Daikushiki (大工職), which laid the ground for monopoly, came into existence in the latter half of the 13th century. It had three features ; 1)it could be materialzed and become the object of purchase, sale, or pawn [the aspect of a real right] ; 2)it was regulated by employers' right of appointment and dismissal [the feudal aspect] ; and 3)it was found in the imperial palace and temples, but not in private residences [the bureaucratic aspect]. The 14th and the 15th century is the period in which the feudal aspect and the bureaucratic aspect confronted the aspect of a real right. As a whole, a shift from the former to the latter was seen during this era. Before the end of the 15th century employers lost the right of appointment that embodied their right to choose craftsmen. The proof of guarantee and the proof of judgement issued by the Shogunate took the place of proof of appointment by employers. In such a way, employers were deprived of their right to decide on their own which craftsmen they are to employ. This signifies the structural completion of the craftsmen's management monopoly. The retaliation of employers against the monopoly of craftsmen began as restilt of the legislation of 1510. According to this legislation, which gradually abolished Daikushiki, the system of Daikushiki-determination based on the guarantee of the Shogunate was rectified. The Shogunate itself articulated the policy to grant employers the right to choose their craftsmen. While it is customarily thought that the Toyotomi administration was the first to abolish Daikushiki, in fact, it had merely inherited the policy from the Muromachi Shogunate. The modern employment system was established as the medieval form of monopoly was overcome. It was a progressive policy whose key points were the denial of workplace proprietorship and the creation of a free employment system. On the other hand, we must not overlook the fact that this policy was strictly based on consumers' interests and the craftsmen were left to suffer under its reactionary characteristics.

View full abstract

Among a number of chronicles composed in the Safavid period, Afdal al-tavarih is no doubt one of the most important. But so far no research has cast enough light upon this source. It was written in the first half of the 17th century by Fadli Huzani Isfahani, provincial vizir of Sah 'Abbas I. With the aid of this source, the author attempts to trace the family history of the Huzanis, one of the most notable families of Isfahan. Since the author of Afdal al-tavarih was a member of this family, valuable family history references can be found in this source. This study complements the work of Dr.Quiring-Zoche (Isfahan im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert), who has covered the Huzanis without taking advantage of Afdal al-tavarih. After explaining the genealogy of the family found mainly in Afdal al-tavarih, the author points out the military power of the family, who enabled Sah Mahmud to become one of the leaders in the city of Isfahan soon after his immigration from Baghdad in the 1440s. Next he describes the activities of Yar Ahmad, a grandson of Sah Mahmud. It is the encounter of this Yar Ahmad with Sah Isma'il Safavi in 1503 that changed the destiny of the family. While the family had been local nobility before this encounter, afterwards many family members came to occupy various administrative posts of the Safavid state. Observing the career of these persons, the author has found several interesting facts. 1)All of the three family members who took the highest positions in the state hierarchy ruined themselves as a result of struggles for power. 2)In contrast to this, the other members of the family, who for the most part worked on the provincial level, lived more secure lives and successively took charge of the province. 3)Though family member activities expanded from Adarbaygan to Sistan during the 16th century, the family kept their original domain in Huzan and also kept certain interests in Natanz. They were large landowners. 4)There is little evidence as to the cultural activities of the family…a marked contrast with the large amount of references concerning their energetic political activities. 5)The military character indicated at the early stage of the family's career seem to become more and more obscure in proportion to the level of political stability within the Safavid state. The Huzanis had become a typical bureaucratic family by the second half of the 16th century. While it is true that the incompleteness of Afdal al-tavarih makes it very difficult to trace the family history after the 17th century, there is no denying that the activities of the Huzanis somewhat declined the 17th century. Some family members even emigrated to India. As for the reason of this post-17th century inactivity of the Huzanis, there is really no satisfactory answer at present, since at the present stage of our research it is not clear whether this decline was a simple question of intra-family features, or whether there was deeper cause related to some social change in the 17th century. Further studies on other Iranian influential families and on the policy of Safavid souverains towards the Tagik in the 17th century should further elucidate the actual reasons.

View full abstract

This paper is a study of Shinsei (law re-constitutions), especially Kuge-Shinsei (公家新制), from the 10th century to the 14th century. The author considers the question of Shinsei from the aspects of the occasion and process of promulgation, enforcement, and its promulgators. The results of this examination are as follows. (i)Shinsei was promulgated as Tokusei, or beneficent government by the Tenno (天皇), from as early as 12th century. The reasons for the promulgations included the appearance of comets, the occurrence of earthquakes, 辛酉革命説 -the theory of chinese forecast, famines, epidemics, and changes of the Tenno. Therefore, the promulgation of Shinsei was considered one means for getting rid of such misfortune in those days. (ii)Shinsei was first discussed among the Kugyo (公卿), before it was promulgated by the Tenno. This conference was composed of seven members of the Kugyo, and the Sessyo (摂政) or Kanpaku (関白) led the discussions. (iii)Shinsei was promulgated as an official document, Senji (宣旨), and enforced by other official documents, which included Daijo-Kanpu (太政官符) to local governments, Daijo-Kancho (太政官牒) to Buddhist temples, and Kan-Senji (官宣旨) to shrines. In the Kamakura period, Shinsei was first only enforced by the Bakufu, but from 1261 the Bakufu itself began to promulgate Shinsei. Shinsei created by the Bakufu, Buke-Shinsei (武家新制) or Kanto-Shinsei (関東新制), were promulgated by the Shogun (将軍) in the periods of Yoritsune (頼経) and early Munetaka (宗尊), however, from 1261 it was taken over by the Hojo family (北条氏), or Shikken (執権). (iv)Shinsei had two essences ; the law of the central government and order in the reins of government. The former changed with time, but the latter remained unchanged. The law of the encouraging frugality was a major aspect, such that from the end of the Kamakura period, Shinsei came to mean a call for more economic lifestyles.

View full abstract