The purpose of this monograph is to reexamine the hitherto-made researches on the miscellaneous labour services (_??__??_ zayao, zoyou) under the Code-Statute system of the Tang and Ancient Japan and to consider what it means that the Taxation Statutes (_??__??__??_) of the Tang do not have any article prescribing for zayao. There are many fruitful studies on the taxation system and the financial administration under the Tang Dynasty.The institutional study was thought to have been completed by the publication of _??__??__??__??_ and _??__??__??__??__??_; The Remnants of the T'ang Statutes and The Addenda. But in the year 1999, a written copy of the Statutes of Tian-Sheng (_??__??__??_) under the Northern-Sung Dynasty was discovered in the Tian-Yi-Ge Library (_??__??__??_) in Ning-bo City. The full text of discovered ten scrolls is not yet made public, but the scroll of the Taxation Statutes is already published. We have come to know many articles of the Taxation Statutes of the year 737 (_??__??_25), and be able to have some images of the whole constitution of them. Under the Tang, Zayao is not included by the complex of taxes keyi (_??__??_), which is a poll tax levied on every adult male (_??_ ding), consisting of zu (_??_), yong (_??_) and diao. (_??_) It is not a liability of annual labour service of fixed days, but necessary enough and temporary corvée. Therefore, the Taxation Statutes do not include a specific article prescribing for zayao. Zayao services are parts of the imposition system (_??__??_ chaike), in which citizens are appointed to specific workers and compulsory labourers (_??__??_ seyi) according to their grades of household based on the property assessment. The appointed citizens in general enjoy the exemption from the duty of zayao labour, and in case that they have heavier duties to do, are exempted not only from zayao but also from a part or the whole of keyi taxes. It was quite natural in the Tang era that all citizens should make some kinds of services for the Emperor according to their social status and property. On the other hand, the Taxation Statutes of Japan prescribe that zoyou should be a corvlabour service of fixed days, but necessary enough and temporary corvée within the limit of sixty days commanded by provincial governors. Zoyou is included by the complex of taxes (_??__??_ kayaku) as well as chou (_??_) and you (_??_), and looks like one of taxes for the central government. For example, the provincial authority makes zoyou labourers to produce some kinds of tributes and serve for the Tenno's visits. Thus zoyou service is turned into a poll tax in Ancient Japan, and this supports a hypothesis that a local chieftain leads members of the community under his influence to make services for the central government or for provincial governors.
This article is a study on the introduction of the Court Assize (Chaoshen _??__??_) in early Qing dynasty with respect to three aspects of its background, procedure, and case-classification. In the Code (Lüli _??__??_) of Qing dynasty, capital punishments were expressly distinguished into decapitation, strangulation, and so on at the point of the punishment type, and also distinguished into Lijue (_??__??_) and Jianhou (_??__??_) at the point of the execution timing. The bureaucratic structure also functioned as the judicial structure. Each bureaucrat who would judge a case made it clear that the suspect had some criminal act; selected the suitable punishment according to Lüli; and reported to superior officer for his sanction. In capital cases, the emperor would finally judge. If it was a Lijue case, a person judged to death by the emperor was simultaneously ordered to execute; if it was a Jianhou case, on the other hand, he was not immediately executed. There was the revision procedure whether to be executed or not about Jianhou criminals. The revision procedure for Jianhou criminals in the prison of the Board of Punishment at the Metropolitan was called the Court Assize. The revision procedure in the local prison was called the Autumn Assize (Qiushen _??__??_). In ancient China, there was an idea that crimes should not be executed at spring and summer, except for special significant crimes that should be executed without delay. Ming dynasty classified each of capital crimes on Lü (_??_) whether to be executed without delay or not, and began the revision procedure about criminals of Qiuhou-Chujue (_??__??__??__??_) who were not executed until autumn. Just after entering Peking, Qing dynasty decided to distinguish between Lijue and Jianhou in local cases. Surely the local Jianhou cases were subject to the revision, but without Qiuhou-Chujue. Cases in the Metropolitan Area had neither such distinction nor such revision procedure. Since the Han bureaucrats regarded such inconsistency as the problem, they often requested to introduce Qiuhou-Chujue procedure and the distinction between Lijue and Jianhou in the Metropolitan cases. Finally, in Shunzhi (_??__??_) 10 (1653), Li-Huaxi (_??__??__??