essay I would like to introduce and review the fifty-year history of Byzantine studies in Japan. It seems probable that only a few Japanese Byzantinists are known to western Byzantinists even today, yet Japanese academic historical studies have been concerned with Byzantine studies since the end of World War II. As Byzantine studies had already begun in nineteenth-century Europe and even in the preceding centuries, a fifty-year history can be said to be quite short by comparison. This short history derives from the fact that Japan had no direct link with the Byzantine Empire. By the time that Japan's first historic contact with the West occurred, in 1543, when a Portuguese merchant ship drifted onto a southeastern island of Japan, the Byzantine Empire no longer existed.

The Japanese link with Byzantium was made in the tradition of western historical studies in Japan which began in the late nineteenth century in a modern academic system introduced by the Meiji government. In the field of historical studies, three divisions were made without any clear definition: the history of Japan, the East and the West. These divisions formed the corresponding departments in the faculty of Letters at former seven Imperial Universities^[1], and, in each field of three historical studies, another three divisions were introduced according to the times: the history of ancient, medieval and modern times.

The main concern of the early scholars who decided to study western history was to understand the historical process and reasons for the development of the western states since, together with other social elite, they were conscious of the backwardness of Japan. Interestingly, these attitudes were widely shared by a number of western scholars in different ways. As a result, Japanese study of the West was heavily influenced by Karl Marx with his dialectic and materialistic approach, Max Weber with his categorical approach, and the historians of historicism such as Leopold von Ranke. Some scholars, thus, chose to study the Greek and Roman history as a cradle of western civilization, and some chose the medieval history of western Europe, which prepared the rise of modern Europe, and the others chose the modern history of Europe and America, which had acquired the central place in international politics and economy. As for the Byzantine Empire, which, together with the medieval world of western Europe, had been reevaluated in nineteenth-century Europe under the influence of historicism, the Gibbonian negative image which considers Byzantine history as a stagnation and decline of human civilization was still dominant. For Byzantium was almost nonexistent as a subject of historical studies, placed in the fringe of western historical studies, on the one hand, and on the margin of ancient and medieval history, on the other^[2].

          This is the academic background of Byzantine studies in Japan, started by several scholars in the 1950s. It is somewhat unfortunate that they have developed since then along two separate traditions: studies of Byzantine state and society by Kin-ichi Watanabe^[3], and those of Byzantine art by Sahoko Tsuji^[4] and Shigebumi Tsuji^[5]. Here I will focus on historical studies because of limited space. In addition, instead of discussing all the scholars who can be considered Byzantinists in Japan, I have selected those who can be recognized as representative of Byzantine studies in Japan. This style of review, I hope, will enable the readers to grasp with ease the trends and problems of our Byzantine studies^[6].

Works of the pioneer

The rapid academic revival of Europe after the end of World War II made it clear for Japanese historians that it was insufficient to study only the history of the western Europe in order to understand western civilization. Especially for medievalists, the history of the Byzantine world is obviously important because it provides another history of Europe and Christianity^[7]. In this way, several students started studying Byzantine history almost simultaneously and individually due to the lack of specialized teachers. They can be categorized as the first generation, though here I will discuss only the works of Watanabe. For not only was he the most productive and influential but also he was the only one among them who was fully aware of the necessity of academic dialogue with leading historians of other countries. His strict academic attitude can be observed in the following example. When the late Sadaomi Sugimura^[8], one of the first generation, published a book about Byzantium in the seventh century, Watanabe wrote an extremely critical review in which he pointed out that the author ignored the scholarly argument before him and lacked basic text critique^[9].

This episode is interesting in that Watanabe was also aware of the difficulty for Japanese scholars, who had then very little academic literature on Byzantium in Japanese, to play as active a role as western scholars. This perception can be seen in many of his works. For years he himself concentrated on understanding the major debates, and wrote numerous articles about them with detailed comments and critiques. By so doing he laid the foundation of Byzantine studies in Japan.

