Volume 111 Treatise 7: Criminal Punishment

二儀既判，彙品生焉，五才兼用，廢一不可。金木水火土，咸相愛惡。陰陽所育，稟氣呈形，鼓之以雷霆，潤之以雲雨，春夏以生長之，秋冬以殺藏之。斯則德刑之設，著自神道。聖人處天地之間，率神祇之意。生民有喜怒之性，哀樂之心，應感而動，動而逾變。淳化所陶，下以惇朴。故異章服，畫衣冠，示耻申禁，而不敢犯。其流既銳，姦黠萌生。是以明法令，立刑賞。故書曰：「象以典刑，流宥五刑，鞭作官刑，扑作教刑，金作贖刑，怙終賊刑，眚災肆赦。」舜命咎繇曰：「五刑有服，五服三就，五流有宅，五宅三居。」夏刑則大辟二百，臏辟三百，宮辟五百，劓墨各千。殷因於夏，蓋有損益。周禮：建三典，刑邦國，以五聽求民情，八議以申之，三刺以審之。左嘉石，平罷民；右肺石，達窮民。宥不識，宥過失，宥遺忘；赦幼弱，赦耄耋，赦惷愚。周道既衰，穆王荒耄，命呂侯度作祥刑，以詰四方，五刑之屬增矣。夫疑獄氾問，與眾共之，眾疑赦之，必察小大之比以成之。先王之愛民如此，刑成而不可變，故君子盡心焉。

Once Heaven and Earth were set apart, the myriad creatures arose; the five elements must all work in concert—none can be done without. Metal, wood, water, fire, and earth each attract and repel one another. Nurtured by yin and yang, beings receive vital breath and take shape; thunder rouses them, clouds and rain nourish them; spring and summer bring growth, autumn and winter bring killing and storage. Thus the pairing of virtue and punishment stems from the way of the spirits. The sage dwells between Heaven and Earth, carrying out the will of the gods. The people possess natures of joy and anger and hearts for sorrow and delight; stirred by what they feel, they act—and once they act, they change without cease. Shaped by sincere transformation, those below grow honest and unadorned. Hence distinctive garb and painted robes were devised, displaying shame and announcing bans, so that none would dare to offend. As custom grew keen, treachery and craftiness sprang up. For this reason statutes were made clear and punishments and rewards were set in place. Thus the Book of Documents says: 'Punishments are displayed as models for all to see; exile may spare the five punishments; the lash is the official penalty; the rod is the corrective penalty; fines of metal redeem guilt; those who persist to the end are punished as villains; innocent sufferers of disaster receive full pardon.' Shun commanded Gao Yao: 'Let the five punishments achieve their proper effect; let the five degrees of mourning have three stages of fulfillment; let the five degrees of exile have fixed abodes; let the five abodes have three places of residence.' Under the Xia code there were two hundred capital offenses, three hundred punishments of cutting off the kneecap, five hundred castrations, and a thousand each of nose-cutting and tattooing. The Yin dynasty took over from the Xia, with some reductions and additions. The Rites of Zhou prescribe: establish the Three Canons to punish the realm; use the five modes of hearing to discern the people's sentiments; apply the eight deliberations to clarify cases; use the three examinations to review judgments. On the left stood the Vie Stone, to admonish the idle; on the right stood the Lung Stone, to give voice to the destitute. pardon those who did not know, pardon those who erred, pardon those who forgot; pardon the young and frail, pardon the very old, pardon the dull-witted. When the Zhou way had waned, King Mu in his dotage ordered Marquis Lü to draft the Sagacious Punishments to admonish the four quarters—and the categories of the five punishments grew ever more numerous. When doubtful cases abound, consult the people; if the people remain doubtful, grant pardon; one must weigh the relative severity and leniency before rendering judgment. Such was the love the former kings bore for the people; once a sentence was fixed it could not be altered—hence the gentleman devoted his utmost care to it.

逮於戰國，競任威刑，以相吞噬。商君以法經六篇，入說於秦，議參夷之誅，連相坐之法。風俗凋薄，號為虎狼。及於始皇，遂兼天下，毀先王之典，制挾書之禁，法繁於秋荼，網密於凝脂，姦偽並生，赭衣塞路，獄犴淹積，囹圄成市。於是天下怨叛，十室而九。漢祖入關，蠲削煩苛，致三章之約。文帝以仁厚，斷獄四百，幾致刑措。孝武世以姦宄滋甚，增律五十餘篇。宣帝時，路溫舒上書曰：「夫獄者天下之命，書曰：與其殺不辜，寧失有罪。今治獄吏，非不慈仁也。上下相毆，以刻為明，深者獲公名，平者多後患。故治獄吏皆欲人死，非憎人也，自安之道，在人之死。夫人情安則樂生，痛則思死，捶楚之下，何求而不得。故囚人不勝痛，則飾辭以示人。吏治者利其然，則指導以明之；上奏畏郤，則鍛練而周內之。雖咎繇聽之，猶以為死有餘罪。何則？文致之罪明也。故天下之患，莫深於獄。」宣帝善之。痛乎！獄吏之害也久矣。故曰，古之立獄，所以求生；今之立獄，所以求殺人。不可不慎也。于定國為廷尉，集諸法律，凡九百六十卷，大辟四百九十條，千八百八十二事，死罪決比，凡三千四百七十二條，[1]諸斷罪當用者，合二萬六千二百七十二條。後漢二百年間，律章無大增減。魏武帝造甲子科條，犯釱左右趾者，易以斗械。明帝改士民罰金之坐，除婦人加笞之制。晉武帝以魏制峻密，又詔車騎賈充集諸儒學，刪定名例，為二十卷，并合二千九百餘條。

By the Warring States period, states competed in wielding harsh punishments to swallow one another up. Lord Shang brought his six chapters of the Law Classic into Qin to expound his views, advocating dismemberment and the law of collective punishment for kin and associates. Morals grew thin and harsh; the Qin was called a land of tigers and wolves. When the First Emperor came to power, he united the realm, abolished the institutions of the former kings, and imposed the ban on private book-keeping; statutes multiplied like autumn weeds, legal nets were tighter than congealed fat; fraud and perjury flourished together, convicts in ochre robes choked the highways, prisons overflowed, and the jails became marketplaces. Then the realm seethed with resentment and revolt; nine households in ten turned against the throne. When the Han founder entered the passes, he swept away oppressive laws and proclaimed the covenant of three articles. Emperor Wen, renowned for his clemency, saw only four hundred cases a year—nearly reaching the ideal of laying punishments aside altogether. In the reign of Emperor Wu, as treachery and violence grew rampant, more than fifty new statutes were added. In Emperor Xuan's reign, Lu Wenshu submitted a memorial: 'Prisons hold the fate of the realm in their hands. The Book of Documents says: Better to let the guilty go free than to execute the innocent. Today's prison officials are not without kindness. Superiors and subordinates drive one another on; harshness passes for competence; those who judge severely win praise, while those who judge fairly often suffer for it later. Hence prison officials all want their prisoners dead—not from hatred of mankind, but because their own safety lies in others' deaths. When people are at ease they cling to life; in pain they yearn for death—under the lash and the rod, what could they not be made to confess? When prisoners can no longer endure the pain, they fabricate confessions to satisfy their interrogators. The officials in charge, profiting from this, steer the prisoners toward the desired confession; and fearing rejection when the case goes up, they forge the testimony and wrap the indictment tight. Even if Gao Yao himself presided over the trial, he would still deem the condemned guilty beyond measure. Why? Because the fabricated charges are all too clear. Thus among the afflictions of the realm, none runs deeper than the prisons.' The emperor approved his memorial. How lamentable! The harm done by prison officials has been longstanding. Hence the saying: in antiquity prisons were established to save lives; today's prisons exist to procure deaths. This cannot be treated lightly. When Yu Dingguo served as Minister of Justice, he compiled all statutes into nine hundred sixty volumes: four hundred ninety capital offenses, one thousand eight hundred eighty-two specific cases, and three thousand four hundred seventy-two death-sentence precedents—in all, twenty-six thousand two hundred seventy-two articles governing criminal judgment. Over the two hundred years of Later Han, the legal code underwent no major changes. Emperor Wu of Wei drafted the Jiazi Code; offenders subject to foot-shackles on either leg were instead punished with the cangue and fetters. Emperor Ming revised the fine penalties for commoners and gentry and abolished the extra flogging imposed on women. Finding the Wei code overly harsh and intricate, Emperor Wu of Jin ordered Cavalry General Jia Chong to assemble Confucian scholars to revise the statutes and precedents into twenty volumes comprising more than twenty-nine hundred articles.

晉室喪亂，中原蕩然。魏氏承百王之末，屬崩散之後，典刑泯棄，禮俗澆薄。自太祖撥亂，蕩滌華夏，至于太和，然後吏清政平，斷獄省簡，所謂百年而後勝殘去殺。故榷舉行事，以著于篇。

The Jin dynasty collapsed into chaos, and the Central Plains were laid waste. The Wei arose at the end of a long line of dynasties, in the aftermath of collapse and dispersal; canonical punishments were abandoned and rites and customs had grown thin. From the Grand Ancestor's pacification of chaos and cleansing of the realm until the Taihe era, officials grew upright, government grew fair, and litigation grew sparse—the fulfillment of the saying that only after a century does a state overcome cruelty and abolish capital punishment. Hence the salient measures are gathered here and recorded in this chapter.

魏初，禮俗純朴，刑禁疏簡。宣帝南遷，復置四部大人，坐王庭決辭訟，以言語約束，刻契記事，無囹圄考訊之法，諸犯罪者，皆臨時決遣。神元因循，亡所革易。

In the early Wei period, customs were plain and punishments few. When Emperor Xuan moved south, he reinstated the four division chieftains, who sat in the royal court to settle disputes, relying on verbal agreements and carved tokens to record matters; there was no system of prison interrogation—offenders were judged and punished on the spot. Emperor Shenyuan followed precedent without change.

穆帝時，劉聰、石勒傾覆晉室。帝將平其亂，乃峻刑法，每以軍令從事。民乘寬政，多以違命得罪，死者以萬計。於是國落騷駭。平文承業，綏集離散。

During the reign of Emperor Mu, Liu Cong and Shi Le brought down the Jin dynasty. Intent on quelling the turmoil, the emperor tightened criminal law and routinely applied military justice. Accustomed to lenient rule, the people often fell afoul of strict commands; the dead numbered in the tens of thousands. The tribal peoples were thrown into alarm. Emperor Pingwen took up the mantle and pacified the scattered populace.

昭成建國二年：當死者，聽其家獻金馬以贖；犯大逆者，親族男女無少長皆斬；男女不以禮交皆死；民相殺者，聽與死家馬牛四十九頭，及送葬器物以平之；無繫訊連逮之坐；盜官物，一備五，私則備十。法令明白，百姓晏然。

In the second year of Jianguo under Emperor Zhaocheng: those sentenced to death might have their families ransom them with gold and horses; those guilty of great treason—men and women of the clan, young and old alike, were all beheaded; men and women who consorted without proper ritual all faced death; when commoners killed one another, the killer might settle the case by paying the victim's family forty-nine head of livestock plus funeral goods; there was no imprisonment, interrogation, or chain liability; theft of government property required fivefold restitution; theft of private property, tenfold. The laws were clear, and the people lived in peace.

太祖幼遭艱難，備嘗險阻，具知民之情偽。及在位，躬行仁厚，協和民庶。既定中原，患前代刑網峻密，乃命三公郎王德除其法之酷切於民者，約定科令，大崇簡易。是時，天下民久苦兵亂，畏法樂安。帝知其若此，乃鎮之以玄默，罰必從輕，兆庶欣戴焉。然於大臣持法不捨。季年災異屢見，太祖不豫，綱紀褫頓，刑罰頗為濫酷。

The Grand Ancestor endured hardship in his youth and knew every peril; he understood the people's hearts in full. Once on the throne, he personally practiced benevolence and brought harmony to the people. After securing the Central Plains, troubled by the harsh legal nets of earlier dynasties, he ordered Secretariat Attendant Wang De to strip away laws oppressive to the people, codify new statutes, and promote simplicity above all. By then the people had long suffered war and chaos; they feared harsh law but welcomed peace. Knowing this, the emperor governed with quiet restraint, always leaning toward leniency in punishment, and the people rejoiced in his rule. Yet toward high officials he showed no leniency in enforcing the law. In his final years, as omens multiplied and the Grand Ancestor fell ill, discipline slackened and punishments grew unduly harsh.

