【作者】 杨育正；

【导师】 李开国；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 民商法学， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 民法是以权利为本位的法律,其存在的价值在于维护平等主体的民事权利,民法具有实践的品格,只有在适用中民法的价值才能显现。对民法适用中的解释进行研究,就是为了法官能够正确地实现民法的价值。在我国,现代生活的急剧变化使得民事立法往往表现出大刀阔斧的政策指向,大批量的民事立法已经没有了传统民事立法的那份理性,法官的整体素质不高,而社会对民法的正确适用的需求又非常的旺盛,因此,对适用中的民法解释进行研究具有现实的针对性。本文除引言和结语外分为三个部分共九章:第一部分为民法解释的本源论,通过对中国传统民法解释和西方民法解释的历史考察,对民法解释的基本理论问题进行了归纳,包括第一章中国传统民法解释的发展脉络探析和第二章西方民法解释的历史考察及趋向:第二部分为适用中民法解释的基本理论问题,就民法解释的必要性、功能、对象和特征以及应当坚持的立场、原则等基本理论问题进行探讨,为民法解释的操作奠定基础,包括第三章民法解释的特征、第四章民法解释的意义探寻、第五章法律解释的对象、第六章民法解释的立场、第七章民法解释的边界;第三部分为民法解释的操作方法,对民法解释的方法进行探讨,包括第八章民法的解析和第九章民法的建构。引言对本文的研究动因作了介绍,并对本文涉及的民法适用、解释、民法解释等概念及相互关系进行了分析。民法适用是民法得以实施、民法价值得以实现的重要途径,是法律授权的国家机关及其工作人员根据法定的职权,运用民事法律规范解决当事人之间的民事纠纷的专门活动,而解释是分析阐明和创造的活动,在民法的适用中,不仅需要对民法规范进行分析和阐明,在一定情况下还需要从文本中得出其中没有的东西,即根据民法的目的和基本原则对民法进行建构性解释,使比较抽象的、概括的民法能够适用于具体民事案件。民法适用离不开民法解释,民法解释的目的是民法适用,没有民法适用,民法解释就没有任何意义,所以民法解释依存于民法适用,民法适用以民法解释为具体形态,民法解释的主体是法官,民法解释是法官在审理具体案件中对民法的分析、阐明和建构。第一章对清末变法以前的中国传统民法的解释按照历史发展的脉络进行了探析。在中国的法律传统中,没有出现现代意义的民法典,但由于商品交换的存在与繁荣,因而存在大量的调整商品交换的民法规范,民事司法也对社会进步、经济发展发挥过重要作用,民法解释的理论与实践都相当的发达。传统律学是关于法律解释的理论,律学包括三方面的内容,一是通过对法律用语的注释,使执法的官吏了解法律的含义,使法律得以更好的执行,二是对律令的文义做出解释,三是对律令的立法背景和历史渊源做出解释,以帮助人们加深对律令规定内容的理解。律学形成了两种解释立场,一是难以实现却一贯坚持的“一断于法”的法家立场,要求司法者要维护法律的安定性,对法律的解释要去主观的私意而遵循客观的标准,这是典型的绝对实证主义法律解释观,二是长期占统治地位的以“仁”为最高价值追求的儒家立场,儒家以经注律将儒家的价值观带入了律学和民事司法,在儒家的观念中“礼”是第一位的,而法律成为次要的,在民法解释上形成了典型的客观主义解释观。以经注律是中国传统法律解释的一大特点,此外,传统法律解释还非常重视用判例、成案来解释法律,判例解释是法官或解释者依据案情、法律的一般原则或规定,甚至也根据当时的具体民情和人所公认的“天理”,比较案件事实和法律规定、天理民情间的内在关联,对案件作出的系统说明、解释和论证,判例解释是客观主义解释观在法律解释上的反映。在中国传统的法律思想中,除以经学的方法即训诂的方式解释法律以及用判例的方法解释法律外,还存在限制解释、扩大解释、历史解释、类推解释、辨析解释等多种法律解释方法。在中国传统的民事司法中,律学的理论被广泛地用于民法解释。在春秋战国时期法家强调“事皆决于法”,若法无明文规定,就不允许判官任意解释法律,自汉代始,儒家的解释立场在民法解释中居于统治地位,审判官在案件的审判中“引经决狱”,以例注律,通过对案件的裁判建构法律没有的民法规范,弥补制定法的空白,传统民法解释发展到清代,法官通过对“例”的适用与解释,补充律文的不足,缓解了律文的不变、缓变与社会关系的多变、巨变之间的矛盾,但“律既多成虚文,而例遂愈滋繁碎”,导致了法律的混乱,影响了社会的发展。可见,传统民法在适用中,其主要立场仍然是追求儒家的“仁”,要求法官在民法适用中原情执法,体现在民法的解释上就是要“德礼教化”,即明礼义、固人伦、劝为善,客观主义的解释立场被广泛接受,法官对民法的解释常常以善代真,以礼去法,解释往往是校正民法的规定,甚至以解释替代民法。第二章对西方民法解释的历史和当代主要的法律解释理论进行了考察。西方法律史就相当于一部民法解释史。大陆法系国家在法律起源的早期,法律就通过牧师、祭司、僧侣、占卜官等的解释得以呈现。罗马共和时期,罗马立法由法学家主导,有着很强的技术性,法学家不仅主导立法,还直接通过解释创制法律,进入帝制时期后,法律的解释是依赖掌管诉讼的最高裁判官与法学家,在帝制后期,立法权被视为国王个人神圣的权力,国王不但立法,也能从事解释,帝王的解释权取代了独立法官所从事的法律解释。资产阶级革命胜利后,主张三权分立并相互制衡,认为法官仅仅是宣布法律语词的喉舌,法官就如同街头的售货机,吃进去事实与法律条文,吐出来判决,因此,法官不能对法律进行解释,但这样的想法很快在实践中被否定,民法解释理论中解释禁止已经被批评为立法者天真的纪念碑。随着各国民法典的颁行,民法适用的法源被一元化,民法解释对象也因此被一元化。大陆法系国家的民法解释区分为四种基本情形,一是关于语言运用的解释,即确定法律规范的恰当语义;二是关于法律规范模棱两可、模糊不清或者相互明显不一致时的解释;三是关于法律文本存在漏洞的解释;四是在漏洞填补和澄清模糊均不能找到答案、法律对某个问题全无规定或因条件的变化原来的法律全然不适用现有的条件的情形下的解释。萨维尼将解释的方法归纳为语法的、逻辑的、历史的和体系的解释,奠定了近代法律解释方法的基本格局。普通法系国家的法官在案件的审理中有“造法”之权,法官在法律解释上具有极高的权威和极大的自主性。普通法系中的法官在判词中讨论法律解释问题时,常常交替地应用三种方法即文理解释、黄金规则、论理解释。在当代有两种解释理论对民法解释产生着深刻的影响。一是本体论的法律解释理论,二是法律论证理论。前者认为法律并不仅仅因为创造而存在,如果离开了人们对法律的理解与解释,法律也是没有生命力的,因此法律解释是必然的;后者追求判决结果的可接受性,认为法律规范只有经过理性的商谈过程达致合意始为有效,因此,它不仅追求法律论据的品质,而且追求论证过程的结构,在解释法律规则时,法官在各种可能解释之中选取一种之后,尚需对其解释作出充分的说明即对其判决进行确证。第三章从个案关联性、价值判断性、建构性、独断性、循环性等五个方面对民法解释的特征进行了探讨。民法解释的个案关联性包括三个方面的意思,即民法解释往往由待处理的案件所引起、民法解释的任务在于确定该民法规定对某特定法律事实是否有意义、法律条文应相对于一个待处理事实加以阐释并具体化。