^1. I say more or less because the documents represent the systems only in part. Furthermore, the exact circumstances under which they were buried are not certain, and these could well influence the interpretation of the texts. See discussion in Giele, Enno, “Using Early Chinese Manuscripts as Historical Source Materials,” Monumenta Serica 51 (2003), 409–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^2. A number of scholars have recently discussed this continuity. See, e.g., Min, Gao 高敏, “Han chu falüxi quanbu jicheng Qin lü shuo: du Zhangjiashan Han jian ‘Zou yan shu’ zha ji” 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.Google ScholarXiaojun, Cf. Yan 閆曉君, “Lüelun Qin lü dui Han lü de yingxiang” 略論 秦律對漢律的影響, Gansu zhengfa xueyuan xuebao 甘肅政法學院學報 82 (2005), 87–92, 101Google Scholar, who acknowledges the continuity between Qin and Han but focuses on how the two systems differed. For an example from early times, see the biography of Ban Biao 班彪 (3–54 C.E.) in Ye, Fan 范曄 (398–445), Hou Han shu 後漢書 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1965)Google Scholar, 40A.1323.

^3. See Heng, Gao 高恆, “Dong Zhongshu dui Kongzi falü sixiang de jicheng yu fazhan” 董仲舒對孔子法律思想的繼承與發展, in Qin Han fazhi lunkao 秦漢法制論 考 (Xiamen: Xiamen daxue, 1994), 22Google Scholar; Changjiang, Liu 劉長江, “Handai fazheng tizhi shulun” 漢代法政體制述論, Chengdu daxue xuebao (sheke ban) 成都大學學報 (社科版) 5 (2005), 66Google Scholar; Junfang, Li 李俊芳, “‘Chunqiu jueyu’ yu yinjing zhulü” “春秋决獄” 與引 經注律, Changchun shifan xueyuan xuebao 長春師範學院學報 23 (2004), 37–39Google Scholar; Lizhi, Liu 劉立志, “Hanren yin ‘Shi’ jueyu chuyi” 漢人引《詩》决獄芻議, Nanjing shifan daxue Wenxueyuan xuebao 南京師範大學文學院學報 1 (2002), 131–35Google Scholar.

^4. Numerous scholars have written on this subject. The most extensive works are Yuansheng, Huang 黃源盛, “Dong Zhongshu Chunqiu zheyu anli yanjiu” 董仲舒春 秋折獄案例研究, Taida faxue luncong 臺大法學論從 21 (1992), 29–63Google Scholar; Yuansheng, Huang, “Liang Han Chunqiu zheyu anli tanwei” 兩漢春秋折獄案例探威, Zhengda faxue pinglun 政大法學評論 52 (1994), 1–31Google Scholar; and Yuansheng, Huang, “Liang Han Chunqiu zheyu ‘yuan xin ding zui’ de xingfa lilun” 兩漢春秋折獄「原心定罪」的刑法理論, Zhengda faxue pinglun 政大法學評論 85 (2005), 59–127Google Scholar, which have greatly influenced my understanding. Relevent western works, including translation, include Queen, Sarah A., From Chronicle to Canon: The Hermeneutics of the Spring and Autumn, according to Tung Chung-shu (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Arbuckle, Gary, “Former Han Legal Philosophy and the Gongyang zhuan,” bc Asian Review 1 (1987), 1–25Google Scholar; and Gentz, Joachim, Das Gongyang zhuan: Auslegung und Kanonisierung der Frühlings- und Herbstannalen (Chun qiu), (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2001)Google Scholar.

^5. E.g., Yuansheng, Huang, “Dong Zhongshu Chunqiu zheyu,” 30Google Scholar; Yuansheng, Huang, “Liang Han Chunqiu zheyu anli tanwei,” 2Google Scholar; Qixun, Gui 桂齊遜, “Zhongguo gudai shiqi ‘Jing yi zhe yu’ anli chutan” 中國古代時期 ‘經義折獄’ 案例初探, Tongshi yanjiu jikan 通 識研究集刊 6 (2004), 64Google Scholar; Nianzhen, Ma 馬念珍, “Cong ‘Chunqiu’ jueyu xi Handai de li fa bing yong” 從 “春秋” 决獄析漢代的禮法并用, Jinzhu daxue xuebao (zonghe ban) 金築 大學學報 (綜合版) 39 (2000), 46–48Google Scholar; Jinkai, Shao 邵金凱, “Dong Zhongshu de ‘Chunqiu jueyu’ yu Han zhi” 董仲舒的 “春秋决獄” 與漢制, Lilun xuekan 理論學刊 126 (2004), 111–13Google Scholar; Guangquan, Shi 史廣全, “Chunqiu jueyu dui li fa ronghe de cudong” 春秋决獄 對禮法融合的促動, Haerbin xueyuan xuebao 哈爾濱學院學報 23 (2002), 106Google Scholar; Zhongguo fazhi tongshi 中國法制通史, gen. ed. Zhang Jinfan 張晉藩, vol. 2, Zhanguo Qin Han 戰國 秦漢, ed. Xu Shihong (Beijing: Falü, 1999), 215; Youcai, Wang 王友才, “Dong Zhongshu ‘Chunqiu’ jueyu anli pingxi” 董仲舒 “春秋” 决獄案例評析, Hebei xuekan 河北學刊 4 (1998), 41Google Scholar; Yuhe, Yu 于語和, “Lun Handai de jingxue yu falü” 論漢代的經學與法律, Nankai xuebao 南開學報 4 (1997), 41–42Google Scholar; Mingxiang, Yuan 袁明鄉 and Shiju, Liang 梁世 具, “Dong Zhongshu yu Chunqiu jueyu” 董仲舒與 “春秋决獄,” Zhonggong Zhengzhoushi wei dang xiao xuebao 中共鄭州市委黨校學報 6 (2005), 178–79, 182Google Scholar; Hongcai, Zhu 朱宏才, “Chunqiu jueyu ji qi dui chuantong wenhua de weihai” 春秋决獄及其對傳統文化的危 害, Pandeng 攀登 20 (2001), 90Google Scholar.