太宗即位，修廢官，恤民隱，命南平公長孫嵩、北新侯安同對理民訟，庶政復有敍焉。帝既練精庶事，為吏者浸以深文避罪。

When Emperor Taizong ascended the throne, he restored abolished offices and attended to the people's hidden grievances, appointing Duke of Nanping Changgunsun Song and Marquis of Beixin An Tong to hear civil suits jointly—and government regained its order. As the emperor grew adept at governance, officials increasingly twisted the law to shield themselves from blame.

世祖即位，以刑禁重，神䴥中，詔司徒崔浩定律令。除五歲四歲刑，增一年刑。分大辟為二科死，斬死，入絞。大逆不道腰斬，誅其同籍，年十四已下腐刑，女子沒縣官。害其親者轘之。為蠱毒者，男女皆斬，而焚其家。巫蠱者，負羖羊抱犬沉諸淵。當刑者贖，貧則加鞭二百。畿內民富者燒炭於山，貧者役於圊溷，女子入舂槀；其固疾不逮于人，守苑囿。王官階九品，得以官爵除刑。婦人當刑而孕，產後百日乃決。年十四已下，降刑之半，八十及九歲，非殺人不坐。拷訊不踰四十九。論刑者，部主具狀，公車鞫辭，而三都決之。當死者，部案奏聞。以死不可復生，懼監官不能平，獄成皆呈，帝親臨問，無異辭怨言乃絕之。諸州國之大辟，皆先讞報乃施行。闕左懸登聞鼓，人有窮冤則撾鼓，公車上奏其表。是後民官瀆貨，帝思有以肅之。太延三年，詔天下吏民，得舉告牧守之不法。於是凡庶之凶悖者，專求牧宰之失，迫脅在位，取豪於閭閻。而長吏咸降心以待之，苟免而不耻，貪暴猶自若也。

When Emperor Shizu ascended the throne, finding punishments too severe, he ordered Minister of Works Cui Hao to codify the laws during the Shengui era. The five- and four-year terms of penal servitude were abolished and replaced with a one-year term. Capital punishment was divided into two degrees: decapitation and strangulation. Great treason was punished by execution at the waist; kin of the same household register were put to death; males fourteen and under were castrated; women were enslaved to the district authorities. Those who harmed their kin were torn apart by chariots. Practitioners of gu sorcery—men and women alike were beheaded and their homes burned. Sorcerers who practiced gu were made to carry a ram on their backs and hold a dog as they were drowned in the depths. Offenders might commute their sentences by ransom; the poor received two hundred lashes instead. Within the capital region, wealthy offenders burned charcoal in the mountains, poor offenders labored in privies, and women were sent to pound grain; those with chronic illness who could not keep pace with others were assigned to guard the imperial parks. Court officials of the nine ranks could commute punishment through their office and noble rank. Pregnant women due for punishment were not sentenced until a hundred days after giving birth. Those fourteen and under received half the normal sentence; those eighty or ninety were not punished except for murder. Interrogation under torture was limited to forty-nine strokes. In capital cases, the department head prepared the dossier, the Imperial Carriage Office examined testimony, and the Three Capitals rendered judgment. Death sentences were reported to the throne by the department. Because the dead cannot be restored to life, and fearing that officials might judge unfairly, completed cases were all presented to the emperor, who questioned the prisoners personally; only when there were no protests or complaints of injustice was the sentence carried out. Capital sentences in the provinces were all reported for approval before execution. To the left of the palace gate hung the Drum for Hearing Grievances; those with desperate grievances struck it, and the Imperial Carriage Office forwarded their petitions to the throne. After this, local officials grew corrupt through bribery, and the emperor sought a way to restore discipline. In the third year of Taiyan, an edict allowed officials and commoners throughout the empire to report unlawful conduct by prefects and governors. Thereupon violent and unruly commoners devoted themselves to hunting for administrators' faults, coerced officials, and extorted wealth from their neighborhoods. Senior officials all humbled themselves before accusers, seeking only to escape censure without shame, and remained as greedy and violent as ever.

時輿駕數親征討及行幸四方，真君五年，命恭宗總百揆監國。少傅游雅上疏曰：「殿下親覽百揆，經營內外，昧旦而興，諮詢國老。臣職忝疑承，司是獻替。漢武時，始啟河右四郡，議諸疑罪而謫徙之。十數年後，邊郡充實，並修農戍，孝宣因之，以服北方。此近世之事也。帝王之於罪人，非怒而誅之，欲其徙善而懲惡。謫徙之苦，其懲亦深。自非大逆正刑，皆可從徙，雖舉家投遠，忻喜赴路，力役終身，不敢言苦。且遠流分離，心或思善。如此，姦邪可息，邊垂足備。」恭宗善其言，然未之行。

At that time the emperor frequently led campaigns in person and toured the realm; in the fifth year of Zhenjun he ordered Emperor Gongzong to oversee all government affairs and govern the state. Junior Tutor You Ya submitted a memorial saying: "Your Highness personally oversees all government affairs, manages internal and external matters, rises before dawn, and consults the state's elders. Your servant's office unworthily bears the duty of counsel and is charged with offering remonstrance and improvement. Under Emperor Wu of Han, the four commanderies west of the Yellow River were first opened, and it was proposed that doubtful crimes be punished by exile and forced relocation. After more than ten years the frontier commanderies were fully settled and fortified with farming and garrison duty; Emperor Xuan followed this policy and thereby pacified the north. This is a matter of recent history. When emperors and kings punish criminals, they do not execute them in anger, but to move them toward goodness and punish evil. The hardship of exile and forced relocation is itself a severe punishment. Apart from capital punishment for great treason, all offenders could be sentenced to relocation; even whole families sent far away would set out gladly, labor for life, and dare not complain of hardship. Moreover, sent far away and separated from home, they may turn their hearts toward goodness. In this way wickedness may be checked and the frontier fully defended." Emperor Gongzong approved his proposal, but did not carry it out.

六年春，以有司斷法不平，詔諸疑獄皆付中書，依古經義論決之。初盜律，贓四十匹致大辟，民多慢政，峻其法，贓三匹皆死。正平元年，詔曰：「刑網大密，犯者更眾，朕甚愍之。其詳案律令，務求厥中，有不便於民者增損之。」於是游雅與中書侍郎胡方回等改定律制。盜律復舊，加故縱、通情、止舍之法及他罪，凡三百九十一條。門誅四，大辟一百四十五，刑二百二十一條。有司雖增損條章，猶未能闡明刑典。

In the spring of the sixth year, because responsible offices judged cases unfairly, an edict ordered that all doubtful cases be referred to the Central Secretariat and decided according to ancient canonical principles. Originally the theft law imposed death for forty bolts of stolen goods; because the people widely scorned government, the law was tightened so that theft of three bolts brought death. In the first year of Zhengping, an edict said: "The penal net is too dense, and offenders grow ever more numerous; We are deeply troubled by this. Examine the statutes and commands in detail and strive for the proper mean; where anything burdens the people, revise it accordingly." Thereupon You Ya, together with Secretariat Gentleman Hu Fanghui and others, revised the legal code. The theft law was restored to its former standard, and provisions on knowingly allowing crime, communicating intelligence, harboring offenders, and other offenses were added, for a total of three hundred and ninety-one articles. There were four articles on clan execution, one hundred and forty-five on capital punishment, and two hundred and twenty-one on lesser punishments. Although the responsible offices revised the articles, they still could not fully clarify the penal code.

高宗初，仍遵舊式。太安四年，始設酒禁。是時年穀屢登，士民多因酒致酗訟，或議主政。帝惡其若此，故一切禁之，釀、沽飲皆斬之，吉凶賓親，則開禁，有日程。增置內外候官，伺察諸曹外部州鎮，至有微服雜亂於府寺間，以求百官疵失。其所窮治，有司苦加訊惻，而多相誣逮，輒劾以不敬。諸司官贓二丈皆斬。又增律七十九章，門房之誅十有三，大辟三十五，刑六十二。和平末，冀州刺史源賀上言：「自非大逆手殺人者，請原其命，謫守邊戍。」詔從之。

At the beginning of Emperor Gaozong's reign, the former system was still followed. In the fourth year of Tai'an, a prohibition on wine was first established. At that time harvests were repeatedly abundant, and gentry and commoners often through wine caused drunken brawls and lawsuits, or debated and criticized government policy. The emperor hated such conduct and banned wine entirely; brewing, selling, and drinking were all punishable by decapitation; for weddings, funerals, and guest receptions the ban was lifted on fixed days. Surveillance officials were added inside and outside the court to spy on all offices and on provinces and garrisons, even mingling in disguise among government compounds to uncover officials' faults. In cases they pursued to the end, responsible offices applied harsh interrogation and torture, and many falsely implicated one another; they were then charged with disrespect. Officials in all offices who accepted bribes of two zhang of silk were all decapitated. Seventy-nine articles were also added to the law: thirteen on clan execution, thirty-five capital punishments, and sixty-two lesser punishments. At the end of the Heping era, Jizhou Inspector Yuan He submitted a memorial saying: "Except for great treason and homicide by one's own hand, We ask that their lives be spared and they be banished to guard the frontier." An edict approved the proposal.

顯祖即位，除口誤，開酒禁。帝勤於治功，百僚內外，莫不震肅。及傳位高祖，猶躬覽萬機，刑政嚴明，顯拔清節，沙汰貪鄙。牧守之廉潔者，往往有聞焉。

When Emperor Xianzu acceded to the throne, punishment for verbal slips was abolished and the prohibition on wine was lifted. The emperor was diligent in governing, and officials throughout the court and the provinces were all awed into discipline. Even after abdicating to Emperor Gaozu, he still personally oversaw state affairs; penal policy was strict and clear, the upright and incorruptible were promoted, and the greedy and base were weeded out. Reports of honest and incorruptible prefects and governors became common.

延興四年，詔自非大逆干紀者，皆止其身，罷門房之誅。自獄付中書覆案，後頗上下法，遂罷之，獄有大疑，乃平議焉。先是諸曹奏事，多有疑請，又口傳詔敕，或致矯擅。於是事無大小，皆令據律正名，不得疑奏。合則制可，失衷則彈詰之，盡從中墨詔。自是事咸精詳，下莫敢相罔。

In the fourth year of Yanxing, an edict declared that except for great treason and violation of fundamental norms, punishment would stop with the offender himself and clan execution was abolished. Since cases had been referred to the Central Secretariat for review, the law was later often applied differently for officials and commoners, and this practice was therefore abolished; only cases of grave doubt were jointly deliberated. Previously, when the various offices submitted business, they often requested clarification of doubtful points, and edicts were also transmitted orally, sometimes leading to usurpation and abuse. Thereupon, whether matters were great or small, all were ordered to be decided strictly according to law, and doubtful submissions were forbidden. If correct, approval was granted; if wrong, censure followed—all by edicts from the Central Secretariat. From this time all business was handled with precision and detail, and subordinates did not dare deceive one another.

