The research that has been done to date on marriage customs during the pre-Qin 先秦 period forms an enormous volume of literature;however, no standards of textual criticism concerning the one of the most frequently quoted source materials on the subject, the Zuo-Zhuan 左伝, exist to date. In the present article, the author applies Hirase Takao's content outline and "implicit" structural theory to the items in the Zuo-Zhuan concerning marriage, and investigates the geneologies of the major kingdoms. As a result of this analysis, the author shows that the work refutes the spouses and descendents of the Jiang 妾 family, a representative family of the Qi 斉 dynasty, showing a tendency towards breaks in lines of descent. Here, a "form" other than the form discovered by the Hirase can be indentified for the Zuo-Zhuan, in which the Lu 魯 and Jin 晋 Periud aristocrats, the San-Huan 三桓 and Jin period Han 韓, Wei 魏 and Zhao 趙, and the Jin period Han and Qi period Chen 陳 all correspond, forming a triplex structure. The Zuo-Zhuan contains items on marriage that degrades all families other than the Han, in order to legitimize the Han kings of the Warring States period as descendents of Han Xuan Zi 韓宣子. In addition, the marital evaluations contained in the relatively new tales and dialogues contained in the Zuo-Zhuan negate matrilineal lines deriving from the Ji 姫 name. Also, in pre-Qin times there are regions in which matrilineal blood lines were emphasized, as indicated in the extant bronze inscriptions and bamboo documents from the period. What this means is that checks existed against any attempt to legitimize one's authority based on a marital affiliation with a women with a Ji name, leading one to believe that the Zuo-Zhuan was ideologically opposed to the involvement of women in politics. The Zuo-Zhuan was thus a very politically influenced work utilized to legitimeze the power structure to which its editors advocated. On the contrary, other works of the Qi period, the Chun-Qiu 春秋 and Gong Yang Zhuan 公羊伝, for example, took positions concerning marriage contrary to the Zuo-Zhuan. It was in this way that the various kingdoms of the Warring States period attempted to legimitize their authority by either utilizing marital relations from the past or refuting those of their political rivals, a process within which views about marriage were gradually institutionalized and traditionalized for future generations. Therefore, it is important to keep in mind the fact that the concept of marriage went through a transition half way through the period.

抄録全体を表示

古代中国社会は身分関係の厳しい封建社会である.このような身分関係は多かれ少なかれことばの運用に反映される.『礼記』(前1世紀)の中で,身分の異なる人の死についてそれぞれ異なる表現を使い分けるように規定している.本論文は『史記』(前1世紀)を対象として死亡を表すさまざまな異形と指示対象の社会的身分との関係,および言語変異に影響を与える他の社会的要因などについて考察した.そして,『礼記』の言語規範と『史記』の言語運用との間の違いについて検証を行なった.

抄録全体を表示

In the Present article, the author begins with a comparison of the descriptions of the Wei 魏 dynasty contained in Zhushu Jinian 竹書紀年, which form the framework for its Warring States period section, and the partial content of Weishijia 魏世家 in the Shiji 史記, discovering that before kings appeared in the Yellow River basin during the Warring States period, the first year of the era of each king or feudal lord was recorded according to the linian 立年 chengyuan 称元 method, that is, from the year the previous king or lord died. Through this investigation the author was able to verify for each chronicle that (1)we can rely on the Shiji items indicating eras and deaths of kings, except when there are inconsistencies with the Zhushu Jinian ; (2)a transition from the linian, method to the yunian 踰年 cheng yuan method of using the following year occurred at the time when the kingdoms of the Yellow River basin adopted titles for their kings; and (3)Sima Qian 司馬遷, in order to solve the problem of repetitive eras that arose from his understanding of linian in terms of yunian, deleted royal accession years and kings lacking concrete documentation. From an investigation of the chronicles related to Wei Wenhou 魏文侯 and Tianji Huangong 田斉桓公, the author concludes that the periodization scheme contained in the Zhushu Jinian did not distinguish between the linian and yunian methods. Therefore, he was able to get satisfactory results using the Suoin 索隠 interpretation (which was based on the yunian method). However, the Chu 楚 kingdom, which had used its king's title from the Spring and Autumn period, did not change its chengyuan method accordingly. This is also probably true for the Zhou 周 kingdom as Well from the time it defeated the Shang 商, and the Yue 越 kingdom from the Spring and Autumn period. In addition, Sima Qian made mistakes in arranging some dates of royal accession even after the general diffusion of the yunian method and the use of titles (for example, King Xiangai 襄哀 of the Wei dynasty, and Kings Wei 威 and Xuanmin 宣〓 of the Ji 斉 dynasty). This is because many of the source materials Sima used were from this latter period, when it was difficult to distinguish individuals simply referred to as Wang 王, Weiwang 魏王 or Jiwang 斉王, for example. Sima Qian, used a number of important historical events as his standard for revising and editing these materials, and thus presented his own unique interpretations of them. In order to overcome the contradictions that occurred as the result of mounting errors in chengyuan dating, Sima simply deleted a few kings and accession dates here and there in constructing his chronology of the Six Dynasties. However, now that we can see how and why concrete historical facts were left out of Sima's record, we should be able to reconstruct a more accurate chronolosy of all the documents contained in the Shiji's Benji 本紀 and Shijia 世家. Nevertheless, the chronology reconstructed by the author in this paper confronts the difficulty of adequately arranging all of the above-mentioned important events which Sima probably added later to his Six Dynasties chronology. Since all these events are recorded as involving several kingdoms, as long as the era they are baased on is not mistaken, they should pose no problem to reconstructing the chronolology. May be it is necessary to arrange in the new chronology items contained in the Zhushu Jinian that could not be used in reconstructing the framework, because they either were not dated or interpreted in relation to a certain era. Here the author cautions about possible differences in calendars among the various kingdoms. The present article thus constitutes the starting point for the necessary task of re-investigating the extant Chuuqiu 春秋 records according the yunian chengyuan method of dating eras.

