演说舞台上的雅典民主
|
摘要
本文从表演研究的视角,将雅典政治演说作为一种以交流为目的的公共表演行为,通过在特定演说场合的语境中分析演说的修辞策略,来考察政治家的演说表演对民众政治认知的影响作用。在对多篇最具代表性的德谟斯提尼演说辞进行详细文本分析的基础上,笔者将从四个主要方面阐述这一主题。
在第一章中,首先指出雅典政治演说自身所具有的双重属性,即表演属性和政治属性。从柏拉图和亚里士多德对演说术的认识中,可以看出政治演说双重属性之间存在的张力。在此基础上,进一步讨论德谟斯提尼与埃斯基尼斯在演说中如何面对这种张力,分析他们针对对方演说能力的互相攻击,将这些攻击视为有关演说表演属性的批评话语,从而考察演说表演及其相应批评话语对民众听取演说并形成政治认知的方式所可能产生的影响。
第二章重点分析德谟斯提尼与埃斯基尼斯在诉讼演说中对彼此私人生活所进行的揭示与攻击。笔者从演说修辞目的和雅典民主政治基本原则两个方面,说明政治家展示其私人生活的必要性;并将充分论述,这种私人生活的展示通过公民法庭这一公共演说场合,对民众了解和认识政治家具有非常重要的作用。
第三章则集中关注德谟斯提尼在演说中如何呈现政治事务。笔者将主要分析德谟斯提尼在与埃斯基尼斯进行公共诉讼以及阐述反马其顿政策的过程中所运用的表述方式和修辞策略,并且考察这些修辞策略对雅典民众获知、理解和判断政治事务所可能产生的影响作用。
在第四章中,笔者将重新审视德谟斯提尼演说辞中关于雅典民主政体、政治运作方式、意识形态以及法律与民众权威等方面的议论,分析这些内容在演说中的修辞作用,重在考察德谟斯提尼怎样利用它们来塑造雅典民众在特定演说场合中的政治角色意识,从而影响民众对演说内容的理解以及对政治家提议的选择。
从以上四个方面的分析中,我们将可以看到,在雅典民主政治的特殊历史环境中,政治家的演说表演对民众的政治认知能够产生某些积极的促进作用。因此,在结论部分,笔者将在总结这些促进作用的基础上进一步指出,雅典政治家的演说表演为民众正常地进行政治参与提供了必要的保障,在一定程度上维系着雅典民主政治的持续运作。
From the point of view of performance study, Athenian political oratory can be regarded as a kind of public performance for communication. On this premis, therefore, the author analyzes the rhetorical strategies in the context of particular occasion of speech, in order to investigate how the Athenian politicians' performance of speeches affected the populace's political cognition. This is the very subject of the dissertation. By a thorough analysis of some most typical speeches from Demosthenes, the author chooses four important aspects to expatiate on this subject.
In Chapter One, according to some statements about rhetoric by Plato and Aristotle, the author explains the tension between performantive nature and political nature of Athenian political oratory, and then discusses how Demosthenes and his political rival Aeschines practised their performance of speeches in this tension. By analyzing their mutual attacks on each one's ability to deliver speeches, the author investigates how the rhetorical performantive effect and the critical discourse about it influenced the way in which the Athenian populace listened to the politicians' speeches and whereafter developed political cognition.
In Chapter Two, the author discusses Demosthenes and Aeschines' mutual slanders on each other's private life. In the author's opinion, these slanders can be regarded as a kind of exposition of politicians' personal lives, which was required in accordance with both rhetorical strategies and Athenian democratic principles. Through the litigations in the people's courts, this exposition was important to Athenian common citizens to know their politicians.
In Chapter Three, the author's discussion is focused on Demosthenes' presentation of political affairs. The author analyzes the rhetorical strategies by which Demosthenes demonstrated the political affairs in the litigation with Aeschines and explained his policy against Macedon. The aim of this analysis is to investigate how these rhetorical strategies affected the Athenian populce's knowledge, interpretation and estimation of political affairs.
In Chpater Four, the author gives a new survey of Demosthenes' discussions on Athenian democracy, the pattern of political operation, ideology, and the sovereingty of the laws and the populce. In Demosthenes' speeches, these discussions were also used as rhetorical strategies to mold the populace's counsiousness of political role and influence the way in which the populace interpreted the speeches and choosed the politicians' policies.
After the investigations of these four aspects, we can see that in Athenian democracy the politicians' performance of speeches had a positive affect on the populace's political cognition. In the conclusion of the dissertation, the author makes further the discussion to argue that with this positive affect the politicians' performance of speeches to some extent could ensure the populace's political participation and maintain the continuity of Athenian democracy.
在第一章中,首先指出雅典政治演说自身所具有的双重属性,即表演属性和政治属性。从柏拉图和亚里士多德对演说术的认识中,可以看出政治演说双重属性之间存在的张力。在此基础上,进一步讨论德谟斯提尼与埃斯基尼斯在演说中如何面对这种张力,分析他们针对对方演说能力的互相攻击,将这些攻击视为有关演说表演属性的批评话语,从而考察演说表演及其相应批评话语对民众听取演说并形成政治认知的方式所可能产生的影响。
第二章重点分析德谟斯提尼与埃斯基尼斯在诉讼演说中对彼此私人生活所进行的揭示与攻击。笔者从演说修辞目的和雅典民主政治基本原则两个方面,说明政治家展示其私人生活的必要性;并将充分论述,这种私人生活的展示通过公民法庭这一公共演说场合,对民众了解和认识政治家具有非常重要的作用。
第三章则集中关注德谟斯提尼在演说中如何呈现政治事务。笔者将主要分析德谟斯提尼在与埃斯基尼斯进行公共诉讼以及阐述反马其顿政策的过程中所运用的表述方式和修辞策略,并且考察这些修辞策略对雅典民众获知、理解和判断政治事务所可能产生的影响作用。
在第四章中,笔者将重新审视德谟斯提尼演说辞中关于雅典民主政体、政治运作方式、意识形态以及法律与民众权威等方面的议论,分析这些内容在演说中的修辞作用,重在考察德谟斯提尼怎样利用它们来塑造雅典民众在特定演说场合中的政治角色意识,从而影响民众对演说内容的理解以及对政治家提议的选择。
从以上四个方面的分析中,我们将可以看到,在雅典民主政治的特殊历史环境中,政治家的演说表演对民众的政治认知能够产生某些积极的促进作用。因此,在结论部分,笔者将在总结这些促进作用的基础上进一步指出,雅典政治家的演说表演为民众正常地进行政治参与提供了必要的保障,在一定程度上维系着雅典民主政治的持续运作。
From the point of view of performance study, Athenian political oratory can be regarded as a kind of public performance for communication. On this premis, therefore, the author analyzes the rhetorical strategies in the context of particular occasion of speech, in order to investigate how the Athenian politicians' performance of speeches affected the populace's political cognition. This is the very subject of the dissertation. By a thorough analysis of some most typical speeches from Demosthenes, the author chooses four important aspects to expatiate on this subject.
In Chapter One, according to some statements about rhetoric by Plato and Aristotle, the author explains the tension between performantive nature and political nature of Athenian political oratory, and then discusses how Demosthenes and his political rival Aeschines practised their performance of speeches in this tension. By analyzing their mutual attacks on each one's ability to deliver speeches, the author investigates how the rhetorical performantive effect and the critical discourse about it influenced the way in which the Athenian populace listened to the politicians' speeches and whereafter developed political cognition.
In Chapter Two, the author discusses Demosthenes and Aeschines' mutual slanders on each other's private life. In the author's opinion, these slanders can be regarded as a kind of exposition of politicians' personal lives, which was required in accordance with both rhetorical strategies and Athenian democratic principles. Through the litigations in the people's courts, this exposition was important to Athenian common citizens to know their politicians.
In Chapter Three, the author's discussion is focused on Demosthenes' presentation of political affairs. The author analyzes the rhetorical strategies by which Demosthenes demonstrated the political affairs in the litigation with Aeschines and explained his policy against Macedon. The aim of this analysis is to investigate how these rhetorical strategies affected the Athenian populce's knowledge, interpretation and estimation of political affairs.
In Chpater Four, the author gives a new survey of Demosthenes' discussions on Athenian democracy, the pattern of political operation, ideology, and the sovereingty of the laws and the populce. In Demosthenes' speeches, these discussions were also used as rhetorical strategies to mold the populace's counsiousness of political role and influence the way in which the populace interpreted the speeches and choosed the politicians' policies.
After the investigations of these four aspects, we can see that in Athenian democracy the politicians' performance of speeches had a positive affect on the populace's political cognition. In the conclusion of the dissertation, the author makes further the discussion to argue that with this positive affect the politicians' performance of speeches to some extent could ensure the populace's political participation and maintain the continuity of Athenian democracy.
引文
1 Plutarch,Demosthenes,V,1-2.
2 Aristotle,Rhetoric,I,1358b6.
3 尤尼斯(Yunis)指出,德谟斯提尼之成为政治家,相比于其他政治家,更主要地依赖演说能力,因为他没有军事才能,未曾担任过将军之职,也并非出身于贵族家庭。见Harvey Yunis,Taming Democracy:Models of Political Rhetoric in Classical Athens,Comell University Press,1996,p.239.
4 本文使是2006年的新版英文译本:Nicole,Loraux,The Invention of Athens:The Funeral Oration in the Classical City,translated by Alan Sheridan,Zone Books,2006.
5 Nicole,Loraux,The Invention of Athens:The Funeral Oration in the Classical City,pp.13-14.
6 Nicole,Loraux,The Invention of Athens:The Funeral Oration in the Classical City,p.40.
7 Nicole,Loraux,The Invention of Athens:The Funeral Oration in the Classical City,p.42,p.418.
8 西方学者对演说与雅典民主政治这一论题的关注,可以说是以芬利(Finley)于1962年发表的一篇重要论文《雅典民众领袖》为开端的。芬利注意到掌握演说术对于政治家获得领袖地位所起到的关键作用,同时,主要从制度角度讨论了演说在雅典民主政治各主要机构运作中的核心地位。见M.I.Finley,“Athenian Demagogues”,Past and Present,No.21(Apr.,1962),pp.3-24。芬利本文具有开创意义,而关于演说与雅典民主政治更为深入的研究,则需建立在对存世演说辞进行充分利用的基础之上,从20世纪80年代开始,西方学者在这方面取得了很大的进展。
9 Josiah Ober,Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens:Rhetoric,Ideology and the Power of the People,Princeton:Princeton University Press,1989,p.42.
10 Josiah Ober,Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens:Rhetoric,Ideology and the Power of the People,pp.40-44.
11 欧博尔的详细论述,见Josiah Ober,Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens:Rhetoric,Ideology and the Power of the People,pp.182-191,pp.240-247,pp.226-230.
12 Josiah Ober,Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens:Rhetoric,Ideology and the Power of the People,p.45.
13 Harvey Yunis,Taming Democracy:Models of Political Rhetoric in Classical Athens,Cornell University Press,1996,p.12.
14 Harvey Yunis,Taming Democracy:Models of Political Rhetoric in Classical Athens,pp.1-2.
15 参见尤尼斯的论文:Harvey Yunis,“How do the People Decide?Thucydides on Periclean Rhetoric and Civic Instruction”,The American Journal of Philology,Vol.112,No.2(Summer,1991),pp.179-200.
16 Harvey Yunis,Taming Democracy:Models of Political Rhetoric in Classical Athens,p.32.
17 Harvey Yunis,Taming Democracy:Models of Political Rhetoric in Classical Athens,p.35.
18 二人的著作分别是:Matthew R.Christ,The Litigious Athenian,The Johns Hopkins University Press,1998;Steven Johnstone,Disputes and Democracy:The Consequences of Litigation in Ancient Athens,The University of Texas Press,1999.
19 Ian Worthington ed.Persuasion:Greek Rhetoric in Action,Routledge,1994,p.viii.
20 Josiah Ober,“Power and Oratory in Democratic Athens:Demosthenes 21,Against Meidias”,Ian Worthington,ed.,Persuasion:Greek Rhetoric in Action,pp.85-108.
21 分别为:Victor Bers,“Tragedy and Rhetoric”,Ian Worthington,ed.,Persuasion:Greek Rhetoric in Action,pp.176-195;Philip Harding,“Comedy and Rhetoric”,Ian Worthington,ed.,Persuasion:Greek Rhetoric in Action,pp.196-221.
22 晏绍祥:《演说家与希腊城邦政治》,《历史研究》,2006年第6期,第151-166页。
23 蒋保:《演说与雅典民主政治》,《历史研究》,2006年第6期,第138-150页。
24 蒋保:《试论雅典演说的政治功能》,《江西社会科学》,2008年第9期,第160-164页。
25 杨巨平、王志超:《试论演说家与雅典民主政治的互动》,《世界历史》,2007年第4期,第24-32页。
26 Josiah Ober,The Athenian Revolution:Essays on Ancient Greek Democracy and Political Theory,Princeton University Press,1996,p.4.
27 Josiah Ober,The Athenian Revolution:Essays on Ancient Greek Democracy and Political Theory,p.11.
28 Josiah Ober,“Power and Oratory in Democratic Athens:Demosthenes 21,Against Meidias”,The Athenian Revolution:Essays on Ancient Greek Democracy and Political Theory,p.104.29 Josiah Ober.The Athenian Revolution:Essays on Ancient Greek Democracy and Political Theory.p.8.
30 国内古希腊史学界尚未对表演研究给予关注,但是民俗学界已经注意这种重要的研究方法,并且开始译介相关著作,关于表演研究的基本理论,可以参见:[美]理查德·鲍曼(Richard Bauman):《作为表演的口头艺术》(Verbal Art as Performance),杨利慧、安德明译,广西师范大学出版社,2008年。
31 Simon Goldhill & Robin Osborne,eds.,Performance Culture and Athenian Democracy,Cambridge University Press,1999,pp.11-15.
32 Simon Goldhill,“Literary History without Literature:Reading Practices in the Ancient World”,SubStance,Vol.
28,No.1,Issue 88:Special Issue:Literary History.(1999),pp.57-89.
33 Jon Hesk,Deception and Democracy in Classical Athens,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2000,pp.4-5;并且参见John Hesk,“The Rhetoric of Anti-Rhetoric in Athenian Oratory”,Simon Goldhill & Robin Osborne,eds.Performance Culture and Athenian Democracy,Cambridge University Press,1999,p.230.
34 Josiah Ober,Democracy and Knowledge:Innovation and Learning in Classical Athens,Princeton University Press,2008,pp.183-194.
35 1986年召开的卡内基认知学年会即以“政治认知”作为主题,对这种研究趋势进行了全面的总结,参见此次会议的论文集:Richard R.Lau & David O.Sears,eds.,The 19th Annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition:Political Cognition,Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Inc.,1986.
36 德谟斯提尼吸引了许多西方学者的注意力,2000年,沃亭顿主编《德谟斯提尼:政治家与演说家》(Ian Worthington,ed.,Demosthenes:Statesman & Orator,Routledge,2000)一书,比较全面地反映了最近西方学者关于德谟斯提尼的研究,该书的多篇论文涉及德谟斯提尼的生平、政治活动与演说术,同时还讨论了德谟斯提尼的演说辞在社会史研究中的运用,并且综述了德谟斯提尼研究的学术史。而且,最近几年,西方学者对德谟斯提尼的演说辞也给予了更多的关注,相继出版了某些重要演说辞的注疏本与英译本,同时,迪尔茨(Dilts)也在对德谟斯提尼演说辞的希腊文本进行重新校勘,新的校勘本已经陆续出版。笔者所使用的德谟斯提尼演说辞希腊文本即主要依据迪尔茨的新校勘本,新校勘本中尚未出版的演说辞则依据洛布古典丛书(Loeb Classical Library),详见本文参考文献。
37 分别是《诉阿弗波斯之一》(Against Aphobus I)、《诉阿弗波斯之二》(Against Aphobus I)和《诉奥内托尔之一》(Against Aphobus I),参见本文附录。
38 分别是《诉勒普提尼斯》(Against Leptines)、《诉安德洛提翁》(Against Androtion)和《诉提谟克拉特》(Against Timocrates),参见本文附录。
39 7篇公民大会演说辞分别是3篇《反腓力辞》(Philippic Ⅰ,Philippic Ⅱ,Philippic Ⅲ)、3篇《奥林图斯辞》(Olynthiac Ⅰ,Olynthiac Ⅱ,Olynthiac Ⅲ)和《论和平》(On the Peace);3篇公共诉讼演说辞分别是《诉美狄亚斯》(Against Meidias)、《使团辞》(On the False Embassy)和《金冠辞》(On the Crown),参见本文附录。
40 埃斯基尼斯的演说辞分别是《诉提马库斯》(Against Timarchus)、《论使团》(On the Embassy)和《诉科忒西丰》(Against Ctesiphon),参见本文附录。
41 参见 Pat Easterling,“Actors and Voices:Reading between the Lines in Aeschines and Demosthenes”,Simon Goldhill and Robin Osborne,ed.,Performance Culture and Athenian Democracy,pp.154-166;Anne Duncan,“Demosthene versus Aeschines:The Rhetoric of Sincerity”,Performance and Identity in the Classical World,Cambridge University Press,2006,pp.58-89;Edith Hall,“Lawcourt Dramas:Acting and Performance in Legal Oratory”,The Theatrical Cast of Athens:Interactions between Ancient Greek Drama and Society,2006,pp.353-392.
42 例如:Raphael Sealey,Demosthenes and His Time:A Study in Defeat,Oxford University Press,1993;Edward M.Harris,Aeschines and Athenian Politics,New York:Oxford,Oxford University Press,1995;T.T.B.Ryder,“Demosthenes and Philip Ⅱ”,Ian Worthington,ed.,Demosthenes:Statesman and Orator,pp.45-89;John Buckler,“Demosthene and Aeschines”,Ian Worthington,ed.,Demosthenes:Statesman and Orator,pp.114-158.
43 关于雅典民众的政治角色意识,法伦加(Farenga)曾经给予特别的关注,他使用“脚本”(script)概念来指称雅典公民在城邦生活中扮演不同政治角色所遵循的一系列行为模式,但是他的讨论对象以古风时代和公元前5世纪的文献为主,很少涉及公元前4世纪的演说辞,而且并未集中于诉讼演说和公民大会演说进行充分的论述。参见其专著:Vincent Farenga,Citizen and Self in Ancient Greece:Individuals Performing Justice and the Law,Cambridge University Press,2006.
44 Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),189.
45 关于logos的其它各种含义,参见Michael Gagarin,“Probablity and Persuasion:Plato and Early Greek Rhetoric”,in Ian Worthington ed.Persuasion:Greek Rhetoric in Action,Routledge,1994,pp.46-47.
46 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),184.
47[Aristotle],Rhetoric to Alexander,I,1421b5-10.
48 Aristotle,Rhetoric,I,1354b22-23,1358a35-b8.
49 Aristotle,Rhetoric,I,1358b6.
50 法国学者Nicole Loraux曾经对雅典公共葬礼演说进行过深入的研究。关于葬礼演说所属类型的问题,Loraux指出,它不是纯粹以表演为目的的“展示性演说”,而是兼具政治功能。见The Ivention of Athens:The Funeral Oration in the Classical City,translated by Alan Sheridan,Zone Books,2006(first edition in English 1993,original edition in French 1981),p.120.
51 Plato,Symposium,185c-d.
52 Plato,Gorgias,449a.
53 可以参见汉森(Hansen)与欧博尔关于rh(?)t(?)r含义的讨论,汉森尤其特别指出,在公元前4世纪,由于专业技能的分化,政治家一般不能像公元前5世纪的伯里克利那样,兼rh(?)t(?)r与“将军”身份于一身,因此,汉森认为,公元前4世纪的政治家包括rh(?)t(?)r与将军两类人。见Mogens Herman Hansen,The Athenian Assembly in the Age of Demosthenes,Oxford:Blackwell,1987,pp.50-54。欧博尔的论述见Josiah Ober,Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens:Rhetoric,Ideology and the Power of the People,Princeton:Princeton University Press,1989,pp.105-108,p.110。另外参见Harvey Yunis,Taming Democracy:Models of Political Rhetoric in Classical Athens,Comell University Press,1996,p.10。国内学者关于rh(?)t(?)r政治身份的讨论,参见黄洋:《雅典民主政治新论》,《世界历史》,1994年第1期,第64页;晏绍祥:《演说家与希腊城邦政治》,《历史研究》,2006年第6期,第151—166页;蒋保:《演说与雅典民主政治》,《历史研究》,2006年第6期,第148页;杨巨平、王志超:《试论演说家与雅典民主政治的互动》,《世界历史》,2007年第4期,第24-32页。
54 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),170.
55 Plato,The Statesman,303e-304a.
56 Plato,Gorgias,48a-e,462b;Plato,Phaedrus,267b.
57 Aristotle,Rhetoric,I,1354a12.
58 目前一般认为,《亚历山大修辞学》的作者是兰普萨库斯的阿那克西美尼(Anaximenes of Lampsacus),见P.Chiron,“The Rhetoric to Alexander”,Ian Worthington,ed.,A Companion to Greek Rhetoric,Blackwell,2007,p.90。另外可以参见:Edward Schiappa,“Did Plato Coin Rhetorike”,The American Journal of Philology,Vol.111,No.4.(1990),p.460;Charles T.Murphy,“Aristophanes and the Art of Rhetoric”,Harvard Studies in Classical Philology,Vol.49.(1938),p.70.
59 从存世文献中看,rh(?)torik(?)一词应该是柏拉图的发明,最早出现于《高尔吉亚》篇,时间约为公元前380年代,此前的任何文献中均无该词,此后也并未出现普遍使用的迹象。它似乎只在柏拉图学派内部沿用,最终在亚里士多德那里成为一个学术门类的名称,中文一般译作“修辞学”。本文论述中则将该词译作“演说术”,以更贴近其词源,同时不失亚里士多德使用该词的学术性。但在涉及亚里士多德的同名著作时,仍写作“《修辞学》”。关于rh(?)torik(?)的起源,参见Edward Schiappa,“Did Plato Coin Rhetorike”,pp.457-470.
60 Plato,Protagoras,312b.
61 Eugene Garver,Aristotle's Rhetoric:An Art of Character,The University of Chicago Press,1994,pp.19-20.
62 Aristotle,Rhetoric,Ⅱ,1402a17-24,其中“无理变有理”的译文采用颜一、秦典华译本,见苗力田主编《亚里士多德全集》,第九卷,中国人民大学出版社,1994年,第488页。
63 Plato,Gorgias,452e,456d,466b-c.
64 将政治演说与诗人或戏剧竞赛相比,见Plato,Phaedrus,258b;将政治演说与体育竞技相比,见Plato,Gorgias,456c-457b;Plato,Euthydemus,271c-272b.
65 ekkl(?)siastai来源于ekkl(?)sia,后者指雅典民主政体中的公民大会,全体雅典成年男性公民均可参加,所以ekkl(?)siastai在民主制雅典被视为全体雅典民众(d(?)mos),公民大会也常称为d(?)mos。
66 Aristotle,Rhetoric,Ⅰ,1358b2-5,Ⅱ,1377b21-22.
67 关于民主制雅典公民法庭与公民大会的表决方式,参见Mogens Herman Hansen,The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes:Structure,Principles and Ideology,p.175,p.202.
68 尽管在诗歌戏剧竞赛和体育竞技中有专门的裁判员,但是现场观众对表演者的胜负具有决定权,这就是柏拉图所谓“观众的权威”(theatrokratia),见Plato,Laws,701a.
69 关于政治演说与戏剧表演和体育竞技的相似性,参见Harvey Yunis,Taming Democracy:Models of Political Rhetoric in Classical Athens,pp.180-188.
70 关于演说听众的主动地位,参见Simon Goldhill & Robin Osborne,eds.,Performance Culture and Athenian Democracy,p.9;演说者与听众互动关系的充分发展,形成人们对这种关系本身的认识,戈德希尔称之为“元话语”,在此前提下,他认为雅典民主制对表演文化中各种表演行为(如演说和戏剧等)的发展具有促进作用,参见Simon Goldhill,“Literary History without Literature:Reading Practices in the Ancient World”,SubStance,Vol.28,No.1,Issue 88:Special Issue:Literary History.(1999),pp.63-68;关于雅典民主制与戏剧的关系,参见Simon Goldhill,“The Great Dionysia and Civic Ideology”,The Journal of Hellenic Studies,Vol.107.(1987),p.62.
71 戈德希尔将ag(?)n作为概括古希腊表演文化的四个核心术语之一,见Simon Goldhill & Robin Osborne,eds.,Performance Culture and Athenian Democracy,p.2.
72 Aristotle,Rhetoric,Ⅰ,1354a11-26.
73 Aristotle,Rhetoric,Ⅱ,1377b13-28.
74 Aristotle,Rhetoric,Ⅱ,1377b28-1378a5.
75 Aristotle,Rhetoric,Ⅰ,1354b22-31.
76 我们可以参见亚里士多德在《诗学》中对情感手段的论述,他在《诗学》中论述戏剧表演时,对情感手段的合理性及重要性给予了特别的强调与阐发,见Aristotle,Poetics,Ⅵ,1449b24-28,ⅩⅢ,1452b28ff,ⅩⅧ,1455b34-35。可见,情感手段在演说与戏剧之间是共通的,是一般意义上的表演行为所具有的特征。这也可以佐证,作为演说技艺的情感手段体现了演说的表演属性。另外,哈丁(Harding)指出,雅典政治演说与戏剧表演的听众具有相似的心理状态,在这一心理层面,政治演说与戏剧表演存在着相似性,见P.Harding,“Rhetoric and Politics in Fourth-Century Athens”,Phoenix,Vol.41,No.1.(1987),p.32。关于亚里士多德在《修辞学》和《诗学》中对“情感”手段的分别论述,参见Christoper Gill,“The Ethos/Pathos Distinction in Rhetorical and Literary Criticism”,The Classcial Quarterly,New Series,Vol.34,No.1.(1984),pp.154-155.
77 Aristotle,Rhetoric,Ⅰ,1354a26-31.
78[Aristotle],Rhetoric to Alexander,Ⅳ,1427a1-5;Ⅶ,1428a35-b10.
