《散佚与重现：从薛允升遗稿看晚清律学》

孙家红  著

社会科学文献出版社2020年版

 

 

【内容简介】

本书以新近在北京、东京、上海三地发现的十六册《读例存疑》稿本为契机，对于以薛允升为代表的晚清律学研习活动、律学作品创作传播，以及法律学派的形成互动，进行了细致入微、丰富生动的讨论和揭示，在相当程度上更新了当今学界关于晚清法律改革前后历史的诸多陈旧见解，为重新检视百余年来中国法律现代化运动开辟了崭新境界。

 

【作者简介】

孙家红，北京大学历史学硕士、法学博士、经济学博士后，法国里昂高等学术院（Collegium de Lyon）高级访问学者，中国社会科学院法学研究所副研究员。长期从事中国法律历史研究，出版专著《清代的死刑监候》（社会科学文献出版社，2007），《通往经世济民之路——北京大学经济学科发展史》（北京大学出版社，2012），《关于“子孙违犯教令”的历史考察——一个微观法史学的尝试》（社会科学文献出版社，2013），荣获第一届中国法律文化研究优秀成果奖（2008）、第五届钱端升法学研究成果奖（2014），第七届胡绳青年学术奖（2016）。在国内外学术期刊发表专业论文若干篇，整理出版法律历史文献若干部。

 

【专家推荐】

本书将偶然发现的晚清法律大家薛允升散佚稿本中所蕴含的有趣和重要信息，从零散、破碎乃至有些枯燥的文本中进行了全面分析解读，显示作者对于相关领域史料之深谙精熟。

家红向我们清晰呈现了薛允升与同僚之间的亲密寅谊、专业互动与团结合作，以及他们在刑部外的社会生活。单纯对于此一专业环境具体图景之谱绘，便具有相当学术价值，而这不过是该部博学精湛作品为未来研究所开辟的道路之一。

——Pierre-tienne Will （魏丕信）

 

这是一部充满学术愿力的清新之作，既有较为宏大的学术叙事，对于诸多法律文本、法律问题微末之处，考证详实、疏释明晰，更有中肯的严谨论证，创获实多，大有踵事增华前贤之意。

——黄源盛

 

从研究方法角度看，文献和史实考据仍是基本前提，立足传统事实考据方法同样可以开辟研究的新境界。史学名家陈寅恪与陈援庵等前辈成果已是典范，本书则是循着这一思路在法律史领域的持续努力和贡献。

——王志强

 

【本书目录】

 

Preface One　Pierre-tienne Will （魏丕信）

序二　黄源盛

序三  洞烛幽微见真知　王志强

 

第一章  北京、东京、上海三地馆藏薛允升《读例存疑》稿本发现与研究

  绪论  薛允升及其著述

  一  中国第一历史档案馆藏《读例存疑》稿本二册

（一）二册稿本之发现

（二）初窥《读例存疑》之成书

（三）稿本的抄录者——郭昭

  二  日本东洋文化研究所藏《读例存疑》稿本八册

（一）八册遗稿之发现

（二）再窥《读例存疑》之成书

（三）《读例存疑》与《唐明律合编》之同源

 

 三  上海图书馆藏《读例存疑》稿本六册

（一）以往研究之检讨

（二）六册稿本之重审

（三）稿本中新见诸刑官

 结论  从薛允升《读例存疑》看晚清刑部之律学创作

（一）关于薛允升及其律学之评价

（二）从《读例存疑》看晚清刑部之律学创作

 

第二章  薛允升《定例汇编》之重见——兼论田藏《唐明清三律汇编》之文献属性

（一）田藏《唐明清三律汇编》及其由来

（二）《唐明清三律汇编》与《唐明律合编》、《读例存疑》之关联

（三）《定例汇编》：破解《唐明清三律汇编》内容之谜

 

第三章  沈家本《薛大司寇遗稿序》之生成——兼论晚清刑部官员之律学研习

（一）一个偶然发现

（二）从《妇女实发律例汇说》到《薛大司寇遗稿》

（三）从《妇女实发律例汇说》看晚清刑部官员之律学研习

 

第四章  从《读例存疑》看清代律例条文的继承和演变

（一）缘起与检讨

（二）清代律文的继承和演变

（三）清代例文的继承和演变

（四）世变：清代律例演变的日暮穷途

 

第五章  薛允升遗著《秋审略例》的散佚与重现

（一）小引

（二）《秋审略例》的散佚与重现

（三）略论《秋审略例》的成书时代

 

征引文献

一  历史资料

二  今人著述

 

后记

 

 

【序言】

 

魏丕信（Pierre-Étienne Will）教授序

 

在这本名为《散佚与重现》的新书里，我的朋友孙家红向我们讲述了他之前意外发现的清末法学名家薛允升的几份遗稿的相关内容。这些遗稿带有不同程度的编辑修改。更重要的是，这些资料绝大多数并不完整，一些还处于糟糕的保存状态。他凭借对该学术领域和相关资料的多年积累和深入理解，从这些零散的、乍看起来有些枯燥的文本中，为我们详尽提取了所能获取的有趣且有价值的信息。

各种史料表明，1900年义和团运动兴起，八国联军占领北京，薛随后离开北京，返回西安故乡，那里也是清朝廷的避难地。据说当时他几乎已经完成，至少是初步完成了他希望出版的几本书，包括《唐明律合编》、《读例存疑》、《汉律辑存》、《汉律决事比》、《定例汇编》和《服制备考》。据沈家本言，1900年变乱前夕，上述著作中有四部——即《汉律辑存》、《唐明律合刻（合编）》、《读例存疑》和《服制备考》业已成书，并且已经由其刑部同仁筹备了出版资金，但是因为庚子事变，项目停摆了。

沈家本先是在保定被西方军队逮捕，随后被释放，当他在西安与薛允升重逢，向薛询问了原稿情况。薛回答说，在上面提到的四种著作中，只有《汉律辑存》留在北京，其它三种安然带在身边。据说薛允升将《汉律辑存》稿本托付某位同事，但该同事在薛去世后拒绝交还，多年之后部分稿本才被找回，现收藏于台湾傅斯年图书馆，北京大学图书馆也藏有一册。

薛允升扈从返京前，曾在西安将其他三种稿件委托沈家本。然而，1901年11月薛在返京途中逝世于河南开封。此后不久，只有《读例存疑》经过以沈家本为首的刑部同僚整理，上奏朝廷，最终于1906年出版。另外两部著作则被某位和薛允升关系亲密的前刑部同事，时为安徽官员的方连轸携往任上。方计划在那里整理和出版这些著作，但他并没有能力为之。1922年，徐世昌将《唐明律合编》从其当时的拥有者（董康）手中借出，加以出版。最后，一个并不完整的《服制备考》遗稿经过数人之手，最终庋藏于上海图书馆，迄未出版。

这些大致是家红基于所掌握的大量史料，倾其所能告诉我们的历史细节。然而，我们能在本书中看到的远不止此。事实上，今天只有两个现代版本的薛允升著作——《读例存疑》和《唐明律合编》，广泛为学者所用。这两部书蔚为巨制，广收博览，大家经常援引采用，成为了解中国法律历史的重要知识来源。家红不辞辛苦，从《读例存疑》中摘取一切有关清律演变的历史信息，并且通过清晰的统计形式展现所得到的结果，同时论及法律发展和社会演变的关系——最后这个方面值得进一步展开讨论。不仅如此，他还论及薛允升许多其它作品，特别使我们清楚知道薛允升的著述理念，以及他对各类文本的不同处理方式。

其中大致可以分成两类。第一类包括一系列薛允升亲自编辑并计划最终出版的作品，也就是前面提到那些不同名字的著作。很明显，薛试图通过这些著作对他所处时代——即同光之际，包括律例在内的清代全部成文法律进行详细的批判论列。《大清律例》在1870年经过最后一次系统化修改，薛曾参与其中，但在他看来，修律效果并不理想。然而这不是一项纯粹的学术工作，薛允升对清律有很多批评，且公开为之。在此家红打破了以往的神话，反驳了薛允升因为政治谨慎的态度，采用通过批评明律的方式来间接暗示清律的缺点。清律其实也并不像大家所说的那样，是对明律的简单复制，家红向大家展示了1646年和后来颁布的清律版本与明律是多么的迥然有别。

