著者

高橋 秀直

出版者

史学研究会 (京都大学文学部内)

雑誌

史林 (ISSN:03869369)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.76, no.5, pp.p673-709, 1993-09

---

個人情報保護のため削除部分あり本稿は、最近研究が活発化している征韓論政変について、その実態と歴史的意義の解明を試みるものである。 留守政府期において、急速な近代化を目饗し野放図に開化政策を拡大しようとする諸省と、それを一定の枠内に抑えようとする大蔵省(これは木戸派が支配していた) との間で、激しい対立が生じた。さらに明治五年後半になると、木戸派を除く政府の大勢は対外強硬論に傾き、台湾への出兵を主張するようになり、これを阻止しようとする木戸派大蔵省と厳しく対立した。大蔵省は征台の阻止には成功した。しかし明治六年五月の政府改革で江藤新平らにより木戸派の大蔵省支配が打倒されると、対外強硬論への政府内の歯止めは失われてしまう。こうした中で朝鮮より広津報告が到着すると、留守政府の対外強硬志向は朝鮮に向けて噴出し、八月一七日、戦争につながる可能性の極めて高い、西郷隆盛の朝鮮への使節派遣が「内決」された。 一方外遊より帰国してきた岩倉使節団のメンバー、岩倉具視・大久保利通・木戸孝允らは、江藤ら留守政府に反発し、政府改造を期した。また岩倉ら使節団派は、内治優先の立場より戦争は避けるべきと考えており、西郷の派遣に反対であった。このように権力闘争・朝鮮政策の両次元で使節団派と留守政府は対立した。しかし一〇月一一日西郷が自らの派遣の正式決定について強硬な意向を表明すると、逆に、朝鮮問題での政府の分裂を避けようとする妥協的な動きが、両者の間に生まれることになる。しかし一四、一五日閣議で西郷の固執により妥協は成立せず、両者は朝鮮政策について決定的に対立することになった。そして結局、三条実美の決断で西郷遣使が決定した。 敗北した使節団派は、閣議直後より逆転に向けて動き三条に圧力をかけた。このため一八日、三条は発病した。一九日、留守政府派を中心とする閣議は、岩倉の太政大臣代理就任と朝鮮問題再評議のための閣議開催を決定する。しかし天皇側近に対する工作により秘密のうちに天皇の支持をとりつけていた、岩倉らは、再評議を行わずこのまま先の閣議決定に反対する上奏を行うことを決めた。これに対し留守政府派は二二日岩倉を訪れ詰問するが、彼の意見を変えることはできなかった。二二日岩倉は上奏を行い、翌日裁可、使節団派は勝利をしめたのである。明治五年後半以降の留守政府内の対外強硬論の高まりは、開化政策の強行により生じた社会各層の不満をそらそうとする意図をもつものであり、明治四年以降の開化への競合の帰結と言えるものであった。 明治六年の一連の政変の結果、政府の中枢は大久保派がしめることになったが、これは明治二年以降続いていた行政における木戸派の優位の終焉、木戸派から大久保派への主導権の移行を示すものであった。This article attempts to elucidate the actual conditions and historical significance of the political changes surrounding the debates on the Expedition to Korea, an issue which has recently been the object of much research. During the fifth and sixth years of the Meiji period, fierce opposition developed between those ministries which attempted to enlarge haphazardly an "enlightened policy (開化政策)" in order to modernize rapidly and the Ministry of Finance, controlled by the Kido group, which tried to restrict This policy. During the latter of the fifth year of the Meiji, except for the Kido group, most people in government tended towards a hard line towards foreign countries and came to advocate an expedition to Taiwan. The Ministry of Finance firmly opposed this tendency and prevented the expedition. In the governmental reform of May, the sixth year of the Meiji period, the Kido group's control over the Ministry of Finance was broken by Eto Shinpei. As a result, this brake on taking a hard line towards foreign countries was lost. It was under these conditions that the Korean issue came to a head, and the government decided to dispatch Takamori Saigo, a man extremely likely to escalate matters to war, to Korea on August 17th. Members of the Iwakura Mission such as Iwakura Tomomi, Okubo Toshimichi, and Kido Takayoshi who returned from abroad opposed the Eto group and hoped to reform the government. The Iwakura group did not approve of sending Saigo, believing that domestic affairs should be given first priority and that war should be avoided. In this way, the opposition between the two groups took form on two levels of a struggle for power and a policy towards Korea. Thus, in August, whether or not to approve dispatching Saigo, who had been''decided upon informally (内決), " became a critical issue for the government. When Iwakura had returned in September, the government was faced with a number of outstading problems, the Korean issue being only one of them. However on October 11, Saigo demanded a formal decision as to whether ha was to be dispatched. The Korean issue having become so prominent, there arose a movement towards compromise between the groups to avoid splitting the party. Because of Saigo's intransigence in the cabinet session of October 14th and 15th, compromise was not possible and opposition between the two groups became absolute. By the decision of Sanjo Sanetomi, Saigo was dispatched to Korea. Immediately afetr the cabinet session, the defeated group began work to reverse the situation, applying pressure to Sanjo. On October 18th, Sanjo fell ill. On October 19th, the Eto group-led cabinent session decided to hold a cabinent session in order to appoint Iwakura to acting Prime Minister and to discuss the Korean issue once more. However, the Iwakura group secretly gained the Emperor's support, maneuvering matters to the close advisors of the Emperor. Iwakura decided not to discuss the issue and instead addressed a memorial directly to the throne in which he objected to the previous decision reached by the cabinet. In response, on October 22nd, the Eto groups cross-examined Iwakura, but he did not change his opinion. The same day, Iwakura addressed a memorial to the throne which was approved the next day, and the victory of the Iwakura group was clear. The rise of a hard-line stance towards foreign countries within the government from the latter half of the fifth year of the Meiji period onwards was to divert the discontent of various social strata which had emerged from the forced implementation of the enlightned policy. In a sense, it was the end of the competition for enlightenment begun in the fourth year of the Meiji era. As a result of a series of political changes in the sixth year of the Meiji era, the Okubo group occupied the heart of the government. This brought an end to the control of the Kido group in the administration which had lasted from the second year of the Meiji era and ushered in a shift in political initiative from the Okubo group to that of the Kido group.

