Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T03:42:59.792Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE PROMULGATION OF LAW IN QIN AND WESTERN HAN CHINA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 September 2021

Li Jingrong  and
Chen Songchang
Li Jingrong
Affiliation:
Li Jingrong, 李婧嶸, Hunan University; email: [email protected]
Chen Songchang
Affiliation:
Chen Songchang, 陳松長, Hunan University; email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article studies the promulgation of law in Qin and Western Han China (221 b.c.e.–9 c.e.) based primarily on excavated legal and administrative texts. It shows that a new law was handed down from the emperor to the relevant offices on the day of enactment. The article argues that, to an extent, the subject matter and function of a law determined for whom it was passed and promulgated. Depending upon the location, rank, and official duties of the offices, the laws known and used could be quite different. Although it was required that documents of imperial decisions be forwarded swiftly and safely by courier at the prescribed speed, delays in forwarding such documents to distant local offices were probably common in Qin and Western Han China. Evidence indicates that district- and prefecture-level officials publicized laws that needed to be made known by the common people, by reading them aloud in local gatherings, for example, or posting them in conspicuous places. The article further argues that a law came into effect in offices on the day it arrived at local courts or on the day it was enacted in the central court, depending on the existence of related extant laws. It concludes that a new law in Qin and Western Han China was ex post facto, as it reached backwards to a past action and retroactively attached liabilities to the action at the point when it was performed.

提要

提要

本文以出土法律和行政文獻為主要材料，研究秦與西漢時期法律的發佈。秦漢法律自頒布之日起即一路由皇帝下傳至地方各相關官署。在一定程度上，法律的內容和目的決定其通知、傳播的對象。因所在地、級別和職責的不同，各官署知曉與使用的法律也隨之不同。雖然法律要求制書以郵行方式按照規定速度送往各官署，但是制書延遲送達偏遠地方官署的現象時有發生。證據顯示，縣、鄉級官吏將應該眾所周知的法律公佈給百姓，如通過鄉里聚會時宣講法律或者懸掛在明顯之處。取決於是否已有相關法律的存在，新法律或自到達地方官署之日起生效，或自中央朝廷頒布法律之日起生效。本文結論為秦漢法律具有溯及力，可以回溯至法律生效之前發生的犯罪行為並決定其責任。

Keywords

QinWestern Hanlawpromulgation秦西漢法律頒發
Type
Research Article
Information
Early China , Volume 44 , September 2021 , pp. 393 - 418
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Study of Early China and Cambridge University Press 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

We are extremely grateful to Professor Michael Friedrich, two anonymous reviewers and the editor Sarah Allan for their helpful comments and criticisms on the earlier drafts of this article.

References

1 See Caldwell, Ernest, Writing Chinese Laws: The Form and the Function of Legal Statutes Found in the Qin Shuihudi Corpus (Abingdon: Routledge, 2018), 71–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 For research on local administration in the Qin and Han periods, see Takeyuki, Takamura 高村武幸, “Shin. Kan jidai chihō gyōsei ni o ke ru ishi kettei katei” 秦. 漢時代地方行政における意思決定過程, Tōhō gakuhō 東洋學報 97 (2015), 1–21Google Scholar; Wu Fangji 吳方基, “Qindai zhongyang yu difang guanxi de chongxin shenshi—yi chutu zhengwu wenshu wei zhongxin” 秦代中央與地方關係的重新審視—以出土政務文書為中心, Shi lin 1 (2016), 25–27; Taixiang, Liu 劉太詳, “Jiandu suojian Qin Han lüling xingzheng” 簡牘所見秦漢律令行政, Nandu xuekan (renwen shehui kexue ban) 4 (2013), 2–13Google Scholar.

3 For relevant research, see Korolkov, Maxim, “Calculating Crime and Punishment: Unofficial Law Enforcement, Quantification, and Legitimacy in Early Imperial China,” Critical Analysis of Law 3.1 (2016), 73–83Google Scholar; Sanft, Charles, Communication and Cooperation in Early Imperial China: Publicizing the Qin Dynasty (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2014), 138–43Google Scholar; Korolkov, Maxim, “Arguing about Law: Interrogation Procedure under the Qin and Former Han Dynasties,” Études chinoises 30 (2011), 50–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Sanft, Charles, “Law and Communication in Qin and Western Han China,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 53.5 (2010), 690–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 See Hulsewé, Anthony, “Law as One of the Foundations of State Power in Early Imperial China,” in Foundations and Limits of State Power in China, ed. Schram, S. R. (London: SOAS—Chinese University Press, 1987), 11–32Google Scholar.

