從法律糾紛看宋代的父權家長制──父母舅姑與子女媳婿相爭

Sung Patriarchy as Seen in Legal Disputes: Parents vs. Children and their Spouses

父權家長制歷久不衰，甚至化身為近世高高在上的族權，一個主要原因是家長權威得到法令的承認和執法者的維護。本文先說明法令裡的家長權，然後就七種情況分析家長權遭遇的挑戰和戰果，計為：「子女違反教令」，「子女斥罵父母」，「子女與父母異財或擅用家財」，「子女不照顧父母或背棄養父母」，「毆打殺傷」，「非法性行為與曖昧事件」，和「繼承：宗祧與財產」。發現卑幼並不顧忌挑戰尊長權威，而天下確有不是之父母。父母憂心的，是養兒防老並不可靠，為宗祧而立嗣亦可能人去財空。子女害怕的，是誤觸父母無名之怒，和官司的不可預測。媳婦最可憐和無助，即使被公公性侵犯，也不能依靠丈夫，最後不免離異。女婿則是兒子的假想敵，有謀奪繼承權的嫌疑。各種糾紛以財利較多，固然因為人性貪念，也反映同居共財的矛盾和繼承制度的漏洞。執法者充分維護同居共財和合法的家長權，公權力可說是家長權的補充或代理。在不少判決裡，學人所詬病的「人情」傷害「法意」，其實只算是家長權的延伸，執法者較偏重身為「父母官」裡的「父母」角色。但是，在處理明顯不法或無理時，執法者相當持平，不分尊卑，不問性別，如洗脫媳婦被公公和丈夫誣告，保護兒子和媳婦的合法私財，幫助那些合法且無過失的繼承人抵禦父母非法或無理的要求，這也許是卑幼寧可訴諸法律的一個原因。執法者也相當尊重司法程序，但這程序有時不利於受害人，尤其是姦案。歸根究底，無論是家長權或公權力，最終一個目的都是維持家庭的秩序（尊卑有分）及和諧（父慈子孝），當家長權有所不足時，父權力便代位補足。由此而言，公權力和家長權或族權的關係，不是法官和常人，而是法官和警察，只有法官才能判死刑，但警察在合理的情況下也可以在執勤時打死犯人，這是分析所謂私法和私刑時必須注意的。此外，寡母犯事者不少，尤其是危害夫家的名譽和繼承，故自宋初以來，逐漸放寬子女不得告母的規定，但仍嚴格執行子女不得告父，這不但是法律與現實的互動，而且是男性保衛自身權利的產品。

This essay tries to demonstrate the interaction of law and society by examining the legislation and practice of patriarchy during the Sung dynasty. It first outlines parental authority as stipulated in the law, and then analyses challenges to this authority and their consequences in seven circumstances: 1. children disobeying parents' instruction, 2. children criticizing parents, 3. children setting apart or using family wealth without parents' permission, 4. children abandoning parents or betraying foster parents, 5. violence: beating and death, 6. illegal sex or ambiguous sexual complication, and 7. inheritance: family line and property. Disputes arose not only from natural desires like greed, but also from tension in the family system of co-residence and common property (同居共財) , and from loopholes in inheritance laws. It concludes that: 1. Proper use of parental authority and the family system of co-residence and common property were upheld by judges in almost all disputes. In these cases, government authority functioned as a surrogate or supplement to parental authority. The judges' ''human sentiment'' (人情) should not be considered a disadvantage in legal justice, but an extension of parental authority on behalf of the parents. Being the so-called ''parental officials'' (父母官) , the judges were there to act more as ''parents'' than as ''officials''. 2. Misuse of parental authority was usually decided in favor of the juniors regardless of their sexes, especially in inheritance disputes. In these cases, government authority functioned as a check on parental authority as well as a protection to juvenile rights. This might be a chief reason why juniors preferred formal adjudication to informal mediation. 3. Contrary to the general impression that Sung scholar-officials were only amateur judges, they were rather familiar with both legal statutes and procedures. They should not be blamed for observing some legal procedures which were sometimes unfavorable to the victims. In the final analysis, parental and government authorities shared the ultimate goal of preserving a family in order and harmony. Where parental authority was inadequate, government authority stepped in to compensate. By the same token, relations between government authority and parental or even lineage authority were not as judges and commoners, but as judges and policemen, in which the latter had, within certain legal limits, the right to punish. Therein lay the legitimacy of so-called ''private laws''.