著者

井上 文則

出版者

史学研究会 (京都大学文学部内)

雑誌

史林 (ISSN:03869369)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.87, no.4, pp.518-543, 2004-07

---

個人情報保護のため削除部分あり

著者

水野 恭一郎

出版者

史学研究会 (京都大学文学部内)

雑誌

史林 = THE SHIRIN or the JOURNAL OF HISTORY (ISSN:03869369)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.54, no.4, pp.509-543, 1971-07-01

---

個人情報保護のため削除部分あり嘉吉の乱から応仁・文明期の頃にかけて、多くの守護大名家において、その領国支配の実質が守護の代官的被官層の手に握られてゆく状勢が目立つ。しかし、このような守護代層の行動も、当時においては、なお室町幕府=守護体制の外での自立的行動として出てきたものではなかった。かれらは、衰退期にありとはいえ未だ権威を失いきってはいなかった将軍=守護権力を利用するに最も近い位置を占め、他面、領国における在地の勢力として成長しつつある中小領主層を直接に掌握し得る在地性を、守護よりもより多くもっていた。この衰退期の幕府=守護体制の中での上部権力と下部勢力の結節点を握る中間勢力的な存在が、この時期における守護代層の姿であり、そのことがまた、かれらの権勢を大ならしめた基礎条件でもあった。このような守護代層の姿を、応仁・文明期前後の守護赤松家において中核的な勢力を形成した宿老浦上則宗の動向を通じて考察を試みた。From the Revolt of Kakitsu (1441) up to the Wars of Ohnin and Bunmei the governance of the shugo families in their territories came gradually into the hands of the stewards who were originally the clients of those magnates. Though audacious their activities came to be, they could not appeal to thier own power independent of the government of the Muromachi Bakufu with its network of shugo families. True, the shugos were declining, but their authorities were recognized as such. It is why those stewardial classes still moved in the orbit of the established order, but at the same time they were in the far more advantagious status to get in contact with the medium-sized and smaller lords who were growing in power in the remotest and robust countrysides. In short, the stewards of those shugos placed themselves in the midway of the social ladder of the time with the result of the accumulation of power in any way and other. This is to clarify one of those stewards or a protégé in the person of Norimune of the Uragami family who were in the back of shugo Akamatsu who were in turn playing a conspicuous role in the political world before and after the Ohnin-Bunmei era.