His concerns can be divided roughly into two categories. The first is social and economic history, the main topic of the leading Byzantinists of the 1950s and 1960s, and the second is social history which began to be studied with various approaches after the major debates of the previous stage had abated. Originally interested in continuity and discontinuity of the social and economic structure of the eastern part of the late Roman Empire, the first of his subjects was forms of landowning and social status of the peasantry in late Roman Egypt. Through this study he encountered the important works of contemporary well-known Byzantinists such as G. Ostrogorsky, P. Lemerle and A.P. Kazhdan. The topics he discussed in the 1950s and 1960s seem to cover almost all their major studies: problems of landowning, structures of city and village, the peasant life, the feudal debate, the debate about the themes, thought world etc. Since his academic activities were highly valued in the academic historical community of Japan, eleven of his articles were collected and published in 1968 under the title Studies of Socio-Economic History of Byzantium^[10].

Here, as an example of his study I would like to take up one of his articles about the feudal debate which was published both in Japanese and in French in 1965^[11]. In my view this is the most detailed and precise review of the debate. After the suggestion of Cl. Cahen that all the areas of the Mediterranean world experienced the development of both immunity and homage, he thought that the problems of Byzantine feudalism could be a key to understanding the peculiar development and characteristics of the Mediterranean world from a viewpoint of comparative history. In this article, therefore, he attaches great importance to the works of Soviet Byzantinists who consider the history of Byzantium as that of a feudal development^[12].

Firstly, he categorizes into three groups the stances of the scholars toward Byzantine feudalism: the first is those who are critical of the use of the word feudalism in Byzantine history like Lemerle, who emphasizes the persistence of state fiscality; the second, those like F. Dölger and Ostrogorsky, who assert that the feudalization of Byzantine society started in the tenth and eleventh centuries; the third, the Soviet Byzantinists. Secondly he reviews the problems of the imperial ideal that was one of the focal points of the debate. In this he discusses the contrasting studies of N. Svoronos and J. Ferluga on western feudal custom in Byzantium and the debates on the aristocratic literature such as the Strategikon and Digenes Akrites. Criticizing Ferluga, who considers Byzantine feudalism as similar to western feudalism, he agrees with H-G. Beck, who maintains that feudal elements inhere in literature written by or for the military aristocracy. Thirdly, he examines the studies of the Soviet Byzantinists in great detail on four problems: the transition from the slaveholding social formation to the feudal social formation, the peasant community and its change in the ninth and tenth centuries, the feudalistic rent of the state, and the feudalization process after the eleventh century. As a conclusion, he asserts that the feudalization of late Roman and Byzantine society was in progress from the fourth to sixth centuries and from the tenth century to the last centuries, suggesting that the abundant sources of the Athonite and other monasteries would be crucially important for further research on the social and economic history of Byzantium.

This article was a turning point for Watanabe. Thereafter he shifted his interest from social and economic history to social history in a wide sense under the influence of the German tradition of Byzantine studies, above all the work of Beck. In the 1970s much of his scholarly energy was spent on understanding and introducing Beck's works to Japan^[13]. Probably this is because Beck was trying to understand the whole of Byzantine civilization, from political ideologies to social realities, and as such his approach was quite original even among the leading Byzantinists, though he gave us a somewhat static, and occasionally negative, image of Byzantium. That he published the translation of several of Beck's articles on political Orthodoxy and literature under the title The Thought Structure of the Byzantine World^[14] is clear evidence of Watanabe's change of direction.

To this day he contributes to the academic community. In the 1980s he organized a research group which consisted of historians and anthropologists, and he conducted fieldwork on the Aegean islands. During the early 1990s, he wrote a series of articles in which he attempts to reconsider the problems of Byzantine feudalism, applying the famous economic model of Karl Polanyi. Important as his work is, I must now turn to scholars of the second generation, and describe how they built on the foundation Watanabe laid^[15].

The rise of the second generation

          The blossoming of Byzantine studies in postwar Europe and the energetic introduction of Watanabe prepared for the appearance of the younger scholars who are now working at various universities in Japan. Watanabe as a pioneer showed in his studies that Byzantinists have to master not only classical languages but also many of the modern European languages and then to understand the trends and problems of earlier studies. After the academic heritage Watanabe left, they were expected to assert the originality of the studies in which they would engage and to contribute to the international community with them.