民法解释的价值判断性是指民法解释是法官以法律本身的价值判断为依据所作的一种价值判断,它不仅仅是简单的形式逻辑的操作,也不是脱离民法的价值判断而形成的独立的价值判断。民法解释具有以一般的法律概念为基础,结合立法目的和政治道德对完整的民法体系进行反思的“想像性重构”性质,这就是民法解释的建构性,民法解释的建构性有三个特点:一是法官建构法律只能与案件和争议联系在一起而不能建构有普遍约束力的规则,二是在建构法律时法官是中立的,三是法官必须遵守由原告启动审判程序即无起诉即无审判规则,这些特点表明法官在审理案件中创造性地弥补法律漏洞和为价值补充,其实质是解决有争议的当事人已经进入诉讼的案件,而不是对抽象的事实制定的一般性规则,因此民法解释的建构性并不是法官立法,而是法官基于民法基本原则的授权对民法做出的解释,这也是本文第九章立论的基础。从实质上看,法官在个案中对民法所作的解释澄明的民法意义,是被法官称为的早已存在于民法之中的应有之意义,即个案中法官所表达的民法意义不是该法官个人的意思,而是民法中的意义,这层意思是指解释内容的独断性,从形式上看,在法律适用的过程中,只能由法官这个独断的主体来确定民法的意义,这就是民法解释的独断性。法官在对民法规范、民法事实进行解释时,不能作断章取义的理解,而应当置整体于部分之中,寓部分于整体之中,在二者的相互关联的关系中把握被解释对象的意蕴,这就是民法解释的循环性。第四章对民法解释必要性和功能进行了探讨。由于立法者对无限世界认识的有限性和相对性,不可能出现一部超越立法者认识的民事法律,因此民事法律存在缺陷和漏洞在所难免。法律是对立法者过去经验世界的总结,却对未来发生作用,而未来具有动态性和不确定性,当法律制定后,其所依据的环境已经发生了变化,法律往往会出现滞后性。民事法律是各种利益角力的结果,是立法参与者共同意志的体现,这种共同意志,必然包含着个人主体认识的影响,却并未全部反映人类已经认识的社会生活。民事立法所用的语言是一种特殊的书面语,民法条文的概括性很强,也非常抽象,开放的法律文本,不同的读者,语境的分离,表达手段的减少,都增加了民法的理解难度。成文民法具有普适性、安定性、明确性的特点,但普适性常常忽视了特殊性,民法可能对某一类对象完全不能规范,可能对某类对象不能全面规范,民法规范的对象还可能随时发生变化,立法机关为了解决这一问题往往采用在法律中设立不确定规定的方式,民法的确定性无疑会因此而受到损害,安定性与社会的不断发展成为一对难解难分的矛盾,如果不能得到妥善的处理,民法有可能成为落后的、保守的生产力的代表,制约社会经济的发展,另外民法的明确性与规则的有限性也是一对难以并立的矛盾。民法由于上述诸多因素的制约,法官在面对具体个案时不得不求助于解释,使民法的目的得以实现,使民法生命得以彰显,使成文法留下的空间得到弥补,使民法文本的含义更明确,通过解释使民法更加和谐,从而对民法的发展起促进作用。第五章探讨的是民法解释的对象。民法解释,是对民法进行解释,民法规范成为民法解释的对象是没有疑问的,但同时,民法解释作为一种社会实践性活动,必然有其作用的对象或载体。在现代法治的语境中,服从法律已经成为人们的一种生活方式,这就要求法律至少能够获得法律受众的理解,所以,立法机关在民事立法中立法者总是尽可能使用朴实、精确的文字,逻辑清晰地叙述民法,在民法没有遭遇事实时,民法本来是清晰的,民法的模糊发生在文本与事实的遭遇之际,因此,解释的对象不仅仅局限于民法规范的概念与条文,还需要把民事案件事实一般化,民法事实因此成为民法解释的对象。第六章是对民法解释的立场进行探讨。民法解释的目标在于对民法规范的意旨进行探究,历史上有两种相对的立场,一是主观主义的立场,认为民法规范的意旨是指“立法者的意思”,民法解释的目标在于探求历史上立法者事实上的意思,亦即立法者的看法、企图与价值观。二是客观主义的立场,认为民法规范的意旨是指最能适当实现的民法条文的意义,民法规范的意旨是指民法条文的意义与意思,而非立法者的意思。主观主义的民法解释立场产生的根源是法安定性、信赖保护、权力分立。主观主义的反对者则认为,寻觅立法者的意思是非常困难的,在立法采用多数决的情况下从实际立法过程分析立法者的原意是难以考量的,法官要使法律解释符合立法者的主观意图,那么法官势必首先要将自己置于立法者的位置上思考问题,这是一个立场性的错误,违反了成文法制定的要求。客观主义的民法解释立场是基于人们对现实的深刻的认识,他们认为民法在立法者颁布之后就从此独立,民法便有了它自己的意思,法律常常比那些创造它的人更聪明,但反对客观说的人们认为法律是立法者立法目的的反映,如果离开了立法者的立法目的与价值判断,法律条文将毫无意义,客观主义无法提供法律安定性与可预测性。无论是主观主义还是客观主义,都揭示了部分真理,这两种理论尽管有一些细微的区别但在根本上并不是互相排斥的。在确定法律解释的目标时,我们应当综合考量二者的真理成分。主、客观主义之争,在于对待法律条文文字拘束力与客观目的的关系、立法资料的价值的不同态度,客观主义也依然强调法律条文文字的重要性,因为他们解释的依据就是“法律条文的意思”,这当然就必须以法律条文为中心,而主观主义也承认,在在字义非明确的情形下,扩张或限制解释都是妥当的,而且二者都认为解释必须在“可能字义界线”之内,也就是说,在文字有多义时解释仍必须客观的从事,在这一点上,二者已走向折衷,在对待立法史资料上,二者对立法资料的价值的认识趋向统一,都认为立法资料有辅助解释的功能。因此,民法解释的目标在于明确民法条文的内涵,即既要考虑立法的背景,也要挖掘最能适当实现的民法条文的意义。第七章是对民法解释的原则进行探讨。由于主、客观主义都认为解释必须在“可能字义界线”之内进行,也就是要对民法解释进行限制。本文选择了合法性与妥当性这两个原则作为限定解释范围的原则,因为不是对民法解释的所有原则进行探讨,故对本章的标题定为“民法解释的边界”。民法解释的合法性边界是指法官的民法解释行为必须符合程序、解释结果与已颁的法律有涵盖关系,起码不违背法律的明确规定。合法性原则不在于要求解释过程和结果都要按照法律规定去做,而在于解释者无论选择什么样的解释结果都应有一个合法性的追问。法官对民法进行解释应当坚持解释的合法性,这既是指民法解释不能违反宪法的原则与规则,还要求和法官解释的对象即民法的内容要尽可能和谐一致,所以对民法的解释必须与宪法的精神一致。民法解释在尊重法律文字的同时不应拘泥与民法条文的文字表述,而应当根据社会的发展的情况、民法体系的要求等对民法规范进行解释。合法性边界是从理性的角度为民法解释去设立的边界,但在我们的民法观念中,还包含了对正义的追求,正义是难以定义的,而因为民族感情、习俗、舆论等等因素的存在,正义又是可以认识的,这些因素实际上成为了对民法解释的评判依据,要求法官在民法解释中做到“妥当”。民法解释的妥当性是指不属于民法解释合法性所能包含而又对法律的解释产生实质性影响的各种因素,它超越法律共同体对法律规范的可能意义所“划定”的界限,为在个案中实现利益平衡和满足一般人对法律的心理需求,而对法律规范的意义进行扩张或限缩、在最广泛的主体之间所达致的一种合意。民法解释的妥当性边界要求民法解释的过程要妥当,要能为社会公众所了解和理解,这就要求民法解释应当按照“听众”意见的收集、民法解释的合意、民法解释的宣示三个阶段依程序进行,民法解释应遵循理性的释义方法,还需要对各种具体的民法解释方法进行逻辑排序,而不是任意运用其中的一种方法确定民法的意义。第八章对传统的民法解释方法进行了整理,由于传统的民法解释表现为对民法规范意义的分析阐明,故本章定题为“民法的解析”。民法的解析的姿态表现为法官对民法规范的服从。民法解析的具体操作,应当从民法规范的词义、句段、语篇、语境等着手进行。对民法词义的解析应当从以下四个方面进行:一是对民法条文中合成词的义素进行分析,二是对对民法条文中的多义词的义项进行辨析,找出正确的义项;三是对民法条文中的近义词进行分析;四是对民法所使用的同一词语进行分析。句段分为单句、复句、句群,从民法的句段着手对民法进行解析,实际上就是对民法规范构成进行语法分析。要通过对民法条文的句子的层次分析和句义分析,使民法条文的意义得以彰显。对民法规范进行解释,应当遵循语篇原则,语篇原则即解释论循环原则,是指词语的意义必须在句子中把握,句子的意义必须在文本的整体中来把握,而文本的整体意义则必须通过对组成文本的个别句子、词语的准确理解而得以把握,解释者必须往返穿梭于部分和整体之间,最终达到对民法概念、民法规范和民法精神的准确理解。根据语篇的特点,我们还可以判定一个民法用语在民法中仅仅使用其本义是否适当,可以根据已知的民法规范所定结果,推论出民法规范的真实意思,从而得出其反面结果,也可以从某些民法规范中推论出其当然意义,按照语篇原则,对民法规范的解释还应当纳入以宪法为母法的法律体系这个大语篇来解释。从语境着手探求的是在立法当时的语境下立法者在法律中通过文字所表达的意义,这就是法意解释的基本内涵,民法中的语言有不少是从其它国家的民法规范中借用而来的,还有的是从其它学科中借用而来,将这样的规范纳入借入的语境考察比较,是比较法解释的核心所在。第九章是对民法的建构进行了探讨。民法的建构是法官根据民法基本原则的授权在案件的审理中对民法的漏洞进行弥补、对不确定的概念和一般条款进行价值补充、对民事立法的错误进行修正,从而建构新的法律意义使民法能够达到其目的的方法。由于民法建构的主体是法官,民法建构的正当性基础是民法基本原则的授权,民法的建构具有独断性;只有在具体的案件的办理中,特别是在疑难案件的审理中,才存在民法的建构问题,民法的建构具有个案关联性;民法的建构是以现有的民法规范为基础,不是无中生有的虚构,而是结合立法目的和政治道德对完整的法律体系进行反思的“想像性重构”,因而具有循环性及建构性;民法建构的目的是为了完善现有的民法体系,是一个价值判断问题,这些特征完全符合民法解释的特征,因此,民法的建构是民法解释的属概念。在刑法和行政法领域,由于有罪刑法定和依法行政原则的约束,对刑法、行政法的解释一般局限于解析,只有在民法领域,由于其性质属于私法,涉及的是“私”的权益,调整的是私人或者私团体之间的相互关系,只要权利人不滥用权利,民法不仅允许当事人之间设定约束自己的规则,而且由于“禁止拒绝裁判”原则的要求,更允许法官出于保护权利而对民法进行建构,使权利得到更好的维护,因此,建构是民法解释独有的方法。法官在建构民法规范时,必须坚持合目的性和合规律性的统一,按照正义理念和事物本性去建构民法规范。民法建构的具体操作方式主要有依民法原则和民法思想建构民法、依法理建构民法、依事物的本质建构民法等。民法原则是从民法中抽象而来,对于民法规范有着指导意义,由于其在内容上是广泛的和不确定的,对社会生活的变化能够敏锐地感知和适应,其本身的内容随着社会的发展变化而变化,法官在其中总可以找到能够用于裁判的价值判断标准,本文以诚实信用原则为例,考察了如何依民法原则建构民法。依法理建构民法的操作方式有三种:一是类推,类推的步骤是:明确某项民法规定中的构成要件;将该民法规定中的构成要件分为实质性要件和非实质性要件;分析待处理案件的构成要件,同样也分为实质性要件和非实质性要件,并将其和某项民法规定中的实质性要件进行对照,审查两者是否具有相似性;如果两者的实质性要件具有相似性,则该民法规定中的法律效果可以加之于该待处理案件,即可以准用该法律规定处理待处理案件;二是目的性限缩与扩张,目的性限缩是其以“不同之案型以为不同之处理”为法理依据,是法官根据民法的目的将某民法条文文义所涵盖的特定情形排除在该法条适用范围之外,亦即法律文义所涵盖的案型相较于立法意旨而言过于宽广,为了消除这种缺失,法官在裁判案件时将该文义所涵盖的案型类型化,然后将与该立法意旨不符的部分排除于其所适用的范围之外的方法;目的性扩张是指法律文义所涵盖的类型相较于立法意旨而言,显然过于狭窄,以至于立法者意旨不能完全的贯彻,因此通过越过法律规定的文义,将法律适用的范围扩张到原法律规定文义不包括的案型;三是法益衡量,在民法适用中的法益衡量,就是法官在民事裁判中根据立法者的意思对存在的各种利益冲突进行利益考量、平衡并建构出用以裁判的民法规范。依事物的本质建构民法旨在发现事物本身的规律性,以建构出合乎规律的民法规则,实现民法的调整目的。主要包括以下操作方式:法官在处理这些新型案件时,需要从社会学角度进行深入研究,把握其规律性,建构民法规范作出适当的判决,这就是法社会学分析;以经济学方法研究法律问题,建构裁判需要的民法规范,这就是法经济学分析;以历史学的研究方法研究法律现象,从而建构裁判需要的民法规范,这就是法历史分析;民法是实践性很强的法律,必须在实践中才能实现其价值,经验方法在法官建构民法的过程中居于重要的地位,从民法的实践中总结经验,从而建构裁判需要的民法规范,这就是实践理性分析。结语对全文内容进行了归纳。民法解释是法官在审理具体案件中对民法的分析、阐明和建构。只要有民法的适用,就必然有民法的解释,离开了民法的解释,民法就只能成为一纸空文。民法解释的目标在于对民法规范的意旨进行探究,应当坚持合法性与妥当性原则。民法解释的对象既包括民法规范及其附随情况,也包括民事事实,通过法官对民事事实的法律意义的发掘,才能形成案件的裁判的基础即民法事实。民法的解释的具体操作有两类方法,一类是法官对民法规范的意义进行阐明即解析,一类是法官根据民法基本原则的授权在案件的审理中建构新的民法意义从而实现民法的目的即建构。法官在民事案件的裁判中,应当按照民法解释的原则,依据民法解释的方法阐明和建构民法裁判规范,如此,民法适用方能揭开神秘的面纱,去除疑虑的蒙垢,发出耀眼的光辉。更多还原

【Abstract】 Right is the essence of civil law system.The fundamental duty of civil law is to maintain civil subject’s right.Meanwhile,judicial practice is also important in civil law system because the law must be obeyed in practice.Therefore,judicial interpretation should be one important item to help judges carry out their duty.Now,fast changes happened in usual life promote the civil law legislation.But,there is a difficult question should be resolved first.It is a conflict inheres between the bad quality of judge and high needs of people.This paper includes three volumes,nine chapters except the foreword and conclusion.The first volume is sources of hermeneutics of civil law.This volume includes two chapters.In this volume,the author analyzes the history of traditional Chinese hermeneutics of civil law and western hermeneutics of civil law firstly.Then,this volume generalizes the fundamental theory of hermeneutics of civil law.The second volume is fundamental questions in theory of hermeneutics of civil law.This volume includes five chapters.In this volume,the author analyzes the necessity,function,object,characteristics and basic principles.The third volume is operation of hermeneutics of civil law.This volume includes two chapters.In this volume, the author analyzes the several operating means of hermeneutics of civil law.In foreword,the author explains the reason of writing this paper,and analyzes several concepts including application of civil law,explanation,and hermeneutics of civil law,etc. Application is a important avenue to implement civil law and realize the value of civil law, one special activity that government agency and its personnel authorized by law use civil law to resolve disputes.Explanation is a activity that analyzes,explains some matters and creates new ones.In the process of implementing civil law,it is necessary to analyze and explain the civil law norms.In particular circumstances,it is also necessary to explain civil law constructively in accordance with the purpose and basic principles of civil law.This kind of explanation is helpful to make abstract legal provision applying to the specific cases. Therefore,explanation and application of civil law are inter-related and inter-dependent.ChapterⅠ,"history of traditional Chinese hermeneutics of civil law".In the Chinese legal tradition,civil law bearing modern features does not exist.But,there still have many civil legal provisions regulating commodities trading.Meanwhile,civil judicial practices had contributed greatly to social progress and economic development.Traditional legal science is about interpretation of law including three parts.The first part’s function is to make the official understand the meaning of legal provision and implement the law better through explaining legal language.The second part’s function is to explain the letter of law.The third part’s function is to explain the background and origin of legislation.There are two positions in the theory of legal science:One is the Legalists’ position and the other is the Confucianists’ position.The former has been called positive position;The latter has been called objective position.To explain the law with canon is a important characteristic of traditional Chinese law. Then,precedents were be often used to explain the law also.Besides,there were confined interpretation,extensive interpretation,analogical interpretation etc.In traditional Chinese civil judicature,the theory of legal science was used in civil law interpretation widely.ChapterⅡ,"history and tendency of western hermeneuties of civil law".In fact,the western legal history is equivalent to history of civil law interpretation.In the countries of continental law system,the interpretation is made by priest,flamen,monk and augur had been the law in the early stage.In Rome dynasty,the jurist was the main body of making law.The effect of jurist was not only making law,but interpretation.In later stage,the power of making law had become the personal power of king.The power of interpretation by king replaced the power of jurist.After revolution initiated by capitalist class,the role of judge was set as only the mouthpiece of declaring legal words.Therefore,the judge had not power to interpret law.Then,these thinking had been denied later.With enactment of civil code in the most countries,the source of applying civil law had been united.Therefore,the object of interpretation had also been united.There are four kinds of interpretation.The first one is interpretation of using language.The second one is interpretation of these language used in legal provision in contradiction.The third one is interpretation of defect of text.The fourth one is the interpretation made when the law does not apply the case.In countries of common law system,the judge has the power of making law to deal with specific cases.The judge often use three kinds of interpretation alternately,semantic interpretation among gold rule and indirect interpretation.In modern time,there are two kinds of interpretation having broad influence on hermeneutics of civil law.One is ontology,the other one is demonstration.In the former theory,the law does not exist only because of creation.The law would be meaningless without the understanding and interpretation.Therefore,the interpretation is inevitable.In the latter theory,only the law negotiated by reasonable person has the effect.Therefore,when the judge interpretats the provision,he needs to make enough explanation after selecting one kind of interpretation.ChapterⅢ,"characteristics of hermenenties of civil law".This chapter includes five aspects.The first one is the relevance of particular case.It has three meanings.Origin of interpretation is the need of particular case.Duty of interpretation is to confirm the applicability of legal provision to particular fact.The letter of law should be interpreted in accordance with fact.The second one is the value judgments.It means that hermeneutics of civil law is a kind of value judgments made by judges based on the value of law.It is not only simple using formal logic,but not independent value judgment breaks with value judgment of civil law.The third one is construction.Hermeneutics of civil law are made based on general legal concept combining with purposes of legislation and political morality.In this process, the judge must obey the rule,but he can not construct regulation with general constraining power.The judge must be neutral.The whole judicial process should be started up by plaintiff. These characters indicate that the nature of making up the defect of law is settling the disputes but that making general rule.Therefore,construction of hermeneutics of civil law is not making law by judges but interpretation by judges with authorization by basic principles of civil law.Forth one is arbitrariness.The content of interpretation should get from the civil law not the judge’s personal opinion.The fifth one is circularity.During the process of interpretation,judges should put the particular provision and the fact into the whole body of civil law and get the real meaning of object from the relation between the civil law and the particular facts.ChapterⅣ,"meaning of hermeneuties of civil law".It is impossible to make a civil law beyond lawmaker’s understanding because the finiteness and relativity of cognitive ability. Therefore,defect and loop-hole always exist in every civil law.Law is the result that lawmakers sum up the past experience.But,it would be used in the future.Therefore,there would be a conflict when the old law meet’s new cases.Civil law is made by concessions,the reflection of the common will of lawmakers.As we know,the common will consists of everyone’s opinion.The language used by civil law is one special kind of written language. This kind of language is very abstract.Therefore,it makes us to understand the civil law more difficultly.In fact,written code could not be used according to specific situation.To resolve this problem,legislature does not make specific regulation.However,the certainty of provision would be harmed.In other words,the certainty of law is incompatible with social development.Civil law would represent the past time and constrain social development if this contradict could be resolved.The judge should use the law interpretation to deal with specific cases to realize the goal of civil law.ChapterⅤ,"object of hermeneutics of civil law".No doubt,civil law is the object of hermeneutics of civil law.Meanwhile,as one kind of social practice,civil law has its object. In modern society ruled by law,to obey the law has already become one life style.Therefore, one law understood by common people should be the precondition of legislation.This fact requests the legislative officers to use simple,exact words as possible as they can,and state the legal provision clearly.ChapterⅥ,"standpoint of hermeneutics of civil law".The goal of interpretation is analyzing the original idea of legal provision.In history,there were two vis-(?)-vis positions. The positive position makes it clear that the original idea of law is the same with the intent of lawmakers’.Therefore,the goal of interpretation is explaining the opinion,intent and sense of worth of lawmakers.The objective position insists that the meaning of civil law provision be equal to the meaning of the provisions implemented most easily.The meaning of civil law provision is the meaning of civil law provision,but not the intent of legislature.The origin of positive opinion is stability of law,protection of trust and power separating.The discommender of positive opinion thinks that it is very difficult to find out the real meaning of law makers’.It is wrong for judges to think over the cases using the standpoint of lawmakers’. The origin of objective position is the knowledge of society.After the enactment,civil law has already its own meaning.The discommender thinks that the law will be meaningless without considering the intent of lawmakers’.The author thinks that both positions only disclose part of truth.Both positions are not inconsistent.When determining the object of interpretation,we should think over the good part of them.The conflict between these two positions comes from different attitudes towards relationship between validity of word and objective intent etc.Therefore,the object of interpretation is to confirm the connotation of civil law provision.ChapterⅦ,"basic principles of hermeneutics of civil law".This paper chose legitimacy and propriety as the principles of confining the scope of interpretation.The legitimate boundary of interpretation means that the behavior of judge should not violate the regulation. It does not mean that the process and result should in accordance with regulation.But,the result should be confirmed legitimate.Constitution law is the most important regulation that the judge should obey the process of interpretation.Furthermore,the interpretation does not need to adhere to word rigidly,but considering the social development and the whole system of civil law.To confirm one interpretation properly will help us to realize the balance of interests and satisfy the need of people.The proper boundary of interpretation means that the process of interpretation should proper,and could be understood by people.The interpretation should follow the proceedings of gathering opinion of people,getting everyone’s satisfaction and declaring the result.Except for the means to accord with idealism,the judge should sequence every kind of interpretation accord with logicality.ChapterⅧ,"interpretation of civil law".Interpretation of civil law means that judges’ explaination of the meaning of civil law provision.The specific operation of explanation should consider sense of word,syntagma,language environment and paragraph.The explanation of sense of word should carry out following four steps.The first step is to analyse the morpheme of compound word.The second step is to analyse the item of polysemic word. The third step is to analyse the near synonym.The fourth step is to analyse the same word used by the whole law.Syntagma consists of simple sentence,compound sentence and group of sentence.Analyzing the syntagma is equal to grammatical analysis.The function of it is making the meaning of provision clear through analyzing the arrangement and meaning of sentences.Otherwise,the explanation should in accordance with rule of paragraph.This rule means that the meaning of word should be understood in specific sentence and the whole text. To get the meaning of the whole text,we should understand the specific sentence and words firstly.At last,we could understand the concept,provision and the sprit of civil law precisely. We also could confirm the applicability of original meaning of specific diction.We could deduce the real meaning of provision from the established results.According to rule of paragraph,the interpretation of civil law provision should be included in the brand system based on constitution law.The environment would help us understand the real intent of law makers’ when making the law.This is also the basic mcaning of explanation of law. Furthermore,several words and expressions are borrowed from civil code of other countries and other branches of learning.We should notice this fact.ChapterⅨ,"construction of civil law".The construction of civil law is made by judges with authorization by basic principles of civil law through making up the defects of civil law, supplying uncertain concepts and general provision,correcting the faults of legislation.The basis of justness of construction is the authorization by basic principles of civil law.The construction has arbitrariness.The problem of construction only happens in specific cases. The construction has relationship with particular cases.The construction is based on the current civil law system.Therefore,construction and interpretation have subordinate relationship.The judges should insist on unity of purpose and regularity when the construct civil law provision.The ways of operation include the way according to principle,ideology,legal theory and nature of civil law.The principle comes form the social life,Its content is always broad and uncertain.But judges could find the standard applying to the judgments.The paper studies the way of constructing civil law.There are three ways to construct civil law according to legal theory.One is analogy.The other is confine and broad the purpose.The last one is balancing the legal interests.The purpose of constructing the civil law according to nature of matters is finding out the rule of matter.Therefore,the means of sociology, economics,history and practical rational belief are necessary.In conclusion,the author sums up the whole paper.Hermeneutics of civil law is the process of analyzing,explaining and constructing the civil law by judges in settling the cases. The aim of interpretation is finding out the meaning of civil law provision.The object of interpretation is civil law provision and other matters.There are two ways of operation.One is explaining the meaning of civil law provision.The other is constructing new meaning with authorization by basic principles.In dealing with cases,judges should explain and construct the civil law provision according to principle of interpretation.更多还原