Codifying Statutes: The Genesis of Ming Dynasty Legal Framework and the Governance of "Simplicity and Appropriateness"

Brief Introduction

In the history of ancient Chinese legal systems, the codification of statutes in the first year of the Hongwu era (1368 AD) stands as one of the most emblematic events of the early Ming Dynasty. At the time, Zhu Yuanzhang, then King of Wu, appointed Left Chancellor Li Shanchang as the head of the commission and summoned renowned officials such as Liu Ji (Liu Bowen) and Zhou Dinggang to jointly compile the laws. This process was not created from scratch but was primarily based on revising and simplifying the established statutes of the Tang and Song dynasties. The core guiding philosophy was "seeking simplicity and appropriateness" (jian dang), aiming to ensure that legal provisions were concise and clear, avoiding unnecessary complexity, thereby enabling common people to understand the law and officials to enforce it effectively. This initiative laid the foundation for the Great Ming Code and reflected a pragmatic and efficient governance approach reminiscent of the early Tang Dynasty.

Core Knowledge Points

1. Background of Compilation and Key Figures
Although the Xuzizhi Tongjian (Continuation of Zizhi Tongjian) primarily records the history of the Song and Yuan dynasties, it is necessary to clarify here: The deliberation on legal codes by Li Shanchang and Liu Ji for the Ming Dynasty actually took place on the eve of the Ming Dynasty's establishment (27th year of Zhizheng of the Yuan Dynasty / 1st year of Hongwu), belonging to the legal construction of the early Ming period, rather than being directly recorded in the Xuzizhi Tongjian (which ends with the Yuan Shundi). However, this event is documented in detail in Qing and Ming historical texts such as the History of Ming and the Veritable Records of Ming Taizu. When viewed within the continuum of Song, Yuan, and Ming social evolution represented by the "Continuation," this event marks the end of the Yuan Dynasty's "governing with officials as teachers" and the relaxation of legal standards, signaling a return to the rational rule of law seen in the Han and Tang ancestral systems. The leader, Li Shanchang, as a former chancellor, was skilled in administrative organization; Liu Ji was renowned for his expertise in legal texts. Their collaboration ensured both the authority and professionalism of the new statutes.

2. Historical Origins of "Imitating the Tang and Song"
The blueprint for the early Ming statutes was the Tang Code and Commentaries (Tang Lü Shuyi) and the Song Criminal Statutes (Song Xingtong). The Tang legal system was rigorous, integrating ritual and law, representing the peak of the Chinese legal family; the Song dynasty added case precedents on this basis, placing greater emphasis on practical application. When the Wu Kingdom (the pre-Ming regime) formulated new laws, it did not merely copy the Tang and Song systems wholesale. Instead, it adjusted and simplified them by combining the social realities of the Jiangnan region with Zhu Yuanzhang's philosophy of "governing with strict laws." This "inheritance + innovation" model ensured both the stability and adaptability of the legal system.

3. The Legislative Philosophy of "Simplicity and Appropriateness"
"Simplicity and appropriateness" (jian dang) was the core spirit of this codification process. "Simplicity" refers to keeping the number of articles manageable and the language clear, avoiding the enforcement ambiguities caused by overly detailed classifications in the Tang Code; "appropriateness" means that punishments fit the crimes, with severity scaled appropriately. Zhu Yuanzhang was well aware of two major flaws in society: the public's lack of legal knowledge and officials' manipulation of legal texts. Therefore, he deliberately compressed the number of statutes, making the Great Ming Code more concise than the Tang Code. According to statistics, while the Great Ming Code retained the seven-part structure of the Tang Code, the total number of articles was significantly reduced, highlighting core criminal definitions. This reflects the dialectical unity of "leniency and simplicity for the convenience of the people" and "strict laws to curb corruption."

Connection to the Book's Content

It should be noted that the Xuzizhi Tongjian was compiled by the modern scholar Xu Qian, primarily supplementing the gaps in Sima Guang's Zizhi Tongjian, covering history from Northern Song to the end of the Yuan Dynasty. The book does not directly record the incident of Li Shanchang deliberating on laws in the early Ming period, as this event occurred during the founding phase of the Ming Dynasty, exceeding the temporal limit of the "Zizhi" chronicle up to the end of Yuan.

However, from a lineage of thought perspective, this event of legal codification forms a stark contrast with the legal dilemmas of the Song and Yuan dynasties revealed by the Xuzizhi Tongjian. During the Song and Yuan periods, statutes became increasingly complex and were often distorted by the intervention of powerful figures, leading to "legal intent" being frequently replaced by administrative orders. Zhu Yuanzhang's action was a reflection on and correction of the legal chaos of the Song and Yuan dynasties. By planning in advance during the "Wu Kingdom" stage (the pre-Ming regime), Li Shanchang and others systematically reconstructed the mature legal achievements of the Tang and Song. This marked a turning point in Chinese legal history, moving from the "carelessness of the Yuan Dynasty" to the "rigor of the early Ming." Although this process is not within the main text of the Xuzizhi Tongjian, it is a crucial background for understanding the subsequent strong legal system of the early Ming and the rapid reconstruction of social order, reflecting the cyclical law of "legal reconstruction" in historical development.