          The place of the leading person of the second generation was reserved for a young promising scholar, Haruyasu Yoneda^[16]. A sudden illness, however, deprived him of his life in 1974 when he was thirty-five years old. Like Watanabe, his main concern lay in problems of the social and economic structure of Byzantium. Taking a critical stance to Ostrogorsky, who considered pronoia equal to the fief of western Europe, he analyzed forms of landowning and peasant life in Thessaly and Smyrna of the late Byzantine Empire, and concluded that the feudalization process can be observed from the tenth century onward in a way which must be distinguished from that of western Europe. For further understanding of its historical nature, he had noticed that the relations between the state and the new aristocracy that began to emerge in the tenth and eleventh centuries have great importance, but almost no time was left to him. His last work was a detailed review of Kazhdan's study on the Byzantine aristocracy^[17].

          It was Koichi Inoue^[18], who appeared as an immediate successor of the late Yoneda. Although they shared many research interests, one thing was crucially different. Inoue, nine years younger than Yoneda, was more conscious of the limitations which the feudal debate imposes. He reflects the new trends of international Byzantine studies. Influenced by the works of Kazhdan and Yoneda, Inoue chose to study eleventh- and twelfth-century Byzantium, not from the social and economic point of view, but in its social and political aspects.

His early interests were problems of the provincial military aristocracy and the Constantinopolitan citizens. As for the former, he considered the revolts of Alexios I Komnenos and his seizure of power as a constitutional change to the feudal state based on private relations between the military nobles. As for the latter, he analyzed the political role of the Constantinopolitan citizens in the time of troubles, which, according to him, must be differentiated from those of the earlier period, and related their political as well as economic decline to the feudal policy of the Komnenoi^[19]. Two of his articles on the aristocratic oikos of the eleventh century which appeared respectively in Byzantinoslavica and Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies are good examples of his scholarly attempts to clarify the constitutional significance of the political and social phenomena of the eleventh-century Byzantine world^[20].

In the 1990s he published several introductory books on Byzantine history and he has moved into social and cultural history. In recent articles he discussed various topics such as imperial marriage, humanism and historiography, and he is now preparing an article on Anna Komnene and her historiography^[21].

 In the late 1980s, some ten years after the debut of Inoue, a number of Japanese Byzantinists suddenly appeared on the academic stage. First I will discuss those who came from universities of the Kansai district, in which cities like Kyoto and Osaka are located. Hiroaki Adachi^[22] was the first scholar who dealt with social and religious history of the Mediterranean East in late Antiquity. The world of late Antiquity had been long studied by modern historians like G. Rouillard and A.H.M. Jones as well as by archaeologists like G. Tchalenko, while since the 1970s P. Brown and M. Foucault brought radical perspectives to the field with, respectively, sociological and anthropological and, genealogical and archaeological approaches. Inspired by this new scholarly direction, Adachi has studied various topics of late Antiquity such as saints in society, Christian sects, sexuality, early Byzantine empresses and so on^[23].

Koji Nakatani^[24] has studied the political history of the Middle Byzantine Empire. As he reviewed R-J. Lilie's work on problems of the themes at the beginning of his career, his early studies were in general based on German scholars such as F. Winkelmann and Lilie. Recently he has attempted to analyze the dynamic relations among state, church and monastic parties in religious controversies. In the article published in 1997, he discusses the Moechian controversy caused by the matrimonial problem of Emperor Constantine VI and the activities of Theodore of Studios^[25]. This study seems to be a part of his reconsideration of political and religious problems of the so-called "dark ages".

Since 1995 as a member of the research group for Byzantine Lycia he has engaged in an excavation of the church on Gemiler Island, Turkey. Although almost no contemporary source mentions the island and its town, this excavation which is still in progress will provide valuable information for the studies of late Roman and Byzantine provincial life^[26].

