第1章

PrefaceThechiefobjectofthefollowingpagesistoindicatesomeoftheearliestideasofmankind，astheyarereflectedinAncientLaw，andtopointouttherelationofthoseideastomodernthought。Muchoftheinquiryattemptedcouldnothavebeenprosecutedwiththeslightesthopeofausefulresultiftherehadnotexistedabodyoflaw，likethatoftheRomans，bearinginitsearliestportionsthetracesofthemostremoteantiquityandsupplyingfromitslaterrulesthestapleofthecivilinstitutionsbywhichmodernsocietyisevennowcontrolled。ThenecessityoftakingtheRomanlawasatypicalsystemhascompelledtheauthortodrawfromitwhatmayappearadisproportionatenumberofhisillustrations；butithasnotbeenhisintentiontowriteatreatiseonRomanjurisprudence，andhehasasmuchaspossibleavoidedalldiscussionswhichmightgivethatappearancetohiswork。ThespaceallottedinthethirdandfourthchaptertocertainphilosophicaltheoriesoftheRomanJurisconsultshasbeenappropriatedtothemfortworeasons。Inthefirstplace，thosetheoriesappeartotheauthortohavehadawiderandmorepermanentinfluenceonthethoughtandactionoftheworldthanisusuallysupposed。Secondly，theyarebelievedtobetheultimatesourceofmostoftheviewswhichhavebeenprevalent，tillquiterecently，onthesubjectstreatedofinthisvolume。Itwasimpossiblefortheauthortoproceedfarwithhisundertakingwithoutstatinghisopinionontheorigin，meaning，andvalueofthosespeculations。

H。S。M。London，January，1861。

Chapter1

AncientCodesThemostcelebratedsystemofjurisprudenceknowntotheworldbegins，asitends，withaCode。Fromthecommencementtothecloseofitshistory，theexpositorsofRomanLawconsistentlyemployedlanguagewhichimpliedthatthebodyoftheirsystemrestedontheTwelveDecemviralTables，andthereforeonabasisofwrittenlaw。Exceptinoneparticular，noinstitutionsanteriortotheTwelveTableswererecognisedatRome。ThetheoreticaldescentofRomanjurisprudencefromacode，thetheoreticalascriptionofEnglishlawtoimmemorialunwrittentradition，werethechiefreasonswhythedevelopmentoftheirsystemdifferedfromthedevelopmentofours。Neithertheorycorrespondedexactlywiththefacts，buteachproducedconsequencesoftheutmostimportance。

IneedhardlysaythatthepublicationoftheTwelveTablesisnottheearliestpointatwhichwecantakeupthehistoryoflaw。TheancientRomancodebelongstoaclassofwhichalmosteverycivilisednationintheworldcanshowasample，andwhich，sofarastheRomanandHellenicworldswereconcerned，werelargelydiffusedoverthematepochsnotwidelydistantfromoneanother。Theyappearedunderexceedinglysimilarcircumstances，andwereproduced，toourknowledge，byverysimilarcauses。

Unquestionably，manyjuralphenomenaliebehindthesecodesandprecededtheminpointoftime。Notafewdocumentaryrecordsexistwhichprofesstogiveusinformationconcerningtheearlyphenomenaoflaw；but，untilphilologyhaseffectedacompleteanalysisoftheSanskritliterature，ourbestsourcesofknowledgeareundoubtedlytheGreekHomericpoems，consideredofcoursenotasahistoryofactualoccurrences，butasadescription，notwhollyidealised，ofastateofsocietyknowntothewriter。Howeverthefancyofthepoetmayhaveexaggeratedcertainfeaturesoftheheroicage，theprowessofwarriorandthepotencyofgods，thereisnoreasontobelievethatithastamperedwithmoralormetaphysicalconceptionswhichwerenotyetthesubjectsofconsciousobservation；andinthisrespecttheHomericliteratureisfarmoretrustworthythanthoserelativelylaterdocumentswhichpretendtogiveanaccountoftimessimilarlyearly，butwhichwerecompiledunderphilosophicalortheologicalinfluences。Ifbyanymeanswecandeterminetheearlyformsofjuralconceptions，theywillbeinvaluabletous。Theserudimentaryideasaretothejuristwhattheprimarycrustsoftheeartharetothegeologist。Theycontain，potentiallyalltheformsinwhichlawhassubsequentlyexhibiteditself。Thehasteortheprejudicewhichhasgenerallyrefusedthemallbutthemostsuperficialexamination，mustbeartheblameoftheunsatisfactoryconditioninwhichwefindthescienceofjurisprudence。Theinquiriesofthejuristareintruthprosecutedmuchasinquiryinphysicandphysiologywasprosecutedbeforeobservationhadtakentheplaceofassumption。

Theories，plausibleandcomprehensive，butabsolutelyunverified，suchastheLawofNatureortheSocialCompact，enjoyauniversalpreferenceoversoberresearchintotheprimitivehistoryofsocietyandlaw；andtheyobscurethetruthnotonlybydivertingattentionfromtheonlyquarterinwhichitcanbefound，butbythatmostrealandmostimportantinfluencewhich，whenonceentertainedandbelievedin，theyareenabledtoexerciseonthelaterstagesofjurisprudence。

Theearliestnotionsconnectedwiththeconception，nowsofullydeveloped，ofalaworruleoflife，arethosecontainedintheHomericwords"Themis"and"Themistes。""Themis，"itiswellknown，appearsinthelaterGreekpantheonastheGoddessofJustice，butthisisamodernandmuchdevelopedidea，anditisinaverydifferentsensethatThemisisdescribedintheIliadastheassessorofZeus。Itisnowclearlyseenbyalltrustworthyobserveroftheprimitiveconditionofmankindthat，intheinfancyoftherace，mencouldonlyaccountforsustainedorperiodicallyrecurringactionbysupposingapersonalagent。

Thus，thewindblowingwasapersonandofcourseadivineperson；thesunrising，culminating，andsettingwasapersonandadivineperson；theearthyieldingherincreasewasapersonanddivine。As，then，inthephysicalworld，sointhemoral。Whenakingdecidedadisputebyasentence，thejudgmentwasassumedtobetheresultofdirectinspiration。Thedivineagent，suggestingjudicialawardstokingsortogods，thegreatestofkings，wasThemis。Thepeculiarityoftheconceptionisbroughtoutbytheuseoftheplural。Themistes，Themises，thepluralofThemis，aretheawardsthemselves，divinelydictatedtothejudge。Kingsarespokenofasiftheyhadastoreof"Themistes"readytohandforuse；butitmustbedistinctlyunderstoodthattheyarenotlaws，butjudgments。"Zeus，orthehumankingonearth，"saysMr。

Grote，inhisHistoryofGreece，"isnotalawmaker，butajudge。"HeisprovidedwithThemistes，but，consistentlywiththebeliefintheiremanationfromabove，theycannotbesupposedtobeconnectedbyanythreadofprinciple；theyareseparate，isolatedjudgments。

EvenintheHomericpoems，wecanseethattheseideasaretransient。Paritiesofcircumstancewereprobablycommonerinthesimplemechanismofancientsocietythantheyarenow，andinthesuccessionofsimilarcasesawardsarelikelytofollowandresembleeachother。HerewehavethegermorrudimentofaCustom，aconceptionposteriortothatofThemistesorjudgments。

Howeverstronglywe，withourmodernassociations，maybeinclinedtolaydownapriorithatthenotionofaCustommustprecedethatofajudicialsentence，andthatajudgmentmustaffirmaCustomorpunishitsbreach，itseemsquitecertainthatthehistoricalorderoftheideasisthatinwhichIhaveplacedthem。TheHomericwordforacustomintheembryoissometimes"Themis"inthesingular-moreoften"Dike，"themeaningofwhichvisiblyfluctuatesbetweena"judgment"anda"custom"or"usage。"Nomos，aLaw，sogreatandfamousaterminthepoliticalvocabularyofthelaterGreeksociety，doesnotoccurinHomer。

Thisnotionofadivineagency，suggestingtheThemistes，anditselfimpersonatedinThemis，mustbekeptapartfromotherprimitivebeliefswithwhichasuperficialinquirermightconfoundit。TheconceptionoftheDeitydictatinganentirecodeorbodyoflaw，asinthecaseoftheHindoolawsofMenu，seemstobelongtoarangeofideasmorerecentandmoreadvanced。

"Themis"and"Themistes"aremuchlessremotelylinkedwiththatpersuasionwhichclungsolongandsotenaciouslytothehumanmind，ofadivineinfluenceunderlyingandsupportingeveryrelationoflife，everysocialinstitution。Inearlylaw，andamidtherudimentsofpoliticalthought，symptomsofthisbeliefmeetusonallsides。Asupernaturalpresidencyissupposedtoconsecrateandkeeptogetherallthecardinalinstitutionsofthosetimes，theState，theRace，andtheFamily。Men，groupedtogetherinthedifferentrelationswhichthoseinstitutionsimply，areboundtocelebrateperiodicallycommonritesandtooffercommonsacrifices；andeverynowandthenthesamedutyisevenmoresignificantlyrecognisedinthepurificationsandexpiationswhichtheyperform，andwhichappearintendedtodeprecatepunishmentforinvoluntaryorneglectfuldisrespect。

