文献一覧: 法制史研究 (雑誌)

1 0 0 0 OA 新田一郎著「律令·式目—「法」テクスト注釈の非「法学」的展開」

著者: 長又高夫
出版者: 法制史学会
雑誌: 法制史研究 (ISSN:04412508)
巻号頁・発行日: vol.62, pp.202-206, 2013-03-30 (Released:2018-04-04)

2019-01-18 00:28:31
1 + 0 Twitter

1 0 0 0 OA (書評)笠松宏至著「中世人との対話」

著者: 新田一郎
出版者: 法制史学会
雑誌: 法制史研究 (ISSN:04412508)
巻号頁・発行日: vol.1998, no.48, pp.201-207, 1999-03-30 (Released:2009-11-16)

2019-01-12 15:54:10
1 + 3 Twitter

1 0 0 0 (書評)石川武著「「『同じゲヴェーレをもって』、占有か保障か―ザクセンシュピーゲル・ラント法二・四三・一の正しい解釈のために」(『北大法学論集』五二巻五号)」

著者: 源河達史
出版者: Japan Legal History Association
雑誌: 法制史研究 (ISSN:04412508)
巻号頁・発行日: vol.2003, no.53, pp.292-302, 2003

2018-12-28 12:44:15
1 + 0 Twitter

1 0 0 0 明法勘文機能論

著者: 瀬賀正博
出版者: 法制史研究
雑誌: 法制史研究 (ISSN:04412508)
巻号頁・発行日: vol.1999, no.49, pp.85-106,en5, 1999

The main purpose of this paper is to make clear the function and the actual effects of legal document Myobo-kammon (_??__??__??__??_) which had influence over the trial, especially the Jin-no-Sadame (_??__??_, the conference at the Jin) in Heian period. The legal documents Myobo-kammon, which is drawn up by judicial officials or jurists (Myobo-ka, _??__??__??_), is generally understood as a draft of sentence of court, and there, these documents give priority to the interpreta-tion and application of Ritsu-ryo codex (_??__??__??__??_). It is regarded as one of the most important material to study on relation between jurisprudence and judicature under japanese Ritsu-ryo system. Therefore I think that this is an important material to think about the character of administration of justice in ancient and middle ages of our country. However there remain many problems to solve on Myobo-kammon itself. It is necessary to approach the problem what position Ritsu-ryo codex occupies in the legal history of our country from the aspect of operation of law. Following problems are discussed in this paper. i) the function of Myobo-kammon at legal proceedings; Myobo-kammon had two different functions, one submitted to the court of justice has the function as a proposal of assessment of case, another one has the function as a sort of legal consultation. ii) the actual effect of Myobo-kammon, in other words, to what extent can this kind of documents bind authorities who are also judiciaries; essentially Myobo-kammon had however no binding power. iii) the authority of opinion proposed by Myobo-ka; in the Jin-no-Sadame, authorities are more likely to find in the Myobo-kammon merely a confirmation of what is in their minds already. Nevertheless authorities make Myobo-ka who is specialist of law present his judgement. We must carry out a further examination of this problem.

2018-12-27 12:45:33
1 + 0 Twitter

1 0 0 0 OA 室町幕府の安堵と施行

著者: 松園潤一朗
出版者: 法制史学会
雑誌: 法制史研究 (ISSN:04412508)
巻号頁・発行日: vol.61, pp.51-81,en4, 2012-03-30 (Released:2017-08-22)

