Вступ. article, per. from old Japan. and comm. of S. A. POLKHOV

This publication is a translation of one of the most famous monuments of Japanese law of the XVI century - "Imagawa kanamokuroku". This source is widely used by researchers in the process of studying the socio-political history of Japan during the era of the "warring provinces" (Sengoku jidai)2 [Katsumata, 2003; Kurushima, 2001; Nagahara, 1976; Owada, 1978; Sugiyama, 2005; Sengoku..., 2003].

During the Warring Provinces era, 3 there was a sharp weakening of central power as a result of strife both within the Ashikaga Shogunate house and in the houses of the powerful Shugo military governors, on whom the shoguns ruled the country. Eventually, these feuds escalated into a large-scale internecine war, during which the Shoguns lost real control over most of Japan. The political vacuum in the late 15th and early 16th centuries was filled by the Sengoku Daimyo, who established their own principalities in most of the country.4
The laws of Imagawa are considered to be bunkokuho-legislative codes created during the period of political fragmentation. Their composition is one of the characteristic features of the domestic policy of many princes of the Sengoku period. There are up to 10 such legal monuments:

A well-known Japanese researcher of the Sengoku period, Katsumata Shizuo, believed that the origins of bunkokuho go back to two main sources: 1) okibumi; 2) judicial norms and laws that arose in the process of governing the shugo provinces assigned to Bakufu* (Katsumata, 2003, p.245). Okibumi-a document drawn up when a landowner inherited his possessions, containing instructions to his sons and expressing his last will. Finally, the formation of legislative codes of the Sengoku period was influenced by the agreements concluded by the participants of the provincial landowners ' leagues (kokujin ikki) during the Muromachi era (Katsumata, 2003, p. 242). These agreements provided for the introduction of general rules that league participants were obliged to comply with.

Bunkokuho: often compared to collections of moral and ethical rules and instructions-kakun, which were compiled by powerful landowners of the Muromachi era (including the rulers of political entities independent of Kyoto, ranked as Sengoku daimyo) for their relatives and service people. However, kakun is a set of moral and didactic maxims that can hardly be considered legislative norms. The Bunkokuho articles are addressed not only to the vassals and relatives of the daimyo, but also address a wide range of issues related to the management of the principality (bunkoku) as a whole; many of their articles address a wide variety of social strata and institutions (peasants, merchants, Buddhist and Shinto temples, etc.).5.

The laws of Imagawa include three separate legislative monuments: 1) "Imagawa kanamokuroku" - a collection of 33 articles compiled under Imagawa Ujichika in 1526 (hereinafter the abbreviated name of the source is used in the text of the publication - IK); 2) " Imagawa kanamokuroku tsuika "(hereinafter-IKC) - a collection of 22 articles, which Yoshimoto, the son of Ujichika, added in 1553. 3) "Sose dzemoku" (Imagawa Sudebnik, hereinafter referred to as SD) of 13 articles 6. The exact date of creation of the sudebnik is unknown, but among Japanese historians, the point of view has been established that the SD was written under Imagawa Yoshimoto. In two fundamental publications of legal monuments of the "Japanese Middle Ages", these three sources are placed together in the same section [Imagawa kanamokuroku (1), 2001, pp. 115-134; Imagawa kanamokuroku (2), 2001, pp. 193-208].

* Bakufu - in this case, the shogun (military ruler) and his administrative apparatus. In a broad sense, it is the political system that existed in Japan from the end of the 12th century to 1867.

page 120
Table

Bunkokuho-legislative codes of the Sengoku era*

Title

Creation time

On whose behalf are they installed

Ownership of the "originator" at the time of creating the laws

1. "Сагараси хатто"

"Tsuika" (add-ons)

"Tsuika "

1493

No later than 1518.

1555

Sagara Tametsugu

Sagara Nagatsuna

Sagara Kiyohiro

Three counties in Higo Province

2. "Outishi Kabegaki"

1492-1500

Outi

Suo, Naga-to, Buzen, Chikuzen Provinces

3. Imagawa kanamokuroku

Imagawa kanamokuroku tsuika

"Sose dzemoku "

1526

1553

Circa 1553.

Imagawa Ujichika Imagawa Yoshimoto

Suruga Province, Totomi

Suruga, Totomi, and part of Mikawa provinces

4. " Jinkaishu:"

1536

Date Tanemune

Deva County, a number of counties in Mutsu Province

5. " Co:Shu: Hatto no shidai"

"Tsuika "

1547 1554

Takeda Harunobu

Kai Province, part of Shinano Province

6. " Yukishi shinhatto "

1556

Yuki Masakatsu

Yuki County in Shimosa Province

7. " Rokkakushi shikimoku "

1567

Rokkaku Yoshikata, Rokkaku Yoshiharu

Vassals of the House of Rokkaku

Southern part of Omi Province

8. "Shinka seishiki"

1558-1569

Miyoshi's House

Awa, Sanuki, and Awaji Provinces

9. "Tesokabeshi sadamegaki"

1596, 1597

Tesokabe Mototika, Tesokabe Moritika

Tosa Province

10. "Киккаваси хатто"

1617

Kikkawa Hiroie

Two counties in Suo Province

* Sengoku no chiiki kokka..., vol. 12, 2003, p. 148.

Two lists of Imagawa laws have come down to us - "Imagawakihon" and "Kurokawahon". The number of ICC articles in both versions is the same - 21, but the number of IC articles is different: "Imagawakihon "contains 33 articles, and" Kurokawahon " - 31 articles. At the same time, the text of the SD was discovered as an appendix to Kurokawahon. In these two versions, the order of the Code's articles differs, and there are also discrepancies. Modern publications of laws are based mainly on the "Imagavakihon" version.

The icon, as indicated in the text of the monument itself, was created on April 14, 1526, but two months later (in June) Imagawa Ujichika, in whose name the vault was created, has died. Ovada Tetsuo believes that two months before his death, Ujichika, who suffered from a serious illness for the last 10 years of his life, no longer played a major role in the management of the principality. The real" author " of the code, the person who played a decisive role in its development, was the wife of Imagawa Ujitika - Jukeini, the historian suggests [Ovada, 2004, p. 47].

Judging by the content of the Imagawa laws, they were intended primarily for resolving lawsuits. Their contents, especially the articles of the SD, should have been known to the princely officials, and

page 121
also to the most prominent vassals. Most of the provisions of the Board of Directors are devoted to judicial procedures, establishes the procedure for filing complaints and claims to the princely court, etc. However, both the IC and the ICC contain relevant articles 7.

At the same time, all three of the above-mentioned monuments can be considered as an attempt to systematize the previously adopted most important regulations and decrees, as well as create new rules and norms. One of the obvious goals of introducing EC is to streamline the governance and judicial system of the principality. "The above one by one, as they came to mind, secretly wrote down these laws for the benefit of his domain [bunkoku]. In recent years, people have become malicious, and many unforeseen cases and disputes have arisen, so I have established these laws [in order] to settle them, " the final part of the EC says.

At the same time, it is incorrect to consider Kanamokuroku and similar monuments only as a collection of laws and court orders. Bunkokuho also contains, albeit in a small amount, instructions and rules of a moral and didactic nature. It is enough to recall Article 32 of the EC, which declares the inadmissibility of disagreements and quarrels between the daimyo's vassals about the order in which one should sit in the service both in the presence of the daimyo and during all kinds of entertainment. In the same article 3 of the ICC, we find extensive arguments about the need for harmony in the relationship between yoroya and yoriko (see below). It is obvious that these fragments are addressed to vassals and servants of the prince, and their suitability for the analysis of court cases is not obvious at all.

Despite the fact that the compiler of the IK apparently created the code in order to use it in a narrow circle of vassals and officials, 8 the text of Kanamokuroku became widely known outside the principality. So, 11 of the 26 articles of the Code " Co:shu: hatto no shidai", compiled by Takeda Harunobu (1547), was borrowed or written under the influence of the laws of Imagawa [Hirayama, 2006, p. 133, 134] 9. At that time, the Takeda and Imagawa clans were allied with each other.

The final part of the EC states that the compiler did not add other decrees of the House of Imagawa to the provisions of the code. Nevertheless, a number of articles (Articles 2, 22) state that similar laws have already been adopted in "previous years". Consequently, not all the provisions of the EC were created anew, and the text also included previously issued decrees of the daimyo. Numerous decisions that appeared in the process of governing the principality also had the force of law, but not all of them were included in the EC, ICC and SD.