薛允升的目的在于发现清律的内部矛盾，追踪他们的历史由来，鉴识那些无用或过时的条款，以及某些条款刑罚的适当性，等等。在此，和唐律的比较很重要。所有这些都是为了将来重启修律的时候，使清律更为严谨客观，制度上更为完善。薛允升天不假年，并没有亲眼见证20世纪初期清政府为了应对外国压力，不仅改进刑事法典，更进行大张旗鼓的法律改革和现代化，以使中国法律兼容于国际标准，并不失其中华属性（Chineseness）。众所周知，这场运动由沈家本领导。但本书告诉我们，薛将其全部思想倾注于他为《读例存疑》律例条文所作的按语，这些按语极大影响了新政法律改革者的工作。

至于方法论方面，我们藉由本书可知，薛允升在刑部工作数十年，点滴积累和记录了他的考证结果。据说——家红的研究和系统化比较也确认了此点，薛允升最终积累了卷帙浩繁的著述原稿百余巨册（又说百数十册），像是某种数据库（a kind of database），因为没有完整保存下来，我们无法确知其样式和内容。可以想见，正如薛允升的陕西同乡李岳瑞回忆文章中所言，与从中辑出的《唐明律合编》、《读例存疑》比较类似，该数据库以《大清律例》的律例格局为底层结构，附录了薛允升深入研究中所能发现的历史理论文献、对比文本、注按之语，等等。与此同时，它也可能按照主题——或更好地按照历史时期进行分类，因为家红曾经提及“唐律部分”出现在遗稿中的可能性。我们知道，薛允升的关注点在于研究全部时代的法律衍变，进而评估他们的当前状况，并提出未来修律建议。无论如何，这种鸿篇巨制显然不能以当时的形式出版，所以薛决定精简删削，尤其重新整合或部分整合为几部专门主题的著作。正如我们所知，前述四部著作在1900年底之前足够完整，并已考虑出版。

这不是一项单打独斗的工作。比如，沈家本曾提到时而参与薛允升原始数据库的研究和编辑工作，很明显他不是唯一的例子。推而广之——家红征引多种史料告诉我们，薛允升在刑部任上主持和引领了很多刑部的集体项目。种种迹象表明，凭借其博大深湛的学术研究、法律专业的权威地位，以及勤勉谨慎的做事风格，薛允升在刑部获得了独一无二的空前影响，很多门生故吏向往跟随其研习法律，并以助手、编辑者或单纯的文稿抄写者等身份，参与他的伟大律学工程。家红从北京、东京、上海三地幸运发现的一些《读例存疑》稿本，作为其引入崭新证据的重要组成部分，使此类律学合作行为尤为凸显。

该书第一章致力于精准描述和分析这些约占《读例存疑》全书五分之一的著述遗稿。这些遗稿显示了著述循序渐进的过程：薛允升委托年轻同僚抄写他的部分作品，然后插入自己的编辑意见，划掉或删改句子，补充新的按语，用“剪刀加浆糊”方式重写局部内容，指示将某些内容抄成其他正在计划的著作，乃至给未来印刷出版加入指令。

薛允升自己对著述文本进行的修改显得非常有实效。这些修改告诉我们在长期准备《读例存疑》过程中，他的部分法律观点难免发生变化，而将批判矛头日益对准清律文本。与此同时，他的合作者（部分名字为我们所知）也会加入自己的编辑意见，以签条或其他形式阑入新观点和新内容。薛允升遗稿的整理和筹备出版，便是其门生故吏的一次集体行动，在随后上奏朝廷的奏疏中详细列举了他们的名字。家红发现的崭新史料也显示出，在《读例存疑》最后整理出版阶段，沈家本主导了该项计划，他的介入和影响尤为突出。在他所作的一篇序言里，沈毫不讳言自己“实任编纂之役”。事实上，我们可以看到沈家本在很多地方并不认同薛的处理方案，他加入自己的评论意见，或将某些问题留作未来讨论之用。总之，沈家本对于《读例存疑》的贡献最终为刊印本所接受，并表现十分突出。

家红书中利用整整一章篇幅，讨论薛允升在刑部任上从其大量数据文献中抽绎而成的一部大型文献汇辑——《定例汇编》。与《读例存疑》及其他各书相异的是，该书于薛允升去世前大致完成，但准确的创作背景并不明晰。在《读例存疑》的“凡例”中对之有所提及，据以可知该书更像是薛氏主要作品的一项附属，收集讨论清例创制修改的各类奏折和谕旨原本。通过家红对《读例存疑》稿本的分析可知，至少在《读例存疑》原稿中已经包含《定例汇编》的内容，经过指示抄录，该书尚在制作当中。事实上，我们难以确知薛允升是否能够完成《定例汇编》。他之所以渴望编纂这些原奏，不但尝试为读者提供条例创制和修改的全面背景——这一点与《读例存疑》只提供年份不同，而且更坦白说，是想避免这些奏折和谕旨散失。薛允升言，当时只有1750年以后的内容保存在刑部，经过努力找回的其他原奏不过一半左右。

今天我们至少可以接触到这些丢失文本的部分内容。一部以“汇编”简单命名的手稿，在1998年为我的已故朋友田涛（1946-2013）购得，并于2002年以《唐明清三律汇编》之名整理出版。（我们不知道该稿目前下落，家红也无法检视。）这里要讨论的问题是，当年田涛和他的合作者马志冰在引言中误解了该文本，认为是对唐、明、清三代律典进行的某种比较，因而将其视作《唐明律合编》的续编，并以此给整理版命名。然而，正如家红所论证的一样，该文本性质完全不同。在所谓《唐明清三律汇编》中约有四分之三内容，是与条例创制或修改有关的原奏和谕旨——也就是《定例汇编》资料，部分文本也可以在北京和东京保存的《读例存疑》原稿中找到。家红就此认为：田涛抢救性出版的这部稿本更准确的命名应该是《定例汇编》。

薛允升的第二类著作——其中一些明显经过他人编辑，更加难以捉摸。它们似乎是由技术性更强的文本组成，或牵涉司法尤其秋审文牍的撰写，或是薛在刑部任内制订的本部规章和其他制度性篇什。有些文牍可能是为了薛自己的工作参考，其他则为了他的同僚起草，被同僚在日常司法实践中奉为“圭臬”。然而，薛允升并不将之视作值得出版的重要作品，而是允许这些著作以抄本形式流通，同时也没有刻意掌控内中知识的准确性。显然，这些就是沈家本欲在《薛大司寇遗稿》名义下汇辑的文本实例。沈为《薛大司寇遗稿》撰写了序言，但事实上无法确定该书业已完成。家红得出的结论是：沈家本最终放弃了这项出版计划。

其实，我们并不清楚薛允升撰写的这些并不准备出版的司法指导用书的确切名单，薛任由这些著作以并不确实可靠的抄本形式在刑部同僚间流传。近年一些抄本再次浮出水面：诸如关于秋审术语和短句的《秋审分类批辞》和作为“秋审略节”撰写的教本——《秋审略例》。在本书最后，家红提及几种不同地点和不同条件下的《秋审略例》，以及一些奏折。这些内容在沈家本看来，也理应属于计划出版的薛允升遗稿。

对于缺乏实务经验的官员而言，这些遗稿显然就是为他们专门准备的指导用书。事实上，家红这部分讨论也涉及进入刑部的官员如何进行法律培训的问题。总的来说，这本书的引人入胜之处在于，它提供了19世纪末刑部的内部日常生活，刑部人员的行为和能力水平，团体和派系的存在，诸如此类。

