第5章
TheTestamenttowhichthepedigreeofallmodernWillsmay
betracedisnot，however，theTestamentexecutedintheCalata
Comitia，butanotherTestamentdesiredtocompetewithitand
destinedtosupersedeit。Thehistoricalimportanceofthisearly
RomanWill，andthelightitcastsonmuchofancientthought，
willexcusemefordescribingitatsomelength。
WhentheTestamentarypowerfirstdisclosesitselftousin
legalhistory，therearesignsthat，likealmostallthegreat
Romaninstitutions，itwasthesubjectofcontentionbetweenthe
PatriciansandthePlebeians。Theeffectofthepoliticalmaxim，
PlebsGentemnonhabet，"aPlebeiacannotbeamemberofa
House，"wasentirelytoexcludethePlebeiansfromtheComitia
Curiata。SomecriticshaveaccordinglysupposedthataPlebeian
couldnothavehisWillreadorrecitedtothePatrician
Assembly，andwasthusdeprivedofTestamentaryprivileges
altogether。Othershavebeensatisfiedtopointoutthehardships
ofhavingtosubmitaproposedWilltotheunfriendly
jurisdictionofanassemblyinwhichtheTestatorwasnot
represented。Whateverbethetrueview，aformofTestamentcame
intouse，whichhasallthecharacteristicsofacontrivance
intendedtoevadesomedistastefulobligation。TheWillin
questionwasaconveyanceintervivos，acompleteandirrevocable
alienationoftheTestator’sfamilyandsubstancetotheperson
whomhemeanttobehisheir。ThestrictrulesofRomanlawmust
alwayshavepermittedsuchanalienation，but，whenthe
transactionwasintendedtohaveaposthumouseffect，theremay
havebeendisputeswhetheritwasvalidforTestamentarypurposes
withouttheformalassentofthePatriciaParliament。Ifa
differenceofopinionexistedonthepointbetweenthetwo
classesoftheRomanpopulation，itwasextinguished，withmany
othersourcesofheartburning，bythegreatDecemviral
compromise。ThetextoftheTwelveTablesisstillextantwhich
says，"Paterfamiliasutidepecuniatutelavereisuaelegassit，
itajusesto"——alawwhichcanhardlyhavehadanyotherobject
thanthelegalisationofthePlebeianWill。
Itiswellknowntoscholarsthat，centuriesafterthe
PatricianAssemblyhadceasedtobethelegislatureoftheRoman
State，itstillcontinuedtoholdformalsittingsforthe
convenienceofprivatebusiness。Consequently，ataperiodlong
subsequenttothepublicationoftheDecemviralLaw，thereis
reasontobelievethattheComitiaCalatastillassembledforthe
validationofTestaments。Itsprobablefunctionsmaybebest
indicatedbysayingthatitwasaCourtofRegistration，withthe
understandinghoweverthattheWillsexhibitedwerenotenrolled，
butsimplyrecitedtothemembers，whoweresupposedtotakenote
oftheirtenorandtocommitthemtomemory。Itisverylikely
thatthisformofTestamentwasneverreducedtowritingatall，
butatalleventsiftheWillhadbeenoriginallywritten，the
officeoftheComitiawascertainlyconfinedtohearingitread
aloud，thedocumentbeingretainedafterwardsinthecustodyof
theTestator，ordepositedunderthesafeguardofsomereligious
corporation。Thispublicitymayhavebeenoneoftheincidentsof
theTestamentexecutedintheComitiaCalatawhichbroughtit
intopopulardisfavour。IntheearlyyearsoftheEmpirethe
Comitiastillhelditsmeetings，buttheyseemtohavelapsed
intothemerestform，andfewWills，ornone，wereprobably
presentedattheperiodicalsitting。
ItistheancientPlebeianWill——thealternativeofthe
Testamentjustdescribed——whichinitsremoteeffectshas
deeplymodifiedthecivilisationofthemodernworld。Itacquired
atRomeallthepopularitywhichtheTestamentsubmittedtothe
CalataComitiaappearstohavelost。Thekeytoallits
characteristicsliesinitsdescentfromthemancipium，or
ancientRomanconveyance，aproceedingtowhichwemay
unhesitatinglyassigntheparentageoftwogreatinstitutions
withoutwhichmodernsocietycanscarcelybesupposedcapableof
holdingtogether，theContractandtheWill。Themancipium，oras
thewordwouldexhibititselfinlaterLatinity，theMancipation，
carriesusbackbyitsincidentstotheinfancyofcivilsociety。
Asitsprangfromtimeslonganterior，ifnottotheinvention，
atalleventstothepopularisation，oftheartofwriting，
gestures，symbolicalacts，andsolemnphrasestaketheplaceof
documentaryforms，andalengthyandintricateceremonialis
intendedtocalltheattentionofthepartiestotheimportance
ofthetransaction，andtoimpressitonthememoryofthe
witnesses。Theimperfectiontoooforal，ascomparedwith
written，testimonynecessitatesthemultiplicationofthe
witnessesandassistantsbeyondwhatinlatertimeswouldbe
reasonableorintelligiblelimits。
TheRomanMancipationrequiredthepresencefirstofallof
theparties，thevendorandvendee，orweshouldperhapsrather
say，ifwearetousemodernlegallanguage，thegrantorand
grantee。Therewerealsonolessthanfivewitnesses；andan
anomalouspersonage，theLibripens，whobroughtwithhimapair
ofscalestoweightheuncoinedcoppermoneyofancientRome。The
Testamentweareconsidering——theTestamentperaesetlibram，
"withthecopperandthescales，"asitlongcontinuedtobe
technicallycalled——wasanordinaryMancipationwithnochange
intheformandhardlyanyinwords。TheTestatorwasthe
grantor；thefivewitnessesandthelibripenswerepresent；and
theplaceofgranteewastakenbyapersonknowntechnicallyas
thefamiliaeemptor，thePurchaseroftheFamily。Theordinary
ceremonyofaMancipationwasthenproceededwith。Certainformal
gesturesweremadeandsentencespronounced。TheEmptorfamiliae
simulatedthepaymentofapricebystrikingthescaleswitha
pieceofmoney，andfinallytheTestatorratifiedwhathadbeen
doneinasetformofwordscalledthe"Nuncupatio"or
publicationofthetransaction，aphrasewhich，Ineedscarcely
remindthelawyer，hashadalonghistoryinTestamentary
jurisprudence。Itisnecessarytoattendparticularlytothe
characterofthepersoncalledfamiliaeemptor。Thereisnodoubt
thatatfirsthewastheHeirhimself。TheTestatorconveyedto
himoutrighthiswhole"familia，"thatis，alltherightshe
enjoyedoverandthroughthefamily；hisproperty，hisslaves，
andallhisancestralprivileges，together，ontheotherhand，
withallhisdutiesandobligations。
Withthesedatabeforeus，weareabletonoteseveral
remarkablepointsinwhichtheMancipatoryTestament，asitmay
becalled，differedinitsprimitiveformfromamodernwill。As
itamountedtoaconveyanceout-and-outoftheTestator’sestate，
itwasnotrevocable。Therecouldbenonewexerciseofapower
whichhadbeenexhausted。
Again，itwasnotsecret。TheFamiliaEmptor，beinghimself
theHeir，knewexactlywhathisrightswere，andwasawarethat
hewasirreversiblyentitledtotheinheritance；aknowledge
whichtheviolencesinseparablefromthebest-orderedancient
societyrenderedextremelydangerous。Butperhapsthemost
surprisingconsequenceofthisrelationofTestamentsto
Conveyanceswastheimmediatevestingoftheinheritanceinthe
Heir。Thishasseemedsoincredibletonotafewcivilians，that
theyhavespokenoftheTestator’sestateasvesting
conditionallyontheTestator’sdeathorasgrantedtohimfroma
timeuncertain，i。e。thedeathofthegrantor。Butdowntothe
latestperiodofRomanjurisprudencetherewasacertainclassof
transactionswhichneveradmittedofbeingdirectlymodifiedbya
