著者

石田 恵子

出版者

慶應義塾大学

雑誌

史学 (ISSN:03869334)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.46, no.4, pp.431-459, 1975

---

論文序一 六世紀のアッティカ二 Kleisthenesと民衆の提携三 新部族制改革の内容 (一) 区 (a) 区 (b) 区とフラトリア (二) トリッテュス (三) 部族 (a) 新部族組織の特殊性 (b) 新部族組織の目的四 五百人評議会 (一) 評議会員の選出方法 (二) 評議会の権限五 Kleisthenesの「貴族政」六 五〇一/〇年の改革 (一) アルコン (二) 将軍 (a) 将軍と民衆 (b) 将軍と貴族結Kleisthenes has often regarded as a founder of Athenian Democracy. Some historians have suggested that he sought by his reforms to put an end to regional struggles and to give a blow to the noble forces. Therefore, in his reforms, the democratic side has a tendency to be emphasized. But, did he really intend to break down the noble forces? Surely, he turned to the demes in order to have their support. At first he reorganized the tribes and satisfied their prospect of local self-government in a deme-system. However, according to our evidence, he never touched the Phratries. In the demes, the Phratries and the tribes, he could ensure the excellent position to the nobility. Next, he established the new council of five hundred. Even in this, and then, in the Strategia, the nobility could control the real policy. It seems that Kleisthenes manipulated the demes and created his institution on the compromise with the nobility. In this way, although in the institution he gave equal political rights to all demes, in fact he did the nobility a special favor and ensured their traditional rights. Therefore, we must emphasize the aristocratic side in his reforms. Indeed the nobility was no longer the privileged class, but Athenian Democracy in the fifth century which was founded on by Kleisthenes, reminds us of the control by the nobiles in Rome.

著者

八景 義行

出版者

慶應義塾大学

雑誌

史学 (ISSN:03869334)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.61, no.1, 1991

著者

佐藤 正幸

出版者

慶應義塾大学

雑誌

史学 (ISSN:03869334)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.46, no.2, pp.145-171, 1974

---

論文序(1) 説明の論理構造的側面 (a) 演繹的側面 (b) 確率的モデル(2) 説明の経験科学的な側面(3) 説明の実際的な側面結びDuring the past three decades, many philosophers and historians have been occupied with the "Analytical Philosophy of History", concentrating on the problem of historical explanation. The work as it has been carried on has yielded much fruit particularly by helping to elucidate the nature of history and historical writing. Being a student of history, it has been to my regret that the above has been primarily restricted to the realm of philosophical concern. And those few historians who have recently shown an interest in the philosophical problem as related to history have moved too rapidly in applying philosophical conclusions to the analysis of their own discipline ; at the cost of systematic ivestigation and analysis, to which their own discipline is deserving. Given the present situation, I would suggest two alternatives in which the current problem could be dealt with. One is through the analysis of "historical imagination" which I believe in the long run is capable of regulating historical writing. The second approach being the "analysis of historiography from a theoretical point of view". While the two above disciplines have a complementary relationship to approach the multitude of problems surrounding the nature of history, this paper will concentrate on the second alternative, particularly as it is applied to those tasks within the confines of the application of theoretical discussion as it pertains to the analysis of historiography. Systematic theory of explanation to the analysis of history requires a three stage structure ; (1) logical stage of explanation, (2) empirical stage of explanation, and (3) actual stage of explanation. While the first stage gives itself to the purely logical or syntactical, which is given by the Hempel-Oppenheim's covering-law theory of explanation, It is in the second stage that the concept of "time" enters first, which because of it's nature, as related to the "law-statement", is divided into three different types; (a) law of succeession, (b) law of coexistence, and (c) law of precedence. It is a primary conclusion of this paper that the central problem is within the core of type (c), the law of precedence. NOTE: The above conclusion has two conditions, given that this law statement is supportable through, (1); the presented works of E. Nagel and R. Rudner; which conclude that this law statement can be reduced to the above (a)'s law statement. (2); That the explanations in this stage are admitted to as a scientific explanation and that these can be reduced to the first syntactical structure. In the concluding third stage, "the analysis of the actual work of history writing" is in my opinion primarily one of "stage reduction". This conclusion was reached following my examination and analysis of W. Dray's work, "Continuous-Series Explanation", to which various types of historical essays are included within the model. A model when given due consideration, in my opinion, reveals a logical analysis that lends itself creditably to the proposition that the third stage can be reduced to the first and second stage's. While many problems continue to plague the serious student of Historical Explanation, it is none-the-less the contention of this paper that far more thrust must be given to the endeavour of reaching the realm of "The Analytical Philosophy of History", a realm I might add which when reached however will provide the much needed light with which to explore the current dimly lit field of the "Theoretical Foundations of Analysis of History Writing for the Establishment of Historography".