据光绪版《大清会典》，刑部17省清吏司包括郎中、员外郎和主事在内，共有各级官员111名，负责审理各类法律案件。此外，还须增加一个未知却可能很庞大的数字：额外主事、试俸官员，以及京小官。同样，还有纸面上大约100名，但实际上更多的部内属吏。对此，本书并未言及。换句话说，这是一个庞大的官僚系统。可以想见，如同任何官僚机构那样，各位刑部职员的能力和贡献并不均一。人们并非因为在法律方面具有特殊才能进入刑部，相当多的刑部新职员——包括薛允升在内，都是在随机抽签的“签分刑部”过程中，派赴刑部学习行走。法律事务处理能力和知识智力上的真正投入，只有在他们来到刑部后才能显现出来。理论上，新职员被委托给经验丰富的官员，教授法律和司法程序的基础知识。但当他们获得新任命前，有人也可能没有学到多少法律知识。相比之下，那些成为权威法律专家的人当中，有的在部里工作了相当时间——长达二十年甚至更久，不断获得升迁，直至他们中有人被任命为知府或者御史。

本书介绍了一些刑部专家的传记片段。他们的职业生涯依循上述模式，并成为薛允升的亲密合作伙伴和崇拜者。家红征引了大量关于薛允升的评价，但仿佛所有作者都强调薛允升在刑部里面的崇高声望，凭借其精深法律知识和丰富司法实践，不断向门生故吏施加影响。通过现有资料我们可以鉴识出来至少25名刑部职官，成为薛允升律学作品的积极合作者。但其他人士散佚不传，家红估计总数应该超过50人。换句话说，这些人可以看成刑部精英之代表，但只占当时刑部全体实职和额外刑官的一小部分。

某些要求严格的刑部堂官认为，绝对有必要对属员进行培训、考核和提升。家红旁征博引地提醒我们，事实上刑部官员的平均能力远非足够，法律事务公认比较繁难，一般官员常常对此缺乏兴趣。因此，有时会出现一些比较积极的刑部尚书或者郎中，试图补救此弊。就像光绪初年发生的，在薛允升和其他人士强烈推动下，提升下属官僚对于律例细微之处的理解。本书征引的一个文献表明，1882年薛允升如何命令每位刑部司员将《大清律例》内的“妇女实发”——即女性是否应该实际执行流刑的法律条文，以说帖形式，指摘其中难点，并提出相应修改建议，以便考核他们的能力。在薛允升看来，结果不容乐观，因此他从自己的角度汇总大家意见，以便给同事们提供参考。

另外一位作出类似努力，力求强制教育司员，让他们恪尽职守的刑部尚书是赵舒翘。他也是陕西人，1898年接替薛允升出任刑部尚书。后来，1900年薛又在西安再次接任此职。赵全面系统地和每一个司的司员会面，询问他们有关清律的细节问题（通常很少有人能够回答），并鼓励他们努力学习。

在19世纪末和20世纪初，尽管许多人明显对此抱以冷漠和无知，甚至有些人不在其位，不司其职，但杰出而博学的官员们发挥的领导作用无疑提高了刑部人员素质和智识合作精神，也为沈家本等人监督和启发下开展法律改革创造了有利条件。由此来看，晚清数十年似乎是刑部历史上一个特殊时期，甚至是中国法律史的一个特殊时期。清朝前期是否也有类似行为和创造悸动，尚无法确定。我倾向认为，这个晚清律学的“黄金时代”虽然引人注目，但除了发生在第一次彻底改革中国治理方式的尝试前夕，事实上它并不唯一。

很明显，19世纪末这些提升法律知识的努力主要围绕秋审进行。秋审不仅调动了刑部最优秀人才，而且发展出特定的知识体系和司法程序。我们通过本书得知当时有两个学派——陕派和豫派，他们皆以秋审处为中心，并由著名的法律专家领导。两个学派在知识上的具体分别，我们还不是很清楚，似乎陕派在培训和挑选官员方面更为严格，但我们并不知道更多细节。不管怎样，薛允升被公认为陕派领袖，尽管他的门生和紧密合作者的圈子远远超出这个范畴。实际上，这两个学派与争权夺势的地域性派别有很大区别。恰恰相反，属于这两个学派的官员来自多个不同省份，绝非仅凭同乡关系而互相支持。据说，他们的唯一目的在于法律知识的提升。来自浙江的沈家本好像保持中立，即便不能准确将之归为薛氏门生，但毫无疑问，他也是薛允升的紧密合作者。

刑部当然也有地域性派别。显然最有势力的派别来自直隶。不知何故，来自直隶的刑部官员数量最多。1897年薛允升受到攻击，导致其降为宗人府府丞，这样的迁官被视作职业上的耻辱。这场攻击便来源于直隶一名颇有势力的官员——李念兹。李对薛允升怀恨在心，因为薛曾否决他对某一职位的营求。在李的阴谋下，两名御史弹劾薛允升犯下几项严重罪行，包括管理部务有所偏倚，收受生日贺礼，受财枉法，但薛最终由吏部查清免罪。另一方面，他被降职的理由其实是他的侄子牵涉案件腐败，薛则企图包庇。

薛彼时在刑部的地位似乎有所减弱。或许因为他独裁专断，偏向陕西同僚，以及某些人认为的恃才自傲，在他的同僚——至少一部分人中间已经积累不满。此外，1896年一名宫内太监杀死京城治安兵勇，尽管皇太后和光绪皇帝当时都主张从轻处罚，但薛坚持将之处以极刑，因而惹怒了慈禧太后。

无论如何，一位如此声名显赫的大臣，专业能力、知识才华和法律水平受到一致赞扬，却未能免于嫉妒，亦无法免受政治迫害。发生这样的事情，反而赋予他一些人性色彩，至少我是这样认为的。人物的另一面，是他对19世纪末中国社会日益严重的问题—所谓“矛盾”—的深层焦虑，增加了他作为法律专家的思想深度。这是家红在《读例存疑》的一些按语里找到的，薛允升在此用“世变”揭示罪名条例繁复如何损害清律的一致性。对于这种通常只针对特定一省的条例繁复，最终导致失去协调性，薛允升感到痛心。由此必然导致法律日益与社会脱节。然而，薛允升是否意识到他毕生奉献的神圣的中国法律机构此时已经临近家红所谓的“黄昏”，却很难说。

面对同僚堆积如山的正面评价，薛允升自然也有其缺点。一旦他成为全权的刑部尚书，甚至领导满族刑部尚书，他所获得的主导地位很可能最终使他与世隔绝，而不去在意那些本不属于他所偏爱的小型精英团体的僚属们的不满和沮丧。另一方面，亲密合作者和崇拜者的圈子组成这个小型精英团体，依然完全忠诚于他。不仅如此，家红所引用的材料使我们对于他们与薛允升始终保持的亲密关系，凝结这个团体的同志友谊，彼此之间的互动，乃至刑部以外的社会生活，多了几分了解。如何获得这种职业环境更为具体的影像，本身就很值得研究，而这不过是家红这部博大精深的著作为未来研究所开辟的众多道路之一。

 

魏丕信

法兰西学院, 巴黎

 

Preface

 

Pierre-Étienne Will

 

“Loss and Reappearance” (散佚與重現): in his new book bearing that title Sun Jiahong tells us about the unexpected recovery of several manuscripts originally compiled by the hero of his story, the great late-Qing jurist XueYunsheng薛允升, and displaying various degrees of editing. More crucially, Mr. Sun shows us all the interesting and important information that can be extracted from those scattered and at first sight rather dry-looking bits of text (they are mostly incomplete fragments, and some are in a poor condition)—at least when one possesses the deep familiarity with the field and with the relevant sources that he has developed over years of research.

As reported by various sources, by the time Xue left Beijing in 1900 during the Eight-Nations army occupation of the capital, following the Boxer troubles, and returned to his native Xi’an, where the Qing court had found refuge, he reportedly had more or less completed, or at least worked on, several works which he apparently intended for eventual publication: Tang Ming lühebian唐明律合編, Dulicunyi讀例存疑, Hanlüjicun漢律輯存, Hanlüjueshi bi 漢律決事比, Dinglihuibian定例彙編,and Fuzhibeikao服制備考. According to Shen Jiaben, already on the eve of the 1900 troubles four of these—Han lüjicun, Tang Ming lüheke合刻(hebian), Dulicunyi, and Fuzhibeikao—were considered as “finished” (成書) by Xue, and funds had been assembled by his colleagues at the Ministry of Justice (the Xingbu刑部) to put them to print, but the project was stopped by the events.