condition，orofbeinglimitedtoorfromapointoftime。In
technicallanguagetheydidnotadmitconditioordies。
Mancipationwasoneofthem，andtherefore，strangeasitmay
seem，weareforcedtoconcludethattheprimitiveRomanWill
tookeffectatonce，eventhoughtheTestatorsurvivedhisactof
Testation。ItisindeedlikelythatRomancitizensoriginally
madetheirWillsonlyinthearticleofdeath，andthata
provisionforthecontinuanceoftheFamilyeffectedbyamanin
thefloweroflifewouldtaketheformratherofanAdoptionthan
ofaWill。Stillwemustbelievethat，iftheTestatordid
recover，hecouldonlycontinuetogovernhishouseholdbythe
sufferanceofhisHeir。
TwoorthreeremarksshouldbemadebeforeIexplainhow
theseinconvenienceswereremedied，andhowTestamentscametobe
investedwiththecharacteristicsnowuniversallyassociatedwith
them。TheTestamentwasnotnecessarilywritten:atfirst，it
seemstohavebeeninvariablyoral，and，eveninlatertimes，the
instrumentdeclaratoryofthebequestswasonlyincidentally
connectedwiththeWillandformednoessentialpartofit。It
boreinfactexactlythesamerelationtotheTestament，which
thedeedleadingtheusesboretotheFinesandRecoveriesofold
Englishlaw，orwhichthecharteroffeoffmentboretothe
feoffmentitself。Previously，indeed，totheTwelveTables，no
writingwouldhavebeenoftheslightestuse，fortheTestator
hadnopowerofgivinglegacies，andtheonlypersonswhocould
beadvantagedbyawillweretheHeirorCo-heirs。Butthe
extremegeneralityoftheclauseintheTwelveTablessoon
producedthedoctrinethattheHeirmusttaketheinheritance
burdenedbyanydirectionswhichtheTestatormightgivehim，or
inotherwords，takeitsubjecttolegacies。Writtentestamentary
instrumentsassumedthereuponanewvalue，asasecurityagainst
thefraudulentrefusaloftheheirtosatisfythelegatees；but
tothelastitwasattheTestator’spleasuretorelyexclusively
onthetestimonyofthewitnesses，andtodeclarebywordof
mouththelegacieswhichthefamiliaeemptorwascommissionedto
pay。
ThetermsoftheexpressionEmptorfamiliaedemandnotice。
"Emptor"indicatesthattheWillwasliterallyasale，andthe
word"familiae，"whencomparedwiththephraseologyinthe
TestamentaryclauseintheTwelveTables，leadsustosome
instructiveconclusions。"Familia，"inclassicalLatinity，means
alwaysaman’sslaves。Here，however，andgenerallyinthe
languageofancientRomanlawitincludesallpersonsunderhis
Potestas，andtheTestator’smaterialpropertyorsubstanceis
understoodtopassasanadjunctorappendageofhishousehold。
TurningtothelawoftheTwelveTables，itwillbeseenthatit
speaksoftutelareisuae，"theguardianshipofhissubstance，"a
formofexpressionwhichistheexactreverseofthephasejust
examined。Theredoesnotthereforeappeartobeanymodeof
escapingfromtheconclusion，that，evenataneraso
comparativelyrecentasthatoftheDecemviralcompromise，terms
denoting"household"and"property"wereblendedinthecurrent
phraseology。Ifaman’shouseholdhadbeenspokenofashis
propertywemighthaveexplainedtheexpressionaspointingto
theextentofthePatriaPotestas，but，astheinterchangeis
reciprocal，wemustallowthattheformofspeechcariesusback
tothatprimevalperiodinwhichpropertyisownedbythefamily，
andthefamilyisgovernedbythecitizen，sothatthememberof
thecommunitydonotowntheirpropertyandtheirfamily，but
ratherowntheirpropertythroughtheirfamily。
Atanepochnoteasytosettlewithprecision，theRoman
PraetorsfellintothehabitofactinguponTestamentssolemnised
incloserconformitywiththespiritthantheletterofthelaw。
Casualdispensationsbecameinsensiblytheestablishedpractice，
tillatlengthawhollynewformofWillwasmaturedand
regularlyengraftedontheEdictalJurisprudence。Thenewor
PraetorianTestamentderivedthewholeofitsimpregnabilityfrom
theJusHonorariumorEquityofRome。ThePraetorofsome
particularyearmusthaveinsertedaclauseinhisinaugural
Proclamationdeclaratoryofhisintentiontosustainall
Testamentswhichshouldhavebeenexecutedwithsuchandsuch
solemnities；and，thereformhavingbeenfoundadvantageous，the
articlerelatingtoitmusthavebeenagainintroducedbythe
Praetor’ssuccessor，andrepeatedbythenextinoffice，tillat
lengthitformedarecognisedportionofthatbodyof
jurisprudencewhichfromthesesuccessiveincorporationswas
styledthePerpetualorContinuousEdict。Onexaminingthe
conditionsofavalidPraetorianWilltheywillbeplainlyseen
tohavebeendeterminedbytherequirementsoftheMancipatory
Testament，theinnovatingPraetorhavingobviouslyprescribedto
himselftheretentionoftheoldformalitiesjustsofarasthey
werewarrantsofgenuinenessorsecuritiesagainstfraud。Atthe
executionoftheMancipatoryTestamentsevenpersonshadbeen
presentbesidestheTestator。Sevenwitnesseswereaccordingly
essentialtothePraetorianWill:twoofthemcorrespondingto
thelibripensandfamiliaeemptor，whowerenowstrippedoftheir
symbolicalcharacter，andweremerelypresentforthepurposeof
supplyingtheirtestimony。Noemblematicceremonywasgone
through；theWillwasmerelyrecited；butthenitisprobable
(thoughnotabsolutelycertain)thatawritteninstrumentwas
necessarytoperpetuatetheevidenceoftheTestator’s
dispositions。Atallevents，wheneverawritingwasreador
exhibitedasaperson’slastWill，weknowcertainlythatthe
PraetorianCourtwouldnotSustainitbyspecialintervention，
unlesseachofthesevenwitnesseshadseverallyaffixedhisseal
totheoutside。Thisisthefirstappearanceofsealinginthe
historyofjurisprudence，consideredasamodeofauthentication。
ItistobeobservedthatthesealsofRomanWills，andother
documentsofimportance，didnotsimplyserveastheindexofthe
presenceorassentofthesignatory，butwereliterally
fasteningswhichhadtobebrokenbeforethewritingcouldbe
inspected。
TheEdictalLawwouldthereforeenforcethedispositionsofa
Testator，when，insteadofbeingsymbolisedthroughtheformsof
mancipation，theyweresimplyevidencedbythesealsofseven
witnesses。Butitmaybelaiddownasageneralproposition，that
theprincipalqualitiesofRomanpropertywereincommunicable
exceptthroughprocesseswhichweresupposedtobecoevalwith
theoriginoftheCivilLaw。ThePraetorthereforecouldnot
conferanInheritanceonanybody。HecouldnotplacetheHeiror
Co-heirsinthatveryrelationinwhichtheTestatorhadhimself
stoodtohisownrightsandobligations。Allhecoulddowasto
conferonthepersondesignatedasHeirthepracticalenjoyment
ofthepropertybequeathed，andtogivetheforceoflegal
acquittancestohispaymentsoftheTestator’sdebts。Whenhe
exertedhispowerstotheseends，thePraetorwastechnically
saidtocommunicatetheBonorumPossessio。TheHeirspecially
inductedunderthesecircumstances，orBonorumPossessorhad
everyproprietaryprivilegeoftheHeirbytheCivilLaw。Hetook
theprofitsandhecouldalienate，butthen，forallhisremedies
forredressagainstwrong，hemustgo，asweshouldphraseit，
nottotheCommonLaw，buttotheEquitysideofthePraetorian
Court。Nogreatchanceoferrorwouldbeincurredbydescribing
himashavinganequitableestateintheinheritance；butthen，
tosecureourselvesagainstbeingdeludedbytheanalogy，wemust