顯祖末年，尤重刑罰，言及常用惻愴。每於獄案，必令覆鞫，諸有囚繫，或積年不斷。羣臣頗以為言。帝曰：「獄滯雖非治體，不猶愈乎倉卒而濫也。夫人幽苦則思善，故囹圄與福堂同居。朕欲其改悔，而加以輕恕耳。」由是囚繫雖淹滯，而刑罰多得其所。又以赦令屢下，則狂愚多僥幸，故自延興，終於季年，不復下赦。理官鞫囚，杖限五十，而有司欲免之則以細捶，欲陷之則先大杖。民多不勝而誣引，或絕命於杖下。顯祖知其若此，乃為之制。其捶用荊，平其節，訊囚者其本大三分，杖背者二分，撻脛者一分，拷悉依令。皆從於輕簡也。

In the last years of Emperor Xianzu, he especially emphasized penal punishment, and whenever he spoke of it he was deeply moved with compassion. In every criminal case he ordered re-examination, and some prisoners remained detained for years without resolution. The ministers often raised the matter. The emperor said: "Delay in cases is not ideal governance, but is it not still better than hasty and indiscriminate judgment? When people suffer in darkness and hardship, they turn toward goodness; therefore prison and the hall of blessing dwell together. We wish them to reform and repent, and therefore show leniency and forbearance." From this, although prisoners were long detained, punishments mostly fit the offenses. Also, because amnesty edicts were repeatedly issued, the reckless and foolish often hoped for luck; therefore from Yanxing until the end of his reign, no further amnesties were issued. When judicial officials interrogated prisoners, the beating limit was fifty strokes, but if responsible offices wished to exonerate someone they used light rods, and if they wished to trap someone they first applied heavy cudgels. Many could not endure it and falsely confessed, or lost their lives under the rods. Emperor Xianzu knew matters were like this and therefore established regulations. The rods were thorn switches with nodes smoothed flat; for interrogating prisoners the shaft was three parts thick, for beating the back two parts, for flogging the shins one part; all beating followed the regulations. All followed the lighter and simpler standard.

三年，下詔曰：「治因政寬，弊由網密。今候職千數，姦巧弄威，重罪受賕不列，細過吹毛而舉。其一切罷之。」於是更置謹直者數百人，以防諠鬬於街術。吏民安其職業。

In the third year, an edict said: "Good governance arises from lenient policy, and abuses arise from a dense penal net. Now surveillance posts number in the thousands; the cunning wield power, serious bribery goes unreported, and trivial faults are prosecuted by nitpicking. Let them all be abolished at once." Thereupon several hundred upright and diligent men were newly appointed to prevent brawling in the streets. Officials and commoners were secure in their occupations.

先是以律令不具，姦吏用法，致有輕重。詔中書令高閭集中祕官等修改舊文，隨例增減。又敕羣官，參議厥衷，經御刊定。五年冬訖，凡八百三十二章，門房之誅十有六，大辟之罪二百三十五，刑三百七十七；除羣行剽劫首謀門誅，律重者止梟首。

Previously, because the statutes and commands were incomplete, corrupt officials manipulated the law and caused punishments to vary in severity. An edict ordered Secretariat Director Gao Lü, together with officials of the Imperial Library and others, to revise the old text and add or reduce articles according to precedent. All officials were also commanded to discuss the proper mean, and after imperial review the code was fixed. By the winter of the fifth year it was complete: eight hundred and thirty-two articles in all, sixteen on clan execution, two hundred and thirty-five capital crimes, and three hundred and seventy-seven lesser punishments; except for gang robbery and plunder whose ringleaders were subject to clan execution, severe punishments were limited to decapitation and public display.

時法官及州郡縣不能以情折獄。乃為重枷，大幾圍；復以縋石懸於囚頸，傷內至骨；更使壯卒迭搏之。囚率不堪，因以誣服。吏持此以為能。帝聞而傷之，乃制非大逆有明證而不款辟者，不得大枷。

At that time judges and the offices of provinces, commanderies, and counties could not decide cases according to circumstances. they therefore made heavy cangues nearly a full arm-span around; they also hung stones by rope from the prisoner's neck, injuring the flesh down to the bone; and further had strong soldiers beat them in relays. Prisoners generally could not endure it and therefore falsely confessed. Officials regarded this as competence. When the emperor heard of this he was grieved and decreed that unless there was clear evidence of great treason, those who did not confess might not be placed in heavy cangues.

律：「枉法十匹，義贓二百匹大辟。」至八年，始班祿制，更定義贓一匹，枉法無多少皆死。是秋遣使者巡行天下，糾守宰之不法，坐贓死者四十餘人。食祿者跼蹐，賕謁之路殆絕。帝哀矜庶獄，至於奏讞，率從降恕，全命徙邊，歲以千計。京師決死獄，歲竟不過五六，州鎮亦簡。

The law stated: "Perverting the law for ten bolts of goods brought capital punishment; improper gifts of two hundred bolts brought capital punishment." By the eighth year the salary system was instituted, improper gifts were redefined at one bolt, and perverting the law, regardless of amount, brought death. That autumn envoys were sent to tour the realm and investigate unlawful conduct by prefects and governors; more than forty convicted of bribery were executed. Salaried officials lived in fear, and the paths of bribery were nearly cut off. The emperor showed compassion for the common prisons; even in memorials on criminal cases he generally granted leniency, sparing lives and banishing offenders to the frontier by the thousands each year. Capital cases decided in the capital did not exceed five or six in a year, and the provinces and garrisons were likewise restrained.

十一年春，詔曰：「三千之罪，莫大於不孝，而律不遜父母，罪止髠刑。於理未衷。可更詳改。」又詔曰：「前命公卿論定刑典，而門房之誅猶在律策，違失周書父子異罪。推古求情，意甚無取。可更議之，刪除繁酷。」秋八月詔曰：「律文刑限三年，便入極默。 [2]坐無太半之校，罪有死生之殊。可詳案律條，諸有此類，更一刊定。」冬十月，復詔公卿令參議之。

In the spring of the eleventh year, an edict said: "Among the three thousand offenses, none is greater than unfilial conduct, yet the law for disrespect toward parents stops at head-shaving punishment. this is not right in principle. Revise it in detail." Another edict said: "Previously We ordered the dukes and ministers to discuss and fix the penal code, yet clan execution still remained in the statutes, contrary to the Book of Zhou's doctrine that father and son bear different punishments. Examining antiquity and human sentiment, this is greatly undesirable. Discuss it again and delete redundant harshness." In the eighth month an edict said: "The legal text sets a punishment limit of three years, then imposes the most severe branding punishment. For the same type of offense there is no half-standard of comparison, yet sentences differ between death and life. Examine the legal articles in detail; wherever such cases occur, revise them anew." In the tenth month an edict again ordered the dukes and ministers to discuss it jointly.

十二年詔：「犯死罪，若父母、祖父母年老，更無成人子孫，又無期親者，仰案後列奏以待報，著之令格。」

In the twelfth year an edict said: "For those condemned to death, if their parents or grandparents are old and there are no adult sons or grandsons and no relatives within the mourning period, the case shall be submitted for later listing and await imperial reply; let this be written into the ordinances."

世宗即位，意在寬政。正始元年冬，詔曰：「議獄定律，有國攸慎，輕重損益，世或不同。先朝垂心典憲，刊革令軌，但時屬征役，未之詳究，施於時用，猶致疑舛。尚書門下可於中書外省論律令。諸有疑事，斟酌新舊，更加思理，增減上下，必令周備，隨有所立，別以申聞。庶於循變協時，永作通制。」

When Emperor Shizong acceded to the throne, his intent was lenient government. In the winter of the first year of Zhengshi, an edict said: "Deliberating cases and fixing the law are matters a state must treat with caution; the weight, lightening, addition, and reduction of punishments differ from age to age. The former court devoted care to the statutes and laws and revised the ordinances, but the times were marked by campaigns and corvée labor and they were not examined in detail; in practice they still led to doubt and error. The Masters of Writing and the Department of the Gate may discuss the statutes and commands at the outer office of the Central Secretariat. Wherever there are doubtful matters, weigh the old and new, reflect further, adjust severity as needed, and make the code fully complete; report separately whatever is established. Thus, by following change and harmonizing with the times, it may forever serve as a universal system."

永平元年秋七月，詔尚書檢枷杖大小違制之由，科其罪失。尚書令高肇，尚書僕射、清河王懌，尚書邢巒，尚書李平，尚書、江陽王繼等奏曰：「臣等聞王者繼天子物，為民父母，導之以德化，齊之以刑法，小大必以情，哀矜而勿喜，務於三訊五聽，不以木石定獄。伏惟陛下子愛蒼生，恩侔天地，疏網改祝，仁過商后。以枷杖之非度，愍民命之或傷，爰降慈旨，廣垂昭恤。雖有虞慎獄之深，漢文惻隱之至，亦未可共日而言矣。謹案獄官令：諸察獄，先備五聽之理，盡求情之意，又驗諸證信，事多疑似，猶不首實者，然後加以拷掠；諸犯□年刑已上枷鎖，流徙已上，增以杻械。迭用不俱。非大逆外叛之罪，皆不大枷、高杻、重械，又無用石之文。而法官州郡，因緣增加，遂為恒法。進乖五聽，退違令文，誠宜案劾，依旨科處，但踵行已久，計不推坐。檢杖之小大，鞭之長短，令有定式，但枷之輕重，先無成制。臣等參量，造大枷長一丈三尺，喉下長一丈，通頰木各方五寸，以擬大逆外叛；杻械以掌流刑已上。諸臺、寺、州、郡大枷，請悉焚之。枷本掌囚，非拷訊所用。從今斷獄，皆依令盡聽訊之理，量人強弱，加之拷掠，不聽非法拷人，兼以拷石。」自是枷杖之制，頗有定準。未幾，獄官肆虐，稍復重大。

In the seventh month of the first year of Yongping, an edict ordered the Masters of Writing to investigate why cangues and cudgels of improper size violated regulations and to assess the offenses involved. Secretariat Director Gao Zhao, Masters of Writing and Vice Director Prince Yi of Qinghe, Master of Writing Xing Luan, Master of Writing Li Ping, Master of Writing and Prince Ji of Jiangyang, and others memorialized saying: "We have heard that the king continues Heaven's charge, serves as father and mother to the people, guides them with moral transformation and aligns them with penal law; great and small must follow circumstance, show compassion and not exult, strive for the three interrogations and five hearings, and not fix cases by wood and stone. We respectfully consider that Your Majesty loves the common people as children, with grace equal to Heaven and Earth, loosens the penal net and changes blessings, and whose benevolence surpasses that of the Shang rulers. Because cangues and cudgels exceeded proper limits, and pitying the harm done to people's lives, Your Majesty issued a merciful edict extending broad clemency. Even Yu the Shun's scrupulousness in judging cases and Emperor Wen of Han's deep compassion cannot be mentioned in the same breath. We respectfully cite the ordinance on prison officials: when examining cases, one must first apply the principles of the five hearings and exhaust every means of discerning the truth, verify all evidence, and only when matters remain doubtful and the accused still will not confess may beating under interrogation be applied; All offenders sentenced to fixed-term punishment (□ year-punishment) or heavier are to wear cangues and chains; for exile or banishment and above, shackles and fetters are added. They are to be applied alternately, not simultaneously. Except for great treason and foreign rebellion, none may use heavy cangues, high shackles, or severe fetters, and the law contains no provision for using stones. Yet judges in the provinces and commanderies, taking advantage of the situation, added to these abuses until they became constant practice. This contradicts the five hearings in practice and violates the ordinance in letter—such conduct truly ought to be investigated and punished according to Your Majesty's intent, but because it has long continued, we do not propose to impute liability retroactively. The ordinance prescribes fixed dimensions for cudgels and whips, but no established standard previously existed for the weight of cangues. We propose establishing large cangues thirteen chi in length, one chi below the throat, with connecting cheek-pieces five cun square on each side, for use in cases of great treason and foreign rebellion; Shackles and fetters are reserved for exile punishments and above. We request that all heavy cangues in the ministries, courts, provinces, and commanderies be destroyed by fire. Cangues were originally meant to restrain prisoners, not for use in interrogation by torture. Henceforth in deciding cases, all shall follow the ordinance's full principles of hearing and examination, adjusting beating under interrogation to the prisoner's strength, and illegal torture—including beating with stones—shall not be permitted." From this time the system of cangues and cudgels attained a fairly fixed standard. Before long, prison officials again ran rampant, and cangues and cudgels gradually grew heavier once more.