Finally, at the end of the CC, tenka no hatto, the norms of customary law, which may have included the laws of Kamakura and Muromachi Bakufu, which were ingrained in the public consciousness, is actually recognized [Katsumata, 2001, p. 199; Nagahara, 1976, p. 211]. Thus, according to Article 15 of the Constitutional Code, princely judges were not supposed to hear lawsuits concerning the illegal construction of irrigation channels on foreign lands, "if it has long been the case that they do not charge for the use of water in this area." Thus, the Kanamokuroku and daimyo rescripts were not the only source of law in the territory of the principality.

Considering the value of the Imagawa laws as a historical source, it should be noted that they do not give a complete picture of the nature of the daimyo's power. The Code regulated only a limited range of issues that were of particular importance to the prince. The content of the IC does not cover many other aspects of House Imagawa politics. Since these laws were intended to be used in court proceedings, it is impossible to obtain much information about the process of forming the "foreign" policy of the daimyo and the military system of the principality as a result of their research.

The monument under study also provides only sparse and fragmentary information about the policy of the daimyo in relation to the peasantry, cities, and the hierarchy of daimyo vassals. Finally, there is no evidence of the kandaka system, through which the daimyo unified the tax system and relations with their service people.

The information contained in Kanamokuroku, of course, is not always a complete reflection of the social and political realities of that time. The Code contains a set of rules and regulations that, according to the daimyo's plan, should have had coercive force against his vassals and the population of the principality. At the same time, the record of the law, as a rule, does not necessarily indicate that it was strictly followed. On the contrary, fixing the norm (especially multiple ones) may also indicate that it was often ignored in reality.

It should also be remembered that the laws of Imagawa, as well as monuments of legal thought in general, "are not interested in diachronism, but in synchronicity." Sources of this type "describe not what was, but what should be, that is, they record not the actual events that occurred, but their ideal structure."-

page 122
by automating the state's response to socio-ecological changes by introducing unambiguous rules for the functioning of the state " [Meshcheryakov, 2006, p. 25].

At the same time, in the Kanamokuroku text, one can see the influence of the famous legislative code of the Kamakura era-Goseibai Shikimoku (hereinafter referred to as the GS). Content of at least ten of his articles (4, 11, 14, 22, 31, 32, 35, 36, 41, 48) it is similar in its subject matter to the provisions of the EC (2, 8, 10, 13, 22), ICS (6, 11, 13, 21) and SD (4, 11). But despite certain similarities in the topics under consideration, they are treated differently in the HS and in the laws of Imagawa in most cases, and textually no article coincides. In general, it is possible to compare and trace common elements only in small fragments of one or another article of both monuments.

Thus, Article 41 of the Civil Code deals with the issue of the right of ownership of children born from cohabitation of unfree persons (nuhi, dzo:nin) who belonged to different owners. The Code prescribes leaving children, depending on their gender, either with the father, if a boy was born, or with the mother, if a girl was born. Article 21 of the ICC, on the contrary, provides in a similar situation that children born must belong to the "owner" who has supported them from the moment of birth. The General Assembly clearly prohibits the sale of land granted by the Shogun, and the EC contains a clause that allows you to do this with the granted daimyo's allotment in emergency cases (although this is a "temporary" sale - for 2 to 3 years). Therefore, it is not necessary to say that Kanamokuroku and other bunkokuho codes: blindly copied the GS. The similarity of the topics discussed indicates that some of the problems faced by the creators of GS and Kanamokuroku were similar, but they solved them in most cases differently. This is quite understandable, because these sources were created at different times and under different circumstances.

According to the Kanamokuroku text, the daimyo claimed monarchical power. Judging by the text of the laws, his actions were not restricted in any way by serving people. On the contrary, he created prescriptions and proper norms of behavior for them. Thus, the daimyo established strict rules prohibiting the complete alienation of granted land holdings [IC, 2001, Article 13, ICC, 2001, Article 6], interfered in the process of inheritance of land and the status of a service person [ICC, 2001, Articles 10, 11, 12], and assumed the role of the supreme arbiter in conflicts between individuals. vassals in relation to land plots and unfree servants [EC, 2001, articles 2, 3, 5; ICC, 2001, articles 13, 21]. Internecine strife and clashes in the EC were outlawed [EC, 2001, articles 8, 9, 11].

The daimyo in Imagawa law has the highest legislative, judicial, and administrative authority. The code does not refer to the authority of the Bakufu, but states that the daimyo rules "according to his own understanding" by establishing laws for his possessions [ICC, 2001, p.20]. Thus, he appears as the ruler of the principality, who is not dependent on the Bakufu in carrying out his policy and is not connected with it in any way.

It is obvious, however, that all possible prohibitions, regulations and norms of the IR are intended not for "external", but for "internal" application. In other words, the code is addressed to the vassals of the daimyo and other segments of the population of the principality. The relationship of the Imagawa clan with the Shogun or tenno is not described in the codex at all. If we recall Article 20 of the ICC, in which the reign of the shoguns of the entire Middle Kingdom is attributed to the "past", and not to the "present" time, one may get the impression that all ties were severed between the princes of the Sengoku era and Kyoto, where the shogun's residence was located.

In fact, everything was more complicated. Many Sengoku rulers sought to use the Shogun's authority to strengthen their position. The Bakufu continued to nominally appoint shugo after the troubles of the O:nin years. At the same time, many daimyos viewed obtaining the post of military governor as an important means of legitimizing their power within the principality.:ten, 1991, p. 218]. Finally, it is known that the last representatives of the Ashikaga dynasty often played the role of intermediaries in the conclusion of peace between daimyo.

translation

IMAGAWA KANAMOKUROKU

1. It is strictly forbidden to confiscate jito1 without sufficient reason of the inherited meden2. However, if the farmer does not pay neng3 and does not perform other duties, then this is allowed. If there is a person saying that nengu is with me:if the den can be increased, you should ask the owner of the me:dan, can he increase the [volume] of nengu.

page 123
If he refuses, meden should be selected to increase the nengu. But if jito, in order to change the former mesu, conspired with the new mesu [claiming the land] and lied about collecting more nengu, then he [jito] should be stripped of his possessions and the new mesu should be punished.

2. It happens that there is a dispute about who owns flood and dry fields, meadows and mountains 4. If, after clarifying the original boundary [between the properties], it becomes clear that one of the parties illegally claims its rights [to the disputed site], a third of its possessions should be taken away. The fact that this should be done was decided in previous years.

3. It happens that, [wanting] to cultivate land flooded by the sea or river, they argue about their borders 5. If, after a long period of time, it is difficult to establish the original boundary [between possessions], the disputed land should be divided equally or transferred to another service person [kyu: nin].

4. Those who have committed outrages during the litigation, 6 regardless of whether they are right or wrong, are declared losers without further consideration of the case. This is established by previous laws. However, it is not fair if the invader of foreign lands is never punished by force.7 From now on, after three years, it is necessary to resume the trial, find out who is right, and make a court decision.

5hikan8 if he serves another person. But you should justly trust the court decision. If, however, after the former master, having learned of the whereabouts of his man, declares [his rights] to the new master, and [his former] hikan runs away, instead of [the escaped] he must give the other [hikan].

6. After more than 20 years have elapsed since the servant's escape, the former master has no right to search for him, unless it is a question of hereditary serfs.9 But if there is any fault on the fugitive, this provision does not apply.

7. The owner of the house is not guilty if he binds or unintentionally kills someone who sneaks through gate 10 at night, without making himself known, and without making an agreement with the owner in advance. In addition, if a serf who has entered into a relationship with another master's servant, without warning him or notifying his servants, comes to the house at night, it is not the fault of those who live in the manor if they tie him up or accidentally kill him.11 However, if, after being captured, it turns out that he has entered into an affair with a maidservant 12 [of a foreign master], such a slave must be banished from Bunker13.

8. Those who start an armed fight during a quarrel, without considering which side the truth is on, should both be executed. However, if one of them, despite being attacked with a weapon in his hands, endured [and did not respond to the insult] and, moreover, was wounded, then, although [participating in a quarrel] is outrageous, [his behavior can be considered] worthy because of [shown] restraint.

If the accomplices [of the participants in the quarrel] are injured or killed at the scene of the fight, then, as was established in previous years, this should not be dealt with in court. After punishing a participant in an armed quarrel, his wife, children and household members should not be punished, since he himself is guilty. As for the remaining property [after the escape of the partner in the quarrel], the wife and children are to blame. However, they should not be executed.