79 Antiphon 5(On the Murder of Herodes),73.
80 Antiphon 5(On the Murder of Herodes),71.
81 在雅典的私人诉讼中,诉辩双方各被允许进行两次演说,在案件涉及5000德拉克马以上的金额时,第一次演说时间为30分钟,第二次为9分钟,参见MacDowell,trans.,Demosthenes:Speeches 27-38,University of Texas Press,2004,p.40.
82 一般情况下,在诉讼演说中,被告更多的祈求陪审员的怜悯,但是,在德谟斯提尼的这两篇诉讼演说辞中,他作为原告却尤其强调陪审员的怜悯,是非常特别的案例,大概是与德谟斯提尼当时的处境有关。关于诉讼演说中祈求陪审员怜悯的现象,参见Steven Johnstone,Disputes and Democracy:The Consequences of Litigation in Ancient Athens,The University of Texas Press,1999,pp.111-114.
83 关于祈求陪审员的同情与怜悯,如Demosthenes 27(Against Aphobus Ⅰ),45,53,65,66,68;Demosthenes 28(Against Aphobus Ⅱ),18;关于要求陪审员对阿弗波斯的愤怒,如Demosthenes 27(Against Aphobus Ⅰ),63;
84 Demosthenes 27(Against Aphobus Ⅰ),63.
85 Demosthenes 27(Against Aphobus Ⅰ),69.
86 Demosthenes 28(Against Aphobus Ⅱ),16.
87 Demosthenes 27(Against Aphobus Ⅰ),47.
88 Aristotle,Rhetoric,Ⅰ,1357b7-9,tekm(?)rion是一个难以翻译的概念,其本义是“表征”,从亚里士多德的解释来看,它包含了论证、证明以及得出肯定结论的全部过程,笔者姑且译作“论证”,颜一将此处的tekm(?)rion 译作“证据”,笔者认为易与marturos相混淆,故不采用。见《亚里士多德全集》,第九卷,苗力田主编,中国人民大学出版社,1994年,第343页。
89 Demosthenes 28(Against Aphobus Ⅱ),2,引文中epideiksomen为第一人称复数形式,在诉讼演说中,当事人往往以第一人称复数自称,表示自己一方的行为。
90 Demosthenes 28(Against Aphobus Ⅱ),23.91 Aristotle,Rhetoric,Ⅰ,1354a13-16. 92 Thucydides,History of the Peloponnesian War,Ⅲ.38.7. 93 Thucydides,History of the Peloponnesian War,Ⅲ.38.5,赫斯克详细分析了密提林辩论中克里昂与对手迪奥
18 二人的著作分别是:Matthew R.Christ,The Litigious Athenian,The Johns Hopkins University Press,1998;
94 Plato,Symposium,198c1-5.
95 Aristotle,Rhetoric,I,1359b19-1360a37.
96 Aeschines 1(Against Timarchus),64.
97 Josiah Ober,Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens:Rhetoric,Ideology and the Power of the People,Princeton:Princeton University Press,1989,pp.108-112.
98 Aeschines 1.7,关天“rh(?)t(?)r资格审查”的详细内容,参见第二章第一节。
99 Josiah Ober,Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens:Rhetoric,Ideology and the Power of the People,p.110.
100 Mogens Herman Hansen,The Athenian Assembly in the Age of Demosthenes,Oxford:Blackwell,1987,p.55.
101 Aristotle,The Athenian Constitution,LV.
102 Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),189,引文中sumpherein humin本义是“为了你们的利益”,其中“你
103 Demosthenes 3(Olynthiac Ⅲ),21.
104 Demosthenes 22(Against Androtion),4.
105 Demosthenes 22(Against Androtion),11.
106 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),200.
107 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),35.
108 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),16,另见Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),202,两处说法完全相同。
109 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),246;Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),200,202,215.
110 logographos还可以指“散文作家”和“史话作家”,欧博尔曾经分析修昔底德著作中对该词的使用,他指出,在修昔底德那里,logographos兼具“散文作家”、“史话作家”与“演说辞作者”的含义,因此,欧博尔倾向于认为,logographos的不同含义之间不存在完全的区别。同时,欧博尔对logographos一词从“散文作家”和“史话作家”向“演说辞作者”的转义过程也进行了概述。见Josiah Ober,Political Dissent in Democratic Athens:Intellectual Critics of Popular Rule,Princeton University Press,1998,p.55。另外,关于“演说辞作者”的产生,参见C.Carey and R.A.Reid,eds,Demosthenes:Selected Private Speeches,Cambridge University Press,1985,p.14.
111 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon).220.
112 Aeschines 1(Against Timarchus),173-175.
113 Josiah Ober,Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens:Rhetoric,Ideology and the Power of the People,pp.190-191.
114 Josiah Ober,Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens:Rhetoric,Ideology and the Power of the People,pp.170-174.
115 John Hesk,“The Rhetoric of Anti-Rhetoric in Athenian Oratory”,Simon Goldhill & Robin Osborne,eds.Performance Culture and Athenian Democracy,Cambridge University Press,1999,pp.211-218.
116 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),206.
117 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),207;关于用“巫师”和“魔法”来批评演说技艺的表述方式,参见赫斯克的论述,John Hesk,“The Rhetoric of Anti-Rhetoric in Athenian Oratory”,Simon Goldhill & Robin Osborne,eds.Performance Culture and Athenian Democracy,Cambridge University Press,1999,pp.212.
118 Aeschines 2(On the Embassy),130.
119 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),208.
120 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),16.
121 埃斯基尼斯在《诉提马库斯》中关于城邦法律地位的阐释,参见第四章第一节。
122 Aeschines 1(Against Timarchus),3;Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),9.
123 关于“适中”,例如Aeschines 1(Against Timarchus),3;Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),9;关于“简短”,例如Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),9,17;关于“易于领会”,例如Aeschines 1(Against Timarchus),8.
124 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),217-218;关于埃斯基尼斯对“演说”与“生活”对应关系的表述,详见第二章第一节。
125 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),220.
126 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),229;引文中所谓“笛子”(aulos),是古希腊的一种管乐,依靠簧片发声,在古希腊语中,这种簧片与舌头均称为gl(?)tta,因此才有埃斯基尼斯的这一比喻。
127 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon).220.
128 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),202.
129 Aeschines 1(Against Timarchus),173.
130 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),220.
131 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),13.
132 赫斯克也曾注意到,在雅典人的观念中,rh(?)t(?)r对演说技艺的运用不能超出is(?)goria的限度,见John Hesk,“The Rhetoric of Anti-Rhetoric in Athenian Oratory”,Simon Goldhill & Robin Osborne,eds.Performance Culture and Athenian Democracy,p.215.
133 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),13.
134 例如:Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),66,69,101,172,190,192,209;关于这种自称的作用,参见Harvey Yunis,Taming Democracy:Models of Political Rhetoric in Classical Athens,pp.272-273.
135 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),169-179,引文中humas(你们)指雅典民众。关于德谟斯提尼这段描述的详细分析,参见Harvey Yunis,Taming Democracy:Models of Political Rhetoric in Classical Athens,pp.268-277,尤尼斯认为,德谟斯提尼可能是在模仿修昔底德对伯里克利的描绘,甚至有意将自己塑造为一个“救世主”的形象,另见Harvey Yunis,ed.,Demosthenes:On the Crown,Cambridge University Press,2001,p.207.
136 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),189.
137 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),308.
135 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),196.
139 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),198.
140 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),308.
141 hupokrisis是动词hupokrinomai的名词形式,hupokrinomai本义是“回答”,被用以指称戏剧表演中演员间的唱和,也就是演员把剧本搬演上舞台的意思,因此,名词hupokrisis成为戏剧表演的专门术语,用于演说领域则可以相当于“朗诵”。西方学者一般认为,这种演说朗诵其实是背诵,并非手持演说辞的朗读,但是汉森表示怀疑,参见Mogens Herman Hansen,The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes:Structure,Principles and Ideology,translated by J.A.Crook,Blackwell,1990,p.142.
142 Aristotle,Rhetoric,Ⅲ,1403b31-1404a3,其中“城邦公民们的缺点”(t(?)n mokhtherian t(?)n polit(?)n)可以引申为“城邦政体的缺点”。参见《亚里士多德全集》,第九卷,第494页;《罗念生全集》,第一卷,第304页。
143 Plutarch,Demosthenes,6.3-7.3.
144[Plutarch],Lives of the Ten Orators,845a-b.
145 德谟斯提尼对埃斯基尼斯嗓音与朗诵技巧的批评,近年来特别引起研究古希腊表演文化的西方学者的关注,对这些批评进行分析的论著如:Pat Easterling,“Actors and Voices:Reading between the Lines in Aeschines and Demosthenes”,Simon Goldhill and Robin Osborne,ed.,Performance Culture and Athenian Democracy,pp.154-166;Anne Duncan,“Demosthene versus Aeschines:The Rhetoric of Sincerity”,Performance and Identity in the Classical World,Cambridge University Press,2006,pp.58-89。这些分析主要关注古希腊戏剧表演对政治演说的影响,伊斯特林(Easterling)的研究涉及戏剧演员与政治家在社会地位与社会活动范围中的联系;邓肯(Duncan)还特别分析了普鲁塔克在《德谟斯提尼传》中的描写,邓肯认为,普鲁塔克有意将德谟斯提尼与戏剧表演紧密联系在一起。另外,霍尔(Hall)也比较全面的从表演形式的角度讨论了古希腊戏剧表演对政治演说的影响,见Edith Hall,“Lawcourt Dramas:Acting and Performance in Legal Oratory”,The Theatrical Cast of Athens:Interactions between Ancient Greek Drama and Society,2006,pp.353-392。笔者在下文的分析中主要关注的则是rh(?)t(?)r的演说表演与其政治职责之间的关系。
146 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),206-208.
147 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),336-337.
148 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),339.
149 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),306-308.
150 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),280.
151 ta beltista legein的表述方式,在演说辞中经常出现,即指政治家提出最好的政治建议,例如Demosthenes 3(Olynthiac Ⅲ),11,12,18;Demosthenes 9(Philippic Ⅲ),2,56,63.
152 赫斯克将rh(?)t(?)r之间关于彼此演说技艺的攻击称为“反修辞的修辞”(rhetoric of anti-rhetoric),赫斯克认为,这种“反修辞的修辞”可以强化民众对rh(?)t(?)r的警惕与怀疑,赫斯克甚至将它引申至民众对自身统治地位的关注。见John Hesk,“The Rhetoric of Anti-Rhetoric in Athenian Oratory”,Simon Goldhill & Robin Osborne,eds.Performance Culture and Athenian Democracy,p.230。笔者的分析则主要集中在演说表演本身,推测rh(?)t(?)r之间的这种攻击对其演说表演以及听众的认知能力所可能造成的影响。
153 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),227.
154 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),174.
155 财产税称为eisphora,公益捐助称为leitourgia,主要包括战舰捐助和合唱队捐助两项。
本章即以德谟斯提尼与埃斯基尼斯在诉讼演说中关于彼此私人生活的展示
为重点考察对象,首先阐明雅典民主制度和观念对这种展示的要求,以及这种展
示本身所处的具体修辞语境,并且详细列举和分析德谟斯提尼与埃斯基尼斯展示
私人生活的内容及方式;其次,第二节专门讨论他们如何在诉讼场合中表述彼此
之间的人际关系,这是私人生活展示的重要组成部分之一;最后在第三节试图论
述政治家私人生活的展示在雅典民众的政治认知方面可能具有的社会功能,政治
家在将这种展示诉求于社会舆论的同时,也在强调着这种展示对社会舆论的影响
作用。
第一节 “砌砌资格审查”:从制度到修辞
从演说辞证据来看,政治家有必要公开展示自己的私人生活以证明品格高
尚,这在雅典民主政体中似乎是一种制度要求,即所谓“rh~t6r资格审查”
(dokimasia rh~tor6n)。前文曾经论及(第一章第二节),关于这一制度的表述,
很大程度上可能是出于将rh~t6r进行“公职化”的观念,而该制度在实际中的执
行情况,其实并无直接而确定的证据。但是,无论“rh~t6r资格审查”是一项确
实得以执行的制度还是一种观念倾向,它都是对政治家进行提议演说的制约,是
将政治家的公共政治行为与其私人生活紧密联结在一起的一种制约方式。这就为
政治家在法庭诉讼场合展示私人生活的合理性提供了保证。
156 Aeschines 1(Against Timarchus),19-20.
157 Aeschines 2(On the Embassy),182.
158 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),69.
159 同样,要终止一位政治家的公共影响力,雅典人往往采取将其逐出城邦的方式。
160 Aeschines 2(On the Embassy),23.
160 Dinarchus 1(Against Demosthenes),70-71.
162 Aeschines 1(Against Timarchus),28-30.
163 Demosthenes 22(Against Androtion),30-32.
164 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),162:埃斯基尼斯将阿里斯通与德谟斯提尼二人称为paskh(?)n与pratt(?)n,这两个分词构成一组对应关系,pratt(?)n是“获取”的意思,表示施加行为的主动方,而paskh(?)n指“接受”,表示行为的被施加者,在埃斯基尼斯《诉提马库斯》中它们的不定式形式paskhein和prattein分别用来指称提马库斯在出卖肉体时与其客人米斯格拉斯的各自行为,是一种隐晦的说法,见Aeschines 1.41。关于同性恋问题,以赞颂同性之爱为主旨的柏拉图《会饮》篇却也透露出雅典民众对同性恋的反感,父亲们会让奴隶严格监护男孩子,不准他们接近“爱人”(tois erastais),见Plato,Symposium,183c4-d2,其中,tois erastais 指同性恋中的主动方,而男孩子是“被爱者”(tois er(?)menois)。黄洋曾经指出,虽然男性同性恋得到雅典人允许甚至赞同,但是男妓出卖肉体的行为却为法律所禁止。见黄洋:《从同性恋透视古代希腊社会——一 项历史学的分析》,《世界历史》,1998年第5期,第75页。
165 其实,如果德谟斯提尼的说法属实,本可以直接提起关于安德洛提翁提议资格的起诉,或者被告早已被取消了政治提议演说的资格。这一道理德谟斯提尼本人也是懂得的,在后来德谟斯提尼反驳埃斯基尼斯对提马库斯的指控时,也曾指出同样的矛盾性:提马库斯长期从事公民大会提议演说的事实可以证明埃斯基尼斯的控告是虚假的,见Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),286。而且,在《诉安德洛提翁》中,德谟斯提尼对安德洛提翁私人生活的攻击除了后者曾为男妓之外,还有其父是城邦债务人(Demosthenes 22.33-34),哈丁认为这两项如果属实,安德洛提翁的公民权则将不保,他因此指出,这些攻击纯属编造,见Harding,“Comedy and Rhetoric”,Ian Worthington,ed.,Persuasion:Greek Rhetoric in Action,Routledge,1994,pp.212-213.
166 Demosthenes 22(Against Androtion),61.
167 存世的吕西阿斯(Lysias)第十和十一篇演说辞(Against The omnestos Ⅰ,Ⅱ)就是有关dik(?) kakagorias的演说辞。参见托德(Todd)的导论与注疏,同时托德还讨论了aporr(?)ta的问题,见S.C.Todd,A Commentary on Lysias,Speeches 1-11,Oxford University Press,2007,pp.631-635.
168 Aeschines 1(Against Timarchus),11.
169 Aeschines 1(Against Timarchus),7,9-11.
170 Aeschines 1(Against Timarchus),39.
171 在赫斯克看来,演说辞中对(?)thos和phusis的强调,以及用它们来针对演说者的演说技艺的做法,是一种“反修辞的修辞”,见John Hesk,“The Rhetoric of Anti-Rhetoric in Athenian Oratory”,Simon Goldhill & Robin Osborne,eds.Performance Culture and Athenian Democracy,224.
172 Aeschines 1(Against Timarchus),5.
173 Aeschines 1(Against Timarchus),30-31.
174 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),174.
175 Aeschines 1(Against Timarchus),179.
176 Aeschines 2(On the Embassy),150.
177 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),249.
178 Demosthenes 22(Against Androtion),24,德谟斯提尼说:ou monon eir(?)kot'auton paranoma,alla kai bebi(?)kota paranom(?)s,虽然将“演说”(eir(?)kota)与“生活”(bebi(?)kota)并举,但是从文义看,eir(?)kota paranoma 在雅典特指“违法提议”,其中paranoma可以视为分词eir(?)kota的宾语,所以,这里的“演说”显然是针对内容,并非演说技艺;而德谟斯提尼对安德洛提翁演说技艺的批评在《诉安德洛提翁》的开始部分就曾 单独提出:德谟斯提尼称安德洛提翁是tekhnit(?)s tou legein,见Demosthenes 22(Against Androtion),4;德谟斯提尼指出民众不应被政治家的演说能力(t(?)i t(?)n legont(?)n dumam(?)i)所欺骗,见Demosthenes 22(Against Androtion),11。可见,《诉安德洛提翁》中,德谟斯提尼并没有把对安德洛提翁演说技艺的批评与对其生活方式的批评联系起来。关于德谟斯提尼对安德罗提翁演说技艺的批评,参见第一章第二节。
179 麦克道威尔(MacDowell)也指出德谟斯提尼《使团辞》这两个部分的划分,并且认为第二部分充分体现了德谟斯提尼演说术之精彩,但是第一部分很可能被德谟斯提尼作为演说的核心部分,见Douglas M.MacDowell,ed.,Demosthenes:On the False Embassy(Oration 19),p.27.
180 Aeschines 1(Against Timarchus),41.
181 Aeschines 1(Against Timarchus),46.
182 Aeschines 1(Against Timarchus),49.
183 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),199.
184 担合唱队捐助的富有公民称为“合唱队长”(khor(?)gos),khor(?)gion则是他为合唱队提供的训练场所,往往是他本人的住所,除训练外,捐助者可能还为合唱队成员提供饮食。参见Douglas M.MacDowell,ed.,Demosthenes:On the False Embassy(Oration19),p.289.
185 尤尼斯指出,德谟斯提尼有意突出埃斯基尼斯与合唱队长的对比,见Harvey Yunis,trans.,Demosthenes,Speeches 18 and 19,p.174.
186 关于tritag(?)nistein和tritag(?)nist(?)s含义,参见Douglas M.MacDowell,ed.,Demosthenes:On the False Embassy(Oration 19),p.289,p.305;Harvey Yunis,ed.,Demosthenes:On the Crown,p.186。关于德谟斯提尼对埃斯基尼斯演员身份的讽刺与批评,参见第一章第二节。
187 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),201.
188 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),250.
189 《使团辞》中德谟斯提尼对埃斯基尼斯母亲秘仪祭司身份的说法使我们联想到俄耳甫斯教,雅典人对此种秘仪一般持批评否定态度,参见欧里庇德斯(Euripides)悲剧《西波吕托斯(Hippolytus)》,第952至957行,雅典国王忒修斯(Theseus)说:“现在你尽管去夸口,去用了素食骗人,奉了俄耳甫斯当祖师,去胡说吧,尊奉那许多文书里出来的烟雾,在这时候你却被捉住了!我警告大家要避开这样的人,因为他们用了庄严的语言去拉人,一面计画着坏事。”见周作人译本,《欧里庇德斯悲剧集》,中,中国对外翻译出版公司,2003年版,第750页。值得注意的是,其中954行“尊奉那许多文书里出来的烟雾”(bakkheue poll(?)n grammat(?)n tim(?)n kapnous),直译为“为那些圣书里出来的烟雾而发狂”,这里指出的宗教文本(grammat(?)n)和发狂的(bakkheue)的信仰者,与德谟斯提尼对埃斯基尼斯母亲所主持的秘仪特征的表述相一致,德谟斯提尼也强调埃斯基尼斯在一群迷狂的人们当中朗读宗教文本(tas biblous anagign(?)skonta)。俄耳甫斯教以拥有大量宗教文本为特征,部分文本流传至今。
190 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),282.
191 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),129.
192 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),130.
193 Empousa曾经出现于阿里斯托芬的喜剧《蛙》,第288至293行。
194 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),130-131,引文中tout(?)ni(他们)指雅典民众。
195 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),257.
196 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),258-262.
197 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),263-264.
198 Aeschines 2(On the Embassy),147-148.
199 Aeschines 2(On the Embassy),149.
200 Aeschines 2(On the Embassy),152.
201 Aeschines 2(On the Embassy),148-150.
202 Aeschines 2(On the Embassy),165-166,从演说术角度对“智者”和“演说辞作者”的批评,参见第一章第一节。
203 参见Aeschines 1(Against Timarchus),28-30.
204 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),78.
205 Aeschines 2(On the Embassy),180,182.
206 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),171-172
207 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),171,lambaneind d(?)rean与dekhesthai d(?)rean意思相同,而d(?)rodokia(受贿)正是由d(?)rea(礼物)和dekhesthai(接受)组成的。
208 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),172.
209 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),173,引文中humeter(?)n(你们的)指雅典民众。
210 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),174:t(?)i heautous s(?)mati kai paidopoiiai与t(?)ipol(?)i均为与格,在句中处于对应位置。所谓“假省”,是一种修辞策略,以故意不说的方式表示强调,特别是像此处涉及家庭伦理道德问题,假省或者某种隐讳说法更是比较常用,而有趣的是,洛布古典丛书的早期英译略去“生育”(paidopoiiai)一词,似乎也在有意回避伦理问题,见The Speeches of Aeschines,Loeb Classcial Library,London:William Heinemann,1919,p.445.
211 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),148,151,152,155,159,175,187.
212 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),130.;在雅典,受到认可的传统教育(paideia)模式包括以荷马与赫西俄德(Hesiod)为主的诗歌教育、体育教育和音乐教育等。
213 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),134-135.
214 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),260.
213 Galon O.Rowe,“The Portrait of Aeschines in the Oration on the Crown”,Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association,Vol.97(1966),p.402.
216 哈丁(Harding)举安多基德斯(Andocides)攻击希波博鲁斯(Hyperbolus)私人生活的例子,认为其唯一的解释是在法庭中造成喜剧效果,同时,哈丁还论述了喜剧的幽默性对政治演说的影响,并且分析了德谟斯提尼《金冠辞》中攻击埃斯基尼斯私人生活的内容,分别见Harding,“Comedy and Rhetoric”,Ian Worthington,ed.,Persuasion:Greek Rhetoric in Action,p.201,pp.196-197,pp.214-216.
217 Andrew R.Dyck,“The Function and Persuasive Power of Demosthenes'Portrait of Aeschines in the Speech ‘On the Crown'”,Greece & Rome,2nd Ser.,Vol.32,No.1.(Apr.,1985),pp.43-44.
218 哈丁总结了攻击政治家私人生活的模式,见Harding,“Comedy and Rhetoric”,Ian Worthington,ed.,Persuasion:Greek Rhetoric in Action,pp.198-199。
219 P.Harding,“Rhetoric and Politics in Fourth-Century Athens”,Phoenix,Vol.41,No.1.(1987),pp.31-32.
220 哈里斯(Harris)在考察埃斯基尼斯家庭和早年经历之前,特别论述了公元前4世纪的雅典对政治家的经济要求,指出,尽管当时绝大多数雅典公民在法律和政治权利上是平等的,但是军事和经济责任仍然依据财产来分配;个人财富对于享受社会特权来说,虽不是充分条件,但却是必要条件。见Edward M.Harris,Aeschines and Athenian Politics,Oxford University Press,1995,pp.17-21.
221 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),256;再如上文埃斯基尼斯表明自己所受的教育时,用第一人称复数“我们”,将自己与听众置于同等位置,见Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),134-135。与此相反,德谟斯提尼在《诉美狄亚斯》中,特别强调了财富被用来行恶的一面,德谟斯提尼指出,美狄亚斯利用自己的财富迫害民众,见Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),98,109。
222 欧博尔的主要关注点就是精英与民众的关系,详细分析了雅典人如何看待在教育和经济方面精英与民众之间的不平等,欧博尔发现,对精英优越性的嫉妒情绪是存在的,但同时,民众可以容忍这种不平等,接受精英或者政治家享有优越性的事实。在教育方面,民众对精英或政治家优越性的容忍,见Josiah Ober,Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens:Rhetoric,Ideology and the Power of the People,p.185;经济方面的不平等则更为复杂:首先,民众对富有阶层有着客观的经济需要;其次,在意识形态上,欧博尔认为精英与民众之间依靠某种“虚构”的表达方式(欧博尔称为fiction)来弱化这种不平等,实现彼此接受;再次,欧博尔提出,雅典人利用政治权利的平等来控制经济方面的不平等,精英或政治家展示自己财富的前提是,把财富用于城邦的公共事务。欧博尔的结论是,通过这些方式民众容忍精英或政治家的优越性,可以鼓励政治家更好的从事政治活动,也将他们与民众更紧密的连结在一起,见Josiah Ober,Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens:Rhetoric,Ideology and the Power of the People,Princeton University Press,1989,pp.240-247;欧博尔还专门论述了富人凭借自己为城邦担任的经济义务而向民众要求好感的现象,见Josiah Ober,Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens:Rhetoric,Ideology and the Power of the People,pp.226-230.
223 德谟斯提尼强调,民众让埃斯基尼斯担任书记员是对埃斯基尼斯的一种恩惠,是民众使埃斯基尼斯成为自由人并且变得富有,见Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),249;Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),131.
224 Easterling就曾指出,德谟斯提尼描述埃斯基尼斯身世的修辞作用在于说明,埃斯基尼斯低贱的谋生方式使他更容易受到腓力二世贿赂的诱惑。见Pat Easterling,‘'Actors and Voices:Reading between the Lines in Aeschines and Demosthenes”,Simon Goldhill and Robin Osborne,ed.,Performance Culture and Athenian Democracy,p.155.
225 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),51-52,其中“米纳”(mna)是雅典货币单位。关于德谟斯提尼被美狄亚斯殴打一事,详见下一节。
226 Lynette G.Mitchell and P.J.Rhodes,“Friends and Enemies in Athenian Politics”,Greece & Rome,2nd Ser.,Vol.43,No.1.(Apr.,1996),p.11;而且,该文以实证方式研究公元前雅典政治家之间实际的友谊与敌对关系,从多篇演说辞中甄选出丰富的例证,颇具参考价值。但是,与他们所采取的实证方式不同,笔者是把“亲友”与“仇敌”作为演说者所表述的一种人际关系模式来进行分析。正如米切尔(Mitchell)和罗德斯(Rhodes)所说,这种“亲友”与“仇敌”的模式必然与希腊人所习惯的两分法的思维方式密切相关,然而笔者在后文将指出,法庭诉讼形式也影响了演说中关于人际关系的叙述,强化了“亲友”与“仇敌”的模式。
227 克莱斯特(Christ)指出,philia既用于指称家族内部的亲属关系,也用于指称家族之外的朋友关系,而且,在克莱斯特看来,当现实生活中的纷争转化为法庭诉讼中诉辩双方的“仇敌”关系,会凸显共同体中正常社会关系的破坏,演说者为了抵消这种消极影响,就更加强调“亲友”关系的重要性,见Matthew R.Christ,The Litigious Athenian,p.167.