When Shen Jiaben rejoined XueYunsheng in Xi’an after he was let go by the Western military officers who had arrested him in Baoding, he asked Xue about his manuscripts, and Xue told him that of the above-mentioned four works, only Hanlüjicunhad been left in Beijing, the three others were safely with him. It seems that the manuscript of Hanlüjicunhad been entrusted by XueYunsheng to a colleague who refused to give it back after Xue’s death; the text was retrieved only much later and it is now held by the Fu Sinian library in Taiwan (there is another manuscript copy in the library of Peking University). Of the three other works, which XueYunsheng had handed over to Shen Jiaben in Xi’an before they departed for Beijing with the court, only Dulicunyi could be published shortly after his death in Kaifeng in late 1901, on the way back to Beijing: it was edited by a team of Ministry of Justice officials headed by Shen Jiaben, then presented to the throne, and finally printed in 1906. As for the manuscripts of the two remaining works, they were taken away by a certain Fang Lianzhen方連軫, a former Ministry of Justice official who had been close to XueYunsheng and was now an official in Anhui, where he planned to edit and print them—but he was never able to do it. In 1922 Tang Ming lühebiancould be borrowed from its then owner and published by Xu Shichang徐世昌. Finally, after it had passed through many hands an incomplete manuscript copy of Fuzhibeikao ended up in the Shanghai library; it has never been printed.

Such is more or less the story that Sun Jiahong tells us in the greatest possible detail and basing himself on a large array of sources; but as we shall see there is much more in his book. In effect, today only two books by XueYunsheng are widely available to scholars in convenient modern editions: Dulicunyiand Tang Ming lühebian. These are major works, massive and learned compilations which remain important sources for the history of Chinese law and which all of us are constantly referring to. In a section of the present book Sun Jiahong has endeavored to painstakingly extract from the Dulicunyi received text every possible bit of information on the historical development of Qing law, and to present the results in a clear, statistical form, while providing indications on its connection with social change (this last aspect would indeed deserve to be developed). But he discusses many other writings by XueYunsheng as well, and in particular he allows us to form an idea of the methodology adopted by Xue and the various ways he produced different sorts of texts.

There seems to be two main categories among these. The first category consists of a set of works that XueYunsheng edited with the view of ultimately publishing them—these are the various titles mentioned above. His aim in these works, apparently, was to produce a critical and historically-informed inventory of all the legal provisions—both statutes and substatutes—that went into the Qing penal code as it stood by his time, that is, in the Tongzhi and Guangxu periods. (The last systematic revision of Da Qing lüli was carried out in 1870, and according to Xue, who had participated in it, it was not a very good job.) This was not mere scholarly erudition, however. XueYunsheng was quite critical of many aspects of the Qing code—and openly so: Sun Jiahong debunks the myth that out of political caution Xue would criticize the Qing Code only indirectly through his considerations on the Ming Code, of which in fact the Qing Code was far from being a simple reduplication, as it is often said. (In his section on the evolution of Qing law as seen through Dulicunyi,Sun Jiahong shows how different from Ming statutory law the 1646 Qing Code and its successors were.) XueYunsheng’s goal was to locate inconsistencies in the Qing Code and trace their historical origins, find about useless or obsolete articles, discuss the appropriateness of punishments in certain articles—here comparison with Tang law was important—and so on. All of this was done with the aim of improving the Qing dynastic code when it would be ultimately revised, of making it into a more coherent, more objective, and more just body of law. XueYunsheng did not live long enough to witness the effort launched by the Qing court in the early years of the twentieth century to not just improve the Penal Code, but drastically reform and modernize it so as to respond to foreign pressure and make Chinese law more compatible with international standards, without however sacrificing its “Chineseness”—an effort in which, as we know, Shen Jiaben沈家本 was the leading actor. Yet it is known that all the thinking that Xue had put in his commentaries (his anyu按語) to the statutes and substatutes in Dulicunyi considerably influenced the work of the “New Policies” (xinzheng新政) reformers of Chinese law.

As far as methodology is concerned, we learn in the present book that during the several decades he spent at the Ministry of Justice XueYunsheng proceeded by carefully accumulating and writing down the results of his research. The outcome, it was said (and Sun Jiahong’s research and systematic comparisons confirm this), was a giant but somewhat unwieldy manuscript comprising more than a hundred large fascicles (some say a hundred and several tens), a kind of database whose exact form and content we cannot know, since it has not been preserved: I would imagine—and this is suggested in an essay on XueYunsheng by his fellow Shaanxi man Li Yuerui李岳瑞—that, similar to Tang Ming lühebianandDulicunyi (the contents of which were extracted from it), the underlying structure of the database was the succession of statutes and substatutes in Da Qing lüli大清律例, to which Xue would attach all the historical and theoretical data, parallel texts, commentaries, etc., he could find as he advanced in his research. But it may also have been arranged by topics, or better, by periods—at one point Sun Jiahong suggests the possibility of a “section on the Tang Code” (Tanglübufen唐律部分) within the manuscript: we know that Xue’s concern was to study the evolution of law over the entirety of historical times in order to evaluate its present condition and make suggestions for its future. In any event, this mega-compilation was clearly not publishable in its current form, and for this reason Xue decided to prune down its contents, edit them, and, especially, reorganize them (or parts of them) into discrete treatises on particular topics, among them the four works mentioned above, which by 1900, as we saw, were in a state of sufficient completion to be considered for printing.

This was no solitary work. For example, Shen Jiaben mentions at one point that he occasionally participated in the research and editing for Xue’s original database, and obviously he was not the only one. More generally, Sun Jiahong cites a number of sources showing that a lot of collective work was going on at the Ministry under the guidance and supervision of XueYunsheng: everything indicates that Xue’s formidable erudition, intellectual authority, and hard-working habits conferred enormous prestige and influence on him and attracted the collaboration of junior colleagues who were eager to learn from him and participate in his great endeavor as research assistants, as editors, or even as mere copyists. Such collaboration is made especially apparent in the fragmentary manuscripts of Dulicunyi that Sun Jiahong has been lucky to discover in Beijing, Shanghai and Tokyo, which form an important part of the new evidence he adduces. The first section of his book is devoted to an exacting description and analysis of these manuscripts, which cover about one fifth of the complete Dulicunyitext. What they are showing us is work in progress: XueYunsheng would entrust younger colleagues with copying sections of his work, and then insert his own edits, cross out or modify sentences, add new remarks, use the scissors-and-paste method to rewrite segments of the text, redirect certain materials to other works he was planning, and insert instructions for future printing. These corrections of his own text by XueYunsheng appear to be quite substantial. They show that his ideas on certain points of law were liable to change during the long process of preparing Dulicunyi—and, it would seem, to change in the direction of a more critical approach to the text of the Qing Code. At the same time, his collaborators, some of whom are known by name, would also insert their own edits, paste slips of paper (簽條) with new opinions and new text, and intervene in various ways. Such was the case in particular with the posthumous editing and preparation for publication of Dulicunyi, which was a collective endeavor by Xue’s former colleagues and disciples, as attested by the score of collaborators whose names are listed in the memorial presenting the work to the throne. The new materials found by Sun Jiahong also demonstrate that during this last stretch of editing Dulicunyithe influence and intervention of Shen Jiaben, who was in charge of the project, was paramount—indeed, in one of his prefaces Shen does not hesitate to refer to himself as a “compiler” (bianzuan編纂). As a matter of fact, it can be seen at places that his choices were different from those of XueYunsheng, that he added commentaries of his own, and that he left some questions open for further discussion. In general, it seems clear that Shen Jiaben’s contribution to the received text of Dulicunyias it was eventually published was considerable.

