This article analyzes the writings of major jurists and philosophers from the period between the Wars of Religion and the Enlightenment, focusing on their descriptions of droit d’aubaine（the right of the king to acquire the property of a foreigner after his death）, in order to show how the normative discourse on the treatment of foreigners evolved in early modern France. The author first clarifies how the category of “foreigner” was formed during the late Middle Ages and the sixteenth century, then analyzes what legal and political principles justified the strengthening of discriminatory laws in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, concluding with an examination of how this intellectual framework came to require modification in the context of the development of natural law and Enlightenment thought, thus leading her to the following conclusions.
　In the context of xenophobia, birth outside the kingdom was linked to innate defects and lack of loyalty; and “foreigner” was seen as a “natural” category essentially different from the French. Discrimination against foreigners was therefore seen as “natural” and not incompatible with hospitality towards them, and discriminatory laws were upheld as appropriate. However this nationalist discourse was challenged by the development of natural law, which asserted the common nature of all human beings and their fundamental rights based on that nature. As freedom of inheritance came to be regarded not as a privilege granted by the sovereign, but as a fundamental human right, subject not only to domestic positive law, but also to natural and international law, the Enlightenment regarded any system which did not respect the rights of foreigners as no longer compatible with hospitality and civilization, but rather as an obstacle to national prosperity and happiness of man kind. Thus, the transformation of the discourse on the treatment of foreigners in early modern France can be understood in the context of the changes in legal and political thought concerning the relationship between the state and the law and between man and nature in post-Renaissance Europe.

View full abstract

This article takes up the duty of “vetting petitions”（moshibumi wo erabu 撰申文） performed by the emperor’s personal attendants （kurodo 蔵人） in clarifying what role they played in bureaucratic appointment ceremonies（jimoku 除目）. According to the research to date, it was from the 10th century on that many of the petitions for relatively high-ranking bureaucratic appointments began to be received and processed by the office of the kurodo. Although it can be assumed that from that time on, the kurodo were processing such petitions, it is only from mid-century on that we find the term “moshibumi wo erabu” in the source ma-terials.
　 Moreover, it was only in the mid-11th century, during the reign of Emperor Go-Suzaku, that this procedure was officially named the “Moshibumi Sentei-Gi” ceremony, which involved a reading by the emperor’s chief executive （Kampaku 関白） of the petitions presented by the kurodo, his forwarding recommendations to the Emperor, followed by the final vetting process in Hi-no-Omashi （昼御座） in the East Eaves of the Seiryoden great hall. Prior to the appointment deliberations, the kurodo would arrange the petitions according to each bureaucratic office and stipulated document form into booklets with titles pages, to be placed on the lid of the Emperor’s inkstone box （Osuzuribako 御硯箱）, and also compile a document catalog to be presented to the Emperor and the Kampaku.
That being said, the kurodo not only performed the classifying, arranging and compilation clerical duties, but were also involved in the reception and the preselection of petitions for appointments to high ranking staff positions. While preselection was probably originally done by the secretariat of the Daijokan Ministry of State （geki 外記）, from the 10th century on, it was the kurodo who played that role at the stage just before the Emperor handed over his selections to the presiding officer of the appointment deliberation sessions, suggesting kurodo direct involvement in the confirmation process. In other words, the “moshibumi wo erabu” duties of the kurodo may be interpreted as their taking over most of the functions formerly performed by the Ministry of State in the important area of vetting bureaucratic personnel.

View full abstract

This article analyzes election campaigns in Japan between 1925 and 1935, a period marking the early phase of universal male suffrage. The author takes up the case of Shizuoka Prefecture in order to identify the spatial extent to which those campaigns were held and why they were held in those regional spaces.
　The author begins with an analysis of the distribution of speeches given by the candidates, finding that they stumped predominately in urban areas due to constraints stemming from the dependence on automobiles unable to access rural areas due to the lack of adequate roads. A similar situation was encountered in trying to mail election information to those same regions.
　Next the author examines the specific causes of regional differences in road maintenance, by following the discussion on the subject in the prefectural assembly throughout the Taisho Period（1912-26）, in order to clarify how urban-rural conflict led to authorities cutting budgets for road construction and maintenance. That is to say, while up to around 1918, urban and rural areas were politically integrated in selecting election candidates, urban development gradually left rural communities behind economically, resulting in urban-rural imbalance and antagonism.
　In this spatial context, roads became an important means for rural areas to connect with external markets and foster economic development. The political parties took advantage of this urban-rural conflict to arbitrarily cut budgets for road construction and maintenance, thus denying election campaigns access to rural areas. On the other hand, the author notes that the lack of access also enhanced the importance of face-to-face campaigning in rural Shizuoka, thus redefining the meaning of personal contact with voters.

View full abstract