Since Ishimoda Sho's description of ancient Japan as a "small empire of eastern non-Han people," the Japanese ancient state has been widely understood as distinguishing entities not yet subjected by the state ("kegai" 化外) as either shoban 諸蕃 (i.e., kingdoms of the Korean peninsula) or iteki 夷狄 (not yet assimilated peoples settled on the archipelago, like the Emishi 蝦夷 on the northeastern periphery and the Hayato 隼人 on the southern periphery). That is to say, the distinction between to two categories it thought to have been clearly institutionalized in the Taiho Ritsuryo legal codes. The present article poses a challenge to the basis of such an understanding by means of a critical investigation of the "evidence" taken from the Ryo-no-shuge 令集解 commentaries on the codes and the differences between the Tang Dynasty and Japanese versions of the codes Consequently, the author argues that there is no basis for supposing a clear distinction between shoban and iteki, since the specific references made to the two terms in the Ritsuryo codes make no such fine distinction, but rather reflect the traditional Chinese idea of an empire made up of Han and non-Han peoples which was imbued in the Tang codes. While it is certain that by the content of the Taiho legal codes Japan's ancient state looked upon its periphery as kegai, there is no evidence of some intent to make any further refined legal or institutional distinctions among them. Upon examination of the various commentaries on the Ryo 令 civil codes and the official chronicles, the author finds the creation between the early 8th and the mid-9th century of a new perception in which the kingdoms of Korea were now considered as ban 蕃, and distinguished from both i 夷 and iteki. That being said, the perceptions of the ancient state regarding yet assimilated entities should rather be regarded more in the fluid terms of historically developing relations and individual opinions based on the current situation, instead of statutory regulations. When considering such factors as the unfolding of Japan's foreign relations up into the 9th century and the changes occurring in the periphery of the archipelago, any attempt at envisioning the structure of Japan's "small empire" based on such elements as "ban" and "i" discussed in legal commentaries is fraught with problems. In its Taiho Ritsuryo codes, the Japanese state merely adopted uncritically the conventional Chinese ideas contained in the Tang Dynasty's codes. Any later attempts to make distinctions between ban and i or any individual perceptions or responses to the existence of kegai all show clearly the limits to ancient Japan's "small empire" structure.

View full abstract

This article addresses a number of questions about the Ashikaga Clan that have remained unclarified in the research to date: namely, Who made up that Clan? What is meant by the Ashikagas being as a "clan" (ichimon 一門) ? What does "the Ashikagas becoming a clan" mean? By reexaming these questions, the author hopes to better understand how the Ashikaga period came to a destructive end. The author begins by showing that the heretofore vaguely used term Ashikaga-shi Goikka 足利氏御一家 has been used in the two different senses of Ashikaga Gosanke (Three Branches of the Ashikaga Family) and Ashikaga Ichimon. And about the comment by the Tokis of the Sengoku period--After the Goikka, I am the leader of the all the other families, the author shows that "Goikka" means Ashikaga Ichimon. Secondly, the author reexamines the similarly vague term "Ashikaga Ichimon" by identifying its members from the available medieval historiography. One characteristic feature that has not been noticed to date is that both the Nitta Branch of the Minamoto Clan and the Yoshimi Family were included among its members. In particular, 1) the Nittas regarded themselves as members from the very beginning, since the Ashikaga Clan was essentially part of "the Yoshikuni branch of the Minamoto Clan"; and 2) the perception that the Nittas did not consider themselves part of the Ashikaga Clan can be traced back to the exclusive self-identity "ware-ware 我々" consciousness described in the Taiheiki 太平記. Next, after stating that there is yet no piece of research that has tried to present the Ashikaga Clan in a holistic fashion, but should be, the author shows from the medieval historiography that the above-mentioned perception of the Tokis that the Ashikaga Clan surpassed in status and prestige all other warrior clans was universally widespread during the Ashikaga period. Finally, the author inquires as to why such families as the Miyoshis and Odas of the Sengoku Period tried to debunk and alter the above-mentioned perception of the Ashikaga Clan's superiority, concluding that it was necessary to first switch the prerequisite for "changing the system from above" from kinship (i.e., membership in the Ashikaga Clan) to actual organizational ability as one indispensable step in the destruction of the existing order.

View full abstract

This article shows how China implemented modern criminal and criminal procedure codes within the context of the revisions of these codes during the Nanjing era, using the archives of the Jiangsu Shanghai District Court to examine a homicide case in which a policeman was murdered in 1929. The homicide in question was investigated by the Shanghai Special Municipality Public Security Bureau according to the criminal procedure code. The police took their suspect to the Songhu Garrison Command based on Provisional Regulations Regarding Punishment of Robbers and Bandits. However, the Garrison, in order to avoid a miscarriage of justice, sent the suspect to the Shanghai District Court in accordance with the existing criminal and criminal procedure codes. Although the prosecutor was legally knowledgeable and administrative competent, the criminal investigation system itself was not functioning satisfactorily, because 1) there was a huge back load of cases waiting to be tried and 2) Chinese society was yet able to understand and adapt to the new system. The judge examined the parties concerned in the case and ordered the judicial police to investigate the case. The parties concerned hired lawyers to help them and filed formal and informal petitions on their behalf, which turned out to contain very important information in helping the judge make his decision. After analyzing the judicial process leading to the decision of the Shanghai District Court, the author comes to the following conclusions. In Shanghai during the Nanjing era, by aiming at the establishment of a modern penal justice system based on criminal and criminal procedure codes, while at the same time adopting traditional or informal practices when necessary, the government was successful in slowing habituating the citizenry to criminal trials based on statutory law and thus gradually bridging the gap between legal institutions and social reality. That being said, in the context of preventing and suppressing the kind of criminal activity that had become a serious problem in Shanghai during that time, the criminal investigation system was by no means ready to take on the tasks required. Therefore, from the end of the 1920s, legal provisions and institutions were being sought that were better suited to the purpose of solving and adjudicating criminal cases actually occurring throughout China, a search which the author argues led to attempts at revising the criminal and criminal procedure codes during the early 1930s.

View full abstract