A whole section of Sun Jiahong’s book is devoted to another treatise which was also extracted from the large database assembled by XueYunsheng during his decades at the Ministry of Justice, entitled Dinglihuibian. Contrary to Dulicunyi and the other works that Xue had more or less completed by the end of his life, the exact circumstances of this one are somewhat elusive. The text is mentioned in the fanli凡例 of Dulicunyi, according to which it was intended to be a sort of appendix to the main work, consisting of a compilation of the original memorials (yuanzou原奏) and edicts (yuzhi諭旨) discussing the creation or modification of substatutes (li 例). It can be seen in the Dulicunyimanuscripts analyzed by Sun Jiahong that at least some of these materials featured in the Dulicunyioriginal draft, but were then excised and redirected to Dinglihuibian, still in the making. It is in fact unclear whether XueYunsheng was ever able to complete Dinglihuibian. The reason why he was eager to compile these memorials was not only to offer the reader the full circumstances of the creation or modification of substatutes (i.e., not just the dates, as in Dulicunyi), but also, more simply, to preserve them from being scattered and lost: in his time, he said, only those posterior to 1750 were kept at the Ministry, and much research was necessary to retrieve the contents of about half of the earlier ones.

Today we do have access to at least a part of this lost text. A manuscript which apparently bore the abbreviated title Huibian was acquired in 1998 by my late friend Tian Tao田濤, who published it in 2002 under the title Tang Ming Qing sanlühuibian唐明清三律彙編. (The present whereabouts of the original manuscript are not known and Sun Jiahong was not able to examine it.) The problem discussed here is that in their introduction Tian Tao and his co-author Ma Zhibing馬志冰 misinterpreted the text as a comparison of the codes of the Tang, Ming, and Qing dynasties, seen as a sort of continuation to Tang Ming lühebian—hence the title they decided to give to the published edition. But as Sun Jiahong demonstrates, its nature is completely different: about three quarters of the so-called Tang Ming Qing sanlühuibian consist of memorials and edicts related to the creation or modification of substatutes—in other words, Dinglihuibianmaterials, some of which can be found on slips pasted in the Dulicunyimanuscripts in Beijing and Tokyo, but were later excised. Sun Jiahong therefore concludes that Dinglihuibianmight be a more appropriate title for the manuscript rescued and published by Tian Tao.

The second category of works by XueYunsheng (some of them heavily edited by others) is much more elusive. They seem to consist of texts of a more technical nature, regarding either the writing of documents—particularly Autumn Assizes documents—or Ministry regulations and other institutional matters, which Xue produced within the Ministry of Justice. While some may have been reference materials he kept for his own work, others were drafted for the sake of his colleagues, who would then use them as “revered models” (guinie圭臬) in their daily activities. Xue did not regard these writings as important works deserving publication, and he allowed them to circulate in the form of copies, the accuracy of which he did not attempt to control. Such apparently was the case of the texts that were to be compiled by Shen Jiaben as Xue’s “posthumous manuscripts” under the title Xue da sikouyigao薛大司寇遺稿, a work for which Shen wrote a preface but which has not been preserved—in fact it is not even sure that the manuscript was ever completed, and Sun Jiahong concludes that Shen eventually dropped the idea of publishing it.

In reality, we do not know the exact list of these practical guides and anthologies of materials that XueYunsheng did not care to edit and publish and that circulated among his colleagues in the form of more or less faithful copies. Some have resurfaced: besides Qiushenfenleipici秋審分類批辭,a glossary of terms and phrases related to the Autumn Assizes, and Qiushenlüeli秋審略例,a textbook on writing Autumn Assizes “case abstracts” (lüejie略節) to which the last section of the present book is devoted, Sun Jiahong mentions several pieces, including some memorials, that he has been able to retrieve in various places and in various conditions. Indeed, some of these pieces may have been considered by Shen Jiaben for inclusion in the collection of XueYunsheng’s posthumous manuscripts that he planned.

These “posthumous manuscripts” appear to have been mostly guidebooks aimed at officials lacking sufficient experience. As a matter of fact, the section where Sun Jiahong discusses them also deals with the question of how the officials entering the Ministry of Justice were trained in law. And more generally, one thing that particularly interested me in his book is all the information he provides along the way regarding life inside the Ministry of Justice in the late nineteenth century, the behavior and level of competence of its personnel, the existence of groups and factions, and so forth.

According to the Guangxu edition of Da Qing huidian大清會典, the 17 provincial bureaus (qinglisi清吏司) entrusted with legal cases had a total of 111 ranking officials (i.e., directors, langzhong郎中, deputy directors 員外郎, yuanwailang,and secretaries, zhushi主事), to which must be added an unknown and probably very high number of extra-quota (ewai額外) and probationary (shifeng試俸) officials, as well as petty metropolitan officials (jingxiaoguan京小官). Likewise, the number of clerks (li 吏) attached to the Ministry, about a hundred on paper, must have been much higher than that. (Clerks do not feature in Sun’s book.) In other words, it was a big bureaucracy, and one can only suppose that, like in any bureaucracy, the competence and dedication of its personnel were very uneven. One did not enter the Ministry of Justice because one had a particular competence or interest in law: a great many new officials—including XueYunsheng himself—had been randomly appointed to the Ministry of Justice as “apprentices” (xuexi學習) through the process of drawing lots (qianfenXingbu簽分刑部). Competence, and possibly a real intellectual investment in legal matters, came only later: in theory, newcomers were entrusted to experienced officials who would teach them the basics of law and judicial procedure; but it is likely that a fair number had not learned much when the time came to leave for another appointment. In contrast, among those who became serious legal specialists, some would spend fairly long periods of time (up to two decades or even more) in the Ministry, going through successive promotions, until (for some of them) they were appointed to positions such as prefect or censor.

The present book features a number of biographical sketches of such specialists who happened to be close (and admiring) collaborators of XueYunsheng and whose careers followed this pattern. Now, even though all the authors who commented on XueYunsheng’s personality (Sun Jiahong quotes a large number of them) insist on his prestige within the Ministry and on the intellectual influence he exerted on his junior colleagues through his profound knowledge of law and his experience in adjudicating cases, the group of active collaborators to his work that can be identified in the sources is no more than about 25 people—but others may have dropped out of the record (Sun Jiahong suggests a total of more than 50); in other words, these people, who presumably represented the specialized elite among the Ministry personnel, were only a small fraction of the full complement of officials, both ranking and extra-quota, at the Ministry.

But certain demanding Ministry leaders considered it an absolute necessity that all the officials serving under them be trained, tested, and evaluated. Indeed, as more than one source quoted by Sun Jiahong reminds us, the level of competence of the Ministry officials was more often than not woefully inadequate, and this was only reflecting the lack of interest for legal matters (a notoriously difficult topic) on the part of officials in general. So, it could happen that activist ministers or vice-ministers attempt to remedy this situation. Such was the case in the early Guangxu years and later with personalities like XueYunsheng and a few others, who strongly pushed for improving their junior colleagues’ knowledge of the subtleties of the Penal Code. One text by XueYunsheng quoted here shows how in 1882 he ordered every bureau official (siyuan司員) in the Ministry to submit memos (shootie 說帖) commenting on difficult points in the Code and making propositions for improvement (in this case, the topic was sending or not sending women into exile), so as to evaluate their capacities. The results, he says, were extremely disappointing, and therefore he compiled their responses together with his own views, so as to provide a reference to his colleagues.

Another minister who made similar efforts to forcefully instruct the bureau officials and keep them on their toes was Zhao Shuqiao趙舒翹, also a Shaanxi man, who succeeded XueYunsheng as Minister of Justice in 1898 (and whom Xue again succeeded in Xi’an in 1900): Zhao would systematically meet the officials of one bureau after the other, ask them detailed questions on the Code—usually few were able to answer—and encourage them to study hard. Such leadership on the part of outstanding and erudite officials in the late nineteenth century and in the first years of the twentieth century certainly enhanced the quality of the personnel and spirit of intellectual collaboration at the Ministry of Justice—even though, obviously, many stayed indifferent or ignorant, not to speak of those who did not even care to come to the office. It thus created favorable conditions for the reform of penal law that was launched under the supervision of luminaries like Shen Jiaben. In this respect, the last few decades of the Qing seem to have been an exceptional period in the history of the Ministry, and more generally in the history of Chinese law. Whether there were similar spurs of activism and creativity earlier in the Qing dynasty remains to be ascertained. As a matter of fact, I tend to think that this late-Qing “golden age”, however remarkable, was not unique—except in the fact that it occurred on the eve of the first attempt to profoundly reform the Chinese way of governance.

