普通人难以维持生计时，谁来负责？

David Quinter, “Creating Bodhisattvas: Eison, Hinin, and the ‘Living Mañjuśrī,’” Monumenta Nipponica 62, no. 4 (2007): 437–479, especially pp. 437–444 and 452–458. The 1269 preparations and the shrine priest Nakatomi no Sukekata's account appear on pp. 441–443. Religious significance is interpreted through Eison's writings; the event report is transmitted through Quinter's discussion, not a newly inspected original diary. Exact attendance totals are not used. Author-posted copy: https://www.academia.edu/1185747/Creating_Bodhisattvas_Eison_Hinin_and_the_Living_Ma%C3%B1ju%C5%9Br%C4%AB_

Uyama Katsuyoshi (宇山勝儀), “律令における障害者福祉法制と現代法と比較して,” リハビリテーション研究, no. 93 (28 November 1997): 32–38, section 1, “古代法制と障害者福祉,” reproduced by the Japanese Society for Rehabilitation of Persons with Disabilities on DINF. Used for the household provision's categories and the ordering of family and local administrative responsibility. The essay does not adopt the author's broader claim of an essentially unchanged national welfare outlook across thirteen centuries. The provision is evidence of a prescription, not a record of uniform implementation. https://www.dinf.ne.jp/doc/japanese/prdl/jsrd/rehab/r093/r0930008.html

Haruo Shirane, “Defilement, Outcasts, and Disability in Medieval Japan: Reassessing Oguri and Sermon Ballads as Regenerative Narratives,” Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 49, no. 2: 283–330, particularly pp. 292–295; DOI 10.18874/jjrs.49.2.2022.283-330. The issue is designated 2022; the article PDF carries a 2025 copyright date. Used for the diversity of hinin designations, historical beliefs concerning defilement, and overlapping participants in charitable offerings. Literary narratives discussed in the study are not treated as verified medical or relief case histories. https://nirc.nanzan-u.ac.jp/journal/6/article/2411/pdf/download

Tokyo Metropolitan Archives, 都史紀要7 七分積金 (1960), compiled and written by Kawasaki Fusagorō (川崎房五郎), online “はしがき” and “凡例.” The introduction explains the seven-tenths calculation, reserve office and grain stores, and the fund's later use for several Tokyo institutions. Its celebratory judgments and unquantified claims about numbers saved are not adopted. The percentage concerns reduced neighborhood expenditure, not household income. https://www.soumu.metro.tokyo.lg.jp/01soumu-archives/06kanko_butsu/0604t_kiyo/0604t_kiyo07

Inaba Mitsuhiko (稲葉光彦), “七分積金制の展開に関する一考察,” 法学研究 69, no. 12 (1996): 181–192, especially pp. 183–185. The 1792 relief provisions and application procedure are reproduced on pp. 183–184; the following page discusses other responses, including supported return to rural communities. Directions and eligibility rules are distinguished from completed individual cases. https://koara.lib.keio.ac.jp/xoonips/modules/xoonips/download.php/AN00224504-19961228-0181.pdf?file_id=114529

恤救規則, Daijōkan instruction no. 162 of 1874, 8 December; preamble, the four recipient categories and their provisos, and the concluding cash-equivalent provision. Text in 法令全書, Meiji 7, available through the Wikisource transcription identifying the National Diet Library original, digitized item 787954, frame 250. The complete transcription, rather than the original printed page, is the reading basis here. The provisos concerning elderly and young co-residents qualify a simple “no family” summary. The instruction prescribes payment valued in rice, with cash calculated from the preceding month's local lower-grade rice price. https://ja.wikisource.org/wiki/恤救規則 . Underlying edition identified by the transcription: https://dl.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/787954/1/250

Shibusawa Memorial Museum, “養育院の『院長さん』渋沢栄一—父となり祖父となり曾祖父となり,” 2023 exhibition, “概要.” The institutional description identifies the Yōikuin's varied residents and functions, including care, treatment, and education. It is used for institutional scope, not as an independent assessment of the quality of every resident's care. https://www.shibusawa.or.jp/museum/special/2023/kikaku2023_01.html

Shibusawa Eiichi Memorial Foundation, 渋沢栄一詳細年譜, 1885, entry for 19 November, referring to 渋沢栄一伝記資料, vol. 24, pp. 108–119, item DK240009k. The entry distinguishes the end of local-tax support in June from the later revised management arrangement and records Shibusawa's February proposal. The chronology is the basis used here; the complete underlying documentary dossier was not independently read. https://www.shibusawa.or.jp/SH/kobunchrono/ch1885.html

Shibusawa Eiichi Memorial Foundation, 渋沢栄一関連会社名・団体名変遷図, entry “東京市養育院,” created 29 March 2019, naming history and source references. Identifies the municipal institution from 1890, citing 養育院百二十年史 and 伝記資料 vol. 24. The date concerns the institutional transition, not the original beginning of care. https://eiichi.shibusawa.or.jp/namechangecharts/names/view/701

Inaba, “七分積金制の展開に関する一考察,” 181–182, discussion and reproduced outline of the 1871 窮民一時救助規則. The categories distinguish emergency food, loans for rebuilding and equipment, and seed provision; the accompanying discussion distinguishes local authority from matters requiring central consultation. These disaster provisions are not the eligibility categories of the 1874 恤救規則. URL in note sur05.