228 约翰斯通(Johnstone)特别关注社会层面的一般纷争当进入法庭诉讼的特殊场合时,其叙事语境和叙事模式所发生的转化,其中就包括诉辩双方彼此关系的明确对立,除此以外,还有陪审员作为第三方的介入等,详见Steven Johnstone,Disputes and Democracy:The Consequences of Litigation in Ancient Athens,The University of Texas Press,1999,pp.4-5,pp.47-49。笔者的论述重点则在于,诉讼演说中对人际关系的展示,如何运用“亲友”与“仇敌”的对立模式。关于诉讼之ag(?)n的特征,另见克莱斯特的讨论:Matthew R.Christ,The Litigious Athenian,1998,p.163.
229 Demosthenes 27(Against Aphobus I),1,t(?)n dikai(?)n tugkhanein是法庭常用语,指获得正义的判决,Demosthenes 27(Against Aphobus I),2重复强调teuksesthai t(?)n dikai(?)n,teuksesthai是tugkhanein的将来时形式。
230 Demosthenes 27(Against Aphobus I),65.
231 Demosthenes 30(Against Onetor I),31.
232 《诉奥内托尔之一》要证明奥内托尔之妹并未与阿弗波斯真正离婚,而是仍然生活在一起,见Demosthenes 30(Against Onetor I),4-5.
233 伊塞乌斯(Isaeus)的存世演说辞主要是有关财产诉讼的,我们可以从中找到丰富的例子。
234 probol(?)由pro-(在……之前)和bol(?)(攻击)构成,可以理解为“预先攻击”、“先发制人”。
235 Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),25-28:据德谟斯提尼的说法,美狄亚斯声称他与德谟斯提尼之间的矛盾是hubris,但是根据雅典法律,关于hubris的诉讼也属于公共诉讼,即graph(?) hubre(?)s,德谟斯提尼为了突出自己所选择的probole诉讼形式的重要性,模糊了dikas idias与graph(?) hubre(?)s之间的界限,将它们归于一类,与probol(?)相对立,参见麦克道威尔的注疏:Douglas M.MacDowell,ed.,Demosthenes Against Meidias (Oration 21),p.247.
236 Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),26.
237 Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),31,34,55,61,74.
238 Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),31-34.
239 Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),40.
240 据德谟斯提尼的说法,美狄亚斯很可能声称,德谟斯提尼之所以控告自己,是由于德谟斯提尼是自己的敌人,见Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),29.
241 Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),61.
245 关于philotimia一词的多种含义,麦克道威尔曾经给出比较全面的总结,他认为该词在公元前5和4世纪具有不同的含义,在公元前5世纪和前4世纪早期,更偏重于个人的荣誉感,公元前4世纪中后期则具有为城邦公共利益做出贡献的意思,见Douglas M.MacDowell,ed.,Demosthenes:On the False Embassy (Oration 19),pp.223-224.
246 Lycurgus,Against Leocrates,3.
247 Demosthenes 3(Olynthiac Ⅲ),21.
248 克莱斯特指出,雅典人在对待诉讼行为方面表现出的矛盾性,他们一方面鼓励人们为了自己所受到的伤害而进行报复,另一方面又把诉讼视为爱好纷争的表现,见Matthew R.Christ,The Litigious Athenian,p.161.
249 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),98-101,这里使用的是标准版节号,相当于洛布古典丛书版Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),102-105,由于标准版的节号缺少105至109,洛布古典丛书将91至109节重新编订节号,因此,标准版与洛布古典丛书的《使团辞》在这一部分的节号有区别,但文本内容是一致的。参见洛布古典丛书相关说明,Demosthenes,Vol.Ⅱ,Loeb Classical Library,Harvard University Press,1926,revived 1939,p.245.
250 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),182.
251 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),80.
252 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),166-170.
253 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),173.
254 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),221.
255 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),222.
256 Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),77-82.
257 Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),102-122:包括诬告德谟斯提尼逃离战阵和杀人等。
258 Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),77.
259 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),81.
260 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),124.
261 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),135,引文中humin(你们) 指雅典民众。
262 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),123.
263 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),226.
264 克莱斯特指出,在公共诉讼中,尽管陪审员们本应该关注的是没有社会关系的政治家(rh(?)tores)之间的彼此攻击,但事实上他们却更为关注私人矛盾。这说明克莱斯特也认识到,雅典民众对公共诉讼中的政治家之私人人际关系的兴趣更多于对其政治关系的兴趣。Matthew R.Christ,The Litigious Athenian,p.164.
265 Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),114-115:涅墨亚节日是以宙斯为名义举办的全希腊的庆典活动,率领雅典代表参加该活动是公益捐助的形式之一,参见Douglas M.MacDowell,ed.,Demosthenes Against Meidias (Oration 21),p.338.
266 Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),116,118,麦克道威尔指出,德谟斯提尼是阿瑞斯塔库斯的朋友,见Douglas M.MacDowell,ed.,Demosthenes Against Meidias(Oration 21),p.339.
267 Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),116-119.
268 Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),118.
269 巴克勒(Buckler)指出,德谟斯提尼和埃斯基尼斯分别代表了雅典对待马其顿问题上两种相反的外交政策,同时,在这种政治分歧之上,二人之间还存在着私人仇恨。见John Buckler,“Demosthenes and Aeschines”,Ian Worthington,ed.,Demosthenes:Statesman and orator,Routledge,2000,p.114.
270 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),290-293.
271 Aeschines 2(On the Embassy),177.
272 Aeschines 2(On the Embassy),178.
273 Aeschines 2(On the Embassy),179.
274 Aeschines 2(On the Embassy),181.
275 Aeschines 2(On the Embassy),184.
276 哈里斯曾经尝试利用德谟斯提尼与埃斯基尼斯演说辞的内容来研究埃斯基尼斯可能的真实家庭背景,也许值得参考,见Edward M.Harris,Aeschines and Athenian Politics,pp.21-29,哈里斯所采取的基本判断方法是,如果政治家本人在演说辞中针对被攻击的某些问题保持沉默,不予反驳,那么,这些问题就很可能是真实的。
277 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),122,226.
278 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),54,229.
279 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),53.
280 Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),186-187.
281 Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),149;有疑问的是,这里的aporr(?)tous是否与dik(?) kakagorias中的aporr(?)ta有关,也就是说,关于德谟斯提尼此处所要揭示的美狄亚斯的出身,是否有涉及“诽谤罪”中aporr(?)ta 的内容。但是麦克道威尔直接译为“秘密”,见Douglas M.MacDowell,ed.,Demosthenes Against Meidias (Oration 21),p.177.
282 Jon Hesk,“The Rhetoric ofAnti-Rhetoric in Athenian Oratory”,Simon Goldhill and Robin Osbome,ed.,Performance Culture and Athenian Democracy,pp.227-229,在赫斯克看来,这种针对“尽人皆知”的“反修辞”现象本身也是一种修辞策略,所以赫斯克把它称为“反修辞的修辞”(rhetoric of anti-rhetoric)。赫斯克主要从修辞策略角度对这种现象进行了例证分析,笔者接下去则尝试对它背后可能隐藏的社会政治功能加以探索。
283 Aeschines 1(Against Timarchus),44.
284 Aesehines 1(Against Timarchus),127-129.
285 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),243-244.
286 关于提马库斯参加贵族式的会饮场所之描述,见Aeschines 1(Against Timarchus),41-42;关于提马库斯出入赌场的描述,见Aeschines 1(Against Timarchus),53,此处埃斯基尼斯特别指出,听众中有人曾经看到赌场中的情景,或者至少也听说过。
287 Aeschines 2(On the Embassy),145.
288 Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),153-154.
289 Demosthenes 22(Against Androtion),59-61.
290 参见第三章第二节关于德谟斯提尼《第二篇反腓力辞》的分析。
291 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),297-298.
292 Aeschines 1(Against Timarchus),127关于ph(?)m(?)的表述有tois pollois,同样,Aeschines 2(On the Embassy),145关于sukophantia的表述也有pros tous pollous。
293 Aeschines 2(On the Embassy),145,引文中h(?)s the(?)i与h(?)s kakourg(?)n构成明显的对照关系,分别指“神圣”与“邪恶”。
294 欧博尔认为,演说者对ph(?)m(?)的诉求说明,在雅典人的观念中,对政治家的评判更主要的是依靠他在社会层面的整体表现,而不是法庭中审判现场的演说。也就是说,在欧博尔看来,展示政治家私人生活是用来抗衡政治家演说的修辞力量。见Josiah Ober,Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens:Rhetoric,Ideology and the Power of the People,P.150。笔者的分析则试图修正Ober的观点,更强调演说者对ph(?)m(?)的想象及其与其它来源的社会舆论之间的关系。
295 欧博尔讨论了雅典社会“面对面”特征的问题,综合评价了芬利、怀特海德(Whitehead)与奥斯邦(Osborne)等人关于该问题的观点,欧博尔指出,雅典村社范围内的“面对面”属于社会层面,不等于城邦范围内政治层面中的“面对面”,见Josiah Ober,Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens:Rhetoric,Ideology and the Power of the People,pp.31-32。日后,欧博尔对自己的观点进行了补充和修正,从整个城邦范围来说,雅典并非实际上的“面对面”社会,但是它可以给人一种“面对面”的感受,城邦公共政治生活的模式鼓 励了人们的交流,促进了交流网络的形成,见Josiah Ober,“Classcial Athenian Democracy and Democracy Today”,Athenian Legacies:Essays on the Politics of Going On Together,Princeton University Press,2005,p.41。关于公民法庭是雅典上层人物经常进行竞争性社会表演的舞台的观点,见Edith Hall,“Lawcourt Dramas:Acting and Performance in Legal Oratory”,The Theatrical Cast of Athens:Interactions between Ancient Greek Drama and Society,2006,p.368.
296 参见Lysias 32(Against Diogeiton),1-2、Demosthenes 48(Against Olympiodorus),40,克莱斯特对此现象的论述,见Matthew R.Christ,The Litigious Athenian,The Johns Hopkins University Press,1998,pp.170-173.
297 这里使用的人称“你们”(humas,指陪审员)不清楚了解“我们”的事(t(?)n h(?)meter(?)n),似乎有意强调私人事务与公众视野的对立。
298 Demosthenes 27(Against Aphobus Ⅰ),67;Demosthenes 28(Against Aphobus Ⅱ),18.
299 Demosthenes 28(Against Aphobus Ⅱ),17.
300 通过这次财产诉讼,德谟斯提尼逐步进入政治家群体,并且造成了对其日后政治生涯产生影响的人际关系,树立了未来的政敌,参见Raphael Sealey,Demosthenes and His Time:A Study in Defeat,Oxford University Press,1993,pp.97-98.
301 一般认为,德谟斯提尼对美狄亚斯的控告并未成真,德谟斯提尼《诉美狄亚斯》中有关于德谟斯提尼早年控告监护人的内容,重提此事主要为说明美狄亚斯与德谟斯提尼的矛盾从那是已经开始,见Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),77-82.
302 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),173:ektri(?)rarkhou logographos anephan(?),katagelast(?)s ta patra(?)ita proemenos,主句是“通过担任战舰捐助人(ek tri(?)rarkhou)而成为‘演说辞作者'(logographos anephan(?))”,“可耻的浪费了父亲遗产”(katagelast(?)s ta patra(?)ita proemenos)是分词词组,表示时间和方式,对主句加以说明。
303 Demosthenes 30(Against Onetor Ⅰ),32.
304 Isaeus 5(On the Estate of Dicaeogenes),17-20;Isaeus 6(On the Estate of Philoctemon),37.
305 Lysias 10(Against Theomnestos Ⅰ),5.
306 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),199-200.
307 Aeschines 2(On the Embassy),149.
308 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),249.
309 Aeschines 2(On the Embassy),150.
310 Aristotle,The Athenian Constitution,XLⅡ,1.
311 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),254.
312 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),287,其中Nikias和Kur(?)bi(?)n两个绰号的确切含义不明,Nikias 可能是指伯罗奔尼撒战争期间的雅典将军,Kur(?)bi(?)n可能来自kur(?)bia(糠),尤尼斯认为Kur(?)bi(?)n是一个寄人篱下的食客的名字。参见Harvey Yunis,trans.,Desmosthenes,Speeches 18 and 19,p.200;Douglas M.MacDowell,ed.,Demosthenes:On the False Embassy(Oration 19),p.329.
313 Josiah Ober,Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens:Rhetoric,Ideology and the Power of the People,p.149.
314 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),18.
315 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),20.
316 关于雅典与马其顿对安菲波利的争夺以及安菲波利对雅典的重要性,参见Edward M.Harris,Aeschines and Athenian Politics,pp.42-43;关于弗基斯战争以及当时雅典与腓力二世的关系,参见Raphael Sealey,Demosthenes and His Time:A Study in Defeat,pp.104-108.
317 西利(Sealey)指出,此后几年中,德谟斯提尼的生平与雅典的历史是一致的,见Raphael Sealey,Demosthenes and His Time:A Study in Defeat,p.185.
318 二人的重要著作分别是:Raphael Sealey,Demosthenes and His Time:A Study in Defeat,Oxford University Press,1993;Edward M.Harris,Aeschines and Athenian Politics,New York:Oxford,Oxford University Press,1995;另外,利用德谟斯提尼与埃斯基尼斯二人演说辞研究这段历史的重要文章还有:T.T.B.Ryder,“Demosthenes and Philip Ⅱ”,Ian Worthington,ed.,Demosthenes:Statesman and Orator,pp.45-89;John Buckler,“Demosthene and Aeschines”,Ian Worthington,ed.,Demosthenes:Statesman and Orator,pp.114-158.
319 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),246.
320 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),246.
321 在针对政治行为的公共诉讼中,非常重要的一类就是“违法提议”案件(graph(?) paranom(?)n),这是对公民大会提议者所提起的指控,认为其提议违反了雅典法律(nomoi),我们可以将这类公共诉讼视为对政治家公民大会提议演说的最直接制约。关于“违法提议”诉讼以及针对各类公职人员的述职审查(euthunai),详见Mogens Herman Hansen,The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes:Structure,Principles and Ideology,pp.208-212,pp.222-224。另外,在存世演说辞中多次出现关于法律严禁政治家欺骗民众的说法,例如,Demosthenes 20(Against Leptines),100,135、Demosthenes 49(Against Timotheus),67,赫斯克于是讨论了是否存在这类专门的诉讼程序的问题,他认为,演说辞中有关这类法律的说法更多的是具有一种象征意义,是一种修辞性的表述方式,是在民主观念和意识形态层面对政治家演说行为的制约,以及对民众权威的强调,同时也在提醒民众警惕政治家对民众权威的潜在威胁。见Jon Hesk,Deception and Democracy in Classical Athens,pp.51-57.
322 参见第一章第二节。
323 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),173.
324 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),211.
325 埃拉菲博里翁月(Elaph(?)boli(?)n)月是雅典历法的第九个月,相当于现在公历的3月中旬到4月中旬。
326 斯基罗佛里翁月(Skirophorion)月是雅典历法的第十二个月,相当于现在公历的6月中旬到7月中旬。
327 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),17.
328 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),182.
329 Demsothenes 19(On the False Embassy),184.
330 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),82.
331 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),9.
332 伊珊德(Ischander) 是演员尼奥普托勒慕(Neoptolemus) 之子,据《论和平》的说法,尼奥普托勒慕斯后来被证实为被腓力二世所收买,见Demosthenes 5(On the Peace),6-8.
333 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),11.
334 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),16.
335 麦克道威尔也注意到德谟斯提尼这种叙述顺序,并给出一定解释,见Douglas M.MacDowell,ed.,Demosthenes:On the False Embassy(Oration 19),pp.27-28.
336 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),60.
337 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),27-28.
338 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),34.
339 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),35.
340 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),42.
341 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),43.
342 17至63节关于斯基罗佛里翁月16日公民大会演说场景的叙述中,德谟斯提尼共举证8次,举证一是议事会预案(32),举证二、三、五是腓力二世信件(38、40、51),举证四是由腓罗克拉底提议的公民大会决议(47),举证六是弗基斯与雅典的同盟协定(61),举证七是腓力二世与弗基斯之间的协定,举证八是“近邻城邦同盟”议事会(Amphiktuones)在弗基斯问题上的决议(63)。
343 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),72.
344 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),13.
345 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),15.
346 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),19.
347 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),20.
348 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),23.
349 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),45.
350 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),46.
351 欧博尔在讨论公民大会与公民法庭各自的成员构成的时候,曾经注意到诉讼演说辞中叙述公民大会场景时所使用的第二人称复数,举例包括德谟斯提尼、埃斯基尼斯、伊塞乌斯、吕希亚斯等人的诉讼演说辞,欧博尔指出,不能根据这种表述方式而简单的认为公民大会与公民法庭在人员构成上是重合的,合理的解释是,演说者将陪审员视为雅典民众的代表。见Josiah Ober,Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens:Rhetoric,Ideology and the Power of the People,pp.145.147。Pelling更为重视这种第二人称复数表述方式的修辞性,他指出,陪审员被视为城邦的代表,因此他们也就被认为是之前任何一次诉讼或公民大会场合的持续的参与者。见Christopher Pelling,Literary Texts and the Greek Historian,Routledge,2000,pp.30-31.
352 例如,德谟斯提尼名下的演说辞《诉伯吕克里斯(Polycles)》同时使用“民众的决议”(to ps(?)phisma to tou d(?)mou)和“你们的决议”(tou ps(?)phismatos tou humeterou),分别见Demosthenes 50(Against Polycles),15,29,这两种说法的意思是相同的,而且,该篇演说辞4至6节论及一次公民大会场景,同样运用第二人称复数的叙述方式。
353 关于这一部分所涉及的史实以及埃斯基尼斯的叙述方式的分析,参见E.Badian and Julia Heskel, “Aeschines 2.12-18:A Study in Rhetoric and Chronology”,Phoenix,Vol.41,No.3.(Autumn,1987),pp.264-271.
354 Aeschines 2(On the Embassy),12.
355 Aeschines 2(On the Embassy),13.
356 Aeschines 2(On the Embassy),14.
357 Aeschines 2(On the Embassy),15.
358 Aeschines 2(On the Embassy),25.
359 Aeschines 2(On the Embassy),64.
360 Aeschines 2(On the Embassy),84.
361 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),16.
362 Aeschines 2(On the Embassy),61.
363 Aeschines 2(On the Embassy),56.
364 Aeschines 2(On the Embassy),89.
365 Aeschines 2(On the Embassy),92.
366 Edward M.Harris,Aeschines and Athenian Politics,p.75.
367 其中bolei的标准写法是boul(?)i,demoi的标准写法是d(?)m(?)i。
368 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),225.
369 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),226.
370 Demosthenes 3(Olynthiac Ⅲ),4-5,其中eps(?)phisasthe是第二人称复数。
371 Demosthenes 6(Philippic Ⅱ),29-32.
372 Demosthenes 5(On the Peace),9-10.
373 Demosthenes 5(On the Peace),4.
374 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),62.
375 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),73.
376 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),99;关于埃斯基尼斯对德谟斯提尼这一批评的分析,参见Jon Hesk,Deception and Democracy in Classical Athens,pp.232-233.
377 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),125.
378 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),250.
379 例如:t(?)n idian oikian与ta koina t(?)s pole(?)s的对应,见Aeschines 1(Against Timarchus),30.
380 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),59-60.
381 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),250.
382 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),18-20.
383 笔者所选择分析的德谟斯提尼公民大会演说辞是三篇《奥林图斯辞》和三篇《反腓力辞》,这六篇演说辞的真实性在学术界是最无争议的,参见R.D.Milns,“The Public Speeches of Demosthenes”,Ian Worthington,ed.,Demosthenes:Statesman and Orator,p.205.
384 Demosthenes 4(Philippic Ⅰ),9.
385 Demosthenes 4(Philippic Ⅰ),8.
386 Demosthenes 4(Philippic Ⅰ),4.
387 Demosthenes 4(Philippic Ⅰ),10.
388 Demosthenes 4(Philippic Ⅰ),6.
389 Demosthenes 4(Philippic Ⅰ),50.
390 例如:Demosthenes 1(Olynthiac Ⅰ),7,10,24;Demosthenes 2(Olynthiac Ⅱ),1-2.
391 Demosthenes 1(Olynthiac Ⅰ),14.
392 Demosthenes 2(Olynthiac Ⅱ),4.
396 Demosthenes 3(Olynthiac Ⅲ),17.
394 Demosthenes 1(Olynthiac Ⅰ),7.
395 Demosthenes 1(Olynthiac Ⅰ),26.
396 Demosthenes 1(Olynthiac Ⅰ),2,引文中humin...autois(你们自己)指雅典人。
397 Demosthenes 1(Olynthiac Ⅰ),15,25.
398 Demosthenes 1(Olynthiac Ⅰ),27.
399 Demosthenes 3(Ofynthiac Ⅲ),2.
400 Demosthenes 3(Ofynthiac Ⅲ),8-9.
401 Demosthenes 3(Ofynthiac Ⅲ),16,原文ekh(?)n ta h(?)metera 意思是“占有我们的(利益)”,其中“我们”
402 Demosthenes 2(Ofynthiac Ⅱ),3.
403 Demosthenes 4(Philippic Ⅰ),10.
404 Demosthenes 3(Ofynthiac Ⅲ),8.
405 Demosthenes 3(Ofynthiac Ⅲ),16.
406 Demosthenes 1(Olynthiac Ⅰ),4-5.
407 Aristotle,Politics,1279a35-40.
408 吴寿彭将亚里士多德所说的politeia这类政体译作“共和政体”,见亚里士多德:《政治学》,吴寿彭译,商务印书馆,1965年,第133页。但是笔者认为,德谟斯提尼所使用的politeia未必与亚里士多德的定义完全一致,德谟斯提尼只是为了强调希腊城邦与腓力二世暴君专制的对立,突出希腊城邦的自由原则,并非对政体进行严格的理论区分。
409 Demosthenes 1(Olynthiac Ⅰ),23.
410 Demosthenes 1(Olynthiac Ⅰ),22.
411 Demosthenes 2(Olynthiac Ⅱ),4.
412 Demosthenes 2(Olynthiac Ⅱ),5.
413 Demosthenes 2(Olynthiac Ⅱ),6.
414 Demosthenes 2(Olynthiac Ⅱ),5.
415 Demosthenes 2(Olynthiac Ⅱ),6-7.
416 Demosthenes 2(Olynthiac Ⅱ),9.
417 Demosthenes 2(Olynthiac Ⅱ),10.
418 Demosthenes 2(Olynthiac Ⅱ),13.
419 Demosthenes 2(Olynthiac Ⅱ),15-16.
420 Demosthenes 2(Olynthiac Ⅱ),17.
421 这里所列举的诸项品格,是综合了德谟斯提尼在多篇演说辞中对腓力二世的描绘,我们已经看到,《第一篇反腓力辞》指出腓力二世的aselgeia,见Demosthenes 4(Philippic Ⅰ),9;《第一篇奥林图斯辞》指出其hubrist(?)s,见Demosthenes 1(Olynthiac Ⅰ),23;《第二篇奥林图斯辞》则指出其epiorkon kaiapiston和ek pleoneksias kai por(?)rias,见Demosthenes 2(Olynthic Ⅱ),5,9。这些描绘也常在诉讼演说辞中被用于攻击对手。沃曼(Worman)也指出,德谟斯提尼在塑造腓力二世的形象时,采用了和诉讼演说相同的方式,但是,与罗维和哈丁等人一样,沃曼也认为德谟斯提尼在这种塑造中模仿了喜剧,见Nancy Worman,Abusive Mouths in Classical Athens,Cambridge University Press,2008,pp.227-228.
422 Demosthenes 6(Philippic Ⅱ),6.
423 Demosthenes 6(Philippic Ⅱ),7.
424 Demosthenes 6(Philippic Ⅱ),14-15.
425 Demosthenes 6(Philippic Ⅱ),16,此处的t(?)s pole(?)s与第7节的t(?)i polei都是指雅典。
426 Demosthenes 6(PhilippicⅡ),17-18.
427 Demosthenes 6(Philippic Ⅱ),19.
428 Demosthenes 6(Philippic Ⅱ),7.
429 Demosthenes 6(Philippic Ⅱ),8.
430 Demosthenes 6(Philippic Ⅱ),9.
431 Demosthenes 6(Philippic Ⅱ),10.
432 Demosthenes 6(Philippic Ⅱ),19.
433 Demosthenes 6(Philippic Ⅱ),12.
434 Demosthenes 6(Philippic Ⅱ),19.
435 Demosthenes 6(Philippic Ⅱ),19.
436 Demosthenes 6(Philippic Ⅱ),20-22.
437 Demosthenes 6(Philippic Ⅱ),21.
438 Demosthenes 6(Philippic Ⅱ),24.
439 Demosthenes 6(Philippic Ⅱ),25.
440 在之前的《第二篇奥林图斯辞》中,德谟斯提尼曾经批评有些政治家以腓力二世的名义从事政治活动(tois huper auton pepoliteumenois),讽刺说腓力二世对这些政治家心怀感激(opheilei kharin),并且指责这些政治家为了腓力二世的利益而将奥林图斯使节逐出雅典公民大会,阻止他们向雅典人求援,见Demosthenes 2(Olynthiac Ⅱ),4,6;但是,德谟斯提尼没有将这些政治家的行为解释为受贿。
441 Demosthenes 6(Philippic Ⅱ),35.
442 Demosthenes 6(Philippic Ⅱ),34.
443 德谟斯提尼说,这些政治家将他称为“饮水者”(hud(?)r pin(?)n),见Demosthenes 6(Philippic Ⅱ),30;根据《使团辞》的说法,正是腓罗克拉底曾经在公元前346年斯基罗佛里翁月16日的公民大会中讽刺德谟斯提尼,称“他(指德谟斯提尼)喝水,而我饮酒”(houtos men gar hud(?)r,eg(?) de oinon pin(?)),见Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),46。另外,从存世的演说辞来看,不直指对手之名似乎是公民大会演说辞的特点,这可能是出于防止引发政敌仇恨的考虑,德谟斯提尼的《论和平》也曾指出,弗基斯灭亡是某些政治家欺骗民众的结果,但是同样没有直指这些政治家的名字,见Demosthenes 5(On the Peace),9.10。哈里斯则据 此认为,德谟斯提尼在进行《论和平》的演说时,并未将弗基斯的灭亡归咎于埃斯基尼斯,见Edward M.Harris,Aeschines and Athenian Politics,pp.105-106.