5 We find instances of officials “publicizing edicts and ordinances” 布詔令 in the Grand Scribe’s Records 史記 and the Book of Han 漢書, see Shi ji 史記 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1959), 96.2688 and Han shu 漢書 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1962), 51.2336, 89.3629 and 89.3631. Legal manuscripts also show that the Qin and Han empires promulgated laws to their subjects. The phrase “prudently publicizing ordinances, and ordering black-headed people, officials, official conscripts and slaves, and private salves all to clearly know them” 謹布令, 令黔首, 吏, 官徒隷, 奴婢明智（知）之 and similar statements appear in the legal manuscripts collected by the Yuelu Academy 嶽麓書院 and in those excavated from Shuihudi Qin tomb no.11 睡虎地十一號秦墓; for example, see Yuelu slip 1112/028, in Chen Songchang 陳松長, ed., Yuelu shuyuan cang Qinjian (wu) 嶽麓書院藏秦簡(伍) (Shanghai: Shanghai cishu, 2017), 48; Yushu slips 4–5, in Shuihudi Qinmu zhujian zhengli xiaozu 睡虎地秦墓竹簡整理小組, ed., Shuihudi Qinmu zhujian 睡虎地秦墓竹簡 (Beijing: Wenwu, 1990), 13.

6 The definition of “promulgation” given in the ninth edition of Black’s Law Dictionary states, “The official publication of a new law or regulation, by which it is put into effect”; see Garner, Bryan A., ed., Black’s Law Dictionary, ninth edition (St. Paul: Thomson Reuters, 2009), 1334Google Scholar.

7 It should be noted that the Yuelu manuscripts did not derive from a scientific archaeological excavation but were looted from one or more tombs by grave robbers; thus, their provenance is unclear; see Chen Songchang 陳松長, “Yuelu shuyuan suo cang Qinjian zongshu” 嶽麓書院所藏秦簡綜述, Wenwu 3 (2009), 75–76.

8 For the legal texts from the Shuihudi materials, this article follows Shuihudi Qin mu zhujian zhengli xiaozu, Shuihudi Qin mu zhujian; for the English translation with commentary, see Hulsewé, A. F. P., Remnants of Ch’in Law: An Annotated Translation of the Ch’in Legal and Administrative Rules of the 3rd Century B.C., Discovered in Yun-Meng Prefecture, Hu-Pei Province, in 1975 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the texts from the Ernian lüling materials, this article follows Zhangjiashan ersiqihao Hanmu zhujian zhengli xiaozu 張家山二四七號漢墓竹簡整理小組, Zhangjiashan Hanmu zhujian [ersiqihao mu](shiwen xiudingben) 張家山漢墓竹簡〔二四七號墓〕（釋文修訂本） (Beijing: Wenwu, 2006); for the English translation with commentary, see Anthony J. Barbieri-Low and Robin D. S. Yates, Law, State, and Society in Early Imperial China: A Study with Critical Edition and Translation of the Legal Texts from Zhangjiashan Tomb no. 247, 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 2015). For the legal rules in the Yuelu materials, see Chen Songchang 陳松長, ed., Yuelu shuyuan cang Qinjian (si) 嶽麓書院藏秦簡(肆) (Shanghai: Shanghai cishu, 2015), Chen Songchang, ed., Yuelu shuyuan cang Qinjian (wu), and Chen Songchang 陳松長, ed., Yuelu shuyuan cang Qinjian (liu) 嶽麓書院藏秦簡（陸） (Shanghai: Shanghai cishu, 2020). For the texts from the Juyan materials, see Xie Guihua 謝桂華, Li Junming 李均明 and Zhu Guozhao 朱國炤, Juyan Hanjian shiwen hejiao 居延漢簡釋文合校 (Beijing: Wenwu, 1987). For the texts from the Liye materials, see Chen Wei 陳偉, ed., Liye Qin jiandu jiaoshi (diyijuan) 里耶秦簡牘校釋（第一卷) (Wuhan: Wuhan daxue, 2012) and Chen Wei 陳偉, ed., Liye Qin jiandu jiaoshi (dierjuan) 里耶秦簡牘校釋（第二卷) (Wuhan: Wuhan daxue, 2018).

