Meiji Restoration

Japanese: 明治維新 - めいじいしん

A political and social transformation that abolished the feudal shogunate system and established the starting point for a centralized, unified nation and capitalism. The origin of the historical concept of the "Meiji Restoration" can be found in the word "Goissin," used by people at the time. It means that the world will be renewed by the order of the authorities.

[Shigeki Toyama]

The debate on Japanese capitalism

The impetus for scientific research into the Meiji Restoration was a debate among Marxist scholars in the late 1920s and early 1930s over the understanding of the revolutionary strategic guidelines for Japan (the 1927 Theses and the 1932 Theses) issued by Comintern (Communist International). This debate was called the Japanese Capitalism Debate, and one of the points of contention was the historical character of the Meiji Restoration. Yamada Moritaro, Hirano Yoshitaro, Hattori Shiso, Hani Goro and others (known as the Lecture Group) argued that the Meiji Restoration was not a bourgeois revolution, and that the imperial power that was established as a result of it did not change its absolutist nature even at the stage of monopoly capitalism, and they demonstrated this in their Lectures on the History of the Development of Japanese Capitalism. In response to this, Hyoe Ouchi, Itsuro Sakisaka, Takao Tsuchiya and others (known as the labor-farmer faction) argued that the Meiji Restoration was a bourgeois revolution, even if it was incomplete, and that the power of the Emperor system gradually shifted to bourgeois power. This debate has been continued and deepened in postwar academic circles, but the focus of research is different from that before the war. The formation of absolutism is not the classical one of the 15th and 16th centuries as seen in Western Europe, but the mid-19th century one that was strongly regulated by world capitalism at the end of the industrial capitalist stage, which is the issue of the Meiji Restoration. Therefore, it is thought that the issue cannot be solved by formulating absolutism = feudal state or bourgeois power = capitalist state, and the structural relationship between the two is being empirically pursued.

As for the period during which the Meiji Restoration, as a turning point in history, refers to a political process, this is related to how one defines the essence of the Meiji Restoration, and there are the following various theories.

[1] About the start
(a) The Tenpo period (1830-1843), especially the Oshio Heihachiro Rebellion (1837) or the failure of the shogunate's Tenpo Reforms (1843), is the view that it was the result of domestic factors that led to the Meiji Restoration, namely the intensification of class struggle, the decisive failure of the shogunate's administration, and the emergence of political movements opposed to the shogunate.

(b) The view that it was the arrival of Perry (1853) or the conclusion of the Ansei Treaty of Commerce (1858). This is a view that emphasizes international conditions among the causes of the Meiji Restoration, and is based on a world historical perspective that Japan was incorporated into the capitalist world market.

[2] End of Period
(a) The view that it is based on the Satsuma Rebellion (1877). This is the view that the anti-government movement by the samurai, who aimed to restore feudalism, ended with this, and that from this point onwards, the confrontation between the Meiji government and the Freedom and People's Rights Movement over the construction of a unified nation and the course of capitalism marked a new stage that would become the basis of political history.

(b) The view that places it in the Chichibu Incident (1884), which was an intensification of the Freedom and People's Rights Movement and was dominated by poor farmers. This view is based on the view that this incident marked the starting point for the transformation of the fundamental class conflict in feudal society, the relationship between feudal lords and feudal peasants, into the fundamental class conflict in capitalist society, the relationship between parasitic landowners/capitalists and tenant farmers/wage laborers.

(C) The view that places it in the promulgation of the Constitution of the Empire of Japan (1889). It emphasizes that the imperial state was established and organized in terms of its structure with the promulgation of the Constitution, and that at the same time, primitive accumulation progressed in the economy during this period, and the foundations for the establishment of parasitic landlordism and industrial capitalism were almost complete. In academic circles today, views (A) and (C) are prevalent regarding the end of the Meiji Restoration, but the nature of the Meiji Restoration will be understood differently depending on how one considers the end of the period.

[Shigeki Toyama]

The collapse of the shogunate

The tendency to disintegrate the feudal domain system was already evident during the Tenpo era. Farmers were no longer solely dedicated to producing goods for the feudal lords, but increasingly became producers and sellers of goods. Rural industries, particularly wholesale-based home industries or manufacturing (factory-based handicraft industries), were born in various places, and new classes of bourgeois landlords, petty-bourgeois wealthy farmers, and semi-proletarian poor farmers began to form among the peasant class. The traditional commercial system, which was monopolized by privileged large merchants in the three capitals (Edo, Osaka, and Kyoto) and the castle towns of each domain, centered on the transportation and sale of taxes, was being destroyed by the rise of the power of new small and medium-sized merchants who depended on the production of goods by farmers. It was during this period that the shogunate and the domains suffered from financial difficulties, and the measures they tried to take to resolve these problems, such as preventing the infiltration of the monetary economy into the countryside, increasing taxes, and expanding the monopoly system, failed due to rebellions from farmers and merchants. Peasant uprisings broke out, and not only rebellions against feudal lords, but also against village officials and landlords occurred frequently, shaking the foundations of village order and feudal rule. In addition, in cities, there were uprisings by the lower classes who were troubled by rising prices, called "uchikowashi," and the feudal rule was temporarily paralyzed.

What brought all these conditions for the collapse of feudalism together into political conflict was the urgency of the external affairs triggered by the arrival of Perry in 1853 (Kaei 6). By using the threat of force, the Western powers forced Japan to abolish its isolationist system and become part of the capitalist world market. Moreover, the Ansei Treaty of Commerce, which was concluded under their pressure, was an unequal treaty modeled on the treaties between the Western countries and the Qing Dynasty of China, and armed conflict broke out between Japan and the feudal rulers who opposed opening up the country. It can be said that at the end of the Edo period, Japan was in danger of being colonized by powerful Western powers.

The first condition that enabled the progression of this colonization crisis to be halted was that the feudal rulers realized relatively quickly that it was impossible to return to isolation and to carry out the expulsion of foreigners. In other words, the conflict between the shogunate and powerful domains, and between upper and lower samurai, intensified over the conclusion of the trade treaty, and political forces critical of the shogunate under the banner of expulsion of foreigners gained power. However, trade grew relatively smoothly, and although there was some initial confusion in the domestic economy, the power of the development of the commodity economy was further strengthened, and as a result, farmers and merchants did not generally support the samurai's expulsion of foreigners movement. Furthermore, the shogunate and the domains were financially poor, so the military buildup did not progress, and the samurai came to keenly realize the difference in military power between them from their experiences in foreign wars, such as the Anglo-Satsuma War in 1863 (Bunkyu 3) and the bombardment of Shimonoseki by the Allied Fleet of the Four Provinces the following year. Thus, whether on the side of the shogunate or the anti-shogunate feudal domains, leaders sought to strengthen their military and enrich their nations by deepening contact with other nations and participating in trade.

The second reason why the colonization crisis did not deepen was the situation on the part of the great powers. Britain, which held a leading position in the diplomatic corps in Japan, had to allocate its military resources in East Asia to suppress the anti-British rebellion of the Chinese people after the Opium Wars, the Taiping Rebellion, and the Indian Sepoy (mercenary) Rebellion, and was therefore cautious about using force against Japan. Furthermore, due to the growing conflict between the great powers, Britain vs. Russia and Britain vs. France, it was difficult for one country to establish exclusive interests in Japan. The great powers, especially Britain, wanted to abolish the feudal system, which was an obstacle to the development of trade, but they avoided the idea of a revolution by the people or the direct intervention of the great powers, as they believed that this would bring about market chaos, and instead came to believe that it would be better to foster enlightened factions among the feudal rulers and have them carry out "gradual reforms from above."

In 1866 (Keio 2), the people, troubled by skyrocketing prices of rice and other goods, and increasing taxes, rose up in rebellions and riots in various places, mainly in Edo, Osaka and the surrounding areas, and the anti-feudal struggle of the people reached its greatest height throughout the Edo period. At that time, the shogunate was in the midst of its second Choshu expedition. Although the shogunate had mobilized large armies from various domains, it was disheartened by defeats in the initial battles and quickly ordered a ceasefire because the domains, suffering from financial difficulties, did not want to bear the burden of war, and they feared that civil war would invite uprisings by the common people and foreign intervention. Thus, with the powerful domains such as Satsuma at the center, efforts were made to unify and strengthen feudal power by replacing the previous shogunate autocracy with a united domain government under the Emperor. Following the shogun Tokugawa Yoshinobu's return to power, a palace coup was held on December 9, 1867 to restore the monarchy, the shogunate was abolished, and an imperial government was established.

[Shigeki Toyama]

Establishment of a unified state and reforms

The Boshin War, which was provoked by the Satsuma and Choshu clans immediately after the Restoration of Imperial Rule, not only dealt a blow to the pro-shogunate forces, but also accelerated the disintegration of the ruling system of the entire clan, including the imperial government. The absolutist monarchy of Western Europe was a centralized state, where powerful feudal lords suppressed other feudal lords through large-scale and long-term civil wars, unifying feudal power. However, the Emperor, although he had authority since ancient times, had no real power and was newly created as a "king" by the powerful anti-shogunate clans. Therefore, in order to once again secure the support of the lords and samurai of the various clans, as well as wealthy merchants and farmers, he adopted an innovative stance toward the shogunate and clan system. The Five Articles of Oath, issued just before the start of the general attack on Edo Castle, was an indication of this. In January 1869 (Meiji 2), the four feudal lords of Satsuma, Choshu, Tosa and Higo made a proposal emphasizing the idea of the king and the king's people, proposing to formally return the land and people to the emperor. Other feudal lords followed suit, and the return of the domains and people to the emperor was realized. Then, in July 1871, an imperial decree was issued to abolish the feudal domains and establish prefectures, and after further reorganization of the stipends of the nobility (feudal lords and court nobles) and samurai, the stipend system was completely abolished in 1876 with the issuance of gold-stipend government bonds. The abolition of the feudal domain system and the stipend system - the elimination of the main privileges of feudal rulers - was realized only after relatively small-scale civil wars between feudal rulers, such as the Boshin War and the samurai rebellions in parts of the southwestern region from 1874 to 1877, and without any revolutionary uprisings by the people, which was a notable feature compared to European history. The feudal system was already in a state of bankruptcy both financially and militarily, and all feudal rulers desired the establishment of a central authority that could save it. When the feudal lord system was dissolved, the government assumed most of the debts of the feudal domains, and the nobility were paid large amounts of compensation through the issuance of gold-salary government bonds, which resulted in a heavy tax burden on the common people. Only the nobility and former upper-class feudal samurai were able to support themselves with the interest on the government bonds, but the middle and lower classes of samurai were given exclusive opportunities to become civil servants, soldiers, or teachers, and the government gave special protection to those employed in agriculture, arts, and commerce. Of course, many of them had fallen into disgrace, but they could not oppose the government's policy of building a unified nation, strengthening the central government, and realizing a strong military and wealthy country by adopting Western culture. This was because they were keenly aware of the pressure from the Western powers and the crisis of national independence since the end of the Edo period.

After the abolition of the feudal domains and the establishment of prefectures, the government actively implemented reform policies for modernization and enlightenment in an attempt to attract support from all walks of life. In 1872, the government enacted the Education System, establishing a compulsory education system for all citizens, regardless of social status. The following year, a conscription law was issued under the banner of universal military service, abolishing the samurai military. Furthermore, a land tax reform ordinance was enacted, granting land ownership to peasants and changing the previous tax in kind to a land tax in gold. How to evaluate the nature of these great reforms is deeply related to the understanding of whether the Meiji Restoration was a bourgeois revolution. The first problem in evaluating these reforms is that they were contradictory to the policy of spreading the absolute authority of the Emperor among the people and to the process in which the feudal domains at the heart of the government gradually unified and strengthened themselves while repeatedly engaging in internal conflicts. Secondly, the reforms were enacted based on the systems of Western capitalist countries, and the content of the laws and the premises of the system were bourgeois in character, but it is necessary to distinguish between the actual intention of the plan and the historical nature of the actual function in its implementation. In other words, the cost of establishing and maintaining elementary schools was covered solely by the contributions of local residents and tuition fees, so universal education did not actually come about, despite the strict enforcement of the authorities. The conscription law, which was based on the principle of equality of all four classes, actually had a wide range of exemptions, and military service was limited to the second and third sons of poor people. In addition, the land tax reform was not actually calculated according to the method stipulated in the law, but was imposed by the authorities under the precondition of securing the previous total amount of annual tax. Therefore, all of the reforms were fiercely opposed by the people. The bourgeois content of these reform laws actually began to bear fruit in the 1890s and 1900s, when the primary school enrollment rate exceeded 50% of school-age children, the exemption from conscription was abolished, and the land tax reform was linked stably to the parasitic landlord system and capitalist economy. This was the period when the Freedom and People's Rights Movement developed and then failed, and the Constitution of the Empire of Japan was promulgated in 1889, reforming the clan-based autocracy and introducing a constitutional system, while stipulating the supreme command of the Emperor and other supreme powers, establishing a bureaucratic organization with the Emperor at its head, and strengthening militarism. This was also the period when Japanese imperialism was established, taking possession of the colony of Taiwan by winning the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895.

Regardless of whether one considers the end date to be 1877 or 1889, the Meiji Restoration can be said to have been a political and social transformation in the transition from feudalism to capitalism, the result of which was the establishment of powerful imperial bureaucratic rule and the formation of Japanese capitalism that was deeply linked to militarism and parasitic landlordism.

[Shigeki Toyama]

"The Formation of the Modern Japanese Nation" by Kiyoshi Haraguchi (1966, Iwanami Shoten)" ▽ "The History of Japan 23: Opening the Country" by Takuji Shibahara (1975, Shogakukan)" ▽ "The Meiji Restoration and the Modern Age" by Shigeki Toyama (Iwanami Shinsho)

Source: Shogakukan Encyclopedia Nipponica About Encyclopedia Nipponica Information | Legend

Japanese:

幕藩制を廃し、中央集権統一国家と資本主義化との出発点を築いた政治的・社会的変革。「明治維新」という歴史学の概念ができる起源は、当時の人が用いた「御一新(ごいっしん)」ということばにある。お上の命令によって世の中が新しくなるという意味である。

［遠山茂樹］

日本資本主義論争

明治維新の科学的研究が進む契機となったのは、1920年代末から1930年代前半にかけて、コミンテルン（共産主義インターナショナル）が出した日本の革命戦略方針（二七年テーゼおよび三二年テーゼ）の理解をめぐって、マルクス主義学者の間に行われた論争であった。これは日本資本主義論争といわれ、論争点の一つが、明治維新の歴史的性格についてであった。山田盛太郎(もりたろう)、平野義太郎(よしたろう)、服部之総(はっとりしそう)、羽仁(はに)五郎ら（講座派とよばれた）は、明治維新はブルジョア革命ではなく、その結果として樹立された天皇制権力は、独占資本主義の段階でも、絶対主義である本質を変えてはいないと主張し、その論証を『日本資本主義発達史講座』で行った。これに対し大内兵衛(ひょうえ)、向坂逸郎(さきさかいつろう)、土屋喬雄(たかお)ら（労農派とよばれた）は、明治維新は不徹底であるとはいえ、ブルジョア革命であり、天皇制権力はなし崩しにブルジョア権力に移行したと論じた。戦後の学界でも、この論争点は受け継がれ深められているが、研究の焦点は戦前と異なっている。絶対主義の形成といっても、西ヨーロッパのような15、16世紀の古典的なそれではなく、産業資本主義段階末期の世界資本主義に強く規制された19世紀なかばのそれが、明治維新の問題である。したがって、絶対主義＝封建国家か、しからずんばブルジョア権力＝資本主義国家かといった形式的な問題のたて方では解明できないと考えられ、両者の構造的関連が実証的に追究されている。

　歴史学の画期としての明治維新が、いつからいつまでの政治過程をさすかは、明治維新の本質をどう意義づけるかとかかわり、次の諸説がある。

〔1〕始期について
(イ)天保(てんぽう)期（1830～1843）、とくに大塩平八郎(へいはちろう)の乱（1837）、あるいは幕府の天保の改革の失敗（1843）に置く考え。この考えは、明治維新を実現させた国内的条件、すなわち階級闘争の激化、幕府の施政の決定的な失敗、幕府に反抗する政治運動の出現を重視するという立場に基づいている。

(ロ)ペリー来航（1853）または安政(あんせい)通商条約の締結（1858）に置く考え。明治維新を生起させた原因のうちで、国際的条件を重視する見解、また日本が資本主義の世界市場の一環に組み込まれたという世界史的観点にたっての見解である。

〔2〕終期について
(イ)西南戦争（1877）に置く考え。封建復帰を目ざす士族の反政府運動がこれをもって終わり、これ以降は、統一国家建設と資本主義化の路線をめぐる明治政府と自由民権運動との対抗が政治史の基本をなす新しい段階だとみる考え方である。

(ロ)自由民権運動の激化形態であり貧農が主体である秩父(ちちぶ)事件（1884）に置く考え方。封建社会の基本的階級対立である封建領主対封建小農民の関係が、資本主義社会の基本的階級対立である寄生地主・資本家対小作人・賃労働者の関係へ転換する出発点をこの事件は示すとする見解に基づく考えである。

(ハ)大日本帝国憲法の発布（1889）に置く考え方。天皇制国家が機構のうえで整備、確立されたのは憲法発布によってであり、同時にこの時期、経済のうえでは原始的蓄積が進み、寄生地主制と産業資本主義の成立の土台がほぼできあがったことを重視する見解である。今日学界では、終期について(イ)と(ハ)の考え方が有力であるが、終期をどう考えるかによって、明治維新の性格のとらえ方は違ってくる。

［遠山茂樹］

幕府の倒壊

すでに天保年間には、幕藩制の解体傾向は顕著に現れた。農民は封建領主の年貢の生産だけに専心する存在ではなくなり、商品生産者、商品販売者の性格を増し、各地に農村工業、それも問屋制家内工業あるいはマニュファクチュア（工場制手工業）が生まれ、ブルジョア的地主、小ブルジョア的富農、半プロレタリア的貧農という新しい階層が農民身分のなかから形成され始めた。年貢の輸送・販売を中心に三都（江戸、大坂、京都）や各藩の城下町の特権的大商人が独占的に支配していた従来の商業機構は、農民の商品生産に依存する新興中小商人の勢力の台頭によって崩されつつあった。幕府・諸藩とも財政窮迫に悩み、その打開策としてとった貨幣経済の農村侵入の阻止、年貢の増徴、専売制の拡大が、農民・商人の反抗を招いて失敗に帰したのも、この時期である。百姓一揆(いっき)は激発し、しかも領主に対する反抗だけでなく、村役人・地主に対する闘争も頻発し、村落秩序の根底から封建支配を揺るがした。加うるに都市では、物価騰貴に悩む下層民の蜂起(ほうき)である「打毀(うちこわし)」が起こり、一時封建支配が麻痺(まひ)するという情況も現れた。

　こうした封建制崩壊の諸条件を政治抗争にまで結集せしめたのは、1853年（嘉永6）のペリー来航を契機とする対外問題の切迫であった。欧米列強が武力の威嚇をもってわが国に強要したものは、鎖国制度を撤廃し、資本主義の世界市場の一環に組み込むことであった。しかも彼らの圧力のもとで結んだ安政通商条約は、欧米諸国と清朝(しんちょう)中国との間の条約を雛型(ひながた)とする不平等条約であり、開国に反対する封建支配者との間に武力衝突も起こった。幕末に日本は欧米強国により植民地化される危険をもったといえる。

　この植民地化の危機の進行を押さえることのできた第一の条件は、封建支配者が鎖国復帰と攘夷(じょうい)の実行の不可能を比較的早く悟ったことである。すなわち、通商条約締結をめぐって、幕府と雄藩、上層藩士と下層藩士の対立が激化し、攘夷を旗印とする幕閣批判の政治勢力が力をもったが、貿易は比較的順調に伸び、国内経済は当初若干の混乱はあったものの、商品経済発展の力をいっそう強める結果となり、大勢としては、農民・商人が武士の攘夷運動を支持することとならなかった。そのうえ幕府・諸藩の財政窮乏のため軍備充実は進まず、また1863年（文久3）の薩英(さつえい)戦争、翌年の四国連合艦隊下関(しものせき)砲撃事件という対外戦争の経験から、武士は彼我の武力の差を痛感するに至った。かくて幕府側にせよ、反幕派諸藩にせよ、指導者は、列国との接触を深め貿易に参加することによって、強兵と富国を実現しようとした。

　植民地化の危機が深まらなかった第二の条件は、列強側の事情にあった。在日外交団の指導的位置にあったイギリスは、アヘン戦争後の中国民衆の反英闘争、太平天国の乱、インドのセポイ（傭兵(ようへい)）の乱の鎮圧に東アジアでの武力を割かざるをえず、日本に対する武力行使には慎重であった。しかもイギリス対ロシア、イギリス対フランスの列強間の対立の増大のため、一国が独占的に日本に利権を設定することは困難であった。列強、とくにイギリスは、貿易発展の障害となっている封建制度の廃止を望んでいたが、民衆の力による革命、あるいは列国の直接干渉による実現は、むしろ市場の混乱をもたらすことになるとしてこれを避け、封建支配者内部の開明派を育成し、彼らの手で「上からの漸進的改革」を行わせることが望ましいと考えるようになった。

　1866年（慶応2）、米価をはじめ物価の暴騰、貢租の加重に悩む民衆は、江戸・大坂とその周辺地帯を中心に各地で一揆・打毀に立ち上がり、民衆の反封建闘争は江戸時代を通じ最大の高揚を示した。時あたかも幕府の第2回長州征伐の真っ最中であった。幕府が諸藩の大軍を動員しながら、当初の戦闘の敗北にくじけて早々に休戦を令したのは、財政窮迫に苦しむ諸藩が戦争の負担を嫌い、また内乱が下民の蜂起と外国の干渉を招くのを恐れたからであった。こうして薩摩藩ら雄藩を中心に、従来の幕閣専制を改めて、天皇の下での諸藩連合政権という形態によって、封建権力の統一と強化を図る工作が進行し、将軍徳川慶喜(よしのぶ)の政権返上に続いて、1867年12月9日に王政復古の宮中クーデターが行われ、幕府は廃止され、天皇政権が樹立されたのである。

［遠山茂樹］

統一国家の樹立と諸改革

王政復古の直後、薩摩藩・長州藩の挑発によって引き起こされた戊辰(ぼしん)戦争は、佐幕派勢力に打撃を与えただけでなく、天皇政府方を含めた藩全体の支配体制の解体を促進した。西ヨーロッパの絶対主義王権は、大規模かつ長期の内乱を通じて、強大な領主が他の領主を圧服して封建権力の統一を実現し、中央集権国家をつくりあげたものであるが、天皇は、古代以来の権威をもつとはいえ、実質の権力はなく、倒幕派雄藩によって「玉(ぎょく)」として新しく担ぎ出されたものであったから、改めて諸藩の藩主・藩士層や豪商・豪農層の支持を取り付けるために、幕藩制に対する革新的な姿勢をとった。江戸城総攻撃開始を目前に出された五か条の誓文はその表れであった。1869年（明治2）正月、薩・長・土・肥4藩主が王土王民思想を強調し、土地と人民を形式上天皇に返すという建白をすると、他の藩主もこれに倣い、版籍奉還(はんせきほうかん)が実現した。ついで1871年7月、詔勅の発布という形で廃藩置県を行い、さらに引き続いて華族（藩主と公卿(くぎょう)）と士族の封禄の整理を重ねたすえ、1876年の金禄公債の支給によって、封禄制度を全廃した。藩制度と封禄制度の廃止―封建支配者の特権の主要なものの解消―が、戊辰戦争と、1874～1877年の西南一部地域の士族反乱という、封建支配者間の比較的小規模の内乱を経ただけで、しかも民衆の革命的蜂起なしに実現をみたのは、ヨーロッパの歴史と比較して顕著な特色であった。すでに藩体制は、財政的にも軍事的にも破産情況にあり、それを救済できる中央権力の確立が全封建支配者の要望であった。そして領主制の解体にあたっては、藩の借金の大部分は政府に肩代りされ、華士族には金禄公債支給によって多額の補償費が支払われ、その結果は、民衆に重い租税負担を負わせることとなった。公債の利子で自活できる層は、華族と旧上層藩士に限られていたが、中下層士族には、官吏・軍人・教員に転身する機会が独占的に開かれており、農工商に従事する者への士族授産には、政府から特権的保護が与えられていた。もとより彼らのなかには没落し、不平を抱く者も多かったが、統一国家の建設、中央政府の強化、欧米文化の摂取による強兵富国の実現という政府の方針に反対することはできなかった。幕末以来の欧米列強の圧力と民族独立の危機とを痛感していたからである。

　廃藩置県後、政府は文明開化の改革政策を積極的に展開し、国民各層の多数を政府支持に引き付けようとした。1872年、学制を発布し、身分にかかわらずすべての国民の義務教育制を定め、翌年には、国民皆兵を看板とする徴兵令を出して、武士軍隊を廃止し、さらに地租改正条例を定めて、農民に土地所有権を認め、これまでの現物年貢を金納地租に改めた。これらの大改革の性格をどのように評価するかは、明治維新がブルジョア革命であるかどうかの理解と深くかかわることである。評価のうえでの問題点の第一は、これらの改革が、天皇の絶対的権威を国民に浸透させる施策および政府の中枢を占める藩閥勢力が内部対立を重ねながらしだいに統一強化してゆく過程と相表裏していることである。第二は、諸改革は、欧米資本主義国家の制度を模範として制定され、法令の内容、制度のたてまえはブルジョア的性格のものであったが、それと実際の立案意図、実施においてもつ現実の機能の歴史的性格とは、いちおう区別して考える必要があることである。すなわち、小学校の設立・維持の費用がもっぱら地域住民の負担と授業料によってまかなわれたため、権力の厳しい強制にかかわらず、国民皆学の実はあがらなかった。四民平等をたてまえとする徴兵令も、実際には広範な免役規定をもち、兵役を負担するのは貧しい民衆の二、三男に限られていた。また地租改正は、現実には法令の規定するとおりの地価の算定方法がとられず、従来の年貢総額を確保するという前提にたっての権力の強制による押し付けの決定であった。したがって、改革はいずれも民衆の激しい反対を受けた。これら改革の法令がたてまえとするブルジョア的内容が現実に成果として現れるのは、すなわち、小学校就学率が学齢児童の50％を超え、徴兵制の免役規定が廃止されて国民皆兵の実をもち、地租改正の結果が寄生地主制と資本主義経済に安定的に結び付くのは、1890～1900年代であった。この時期は、自由民権運動の発展とその挫折(ざせつ)を経過して、1889年大日本帝国憲法が発布され、藩閥専制が改められ立憲制が導入された反面、統帥権（軍隊の指揮権）をはじめとする天皇の絶大な大権が規定され、天皇を頭とする官僚機構が整備され、軍国主義が強化された。そして1894～1895年の日清(にっしん)戦争に勝利することで、植民地台湾を領有するという日本帝国主義が樹立する時期であった。

　終期を1877年とするか1889年とするか、いずれの見解をとるにせよ、明治維新とは、封建制から資本制への移行過程における政治的・社会的変革であり、その結果は、強力な天皇制官僚支配の確立と、軍国主義および寄生地主制と深く結び付いた日本資本主義の形成とをもたらしたということができよう。

［遠山茂樹］

『原口清著『日本近代国家の形成』（1966・岩波書店）』▽『芝原拓自著『日本の歴史23　開国』（1975・小学館）』▽『遠山茂樹著『明治維新と現代』（岩波新書）』

出典　小学館　日本大百科全書(ニッポニカ)日本大百科全書(ニッポニカ)について　情報 | 凡例

<<: Meiji Restoration Stories

>>: Business card - meishi