【渣翻譯】前諾曼時期愛爾蘭的國家意識與王權（四）

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（三）?

zhuanlan.zhihu.com

Much of the misunderstanding—about the political conservatism, tribalism, and supposed immutability of Gaelic society over many centuries—is the result of a methodological error on two levels. On the more general level, the historians have been deceived by the apparently static picture of Irish society presented them in the sources and, as a result, they have been insensitive to those shifts of emphasis and nuances of expression which indicate change in institutions and political and social innovations in society as a whole. This is particularly true of Ireland where the bulk of the early historical sources are literary and highly conventionalised products of specialist learned classes, retainers of the contemporary holders of power, who were at pains to legitimise all change by giving it the sanction of immemorial custom and who ruthlessly reshaped the past to justify the present. This type of activity is not confined to Ireland and, in fact, finds a close parallel in European legend-building—lay and clerical—in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Indeed, the unchanging Gaelic Ireland of the modern historical scholars bears silent witness to the effectiveness of their medieval forebears in discharging their duty. For example, the rise to power of Dál Cais led not only to the drastic recasting of their previous genealogy but to a rewriting of the history of the Viking wars in Ireland in the interest of their political aspirations, and offered an example which their rivals were not slow to imitate. In such rewritings of history, fundamental political changes and altered circumstances of recent events are frequently projected back into the remote past and thus the fiction of continuity and changelessness is maintained. On a more particular level, some historians may be said to have mistaken the pedantic archaism of the jurists for the attitude of society at large, and have to a degree taken their legal tracts (which were probably conservative if not out of date at the time of writing) as a true account of the practice. The customary law did, in fact, change, as can be observed even in the texts of the schools where we see the later glossators attempting, where they under stood them, to bring the rules of the older texts into line with the practice of their own day. And, as to the later middle ages and early modern period, Dr Mac Niocaill has pointed out that, though the classical tracts were cited as ever, they had no relevance to actual litigation or the manner in which it was conducted. They were cited for the sound rather than the sense and were a useful window-dressing which lent mystique to the men of the law as they went about their business in a much more mundane and practical way. What the actual practice was must be pieced together (if ever it can) from the later legal literature and from incidental references in non-legal sources. We have no texts, for example, that gratuitously tell us the legal powers of the king, the order of the royal household, or the legal functions of the king』s officers in the eleventh and twelfth centuries—and even if we had, we should treat them with the utmost caution. It is equally true to say that the detailed and painstaking work involved in discovering such matters from our all too meagre sources has yet to be done, and I can only offer a few tentative suggestions on the relations of the later kings with the lawyers and the law, their law-making powers, and their rights over the property of their subjects.

很多誤解——政治保守主義、部落主義、假定蓋爾社會幾個世紀以來的不變性——是由兩種錯誤的研究方法造成的。更普遍的層面上，歷史學家們被愛爾蘭社會在史料來源中所呈現的顯然是靜態的情況所欺騙，因此，他們對表達重點的轉移和表達的細微差別，以及整個社會的政治和社會創新並不敏感。愛爾蘭的情況尤其如此，在那裡早期的歷史資料主要來源於文學作品和專業知識階層高度保守化的創作，知識階層是當時掌權的統治者的僕人，他們通過對古老習俗的認可費盡心思地使所有變革合法化，並無情地改造過去以使現狀合理化。這類行為並不局限於愛爾蘭，實際上，這與十一、十二世紀歐洲的傳說建構——無論是宗教的還是世俗是——有相似之處。事實上，現代歷史學者眼中一成不變的蓋爾愛爾蘭，無聲地見證了他們中世紀祖先履行職責的有效性。例如，Dál Cais家族權力的興起不僅劇烈地改寫了他們以前的家譜，也改寫了與維京人作戰的歷史以迎合他們的政治願望，還提供了一個他們的對手很快就能模仿的例子。在這種對歷史的改寫中，基本的政治變化和最近改變的事情經常被投射到遙遠的過去，這樣一來連續性和不變性的錯覺得以維持。在更具體的層面上，一些歷史學家把法學家學究式的擬古主義誤認為是整個社會的常態，在一定程度上不得不將其法律文書（如果在撰寫時還沒有過時的話，也是保守的）當作這一行為的真實記錄。事實上，習慣法確實發生了變化，即使在後來試圖立足於此使舊文本的規則與他們當時的實踐相一致的學派的文本中也能看出這點。至於中世紀後期和近代早期，Mac Niocaill博士指出：儘管古典文獻一如既往地被引用，它們與實際的訴訟和訴訟方式毫無關係。它們在聲明中而非判案中被引用，成為一種有用的擺設，使法官們以一種更平凡和實際的方式處理他們的事物時更具神秘色彩。實際實踐的內容，必須從後來的法律文獻和非法律來源中的附帶參考資料里拼湊出來（如果可能的話）。例如，我們沒有任何文本可以無端地告訴我們國王的合法權力、王室的命令，或者在十一、十二世紀國王的官員的法律職能——即使有，我們也應該極其謹慎地對待它們。同樣可以肯定的是，從我們貧乏的史料中發現這些問題所涉及的詳細艱巨的工作尚未完成，我只能就後來的國王與法官和法律的關係、他們的立法權力以及他們對其臣民財產的權利提出幾點初步的建議。

