試論秦漢「父老」的兩個面向

The Two Sides of Elders in the Qin and Han Dynasties

學界多指出，秦漢時期的「父老」具有代表聚落與政權交涉，同時又在生活上領導民眾的面向。不過由於史料的欠缺，過往研究常未區別作為社會角色的「父老」，以及作為基層制度的「里父老」。對兩者的混淆使學者在「父老」的影響力，以及「里父老」的性質、員額等認識上，都產生不同的解釋。近來新出秦律與獄案文書的公布，提供了進一步辨明兩者差異的條件。本文綜合傳世文獻與出土資料，重新論述作為制度的「里父老」、「三老」的制度內容，及他們是否真的被民眾目為「父老」。並分析傳世文獻，探討史籍中被描述為地方代表的「父老」，是基於何種社會基礎領導群眾。最後，分析嶽麓秦簡中的一則獄案，嘗試說明「父老」概念如何在基層民眾的生活中發揮作用。

Previous studies have indicated that“fulao”父老(elders) during the Qin and Han dynasties had the dual role of representing their respective villages in negotiations with government authorities and leading the villagers in their daily lives. Due to alack of historical materials, however, these past discussions have generally failed to distinguish between“fulao”as asocial role and“li fulao”里父老(village elders), namely representatives installed by the government with li here being an administrative unit, as an institutional position. The confusion held between these two functions has caused different interpretations concerning both the influence of the former as well as the characteristics and institutional meanings of the latter. Based on newly unearthed materials, such as Qin legal documents, this article attempts to not only elucidate the differences between the above two roles, but also discuss the institutional contents of both“li fulao”and“sanlao”三老, aformal appointment of an elder, while deciphering whether the two were viewed as“fulao.”Secondly,“fulao”described by historical sources as representing alocal area is analyzed to ascertain which specific social bases were employed to lead. Finally, this article uses alegal case found within Qin bamboo slips to explain how“fulao”functioned within ordinary society and quotidian life.