Volume 93 Treatises 69: Punishment and Law 1

自漢以來，刑法沿革不一。隋更五刑之條，設三奏之令。唐撰律令，一準乎禮，以為出入。宋採用之，而所重者敕。律所不載者，則聽之於敕。故時輕時重，無一是之歸。元制，取所行一時之例為條格而已。明初，丞相李善長等言：「歷代之律，皆以漢《九章》為宗，至唐始集其成。今制宜遵唐舊。」太祖從其言。

From the Han dynasty onward, criminal law underwent many changes and never settled into one consistent form. The Sui revised the five punishments and required three separate memorials before execution could proceed. The Tang compiled its code and edicts, using ritual propriety alone as the measure for judgment and penalty. The Song adopted Tang law, but placed greater weight on imperial edicts. Matters not covered in the code were governed by edict instead. Punishment therefore swung between leniency and severity, with no settled standard. Yuan practice simply codified whatever precedents happened to be in use at the moment. Early in the Ming, Chancellor Li Shanchang and others said, "Dynastic law codes have always looked back to the Han Nine Chapters; only under the Tang were they brought to completion. Our code should follow Tang precedent. The founding emperor agreed.

始，太祖懲元縱弛之後，刑用重典，然特取決一時，非以為則。後屢詔釐正，至三十年，始申畫一之制，所以斟酌損益之者，至纖至悉，令子孫守之。羣臣有稍議更改，即坐以變亂祖制之罪。而後乃滋弊者，由於人不知律，妄意律舉大綱，不足以盡情偽之變，於是因律起例，因例生例，例愈紛而弊愈無窮。初詔內外風憲官，以講讀律令一條，考校有司。其不能曉晰者，罰有差。庶幾人知律意。因循日久，視為具文。由此奸吏骫法，任意輕重。至如律有取自上裁、臨時處治者，因罪在八議不得擅自勾問、與一切疑獄罪名難定、及律無正文者設，非謂朝廷可任情生殺之也。英、憲以後，欽恤之意微，偵伺之風熾。巨惡大憝，案如山積，而旨從中下，從之不問。或本無死理，而片紙付詔獄，為禍尤烈。故綜明代刑法大略，而以廠衛終之。廠豎姓名，傳不備載，列之於此，使有所考焉。

At first, having seen how indulgent Yuan rule had become, the Founder imposed harsh penalties, but only as temporary measures, not as permanent law. He issued repeated orders to revise the law, and by the thirtieth year of his reign had established a single uniform code, refined in every detail, which he enjoined his descendants to uphold. Any minister who so much as proposed a change was prosecuted for subverting the founder's institutions. Later abuses stemmed from ignorance of the code: officials assumed its broad principles could not cover every variation in fact, so they built precedents upon the code and precedents upon precedents, until precedent piled upon precedent and abuse knew no end. An early edict required censorial officials inside and outside the capital each to study and explain one provision of the code, then to test officials under them. Those who failed were punished in proportion to their rank. The aim was that everyone would grasp the spirit of the law. In time the edict became a dead letter. Corrupt officials could then bend the law and fix penalties as they pleased. Provisions for imperial review or ad hoc disposition applied to cases within the eight deliberations that officials could not investigate on their own, to doubtful trials where the charge was unclear, and to matters the code did not expressly cover—they did not authorize the court to kill or spare at whim. After the reigns of the Ying and Xian emperors, imperial clemency faded while informants and spies flourished. Monstrous crimes accumulated in vast dossiers, yet orders came down from above and were obeyed without question. Men who deserved no death might be sent to the imperial prison on a single written order—a calamity worse still. What follows is an overview of Ming criminal law, concluding with the palace prisons and guard establishments. Eunuch agents' names are incompletely preserved in older accounts; they are listed here for reference.

明太祖平武昌，即議律令。吳元年冬十月，命左丞相李善長為律令總裁官，參知政事楊憲、傅瓛，御史中丞劉基，翰林學士陶安等二十人為議律官，諭之曰：「法貴簡當，使人易曉。若條緒繁多，或一事兩端，可輕可重，吏得因緣為奸，非法意也。夫網密則水無大魚，法密則國無全民。卿等悉心參究，日具刑名條目以上，吾親酌議焉。」每禦西樓，召諸臣賜坐，從容講論律義。十二月，書成，凡為令一百四十五條，律二百八十五條。又恐小民不能周知，命大理卿周楨等取所定律令，自禮樂、制度、錢糧、選法之外，凡民間所行事宜，類聚成編，訓釋其義，頒之郡縣，名曰《律令直解》。太祖覽其書而喜曰：「吾民可以寡過矣。」

As soon as he pacified Wuchang, the founding emperor began planning a legal code. In the tenth month of winter of the Wu era's first year, he named Left Chancellor Li Shanchang to head the code commission, with twenty colleagues including Yang Xian, Fu Yong, Liu Ji, and Tao An as drafters, and told them: "Law ought to be plain and brief, so that anyone can understand it. If the articles multiply, or one act can be read two ways and punished lightly or heavily, clerks will exploit the ambiguity—that is not what law is for. A net too fine leaves no large fish in the water; a code too dense leaves no innocent citizen in the realm. Study the matter carefully, submit criminal-law articles to me each day, and I will weigh them myself. Whenever he went to the Western Tower, he seated his ministers and discussed the meaning of the statutes at leisure. In the twelfth month the code was finished: 145 ordinances and 285 statutes in all. Fearing ordinary people could not master the code, he had Chief Minister of Justice Zhou Zhen and others compile everything in daily civilian life—aside from ritual, institutions, revenue, and official selection—explain it plainly, and issue it to the counties as the Direct Explanation of Statutes and Ordinances. The founding emperor read it and said with delight, "My people will now seldom break the law."

洪武元年，又命儒臣四人，同刑官講《唐律》，日進二十條。五年，定宦官禁令及親屬相容隱律，六年夏，刊《律令憲綱》，頒之諸司。其冬，詔刑部尚書劉惟謙詳定《大明律》。每奏一篇，命揭兩廡，親加裁酌。及成，翰林學士宋濂為表以進，曰：「臣以洪武六年冬十一月受詔，明年二月書成。篇目一準於唐：曰衛禁，曰職制，曰戶婚，曰廄庫，曰擅興，曰賊盜，曰鬥訟，曰詐偽，曰雜律，曰捕亡，曰斷獄，曰名例。採用舊律二百八十八條，續律百二十八條，舊令改律三十六條，因事制律三十一條，掇《唐律》以補遺百二十三條，合六百有六條，分為三十卷。或損或益，或仍其舊，務合輕重之宜。」九年，太祖覽律條猶有未當者，命丞相胡惟庸、御史大夫汪廣洋等詳議，釐正十有三條。十六年，命尚書開濟定詐偽律條。二十二年，刑部言：「比年條例增損不一，以致斷獄失當。請編類頒行，俾中外知所遵守。」遂命翰林院同刑部官，取比年所增者，以類附入。改《名例律》冠於篇首。

In Hongwu 1 he set four scholar-officials and penal officials to study the Tang Code together, covering twenty articles a day. In year 5 he enacted bans on eunuchs and rules on kin concealing one another's crimes; in the summer of year 6 he published the Constitutional Outline of Statutes and Ordinances and sent it to every agency. That winter he charged Minister of Justice Liu Weiqian with drafting the Great Ming Code. Each time a section arrived, he had it posted in the side halls and revised it himself. When it was done, Hanlin Academician Song Lian submitted a memorial stating, "I received the order in the eleventh month of winter, Hongwu 6, and finished the code in the second month of the following year. Its chapters matched the Tang: Guard and Prohibition, Office Regulations, Household and Marriage, Stables and Storehouses, Unauthorized Enterprises, Banditry and Theft, Assault and Litigation, Fraud and Forgery, Miscellaneous Statutes, Apprehension of Fugitives, Trial and Punishment, and General Principles. It retained 288 old statutes, added 128 new ones, turned 36 ordinances into statutes, drafted 31 statutes for new matters, and borrowed 123 articles from the Tang Code to fill gaps—606 articles in thirty volumes. Some provisions were tightened, some relaxed, some left unchanged, all so that penalties would fit the crime. In year 9, finding some articles still unsatisfactory, the founding emperor had Chancellor Hu Weiyong, Censor-in-Chief Wang Guangyang, and others revise thirteen provisions. In year 16 he had Minister Kai Ji draft the fraud and forgery statutes. In year 22 the Ministry of Justice reported, "Recent precedents have been revised inconsistently, leading to improper verdicts. Please compile and issue them by category so that everyone inside and outside the capital knows what to follow. The emperor then ordered the Hanlin Academy and penal officials to gather recent additions and insert them by category. He moved the General Principles chapter to the front of the code.

為卷凡三十，為條四百有六十。《名例》一卷，四十七條。《吏律》二卷，曰職制十五條，曰公式十八條。《戶律》七卷，曰戶役十五條，曰田宅十一條，曰婚姻十八條，曰倉庫二十四條，曰課程十九條，曰錢債三條，曰市廛五條。《禮律》二卷，曰祭祀六條，曰儀制二十條。《兵律》五卷，曰宮衛十九條，曰軍政二十條，曰關津七條，曰廄牧十一條，曰郵驛十八條。《刑律》十一卷，曰盜賊二十八條，曰人命二十條，曰鬥毆二十二條，曰罵詈八條，曰訴訟十二條，曰受贓十一條，曰詐偽十二條，曰犯奸十條，曰雜犯十一條，曰捕亡八條，曰斷獄二十九條。《工律》二卷，曰營造九條，曰河防四條。

The code comprised thirty volumes and 460 articles. General Principles: one volume, forty-seven articles. Officials Code: two volumes—Office Regulations, fifteen articles; Administrative Formulas, eighteen articles. Household Code: seven volumes—Household Service (15), Fields and Dwellings (11), Marriage (18), Granaries and Storehouses (24), Tax and Transit (19), Money and Debt (3), Markets (5). Rites Code: two volumes—Sacrifices, six articles; Ritual Institutions, twenty articles. Military Code: five volumes—Palace Guard (19), Military Administration (20), Passes and Ferries (7), Stables and Herds (11), Postal Stations (18). Penal Code: eleven volumes—Banditry and Theft (28), Homicide (20), Assault (22), Abuse (8), Litigation (12), Accepting Bribes (11), Fraud and Forgery (12), Adultery (10), Miscellaneous Offenses (11), Apprehension of Fugitives (8), Trial and Punishment (29). Works Code: two volumes—Construction, nine articles; River Control, four articles.

為五刑之圖凡二。首圖五：曰笞，曰杖，曰徒，曰流，曰死。笞刑五，自一十至五十，每十為一等加減。杖刑五，自六十至一百，每十為一等加減。徒刑五，徒一年杖六十，一年半杖七十，二年杖八十，二年半杖九十，三年杖一百，每杖十及徒半年為一等加減。流刑三，二千里，二千五百里，三千里，皆杖一百，每五百里為一等加減。死刑二，絞、斬。五刑之外，徒有總徒四年，遇例減一年者，有準徒五年，斬、絞、雜犯減等者。流有安置，有遷徙，去鄉一千里，杖一百，準徒二年。有口外為民，其重者曰充軍。充軍者，明初唯邊方屯種。後定制，分極邊、煙瘴、邊遠、邊衛、沿海、附近。軍有終身，有永遠。二死之外，有淩遲，以處大逆不道諸罪者。充軍、淩遲，非五刑之正，故圖不列。凡徒流再犯者，流者於原配處所，依工、樂戶留住法。三流並決杖一百，拘役三年。拘役者，流人初止安置，今加以居作，即唐、宋所謂加役流也。徒者於原役之所，依所犯杖數年限決訖，應役無得過四年。

There were two charts of the five punishments. The first chart listed five: beating with the light stick, beating with the heavy stick, penal servitude, banishment, and death. Light-stick beating had five grades, from ten to fifty strokes, increasing or decreasing by ten. Heavy-stick beating had five grades, from sixty to one hundred strokes, in steps of ten. Penal servitude had five grades: one year plus sixty strokes, one and a half years plus seventy, two years plus eighty, two and a half years plus ninety, three years plus one hundred—each extra ten strokes or half year marking one grade. Banishment had three grades—2,000, 2,500, and 3,000 li—each with one hundred strokes; distance increased by five hundred li per grade. Capital punishment had two forms: strangulation and decapitation. Outside the five punishments, servitude could total four years, or five under equivalent sentencing; decapitation, strangulation, and miscellaneous offenses could be reduced by grade where precedent allowed. Banishment included resettlement and relocation—one thousand li from home, one hundred strokes, equivalent to two years' servitude. Some offenders were sent beyond the frontier as commoners; the heavier penalty was military exile. Early in the Ming, military exile meant only frontier garrison farming. Later regulations classified destinations as outer frontier, miasma belt, remote border, border garrison, coast, and nearby districts. Military exile could be for life or perpetual. Besides strangulation and decapitation there was death by slicing, reserved for treason and comparable crimes. Military exile and slicing were not part of the orthodox five punishments and therefore were omitted from the chart. Repeat offenders in servitude or banishment were handled under the rules for retaining artisan and musician households at the original place of assignment. All three banishment grades carried one hundred strokes and three years of close detention. Close detention meant that exiles, once merely resettled, now also performed labor—the Tang and Song "banishment with added labor." Servitude offenders served at the original place of assignment; once strokes and term were fixed, total labor could not exceed four years.