In the last decade one of the most productive Japanese Byzantinists has been Yukio Nezu^[27]. From 1988 to today he has published one introductory book and more than fifteen articles. His original interest lies in political history in eleventh- and twelfth-century Byzantium, like Inoue. He differs from Inoue in his emphasis on prosopographical analysis, reflecting the new trends of political history from Kazhdan to M. Angold, P. Magdalino and J.-Cl. Cheynet. With an extensive reading of the contemporary sources, he analyzed in detail eleventh- and twelfth-century Byzantine politics and its structures. These works are the basis of his book on Manuel I Komnenos and his empire, published in 1999^[28]. After studying sigillography in Athens from 1995 to 1996, his work on Byzantine society and culture has been enriched. Two articles recently published in the bulletin of Kanazawa University are important contributions, aiming to clarify, respectively, the formation of the Komnenoi and the realities of provincial administration under Alexios I^[29].

Ryusho Takebe^[30] is a specialist of Byzantine Italy, which had long been neglected in Japan. The starting point of his academic career is a series of works by A. Guillou, V. Falkenhausen and T.S. Brown, which called medievalists' attention to the historical importance of Italy of the Byzantine period. While introducing the works of these scholars with critical commentary, he has studied the political and social realities of Byzantine Italy and the impact of various forms of interactions between Byzantine Italy and the wider world^[31].

These five scholars from Inoue to Takebe are the original members of the monthly meeting for Byzantine studies in Kansai which was founded in 1984 and still continues. It has provided us with valuable opportunities for discussions between Byzantinists and other scholars whose subjects are related to Byzantium^[32].

All the above-mentioned scholars, apart from Watanabe, were from Kansai. However, the Kanto district, whose centre is Tokyo, also produced several Byzantinists in the late 1980s. Among them is Yasuhiro Otsuki^[33]. He is the only student of Watanabe who became a Byzantinist. When he was a student of the masters course, he tackled the famous book by E. Patlagean on poverty, at the suggestion of Watanabe, and wrote a review on her approach^[34]. This book seems to have played a crucial role in the shaping of his interest, that is, the church and its foundations which, instead of the state, came to bear the philanthropic activities from the early Byzantine period onward. After writing two articles on donations to the church and their social character in the early Byzantine period, he moved to eleventh- and twelfth-century Byzantium, when many private monasteries were founded by the military aristocracy. He is now analyzing the social and economic features of this religious phenomenon^[35].

In this way the 1970s and 1980s produced more Japanese Byzantinists than the pioneering years of the 1950s and 1960s. This is probably because several books on Byzantine history were published one after another around 1980 and this contributed to making the young students who were interested in western history more conscious of the historical importance of Byzantium^[36]. From an organizational point of view also the 1980s are significant. In addition to the above-mentioned monthly meeting for Byzantine studies in Kansai, the annual meeting of Japanese Byzantinists was founded with the support of Watanabe and Inoue. Like the monthly meeting, this annual meeting is unofficial as an academic organization, but it has been held alternately in Kansai and Kanto without a break and provides a meeting place for all Japanese Byzantinists and especially for young students^[37].

Problems and perspectives

Thus far I have mentioned several Japanese Byzantinists and added a few introductory comments on their studies. At the end of this essay I would like to mention the current problems and perspectives of Byzantine studies in Japan.

Recently, concern has been expressed about Japanese studies of western history by some academic skeptics. It is undeniable that many Japanese scholars have lacked academic dialogue with scholars outside Japan but have spent a lot of energy in understanding and introducing to Japan the achievements of famous western scholars. In consequence, a considerable number of historical books have been written, introduced and translated^[38]. It also seems undeniable that this has made a strange situation in which, despite the flourishing of historical studies in Japan, only a few Japanese scholars are known in the international academic community. In the eyes of western scholars the Japanese community of scholars studying western history is visible through occasional reference, but the individual is almost invisible. According to the skeptics, the Japanese community of scholars who study western history does not exist, since the scholars publish their studies only in Japanese as if they were in a deep narrow well^[39].

          The case of Byzantine studies is somewhat different as has been described. From the beginning in Europe, Byzantine studies were open to anyone interested in the empire and its civilization. Thus the international nature of the studies was formed by the scholars of western Europe and, thereafter, strengthened by those of eastern Europe and Greece whose national identity is more immediately related to Byzantium. As a contemporary scholar of the postwar period, Watanabe must have been astonished to witness that the linguistic border between western and eastern Europe was being crossed very easily by the great masters in spite of the rigid political division^[40]. This internationality of Byzantine studies was based on the mutual understanding of the importance of each study. This suggests why Watanabe has often written in European languages. It is not until the importance of Byzantine studies in Japan is widely perceived by western scholars that studies in Japanese can make more sense internationally.

