Abstract
The Sui shu 隋書 ‘Xingfa zhi’ 刑法志 (Treatise on Law), together with the respective treatises of the Wei shu 魏書 and Jin shu 晉書, represents a precious source for our understanding of the history of Chinese law between the Han and Tang, as no other legal documents from this period have come down to us. Of the Five Dynasties (502–618) legal institutions described in the Sui shu ‘Xingfa zhi’, those of the Northern Dynasties are of foremost importance as they directly influenced the content of the Tang Code, the culmination of traditional Chinese law. Considering the uniqueness of this type of source and the objectives of their authors, the ‘Xingfa zhi’ genre must be read with a careful eye. It is necessary to go beyond the moral lessons displayed there so as to grasp essential information on the process in action during this period that led to the consolidation of Chinese law. As such, we will focus on two main issues discussed in the ‘Xingfa zhi’: the portrayal of a good lawmaker and the definition rightful punishments.
Résumé
Le « Xingfa zhi » 刑法志 (traité juridique) du Sui shu 隋書 constitue avec les traités correspondants des Wei shu 魏書 et Jin shu 晉書 une source d’information extrêmement précieuse pour notre compréhension de l’histoire du droit chinois entre les dynasties Han et Tang, alors qu’aucune autre documentation juridique de cette époque n’est parvenue jusqu’à nous. Parmi les institutions juridiques des cinq dynasties (502–618) décrites dans le « Xingfa zhi » du Sui shu, celles des dynasties du Nord (Zhou du Nord, Qi du Nord, Sui) sont de première importance car elles eurent une influence directe sur le contenu du Code des Tang, considéré par les juristes chinois comme le code le plus abouti. Si l’on prend en compte à la fois l’unicité de ce type de source et les objectifs poursuivis par leurs auteurs, le genre constitué par les « Xingfa zhi » doit être lu avec une certaine prudence. Il est en effet nécessaire d’aller au-delà des leçons de morale qui y sont régulièrement dispensées pour saisir les informations essentielles relatives au processus de consolidation du droit chinois. Notre étude portera ainsi essentiellement sur les deux principales questions discutées dans le « Xingfa zhi »: le portrait du législateur vertueux et la définition des peines justes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
We have no absolute evidence of the identity of the authors of the Sui shu ‘Xingfa zhi’, but we do know that the larger project was conducted under the supervision of high-ranking officials such as Yu Zhining and Zhangsun Wuji. Furthermore, a comparison of the language of the ‘Xingfa zhi’ and the memorial opening the Tang Code reveals striking similarities suggestive of a common author; see Balazs (1954: 3).
- 3.
On the origin of the Sui shu treatises in the Wudai shi zhi 五代史志 (Treatises for the Histor(ies) of the Five Dynasties) project, see Chap. 2, this volume.
- 4.
- 5.
On the emergence of modern legal history in China, see He (171–180).
- 6.
Xue Yunsheng was also concerned with these issues. In his Hanlü jicun 漢律輯存 (Remnants of Han statutes) , he tried to reconstruct Han statutes from records scattered throughout the standard histories and the Classics.
- 7.
Hanlü zhiyi, zixu, 1365–1366.
- 8.
For an account about those works on Han law , see Hulsewé (1985: 19 ff.).
- 9.
Liang (2000). One finds a similar critical discourse on the institutions of the former government in works on legal history drafted by other scholars from this generation. For example, when comparing the institutions of the Tang and Ming dynasties, Xue Yunsheng bemoans the loss of tradition. Cheng Shude likewise expresses his personal judgment on the institutions of each dynasty that he analyses in a short introduction.
- 10.
- 11.
- 12.
See for example Zhang (2005).
- 13.
Xiang 象 here refers to xiangxing 象刑 , a kind of symbolic punishment implemented during the reign of Yao and Shun and which was a substitution for corporal punishment.
- 14.
Sheng zai si she 眚災肆赦 is a partial quotation from the Book of Documents, considered to be the first record of a distinction between intention and negligence in Chinese law . See Shangshu, ‘Shun dian’, 20; cf. Legge (1865: 39).
- 15.
Chonghua 重華 is the first name of the Sage King Shun.
- 16.
Yu the Great is here designated by the alternative name Wenming 文命.
- 17.
Du Jun 都君 is one of the other names of Sage King Shun.
- 18.
