文献一覧: 法制史学会 (出版者)

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.

2018-04-09 19:45:15
1 + 0 Twitter

1 0 0 0 (書評)ハインツ・トーマス著、三佐川亮宏・山田欣吾編訳「中世の『ドイツ』――カール大帝からルターまで」

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: vol.2006, no.56, pp.307-312, 2006
被引用文献数: 1

2018-04-05 06:00:18
1 + 0 Twitter

1 0 0 0 OA 堀井聡江著「エジプト民法典におけるイスラーム法の影響の批判的考察」

著者: 加藤博
出版者: 法制史学会
雑誌: 法制史研究 (ISSN:04412508)
巻号頁・発行日: vol.60, pp.260-262, 2011-03-30 (Released:2017-05-02)

2018-03-29 09:01:43
1 + 0 Twitter

1 0 0 0 OA (書評)越智重明著「「漢時代の免官、削爵」(「久留米大学文学部紀要」国際文化学科篇二)「六朝の免官、削爵、除名」(「東洋学報」七四―三・四)」

著者: 中村圭爾
出版者: 法制史学会
雑誌: 法制史研究 (ISSN:04412508)
巻号頁・発行日: vol.1995, no.45, pp.246-248, 1996-03-30 (Released:2009-11-16)

2018-03-09 14:42:32
1 + 0 Twitter

1 0 0 0 OA (書評)宮崎市定著「「天皇なる称号の由来について」(思想第六四六号)」

著者: 関晃
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.161-164, 1980-03-15 (Released:2009-11-16)

2017-12-16 10:01:12
1 + 0 Twitter

1 0 0 0 (書評)佐藤次高著「中世イスラム国家とアラブ社会―イクター制の研究―」

著者: 本田実信
出版者: 法制史学会
雑誌: 法制史研究 (ISSN:04412508)
巻号頁・発行日: no.37, pp.242-250, 1987

2017-10-18 02:15:37
1 + 0 Twitter

1 0 0 0 OA (書評)前間良爾著「ドイツ農民戦争史研究」

著者: 黒田忠史
出版者: 法制史学会
雑誌: 法制史研究 (ISSN:04412508)
巻号頁・発行日: vol.1999, no.49, pp.294-298, 2000-03-30 (Released:2009-11-16)

2017-09-12 09:12:36
1 + 0 Twitter

1 0 0 0 OA (書評)西川珠代著「「「ベリアル裁判」に見る中世後期の訴訟像(一)(二・完)」(「法学論叢」一三三巻六号、一三五巻三号)」

著者: 村上裕
出版者: 法制史学会
雑誌: 法制史研究 (ISSN:04412508)
巻号頁・発行日: vol.1995, no.45, pp.335-338, 1996-03-30 (Released:2009-11-16)

2017-08-27 02:53:05
1 + 0 Twitter

1 0 0 0 (書評)櫻井利夫著「「ドイツ中世都市におけるミニステリアーレン層―クヌート・シュルツ説の批断的検討―」(法学第四六巻第五号)」

著者: 魚住昌良
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.317-319, 1983

2017-08-04 21:30:18
1 + 0 Twitter

1 0 0 0 OA (書評)神保文夫著「「明和三年の大坂町奉行所金銀出入取捌法改正に関する史料」(『名古屋大学法政論集』一八六号)」

著者: 本間修平
出版者: 法制史学会
雑誌: 法制史研究 (ISSN:04412508)
巻号頁・発行日: vol.2002, no.52, pp.246-248, 2003-03-30 (Released:2009-11-16)

2017-07-13 21:50:05
1 + 0 Twitter

1 0 0 0 (書評)勝山清次著「「鎌倉時代の伊勢神宮祭主裁判と公家政権」(上横手雅敬編『中世公武権力の構造と展開』吉川弘文館)」

著者: 伊藤一義
出版者: 法制史学会
雑誌: 法制史研究 (ISSN:04412508)
巻号頁・発行日: no.52, pp.228-231, 2002

2017-06-20 19:15:07
1 + 0 Twitter

1 0 0 0 「律令法系の發達について」補考

著者: 中田薫
出版者: 法制史学会
雑誌: 法制史研究 (ISSN:04412508)
巻号頁・発行日: no.3, pp.1-111,en1, 1953
被引用文献数: 1

