睡虎地秦墓竹簡‧法律答問

Shuìhǔdì Qín Mù Zhújiǎn‧Fǎlǜ Dāwèn 睡虎地秦墓竹簡‧法律答問

Bamboo Slips from the Qin Tomb at Shuihudi — Answers to Legal Questions

About the work

The Fǎlǜ Dāwèn 法律答問 (Answers to Legal Questions) is the largest and most jurisprudentially sophisticated text in the Shuìhǔdì legal corpus, recovered from Qin tomb no. 11 at Shuìhǔdì 睡虎地, Yúnmèng County 雲夢縣, Hubei Province, excavated in 1975–76 and sealed around 217 BCE. It consists of approximately 210 entries in question-and-answer format, each interpreting a specific clause of Qin law or resolving a specific legal scenario. The format — a quoted or paraphrased legal provision, followed by a question about its application, followed by an authoritative answer — is unique in the pre-Han legal corpus and constitutes the earliest surviving example of Chinese legal commentary in the form of case resolution. The Fǎlǜ Dāwèn is the principal interpretive complement to the Qín Lǜ Shíbā Zhǒng (KR2p0176) and reveals, in practical detail, how Qin law was applied, extended, and interpreted in the courts. It is the most valuable single source for the study of Qin criminal law.

Abstract

Format. Each entry in the Fǎlǜ Dāwèn follows a characteristic structure. Many entries quote or paraphrase a legal provision (introduced by quotation marks in modern editions), then pose a question (introduced by 可謂 kě wèi “what does one mean by…?” or a hypothetical scenario), and then provide the official answer. Other entries consist simply of a scenario followed by a determination. A large number contain the phrase 廷行事 tíng xíng shì (“in the current judicial practice of the court [廷]”), indicating that the answer reflects actual judicial precedent rather than purely theoretical interpretation.

Theft law. The opening section addresses theft (dào 盗) law in exhaustive detail. The first entry quotes: “害盗別徼而盗，駕罪之 (‘When a patrol officer (qiú dào 求盗) commits theft off his patrol route, he is penalized according to the jià 駕 [supplementary crime] rule’). What is meant by jià punishment?” The answer explains the graduated penalty scale for theft by number of persons and value of goods: five or more persons stealing goods valued at one qián or more incur amputation of the left foot and tattooing to become a chéng dàn 城旦 (wall-building convict); fewer than five persons stealing over 660 qián incur tattooing and nose-slitting to become chéng dàn; 220–660 qián incurs tattooing to become chéng dàn; up to 220 qián down to one qián incurs banishment (qiān 䙴).

Subsequent theft entries resolve increasingly complex scenarios. If A conspires with B to steal but B has not yet reached the theft site when he is caught: both are penalized by ransoming the tattoo (shú hèi 贖黥). If a government slave conspires with his master’s concubine to steal the master’s ox, then buys things with the money and flees across the border: both are tattooed and made chéng dàn, and the proceeds must be returned to the master. If A steals a cow when it is six feet high, is imprisoned, and one year later when measured the cow is six feet seven inches high: A’s crime is judged by the original height — he is sentenced to becoming a wán chéng dàn 完城旦 (wall-building convict without mutilation). If someone steals mulberry leaves worth less than one qián: penalized by corvée for thirty days.

Several entries address the liability of family members and associates: if a husband steals 1,000 qián and his wife conceals 300 of it, knowing about the theft, she is liable for the 300 as a receiver of stolen goods; if she does not know, she is liable as a “keeper of stolen goods” (shǒu zāng 守臧). If a father steals from his son: “A father stealing from his son is not [treated as ordinary] theft” — but if an adoptive father steals from his adoptive son, it is treated as ordinary theft.

Assault and bodily harm. A substantial section covers assault (dòu 鬭) and bodily injury. Questions include: can a husband be penalized for assaulting his wife if he cuts her ear? — Yes, penalized by shaving (nài 耐). Is pulling out someone’s beard and eyebrows by the roots treated as tí 提 (hair-pulling)? — Pulling out beard and eyebrows counts as tí only if the quantity exceeds a zhì 智 measure. What if someone bites off another’s nose, ear, finger, or lip? — All of these are penalized by shaving (nài 耐). What if two fighters exchange injuries? — Both are penalized according to their respective acts.

Homicide. On killing: if a man conspires with a woman to kill another person and receives as his share ten qián from the proceeds — and his accomplice B is under six feet tall — A is to be dismembered (zhé 磔). If a woman kills her own healthy newborn simply because she has too many children and does not want the child to live: she is guilty of infanticide (shā zǐ 殺子). If a man kills another and is not discovered, then dies of illness and is already buried, and the killing is subsequently reported: the case is not heard (gào bù tīng 告不聽).

Legal procedure. A detailed section addresses false accusations (wū rén 誣人) and imprecise accusations (gào bù shěn 告不審): if A accuses B of stealing 110 qián but it is established B only stole 100: A is penalized two coats of armour. If A accuses B of stealing cattle but it is established B stole sheep (not cattle): this is an “imprecise accusation” (gào bù shěn). What constitutes “not straight” (bù zhí 不直) in adjudication? — “When a crime deserving a severe penalty is deliberately given a light penalty, or a crime deserving a light penalty is deliberately given a severe penalty, this is called ‘not straight’.” What constitutes “releasing a prisoner” (zòng qiú 縱囚)? — “When one should convict but deliberately does not convict, or when one manipulates the case so as not to reach a verdict (令不致), or when one acquits — this is called ‘releasing a prisoner’.”

Definitions (可謂… entries). A large class of entries provides definitions of technical legal terms. These are among the most systematically organized entries in the text. Examples:

• 可謂「同居」？戶為「同居」 “What is meant by ‘cohabiting’? Those sharing a household register (hù 戶) are ‘cohabiting’.”
• 可謂「四鄰」？「四鄰」即伍人謂殹 “What is meant by ‘four neighbours’? ‘Four neighbours’ means one’s wǔ group members.”
• 可謂「宮均人」？宮中主循者殹 “What is meant by a gōng jūn rén 宮均人? It means those who patrol within the palace.”
• 可謂「公室告」？賊殺傷、盗它人為「公室」；子盜父母，父母擅殺、刑、髡子及奴妾，不為「公室告」 “What is a ‘public complaint’ (gōng shì gào)? Killing, wounding, and stealing from others [outside the family] is [the subject of] a ‘public complaint.’ A son stealing from parents, parents killing, mutilating, or shaving a son or slave: these are not [the subject of] a ‘public complaint’.”

Leprosy and epidemic disease. An important section on disease: 「癘者有罪，定殺。」「定殺」可如？生定殺水中之謂殹。或曰生埋，生埋之異事殹。 “Those with leprosy (lì 癘) who have committed a crime are to be killed by dìng shā 定殺. What does dìng shā mean? It means drowning alive in water. [Alternatively] some say it means burying alive, which is a different matter.” If someone has a completed chéng dàn sentence and subsequently develops leprosy: they are to be banished to a leprosy settlement (lì suǒ 癘所).

Terminology for domestic and palace personnel. The closing section provides a remarkable series of definitions of archaic or specialized terms for palace and administrative categories, including: gōng shǐ rén 宮均人 (palace patrol officers); gōng gēng rén 宮更人 (“palace changing persons” — palace servants with physical punishment); gōng jiǎo shì 宮狡士 and wài jiǎo shì 外狡士 (keepers of the royal dogs); diǎn rén 甸人 (guardians of ancestral tombs); huàn zhě xiǎn dà fū 宦者顯大夫 (eunuchs and high-ranking officials at court); zǎn rén 爨人 (keepers of cooking stoves); jí rén 集人 (keepers of firewood); tāng lì 耐卜隸 and tāng shǐ lì 耐史隸 (diviners and scribes sentenced to nài shaving as punishment); lǚ rén 旅人 (travellers and guests); shì rén 室人 and tóng jū 同居 (household members and co-residents); qióng 瓊 (jade document seal); and so on.

Significance. The Fǎlǜ Dāwèn is the richest source for understanding how Qin law functioned as a living system of interpretation and application. It shows that Qin legal practice was sophisticated enough to distinguish intentional from unintentional acts, to calibrate penalties by precise monetary values, to resolve edge cases created by the intersection of different statutory clauses, and to define an extensive technical vocabulary. The repeated citation of 廷行事 (“current judicial practice”) indicates that actual court decisions — in effect, case law — played a role in Qin legal interpretation alongside the statutory text. The Fǎlǜ Dāwèn thus provides evidence for a more flexible, practice-oriented legal culture than the bare statutory texts alone would suggest.

Dating. The text is assumed to reflect legal practice current during the period of the tomb’s use (roughly 250–217 BCE), and likely represents a working reference compiled by or for legal officials of Xǐ’s generation.

Translations and research

• Hulsewé, A.F.P. Remnants of Ch’in Law: An Annotated Translation of the Ch’in Legal and Administrative Rules of the 3rd Century BC. Brill, 1985, pp. 9–15 (introduction) and Section E (pp. 233–308) — full annotated English translation.
• 睡虎地秦墓竹簡整理小組, 《睡虎地秦墓竹簡》, 文物出版社, 1990 — editio princeps with photographs and extended commentary.
• Caldwell, Ernest. Writing Chinese Laws: The Form and Function of Legal Statutes Found in the Qin Shuihudi Corpus. Routledge, 2018, pp. 63–126 — discusses the Q&A format and its relationship to statutory legislation.
• Barbieri-Low, Anthony J., and Robin D.S. Yates. Law, State, and Society in Early Imperial China. 2 vols. Brill, 2015 — essential comparative context from the Han Èrnián Lǜlìng 二年律令.
• Lau, Ulrich, and Thies Staack. Legal Practice in the Formative Qin and Han Periods. De Gruyter, 2016 — studies in Qin-Han legal documents including the Dāwèn.
• McKnight, Brian E. The Quality of Mercy: Amnesties and Traditional Chinese Justice. University of Hawaii Press, 1981 — broader context for pardon and amnesty provisions visible in the Dāwèn.

Other points of interest

The Fǎlǜ Dāwèn is notable for its entry on the legal status of “public versus family complaints” (gōng shì gào 公室告 vs. fēi gōng shì gào 非公室告). The distinction — that intra-family violence (a parent killing or mutilating a child, a son stealing from parents) is not a matter for public prosecution but must remain within the family — is one of the most striking features of early Chinese legal philosophy. The state explicitly declined to adjudicate certain categories of intra-family harm, leaving them to the authority of the family head (jìa zhǎng 家長). This principle would persist, in modified form, through the imperial period and constitutes one of the fundamental divergences between Chinese and Roman legal traditions. Its explicit articulation in a Qin text confirms that it was not an innovation of the Han dynasty but a pre-existing principle absorbed into imperial law.

Links

• Wikipedia (Shuihudi bamboo slips): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuihudi_bamboo_slips
• Wikipedia (Qin dynasty law): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_Qin_dynasty