^6. Liming, Liu 劉黎明, “Handai de ‘Chunqiu’ jueyu” 漢代的《春秋》决獄,” Wen shi zazhi 文史雜誌 6 (2001), 74–75Google Scholar; Liming, Liu, “Handai de xuezu fuchou yu ‘Chunqiu’ jueyu” 漢代的血族復仇與 “春秋” 决獄, Xi'nan minzu xueyuan xuebao—zhexue shehui kexue ban 西南民族學院學報•哲學社會科學版 23.3 (2002), 72–74Google Scholar; Bofu, Xiao 蕭伯符, “Chunqiu jueyu chutan—jian yu liangben tongbian jiaocai zhong mouxie guandian shangque”《春秋》決獄初探–––兼與兩本統編教材中某些觀點商榷, Hubei caijing xueyuan xuebao 湖北財經學院學報 4 (1984), 94–99Google Scholar; Tao, Zhang 張濤 and Fazhou, Yuan 袁法周, “Jingxue yu Handai de zhidu jianshe” 經學與漢代的制度建設, Nandu xuetan (Renwen shehui kexue xuebao) 南都學壇 (人文社會科學學報) 25 (2005), 6–8Google Scholar.

Most of those who credit both Dong Zhongshu and Gongsun believe Dong was the key figure, but Ruirong, Lu 盧瑞容, “Rujia ‘tong jing zhi yong’ shixian zhi kaocha—yi Xihan chaoting ‘Chunqiu jueshi’ wei zhongxin de tantao” 儒家 “通經致用” 實踐之考 察–––以西漢朝廷 “春秋決事” 為中心的探討, Guoli Taiwan daxue wen shi zhe xuebao 國 立臺灣大學文史哲學報 47 (1997), 126–32Google Scholar and passim argues that Gongsun Hong was more important.

^7. Yuansheng, Huang, “Liang Han Chunqiu zheyu ‘yuan xin ding zui’Chunqiu,” 74Google Scholar; see also Ruirong, Lu, “Rujia ‘tong jing zhi yong’ shixian zhi kaocha,” 136Google Scholar and passim. Shude, Cheng 程樹德 (1877–1944), Jiuchao lü kao 九朝律考 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1963), 165–77Google Scholar collects twenty-four examples of the Chunqiu used to decide cases in the Han and thirty-one examples of the Chunqiu used in discussion of official matters, in addition to the six fragments from Chunqiu jueyu.

^8. See Zufferey, Nicolas, To the Origins of Confucianism (Bern: Peter Lang, 2003)Google Scholar.

^9. 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 Yün-meng Prefecture, Hu-pei Province, in 1975 (Leiden: Brill, 1985), 2Google Scholar; Hulsewé, , Ch'in law, 120–82Google Scholar translates it. All translations from that text in this article are mine, though I have referred to Hulsewé's, and so also give references to his.

^10. The “Ernian” 二年, “second year,” which gives this text its title is variously understood and so the text is sometimes variously dated. However, there is no disagreement about the general dating to the early Western Han. According to Itaru, Tomiya in Kōryo Chōkasan nihyakuyonjūnanagō bo shutsudo Kan ritsuryō no kenkyū 江陵張家山 二四七號墓出土漢律令の研究, ed. Tomiya Itaru, translation and annotation volume (Kyoto: Hōyū, 2006), 10–13Google Scholar, “Ernian” refers to the second year of the Empress Lü's 呂 reign (186 B.C.E.), in which year the text was copied; see also Zhongwei, Zhang 張忠煒, “‘Ernian lüling’ niandai wenti yanjiu” “二年律令”年代問題研究, Lishi yanjiu 2008.3, 147–63Google Scholar. This is the most common view; but cf. Jianguo, Zhang 張建國, “Shi xi Han chu ‘Yue fa sanzhang’ de falü xiaoli—jiantan ‘Ernian lüling’ yu Xiao He de guanxi” 試析 漢初‘約法三章’的法律效力–––兼談 ‘二年律令’與蕭何的關係, Faxue yanjiu 法學研究 1 (1996), 154–60Google Scholar.

^11. For an outline of his life, see Loewe, Michael, A Biographical Dictionary of the Qin, Former Han and Xin Periods (221 BC–AD 24) (Leiden: Brill, 2000)Google Scholar, s.v., “Dong Zhongshu.”

^12. See Toshikuni, Hihara 日原利國, Shunjū Kuyō den no kenkyū 春秋公羊傳の研究 (Tokyo: Sōbunsha, 1976), 99–196Google Scholar. Cf. also Csikszentmihalyi, Mark and Nylan, Michael, “Constructing Lineages and Inventing Traditions through Exemplary Figures in Early China,” T'oung Pao 89 (2003), 59–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar on the limitations of school-based reasoning.

^13. Gu, Ban 班固 (32–92 C.E.), Han shu 漢書 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1962), 56.2525Google Scholar.

^14. See Loewe, Michael, “Dong Zhongshu as Consultant,” Asia Major (third series) 22.1 (2009), 163–82Google Scholar, who discusses Chunqiu jueyu in precisely this context.

^15. See Hulsewé, , Remnants of Han Law, vol. 1, Introductory Studies and an Annotated Translation of Chapters 22 and 23 of the History of the Former Han Dynasty (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1955), 81–88Google Scholar.

^16. Han shu, 56.2525; see also Hou Han shu, 48.1612.

^17. As pointed out by Jiankang, Yang 楊健康 and Zhen, Huang 黃震, “ ‘Chunqiu jueyu’ ji qi xiandai jiazhi” “春秋决獄”及其現代價值, Chuanshan xuekan 船山學刊 3 (2004), 60Google Scholar.

^18. Shihong, Xu, Zhanguo Qin Han, 215–16Google Scholar; Fuchang, Xu 徐富昌, Shuihudi Qin jian yanjiu 睡虎地秦簡研究 (Taipei: Wenshizhe, 1993), 122Google Scholar; I-t'ien, Hsing 邢義田, Qin Han shi lun gao 秦漢史論稿 (Taipei: Dongda tushu gongsi, 1987), 268Google Scholar.

^19. Hou Han shu, 48.1612.

^20. The most important of these collections are in Shude, Cheng, Jiuchao lü kao, 163–65Google Scholar; and Jiaben, Shen 沈家本 (1840–1913), Lidai xingfa kao 歷代刑法考 (Beijing: Zhong hua, 1985), 1770–72Google Scholar, with further consideration at 1397, 1457–58, and 1522. Guohan, Ma, ed., Yuhanshanfang ji yishu 玉函山房輯佚書 (Chu'nan: Chu'nan, 1884)Google Scholar has a one-juan Chunqiu jueshi containing eight examples. He includes two cases in addition to the same six named in the other collections. However, it is not certain that these two are fragments from the Chunqiu jueyu. The first has nothing to do with the law, and instead concerns grain. The second is legal, but it is so short it seems incomplete; see Shengyuan, Huang, “Liang Han Chunqiu zheyu ‘yuan xin ding zui’,” 74–75Google Scholar. More to the point, there is no direct evidence linking the second to Dong Zhongshu, as Shen Jiaben, 1772–73 argues.