          Can it be said that Byzantine studies in Japan are as important as, for example, those of Britain? With regard to this question, I would like to refer to Watanabe again. In an essay written on the recent publication of Japanese translation of Ostrogorsky's History of the Byzantine State^[41], Watanabe says that he had an impression that this publication at last brought Byzantine studies in Japan to a starting point from an international viewpoint^[42]. His statement, of course, is an exaggeration to some extent, but it does not seem to be far from reality. Has Japan ever produced even a single leading expert whose study is often mentioned by other scholars? How many articles have Japanese Byzantinists, apart from a few exceptional scholars, published in European languages? Some scholars often say that, in an anthropological sense, Japanese historians can have a third eye to the subject with which Japan has no direct historical relations, but is this not often used as an excuse to comfort the academic inferiority complex? Japanese Byzantinists, not only those who were introduced as the second generation in this essay but also younger scholars and students^[43] including the author, always have to bear these problems in mind since they decided to enter the world of Byzantine studies^[44].

          The situation seems to be evolving rapidly. One of the significant changes from the past is that the mental distance to the West has been narrowed. Formerly, in the field of western historical studies, study abroad was, for economic reasons, limited to a small number of scholars who had already acquired a place in a university in Japan. However, these days, especially since the 1990s, it has become rather common for students to study for a degree where leading scholars are teaching outside Japan. This change in the accessibility of study abroad is quite profitable for Japanese students in that they can have a proper academic, as well as linguistic training, when it is necessary. In Japan, there is no special institute for Byzantine studies and access to the necessary literature is occasionally very difficult^[45]. In the 1960s and 1970s Kazhdan introduced the work of Soviet Byzantinists in Byzantion. Thus, although Soviet Byzantine studies, which date back to nineteenth-century Russia, were highly valued by some Byzantinists, Kazhdan's discussion in Byzantion was necessary to make the academic importance of these studies widely known. The Japanese case is, of course, much more difficult, but I hope that within several decades Japanese Byzantinists will have contributed more actively and extrovertly to the international community with truly new and original perspectives.

Appendix 1

Bibliography of Byzantine Studies in Japan

Literature in European languages

Asano, Kazuo ed., Island of St. Nicholas: excavation of Gemiler Island on Mediterranean Coast of Turkey, Research Group for Byzantine Lycia, 1998

Hisamatsu, Eiji, Gregorios Sinaites als Lehrer des Gebetes, Altenberge, 1994

Inoue, Koichi, "The rebellion of Isakios Komnenos and the provincial aristocratic oikoi", Byzantinoslavica, 54(1993), 268-278

Inoue, Koichi, "A provincial aristocratic oikos in eleventh-century Byzantium", Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 30(1989), 545-569

Otsuki, Yasuhiro, "Donations to the Church and the State in the Byzantine Empire", Chichukai Ronshu (Studies in the Mediterranean World), 13(1992), 9-20

Otsuki, Yasuhiro, "Alexius Studites' two documents on reforms of Charistike", Chichukai Ronshu (Studies in the Mediterranean World), 14(1995), 31-39

Tsuji, Sahoko, "Portes de Sainte-Sabine, particularités de l'iconographie de l'Ascension", Cahiers archéologiques, 13(1962), 13-28

Tsuji, Sahoko, "La chaire de Maximien, Genèse de Cotton et mosaïques de Saint-Marc", in: Synthronon: art et archeologie de la fin de l'Antiquité au Moyen Age, Paris, 1968, 43-51

Tsuji, Sahoko, "Nouvelles observations sur les miniatures de la Genèse de Cotton: Histoire de Juda et Tamar", in: Actes du 22è Congrès international d'Histoire de l'art, Budapest, 1969, 139-145

Tsuji, Sahoko, "Nouvelles observations sur les miniatures fragmentaires de la Genèse de Cotton: cycle de Lot, d'Abraham et de Jacob", Cahiers Archéologiques, 20(1970), 29-46