9 On the classification and arrangement of ordinances, see Tomiya Itaru 冨谷至, “Jin Taishi ritsuryō e no michi—daiichi bu: Shin Kan no ritsu to ryō” 晉泰始律令への道—第一部：秦漢の律と令, Tōhō gakuhō 東方學報 72 (2000), 92–102; and Nan Yuquan 南玉泉, “Qinling de xingzhi jiqi yu lü de guanxi” 秦令的性質及其與律的關係, in Qinlü yanjiu 秦律研究, ed. Chen Wei 陳偉 (Wuhan: Wuhan daxue, 2017), 84–92. Fan Guodong suggests that government offices of different levels could arrange ordinances according to their official responsibilities; see Fan Guodong 凡國棟, “Qin Han chutu falü wenxian suojian ‘ling’ de bianxu wenti—you Songbai yihao mu ling bing dijiu mudu yinfa de sikao” 秦漢出土法律文獻所見“令”的編序問題—由松柏 1 號墓《令》丙第九木牘引發的思考, Chutu wenxian yanjiu 10 (2011), 160–68.

10 Barbieri-Low and Yates compare the statutes in the Ernian lüling manuscript and those in the Shuihudi and Longgang manuscripts and conclude that Han China inherited almost all the legal rules of the Qin dynasty, with only minor modifications and innovations; see Barbieri-Low and Yates, Law, State, and Society in Early Imperial China, vol. 1, 220–25; see also Li Xueqin and Xing Wen, “New Light on the Early-Han Code: A Reappraisal of the Zhangjiashan Bamboo-Slip Legal Texts,” Asia Major (3rd. ser.) 14.1 (2001), 139–43; and Gao Min 高敏, “Hanchu falü xi quanbu jicheng Qinlü shuo—du zhangjiashan Hanjian Zouyanshu zhaji” 漢初法律系全部繼承秦律說——讀張家山漢簡《奏讞書》札記, in Qin Han Wei Jin Nanbeichao shi lunkao 秦漢魏晉南北朝史論考 (Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue, 2004), 76–84.

11 Geoffrey MacCormack, “The Transmission of Penal Law (lü) from the Han to the T’ang: A Contribution to the Study of the Early History of Codification in China,” Revue internationale des droits de l’antiquité 51 (2004), 52–54.

12 See Jianguo, Zhang 張建國, “Zhongguo lülingfa tixi gailun” 中國律令法體系概論, Beijing daxue xuebao (zhexue shehui kexueban) 5 (1998), 95–96Google Scholar; Ōba Osamu 大庭脩, “Lülingfa tixi de bianqian yu Qin Han fadian” 律令法體系的變遷與秦漢法典, in Qin Han fazhishi yanjiu 秦漢法制史研究, trans. Xu Shihong 徐世虹 et al. (Shanghai: Zhongxi, 2017), 6–7; and Meng Yanhong 孟彥弘, “Qin Han fadian tixi de yanbian” 秦漢法典體系的演變, Lishi yanjiu 3 (2005), 32.

13 See Tomiya Itaru, “Jin Taishi ritsuryō e no michi——daiichi bu: Shin⋅Kan no ritsu to ryō,” 92–102; Meng Yanhong, “Qin Han fadian tixi de yanbian,” 28–33; Yuquan, Nan 南玉泉, “Qinling de xingzhi jiqi yu lü de guanxi,” in Qinlü yanjiu, ed. Chen Wei, 99–100; Zhang Zhongwei 張忠煒, “Qin Han lüling guanxi shitan” 秦漢律令關係試探, Wen shi zhe 4 (2011), 91–95Google Scholar; and Yang Zhenhong 楊振紅, “Cong Ernian lüling de xingzhi kan Handai fadian de bianzuan xiuding yu lüling guanxi” 從《二年律令》的性質看漢代法典的編纂修訂與律令關係, Lishi yanjiu 4 (2005), 41–48.

14 Han shu, 23.1100.

15 Kunio, Hirose 廣瀨薰雄, “Qin Han shidai lüling bian” 秦漢時代律令辯, Zhongguo gudai falü wenxian yanjiu 7 (2013), 116–20Google Scholar. Hirose Kunio also suggests that all the statutes of the Qin and Han dynasties were made separately and originated from imperial decisions; however, as previously discussed, a large part of the statutes were inherited from former times, and only a small part of the statutes were created individually from imperial decisions or originated from ordinances.

16 Ōba Osamu defines three types of Han legislation. In addition to the two types discussed in the article, there is a third type in which the emperor called for a problem to be deliberated by certain court officials and then approved their petition with an imperial decision. As he argues, the third type of legislation has attributes of both the first and second types; see Ōba Osamu, “The Ordinances on Fords and Passes Excavated from Han Tomb Number 247, Zhangjiashan,” trans. and ed. David Spafford et al., Asia Major (3rd. ser.) 14.2 (2001),128–29.

