University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Property and inheritance rights of women in twelfth‐ and thirteenth‐century Japan

(USC Thesis Other)

Property and inheritance rights of women in twelfth‐ and thirteenth‐century Japan

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Property and Inheritance Rights of Women in Twelfth- and Thirteenth-Century Japan

By
Cassandra Dierolf

East Asian Studies Center
Master of Arts in East Asian Area Studies
University of Southern California
August 2017

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank all those who supported me throughout my research for this thesis and
helped me see my Master’s degree through to its conclusion. To my parents, who have helped me keep
my head on straight and who have learned more about my thesis topic than they ever wanted to. To
Grace Ryu, Assistant Director of the East Asian Studies Center, and to the other people who make the
EASC a place I am proud to be associated with. To my teachers at the Inter-University Center for
Japanese Language Studies, without whom my research would have been impossible. To the members
of my thesis committee, Dr. Joshua Goldstein, Dr. Brett Sheehan, and Dr. Joan Piggott, whose feedback
and unending patience with me have been invaluable parts of this process. This thesis is dedicated to
them, and in memory of Dr. Eugene Cooper, who had signed on to being a part of the madness prior to
his untimely passing.

Table of Contents:
1. Introduction Page 1
2. 法曹至要抄 Hōssōshiyōshō Essential Excerpts for the Legal Profession Page 4
a. Clause 4 Page 5
b. Clause 6 Page 7
c. Clause 7 Page 8
d. Cause 15 Page 9
3. 御成敗式目 Goseibai shikimoku Formulary of Adjudication Page 10
a. Clause 11 Page 11
b. Clause 18 Page 12
c. Clause 20 Page 13
d. Clause 21 Page 14
e. Clause 23 Page 15
f. Clause 24 Page 15
g. Clause 26 Page 16
h. Clause 27 Page 17
4. 追加法 Tsuika hō Supplementary Laws or Addenda to the Formulary of
Adjudication Page 18
a. Clause 324 Page 19
b. Clause 325 Page 20
c. Clause 326 Page 21
d. Clause 327 Page 22
e. Clause 328 Page 22
f. Clause 329 Page 24
g. Clause 330 Page 24
5. Conclusion Page 26
6. Appendix A – Full translations of selections from Essential Excerpts for the Legal
Profession Page 29
7. Appendix B – Full translation of selections from Formulary of Adjudication Page 35
8. Appendix C – Full translation of selections from Supplementary Laws Page 43
9. Bibliography Page 50

P a g e | 1

Introduction
This essay seeks to examine the rights of women with regards to property ownership and inheritance in
the changing times of twelfth- and thirteenth-century Japan by analyzing selections from laws of the
time. Specifically, it looks at what the law explicitly states and implies by the wording of its clauses, or
what is not mentioned. In order to gain a more holistic view of the topic, laws or analyses of laws from
the noble court in the Heian capital
1
as well as from the newly formed warrior center of Kamakura are
included. This gives rise to other questions that this essay engages, especially regarding the differences
or similarities between noble and warrior laws on women’s property ownership and inheritance. The
three texts from which selections are examined here span a time period of nearly one hundred years,
and so questions of change over time are also considered. This essay strives to examine the text of the
law and what those in power set forth as the ideal standards regarding property rights and inheritance
as they applied (or did not apply) to women, rather than the de facto reality of the times.
The following assumption, which shaped the direction of my research, was made during the
course of this examination. It was assumed there were differences in the law codes of the noble court in
the Heian capital and the warrior government in Kamakura, but that there were enough similarities to
enable comparison of the two sets of laws. The law codes show a limiting of women’s rights in regards
to property ownership and inheritance over time, reinforcing the works of historians who previously
examined daily life in twelfth- and thirteenth-century Japan.
2
However, the laws vary in that the
warriors litigated extensively, and thus came to be the subjects of more discussion and debate about
property and inheritance rights.

1
Today this is known as Kyoto.
2
See particularly the works of Wakita Haruko, Tabata Yasuko, and Hitomi Tonomura listed in the bibliography.
P a g e | 2

The body of English-language work done to examine the field of Japanese history has grown
significantly in recent years, though there are still gaps to be filled. Particularly, the sub-field of women’s
and gender history in premodern Japan is growing, but it is still limited in its scope, not least because of
its late start. Takamure Itsue
3
was a pioneer for research into women’s history. She was not an academic
historian, and her work did not hold much weight in the greater academic community until her findings
on the marriage patterns of the Heian Period
4
were corroborated by noted American literary and
cultural historian of Japan, William McCullough. His essay, “Japanese Marriage Institutions in the Late
Heian Period,” was published in 1967, and it was one of the first major English-language works regarding
Premodern Japanese women’s history.
McCullough’s work showed that throughout the Heian Period the shape of marriage patterns
among the nobility was changing from one that was centered on the wife’s household to one centered
on that of the husband.
5
Much of the other work done in the field since has followed this trend of
looking into marriage and the household to understand women’s place in society. Wakita Haruko, noted
Japanese women’s historian, wrote several articles on the creation of the Ie, the patriarchal family
structure of medieval Japan, which she found to be the context of changing marriage patterns of the
time.
6
Wakita also wrote on property and marriage,
7
and more recently she began to focus on gender
roles and expectations for non-noble households as well as the nobility.
8
Tabata Yasuko is also an

3
Note: Japanese names appear in the family-name personal-name order.
4
The Heian Period is generally considered to be from 794-1185 CE.
5
See W. McCullough, “Japanese Marriage Institutions in the Late Heian Period.”
6
See H. Wakita, “L'histoire des femmes au Japon: La "maison," l'épouse et la maternité dans la société médiévale,"
" The Foundation of the Ie and Medieval Myth,” and “Women and the Creation of the Ie in Japan: An Overview
from the Medieval Period to the Present," all in the bibliography.
7
See H. Wakita, “Marriage and Property in Premodern Japan.”
8
See H. Wakita, “The Medieval Household and Gender Roles within the Imperial Family, Nobility, Merchants, and
Commoners,” and “The Japanese Woman in the Premodern Merchant Household.”
P a g e | 3

important name in the field, though her concentration lies mainly in the warrior families of medieval
Japan.
9

Of English-language research on premodern Japanese women, the historian whose work is most
closely related to the topic of this essay is Hitomi Tonomura. Her published works include research on
Lady Nijō’s place in bringing about the social order of her time,
10
women and inheritance,
11
and legal and
extralegal measures taken regarding sexual violence in premodern Japanese warrior societies.
12
It is
from the reading and analysis of these works that the idea for this study came, and the debt owed to
Tonomura cannot be overstated. Though Tonomura looked at the same topics that I consider here, her
focus was on the reality of inheritance and the reaction toward sexual violence legally and extra-legally.
This essay examines actual legal clauses, in the attempt to tease out what the writers of the law were
trying to prescribe as normative with regards to women, property, and inheritance. In the process, the
essay also provides new data for Tonomura’s arguments.
13

Herein I have translated the laws from the original kambun into classical Japanese, then into
modern Japanese, and then into English. The original kambun and the English translation appear in the
text of this essay, but the fully annotated translations appear in appendices at the end of this essay. The
texts I used to translate these laws are those in the Nihon kodai hōten,
14
a compendium of laws
published in 1892. The texts examined in this essay were chosen primarily because they reveal the
stance of both the courtier nobility in the Heian capital and the warrior nobility of the shogunate in

9
“Medieval Japan” generally refers to the years between 1180 and 1598 CE, although there is quite a bit of
discussion concerning the precise beginning and ending dates. For more on the topic, see Andrew Edmund Goble’s
“Defining Medieval,” listed in the bibliography.
10
See H. Tonomura, “Court and Bakufu in Her Flesh: Nijō's Contribution to Dual Polity.”
11
See H. Tonomura, “Women and Inheritance in Japan's Early Warrior Society.”
12
See H. Tonomura, “Sexual Violence Against Women: Legal and Extralegal Treatment in Premodern Warrior
Societies.”
13
See H. Tonomura, “Women and Inheritance in Japan’s Early Warrior Society.”
14
The Nihon kodai hōten is otherwise written as 日本古代法典.
P a g e | 4

Kamakura. The first section of this essay discusses certain clauses of the Hōssōshiyōshō, or Essential
Excerpts for the Legal Profession, which was actually a handbook for legal specialists in the late Heian
Period. The second section concerns clauses of the Goseibai shikimoku, the Formulary of Adjudication, a
list of procedures and standards for adjudication promulgated by the Kamakura shogunate in 1232. The
third section examines selected Kamakura Tsuika hō, supplementary laws to the Formulary of
Adjudication, which were promulgated from time to time after 1232 as necessary. The clauses of these
three texts were chosen for their connection to women’s property rights and inheritance.
法曹至要抄 Hōssōshiyōshō Essential Excerpts for the Legal Profession
The Essential Excerpts for the Legal Profession (which will hereon be referred to as Essential Excerpts) is
a handbook for legal scholars on penal law in the late Heian period, written and compiled by a member
of the Sakanoue family, which served the court as legal specialists. Sources vary on whether the writer
was Sakanoue no Akikane (1079-1147), or his grandson Sakanoue no Akimoto (1138-1210).
15
A joint-
author theory seems to have become more accepted in recent years on the strength of Sakamoto Tarō’s
“Hōssōshiyōshō to sono chosha.” According to him, Essential Excerpts may have begun as a way to teach
children of the Sakanoue family their métier.
16
On the other hand, Tanahashi Mitsuo pinpointed the
compiling of the Essential Excerpts to Akikane around 1133, in the middle of a revival of legal studies.
17

Very little study of the Essential Excerpts has been done outside of the Japanese language excepting
Francine Hérail’s French-language work of 2005.
18

15
For more on Sakanoue Akikane ( 坂上明兼) and Akimoto ( 明基), see the entry on the Hōssōshiyōshō in the 国史
大辞典 Kokushi daijiten.
16
See T. Sakamoto, “Hōssōshiyōshō to sono chosha.”
17
See M. Tanahashi, Chūsei seiritsuki no hō to kokka, chapter III “Hōsho ‘Hōssōshiyōshō’.”
18
See F. Hérail, “La législation pénale à l’époque de Heian, autour de la « Somme juridique », Hossôshiyôshô 法曹
至要抄.”
P a g e | 5

As for the format of the Essential Excerpts – it often refers to a clause from the eighth-century
penal code, and then presents questions about its meaning and application at the time of the Essential
Excerpts’ writing. Following this, in an indented paragraph, it gives a more detailed discussion of the
issue. As a whole readers learn original clauses of the penal code and how they had been questioned
and amended to better fit circumstances in later Heian times.
Essential Excerpts has three parts, which collectively discuss 176 laws.
19
The first volume deals
with issues of crime and punishment; the second concerns prohibitions, trade, and debts, among others;
and the third volume discusses mourning and other social rules. The clauses concerning gender to be
analyzed here come from the third volume, clauses 4, 6, 7, and 15. Each clause will be given in its
original kambun and then in the English, followed by analysis and commentary.
４条 – Clause 4
漢文 – Kambun
４母遺財支配事
戸令應分條義解云問。假令嫡妻有子共承分之后其母改嫁卽賚己及子財。適後夫家。其後母亡。
所有財物。須入何人。答。令有妻承夫財之文。而無夫得妻物之法。卽須與其子。不可入夫。其
於母者。無嫡庶之名。分其財物者。當從均分之法。
按之。假令有十人子。其母未處分。亡者所有遺財。將以均分。有十端布者。不論男女嫡
庶。各可得一端之類也。
英訳 – English
Clause 4 Regarding control of inheritance from a mother.
In the clause on the division of property for inheritance in the Ryō no gige commentary of the [Yōrōryō]
Laws on Residential Units, the following is written. If a legal wife has a child, and at the same time, both
have taken their share of the husband’s property, and then that mother remarries, that is, both she and
her child have property and she then becomes part of her new husband’s house, and if afterward, the
mother dies, then who should receive her remaining property?
Answer. There are laws allowing a wife to receive a husband’s property. However, there are no laws
allowing a husband to receive a wife’s property. So, the property should be given entirely to the child. It

19
This may be true only of the version found in the Nihon kodai hōten, as it is a compiled volume, and some
materials may be missing.
P a g e | 6

should not go to the husband. Regarding the mother, division of property should not be done by the
children’s status as heir or not-heir. Rather, the law of equal division should be followed.
In considering this, for example in a situation with 10 children, if the mother has not yet decided
how to divide her property and she dies, then her property should be split equally. If there are
10 units of cloth, the children – male or female, regardless of their status as heir or not-heir
should each get one unit.

