304 LAND REFORMdisciples because it was based primarily on an arrangement of land boundaries
and areas and secondarily on population, and in 1191 and 1235 he attempted
rectifications of land boundaries in two separate districts on the basis of Lin's
proposals. But as Sud6 Yoshiyuki has argued, his overall attitude toward the
prospects for land limitation proposals was pessimistic and critical.
One of the reasons for his pessimism was his admiration of the view of Hsiin
Yiieh of the Later Han that idealistic plans for nationalization and distribution
ofland could only be accomplished at the beginning of a new dynasty when the
government had full control over land and the ratio of available land to popu-
lation was large enough to allow a system of distribution. In the middle of a
dynasty, by contrast, the interests of the landlords had become too entrenched
to permit the confiscatory policies necessary for redistribution. Therefore,
although he had admired Lin Hsiin's emphasis on the rectification ofland bound-
aries, he criticized Su Hsiin's land limitation scheme for being frivolous. His
skepticism was doubtless reinforced by the difficulties of implementing reform
in his own era: given Emperor Hsiao-tsung's failure to institute a pao-cheng
mutual surveillance and guarantee system in 1 170, he felt that the prospects for
land reform based on confiscation or limitation of ownership were pOOr.^94
Although Yu's Pan'gye surokincludes a lengthy section from Chu Hsi's Opin-
ions on the Well Fields (Ching-t'ien lei-shuo), the quotation consists mainly of
a collage of opinions from earlier sources, including the view of Hsiin Yiieh of
the Later Han and a brief reference to Emperor Shih-tsung of the Later Chou
(r. 944-60), who did his best to adopt an equal-field system based on his read-
ing of ancient texts. Other than these, Yu did not include any explicit statements
by Chu Hsi on the adaptability of the well-field system to current times or on
the feasibility of large-scale confiscation.9^5 Either Yu missed Chu Hsi's skepti-
cism, chose to ignore it, or concluded that Chu's attitude did not preclude the
possibility of a limited-field adapt ion of the well-field model. As for other Sung
figures Yu quoted, such as the Ch'eng brothers, Chang Tsai, and Lii Ta-lin, all
appeared to have agreed that the adoption of the well-field model was neces-
sary, but none offered a concrete plan to prevent or suppress landlord opposi-
tion to the confiscation of land.
The IOo-myo Land UnitA matter of slightly less significance, and yet one that attracted much attention
in the Sung, was the question of whether the loo-myo unit of the well-field sys-
tem was feasible in the Sung. Ch'eng Hao defended the well-field model against
two counterarguments: that there was not enough land available in his own time
to provide a 100-myo allotment to everyone, and that 100 myo in Chou times
was equivalent to only 41 myo in Sung times, an amount insufficient to provide
enough food for a family of nine people. Ch'eng responded that only six out of
every ten people would really qualify for land allotments anyhow; the rest were
either the elderly or children, so that 100 myo would be adequate, given the actual