Professor Warren』s observation that the law was given a certain religious sanction and that this was done to resist pressure for change is perfectly true in its own way but not in the sense in which he intends it. As we have seen, he bases his statement on the prologue of the Senchas már, a document which, as Professor Binchy has shown, was writtenin the beginning of the twelfth century but which incorporates older http://materials.In effect, the prologue is the developed form of a legend relating how the Irish brought their native law into consonance with christianity: those parts of the law that were in conflict with the scripture were discarded; and the revised law is the law of Patrick which no mortal jurist of the Irish may change. An earlier version of the legend occurs in Córus béscna and there it serves the same purpose. As Binchy notes, 『what the compiler of Córus béscna really wanted to emphasise was the perfect compatibility of the Senchas with Christian teaching; he was, in fact, defending the traditional law against attack』. The most spectacular of these attacks came from the Romanist party in the Irish church in the seventh century and from the twelfth century reformers who found much that was objectionable in the Irish law of secular marriage. The prologue to the Senchas már, then, is an apology and a defence of Irish peculiarities in certain limited areas of social life, with which the church reformers concerned themselves, rather than an attempt to invest the whole of ancient legal corpus with the highest religious authority in the land, that of St Patrick, in order to resist legal and institutional changes of a general character.

沃倫教授認為，法律得到了某種宗教上的認可，這樣做是為了抵制某種變革的壓力，這麼說完全正確的，但並不是在他想要表達的意義上。正如我們所見，他的聲明以《偉大傳統》的序言為基礎，正如賓奇教授所言，這份文件寫於十二世紀初，但包含了更古老的內容。實際上，序言是一則傳說的發展形式，講述愛爾蘭人如何使他們的本土法律與基督教相一致：那些與聖經相抵觸的部分被拋棄了；修訂後的法律是帕特里克的法律，愛爾蘭的任何一個凡人法學家都不能改變它。這則傳說的早期版本出現在《Córus béscna》中，在那裡它有著同樣的目的。正如賓奇指出的，「《Córus béscna》的編撰者真正想強調的是傳統與基督教教義的完美兼容；事實上，他是在捍衛傳統法律不受攻擊。」最猛烈的攻擊源自愛爾蘭教會七世紀的羅馬化派別和十二世紀的改革者，他們在愛爾蘭世俗婚姻法中發現了許多令人反感的東西。因此，《偉大傳統》的序言是為教會改革者關心的某些有限社會生活領域的愛爾蘭特性進行辯護，而非試圖將古代法律定為聖帕特里克的土地上的最高權威，以抵制一般性的法律和體制變革。

However, it is likely that there is another and more general reason for the legend of Patrician revision of the laws, for a glance at the annals between the ninth and the twelfth centuries reveals a most interesting development amongst the practitioners of law. Very many of them are churchmen and many are of high standing. The following examples may serve to illustrate the trend:

然而，帕特里克修改法律的傳說很可能還有一個更普遍的原因，看一眼九世紀至十二世紀的編年史，就會發現法律實踐者中最有趣的變化。他們中許多人是教士，地位很高。以下例子可以說明這一趨勢：

AU 802: Ailill m. Cormaicc, abbas Slane, sapiens et iudex optimus obiit.