So, this clause opens with a reference to inheritance provisions of the Yōrō administrative code Laws on
Residence Units that is referred to in a ninth-century official commentary known as the Ryō no gige.
20

From this Essential Excerpts clause, it can be assumed that a legal wife and her children would inherit
property from her husband at the “division of property” in the event of that husband’s death. According
to this clause, the woman would keep the property she inherited from her former husband even if she
remarried – as long as the remarriage happened after the property had been divided among all
inheritors.
According to this text, upon remarriage, the woman was considered part of her new husband’s
house, and so the question is raised as to whom the property she had inherited from her former
husband would go after her death. The answer given leads the reader to think that there have been
lawsuits in which the second husband and the children of the woman from her first marriage argued
over this question. According to the compiler(s), the property of the first husband is to be granted to a
child of that marriage – it is not part of the new husband’s property. There are laws to allow a wife to
inherit her husband’s property, says the compiler, but not the other way around. As other clauses from
the Essential Excerpts will show, a woman generally gained property one of two ways – it was granted to
her from either her parents’ household as dowry or from her husband as inheritance. And a woman’s

20
For more on gender in the Law of Residence Units portion of the Yōrō administrative code, see Yoshie, Piggott,
and Ijūin’s translation, “Gender in the Japanese Administrative Code,” especially Part 1.
P a g e | 7

property was to be inherited solely by her children. It did not pass to her new husband or back to her
parents.
At the end of Clause 4, specific mention is made of how a woman may divide her property for
her children upon her death. The example is specific that “If the mother has not yet decided how to
divide her property, and she dies … her property should be split equally.” It is unclear if a woman could
decide a different division of her property for her children, provided she did so before her death. As for
the use of “cloth” in the example, it may mean that the most common type of property for a woman to
have was cloth.
６条 – Clause 6
漢文 – Kambun
６妻財物不入分法事
戸令應分條云。其妻家所得不在分限。
按之。假令嫡繼妻等。從妻之祖家賚來。與夫同財。夫死後分遺財之日。如元可還與也。
准分法。不可併計。
英訳 – English
Clause 6 Regarding a wife’s property not being included in the (husband’s) goods for inheritance.
In the inheritance clause of the [Yōrōryō] Laws on Residential Units, the following is written; property
that came from the wife’s house is not to be considered part of [the husband’s] wealth.
In considering this, for first and second wives
21
both, the property that the wife brings from her
parent’s house becomes one with the husband’s property. After the husband’s death, on the
day that his wealth is divided, [the wife’s property] should return to the way it was before,
separate from the husband’s wealth. In compliance with the law of partible inheritance, [the
wife’s property] may not be combined with the husband’s.

21
More specifically, 嫡妻 chakusai here is the “first legal wife” and 繼妻 keisai is the “second legal wife,” and
foster mother to the first’s children.
P a g e | 8

This clause reflects the same logic as Clause 4. It is based on the understanding that the property a
woman brings as dowry from her own family cannot be considered part of the husband’s property after
his death. While both husband and wife are alive, their property was considered joint property. On the
death of either, however, the property that came with a woman into the marriage as dowry is
considered hers alone, eventually to go to her children, divided equally, as their inheritance.
７条 – Clause 7
漢文 – Kambun
７亡妻財不還妻祖家夫可領事
戸令應分條朱云。妻家所得。不在分限。未知妻亡者。其財何。答。妻之子得耳。未知若夫得
乎。答。無子者夫得耳。不還妻之祖家也。
案之。夫妻同財之故。亡妻無子之時。其遺財者。不還妻之祖家。夫可令領掌矣。
英訳 – English
Clause 7 Regarding when a deceased wife’s property should not return to her ancestral house
but become her husband’s.
In a clause on the division of property in the Shu commentary of the [Yōrōryō] Laws on Residential Units,
the following is written. Property that came from the wife’s home is not part of [the husband’s] wealth.
When the wife dies, what should be done with her property?
Answer. There is nothing to be done but for the wife’s child to have the property.
However, is there a situation in which the husband gets the property?
Answer. In the situation that there are no children, the husband gets the property. It does not return to
the wife’s home.
In considering this, because a husband’s and wife’s property become one, when a deceased wife
has no children, that inheritance should not return to her parents’ home. The husband should
get that property.

Acting as a sort of addendum to the previous clause, this clause begins with a reiteration of the
conclusion of Clause 6. A wife’s property was not to be considered part of the husband’s possessions
except while they both lived. On the woman’s death, her property was to be equally divided among her
P a g e | 9

children. This clause expands on what is to be done with the property if there were no children. In short,
if a wife died without children, the property she brought to the marriage from her parent’s home was to
be kept by her husband, on the basis that while she lived and they were married, it was joint property.
This can be seen as a contradiction with Clause 4’s statement that “there are no laws allowing a husband
to receive a wife’s property,”
22
but Clause 4 does not mention a situation in which a child does not exist.
Therefore, this clause can be seen as an addendum to the previous clause.
１５条 – Clause 15
漢文 – Kambun
１５改嫁妻妾不承分事
戸令應分條義解云。嫡母繼母各二分。謂家長之妻。夫亡寡居者也。若未分之前。改嫁適他者。
不可得財者。
按之。夫亡而未分之前。改嫁之妻。不可預其妻者。
英訳 – English
Clause 15 Regarding remarried wives’ inability to receive a share of property.
In the clause on the division of property for inheritance in the Ryō no gige commentary on the [Yōrōryō]
Laws on Residential Units, the following is written. Biological mothers and stepmothers receive two
parts each. However, the wife of the head of the family, if her husband dies, must become a widow. If,
before the property is divided, she marries another person, she must not receive anything.
In considering this, a woman who remarries before receiving property from a deceased husband
must not be given [a share of the] inheritance.

This law qualifies Clause 4, and probably requests a newer, stricter policy. In the event of a husband’s
death, the wife can remarry, but she cannot then enjoy inherited goods from her deceased husband.
Also of note in this clause is how the property of a deceased husband is to be divided – “biological
mothers and stepmothers” are to receive two parts each – together, four parts out of ten.

22
Clause 4 can be found above, on page 5 of this essay.
P a g e | 10

御成敗式目 Goseibai shikimoku Formulary of Adjudication
The Formulary of Adjudication, otherwise known as the Jōei Formulary
23
for the name of the era in
which it was promulgated and referred to in-text here as Formulary, was a list of protocols written for
the warrior gokenin
24
of the newly risen Kamakura shogunate and enacted in 1232. There is, as with the
Essential Excerpts, some question regarding the author of the Formulary. There is some suggestion that
Hōjō Yasutoki (1183-1242) was the writer, but perhaps not the only one.
25
He was the nephew of Hōjō
Masako (1156-1225),
26
the primary wife of Minamoto no Yoritomo (1147-1199),
27
who was the first
shogun of the Kamakura shogunate.
The full Formulary was translated into English by John Carey Hall in 1906, but the translation did
not show the original text.
28
The English language used, being from the early 1900’s, is now somewhat
dated and it seemed prudent to re-translate the following clauses to make these selections of the
Formulary more accessible to today’s readers. Due to the nature of this essay, I have translated only
those clauses pertaining to women and property rights or inheritance, specifically Clauses 11, 18, 20, 21,
23, 24, 26, and 27. The rest of the Formulary involves clauses regarding temples and shrines, criminal
law, trial proceedings, and the structure of the shogunate.
The Formulary has a different layout from the previously discussed Essential Excerpts, likely due
to their differing purpose and contents – Essential Excerpts was a handbook meant to clarify
contemporary legal thinking. The Formulary, on the other hand, is a list of procedures and standards

23
The Jōei Formulary is otherwise written as 貞永式目. The Jōei era spanned the fourth month of 1232 to the
fourth month of 1233.
24
御家人 Literally “housemen,” they were warriors associated with the Kamakura shogunate who looked to
Kamakura for grants of land, recognition of deeds in battle, etc.
25
For more on Hōjō Yasutoki ( 北条泰時) and the authorship of the Formulary, see Mass, Lordship and inheritance
in Early Medieval Japan: A Study of the Kamakura Soryo System, p. 69-70.
26
Hōjō Masako is otherwise written as 北条政子.
27
The “no” of Minamoto no Yoritomo ( 源頼朝) marks an “of,” as in “Yoritomo of the Minamoto family.”
28
For his full translation, see J. Hall, Japanese Feudal Law.
P a g e | 11

issued by Kamakura’s warrior government for its gokenin, who might need to use Kamakura’s courts to
resolve suits.
１１条 – Clause 11
漢文 - Kambun
一依夫罪科。妻女所領被没収否事。
右於謀叛殺害扞山賊海賊夜討强盗等重科者。可懸夫咎也。但依當座之口論。若及刃傷殺害者。
不可懸之。
英訳 - English
Regarding whether a wife’s and daughter’s
29
landholdings can be confiscated in the event of a husband’s
crime.
As above, if the criminal has committed acts of treason, murder, banditry, piracy, attacks by night,
thievery or similar serious crimes, the wife’s and daughter’s landholdings may be seized. However, in the
case of a person having committed spontaneous acts of injury or murder in an argument, the wife’s and
daughter’s landholdings may not be seized.

This clause deals with women’s property rights as affected by the actions of men, which is unsurprising
given that the Formulary was a law code for the gokenin, who were usually men. Despite the general
belief that women in this time period had no possessions of their own, the wording of the previous
Essential Excerpts of the Heian period as well as this clause from the 1232 Formulary shows that women
of the warrior order were expected to have land of their own, independent of their husband’s holdings
or wealth.
The distinction between “murder” and “murder during an argument” is not easily transliterated.
The latter, for which a woman’s property was not to be seized, is something that may have occurred if a
gokenin was outside his home and took offense at another person, sparking a duel. The murder or injury

29
妻女 saijō has been translated here as “wife and daughter,” but may also mean “women in general” or just
“women who are wives.”
P a g e | 12

of another man in that case would be punished, but would not require seizure of the wife’s property.
Broadly, the list of crimes for which wives’ holdings would be seized including treason and banditry, or
“similar serious crimes,” would have required forethought and conscious will to commit. The crimes of
murder or injury by argument, however, were thought of as crimes of passion. The wife of the criminal
may not have known in either case what her husband was doing, but premeditated crimes were seen as
likely to have been known in the home, and therefore, wives’ property was to be confiscated.
１８条 – Clause 18
漢文 - Kambun
一、譲與所領於女子後、依有不和儀、其親悔還否事
右男女號雖異、父母之恩惟同、法家之倫雖有申旨、女子則頼不悔還之文、不可憚不孝之罪業、
父母亦察及敵對之論、不可譲所領於女子歟、親子義絶之起也、既敎令違犯之基也、女子若有向
背之儀者、父母宜任進退之意、依之女子者爲全譲状、竭忠孝之節、父母者爲施撫育、均慈愛之
思者歟
英訳 - English
Regarding whether or not a parent can take back a landholding previously granted to a daughter due to
discord [in the relationship].
As above, even though we differentiate between “male” and “female,” [a child’s] debt to parents is the
same. Whether the words of legal scholars are important or not, daughters will rely on the idea that [a
landholding] cannot be taken from them, and will not hesitate to commit the sin of being un-filial.
Perhaps, if the parents guess that the relationship will become one of great enmity, they may not grant
a landholding to their daughter. This is the start of disownment. It is already a basis of going against the
teachings. If a daughter goes against her parents, then the parents must do as they will [and the
landholding may be taken back]. If a daughter devotes herself [to her parents] in filial piety for the sake
of her inheritance, will not parents nurture their daughter with affection, loving her just like other
children?

There are several parts to this clause, which deals with the revoking or taking back by parents of
property specifically passed to daughters. The Formulary mentions that there is no written law saying a
landholding given to a daughter may be taken back. It states, however, that parents may take back a
landholding previously granted to a daughter if she is unfilial. Essentially, the Formulary embraces the
P a g e | 13

idea of filial piety as fundamental. If a daughter is properly dutiful, then her parents should have no
issue with granting her property. If the daughter is not so, then parents should not be obliged to grant
her anything, even if they had previously done so, should the relationship between them sour.
In this clause, the Formulary favors the practice of filial piety and embraces the idea that parents
should enjoy freedom in choosing how property would be parceled out to their daughters. It gave the
families of the gokenin a method of ensuring fewer arguments over inheritances, or the filial behavior
expected of children. It also, more prosaically, allowed the Kamakura shogunate to place the burden of
making and defending a decision regarding inheritance on the family, rather than on the shogunate
itself.
２０条 – Clause 20
漢文 - Kambun
一、得譲状後、其子先于父母令死去跡事
右其子雖令見存、至令悔還者、有何妨哉、況子孫死去之後者、只可任父祖之意也
英訳 - English
Regarding the case where a child, having been granted property, should precede their parents in death.
As above, even if the child is living, there is no obstruction to taking back property. After the death of
the child or grandchild, that is even more permissible. The father’s and grandfather’s’ will should be
followed.

