西漢張釋之於「犯蹕」、「盜環」兩案堅持依法審判，直言上諫文帝，使其備受歷代高度評價，成為傳統中國理想法曹典範。但至宋代，卻陸續有士大夫、道學家對張釋之提出批評意見，直指他不該放言：「且方其時，上使立誅之則已」，以重話刺激皇帝。就表面觀之，似乎是維護君權，貶抑司法公正的言論；亦與現今學者多認為宋代法治環境優良的觀察，有所扞格。本文細梳宋人對張釋之的反面意見，認為批評者主要基於兩點：一是應強調依循既有法律程序，無需節外生枝，請求皇帝公正審判即可。再則認為當進一步向皇帝闡明法理，修改法律條文，讓制度更加完善。綜觀各評論者的學術脈絡，並無一致共同性。但就共通性而言，實是源於宋儒強調自省修己的思想背景，以及地方、中央任官歷程中，逐漸累積對法律司法、官方文書流程的認識與經驗。由此或可理解宋人對張釋之的諸多批評並非出於畏懼皇權，而堅持依照制度處理的看法，反是襯托宋代君臣遵守法制的共同默契，以及當時法治環境良好之佐證。

In the Western Han Dynasty, Zhang Shizhi（張釋之） insisted on the law-abiding principle in the two cases of "guilty of having violated the order to clear the roads"（犯蹕） and "stolen jade rings of mortuary temple of Emperor Gaozu"（盜環）, making him highly praised by traditional wisdom as the model of law. Nevertheless, in the Song Dynasty, incessant scholarly officials and Confucian followers criticized Zhang Shizhi with his unsuitable remarks: “The Emperor was able to end the case immediately if he ordered the man to be executed on the time when the incident took place.” （且方其時，上使立誅之則已）These words might pique the emperor to judge the case emotionally. Superficially, Zhang Shizhi’s opinions seemed to defend kingship and to debase speech of juridical justice. It is contrary to phenomenon most modern scholars observe that Song Authority had createdAmore fair circumstance for law enactment. The purpose of this research is to comb and explain criticism against Zhang Shizhi with two perspectives. First, the author argues that Zhang Shizhi should conduct the case in accordance with existing legal procedures, then asked the emperor for trial based on due process. Secondly, rather than encouraging the emperor to judge the case with his wills, Zhang Shizhi supposedly had the responsibility to further clarify the jurisprudence for the emperor, suggesting him following amendment of legal provisions to make the whole legal system more complete. To summarize abovementioned critics upon Zhang Shizhi discloses the origin of scholars’ self-discipline in the Song Dynasty, as well as various officials’ accumulated acknowledgement and experience that they gained in the different offices of local and central governments regarding legal justice and documentary processes. Therefore, this research reveals that the attack against Zhang Shizhi not came from officials who were afraid of imperial power, but those insisted that any case should be exercised by the law. It also states that both the emperor and officials reached to collective agreement to respect and abide the legal system, evidently showing Song Dynasty’s well-performed legal order.