After the publishment of "The Nihon Fudosan Senyuron" (1952) by Prof. Ryosuke Ishii, it occurred the famous argument called ‘The Chigyo Dispute’ which Prof. Kenji Maki and Prof. Shinzo Takayanagi raised against the Ishii-theory. In this treatise I intend to investigate about the dispute, deeply concerned with the character of ‘chigyo’ in the middle age of Japan.
(1) Dispute between Ishii and Maki
Points under discussion are to be divided into three items as follows: a) Whether the character of ‘chigyo’ can be considered as "possession" or not;
While Prof. Ishii considered ‘chigyo’ as possession, Prof. Maki regarded it as the authorized control over the land. When both of these viewpoints resulted in the problem of the existence or nonexistence of illegal ‘chigyo’, Ishii-theory, acknowledging its existence, led Maki-theory which denied it, besides the former was more suitable to historical facts. From this limited viewpoint, however, we have to recognize that it is the other question whether we can directly make conclusion about the propriety of "Chigyo=possession theory".
b) Whether ‘to-chigyo’ (_??__??__??_, the present chigyo) recorded in the Act 8 of "Goseibaishikimoku" was originally written as ‘fu-chigyo’ (_??__??__??_, the un-chigyo) or not;
Though a word ‘to-chigyo’ had be written in the Act 8 of "Goseiba-ishikimoku", Prof. Ishii understood it must be originally written as ‘fuchigyo’, and therefore, the Act 8 had prescribed on the negative prescription. On the contrary, Prof. Maki accepted that the word ‘to-chigyo’ had been written in the original text. I don't think such an issue is worth arguing.
c) On the etymology of ‘chigyo’;
Prof. Maki intended to explain the essential character of ‘chigyo’ from the viewpoint of its etymology, but Prof. Ishii didn't attach importance to this point. While the former understood that the word ‘chigyo’ meant ‘business’ (_??__??_) which had originated in the Ritsuryo Code, the latter took it as ‘profit’ (_??__??_) . Since I think that the word ‘chigyo’ was the unified conception of ‘business’ and ‘profit’, and that ‘profit’ was always founded on ‘business’, it can be said that the viewpoint of Prof. Maki, emphasizing business-side of ‘chigyo’, is superior. However ‘chigyo’ in the middle age must not be simply combined to that of Ritsuryo.
As I mentioned above, I agree with Ishii-theory on the first item, and at the same time, with'Maki-theory on the third. But I never take the compromise between Ishii and Maki theories, for the first item belongs to the problem of essence while the third of origin. I rather want to point out the undeniable fact that ‘chigyo’ in the middle age shows an aspect of ‘business’ in both sides of the essence and the origin, though leaving room for illegal elements. Such a complicated feature of ‘chigyo’ comes from circumstances throughout the formation of feudalism in Japan; the feudal system in Japan was deeply connected with the Ritsuryo system when it came into existence under the provincial situation—the development of lord system in manors. In other words, the formation of feudalism in Japan contained both of the authorized and illegal factors from the standpoint of the Ritsuryo State. Therefore it is not proper only to emphasize the continuity from the Ritsuryo system to the feudal, as well as to separate them. After all, it is necessary to unify both of these two elements—continuity and separation between the Ritsuryo system and the feudal system.

View full abstract

On dit que, vue sous l'angle de l'influence du droit romain, la France se situe pour ainsi dire au juste milieu entre l'Angleterre et l'Allemagne. D'une part, elle est entrée-comme l'Angleterre-en contact avec ce droit dèjà à l'époque des glossateurs, et, par l'opposition au pays d'Outre-Manche, eut l'expérience d'une espèce de réception. D'autre part cependant, en faisant face à l'offensif de ce droit universel, elle réussit à y mettre un frein et à conserver une très considérable partie de son droit coutumier, perfectioné et affiné, it est vrai, par la technique et les conceptions du droit romain. Y n'a-t-elle pu arriver l'Allemagne, qui a subi ce qu'on appelle «la Réception in complexu du droit romain.»
Pourquoi cet heureux développement du droit en France? Il va sans dire que ses origines sont complexes, et que l'on ne doit pas chercher une unique raison quelqu' elle soit. Mais à ce point, très importante fut l'attitude du roi de France qui fut obligé de se montrer nettement négatif par rapport au droit romain. Car, là se pose le délicat problème de l'autonomie politique en face du Saint-Empire romain.
La Renaissance bolonaise devait donner aux gens du Moyen Age la conscience de vivre à I'âge romain, et pour eux Rome se survit dans l'Empire, continué par le Germanique. Et les Empereurs d'Allemagne, s'appuyant sur les textes du droit romain et sur les glossateurs, prétendit qu'ils devaient être regardé comme«dominus mundi» et que l'autorité du droit romain, considéré comme celui des Empereurs, devait être universel, étant donné que «Unum esse ius, cum unum sit imperium.»
Mais I'essor des Nationalités vint à contester surtout au-XIIIe siècle leur prétention qui réclame que les souverains nationaux subsunt vel subesse devent romano imperio. C'est un des grands conflits idéalogiques du Moyen Age, dont Tissue est la formation de la notion de «la souveraineté».
Le roi de France, en particulier, dans le royaume duquel toute une region (dite peys de droit écrit) suivait le droit romain, voyait se poser la question diflicile de savoir: comment opposer à l'Empereur l'autonomie de son royaume? et comment concilier le droit romain et la coutume? C'est cette attitude des Capétiens, de Philippe-Anguste à Philippe-le-Bel, que nous avons étudiée dans cet article.

View full abstract

Haishakukin means the loan without interest which, as a financial aid, Edo-bakufu lent to Daimyos _??__??_, Hatamotos _??__??_, Jinjas _??__??_ temples and peasants. In this article, the author examine especially the Haishakukin lent to Daimyos, in order to investigate a relation between the Bakufu and the Hans.
Every Daimyo, without regard to his status to Shogun _??__??_, was equally qualified for Haishakukin. The amount of Haishakukin was different according to the largeness of his fief and his office in the Bakufu. The term of Haishakukin was ordinarily for ten years.
It was not the obligation but the favor for the Bakufu to lend Haishakukin. In order to get Haishakukin, Daimyos had to send in written applications to the Bakufu, explaining their financial difficulties and begging a favor. The applications were examined and decided by Kanjobugyos _??__??__??__??_, Rojus _??__??_ and Shogun. On examining and deciding them, they customarily adhered to precedents. In other words, if there was a precedent, the Bakufu almost always granted an application. But if there was no precedent, the Bakufu either granted or refused it at its discretion, although it was the rule for the Bakufu to refuse it. Therefore we may say that the Bakufu dealt with the applications at will through both precedents and discretions.
By these seemingly free and unrestricted means, the Bakufu carried through its definite policy for financial aid. The main purpose of Haishakukin was to ensure the due performance of offices of the Daimyos who were the officers of the Bakufu, and to favor the Tsuzukigara-Daimyos_??__??__??__??_—the Daimyos who were related to the Shogun's family. The Bakufu also lent Haishakukin to the common Daimyos, as a financial aid for the relief of disaster, the performance of Tenpu _??__??_ and the discharge of Goyo _??__??_. Thus, it is the concluding remark of this article that it was the aim of Haishakukin for the Bakufu to maintain the regime of governing union of feudal lords, the top of which was Shogun, through a financial support to Daimyos with its mighty power and great financial ability.

View full abstract

Das Kiriji-ho (_??__??__??_ Lehnsgutsabteilungssystem) in Saga Clan (_??__??__??_) wurde im 2. Genroku (_??__??_) (1689) bestimmt. Eigentlich war es ein Burgsystem des Feudal Herrn für seine Belehnten.
Wenn ein Samurai (der Belehnte) dem Cho-nin (Händler) auf den Gutsbesitz Geld leihen wollte, sollte er die Bewilligung seines Herrn bekommen, denn der Gutsbesitz war nicht sein eigen, sondern das vom
Suzerän belehnte Gut. Der Feudal Herr ubernahm sich dann einen Teil des Gutes und gab dafur dem Händler die Versicherung zur Schuldab-zahlung seines Untertanen. Einen solchen Teil des Gutes nannte man “Kiriji”(_??__??_).
Später aber wurde das System auch auf die Zurückzahlung des “Kami-shaggin” (_??__??__??_ vom Suzerän geliehenes Geld) und “Gochiso-mai” (_??__??__??__??_ Reisbeisteuerung) angewandt; und in dieser Sache wurde lieber Kiriji befohlen.
Unter den Belehnten gab es später viele, die ihre ganzen Lehnsgüter als Kiriji unter Regierung des Herrn legten. Dies nannte man “Kami-shihai” (_??__??__??_ Oberbeherrschung), und solchen Belehnten wurden die minimalen Lebensmittel als “Sozoku-mai” (_??__??__??_) versorgt. Solches abgeteilte Gut oder Oberbeherrschungsgut wurde vorläufig ein außerord-entliches “Kurairechi” (_??__??__??_ Oberaufsichtsgebiet) gemacht.
Der Grundsteuer für Kuraire-chi war viel härter als der im Lehnsgut, und also fiel es den Bauern des Belehnten Gutes bescherlich, daß ihre Äcker Kiriji oder Kami-shihai gemacht wurden.
Im 6. Bunka (_??__??_) (1809) war das Oberbeherrschungssystem ganz aufgegeben und Gutsbesitze waren den Belehnten zurückgegeben. Aber weiter war es den Belehnten gestattet, sich bei Eigenbeherrschung (_??__??__??__??_ Jibun-shihai) um Sozoku-mai zu bewerben.
Als die Armut der Samurais trotz der Bürgschaft des Clans weiter fortschritt, hatte der Clan manchmal die Bezahlungsfrist aufzuschieben befohlen, und deshalb batten die Verleiher zum Schadenersatz die Zinsen gesteigert oder das ganze Lehnsgut sich in Verwahrung genommen, sozusagen “Ginnushi-shihai” (_??__??__??__??_ Kreditortum).

View full abstract

Under Baku-Han Regime in Tokugawa Era, there existed a peculiar superintendent system. There were superintendent officers called "METSUKES" both in Tokugawa Shogunate and in all Hans (Clans). Metsuke of the Tokugawa Shogunate superintended its own direct vassals and all Daimyos namely feudal lords who reigned over their Hans. Every Daimyo has his own metsuke to superintend and control his feudal vassals and to maintain law and order in his feudal territory.
This paper is an inquiry into "Metsuke system" in Hachinohe-Han and consists of five parts as follows.
1. Preface.
2. The Outline of Hachinohe-Han.
3. The Superintendent System (metsuke system) in Hachinohe-Han.
4. The Task of metsuke in Hachinohe-Han.
5. Closing remarks.
Hachinohe-Han was one of the minor Hans. As for the ruling system of Hachinohe-Han, the feudal0 lord had a few ministers called "KAROS". Under karos, there were three kinds of top-class officials called Sanyaku. Most of the important matters in the Han were virtually decided and carried out by Sanyaku. Among Sanyaku, metsuke's duty or task was various and covered the widest range.
Metsuke's task in Hachinohe-Han can be divided into two parts;
First, Metsuke investigated and inspected the vassals including all the officials appointed from among the vassals both in their private and in their public lives, discovered good and evil of them, exposed their misdeeds, therefore, Metsuke held the practical power of reward and punishment for them and of personnel management of them.
Really Metsuke was the pivot of vassal control in this Han. His duty or task in legal field, should be paid attention to. He issued various laws and ordinances to the vassals and to the common people in the territory. In legal questions, he examined laws and prejudications and tried to keep uniformity of the construction of las and ordinances in this Han.
Secondly, he issued laws and ordinances to the common people as described above. He inspected all the territory, investigated crimes, punished criminals. He can be said to have been a procuratorial official and at the same time a judge both in criminal and civil trials.
Metsuke was both an executive and judicial official and this was the remarkable characteristic of Metsuke.

View full abstract

Up to this time, many legal historians have been inclined to neglect the problem about the official control over the Buraku (the peoples as the lowest class) in the Tokugawa era. But, nowadays it is admitted that the serious social problem about the Buraku origins in the Bakuhan regime. So that we must go back to the Tokugawa era in order to resolve the very today's problem about the Buraku. See "The Japan Annual of Law and Politics" (Science Council of Japan, No. 21 1973). Now, not a few scholars in the United States of America, make a plan to study this problem in their own ways.
In my brief paper, I would like to introduce the materials for history; that is the laws and ordinances of the Bakufu and the Han (the local authorities under the shogunate, the Daimyo).

View full abstract