Prosecution of a murderous female slave, Mukden (Qing China), 1796

Author

Affiliation

Claude Chevaleyre

CNRS

The Chinese judiciary was organized along a vertical chain of transmission. Judicial cases were investigated at the local level and, depending on their gravity, transmitted upward to the prefecture, the province, then to the Board of Punishments (or Ministry of Justice) and, ultimately, to the emperor. The higher the punishment corresponding to the proposed incrimination, the higher the trying instance. For instance, a district magistrate could only close minor cases (liable to beating). In cases liable to banishment, the Board of Punishments was the last decision-making body. Crimes punishable by death were always submitted to the emperor for final decision, either for immediate execution (when the sentence proposed was “immediate death”), or for revision during the annual Autumn Assizes (when the proposed sentence was death “awaiting in jail”). During the annual Assizes, the emperor could either order the execution of the death penalty, commute the sentence or pardon the culprit.

The text presented here is included in Vol. 39 (pages 46b to 48b) of Xing’an huilan 刑案匯覽 (A Conspectus of Judicial Cases, 1823), a very famous collection of Qing era (1644-1911) judicial cases. It has no proper title, but in the upper margin of Xing’an huilan, one can read the following summary: “A Formerly Exchanged Female Slave Plots to Kill her Former Household Head” (yihuan yuren zhi jiubi mousha jiu jiazhang 易换與人之舊婢謀殺舊家長) (info). The text is a shuotie 說帖, i.e. a “memorandum” produced by legal experts of the Board of Punishments in response to a “difficult” case - usually the “lack” in the Great Qing Code of a legal provision corresponding exactly to the specifics of the case. Memoranda were often the last step in the legal decision-making process. They could, eventually, serve as a basis for the drafting of new “leading cases” and “substatutes”. Shuotie were highly standardized documents. The text presented below is an aggregate of judgement proposals and excerpts of legal deliberations involving various judicial offices (including the Board’s regional department which handled the case, and the Bureau of the Code whose legal experts were called on to decide a question of law). To make the structure of the case more apparent, it has been decomposed into seven discrete sections:

1. The invocation of the law: Memoranda usually start with quotations of the Great Qing Code’s legal statutes relevant to the case under consideration. This first section invokes statute no. 286 (“Plotting to Kill the Parents of a Deceased Husband”) (info). The quoted segment of the law is about “sold slaves” who plot to kill their former master (the legal treatment of slaves partly derived from an analogy with the legal treatment of children, hence the presence of such a provision in this statute). Although no information on the actual case is provided at this stage, an average official would immediately understand that the issue at stake is about the relative identity of a slave vis-à-vis the master who sold them (the “former master”). According to statute no. 286:

If slaves plot to kill their former household heads, they shall be punished in accordance with the rule for ordinary persons [with reference to statute no. 282 “Plotting to Kill Others”]. This refers to the slaves who are sold to others by their own household heads. They shall be punished as commoners” (translation by Jiang Yonglin).

This meant that, in such a particular case, the slave status had no incidence on the punishment inflicted on the criminal. This provision was an exception to the general principle that criminal slaves be punished more severely than commoners when committing crimes against commoners or against their master (or their master’s family). The reason for this exception to the asymmetric legal treatment of criminal slaves probably was that the penalties for plotting to kill others were already among the highest: death by decapitation (awaiting in jail) for the principal; death by strangulation (awaiting in jail) for the accessories who aided in the commission of the murder; and banishment to 3.000 li for the accessories not involved in the murder itself.

2. The exposition of the legal issue: Here, the Board experts expound the legal problem and develop their legal reasoning. Although no more information is provided on the actual case, one easily understands that it involves an “exchange” (yihuan 易換) of slaves between two families, and the murder of one “former master” by one of the “former slaves”. According to the Board experts, relationships between former slaves and their former masters were of a different nature, depending on whether the slaves had been sold or manumitted/redeemed. Selling a slave amounted to completely transferring one’s authority over the slave to another master. Sales had the effect of breaking the existing bonds between slaves and their former master. Redeeming and manumission, on the contrary, did not completely break the bonds of obligations. Manumitted and redeemed slaves were no more slaves, but they were neither completely “commoners”, nor complete strangers to their former master: a macula servitutis still hanged over them until the third generation. The difference of relationship would therefore induce a difference of legal treatment (modulating reference punishments according to the relation between offender and victim was a core principle in late imperial law). In this case, the issue was that the Code’s “statutes” (or principal laws) did not make provisions for “exchanging” slaves. Therefore, the question was do decide whether exchanging slaves amounted to selling them or to manumitting them; and thereby to decide whether a bond remained between the murderous slave and the former master or not. This would not change the nature of the crime itself, but the relative statuses of victim and offender, and as a consequence, the degree of sentence modulation. To the Board experts, an exchange was unquestionably equal to a sale, and exchanged slaves who killed their former master were to be judged as for killing a person they had not particular relationship with (a “commoner”).

