内容摘要  民国时期大学哲学科系的“热”是短暂的，特殊的情况，主要以五四前后的北大哲学系热为标志，其原因与新文化运动的影响有密切关系，但“热”的表象背后也包含某种假象。而哲学科系的“冷”则是长期的、普遍的情况，主要表现为哲学科系设置少，寿命短，就读人数少，毕业后往往转行等。除了因为哲学被视为深奥的、玄虚的、不切实用的学科，因而青年学子普遍不愿就读外，五四以后学术潮流的变化，特别是以文史研究为主的“整理国故”运动的兴起和发展，也是造成哲学科系“冷”的重要原因。

 

Abstract: the “hotness” of philosophy departments in universities on the Republic of China era was temporary and special, which was mainly marked by the hotness of Peking University’s Philosophy Department, whose reason was closely connected with the influence of the New Culture Movement, however, behind the phenomenon of “hotness”, a false appearance was also contained. The “coldness” of philosophy department was long-term and universal, which was mainly embodied as scarce philosophy departments, short life, rare enrollment, and frequent career change after graduation. In addition to the fact that philosophy was considered as an abstruse, mysterious, and impractical subject, so the youth were not willing to be enrolled, the change on academic tide after the May Fourth Movement, especially the rise and development of “National Heritage Reorganization” Movement focused on cultural and historical research, was also an important reason for the “coldness” of philosophy department.

 

We translated the file about Disobedience of Parental Teaching and Order by Descendants from Chinese into English.

 

 

内容摘要  作为典型的中华旧律条款，「子孙违犯教令」的存废问题，曾在清末法律改革时期引发激烈的争论。经过考察发现，在长期的法史演进中，该条款经常与不孝罪联系在一起。唐律在继承往古法律的基础上，把「不孝」归属于「十恶」条款，将「供养有阙」行为采列其中，同时在「斗讼」门下收载「子孙违犯教令」条款，奠定了二者并立的法律格局。在此格局下，「不孝」作为一种罪名集合，并不直接涉及具体量刑；「子孙违犯教令」（包括供养有阙）载在刑律，与前者既有密切关联，又实有不可混淆之处。在司法实践中，虽然没有对这种成文法律的细微差别给以特别措意，却同时兼顾道德和法律两个层面，既讲求通过法律手段维护和稳固家庭伦理秩序，又将违反道德和法律的、有瑕疵的教令和供养行为予以区别，进行相应的法律制裁，追求个案的实质正义。进而或可认为，清末保守派对于中国家庭伦理秩序（道德）认识的自信，以及对于个案司法实质正义的坚持，二者结合起来，形成了一种根深蒂固的想法，相信关于家庭伦理关系的法律内容仍旧可以在社会新旧交替的时刻部分保留，并希图藉此焕发帝国的荣光。

Abstract  As a typical article in Chinese ancient code, the adoption or abolishment of the “Disobedience of parental teaching and order by descendants” had caused fierce arguments on the legal reform period in the late Qing Dynasty. It’s found through investigation that, on the long-term evolution process of legal history, this article was often connected with the offense of ill-piety. Based on the inheriting of past laws, Tang Code attributed the “offense of ill-piety” to the “Top Ten Evils” Articles, and listed the “absence of maintenance for one’s parents and grandparents” into it, and also included the article of “Disobedience of parental teaching and order by descendants” under Dou Song, which laid the legal arrangement of co-existence of the two. Under this arrangement, “ill-piety” became a collection of offenses, and didn’t directly involve specific sentencing; the “Disobedience of parental teaching and order by descendants” (including the “Absence of maintenance for one’s parents and grandparents”) was listed in criminal law, which was closely connected with the former, however, there was indeed differences among the two. In judicial practices, though there wasn’t any special statement on the subtle differences of the codified laws, both moral and legal levels were considered, as familial ethical orders were maintained and kept steady with legal measures, and at the same time the immoral and illegal order-taking and parental raising conducts were differentiated from the flawed ones to be given corresponding legal sanctions, so as to pursue the essential justice of specific cases. Or to be exact, the conservatives on the late Qing Dynasty’s confidence on Chinese familial ethical orders (morality) and their insistence on the essential judicial justice on specific cases, were united together, to form a deeply-rooted thought that believed the legal contents on familial ethical relations could still be partially retained on the period of society’s transition form the old to the new, and hoped the empire’s glory could be thus irradiated.

 

 

原件下载：