¹ The scholarly legacy of this first Japanese reception of Chinese law has been carried forward for more than a millennium by generations of scholars of “ritsuryōgaku” (i.e., study of T'angderivative, Japanese codes) including much bibliographical work and disputation in recent centuries in trying to piece together lost texts. For a useful summary of the highlights of ritsuryōgaku from 1600 to date see, Masajirō, Takigawa, Hiroshi, Kobayashi, and Mitsuo, Rikō, “Ritsuryō kenkyushi” (History of [T'ang-styled] code studies), Hōseishi kenkyū (“Legal History Review”) 15 (1965) 144–195Google Scholar. Needless to say this scholarly tradition supported the renewed 18th century interest in Chinese law explored in this paper, and there has also been a certain overlap between Chinese and Japanese legal historians with mutual benefit by way of insights and materials contributed one to the other.

² Besides the various codes, commentaries, the chronicles and diaries as cited hereafter, this survey owes much to the pioneering work of Kobayakawa Kingo, “Minritsuryō no waga kinseihō ni oyobaseru eikyō” (Ming Code influences extending into our law of the recent era [Tokugawa period]), Tōa jimbun gakuhō (Report of Studies in East Asian Culture) 4 (1945) 197–257Google Scholar. Other Japanese works which have been helpful are: Kenji, Maki, “Higohan keihō soshō no seiritsu; toku ni sono Minritsu sanshaku ni tsuite” (The establishment of the ‘Draft Penal Law’ of the Higo domain, especially concerning its reference to the Ming Penal Code), Hōgaku ronsō (“Kyoto Law Review”) 48 (1943) 701–747Google Scholar; Heiichirō, Kaneta, “Kumamoto-han ‘Keihō sōsho-kō” (Thoughts on the ‘Draft Penal Code’ of the Kumamoto domain), Hōsei kenkyū (Studies of law and politics) 12 (1942) 135–205Google Scholar; Chū, Matsushita, “Dai Minritsu kenkyū ni okeru Kishūhan to Ken'engaku-ha” (Studies of the Great Ming Penal Code of the Kii domain and the Ken'en scholarly group [Ogyū Sorai's]), Wakayama daigaku gakugei gakubu kjyō jimbun kagaku (Reports of the department of arts and cultural sciences, Wakayama University) III (1953) 68–85Google Scholar; Yutaka, Tezuka, “Wakayama han Kokuritsu” (The ‘Provincial Penal Law’ of Wakayama domain), Hōgaku kenkyū (Studies in jurisprudence) 26 (1953) 425Google Scholar; and generally Inoue Kaoru, Shohan no keibatsu (Penalties of the various [daimyo] domains) 458 pp. (Tokyo, 1965)Google Scholar. Each of the above works will be cited hereafter only by the author's name and the pertinent pages.

³ A word of explanation for nonspecialists may be helpful. The Tokugawa “feudal” regime was comprised of the Tokugawa Shogun's central domain which controlled directly land with about one quarter of Japanese rice production under a government called the Shogunate (bakufu) in Edo (now Tokyo). The rest of Japan was held by some 265 daimyo who had their own acknowledged feudal subordination to the Tokugawa Shoguns, but within their fiefs (han) they had full governing powers to make and enforce law, with only minimal restrictions from Edo. This whole legally decentralized system is called the bakuhan taisei by modern historians, and it is necessary to bear in mind the daimyo's legal autonomy, described above, in order to understand his use of Chinese law in code-making activities mentioned hereafter. The daimyo autonomy in criminal law matters is explained well in Hiramatsu Yoshirō, Kinsei keiji soshōhō no kenkyū (Study of the law of criminal procedure in the recent era) pp. 3–245 (Tokyo, 1960).Google Scholar

⁴ In calling attention to 18th century uses of Chinese law, we do not intend to imply that there were not some new infusions of Chinese law in the seven or eight centuries immediately preceding 1700; but such is another aspect of Japanese legal history little known in western languages; the renewed interest in Chinese law about 1700 and a new vigor in its pursuit is our subject here.

⁵ Henderson, D. F., “Chinese Influences in 18th Century Tokugawa Codes”Google Scholar (mimeo.) a paper read at a conference on the History of Chinese Law at Villa Serbelloni, Bellagio, Lake Como, Italy, August 7, 1969.