著者

藤本 博生

出版者

史学研究会 (京都大学文学部内)

雑誌

史林 (ISSN:03869369)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.59, no.6, pp.p902-929, 1976-11

---

個人情報保護のため削除部分ありパリ講和会議を控えて、日本と中国の進歩的知識人は、ウィルソン主義と自らの民主主義的運動とをオーバーラップさせ、これを賛美した。だが、日本の外務省は、中国に対する帝国主義的野心を満たすため、一方で外交部に対する圧迫を続けるとともに、他方で人種差別撤廃に名を借りて欧米先進帝国主義列強を牽制した。民本主義者は、このような「人種案」を批判したけれども、国家主義者やブルジョア新聞は、それぞれの立場からこれを「支持」した。国際聯盟規約から人種差別撤廃条項が除外された時、日本の世論における国際協調的傾向は影をひそめ、東亜モンロー主義が高らかに唱えられた。中国では、ウィルソン主義への期待から一時は楽観的な雰囲気が人々の心を覆っていたけれど、「五大国」のひとつである日本の相変らぬ外交姿勢、とくに小幡公使の恫喝に、戦後世界もまた権力政治の支配する場であることが認識された。この認識を通じて、中国の進歩的知識人は共産主義へより一層接近した。こうして日本と中国は、その歩む道を決定的に異にすることとなったのである。

著者

法貴 遊

出版者

史学研究会 (京都大学大学院文学研究科内)

雑誌

史林 = The Journal of history (ISSN:03869369)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.103, no.1, pp.41-71, 2020-01