Tsuji, Sahoko, ""L'enlèvement d'Elie": étude iconographique d'un des panneaux sculptés des portes de Sainte-Sabine à Rome", Annuario del'Instituto giapponese di cultura in Roma, 7(1970), 73-96

Tsuji, Sahoko, "Le "passage de la Mer Rouge": étude iconographique d'un des panneaux sculptés des portes de Sainte-Sabine à Rome", Orient, Supplement, 8(1972), 53-79

Tsuji, Sahoko, "Quelques reflections sur le thème de la Resurrection du Christ", Orient, Supplement, 13(1977), 67-87

Tsuji, Sahoko, "Analyse iconographique de quelques miniatures des rouleaux d'Exultet dans leurs rapports avec le texte", in: Studia Artium Orientalis et Occidentalis, vol. 1, Osaka, 1982, 15-28

Tsuji, Sahoko, "Destruction des portes de l'Enfer et ouverture des portes du Paradis: à propos des illustrations du Psaume 23, 7-10 et du Psaume 117, 19-20", Cahiers archéologiques, 31(1983), 5-33

Tsuji, Sahoko, ""Hortus deliciarum" et Mileseva. Esquisse d'une étude sur l'iconographique du Jugement dernier", Orient, Supplement, 21(1985), 60-75

Tsuji, Sahoko, "Testo e iconografia nei rotoli dell'Exultet", in: L. Speciale ed., Uomini, Libri e Immagini: per una storia del libro illustrato dal tardo antico al Medioevo, Naples, 2002, 103-140^[46]

Tsuji, Sigebumi, "The headpiece miniatures and genealogy pictures in Paris. Gr. 74", Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 29(1975), 165-203

Tsuji, Sigebumi, "The Gospel scenes on the attic of the hypogeum of Clodius Hermes under San Sebastiano in Rome and Middle Byzantine Tetraevangela illustrations", in: C. Moss and K. Kiefer ed., Byzantine East, Latin West: Art-Historical Studies in Honor of Kurt Weitzmann, Princeton N.J., 1995, 447-463

Tsuji, Sigebumi ed., The survey of Early Byzantine Sites in Ölüdeniz Area (Lycia, Turkey): the first preliminary report, Osaka, 1995

Wada, Hiroshi, "Überlegungen zum Eunuchenwesen am spätantiken und byzantinischen Kaiserhof", in: S. Cordula and G. Makris ed., Polypleuros nous: Miscellanea für Peter Schreiner zu seinen 60. Geburtstag, Munich/Leipzig, 2000, 395-403

Watanabe, Kin-ichi, "Einige Notizen über den XII. Internationalen Byzantinistenkongress. Byzantinistik und Japan", Hitotsubashi Journal of Economics, 3-1(1962), 73-82

Watanabe, Kin-ichi, "Problèmes de la "féodalité" byzantine. Une mise au point sur les diverses discussions", Hitotsubashi Journal of Arts and Sciences, 5(1965), 32-40, 6(1965), 8-24

Watanabe, Kin-ichi, "Ostasien im "Frümittelalter". Ein Vergleichsversuch mit Byzanz", Byzantinische Forschungen, 1(1966), 334-335

Watanabe, Kin-ichi, "Ein Beitrag zum weltgeschichtlichen Bild des Frümittelalters", Anticnaja drevnost i srednie veka, 10(1973), 56-59

Watanabe, Kin-ichi, "Ein neues Forschungsfeld der Byzantinistik: Ideologie und sociale Wirklichkeit in Byzanz. Eine Stellungnahme zu einigen Arbeiten Hans Georg Becks", Hitotsubashi Journal of Economics, 15(1974), 11-18

Watanabe, Kin-ichi, "L'état actuel des études byzantines", in:Les actes du XVe congrès international d'études byzantines, T. 1, Athens, 1976, 126-127

Watanabe, Kin-ichi, "A propos d'une histoire comparée du monde mediterranée à l'èpoque du haut moyen âge", Annuario, 16(1979-80), 3-19