^21. Loewe, “Dong Zhongshu as Consultant,” translates all six. Previous translations include Queen, , From Chronicle to Canon, 137–46Google Scholar; Arbuckle's appendix to “Former Han Legal Philosophy”; and Wallacker, Benjamin E., “The Spring and Autumn Annals as a Source of Law in Han China,” Journal of Chinese Studies 2.1 (1985), 59–72Google Scholar.

^22. See discussion in Kinney, Anne Behnke, “Infant Abandonment in Early China,” Early China 18 (1993), 107–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^23. See “Ernian lüling” strip no. 167, in Hao, Peng 彭浩, Wei, Chen 陳偉, Mutoo, Kudō 工藤元男, eds., Ernian lüling yu zou yan shu: Zhangjiashan ersiqihao Han mu chutu falü wenxian shidu 二年律令與奏讞書: 張家山二四七號漢墓出土法律文獻釋讀 (Shanghai: Shanghai guji, 2007Google Scholar) [hereafter Ernian lüling yu zou yan shu], 157.

^24. Lun yu zhu shu 論語注疏 (Shisan jing zhushu 十三經注疏 ed., 1815; rpt. Taipei: Yiwen, 2001), 118 (13.7a); e.g., Chunqiu Gongyang zhuan zhu shu 春秋公羊傳注疏 (Shisan jing zhushu ed., 1815; rpt. Taipei: Yiwen, 2001), 181 (14.14a).

^25. “Ernian lüling” nos. 35–37, in Ernian lüling yu zou yan shu, 104.

^26. Yuansheng, Huang, “Dong Zhongshu Chunqiu zheyu,” 41–42Google Scholar; see e.g., Junwen, Liu 劉俊文, ed., Tang lü shu yi 唐律疏議 (Beijing: Falü, 1999), 145Google Scholar.

^27. See Han Feizi jijie 韓非子集解, ed. Xianshen, Wang 王先慎 (1859–1922) (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1998), 22.178–79Google Scholar (“Shuo lin shang” 說林上); Huainan honglie jijie 淮南鴻烈 集解, ed. Wendian, Liu 劉文典 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1989)Google Scholar, 18.594–95 (“Renjian xun” 人 間訓); and Liu Xiang 劉向 (ca. 77–ca. 6 B.C.E.), Shuo yuan 說苑 (Siku quanshu 四庫全書 ed.), 5.14b (“Gui de” 貴德).

^28. The ritual rule the lord broke when he captured the fawn is found in Li ji, and similar rules were found in Qin and Han law, governing acceptable harvests in particular seasons. The “Wang zhi” chapter of Li ji mentions this; Li ji zhu shu 禮記注 疏 (Shisan jing zhushu ed., 1815; rpt. Taipei: Yiwen, 2001), 237 (12.5b). For Qin law on this, see xiaozu, Shuihudi Qinmu zhujian zhengli, ed., Shuihudi Qinmu zhujian 睡虎地 秦墓竹簡 (Beijing: Wenwu, 1990)Google Scholar [hereafter, Shuihudi], 20 (“Tian lü” 田律 nos. 4–7); cf. translation in Hulsewé, , Ch'in law, 22–23Google Scholar. Closely related material can also be found in “Ernian lüling” no. 249, in Ernian lüling yu zou yan shu, 190. For fawn protection in “Yueling” specifically, see Li ji zhu shu, 289 (14.23b); there is also related material in Lü shi chunqiu xin jiao shi 呂氏春秋新校釋, ed. Qiyou, Chen 陳奇猷 (Shanghai: Shanghai guji, 2002), 1.2Google Scholar (“Shierji” 十二紀); and Huainanzi jishi 淮南子集釋, ed. Ning, He 何寧 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1998), 5.383Google Scholar (“Shize xun” 時則訓). A version of “Yueling” related to the versions in Li ji and elsewhere that was issued as a decree in 5 C.E. and fully bridged the gap between ritual and law was recovered from the Xuanquanzhi 懸泉置 site, near Dunhuang 敦煌 (Gansu); see yanjiusuo, Zhongguo wenwu and yanjiusuo, Gansusheng wenwu kaogu, Dunhuang Xuanquan yueling zhaotiao 敦煌懸泉月令詔條 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 2001)Google Scholar; and Sanft, Charles, “The Decree of Monthly Ordinances for the Four Seasons in Fifty Articles from 5 C.E.: Introduction to the Wall Inscription Discovered at Xuanquanzhi, with Annotated Translation,” Early China 32 (2008–2009), 179Google Scholar.

^29. In the Lun yu context, they refer to the absolute necessity of “trustworthiness” (xin 信), a linchpin virtue that cannot be considered small or of low value.

^30. Ou 歐 is a phonetic substitution for ou 毆, “to strike, beat”; see Heng, Gao 高亨, Guzi tongjia huidian 古字通假會典 (Ji'nan: Qi-Lu, 1989), 335Google Scholar.

^31. “Ernian lüling” no. 38 says it was a crime “to beat and curse a parent” 歐 (= 毆) 詈父母; no. 40 outlaws the same for a women in regard to her parents-in-law; Ernian lüling yu zou yan shu, 105–6.

^32. Presumably this excluded cases in which the woman was divorced by her husband.

^33. Dull, Jack, “Marriage and Divorce in Han China: A Glimpse at ‘Pre-Confucian’ Society,” in Chinese Family Law and Social Change in Historical and Comparative Perspective, ed. Buxbaum, David C. (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1978), 64–75Google Scholar; see also Nylan, Michael, “Notes on a Case of Illicit Sex from Zhangjiashan: A Translation and Commentary,” Early China 30 (2005–2006), 34–35, 42–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and passim; and Simian, Lü 呂 思勉, Lü Simian dushi zhaji 呂思勉讀史札記 (Shanghai: Shanghai chuji, 1982), 549–55Google Scholar.

^34. Yuansheng, Huang, “Dong Zhongshu Chunqiu zheyu anli yanjiu,” 40Google Scholar.

^35. As Jiaben, Shen, Lidai xingfa kao, 1522Google Scholar, writes in regard to this case.

^36. See Queen, , From Chronicle to Canon, 127–62Google Scholar.

^37. See e.g., Shipei, Liu, “Xi-Han daru Dong Zhongshu xiansheng xueshu” 西漢大 儒董仲舒先生學術, in Shiguo, Wan 萬仕國, ed., Liu Shenshu yishu buyi 劉申叔遺書補 遺 (Yangzhou: Guangling, 2008), 413–18Google Scholar.