444 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),101,相当于洛布古典丛书版Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),105.
445 相当于洛布古典丛书版Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),106.120.
446 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),110.
447 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),111-113.
448 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),16.
449 参见哈里斯的分析,Edward M.Harris,Aeschines and Athenian Politics,pp.67-68.
450 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),64,proestanai本义是“站在前面”,同时具有“领导”与“保卫”的意思。
451 Demsothenes 19(On the False Embassy),64-65.
452 Edward M.Harris,Aeschines and Athenian Politics,pp.71.
453 从存世的雅典诉讼演说辞来看,“受贿”是政治家之间彼此攻击的一个普遍使用的重要罪名,泰勒(Taylor)对此曾经进行统计,并且指出,在很多情况下,“受贿”罪名并非严肃的指控,而是一种用于攻击政敌的修辞策略。见Claire Taylor,“Bribery in Athenian Politics Part I:Accusations,Allegations,and Slander”,Greece &Rome,2nd Ser.,Vol.48,No.1.(Apr.,2001),pp.55-64.
454 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),259.
455 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),260-262.
456 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),263-267.
457 Demosthenes 9(Philippic Ⅲ),36-37.
458 Demosthenes 9(Philippic Ⅲ),39.
459 第56节举奥林图斯之例,57至58举埃勒特里亚(Eretria)之例,59至62节举奥勒乌斯(Oreus)之例,埃勒特里亚与奥勒乌斯均为优卑亚岛上的城邦。
460 Demosthenes 9(Philippic Ⅲ),63.
461 “为民众进行演说的人”原文为tois huper hum(?)n legousin,本义是“为你们(hum(?)n)进行演说的人们”,其中,“你们”(hum(?)n)即指雅典民众,见Demosthenes 9(Philippic Ⅲ),55;“为了最好的建议进行演说的人”原文为tous ta beltista legontas和tois huper tou beltistou legousin,分别见Demosthenes 9(Philippic Ⅲ),56,63.
462 Demosthenes 9(Philippic Ⅲ),63-64.
463 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),265.
464 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),267.
465 Demosthenes 9(Philippic Ⅲ),64.
466 dik(?)n d(?)sei中的dik(?)n与dik(?)n labein中的dik(?)n都是指“正义的判决”,d(?)sei本义是“给出、交出”,而如果将dik(?)n d(?)sei直译为“给出判决”,则会产生歧义,因此笔者将dik(?)n d(?)sei译作“接受判决(dik(?)n),付出(d(?)sei)代价”。
467 Demsothenes 9(Philippic Ⅲ),20.
468 Demosthenes 9(Philippic Ⅲ),6,引文中t(?)i polei(城邦)指雅典城邦。
469 Demosthenes 9(Philippic Ⅲ),8,引文中humin(你们)指雅典人。
470 Demosthenes 9(Philippic Ⅲ),9,引文中humas(你们)指雅典人。
471 Demosthenes 9(Philippic Ⅲ),10.
472 Demosthenes 9(Philippic Ⅲ),11-13.
473 Demosthenes 9(Philippic Ⅲ),22.
474 Demosthenes 9(Philippic Ⅲ),26.
475 Demosthenes 9(Philippic Ⅲ),27.
476 Demosthenes 9(Philippic Ⅲ),26-27,关于腓力二世强迫贴萨利人建立寡头政体,另见Demosthenes 9(Philippic Ⅲ),33.
477 Demosthenes 9(Philippic Ⅲ),33.
478 Demosthenes 9(Philippic Ⅲ),34,引文中autou(他)指腓力二世。
479 R.D.Milns,“The Public Speeches of Demosthenes”,Ian Worthington,ed.,Demosthenes:Statesman and Orator,p.208.
480 Demosthenes 9(Philippic Ⅲ),21.
481 Demosthenes 9(Philippic Ⅲ),28.
482 Demosthenes 9(Philippic Ⅲ),30-31.
483 Demosthenes 3(Olynthiac Ⅲ),16.
484 Edward M.Harris,Aeschines and Athenian Politics,pp.149.150,p.153,哈里斯将埃斯基尼斯作为典型反例,他认为,埃斯基尼斯并不是被腓力二世收买的政治家,在腓罗克拉底和平协定之前,埃斯基尼斯的政策是联合其他希腊城邦共同抵抗腓力二世,在和平协定制定过程中,埃斯基尼斯的目的也仍然是希望利用一个普遍的和平协定使各希腊城邦共同牵制腓力二世。但是,当时的其他希腊城邦很可能没有意识到腓力二世的威胁,出于各自利益而希望寻求腓力二世的支持,所以,埃斯基尼斯的希望落空。哈里斯认为,是这种现实情况使埃斯基尼斯转变政策,而非腓力二世的贿赂。
485 汉森认为,德谟斯提尼的存世公民大会演说辞之所以主要集中于公元前340年代,可能是由于当时雅典民众并未接受他的反马其顿政策,故而德谟斯提尼以文本形式发表演说辞,用来宣传自己的政策,而到公元前330年代雅典民众接受其政策时,则无需再发表这类演说辞了。见Mogens Herman Hansen,The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes:Structure,Principles and Ideology,p.7。关于德谟斯提尼公民大会演说辞写作目的的问题,还可以参见Adams在更早的时候所进行的讨论,Charles Darwin Adams,“Are the Political ‘Speech'of Demosthenes to Be Regarded as Political Pamphlets?”,Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association,Vol.43.(1912),PP.5-22.
486 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),195,喀罗尼亚位于比奥提亚(Boeotia)境内,在雅典以北,据德谟斯提尼的说法,此地距离雅典有数天路程。
487 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),145.159,关于安菲萨战争,西利认为,它所反映的实际是忒拜与贴萨利的矛盾,而腓力二世当时对中希腊事务表现出一种退缩状态,因此西利怀疑腓力二世在安菲萨战争的问题上是否发挥了如德谟斯提尼所说的作用,同时,西利对埃斯基尼斯为腓力二世收买的说法也表示怀疑。见Raphael Sealey,Demosthenes and His Time:AStudy in Defeat,pp.190-193.
488 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),215-217.
489 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),294-295.
490 Harvey Yunis,ed.,Demosthenes:On the Crown,p.272.
491 Edward M.Harris,Aeschines and Athenian Politics,p.73.
492 参见第一章第一节。
493 Demosthenes 24(Against Timocrates),149-151.
494 Steven Johnstone,Dessent and Democracy:The Consequences of Litigation in Ancient Athens,pp.38-40.
495 Demosthenes 24(Against Timocrates),66.
496 Demosthenes 24(Against Timocrates),76.
497 Demostheens 24(Against Timocrates),216.
498 参见第二章第一、三节相关内容。
499 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),283.
500 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),284.
501 Aeschines 1(Against Timarchus),4.
502 Aeschinse 1(Against Timarchus),5.
503 Aeschines 1(Against Timarchus),6.
504 Aeschines 1(Against Timarchus),7,引文中阳性复数属格代词aut(?)n指法律。
505 关于“rh(?)t(?)r资格审查”,参见第二章第一节。
506 Aeschines 1(Against Timarchus),32.
507 Aeschinea 1(Against Timarchus),33.
508 法伦加认为,在公元前5世纪,陪审员在认知层面与情感层面模仿当事人,尤其是被告,到公元前4世纪,随着法律权威的增强,陪审员则在认知层面与情感层面转向对所谓“立法者”的模仿。见Vincent Farenga,Citizen and Self in Ancient Greece:Individuals Performing Justice and the Law,Cambridge University Press,2006,pp.316-317,p.343.
509 Aeschines 1(Against Timarchus),177.
510 Aeschines 1(Against Timarchus),177.
511 Aeschines 1(Against Timarchus),178.
512 Aeschines 1(Against Timarchus),179,引文中ag(?)nas(竞争)是雅典人常用的对法庭诉讼的称呼,参见第二章第二节。
513 Demosthenes 24(Against Timocrates),78.
514 参见第三章第二节,dik(?)n eil(?)photes的原形即dik(?)n lambanein。
515 关于陪审员的身份意识,约翰斯通也得出相同的结论,即,演说者(尤其是起诉方)试图引导陪审员将自身利益与城邦法律乃至政体视为一致;而且,约翰斯通也注意到,演说者在表述中将陪审员作为全体雅典民众,以使陪审员意识到自身的权力。见Steven Johnstone,Dessent and Democracy:The Consequences of Litigation in Ancient Athens,pp.132-133。但是,约翰斯通并未分析演说者对法庭特定场合性质的关注,而笔者重点指出的,正是演说者在塑造陪审员政治角色的过程中如何强调法庭场合的关键作用。
516 Demosthenes 20(Against Leptines),2.
517 Demosthenes 20(Against Leptines),3.
518 Demosthenes 20(Against Leptines),4,引文中didakhth(?)nai(学(利益)”,其中“我们”
402 Demosthenes 2(Ofynthiac Ⅱ),3.
522 Demosthenes 20(Against Leptines),165.
523 Demosthenes 20(Against Leptines),166.
524 Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),19.
525 Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),20.
526 Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),34.
527 Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),76.
528 Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),30.
529 Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),66.
530 Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),221,引文中epeidan anast(?)i to dikast(?)rion直译是“当法庭站起来”,即指法庭审判结束,陪审员起身离开。
531 Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),222.
532 Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),223-224.
533 Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),223.
534 Demosthenes 25(Against Aristogeiton Ⅰ),20-21,汉森即以此为据,证明公元前4世纪雅典法律的地位,见Mogens Herman Hansen,The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes,p.176,p.303。法伦加最近对这篇演说辞进行了更详细的分析,见Vincent Farenga,Citizen and Self in Ancient Greece:Individuals Performing Justice and the Law,pp.542-548。关于这篇演说辞的真实性问题,参见洛布古典丛书的介绍,Demosthenes,Vol.Ⅲ,Loeb Classical Library,Harvard University Press,1935,p.515.
535 Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),224.
536 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),137.
537 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),295.
538 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),296.
539 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),297.
540 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),233.
541 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),235.
542 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),8.
543 Josiah Ober,“Power and Oratory in Democratic Athens:Demosthenes 21,Against Meidias”,Ian Worthington,ed.,Persuasion:Greek Rhetoric in Action,pp.102-104,欧博尔对德谟斯提尼的《诉美狄亚斯》进行了详细分析,尤其重点讨论了其中第223至225节的内容,他指出,在雅典民主政治的运作中,演说家是不可或缺的一个关键环节,政体与演说家之间的“动力关系”(dynamic relationship)是雅典民主政治存在的基础。笔者的分析则希望进一步说明,欧博尔所说的演说家的这种政治功能,很大程度上是通过演说者在法庭现场塑造陪审员政治角色这一修辞策略而得以具体实现的。
544 Demosthenes 4(Philippic Ⅰ),2.
545 Demosthenes 6(Philippic Ⅱ),3-4.
546 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),184.
547 “言”(logos)与“行”(ergon)是古希腊人所熟悉的一组基本对应范畴,笔者在这里主要考察它在德谟斯提尼公民大会演说中的一种具体运用,即,作为一种重要的修辞策略用于对民众政治角色的塑造。
548 Demosthenes 9(Philippic Ⅲ),2.
549 Demosthenes 9(Philippic Ⅲ),3.
550 Demosthenes 9(Philippic Ⅲ),4.
551 Vincent Farenga,Citizen and Self in Ancient Greece:Individuals Performing Justice and the Law,p.545.
552 关于parr(?)sia,可以参考萨克森豪斯(Saxonhouse)最近的讨论,他指出,不能将parr(?)sia等同于现代意义上的“言论自由”权利,因为它所体现的不是民众被赋予了言论的权利,而是民众主动地掌控言论。见Arlene W.Saxonhouse,Free Speech and Democracy in Ancient Athens,Cambridge University Press,2006,pp.85-99.
553 古希腊人习惯于在两个并列句或并列短语中分别使用小品词men和de,一般用来表示这两个并列句或并列短语在意义上的对比。
554 Demosthenes 9(Philippic Ⅲ),54,引文中动词gelate为第二人称复数,主语“你们”指雅典民众。
555 Demosthenes 9(Philippic Ⅲ),67.
556 Demosthenes 9(Philippic Ⅲ),54,67.
557 Demosthenes 5(On the Peace),2,引文中humas(你们)指雅典民众。
558 Demosthenes 5(On the Peace),12.
559 尤尼斯曾经对德谟斯提尼公民大会演说辞的“开场白”进行分析,他也注意到其中所强调的“演说”与“行动”的对应关系,尤尼斯认为,这体现了德谟斯提尼对雅典民主政治商议方式的洞察。同时,尤尼斯还指出,德谟斯提尼如此议论雅典的政治商议方式,是为了向听众表明,他本人具有必要的批判智慧,并且将这种智慧以有益的方式应用于政治活动,以此表现自己作为提议者的权威性以及动机的正当性。见Harvey Yunis,Taming Democracy:Models of Political Rhetoric in Classical Athens,pp.249-255.
560 Demosthenes 9(Philippic Ⅲ),75.
561 Demosthenes 2(Olynthiac Ⅱ),12.
562 Demosthenes 4(Philippic Ⅰ),9-10.
563 Demosthenes 4(Philippic Ⅰ),10-11.
564 Demosthenes 6(Philippic Ⅱ),3.
565 Demosthenes 6(Philippic Ⅱ),5.
566 Demosthenes 6(Philippic Ⅱ),1.
567 关于ps(?)phisma、dogma与doksa(认识)的关系,参见第三章第一节。
568 Demosthenes 3(Olynthiac Ⅰ),14-15,引文中动词eprattete为第二人称复数形式,主语“你们”指雅典民众。
569 Demosthenes 4(Philippic Ⅰ),20.
570 Demosthenes 4(Philippic Ⅰ),30.
571 Demosthenes 4(Philippic Ⅰ),44-45,引文中动词kath(?)metha为第一人称复数形式,主语“我们”指雅典民众。
572 Demosthenes 4(Philippic Ⅰ),19-22;ksenoi是“外邦人”的意思,也用来指雇佣军。
573 Demosthenes 4(Philippic Ⅰ),24.
574 Demosthenes 4(Philippic Ⅰ),25.
575 Demosthenes 4(Philippic Ⅰ),44.
576 Demosthenes 4(Philippic Ⅰ),45,引文中动词ekpemps(?)te为第二人称复数形式,主语“你们”指雅典民众。
577 Demosthenes 4(Philippic Ⅰ),38-39,引文中tous bouleuomenous,洛布古典丛书译作“政治家”(statesmen),见Demosthenes,Vol.I,with an English translation by J.H.Vince,Loeb Classical Library,Harvard University Press,1930,p.93。笔者认为不准确,tous bouleuomenous直译为“商议者”,在范围上不仅包括进行政治商议过程中进行提议的政治家,也包括出席公民大会的其他民众,例如Thucydides,History of the Peloponnesian War,Ⅲ.38.7.
578 Demosthenes 4(Philippic Ⅰ),26.
579 Demosthenes 4(Philippic Ⅰ),35-37.
580 Demosthenes 4(Philippic Ⅰ),47.
581 Demosthenes 2(Olynthiac Ⅱ),28-29.
582 Demosthenes 2(Olynthiac Ⅱ),30.
583 Demosthenes 2(Olynthiac Ⅱ),30.
584 Demosthenes 2(Olynthiac Ⅱ),31.
585有关“观剧基金”制度的讨论,R.J.Rhodes,A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia,Oxford University Press,1981,pp.514-517;Raphael Sealey,Demosthenes and His Time:A Study in Defeat,pp.256-258.
586 Demosthenes 3(Olynthiac Ⅲ),10-11.
587 Demosthenes 3(Olynthiac Ⅲ),11.
588 Demosthenes 3(Olynthiac Ⅲ),31.
589 Demosthenes 3(Olynthiac Ⅲ),34-35.
590 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),271;另外,在德谟斯提尼批评埃斯基尼斯时,从反面同样指出,民众了解后者是怎样的人,并且听过后者的演说,见Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),283.
1.Aeschines,translated by Chris Carey,University of Texas Press,2000.
2.Aristotelis Ars Rhetorica,edited by W.D.Ross,Scriptorum Classicorum Bibliotheca Oxoniensis,Oxford University Press,1959.
3.Aristotelis Atheniensium Respublica,edited by F.G.Kenyon,Scriptorum Classicorum Bibliotheca Oxoniensis,Oxford University Press,1920.
4.Aristotle:Politics,with an English translation by H.Rackham,Loeb Classical Library,Harvard University Press,1932,reprinted with corrections 1944.
5.Aristotle:Rhetorica ad Alexandrum,with an English translation by H.Rackham,Loeb Classical Library,Harvard University Press,1937,revised 1957.
6.Aristotle:The “Art” of Rhetoric,with an English translation by John Henry Freese,Loeb Classical Library,Harvard University Press,1926.
7.Demosthenis Orationes,edited by M.R.Dilts,tomus I,Oxford University Press,2002.
8.Demosthenis Orationes,edited by M.R.Dilts,tomus Ⅱ,Oxford University Press,2005.
9.Demosthenes,Vol.Ⅰ,with an English translation by J.H.Vince,Loeb Classical Library,Harvard University Press,1930.
10.Demosthenes,Vol.Ⅱ,with an English translation by C.A.Vince and J.H.Vince,Loeb Classical Library,Harvard University Press,1926,revised 1939.
11.Demosthenes,Vol.Ⅲ,with an English translation by J.H.Vince,Loeb Classical Library,Harvard University Press,1935.
12.Demosthenes,Vol.Ⅳ,with an English translation by A.T.Murray,Loeb Classical Library,Harvard University Press,1936.
13.Demosthenes,Vol.Ⅴ,with an English translation by A.T.Murray,Loeb Classical Library,Harvard University Press,1939.
14.Demosthenes,Vol.Ⅵ,with an English translation by A.T.Murray,Loeb Classical Library,Harvard University Press,1939.
15.Demosthenes:Speeches 18 and 19,translated with introduction and notes by Harvey Yunis,University of Texas Press,2005.
16.Demosthenes:Speeches 27-38,translated by Douglas M.MacDowell,University of Texas Press,2004.
17.Demosthenes:Speeches 50-59,translated by Victor Bers,University of Texas Press,2003.
18.Demosthenes:Against Meidias(Oration 21),edited with introduction,translation and commentary by Douglas M.MacDowell,Oxford:Clarendon Press,1990.
19.Demosthenes:On the Crown,edited by Harvey Yunis,Cambridge University Press,2001.
20.Demosthenes:Selected Private Speeches,edited by C.Carey and R.A.Reid,Cambridge University Press,1985.
21.Dinarchus,Hyperides & Lycurgus,translated by Ian Worthington,Craig Cooper and Edward M.Harris,University of Texas Press,2001.
22.Dionysius of Halicarnassus:Critical Essays,with an English translation by Stephen Usher,Loeb Classical Library,Harvard University Press,1974.
23.Isaeus,with an English translation by Edward Seymour Forster,Loeb Classical Library,Harvard University Press,1927.
24.Isaeus,translated by Michael Edwards,University of Texas Press,2007.
25.Minor Attic Orators,Vol.Ⅰ,with an English translation by K.J.Maidment,Loeb Classical Library,Harvard University Press,1941.
26.Minor Attic Orators,Vol.Ⅱ,with an English translation by J.O.Burtt,Loeb Classical Library,Harvard University Press,1954.
27.Plato:Symposium,edited by Sir Kenneth Dover,Cambridge University Press,1980.
28.Plato,Vol.Ⅰ,with an English translation by Harold North Fowler,Loeb Classical Library,Harvard University Press,1914.
29.Plato,Vol.Ⅱ,with an English translation by W.R.M.Lamb,Loeb Classical Library,Harvard University Press,1924.
30.Plato,Vol.Ⅲ,with an English translation by W.R.M.Lamb,Loeb Classical Library,Harvard University Press,1925.
31.Plato,Vol.Ⅷ,with an English translation by Harold North Fowler and W.R.M.Lamb,Loeb Classical Library,Harvard University Press,1925.
32.Plato,Vol.Ⅹ,with an English translation by R.G.Bury,Loeb Classical Library,Harvard University Press,1926.
33.Plutarch:Lives,Vol.Ⅶ,with an English translation by Bernadotte Perrin,Loeb Classical Library,Harvard University Press,1919.
34.Plutarch's Moralia,Vol.Ⅹ,with an English translation by Harold North Fowler,Loeb Classical Library,Harvard University Press,1936.
35.The Speeches of Aeschines,with an English translation by Charles Darwin Adams,Loeb Classcial Library,William Heinemann,1919.
36.Thucydidis Historiae,tomus prior,edited by Henricus Stuart Jones,Scriptorum Classicorum Bibliotheca Oxoniensis,1900,emended 1942.
1.Adams,Charles Darwin,“Are the Political ‘Speech' of Demosthenes to Be Regarded as Political Pamphlets?”,Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association,Vol.43.(1912),5-22.
2.Badian,E.& Heskel,Julia,“Aeschines 2.12-18:A Study in Rhetoric and Chronology”,Phoenix,Vol.41,No.3.(Autumn,1987),264-271.
3.Christ,Matthew R.,The Litigious Athenian,The Johns Hopkins University Press,1998.
4.Duncan,Anne,Performance and Identity in the Classical World,Cambridge University Press,2006.
5.Dyck,Andrew R.,“The Function and Persuasive Power of Demosthenes' Portrait of Aeschines in the Speech ‘On the Crown'”,Greece & Rome,2nd Ser.,Vol.32,No.1.(Apr.,1985),42-48.
6.Farenga,Vincent,Citizen and Self in Ancient Greece:Individuals Performing Justice and the Law,Cambridge University Press,2006.
7.Finley,M.Ⅰ.,“Athenian Demagogues”,Past and Present,No.21(Apr.,1962),3-24.
8.Flensted-Jensen,Pernille,Nielsen,Thomas Heine & Rubinstein,Lene,eds.,Polis & Politics:Studies in Ancient Greek History,Museum Tusculanum Press,2000.
9.Garver,Eugene,Aristotle's Rhetoric:An Art of Character,The University of Chicago Press,1994.
10.Christ,Matthew R.,The Litigious Athenian,The Johns Hopkins University Press,1998.
11.Gill,Christoper,“The Ethos/Pathos Distinction in Rhetorical and Literary Criticism”,The Classical Quarterly,New Series,Vol.34,No.1.(1984),149-166.
12.Goldhill,Simon,“The Great Dionysia and Civic Ideology”,The Journal of Hellenic Studies,Vol.107.(1987),58-76.
13.Goldhill,Simon,“Literary History without Literature:Reading Practices in the Ancient World”,SubStance,Vol.28,No.1,Issue 88:Special Issue:Literary History.(1999),57-89.
14.Goldhill,Simon & Osborne,Robin,eds.,Performance Culture and Athenian Democracy,Cambridge University Press,1999.
15.Goldhill,Simon & Osborne,Robin,eds.,Rethinking Revolutions through Ancient Greece,Cambridge University Press,2006.
16.Grimaldi,William M.A.,Aristotle,Rhetoric Ⅱ:A Commentary,Fordham University Press,1988.
17.Hall,Edith,The Thearical Cast of Athens:Interaction between Ancient Greek Drama and Society,Oxford University Press,2006.
18.Harding,P.,“Rhetoric and Politics in Fourth-Century Athens”,Phoenix,Vol.41,No.1.(1987),25-39.
19.Hansen,Mogens Herman,The Athenian Assembly in the Age of Demosthenes,Blackwell,1987.
20.Hansen,Mogens Herman,The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes:Structure,Principles and Ideology,Blackwell,1990.
21.Harris,Edward M.,Aeschines and Athenian Politics,New York:Oxford,Oxford University Press,1995.
22.Hesk,Jon,Deception and Democracy in Classical Athens,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2000.
23.Isager,Signe & Hansen,Mogens Herman,Aspects of Athenian Society in the Fourth Century B.C.,translated by Judith Hsiang Rosenmeier,Odense University Press,1975.
24.Johnstone,Steven,Disputes and Democracy:The Consequences of Litigation in Ancient Athens,The University of Texas Press,1999.
25.Lau,Richard R.& Sears,David O.,eds.,The 19th Annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition:Political Cognition,Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Inc.,1986.
26.Loraux,Nicole,The Invention of Athens:The Funeral Oration in the Classical City,translated by Alan Sheridan,Zone Books,2006(first edition in English 1993,original edition in French 1981).
27.Mitchell,Lynette G.& Rhodes,P.J.,“Friends and Enemies in Athenian Politics”,Greece & Rome,2nd Ser.,Vol.43,No.1.(Apr.,1996),11-30.
28.Martin,Richard P.,The Language of Heroes:Speech and Performance in the Iliad,Cornell University Press,1989.
29.Murphy,Charles T.,“Aristophanes and the Art of Rhetoric”,Harvard Studies in Classical Philology,Vol.49.(1938),69-113.
30.Ober,Josiah,Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens:Rhetoric,Ideology and the Power of the People,Princeton:Princeton University Press,1989.
31.Ober,Josiah,The Athenian Revolution:Essays on Ancient Greek Democracy and Political Theory,Princeton University Press,1996.
32.Ober,Josiah,Political Dissent in Democratic Athens:Intellectual Critics of Popular Rule,Princeton University Press,1998.
33.Ober,Josiah,Athenian Legacies:Essays on the Politics of Going On Together,Princeton University Press,2005.
34.Ober,Josiah,Democracy and Knowledge:Innovation and Learning in Classical Athens,Princeton University Press,2008.
35.Ober,Josiah & Hedrick,Charles,eds.,Demokratia:A Conversation on Democracies,Ancient and Modern,Princeton University Press,1996.
36.Osborne,Robin,Demos:The Discovery of Classical Attika,Cambridge University Press,1985.
37.Osborne,Robin,ed.,Studies in Ancient Greek and Roman Society,Cambridge University Press,2004.
38.Pearson,Lionel,“The Development of Demosthenes as a Political Orator”,Phoenix,Vol.18,No.2(Summer,1964),95-109.
39.Pelling,Christopher,Literary Texts and the Greek Historian,Routledge,2000.
40.Rhodes,R.J.,A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia,Oxford University Press,1981.
41.Rowe,Galon O.,“The Portrait of Aeschines in the Oration on the Crown”,Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association,Vol.97(1966),397-406.
42.Saxonhouse,Arlene W.,Free Speech and Democracy in Ancient Athens,Cambridge University Press,2006.
43.Schiappa,Edward,“Did Plato Coin Rhetorike”,The American Journal of Philology,Vol.Ⅲ,No.4.(1990),457-470.
44.Sealey,Raphael,Demosthenes and His Time:A Study in Defeat,Oxford University Press,1993.
45.Sinclar,R.K.,Democracy and Participation in Athens,Cambridge University Press,1988.
46.Taylor,Claire,“Bribery in Athenian Politics Part Ⅰ:Accusations,Allegations,and Slander”,Greece & Rome,2nd Ser.,Vol.48,No.1.(Apr.,2001),53-66.
47.The Cambridge Ancient History,Vol.Ⅵ,Cambridge University Press,1994.
48.Usher,Stephen,Greek Oratory:Tradition and Originality,Oxford University Press,1999.
49.Vernant,Jean-Pierre,ed.,The Greeks,translated by Charles Lambert and Teresa Lavender Fagan,The University of Chicago Press,1995.
50.Worman,Nancy,Abusive Mouths in Classical Athens,Cambridge University Press,2008.
51.Worthington,Ian,ed.,Persuasion:Greek Rhetoric in Action,Routledge,1994.
52.Worthington,Ian,ed.,Demosthenes:Statesman & Orator,Routledge,2000.
53.Worthington,Ian,ed.,A Companion to Greek Rhetoric,Blackwell,2007.
54.Yunis,Harvey,Taming Democracy:Models of Political Rhetoric in Classical Athens,Cornell University Press,1996.
55.Yunis,Harvey,“How do the People Decide? Thucydides on Periclean Rhetoric and Civic Instruction”,The American Journal of Philology,Vol.112,No.2(Summer,1991),179-200.
56.Yunis,Harvey,ed.,Written Texts and the Rise of Literate Culture in Ancient Greece,Cambridge University Press,2003.
1.[古希腊]柏拉图:《柏拉图对话集》,王太庆译,商务印书馆,2004年。
2.[古希腊]欧里庇得斯:《欧里庇得斯悲剧集》,周作人译,中国对外翻译出版公司,2003年。
3.罗念生译著:《罗念生全集》,第一卷,上海人民出版社,2004年。
4.罗念生译著:《罗念生全集》,第六卷,上海人民出版社,2004年。
5.苗力田主编:《亚里士多德全集》,第九卷,颜一等译,中国人民大学出版社,1994年。
6.[古希腊]修昔底德:《伯罗奔尼撒战争史》,谢德风译,商务印书馆,1960年。
7.[古希腊]亚里士多德:《诗学》,陈中梅译注,商务印书馆,2003年。
8.[古希腊]亚里士多德:《雅典政制》,日知、力野译,商务印书馆,1959年。
9.[古希腊]亚里士多德:《政治学》,吴寿彭译,商务印书馆,1965年。
1.[匈]格雷戈里·纳吉(Gregory Nagy):《荷马诸问题》(Homeric Questions),巴莫曲布嫫译,广西师范大学出版社,2008年。
2.黄洋:《雅典民主政治新论》,《世界历史》,1994年第1期,第60-66页。
3.黄洋:《从同性恋透视古代希腊社会——一项历史学的分析》,《世界历史》,1998年第5期,第74-82页。
4.蒋保:《演说与雅典民主政治》,《历史研究》,2006年第6期,第138-150页。
5.蒋保:《试论雅典演说的政治功能》,《江西社会科学》,2008年第9期,第160-164页。
6.[美]理查德·鲍曼(Richard Bauman):《作为表演的口头艺术》(Verbal Art as Performance),杨利慧、安德明译,广西师范大学出版社,2008年。
7.晏绍祥:《演说家与希腊城邦政治》,《历史研究》,2006年第6期,第151-166页。
8.杨巨平、王志超:《试论演说家与雅典民主政治的互动》,《世界历史》,2007年第4期,第24-32页。
2 Aristotle,Rhetoric,I,1358b6.
3 尤尼斯(Yunis)指出,德谟斯提尼之成为政治家,相比于其他政治家,更主要地依赖演说能力,因为他没有军事才能,未曾担任过将军之职,也并非出身于贵族家庭。见Harvey Yunis,Taming Democracy:Models of Political Rhetoric in Classical Athens,Comell University Press,1996,p.239.
4 本文使是2006年的新版英文译本:Nicole,Loraux,The Invention of Athens:The Funeral Oration in the Classical City,translated by Alan Sheridan,Zone Books,2006.
5 Nicole,Loraux,The Invention of Athens:The Funeral Oration in the Classical City,pp.13-14.
6 Nicole,Loraux,The Invention of Athens:The Funeral Oration in the Classical City,p.40.
7 Nicole,Loraux,The Invention of Athens:The Funeral Oration in the Classical City,p.42,p.418.
8 西方学者对演说与雅典民主政治这一论题的关注,可以说是以芬利(Finley)于1962年发表的一篇重要论文《雅典民众领袖》为开端的。芬利注意到掌握演说术对于政治家获得领袖地位所起到的关键作用,同时,主要从制度角度讨论了演说在雅典民主政治各主要机构运作中的核心地位。见M.I.Finley,“Athenian Demagogues”,Past and Present,No.21(Apr.,1962),pp.3-24。芬利本文具有开创意义,而关于演说与雅典民主政治更为深入的研究,则需建立在对存世演说辞进行充分利用的基础之上,从20世纪80年代开始,西方学者在这方面取得了很大的进展。
9 Josiah Ober,Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens:Rhetoric,Ideology and the Power of the People,Princeton:Princeton University Press,1989,p.42.
10 Josiah Ober,Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens:Rhetoric,Ideology and the Power of the People,pp.40-44.
11 欧博尔的详细论述,见Josiah Ober,Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens:Rhetoric,Ideology and the Power of the People,pp.182-191,pp.240-247,pp.226-230.
12 Josiah Ober,Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens:Rhetoric,Ideology and the Power of the People,p.45.
13 Harvey Yunis,Taming Democracy:Models of Political Rhetoric in Classical Athens,Cornell University Press,1996,p.12.
14 Harvey Yunis,Taming Democracy:Models of Political Rhetoric in Classical Athens,pp.1-2.
15 参见尤尼斯的论文:Harvey Yunis,“How do the People Decide?Thucydides on Periclean Rhetoric and Civic Instruction”,The American Journal of Philology,Vol.112,No.2(Summer,1991),pp.179-200.
16 Harvey Yunis,Taming Democracy:Models of Political Rhetoric in Classical Athens,p.32.
17 Harvey Yunis,Taming Democracy:Models of Political Rhetoric in Classical Athens,p.35.
18 二人的著作分别是:Matthew R.Christ,The Litigious Athenian,The Johns Hopkins University Press,1998;Steven Johnstone,Disputes and Democracy:The Consequences of Litigation in Ancient Athens,The University of Texas Press,1999.
19 Ian Worthington ed.Persuasion:Greek Rhetoric in Action,Routledge,1994,p.viii.
20 Josiah Ober,“Power and Oratory in Democratic Athens:Demosthenes 21,Against Meidias”,Ian Worthington,ed.,Persuasion:Greek Rhetoric in Action,pp.85-108.
21 分别为:Victor Bers,“Tragedy and Rhetoric”,Ian Worthington,ed.,Persuasion:Greek Rhetoric in Action,pp.176-195;Philip Harding,“Comedy and Rhetoric”,Ian Worthington,ed.,Persuasion:Greek Rhetoric in Action,pp.196-221.
22 晏绍祥:《演说家与希腊城邦政治》,《历史研究》,2006年第6期,第151-166页。
23 蒋保:《演说与雅典民主政治》,《历史研究》,2006年第6期,第138-150页。
24 蒋保:《试论雅典演说的政治功能》,《江西社会科学》,2008年第9期,第160-164页。
25 杨巨平、王志超:《试论演说家与雅典民主政治的互动》,《世界历史》,2007年第4期,第24-32页。
26 Josiah Ober,The Athenian Revolution:Essays on Ancient Greek Democracy and Political Theory,Princeton University Press,1996,p.4.
27 Josiah Ober,The Athenian Revolution:Essays on Ancient Greek Democracy and Political Theory,p.11.
28 Josiah Ober,“Power and Oratory in Democratic Athens:Demosthenes 21,Against Meidias”,The Athenian Revolution:Essays on Ancient Greek Democracy and Political Theory,p.104.29 Josiah Ober.The Athenian Revolution:Essays on Ancient Greek Democracy and Political Theory.p.8.
30 国内古希腊史学界尚未对表演研究给予关注,但是民俗学界已经注意这种重要的研究方法,并且开始译介相关著作,关于表演研究的基本理论,可以参见:[美]理查德·鲍曼(Richard Bauman):《作为表演的口头艺术》(Verbal Art as Performance),杨利慧、安德明译,广西师范大学出版社,2008年。
31 Simon Goldhill & Robin Osborne,eds.,Performance Culture and Athenian Democracy,Cambridge University Press,1999,pp.11-15.
32 Simon Goldhill,“Literary History without Literature:Reading Practices in the Ancient World”,SubStance,Vol.
28,No.1,Issue 88:Special Issue:Literary History.(1999),pp.57-89.
33 Jon Hesk,Deception and Democracy in Classical Athens,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2000,pp.4-5;并且参见John Hesk,“The Rhetoric of Anti-Rhetoric in Athenian Oratory”,Simon Goldhill & Robin Osborne,eds.Performance Culture and Athenian Democracy,Cambridge University Press,1999,p.230.
34 Josiah Ober,Democracy and Knowledge:Innovation and Learning in Classical Athens,Princeton University Press,2008,pp.183-194.
35 1986年召开的卡内基认知学年会即以“政治认知”作为主题,对这种研究趋势进行了全面的总结,参见此次会议的论文集:Richard R.Lau & David O.Sears,eds.,The 19th Annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition:Political Cognition,Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Inc.,1986.
36 德谟斯提尼吸引了许多西方学者的注意力,2000年,沃亭顿主编《德谟斯提尼:政治家与演说家》(Ian Worthington,ed.,Demosthenes:Statesman & Orator,Routledge,2000)一书,比较全面地反映了最近西方学者关于德谟斯提尼的研究,该书的多篇论文涉及德谟斯提尼的生平、政治活动与演说术,同时还讨论了德谟斯提尼的演说辞在社会史研究中的运用,并且综述了德谟斯提尼研究的学术史。而且,最近几年,西方学者对德谟斯提尼的演说辞也给予了更多的关注,相继出版了某些重要演说辞的注疏本与英译本,同时,迪尔茨(Dilts)也在对德谟斯提尼演说辞的希腊文本进行重新校勘,新的校勘本已经陆续出版。笔者所使用的德谟斯提尼演说辞希腊文本即主要依据迪尔茨的新校勘本,新校勘本中尚未出版的演说辞则依据洛布古典丛书(Loeb Classical Library),详见本文参考文献。
37 分别是《诉阿弗波斯之一》(Against Aphobus I)、《诉阿弗波斯之二》(Against Aphobus I)和《诉奥内托尔之一》(Against Aphobus I),参见本文附录。
38 分别是《诉勒普提尼斯》(Against Leptines)、《诉安德洛提翁》(Against Androtion)和《诉提谟克拉特》(Against Timocrates),参见本文附录。
39 7篇公民大会演说辞分别是3篇《反腓力辞》(Philippic Ⅰ,Philippic Ⅱ,Philippic Ⅲ)、3篇《奥林图斯辞》(Olynthiac Ⅰ,Olynthiac Ⅱ,Olynthiac Ⅲ)和《论和平》(On the Peace);3篇公共诉讼演说辞分别是《诉美狄亚斯》(Against Meidias)、《使团辞》(On the False Embassy)和《金冠辞》(On the Crown),参见本文附录。
40 埃斯基尼斯的演说辞分别是《诉提马库斯》(Against Timarchus)、《论使团》(On the Embassy)和《诉科忒西丰》(Against Ctesiphon),参见本文附录。
41 参见 Pat Easterling,“Actors and Voices:Reading between the Lines in Aeschines and Demosthenes”,Simon Goldhill and Robin Osborne,ed.,Performance Culture and Athenian Democracy,pp.154-166;Anne Duncan,“Demosthene versus Aeschines:The Rhetoric of Sincerity”,Performance and Identity in the Classical World,Cambridge University Press,2006,pp.58-89;Edith Hall,“Lawcourt Dramas:Acting and Performance in Legal Oratory”,The Theatrical Cast of Athens:Interactions between Ancient Greek Drama and Society,2006,pp.353-392.
42 例如:Raphael Sealey,Demosthenes and His Time:A Study in Defeat,Oxford University Press,1993;Edward M.Harris,Aeschines and Athenian Politics,New York:Oxford,Oxford University Press,1995;T.T.B.Ryder,“Demosthenes and Philip Ⅱ”,Ian Worthington,ed.,Demosthenes:Statesman and Orator,pp.45-89;John Buckler,“Demosthene and Aeschines”,Ian Worthington,ed.,Demosthenes:Statesman and Orator,pp.114-158.
43 关于雅典民众的政治角色意识,法伦加(Farenga)曾经给予特别的关注,他使用“脚本”(script)概念来指称雅典公民在城邦生活中扮演不同政治角色所遵循的一系列行为模式,但是他的讨论对象以古风时代和公元前5世纪的文献为主,很少涉及公元前4世纪的演说辞,而且并未集中于诉讼演说和公民大会演说进行充分的论述。参见其专著:Vincent Farenga,Citizen and Self in Ancient Greece:Individuals Performing Justice and the Law,Cambridge University Press,2006.
44 Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),189.
45 关于logos的其它各种含义,参见Michael Gagarin,“Probablity and Persuasion:Plato and Early Greek Rhetoric”,in Ian Worthington ed.Persuasion:Greek Rhetoric in Action,Routledge,1994,pp.46-47.
46 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),184.
47[Aristotle],Rhetoric to Alexander,I,1421b5-10.
48 Aristotle,Rhetoric,I,1354b22-23,1358a35-b8.
49 Aristotle,Rhetoric,I,1358b6.
50 法国学者Nicole Loraux曾经对雅典公共葬礼演说进行过深入的研究。关于葬礼演说所属类型的问题,Loraux指出,它不是纯粹以表演为目的的“展示性演说”,而是兼具政治功能。见The Ivention of Athens:The Funeral Oration in the Classical City,translated by Alan Sheridan,Zone Books,2006(first edition in English 1993,original edition in French 1981),p.120.
51 Plato,Symposium,185c-d.
52 Plato,Gorgias,449a.
53 可以参见汉森(Hansen)与欧博尔关于rh(?)t(?)r含义的讨论,汉森尤其特别指出,在公元前4世纪,由于专业技能的分化,政治家一般不能像公元前5世纪的伯里克利那样,兼rh(?)t(?)r与“将军”身份于一身,因此,汉森认为,公元前4世纪的政治家包括rh(?)t(?)r与将军两类人。见Mogens Herman Hansen,The Athenian Assembly in the Age of Demosthenes,Oxford:Blackwell,1987,pp.50-54。欧博尔的论述见Josiah Ober,Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens:Rhetoric,Ideology and the Power of the People,Princeton:Princeton University Press,1989,pp.105-108,p.110。另外参见Harvey Yunis,Taming Democracy:Models of Political Rhetoric in Classical Athens,Comell University Press,1996,p.10。国内学者关于rh(?)t(?)r政治身份的讨论,参见黄洋:《雅典民主政治新论》,《世界历史》,1994年第1期,第64页;晏绍祥:《演说家与希腊城邦政治》,《历史研究》,2006年第6期,第151—166页;蒋保:《演说与雅典民主政治》,《历史研究》,2006年第6期,第148页;杨巨平、王志超:《试论演说家与雅典民主政治的互动》,《世界历史》,2007年第4期,第24-32页。
54 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),170.
55 Plato,The Statesman,303e-304a.
56 Plato,Gorgias,48a-e,462b;Plato,Phaedrus,267b.
57 Aristotle,Rhetoric,I,1354a12.
58 目前一般认为,《亚历山大修辞学》的作者是兰普萨库斯的阿那克西美尼(Anaximenes of Lampsacus),见P.Chiron,“The Rhetoric to Alexander”,Ian Worthington,ed.,A Companion to Greek Rhetoric,Blackwell,2007,p.90。另外可以参见:Edward Schiappa,“Did Plato Coin Rhetorike”,The American Journal of Philology,Vol.111,No.4.(1990),p.460;Charles T.Murphy,“Aristophanes and the Art of Rhetoric”,Harvard Studies in Classical Philology,Vol.49.(1938),p.70.
59 从存世文献中看,rh(?)torik(?)一词应该是柏拉图的发明,最早出现于《高尔吉亚》篇,时间约为公元前380年代,此前的任何文献中均无该词,此后也并未出现普遍使用的迹象。它似乎只在柏拉图学派内部沿用,最终在亚里士多德那里成为一个学术门类的名称,中文一般译作“修辞学”。本文论述中则将该词译作“演说术”,以更贴近其词源,同时不失亚里士多德使用该词的学术性。但在涉及亚里士多德的同名著作时,仍写作“《修辞学》”。关于rh(?)torik(?)的起源,参见Edward Schiappa,“Did Plato Coin Rhetorike”,pp.457-470.
60 Plato,Protagoras,312b.
61 Eugene Garver,Aristotle's Rhetoric:An Art of Character,The University of Chicago Press,1994,pp.19-20.
62 Aristotle,Rhetoric,Ⅱ,1402a17-24,其中“无理变有理”的译文采用颜一、秦典华译本,见苗力田主编《亚里士多德全集》,第九卷,中国人民大学出版社,1994年,第488页。
63 Plato,Gorgias,452e,456d,466b-c.
64 将政治演说与诗人或戏剧竞赛相比,见Plato,Phaedrus,258b;将政治演说与体育竞技相比,见Plato,Gorgias,456c-457b;Plato,Euthydemus,271c-272b.
65 ekkl(?)siastai来源于ekkl(?)sia,后者指雅典民主政体中的公民大会,全体雅典成年男性公民均可参加,所以ekkl(?)siastai在民主制雅典被视为全体雅典民众(d(?)mos),公民大会也常称为d(?)mos。
66 Aristotle,Rhetoric,Ⅰ,1358b2-5,Ⅱ,1377b21-22.
67 关于民主制雅典公民法庭与公民大会的表决方式,参见Mogens Herman Hansen,The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes:Structure,Principles and Ideology,p.175,p.202.
68 尽管在诗歌戏剧竞赛和体育竞技中有专门的裁判员,但是现场观众对表演者的胜负具有决定权,这就是柏拉图所谓“观众的权威”(theatrokratia),见Plato,Laws,701a.
69 关于政治演说与戏剧表演和体育竞技的相似性,参见Harvey Yunis,Taming Democracy:Models of Political Rhetoric in Classical Athens,pp.180-188.
70 关于演说听众的主动地位,参见Simon Goldhill & Robin Osborne,eds.,Performance Culture and Athenian Democracy,p.9;演说者与听众互动关系的充分发展,形成人们对这种关系本身的认识,戈德希尔称之为“元话语”,在此前提下,他认为雅典民主制对表演文化中各种表演行为(如演说和戏剧等)的发展具有促进作用,参见Simon Goldhill,“Literary History without Literature:Reading Practices in the Ancient World”,SubStance,Vol.28,No.1,Issue 88:Special Issue:Literary History.(1999),pp.63-68;关于雅典民主制与戏剧的关系,参见Simon Goldhill,“The Great Dionysia and Civic Ideology”,The Journal of Hellenic Studies,Vol.107.(1987),p.62.
71 戈德希尔将ag(?)n作为概括古希腊表演文化的四个核心术语之一,见Simon Goldhill & Robin Osborne,eds.,Performance Culture and Athenian Democracy,p.2.
72 Aristotle,Rhetoric,Ⅰ,1354a11-26.
73 Aristotle,Rhetoric,Ⅱ,1377b13-28.
74 Aristotle,Rhetoric,Ⅱ,1377b28-1378a5.
75 Aristotle,Rhetoric,Ⅰ,1354b22-31.
76 我们可以参见亚里士多德在《诗学》中对情感手段的论述,他在《诗学》中论述戏剧表演时,对情感手段的合理性及重要性给予了特别的强调与阐发,见Aristotle,Poetics,Ⅵ,1449b24-28,ⅩⅢ,1452b28ff,ⅩⅧ,1455b34-35。可见,情感手段在演说与戏剧之间是共通的,是一般意义上的表演行为所具有的特征。这也可以佐证,作为演说技艺的情感手段体现了演说的表演属性。另外,哈丁(Harding)指出,雅典政治演说与戏剧表演的听众具有相似的心理状态,在这一心理层面,政治演说与戏剧表演存在着相似性,见P.Harding,“Rhetoric and Politics in Fourth-Century Athens”,Phoenix,Vol.41,No.1.(1987),p.32。关于亚里士多德在《修辞学》和《诗学》中对“情感”手段的分别论述,参见Christoper Gill,“The Ethos/Pathos Distinction in Rhetorical and Literary Criticism”,The Classcial Quarterly,New Series,Vol.34,No.1.(1984),pp.154-155.
77 Aristotle,Rhetoric,Ⅰ,1354a26-31.
78[Aristotle],Rhetoric to Alexander,Ⅳ,1427a1-5;Ⅶ,1428a35-b10.
79 Antiphon 5(On the Murder of Herodes),73.
80 Antiphon 5(On the Murder of Herodes),71.
81 在雅典的私人诉讼中,诉辩双方各被允许进行两次演说,在案件涉及5000德拉克马以上的金额时,第一次演说时间为30分钟,第二次为9分钟,参见MacDowell,trans.,Demosthenes:Speeches 27-38,University of Texas Press,2004,p.40.
82 一般情况下,在诉讼演说中,被告更多的祈求陪审员的怜悯,但是,在德谟斯提尼的这两篇诉讼演说辞中,他作为原告却尤其强调陪审员的怜悯,是非常特别的案例,大概是与德谟斯提尼当时的处境有关。关于诉讼演说中祈求陪审员怜悯的现象,参见Steven Johnstone,Disputes and Democracy:The Consequences of Litigation in Ancient Athens,The University of Texas Press,1999,pp.111-114.
83 关于祈求陪审员的同情与怜悯,如Demosthenes 27(Against Aphobus Ⅰ),45,53,65,66,68;Demosthenes 28(Against Aphobus Ⅱ),18;关于要求陪审员对阿弗波斯的愤怒,如Demosthenes 27(Against Aphobus Ⅰ),63;
84 Demosthenes 27(Against Aphobus Ⅰ),63.
85 Demosthenes 27(Against Aphobus Ⅰ),69.
86 Demosthenes 28(Against Aphobus Ⅱ),16.
87 Demosthenes 27(Against Aphobus Ⅰ),47.
88 Aristotle,Rhetoric,Ⅰ,1357b7-9,tekm(?)rion是一个难以翻译的概念,其本义是“表征”,从亚里士多德的解释来看,它包含了论证、证明以及得出肯定结论的全部过程,笔者姑且译作“论证”,颜一将此处的tekm(?)rion 译作“证据”,笔者认为易与marturos相混淆,故不采用。见《亚里士多德全集》,第九卷,苗力田主编,中国人民大学出版社,1994年,第343页。
89 Demosthenes 28(Against Aphobus Ⅱ),2,引文中epideiksomen为第一人称复数形式,在诉讼演说中,当事人往往以第一人称复数自称,表示自己一方的行为。
90 Demosthenes 28(Against Aphobus Ⅱ),23.91 Aristotle,Rhetoric,Ⅰ,1354a13-16. 92 Thucydides,History of the Peloponnesian War,Ⅲ.38.7. 93 Thucydides,History of the Peloponnesian War,Ⅲ.38.5,赫斯克详细分析了密提林辩论中克里昂与对手迪奥
18 二人的著作分别是:Matthew R.Christ,The Litigious Athenian,The Johns Hopkins University Press,1998;
94 Plato,Symposium,198c1-5.
95 Aristotle,Rhetoric,I,1359b19-1360a37.
96 Aeschines 1(Against Timarchus),64.
97 Josiah Ober,Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens:Rhetoric,Ideology and the Power of the People,Princeton:Princeton University Press,1989,pp.108-112.
98 Aeschines 1.7,关天“rh(?)t(?)r资格审查”的详细内容,参见第二章第一节。
99 Josiah Ober,Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens:Rhetoric,Ideology and the Power of the People,p.110.
100 Mogens Herman Hansen,The Athenian Assembly in the Age of Demosthenes,Oxford:Blackwell,1987,p.55.
101 Aristotle,The Athenian Constitution,LV.
102 Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),189,引文中sumpherein humin本义是“为了你们的利益”,其中“你
103 Demosthenes 3(Olynthiac Ⅲ),21.
104 Demosthenes 22(Against Androtion),4.
105 Demosthenes 22(Against Androtion),11.
106 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),200.
107 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),35.
108 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),16,另见Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),202,两处说法完全相同。
109 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),246;Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),200,202,215.
110 logographos还可以指“散文作家”和“史话作家”,欧博尔曾经分析修昔底德著作中对该词的使用,他指出,在修昔底德那里,logographos兼具“散文作家”、“史话作家”与“演说辞作者”的含义,因此,欧博尔倾向于认为,logographos的不同含义之间不存在完全的区别。同时,欧博尔对logographos一词从“散文作家”和“史话作家”向“演说辞作者”的转义过程也进行了概述。见Josiah Ober,Political Dissent in Democratic Athens:Intellectual Critics of Popular Rule,Princeton University Press,1998,p.55。另外,关于“演说辞作者”的产生,参见C.Carey and R.A.Reid,eds,Demosthenes:Selected Private Speeches,Cambridge University Press,1985,p.14.
111 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon).220.
112 Aeschines 1(Against Timarchus),173-175.
113 Josiah Ober,Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens:Rhetoric,Ideology and the Power of the People,pp.190-191.
114 Josiah Ober,Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens:Rhetoric,Ideology and the Power of the People,pp.170-174.
115 John Hesk,“The Rhetoric of Anti-Rhetoric in Athenian Oratory”,Simon Goldhill & Robin Osborne,eds.Performance Culture and Athenian Democracy,Cambridge University Press,1999,pp.211-218.
116 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),206.
117 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),207;关于用“巫师”和“魔法”来批评演说技艺的表述方式,参见赫斯克的论述,John Hesk,“The Rhetoric of Anti-Rhetoric in Athenian Oratory”,Simon Goldhill & Robin Osborne,eds.Performance Culture and Athenian Democracy,Cambridge University Press,1999,pp.212.
118 Aeschines 2(On the Embassy),130.
119 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),208.
120 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),16.
121 埃斯基尼斯在《诉提马库斯》中关于城邦法律地位的阐释,参见第四章第一节。
122 Aeschines 1(Against Timarchus),3;Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),9.
123 关于“适中”,例如Aeschines 1(Against Timarchus),3;Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),9;关于“简短”,例如Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),9,17;关于“易于领会”,例如Aeschines 1(Against Timarchus),8.
124 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),217-218;关于埃斯基尼斯对“演说”与“生活”对应关系的表述,详见第二章第一节。
125 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),220.
126 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),229;引文中所谓“笛子”(aulos),是古希腊的一种管乐,依靠簧片发声,在古希腊语中,这种簧片与舌头均称为gl(?)tta,因此才有埃斯基尼斯的这一比喻。
127 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon).220.
128 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),202.
129 Aeschines 1(Against Timarchus),173.
130 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),220.
131 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),13.
132 赫斯克也曾注意到,在雅典人的观念中,rh(?)t(?)r对演说技艺的运用不能超出is(?)goria的限度,见John Hesk,“The Rhetoric of Anti-Rhetoric in Athenian Oratory”,Simon Goldhill & Robin Osborne,eds.Performance Culture and Athenian Democracy,p.215.
133 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),13.
134 例如:Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),66,69,101,172,190,192,209;关于这种自称的作用,参见Harvey Yunis,Taming Democracy:Models of Political Rhetoric in Classical Athens,pp.272-273.
135 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),169-179,引文中humas(你们)指雅典民众。关于德谟斯提尼这段描述的详细分析,参见Harvey Yunis,Taming Democracy:Models of Political Rhetoric in Classical Athens,pp.268-277,尤尼斯认为,德谟斯提尼可能是在模仿修昔底德对伯里克利的描绘,甚至有意将自己塑造为一个“救世主”的形象,另见Harvey Yunis,ed.,Demosthenes:On the Crown,Cambridge University Press,2001,p.207.
136 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),189.
137 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),308.
135 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),196.
139 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),198.
140 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),308.
141 hupokrisis是动词hupokrinomai的名词形式,hupokrinomai本义是“回答”,被用以指称戏剧表演中演员间的唱和,也就是演员把剧本搬演上舞台的意思,因此,名词hupokrisis成为戏剧表演的专门术语,用于演说领域则可以相当于“朗诵”。西方学者一般认为,这种演说朗诵其实是背诵,并非手持演说辞的朗读,但是汉森表示怀疑,参见Mogens Herman Hansen,The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes:Structure,Principles and Ideology,translated by J.A.Crook,Blackwell,1990,p.142.
142 Aristotle,Rhetoric,Ⅲ,1403b31-1404a3,其中“城邦公民们的缺点”(t(?)n mokhtherian t(?)n polit(?)n)可以引申为“城邦政体的缺点”。参见《亚里士多德全集》,第九卷,第494页;《罗念生全集》,第一卷,第304页。
143 Plutarch,Demosthenes,6.3-7.3.
144[Plutarch],Lives of the Ten Orators,845a-b.
145 德谟斯提尼对埃斯基尼斯嗓音与朗诵技巧的批评,近年来特别引起研究古希腊表演文化的西方学者的关注,对这些批评进行分析的论著如:Pat Easterling,“Actors and Voices:Reading between the Lines in Aeschines and Demosthenes”,Simon Goldhill and Robin Osborne,ed.,Performance Culture and Athenian Democracy,pp.154-166;Anne Duncan,“Demosthene versus Aeschines:The Rhetoric of Sincerity”,Performance and Identity in the Classical World,Cambridge University Press,2006,pp.58-89。这些分析主要关注古希腊戏剧表演对政治演说的影响,伊斯特林(Easterling)的研究涉及戏剧演员与政治家在社会地位与社会活动范围中的联系;邓肯(Duncan)还特别分析了普鲁塔克在《德谟斯提尼传》中的描写,邓肯认为,普鲁塔克有意将德谟斯提尼与戏剧表演紧密联系在一起。另外,霍尔(Hall)也比较全面的从表演形式的角度讨论了古希腊戏剧表演对政治演说的影响,见Edith Hall,“Lawcourt Dramas:Acting and Performance in Legal Oratory”,The Theatrical Cast of Athens:Interactions between Ancient Greek Drama and Society,2006,pp.353-392。笔者在下文的分析中主要关注的则是rh(?)t(?)r的演说表演与其政治职责之间的关系。
146 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),206-208.
147 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),336-337.
148 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),339.
149 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),306-308.
150 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),280.
151 ta beltista legein的表述方式,在演说辞中经常出现,即指政治家提出最好的政治建议,例如Demosthenes 3(Olynthiac Ⅲ),11,12,18;Demosthenes 9(Philippic Ⅲ),2,56,63.
152 赫斯克将rh(?)t(?)r之间关于彼此演说技艺的攻击称为“反修辞的修辞”(rhetoric of anti-rhetoric),赫斯克认为,这种“反修辞的修辞”可以强化民众对rh(?)t(?)r的警惕与怀疑,赫斯克甚至将它引申至民众对自身统治地位的关注。见John Hesk,“The Rhetoric of Anti-Rhetoric in Athenian Oratory”,Simon Goldhill & Robin Osborne,eds.Performance Culture and Athenian Democracy,p.230。笔者的分析则主要集中在演说表演本身,推测rh(?)t(?)r之间的这种攻击对其演说表演以及听众的认知能力所可能造成的影响。
153 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),227.
154 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),174.
155 财产税称为eisphora,公益捐助称为leitourgia,主要包括战舰捐助和合唱队捐助两项。
本章即以德谟斯提尼与埃斯基尼斯在诉讼演说中关于彼此私人生活的展示
为重点考察对象,首先阐明雅典民主制度和观念对这种展示的要求,以及这种展
示本身所处的具体修辞语境,并且详细列举和分析德谟斯提尼与埃斯基尼斯展示
私人生活的内容及方式;其次,第二节专门讨论他们如何在诉讼场合中表述彼此
之间的人际关系,这是私人生活展示的重要组成部分之一;最后在第三节试图论
述政治家私人生活的展示在雅典民众的政治认知方面可能具有的社会功能,政治
家在将这种展示诉求于社会舆论的同时,也在强调着这种展示对社会舆论的影响
作用。
第一节 “砌砌资格审查”:从制度到修辞
从演说辞证据来看,政治家有必要公开展示自己的私人生活以证明品格高
尚,这在雅典民主政体中似乎是一种制度要求,即所谓“rh~t6r资格审查”
(dokimasia rh~tor6n)。前文曾经论及(第一章第二节),关于这一制度的表述,
很大程度上可能是出于将rh~t6r进行“公职化”的观念,而该制度在实际中的执
行情况,其实并无直接而确定的证据。但是,无论“rh~t6r资格审查”是一项确
实得以执行的制度还是一种观念倾向,它都是对政治家进行提议演说的制约,是
将政治家的公共政治行为与其私人生活紧密联结在一起的一种制约方式。这就为
政治家在法庭诉讼场合展示私人生活的合理性提供了保证。
156 Aeschines 1(Against Timarchus),19-20.
157 Aeschines 2(On the Embassy),182.
158 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),69.
159 同样,要终止一位政治家的公共影响力,雅典人往往采取将其逐出城邦的方式。
160 Aeschines 2(On the Embassy),23.
160 Dinarchus 1(Against Demosthenes),70-71.
162 Aeschines 1(Against Timarchus),28-30.
163 Demosthenes 22(Against Androtion),30-32.
164 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),162:埃斯基尼斯将阿里斯通与德谟斯提尼二人称为paskh(?)n与pratt(?)n,这两个分词构成一组对应关系,pratt(?)n是“获取”的意思,表示施加行为的主动方,而paskh(?)n指“接受”,表示行为的被施加者,在埃斯基尼斯《诉提马库斯》中它们的不定式形式paskhein和prattein分别用来指称提马库斯在出卖肉体时与其客人米斯格拉斯的各自行为,是一种隐晦的说法,见Aeschines 1.41。关于同性恋问题,以赞颂同性之爱为主旨的柏拉图《会饮》篇却也透露出雅典民众对同性恋的反感,父亲们会让奴隶严格监护男孩子,不准他们接近“爱人”(tois erastais),见Plato,Symposium,183c4-d2,其中,tois erastais 指同性恋中的主动方,而男孩子是“被爱者”(tois er(?)menois)。黄洋曾经指出,虽然男性同性恋得到雅典人允许甚至赞同,但是男妓出卖肉体的行为却为法律所禁止。见黄洋:《从同性恋透视古代希腊社会——一 项历史学的分析》,《世界历史》,1998年第5期,第75页。
165 其实,如果德谟斯提尼的说法属实,本可以直接提起关于安德洛提翁提议资格的起诉,或者被告早已被取消了政治提议演说的资格。这一道理德谟斯提尼本人也是懂得的,在后来德谟斯提尼反驳埃斯基尼斯对提马库斯的指控时,也曾指出同样的矛盾性:提马库斯长期从事公民大会提议演说的事实可以证明埃斯基尼斯的控告是虚假的,见Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),286。而且,在《诉安德洛提翁》中,德谟斯提尼对安德洛提翁私人生活的攻击除了后者曾为男妓之外,还有其父是城邦债务人(Demosthenes 22.33-34),哈丁认为这两项如果属实,安德洛提翁的公民权则将不保,他因此指出,这些攻击纯属编造,见Harding,“Comedy and Rhetoric”,Ian Worthington,ed.,Persuasion:Greek Rhetoric in Action,Routledge,1994,pp.212-213.
166 Demosthenes 22(Against Androtion),61.
167 存世的吕西阿斯(Lysias)第十和十一篇演说辞(Against The omnestos Ⅰ,Ⅱ)就是有关dik(?) kakagorias的演说辞。参见托德(Todd)的导论与注疏,同时托德还讨论了aporr(?)ta的问题,见S.C.Todd,A Commentary on Lysias,Speeches 1-11,Oxford University Press,2007,pp.631-635.
168 Aeschines 1(Against Timarchus),11.
169 Aeschines 1(Against Timarchus),7,9-11.
170 Aeschines 1(Against Timarchus),39.
171 在赫斯克看来,演说辞中对(?)thos和phusis的强调,以及用它们来针对演说者的演说技艺的做法,是一种“反修辞的修辞”,见John Hesk,“The Rhetoric of Anti-Rhetoric in Athenian Oratory”,Simon Goldhill & Robin Osborne,eds.Performance Culture and Athenian Democracy,224.
172 Aeschines 1(Against Timarchus),5.
173 Aeschines 1(Against Timarchus),30-31.
174 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),174.
175 Aeschines 1(Against Timarchus),179.
176 Aeschines 2(On the Embassy),150.
177 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),249.
178 Demosthenes 22(Against Androtion),24,德谟斯提尼说:ou monon eir(?)kot'auton paranoma,alla kai bebi(?)kota paranom(?)s,虽然将“演说”(eir(?)kota)与“生活”(bebi(?)kota)并举,但是从文义看,eir(?)kota paranoma 在雅典特指“违法提议”,其中paranoma可以视为分词eir(?)kota的宾语,所以,这里的“演说”显然是针对内容,并非演说技艺;而德谟斯提尼对安德洛提翁演说技艺的批评在《诉安德洛提翁》的开始部分就曾 单独提出:德谟斯提尼称安德洛提翁是tekhnit(?)s tou legein,见Demosthenes 22(Against Androtion),4;德谟斯提尼指出民众不应被政治家的演说能力(t(?)i t(?)n legont(?)n dumam(?)i)所欺骗,见Demosthenes 22(Against Androtion),11。可见,《诉安德洛提翁》中,德谟斯提尼并没有把对安德洛提翁演说技艺的批评与对其生活方式的批评联系起来。关于德谟斯提尼对安德罗提翁演说技艺的批评,参见第一章第二节。
179 麦克道威尔(MacDowell)也指出德谟斯提尼《使团辞》这两个部分的划分,并且认为第二部分充分体现了德谟斯提尼演说术之精彩,但是第一部分很可能被德谟斯提尼作为演说的核心部分,见Douglas M.MacDowell,ed.,Demosthenes:On the False Embassy(Oration 19),p.27.
180 Aeschines 1(Against Timarchus),41.
181 Aeschines 1(Against Timarchus),46.
182 Aeschines 1(Against Timarchus),49.
183 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),199.
184 担合唱队捐助的富有公民称为“合唱队长”(khor(?)gos),khor(?)gion则是他为合唱队提供的训练场所,往往是他本人的住所,除训练外,捐助者可能还为合唱队成员提供饮食。参见Douglas M.MacDowell,ed.,Demosthenes:On the False Embassy(Oration19),p.289.
185 尤尼斯指出,德谟斯提尼有意突出埃斯基尼斯与合唱队长的对比,见Harvey Yunis,trans.,Demosthenes,Speeches 18 and 19,p.174.
186 关于tritag(?)nistein和tritag(?)nist(?)s含义,参见Douglas M.MacDowell,ed.,Demosthenes:On the False Embassy(Oration 19),p.289,p.305;Harvey Yunis,ed.,Demosthenes:On the Crown,p.186。关于德谟斯提尼对埃斯基尼斯演员身份的讽刺与批评,参见第一章第二节。
187 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),201.
188 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),250.
189 《使团辞》中德谟斯提尼对埃斯基尼斯母亲秘仪祭司身份的说法使我们联想到俄耳甫斯教,雅典人对此种秘仪一般持批评否定态度,参见欧里庇德斯(Euripides)悲剧《西波吕托斯(Hippolytus)》,第952至957行,雅典国王忒修斯(Theseus)说:“现在你尽管去夸口,去用了素食骗人,奉了俄耳甫斯当祖师,去胡说吧,尊奉那许多文书里出来的烟雾,在这时候你却被捉住了!我警告大家要避开这样的人,因为他们用了庄严的语言去拉人,一面计画着坏事。”见周作人译本,《欧里庇德斯悲剧集》,中,中国对外翻译出版公司,2003年版,第750页。值得注意的是,其中954行“尊奉那许多文书里出来的烟雾”(bakkheue poll(?)n grammat(?)n tim(?)n kapnous),直译为“为那些圣书里出来的烟雾而发狂”,这里指出的宗教文本(grammat(?)n)和发狂的(bakkheue)的信仰者,与德谟斯提尼对埃斯基尼斯母亲所主持的秘仪特征的表述相一致,德谟斯提尼也强调埃斯基尼斯在一群迷狂的人们当中朗读宗教文本(tas biblous anagign(?)skonta)。俄耳甫斯教以拥有大量宗教文本为特征,部分文本流传至今。
190 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),282.
191 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),129.
192 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),130.
193 Empousa曾经出现于阿里斯托芬的喜剧《蛙》,第288至293行。
194 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),130-131,引文中tout(?)ni(他们)指雅典民众。
195 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),257.
196 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),258-262.
197 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),263-264.
198 Aeschines 2(On the Embassy),147-148.
199 Aeschines 2(On the Embassy),149.
200 Aeschines 2(On the Embassy),152.
201 Aeschines 2(On the Embassy),148-150.
202 Aeschines 2(On the Embassy),165-166,从演说术角度对“智者”和“演说辞作者”的批评,参见第一章第一节。
203 参见Aeschines 1(Against Timarchus),28-30.
204 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),78.
205 Aeschines 2(On the Embassy),180,182.
206 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),171-172
207 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),171,lambaneind d(?)rean与dekhesthai d(?)rean意思相同,而d(?)rodokia(受贿)正是由d(?)rea(礼物)和dekhesthai(接受)组成的。
208 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),172.
209 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),173,引文中humeter(?)n(你们的)指雅典民众。
210 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),174:t(?)i heautous s(?)mati kai paidopoiiai与t(?)ipol(?)i均为与格,在句中处于对应位置。所谓“假省”,是一种修辞策略,以故意不说的方式表示强调,特别是像此处涉及家庭伦理道德问题,假省或者某种隐讳说法更是比较常用,而有趣的是,洛布古典丛书的早期英译略去“生育”(paidopoiiai)一词,似乎也在有意回避伦理问题,见The Speeches of Aeschines,Loeb Classcial Library,London:William Heinemann,1919,p.445.
211 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),148,151,152,155,159,175,187.
212 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),130.;在雅典,受到认可的传统教育(paideia)模式包括以荷马与赫西俄德(Hesiod)为主的诗歌教育、体育教育和音乐教育等。
213 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),134-135.
214 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),260.
213 Galon O.Rowe,“The Portrait of Aeschines in the Oration on the Crown”,Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association,Vol.97(1966),p.402.
216 哈丁(Harding)举安多基德斯(Andocides)攻击希波博鲁斯(Hyperbolus)私人生活的例子,认为其唯一的解释是在法庭中造成喜剧效果,同时,哈丁还论述了喜剧的幽默性对政治演说的影响,并且分析了德谟斯提尼《金冠辞》中攻击埃斯基尼斯私人生活的内容,分别见Harding,“Comedy and Rhetoric”,Ian Worthington,ed.,Persuasion:Greek Rhetoric in Action,p.201,pp.196-197,pp.214-216.
217 Andrew R.Dyck,“The Function and Persuasive Power of Demosthenes'Portrait of Aeschines in the Speech ‘On the Crown'”,Greece & Rome,2nd Ser.,Vol.32,No.1.(Apr.,1985),pp.43-44.
218 哈丁总结了攻击政治家私人生活的模式,见Harding,“Comedy and Rhetoric”,Ian Worthington,ed.,Persuasion:Greek Rhetoric in Action,pp.198-199。
219 P.Harding,“Rhetoric and Politics in Fourth-Century Athens”,Phoenix,Vol.41,No.1.(1987),pp.31-32.
220 哈里斯(Harris)在考察埃斯基尼斯家庭和早年经历之前,特别论述了公元前4世纪的雅典对政治家的经济要求,指出,尽管当时绝大多数雅典公民在法律和政治权利上是平等的,但是军事和经济责任仍然依据财产来分配;个人财富对于享受社会特权来说,虽不是充分条件,但却是必要条件。见Edward M.Harris,Aeschines and Athenian Politics,Oxford University Press,1995,pp.17-21.
221 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),256;再如上文埃斯基尼斯表明自己所受的教育时,用第一人称复数“我们”,将自己与听众置于同等位置,见Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),134-135。与此相反,德谟斯提尼在《诉美狄亚斯》中,特别强调了财富被用来行恶的一面,德谟斯提尼指出,美狄亚斯利用自己的财富迫害民众,见Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),98,109。
222 欧博尔的主要关注点就是精英与民众的关系,详细分析了雅典人如何看待在教育和经济方面精英与民众之间的不平等,欧博尔发现,对精英优越性的嫉妒情绪是存在的,但同时,民众可以容忍这种不平等,接受精英或者政治家享有优越性的事实。在教育方面,民众对精英或政治家优越性的容忍,见Josiah Ober,Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens:Rhetoric,Ideology and the Power of the People,p.185;经济方面的不平等则更为复杂:首先,民众对富有阶层有着客观的经济需要;其次,在意识形态上,欧博尔认为精英与民众之间依靠某种“虚构”的表达方式(欧博尔称为fiction)来弱化这种不平等,实现彼此接受;再次,欧博尔提出,雅典人利用政治权利的平等来控制经济方面的不平等,精英或政治家展示自己财富的前提是,把财富用于城邦的公共事务。欧博尔的结论是,通过这些方式民众容忍精英或政治家的优越性,可以鼓励政治家更好的从事政治活动,也将他们与民众更紧密的连结在一起,见Josiah Ober,Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens:Rhetoric,Ideology and the Power of the People,Princeton University Press,1989,pp.240-247;欧博尔还专门论述了富人凭借自己为城邦担任的经济义务而向民众要求好感的现象,见Josiah Ober,Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens:Rhetoric,Ideology and the Power of the People,pp.226-230.
223 德谟斯提尼强调,民众让埃斯基尼斯担任书记员是对埃斯基尼斯的一种恩惠,是民众使埃斯基尼斯成为自由人并且变得富有,见Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),249;Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),131.
224 Easterling就曾指出,德谟斯提尼描述埃斯基尼斯身世的修辞作用在于说明,埃斯基尼斯低贱的谋生方式使他更容易受到腓力二世贿赂的诱惑。见Pat Easterling,‘'Actors and Voices:Reading between the Lines in Aeschines and Demosthenes”,Simon Goldhill and Robin Osborne,ed.,Performance Culture and Athenian Democracy,p.155.
225 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),51-52,其中“米纳”(mna)是雅典货币单位。关于德谟斯提尼被美狄亚斯殴打一事,详见下一节。
226 Lynette G.Mitchell and P.J.Rhodes,“Friends and Enemies in Athenian Politics”,Greece & Rome,2nd Ser.,Vol.43,No.1.(Apr.,1996),p.11;而且,该文以实证方式研究公元前雅典政治家之间实际的友谊与敌对关系,从多篇演说辞中甄选出丰富的例证,颇具参考价值。但是,与他们所采取的实证方式不同,笔者是把“亲友”与“仇敌”作为演说者所表述的一种人际关系模式来进行分析。正如米切尔(Mitchell)和罗德斯(Rhodes)所说,这种“亲友”与“仇敌”的模式必然与希腊人所习惯的两分法的思维方式密切相关,然而笔者在后文将指出,法庭诉讼形式也影响了演说中关于人际关系的叙述,强化了“亲友”与“仇敌”的模式。
227 克莱斯特(Christ)指出,philia既用于指称家族内部的亲属关系,也用于指称家族之外的朋友关系,而且,在克莱斯特看来,当现实生活中的纷争转化为法庭诉讼中诉辩双方的“仇敌”关系,会凸显共同体中正常社会关系的破坏,演说者为了抵消这种消极影响,就更加强调“亲友”关系的重要性,见Matthew R.Christ,The Litigious Athenian,p.167.
228 约翰斯通(Johnstone)特别关注社会层面的一般纷争当进入法庭诉讼的特殊场合时,其叙事语境和叙事模式所发生的转化,其中就包括诉辩双方彼此关系的明确对立,除此以外,还有陪审员作为第三方的介入等,详见Steven Johnstone,Disputes and Democracy:The Consequences of Litigation in Ancient Athens,The University of Texas Press,1999,pp.4-5,pp.47-49。笔者的论述重点则在于,诉讼演说中对人际关系的展示,如何运用“亲友”与“仇敌”的对立模式。关于诉讼之ag(?)n的特征,另见克莱斯特的讨论:Matthew R.Christ,The Litigious Athenian,1998,p.163.
229 Demosthenes 27(Against Aphobus I),1,t(?)n dikai(?)n tugkhanein是法庭常用语,指获得正义的判决,Demosthenes 27(Against Aphobus I),2重复强调teuksesthai t(?)n dikai(?)n,teuksesthai是tugkhanein的将来时形式。
230 Demosthenes 27(Against Aphobus I),65.
231 Demosthenes 30(Against Onetor I),31.
232 《诉奥内托尔之一》要证明奥内托尔之妹并未与阿弗波斯真正离婚,而是仍然生活在一起,见Demosthenes 30(Against Onetor I),4-5.
233 伊塞乌斯(Isaeus)的存世演说辞主要是有关财产诉讼的,我们可以从中找到丰富的例子。
234 probol(?)由pro-(在……之前)和bol(?)(攻击)构成,可以理解为“预先攻击”、“先发制人”。
235 Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),25-28:据德谟斯提尼的说法,美狄亚斯声称他与德谟斯提尼之间的矛盾是hubris,但是根据雅典法律,关于hubris的诉讼也属于公共诉讼,即graph(?) hubre(?)s,德谟斯提尼为了突出自己所选择的probole诉讼形式的重要性,模糊了dikas idias与graph(?) hubre(?)s之间的界限,将它们归于一类,与probol(?)相对立,参见麦克道威尔的注疏:Douglas M.MacDowell,ed.,Demosthenes Against Meidias (Oration 21),p.247.
236 Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),26.
237 Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),31,34,55,61,74.
238 Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),31-34.
239 Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),40.
240 据德谟斯提尼的说法,美狄亚斯很可能声称,德谟斯提尼之所以控告自己,是由于德谟斯提尼是自己的敌人,见Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),29.
241 Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),61.
245 关于philotimia一词的多种含义,麦克道威尔曾经给出比较全面的总结,他认为该词在公元前5和4世纪具有不同的含义,在公元前5世纪和前4世纪早期,更偏重于个人的荣誉感,公元前4世纪中后期则具有为城邦公共利益做出贡献的意思,见Douglas M.MacDowell,ed.,Demosthenes:On the False Embassy (Oration 19),pp.223-224.
246 Lycurgus,Against Leocrates,3.
247 Demosthenes 3(Olynthiac Ⅲ),21.
248 克莱斯特指出,雅典人在对待诉讼行为方面表现出的矛盾性,他们一方面鼓励人们为了自己所受到的伤害而进行报复,另一方面又把诉讼视为爱好纷争的表现,见Matthew R.Christ,The Litigious Athenian,p.161.
249 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),98-101,这里使用的是标准版节号,相当于洛布古典丛书版Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),102-105,由于标准版的节号缺少105至109,洛布古典丛书将91至109节重新编订节号,因此,标准版与洛布古典丛书的《使团辞》在这一部分的节号有区别,但文本内容是一致的。参见洛布古典丛书相关说明,Demosthenes,Vol.Ⅱ,Loeb Classical Library,Harvard University Press,1926,revived 1939,p.245.
250 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),182.
251 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),80.
252 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),166-170.
253 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),173.
254 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),221.
255 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),222.
256 Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),77-82.
257 Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),102-122:包括诬告德谟斯提尼逃离战阵和杀人等。
258 Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),77.
259 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),81.
260 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),124.
261 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),135,引文中humin(你们) 指雅典民众。
262 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),123.
263 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),226.
264 克莱斯特指出,在公共诉讼中,尽管陪审员们本应该关注的是没有社会关系的政治家(rh(?)tores)之间的彼此攻击,但事实上他们却更为关注私人矛盾。这说明克莱斯特也认识到,雅典民众对公共诉讼中的政治家之私人人际关系的兴趣更多于对其政治关系的兴趣。Matthew R.Christ,The Litigious Athenian,p.164.
265 Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),114-115:涅墨亚节日是以宙斯为名义举办的全希腊的庆典活动,率领雅典代表参加该活动是公益捐助的形式之一,参见Douglas M.MacDowell,ed.,Demosthenes Against Meidias (Oration 21),p.338.
266 Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),116,118,麦克道威尔指出,德谟斯提尼是阿瑞斯塔库斯的朋友,见Douglas M.MacDowell,ed.,Demosthenes Against Meidias(Oration 21),p.339.
267 Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),116-119.
268 Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),118.
269 巴克勒(Buckler)指出,德谟斯提尼和埃斯基尼斯分别代表了雅典对待马其顿问题上两种相反的外交政策,同时,在这种政治分歧之上,二人之间还存在着私人仇恨。见John Buckler,“Demosthenes and Aeschines”,Ian Worthington,ed.,Demosthenes:Statesman and orator,Routledge,2000,p.114.
270 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),290-293.
271 Aeschines 2(On the Embassy),177.
272 Aeschines 2(On the Embassy),178.
273 Aeschines 2(On the Embassy),179.
274 Aeschines 2(On the Embassy),181.
275 Aeschines 2(On the Embassy),184.
276 哈里斯曾经尝试利用德谟斯提尼与埃斯基尼斯演说辞的内容来研究埃斯基尼斯可能的真实家庭背景,也许值得参考,见Edward M.Harris,Aeschines and Athenian Politics,pp.21-29,哈里斯所采取的基本判断方法是,如果政治家本人在演说辞中针对被攻击的某些问题保持沉默,不予反驳,那么,这些问题就很可能是真实的。
277 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),122,226.
278 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),54,229.
279 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),53.
280 Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),186-187.
281 Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),149;有疑问的是,这里的aporr(?)tous是否与dik(?) kakagorias中的aporr(?)ta有关,也就是说,关于德谟斯提尼此处所要揭示的美狄亚斯的出身,是否有涉及“诽谤罪”中aporr(?)ta 的内容。但是麦克道威尔直接译为“秘密”,见Douglas M.MacDowell,ed.,Demosthenes Against Meidias (Oration 21),p.177.
282 Jon Hesk,“The Rhetoric ofAnti-Rhetoric in Athenian Oratory”,Simon Goldhill and Robin Osbome,ed.,Performance Culture and Athenian Democracy,pp.227-229,在赫斯克看来,这种针对“尽人皆知”的“反修辞”现象本身也是一种修辞策略,所以赫斯克把它称为“反修辞的修辞”(rhetoric of anti-rhetoric)。赫斯克主要从修辞策略角度对这种现象进行了例证分析,笔者接下去则尝试对它背后可能隐藏的社会政治功能加以探索。
283 Aeschines 1(Against Timarchus),44.
284 Aesehines 1(Against Timarchus),127-129.
285 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),243-244.
286 关于提马库斯参加贵族式的会饮场所之描述,见Aeschines 1(Against Timarchus),41-42;关于提马库斯出入赌场的描述,见Aeschines 1(Against Timarchus),53,此处埃斯基尼斯特别指出,听众中有人曾经看到赌场中的情景,或者至少也听说过。
287 Aeschines 2(On the Embassy),145.
288 Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),153-154.
289 Demosthenes 22(Against Androtion),59-61.
290 参见第三章第二节关于德谟斯提尼《第二篇反腓力辞》的分析。
291 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),297-298.
292 Aeschines 1(Against Timarchus),127关于ph(?)m(?)的表述有tois pollois,同样,Aeschines 2(On the Embassy),145关于sukophantia的表述也有pros tous pollous。
293 Aeschines 2(On the Embassy),145,引文中h(?)s the(?)i与h(?)s kakourg(?)n构成明显的对照关系,分别指“神圣”与“邪恶”。
294 欧博尔认为,演说者对ph(?)m(?)的诉求说明,在雅典人的观念中,对政治家的评判更主要的是依靠他在社会层面的整体表现,而不是法庭中审判现场的演说。也就是说,在欧博尔看来,展示政治家私人生活是用来抗衡政治家演说的修辞力量。见Josiah Ober,Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens:Rhetoric,Ideology and the Power of the People,P.150。笔者的分析则试图修正Ober的观点,更强调演说者对ph(?)m(?)的想象及其与其它来源的社会舆论之间的关系。
295 欧博尔讨论了雅典社会“面对面”特征的问题,综合评价了芬利、怀特海德(Whitehead)与奥斯邦(Osborne)等人关于该问题的观点,欧博尔指出,雅典村社范围内的“面对面”属于社会层面,不等于城邦范围内政治层面中的“面对面”,见Josiah Ober,Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens:Rhetoric,Ideology and the Power of the People,pp.31-32。日后,欧博尔对自己的观点进行了补充和修正,从整个城邦范围来说,雅典并非实际上的“面对面”社会,但是它可以给人一种“面对面”的感受,城邦公共政治生活的模式鼓 励了人们的交流,促进了交流网络的形成,见Josiah Ober,“Classcial Athenian Democracy and Democracy Today”,Athenian Legacies:Essays on the Politics of Going On Together,Princeton University Press,2005,p.41。关于公民法庭是雅典上层人物经常进行竞争性社会表演的舞台的观点,见Edith Hall,“Lawcourt Dramas:Acting and Performance in Legal Oratory”,The Theatrical Cast of Athens:Interactions between Ancient Greek Drama and Society,2006,p.368.
296 参见Lysias 32(Against Diogeiton),1-2、Demosthenes 48(Against Olympiodorus),40,克莱斯特对此现象的论述,见Matthew R.Christ,The Litigious Athenian,The Johns Hopkins University Press,1998,pp.170-173.
297 这里使用的人称“你们”(humas,指陪审员)不清楚了解“我们”的事(t(?)n h(?)meter(?)n),似乎有意强调私人事务与公众视野的对立。
298 Demosthenes 27(Against Aphobus Ⅰ),67;Demosthenes 28(Against Aphobus Ⅱ),18.
299 Demosthenes 28(Against Aphobus Ⅱ),17.
300 通过这次财产诉讼,德谟斯提尼逐步进入政治家群体,并且造成了对其日后政治生涯产生影响的人际关系,树立了未来的政敌,参见Raphael Sealey,Demosthenes and His Time:A Study in Defeat,Oxford University Press,1993,pp.97-98.
301 一般认为,德谟斯提尼对美狄亚斯的控告并未成真,德谟斯提尼《诉美狄亚斯》中有关于德谟斯提尼早年控告监护人的内容,重提此事主要为说明美狄亚斯与德谟斯提尼的矛盾从那是已经开始,见Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),77-82.
302 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),173:ektri(?)rarkhou logographos anephan(?),katagelast(?)s ta patra(?)ita proemenos,主句是“通过担任战舰捐助人(ek tri(?)rarkhou)而成为‘演说辞作者'(logographos anephan(?))”,“可耻的浪费了父亲遗产”(katagelast(?)s ta patra(?)ita proemenos)是分词词组,表示时间和方式,对主句加以说明。
303 Demosthenes 30(Against Onetor Ⅰ),32.
304 Isaeus 5(On the Estate of Dicaeogenes),17-20;Isaeus 6(On the Estate of Philoctemon),37.
305 Lysias 10(Against Theomnestos Ⅰ),5.
306 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),199-200.
307 Aeschines 2(On the Embassy),149.
308 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),249.
309 Aeschines 2(On the Embassy),150.
310 Aristotle,The Athenian Constitution,XLⅡ,1.
311 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),254.
312 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),287,其中Nikias和Kur(?)bi(?)n两个绰号的确切含义不明,Nikias 可能是指伯罗奔尼撒战争期间的雅典将军,Kur(?)bi(?)n可能来自kur(?)bia(糠),尤尼斯认为Kur(?)bi(?)n是一个寄人篱下的食客的名字。参见Harvey Yunis,trans.,Desmosthenes,Speeches 18 and 19,p.200;Douglas M.MacDowell,ed.,Demosthenes:On the False Embassy(Oration 19),p.329.
313 Josiah Ober,Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens:Rhetoric,Ideology and the Power of the People,p.149.
314 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),18.
315 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),20.
316 关于雅典与马其顿对安菲波利的争夺以及安菲波利对雅典的重要性,参见Edward M.Harris,Aeschines and Athenian Politics,pp.42-43;关于弗基斯战争以及当时雅典与腓力二世的关系,参见Raphael Sealey,Demosthenes and His Time:A Study in Defeat,pp.104-108.
317 西利(Sealey)指出,此后几年中,德谟斯提尼的生平与雅典的历史是一致的,见Raphael Sealey,Demosthenes and His Time:A Study in Defeat,p.185.
318 二人的重要著作分别是:Raphael Sealey,Demosthenes and His Time:A Study in Defeat,Oxford University Press,1993;Edward M.Harris,Aeschines and Athenian Politics,New York:Oxford,Oxford University Press,1995;另外,利用德谟斯提尼与埃斯基尼斯二人演说辞研究这段历史的重要文章还有:T.T.B.Ryder,“Demosthenes and Philip Ⅱ”,Ian Worthington,ed.,Demosthenes:Statesman and Orator,pp.45-89;John Buckler,“Demosthene and Aeschines”,Ian Worthington,ed.,Demosthenes:Statesman and Orator,pp.114-158.
319 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),246.
320 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),246.
321 在针对政治行为的公共诉讼中,非常重要的一类就是“违法提议”案件(graph(?) paranom(?)n),这是对公民大会提议者所提起的指控,认为其提议违反了雅典法律(nomoi),我们可以将这类公共诉讼视为对政治家公民大会提议演说的最直接制约。关于“违法提议”诉讼以及针对各类公职人员的述职审查(euthunai),详见Mogens Herman Hansen,The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes:Structure,Principles and Ideology,pp.208-212,pp.222-224。另外,在存世演说辞中多次出现关于法律严禁政治家欺骗民众的说法,例如,Demosthenes 20(Against Leptines),100,135、Demosthenes 49(Against Timotheus),67,赫斯克于是讨论了是否存在这类专门的诉讼程序的问题,他认为,演说辞中有关这类法律的说法更多的是具有一种象征意义,是一种修辞性的表述方式,是在民主观念和意识形态层面对政治家演说行为的制约,以及对民众权威的强调,同时也在提醒民众警惕政治家对民众权威的潜在威胁。见Jon Hesk,Deception and Democracy in Classical Athens,pp.51-57.
322 参见第一章第二节。
323 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),173.
324 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),211.
325 埃拉菲博里翁月(Elaph(?)boli(?)n)月是雅典历法的第九个月,相当于现在公历的3月中旬到4月中旬。
326 斯基罗佛里翁月(Skirophorion)月是雅典历法的第十二个月,相当于现在公历的6月中旬到7月中旬。
327 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),17.
328 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),182.
329 Demsothenes 19(On the False Embassy),184.
330 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),82.
331 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),9.
332 伊珊德(Ischander) 是演员尼奥普托勒慕(Neoptolemus) 之子,据《论和平》的说法,尼奥普托勒慕斯后来被证实为被腓力二世所收买,见Demosthenes 5(On the Peace),6-8.
333 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),11.
334 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),16.
335 麦克道威尔也注意到德谟斯提尼这种叙述顺序,并给出一定解释,见Douglas M.MacDowell,ed.,Demosthenes:On the False Embassy(Oration 19),pp.27-28.
336 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),60.
337 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),27-28.
338 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),34.
339 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),35.
340 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),42.
341 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),43.
342 17至63节关于斯基罗佛里翁月16日公民大会演说场景的叙述中,德谟斯提尼共举证8次,举证一是议事会预案(32),举证二、三、五是腓力二世信件(38、40、51),举证四是由腓罗克拉底提议的公民大会决议(47),举证六是弗基斯与雅典的同盟协定(61),举证七是腓力二世与弗基斯之间的协定,举证八是“近邻城邦同盟”议事会(Amphiktuones)在弗基斯问题上的决议(63)。
343 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),72.
344 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),13.
345 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),15.
346 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),19.
347 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),20.
348 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),23.
349 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),45.
350 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),46.
351 欧博尔在讨论公民大会与公民法庭各自的成员构成的时候,曾经注意到诉讼演说辞中叙述公民大会场景时所使用的第二人称复数,举例包括德谟斯提尼、埃斯基尼斯、伊塞乌斯、吕希亚斯等人的诉讼演说辞,欧博尔指出,不能根据这种表述方式而简单的认为公民大会与公民法庭在人员构成上是重合的,合理的解释是,演说者将陪审员视为雅典民众的代表。见Josiah Ober,Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens:Rhetoric,Ideology and the Power of the People,pp.145.147。Pelling更为重视这种第二人称复数表述方式的修辞性,他指出,陪审员被视为城邦的代表,因此他们也就被认为是之前任何一次诉讼或公民大会场合的持续的参与者。见Christopher Pelling,Literary Texts and the Greek Historian,Routledge,2000,pp.30-31.
352 例如,德谟斯提尼名下的演说辞《诉伯吕克里斯(Polycles)》同时使用“民众的决议”(to ps(?)phisma to tou d(?)mou)和“你们的决议”(tou ps(?)phismatos tou humeterou),分别见Demosthenes 50(Against Polycles),15,29,这两种说法的意思是相同的,而且,该篇演说辞4至6节论及一次公民大会场景,同样运用第二人称复数的叙述方式。
353 关于这一部分所涉及的史实以及埃斯基尼斯的叙述方式的分析,参见E.Badian and Julia Heskel, “Aeschines 2.12-18:A Study in Rhetoric and Chronology”,Phoenix,Vol.41,No.3.(Autumn,1987),pp.264-271.
354 Aeschines 2(On the Embassy),12.
355 Aeschines 2(On the Embassy),13.
356 Aeschines 2(On the Embassy),14.
357 Aeschines 2(On the Embassy),15.
358 Aeschines 2(On the Embassy),25.
359 Aeschines 2(On the Embassy),64.
360 Aeschines 2(On the Embassy),84.
361 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),16.
362 Aeschines 2(On the Embassy),61.
363 Aeschines 2(On the Embassy),56.
364 Aeschines 2(On the Embassy),89.
365 Aeschines 2(On the Embassy),92.
366 Edward M.Harris,Aeschines and Athenian Politics,p.75.
367 其中bolei的标准写法是boul(?)i,demoi的标准写法是d(?)m(?)i。
368 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),225.
369 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),226.
370 Demosthenes 3(Olynthiac Ⅲ),4-5,其中eps(?)phisasthe是第二人称复数。
371 Demosthenes 6(Philippic Ⅱ),29-32.
372 Demosthenes 5(On the Peace),9-10.
373 Demosthenes 5(On the Peace),4.
374 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),62.
375 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),73.
376 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),99;关于埃斯基尼斯对德谟斯提尼这一批评的分析,参见Jon Hesk,Deception and Democracy in Classical Athens,pp.232-233.
377 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),125.
378 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),250.
379 例如:t(?)n idian oikian与ta koina t(?)s pole(?)s的对应,见Aeschines 1(Against Timarchus),30.
380 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),59-60.
381 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),250.
382 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),18-20.
383 笔者所选择分析的德谟斯提尼公民大会演说辞是三篇《奥林图斯辞》和三篇《反腓力辞》,这六篇演说辞的真实性在学术界是最无争议的,参见R.D.Milns,“The Public Speeches of Demosthenes”,Ian Worthington,ed.,Demosthenes:Statesman and Orator,p.205.
384 Demosthenes 4(Philippic Ⅰ),9.
385 Demosthenes 4(Philippic Ⅰ),8.
386 Demosthenes 4(Philippic Ⅰ),4.
387 Demosthenes 4(Philippic Ⅰ),10.
388 Demosthenes 4(Philippic Ⅰ),6.
389 Demosthenes 4(Philippic Ⅰ),50.
390 例如:Demosthenes 1(Olynthiac Ⅰ),7,10,24;Demosthenes 2(Olynthiac Ⅱ),1-2.
391 Demosthenes 1(Olynthiac Ⅰ),14.
392 Demosthenes 2(Olynthiac Ⅱ),4.
396 Demosthenes 3(Olynthiac Ⅲ),17.
394 Demosthenes 1(Olynthiac Ⅰ),7.
395 Demosthenes 1(Olynthiac Ⅰ),26.
396 Demosthenes 1(Olynthiac Ⅰ),2,引文中humin...autois(你们自己)指雅典人。
397 Demosthenes 1(Olynthiac Ⅰ),15,25.
398 Demosthenes 1(Olynthiac Ⅰ),27.
399 Demosthenes 3(Ofynthiac Ⅲ),2.
400 Demosthenes 3(Ofynthiac Ⅲ),8-9.
401 Demosthenes 3(Ofynthiac Ⅲ),16,原文ekh(?)n ta h(?)metera 意思是“占有我们的(利益)”,其中“我们”
402 Demosthenes 2(Ofynthiac Ⅱ),3.
403 Demosthenes 4(Philippic Ⅰ),10.
404 Demosthenes 3(Ofynthiac Ⅲ),8.
405 Demosthenes 3(Ofynthiac Ⅲ),16.
406 Demosthenes 1(Olynthiac Ⅰ),4-5.
407 Aristotle,Politics,1279a35-40.
408 吴寿彭将亚里士多德所说的politeia这类政体译作“共和政体”,见亚里士多德:《政治学》,吴寿彭译,商务印书馆,1965年,第133页。但是笔者认为,德谟斯提尼所使用的politeia未必与亚里士多德的定义完全一致,德谟斯提尼只是为了强调希腊城邦与腓力二世暴君专制的对立,突出希腊城邦的自由原则,并非对政体进行严格的理论区分。
409 Demosthenes 1(Olynthiac Ⅰ),23.
410 Demosthenes 1(Olynthiac Ⅰ),22.
411 Demosthenes 2(Olynthiac Ⅱ),4.
412 Demosthenes 2(Olynthiac Ⅱ),5.
413 Demosthenes 2(Olynthiac Ⅱ),6.
414 Demosthenes 2(Olynthiac Ⅱ),5.
415 Demosthenes 2(Olynthiac Ⅱ),6-7.
416 Demosthenes 2(Olynthiac Ⅱ),9.
417 Demosthenes 2(Olynthiac Ⅱ),10.
418 Demosthenes 2(Olynthiac Ⅱ),13.
419 Demosthenes 2(Olynthiac Ⅱ),15-16.
420 Demosthenes 2(Olynthiac Ⅱ),17.
421 这里所列举的诸项品格,是综合了德谟斯提尼在多篇演说辞中对腓力二世的描绘,我们已经看到,《第一篇反腓力辞》指出腓力二世的aselgeia,见Demosthenes 4(Philippic Ⅰ),9;《第一篇奥林图斯辞》指出其hubrist(?)s,见Demosthenes 1(Olynthiac Ⅰ),23;《第二篇奥林图斯辞》则指出其epiorkon kaiapiston和ek pleoneksias kai por(?)rias,见Demosthenes 2(Olynthic Ⅱ),5,9。这些描绘也常在诉讼演说辞中被用于攻击对手。沃曼(Worman)也指出,德谟斯提尼在塑造腓力二世的形象时,采用了和诉讼演说相同的方式,但是,与罗维和哈丁等人一样,沃曼也认为德谟斯提尼在这种塑造中模仿了喜剧,见Nancy Worman,Abusive Mouths in Classical Athens,Cambridge University Press,2008,pp.227-228.
422 Demosthenes 6(Philippic Ⅱ),6.
423 Demosthenes 6(Philippic Ⅱ),7.
424 Demosthenes 6(Philippic Ⅱ),14-15.
425 Demosthenes 6(Philippic Ⅱ),16,此处的t(?)s pole(?)s与第7节的t(?)i polei都是指雅典。
426 Demosthenes 6(PhilippicⅡ),17-18.
427 Demosthenes 6(Philippic Ⅱ),19.
428 Demosthenes 6(Philippic Ⅱ),7.
429 Demosthenes 6(Philippic Ⅱ),8.
430 Demosthenes 6(Philippic Ⅱ),9.
431 Demosthenes 6(Philippic Ⅱ),10.
432 Demosthenes 6(Philippic Ⅱ),19.
433 Demosthenes 6(Philippic Ⅱ),12.
434 Demosthenes 6(Philippic Ⅱ),19.
435 Demosthenes 6(Philippic Ⅱ),19.
436 Demosthenes 6(Philippic Ⅱ),20-22.
437 Demosthenes 6(Philippic Ⅱ),21.
438 Demosthenes 6(Philippic Ⅱ),24.
439 Demosthenes 6(Philippic Ⅱ),25.
440 在之前的《第二篇奥林图斯辞》中,德谟斯提尼曾经批评有些政治家以腓力二世的名义从事政治活动(tois huper auton pepoliteumenois),讽刺说腓力二世对这些政治家心怀感激(opheilei kharin),并且指责这些政治家为了腓力二世的利益而将奥林图斯使节逐出雅典公民大会,阻止他们向雅典人求援,见Demosthenes 2(Olynthiac Ⅱ),4,6;但是,德谟斯提尼没有将这些政治家的行为解释为受贿。
441 Demosthenes 6(Philippic Ⅱ),35.
442 Demosthenes 6(Philippic Ⅱ),34.
443 德谟斯提尼说,这些政治家将他称为“饮水者”(hud(?)r pin(?)n),见Demosthenes 6(Philippic Ⅱ),30;根据《使团辞》的说法,正是腓罗克拉底曾经在公元前346年斯基罗佛里翁月16日的公民大会中讽刺德谟斯提尼,称“他(指德谟斯提尼)喝水,而我饮酒”(houtos men gar hud(?)r,eg(?) de oinon pin(?)),见Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),46。另外,从存世的演说辞来看,不直指对手之名似乎是公民大会演说辞的特点,这可能是出于防止引发政敌仇恨的考虑,德谟斯提尼的《论和平》也曾指出,弗基斯灭亡是某些政治家欺骗民众的结果,但是同样没有直指这些政治家的名字,见Demosthenes 5(On the Peace),9.10。哈里斯则据 此认为,德谟斯提尼在进行《论和平》的演说时,并未将弗基斯的灭亡归咎于埃斯基尼斯,见Edward M.Harris,Aeschines and Athenian Politics,pp.105-106.
444 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),101,相当于洛布古典丛书版Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),105.
445 相当于洛布古典丛书版Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),106.120.
446 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),110.
447 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),111-113.
448 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),16.
449 参见哈里斯的分析,Edward M.Harris,Aeschines and Athenian Politics,pp.67-68.
450 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),64,proestanai本义是“站在前面”,同时具有“领导”与“保卫”的意思。
451 Demsothenes 19(On the False Embassy),64-65.
452 Edward M.Harris,Aeschines and Athenian Politics,pp.71.
453 从存世的雅典诉讼演说辞来看,“受贿”是政治家之间彼此攻击的一个普遍使用的重要罪名,泰勒(Taylor)对此曾经进行统计,并且指出,在很多情况下,“受贿”罪名并非严肃的指控,而是一种用于攻击政敌的修辞策略。见Claire Taylor,“Bribery in Athenian Politics Part I:Accusations,Allegations,and Slander”,Greece &Rome,2nd Ser.,Vol.48,No.1.(Apr.,2001),pp.55-64.
454 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),259.
455 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),260-262.
456 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),263-267.
457 Demosthenes 9(Philippic Ⅲ),36-37.
458 Demosthenes 9(Philippic Ⅲ),39.
459 第56节举奥林图斯之例,57至58举埃勒特里亚(Eretria)之例,59至62节举奥勒乌斯(Oreus)之例,埃勒特里亚与奥勒乌斯均为优卑亚岛上的城邦。
460 Demosthenes 9(Philippic Ⅲ),63.
461 “为民众进行演说的人”原文为tois huper hum(?)n legousin,本义是“为你们(hum(?)n)进行演说的人们”,其中,“你们”(hum(?)n)即指雅典民众,见Demosthenes 9(Philippic Ⅲ),55;“为了最好的建议进行演说的人”原文为tous ta beltista legontas和tois huper tou beltistou legousin,分别见Demosthenes 9(Philippic Ⅲ),56,63.
462 Demosthenes 9(Philippic Ⅲ),63-64.
463 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),265.
464 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),267.
465 Demosthenes 9(Philippic Ⅲ),64.
466 dik(?)n d(?)sei中的dik(?)n与dik(?)n labein中的dik(?)n都是指“正义的判决”,d(?)sei本义是“给出、交出”,而如果将dik(?)n d(?)sei直译为“给出判决”,则会产生歧义,因此笔者将dik(?)n d(?)sei译作“接受判决(dik(?)n),付出(d(?)sei)代价”。
467 Demsothenes 9(Philippic Ⅲ),20.
468 Demosthenes 9(Philippic Ⅲ),6,引文中t(?)i polei(城邦)指雅典城邦。
469 Demosthenes 9(Philippic Ⅲ),8,引文中humin(你们)指雅典人。
470 Demosthenes 9(Philippic Ⅲ),9,引文中humas(你们)指雅典人。
471 Demosthenes 9(Philippic Ⅲ),10.
472 Demosthenes 9(Philippic Ⅲ),11-13.
473 Demosthenes 9(Philippic Ⅲ),22.
474 Demosthenes 9(Philippic Ⅲ),26.
475 Demosthenes 9(Philippic Ⅲ),27.
476 Demosthenes 9(Philippic Ⅲ),26-27,关于腓力二世强迫贴萨利人建立寡头政体,另见Demosthenes 9(Philippic Ⅲ),33.
477 Demosthenes 9(Philippic Ⅲ),33.
478 Demosthenes 9(Philippic Ⅲ),34,引文中autou(他)指腓力二世。
479 R.D.Milns,“The Public Speeches of Demosthenes”,Ian Worthington,ed.,Demosthenes:Statesman and Orator,p.208.
480 Demosthenes 9(Philippic Ⅲ),21.
481 Demosthenes 9(Philippic Ⅲ),28.
482 Demosthenes 9(Philippic Ⅲ),30-31.
483 Demosthenes 3(Olynthiac Ⅲ),16.
484 Edward M.Harris,Aeschines and Athenian Politics,pp.149.150,p.153,哈里斯将埃斯基尼斯作为典型反例,他认为,埃斯基尼斯并不是被腓力二世收买的政治家,在腓罗克拉底和平协定之前,埃斯基尼斯的政策是联合其他希腊城邦共同抵抗腓力二世,在和平协定制定过程中,埃斯基尼斯的目的也仍然是希望利用一个普遍的和平协定使各希腊城邦共同牵制腓力二世。但是,当时的其他希腊城邦很可能没有意识到腓力二世的威胁,出于各自利益而希望寻求腓力二世的支持,所以,埃斯基尼斯的希望落空。哈里斯认为,是这种现实情况使埃斯基尼斯转变政策,而非腓力二世的贿赂。
485 汉森认为,德谟斯提尼的存世公民大会演说辞之所以主要集中于公元前340年代,可能是由于当时雅典民众并未接受他的反马其顿政策,故而德谟斯提尼以文本形式发表演说辞,用来宣传自己的政策,而到公元前330年代雅典民众接受其政策时,则无需再发表这类演说辞了。见Mogens Herman Hansen,The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes:Structure,Principles and Ideology,p.7。关于德谟斯提尼公民大会演说辞写作目的的问题,还可以参见Adams在更早的时候所进行的讨论,Charles Darwin Adams,“Are the Political ‘Speech'of Demosthenes to Be Regarded as Political Pamphlets?”,Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association,Vol.43.(1912),PP.5-22.
486 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),195,喀罗尼亚位于比奥提亚(Boeotia)境内,在雅典以北,据德谟斯提尼的说法,此地距离雅典有数天路程。
487 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),145.159,关于安菲萨战争,西利认为,它所反映的实际是忒拜与贴萨利的矛盾,而腓力二世当时对中希腊事务表现出一种退缩状态,因此西利怀疑腓力二世在安菲萨战争的问题上是否发挥了如德谟斯提尼所说的作用,同时,西利对埃斯基尼斯为腓力二世收买的说法也表示怀疑。见Raphael Sealey,Demosthenes and His Time:AStudy in Defeat,pp.190-193.
488 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),215-217.
489 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),294-295.
490 Harvey Yunis,ed.,Demosthenes:On the Crown,p.272.
491 Edward M.Harris,Aeschines and Athenian Politics,p.73.
492 参见第一章第一节。
493 Demosthenes 24(Against Timocrates),149-151.
494 Steven Johnstone,Dessent and Democracy:The Consequences of Litigation in Ancient Athens,pp.38-40.
495 Demosthenes 24(Against Timocrates),66.
496 Demosthenes 24(Against Timocrates),76.
497 Demostheens 24(Against Timocrates),216.
498 参见第二章第一、三节相关内容。
499 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),283.
500 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),284.
501 Aeschines 1(Against Timarchus),4.
502 Aeschinse 1(Against Timarchus),5.
503 Aeschines 1(Against Timarchus),6.
504 Aeschines 1(Against Timarchus),7,引文中阳性复数属格代词aut(?)n指法律。
505 关于“rh(?)t(?)r资格审查”,参见第二章第一节。
506 Aeschines 1(Against Timarchus),32.
507 Aeschinea 1(Against Timarchus),33.
508 法伦加认为,在公元前5世纪,陪审员在认知层面与情感层面模仿当事人,尤其是被告,到公元前4世纪,随着法律权威的增强,陪审员则在认知层面与情感层面转向对所谓“立法者”的模仿。见Vincent Farenga,Citizen and Self in Ancient Greece:Individuals Performing Justice and the Law,Cambridge University Press,2006,pp.316-317,p.343.
509 Aeschines 1(Against Timarchus),177.
510 Aeschines 1(Against Timarchus),177.
511 Aeschines 1(Against Timarchus),178.
512 Aeschines 1(Against Timarchus),179,引文中ag(?)nas(竞争)是雅典人常用的对法庭诉讼的称呼,参见第二章第二节。
513 Demosthenes 24(Against Timocrates),78.
514 参见第三章第二节,dik(?)n eil(?)photes的原形即dik(?)n lambanein。
515 关于陪审员的身份意识,约翰斯通也得出相同的结论,即,演说者(尤其是起诉方)试图引导陪审员将自身利益与城邦法律乃至政体视为一致;而且,约翰斯通也注意到,演说者在表述中将陪审员作为全体雅典民众,以使陪审员意识到自身的权力。见Steven Johnstone,Dessent and Democracy:The Consequences of Litigation in Ancient Athens,pp.132-133。但是,约翰斯通并未分析演说者对法庭特定场合性质的关注,而笔者重点指出的,正是演说者在塑造陪审员政治角色的过程中如何强调法庭场合的关键作用。
516 Demosthenes 20(Against Leptines),2.
517 Demosthenes 20(Against Leptines),3.
518 Demosthenes 20(Against Leptines),4,引文中didakhth(?)nai(学(利益)”,其中“我们”
402 Demosthenes 2(Ofynthiac Ⅱ),3.
522 Demosthenes 20(Against Leptines),165.
523 Demosthenes 20(Against Leptines),166.
524 Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),19.
525 Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),20.
526 Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),34.
527 Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),76.
528 Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),30.
529 Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),66.
530 Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),221,引文中epeidan anast(?)i to dikast(?)rion直译是“当法庭站起来”,即指法庭审判结束,陪审员起身离开。
531 Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),222.
532 Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),223-224.
533 Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),223.
534 Demosthenes 25(Against Aristogeiton Ⅰ),20-21,汉森即以此为据,证明公元前4世纪雅典法律的地位,见Mogens Herman Hansen,The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes,p.176,p.303。法伦加最近对这篇演说辞进行了更详细的分析,见Vincent Farenga,Citizen and Self in Ancient Greece:Individuals Performing Justice and the Law,pp.542-548。关于这篇演说辞的真实性问题,参见洛布古典丛书的介绍,Demosthenes,Vol.Ⅲ,Loeb Classical Library,Harvard University Press,1935,p.515.
535 Demosthenes 21(Against Meidias),224.
536 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),137.
537 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),295.
538 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),296.
539 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),297.
540 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),233.
541 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),235.
542 Aeschines 3(Against Ctesiphon),8.
543 Josiah Ober,“Power and Oratory in Democratic Athens:Demosthenes 21,Against Meidias”,Ian Worthington,ed.,Persuasion:Greek Rhetoric in Action,pp.102-104,欧博尔对德谟斯提尼的《诉美狄亚斯》进行了详细分析,尤其重点讨论了其中第223至225节的内容,他指出,在雅典民主政治的运作中,演说家是不可或缺的一个关键环节,政体与演说家之间的“动力关系”(dynamic relationship)是雅典民主政治存在的基础。笔者的分析则希望进一步说明,欧博尔所说的演说家的这种政治功能,很大程度上是通过演说者在法庭现场塑造陪审员政治角色这一修辞策略而得以具体实现的。
544 Demosthenes 4(Philippic Ⅰ),2.
545 Demosthenes 6(Philippic Ⅱ),3-4.
546 Demosthenes 19(On the False Embassy),184.
547 “言”(logos)与“行”(ergon)是古希腊人所熟悉的一组基本对应范畴,笔者在这里主要考察它在德谟斯提尼公民大会演说中的一种具体运用,即,作为一种重要的修辞策略用于对民众政治角色的塑造。
548 Demosthenes 9(Philippic Ⅲ),2.
549 Demosthenes 9(Philippic Ⅲ),3.
550 Demosthenes 9(Philippic Ⅲ),4.
551 Vincent Farenga,Citizen and Self in Ancient Greece:Individuals Performing Justice and the Law,p.545.
552 关于parr(?)sia,可以参考萨克森豪斯(Saxonhouse)最近的讨论,他指出,不能将parr(?)sia等同于现代意义上的“言论自由”权利,因为它所体现的不是民众被赋予了言论的权利,而是民众主动地掌控言论。见Arlene W.Saxonhouse,Free Speech and Democracy in Ancient Athens,Cambridge University Press,2006,pp.85-99.
553 古希腊人习惯于在两个并列句或并列短语中分别使用小品词men和de,一般用来表示这两个并列句或并列短语在意义上的对比。
554 Demosthenes 9(Philippic Ⅲ),54,引文中动词gelate为第二人称复数,主语“你们”指雅典民众。
555 Demosthenes 9(Philippic Ⅲ),67.
556 Demosthenes 9(Philippic Ⅲ),54,67.
557 Demosthenes 5(On the Peace),2,引文中humas(你们)指雅典民众。
558 Demosthenes 5(On the Peace),12.
559 尤尼斯曾经对德谟斯提尼公民大会演说辞的“开场白”进行分析,他也注意到其中所强调的“演说”与“行动”的对应关系,尤尼斯认为,这体现了德谟斯提尼对雅典民主政治商议方式的洞察。同时,尤尼斯还指出,德谟斯提尼如此议论雅典的政治商议方式,是为了向听众表明,他本人具有必要的批判智慧,并且将这种智慧以有益的方式应用于政治活动,以此表现自己作为提议者的权威性以及动机的正当性。见Harvey Yunis,Taming Democracy:Models of Political Rhetoric in Classical Athens,pp.249-255.
560 Demosthenes 9(Philippic Ⅲ),75.
561 Demosthenes 2(Olynthiac Ⅱ),12.
562 Demosthenes 4(Philippic Ⅰ),9-10.
563 Demosthenes 4(Philippic Ⅰ),10-11.
564 Demosthenes 6(Philippic Ⅱ),3.
565 Demosthenes 6(Philippic Ⅱ),5.
566 Demosthenes 6(Philippic Ⅱ),1.
567 关于ps(?)phisma、dogma与doksa(认识)的关系,参见第三章第一节。
568 Demosthenes 3(Olynthiac Ⅰ),14-15,引文中动词eprattete为第二人称复数形式,主语“你们”指雅典民众。
569 Demosthenes 4(Philippic Ⅰ),20.
570 Demosthenes 4(Philippic Ⅰ),30.
571 Demosthenes 4(Philippic Ⅰ),44-45,引文中动词kath(?)metha为第一人称复数形式,主语“我们”指雅典民众。
572 Demosthenes 4(Philippic Ⅰ),19-22;ksenoi是“外邦人”的意思,也用来指雇佣军。
573 Demosthenes 4(Philippic Ⅰ),24.
574 Demosthenes 4(Philippic Ⅰ),25.
575 Demosthenes 4(Philippic Ⅰ),44.
576 Demosthenes 4(Philippic Ⅰ),45,引文中动词ekpemps(?)te为第二人称复数形式,主语“你们”指雅典民众。
577 Demosthenes 4(Philippic Ⅰ),38-39,引文中tous bouleuomenous,洛布古典丛书译作“政治家”(statesmen),见Demosthenes,Vol.I,with an English translation by J.H.Vince,Loeb Classical Library,Harvard University Press,1930,p.93。笔者认为不准确,tous bouleuomenous直译为“商议者”,在范围上不仅包括进行政治商议过程中进行提议的政治家,也包括出席公民大会的其他民众,例如Thucydides,History of the Peloponnesian War,Ⅲ.38.7.
578 Demosthenes 4(Philippic Ⅰ),26.
579 Demosthenes 4(Philippic Ⅰ),35-37.
580 Demosthenes 4(Philippic Ⅰ),47.
581 Demosthenes 2(Olynthiac Ⅱ),28-29.
582 Demosthenes 2(Olynthiac Ⅱ),30.
583 Demosthenes 2(Olynthiac Ⅱ),30.
584 Demosthenes 2(Olynthiac Ⅱ),31.
585有关“观剧基金”制度的讨论,R.J.Rhodes,A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia,Oxford University Press,1981,pp.514-517;Raphael Sealey,Demosthenes and His Time:A Study in Defeat,pp.256-258.
586 Demosthenes 3(Olynthiac Ⅲ),10-11.
587 Demosthenes 3(Olynthiac Ⅲ),11.
588 Demosthenes 3(Olynthiac Ⅲ),31.
589 Demosthenes 3(Olynthiac Ⅲ),34-35.
590 Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),271;另外,在德谟斯提尼批评埃斯基尼斯时,从反面同样指出,民众了解后者是怎样的人,并且听过后者的演说,见Demosthenes 18(On the Crown),283.
1.Aeschines,translated by Chris Carey,University of Texas Press,2000.
2.Aristotelis Ars Rhetorica,edited by W.D.Ross,Scriptorum Classicorum Bibliotheca Oxoniensis,Oxford University Press,1959.
3.Aristotelis Atheniensium Respublica,edited by F.G.Kenyon,Scriptorum Classicorum Bibliotheca Oxoniensis,Oxford University Press,1920.
4.Aristotle:Politics,with an English translation by H.Rackham,Loeb Classical Library,Harvard University Press,1932,reprinted with corrections 1944.
5.Aristotle:Rhetorica ad Alexandrum,with an English translation by H.Rackham,Loeb Classical Library,Harvard University Press,1937,revised 1957.
6.Aristotle:The “Art” of Rhetoric,with an English translation by John Henry Freese,Loeb Classical Library,Harvard University Press,1926.
7.Demosthenis Orationes,edited by M.R.Dilts,tomus I,Oxford University Press,2002.
8.Demosthenis Orationes,edited by M.R.Dilts,tomus Ⅱ,Oxford University Press,2005.
9.Demosthenes,Vol.Ⅰ,with an English translation by J.H.Vince,Loeb Classical Library,Harvard University Press,1930.
10.Demosthenes,Vol.Ⅱ,with an English translation by C.A.Vince and J.H.Vince,Loeb Classical Library,Harvard University Press,1926,revised 1939.
11.Demosthenes,Vol.Ⅲ,with an English translation by J.H.Vince,Loeb Classical Library,Harvard University Press,1935.
12.Demosthenes,Vol.Ⅳ,with an English translation by A.T.Murray,Loeb Classical Library,Harvard University Press,1936.
13.Demosthenes,Vol.Ⅴ,with an English translation by A.T.Murray,Loeb Classical Library,Harvard University Press,1939.
14.Demosthenes,Vol.Ⅵ,with an English translation by A.T.Murray,Loeb Classical Library,Harvard University Press,1939.
15.Demosthenes:Speeches 18 and 19,translated with introduction and notes by Harvey Yunis,University of Texas Press,2005.
16.Demosthenes:Speeches 27-38,translated by Douglas M.MacDowell,University of Texas Press,2004.
17.Demosthenes:Speeches 50-59,translated by Victor Bers,University of Texas Press,2003.
18.Demosthenes:Against Meidias(Oration 21),edited with introduction,translation and commentary by Douglas M.MacDowell,Oxford:Clarendon Press,1990.
19.Demosthenes:On the Crown,edited by Harvey Yunis,Cambridge University Press,2001.
20.Demosthenes:Selected Private Speeches,edited by C.Carey and R.A.Reid,Cambridge University Press,1985.
21.Dinarchus,Hyperides & Lycurgus,translated by Ian Worthington,Craig Cooper and Edward M.Harris,University of Texas Press,2001.
22.Dionysius of Halicarnassus:Critical Essays,with an English translation by Stephen Usher,Loeb Classical Library,Harvard University Press,1974.
23.Isaeus,with an English translation by Edward Seymour Forster,Loeb Classical Library,Harvard University Press,1927.
24.Isaeus,translated by Michael Edwards,University of Texas Press,2007.
25.Minor Attic Orators,Vol.Ⅰ,with an English translation by K.J.Maidment,Loeb Classical Library,Harvard University Press,1941.
26.Minor Attic Orators,Vol.Ⅱ,with an English translation by J.O.Burtt,Loeb Classical Library,Harvard University Press,1954.
27.Plato:Symposium,edited by Sir Kenneth Dover,Cambridge University Press,1980.
28.Plato,Vol.Ⅰ,with an English translation by Harold North Fowler,Loeb Classical Library,Harvard University Press,1914.
29.Plato,Vol.Ⅱ,with an English translation by W.R.M.Lamb,Loeb Classical Library,Harvard University Press,1924.
30.Plato,Vol.Ⅲ,with an English translation by W.R.M.Lamb,Loeb Classical Library,Harvard University Press,1925.
31.Plato,Vol.Ⅷ,with an English translation by Harold North Fowler and W.R.M.Lamb,Loeb Classical Library,Harvard University Press,1925.
32.Plato,Vol.Ⅹ,with an English translation by R.G.Bury,Loeb Classical Library,Harvard University Press,1926.
33.Plutarch:Lives,Vol.Ⅶ,with an English translation by Bernadotte Perrin,Loeb Classical Library,Harvard University Press,1919.
34.Plutarch's Moralia,Vol.Ⅹ,with an English translation by Harold North Fowler,Loeb Classical Library,Harvard University Press,1936.
35.The Speeches of Aeschines,with an English translation by Charles Darwin Adams,Loeb Classcial Library,William Heinemann,1919.
36.Thucydidis Historiae,tomus prior,edited by Henricus Stuart Jones,Scriptorum Classicorum Bibliotheca Oxoniensis,1900,emended 1942.
1.Adams,Charles Darwin,“Are the Political ‘Speech' of Demosthenes to Be Regarded as Political Pamphlets?”,Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association,Vol.43.(1912),5-22.
2.Badian,E.& Heskel,Julia,“Aeschines 2.12-18:A Study in Rhetoric and Chronology”,Phoenix,Vol.41,No.3.(Autumn,1987),264-271.
3.Christ,Matthew R.,The Litigious Athenian,The Johns Hopkins University Press,1998.
4.Duncan,Anne,Performance and Identity in the Classical World,Cambridge University Press,2006.
5.Dyck,Andrew R.,“The Function and Persuasive Power of Demosthenes' Portrait of Aeschines in the Speech ‘On the Crown'”,Greece & Rome,2nd Ser.,Vol.32,No.1.(Apr.,1985),42-48.
6.Farenga,Vincent,Citizen and Self in Ancient Greece:Individuals Performing Justice and the Law,Cambridge University Press,2006.
7.Finley,M.Ⅰ.,“Athenian Demagogues”,Past and Present,No.21(Apr.,1962),3-24.
8.Flensted-Jensen,Pernille,Nielsen,Thomas Heine & Rubinstein,Lene,eds.,Polis & Politics:Studies in Ancient Greek History,Museum Tusculanum Press,2000.
9.Garver,Eugene,Aristotle's Rhetoric:An Art of Character,The University of Chicago Press,1994.
10.Christ,Matthew R.,The Litigious Athenian,The Johns Hopkins University Press,1998.
11.Gill,Christoper,“The Ethos/Pathos Distinction in Rhetorical and Literary Criticism”,The Classical Quarterly,New Series,Vol.34,No.1.(1984),149-166.
12.Goldhill,Simon,“The Great Dionysia and Civic Ideology”,The Journal of Hellenic Studies,Vol.107.(1987),58-76.
13.Goldhill,Simon,“Literary History without Literature:Reading Practices in the Ancient World”,SubStance,Vol.28,No.1,Issue 88:Special Issue:Literary History.(1999),57-89.
14.Goldhill,Simon & Osborne,Robin,eds.,Performance Culture and Athenian Democracy,Cambridge University Press,1999.
15.Goldhill,Simon & Osborne,Robin,eds.,Rethinking Revolutions through Ancient Greece,Cambridge University Press,2006.
16.Grimaldi,William M.A.,Aristotle,Rhetoric Ⅱ:A Commentary,Fordham University Press,1988.
17.Hall,Edith,The Thearical Cast of Athens:Interaction between Ancient Greek Drama and Society,Oxford University Press,2006.
18.Harding,P.,“Rhetoric and Politics in Fourth-Century Athens”,Phoenix,Vol.41,No.1.(1987),25-39.
19.Hansen,Mogens Herman,The Athenian Assembly in the Age of Demosthenes,Blackwell,1987.
20.Hansen,Mogens Herman,The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes:Structure,Principles and Ideology,Blackwell,1990.
21.Harris,Edward M.,Aeschines and Athenian Politics,New York:Oxford,Oxford University Press,1995.
22.Hesk,Jon,Deception and Democracy in Classical Athens,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2000.
23.Isager,Signe & Hansen,Mogens Herman,Aspects of Athenian Society in the Fourth Century B.C.,translated by Judith Hsiang Rosenmeier,Odense University Press,1975.
24.Johnstone,Steven,Disputes and Democracy:The Consequences of Litigation in Ancient Athens,The University of Texas Press,1999.
25.Lau,Richard R.& Sears,David O.,eds.,The 19th Annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition:Political Cognition,Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Inc.,1986.
26.Loraux,Nicole,The Invention of Athens:The Funeral Oration in the Classical City,translated by Alan Sheridan,Zone Books,2006(first edition in English 1993,original edition in French 1981).
27.Mitchell,Lynette G.& Rhodes,P.J.,“Friends and Enemies in Athenian Politics”,Greece & Rome,2nd Ser.,Vol.43,No.1.(Apr.,1996),11-30.
28.Martin,Richard P.,The Language of Heroes:Speech and Performance in the Iliad,Cornell University Press,1989.
29.Murphy,Charles T.,“Aristophanes and the Art of Rhetoric”,Harvard Studies in Classical Philology,Vol.49.(1938),69-113.
30.Ober,Josiah,Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens:Rhetoric,Ideology and the Power of the People,Princeton:Princeton University Press,1989.
31.Ober,Josiah,The Athenian Revolution:Essays on Ancient Greek Democracy and Political Theory,Princeton University Press,1996.
32.Ober,Josiah,Political Dissent in Democratic Athens:Intellectual Critics of Popular Rule,Princeton University Press,1998.
33.Ober,Josiah,Athenian Legacies:Essays on the Politics of Going On Together,Princeton University Press,2005.
34.Ober,Josiah,Democracy and Knowledge:Innovation and Learning in Classical Athens,Princeton University Press,2008.
35.Ober,Josiah & Hedrick,Charles,eds.,Demokratia:A Conversation on Democracies,Ancient and Modern,Princeton University Press,1996.
36.Osborne,Robin,Demos:The Discovery of Classical Attika,Cambridge University Press,1985.
37.Osborne,Robin,ed.,Studies in Ancient Greek and Roman Society,Cambridge University Press,2004.
38.Pearson,Lionel,“The Development of Demosthenes as a Political Orator”,Phoenix,Vol.18,No.2(Summer,1964),95-109.
39.Pelling,Christopher,Literary Texts and the Greek Historian,Routledge,2000.
40.Rhodes,R.J.,A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia,Oxford University Press,1981.
41.Rowe,Galon O.,“The Portrait of Aeschines in the Oration on the Crown”,Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association,Vol.97(1966),397-406.
42.Saxonhouse,Arlene W.,Free Speech and Democracy in Ancient Athens,Cambridge University Press,2006.
43.Schiappa,Edward,“Did Plato Coin Rhetorike”,The American Journal of Philology,Vol.Ⅲ,No.4.(1990),457-470.
44.Sealey,Raphael,Demosthenes and His Time:A Study in Defeat,Oxford University Press,1993.
45.Sinclar,R.K.,Democracy and Participation in Athens,Cambridge University Press,1988.
46.Taylor,Claire,“Bribery in Athenian Politics Part Ⅰ:Accusations,Allegations,and Slander”,Greece & Rome,2nd Ser.,Vol.48,No.1.(Apr.,2001),53-66.
47.The Cambridge Ancient History,Vol.Ⅵ,Cambridge University Press,1994.
48.Usher,Stephen,Greek Oratory:Tradition and Originality,Oxford University Press,1999.
49.Vernant,Jean-Pierre,ed.,The Greeks,translated by Charles Lambert and Teresa Lavender Fagan,The University of Chicago Press,1995.
50.Worman,Nancy,Abusive Mouths in Classical Athens,Cambridge University Press,2008.
51.Worthington,Ian,ed.,Persuasion:Greek Rhetoric in Action,Routledge,1994.
52.Worthington,Ian,ed.,Demosthenes:Statesman & Orator,Routledge,2000.
53.Worthington,Ian,ed.,A Companion to Greek Rhetoric,Blackwell,2007.
54.Yunis,Harvey,Taming Democracy:Models of Political Rhetoric in Classical Athens,Cornell University Press,1996.
55.Yunis,Harvey,“How do the People Decide? Thucydides on Periclean Rhetoric and Civic Instruction”,The American Journal of Philology,Vol.112,No.2(Summer,1991),179-200.
56.Yunis,Harvey,ed.,Written Texts and the Rise of Literate Culture in Ancient Greece,Cambridge University Press,2003.
1.[古希腊]柏拉图:《柏拉图对话集》,王太庆译,商务印书馆,2004年。
2.[古希腊]欧里庇得斯:《欧里庇得斯悲剧集》,周作人译,中国对外翻译出版公司,2003年。
3.罗念生译著:《罗念生全集》,第一卷,上海人民出版社,2004年。
4.罗念生译著:《罗念生全集》,第六卷,上海人民出版社,2004年。
5.苗力田主编:《亚里士多德全集》,第九卷,颜一等译,中国人民大学出版社,1994年。
6.[古希腊]修昔底德:《伯罗奔尼撒战争史》,谢德风译,商务印书馆,1960年。
7.[古希腊]亚里士多德:《诗学》,陈中梅译注,商务印书馆,2003年。
8.[古希腊]亚里士多德:《雅典政制》,日知、力野译,商务印书馆,1959年。
9.[古希腊]亚里士多德:《政治学》,吴寿彭译,商务印书馆,1965年。
1.[匈]格雷戈里·纳吉(Gregory Nagy):《荷马诸问题》(Homeric Questions),巴莫曲布嫫译,广西师范大学出版社,2008年。
2.黄洋:《雅典民主政治新论》,《世界历史》,1994年第1期,第60-66页。
3.黄洋:《从同性恋透视古代希腊社会——一项历史学的分析》,《世界历史》,1998年第5期,第74-82页。
4.蒋保:《演说与雅典民主政治》,《历史研究》,2006年第6期,第138-150页。
5.蒋保:《试论雅典演说的政治功能》,《江西社会科学》,2008年第9期,第160-164页。
6.[美]理查德·鲍曼(Richard Bauman):《作为表演的口头艺术》(Verbal Art as Performance),杨利慧、安德明译,广西师范大学出版社,2008年。
7.晏绍祥:《演说家与希腊城邦政治》,《历史研究》,2006年第6期,第151-166页。
8.杨巨平、王志超:《试论演说家与雅典民主政治的互动》,《世界历史》,2007年第4期,第24-32页。
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |