지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
It was a well-accepted practice in the Confucian family ideals to adopt a son in order to maintain the line of descendants performing sacrificial rites. Such sons, if from the same surname family, were entitled to the full right for the family inheritance.
Yet in Song China, succession of the sacrificial rites was not the prerequisite for the inheritance of the patrimony. Under some circumstances adoption of children with different surnames was legal. There had long been provisions to cover adoptions of those orphaned as a result of natural disasters and children lost for other reasons, children whose surname were presumably unknown. As the laws governing the official adoption from differing surnames gradually turned more pliable and as a result, sons with the differing surnames became eligible for the patrimony as the family heir.
Law drew a sharp distinction between formal adoption and the mere fostering of a child, which did not of itself create inheritance. A boy child who was not formally adopted had no claim on the patrimony of his fostered father. From mid-Northern Song times, though, the foster child was entitled to the patrimony under certain conditions, and terms regarding those conditions and his share of the patrimony were gradually modified in his favor.
The foster child or adopted son with different surname was not to perform sacrificial rites, yet he lived and worked with the parents, eventually taking care of the elders and their funeral services as well. This was the justification for the legitimate claim for the right to the patrimony. As such, if the parents or the grand parents adopted the child before their deaths, he was entitled to the full patrimony.
If a husband and wife died leaving no male descendants to serve as heirs, their household was said to have been a “household broken-off”. If this happened, the senior close relative could arrange the adoption of a boy for this “household” only for the purpose of sacrificial rites. The state eventually come to recognize legally and define the inheritance right of the posthumous sons. However, the sons selected by senior relatives did not have the same inheritance rights as natural sons or sons adopted during the parents' lifetimes, since such posthumous sons had not borne the burden of supporting the parents nor could they have acted ritually within the family during its existence. The heirs appointed posthumously on the recommendation of family elders received relatively small portions of the family estate. Their share was less than that of daughter's, if any, and the upper ceiling was set at 1/3 of the family estate even without any surviving daughters.
In Song China, the inheritance of the patrimony by the adopted sons was more of the compensation for their practical service including running the family business, taking care of the aged and serving national duties than the succession of sacrificial rites. The inheritance of the family estate was separated from the inheritance of sacrificial duties as the economy and the idea of private property prospered.
Yet in Song China, succession of the sacrificial rites was not the prerequisite for the inheritance of the patrimony. Under some circumstances adoption of children with different surnames was legal. There had long been provisions to cover adoptions of those orphaned as a result of natural disasters and children lost for other reasons, children whose surname were presumably unknown. As the laws governing the official adoption from differing surnames gradually turned more pliable and as a result, sons with the differing surnames became eligible for the patrimony as the family heir.
Law drew a sharp distinction between formal adoption and the mere fostering of a child, which did not of itself create inheritance. A boy child who was not formally adopted had no claim on the patrimony of his fostered father. From mid-Northern Song times, though, the foster child was entitled to the patrimony under certain conditions, and terms regarding those conditions and his share of the patrimony were gradually modified in his favor.
The foster child or adopted son with different surname was not to perform sacrificial rites, yet he lived and worked with the parents, eventually taking care of the elders and their funeral services as well. This was the justification for the legitimate claim for the right to the patrimony. As such, if the parents or the grand parents adopted the child before their deaths, he was entitled to the full patrimony.
If a husband and wife died leaving no male descendants to serve as heirs, their household was said to have been a “household broken-off”. If this happened, the senior close relative could arrange the adoption of a boy for this “household” only for the purpose of sacrificial rites. The state eventually come to recognize legally and define the inheritance right of the posthumous sons. However, the sons selected by senior relatives did not have the same inheritance rights as natural sons or sons adopted during the parents' lifetimes, since such posthumous sons had not borne the burden of supporting the parents nor could they have acted ritually within the family during its existence. The heirs appointed posthumously on the recommendation of family elders received relatively small portions of the family estate. Their share was less than that of daughter's, if any, and the upper ceiling was set at 1/3 of the family estate even without any surviving daughters.
In Song China, the inheritance of the patrimony by the adopted sons was more of the compensation for their practical service including running the family business, taking care of the aged and serving national duties than the succession of sacrificial rites. The inheritance of the family estate was separated from the inheritance of sacrificial duties as the economy and the idea of private property prospered.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 嗣子와 義子
Ⅲ. 同宗養子와 異姓養子
Ⅳ. 生前養子와 死後養子
Ⅴ. 결론
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
宋代 分割相續과 家族
동양사학연구
2003 .06
-
조선후기 濟州 지역의 재산상속과 奉祀 관행 : 分財記 분석을 중심으로
사학연구
2006 .03
-
정신분석의 시각으로 사이코패스 소설 읽기 : 『종의 기원』(The Good Son)을 중심으로
미래영어영문학회 학술대회 자료집
2018 .12
-
17세기 장자의 계후와 그 특권적 성격
태동고전연구
2013 .01
-
고려시대 성씨 확산의 동인과 성씨의 기능
역사와현실
2018 .06
-
大商家における家督相続·婚姻·養子縁組 : 三井同苗を事例にして
일본문화연구
2010 .07
-
조선후기 입양의 시점과 범위에 대한 분석
대동문화연구
2008 .01
-
조선후기 無姓層의 존재형태와 姓貫획득 경로
사학연구
2013 .06
-
서울지방의 무속신앙(巫俗信仰) 제상(祭床)차림을 통(通)하여 본 식문화(食文化)에 대한 고찰(考察)
한국식생활문화학회지
1988 .01
-
조선후기 同姓婚의 실태와 姓貫意識
사학연구
2017 .06
-
소련 초기의 개성에 대한 연구 : 『이즈베스티야』개성(改姓)공고를 중심으로
슬라브학보
2016 .06
-
Father and Son
Korea Journal
1972 .07
-
해외입양에 대한 사회복지적 제언 : 국내보호 활성화 방안 연구
한국학(구 정신문화연구)
2005 .03
-
조선후기 祭祀承繼 방식의 선택과 의미 - 兄亡第及을 선택한 淸州鄭氏家의 사례 -
사학연구
2005 .03
-
일본의 선택적부부별성제도에 대한 의식변화 : 정치권과 국민의 의식변화를 중심으로
일본문화연구
2014 .07
-
中國 近世 戶絶財産에 관한 법적 규정과 현실
史叢(사총)
2013 .01
-
A Study on the Transformation of the Surname System in Late Chosŏn : The Phenomenon of Surname Acquisition by the Name-less Class
International Journal of Korean History
2016 .02
-
식민지기 언양지역 延安宋氏 가계의 토지상속
대동문화연구
2015 .01
-
Family System
Korea Journal
1977 .05
-
日本における2018年改正相続法に関する考察
日本學硏究
2019 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-910-016391473