{"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.