【摘要】 唐律中的人分为中国人与外国人，中国人又分为俗世之人与宗教人士，其中俗世之人是主体。俗世之人在职业上分为士农工商，在法律上则划分为贵贱与良贱两对范畴，这两对范畴实际包含着官僚贵族、良民与贱民，亦即贵、良、贱三类人。依据唐均田制推行时期的律令，这三类人在身份、财产和婚姻继承等民事方面的法律地位各不相同，总体上可以以良民为基准，良民拥有正常人的权利义务，其权利与义务大致对应，形成正常的权利义务关系结构;官僚贵族在良民基础上，权利向上提升，义务向下递减，形成权利大于义务的结构;贱民在良民基础上，权利向下递减，义务向上提升，形成义务大于权利的结构。同时，这三类人的民事法律地位具有变动性，并在变动的原则下动态存续。从唐律中俗世之人在民事上的分类与地位区别来看，唐律中的人不是理想的道德人，而是对现实人的法律构造，但其中亦蕴含了对人的道德训诫和期许。这意味着唐律不是简单的道德法，而是立足于道德与理性之上的道德理性法，以唐律为代表的中国传统法律亦可作如是观。更多还原

【Abstract】 In the Tang Code,individuals were categorized into Chinese and foreigners,with the former further divided into laypersons and religious adherents—laypersons being the predominant group. Occupationally,laypersons were classified into the four traditional strata of scholars,farmers,artisans,and merchants; legally,they were delineated by two core dichotomies: nobility/commoner and commoner/mean person. These dual frameworks essentially encompassed three distinct social categories:bureaucratic nobility, commoners, and mean persons. In accordance with the statutes and decrees enforced during the implementation of the Tang Equal-field System,these three groups held disparate civil legal statuses in terms of identity,property,marriage,and inheritance. Generally,commoners served as the normative baseline: they possessed the full set of rights and obligations of ordinary subjects,with their entitlements and duties being roughly commensurate,forming a balanced structure of rights and obligations. The bureaucratic nobility,building on the commoner baseline,enjoyed elevated rights and diminished obligations,resulting in a legal structure where rights outweighed duties. By contrast,mean persons,relative to commoners,faced curtailed rights and augmented obligations,creating a framework where duties predominated over rights. Furthermore,the civil legal status of these three groups was not static but mutable,sustaining itself dynamically under the principles of status fluidity. An analysis of the classification and differential civil status of laypersons in the Tang Code reveals that the legal conception of “person” therein was not an idealized moral agent,but a pragmatic legal construct of real-world individuals—nevertheless,it was infused with moral admonitions and normative expectations. This indicates that the Tang Code was not merely a “moral law” in the narrow sense,but a morally rational law grounded in both ethical principles and practical reason. The same characterization applies to traditional Chinese law as a whole,with the Tang Code serving as its paradigmatic embodiment.更多还原