The purpose of this paper is to show that the officials of the dohana were not specialized financial bureaucrats but grand officials who controlled the general administration of the Norman Kingdom of Sicily. Historians hitherto regarded the officials of the dohana as highly specialized financial bureaucrats who were the most advanced in Europe at that time. In this paper I will examine their evidence, prove it invalid, and, in place of the accepted structure, propose the following structure of administration. During the reign of William II there was a royal council, which consisted of several persons called familiares, at the top of the administration of the kingdom. Before 1169, new members replaced old members of this council one after another and their number fluctuated between three and ten. From 1170 to 1184, however, their number was restricted to only three. The administrative organizations carrying out the affairs proposed by this council and other various tasks, were the three dohanas : the ad-diwan al-ma'mur (curia regis), the dohana de secretis and the dohana baronum. There were three royal palace chamberlains (camerarius regii palatii) at the top of the ad-diwan al-md'mur, several magistri in the dohana de secrdis and three magistri in the dohana baronum. These magistri carried out their administrative duties in the dohana they belonged to. Until the middle of the 1170s one of the three royal palace chamberlains directed the dohana de secretis, and another directed the dohana baronum. In other words, the whole administration of the kingdom was unified in the hands of three royal palace chamberlains. Most of the royal palace chamberlains were Arabs. However, after the middle of the 1170s, an admiral (ammiratus fortunati stolii regii) seems fo have directed the dohana baronum instead of a royal palace chamberlain. This means that the office of dohana baronum was established under the direction of the Arabic bureaucrats in the royal palace first, and that it fell under the control of non-Arabic officials later. It is probable that an admiral, who had far stronger authority than the royal officials and who, in a war, directed counts and barons, was necessary to the dohana baronum, because there were so many fiefs in the areas under the competence of the dohana baronum, and because the vassals and cities had a strong tendency to be independent of the royal authority. These officials of the dohana were grand officials who controlled the general administration of the Norman Kingdom of Sicily.

View full abstract

Ito Jinsai (伊藤仁斎, 1627-1705) was one of the representative Confucianists in the early Tokugawa period. In his youth, he mainly learned Chu Shi philosophy without a teacher. But, thereafter he was very sceptical about Chu Shi system, and bitterly criticized the doctrines of Chu Shi. In the end, he established his own philosophy that is generally called Jinsaigaku (仁斎学) or Kogigaku (古義学). Jinsai's philosophy was mainly made up of his moral thought. In other words, he was concerned about the morality that ordered man's everyday life. On the contrary, at the first glance, he looks unconcerned with political and socio-economic affairs. As it is a well-known fact that he did not succeed his father's trade, it is not very surprising that up to now Jinsaigaku is hardly studied from the viewpoint of the history of socio-economic thought. But, Jinsai said, in Dojimon (童子問), his famous work, "Odo (王道), that is to say, the righteous government is the foundation of Confucianism." According to this statement, it is possible to take the view that he took an interest in political affairs too. Moreover, he said, "the most fundamental policy is to control people's wealth." He, no doubt, attached importance to socio-economic affairs, although he did not carry on commerce. And, it is doubtless that socio-economic thought was one component part of Jinsaigaku. The key subject of this article is to survey characteristics of his socio-economic thought. To conclude, he virtually recognized that economic conditions influence human nature and social order. In other words, it is dependent upon economic conditions whether people are able to live a moral life or not. The core of Jinsaigaku, however, was not his socio-economic thought, but moral thought. Consequently, any consideration of Jinsai's philosophy cannot overlook his moral thought. But, in case of Jinsaigaku, his moral thought was compatible with socio-economic thought. That is, the former had an effect upon the latter. According to Jinsai's view of morality, all men, who involved warriors, peasants, artisans and merchants in the Edo period, have the moral potential by nature. Therefore he appreciated not only warrior's action, namely, politics but also peasant, artisan and merchant's action, that is to say, economical activities. In a word, economical activities are unimpeachable. Jinsai was not a merchant nor a government administrator. He was a moralist in the street. But he, no doubt, had a noticeable understanding of economy and economical activities. From this point of view, Jinsaigaku has to be revaluated hereafter.

View full abstract