alwaysrecollectthatinoneyeartheBonorumPossessiowas
operateduponaprincipleofRomanLawknownasUsucapion，and
thePossessorbecameQuiritarianownerofalltheproperty
comprisedintheinheritance。
WeknowtoolittleoftheolderlawofCivilProcesstobe
abletostrikethebalanceofadvantageanddisadvantagebetween
thedifferentclassesofremediessuppliedbythePraetorian
Tribunal。Itiscertain，however，that，inspiteofitsmany
defects，theMancipatoryTestamentbywhichtheuniversitasjuris
devolvedatonceandunimpairedwasneverentirelysupersededby
thenewWill；andataperiodlessbigotedtoantiquarianforms，
andperhapsnotquitealivetotheirsignificance，allthe
ingenuityoftheJurisconsultsseemstohavebeenexpendedonthe
improvementofthemorevenerableinstrument。Attheeraof
Gaius，whichisthatoftheAntonineCaesars，thegreatblemishes
oftheMancipatoryWillhadbeenremoved。Originally，aswehave
seen，theessentialcharacteroftheformalitieshadrequired
thattheHeirhimselfshouldbethepurchaseroftheFamily，and
theconsequencewasthathenotonlyinstantlyacquiredavested
interestintheTestator’sProperty，butwasformallymadeaware
ofhisrights。ButtheageofGaiuspermittedsomeunconcerned
persontoofficiateasPurchaseroftheFamily。Theheir，
therefore，wasnotnecessarilyinformedofthesuccessionto
whichhewasdestined；andWillsthenceforwardacquiredthe
propertyofsecrecy。Thesubstitutionofastrangerforthe
actualHeirinthefunctionsof"FamiliaeEmptor"hadother
ulteriorconsequences。Assoonasitwaslegalised，aRoman
Testamentcametoconsistoftwopartsorstages——aconveyance，
whichwasapureform，andaNuncupatio，orPublication。Inthis
latterpassageoftheproceeding，theTestatoreitherorally
declaredtotheassistantsthewisheswhichweretobeexecuted
afterhisdeath，orproducedawrittendocumentinwhichhis
wisheswereembodied。Itwasnotprobablytillattentionhadbeen
quitedrawnofffromtheimaginaryConveyance，andconcentrated
ontheNuncupationastheessentialpartofthetransaction，that
Willswereallowedtobecomerevocable。
IhavethuscarriedthepedigreeofWillssomewaydownin
legalhistory。TherootofitistheoldTestament"withthe
copperandthescales，"foundedonaMancipationorConveyance。
ThisancientWillhas，however，manifolddefects，whichare
remedied，thoughonlyindirectly，bythePraetorianlawMeantime
theingenuityoftheJurisconsultseffects，intheCommon-Law
WillorMancipatoryTestament，theveryimprovementswhichthe
PraetormayhaveconcurrentlycarriedoutinEquity。Theselast
ameliorationsdepend，however，onmerelegaldexterity，andwe
seeaccordinglythattheTestamentaryLawofthedayofGaiusor
Ulpianisonlytransitional。Whatchangesnextensuedweknow
not；butatlength，justbeforethereconstructionofthe
jurisprudencebyJustinian，wefindthesubjectsoftheEater
RomanEmpireemployingaformofWillofwhichthepedigreeis
traceabletothePraetorianTestamentononeside，andtothe
Testament"withthecopperandthescales"ontheother。Likethe
TestamentofthePraetor，itrequirednoMancipation，andwas
invalidunlesssealedbysevenwitnesses。LiketheMancipatory
Will，itpassedtheInheritanceandnotmerelyaBonorum
Possessio。Several，however，ofitsmostimportantfeatureswere
annexedbypositiveenactments，anditisoutofregardtothis
threefoldderivationfromthePraetorianEdict，fromtheCivil
Law，andfromtheImperialConstitutions，thatJustinianspeaks
oftheLawofWillsinhisowndayasJusTripertitum。Thenew
TestamentthusdescribedistheonegenerallyknownastheRoman
Will。ButitwastheWilloftheEasternEmpireonlyandthe
researchesofSavignyhaveshownthatinWesternEuropetheold
MancipatoryTestament，withallitsapparatusofconveyance，
copper，andscales，continuedtobetheforminusefardownin
theMiddleAges。
AncientLaw
byHenryMaineChapter7AncientandModernIdeasRespectingWillsandSuccessions
AlthoughthereismuchinthemodernEuropeanLawofWills
whichisintimatelyconnectedwiththeoldestrulesof
Testamentarydispositionpractisedamongmen，thereare
neverthelesssomeimportantdifferencesbetweenancientand
modernideasonthesubjectofWillsandSuccessions。Someofthe
pointsofdifferenceIshallendeavourtoillustrateinthis
chapter。
Ataperiod，removedseveralcenturiesfromtheeraofthe
TwelveTables，wefindavarietyofrulesengraftedontheRoman
CivilLawwiththeviewoflimitingthedisinherisonofchildren；
wehavethejurisdictionofthePraetorveryactivelyexertedin
thesameinterest；andwearealsopresentedwithanewremedy
veryanomalousincharacterandofuncertainorigin，calledthe
QuerelaInofficiosiTestamenti，"thePlaintofanUnduteous
Will，"directedtothereinstatementoftheissueininheritances
fromwhichtheyhadbeenunjustifiablyexcludedbyafather’s
Testament。Comparingthisconditionofthelawwiththetextof
theTwelveTableswhichconcedesintermstheutmostlibertyof
Testation，severalwritershavebeentemptedtointerweaveagood
dealofdramaticincidentintotheirhistoryoftheLaw
Testamentary。Theytellusoftheboundlesslicenseof
disinherisoninwhichtheheadsoffamiliesinstantlybeganto
indulge，ofthescandalandinjurytopublicmoralswhichthenew
practicesengendered，andoftheapplauseofallgoodmenwhich
hailedthecourageofthePraetorinarrestingtheprogressof
paternaldepravity。Thisstory，whichisnotwithoutsome
foundationfortheprincipalfactitrelates，isoftensotoldas
todiscloseveryseriousmisconceptionsoftheprinciplesof
legalhistory。TheLawoftheTwelveTablesistobeexplainedby
thecharacteroftheageinwhichitwasenacted。Itdoesnot
licenseatendencywhichalatererathoughtitselfboundto
counteract，butitproceedsontheassumptionthatnosuch
tendencyexists，or，perhapsweshouldsay，inignoranceofthe
possibilityofitsexistence。ThereisnolikelihoodthatRoman
citizensbeganimmediatelytoavailthemselvesfreelyofthe
powertodisinherit。Itisagainstallreasonandsound
appreciationofhistorytosupposethattheyokeoffamily
bondage，stillpatientlysubmittedto，asweknow，whereits
pressuregalledmostcruelly，wouldbecastoffinthevery
particularinwhichitsincidenceinourowndayisnototherwise
thanwelcome。TheLawoftheTwelveTablespermittedthe
executionofTestamentsintheonlycaseinwhichitwasthought
possiblethattheycouldbeexecuted，viz。onfailureofchildren
andproximatekindred。Itdidnotforbidthedisinherisonof
directdescendants，inasmuchasitdidnotlegislateagainsta
contingencywhichnoRomanlawgiverofthateracouldhave
contemplated。Nodoubt，astheofficesoffamilyaffection
progressivelylosttheaspectofprimarypersonalduties，the
disinherisonofchildrenwasoccasionallyattempted。Butthe
interferenceofthePraetor，sofarfrombeingcalledforbythe
universalityoftheabuse，wasdoubtlessfirstpromptedbythe
factthatsuchinstancesofunnaturalcapricewerefewand
exceptional，andatconflictwiththecurrentmorality。
TheindicationsfurnishedbythispartofRomanTestamentary
Lawareofaverydifferentkind。ItisremarkablethataWill
neverseemstohavebeenregardedbytheRomansasameansof
disinheritingaFamily，orofeffectingtheunequaldistribution