法例律：「五等列爵及在官品令從第五，以階當刑二歲；免官者，三載之後聽仕，降先階一等。」延昌二年春，尚書邢巒奏：「竊詳王公已下，或析體宸極，或著勳當時，咸胙土授民，維城王室。至於五等之爵，亦以功錫，雖爵秩有異，而號擬河山，得之至難，失之永墜。刑典既同，名復殊絕，請議所宜，附為永制。」詔議律之制，與八坐門下參論。皆以為：「官人若罪本除名，以職當刑，猶有餘資，復降階而叙。至於五等封爵，除刑若盡，永即甄削，便同之除名，於例實爽。愚謂自王公以下，有封邑，罪除名，三年之後，宜各降本爵一等，王及郡公降為縣公，公為侯，侯為伯，伯為子，子為男，至于縣男，則降為鄉男。五等爵者，亦依此而降，至於散男。其鄉男無可降授者，三年之後，聽依其本品之資出身。」詔從之。

Statute on Precedents in Law: "Those holding the five grades of ranked nobility and officials of fifth rank or below may offset punishment by one rank for a two-year sentence; Those stripped of office may return to service after three years, with rank reduced one grade below their former position. In spring of the second year of Yanchang, Master of Writing Xing Luan memorialized: "I have examined the matter and find that from princes and dukes downward, some are kin to the throne, some have earned merit in their day—all have received fiefs and subjects and serve as bulwarks of the royal house. The five grades of nobility are likewise bestowed for merit; though the ranks differ, their titles are as weighty as rivers and mountains—exceedingly hard to obtain and lost forever once forfeited. Though the penal code treats them alike, their titles remain utterly distinct—we request deliberation on what is fitting and that it be established as permanent law. An edict ordered that the legal provisions be discussed jointly with the Eight Dignitaries and the Department of the Gate. All were of the opinion: "When an official's offense originally warrants removal from the register but rank offsets the punishment, he still retains residual qualifications and may return to service with reduced rank. As for the five grades of enfeoffment, once punishment is fully served the title is permanently revoked—equal to removal from the register—which in fact departs from precedent. We hold that from princes and dukes downward, those with fiefs who suffer removal from the register—after three years each should be reduced one grade from his original title: kings and commandery dukes to county dukes, dukes to marquises, marquises to earls, earls to viscounts, viscounts to barons, and county barons to township barons. Holders of the five grades of nobility should likewise be reduced step by step down to unsalaried barons. Where township barons have no further rank to which they may be reduced, after three years they may enter service according to the qualifications of their original rank. The edict approved this.

其年秋，符璽郎中高□賢、弟員外散騎侍郎仲賢、叔司徒府主簿六珍等，坐弟季賢同元愉逆，除名為民，會赦之後，被旨勿論。尚書邢巒奏：「案季賢既受逆官，為其傳檄，規扇幽瀛，遘茲禍亂，據律準犯，罪當孥戮，兄叔坐法，法有明典。賴蒙大宥，身命獲全，除名還民，於其為幸。然反逆坐重，故支屬相及。體既相及，事同一科，豈有赦前皆從流斬之罪，赦後獨除反者之身。又緣坐之罪，不得以職除流。且貨賕小愆，寇盜微戾，贓狀露驗者，會赦猶除其名。何有罪極裂冠，釁均毀冕，父子齊刑，兄弟共罰，赦前同斬從流，赦後有復官之理。依律則罪合孥戮，準赦則例皆除名。古人議無將之罪者，毀其室，洿其宮，絕其蹤，滅其類。其宅猶棄，而況人乎？請依律處，除名為民。」詔曰：「死者既在赦前，又員外非在正侍之限，便可悉聽復仕。」

That autumn, Seal and Credence Officer Gao □ Xian, his younger brother Extraordinary Attendant at the Vacant Horse Zhong Xian, and his uncle Chief Clerk of the Secretariat of the Minister of Education Liu Zhen and others, because their younger brother Ji Xian joined Yuan Yu's rebellion, were stripped of official standing and reduced to commoners; after a general amnesty they received an edict that they not be prosecuted. Master of Writing Xing Luan memorialized: "Ji Xian had already accepted office under the rebel, drafted proclamations for him, plotted to stir up You and Ying, and brought on this calamity; by law his crime warrants execution of the entire family, and his elder brothers and uncles are liable under clear statutory provisions. Thanks to the great pardon their lives were spared and they were stripped of name and returned to common status—for them this was already good fortune. Yet rebellion is a grave offense, and therefore collateral kin are implicated. Since kin are implicated alike, the offense is of one category—how can offenses that before the amnesty all carried exile or execution be lifted after the amnesty for the rebels alone? Moreover, for offenses by association, exile may not be remitted through rank. Even for petty bribery or minor theft, when evidence of guilt is verified, names are still removed even at general amnesty. How then can crimes as grave as treason—tearing the cap, defiling the crown—where fathers and sons suffer alike and brothers share punishment, be subject before the amnesty to execution or exile, yet after the amnesty provide grounds for restoration to office? By law the crime warrants execution of the entire family; by amnesty precedent all should be stripped of name. When the ancients discussed the crime of failing to restrain rebellious kin, they destroyed the house, defiled the dwelling, cut off the lineage, and extinguished the clan. Even the dwelling was abandoned—how much more so the person? We request that they be punished according to law and stripped of name, reduced to commoners. The edict said: "The deceased fell before the amnesty, and the extraordinary attendant was not within the regular attendance roster—let them all be permitted to return to office."

三年，尚書李平奏：「冀州阜城民費羊皮母亡，家貧無以葬，賣七歲子與同城人張回為婢。回轉賣於鄃縣民梁定之，而不言良狀。案盜律『掠人、掠賣人、和賣人為奴婢者，死』。回故買羊皮女，謀以轉賣。依律處絞刑。」詔曰：「律稱和賣人者，謂兩人詐取他財。今羊皮賣女，告回稱良，張回利賤，知良公買。誠於律俱乖，而兩各非詐。此女雖父賣為婢，體本是良。回轉賣之日，應有遲疑，而〔決從真賣。 [3]於情不可。更推例以為永式。」〕

In the third year, Master of Writing Li Ping memorialized: "Fei Yangpi of Fucheng in Ji Province, his mother having died and the family too poor to bury her, sold his seven-year-old daughter to a fellow townsman named Zhang Hui as a maidservant. Zhang Hui then resold her to Liang Dingzhi of Yu County without disclosing that she was freeborn. According to the Theft Statute: "Those who abduct persons, abduct and sell persons, or jointly sell persons into servitude—death." Zhang Hui deliberately bought Fei Yangpi's daughter with intent to resell her. By law he should be sentenced to strangulation. The edict said: "Where the law speaks of jointly selling persons, it means two people who by fraud obtain another's property. Here Fei Yangpi sold his daughter, telling Zhang Hui she was freeborn; Zhang Hui profited from the low price, knowing she was freeborn and buying openly. Truly both departed from the law, yet neither acted by fraud. Though her father sold her as a maidservant, she was by status freeborn. On the day Zhang Hui resold her, he ought to have hesitated, yet [text missing—] he proceeded to sell her outright. [3] By any reasonable standard this is unacceptable. Further derive a precedent and establish it as permanent law."

〔廷尉少卿楊鈞議曰：[4]「謹詳盜律『掠人、掠賣人為奴婢者，皆死』，別條『賣子孫者，一歲刑』。賣良是一，而刑死懸殊者，由緣情制罰，則致罪有差。又詳『群盜強盜，首從皆同』，和掠之罪，固應不異。及『知人掠盜之物，而故買者，以隨從論』。然五服相賣，皆有明條，買者之罪，律所不載。竊謂同凡從法，其緣服相減者，宜有差，買者之罪，不得過於賣者之咎也。但羊皮賣女為婢，不言追贖，張回真買，謂同家財，至於轉鬻之日，不復疑慮。緣其買之於女父，便賣之於他人，准其和掠，此有因緣之類也。又詳恐喝條注：『尊長與之已決，恐喝幼賤求之。』然恐喝體同，而不受恐喝之罪者，以尊長與之已決故也。而張回本買婢於羊皮，乃真賣於定之。准此條例，得先有由；推之因緣，理頗相類。即狀准條，處流為允。」 [5]〕

[ Vice Minister of the Court of Justice Yang Jun opined: [4] "I have carefully examined the Theft Statute: 'Those who abduct persons or abduct and sell them into servitude—all death'; a separate article: 'Those who sell sons or grandsons—one year of punishment. Selling a freeborn person is one act, yet the penalty ranges from death to lesser punishments because punishments tailored to circumstance produce differences in liability. Further I note: 'For bandit gangs and armed robbery, ringleaders and followers are alike'; offenses of joint abduction should naturally be treated no differently. And: 'Those who knowingly buy goods taken by abduction or robbery shall be judged as accomplices.' Yet for selling among kin within the five grades of mourning, there are explicit articles; the buyer's offense is not recorded in the law. I hold that following the general law on accomplices, where kinship within mourning grades warrants reduction there should be differences; the buyer's offense must not exceed the seller's guilt. But Fei Yangpi sold his daughter as a maidservant without mentioning redemption; Zhang Hui bought her outright as household property, and on the day he resold her he no longer hesitated. Because he bought from the girl's father and then sold her to another, measured against joint abduction, this falls within the category of causal complicity. Further I have examined the commentary on the coercion article: 'When an elder has already decided the matter and coerces a junior of inferior status to comply. Yet the substance of coercion is the same; those who escape punishment for coercion do so because the elder had already decided the matter. Yet Zhang Hui originally bought the maidservant from Fei Yangpi and then sold her outright to Dingzhi. Measured against this article, there was prior justification; Extended by causal connection, the principle is quite similar. Judging the facts against the article, exile is the appropriate sentence.' End of memorial quotation.

〔三公郎中崔鴻議曰：[6]「案律『賣子有一歲刑；賣五服內親屬，[7]在尊長者死，期親及妾與子婦流』。唯買者無罪文。然〕賣者既以有罪，買者不得不坐。但賣者以天性難奪，支屬易遺，尊卑不同，故罪有異。買者知良故買，又於彼無親。若買同賣者，即理不可。何者？『賣五服內親屬，在尊長者死』，此亦非掠，從其真買，暨於致罪，刑死大殊。明知買者之坐，自應一例，不得全如鈞議，云買者之罪，不過賣者之咎也。且買者於彼無天性支屬之義，何故得有差等之理？又案別條：『知人掠盜之物而故買者，以隨從論。』依此律文，知人掠良，從其宜買，罪止於流。然其親屬相賣，坐殊凡掠。至於買者，亦宜不等。若處同流坐，於法為深。準律斟降，合刑五歲。至如買者，知是良人，決便真賣，不語前人得之由緒。前人謂真奴婢，更或轉賣，因此流漂，[8]罔知所在，家人追贖，求訪無處，永沉賤隸，無復良期。案其罪狀，與掠無異。且法嚴而姦易息，政寬而民多犯，水火之喻，先典明文。今謂買人親屬而復決賣，不告前人良狀由緒，處同掠罪。」

[ Director of the Three Dukes Office Cui Hong opined: [6] "According to the law: 'Selling a child—one year of punishment'; Selling kin within the five grades of mourning—[7] if the seller is an elder, death; if a relative within one year's mourning, or a concubine or daughter-in-law, exile.' Only for the buyer is there no explicit penalty. Yet since the seller is guilty, the buyer is necessarily implicated. But sellers differ in guilt because natural affection is hard to sever, collateral kin are easily cast off, and superior and inferior positions differ. The buyer knowingly purchased a freeborn person and had no kinship with the seller. If the buyer were punished equally with the seller, the principle would not hold. Why? 'Selling kin within the five grades of mourning—if an elder, death'—this too is not abduction; following a genuine purchase, by the time the offense is complete, punishments range from death to lesser penalties. Clearly the buyer's liability should follow one rule—not wholly like Jun's opinion that the buyer's offense must not exceed the seller's guilt. Moreover, the buyer owes no natural affection or kinship to the party there—why should the penalty be graduated? Further I cite a separate article: 'Those who knowingly buy goods taken by abduction or robbery shall be judged as accomplices. By this statutory text, when one knowingly deals with abducted freeborn persons or follows a proper purchase, the offense is capped at exile. Yet when kin sell one another, liability differs from ordinary abduction. As for the buyer, the penalty likewise should not be equal. If sentenced to the same exile, the penalty would be too severe by law. Adjusted downward according to law, the proper sentence is five years' punishment. As for the buyer who, knowing the person was freeborn, resells outright without telling the next purchaser how the person was acquired— The next purchaser treats them as genuine slaves and may resell again; thus cast adrift, [8] with nowhere to be found—the family pursues redemption in vain, forever sunk in debased servitude with no hope of restoration to free status. Examining the facts of the offense, it differs not from abduction. Moreover, when law is strict, wickedness easily ceases; when government is lenient, the people commit many offenses—the analogy of water and fire is plain in the classics. I hold that one who buys a person's kin and then resells outright without disclosing to the prior purchaser the victim's freeborn status and the circumstances of acquisition should be punished as for abduction."