3. The exposition of the case itself: A female slave named Wu Yunzhu was discovered to have an affair (“illicit sexual intercourse”, in Chinese legal terms) with one of her mistress’ tenants (a man named Liu Chun). To separate the unlawful couple, the mistress (Mrs. Niu Hulu) expelled the tenant and exchanged Wu Yunzhu with the female slave (named Rong Hua’er) of one of her relatives’ (a certain Tuo Xinbao). The text records that the exchange happened “years ago” and that the two female slaves were married to male slaves by their respective new masters. This information is more than a simple detail: It tells the reader that the new masters actually acted as they were expected to, and did so over a long period. It underlines that the master-slave relationships created by the exchange were not artificial ones, but were taken seriously: the concreteness of the relationship, the fact that masters played their role as masters, and that they did so for a long period, were significant elements that a Chinese magistrate would evaluate in cases of contested or dubious slave identities. However, the romantic affair between the female slave and the tenant went on despite the separation. Years after the exchange, the other female slave, Rong Hua’er, ran away from Mrs. Niu, who, suspecting she fled to her former master’s house, asked Tuo Xinbao either for her restitution, or for the restitution of her former slave, Wu Yunzhu. Informed that Wu Yunzhu would be taken back to her former mistress’ house, Liu Chun plotted to kill Mrs. Niu as a revenge for having been expelled years ago. And on the day Mrs. Niu went to her relative’s house to take Wu Yunzhu back, Liu Chun murdered her.

4. The excerpt of the first judgement proposal by the submitting administration: Here, we learn that the official submitting the case was a “general” (jiangjun 將軍), confirming that the case happened under Banner jurisdiction, probably around Mukden (Fengtian 奉天 in Chinese, in the area known as Manchuria). The first judgement is in line with the later conclusions of the Board experts: Having been exchanged against another slave, Wu Yunzhu had no more obligations to her former master. As an accessory who aided in plotting the murder of her former mistress but not in the murder itself, she was liable to banishment to 3.000 li (the last degree before death among the five regular punishments). Nonetheless, the general proposed a slight punishment increase (the deportation of Wu Yunzhu as a slave to Oirat territory in Mongolia), taking advantage of the numerous “irregular” punishments inserted over time in the scale of punishments (the reason for the increase being explained later in the text).

5. The deliberations by the Bureau of the Code: Once again, this section underlines the difference between the sale, the redeeming and the manumission of slaves. It concludes that, vis-à-vis their “former master”, exchanged slaves shall be legally treated like sold slaves. Incidentally, it reveals that the Mukden Department of the Board initially considered that exchanging slaves did not result in completely breaking the bond of obligations with their former master. However, according to the experts of the Bureau of the Code, this would amount to slaves having two masters. This would also produce a legal aberration: Would Wu Yunzhu be considered Niu Hulu’s slave when the murder was committed, even as an accessory, she would be liable to death by slow slicing according to statute no. 314 (“Slaves Striking the Household Head”). The legal experts, who rejected the conclusions of the Mukden Bureau, argued: Had she also killed Tuo Xinboa, what could be added to death by slicing (the highest degree of death penalty) to express a difference between the former mistress she did not serve anymore and the new master she actually served?

6. The exposition of the decision by the Bureau of the Code: After examining the case, the existing laws, the judgment proposal by the submitting authority and the Mukden Department’s deliberations, the Board experts simply confirmed the initial sentence drafted by the office of the Banner General.

7. Finally, a brief mention of the emperor’s decision followed by the subsequent second deliberation: Apparently, although the emperor agreed with the sentence proposal, he was sensitive to the argument that an exchange was not stricto sensu the same as a sale. Therefore, he asked for a revision that would allow for an increase of the punishment. The legal experts, however, maintained their initial objection. They underlined that the sentence proposed by the Banner General (an extreme and definitive form of penal servitude) was already above the required punishment (banishment to 3.000 li). The Banner General had, indeed, used the fact that the two masters (Niu Hulu and Tuo Xinbao) were relatives as a pretext to slightly increase the sentence. Apparently, Tuo Xinbao was a distant relative of Niu Hulu’s husband (a certain Ge Teng’e, who might have passed away, as he is not involved and mentioned in the case), but they had no “mourning obligation” to one another. Mourning degrees were crucial factors in assessing the relative hierarchical position of family members, and thereby of sentence modulation, but they were not the only factors at play. According to the text, a hierarchical distinction between “superior and inferior” (rengyou zunbei mingfen 仍有尊卑名分, meaning that they were of different generations) existed, that would justify an increase of punishment when the slave of one of them would commit a crime against the other.