^38. Shipei, Liu, “Ruxue faxue fenqi lun” 儒學法學分歧論, 2b, in Liu Shenshu xiansheng yishu 劉申叔先生遺書 (Taipei: Xin, 1965), 1759Google Scholar.

^39. Hegao, Yang, “Xi-Han, Dong-Han” 西漢東漢, inZhongguo falü sixiang tongshi 中 國法律思想通史, gen ed. Guangcan, Li 李光燦 (Taiyuan: Shanxi renmin, 2001), 699–700Google Scholar; see also Li Junfang, “‘Chunqiu jueyu' yu yinjing zhulü”; Lizhi, Liu, “Hanren yin ‘Shi’ jueyu chuyi,” 132Google Scholar; etc. (see also below).

^40. Limin, Wang 王立民, Zhongguo fazhi shi 中國法制史 (Shanghai: Shanghai renmin, 2003), 144Google Scholar.

^41. Zhu Hongcai; see also Changjiang, Liu, “Handai fazheng tizhi shulun,” 66Google Scholar.

^42. Zhu, Weizheng, “Confucian Statecraft in Early Imperial China,” in Traces of Humanism in China: Tradition and Modernity, ed. Meinert, Carmen (Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag, 2010), 34Google Scholar.

^43. Hegao, Yang, “Xi-Han, Dong-Han,” 702Google Scholar; see also Shi Guangquan, “Chunqiu jueyu dui li fa ronghe de cudong”; and Yang Jiankang and Huang Zhen,“ ‘Chunqiu jueyu’ ji qi xian dai jiazhi.” Wang Youcai “Dong Zhongshu” stands in between the two positions, saying that attention to subjective factors was a necessary corrective to a supposed Qin exclusive consideration of objective factors, but that in the end this turned into an arbitrary method of judgment. Yabin, Yan 顏雅彬, “Lüe lun Handai ‘Chunqiu jueyu’ zhi libi” 略論漢代 “春秋决獄” 之利弊, Anshan shifan xueyuan xuebao 鞍山師範學院學 報 2 (2000), 57–59Google Scholar names both good and bad influences of “yin jing jueyu,” but deems its focus on motive excessive and as a result negative.

^44. This phrase is widely quoted and can be found already in Han shu, 83.3395–96, summarizing this approach. Xin 心, “heart, mind,” itself can be a difficult term to translate, in that its meaning includes part of both “heart” and “mind.” But it is definitely the seat of subjective states. See the discussion in Hall, David L. and Ames, Roger T., Thinking from the Han: Self, Truth, and Transcendence in Chinese and Western Culture (Albany: State University of New York, 1998), 29Google Scholar and passim, who translate “heart-mind.” In the context here, “mind” fits most closely.

^45. Arbuckle, , “Former Han Legal Philosophy,” 18Google Scholar; see also Qixun, Gui, “Zhongguo gudai shiqi ‘Jing yi zhe yu’ anli chutan,” 64–65Google Scholar; Ma Nianzhen, “Cong ‘Chunqiu’ jueyu xi Handai de li fa bing yong”; Changbin, Song 宋昌斌, “Shi lun ‘Chunqiu jueyu’” 試論 “ 春秋決獄,” Fudan faxue: lunwenji 復旦法學: 論文集, number 1, ed. Fudan daxue falüxi (Shanghai: Fudan daxue, 1986), 286Google Scholar; Tao, Zhang and Fazhou, Yuan, “Jingxue yu Handai de zhidu jianshe,” 7Google Scholar; Hongcai, Zhu, “Chunqiu jueyu ji qi dui chuantong wenhua de weihai,” 91Google Scholar; Yuansheng, Huang, “Dong Zhongshu Chunqiu zheyu anli,” 30Google Scholar; Liu Li ming, “Handai de ‘Chunqiu’ jueyu”; Mingxiang, Yuan and Shiju, Liang, “Dong Zhongshu yu Chunqiu jueyu,”, 179Google Scholar; etc. Queen, From Chronicle to Canon, 135–45 does not suggest influence in this respect, but acknowledges the importance of intent to Zhongshu, Dong, saying, “Tung Chung-shu always gave greatest consideration to the intentions of the accused when determining guilt or innocence” (p. 137)Google Scholar, which she puts into a context of revamping Qin legal practice.

^46. See Gary Arbuckle, “The Works of Dong Zhongshu and the Text Traditionally and Incorrectly Titled Luxuriant Dew of the Annals (Chunqiu fanlu): With Particular Attention to Section A (Chapters 1–17) of the Luxuriant Dew of the Annals” (http://s92518733.onlinehome.us/dong/works_part_A.html; accessed 17 November 2006).

^47. Chunqiu fanlu yi zheng 春秋繁露義證, ed. Yu, Su 蘇輿 (d. 1914) (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1992), 3.92Google Scholar (“Jinghua” 精華).

^48. Yantielun jiao zhu 鹽鐵論校注, rev. ed., ed. Liqi, Wang 王利器 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1992)Google Scholar, 10.567.

^49. Bofu, Xiao, “Chunqiu jueyu chutan,” 97Google Scholar; see the original context in Yantielun jiao zhu, 10.567, where the impossibility of knowing real intent is cited as a reason to spare someone who has not actually committed a crime even when there are indications that one was planned.

^50. See Qianfu lun jiao zheng 潛夫論校正, ed. Duo, Peng 彭鐸 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1985), 229Google Scholar.

^51. “Intent” is of course very difficult to define satisfactorily; see discussion in Duff, R. A., Intention, Agency and Criminal Liability: Philosophy of Action and the Criminal Law (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990)Google Scholar.

^52. See Oxford English Dictionary (online edition), s.v., “subjective”: “Having its source in the mind.” Of course conceptions of mind may have been different in Han times, so that using the term in a specialized, philosophical sense could be problematic; cf. Hall, and Ames, , Thinking from the Han, 5Google Scholar. That being said, I think the presence of expressed interest in mental states in early Chinese legal practice may reopen these questions: when the law wants to know what a person's intent was at a point in time, or what s/he knew about some matter, it seems to imply a subject doing the intending or the knowing. But that goes beyond my scope here.

^53. Queen, , From Chronicle to Canon, 144–45Google Scholar, quote from 144.

^54. E.g., Zhou li zhu shu 周禮注疏 (Shisan jing zhushu ed., 1815; rpt. Taipei: Yiwen, 2001), 539 (36.2b).

^55. Yates, Robin D.S., “Law and the Military in Early China,” in Military Culture in Imperial China, ed. Cosmo, Nicola Di (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2009), 35–36Google Scholar.