Gao Mi 高密 is the legendary birthplace of Sage King Yu and, thus, is being used here as a metonym. According to Liu Xiang 劉向 (79–8 BCE), once, when attending the place where criminals were punished, Yu cried and asked about their personal situations (Shuo yuan, ‘Jun dao’ 1.9: 8).
- 19.
Sui shu, 25.696.
- 20.
Sui shu, 25.696.
- 21.
Tang lü shuyi, 663.
- 22.
法令明審, 科條簡要, Sui shu, 25.706.
- 23.
Sui shu, 25.709.
- 24.
One finds statements of this dilemma in several kinds of sources from different dynasties, e.g. Xingtong fujie, 1/1a–3b: 25–29. The Xingtong fujie (Prose-Poem on the Penal Code, with Explanations) is a commentary to the Xingtong, the code of the Song dynasty. Introductions of collections of cases drafted during the Qing dynasty often include similar statements; see, for instance, the preface of the Xingbu bizhao jiajian cheng’an (Leading Cases with Increased or Decreased Sentences Decided by Analogy at the Ministry of Justice ).
- 25.
Sui shu, 25.696.
- 26.
Sui shu, 25.702. Hou Jing was a general from the Eastern Wei dynasty, who hatched a plot against Emperor Wu of Liang in 548.
- 27.
Sui shu, 25.702.
- 28.
自是刑網簡要, 疏而不失, Sui shu, 25.712.
- 29.
Sui shu, 25.704.
- 30.
Sui shu, 25.704.
- 31.
Sui shu, 25.707.
- 32.
Sui shu, 25.700.
- 33.
Sui shu, 25.702.
- 34.
Han shu, 60.2659.
- 35.
Sui shu, 25.697.
- 36.
- 37.
The distinction between statutes and ordinances was based on the uniquely penal nature of the former, which, by contrast with the latter, is considered to have been enhanced from the Jin dynasty on; see Shichino (1993: 158). Note that Taiping yulan, 638/7a: 2859, cites Du Yu 杜預 (222–284) as already having described the distinction in such terms.
- 38.
We know very little about the exact contents of the ordinances issued prior to the Tang except those preserved in the Tang Code and its Commentaries. Contemporary Japanese scholars’ endeavour to reconstitute the original appearance of Tang-era ordinances from scattered materials is currently the closest we can get to knowing what these looked like; see Niida (1933).
- 39.
律令不一, 實難去弊, Sui shu, 25.697.
- 40.
其不可為定法者, 別制『權令』二卷, 與之並行, Sui shu, 25.706. Note that the character fa 法 here means permanent law .
- 41.
Sui shu, 25.707.
- 42.
He (2006: vol. 1, 267–287, 341–413) describes the periods of the Six Dynasties and that of the Tang dynasty, respectively, as the developing and the flourishing periods of Chinese jurisprudence .
- 43.
Du Yu and Zhang Fei both wrote commentaries to the Jin code, which influenced jurists up to the drafting of the Tang Code. Thanks to records in the Jin shu ‘Xingfa zhi’, we have scattered information on their work.
- 44.
Sui shu, 25.697.
- 45.
Sui shu, 25.697.
- 46.
Sui shu, 25.702. Note: shan ding lang 刪定郎 was the name given to the official in charge of the codification of the law since the Jin dynasty.
- 47.
Sui shu, 25.706.
- 48.
Lü boshi 律博士 (or lüxue boshi 律學博士) first appears as a title during the Cao-Wei 曹魏 (220–265), just after the promulgation of the code (xin lü 新律). His duty was to teach law to officials. Later dynasties also appointed such experts, generally under the supervision of the commandant of justice (ting wei 廷尉) , in charge of the administration of justice in the central government; see Qinhua (2006: vol. 1, 314–316).
- 49.
- 50.
Here, ming fa 明法 is a type of examination for civil service recruitment implemented under the Tang dynasty. This probably refers to the law clerk (ming fa yuan 明法掾) who, under the Northern and Southern dynasties, was a non-official agent specialised in legal matters. His task was to assist officials during the adjudication of criminal affairs; see Hucker (1985: vol. II, 333).
- 51.
Sui shu, 25.712.
- 52.
Sui shu, 25.712–713.
- 53.
For an overview of these controversies, see Xue (2006: 45–79).
- 54.
Han shu, 23.1097.
- 55.
Sueyasu (2009: 13).
- 56.