本稿では、室町幕府の安堵と施行の制度について、「当知行」の効力という観点から検討を加える。日本中世の土地法において「当知行」(占有)は、「安堵を受ける効力」と「知行保持の効力」を有したと指摘される。しかし、右の効力は中世を通じて等しく見られたわけではなく、政権ごとの法制の相違という視角が重要である。建武政権は、鎌倉幕府が譲与安堵の制度を整備したのに対し、当知行安堵を広く実施した。また、所領への妨害行為(「濫妨」)に対し、当知行安堵の施行や「濫妨」停止命令という形で「知行保持」の手続を行った。建武政権では、「当知行」に基づいて安堵と施行(「知行保持」)がなされる体制であった。室町幕府の足利直義・義詮期には、安堵は譲与安堵等が中心となり、施行とは基本的に切り離される。所領への妨害については、「知行保持」に加えて、所領の回復を行う「知行回収」の手続も行われたが、手続では訴人の主張する所領知行の本権の確認がなされた。足利義満期には武士・寺社本所への安堵の発給が増加する。安堵の根拠は譲与・公験等が中心だが、応永年間(一三九四~一四二八)以降、当知行安堵の発給が増加する。また、義満期から足利義持期の途中まで、所領の当知行・不知行にかかわらず「安堵」が発給され、それに基づく施行・遵行もなされた。「安堵」施行の実施の背景には将軍(室町殿)の認定を示す「安堵」の法的効力の増大があった。足利義持期の応永二〇年代には、当知行安堵の発給が原則化される一方、応永二九年の法令で「安堵」施行は停止される。「安堵」施行が所領回復に利用されることを防止するためである。同じ時期に、幕府法廷での訴訟手続の整備がなされ、一方的に「知行回収」を命じる文書は大きく減少する。法制の変化は、訴人の所領回復の重視から当知行保護の重視への政策転換を意味する。また、守護も当知行安堵を発給し、各地で当知行安堵が行われる体制が形成された。足利義満期に築かれる「安堵」施行の体制は、「安堵」に強い効力を付与する点で特異なものである。また、「当知行」の効力は中世を通じて見られるが、各政権の法制への作用の仕方はそれぞれ異なる。政治的な認定行為である「安堵」との関係を見ていくことで、中世の知行について議論を深めることが可能になる。

2018-12-05 13:21:31
1 + 0 Twitter

1 0 0 0 OA 魏晉南北朝時代の聴訟と録囚

著者: 辻正博
出版者: Japan Legal History Association
雑誌: 法制史研究 (ISSN:04412508)
巻号頁・発行日: vol.2005, no.55, pp.1-49,en3, 2006-03-30 (Released:2011-04-13)

本稿は、魏晉南北朝時代の聽訟と録囚について、擔い手と場所を手がかりにその歴史的意義を考察したものである。皇帝による聽訟は、魏の明帝が新たな王朝の權威を確立すべく、洛陽の聽訟觀で行なったものを嚆矢とする。兩晉時代になると聽訟觀では專ら録囚が行なわれたが、依然として皇帝大權を象徴する重要な建物であることに變わりはなかった。南朝では、華林園で皇帝が聽訟を行なうことが劉宋初期から定例化していた。頻繁に聽訟を行なった皇帝には、いずれも帝權の強化を指向した點で共通していた。劉宋末から南齊にかけて、皇帝による聽訟の場は中堂・閲武堂に移ったが、これも君權の確立・強化を目指した結果であった。梁の武帝は漢代的な司法のあり方の復活を企てる傍ら、録囚を制度化し、法官や近臣に委ねようと試みた。一方、北魏では當初、漢人官僚が聽訟の實務一切を委ねられたが、洛陽遷都後は皇帝自らが冤訟を受理・裁決するようになった。南朝と對峙する中で、大權を握る皇帝の姿を誇示する必要が生まれたのであろう。聽訟のあり方は、北周から隋にかけて大きく變貌した。皇帝は宮城で聽政に勤め、聽訟もそこで行なわれたのである。北朝の録囚は、災異説により旱魃對策として行なわれた。この背景には漢化政策の進行がある。北周以後、録囚と旱魃の關連は希薄になり、隋では録囚が定例化された。皇帝による録囚は、大理寺からの報告に應じて聽政の場でなされた。

2018-11-10 17:35:39
1 + 1 Twitter

1 0 0 0 メイトランドの法人論

著者: 大野秀夫
出版者: 創文社
雑誌: 法制史研究 (ISSN:04412508)
巻号頁・発行日: vol.1990, no.40, pp.135-152,en8, 1990

Here, in this essay, it will be suggested that the "Genossenschaft" and its theory in England was one of important themes for Maitland, particularly late in his life. It seems to me that Maitland's studies in history of corporation in England consist of three parts; (1) township and borough, (2) trust and corporation, (3) state and corporation. It is too ample and too difficult to trace and examine his studies on corporation in whole, as his other studies. Then, here, we will outline his theory of corporation, especially in relation to trust and corporation. Through our discussion, we will perceive its importance, its "the greatest exploit of English jurisprudence", its function as supplement of incorporation. Lastly, as a result of development of trust in modern England, it might be pointed out that England had and is to have a unique theory of state, as contrasted with the Continent.