17 The editorial team of the Yuelu Academy manuscripts transcribes the ordinance as follows: “Ling yue: zhu suo shang er wei ling, zhao yue ke, jie yi shu xia ri ding, qi zou ri xia zhi, qi dang yi shi xia, ge yi xia shi ding zhi” 令曰: 諸所上而為令, 詔曰可, 皆以書下日定, 其奏日下之, 其當以時下, 各以下時定之, see Chen Songchang: Yuelu shuyuan cang Qinjian (wu), 103. The article follows the transcription of the ordinance suggested by Chen Wei; see Chen Wei 陳偉: “‘Yuelu shuyuan cang Qinjian (wu)’ jiaodu (xu)” 嶽麓書院藏秦簡(伍)校讀(續) (www.bsm.org.cn/show_article.php?id=3006 [published on Mar 10, 2018] [accessed on Sept 6, 2020]). We would like to thank Ulrich Lau and Thies Staack for their valuable advice on the translation and interpretation of the ordinance.

18 For other possible interpretations of zu 卒 as part of the name of ordinances, see Songchang, Chen 陳松長, “Yuelu Qinjian zhong de jige lingming xiaoshi” 嶽麓秦簡中的幾個令名小識, Wenwu 12 (2016), 63–64Google Scholar.

19 Giele, Enno, Imperial Decision-Making and Communication in Early China: A Study of Cai Yong’s Duduan (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2006), 115–22Google Scholar.

20 For a detailed study of the submission of petitions (zou 奏) by officials to the emperor, see Wang Guihai 汪桂海, Handai guanwenshu zhidu 漢代官文書制度 (Guilin: Guangxi shifan daxue, 1999), 161–83.

21 For a photo of the bamboo board, see Jingzhou bowuguan, ed., Jingzhou zhongyao kaogu faxian 荊州重要考古發現 (Beijing: Wenwu, 2009), 210–11. For a transcription of the text, see Hu Pingsheng 胡平生, “Jingzhou xinchu jiandu shijie” 荊州新出簡牘釋解, in Hu Pingsheng jiandu wenwu lungao 胡平生簡牘文物論稿 (Shanghai: Zhongxi, 2012), 268.

22 Peng Hao 彭浩, “Du Songbai chutu de XiHan mudu (yi)” 讀松柏出土的西漢木牘（一）(www.bsm.org.cn/show_article.php?id=1009 [published on Mar. 31, 2009] [accessed on Sept. 6, 2020]).

23 Wang Guihai, Handai guanwenshu zhidu, 209–10.

24 It should be noted that Emperor Xiaowen 孝文皇帝 is the posthumous name of Emperor Liu Heng 劉恆 (r. 180–157 b.c.e.). It is therefore likely that this phrase is the result of a modification made after the death of Liu Heng and that it is most likely not identical with the note that may have been attached to the ordinance just after its approval and promulgation in the tenth year of Emperor Wen (171 b.c.e.).

25 For example, the text on slip 332⋅9 from the Juyan site states “... the ordinance on tallies. The imperial decision states ‘Approved.’ Sent down [the ordinance] on the gengchen day of the seventh month of the third year of Emperor Xiaowen. [The ordinance] contains 66 characters in total.” 〼符令. 制曰可. 孝文皇帝三年七月庚辰下. 六十六字; see Xie Guihua, Li Junming and Zhu Guozhao, Juyan Hanjian shiwen hejiao, 521. The text on slip 1162B from the Dunhuang site states “sent down on the wujia day of the ninth month of the second year of Wufeng” 五鳳二年九月戊申下; see Gansusheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, ed., Dunhuang Hanjian (xia) 敦煌漢簡（下）(Beijing: Zhonghua, 1991), 264. We also find examples of such a note in the Yuelu Qin materials and Wuwei Han materials. The text on fragmentary Yuelu slip 1601/162 states “... sent down on the wuyin day of the eighth month of the … year. The Twenty-second of the A Ordinances on Infantries of the Court” [...] 年八月戊寅下. 廷卒甲廿二; see Chen Songchang, ed., Yuelu shuyuan cang Qinjian (wu),122. The text on slip 4 of the Document of the Edit of the Dove-headed Staff (wangzhang zhaoshu 王杖詔書) states “sent down on the ninth month of the second year of Jianshi” 建始二年九月甲辰下; see Gansusheng bowuguan and Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo, Wuwei Hanjian 武威漢簡 (Beijing: Wenwu, 1964), 140.

26 Ōba Osamu, Qin Han fazhishi yanjiu, 171–79.

27 The two formulas are frequently found in the Liye administrative texts, for example, Liye slips 5-1, 8-21, 8-63, 8-143 and 8-155; see Chen Wei, ed., Liye Qin jiandu jiaoshi (diyijuan), 1, 34, 48, 83 and 94.