Watanabe, Kin-ichi, "Image d'autarchies villageoises dans les îles de la mer Egée: essai de reconstruction", in: Population Mobility in the Mediterranean World: studies in the historical and contemporary aspects, Tokyo, 1982, 117-124

Watanabe, Kin-ichi, "Les Hellènes au moyen âge: Une aperçu sur leurs relations avec les Arabes", Chichukai Ronshu (Studies in the Mediterranean World), 9(1984), 1-16

Watanabe, Kin-ichi, "Byzanz: Modell "Redistributions-" Gesellschaft", Chichukai Ronshu (Studies in the Mediterranean World), 10(1986), 1-9

Watanabe, Kin-ichi, "Modell "Redistribution" in der Geschichte. Der Fall Byzanz", Bulletin of the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan, 5(1991), 461-468

Watanabe, Kin-ichi, "Peut-on parler encore de féodalisme byzantin? Essai d'un autre modèle, "redistribution"", Chichukai Ronshu (Studies in the Mediterranean World), 13(1992), 1-8

Translated works^[47]

Ahrweiler, Helene, L'ideologie politique de l'empire byzantin, Paris, 1975 (Tokyo, 1989)

Bogdanovic, Dimitrije and others, Chilandar: on the Holy Mountain, Beograd, 1978 (Tokyo, 1995)

Brown, Peter, The World of Late Antiquity, London, 1971 (Tokyo, 2002)

Browning, Robert, Byzantium and Bulgaria, London, 1975 (Tokyo, 1995)

Grabar, André, Le premier art chrétien, 200-395, Paris, 1966 (Tokyo, 1967)

Grabar, André, L'Age d'or de Justinien: de la mort de Théodose à l'Islam, Paris, 1966 (Tokyo, 1969)

Kaplan, Michel, Tout l'or de Byzance, Paris, 1991 (Osaka, 1993)

Lemerle, Paul, Le Style byzantin, Paris, 1943 (Tokyo, 1964)

Lowden, John, Early Christian and Byzantine Art, London, 1997 (Tokyo, 2000)

Mango, Cyril, Architettura Bizantina, 1978, Milan (Tokyo, 1999)

Meyendorff, John, St Gregoire Palamas et la mystique orthodoxe, Paris, 1959 (Tokyo, 1986)

Meyendorff, John, Christ in Eastern Christian thought, New York, 1975 (Tokyo, 1995)

Ostrogorsky, Georg, Geschichte des Byzantinischen Staates, Munich, 1963 (Tokyo, 2001)

Runciman, Steven, The Fall of Constantinople, Cambridge, 1965 (Tokyo, 1983)

Runciman, Steven, The Sicilian Vespers: A History of the Mediterranean World in the Later Thirteenth Century, Cambridge, 1958 (Tokyo, 2002)

Sherrard, Philip, Byzantium, New York, 1966 (Tokyo, 1967)

Tinnefeld, Franz, Die frühbyzantinische Gesellschaft: Struktur-Gegensätze-Spannungen, Munchen, 1977 (Tokyo, 1984)

Apendix 2

Program of the 17^th Annual Meeting of Japanese Byzantinists^[48]

Date: April 2-3 2001

Place: Hitotsubashi University, Tokyo

Coordinator: Y. Otsuki (associate Prof. of Hitotsubashi Univ.)

 April 2

H. Hashikawa (postgraduate student of Kyoto Univ.)

"The Patriarch Athanasios of Constantinople and the bishops"

K. Asano (associate Prof. of Aichi Univ. of Education)

          "Current situation and perspectives of the excavation of Gemiler Island"

          Commentator: S. Sasano (Prof. of Tokyo Institute of Technology)

H. Wada (Prof. Tsukuba Univ.)

          "On Japanese translation of Ostrogorsky's History of the Byzantine State"

 April 3

R. Takada (postgraduate student of Kyoto Univ.)

          "On fourteenth-century Crete: examining feudum and feudatorius"

T. Kasatani (postgraduate student of Osaka City Univ.)

          "The Second Iconoclasm: seen from the letters of Theodore of Studios and the life of Michael Synkellos"

M. Nishimura (postgraduate student of Hitotsubashi Univ.)

          "Byzantine studies and numismatics"