The school physical education modernized since the middle of the nineteenth century reached the level of that of the Western countries at the beginning of the twentieth century. This period covering half a century is call the Meiji Era.
We can safely conclude that Meiji Era was a very important period for the establishment of the “ modern Budo ” in our country.
The purpose of this thesis, therefore, is to describe how the Budo entered into the school physical education in Meiji Era.

抄録全体を表示

“Community Hunting Grounds” (Kyoudousyuryouchi), for which legislation was passed in 1885 during an amendment of the Hunting Law but subsequently suspended in 1918, represented the legal institutionalization of customary hunting right; however, the detailed legislative process is unknown. To better understand the rationale for suspending Community Hunting Grounds when the Hunting Law underwent a full revision in 1918, this study analyzed the legislative process for regarding their legislation and suspension, focusing on their relationship with “Hunting Grounds” (Ryouku). The results revealed that legislators perceived Community Hunting Grounds to be beneficial in terms of protecting the livelihood of hunters; meanwhile, Hunting Grounds had the advantage of conserving wildlife but the disadvantage of impeding hunting as a livelihood. The Hunting Law was revised in 1918 in response to decreases in wildlife populations due to overhunting; thus, the establishment of Community Hunting Grounds was likely suspended in 1918 to create Hunting Grounds, which offered greater protections to wildlife.

抄録全体を表示

　明治期日本の海港検疫制度の創設過程は、行政権とその運用をめぐる政治外交上の争点と、医療・衛生分野での学知をめぐる争点が交錯するものであった。1878年に外務省で開催された「検疫委員会議」には、医師検査法と停船法の対立という感染症をめぐる国際的動向が強く影響し、日本は検疫の方針に結論を出すことができないまま1879年のコレラ流行を迎えることになった。「海港虎列剌病伝染予防規則」の制定は停船法に基づく厳格な検疫の選択を意味したが、諸外国公使との協議を欠いた一方的な発令が反発を招き、検疫は機能しなかった。1882年以後、日本は「虎列剌病流行地方ヨリ来ル船舶検査規則」による簡易な検疫へと転換する。それは、イギリスが国際標準だと主張する検疫を追認することにより、諸外国公使から外国船舶への検査実施への協力を獲得するためであった。1880年代末から、繰り返されるコレラの蔓延や医学的理解の進展を背景として、日本は検疫の厳格化を計画するようになった。しかし、条約改正交渉との兼ね合いやコレラの常在化への疑念などから、日本は意に反して簡易な検疫を継続せざるを得ず、このような状況は1899年の「海港検疫法」まで続いたのである。

抄録全体を表示

The aim of this paper is to reexamme the policy of Constantius II on the Constantinopolitan senate, which made the Greek city on Bosporus a "capital" of the eastern half of the Roman empire, and to clarify its impact over the eastern mediterranean world First, we examine the thesis of an obligation on the newly recruited senators to reside in the city of Constantinople This thesis was an influential one, proposed by P Petit whose primary concern was to interpret the use of the Greek word "polites" in Libamus' letters, and accepted by other scholars in explaining some individual cases, as a result of which it emphasised the independence of the capital from the other cities of the East, not consistent with the thesis of local senators "honorati" To reexamine its validity, we pick up three representative cases of Constantinopolitan senators, one of which is a basis of Petit's interpretation and the rest of which are principal models treated by later scholars, that is, Olympius, Themistius and Caesarius In Libanius' letters on him, we can find references to Olympius' expenditure of different grades, which implies his nomination as a praetor Considering the information which can be obtained from legal texts in the Theodosian code, we an find the summon of Olympius is not of senators but of praetors Themistius' and Caesanus' cases also need to be set in the context Though the imperial letter in which the former is recommended as a senatorial candidate mentions "ananke" to reside in the city, it doesn't mean any obligation of residence but an economic condition under which a poor teacher was forced to migrate into the capital Alike Caesarius, though represented as an "oiketor" of the city in a Gregorian oration, is found "archiatros" whose place of activity is in the imperial palace From these considerations, we can get a conclusion that none of these typical cases prove the existence of the obligation and that we should reconstruct an interpretation of the imperial policy Secondly, we aim to reconsider the senatorial policy of Constantius II Taking into consideration the information drawn from the Theodosian code, we cannot accept the imperial motives presented by scholars that the emperor aimed to populate and enlarge his capital Rather, a prosopographical examination confirms that many cases are concomitant with holdings of imperial offices and that some receive provincial governorships shortly after their senatorial nominations, while an association of office holdings with senatorial recruitment can be confirmed in other sources In sum, Constantius' policy isn't primarily concerned to the enlargement of the eastern capital, but to the implantation into the eastern half of the empire of senatorial rank that is some reward of imperial office holdings, which doesn't prevent appearance of local elites with senatorial rank

