In this paper the author analyses the structure of the administrative district system (daiku-shoku system) and local assemblies in early Meiji Japan, focusing especially on their relationship.His main findings are : 1.In the case of Kumagaya Prefecture, administrative districts did not have their own administrative tasks or financial resources.They were only village groups.2.The prefectural assembly consisted of district headmen(hukukucho, who did not represent the people of the prefecture comprehensively or directly.Each member of the assembly represented each district, and because districts were village groups, assembly members needed to return to their districts to hear the opinions of village headmen (kocho) in order to respond to consultations with the prefectural government.3.However, village headmen, who were under the control of village commoners, often resisted the policies of the prefectural government and the district headmen.4.In order to overcome such a functional disorder, disctrict headmen and the prefectural government tried to set up a publicly elected prefectural assembly.Until now, the research on the local administrative district system has held that prefectural governments deprived village headmen of their function as representatives that they had duraing the Tokugawa period.The functional disorder of local assemblies has been explainted by such a deprivation of representation.However, the results of the present inquiry indicate that prefectural governments expected them to be representatives.The problem was that they failed to function as such, in spite of expectations.

View full abstract

This article examines the emperor's (goin後院), proprietorships and imperial land (chokushiden 勅旨田) from the ninth to the eleventh century, focusing on the function of the Suzaku朱雀 and Reizei冷泉 Goin and discussing goin proprietorships and chokushiden as private property belonging to the imperial family.As a result of her examination, the author concludes that up until the end of the tenth century, the "Office of the Goin(後院司) was not an established bureau.This instability ended during Emperor Ichijo's一条reign, up to which time the estates,etc.that the goin managed had been loosely held in common with imperial princes and the Minamoto family.In addition, when the Suzaku and Reizei Goin became the residences of the retired emperor, it was he (and his attendants)who then managed its property.Here we observe, the goin becoming independent and assuming he function of managing the wealth accumulated by each succeeding emperor, thus placing that wealth directly under imoerial management.On the other hand, by the reign of Emperor Go-Ichijo 後一条,a large amount of chokushiden, which began to be reclaimed during the eighth and the ninth century and which the emperor had been free to divide up and pass on to his descendants as private property, ceased to remain under his free prerogative ; and the part known as the retired emperor's (joko 上皇) chokushiden became large.therefore, chokushiden which the emperors habe inherited from generation to genaration had to managed by the bureau,at the same time that changes were talking place in he Pffice of the Goin.It was in this way that the retired emperor became a private landowner and strengthened his position as head pf the imperial household,while the emperor as the protector of property inherited upon enthronement, became more interested in the prestige and authority of that position.

View full abstract

In the late medieval period Japan, Zen temples expanded their shoen (estates) and contracted the management of estates of other temples and nobles.Up to this point, it has been a foregone conclusion that this was a result of individual Zen monks'skill in estate management.However, because estate management by Zen temples is seen extensively throughout the entire Zen Sect, it is essencial to consider not only the contribution of individual Zen monks but also the ways in which the Zen temple organizations participated in estate management.Thereupon, taking note of the "knowledge" transmitted among Zen priests within the Zen temples, the author of the article considers whether or not there was something included in this "knowledge" that was related to estate management skills, then the way in which this "knowledge" was comunicated by monks, and family how it was put into practice and applied to estate management.Unsho Ikkei雲章一慶, a priest of Tofukuji東福寺 temple, gave lectures regarding shingi(清規 regulations of the Zen Sect), and one of his disciples Togen Zuisen桃源瑞仙 recorded them in a book entitled Hajoshingi-sho百丈清規抄.In this work, there is description of shosu (荘主 overseers of Zen temples' estates), who were normally monks.This description is based on an actual case in which Tofukuji temple dismissed in 1444 the shosu of Kambara-go 上原郷 in Bicchu 備中.It shows the ways in which it was neccessary for the shosu to cooperate with shugo 守護 when undertaking estate management.Therefore, this is indicative of the fact that within the knowkedge transmitted among the Zen monks there was indeed something included that pertained toestate management.In those days there were many lectures on Confucial learning given at Zen temples, includings the lectures on Hajoshingi by Unsho Ikkei.In addition to Zen priests, court officials like Kiyohara Naritada 清原業忠, known as a master of Confucian learning, attended these lectures.As a result, they were able to exchange not only Confucian knowledge but also such practical knowledge as estate management skills.For ezample, the Zen monks who attended the Confucian lectures by Unsho Ikkei collaborated with Nakahara Yasutomi 中原康富, who was a court offical and a student of Kiyohara Naritada, in the administration of the latter's estate.The author concluded that Zen temples were able to ezpand their estate management activites because they had a system in which Zen priests learned practical knowledge was result of the interchange between the Zen monks and court officials.

View full abstract

The Prussian government sent a mission to East Asia between 1860 and 1862 headed by Prussian Count Eulenburg, for the purpose of establishing diplomatic relations with Japan, CHina (Qing Dynasty) and Siam (Thaialnd).This Eulenburg Mission (the Prussian Expedition to East Asia) is known as the originator of the German view of East Asia, and was the first diplomatic move that Prussia made on behalf of "Germany",expect for Austria.The present article reconsiders the historical meaning of the Mission in the context of history of German unification, since it has been interpreted merely within the framework of the history of the two parties : Germany, on one hand and each of the East Asian states, on the other.The author attempts to clarify the hopes and the responses to this event among Prussian liberals who took the lead in discussing german Unification at that time, based on Koelnische Zeitung and the official records of Prussian parliamentary proceedings.She makes clear that the experiences of the Mission contributed very much to deepeng the discussion about the future of "Germany" among them.They highly estimated the meaning that this event could have in "German" national politics as the first foreign policy based on the Lesser German prnciple.However, by establishing diplomatic relations with the three East Asian states, they recognized that as long as they maintained existing "German"institutions, the human rights of "Germans" might be violated in such area as East Asia, where the principle of personalism was being applied to Europeans and Americans.Thereafter, the German Question came to be discussed in consideration of overseas "Germans" and related laws began to be passed.Although it was eventually the militry conquest of "Germany" by Bismarck that quickly solved such problems, the encounter between the Mission and East Asia also played an important role in the development of the German unification problem, this way.

View full abstract