次圖七：曰笞，曰杖，曰訊杖，曰枷，曰杻，曰索，曰鐐。笞，大頭徑二分七釐，小頭減一分。杖，大頭徑三分二釐，小頭減如笞之數。笞、杖皆以荊條為之，皆臀受。訊杖，大頭徑四分五釐，小頭減如笞杖之數，以荊條為之，臀腿受。笞、杖、訊，皆長三尺五寸，用官降式較勘，毋以筋膠諸物裝釘。枷，自十五斤至二十五斤止，刻其上為長短輕重之數。長五尺五寸，頭廣尺五寸，杻長尺六寸，厚一寸，男子死罪者用之。索，鐵為之，以系輕罪者，其長一丈。鐐，鐵連環之，以縶足，徒者帶以輸作，重三斤。

The second chart listed seven instruments: light stick, heavy stick, interrogation stick, cangue, shackles, rope, and fetters. The light stick's thick end measured two fen seven li in diameter; the thin end was one fen smaller. The heavy stick's thick end measured three fen two li; the thin end was reduced by the same proportion as the light stick. Both sticks were made of thorn branches and blows were applied to the buttocks. The interrogation stick's thick end measured four fen five li; the thin end followed the same reduction as the other sticks. It was made of thorn branches and struck buttocks and thighs. All three sticks were three chi five cun long, measured against the official pattern, and must not be reinforced with sinew, glue, or nails. The cangue weighed from fifteen to twenty-five jin, with length and weight marked on it. It was five chi five cun long, with a head one chi five cun wide; shackles one chi six cun long and one cun thick were used for men sentenced to death. The rope was iron, one zhang long, used to bind offenders guilty of minor crimes. Fetters were iron rings for the feet; servitude offenders wore them during labor. They weighed three jin.

又為喪服之圖凡八：族親有犯，視服等差定刑之輕重。其因禮以起義者，養母、繼母、慈母皆服三年。毆殺之，與毆殺嫡母同罪。兄弟妻皆服小功，互為容隱者，罪得遞減。舅姑之服皆斬衰三年，毆殺罵詈之者，與夫毆殺罵詈之律同。姨之子、舅之子、姑之子皆緦麻，是曰表兄弟，不得相為婚姻。

There were also eight mourning-garment charts: when relatives committed offenses, penalties were set according to mourning rank. Where ritual created moral obligation, foster mothers, stepmothers, and loving mothers all required three years of mourning. Assaulting or killing them carried the same penalty as assaulting or killing one's principal mother. Sisters-in-law wore five-month mourning; mutual concealment of offenses allowed stepwise reduction of punishment. Parents-in-law required three-year unhemmed mourning; assaulting, killing, or abusing them was punished like assaulting, killing, or abusing one's husband. Sons of one's maternal aunt, maternal uncle, and paternal aunt wore three-month mourning; as maternal cousins they could not intermarry.

大惡有十：曰謀反，曰謀大逆，曰謀叛，曰惡逆，曰不道，曰大不敬，曰不孝，曰不睦，曰不義，曰內亂。雖常赦不原。貪墨之贓有六：曰監守盜，曰常人盜，曰竊盜，曰枉法，曰不枉法，曰坐贓。當議者有八：曰議親，曰議故，曰議功，曰議賢，曰議能，曰議勤，曰議貴，曰議賓。

Ten great abominations were defined: plotting rebellion, plotting great treason, plotting defection, wicked rebellion, impiety, great disrespect, unfilial conduct, clan discord, unrighteous conduct, and internal disorder. Even ordinary amnesties did not cover them. Six categories of corrupt gain were defined: theft by custodial officials, theft by ordinary persons, larceny, taking bribes by bending the law, taking bribes without bending the law, and passive receipt of illicit goods. Eight categories required deliberation before punishment: imperial kin, old associates, merit, worth, ability, diligence, rank, and distinguished guests.

太祖諭太孫曰：「此書首列二刑圖，次列八禮圖者，重禮也。顧愚民無知，若於本條下即注寬恤之令，必易而犯法，故以廣大好生之意，總列《名例律》中。善用法者，會其意可也。」太孫請更定五條以上，太祖覽而善之。太孫又請曰：「明刑所以弼教，凡與五倫相涉者，宜皆屈法以伸情。」乃命改定七十三條，復諭之曰：「吾治亂世，刑不得不重。汝治平世，刑自當輕，所謂刑罰世輕世重也。」二十五年，刑部言，律條與條例不同者宜更定。太祖以條例特一時權宜，定律不可改，不從。

The founding emperor told the heir apparent, "This code opens with two penal charts and then eight ritual charts because ritual comes first. Yet if leniency were noted under every article, ignorant people might take the law lightly and break it; so the emperor's mercy was gathered instead in the General Principles chapter. A skilled judge need only grasp its intent. The heir apparent proposed revising more than five articles, and the founding emperor approved them. The heir apparent added, "Clear penalties assist moral instruction; wherever the five relationships are involved, the law should yield to human feeling." He then ordered seventy-three articles revised and told him again, "When I ruled a turbulent age, punishments had to be severe. When you govern an age of peace, punishments should naturally be lighter—that is what is meant by penalties varying in severity with the times. In the twenty-fifth year, the Ministry of Justice reported that statute articles and precedents that conflicted should be reconciled. The founding emperor held that precedents were only temporary measures, whereas the codified statutes could not be changed, and he refused.

三十年，作《大明律》誥成。禦午門，諭羣臣曰：「朕仿古為治，明禮以導民，定律以繩頑，刊著為令。行之既久，犯者猶眾，故作《大誥》以示民，使知趨吉避兇之道。古人謂刑為祥刑，豈非欲民並生於天地間哉！然法在有司，民不周知，故命刑官取《大誥》條目，撮其要略，附載於律。凡榜文禁例悉除之，除謀逆及《律誥》該載外，其雜犯大小之罪，悉依贖罪例論斷，編次成書，刊佈中外，令天下知所遵守。」

In the thirtieth year, the proclamation completing the Great Ming Code was issued. At the Meridian Gate he addressed the officials: "I govern by following antiquity—clarifying ritual to guide the people, fixing laws to restrain the stubborn, and publishing them as binding ordinances. After long enforcement offenders were still many, so he composed the Grand Pronouncements to show the people how to seek good fortune and avoid harm. The ancients called punishment the "auspicious penalty"—did they not mean for the people to live together under heaven and earth! Yet the law lay with the magistrates and the people did not know it thoroughly, so he ordered the penal officials to take entries from the Grand Pronouncements, abridge the essentials, and append them to the Code. All placard bans and ad hoc prohibitions were abolished; apart from treason and what the Code and Proclamation covered, every other offense great or small was to be judged under the commutation precedents, compiled into a book, and published throughout the realm so all would know what to follow."

《大誥》者，太祖患民狃元習，徇私滅公，戾日滋，十八年，採輯官民過犯，條為《大誥》。其目十條：曰攬納戶，曰安保過付，曰詭寄田糧，曰民人經該不解物，曰灑派拋荒田土，曰倚法為奸，曰空引偷軍，曰黥刺在逃，曰官吏長解賣囚，曰寰中士夫不為君用。其罪至抄劄。次年復為《續編》、《三編》，皆頒學宮以課士，裏置塾師教之。囚有《大誥》者，罪減等。於時，天下有講讀《大誥》師生來朝者十九萬餘人，並賜鈔遣還。自《律誥》出，而《大誥》所載諸峻令未嘗輕用。其後罪人率援《大誥》以減等，亦不復論其有無矣。

The Grand Pronouncements arose because the founding emperor worried that the people clung to Yuan customs, put private gain above the public good, and offenses grew daily; in the eighteenth year he compiled official and popular misdeeds into the Grand Pronouncements. It had ten headings: intercepting tax payments; security escorts who evade delivery; falsely registering land tax; withholding mandated goods; shifting levies onto abandoned fields; using the law to do evil; falsely reporting stolen soldiers; branding fugitives; officials and chief escorts who sell prisoners; and scholars empire-wide who refuse to serve the throne. Penalties for these offenses could go as far as confiscation of property and execution. The next year he issued the Supplementary Compilation and Third Compilation; all were sent to state academies to test scholars, and village tutors were set up in communities to teach them. Prisoners who owned a copy of the Grand Pronouncements had their sentences reduced by one degree. At the time more than 190,000 teachers and students from across the empire who had lectured on the Grand Pronouncements came to court; all were given paper money and sent home. After the Code and Proclamation were issued, the harsh commands recorded in the Grand Pronouncements were never applied lightly. Later offenders routinely invoked the Grand Pronouncements to reduce their sentences, without anyone even asking whether they actually owned a copy.

大抵明律視唐簡核，而寬厚不如宋。至其惻隱之意，散見於各條，可舉一以推也。如罪應加者，必贓滿數乃坐。如監守自盜，贓至四十貫絞。若止三十九貫九十九文，欠一文不坐也。加極於流三千里，以次增重，終不得至死。而減至流者，自死而之生，無絞斬之別。即唐律稱加就重條。稱日者以百刻，稱年者以三百六十日。如人命辜限及各文書違限，雖稍不及一時刻，仍不得以所限之年月科罪，即唐例稱日以百刻條。未老疾犯罪，而事發於老疾，以老疾論；幼小犯罪，而事發於長大，以幼小論。即唐律老小廢疾條。犯死罪，非常赦所不原，而祖父母、父母老無養者，得奏聞取上裁。犯徒流者，餘罪得收贖，存留養親。即唐律罪非十惡條。功臣及五品以上官禁獄者，許令親人入侍，徒流者並聽隨行，違者罪杖。同居親屬有罪，得互相容隱。即唐律同居相容隱條。奴婢不得首主。凡告人者，告人祖父不得指其子孫為證，弟不證兄，妻不證夫，奴婢不證主。文職責在奉法，犯杖則不敘。軍官至徒流，以世功猶得擢用。凡若此類，或間採唐律，或更立新制，所謂原父子之親，立君臣之義以權之者也。

On the whole Ming law was leaner and more streamlined than Tang law, but less generous than Song law. Its compassionate intent appears scattered through the articles; one example is enough to infer the rest. For example, when a penalty should be increased, conviction requires that the stolen goods reach the full threshold. For example, a supervising guard who steals what he guards faces strangulation when the stolen goods reach forty strings of cash. If the amount is only thirty-nine strings and ninety-nine wen, one wen short of the limit—no conviction. Aggravation stops at exile three thousand li; each step adds severity but never reaches the death penalty. When a sentence is reduced to exile, the offender moves from death to life, with no distinction between strangulation and decapitation. This corresponds to the Tang Code article on applying the heavier statute when increasing punishment. A "day" is counted as one hundred quarter-hours; a "year" as three hundred sixty days. For homicide limitation periods and various document deadlines, even if the delay falls slightly short of one quarter-hour, one still may not punish by the full limit in years or months—this follows the Tang precedent on counting days by one hundred quarter-hours. If someone committed a crime before old age or infirmity but the matter came to light when he was old or infirm, he is judged as old or infirm; if someone committed a crime as a child but the matter came to light after he had grown up, he is judged as a child. This corresponds to the Tang Code article on the young, the old, and the disabled. For capital crimes not excluded from ordinary amnesties, if grandparents or parents are elderly and without support, the offender may petition for the emperor's ruling. For penal servitude or exile, remaining offenses may be commuted by ransom so the offender may stay home to support his parents. This corresponds to the Tang Code article on crimes not among the Ten Abominations. Meritorious officials and officials of fifth rank and above in custody were allowed relatives to attend them; those sentenced to penal servitude or exile could also have attendants; violators were beaten. Cohabiting relatives who committed crimes were permitted to conceal one another. This corresponds to the Tang Code article on mutual concealment among cohabiting kin. Bondservants and maidservants were forbidden to accuse their masters. In all accusations, a plaintiff's grandfather could not name his grandchildren as witnesses; younger brothers could not testify against elder brothers, wives against husbands, or bondservants against masters. Civil officials were duty-bound to uphold the law; if sentenced to beating they were not considered for promotion. Military officials, even when sentenced to penal servitude or exile, could still be promoted on hereditary merit. In all such cases the code sometimes borrowed from Tang law and sometimes created new rules—what is meant by weighing cases through the bonds of father and son and the obligations of ruler and subject.