Though this clause does not specifically deal with women, it does deal with children of either gender. It
allows for property previously granted to a child to be taken back by the parents should the child
predecease them. The clause also states that even if the child were living, there would be no obstacle in
the parents taking back the property, presumably due to lack of filial piety. This echoes Clause 18, but as
this clause is not gender-specific, it likely means that the reasoning behind Clause 18 could be applied to
sons as well as daughters. Interestingly, it does not mention an age for the child in question.
P a g e | 14

２１条 – Clause 21
漢文 - Kambun
一、妻妾得夫譲、被離別後、領知彼所領否事
右其妻依有重科於被弃捐者、縱雖有往日之契状、難知行前夫之所領、又彼妻有功無過、賞新弃
舊者、所譲之所領不能悔還
英訳 - English
Regarding whether or not a man’s wives, having inherited from him, can keep his landholdings after a
divorce.
As above, if a wife is abandoned because of great fault on her part, even if there was a life-long
agreement
30
in the past, she may not keep control of her former husband’s landholdings. But, if the wife
has served the family well and committed no crime and she was abandoned in favor of a new wife, the
landholdings granted to her cannot be taken back.

This clause deals with property rights after a divorce, and shows that there were differences in those
property rights for a divorced woman depending on the reason she was divorced. It also gives the
careful reader a number of insights into the cultural mores of the time. Nowhere in this clause is the
idea that a woman could divorce a man allowed for; the expectation was that divorce would originate
with the husband. Additionally, if it was not a common practice to divorce a wife either due to fault on
her part or because one simply wanted a new wife, there would be no law code regarding it. This clause
is the first examined from the Formulary to make mention of the practice of a husband granting his wife
property, which was also evident in the Essential Excerpts. The language of the clause also creates the
situation in which, should a man want to divorce his wife but keep possession of any land he had
granted to her, he must prove that she had committed some great fault. What that fault might be is not
specified, and leaves the matter likely very subjective.
２３条 – Clause 23
漢文 - Kambun

30
The “agreement” here ( 契状) could be glossed as “contract.”
P a g e | 15

一、女人養子事
右如法意者、雖不許之、右大將家御時以徠至于當世、無其子之女人等譲與所領於養子事、不易
之法不可勝計、加之都鄙之例先蹤惟多、評議之處尤足信用歟
英訳 - English
Regarding women adopting children.
As above, by law this was not allowed. From the time of the Udaishō [Minamoto no Yoritomo]’s era to
the present day, however, there have been countless examples of childless women granting a
landholding to an adopted child.
31
In the capital as well as the countryside, time after time, there have
been a great many examples of this. Is there need to discuss it?

This clause allows for a woman without biological children of her own to adopt a child and transmit her
landholdings to the adopted child – a customary practice, as the reader learns here. The clause also
compares the customs of the capital to the countryside, including lands controlled by Kamakura. That
Minamoto no Yoritomo as well as the customary practices of the capital (and thus the nobility) were
used as justifications for legitimizing the practice shows that it was widespread.
２４条 – Clause 24
漢文 - Kambun
一、譲得夫所領後家、令改嫁事
右爲後家之輩譲得夫所領者、須抛他事訪夫後世之處、背式目事非無其咎歟、而忘貞心令改嫁
者、以所得之領地、可宛給亡夫之子息、若又無子息者可有別御計
英訳 - English
Regarding remarriage by those widows who have received landholdings from a deceased husband.
As above, for those who have become widows and received their husband’s landholdings, they should
set aside all other matters and pray for their husband in the next world. [Remarriage] is a fault in this
Formulary of Adjudication. If they have quickly forgotten fidelity
32
and remarried, the landholdings shall
be given instead to the sons of the deceased. If there are no sons, there should be other arrangements.

31
養子 yōshi could alternately be translated as “son-in-law,” depending on context and time period.
32
貞心 teishin could also be translated as “virtuous” or “chaste.”
P a g e | 16

Unlike Clause 21, which deals with the rights of women to property after a divorce, this clause involves
the possibility of remarriage after the death of a husband. In the Essential Excerpts, a woman only
forfeited property given to her by a deceased husband if she remarried before receiving the property.
33

In the Formulary, however, the law makers took a harder stance. A woman’s duty to her husband did
not die with the man, but remained. Thus, as a widow, she was expected to step back from everything
else and pray for her late husband as he moved into the next world. The Formulary indicated that doing
otherwise was shameful and that remarriage for a woman would result in the forfeiture of all property
she had gained from her late husband. That property would go instead to his children, if he had any,
regardless of the wishes of the woman. The clause was vague about what would happen to the property
if the deceased man had no offspring, stating only that other arrangements would be made. By shutting
out the possibility of a woman remarrying and keeping property from her deceased husband, the
Formulary restricted a woman’s remarriage beyond late Heian courtier law.
２６条 – Clause 26
漢文 - Kambun
一、譲所領於子息、給安堵御下文之後、悔還其領、譲與他子息事
右可任父母意之由、具以載先條畢、仍就先判之譲、雖給安堵御下文、其親悔還之、於譲他子息
者、任後判之譲、可有御成敗
英訳 - English
Regarding taking back a landholding from a son after having received official shogunate confirmation,
and then giving the landholding to another son.
As above, the reasons for [these matters] to be left to the father and mother have been written in detail
in previous clauses. Whether if in a previous decision an official confirmation was granted or not, in the
case of the parents taking the landholding back and granting it to another son, there should be another
decision made [by the shogunate] on the latter inheritance.

33
See Essential Excerpts Clause 15, above, on Page 9 of this essay.
P a g e | 17

Clause 26 is another that deals with inheritance from parents to children, and when it is acceptable for a
parent to take back a landholding previously granted. The clause itself refers to the previous clauses on
this topic,
34
and states that they should be followed. The main difference in this clause as opposed to
the other two is that this clause specifies what happens when the son had already received official
confirmation of his inheritance from Kamakura. This clause makes it clear that if the parents changed
their minds about the heir to inherit, that new arrangement would have to be reconfirmed. Essentially,
Clause 26 again bolsters the ideal of parents’ freedom to decide the heir.
35

２７条 – Clause 27
漢文 - Kambun
一、未處分跡事
右、且隨奉公之浅深、且糺器量之堪否、各任時宜可被分宛
英訳 - English
Regarding undivided [property].
As above, on one hand, whether service is shallow or deep, and on the other, whether there is adequate
ability or not, the property shall be divided according to the needs of the time.

Clause 27 seems to echo the Essential Excerpts’ Clause 4, which discusses how a woman’s property
should be divided if she died before making clear how she wanted it divided. This clause in the
Formulary is not limited to just women’s property, but seems rather broad in its proposed application. It
is included here because it may have applied as much to a woman as a man, and so should be
considered. Essentially, property that had not been divided up before a person’s death would be
distributed according to how well the deceased was served by the prospective inheritor, and according
to the inheritor’s talents to manage the inheritance. The clause does not lay out how either service or

34
That is, clauses 18 and 20, above on pages 12 and 13, respectively.
35
For an example of this in documents, see Document 59 in Mass, Lordship and Inheritance in Early Medieval
Japan, page 181.
P a g e | 18

talent should be measured, or how an inheritor could prove their worthiness. As with Clause 26, the
practice of filial piety would have been important.
追加法 Tsuika hō Supplementary Laws or Addenda to the Formulary of Adjudication
The Supplementary Laws were issued as cases came before the court at Kamakura and judgment
was passed down. The rulings from these court cases were then turned into legal clauses, as precedents
for later decisions. Some of the clauses in the Supplementary Laws are amendments of clauses in the
Formulary; some refer directly to the Formulary; and some are more removed from it, acting to
supplement new issues that had to be resolved as time went on. The timing of the compilation of these
laws is unclear. Likely it was after the Kamakura Period.
36
For brevity, the Supplementary Laws will be
referred to here as the Addenda, since that title illustrates the strong connection between these newer
decisions and the Formulary of Adjudication of 1232.
Due to the nature of how the Addenda came to be, it is very difficult to say who compiled them.
The Nihon kodai hōten, from which the texts for this translation came, has dates on most of the
Addenda, but lacks dates on some. Additionally, other sources may not have the clauses numbered in
the exact same way, or may be missing some of the clauses that the Nihon kodai hōten compilation
contains. This is shown in how these decisions are organized – the seven clauses to be discussed are
grouped under a single heading, “Eight Clauses Regarding Wives, Concubines, and [other] Women
Including Women’s Criminal Sexual Relations.” The heading refers to eight clauses grouped together. Of
these, however, only seven concern property rights and inheritance, so the eighth is not discussed here.
The format of the Addenda is very nearly the same as that of the Formulary of Adjudication. The
Addenda differs in the dates attached to some of the clauses and varying character sizes in the text. The

36
See K. Murakami et al. Shiryō de yomu Nihon houshi, particularly Chapter 4, pages 55-66. They argue that it was
during the rule of the Ashikaga shogunate (1336-1573), but by private legal specialists rather than the shogunate
itself.
P a g e | 19

dates appear smaller in the text of the Nihon kodai hōten, and so an attempt has been made to preserve
the difference in character size in the translation as well.
Heading from the Nihon kodai hōten
漢文 - Kambun
○妻妾女子條八付女人犯姧事
英訳 - English
Eight Clauses Regarding Wives, Concubines, and [other] Women Including Women’s Criminal Sexual
Relations
３２４条 – Clause 324
漢文 - Kambun
一譲所領妻女事
任式目可有其沙汰事
英訳 - English
Regarding the transfer of landholdings to wives and other women:
decisions shall be made in accordance with the Formulary [of Adjudication].

Although there is no date attached to this clause, it shows that even after the Formulary of Adjudication
was promulgated, there was questioning of regulations on the transfer of landholdings to women that
made a reiteration of the laws necessary. The clause does not amend or advance the understanding of
any law previously laid down, but it does serve to reinforce the stipulations in the Formulary of
Adjudication.
３２５条 – Clause 325
漢文 – Kambun
一御家人後家。任亡夫譲給安堵御下文事暦仁元、十二、十六、評
P a g e | 20

右此條平均之例也。爰於令改嫁者。可充給他人之旨。自被定置以来為免其難。或少年或無病之
族。奇事於所勞。譲與子息親類。申給安堵御下文之後。及改嫁云々。甚以濫吹也。自今以後
者。不臨重病危急者。不可被免許譲矣。
英訳 - English
Regarding the widows of gokenin, and the granting of official [shogunal] recognition of rights to a
landholding granted [them] by their deceased husband. Decided Ryakunin 1 (1238), twelfth month, sixteenth
day.
As above, this is standard. However, in the case of remarriage, the landholding must be given to another
person. From the time this was decided, in order to avoid this [loss of the landholding], there have been
cases where, even though the widow was young and healthy, because she claimed illness, the
landholding was transferred to sons or relatives; and then, after the recognition of rights to that
landholding had been requested and received, she remarried. This is exceedingly unacceptable. From
this time forward, except in a case of serious illness or emergency, such inheritance will not be
permitted.

Clause 24 of the Formulary of Adjudication makes it clear that any woman granted land by her husband
prior to his death would forfeit that land if she later remarried. Clause 325 shows that in the years
between the promulgation of the Formulary of Adjudication in 1232 and 1238, there were a number of
cases in which someone deliberately tried to get around the strictures of the law. This clause is
particularly helpful in outlining exactly how they went about doing so. The widow, knowing that she
would lose the land she had inherited from her husband if she remarried, would transfer the land to a
son or other relative. Once Kamakura had sent official confirmation of the transfer, the widow would
remarry, thereby controlling who would gain the land given to her by her previous husband and
circumventing the law. That the clause is so detailed about the method used makes it likely that it was a
common tactic.
This clause is also notable because it can be seen as part of the beginning of a movement to
further limit the inheritance and property rights of women from what they had been earlier. Though
Clause 325 does not take away liberties previously granted to women, it does stipulate stricter
conditions for inheritance by or from women. It is also interesting to note that this clause does not
P a g e | 21

make it illegal for a woman to pass on her land this way and in this manner, but instead states that
official confirmation will not be granted except in cases of verifiable illness. The amended rule made it
much harder for someone who did not have a verifiable illness to pass down their land this way.
３２６条 – Clause 326
漢文 - Kambun
一改嫁事延應元、九、三十、評
右或致所領之成敗。或行家中之雑事。於令現形者。尤可有其誡。此外至内々之密議者。縦雖有
風聞之説。非沙汰之限。次尼還俗、改嫁事。雖有其沙汰。而不及記由。評定畢矣。
英訳 - English
Regarding remarriage. Decided [by the Shogunal Council in] En’ō 1 (1239), ninth month, thirtieth day.
As above, in the case that it is apparent that a landholding is being managed [by a woman] or that she is
managing the household [and it is thus understood that she has remarried], there shall be scolding [and
landholdings from her previous marriage may be confiscated]. If this situation is not apparent, even if
there are rumors, it is not within the scope of this decision [and the landholding will not be confiscated].
Next, on the matter of a nun coming back to the secular world and remarrying; if an order has been
made, there is no need for a record – just decide the matter.

Due to the laws regarding remarriage and property rights already discussed from the Formulary of
Adjudication, and the fact that some of those laws had further limitations put into place in the Addenda,
it can be assumed that there were a number of cases brought to the court at Kamakura wherein the
right of ownership for a property was debated on the grounds of a woman’s marital status.
37
This clause
specifies that if the woman had remarried, any land granted to her by a previous husband was subject to
confiscation. This standardized the process, making it much easier to enforce. That the definition was
based on whether or not the woman was managing the household or the landholding is indicative of
that being a duty understood to be part of a wife’s role in her husband’s household.

37
For a case study of this process, see J. Mass, The Development of Kamakura Rule, 1180-1250: a history with
documents, Documents 138-144, p. 270-276.
P a g e | 22

３２７条 – Clause 327
漢文 - Kambun
一関東御家人。以雲客已上爲聟君。譲所領於女子事延慶二、五、二十五
右於公事者。隨其分限可被省充之由。先日雖被定置。自今以後。於相具雲客已上之女子者。不
可譲與所領也。
英訳 - English
Regarding Kantō
38
gokenin, becoming the son-in-law of a high-ranking courtier and transferring their
landholding to a woman. En’ō 2 (1240), fifth month, twenty-fifth day
As above, for lawsuits, one must abide by the limits of what is possible, without exception. Whether this
was decided in the past or not, from this time forward, landholdings may not be granted at all to women
of the nobility.

Up to this point, when a gokenin was considering transferring land to a woman, there were no
restrictions on his ability to do so because of her social class. This clause, issued eight years after the
Formulary was promulgated, signals a shift in policy and is likely a reflection of the practicalities of
inheritance taking land away from the control of the Kamakura shogunate. All of the lands held by the
gokenin were seen to be guaranteed by Kamakura and were therefore its concern.
39
A landholding given
to a woman of the nobility might well pass into courtier hands, thereby lessening Kamakura’s authority.
３２８条 – Clause 328
漢文 - Kambun
一離別妻妾知行前夫所領事
右有功無過之妻妾。雖被離別前夫不能悔還所譲與所領之由。被載式目畢。而離別之後。嫁于他
夫。猶知行彼所領之條。爲不義。自今以後。於嫁他夫者。早可被召上所譲得所領也。次非御家
人之輩女子。並傀儡白拍子及凡卑女等。誘取夫所領令知行者。同可被召之。但爲後家有貞節
者。非制之限矣。
英訳 - English

38
The Kantō is the region of the main island of Japan (Honshu) which includes present-day Tokyo and Kamakura.
39
For more on the political power structure in this time period, see J. Mass, ed. Court and Bakufu in Japan,
especially Hurst, “The Kōbu Polity: Court-Bakufu Relations in Kamakura Japan.”
P a g e | 23

Regarding divorced wives and concubines taking over their former husband’s landholdings.
As above, for wives who served well and had no fault, even if they were divorced, the landholdings they
received from their former husbands could not be taken from them. Such is written in the Formulary of
Adjudication. However, if after divorce, [the woman] marries another man, to control the first husband’s
landholdings is not right. From this time forward, in the case of remarriage to another man, the former
husband’s landholdings will quickly be confiscated. Next, regarding women who are not of gokenin
families, kugutsu, shirabyōshi,
40
and other women of low class who have taken over their husbands’
holdings, likewise let them be confiscated. However, chaste widows are not affected by this measure.

Much of this clause is a reiteration of Clauses 21 and 24
41
of the Formulary of Adjudication regarding
property rights for women as affected by divorce and remarriage. What differs is the specific mention of
women from non-gokenin groups. This clause sets the precedent that women of these social groups
cannot be given a warrior’s landholding to manage, and so it is to be seized. The clause ends with a
restatement that a chaste widow who remains faithful to her deceased husband will not have her lands
confiscated.
The mention of these women of lower status suggests that a warrior giving them land was a
somewhat common practice.
42
Legislation would likely not have been necessary if there were only a few
isolated incidents. This categorical denial of their right to hold and manage land again points to
Kamakura’s wish to keep its control of the land of warriors, as in Clause 327. Instead of restricting a
gokenin from granting land to a noble wife (Clause 327), Clause 328 effectively precludes land being
transferred to any woman of low status, and outside the warrior order.
３２９条 – Clause 329
漢文 - Kambun
一関東御領知行後家並女子事弘安七、十一、二十一

40
Kugutsu (傀儡) and shirabyōshi ( 白拍子) are both types of entertainers. For more on women of this class, see
Janet Goodwin’s Selling Songs and Smiles: The Sex Trade in Heian and Kamakura Japan.
41
These clauses can be found on pages 14 and 15 of this essay.
42
Janet Goodwin has more on this topic in Selling Songs and Smiles.
P a g e | 24

右後家女子令在京之條。不可然之間。向後可停止。若猶背制法者。可被収公所領也。
英訳 - English
Regarding the control of landholdings belonging to the shogunate by widows and other women. Kōan 7
(1283), eleventh month, twenty-first day.
As above, as these widows or other women should not live in Kyoto, so henceforth it must be stopped. If
this law is disobeyed, [the landholdings] will be confiscated.

This clause also seems to have been part of an ongoing attempt by the Kamakura shogunate to limit
who could hold its land. From the language of the clause, it seems as though somewhere in the close to
fifty years between the promulgation of the Formulary and this clause, it had become somewhat
common for warrior women to live in the capital, and overseeing any shogunate landholdings they held
from afar. This distance would have made it harder for the government in Kamakura to effectively
oversee these women. And, if there were rumors that a widow had remarried (and thus any land
inherited from her previous husband was forfeit), it would be much more difficult to find the truth of
those rumors in Kyoto than if the widow lived in Kamakura or on the landholdings she owned in the
Kantō.
３３０条 – Clause 330
漢文 - Kambun
一後家改嫁事弘安九、七、二十五
至内々之密議者。縦雖有風聞之説。非沙汰限之由。被載式目追加畢。依之普雖令現形。稱密議
不及其沙汰。於自今以後者。不致所領成敗雖不行家中之雑事。有不調之聞者。任本式目可有其
科。
英訳 - English
Regarding the remarriage of widows. Kōan 9 (1285), seventh month, twenty-fifth day.
If [the remarriage] is not apparent, even if there are rumors, it is not within the scope of this decision.
Such is written in the Formulary and the supplementary laws. From this, even if it is clearly apparent, if it
is claimed to be a secret, there will be no order [of confiscation]. From this time forward, even if she is
P a g e | 25

not managing the landholdings and the household,
43
in the case that rumors of [remarriage] are heard,
punishment will be administered according to the Formulary.

This clause can be seen as an amendment of both Clause 24 of the Formulary and Clause 326 of the
Addenda. Where Clause 326 states that a disputed landholding could not be seized without definitive
proof that a woman had remarried, this clause says that on the strength of rumor alone the landholding
would be confiscated.
The various changes that this set of laws put in place serve as an example of how attitudes
evolved on the subject of women holding and inheriting land. In 1232, the Formulary laid out a basic
policy that a woman who remarried would forfeit the land given to her by her former husband. Then,
seven years later, the explanation of how an outsider could tell if a woman had remarried (visible
management of the landholding or household) was put into law, with the caveat that rumor alone
would not be enough to make that determination. Clause 330, however, shows that in the 46 years
following the issuance of Clause 326, rumor alone had become acceptable evidence of remarriage and
grounds for confiscation of a landholding. Nevertheless, something called “secretive marriage” had
come into being.
There are a few possible reasons for this shift in attitudes. Perhaps cases brought before the
courts at Kamakura involving the matter of remarriage and land rights were exceedingly common and
the women involved almost always found guilty of having remarried, leading the courts to believe that
rumor of wrongdoing always went hand-in-hand with the truth of the matter. Perhaps there was a
fundamental shift in how women and what they did were thought of in society, leading to rumor
becoming thought of as fact.
44
Perhaps it was part of Kamakura’s attempt to more effectively police how

43
It is important to note that the Japanese original does not specify whose household and landholdings are not
being managed. It might be the deceased husband’s, but it might also be those of another man, to whom a woman
is rumored to be newly married.
44
Janet Goodwin’s Selling Songs and Smiles details such a shift from the Heian Period to the late Kamakura Period.
P a g e | 26

inheritance and property rights worked by making the laws more stringent. Likely a combination of
these and other factors were at work concurrently.
Regardless, the effect that this had on a woman’s word being believed in a dispute over land
would have been quite significant. A party interested in taking the woman’s land away from her would
simply have to start a rumor of her having remarried, and could then be reasonably assured that her
land would be seized. By the letter of the law as written in Clause 330, a woman whose hold on a
landholding was disputed had no recourse for appeal if there were rumors of her remarriage. If a rumor
existed, its existence (and not the woman’s word) was enough to have her lands confiscated.
Conclusion
Taken all together, the clauses from these three documents grant today’s reader a window into the
changing times of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries of Japan, and how the inheritance and property
rights of women were articulated and changed by written law.
The late Heian clauses from Essential Excerpts are primarily concerned with the inheritance of
property after a person had died, and it included provisions as to who could inherit specific portions of
the deceased’s property (Clauses 4, 6, 7). And, Clause 15 sets out the effects of a woman’s remarriage
on her ability to inherit property from her late husband. This clause can be compared to Formulary
Clause 24. Where Essential Excerpts Clause 15 allows for a woman to inherit and keep land given to her
by her late husband provided she did not remarry before the property was divided out, Formulary
Clause 24 states that any land granted to a woman by her husband would immediately be subject to
seizure if she remarried. The Formulary also had clauses on adoption of a son by a woman to make him
her heir (Clause 23), the effect of a husband’s criminal activity on a wife’s property (Clause 11), parents’
ability to take back a landholding previously granted to a child including a daughter (Clauses 18, 20, 26),
and the effect of divorce on a woman’s property rights (Clause 21).
P a g e | 27

Addenda Clause 324 should be compared to stipulations in the Formulary concerning the
transfer of landholdings to women. Restrictions on land being inherited by women of the nobility or held
by women who live in Kyoto are outlined in Clauses 327 and 329 respectively. The majority of the
Addenda clauses pertinent to the subject of this monograph, however, generally involve the subject of
remarriage and its effect on the property a woman can inherit, as shown in Clauses 325, 326, 328, and
330. Specifically, Clause 325 identifies the conditions under which an official recognition of rights would
be granted by Kamakura. The Formulary’s stance on remarriage is amended by Clauses 326 and 330 of
the Addenda. And Clause 328 of the Addenda is concerned with the remarriage of divorced women and
so confirms Clause 21 of the Formulary on divorce and property rights. Added to this was the blanket
policy that remarriage made any land granted to a woman by her former husband forfeit, while lower-
status women lost their right to inherit land from a warrior per Clause 328.
Over the course of this essay, the clauses of the Essential Excerpts, Formulary, and Addenda
discussed here have shown that as time passed, women’s property and inheritance rights became
steadily more restricted by law. Remarriage in the Essential Excerpts did not impact a woman’s right to
hold or inherit property as long as she did not do so before receiving her share from her previous
husband. In the Formulary, a woman’s remarriage was permitted but any land granted to her by her
previous husband was subject to confiscation, if it could be proven that she had indeed remarried. By
1285, Addenda Clause 330 made it so that the existence of a rumor of remarriage alone was sufficient to
cause confiscation of land given to a woman by her previously deceased husband. Furthermore, while
there are no explicit restrictions due to status or residence placed on women’s rights to property
ownership and inheritance in either the Essential Excerpts or the Formulary, the Addenda disallowed
women of the nobility from owning or inheriting shogunate-owned property (Clause 327) in 1240. It also
restricted women of low status from the same (Clause 328). By 1283, even those women of gokenin
families were prevented from holding land if they lived in Kyoto outside of the shogunate-owned
P a g e | 28

territory. So we do see progressive restriction of women’s property and inheritance rights in law during
the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.

P a g e | 29

Appendix A – Full translations of selections from Essential Excerpts for the Legal Profession
法曹至要抄 – Hōssōshiyōshō – Essential Excerpts for the Legal Profession
４条 – Clause 4
漢文 – Kambun
４母遺財支配事
戸令應分條義解云問。假令嫡妻有子共承分之后其母改嫁卽賚己及子財。適後夫家。其後
母亡。所有財物。須入何人。答。令有妻承夫財之文。而無夫得妻物之法。卽須與其子。
不可入夫。其於母者。無嫡庶之名。分其財物者。當從均分之法。
按之。假令有十人子。其母未處分。亡者所有遺財。將以均分。有十端布者。不論
男女嫡庶。各可得一端之類也。
訓読 – Classical Japanese
４母（はは）遺財（いざい）支配（しはい）の事
戸令（こりょう）應分條（おうぶんじょう）の義解（ぎげ）に云（い）わく。問（と）
ふ。假（かり）に嫡妻（ちゃくさい）が子（こ）有（あ）り、共（とも）に分（ぶん）
を承（う）けたまわる之（の）后（のち）、其（そ）の母（はは）改（あらた）めて嫁
（よめ）して、すなわち己（おのれ）及（およ）び子に財（ざい）を賚（たま）う。後
（のち）夫（おっと）の家（いえ）に適（ゆ）く。其（そ）の後（ご）母（はは）亡
（な）く。有（あ）る所（ところ）の財物（ざいもつ）。須（すべから）く何人（なに
びと）に入（はい）るべし。答（こた）え。令（りょう）に妻（つま）夫（おっと）の
財（ざい）を承（う）けたまわるの文（ぶん）有（あ）る。而（しかる）に夫（おっ
と）妻（つま）の物（もの）を得（う）るの法（ほう）無（な）し。すなわち須（すべ
から）く其（そ）の子（こ）に與（あた）えるべし。夫（おっと）に入（はい）るべか
らず。其（そ）の母（はは）に於（お）いては。嫡庶（ちゃくしょ）の名（な）無
（な）く。其（そ）の財物（ざいもつ）を分（わ）けるは。當（まさ）に均分（きんぶ
ん）の法（ほう）に從（したが）うべし。
之（これ）を按（あん）ずるに。仮（も）し十人（じゅうにん）子（こ）有り。
其（そ）の母（はは）未（いま）だ處分（しょぶん）されず。亡者（しなば）有
（あ）る所（ところ）の遺財（いざい）。將（まさ）に以（も）って均分（きん
ぶん）せんとす。十端（じゅったん）の布（ぬの）有（あ）らば。男女（だんじ
ょ）嫡庶（ちゃくしょ）を論（ろん）ぜず。各（おのおの）一端（いったん）を
得（う）るべきの類（たぐい）也（なり）。
現代語訳 – Modern Japanese
４条母の遺財を支配することについて
P a g e | 30

戸令の財産分配の条、注釈に次のようにある。仮に嫡妻が子あり、共に財産の分与を受
けた後、その母が再婚した。すなわち自分も子供も財産を得た。そして、後の夫の家に
入る。その後、母が亡くなる。母所有の財産は誰が得るべきか。答え。妻が夫の財を受
ける法はある。しかし、夫が妻の物を受ける法はない。すなわちすべてその子に与える
べきだ。夫に与えるべきではない。その母については、子供の身分の区別なく、均分の
法に従うべきだ。
これを考えると、仮に十人子があって、その母がまだ処分を決めていない場合。
死ねば、遺財は均分するべきである。十反の布があれば、男女や身分を問わずに
それぞれ一反を与えるべきということである。
英訳 – English
Clause 4 Regarding control of inheritance from a mother.
In the clause on the division of property for inheritance in the Ryō no gige commentary of the
[Yōrōryō] Laws on Residential Units, the following is written. If a legal wife has a child, and at
the same time, both have taken their share of the husband’s property, and then that mother
remarries, that is, both she and her child have property and she then becomes part of her new
husband’s house, and if afterward, the mother dies, then who should receive her remaining
property?
Answer. There are laws allowing a wife to receive a husband’s property. However, there are no
laws allowing a husband to receive a wife’s property. So, the property should be given entirely
to the child. It should not go to the husband. Regarding the mother, division of property should
not be done by the children’s status as heir or not-heir. Rather, the law of equal division should
be followed.
In considering this, for example in a situation with 10 children, if the mother has not yet
decided how to divide her property and she dies, then her property should be split
equally. If there are 10 units of cloth, the children – male or female, regardless of their
status as heir or not-heir should each get one unit.

６条 – Clause 6
漢文 – Kambun
６妻財物不入分法事
戸令應分條云。其妻家所得不在分限。
按之。假令嫡繼妻等。從妻之祖家賚來。與夫同財。夫死後分遺財之日。如元可還
與也。准分法。不可併計。
P a g e | 31

訓読 – Classical Japanese
６妻（つま）財物（ざいもつ）分法（ぶんぽう）に入（はい）らざる事（こと）
戸令（こりょう）應分條（おうぶんじょう）に云（い）わく。其（そ）の妻（つま）の
家（いえ）より所得（しょとく）、分限（ぶんげん）に在（あ）らず。
之（これ）を按（あん）ずるに。仮（かり）に嫡繼妻（ちゃくけいさい）とう。
妻（つま）の祖先（そせん）の家（いえ）從（より）、賚（たま）う来たるもの
は。夫（おっと）と財（ざい）を同（おな）じくす。夫（おっと）死（な）くな
る後（あと）遺財（いざい）を分（わ）けるの日（ひ）。元（もと）の如（ご
と）く還（か）えす与（あた）うべきなり。分法（ぶんぽう）に准（じゅん）じ
て。併（あわせ）計（はか）るべからず。
現代語訳 – Modern Japanese
６条妻の財産が分法に入らないことについて
戸令の財産分配の条に次のようにある。その妻の家より得た財物は分限に入らない。
これを考えると、もし嫡繼妻などが、妻の祖先の家より「財を」持って来て、夫
の財と合わせている。夫の死後、遺財を分ける日は元のように夫の財産とは分け
るべきだ。分法に準じて一緒にしてしまってはいけない。
英訳 – English
Clause 6 Regarding a wife’s property not being included in the (husband’s) goods for
inheritance.
In the inheritance clause of the [Yōrōryō] Laws on Residential Units, the following is written;
property that came from the wife’s house is not to be considered part of [the husband’s]
wealth.
In considering this, for first and second wives
45
both, the property that the wife brings
from her parent’s house becomes one with the husband’s property. After the husband’s
death, on the day that his wealth is divided, [the wife’s property] should return to the
way it was before, separate from the husband’s wealth. In compliance with the law of
partible inheritance, [the wife’s property] may not be combined with the husband’s.

７条 – Clause 7

45
More specifically, 嫡妻 chakusai is “first legal wife” and 繼妻 keisai is “second legal wife,” foster mother to the
first’s children.
P a g e | 32

漢文 – Kambun
７亡妻財不還妻祖家夫可領事
戸令應分條朱云。妻家所得。不在分限。未知妻亡者。其財何。答。妻之子得耳。未知若
夫得乎。答。無子者夫得耳。不還妻之祖家也。
案之。夫妻同財之故。亡妻無子之時。其遺財者。不還妻之祖家。夫可令領掌矣。
訓読 – Classical Japanese
７亡妻（ぼうさい）の財（ざい）、妻（つま）の祖先（そせん）の家（いえ）に還
（かえ）さず、夫（おっと）領（りょう）すべきこと
戸令（こりょう）應分條（おうぶんじょう）朱（しゅ）に云（い）わく。妻（つま）の
家（いえ）より所得（しょとく）。分限（ぶんげん）に在（あら）ず。未（いま）だ知
（し）らざるは妻（つま）亡（し）なば。其（そ）の財（ざい）何（なに）と。答（こ
た）う。妻（つま）の子（こ）得（う）る耳（のみ）。未（いま）だ知（し）らず若
（も）し夫得（え）るか。答（こた）う。子（こ）無（な）きは夫（おっと）得（う）
る耳（のみ）。妻の祖先（そせん）の家（いえ）に還（かえ）らざるなり。
之（これ）を案（あん）ずるに。夫妻（ふうふ）財（ざい）を同（おな）じくす
るの故（ゆえ）。亡妻（ぼうさい）子（こ）無きの時（とき）。其（そ）の遺財
（いざい）は。妻（つま）の祖先（そせん）の家（いえ）に還（かえ）らず。夫
（おっと）領掌（りょうしょう）せしむべし。
現代語訳 – Modern Japanese
７条死んだ妻の財は妻の祖先の家に返さずに夫が支配すべきことについて
戸令の財産分配の条、朱書きに次のようにある。妻が家から持ってきた財産は分限に入
らない。しかし、妻が死んだ場合、その財はどうなるか。答え。妻の子がそれを得るの
みである。しかし、夫が得る場合はあるか。答え。子がない場合は夫が得る。妻の祖先
の家に返さない。
これを考えると、夫婦の財産が一つになっているので、死んだ妻に子がない時、
その遺財は、妻の祖先の家に返さない。夫が（それ）を支配するべきだ。
英訳 – English
Clause 7 Regarding when a deceased wife’s property should not return to her ancestral
house but become her husband’s.
In a clause on the division of property in the Shu commentary of the [Yōrōryō] Laws on
Residential Units, the following is written. Property that came from the wife’s home is not part
of [the husband’s] wealth. When the wife dies, what should be done with her property?
P a g e | 33

Answer. There is nothing to be done but for the wife’s child to have the property.
However, is there a situation in which the husband gets the property?
Answer. In the situation that there are no children, the husband gets the property. It does not
return to the wife’s home.
In considering this, because a husband’s and wife’s property become one, when a
deceased wife has no children, that inheritance should not return to her parents’ home.
The husband should get that property.
１５条 – Clause 15
漢文 – Kambun
１５改嫁妻妾不承分事
戸令應分條義解云。嫡母繼母各二分。謂家長之妻。夫亡寡居者也。若未分之前。改嫁適
他者。不可得財者。
按之。夫亡而未分之前。改嫁之妻。不可預其妻
46
者。
訓読 – Classical Japanese
１５改（あら）ためて嫁（よめ）にして妻妾（さいしょう）は分（ぶん）を承
（う）けたまわざること
戸令（こりょう）應分條（おうぶんじょう）義解（ぎげ）に云（い）わく。嫡母（ちゃ
くぼ）継母（けいぼ）各（おのおの）二分（にぶ）なり。家長（かちょう）の妻（つ
ま）という。夫（おっと）亡（し）なば寡居（かきょ）者（もの）なり。若（も）し未
（いま）だ分（わ）けざるの前（まえ）。改嫁（かいか）し他（た）に適（ゆ）くは。
財（ざい）を得（え）るべからざる者（こと）なる。
之（これ）を按（あん）ずるに。夫（おっと）亡（し）して未（いま）だ分
（わ）けざるの前（まえ）。改（あら）ためて嫁（よめ）にした妻。其（そ）の
妻（つま）預（あず）かるべからざる者（こと）。
現代語訳 – Modern Japanese
１５条再婚した妻妾が財産分与を受けないことについて
戸令の財産分配の条、注釈に次のようにある。嫡母と継母はそれぞれ二分である。しか
しながら、家長の妻は夫が死ねば、後家であるべきだ。もしまだ分与しない前に、他者
と再婚した場合、財産を得るべきではない。

46
In other versions, this character is 財 zai property, not 妻 tsuma wife as seen in the Nihon kodai hōten.
P a g e | 34

これを考えると、夫が亡くなって、財産分与の前に再婚した妻は分与に与るべき
ではない。
英訳 – English
Clause 15 Regarding remarried wives’ inability to receive a share of property.
In the clause on the division of property for inheritance in the Ryō no gige commentary on the
[Yōrōryō] Laws on Residential Units, the following is written. Biological mothers and
stepmothers receive two parts each. However, the wife of the head of the family, if her
husband dies, must become a widow. If, before the property is divided, she marries another
person, she must not receive anything.
In considering this, a woman who remarries before receiving property from a deceased
husband must not be given [a share of the] inheritance.

P a g e | 35

Appendix B – Full translation of selections from Formulary of Adjudication
御成敗式目 – Goseibai shikimoku – The Formulary of Adjudication
１１条 – Clause 11
漢文 - Kambun
一依夫罪科。妻女所領被没収否事。
右於謀叛殺害扞山賊海賊夜討强盗等重科者。可懸夫咎也。但依當座之口論。若及刃傷殺
害者。不可懸之。
訓読 – Classical Japanese
一、夫（おっと）の罪過（ざいか）に依（よ）って、妻女（さいじょ）の所領（しょり
ょう）没収（ぼっしゅう）せらるるや否（いな）やの事（こと）。
右（みぎ）、謀叛（むほん）殺害（さつがい）ならびに山賊（さんぞく）海賊（かいぞ
く）夜討（ようち）強盗（ごうとう）等（など）の重科（じゅうか）に於（おい）て
は、夫の咎（とが）を懸（か）くべきなり。但（ただ）し当座（とうざ）の口論（こう
ろん）に依（よ）り、もし刃傷（にんじょう）殺害（さつがい）に及（およ）ばばこれ
を懸（か）くべからず。
現代語訳 – Modern Japanese
一、夫（おっと）の罪過（ざいか）によって、妻女（さいじょ）の所領（しょりょう）
が没収（ぼっしゅう）されるかどうかについて

右、謀叛殺害（むほんさつがい）ならびに山賊（さんぞく）、海賊（かいぞく）、夜討
（ようち）、強盗（ごうとう）などの重科（じゅうか）においては、夫の咎（とが）に
より没収（ぼっしゅう）されるべきだ。ただし、当座（とうざ）の口論（こうろん）に
より、もし刃傷殺害（にじょうさつがい）に及べばこの罪は妻には及ばない。
英訳 - English
Regarding whether a wife’s and daughter’s
47
landholdings can be confiscated in the event of a
husband’s crime.
As above, if the criminal has committed acts of treason, murder, banditry, piracy, attacks by
night, thievery or similar serious crimes, the wife’s and daughter’s landholdings may be seized.

47
妻女 saijō has been translated here as “wife and daughter,” but may also mean “women in general” or just
“women who are wives.”
P a g e | 36

However, in the case of a person having committed spontaneous acts of injury or murder in an
argument, the wife’s and daughter’s landholdings may not be seized.
１８条 – Clause 18
漢文 - Kambun
一、譲與所領於女子後、依有不和儀、其親悔還否事
右男女號雖異、父母之恩惟同、法家之倫雖有申旨、女子則頼不悔還之文、不可憚不孝之
罪業、父母亦察及敵對之論、不可譲所領於女子歟、親子義絶之起也、既敎令違犯之基
也、女子若有向背之儀者、父母宜任進退之意、依之女子者爲全譲状、竭忠孝之節、父母
者爲施撫育、均慈愛之思者歟
訓読 – Classical Japanese
一、所領（しょりょう）を女子（じょし）に譲（ゆづ）り与（あた）ふるの後（あ
と）、不和（ふわ）の儀（ぎ）あるによって、その親（おや）悔（く）い還（かえ）す
や否（いな）やの事（こと）。
右（みぎ）、男女（だんじょ）の号（ごう）異（こと）なると雖（いへど）も、父母
（ふぼ）の恩（おん）これ同じ。法家（ほうけ）の倫（たぐい）申（もう）す旨（む
ね）有（あ）ると雖（いへど）も、女子（じょし）は則（すなは）ち悔（く）い還（か
え）さざるの文（ぶん）を頼（たの）みて、不孝（ふこう）の罪業（ざいぎょう）を憚
（はばか）る可（べ）からず。父母（ふぼ）また敵対（てきたい）の論（ろん）に及
（およ）ぶを察（さっ）して、所領（しょりょう）を女子（じょし）に譲（ゆづ）る可
（べ）からざる歟（か）。親（おや）子（こ）義絶（ぎぜつ）の起（おこ）りなり。既
（すで）に教令（きょうれい）違反（いはん）の基（もと）なり。
48
女子（じょし）も
し向背（きょうはい）の儀（ぎ）あれば、父母（ふぼ）宜（よろ）しく進退（しだい）
の意（い）に任（まか）すべし。これによって、女子（じょし）は譲状（ゆづりじゃ
う）を全（まっと）うせんがために忠孝（ちゅうこう）の節（せつ）を竭（つく）し、
父母（ふぼ）は撫育（ぶいく）を施（ほどこ）さんがために慈愛（じあい）の思（お
も）ひを均（ひと）しうせんもの歟（か）。
現代語訳 – Modern Japanese
一、所領を女子に譲り与えた後、不和になることによって、親が所領を取り戻せるかど
うかについて

48
According to Kasamatsu Hiroshi, in his 1979 Nihon chūsei hō shiron, the text for this segment is 敎令違犯之基
也, or 教令（きょうれい）違犯（いぼん）の基（もと）なり. Kasamatsu used the Chūsei hōsei shiryōshu
version of the original rather than the Nihon kodai hōten.
P a g e | 37

右、男女ということは異なっても、父母の恩は同じである。法家では女子から取り戻せ
ないとしているが、それを基に、不幸の罪を憚るべきではない。父母もまた、後の争い
を恐れて、所領を女子に譲らないとしていいのか。これは親子義絶の起こりであり、既
に教令違反の基だ。女子にもし親に背くことがあれば、父母は自分の自由に任すべきだ
（所領を取り戻してよい）。これによって、女子は相続の証明書を全うするため忠孝を
尽くし、父母は慈愛をもって娘を育てることができるであろう。
英訳 - English
Regarding whether or not a parent can take back a landholding previously granted to a
daughter due to discord [in the relationship].
As above, even though we differentiate between “male” and “female,” [a child’s] debt to
parents is the same. Whether the words of legal scholars are important or not, daughters will
rely on the idea that [a landholding] cannot be taken from them, and will not hesitate to
commit the sin of being un-filial. Perhaps, if the parents guess that the relationship will become
one of great enmity, they may not grant a landholding to their daughter. This is the start of
disownment. It is already a basis of going against the teachings. If a daughter goes against her
parents, then the parents must do as they will [and the landholding may be taken back]. If a
daughter devotes herself [to her parents] in filial piety for the sake of her inheritance, will not
parents nurture their daughter with affection, loving her just like other children?
２０条 – Clause 20
漢文 - Kambun
一、得譲状後、其子先于父母令死去跡事
右其子雖令見存、至令悔還者、有何妨哉、況子孫死去之後者、只可任父祖之意也
訓読 – Classical Japanese
一、譲（ゆづ）り状（じょう）を得（う）るの後（あと）、その子（こ）父母（ふぼ）
に先（さき）だち死去（しきょ）せしむる跡（あと）の事（こと）。
右（みぎ）、その子（こ）見存（げんぞん）せしむると雖（いへど）も、悔（く）い還
（かえ）すに至（いた）っては何（なん）の妨（さまた）げ有（あ）らんや。況（いは
ん）や子孫（しそん）死去（しきょ）の後（あと）は、只（ただ）父祖（ふそ）の意
（い）に任（まか）す可（べ）き也（なり）。
現代語訳 – Modern Japanese
一、相続の証明書を得た後、その子が父母に先んじ死去した場合について
右、その子が生きていても、取り戻すことには何の妨げもない。子孫死去の後は、なお
さらである。ただ父祖の意に任すべきだ。
P a g e | 38

英訳 - English
Regarding the case where a child, having been granted property, should precede their parents
in death.
As above, even if the child is living, there is no obstruction to taking back property. After the
death of the child or grandchild, that is even more permissible. The father’s and grandfather’s’
will should be followed.
２１条 – Clause 21
漢文 - Kambun
一、妻妾得夫譲、被離別後、領知彼所領否事
右其妻依有重科於被弃捐者、縱雖有往日之契状、難知行前夫之所領、又彼妻有功無過、
賞新弃舊者、所譲之所領不能悔還
訓読 – Classical Japanese
一、妻妾（さいしょう）、夫の譲（ゆづ）りを得（う）、離別（りべつ）せらるるの後
（あと）、彼（か）の所領（しょりょう）を領知（りょうち）するや否（いな）やの事
（こと）。
右（みぎ）、その妻（つま）重科（じゅうか）あるによって棄捐（きえん）せらるるに
於（お）いては、たとひ往日（おうじつ）の契状（けいじょう）有（あ）ると雖（いへ
ど）も、前夫（ぜんぷ）の所領（しょりょう）を知行（ちぎょう）し難（がた）し。ま
た彼（か）の妻（つま）功（こう）有（あ）りて過（あやま）ち無（な）く、新（あた
ら）しきを賞（しょう）して旧（ふる）きを素（す）てば、譲（ゆづ）る所（ところ）
の所領（しょりょう）悔（く）い還（かえ）すにあたわず。
現代語訳 – Modern Japanese
一、妻妾が夫の譲りを得た後、離別させられた場合、その所領を領知するかどうかにつ
いて
右、その妻に重い罪があって離別させられた場合は、例え昔の譲り状があっても、先夫
の所領を支配してはいけない。また妻に功績があって過失はなく、新しい妻のために前
妻を棄てるのであれば、譲った所領を取り戻すことはできない。
英訳 - English
Regarding whether or not a man’s wives, having inherited from him, can keep his landholdings
after a divorce.
P a g e | 39

As above, if a wife is abandoned because of great fault on her part, even if there was a life-long
agreement
49
in the past, she may not keep control of her former husband’s landholdings. But, if
the wife has served the family well and committed no crime and she was abandoned in favor of
a new wife, the landholdings granted to her cannot be taken back.
２３条 – Clause 23
漢文 - Kambun
一、女人養子事
右如法意者、雖不許之、右大將家御時以徠至于當世、無其子之女人等譲與所領於養子
事、不易之法不可勝計、加之都鄙之例先蹤惟多、評議之處尤足信用歟
訓読 – Classical Japanese
一、女人（にょにん）養子（ようし）の事（こと）。
右（みぎ）、法意（ほうい）の如（ごと）くば之（これ）を許（ゆる）さずと雖（いへ
ど）も、右大将家（うだいしょうけ）の御時（おおんとき）以来（いらい）当世（とう
せい）に至（いた）るまで、その子（こ）なきの女人（にょにん）ら所領（しょりょ
う）を養子（ようし）に譲（ゆづ）り与（あた）ふる事（こと）、不易（ふえき）の法
（ほう）勝計（しょうけい）すべからず。しかのみならず都鄙（とひ）の例（れい）先
蹤（せんしょう）これ多（おお）し。評議（ひょうぎ）のところ
50
もっとも信用（しん
よう）に足（た）る歟（か）。
現代語訳 – Modern Japanese
一、女がとる養子の事
右、法に従えばこれは許されないが、右大将家の御時以来当世に至るまで、子供のない
女性が所領を養子に譲り与える事は、不変であり、例も数え切れない。それだけでな
く、都でも地方でも先例が多い。評議したところ（先例に従うことが）もっとも信頼で
きることである。
英訳 - English
Regarding women adopting children.
As above, by law this was not allowed. From the time of the Udaishō [Minamoto no Yoritomo]’s
era to the present day, however, there have been countless examples of childless women

49
The “agreement” here ( 契状) could possibly be glossed as “contract.”
50
Kasamatsu’s version has 処 here instead of 處
P a g e | 40

granting a landholding to an adopted child.
51
In the capital as well as the countryside, time after
time, there have been a great many examples of this. Is there need to discuss it?
２４条 – Clause 24
漢文 - Kambun
一、譲得夫所領後家、令改嫁事
右爲後家之輩譲得夫所領者、須抛他事訪夫後世之處、背式目事非無其咎歟、而忘貞心令
改嫁者、以所得之領地、可宛給亡夫之子息、若又無子息者可有別御計
訓読 – Classical Japanese
一、夫（おっと）の所領（しょりょう）を譲（ゆづ）り得（う）たる後家（ごけ）、改
嫁（かいか）せしむる事（こと）。
右（みぎ）、後家（ごけ）たるの輩（ともがら）、夫（おっと）の所領（しょりょう）
を譲（ゆず）り得（え）ば、須（すべから）く他事（たじ）を抛（なげう）ちて夫（お
っと）
52
の後世（ごせ）を訪（とぶら）うべきのところ、式目（しきもく）に背（そ
む）く事（こと）その咎（とが）無（な）きに非（あら）ざる歟（か）。しかるに忽
（たちま）ち貞心（ていしん）を忘（わす）れ改嫁（かいか）せしめば、得（う）る所
（ところ）の領地（りょうち）を以（も）って亡夫（ぼうふ）の子息（しそく）に宛
（あ）て給（たま）うべし。もしまた子息（しそく）無（な）くば別（べつ）の御計
（おんはか）らいあるべし。
現代語訳 – Modern Japanese
一、夫の所領を譲り得た後家が再婚することについて
右、後家となったものは、夫の所領を譲り得たら、他事を抛って夫の後世を訪うべきで
あるのに、（再婚は）式目に背く事で、その咎があるべきだ。たちまち貞節を忘れ再婚
した場合は、得た領地は亡夫の子息にあたえられるべきだ。もし子息がなければ、別の
御計らいがあるべきだ。
英訳 - English
Regarding remarriage by those widows who have received landholdings from a deceased
husband.
As above, for those who have become widows and received their husband’s landholdings, they
should set aside all other matters and pray for their husband in the next world. [Remarriage] is

51
養子 yōshi could alternately be translated as “son-in-law,” depending on context and time period.
52
Kasamatsu has 亡夫 here, not just 夫.
P a g e | 41

a fault in this Formulary of Adjudication. If they have quickly forgotten fidelity
53
and remarried,
the landholdings shall be given instead to the sons of the deceased. If there are no sons, there
should be other arrangements.
２６条 – Clause 26
漢文 - Kambun
一、譲所領於子息、給安堵御下文之後、悔還其領、譲與他子息事
右可任父母意之由、具以載先條畢、仍就先判之譲、雖給安堵御下文、其親悔還之、於譲
他子息者、任後判之譲、可有御成敗
訓読 – Classical Japanese
一、所領（しょりょう）を子息（しそく）に譲（ゆづ）り、安堵（あんど）の御下文
（おんくだしぶみ）を給（たま）はるの後（あと）、その領（りょう）を悔（く）い還
（かえ）し、他（ほか）の子息（しそく）に譲（ゆづ）り与（あた）う事（こと）。
右（みぎ）、父母（ふぼ）の意（い）に任（まか）すべきの由（よし）、具（つぶさ）
に以（も）って先条（せんじょう）に載（の）せ畢（おわ）んぬ。よって先判（せんば
ん）の譲（ゆづ）りに就（つ）きて安堵（あんど）の御下文（おんくだしぶみ）を給
（たま）うと雖（いへど）も、その親（おや）これを悔（く）い還（かえ）し、他の子
息（しそく）
54
に譲（ゆづ）るに於（お）いては、後判（こうはん）の譲（ゆづ）りに
任（まか）せて御成敗（ごせいばい）あるべし。
現代語訳 – Modern Japanese
一、所領を子息に譲り、安堵の御下文を頂いた後、その領を取り戻し、他の子息に譲り
与えることについて
右、父母の自由意志に任すべき理由は、詳しく先条に載せられている。よって先の譲り
に就いて安堵の御下文を給っても、その親がこれを取り戻し、他の子息に譲る場合は、
後の譲りも判断するべきだ。
英訳 - English
Regarding taking back a landholding from a son after having received official shogunate
confirmation, and then giving the landholding to another son.
As above, the reasons for [these matters] to be left to the father and mother have been written
in detail in previous clauses. Whether if in a previous decision an official confirmation was

53
貞心 teishin could also be translated as “virtuous” or “chaste.”
54
Kasamatsu’s kambun is 於譲他子者, making the subject here 他の子, “other child” not 他の子息, “other son. ”
P a g e | 42

granted or not, in the case of the parents taking the landholding back and granting it to another
son, there should be another decision made [by the shogunate] on the latter inheritance.
２７条 – Clause 27
漢文 - Kambun
一、未處分跡事
右、且隨奉公之浅深、且糺器量之堪否、各任時宜可被分宛
訓読 – Classical Japanese
一、未処分（みしょぶん）の跡（あと）の事（こと）。
右（みぎ）、且（かつ）は奉公（ほうこう）の浅深（せんしん）に随（したが）ひ、且
（かつ）は器量（きりょう）の堪否（かんぷ）を糺（ただ）し、各（おのおの）時宜
（じぎ）に任（まか）せて分（わか）ち宛（あ）てらるべし。
現代語訳 – Modern Japanese
一、未処分のことについて
右、奉公の浅深に従いか、また能力の有無を糺しか、それぞれ適切な時に分け与えられ
るべきだ。
英訳 - English
Regarding undivided [property].
As above, on one hand, whether service is shallow or deep, and on the other, whether there is
adequate ability or not, the property shall be divided according to the needs of the time.

P a g e | 43

Appendix C – Full translation of selections from Supplementary Laws
追加法 – Tsuika hō – Supplementary Laws or Addenda to the Formulary of Adjudication
Heading from the Nihon kodai hōten
漢文 - Kambun
○妻妾女子條八付女人犯姧事
訓読 – Classical Japanese
○妻妾（さいしょう）女子の條（じょう）八付けたり女人（にょにん）犯姧（はんか
ん）の事
現代語訳 – Modern Japanese
○妻妾女子の条、八条付けたり女性の不倫の事
英訳 - English
Eight Clauses Regarding Wives, Concubines, and [other] Women Including Women’s Criminal
Sexual Relations

３２４条 – Clause 324
漢文 - Kambun
一譲所領妻女事
任式目可有其沙汰事
訓読 – Classical Japanese
一、所領を妻女（さいじょ）に譲（ゆづ）り事
式目に任し、其（そ）の沙汰（さた）有る可き事
現代語訳 – Modern Japanese
一、所領を妻女に譲る事
式目に従って、その裁定があるべきだ。
英訳 - English
Regarding the transfer of landholdings to wives and other women:
decisions shall be made in accordance with the Formulary [of Adjudication].
P a g e | 44

３２５条 – Clause 325
漢文 – Kambun
一御家人後家。任亡夫譲給安堵御下文事暦仁元、十二、十六、評
右此條平均之例也。爰於令改嫁者。可充給他人之旨。自被定置以来為免其難。或少年或
無病之族。奇事於所勞。譲與子息親類。申給安堵御下文之後。及改嫁云々。甚以濫吹
也。自今以後者。不臨重病危急者。不可被免許譲矣。
訓読 – Classical Japanese
一、御家人（ごけにん）後家（ごけ）。亡夫（ぼうふ）の譲（ゆづ）りに任せ安堵（あ
んど）の御下文（おんくだしぶみ）を給（たま）う事暦仁（りゃくにん）元、十二、十
六、評
右、此（こ）の條（じょう）平均（へいきん）の例（れい）なり。爰（ここ）に改嫁
（かいか）せしむに於（お）いては他人（たにん）に充（あ）て給（たま）うべきの旨
（むね）。定め置（お）かれてより以来（いらい）其の難（なん）を免（まぬが）れる
為（ため）、或（ある）いは少年或いは無病の族（やから）、事を所労に奇（よ）せ、
子息（しそく）親類（しんるい）に譲与し、安堵の御下文を申し給うの後。改嫁（かい
か）に及ぶ云々（うんぬん）。甚（はなはだ）以って濫吹（らんす）いなり。自今以後
（じこんいご）は重病（じゅうびょう）危急（ききゅう）に臨まずはその譲り免許（め
んきょ）されるべからず。
現代語訳 – Modern Japanese
一、御家人の後家が亡夫の譲りによって安堵の御下文を頂くことについて暦仁元年、十
二月、十六日、評
右、これが標準の例である。しかし、再婚した場合は他人に領地を与えるべきことが、
定められて以来、それを避けるため、年が若くて、病気でもないのに、自分は「病気
だ」と言って、子息や親類に譲り与え、安堵の御下文をいただいた後、再婚に及ぶなど
ということがあり、非常に不道徳だ。今後は重病や危急でなければ、その譲りは許され
るべきではない。
英訳 - English
Regarding the widows of gokenin, and the granting of official [shogunal] recognition of rights to
a landholding granted [them] by their deceased husband. Decided Ryakunin 1 (1238), twelfth month,
sixteenth day.
As above, this is standard. However, in the case of remarriage, the landholding must be given to
another person. From the time this was decided, in order to avoid this [loss of the landholding],
there have been cases where, even though the widow was young and healthy, because she
P a g e | 45

claimed illness, the landholding was transferred to sons or relatives; and then, after the
recognition of rights to that landholding had been requested and received, she remarried. This
is exceedingly unacceptable. From this time forward, except in a case of serious illness or
emergency, such inheritance will not be permitted.
３２６条 – Clause 326
漢文 - Kambun
一改嫁事延應元、九、三十、評
右或致所領之成敗。或行家中之雑事。於令現形者。尤可有其誡。此外至内々之密議者。
縦雖有風聞之説。非沙汰之限。次尼還俗、改嫁事。雖有其沙汰。而不及記由。評定畢
矣。
訓読 – Classical Japanese
一、改嫁（かいか）の事延應（えんおう）元、九、三十、評
右、或いは所領の成敗（せいばい）を致（いた）し、或いは家中（かちゅう）の雑事
（ざつじ）を行い、現形せしむるに於いては尤（もっと）も其の誡（いまし）め有るべ
し。此の外（ほか）内々（ないない）の密議（みつぎ）に至るは、縦（たと）い風聞
（ふうぶん）の説（せつ）有ると雖も、沙汰（さた）の限（かぎ）りにあらず。次（つ
ぎ）尼（あま）還俗（げんぞく）、改嫁（かいか）の事。其の沙汰（さた）有りと雖
（いえど）も、記（しる）すに及ばざるの由。評定（ひょうてい）し畢（おわ）んぬ。
現代語訳 – Modern Japanese
一、再婚のことについて延應元年、九月、三十日、評
右、あるいは所領の支配をし、あるいは家中の差配を行うという実態がある場合は、そ
の措置があるべきだ。内々の密議である時は、たとえ噂があっても、裁定の範囲ではな
い。次に、尼から還俗して、再婚した場合。その裁定があっても、記すには及ばない。
評定は以上。
英訳 - English
Regarding remarriage. Decided [by the Shogunal Council in] En’ō 1 (1239), ninth month, thirtieth day.
As above, in the case that it is apparent that a landholding is being managed [by a woman] or
that she is managing the household [and it is thus understood that she has remarried], there
shall be scolding [and landholdings from her previous marriage may be confiscated]. If this
situation is not apparent, even if there are rumors, it is not within the scope of this decision
[and the landholding will not be confiscated]. Next, on the matter of a nun coming back to the
secular world and remarrying; if an order has been made, there is no need for a record – just
decide the matter.
P a g e | 46

３２７条 – Clause 327
漢文 - Kambun
一関東御家人。以雲客已上爲聟君。譲所領於女子事延慶二、五、二十五
右於公事者。隨其分限可被省充之由。先日雖被定置。自今以後。於相具雲客已上之女子
者。不可譲與所領也。
訓読 – Classical Japanese
一、関東（かんとう）御家人（ごけにん）。雲客（うんかく）已上（いじょう）を以
（も）って、聟君（むこぎみ）と為（な）し、所領（しょりょう）を女子に譲（ゆづ）
る事延慶（えんおう）二、五、二十五
右、公事（くじ）に於いては、其の分限（ぶんげん）に隨（したが）い、省（はぶ）き
充（あ）てられるべきの由。先日（せんじつ）定め置（お）かれると雖も、自今以後
（じこんいご）、雲客（うんかく）已上（いじょう）と相（あ）い具（ぐ）すの女子
（じょし）に於いては、所領を譲与（じょうよ）すべからざるなり。
現代語訳 – Modern Japanese
一、関東御家人が殿上人などを、婿として、所領を女子に譲る場合について延慶二
年、五月、二十五日
右、訴えがある場合は、例外なくにその分限に従うことが先日定められたが、今後は、
殿上人などと関係ある女子には、所領を譲り与えるべきではない。
英訳 - English
Regarding Kantō
55
gokenin, becoming the son-in-law of a high-ranking courtier and transferring
their landholding to a woman. En’ō 2 (1240), fifth month, twenty-fifth day
As above, for lawsuits, one must abide by the limits of what is possible, without exception.
Whether this was decided in the past or not, from this time forward, landholdings may not be
granted at all to women of the nobility.
３２８条 – Clause 328
漢文 - Kambun
一離別妻妾知行前夫所領事
右有功無過之妻妾。雖被離別前夫不能悔還所譲與所領之由。被載式目畢。而離別之後。
嫁于他夫。猶知行彼所領之條。爲不義。自今以後。於嫁他夫者。早可被召上所譲得所領

55
The Kantō is the region of the main island of Japan which includes present-day Tokyo and Kamakura.
P a g e | 47

也。次非御家人之輩女子。並傀儡白拍子及凡卑女等。誘取夫所領令知行者。同可被召
之。但爲後家有貞節者。非制之限矣。
訓読 – Classical Japanese
一、離別（りべつ）妻妾（さいしょう）を前夫（ぜんぷ）の所領（しょりょう）を知行
（ちぎょう）する事
右、功（こう）有り過（あやま）ち無きの妻妾（さいしょう）。離別（りべつ）される
と雖（いえど）も、前夫（ぜんぷ）譲與（じょうよ）する所の所領（しょりょう）を悔
（く）い還（かえ）す能（あた）わざるの由（よし）。式目に載（の）せられ畢（お
わ）んぬ。而（しか）るに離別（りべつ）の後。他夫（たふ）に嫁（か）し猶（なお）
彼（かれ）の所領（しょりょう）を知行（ちぎょう）するの條。不義（ふぎ）為（な）
り。自今以後（じこんいご）。他夫（たふ）に嫁（か）するに於（お）いては早（は
や）く譲（ゆづ）り得る所の所領（しょりょう）を召（め）し上（あ）げらるべき也
（なり）。次（つぎ）に非御家人（ひごけにん）の輩（ともがら）の女子。並（なら）
びに傀儡（くぐつ）白拍子（しらびょうし）及（およ）び凡卑（ぼんぴ）の女等（な
ど）。夫（おっと）の所領（しょりょう）を誘（さそ）い取（と）り知行（ちぎょう）
をせしむは同（おな）じく之（これ）を召（め）される可し。但（ただ）し後家（ご
け）為（た）りて貞節（ていせつ）有るは制（せい）の限（かぎ）りにあらず。
現代語訳 – Modern Japanese
一、離別された妻妾が前夫の所領を支配することについて
右、功績があり過失がない妻妾は、離別されても、前夫から譲り与えられた所領を取り
戻されないことが式目に載せられている。しかし、離別の後、他夫と結婚し、なお前夫
の所領を支配することは不義である。今後は、他夫と結婚した場合は、すぐに譲り得た
所領を没収されるべきだ。次に非御家人の女子。並びに傀儡、白拍子、及び凡卑の女な
どが、夫の所領を取り支配する場合は同じくこれを没収されるべきだ。ただし、後家で
あって貞節である場合はこの決まりは当てはまらない。
英訳 - English
Regarding divorced wives and concubines taking over their former husband’s landholdings.
As above, for wives who served well and had no fault, even if they were divorced, the
landholdings they received from their former husbands could not be taken from them. Such is
written in the Formulary of Adjudication. However, if after divorce, [the woman] marries
another man, to control the first husband’s landholdings is not right. From this time forward, in
the case of remarriage to another man, the former husband’s landholdings will quickly be
P a g e | 48

confiscated. Next, regarding women who are not of gokenin families, kugutsu, shirabyōshi,
56

and other women of low class who have taken over their husbands’ holdings, likewise let them
be confiscated. However, chaste widows are not affected by this measure.
３２９条 – Clause 329
漢文 - Kambun
一関東御領知行後家並女子事弘安七、十一、二十一
右後家女子令在京之條。不可然之間。向後可停止。若猶背制法者。可被収公所領也。
訓読 – Classical Japanese
一、関東（かんとう）御領（ごりょう）は知行（ちぎょう）せし後家（ごけ）並（な
ら）びに女子の事弘安（こうあん）七、十一、二十一
右、後家（ごけ）女子（じょし）在京（ざいきょう）せしむの條（じょう）。然（し
か）るべからざるの間（あいだ）、向後（こうご）停止（ちょうじ）すべし。若（も
し）猶（なお）制法（せいほう）に背（そむ）くは、所領（こうしょりょう）を収公
（しゅこう）されるべきなり。
現代語訳 – Modern Japanese
一、関東御領を支配する後家並びに女子のことについて弘安七年、十一月、二十一日
右、後家および女子は在京することは適切ではないので、今後あってはならない。もし
なお制法に背く場合は所領を収公せらるべし。
英訳 - English
Regarding the control of landholdings belonging to the shogunate by widows and other
women. Kōan 7 (1283), eleventh month, twenty-first day.
As above, as these widows or other women should not live in Kyoto, so henceforth it must be
stopped. If this law is disobeyed, [the landholdings] will be confiscated.
３３０条 – Clause 330
漢文 - Kambun
一後家改嫁事弘安九、七、二十五