Everybodyacquaintedwithordinaryclassicalliteraturewillrememberthesacragentilicia，whichexercisedsoimportantaninfluenceontheearlyRomanlawofadoptionandofwills。AndtothishourtheHindooCustomaryLaw，inwhichsomeofthemostcuriousfeaturesofprimitivesocietyarestereotyped，makesalmostalltherightsofpersonsandalltherulesofsuccessionhingeontheduesolemnisationoffixedceremoniesatthedeadman’sfuneral，thatis，ateverypointwhereabreachoccurinthecontinuityofthefamily。

Beforewequitthisstageofjurisprudence，acautionmaybeusefullygiventotheEnglishstudent。Bentham，inhisFragmentonGovernment，andAustin，inhisProvinceofJurisprudenceDetermined，resolveeverylawintoacommandofthelawgiver，anobligationimposedtherebyonthecitizen，andasanctionthreatenedintheeventofdisobedience；anditisfurtherpredicatedofthecommand，whichisthefirstelementinalaw，thatitmustprescribe，notasingleact，butaseriesornumberofactsofthesameclassorkind。Theresultsofthisseparationofingredientstallyexactlywiththefactsofmaturejurisprudence；and，byalittlestrainingoflanguage，theymaybemadetocorrespondinformwithalllaw，ofallkinds，atallepochs。Itisnot，however，assertedthatthenotionoflawentertainedbythegeneralityisevennowquiteinconformitywiththisdissection；anditiscuriousthat，thefartherwepenetrateintotheprimitivehistoryofthought，thefartherwefindourselvesfromaconceptionoflawwhichatallresemblesacompoundoftheelementswhichBenthamdetermined。Itiscertainthat，intheinfancyofmankind，nosortoflegislature，notevenadistinctauthoroflaw，iscontemplatedorconceivedof。Lawhasscarcelyreachedthefootingofcustom；itisratherahabit。

Itis，touseaFrenchphrase，"intheair。"Theonlyauthoritativestatementofrightandwrongisajudicialsentenceafterthefacts，notonepresupposingalawwhichhasbeenviolated，butonewhichisbreathedforthefirsttimebyahigherpowerintothejudge’smindatthemomentofadjudication。

Itisofcourseextremelydifficultforustorealiseaviewsofarremovedfromusinpointbothoftimeandofassociation，butitwillbecomemorecrediblewhenwedwellmoreatlengthontheconstitutionofancientSociety，inwhicheveryman，livingduringthegreaterpartofhislifeunderthepatriarchaldespotism，waspracticallycontrolledinallhisactionsbyaregimennotoflawbutofcaprice。ImayaddthatanEnglishmanshouldbebetterablethanaforeignertoappreciatethehistoricalfactthatthe"Themistes"precededanyconceptionoflaw，because，amidthemanyinconsistenttheorieswhichprevailconcerningthecharacterofEnglishjurisprudence，themostpopular，oratalleventstheonewhichmostaffectspractice，iscertainlyatheorywhichassumesthatadjudgedcasesandprecedentsexistantecedentlytorules，principles，anddistinctions。The"Themistes"havetoo，itshouldberemarked，thecharacteristicwhich，intheviewofBenthamandAustin，distinguishessingleormerecommandsfromlaws。Atruelawenjoinsonallthecitizensindifferentlyanumberofactssimilarinclassorkind；andthisisexactlythefeatureofalawwhichhasmostdeeplyimpresseditselfonthepopularmind，Causingtheterm"law"tobeappliedtomereuniformities，successions，andsimilitudes。Acommandprescribesonlyasingleact，anditistocommands，therefore，that"Themistes"aremoreakinthantolaws。Theyaresimplyadjudicationsoninsulatedstatesoffact，anddonotnecessarilyfolloweachotherinanyorderlysequence。

Theliteratureoftheheroicagedisclosestouslawinthegermunderthe"Themistes"andalittlemoredevelopedintheconceptionof"Dike。"Thenextstagewhichwereachinthehistoryofjurisprudenceisstronglymarkedandsurroundedbytheutmostinterest。Mr。Grote，inthesecondpartandsecondchapterofhisHistory，hasfullydescribedthemodeinwhichsocietygraduallyclotheditselfwithadifferentcharacterfromthatdelineatedbyHomer。Heroickingshipdependedpartlyondivinelygivenprerogative，andpartlyonthepossessionofsupereminentstrength，courage，andwisdom。Gradually，astheimpressionofthemonarch’ssacrednessbecameweakened，andfeeblemembersoccurredintheseriesofhereditarykings，theroyalpowerdecayed，andatlastgavewaytothedominionofaristocracies。

Iflanguagesoprecisecanbeusedoftherevolution，wemightsaythattheofficeofthekingwasusurpedbythatcouncilofchiefswhichHomerrepeatedlyalludestoanddepicts。AtalleventsfromanepochofkinglyrulewecomeeverywhereinEuropetoaneraofoligarchies；andevenwherethenameofthemonarchicalfunctionsdoesnotabsolutelydisappear，theauthorityofthekingisreducedtoamereshadow。Hebecomesamerehereditarygeneral；asinLacedaemon，amerefunctionary，astheKingArchonatAthens，oramereformalhierophant，liketheRexSacrificulusatRome。InGreece，Italy，andAsiaMinor，thedominantordersseemtohaveuniverallyconsistedofanumberoffamiliesunitedbyanassumedrelationshipinblood，and，thoughtheyallappearatfirsttohavelaidclaimtoaquasi-sacredcharacter，theirstrengthdoesnotseemtohaveresidedintheirpretendedsanctity。Unlesstheywereprematurelyoverthrownbythepopularparty，theyallultimatelyapproachedverycloselytowhatweshouldnowunderstandbyapoliticalaristocracy。ThechangeswhichsocietyunderwentinthecommunitiesofthefurtherAsiaoccurredofcourseatperiodslonganteriorinpointoftimetotheserevolutionsoftheItalianandHellenicworlds；buttheirrelativeplaceincivilisationappeartohavebeenthesame，andtheyseemtohavebeenexceedinglysimilaringeneralcharacter。ThereissomeevidencethattheraceswhichweresubsequentlyunitedunderthePersianmonarchy，andthosewhichpeopledthepeninsulaofIndia，hadalltheirheroicageandtheireraofaristocracies；butamilitaryandareligiousoligarchyappeartohavegrownupseparately，norwastheauthorityofthekinggenerallysuperseded。Contrary，too，tothecourseofeventsintheWest，thereligiouselementintheEasttendedtogetthebetterofthemilitaryandpolitical。Militaryandcivilaristocraciesdisappear，annihilatedorcrushedintoinsignificancebetweenthekingsandthesacerdotalorder；andtheultimateresultatwhichwearriveis，amonarchenjoyinggreatpower，butcircumscribedbytheprivilegesofacasteofpriests。Withthesedifferences，however，thatintheEastaristocraciesbecamereligious，intheWestcivilorpolitical，thepropositionthatahistoricaleraofaristocraciessucceededahistoricaleraofheroickingsmaybeconsideredastrue，ifnotofallmankind，atalleventsofallbranchesoftheIndo-Europeanfamilyofnations。

Theimportantpointforthejurististhatthesearistocracieswereuniversallythedepositariesandadministratorsoflaw。Theyseemtohavesucceededtotheprerogativesoftheking，withtheimportantdifference，however，thattheydonotappeartohavepretendedtodirectinspirationforeachsentence。Theconnectionofideaswhichcausedthejudgmentsofthepatriarchalchieftaintobeattributedtosuperhumandictationstillshowsitselfhereandthereintheclaimofadivineoriginfortheentirebodyofrules，orforcertainpartsofit，buttheprogressofthoughtnolongerpermitsthesolutionofparticulardisputestobeexplainedbysupposinganextra-humaninterposition。Whatthejuristicaloligarchynowclaimsistomonopolisetheknowledgeofthelaws，tohavetheexclusivepossessionoftheprinciplesbywhichquarrelsaredecided。WehaveinfactarrivedattheepochofCustomaryLaw。CustomsorObservancesnowexistasasubstantiveaggregate，andareassumedtobepreciselyknowntothearistocraticorderorcaste。Ourauthoritiesleaveusnodoubtthatthetrustlodgedwiththeoligarchywassometimesabused，butitcertainlyoughtnottoberegardedasamereusurpationorengineoftyranny。Beforetheinventionofwriting，andduringtheinfancyoftheart，anaristocracyinvestedwithjudicialprivilegesformedtheonlyexpedientbywhichaccuratepreservationofthecustomsoftheraceortribecouldbeatallapproximatedto。Theirgenuinenesswas，sofaraspossible，insuredbyconfidingthemtotherecollectionofalimitedportionofthecommunity。

TheepochofCustomaryLaw，andofitscustodybyaprivilegedorder，isaveryremarkableone。Theconditionofthejurisprudencewhichitimplieshaslefttraceswhichmaystillbedetectedinlegalandpopularphraseology。Thelaw，thusknownexclusivelytoaprivilegedminority，whetheracaste，anaristocracy，apriestlytribe，orasacerdotalcollege，istrueunwrittenlaw。Exceptthis，thereisnosuchthingasunwrittenlawintheworld。Englishcase-lawissometimesspokenofasunwritten，andtherearesomeEnglishtheoristswhoassureusthatifacodeofEnglishjurisprudencewerepreparedweshouldbeturningunwrittenlawintowritten——conversion，astheyinsist，ifnotofdoubtfulpolicy，atalleventsofthegreatestseriousness。Now，itisquitetruethattherewasonceaperiodatwhichtheEnglishcommonlawmightreasonablyhavebeentermedunwritten。TheelderEnglishjudgesdidreallypretendtoknowledgeofrules，principles，anddistinctionswhichwerenotentirelyrevealedtothebarandtothelay-public。Whetherallthelawwhichtheyclaimedtomonopolisewasreallyunwritten，isexceedinglyquestionable；butatallevents，ontheassumptionthattherewasoncealargemassofcivilandcriminalrulesknownexclusivelytothejudges，itpresentlyceasedtobeunwrittenlaw。AssoonastheCourtsatWestminsterHallbegantobasetheirjudgmentsoncasesrecorded，whetherintheyearbooksorelsewhere，thelawwhichtheyadministeredbecamewrittenlaw。