28 Liqi, Wang 王利器, Yantie lun jiaozhu 鹽鐵論校注 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1992), 565–66Google Scholar.

29 For the classification and function of laws in early imperial China, see Barbieri-Low and Yates, Law, State, and Society in Early Imperial China, vol. 1, 210–19.

30 The terms “decision rules” and “conduct rules” are used by legal scholars to discuss the nature and functions of criminal laws; see Dan-Cohen, Meir, “Decision Rules and Conduct Rules: On Acoustic Separation in Criminal Law,” Harvard Law Review 97.3 (1984), 631–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31 See the discussion in Sun Wenbo 孫聞博, “Bureaus and Offices in Qin County-Level Administration: In Light of an Excerpt from the Lost Hongfan wuxing zhuan (Great Plan Five Phases Commentary),” trans. Christopher Foster, Bamboo and Silk 1 (2018), 90–99; Mingzhao, Li 黎明釗 and Junfeng, Tang 唐俊峰, “Liye Qinjian suojian Qindai xianguan, cao zuzhi de zhineng fenye yu xingzheng hudong—yi ji, ke wei zhongxin” 里耶秦簡所見秦代縣官、曹組織的職能分野與行政互動—以計、課為中心, Jianbo 13 (2016), 130–40Google Scholar; Hongbo, Guo 郭洪伯, “Baiguan yu zhucao—Qin Han jiceng jigou de bumen shezhi” 稗官與諸曹—秦漢基層機構的部門設置, Jianbo yanjiu 2013 (2014), 101–27Google Scholar; Nakayama Shigeru 仲山茂, “Shin⋅Kan jidai no ‘kan’ to ‘sō’—ken no bukyoku soshiki” 秦漢時代の“官”と“曹”——県の部局組織, Tōyō gakuhō 82.4 (2001), 35–65.

32 Xu Shihong 徐世虹, “Wenxian jiedu yu Qin Han lü benti renshi” 文獻解讀與秦漢律本體認識, in Shiliao yu fashixue 史料與法史學, ed. Liu Liyan 柳立言 (Taipei: Zhongyang yanjiuyuan lishi yuyan yanjiusuo, 2016), 25–27.

33 Barbieri-Low and Yates, Law, State, and Society in Early Imperial China, vol. 1, 65.

34 Slip 516–517, in Zhangjiashan ersiqihao Hanmu zhujian zhengli xiaozu, Zhangjiashan Hanmu zhujian [ersiqihao mu] (Shiwen xiudingben), 87.

35 Shuihudi Qin mu zhujian zhengli xiaozu, Shuihudi Qin mu zhujian, 61.

36 Chen Songchang, ed., Yuelu shuyuan cang Qinjian (wu),130–31.

37 Chen Songchang, ed., Yuelu shuyuan cang Qinjian (si), 194–95.

38 See Charles Sanft, Communication and Cooperation in Early Imperial China: Publicizing the Qin Dynasty, 102–118; and Edgar Kiser and Yong Cai, “War and Bureaucratization in Qin China: Exploring an Anomalous Case,” American Sociological Review 68.4 (2003), 529.

39 On the administrative forms of the Qin and Han, see Barbiri-Low, Anthony, “Model Legal and Administrative Forms from the Qin, Han, and Tang and Their Role in the Facilitation of Bureaucracy and Literacy,” Oriens Extremus 50 (2011), 126–35Google Scholar, see also Xing Yitian (Hsing I-tien) 邢義田, “Cong jiandu kan Handai de xingzheng wenshu fanben— ‘shi’ ” 從簡牘看漢代的行政文書範本—“式,” in Zhiguo anbang: fazhi, xingzheng yu junshi 治國安邦：法制、行政與軍事 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 2011), 450–70.

40 See Ernian lüling slips 265–266 and 273, in Zhangjiashan ersiqihao Hanmu zhujian zhengli xiaozu, Zhangjiashan Hanmu zhujian [ersiqihao mu] (shiwen xiudingben), 45–46; and Yuelu slips 1250/192 and 1368/193, in Chen Songchang, ed., Yuelu shuyuan cang Qinjian (si), 131–32.

41 The Qin and Han li is 300 paces (bu 步), and one pace consists of six chi 尺. Qin and Han bamboo slips show that the Qin and Han chi is approximately 23.1 centimeters, therefore, the Qin and Han li is close to 415.8 meters. For Qin and Han measures, see A. F. P. Hulsewé, Remnants of Ch’in Law: An Annotated Translation of the Ch’in Legal and Administrative Rules of the 3rd Century B.C. Discovered in Yün-meng Prefecture, Hu-pei Province, in 1975, 19.

