第4章
Beforethisbranchofoursubjectisdismissed，itshouldbe
observedthatthePaterfamiliaswasanswerableforthedelicts
(ortorts)ofhisSonsunderPower。Hewassimilarlyliablefor
thetortsofhisslaves；butinbothcasesheoriginally
possessedthesingularprivilegeoftenderingthedelinquent’s
personinfullsatisfactionofthedamage。Theresponsibility
thusincurredonbehalfofsons，coupledwiththemutual
incapacityofparentandChildunderPowertosueoneanother，
hasseemedtosomejuriststobebestexplainedbytheassumption
ofa"unityofperson"betweenthePaterfamiliasandthe
Filius-familias。InthechapteronSuccessionsIshallattemptto
showinwhatsense，andtowhatextent，this"unity"canbe
acceptedasareality。Icanonlysayatpresentthatthese
responsibilitiesofthePaterfamilias，andotherlegalphenomena
whichwillbediscussedhereafter，appeartometopointat
certaindutiesoftheprimitivePatriarchalchieftainwhich
balancedhisrights。Iconceivethat，ifhedisposedabsolutely
ofthepersonsandfortuneofhisclansmen，thisrepresentative
ownershipwascoextensivewithaliabilitytoprovideforall
membersofthebrotherhoodoutofthecommonfund。Thedifficulty
istothrowourselvesoutofourhabitualassociations
sufficientlyforconceivingthenatureofhisobligation。Itwas
notalegalduty，forlawhadnotyetpenetratedintothe
precinctoftheFamily。Tocallitmoralisperhapstoanticipate
theideasbelongingtoalaterstageofmentaldevelopment；but
theexpression"moralobligation"issignificantenoughforour
purpose，ifweunderstandbyitadutysemi-consciouslyfollowed
andenforcedratherbyinstinctandhabitthanbydefinite
sanctions。
ThePatriaPotestas，initsnormalshape，hasnotbeen，and，
asitseemstome，couldnothavebeen，agenerallydurable
institution。Theproofofitsformeruniversalityistherefore
incompletesolongasweconsideritbyitself；butthe
demonstrationmaybecarriedmuchfurtherbyexaminingother
departmentsofancientlawwhichdependonitultimately，butnot
byathreadofconnexionvisibleinallitspartsortoalleyes。
LetusturnforexampletoKinship，orinotherwords，tothe
scaleonwhichtheproximityofrelativestoeachotheris
calculatedinarchaicjurisprudence。Hereagainitwillbe
convenienttoemploytheRomanterms，AgnaticandCognatic
relationship。Cognaticrelationshipissimplytheinceptionof
kinshipfamiliartomodernideas；itistherelationshiparising
throughcommondescentfromthesamepairofmarriedpersons，
whetherthedescentbetracedthroughmalesorfemales。Agnatic
relationshipissomethingverydifferent:itexcludesanumber
ofpersonswhomweinourdayshouldcertainlyconsiderofkinto
ourselves，anditincludesmanymorewhomweshouldneverreckon
amongourkindred。Itisintruththeconnexionexistingbetween
thememberoftheFamily，conceivedasitwasinthemostancient
times。Thelimitsofthisconnexionarefarfromconterminous
withthoseofmodernrelationship。
Cognatesthenareallthosepersonswhocan。tracetheir。
bloodtoasingleancestorandancestress；or，ifwetakethe
stricttechnicalmeaningofthewordinRomanlaw，theyareall
whotracetheirbloodtothelegitimatemarriageofacommon
pair。"Cognation"isthereforearelativeterm，andthedegreeof
connexioninbloodwhichitindicatesdependsontheparticular
marriagewhichisselectedasthecommencementofthe
calculation。Ifwebeginwiththemarriageoffatherandmother，
Cognationwillonlyexpresstherelationshipofbrothersand
sisters；ifwetakethatofthegrandfatherandgrandmother，then
uncles，aunts，andtheirdescendantswillalsobeincludedinthe
notionofCognation，andfollowingthesameprocessalarger
numberofCognatesmaybecontinuallyobtainedbychoosingthe
startingpointhigherandhigherupinthelineofascent。All
thisiseasilyunderstoodbyamodern；butwhoaretheAgnates？
Inthefirstplace，theyarealltheCognateswhotradetheir
connexionexclusivelythroughmales。AtableofCognatesis，of
course，formedbytakingeachlinealancestorinturnand
includingallhisdescendantsofbothsexesinthetabularview；
ifthen，intracingthevariousbranchesofsuchagenealogical
tableortree，westopwheneverwecometothenameofafemale
andpursuethatparticularbranchorramificationnofurther，all
whoremainafterthedescendantsofwomenhavebeenexcludedare
Agnates，andtheirconnexiontogetherisAgnaticRelationship。I
dwellalittleontheprocesswhichispracticallyfollowedin
separatingthemfromtheCognates，becauseitexplainsa
memorablelegalmaxim，"Mulierestfinisfamilia"——awomanis
theterminusofthefamily。Afemalenameclosesthebranchor
twigofthegenealogyinwhichitoccur。Noneofthedescendants
ofafemaleareincludedintheprimitivenotionoffamily
relationship。
Ifthesystemofarchaiclawatwhichwearelookingbeone
whichadmitsAdoption，wemustaddtotheAgnatethusobtained
allpersons，maleorfemale，whohavebeenbroughtintothe
Familybytheartificialextensionofitsboundaries。Butthe
descendantsofsuchpersonswillonlybeAgnates，iftheysatisfy
theconditionswhichhavejustbeendescribed。
Whatthenisthereasonofthisarbitraryinclusionand
exclusion？WhyshouldaconceptionofKinship，soelasticasto
includestrangerbroughtintothefamilybyadoption，be
neverthelesssonarrowastoshutoutthedescendantsofafemale
member？Tosolvethesequestions，wemustrecurtothePatria
Potestas。ThefoundationofAgnationisnotthemarriageof
FatherandMother，buttheauthorityoftheFather。Allpersons
areAgnaticallyconnectedtogetherwhoareunderthesame
PaternalPower，orwhohavebeenunderit，orwhomighthavebeen
underitiftheirlinealancestorhadlivedlongenoughto
exercisehisempire。Intruth，intheprimitiveview，
RelationshipisexactlylimitedbyPatriaPotestas。Wherethe
Potestasbegins，Kinshipbegins；andthereforeadoptiverelatives
areamongthekindred。WherethePotestasends，Kinshipends；so
thatasonemancipatedbyhisfatherlosesallrightsof
Agnation。Andherewehavethereasonwhythedescendantsof
femalesareoutsidethelimitsofarchaickinship。Ifawoman
diedunmarried，shecouldhavenolegitimatedescendants。Ifshe
married，herchildrenfellunderthePatriaPotestas，notofher
Father，butofherHusband，andthuswerelosttoherownfamily。
Itisobviousthattheorganisationofprimitivesocietieswould
havebeenconfounded，ifmenhadcalledthemselvesrelativesof
theirmother’srelatives。Theinferencewouldhavebeenthata
personmightbesubjecttotwodistinctPatriaePotestates；but
distinctPatriaePotestatesimplieddistinctjurisdictions，so
thatanybodyamenabletotwoofthematthesametimewouldhave
livedundertwodifferentdispensations。AslongastheFamily
wasanimperiuminimperio，acommunitywithinthecommonwealth，
governedbyitsowninstitutionsofwhichtheparentwasthe
source，thelimitationofrelationshiptotheAgnateswasa
necessarysecurityagainstaconflictoflawsinthedomestic
forum。
TheParentalPowersproperareextinguishedbythedeathof
theParent，butAgnationisasitwereamouldwhichretains
theirimprintaftertheyhaveceasedtoexist。Hencecomesthe
interestofAgnationfortheinquirerintothehistoryof
jurisprudence。ThePowersthemselvesarediscerniblein
comparativelyfewmonumentsofancientlaw，butAgnatic
Relationship，whichimpliestheirformerexistence，is
discoverablealmosteverywhere。Therearefewindigenousbodies
oflawbelongingtocommunitiesoftheIndo-Europeanstock，which
donotexhibitpeculiaritiesinthemostancientpartoftheir
structurewhichareclearlyreferabletoAgnation。InHindoolaw，
forexample，whichissaturatedwiththeprimitivenotionsof
familydependency，kinshipisentirelyAgnatic，andIaminformed
thatinHindoogenealogiesthenamesofwomenaregenerally
omittedaltogether。Thesameviewofrelationshippervadesso
muchofthelawsoftheraceswhooverrantheRomanEmpireas
appearstohavereallyformedPartoftheirprimitiveusage，and
wemaysuspectthatitwouldhaveperpetuateditselfevenmore
thanithasinmodernEuropeanjurisprudence，ifithadnotbeen
forthevastinfluenceofthelaterRomanlawonmodernthought。
ThePraetorsearlylaidholdonCognationasthenaturalformof
kinship，andsparednopainsinpurifyingtheirsystemfromthe
olderconception。Theirideashavedescendedtous，butstill
tracesofAgnationaretobeseeninmanyofthemodernrulesof
successionafterdeath。Theexclusionoffemalesandtheir
childrenfromgovernmentalfunctions，commonlyattributedtothe
usageoftheSalianFranks，hascertainlyanagnaticorigin，
beingdescendedfromtheancientGermanruleofsuccessionto
allodialproperty。InAgnationtooistobesoughtthe
explanationofthatextraordinaryruleofEnglishLaw，only
recentlyrepealed，whichprohibitedbrothersofthehalf-blood
fromsucceedingtooneanother’slands。IntheCustomsof
Normandytheruleappliesto，bythesamemotheruterinebrothers
only，thatis，tobrothersbutnotbythesamefather；and，
limitedinthisway，itisastrictdeductionfromthesystemof
Agnation，underwhichuterinebrothersarenorelationsatallto
oneanother。WhenitwastransplantedtoEngland，theEnglish
judges，whohadnocluetoitsprinciple，interpreteditasa
generalprohibitionagainstthesuccessionofthehalf-blood，and
extendedittoconsanguineousbrothers，thatistosonsofthe
samefatherbydifferentwives。Inalltheliteraturewhich
enshrinesthepretendedphilosophyoflaw，thereisnothingmore
curiousthanthepagesofelaboratesophistryinwhichBlackstone
