It has hitherto been a widely accepted view that sweeping rivision of the Election Law for the House of Representatives materialized under the 2nd Cabinet of Prime Minister Yamagata Aritomo (November 1898 to October 1900) as a result of the tie-up between the Yamagata and the political party Kensei-to, or as a measure to appease enterpreneurs in urban areas, a support base for the Kensei-to. As shown in the course of the Diet deliberations on the bill for the revision of the election law, Yamagata and his subordinates in the bureaucracy, not to mention the Kensei-to itself, did not expect to see a drastic revision of the election law. Especially for the Kensei-to, the proposed introduction in the election system of the unsigned ballot with single entry was anticipated to disrupt the party's established support base, and soon it was hardly an acceptable proposal. Nonetheless, the election law revision materialized because of influence-pedding by Yamagata's predecessor, Ito Hirobumi, who was in a position to associate Yamagata with the Kensei-to. At that time, Ito was set to organize a new political party of his own, and the revision of the election law was a premise for its realization. Therefore, Ito approached both Yamagata and the Kensei- to to seek their cooperation in enforcing the revision of the election law. (Indeed, similar election law bill was submitted to the Diet during the Ito's 3rd Cabinet). The Yamagata Cabinet complied with Ito's request out of the necessity to maintain ties with the Kensei-to for the sake of implementing various policy measures, including the planned rise in land taxes. The Kensei-to, which was considering participation in Ito's planned new political party, also complied. In the long run, the Yamagata Cabinet and the Kensei-to did move toward the realization of election law revision, although it was not necessarily a desirable measure for either.

View full abstract

It is commonly accepted that the Tujue (突厥) split into two nations-i.e. the Xi-Tujue (西突厥) and the Dong-Tujue (東突厥)-in 583. This theory is based mainly on the Suishu's (隋書) description; it is probable that the description is only an interpretation, since the term Xi-Tujue cannot found in the sources before the Shekui-kehan (射匱可汗) regime. In this paper descriptions about the origins of the Xi-Tujue in premodern Chinese history texts are analyzed from the viewpoint that they are interpretations. The conclusions drawn are as follows. The Suishu, including the opinion on Xi-Tujue origins, only says that the Xi-Tujue were established by Daluobian (大邏便) and that discord (隙) between Daluobian and Shetu (摂図) caused the split. It says no tnore. The Tongdian (通典) regards the appearance of the hostile military situation between the East and the West as the establishment of "Eastern and Western Parts" (東西部). Original Notes to the Tongdian considered this hostility the establishment of "Two Nations" (二国) and regards "Part" (部) as "Nation" (国). The Zizhitongjian (資治通鑑) says that the hostile military situation arose in 583 and the Daluobian declared Xi-Tujue in 585. It is the first to mention clearly when Xi-Tujue was established. Hu Sanxing (胡三省) agrees with the Zizhitongjian and identifies the discord with a series of events concerning the appearance of the hostile military situation. The Xintangshu (新唐書) considers the founder of Xi-Tujue to be Dianjue (〓厥) and maintains that its origin led to Tuwu (吐務), who was Dianjue's grandfather. The Jiutangshu (旧唐書) in its Tujue-zhuan's (突厥伝) beginning only says that the Xi-Tujue had a same ancestor (同祖) as the Bei-Tuiue (北突厥). Two reconstructions are assumed here. One is that the descriptions about Xi-Tujue's founding by Daluobian in earlier books was abridged by the Jiutanshu's editor. The other is that he had doubts about it, but he could give no concrete opinion. Either reconstruction is equally probable.

View full abstract

Mausolea known as sanryo 山陵 are not only imperial burial grounds, but also political monuments. The process by which such places became political monuments reflects the substantive character of the state at any time in history. In the present article, the author describes the structure and development of rituals related to such mausolea in ancient Japan, through an analysis of the first fruits ceremony, nosaki 荷前 , in order to make clearer tire role played by mausolea in legitimizing the ancient state. In the first section, the author reexamines the characteristic features of nosaki (offerings known as johei 常幣 and bekkohei 別貢幣) through an analysis of the appointment of related couriers to deliver offerings at the end of the ninth century. While reversing the current understanding that couriers were not appointed for johei offerings, he points out that there were actually two separate procedures in such appointments. Section two examines historically johei rituals instituted by the ritsuryo 律令 state. Mausolea, prior to the implementation of the ritsuryo codes, were monuments to the body of the ruler, which symbolized his political authority, and symbolized the ruler-subject relationship. On the occasion of reproducing or re-acknowledging ruler-subject relations, for example at imperial succession ceremonies, mausolea were important, but did not play a role in ordinary scheduled state ceremonial events. Under ritsuryo state policy, however, mausolea were expected to play the role of monuments for realizing a single line of imperial descent through the exhibition of a series of mausolea. And the performance of johei rituals for quardian spirits of the present emperor in this series expressed the foundation of the imperial status itself. By carrying out the first fruits ceremony with taxes in kind (cho 調) collected from the people, the ruler-subject relationship was also expressed. And, this new idea that spirits reside in the mausolea and the traditional idea that mausolea are commemorative monuments were fused together into the dairyo 大陵 system. In section three, the author takes up the latter half of eighth century, during which a transition occurred from ritsuryo to the Heian mausoleum rituals. The former concept of a single line of spirits of previous emperors embedded in the johei ceremony lost its normative significance, as the ceremony itself lost all substance. In its place, kinship consciousness based on the principle of filial piety (ko 孝) crept into the dairyo system, giving rise to proximately located mausolea (kinryo 近陵) and rituals geared towards ancestor worship. The Office of Royal Finance (kuraryo 内蔵寮), even initiated betsuhei 別幣 offerings at these mausolea, important for the private family of emperor. Section four is an attempt to show how kinship consciousness was then extracted from betsuhei offerings during the early konin 弘仁 era (812-24) and state ceremonies involving bekkohei with the political character of appointing couriers from high-ranked officials was instituted. This change was designed to refute the unique function of mausolea. The hachiryo and juryo systems 八陵制・十陵制 initiated in Tencho 1 天長元年 (824) put limits on which mausolea could be worshipped by regulating the certain number of couriers. But from Ten'an 2 天安二年 (858) with the initiation of the kinbo 近墓 graves system, the framework of the ritsuryo mausoleum system was fundamentally dismantled, as kinship norms were again emphasized, and with the peculiar purpose of exhibiting the status of the emperor within the relationship between the imperial and the Fujiwara family, positive attempts were made again to revive the function of mausolea as monuments. It was at this time that the grave of the founder of the Fujiwara family, Kamatari 鎌足, were restored. Nosaki, performed by the private will of Fujiwara regents, came to lose its positive role. Mausolea in ancient Japan were closely related to kingship and t

View full abstract