^56. See the discussion in Yuansheng, Huang, “Liang Han Chunqiu zheyu ‘yuan xin ding zui’,” 101–5Google Scholar.

^57. For the legal interest in subjective states under Qin law as attested in recovered materials, see Jing, Li 栗勁, Qin lü tonglun 秦律通論 (Ji'nan: Shandong renmin chubanshe, 1985), 163–68Google Scholar. See also Itaru, Tomiya, “Muhon—Shin Kan keibatsu shisō no hakken” 謀反–––秦漢刑罰思想の發展, Tōyōshi kenkyū 東洋史研究 42 (1983), 10–18Google Scholar and Itaru, Tomiya, Kodai Chūgoku no keibatsu: sarekōbe ga kataru mono 古代中国の刑罰 : 髑髏が語るもの (Tokyo: Chūō, 1995), 117–26Google Scholar, who makes a similar point, suggesting that this shows Gongyang influence on Qin legal practice. Regarding intent, etc., in Han China, see also Hulsewé, , Han Law, 251–71Google Scholar; and Sanft, Charles, “Notes on Penal Ritual and Subjective Truth Under the Qin,” Asia Major (third series), 21.2 (2008), 35–57Google Scholar.

^58. Yongdong, Cui, “Chutu falü shiliao,” 142Google Scholar; see also Junming, Li, “Zhangjiashan Han jian suo fanying de shiyong xingfa yuanze” 張家山漢簡所反映的適用刑罰原則, Zhengzhou daxue xuebao (zhexue shehui kexue ban) 鄭州大學學報 (哲學社會科學版) 4 (2002), 119Google Scholar for Han law in the time preceding Dong.

^59. Jing, Li, Qin lü tonglun, 164Google Scholar; see Zhou li zhu shu, 539 (“Si ci” 司刺 36.2b); see also Hulsewé, , Han Law, 262–64Google Scholar.

^60. Bofu, Xiao, “Chunqiu jueyu chutan,” 99Google Scholar; on the influence of Shangshu, see also Nylan, Michael, The Five “Confucian” Classics (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001), 148Google Scholar; and Nylan, , “Notes on a Case of Illicit Sex,” 37Google Scholar.

^61. Shangshu zhengyi 尚書正義 (Shisan jing zhushu ed., 1815; rpt. Taipei: Yiwen, 2001), 202 (14.6a–b).

^62. See the discussions in William G. Boltz, “Chou li,” and Shaughnessy, Edward L., “Shang shu,” in Early Chinese Texts: A Bibliographical Guide, ed. Loewe, Michael (Berkeley: The Society for Study of Early China, 1993), 24–32, 376–89Google Scholar.

^63. Yongdong, Cui, “Chutu falü shiliao zhong de xingfa sixiang” 出土法律史料中 的刑法思想, Beijing daxue xuebao (zhexue shehui kexue ban) 北京大學學報 (哲學社會科 學版) 1 (1999), 142Google Scholar. Jia, Zeng 曾加, “Dong Zhongshu de falü sixiang jianlun” 董仲舒的 法律思想簡論, Xibei daxue xuebao (zhexue shehui kexue ban) 西北大學學報 (哲學社會科 學版) 2 (2003), 60–62Google Scholar makes a similar point in reference to Dong's legal thought; see also Xiaohong, Ma 馬小紅, Zhongguo gudai falü sixiang shi 中國古代法律思想史 (Beijing: Beijing daxue, 2003), 25–26Google Scholar.

^64. Though he also acknowledges that the Qin documents reflect interest in both subjective and objective aspects of crime; Yuansheng, Huang, “Liang Han Chunqiu zheyu ‘yuan xin ding zui'Chunqiu,” 74, 106–7Google Scholar.

^65. Jing, Li, Qin lü tonglun, 163 and passimGoogle Scholar.

^66. See Shuihudi, 115 (“Falü dawen,” no. 93); trans. Hulsewé, Ch'in law, 144. Along similar lines, “Yu shu” 語書 says: “If they do not know it, they are then not up to their duties, and are not knowledgeable; if they know but will not convict, this then is corruption” 若弗智 [=知], 是即不勝任 、 不智殹 [=也]; 智 [=知] 而弗敢論, 是即不廉 殹 [=也]; Shuihudi, 13.

^67. Shuihudi, 103 (“Falü dawen,” no. 43); trans. Hulsewé, , Ch'in law, 132Google Scholar.

^68. Shuihudi, 102 (“Falü dawen,” nos. 38–39); trans. Hulsewé, , Ch'in law, 131Google Scholar.

^69. Shuihudi, 100–1 (“Falü dawen,” nos. 30–31); trans. Hulsewé, , Ch'in law, 129Google Scholar.

^70. Shuihudi, 100 (“Falü dawen,” no. 29); trans. Hulsewé, , Ch'in law, 128–29Google Scholar.

^71. See Yongdong, Cui, Jianbo wenxian yu gudai fawenhua 簡帛文獻語古代法文化 (Wuhan: Hubei jiaoyu, 2002), 225–27Google Scholar; and Shuihudi, 96 (“Falü dawen,” no. 9); trans. Hulsewé, , Ch'in law, 123Google Scholar.

^72. This applied for both members of the thief's family and others; see Shuihudi, 97–98 (“Falü dawen,” nos. 15–16, 17, 18); Hulsewé, , Ch'in law, 124–25Google Scholar.

^73. Shuihudi, 96 (“Falü dawen,” no. 10); trans. Hulsewé, , Ch'in law, 123Google Scholar.

^74. Shuihudi, 96 (“Falü dawen,” no. 11); trans. Hulsewé, , Ch'in law, 123Google Scholar.

^75. Shuihudi, 97 (“Falü dawen” nos. 14, 15–16); trans. Hulsewé, , Ch'in law, 124–25Google Scholar.

^76. Shuihudi, 99 (“Falü dawen” nos. 23–24); trans. Hulsewé, , Ch'in law, 126Google Scholar.

^77. Examples are too numerous to list exhaustively here. See Junming, Li, “Zhang jiashan Han jian,” 117–19Google Scholar, and e.g.“Ernian lüling” nos. 93–98, 107–9, 112 in Ernian lüling yu zou yan shu, 128, 135, 138.

^78. Heng, Gao, “Lun ‘Yinjing jueyu” 論 “引經决獄,” in Falüshi luncong 法律史論叢, volume 3, ed. xuehui, Zhongguo falüshi 中國法律史學會 (Beijing: Falü, 1983), 52–68Google Scholar.

^79. As an anonymous reviewer did.

^80. Shuihudi, 94 (“Falü dawen,” no. 4); trans. Hulsewé, , Ch'in law, 121–22Google Scholar.