ofapatrimony。Therulesoflawpreventingitsbeingturnedto
suchapurpose，increaseinnumberandstringencyasthe
jurisprudenceunfoldsitself；andtheserulescorrespond
doubtlesswiththeabidingsentimentofRomansociety，as
distinguishedfromoccasionalvariationsoffeeLingin
individuals。ItwouldratherseemasiftheTestamentaryPower
werechieflyvaLuedfortheassistanceitgaveinmaking
provisionforaFamily，andindividingtheinheritancemore
evenlyandfairlythantheLawofIntestateSuccessionwouldhave
dividedit。Ifthisbethetruereadingofthegeneralsentiment
onthepoint，itexplainstosomeextentthesingularhorrorof
IntestacywhichalwayscharacterisedtheRoman。Noevilseemsto
havebeenconsideredaheaviervisitationthantheforfeitureof
Testamentaryprivileges；nocurseappearstohavebeenbitterer
thanthatwhichimprecatedonanenemythathemightdiewithout
aWill。Thefeelinghasnocounterpart，ornonethatiseasily
recognisable，intheformsofopinionwhichexistatthepresent
day。Allmenatalltimeswilldoubtlesspreferchalkingoutthe
destinationoftheirsubstancetohavingthatofficeperformed
forthembythelaw；buttheRomanpassionforTestacyis
distinguishedfromthemeredesiretoindulgecapricebyits
intensity；andithasofcoursenothingwhateverincommonwith
thatprideoffamily，exclusivelythecreationoffeudalism，
whichaccumulatesonedescriptionofpropertyinthehandsofa
singlerepresentative。Itisprobable，apriori，thatitwas
somethingintherulesofIntestateSuccessionwhichcausedthis
vehementpreferenceforthedistributionofpropertyundera
Testamentoveritsdistributionbylaw。Thedifficulty，however，
is，thatonglancingattheRomanLawofIntestateSuccession，in
theformwhichitworeformanycenturiesbeforeJustinianshaped
itintothatschemeofinheritancewhichhasbeenalmost
universallyadoptedbymodernlawgivers，itbynomeansstrikes
oneasremarkablyunreasonableorinequitable。Onthecontrary，
thedistributionitprescribesissofairandrational，and
differssoLittlefromthatwithwhichmodernsocietyhasbeen
generallycontented，thatnoreasonsuggestsitselfwhyitshould
havebeenregardedwithextraordinarydistaste，especiallyunder
ajurisprudencewhichpareddowntoanarrowcompassthe
testamentaryprivilegesofpersonswhohadchildrentoprovide
for。Weshouldratherhaveexpectedthat，asinFranceatthis
moment，theheadsoffamilieswouldgenerallysavethemselvesthe
troubLeofexecutingaWill，andallowtheLawtodoasit
pleasedwiththeirassets。Ithink，however，ifwelookalittle
closelyatthepre-JustinianeanscaleofIntestateSuccession，we
shalldiscoverthekeytothemystery。Thetextureofthelaw
consistsoftwodistinctparts。Onedepartmentofrulescomes
fromtheJusCivile，theCommon-LawofRome；theotherfromthe
EdictofthePraetor。TheCivilLaw，asIhavealreadystatedfor
anotherpurpose，calLstotheinheritanceonlythreeordersof
successorsintheirturn；theUnemancipatedchildren，thenearest
classofAgnatickindred，andtheGentiles。Betweenthesethree
orders，thePraetorinterpolatesvariousclassesofrelatives，of
whomtheCivilLawtooknonoticewhatever。Ultimately，the
combinationoftheEdictandoftheCivilLawformsatableof
successionnotmateriallydifferentfromthatwhichhasdescended
tothegeneralityofmoderncodes。
Thepointforrecollectionisthattheremustancientlyhave
beenatimeatwhichtherulesoftheCivilLawdeterminedthe
schemeofIntestateSuccessionexclusively，andatwhichthe
arrangementsoftheEdictwerenon-existent，ornotconsistently
carriedout。Wecannotdoubtthat，initsinfancy，thePraetorian
jurisprudencehadtocontendwithformidableobstructions，andit
ismorethanprobablethat，longafterpopularsentimentand
legalopinionhadacquiescedinit，themodificationswhichit
periodicallyintroducedweregovernedbynocertainprinciples，
andfluctuatedwiththevaryingbiasofsuccessivemagistrates。
TherulesofIntestateSuccession，whichtheRomansmustatthis
periodhavepractised，account，Ithink——andmorethanaccount——
forthatvehementdistasteforanIntestacytowhichRoman
societyduringsomanyagesremainedconstant。Theorderof
successionwasthis:onthedeathofacitizen，havingnowill
ornovalidwill，hisUnemancipatedchildrenbecamehisHeirs。
Hisemancipatedsonshadnoshareintheinheritance。Ifheleft
nodirectdescendantslivingathisdeath，thenearestgradeof
theAgnatickindredsucceeded，butnopartoftheinheritancewas
giventoanyrelativeunited(howeverclosely)withthedeadman
throughfemaledescents。Alltheotherbranchesofthefamily
wereexcluded，andtheinheritanceescheatedtotheGentiles，or
entirebodyofRomancitizensbearingthesamenamewiththe
deceased。SothatonfailingtoexecuteanoperativeTestament，a
Romanoftheeraunderexaminationlefthisemancipatedchildren
absolutelywithoutprovision，while，ontheassumptionthathe
diedchildless，therewasimminentriskthathispossessions
wouldescapefromthefamilyaltogether，anddevolveonanumber
ofpersonswithwhomhewasmerelyconnectedbythesacerdotal
fictionthatassumedallmembersofthesamegenstobedescended
fromacommonancestor。Theprospectofsuchanissueisin
itselfanearlysufficientexplanationofthepopularsentiment；
but，inpointoffact，weshallonlyhalfunderstandit，ifwe
forgetthatthestateofthingsIhavebeendescribingislikely
tohaveexistedattheverymomentwhenRomansocietywasinthe
firststageofitstransitionfromitsprimitiveorganisationin
detachedfamilies。Theempireofthefatherhadindeedreceived
oneoftheearliestblowsdirectedatitthroughtherecognition
ofEmancipationasalegitimateusage，butthelaw，still
consideringthePatriaPotestastobetherootoffamily
connection，perseveredinlookingontheemancipatedchildrenas
strangerstotherightsofKinshipandaliensfromtheblood。We
cannot，however，foramomentsupposethatthelimitationsofthe
familyimposedbylegalpedantryhadtheircounterpartinthe
naturalaffectionofparents。Familyattachmentsmuststillhave
retainedthatnearlyinconceivablesanctityandintensitywhich
belongedtothemunderthePatriarchalsystem；and，solittleare
theylikelytohavebeenextinguishedbytheactofemancipation，
thattheprobabilitiesarealtogethertheotherway。Itmaybe
unhesitatinglytakenforgrantedthatenfranchisementfromthe
father’spowerwasademonstration，ratherthanaseverance，of
affection——amarkofgraceandfavouraccordedtothe
best-belovedandmostesteemedofthechildren。Ifsonsthus
honouredabovetherestwereabsolutelydeprivedoftheir
heritagebyanIntestacy，thereluctancetoincuritrequiresno
fartherexplanation。Wemighthaveassumedapriorithatthe
passionforTestacywasgeneratedbysomemoralinjustice
entailedbytherulesofIntestatesuccession；andherewefind
thematvariancewiththeveryinstinctbywhichearlysociety
wascementedtogether。Itispossibletoputallthathasbeen
urgedinaverysuccinctform。Everydominantsentimentofthe
primitiveRomanswasentwinedwiththerelationsofthefamily。
ButwhatwastheFamily？TheLawdefineditoneway——natural
affectionanother。Intheconflictbetweenthetwo，thefeelingwe
wouldanalysegrewup，takingtheformofanenthusiasmforthe
