本文是对我国珍藏法律文献明《大诰》的几个基本问题的考证。作者认为,《明实录》诸书所记《大诰》前三编的颁行时间均为不确,由于修史者误将朱元璋作序日期书为颁行日期,以致出现了诰文中一些案例的发生时间较颁行时间还晚的情况;《明史·刑法志》关于《大诰》条目的记载也大为错谬,此系修史者把《应合抄劄·大诰》罪名十条与《大诰》二者张冠李戴所致;四编诰文中采辑的案例,并非“泛录洪武一朝要案”,而是差不多都属于各编颁行的当年或其近期一、二年内明太祖亲自处理的案件;至于《大诰》峻令,也是皆有所源,特别是同当时的局势和洪武朝前期、中期所颁敕令、榜文有直接的关系。 This article is a textual research on several basic issues of “Dazhu” in our collection of legal documents. The author thinks that the timing of the promulgation of the first three chapters of the Book of Records of the Ming Dynasty recorded in the Ming Dynasty Record is both inaccurate. As the history revisionist misread the book of Zhu Yuanzhang as the date of promulgation, some cases in the article The occurrence time is later than the time of the issuance of the case; “History of Ming Penal Code” on the “big broom” entry record is also a lot of errors, the Department of history of the “should be copied Sapporo,” charge 10 and “ ”The two cases are caused by Zhang Guoli and Li Dai; the editorial cases in the four series of articles are not“ a case of Hongwu being generalized ”but almost all belong to the cases handled by each of the Ming Taizu personally during the current year or the recent one or two years As for the order of the “big clan”, there is also a source of its own. In particular, it has a direct bearing on the prevailing situation and the order and list of writings issued by Hongwu in the early and mid-term.