[IMAGE]@@[JP-#213-16]

#40 40. RENEWED ACCUSATION OF YO-ICHI, c. 1279 (A copy in Terao docs.; also KK, VIII.) [Marginal note]: "ACCUSATION of the second mon,1 presented on 4th month 2d day."2 "THE nun Myo-Ren, widow of Shibuya Goro-shiro nyu-do Jo-Butsu, his son Taira no Shigemichi, and granddaughter Take-tsuru, again beg to repot. "Concerning the evil acts and outrages [committed by] Yo-ichi Shigekazu.3 "[Documents] presented herewith: "One document, Jo-Butsu's letter sent to Suwa nyu-do Shin-Zho: a copy.4 "One document, Jo-Butsu's autographic letter: a copy.4 "Two documents, reports by the deputies on Shigekazu's evil acts. "The aforesaid affair has been frequently reported. Now, the letter of refutation stated that [the defendant], though he had been under Jo-Butsu's suspicion, was pardoned when , he serving at the household of lord Musashi nyu-do, the latter's wish was conveyed [to Jo-Butsu] by Kishima Uemon nyu-do Do-Gaku; and that thence- forth he had not been disturbed, as all the family was aware; *etc. A summary.* "Concerning this, Jo-Butsu's autographic letter written after [the coming of] the envoy is herewith presented, in which the details will be seen. The claim that [Shige- P165 kazu] was pardoned is very untrue. Besides, if there had been no disturbance after the pardon of his repudiation [Shigekazu] should surely have waited upon Jo-Butsu at his house when he was ill before death, but that never took place. In short, [Jo- Butsu's] autographic letter said: If [Shigekazu] said he had been pardoned, when he was not pardoned, that should be reported to the authorirtes and he be exiled to Iwo- zhima or Ezo-zhima.5 It is customary to adjudicate [about a person] according to letters of rebuke written by his progenitor.6 Has not Shigekazu invited censure upon himself by his own words in refutation? Next, as regards his claim that [his alleged pardon] was known to all in the family, that was a surprising statement, for they cannot be witnesses, since the autographic letter is clear. *This is the first [point].* "Next, the same letter [of refutation] stated that, though [Shigekazu] held both the homestead at Shibuya and the other domains, in accordance with Jo-Butsu's auto- graphic letter of devise, the homestead at Shibuya had been seized; *etc.* "Concerning this point, also, the same circumstance of the repudiation [is pertinent]. [The letter of devise that Shigekazu adduces] is probably a letter written before the repudiation, and therefore invalid as testimony. Next, as regards the homestead at Shibuya, it was disposed of in accordance with the letters of devise and [the sho-gun's] order. As for the other domains, since Shigekazu invaded them and acted outrageously, it is hereby petitioned that [his wrongdoings] be stopped. Concerning his evil acts, the deputies' reports are herewith presented. They are acts unparalleled in ancient or modern times. As a warning for others (bo-hai) in the future, [Shigekazu] should surely receive chastisement. *This is the second [point].* "Next, as for the orders of investiture which were granted to Myo-ren and others, they were, while Jo-Butsu was still alive, petitioned for, in order to prevent future difficulties, through Ise nyu-do Gyo-Gwan, and granted after due examination of the petition. What other circumstances could there be? Shigekazu, knowing as he did [the existence of] the order, yet seized, as he avows himself, the domain in Mimasaka and the domain in Satsuma. The guilt of disobeying an order is particularly serious. What he seized should at once be restored, and he should, following other instances, be punished for his offense of disobeying the orders. *This is the third [point].* "Next, as regards his wife, [Shigekazu stated that] she had replied that since she was a woman she did not take part in public affairs, and therefore [the summons] should be addressed to the principal party.7 When the words 'principal party' are used in a document, it may well be seen [by the judges] that the wife must have been managing affairs as proxy.8 Since she would not recognize Shigemichi's proxy but acted arbitrarily, the matter was repoted, and an order was issued from the Kwanto. Thereupon, as [the execution of the order] was urged from the lords at Rokuhara,9 the said wife not only disregarded the letter of summons, but also destroyed the order, and [caused?] the messenger To-goro to be beaten and wounded, whose right and left fingers were broken. All this incident the messenger Emi Saburo nyu-do Do-A saw with his own eyes. If there be any doubt, he might be inquired of, and everything would be clearly seen. Now, the attendance of the said wife is due.10 She should at once be examined and punished for her offense. *This is the fourth [point].