institutionbywhichthedictatesofaffectionwerepermittedto
determinethefortunesofitsobjects。
Iregard，therefore，theRomanhorrorofIntestacyasa
monumentofaveryearlyconflictbetweenancientlawandslowly
changingancientsentimentonthesubjectoftheFamily。Some
passagesintheRomanStatute-Law，andonestatuteinparticular
whichlimitedthecapacityforinheritancepossessedbywomen，
musthavecontributedtokeepalivethefeeling；anditisthe
generalbeliefthatthesystemofcreatingFidei-Commissa，or
bequestsintrust，wasdevisedtoevadethedisabilitiesimposed
bythosestatutes。Butthefeelingitself，initsremarkable
intensity，seemstopointbacktosomedeeperantagonismbetween
lawandopinion；norisitatallwonderfulthattheimprovements
ofjurisprudencebythePraetorshouldnothaveextinguishedit。
Everybodyconversantwiththephilosophyofopinionisawarethat
asentimentbynomeansdiesout，ofnecessity，withthepassing
awayofthecircumstanceswhichproducedit。Itmaylongsurvive
them；nay，itmayafterwardsattaintoapitchandclimaxof
intensitywhichitneverattainedduringtheiractual
continuance。
TheviewofaWillwhichregardsitasconferringthepower
ofdivertingpropertyfromtheFamily，orofdistributingitin
suchunevenproportionsasthefancyorgoodsenseofthe
Testatormaydictate，isnotolderthanthatlaterportionofthe
MiddleAgesinwhichFeudalismhadcompletelyconsolidated
itself。Whenmodernjurisprudencefirstshowsitselfinthe
rough，Willsarerarelyallowedtodisposewithabsolutefreedom
ofadeadman’sassets。Whereveratthisperiodthedescentof
propertywasregulatedbyWill——andoverthegreaterpartof
Europemoveableorpersonalpropertywasthesubjectof
Testamentarydisposition——theexerciseoftheTestamentary
powerwasseldomallowedtointerferewiththerightofthewidow
toadefiniteshare，andofthechildrentocertainfixed
proportions，ofthedevolvinginheritance。Thesharesofthe
children，astheiramountshows，weredeterminedbytheauthority
ofRomanlaw。Theprovisionforthewidowwasattributabletothe
exertionsoftheChurch，whichneverrelaxeditssolicitudefor
theinterestofwivessurvivingtheirhusbands——winning，
perhaps，oneofthemostarduousofitstriumphswhen，after
exactingfortwoorthreecenturiesanexpresspromisefromthe
husbandatmarriagetoendowhiswife，itatlengthsucceededin
engraftingtheprincipleofDowerontheCustomaryLawofall
WesternEurope。Curiouslyenough，thedoweroflandsproveda
morestableinstitutionthantheanalogousandmoreancient
reservationofcertainsharesofthepersonalpropertytothe
widowandchildren。AfewlocalcustomsinFrancemaintainedthe
rightdowntotheRevolution，andtherearetracesofsimilar
usagesinEngland；butonthewholethedoctrineprevailedthat
moveablesmightbefreelydisposedofbyWill，and，evenwhenthe
claimsofthewidowcontinuedtoberespected，theprivilegesof
thechildrenwereobliteratedfromjurisprudence。Weneednot
hesitatetoattributethechangetotheinfluenceof
Primogeniture。AstheFeudallawoflandpracticallydisinherited
allthechildreninfavourofone，theequaldistributionevenof
thosesortsofpropertywhichmighthavebeenequallydivided
ceasedtobeviewedasaduty。Testamentsweretheprincipal
instrumentsemployedinproducinginequality，andinthis
conditionofthingsoriginatedtheshadeofdifferencewhich
showsitselfbetweentheancientandthemodernconceptionofa
Will。But，thoughthelibertyofbequest，enjoyedthrough
Testaments，wasthusanaccidentalfruitofFeudalism，thereis
nobroaderdistinctionthanthatwhichexistsbetweenasystemof
freeTestamentarydispositionandasystem，likethatofthe
Feudalland-law，underwhichpropertydescendscompulsorilyin
prescribedlinesofdevolution。Thistruthappearstohavebeen
lostsightofbytheauthorsoftheFrenchCodes。Inthesocial
fabricwhichtheydeterminedtodestroy，theysawPrimogeniture
restingchieflyonFamilysettlements，buttheyalsoperceived
thatTestamentswerefrequentlyemployedtogivetheeldestson
preciselythesamepreferencewhichwasreservedtohimunderthe
strictestofentails。Inorder，therefore，tomakesureoftheir
work，theynotonlyrendereditimpossibletoprefertheeldest
sontotherestinmarriage-arrangements，buttheyalmost
expelledTestamentarysuccessionfromthelaw，lestitshouldbe
usedtodefeattheirfundamentalprincipleofanequal
distributionofpropertyamongchildrenattheparent’sdeath。
Theresultisthattheyhaveestablishedasystemofsmall
perpetualentails，whichisinfinitelynearerakintothesystem
offeudalEuropethanwouldbeaperfectlibertyofbequest。The
land-lawofEngland，"theHerculaneumofFeudalism，"iscertainly
muchmorecloselyalliedtotheland-lawoftheMiddleAgesthan
thatofanyContinentalcountry，andWillswithusarefrequently
usedtoaidorimitatethatpreferenceoftheeldestsonandhis
linewhichisanearlyuniversalfeatureinmarriagesettlements
ofrealproperty。Butneverthelessfeelingandopinioninthis
countryhavebeenprofoundlyaffectedbythepracticeoffree
Testamentarydisposition；anditappearstomethatthestateof
sentimentinagreatpartofFrenchsociety，onthesubjectof
theconservationofpropertyinfamilies，ismuchlikerthat
whichprevailedthroughEuropetwoorthreecenturiesagothan
arethecurrentopinionsofEnglishmen。
ThementionofPrimogenitureintroducesoneofthemost
difficultproblemsofhistoricaljurisprudence。ThoughIhavenot
pausedtoexplainmyexpressions，itmayhavebeennoticedthatI
havefrequentlyspokenofanumberof"coheirs"asplacedbythe
RomanLawofSuccessiononthesamefootingwithasingleHeir。
Inpointoffact，weknowofnoperiodofRomanjurisprudenceat
whichtheplaceoftheHeir，orUniversalSuccessor，mightnot
havebeentakenbyagroupofco-heirs。Thisgroupsucceededasa
singleunit，andtheassetswereafterwardsdividedamongthemin
aseparatelegalproceeding。WhentheSuccessionwasab
intestato，andthegroupconsistedofthechildrenofthe
deceased，theyeachtookanequalshareoftheproperty；nor，
thoughmaleshadatonetimesomeadvantagesoverfemales，is
therethefaintesttraceofPrimogeniture。Themodeof
distributionisthesamethroughoutarchaicjurisprudence。It
certainlyseemsthat，whencivilsocietybeginsandfamilies
ceasetoholdtogetherthroughaseriesofgenerations，theidea
whichspontaneouslysuggestsitselfistodividethedomain
equallyamongthemembersofeachsuccessivegeneration，andto
reservenoprivilegetotheeldestsonorstock。Somepeculiarly
significanthintsastothecloserelationofthisphenomenonto
primitivethoughtarefurnishedbysystemsyetmorearchaicthan
theRoman。AmongtheHindoos，theinstantasonisborn，he
acquiresavestedrightinhisfather’sproperty，whichcannotbe
soldwithoutrecognitionofhisjointownership。Ontheson’s
attainingfullage，hecansometimescompelapartitionofthe
estateevenagainsttheconsentoftheparent；and，shouldthe
parentacquiesce，onesoncanalwayshaveapartitioneven
againstthewilloftheothers。Onsuchpartitiontakingplace，
thefatherhasnoadvantageoverhischildren，exceptthathehas
twoofthesharesinsteadofone。TheancientlawoftheGerman
tribeswasexceedinglysimilar。Theallodordomainofthefamily
