Maine's comparative jurisprudence in British Sinology: George Jamieson's interpretation of China's lack of wills

IF 0.3 4区 社会学 0 ASIAN STUDIES Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society Pub Date : 2022-10-06 DOI:10.1017/S1356186322000177
Rui Liu
{"title":"Maine's comparative jurisprudence in British Sinology: George Jamieson's interpretation of China's lack of wills","authors":"Rui Liu","doi":"10.1017/S1356186322000177","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Nineteenth-century comparative sciences profoundly informed Sinology, but this field remains largely unexplored. Despite recent attention to the comparative study of Chinese religion, researchers have overlooked the comparative spirit underpinning British understanding of Chinese law. This article addresses this oversight by focusing on George Jamieson's (1843–1920) translation and interpretation of Chinese inheritance law in the Qing Dynasty (1636–1912). Drawing on Henry Maine's (1822–1888) comparative jurisprudence, Jamieson reflected upon China's lack of the legal concept of wills, which was a starting point for him to decipher the different developmental routes of Roman and Chinese law. As a parallel to Maine's comparison of Hindu and Roman law, Jamieson compared Chinese with Roman law, revealing that sacrificial duties to ancestors and underdevelopment of the legal profession were key factors contributing to China's legal particularities.","PeriodicalId":17566,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society","volume":"33 1","pages":"297 - 316"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1356186322000177","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ASIAN STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Nineteenth-century comparative sciences profoundly informed Sinology, but this field remains largely unexplored. Despite recent attention to the comparative study of Chinese religion, researchers have overlooked the comparative spirit underpinning British understanding of Chinese law. This article addresses this oversight by focusing on George Jamieson's (1843–1920) translation and interpretation of Chinese inheritance law in the Qing Dynasty (1636–1912). Drawing on Henry Maine's (1822–1888) comparative jurisprudence, Jamieson reflected upon China's lack of the legal concept of wills, which was a starting point for him to decipher the different developmental routes of Roman and Chinese law. As a parallel to Maine's comparison of Hindu and Roman law, Jamieson compared Chinese with Roman law, revealing that sacrificial duties to ancestors and underdevelopment of the legal profession were key factors contributing to China's legal particularities.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
缅因在英国汉学中的比较法学——乔治·贾米森对中国遗嘱缺失的解读
19世纪的比较科学深刻地影响了汉学,但这一领域在很大程度上仍未被探索。尽管最近关注中国宗教的比较研究,但研究人员忽视了支撑英国对中国法律理解的比较精神。本文通过对乔治·贾米森(1843-1920)对清朝(1636-1912)中国继承法的翻译和解释来解决这一疏忽。贾米森借鉴亨利·缅因(Henry Maine, 1822-1888)的比较法学思想,反思了中国遗嘱法律概念的缺失,这是他解读罗马和中国法律不同发展路线的起点。贾米森将中国法与罗马法进行比较,与缅因对印度法与罗马法的比较类似,揭示了对祖先的祭祀义务和法律职业的不发达是造成中国法律特殊性的关键因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
55
期刊最新文献
The Greatest Name of God: ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib as a cosmic image in Rajab al-Bursī's Mashāriq al-anwār Ibn Khaldūn's reception in colonial South Asia The curious case of the iniquitous in-laws: Oirat disloyalty in Mongol Iran Clay sealings from Perlis, Malaysia, and the wider world of the Bodhigarbhālaṅkāralakṣa-Dhāraṇī Mobilising human resources to build a national communications network: the case of Japan before the Pacific War
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1