The legal status of a colonus in the first half of the history of the Roman Empire was that of a free person. He was acknowledged to possess various rights in relation to his landlord, but the landlord could subordinate a colonus due to the colonus' duty to pay rent. During the second and third centuries rent came to be paid in kind. The growth of latifundia at this time pulled the colonus away from the markets and must have furthered his dependence on the landlord, as it helped spread the custom of rent payment in kind. Moreover, a colonus' debts deprived him of freedom of movement. As longterm tenancy became common, "relocatio tacita" was put into practice. In this from of tenancy the will of the landlords proved to be absolute. These tendencies intensified during the crisis of the Roman Empire in the third century. However, so long as the Empire remained a state of slave-owners and a complex of city communities, Roman law never recognized the legality of a colonus being bound to the land. Legislation which recognized such bondage in the fourth century directly reflected the interests of the landlords and stemmed from a change in the state system of the Empire.

View full abstract

The purpose of this article is to correct the mispagination of The Miscellaney of the Daijoin Temple, Vol.182, by means of the following process. First, many articles in The Miscellaney are concerned with Buddhist memorial services, most of which occurred annually at fixed dates. By paying attention to these dates, the mispagination can easily be corrected. In fact, the author of this article first discovered the mispagination, when he noticed that all the memorial services of January were misclassified under March. Secondly, it is possible to fix the dates of events other than memorial sevices by comparing The Miscellaney with another source, The Index of the Journal of the Daijoin Temple, since they had the same writer, Jinson, who based The Index on information he extracted and summarized from The Miscellaney. Thirdly, though these two steps correct most of the mispagination errors, the remaining errors can be eliminated by paying attention to differences in the folios of the original papers (such changes cannot be ascertained in the printed version). If the folios of the orignal papers are different, the fact that the dates seemingly continue sequentially does not prove that the dates are of the same month. Why has such simple mispagination gone undiscovered for so long? The author believes that it is because students, intent on discovering materials directly related to their own research topic, have not really read the source itself and so overlooked its all too obvious mispagination. The author of this article also suspects that such negligence on the part of researchers has stemmed from their neglect of the fact that The Miscellaney is a record of a temple and that an important part of this source is comprised of articles about Buddhist services.

View full abstract

This essay tries to discuss the thought of Namik Kemal (1840-88), the most brilliant figure in the group called the "New Ottomans" (Yeni Osmanlilar) who played an important role in the constitutional movement in the Ottoman Empire in the post-Tahzimat (Reorganization) period. He has been, until now, called a liberal, since he severely criticized the Ottoman autocracy, demanded in its place a constitutional government, and advocated a simplification of Ottoman-Turkish, a written language which he claimed supported the Ottoman despotism because of the difficulty of comprehending it. But, we cannot simply label this man "a liberal" and leave it at that. He was far more complicated than this strict label would suggest. First, his activities were not based on the masses such as the Anatolian "Turks." Secondly, he strove to crush the nationalism of the peoples under Ottoman rule. Thus, we can call him a liberal and a patriot only from the viewpoint of his saving the Ottoman Empire. This Empire he regarded as a complex structure composed like a mosaic of various nationalities, which he intended to unify by "Ottomanization." Thirdly, he rejected the principles of Western civilization firmly, if they came into conflict with those of the Islamic tradition, even though he regarded the West as a goal the 0ttoman Empire should progress towards. Moreover, unlike Arab reformers, he did not insist on a "purification" of Islam or a "modern" interpretation of its dogma. He could not become a reformer of Islam. In short, the life and the thought of Namik Kemal reflected the various troubles of the Ottoman Empire of the latter half of the nineteenth century.

View full abstract