學術產出-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 古希臘呂西亞斯第十三篇法庭演說詞之修辭與法律思想
Lysias`s rhetoric and legal thinking in his Speech 13 "Against Agoratus"作者 張晏綺
Chang, Yen-chi貢獻者 陳起行
張晏綺
Chang Yen-chi關鍵詞 三十僭主
呂西亞斯
簡易審判程序
特赦協議
殺人罪
民主
雅典
古希臘
The Thirty Tyrants
Lysias
Agoratus
The Amnesty in 403 BCE
Apagoge
Summary arrest
Athens
Classical Greek
Democracy日期 2017 上傳時間 13-Sep-2017 14:57:55 (UTC+8) 摘要 本文旨在探討約公元前399年於雅典提起之一宗訴訟，原告為三十僭主時期受告密而被判死刑者的家屬，被告為協助三十僭主告密之Agoratus，代替原告撰寫訴狀者為著名演說撰寫家Lysias，此即為後人整理之Lysias第13篇演說詞。被告之答辯未傳世，審判結果亦不得而知，故我們僅得研究一造之片面說法。此篇演說詞篇幅甚長，其敘事平易近人，卻運用各種修辭技巧，試圖影響陪審團之心證。為探討本宗訴訟之修辭與法律論述，本文直接將Lysias的古希臘翻譯成現代中文，並提供學界本篇演說辭之中文譯本。 儘管Lysias晚至第83節以後，始處理本案涉及之法律議題，其篇幅雖短，卻涵蓋古雅典法律之程序及實體議題，諸如簡易審判程序（apagoge）之要件、殺人罪（apokteinen）之實體構成要件、公元前403年特赦協議（Amnesty）得否作為被告免責事由等，值得深究。無論評論者認為原告之法律理由是否有力，須注意雅典陪審團關注焦點，並不限於法律理由，有時可能更看重「非法律理由」，例如敘事技巧、修辭運用、當事人在法庭之表現等，應綜合參照前揭因素，始得回歸古雅典法庭之脈絡，以評價本案。 法律僅是維繫雅典民主之工具，本身不具有超然獨立之價值，雅典人民一旦認定城邦或民主制度陷入危難，得不遵守既有法律程序、或發展出嶄新的法律解釋，以因應時代需求。最後，本案之背景是公元前404年至403年斯巴達於雅典扶植之寡頭政權「三十僭主」（the Thirty Tyrants）造成之一連串司法謀殺案，儘管403年特赦協議原則上禁止追訴三十僭主時期協助寡頭政權之人士，然而從本案被管轄官員「十一人」核准起訴，可知仍瀰漫一股無法輕易「忘卻過去」之復仇風氣。本演說詞是被害者家屬選擇以法律程序復仇之代表性案例，亦反映出雅典人民在不同時期如何理解特赦協議、及評價三十僭主統治之態度。
The purpose of this study was to investigate a suit at Athens in 399 BCE. In this suit, the prosecutor was the family of the condemned criminal who died under the rule of Thirty Tyrants; the defendant was Agoratus, who aided Thirty Tyrants to bring false charges against Thirty Tyrants’ political enemies. Restricted by the loss of the defendant’s apology and the decision of the jury, this study focused on the prosecution, which was made by the speechwriter Lysias. The survey examined Lysias’s speech on several aspects, one of which was the social background of Athens, the other was the rhetoric that Lysias performed, on which the further understanding depended on the direct translation from Classical Greek to Mandarin of this thesis, the other aspect was legal persuasion which was presented through Lysias’s rhetoric performance, narrative and storytelling. Legal issues in this case were further examined both in substantive and procedure aspect. For example, the apagoge procedure in Athens, the interpretative method of apokteinen in Athens, and whether the Amnesty in 403 BCE could be served as disclaimer by the defendant. Notwithstanding there were problems with Lysias’s legal claims, the prosecutor might still win the case on the ground that Athenian jury not only inspected legal reasons but non-legal reasons provided by both parties. Due to the importance of non-legal reasons for Athenian jury, this thesis illustrated what were non-legal reasons in Athenians’ speeches, such as character evidence, both parties’ family backgrounds, and the emphasis on the opponent’s negative impacts on the polis. The differences of the attitudes towards law between the Athenians and modern society affect how to evaluate this case. For ordinary Athenians, except for philosophers as Plato, law served as a tool to assure democracy’s function. There were no independent value in law itself. On the other hand, if the Athenians thought the polis or the democracy was in danger, they often developed new legal interpretation in order to solve realistic problems. In this case, notwithstanding the Amnesty in 403 BCE principally forbad suing specific range of people who aided the Thirty Tyrants in the regime of the Thirty Tyrants, officials ‘the Eleven’ still allowed the prosecutor to indict Agoratus. One of the Eleven’s considerations might be the victims and their families’ desire for avenge after the Thirty Tyrants’ rule. The results of this thesis indicated that the Athenians attitudes towards the Amnesty in 403 BCE varied which further affected the way how Lyisas devised this prosecution speech.參考文獻 一、 英文部分Atkinson, John. (1999). Truth and Reconciliation the Athenian Way. In: Acta Classica, vol. 42, pp. 5–13. Bateman, John J. (1958). Lysias and the Law. In: Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, vol. 89, pp. 276–285. Bateman, John J. (1962). Some Aspects of Lysias` Argumentation. In: Phoenix, vol. 16, no. 3, 1962, pp. 157–177.Burgess, Sandra J. (2005). The Athenian Eleven: Why Eleven? In: Hermes, vol. 133, no. 3, pp. 328–336. Carawan, Edwin. (1998). Rhetoric and the Law of Draco. The United States: Clarendon Press.Cohen, David. (2005). Crime, punishment, and the rule of law in Classical Athens. In: Michael Gagarin & David Cohen eds., THE CAMBRIDGE COMPANION TO ANCIENT GREEK LAW. The United States: Cambridge University Press.Dorjahn, Alfred P. (1932). The Athenian Senate and the Oligarchy of 404/3 BC. In: Philological Quarterly 11: 57.Evjen, Harold D. (1970). Aiiarorh and Athenian Homicide Procedures. In: Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 38: 403.Gagarin, Michael. (1979). The prosecution of homicide in Athens. In: Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 20.4: 301.Hansen, Morgens Herman. (1981). The Prosecution of Homicide in Athens: a Reply. In: Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, vol. 22: 1, pp. 11-30. Harris, Edward M. (2006). "In the Act" or "Red-Handed"? Apagoge to the Eleven and furtum manifestum. In: Edward M. Harris, DEMOCRACY AND THE RULE OF LAW IN CLASSICAL ATHENS: ESSAYS ON LAW, SOCIETY, AND POLITICS. Cambridge University Press.Harris, Edward M. (2006). How to kill in Attic Greek: The Semantics of the Verb (apo)kteiene And Their Implications for Athenian Homicide Law. In: Edward M. Harris, DEMOCRACY AND THE RULE OF LAW IN CLASSICAL ATHENS: ESSAYS ON LAW, SOCIETY, AND POLITICS. Cambridge University Press.Harris, Edward M. (2013). The rule of law in action in democratic Athens. Oxford University Press.Harvey, David (1990). The sycophant and sycophancy: vexatious redefinition. In: Paul Cartledge, Paul Millett & Stephen Todd eds., NOMOS-ESSAYS IN ATHENIAN LAW, POLITICS AND SOCIETY. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.Hunter, Virginia. (2004). Introduction: Status Distinctions in Athenian Law. In: Virginia Hunter & Jonathan Edmondson eds., LAWS AND SOCIAL STATUS IN CLASSICAL ATHENS. The United States: Oxford University Press.Lanni, Adriaan. (1st ed. 2006) Law and Justice in the Courts of Classical Athens. The United States: Cambridge University Press.Osborne, Robin (2000). Religion, Imperial Politics, and the Offering of Freedom to Slaves. In: Virginia Hunter & Jonathan Edmondson eds., LAWS AND SOCIAL STATUS IN CLASSICAL ATHENS. The United States: Oxford University Press. Rhodes, J. Peter (2004). Keeping to the point. In: Edward M. Harris & Lenen Rubinstein eds., THE LAW AND THE COURTS IN ANCIENT GREECE. United Kingdom: Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd.Roisman, Joseph. (2006). The rhetoric of conspiracy in ancient Athens. The United States: Univeristy of California Press.Rubinstein, Lene. (2005). Differentiated rhetorical strategies in the Athenian courts.. In: Michael Gagarin & David Cohen eds., THE CAMBRIDGE COMPANION TO ANCIENT GREEK LAW. The United States: Cambridge University Press.Sickinger, James (2004). The laws of Athens: Publication, Preservation, Consultation. In: Edward M. Harris & Lenen Rubinstein eds., THE LAW AND THE COURTS IN ANCIENT GREECE. United Kingdom: Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd.Sommerstein, Alan H., and Andrew James Bayliss. eds. (2013). Oath and state in ancient Greece. Vol. 306. Walter de Gruyter.Todd, S. C. (1st ed. 2000). Lysias. The United States: the University of Texas Press.Usher, Stephen (1st ed. 1999). Greek Oratory. Tradition and Originality. The United States: Oxford University Press.Wallace, W. Robert. (1st ed. 2010). Law and Rhetoric: Community Justice in Athenian Courts, in A COMPANION TO THE CLASSICAL GREEK WORLD. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley-Blackwell.Yunis, Harvey. (2005). The rhetoric of law in fourth century Athens. In: Michael Gagarin & David Cohen eds., THE CAMBRIDGE COMPANION TO ANCIENT GREEK LAW. The United States: Cambridge University Press.二、 中文部分梁益鳳，《和解共生：戰後雅典（404-399BCE）的政治安排》，國立成功大學歷 史學系碩士論文，2008年。 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
法律學系
102651024資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1026510241 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 陳起行 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) 張晏綺 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Chang Yen-chi en_US dc.creator (作者) 張晏綺 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Chang, Yen-chi en_US dc.date (日期) 2017 en_US dc.date.accessioned 13-Sep-2017 14:57:55 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 13-Sep-2017 14:57:55 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 13-Sep-2017 14:57:55 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G1026510241 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/112704 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 法律學系 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 102651024 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 本文旨在探討約公元前399年於雅典提起之一宗訴訟，原告為三十僭主時期受告密而被判死刑者的家屬，被告為協助三十僭主告密之Agoratus，代替原告撰寫訴狀者為著名演說撰寫家Lysias，此即為後人整理之Lysias第13篇演說詞。被告之答辯未傳世，審判結果亦不得而知，故我們僅得研究一造之片面說法。此篇演說詞篇幅甚長，其敘事平易近人，卻運用各種修辭技巧，試圖影響陪審團之心證。為探討本宗訴訟之修辭與法律論述，本文直接將Lysias的古希臘翻譯成現代中文，並提供學界本篇演說辭之中文譯本。 儘管Lysias晚至第83節以後，始處理本案涉及之法律議題，其篇幅雖短，卻涵蓋古雅典法律之程序及實體議題，諸如簡易審判程序（apagoge）之要件、殺人罪（apokteinen）之實體構成要件、公元前403年特赦協議（Amnesty）得否作為被告免責事由等，值得深究。無論評論者認為原告之法律理由是否有力，須注意雅典陪審團關注焦點，並不限於法律理由，有時可能更看重「非法律理由」，例如敘事技巧、修辭運用、當事人在法庭之表現等，應綜合參照前揭因素，始得回歸古雅典法庭之脈絡，以評價本案。 法律僅是維繫雅典民主之工具，本身不具有超然獨立之價值，雅典人民一旦認定城邦或民主制度陷入危難，得不遵守既有法律程序、或發展出嶄新的法律解釋，以因應時代需求。最後，本案之背景是公元前404年至403年斯巴達於雅典扶植之寡頭政權「三十僭主」（the Thirty Tyrants）造成之一連串司法謀殺案，儘管403年特赦協議原則上禁止追訴三十僭主時期協助寡頭政權之人士，然而從本案被管轄官員「十一人」核准起訴，可知仍瀰漫一股無法輕易「忘卻過去」之復仇風氣。本演說詞是被害者家屬選擇以法律程序復仇之代表性案例，亦反映出雅典人民在不同時期如何理解特赦協議、及評價三十僭主統治之態度。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) The purpose of this study was to investigate a suit at Athens in 399 BCE. In this suit, the prosecutor was the family of the condemned criminal who died under the rule of Thirty Tyrants; the defendant was Agoratus, who aided Thirty Tyrants to bring false charges against Thirty Tyrants’ political enemies. Restricted by the loss of the defendant’s apology and the decision of the jury, this study focused on the prosecution, which was made by the speechwriter Lysias. The survey examined Lysias’s speech on several aspects, one of which was the social background of Athens, the other was the rhetoric that Lysias performed, on which the further understanding depended on the direct translation from Classical Greek to Mandarin of this thesis, the other aspect was legal persuasion which was presented through Lysias’s rhetoric performance, narrative and storytelling. Legal issues in this case were further examined both in substantive and procedure aspect. For example, the apagoge procedure in Athens, the interpretative method of apokteinen in Athens, and whether the Amnesty in 403 BCE could be served as disclaimer by the defendant. Notwithstanding there were problems with Lysias’s legal claims, the prosecutor might still win the case on the ground that Athenian jury not only inspected legal reasons but non-legal reasons provided by both parties. Due to the importance of