Die Ottonische Handveste von 1311 (=OH) ist auf dem Landesteil Niederbayern, der durch das Dynastenlegen des 13. Jahrhunderts raumlich gebildet worden ist, entstanden und hat die folgende Bedeutung fur Land und Landleute. (1)Die Herrschaftsteilung des Landes. Der Herzog behielt die Hochgerichtsbarkeit (die hohen Strafrechtsfalle, Rechtssprechung um Eigen und Lehen) sich fur die herzoglichen Landgerichte vor und gestand Landleute (Landherren und Pralaten) die Niedergerichtsbarkeit uber ihre Teile zu. Und beide, die an Ausubung der Niedergerichtsbarkeit gleich waren, taten dazu die Herrschaftsteilung in der Niedergerichtsbarkeit und garantierten sich die Herrschaft (u.a. uber Bauern) zusammen. Nun bekamen die Herrschaften der Landleute eine feste Stellung in der Landesverfassung. (2)Die erste Forderung der allgemeiner Landessteuer. Die allgemeine Landessteuer wurde auf der Grundlage der ausfuhrlichen Bestimmungen uber die ordnungsmaBige Steuerbehebung durch die herzogliche Beamtenschaft eingehoben. Doch stellte der Herzog fest, daB die Steuerleistung freiwillig und einmalig ware. Dies zwang den Herzog dazu, bei der neuen Steuerbehebung die Bewilligung der Landleute wieder einzuholen, und so gab den Ansatz zur Ausbildung eines sogenannten standischen Steuerbewilligungsrechtes. (3)Die Stellung des Hofgerichts. Die topographische Verwicklung der Herrschaften zwischen dem Herzog und Landleute oder Landleute unter sich enthielt immer eine Gefahr der gegenseitigen Verletzungen. Das Hofgericht, das OH verfassungsmaBig stellte, war ein Landesorgan (das obere Landgericht) gegen diese Gefahr. So erfullt das Hofgericht als das oberste Gericht des Landes eine Ausgleichungsfunktion der Interessen zwischen ,,den Herren des Landes" und stellt wiederher und wahrt die Ordnung des Landes als einer Rechts-und Friedensgemeinschaft. Falls ein Tatigkeitsversagen gestand der Herzog ,,den Landherren" das Einigungs- und Widerstandsrecht zu. (4)Nun stellt das obengenannte eine Neuorganisation Landes und Landleute (inner und auBer) auf der Grundlage eines Prinzips des Landrechtes dar. Der Herzog von Niederbayern begrundete neuerdings ,,Land" und ,,Landleute" auf der OH als dem Herrschaftsvertrag, konkurrierend mit den geistlichen und weltlichen Fursten um sich. So kam das Land Niederbayern gerade mit OH in Gang der Entwicklung zum Standestaat.

