【渣翻譯】前諾曼時期愛爾蘭的國家意識與王權（三）

zhuanlan.zhihu.com伊蘭園的微風：【渣翻譯】前諾曼時期愛爾蘭的國家意識與王權（二）?

zhuanlan.zhihu.com

Professor Binchy』s stress on the archaism of the law may be said to have been misunderstood by some historians less familiar with the early period. It is, for example, quite true to say with Professor Warren that in Irish law equal status was accorded to the king, the principal abbot, and theollam. The law-tracts, which apparently derive from different schools and vary to a degree in date (none is later than the beginning of the eighth century), are not quite at one as to the honour-price or status which they attribute to a bishop and, by implication, to a principal abbot. However, it can be stated with some degree of confidence that the tracts generally equate his status with that of the rí túaithe. This is not to say that the king and the abbot exercised equal authority, for one must distinguish sharply between that socio-legal status which is the concern of the jurists and the political authority which was exercised by the kings. The comfortable status which the church had achieved for itself in the seventh and eighth centuries did not make it the political rival of the king. Rather, as we shall see, the church did much to strengthen kingship.

賓奇教授對古代法律的強調可能被一些不太熟悉早期歷史的歷史學家誤解了。例如，對於沃倫教授來說，在愛爾蘭法律中，國王、主要的修道院院長和首席詩人間的平等地位是千真萬確的。這些法律條文顯然來源於不同的流派，在日期上也各不相同（沒有哪個晚於八世紀初），對主教和主要修道院院長的榮譽價和地位的規定並不完全一致。然而，在某種程度上可以肯定地說，法律條文一般將他們的地位等同於部族國王。這並不是說國王與修道院長行使了平等的權力，因為我們必須把法學家關心的社會法律地位和國王行使的政治權威區分開來。教會在七、八世紀為自己取得的穩定地位，並沒有使它成為國王的政治對手。相反，正如我們將看到的那樣，教會在加強王權方面做了很多工作。

The status of rí túaithe or tribal king, with which the ollam and abbot are equated in standing, was already in decline, it would appear, even in the period of the canonical law-tracts. One early law-tract states: niba tuath tuath gan egna gan egluis gan filidh gan righ aracorathar cuir agus cairde do thuathaibh 『a túath which has no scholar, no church, no poet, no king who extends contracts and treaties to [other] túatha is no túath』. Here, in this tract we may have an indication of the passing of the túath,for the statement implies that some communities, formerly túatha in the full sense, no longer retained the characteristics of such a structure. Indeed, it has been suggested that the rise of great dynasties such as the éoganacht and Uí Néill and their expansion in the sixth and seventh centuries undermined the old system based on the túath. This conclusion is adequately borne out, as far as the eighth century is concerned, by the contemporary annalistic entries. In these we find kings who must have been kings of túatha or even of large kingdoms (ruirig) referred to by the inferior title dux. In 756, for example, the king of the petty kingdom of Delbna Ethra is entitled dux. In 771 and in 796 the same term is applied to the kings of Luigne and Ciarraige. In the ninth century, this usage is much extended and over-kings of the Laígse, Mugdorna, Cenél Conaill, and Uí Meic Uais bear the lesser title of duces. The growth of even more powerful overkingship further reduced these, lesser kings, and in the eleventh and twelfth centuries the normal title of the ruler of an area similar in size to the old túathis tigerna, toísech and toísech dútchais, all of which may be translated 『lord』.

與首席詩人和修道院長平起平坐的的部落國王（rí túaithe）的地位已經在下降了，甚至在規範法律條文時期也是如此。一條早期法律聲明「niba tuath tuath gan egna gan egluis gan filidh gan righ aracorathar cuir agus cairde do thuathaibh」（一個部落如果沒有學者、沒有教會、沒有詩人、沒有國王將協議擴展到其他部落，就不能稱之為部落）。在這句話中，我們可以看到部落的消逝，因為該聲明意味著，過去完整意義上的某些部落社區不再保留著這樣的結構特徵。有人認為，事實上，諸如éoganacht 和Uí Néill等偉大王朝的興起以及它們在六、七世紀的擴張破壞了以部落為基礎的舊制度。在八世紀，這一結論已經被當時的編年史條目充分證實。在這裡，我們可以發現很多部落國王甚至大王國（ruirig）的國王用次等頭銜dux指代。例如，在756年，小國Delbna Ethra的國王被稱為dux。在771年和796年，同樣的術語也用於Luigne和Ciarraige的國王。在九世紀，這一用法得到很大的擴展，而Laígse 、Mugdorna、Cenél Conaill 以及Uí Meic Uais的國王擁有更低的頭銜duces。更強大的王權的增長進一步削弱了這些較小的王國，在十一、十二世紀，擁有類似面積土地的統治者通常的舊頭銜是túathis tigerna、toísech和toísech dútchais，這些頭銜都可以翻譯為「領主」。

The older customs which, as Professor Lydon observes, prevented a king setting up puppet kings over neighbouring kingdoms or annexing the kingdoms of others, had also passed away by the eighth century. One wonders whether these customs ever existed outside the polite and schematic speculations of the jurists. In fact, we find frequent annalistic reference to such events in the eighth century. It is probably sufficient to cite two. For the year 744 the Annals of Ulster have the following: foirddbe Corcu Mu Druadh don Deiss 『the destruction of the Corcu Mo Druad by the Déis』. The Déis are here identical with Dál Cais, and from this period dates the occupation of extensive lands in Clare by Dál Cais and the beginning of their rise to political power. For 752, the same annals record: foirddbe Brecrige do Cheniul Coirpri i Telaigh Findin 『the destruction of the Brecrigi by Cenél Cairpre in Telach Findin』. After this Brecrigi disappear from history. They were totally absorbed by Cenél Maine, a rising branch of Uí Néill who invented a pseudo-eponym for them, Breccán mac Maine, and from the grandson of this Breccán the new ruling family of Brecrigi is said to descend. Not only were the lands of lesser peoples appropriated but the conquerors frequently took over their names and even their tribal saints. In the late eighth and ninth centuries a branch of Uí Chennselaig, the dominant south Leinster dynasty, conquered Uí Dróna and took to themselves the name of the conquered. The northern branch of Síl náeda Sláine who expropriated the Cianachta were themselves known as Cianachta by the mid-eighth century. írgalach ua Maíl Umai, who died in 816, is entitled rex Corco Sogain. In fact, Corco Sogain was a small population group which his branch of Uí Néill, Caílle Follamain, had conquered. So dim had the memory of such earlier and expropriated peoples become that scholars, working in the eighth and ninth centuries, were already compiling antiquarian lists of them.

正如萊頓教授所觀察到的那樣，阻止國王在鄰國設立傀儡國王或吞併其他王國的古老習俗在八世紀已逝去。人們不禁要問，這些習俗是否存在於法學家禮節性、粗略性的推測之外。事實上，我們發現，在八世紀人們經常提到這類事件。舉兩個例子也許就足夠了。《阿爾斯特編年史》記載744年「foirddbe Corcu Mu Druadh don Deiss」（Déis家族摧毀了Corcu Mo Druad）。Déis家族在這裡等同於Dál Cais家族，從這一時期起，Dál Cais家族佔領了克萊爾的大片土地，政治地位開始上升。編年史對752年有同樣的記錄「foirddbe Brecrige do Cheniul Coirpri i Telaigh Findin 」（Cenél Cairpre家在Telach Findin摧毀了Brecrigi 家族）。此後Brecrigi家族消失於歷史中。他們被Uí Néill家族的一個新興分支Cenél Maine家族完全吞併，Cenél Maine家族為Brecrigi家族發明了一個偽名Breccán mac Maine，據說從這個Breccán的孫子起新統治Brecrigi的家族就衰落了。不僅較小部族的土地被侵佔，征服者還經常繼承他們的名字，甚至他們的部落聖徒。在八世紀末和九世紀，統治南倫斯特的Uí Chennselaig家族的一個分支，征服了Uí Dróna家族，並為自己取了被征服者的名字。八世紀中葉，Síl náeda Sláine家族的北支剽竊了Cianachta家族的名字，也稱自己為Cianachta。írgalach ua Maíl Umai死於816年，被稱為rex Corco Sogain。實際上，Corco Sogain是Uí Néill家族他所在的分支Caílle Follamain家族征服的一小群人。這些早期的、名字被徵用的群體的記憶非常模糊，以至於在八、九世紀工作的學者們已經在編纂他們的古物名錄。