^81. Shuihudi, 111 (“Falü dawen,” no. 76); trans. Hulsewé, , Ch'in law, 140Google Scholar.

^82. “Ernian lüling” no. 208 in Ernian lüling yu zou yan shu, 172.

^83. See note 81 above; also Lau, , “Die Rekonstruktion des Strafprozesses und die Prinzipien der Strafzumessung zu Beginn der Han-Zeit im Lichte des Zouyanshu,” in Emmerich, Reinhard and Stumpfeldt, Hans, eds., Und folge nun dem, was mein Herz begehrt: Festschrift für Ulrich Unger zum 70. Geburtstag (Hamburg: Hamburger Sinologische Gesellschaft, 2002), 351, 375Google Scholar.

^84. E.g., Gao Heng, “Lun ‘Yinjing jueyu”; Shi Guangquan, “Chunqiu jueyu dui li fa ronghe de cudong”; Hanqing, Wang 汪漢卿 and Shaoyuan, Zhou 周少元, “Chunqiu jueyu yiwen pingxi” 春秋决獄評析, in Zhongguo fazhishi kaozheng 中國法制史考證, Yi pian, di er juan: Zhanguo Qin fazhi kao 乙編, 第二卷: 戰國秦法制考, ed. Yifan, Yang 楊一 凡, 423–24 (Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe, 2003)Google Scholar.Chunqiu

^85. See the example case in Shuihudi, 156 (chap. title?); trans. Hulsewé, , Ch'in law, 196–97Google Scholar. See also the discussion in Lau, Ulrich, “The Scope of Private Jurisdiction in Early Imperial China,” Asiatische Studien: Zeitschrift der Schweizerischen Gesellschaft für Asienkunde 1 (2005), 337–42Google Scholar.

^86. Yongdong, Cui, Jianbo wenxian, 77–80, 232–35Google Scholar argues this for the Qin, as does Shuchen, Wu 武樹臣, “Yunmeng Qin jian dui fashi yanjiu de jiazhi” 雲夢秦簡對法史研究的 價值,” in Wu Shuchen faxue wenji 武樹臣法學文集 (Beijing: Zhongguo zhengfa daxue, 2002), 213–14Google Scholar; see also Yongdong, Cui, “Chutu falü shiliao,” 142–43Google Scholar. Huan, Liu 劉歡 and Lu, Zhao 趙璐, “Cong ‘Ernian lüling’ kan Rujia sixiang dui Xihan lifa de yingxiang” 從 “二年律令” 看儒家思想對西漢立法的影響, Renwen zazhi 人文雜志 4 (2004), 136–40Google Scholar assert the same for early Han law as attested in “Ernian lüling.”

^87. E.g., Changbin, Song, “Shi lun ‘Chunqiu jueyu,’” 282–95Google Scholar; and Shao Jinkai, “Dong Zhongshu de ‘Chunqiu jueyu.’”

^88. See Zhongxin, Fan 范忠信, “Zhongxi falü chuantong zhong de ‘qinqin xiang yin’” 中西法律傳統中的 “親親相隱,” Zhongguo shehui kexue 中國社會科學 3 (1997), 88–90Google Scholar; Daqi, Song 宋大琦, “Qinshu rongyin zhidu fei chu Qin lü shuo” 親屬容隱制度非出秦 律說, Neimenggu daxue xuebao: Renwen sheke ban 內蒙古大學學報: 人文社科版 4 (2005), 80–83Google Scholar; etc.; the text of Emperor Xuan's edict is found in Han shu, 8.251 and is discussed below; for similar laws in later times, see e.g., Tang lü shu yi, 6.141.

^89. This was suggested in 1990, when Zongfa, Yu, “Zi gao fu, nu gao zhu you zui— Qin lü suochengxian zhi fuquanzhi sixiang” 子告父 、 奴告主有罪–––秦律所呈現之父 權制思想, reprinted in “Yunmeng Qin jian” zhong sixiang yu zhidu gouzhi 《雲夢秦簡》 中思想與制度鉤摭 (Taipei: Wenjin, 1992), 211–13Google Scholar pointed out that although the Qin system was formerly supposed to oppose practices like hiding relatives’ crimes, recovered legal materials show it maintained related privileges. The point is explicitly argued in Zhongxin, Fan, “Zhongxi falü chuantong zhong,” 87–89Google Scholar; Yongdong, Cui, “Chutu falü shiliao,” 142–43Google Scholar; Yongdong, Cui, Jianbo wenxian, 235–39Google Scholar; Junming, Li, “Zhangjiashan Han jian,” 122–123Google Scholar; Lüning, Cao 曹旅寧, Qinlü xintan 秦律新探 (Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue, 2002), 90–92Google Scholar; and Song, Zhang 張松, “Shuihudi Qin jian yu Zhangjiashan Han jian fanying de Qin Han qinqin pinyin zhidu” 睡虎地秦簡與張家山漢簡反映的秦漢親 親相隱制度, Nandu xuetan (Renwen shehui kexue xuebao) 南都學壇 (人文社會科學學報) 25 (2005), 22–24Google Scholar. Song Daqi, “Qinshu rongyin zhidu” argues against this interpretation, focusing particularly on the fact that there is no explicit mention of these principles in the Qin legal materials, in which he is doubtless correct. However, this does not rule out the presence of forerunner notions in the Qin law. The following discussion draws from all these sources, with additional references as necessary.

^90. Lau, , “The Scope of Private Jurisdiction in Early Imperial China,” 333–52Google Scholar and Zhenbo, Yu 于振波, “Cong ‘Gongshigao’ yu ‘jiazui’ kan Qin lü de lifa jingshen” 從 “公室告” 與 “家罪” 看秦律的立法精神, Hu'nan daxue xuebao (shehui kexue ban) 湖南大 學學報 (社會科學版) 19 (2005), 39–44Google Scholar discuss these issues in detail, and I draw from their work in the following discussion. The translation of jiazui as “household crimes” follows Hulsewé, Ch'in law.

^91. Guo yu (Shanghai: Shanghai guji, 1998)Google Scholar, 2.59 (“Zhou yu zhong” 周語中).