2018-09-11 07:30:16
1 + 0 Twitter

1 0 0 0 OA 中世後期村落に於ける領主についての一考察

著者: 畠山亮
出版者: Japan Legal History Association
雑誌: 法制史研究 (ISSN:04412508)
巻号頁・発行日: vol.2001, no.51, pp.101-124,en7, 2002-03-30 (Released:2009-11-16)

Recent studies of the late medieval Japanese constitutional history focus on regional communities, and place special focus on the fact that the structure of social order was autonomous and self-enforced by the people themselves. These viewpoints are based upon the concept of the Kubo, which has a meaning of keeping the village community peace. Examining the term Kubo mainly, I will reconsider the position of the feudal lord in the late medieval village community.From the research of the Kubo in Suganoura during the Muromachi era, I found that the concept of the public (Oyake, [_??_]) in the late medieval regional community has a strong relationship with the govern-mental authorities. This means that we have to attach more importance to the substance of the Kubo - the governmental authorities, to say more, being the lord of the manor.Considering above, I carried out the research on the position of the feudal lord by examining Kujo Masamoto, who was a lord of Hine-no-sho. Kujo was struggling with the Hosokawa family (Shugo, _??__??_) and the heads of the Negoro-temple for the dominance of the Hine-no-sho. Kujo's power base was not as strong as Hosokawa's, but the regional community never prevented Kujo from being the lord of the manor. This was because of the legitimacy derived from his position as the Kubo. I can also find that the Negoro-temple possessed the necessary qualities for the position as lord, as they had not only sufficient military forces but also religious authority accepted by the regional community. The Negoro-temple therefore succeeded Kujo as the next lord with few complications.In conclusion, although recent studies place too much emphasis on the said concept of the Kubo, it is impossible to clarify the whole constitutional situation during the late medieval period from these onesided views. It is therefore necessary to regard the feudal lord from a more holistic perspective, in other words, by attaching importance not only to the concept of the Kubo but also to the substance of it.

2018-09-01 13:09:38
1 + 1 Wikipedia

1 0 0 0 『古事記』への道

著者: 水林彪
出版者: Japan Legal History Association
雑誌: 法制史研究
巻号頁・発行日: vol.1997, no.47, pp.1-62,en3, 1997

Le présent article a pour but de montrer que l'étude de la fable racontée dans le Kojiki (Le Dit des choses anciennes) constitue une tâche indispensable à la véritable compréhension de I'Etat antique japonais (Ritsuryôsei-kokka). L'ensemble, précédé d'une introduction et suivi d'une conclusion, est composé de quatre parties. Après avoir indiqué dans l'introduction l'objectif de cette étude, nous avons procédé, dans la première partie «L'Etat antique selon Ishimoda Sho», à un examen critique des travaux de ce grand historien qui ont profondément marqué l'image et la compréhension actuelles de I'Etat antique japonais pour signaler qu'il manque tout de même, dans ses élaborations, une pièce essentielle concernant l'aspect idéologique de I'Etat antique en gestation entre la fin du 7e siècle et le debut du 8e siècle. A travers l'analyse du discours prononcé en 697 par I'empereur Monmu à l'occasion de son intronisation (deuxième partie «La justification de la royauté selon la fable duKojiki »), à travers aussi celle de la grande fête Kinen pour la prospérité et la fertilité (troisième partie «La communauté cérémoniale») et, enfin, à travers la considération des divers titres accordés au roi (quatrième partie «La communauté cérémoniale et le lien roi-sujet»), nous avons mis en lumière le fait que l'arrière-fond de tout cela nest en fait rien d'autre que l'histoire mythique relatée dans le Kojiki. En somme, nous avons voulu souligner qu'il faut nécessairement se tourner vers cette oeuvre fondatrice, si l'on veut saisir I'Etat antique sous tous ses aspects. Enfin, pour terminer, un regard critique dirigé vers l'histoire des recherches sur cette période de I'histoire du Japon nous a permis de conclure à l'absence de réflexions approfondies sur la fable du Kojiki dans le champ des sciences historiques. Nous avons voulu ainsi attirer l'attention sur la nécessité de reprendre tout le dossier afin de construire une autre image de l'Etat antique japonais.