建文帝即位，諭刑官曰：「《大明律》，皇祖所親定，命朕細閱，較前代往往加重。蓋刑亂國之典，非百世通行之道也。朕前所改定，皇祖已命施行。然罪可矜疑者，尚不止此。夫律設大法，禮順人情，齊民以刑，不若以禮。其諭天下有司，務崇禮教，赦疑獄，稱朕嘉與萬方之意。」成祖詔法司問囚，一依《大明律》擬議，毋妄引榜文條例為深文。永樂元年，定誣告法。成化元年，又令讞囚者一依正律，盡革所有條例。十五年，南直隸巡撫王恕言：「《大明律》後，有《會定見行律》百有八條，不知所起。如《兵律》多支廩給，《刑律》罵制使及罵本管長官條，皆輕重失倫。流傳四方，有誤官守。乞追板焚毀。」命即焚之，有依此律出入人罪者，以故論。十八年，定挾詐得財罪例。

When the Jianwen Emperor acceded, he told the penal officials: "The Great Ming Code was personally set by our founding emperor, who ordered me to review it closely. Compared with earlier dynasties it is often harsher. Punishment is the law of a troubled age, not a code meant to endure for all generations. The revisions I proposed earlier the founding emperor has already ordered into effect. Yet cases where guilt is doubtful and deserving of compassion go beyond even these. Law sets great principles; ritual accords with human feeling. Harmonizing the people through ritual is better than doing so through punishment. Instruct all officials throughout the realm to honor ritual teaching, pardon doubtful cases, and express my wish to share joy with all the world. The Chengzu Emperor decreed that when judicial offices tried prisoners they must deliberate solely under the Great Ming Code and not recklessly cite placard texts and precedents to construct harsh charges. In the first year of Yongle, the law on false accusation was established. In the first year of Chenghua, it was again ordered that those reviewing prisoners must follow the orthodox statutes alone and abolish all precedents entirely. In the fifteenth year, Wang Su, grand coordinator of South Zhili, reported: "After the Great Ming Code there circulated a Consolidated Code in Current Use of 108 articles, of unknown origin. For example, the Military Code section on excessive ration payments and the Criminal Code sections on reviling imperial commissioners and one's immediate superior all assign penalties out of proportion to the offense. Circulated everywhere, they mislead officials in the performance of their duties. I ask that the printing blocks be recalled and destroyed. The court ordered them burned immediately; anyone who relied on this code to wrongfully convict or acquit would be punished for intentional misconduct. In the eighteenth year, the precedent on obtaining property through coercion and fraud was established.

弘治中，去定律時已百年，用法者日弛。五年，刑部尚書彭韶等以鴻臚少卿李鐩請，刪定《問刑條例》。至十三年，刑官復上言：「洪武末，定《大明律》，後又申明《大誥》，有罪減等，累朝遵用。其法外遺奸，列聖因時推廣之而有例，例以輔律，非以破律也。乃中外巧法吏或借便己私，律浸格不用。」於是下尚書白昂等會九卿議，增歷年問刑條例經久可行者二百九十七條。帝摘其中六事，令再議以聞。九卿執奏，乃不果改。然自是以後，律例並行而網亦少密。王府禁例六條，諸王無故出城有罰，其法尤嚴。嘉靖七年，保定巡撫王應鵬言：「正德間，新增問刑條例四十四款，深中情法，皆宜編入。」不從。惟詔偽造印信及竊盜三犯者不得用可矜例。刑部尚書胡世甯又請編斷獄新例，亦命止依律文及弘治十三年所欽定者。至二十八年，刑部尚書喻茂堅言：「自弘治間定例，垂五十年。乞敕臣等會同三法司，申明《問刑條例》及嘉靖元年後欽定事例，永為遵守。弘治十三年以後、嘉靖元年以前事例，雖奉詔革除，顧有因事條陳，擬議精當可採者，亦宜詳檢。若官司妄引條例，故入人罪者，當議黜罰。」會茂堅去官，詔尚書顧應祥等定議，增至二百四十九條。三十四年，又因尚書何ＢＩ言，增入九事。萬歷時，給事中烏昇請續增條例。至十三年，刑部尚書舒化等乃輯嘉靖三十四年以後詔令及宗籓軍政條例、捕盜條格、漕運議單與刑名相關者，律為正文，例為附註，共三百八十二條，刪世宗時苛令特多。崇禎十四年，刑部尚書劉澤深復請議定《問刑條例》。帝以律應恪遵，例有上下，事同而二三其例者，刪定畫一為是。然時方急法，百司救過不暇，議未及行。

During the Hongzhi reign, a century had passed since the statutes were codified, and enforcement grew laxer by the day. In the fifth year, Minister of Justice Peng Shao and others, at the request of Vice Minister of Ceremonial Li Zan, revised the Interrogation of Criminals Precedents. By the thirteenth year the penal officials memorialized again: "At the end of Hongwu the Great Ming Code was fixed; later the Grand Pronouncements were clarified so sentences could be reduced one degree, and successive reigns have followed this practice. Where the law left gaps for lingering wrongdoing, successive emperors expanded it as times required, producing precedents meant to support the statutes, not override them. Yet crafty legal officials at court and in the provinces sometimes exploited them for private gain, and the statutes were gradually set aside. The court then ordered Minister Bai Ang and others to confer with the Nine Ministers; they added 297 Interrogation of Criminals precedents from over the years that had proved durable in practice. The emperor singled out six items and ordered further deliberation before reporting back. The Nine Ministers held to their memorial, and in the end no changes were made. From this time forward statutes and precedents operated in parallel, and the legal net grew somewhat tighter. Six forbidden rules for princely establishments penalized princes who left their cities without cause; that law was especially strict. In the seventh year of Jiajing, Wang Yingpeng, grand coordinator of Baoding, reported: "During the Zhengde reign forty-four new Interrogation of Criminals precedents were added; they strike the right balance of justice and feeling and should all be incorporated. The court did not assent. Only forgery of imperial seals by edict and theft committed three times were excluded from commutation on grounds of deserving compassion. Minister of Justice Hu Shining also asked to compile new case precedents; he was likewise ordered to rely only on the statutory text and what had been imperially approved in Hongzhi 13. By the twenty-eighth year, Minister of Justice Yu Maojian reported: "Since the precedents were fixed in the Hongzhi reign, nearly fifty years have passed. I ask that Your Majesty order us to confer with the Three Judicial Offices, clarify the Interrogation of Criminals Precedents and the imperially approved cases after Jiajing 1, and make them permanently binding. Cases from after Hongzhi 13 to before Jiajing 1, though abolished by edict, may include memorials on particular matters whose deliberations were sound and worth adopting; these too should be carefully reviewed. If officials recklessly cited precedents to wrongfully convict someone, dismissal and punishment should be considered. When Maojian left office, Minister Gu Yingxiang and others were ordered to finalize the code; the total was raised to 249 articles. In the thirty-fourth year, at Minister He Bin's recommendation, nine further items were added. During the Wanli reign, Supervising Secretary Wu Sheng asked to continue adding precedents. By the thirteenth year, Minister of Justice Shu Hua and others compiled edicts after Jiajing 34 together with regulations on imperial clans, military administration, bandit capture, grain transport, and all matters touching criminal law—statutes as main text, precedents as marginal notes—382 articles in all, cutting many of the especially harsh commands from the Jiajing reign. In the fourteenth year of Chongzhen, Minister of Justice Liu Zeshen again asked for deliberation to fix the Interrogation of Criminals Precedents. The emperor held that statutes must be strictly observed, but precedents had varying authority; where the same matter had two or three conflicting precedents, revision to a single standard was right. Yet harsh law enforcement was urgent at the time; the hundred offices were too busy covering their mistakes for the deliberation to be carried out.

太祖之定律文也，歷代相承，無敢輕改。其一時變通，或由詔令，或發於廷臣奏議，有關治體，言獲施行者，不可以無詳也。

The founding emperor's statutory text was handed down through successive reigns, and none dared alter it lightly. Its temporary adaptations, whether by edict or by memorials from court ministers, that bore on the foundations of governance and were put into effect cannot go unrecorded in detail.

洪武元年，諭省臣：「鞫獄當平恕，古者非大逆不道，罪止及身。民有犯者，毋得連坐。」尚書夏恕嘗引漢法，請著律，反者夷三族。太祖曰：「古者父子兄弟罪不相及，漢仍秦舊，法太重。」卻其奏不行。民父以誣逮，其子訴於刑部，法司坐以越訴。太祖曰：「子訴父枉，出於至情，不可罪。」有子犯法，父賄求免者，御史欲並論父。太祖曰：「子論死，父救之，情也，但論其子，赦其父。」十七年，左都御史詹徽奏民毆孕婦至死者，律當絞，其子乞代。大理卿鄒俊議曰：「子代父死，情可矜。然死婦系二人之命，犯人當二死之條，與其存犯法之人，孰若全無辜之子。」詔從後議。二十年，詹徽言：「軍人有犯當杖，其人嘗兩得罪而免，宜並論前罪，誅之。」太祖曰：「前罪既宥，復論之則不信矣。」杖而遣之。二十四年，嘉興通判龐安獲鬻私鹽者送京師，而以鹽賞獲者。戶部以其違例，罰償鹽入官，且責取罪狀。安言：「律者萬世之常法，例者一時之旨意。今欲依例而行，則於律內非應捕人給賞之言，自相違悖，失信於天下也。」太祖然其言，詔如律。

In the first year of Hongwu he instructed the provincial officials: "Trials should be even-handed and lenient. In antiquity, except for great treason, guilt stopped at the offender himself. When the people commit offenses, collective punishment is forbidden. Minister Xia Shu once cited Han law and asked that it be written into the Code: rebels were to have three clans exterminated. The founding emperor said: "In antiquity fathers and sons and brothers did not implicate one another in guilt. Han followed Qin custom—the law was too harsh. He rejected the memorial and did not implement it. A commoner's father was arrested on a false charge; his son appealed to the Ministry of Justice, and the judicial office convicted him of improper appeal. The founding emperor said: "A son who appeals his father's injustice acts from deepest feeling—he cannot be punished. When a son broke the law and his father bribed officials to secure his release, the censor wanted to punish the father as well. The founding emperor said: "The son faces death and the father tries to save him—that is human feeling. Judge only the son and pardon the father. In the seventeenth year, Left Censor-in-Chief Zhan Hui reported that a commoner who beat a pregnant woman to death deserved strangulation by law, and the man's son begged to die in his place. Chief Minister of the Court of Judicial Review Zou Jun argued: "A son who dies in his father's place acts from feeling that deserves compassion. Yet the dead woman carried two lives; the offender falls under the statute for two deaths. Rather than spare the guilty man, is it not better to preserve the innocent son? An edict followed the latter argument. In the twentieth year, Zhan Hui said: "A soldier due for beating had twice been guilty and pardoned; his prior crimes should be judged together and he should be executed. The founding emperor said: "His prior crimes were already pardoned; to judge them again would break faith. He was beaten and sent away. In the twenty-fourth year, Pang An, assistant magistrate of Jiaxing, arrested illicit salt dealers and sent them to the capital, rewarding the captor with the seized salt. The Ministry of Revenue ruled that he had broken regulations, fined him to repay the salt to the state, and demanded a written confession of guilt. Pang An argued: "The Code is eternal law; precedents are the policy of the moment. If we now follow precedent instead, we contradict the Code's rule that rewards are not paid for seizing the wrong persons—and we would break faith with the realm. The founding emperor agreed and decreed that the case be decided according to the Code.