太保、高陽王雍議曰：「州處張回，專引盜律，檢回所犯，本非和掠，保證明然，去盜遠矣。今引以盜律之條，處以和掠之罪，原情究律，實為乖當。如臣鈞之議，知買掠良人者，本無罪文。何以言之？『羣盜強盜，無首從皆同』，和掠之罪，故應不異。明此自無正條，引類以結罪。臣鴻以轉賣流漂，罪與掠等，可謂『罪人斯得』。案賊律云：『謀殺人而發覺者流，從者五歲刑；已傷及殺而還蘇者死，從者流；已殺者斬，從而加功者死，不加者流。』詳沉賤之與身死，流漂之與腐骨，一存一亡，為害孰甚？然賊律殺人，有首從之科，盜人賣買，無唱和差等。謀殺之與和掠，同是良人，應為準例。所以不引殺人減之，降從強盜之一科。縱令謀殺之與強盜，俱得為例，而似從輕。 [9]其義安在？又云：『知人掠盜之物而故買者，以隨從論。』此明禁暴掠之原，遏姦盜之本，非謂市之於親尊之手，而同之於盜掠之刑。竊謂五服相賣，俱是良人，所以容有差等之罪者，明去掠盜理遠，故從親疏為差級，尊卑為輕重。依律：『諸共犯罪，皆以發意為首。』明賣買之元有由，魁末之坐宜定。若羊皮不云賣，則回無買心，則羊皮為元首，張回為從坐。首有沾刑之科，從有極默之戾，推之憲律，法刑無據。買者之罪，宜各從賣者之坐。又詳臣鴻之議，有從他親屬買得良人，而復真賣，不語後人由狀者，處同掠罪。既一為婢，賣與不賣，俱非良人。何必以不賣為可原，轉賣為難恕。張回之愆，宜鞭一百。賣子葬親，孝誠可美，而表賞之議未聞，刑罰之科已降。恐非敦風厲俗，以德導民之謂。請免羊皮之罪，公酬賣直。」詔曰：「羊皮賣女葬母，孝誠可嘉，便可特原。張回雖買之於父，不應轉賣，可刑五歲。」

Grand Guardian Prince Yong of Gaoyang opined: "The province sentenced Zhang Hui solely under the Theft Statute; examining his offense, it was not joint abduction—the facts are clear and the case is far removed from theft. To cite the Theft Statute yet punish for joint abduction—weighing the facts against the law, this is truly improper. As in Minister Jun's opinion, the law originally contains no explicit penalty for knowingly buying abducted freeborn persons. Why say this? 'For bandit gangs and armed robbery, ringleaders and followers are alike'—offenses of joint abduction should therefore be treated no differently. This shows there is no direct article—the charge is fixed by analogy. Minister Hong's view that resale leading to the victim's disappearance makes the offense equal to abduction may be said to have 'caught the guilty.' The Assault Statute says: 'Those who plot murder and are discovered—exile; accomplices—five years' punishment'; Those who have wounded or killed yet the victim revives—death; accomplices—exile; Those who have already killed are decapitated; those who further contribute to the deed are put to death; those who do not contribute are exiled. Consider carefully: sinking into debased servitude versus bodily death, drifting exile versus rotting bones—one preserved, one lost—which harm is the greater? Yet the Assault Statute on killing distinguishes ringleaders from followers, while buying and selling abducted persons makes no distinction between instigators and accomplices. Plotted murder and joint abduction both involve freeborn persons and should serve as parallel precedents. That is why one should not cite murder to reduce the penalty, but instead apply the lesser category reserved for followers of armed robbery. Even if plotted murder and armed robbery could both serve as precedents, this would still seem to treat the offense too leniently. Where, then, is the principle in this? It also says: 'Those who knowingly buy goods taken by abduction or robbery shall be judged as accomplices. This clearly bars the root of violent abduction and checks the foundation of wicked theft—it does not mean that buying from an elder or superior kin should carry the same penalty as robbery and abduction. I hold that when kin within the five grades of mourning sell one another—all are freeborn—the reason the offense may differ in degree is that this is far removed from abduction and robbery; penalties should therefore be graded by closeness of kin and weighted by superior and inferior rank. According to the law: 'In all joint offenses, the one who originates the intent is the ringleader. This shows that in buy-and-sell cases there is an originator; the liability of ringleader and follower should be fixed accordingly. If Yang Pi had not spoken of selling, Zhang Hui would have had no intent to buy; Yang Pi would then be the ringleader and Zhang Hui the follower. The ringleader bears a lighter shared penalty, the follower the utmost liability—applied to constitutional law, there is no basis for such a punishment. The buyer's offense should in each case follow the seller's liability. Examining further Minister Hong's opinion: when one buys a freeborn person from another's kin and then resells outright without telling the next purchaser the circumstances, the offense should be punished as abduction. Once one has become a maidservant, whether sold or not, one is no longer freeborn. Why must selling be forgivable while resale be harder to pardon? Zhang Hui's fault warrants one hundred lashes. Selling a child to bury a parent—the filial devotion is admirable—yet no proposal to commend him has been heard, while punishment has already been pronounced. I fear this is not what is meant by encouraging customs and guiding the people through virtue. I ask that Yang Pi's offense be pardoned and that the state reimburse the sale price. An edict said: "Yang Pi sold his daughter to bury his mother—the filial devotion is commendable; let him be specially pardoned. Although Zhang Hui bought from the father, he should not have resold; sentence him to five years' punishment."

先是，皇族有譴，皆不持訊。時有宗士元顯富，犯罪須鞫，宗正約以舊制。尚書李平奏：「以帝宗磐固，周布於天下，其屬籍疏遠，蔭官卑末，無良犯憲，理須推究。請立限斷，以為定式。」詔曰：「雲來綿遠，繁衍世滋，植籍宗氏，而為不善，量亦多矣。先朝既無不訊之格，而空相矯恃，以長違暴。諸在議請之外，可悉依常法。」

Previously, when members of the imperial clan were accused, none were subject to interrogation. At the time clansman Yuan Xianfu had committed an offense requiring examination; the Director of the Imperial Clan invoked the old rule. Minister Li Ping memorialized: "Since the imperial clan is firm as bedrock and spread throughout the realm, among those whose registration is distant and who hold low minor posts, those who truly violate the law must be investigated. I ask that limits be established as a fixed standard. An edict said: "Our lineage stretches from Yun long ago, multiplying through the generations; registered as members of the imperial house yet doing evil—there must be many. The previous reign had no rule of exemption from interrogation, yet they emptyly relied on pretense, thus fostering violence against the law. All beyond what is under discussion here should fully follow ordinary law."

其年六月，兼廷尉卿元志、監王靖等上言：「檢除名之例，依律文，『獄成』謂處罪案成者。寺謂犯罪逕彈後，使覆檢鞫證定刑，罪狀彰露，案署分昞，獄理是成。若使案雖成，雖已申省，[10]事下廷尉，或寺以情狀未盡，或邀駕撾鼓，或門下立疑，更付別使者，可從未成之條。其家人陳訴，信其專辭，而阻成斷，便是曲遂於私，有乖公體。何者？五詐既窮，六備已立，僥倖之輩，更起異端，進求延罪於漏刻，退希不測之恩宥，辯以惑正，曲以亂直，長民姦於下，隳國法於上，竊所未安。」大理正崔纂、評楊機、丞甲休、律博士劉安元以為：「律文，獄已成及決竟，經所綰，而疑有姦欺，不直於法，及訴冤枉者，得攝訊覆治之。檢使處罪者，雖已案成，御史風彈，以痛誣伏；或拷不承引，依證而科；或有私嫌，強逼成罪；家人訴枉，辭案相背。刑憲不輕，理須訊鞫。既為公正，豈疑於私。如謂規不測之澤，抑絕訟端，則枉滯之徒，終無申理。若從其案成，便乖覆治之律。然未判經赦，及覆治理狀，真偽未分，承前以來，如此例皆得復職。愚謂經奏遇赦，及已覆治，得為獄成。」尚書李韶奏：「使雖結案，處上廷尉，解送至省，及家人訴枉，尚書納辭，連解下鞫，未檢遇宥者，不得為案成之獄。推之情理，謂崔纂等議為允。」詔從之。

That year, in the sixth month, Vice Minister of Justice Yuan Zhi, Supervisor Wang Jing, and others submitted: "Examining the precedent for removal from registry: according to the statute, 'case completed' means one whose sentence has been decided and the case finalized. The Court holds that after a crime is directly impeached, when review and examination fix the punishment, the facts are clear, the case documents are distinct, and the judicial reasoning is complete—the case is finalized. If a case, though complete and already reported to the Secretariat, is sent down to the Court of Judicatory—or when the Court finds the facts not fully known, or when someone beats the drum to intercept the imperial carriage, or when the Gate Office raises doubts and the case is transferred to another investigator—the rule for incomplete cases may apply. When family members lodge petitions and their one-sided words are believed, blocking a finalized judgment—this bends to private interests and violates public principle. Why? The five stratagems are exhausted and the six proofs established, yet the opportunistic raise new objections—advancing to delay punishment until the last moment, retreating to hope for unforeseen amnesty—using argument to confuse the right, distortion to overturn the straight, fostering wickedness among the people below and destroying state law above—I have never been at ease with this. Director of Judgments Cui Zuan, Reviewer Yang Ji, Deputy Jia Xiu, and Legal Scholar Liu Anyuan held: "The statute provides that when a case is completed and the judgment final, passed through competent offices, yet fraud or false judgment is suspected, or wrongful conviction is petitioned—re-examination and retrial may be ordered. Those inspected and sentenced—even if the case is complete—when the censor impeaches and torture exposes the false confession; or when torture fails to produce confession but evidence supports conviction; or when private enmity forces a false conviction; when family petitions injustice and their words contradict the case files. Criminal law is no light matter—interrogation is required. Since this serves justice, how can it be suspected of private interest? If one holds that to block unforeseen favor one must cut off all petitions, then those wrongfully detained will never receive redress. If one follows the completed case alone, this violates the law on retrial. Yet when judgment has not been passed and amnesty intervenes, or when retrial is pending and truth and falsehood are undivided, under precedent from earlier times such cases have all allowed restoration to office. I hold that after memorial to the throne encountering amnesty, and after retrial is completed, the case may be considered finalized. Minister Li Shao memorialized: "Even if the investigator has closed the case, when sent up to the Court of Judicatory, transferred to the Secretariat, or when family petitions injustice and the Ministry accepts the petition and the case is sent down for examination—if amnesty has not yet been applied after review, it cannot count as a completed case. Weighing sentiment and reason, I hold the opinion of Cui Zuan and others to be sound. The edict approved.

