著者

山中 至

出版者

Japan Legal History Association

雑誌

法制史研究 (ISSN:04412508)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.1991, no.41, pp.1-44,en2, 1992-03-30 (Released:2009-11-16)

---

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.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.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.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

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.1954, no.4, pp.51-100,en2, 1954-07-31 (Released:2009-11-16)

---

In the 16 th century the whole land of Japan was split into so many territories, each one of which was owned and ruled by a feudal lord daimyo, and a feudal lord in those days had an absolute power as strong and mightly as that of the king himself. It is, therefore, nothing strange that the Jesuits, who came over to this island-country all of a sudden and started to work as Christian missionaries, looked upon each one of these feudal lords as kings (reis) of Japan. For the time being, such lords of the land acted like an independent ruler, but later only those influential lords usually called yakata came to be called "king" (rei) and those below were called "principality" (principe).They interpreted the fact that Japan was divided into 66 cuni as reminiscent of the fact that there had been so many kingdoms (reinos). Of course this interpretation was far wide of the mark, and yet the result of this interpretation was not without some distinct effects. When the converted lords-such as Sorin Otomo, Harunobu Arima and Sumitada Omura despatched some boy-envoys to the Vatican to pay homage to the then Pope, the-first two lords were recognized as kings as they had the title of yakata. These envoys were very cordially treated with honors equal to their rank. Needless to say, the fact that Japan, a country in the liar East, had sent a delegation to the Vatican to pay homage to Pope, was taken advantage of by the Vatican in order to carry on a most effective campaign against Protestantism that had spread already wide in those days. And quite naturally Cubo, or Shogun Yoshiteru was looked up to as the Emperor (Emperador) of Japan as he was standing above those kings. He was treated as the emperor belonging to the same category as that of the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. As the natural result of this, occidentals came to call Japan as an empire. But missionaries of the Order of Christ, though they had made some mistakes at first, gradually came to see that Dayri was the real ruler of Japan-especially after Nobunaga and Hideyoshi acquired power, for they payed homage to Dayri as the Sovereign of Japan. The Order of Christ was allowed to share the privilege just as powerful as that of an influential when the commercial ports Nagasaki and Mogi were given to this Order by the aforesaid Sumitada Omura.

著者

河上 倫逸

出版者

Japan Legal History Association

雑誌

法制史研究 (ISSN:04412508)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.1974, no.24, pp.1-41,en3, 1975-03-30 (Released:2009-11-16)