---

アラビア医学史研究において医療実践は、史料上の制約もあり、主な研究対象とはならなかった。この状況で、十一世紀から十三世紀半ばにかけて書かれたカイロ・ゲニザの医学関連文書が、医療実践を記録している史料として注目されている。本稿では、カイロ・ゲニザの二通の書簡における実践の記され方について考察する。一般的なアラビア語医学文献は普遍的な知識を記述対象とするため、個々の実践は記述されない。中世アラビア医学では、個体は普遍的な枠組みを通して認識されるため、言論では分析できない事柄を医療の現場で非言語的に把握することが求められた。カイロ・ゲニザ文書に記された実践例を読み解くことで、当時の医者が言論では把握できない事柄(患者の自然本性の動きや四性質の微妙なバランス)に注視し、これとの関係で治療方針を定めていたことが推測できる。The practical dimensions ofmedieval Arabic medicine have not been sufficiently studied due to the dearth of historical documents. Concrete cases were excluded from most medieval Arabic medical writings because subjects ofmedical books were limited to universal scientific knowledge ('ilm). In this situation, the Cairo Genizah fragments, which were written during the 11th‒13th centuries, are drawing attention because they record unique information about practical aspects of medicine. This article takes up epistemological problems concerning medical practice, and inquires which aspects ofmedical practice were, and which were not, put into words by examining medieval Arabic medical books and two letters ofthe Cairo Genizah (T-S 10J16. 16 and T-S NS 327. 93). Both letters concern ophthalmology, and describe the whole process from diagnosis to treatment. These documents reveal that some elements ofpractice were not caught in the net ofscientif ic language; nevertheless, ophthalmologists conducted treatment by observing these nonverbal elements. The first section encapsulates medieval physicians' arguments concerning the epistemological status ofmedical practice. al-Majūsī (d. 990) divided medicine into theory ('ilm) and practice ('amal), and defined practice as putting ideas into execution. However, the practical sections in his book do not contain concrete information on actual practice, but knowledge about medicinal substances and treatment plans for specific diseases. Ibn Sīnā (d. 1037) found al-Majūsī's inconsistency between the definition and real content a flaw. He accordingly defined theory as theoretical knowledge and practice as practical knowledge. Hence, Ibn Sīnā entitled both theory and practice to scientific knowledge, whereas information on actual practice ('amal bi-l-f'il) was not regarded as scientific knowledge and thus excluded from medical books. Medieval physicians acknowledged that some elements of actual practice passed through the mesh oflanguage. Ibn Rushd (d. 1198) argued that objects defined by language are limited to things related to forms (s. ūra), whereas things related to matter (hayūlā) are only roughly described because the latter is infinitely changeable in various relationships with other matter. However, medieval ophthalmologists, who appeared in the genizah letters, conducted consistent treatments based on the observation ofthese non-verbalized things related to matter. The second section discusses diagnoses and treatments written in the two letters. We firstly focus on the diagnoses. In T-S 10J16.16, an ophthalmologist called Abū Zikrī identifies a patient's eye diseases as conjunctivitis, an eruption ofthe eyelid, and a corneal ulcer, and describes their characteristics in detail. Meanwhile, the writer ofT-S NS 327. 93 enumerates several symptoms: excavation, severe pain, floaters, leucoma. Considering their depictions, their diagnoses are found to have properly reflected medieval Arabic diagnostics. These two examples indicate that the diagnostic theory written in medical books was perfectly implemented. Next, the treatments are examined. The condition ofthe eye described in T-S 10J16.16 was regarded as a composite ofthe three ailments. Abū 'Alī, Abū Zikrī's correspondent, instructed him on several treatments, each of which is effective against a specific disease and does not aggravate the others. Medieval ophthalmologists recognized a need for treatments suitable for complicated cases; however, ophthalmology books did not always present concrete instructions. The treatments should have been adjusted to the subtle balance ofthe temperament ofa complicated condition; nevertheless, ophthalmologists did not have technical language to estimate the ratio ofthe temperament. This letter suggests that the actual treatment was affected by the observation ofthe nonverbalized elements. Meanwhile, the writer of T-S NS 327.93 mentions four different treatments that were done at some intervals oftime . Medieval ophthalmologists supposed that every disease progresses along four stages: incipient (ibtidāʾ), increasing (tazayyud), terminating (intihāʾ), and convalescent (inh. it.āt.). Therefore, the four treatments written in the letter are presumed to have been allotted to the four stages. A characteristic of this letter is that the writer mentioned the number ofdays each stage lasted. However, the span oftime is not mentioned in ordinary medical books. It is because the actual treatment process was affected by the relationship between patient's nature (t. abī'a) and medical intervention. According to Maimonides (d. 1204), nature is an independent efficient cause external to the medical system, and not totally defined by scientific language. This letter indicates that ophthalmologists had to determine treatment plans by reconciling nonverbal elements with the medical system. These two examples ofmedical practice basically follow medieval Arabic medical theory. However, the theory is a large-meshed net. It is comprehensive; nevertheless, on the practical level, many elements (subtle nuances ofthe temperament and patient's nature) spilled out ofthis net. By comparison ofthe Cairo Genizah letters with Arabic medical books, we can infer that ophthalmologists grasped these elements and decided treatment plans.

著者

鈴木 蒼

出版者

史学研究会 (京都大学大学院文学研究科内)

雑誌

史林 = The Journal of history (ISSN:03869369)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.103, no.4, pp.457-492, 2020-07