熙平中，有冀州妖賊延陵王買，負罪逃亡，赦書斷限之後，不自歸首。廷尉卿裴延儁上言：「法例律：『諸逃亡，赦書斷限之後，不自歸首者，復罪如初。』依賊律，謀反大逆，處買梟首。 [11]其延陵法㩲等所謂月光童子劉景暉者，[12]妖言惑眾，事在赦後，亦合死坐。」正崔纂以為：「景暉云能變為蛇雉，此乃傍人之言。雖殺暉為無理，恐赦暉復惑眾。是以依違，不敢專執。當今不諱之朝，不應行無罪之戮。景暉九歲小兒，口尚乳臭，舉動云為，並不關己，『月光』之稱，不出其口。皆姦吏無端，橫生粉墨，所謂為之者巧，殺之者能。若以妖言惑眾，據律應死，然更不破□惑眾。赦令之後方顯其事； [13]律令之外，更求其罪。赦律何以取信於天下，天下焉得不疑於赦律乎！書曰：與殺無辜，寧失有罪。又案法例律：『八十已上，八歲已下，殺傷論坐者上請。』議者謂悼耄之罪，不用此律。愚以老智如尚父，少惠如甘羅，此非常之士，可如其議，景暉愚小，自依凡律。」靈太后令曰：「景暉既經恩宥，何得議加橫罪，可謫略陽民。餘如奏。」

In the Xiping era, there was a sorcerer-rebel in Jizhou, Yanling Wang Mai, who fled after committing an offense and did not surrender himself after the amnesty deadline. Minister of Justice Pei Yanjun submitted: "The Precedents Statute: 'All fugitives who after the amnesty deadline do not surrender themselves—punishment restored as originally. Under the Assault Statute, plotting rebellion and great treason—sentence Mai to display of the severed head. As for Yanling Wang Mai and others' so-called Moonlight Boy Liu Jinghui—the offense of heterodox speech deceiving the masses, though occurring after the amnesty, still warrants death. Director Cui Zuan held: "Jinghui's claim that he could transform into serpent or pheasant—this is hearsay from others. Though killing Jinghui would be unjust, I fear that pardoning Jinghui would again deceive the masses. Hence I waver and dare not decide alone. In this court that does not taboo speech, execution of the innocent should not be carried out. Jinghui is a nine-year-old child, his mouth still milky; his words and deeds concern him not at all—the title 'Moonlight' never came from his lips. All this was groundlessly fabricated by corrupt officials who falsely inscribed guilt—as the saying goes: 'Those who fabricate are cunning; those who kill are capable.' Even if judged by heterodox speech deceiving the masses, death would be warranted by law—yet the case still does not establish deceiving the masses. The matter came to light only after the amnesty decree; Beyond statute and ordinance, one seeks further guilt. How can amnesty law win the world's trust—how can the world not doubt amnesty law! The Documents say: Better to spare the innocent than to miss the guilty. Further examining the Precedents Statute: 'Those eighty or above, eight or below, liable for killing or wounding—memorialize for imperial decision. Some argue that offenses of the aged and the very young do not use this statute. I hold that for old wisdom like the Duke of Shang, young talent like Gan Luo—such extraordinary persons may follow that opinion; Jinghui is foolish and small—ordinary law should apply. Empress Dowager Ling ordered: "Jinghui has already received grace—how can you discuss adding wrongful guilt? He may be demoted to commoner status in Luoyang. The rest as submitted."

時司州表：「河東郡民李憐生行毒藥，[14]案以死坐。其母訴稱：『一身年老，更無期親，例合上請。』檢籍不謬，未及判申，憐母身喪。州斷三年服終後乃行決。」司徒法曹參軍許琰謂州判為允。 [15]主簿李瑒駁曰：「案法例律：『諸犯死罪，若祖父母、父母年七十已上，無成人子孫，旁無期親者，具狀上請。流者鞭笞，留養其親，終則從流。不在原赦之例。』檢上請之言，非應府州所決。毒殺人者斬，妻子流，計其所犯，實重餘憲。準之情律，所虧不淺。且憐既懷酖毒之心，謂不可參隣人伍。 [16]計其母在，猶宜闔門投畀，況今死也，引以三年之禮乎？且給假殯葬，足示仁寬，今已卒哭，不合更延。可依法處斬，流其妻子。實足誡彼氓庶，肅是刑章。」尚書蕭寶夤奏從瑒執，詔從之。

At the time the Department of State reported: "Li Liansheng of Hedong Commandery carried poison; sentenced to death. His mother petitioned: 'I am alone and old, with no close kin remaining—the case should be submitted upward. Registry check showed no error; before judgment could be submitted, Lian's mother died. The province ruled execution should wait until the three-year mourning was complete. Legal Staff Officer Xu Yan of the Ministry of Education held the provincial ruling appropriate. Registrar Li Chang objected: "The Precedents Statute provides: 'All who commit capital offenses, if grandparents or parents are seventy or above with no adult descendants and no close kin nearby—memorialize upward. Exile cases: flog and detain to support the parent; after the parent's death, proceed with exile. Not covered by general amnesty. The requirement for upward submission is not for prefectures or provinces to decide. Poisoners are decapitated, wives and children exiled—the offense weighs heavier than ordinary statutes. Measured against ordinary law, the violation is no small matter. Moreover, since Lian harbored murderous intent with poison, he should not be treated as an ordinary neighbor. Even were his mother alive, the whole household should be cast out; how much less now that she is dead—shall we invoke the three-year mourning rite? Temporary leave for burial already shows benevolence; now that the wailing rites are complete, no further delay is appropriate. Execute by law and exile wife and children. This would truly warn the common people and uphold the severity of criminal law. Minister Xiao Baoyin memorialized approval of Chang's position; the edict approved.

舊制，直閤、直後、直齋，武官隊主、隊副等，以比視官，至於犯譴，不得除罪。尚書令、任城王澄奏：「案諸州中正，亦非品令所載，又無祿恤，先朝已來，皆得當刑。直閤等禁直上下，有宿衞之勤，理不應異。」靈太后令準中正。

Under the old rule, attendants of the Direct Office, Direct Rear, Direct Pantry, military squad leaders and deputies, and comparable officials—when punished, could not be removed from registry for crime. Minister Ren Cheng Wang Cheng memorialized: "Regional zhongzheng were also not listed in rank regulations and receive no salary or pension—since the previous reign, all have been subject to punishment. Direct attendants guard day and night with palace duties—they should not be treated differently in principle. Empress Dowager Ling ordered that the zhongzheng precedent apply.

神龜中，蘭陵公主駙馬都尉劉輝，坐與河陰縣民張智壽妹容妃、陳慶和妹慧猛，姦亂耽惑，毆主傷胎。輝懼罪逃亡。門下處奏：「各入死刑，智壽、慶和並以知情不加防限，處以流坐。」詔曰：「容妃、慧猛恕死，髠鞭付宮，餘如奏。」尚書三公郎中崔纂執曰：「伏見旨募若獲劉輝者，職人賞二階，白民聽出身進一階，厮役免役，奴婢為良。案輝無叛逆之罪，賞同反人劉宣明之格。又尋門下處奏，以『容妃、慧猛與輝私姦，兩情耽惑，令輝挾忿，毆主傷胎。雖律無正條，罪合極法，並處入死。其智壽等二家，配敦煌為兵』。天慈廣被，不即依決，[17]雖恕其命，竊謂未可。夫律令，高皇帝所以治天下，不為喜怒增減，不由親疏改易。案鬬律：『祖父母、父母忿怒，以兵刃殺子孫者五歲刑，毆殺者四歲刑，若心有愛憎而故殺者，各加一等。』雖王姬下降，貴殊常妻，然人婦之孕，不得非子。又依永平四年先朝舊格：[18]『諸刑流及死，皆首罪判定，[19]後決從者。』事必因本以求支，獄若以輝逃避，便應懸處，未有捨其首罪而成其末愆。流死參差，或時未允。門下中禁大臣，職在敷奏。昔邴吉為相，不存鬬斃，而問牛喘，豈不以司別故也。案容妃等，罪止於姦私。若擒之穢席，眾證分明，即律科處，不越刑坐。何得同宮掖之罪，齊奚官之役。 [20]案智壽口訴，妹適司士曹參軍羅顯貴，[21]已生二女於其夫，則他家之母。禮云婦人不二夫，猶曰不二天。若私門失度，罪在於夫，釁非兄弟。昔魏晉未除五族之刑，有免子戮母之坐。何曾諍之，謂：『在室之女，從父母之刑；已醮之婦，從夫家之刑。』 [22]斯乃不刊之令軌，古今之通議。律，『期親相隱』之謂凡罪。 [23]況姦私之醜，豈得以同氣相證。論刑過其所犯，語情又乖律憲。案律，姦罪無相緣之坐。不可借輝之忿，加兄弟之刑。夫刑人於市，與眾棄之，爵人於朝，與眾共之，明不私於天下，無欺於耳目。何得以非正刑書，[24]施行四海。刑名一失，駟馬不追。既有詔旨，依即行下，非律之案，理宜更請。」

In the Shengui era, Liu Hui, Commandant of the Princess of Lanling's household, was charged with adultery and entanglement with Rongfei, sister of Zhang Zhishou of Heyin County, and Huimeng, sister of Chen Qinghe—beating the princess and injuring the fetus. Hui fled in fear of punishment. The Gate Office recommended: "All sentenced to death; Zhishou and Qinghe, knowing yet failing to restrain—sentenced to exile. An edict said: "Rongfei and Huimeng spared death, shaved and flogged, assigned to palace service; the rest as submitted. Minister Cui Zuan of the Three Dukes Office held: "I have seen the decree offering reward for capturing Liu Hui—officials two ranks, commoners one rank advancement, servants exempt from corvée, slaves made freeborn. Hui has no crime of rebellion—the reward matches the standard for rebel Liu Xuanming. Further examining the Gate Office recommendation: 'Rongfei and Huimeng privately committed adultery with Hui; both parties were entangled, causing Hui in anger to beat the princess and injure the fetus. Though the law has no direct article, the offense warrants the utmost penalty—all sentenced to death. As for Zhishou and the other two families, assign them to Dunhuang as soldiers.' Heaven's mercy is broad, yet the sentence is not immediately carried out; though their lives are spared, I submit that this cannot stand. Statutes and ordinances are how the High Emperor governed the realm—they must not be added to or subtracted from according to mood, nor changed according to who is near or far. Examining the Assault Statute: 'When grandparents or parents in anger kill descendants with weapons, the penalty is five years; when they beat them to death, four years; if they kill deliberately out of favor or hatred, each offense is increased one degree.' Although a royal princess who marries down outranks an ordinary wife, the child in a woman's womb cannot be treated as no child at all. Further, according to the previous reign's old standard of the fourth year of Yongping: 'In all cases of exile or death, the primary offense must be decided first, and only afterward the followers.' Cases must proceed from the root to reach the branches; if Hui has fled, he should be sentenced in absentia. There is no precedent for setting aside the primary offense while punishing the secondary fault. Exile and death are applied unevenly, and at times this is not acceptable. The Gate Office grandees who attend within the palace have the duty of presenting memorials. In antiquity, when Bing Ji served as chancellor, he passed over a fatal brawl and asked instead about a panting ox—was this not because each office has its own proper sphere? Examining Rongfei and the others, their offense extends only to private adultery. If they are caught on the defiled bed with clear evidence from many witnesses, they should be punished according to statute without exceeding the prescribed penalty. How can they be punished as if for offenses within the inner palace and assigned the same service as palace eunuchs? Examining Zhishou's oral petition: his sister was married to Luo Xiangui, Registrar of the Bureau of Public Works, and had already borne two daughters to her husband—she is a mother in another household. The Rites say a woman does not have two husbands; it is said she does not have two heavens. If impropriety occurs within a private household, guilt lies with the husband; the fault does not reach the brothers. In former times, before Wei and Jin abolished punishment extending to five clans, a mother was exempt from liability for a son's offense. He Zeng remonstrated, saying: 'An unmarried daughter follows her parents' punishment; a woman already given in marriage follows her husband's family's punishment.' This is an immutable standard and the universal consensus of antiquity and the present. The law on 'concealment among kin within one year of mourning' applies to ordinary offenses. Moreover, when the offense is the ugliness of private adultery, how can blood kin be used to testify against one another? The penalty discussed exceeds the offense, and the reasoning also departs from statute and constitutional law. Examining the law, adultery carries no linked liability. One cannot borrow Hui's rage to impose punishment on brothers. To punish a man in the marketplace is to cast him out before the multitude; to ennoble a man at court is to honor him before the multitude. Thus the ruler shows no partiality under Heaven and does not deceive the eyes and ears of the people. How can an irregular penal decree be enforced throughout the realm? Once a penal designation errs, four horses cannot overtake it. Since there is already an edict, it should be implemented at once; cases not grounded in law ought properly to be reconsidered through petition."