AtthepresentmomentaruleofEnglishlawhasfirsttobedisentangledfromtherecordedfactsofadjudgedprintedprecedents，thenthrownintoaformofwordsvaryingwiththetaste，precision，andknowledgeoftheparticularjudge，andthenappliedtothecircumstancesofthecaseforadjudication。Butatnostageofthisprocesshasitanycharacteristicwhichdistinguishesitfromwrittenlaw。Itiswrittencase-law，andonlydifferentfromcode-lawbecauseitiswritteninadifferentway。

FromtheperiodofCustomaryLawwecometoanothersharplydefinedepochinthehistoryofjurisprudence。WearriveattheeraofCodes，thoseancientcodesofwhichtheTwelveTablesofRomewerethemostfamousspecimen。InGreece，inItaly，ontheHellenisedsea-boardofWesternAsia，thesecodesallmadetheirappearanceatperiodsmuchthesameeverywhere，not，Imean，atperiodsidenticalinpointoftime，butsimilarinpointoftherelativeprogressofeachcommunity。Everywhere，inthecountriesIhavenamed，lawsengravenontabletsandpublishedtothepeopletaketheplaceofusagesdepositedwiththerecollectionofaprivilegedoligarchy。ItmustnotforamomentbesupposedthattherefinedconsiderationsnowurgedinfavourofwhatiscalledcodificationhadanypartorplaceinthechangeIhavedescribed。Theancientcodesweredoubtlessoriginallysuggestedbythediscoveryanddiffusionoftheartofwriting。Itistruethatthearistocraciesseemtohaveabusedtheirmonopolyoflegalknowledge；andatalleventstheirexclusivepossessionofthelawwasaformidableimpedimenttothesuccessofthosepopularmovementswhichbegantobeuniversalinthewesternworld。But，thoughdemocraticsentimentmayhaveaddedtotheirpopularity，thecodeswerecertainlyinthemainadirectresultoftheinventionofwriting。Inscribedtabletswereseentobeabetterdepositaryoflaw，andabettersecurityforitsaccuratepreservation，thanthememoryofanumberofpersonshoweverstrengthenedbyhabitualexercise。

TheRomancodebelongstotheclassofcodesIhavebeendescribing。Theirvaluedidnotconsistinanyapproachtosymmetricalclassifications，ortotersenessandclearnessofexpression，butintheirpublicity，andintheknowledgewhichtheyfurnishedtoeverybody，astowhathewastodo，andwhatnottodo。Itis，indeed，truethattheTwelveTablesofRomedoexhibitsometracesofsystematicarrangement，butthisisprobablyexplainedbythetraditionthattheframersofthatbodyoflawcalledintheassistanceofGreekswhoenjoyedthelaterGreekexperienceintheartoflaw-making。ThefragmentsoftheAtticCodeofSolonshow，however，thatithadbutlittleorder，andprobablythelawsofDracohadevenless。Quiteenoughtooremainsofthesecollections，bothintheEastandintheWest，toshowthattheymingledupreligious，civil，andmerelymoralordinances，withoutanyregardtodifferencesintheiressentialcharacterandthisisconsistentwithallweknowofearlythoughtfromothersources，theseveranceoflawfrommorality，andofreligionfromlaw，belongingverydistinctlytothelaterstagesofmentalprogress。

But，whatevertoamoderneyearethesingularitiesoftheseCodes，theirimportancetoancientsocietieswasunspeakable。Thequestion——anditwasonewhichaffectedthewholefutureofeachcommunity——wasnotsomuchwhetherthereshouldbeacodeatall，forthemajorityofancientsocietiesseemtohaveobtainedthemsoonerorlater，and，butforthegreatinterruptioninthehistoryofjurisprudencecreatedbyfeudalism，itislikelythatallmodernlawwouldbedistinctlytraceabletooneormoreofthesefountain-heads。Butthepointonwhichturnedthehistoryoftheracewas，atwhatperiod，atwhatstageoftheirsocialprogress，theyshouldhavetheirlawsputintowriting。Inthewesternworldtheplebeianorpopularelementineachstatesuccessfullyassailedtheoligarchicalmonopoly；andacodewasnearlyuniversallyobtainedearlyinthehistoryoftheCommonwealth。ButintheEast，asIhavebeforementioned，therulingaristocraciestendedtobecomereligiousratherthanmilitaryorpolitical，andgained，therefore，ratherthanlostinpower；whileinsomeinstancesthephysicalconformationofAsiaticcountrieshadtheeffectofmakingindividualcommunitieslargerandmorenumerousthanintheWest；

anditisaknownsociallawthatthelargerthespaceoverwhichaparticularsetofinstitutionsisdiffused，thegreaterisitstenacityandvitality。Fromwhatevercause，thecodesobtainedbyEasternsocietieswereobtained，relatively，muchlaterthanbyWestern，andworeaverydifferentcharacter。ThereligiousoligarchiesofAsia，eitherfortheirownguidance，orforthereliefoftheirmemory，orfortheinstructionoftheirdisciples，seeminallcasestohaveultimatelyembodiedtheirlegallearninginacode；buttheopportunityofincreasingandconsolidatingtheirinfluencewasprobablytootemptingtoberesisted。Theircompletemonopolyoflegalknowledgeappearstohaveenabledthemtoputoffontheworldcollections，notsomuchoftherulesactuallyobservedasoftheruleswhichthepriestlyorderconsideredpropertobeobserved。TheHindoocode，calledtheLawsofMenu，whichiscertainlyaBrahmincompilation，undoubtedlyenshrinesmanygenuineobservancesoftheHindoorace，buttheopinionofthebestcontemporaryorientalistsis，thatitdoesnot，asawhole，representasetofruleseveractuallyadministeredinHindostan。Itis，ingreatpart，anidealpictureofthatwhich，intheviewoftheBrahmins，oughttobethelaw。Itisconsistentwithhumannatureandwiththespecialmotivesoftheirauthor，thatcodeslikethatofMenushouldpretendtothehighestantiquityandclaimtohaveemanatedintheircompleteformfromtheDeity。Menu，accordingtoHindoomythology，isanemanationfromthesupremeGod；butthecompilationwhichbearshisname，thoughitsexactdateisnoteasilydiscovered，is，inpointoftherelativeprogressofHindoojurisprudence，arecentproduction。

AmongthechiefadvantageswhichtheTwelveTablesandsimilarcodesconferredonthesocietieswhichobtainedthem，wastheprotectionwhichtheyaffordedagainstthefraudsoftheprivilegedoligarchyandalsoagainstthespontaneousdepravationanddebasementofthenationalinstitutions。TheRomanCodewasmerelyanenunciationinwordsoftheexistingcustomsoftheRomanpeople。RelativelytotheprogressoftheRomansincivilisation，itwasaremarkablyearlycode，anditwaspublishedatatimewhenRomansocietyhadbarelyemergedfromthatintellectualconditioninwhichcivilobligationandreligiousdutyareinevitablyconfounded。Nowabarbaroussocietypractisingabodyofcustoms，isexposedtosomeespecialdangerswhichmaybeabsolutelyfataltoitsprogressincivilisation。

Theusageswhichaparticularcommunityisfoundtohaveadoptedinitsinfancyandinitsprimitiveseatsaregenerallythosewhichareonthewholebestsuitedtopromoteitsphysicalandmoralwell-being；and，iftheyareretainedintheirintegrityuntilnewsocialwantshavetaughtnewpractices，theupwardmarchofsocietyisalmostcertain。Butunhappilythereisalawofdevelopmentwhicheverthreatenstooperateuponunwrittenusage。Thecustomsareofcourseobeyedbymultitudeswhoareincapableofunderstandingthetruegroundoftheirexpediency，andwhoarethereforeleftinevitablytoinventsuperstitiousreasonsfortheirpermanence。Aprocessthencommenceswhichmaybeshortlydescribedbysayingthatusagewhichisreasonablegeneratesusagewhichisunreasonable。Analog，themostvaluableofinstrumentsinthematurityofjurisprudence，isthemostdangerousofsnaresinitsinfancy。Prohibitionsandordinances，originallyconfined，forgoodreasons，toasingledescriptionofacts，aremadetoapplytoallactsofthesameclass，becauseamanmenacedwiththeangerofthegodsfordoingonething，feelsanaturalterrorindoinganyotherthingwhichisremotelylikeit。Afteronekindoffoodhasinterdictedforsanitaryreasons，theprohibitionisextendedtoallfoodresemblingit，thoughtheresemblanceoccasionallydependsonanalogiesthemostfanciful。