---

平安時代においては、京内の学習施設「大学」で学識を身につけ、官人として朝廷に仕えた人々が多数存在していた。通説的には、彼らは人材主義的・反貴族的な存在とされ、世襲的な貴族層との対立や自身の質的変容により、九世紀中には姿を消していったと考えられている。しかし、そうした所説には疑うべき点が少なくない。本稿では、彼らを「文人官僚」として定義し、官歴・政治的行動の面から網羅的に検討することで、九・十世紀の官人社会における基礎的な性質を確認し、併せて従来の理解について再検討を行った。その結果、九・十世紀において文人官僚に顕著な没落や変質の形跡は見出せず、彼らが反貴族的な行動を取った形跡も何ら見出せないことが判明した。文人官僚は、その学識による能力と、学問を通じて権力者との人格的関係を構築しやすい点にその特徴を求められるのであり、むしろ親貴族的な存在として理解すべきなのである。During the Heian period many who served the court as bureaucrats had received an education at the Daigaku, the official academy in the capital. The prevailing scholarly consensus has explained that these officials were men of talent produced by the bureaucracy to serve the system, that they opposed the hereditary nobility, and that due to decline in their quality, they disappeared in the 9th century. However, as this interpretation places too much emphasis on the opposition of those who studied at the Daigaku to the nobility and positions them on a predetermined course in opposition to the nobility, there are several points in this interpretation that must be reconsidered. Furthermore, because this view has been short-term and the results of studies of the Daigaku system have not been fully incorporated within it, various issues remain to be addressed. In this article I thus make an exhaustive examination of those whom I define as bunjin kanryō, which includes the relatively large number of bureaucrats who had studied at the Daigaku and rose to high-ranking positions who were students of the Kidendō (the curriculum devoted to history and letters) and those who attended the Daigaku but did not follow a fixed course of study, by focusing on their bureaucratic careers and political activities. Based on the results of this examination, I ascertained the fundamental character of the bunjin kanryō within the bureaucracy of the 9th and 10th century and then reexamined the scholarly consensus in light of these findings. As a result I was first able to confirm that in fact the number of bunjin kanryō increased from the middle of the 9th century and accompanying this shift was the establishment of a special route for advancement of the bunjin kanryō within the bureaucracy. The bunjin kanryō had established by that time a certain fixed presence within the bureaucracy. I also determined that from that point onward until the end of the 10th century conspicuous signs of the decline of bunjin kanryō were not apparent. Furthermore, examining the actions they took in political disputes, I was unable to find any sign of opposition to the nobility and instead recognized that these officials behaved extremely submissively toward those in power with whom they maintained a subservient relationship. Judging from these findings, I concluded that special characteristics of the bunjin kanryō were to be found in their capabilities based on their scholarship and the ease in which they could build personal relationships with those in power through their learning, and they should be understood as allies rather than opponents of the nobility. From the 11th century onward when the bureaucracy experienced a great upheaval, these special characteristics of the bunjin kanryō were to face new changes.

著者

牧 健二

出版者

史学研究会 (京都大学文学部内)

雑誌

史林 = THE SHIRIN or the JOURNAL OF HISTORY (ISSN:03869369)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.49, no.4, pp.641-644, 1966-07-01

著者

大塚 修

出版者

史学研究会 (京都大学大学院文学研究科内)

雑誌

史林 = The Journal of history (ISSN:03869369)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.102, no.4, pp.658-665, 2019-07

著者

平松 明日香

出版者

史学研究会 (京都大学大学院文学研究科内)

雑誌

史林 = The Journal of history (ISSN:03869369)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.102, no.3, pp.510-528, 2019-05