著者

前嶋 信次

出版者

慶應義塾大学

雑誌

史学 (ISSN:03869334)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.40, no.2, pp.425-447, 1967-11

---

松本信廣先生古稀記念According to, Marco Polo, the Mongols, led by Nescradin, defeated an army of the king of Burma at Uniain (Yungch'ang Fu in Yunnan Province) and captured many elephants. Polo said that from that battle Qubilai Khan began to have elephants in plenty for his armies, though before he had none for the army. But, through the whole history of China, we can find no record of the use of elephants in warfare, except a king of Ch'u 楚 who used them to scare away the soldiers of Wu 呉 when the latters besieged his capital in 506 B.C. Besides, the Chinese sources concerning the battle between the Mongols and the Burmese in 1277 are not consistent with the account of Polo in various points. Therefore some scholars went so far to doubt or even to deny the veracity and credibility of the latter. The writer of this article compared the Chinese sources with the narrative of Polo and reached the conclusion that the both are supplemental to each other and not always incompatible.

著者

橋本 増吉

出版者

慶應義塾大学

雑誌

史学 (ISSN:03869334)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.16, no.4, pp.499-527, 1938-04

著者

鈴木 泰平

出版者

慶應義塾大学

雑誌

史学 (ISSN:03869334)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.35, no.2, pp.227-240, 1962-12

---

間崎万里先生頌寿記念It is a very well known fact what a great influence the French Revolution had on the formation of the German State and her people. However, it may be stated that there were practically no one who understood sufficiently the historical significance of the progress of the Revolution. During this period, it is said, that Goethe alone understood the world historical significance of the Revolution, but so far as his works are concerned, one cannot always say that he really had complete understanding. After all, for Goethe, it might be stated that, outside of pursuing the humanities, he had almost no interest in the historical events of his time. To understand and evaluate sufficiently the Revolution and its historical significance, it was necessary to wait for the emergence of the German Romanticism.

著者

柳田 利夫

出版者

慶應義塾大学

雑誌

史学 (ISSN:03869334)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.61, no.3, pp.401-415, 1992

---

一 はじめに二 「梨子盗難事件」三 スペイン側の抗議四 神奈川県裁判所の回答五 むすび

著者

山口 房司

出版者

慶應義塾大学

雑誌

史学 (ISSN:03869334)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.63, no.4, pp.403-429, 1994-08

---

(一) はじめに(二) シャーマン反トラスト法制定百年目の周辺(三) 「見えざる手」と「目に見える手」(四) 「条理の法則」への道(五) おわりに

著者

山口 房司

出版者

慶應義塾大学

雑誌

史学 (ISSN:03869334)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.59, no.1, pp.1-31, 1990-03

---

論文(一) はじめに(二) ボイコットの背景と経過(三) アメリカ鉄道組合と総括支配人協会(四) ストライキとデブス差止め命令(五) 連邦軍派遣とイリノイ州知事(六) おわりに

著者

東畑 隆介

出版者

慶應義塾大学

雑誌

史学 (ISSN:03869334)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.49, no.4, pp.339-360, 1980-03

---

本稿は、ハノーファー国王エルンスト・アヴグストによる憲法廃止を契機として生じたハノーファー王国の憲法紛争の一環として、ゲッティンゲン大学の七教授が王の憲法廃止に抗議し、罷免された「ゲッティンゲン七教授事件」を考察しようとするものである。この事件に関しては、既に千代田寛教授が大部の論文を発表していられる。千代田教授は主として大学史の観点からこの事件を考察しておられるが、事件の憲法史的側面をも詳細に記述しておられる。従って、この事件に関して、私が付け加えることの出来る余地は殆んどないように思われる。しかし、この事件は、ドイツにおいても有名な割りに本格的な研究書に乏しいため、事実的な経過に関して必ずしもよく知られていないように思われるので、本稿では、事件の事実的な経過を出来るだけ詳細に記述することに留意した。

著者

井手 一馬

出版者

慶應義塾大学

雑誌

史学 (ISSN:03869334)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.8, no.2, pp.285-294, 1929-08

著者

武田 勝藏

出版者

慶應義塾大学

雑誌

史学 (ISSN:03869334)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2, no.1, pp.143-144, 1922-11

---

書評

著者

松本 信廣

出版者

慶應義塾大学

雑誌

史学 (ISSN:03869334)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.22, no.2, pp.133-154, 1944-07

---

古代に於ける武器は考古學的に研究してゆくことの必要であるのみならず、また言語學的にも研究せられねばならぬ。則ち武器の構造なり系統なりはたゞに具象的方面より究められ得ると共に一面その名稱の語源的研究により示唆を與へられる所大なるものありと信ずる。此處に試みんとする研究は もとより我國古代攻戰具全般に汎つてをる譯でなく、其中のごく若干に就て管見を述べんとするに過ぎない。しかも此意見は従來の學界の通見に對し異をたてる點あるかも知れぬが、私見に對し大方の高教を切に期待するものであり、誤てる點、不備の點は之を改めるに吝なるものではない。