"Enregistrement" and "publication" of royal legislation by inferior courts in France of Ancien Regime

本研究的结果可概括如下。首先，这在很大程度上拓宽了古希腊罗马法理学与修辞学比较研究的视角和材料。以往的研究主要集中在西塞罗修辞学与共和国后期法学、斯多葛学派哲学(如自然法、正义、公平等)与古典罗马法的关系上。这项研究涵盖了以前没有处理过的主题，例如希腊法律和法医演讲(以赛乌斯，德摩西尼)，罗马帝国晚期的修辞学，包括普林尼和塞涅卡的政治演讲，以及教父般的演讲，如后来罗马帝国的阿米亚努斯·马塞利纳斯。其次，采用了新的方法，例如，从论证的角度(辩证法和范式，即从类比和两极论证，联想思维)进行比较。这一方法论为古典罗马法及其后来在中世纪和现代时期的发展，以及罗马法理学和正典法理学之间的联系开辟了新的可能性。第三，产生了新的翻译和评论。特别是从法律角度对《西塞罗的发明》进行了全面的翻译，例如，地位理论中的术语现在被新译成日语，这有助于对西塞罗修辞的新理解。最后，还有几件事要做。最重要的是，为比较修辞学和法学而收集和编辑主要资料的工作尚未充分展开。这项研究的所有合作者都同意，呈现冲突场景(无论是真实的还是虚构的)的来源，包括正式的法庭程序，必须以正确的顺序愚蠢地列出和收集。

The results of this study can be summarized as follows. First of all, the perspectives and materials for this comparative study between jurisprudence and rhetoric in ancient Greece and Rome are broadened to a great extent. The previous studies only focused on the relationships between Ciceronian rhetoric and jurisprudence in the later Republic, or between doctrines of stoic philosophy (such as natural law, justice and equity) and classical Roman law. This study embraces such topics as previously have not been tackled, for example Greek law and forensic oratory Isaeus, Demosthenes), rhetoric in the high Roman Empire including political speeches of Pliny and Seneca, and patristic oratory such as Ammianus Marcellinus in the later Roman Empire. Secondly, new methodologies are employed, for example, comparisons from the argumentative perspectives (dialectic and paradigm, in other words, arguments from analogy and polarity, associative thinking). This methodology opens new possibilities in bridging classical Roman law and its later developments in Medieval and Modern periods, also Roman jurisprudence and canonistic jurisprudence. Thirdly, new translations and commentaries are produced. In particular, de inventione of Cicero is translated with comprehensive commentary from legal points of view, for example, terminologies in the status theory are now freshly translated into Japanese, which contributes to the new understanding of Ciceronian rhetoric. Lastly, there remain few things to be done. Above all, the work in collecting and editing principal sources for the comparison between rhetoric and jurisprudence has not fully extended. All the collaborators in this study agree that sources presenting conflict scenes (both factual and imaginary) including formal court procedures must be folly listed and collected in the right order.