唐律における流𠛬の本質 --恩赦との關係を中心に--

Abstract

This paper argues the essential character of exile in Tang Code beginning with analysis on 24th article of the chapter on names of punishments and rules of their application (名例律). This article regulated the contents of punishment of liuxing (液𠛬). The following are the results of this analysis, First, although forced labor in a fixed place would be completed or exempted by an amnesty, the person exiled and his household members were not placed on a household register at the place of exile immediately. Even when an amnesty had been granted, the reason the person exiled and his household members were not permitted to return to their original home was not due to the fact that their household register had been moved from their original home to the place of exile. Second, exile in the Tang Code consisted of two parts, that is to say, forced movement to the place of exile and forced labor in a fixed place. When an exile was granted amnesty at the place of exile, he was only exempted from forced labor in a fixed place, but not permitted to return to his original home. According to professor Shiga Shūzō, the Tang legal system required commoners to maintain their residences in the place indicated on the household register, and as a rule they were forbidden to move freely, and the same law applied to exiles. However, exiles who had not registered their household register at their places of exile were also not permitted to return to their original homes, even though there had been an amnesty. Professor Shiga's interpretation could not explain this contradiction. I think the reason is that once the exile had completed the move to the place of exile an amnesty could not be applied retroactively as the punishment would have already been implemented.