30 INTRODUCTION
works today still rely, and undoubtedly will continue to depend into
the foreseeable future, on the works of Japanese scholars. This is
inevitable, given the accumulated volume of literature in Japanese, the
much larger number of medievalists in Japan, and Japanese scholars'
comparative advantage in linguistic facility.
But this should not prevent us from noting, as Mass did, that to-
day's Western scholarship has sufficiently matured to begin to ques-
tion, reassess, and confront the interpretations and analyses offered by
Japanese scholars. Reassessment and reinterpretation can take myriad
forms.
Restating an event or development without using a Marxist
vocabulary and conceptualization, if presented in a form internally
consistent and readily comprehensible to Western readers, can consti-
tute a meaningful reassessment of Japanese scholarship. If a specific
historical event is reinterpreted on the basis of an ad
hoc
paradigm so
that the interpretation advances our understanding of the event, how-
ever modestly, and can serve as a valuable input for others who might
incorporate the result into a study based on a more comprehensive
framework of analysis of medieval history, such a reinterpretation can
be seen as a useful historiographical contribution.
To Nitta and to many other Japanese scholars, what reassessments
and reinterpretations the Western students produce may appear to be
influenced by Japanese works and may be seen as lacking in original-
ity. But to the extent that such restatements enhance the knowledge of
Japan's medieval history, they must be considered valuable contribu-
tions to the progress of Western scholarship. Similarly, if an event is
seen to have had causes different from those commonly accepted by
Japanese scholars, however subtle these differences may be, this must
be seen as an original contribution, however modest its significance to
the sweep of historical change. What I am arguing here is that more
Western scholars today have become capable of making such reassess-
ments and original contributions, and a few are challenging parts of
Japanese historiography in significant ways.
An important ingredient that has enabled this progress in Western
scholarship is the growing ability of Western students to use primary
sources. As the works of Collcutt, Hall, Mass, Ruch, Varley, and many
others have demonstrated, there is no substitute for using primary
sources to make original contributions to historiography. However, at
the same time it is no less true that in a young field only slowly
developing by most standards of academic endeavors, diverse forms of
scholarly contributions are necessary for its growth. This means that
we must also welcome "synthetic" works that rely on secondary
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008