9. About accomplices in an armed quarrel. It happens that they indicate different things, and the instigator cannot be identified. If at that place [of an armed conflict] they fought with each other, participating in a fight, and received wounds, then they are subject to the same punishment as the instigator 14. Henceforth, if the instigator is found out, he must be handed over [for punishment] into the hands of his master.15
10. For participation in an armed quarrel and robbery of his hikan, his master, of course, is not responsible. But if, until all the circumstances of the incident are clarified, under the pretext of questioning, the master [of the criminal] detains him at home, and this person disappears, it is necessary to deprive his master of all possessions. If they do not exist, then he must be punished.

page 124
11. About the children's quarrel. Children who start a quarrel are not subject to punishment. But if the parents of those who quarrel, instead of restraining them, give vent to their anger, 16 both children and parents should be punished.

12. If a child accidentally kills his companion, then, since [he committed this act] unintentionally, he should not be punished. If he is older than 15 years of age, then he will be charged with [murder]17.

13. It is forbidden to sell granted land to [tige:] 18 without the permission of [daimyo]. But if there is a great need for that, you should report in detail [about the reason], set the deadline for the sale. From now on, those who violate this law must be punished.

14. After the sale of waterfields and dry fields until the end of term 19 [sales], it is prohibited to conduct canti20. However, if prior to the conclusion of the transaction, [the parties] have stipulated the right to canty in the bill of sale, and if:dan is sold by the peasants on their own initiative, this position is not valid. But it is also not permitted [to hold a kenti] if zito has put his own seal on the document of sale [of a peasant's allotment] .21
15. Recently, there have been frequent lawsuits over new channels. Since they cross the borders of other people's possessions [to dig new irrigation channels], they should provide land in return, 22 or pay [for using the channels]. Buge should be called in:Ning Yi immediately determine the damage [that Ryosu suffered due to the channels dug on his land]. Buge:The nin is obliged to judge the litigants fairly, taking written oaths from them. However, if it has long been the case that in a given area they do not charge for the use of water, then [such a dispute in court] is not subject to analysis.

16. The sale of land granted to people from other provinces is the greatest iniquity. From now on, it is prohibited 23.

17. It is absolutely not allowed to demand a me:den and other property without grounds for presenting previously issued certificates. It is a different matter if we are talking about a will.

18. About rice loans. The percentage on them during the year must correspond to the contract. Starting next year, the amount of debt must be [no more than] twice the amount of the original loan. Over [the next 24] five years, the accrued interest must be 6 times higher than the principal debt and interest on it [according to the agreement]. [That is] to ten koku [of rice] [is added] ten. [Then] in five years, the principal debt and interest on it should amount to 60 koku. If after six years [the debtor] does not repay the debt, it is necessary to notify the buge:25 And I say, take it from him by force.

19. About cash loans. After the amount of debt is doubled by 26, the lender must wait for two years. If, after 6 years, the debt has not been repaid, it is necessary to notify buge: and ryos, to recover [the debtor's] debt [by force]. Regardless of whether the loan was taken out in rice or money, the amount of interest must correspond to the concluded contract.

20. It happens that they mortgage the granted land and, having lost the right to own it, turn for help [to the daimyo], saying that they have taken a monastic vow, or hide. In the Mayo years:27 This is what happened to Ihara Suo: - no kami. [To pay his debt] [village]was transferred to the lender Yaizu 28 of the daimyo's domain. [This was done] in view of the indisputable merits of his position as a hereditary vassal. This year, 29 was the same thing Bo strongly requested: xiu 30, so I had to order it on 31. They said that they belonged to the ikka and mengmen32, and I had to do it once. But from now on,those who ask for it should not be taken away from their possessions.

21. Even if there are just grounds for doing so, it is not permissible to collect debts from peasants from other estates without notifying Resya and buge in advance.

22. The following lands are recognized in which the right of funyu applies:34. But it happens that the profession is neglected, and the judgment and punishment of criminals is not ordered. If the prince's servant finds out about this, then [res]35 should immediately find out and punish the criminal. It had been prescribed to do this in earlier years, but since there were still many Ryoshu who neglected to do business, he wrote it down again.

page 125
23. In Sumpu 36, all lands [with the status of] funyu: are prohibited. There should be no disobedience.

24. All duties at the harbors in Suruga and Totomi, as well as customs outposts in Totomi, are prohibited. Those who violate this provision should be punished.

25. Those who willfully commit kunijichi37, [before] not reporting to: shiki38 and buge:, must be punished.

26. Ships that are washed up on the shores of Suruga and Totomi should be returned to their owners without lawlessness. If they are not known, [the vessels found] should be donated for the restoration of [fallen into disrepair] temples.

27. Concerning the trees floating on the river. They can be taken away regardless of whose property they were found in.

28. All disputes about the belief in goku are prohibited 39.

29. From now on, it is forbidden to transfer the temple to a novice chosen by the successor of the abbot, without making sure that he has the [necessary] virtues and abilities. But it should be done depending on the circumstances.

30. Residents of Totomi and Surug are prohibited from arbitrarily taking a wife or husband from other provinces or sending their daughters there.42
31. It is also prohibited to provide military assistance to residents of other provinces on their own initiative.

32. After Miura Jiro: zaemonnojo: and Asahina Matataro:43 they will establish the order in which [vassals] will be seated when they arrive at the service, and the rest should not argue about it.44 But all issues should be resolved by mutual agreement. Without being on the battlefield, it is not appropriate to worry all the time about the order in which to sit down when feeling offended. In addition, from now on, during the sarugaku, dengaku, kusemai 46 performances [the location of those present] should be determined by drawing lots.

33. It is strictly forbidden to employ merchants from other provinces as temporary servants.

Above, one by one, as they came to mind, secretly wrote down these laws for his domain [bunkoku]. In recent years, people have become malicious, and many unforeseen cases and disputes have arisen, so I have established these laws to settle them.

There should be no accusations of bias in the court. When such cases occur, you should take out the contents of the box [where complaints are stored] and, [sorting out] one case after another, make a court. As for other laws of the Celestial Empire 47 and previously adopted decrees [of the house of Imagawa], I did not give them here.

Se:ki48

The sixth year of Tayei

KANAMOKUROKU TSUIKA

1. It happens that after the end of the litigation and the court decision is made, the text of the claim is drawn up and a new trial is sought. If the documents submitted to substantiate the validity of the claim are correct ,then [a second claim] is allowed. If [the relevant documents] are not available, or if the claim is filed orally, [the plaintiff] should be punished without hearing the case.

2. It is not permitted until: shin and eriki49 to address other people [than their master], asking for their intercession, to seek consideration of their claim 50. The reason [for this prohibition] is that their master knows the content of previous [their] claims, will not allow unjustified complaints, and will warn them. [Eriks] ask [for mediation in the submission of a claim] uninformed people. They say that the truth is on their side, and people who do not understand the essence of the matter become intermediaries. If, however, despite the fact that yeriki serves a fair-

page 126
any claim that the yoroya unreasonably refuses to submit a case [to the daimyo] , or it concerns the machinations of the enemy or a matter of importance to the principality, is not forbidden to transmit it in a secret report in a reliable way [bypassing the yeroya].

3. It is not proper for a yoriki to wilfully abandon his former patron [yoroi] under various pretexts, if he has not done him any wrong. Recently, it was already forbidden to do this. But it is also not appropriate for yeroi to be forced to write an oath to serve forever, like the younger brothers of people who have asked to put in a good word for them, with whom [yeroi] has no close connection, refusing judicial mediation without such a promise.51
Those who enjoy the benefits of the yoroi, as well as those who have received land grants from the Daimyo, must serve him for the rest of their lives. However, if yeroya commits injustice [to Yeriki], these rules are not followed. Still, you should not arbitrarily change your drinking habits.

4. After going on a campaign, they join their people to other detachments, which they boast about, but this is a violation of the law and is equated with treason. Land holdings should be taken away [in such cases], and if they are not available ,the [guilty] service person [Hikannin] should be released 52. They wrote it down, because it is customary during military campaigns.

5. Because in Kanamokuroku 53 it is written about banning funyu:-but if in Sump, then [consideration] of cases [on this occasion] was not. But since they began to say that mokudai54 has no entrance to the Umamawari 55 domain, recently it came to the analysis of the lawsuit. It was decided that the property of robbers [detained in Umamawari's possession] will not be confiscated. Part of the stolen goods must be handed over to Mokudai 56. [Outside Sumpu] when searching for criminals in Funyu land: do the same.

If the offender is found and punished by people of the same house 57, then [in the absence of complaints from others] so be it. If a claim is filed [for a crime committed], the robber should be handed over to the appropriate official for punishment. The same person who, despite receiving an order [for extradition] from a servant of the daimyo, harboring a criminal must be severely punished, as this is a serious crime. To the informer of this, the property and possessions of the [concealer] must go. In addition, it must be awarded.