---

The Latter Han was an age of rule by the dowager empress and the affines, or marital relations, of the emperor. In this article, I examine whether the regimes of these affines introduced their own factions as official personnel in the Imperial Secretariat (Shangshutai 尚書台). In the Latter Han one often sees records that mention the Lu Shangshushi (録尚書事), a post that has been translated as the Overseer of the Imperial Secretariat, but opinion is divided over its actual role. In the first section, I examine the question of whether the Lu Shangshushi did in fact oversee the Shangshutai. Then, after concluding that the Lu Shangshushi did not oversee the Imperial Secretariat, I made clear that the Lu Shangshushi should not be considered an object of this study. Then in the second section I consider the regime of the Dou clan 竇氏 from the second year of the Zhanghe era (88) to the fourth year of the Yongyuan 4 (92). All previous scholarship has indicated that the regime of the Dou clan controlled the Shangshutai. However, Han Leng 韓棱, who was extremely critical of the Dou clan during the period of their ascendance, occupied the post of Shanshuling 尚書令. In addition, other people who were critical of the Dou clan were selected as bureaucrats of Shangshu. While on the one hand the regime of the Dou clan did emphasize personnel placement in the imperial household, palace guards and military officials, but it can be said that they placed no special significance on placing their own faction in in the Shangshutai. In the third section, I considered the regime of the Deng clan from the first year of the Yuanxing era (105) to the first year of the Jianguang (121). Although there were some officials in the Shangshutai who were critical of the Deng clan during their regime, it was composed in general of personnel who cooperated with the Deng clan. In the fourth section, I consider the regime of the Liang clan 梁氏 from the first year of the Jiankang era (144) to the second year of the Yanxi era (159). During this period, there were many officials critical to the Liang clan among Shangshu officials including the Shangshuling. The Liang clan, like the Dou clan, did not place great weight on the personnel in the Shanshutai but instead placed more emphasis on officials close to the emperor. Judging from the above considerations, I have made clear that these regimes were able to operate the foundations without placing emphasis on personnel in the Shangshutai and that whether they placed emphasis on the Shangshutai did not depend on change over time. It was the regime of the Deng clan that emphasized personnel in the Shangshu and whose influence extended over policy decision-making through the Shangshutai. In contrast, the Dou and Liang clans placed greater emphasis on personnel who were close to the throne and had influence on the decision making of the emperor or dowager empress having restrained the Shangshutai through their own authority.

著者

野口 優

出版者

史学研究会 (京都大学大学院文学研究科内)

雑誌

史林 = The Journal of history (ISSN:03869369)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.101, no.6, pp.859-894, 2018-11

---

漢代から三国魏にかけていずれも上奏文の最終的な裁可は、皇帝が担っていた。裁可の形式について、漢代及び三国魏では、「可」などの裁可を示す文字もしくは赤い鉤印によるものであった可能性が高い。漢魏時代とも皇帝の署名による認可ではなかった。その上で、漢魏時代とも皇帝の自筆での裁可は必ずしも必要ではなかったことを明らかにした。そして、漢代から三国魏にかけては、筆跡に対する認識の変化と書写材料としての紙の普及という大きな変化が起こった時期であり、従来の皇帝裁可の制度に影響を与える可能性のある変化が起きた。しかし、詔書の信頼性を担保していたのは、漢魏時代とも印璽であった。最終的に、漢魏時代とも、一貫して上奏文の裁可については、必ずしも皇帝が自筆で裁可を下すわけではなかったという状況が変化することはなかったのである。During the period extending from the Han dynasty to Cao Wei of the Three Kingdoms, the ultimate sanction of reports to the throne was rendered by the emperor. It is highly likely that approval from the Han to Cao Wei was designated by physically writing the character 可 (ke) or with the red imprint of a carved seal. There is no evidence of approval being granted with the emperor's signature from the Han-to-Wei period. Moreover, I have made clear that in both the Han and Wei periods the emperor's holographic signature was not necessarily required to indicate approval. Then period from Han to Cao Wei was one of change when consciousness of calligraphy underwent a transformation and there was also a great change in the dissemination of paper as a material for transcribing written records; and these changes likely had an influence of the previous system of imperial sanction. However, reliability of written imperial edicts was insured by the imperial seal during the both the Han and Cao Wei. Ultimately, as regards approval of reports to the throne in both the Han and Cao Wei periods, the situation that did not necessarily require the emperor to indicate his approval with his own brush continued without change.

