隋唐時期復仇與法律互涉的省察與詮釋

An Analytical Study of Revenge and the Law during the Sui and Tang Dynasties

10.29907/JRTR.200804.0003

李隆獻(Lee Long-Shien)

隋唐 ； 復仇 ； 復仇觀 ； 法律 ； 禮／法衝突 ； Sui and Tang dynasties ； notions of revenge ； law ； conflict between law/li

成大中文學報

20期（2008 / 04 / 01）

79 - 109

繁體中文

本文旨在探討隋唐─尤其是李唐時期─復仇現象／復仇觀及其與法律的互涉，釐清此一時期復仇觀的實況與遞嬗之跡。全文重點有四：一、略述筆者近年研究復仇觀的相關論著與觀點，說明本文的取材範圍與論析方向。二、省察隋代復仇現象及其與法律的互涉略況，指出隋朝因時代混亂，「為主復仇」最為常見；又因隋文帝重視「孝義」思想，且赦令頻繁，導致復仇風氣盛行。三、透過唐代三個關鍵復仇案例─徐元慶復仇事例與陳子昂議及柳宗元〈駁復讎議〉、張琇兄弟復仇事例、梁悅復仇事例與韓愈〈復讎狀〉─的實際考察，發現：初唐時，官方重視「孝」、「禮」，復仇者非但甚少伏法，且多能得到有司或帝王的嘉勉／獎掖；武后時陳子昂對徐元慶復仇案例的奏議，則成為唐代禮／法爭議的開端，自武后垂拱年間至憲宗元和初年，「法」遂陵越「禮」，成為官方執法的主要考量，當時的幾件復仇案例，復仇者皆遭正法；但民間／社會的輿論始終傾向於同情「孝義」的復仇行為，禮／法的衝突依然存在。憲宗元和年間的梁悅復仇案例，韓愈既上疏論議，提出禮／法衝突時「必資論辯」的論點，柳宗元也批判了陳子昂奏議的重法主張，既反映出中唐士人已意識到禮／法衝突的困境，進而企圖解決，也反映出此一時期儒學孝義思想／意識再次抬頭的境況。四、析論與復仇相關的二則《唐律》，指出唐末「捨律從禮」的執法態度與《唐律》「知殺不告」、「禁私和」與流徙刑的實例與略況。

This paper will look at revenge - both the concept of and actual acts of - and its standing with respect to the law during the Sui and Tang dynasties (especially the latter) in order to better understand the concept of revenge during this period and in relation to earlier periods. To begin with, we will briefly review our recent research in this topic and discuss sources used for this paper and the direction the discussion will take. We will then move on to a brief discussion of the relation between revenge and the law during the Sui dynasty. It will be shown that the instability of this period resulted in a frequent acts of revenge taken on behalf of one's master (為主復仇). Furthermore, the frequent pardons handed down by Emperor Wen gave a boost to the culture of revenge. Next, we will look at three important instances of revenge during the Tang dynasty: the Xu Yuanqing (徐元慶) case and Chen Zi'ang's (陳子昂) memorial thereon as well as Liu Zongyuan's (柳宗元) ‘A Rebuttal of Memorial on Revenge' (駁復讎議); the case of the brothers Zhang Xiu (張琇) and Zhang Huang (張瑝); and finally the case of Liang Yue (梁悅) and Han Yu's (韓愈) ‘A Briefing on Revenge' (復讎狀). From these cases we find that during the early years of the Tang dynasty, officials put an emphasis on filial piety (孝) and li (禮). As a result, only in a very few cases were the perpetrators of revenge punished, and in fact in many cases officials or even the emperor himself would heap praise or rewards on the perpetrators. In this respect, Chen's treatment of the Xu Yuanqing case in a memorial submitted to the emperor served as the starting point for the debate between li and law during the Tang dynasty. During the years between 685 CE to the early years of the Emperor Xian's reign (806-820), the law took priority over li and served as the most important consideration for officials charged with investigating cases of revenge. As a result, officials handed out punishments for many such cases during this period. At the same time though, a strong sentiment among the general populace to sympathize with acts of revenge carried out in the name of filial piety and justice (義) shows that a tension law and li on the one hand had not disappeared. When the case of Liang Yue came to light during the Emperor Xian's reign, Han Yu submitted a memorial on justice arguing that in cases were there was a conflict between the law and li, ＂both must be taken into consideration＂ (必資論辯). Meanwhile, Liu Zongyuan took the opportunity to criticize Chen's earlier memorial for overly emphasizing the law. This shows that literati of the middle Tang were aware of the conflict between the law and li and were trying to come to some sort of resolution thereof. Likewise, we can also see a revival of Confucian notions (or ideology) of filial piety and justice during this period. Finally, we look at regulations covering revenge in the Tang Code (唐律) in order to discuss the legal attitude of ＂foregoing the law for li＂ (捨律從禮) during the end of the Tang dynasty, as well as cases involving the Tang Code's prohibition against private settlement (禁私和) and the punishment of exile.