Apparently the principal locus of these efforts at developing legal knowledge in the late nineteenth century was the Autumn Assizes, which mobilized the best talents in the Ministry year after year and appear to have developed a specific body of knowledge and procedure. We learn in this book about two “schools” of legal learning, the Shaanxi and the Henan school, which centered on the Assizes bureau and were headed by renowned legal specialists. What differentiated the two “schools” intellectually is in fact not very clear—it seems that the Shaanxi school was more rigorous in the training and selection of officials, but we know no more details. In any case, XueYunsheng was naturally regarded as the head of the Shaanxi school, even though the circle of his disciples and close collaborators extended far beyond this group. As a matter of fact, the two “schools” were very different from provincial cliques that would compete for political influence. Quite the contrary, the officials who belonged to them hailed from a variety of provinces: far from trying to support each other on the basis of a shared regional origin, their only aim, reportedly, was the improvement of legal knowledge. (Shen Jiaben, who was from Zhejiang, seems to have stayed neutral, but of course he was a close associate of XueYunsheng, if not properly speaking his “disciple”.)

But there also were regional cliques in the Ministry of Justice. The most powerful, apparently, was the Zhili clique—for unclear reasons, officials hailing from Zhili were the most numerous at the Ministry of Justice. The attack that led to XueYunsheng’s demotion and appointment to a sinecure in the Court of the Imperial Clan in 1897—a transfer which he resented as a professional disgrace—came from one of them, an official with much influence named Li Nianzi李念茲. Li bore a grudge against XueYunsheng because he had been denied an assignment (chaishi差使) he wanted. At his instigation Xue was accused of several grave misdeeds by two censors, including favoritism in managing ministry affairs, collecting birthday gifts, and accepting bribes to influence the outcome of cases; but he was eventually cleared from these charges by the Ministry of Personnel. On the other hand, the pretext for his demotion was that his nephew had been involved in a corruption case and that Xue had tried to protect him.

In reality, it seems that by that time Xue’s position at the Ministry had already been weakened. Discontent had accumulated against him among his colleagues, at least part of them, perhaps due to his authoritarianism, to a tendency to protect his fellow Shaanxi officials, and to what must have been perceived by some as intellectual arrogance. Besides, in 1896 he had annoyed Empress Cixi by insisting on a severe punishment against a palace eunuch who had killed a Beijing police officer, even though the dowager and Emperor Guangxu had lobbied for a lesser penalty.

Whatever the case may have been, the very fact that such a prestigious minister, unanimously hailed for his professional competence, intellectual brilliance, and mastery of law, was not immune to jealousy and proved unable to protect himself against petty politics confers some humanity on him—or so it seems to me. Another aspect of the personage that adds depth to his genius as a legal scholar is what appears to have been his profound anxiety regarding the mounting problems—the so-called “contradictions”—which afflicted Chinese society in the nineteenth century. This is actually something that Sun Jiahong has been able to locate in some of Xue’s commentaries in Dulicunyi, where Xue remarks on the “secular changes” (shibian世變) that explain the multiplication of substatutes dealing with criminal offenses at the expense of the overall coherence of the Code. Xue deplored this multiplication of substatutes (usually aimed at one particular province) and the resulting lack of coherence. It certainly made penal law more and more disconnected from society. Was Xue conscious of the fact that by his time the hallowed Chinese legal institutions to which he had devoted his entire life had reached, as Sun Jiahong says, their “twilight”? It is difficult to say.

For all the glowing commentaries heaped on him by his associates, XueYunsheng certainly had his weaknesses. It is quite possible that the dominant position he had acquired at the Ministry once he became a full minister, even taking the lead over his colleague the Manchu Minister of Justice, eventually isolated him and made him insensitive to dissatisfaction and frustration among junior colleagues who did not belong to the small elite he favored. On the other hand, the close circle of collaborators and admirers that made up this small elite remained totally loyal to him. More than that, the materials quoted by Sun Jiahong allow us some glimpses of the affectionate relations they maintained with Xue, and also of the camaraderie which united the group, of their interactions, and even of their social life outside the Ministry. Getting a more concrete image of this professional milieu, which would deserve a study in itself, is only one of the many avenues that Sun Jiahong’s immensely erudite study opens for future research.

 

Pierre-Étienne Will 魏丕信

Collège de France 法蘭西學院, Paris

 

 

（Pierre-Étienne Will（魏丕信），法兰西学院荣休院士、教授。）

 

黄源盛教授序

 

近数十年来，中国法律史的研究，关于晚清法律改革的历史叙事具有一个不太为人注意的现象，即往往以1901年2月1日清廷发布变法谕旨，沈家本、伍廷芳二人被任命为修订法律大臣为其嚆矢。相较之下，对于在此之前的一段法制发展历程，则缺乏足够的研究和重视。其实，在这段法律历史过程中，薛允升和晚清律学是研究者不宜忽视的重要学术议题。

已故法史学家黄静嘉先生（1924-2017）曾将薛允升誉为中华传统律学之“殿后人”，而薛氏所撰述的宏篇巨著《读例存疑》，则被法史学界公认为清代律学的扛鼎之作。薛允升及其所开创的陕派律学，更在同光年间异军突起，与另外一支主要由河南籍刑官组成的学术派别——豫派律学，交相辉映，砥砺磋磨，在晚清变法修律正式启动前演绎了一段浪漫的学术佳话，至今仍引发学者思古之幽情。

庚子年初，家红君将新完成的书稿发来，希望能够为之写点评语，用作将来出版序言，使我有机会较早领读到他近年关于薛允升与晚清律学的系列研究成果。全书由五个部分组成，每一部分既可独立成篇，前后逻辑上又颇连贯，共同构成了透过薛允升遗稿看晚清律学创作传播历史的完整主题。据我所知，除了最后一部分作为单篇论文，曾在《法制史研究》（第24期）上正式发表过外，其余四篇皆为2019年新作。能在这么短时间内同时推出如此质与量并重的研究作品，其学术创作能量蔚为可观，足征平素深厚的修为底蕴。

揆诸各篇，皆以薛允升及其著述（遗稿）为探讨对象。另据所知，本书第四部分利用《读例存疑》研究发现清代律例条文继承演变规律之长篇文论，曾经提交2019年春季在美国丹佛举行的美国亚洲研究协会（AAS）年会，并在福州大学所召开的“规范、制度、思想、裁判——中国法律文化的传统与当代”国际学术研讨会上宣读过，受到与会学者关注和高度评价。在这篇文论里，将《读例存疑》中包含的关于清代律例条文演变的丰富信息，开创性地进行了极为全面的数据统计和严格细密的析论，深刻揭示出清代成文法律衍化的诸多面相，并在此基础上，对以往学者关于明清成文法律继承递嬗的流行观点，进行了富有建设性的思辨和评说。

本书前三部分内容之生发，源自近年关于薛允升《读例存疑》系列稿本的重大发现。在关于北京、东京、上海三地馆藏《读例存疑》稿本的鉴识分析过程中，展示了家红君对于薛允升、沈家本等人著述的深切理解，乃至对于晚清众多刑部官员书法笔迹之熟谙，否则，难以胜任如此繁剧庞杂史料之考究。在此一环节，不仅完整呈现了《读例存疑》一书从编写稿本到正式成书，以及各种稿本的散佚过程，更对薛允升穷四十年之力进行的律学创作实践，进行了全景式梳理。此外，还通过大量资料的深入挖掘和精致细腻的分析，对于以沈家本、郭昭、陈浏等人为代表的门生故吏，在《读例存疑》等书成书过程中所作出的隐性和显性贡献，以及晚清刑部陕豫两派律学之间的学术竞争与互动，作出了系列论述和精彩论证，可以说，多言人所未言，抽丝剥茧，引人入胜。

