著者
小林 功
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.1, pp.40-74, 2019-01

六三〇年代以降、アラブがビザンツ帝国の領域への侵攻を開始し、シリア・パレスティナ地域やエジプトなどが短期間にビザンツ帝国の手から奪われた。当初ビザンツ帝国の人びとは、アラビア半島からの侵攻者がどのような人びとであるのか、十分に理解できていなかった。だがアラブ国家が安定し、彼らとのさまざまな形の交渉が進むにつれて、アラブがどのような人びとであるのか、ビザンツ帝国の人びとも徐々に理解していく。そしてアラブとの対峙が続く中で、自らを「神の加護を得ている皇帝が支配するキリスト教徒の共同体・地域=ローマ帝国」とみなすアイデンティティも再確認されていった。一方アラブもビザンツ帝国を滅ぼすことができなかったため、「ローマ帝国の後継者」となることができなかった。そのためビザンツ帝国との併存が確定的となった七世紀末以降、独自のイスラーム文明を形成していく道を選ぶことになる。
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
本庄 総子
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.7-40, 2020-01

マクニール・モデルとは、集団間に支配・被支配が成立する背景を、疫病への免疫力格差によって説明する理論型である。本稿では、この理論を踏まえつつ、日本古代における疫病の構造的理解を目指す。日本古代の疫病には大きく分けて二つのタイプがある。一つは、国外からの伝播ではないかと推定される大宰府発生の疫病である。このタイプは、非常に高い致死性をもつが、発生は稀である。もう一つは、京から伝播するタイプの疫病で、比較的致死性は低いが、頻繁に発生し、京から徒歩一〇日圏内からやや西に偏る範囲に伝播する。両タイプとも、飢饉の結果として発生するだけでなく、さらなる飢饉の誘因ともなった。奈良時代以前の疫病は、大きな被害を被った場合でも、一定期間内に復興が見込めたが、平安時代の最初期、復興に遅延が生じるようになった結果、疫癘間発という疫病の連鎖が発生し、律令国家の掌握する人口と田地に大きな損害を与えた。According to William H. McNeil the determining factor separating the rulers and the ruled is the gap in their level ofimmunity to pestilence or epidemics. This gap is the product ofthe discrepancies between the population and the degree ofits contact with outsiders. It has been claimed that because there was little contact with the outside world in ancient Japan, immunity to pestilence was weak and the society was subject to severe outbreaks ofharmf ul pestilence. Certainly, it is true that the view that invasive pestilence originated from abroad was deeply rooted in Japan, and religious rites were developed to protect the capital from disease. In addition, it is highly likely that the epidemics that struck in Tenpyô 7 and 9 (735 and 737) did spread from abroad, and were responsible for a remarkable level of harm seldom seen in the history ofepidemics in Japan. However, it was generally the case that epidemics in ancient Japan were centered instead on the capital and spread from there. The area within tendays ofwalking from the capital (however tending toward the west) was the typical target area. And in addition, when an epidemic struck, areas within the capital with the greatest population density were severely struck, and the Kinki region around the capital was struck next. Generally speaking, it has often been the case that outbreaks of an epidemic are triggered by lowered levels ofresistance due to famine, but in the case of ancient Japan, it was frequently the case that famine brought on epidemic instead. Because ancient Japan operated on the principles ofan agricultural society, paddy land where rice could be grown was invested with the greatest share oflabor, and when a labor shortage was caused by an epidemic, the paddies were left to ruin and further famine and epidemic ensued. In ancient Japan the harmful effects of famine and epidemics were closely linked. Even so, after the outbreak of an epidemic during the years roughly corresponding to the Nara period, the fixed level of the population was usually maintained after recovery was achieved. Some theories suppose that a great population increase occurred in the meantime However, from the beginning of the 9th century, there was a slowdown in the recovery rate following the outbreak of an epidemic. Even in the years ofabundant crops recovery from epidemics continued to be incomplete. In the 30 years before and after the turn of the century outbreaks of pestilence struck frequently throughout Japan and there was no stopping the series of famines and epidemics. As a result, population decline and ruined fields greatly increased. Because the populace and paddy lands were the fundamental capital for the ritsuryo-governed state ofancient Japan, one can say that the very foundations of the ritsuryo state itselfwere being undermined by the frequent outbreak of epidemics. Furthermore, as ifoperating in concert with these, in the first halfofthe 9th century, it was often the case that local officials did not provide accurate reports ofthe outbreaks ofthese epidemics. In order to reduce the amount of tax collected by the central government, local officials would attempt to over-estimate the damage caused by an epidemic. The central government at first tried to strictly restrain this tactic, but by the middle of the 9th century it had lost its fervor to police local officials. The rise ofthe risk ofepidemic due the concentration ofthe populace shook the foundations of the society but also had the effect of increasing mobility. As the McNeil model views regions with concentrated populations with many interactions as naturally dominant, it is an argument characterized by anticipated harmony, but given concentrated disturbance of the dominant area by epidemics, it is necessary to reevaluate the historical significance possessed by pestilence.
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.