In this voluminous treatise Dr. Nakada intends to supply some points which were left untouched in his two recently published treatises:. " Opinions on, the old Japanese Law-including some views on Chinese legal History " .(in Vol. I of this Review) pp. 4-12, pp. 21-28, and. " Evolution of the Chinese Legal System " (Comparative Law Review, . Vol. I. No. 4.). The author makes efforts, as in the previous treatises, . to treat the subjects synthetically and in a wide prospect. Historical and constructive thinking, sharp and profound, of a great scholar runs through the whole pages. Indeed, we find in it the best description ever known of the general history of the Chinese legal system and philosophy from the beginning to the era of Tang dynasty. It is. almost impossible, to summarize its contents here. Only a brief mention shall be made of the subjects it discusses. The treatise is divided into two parts. Part 1. On the law of premium and penalty, before Chin Shihhuang-ti. The author grasps the general character of the law in ancient China-as the law of premium and penalty. He says that these two were the main means in the hands of feudal sovereigns by which they governed their states, penalty being the more important one ; laws, which were no other than declarations of the sovereign will, were enforced by penalty directly or indirectly. Next the author follows various trends. of legal philosophy one by one : that of the traditional Chinese orthodoxy, and those of Kuan-tzu (_??__??_), Chuang-tzu (_??__??_), Shen-tzu (_??__??_), Yin-wen-tzu Shen-pu-hai (_??__??__??_), Shang-tzu (_??__??_), and Han-fei-tzu (_??__??__??_). And summarizes points of each doctrine by clear words. He also picks up paragraphs of law which remains in the. lines of classics and classifies them according to their concerns. Part 2. On the origin and development of the Lü-Linq (_??__??_) Codes. from Han to Tang dynasty. The author endeavours above all to clear up questions about the legal system in Han dynasty. It has already been discussed in his late treatises that, in Han, Lü (_??_) was the fundamental code while Ling (_??_) was the supplimentary code consisting of occasional ordinances of Emperors, the distinction between the two not being penal and non-penal codes as is generally conceived, and the latter distinction beginning in Chin (_??_) dynasty. In the present treatise, he consolidates that opinion of his by solving, - with admirable -clarity, many questions in details, which have long puzzled Chinese and Japanese scholars and which have not been thoroughly solved in -the author's previous treatises. Furthermore, he refers to K'o (_??_) and Pi (_??_) :-Pi -meaned judicial precedents in general, some of which were authorized through a sort of law-making procedure and were called K'o. Therefore K'o was a sort of supplimentary laws to the Lü-Ling codes. K'o, which -dates from Han dynasty, became in Northern Wei (_??__??_) also called Ko (_??_). In Sui (_??_) dynasty Ko became a special kind of code which modified Lü and Ling, at the same time, Shih (_??_) or the code regulating details of bureaucratic business was compiled, and so was accomplished the well known system of four codes Lü-Ling-Ko-Shih. in Sui and Tang era. (Shuzo. Shiga)

2017-06-20 14:15:08
1 + 0 Twitter

1 0 0 0 (書評)栗城寿夫著「「一九世紀ドイツ国家有機体論における国民(Volk)思想の機能」(磯村哲先生還暦記念論文集編集委員会)「市民法学の形成と展開」上所收、有斐閣」

著者: 平田公夫
出版者: 法制史学会
雑誌: 法制史研究 (ISSN:04412508)
巻号頁・発行日: no.29, pp.300-302, 1979

2017-06-16 07:12:23
1 + 0 Twitter

1 0 0 0 「敬慎願」とは何か:明治前期における裁判制度継受の一断面

著者: 辻村亮彦
出版者: 法制史学会
雑誌: 法制史研究 (ISSN:04412508)
巻号頁・発行日: vol.60, pp.73-108,en6, 2011

本稿では、明治民事訴訟法施行以前に行われた「敬慎願」と呼ばれる裁判手続について、フランス法の継受という観点から検討を行う。 フランス(旧)民事訴訟法典四八〇条以下のrequête civileは、現在の「再審」に相当する手続であり、これに箕作麟祥が「敬慎ノ願書」という訳語を当てた。「丁寧な」「礼儀正しい」を意味するこのcivileという語は、この手続がフランス古法以来の判決取消手続に由来することを示しており、箕作の「敬慎」という訳語もそれを踏まえたものであった。 控訴、上告の制度が整備された後も、救済の必要がありながらもこれらの手続によっては救済されない事案があることが明治前期の司法官たちに認知され、その解決策をrequête civilに求めた。このような模索の一つの結果が明治一一年司法省丁第三四号達であったが、この達は大審院からの伺に対する事例判断に止まり、敬慎願に関する要件と効果を定める規範ではなかった。その後も裁判所と司法省との間の伺指令等により、相手方が決め手となる証書を隠匿していた場合と証拠を偽造していた場合に、判決の取消が認められるようになっていく。 明治一七年に入り、テヒョーによる民事訴訟法の編纂が本格化するのと軌を一にして、ボワソナードが敬慎願の規則制定に関する意見書を提出し、司法省は「民事訴訟手続」を編纂して従来の手続の内容を整理し、司法統計上も「敬慎願」が項目化され、一定の「制度」としての位置を認められる。しかし、「再審」の規定を置く明治民事訴訟法の施行までは、明確な法的根拠のない「敬慎願」が裁判上の慣行として行われ続けることになった。 このように、フランスのrequête civileに起源をもつ「敬慎願」は、日本の実情に合わせた改変を受け、法令による裏付けのないまま裁判慣行として定着しており、明治前期の「法の継受」の一つのありようを見ることができる。