Such is the contention raised for example by Liu Song 劉頌 (d. 301), Jin shu, 30.931.
- 57.
See for instance the list of punishments implemented under the Cao-Wei as recorded in Jin Shu, 30.925.
- 58.
For a presentation of these punishments in the Qin context, see Tomiya (1998).
- 59.
流刑, 謂論犯可死, 原情可降, Sui shu, 25.705.
- 60.
Sui shu, 25.707–708.
- 61.
Shangshu, ‘Yi ji’, 46, and Shangshu, ‘Yu gong’, 75; cf. Legge (1865: 85, 142–149).
- 62.
During the Ming and Qing periods, jurists still used this kind of correspondence to explain the origin of the five degrees of exile; see, Da Ming lü fuli jianshi, tuzhu/2a.
- 63.
For more on the representation of space in this period and the Sui shu treatises specifically, see Chap. 10, this volume.
- 64.
On the five phases, see Chap. 7, this volume.
- 65.
Shude (1927: 2:1).
- 66.
See Sui shu, 25.705, for the list of punishments under the Northern Qi law and Sui shu, 25.707, for those under the Northern Zhou.
- 67.
Jin shu, 30.925.
- 68.
Sui shu, 25.710.
- 69.
See Tomiya (2012: 30–40).
- 70.
Sui shu, 25.705.
- 71.
Sui shu, 25.710.
- 72.
Sui shu, 25.711.
- 73.
Sui shu, 25.708.
- 74.
Brook et al. (2008: 68–96).
- 75.
Da Qing lüli, art. 284.
- 76.
Sui shu, 25.710.
- 77.
Liji, ‘Quli shang’. Liji yijie, 28; cf. Legge (1885: 90).
- 78.
- 79.
Tang lü shuyi, art. 8: 32; cf. Johnson (1979: 88–89).
- 80.
Tang lü shuyi, art. 9: 33–34; cf. Johnson (1979: 82–92).
- 81.
Tang lü shuyi, art. 7: 16; cf. Johnson (1979: 83).
- 82.
See Long (2012).
- 83.
See Hulsewé (1985: 285–298).
- 84.
Da Tang liudian, 6.25a.
- 85.
See for instance Sui shu, 25.700, on the lenient attitude of Emperor Wu of Liang.
- 86.
Sui shu, 25.706.
- 87.
Sui shu, 25.706.
- 88.
Tang lü shuyi, art. 18: 48; cf. Johnson (1979: 65).
- 89.
Sui shu, 25.711.
- 90.
Tang lü shuyi, art. 6: 8; cf. Johnson (1979: 120).
- 91.
Tang Ming lü hebian, 58.
- 92.
See for example Yue (2012: 50–51).
- 93.
For a description of monetary redemption in action during the Qin and Han dynasties, see Sueyasu (2009).
- 94.
- 95.
Sui shu, 25.711.
- 96.
Zhang (2004).
- 97.
Wei shu, 111.2874, and Sui shu, 25.703.
- 98.
Similar rules can also be found in the Northern Qi Code; see Sui shu, 25.706.
- 99.
Tang lü shuyi, art. 11: 34–38; cf. Johnson (1979: 93–100).
- 100.
Sui shu, 25.702.
- 101.
Sui shu, 25.697.
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Da Ming lü fuli jianshi 大明律附例箋釋, Wang Kentang 王肯堂, 1612; in Yang Yifan 楊一凡, Zhongguo lüxue wenxian 中國律學文獻 2 (3–5), Haerbin: Heilongjiang Renmin chubanshe, 2005.
Da Tang liudian 大唐六典, Li Linfu 李林甫et al., 738; edition Kyōto: Kyōto teikoku daigaku bungakubu, 1935.
Hanlü jicun 漢律輯存, Xue Yunsheng 薛允升 (1820–1901); reprint in Shimada Masao 島田正郎 and Yang Jialuo 楊家駱, ed., Zhongguo fa zhi shi liao 中國法制史料, Taibei: Ding wen shuju, 1982.
Hanlü zhiyi 漢律摭遺, Shen Jiaben 沈家本, 1912; critical edition by Deng Jingyuan 鄧經元 and Pian Yuqian 駢宇騫 in Lidai xingfa kao歷代刑法考 (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1985; reprint 2006).
Han shu 漢書, Ban Gu 班固 et al., 111, commentary by Yan Shigu 顏師古 (581–645); edition Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1962, rpt. 1997 (8 vols.).