永樂二年，刑部言河間民訟其母，有司反擬母罪。詔執其子及有司罪之。三年，定文職官及中外旗校軍民人等，凡犯重條，依律科斷，輕者免決，記罪。其有不應侵損於人等項及情犯重者，臨時奏請。十六年，嚴犯贓官吏之禁。初，太祖重懲貪吏，詔犯贓者無貸。復敕刑部：「官吏受贓者，並罪通賄之人，徙其家於邊。著為令。」日久法弛，故復申飭之。二十九年，大理卿虞謙言：「誑騙之律，當杖而流，今梟首，非詔書意。」命如律擬斷。宣德二年，江西按察使黃翰言：「民間無籍之徒，好興詞論，輒令老幼殘疾男婦誣告平人，必更議涉虛加罰乃可。」遂定老幼殘疾男婦誣告人罰鈔贖罪例。其後孝宗時，南京有犯誣告十人以上，例發口外為民。而年逾七十，律應收贖者，更著令，凡年七十以上、十五以下及廢疾者，依律論斷。例應充軍暿愰哨、口外為民者，仍依律發遣。若年八十以上及篤疾有犯應永戍者，以子孫發遣，應充軍以下者免之。

In the second year of the Yongle reign, the Ministry of Punishments reported that a man in Hejian had sued his mother, yet local officials instead drafted charges against her. An edict ordered the son and the officials arrested and punished. In the third year, a rule was set: civil officials and all military and civilian personnel at home and abroad who committed serious offenses were to be sentenced under the Code; minor cases were exempted from corporal punishment and only recorded. Cases involving improper injury to others or grave circumstances were to be memorialized for the throne's decision. In the sixteenth year, the ban on corrupt officials was strictly enforced. At first the founding emperor punished greedy officials severely and decreed that bribe-takers would receive no mercy. He again ordered the Ministry of Punishments: "Officials who take bribes shall be punished together with those who bribed them, and their families shall be relocated to the frontier. Make this a standing regulation. Over time the law had slackened, so it was enforced again. In the twenty-ninth year, Chief Minister Yu Qian of the Court of Judicial Review said: "Swindling should be punished with beating and exile, yet now offenders are decapitated—this is not what the edict intended. He was ordered to sentence according to the Code. In the second year of Xuande, Regional Inspector Huang Han of Jiangxi reported: "Idle troublemakers like to stir up lawsuits, often making the elderly, children, the disabled, men, or women bring false charges against innocent people; only after further review and a penalty for groundless accusation can the matter be settled. A precedent was then set: when the elderly, young, disabled, men, or women falsely accused others, they paid a paper-money fine to redeem the offense. Later, under Emperor Xiaozong, at Nanjing anyone who falsely accused more than ten people was, by precedent, banished beyond the frontier passes to live as a commoner. Yet for those over seventy whom the Code allowed to ransom their punishment, a further order was issued: anyone seventy or older, fifteen or younger, or disabled would be judged according to the Code. Those who by precedent should be sent to military exile at distant frontier sentry posts or banished beyond the passes as commoners were still dispatched according to the Code. If offenders were eighty or older or gravely ill and liable to lifelong exile, their descendants were sent in their place; for punishments of military exile or less, they were exempted.

初制，凡官吏人等犯枉法贓者，不分南北，俱發北方邊衛充軍。正統五年，行在三法司言：「洪武定律時，鈔貴物賤，所以枉法贓至百二十貫者，免絞充軍。今鈔賤物貴，若以物估鈔至百二十貫枉法贓俱發充軍，輕重失倫矣。今後文職官吏人等，受枉法贓比律該絞者，估鈔八百貫之上，俱發北方邊衛充軍。其受贓不及前數者，視見行例發落。」從之。八年，大理寺言：「律載竊盜初犯刺右臂，再犯刺左臂，三犯絞。今竊盜遇赦再犯者，鹹坐以初犯，或仍刺右臂，或不刺。請定為例。」章下三法司議，刺右遇赦再犯者刺左，刺左遇赦又犯者不刺，立案。赦後三犯者絞。」帝曰：「竊盜已刺，遇赦再犯者依常例擬，不論赦，仍通具前後所犯以聞。」後憲宗時，都御史李秉援舊例奏革。既而南京盜王阿童五犯皆遇赦免。帝聞之，詔仍以赦前後三犯為令。至神宗時，復議奏請改遣云。十二年，以知縣陳敏政言，民以後妻所攜前夫之女為子婦，及以所攜前夫之子為婿者，並依同父異母姊妹律，減等科斷。成化元年，遼東巡撫滕照言：「《大明律》乃一代定法，而決斷武臣，獨舍律用例，武臣益縱蕩不檢。請一切用律。」詔從之。武臣被黜降者，騰口謗訕，有司畏事，復奏革其令。十九年定，竊盜三犯罪例。法司以「南京有三犯竊盜，計贓滿百貫者犯，當絞斬。罪雖雜犯，其情頗重。」三犯前罪，即累惡不悛之人，難準常例。其不滿貫犯，徒流以下罪者，雖至三犯，原情實輕，宜特依常例治之。」議上，報允。

Under the original rule, any official or other person guilty of illegal bribery, north or south alike, was sent to northern frontier garrisons for military exile. In the fifth year of Zhengtong, the three judicial offices at the mobile court reported: "When Hongwu enacted the Code, paper money was valuable and goods cheap, so illegal bribes of one hundred twenty strings or more were spared strangulation and sent to military exile instead. Now paper money is cheap and goods dear; if bribes valued at one hundred twenty strings in paper money all led to military exile, the punishment would no longer fit the crime. Henceforth, civil officials and others who took illegal bribes warranting strangulation under the Code, if the amount exceeded eight hundred strings in paper money, were all sent to northern frontier garrisons for military exile. Those whose bribes fell short of that amount were punished under current precedents. The proposal was approved. In the eighth year, the Court of Judicial Review reported: "The Code states that a first theft offense is marked by tattooing the right arm, a second by tattooing the left, and a third by strangulation. Now when thieves who had been pardoned reoffended, all were treated as first offenders, or the right arm was tattooed again, or no tattoo was applied at all. They asked that this be established as a precedent. The memorial was sent to the three judicial offices for deliberation: those tattooed on the right who reoffended after amnesty were tattooed on the left; those tattooed on the left who offended again after amnesty were not tattooed—and this was made precedent. A third offense after amnesty was punished by strangulation. The emperor said: "Thieves already tattooed who reoffend after amnesty are to be sentenced under the regular articles, amnesty aside; still report all prior and subsequent offenses together. Later, under Emperor Xianzong, Censor-in-Chief Li Bing cited the old precedent and memorialized for its repeal. Soon after, a Nanjing thief named Wang Atong committed five offenses and was freed by amnesty each time. When the emperor heard of this, he decreed that the rule of three offenses before and after amnesty should stand again. By the reign of Emperor Shenzong, officials again deliberated and memorialized to change how such offenders were punished. In the twelfth year, on Magistrate Chen Minzheng's report, when commoners took a stepdaughter from a wife's prior marriage as a daughter-in-law, or a stepson from that marriage as a son-in-law, both were sentenced with reduced severity under the statute on half-sisters by the same father. In the first year of Chenghua, Grand Coordinator Teng Zhao of Liaodong said: "The Great Ming Code is the fixed law of the dynasty, yet in judging military officers the Code is set aside and precedents used instead, so military officers grow ever more unrestrained. He asked that the Code be applied in all cases. An edict approved the request. Dismissed or demoted military officers spread slander; fearing trouble, officials memorialized again to repeal the order. In the nineteenth year a precedent on three-time theft offenses was established. The judicial offices reported: "In Nanjing there is a three-time thief whose stolen goods total one hundred strings; the offense merits decapitation by strangulation. Although the offense is a miscellaneous crime, the circumstances are grave. A third conviction with prior offenses marks someone who accumulates wickedness without reform and cannot be judged by ordinary precedent. Those whose stolen goods fall short of one hundred strings and whose offenses are penal servitude, exile, or less—even on a third conviction, the original circumstances are truly light and should be punished under ordinary precedent. The deliberation was submitted and approved.

弘治六年，太常少卿李東陽言：「五刑最輕者笞杖，然杖有分寸，數有多寡。今在外諸司，笞杖之罪往往致死。縱令事覺，不過以因公還職。以極輕之刑，置之不可復生之地，多者數十，甚者數百，積骸滿獄，流血塗地，可為傷心。律故勘平人者抵命，刑具非法者除名，偶不出此，便謂之公。一以公名，雖多無害。此則情重而律輕者，不可以不議也。請凡考訊輕罪即時致死，累二十或三十人以上，本律外，仍議行降調，或病死不實者，並治其醫。」乃下所司議處。嘉靖十五年，時有以手足毆人傷重，延至辜限外死者，部擬鬥毆殺人論絞。大理寺執嘉靖四年例，謂當以毆傷論笞。部臣言：「律定辜限，而《問刑條例》又謂鬥毆殺人、情實事實者，雖延至限外，仍擬死罪，奏請定奪。臣部擬上，每奉宸斷，多發充軍，蓋雖不執前科，亦僅末減之耳。毆傷情實至限外死，即以笞斷，是乃僥倖兇人也。且如以兇器傷人，雖平復，例亦充軍，豈有實毆人致死，偶死限外，遂不當一兇器傷人之罪乎？矧四年例已報罷，請諭中外仍如《條例》便。」詔如部議。自後有犯辜限外人命者，俱遵律例議擬，奏請定奪。

In the sixth year of Hongzhi, Vice Minister of Rites Li Dongyang said: "Of the five punishments, the lightest are beating with rod or stick—yet rods and sticks have fixed dimensions and strokes have fixed counts. Yet in offices outside the capital, rod-and-stick punishments often kill the offender. Even when discovered, the official is merely restored to office on grounds of acting in the line of duty. With the lightest punishments, men are sent to their deaths—sometimes dozens, sometimes hundreds; corpses fill the prisons and blood soaks the ground. It is heartbreaking. The Code requires that those who deliberately torture innocent people to death pay with their lives, and those who use unlawful instruments of punishment are dismissed—yet if a case falls outside these rules, it is called acting in the public interest. Once labeled as public service, even many deaths bring no harm to the official. Here the circumstances are grave while the Code is lenient—this cannot go undebated. I ask that whenever interrogation for minor offenses causes immediate death, and the victims number twenty or thirty or more, officials beyond the original statute still face demotion or transfer; and where death by illness was falsely claimed, the physician be punished as well. The memorial was sent down to the relevant offices for deliberation. In the fifteenth year of Jiajing, when someone beat another with hands or feet, inflicted grave injury, and the victim died after the statutory wound-suspense period had passed, the ministry drafted a sentence of strangulation for killing in affray. The Court of Judicial Review cited the precedent of Jiajing year four, arguing that it should be punished as beating causing injury, with rod strokes only. Ministry officials said: "The Code sets a wound-suspense period, but the Criminal Code Precedents also state that in killing during affray, when the facts and intent are clear, even if death occurs after the period expires, capital punishment is still drafted for imperial decision. When our ministry submits such cases, imperial verdicts usually send the offender to military exile—for though the death penalty is not applied, this is only a slight reduction at the end. To punish beating that in fact causes death beyond the suspense period with only rod strokes is to let violent men escape by luck. Moreover, wounding with a deadly weapon, even if the victim recovers, still brings military exile by precedent—how can someone who in fact beats another to death, if death happens only by chance after the period, deserve less than the crime of wounding with a deadly weapon? Moreover, the year-four precedent has already been repealed; please instruct officials throughout the realm to follow the Precedents as before. An edict followed the ministry's recommendation. Thereafter, all cases of homicide outside the wound-suspense period were deliberated under the Code and precedents and memorialized for imperial decision.

隆慶三年，大理少卿王諍言：「問刑官每違背律例，獨任意見。如律文所謂『凡奉制書，有所施行而違者杖一百』，本指制誥而言。今則操軍違限，守備官軍不入直，開場賭博，概用此例。律文犯奸條下，所謂『買休賣休、和娶人妻者』，本指用財買求其妻，又使之休賣其妻，而因以娶之者言也。故律應離異歸宗，財禮入官。至若夫婦不合者，律應離異；婦人犯奸者，律從嫁賣；則後夫憑媒用財娶以為妻者，原非姦情，律所不禁。今則概引買休、賣休、和娶之律矣。所謂『不應得為而為者，笞四十，重者杖八十』。蓋謂律文該載不盡者，方用此律也。若所犯明有正條，自當依本條科斷。今所犯毆人成傷，罪宜笞，而議罪者則曰『除毆人成傷，律輕不坐外，合依不應得為而為之事理，重者律杖八十』。夫既除毆人輕罪不坐，則無罪可坐矣。而又坐以『不應得為』，臣誠不知其所謂。」刑部尚書毛愷力爭之，廷臣皆是諍議。得旨：「買休、賣休，本屬奸條，今後有犯，非系姦情者，不得引用。他如故。」

In the third year of Longqing, Vice Minister Wang Zheng of the Court of Judicial Review said: "Criminal judges often violate the Code and precedents and act on private opinion alone. As the Code says, 'Whoever disobeys an imperial command document in its execution shall receive one hundred strokes'—this originally referred to formal imperial edicts. Now soldiers who miss drill deadlines, garrison officers who fail to report for duty, and those who run gambling dens—all are punished under this article indiscriminately. Under the adultery article, what is called 'buying rest, selling rest, and peacefully taking another man's wife' originally meant using money to buy a man's consent, making him divorce and sell his wife, and then marrying her oneself. Therefore the Code required divorce and return to her original lineage, and betrothal gifts were forfeited to the state. Where husband and wife were incompatible, the Code required divorce; where a woman committed adultery, the Code allowed her to be remarried or sold; when a later husband took her through a matchmaker with payment, there was originally no adulterous intent, and the Code did not forbid it. Now the statutes on buying rest, selling rest, and peaceful taking are cited indiscriminately. What is called 'doing what ought not to be done—forty strokes of the rod; in grave cases, eighty strokes of the stick.' This statute was meant only where the Code did not fully cover the offense. If the offense clearly fell under a specific article, judgment should follow that article. Today someone who beats another and causes injury should receive rod punishment, yet the judge says: 'Apart from the light offense of beating causing injury, which carries no punishment, apply the principle of doing what ought not to be done—in grave cases, eighty strokes by statute.' Having already excluded the light offense of beating, there is no crime left to punish. Yet they punish under 'doing what ought not to be done'—I truly do not understand what this means. Minister of Punishments Mao Kai argued forcefully against it, but court officials all sided with Wang Zheng's position. The rescript read: "Buying rest and selling rest belong to the adultery articles; hereafter, when there is an offense, if adulterous intent is not involved, these statutes may not be cited. Other matters remain unchanged."