_), who was the Minister of the Board of Punishment explained the necessity of the reform of the procedure in view of political purpose of legal unity. Then it was decided to introduce such distinction into cases of the Metropolitan Area. On this opportunity, it was decided that all Jianhou cases were to be Qiuhou-Chujue and that the revision procedure should be carried out at the autumn execution in all districts. When Qing formed the Court Assize procedure based on that in Ming dynasty, Qing did not reproduce faithfully, but adapted it to the society and the bureaucratic structure which was mixed by the Manchuria and the Han. Thus the political system in early Qing dynasty was reflected in the practice of the Court Assize. The revision procedure had some case-classifications. In Court Assize, bureaucrats judged and selected suitable class for each criminal, and submitted the case for imperial sanction. Each Kejin and Keyi was one of the case-classifications of revision procedure. The former was used for comparatively slight cases of Jianhou; the latter was used for doubtful cases. Kejin or Keyi meant that the execution was not suitable for the criminal of that case. Because Kejin and Keyi had such resembled function, these two categories was confused, so that a term Jinyi (_??__??_) was seen at Ming. In some case, these two seem to substantially be confused. But, in materials, it also seems that bureaucrats distinguished Kejin from Keyi as the category of case-classifications. The seriousness of the case was the classification criterion.
Die sichere Quellenbasis ist die Grundlage der modernen Historiogra-phie. Diesem Leitgedanke entsprechend ist die philologische Quellenfor-schung in den letzten Jahrzehnten stets eines der Hauptanliegen der historischen Kanonistik gewesen. Bezüglich des Gratianischen Dekrets war es ein Aufsatz Kuttners, der die Grundlage dafür bildete. In seinem 1948 erschienenen Aufsatz De Gratiani opere noviter edendo hat Kuttner aufgrund seiner enormen Kenntnisse über die Dekrethandschriften die Schwäche der Standardedition, der Edition Friedbergs, in concreto auf-gezeigt and gleichzeitig die Historiker des kanonischen Rechts aufgefor-dert, ungeachtet der Schwierigkeiten der Zeit eine neue kritische Aus-gabe hervorzubringen. Seitdem ist es allgemein bekannt, class die Edition Friedbergs fehler-haft ist and keine kritische Ausgabe darstellt. Trotzdem ist die Frage, ob man sich wirklich an eine erneute Editionsarbeit machen sollte, nicht unumstritten. Zwar wollen auch diejenigen, die die Friedbergsche Edition fur befriedigend halten, damit nicht behaupten, dass these Edition eine kritische Ausgabe darstelle. Sie behaupten nur, class die neue Edition aller Bemühungen zum Trotz keinen großen Unterschied zur Edition Friedbergs aufweisen würde. Es handelt sich also nicht um einen theoreti-schen Anspruch, sondern nur um eine praktische Lösung. Wenn sich aber eine "kritische" Edition als kaum anders erweisen sollte als eine nicht "kritische" Edition, wird der große Aufwand an Zeit and Kraft in die Editionsarbeit zwangsläufig in Frage gestellt. Wenn man trotzdem auf einer neuen Edition bestehen will, dann muss man sich zuallererst über den entscheidenden Unterschied klar werden, der zwischen einer "kriti-schen" und einer nicht "kritischen" Edition bestehen soil. Die Frage lautet, ob man in diesern Zusammenhang überhaupt von einer communis opinio dazu sprechen kann. Zur Beantwortung dieser Frage wird ein Blick auf die Debatte urn die editio romana als Basistext der englischen Übersetzung wohl nützlich sein. Die von Christensen getroffene Wahl wurde von Weigand harsch kritisiert. Daran dürfte man erkennen können, dass es sich bezüglich des Unterschieds zwischen einer "kritischen" and einer nicht "kritischen" Edition selbst unter den besten Kennern urn unterschiedliche Konzep-tionen handeln kann, zumal die Voraussetzungen, die eine "kritische" Ausgabe erfüllen soll, als wesentliche Kriterien für die Auswahl des Basistextes anzusehen sind. Deshalb muss die folgende Frage erneut gestellt werden: Was bedeutet das Epitheton "kritisch" nach dem modernen wissenschaftlichen Begriff? Beim Versuch, these Frage zu beantworten, geht die vorliegende Studie von der klassischen Frage der Textkritik aus, nämlich, der Frage nach der Richtigkeit einer Lesart. Der Ausgangspunkt ist dabei eine Rubrik (Summarie) Gratians, für die es in der handschriftlichen Überlieferung gewichtige Varianten gibt. In der Friedbergschen Edition des Gratianischen Dekrets lautet die Rubrik von C.15 q.1 c.8: Inobedientia uel concupiscentia non habet culpam in corpore non consentientis. Einer Fußnote Friedbergs zufolge kommt für das letzte Wort dieser Rubrik (consentientis) die Variante sentientis in vier Handschriften (BDEH) vor. Da Friedberg bei seiner Editionsar-beit acht Handschriften (A-H) heranzog, müßte in den anderen vier Handschriften (ACGF) die Lesart consentientis vorkommen, and weil er die zwei Kölner Handschriften A and B für die besten hielt, liegt die Vermutung nahe, dass Friedberg sich bei seiner Wahl der Lesart haupt-sächlich auf den Zeugen von A stützte.