Jin shu 晉書, Fang Xuanling 房玄齡 et al., 648; edition Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1974 (10 vols.).
Liji yijie 禮記譯解, pre-Qin (<221 BCE), commentary by Wang Wenjin 王文錦; edition Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2001 (2 vols.).
Lidai xingfa zhi 歷代刑法誌, ed. Qiu Hanping 丘漢平; edition Beijing: Qunzhong chubanshe, 1988.
Shangshu 尚書, pre-Qin (<221 BCE), edited and annotated by Mu Ping 慕平; edition Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2009.
Shuoyuan jiaozheng 說苑校證, Liu Xiang 劉向 (79–8 BCE), edited and annotated by Xiang Zonglu 向宗魯; edition Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1987.
Sui shu 隋書. Wei Zheng 魏徵 (580–643), Linghu Defen 令狐德棻, et al., 656; edition Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1973 (3 vols.).
Tang lü shuyi 唐律疏議, Zhangsun Wuji 長孫無忌, 752; edited by Junwen 劉俊文; edition Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1983.
Tang Ming lü hebian 唐明律合編, Xue Yunsheng 薛允升 (1820–1901); critical edition by Li Ming 李鳴 and Huai Xiaofeng 懷效鋒, Beijing: Falü chubanshe, 1999.
Taiping yulan 太平御覽, Li Fang 李昉 et al., 984; edited by Nie Chongqi 聶崇岐; edition Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1960 (4 vols).
Wei shu 魏書, Wei Shou 魏收, 554 CE; edition Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1974 (8 vols.).
Xingbu bizhao jiajian cheng’an 刑部比照加減成案, Xu Lian 許槤 and Xiong E 熊莪, 1834.
Xingtong fujie 刑統賦解, Fu Lin 傅霖, 1316; in Yang Yifan 楊一凡, Zhongguo lüxue wenxian 中國律學文獻, 1–1 (2004), Haerbin: Heilongjiang renmin chubanshe, 2004: 1–148.
Secondary Sources
Balazs, Étienne. 1954. Études sur la société et l’économie de la Chine médiévale, II: la traité juridique du ‘Souei-chou’. Bibliothèque de l’Institut des hautes études chinoises 9. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Balazs, Etienne. 1964. Chinese civilization and bureaucracy: Variations on a theme. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Barbieri-Low, Anthony J., and Robin D. S. Yates. 2015. Law, state, and society in early imperial China: A study with critical edition and translation of the legal texts from Zhangjiashan tomb no. 247, 2 vols. Sinica Leidensia 126/1–126/2. Leiden: Brill.
Brook, Timothy, Jérôme Bourgon, and Gregory Blue. 2008. Death by a thousand cuts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cheng Shude 程樹德. 1927. Jiu chao lü kao 九朝律考. Shanghai: Shangwu yinshuguan.
Gao Chao 高潮 and Ma Jianshi 馬建石. 1989. Zhongguo lidai xingfa zhi zhuyi 中國歷代刑法志注譯. Changchun: Jilin renmin chubanshe.
He Qinhua 何勤華. 2003. Lidai xingfa zhi yu zhongguo falü chuantong wenhua 歷代刑法志與中國傳統法律文化. Henan sheng zhengfa guanli ganbu xueyuan xuebao 河南政法管理幹部學院學報 2003.2: 14–20.
He Qinhua 何勤華. 2006. Zhongguo faxueshi 中國法學史, 3 vols. Beijing: Falü chubanshe.
Hucker, Charles O. 1985. A dictionary of official titles in imperial China. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Hulsewé, A. F. P. 1985. Remnants of Ch’in law : An annotated translation of the Ch’in legal and administrative rules of the 3rd century B.C., discovered in Yün-meng Prefecture, Hu-pei Province, in 1975. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Ikeda Yūichi 池田雄. 2008. Chūgoku kodai no ritsuryō to shakai 中國古代の律令と社會. Tōkyō: Kyūko shoin.
Johnson, Wallace. 1979. The T’ang code, Vol. I: General principles. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Legge, James. 1865. The Chinese classics. III, 1, The first parts of the Shoo-king or the Books of T’ang, the Books of Yu, the Books of Hea, the Books of Shang and the Prolegomena. Hong Kong; London: Trübner.
Legge, James. 1885. The sacred books of China. The texts of Confucianism, Part III. The Li Ki. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.