Slaving practices were still present and legal in late imperial China. Nubi 奴婢 were owned and incorporated into the domestic sphere of their masters (or “household heads”). Although abduction and trafficking are evidenced in Ming and Qing China, nubi were not mainly “produced” by raiding foreign populations or transported from faraway countries. In a majority of cases, enslavement was contractual and in practice hereditary. Usually, parents sold their children under the pretense of poverty (enslavement actually expanded in times of famine, alongside human trafficking for various purposes). People could also sell themselves as nubi for the rest of their life or for a negotiated (long) period of time. The practice of “commendation” was also widespread. In addition, Manchu Banners (the military and administrative units at the core of the social organization of the Manchus, who conquered China in the seventeenth century) had their own system of slavery, and penal servitude was still one of the five regular punishments in Qing China. Slaving practices varied from one area to the other, but were, at least in theory, framed by imperial law. Late imperial Chinese nubi are usually described as “domestic servants” (the common translation being “bondservants”) operating mainly within the household, but they were the men, women and children of all tasks, and were present in domestic as well as in more “productive” activities.

“Slavery” in Ming and Qing China was encapsulated in Confucian values and concepts. As the most asymmetric and discriminatory “natural” relationship, the father-child relation was used as the conceptual matrix of the master-slave relation. This analogy set limits to the power masters could exert on slaves. Masters were expected to treat their slaves as their own children, but in most cases, the “humane” side of the analogy barely amounted to paternalist rhetoric, requiring that masters feed, clothe and marry their slaves in due time (and treat them with “benevolence”). From a legal perspective, the only limit to a master’s power was reached when they killed “innocent” slaves. The father-child analogy was mainly used to make slaves permanent and absolute inferiors (or children) to their master and their master’s family. Nonetheless, it was devoid of all the potentials associated with the fact of actually being someone’s child. It allowed masters to expect utmost obedience and subservience and allowed them to discipline slaves as they would discipline their children. But unlike children, slaves could not expect to become respected elders when aging. Being a child provided legal advantages that slaves were denied. For instance, the legal right (and obligation) to conceal the crimes of one’s relatives was expected from the slaves of the household, but did not extend to them. And although relatives living “under the same roof” could not be accused of theft in a legal sense (as they shared the same patrimony), slaves were the only household members who could be prosecuted for stealing from the household patrimony.

Translation

Mukden Department [of the Board of Punishments]

[1] When reading the statutes, it is said: When plotting to kill others, those who formulate the plan are punished by decapitation awaiting in jail. Accessories who do not aid in the crime are punished by life exile to 3.000 li and 100 strokes [statute no. 282]. It is also said: When slaves plot to kill their former household head, they are punished according to [the law on] ordinary [plots to kill] [statute no. 286]. Commentaries [to the formerly quoted statute] say: It means that when one has sold one’s slave to others, everyone is judged like a commoner.

[2] With regard to household heads vis-à-vis their slaves, although name distinction is high, once sold, [the bond of] solidarity is severed. Slaves who have been sold leave a master to find a new one. This is completely different from manumitted and redeemed slaves, for whom [the bonds of] benevolence and solidarity [with their former masters] remain. As for exchanged slaves who commit offences against their former masters, the law contains no article as to how to set the punishment. Upon scrutiny, there has been no leading case of that sort [circulated] over the years. In our humble opinion, when slaves are exchanged one against the other, although this is not like a contractual sale using money, one barters what one possesses against what one does not possesses. This is a constant rule of market places. Although the name seems different, exchanging cereals against silver is exactly the same as exchanging cereals against fabrics. Therefore, it can absolutely not be said that exchanging is different from selling. Besides, once exchanged, both slaves serve their [new] masters. Would they commit any offence against their new master, the sentence shall naturally be set according to name distinction between master and slave. Being exchanged [rather than sold] should absolutely not be a reason to show leniency. Thus, when committing offences against their former master, they shall be sentenced like slaves who have been sold, that is [for committing offences] against a commoner.

[3] In the case under consideration, because her maidservant, Wu Yunzhu, had illicit sexual intercourse with Liu Chun who rented and farmed her land, Mrs. Niu Hulu expelled Liu Chun and exchanged Wu Yunzhu against a maidservant of Tuo Xinbao’s [Rong Hua’er]. Both were married to male slaves [of their new masters’ households]. Liu Chun still had sexual intercourses with Wu Yunzhu on repeated occasions. Until Rong Hua’er ran away. Suspecting that she took refuge in Tuo Xinbao’s home, Mrs. Niu Hulu went to Tuo Xinbao’s wife asking for the restitution [of Rong Hua’er], claiming that if Rong Hua’er was not there, she wanted to take Wu Yunzhu back. Wu Yunzhu informed Liu Chun of the situation. Feeling resent for Mrs. Niu Hulu having expelled him, Liu Chun formulated the plan to kill her to vent his anger. Once agreed with Wu Yunzhu, when Mrs. Niu Hulu came to take Wu Yunzhu back, Liu Chun murdered Mrs. Niu Hulu as the carriage was crossing the doorways.