attemptstoexplainandjustifytheexclusionofthehalf-blood。
Itmaybeshown，Ithink，thattheFamily，asheldtogether
bythePatriaPotestas，isthenidusoutofwhichtheentireLaw
ofPersonshasgerminated。OfallthechaptersofthatLawthe
mostimportantisthatwhichisconcernedwiththestatusof
Females。IthasjustbeenstatedthatPrimitiveJurisprudence，
thoughitdoesnotallowaWomantocommunicateanyrightsof
Agnationtoherdescendants，includesherselfneverthelessinthe
Agnaticbond。Indeed，therelationofafemaletothefamilyin
whichshewasbornismuchstricter，closer，andmoredurable
thanthatwhichuniteshermalekinsmen。Wehaveseveraltimes
laiddownthatearlylawtakesnoticeofFamiliesonly；thisis
thesamethingassayingthatitonlytakesnoticeofpersons
exercisingPatriaPotestas，andaccordinglytheonlyprincipleon
whichitenfranchisesasonorgrandsonatthedeathofhis
Parent，isaconsiderationofthecapacityinherentinsuchson
orgrandsontobecomehimselftheheadofanewfamilyandthe
rootofanewsetofParentalPower。Butawoman，ofcourse，has
nocapacityofthekind，andnotitleaccordinglytothe
liberationwhichitconfers。Thereisthereforeapeculiar
contrivanceofarchaicjurisprudenceforretainingherinthe
bondageoftheFamilyforlife。Thisistheinstitutionknownto
theoldestRomanlawasthePerpetualTutelageofWomen，under
whichaFemale，thoughrelievedfromherParent’sauthorityby
hisdecease，continuessubjectthroughlifetohernearestmale
relationsasherGuardians。PerpetualGuardianshipisobviously
neithermorenorlessthananartificialprolongationofthe
PatriaPotestas，whenforotherpurposesithasbeendissolved。
InIndia，thesystemsurvivesinabsolutecompleteness，andits
operationissostrictthataHindooMotherfrequentlybecomes
thewardofherownsons。EveninEurope，thelawsofthe
Scandinaviannationsrespectingwomenpreservedituntilquite
recently。TheinvadersoftheWesternEmpirehadituniversally
amongtheirindigenoususages，andindeedtheirideasonthe
subjectofGuardianship，inallitsforms，wereamongthemost
retrogressiveofthosewhichtheyintroducedintotheWestern
world。ButfromthematureRomanjurisprudenceithadentirely
disappeared。Weshouldknowalmostnothingaboutit，ifwehad
onlythecompilationsofJustiniantoconsult；butthediscovery
ofthemanuscriptofGaiusdisclosesittousatamost
interestingepoch，justwhenithadfallenintocomplete
discreditandwasvergingonextinction。Thegreatjurisconsult
himselfscoutsthepopularapologyofferedforitinthemental
inferiorityofthefemalesex，andaconsiderablepartofhis
volumeistakenupwithdescriptionsofthenumerousexpedients，
someofthemdisplayingextraordinaryingenuity，whichtheRoman
lawyershaddevisedforenablingWomentodefeattheancient
rules。LedbytheirtheoryofNaturalLaw，thejurisconsultshad
evidentlyatthistimeassumedtheequalityofthesexesasa
principleoftheircodeofequity。Therestrictionswhichthey
attackedwere，itistobeobserved，restrictionsonthe
dispositionofproperty，forwhichtheassentofthewoman’s
guardianswasstillformallyrequired。Controlofherpersonwas
apparentlyquiteobsolete。
AncientLawsubordinatesthewomantoherblood-relations，
whileaprimephenomenonofmodernjurisprudencehasbeenher
subordinationtoherhusband。Thehistoryofthechangeis
remarkable。ItbeginsfarbackintheannalsofRome。Anciently，
therewerethreemodesinwhichmarriagemightbecontracted
accordingtoRomanusage，oneinvolvingareligioussolemnity，
theothertwotheobservanceofcertainsecularformalities。By
thereligiousmarriageorConfarreation；bythehigherformof
civilmarriage，whichwascalledCoemption；andbythelower
form，whichwastermedUsus，theHusbandacquiredanumberof
rightsoverthepersonandpropertyofhiswife，whichwereon
thewholeinexcessofsuchasareconferredonhiminanysystem
ofmodernjurisprudence。Butinwhatcapacitydidheacquire
them？NotasHusband，butasFather。BytheConfarreation，
Coemption，andUsus，thewomanpassedinmanumviri，thatis，in
lawshebecametheDaughterofherhusband。Shewasincludedin
hisPatriaPotestas。Sheincurredalltheliabilitiesspringing
outofitwhileitsubsisted，andsurvivingitwhenithad
expired。Allherpropertybecameabsolutelyhis，andshewas
retainedintutelageafterhisdeathtotheguardianwhomhehad
appointedbywill。Thesethreeancientformsofmarriagefell，
however，graduallyintodisuse，sothat，atthemostsplendid
periodofRomangreatness，theyhadalmostentirelygivenplace
toafashionofwedlock——oldapparentlybutnothitherto
consideredreputable——whichwasfoundedonamodificationof
thelowerformofcivilmarriage。Withoutexplainingthe
technicalmechanismoftheinstitutionnowgenerallypopular，I
maydescribeitasamountinginlawtolittlemorethana
temporarydepositofthewomanbyherfamily。Therightsofthe
familyremainedunimpaired，andtheladycontinuedinthe
tutelageofguardianswhomherparentshadappointedandwhose
privilegesofcontroloverrode，inmanymaterialrespects，the
inferiorauthorityofherhusband。Theconsequencewasthatthe
situationoftheRomanfemale，whethermarriedorunmarried，
becameoneofgreatpersonalandproprietaryindependence，for
thetendencyofthelaterlaw，asIhavealreadyhinted，wasto
reducethepoweroftheguardiantoanullity，whiletheformof
marriageinfashionconferredonthehusbandnocompensating
superiority。ButChristianitytendedsomewhatfromtheveryfirst
tonarrowthisremarkableliberty。Ledatfirstbyjustifiable
disrelishfortheloosepracticesofthedecayingheathenworld，
butafterwardshurriedonbyapassionofasceticism，the
professorsofthenewfaithlookedwithdisfavouronamarital
tiewhichwasinfactthelaxesttheWesternworldhasseen。The
latestRomanlaw，sofarasitistouchedbytheconstitutionsof
theChristianEmperors，hearssomemarksofareactionagainst
theliberaldoctrinesofthegreatAntoninejurisconsults。And
theprevalentstateofreligioussentimentmayexplainwhyitis
thatmodernjurisprudence，forgedinthefurnaceofbarbarian
conquest，andformedbythefusionofRomanjurisprudencewith
patriarchalusage，hasabsorbed，amongitsrudiments，muchmore
thanusualofthoserulesconcerningthepositionofwomenwhich
belongpeculiarlytoanimperfectcivilisation。Duringthe
troublederawhichbeginsmodernhistory，andwhilethelawsof
theGermanicandSclavonicimmigrantsremainedsuperposedlikea
separatelayerabovetheRomanjurisprudenceoftheirprovincial
subjects，thewomenofthedominantracesareseeneverywhere
undervariousformsofarchaicguardianship，andthehusbandwho
takesawifefromanyfamilyexcepthisownpaysamoney-priceto
herrelationsforthetutelagewhichtheysurrendertohim。When
wemoveonwards，andthecodeofthemiddleageshasbeenformed
bytheamalgamationofthetwosystems，thelawrelatingtowomen
carriesthestampofitsdoubleorigin。Theprincipleofthe
Romanjurisprudenceissofartriumphantthatunmarriedfemales
aregenerally(thoughtherearelocalexceptionstotherule)
relievedfromthebondageofthefamily；butthearchaic
principleofthebarbarianshasfixedthepositionofmarried
women，andthehusbandhasdrawntohimselfinhismarital
characterthepowerswhichhadoncebelongedtohiswife’smale
kindred，theonlydifferencebeingthathenolongerpurchases
hisprivileges。AtthispointthereforethemodernlawofWestern
andSouthernEuropebeginstobedistinguishedbyoneofits
chiefcharacteristic，thecomparativefreedomitallowsto
unmarriedwomenandwidows，theheavydisabilitiesitimposeson
wives。Itwasverylongbeforethesubordinationentailedonthe
othersexbymarriagewassensiblydiminished。Theprincipaland
mostpowerfulsolventoftherevivedbarbarismofEuropewas
alwaysthecodifiedjurisprudenceofJustinian，whereveritwas
studiedwiththatpassionateenthusiasmwhichitseldomfailedto
awaken。Itcovertlybutmostefficaciouslyunderminedthecustoms
whichitpretendedmerelytointerpret。ButtheChapteroflaw
relatingtomarriedwomenwasforthemostpartreadbythe
light，notofRoman，butofCanonLaw，whichinnooneparticular
departssowidelyfromthespiritofthesecularjurisprudenceas
intheviewittakesoftherelationscreatedbymarriage。This
wasinpartinevitable，sincenosocietywhichpreservesany
tinctureofChristianinstitutionislikelytorestoretomarried
womenthepersonallibertyconferredonthembythemiddleRoman
law，buttheproprietarydisabilitiesofmarriedfemalesstandon
quiteadifferentbasisfromtheirpersonalincapacities，andit
isbykeepingaliveandconsolidatingtheformerthatthe
expositorsoftheCanonLawhavedeeplyinjuredcivilisation。
Therearemanyvestigesofastrugglebetweenthesecularand
ecclesiasticalprinciples，buttheCanonLawnearlyeverywhere
prevailed。InsomeoftheFrenchprovincesmarriedwomen，ofa
rankbelownobility，obtainedallthepowersofdealingwith
propertywhichRomanjurisprudencehadallowed，andthislocal
lawhasbeenlargelyfollowedbytheCodeNapoleon；butthestate
oftheScottishlawshowsthatscrupulousdeferencetothe
doctrinesoftheRomanjurisconsultsdidnotalwaysextendto
mitigatingthedisabilitiesofwives。Thesystemshoweverwhich
areleastindulgenttomarriedwomenareinvariablythosewhich
havefollowedtheCanonLawexclusively，orthosewhich，fromthe
latenessoftheircontactwithEuropeancivilisation，havenever