本书所具有的学术创新价值，在第二和第三部分表现的尤为明显。前者关于已故藏书家田涛先生点校整理的《唐明清三律汇编》一书进行了重新解读，提出《唐明清三律汇编》实为薛允升散佚稿本《定例汇编》的学术论断，令人眼目一新。后者则从沈家本的一篇序文（《薛大司寇遗稿序》）入手，充分利用沈家本手稿、薛允升已刊和未刊稿本，不仅启揭了一段鲜为人知的学林往事，更为我们重新认识晚清刑部的律学交流和创作活动，提供了侧面的考察视角。上述两项事实之发现，虽然带有一定的偶然性，但皆以此前对于薛氏《读例存疑》稿本的细细钩沈为基石，故而显得水到渠成，浑然一体。

以上为笔者阅读家红君此番著作的一些初步认识和收获。概而言之，这是一部充满学术愿力的清新之作，既有较为宏大的学术叙事，对于诸多法律文本、法律问题微末之处，考证详实、疏释明晰，更有中肯的严谨论证，创获实多。

熟识家红君多年，在北大攻读博士学位期间，受业于著名法史学家李贵连先生，并与国际法史学界常有广泛交流。长年以来，沉潜学术，学思敏捷，在中国法律史研究领域业绩显著，相当难得。今年疫情突发，诸事难免受到影响，家红君仍不废所学，勇毅韧进。侧闻于本书之外，其所重新点校整理之54卷本《读例存疑》，以及另外一部关于明清法律继承演变之资料合集，也均将付梓，大有踵事增华前贤之意。

犹记2010年秋书赠家红君，勉其“行深法史”，融豁观照史事。今见其新作屡屡问世，每读而爱之，深有启予之感，爰欣然作序。

 

2020年庚子秋月

于台北外双溪犁斋

黄源盛 识

 

（黄源盛，福州大学法学院特聘教授、中南财经政法大学文渊学者讲座教授、台湾政治大学法学院兼职教授、台湾大学法学博士）

 

 

王志强教授序

 

洞烛幽微见真知

 

在中国法制史研究中，清代法因存世文献丰富、与现代转型有直接传承关系等原因，一直备受学者们重视。晚清律学名家中，薛允升学养深厚，著述影响广泛。除线装刻本外，《唐明律合编》先后有万有文库、人人文库商务排印本、中国书店影印本（有合编本和单行本两种）和法律社点校本，《读例存疑》有台北成文社编校本和大陆公安大学社点注本，还有日本寺田浩明个人网页（现为铃木秀光个人网页）提供的在线电子版。另据参与其事者见告，钟威廉（William Jones）英译《大清律》（The Great Qing Code）也使用了《读例存疑》所载清律。其为后世所重可见一斑。

家红此著精研薛允升著述，并以此为基础深入剖析清代法制相关方面，在文献考订和学理分析方面均有洞见。在史料辨析和利用方面，本书阐发幽隐，介绍此前未被学界准确了解和充分关注的薛氏遗稿及其版本多种，并精心校勘比对，细述薛允升著述的总体样貌、还原其成书过程，使数种律学名著的著述和完成经过得以完整呈现。同时，本书在文献研究中穷原竟委，抽丝剥茧般揭示各种稿本传续流转的过程。上海图书馆藏稿本、宝坻档案中稿本的准确认定、《定例汇编》与田藏《唐明清三律汇编》关系的廓清、《薛大司寇遗稿》的来龙去脉等等，显示了作者谙熟清代法律史、把握相关文献的深厚功底。作者提出多种发覆之论，如质疑《唐明律合编》意在间接批评清律的一般通说，可谓薛氏百年之后的知音。

对清代法的分析中，本书在制度和思想研究领域均有亮点。有关篇章立足于薛氏著述，在具体细致的历史语境中，深入研究清代条例的变迁，对清承明律、同治九年后条例无修订等传统观点提出新见。同时，对参与薛允升著作成稿过程的晚清刑部法曹逐一细致描绘，并置于当时司法实务和律学发展的宏大背景中，展开了一幅晚清司法界精英图谱的历史长卷。

本书主要运用传统的文献分析法，侧重文献和史实考据，但这并不影响其揭示的历史现象具有令人耳目一新的思想启发性。例如，薛氏在著述过程中得到大量下属同僚襄助，协助其抄录文稿、搜集材料和提供见解的官员，据作者考订和估算，在五十名以上。薛氏作为陕派律学领军人物、乃至当时律学界一代宗师，是传统律学的突出代表。他显然并非仅凭个人之力，而是依靠一个受其辖属指导、服膺其学识的庞大团队进行研究和著述，并以此类方式凝聚学术力量、建构律学流派。这对于理解传统律学的著述方式和学派传承具有重要意义。又如，作者对清代条例的年代分布进行细致分析，并结合其内容特点逐条梳理，改变传统研究中把某个断代立法作为整体看待的简单化处理方式，通过历史维度对法律整体状况进行具体场景化呈现。因此，从研究方法角度看，文献和史实考据仍是基本前提，立足传统事实考据方法同样可以开辟研究的新境界。史学名家陈寅恪与陈援庵等前辈成果已是典范，本书则是循着这一思路在法律史领域的持续努力和贡献。

承本书作者家红教授好意惠示文稿，使我有先睹之快。感佩之余，聊抒拙见，就教于家红及学界同仁。

 

                                              王志强

庚子初秋 于复旦江湾

 

（王志强，复旦大学法学院院长、教授、博士生导师）

 

 

 

【作者后记】

 

诸多因缘际会，促成了本书的诞生。2015年10月，笔者应邀赴法国里昂高等学术研究院（Collegium de Lyon）进行为期一年的访问研究，其间在好友巩涛（Jérôme Bourgon）教授鼓励乃至“蛊惑”下，着手重新整理晚清律学大家薛允升（1840-1901）的不朽名著《读例存疑》。迄今五年多时间里，在一遍又一遍的阅读过程中，不仅个人对于清代律例继承演变的认识不断加深，薛允升作为一代律学宗师的人物形象也日渐凸显起来。

2019年3月在美国图尔萨大学步德茂（Thomas M. Buoye）教授牵头组织下，笔者耑赴美国丹佛参加美国亚洲研究会（AAS）年会，并接受其建议根据此前对《读例存疑》一书的整理研究，特别撰写了关于清代律例条文继承演变的一篇6万余字长文，提交大会讨论，并最终成为本书第四章。在美国当地3月21日晚间举行的小组会议上，著名汉学家、法兰西荣休院士魏丕信（Pierre-Etienne Will）教授担任主席（Chair），步德茂教授、加利福尼亚州立大学朴兰诗（Nancy Park）教授和我先后作了主题发言，法国远东学院陆康（Luca Gabbiani）教授负责主持和评议。从现场反馈情况来看，该文提出的一些观点和数据分析引起同仁们的兴趣。自机场匆忙赶到会场、尚未晚饭的姜永琳教授则向笔者提出一个新的议题：清代律例条文之于明代的继承演变关系如何？由此催生了另外一部资料合集——《明清律合编》（又名《万历顺治二律集解合刊》）的编纂，即以文本对勘形式详细分析清初对于明末成文法律的因袭与变革。一如前面那篇长文，其中有很多令人意想不到的发现。

利用会议间隙，笔者曾向魏丕信教授等人简单介绍了新近发现的若干册《读例存疑》遗稿，但当时并没有明确的写作计划，只是“独乐乐不如众乐乐”，想把最新的发现分享给大家。回国后，先是利用数月时间忙于回答姜永琳教授提出的问题——将目前所见几乎最晚且最完整的一部、明万历四十年（1612）高举刊刻的《大明律集解附例》，和清顺治三年（1646）完成的入关后第一部《大清律集解附例》进行逐字校勘，并仿照薛允升遗著《唐明律合编》，将两书汇成一体，以便读者可以清楚发现两部成文法律的微观差异，算是前述研究之延伸。迨全书编竣，已然八月末尾，随后着手将最近两年在北京、东京、上海三地发现的《读例存疑》稿本内容和保存情况向学界作一详细汇报。

