The 1322 Chinese legal compendium known as the Yuan dianzhang, or Statutes and Precedents of the Yuan Dynasty, “a remarkable collection of local case records, judicial verdicts, imperial edicts, and administrative decisions” (p. 1), has long drawn the interest of scholars, but only a few of them have been able to read and interpret this linguistically difficult text, which includes the “Sino-Mongolian” hybrid writing style. Birge's English translation of Chapter 18 of the Yuan dianzhang, titled “Marriage” (hunyin), honors “the first translation into any language of this section of the text” (p. 3) and has thus enabled a wide range of scholars to gain a better understanding of the contents of the Yuan dianzhang. This thoughtfully written book also provides us with valuable resources and ideas on reassessing Mongol rule and law in China during the Yuan period.

This book is divided into two major parts. Following an introduction to the book, Part I, entitled “The Age of Khubilai Khan and the Yuan dianzhang,” which contains four chapters, functions as a helpful introduction to the social background as well as a “biography” of the Yuan dianzhang text itself. Chapter 1 of this part focuses on the historical and social context of the text, addressing the legacy of the pre-Mongol steppe regimes and the changes in Chinese society and family order under Mongol rule. Chapter 2 explains the structure of Yuan administration and the legal system, and Chapter 3 explores the textual or “biographical” history of the Yuan dianzhang, including its origin, contents, format, and transmission. Finally, a detailed note on the translation of the text is provided in Chapter 4.

Part II, the main body of this book (pp. 87‒277), is the annotated translation of the “Marriage” chapter from the Yuan dianzhang. Seventy-five documents from the entire chapter, dating from 1268 to 1319, have been translated along with an introduction to each. The documents are arranged into four chapters consisting of twelve sections as follows: “Marriage Rites and Exchanges; Getting Married” (Chapter 5; Sections 1‒2), “Marriage between Officials and Commoners; Marriage of Military Personnel; Divorce” (Chapter 6; Sections 3‒5), “When the Husband Dies; Levirate Marriage; No Levirate Marriage” (Chapter 7; Sections 6‒8), and “Secondary Wives; Marriage between Slaves and Commoners; Marriage of Entertainers; Marriage during the Mourning Period” (Chapter 8; Sections 9‒12).

Generally speaking, Japanese-language publications are essential references for studies on Chinese legal history. The author's awareness of and references to Japanese-language works on the Yuan dianzhang make her book a highly-evaluated study on Chinese legal history. Together with Mathew Sommer's studies on women and sexuality in Qing China, this book represents the high level of studies on Chinese gender history in the USA. This book also compellingly presents the differences regarding law and governance between the Mongol and Chinese traditions during the Yuan period. The Mongolian way of administering justice that had been used in Yuan China is presented in this book: a joint conference convened for a judicial hearing; imperial edicts or judicial decisions to be used as the basis for adjudication; requests for a higher institution to review the case when the lower office could not handle the case, no matter how minor the crime, and so forth.

The Yuan dianzhang is a “rudimentary” and “quasi law code” (p. 66), which contains a list of “General Contents” (gangmu), a detailed “Table of Contents” (mulu), and a chart at the beginning of most chapters. The making of the Yuan dianzhang is thus analogous to present-day compilations and publications of archival manuscripts from Qing Mongolia (1635‒1911), with the contents of the titles for each document contained in the collection. Compared to the Yuan dianzhang, however, these Qing Mongolian archival manuscripts were published not for bureaucratic use but for scholarship, and they contain broad topics including law and judicial cases.

Meanwhile, the practice of compiling law-related rules such as the Yuan dianzhang for future judicial decisions was not unique to Yuan China. In Qing Mongolia, local governments recorded law-related items including imperial edicts, central administrative and legal decisions, princely orders, and judicial cases, in chronological order. This fact suggests that, even though there were state-enacted legal codes – in the Qing case, the Mongolian Law Code (Menggu Li) and the Great Qing Law Code – the local judicial practice would still have needed a law-related collection, such as the Yuan dianzhang, for judicial decisions. Considering the Qing Mongolian case, it is difficult to completely agree with the author's assumption that the Yuan dianzhang was the result of the absence of a universal legal code in China under Mongol rule. In addition, given that not every local office seems to have compiled and published law-related collections like the Yuan dianzhang in Yuan China, it is simply not reasonable to assume that “the absence of a legal code” (pp. 8, 49) inevitably drives local offices to compile and publish legal rules. The compilation and publication of the Yuan dianzhang was probably an initiative driven by official and commercial needs in a particular environment.

What the author intends to convey throughout this book is apparently the idea that Mongol rule in Yuan China was complicated and inconsistent. This idea is seemingly underpinned by an understanding of the complex Yuan administrative apparatus and the changes in marriage regulations. However, this idea also raises many questions. To which empire is the Yuan rule compared? In other words, by what criteria was it judged to be so? Could a universal legal code ensure linear and effective governance over a multi-ethnic and culturally diverse state like the Yuan? It is understandable that the Mongols, as foreign rulers, had to use a complex administrative system in order to secure their rule in China. Similarly, the Qing administrative apparatus in China was also complex. Moreover, the frequent change of throne and an ad hoc approach to law brought about some changes in marriage regulations. Note, for instance, that the “problematic” levirate marriage was outlawed in 1330 after sixty years of implementation (pp. 7–8). Does this case represent a frequent change in marriage regulations?

It is also necessary to question the study's adopted dichotomy between “Chinese law” (e.g. p. 5) versus “Mongol customary law” (e.g. p. 2) or “Khitan customary law” (p. 17). This misleading contrast recalls colonial legal notions such as “British law” versus “African customary law,” thus implying that Chinese law was developed and superior whereas Mongol and other steppe laws were customary (undeveloped) and inferior. This might also unconsciously support China's traditional attitude towards the steppe: “civilized” versus “barbarian.” Furthermore, the widespread idea of “customary law” itself does not have a straightforward definition. It is believed that every “law” has its own system and cultural context, whether it is written or unwritten. Thus, clear definitions of “Chinese law” and “customary law” were necessary for this study. If the author has classified these two categories based on their status as written or unwritten, it is proper to use the term “custom” for Mongolian marriage practices of that time, as is occasionally used in this book (e.g. “Mongol marriage customs,” p. 90).

Critical comments must also be directed at the Yuan dianzhang text itself. It is unclear to what extent the Yuan dianzhang reflects historical realities. First, it is doubtful that only seventy-five marriage-related documents were preserved in a local office or in a region during a period of fifty-one years, as contained in Chapter 18 of the text. It is probable that there were many more such documents, but they were not included in the Yuan dianzhang “Marriage” chapter. Second, the text cannot provide accurate information about the number of cases that were handled locally and the number that were reported to higher bureaucratic institutions for rulings during the Yuan period. Thus, we cannot judge whether the Yuan administration worked effectively or not, based only on the cases from the Yuan dianzhang. Finally, the text itself does not explain how widely and frequently it was referred to in contemporary courts. In other words, the legal status and effect of the text in the Yuan judicial system is still unclear.

Lastly, several issues related to this book need further consideration. First, is it accurate to conclude that the Yuan dianzhang was compiled without any political intentions or prejudice towards the Mongols? Second, given the widespread practice of wife-selling in traditional China, did the Mongolian custom of levirate marriage really cause social and moral problems – i.e., those related to chastity – for Chinese society under Yuan rule? Finally, what do the Yuan marriage regulations mean for Chinese gender history? Despite these issues, however, this book is a strong and welcome addition to the fields of Chinese gender, social, and legal history, as well as of the Mongol Empire and Mongolian legal history.