^92. See Wu, Cheng 程武, “Yipian zhongyao de falü shi wenxian” 一篇重要的法律史 文獻, Wenwu 5 (1976), 50–54Google Scholar and Lan, Tang 唐蘭, “Shaanxisheng Qishanxian Dongjiacun xinchu Xizhou zhongyao tongqi mingci de yiwen he zhushi” 陜西省岐山縣董家村新出西周重要銅器銘辭的譯文和注釋, Wenwu 5 (1976), 55–59Google Scholar; Yonglong, Qin 秦永 龍, Xizhou jinwen xuan zhu 西周金文選注 (Beijing: Beijing shifan daxue, 1992), 125–35Google Scholar; and Jiayi, Hong 洪家義, Jinwen xuan zhu yi 金文選注繹 (Nanjing: Jiangsu jiaoyu, 1988), 507–17Google Scholar; cf. Skosey, Laura, “The Legal System and Legal Tradition of the Western Zhou, ca. 1045–771 B.C.E.” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1996), 13–16, 380–86Google Scholar.

^93. Shuihudi, 118 (“Falü dawen,” no. 105); cf. the translations in Hulsewé, , Ch'in law, 148–49Google Scholar and Lau, , “The Scope of Private Jurisdiction,” 344Google Scholar.

^94. See Fuzhu, Wu 吳福助, Shuihudi Qin jian lunkao 睡虎地秦簡論考 (Taipei: Wenjin, 1994), 8Google Scholar; see also the discussion of the “Ernian lüling” version in Kōryo Chōkasan, 87, which can be extrapolated to support this. Cf. Daqi, Song, “Qinshu rongyin zhidu,” and Hulsewé, Ch'in law, 148–49Google Scholar.

^95. Zhongxin, Fan, “Zhongxi falü chuantong zhong,” 88–89Google Scholar; Junming, Li, “Zhangjia shan Han jian,” 122–23Google Scholar; Lüning, Cao, Qinlü xintan, 90–92Google Scholar; etc.

^96. As argued by Song Daqi, “Qinshu rongyin zhidu.”

^97. Lau, , “The Scope of Private Jurisdiction,” 344–45Google Scholar.

^98. Wei 威 means “mother-in-law,” as defined in Shuowen jiezi zhu 說文解字注, ed. Yucai, Duan 段玉裁 (1735–1815) (Hangzhou: Zhejiang guji, 1998)Google Scholar, 12B.615. The sense of gong 公 as “father-in-law” is attested in Han shu, 48.2244–45, where this usage is found and commentator Yan Shigu 顏師古 (581–645) glosses it as jiu 舅, “father-in-law”; see also Ciyuan 辭源, Kangxi zidian 康熙字典, etc. Lau, , “The Scope of Private Jurisdiction,” 345Google Scholar translates weigong 威公 together as “parents-in-law,” which matches my reading; however, cf. K ōryo Chōkasan, 86–87, which reads it as mother-in-law alone.

^99. “Ernian lüling,” no. 133, in Ernian lüling yu zou yan shu, 146; translated and discussed in Kōryo Chōkasan, 86–87; on this issue in “Ernian lüling,” see Yongdong, Cui, “Zhangjiashan Han jian zhong de falü sixiang” 張家山漢簡中的法律思想, in Zhang jiashan Han jian “Ernian lüling” yanjiu wenji 張家山漢簡“二年律令”研究文集, ed. Zhongguo shehui kexueyan jianbo yanjiu zhongxin (Guilin: Guangxi shifan daxue, 2007), 267Google Scholar.

^100. Zhenbo, Yu, “Cong ‘Gongshigao’ yu ‘jiazui’,” 42Google Scholar; Zhongxin, Fan, “Zhongxi falü chuantong zhong,” 89Google Scholar; and see e.g., Tang lü shu zheng, 5.117.

^101. Junming, Li, “Zhangjiashan Han jian,” 122–23Google Scholar; see also Lau, , “The Scope of Private Jurisdiction,” 348–49Google Scholar; and Zhenbo, Yu, “Cong ‘Gongshigao’ yu ‘jiazui’,” 40–41Google Scholar.

^102. Shuihudi, 119 (“Falü dawen,” no. 108); trans. Hulsewé, , Ch'in law, 149–50Google Scholar and Lau, , “The Scope of Private Jurisdiction,” 343Google Scholar.

^103. See Shuihudi, 117–19 (“Falü dawen,” nos. 103, 106, 108); trans. Hulsewé, , Ch'in Law, 148–50Google Scholar.

^104. Zongfa, Yu, “Zi gao fu,” 211–13Google Scholar; on the dual status of slaves as both persons and property as reflected in recovered materials, see Jiping, Yang 楊際平, “Qin-Han huji guanli zhidu yanjiu” 秦漢戶籍管理制度研究, Zhonghua wenshi luncong 中華文史論叢 1 (2007), 30–35Google Scholar. One might object, as a reviewer did, that under Qin law members of the household had legal protection against death or grievous bodily harm at the hands of the householder, which is a valid point; see, e.g., Shuihudi, 109, 112 (“Falü dawen,” nos. 69–70 and 79); trans. Hulsewé, , Ch'in law, 139, 141Google Scholar. But I would argue that ownership need not necessarily imply an absolute right to dispose of property in any manner the owner wants. This can be seen by considering laws in the United States and other countries concerning animals: if one keeps a household pet, it is property, but the owner is not permitted to beat the pet to death or to mutilate it as a punishment for misbehavior. So this objection alone does not invalidate Yu Zongfa's hypothesis. Notions about property are not as all-encompassing as one might think, even in the modern world.

^105. The term used in reference to children hiding parents'; crimes is shouni 首匿; all the rest have just ni 匿. In his commentary on this line, Yan Shigu explains, “In general, shouni means to take the lead in plotting and hiding a criminal” 凡首匿者, 言為謀首 而藏匿罪人. He does not explain why this term is used only for children, and not for wives, grandchildren, etc. Probably it is intended to apply to all these, and to refer simply to doing this of their own accord and not under orders, so I translate, “to hide.”

Although Yan Shigu's explanation and the text itself (here and in the following sentence) refer literally to hiding the person, I believe it must be understood in a broader sense: i.e., this is not only hiding a fugitive from justice (although that is included) but rather a broader concealment of guilt. This is in keeping with the citation from Lun yu, where the point is not just hiding the person but rather covering up their guilt.

^106. Yan Shigu and other traditional commentators say that shusi 殊死 can refer specifically to execution by cutting in two; see Han shu, 1B.51–52. The term is also used to refer to execution generally, which is how I understand it here. Cf. Itaru, Tomiya, “Seimei no hakudatsu to shitai no shokei” 生命の剥奪と屍體の處刑, in Kōryo Chōkasan, studies volume, 243–47Google Scholar, who argues that shusi referred to special methods of execution; while Tao An 陶安 (Arnd Hafner), “Shu si kao” 殊死考, Fazhishi yanjiu 法制史研 究 10 (2007), 1–32Google Scholar holds the term denoted offenses that were not subject to clemency.