自去年10月中旬正式动笔，迄旧历年底完成最后一篇文稿写作，前后共花费两个半月时间。在某些朋友看来，或许写作太速，有点不可思议，但其实相关问题思考与知识储备，至迟自2015年冬天重新整理《读例存疑》便埋下了遥远的前因。这两个多月时间，不过是将数年以来阅读思考所得集中倾泻出来而已。

然在正式下笔后，随着史料之反复咀嚼、日夜磋磨，从史料到史实，再到相关问题讨论，逐渐走到了连笔者都觉得有些意外的地步。例如原初计划只是写一篇二三万字长文，便可交代全部问题，但因大量图片和统计表格的交叉运用，文章篇幅一增再增，早已超出绝大多数学术刊物的容纳能力。既如此，索性就写一本小册子吧！再如，本书对于薛允升一生律学著作体系及各部著作成书、流散过程的全面梳理，对于沈家本、郭昭、武玉润、段书云、许世英等人在薛允升著述成书和后续刊刻过程中各自贡献的全新揭示，对于晚清刑部陕豫两大律学流派的形成过程，及彼此之间学术竞争和互动关系的辩证讨论，皆是信笔为之，起初并没有充分预见。尤其对薛允升散佚稿本《定例汇编》的重新发现和沈家本《薛大司寇遗稿序》一文的再度审视，更有一种“蓦然回首，那人却在灯火阑珊处”的别样喜悦。经由上述考索，对于以薛允升、赵舒翘、沈家本等为代表的晚清律学家的研习创作活动，自认有了一番全新认知。兼以笔者若干年前对薛允升遗稿《秋审略例》的散佚与重现过程进行过详细探佚和考订，于是藉由薛允升著述遗稿来看晚清律学的主题在头脑中逐渐成型。

读者或许可以清楚感受到，在本书写作过程中，笔者将清代律学置于与现代法学同等重要——乃至更为崇高的专业位阶，薛允升则俨然成为清代律学乃至中国古代律学的一位集大成者，或曰律学宗师。不仅如此，书中不厌其烦地数次谈到，晚清修订法律大臣沈家本不仅曾经亲身参与薛允升的律学创作过程，更在薛逝世后主导了《读例存疑》一书的整理出版，并且在其受命修订法律过程中对于薛氏关于旧律的改革意见广收博取，多所借鉴。换句话说，薛允升不仅在研究清末法律改革前史过程中是绝对不容越过的律学大家，他更以精湛宏富的律学研究成果为晚清法律改革进行了相当扎实的知识储备。即此一点，薛允升足堪“晚清法律改革先行者”之称谓。

遗憾的是，由于百余年间社会变迁动荡，薛允升平生所积累之各种著述稿本风流云散，并未得到很好的传承留续。如今在北京、东京、上海、台北、京都等地发现的薛允升著述遗稿，虽然数量尚属可观，甚至时常有惊艳之感，但毕竟仅为劫后残余，欲窥薛氏律学著述之全豹已然不可能。但换个角度看，薛氏著述遗稿之残损、散佚与部分重现的过程，不仅昭示着薛允升生前身后的命运浮沉，更意味着传统律学在近代中国所经历的不可挽回的千古劫运。透过这一面历史的镜子，我们可以深切体会到中华传统法律文化的百年蜕变，以及在于当下中国的现实境遇。

兹事体大，本书所进行的关于薛允升及晚清律学的研究不过是一个开始，起例发凡而已，自觉距离充分揭示薛允升一生律学成就、总结其主要律学观点，以及全面厘清晚清律学之生成流变还很遥远。正如唐诗所云，“只在此山中，云深不知处”，大家都想入宝山寻觅名师或者宝藏，但因为山上烟雾太过浓密，以致我们只能看清脚下的几块砖石，和不远处隐隐约约的登山小径，但登顶的路途究竟有多遥远、有多曲折，目前尚属未知。故在本书完成后，曾有朋友建议在书中增加一个特别段落，以归纳总结薛允升的主要律学成就和律学思想特征，笔者最终还是选择放弃，因为内心无比清楚：遑论本书所研究揭示的这些有限新知，即便将目前所有关于清代律学的史料和研究成果一网打尽，也不足以实现上述目的，所以没有必要刻意为之。

在讨论某些具体问题时，笔者很有选择地对此前部分学者的优秀研究成果进行参考，并在充满敬意的基础上坦率提出若干批评，因为笔者深知正常的学术批评是促进学术良性发展的必备基石。以往无数经验告诉我们，作为国人优秀品质的谦逊一面，如果走到虚伪矫情的极端，不仅不能促进真正学术活动之开展，反倒为学术之害。前辈学者所积累凝成的朴实厚重的学术风气、所创作的无数优秀学术成果，和无私无畏、博大宏阔的学人品格，值得我们抱持永久的敬意。但从不同时代学术发展的使命来看，在前人基础上继续推进和不断超越——包括在人格独立平等基础上，对于此前学者研究成果进行科学的批评、适当的修正和努力的拓展，或许才是最好的致敬。

在本书形成前后，曾得到无数师友帮助，需要感谢的人很多。首先特别感谢挚友梅凌寒（Frédéric Constant）和学弟王旭两位教授，正是他们先后在《宝坻档案》和东京仁井田文库中的偶然发现和无私分享，使我有机会接触到薛允升《读例存疑》遗稿，并由此展开一系列研究讨论。更要感谢2015年冬天巩涛教授在里昂高师对笔者的一番“蛊惑”，和2018年夏季步德茂教授在北京南锣鼓巷的盛情邀约，以及2019年3月共同参与丹佛AAS年会讨论的其他几位师友：魏丕信教授、陆康教授和朴兰诗教授、姜永琳教授，还有现场聆听的其他学界同仁。

《礼记》云：“独学而无友，则孤陋而寡闻。”在本书写作过程中，曾陆续将部分篇章寄呈几位师友请教。本研究室的同事高旭晨教授和相知相交十余载的张群教授，是全部书稿的最早一批读者，从他们那里获得的永远是支持和鼓励，以及相当专业的修改建议。本研究室的前辈杨一凡教授，几乎详阅了尚处单篇论文状态的每一篇文字，在给予极大肯定同时指出不少行文上的瑕疵。“一篇有创见的论证扎实的学术论文，胜过十本平庸之作”，这是他在读完本书第四章后所作的一句评语。数年以来，杨老师对后学晚辈爱护有加，为学之精勤、成果之丰赡，更时常令笔者仰慕与汗颜。

同样需要特别感谢的是：法兰西学院荣休院士魏丕信教授，原台湾政治大学法学院、现福州大学法学院黄源盛教授，和复旦大学法学院王志强教授。三位教授不仅全面审阅了拙稿，更于百忙之中慨允赐序。拙作虽然自问有一愚之得，但对于三位教授的不吝谬赞，战战兢兢，愧汗不已。

本书责任编辑刘骁军女史，在诸事纷纭之际，对拙稿特予青睐，尤其花费大量心力处理图片排版等繁琐问题，并于有限时间内高效完成，感佩之至。此外尚须感谢的师友还有很多，深铭五内，限于篇幅，恕不一一列举。

旧历年末，疫情突发，一月数惊。回想薛允升生于1820年，今年适逢其诞辰200周年纪念。而其年逾耄耋，遭遇庚子之乱，1900年8月中旬联军入城后，携子仓皇出奔，家人留京者全部自尽；次年秋季，扈驾回銮，终因年老体衰，行至河南开封，溘然去世。其晚年遭逢之兵燹离乱，国仇家恨，与当下疫情相比，有过之而无不及。孟子所谓动心忍性，穷且益坚，养浩气，致良知，正当其时，吾辈又何敢自暴自弃，旷厥天职也。

是为记。

 

                                              孙家红

                                     庚子季秋于京西寄庐