John haldon

約翰·哈爾頓

翻譯

神尾智代

Violence and the State

暴力與國(guó)家

The term ‘Byzantine empire’ refers by convention to the eastern Roman empire from the fourth (or sixth, as some prefer) century to the fifteenth century, that is to say, from the time when a distinctively East Roman political formation began to evolve with the recognition of the cultural divisions between ‘Greek East’ and ‘Latin West’ in the empire’s political structure, to the fall of Constantinople on 29 May1453 at the hands of the Ottoman sultan Mehmet II. And although within this long period there were many substantial transformations, the elements of structural continuity are marked enough to permit such a broad chronological definition. More important for the definition is the fact that this was a Christian state, or at least became so in the course of the fourth and early fifth centuries.①

????????? 按照慣例，“拜占庭帝國(guó)”一詞指的是從第四世紀(jì)（或第六，有些人更喜歡）到十五世紀(jì)的東羅馬帝國(guó)，也就是說(shuō)，從一個(gè)獨(dú)特的東羅馬政治形態(tài)開始隨著 承認(rèn)帝國(guó)政治結(jié)構(gòu)中“希臘東部”和“拉丁西部”之間的文化分歧，直到 1453 年 5 月 29 日君士坦丁堡被奧斯曼帝國(guó)蘇丹穆罕默德二世攻陷。 盡管在這漫長(zhǎng)的時(shí)期內(nèi)發(fā)生了許多實(shí)質(zhì)性的轉(zhuǎn)變，但結(jié)構(gòu)連續(xù)性的要素已足夠顯著，以允許如此寬泛的時(shí)間順序定義。 對(duì)定義來(lái)說(shuō)更重要的是，這是一個(gè)基督教國(guó)家，或者至少在四世紀(jì)和五世紀(jì)初成為這樣的事實(shí)。

?

The eastern Roman state is distinguished from its western medieval and– more obviously–its Islamic neighbours to the east through its maintenance of the traditions of Roman law through to the end of its existence in the fifteenth century. From the later sixth century onwards there took place an ever-greater convergence of the secular and ecclesiastical realms in law and regulation. ②The close association between secular and religious law in fact intensified the penetrative authority of the state, while at the same time strengthening the role of the imperial church as a key reinforcing and structuring element in Byzantine notions of empire and imperial rule at the humblest level of village society. While it is clear that local justice, ‘rough justice’, popular justice certainly prevailed in some contexts away from the capital, it is nevertheless also the case that imperial governance reached down into Byzantine society and that Roman law in the provinces was applied through the courts of the various administrative officials who ran the empire. Roman law continued to apply as regards property rights, inheritance, testamentary matters and many other aspects, but it was increasingly influenced and inflected by canon law, generally in the direction of a more humane treatment for certain types of criminal offence.

????????? 東羅馬國(guó)家有別于中世紀(jì)的西方國(guó)家，更明顯的是，它與東方的伊斯蘭鄰國(guó)區(qū)別開來(lái)，因?yàn)樗恢北３种_馬法的傳統(tǒng)，直到它在 15 世紀(jì)末才存在。 從 6 世紀(jì)后期開始，世俗和教會(huì)領(lǐng)域在法律和法規(guī)方面發(fā)生了越來(lái)越大的融合。 世俗法和宗教法之間的密切聯(lián)系實(shí)際上加強(qiáng)了國(guó)家的滲透性權(quán)威，同時(shí)加強(qiáng)了帝國(guó)教會(huì)作為拜占庭帝國(guó)和帝國(guó)統(tǒng)治概念的關(guān)鍵加強(qiáng)和結(jié)構(gòu)要素的作用。 鄉(xiāng)村社會(huì)。 盡管地方正義、“粗暴正義”、大眾正義在首都以外的某些情況下肯定占上風(fēng)，但帝國(guó)治理深入拜占庭社會(huì)，各省的羅馬法通過(guò) 管理帝國(guó)的各種行政官員的法庭。 羅馬法繼續(xù)適用于財(cái)產(chǎn)權(quán)、繼承、遺囑事項(xiàng)和許多其他方面，但它越來(lái)越受到教會(huì)法的影響和影響，通常是朝著對(duì)某些類型的刑事犯罪更人道的待遇的方向發(fā)展。

?

Attitudes to violence in society more broadly can only be assessed through the literature that was produced, much of it by a small educated elite, so that it is difficult to generalize. There is evident in narrative histories, for example, a degree of voyeurism tinged by horror regarding brutality and violence. This is especially so in accounts of battles or of single combat, ③or of massacres of civilians or others in riots and other moments of unrest, as well as, and in particular, in accounts of the sufferings of the victims of persecution by the state. Such representations owed much to the traditions of the early Christian martyr literature, some of which, it has been argued, has a distinctly sexual-sadistic or sado-masochistic inflection, in which the most gruesome aspects of torture and the infliction of pain are presented in often uncomfortable detail.

????????? 更廣泛的社會(huì)對(duì)暴力的態(tài)度只能通過(guò)產(chǎn)生的文獻(xiàn)來(lái)評(píng)估，其中大部分是由受過(guò)教育的少數(shù)精英產(chǎn)生的，因此很難一概而論。 例如，在敘事歷史中，有一定程度的窺淫癖，帶有對(duì)野蠻和暴力的恐怖色彩。 尤其是在描述戰(zhàn)斗或單獨(dú)戰(zhàn)斗、或在騷亂和其他動(dòng)亂時(shí)刻屠殺平民或其他人時(shí)，尤其是在描述國(guó)家迫害受害者的痛苦時(shí)更是如此。 這種表現(xiàn)在很大程度上歸功于早期基督教殉道者文學(xué)的傳統(tǒng)，有人認(rèn)為，其中一些具有明顯的性虐待或施虐受虐傾向，其中呈現(xiàn)了酷刑和施加痛苦的最可怕的方面 在通常不舒服的細(xì)節(jié)。

?

While there has recently been some excellent discussion on these aspects of late Roman and Byzantine culture, many aspects remain unexamined and many questions on the cultural psychology of both interpersonal and mass violence remain unasked. ④There is a great deal of empirical evidence from sources such as hagiographies–Lives of saints–as well as from accounts in various types of chronicle literature, and in official and semi-official texts such as military handbooks, and there is also material cultural evidence, from archaeology or from pictorial representations. All this permits us to develop some ideas of how violence was experienced, how it was perceived and rationalized or justified, and how examples of violence were understood and dealt with by courts or treated in legal literature. There is also a broader level of what has been dubbed ‘structural violence’, which relates to normative societal conditions that may result in harm or injury to the population or sections thereof, and should include, for example, domestic violence as one significant element–an issue that also overlaps in several ways with studies of gender, marital relationships and sexuality.⑤

????????? 雖然最近對(duì)羅馬晚期和拜占庭文化的這些方面進(jìn)行了一些精彩的討論，但許多方面仍未得到檢驗(yàn)，而且關(guān)于人際暴力和大規(guī)模暴力的文化心理學(xué)的許多問(wèn)題仍未得到解答。 大量的經(jīng)驗(yàn)證據(jù)來(lái)自圣人傳記——圣人傳——以及各種編年史文獻(xiàn)的記載，以及官方和半官方文本，如軍事手冊(cè)，也有物質(zhì)文化證據(jù)。? ，來(lái)自考古學(xué)或圖片展示。 所有這些都使我們能夠?qū)Ρ┝θ绾伪惑w驗(yàn)、如何感知、如何合理化或證明暴力，以及法院如何理解和處理暴力的例子或在法律文獻(xiàn)中如何處理暴力的例子提出一些想法。 還有一個(gè)被稱為“結(jié)構(gòu)性暴力”的更廣泛的層面，它涉及可能對(duì)人口或其部分造成傷害或傷害的規(guī)范社會(huì)條件，并且應(yīng)該包括，例如，家庭暴力作為一個(gè)重要因素—— 這個(gè)問(wèn)題在幾個(gè)方面也與性別、婚姻關(guān)系和性的研究重疊。

?

The punishment for an act of violence was, according to Roman law, determined by the social status of the accused and was reflected in the nature of the weapon or object used to harm the victim of the act. But justice, as it was defined and understood within the East Roman Christian world, also entailed violence of varying degrees, depending on the nature of the crime committed as well as the status of the individual found guilty. Corporal punishment was understood as a remedy for practices defined both as immoral and as crimes against person or property, and the redemptive and rehabilitating aspects of punishment were also part of cultural attitudes to transgressions of all kinds. Evidence for the ways in which acts of violence were dealt with by the courts at Constantinople and in the provinces is sparse and mostly from the later period –from the eleventh century onwards–but it is fair to assert that the rule of law as exercised through provincial and metropolitan administration was enforced to a surprisingly effective degree, even if it also clear that the socially and economically least privileged had least access to law, and when they did gain access their chances of winning a case against a social superior were not strong. Yet there is some evidence to show that even the poorest rural inhabitants of the provinces could pursue a court case through to the final court of appeal in Constantinople, and with success, so estimations of the efficacy or ‘fairness’ of the system need to be balanced carefully against the available evidence.

????????? 根據(jù)羅馬法，對(duì)暴力行為的懲罰取決于被告的社會(huì)地位，并反映在用于傷害行為受害者的武器或物體的性質(zhì)上。 但是，正如東羅馬基督教世界所定義和理解的那樣，正義也包含不同程度的暴力，這取決于所犯罪行的性質(zhì)以及被判有罪的個(gè)人的地位。 體罰被理解為對(duì)被定義為不道德和侵害人身或財(cái)產(chǎn)的罪行的做法的一種補(bǔ)救措施，懲罰的救贖和康復(fù)方面也是對(duì)各種違法行為的文化態(tài)度的一部分。 關(guān)于君士坦丁堡和各省法院處理暴力行為方式的證據(jù)很少，而且大多來(lái)自后期——從 11 世紀(jì)開始——但可以公平地?cái)嘌?，法治是通過(guò) 省和大都會(huì)政府的執(zhí)法效率出人意料，即使很明顯，社會(huì)和經(jīng)濟(jì)上最弱勢(shì)的人獲得法律的機(jī)會(huì)最少，而且當(dāng)他們獲得法律時(shí)，他們贏得對(duì)社會(huì)上級(jí)的訴訟的機(jī)會(huì)并不大。 然而，有一些證據(jù)表明，即使是各省最貧窮的農(nóng)村居民也可以通過(guò)君士坦丁堡的終審法院提起訴訟，并取得成功，因此需要對(duì)該制度的有效性或“公平性”進(jìn)行評(píng)估 仔細(xì)權(quán)衡現(xiàn)有證據(jù)。

?

The standard punishment for acts of violence resulting in death or serious injury, even if the victim did not die, was capital punishment, or social sanctions which were viewed as effectively equivalent (‘social death’ such as banishment and confiscation of property). For offences where the victim died accidentally, punishment was negligible or non-existent, although a system of compensatory fines existed. Punishments also reflected social status–those belonging to the upper strata of society who held imperial titles or office were not subject to corporal punishment, although exile and confiscation were tantamount to social death and were regarded as capital; those lower on the scale were subject to death. But while these regulations remained in force, the influence of the church introduced a number of important changes in the period between the sixth and the later ninth century. Chief among these was a greater element of ‘philanthropy’ with the aim of permitting an offender to repent of the crime and do penance. The process of change did not happen overnight–it was in negotiation, as can be shown from several key texts, by the early tenth century, but had been more or less completed by the early eleventh century.⑥

????????? 對(duì)導(dǎo)致死亡或重傷的暴力行為的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)懲罰，即使受害者沒有死亡，也是死刑，或被視為有效等效的社會(huì)制裁（“社會(huì)死亡”，例如放逐和沒收財(cái)產(chǎn)）。 對(duì)于受害者意外死亡的罪行，盡管存在補(bǔ)償性罰款制度，但懲罰可以忽略不計(jì)或不存在。 刑罰也反映了社會(huì)地位——那些擁有皇位或官職的社會(huì)上層人士不受體罰，盡管流放和沒收等同于社會(huì)死亡，被視為資本； 那些級(jí)別較低的人可能會(huì)死亡。 但是，雖然這些規(guī)定仍然有效，但教會(huì)的影響在 6 世紀(jì)和 9 世紀(jì)后期之間引入了一些重要的變化。 其中最主要的是“慈善”的更大元素，其目的是允許犯罪者悔改并懺悔。 變化的過(guò)程不是一夜之間發(fā)生的——它是在談判中，正如從幾個(gè)關(guān)鍵文本中可以看出的那樣，到 10 世紀(jì)早期，但在 11 世紀(jì)早期或多或少已經(jīng)完成。

?

The church traditionally had a right to grant asylum to any orthodox person seeking refuge from a threat of physical harm or imprisonment, and this was confirmed in imperial legislation from the fourth century. Some individuals were excluded, however–notably murderers, adulterers and rapists–on the grounds that refuge was to be granted to those fleeing injustice rather than those committing it. This seems to have remained the situation until the tenth century, when a compromise was reached whereby a wilful murderer could claim asylum provided he admitted his crime and surrendered himself (just as in the medieval West). Such persons were still to be punished according to the law, but this would consist of lifelong exile, loss of title and the right to hold office, and confiscation of property. A portion of any confiscated property now went to the victim’s family, while the place of exile was stipulated to be far distant from the scene of the crime in order to avoid the possibility of future blood feud. By the early twelfth century the abuse of these provisions seems to have produced a reaction and a return to the earlier legislation, or at least an attempt on the part of the imperial government to oversee the ways in which asylum was employed at the capital, Constantinople, where the great church of the Holy Wisdom enjoyed particular privileges in this respect.⑦

????????? 傳統(tǒng)上，教會(huì)有權(quán)向任何尋求庇護(hù)以免受人身傷害或監(jiān)禁威脅的正統(tǒng)人士提供庇護(hù)，這一點(diǎn)在四世紀(jì)的帝國(guó)立法中得到證實(shí)。 然而，有些人被排除在外——特別是殺人犯、通奸者和強(qiáng)奸犯——理由是庇護(hù)所應(yīng)給予那些逃避不公正待遇的人，而不是那些實(shí)施不公正待遇的人。 這種情況似乎一直持續(xù)到 10 世紀(jì)，當(dāng)時(shí)達(dá)成妥協(xié)，故意殺人犯可以申請(qǐng)庇護(hù)，只要他承認(rèn)自己的罪行并自首（就像在中世紀(jì)的西方一樣）。 這些人仍將依法受到懲罰，但這將包括終身流放、喪失所有權(quán)和任職權(quán)以及沒收財(cái)產(chǎn)。 被沒收財(cái)產(chǎn)的一部分現(xiàn)在歸受害者家屬所有，而流放地則被規(guī)定在遠(yuǎn)離犯罪現(xiàn)場(chǎng)的地方，以避免日后發(fā)生血仇。 到 12 世紀(jì)初期，濫用這些規(guī)定似乎已經(jīng)引起了對(duì)早期立法的反應(yīng)和回歸，或者至少是帝國(guó)政府試圖監(jiān)督首都君士坦丁堡庇護(hù)所采用的方式 ，在這方面，圣智大教會(huì)享有特殊的特權(quán)。

?

Societies generally have a range of means at their disposal for mitigating the impact of violence at different levels, and in the Byzantine case this rested to a large extent on public and private charitable institutions founded on the principle of philanthropia, defined variously according to context but relating primarily to concepts of respect for one’s fellows (also, of course, defined socially and thus by no means an inclusive category). The imperial court as well as the church, monastic communities and private individuals supported or endowed institutions such as hospitals, poorhouses or similar institutions whose existence had the effect of compensating for the ‘structural violence’ inherent in economic class distinctions, poverty and exclusion.

????????? 社會(huì)通常有多種手段可以在不同層面減輕暴力的影響，在拜占庭案例中，這在很大程度上取決于建立在慈善原則基礎(chǔ)上的公共和私人慈善機(jī)構(gòu)，根據(jù)上下文有不同的定義，但 主要與尊重他人的概念有關(guān)（當(dāng)然，也有社會(huì)定義，因此絕不是一個(gè)包容性的類別）。 朝廷以及教會(huì)、修道院社區(qū)和個(gè)人支持或資助醫(yī)院、救濟(jì)院或類似機(jī)構(gòu)，這些機(jī)構(gòu)的存在具有補(bǔ)償經(jīng)濟(jì)階級(jí)差異、貧困和排斥所固有的“結(jié)構(gòu)性暴力”的效果。

?

In general, it can be said that acts of violence, where the perpetrator(s) could be found, were treated by the authorities–subject to the social distinctions and prejudices already noted–with the aim of maintaining both social and political equilibrium on the one hand and of meeting contemporary perceptions of natural justice as understood within a Christian moral-ethical framework. Naturally, the social violence that occurred throughout this medieval society remained largely unseen by the political authorities–such affairs were, as in all societies, regulated through kinship relations, through communal ties of reciprocity, and by various forms of feud.

????????? 總的來(lái)說(shuō)，可以說(shuō)，在可以找到肇事者的地方，當(dāng)局會(huì)處理暴力行為——受制于已經(jīng)注意到的社會(huì)差異和偏見——目的是保持社會(huì)和政治平衡 一方面是為了滿足基督教道德倫理框架內(nèi)所理解的當(dāng)代對(duì)自然正義的看法。自然，整個(gè)中世紀(jì)社會(huì)發(fā)生的社會(huì)暴力在很大程度上仍未被政治當(dāng)局所察覺——與所有社會(huì)一樣，這些事務(wù)通過(guò) 親屬關(guān)系，通過(guò)互惠的公共關(guān)系，以及各種形式的世仇。

未完待續(xù)