hadtheirarchaismsweededout。TheScandinavianlaws，harshtill
latelytoallfemales，arestillremarkablefortheirseverityto
wives。Andscarcelylessstringentintheproprietary
incapacitiesitimposesistheEnglishCommonLaw，whichborrows
farthegreatestnumberofitsfundamentalprinciplesfromthe
jurisprudenceoftheCanonists。Indeed，thepartoftheCommon
Lawwhichprescribesthelegalsituationofmarriedwomenmay
servetogiveanEnglishmanclearnotionsofthegreat
institutionwhichhasbeentheprincipalsubjectofthischapter。
IdonotknowhowtheoperationandnatureoftheancientPatria
Potestascanbebroughtsovividlybeforethemindasby
reflectingontheprerogativesattachedtothehusbandbythe
pureEnglishCommonLaw，andbyrecallingtherigorous
consistencywithwhichtheviewofacompletelegalsubjectionon
thepartofthewifeiscarriedbyit，whereitisuntouchedby
equityorstatutes，througheverydepartmentofrights，duties，
andremedies。ThedistancebetweentheeldestandlatestRoman
lawonthesubjectofChildrenunderPowermaybeconsideredas
equivalenttothedifferencebetweentheCommonLawandthe
jurisprudenceoftheCourtofChanceryintheruleswhichthey
respectivelyapplytowives。
IfweweretolosesightofthetrueoriginofGuardianship
inbothitsformsandweretoemploythecommonlanguageonthese
topics，weshouldfindourselvesremarkingthat，whilethe
TutelageofWomenisaninstanceinwhichsystemsofarchaiclaw
pushtoanextravagantlengththefictionofsuspendedrights，
theruleswhichtheylaydownfortheGuardianshipofMale
Orphansareanexampleofafaultinpreciselytheopposite
direction。AllsuchsystemsterminatetheTutelageofmalesatan
extraordinaryearlyperiod。UndertheancientRomanlawwhichmay
betakenastheirtype，thesonwhowasdeliveredfromPatria
PotestasbythedeathofhisFatherorGrandfatherremainedunder
guardianshiptillanepochwhichforgeneralpurposesmaybe
describedasarrivingwithhisfifteenthyear，。butthearrival
ofthatepochplacedhimatonceinthefullenjoymentof
personalandproprietaryindependence。Theperiodofminority
appearsthereforetohavebeenasunreasonablyshortasthe
durationofthedisabilitiesofwomenwaspreposterouslylong。
But，inpointoffact，therewasnoelementeitherofexcessor
ofshortcominginthecircumstanceswhichgavetheiroriginal
formtothetwokindsofguardianship。Neithertheonenorthe
otherofthemwasbasedontheslightestconsiderationofpublic
orprivateconvenience。Theguardianshipofmaleorphanswasno
moredesiredoriginallytoshieldthemtillthearrivalofyears
ofdiscretionthanthetutelageofwomenwasintendedtoprotect
theothersexagainstitsownfeebleness。Thereasonwhythe
deathofthefatherdeliveredthesonfromthebondageofthe
familywastheson’scapacityforbecominghimselftheheadofa
newfamilyandthefounderofanewPatriaPotestas；nosuch
capacitywaspossessedbythewomanandthereforeshewasnever
enfranchised。AccordinglytheGuardianshipofMaleOrphanswasa
contrivanceforkeepingalivethesemblanceofsubordinationto
thefamilyoftheParent，uptothetimewhenthechildwas
supposedcapableofbecomingaparenthimself。Itwasa
prolongationofthePatriaPotestasuptotheperiodofbare
physicalmanhood。Itendedwithpuberty，fortherigourofthe
theorydemandedthatitshoulddoso。Inasmuch，however，asit
didnotprofesstoconducttheorphanwardtotheageof
intellectualmaturityorfitnessforaffairs，itwasquite
unequaltothepurposesofgeneralconvenience；andthisthe
Romansseemtohavediscoveredataveryearlystageoftheir
socialprogress。OneoftheveryoldestmonumentsofRoman
legislationistheLexLaetoriaorPlaetoriawhichplacedall
freemaleswhowereoffullyearsandrightsunderthetemporary
controlofanewclassofguardians，calledCuratores，whose
sanctionwasrequiredtovalidatetheiractsorcontracts。The
twenty-sixthyearoftheyoungman’sagewasthelimitofthis
statutorysupervision；anditisexclusivelywithreferenceto
theageoftwenty-fivethattheterms"majority"and"minority"
areemployedinRomanlaw。Pupilageorwardshipinmodern
jurisprudencehadadjusteditselfwithtolerableregularityto
thesimpleprincipleofprotectiontotheimmaturityofyouth
bothbodilyandmental。Ithasitsnaturalterminationwithyears
ofdiscretion。Butforprotectionagainstphysicalweaknessand
forprotectionagainstintellectualincapacity，theRomanslooked
totwodifferentinstitutions，distinctbothintheoryand
design。Theideasattendantonbotharecombinedinthemodern
ideaofguardianship。
TheLawofPersonscontainsbutoneotherchapterwhichcan
beusefullycitedforourpresentpurpose。Thelegalrulesby
whichsystemsofnaturejurisprudenceregulatetheconnectionof
MasterandSlave，presentnoverydistincttracesoftheoriginal
conditioncommontoancientsocieties。Buttherearereasonsfor
thisexception。Thereseemstobesomethingintheinstitutionof
Slaverywhichhasatalltimeseithershockedorperplexed
mankind，howeverlittlehabituatedtoreflection，andhowever
slightlyadvancedinthecultivationofitsmoralinstincts。The
compunctionwhichancientcommunitiesalmostunconsciously
experiencedappearstohavealwaysresultedintheadoptionof
someimaginaryprincipleuponwhichadefence，oratleasta
rationale，ofslaverycouldbeplausiblyfounded。Veryearlyin
theirhistorytheGreeksexplainedtheinstitutionasgroundedon
theintellectualinferiorityofcertainracesandtheir
consequentnaturalaptitudefortheservilecondition。The
Romans，inaspiritequallycharacteristic，deriveditfroma
supposedagreementbetweenthevictorandthevanquishedinwhich
thefirststipulatedfortheperpetualservicesofhisfoe；and
theothergainedinconsiderationthelifewhichhehad
legitimatelyforfeited。Suchtheorieswerenotonlyunsoundbut
plainlyunequaltothecaseforwhichtheyaffectedtoaccount。
Stilltheyexercisedpowerfulinfluenceinmanyways。They
satisfiedtheconscienceoftheMaster。Theyperpetuatedand
probablyincreasedthedebasementoftheSlave。Andthey
naturallytendedtoputoutofsighttherelationinwhich
servitudehadoriginallystoodtotherestofthedomestic
system。Therelation，thoughnotclearlyexhibited，iscasually
indicatedinmanypartsofprimitivelaw；andmoreparticularly
inthetypicalsystem——thatofancientRome。
Muchindustryandsomelearninghavebeenbestowedinthe
UnitedStatesofAmericaonthequestionwhethertheSlavewasin
theearlystagesofsocietyarecognisedmemberoftheFamily
Thereisasenseinwhichanaffirmativeanswermustcertainlybe
given。Itisclear，fromthetestimonybothofancientlawandof
manyprimevalhistories，thattheSlavemightundercertain
conditionsbemadetheHeir，orUniversalSuccessor，ofthe
Master，andthissignificantfaculty，asIshall。explaininthe
ChapteronSuccession，impliesthatthegovernmentand
representationoftheFamilymight，inaparticularstateof
circumstances，devolveonthebondman。Itseems，however，tobe
assumedintheAmericanargumentsonthesubjectthat，ifwe
allowSlaverytohavebeenaprimitiveFamilyinstitution，the
acknowledgmentispregnantwithanadmissionofthemoral
defensibilityofNegro-servitudeatthepresentmoment。Whatthen
ismeantbysayingthattheSlavewasoriginallyincludedinthe
Family？Notthathissituationmaynothavebeenthefruitofthe
coarsestmotiveswhichcanactuateman。Thesimplewishtouse
thebodilypowersofanotherpersonasameansofministeringto
one’sowneaseorpleasureisdoubtlessthefoundationof
Slavery，andasoldashumannature。WhenwespeakoftheSlave
asancientlyincludedintheFamily，weintendtoassertnothing
astothemotivesofthosewhobroughthimintoitorkepthim
there；wemerelyimplythatthetiewhichboundhimtohismaster
wasregardedasoneofthesamegeneralcharacterwiththatwhich
unitedeveryothermemberofthegrouptoitschieftain。This
consequenceis，infact，carriedinthegeneralassertionalready
madethattheprimitiveideasofmankindwereunequalto
comprehendinganybasisoftheconnectioninterseof
individuals，apartfromtherelationsoffamily。TheFamily
consistedprimarilyofthosewhobelongedtoitbyconsanguinity。
andnextofthosewhohadbeenengraftedonitbyadoption；but
therewasstillathirdclassofpersonswhowereonlyjoinedto
itbycommonsubjectiontoitshead，andtheseweretheSlaves。
Thebornandtheadoptedsubjectsofthechiefwereraisedabove
theSlavebythecertaintythatintheordinarycourseofevents
theywouldberelievedfrombondageandentitledtoexercise
powersoftheirown；butthattheinferiorityoftheSlavewas
notsuchastoplacehimoutsidethepaleoftheFamily，orsuch
astodegradehimtothefootingofinanimateproperty，is
clearlyproved，Ithink，bythemanytraceswhichremainofhis
ancientcapacityforinheritanceinthelastresort。Itwould，of
course，beunsafeinthehighestdegreetohazardconjectureshow
farthelotoftheSlavewasmitigated，inthebeginningsof
society，byhavingadefiniteplacereservedtohimintheempire
oftheFather。Itis，perhaps，moreprobablethatthesonwas
practicallyassimilatedtotheSlave，thanthattheSlaveshared
anyofthetendernesswhichinlatertimeswasshowntotheson。
Butitmaybeassertedwithsomeconfidenceofadvancedand
maturedcodesthat，whereverservitudeissanctioned，theSlave
hasuniformlygreateradvantagesundersystemswhichpreserve
somemementoofhisearlierconditionthanunderthosewhichhave
adoptedsomeothertheoryofhiscivildegradation。Thepointof
viewfromwhichjurisprudenceregardstheSlaveisalwaysof