AFM 887 (884): Colcu mac Connacáin, abb Cinn Ettich, ollam, aurlabbraidh agus senchaidh as deach ro bhui i nErinn ina reimhes [d』écc] （Kinnitty修道院院長，首席詩人，法律的辯護者和他那個時代愛爾蘭最好的歷史學家，Colcu mac Connacáin逝世。）

三個殘片p 210 (=908): 在Belach Mugna戰役中被殺的人有Colmán ，ab Cinn Etigh ard-ollamh brithemnachta Eirenn （Colmán，Kinnitty修道院院長，愛爾蘭法庭最高的首席詩人）

AFM 939 (937); cf AU 939: Finnachta macCeallaigh comharba Doire, epscop agus saoi berla Fene [d』écc]（德里修道院院長，主教和愛爾蘭法學學者Finnachta mac Ceallaigh逝世）

AI 1032: Ailill Hua Flaithim, airchinnech Aird Ferta Brenainn quievit. Ollam Muman a brethamnas hé（Ardfert的erenagh，芒斯特法庭的首席詩人，Ailill Ua Flaithim安息）

AU 1041, AT 1041: Mac Beathad m. Ainmere, ard-ollam Ard Macha & Erenn archena （阿瑪和愛爾蘭的最高首席詩人）；AT進一步補充airdbreatham Aird Macha & tuile eolais Erenn（阿瑪的首席法官和愛爾蘭的知識洪流）

AFM 1095; AI 1095:死於鼠疫的傑出人士包括Hua Mancháin .i. an brethem, comharba Caoimhghin … agus Augustin Ua Cuinn, airdbreithem Laighen （法官，格倫洛達修道院院長Ua Mancháin, i.e······和倫斯特首席法官Augustín Ua Cuinn）；AI將Ua Mancháin描述為do muintir Glinne do Lacha（屬於格倫洛達社區）

AI 1106: In brethem Hua Rebacháin airchinnech Mungarat mortuus est（Mungret的erenagh，法官Ua Rebacháin逝世）

AFM 1158: An breithemh Ua Dúilendáin, airchindech Eassa Dara, ollamb feineachais agus taoiseach a thuaithe d』écc（Ballysadare的erenagh，愛爾蘭法律的首席詩人，他領地的主人，法官Ua Dúilendáin逝世）

（譯者註：AFM：四大師編年史；AU：阿爾斯特編年史；AI：因尼斯法倫編年史）

These annalistic entries are supported by the proverbial sayings: Féineachas hérenn Cluain hUama; bérla Féine hérenn Corcach; brethemnas hérenn Sláine—namely, that the monasteries of Cloyne, Cork, and Slane were famous centres for the study of Irish law.

這些編年史條目得到了諺語的支持：Féineachas hérenn Cluain hUama; bérla Féine hérenn Corcach; brethemnas hérenn Sláine——即，克洛因、科克和斯萊恩的修道院是著名的愛爾蘭法律研究中心。

It is evident then that the practice of the law was much in the hands of clerics and clerical families at this period, and it may be added that, judging by the language and content of some of the earlier legal tracts—Uraicecht becc, Miadshlechta, and others—the churchmen had a powerful influence on legal development at a much earlier date. It is interesting to note the association of cleric and lawyer as late as the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, for the family of Ua Bresléin held dual office as brethem to Maguire and as erenaghs of Derryvullen, though they themselves were relative newcomers to legal practice. It is likely that, given the nature of much of the social content of Irish law and the obvious conflict between it and the christian norms, some of the clergy at least may have had reservations about practising as secular lawyers. It is most probable that the legend of the Patrician revision also served as a justification for their position, and a defence against the attacks of more reform-minded colleagues.

顯然，在這一時期，法律實踐很大程度上掌握在神職人員和神職人員家族手中，可以補充一點的是，從一些早期法律文書——Uraicecht becc、Miadshlechta及其它——的語言和內容來看，教會對最早期法律的發展產生了強大的影響。有趣的是，直到十五、十六世紀，神職人員和法官還相互聯繫，因為Ua Bresléin家族承擔了Maguire的brethem和Derryvullen的erenagh的雙重身份，儘管他們自己是法律實踐的相對新人。鑒於愛爾蘭法律中大部分社會內容的性質以及它與基督教規範之間的明顯衝突，一些神職人員至少可能對當世俗律師保留態度。最有可能的是，「帕特里克修改法律」的傳說也為他們的立場提供了依據，抵禦更具改革思想的同行的攻擊。

推薦閱讀：