尚書元脩義以為：「昔哀姜悖禮於魯，齊侯取而殺之，春秋所譏。又夏姬罪濫於陳國，但責徵舒，而不非父母。明婦人外成，犯禮之愆，無關本屬。況出適之妹，釁及兄弟乎？」右僕射游肇奏言：「臣等謬參樞轄，獻替是司，門下出納，謨明常則。至於無良犯法，職有司存，劾罪結案，本非其事。容妃等姦狀，罪止於刑，並處極法，準律未當。出適之女，坐及其兄，推據典憲，理實為猛。又輝雖逃刑，罪非孥戮，募同大逆，亦謂加重。乖律之案，理宜陳請。乞付有司，重更詳議。」詔曰：「輝悖法亂理，[25]罪不可縱。厚賞懸募，必望擒獲。容妃、慧猛與輝私亂，因此耽惑，主致非常。此而不誅，將何懲肅！且已醮之女，不應坐及昆弟，但智壽、慶和知妹姦情，初不防禦，招引劉輝，共成淫醜，敗風穢化，理深其罰，特敕門下結獄，不拘恒司，豈得一同常例，以為通準。且古有詔獄，寧復一歸大理。而尚書治本，納言所屬。弗究悖理之淺深，不詳損化之多少，違彼義途，苟存執憲，殊乖任寄，深合罪責。崔纂可免郎，都坐尚書，悉奪祿一時。」

Minister Yuan Xiuyi held: 'In antiquity, Ai Jiang violated ritual in Lu; the Marquis of Qi took her and killed her—the Spring and Autumn Annals censured this. Again, when Xia Ji's offense ran rampant in Chen, only Zheng Shu was held accountable, not her parents. This shows that when a woman joins another household, her ritual transgressions have no connection to her original clan. How much less can a married-out sister's fault reach her brothers?' Vice Censor You Zhao submitted: 'We have wrongly participated in the central machinery; offering criticism and substitution is our charge, and the Gate Office receives and issues memorials—each has its clear constant rule. As for the lawless who violate the law, that falls to the offices responsible; impeachment, sentencing, and closing cases were never their business. In Rongfei and the others' adultery, punishment should stop at ordinary penalties; sentencing all to the utmost penalty does not accord with the law. A married-out daughter's liability reaching her elder brother—weighing this against the statutes, the reasoning is truly harsh. Again, though Hui fled punishment, his crime does not warrant extending punishment to kin; offering rewards equal to great treason is also deemed excessive. Cases departing from the law ought properly to be submitted for reconsideration. I ask that the matter be referred to the responsible offices for renewed detailed deliberation.' An edict said: 'Hui violated law and overturned principle—his crime cannot be indulged. Rich rewards are posted; capture is surely expected. Rongfei and Huimeng privately consorted with Hui; through this entanglement they chiefly brought about the extraordinary calamity. If this goes unpunished, with what shall deterrence and discipline be maintained! Moreover, a woman already given in marriage should not implicate her brothers—but Zhishou and Qinghe knew of their sisters' adultery, failed from the first to prevent it, drew in Liu Hui, and together completed the lewd offense, corrupting customs and defiling public morals; their punishment is rightly severe. A special command directed the Gate Office to close the case, not bound by ordinary offices—how can this be treated as a universal standard under ordinary precedent? Moreover, in antiquity there were edict prisons—must all cases revert solely to the Court of Judicatory? Yet the Ministry of State Affairs governs fundamentals—it belongs to the Censor-in-Chief's domain. Failing to examine the depth of the violation of principle, not weighing how much moral transformation is harmed, departing from that righteous path while clinging stubbornly to legal pedantry—this gravely betrays the trust conferred and fully warrants punishment. Cui Zuan may be dismissed from his bureau rank; all seated Ministry officials shall have their salaries suspended for one season."

孝昌已後，天下淆亂，法令不恒，或寬或猛。及尒朱擅權，輕重肆意，在官者，多以深酷為能。至遷鄴，京畿群盜頗起。有司奏立嚴制：諸強盜殺人者，首從皆斬，妻子同籍，配為樂戶；其不殺人，及贓不滿五匹，魁首斬，從者死，妻子亦為樂戶；小盜贓滿十匹已上，魁首死，妻子配驛，從者流。侍中孫騰上言：「謹詳，法若畫一，理尚不二，不可喜怒由情，而致輕重。案律，公私劫盜，罪止流刑。而比執事苦違，好為穿鑿，律令之外，更立餘條，通相糾之路，班捉獲之賞。斯乃刑書徒設，獄訟更煩，法令滋彰，盜賊多有。非所謂不嚴而治，遵守典故者矣。臣以為升平之美，義在省刑；陵遲之弊，必由峻法。是以漢約三章，天下歸德；秦酷五刑，率士瓦解。禮訓君子，律禁小人，舉罪定名，國有常辟。至如『眚災肆赦，怙終賊刑』，經典垂言，國朝成範。隨時所用，各有司存。不宜巨細滋煩，令民豫備。恐防之彌堅，攻之彌甚。請諸犯盜之人，悉准律令，以明恒憲。庶使刑殺折衷，不得棄本從末。」詔從之。

After the Xiaochang era, the realm fell into turmoil; laws and decrees were inconstant, at times lenient, at times harsh. When the Erzhu clan seized power, severity and leniency were applied at whim; those in office mostly took harsh cruelty as a mark of competence. When the capital moved to Ye, bandits arose in great numbers in the capital region. The responsible offices memorialized to establish strict regulations: all armed robbers who kill—the ringleader and followers all decapitated, wives and children registered together, assigned as musician households; those who do not kill, and stolen goods less than five bolts—the ringleader decapitated, followers put to death, wives and children also made musician households; petty thieves with stolen goods of ten bolts or more—the ringleader put to death, wives and children assigned to courier stations, followers exiled. Chamberlain Sun Teng submitted: 'I have examined this carefully: if law is drawn as one line, principle brooks no duality—severity and leniency must not follow joy and anger, causing uneven weight. Examining the statute, public and private robbery and plunder—the penalty stops at exile. Yet recent officials stubbornly violate this, delighting in forced interpretations; beyond statutes and ordinances they establish further articles, opening paths for mutual impeachment and distributing rewards for capture. Thus the penal code becomes a dead letter, litigation grows ever more burdensome, and though laws and decrees multiply, bandits grow ever more numerous. This is not what is meant by governing without severity, nor by adhering to established precedent. I hold that the beauty of ascending peace lies in reducing punishment; the defect of decline must stem from harsh law. Thus when Han limited itself to three chapters, the realm submitted to its virtue; when Qin cruelly applied the five punishments, the land under heaven disintegrated. Ritual instructs gentlemen; law restrains petty men; offenses are named and penalties fixed—the state has its constant punishments. Such matters as 'pardoning after calamity, punishing the incorrigible'—the classics preserve such words, and our dynasty has established them as models. Applied as each time requires, each has its responsible office. It is inappropriate to multiply minute details and burden the people with advance preparation. I fear the more tightly one guards, the more fiercely one is attacked. I ask that all who commit theft be judged entirely according to statutes and ordinances, to clarify the constant constitution. This would allow punishment and execution to strike a balanced mean, not abandoning the root for the branch.' The edict approved.

天平後，遷移草創，百司多不奉法，貨賄公行。興和初，齊文襄王入輔朝政，以公平肅物，大改其風。至武定中，法令嚴明，四海知治矣。

After the Tianshi era, amid the upheaval of relocation, the hundred offices mostly failed to observe the law, and bribery was openly practiced. At the beginning of Xinghe, Prince Wenxiang of Qi entered to assist court governance; through fairness he disciplined men and greatly reformed the prevailing ways. By the Wuding era, laws and decrees were strict and clear, and the four seas knew good governance.

校勘記

Collation Notes

大辟四百九十條千八百八十二事死罪決比凡三千四百七十二條按漢書卷二三刑法志云：「其後姦滑巧法，轉相比況，禁網寖密。律令凡三百五十九章，大辟四百九條，千八百八十二事，死罪決事比萬三千四百七十二事。」當即此志所本，然記於于定國為廷尉前，非定國所集。漢志大辟四百九條，此志「九」下多「十」字，疑衍。又漢志死罪決事比萬三千四百七十二條，此志「萬」作「凡」，疑亦音近而訛。

The text reads 'capital offenses four hundred ninety articles, one thousand eight hundred eighty-two cases, death-sentence analogies altogether three thousand four hundred seventy-two cases.' Examining Hanshu juan 23, Treatise on Penal Law: 'Thereafter the crafty contrived legal subterfuges, citing one another by analogy, and the net of prohibition grew ever denser. Statutes and ordinances totaled three hundred fifty-nine chapters, capital offenses four hundred nine articles, one thousand eight hundred eighty-two cases, death-sentence analogies ten thousand three hundred seventy-two cases.' This should be the source on which this treatise rests; yet it is recorded before Yu Dingguo served as Minister of Justice—it was not compiled by Dingguo. In the Han treatise, capital offenses number four hundred nine articles; in this treatise an extra 'ten' appears after 'nine'—likely a spurious addition. Again, the Han treatise has 'ten thousand' death-sentence analogies at three thousand four hundred seventy-two cases; here 'ten thousand' appears as 'altogether'—likely another error from similar pronunciation.

便入極默按「默」本當作「墨」，「墨」本五刑之一，引伸泛指刑法。「極墨」猶言「極刑」、「極法」。但當時「墨」常作「默」，如「墨曹」常作「默曹」。下文高陽王雍議費羊皮、張回罪，亦云：「從有極默之戾」，今仍之。

Immediately subject to the utmost penalty — Note: mo (written with the 'silence' character) should read mo (the tattooing punishment); the latter was one of the five punishments and by extension came to mean penal law in general. 'Utmost mo' is equivalent to 'utmost punishment' or 'utmost penalty.' Yet at the time the tattooing character was often written as the silence character, as in the Penal Bureau (mocao) often appearing as the silence character. Below, when Prince Gao Yang Yong discussed the offenses of Yang Pi and Zhang Hui, he likewise wrote that 'the follower bears the utmost mo liability'—we retain it as is.

而〔決從真賣〕自「決從真賣」至「然」字括號內共三百十七字，為百衲本所據底本之十五頁。此頁脫去，第十四頁與十六頁相連，「而」字逕接「賣者既以有罪」，不加細察，文字啣接，似亦可通。南本以下諸本遂也不管舊本頁碼不合，接合無痕。百衲本且於十六頁邊欄注「此與十五合頁」，以解釋缺頁問題。今據冊府卷六一五〈七三九四頁〉補。所缺崔鴻議首數行亦見通典卷一六七雜議下，并用以校冊府訛脫。

And [decided from outright sale] — from 'decided from outright sale' through the character 'ran,' 317 characters in brackets constitute page fifteen of the base text used by the patched edition. This page was lost; pages fourteen and sixteen were joined, the character 'er' directly connecting to 'the seller already being guilty'—without careful examination the text linkage seems passable. Editions from the Southern version onward paid no heed to the mismatch in original page numbers and joined the text seamlessly. The patched edition even noted in the margin of page sixteen 'this combines with page fifteen' to explain the missing page. Now according to Cefu, juan 615 〈page 7394〉 —restored. The opening lines of Cui Hong's opinion that were missing also appear in Tongdian juan 167, Miscellaneous Opinions, Lower; these were also used to collate errors and lacunae in Cefu.

