>>Husband-wife relationship in ancient laws of Vietnam
>>Conjugal institutions under ancient laws of Vietnam
Pham Diem
The State and Law Research Institute
According to Confucian views and the Vietnamese’s tradition, in the family, the children had to show their filial piety to their grandparents and parents, meaning to venerate them and follow their teachings. If failing to fulfill such obligations, children not only violated the code of behavior, but also were strongly condemned by their families and the society and severely punished by law. At the same time, the ancient law-makers also stipulated that the grandparents and parents had the responsibility to bring up their children and grandchildren. All these things aimed to protect the order of precedence in the patriarchal families, protect the sustainability of the families and lines of descent and raise the responsibility of all family members.
The relationship between parents and children was specified by the ancient laws in the rights and obligations of the family members.
1. Children had to obey and take care of their parents and grandparents
Under Clause 7, Article 2 of Hong Duc Code (the 15th century), if children abused and scolded their parents or grandparents, or acted against the parents’ advices, or did not foster them when they got old and/or sick, they were charged with undutifulness, one of the ten grave offenses.
Article 506 of the same Code prescribed in detail: If children acted against their grandparents’ and/or parents’ teachings or did not take care of them and which were reported to the mandarins by the parents, they would be subject to “do” (corvee labor). Adopted children undutiful to their foster parents would also be penalized but with one grade lower. According to Article 475, naughty children would be sentenced to exile to nearby district if they abused and scolded their parents and/or grand-parents, exile to far-flung district if they beat their parents and/or grandparents, and to hanging if they beat and injured their parents and/or grandparents, even when the latter did not report such to the mandarins.
Similar provisions were found in Article 2 of Gia Long Code (the 19th century) regarding the ten grave offenses. Such provisions were further specified in Article 307 of the said Code with specific penalty for each offense. For instance:
- If children disobeyed or neglected to take care of their parents and/or grandparents, letting them live in misery and poverty and such were reported to the mandarins by the latter, they would be penalized with 100 canings.
- Poor children who were incapable of fostering their parents, thus making them to commit suicide by hanging, would be penalized with 100 canings and put on exile.
To the then law-makers, the children’s disobedience to their parents and/or grandparents would harm the family customs and habits and the former’s failure to well take care of the latter would betray their gratitude for their parents’ giving birth and a settled position to them. All these were undutiful acts which would be penalized.
It can be said that in the spirit of the ancient laws, the obedience to and the fostering of parents and grandparents were the primary obligations of children.
2. Children and/or grandchildren were obliged to take the penalties imposed on their offending parents and/or grandparents
To show their filial piety, if their parents and/or grandparents committed crimes, the children and/or grandchildren had to take the penalties for them.
Article 38 of Hong Duc Code stipulated that if parents and/or grandparents committed crimes and were penalized with whippings or canings, their children and/or grandchildren had to take such penalties instead, but with one grade lower.
According to Gia Long Code (Article 14), if grandparents and/or parents committed crimes and were sentenced to exile, their grandchildren and/or children were obliged to follow them to the exile places in order to take care of the grandparents and/or parents and show their dutifulness. In cases where such grandparents and/or parents died at the exile places, their grandchildren and/or children might return to their native places.
3. Children were obliged to conceal crimes committed by their parents and/or grandparents
Under Articles 2 and 39 of Hong Duc Code, children had to conceal the crimes committed by their parents and/or grandparents. If they failed to do so and denounced such crimes, they would be charged with undutifulness, one of the ten grave offenses. This was further specified in Article 504 that those children who denounced the crimes committed by their parents and/or grandparents would be sentenced to exile in far-flung regions.
However, if parents and/or grand-parents committed particularly serious offenses, the children and/or grand-children had not to conceal them. Such crimes included:
- The foster parents murdered offsprings.
- The mother murdered the father.
- Plotting treason, namely plotting against kings.
- High treason, namely plotting to destroy royal palaces or mausoleums and shrines.
Gia Long Code (Article 2 and 31) also stipulated that children were obliged to conceal the crimes committed by their parents and/or grandparents. If they failed to do so, they would be charged with undutifulness. Unlike Hong Duc Code, Gia Long Code prescribed only two grave offenses which children had not to conceal for their parents and/or grandparents, that was plotting treason and high treason.
Generally speaking, the ancient laws stipulated that children would not be penalized if they concealed crimes committed by their parents and/or grandparents, except for a number of serious crimes. To the ancient law makers, by doing so the children showed their filial piety and dutifulness to their parents and grandparents.
4. Children were not allowed to sue their parents and/or grandparents
Under Hong Duc Code (Article 2), that children initiated lawsuits against their parents and/or grandparents was considered an act constituting the offense of undutifulness. Article 522 stipulated that children who sued against their parents and/or grandparents would be subject to virtue degrading or even heavier penalties if they were wrong. So, children were not allowed to sue their parents and/or grandparents even when the latter were at fault.
Under Article 2 of Gia Long Code, children were also charged with undutifulness if they sued their parents and/or grandparents. Article 306 of the Code specified the penalties for such offense. If children sued their parents and/or grandparents, even though they were right, they would be penalized with 100 canings and three-year corvee labor. The then law-makers argued that the services done to children and grand-children by their parents and grand-parents were great and boundless; hence, even if parents and grandparents were at fault, the children and grandchildren had to let such faults pass unnoticed and had not to sue them; if not, they would be penalized.
5. Children were obliged to mourn for their parents and grandparents
When parents and grandparents died, their children and grandchildren had to mourn for them in order to show their deep griefs and filial piety for the deceased. To the ancient law-makers, this was considered one of the most important obligations of children and grandchildren towards their parents and grandparents.
Article 2 of Hong Duc Code stipulated that if children got married when being in the mourning for their parents or if children failed to organize funerals for their deceased parents or grandparents or if they lied that their parents and/or grandparents had already died while the latter were still alive, they would be charged with undutifulness.
Under Articles 130 and 543, if children failed to wear deep mournings for their deceased parents or if children or grandchildren failed to cry when their parents or grandparents died, they would all be subject to “do” (corvee labor); or when they were in mourning but failed to wear the mourning dress or went out for entertainment, they would be subject to virtue degrading; or if they joined in joyful parties, they would be penalized with 80 canings.
Gia Long Code, Article 2, also considered children’s and grandchildren’s failure to fulfill their obligation of mourning for their parents and grand-parents their undutifulness. Article 98 stated that if during the period of mourning for their grandparents and/or parents, the children and/or grand-children got married, they would be penalized with 100 canings. The then law-makers reasoned that while the period of mourning for their parents or grand-parents not yet expired and children or grandchildren got married, they were considered as having forgotten their deep grief and been undutiful to their parents or grandparents; hence they had to be penalized with 100 canings.
In a nutshell, the children’s obligations to mourn for their parents and grandparents included:
- The mourning period was three years.
- During the mourning period, children and grandchildren had to wear the mourning dresses, to refrain from entertainment activities, to refrain from getting married and to organize the funerals.
6. Children were entitled to enjoy lighter penalties according to their fathers’ titles and positions
According to Article 12 of Hong Duc Code and Articles 10, 35... of Gia Long Code, children having committed offenses were entitled to sentence reduction if their fathers were mandarins and the reduction level depended on the latter’s titles and positions.
7. The parents’ rights and obligations towards their children
Ancient laws in Vietnam prescribed not only the children’s obligations towards their parents but also the parents’ obligations towards their children. Both Hong Duc and Gia Long Codes, in many articles, defined that parents had the rights to decide the dormitories of their children and the rights as well as obligations to bring up their children. And even if their children committed offenses, the parents would jointly bear the penal liability and pay compensation for damage caused to the victims.
For example, Article 457 of Hong Duc Code stated that fathers of the children who still lived together with their parents would be subject to virtue degrading if their children committed burglary, or to “do” (corvee labor) if their children committed robbery, and to heavier penalties if their children committed more serious offenses, and had to compensate for things their children had stolen or robbed. If such children lived independently, the fathers would be subject to virtue degrading and free from penalties if they reported such and surrender their children to local man-darins. If not, they would be penalized.
In short, the ancient law-makers in Vietnam attached great importance to the relationship between the parents and their children, considering it the foundation of the family relations in particular and the social relations in general. For such reason, it was prescribed fairly comprehensively and fairly specifically in laws. This was one of the special features of Vietnamese ancient legislation.-