[4] The general in charge considers that the mutual exchange of Wu Yunzhu with Tuo Xinbao’s maidservant, which took place years ago, is not different from a sale, and that [Wu Yunzhu] shall be judged for [committing the crime against] a commoner. Liu Chun shall [therefore] be sentenced to death by decapitation awaiting in jail with reference to the dispositions regarding those who formulate the plan in a killing plot. As an accessory who did not aid in the commission of the crime, Wu Yunzhu shall, according to the law, be sentenced to exile to 3.000 li and 100 strokes, and, following the heaviest penalty, be sent as a slave to the Oirats [in Mongolia].

[5] After scrutiny, we consider that cases of slaves plotting to kill their former masters shall always be decided upon considering whether [the bond] of solidary has been severed or not. When manumitting slaves and restoring them to commoner [status], masters wish to express their benevolence. As for redeemed slaves who are restored to commoner status, they leave their masters on their own volition. In such cases, injuries and homicides must be judged according to the principle of name distinction between master and slave, because [the bond of] solidarity has not been [completely] severed. Slaves who are exchanged one against the other, each serving a [new] master, are not restored to commoners by the exchange. What difference is there with reselling them as slaves? If, as the [Mukden] Department contends, the exchange of [female] slaves between two households resulting in the marriage of the two slaves with male slaves [of their new household] is different from reselling them, [and therefore means that] the bonds of solidarity and benevolence [with their former masters] have not been severed, then these slaves have two masters. If so, in the present case, the murder of Mrs. Niu Hulu should be punished with [Wu Yunzhu’s] death by slicing. However, assuming that [Wu Yunzhu had also] plotted to kill Tuo Xinbao, what higher penalty would remain to punish her?

[6] After deliberation, we [concluded] that Liu Chun’ plot to kill because of illicit sexual intercourse is particularly wicked. Following the general’s proposal that he be sentenced to death by decapitation awaiting in jail, [his case] shall be swiftly transmitted for final decision at the next Autumn Assizes. As for Wu Yunzhu, she has already been sentenced to the heaviest penalty and effectively sent to penal servitude. Her penalty cannot be increased, and it can only be done as suggested [by the general].

[7] Upon receiving an imperial edict ordering that we reinvestigate the possibility to increase Wu Yunzhu’s sentence, we respectfully concluded that the punishment of accessories in plots to kill who do not aid in the crime cannot exceed banishment with beating. In this case, although she was Mrs. Niu Hulu’s household servant, the criminal named Wu Yunzhu was exchanged with Rong Hua’er, a household servant of Mrs. Niu Hulu’s junior cousin Tuo Xinbao. Both [maidservants] served their [new master] for years. Thereby, they are not different from sold [slaves] and, according to the substatute [on slaves who kill their former masters, Wu Yunzhu] shall be punished for committing [the same crime] against a commoner. The criminal woman agreed with Liu Chun’s plot to kill Mrs. Niu Hulu but did not aid in the crime. Although Tuo Xinbao, the actual master of the criminal woman, had no mourning obligations towards Mrs. Niu Hulu’s husband, Ge Teng’e, the general considered that name distinction between juniors and inferiors remained. He proposed to sentence Wu Yunzhu to banishment for [committing an offence] against a commoner and to increase it. As a consequence, he sentenced [her] to the heaviest [possible] penalty of banishment as a slave, which was judicious and thorough. It seems like the case shall be closed by following the [general’s] proposal.

First year of the Jiaqing reign.

Translated by Claude Chevaleyre.

Original text

奉天司

【1】查律截。謀殺人。造意者。斬監候。從而不加功者。杖一百流三千里。又奴婢謀殺舊家長者。以凡人論。註云。謂將自己奴婢轉賣他人者。皆同凡論。各等語。

【2】誠以家長之於奴婢。名分雖尊。但一經轉賣。其義隨絕。蓋以被賣之奴婢。去一主而復一主。與放出及贖身奴婢尚有恩義未絕。迥不相同。至易換奴婢。有犯舊主。律例內並無作何治罪專條。詳查歷年亦無辦過成案。伏思彼此易換奴婢。雖非用銀契買。但以其所有易其所無。原市井闤闠之常例。故以菽粟轉賣金錢。與以菽粟易換布帛。名似殊而實無異。斷不能謂易換與轉賣不同也。況易換之後。奴婢各事其主。其後換之主稍有干犯。自應按主僕名分定擬。必不能以易換家奴稍從寬縱。則於舊主有犯。自應與轉賣以凡論之奴婢一髓同科。