⁶ For example, the Chinese derivation of Sorai's legal theory may be seen in his Tōmonsho (Written inquiries and answers) in Nihon rinri ihen (Compendium on Japanese ethics) Vol. 6, p. 146 at 154–155 (Inoue Tetsujiro, ed; Tokyo, 1902)Google Scholar; or Bendō (Way to advocacy), in Nihon rinri ihen Vol. 6, p. 18Google Scholar. Sorai thought that when a bureaucratic, civil system began to replace feudalism, law must supplement the rules of propriety (reigaku). This idea seemed to him relevant to his Japan. See generally Uchida Tomō, “Ogyū Sorai no chothe jutsu ni tsuite: ‘hōritsuka’ to shite no Sorai kenkyū no jōsetsu” (Concerning Ogyū Sorai's literary works: introduction to the study of Sorai as a jurist), Doshisha hōgaku Vol. 14 (1962) 643.Google Scholar

⁷ The quotations at notes 42, 44, 56, 57, 60–64, 73 and 82 were translated by Leon Hurvitz, Department of Asian Languages and Literature, University of Washington from the Kobayakawa article (see note 2). I have then rechecked against the original texts as shown in their respective citations. In translating certain Chinese texts Hurvitz benefited from the kind help of Tai Yen-hui of National Taiwan University.

⁸ The 1966 printing of Ogyü Kan's Ming Code (Ming lü) with the 1585 version of substatutes (Monkei jōrei; Wen hsing t'iao li) punctuated for Japanese readers and combined with Ogyū Sorai's Japanese Commentary plus a good index makes it much more convenient to understand Sorai's achievements and compare them with an authoritative Ming commentator. See Shigekimi, Sorai Butsu (Uchida Tomō and Hihara Toshikuni [ed.]), Ritsurei taishō teibon, Min ritsu kokujikai (Standard text of the Ming Code with comments in our script; with law and substatutes cross-referenced) Sobunsha, Tokyo; 1966) 861 pp.Google Scholar and index of 44 pp. Hereafter cited “Ogyū's Ming Code and Commentary.”

⁹ See Tatsuya, Tsuji, Kyōhō kaikaku no kenkyū (Study of the Kyōhō [1716–1735] reforms) 3 (Tokyo, 1963)Google Scholar for a similar thesis.

¹⁰ See Yoshio, Koide, “Osadamegaki hyakkajō hensan no jijō ni tsuite” (Concerning the conditions of compilation of the Osadamegaki hyakkajō [gekan]), Shichō (“The Journal of History”) (no. 3) (1934) 112.Google Scholar

¹¹ Interesting here are Tokugawa Ieyasu's early and only mildly successful efforts to search out remaining ritsuryō texts and treatises. See Takigawa, , Kobayashi, and Rikō, , Hōseishi kenkyū 15 (1965) 144, 145Google Scholar. For example only two (Shikisei or chihchih [administration] and Zokutō or tse-tao [violence and theft]) of twelve chapters (hen) of the penal laws (lū; ritsu) were turned up after a countrywide search by Ieyasu in 1614. Parts of three others (first part of one, of two, books of the Myōrei ritsu or Ming li [terms and general principies]; last half of Eikin ritsu [Guards]; and part of Tōsho [complaints]) have been found since. Also, of course, other provisions have been pieced together from quotations in other contemporary Japanese literature over the centuries beginning about 1615.

¹² Osamu, Oba, Edo jidai ni okeru karabune mochiwatarisho no kenkyū (Study of books brought over by T'ang [Chinese] ships in the Edo period) p. 32 (Osaka: Kansai University, 1967)Google Scholar. [Hereafter, Oba].

¹³ Concerning Yoshimune, one reads as follows: “First he gave orders to seek out the old books of our own country, then, from among the books brought by Chinese merchants, after consulting the catalogues, he would single out those that were most useful. That is to say, he would not go out of his way to seek out verse, such as shih and fu, or elegant prose, but made a point of collecting books likely to be helpful to statecraft and to serve as tools of government, .…” [italics supplied]. Yūtokuin dono O-jikki furoku (Appendix to the Annals of Lord Yutokuin [Yoshimune]), in Katsumi, Kuroita (ed.), Shintei zōhō Kokushi taikei (Newly edited and supplemented compendium of national history) Vol. 46, p. 243 (Tokyo, 1934)Google Scholar. [Hereafter Jikki, Kokushi taikei, Vol. 46].

¹⁴ Matsushita, , p. 71Google Scholar (1953) places the date at 1694 for Sakakibara Kōshū's Dai-Min ritsurei genkai [Ta-Ming lü-li yen-chieh] (Colloquial Commentary on the Great Ming Code and substatutes). It is the first major Japanese work on the Ming code, and was reedited and printed by wood blocks by his son Kashū and Torii Shuntaku in 1713.

¹⁵ See Zötei, Tsuji ZennosukeKaigai kōtsū-shi (Enlarged and revised history of foreign intercourse) 640 (Tokyo, 1931)Google Scholar. See Keene, Donald, The Battle of Coxinga [Kuo Hsing-yeh] p. 48 (London, 1951)Google Scholar describing the background of the puppet play, Kokusenya Kassen, by Chikamatsu (1715) which shows that the Ming cause was popular even in Tokugawa theatre of the time.

¹⁶ Oba, , p. 238Google Scholar (1967) has a chart showing Chinese publication dates and dates of book arrivals in Edo libraries. In the cases of some books the elapsed time was remarkably short, only two or three years. But his chart deals only with the arrivals in the period 1807–1852, and no important law books appear on the list. In the early 17th century the timing was also remarkably short provided the Shogunate ordered specific books already published. Thus the statement in the text is intended to indicate a probability (until further evidence is found) that the revised annotated Ch'ing Code (1725) did not arrive for use during the period of compiling the Osadamegaki. For example, Yoshimune ordered the first edition of the Ta-Ch'ing hui-tien (Collection of the great Ch'ing [included the penal code]) in 1720 and it was this version of Ch'ing law which Fukami Shinuemon translated for Yoshimune in 1723. See Oba, , p. 132.Google Scholar

¹⁷ By the time of Takizawa Bakin (1767–1848), the more empirical work of the Ch'ing writers was favored by some of the intellectual class in general. Zolbrod, Leon, Takizawa Bakin 74 (New York, 1967)Google Scholar. Also Naikaku bunko no zōsho mokuroku (Catalog of books stored in the Cabinet Library [successor to some of the Momijiyama collection]) 150 (Tokyo, 1956)Google Scholar shows an extensive list of works on the Ch'ing Code, probably acquired in the late 18th and 19th centuries, and in 1874 the Zōshū kunten shin ritsu isan (Enlarged compilation of the Ch'ing Penal Code with punctuation [for Japanese readers]) 12 vols. (Tokyo: Mimpōryō, 1874) edited by Matsuoka with the support of Hosokawa. Also Tsuji Zennosuke, 672 (1931) gives much data on the late Ch'ing influences.

¹⁸ The assumptions about the nature and proper use of penal statutes surrounding the Osadamegaki (and the Chinese law studies in preparation for compiling it) are complex and subtly related to the thought and society of the times. See Henderson, D. F. and Yoshirō, Hiramatsu, Introduction to the Osadamegaki (Harvard mimeo) (1969).Google Scholar

¹⁹ This scholarship, usually, by court nobles, was centered around the Imperial Court, and the rituals and ranks of its formal microcosm. Takigawa, , Kobayashi, and Rikō, , p. 153Google Scholar. Ritsuryō-gaku was rendered more vital and practical when later in the 18th century the Nationalist Scholars (Kokugakusha) became interested in it as a source of tradition; their work laid a foundation for a brief period when after 1868, the Kari Keiritsu and Shinritsu Kōryō were drafted along traditional Chinese lines and were actually enforced as the general criminal codes throughout the nation. See Yutaka, Tezuka, Meiji shoki keihō-shi no kenkyū (Studies of the history of early Meiji criminal law) 33 (Tokyo, 1956)Google Scholar, who points out the role of Hosokawa and his Ming law specialists of Kumamoto han.

²⁰ Yoshirō, Hiramatsu, Kinsei keiji soshōhō no kenkyū (Study of the law of criminal procedure in the recent era) 774 (Tokyo, 1960).Google Scholar

²¹ See Matsushita, , p. 76Google Scholar (1953) for an account of the early Ming Code studies in Wakayama and the importance of Chinese language skills to it. Also see: Gōichi, Saitō, “Tokugawa jidai no kambungaku” (Chinese language studies in the Tokugawa period), in Kinsei Nihon no jugaku (Confucianistic studies in Japan of the recent era) p. 869 (Tokyo, 1939)Google Scholar. Matazō, Ishizaki, Edo jidai ni okeru Shina zokugo bungaku-shi (History of Chinese vernacular literature in the Edo period) (1940)Google Scholar; Matazō, Ishizaki, “Kanzan igo ni okeru Shina gogaku no ryūkō ni tsuite” (Concerning popularity of Chinese language study after [Okajima] Kanzan), Shoshigaku (Studies in Bibliography) 7–20 (1941).Google Scholar

²² E.g., see Sentetsu sōdan (Collected talks of sages of yore) in Dai Nihon bunko jukyō-hen Literary depository of Great Japan: part on confucianism) p. 321 (Tokyo, 1936).

²³ Matsushita, , p. 79 (1953).Google Scholar

²⁴ Chisō, Naitō (ed.), Tokugawa Jūgodai-shi (History of fifteen generations of the Tokugawa) Vol. 6, p. 147 (Tokyo, 1893).Google Scholar

²⁵ Matazō, Ishizaki, Edo jidai ni okeru Shina zokugo bungaku-shi, p. 126–129 (Tokyo, 1940).Google Scholar

²⁶ I am indebted to Matsushita Chū, Wakayama University, for supplying me with much information about Sakakibara Kōshū and Takose Kiboku, also see his “Sakakibara Kōshū-cho ‘Dai-min ritsurei genkai’ to ‘Minritsu yakkai’ ni tsuite kyūsetsu wo zesei sum” (Correcting the old theory about Sakakibara Kōshū's ‘Great Ming Code with vernacular commentary’ and ‘Ming Code translation and commentary’), Kambun gakkai kaihō (Report of the scholarly association for Chinese studies) no. 13, 7–10 (1951)Google Scholar. Matsushita concludes that the two titles, which appear in several reference works, probably refer to a single work completed by Kōshū in 1694 under the first title above (i.e., Dai-Min ritsurei genkai; Ta-Ming lü-li yen-chieh). Later the work was reedited and printed by wood blocks in 1713 by Sakakibara's son, Kashū, and Torii Shuntaku, apparently at Yoshimune's request. The latter was in 31 volumes of which the Table of Contents (Mokuroku) and Volumes 1–14 exist at Wakayama University, and a complete copy exists at the National Library (Ueno) but on comparison Matsushita finds it has numerous copying errors and also interlineal notes.

Also, the Kokusho sōmokuroku (General catalog of Japanese books), Vol. 5, p. 486 (Tokyo Iwanami, 1969)Google Scholar says there is a copy at the Naikaku Bunko (30 Vols. [kan]) and another at Waseda University (Vols. 1–13 [kan]).

²⁷ Oba, , p. 122Google Scholar notes that in the books at the Momijiyama Library at Edo Castle, there was a howgroup listed “before 1643,” among which appears a title, Dai-Min ritsu. So, the code had probably been in Edo a long time, but competent scholars who had any practical interest in law and statescraft and who could get and read the Ming Code did not seem to appear until the late 1600's in Wakayama.

²⁸ Tsunanori's diary, 12th day, 1st moon, 1715 (Shotoku 5). Also see Junsei, Iwahashi, Sorai ken kyü (Study on [Ogyū] Sorai) p. 420 (1934 reprinted Tokyo, 1969)Google Scholar where it says that Kōshū and Takase Kiboku both did little more than para phrase the Ming Code, but in the Ming Code Ianguage of little help to Japanese. Compare Matsushita, , p. 74 (1953)Google Scholar which suggests that Sakakibara's work Dai Min-ritsurei genkai is undervalued nowadays and that it is, if anything, superior to Sorai's similar work (Min-ritsu kokujikai) which, however, has been by far the most accessible work and probably for no other reason has been for years generally assumed to be the most advanced Japanese commentary of the Ming Code in the Edo period. Matsushita thus raises a question which it would be interesting to see more fully documented than the few concrete passages of the two works which he compares, for Sakakibara has surely been badly treated by historians, if Matsushita is correct.

²⁹ See generally Oba, , p. 118–177Google Scholar for an account of the importation and handling of Chinese books for the Shogun and his officials. Oba has added a wealth of primary materials and many fascinating and careful comments which will assist greatly in future studies of Japanese/Chinese cultural relations during the Edo period.

³⁰ Oba, , p. 119.Google Scholar

³¹ Oba, , p. 121 and 683Google Scholar. Several of these books are found in the Ming-shih i-wen-chih (Treatise on art and literature, Dynastic history of the Ming) Vol. 97 (chüan) p. 1032 (Taipei ed., 1962).

³² Hakuseki, Arai, Oritaku shiba no ki (Hakuse ki's autobiography) pp. 522–523 (Michio, Miyazaki ed; Tokyo, 1964)Google Scholar. I am indebted to Kate Nakai, doctoral candidate at Harvard, for the translated reference.

³³ Tokugawa kinreikō (Consideration of Tokugawa Regulations) separate volume (bekkan) p. 13 (Edited by Ryōsuke, Ishii) (Tokyo, 1961)Google Scholar. [Hereafter cited, Kinreikō].

³⁴ Takigawa, , Kobayashi, and Rikō, , p. 152–153 (1965).Google Scholar

³⁵ See Sakai, Robert, “The Ryūkyū (Liu-ch'iu) Islands as a Fief of Satsuma,” in Fairbank, John K., ed., The Chinese World Order, 112, 127 (Cambridge, 1968).Google Scholar

³⁸ General information is based on his biography, Iwao, Kondo, Kaga Shounkō 3 vols., (Tokyo, 1909)Google Scholar unless otherwise indicated.

³⁷ Kobayakawa, , p. 211 (1945).Google Scholar

³⁸ “Kashū wa tenka no shofu nari,” as quoted in Kizaburō, Wakabayshi, Maeda Tsunanori 146Google Scholar, in the Jimbutsu sōsho (Series on Personalities) Vol. 66 (Tokyo, 1961).Google Scholar

³⁹ Wakabayashi, , p. 142–144 (1961).Google Scholar

⁴⁰ See, for example, Zennosuke, Tsuji, Zotei kaigai kotsu-shi p. 660 (1931)Google Scholar; and Yasuhiko, Kimiya, Nikka bunka koryu-shi (History of Sino-Japanese Cultural Confluences) p. 695 (Tokyo: Fuzambo, 1955)Google Scholar; and Michihiro, Ishihara, Shu shun-sui (Chu Shun-shui) 301 pp.Google Scholar in Jimbutsu sōsho (series on personalities) no. 83 (Tokyo, 1961)Google Scholar, especially the bibliography on p. 295.

⁴¹ In the Shōun-sai tokuhon (Shoun-sai reader) in Sōka jien (Letter garden of Mulberry Blossoms), there is a notation which leads one to assume that Tsunanori compiled the Dai Min ritsu shosho shikō after an extended reading of the Ming literature available to him.

⁴² Quoted in Kobayakawa, , p. 210 (1945)Google Scholar. Iwao, Kondō, Kaga Shōun-kō Vol. 2, p. 214Google Scholar says Tsunanori got seven works on the Ming Code from Korea through Tsūshima.

⁴³ Kobayakawa identifies “Nomiya” as Nonaka Chunagon Sadamoto, second son of Nakanoin Michishige, one of the most learned of the Court nobles of his day. Even Arai Hakusei consulted him on official ranks. See his Shinya mondō (Queries in new fields) in Arai Hakuseki zenshū (Complete works of Arai Hakuseki) Vol. 6, p. 554 (Tokyo, 1907).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ As quoted in Kobayakawa, , p. 211 (1945).Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Sō was the daimyo from Tsushima Island, midway between Japan and Korea. The Sō daimyo, because of his location, had extraordinary privileges from the shogunate to deal with the Koreans, despite the overall Japanese isolation policy.

⁴⁶ Ta-Ming hui-lien (Taipei reprint of 1587 version; 1963) section 128.

⁴⁷ SirStaunton, George Thomas, Ta Tsing Leu Lee; being the Fundamental Laws and selection from the Supplementary Statutes of the Penal Code of China 126 (Taipei reprint, 1966; originally printed London, 1810).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ The text of this provision is found in Ogyū's Ming Code and Commentary p. 218–219Google Scholar ( # 128). The character for t'i appears there instead of the one for tieh, and t'i also appears in both the Ming and Ch'ing codes.

⁴⁹ Takigawa, , Kobayashi, , and Rikō, , p. 153Google Scholar supports the view that studies of Chinese law of a different quality and usefulness began under Yoshimune's sponsorship.

⁵⁰ Jikki, Kokushi taikei Vol. 46, p. 235Google Scholar (upper).

⁵¹ Tatsuya, Tsuji, Kyōhō kaikaku no kenkyū (Study of the reforms of Kyōhō, 1716–1735) 98 (Tokyo, 1962)Google Scholar; Totman, Conrad, Politics in the Tokugawa Bakufu, 1600–1843, p. 170 (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1967).Google Scholar

⁵² Kenzan reitaku hisaku Vol. 4, in Nihon Keizai taiten (Compilation on the Japanese economy) Vol. 6, p. 427 (Tokyo, 1928).Google Scholar

⁵³ Jikki, Kokushi taikei, Vol. 46, p. 236Google Scholar (lower).

⁵⁴ Tatsuya, Tsuji, Tokugawa Yoshimune kōden (Biography of Lord Tokugawa Yoshimune) 254 (Tokyo, 1960).Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Oba, , p. 33–63 (1966)Google Scholar gives a brief sketch of shogunal regulations and procedures on book importation and censorship.

⁵⁶ [Yoshimune], Kishū seiji-gusa (Draft of Kishū goverance) (1714), printed in Nanki Tokugawashi (History of the southern Tokugawa of Kii) Vol. 1, p. 591 (Tokyo 1898)Google Scholar. This book is said to have been given as guidance by Yoshimune in handwritten copies to house elders of Kii han, Taitō, Andō and Tosa, Mizuno in 1714.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Jikki, Kokushi Taikei Vol. 46, p. 243Google Scholar (bottom).

⁵⁸ See Henderson, , “Promulgation of Tokugawa Statutes,” Journal of Asian and African Studies Vol. 1, (Leiden, 1967) 9.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ For terakoya see Dore, Ronald, Education in Tokugawa Japan 252 (Berkeley, 1965).Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Huang Ming T'ai-Tsu shih-lu (Annals of the Ming Emperor T'ai-Tsu [9th moon, 1397]) (255 fascicle), p. 36771 (Taipei reprint, 1966).Google Scholar

⁶¹ The derivation and use of this institution in China is well set out in Kung-chuan, Hsiao, Rural China, Imperial Control in the Nineteenth Century p. 185 (Seattle, 1960)Google Scholar; cf. Huang-Ch'ing ch'ao wen-hsien t'ung-k'ao (Compendium of Ch'ing dynasty writings) 21st fascicle, Official position (chihi) Section 1, p. 5047 (in Shih T'ung, Shanghai, Commercial Press, 1936Google Scholar); (Emperor Jen of the Great Ch'ing) Ta-Ch'ing Sheng-tsu Jen-huang-ti shih-lu Annals of Sheng tsu 34th fascicle.

⁶² Kenzan reitaku hisaku Vol. 5, in Nihon Keizei taiten, Vol. 6, p. 497.Google Scholar

⁶³ Jikki, Kokushi taikei, Vol. 46, p. 245 (1934).Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Kenzan reitaku hisaku Vol. 5, Nihon Keisai taiten, Vol. 6, p. 497.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Jikki, Kokushi taikei, Vol. 46, p. 230Google Scholar (bottom).

⁶⁶ Ogyū's Ming Code and Commentary p. 5 (Tokyo, 1966)Google Scholar. See also p. 43 (back pagination) for a list showing the number of times each work was cited by Sorai. The Hsiang-hsing ping-chien was also listed in the re-edited version of Sakakibara Kōshū's Dai-Min ritsurei genkai (1713). I have not been able to find this work in the Ming shih though a similar title Hsiang-hsing yao-lan (2 Chüan) by Na, Wu and Meng-Iin, LeiTu-lü so yen are listed in the Ming Shih (chüan 97) Vol. 2, p. 1032Google Scholar (Kuo-fang yen chiu-yüan ed. 1963).

Tung Yü, the author of Hsiang-hsing ping-chien (as given by Ogyū's Ming Code and Commentary p. 5Google Scholar) is mentioned as a vice president of a board in 1898 in the biography of Ting-tsan, Hsieh, Ming shih (chüan 121) Vol. 4, p. 2671–5.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Sorai-shū (Sorai's works) 29 fascicle,

⁶⁸ Sorai shu shui (Gleanings from the Sorai Anthology). Cf. Matsushita, , p. 74Google Scholar who says the earlier work of Sakakibara (Dai-Min ritsurei genkai) was more detailed, better arranged, and more understandably written. To assist readers it has the text of the Ming statute; then a Japanese translation; then detailed definitions of terms; then a simple overall interpretation; whereas Sorai is less detailed and the comments cover only selected points in each provision. Also Sorai separates the law (lü) from related substatutes (t'iao li); whereas Sakakibara arranged his text so that the substatutes conveniently follow the law. We can not arbitrate this issue here and now, but if Matsushita is correct it is regrettable that Sakakibara's “Genkai” has not been made more accessible. See also note 28 above.

⁶⁹ Ogyú's Ming Code and Commentary, p. (1966).Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Ibid.

⁷¹ Jikki, Kokushi taikei Vol. 46, p. 241Google Scholar (bottom).

⁷² Masajirō, Takigawa, Shina hōseishi kenkyū (Studies in Chinese legal history) 98 (1940).Google Scholar

⁷³ Jikki, Kokushi taikei Vol. 46, p. 243Google Scholar (bottom).

⁷⁴ Kobayakawa, , 208.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Kobayakawa, , 208Google Scholar says “Sorai,” but I think this is a copy error, for Sorai's younger brother, Kan, is usually credited with this work on the T'ang-lü shu-i. See Takigawa, , Kobayashi, and Rikō, , p. 151.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ See Shiseki shūran (Survey of collected historical writings) 17 (satsu) for Ogyu Kan's own account of this work.

⁷⁷ The 1890 edition available to me is a reprint of a Yuan edition 1327 (University of Washington, Seattle 4882/7181), which is a different version.

⁷⁸ Takigawa, , Kobayashi, and Rikō, , p. 151Google Scholar. Rikō says a Ch'ing jurist, Shen edited Kan's book in 1730; then later in Japan it was further edited and officially published there in 1805.

⁷⁹ This is the Ryō no gige (enforced 834 A.D.), the official commentary on the Yōrō ryō. See Ryōsuke, Ishii, Nihon hōseishi gaisetsu (Survey of Japanese legal history) 69 (1960).Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Jikki, Kokushi taikei VoL 46, p. 244Google Scholar (bottom).

⁸¹ Kobayakawa, , p. 208 (1945).Google Scholar

⁸² The Ryō no shūge was a collection of private commentaries compiled by Koremune Naomoto about 859–884. Seventeen of thirty original fasciles still exist. Ryō no shūge first gives the official interpretation from Ryō no gige, then the private interpretations. Koremune Naomoto also did a Ritsu no shūge, on the penal code, but it has all been lost.

⁸³ Jikki, Kokushi taikei, Vol. 46, p. 244Google Scholar (bottom) (1934).

⁸⁴ Jikki, Kokushi taikei. Vol. 46, p. 256Google Scholar (bottom) (1934).

⁸⁵ Oba, , p. 134 (1967).Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Narumi, Mizumoto, ed., Zōshū kunten Shinritsu isan (Compendium of the Ch'ing Code with diacritical markings added) 12 books (kan) (Tokyo: Meihōryō, 1874)Google Scholar. Mizumoto says, in the preface (jo) that the Meihōryō staff (i.e., the chief, Kusuda Eisei, Matsuoka Morinobu and Hamaguchi Korenaga) further edited the Kumamoto manuscript and supplemented it with illustrations from another compendium stored at the Meihōryō; fortunately he does not give us the information we would like to have about said “other compendium” of Ch'ing law.