non-legal reasons for Athenian jury, this thesis illustrated what were non-legal reasons in Athenians’ speeches, such as character evidence, both parties’ family backgrounds, and the emphasis on the opponent’s negative impacts on the polis. The differences of the attitudes towards law between the Athenians and modern society affect how to evaluate this case. For ordinary Athenians, except for philosophers as Plato, law served as a tool to assure democracy’s function. There were no independent value in law itself. On the other hand, if the Athenians thought the polis or the democracy was in danger, they often developed new legal interpretation in order to solve realistic problems. In this case, notwithstanding the Amnesty in 403 BCE principally forbad suing specific range of people who aided the Thirty Tyrants in the regime of the Thirty Tyrants, officials ‘the Eleven’ still allowed the prosecutor to indict Agoratus. One of the Eleven’s considerations might be the victims and their families’ desire for avenge after the Thirty Tyrants’ rule. The results of this thesis indicated that the Athenians attitudes towards the Amnesty in 403 BCE varied which further affected the way how Lyisas devised this prosecution speech. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 9第一節 問題意識 9第二節 文獻回顧 10第二章 古雅典民主制度下的法律、法庭、修辭 14第一節 古雅典法制環境 14第二節 古雅典修辭學變遷 19第三節 Lysias（呂西亞斯）簡介 30第四節 第13篇演說詞簡介 32第三章 第13篇演說詞全文中譯、注釋、事實建構 35第一節 全文中譯暨注釋 35第二節 第13篇演說詞悖於事實之處 71第三節 雅典陪審團對「法律理由」與「超法律理由」之綜合衡量 87第四節 Lysias的論證特色 95第四章 第13篇演說詞之法律議題 101第一節 程序面 102 一、本案之簡易逮捕程序（apagoge）類型探討 102 二、簡易逮捕程序」（apagoge）與「顯然」（ἐπ᾽ αὐτοφώρῳ）要件之關係 114 三、官員「十一人」對本案之先行程序合法性審核 120 四、本案之起訴是否罹於時效？ 126第二節 實體面 127 一、Agoratus告密導致他人死亡，是否構成「殺人罪」（(apo)kteienen）？ 127 二、具備「直接因果」之殺人案例比較 130 三、筆者評述 134 四、倘若被告行為是否被403年特赦協議阻卻違法？ 138第五章 結論 153參考文獻 165附錄：Lysias第13篇演說詞希臘文版本 169 zh_TW dc.format.extent 2453392 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1026510241 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 三十僭主 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 呂西亞斯 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 簡易審判程序 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 特赦協議 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 殺人罪 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 民主 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 雅典 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 古希臘 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) The Thirty Tyrants en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Lysias en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Agoratus en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) The Amnesty in 403 BCE en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Apagoge en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Summary arrest en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Athens en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Classical Greek en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Democracy en_US dc.title (題名) 古希臘呂西亞斯第十三篇法庭演說詞之修辭與法律思想 zh_TW dc.title (題名) Lysias`s rhetoric and legal thinking in his Speech 13 "Against Agoratus" en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 一、 英文部分Atkinson, John. (1999). Truth and Reconciliation the Athenian Way. In: Acta Classica, vol. 42, pp. 5–13. Bateman, John J. (1958). Lysias and the Law. In: Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, vol. 89, pp. 276–285. Bateman, John J. (1962). Some Aspects of Lysias` Argumentation. In: Phoenix, vol. 16, no. 3, 1962, pp. 157–177.Burgess, Sandra J. (2005). The Athenian Eleven: Why Eleven? In: Hermes, vol. 133, no. 3, pp. 328–336. Carawan, Edwin. (1998). Rhetoric and the Law of Draco. The United States: Clarendon Press.Cohen, David. (2005). Crime, punishment, and the rule of law in Classical Athens. In: Michael Gagarin & David Cohen eds., THE CAMBRIDGE COMPANION TO ANCIENT GREEK LAW. The United States: Cambridge University Press.Dorjahn, Alfred P. (1932). The Athenian Senate and the Oligarchy of 404/3 BC. In: Philological Quarterly 11: 57.Evjen, Harold D. (1970). Aiiarorh and Athenian Homicide Procedures. In: Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 38: 403.Gagarin, Michael. (1979). The prosecution of homicide in Athens. In: Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 20.4: 301.Hansen, Morgens Herman. (1981). The Prosecution of Homicide in Athens: a Reply. In: Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, vol. 22: 1, pp. 11-30. Harris, Edward M. (2006). "In the Act" or "Red-Handed"? Apagoge to the Eleven and furtum manifestum. In: Edward M. Harris, DEMOCRACY AND THE RULE OF LAW IN CLASSICAL ATHENS: ESSAYS ON LAW, SOCIETY, AND POLITICS. Cambridge University Press.Harris, Edward M. (2006). How to kill in Attic Greek: The Semantics of the Verb (apo)kteiene And Their Implications for Athenian Homicide Law. In: Edward M. Harris, DEMOCRACY AND THE RULE OF LAW IN CLASSICAL ATHENS: ESSAYS ON LAW, SOCIETY, AND POLITICS. Cambridge University Press.Harris, Edward M. (2013). The rule of law in action in democratic Athens. Oxford University Press.Harvey, David (1990). The sycophant and sycophancy: vexatious redefinition. In: Paul Cartledge, Paul Millett & Stephen Todd eds., NOMOS-ESSAYS IN ATHENIAN LAW, POLITICS AND SOCIETY. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.Hunter, Virginia. (2004). Introduction: Status Distinctions in Athenian Law. In: Virginia Hunter & Jonathan Edmondson eds., LAWS AND SOCIAL STATUS IN CLASSICAL ATHENS. The United States: Oxford University Press.Lanni, Adriaan. (1st ed. 2006) Law and Justice in the Courts of Classical Athens. The United States: Cambridge University Press.Osborne, Robin (2000). Religion, Imperial Politics, and the Offering of Freedom to Slaves. In: Virginia Hunter & Jonathan Edmondson eds., LAWS AND SOCIAL STATUS IN CLASSICAL ATHENS. The United States: Oxford University Press. Rhodes, J. Peter (2004). Keeping to the point. In: Edward M. Harris & Lenen Rubinstein eds., THE LAW AND THE COURTS IN ANCIENT GREECE. United Kingdom: Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd.Roisman, Joseph. (2006). The rhetoric of conspiracy in ancient Athens. The United States: Univeristy of California Press.Rubinstein, Lene. (2005). Differentiated rhetorical strategies in the Athenian courts.. In: Michael Gagarin & David Cohen eds., THE CAMBRIDGE COMPANION TO ANCIENT GREEK LAW. The United States: Cambridge University Press.Sickinger, James (2004). The laws of Athens: Publication, Preservation, Consultation. In: Edward M. Harris & Lenen Rubinstein eds., THE LAW AND THE COURTS IN ANCIENT GREECE. United Kingdom: Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd.Sommerstein, Alan H., and Andrew James Bayliss. eds. (2013). Oath and state in ancient Greece. Vol. 306. Walter de Gruyter.Todd, S. C. (1st ed. 2000). Lysias. The United States: the University of Texas Press.Usher, Stephen (1st ed. 1999). Greek Oratory. Tradition and Originality. The United States: Oxford University Press.Wallace, W. Robert. (1st ed. 2010). Law and Rhetoric: Community Justice in Athenian Courts, in A COMPANION TO THE CLASSICAL GREEK WORLD. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley-Blackwell.Yunis, Harvey. (2005). The rhetoric of law in fourth century Athens. In: Michael Gagarin & David Cohen eds., THE CAMBRIDGE COMPANION TO ANCIENT GREEK LAW. The United States: Cambridge University Press.二、 中文部分梁益鳳，《和解共生：戰後雅典（404-399BCE）的政治安排》，國立成功大學歷 史學系碩士論文，2008年。 zh_TW