【3】此案。鈕祜祿氏因使女烏雲珠與租種伊地之劉春通姦。將劉春攆逐。井將烏雲珠與托新保使女互換。各配僕人為妻。劉春仍與烏雲珠續姦數次。嗣榮花兒逃走。鈕祜祿氏疑在托新保家藏匿。往向托新保之妻要人。並聲言如沒有榮花兒。欲將烏雲珠帶回。烏雲珠將情由向劉春告知。劉春因挾鈕祜祿氏攆逐之嫌。起意殺死洩忿。與烏雲珠商允後。鈕祜祿氏赴托新保家將烏雲珠帶回。坐車出院。被劉春將鈕祜祿氏殺死。

【4】該將軍以烏雲珠與托新保之婢榮花兒彼此易換為奴。已逾年餘。與轉賣無異。應同凡論。將劉春依謀殺人造意律斬監候。烏雲珠依從而不加功律杖一百。流三千里。從重發額魯特為奴。等因。

【5】職等查。奴婢謀殺舊家長之案。總當視其是否義絕為斷。如放出為民之奴婢。則是家長欲示以恩。贖身為民之奴婢。則係奴婢自離其主。故有殺傷等事。仍以主僕名分定擬。義未絕也。是易換之奴婢。各事其主。並非易換而得為良民。與轉賣為奴婢者何異。若如該司所云。兩家易換之婢各配僕人為妻。與轉賣不同。主僕恩義未絕。是一婢而有兩主。若此次謀死鈕祜祿氏。擬以凌遲。設將托新保謀殺。又當治以何罪。

【6】職等公同商酌。劉春因姦謀殺。情殊兇惡。既據該將軍依律擬以斬候。似應趕入本年秋審辦理。其烏雲珠已從重實發為奴。罪無可加。亦只可照覆。

【7】奉諭。烏雲珠一犯。可否酌量加重。再行查核。等因。遵查謀殺人從而不加功。罪止杖流。此案。烏雲珠一犯雖係鈕祜祿氏家使女。但鈕祜祿氏將其與族弟托新保使女榮花兒彼此易換。各事其主。已有年餘。即與轉賣無異。按例應同凡論。該犯婦聽從劉春謀殺鈕祜祿氏。並未加功。該將軍以該犯婦現在家主托新保與鈕祜祿氏之夫格騰額雖係服盡。仍有尊卑名分。將烏雲珠照凡論擬流。仍予加等。是以從重實發為奴。用意甚為周密。似應就案照覆。

嘉慶元年說帖。

Action phrases

Chinese legal cases of the late imperial period are exceptional sources. They open unusual windows on everyday life, sometimes on its most trivial aspects. They provide a level of detail that more conventional sources would not consider worth recording. However, they are also highly standardized, even more so when produced at the upper levels of the judicial ladder (as in this case). They use a shared and predictable phraseology framed to support legal argumentations that distorts the voices of the actors and “filters” the information. Chinese judicial archives do talk about labour activities and labour relations, but never beyond the scope of the legal issue at stake, and rarely with the same level of detail available in other social and historical contexts (like private correspondence about the management of domestic staff, factory or plantation reports, slave and worker narratives, etc.).

The paradigmatic nubi

The first action phrases (Section 2) only concern those paradigmatic nubi. Crafted carefully to support the argument of the Board’s legal experts, these action phrases are important in two respects: 1. They provide historians with unusually clear explanations about the legal effects of “being sold” compared to being “manumitted” or “redeemed”; 2. In the context of this particular text, they also help establish one fact: A woman identified by others (or self-identified?) as a “maidservant” (shinü 使女, literally “a woman” “one orders”, “who is ordered”, or “who serves”) was legally a nubi. The section that describes the actual case (Section 3) is the only one where the terms nu 奴, bi 婢, or nubi 奴婢 (i.e. the legal “slave” category discussed at length in the other sections) are not used. Yet, Section 2 (and the rest of the text) makes it clear that the two “maidservants” were actually nubi (at least in a judicial context), whatever the “emic labels” used elsewhere to characterize their status, condition and functions.

The main “action phrase” in Section 2 provides no information about the possible “entry” phases into nubi status and only one reference about the “extraction” phase. The first statement simply says that becoming a nubi created a “high” level of “status differentiation”: “With regard to masters vis-à-vis their slaves, although name distinction is high […]” (yi jiazhang zhiyu nubi, mingfen sui zun 以家長之於奴婢名分雖尊). The term used here is mingfen 名分. It can be translated literally with “name distinction”, but more clearly with “status differentiation”. In the Confucian worldview, naming things was considered an essential part of ordering the world: “Denominations” (ming 名) given to people ought to reflect the reality of what they actually were, of their actual place in the hierarchical social order. For instance, when a man was given the name of “ruler” of the empire, he was expected to act as a ruler and to personify the ruler. Being a “master” or a “slave” meant that a master ought to act as a master, and a slave as a slave (meaning that they would internalize their new identities as master and slave, whose respective conducts were dictated by shared social norms). Divergences between names and reality were perceived as sources of cosmic disturbance and social disorder that would require “rectification” (“rectifying” denominations was therefore a major purpose of Confucian rites).