Roughly speaking, studies on Islamic law in the West have been centered around four theses advanced or elaborated by Joseph Schacht (1902-69), represented, among others, in his two monographs, The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence (1950) and Introduction to Islamic Law (1964). First, the formation of Islamic law was a slow process in which the precepts of the Qur'an were gradually extended to cover the subject matters that they do not explicitly cover. In the first centuries of Islam, the popular practice and the Umayyad administrative regulations provided the materials for the nascent Islamic law. Second, in the first half of the eighth century, "the ancient schools of law" were formed in a number of centers of jurisprudence. They represented the average doctrine of each region, but it did not take long before the doctrines were projected back to several past authorities of jurisprudence. This phenomenon preceded the formation of personal schools of law, which were characterized by the adherence to a particular authority. Third, the process of projecting back of doctrine to the past authorities culminated in the fabrication of a large number of the Prophetic hadith (words and deeds of the Prophet), which were finally regarded as second only to the Qur'an as the basis of Islamic law. Fourth, once brought to perfection by the tenth century, Islamic law suffered no substantial change in the following millennium, which phenomenon was known as "the closing of gate of ijtihad (independent reasoning)." Recent studies based on a large number of sources published in the last twenty years and manuscripts that have become accessible to students of Islamic studies have modified these theses. As for the first thesis, recent studies have clarified in details the process during which individual rules were formed in the first two centuries of Islam. Regarding the second thesis, the problem of transition from the regional school to the personal school has been discussed based on the analysis of different kinds of sources, such as biography or works of positive law. The third thesis concerning the authenticity of the Prophetic sunna did not cease to be one of the most disputed subjects of Islamic law. The fourth thesis is no longer maintained, particularly after Wael B. Hallaq published a number of important treaties that shed light on the elaboration of science of theoretical bases of Islamic law. It should be noted that many studies have been undertaken that are focused on the relationship between Islamic law and the medieval and modern Islamic societies. In Japan, it was not until the middle of the eighties that study of Islamic law was undertaken on the basis of the original texts, although a few historians had used sporadically legal sources. Now a number of legal texts or works related to Islamic law have been translated into Japanese, such as the Shìhs of al-Bukhari (1993-94) and Muslim b. H ajjaj (1998), The Ordinances of Government of al-Mawardi (1981-89, of which a revised edition will appear in a couple of years), al-Raw d al-murbi' of the Hanbali jurist al-Bahutì (2002-) and Ma'alim al-din wa-maladh al-mujtahidin of the Shi'i jurist Ibn Zayn al-Din (1985). A History of Islamic Law of HORII Satoe (2004) is the first work in Japanese that deals with the development of the law since its formation in the seventh century up to the present day. It deserves to be mentioned because it assigned a large portion to the legal development since the tenth century, when Islamic law was brought to perfection with the four Sunni schools of law being established. Few scholars are specialized in the theoretical foundation of law (u s ul al-fiqh), but studies by Wael B.Hallaq and 'Abd al-Wahhab Khallaf have been translated.