---

(1) Oberflächlich gesehen, haben wir nur wenige Forschungen über die Staatstheorie der historischen Rechtsschule. Das kommt hauptsachlich daher, daß Savigny selbst keine Schrift uber dieses Thema hinterließ, weil er die Staatswissenschaft nicht für Jurisprudenz hielt. Jedoch können wir, wie Strauch sagt, Savignys Staatstheorie rekonstruieren, obgleich Savigny auch die anderen Probleme als Hauptthemen behandelte.(2) Um seine Staatstheorie konkret zu rekonstruieren, muß man die folgenden Sachverhältnisse bestatigen. i) Savigny war Konservativer, and er forderte es von jeder es Generation, die organische Staatsentwicklung vor dem Konflikt zwischen den alten and neuen Tendenzen zu verteidigen. ii) Aber trotz seiner Ablehnung der Revolution leugnete er nicht die allmähliche Reformation des Sozialsystems. Man kann Savigny weder als politischen Quietisten noch als Reaktionar bezeichnen.(3) Savignys Meinung nach beruht die Notwendigkeit des Staates selbst darauf, dab etwas, das die Herrschaft der einzelnen Willkiiren beschrän-ken solle, zwischen and Uber die Einzelnen hingestellt werden müsse. So ist erstens der Staat selbst etwas solches Dazwischengestelltes. Aber spaterhin dachte Savigny von den unabhängigen Einzelnen, die zum Schutz ihrer Freiheit notwendigerweise des Staates bedürfen, der sich nicht auf die Gewalt sondern aufs Recht gründet. Daher ist zweitens der Staat nach Savigny das Erzeugnis des Drangs des Volksgeistes.(4) Bei der Forschung der historischen Rechtsschule sind bisher die Probleme der Gesetzgebung wegen des MiBverstandnisses der Thibaut-Savigny Bestreitung übersehen worden. Aber these Probleme haben die besondere Bedeutung inbezug auf seine Staatstheorie. Tatsächlich gesagt, wandte Savigny nicht gegen die Gesetzgebung überhaupt ein, sondern gegen die auBervölkische, bloß politische Gesetzgebung.(5) Savigny dachte, daß sick der Staat auf das Volk gründet, jedoch kann man ihn nicht als einfachen Nationalisten bezeichnen. Denn das Volk bei Savigny ist das Naturganze, worin der Staat wirklich entsteht and fortwahrend sein Dasein führt, and worüber von Wahl and Willkiir .der Einzelnen keine Rede sein kann. Mit anderen Worten kann selbst der Herrscher fiber die organische Staatsentwicklung nicht hinweggehen. Und in diesem Punkt kommt Savignys Begriff der Freiheit hervor. Der Unterschied der Freiheit vom Despotismus wird nach Savigny ewig darin bestehen, daB der Regent im Despotismus eigenwillig and willkurlich schaltet and das Volk als toten Stoff, den er bearbeiten soil, betrachtet, and daß der Regent in der Freiheit dagegen Volkes Natur and Geschichte in ihren lebendigen Kräften ehrt and es als Organismus höherer Art betrachtet, zu dessen Haupt Gott ihn gesetzt hat, mit dem er innerlich eins werden soll.(6) Aber dieser Begriff des idealen Volkes ist wirklich der eingebildete Begriff der Gebildeten, besonders der Akademiker. Savigny schloß die niederen Klassen von dem politisch bedeutungsvollen and handelnden Volk wegen ihrer geistigen and also zugleich, politischen Unreife aus.(7) Endlich kann man die oben erwähnte Staatstheorie Savignys nach dem Schema der geschichtlichen Entwicklung des Staatsgedankens von der negativ historischen Auffassung bis zur romantischen behandeln. Und es zeigt sich hervor, daß Savigny nicht als Bahnbrecher der gänzlich neuen Ideen, sondern hauptsächlich als Zusammensteller and Ordner der in ihren Grundzügen bereits vorhandenen Anschauungen auftrat.

著者

白石 玲子

出版者

Japan Legal History Association

雑誌

法制史研究 (ISSN:04412508)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.1982, no.32, pp.141-166,en9, 1983-03-30 (Released:2009-11-16)

---

In "the System of House" (Iye-system) of Japan, when a female House-Head (Onna-Koshu) married, this marriage was called "Nyufu Kon-in" which the husband entered into the wife's "House" (Iye). The law about which of the husband and the wife became the new House-Head after marriage varied from the early days of Meiji to the enforcement of the Civil Code of 1898.The Proclamation No. 263 of "Dajokan" (the Council of State) in 1873 ordered that the wife had to transfer her status of the House-Head to her husband immediately after marriage. But we can see from "Ukagai-Shirei" (inquiries from the prefectures and instructions by the government) that the law of this proclamation could not be carried out perfectly and it was modified gradually. There were some cases that the wives remained the House-Head after marriage.In the process of the codification of the Old Civil Code, this problem developed as shown under. The first draft of 1888 regulated that the husband became the House-Head. But the modification after that made the wife the House-Head and the husband a existance of the representative of the House-Head. This was succeeded to the Old Civil Code promulgated in 1890.But the Controversy on the Civil Code arose and the Old Civil Code became void. Then the New Civil Code was codified and came into force in 1898. We'll call it the Meiji Civil Code (Meiji Mimpo).The Meiji Civil Code regulated that the husband became the House-Head as a rule, but it recognized exceptionally that the wife remained the House-Head by the representation of the intent of the parties. But the relation of the rule and the exception of the Meiji Civil Code was reversed by the Family Register Law (Koseki-ho) of 1916.Why did the law about the status of the House-Head after the marriage of a female House-Head(Nyufu Kon-in) vary as mentioned above? In order to answer this question, we must take notice that the status of the House-Head and the property of the "House" were indivisible in "the System of House".When a female House-Head married and she transferred her status of House-Head to her husband, the whole property of the "House" belonged to him. By the way, the property of the "House" of those days was the economical foundation of the family's living. If the husband who became the House-Head wasted the property, the family's living would be endangered. In order to prevent this danger, it could not but be recognized that the wife remained the House-Head in spite of the contradiction to the ideology of "the System of House" in which men predominated over women.