抄録全体を表示

So far, it has been considered that the Emperor Vespasian's new government consisted of his relatives, partisans and old friends. In 79 A.D., however, the powerful senator, Eprius Marcellus, cos. II in 74, who has been regarded as one of Vespasian's confidants, was suspected of framing a plot against Vespasian and forced to suicide. It has been questioned why he went to his doom. In the first part of this paper, the careers of the provincial governors from 69 to 73 are examined. The governors of the few important consular provinces were Vespasian's relatives and supporters, but most of the consular governors were appointed not because they were supporters of Vespasian. They are classified as two types. One is the Othonian generals. Under the Emperor Otho, they fought against the Vitellian army in the civil war. Vespasian adopted them to get the support of the Othonian senators. The other type is the senators who held iterated consulships under Vespasian. This fact has led many scholars to conclude these senators were his confidants. But, it is doubtful whether the iterated consuls were his confidants. In the civil war, they gave no substantial support to Vespasian, with whom they do not seem to have had any plausible connection in the Julio-Claudian period. Their honorific and powerless posts from 70 to 73 suggest that Vespasian put little trust in them. Two inscriptions about Plautius Aelianus and Tampius Flavianus record that Vespsian honoured them, not because of their merits in his reign but because of merits in the Neronian period, which Nero had not rewarded enough. Vespasian was famous for his propaganda against Nero. It follows from these points that Vespasian made use of iterated consuls to show the difference between himself and Nero, and to get the supports of many other senators. A mere homo novus like him needed such propaganda to secure his throne. Thus, most of the governors in the early years of Vespasian's reign were neither his supporters nor his old friends. They were appointed governors because his partisans were not yet powerful among the senators at that time. Marcellus was honoured for his influence with other senators. He was not the real confidant of Vespasian. The second part of this paper deals with the appearance of the new powers after Vespasian's censorship in 73-74. Many scholars have considered that, by adlecting the senators to the patricians, Vespasian intended to create a new elite class. But, almost all of the new patricians whom Vespasian used as the provincial governors were originally his partisans from the civil war. After they became the consular governors, only a few other patricians were elevated as provincial governors. So Vespasian's intention toward patricians was to reward his partisans rather than to create an elite class. He intended to fill the important governorships, especially imperial consular ones, with his partisans. All governors of the imperial consular provinces from 74 onwards had been appointed consuls by Vespasian. The senators who had reached consulships before his reign were excluded from these posts. The significant evidence of this is that Othonian generals were not appointed to any governorships, and did not appear until the reign of Domitian. Iterated consuls who had reached the consulship first in Nero's reign existed in 74-75, but, as noted above, their appointment meant a political propaganda. Vespasian rapidly promoted his partisans and senators who began their careers under him, and excluded the consuls of the period from Nero to Vitellius. At the same time, Vespasian began his new policy. From Judaea, Agrippa II and his sister Berenice, who were among the main supporters of Vespasian in the civil war, came to Rome. The former received the ornamenta praetoria, and the latter co-habited with Titus. Although the Romans hated her, Vespasian did not get rid of her, and

(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)

抄録全体を表示

近年，野党が国会の参議院の多数派を形成したことで，いわゆる「直近の民意」論が示されたように，これまで日本では，衆参両院の憲法上の権限関係は非対等でありながら，衆参で類似の選挙制度が採用されるなど，両院の民主的対等性が所与のことのように考えられてきた。しかし，国会での両院関係そのものが党派間争いの主戦場となり，国会運営が停滞する場面が頻繁に見られる現在，各院の民主的正当性のバランスを再考することもあながち不要であるともいえまい。そのような点で，第二院の組織方法に間接選挙制を導入するなど，下院との非対称な選挙制度を採用するフランスが注目される。しかし，フランスの選挙制度にも問題があり，なかでも一定の政治勢力を固定化させる機能を有している点が特に問題でもある。こうした点を克服しつつ，日本でも現行憲法の下で，衆参両院が非対称となる選挙制度を構築する理論的可能性を探ることが必要である。

抄録全体を表示

Under the 1889 Order on Acquisition and Disposal of Land and Building the Governor of Tokyo could purchase remnants and in some cases the contigious lot of its as well. These were advanced provisions in Japanese city planning method and technique, an expropriation of the remnants and a sort of Expropriation par zone or Excess condemnation. The authors trace formation process of the 1889 Order and clarifies background of the provisions through the minutes of senate or Genro-in. Contents of the article are as follows : 1) The main dispute point in senate was how the Government purchased and decided a taking price of land. The senators who represented landowners claimed the draft and eliminating the application of an old fashioned method of price decision. 2) The building permission provision was remarkable to announce the projects to the public. 3) The above-mentioned advanced provisions had not been stated on the draft. But an expropriation of the remnants was introduced by some senators and followed the 1852 decret for Paris street improvement, which had legitimated the projects of expropriation par zone by Napoleon III and G. E. Haussmann. 4) And the 1852 decret seemed to have been carried out to gain development value, but the 1889 Order aimed only to arrange lots facing improved street.

抄録全体を表示