萬曆中，左都御史吳時來申明律例六條：

During the Wanli reign, Left Censor-in-Chief Wu Shilai clarified six points on the Code and precedents:

一、律稱庶人之家不許存養奴婢。蓋謂功臣家方給賞奴婢，庶民當自服勤勞，故不得存養。有犯者皆稱僱工人，初未言及縉紳之家也。縉紳之家，存養奴婢，勢所不免。合令法司酌議，無論官民之家，立券用值、工作有年限者，以僱工人論；受值微少、工作計日月者，以凡人論。若財買十五以下、恩養日久、十六以上、配有室家者，視同子孫論。或恩養未久，不曾配合者，庶人之家，仍以僱工人論；縉紳之家，視奴婢律論。

First, the Code states that commoners' households may not keep and rear slaves. This means only meritorious officials' households were granted slaves as reward; commoners should labor for themselves, and therefore may not keep them. Offenders all called them hired laborers; at first the rule did not address gentry and official households. For gentry and official households, keeping slaves was unavoidable. The judicial offices should deliberate: for official and common households alike, where there is a written contract, payment of wages, and labor for a fixed term, treat the person as a hired laborer; those who receive little payment and whose work is counted by the day or month, treat as ordinary persons. If purchased before age fifteen, long nurtured with kindness, and after sixteen given a spouse and household, treat like descendants. Or if nurtured for only a short time and not yet given a spouse—in commoners' households still treat as hired laborer; in gentry and official households, treat according to the slave statute.

一、律稱偽造諸衙門印信者斬。惟銅鐵私鑄者，故斬。若篆文雖印，形質非印者，不可謂之偽造，故例又立描摸充軍之條。以後偽造印信人犯，如系木石泥蠟之類，止引描摸之例，若再犯擬斬。偽造行使止一次、而贓不滿徒者，亦準竊盜論。如再犯引例，三犯引律。

First, the Code states that forging seals of government offices merits decapitation. Only privately cast copper or iron seals therefore merit decapitation. If seal characters are impressed but the object is not a true seal, it cannot be called forgery; therefore precedents also established an article on tracing and imitation, punished with military exile. Hereafter, offenders who forge seals of wood, stone, clay, wax, and the like should be sentenced only under the tracing precedent; on a second offense, draft decapitation. If forgery was used only once and the illicit gain does not reach the threshold for penal servitude, judge as theft. On a second offense apply the precedent; on a third, apply the Code.

一、律稱竊盜三犯者絞，以曾經刺字為坐。但贓有多寡，即擬有輕重。以後凡遇竊盜，三犯俱在赦前、俱在赦後者，依律論絞。或赦前後所犯並計三次者，皆得奏請定奪。錄官附入矜疑辨問疏內，並與改遣。

First, the Code states that a thief who commits a third offense is sentenced to strangulation, because prior tattooing establishes the count. Nevertheless, the amount stolen still determines whether the proposed sentence is lighter or heavier. Hereafter, in theft cases where all three offenses fall either entirely before or entirely after an amnesty, sentence strangulation according to the Code. When offenses before and after an amnesty are combined to reach three convictions, the case may be memorialized for the throne's decision. Record such cases in the memorial on leniency and doubtful sentencing, and commute the punishment.

一、強盜肆行劫殺，按贓擬闢，決不待時。但其中豈無羅織讎扳，妄收抵罪者？以後務加參詳。或贓證未明，遽難懸斷者，俱擬秋後斬。

First, robbers who murder in the course of brigandage are, according to the loot, sentenced to immediate execution without seasonal delay. Yet among these cases, surely some are framed or dragged in by private vengeance—innocent men wrongly convicted. Hereafter such cases must be examined with exceptional care. When the evidence of loot is unclear and a hasty verdict is impossible, all alike are to be sentenced to execution after autumn.

一、律稱同謀共毆人，以致命傷重，下手者論絞，原謀餘人各得其罪。其有兩三人共毆一人，各成重傷，難定下手及系造謀主令之人，遇有在監禁斃者，即以論抵。今恤刑官遇有在家病故，且在數年之後者，即將見監下手之人擬從矜宥。是以病亡之軀，而抵毆死之命，殊屬縱濫。以後毋得一概準抵。

First, the Code provides that when conspirators jointly beat someone and the injury proves fatal, the striker is sentenced to strangulation while the instigator and the others are punished according to their respective roles. When two or three beat one man and each inflicts serious injury, so that neither the striker nor the instigator can be identified—if one dies in custody, that person satisfies the capital charge. Today, mercy-review officials often treat a beating victim who died at home years later as grounds to draft leniency for the striker still in prison. To settle a beating death with someone who merely died of illness is glaringly lenient. Hereafter this substitution must not be applied as a blanket rule.

一、在京惡逆與強盜真犯，雖停刑之年，亦不時處決。乃兇惡至於殺父，即時淩遲，猶有餘憾。而在外此類反得遷延歲月，以故事當類奏，無單奏例耳。夫單奏，急詞也；類奏，緩詞也。如此獄在外數年，使其瘐死，將何以快神人之憤哉！今後在外，凡有此者，御史單詳到院，院寺單奏，決單一到，即時處決。其死者下府州縣戮其屍。庶典刑得正。

First, in the capital, offenders guilty of rebellion or true robbery are executed immediately even in years when executions are normally suspended. When depravity reaches parricide, even immediate slicing execution still feels insufficient. Yet in the provinces such cases may drag on for years, because precedent requires batched memorials and provides no rule for individual presentation. A single memorial is the language of urgency; a batched memorial is the language of delay. If such cases linger in the provinces for years until the prisoner wastes away in jail, how can the wrath of heaven and humanity ever be appeased! Hereafter, in the provinces, for all such cases the censor shall report directly to the judicial court, and the court and ministry shall present an individual memorial; as soon as the execution order arrives, carry out the sentence at once. If the offender has already died, the local prefecture and counties shall expose and mutilate the corpse. Thus canonical punishment may be properly upheld.

旨下部寺酌議，俱從之。惟偽造印文者，不問何物成造，皆斬。報可。

An imperial order directed the ministry and court to deliberate; all recommendations were approved. Only for forging seal impressions: regardless of the material, all offenders are sentenced to decapitation. The memorial was approved.

贖刑本《虞書》，《呂刑》有大辟之贖，後世皆重言之。至宋時，尤慎贖罪，非八議者不得與。明律頗嚴，凡朝廷有所矜恤、限於律而不得伸者，一寓之於贖例，所以濟法之太重也。又國家得時藉其入，以佐緩急。而實邊、足儲、振荒、宮府頒給諸大費，往往取給於贓贖二者。故贖法比歷代特詳。凡贖法有二，有律得收贖者，有例得納贖者。律贖無敢損益，而納贖之例則因時權宜，先後互異，其端實開於太祖云。

Commutation by ransom originates in the Canon of Shun; the Punishments of Lü already allowed ransom even for capital crimes, and later dynasties all treated the practice as weighty. Under the Song, ransom was especially restricted: only those within the Eight Deliberations might participate. Ming law was severe; whatever mercy the court wished to extend but could not under the Code was lodged entirely in ransom precedents, to soften punishments that would otherwise be too harsh. The state, moreover, could draw on these payments in times of need. In practice, major expenses—frontier defense, filling granaries, famine relief, palace and government distributions—were often met from confiscated booty and ransom payments alike. Thus Ming ransom law was more elaborate than that of any earlier dynasty. Ransom took two forms: statutory redemption allowed by the Code, and pecuniary commutation allowed by precedent. Statutory ransom rates were inviolable, but precedents for paying ransom shifted with the times and often contradicted one another—a practice that began under the founding emperor.

律凡文武官以公事犯笞罪者，官照等收贖錢，吏每季類決之，各還職役，不附過。杖以上記所犯罪名，每歲類送吏、兵二部，候九年滿考，通記所犯次數黜陟之。吏典亦備銓選降敘。至於私罪，其文官及吏典犯笞四十以下者，附過還職而不贖，笞五十者調用。軍官杖以上皆的決。文官及吏杖罪，並罷職不敘，至嚴也。然自洪武中年已三下令，準贖及雜犯死罪以下矣。三十年，命部院議定贖罪事例，凡內外官吏，犯笞杖者記過，徒流遷徙者俸贖之，三犯罪之如律。自是律與例互有異同。及頒行《大明律》，御製序：「雜犯死罪、徒流、遷徙等刑，悉視今定贖罪條例科斷。」於是例遂輔律而行。

The Code provided that when civil or military officials incurred cane punishments for public-service offenses, officials paid ransom according to rank, while clerks were sentenced in batches each quarter; all returned to duty without a recorded demerit. Rod punishments and above were recorded by name of offense and reported yearly to the Ministries of Personnel and War; at the nine-year review, the cumulative count governed promotion or demotion. Clerks and registry officers likewise faced reduction in selection and rank. For private offenses: civil officials and clerks who incurred up to forty blows of the cane kept their posts with a recorded demerit and no ransom; at fifty blows they were transferred. For military officers, rod punishment and above were always inflicted in person. Civil officials and clerks who incurred the rod were dismissed and never reappointed—an extremely strict rule. Yet from the middle Hongwu reign three orders had already authorized ransom even for miscellaneous offenses down to lesser capital crimes. In the thirtieth year, ministries and courts were ordered to set ransom precedents: officials who incurred cane or rod punishments received recorded demerits; penal servitude, exile, and banishment could be commuted by salary payment; a third offense was punished according to the Code. From then on, the Code and precedents often diverged. When the Great Ming Code was promulgated, the imperial preface declared: "Miscellaneous capital crimes, penal servitude, exile, banishment, and similar punishments shall all be adjudicated under the newly fixed ransom regulations. Thus precedents came to supplement the Code in practice.

仁宗初即位，諭都察院言：「輸罰工作之令行，有財者悉倖免，宜一論如律。」久之，其法復弛。正統間，侍講劉球言：「輸罪非古，自公罪許贖外，宜悉依律。」時不能從。其後循太祖之例，益推廣之。凡官吏公私雜犯準徒以下，俱聽運炭納米等項贖罪。其軍官軍人照例免徒流者，例贖亦如之矣。

When Emperor Renzong first ascended the throne, he told the Censorate: "The rule allowing fine payment and labor service lets the wealthy escape punishment entirely; all offenders should be sentenced according to the Code alone. In time the rule lapsed again. During the Zhengtong reign, Lecturer Liu Qiu argued: "Pecuniary commutation is unorthodox; apart from statutory ransom for public offenses, all should follow the Code. The court could not accept this at the time. Thereafter, following the founding emperor's precedents, the system was expanded further. Officials guilty of public or private miscellaneous offenses down to penal servitude were allowed to commute punishment by hauling charcoal, delivering rice, and similar services. Military officers and soldiers already exempt from penal servitude and exile under precedent were granted the same commutation privileges.