* "Next, as regards the proxy Kageyasu's11 complaints. The letters of accusation by Myo-Ren and others have frequently been handed down from the Kwanto [to P166 Shigekazu].12 How is it that he should, as he did, present his letter of refutation as against Kageyasu's urging letter,13 in disregard of the original accusations [by the plaintiffs]? It is an extraordinary procedure. It was solely with a view to imposing upon the judges. In short, Shigekazu's evil and illegal acts have been stated in the reports of the proxy. Whether Kageyasu's urging constitutes abusive calumny, is respectfully submitted to official decision. Next: that [Shigekazu] is the chief heir, is also a falsehood. Even if he were the chief heir, he has been repudiated by his father; it is an absurd claim. "Other points are of minor importance, and need no refutation. In order that at once both parties be summoned and confronted with each other, so that evil acts and outrages be stopped and proper punishments be meted out, and the grievances be remedied, this renewed petition is hereby submitted."
* * The parts placed between asterisks in the translation are written in small characters in the original text. 1As was explained in No. 16, the normal trial of a case before the sho-gun's court in this period consisted of three repeated charges(mon) by the plaintiff and as many refutations(chin) by the de- fendant, each charge being answered by a refutation. Sometimes, when the arguments and the docu- ments had made the issues sufficiently clear at the second matching of charge and answer, a third was dispensed with. On the contrary, if the case was specially involved or had been rendered diffi- cult by new charges or counter charges, a fourth exchange of arguments by the parties was deemed necessary, though only in very rare instances. Often, after this process, the parties might be con- fronted with each other at the court. 2If in the second year of Ko-an, 13 May 1279. 3His new name, Tameshige, is not recognized by the accusers or is unknown to them. 4An, a transcribed copy, as distinguished from sho-mon, the original copy. 5See No. 32. 6The rise of the warrior class in Japan brought with it a new social order and new social ethics which widely differed from the state of things to which the civilian nobles of Kyoto had been accustomed. Among other things, the new class necessarily emphasized the principles of discipline and obedience. And this spirit found its expression, for example, in the almost complete freedom which was now given to the house-father in the manner of devising his property amongst his children. This privilege was accompanied with his power to revise his testament at will. In the Jo-ei shiki-moku occur the following articles:- "20. Of the estate left by a son who, after getting a letter of devise, predeceases the parents. Even when the child is alive, what is to hinder the parents from revoking [the assignment]? How much more, then, are they [free to dispose of the estate] after the child has died. It must be left solely to the discretion of the father or grandfather." "26. Of revoking a domain devised to one son, after a writ of investiture has been granted, and then devising it to another son. That matters of this kind are to be left to the discretion of the parents has been already practically laid down in a preceding section. Hence, even when a writ of investiture has been granted in accordance with the earlier devise, yet if the father revokes [the domain] and devises it to another son, it is upon the later devise that our adjudication will be based." 7Sho-in, literally, the right member. 8Dai-kwan. 9Cf. No. 38. 10Because she was summoned; see No. 38. 11The plaintiff's proxy already referred to. 12Each letter of accusation was, as a rule, shown to the defendant, so that he might refute the charges and defend himself to his best advantage. Likewise, each letter of refutation was shown to the plaintiff, who would base upon it his renewed accusation. 13Probably a letter urging Shigekazu to cease his wrong and restore what he had seized.


P167