42 See Ernian lüling slips 264 and 266, in Zhangjiashan ersiqihao Hanmu zhujian zhengli xiaozu, Zhangjiashan Hanmu zhujian [ersiqihao mu] (shiwen xiudingben), 45.

43 See Ernian lüling slip 273, in Zhangjiashan ersiqihao Hanmu zhujian zhengli xiaozu, Zhangjiashan Hanmu zhujian [ersiqihao mu] (shiwen xiudingben), 46. It should be noted that one text from the Juyan site states that “Documents should be forwarded 160 li in a day and a night” 書一日一夜當行百六十里; slip E.P.S4.T2:8A, in Gansusheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, Gansusheng bowuguan, Wenhuabu guwenxian yanjiushi, and Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan lishi yanjiusuo, eds. Juyan Xinjian 居延新簡 (Beijing: Wenwu, 1990), 554. According to Eno Gīre, as the Han li referred to in the Juyan texts may have been longer than the early Han li mentioned in the Ernian lüling texts, the two distances given in the Ernian lüling statute (slip 273) and in the Juyan text (slip E.P.S4.T2:8A 8A) might have been identical; see Eno Gīre ギーレ, エノ (Enno Giele), “‘Yū’ seikō: Shin Kan jidai o chūshin ni” 「郵」制攷——秦漢時代を中心に, trans. Tomiya Itaru. Tōyōshi kenkyū 東洋史研究 63.2 (2004), 15–16.

44 See Yuelu slip 1384/194, in Chen Songchang, ed., Yuelu shuyuan cang Qinjian (si), 132.

45 See Ernian lüling slips 265–266, in Zhangjiashan ersiqihao Hanmu zhujian zhengli xiaozu, Zhangjiashan Hanmu zhujian [ersiqihao mu] (shiwen xiudingben), 45.

46 For research on statutes on forwarding documents, see Hao, Peng 彭浩, “Du Zhangjiashan Hanjian Xingshulü” 讀張家山漢簡《行書律》, Wenwu 9 (2002), 54–59Google Scholar; Songchang, Chen 陳松長, “Yuelu shuyuan cang Qinjian zhong de Xingshu lüling chulun” 嶽麓書院藏秦簡中的行書律令初論, Zhongguoshi yanjiu 3 (2009), 31–38Google Scholar.

47 Chen Songchang, ed., Yuelu shuyuan cang Qinjian (wu), 101.

48 Fujita Katsuhisa 藤田勝久, “Liye Qinjian suojian Qindai junxian de wenshu chuandi” 里耶秦簡所見秦代郡縣的文書傳遞, Jianbo 8 (2013), 185–89.

49 Xueqin, Li 李學勤, “Chudu Liye Qinjian” 初讀里耶秦簡, Wenwu 1 (2003), 75Google Scholar.

50 Jialiang, Lu 魯家亮, “Liye Qinjian suojian Qin Qianlingxian liyuan de goucheng yu laiyuan” 里耶秦簡所見秦遷陵縣吏員的構成與來源, Chutu wenxian 13 (2018), 210–15Google Scholar.

51 Gansusheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, “Gansu Dunhuang Handai xuanquanzhi yizhi fajue jianbao” 甘肅敦煌漢代懸泉置遺址發掘簡報, Wenwu 5 (2000), 11.

52 Wenhan, Zhang 張文瀚, “Handai jiaqu houguan de richang guanli” 漢代甲渠候官的日常管理, Shixue yue kan 7 (2015), 19–21Google Scholar.

53 On the reconstruction of the bamboo slips and the restoration of the document of the edict, see Ōba Osamu,“Yuankang wunian zhaoshu ce de fuyuan” 元康五年詔書冊的復原, in Qin Han fazhishi yanjiu, 163–71. For a transcription of the bamboo slips, see Xie Guihua, Li Junming, and Zhu Guozhao, Juyan Hanjian shiwen hejiao, 16–17. For the English translation of the edict, see Giele, Enno, “Signatures of ‘Scribes’ in Early Imperial China,” Asiatische Studien / Études Asiatiques 59 (2005), 369–70Google Scholar.

54 Ōba Osamu, “Lun jianshui jinguan chutu de Yongshi sannian zhaoshu jiance” 論肩水金關出土的《永始三年詔書》簡冊, trans. Jiang Zhenqing 姜鎮慶, Dunhuangxue jikan 2 (1984), 176–77.