贖罪之法，明初嘗納銅，成化間嘗納馬，後皆不行，不具載。惟納鈔、納錢、納銀常並行焉，而以初制納鈔為本。故律贖者曰收贖律鈔，納贖者曰贖罪例鈔。永樂十一年，令除公罪依例紀錄收贖，及死罪情重者依律處治，其情輕者，斬罪八千貫，絞罪及榜例死罪六千貫，流徒杖笞納鈔有差。無力者發天壽山種樹。宣德二年定，笞杖罪囚，每十贖鈔二十貫。徒流罪名，每徒一等折杖二十，三流並折杖百四十。其所罰鈔，悉如笞杖所定。無力者發天壽山種樹；死罪終身；徒流各按年限；杖，五百株；笞，一百株。景泰元年，令問擬笞杖罪囚，有力者納鈔。笞十，二百貫，每十以二百貫遞加，至笞五十為千貫。杖六十，千八百貫，每十以三百貫遞加，至杖百為三千貫。其官吏贓物，亦視今例折鈔。天順五年，令罪囚納鈔，每笞十，鈔二百貫，餘四笞，遞加百五十貫；至杖六十，增為千四百五十貫，餘杖各遞加二百貫，成化二年，令婦人犯法贖罪。

Early Ming once accepted copper ransom; the Chenghua reign once accepted horses; neither practice endured and neither is fully recorded here. Only payment in paper notes, coin, and silver remained in constant parallel use, with the original paper-note system as the foundation. Statutory redemption was called "Code ransom notes"; pecuniary commutation was called "precedent ransom notes." In the eleventh year of Yongle, an order provided that public offenses would be recorded and redeemed under precedent, and grave capital cases punished according to the Code; in lighter cases, decapitation required eight thousand strings of notes, strangulation and death by beating under precedent six thousand strings, with graded payments for exile, penal servitude, rod, and cane. Those unable to pay were sent to plant trees on Tianshou Mountain. In the second year of Xuande, a rule was set: for cane and rod offenses, every ten blows required twenty strings of paper notes in ransom. For penal servitude and exile, each degree of servitude converted to twenty blows of the rod; all three degrees of exile together converted to one hundred forty blows. The paper-note fines all followed the rates set for cane and rod offenses. Those unable to pay were sent to plant trees on Tianshou Mountain; capital offenders for life; penal servitude and exile according to the term of sentence; rod punishment, five hundred trees; cane punishment, one hundred trees. In the first year of Jingtai, an order provided that when sentencing cane and rod offenders, those with means might pay paper notes. Ten blows of the cane: two hundred strings; each additional ten blows added two hundred strings, reaching one thousand strings at fifty blows. Sixty blows of the rod: one thousand eight hundred strings; each additional ten blows added three hundred strings, reaching three thousand strings at one hundred blows. Officials' illicit gains were likewise converted to paper notes under current precedents. In the fifth year of Tianshun, offenders were ordered to pay paper notes: every ten blows of the cane required two hundred strings; for each of the four remaining cane gradations, one hundred fifty strings were added; reaching one thousand four hundred fifty strings at sixty blows of the rod, with two hundred strings added for each further rod gradation. In the second year of Chenghua, women who broke the law were permitted to ransom their punishment.

弘治十四年，定折收銀錢之制。例難的決人犯，並婦人有力者，每杖百，應鈔二千二百五十貫，折銀一兩；每十以二百貫遞減，至杖六十為銀六錢；笞五十，應減為鈔八百貫，折銀五錢，每十以百五十貫遞減；至笞二十為銀二錢；笞十應鈔二百貫，折銀一錢。如收銅錢，每銀一兩折七百文。其依律贖鈔，除過失殺人外，亦視此數折收。

In the fourteenth year of Hongzhi, a system was established for accepting ransom in silver and coin by conversion. Offenders whom precedent exempted from immediate beating, and women of means: for one hundred blows of the rod, two thousand two hundred fifty strings of notes were due, convertible to one tael of silver; decreasing by two hundred strings for every ten blows, to six mace of silver at sixty blows; fifty blows of the cane: eight hundred strings, convertible to five mace of silver, decreasing by one hundred fifty strings for every ten blows; down to two mace of silver at twenty blows; Ten blows of the cane required two hundred strings of notes, convertible to one mace of silver. If copper cash was accepted, each tael of silver was reckoned at seven hundred wen. Statutory ransom in paper notes, except for negligent homicide, was likewise collected at these converted rates.

正德二年，定錢鈔兼收之制。如杖一百，應鈔二千二百五十貫者，收鈔千一百二十五貫，錢三百五十文。嘉靖七年，巡撫湖廣都御史硃廷聲言：「收贖與贖罪有異，在京與在外不同，鈔貫止聚於都下，錢法不行於南方。故事，審有力及命婦、軍職正妻，及例難的決者，有贖罪例鈔；老幼廢疾及婦人餘罪，有收贖律鈔。贖罪例鈔，錢鈔兼收，如笞一十，收鈔百貫，收錢三十五文，其鈔二百貫，折銀一錢。杖一百，收鈔千一百二十五貫，收錢三百五十文，其鈔二千二百五十貫，折銀一兩。今收贖律鈔，笞一十，止贖六百文，比例鈔折銀不及一釐；杖一百，贖鈔六貫，折銀不及一分，似為太輕。蓋律鈔與例鈔，貫既不同，則折銀亦當有異。請更定為則，凡收贖者，每鈔一貫，折銀一分二釐五毫。如笞一十，贖鈔六百文，則折銀七釐五毫，以罪重輕遞加折收贖。」帝從其奏，令中外問刑諸司，皆以此例從事。

In the second year of Zhengde, a system was established for accepting both coin and paper notes. For example, one hundred blows of the rod, where two thousand two hundred fifty strings were due: collect one thousand one hundred twenty-five strings of notes and three hundred fifty wen in coin. In the seventh year of Jiajing, Grand Coordinator Zhu Tingsheng of Huguang reported: "Statutory redemption and pecuniary commutation differ; capital and provinces differ; paper notes circulate chiefly in the capital, while coin does not function in the south. By precedent, those found to have means, titled ladies, principal wives of military officers, and those exempt from immediate beating paid under "precedent ransom notes"; the elderly, young, disabled, and women for remaining offenses paid under "Code ransom notes." For precedent ransom notes, coin and paper were collected together: ten blows of the cane required one hundred strings of notes and thirty-five wen in coin, though the full two hundred strings converted to one mace of silver. One hundred blows of the rod: collect one thousand one hundred twenty-five strings and three hundred fifty wen, though the full two thousand two hundred fifty strings converted to one tael of silver. Today, under Code ransom notes, ten blows of the cane require only six hundred wen; converted proportionally to silver, this amounts to less than one candareen; one hundred blows of the rod requires only six strings of notes, less than one fen in silver—far too lenient. Since Code notes and precedent notes use different string counts, their silver conversions should likewise differ. I ask that a new rule be set: for all statutory redemptions, each string of notes shall convert to one fen, two candareen, and five cash of silver. For example, ten blows of the cane at six hundred wen in notes would convert to seven candareen and five cash of silver, with graduated increases according to the severity of the offense. The emperor approved his memorial and ordered all judicial offices at home and abroad to follow this rule.

是時重修條例，奏定贖例。在京則做工、每笞一十，做工一月，折銀三錢。至徒五年，折銀十八兩。運囚糧、每笞一十，米五斗，折銀二錢五分。至徒五年，五十石，折銀二十五兩。運灰、每笞一十，一千二百斤，折銀一兩二錢六分。至徒五年，六萬斤，折銀六十三兩。運磚、每笞一十，七十個，折銀九錢一分。至徒五年，三千個，折銀三十九兩。運水和炭五等。每笞一十，二百斤，折銀四錢。至徒五年，八千五百斤，折銀十七兩。運灰最重，運炭最輕。在外則有力、稍有力二等。初有頗有力、次有力等，因御史言而革。其有力，視在京運囚糧，每米五斗，納谷一石。初折銀上庫，後折穀上倉。稍有力，視在京做工年月為折贖。婦人審有力，與命婦、軍職正妻，及例難的決之人，贖罪應錢鈔兼收者，笞、杖每一十，折收銀一錢。其老幼廢疾婦人及天文生餘罪收贖者，每笞一十應鈔六百文，折收銀七釐五毫。於是輕重適均，天下便之。至萬曆十三年，復申明焉，遂為定制。

At this time the regulations were revised and ransom precedents were memorialized and enacted. In the capital, labor service applied: every ten blows of the cane required one month of labor, convertible to three mace of silver. Up to five years of penal servitude, convertible to eighteen taels of silver. Transporting convict grain: every ten blows of the cane required five dou of rice, convertible to two mace and five candareen of silver. Up to five years of penal servitude, fifty shi of grain, convertible to twenty-five taels of silver. Transporting lime: every ten blows of the cane required one thousand two hundred jin, convertible to one tael, two mace, and six fen of silver. Up to five years of penal servitude, sixty thousand jin of lime, convertible to sixty-three taels of silver. Transporting bricks: every ten blows of the cane required seventy bricks, convertible to nine mace and one fen of silver. Up to five years of penal servitude, three thousand bricks, convertible to thirty-nine taels of silver. Transporting water and charcoal were ranked in five grades. Every ten blows of the cane required two hundred jin, convertible to four mace of silver. Up to five years of penal servitude, eight thousand five hundred jin, convertible to seventeen taels of silver. Hauling lime carried the heaviest burden; hauling charcoal the lightest. In the provinces there were only two classes: those with means and those somewhat with means. At first there had also been grades such as "quite with means" and "next with means," but these were abolished after a censor's memorial. For those with means, the rate followed capital convict-grain transport: every five dou of rice due was commuted by delivering one shi of grain. At first commutation was paid in silver to the state treasury; later it was paid in grain to the public granary. Those somewhat with means commuted according to the months and years of labor service fixed for the capital. Women found to have means, titled ladies, principal wives of military officers, and those exempt from immediate beating who owed combined coin-and-note ransom: for every ten blows of cane or rod, one mace of silver was collected by conversion. For the elderly, young, disabled, women, and astronomical clerks redeeming remaining offenses under the Code: every ten blows of the cane required six hundred wen in notes, collected as seven candareen and five cash of silver. Thus penalties were properly balanced in severity, and the realm found the system workable. In the thirteenth year of Wanli the rules were proclaimed again, and thereafter they became permanent statute.

凡律贖，若天文生習業已成、能專其事、犯徒及流者，決杖一百，餘罪收贖。婦人犯徒流者，決杖一百，餘罪收贖。

Under statutory ransom, if an astronomical clerk had completed his training and could practice his art exclusively, yet committed penal servitude or exile, he received one hundred blows of the rod and redeemed the remaining offenses. Women guilty of penal servitude or exile received one hundred blows of the rod and redeemed the remaining offenses.

如杖六十，徒一年，全贖鈔應十二貫，除決杖準訖六貫，餘鈔六貫，折銀七分五釐，餘仿此。

For example, sixty blows of the rod plus one year of penal servitude: full ransom required twelve strings of notes; deducting six strings for the imposed blows, six strings remained, convertible to seven candareen and five cash of silver—and so on for other cases.

其決杖一百，審有力又納例鈔二千二百五十貫，應收錢三百五十文，鈔一千一百二十五貫。

When one hundred blows of the rod were imposed, those of means who also paid precedent ransom owed three hundred fifty wen in coin and one thousand one hundred twenty-five strings of notes out of the full two thousand two hundred fifty strings.

凡年七十以上十五以下及廢疾犯流以下，收贖；八十以上十歲以下及篤疾、盜及傷人者，亦收贖。凡犯罪時未老疾，事發時老疾者，依老疾論，犯罪時幼小，事發時長大者，依幼小論，並得收贖。

All persons seventy or older, fifteen or younger, and the disabled who committed exile or lesser offenses were permitted statutory redemption; as did those eighty or older or ten or younger, the gravely ill, and offenders guilty of theft or wounding. If one was not old or ill at the time of the offense but was so when the case arose, he was judged as old or ill; if young at the offense but grown when the case arose, he was judged as young—in either case redemption was allowed.

如六十九以下犯罪，年七十事發，或無疾時犯罪，廢疾後事發，得依老疾收贖。他或七十九以下犯死罪，八十事發，或廢疾時犯罪，篤疾時事發，得入上請。八十九犯死罪，九十事發，得勿論，不在收贖之例。

For example, one who committed a crime before sixty-nine but whose case arose at seventy, or who was healthy at the crime but disabled when the case arose, could redeem under the rules for age or disability. Otherwise, one who committed a capital crime before seventy-nine but whose case arose at eighty, or who was merely disabled at the crime but gravely ill when the case arose, might petition the throne for mercy. One who committed a capital crime at eighty-nine but whose case arose at ninety was exempt from punishment altogether and fell outside the rules for statutory redemption.

若在徒年限內老疾，亦如之。

The same applied if one became old or ill while still serving a term of penal servitude.

如犯杖六十，徒一年，一月之後老疾，合計全贖鈔十二貫。除已杖六十，準三貫六百文，剩徒一年，應八貫四百文計算。每徒一月，贖鈔七百文，已役一月，準贖七百文外，未贖十一月，應收贖七貫七百文。餘仿此。

For example, for sixty blows of the rod and one year of penal servitude, if one became old or ill after one month of service, the full ransom in notes totaled twelve strings. Deducting three strings six hundred wen for the sixty blows already imposed, the remaining year of penal servitude was reckoned at eight strings four hundred wen. Each month of servitude required seven hundred wen in notes; with one month already served counted as seven hundred wen, the eleven months remaining required seven strings seven hundred wen in ransom. Other cases followed the same method of calculation.

