In this paper, the author considered the significance of the Drakon's legislation in 624 B. C. for the formation of Athenian democracy. There is little information about the content of his legislation, but fortunately we have fragments of his law on homicide which the inscription of 409/8 B. C. and the orations of Demosthenes have handed down to us. On the examination of these fragments, the author reached the following conclusions.
(1) Before the legislation of Drakon, there existed two kinds of court of homicide according to the status of a murderer. If he belonged to an aristocratic family, the council of the Areiospagos tried the case, but if he was a commoner, the basileus tried the case by himself in the court of Prytaneion.
(2) Drakon divided the concept of homicide into intentional, unintentional and lawful according to the intent of a murderer. In the case of unintentional and lawful homicide, he abolished old legal procedures and established new court of ephetai which tried the case.
(3) The meaning of Drakon's legislation for the history of Athenian democracy were the clarification of the frame of citizen-body in the sphere of law and the first promotion of equality within it by establishing new court of ephetai.

View full abstract

Es ist die Aufgabe dieser Abhandlung, die Heeresverfassung in den absolutistischen neueren Territorien unter dem Gesichtspunkt von Sta-atsverfassung zu betrachten und, damit die Verfassung der neueren Territorien dadurch aufzuhellen. O. Hintze, der 'einen nun schon klassisch gewordenen welthistorischen Aufriß der Frage' gab, insbesondere, sein Schüler Fr. Hartung und E. R. Huber betonten, aufgrund ihrer Forschun-gen des preußischen Heeres, das außerhalb der Staatsverfassung gebil-dete stehende Heer als das geschichtliche Moment, das den absolutistischen Staat von dem Ständestaat scheidete.
Aber die Heeresverfassung dieser Zeit hatte m. E. den dualistischen System von beruflichem stehendem Heer für den öffentlichen Krieg and Ausschußtruppen für die Landesdefension. Daher ist sie die neuere Hee-resverfassung zwischen der vom Mittelalter his die Mitte des 17. Jahr-hunderts und der des stehenden Volksheeres aufgrund allgemeiner Wehr-pflicht im 19. Jahrhundert.
[I] Berufliches stehendes Heer: (i) Landesherr überwältigte damit die materielle Zwangsgewalt der Landsässigen, doch seine Erhaltung war sehr schwierig wegen unsicherer finanzieller Grundlage. (ii) In 'territorio clauso' (Kurbayern) waren die höheren Offiziere zum größten Teile mit adeligen Ausländern besetzt, und das Heer war bier von zivilen Zentral-behörden gekommandiert. In 'territorio non clauso' (Kurmainz) war die Erhaltung des Heeres stark abhängig von Personalunion and Reichsver-fassung.
[II] Ausschußtruppen: (i) Verfassungsgeschichtlich wichtiger waren Ausschußtruppen mit Friedensübungen, womit Landesherr seine Unter-tanen unmittelbar ergreifen konnte. Diese Truppen als ein System brachte die 'Heeresreform' des späten 16. Jahrhunderts, deren Stützen in "Moti-ven" des Grafen Johanns VII. von Nassau 1594/95 verkörpert wurden. Sie hat geschichtliche Bedeutung darin, daß das Ethos, die Interessen des Landes and schließlich Landesherrn den anderen vorzuziehen, in ganze Heimat der Ausgewählten durchdrang and die zivilen Zentral- und besonders Amtsbehörden die Ausschußtruppen kommandierten. (ii) Beide Territorien zeigen aber die verfassungsgeschichtlichen Unterschieden deu-tlicher. In 'territorio clauso' bestand der landständische Dualismus unter Monarchie aufgrund der sogenannten Hofmarksrechte. In 'territorio non clauso' lag der Kompromißdualismus von Landesherrn and 'fremdem' reichsunmittelbarem Adel klar, aufgrund des inkonsequent Aufstiegs zur Reichsunmittelbarkeit der landsässigen Adel. Als Amtmann stützte hier der letztere das Fürstentum, der dennoch starken Widerstand gegen die Wehrpflicht seiner Untertanen leistete.

View full abstract

Under the litigation system of the Kamakura-Bakufu, “HIKITSUKE(_??__??_), ” founded in 1249(_??__??__??__??_), was an organ of great significance. It countinued to exist until the fall of the Bakufu Government. During this period, however, it was twice provisionally abolished.
The purpose of this article is to explain how the litigation system during the latter half of the Kamakura-Bakufu period operated; to examine the implications of direct judgments by the "SHIKKEN-REN-SHO (_??__??_·_??__??_)" on important cases; and to examine the political background concerning the two occasions in which "HIKITSUKE" was abolished (the first abolishment in 1266 to 1269 (_??__??__??__??_-_??__??_) and the second in 1293 to 1294(_??__??__??_-_??__??_). After the re-establishment of "HIKITSUKE" in 1294, important cases were again subject to direct judgments of "SHIKKEN-RENSHO." This condition may be brought to light through analyzing "EININ-SANNENKI (_??__??__??__??__??_), " a valuable document which provides information on the situation of that period.
From our analysis, we may conclude that the two abolishments that occurred did not lead to any simplification of the litigation system. Speedy trials were disposed of by way of direct judgments handed down by TOKUSO (_??__??_) through his direct command of the "MONCHUJO (_??__??__??_)" (which had expanded its jurisdictional authority) in 1266, and by his intervention in trial proceedings in 1293. After the re-establishment of "HIKITSUKE" in 1294, TOKUSO---with the support of some of the members of "HIKITSUKE"---was presumably influential on important cases.
Lastly, as to the management of the situation after the re-establishment of the "HIKITSUKE, " an analysis of those members present at the "HIKITSUKE" and evaluation proceedings suggests that the Osaragi Family played an important role.

View full abstract

In the Kai-huang _??__??_ period of the Sui dynasty (581-618), the lu-zhi _??__??_ had two major divisions: the lu-zhi for the jing-guan _??__??_ and the lu-zhi for the wai-guan _??__??_. There were three principles for determining the amount of lu _??__??_ that the wai-guan received.
Whereas the jing-guan was paid his lu according to his zhi-shipin _??__??__??_, the wai-guan received his lu based on his position in the zhou-jun-xian jiu-deng-zhi _??__??__??__??__??__??_ (essentially a nine-rank system based on the administrative districts of zhou "province", jun "prefecture" and xian "county"). This was the first principle.
As for the second principle, we come to find that the wai-guan had a higher lu than the jing-guan even though their zhi-shi-pin be equal. We can call this wai-guan you-yu _??__??__??__??_, or the "principle of favoring the wai-guan".
In order to prevent the wai-guan from receiving too much lu, however, a third principle was employed to limit the amount. Though the wai-guan received more lu than the jing-guan of the same rank (in the zhi-shi-pin "status" system), he could not receive more than the jing-guan who was two ranks higher. We can call this limitation you-yu xian-ding _??__??__??__??_, or the "principle of limiting the favored".
Though we do not possess documents stating how much lu the chang-shi _??__??_ and si-ma _??__??_ received, we can make close approximations by considering their rank in the zhi-shi-pin system and by applying the three principles we have analysed above.
The Kai-huang period lu-zhi was later reformed and a new lu-zhi for the jing-guan was also established in the Daye _??__??_ period. This lu-zhi continued and was in effect throughout the former half of the Tang dynasty (618-907), though there were some changes. In addition, the lu-zhi for the wai-guan in the Tang dynasty showed great differences from that in the Sui dynasty.

View full abstract