6. It is not appropriate, [without being subject to] tokusei 58, for reasons of extreme necessity, to extend the payment period or repay the debt in installments 59. As in the days of Jo: zenji dono 60, this is strictly forbidden. The person who mediates such a request should be stripped of one-third of his possessions. As for the plaintiff, all his land should be taken away.

In addition, it is absolutely forbidden for rich people and their ilk to buy the possessions of princely servants or [Shinto and Buddhist] temples.61 But if the servant of the daimyo is forced to do so by an urgent campaign, then he is allowed to sell the property for two or three years. The same applies to temples: if there is a clear need for repairs, this can also be allowed. Although this was established earlier, it was decided to include it in the code [of laws].

7. It is a great iniquity when a native of another province 62 immediately swears an oath to serve [the owner of the house]63 for the shelter provided. After the conclusion of a patronage contract and a salary agreement in front of witnesses, a person becomes a Hikan, of course. If, contrary to the promise, no salary is given to people from other provinces, [they] are immediately released [from the obligation to serve]. It is not proper, by refusing a salary, to demand to serve after the conclusion of the contract, like hereditary Hikans.

8. Previously established within the bunker trade taxes 64 are not subject to cancellation. However, recently there have been many people who, being deprived of the rights [to collect them], began to ask for permission to make new levies. Such requirements are unacceptable. From now on, the tenth part of the property should be confiscated from intermediaries through whom such requests are made. If they have no land, they should be deprived of the favours bestowed upon them.65
page 127
9. Sale of me by farmers:deng without notifying zito is a serious offense. However, this is permitted if [the land is mortgaged] to pay the nengu. If it is [marked] for a period of two to three years, then notify Jito or daikan66. A perpetual sale should not be considered.

1067. About the sons of a serving man. If the eldest son inherits the domain, then so be it. Since the other sons receive their share of the tiga:68 and salary, it should naturally be the elder brother's eriki. However, it is not fair if after the division of tige: [the younger brother] is granted a land grant [from the daimyo] and given assistance, and [the younger brother] becomes a separate service from the elder. But he must immediately return the land he received and serve with his older brother.

If there is an agreement [between the brothers] that the younger ones give up [transfer to submission] to the elder those people who were supposed to serve them in accordance with the size of the land allocated to them, the younger brothers are free to serve [daimyo:] separately [from him].

After the illegal capture of co:re:69 [of the share of the inheritance due to the younger brothers], the case comes to a lawsuit and a decision is made [by the court]. If it turns out that the older brother commits an injustice, the younger brothers can serve separately from him.

It is a gross violation of the law when, without any justification, one of the small children who need help is sent to serve [the daimyo] in addition to the older brother, and a grant is sought. With the exception of the older brother, no one is allowed to do this. But if the younger brothers show special loyalty in the service, they should be allocated a separate award.

11. The father's inheritance, of course, passes to the elder brother. If he is disrespectful to his father and does not enter the service, then let those who can continue to serve, whether they are younger brothers or adopted sons. However, it is an extreme injustice if the father, despite the fact that the eldest son does not allow filial disrespect, makes his younger brother the heir. Appropriate instructions should be given on a case-by-case basis.

12. On the allocation of a part of the inherited land to the younger sons. If [their share] is equal to a fifth of the inherited property or one tenth, then this is sufficient. If one-half or one-third is transferred ,then it will be difficult for co:re: to carry out the service. From now on, each case must be considered separately.

13. In the previous article 70, it was written that after a dispute over the boundaries of possessions on dry and flood lands, fields and mountains, the losing party should be deprived of one third of the possessions. However, we have learned that such a measure is not suitable. For each claim, the winning party [the loser] must give up land twice as large as the disputed plot 71.

14. It is determined that if [one of the parties] commits an outrage 72, the dispute is terminated for three years and the court decision is made in favor of the other without a trial on whose side the truth is. However, they violate the injunction with malicious intent, deliberately delaying the trial. Three years to own [a disputed piece of land until the litigation is completed] 73 is the greatest iniquity. The person who violates the injunction should donate the nengu collected from the current year's harvest to the construction of the Asama 74 temple, and a court decision should be made next year.

15. On the establishment of kubo:nin tensatsu75. After notifying the litigants, you can install tensatsu. After you select kubo: nin, you must notify buge:Ning Yi should act appropriately.

16. It is said that the property of a low-ranking person stolen by a thief is small, and after the thief is caught, it must be handed over to mokudai, since he [the poor man] no longer has the right to own [the stolen goods]. Or, referring to the law of funyu:, they say that according to former customs, stolen goods are not given to [the owner]. But as far as the poor man is concerned, it is not appropriate. Some of the stolen goods are retained, and the rest must be returned to the owner.

page 128
17. It is strictly forbidden for a [resident of Bunkoku] to communicate with [residents of] other provinces, or to send back messages without permission on his own initiative.

18. When the abbot of the church 76, without having a good reason, retires from business and writes a letter stating that he is transferring the temple to another person, the greatest arbitrariness and self-will is allowed. If a monk, having lost his zeal for the Buddhist faith, returns to the world, he must immediately report to [the daimyo] through terabuge:77 about leaving the temple. [Then] it is necessary to appoint a worthy abbot.

19. The laws are established and the court is held. However, if there are no people who, without looking back at their connections, file lawsuits, lawlessness is allowed. To bring a claim, regardless of the close relationship [with the defendant], is a sign of loyalty [to the daimyo]. From now on, those who come forward with a claim without regard to [family or other ties] should be rewarded.

20. About funyu:"but [This right] is recognized if [landowners] possess the printed letters granted by [the Imagawa House]. From now on, it is forbidden to install new functions: no ti. Funyu's right: consists of temporary exemption from duties and concerns [the search and punishment of] criminals. Howeverfor refusing to pay tansen is unacceptable self-will. Tansen and munabetsusen79 are taxes established long ago. If you have the right letters of credence, and if the right of funyu: was given as a reward for faithful service, then so be it [it is valid].

It is a violation of the law to invoke the funyu: right, which does not allow shugo's envoys to enter [the domain]. After receiving the certificate of funyu: they are protected from interference by the prince's servants and are exempt from performing duties. But, as in other provinces, it is illegal to act arbitrarily without regard to the laws of the principality.

According to the former laws of shugoshi funyu:81 was established at a time when the shogun, ruling the entire Celestial Empire, ordered the posts of shugo of all provinces. Although the right complained to funyu: how could one resist the highest commands of the people? Now they rule everywhere, making laws in their own domains with their own power.83 Therefore, it is totally inappropriate for shugo to be unable to interfere 84. Disobedience should be severely punished.

21. About the children and wives of nukha and dzo:nin85. When the spouses belong to different owners, the man's owner claims his rights to the child 86, saying that it is the child of his slave. So does the woman's master, saying that the child [was born] to his maid [gejo], and there is a dispute. This dispute must be resolved in favor of the person who raised the child from infancy.

If neither side helped raise the child, it is up to the father to decide who the child will be with.87 As for kasemono88, even if [children from parents of this status] are not given assistance, one of them must continue to serve in the hereditary service. As for his younger brothers, their fate should be decided by their parents.

The 22nd year of Taembun

SOSE: JO:MOKU

1. Hyo:jo:Xiu: We have to meet every month for six days. On the second, sixth, and eleventh days, the [provinces'] lawsuits are to be heard Suruga and Totomi. On the sixteenth, twenty-first, and twenty-sixth days, to deal with court cases [of the province] Mikawa. But since half of the year the council [hye: je:Shu:] must reside in Mikawa, and all decisions on cases must be made in that province. However, Shukuro:90 And buge: When they are gathered together on the appointed days, from the hour of the serpent to the hour of the ape, they shall judge and judge without neglect. In addition to these six days, regardless of the time of day, claims, lawsuits, urgent reports and other cases must be considered.

2.In order for people who do not have support 91 to file claims, a complaint box 92 should be placed in the gatehouse every day. Every month on

page 129
the sixth meeting of hyo:je:siu: is to open [the box] and identify the names of [the plaintiffs]93.

However, if someone says where they come from, does not give their name, and files a claim by dropping it in the mailbox, just as you send dirty letters, you should equate [such actions] with unholy slander.

On one of the [remaining] five days, when hyo:je:hsu: meets, the plaintiffs come to the gate of [the house where hyo:je:hsu: holds court:If no one recognizes the claim thrown into the box as their own, they should immediately burn it publicly, since it is like sweeping sheets. If on that day [the person who filed the complaint] does not appear, he must re-file the claim.

3. If, after the trial has passed, both the plaintiff and the defendant have said their say 94, buge:the nin is slow to announce the decision [in the case], [the defendant and the plaintiff] should ring the 95 bell after 30 days. However, if a lot of court cases have accumulated and for this reason there has been a delay [in rendering a verdict], buge:the nin must notify the litigants.