greatimportancetohim。TheRomanlawwasarrestedinits
growingtendencytolookuponhimmoreandmoreasanarticleof
propertybythetheoryoftheLawofNature；andhenceitis
that，whereverservitudeissanctionedbyinstitutionswhichhave
beendeeplyaffectedbyRomanjurisprudence，theservile
conditionisneverintolerablywretched。Thereisagreatdealof
evidencethatinthoseAmericanStateswhichhavetakenthe
highlyRomanisedcodeofLouisianaasthebasisoftheir
jurisprudence，thelotandprospectsofthenegro-populationare
betterinmanymaterialrespectsthanunderinstitutionsfounded
ontheEnglishCommonLaw，which，asrecentlyinterpreted，hasno
trueplacefortheSlave，andcanonlythereforeregardhimasa
chattel。
WehavenowexaminedallpartsoftheancientLawofPersons
whichfallwithinthescopeofthistreatise，andtheresultof
theinquiryis，Itrust，togiveadditionaldefinitenessand
precisiontoourviewoftheinfancyofjurisprudence。TheCivil
lawsofStatesfirstmaketheirappearanceastheThemistesofa
patriarchalsovereign，andwecannowseethattheseThemistes
areprobablyonlyadevelopedformoftheirresponsiblecommands
which，inastillearlierconditionoftherace，theheadofeach
isolatedhouseholdmayhaveaddressedtohiswives，hischildren，
andhisslaves。But，evenaftertheStatehasbeenorganised，the
lawshavestillanextremelylimitedapplication。Whetherthey
retaintheirprimitivecharacterasThemistes，orwhetherthey
advancetotheconditionofCustomsorCodifiedTexts，theyare
bindingnotonindividuals，butonFamilies。Ancient
jurisprudence，ifaperhapsdeceptivecomparisonmaybeemployed，
maybelikenedtoInternationalLaw，fillingnothing，asitwere，
exceptingtheintersticesbetweenthegreatgroupswhicharethe
atomsofsociety。Inacommunitysosituated，thelegislationof
assembliesandthejurisdictionofCourtsreachesonlytothe
headsoffamilies，andtoeveryotherindividualtheruleof
conductisthelawofhishome，ofwhichhisParentisthe
legislator。Butthesphereofcivillaw，smallatfirst，tends
steadilytoenlargeitself。Theagentsoflegalchange，Fictions，
inturntobearontheEquity，andLegislation，arebrought
primevalinstitutions，andateverypointoftheprogress，a
greaternumberofpersonalrightsandalargeramountofproperty
areremovedfromthedomesticforumtothecognisanceofthe
publictribunals。Theordinancesofthegovernmentobtain
graduallythesameefficacyinprivateconcernsainmattersof
state，andarenolongerliabletobeoverriddenbythebehests
ofadespotenthronedbyeachhearthstone。Wehaveintheannals
ofRomanlawanearlycompletehistoryofthecrumblingawayof
anarchaicsystem，andoftheformationofnewinstitutionsfrom
therecombinedmaterials，institutionssomeofwhichdescended
unimpairedtothemodernworld，whileothers，destroyedor
corruptedbycontactwithbarbarisminthedarkages，hadagain
toberecoveredbymankind。Whenweleavethisjurisprudenceat
theepochofitsfinalreconstructionbyJustinian，fewtracesof
archaismcanbediscoveredinanypartofitexceptinthesingle
articleoftheextensivepowersstillreservedtotheliving
Parent。Everywhereelseprinciplesofconvenience，orof
symmetry，orofsimplification——newprinciplesatanyratehave
usurpedtheauthorityofthejejuneconsiderationswhich
satisfiedtheconscienceofancienttimes。Everywhereanew
moralityhasdisplacedthecanonsofconductandthereasonsof
acquiescencewhichwereinunisonwiththeancientusages，
becauseinfacttheywerebornofthem。
Themovementoftheprogressivesocietieshasbeenuniformin
onerespect。Throughallitscourseithasbeendistinguishedby
thegradualdissolutionoffamilydependencyandthegrowthof
individualobligationinitsplace。TheIndividualissteadily
substitutedfortheFamily，astheunitofwhichcivillawstake
account。Theadvancehasbeenaccomplishedatvaryingratesof
celerity，andtherearesocietiesnotabsolutelystationaryin
whichthecollapseoftheancientorganisationcanonlybe
perceivedbycarefulstudyofthephenomenatheypresent。But，
whateveritspace，thechangehasnotbeensubjecttoreactionor
recoil，andapparentretardationswillbefoundtohavebeen
occasionedthroughtheabsorptionofarchaicideasandcustoms
fromsomeentirelyforeignsource。Norisitdifficulttosee
whatisthetiebetweenmanandmanwhichreplacesbydegrees
thoseformsofreciprocityinrightsanddutieswhichhavetheir
originintheFamily。ItisContract。Starting，asfromone
terminusofhistory，fromaconditionofsocietyinwhichallthe
relationsofPersonsaresummedupintherelationsofFamily，we
seemtohavesteadilymovedtowardsaphaseofsocialorderin
whichalltheserelationsarisefromthefreeagreementof
Individuals。InWesternEuropetheprogressachievedinthis
directionhasbeenconsiderable。ThusthestatusoftheSlavehas
disappeared——ithasbeensupersededbythecontractualrelation
oftheservanttohismater。ThestatusoftheFemaleunder
Tutelage，ifthetutelagebeunderstoodofpersonsotherthanher
husband，hasalsoceasedtoexist；fromhercomingofagetoher
marriagealltherelationsshemayformarerelationsof
contract。SotoothestatusoftheSonunderPowerhasnotrue
placeinlawofmodernEuropeansocieties。Ifanycivil
obligationbindstogethertheParentandthechildoffullage，
itisonetowhichonlycontractgivesitslegalvalidityThe
apparentexceptionsareexceptionsofthatstampwhichillustrate
therule。Thechildbeforeyearsofdiscretion，theorphanunder
guardianship，theadjudgedlunatic，havealltheircapacitiesand
incapacitiesregulatedbytheLawofPersons。Butwhy？Thereason
isdifferentlyexpressedintheconventionallanguageof
differentsystems，butinsubstanceitisstatedtothesame
effectbyall。ThegreatmajorityofJuristsareconstanttothe
principlethattheclassesofpersonsjustmentionedaresubject
toextrinsiccontrolonthesinglegroundthattheydonot
possessthefacultyofformingajudgmentontheirowninterests；
inotherwords，thattheyarewantinginthefirstessentialof
anengagementbyContract。
ThewordStatusmaybeusefullyemployedtoconstructa
formulaexpressingthelawofprogressthusindicated，which，
whateverbeitsvalue，seemstometobesufficiently
ascertained。AlltheformsofStatustakennoticeofintheLaw
ofPersonswerederivedfrom，andtosomeextentarestill
colouredby，thepowersandprivilegesancientlyresidinginthe
Family。IfthenweemployStatus，agreeablywiththeusageofthe
bestwriters，tosignifythesepersonalconditionsonly，and
avoidapplyingthetermtosuchconditionsasaretheimmediate
orremoteresultofagreement，wemaysaythatthemovementof
theprogressivesocietieshashithertobeenamovementfrom
StatustoContract。
AncientLaw
byHenryMaineChapter6TheEarlyHistoryofTestamentarySuccession
IfanattemptweremadetodemonstrateinEnglandthe
superiorityofthehistoricalmethodofinvestigationtothe
modesofinquiryconcerningJurisprudencewhichareinfashion
amongus，nodepartmentofLawwouldbetterserveasanexample
thanTestamentsorWills。Itscapabilitiesitowestoitsgreat
lengthandgreatcontinuity。Atthebeginningofitshistorywe
findourselvesintheveryinfancyofthesocialstate，
surroundedbyconceptionswhichitrequiressomeeffortofmind
torealiseintheirancientform；whilehere，attheother
extremityofitslineofprogress，weareinthemidstoflegal
notionswhicharenothingmorethanthosesameconceptions
disguisedbythephraseologyandbythehabitsofthoughtwhich
belongtomoderntimes，andexhibitingthereforeadifficultyof
anotherkind，thedifficultyofbelievingthatideaswhichform
partofoureverydaymentalstockcanreallystandinneedof
analysisandexamination。ThegrowthoftheLawofWillsbetween
theseextremepointscanbetracedwithremarkabledistinctness。
Itwasmuchlessinterruptedattheepochofthebirthof
feudalism，thanthehistoryofmostotherbranchesoflaw。Itis，
indeed，truethat，asregardsallprovincesofjurisprudence，the
breakcausedbythedivisionbetweenancientandmodernhistory，
orinotherwordsbythedissolutionoftheRomanempire，has
beenverygreatlyexaggerated。Indolencehasdisinclinedmany
writerstobeatthepainsoflookingforthreadsofconnection
entangledandobscuredbytheconfusionsofsixtroubled
centuries，whileotherinquirer，notnaturallydeficientin
patienceandindustry，havebeenmisledbyidleprideinthe
legalsystemoftheircountry，andbyconsequentunwillingnessto
confessitsobligationstothejurisprudenceofRome。Butthese
unfavourableinfluenceshavehadcomparativelylittleeffecton
theprovinceofTestamentaryLaw。Thebarbarianswereconfessedly
strangerstoanysuchconceptionasthatofaWill。Thebest
authoritiesagreethatthereisnotraceofitinthosepartsof
theirwrittencodewhichcomprisethecustomspractisedbythem
intheiroriginalseats，andintheirsubsequentsettlementson
theedgeoftheRomanempire。Butsoonaftertheybecamemixed
withthepopulationoftheRomanprovincestheyappropriatedfrom
theImperialjurisprudencetheconceptionofaWill，atfirstin
part，andafterwardsinallitsintegrity。Theinfluenceofthe
Churchhadmuchtodowiththisrapidassimilation。The
ecclesiasticalpowerhadveryearlysucceededtothoseprivilege
ofcustodyandregistrationofTestamentswhichseveralofthe
heathentempleshadenjoyed；andeventhusearlyitwasalmost
exclusivelytoprivatebequeststhatthereligiousfoundations
owedtheirtemporalpossessions。Henceitisthatthedecreesof
theearliestProvincialCouncilsperpetuallycontainanathemas
againstthosewhodenythesanctityofWills。Here，inEngland，
Churchinfluencewascertainlychiefamongthecauseswhichby
universalacknowledgmenthavepreventedthatdiscontinuityinthe
historyofTestamentaryLaw，whichissometimesbelievedtoexist
inthehistoryofotherprovincesofJurisprudence。The
jurisdictionoveroneclassofWillswasdelegatedtothe
EcclesiasticalCourts，whichappliedtothem，thoughnotalways
intelligently，theprinciplesofRomanjurisprudence；and，though
neitherthecourtsofCommonLawnortheCourtofChanceryowned
anypositiveobligationtofollowtheEcclesiasticaltribunals，
theycouldnotescapethepotentinfluenceofasystemofsettled
rulesincourseofapplicationbytheirside。TheEnglishlawof
testamentarysuccessiontopersonaltyhasbecomeamodifiedform
ofthedispensationunderwhichtheinheritancesofRoman
citizenswereadministered。
Itisnotdifficulttopointouttheextremedifferenceof
theconclusionsforcedonusbythehistoricaltreatmentofthe
subjectfromthosetowhichweareconductedwhen，withoutthe
helpofhistory，wemerelystrivetoanalyseourprimafacie
impressions。Isupposethereisnobodywho，startingfromthe
popularoreventhelegalconceptionofaWill，wouldnotimagine
thatcertainqualitiesarenecessarilyattachedtoit。Hewould
say，forexample，thataWillnecessarilytakeeffectatdeath
only——thatitissecret，notknownasamatterofcourseto
personstakinginterestsunderitsprovisionsthatitis
revocable，i。e。alwayscapableofbeingsupersededbyanewact
oftestation。YetIshallbeabletoshowthattherewasatime
whennoneofthesecharacteristicbelongedtoaWill。The
TestamentsfromwhichourWillsaredirectlydescendedatfirst
tookeffectimmediatelyontheirexecution；theywerenotsecret；
theywerenotrevocable。Fewlegalagenciesare，infact，the
fruitofmorecomplexhistoricalagenciesthanthatbywhicha
man’swrittenintentionscontroltheposthumousdispositionof
hisgoods。Testamentsveryslowlyandgraduallygatheredround
themthequalitiesIhavementioned；andtheydidthisfrom
causesandunderpressureofeventswhichmaybecalledcasual，
orwhichatanyratehavenointerestforusatpresent，except
sofarastheyhaveaffectedthehistoryoflaw。
Atatimewhenlegaltheoriesweremoreabundantthanat
present——theorieswhich，itistrue，wereforthemostpart
gratuitousandprematureenough，butwhichneverthelessrescued
jurisprudencefromthatworseandmoreignoblecondition，not
unknowntoourselves，inwhichnothinglikeageneralisationis
aspiredto，andlawisregardedasamereempiricalpursuit——it
wasthefashiontoexplainthereadyandapparentlyintuitive
perceptionwhichwehaveofcertainqualitiesinaWill，by
sayingthattheywerenaturaltoit，or，asthephrasewouldrun
infull，attachedtoitbytheLawofNature。Nobody，Iimagine，
wouldaffecttomaintainsuchadoctrine，whenonceitwas
ascertainedthatallthesecharacteristichadtheiroriginwithin
historicalmemory；atthesametime，vestigesofthetheoryof
whichthedoctrineisanoffshoot，lingerinformsofexpression
whichweallofususeandperhapsscarcelyknowhowtodispense
with。Imayillustratethisbymentioningapositioncommonin
thelegalliteratureoftheseventeenthcentury。Thejuristsof
thatperiodverycommonlyassertthatthepowerofTestation
itselfisofNaturalLaw，thatitisarightconferredbytheLaw
ofNature。Theirteaching，thoughallpersonsmaynotatoncesee
theconnection，isinsubstancefollowedbythosewhoaffirmthat
therightofdictatingorcontrollingtheposthumousdisposalof
propertyisanecessaryornaturalconsequenceoftheproprietary
rightsthemselves。Andeverystudentoftechnicaljurisprudence
musthavecomeacrossthesameview，clothedinthelanguageofa
ratherdifferentschool，which，initsrationaleofthis
departmentoflaw，treatssuccessionextestamentoasthemodeof
devolutionwhichthepropertyofdeceasedpersonsoughtprimarily
tofollow，andthenproceedstoaccountforsuccessionab
intestatoastheincidentalprovisionofthelawgiverforthe
dischargeofafunctionwhichwasonlyleftunperformedthrough
theneglectormisfortuneofthedeceasedproprietor。These
opinionsareonlyexpandedformsofthemorecompendiousdoctrine
thatTestamentarydispositionisaninstitutionoftheLawof
Nature。Itiscertainlyneverquitesafetopronounce
dogmaticallyastotherangeofassociationembracedbymodern
minds，whentheyreflectonNatureandherLaw。butIbelieve
thatmostpersons，whoaffirmthattheTestamentaryPowerisof
NaturalLawmaybetakentoimplyeitherthat，asamatterof
fact，itisuniversal，orthatnationsarepromptedtosanction
itbyanoriginalinstinctandimpulse。Withrespecttothefirst
ofthesepositions，Ithinkthat，whenexplicitlysetforth，it
canneverbeseriouslycontendedforinanagewhichhasseenthe
severerestraintsimposedontheTestamentaryPowerbytheCode
Napoleon，andhaswitnessedthesteadymultiplicationofsystems
forwhichtheFrenchcodeshaveservedasamodel。Tothesecond
assertionwemustobjectthatitiscontrarytothe
best-ascertainedfactsintheearlyhistoryoflaw，andIventure
toaffirmgenerallythat，inallindigenoussocieties，a
conditionofjurisprudenceinwhich。Testamentaryprivilegesare
notallowed，orrathernotcontemplated，hasprecededthatlater
stageoflegaldevelopmentinwhichthemerewillofthe
proprietorispermittedundermoreorlessofrestrictionto
overridetheclaimsofhiskindredinblood。
TheconceptionofaWillorTestamentcannotbeconsideredby
itself。Itisamember，andnotthefirst，ofaseriesof
conceptions。InitselfaWillissimplytheinstrumentbywhich
theintentionofthetestatorisdeclared。Itmustbeclear，I
think，thatbeforesuchaninstrumenttakesitsturnfor
discussion，thereareseveralpreliminarypointstobeexamined——
as，forexample，whatisit，whatsortofrightorinterest，
whichpassesfromadeadmanonhisdecease？towhomandinwhat
formdoesitpass？andhowcameitthatthedeadwereallowedto
controltheposthumousdispositionoftheirproperty？Throwninto
technicallanguage，thedependenceofthevariousconceptions
whichcontributetothenotionofaWillisthusexpressed。A
WillorTestamentisaninstrumentbywhichthedevolutionofan
inheritanceisprescribed。Inheritanceisaformofuniversal
succession。Auniversalsuccessionisasuccessiontoa
universitasjuris，oruniversityofrightsandduties。Inverting
thisorderwehavethereforetoinquirewhatisauniversitas
juris；whatisauniversalsuccession；whatistheformof
universalsuccessionwhichiscalledaninheritance。Andthere
arealsotwofurtherquestions，independenttosomeextentofthe
pointsIhavemooted，butdemandingsolutionbeforethesubject
ofWillscanbeexhausted。Theseare，howcameaninheritanceto
becontrolledinanycasebythetestator’svolition，andwhatis
thenatureoftheinstrumentbywhichitcametobecontrolled？
Thefirstquestionrelatestotheuniversitasjuris；thatis，
auniversity(orbundle)ofrightsandduties。Auniversitas
jurisisacollectionofrightsanddutiesunitedbythesingle
circumstanceoftheirhavingbelongedatonetimetosomeone
person。Itis，asitwere，thelegalclothingofsomegiven
individual。Itisnotformedbygroupingtogetheranyrightsand
anyduties。Itcanonlybeconstitutedbytakingalltherights
andallthedutiesofaparticularperson。Thetiewhichso
connectsanumberofrightsofproperty，rightsofway，rightsto
legacies，dutiesofspecificperformance，debts，obligationsto
compensatewrongs——whichsoconnectsalltheselegalprivileges
anddutiestogetherastoconstitutethemauniversitasjuris，is
thefactoftheirhavingattachedtosomeindividualcapableof
exercisingthem。Withoutthisfactthereisnouniversityof
rightsandduties。Theexpressionuniversitasjurisisnot
classical，butforthenotionjurisprudenceisexclusively
indebtedtoRomanlaw；norisitatalldifficulttoseize。We
mustendeavourtocollectunderoneconceptionthewholesetof
legalrelationsinwhicheachoneofusstandstotherestofthe
world。These，whateverbetheircharacterandcomposition，make
uptogetherauniversitasjuris；andthereisbutlittledanger
ofmistakeinformingthenotion，ifweareonlycarefulto
rememberthatdutiesenterintoitquiteasmuchasrights。Our
dutiesmayoverbalanceourrights。Amanmayowemorethanheis
worth，andthereforeifamoneyvalueissetonhiscollective
legalrelationshemaybewhatiscalledinsolvent。Butforall
thattheentiregroupofrightsanddutieswhichcentresinhim
isnotthelessa"jurisuniversitas。"
Wecomenexttoa"universalsuccession。"Auniversal
successionisasuccessiontoauniversitasjuris。Itoccurswhen
onemanisinvestedwiththelegalclothingofanother，becoming
atthesamemomentsubjecttoallhisliabilitiesandentitledto
allhisrights。Inorderthattheuniversalsuccessionmaybe
trueandperfect，thedevolutionmusttakeplaceunoictu，asthe
juristsphraseit。Itisofcoursepossibletoconceiveoneman
acquiringthewholeoftherightsanddutiesofanotherat
differentperiods，asforexamplebysuccessivepurchases；orhe
mightacquirethemindifferentcapacities，partasheir，partas
purchaser，partaslegatee。Butthoughthegroupofrightsand
dutiesthusmadeupshouldinfactamounttothewholelegal
personalityofaparticularindividual，theacquisitionwouldnot
beauniversalsuccession。Inorderthattheremaybeatrue
universalsuccession，thetransmissionmustbesuchastopass
thewholeaggregateofrightsanddutiesatthesamemomentand
invirtueofthesamelegalcapacityintherecipient。Thenotion
ofauniversalsuccession，likethatofajurisuniversitas，is
permanentinjurisprudence，thoughintheEnglishlegalsystemit
isobscuredbythegreatvarietyofcapacitiesinwhichrights
areacquired，and，aboveall，bythedistinctionbetweenthetwo
greatprovincesofEnglishproperty"realty"and"personalty。"
Thesuccessionofanassigneeinbankruptcytotheentire
propertyofthebankruptis，however，auniversalsuccession，
thoughastheassigneeonlypaysdebtstotheextentofthe
assets，thisisonlyamodifiedformoftheprimarynotion。Were
itcommonamongusforpersonstotakeassignmentsofallaman’s
propertyonconditionofpayingallhisdebts，suchtransfers
wouldexactlyresembletheuniversalsuccessionsknowntothe
oldestRomanLaw。WhenaRomancitizenadrogatedason，i。e。took
aman，notalreadyunderPatriaPotestas，ashisadoptivechild，
hesucceededuniversallytotheadoptivechild’sestate，i。e。he
tookallthepropertyandbecameliableforalltheobligations。
Severalotherformsofuniversalsuccessionappearinthe
primitiveRomanLaw，butinfinitelythemostimportantandthe
mostdurableofallwasthatonewithwhichwearemore
immediatelyconcerned，HareditasorInheritance。Inheritancewas
auniversalsuccessionoccurringatadeath。Theuniversal
successorwasHaresorHeir。Hesteppedatonceintoallthe
rightsandallthedutiesofthedeadman。Hewasinstantly
clothedwithhisentirelegalperson，andIneedscarcelyadd
thatthespecialcharacteroftheHaresremainedthesame，
whetherhewasnamedbyaWillorwhetherhetookonan
Intestacy。ThetermHaresisnomoreemphaticallyusedofthe
IntestatethanoftheTestamentaryHeir，forthemannerinwhich
amanbecameHareshadnothingtodowiththelegalcharacterhe
sustained。Thedeadman’suniversalsuccessor，howeverhebecame
so，whetherbyWillorbyIntestacy，washisHeir。ButtheHeir
wasnotnecessarilyasingleperson。Agroupofpersons
consideredinlawasasingleunit，mightsucceedasco-heirsto
theInheritance。
LetmenowquotetheusualRomandefinitionofan
Inheritance。Thereaderwillbeinapositiontoappreciatethe
fullforceoftheseparateterms。Haereditasestsuccessioin
universumjusquoddefunctushabuit("aninheritanceisa
successiontotheentirelegalpositionofadeceasedman")。The
notionwasthat，thoughthephysicalpersonofthedeceasedhad
perished，hislegalpersonalitysurvivedanddescendedunimpaired
onhisHeirorCo-heirs，inwhomhisidentity(sofarasthelaw
wasconcerned)wascontinued。Ourownlaw，inconstitutingthe
ExecutororAdministratortherepresentativeofthedeceasedto
theextentofhispersonalassets，mayserveasanillustration
ofthetheoryfromwhichitemanated，but，althoughit
illustrates，itdoesnotexplainit。Theviewofeventhelater
RomanLawrequiredaclosenessofcorrespondencebetweenthe
positionofthedeceasedandofhisHeirwhichisnofeatureof
anEnglishrepresentation；andintheprimitivejurisprudence
everythingturnedonthecontinuityofsuccession。Unless
provisionwasmadeinthewillfortheinstantdevolutionofthe
testator’srightsanddutiesontheHeirorCo-heir，the
testamentlostallitseffect。InmodernTestamentary
jurisprudence，asinthelaterRomanlaw，theobjectoffirst
importanceistheexecutionofthetestator’sintentions。Inthe
ancientlawofRomethesubjectofcorrespondingcarefulnesswas
thebestowaloftheUniversalSuccession。Oneoftheserules
seemstooureyesaprincipledictatedbycommonsense，whilethe
otherlooksverymuchlikeanidlecrotchet。Yetthatwithoutthe
secondofthemthefirstwouldneverhavecomeintobeingisas
certainasanypropositionofthekindcanbe。
Inordertosolvethisapparentparadox，andtobringinto
greaterclearnessthetrainofideaswhichIhavebeen
endeavouringtoindicate，Imustborrowtheresultsofthe
inquirywhichwasattemptedintheearlierportionofthe
precedingchapter。Wesawonepeculiarityinvariably
distinguishingtheinfancyofsociety。Menareregardedand
treated，notasindividuals，butalwaysasmembersofa
particulargroup。Everybodyisfirstacitizen，andthen，asa
citizen，heisamemberofhisorder——ofanaristocracyora
democracy，ofanorderofpatriciansorplebeians；or，inthose
societieswhichanunhappyfatehasafflictedwithaspecial
perversionintheircourseofdevelopment，ofacaste。Next，he
isamemberofagens，house，orclan；andlastlyheisamember
ofhisfamily。Thislastwasthenarrowestandmostpersonal
relationinwhichhestood；nor，paradoxicalasitmayseem，was
heeverregardedashimself，asadistinctindividual。His
individualitywasswallowedupinhisfamily。Irepeatthe
definitionofaprimitivesocietygivenbefore。Ithasforits
units，notindividuals，butgroupsofmenunitedbythereality
orthefictionofblood-relationship。
Itisinthepeculiaritiesofanundevelopedsocietythatwe
seizethefirsttraceofauniversalsuccession。Contrastedwith
theorganisationofamodernstate，thecommonwealthofprimitive
timesmaybefairlydescribedasconsistingofanumberoflittle
despoticgovernments，eachperfectlydistinctfromtherest，each
absolutelycontrolledbytheprerogativeofasinglemonarch。But
thoughthePatriarch，forwemustnotyetcallhimthe
Pater-familias，hadrightsthusextensive，itisimpossibleto
doubtthathelayunderanequalamplitudeofobligations。Ifhe
governedthefamily，itwasforitsbehoof。Ifhewaslordofits
possessions，heheldthemastrusteeforhischildrenand
kindred。Hehadnoprivilegeorpositiondistinctfromthat
conferredonhimbyhisrelationtothepettycommonwealthwhich
hegoverned。TheFamily，infact，wasaCorporation；andhewas
itsrepresentativeor，wemightalmostsay，itsPublicofficer。
Heenjoyedrightsandstoodunderduties，buttherightsandthe
dutieswere，inthecontemplationofhisfellow-citizensandin
theeyeofthelaw，quiteasmuchthoseofthecollectivebodyas
hisown。Letusconsiderforamomenttheeffectwhichwouldbe
producedbythedeathofsucharepresentative。Intheeyeofthe
law，intheviewofthecivilmagistrate，thedemiseofthe
domesticauthoritywouldbeaperfectlyimmaterialevent。The
personrepresentingthecollectivebodyofthefamilyand
primarilyresponsibletomunicipaljurisdictionwouldbeara
differentname；andthatwouldbeall。Therightsandobligations
whichattachedtothedeceasedheadofthehousewouldattach，
withoutbreachofcontinuity，tohissuccessor；for，inpointof
fact，theywouldbetherightsandobligationsofthefamily，and
thefamilyhadthedistinctivecharacteristicofacorporation——
thatitneverdied。Creditorswouldhavethesameremedies
againstthenewchieftainasagainsttheold，fortheliability
beingthatofthestillexistingfamilywouldbeabsolutely
unchanged。Allrightsavailabletothefamilywouldbeas
availableafterthedemiseoftheheadshipasbeforeit——except
thattheCorporationwouldbeobliged——ifindeedlanguageso
preciseandtechnicalcanbeproperlyusedoftheseearlytimes——
wouldbeobligedtosueunderaslightlymodifiedname。
Thehistoryofjurisprudencemustbefollowedinitswhole
course，ifwearetounderstandhowgraduallyandtardilysociety
dissolveditselfintothecomponentatomsofwhichitisnow
constituted——bywhatinsensiblegradationstherelationofman
tomansubstituteditselffortherelationoftheindividualto
hisfamilyandoffamiliestoeachother。Thepointnowtobe
attendedtoisthatevenwhentherevolutionhadapparentlyquite
accomplisheditself，evenwhenthemagistratehadingreat
measureassumedtheplaceofthePater-familias，andthecivil
tribunalsubstituteditselfforthedomesticforum，nevertheless
thewholeschemeofrightsanddutiesadministeredbythe
judicialauthoritiesremainedshapedbytheinfluenceofthe
obsoleteprivilegesandcolouredineverypartbytheir
reflection。Thereseems。littlequestionthatthedevolutionof
theUniversitasJuris，sostrenuouslyinsisteduponbytheRoman
Lawasthefirstconditionofatestamentaryorintestate
succession，wasafeatureoftheolderformofsocietywhich
men’smindshadbeenunabletodissociatefromthenew，though
withthatnewerphaseithadnotrueorproperconnection。It
seems，intruth，thattheprolongationofaman’slegalexistence
inhisheir，orinagroupofco-heirs，isneithermorenorless
thanacharacteristicofthefamilytransferredbyafictionto
theindividual。Successionincorporationsisnecessarily
universal，andthefamilywasacorporation。Corporationsnever
die。Thedeceaseofindividualmembersmakesnodifferencetothe
collectiveexistenceoftheaggregatebody，anddoesnotinany
wayaffectitslegalincidents，itsfacultiesorliabilities。Now
intheideaofaRomanuniversalsuccessionallthesequalities
ofacorporationseemtohavebeentransferredtotheindividual
citizen。Hisphysicaldeathisallowedtoexercisenoeffecton
thelegalpositionwhichhefilled，apparentlyontheprinciple
thatthatpositionistobeadjustedascloselyaspossibleto
theanalogiesofafamily，which，initscorporatecharacter，was
notofcourseliabletophysicalextinction。
Iobservethatnotafewcontinentaljuristshavemuch
difficultyincomprehendingthenatureoftheconnectionbetween
theconceptionsblendedinauniversalsuccession，andthereis
perhapsnotopicinthephilosophyofjurisprudenceonwhich
theirspeculations，asageneralrule，possesssolittlevalue。
ButthestudentofEnglishlawoughttobeinnodangerof
stumblingattheanalysisoftheideawhichweareexamining。
Muchlightiscastuponitbyafictioninourownsystemwith
whichalllawyersarefamiliar。Englishlawyersclassify
corporationsasCorporationsaggregateandCorporationssole。A
CorporationaggregateisatrueCorporation，butaCorporation
soleisanindividual，beingamemberofaseriesofindividuals，
whoisinvestedbyafictionwiththequalitiesofaCorporation。
IneedhardlycitetheKingortheParsonofaParishas
instancesofCorporationssole。Thecapacityorofficeishere
consideredapartfromtheparticularpersonwhofromtimetotime
mayoccupyit，and，thiscapacitybeingperpetual，theseriesof
individualswhofillitareclothedwiththeleadingattributeof
Corporations-Perpetuity。NowintheoldertheoryofRomanLawthe
individualboretothefamilypreciselythesamerelationwhich
intherationaleofEnglishjurisprudenceaCorporationsole
bearstoaCorporationaggregate。Thederivationandassociation
ofideasareexactlythesame。Infact，ifwesaytoourselves
thatforpurposesofRomanTestamentaryJurisprudenceeach
individualcitizenwasaCorporationsole，weshallnotonly
realisethefullconceptionofaninheritance，buthave
constantlyatcommandthecluetotheassumptioninwhichit
originated。ItisanaxiomwithusthattheKingneverdies，
beingaCorporationsole。Hiscapacitiesareinstantlyfilledby
hissuccessor，andthecontinuityofdominionisnotdeemedto
havebeeninterrupted。WiththeRomansitseemedanequally
simpleandnaturalprocess，toeliminatethefactofdeathfrom
thedevolutionofrightsandobligations。Thetestatorlivedon
inhisheirorinthegroupofhisco-heir。Hewasinlawthe
samepersonwiththem，andifanyoneinhistestamentary
dispositionshadevenconstructivelyviolatedtheprinciplewhich
unitedhisactualandhisposthumousexistence，thelawrejected
thedefectiveinstrument，andgavetheinheritancetothekindred
inblood，whosecapacitytofulfiltheconditionsofheirshipwas
conferredonthembythelawitself，andnotbyanydocument
whichbypossibilitymightbeerroneouslyframed。
WhenaRomancitizendiedintestateorleavingnovalidWill，
hisdescendantsorkindredbecamehisheirsaccordingtoascale
whichwillbepresentlydescribed。Thepersonorclassofpersons
whosucceededdidnotsimplyrepresentthedeceased，but，in
conformitywiththetheoryjustdelineated，theycontinuedhis
civillife，hislegalexistence。Thesameresultsfollowedwhen
theorderofsuccessionwasdeterminedbyaWill，butthetheory
oftheidentitybetweenthedeadmanandhisheirswascertainly
mucholderthananyformofTestamentorphaseofTestamentary
jurisprudence。Thisindeedisthepropermomentforsuggestinga
doubtwhichwillpressonuswithgreaterforcethefurtherwe
plumbthedepthsofthissubject，——whetherwillswouldever
havecomeintobeingatallifithadnotbeenforthese
remarkableideasconnectedwithuniversalsuccession。
Testamentarylawistheapplicationofaprinciplewhichmaybe
explainedonavarietyofphilosophicalhypothesesasplausible
astheyaregratuitous:itisinterwovenwitheverypartof
modernsociety，anditisdefensibleonthebroadestgroundsof
generalexpediency。Butthewarningcanneverbetoooften
repeated，thatthegrandsourceofmistakeinquestionsof
jurisprudenceistheimpressionthatthosereasonswhichactuate
usatthepresentmoment，inthemaintenanceofanexisting
institution，havenecessarilyanythingincommonwiththe
sentimentinwhichtheinstitutionoriginated。Itiscertain
that，intheoldRomanLawofInheritance，thenotionofawill
ortestamentisinextricablymixedup，Imightalmostsay
confounded，withthetheoryofaman’sposthumousexistencein
thepersonofhisheir。
Theconceptionofauniversalsuccession，firmlyasithas
takenrootinjurisprudence，hasnotoccurredspontaneouslyto
theframersofeverybodyoflaws。Whereveritisnowfound，it
maybeshowntohavedescendedfromRomanlaw；andwithithave
comedownahostoflegalrulesonthesubjectofTestaments
and。Testamentarygifts，whichmodernpractitionersapplywithout
discerningtheirrelationtotheparenttheory。But，inthepure
Romanjurisprudence，theprinciplethatamanlivesoninhis
Heir——theelimination，ifwemaysospeak，ofthefactofdeath——
istooobviouslyformistakethecentreroundwhichthewhole
LawofTestamentaryandIntestatesuccessioniscircling。The
unflinchingsternnessoftheRomanlawinenforcingcompliance
withthegoverningtheorywouldinitselfsuggestthatthetheory
grewoutofsomethingintheprimitiveconstitutionofRoman
society；butwemaypushtheproofagoodwaybeyondthe
presumption。Ithappensthatseveraltechnicalexpressions，
datingfromtheearliestinstitutionofWillsatRome，havebeen
accidentallypreservedtous。WehaveinGaiustheformulaof
investiturebywhichtheuniversalsuccessorwascreated。Wehave
theancientnamebywhichthepersonafterwardscalledHeirwas
atfirstdesignated。Wehavefurtherthetextofthecelebrated
clauseintheTwelveTablesbywhichtheTestamentarypowerwas
expresslyrecognised，andtheclausesregulatingIntestate
Successionhavealsobeenpreserved。Allthesearchaicphrases
haveonesalientpeculiarity。Theyindicatethatwhatpassedfrom
theTestatortotheHeirwastheFamily，thatis，theaggregate
ofrightsanddutiescontainedinthePatriaPotestasandgrowing
outofit。Thematerialpropertyisinthreeinstancesnot
mentionedatall；intwoothers，itisvisiblynamedasan
adjunctorappendageoftheFamily。TheoriginalWillor
Testamentwasthereforeaninstrument，or(foritwasprobably
notatfirstinwriting)aproceeding，bywhichthedevolutionof
theFamilywasregulated。Itwasamodeofdeclaringwhowasto
havethechieftainship，insuccessiontotheTestator。WhenWills
areunderstoodtohavethisfortheiroriginalobject，weseeat
oncehowitisthattheycametobeconnectedwithoneofthe
mostcuriousrelicsofancientreligionandlaw，thesacra，or
FamilyRites。ThesesacraweretheRomanformofaninstitution
whichshowsitselfwhereversocietyhasnotwhollyshakenitself
freefromitsprimitiveclothing。Theyarethesacrificesand
ceremoniesbywhichthebrotherhoodofthefamilyis
commemorated，thepledgeandthewitnessofitsperpetuity。
Whateverbetheirnature，——whetheritbetrueornotthatin
allcasestheyaretheworshipofsomemythicalancestor，——they
areeverywhereemployedtoattestthesacrednessofthe
family-relation；andthereforetheyacquireprominent
significanceandimportance，wheneverthecontinuousexistenceof
theFamilyisendangeredbyachangeinthepersonofitschief。
Accordinglywehearmostabouttheminconnectionwithdemisesof
domesticsovereignty。AmongtheHindoos，therighttoinherita
deadman’spropertyisexactlyco-extensivewiththedutyof
performinghisobsequies。Iftheritesarenotproperlyperformed
ornotperformedbytheproperperson，norelationisconsidered
asestablishedbetweenthedeceasedandanybodysurvivinghim；
theLawofSuccessiondoesnotapply，andnobodycaninheritthe
property。EverygreateventinthelifeofaHindooseemstobe
regardedasleadinguptoandbearinguponthosesolemnities。If
hemarries，itistohavechildrenwhomaycelebratethemafter
hisdeath；ifhehasnochildren，heliesunderthestrongest
obligationtoadoptthemfromanotherfamily，"withaview，"
writestheHindoodoctor，"tothefuneralcake，thewater，and
thesolemnsacrifice。"ThespherepreservedtotheRomansacrain
thetimeofCicero，wasnotlessinextent。Itembraced
InheritancesandAdoptions。NoAdoptionwasallowedtotakeplace
withoutdueprovisionforthesacraofthefamilyfromwhichthe
adoptivesonwastransferred，andnoTestamentwasallowedto
distributeanInheritancewithoutastrictapportionmentofthe
expensesoftheseceremoniesamongthedifferentco-heirs。The
differencesbetweentheRomanlawatthisepoch，whenweobtain
ourlastglimpseofthesacra，andtheexistingHindoosystem，
aremostinstructive。AmongtheHindoos，thereligiouselementin
lawhasacquiredacompletepredominance。Familysacrificeshave
becomethekeystoneofalltheLawofPersonsandmuchoftheLaw
ofThings。Theyhaveevenreceivedamonstrousextension，forit
isaplausibleopinionthattheself-immolationofthewidowat
herhusband’sfuneral，apracticecontinuedtohistoricaltimes
bytheHindoos，andcommemoratedinthetraditionsofseveral
Indo-Europeanraces，wasanadditiongraftedontheprimitive
sacra，undertheinfluenceoftheimpression，whichalways
accompaniestheideaofsacrifice，thathumanbloodisthemost
preciousofalloblations。WiththeRomans，onthecontra，the
legalobligationandthereligiousdutyhaveceasedtobe
blended。Thenecessityofsolemnisingthesacraformsnopartof
thetheoryofcivillawbuttheyareundertheseparate
jurisdictionoftheCollegeofPontiffs。ThelettersofCiceroto
Atticus，whicharefullofallusionstothem，leavenodoubtthat
theyconstitutedanintolerableburdenonInheritances；butthe
pointofdevelopmentatwhichlawbreaksawayfromreligionhas
beenpassed，andwearepreparedfortheirentiredisappearance
fromthelaterjurisprudence。
InHindoolawthereisnosuchthingasatrueWill。The
placefilledbyWillsisoccupiedbyAdoptions。Wecannowsee
therelationoftheTestamentaryPowertotheFacultyof
Adoption，andthereasonwhytheexerciseofeitherofthemcould
callupapeculiarsolicitudefortheperformanceofthesacra。
BothaWillandanAdoptionthreatenadistortionoftheordinary
courseofFamilydescent，buttheyareobviouslycontrivancesfor
preventingthedescentbeingwhollyinterrupted，whenthereisno
successionofkindredtocarryiton。Ofthetwoexpedients
Adoption，thefactitiouscreationofblood-relationship，isthe
onlyonewhichhassuggesteditselftothegreaterpartof
archaicsocieties。TheHindooshaveindeedadvancedonepointon
whatwasdoubtlesstheantiquepractice，byallowingthewidowto
adoptwhenthefatherhasneglectedtodoso，andtherearein
thelocalcustomsofBengalsomefainttracesoftheTestamentary
powers。ButtotheRomansbelongspre-eminentlythecreditof
inventingtheWill，theinstitutionwhich，nexttotheContract，
hasexercisedthegreatestinfluenceintransforminghuman
society。Wemustbecarefulnottoattributetoitinits
earliestshapethefunctionswhichhaveattendeditinmore
recenttimes。Itwasatfirst，notamodeofdistributingadead
man’sgoods，butoneamongseveralwaysoftransferringthe
representationofthehouseholdtoanewchief。Thegoodsdescend
nodoubttotheHeir，butthatisonlybecausethegovernmentof
thefamilycarrieswithitinitsdevolutionthepowerof
disposingofthecommonstock。Weareveryfarasyetfromthat
stageinthehistoryofWillsinwhichtheybecomepowerful
instrumentsinmodifyingsocietythroughthestimulustheygive
tothecirculationofpropertyandtheplasticitytheyproducein
proprietaryrights。Nosuchconsequencesastheseappearinfact
tohavebeenassociatedwiththeTestamentarypowerevenbythe
latestRomanlawyer。ItwillbefoundthatWillswerenever
lookeduponintheRomancommunityasacontrivanceforparting
PropertyandtheFamily，orforcreatingavarietyof
miscellaneousinterests，butratherasameansofmakingabetter
provisionforthemembersofahouseholdthancouldbesecured
throughtherulesofIntestatesuccession。Wemaysuspectindeed
thattheassociationsofaRomanwiththepracticeofwillmaking
wereextremelydifferentfromthosefamiliartousnowadays。The
habitofregardingAdoptionandTestationasmodesofcontinuing
theFamilycannotbuthavehadsomethingtodowiththesingular
laxityofRomannotionsastotheinheritanceofsovereigntyIt
isimpossiblenottoseethatthesuccessionoftheearlyRoman
Emperorstoeachotherwasconsideredreasonablyregular，and
that，inspiteofallthathadoccurred，noabsurdityattachedto
thepretensionofsuchPrincesasTheodosiusorJustinianto
stylethemselvesCaesarandAugustus。
Whenthephenomenaofprimitivesocietiesemergeintolight，
itseemsimpossibletodisputeapropositionwhichthejuristsof
theseventeenthcenturyconsidereddoubtful，thatIntestate
InheritanceisamoreancientinstitutionthanTestamentary
Succession。Assoonasthisissettled，aquestionofmuch
interestsuggestsitself，howandunderwhatconditionswerethe
directionsofawillfirstallowedtoregulatethedevolutionof
authorityoverthehousehold，andconsequentlytheposthumous
distributionofproperty。Thedifficultyofdecidingthepoint
arisesfromtherarityofTestamentarypowerinarchaic
communities。Itisdoubtfulwhetheratruepoweroftestationwas
knowntoanyoriginalsocietyexcepttheRoman。Rudimentaryforms
ofitoccurhereandthere，butmostofthemarenotexemptfrom
thesuspicionofaRomanorigin。TheAthenianwillwas，nodoubt，
indigenous，butthen，aswillappearpresently，itwasonlyan
inchoateTestament。AstotheWillswhicharesanctionedbythe
bodiesoflawwhichhavedescendedtousasthecodesofthe
barbarianconquerorsofImperialRome，theyarealmostcertainly
Roman。ThemostpenetratingGermancriticismhasrecentlybeen
directedtotheselegesBarbarorum，thegreatobjectof
investigationbeingtodetachthoseportionsofeachsystemwhich
formedthecustomsofthetribeinitsoriginalhomefromthe
adventitiousingredientswhichwereborrowedfromthelawsofthe
Romans。Inthecourseofthisprocess，oneresulthasinvariably
discloseditself，thattheancientnucleusofthecodecontains
notraceofaWill。Whatevertestamentarylawexists，hasbeen
takenfromRomanjurisprudence。Similarly，therudimentary
Testamentwhich(asIaminformed)theRabbinicalJewishlaw
providesfor，hasbeenattributedtocontactwiththeRomans。The
onlyformoftestament，notbelongingtoaRomanorHellenic
society，whichcanreasonablybesupposedindigenous，isthat
recognisedbytheusagesoftheprovinceofBengal；andthe
testamentofBengalisonlyarudimentaryWill。
Theevidence，however，suchasitis，seemstopointtothe
conclusionthatTestamentsareatfirstonlyallowedtotake
effectonfailureofthepersonsentitledtohavetheinheritance
byrightofbloodgenuineorfictitious。Thus，whenAthenian
citizenswereempoweredforthefirsttimebytheLawsofSolon
toexecuteTestaments，theywereforbiddentodisinherittheir
directmaledescendants。So，too，theWillofBengalisonly
permittedtogovernthesuccessionsofarasitisconsistent
withcertainoverridingclaimsofthefamily。Again，theoriginal
institutionsoftheJewshavingprovidednowhereforthe
privilegesofTestatorship，thelaterRabbinicaljurisprudence，
whichpretendstosupplythecasusomissioftheMosaiclaw，
allowsthePowerofTestationtoattachwhenallthekindred
entitledundertheMosaicsystemtosucceedhavefailedorare
undiscoverable。ThelimitationsbywhichtheancientGermancodes
hedgeinthetestamentaryjurisprudencewhichhasbeen
incorporatedwiththemarealsosignificant，andpointinthe
samedirection。ItisthepeculiarityofmostoftheseGerman
laws，intheonlyshapeinwhichweknowthem，that，besidesthe
allodordomainofeachhousehold，theyrecogniseseveral
subordinatekindsorordersofproperty，eachofwhichprobably
representsaseparatetransfusionofRomanprinciplesintothe
primitivebodyofTeutonicusage。TheprimitiveGermanor
allodialpropertyisstrictlyreservedtothekindred。Notonly
isitincapableofbeingdisposedofbytestamentbutitis
scarcelycapableofbeingalienatedbyconveyanceintervivos。
TheancientGermanlaw，liketheHindoojurisprudence，makesthe
malechildrenco-proprietorwiththeirfather，andtheendowment
ofthefamilycannotbepartedwithexceptbytheconsentofall
itsmembers。Buttheothersortsofproperty，ofmoremodern
originandlowerdignitythantheallodialpossessions，aremuch
moreeasilyalienatedthanthey，andfollowmuchmorelenient
rulesofdevolution。Womenandthedescendantsofwomensucceed
tothem，obviouslyontheprinciplethattheylieoutsidethe
sacredprecinctoftheAgnaticbrotherhood。Nowitisonthese
lastdescriptionsofproperty，andontheseonly，thatthe
TestamentsborrowedfromRomewereatfirstallowedtooperate。
Thesefewindicationsmayservetolendadditional
plausibilitytothatwhichinitselfappearstobethemost
probableexplanationofanascertainedfactintheearlyhistory
ofRomanWills。Wehaveitstatedonabundantauthoritythat
Testaments，duringtheprimitiveperiodoftheRomanState，were
executedintheComitiaCalata，thatis，intheComitiaCuriata，
orParliamentofthePatricianBurghersofRome，whenassembled
forPrivateBusiness。Thismodeofexecutionhasbeenthesource
oftheassertion，handeddownbyonegenerationofciviliansto
another，thateveryWillatoneeraofRomanhistorywasasolemn
legislativeenactment。Butthereisnonecessitywhateverfor
resortingtoanexplanationwhichhasthedefectofattributing
fartoomuchprecisiontotheproceedingsoftheancientassembly
Theproperkeytothestoryconcerningtheexecutionofwillsin
theComitiaCalatamustnodoubtbesoughtintheoldestRoman
Lawofintestatesuccession。ThecanonsofprimitiveRoman
jurisprudenceregulatingtheinheritanceofrelationsfromeach
otherwere，solongastheyremainedunmodifiedbytheEdictal
LawofthePraetor，tothefollowingeffect:——First，thesuior
directdescendantswhohadneverbeenemancipatedsucceeded。On
thefailureofthesui，theNearestAgnatecameintotheirplace，
thatis，thenearestpersonorclassofthekindredwhowasor
mighthavebeenunderthesamePatriaPotestaswiththedeceased。
Thethirdandlastdegreecamenext，inwhichtheinheritance
devolvedonthegentiles，thatisonthecollectivemembersof
thedeadman’sgensorHouse。TheHouse，Ihaveexplained
already，wasafictitiousextensionofthefamily，consistingof
allRomanPatriciancitizenswhoborethesamename，andwho，on
thegroundofbearingthesamename，weresupposedtobe
descendedfromacommonancestor。NowthePatricianAssembly
calledtheComitiaCuriatawasaLegislatureinwhichGentesor
Houseswereexclusivelyrepresented。Itwasarepresentative
assemblyoftheRomanpeople，constitutedontheassumptionthat
theconstituentunitofthestatewastheGens。Thisbeingso，
theinferenceseemsinevitable，thatthecognizanceofWillsby
theComitiawasconnectedwiththerightsoftheGentiles，and
wasintendedtosecurethemintheirprivilegeofultimate
inheritance。Thewholeapparentanomalyisremoved，ifwesuppose
thataTestamentcouldonlybemadewhenthetestatorhadno
gentilesdiscoverable，orwhentheywaivedtheirclaims，andthat
everyTestamentwassubmittedtotheGeneralAssemblyofthe
RomanGentes，inorderthatthoseaggrievedbyitsdispositions
mightputtheirvetouponitiftheypleased，orbyallowingit
topassmightbepresumedtohaverenouncedtheirreversion。It
ispossiblethatontheeveofthepublicationoftheTwelve
Tablesthisvetoingpowermayhavebeengreatlycurtailedoronly
occasionallyandcapriciouslyexercised。Itismucheasier，
however，toindicatethemeaningadoriginofthejurisdiction
confidedtotheComitiaCalata，thantotraceitsgradual
developmentorprogressivedecay。