wasthejoint-propertyofthefatherandhissons。Itdoesnot，
however，appeartohavebeenhabituallydividedevenatthedeath
oftheparent，andinthesameWaythepossessionsofaHindoo，
howeverdivisibletheoretically，aresorarelydistributedin
fact，thatmanygenerationsconstantlysucceedeachotherwithout
apartitiontakingplace，andthustheFamilyinIndiahasa
perpetualtendencytoexpandintotheVillageCommunity，under
conditionswhichIshallhereafterattempttoelucidate。Allthis
pointsveryclearlytotheabsolutelyequaldivisionofassets
amongthemalechildrenatdeathasthepracticemostusualwith
societyattheperiodwhenfamily-dependencyisinthefirst
stagesofdisintegration。Herethenemergesthehistorical
difficultyofPrimogeniture。Themoreclearlyweperceivethat，
whentheFeudalinstitutionswereinprocessofformation，there
wasnosourceintheworldwhencetheycouldderivetheir
elementsbuttheRomanlawoftheprovincialsontheonehandand
thearchaiccustomsofthebarbariansontheother，themoreare
weperplexedatfirstsightbyourknowledgethatneitherRoman
norbarbarianwasaccustomedtogiveanypreferencetotheeldest
sonorhislineinthesuccessiontoproperty。
PrimogenituredidnotbelongtotheCustomswhichthe
barbarianspractisedontheirfirstestablishmentwithinthe
RomanEmpire。Itisknowntohavehaditsorigininthebenefices
orbeneficiarygiftsoftheinvadingchieftains。Thesebenefices，
whichwereoccasionallyconferredbytheearlierimmigrantkings，
butweredistributedonagreatscalebyCharlemagne，weregrants
ofRomanprovinciallandtobeholdenbythebeneficiaryon
conditionofmilitaryservice。Theallodialproprietorsdonot
seemtohavefollowedtheirsovereignondistantordifficult
enterprises，andallthegranderexpeditionsoftheFrankish
chiefsandofCharlemagnewereaccomplishedwithforcescomposed
ofsoldierseitherpersonallydependentontheroyalhouseor
compelledtoserveitbythetenureoftheirland。Thebenefices，
howeverwerenotatfirstinanysensehereditary。Theywere
held，atthepleasureofthegrantor，oratmostforthelifeof
thegrantee；butstill，fromtheveryoutset，noeffortseemsto
havebeensparedbythebeneficiariestoenlargethetenure，and
tocontinuetheirlandsintheirfamilyafterdeath。Throughthe
feeblenessofCharlemagne’ssuccessorstheseattemptswere
universallysuccessful，andtheBeneficegraduallytransformed
itselfintothehereditaryFief。But，thoughthefiefswere
hereditary，theydidnotnecessarilydescendtotheeldestson。
Therulesofsuccessionwhichtheyfollowedwereentirely
determinedbythetermsagreeduponbetweenthegrantorandthe
beneficiary，orimposedbyoneofthemontheweaknessofthe
other。Theoriginaltenureswerethereforeextremelyvarious；not
indeedsocapriciouslyvariouSasissometimesasserted，forall
whichhavehithertobeendescribedpresentsomecombinationof
themodesofsuccessionfamiliartoRomansandtobarbarians，but
stillexceedinglymiscellaneous。Insomeofthem，theeldestson
andhisstockundoubtedlysucceededtothefiefbeforethe
others，butsuchsuccessions，sofarfrombeinguniversal，donot
evenappeartohavebeengeneral。Preciselythesamephenomena
recurduringthatmorerecenttransmutationofEuropeansociety
whichentirelysubstitutedthefeudalformofpropertyforthe
domainial(orRoman)andtheallodial(orGerman)。Theallods
werewhollyabsorbedbythefiefs。Thegreaterallodial
proprietorstransformedthemselvesintofeudallordsby
conditionalalienationsofportionsoftheirlandtodependants；
thesmallersoughtanescapefromtheoppressionsofthat
terribletimebysurrenderingtheirpropertytosomepowerful
chieftain，andreceivingitbackathishandsonconditionof
serviceinhiswars。Meantime，thatvastmassofthepopulation
ofWesternEuropewhoseconditionwasservileorsemi-servile——
theRomanandGermanpersonalslaves，theRomancoloniandthe
Germanlidi——wereconcurrentlyabsorbedbythefeudal
organisation，afewofthemassumingamenialrelationtothe
lords，butthegreaterpartreceivinglandontermswhichin
thosecenturieswereconsidereddegrading。Thetenurescreated
duringthiseraofuniversalinfeudationwereasvariousasthe
conditionswhichthetenantsmadewiththeirnewchiefsorwere
forcedtoacceptfromthem。Asinthecaseofthebenefices，the
successiontosome，butbynomeanstoall，oftheestates
followedtheruleofPrimogeniture。Nosooner，however，hasthe
feudalsystemprevailedthroughouttheWest，thanitbecomes
evidentthatPrimogeniturehassomegreatadvantageoverevery
othermodeofsuccession。ItspreadoverEuropewithremarkable
rapidity，theprincipalinstrumentofdiffusionbeingFamily
Settlements，thePactesdeFamilleofFranceandHaus-Gesetzeof
Germany，whichuniversallystipulatedthatlandsheldbyknightly
serviceshoulddescendtotheeldestson。Ultimatelythelaw
resigneditselftofollowinveteratepractice，andwefindthat
inallthebodiesofCustomaryLaw，whichweregraduallybuilt
up，theeldestsonandstockarepreferredinthesuccessionto
estatesofwhichthetenureisfreeandmilitary。Astolands
heldbyserviletenures(andoriginallyalltenureswereservile
whichboundthetenanttopaymoneyorbestowmanuallabour)，the
systemofsuccessionprescribedbycustomdifferedgreatlyin
differentcountriesanddifferentprovinces。Themoregeneral
rulewasthatsuchlandsweredividedequallyatdeathamongall
thechildren，butstillinsomeinstancestheeldestsonwas
preferred，insometheyoungest。ButPrimogenitureusually
governedtheinheritanceofthatclassofestates，insome
respectsthemostimportantofall，whichwereheldbytenures
that，liketheEnglishSocage，wereoflateroriginthanthe
rest，andwereneitheraltogetherfreenoraltogetherservile。
ThediffusionofPrimogenitureisusuallyaccountedforby
assigningwhatarecalledFeudalreasonsforit。Itisasserted
thatthefeudalsuperiorhadabettersecurityforthemilitary
serviceherequiredwhenthefiefdescendedtoasingleperson，
insteadofbeingdistributedamonganumberonthedeceaseofthe
lastholder。Withoutdenyingthatthisconsiderationmay
partiallyexplainthefavourgraduallyacquiredbyPrimogeniture，
ImustpointoutthatPrimogeniturebecameacustomofEurope
muchmorethroughitspopularitywiththetenantsthanthrough
anyadvantageitconferredonthelords。Foritsorigin，
moreover，thereasongivendoesnotaccountatall。Nothingin
lawspringsentirelyfromasenseofconvenience。Thereare
alwayscertainideasexistingantecedentlyonwhichthesenseof
convenienceworks，andofwhichitcandonomorethanformsome
newcombination；andtofindtheseideasinthepresentcaseis
exactlytheproblem。
Avaluablehintisfurnishedtousfromaquarterfruitfulof
suchindications。AlthoughinIndiathepossessionsofaparent
aredivisibleathisdeath，andmaybedivisibleduringhislife，
amongallhismalechildreninequalshares，andthoughthis
principleoftheequaldistributionofpropertyextendstoevery
partoftheHindooinstitutions，yetwhereverpublicofficeor
politicalpowerdevolvesatthedeceaseofthelastIncumbent，
thesuccessionisnearlyuniversallyaccordingtotherulesof
Primogeniture。Sovereigntiesdescendthereforetotheeldestson，
andwheretheaffairsoftheVillageCommunity，thecorporate