View full abstract

Although it is well-known that Russian ambassador Spathary who had been sent to China in 1676 left a detailed official report, it is not very well-known that the Manchu Memorials on his mission to China was preserved in Petersburg University. In the present article I have reconsidered Spathary's mission to China by using this important Manchu Memorials. The reason why Spathary was sent to Peking in 1676 was because in 1670 the Emperor of China had sent to the Tsar an imperial letter. In this letter China demanded a fugitive, Gantimur, should be sent back, while the answer carried with Spathary stated that the Chinese Imperial letter written in Manchu was not able to be read and Spathary insisted that the Tsar knew nothing about Gantimur. But according to the Manchu Memorials it comes out that Chinese anthorities didn't place trust in what Spathary had said. Nevertheless Chinese authorities took care to hush up this matter. On June 5 China received a letter of the Tsar and gifts from Spathary in the palace and on June 8 received the twelve articles of petition from Spathary. The full text of this twelve articles of petition is recorded only in the Manchu Memorials, while missing in the Spathary's official report. In the sixth item of the petition Spathary desired the exchange of Russian captives and fugitives who have been stayed in China for Chinese in Russia. Therefore, on July 6 Chinese authorities made a proposition to Spathary to exchange Russian captives for Gantimur, in regard to which Spathary answered that the Tsar wouldn't allow. Relating to other items nothing was discussed. On July 30 the Chinese emperor commanded, "On the twelve articles of petition each item should be replied verbally and a letter and presents should be sent to the Tsar." This decision is also recorded in the Manchu Memorials, and omitted in Shih-lu (実録). As a matter of fact, on August 13 Spathary refused to fall on his knee to receive gift for the Tsar, so the imperial decree of July 30 was amended. On August 29 Ko-lao (閣老) conveyed the following new orders to Spathary and his suites. "Gifts should be sent to the Tsar, but a written letter should not be sent to him because Nikolai (Spathary) is discourteous and obstinate. And unless Russia carries out the three demands such as repatriation of Gantimur, Russian should be refused to enter into China." But, as Spathary firmly demanded an imperial letter written on equal terms, on the next August 30 Ko-lao explained to him that China would not able to give any other imperial letter except one written with Russia considered as a tributary state. Therefore Spathary gave up receiving the Imperial letter and left Peking on September I without hearing replies to the above twelve articles of petition. After all Russia couldn't open diplomatic relations with China. China paid its regard to Spathary and dealt leniently with him as much as possible. I suppose this would be due to that Russia had been a great country and China had been troubled with the Rebellion of the Three Feudatories (三藩の乱) at home. Nevertheless China was not able to get rid of its own tributary system.

View full abstract

In the studies of Turkish nationalist thought we can point out some defects as follows. First, they did not minutely deal with the affairs of the period of the pre-Young Turks Revolution. Secondly, they did not compare the thought of Ottoman-Turks with that of Turks who live in the Russian Empire. In this paper, we investigate into articles of two famous nationalists, as an introduction of our study of Turkish nationalist thought. Yusuf Akcura (1876-1935), Kazan-born, published an article named "Three Policies" (Uc Tarz-i Siyaset) in March 1904. In this article he mentioned three political principles that the Ottoman Empire might follow, and examined them. The first principle is an Ottoman nation (Millet-i Osmaniyye) policy. The aim of this policy is to create a new nation like an American nation in the United States by means of assimilating all people under the Ottoman rule regardless of ethnic or religious differences. He opposes it definitely. Because this is against the will and desire of Ottoman-Turks, Islam, non-muslim subjects of the Ottoman Empire, the Russian and the Balkans, and the Western public opinion. The second is a union of Islam (Tevhid-i Islam) policy. He does not oppose this policy definitely. But, he points out a fact that almost all Islamic lands are in the power of the Western states, and warns that the Western states will hinder the Ottoman Empire from performing this policy. The final principle is a union of Turks (Tevhid-i Etrak) policy. Akcura enumerates three advantages of this policy. First, Ottoman-Turks will be tied more firmly by this policy. Secondly, non-Turk subjects of the Ottoman Empire will be Turkified. Thirdly, all the Turkic nations who live in the vast continent from Asia to the east side of Europe will be unified. He admits that Russian will oppose this policy because many Turks are in the power of the Russian Empire. But he adds the other Western states will support it for the reason that this policy is against the Russian interests. And he also admits that if the policy will be performed, spirits of brotherhood between Ottoman-Turks and other non-Turk muslims will be weakened. However, he insists that in modern society a religion must not be social or public but be private. That is, he does not approve a union of Islam, and asserts a union of Turks. Meanwhile, in the Ottoman Empire, Turks regarded themselves as not Turks but Ottomans. Ziya Gokalp (1876-1924) denied nationalism expressly in the articles in a newspaper, "Oath" (Peyman) published in Diyarbakir, his birthplace, and supported an Ottoman nation policy in summer 1909. That is, it appears that the most important thing for nationalist in the Ottoman Empire was continuance and reinforcement of the Empire even after the Young Turks Revolution.

View full abstract