（文章翻译）“为和平而战”——为中世纪东罗马世界的战争和暴力辩护（第一部分）
John haldon
约翰·哈尔顿
翻译
神尾智代
Violence and the State
暴力与国家
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
按照惯例，“拜占庭帝国”一词指的是从第四世纪（或第六，有些人更喜欢）到十五世纪的东罗马帝国，也就是说，从一个独特的东罗马政治形态开始随着 承认帝国政治结构中“希腊东部”和“拉丁西部”之间的文化分歧，直到 1453 年 5 月 29 日君士坦丁堡被奥斯曼帝国苏丹穆罕默德二世攻陷。 尽管在这漫长的时期内发生了许多实质性的转变，但结构连续性的要素已足够显着，以允许如此宽泛的时间顺序定义。 对定义来说更重要的是，这是一个基督教国家，或者至少在四世纪和五世纪初成为这样的事实。
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.
东罗马国家有别于中世纪的西方国家，更明显的是，它与东方的伊斯兰邻国区别开来，因为它一直保持着罗马法的传统，直到它在 15 世纪末才存在。 从 6 世纪后期开始，世俗和教会领域在法律和法规方面发生了越来越大的融合。 世俗法和宗教法之间的密切联系实际上加强了国家的渗透性权威，同时加强了帝国教会作为拜占庭帝国和帝国统治概念的关键加强和结构要素的作用。 乡村社会。 尽管地方正义、“粗暴正义”、大众正义在首都以外的某些情况下肯定占上风，但帝国治理深入拜占庭社会，各省的罗马法通过 管理帝国的各种行政官员的法庭。 罗马法继续适用于财产权、继承、遗嘱事项和许多其他方面，但它越来越受到教会法的影响和影响，通常是朝着对某些类型的刑事犯罪更人道的待遇的方向发展。
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.
更广泛的社会对暴力的态度只能通过产生的文献来评估，其中大部分是由受过教育的少数精英产生的，因此很难一概而论。 例如，在叙事历史中，有一定程度的窥淫癖，带有对野蛮和暴力的恐怖色彩。 尤其是在描述战斗或单独战斗、或在骚乱和其他动乱时刻屠杀平民或其他人时，尤其是在描述国家迫害受害者的痛苦时更是如此。 这种表现在很大程度上归功于早期基督教殉道者文学的传统，有人认为，其中一些具有明显的性虐待或施虐受虐倾向，其中呈现了酷刑和施加痛苦的最可怕的方面 在通常不舒服的细节。
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
虽然最近对罗马晚期和拜占庭文化的这些方面进行了一些精彩的讨论，但许多方面仍未得到检验，而且关于人际暴力和大规模暴力的文化心理学的许多问题仍未得到解答。 大量的经验证据来自圣人传记——圣人传——以及各种编年史文献的记载，以及官方和半官方文本，如军事手册，也有物质文化证据。 ，来自考古学或图片展示。 所有这些都使我们能够对暴力如何被体验、如何感知、如何合理化或证明暴力，以及法院如何理解和处理暴力的例子或在法律文献中如何处理暴力的例子提出一些想法。 还有一个被称为“结构性暴力”的更广泛的层面，它涉及可能对人口或其部分造成伤害或伤害的规范社会条件，并且应该包括，例如，家庭暴力作为一个重要因素—— 这个问题在几个方面也与性别、婚姻关系和性的研究重叠。
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.
根据罗马法，对暴力行为的惩罚取决于被告的社会地位，并反映在用于伤害行为受害者的武器或物体的性质上。 但是，正如东罗马基督教世界所定义和理解的那样，正义也包含不同程度的暴力，这取决于所犯罪行的性质以及被判有罪的个人的地位。 体罚被理解为对被定义为不道德和侵害人身或财产的罪行的做法的一种补救措施，惩罚的救赎和康复方面也是对各种违法行为的文化态度的一部分。 关于君士坦丁堡和各省法院处理暴力行为方式的证据很少，而且大多来自后期——从 11 世纪开始——但可以公平地断言，法治是通过 省和大都会政府的执法效率出人意料，即使很明显，社会和经济上最弱势的人获得法律的机会最少，而且当他们获得法律时，他们赢得对社会上级的诉讼的机会并不大。 然而，有一些证据表明，即使是各省最贫穷的农村居民也可以通过君士坦丁堡的终审法院提起诉讼，并取得成功，因此需要对该制度的有效性或“公平性”进行评估 仔细权衡现有证据。
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
对导致死亡或重伤的暴力行为的标准惩罚，即使受害者没有死亡，也是死刑，或被视为有效等效的社会制裁（“社会死亡”，例如放逐和没收财产）。 对于受害者意外死亡的罪行，尽管存在补偿性罚款制度，但惩罚可以忽略不计或不存在。 刑罚也反映了社会地位——那些拥有皇位或官职的社会上层人士不受体罚，尽管流放和没收等同于社会死亡，被视为资本； 那些级别较低的人可能会死亡。 但是，虽然这些规定仍然有效，但教会的影响在 6 世纪和 9 世纪后期之间引入了一些重要的变化。 其中最主要的是“慈善”的更大元素，其目的是允许犯罪者悔改并忏悔。 变化的过程不是一夜之间发生的——它是在谈判中，正如从几个关键文本中可以看出的那样，到 10 世纪早期，但在 11 世纪早期或多或少已经完成。
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
传统上，教会有权向任何寻求庇护以免受人身伤害或监禁威胁的正统人士提供庇护，这一点在四世纪的帝国立法中得到证实。 然而，有些人被排除在外——特别是杀人犯、通奸者和强奸犯——理由是庇护所应给予那些逃避不公正待遇的人，而不是那些实施不公正待遇的人。 这种情况似乎一直持续到 10 世纪，当时达成妥协，故意杀人犯可以申请庇护，只要他承认自己的罪行并自首（就像在中世纪的西方一样）。 这些人仍将依法受到惩罚，但这将包括终身流放、丧失所有权和任职权以及没收财产。 被没收财产的一部分现在归受害者家属所有，而流放地则被规定在远离犯罪现场的地方，以避免日后发生血仇。 到 12 世纪初期，滥用这些规定似乎已经引起了对早期立法的反应和回归，或者至少是帝国政府试图监督首都君士坦丁堡庇护所采用的方式 ，在这方面，圣智大教会享有特殊的特权。
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.
社会通常有多种手段可以在不同层面减轻暴力的影响，在拜占庭案例中，这在很大程度上取决于建立在慈善原则基础上的公共和私人慈善机构，根据上下文有不同的定义，但 主要与尊重他人的概念有关（当然，也有社会定义，因此绝不是一个包容性的类别）。 朝廷以及教会、修道院社区和个人支持或资助医院、救济院或类似机构，这些机构的存在具有补偿经济阶级差异、贫困和排斥所固有的“结构性暴力”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.
总的来说，可以说，在可以找到肇事者的地方，当局会处理暴力行为——受制于已经注意到的社会差异和偏见——目的是保持社会和政治平衡 一方面是为了满足基督教道德伦理框架内所理解的当代对自然正义的看法。自然，整个中世纪社会发生的社会暴力在很大程度上仍未被政治当局所察觉——与所有社会一样，这些事务通过 亲属关系，通过互惠的公共关系，以及各种形式的世仇。
未完待续