unitofHindoosociety，areconfidedtoasinglemanager，itis
generallytheeldestsonwhotakesuptheadministrationathis
parent’sdeath。Alloffices，indeed，inIndia，tendtobecome
hereditary，and，whentheirnaturepermitsit，tovestinthe
eldestmemberoftheoldeststock。ComparingtheseIndian
successionswithsomeoftherudersocialorganisationswhich
havesurvivedinEuropealmosttoourownday，theconclusion
suggestsitselfthat，whenPatriarchalpowerisnotonlydomestic
butpolitical，itisnotdistributedamongalltheissueatthe
parent’sdeath，butisthebirthrightoftheeldestson。The
chieftainshipofaHighlandclan，forexample，followedtheorder
ofPrimogeniture。Thereseems，intruth，tobeaformof
family-dependencystillmorearchaicthananyofthosewhichwe
knowfromtheprimitiverecordsoforganisedcivilsocieties。The
AgnaticUnionofthekindredinancientRomanlaw，anda
multitudeofsimilarindications，pointtoaperiodatwhichall
theramifyingbranchesofthefamilytreeheldtogetherinone
organicwhole；anditisnopresumptuousconjecture，that，when
thecorporationthusformedbythekindredwasinitselfan
independentsocietyitwasgovernedbytheeldestmaleofthe
oldestline。Itistruethatwehavenoactualknowledgeofany
suchsociety。Eveninthemostelementarycommunities，
family-organisations，asweknowthem，areatmostimperiain
imperio。Butthepositionofsomeofthem，oftheCelticclansin
particular，wassufficientlynearindependencewithinhistorical
timestoforceonustheconvictionthattheywereonceseparate
imperia，andthatPrimogenitureregulatedthesuccessiontothe
chieftainship。Itis，however，necessarytobeonourguard
againstmodernassociationswiththetermoflaw。Wearespeaking
ofafamily-connectionstillcloserandmorestringentthanany
withwhichwearemadeacquaintedbyHindoosocietyorancient
Romanlaw。IftheRomanPaterfamiliaswasvisiblystewardofthe
familypossessions，iftheHindoofatherisonlyjoint-sharer
withhissons，stillmoreemphaticallymustthetruepatriarchal
chieftainbemerelytheadministratorofacommonfund。
TheexamplesofsuccessionbyPrimogeniturewhichwerefound
amongtheBeneficesmay，therefore，havebeenimitatedfroma
systemoffamily-governmentknowntotheinvadingraces，though
notingeneraluse。Somerudertribesmayhavestillpractised
it，or，whatisstillmoreprobable，societymayhavebeenso
slightlyremovedfromitsmorearchaicconditionthattheminds
ofsomemenspontaneouslyrecurredtoit，whentheywerecalled
upontosettletherulesofinheritanceforanewformof
property，Butthereisstillthequestion，WhydidPrimogeniture
graduallysupersedeeveryotherprincipleofsuccession？The
answer，Ithink，is，thatEuropeansocietydecidedlyretrograded
duringthedissolutionoftheCarlovingianempire。Itsanka
pointortwobackevenfromthemiserablylowdegreewhichithad
markedduringtheearlybarbarianmonarchies。Thegreat
characteristicoftheperiodwasthefeebleness，orratherthe
abeyance，ofkinglyandthereforeofcivilauthority，。andhence
itseemsasif，civilsocietynolongercohering，menuniversally
flungthemselvesbackonasocialorganisationolderthanthe
beginningsofcivilcommunities。Thelordwithhisvassals，
duringtheninthandtenthcenturies，maybeconsideredasa
patriarchalhousehold，recruited，notasintheprimitivetimes
byAdoption，butbyInfeudation；andtosuchaconfederacy，
successionbyPrimogeniturewasasourceofstrengthand
durability。Solongasthelandwaskepttogetheronwhichthe
entireorganisationrested，itwaspowerfulfordefenceand
attack；todividethelandwastodividethelittlesociety，and
voluntarilytoinviteaggressioninaneraofuniversalviolence。
Wemaybeperfectlycertainthatintothispreferencefor
Primogeniturethereenterednoideaofdisinheritingthebulkof
thechildreninfavourofone。Everybodywouldhavesufferedby
thedivisionofthefief。Everybodywasagainerbyits
consolidation。TheFamilygrewstrongerbytheconcentrationof
powerinthesamehands；norisitlikelythatthelordwhowas
investedwiththeinheritancehadanyadvantageoverhisbrethren
andkinsfolkinoccupations，interests，orindulgences。Itwould
beasingularanachronismtoestimatetheprivilegessucceededto
bytheheirofafief，bythesituationinwhichtheeldestson
isplacedunderanEnglishstrictsettlement。
IhavesaidthatIregardtheearlyfeudalconfederaciesas
descendedfromanarchaicformoftheFamily，andaswearinga
strongresemblancetoit。Butthenintheancientworld，andin
thesocietieswhichhavenotpassedthroughthecrucibleof
feudalism，thePrimogeniturewhichseemstohaveprevailednever
transformeditselfintothePrimogenitureofthelaterfeudal
Europe。Whenthegroupofkinsmenceasedtobegovernedthrougha
seriesofgenerationsbyahereditarychief，thedomainwhichhad
beenmanagedforallappearstohavebeenequallydividedamong
all。Whydidthisnotoccurinthefeudalworld？Ifduringthe
confusionsofthefirstfeudalperiodtheeldestsonheldthe
landforthebehoofofthewholefamily，whywasitthatwhen
feudalEuropehadconsolidateditself，andregularcommunities
wereagainestablished，thewholefamilydidnotresumethat
capacityforequalinheritancewhichhadbelongedtoRomanand
Germanalike？Thekeywhichunlocksthisdifficultyhasrarely
beenseizedbythewriterswhooccupythemselvesintracingthe
genealogyofFeudalism。Theyperceivethematerialsofthefeudal
institutions，buttheymissthecement。Theideasandsocial
formswhichcontributedtotheformationofthesystemwere
unquestionablybarbarianandarchaic，but，assoonasCourtsand
lawyerswerecalledintointerpretanddefineit，theprinciples
ofinterpretationwhichtheyappliedtoitwerethoseofthe
latestRomanjurisprudence，andwerethereforeexcessively
refinedandmatured。Inapatriarchallygovernedsociety，the
eldestsonmaysucceedtothegovernmentoftheAgnaticgroup，
andtotheabsolutedisposalofitsproperty。Butheisnot
thereforeatrueproprietor。Hehascorrelativedutiesnot
involvedintheconceptionofproprietorship，butquiteundefined
andquiteincapableofdefinition。ThelaterRomanjurisprudence，
however，likeourownlaw，lookeduponuncontrolledpowerover
propertyasequivalenttoownership，anddidnot，and，infact，
couldnot，takenoticeofliabilitiesofsuchakind，thatthe
veryconceptionofthembelongedtoaperiodanteriortoregular
law。Thecontactoftherefinedandthebarbarousnotionhad
inevitablyforitseffecttheconversionoftheeldestsoninto
legalproprietoroftheinheritance。Theclericalandsecular
lawyerssodefinedhispositionfromthefirst；butitwasonly
byinsensibledegreesthattheyoungerbrother，from
participatingonequaltermsinallthedangersandenjoymentsof
hiskinsman，sankintothepriest，thesoldieroffortune，orthe
hanger-onofthemansion。Thelegalrevolutionwasidenticalwith
thatwhichoccurredonasmallerscale，andinquiterecent
times，throughthegreaterpartoftheHighlandsofScotland。
Whencalledintodeterminethelegalpowersofthechieftain
overthedomainswhichgavesustenancetotheclan，Scottish
jurisprudencehadlongsincepassedthepointatwhichitcould
takenoticeofthevaguelimitationsoncompletenessofdominion
imposedbytheclaimsoftheclansmen，anditwasinevitable