老幼廢疾收贖，惟雜犯五年仍科之。蓋在明初，即真犯死罪，不可以徒論也

The elderly, young, and disabled might redeem their penalties, but miscellaneous offenses carrying five years of servitude were still fully imposed. This reflected early Ming severity, when even principal capital crimes were not commuted to penal servitude.

其誣告例，告二事以上，輕實重虛，或告一事，誣輕為重者，已論決全抵剩罪，未論決笞杖收贖，徒流杖一百，餘罪亦聽收贖。

Under the false-accusation precedent, if one accused another of two or more matters with the lighter proven and the heavier false, or exaggerated a single charge, sentences already imposed fully offset the remainder; unadjudicated cane and rod offenses could be redeemed; for penal servitude or exile the accuser received one hundred blows of the rod and might redeem any remaining penalty.

如告人笞三十，內止一十實已決，全抵，剩二十之罪未決，收贖一貫二百文。

For example, if one falsely accused another of thirty blows of the cane, of which only ten were true and already imposed, those ten fully offset the penalty; for the remaining twenty blows not yet adjudicated, ransom of one string two hundred wen was due.

如告人杖六十，內止二十實已決，全抵，剩四十之罪未決，收贖二貫四百文。

If one accused another of sixty blows of the rod, of which only twenty were true and already imposed, those twenty fully offset the penalty; for the remaining forty blows, ransom of two strings four hundred wen was due.

如告人杖六十，徒一年，內止杖五十實已決，全抵，剩杖一十、徒一年之罪未決，徒一年，折杖六十，並杖共七十，收贖四貫二百文。

If one accused another of sixty blows of the rod plus one year of penal servitude, but only fifty blows were true and already imposed, those fifty fully offset the penalty; for the remaining ten blows and one year of servitude, the year converted to sixty blows, seventy blows in all, requiring ransom of four strings two hundred wen.

如告人杖一百，流二千里，內止杖六十、徒一年實已決，以總徒四年論，全抵，剩杖四十、徒三年之罪未決，以連徒折杖流加一等論，共計杖二百二十，除告實杖六十、徒一年，折杖六十，剩杖一百，贖鈔六貫。若計剩罪，過杖一百以上，須決杖一百訖，餘罪方聽收贖。

If one accused another of one hundred blows of the rod and exile two thousand li, but only sixty blows and one year of servitude were true and already imposed, reckoned as four years of servitude in all, those fully offset the penalty; for the remaining forty blows and three years of servitude, reckoned by converting linked servitude to blows and raising exile one grade, the total came to two hundred twenty blows; deducting the sixty blows and one year actually proved (the year converting to sixty blows), one hundred blows remained, requiring ransom of six strings of notes. If the remaining penalty exceeded one hundred blows of the rod, the accuser had to receive the full one hundred blows before redeeming any remainder.

又過失傷人，淮鬥毆傷人罪，依律收贖。至死者，準雜犯斬絞收贖，鈔四十二貫。內鈔八分，應三十三貫六百文，銅錢二分，應八千四百文，給付其家。已徒五年，再犯徒收贖。鈔三十六貫。若犯徒流，存留養親者，止杖一百，餘罪收贖。其法實杖一百，不準折贖，然後計徒流年限，一視老幼例贖之。此律自英宗時詔有司行之，後為制。天文生、婦女犯徒流，決杖一百，餘罪收贖者，雖罪止杖六十，徒一年，亦決杖一百，律所謂應加杖者是也。皆先依本律議，其所犯徒流之罪，以《誥》減之。至臨決時，某系天文生，某系婦人，依律決杖一百，餘收贖。所決之杖並須一百者，包五徒之數也。然與誣告收贖剩杖不同。蓋收贖餘徒者決杖，而贖徒收贖剩杖者，折流歸徒，折徒歸杖，而照數收贖之，其法各別也。其婦人犯徒流，成化八年定例，除奸盜不孝與樂婦外，若審有力並決杖，亦得以納鈔贖罪。例每杖十，折銀一錢為率，至杖一百，折銀一兩止。凡律所謂收贖者，贖餘罪也。其例得贖罪者，贖決杖一百也。徒、杖兩項分科之，除婦人，餘囚徒流皆杖決不贖。惟弘治十三年，許樂戶徒杖笞罪，亦不的決，此律鈔之大凡也。

Negligent wounding, too, was treated like brawling and wounding and redeemed according to the Code. If death resulted, ransom followed the rates for miscellaneous capital offenses—forty-two strings of notes. Of this sum, eight-tenths in notes came to thirty-three strings six hundred wen, and two-tenths in copper cash to eight thousand four hundred wen, paid to the victim's family. One who had already served five years of penal servitude and committed penal servitude again could redeem the penalty. The ransom was thirty-six strings of notes. If one guilty of penal servitude or exile was retained to support parents, he received only one hundred blows of the rod and redeemed the remaining offenses. The law required the full one hundred blows without commutation, then calculated the years of servitude or exile and applied the same redemption rates as for the elderly and young. This rule was ordered into practice under Emperor Yingzong and later became permanent statute. Astronomical clerks and women guilty of penal servitude or exile received one hundred blows of the rod and redeemed the rest—even when the offense itself called for only sixty blows and one year of servitude, they still received one hundred blows, the Code's "supplementary beating." Judgment proceeded first under the Code itself, with penal servitude and exile reduced according to the Grand Pronouncements. At the moment of execution, if the offender was an astronomical clerk or a woman, the court imposed one hundred blows of the rod under the Code and allowed redemption of the remainder. The requirement of a full one hundred blows encompassed all five grades of penal servitude. This differed from the false-accusation rule for redeeming remaining blows. In one case rod blows were imposed before redeeming remaining servitude; in the other, exile was converted to servitude and servitude to blows, with ransom calculated accordingly—the two procedures were distinct. For women guilty of penal servitude or exile, a precedent of the eighth year of Chenghua held that except in cases of adultery, theft, unfilial conduct, or licensed courtesans, women of means who also received the rod might commute their penalties by paying notes. The rate was one mace of silver for every ten blows of the rod, up to a maximum of one tael for one hundred blows. What the Code called "statutory redemption" meant redeeming the remaining offenses. What precedent allowed as "pecuniary commutation" meant redeeming the imposed one hundred blows of the rod. Penal servitude and the rod were sentenced separately; except for women, all other offenders guilty of servitude or exile were beaten and not permitted to commute the blows. Only in the thirteenth year of Hongzhi were licensed entertainers' offenses of servitude, rod, and cane likewise exempted from immediate beating—such was the general scope of Code ransom.

例鈔自嘉靖二十九年定例。凡軍民諸色人役及舍餘審有力者，與文武官吏、監生、生員、冠帶官、知印、承差、陰陽生、醫生、老人、舍人，不分笞、杖、徒、流、雜犯死罪，俱令運灰、運炭、運磚、納米、納料等項贖罪。此上系不虧行止者。若官吏人等，例應革去職役，此係行止有虧者。與軍民人等審無力者，笞、杖罪的決，徒、流、雜犯死罪各做工、擺站、哨暿愰、發充儀從，情重者煎鹽炒鐵。死罪五年，流罪四年，徒按年限。其在京軍丁人等，無差佔者與例難的決之人，笞杖亦令做工。時新例，犯奸盜受贓，為行止有虧之人，概不許贖罪。唯軍官革職者，俱運炭納米等項發落，不用五刑條例的決實配之文，所以寬武夫，重責文吏也。於是在京惟行做工、運囚糧等五項，在外惟行有力、稍有力二項，法令益徑省矣。

Precedent ransom rates were established in the twenty-ninth year of Jiajing. All soldiers and civilians in various services, surplus households found to have means, and civil and military officials, Academy students, licentiates, sash-wearing officers, seal keepers, dispatch clerks, yin-yang specialists, physicians, village elders, and household retainers—whatever the offense, from cane and rod through servitude, exile, and miscellaneous capital crimes—were required to commute penalties by hauling lime or charcoal or bricks, delivering rice or materials, and the like. The above applied to those whose personal conduct was not compromised. Officials who by precedent should be stripped of office and rank fell into the category of compromised conduct. Together with soldiers and civilians found without means: cane and rod offenses were beaten on the spot; penal servitude, exile, and miscellaneous capital crimes were punished by labor, relay-station service, frontier sentry duty, or assignment as ceremonial attendants, with the gravest cases sent to boil salt or smelt iron. Miscellaneous capital offenses carried five years of labor, exile four years, and penal servitude the statutory term. In the capital, military conscripts without active assignment and those exempt from immediate beating were likewise assigned labor for cane and rod offenses. A recent precedent barred commutation altogether for those guilty of adultery, theft, or bribery—offenses that compromised one's conduct. Only dismissed military officers were punished by hauling charcoal, delivering rice, and the like, without the provisions for immediate beating and actual assignment—leniency toward fighting men and stricter demands on civil officials. Thus in the capital only five forms of commutation remained—labor, convict-grain transport, and the like—while in the provinces only the two classes of means applied, and the law grew ever more streamlined.

要而論之，律鈔輕，例鈔重。然律鈔本非輕也。祖制每鈔一文，當銀一釐，所謂笞一十折鈔六百文定銀七釐五毫者，即當時之銀六錢也。所謂杖一百折鈔六貫銀七分五釐者，即當時之銀六兩也。以銀六錢，比例鈔折銀不及一釐，以銀一兩，比例鈔折銀不及一分，而欲以此懲犯罪者之心，宜其勢有所不行矣。特以祖宗律文不可改也，於是不得已定為七釐五毫、七分五釐之制。而其實所定之數，猶不足以當所贖者之罪，然後例之變通生焉。

In short, Code ransom was light and precedent ransom heavy. Yet Code ransom had not originally been lenient at all. Under the founding regulation each wen of paper money equaled one candareen of silver; the rate of six hundred wen for ten blows of the cane, fixed at seven candareen and five cash of silver, represented six mace of silver at the time. Likewise, one hundred blows of the rod at six strings of notes, fixed at seven candareen and five cash of silver, represented six taels of silver at the time. Six mace of silver in nominal value converted to less than one candareen; one tael converted to less than one fen—yet the state expected such sums to deter crime; small wonder the system could not function as intended. Because the ancestral Code could not be altered, the state was forced to fix commutation at seven candareen and five cash for cane offenses and seven candareen and five fen for rod offenses. Yet even these fixed sums scarcely matched the gravity of the offenses redeemed—and so the flexible precedents arose.

考洪武朝，官吏軍民犯罪聽贖者，大抵罰役之令居多，如發鳳陽屯種、滁州種苜蓿、代農民力役、運米輸邊贖罪之類，俱不用鈔納也。律之所載，笞若干，鈔若干文，杖若干，鈔若干貫者，垂一代之法也。然按三十年詔令，罪囚運米贖罪，死罪百石，徒流遞減，其力不及者，死罪自備米三十石，徒流十五石，俱運納甘州、威虜，就彼充軍。計其米價、腳價之費，與鈔數差不相遠，其定為贖鈔之等第，固不輕於後來之例矣。然罪無一定，而鈔法之久，日變日輕，此定律時所不及料也。即以永樂十一年令「斬罪情輕者，贖鈔八千貫，絞及榜例死罪六千貫。」之詔言之，八千貫者，律之八千兩也；六千貫者，律之六千兩也；下至杖罪千貫，笞罪五百貫，亦一千兩、五百兩也。雖革除之際，用法特苛，豈有死罪納至八千兩，笞杖罪納至一千兩、五百兩而尚可行者？則知鈔法之弊，在永樂初年，已不啻輕十倍於洪武時矣。

Under Hongwu, officials, soldiers, and civilians permitted to commute penalties were chiefly assigned penal labor—garrison farming at Fengyang, planting alfalfa at Chuzhou, substituting for peasants' corvée, transporting rice to the frontier—rather than paying in paper notes. The Code's tables of blows and note amounts were meant to endure as the law of the dynasty. Yet a thirtieth-year edict allowed convicts to commute penalties by transporting rice—one hundred shi for capital crimes, with decreasing amounts for servitude and exile; those unable to manage the full load provided thirty shi for capital offenses or fifteen for servitude and exile, delivered to Ganzhou and Weilu, where they were enrolled as soldiers. Counting the cost of grain and transport, the burden was scarcely less than the note amounts required—and the Code's ransom scales were hardly lighter than later precedents. Yet offenses varied in gravity while paper money depreciated year by year—something the Code's framers could not have foreseen. Consider even the eleventh-year Yongle order: "For decapitation where circumstances were light, ransom eight thousand strings of notes; for strangulation and posted-precedent capital crimes, six thousand strings. By that edict's logic, eight thousand strings equaled eight thousand taels under the Code; six thousand strings equaled six thousand taels; down to one thousand strings for rod offenses and five hundred for cane offenses—one thousand and five hundred taels respectively. Even allowing that Yongle applied the law with special severity, who could pay eight thousand taels for a capital offense, or one thousand or five hundred for cane and rod crimes, and still call the system workable? This shows that paper money had already depreciated at least tenfold from Hongwu levels by the early Yongle reign.

