<論説>西部・中部フランス封建社会における領主裁判

Abstract

成立期(一一、一二世紀) の領主裁判は、人をどのように裁いていたのだろうか。そこには、この時代に特有の刑罰の論理が見出されるようにおもわれる。まず、裁判領主は時に犯罪をはたらいた従属民を城の牢獄へと連行し、身代金がわりに罰金を徴収したが、これは同時代に騎士たちの戦争において定着しつつあった人質の慣行と共通する方法であった。また、領主裁判権を指示する用語の意味内容の検討から罰金刑の重要性を指摘した。さらに、罰金刑の背後にある犯罪を犯罪たらしめている根本的な論理に光を当てることを試みた。その論理とは、封建社会独特の空間と時間の区切り方であり、それが犯罪の有無や裁き方を決定していたことを示した。最後には、法廷の審理において神判、決闘、宣誓などがどのような役割を担っていたかについても論じた。

This paper examines how seigneurial courts dispensed judgments and imposed punishments in western and central France in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, precisely the period during which the courts were being formed. The paper attempts to demonstrate that behind the apparent arbitrariness and frequent abuses of seigneurial justice were hidden a certain logic and rules. First, one aspect of seigneurial justice, its linkage with some contemporary practices of warfare, is noted. The ban seigneur would sometimes capture dependants who were suspected criminals and imprison them in his castle. He would release them only after they had redeemed themselves by paying fines. This practice had much in common with the hostage taking which was becoming increasingly common at almost the same period among knights fighting in war. Next, the usage and meanings of the word vicaria, which is thought to designate seigneurial rights to exercise justice, are examined. It has been discovered that the word signified the whole of seigneurial rights to exercise justice, but was often employed in a manner emphasizing the capture and detention of criminals and, above all, the fines imposed upon them. It can be understood, therefore, that the quasi-hostage-taking by ban seigneurs, noted above, is an extreme version of vicaria. Third, this paper proceeds to question how crimes were perceived as such and why fines, not corporal punishments, were almost exclusively imposed in this age. In answer to the first question, it is clear that people were not concerned with how and why crimes were committed, but instead where and when they were committed or discovered, and who should judge and punish them. In short, time and space were not homogeneous, and in order to determine in advance who was to be accused and what punishment would be imposed as a matter of course, time and space had been segmented and cut out beforehand. The answer to the second question is related to that to the first. This type of partitioning of time and space was not limited to the exercise of justice but extended to other seigneurial rights as well, such as military requisition, tolls, obligatory usage of the mill, the grape presser or the bread-caking stove, and so on. For this reason, fines were almost the only punishment imposed, and fines were understood as if they were the imposition of service or a tax. Finally, the paper examines how trials were carried out in the seigneurial courts. The analysis of historical sources show that ordeals, duels and purgatory oaths were very often employed and, most importantly, judges resorted to these measures from a strategic point of view.