著者

松原 健太郎

出版者

Japan Legal History Association

雑誌

法制史研究 (ISSN:04412508)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2007, no.57, pp.189-212,en12, 2007 (Released:2013-04-01)

---

Legal historians concerned with traditional Chinese society have been interested in the "lineage" or "descent group" for a number of reasons. To name but two, one is the understanding of how property rights were organised through descent, and the other is to work out how social organisation through these groups was related to the rule of the imperial state bureaucracy. The seminal works of Maurice Freedman that came out in the late 1950s formulated an influential picture that integrated answers to both lines of inquiry. Based on the idea of the "lineage village", where agnatic and territorial groupings coincided, Freedman's formulation singled out the lineage, brought together and asymmetrically segmented through the distribution of property rights, as a dominant social organisation in southeastern China. However, his arguments have been criticised both in terms of their descriptive accuracy and by way of theoretical challenges against his structural-functionalist assumptions. This paper looks into how new lines of inquiry concerning lineages / descent groups were opened in conjunction with these criticisms, and reviews the current state of scholarship. Moreover, this paper combines this with the fruits of research into the Chinese lineage that come from Japanese and Chinese scholarship, both of which have been inspired by Freedman on one hand but have gone through unique processes of development on the other. Through such an exercise, this paper tries to show new directions of inquiry into the significance of the Chinese lineage, that engage with some fundamental issues of incorporation, local social organisation and property rights.

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.2004, no.54, pp.61-80,en8, 2005-03-30 (Released:2010-05-10)

---

Die sichere Quellenbasis ist die Grundlage der modernen Historiogra-phie. Diesem Leitgedanke entsprechend ist die philologische Quellenfor-schung in den letzten Jahrzehnten stets eines der Hauptanliegen der historischen Kanonistik gewesen. Bezüglich des Gratianischen Dekrets war es ein Aufsatz Kuttners, der die Grundlage dafür bildete. In seinem 1948 erschienenen Aufsatz De Gratiani opere noviter edendo hat Kuttner aufgrund seiner enormen Kenntnisse über die Dekrethandschriften die Schwäche der Standardedition, der Edition Friedbergs, in concreto auf-gezeigt and gleichzeitig die Historiker des kanonischen Rechts aufgefor-dert, ungeachtet der Schwierigkeiten der Zeit eine neue kritische Aus-gabe hervorzubringen.Seitdem ist es allgemein bekannt, class die Edition Friedbergs fehler-haft ist and keine kritische Ausgabe darstellt. Trotzdem ist die Frage, ob man sich wirklich an eine erneute Editionsarbeit machen sollte, nicht unumstritten. Zwar wollen auch diejenigen, die die Friedbergsche Edition fur befriedigend halten, damit nicht behaupten, dass these Edition eine kritische Ausgabe darstelle. Sie behaupten nur, class die neue Edition aller Bemühungen zum Trotz keinen großen Unterschied zur Edition Friedbergs aufweisen würde. Es handelt sich also nicht um einen theoreti-schen Anspruch, sondern nur um eine praktische Lösung. Wenn sich aber eine "kritische" Edition als kaum anders erweisen sollte als eine nicht "kritische" Edition, wird der große Aufwand an Zeit and Kraft in die Editionsarbeit zwangsläufig in Frage gestellt.Wenn man trotzdem auf einer neuen Edition bestehen will, dann muss man sich zuallererst über den entscheidenden Unterschied klar werden, der zwischen einer "kriti-schen" und einer nicht "kritischen" Edition bestehen soil. Die Frage lautet, ob man in diesern Zusammenhang überhaupt von einer communis opinio dazu sprechen kann.Zur Beantwortung dieser Frage wird ein Blick auf die Debatte urn die editio romana als Basistext der englischen Übersetzung wohl nützlich sein. Die von Christensen getroffene Wahl wurde von Weigand harsch kritisiert. Daran dürfte man erkennen können, dass es sich bezüglich des Unterschieds zwischen einer "kritischen" and einer nicht "kritischen" Edition selbst unter den besten Kennern urn unterschiedliche Konzep-tionen handeln kann, zumal die Voraussetzungen, die eine "kritische" Ausgabe erfüllen soll, als wesentliche Kriterien für die Auswahl des Basistextes anzusehen sind.Deshalb muss die folgende Frage erneut gestellt werden: Was bedeutet das Epitheton "kritisch" nach dem modernen wissenschaftlichen Begriff? Beim Versuch, these Frage zu beantworten, geht die vorliegende Studie von der klassischen Frage der Textkritik aus, nämlich, der Frage nach der Richtigkeit einer Lesart. Der Ausgangspunkt ist dabei eine Rubrik (Summarie) Gratians, für die es in der handschriftlichen Überlieferung gewichtige Varianten gibt.In der Friedbergschen Edition des Gratianischen Dekrets lautet die Rubrik von C.15 q.1 c.8: Inobedientia uel concupiscentia non habet culpam in corpore non consentientis. Einer Fußnote Friedbergs zufolge kommt für das letzte Wort dieser Rubrik (consentientis) die Variante sentientis in vier Handschriften (BDEH) vor. Da Friedberg bei seiner Editionsar-beit acht Handschriften (A-H) heranzog, müßte in den anderen vier Handschriften (ACGF) die Lesart consentientis vorkommen, and weil er die zwei Kölner Handschriften A and B für die besten hielt, liegt die Vermutung nahe, dass Friedberg sich bei seiner Wahl der Lesart haupt-sächlich auf den Zeugen von A stützte.

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, 1972-03-30 (Released:2009-11-16)

---

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.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 Kyûdai-u (_??__??__??__??__??_) to translate Ta-ch'ing-Hui-tien into Japanese. Kyûdai-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.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.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 (_??__??__??_Zhû-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 (Chèn Xié an _??__??__??_).Sin sho-an, with his name (_??_) Bing (_??_), another name (_??_) Dèng wei (_??__??_) (Syoan itself being his pen-name (_??_)), had domicile in Hang chou(_??__??_). and stayed at Nagasaki until 16th of Kyoho with Son-ho-sai.On 15th year of Kyoho, Yoshimune ordered Sin sho an to correct any possible mistake in Ogiu Hokkei's (_??__??__??__??_) revised copy of Táng lü-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.Shin sho an brought back a copy of Táng lü-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, Táng-lü-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

河野 恵一

出版者

Japan Legal History Association

雑誌

法制史研究 (ISSN:04412508)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2000, no.50, pp.87-116,en6, 2001-04-20 (Released:2009-11-16)

---

Kenka-ryoseibai-ho (laws relating to a conflict or fight in which both parties are to blame) are one of the most prominent and important laws in Japanese legal history, and there have been the subject of many preceding researches. However, the purpose and the background of these laws were never clear in those researches, so I think it is necessary to examine them seriously.The aim of this article is to examine in more detail the process and purpose of the laws dealing with conflict and fighting established by the Mori clan (one of the Sengoku-daimyo).After purging the Inoue clan (one of their vassals), in 1550 the Mori clan carried out a policy which gave them broad powers to prohibit any other their vassals from giving assistance to any other vassals who were at figiting. In 1572, they enacted a law that took account of the background and the actual details of the fight. Moreover, he prohibited fighting itself and established Kenka-ryoseibai-ho, which was based on their belief that "Hatto" (order) must come before the claims of vassals.In conclusion, however, I cannot necessarily assert that these Kenka-ryoseibai-ho became general laws as a solution to the problem of vassals' fighting, because the Mori clan had enacted these laws only at times when they were necessary, for example during the periods of war. Furthermore, it may be necessary to reexamine the common belief that Kenka-ryoseibai-ho came into common use for the mediation of fighting in the early modern period.

著者

梅田 康夫

出版者

Japan Legal History Association

雑誌

法制史研究 (ISSN:04412508)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.66, pp.1-37,en3, 2017-03-30 (Released:2023-01-13)

---

平安期において弘仁年間より保元の乱に至るまで、三百年以上にわたり正式な形で死刑が行なわれなかった。このことは古くから知られ、これまで各種の文献で取り上げられてきた。本稿ではまず前提となる問題として、死刑の廃止ではなく停止であること、そして停止の時期やその実態について確認した上で、そのような現象がもたらされた背景、原因について論じ、死刑停止の歴史的意義を究明せんとした。 これまで死刑停止の背景、原因については、様々なことが指摘されてきた。それらはいずれもその要因の一つであると考えられる。なかでもとりわけ怨霊の問題が最も重要視され、筆者自身もかつてそのように考えてきた。しかしながら、非業の死とは結びつかない犯行の明白な一般庶民による凶悪な犯罪についても死刑執行が宥恕される事例が存在することは、怨霊恐怖の点からだけでは十分に説明できない。また死刑が復活したことについてその理由等は従来あまり論じられず、それ以降も公家社会では死刑は基本的に忌避されていたとする見解さえ存在する。本稿では、死刑復活後は公家社会でも死刑が行なわれたということを前提として、死刑が復活した際における後白河天皇宣命案に関する分析等から穢の問題を最も重視し、この問題を穢を媒介として天皇と朝廷のあり方、王権の変容との関連から考察した。 保元の乱後に出された後白河天皇宣命案は、従来からも取り上げられてきた史料である。本稿では、乱の経緯とその後の処置について神前に報告するのが、死穢すなわち死の穢によって延滞したとある部分に特に注目した。死刑の執行によって、穢が重要な問題となっていたことがわかる。穢は九世紀半ば以降に制度化され、それは天皇が祭祀王として純化されていく過程と並行していた。天皇による死刑の裁可は死穢の忌避という点から次第に行なわれなくなり、また死刑の執行は觸穢による宮中・内裏への波及を防ぐ意味で回避されるようになった。 このようにして全く行なわれなくなった死刑が復活したのは、保元の乱という内乱の後であった。そこには単なる武家の台頭ということのみならず、朝廷と天皇をめぐる公家社会における大きな変化があった。祭祀王としての天皇の純化が完成した段階で院政という新たな政治形態が確立し、世俗王としての院=上皇が治天の君としての権力を行使することになった。そして、穢の観念が世俗化、希薄化し拡散していく中で、死刑への忌避感情もまたかつてのように厳格なものではなくなっていった。その結果、天皇の清浄性を保持しつつ、院=上皇による刑政への関与、死刑の裁可という途が開けていった。 死刑の停止は「薬子の変」、その復活は保元の乱という、いずれも上皇と天皇の対立、王権の分裂を契機に進行した。それは王権の変容過程の中で生起した、特殊な現象であったといえる。

著者

海老原 明夫

出版者

Japan Legal History Association

雑誌

法制史研究 (ISSN:04412508)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.67, pp.455-461, 2018-03-30 (Released:2023-11-30)

著者

田邊 繁子

出版者

Japan Legal History Association

雑誌

法制史研究 (ISSN:04412508)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.1956, no.6, pp.28-63,en1, 1956-03-30 (Released:2009-11-16)

被引用文献数

1 1

---

Die nicht zur Beackerung an die Gemeindeglieder überwiesenen Stücke, kurz alles was nicht getheilt worden war, gehörten zur gemeinen Mark. Nach der Einbringung der Ernte erhielten auch die Äcker Allmendecha-rakter. Das Markrecht war eine Pertinenz des im markrechtigten Dorfe besessenen Hauses and Hofes. Wohnstatt and Ackerland sind mit dem gehorten Markrecht als ein Ganzes betrachtet and ebenfalls Hufe genannt worden. Daher hat es immer nur so viele Berechtigungen gegeben, als vollberechtigte Häuser and Höfe in den Dorfschaften vorhanden waren. Mit den Hausern and Höfen hat indessen auch die Anzahl der Markre-chten gewechselt.Die Antheile an der gemeinen Mark and die Markberechtigungen waren ursprünglich in einer and derselben Mark verhältnissmäßig gleich groß. Die Größe der Berechtigung richtet sick wesentlich offenbar, wie die Größe des Besitztums selbst, nach dem Bedürfnisse eines jeden Genossen. Durch spätere Ansiedlungen, Veräußerungen and Theilungen hat sick jedoch dieser ursprüngliche Stand der Dinge gänzlich verändert. Dazu kamen nun noch die Veräußerungen and Theilungen der einzelnen Höfe and der mit ihnen getrennten Marktheile in halbe and viertels Were, in gauze, halbe, drittels, viertels and sechstels Gewelden and Rotten, dann die Vereinigung oft sehr vieler Marktheile in einer and derselben Hand, wodurch die ursprüngliche Gleichheit der Berechtigung völlig vernichtet worden ist. Dieser gänzlich veränderte Zustand führte zu neuen Anor-dnungen und Einrichtungen. Die Art and Weise der Benutzung der ungetheilten Mark wurde von der Gemeinde genau regulirt, die Größe der Rechtigung nicht mehr nach dem Bedürfnisse eines jeden Genossen, sondern ein für alle Mal bestimmt oder jedes Jahr wieder neu bestim-mt, oder auch auf ein bestimmtes Quantum fixirt.Beisassens Marknutzung war eine bloße Begünstigung. Erst seit dem 16ten and 17ten Jahrhundert, hat sich dieses geändert, indem nun in manchen Dorfern auch die Kotter and anderen Beisassen als Gemeinde-genossen betrachtet worden sind.

著者

小菅 芳太郎

出版者

Japan Legal History Association

雑誌

法制史研究 (ISSN:04412508)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.1958, no.8, pp.315a-316, 1958

著者

西川 洋一

出版者

Japan Legal History Association

雑誌

法制史研究 (ISSN:04412508)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.66, pp.379-384, 2017-03-30 (Released:2023-01-13)

被引用文献数

1

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

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

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

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

水林 彪々

出版者

Japan Legal History Association

雑誌

法制史研究 (ISSN:04412508)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.67, pp.201-209,en11, 2018-03-30 (Released:2023-11-30)

---

The Yamato Seiken(the Yamato Regime)existed from the 3rd to the 6th century typically known as the Keyhole-shaped-tumulus era. During this period, islands and regions of Japan were united as a nation/state for the first time. This symposium aimed to investigate the characteristics of the governmental system and gender in the Yamato Seiken by collaborating with archeologists and comparing the governmental systems of Yamato Seiken and other countries. As this was the first collaborative research between legal historians specializing in the study of national governmental systems, and archeologists, the symposium designed to develop a new image of history. Kazuo Hirose (Japanese Archeology) presented his conception of the “keyhole-shaped-tumulus nation” or the national governmental system of Yamato Seiken, which differs from the standard archeological view points and other existing writings on the topic. Akira Seike's (Japanese Archeology) talk, based on his latest archeological research on gender, discussed the prevalence of female rulers and empresses in the Yayoi/Tumulus era. By examining the works of Hirose and Seike, Takeshi Mizubayashi (Comparative Legal History) argued that the conventional understanding of the history of national governmental system and gender in the relevant era should be changed. Comments on the three presentations were made by the following four persons : Tetsuya Ohkubo (Japanese Archeology), Akiko Yoshie (Ancient Japanese History of Women), Akira Momiyama (Chinese Ancient History), Masaki Taguchi (German Legal History).

著者

佐々木 健

出版者

Japan Legal History Association

雑誌

法制史研究 (ISSN:04412508)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.67, pp.478-481, 2018-03-30 (Released:2023-11-30)