2018-08-30 11:38:37
1 + 0 Twitter

1 0 0 0 OA (書評)吉村忠典著「支配の天才ローマ人」

著者: 木庭顯
出版者: 法制史学会
雑誌: 法制史研究 (ISSN:04412508)
巻号頁・発行日: vol.1982, no.32, pp.325-328, 1983-03-30 (Released:2009-11-16)

2018-08-18 23:57:05
1 + 0 Twitter

1 0 0 0 OA 法制史の法解釈学への貢献について

著者: 田中實
出版者: 法制史学会
雑誌: 法制史研究 (ISSN:04412508)
巻号頁・発行日: vol.1990, no.40, pp.153-182, 1991-03-30 (Released:2009-11-16)

2018-05-24 18:52:30
1 + 0 Twitter

1 0 0 0 キケロの「国家論」―その指導者像(二・五一)をめぐって―

著者: 岡道男
出版者: 法制史学会
雑誌: 法制史研究 (ISSN:04412508)
巻号頁・発行日: no.34, pp.23-46,en4, 1984

Did Cicero intend his statesman to be understood as a 'new concept' (K. Büchner) when he called him tutor et procurator rei publicae and rector et gubernator civitatis (2.51)? Now numerous instances before and with Cicero of similar metaphors and their combinations applied to political activities make it quite clear that there is nothing new insofar as these phrases are concerned. So in view of their well-known metaphorical character 'minus......tritum sermone nostro' (2.51) should not be translated by 'not frequently used in our language i.e. Latin' but by 'not fully treated in our conversa-tion'. The study of the passages concerning the role of this statesman suggests too that it is chiefly based on auctoritas and is not appreciably different from that of the principes of the Roman republic. It is, however, very remarkable that the analogy of the reason swaying and controlling the mind, by which the imperium of a monarch is explained, seems also to have been used to describe the activities of this statesman (2.67ff.). Cicero, while conceding the superiority to the mixed form of constitution, maintains that monarchy is to be preferred to the other unmixed forms because of, among others, the fact that there will be no imperium at all unless it remains a unit. It could be inferred from this that what Cicero, when using this analogy, had in mind was a statesman who, while acting on auctoritas (2.69: ut sese......sicut speculum praebeat civibus), would be the sole leader in the state. This semi-monarchistic role is, however, clearly incompatible with the principles of the mixed form of constitution which Cicero pronounces the best and sees embodied in the Roman republic. This inconsistency, if it may be called so, could have resulted from his theorizing on an ideal statesman in line with Greek political theories while retaining him in the framework of the Roman republic. Now this statesman is set in opposition to a tyrant who is nothing but a deteriorated form of monarchy as is illustrated by the Roman history. This transformation of the best single form into the worst is most typical of all political changes. The mixed form, according to the Greek theories (mainly Polybios) outlined in the De re publica, is the most effective in maintaining equality and stability and thus preventing any change for the worse because it combines and balances the elements of the three unmixed forms; whereas Cicero sees the vital factor of stabilization in the statesman who cares for the practical interests and the self-respect of his fellow-citizens, foreseeing dangerous changes and taking necessary steps against them. Here Cicero, while following a familiar pattern of political discussions where a tyrant or tyranny is contrasted with a just king or other forms of constitution, reserves for his statesman a leading role in renewing and preserving the Roman state, and all who are present in the conversation are urged to become like him (2.45) since he is an exemplum (2.69), a model to be followed by all his fellow-citizens. The impression thus gained would be that of a 'new' statesman, but he remains nonetheless a traditional i. e. republican princeps, presented as he is in an idealized form. This method of theorizing on the traditional institutions (mos maiorum), idealizing and presenting them as exempla, is used again in the De legibus which was probably begun as soon as, or before, the De re publica was finished. It is not clear whether Augustus was influenced by Cicero's concept of this statesman. Granting that he adopted for his principate the latter's concept, then he pretended it was not new, for he emphasized his role in having restored the Roman republic and posed as a traditional princeps acting on auctoritas. In reality, however, his principate was nothing other than a kind of monarchy, a novus status, as Suetonius called it.

