從古籍中的「雜篇」看秦漢〈雜律〉的篇目問題

From Chapter 'Za' in Ancient Books to Explain the Chapter Problems of 'Za-Lv' in Qin and Han Dynasties

從《法經》到《九章律》這段期間，除了有〈雜律〉的篇目外，另有睡虎地秦墓竹簡〈秦律十八種〉的〈尉雜〉與〈內史雜〉兩種，後二者的出現，始知《法經》和《九章律》之外尚有稱「雜律」者。本文從古籍編纂的過程中出現「雜篇」的原因入手，分析「雜篇」在古籍中的位置，藉此說明《法經》和《九章律》中的〈雜律〉，以及〈秦律十八種〉之〈內史雜〉、〈尉雜〉的編纂意義。秦漢時代常以「雜」作為古籍名稱，古籍「雜篇」的位置多在各篇或單元主題之末尾，其名為「雜」有眾多不一及無中心主題之意義。《法經》的〈雜法〉符合古籍「雜篇」的編纂原則，置於「罪名之制」的最後，此法為《九章律》所沿襲，但「罪名之制」在前，「事律」在後的原則，至北齊律時有所改變，此變乃法制史的重要轉變。因〈內史雜〉與〈尉雜〉的出現，始知「事律」亦有〈雜律〉。〈內史雜〉即〈內史律〉之「雜篇」，〈尉雜〉即〈尉律〉之「雜篇」，此二「雜篇」應置於〈內史律〉與〈尉律〉之最後。目前所見〈內史雜〉與〈尉雜〉之內容，皆屬該單位之行政法規，其列為「雜」之原因，一則條文無中心主題，二則條文含有與其他單位共用之情形，並非該單位之主體法規，故列入「雜篇」之中。

During the period from ＂Fa-Jing＂（法經）to ＂Law Nine Chapters＂（九章律）,except the chapter of ＂za-lv＂（雜律）,there were ＂wei-za＂（尉雜）and ＂nei-shi-za＂ （內史雜） in ＂Eighteen kinds of Qin Lv＂. The appeared of ＂wei-za＂and ＂nei-shi-za＂, let we know there was another kind of ＂za-lv＂ in Qin Dynasty. This study will through analyzing the compiled process and placed position of chapter ＂za＂（雜篇）, to explain the meanings what the chapter of ＂za-lv＂ was in ＂Fa-Jing＂ and ＂Law Nine Chapters＂. It was very common that the books named ＂za＂ in Qin and Han Dynasties, the position of chapter ＂za＂ usually placed at last in one unit or whole chapters for a book. It named ＂za＂, because its contents were numerous or complex, but another reason was it had no centralized theme. The ＂za-fa＂（雜法）in ＂Fa- Jing＂ conformed the principle of chapter ＂za＂ in ancient books, it placed at last in the unit of criminal laws. The principle that ＂za-lv＂ placed at last in the unit of criminal laws still retained to North-Qi Dynasty, but it changed in Sui and Tang Dynasties. Because ＂wei-za＂ and ＂nei-shi-za＂ appeared, we know it had ＂za-lv＂ in the administrative regulations, ＂wei-za＂ was the chapter ＂za＂ of ＂wei-lv＂（尉律）, ＂nei-shi-za＂ was the chapter ＂za＂ of ＂nei-shi-lv＂（內史律）. Still now, we can confirm that the contents of ＂wei-za＂ and ＂nei-shi-za＂ were administrative regulations; they named ＂za＂, because their provisions had no centralized theme, but more important reason is they were not the main body legislations in their departments.