Blood-Money in Homer – Role of istor in the Trial Scene on the Shield of Achilles (Il. 18, 497-508)
Sima Avramović, Ph. D., Professor, Dean of the Faculty of Law, University of Belgrade, Bulevar kralja Aleksandra 67, Belgrade, Serbia; sima@ius.bg.ac.rs; ORCID ID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7567-2256
Summary
The author examines controversial verses depicting trial scene in a homicide case on the shield of Achilles in Iliad. The author firstly points to few unclear issues: a) what was core of the case – a question of facts (whether the blood-money for a homicide – poinē has been paid or not) or it was a legal question (could a blood-feud be replaced with a recompensation)?; b) did the litigants voluntarily present their dispute for settlement by the arbiter to avoid self-help (arbitration theory) or the issue was a part of the public control of self-help?; c) who decides the case (gathered people, collective of elders – gerontes or an individual – istor) and to whom goes deposited amount of 12 tallents of gold? The main focus of this article is concentrated upon istor, who is defined as an arbiter or a judge in the existing literature. The author offers an innovative approach that the istor was neither a judge nor an arbiter but a person of public faith, and compares it with the mnāmōn in the Code of Gortyn in 5th century Crete (one who knows, one who remembers). He also invokes legal anthropology to suggest parallels with the medieval institutions of pristav, who kept a memory of court rulings, helped judges in Slavic medieval law, and was a kind of guarantee of different legal acts. The last anthropological parallel comes from customary institution among Albanians at Kosovo and Metohia, namely the court of elders (plechnija) and institution of dorzon who was a guarantee that the opinion of the plechnar will be respected. The final conclusion is that istor was a person of public faith and a guarantor in blood-money case, one who was present and who knows important facts about the blood-feud agreement.
Key words: homicide; blood-feud; self-help; arbitration; Code of Gortyn
Full text: http://hrcak.srce.hr/189805
Pages: 723-756
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Krvnina kod Homera – uloga istora u sceni suđenja na Ahilovom štitu (Il. 18, 497-508)
Dr. sc. Sima Avramović, profesor, Dekan Pravnog fakulteta Univerziteta u Beogradu, Bulevar kralja Aleksandra 67, Beograd, Srbija; sima@ius.bg.ac.rs; ORCID ID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7567-2256
Sažetak
Autor analizira čuvene kontroverzne stihove iz Homerove Ilijade (18, 497-508) u kojima se opisuje scena suđenja u vezi sa ubistvom. Ukazuje na mnoga sporna mesta i različita tumačenja nekoliko pitanja. Prvo je šta je predmet spora – je li po sredi faktičko pitanje (da li je krvnina za ubistvo plaćena ili ne) ili pravno (da li se krvnina može zameniti kompenzacijom). Drugo se odnosi na dilemu da li su stranke dragovoljno iznele svoj spor pred arbitra da bi se izbegla samopomoć ili postupak vodi društvo u cilju suzbijanja samopomoći. Treće nejasno pitanje je ko donosi odluku u sporu – okupljeni narod svojim nadvikivanjem, skupina geronata ili pojedinac – istor? U vezi sa time je i pitanje kome se po završetku spora dodeljuje 12 talenata u zlatu koje pominje Homer. Autor sugerira da istor nije ni sudija niti arbitar, već osoba javne vere i poredi ga sa mnamonom u Gortinskom zakoniku iz V veka pre n.e. sa Krita, koji je tamo neka vrsta sudskog pomoćnika čiji je zadatak da, u vreme kada pismenost još nije dovoljno razvijena, pamti sadržinu sudskih odluka (etimološki: onaj koji se seća). Uporedo sa tim, autor ukazuje i na moguću sličnost sa funkcijom pristava u starom srednjevekovnom južnoslovenskom pravu, koji je bio pomoćnik sudijama, prisustvovao raznim pravnim poslovima za čije je izvršenje garantovao i čijim se izjavama poklanjala javna vera (osobe javne vere). Osim toga, autor traži pravno-antropološku paralelu pomenute homerske scene sa običajnim sudom staraca – plećnije koja se dugo zadržala kod Albanaca na Kosovu i Metohiji i sa ulogom koju je imao dorzon, kao osoba koja je garantovala da će se stranke pridržavati mišljenja plećnara. Na osnovu svega toga zaključuje da homerski istor nije bio ni sudija niti arbitar, već osoba javne vere, koja je bila prisutna i koja zna važne činjenice u vezi sa spornom krvninom.
Ključne riječi: ubistvo; krvnina; samopomoć; arbitraža; Gortinski zakonik
Puni tekst: http://hrcak.srce.hr/189805
Stranice: 723-756