This article analyzes how Emperor Meiji participated in the process of political decision-making during the early years of his reign by looking mainly at his role in document between from after Sanjo Sanetomi 三条実美 was inaugurated as chief minister of state (Daijodaijin 太政大臣) in 1871 until 1873. Under the government reforms of 1871, there was a design to assume the Emperor the person of last approval among the planner of political system reform. But the approval act of the Emperor was not codify then, it was carry out not an arbitrator as a recognizer when a political system was reformed again in May, 1873. In this time, the approval of the Emperor was named "Gyohi (御批)". In this way, it was realized once in the early Meiji era that the Emperor participated in politics decision. And by having found "Gyohiroku (御批録)" which was an approval record of the Emperor, I confirmed that it was the seal of a character "裁" that was used as approval mark. This is important as the example that the Emperor participated in politics decision for the first time. But the government was not going to let the Emperor participate in all politics decision. The documents submitted to the Emperor in "Gyohiroku" were limited to legislation such as a rule and a system decided newly. And it is recognized that the Emperor gave permission of execution formally. Therefore, I suppose that the government had intention to let the Emperor hold a legislative power and the judicial power. But the government gave up the approval of the Emperor about the legislation area in a short time. It was the reason that cabinet decision was unstable because adjustment between administrations was not enough. Therefore, to realize an idea in principle that the Emperor makes politics, it was necessary that the system to coordinate an opinion of each administration and the legislative proceeding were established.

View full abstract

In the latter half of the fourth century B.C., Rome gained a victory in the so-called Latin War (340〜338 B.C.) and established her hegemony in Latium and Campania. It is well known that in doing so Rome enlarged the citizen body without having substantially changed her constitution as a city state, and it is said that this was made possible by changing the incorporated states into municipia. The terms "municipium" (pl. municipia) and "municipes" (the members of a municipium) were in common use to be used until the Empire, but the institution changed in the course of time and the Romans under the Empire seemed no longer to be able to understand the original meaning of these terms. Municipium and municeps (pl. municipes) caught the attention of the antiquarians and lawyers of the late Republic and the Empire, and a couple of definitions worked out by these students have come down to us, although there are very serious contradictions and confusions among them. The terms were also adopted by Roman historians, who wrote the history of early Rome, but we are unsure if they used them in their original meaning or in the meaning the terms had when the historians were writing history. Accordingly, the interpretation of these historical sources often depends on the subjective judgement of each scholar. The main historical sources for municeps and municipium of the fourth century B.C. are "De verborum significatu" of Pompeius Festus and its epitome by Paulus Diaconus. In this paper, I have tried to reexamine these sources and various attempts to interpret them by modern scholars in order to arrive at a better understanding of this important institution. In doing so however I was constrained to concentrate the argumentation on philological interpretations of the texts of Festus and Paulus, and on the problem of how much the understanding of the antiquarians and lawyers, from whom Festus got his information, had depended on old traditons. The results of these investigations are as follows : 1. Aelius Gallus, whom Festus used in the item of Municeps, informs us of the opinion of the lawyers who lived in the late Republic and under the Empire. Among them there was a common opinion that the state of a municeps originated from taking over munus and that this was the oldest meaning of the term. 2. Servius, whom Festus cites in the same item, seeks the origin of municipes in the people who became Romans by the grant of the civitas s. s. before the Social War (91-87 B.C.). 3. Of the three definitions which Paulus gives in the item of Municipium (which he derived from the lost item of Festus), the second and third concern the peoples who were incorporated in the Roman State by the grant of the full citizenship, the former before, and the latter after the Social War. It is, however, of no concern whether the former peoples were granted with civitas o. i. or civitas s. s. at the time of incorporation into the Roman State. 4. We should not assume any relationship between the first and the two other definitions in the item of Municipium. The first definition is rather related to the definition which lawyers such as Aelius Gallus and Ulpianus give as the original meaning of a municeps, and can be attributed to an understanding held in common by lawyers and antiquarians under the Empire. 5. We can assume that this understanding was won out of the etymological interpretation of the term municeps (munus capiens = one who undertakes munus) and probably also some hisorical information about the legal state of the Volsci and the Campanians who stayed in Rome after their communities had concluded treaties with Rome in the fourth century until they were incorporated in the Roman State after the Latin War. This legal state probably imitated the legal state which the old Latins staying in Rome enjoyed according to their old customary institution. It might also be possible that

(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)

View full abstract

The post of shitsuji 執事, a major-domo appointed to each of the Fujiwara Regency's household governments during the early medieval period, should be an important subject for studying the economic aspects of this powerful aristocratic family; however, the research to date has not been forthcoming. In an attempt to fill the gap, this article attempts to clarify the basic facts about the post of shitsuji, together with subordinates known as nenyo 年預 and its relationship to the Fujiwara family, in order to understand better the latter's "household" structure. First, the author refutes the conventional tendency to view shitsuji and nenyo similarly as persons in charge of general household affairs. While nenyo were before the family's appointment as Regent closely involved in such household affairs as rites of passage, while shitsuji were in charge of ceremonies involving the regents themselves and heads of the Fujiwara and Mido 御堂 lineages. In other words, nenyo was closely related to the family aspect, while shitsuji to the political aspects of household affairs. The post of shitsuji originated during the regency of Fujiwarano-Tadamichi, and was monopolized by the top bureaucratic lineages (meika 名家) of the Kajuji 勧修寺, Hino 日野 and Takamune 高棟 branches of the Taira 平 family. Since prior to the establishment of the post, household functionaries in other than these distinguished lineages carried out the same duties, the author argues that the creation of the post marked the assumption and monopolization of regency household administration by these families and was closely related to their concurrent assumption and monopolization of state administrative duties. As schism ran through the regent family from the end of the Heian period on, it became more and more difficult for branches to uphold their families' traditional pomp and circumstance, forcing them to rely on their shitsuji, who were familiar with the old traditions, since they had been handed down to them through the same lineage generation after generation. Consequently, cases arose in which top ministers of state (kugyo 公卿) appointed their sons to the nominal position of shitsuji, thus becoming indispensable to the Regency in both its household governance and political affairs of state.

View full abstract