著者

岩本 佳子

出版者

史学研究会

雑誌

史林 (ISSN:03869369)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.93, no.2, pp.282-309, 2010-03

著者

桂川 光正

出版者

史学研究会 (京都大学大学院文学研究科内)

雑誌

史林 (ISSN:03869369)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.91, no.2, pp.355-380, 2008-03

---

発足当初の関東州の阿片制度には、容易には理解し難い奇妙な事柄が三点見られる。これを一つ一つ、現地中国人阿片商の動向との関わりに留意しながら考察すると、関東州を台湾産煙膏の独占市場に仕立て上げるのが、この時の特許専売制導入の目的だったこと、しかしその企てが成功しなかった事実が明らかになった。更に、関東州に張り巡らされていた在来の経済的・人的・社会的ネットワークから関東州を切り離し、台湾と繋げることで、日本を頂点としたネットワークを新たに作り上げようとするのが、日本のこの時期の関東州統治の基本方策、ないしはこの時点での日本の帝国形成の基本戦略であったことも明らかとなった。関東都督府はその後、阿片制度の手直しを行なうのだが、それは、日本による関東州統治の進捗ないし安定化のために重要な柱を構築する意味があった。阿片・麻薬問題の歴史的研究は、このように、帝国史研究の一環として大きな意味を持っている。

著者

時野谷 勝

出版者

史学研究会 (京都大学文学部内)

雑誌

史林 (ISSN:03869369)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.35, no.4, pp.395-396, 1953-03-25

著者

朝尾 直弘

出版者

史学研究会 (京都大学文学部内)

雑誌

史林 (ISSN:03869369)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.38, no.2, pp.166-168, 1955-03-01

著者

高橋 秀樹

出版者

史学研究会 (京都大学文学部内)

雑誌

史林 (ISSN:03869369)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.81, no.3, pp.431-439, 1998-05

---

個人情報保護のため削除部分あり

著者

池田 敬正

出版者

史学研究会 (京都大学文学部内)

雑誌

史林 = THE SHIRIN or the JOURNAL OF HISTORY (ISSN:03869369)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.42, no.2, pp.287-291, 1959-03-01

著者

小田 寿典

出版者

史学研究会 (京都大学文学部内)

雑誌

史林 = THE SHIRIN or the JOURNAL OF HISTORY (ISSN:03869369)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.52, no.6, pp.858-879, 1969-11-01

---

アリ゠エクベル著『中国記』はH.Yule──H.CordierやG.Ferrandなどの東西交渉史の総括的研究書に取り上げられず、また十分に研究されないで二次的史料のようにみられてきたきらいがある。しかし、本書のオリジナリティは高く評価されてもよいと考える。テキストの全容はいまだ校刊されていないが、明代中期の中国事情を伝えるイスラム文献として興味深い。本稿は主としてオスマン゠トルコ語訳の一写本により、本書の旅行記的性格について述べると共に、文献的評価に関説する。

著者

藤井 讓治

出版者

史学研究会 (京都大学大学院文学研究科内)

雑誌

史林 = The Journal of history (ISSN:03869369)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.101, no.4, pp.663-698, 2018-07

---

徳川家康の叙位任官については、家康が歴史上重要な人物であるだけに、一般書も含め多く取り上げられてきたが、基礎的事実を十分に検討しないまま、その歴史的意味が論じられている。この問題についての専論は少なく、またこうした研究においても見解が一致していないのが現状である。本稿では、事実関係が不確定な家康の左京大夫・中納言・大納言・左大将任官を中心に分析する。家康は、三河守初任に続いて左京大夫に任じられるが、左京大夫は朝廷関係以外では使用することなく左京大夫任官後も前官の三河守を使用した。朝廷官位使用の特異な事例である。任中納言の年月日は、従来天正十四年(一五八六)十月四日とされてきたが、事実は同年十一月五日であるとし、その意味を秀吉への臣従儀礼の中に位置づけた。また家康の源氏改姓が聚楽第行幸を機になされたとされてきたものを、それに先立つ天正十五年八月には源姓であったことを明らかにした。さらに天正十五年の任左大将は、正保二年(一六四五)の将軍家光の要請をうけて口宣案が改められた折に遡及して任じられたものであり、天正十五年時点での任官の事実はなく、この任左大将をめぐる論争はそもそも成立しないとした。The study of early-modern Japanese political history has witnessed great progress in recent years. This progress includes a deeper understanding of the ranks and offices awarded to samurai. However, in regard to the fundamental facts and dating of samurai appointments to ranks and offices, there are several theories even regarding such an important political figure during the period as Tokugawa Ieyasu, and there are many misunderstandings. In order to create a political history of this age, confirming the facts and dating of Ieyasu's posts and ranks is a pressing issue. In this article I confirm the facts and dates of Ieyasu's ranks and offices, ascertain under what political circumstances they were granted, and furthermore determine their significance. To the extent that Ieyasu was an important political figure. Ieyasu's appointments to ranks and offices are dealt with in general works of history, but fundamental studies have not been sufficiently conducted, and there is no scholarly consensus regarding them. Ieyasu was first appointed governor of Mikawa province, then Sakyō Daibu (Commissioner of the Left Division of the Capital), Jijū (Chamberlain), Ushōshō (Junior Captain of the Palace Guards of the Right), Sachûjō (Middle Captain), Sangi (Consultant), Chûnagon (Middle Counselor), Dainagon (Major Counselor), Naidaijin (Minister of the Center), Udaijin (Minister of the Right), Seiitaishōgun (Babarian-subduing General), and finally Daijōdaijin (Chancellor). This article chiefly analyzes his appointment to the posts of Sakyō Daibu, Chūnagon, Dainagon, and Sadaishō, for which there has no confirmation in the historical record. Ieyasu was appointed Sakyō Daibu shortly after being named governor of Mikawa. In general, when someone was appointed to a new office, thr person would then be known by his new official title, but Ieyasu did not employ the Sakyō Daibu title except in relationship to the imperial court, and even after being appointed Sakyō Daibu continued to use his previous title, governor of Mikawa. This is an example of a unique use of an imperial title. The date of Ieyasu's appointment to the post of Chūnagon has been seen as having been on the fourth day of the tenth month of Tenshō 14 (1586) on the basis of a draft decree in the Nikkō Tōshōgû monjo found in Kugyō bunin, but I have confirmed that the actual date was the fifth day of the eleventh month of the same year and locate its significance within the course of the ceremonial relationship of lord and vassal with Hideyoshi. Furthermore, Ieyasu's adoption of Minamoto clan affiliation is seen within the context of the imperial progress to the Jurakutei, but I make clear that he had used the Minamoto clan name previously during the eighth month of Tenshō 15, and I present new evidence for consideration of this name change. The Ieyasu's appointment to Sadaishō (General of the Left) in Tenshō 15 can only be traced back to the occasion of request by the third Tokugawa shogun, Iemitsu, for reissuance of an oral decree in Shōho 2 (1645), and I clarify that the supposed appointment in Tenshō 15 is not historically accurate. Kasaya Kazuhiko's proposal of the existence of a Tokugawa Shogunate under a Toyotomi regency that is premised on the Ieyasu's appointment as Saidaishō and the arguments surrounding it are thus unsustainable.

著者

伊藤 之雄

出版者

史学研究会 (京都大学文学部内)

雑誌

史林 (ISSN:03869369)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.60, no.2, pp.241-263, 1977-03-01

---

個人情報保護のため削除部分あり

著者

横内 吾郎

出版者

史学研究会 (京都大学文学部内)

雑誌

史林 (ISSN:03869369)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.88, no.4, pp.576-603, 2005-07

---

エジプトは第二次内乱期の非常に早い段階においてマルワーン家によって支配が回復され、その統治はカリフ・アブド・アルマリクの弟アブド・アルアズィーズに委ねられた。彼はワリー・アルアフドであり、総督として王朝への貢献も大きく、強大な権力を保持した。一方で、エジプトは旧来の西方征服の拠点であったが、征服が進展し、その拠点がエジプト西方のイフリーキヤ地方に移動したことで、その軍事的意義を薄めていった。このために、マルワーン家のカリフたちはエジプトに求心力を有する総督を必要としなくなり、アブド・アルアズィーズの死後、総督の職掌を分割してその権力を制限し、自らの意の通じるマワーリーを「租税」職に任用して州の財政に介入した。その後この職掌分割体制は、エジプトが深刻な戦乱に見舞われなかったこともあるが、カリフの交替によっても覆されることなく王朝の滅亡まで維持された。