Orpen』s 185 tribes who flourished in the period after the Viking wars must be sought in antiquarian calculations of a later date. Giraldus Cambrensis gives 176 as the number of cantreds in Ireland. It is, however, clear that he is latinising the Irish term trícha cét. His estimate does not derive from his own calculations but, like the greater portion of this section of the Topographia, from Irish literary sources. Therefore, Giraldus』s work has no independent value as a contemporary reckoning. Keating, O』Flaherty, and other writers give the number as 184 or 185 but all these, as Hogan has shown, derive from the poem Ca lín trícha i nérind? which is preserved in a number of medieval manuscripts and which in style and language is a typical product of twelfth-century antiquarianism. There is a further difficulty: trícha cét never seems to mean túath or tribe in Irish sources. According to Hogan, it denotes a territory associated with a military muster in the earlier period; later (i.e. from the eleventh century on) it denotes a geographical area. In fact, it is attested in the Annals of Ulster for the year 1106 as a unit of assessment. In that year, Cellach, coarb of Patrick, made his circuit of Munster and received his full due, viz seven cows and seven sheep and half an ounce for each area of a trícha cét in Munster (cech fuind trícha i Mumain). Orpen』s 185 tribes, then, are the children ofmisunderstanding: they never existed. MacNeill, for his part, estimates that there were about eighty túatha in the whole of Ireland. I, for one, am at a loss to discover the precise means by which he arrived at this estimate and, with Professor Byrne, I prefer to resist 『the temptation … of trying to impose a neat and schematic pattern on the fluctuating political boundaries of early Ireland』. What we can say with certainty is that there were no more than a dozen overkingdoms of any political consequence in the tenth century, and these were drastically reduced in number by the mid-twelfth century.

奧爾本所說的維京戰爭後興盛的185部落必須從後世的古物名錄中尋找。威爾士的傑拉德給出的愛爾蘭的cantreds數字為176。然而，他明顯是把愛爾蘭語詞「trícha cét」拉丁化了。他的估計並非來自他自己的計算，而是像他的《地理志》中的大部分內容一樣，源於愛爾蘭的文獻。因此，傑拉德作品中同時期的估計並沒有獨立的價值。基廷、O』Flaherty、以及其他作者給出的數字是184或185，然而如霍根所說，所有這些都是從詩歌《Ca lín trícha i nérind?》中衍生而來。它保存在許多中世紀手稿中，在風格和語言上是十二世紀擬古主義的典型產物。還有一個更大的問題:在愛爾蘭語來源中，trícha cét似乎從來就不等於部落（túath）。根據霍根的說法，它早期指與軍事集結有關的領土，後來（從十一世紀起）指地理區域。事實上，《阿爾斯特編年史》1106年的條目證實它是一個估價單位。在那一年，帕特里克的繼承人Cellach巡視了芒斯特並徵收了全部貢品：芒斯特的每片trícha cét地區（cech fuind trícha i Mumain）七頭牛、七隻羊、半盎司黃金。因此，奧爾本所說的185部落是一種幼稚的誤解：它從未存在過。MacNeill估計，全愛爾蘭約有80多個部落。首先，我不知道他得出這個估計的確切方法，另外，和Byrne教授一樣，我更原意抵制「試圖在早期愛爾蘭起伏的政治邊界上強加一種整潔而粗略的模式······的誘惑」。我們可以肯定地說，在十世紀有政治影響力的王國只有十幾個，到了十二世紀它們的數量急劇減少。

Other legal institutions which many seem to consider relevant to the twelfth century had long become obsolete. During the seventh century, the derbfhine, the four-generation agnatic kindred group, so important as a legal and property-owning unit in the earlier period, became obsolete and was replaced by the gelfhine, a simpler three-generation group. Similarly, in the matter of royal succession, it can be shown that eligibility was not ordered by the inheritance customs of the derbfhine, however near or distant such customs may have been to men』s mind as a general ideal of the fitness of things, but by the everyday realities of power-politics within dynasties of growing strength and self-confidence. However, one still finds the túath with its tabus and the derbfhine with its manifold complexities wending their way wearily across the pages of historians of a much later period. What is even more remarkable, if we accept the views of some historians, these institutions were still alive and flourishing in sixteenth-century Ireland—almost a millennium after they had become obsolete and at least five hundred years after the Irish lawyers had ceased to understand at all clearly what they meant.

其他許多人認為與十二世紀有關的法律習俗早已過時。在七世紀作為一個早期法律和財產權單位非常重要的四代親族團體derbfhine變得過時了，取而代之的是更簡單的三代親族團體gelfhine。同樣可以看出，在王室繼承問題上，資格並不是由derbfhine繼承規則決定，儘管這種習俗在人們心中可能是一種適合一切事物的普遍理想，而是由越來越強大自信的王朝內政治權力的日常實力決定。然而，由於種種錯綜複雜的原因，túath和derbfhine在更晚期仍然長期出現在歷史學家的書頁中。更值得注意的是，如果我們接受一些歷史學家的觀點，這些機構在十六世紀的愛爾蘭仍然充滿生命力——在它們被淘汰一千年之後，至少在愛爾蘭的法學家不再清楚理解它們的意思五百年之後。

推薦閱讀：