Chinese Empire

The Tang Legal Code

The Tang Code (唐律疏議, Táng lǜ shūyì), promulgated in 624 CE by the founder of the Tang dynasty and revised by his successors, is one of the most influential legal documents in human history. It was the model for the imperial codes of the Song, Ming, and Qing, and for the legal codes of Japan, Korea, and Vietnam, and the legal tradition of East Asia is in many ways the tradition of the Tang Code. The Code, together with its commentary, was translated into English by Sir George Thomas Staunton in 1810, and the Staunton translation remains a standard reference. The Code was in continuous use, with modifications, for more than a thousand years, and it is the ancestor of the imperial Chinese legal system and a defining document in the history of imperial China.

This article examines the structure, contents, influence, and legacy of the Tang Code. For the broader context, see our overview of the imperial legal code and our survey of Chinese government and bureaucracy.

Origins and Composition

The Tang Code was the work of a committee of scholars and officials, working under the direction of the chancellor Xiao Wang (蕭瑀) in the early years of the Tang dynasty. The Code drew on the codes of the preceding Sui dynasty, the Northern Zhou, the Northern Qi, and the Jin, and ultimately on the Nine Chapters of Law (九章律) of the Wei dynasty in the third century CE. The Tang Code was therefore the product of a long legal tradition, not a sudden invention, and it consciously presented itself as a restoration of the legal order of the Han.

The Code was promulgated in two stages. The first was the Code itself (律, lǜ), a body of 502 articles in twelve chapters, promulgated in 624 CE. The second was the Commentary (疏議, shūyì), a substantial body of interpretive notes on each article, promulgated in 653 CE under the Tang emperor Gaozong. The most important revision was the Kaiyuan Code (開元律, Kāiyuán lǜ) of 737 CE, promulgated under the emperor Xuanzong, which became the standard form of the Code for the rest of the Tang and for all subsequent dynasties.

Structure and Content

The Tang Code was organised into twelve chapters, each dealing with a major category of law. The chapters covered: general principles, offences against the imperial family and the capital, offences by officials against the bureaucracy, family law and inheritance, offences against the state revenue, assembly and rebellion, theft and robbery, fraud and deception, miscellaneous offences, violent crimes, procedures of arrest and detention, and judicial procedure. The structure was followed, with modifications, by the codes of the Song, Ming, and Qing. The Ming and Qing codes preserved the twelve-chapter structure in broad outline, while adding many more articles to cover the changing needs of the state.

The Code was notable for its concreteness. Each article stated a crime, the conditions under which it applied, and the punishment. The Code did not lay out general principles of law in the abstract; it enumerated specific rules and applied them. Judges were expected to apply the Code, not to reason from first principles.

The Code was also notable for its hierarchy. Punishments varied with the rank of the offender, with members of the privileged classes entitled to reductions or substitutions. A commoner who struck an official could be sentenced to death; an official who struck a commoner might receive only a beating. The principle was not equal application of the law, but graduated application according to the social order.

The Code was published. Copies were posted at the gates of government offices and distributed to officials throughout the empire, and the Code was the basic legal text of the imperial state. A magistrate who deviated from the Code could be punished himself.

Punishments

The Code used the standard scale of imperial Chinese punishments, a hierarchy that had been stable for centuries:

  • The beating with the light stick (笞, chī) — for the lightest offences
  • The beating with the heavy stick (杖, zhàng) — for more serious offences
  • The forced labour for a fixed term (徒, tú) — up to three years of labour on state works
  • The exile (流, liú) — to a designated distance, sometimes to the south-west or to the frontier
  • The death penalty, with two main forms: strangulation (絞, jiǎo*) and decapitation (斬, zhǎn*)

The death penalty by a thousand cuts (凌遲, língchí) was reserved for the most serious crimes, including treason, parricide, and certain ritual offences. The Code also provided for redemption (贖, shú*) — the right of certain offenders to pay a fine in lieu of corporal punishment.

Influence on East Asia

The most striking fact about the Tang Code is its influence on the rest of East Asia. The Code was transmitted to Japan in the seventh century, where it became the basis of the Yōrō Code (養老律令) of 718, which remained in force, with modifications, until the Meiji Restoration of 1868. The Japanese Code borrowed the structure of the Tang Code almost intact, including the twelve-chapter organisation, the scale of punishments, and the principle of social hierarchy.

The Code was also transmitted to Korea, where it became the basis of the Goryeo Code of 1395 and the Joseon Code of 1397, both of which followed the Tang pattern. The Korean codes were the legal framework of the Korean state until the late nineteenth century.

The Code was transmitted to Vietnam through Chinese conquest of the north in the second century BCE and through subsequent Chinese political influence, and the Vietnamese legal codes of the Lê dynasty (1428–1788) and the Nguyễn dynasty (1802–1945) were modelled on the Tang and Ming patterns. The Tang Code was, in this sense, the foundational legal document of the entire East Asian legal tradition.

The Code also influenced the Mongol Yuan and the Manchu Qing, both of which preserved the Tang structure even as they added their own modifications. The Great Qing Code of 1740, the last of the imperial codes, is recognisably the Tang Code in modern dress.

Legacy

The Tang Code did not survive the fall of the imperial system intact. The early Republic of China adopted a Western-style legal code, and the People’s Republic of China adopted a Soviet-influenced code in the 1950s. The Tang Code is, however, still studied in Chinese, Japanese, and Korean law schools, and the modern East Asian legal tradition is in many ways the descendant of the Tang.

The Tang Code is also a key to understanding the political philosophy of the Chinese state. The Code was an instrument of Confucian government, designed to maintain the social order that Confucians considered natural and right. The Code’s emphasis on social hierarchy, on the protection of the family, and on the integration of law with morality was a deliberate expression of Confucian political theory. The Code is, in this sense, a legal document but also a moral one, and it remains one of the most important sources for the philosophical foundations of imperial China.

The Code is also a remarkable achievement in its own right. It is detailed, comprehensive, and remarkably consistent. It was the product of a sophisticated legal culture that had been developing for centuries, and it represented a high point in the history of imperial Chinese law. The Code was, in the words of the comparative legal scholar John Henry Wigmore, “one of the great legal monuments of the world.”

For the broader context, see our overview of the imperial legal code and our survey of Chinese government and bureaucracy.