So，again，awiseprovisionforinsuringgeneralcleanlinessdictatesintimelongroutinesofceremonialablution；andthatdivisionintoclasseswhichataparticularcrisisofsocialhistoryisnecessaryforthemaintenanceofthenationalexistencedegeneratesintothemostdisastrousandblightingofallhumaninstitutions——Caste。ThefateoftheHindoolawis，infact，themeasureofthevalueoftheRomancode。EthnologyshowsusthattheRomansandtheHindoossprangfromthesameoriginalstock，andthereisindeedastrikingresemblancebetweenwhatappeartohavebeentheiroriginalcustoms。Evennow，Hindoojurisprudencehasasubstratumofforethoughtandsoundjudgment，butirrationalimitationhasengraftedinitanimmenseapparatusofcruelabsurdities。FromthesecorruptionstheRomanswereprotectedbytheircode。Itwascompiledwhiletheusagewasstillwholesome，andahundredyearsafterwardsitmighthavebeentoolate。TheHindoolawhasbeentoagreatextentembodiedinwriting，but，ancientasinonesensearethecompendiawhichstillexistinSanskrit，theycontainampleevidencethattheyweredrawnupafterthemischiefhadbeendone。WearenotofcourseentitledtosaythatiftheTwelveTableshadnotbeenpublishedtheRomanswouldhavebeencondemnedtoacivilisationasfeebleandpervertedasthatoftheHindoos，butthusmuchatleastiscertain，thatwiththeircodetheywereexemptfromtheverychanceofsounhappyadestiny。AncientLaw

byHenryMaineChapter2LegalFictions

WhenprimitivelawhasoncebeenembodiedinaCode，thereis

anendtowhatmaybecalleditsspontaneousdevelopment。

Henceforwardthechangeseffectedinit，ifeffectedatall，are

effecteddeliberatelyandfromwithout。Itisimpossibleto

supposethatthecustomsofanyraceortriberemainedunaltered

duringthewholeofthelong——insomeinstancestheimmense——

intervalbetweentheirdeclarationbyapatriarchalmonarchand

theirpublicationinwriting。Itwouldbeunsafetootoaffirm

thatnopartofthealterationwaseffecteddeliberately。But

fromthelittleweknowoftheprogressoflawduringthis

period，wearejustifiedinassumingthatsetpurposehadthe

verysmallestshareinproducingchange。Suchinnovationsonthe

earliestusagesasdisclosethemselvesappeartohavebeen

dictatedbyfeelingsandmodesofthoughtwhich，underour

presentmentalconditions，weareunabletocomprehend。Anewera

begins，however，withtheCodes。Wherever，afterthisepoch，we

tracethecourseoflegalmodificationweareabletoattribute

ittotheconsciousdesireofimprovement，oratalleventsof

compassingobjectsotherthanthosewhichwereaimedatinthe

primitivetimes。

Itmayseematfirstsightthatnogeneralpropositionsworth

trustingcanbeelicitedfromthehistoryoflegalsystems

subsequenttothecodes。Thefieldistoovast。Wecannotbesure

thatwehaveincludedasufficientnumberofphenomenainour

observations，orthatweaccuratelyunderstandthosewhichwe

haveobserved。Buttheundertakingwillbeseentobemore

feasible，ifweconsiderthataftertheepochofcodesthe

distinctionbetweenstationaryandprogressivesocietiesbegins

tomakeitselffelt。Itisonlywiththeprogressivethatweare

concerned，andnothingismoreremarkablethantheirextreme

fewness。Inspiteofoverwhelmingevidence，itismostdifficult

foracitizenofwesternEuropetobringthoroughlyhometo

himselfthetruththatthecivilisationwhichsurroundshimisa

rareexceptioninthehistoryoftheworld。Thetoneofthought

commonamongus，allourhopes，fears，andspeculations，wouldbe

materiallyaffected，ifwehadvividlybeforeustherelationof

theprogressiveracestothetotalityofhumanlife。Itis

indisputablethatmuchthegreatestpartofmankindhasnever

shownaparticleofdesirethatitscivilinstitutionsshouldbe

improvedsincethemomentwhenexternalcompletenesswasfirst

giventothembytheirembodimentinsomepermanentrecord。One

setofusageshasoccasionallybeenviolentlyoverthrownand

supersededbyanother；hereandthereaprimitivecode，

pretendingtoasupernaturalorigin，hasbeengreatlyextended，

anddistortedintothemostsurprisingforms，bytheperversity

ofsacerdotalcommentators；but，exceptinasmallsectionofthe

world，therehasbeennothinglikethegradualameliorationofa

legalsystem。Therehasbeenmaterialcivilisation，but，instead

ofthecivilisationexpandingthelaw，thelawhaslimitedthe

civilisation。Thestudyofracesintheirprimitivecondition

affordsussomecluetothepointatwhichthedevelopmentof

certainsocietieshasstopped。WecanseethatBrahminicalIndia

hasnotpassedbeyondastagewhichoccursinthehistoryofall

thefamiliesofmankind，thestageatwhicharuleoflawisnot

yetdiscriminatedfromaruleofreligion。Themembersofsucha

societyconsiderthatthetransgressionofareligiousordinance

shouldbepunishedbycivilpenalties，andthattheviolationof

acivildutyexposesthedelinquenttodivinecorrection。In

Chinathispointhasbeenpassed，butprogressseemstohavebeen

therearrested，becausethecivillawsarecoextensivewithall

theideasofwhichtheraceiscapable。Thedifferencebetween

thestationaryandprogressivesocietiesis，however，oneofthe

greatsecretswhichinquiryhasyettopenetrate。Amongpartial

explanationsofitIventuretoplacetheconsiderationsurgedat

theendofthelastchapter。Itmayfurtherberemarkedthatno

oneislikelytosucceedintheinvestigationwhodoesnot

clearlyrealisethatthestationaryconditionofthehumanrace

istherule，theprogressivetheexception。Andanother

indispensableconditionofsuccessisanaccurateknowledgeof

Romanlawinallitsprincipalstages。TheRomanjurisprudence

hasthelongestknownhistoryofanysetofhumaninstitutions。

Thecharacterofallthechangeswhichitunderwentistolerably

wellascertained。Fromitscommencementtoitsclose，itwas

progressivelymodifiedforthebetter，orforwhattheauthorof

themodificationconceivedtobethebetter，andthecourseof

improvementwascontinuedthroughperiodsatwhichalltherest

ofhumanthoughtandactionmateriallyslackeneditspace，and

repeatedlythreatenedtosettledownintostagnation。

Iconfinemyselfinwhatfollowstotheprogressive

societies。Withrespecttothemitmaybelaiddownthatsocial

necessitiesandsocialopinionarealwaysmoreorlessinadvance

ofLaw。Wemaycomeindefinitelyneartotheclosingofthegap

betweenthem，butithasaperpetualtendencytoreopen。Lawis

stable；thesocietieswearespeakingofareprogressive。The

greaterorlesshappinessofapeopledependsonthedegreeof

promptitudewithwhichthegulfisnarrowed。

Ageneralpropositionofsomevaluemaybeadvancedwith

respecttotheagenciesbywhichLawisbroughtintoharmonywith

societyTheseinstrumentalitiesseemtometobethreeinnumber，

LegalFictions，Equity，andLegislation。Theirhistoricalorder

isthatinwhichIhaveplacedthem。Sometimestwoofthemwill

beseenoperatingtogether，andtherearelegalsystemswhich

haveescapedtheinfluenceofoneorotherofthem。ButIknowof

noinstanceinwhichtheorderoftheirappearancehasbeen

changedorinverted。Theearlyhistoryofoneofthem，Equity，is

universallyobscure，andhenceitmaybethoughtbysomethat

certainisolatedstatutes，reformatoryofthecivillaw，are

olderthananyequitablejurisdiction。Myownbeliefisthat

remedialEquityiseverywhereolderthanremedialLegislation；

but，shouldthisbenotstrictlytrue，itwouldonlybenecessary

tolimitthepropositionrespectingtheirorderofsequenceto

theperiodsatwhichtheyexerciseasustainedandsubstantial

influenceintransformingtheoriginallaw。

Iemploytheword"fiction"inasenseconsiderablywider

thanthatinwhichEnglishlawyerareaccustomedtouseit，and

withameaningmuchmoreextensivethanthatwhichbelongedto

theRoman"fictiones。"Fictio，inoldRomanlaw，isproperlya

termofpleading，andsignifiesafalseavermentonthepartof

theplaintiffwhichthedefendantwasnotallowedtotraverse；

such，forexample，asanavermentthattheplaintiffwasaRoman

citizen，whenintruthhewasaforeigner。Theobjectofthese

"fictiones"was，ofcourse，togivejurisdiction，andthey

thereforestronglyresembledtheallegationsinthewritsofthe

EnglishQueen’sBench，andExchequer，bywhichthoseCourts

contrivedtousurpthejurisdictionoftheCommonPleas:——the

allegationthatthedefendantwasincustodyoftheking’s

marshal，orthattheplaintiffwastheking’sdebtor，andcould

notpayhisdebtbyreasonofthedefendant’sdefault。ButInow

employtheexpression"LegalFiction"tosignifyanyassumption

whichconceals，oraffectstoconceal，thefactthataruleof

lawhasundergonealteration，itsletterremainingunchanged，its

operationbeingmodified。Thewords，therefore，includethe

instancesoffictionswhichIhavecitedfromtheEnglishand

Romanlaw，buttheyembracemuchmore，forIshouldspeakbothof

theEnglishCase-lawandoftheRomanResponsaPrudentumas

restingonfictions。Boththeseexampleswillbeexamined

presently。Thefactisinbothcasesthatthelawhasbeenwholly

changed；thefictionisthatitremainswhatitalwayswas。Itis

notdifficulttounderstandwhyfictionsinalltheirformsare

particularlycongenialtotheinfancyofsociety。Theysatisfy

thedesireforimprovement，whichisnotquitewanting，atthe

sametimethattheydonotoffendthesuperstitiousdisrelishfor

changewhichisalwayspresent。Ataparticularstageofsocial

progresstheyareinvaluableexpedientsforovercomingthe

rigidityoflaw，and，indeed，withoutoneofthem，theFictionof

Adoptionwhichpermitsthefamilytietobeartificiallycreated，

itisdifficulttounderstandhowsocietywouldeverhaveescaped

fromitsswaddlingclothes，andtakenitsfirststepstowards

civilisation。Wemust，therefore，notsufferourselvestobe

affectedbytheridiculewhichBenthampoursonlegalfictions

whereverhemeetsthem。Torevilethemasmerelyfraudulentisto

betrayignoranceoftheirpeculiarofficeinthehistorical

developmentoflaw。Butatthesametimeitwouldbeequally

foolishtoagreewiththosetheorists，who，discerningthat

fictionshavehadtheiruses，arguethattheyoughttobe

stereotypedinoursystem。Theyhavehadtheirday，butithas

longsincegoneby。Itisunworthyofustoeffectanadmittedly

beneficialobjectbysorudeadeviceasalegalfiction。I

cannotadmitanyanomalytobeinnocent，whichmakesthelaw

eithermoredifficulttounderstandorhardertoarrangein

harmoniousorder。Nowlegalfictionsarethegreatestof

obstaclestosymmetricalclassification。Theruleoflawremains

stickinginthesystem，butitisamereshell。Ithasbeenlong

agoundermined，andanewrulehidesitselfunderitscover。

Hencethereisatonceadifficultyinknowingwhethertherule

whichisactuallyoperativeshouldbeclassedinitstrueorin

itsapparentplace，andmindsofdifferentcastswilldifferas

tothebranchofthealternativewhichoughttobeselected。If

theEnglishlawisevertoassumeanorderlydistribution，it

willbenecessarytopruneawaythelegalfictionswhich，in

spiteofsomerecentlegislativeimprovements，arestillabundant

init。

Thenextinstrumentalitybywhichtheadaptationoflawto

socialwantsiscarriedonIcallEquity，meaningbythatword

anybodyofrulesexistingbythesideoftheoriginalcivillaw，

foundedondistinctprinciplesandclaimingincidentallyto

supersedethecivillawinvirtueofasuperiorsanctityinherent

inthoseprinciples。TheEquitywhetheroftheRomanPraetorsor

oftheEnglishChancellors，differsfromtheFictionswhichin

eachcaseprecededit，inthattheinterferencewithlawisopen

andavowed。Ontheotherhand，itdiffersfromLegislation，the

agentoflegalimprovementwhichcomesafterit，inthatits

claimtoauthorityisgrounded，notontheprerogativeofany

externalpersonorbody，notevenonthatofthemagistratewho

enunciatesit，butonthespecialnatureofitsprinciples，to

whichitisallegedthatalllawoughttoconform。Thevery

conceptionofasetofprinciples，investedwithahigher

sacrednessthanthoseoftheoriginallawanddemanding

applicationindependentlyoftheconsentofanyexternalbody

belongstoamuchmoreadvancedstageofthoughtthanthatto

whichlegalfictionsoriginallysuggestedthemselves。

Legislation，theenactmentsofalegislaturewhich，whether

ittaketheformofanautocraticprinceorofaparliamentary

assembly，istheassumedorganoftheentiresociety，isthelast

oftheamelioratinginstrumentalities。ItdiffersfromLegal

FictionsjustasEquitydiffersfromthem，anditisalso

distinguishedfromEquity，asderivingitsauthorityfroman

externalbodyorperson。Itsobligatoryforceisindependentof

itsprinciples。Thelegislature，whateverbetheactual

restraintsimposedonitbypublicopinion，isintheory

empoweredtoimposewhatobligationsitpleasesonthemembersof

thecommunity。Thereisnothingtopreventitslegislatinginthe

wantonnessofcaprice。Legislationmaybedictatedbyequity，if

thatlastwordbeusedtoindicatesomestandardofrightand

wrongtowhichitsenactmentshappentobeadjusted；butthen

theseenactmentsareindebtedfortheirbindingforcetothe

authorityofthelegislatureandnottothatoftheprincipleson

whichthelegislatureacted；andthustheydifferfromrulesof

Equity，inthetechnicalsenseoftheword，whichpretendtoa

paramountsacrednessentitlingthematoncetotherecognitionof

thecourtsevenwithouttheconcurrenceofprinceor

parliamentaryassembly。Itisthemorenecessarytonotethese

differences，becauseastudentofBenthamwouldbeaptto

confoundFictions，Equity，andStatutelawunderthesinglehead

oflegislation。Theyall，hewouldsay，involvelaw-making；they

differonlyinrespectofthemachinerybywhichthenewlawis

produced。Thatisperfectlytrue，andwemustneverforgetit；

butitfurnishesnoreasonwhyweshoulddepriveourselvesofso

convenientatermasLegislationinthespecialsense。

LegislationandEquityaredisjoinedinthepopularmindandin

themindsofmostlawyers；anditwillneverdotoneglectthe

distinctionbetweenthem，howeverconventional，whenimportant

practicalconsequencesfollowfromit。

Itwouldbeeasytoselectfromalmostanyregularly

developedbodyofrulesexamplesoflegalfictions，whichatonce

betraytheirtruecharactertothemodernobserver。Inthetwo

instanceswhichIproceedtoconsider，thenatureofthe

expedientemployedisnotsoreadilydetected。Thefirstauthors

ofthesefictionsdidnotperhapsintendtoinnovate，certainly

didnotwishtobesuspectedofinnovating。Thereare，moreover，

andalwayshavebeen，personswhorefusetoseeanyfictionin

theprocess，andconventionallanguagebearouttheirrefusal。No

examples，therefore，canbebettercalculatedtoillustratethe

widediffusionoflegalfictions，andtheefficiencywithwhich

theyperformtheirtwo-foldofficeoftransformingasystemof

lawsandofconcealingthetransformation。

WeinEnglandarewellaccustomedtotheextension，

modification，andimprovementoflawbyamachinerywhich，in

theory，isincapableofalteringonejotoronelineofexisting

jurisprudence。Theprocessbywhichthisvirtuallegislationis

effectedisnotsomuchinsensibleasunacknowledged。With

respecttothatgreatportionofourlegalsystemwhichis

enshrinedincasesandrecordedinlawreports，wehabitually

employadoublelanguageandentertain，asitwouldappear，a

doubleandinconsistentsetofideas。Whenagroupoffactscome

beforeanEnglishCourtforadjudication，thewholecourseofthe

discussionbetweenthejudgeandtheadvocateassumesthatno

questionis，orcanbe，raisedwhichwillcallforthe

applicationofanyprinciplesbutoldones，oranydistinctions

butsuchashavelongsincebeenallowed。Itistakenabsolutely

forgrantedthatthereissomewherearuleofknownlawwhich

willcoverthefactsofthedisputenowlitigated，andthat，if

sucharulebenotdiscovered，itisonlythatthenecessary

patience，knowledge，oracumenisnotforthcomingtodetectit。

Yetthemomentthejudgmenthasbeenrenderedandreported，we

slideunconsciouslyorunavowedlyintoanewlanguageandanew

trainofthought。Wenowadmitthatthenewdecisionhasmodified

thelaw。Therulesapplicablehave，tousetheveryinaccurate

expressionsometimesemployed，becomemoreelastic。Infactthey

havebeenchanged。Aclearadditionhasbeenmadetothe

precedents，andthecanonoflawelicitedbycomparingthe

precedentsisnotthesamewiththatwhichwouldhavebeen

obtainediftheseriesofcaseshadbeencurtailedbyasingle

example。Thefactthattheoldrulehasbeenrepealed，andthata

newonehasreplacedit，eludesus，becausewearenotinthe

habitofthrowingintopreciselanguagethelegalformulaswhich

wederivefromtheprecedents，sothatachangeintheirtenoris

noteasilydetectedunlessitisviolentandglaring。Ishallnot

nowpausetoconsideratlengththecauseswhichhaveledEnglish

lawyerstoacquiesceinthesecuriousanomalies。Probablyitwill

befoundthatoriginallyitwasthereceiveddoctrinethat

somewhere，innubibusoringremiomagistratuum，thereexisteda

complete，coherent，symmetricalbodyofEnglishlaw，ofan

amplitudesufficienttofurnishprincipleswhichwouldapplyto

anyconceivablecombinationofcircumstances。Thetheorywasat

firstmuchmorethoroughlybelievedinthanitisnow，andindeed

itmayhavehadabetterfoundation。Thejudgesofthethirteenth

centurymayhavereallyhadattheircommandamineoflaw

unrevealedtothebarandtothelay-public，forthereissome

reasonforsuspectingthatinsecrettheyborrowedfreely，though

notalwayswisely，fromcurrentcompendiaoftheRomanandCanon

laws。Butthatstorehousewasclosedsosoonasthepoints

decidedatWestminsterHallbecamenumerousenoughtosupplya

basisforasubstantivesystemofjurisprudence；andnowfor

centuriesEnglishpractitionerhavesoexpressedthemselvesasto

conveytheparadoxicalpropositionthat，exceptbyEquityand

Statutelaw，nothinghasbeenaddedtothebasissinceitwas

firstconstituted。Wedonotadmitthatourtribunalslegislate；

weimplythattheyhaveneverlegislated；andyetwemaintain

thattherulesoftheEnglishcommonlaw，withsomeassistance

fromtheCourtofChanceryandfromParliament，arecoextensive

withthecomplicatedinterestsofmodernsociety。

Abodyoflawbearingaverycloseandveryinstructive

resemblancetoourcase-lawinthoseparticularswhichIhave

noticed，wasknowntotheRomansunderthenameoftheResponsa

Prudentum，the"answersofthelearnedinthelaw。"Theformof

theseResponsesvariedagooddealatdifferentperiodsofthe

Romanjurisprudence，butthroughoutitswholecoursethey

consistedofexplanatoryglossesonauthoritativewritten

documents，andatfirsttheywereexclusivelycollectionsof

opinionsinterpretativeoftheTwelveTables。Aswithus，all

legallanguageadjusteditselftotheassumptionthatthetextof

theoldCoderemainedunchanged。Therewastheexpressrule。It

overrodeallglossesandcomments，andnooneopenlyadmitted

thatanyinterpretationofit，howevereminenttheinterpreter，

wassafefromrevisiononappealtothevenerabletexts。Yetin

pointoffact，BooksofResponsesbearingthenamesofleading

jurisconsultsobtainedanauthorityatleastequaltothatofour

reportedcases，andconstantlymodified，extended，limitedor

practicallyoverruledtheprovisionsoftheDecemvirallaw。The

authorsofthenewjurisprudenceduringthewholeprogressofits

formationprofessedthemostsedulousrespectfortheletterof

theCode。Theyweremerelyexplainingit，decipheringit，

bringingoutitsfullmeaning；butthen，intheresult，by

piecingtextstogether，byadjustingthelawtostatesoffact

whichactuallypresentedthemselvesandbyspeculatingonits

possibleapplicationtootherswhichmightoccur，byintroducing

principlesofinterpretationderivedfromtheexegesisofother

writtendocumentswhichfellundertheirobservation，theyeduced

avastvarietyofcanonswhichhadneverbeendreamedofbythe

compilersoftheTwelveTablesandwhichwereintruthrarelyor

nevertobefoundthere。Allthesetreatisesofthejurisconsults

claimedrespectonthegroundoftheirassumedconformitywith

theCode，buttheircomparativeauthoritydependedonthe

reputationoftheparticularjurisconsultswhogavethemtothe

world。Anynameofuniversallyacknowledgedgreatnessclotheda

Bookofresponseswithabindingforcehardlylessthanthat

whichbelongedtoenactmentsofthelegislature；andsuchabook

initsturnconstitutedanewfoundationonwhichafurtherbody

ofjurisprudencemightrest。Theresponsesoftheearlylawyers

werenothoweverpublished，inthemodernsense，bytheirauthor。

Theywererecordedandeditedbyhispupils，andwerenot

thereforeinallprobabilityarrangedaccordingtoanyschemeof

classification。Thepartofthestudentsinthesepublications

mustbecarefullynoted，becausetheservicetheyrenderedto

theirteacherseemstohavebeengenerallyrepaidbyhissedulous

attentiontothepupils’education。Theeducationaltreatises

calledInstitutesorCommentaries，whicharealaterfruitofthe

dutythenrecognised，areamongthemostremarkablefeaturesof

theRomansystem。ItwasapparentlyintheseInstitutionalworks，

andnotinthebooksintendedfortrainedlawyers，thatthe

jurisconsultsgavetothepublictheirclassificationsandtheir

proposalsformodifyingandimprovingthetechnicalphraseology。

IncomparingtheRomanResponsaPrudentumwiththeirnearest

Englishcounterpart，itmustbecarefullyborneinmindthatthe

authoritybywhichthispartoftheRomanjurisprudencewas

expoundedwasnotthebench，butthebar。ThedecisionofaRoman

tribunal，thoughconclusiveintheparticularcase，hadno

ulteriorauthorityexceptsuchaswasgivenbytheprofessional

reputeofthemagistratewhohappenedtobeinofficeforthe

time。Properlyspeaking，therewasnoinstitutionatRomeduring

therepublicanalogoustotheEnglishBench，theChambersof

imperialGermany，ortheParliamentsofMonarchicalFrance。There

weremagistratesindeed，investedwithmomentousjudicial

functionsintheirseveraldepartments，butthetenureofthe

magistracieswasbutforasingleyear，sothattheyaremuch

lessaptlycomparedtoapermanentjudicaturethantoacycleof

officesbrisklycirculatingamongtheleadersofthebar。Much

mightbesaidontheoriginofaconditionofthingswhichlooks

touslikeastartlinganomaly，butwhichwasinfactmuchmore

congenialthanourownsystemtothespiritofancientsocieties，

tending，astheyalwaysdid，tosplitintodistinctorderswhich，

howeverexclusivethemselves，toleratednoprofessionalhierarchy

abovethem。

Itisremarkablethatthissystemdidnotproducecertain

effectswhichmightonthewholehavebeenexpectedfromit。It

didnot，forexample，popularisetheRomanlaw——itdidnot，as

insomeoftheGreekrepublics，lessentheeffortofintellect

requiredforthemasteryofthescience，althoughitsdiffusion

andauthoritativeexpositionwereopposedbynoartificial

barriers。Onthecontrary，ifithadnotbeenfortheoperation

ofaseparatesetofcauses，therewerestrongprobabilitiesthat

theRomanjurisprudencewouldhavebecomeasminute，technical，

anddifficultasanysystemwhichhassinceprevailed。Again，a

consequencewhichmightstillmorenaturallyhavebeenlooked

for，doesnotappearatanytimetohaveexhibiteditself。The

jurisconsults，untilthelibertiesofRomewereoverthrown，

formedaclasswhichwasquiteundefinedandmusthavefluctuated

greatlyinnumbers；nevertheless，theredoesnotseemtohave

existedadoubtastotheparticularindividualswhoseopinion，

intheirgeneration，wasconclusiveonthecasessubmittedto

them。Thevividpicturesofaleadingjurisconsult’sdaily

practicewhichaboundinLatinliterature——theclientsfromthe

countryflockingtohisantechamberintheearlymorning，andthe

studentsstandingroundwiththeirnote-bookstorecordthegreat

lawyer’sreplies——areseldomorneveridentifiedatanygiven

periodwithmorethanoneortwoconspicuousnames。Owingtooto

thedirectcontactoftheclientandtheadvocate，theRoman

peopleitselfseemstohavebeenalwaysalivetotheriseand

fallofprofessionalreputation，andthereisabundanceofproof，

moreparticularlyinthewell-knownorationofCicero，Pro

Muraena，thatthereverenceofthecommonsforforensicsuccess

wasapttobeexcessiveratherthandeficient。

Wecannotdoubtthatthepeculiaritieswhichhavebeennoted

intheinstrumentalitybywhichthedevelopmentoftheRomanlaw

wasfirsteffected，werethesourceofitscharacteristic

excellence，itsearlywealthinprinciples。Thegrowthand

exuberanceofprinciplewasfostered，inpart，bythecompetition

amongtheexpositorsofthelaw，aninfluencewhollyunknown

wherethereexistsaBench，thedepositariesintrustedbykingor

commonwealthwiththeprerogativeofjustice。Butthechief

agency，nodoubt，wastheuncontrolledmultiplicationofcases

forlegaldecision。Thestateoffactswhichcausedgenuine

perplexitytoacountryclientwasnotawhitmoreentitledto

formthebasisofthejurisconsult’sResponse，orlegaldecision，

thanasetofhypotheticalcircumstancespropoundedbyan

ingeniouspupil。Allcombinationsoffactwereonpreciselythe

samefooting，whethertheywererealorimaginary。Itwasnothing

tothejurisconsultthathisopinionwasoverruledforthemoment

bythemagistratewhoadjudicatedonhisclient’scase，unless

thatmagistratehappenedtorankabovehiminlegalknowledgeor

theesteemofhisprofession。Idonot，indeed，meanittobe

inferredthathewouldwhollyomittoconsiderhisclient’s

advantage，fortheclientwasinearliertimesthegreatlawyer’s

constituentandatalaterperiodhispaymaster，butthemain

roadtotherewardsofambitionlaythroughthegoodopinionof

hisorder，anditisobviousthatundersuchasystemasIhave

beendescribingthiswasmuchmorelikelytobesecuredby

viewingeachcaseasanillustrationofagreatprinciple，oran

exemplificationofabroadrule，thanbymerelyshapingitforan

insulatedforensictriumph。Astillmorepowerfulinfluencemust

havebeenexercisedbythewantofanydistinctcheckonthe

suggestionorinventionofpossiblequestions。Wherethedatacan

bemultipliedatpleasure，thefacilitiesforevolvingageneral

ruleareimmenselyincreased。Asthelawisadministeredamong

ourselves，thejudgecannottraveloutofthesetsoffacts

exhibitedbeforehimorbeforehispredecessors。Accordinglyeach

groupofcircumstanceswhichisadjudicateduponreceives，to

employaGallicism，asortofconsecration。Itacquirescertain

qualitieswhichdistinguishitfromeveryothercasegenuineor

hypothetical。ButatRome，asIhaveattemptedtoexplain，there

wasnothingresemblingaBenchorChamberofjudges；and

thereforenocombinationoffactspossessedanyparticularvalue

morethananother。Whenadifficultycameforopinionbeforethe

jurisconsult，therewasnothingtopreventapersonendowedwith

aniceperceptionofanalogyfromatonceproceedingtoadduce

andconsideranentireclassofsupposedquestionswithwhicha

particularfeatureconnectedit。Whateverwerethepractical

advicegiventotheclient，theresponsumtreasuredupinthe

notebooksoflisteningpupilswoulddoubtlesscontemplatethe

circumstancesasgovernedbyagreatprinciple，orincludedina

sweepingrule。Nothinglikethishaseverbeenpossibleamong

ourselves，anditshouldbeacknowledgedthatinmanycriticisms

passedontheEnglishlawthemannerinwhichithasbeen

enunciatedseemstohavebeenlostsightof。Thehesitationof

ourcourtsindeclaringprinciplesmaybemuchmorereasonably

attributedtothecomparativescantinessofourprecedents，

voluminousastheyappeartohimwhoisacquaintedwithnoother

system，thantothetemperofourjudges。Itistruethatinthe

wealthoflegalprincipleweareconsiderablypoorerthanseveral

modernEuropeannations。Butthey，itmustberemembered，took

theRomanjurisprudenceforthefoundationoftheircivil

institutions。TheybuiltthedebrisoftheRomanlawintotheir

walls；butinthematerialsandworkmanshipoftheresiduethere

isnotmuchwhichdistinguishesitfavourablyfromthestructure

erectedbytheEnglishjudicature。

TheperiodofRomanfreedomwastheperiodduringwhichthe

stampofadistinctivecharacterwasimpressedontheRoman

jurisprudence；andthroughalltheearlierpartofit，itwasby

theResponsesofthejurisconsultsthatthedevelopmentofthe

lawwasmainlycarriedon。Butasweapproachthefallofthe

republictherearesignsthattheResponsesareassumingaform

whichmusthavebeenfataltotheirfartherexpansion。Theyare

becomingsystematisedandreducedintocompendia。Q。Mucius

Scaevola，thePontifex，issaidtohavepublishedamanualofthe

entireCivilLaw，andtherearetracesinthewritingsofCicero

ofgrowingdisrelishfortheoldmethods，ascomparedwiththe

moreactiveinstrumentsoflegalinnovation。Otheragencieshad

infactbythistimebeenbroughttobearonthelaw。TheEdict，

orannualproclamationofthePraetor，hadrisenintocreditas

theprincipalengineoflawreform，andL。CorneliusSylla，by

causingtobeenactedthegreatgroupofstatutescalledthe

LegesCorneliae，hadshownwhatrapidandspeedyimprovementscan

beeffectedbydirectlegislation。Thefinalblowtothe

ResponseswasdealtbyAugustus，wholimitedtoafewleading

jurisconsultstherightofgivingbindingopinionsoncases

submittedtothem，achangewhich，thoughitbringsusnearerthe

ideasofthemodernworld，mustobviouslyhavealtered

fundamentallythecharacteristicsofthelegalprofessionandthe

natureofitsinfluenceonRomanlaw。Atalaterperiodanother

schoolofjurisconsultsarose，thegreatlightsofjurisprudence

foralltime。ButUlpianandPaulus，GaiusandPapinian，werenot

authorsofResponses。Theirworkswereregulartreatiseson

particulardepartmentsofthelaw，moreespeciallyonthe

Praetor’sEdict。

TheEquityoftheRomansandthePraetorianEdictbywhichit

wasworkedintotheirsystem，willbeconsideredinthenext

chapter。OftheStatuteLawitisonlynecessarytosaythatit

wasscantyduringtherepublic，butbecameveryvoluminousunder

theempire。Intheyouthandinfancyofanationitisarare

thingforthelegislaturetobecalledintoactionforthe

generalreformofprivatelaw。Thecryofthepeopleisnotfor

changeinthelaws，whichareusuallyvaluedabovetheirreal

worth，butsolelyfortheirpure，complete，andeasy

administration；andrecoursetothelegislativebodyisgenerally

directedtotheremovalofsomegreatabuse，orthedecisionof

someincurablequarrelbetweenclassesanddynasties。Thereseems

inthemindsoftheRomanstohavebeensomeassociationbetween

theenactmentofalargebodyofstatutesandthesettlementof

societyafteragreatcivilcommotion。Syllasignalisedhis

reconstitutionoftherepublicbytheLegesCorneliae；Julius

CaesarcontemplatedvastadditionstotheStatuteLaw。Augustus

causedtobepassedtheall-importantgroupofLegesJuliae；and

amonglateremperorsthemostactivepromulgatorsof

constitutionsareprinceswho，likeConstantine，havethe

concernsoftheworldtoreadjust。ThetrueperiodofRoman

StatuteLawdoesnotbegintilltheestablishmentoftheempire。

Theenactmentsoftheemperors，clothedatfirstinthepretence

ofpopularsanction，butafterwardsemanatingundisguisedlyfrom

theimperialprerogative，extendinincreasingmassivenessfrom

theconsolidationofAugustus’spowertothepublicationofthe

CodeofJustinian。Itwillbeseenthateveninthereignofthe

secondemperoraconsiderableapproximationismadetothat

conditionofthelawandthatmodeofadministeringitwithwhich

weareallfamiliar。Astatutelawandalimitedboardof

expositorshaverisenintobeing；apermanentcourtofappealand

acollectionofapprovedcommentarieswillveryshortlybeadded；

andthuswearebroughtcloseontheideasofourownday。

AncientLaw

byHenryMaineChapter3LawofNatureandEquity

Thetheoryofasetoflegalprinciples，entitledbytheir

intrinsicsuperioritytosupersedetheolderlaw，veryearly

obtainedcurrencybothintheRomanstateandinEngland。Sucha

bodyofprinciples，existinginanysystem，hasintheforegoing

chaptersbeendenominatedEquity，atermwhich，aswillpresently

beseen，wasone(thoughonlyone)ofthedesignationsbywhich

thisagentoflegalchangewasknowntotheRomanjurisconsults。

ThejurisprudenceoftheCourtofChancery，whichbearsthename

ofEquityinEngland，couldonlybeadequatelydiscussedina

separatetreatise。Itisextremelycomplexinitstextureand

derivesitsmaterialsfromseveralheterogeneoussources。The

earlyecclesiasticalchancellorscontributedtoit，fromthe

CanonLaw，manyoftheprincipleswhichliedeepestinits

structure。TheRomanlaw，morefertilethantheCanonLawin

rulesapplicabletoseculardisputes，wasnotseldomresortedto

byalatergenerationofChanceryjudges，amidwhoserecorded

dictaweoftenfindentiretextsfromtheCorpusJurisCivilis

imbedded，withtheirtermsunaltered，thoughtheiroriginis

neveracknowledged。Stillmorerecently，andparticularlyatthe

middleandduringthelatterhalfoftheeighteenthcentury，the

mixedsystemsofjurisprudenceandmoralsconstructedbythe

publicistsoftheLowCountriesappeartohavebeenmuchstudied

byEnglishlawyers，andfromthechancellorshipofLordTalbotto

thecommencementofLordEldon’schancellorshiptheseworkshad

considerableeffectontherulingsoftheCourtofChancery。The

system，whichobtaineditsingredientsfromthesevarious

quarters，wasgreatlycontrolledinitsgrowthbythenecessity

imposedonitofconformingitselftotheanalogiesofthecommon

law，butithasalwaysansweredthedescriptionofabodyof

comparativelynovellegalprinciplesclaimingtooverridethe

olderjurisprudenceofthecountryonthestrengthofan

intrinsicethicalsuperiority。

TheEquityofRomewasamuchsimplerstructure，andits

developmentfromitsfirstappearancecanbemuchmoreeasily

traced。Bothitscharacteranditshistorydeserveattentive

examination。Itistherootofseveralconceptionswhichhave

exercisedprofoundinfluenceonhumanthought，andthroughhuman

thoughthaveseriouslyaffectedthedestiniesofmankind。

TheRomansdescribedtheirlegalsystemasconsistingoftwo

ingredients。"Allnations，"saystheInstitutionalTreatise

publishedundertheauthorityoftheEmperorJustinian，"whoare

ruledbylawsandcustoms，aregovernedpartlybytheirown

particularlaws，andpartlybythoselawswhicharecommontoall

mankind。ThelawwhichapeopleenactsiscalledtheCivilLawof

thatpeople，butthatwhichnaturalreasonappointsforall

mankindiscalledtheLawofNations，becauseallnationsuse

it。"Thepartofthelaw"whichnaturalreasonappointsforall

mankind"wastheelementwhichtheEdictofthePraetorwas

supposedtohaveworkedintoRomanjurisprudence。Elsewhereitis

styledmoresimplyJusNaturale，ortheLawofNature；andits

ordinancesaresaidtobedictatedbyNaturalEquity(naturalis

aequitas)aswellasbynaturalreason。Ishallattemptto

discovertheoriginofthesefamousphrases，LawofNations，Law

ofNature，Equity，andtodeterminehowtheconceptionswhich

theyindicatearerelatedtooneanother。

ThemostsuperficialstudentofRomanhistorymustbestruck

bytheextraordinarydegreeinwhichthefortunesoftherepublic

wereaffectedbythepresenceofforeigners，underdifferent

names，onhersoil。Thecausesofthisimmigrationare

discernibleenoughatalaterperiod，forwecanreadily

understandwhymenofallracesshouldflocktothemistressof

theworld；butthesamephenomenonofalargepopulationof

foreignersanddenizensmeetsusintheveryearliestrecordsof

theRomanState。Nodoubt，theinstabilityofsocietyinancient

Italy，composedasitwasingreatmeasureofrobbertribes，gave

menconsiderableinducementtolocatethemselvesintheterritory

ofanycommunitystrongenoughtoprotectitselfandthemfrom

externalattack，eventhoughprotectionshouldbepurchasedat

thecostofheavytaxation，politicaldisfranchisement，andmuch

socialhumiliation。Itisprobable，however，thatthis

explanationisimperfect，andthatitcouldonlybecompletedby

takingintoaccountthoseactivecommercialrelationswhich，

thoughtheyarelittlereflectedinthemilitarytraditionsof

therepublic，RomeappearscertainlytohavehadwithCarthage

andwiththeinteriorofItalyinpre-historictimes。Whatever

werethecircumstancestowhichitwasattributable，theforeign

elementinthecommonwealthdeterminedthewholecourseofits

history，which，atallitsstages，islittlemorethana

narrativeofconflictsbetweenastubbornnationalityandan

alienpopulation。Nothinglikethishasbeenseeninmodern

times；ontheonehand，becausemodernEuropeancommunitieshave

seldomorneverreceivedanyaccessionofforeignimmigrants

whichwaslargeenoughtomakeitselffeltbythebulkofthe

nativecitizens，andontheother，becausemodernstates，being

heldtogetherbyallegiancetoakingorpoliticalsuperior，

absorbconsiderablebodiesofimmigrantsettlerswithaquickness

unknowntotheancientworld，wheretheoriginalcitizensofa

commonwealthalwaysbelievedthemselvestobeunitedbykinship

inblood，andresentedaclaimtoequalityofprivilegeasa

usurpationoftheirbirthright。IntheearlyRomanrepublicthe

principleoftheabsoluteexclusionofforeignerspervadedthe

CivilLawnolessthantheConstitution。Thealienordenizen

couldhavenoshareinanyinstitutionsupposedtobecoevalwith

theState。HecouldnothavethebenefitofQuiritarianlaw。He

couldnotbeapartytothenexumwhichwasatoncethe

conveyanceandthecontractoftheprimitiveRomans。Hecouldnot

suebytheSacramentalAction，amodeoflitigationofwhichthe

originmountsuptotheveryinfancyofcivilisation。Still，

neithertheinterestnorthesecurityofRomepermittedhimtobe

quiteoutlawed。Allancientcommunitiesrantheriskofbeing

overthrownbyaveryslightdisturbanceofequilibrium，andthe

mereinstinctofself-preservationwouldforcetheRomansto

devisesomemethodofadjustingtherightsanddutiesof

foreigners，whomightotherwise-andthiswasadangerofreal

importanceintheancientworld——havedecidedtheir

controversiesbyarmedstrife。Moreover，atnoperiodofRoman

historywasforeigntradeentirelyneglected。Itwastherefore

probablyhalfasameasureofpoliceandhalfinfurtheranceof

commercethatjurisdictionwasfirstassumedindisputestowhich

thepartieswereeitherforeignersoranativeandaforeigner。

Theassumptionofsuchajurisdictionbroughtwithitthe

immediatenecessityofdiscoveringsomeprinciplesonwhichthe

questionstobeadjudicateduponcouldbesettled，andthe

principlesappliedtothisobjectbytheRomanlawyerswere

eminentlycharacteristicofthetime。Theyrefused，asIhave

saidbefore，todecidethenewCasesbypureRomanCivilLaw。

Theyrefused，nodoubtbecauseitseemedtoinvolvesomekindof

degradation，toapplythelawoftheparticularStatefromwhich

theforeignlitigantcame。Theexpedienttowhichtheyresorted

wasthatofselectingtherulesoflawcommontoRomeandtothe

differentItaliancommunitiesinwhichtheimmigrantswereborn。

Inotherwords，theysetthemselvestoformasystemansweringto

theprimitiveandliteralmeaningofJusGentium，thatis，Law

commontoallNations。JusGentiumwas，infact，thesumofthe

commoningredientsinthecustomsoftheoldItaliantribes，for

theywereallthenationswhomtheRomanshadthemeansof

observing，andwhosentsuccessiveswarmsofimmigrantstoRoman

soil。Wheneveraparticularusagewasseentobepractisedbya

largenumberofseparateracesincommonitwassetdownaspart

oftheLawcommontoallNations，orJusGentium。Thus，although

theconveyanceofpropertywascertainlyaccompaniedbyvery

differentformsinthedifferentcommonwealthssurroundingRome，

theactualtransfer，tradition，ordeliveryofthearticle

intendedtobeconveyedwasapartoftheceremonialinallof

them。Itwas，forinstance，apart，thoughasubordinatepart，in

theMancipationorconveyancepeculiartoRome。Tradition，

therefore，beinginallprobabilitytheonlycommoningredientin

themodesofconveyancewhichthejurisconsultshadthemeansof

observing，wassetdownasaninstitutionJurisGentium，orrule

oftheLawcommontoallNations。Avastnumberofother

observanceswerescrutinisedwiththesameresult。Somecommon

characteristicwasdiscoveredinallofthem，whichhadacommon

object，andthischaracteristicwasclassedintheJusGentium。

TheJusGentiumwasaccordinglyacollectionofrulesand

principles，determinedbyobservationtobecommontothe

institutionswhichprevailedamongthevariousItaliantribes。

ThecircumstancesoftheoriginoftheJusGentiumare

probablyasufficientsafeguardagainstthemistakeofsupposing

thattheRomanlawyershadanyspecialrespectforit。Itwasthe

fruitinpartoftheirdisdainforallforeignlaw，andinpart

oftheirdisinclinationtogivetheforeignertheadvantageof

theirownindigenousJusCivile。Itistruethatwe，atthe

presentday，shouldprobablytakeaverydifferentviewofthe

JusGentium，ifwewereperformingtheoperationwhichwas

effectedbytheRomanjurisconsults。Weshouldattachsomevague

superiorityorprecedencetotheelementwhichwehadthus

discernedunderlyingandpervadingsogreatavarietyofusage。

Weshouldhaveasortofrespectforrulesandprinciplesso

universal。Perhapsweshouldspeakofthecommoningredientas

beingoftheessenceofthetransactionintowhichitentered，

andshouldstigmatisetheremainingapparatusofceremony，which

variedindifferentcommunities，asadventitiousandaccidental。

Oritmaybe，weshouldinferthattheraceswhichwewere

comparinghadonceobeyedagreatsystemofcommoninstitutions

ofwhichtheJusGentiumwasthereproduction，andthatthe

complicatedusagesofseparatecommonwealthswereonly

corruptionsanddepravationsofthesimplerordinanceswhichhad

onceregulatedtheirprimitivestate。Buttheresultstowhich

modernideasconducttheobserverare，asnearlyaspossible，the

reverseofthosewhichwereinstinctivelybroughthometothe

primitiveRoman。Whatwerespectoradmire，hedislikedor

regardedwithjealousdread。Thepartsofjurisprudencewhichhe

lookeduponwithaffectionwereexactlythosewhichamodern

theoristleavesoutofconsiderationasaccidentaland

transitory。Thesolemngesturesofthemancipation；thenicely

adjustedquestionsandanswersoftheverbalcontract；the

endlessformalitiesofpleadingandprocedure。TheJusGentium

wasmerelyasystemforcedonhisattentionbyapolitical

necessity。Heloveditaslittleashelovedtheforeignersfrom

whoseinstitutionsitwasderivedandforwhosebenefititwas

intended。Acompleterevolutioninhisideaswasrequiredbefore

itcouldchallengehisrespect，butsocompletewasitwhenit

didoccur，thatthetruereasonwhyourmodernestimateofthe

JusGentiumdiffersfromthatwhichhasjustbeendescribed，is

thatbothmodernjurisprudenceandmodernphilosophyhave

inheritedthematuredviewsofthelaterjurisconsultsonthis

subject。Theredidcomeatime，whenfromanignobleappendageof

theJusCivile，theJusGentiumcametobeconsideredagreat

thoughasyetimperfectlydevelopedmodeltowhichalllawought

asfaraspossibletoconform。ThiscrisisarrivedwhentheGreek

theoryofaLawofNaturewasappliedtothepracticalRoman

administrationoftheLawcommontoallNations。

TheJusNaturale，orLawofNature，issimplytheJusGentium

orLawofNationsseeninthelightofapeculiartheory。An

unfortunateattempttodiscriminatethemwasmadebythe

jurisconsultUlpian，withthepropensitytodistinguish

characteristicofalawyer，butthelanguageofGaius，amuch

higherauthority，andthepassagequotedbeforefromthe

Institutesleavenoroomfordoubt，thattheexpressionswere

practicallyconvertible。Thedifferencebetweenthemwasentirely

historical，andnodistinctioninessencecouldeverbe

establishedbetweenthem。Itisalmostunnecessarytoaddthat

theconfusionbetweenJusGentium，orLawcommontoallNations，

andinternationallawisentirelymodern。Theclassical

expressionforinternationallawisJusFecialeorthelawof

negotiationanddiplomacy。Itis，however，unquestionablethat

indistinctimpressionsastothemeaningofJusGentiumhad

considerableshareinproducingthemoderntheorythatthe

relationsofindependentstatesaregovernedbytheLawof

Nature。