This thesis consists of (1) Introduction, (2) General view of the study-history, (3) The relation of Ku-Tang-lü-shu-yi (Ko-Toritsu-Sogi) to Yung-hui-lü-shu (Eiki-Risso), (4) The codification of the Japanese Code (Nihon-Ritsu) based on Tang-lü-shu (To-Risso), (5) Elimination and curtailment of Shu-wen (Sobun, the Commentary), (6) The codification of the Japanese Code, (7) Conclusion. The Japanese Code and Statute (Nihon-Ritsuryo) established at the beginning of the 8th century was an adopted form of the Chinese Code and Statute (Ritsurei), namely, Yung-hui-lü-ling (Eiki-Ritsurei) of Tang. Today, the view prevails that there is a great difference in the attitude of the adoption of the Code and that of the Statute. That is, the Japanese Statute (Nihon-Ryo) gave a great modification to the Tang Statute (To-Rei) by allowing for the situation of then Japan while the Japanese Code was nearly a copy of the Tang Code with nothing different from it. Examining not only this view about the adoption of the Code but the process of the codification of the Japanese Code as well, we could find that the studies so far made about it have neglected an important fact. That is, they have neglected the fact that the Japanese Code was based upon Lü-shu (Risso) which was an officially edited commentary, and codified into the Code (Ritsu), to put it the other way, that the Japanese Code adopted the commentary of the Tang Code not as the commentary but as the text of law. This is one of the most distinguishing points characterizing the Japanese Code and where great elaboration must have been needed in terms of the technical matters of codification.
Tang-lü-shu (To-Risso) was also so logically constructed that it seems nearly impossible to have given basic modifications to its mere parts. Consequently, the elaboration in codifing the Japanese Code was not only to rearrange Tang-lü-shu into the Japanese Code, but also to clarify the text of Tang-lü-shu in order to be able to apply it to the reality more smoothly. Thus, Examining the Japanese Code (Nihon-Ritsu) much more closely, we seem to realize that those studies hitherto made about it could not grasp the exact understanding of it, and we seem to have to give much higher estimation to the Japanese Code as a great product of those efforts.

View full abstract

1. Das Ziel dieses Aufsatzes
2. Grenze and Brauchbarkeit der archäologischen Methode
3. Haus and Dorf in paläolithischer and mesolithishcer Zeit
4. Haus and Dorf nach neolithischer Zeit
1) Die natürliche Bedingung
2) Die Entstehung von Bodenbau and Viehzucht and ihre Ausdehnung nach Mitteleuropa
3) Haus der Großfamilie and der Kleinfamilie
4) Großes (dichtes) Dorf and kleines Dorf
5) Burg, oppidum
6) Haus and Dorf in Germania des Tacitus
Seit der Entstehung der Ackerbau-Viehzucht-Kultur war Haus, soweit es sich auf Wohnen and Konsumsleben bezieht, zur Kleinfamilie bestimmt. Ausnahmen waren nur die langen Häuser von Donau I and Tripolye Kultur. Das würde sich aber aus der schnellen Wanderung nach dem fremden Land erklaren.
Das große Dorf, das aus mehreren Großfamilien gebildet worden war, wurde nach and nach bis zum Kleindorf verkleinert, das nunmehr aus nur einziger Großfamilie gebildet wurde. Besonders in Nordsee-und Ostseegebiet, wo sich die alten Germanen siedelten, fanden sich nur Kleindörfer.

View full abstract

On the previous paper (Hoseishi Kenkyu, Legal History Review, vol. 25, 1975) I made a comment on the lead letter of Achillodoros, which was found on the island of Berezan in the North Black Sea, from the point of view of Yu. G. Vinogradov, epigraphist of U. S. S. R. He assigned the letter to the second half of the sixth century B. C. and concluded that the slavery system as well as commerce had developed widely.
V. P. Yailenko, the same epigraphist of U. S. S. R., published his opinion about the above-mentioned letter against that of Vinogradov. About the same time, this letter has been discussed in England by John Chadwick, famous scholar for decipherment of Linear B of Mycenae records, and in France by Benedetto Bravo, an Italian historian who asserts the early development of commerce in Greek society. Now this letter is located in the centre of interest of ancient historian world-wide. This paper is to explain opinions of these three scholars in comparison with the result of Vinogradov's research.

View full abstract

As well known, T'ang-lü-shu-i (T'ang Code and Commentaries) consists of the Penal Code revised in 651 AD and its official commentaries compiled in 653, both having been slightly amended in 737. The Code includes the following provision: "Those who, taking advantage of authorized entrance to the Imperial Palace, shall talk with a court lady without permission or hand on a letter, clothing and other things shall be condemned to death by strangulation" (paragraph 2 of article 69). A decade ago, Mituo Riko argued pursuasively that the provision had not appeared in the Code until the text was revised in 737. The ground of his argument was a passage in T'ang-hui-yao which runs: "The 17th day of the 8th month, the 5th year of Yung-hui (September 2, 654) : A male court musician named Sung Ssu-t'ung, on an occasion of entrance as a matter of duty to the office of female musicians located in the inner section of the Palace, carried message for a court lady (in this situation, a musician). The Emperor ordered to behead him and to enact a provision to that effect to be added (_??_) to the Penal Code (_??_). Hsiao Chiin said in his memorial to the Throne, 'Ssu-t'ung's offence was committed before the enactment of the provision. He is not liable to capital punishment'. The Emperor said, We are happy to hear Hsiao Chün's argument'. By His order, Ssu-t'ung's capital punishment was mitigated to exile"(chüan 55).
From the obvious correspondence of the two materials, Riko has concluded that the provision must have come from an enactment which took place in 654 or later, i. e., after the promulgation of the Code and commentaries, and that it was incorporated in the Code on the next occasion of its total revision, i. e., in 737.
Makoto Okano's recent article argues, based on a linguistic analysis of the expression ft _??__??_, that the amendment of the Code itself took place as an exceptional case immediately after the event of Sung Ssu-t'ung's offence without waiting for the total revision in 737.
I agree wit. Okano as far as the linguistic analysis is concerned. However I question a premise in the arguments of Okano as well as Riko; they assume that the date (17/8/YH5) mentioned in T'ang-hui-yao was the date on which Sung committed the crime. According to my hypothetical opinion, the crime had been committed sometime in 653 or earlier when the drafting work of the Commentaries had been still in progress, and the mentioned date (17/8/YH5) was the date on which the case was finally settled. I assume that the insertion of the provision took place in 653 when the Commentaries were drafted and the Code itself was possibly revised. It was no exception to the rule that codes were to be amended only on an occasion of total revision. All the three authors see in Hsiao Chün's argument a resistance against the retroactive application of enactment.

View full abstract