^107. Han shu, 8.251.

^108. As noted in Zhanguo Qin Han, 222; and Vankeerberghen, Griet, “Family and Law in Former Han China (206 B.C.E.–8 C.E.): Arguments Pro and Contra Punishing the Relatives of a Criminal,” Cultural Dynamics 12 (2000), 114CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^109. Cf. Xianqian, Wang 王先謙 (1842–1918), Shi Sanjia yi jishu 詩三家義集疏 (Taipei: Mingwen shuju, 1988)Google Scholar, 8.10a, quoting He Zhuo 何焯 (1661–1722), who explains the asymmetry by saying that for a child to commit a crime indicates the parent's error.

^110. The best-known expression of this comes in Lun yu, which reports that Kongzi said, “If the lord acts as befits a lord, the vassal will act as befits a vassal; if the father acts as befits a father, the son will act as befits a son” 君君, 臣臣; 父父, 子子; Lun yu zhu shu, 108 (12.6b). The text called “Wei li zhi dao” 為吏之道, recovered at Shuihudi, expresses something similar: “If the one who is father is kind, the one who is son is filial” 為人父則茲 [:慈], 為人子則孝; see Shuihudi, 169. It is interesting to note that an epigrammatic version of this phrase (“If the father is kind, the son is filial” 父慈子孝) found later in the same “Wei li zhi dao” passage also occurs in the Thirteen Classics and is used as a chengyu 成語 proverb even today; see Li ji zhu shu, 431 (22.4a); Chunqiu Zuo zhuan zhengyi, 54 (3.11b) and 906 (52.13b).

^111. Vankeerberghen, 114–17 and passim.

^112. Tang lü shu zheng, 6.141. The privilege probably achieved this situation well before the Tang. He Xiu's 何休 (129–182) commentary on the Gongyang zhuan, 113 (9.12a) cites a symmetrical form of this as part of the law, suggesting it was statutory already in the second century C.E..

^113. Cao Lüning, Qinlü xintan, 91.

^114. This is commonly accepted; see e.g., Jing, Li, Qin lü tonglun, 22–42Google Scholar. On archaeological evidence reflecting the changes, see Falkenhausen, Lothar von, Chinese Society in the Age of Confucius (1000–250 BC): The Archaeological Evidence (Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at University of California, Los Angeles, 2006), 319–21Google Scholar.

^115. Shangjun shu zhuizhi 商君書錐指, ed. Lihong, Jiang 蔣禮鴻 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1986)Google Scholar, 5.135 (“Jin shi” 禁使).

^116. See Song Daqi, “Qinshu rongyin zhidu” but cf. Zongfa, Yu, “Zi gao fu,” 211–13Google Scholar.

^117. See Jean Levi, “Shang chün shu,” in Loewe, , Early Chinese Texts, 368–75Google Scholar.

^118. For example, Shangjun shu lists filiality among the other cultural “lice”; see Shangjun shu zhuizhi, 3.80 (“Jin ling” 靳令); also Yongdong, Cui, “Chutu falü shiliao,” 142.Google Scholar For discussion of other evidence suggesting Shang Yang's influence has been overestimated, see Shan, Ye 葉山 (Robin D. S. Yates), “Qin de falü yu shehui—guanyu Zhangjiashan ‘Ernian lüling’ deng xin chutu wenxian de sikao” 秦的法律與社會–––關於張家山 “二年律令”等新出土文獻的思考, trans. Fan, Lin 林凡, in Rujia wenhua yanjiu 儒家文化研究, no. 1, ed. Qiyong, Guo 郭齊勇, (Beijing: Sanlian, 2007), 305–6Google Scholar—although, as Ye Shan, 309–10 also shows, Shang Yang certainly seems to have influenced Qin law in certain respects.

^119. As pointed out by Zhongxin, Fan, “Zhongxi falü chuantong zhong,” 88Google Scholar.

^120. Zhenbo, Yu, “Cong ‘Gongshigao’ yu ‘jiazui’,” 42–44Google Scholar and passim.

^121. An example of an obligation that became a privilege from comparative legal history is the development of the requirement to own weapons to the right to do so under English law; see Malcolm, Joyce Lee, To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994), 1–2Google Scholar and passim. Similarly, Ames, Roger, “Rites as Rights: The Confucian Alternative,” in Human Rights and the World's Religions, ed. Rouner, Leroy S. (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1988), 199–216Google Scholar argues that the requirements of the ritual system effected a kind of freedom.

^122. As discussed in Huang Yuansheng, “Liang Han Chunqiu zheyu anli tanwei.”

^123. Ruirong, Lu, “Rujia ‘tong jing zhi yong’ shixian zhi kaocha,” 119–20Google Scholar also discusses legal rhetoric in this context, but makes it only one of the ways “yin jing jueyu” was used.

^124. Oxford English Dictionary, online edition, s.v., “rhetoric.”

^125. Lunheng jiaoshi 論衡校釋, ed. Hui, Huang 黃暉 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1990), 542Google Scholar.

^126. Han shu, 89.3623–24. The binome runshi 潤飾 has the sense of, “to ornament, decorate”; see Hanyu dacidian 漢語大辭典, Ci yuan 辭源, etc., s.v., “runshi.”

^127. See also Yongrong, Lin 林咏榮, “Chunqiu jueyu bian—Han wenhua de tezheng ji qi fazhan” 春秋決獄–––漢文化的特徵及其發展, Faxue congkan 法學叢刊 104 (1981), 15Google Scholar.

^128. Yingshi, Yu, “Fazhilun yu Zhongguo zhengzhi chuantong: lun Ru, Dao, Fa sanjia zhengzhi sixiang de fenye yu huiliu” 反智論與中國政治傳統: 論儒 、 道 、 法三家思想的分野與匯流, in Lishi yu sixiang 歷史與思想 (Taipei: Lianjing, 1976), 34–40Google Scholar. See also Jie, Ding 丁潔, “Shilun Rujia falü sixiang zhi xingcheng yu libi” 試論儒家法律思想之形成與利弊, Qi-Lu yiyuan (Shandong yishu xueyuan xuebao) 齊魯藝苑 (山東藝術學院 學報) 1 (2004), 90–91Google Scholar on the manipulation of the legal system for ideological purposes.

^129. Yuhe, Yu 于語和, “Lun Handai de jingxue yu falü” 論漢代的經學與法律, Nankai xuebao 南開學報 4 (1997), 37–42Google Scholar; see also Guangquan, Shi, “Chunqiu jueyu dui li fa ronghe de cudong,” 107Google Scholar.