55 On the signatures of the scribes, see Enno Giele, “Signatures of ‘Scribes’ in Early Imperial China,” 365–84.

56 Ma Yi analyzes the delivery of the “Document of the Edict of the Second Year of Shijianguo” (Shijianguo ernian zhaoshu ce 始建國二年詔書冊) under the reign of Wang Mang 王莽. As the edict contained directions on urgent military affairs, it was delivered from Chang’an to Zhangye by relay horses and then from Zhangye to Jiagouhou 甲溝候 by courier. Thus it took only twenty-two days to deliver the edict; see Yi, Ma 馬怡, “‘Shijianguo ernian zhaoshu’ ce suojian zhaoshu zhi xiaxing” “始建國二年詔書”冊所見詔書之下行, Lishi yanjiu 4 (2015), 168Google Scholar.

57 For a transcription of the text, see Gansu jiandu bowuguan, Gansusheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, Gansusheng bowuguan, Zhongguo wenhua yichan yanjiuyuan guwenxian yanjiushi and Zhongguo shehui kexue yanjiuyuan jianbo yanjiu zhongxin, eds., Jianshui Jinguan Hanjian (si) 肩水金關漢簡(肆) (Shanghai: Zhongxi, 2015), 140–41.

58 See Tang Junfeng 唐俊峰, “Qindai Qianlingxian xingzheng xinxi chuandi xiaolü chutan” 秦代遷陵縣行政信息傳遞效率初探, Jianbo 16 (2018), 229; and Liu Ziwen 劉自穩, “Liye Qinjian zhong de zhuishu xianxiang—cong Shuihudi Qinjian yize Xingshulü shuoqi” 里耶秦簡中的追書現象—從睡虎地秦簡一則行書律說起, Chutu wenxian yanjiu 16 (2017), 161.

59 For relevant research, see Xu Yanbin 徐燕斌, Zhongguo gudai falü chuanbo shigao 中國古代法律傳播史稿 (Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue, 2019), 30–38; Yanbin, Xu 徐燕斌, “Zhou Qin LiangHan falü ‘bu zhi yu min’ kaolun” 周秦兩漢法律 “佈之於民”考論, Faxue yanjiu 6 (2017), 197–202Google Scholar; Zhu Teng 朱騰, “Qin Han shidai lüling de chuanbo” 秦漢時代律令的傳播, Faxue pinglun 4 (2017), 190–91; Haifeng, Zhou 周海鋒, “Qin lüling zhi liubu yiji suizang lüling xingzhi wenti” 秦律令之流布以及隨葬律令性質問題, Huadong zhengfa daxue xuebao 4 (2016), 45–49Google Scholar; and Chunping, Huang 黃春平, “Cong chutu jiandu kan Han diguo zhongyang de xinxi fabu—jianping Zhang Tao xiansheng de ‘fubao’ shuo” 從出土簡牘看漢帝國中央的信息發布—兼評張濤先生的“府報”說, Xinwen yu chuanbo yanjiu 4 (2006), 2–11Google Scholar.

60 Tomiya Itaru, Bunsho gyōsei no Kan teikoku: mokkan, chikukan no jidai 文書行政の漢帝國：木簡，竹簡の時代 (Nagoya: Nagoya daigaku, 2010), 127–31.

61 Yates suggests that Qin and Han commoners may have had basic literacy skills; see Yates, Robin D. S., “Soldiers, Scribes, and Women: Literacy among the Lower Orders in Early China,” in Writing and Literacy in Early China: Studies from the Columbia Early China Seminar, eds. Li Feng and David Prager Branner (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2011), 367–69Google Scholar.

62 Han shu, 51.2336.

63 Chen Songchang, ed., Yuelu shuyuan cang Qinjian (wu), 135.

64 See Xuemei, Li 李雪梅, “Gudai Zhongguo ‘mingjin jifa’ chuantong chutan” 古代中國‘銘金紀法’傳統初探, Tianjin shifan daxue xuebao (shehui kexue ban) 1 (2010), 29–32Google Scholar; and Xu Yanbin, “Zhou Qin liangHan falü ‘bu zhi yu min’ kaolun,” 197–202.

65 Ma Yi 馬怡, “Bianshu shitan” 扁書試探, in Ejina Hanjian shiwen jiaoben 額濟納漢簡釋文校本, ed. Sun Jiazhou 孫家洲 (Beijing: Wenwu, 2007), 179–80.