This part of the first action phrase does not say much about the “extraction” phase of our paradigmatic nubi. It only tells us that “name distinction” was “high” (the term employed being zun 尊, which conveys the meaning of “reverence” to someone who is of a senior generation, and by extension of upper standing or status). A low level of interpretation would lead to the conclusion that “labour” was not an essential dimension of nubi “status”. To “serve” (shi 事, a verb used later in Section 2) was inherently attached to nubi identity, but the master-slave relation was far more than a “labour” relation. This partly explains why judicial sources rarely venture into describing in details the labour performed by nubi.

As for the “exit” phases, the text discusses three legal paths out of enslavement and their “outcomes” (the social effect on the identity of the paradigmatic slave):

[…] once sold, [the bond of] solidarity is severed. Slaves who have been sold leave a master to find a new one. This is completely different from manumitted and redeemed slaves, for whom [the bonds of] benevolence and solidarity [with their former masters] remain.

(yijing zhuanmai, qi yi suijue. Gai yi beimai zhi nubi, qu yi zhu er fu yi zhu. Yu fangchu ji shushen nubi shangyou enyi weijue, jiong bu xiangtong - 經轉賣。其義隨絕。蓋以被賣之奴婢，去一主而復一主。與放出及贖身奴婢尚有恩義未絕。迥不相同).

We learn here that nubi could “exit” by “being transferred and sold” (zhuanmai 轉賣, beimai 被賣) to a new master. The outcome of this exit phase would be an immediate “re-entry” into a similar relationship that would not affect their “status”. Although this sequence (“exit” > “re-entry”) could deeply impact the actual living condition, the labour, and the way slaves were treated, the “outcome” that interests the legal experts was its effect on the relationship with the “former master”: Once sold, “[the bond of] solidarity is severed”. The term employed in this sentence is yi 義, which is usually translated with “righteousness” (in Confucian classics). We translate it with the expression “bond of solidarity” because in everyday life it had not much to do with being “righteous”. Applied to non-blood relationships, it refers to the “sense of propriety”, to “proper conduct”, i.e. acting in conformity with one’s “denomination” (an adoptive son, for instance, was named yinan 義男, i.e., a son by the bond of yi). Yi not simply required that one “acted” according to the new “name” one was given (“son” or “slave”), it also demanded that one nurtured corresponding feelings (affection, respect, gratitude, etc.), which would cement household solidarity. Thereby, for our paradigmatic nubi, the outcome of being “sold” by their master was the severing of the “bond of solidarity” (in the same way, a divorce would be termed a “severing the bond of solidarity”, yijue 義絕). To them, a “former master” would not be anything but a perfect stranger, because a slave could only serve one master (as a child had only one father).

The outcome of being manumitted (fangchu 放出, lit. “to be released and exit”) or of being allowed to redeem oneself (shushen 贖身, lit. “to redeem one’s person” or “body”), were very different. In both cases, “exit” would result in a change of identity and in increased autonomy, but not in a complete “severance” (jue 絕) of the bonds of “benevolence and solidarity” (enyi 恩義). Nubi would actually reintegrate the ranks of the “commoners”, except in their relationship with their former master. As explained later in the text (Section 5), manumission was regarded as an act of “benevolence” (en 恩) from the master, while redeeming was a unilateral (zi 自) decision made by the slave (although it rarely happened without the master’s consent in practice). Redeemed and manumitted nubi thereby remained indebted to their former master, who had not transferred their authority to another master, but had renounced to exercise it out of “benevolence” (or against a monetary compensation, which, in some cases, could be considered as having a different outcome from manumission).

In this composite document, drafted by various judicial offices, the actual story of Wu Yunzhu only occupies a few lines. Information on the successive “moments of coercion” (entry into the labour relationship, extraction of her labour and exit from the labour relationship) are only partially available (info). We are told that Wu Yunzhu was a “maidservant” (shinü 使女), but we will know nothing about how she became a maidservant (her “entry” into servitude), the labour she performed, the orders she received, how she responded to those orders, or how she felt “coerced” as a “maidservant” (the “extraction phase”). The text nonetheless provides information on the “exit” phase, not only for Wu Yunzhu, but also for another female slave, Rong Hua’er, and for a tenant, Liu Chun. It also provides information about the conceptual framework that shaped the “household-head”-nubi relationship. In fact, the legal deliberations that precede the actual description of the case tell us more about the paradigmatic “slave” (nubi 奴婢), as it was conceived within the legal framework of the Great Qing Code.

Moving away from the paradigmatic nubi to the story of Wu Yunzhu

Reading the story of Wu Yunzhu, the reader is expected to bear in mind the legal considerations that precede. They provide the subtext to her story.

