Obwohl im Sachsenspiegel das Landrecht als das Recht over iewelkes mannes hals (od. lif) unde over egen definiert ist (Lnr. 69 §8 u. Ldr. III 52 §2), ist bisher nur wenig über das Eigen geforscht worden. In diesem Aufsatz soil das normative Wesen des Eigens aufgrund des Befundes im Sachsenspiegel geklärt werden.
Einerseits erweist sich das Eigen als Grund and Boden, der dem Inhaber egen ist and eigentlich von Vätern auf Nachkommen zu vererben ist. Ständisch gehört dessen Inhaber vor allem zu den Schöffen-barfreien. Er verfügt zudem fiber die Herrschaft über Leibeigene and Zinsbauer. Wenn es von außen gewaltig angegriffen wird, darf es dessen Inhaber seinerseits mit Gewalt verteidigen. Das Eigen stellt also sozusagen Keim der Herrschaft dar, es Iiegt ursprünglich außerhaib der Welt des Rechts.
Andererseits erscheint das Eigen im Sachsenspiegel als etwas, was bereits gewissermaßen vom Recht ergriffen and in das Recht (bes. in das Gericht) eingefügt ist. Besonders wichtig ist dabei, daß das "Recht" des Inhabers eine unentbehrliche Voraussetzung des Eigenbesitzes bildet. Wenn dessen Inhaber ein Verbrechen begangen hat and vor dem Gericht als rechtlos erklärt wird, muß er auch sein Eigen verlieren. Dahinten steht das wachsende Interesse für den Frieden wie das neue System der peinlichen Strafe, die von der Friedensbewegung ins Leben gerufen worden ist. Im Sachsenspiegel kommt der Gerichtsbezirk des Grafen, der caber den Blutbann verfügt, sogar als das Land im Sinne der Rechts-und Friedensgemeinschaft vor.
So kann man endlich einsehen, daß der Schliissel zur Erfassung der normativen Struktur sowohl des Eigens als auch des ganzen Landrechts bereits in der Definition des Landrechts durch den Spiegier selbst längst ganz genau angeboten worden ist.

View full abstract

Tojo, or outer-castle, system in Satsuma is unique in Japan under the Baku-Han Regime. The system was the basic unit in Satsuma's social structure. The system survived the enforcement of "Genna-no-ikkoku-ichijorei" (Order of Bakufu restricting the number of castles to one in each han). This paper is an attempt to give an account of the process of its establishment and consider the implications of the functions of such a system of social organization on Satsuma's internal and external policy.
Tojo-system was a social institution with decentralized military deployment. Under this system Shimazu, the feudal Lord of Satsuma, divided its territory into 113 districts. The administrative functions were performed by the distinctive samurai-group headed by jito. The office of jito was called "jito-kariya", and the zone of residence for the samurai group was named "funioto". The jito was entitled to serve as the commander who could mobilize the samurai group to form an army corp at an emergency. In Satsuma all the samurai, except for about 5, 000 Kagoshima jokashi (the castle town samurai), resided in fumoto living on farming. Those samurai were earlier called Tojo-shuju, or goshi later. The Tojo zones were not the same as those in the age of the Warring States. Most of them were settled in the early part of the Tokugawa Era under the new system that had replaced the older one.
The Tojo-system was constructed incrementally in the process of Shimazu's integration of three shu, or provinces: Satsuma, Osumi and Hyuga. There is some reasonable ground for identifying the year of the establishment of this system as around the fifth year of Keicho (1600).
The Shimazu family founded its dictatorship in 1600 after the long battles that ravaged the area since 1526 when Takahisa succeeded the dynasty. The Shimazu successively conquered the antagonistic local clans in the domain, with the final battle ending in the defeat of Ijuin Kogan (Shonai-no-ran, 1599-1600).
Around the mid-1590s Toyotomi Hideyoshi, the Grand Warrior Lord of the nation, ordered a land survey (1594-1595), which benefited the Shimazu as they conducted-a large-scale replacement of the leading vassals to achieve their hegemony.
As a step toward integration the Shimazu started to build new Tojo as well as to re-arrange the existing ones throughout the territories. Because of their strategic importance the Tojo at the border, such as Izumi on the gateway to Higo, Okuchi to Kuma, and Takaoka and Shibushi to Hyuga, commanded Shimazu's most serious attention. Shimazu placed his most trusted and influential samurai heads to those places where they promoted drastic social reforms and set up a strict control system for the trans-border traffic.

View full abstract

In earlier studies about judicial divorces before the enforcement of the Meiji Civil Code, on the one side, survive of custom of "Arbitrary divorce by husband" (_??__??__??__??__??_) has been emphasised, however the highly appraisal of the Proclamation No. 162 and No. 247 of "Dajokan"(_??__??__??_) which recognized the right of wife to sue for divorce.
It is true that causes of divorce in "Ukagai-Shirei" (_??_·_??__??_) (inquiries from the prefectures and instructions by the government) were very restrictive; when husband was not "Adopted son-in-law" (_??__??__??_), recognized causes were only (1) Disappearance more than two years of husband (2) Punishment of penal servitude or grave imprisonment more than one year of husband (3) Disappearance of wife.
But as for judicial divorces of the District Court in Kyoto (_??__??_[_??__??_·_??__??_]_??__??__??_), sources of decisions were not merely "Ukagai-Shirei"; when husband was not "Adopted son-in-law", causes of judicial divorces were (1) Punishment of husband (include of penal servitude or grave imprisonment less than one year) (2) Violence and cruelty to wife by her husband (3) Adulty of husband (4) Disappearance of wife (5) Adulty and punishment of wife (6) Misconduct of wife. We think that as sources of decisions, the Old Civil Code of 1890 (_??__??__??_) and French Civil Code of 1804 or 1884 were occasionally applied.
However, we can't be maintained that the custom of "Arbitrary divorce by husband" was wholly vanished in the Former Meiji Era.
For the number of suit for divorce from husband was very few and there were many cases that turned out against wife who had suited for divorce because of violence and cruelty by her husband.

View full abstract