66 For research on the form, content and functions of posted documents, see Charles Sanft, Communication and Cooperation in Early Imperial China: Publicizing the Qin Dynasty, 144–46; Yanbin, Xu 徐燕斌, “Hanjian bianshu jikao—jianlun Handai falü chuanbo de lujing” 漢簡扁書輯考—兼論漢代法律傳播的路徑, Huadong zhengfa daxue xuebao 2 (2013), 50–62Google Scholar; Hu Pingsheng 胡平生, “‘Bianshu’, ‘dabianshu’ kao” “扁書”、“大扁書”考, in Dunhuang Xuanquan yueling zhaoling 敦煌懸泉月令詔令, eds. Zhongguo wenwu yanjiusuo and Gansusheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo (Beijing: Zhonghua, 2001), 48–54.

67 Tomiya Itaru, Bunsho gyōsei no Kan teikoku: mokkan, chikukan no jidai, 126–27.

68 For research on the legal training of Qin and Han officials, see Xing Yitian (Hsing I-tien) 邢義田, “Qin Han de lüling xue” 秦漢的律令學, in Zhiguo anbang: fazhi, xingzheng yu junshi, 19–22; and Zhang Jinguang 張金光, “Xueli zhidu—jian yu Han bijiao 學吏制度—兼與漢比較,” in Qinzhi yanjiu 秦制研究 (Shanghai: Shanghai guji, 2004), 727–34.

69 For example, slip II 0115②: 16, in Hu Pingsheng 胡平生 and Zhang Defang 張德芳, eds., Dunhuang Xuanquan Hanjian shicui 敦煌懸泉漢簡釋粹 (Shanghai: Shanghai guji, 2001), 115; and slip 2000 ES7S: 4A, in Sun Jiazhou, ed., Ejina Hanjian shiwen jiaoben, 60–61.

70 Gansu jiandu bowuguan et al., Jianshui Jinguan Hanjian (si), 141.

71 Charles Sanft, “Law and Communication in Qin and Western Han China,” 690–97.

72 Maxim Korolkov, “Arguing about Law: Interrogation Procedure under the Qin and Former Han Dynasties,” 50–61; see also Yates, “Soldiers, Scribes, and Women,” 368–69.

73 Tao, Jiang 姜濤, “Hanjian ‘Wangzhang zhaoshu’ bikan yanjiu” 漢簡“王杖詔書”比勘研究, Zhongguo gudai falü wenxian yanjiu 10 (2016), 164–68Google Scholar.

74 Chen Songchang, ed., Yuelu shuyuan cang Qinjian (wu), 103. The ordinance is also written on Yuelu slip 1900/221; see Chen Songchang, ed., Yuelu shuyuan cang Qinjian (liu), 169.

75 It should be noted that the text of one Yuelu ordinance noting down the date of its arrival at the local office “arrived in Huyang on jiaxu day of the fourth month of the twenty-ninth year” 廿九年四月甲戌到胡陽; slip 1859/255, Chen Songchang, ed., Yuelu shuyuan cang Qinjian (liu), 180.

76 The definition of a “retroactive law” given in the ninth edition of Black’s Law Dictionary states, “A legislative act that looks backward or contemplates the past, affecting acts or facts that existed before the act came into effect.” Garner, ed., Black’s Law Dictionary, ninth edition, 1432. For the concept and explanation of retroactive law, see also Duxbury, Neil, “Ex Post Facto Law,” The American Journal of Jurisprudence 58.2 (2013), 145–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

77 For other examples, see the texts on Yuelu slips 1278/106, 1024/005 and 1357/005 in Chen Songchang, ed., Yuelu shuyuan cang Qinjian (si), 103, Chen Chen Songchang, ed., Yuelu shuyuan cang Qinjian (wu), 40, and Chen Songchang, ed., Yuelu shuyuan cang Qinjian (liu), 48.

78 Zhangjiashan ersiqihao Hanmu zhujian zhengli xiaozu, Zhangjiashan Hanmu zhujian [ersiqihao mu] (shiwen xiudingben), 97.

79 Barbieri-Low and Yates translate the text “ling dao xian dao guan, ying san shi ri” 令到縣道官，盈三十日 as “Order [them] to go to the office of their county or march within a full thirty days,” see Barbieri-Low and Yates, Law, State, and Society in Early Imperial China, vol. 2, 1277, while Lau and Lüdke translate it as “die nach Ablauf von 30 Tagen, nachdem die Verdordnung die Ämter der Präfekturen und Marken erreicht hat,” Ulrich Lau and Michael Lüdke, Exemplarische Rechtsfälle vom Beginn der Han-Dynastie: Eine kommentierte Übersetzung des Zouyanshu aus Zhangjiashan / Provinz Hubei (Tokyo: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa (ILCAA), 2012), 188–89. The translation of Lau and Lüdke fits the content of the ordinance, as it emphasizes that people should register themselves within thirty days after the arrival of the new ordinance.