4. After the plaintiff has sent a challenge to the defendant, but the defendant has failed to appear at the appointed time, the plaintiff is recognized as the winner of the court. But if [the defendant did not appear] due to illness or was away, you should immediately report [about it] to buga: nin.

5. If the [court sentence] is contrary to the laws of the Russian Federation, a new decision should be issued.

6. A claim is filed, but they insist that they are right by submitting unsubstantiated arguments in writing. If a former employee does this...97. But if he has no land or land, then he must be expelled from the kingdom.

7. Extra people are not allowed to come to the place where cases are handled. But hyo: jo:xiu:, like buge:nin, can bring a single do: shin with him. Anything else is strictly prohibited. The implementation of this rule should always be monitored by two do: bo:98. Those who violate this law must be judged and punished.

8. On filing direct claims [without intermediaries]. On the appropriate day when the cases are tried, [after] buge:nin 99 is appointed in accordance with previous decisions, [such a plaintiff] should be punished without being tried.

9. If during a dispute the plaintiff tells a lie [to substantiate the claim], citing printed documents as evidence, he should be severely punished. The intermediary [toritsugi] who submitted the claim must pay a fine of 1000 hiki100, which must be donated to the construction of the Asama Shrine.

10. If, after the plaintiff and the defendant have spoken in court, one of them, changing the content of the arguments given, verbally declares this, [new evidence] is not considered, and the case is decided in favor of the opposing party.

11. After the parties to the dispute have announced their arguments in court, buge:nin judges 101. Until the court decision is announced, the plaintiff and the defendant are forbidden to enter the place where buge: nin is located. But from buge:The nin may request a speedy resolution of [the case], either when he [is] on duty, or [by asking him to do so] through his chaplain.

If one of the parties to the dispute accuses the other of trying to win over buge:nin, and this turns out to be true, the case should be decided in favor of the other party without further clarification of who is right and who is guilty. But if [one of the parties] makes false accusations 102, the case should be decided in favor of the opposing party without further consideration. As for buge: ning, who is being conspired with, he should be severely punished.

12. If there is a person who reports that self-will has been committed, and not the full size of the tighe is declared, and the peasants ask for a canty, then a court should not be initiated in such cases. However, lawlessness is allowed if the jito does not serve for the hidden land for many years. The size of the hidden surplus must be determined. If its area was one-third or more of the [total] size of the property 104,

page 130
then a tenth of it should be given to the person who reported [the concealment] forever, and the nengu from the rest of the [revealed land] should be donated for one year for the repair and construction of the Asama jinja.

In the next year, [the right to collect nengu] should be returned to the previous owner of 105. From now on, when the size of the tige increases: [revealed lands] must immediately be recorded in bugente:106, and in proportion to [their area of jito] must serve the [daimyo].

13. No claims are accepted against the benefactor, mentor, or parent. However, when someone reports the machinations of the enemy and treasonous plans, as well as [betraying his accomplices] reports robbery, robbery, gambling, such cases should be taken into account, even if it is his master who is involved, since the laws are intended to protect the principality.

comments

1 In this publication, the name "Imagawa Kanamokuroku" is used to refer to three interrelated legal monuments of the Principality of Imagawa. At the same time, strictly speaking, Imagawa Kanamokuroku is the first and chronologically earliest of these three sources.

2 The House of Imagawa, a branch of the Ashikaga family, at its height in the mid-sixteenth century, held the provinces of Suruga, Totomi, and part of Mikawa (now the territories of Shizuoka and Aichi prefectures).

3 Historians suggest different chronological frameworks for the "era of the warring provinces". In the first volume of the Academic History of Japan, this period is dated to 1467-1573 (Istoriya Jap, 1998, p. 279). Some Japanese researchers suggest that the beginning of this era should be considered 1492, and the end-1582 or 1590.

4 The discussion about the origins, evolution, and characteristics of the power of Sengoku princes (daimyo) is still ongoing. Some Japanese historians are of the opinion that daimyo are essentially former military governors - shugo, who managed to adapt to the new political conditions [Kawaoka, 2001, p.118]. Other Japanese scientists believe that there is no reason to reduce the essence of the Sengoku daimyo's power to the evolution of the shugo institute; it should be explained based on an analysis of the development of the layer of provincial landowners (kokujin) [Ike, 1996, p.47]. At the same time, some historians consider it inappropriate to use the term Sengoku daimyo, since it does not reflect the diversity of types of political power in Japan in the second half of the XV - end of the XVI century.and reduces to a single denominator various phenomena in their content.

5 At the same time, the compilation of legislative codes in some cases did not indicate the strengthening of the daimyo's power, and their absence in a particular principality does not indicate the weakness of its ruler's power. Thus, the houses of Mori and Gohojo, as is known, did not leave behind such legal monuments. They ruled their territories by issuing separate edicts and orders as needed. Meanwhile, in terms of their power and the strength of the political system they created, the heads of these clans not only did not concede, but also surpassed many daimyos who adopted legislative codes.

6 All three monuments are collectively referred to as "Kanamokuroku", or the laws of Imagawa, for convenience.

7 See, for example, Article 1 of the ICC, according to which it is forbidden to bring a second claim after a court decision; Article 2 of the ICC prohibits yeriko from filing a claim with the princely court in any other way than through her yoroi. Article 4 of the IC and Article 14 of the iccconsiderates the case of tj:kanro: zeki - when one of the parties to the dispute tried to appropriate the harvest from the disputed land, which is temporarily under judicial arrest.

8 The final part of the EC contains a phrase according to which this code was "secretly" written "for the principality".

9 Svod " Ko:shu: hatto no sidai " of 26 articles was created in 1547. Subsequently, the Code was supplemented, and the number of articles increased to 57.

1 Jito in the text of the monument is a vassal of the daimyo.

2 Iu:den in the estate (seen) - a unit of taxation of nengu and other duties. The peasant owner of me: dan was called mesu. He collected nengu for the benefit of the landowner, for which he received part of the nengu as a reward [Ovada, 1978, p. 125]. During the "warring provinces" period, the mesa was composed of the well-to-do strata of the village community, who played a leading role in it. The desire to use this social stratum to strengthen the military and economic power of the principality is a major feature of the domestic policy of most Sengoku daimyo.

3 Nengu-service paid annually by peasants to the landowner (rice or other agricultural products).

4 This article echoes Article 36 of the Civil Code, according to which the winning party is transferred land from the possessions of the loser, equal in area to the disputed plot. Instead, Article 2 of the EC provides for a more severe penalty-the confiscation of one-third of the possessions of the losing party by the daimyo. However, in the ICC (Article 13), this article is revised: the winning party in court is transferred a plot of land from the possessions of the opposing party by area to

page 131
twice as much as is disputed. Article 121 of the Jinkaishu: sanctions against a party who unlawfully claims its rights are similar to those provided for in Article 36 of the Civil Code.

5 In Articles 58 and 60 of the Yukishi Shinhatto, disputes over the boundaries of possessions are resolved by similar methods: the disputed land is divided in half between the parties to the dispute.

6 Katsumata Shizuo writes that during the historical period under review, both parties were deprived of the right to dispose of disputed land ownership, which was seized by a princely official [Katsumata, 2001, p. 194]. However, often the plaintiff or defendant tried to dispose of the property under "judicial arrest", for example, to harvest the disputed land plot. Such actions, which were considered an offense, were called chu: kanro: zeki. This article, as well as articles 26 and 27 of Rokkakushi Shikimoku, are devoted to this problem.

7 In this case, the legislator revises the previous norm, according to which those who committed the act of ty:kanro: zeki (for example, those who took crops from a plot of land "arrested" for the duration of the trial) automatically lost the trial, regardless of whether they were right on the merits of the case itself. It is prescribed to resume the trial of the case after three years and render a verdict, which theoretically could be in favor of the "person who committed the outrage".

8 As Isao Shimomura points out, Article 5 defines hikan as a designation of persons who are not free by their status [Shimomura, 1994, p.93]. "Hereditary Hikans" are those who are not free and have served the same master from generation to generation. During the Muromachi period, the term "hikan" had many meanings. In particular, the so-called unfree, descendants of ancient slaves. According to the legal concepts of that era, they were in slave dependence on the owner and could be the object of purchase and sale, mortgage, assignment under a will. The topic of searching for and returning fugitive unfree prisoners to the former master is raised in almost all legislative codes of the Sengoku era (see [Jinkaishu: 2001, art. 27, 72, 141, 142, 144, 146 - 150; Co:shu: hatto no shidai, 2001, V. 15; Rokkakushi shikimoku, 2001, V. 25]).