Liang Qichao 梁啟超 and Zhongxin Fan 范忠信. 2000. Lun Zhongguo chengwenfa bianzhi zhi yange deshi 論中國成文法編制之沿革得失. In Liang Qichao faxue wenji 梁啟超法學文集, 121–183. Beijing: Zhongguo zhengfa daxue chubanshe.
Li Xueqin 李學勤 and Wen Xing 邢文. 2001. New light on the early-Han code: A reappraisal of the Zhangjiashan bamboo-slip legal texts. Asia Major 3d ser., 14.1: 125–146.
Long Daxuan 龍大軒. 2012. Bayi chengzhi yu Han lun kao 八議成制於漢論考. Faxue yanjiu 法學研究 2012.2: 179–186.
MacCormack, Geoffrey. 1990. Traditional Chinese penal law. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
MacCormack, Geoffrey. 2004. The transmission of penal law (lü) from the Han to the T’ang: A contribution to the study of the early history of codification in China. Revue internationale des droits de l’antiquité 51: 47–83.
McKnight, Brian E. 1985. Song legal privileges. Journal of the American Oriental Society 105 (1): 95–106.
Niida Noboru 仁井田陛. 1933. Tōrei shūi 唐令拾遺. Tōkyō: Tōhō bunka gakuin Tōkyō kenkyūjo.
Ogawa Shigeki 小川茂树. 1933. Li Kui to hōkei kō 李悝法經考. Tōhō gakuhō 東方學報 4: 266–314.
Shichino Toshimitsu 七野敏光. 1993. Kyūchō Ritsukō oyobi Kan Tō kan seishi keihōshi 某某. In Chūgoku hōseishi : kihon shiryō no kenkyū 中國法制史: 基本資料の研究, ed. Shūzō Shiga 滋賀秀三, 153–172. Tōkyō: Tōkyō Daigaku Shuppankai.
Shiga Shūzō 滋賀秀三. 1992. A basic history of T’ang legislative forms. Asia Major 3rd ser., 5.2: 97–110.
Sueyasu Ando 陶安あんど (Arnd Helmut Hafner). 2009. Shin Kan keibatsu taikei no kenkyū 秦漢刑罰體系の研究. Tōkyō: Sōbunsha.
Tomiya Itaru 富谷至. 1998. Shin Kan keibatsu seido no kenkyū 秦漢刑罰制度の硏究. Kyōto: Dōhōsha.
Tomiya Itaru 富谷至. 2012. Capital punishment in East Asia. Kyōto: Kyoto University Press.
Twitchett, Denis. 2002. The writing of official history under the T’ang. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Uchida Tomoō 内田智雄 and Kaoru Umehara 梅原郁. 2005. Yakuchū zoku chūgoku rekidai keihōshi 譯注續中國歷代刑法志. Tōkyō: Sōbunsha.
Xue Jing 薛菁. 2006. Wei Jin Nanbei chao xingfa tizhi yanjiu 魏晉南北朝刑法體制研究. Fuzhou: Fujian Renmin chubanshe.
Yue Chunzhi 岳純之. 2012. Lun Tang wudai falü zhong de shi’e yu wuni 論唐五代法律中的十惡與五逆. Shixue yuekan 史學月刊 2012.10: 46–54.
Zhang Boyuan 張伯元. 2004. ‘Jue shu’ kao 「爵戍」考. Huadong zhengfa xueyuan xuebao 華東政法學院學報 2004.1: 71–75.
Zhang Boyuan 張伯元. 2005. Hanlü zhiyi yu Ernian lüling bikan ji 『漢律摭遺』与『二年律令』比勘記. In Shen Jiaben yu Zhongguo falü wenhua guoji xueshu yantaohui lunwenji 沈家本與中國法律文化國際學術研討會論文集, ed. Shen Jiaben yu Zhongguo falü wenhua guoji xueshu yantaohui lunwenji zuweihui 『沈家本與中國法律文化國際學術研討會論文集』組委會, 731–745. Beijing: Zhongguo fazhi chubanshe.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Constant, F. (2019). The Treatise on Law. In: Morgan, D., Chaussende, D. (eds) Monographs in Tang Official Historiography. Why the Sciences of the Ancient World Matter, vol 3. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-18038-6_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-18038-6_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-18037-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-18038-6
eBook Packages: HistoryHistory (R0)