狄龙提乌斯案(西元4.8.25)与斯巴达杀人法

David D. Phillips
{"title":"狄龙提乌斯案(西元4.8.25)与斯巴达杀人法","authors":"David D. Phillips","doi":"10.54103/1128-8221/19926","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The prevailing interpretation of the case of Dracontius (X. An. 4.8.25) has long been that Dracontius was exiled from Sparta for unintentional homicide. This paper argues that that interpretation is incorrect. Xenophon’s description of the event indicates that Dracontius intended to strike his victim. Consequently, comparanda including the laws of Athens, of Antiphon’s Tetralogies, and of Plato’s Laws support the conclusion that Dracontius was treated as an intentional killer. The duration of Dracontius’ exile provides further evidence in favor of this position. Strict liability for homicide at Sparta, of the type familiar from the case of Patroclus (Hom. Il. 23.85-88) and from Homeric and Hesiodic epic generally, is contraindicated by the Spartan concern with oliganthrōpia and the violence of the agōgē. Whether Dracontius’ exile was penal or voluntary thus depends on the penalty for intentional homicidein Spartan law. If that penalty was fixed, then in all probability it was fixed at death, and Dracontius fled of his own accord to avoid that punishment. If, however, the penalty was assessable, then Dracontius either was sentenced to exile or fled voluntarily to avoid a possible sentence of death. These two alternative reconstructions of the Spartan law of intentional homicide in turn determine the reconstruction of the law of unintentional homicide, which will have carried a lesser penalty.","PeriodicalId":259453,"journal":{"name":"Dike - Rivista di Storia del Diritto Greco ed Ellenistico","volume":"57 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Case of Dracontius (X. An. 4.8.25) and Spartan Homicide Law\",\"authors\":\"David D. Phillips\",\"doi\":\"10.54103/1128-8221/19926\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The prevailing interpretation of the case of Dracontius (X. An. 4.8.25) has long been that Dracontius was exiled from Sparta for unintentional homicide. This paper argues that that interpretation is incorrect. Xenophon’s description of the event indicates that Dracontius intended to strike his victim. Consequently, comparanda including the laws of Athens, of Antiphon’s Tetralogies, and of Plato’s Laws support the conclusion that Dracontius was treated as an intentional killer. The duration of Dracontius’ exile provides further evidence in favor of this position. Strict liability for homicide at Sparta, of the type familiar from the case of Patroclus (Hom. Il. 23.85-88) and from Homeric and Hesiodic epic generally, is contraindicated by the Spartan concern with oliganthrōpia and the violence of the agōgē. Whether Dracontius’ exile was penal or voluntary thus depends on the penalty for intentional homicidein Spartan law. If that penalty was fixed, then in all probability it was fixed at death, and Dracontius fled of his own accord to avoid that punishment. If, however, the penalty was assessable, then Dracontius either was sentenced to exile or fled voluntarily to avoid a possible sentence of death. These two alternative reconstructions of the Spartan law of intentional homicide in turn determine the reconstruction of the law of unintentional homicide, which will have carried a lesser penalty.\",\"PeriodicalId\":259453,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Dike - Rivista di Storia del Diritto Greco ed Ellenistico\",\"volume\":\"57 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Dike - Rivista di Storia del Diritto Greco ed Ellenistico\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.54103/1128-8221/19926\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dike - Rivista di Storia del Diritto Greco ed Ellenistico","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54103/1128-8221/19926","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

长期以来,对德龙提乌斯(西历4.8.25年)一案的普遍解释是,德龙提乌斯因无意杀人而被逐出斯巴达。本文认为这种解释是不正确的。色诺芬对事件的描述表明德龙提乌斯打算袭击他的受害者。因此,比较包括雅典的法律,安提丰的《四部曲》和柏拉图的《律法》都支持这样的结论,即德拉古提乌斯被视为故意杀人者。德拉科提乌斯被流放的时间为支持这一观点提供了进一步的证据。斯巴达对杀人罪的严格责任,与普特洛克勒斯的案件类似。伊尔书23.85-88),以及荷马史诗和赫西代史诗,都与斯巴达人对oliganthrōpia和agōgē的暴力的关注相抵触。因此,德拉科修斯的流放是出于惩罚还是自愿取决于斯巴达法律对故意杀人罪的处罚。如果这种惩罚是固定的,那么很可能是定在死刑上,德拉孔提乌斯为了避免这种惩罚而自愿逃跑。然而,如果惩罚是可评估的,那么德拉孔提乌斯要么被判处流放,要么自愿逃离以避免可能的死刑判决。斯巴达故意杀人罪法的这两种重构反过来又决定了非故意杀人罪法的重构,后者的刑罚较轻。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Case of Dracontius (X. An. 4.8.25) and Spartan Homicide Law
The prevailing interpretation of the case of Dracontius (X. An. 4.8.25) has long been that Dracontius was exiled from Sparta for unintentional homicide. This paper argues that that interpretation is incorrect. Xenophon’s description of the event indicates that Dracontius intended to strike his victim. Consequently, comparanda including the laws of Athens, of Antiphon’s Tetralogies, and of Plato’s Laws support the conclusion that Dracontius was treated as an intentional killer. The duration of Dracontius’ exile provides further evidence in favor of this position. Strict liability for homicide at Sparta, of the type familiar from the case of Patroclus (Hom. Il. 23.85-88) and from Homeric and Hesiodic epic generally, is contraindicated by the Spartan concern with oliganthrōpia and the violence of the agōgē. Whether Dracontius’ exile was penal or voluntary thus depends on the penalty for intentional homicidein Spartan law. If that penalty was fixed, then in all probability it was fixed at death, and Dracontius fled of his own accord to avoid that punishment. If, however, the penalty was assessable, then Dracontius either was sentenced to exile or fled voluntarily to avoid a possible sentence of death. These two alternative reconstructions of the Spartan law of intentional homicide in turn determine the reconstruction of the law of unintentional homicide, which will have carried a lesser penalty.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信