2018-04-24 07:01:41
1 + 0 Twitter

1 0 0 0 (書評)浅野明著「「イヴァン雷帝期ロシアの知行地制―ノヴゴロド地方の事例研究―」(史学雑誌第九四編第七号)」

著者: 細川滋
出版者: 法制史学会
雑誌: 法制史研究 (ISSN:04412508)
巻号頁・発行日: no.36, pp.461-463, 1986

2018-04-12 07:45:17
1 + 0 Twitter

1 0 0 0 共通課題土地所有をめぐる諸問題――権力と土地所有:幕藩領主権力と「封建的土地所有」概念

著者: 石井紫郎
出版者: 法制史学会
雑誌: 法制史研究 (ISSN:04412508)
巻号頁・発行日: no.14, pp.8-30,1, 1964

Der Begriff des marxistischen "feudalen Grundeigentums" hat bisher die Entwicklung des geschichtlichen Studiums zur japanischen Fruhneuzeit geleitet. Aber in der letzten Zeit macht man auf dessen methodologischen Fehler ungeachtet Anhäufung der zahlreichen "positiven" Arbeiten aufmerksam. So, ich denke, es ist unentbehrlich, die prinzipielle Kritik am Begriff zu üben. Die Formel des Marx vom Feudalismus ist, daß (1) die Feudalherren den Grund zu eigen haben, (2) den die selbstwirtschaftenden Bauern besitzen, (3) daher notwendig es sich um den außerökonomischen Zwang handelt. In dieser Aussage aber sind (1) and (2) unter keinem empirisch-wissenschaftlichen Beweis gestellt. Es möchte eine Folge vom Grundgedan-ken des historischen Materialismus sein, daß besonders (1) ohne Beweis-führung vorausgesetzt bleibt. Und das Dilemma zwischen dieser Vorausse-tzung und der geschichtlichen Tatsache, Besitz der selbstwirtschaftenden Bauern, hat Marx in die Klemme gebracht, den Begriff, "nominelles Eig-entum" des Herrn, zu bilden, der im logischen Gegensatz zu seiner Definition des Grundeigentums (ausschleßliche Monopol des Grundes). Dieser Fehler ist eine Folge von der ungerechten Verallgemeinerung des neuzeitlichen Eigentumsbegrifs and des Zeitgedankens, der die Herrschaft als (für) "Ausfluß des Grundeigentums" angesehen hat, indem er die Adel unter dem Absolutismus für die mittelalterlichen Adel versehen hat. M. Araki, ein typischer marxistischer Historiker, sagt, daß (1) in der Frühneuzeit es die selbstständigen Bauern gegeben hat, (2) den die Herren "das Ganze der Mehrarbeit" durch den ausserökonomischen Zwang abgepr-esst haben, (3) daher die frühneuzeitlichen Herren die "feudalen Grundei-gentümer" sind, and die Frühhneuzeit die Feudalzeit ist. Wir müssen darauf hinweisen, daß die Logik dieser Aussage Arakis zu der oben erwähnten Logik des Marx umgekehrt ist. (1) von Marx entspricht (3) von Araki, and (3) von Marx entspricht (2) von Araki. Daher nimmt Arakis Aussage die Form der Definition des "feudalen Grundeigentums" an, wo die Definition des außerökonomischen Zwangs and dessen Existenz in der Frühneuzeit noting sind. Aber sie befinden sich in Arakis Darstellung nicht, in der der auBerökonomische Zwang a priori vorausgesetzt ist. So aus Arakis Logik folgt der Schiuß, daß alle Gesellschaften, wo es die selbstständigen Bauern gibt, ühberhaupt "feudal" sind. Um these Schwäche auszugleichen, ist die Abpressung des Ganzen der Mehrarbeit betont and das Determinationswort "klein" dem Begriff des "selbstständigen Bauers" hinzugefügt. Allein es ist natürlich kein Merkmal für den Feudalismus auch in der marxistischen Theorie, ob das Ganze der Mehrarbeit abgepresst ist oder nicht. Und in Arakis Darstellung ist es erklärt nicht, warum der feudale Bauer "klein" soll. Noch dazu ist "selbstständiger Bauer" Arakis verschieden von dem "selbstwirtschaftenden Bauern" Marxens in einigen Punkten. So ist mein, Schiuß daß um die gegenseitige Beziehung zwischen der Gewaltund dem Grundeigentum zu studieren, der Begriff des " feudalen Grundei gentums " ungeeignet ist, and ein newer Begriff, der anders als der neuzeitliche Begriff ist, gebildet werden muß.