1. (2003)。臺灣師大歷史學報。臺北:臺灣師範大學歷史系。
   連結：
2. (2008)。兩漢魏晉南北朝復仇與法律互涉的省察與詮釋。臺大文史哲學報，68，39-78。
   連結：
3. (2007)。兩漢復仇風氣與《公羊》復仇理論關係重探。臺大中文學報，27，71-122。
   連結：
4. (2006)。從人間世到幽冥界―唐代的法制、社會與國家。臺北:五南圖書出版公司。
   連結：
5. (2006)。國科會專題研究成果報告國科會專題研究成果報告,未出版
6. 太平御覽。
7. 新唐書·孝友列轉。
8. 舊唐書·列女列傳·衛孝女無忌傳。
9. (2005)。復仇觀的省察與詮釋－以《春秋）三傳爲重心。臺大中文學報，22，99-150。
10. 舊唐書·孝友列傳·張琇傳。
11. 新唐書。
12. 元馬端臨(1987)。文獻通考。臺北:臺灣商務印書館。
13. 宋王溥(1955)。唐會要。北京:中華書局。
14. 宋王蔭(1997)。燕翼貽謀錄。北京:中華書局。
15. 宋司馬光(1987)。資治通鑑。臺北:華世出版社。
16. 宋李昉(1975)。太平御覽。臺北:臺灣商務印書館。
17. 宋李昉(1981)。太平廣記。臺北:文史哲出版社。
18. 宋歐陽脩、朱祁(1994)。新唐書。臺北:鼎文書局。
19. 明陶宗儀(1963)。說郛。臺北:新興書局。
20. 唐孔穎達(1976)。禮記正義。臺北:藝文印書館。
21. 唐李延壽(1994)。北史。臺北:鼎文書局。
22. 唐賈公彥(1976)。周禮注疏。臺北:藝文印書館。
23. 唐劉肅(1984)。大唐新語。北京:中華書局。
24. 唐魏徵(1995)。隋書。臺北:鼎文書局。
25. 清沈家本撰、鄧經元、駢宇騫點校(1985)。歷代刑法考。北京:中華書局。
26. 清張廷玉(1994)。明史。臺北:鼎文書局。
27. 清董浩(1989)。全唐文。臺北:大通書局。
28. 清薛允升(1999)。唐明律合編。北京:法律出版社。
29. 王欽若(1986)。文淵閣四庫全書：冊府元龜。臺北:臺灣商務印書館。
30. 王夢鷗(1985)。唐人小說校釋。臺北:正中書局。
31. 朱金城校(1988)。白居易集箋校。上海:上海古籍出版社。
32. 李甲孚(1988)。中國法制史。臺北:聯經出版事業公司。
33. 柳宗元(1990)。柳宗元集。臺北:華正書局。
34. 桂齊遜(1976)。中國哲學史の展望と模索。東京:創文社。
35. 馬茂元整理(1987)。韓昌黎文集校注。上海:上海古籍出版社。
36. 高明士(1999)。唐律與國家社會研究。臺北:五南國家圖書公司。
37. 康韻梅(2006)。小說敘事與歷史敘事之異同－對吳保安、謝小娥故事的論析。臺大中文學報，24，183-223。
38. 陳寅恪(1981)。隋唐制度淵源略論稿。臺北:里仁書局。
39. 陳登武(2003)。復讎新釋－從皇權的角度再論唐宋復讎個案。興大歷史學報，31，1-19。
40. 程樹德(2003)。九朝律考。北京:中華書局。
41. 黃純怡、韓金科主編(2000)。唐宋時期的復讎－以正史案例爲主的考察。1998法門寺唐文化國際學術討論會論文集，西安:
42. 楊一凡主編(2003)。歷代法制考·隋唐法制考。北京:中國社會科學出版社。
43. 劉俊文(1996)。唐律疏義箋解。北京:中華書局。
44. 劉昫(1994)。舊唐書。臺北:鼎文書局。
45. 劉肅。大唐新語·孝行第十一。
46. 瞿同祖(1982)。中國法律與中國社會。臺北:里仁書局。

1. 陳曉昀(2010)。明代女教書中的復仇、性別與倫理。女學學誌，27，57-112。
2. 李隆獻(2007)。兩漢復仇風氣與《公羊》復仇理論關係重探。臺大中文學報，27，71-121。
3. 李隆獻(2008)。兩漢魏晉南北朝復仇與法律互涉的省察與詮釋。臺大文史哲學報，68，39-78。
4. 李隆獻(2009)。日本復仇觀管窺—以古典文學為重心。成大中文學報，24，1-27。
5. 李隆獻(2009)。宋代經生復仇觀的省察與詮釋。臺大中文學報，31，147-195。
6. 李隆獻(2011)。清代學者「禮書」復仇觀的省察與詮釋。臺大中文學報，35，205-246。
7. 李隆獻(2012)。清代學者《春秋》與三《傳》復仇觀的省察與詮釋。臺大文史哲學報，77，1-41。
8. 李隆獻(2013)。近代民間復仇事例的省察與詮釋─以「地方志」為重心。成大中文學報，40，207-264。
9. 廖珮芸(2016)。唐傳奇女子復讎故事研究：從「時空體」及生命型態的角度探討。中央大學人文學報，61，117-157。
10. (2011)。先秦至唐代復仇型態的省察與詮釋。文與哲，18，1-62。