The first sentence in Section 3 reads as follows: “Because her maidservant, Wu Yunzhu, had illicit sexual intercourse with Liu Chun who rented and farmed her land, Mrs. Niu Hulu expelled Liu Chun and exchanged Wu Yunzhu against a maidservant of Tuo Xinbao’s [Rong Hua’er]” (Niu Hulu shi yin shinü Wu Yunzhu yu zuzhong yidi whi Liu Chun tongjian, jiang Liu Chun nianzhu bing jiang Wu Yunzhu yu Tuo Xinbao shinü huhuan 鈕祜祿氏因使女烏雲珠與租種伊地之劉春通姦。將劉春攆逐。井將烏雲珠與托新保使女互換). This long sentence contains two “action verbs”: To “expel” (nianzhu 攆逐) and to “exchange” (huhuan 互換). Both action verbs have the same “actor” (Niu Hulu) and the same motivation (“illicit sexual relationship”, tongjian 通姦). They have two direct “target” persons (Wu Yunzhu and Liu Chun) and one indirect “target” person (Rong Hua’er). The actions result in three “exit” phases: two exits from a master-slave relation, both followed by a “re-entry” into the same relation with a different master, and one exit from a landlord-tenant relationship.

The semantic field of “coercion”, however, is almost completely absent from this section (and from the rest of the text). The two maidservants and the tenant - who may actually have perceived these actions affecting them as “coercive” - do not get to express themselves, even indirectly. The authors of the document, on their side, do not use a vocabulary that would convey meanings of constraint or coercion. Encapsulated in the Confucian worldview, human bondage was supposed to be a harmonious institution, where individuals knew their place in the hierarchy and accepted their role in society. Only “rebellious” or “ungrateful” nubi could disrupt the harmony, forcing masters, and eventually the state, to take corrective actions.

In the above-mentioned sentence, the only word that would convey a meaning of coercion, or at least a meaning of violence, is the verb nianzhu 攆逐, which means “to oust”, “to chase” or “to expel”. Liu Chun was chased from his tenure, obviously without having a word to say in the matter (all the affair was triggered by the resentment he felt for an action that was taken against him). To some extent, the use of this verb signals a “coerced exit” from a labour relation. However, this is the only coercive phase one can detect in Liu Chun’s story. As many tenants who “rented and farmed the land” of others, he may have been subject to many constraints that could have contributed to limit his autonomy and make him dependent (local practices of tenancy, fluctuant amounts of rent, undue extra-economic demands, debts, etc.). He may also have felt constrained to work as a tenant, facing few or no better options. Besides, the “forced exit” from his tenure may have left him with few choices but to accept more dependent labour relations, like hiring himself out as a daily or annual wage labourer. But his occupation and condition as a tenant would not have been inherently coercive, since this kind of relation would not produce a statutory asymmetry in late imperial Chinese context.

As for the two “maidservants”, on the contrary, coercion is not conveyed by the “action verbs” themselves, but 1. by the syntax that makes them passive “objects” of the actions taken by others, and 2. by our own understanding of the labels used to qualify them as being inherently linked to situations of coercion (i.e. by our understanding of nubi bondage as being a regime of coercion).

To “exchange” is not per se a coercive action, even when involving persons rather than objects. However, to exchange two maidservants without their consent (they had no say in the matter and no way to refuse it), all the more as a means to retaliate against the “unlawful” behavior of one of them, indeed reveals a situation of high heteronomy - and much likely of vulnerability to violence, to endless constraints and to labour exploitation. The mistress who undertook to separate the maidservant from the tenant may have felt forced to take such a radical measure, but it was also an act of power. Such an outright subjection to the power of others is precisely what we associate with the fact of being a nubi in the late imperial Chinese context. This is the reason why we immediately identify “coercion” in the use of such labels as nubi or shinü, despite the absence of words and verbs expressing “coercion”. In other words, “coercion” mostly hides in the labels of the present text. Still, even hidden in the labels, coercion unfolds in the very few actions taken to exit a coercive regime and its site of deployment, the household.

We don’t know why Rong Hua’er finally ran away (possibly because of repeated abuses or excessive labour, to marry someone, to try and make a living on her own, or even for a trivial disagreement with Mrs. Niu) and what she became afterward. However, “to run away” (taozou 逃走) was as serious an incrimination in Qing China as it was on an American slave plantation. If not an act of “resistance”, it was a “response” to coercion, whatever that coercion was (either because of violence, or because she was not allowed, as a nubi, to make a decision that mattered to her without her mistress’ consent). Rong Hua’er’s response to coercion was a risky and, we might assume, a successful one, unlike Wu Yunzhu’s - whose ultimate action eventually allowed her to exit enslavement, only to be coerced into penal servitude after a liminal period spent in jail.

Overall, the text only provides a limited number of action phrases expressing “coercion”. Most of our understanding of the coercive nature of the situation of nubi derives from our knowledge of nubi bondage as being a coercive regime. However, looking at the “action phrases” rather than at status or occupation labels allows us to move beyond this limited statement. It allows to restore some aspects of the dynamics and the logic of deployment of a power relation that involved “labour”, but was not limited to this sole dimension of interpersonal interactions. It not only allows to understand that Chinese nubi were coerced, but how coercion operated and why.

Selected action phrases

• The general cause-consequence statement on the effects of the action of “selling” a nubi on the existing bond with the “former master”. The “actor” is a paradigmatic “household-head” (blue), the “paradigmatic nubi” is the object of the action (green) and the verb is “to transfer by sale” (orange):
  • “With regard to household heads vis-à-vis their slaves, although name distinction is high, once sold, [the bond of] solidarity is severed.”
    以家長之於奴婢。名分雖尊。但一經轉賣。其義隨絕。
• The explanation as to why a sale would “sever the bond of obligation”, accompanied with a judgement on the compared effect of being redeemed or manumitted. Here, the paradigmatic “sold” nubi is the actor of two (involuntary) actions (to leave a former master and to find another one):
  • “Slaves who have been sold leave a master to find a new master. This is completely different from manumitted and redeemed slaves, for whom [the bonds of] benevolence and solidarity [with their former masters] remain.“
    蓋以被賣之奴婢。去一主而復一主。與放出及贖身奴婢尚有恩義未絕。迥不相同。
• The subsequent consequential clause expounding how the state should take action (the action here is “to set a sentence proposal”) when, in such a configuration, a slave would commit a crime. It contains two actions: the exchanged slaves actually “serves” their master; and the state (implied as the actor) would “set a sentence:
  • “Besides, once exchanged, both slaves serve their [new] masters. Would they commit any offence against their new master, the sentence shall naturally be set according to name distinction between master and slave.”
    況易換之後。奴婢各事其主。其後換之主稍有干犯。自應按主僕名分定擬。必不能以易換家奴稍從寬縱。
• The summary of the actual case (explained in more detail above):
  • “Because her maidservant, Wu Yunzhu, had illicit sexual intercourse with Liu Chun who rented and farmed her land, Mrs. Niu Hulu expelled Liu Chun and exchanged Wu Yunzhu against a maidservant of Tuo Xinbao’s [Rong Hua’er].“
    鈕祜祿氏因使女烏雲珠與租種伊地之劉春通姦。將劉春攆逐。井將烏雲珠與托新保使女互換。
• A short statement of the actions taken by the masters after they exchanged slaves (the actors, i.e. the masters are only implied):
  • Both were married to male slaves.
    各配僕人為妻。
• The short sentence about Rong Hua’er runaway:
  • “Until Rong Hua’er ran away.“
    嗣榮花兒逃走。
• The statement explaining why Mrs. Niu required the restitution of Wu Yunzhu after Rong Hua’er ran away (taking many actions such as going to Tuo’s house, requiring, claiming, and taking back):
  • “Suspecting that she took refuge in Tuo Xinbao’s home, Mrs. Niu Hulu went to Tuo Xinbao’s wife asking for the restitution [of Rong Hua’er], claiming that if Rong Hua’er was not there, she wanted to take Wu Yunzhu back.“
    鈕祜祿氏疑在托新保家藏匿。往向托新保之妻要人。並聲言如沒有榮花兒。欲將烏雲珠帶回。
• The sentence on the murder plotting, where action does not convey the meaning of coercion, but can be seen as a response to the initial coercive action of separating Wu Yunzhu and Liu Chun:
  • “Wu Yunzhu informed Liu Chun of the situation. Feeling resent for Mrs. Niu Hulu having expelled him, Liu Chun formulated the plan to kill [her] to vent his anger.“
    烏雲珠將情由向劉春告知。劉春因挾鈕祜祿氏攆逐之嫌。起意殺死洩忿。
• The actual circumstances of Mrs. Niu’s murder:
  • “When Mrs. Niu Hulu came to take Wu Yunzhu back, Liu Chun murdered Mrs. Niu Hulu as the carriage was crossing the doorways.“
    鈕祜祿氏赴托新保家將烏雲珠帶回。坐車出院。被劉春將鈕祜祿氏殺死。
• The two sentences on the actions the state should take to respond to the crime (here again, the implicit actor is the state):
  • “Liu Chun shall [therefore] be sentenced to death by decapitation awaiting in jail.“
    將劉春依謀殺人造意律斬監候。
  • “As an accessory who did not aid in the commission of the crime, Wu Yunzhu shall, according to the law, be sentenced to exile to 3.000 li and 100 strokes, and, following the heaviest penalty, be sent as a slave to the Oirats [in Mongolia].“
    烏雲珠依從而不加功律杖一百。流三千里。從重發額魯特為奴。