詳細検索結果
以下の条件での結果を表示する: 検索条件を変更
クエリ検索: "朽網氏"
2件中 1-2の結果を表示しています
  • 史学雑誌
    1989年 98 巻 12 号 2030-2046
    発行日: 1989/12/20
    公開日: 2017/11/29
    ジャーナル フリー
  • 牧 健二
    法制史研究
    1951年 1951 巻 1 号 149-182,5
    発行日: 1952/07/30
    公開日: 2009/11/16
    ジャーナル フリー
    Europeans who came to Japan during the 300 years that elapsed between the beginning of Xavier's missionary work ánd the Restoration have failed to understand the organisation and character of Japanese feudalism in spite of their stay among the society filled up with feudalistic air. That was 0 because the Jesuits who could freely move about in the interior of Japan and had the advantage of studying the Japanese life were not much interested in secular matters and the Dutchmen who were eager to know in detail the conditions of Japan for the convenience of trade were prevented from getting the necessary information by the strict policy of Tokugawa rulers.
    The Japanese country was during the sixteenth century divided into domains' of feudal lords. Christian missionaries were under the impression that the lords with whom they came in contact were the Kings of their lands and the vassals under the kings were feudal aristocrats. The merchants they thought were of higher grade than the farmers. Valignano who was in Japan at the time of the famous resurvey of land by the order of Hideyoshi Toyotomi wrote in his "History of Japanese Christianity" about the nature of fiefs of Daimyo and the revenue therefrom. This is minutely described and contains a few informations not handed dawn to us from other sources ; but his understanding that the owner of the land was the Emperor and not the farmer was not correct.
    Under the Tokugawa the centralisation was firmly established and the lords submitted to this strong power. Caron classified Daimyo under Tokugawa regime according to the amount of income from their fiefs into the five ranks of European feudal lords ; but this distinction did not exist in feudalism of our country.
    That Kaempfer, the author of the famous "History of Japan, " judged Shogun as the Emperor was under the political circumstances at the time quite natural and unblamable, and that he esteemed Tsunayoshi Tokugawa as the sovereign having supreme power based on absolutism (just like Louis XIV of France) is also a possible mistake. However, his statements about ownership and cultivation of land of, Japanese farmers are to the point. A few lines in Marx's "Capital" regarding feudalistic land ownership of Japan which is valued by some as a signpost in comparative study of Japanese and European feudalism in present day Japan is probably based on this Kaempfer's statement. Siebold, who was the first to use the term Feudalism in writing Japanese history, considered that of Japan as originated by Jimmu Tenno and that the institution of sixty six provinces under the Mikado were essentially feudalistic. The complicated course of transition from the bureaucracy under Mikado to the feudal system under Shogun was not understood by the Europeans till after the Restoration.
feedback
Top