The single most important political task tackled by the Japanese ruling elite during the second decade of Meiji was that of consolidating a new political and administrative system based on a national constitution. This system would qualify Japan as a modern nation-state. In the process of carrying out this task, however, the elite was sharply divided as to which particular western counry would make an ideal model on which to base Japan's efforts at nation-building and unifying the people.
It is safe to say that the young intellectual bureaucrats and their associations played an extremely imporant role in disseminating and propagating new social and political ideas in Japan.
At this point it is important to note that as the introduction of Western, mainly German, theories of law and political science got underway, a parallel and complementary attempt was made to delve into ancient Japanese statutes and ordinances, classical Japanese literature and history books compiled by the Imperial Court. The aim was to reorganize peculiarly Japanese thoughts on law and politics into a coherent system. Generally speaking, many Japanese sought after their national identification as the westernization went on.
By the way, to disseminate Western knowledge to the majority of Japanese, anchoring the new social, political and legal systems deep in Japaneses society, other means of propagation were indispensable. Important among these was popular entertainment. And the traditional popular entertainment arts, especially rakugo and kodan, were not only mobilized from above; they were also used as an important means of mass politicization by the movement for democratic rights, which became prominent after the eighth year of Meiji.
An extremely influential popular entertainer active in the dissemination of poliical thought and whose career reflected the socio-political climate of early Meiji most vividly was the storyteller Matsubayashi Hakuen, San-yutei Encho and Kairakutei Burakku (Black the Epic-urian).
This research tries to clarify how closely popular entertainment was related to the political and legislative environments of the time.

View full abstract

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.

View full abstract

The Edo Period State (Bakuhan System) was a feudal state based on the lord-vassal bond existing between the Shogun and Daimyos. In this system, the Tokugawa family was the acknowledged head of the warrior class, and exercised rights of national rule. However, within their own domains the Daimyos were allowed considerable "autonomy" (Jibun shioki-ken), giving the power structure of the Edo Period State a tiered, two-dimensional character. Also, besides the warrior class who held the actual power, the class of court aristocrats also continued to exist as a potentially legitimate claimant to wield real power. This situation resulted in introducing into the Edo Period State a complicated and potentially unstable element from its outset.
The Daimyo's "Rusu'i" (Edo Representative; lit. "Caretaker") were the Han officials charged with staying on a permanent basis in Edo to maintain liaison and conduct negociations with the Bakufu, as part of the Daimyo's demonstration of their loyalty to the Bakufu. These Edo Representatives were familiar with the protocol and ceremonial of the Bakufu, and remained well-informed on its interal matters, so that the Daimyo's execution of their duties to the Bakufu was completely dependent on the advice and guidance of these Representatives, and the fate of each Han hang on the ability of its Edo Representatives. However, over and above this, the Edo Representatives, because of their unique role, were in a position to determine the fate of the Bakufu's own authority. That the Kyoto Court in the late Edo Period was able to gain the power exceeding that of the Bakufu was due in large to the efforts of these Representatives.