廷尉少卿楊鈞議曰冊府卷六一五〈七三九四頁〉「鈞議」作「均義」，宋本冊府作「鈞義」。按下崔鴻議中有云：「不得全如鈞議。」楊鈞附卷五八楊播傳。宋本冊府作「鈞」是，「義」字乃「議」之訛，今並改正。

Vice Minister of Justice Yang Jun's opinion — Cefu, juan 615 〈page 7394〉 'Jun yi' (Jun's opinion) appears as 'jun yi' (balanced righteousness); the Song edition of Cefu reads 'Jun yi' (Jun's righteousness). Examining below, Cui Hong's opinion states: 'One cannot fully follow Jun's opinion.' Yang Jun is appended to juan 58, Biography of Yang Bo. The Song edition of Cefu's 'Jun' is correct; the character 'righteousness' is a corruption of 'opinion'—both are now corrected.

處流為允冊府明本〈同上卷頁〉「處」訛「虔」，今據宋本冊府改。

Sentencing to exile is appropriate — Ming edition of Cefu 〈Same volume and page〉 The character for 'sentencing' (chu) is a corruption of 'reverent' (qian); corrected per the Song edition of Cefu.

三公郎中崔鴻議曰冊府〈同上卷頁〉脫「三」字，今據通典卷一六七補。

Attendant Gentleman of the Three Excellencies Cui Hong's opinion — Cefu 〈Same volume and page〉 The word 'Three' is missing; supplied from Tongdian, juan 167.

賣五服內親屬冊府〈同上卷頁〉「賣」作「買」，「內」作「因」，通典卷一六七作「賣」，但移在下句「期親及妾與子婦流」上，「因」作「內」。按「買」「因」二字顯訛，今並據通典改。

Selling relatives within the five mourning grades — Cefu 〈Same volume and page〉 'Sell' appears as 'buy' and 'within' as 'because of'; Tongdian juan 167 has 'sell' but places it on the next sentence ('relatives in mourning grade, concubines, and daughters-in-law to exile'), with 'because of' read as 'within.' The characters 'buy' and 'because of' are clearly errors; both are corrected per Tongdian.

因此流漂諸本「漂」訛「洞」，不可通，今據冊府卷六一五〈七三九五頁〉改。

'For this reason sent to exile and drifting' — all editions corrupt 'drifting' as 'cave,' which makes no sense; corrected per Cefu, juan 615 〈page 7395〉 —corrected.

而似從輕冊府〈同上卷頁〉、通典卷一六七「似」作「以」。按這是說本州援引強盜條文是「從輕」，原文當作「以」，但作「似」亦可通，今仍之。

Yet seemingly applying leniency — Cefu 〈Same volume and page〉 Tongdian juan 167 reads 'seemingly' as 'by means of.' This refers to the prefecture citing banditry statutes 'by applying leniency'; the original should read 'by' (yi), though 'seemingly' (si) also works—we retain the received text.

雖已申省冊府卷六一一〈七三三六頁〉「雖」作「解」。按下文李韶奏有「解送至省」，「連解下鞫」語，「解」是一種公文形式，疑作「解」是，但作「雖」亦通，今仍之。

Although already reported to the ministry — Cefu, juan 611 〈page 7336〉 'Although' appears as 'transfer report' (jie). Li Shao's memorial below uses 'transfer and send to the ministry' and 'continuously transfer down for trial'; jie denotes a type of official dispatch, so 'transfer report' is probably correct, though 'although' also works—we retain the received text.

處買梟首諸本「買」作「置」，獨百衲本作「買」。按冊府卷六一五〈七三九五頁〉也作「買」，指「王買」。今從百衲本。

Sentencing Mai to display the severed head — all editions read 'place' for 'buy/Mai'; only the patched edition has 'buy.' Per Cefu, juan 615 〈page 7395〉 also has 'buy,' referring to Wang Mai. We follow the patched edition.

其延陵法㩲等所謂月光童子劉景暉者諸本及冊府〈同上卷頁〉「㩲」作「權」，百衲本作「㩲」。按上云「冀州妖賊延陵王買」，延陵應是冀州郡、縣名，今地形志冀州下不載，可能字訛，也可能旋置旋廢，或地形志失載，今不可考。「法㩲」〈或「權」〉，疑是「法掾」之訛，故下文稱「姦吏無端，橫生繩墨」。但「法」亦姓，今姑作人名標。

Those such as Yanling Fa Kui and the so-called Moonlight Boy Liu Jinghui — all editions and Cefu 〈Same volume and page〉 'Kui' appears as 'authority' (quan); the patched edition reads 'kui.' The text above mentions 'Jizhou rebel bandit Yanling Wang Mai'; Yanling was probably a Jizhou commandery or county, but it does not appear under Jizhou in the Geographic Treatise—it may be a scribal error, a short-lived administrative unit, or an omission in the treatise; the matter cannot now be settled. 'Fa Kui' 〈possibly 'Quan'〉 , likely a corruption of 'legal clerk' (fa yuan)—which explains the below reference to 'corrupt officials groundlessly imposing punishments.' 'Fa' may also be a surname; it is tentatively treated here as a personal name.

方顯其事諸本脫「事」字，今據冊府卷六一五〈七三九六頁〉補。

'Only then was the matter made clear' — all editions omit 'matter'; supplied per Cefu, juan 615 〈page 7396〉 —supplied.

河東郡民李憐生行毒藥冊府〈同上卷頁〉、通典卷一六七「生」作「坐」，疑是。但「憐生」作雙名，下稱「李憐」乃單稱，亦通，今仍之。

Li Liansheng of Hedong Commandery, who trafficked in poison drugs — Cefu 〈Same volume and page〉 Tongdian juan 167 reads the name suffix 'sheng' as 'convicted of' (zuo)—probably correct. 'Liansheng' works as a compound given name, and the shortened 'Li Lian' below is also acceptable—we retain the received text.

司徒法曹參軍許琰謂州判為允諸本脫「法」字，今據冊府〈同上卷頁〉補。

Legal affairs aide to the Minister of Education Xu Yan held the prefecture's judgment appropriate — all editions omit 'legal'; supplied per Cefu 〈Same volume and page〉 —supplied.

不可參隣人伍諸本「伍」訛「任」，不可通，今據冊府〈同上卷頁〉改。

'One cannot enroll neighboring households as co-guarantors' — all editions corrupt 'household group' (wu) as 'duty' (ren), which makes no sense; corrected per Cefu 〈Same volume and page〉 —corrected.

不即依決百衲本「依決」二字空二格，諸本作「施行」，冊府卷六一五〈七三九七頁〉作「依決」。按二語意義不同，「不即依決」是說不即依從判決，「不即施行」則是暫不施行。上文門下處奏容妃、慧猛「各入死刑」，詔書「恕死，髠鞭付宮」，則是不依門下的判決，並非暫不施行。舊本二字脫，南本當是以意補，諸本從之，今據冊府補。

'Not immediately following the judgment' — the patched edition leaves blank spaces for 'follow judgment'; other editions read 'carry out'; Cefu, juan 615 〈page 7397〉 reads 'follow judgment.' The two readings differ: 'not immediately following the judgment' means refusing to abide by the verdict at once; 'not immediately carrying out' means deferring enforcement. Above, the Department of Affairs and Ceremonies recommended death for Consort Rong and Huimeng, but the edict spared their lives, shaved their heads, whipped them, and assigned them to palace service—meaning the throne did not follow the Department's verdict, not merely that enforcement was deferred. The old text lacked both characters; the Southern edition likely conjectured them, and later editions followed—we restore them per Cefu.

然人婦之孕不得非子又依永平四年先朝舊格諸本「子又依」三字作「一夕生」，冊府〈同上卷頁〉、通典卷一六七作「子又依」。按「不得非一夕生」不可解。上文引鬬律祖父母、父母殺子孫條，這裏是說公主雖貴，懷孕之胎，不得謂之「非子」，則劉輝毆公主以至傷胎，也只能算作父殺子。下文是說按照永平舊格，定罪應先首後從，這是另一理由，故云「又依」。冊府、通典是，今據改。〈通典「永平」訛「初平」。〉

'Yet a pregnant woman cannot be called a non-child; moreover, according to the former court's statutes of Yongping 4' — all editions read the three characters as 'born in one night'; Cefu 〈Same volume and page〉 Tongdian juan 167 reads 'child; moreover according.' 'Cannot be a non-one-night birth' is unintelligible. The passage above cites the statute on grandparents and parents killing descendants; here the point is that even though a princess is noble, the fetus she carries cannot be treated as a 'non-child'—so when Liu Hui beat the princess and harmed the fetus, the offense could only be classified as a father killing his child. The text below adds that under the Yongping statutes, guilt must be assigned to the principal offense before accomplices—a separate ground for the 'moreover according' reading. Cefu and Tongdian are correct; we adopt their reading. 〈Tongdian corrupts 'Yongping' as 'Chuping.'〉

皆首罪判定諸本「定」訛「官」，不可通，今據冊府〈同上卷頁〉、通典卷一六七改。〈通典「首罪」訛「首末」。〉

'All are judged according to primary guilt' — all editions corrupt 'judge' (ding) as 'official' (guan), which makes no sense; corrected per Cefu 〈Same volume and page〉 and Tongdian juan 167 — corrected. 〈Tongdian corrupts 'primary guilt' as 'primary and final.'〉

齊奚官之役百衲本「役」字空格，北、汲、殿三本注「闕」，南本、局本作「律」，冊府〈同上卷頁〉、通典卷一六七作「役」。按南本當是以意補，局本從之，今據冊府、通典補「役」字。

'Equal to palace women servitude' — the patched edition leaves 'servitude' blank; the Beiao, Jigu, and Dian editions mark a lacuna; the Southern and Ju editions read 'statute'; Cefu 〈Same volume and page〉 Tongdian juan 167 reads 'servitude.' The Southern edition likely conjectured the reading, and the Ju edition followed—we restore 'servitude' per Cefu and Tongdian.

妹適司士曹參軍羅顯貴按「司」下當脫「徒」或「空」字。

His younger sister married Luo Xiangui, army officer in the Works registrar's office — the text probably omits 'tu' or 'kong' after 'Si' (yielding either 'Situ' or 'Sikong').

從夫家之刑冊府卷六一五〈七三九八頁〉、通典卷一六七「刑」作「戮」。按「刑」字與上句重複，當時文體通行駢偶，疑作「戮」是。

Subject to the husband's family's punishment — Cefu, juan 615 〈page 7398〉 Tongdian juan 167 reads 'punishment' as 'execution' (lu). 'Punishment' repeats the preceding line; given the period's fondness for parallelism, 'execution' (lu) is probably correct.

期親相隱之謂凡罪冊府〈同上卷頁〉「之」作「指」，疑是。

Concealment among close relatives refers to ordinary offenses — Cefu 〈Same volume and page〉 'Zhi' (it) appears as 'zhi' (refer to)—probably correct.

何得以非正刑書百衲本「非」字空格，諸本作「非」，冊府〈同上卷頁〉無「非」字，也不空格。按這裏闕一字無疑，冊府不闕，乃刊本之誤。但所闕不知何字，今姑從諸本。

'How can one use improper orthodox penal codes' — the patched edition leaves 'improper' blank; other editions supply it; Cefu 〈Same volume and page〉 lacks 'improper' and has no blank space. A character is clearly missing here; Cefu preserves it—the lacuna is a printing error. Which character is missing remains unknown; we tentatively follow the other editions.

輝悖法亂理諸本「亂理」作「者之」，不可通，今據冊府〈同上卷頁〉、通典卷一六七改。

'Hui defied the law and upended principle' — all editions read 'upend principle' as 'one who it,' which makes no sense; corrected per Cefu 〈Same volume and page〉 and Tongdian juan 167 — corrected.

Cite this Chapter