宣德時，申交易用銀之禁，冀通鈔法。至弘治而鈔竟不可用，遂開準鈔折銀之例。及嘉靖新定條例，俱以有力、稍有力二科贖罪：有力米五斗，準律之納鈔六百文也；稍有力工價三錢，準律之做工一月也。是則後之例鈔，才足比於初之律鈔耳。而況老幼廢疾，諸在律贖者之銀七釐五毫，準鈔六百文，銀七分五釐，準鈔六貫。凡所謂律贖者，以比於初之律鈔，其輕重相去尤甚懸絕乎？唯運炭、運石諸罪例稍重，蓋此諸罪，初皆令親自赴役，事完甯家，原無納贖之例。其後法令益寬，聽其折納，而估算事力，亦略相當，實不為病也。

Under Xuande the ban on private silver transactions was renewed in hope of reviving paper currency. By Hongzhi paper notes had become altogether unusable, and the precedent of converting statutory note amounts into silver was established. When Jiajing enacted new regulations, commutation fell under the two classes of means: those with means paid five dou of rice, equivalent to the Code's six hundred wen in notes; those somewhat with means paid three mace in labor wages, equivalent to one month's labor under the Code. Thus later precedent ransom only roughly matched the weight of early Code ransom. As for the elderly, young, and disabled under statutory redemption—seven candareen and five cash of silver for six hundred wen in notes, seven candareen and five fen for six strings—the gap was far wider. Compared with the original Code ransom, was statutory redemption not vastly lighter still? Only the precedents for hauling charcoal and stone were somewhat heavier—for these offenses originally required personal labor, after which one returned home, with no commutation by payment. Later the law grew more lenient and allowed commutation in kind; reckoned against actual labor, the rates were roughly equivalent and posed no real problem.

大抵贖例有二：一罰役，一納鈔，而例復三變。罰役者，後多折工值納鈔，鈔法既壞，變為納銀、納米。然運灰、運炭、運石、運磚、運碎磚之名尚存也。至萬曆中年，中外通行有力、稍有力二科，在京諸例，並不見施行，而法益歸一矣。所謂通變而無失於古之意者此也。初，令罪人得以力役贖罪：死罪拘役終身，徒流按年限，笞杖計日月。或修造，或屯種，或煎鹽炒鐵，滿日疏放。疏放者，引赴禦橋，叩頭畢，送應天府，給引寧家。合充軍者，發付陝西司，按籍編發。後皆折納工價，惟赴橋如舊。宣德二年，御史鄭道寧言：「納米贖罪，朝廷寬典，乃軍儲倉拘繫罪囚，無米輸納，自去年二月至今，死者九十六人。」刑部郎俞士吉嘗奏：「囚無米者，請追納於原籍，匠仍輸作，軍仍備操，若非軍匠，則遣還所隸州縣追之。」詔從其奏。

Broadly speaking, commutation took two forms—penal labor and payment in notes—and the precedents shifted three times. Penal labor was later commuted to note payments at labor rates; when paper money collapsed, commutation shifted to silver and grain. Yet the old names survived—hauling lime, charcoal, stone, bricks, and broken brick. By the mid-Wanli reign the two classes of means applied everywhere; the capital's numerous precedents fell into disuse, and the law grew unified at last. Such was the adaptation that preserved the spirit of the ancestral law. At first, criminals could commute sentences through labor: capital offenders were held for life, those exiled or sentenced to penal servitude served term by term, and cane or rod punishments by day and month. They might build, farm colony lands, boil salt, or smelt iron—and when their term was complete, were released. Paroled prisoners were led to the Imperial Bridge to kowtow, then escorted to Yingtian Prefecture for a travel permit to return home. Those due for military exile were sent to the Shaanxi Bureau for registry-based assignment. Later nearly all sentences were commuted to cash payments, though the bridge ceremony endured. In Xuande 2, Censor Zheng Daoning said: "Paying rice to commute one's sentence is a lenient policy—yet the military grain depots hold prisoners who cannot pay, and ninety-six have died since the second month of last year alone. Yu Shiji of the Ministry of Punishments memorialized: "Let those without rice pay at home—artisans should keep working, soldiers keep drilling; others should be returned to their home counties for collection." The throne approved his proposal.

初制流罪三等，視地遠近，邊衛充軍有定所。蓋降死一等，唯流與充軍為重。然《名例律》稱二死三流各同為一減。如二死遇恩赦減一等，即流三千里，流三等以《大誥》減一等，皆徒五年。犯流罪者，無不減至徒罪矣。故三流常設而不用。而充軍之例為獨重。律充軍凡四十六條，《諸司職掌》內二十二條，則洪武間例，皆律所不載者。其嘉靖二十九年條例，充軍凡二百十三條，與萬曆十三年所定大略相同。洪武二十六年定，應充軍者，大理寺審訖，開付陝西司，本部置立文簿，注姓名、年籍、鄉貫，依南北籍編排甲為二冊，一進內府，一付該管百戶，領去充軍。如浙江，河南，山東，陝西，山西，北平，福建，直隸應天、廬州、鳳陽、淮安、揚州、蘇州、松江、常州、和州、滁州、徐州人，發雲南、四川屬衛；江西、湖廣，四川，廣東，廣西，直隸太平、甯國、池州、徽州、廣德、安慶人，發北平、大寧、遼東屬衛。有逃故，按籍勾補。其後條例有發煙瘴地面、極邊沿海諸處者，例各不同。而軍有終身，有永遠。永遠者，罰及子孫，皆以實犯死罪減等者充之。明初法嚴，縣以千數，數傳之後，以萬計矣。有丁盡戶絕，止存軍產者，或並無軍產，戶名未除者，朝廷歲遣御史清軍，有缺必補。每當勾丁，逮捕族屬、裏長，延及他甲，雞犬為之不寧。論者謂既減死罪一等，而法反加於刀鋸之上，如革除所遣謫，至國亡，戍籍猶有存者，刑莫慘於此矣。嘉靖間，有請開贖軍例者。世宗曰：「律聽贖者，徒杖以下小罪耳。死罪矜疑，乃減從謫發，不可贖。」御史周時亮復請廣贖例。部議審有力者銀十兩，得贖三年以上徒一年，稍有力者半之。而贖軍之議卒罷。御史胡宗憲言：「南方之人不任兵革，其發充邊軍者，宜令納銀自贖。」部議以為然，因擬納例以上。帝曰：「豈可設此例以待犯罪之人？」復不允。

The original code distinguished three grades of exile by distance; military exile to border garrisons had fixed destinations. Among penalties one step below death, only exile and military exile counted as severe. Yet the General Principles statute treats the two capital penalties and three exile grades alike as a single commutation. When a capital sentence was commuted by amnesty it became three-thousand-li exile; under the Grand Pronouncements each exile grade was further reduced to five years' penal servitude. In practice every exile sentence was further reduced to penal servitude. Thus the three exile grades existed in law but went unused. Only military exile remained uniquely harsh. The Code listed forty-six articles on military exile; the Duties of the Various Offices added twenty-two Hongwu precedents absent from the Code itself. Jiajing's twenty-ninth-year regulations listed 213 articles on military exile, nearly identical to Wanli 13. In Hongwu 26, after the Court of Judicial Review ruled, a man's dossier went to the Shaanxi Bureau. The ministry recorded name, age, and native place, rostered him north or south in duplicate—one copy to court, one to his company officer—and sent him to the frontier. Men from Zhejiang, Henan, Shandong, Shaanxi, Shanxi, Beiping, Fujian, and the prefectures of Yingtian, Luzhou, Fengyang, Huai'an, Yangzhou, Suzhou, Songjiang, Changzhou, Hezhou, Chuzhou, and Xuzhou were sent to garrisons in Yunnan and Sichuan; Men from Jiangxi, Huguang, Sichuan, Guangdong, Guangxi, and the prefectures of Taiping, Ningguo, Chizhou, Huizhou, Guangde, and Anqing were posted to garrisons in Beiping, Daning, and Liaodong. Deserters and the dead were traced through the registers and replaced. Later regulations dispatched men to miasma zones, extreme frontiers, and coasts—each with its own rules. Service might last for life or in perpetuity. Perpetual exile punished descendants too, applying to those whose capital sentences had been commuted. Early Ming enforcement was savage—thousands per county, tens of thousands within a few generations. When a line died out leaving only military property—or none, though the name lingered—the court sent annual commissioners to fill every gap. Each muster seized kin and hamlet heads, spreading to neighboring wards until no household rested easy. Critics argued that a sentence allegedly one step below death was worse than execution itself—Yongle's purge exiles still appeared on frontier rolls at the dynasty's fall. No penalty, they said, was crueler. In Jiajing's reign some proposed allowing military exiles to buy their way out. The Jiajing Emperor said: "Statutory commutation covers only penal servitude and beating. Those spared death are exiled instead—they cannot buy their freedom. Censor Zhou Shiliang petitioned again to broaden commutation. The ministry proposed ten taels for the prosperous to shave one year from a three-year sentence, and five for those of modest means. The proposal to ransom military exile was dropped. Censor Hu Zongxian argued that southerners were ill suited to soldiering and that border exiles should be allowed to pay silver for release. The ministry agreed and drafted rates accordingly. The emperor replied: "Are we to establish a tariff for future criminals? Again he refused.

萬曆二年，罷歲遣清軍御史，並於巡按，民獲稍安。給事中徐桓言：「死罪雜犯準徒充軍者，當如其例。」給事中嚴用和請以大審可矜人犯，免其永戍。皆不許。而命法司定例：「奉特旨處發叛逆家屬子孫，止於本犯親枝內勾補，盡絕即與開豁。若未經發遣而病故，免其勾補。其實犯死罪免死充軍者，以著伍後所生子孫替役，不許勾原籍子孫。其他充軍及發口外者，俱止終身。」崇禎十一年，諭兵部：「編遣事宜，以千里為附近，二千五百里為邊衛，三千里外為邊遠，其極邊煙瘴以四千里外為率。止拘本妻，無妻則已，不許擅勾親鄰。如衰痼老疾，準發口外為民。」十五年，又諭：「欲令引例充軍者，準其贖罪。」時天下已亂，議卒不行。

In Wanli 2 the yearly army-purging censors were abolished and their duties folded into the touring inspectors' brief, and the populace found modest relief. Supervising Secretary Xu Huan said that those whose capital offenses for mixed crimes were commuted to military exile should be treated accordingly. Yan Yonghe asked that prisoners found deserving pity in the great judicial review be spared perpetual frontier service. All were denied. Yet the throne ordered new rules: descendants of rebels banished by special edict would be traced only within the offender's collateral line and freed when the line died out. If they died before dispatch, no successor would be seized. Those whose capital sentences were commuted to military exile would be replaced by sons born after enrollment, not by relatives left at home. All other military exiles and banishments beyond the passes lasted only one lifetime. In Chongzhen 11 the throne told the Ministry of War: nearby exile meant within 1,000 li, border garrison 2,500 li, distant border beyond 3,000 li, and miasma-ridden extremes beyond 4,000 li. Only the offender's own wife could be seized; if he had none, none could be taken—and neighbors and kin could not be dragged in. The aged and infirm could be banished beyond the passes as commoners. In Chongzhen 15 the throne said that those sent to the frontier under precedents should be allowed to commute their sentences. But the realm was already in chaos, and the plan never took effect.

明制充軍之律最嚴，犯者亦最苦。親族有科斂軍裝之費，裏遞有長途押解之擾。至所充之衛，衛官必索常例。然利其逃走，可幹沒口糧，每私縱之。其後律漸弛，發解者不能十一。其發極邊者，長解輒賄兵部，持勘合至衛，虛出收管，而軍犯顧在家偃息云。

Ming military exile was the harshest law in the code and the bitterest fate for those who suffered it. Kin paid levies for kit and transport; village relay officers endured the long march of escort duty. At the receiving garrison, officers demanded their customary bribes. Yet officers profited from absconders—they could embezzle rations—and often looked the other way. Enforcement slackened until fewer than one in ten exiles actually reached the frontier. For the farthest postings, chief escorts bribed the Ministry of War, presented verification tallies to the garrison, recorded sham enlistments, and left the exile at home in comfort—or so it was said.

Cite this Chapter