著者

石井 進

出版者

法制史学会

雑誌

法制史研究 (ISSN:04412508)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.1970, no.20, pp.143-153, 1971-03-30 (Released:2009-11-16)

著者

大庭 脩

出版者

Japan Legal History Association

雑誌

法制史研究 (ISSN:04412508)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.1971, no.21, pp.61-95,V, 1972

---

Soon after Tokugawa Yoshimune (_??__??__??__??_) acceded to Shogunate on 1st year of Kyoho (_??__??_), 1716, he began to be much interested in the study of law and collected rare books of Japanese classical codes.<BR>On the other hand, he collected chinese books. First, he gave permission to the import of some kind of prohibited books on christianity-the books of technology and natural sciences written by those Cathoric priests who came to China at the last stage of Ming (_??_) dynasty. He then bought many Chinese books of code and geography. Among these Chinese codes, he had the most interest in Ta-ch'ing-Hui-tien(_??__??__??__??_) The first copy in Japan of Ta-ch'ing-Hui-tien was brought into Nagasaki (_??__??_) in 5th year of Kyoho, and he bought it. He further ordered Chinese merchants to bring one more copy, and he got it two years later. He ordered Fukami Ky&ucirc;dai-u (_??__??__??__??__??_) to translate Ta-ch'ing-Hui-tien into Japanese. Ky&ucirc;dai-u was the son of Fukami Gentai (_??__??__??__??_), and was Yoriai Jusha (_??__??__??__??_) like his father Gentai. Gentai's grandfather was a Chinese named Ko-ju-Kaku (_??__??__??_ Kas-shou-chiao), and Gentai had worked at Nagasaki as an interpreter. He could speak good Chinese.<BR>Kyudai-u went to Nagasaki with the firstly imported copy and began to translate it, asking about the difficult passages to those recently arrived Chinese merchants there. He stayed at Nagasaki from December of 6th to Feburary of 12th year of Kyoho.<BR>During these years, while engaged in the translation, he helped Yoshimune to buy useful Chinese books, and helped to get from a Chinese answers to those questions about China which was given by Ogi-u Hokkei (_??__??__??__??_ or Soshichi _??__??_) at the command of Yoshimune. Shin cho tan ji (_??__??__??__??_) by Shu hai sho (_??__??__??_Zh&ucirc;-pei-zhang) is one of records of those questions and answers. The Chinese who answered Kyudai-u's questions concerning Ta-ch'ing-Hui-tien was Son ho-sai (Sun Fu Zhai _??__??__??_). We can prove the fact by his application for a license of trade, which is recorded in Wakan kibun (_??__??__??__??_). He applied for a license of trade for the reason that he liked to get a Chinese specialist about laws and official service to understand the discription in Ta-ch'ing-Hui-tien, for he could not illustrate some particular parts of the book, because he was a merchant and had no experiance as a government official. He left Nagasaki in November of 11th, and came back from China in December of 12th of Kyoho with Sin sho-an (Ch&egrave;n Xi&eacute; an _??__??__??_).<BR>Sin sho-an, with his name (_??_) Bing (_??_), another name (_??_) D&egrave;ng wei (_??__??_) (Syoan itself being his pen-name (_??_)), had domicile in Hang chou(_??__??_). and stayed at Nagasaki until 16th of Kyoho with Son-ho-sai.<BR>On 15th year of Kyoho, Yoshimune ordered Sin sho an to correct any possible mistake in Ogiu Hokkei's (_??__??__??__??_) revised copy of T&aacute;ng l&uuml;-su-i (_??__??__??__??_) which done in 10th of Kyoho. Sin pointed out some words and phrases to be corrected and gave in the margin of Ogiu's book his opinion of each of Ogiu's point of mistake just above where the mistake was seen, and further more made a separate note gathering all these adaptations. Ogiu's revised copy and Sin's note are both kept in the library of the Imperial Household Agency.<BR>Shin sho an brought back a copy of T&aacute;ng l&uuml;-su-i to China and showed it to L-i ting i (_??__??__??_)who was the Minister of Justice (_??__??__??__??_). And Li-ting-i wrote a preface to this important classical code. At that time, T&aacute;ng-l&uuml;-su-i was very rare in China, perhaps it was impossille to find its complete copy. And on 21th of Kyoho, Sin visited Nagasaki again and brought a copy of Li-ting-i's preface written by his own hand. We can also see it in the same Library of the Imperial Household Agency.

著者

尾藤 正英

出版者

法制史学会

雑誌

法制史研究 (ISSN:04412508)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.1979, no.29, pp.196-198, 1980-03-15 (Released:2009-11-16)

著者

西川 洋一

出版者

法制史学会

雑誌

法制史研究 (ISSN:04412508)

巻号頁・発行日

no.33, pp.302-303, 1983

著者

森 馨

出版者

法制史学会

雑誌

法制史研究 (ISSN:04412508)

巻号頁・発行日

no.13, pp.304a-305, 1963

著者

萩原 守

出版者

法制史学会

雑誌

法制史研究 (ISSN:04412508)

巻号頁・発行日

no.68, pp.27-83, 2019-03-30

著者

新田 一郎

出版者

Japan Legal History Association

雑誌

法制史研究 (ISSN:04412508)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.1999, no.49, pp.188-191, 2000

著者

高谷 知佳

出版者

法制史学会

雑誌

法制史研究 (ISSN:04412508)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.64, pp.143-169,en9, 2015-03-30 (Released:2021-03-20)

---

自由都市論克服以降、多くの地域や時代の都市論において、法や制度のみならず、文化や情報など多様な特徴が「都市性」とみなされ、着目されるようになった。しかし一方で、改めて「都市はなぜ都市であるのか」という問い、都市に不可欠な特徴としての「都市性」を求める問いも浮かび上がっている。こうした研究状況の中で、都市における法や制度はいかに位置づけられるべきか。 日本中世史の研究動向を振り返ると、第一に、法や制度については、行政的な都市・農村の区分がなく、領域的に規律する都市法も少なく、特に京都や畿内先進地域にはほとんどないため、研究も少ない。第二に、網野善彦氏の「都市的な場」論とその後のブームがあるが、京都をはじめ、多様な利害の錯雑する大規模な都市についての研究は立ち遅れた。第三に、中近世移行期の町共同体の研究、さらに遡って中世の多様なネットワークの研究があるが、共同体やネットワークによっては解決しきれない問題に対する都市全体の権力についての研究はみられない。第四に、京都については、政治史の観点から、首都に一極集中した政治・法制・経済・文化のあり方について研究が深まったが、都市史との有機的関連が薄い。また、これらの動向のほとんどに共通して、中世前期と後期の連続した研究が少ない。 こうした研究を踏まえて、われわれが取り組まなければならないのは、多様な利害が交錯し共同体やネットワークをも越えるような紛争解決や危機管理についての研究である。これらは、都市のもっとも本質的な特徴であり、かつ都市が大規模になればなるほどに問題となる。そしてこうした問題にこそ、法や制度が深くかかわる。 日本中世都市においてこの問題に取り組む一つの方向性として、本論では都市の紛争解決の多面的な分析を提示したい。裁判やネットワークへのアクセサビリティ、用いられる法や先例の実態、徳政令や関所など領域的支配との関係、時代を経た変化などを分析することによって、「都市性」の普遍性と多様性を明らかにしたいと考える。

著者

葭森 健介

出版者

法制史学会

雑誌

法制史研究 (ISSN:04412508)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2007, no.57, pp.305-314, 2007 (Released:2013-04-01)

著者

牧 健二

出版者

Japan Legal History Association

雑誌

法制史研究 (ISSN:04412508)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.1960, no.10, pp.227-244, 1960

著者

田中 修實

出版者

Japan Legal History Association

雑誌

法制史研究 (ISSN:04412508)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.1989, no.39, pp.61-89,en5, 1990-03-30 (Released:2009-11-16)

---

In recent years, one of the major concerns in the study of Medieval Japan is to make clear the peculiarity of the Medieval Japanese State. Two ruling principles of this Medieval State were: (a) feudal, based on the lord vs. vassals' relationship; and (b) bureaucratic. Interest in the bureaucratic ruling principle is becoming deeper now.KANTO or KANDO (_??__??_) occupied the core part of this bureaucratic ruling principle. KANTO means the appointing of an official position to the SAMURAI (_??_) class mainly under the RITSURYÔ (_??__??_) system in the Medieval times and EDO period.In my study, paying special attention to the titles of ZURYÔ (_??__??_) among the KANTO, I try to reveal the actual effects of the KANTO by investigating the relationship between the BITCHÛ-NO-KAMI (_??__??__??_) and BITCHÛ-NO-KUNI (_??__??__??_) in the latter Medieval times. A précis of my demonstrative investigation is as follows.(1) During the confrontation of the NANCHÔ (_??__??_) and HOKUCHÔ (_??__??_) with the MUROMACHI-BAKUFU (_??__??__??__??_), the side awarded the KANTO made the best use of it politically. The KOKUJIN (_??__??_) also made use of ZURYÔ-MEI-KANTO (_??__??__??__??__??_) as a means to spread their power. This means that the KANTO still had authority in the district, equivalent to the KUNI-NO-KAMI (_??__??_) during the ancient times.(2) After the time of ÔEI (_??__??_ 1394-1428), KANTO became inherited rather than appointed, showing the social standing or position of the family. But in the case he (the SAMURAI) was in his district, KANTO still maintained elements of substantial authority.(3) At the struggle between the lords or at the confrontation between the lord and vassals or to levy the land tax, the ZURYÔ-MEI-KANTO could be their legal right or their justification.As demonstrated by my investigation above on the BITCHÛ-NO-KAMI, the traditional view with which we regarded KANTO during Medieval times, as being only an honorable title that did not involve actual authority, must be corrected. This misunderstanding has occured due to the change in KANTO from a position of appointment to a position attained through inheritance.Yet, BITCHÛ-NO-KUNI was still a distinctive district. It had been SUKI-NO-KUNI (_??__??__??_) from ancient times to Medieval times, and was a necessary symbolic district for the ceremony of DAIJÔE (_??__??__??_) to confirm the ruling justification of the TENNÔ (_??__??_) system. At the same time, it was the key strategical district in western Japan.These key features in BITCHÛ-NO-KUNI, and the manifestation that the ZURYÔ-MEI-KANTO still maintained elements of substantial authority in the district, constitutes the core part of the latter Medieval State. I think this conclusion, as demonstrased by my study, depicts the essence of KANTO during the latter Medieval Japan.

著者

葛西 康徳

出版者

法制史学会

雑誌

法制史研究 (ISSN:04412508)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.63, pp.307-310, 2014-03-30 (Released:2019-10-11)

著者

山中 至

出版者

法制史研究

雑誌

法制史研究 (ISSN:04412508)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.1991, no.41, pp.1-44,en2, 1991

---

This paper analyzes the legal effect of Geishogi-contract in the early Meiji period, before the enforcement of Old Civil Law, with some unknown decisions of lower courts in Tokyo and Osaka.<BR>It contains, First, as for Geishogi-contract, dualistic opinions, labor contract as Geishogi was void against public policy but advance contract was valid, had been dominant during the Old Supreme Court era. In 1955, Supreme Court invalidated the long supported precedent with a unitary opinion and reversed it. This paper clarified, for the first time, that dualistic opinions (e. g., the decision of Tokyo court of appeals in 1878, the decision of Tokyo district court in 1879) had existed before the appearance of the decision of Old Supreme Court and that had been the main stream in lower courts.<BR>Second, while there had been the decision of Old Supreme Court in 1896 for Geishogi's freedom of retirement, similarly, we found that it had been admitted in lower courts (Tokyo and Osaka) before it. Furth-ermore, there were interesting decisions that had prohibited a master from forcing Geishogi to work and from taking back the returned. In the case of human traffic as an employment contract, lower courts had remedies for Geishogi's freedom of retirement with dualistic opinions.<BR>Third, we found, however, a progressive decision which made an advance contract void for the proclamation 295 in 1872. Finally, we should regard the decision, the substance of an adoption for Geigi was a masked Geishogi-contract and void for the proclamation 295, as the progressive one which was treated as a problem of public policy.

著者

和田 卓朗

出版者

法制史研究

雑誌

法制史研究 (ISSN:04412508)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.1984, no.34, pp.491-494, 1984

著者

大饗 亮

出版者

法制史学会

雑誌

法制史研究 (ISSN:04412508)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.1983, no.33, pp.216-218, 1984-03-30 (Released:2009-11-16)

著者

大饗 亮

出版者

法制史研究

雑誌

法制史研究 (ISSN:04412508)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.1983, no.33, pp.216-218, 1983

著者

松原 健太郎

出版者

法制史学会

雑誌

法制史研究 (ISSN:04412508)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2006, no.56, pp.228-233, 2006

著者

近藤 佳代子

出版者

Japan Legal History Association

雑誌

法制史研究 (ISSN:04412508)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.1989, no.39, pp.151-183,en9, 1990-03-30 (Released:2009-11-16)

---

The main aim of this article is to make clear the following two points. 1: How the matrimonial property relations branched from the property relations between the head and the members of a house prior to the Civil Code. 2: How it was arranged in the course of civil codification.First: In the early years of Meiji, the whole property of a house was regarded as the property of the head of the house. So, the property of a wife was unified to the property of the head of her husband's house. But the development of merchandising demanded that property would circulate freely, and tried to rid the house-members' property from the control of the head. The members came to be permitted to have separate property. But they still had to obtain the permission of the head of their house to buy or sell their separate property: the head signed and sealed a contract jointly. This restriction prevented the free circulation of merchandise.In 1882, the restriction was discontinued by Dajohkan (the Council of State) for all adult members of a house including women, except a wife. A wife had to obtain her husband's permission even if he was not the head of the house. Thus the matrimonial property relations branched from the property relations between the head and the members. But, before the enforcement of the Civil Code, only the notarized and inscribed property was recognized to be the members' separate property. So, the head's control over the rest of the property of a wife, as well as of the other members, still continued.Second: In the process of the civil codification, from the beginning, a wife's property rights were controlled not by the head of her house but by her husband. It was because the Japanese civil codification began after the model of the Napoleonic Code.The first draft of a Civil Code for Japan denied the Iye-system substantially: it admitted neither the authority of the head of a house nor the property of a house in substance. So it was criticized by the jurists who were espousing the Iye-system, and then it was revised.The Civil Code in 1898 prescribed the Iye-system. The head of a house succeeded to the property of the house by himself/herself. But the free circulation of property was also required in order to develop capitalism in Japan, so the members of a house were allowed to have their own property, which was free from the control of the head of their house. Thus the property of a wife was also entirely free from the control of the head of her husband's house, but it was under the control of her husband. The Civil Code permitted that a woman who was the head of a house would retain the headship at her marriage. But every wife, even if she was the head of a house, had to obtain her husband's permission to carry out some juristic acts and her property was under the control of her husband. Thus the matrimonial property relations and the rights of a husband were established.

著者

石川 真人

出版者

法制史学会

雑誌

法制史研究 (ISSN:04412508)

巻号頁・発行日

no.46, pp.317-319, 1996

著者

岡 邦信

出版者

法制史学会

雑誌

法制史研究 (ISSN:04412508)

巻号頁・発行日

no.48, pp.1-34,en3, 1998

---

Regarding the legislative process of the Kamakura-Bakufu Government's Law, nothing more than the general explanation "being legislated through the discussion of Hyojoshu (_??__??__??_)" is known.<BR>The purpose of this article is to clarify the concrete process of legislation of the Kamakura-Bakufu Government's Law. Firstly, this article takes notice of the Re-abolishment of Human Traffic executed from 1239 to 1240 (_??__??__??__??_-_??__??_).<BR>Consequently, this article presumed Tsuikaho (_??__??__??_) item 112 (contained in volume I of Chusei Hosei Siryoshu (_??__??__??__??__??__??__??_)) was the Mandokoro (_??__??_)'s draft and item 111 was Hyojokotogaki (_??__??__??__??_).<BR>Accordingly, the Mandokoro (_??__??_) was ordered to make draft of Reabolishment of Human Traffic by the Bakufu.<BR>Then this draft showed it was discussed and settled by Hyojo (_??__??_).<BR>And then this article clarified that this series of law contained in Chusei Hosei Siryoshu enacted as an attachment of Tokusei Rei (_??__??__??_) in 1297 (_??__??__??__??_) was the draft of Monchujo (_??__??__??_).<BR>And those laws shown to make draft was ordered by the Kamakura-Bakufu Government.<BR>Lastly, referring to Eninsannenki (_??__??__??__??__??_), this article examined the whole process from the beginning when an organ of the Kamakura-Bakufu Government was ordered to make draft by Tokuso (_??__??_) until the law was legislated.