At the same time, the term "hikan" has been used since the Kamakura period to describe various types of dominance-subordination relationships. Within the framework of such relations, both representatives of the military class, the aristocracy and the Buddhist clergy could act as lords. Hikans could belong to a wide variety of social classes. The degree of hikan dependence on the master could vary from relatively weak to virtually slave - like (Nihonshi daijiten, 1992, p. 963).

9 In this case, the term "serf "is used as a synonym for the word"hikan". This article also deals with non-free ones. According to Article 41 of the Civil Code, the master retained possession of genin for 10 years. A similar term is found in many codes of military houses of the Sengoku era [To:shu: hatto no shidai, 2001, p. 15; Tesokabeshi sadamegaki, 2001, p. 37].

10 At Home.

11 In the Muromachi era, according to the customs of military houses, the owner of the estate had the right to punish (up to the death penalty) intruders who entered the land of his estate. Similar provisions to this article are found in other legislative monuments of the era [Jinkaishu: 2001, p. 66].

12 A gejo servant, also unfree in her social status.

13 Bunkoku-a principality, a territory subject to a daimyo.

14 That is, the death penalty.

15 As Katsumata Shizuo explains, the master is obliged to punish his servant who started a quarrel in order to prove that he did not hide him [Katsumata, 2001, p.195].

16 That is, they will enter into a quarrel themselves.

17 According to the legal norms of the Sengok era, children under the age of 15 were incapacitated and were not responsible for serious (criminal) crimes.

18 This article deals with honsengaeshi-type transactions. Under their terms, the possible return of the sold land plot depended on the payment by the" seller "to the" buyer " of the debt and interest on it at the end of the term stipulated in the contract. In addition, in the Sengoku era, transactions of a different kind were common - nenkiuri, according to the terms of which, after the agreed period, the "sold" land was automatically returned to the previous owner. As you know, during the Muromachi era in Japan, the free purchase and sale of land in the modern sense was limited, quasi-debt transactions that allowed the original owner to return their possessions were more common.

19 Until the expiration of the honsengaeshi agreement.

20 This article refers to the measurement of land carried out not by the daimyo, but by his employee (jito), in order to identify previously unregistered surplus land or additional income.

21 As a sign that the transaction is resolved.

22 As compensation.

23 According to Katsumata Shizuo's interpretation, this article describes a situation where a landowner hired a person from outside the Principality of Imagawa, giving him land to hold [Katsumata, 2001, p. 196]. It is prohibited for the lord to unilaterally alienate the granted allotment. Thus, this article, as in Article 7 of the ICC, protects the rights of immigrants from other principalities. The class affiliation of foreigners in these two fragments is not defined, however, judging by the fact that in Article 16 they receive land for service, and in Article 7 of the ICC-a salary, we can talk about busi (soldiers) (although probably not only about them).

24 After the first year of validity of the loan agreement.

25 Buge: (buge: nin) - officials in the service of the daimyo.

page 132
26 That is, during the year, the amount of debt will exceed the amount of the original amount twice, taking into account accrued interest.

27 1492-1501

28 is currently the city of Yaizu in Shizuoka Prefecture.

29 That is, in the 5th year of Taiei-1526.

30 Bo: shu: (Ava no kami) - Ruler of Ava Province (title).

31 That is, the daimyo granted Awa no kami's request for help.

32 Ikka (also ichimon, ichizoku) - a group of vassals whose representatives were in a relationship with the daimyo in a real or artificial relationship. Isao Shimomura understands mengmen as the most important vassals of the daimyo (Shimomura, 1994, p. 90). The term "mengmen" apparently refers to the daimyo's vassals, who were part of the advisory body under his person-hyo: je:Xiu:. The same word (mengmen) is used in the final part of the EC, where it also, judging by the context, probably means the closest vassals of the prince, who together with him discussed the affairs of the administration.

33 Helping the daimyo pay off a debt.

34 Funyu's right: was to grant tax and administrative immunity to the landowner. A shugo messenger could not cross the border of a land whose owner sought such a privilege from the Bakufu to track down and punish criminals. An attempt to restrict and in some cases ban funyu is one of the most important features of the Sengoku Daimyo's policy [Ikegami, 1999, p. 130; Kubo, 2001, p. 368-373]. Read more about immune privileges in the Muromachi era (Kobayashi, 1975).

35 Less likely is a different translation option - the daimyo's representative, not ryoshu, should take the necessary measures.

36 Sumpu - the modern city of Shizuoka. Sumpu was the capital of the principality of Imagawa.

37 In the Muromachi era, if a debtor failed to repay a loan to a creditor, the latter could withdraw the movable property of any resident of the province from which the debtor came. Such actions were called kunijichi. Gradually, the shogun and then the daimyo began to restrict the right of kunijichi more and more. In order to create favorable conditions for trade at "free fairs" (rakuichi), kunijichi was banned. Finally, this article, like Article 127 of the Jinkaishu, restricts the use of kunijichi throughout the principality.

38 Tohiki is not a specific position, but a designation for princely administrators in general.

39 Similar provisions are found in other bunkokuho: [Co:Shu: Hatto no sidai, 2001, p. 22].

40 This article, like article 18 of the ICC, refers to kiganji temples that were under the patronage of bakufu and daimyo. These temples, usually exempt from a number of duties, offered prayers for the well-being of their patrons and their possessions.

41 That is, to marry off residents of other provinces.

42 Similar articles can be found in [Ko:Shu: Hatto no sidai, 2001, p. 4].

43 Asahina Matataro: - Imagawa's vassal, Asahina Yasuyoshi. Members of the Miura and Asahina families held a leading position among the vassals of the Imagawa House.

It can be assumed that this fragment refers to the location of meetings of the closest vassals and officials of the principality. They also made up he: je:shu: - the highest advisory body under the daimyo's person, which also had the functions of the "highest judicial instance".

44 For vassals, the order of seats they occupied at meetings of the hyo:je:shu: and during various entertainments where the daimyo himself was present was a marker of their status in the hierarchy of serving people. It is not difficult to imagine that disputes on this issue could, given the mentality of the Sengoku-era bushi, cause serious discord, which was undesirable for the prince. Therefore, the legislator, especially noting the preferential rights of the two families closest to the daimyo - Miura and Asahina, calls for amicable settlement of disputes arising during the distribution of seats.

45 Order of places during service, probably in the presence of the daimyo. More specifically, it refers to the order of seats during the hyo:jo:shu: meetings.

Sarugaku 46 (kanjin sarugaku) - performances held mainly to raise funds for the construction and restoration of Buddhist and Shinto temples. Kusemai-a type of dance in medieval Japan, originated in the Kamakura era, during the Muromachi period was often performed during Shinto ceremonies and festivals.

47 Laws of the Middle Kingdom (Tenka no hatto) - as defined by Japanese historians, a set of previously adopted Bakufu legislative regulations and customary legal norms (see above). This fragment indicates that the legislator could recognize their operation in his principality.

48 Se: ki is the Buddhist monastic name Imagawa Ujitika.

49 Eriki, up to:shin (Japanese historiography usually uses the synonymous term yoriko) - one of the categories of service people. This stratum was made up of both daimyo vassals and village leaders, and the princely authorities in the Sengoku period formed military detachments, subordinating them for the duration of hostilities to the command of the yoroya, which were hereditary vassals. In peacetime, yorioya served as an intermediary for Yoriko in submitting claims to the prince. The yorioya-yoriko relations in different principalities were very diverse (for details, see [Ovada, 2001; Akiyama, 1998; Ikegami, 1999]).

50 Similar laws requiring yoriko to file claims against the daimyo only through intermediaries can be found in [Ko:shu: hatto no shidai, 2001, V. 28; Rokkakushi shikimoku, 2001, V. 58].

51 That is, without a written oath to serve forever.

page 133
52 That is, the daimyo cut off personal ties with him and deprived him of his patronage. At the end of the Muromachi era, Shugo, as a punishment for serving people, could "release" them "to freedom", i.e., break the relationship of domination and subordination with them and release them from the obligation to serve. The latter thus lost their status as servants of the shugo or daimyo. As a result, they were no longer protected by the laws in force in the principality. This punishment was considered a heavy punishment.

53 Reference to Article 23 of the Penal Code.

54 Mokudai-an official who performed administrative and police functions in the capital of the principality of Imagawa - Sumpu, where he could act as a deputy daimyo if necessary. Mokudai also served as a police watchdog for samurai members of the personal guard of the Daimyo-umamawari (Arimitsu 1999: 48.49).

55 A kind of personal guard of the daimyo, who reported to him personally.

56 It is implied that umamavari himself had previously apprehended the perpetrator.

57 Employees of the same master as the criminal.

58 In this case, a daimyo rescript that annulled the vassal's debt obligations.

59 This passage, as in Article 20 of the EC, refers to the vassal's submission of requests to the daimyo for help in paying a debt. The legislator emphasizes the inadmissibility of such practices.

60 Imagawa Ujitika.

61 Norms restricting the alienation of temple properties are also contained in [Rokkakushi shikimoku, 2001, articles 6-8; Jinkaishu: 2001, articles 6, 15].

62 Came from provinces that were not part of the Principality of Imagawa.

63 According to popular beliefs at that time, the owner who took in a stranger in his house received the same power over him as over his relatives and household. At that time, the power over the estate was simultaneously considered as power over all the people living there.

64 Katsumata Shizuo writes that this refers to the taxes paid by merchants who received various trade privileges and privileges from the daimyo. The article describes the situation when other merchants try to get the prince to transfer such privileges, promising to pay more taxes to the treasury than the holders of such rights [Katsumata, 2001, p. 202]. According to Hasegawa Hiromichi, in this article Imagawa Yoshimoto seeks to protect the interests of merchants who are closely connected with the ruling house and have received special privileges from it [Hasegawa, 1994, p.67, 68]. The laws of Imagawa show the ambivalence of the Sengoku Daimyo's policies. On the one hand, the daimyo sought to promote the full prosperity of trade by removing customs posts inside the bunkers. On the other hand, the Imagawa, as it follows from Article 8, maintained the special status of a narrow group of merchants close to them. Among these rich Sumpu merchant houses, the Tomono House stood out, with the daimyo appointing the head of the house as the "merchant head" of Sumpu. The Imagawa granted the Tomono the right to collect duties on the sale of certain goods, trusted the representatives of this merchant house to control the trade of strategically important goods for the principality, entrusted supervision of merchants from other principalities who came to Sumpu, etc.[Hasegawa, 1994, pp. 73-77].

65 This is not about the land granted to the daimyo, but about the privileges granted to them [Katsumata, 2001, p. 202].

66 Daikan-a post in the administrative system of the principality. The Daikan ruled a princely domain in which they were responsible for collecting nengu. They also collected tansen and munabetsusen taxes from the daimyo's treasury.

67 Article translated with abbreviations.

Tighe: 68 in this fragment, most likely, means the vassal's possessions as a whole, including not only inherited from his ancestors, but also land plots granted for merits by the prince.

69 The word so: ryo: in the Muromachi era could mean both the heir to the head of a military house and his eldest son (who did not necessarily become the heir). In this case, so: ryo: is the eldest son of a serving daimyo.

70 Reference to Article 2 of the Penal Code.

71 Which started the trial.

72 That is he will commit ty:Kanro:zeki. This fragment contains a reference to Article 4 of the EC. See the commentary to it.

73 That is in the case of ty:Kanro:zeki.

74 Asama Jinja is a Shinto shrine in Suruga Province. Currently located within the city of Fujimiya in Shizuoka Prefecture.

75 Kubo: nin in the Imagawa Principality, who served under buge: nin, was responsible for executing court decisions, collecting unpaid nengu peasants, overdue debts, and collecting duties in favor of the daimyo. According to Article 15 of the ICC, kubo:nin would set up a tensatsu on the land that was the subject of a legal dispute , a special sign that confirmed that a lawsuit was being fought over the land.

76 This article talks about kiganji. to Article 29 of the Penal Code). Ovada Tetsuo writes that the Imagawa daimyo controlled the posts of kiganji abbots, but the temples built and maintained by their vassals were beyond their control (Ovada, 2004, p. 196). However, Okubo Toshiaki believes that according to Article 29 of the IK, the daimyo interfered with the succession process of the abbot of not only kiganji, but also other temples [Okubo, 1994, p.122].

77 Official responsible for overseeing the Buddhist and Shinto temples of the principality.

78. The tansen is genetically traced back to an emergency tax imposed by the tenno court for the construction of the dairi (imperial palace) and a number of important ceremonies. This tax was applied as follows:

page 134
both public lands and seenas. Over time, the right to collect it passed to the Bakufu, which, in particular, used the tansen to finance the construction of the shogun's palace and a number of other important events. The prerogative to collect tansen for bakufu needs gradually became transferred to shugo. After the decline of the Ashikaga Shogunate, the tansen became one of the main taxes in the Sengoku daimyo tax system [Kurushima, 2001, p. 206].

79 Munabetsusen (munabechisen) - in the Sengoku period, a type of tax, the unit of taxation when paying it was not a plot of land, but a house. Tansen and munabetsusen taxed all land in bunkoku without exception, regardless of whether it belonged directly to the daimyo, his vassals, or temples.

80 which clearly state the exemption from payment of tansen and munabetsusen.

81 Tax and police-administrative immunity privileges granted to the landowner of Kamakura and Muromachi Bakufu, and later to the Sengoku daimyo.

82 "The Highest commands" - ongeti. Shimomura Isao believes that this word means the orders of the Imagawa Daimyo (Shimomura, 1994, p. 83). However, Katsumata Shizuo's translation seems to be more preferable, according to which ongechi in the context of the article means "orders of the shogun" (Katsumata, 1994, p. 24).

83 This phrase can also be translated as :" Now everywhere, making laws according to their own understanding, they establish peace and order in their possessions."

84 "Could not interfere" - that is, could not catch and punish criminals in the funyu lands:. As this passage suggests, Imagawa Yoshimoto actually calls himself shugo. The historian Yata Toshifumi criticized his colleague Katsumata Shizuo, who saw in this passage of v. 20 a common self-consciousness for all sengoku daimyo. Imagawa Yoshimoto, as Yata Toshifumi rightly wrote, is referred to in v. 20 as shugo, not sengoku daimyo. As is known, the term sengoku daimyo itself appeared only in the post-war Japanese historiography of the 20th century, and it does not appear in the sources of the "warring provinces" era [Katsumata, 1994, p.24; Yata, 2004, p. 112].

85 Nuhi and dzo: nin, along with Genin, formed a layer of the non-free population in the era under review.

86 Born from the cohabitation of unfree people belonging to different owners.

87 According to Article 41 of the Civil Code, if male children were born as a result of cohabitation of unfree people, they were transferred to the father, while the girls remained with their mother. This definition is taken from the GS in Tesokabeshi Sadamegaki [V. 37] and Jinkaishu: [v. 14]. However, the Yukishi Shinhatto [Article 15] and the ICC apply a different principle, which originates from one of the legislative provisions of the Kamakura era: the child must belong to the owner who raised him.

During the Sengoku era, genin's independence increased significantly. They often decided to escape. Runaway serfs sought the patronage of new masters, turning for protection to temples and other samurai houses. Not surprisingly, as a result, there were frequent conflicts over ownership rights between the new and former owners of the unfree. Personally dependent categories of the population cultivated the land of their master and were used by him to perform all sorts of other works. Part of the Genin were the war party that their master went to war with.

88 Kasemono - one of the groups of low-ranked samurai. In terms of their position, they were higher than chu:gen, having a surname in contrast to the latter. As follows from this article, they were also considered to be non-free segments of the population, although they were separated by the legislator from the nukh and SDCs:nin.

89 Hyo: jo:shu: - a group of powerful vassals and dignitaries closest to the House of Imagawa, who served as the highest advisory body to the daimyo.

90 Shukuro: - the most prominent and most authoritative vassals of the daimyo, who were part of the hyo:jo:shu:.

91 That is, intermediaries through whom it would be possible to apply to the princely court.

92 Mayasubako. Meyasu - a document stating the plaintiff's arguments. This was also the name of the document compiled by the respondent.

93 That is, after learning the name, place of residence, social status of the plaintiff, decide whether to accept the claim for consideration.

94 That is, both sides presented their arguments in court.

95 To let you know that the court decision has not been rendered.

96 By "laws", most likely, we mean IR. This article has been translated with abbreviations.

97 There is a gap in this location. By implication, it should be added: "his land holdings or me:den should be confiscated."

98 To:bo: in the Muromachi era, the monastic rank attached to the person of the shogun and daimyo, who performed their various tasks, was called.

99 According to the laws of the Sengoku period principalities, claims had to be submitted through a special intermediary (called yoroya, toritsugi, so:ja) to a princely official.

Hiki -100 accounting unit for the Ministry of Education and Science (monetary unit). 1 hiki was equal to 10 mon. 1000 hiki was equal to 10000 mon.

101 That is buge:Ning must give a court verdict.

102 That is it unfairly accuses the other party of trying to collude with buge:ning in order for him to pass a favorable sentence for her.

103 The point is that jito did not report the entire size of his land holdings, depending on the size of which the amount of taxes paid to the daimyo was determined (tansen, munabetsusen) and the content of military service. As a rule, information about the land of the principality was compiled by the Sengoku Daimyo on the basis of the data provided to them by landowners and peasants.

page 135
104 Thus, if the area of the hidden surplus was less than one-third of the holdings, the right to own it was recognized for dzito.

105 to the previous owner-dzito, in whose possession an unregistered surplus was found.

106 This refers to "Imagawa bugante:" - cadastral records of the principality [Kubota, 2005, p. 280].

LIST OF SOURCES

Goseibai shikimoku // Chu: Sei Seiji Shakai Shiso: (Social and political ideology of the Middle Ages). The publication was written by Ishii Susumu, Ishimoda Sho:, Kasamatsu Hiroshi, Katsumata Shizuo, Sato Shinichi. Tokyo: Iwanami seten, 2001.

Goseibai shikimoku / Translated by A. A. Tolstoguzov // East (Oriens). 2002. N 1.

Jinkaishu: / / Chu: sei seiji shakai shiso: (Social and Political Ideology of the Middle Ages) / Edited by Ishii Susumu, Ishimoda Sho:, Kasamatsu Hiroshi, Katsumata Shizuo, Sato Shinichi. Tokyo: Iwanami seten. 2001.

Imagawa kanamokuroku. Imagawa kanamokuroku tsuika. Sose: jo:Moku / / Chu:sei ho:Sei shire: Shu. Buke kaho: (Collection of sources of the medieval system of law. Vaults of military houses). Vol. 3 / Ed. Sato: Shinichi and Momose Kasao. Tokyo: Iwanami seten. 2001(1).

Imagawa kanamokuroku. Imagawa kanamokuroku tsuika. Sose: jo:Moku / / Chu: sei Seiji Shakai Shiso: (Social and Political Ideology of the Middle Ages) / Edited by Ishii Susumu, Ishimoda Sho:, Kasamatsu Hiroshi, Katsumata Shizuo, Sato Shinichi. Tokyo: Iwanami seten, 2001 (2).

Ko: Shu Hatto no Sidai // Chu: Sei ho:sei shirexiu. Buke kaho: (Collection of sources of the medieval system of law. Vaults of military houses). Vol. 3 / Ed. Sato: Shinichi and Momose Kasao. Tokyo: Iwanami seten, 2001.

Rokkakushi shikimoku // Chu: Sei Seiji Shakai Shiso: (Social and Political Ideology of the Middle Ages) / Edited by Ishii Susumu, Ishimoda Sho:, Kasamatsu Hiroshi, Katsumata Shizuo, Sato Shinichi. Tokyo: Iwanami seten, 2001.

Tesokabeshi sadamegaki // Chu: Sei ho:sei shirexiu. Buke kaho: (Collection of sources of the medieval system of law. Vaults of military houses). Vol. 3 / Ed. Sato: Shinichi and Momose Kasao. Tokyo: Iwanami seten, 2001.

list of literature

Istoriya Yapanii [History of Japan], Vol. 1, Moscow: IV RAS, 1998.

Meshcheryakov A. N. Ancient Japan. Culture and Text, St. Petersburg: Hyperion Publ., 2006.
Akiyama Nobutaka. Sengoku Daimyo Morishi no kenkyu: (A study of the Sengoku daimyo of the Mori family). Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kobunkan, 1998.

Arimitsu Yutaka. Sengoku Daimyo Imagawashi no kenreku ko:Sengoku sekuozhi no kenreku to shakai (Society and Power during the Sengoku Period and under Oda Nobupaga Toyotomi Hide yoshi) /Ed. Honda Takashige. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kobunkan, 1999.

Ike Susumu. Dimere:Gokusei no kenkyu: (A study of the Daimyo Principalities). Tokyo: Azekura sebo, 1996.

Hiroko Ikegami. Sengokujidai shakai ko: zo: no kenkyu: (A study of the social structure of the Sengoku era). Tokyo: Adzekura sebo, 1999.

Kawaoka Tsutomu. Muromachi bakufu to shugo kenreku (Muromachi bakufu and shugo's power). Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kobunkan, 2001.

Katsumata Shizuo. Ju:Go-ju:roku seiki no Nihon - sengoku no so: ran (Japan XV-XVI centuries-troubles of the warring provinces) / / Nihon no tsu:si (General History of Japan). Vol. 10.Chu:sei (Middle Ages). Tokyo: Iwanami seten, 1994.

Katsumata Shizuo. Comments on Imagawa kanamokuroku / / Chu: sei seiji shakai shiso (Social and Political Ideology of the Middle Ages) / Edited by Ishii Susumu, Ishimoda Sho:, Kasamatsu Hiroshi, Katsumata Shizuo, Sato Shinichi. Tokyo: Iwanami seten, 2001.

Katsumata Shizuo. Sengokuho: seiritsu shiron (Theory of the history of the laws of the Warring Provinces). Tokyo: Toke daigaku shuppankai, 2003.

Kobayashi Hiroshi. Muromachi jidai no shugoshifunyu: ni tsuite (On the right of shugoshifunyu: the Muromachi Era) / / Muromachi seiken. Ronshu: Nihon rekishi (Political power of the Muromachi period. Collection of articles: History of Japan) / Ed. Ogawa Makoto. Tokyo: Yuzedo Shuppan, 1975.

Kubo Kenichiro. Sengoku Daimyo to ko:gi (Sengoku daimyo and the idea of ko: gi). Tokyo: Azekura sebo, 2001.

Kubota Masaki. Sengoku Daimyo of Imagawashi no ryo:Goku shihai (The system of government in the Sengoku Daimyo Imagawa Principality). Tokyo: Yoshikawa kobunkan. 2005.

Kurushima Noriko. Ikki to sengoku daimyo: (Ikki and sengoku daimyo) / / Nihon no rekishi (History of Japan), Vol. 13. Tokyo: Kodansha, 2001.

Nagahara Keiji. Sengoku no do:ran (The Troubles of the Sengoku Era) // Nihon no rekishi (History of Japan). Vol. 14.Tokyo: Shogakukan. 1976.

Nihonshi daijiten (Dictionary of Japanese History). Vol. 5. Tokyo, 1992.

Okubo Toshiaki. Yoshimoto to shu:kyo: (Yoshimoto and Religion) // Imagawa Yoshimoto no subete (All about Imagawa Yoshimoto) / Ed. Ovada Tetsuo. Tokyo: Shinjinbutsu orai, 1994.

page 136
Ovada Tetsuo. Sengoku daimyo. Tokyo: Keikusha Publ., 1978.

Ovada Tetsuo. Imagawa Yoshimoto. Tokyo: Mineruba Sebo, 2004.

Ovada Tetsuo. Imagawashi kasindan no kenkyu: (A study of the vassal system of the House of Imagawa). Proceedings of Ovada Tetsuo, Vol. 1. Tokyo: Seibundo skspan, 2001.

Shimomura Isae Bunkokuho: "Imagawa kanamokuroku tsuika" no seitei (Codes of Principalities: The Creation of "Imagawa kanamokuroku tsuika") / / Imagawa Yoshimoto no subete (All about Imagawa Yoshimoto) / Ed. Ovada Tetsuo. Tokyo: Shinjinbutsu orai, 1994.

So: teng. Nihon no rekishi. Heian makki - sengoku jidai (Discussion questions. History of Japan. End of the Heian period - Sengoku period). Chu:seiheng 4 / Ed. Minegishi Shizuo. Tokyo: Shinjinbutsu orai, 1991.

Sugiyama Hiroshi. Sengoku daimyo // Nihon no rekishi (History of Japan), Vol. 11. Tokyo: Chyokoron shineya, 2005.

Sengoku no chiiki kokka (Regional State of the Sengoku period) // Nihon to jidai rekishi (Periods in the history of Japan). Vol. 12 / Ed. Arimitsu Yu:gaku. Tokyo: Yoshikawa kobunkan. 2003.

Hasegawa Hiromichi. Se:ge: seisaku to Sumpu no gose: (Policy on industry and trade gose: Sumpu) / / Imagawa Yoshimoto no subete (All about Imagawa Yoshimoto) / Ed. Ovada Tetsuo. Tokyo: Shinjinbutsu yell. 1994.

Hirayama Masaru. Takeda Shingen. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kobunkan, 2006.

Yata Toshifumi. Nihon Chu: sei Sengokuki Kenreku ko: zo: no kenkyu: (A study of the power structure of the Sengoku period in medieval Japan). Tokyo: Hanawa Sebo, 2004.

Permanent link to this publication: