The Joei Shikimoku is not a voluminous document: it contains only fifty-one brief articles, which the poet Basho compares to the luminosity of the full moon. It has been excellently translated and annotated by Mr. Consul-General J. C. Hall in the "Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Japan" (Vol. XXXIV, Part I), and Mr. J. Murdoch, in his admirable History of Japan, summarizes its provisions lucidly. We learn that slavery still existed in the thirteenth century in Japan; but the farmer was guarded against cruel processes of tax-collecting and enjoyed freedom of domicile when his dues were paid. Fiefs might not be sold, but a peasant might dispose of his holding. "Village headmen, while held to a strict discharge of their duties and severely punished for various malpractices, were safeguarded against all aggression or undue interference on the part of the jito. The law of property was almost entirely synonymous with that of fiefs. These, if originally conferred for public services rendered by the grantee, could not be sold. On the death of the holder it was not necessarily the eldest son—even though legitimate—that succeeded. The only provision affecting the father's complete liberty of bequest or gift to his widow—or concubine, in one article—or children, was that a thoroughly deserving eldest son, whether of wife or concubine, could claim one-fifth of the estate.
"Not only could women be dowered with, or inherit, fiefs, and transmit a legal title to them to their own children, but a childless woman was even fully empowered to adopt an heir. Yoritomo had been the first to sanction this broadminded and liberal principle. In Kamakura, an adulterer was stripped of half of his fief if he held one; and if he had none, he was banished. For an adulteress the punishment was no severer, except that if she possessed a fief, the whole of it was confiscated. A good many sections of the code deal with legal procedure and the conduct and duty of magistrates, the great objects being to make the administration of justice simple, prompt, and pure, while repressing everything in the shape of pettifogging or factious litigation.
"The penalties were neither cruel nor ferocious. Death for the worst offences—among which theft is specially mentioned—confiscation of fief, and banishment, these exhaust the list. The only other punishment mentioned is that of branding on the face, inflicted on a commoner for the crime of forgery, a bushi's punishment in this case being banishment, or simply confiscation of his fief, if possessed of one.
"Bakufu vassals were strictly forbidden directly to solicit the Imperial Court for rank or office; they must be provided with a special recommendation from Kamakura. But once invested with Court rank, they might be promoted in grade without any further recommendation, while they were free to accept the position of hebiishi. Analogous restrictions were placed on the Kwanto clergy, who were to be summarily removed from their benefices if found appealing to Kyoto for promotion, the only exception being in favour of Zen-shu priests. In their case the erring brother guilty of such an offence got off comparatively lightly—'an influential member of the same sect will be directed to administer a gentle admonition.' The clergy within the Bakufu domains were to be kept strictly in hand; if they squandered the revenues of their incumbency and neglected the fabric and the established services therein, they were to be displaced. As regards the monasteries and priests outside the Bakufu domain, the case was entirely different; they were virtually independent, and Kamakura interfered there only when instructed to do so by Imperial decree."*
*Murdoch's History of Japan.
FURTHER LEGISLATION
It is not to be supposed that the Joei Shikimoku represents the whole outcome of Kamakura legislation. Many additions were made to the code during the fourteenth century, but they were all in the nature of amplifications or modifications. Kyoto also was busy with enactments in those times—busier, indeed, than Kamakura, but with smaller practical results.
FALL OF THE MIURA
Yasutoki died in 1242, having held the regency (shikken) for eighteen years. His two sons had preceded him to the grave, and therefore his grandson, Tsune-toki, became shikken. Tsunetoki resembled his grandfather in many respects, but, as he died in 1246, he had little opportunity of distinguishing himself. Nevertheless, during his brief tenure of power, he took a step which had momentous consequences. It will be remembered that after the murder of Minamoto Sanetomo by his nephew Kugyo, in 1219, some difficulty was experienced in persuading the Imperial Court to appoint a successor to the shogunate, and finally the choice fell upon Fujiwara Yoritsune, then a child of two, who was not actually nominated shogun until 1226. This noble, when (1244) in the twenty-seventh year of his age and the eighteenth of his shogunate, was induced by the regent, Tsunetoki, to resign, the alleged reason being portents in the sky, and a successor was found for him in his son, Yoritsugu.
Now, for many years past the Miura family had ranked next to the Hojo in power and above it in wealth, but the two had always been loyal friends. Some umbrage was given to the Miura at this time, however, owing to the favours enjoyed at the regency by the Adachi family, one of whose ladies was the mother of the two shikken, Tsunetoki and Tokiyori. The situation thus created had its issue in a plot to kill Tokiyori, and to replace him by an uncle unconnected with the Adachi. Whether the Miura family were really involved in this plot, history gives no definite indication; but certainly the ex-shogun, Yoritsune, was involved, and his very marked friendship with Miura Mitsumura could scarcely fail to bring the latter under suspicion. In the end, the Miura mansion was suddenly invested by a Hojo force. Mitsumura and his elder brother, Yasumura, escaped to a temple where, after a stubborn resistance, they and 270 of their vassals committed suicide. No mercy was shown. The Miura were hunted and slaughtered everywhere, their wide, landed estates being confiscated and divided among the Bakufu, the fanes, and the courtiers at Kyoto.