Search

L’écriture de l’histoire dépend des sources que l’on sollicite. Pour tenter de saisir le droit dans sa globalité, ne pas s’en tenir au point de vue des autorités, il faut convoquer d’autres sources que les sources officielles, des sources « vulgaires », populaires qui nous dévoilent d’autres façons de penser la norme, d’autres modes de résolution des litiges, en bref risquer avec Marcel Détienne de « comparer l’incomparable ».L’anthropologie a montré la dimension sociale du conflit et l’importance de la conciliation. Le concept d’une justice réparatrice, après s’être développé dans les pays de Common law, inspire de plus en plus les pays de tradition romaine suscitant par là même bien des critiques. Les leçons de l’anthropologie soulignent le risque qu’il peut y avoir à transposer à l’échelle des nations une forme de justice inhérente à de petites communautés, soudées par une forte solidarité.Pour autant, l’histoire montre la vivacité du modèle conciliatoire. L’anthropologie a fourni aux historiens d’autres grilles de lecture qui leur ont permis d’interroger différemment leurs sources. Même dans l’Empire romain, le modèle judiciaire est loin de remporter la conviction de l’ensemble des provinciaux et nombreux sont ceux qui choisissent d’autres voies, transaction ou justice divine. Parce que le conflit est d’abord l’histoire des parties, il ne peut toujours se satisfaire d’un jugement. C’est par la parole, le rituel, l’entremise d’un dieu qu’il peut se dénouer. Des phénomènes rétifs au rationalisme juridique, qui relèvent de l’émotion, que la loi ne peut capturer. Writing legal history, just like history, depends on the sources we read and the questions we ask. If we ask old questions to the same noble sources, we shall have old answers and the narrative of history will remain as we found it, an image, admittedly respectable, made more than a century ago, when the white man readily bore his burden. If we want another outlook, we must, as said Marcel Detienne, “venture to compare the incomparable”. We must not be contented with a mere reflection of our commonplaces, but seek the dim image that may help us to understand our nowadays. Global history does not only mean trespassing geographical or political boundaries and exploring every areas of human activity and thoughts, but also trying to overcome our mental framework.The concept of “restorative justice” was introduced by anthropologists : in the small communities they looked at, – the face-to-face groups of exotic societies – it was indeed the main way of resolving conflicts and it had been so for centuries. Transferring and spreading ADR as a model for the time being is no simple matter and that explains the uneven acceptance of alternative justice in modern societies. Because it relies on mediation and consensus, alternative justice involves a group. It means that this kind of justice can exist only if there is a strong solidarity which ensures a fair resolution of the dispute. Therefore the question may be asked : is it possible to enforce alternative justice in societies where communities are weak, and where the State has long claimed to be sole guardian of the citizens’ rights ?Anthropology inspired historians as well as lawyers. Could it be that our ancient societies do share elements with exotic societies ? Could it be that in our european past, beside the trial, existed other ways to settle a dispute ? As for Roman antiquity, considering the possibility of alternative justice may seem unorthodox. Rome created res publica and ius, State and the model of State justice. But was this model really and completely implemented in all the provinces of the Roman Empire ? One may question if the disputes were everywhere resolved according to this law, that is in court of the provincial governor, or for the lesser cases, in the cities’ courts. In Great-Britain, a documentation, one could call “alternative”, gives a negative answer.In conclusion, we can say that because the conflict belongs to the parties, it cannot always be solved by a judgment ; it needs meetings, words, rituals and divine’s verdict, all that cannot be captured by any law.

В статье прослеживается использование участниками тяжб магических практик свинцовых табличек с проклятиями, с целью гарантировать победу в судебном процессе. В эллинистическую и римскую эпоху судебная магия претерпевает определенные изменения: заклинающий все чаще обращается к божествам не с просьбой помочь на судебном процессе, связав язык, речь и прочее у соперника, он просит божество взять на себя обязанность судии, покарать именно виновного, т. е. отомстить и осуществить божественное правосудие; упор делается на идее справедливости и воздаяния. Автор отмечает несколько причин, повлекших изменения в традиционной судебной магии: «монархическое сознание», сложившееся в эллинистическое время; определенное разочарование в людском правосудии или осознание его недостаточности и ограниченности, что приводило к характерному для религиозной ментальности поиску справедливости и возмездия у сверхъестественных сил. В более широком контексте можно говорить о смещении акцента в сценариях разрешения криминальной и шире конфликтной ситуации: от состязания, в котором «победитель всегда прав» и «победителю достанется все», до исполнения правосудия как торжества Справедливости, защиты «униженного и оскорбленного». Магическая «мольба о правосудии» становится своеобразным предвестником христианской молитвы., The article examines the use of magic arts by ancient litigants, in particular, the lead curse tablets (defixiones) in order to guarantee a favorable outcome of a trial. In the Hellenistic and Roman period of the Ancient history the judicial magic underwent certain changes: a supplicant more often asked deities to help in the lawsuit, to bind the opponent’s tongue or speech etc. It other words, he requested the gods to take the responsibility of judge, to punish the guilty, i. e. to revenge and to carry out divine justice; the emphasis was made on the idea of justice and retaliation. These innovations have allowed some scholars even to distinguish a special group of the judicial prayers. The author marks several reasons for the changes in the traditional judicial magic: monarchical consciousness that developed in the Hellenistic period, and some disappointment in the human justice or certain perception of its weakness and limits, which resulted in seeking justice and retribution from the supernatural powers typical of the religious mentality. In a broader context, it is possible to speak about the shift in emphasis in the resolution of criminal scenarios and even more of a conflict situation: from the contest in which “a winner is always right” and “the winner will get all” to the exercise of jurisdiction as the triumph of Justice, protection of “the insulted and humiliated”. The magic “prayer for justice” becomes a kind of harbinger of a Christian prayer.