抄録全体を表示

In the Chunqiu period a litigation was called yu _??_ or song _??_ as in later ages. Their definition in later ages is that "a larger suit is called yu and a smaller one song." But in the Chunqiu period they, yu and song, meant two different stages of one procedure of a suit; yu was a dispute and verbal conflicts in the court between the parties, and to sit face to face for the occasion was called zuoyu _??__??_ and to pass a judgement on the dispute duanyu _??__??_ or zheyu _??__??_ ; song itself was. a procedure to originate a suit and it is found in historical materials written in a form such as "X (the plaintiff) brings Y (the accused) and appeals to Z (the judge)." This definite pattern shows the fact that there was a general practice that the plaintiff had the accused accom-panied in bringing a suit in the Chunqiu period.
The judging standard of duanyu was the justifiability of the parties' arguments. This justifiability was called zhi _??_ and the illegal practice of buying off the judge was called maizhi _??__??_ or to buy zhi. At the period there were no fulltime judges and those who were influential and celebrated filled the role of the judges at request. The parties litigant were often represented by advocates.
It may be proper to call the litigation in the Chunqiu period with these characteristics the "agonistic lawsuit." And it was closely related with the law structure peculiar to the period where the self-help was generally accepted; the "agonistic lawsuit" and the self-help of the Chunqiu period were both derived from the constitution of the period, that is, the distributed army forces which were each possessed by respective shi _??_ in the form of shi _??_. The cause, then, of the disap-pearance of the "agonistic lawsuit" in the time of the Imperial China may be found in the disorganization of the constitution. The highly bureaucratic litigation system of the Imperial China was a historical product born and formed with the disorganization of the constitution.

抄録全体を表示

In order to place the origins of the leaders who founded the Tang Dynasty within the Western Wei-Northern Zhou period, the Guanlong 関隴 group has argued that it was the "bazhuguojia" 八柱国家 that formed the core of political power and bore the main burden of supporting and preserving the dynasty through early Tang times. This "bazhuguojia" refers to the families of the eight generalissimos of the zhuguo 柱国 rank listed at the end of Chapter 16 (史臣曰条) of the Zhoushu 周書, with the holder of real power under the Western Wei, Yuwentai 宇文泰, leading the list, followed by Lihu 李虎, the grandfather of the founder of the Tang dynasty. However, both the members and order of this listing of the eight zhuguo and twelve great generalissimos (大将軍) in Chapter 16(and also Chapter 60 [論曰条] of the Beishi (北史) does not correspond to other sources, while the actual term "Bazhuguojia" does not appear in the other sources until the Zhenguan 貞観 era (620s -640s AD), suggesting definite discrepancies in the Zhoushu text. What gave rise to these discrepancies is the creation of the content and order of the listing after the beginning of the Tang period motivated by the Tang imperial family's hope of raising its authority. What made such a move necessary was the original Zhenguanzhizuzhi 貞観氏族志, the compilation of which began in 632 (Zhenguan 6), ranking the Tang imperial family below Cuimingan 崔民幹, resulting in the creation of the "bazhuguojia" concept in response. This is why the term appears in the source materials only after the compilation was begun and a new order that sought legitimization of Tang dynasty authority in the Western Wei period was created and laid out in Chapter 16 of the Zhoushu relating the exploits of the eight zhuguo generalissimos. The revised edition of the Zhenguanzhizuzhi conforms to this new order by ranking the Tang imperial family first above all. Therefore, given the fact that Chapter 16 is more interested in legitimizing the Tang imperial family than describing the great families of the Western Wei period, it is necessary for historians of the period the rethink the viewpoints put forth by the Guanlong group regarding political history from the Western Wei to the Tang period based on that text and reexamine the idea that the origins of the fubing 府兵 system of military conscription can be found in the tradition set down by the eight "bazhuguo" generalissimos.

抄録全体を表示