56
Kugutsu (傀儡) and shirabyōshi ( 白拍子) are both types of entertainers. For more on women of this class, see
Janet Goodwin’s Selling Songs and Smiles: The Sex Trade in Heian and Kamakura Japan.
P a g e | 49

至内々之密議者。縦雖有風聞之説。非沙汰限之由。被載式目追加畢。依之普雖令現形。
稱密議不及其沙汰。於自今以後者。不致所領成敗雖不行家中之雑事。有不調之聞者。任
本式目可有其科。
訓読 – Classical Japanese
一、後家（ごけ）改嫁（かいか）の事弘安（こうあん）九、七、二十五
内々の密議（みつぎ）に至（いた）るは、縦（たと）い風聞（ふうぶん）の説（せつ）
あると雖も、沙汰（さた）の限（かぎ）りにあらざるの由（よし）。式目（しきもく）
追加（ついか）に載せられ畢んぬ。之（これ）に依（よ）り普（あまね）く現形せしむ
と雖も、密議（みつぎ）と稱（しょう）し、其の沙汰（さた）に及（およ）ばず。自今
以後（じこんいご）に於いては、所領（しょりょう）成敗（せいばい）致（いた）さ
ず、家中（かちゅう）の雑事（ざつじ）を行（おこな）わずと雖（いえど）も、不調
（ふちょう）の聞（きこ）えあるは、本式目（ほんしきもく）に任（まか）せ、其の科
（とが）あるべし。
現代語訳 – Modern Japanese
一、後家再婚のことについて弘安九年、七月、二十五日
内々の密議である場合は、たとえ噂があっても、裁定することはないと、式目追加に載
せられた。これにより（再婚が）はっきりと明らかになっても、密議だとして、その裁
定がされなかった。今後は、所領の支配をせず、家中の差配を行わなくとも、そのよう
な噂がある場合は、式目の決まりによって、罰するべきだ。
英訳 - English
Regarding the remarriage of widows. Kōan 9 (1285), seventh month, twenty-fifth day.
If [the remarriage] is not apparent, even if there are rumors, it is not within the scope of this
decision. Such is written in the Formulary and the supplementary laws. From this, even if it is
clearly apparent, if it is claimed to be a secret, there will be no order [of confiscation]. From this
time forward, even if she is not managing the landholdings and the household,
57
in the case
that rumors of [remarriage] are heard, punishment will be administered according to the
Formulary.

57
It is important to note that the Japanese original does not specify whose household and landholdings are not
being managed. It might be the deceased husband’s, but it might also be those of another man, to whom a woman
is rumored to be newly married to.
P a g e | 50

Bibliography
Adolphson, Mikael, Edward Kamens, and Stacie Matsumoto. 2007. Heian Japan: Centers and Peripheries.
Honolulu: University of Hawai'i.
Berger, Gordon M, Andrew Edmund Goble, Lorraine F Harrington, and G. Cameron Hurst III. 2009.
Currents in Medieval Japanese History: Essays in Honor of Jeffrey P. Mass. Los Angeles: Figueroa
Press.
Goble, Andrew Edmund. 2012. "Defining "Medieval"." In Japan Emerging: Premodern History to 1850,
32-41. Boulder: Westview Press.
Goodwin, Janet R. 2007. Selling Songs and Smiles: The Sex Trade in Heian and Kamakura Japan.
Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.
Hall, John Carey. 1979. Japanese Feudal Law. Yokohama: University Publications of America.
Hérail, Francine. 2005. "La législation pénale à l’époque de Heian, autour de la « somme juridique »
Hossôshiyôshô 法曹至要抄." Revue d’Études japonaises du CEEJA Benkyôkai 45-78.
n.d. "Hōssōshiyōshō." In Kokushi daijiten. Yoshikawa kobunkan.
Hurst III, G. Cameron. 1982. "The Kōbu Polity: Court-Bakufu Relations in Kamakura Japan." In Court and
Bakufu in Japan: Essays in Kamakura History, edited by Jeffrey P. Mass, 3-28. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
Kasamatsu, Hiroshi. 1979. Nihon chūsei hō shiron. Tokyo: Tokyo University Press.
Konakamura, Kiyonori, ed. 1892. Nihon kodai hōten. Hakubunkan.
Kuroda, Hiroko. 2002. Josei kara mita chῡsei shakai to hō.
Kurushima, Noriko. 2004. "Marriage and Female Inheritance in Medieval Japan." International Journal of
Asian Studies 223-245.
Laffin, Christina. 2013. Rewriting Medieval Japanese Women. University of Hawai'i Press.
Mass, Jeffrey P., ed. 1982. Court and Bakufu in Japan: Essays in Kamakura History. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
—. 1989. Lordship and Inheritance in Early Medieval Japan: A Study of the Kamakura Soryo System.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
—. 1999. Yoritomo and the Founding of the First Bakufu: The Origins of Dual Government in Japan.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
—. 1983. "Patterns of Provincial Inheritance in Late Heian Japan." Journal of Japanese Studies.
—. 1979. The development of Kamakura rule, 1180-1250: a history with documents. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
McCullough, William. 1967. "Japanese Marriage Institutions in the Late Heian Period." Harvard Journal
of Asiatic Studies.
P a g e | 51

Murakami, Kazuhiro, and Yasuhiro Nishiyama. 2009. Shiryō de yomu nihon hōshi. Kyoto: Hōritsu
bunkasha.
Sakamoto, Tarō. 1956. "Hōsōshiyōshō to sono chosha." Hōseishi kenkyū 1-27.
Smith, R. 1962. "Japanese Kinship Terminology." Ethnology.
Sugawara, Masako. 2007. Chῡsei no buke to kuge no "ie".
Tabata, Yasuko. 1999. "Female Attendants and Wives of the Medieval Warrior Class." In Gender and
Japanese History, by Haruko et al Wakita, 313-347.
—. 2011. Nihon chῡsei no sonraku, josei, shakai.
—. 1998. Nihon chῡsei shakai to josei.
—. 1999. "Women's Work and Status in the Changing Medieval Economy." In Women and Class in
Japanese History, by Hitomi Tonomura, Anne Walthall and Haruko Wakita, 99-118.
Takahashi, Hideki. 2004. Chῡsei no ie to sei.
Takikawa, Masajirō. 1958. "Sakamoto Tarō cho "Hōsōshiyōshō to sono chosha"." Hōseishi kenkyū 279-
280.
Tanahashi, Mitsuo. 1983. "Hōsho ‘Hōssōshiyōshō’." In Chūsei seiritsuki no hō to kokka, by Tanahashi
Mitsuo, 119-168. Tokyo: Hanawa Shobō.
Tonomura, Hitomi. 2009. "Court and Bakufu in Her Flesh: Nijō's Contribution to Dual Polity." In Currents
in Medieval Japanese History: Essays in Honor of Jeffrey P. Mass, edited by Gordon M Berger,
Andrew Edward Goble, Lorraine F Harrington and G. Cameron Hurst III, 217-266. Los Angeles:
Figueroa Press.
—. 1999. "Sexual Violence Against Women: Legal and Extralegal Treatment in Premodern Warrior
Societies." In Women and Class in Japanese History, by Hitomi Tonomura, Anne Walthall and
Haruko Wakita, 135-152.
—. 1990. "Women and Inheritance in Japan's Early Warrior Society." Comparative Studies in Society and
History (Cambridge University Press) 32 (3): 592-623.
—. 2007. "Women and Sexuality in Premodern Japan." In A Companion to Japanese History, by William
Tsutsui, 351-371.
Wakita, Haruko. 1995. Chῡsei ni ikiru onnatachi.
—. n.d. "La Montée du prestige impérial dans le Japon du XVIe siècle." Bulletin de l'Ecole française
d'Extrême-Orient Tome 84: 159-179.
—. 1999. "L'histoire des femmes au Japon: La "maison," l'épouse et la maternité dans la société
médiévale." Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales 29-53.
—. 1984. "Marriage and Property in Premodern Japan." Journal of Japanese Studies 10 (1): 77-99.
—. 1992. Nihon chῡsei joseishi no kenkyῡ: seibetsu yakuwari buntan to bosei, kasei, seiai.
P a g e | 52

—. 1999. "The Foundation of the Ie and Medieval Myth." In Gender and Japanese History, by Wakita
Haruko et al, 53-85.
—. 2010. "The Japanese Woman in the Premodern Merchant Household." Women's History Review 259-
282.
—. 1999. "The Medieval Household and Gender Roles within the Imperial Family, Nobility, Merchants,
and Commoners." In Women and Class in Japanese History, by Hitomi Tonomura, Anne Walthall
and Haruko Wakita, 81-97.
—. 1993. "Women and the Creation of the Ie in Japan: An Overview from the Medieval Period to the
Present." U.S.-Japan Women's Journal.
Yoshie, Akiko. 2005. "Gender in Early Classical Japan." Monumenta Nipponica 60 (4): 43-79.
Yoshie, Akiko, Yoko Ijūin, and Joan Piggott. 2013. "Nihonryō ni miru jenda- (sono ichi) koryō Gender in
the Japanese Administrative Code (Part One) Laws on Residence Units." Teikyō shigaku 28: 418-
317.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Three perspectives on the Hōjō: a warrior family in early Medieval Japan

PDF

Food, hygiene, and modernity of Hangzhou (1927-1937)

PDF

Dreaming of peace: an exploration of Japan's international relations and understanding of peace through superheroes

PDF

Anomaly or representative?: challenging common portrayals of Ishiwara Kanji

PDF

The lady of the eighth ward: political, economic, and military power of nyoin during the twelfth century, Japan

PDF

Becoming Teresa Teng, becoming-Taiwanese

PDF

Remember us this time tomorrow: a testimonial history of the foreign community during the Kwangju Uprising

PDF

Cultivate hope in troubled times: the periodical discourse on children in Republican Shanghai

PDF

The role of social media in the evolution of the male homosexual community in modern China

PDF

An exploration of the debate on “nancy boys” in modern China

PDF

The transcendence of Taiwanese identity: a study of Hou Hsiao-Hsien's films

PDF

Ideas of Hua and Yi in the works of Ma Zhiyuan and Bai Pu --- Two northern playwrights in the early Yuan

PDF

Rethinking Taiwan’s same-sex marriage legalization: young generation dynamics and queer activism

PDF

Power of the purse: estates and the religio-political influence of Japanese royal women, 1100-1300

PDF

Alice in evasion: adapting Lewis Carroll in Japan

PDF

Floating signifiers: tracing zainichi Korean identity in postcolonial literature and visual media

PDF

Sick days in the Konjaku monogatari-shū: healing and epidemics in late Heian Japan

PDF

'Losing' Burma: Chinese-Burmese relations in the post-reform era

PDF

Jin Yong's chivalry: gender and ethnicity in wuxia fiction, film, and television

PDF

Exploring late Ming Taizhou philosophies within Ueda Akinari’s Ugetsu monogatari: a comparative study of two contemporaneous “heresies” in early modern Japanese and late imperial Chinese intellec...

Asset Metadata

Creator Dierolf, Cassandra (author)

Core Title Property and inheritance rights of women in twelfth‐ and thirteenth‐century Japan

School College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

Degree Master of Arts

Degree Program East Asian Area Studies

Publication Date 06/21/2017

Defense Date 06/13/2017

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag gender,inheritance rights,Japan,Law,medieval period,OAI-PMH Harvest,property rights,Women

Language English, Japanese

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Piggott, Joan (committee chair), Goldstein, Joshua (committee member), Sheehan, Brett (committee member)

Creator Email cdierolf@usc.edu,cldierolf@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-389389

Unique identifier UC11264094

Identifier etd-DierolfCas-5446.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-389389 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-DierolfCas-5446.pdf

Dmrecord 389389

Document Type Thesis

Rights Dierolf, Cassandra

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA