Cross-cultural studies in the public areas and democratic codes in ancient Greece

1.首先，首席研究员试图通过收集有关古希腊城邦公共领域和公民守则的文学和铭文证据，来弄清楚古典雅典民主守则的整个结构。因此，他认为，古典雅典的民主法典缺乏现代宪法所具有的一致性和连贯性的体系，而是由广泛的社会价值观和意识形态组成，这些价值观和意识形态是在雅典时期的历史发展过程中形成的：雅典公民认为他们的民主是一种传统的生活方式，而不是一种政治制度。其次，他继续审查证据的诉讼案件所描述的阿提卡演说家在第四世纪B。C.目的在于了解雅典人是如何在没有警察权力干预的情况下成功地解决日常社会冲突的，并发现一种不需要中央集权的公共意识。在诉讼冲突的情况下，有关当事人不仅得到他们的亲属、密友和同堂成员的帮助，而且还得到“hoi parontes”（路人）的帮助，他们偶尔会目睹受害方，并具有足够的公共意识，从公共利益的角度帮助他们。首席研究员从上述考虑中得出结论，雅典民主制的公共领域具有多层次的结构，由家庭、朋友、同时代人、德谟和胞族等各种中间群体组成，而且每个公民都可以被期望按照城邦的公共利益行事，而公共利益高于每个中间群体的特定利益。

1. In the first place the Head Investigator has tried to figure out the whole structure of the democratic codes in classical Athens by collecting literary and epigraphical evidence on the public areas and civic codes in ancient Greek poleis. As a result, he suggests that the democratic codes of classical Athens lacked a consistent and coherent system, as is found in modern constitutions, and consisted of a wide range of social values and ideologies, which had been formed in the course of historical developments from the Archaic period : the Athenian citizens believed that their democracy was a traditional style of life, rather than a political institution.2. Secondly he goes on to examine the evidence on the litigious cases described by the Attic orators in the fourth century B. C. in order to find out how the Athenians successfully solved social conflicts on the daily basis without intervention of police power, and discovers an idea of public mindedness that did not need a centralized authority. In case of litigious conflicts the concerned parties were assisted not only by their relatives, close friends, and fellow members of their demes, but also by 'hoi parontes', passers-by, who occasionally witnessed the injured parties and were public-minded enough to help them from the standpoint of public interests.3. The Head Investigator concludes from the above-mentioned considerations that the public areas of the Athenian democracy had a multilayered structure, consisting of various interemadiate groups such as families, friends, contemporaries, demes and phratries, and also that every citizen could nevertheless be expected to behave in terms of the public interests of the polis, which superseded the particular interests of each intermediate group.