View full abstract

Mit Jean Bodin trat ein politischer Denker der Ubergangszeit auf, der eine umfassende Staatsphilosophie entwickelte, welche sich an der Wirklichkeit der neuen souveranen Staates orientierte, ohne aber traditionelle Begriffe der "societas civilis sive res publica" nun einmal aufgegeben zu werden. Indem man den Begriff der "puissance souveraine" einfuhrt, löst sich diese ältere nach dem Polis-Modell gebildete Auffassung der "burgerlichen Gesellschaft" auf, eine "politische Gesellschaft", in der die Regierten mit den Regierenden als Staatsbürger (politer, cives) ebenburtig sind. Dennoch bleibt bei Bodin dieser klassische Begriff der "societas civilis", Gemeinschaft der Hausherren als hominum sui iuris, bestehen, soweit es sich auf die innere Struktur der "communaute gouvernee par puissance souveraine" (=republique) bezieht. Diese Sachlage kommt vor allem an dem charakteristischen Verfas-sungsbegriff der "cite" (Six Livres de la Republique, 1, 6) zum Ausdruck, eine öffentliche Sphare namlich, in welcher der "chef de famille, en sortant de sa maison ou it commande" mit anderen Hausherren "en titre de compagnon, pair et associe" fiber die öffentlichen Angelegenheiten verhandelt. Bei der "cite" handelt es sich urn eine politisch-rechtliche Landschaft, wie den "bailliage" in dern demaligen Frankreich, die aus manchen families (communautes naturelles) and Corps et Collèges (communautes civiles) besteht and mit denselben loix et coustumes regiert wird. In der "cité", die sich somit von der "ville" (Gemeinschaft der bourgeois) eindeutig unterscheidet, erscheint der "chef de famille" als "citoyen", der nichts anders als "le franc sujet tenant de la souve-rainete d'autrui" ist. Der "citoyen" genießt immer einige Privilegien, die sich besonders in der Rechtsfahigkeit zu verschiedenen zivilen Korperschaften ausdri cken, and diese einseitig zu beseitigen bedeute Entartung von république als "droit gouvernement de plusieurs menages, et de ce qui leur est commun, avec puissance souveraine" zu einer barbarischen, Tyrannie, wenn auch die Privilegien nunmehr prinzipiell von Genehmigungen des Souverans abhangt.
Strukturgeschichtlich gesehen, reflektiert das Staatsbild Bodins jene historische Entwicklung seit dem Spatmittelalter, die Auflosung der mittelalterlichen "Herrschaft" als Einheit von "dominium" and "imperium", welche Konzentrierung der "offentlichen" Verwaltung in dem souveränen Staat einerseits and Herausbildung des "privaten" Eigentums bei "citoyens" anderseits zur Folge hat. Als Bodin das Eigentum jedes Hausherrn (citoyen) vor dem Eingriff der Staatsgewalt im Namen der "lox de Dieu" oder "loi naturelle" zu verteidigen suchte and damit das Steuerbewilligungsrecht der Standeversammlung konse-quent unterstiitzte, vertrat er auf dem Gebiet der politischen Philosophie solche Verfassungslage der Übergangszeit vom europäischen Mittelalter zur Neuzeit.

View full abstract

In der Ritsuryo-Zeit besteht "Shayu" aus den folgenden drei Arten der Begnadigung: "Sha", "Kou"und "Bettchokuhomen."
(1) "Sha" bedeutet das Straferlass von Verbrechern unbeachtet des Verurteilten oder Noch-nicht-verurteilten. Dies unterscheidet man zwischen "Josha" and "Hijosha." In der "Ritsuryo" gab es manche wichtigen Verbrechen, die im Fall des ordentlichen Straferlasses ("Josha") nicht erlassen werden, aber im Fall des ausserordentlichen Straferlasses ("Hijosha") erlassen werden sollen.
Wenn "Josha" im ganzen Land durchgefuhrt wird, heisst es "Taisha" (Amnestie). Wenn "Josha" im einem bestimmten Landteile durchgefuhrt wird, heisst es "Kyokusha." Übrigens gab es Fälle, in denen nur die Gefangenen oder die mit der Zwangsarbeit überladenen Sträflingen erlassen werden sollen. "Hijosha" soil nur im ganzen Land durchgefuhrt werden.
(2)"Kou" ist Strafmilderung, die gegebenfalls im ganzen Land durchgefuhrt werden oder die Strafe der bestimmten Personen mildern soil.
(3)"Bettchokuhomen" bedeutet, dass dies durch die besondere Gnade von "Tenno" (Kaiser) die Strafe der bestimmten Gruppen oder Personen erlassen soil. Im Fall des "Bettchokuhomen" kann der Kaiser, ungebunden von den Vorschriften des "Ritsuryo"s, beliebig erlassen.
Im jeden Fall von "Sha", "Kou" and "Bettchokuomen" soil die Begn-adigung durch kaiserliches Reskript durchgefuhrt werden.

View full abstract