thereforethatitshouldconvertthepatrimonyofmanyintothe
estateofone。
ForthesakeofsimplicityIhavecalledthemodeof
successionPrimogeniturewheneverasinglesonordescendant
succeedstotheauthorityoverahouseholdorsociety。Itis
remarkable，however，thatinthefewveryancientexampleswhich
remaintousofthissortofsuccession，itisnotalwaysthe
eldestson，inthesensefamiliartous，whotakesupthe
representation，TheformofPrimogeniturewhichhasspreadover
WesternEuropehasalsobeenperpetuatedamongtheHindoos，and
thereiseveryreasontobelievethatitisthenormalform。
Underit，notonlytheeldestSon，buttheeldestlineisalways
preferred。Iftheeldestsonfails，hiseldestsonhasprecedence
notonlyoverbrothersbutoveruncles；and，ifhetoofails，the
sameruleisfollowedinthenextgeneration。Butwhenthe
successionisnotmerelytocivilbuttopoliticalpower，a
difficultymaypresentitselfwhichwillappearofgreater
magnitudeaccordingasthecohesionofsocietyislessperfect。
Thechieftainwholastexercisedauthoritymayhaveoutlivedhis
eldestson，andthegrandsonwhoisprimarilyentitledtosucceed
maybetooyoungandimmaturetoundertaketheactualguidanceof
thecommunity，andtheadministrationofitsaffairs。Insuchan
event，theexpedientwhichsuggestsitselftothemoresettled
societiesistoplacetheinfantheirunderguardianshiptillhe
reachestheageoffitnessforgovernment。Theguardianshipis
generallythatofthemaleAgnates；butitisremarkablethatthe
contingencysupposedisoneoftherarecasesinwhichancient
societieshaveconsentedtotheexerciseofpowerbywomen，
doubtlessoutofrespecttotheovershadowingclaimsofthe
mother。InIndia，thewidowofaHindoosovereigngovernsinthe
nameofherinfantson，andwecannotbutrememberthatthe
customregulatingsuccessiontothethroneofFrance——which，
whateverbeitsorigin，isdoubtlessofthehighestantiquity——
preferredthequeen-mothertoallotherclaimantsforthe
Regency，atthesametimethatitrigorouslyexcludedallfemales
fromthethrone。Thereis，however，anothermodeofobviatingthe
inconvenienceattendingthedevolutionofsovereigntyonan
infantheir，anditisonewhichwoulddoubtlessoccur
spontaneouslytorudelyorganisedcommunities。Thisistoset
asidetheinfantheiraltogether，andconferthechieftainshipon
theeldestsurvivingmaleofthefirstgeneration。TheCeltic
clan-associations，amongthemanyphenomenawhichtheyhave
preservedofanageinwhichcivilandpoliticalsocietywerenot
yetevenrudimentarilyseparated，havebroughtdownthisruleof
successiontohistoricaltimes。Withthem，itseemstohave
existedintheformofapositivecanon，that，failingtheeldest
son，hisnextbrothersucceedsinprioritytoallgrandsons，
whateverbetheirageatthemomentwhenthesovereignty
devolves。Somewritershaveexplainedtheprinciplebyassuming
thattheCelticcustomstookthelastchieftainasasortofroot
orstock，andthengavethesuccessiontothedescendantwho
shouldbeleastremotefromhim；theunclethusbeingpreferred
tothegrandsonasbeingnearertothecommonroot。Noobjection
canbetakentothisstatementifitbemerelyintendedasa
descriptionofthesystemofsuccession；butitwouldbea
seriouserrortoconceivethemenwhofirstadoptedtheruleas
applyingacourseofreasoningwhichevidentlydatesfromthe
timewhenfeudalschemesofsuccessionbeguntobedebatedamong
lawyers。Thetrueoriginofthepreferenceoftheuncletothe
grandsonisdoubtlessasimplecalculationonthepartofrude
meninarudesocietythatitisbettertobegovernedbyagrown
chieftainthanbyachild，andthattheyoungersonismore
likelytohavecometomaturitythananyoftheeldestson’s
descendants。Atthesametime，wehavesomeevidencethatthe
formofPrimogeniturewithwhichwearebestacquaintedisthe
primaryform，inthetraditionthattheassentoftheclanwas
askedwhenaninfantheirwaspassedoverinfavourofhisuncle。
Thereisatolerablywellauthenticatedinstanceofthisceremony
intheannalsoftheMacdonalds。
UnderMahometanlawwhichhasprobablypreservedanancient
Arabiancustom，inheritancesofpropertyaredividedequally
amongsons，thedaughtertakingahalfshare；butifanyofthe
childrendiebeforethedivisionoftheinheritance，leaving
issuebehind，thesegrandchildrenareentirelyexcludedbytheir
unclesandaunts。Consistentlywiththisprinciple，the
succession，whenpoliticalauthoritydevolves，isaccordingto
theformofPrimogeniturewhichappearstohaveobtainedamong
theCelticsocieties。InthetwogreatMahometanfamiliesofthe
West，theruleisbelievedtobe，thattheunclesucceedstothe
throneinpreferencetothenephew，thoughthelatterbetheson
ofanelderbrother；butthoughthisrulehasbeenfollowedquite
recentlyinEgypt，Iaminformedthatthereissomedoubtasto
itsgoverningthedevolutionoftheTurkishsovereigntyThe
policyoftheSultanshasinfacthithertopreventedcasesfor
itsapplicationfromoccurring，anditispossiblethattheir
wholesalemassacresoftheiryoungerbrothersmayhavebeen
perpetuatedquiteasmuchintheinterestoftheirchildrenas
forthesakeofmakingawaywithdangerouscompetitorsforthe
throne。Itisevident，however，thatinpolygamoussocietiesthe
formofPrimogeniturewillalwaystendtovary。Many
considerationsmayconstituteaclaimonthesuccession，therank
ofthemother，forexample，orherdegreeintheaffectionsof
thefather。Accordingly，someoftheIndiaMahometasovereigns，
withoutpretendingtoanydistincttestamentarypower，claimthe
rightofnominatingthesonwhoistosucceed。Theblessing
mentionedintheScripturalhistoryofIsaacandhissonshas
sometimesbeenspokenofasawill，butitseemsrathertohave
beenamodeofnaminganeldestson。
AncientLaw
byHenryMaineChapter8TheEarlyHistoryofProperty
TheRomanInstitutionalTreatises，aftergivingtheir
definitionofthevariousformsandmodificationsofownership，
proceedtodiscusstheNaturalModesofAcquiringProperty。Those
whoareunfamiliarwiththehistoryofjurisprudencearenot
likelytolookuponthese"naturalmodes"ofacquisitionas
possessing，atfirstsight，eithermuchspeculativeormuch
practicalinterest。Thewildanimalwhichissnaredorkilledby
thehunter，thesoilwhichisaddedtoourfieldbythe
imperceptibledepositsofariver，thetreewhichstrikesits
rootsintoourground，areeachsaidbytheRomanlawyerstobe
acquiredbyusnaturally。Theolderjurisconsultshaddoubtless
observedthatsuchacquisitionswereuniversallysanctionedby
theusagesofthelittlesocietiesaroundthem，andthusthe
lawyersofalaterage，findingthemclassedintheancientJus
Gentium，andperceivingthemtobeofthesimplestdescription，
allottedthemaplaceamongtheordinancesofNature。Thedignity
withwhichtheywereinvestedhasgoneonincreasinginmodern
timestillitisquiteoutofproportiontotheiroriginal
importance。Theoryhasmadethemitsfavouritefood，andhas
enabledthemtoexercisethemostseriousinfluenceonpractice。
Itwillbenecessaryforustoattendtooneonlyamongthese
"naturalmodesofacquisition，"OccupatioorOccupancy。Occupancy
istheadvisedlytakingpossessionofthatwhichatthemomentis
thepropertyofnoman，withtheview(addsthetechnical
definition)ofacquiringpropertyinitforyourself。Theobjects
whichtheRomanlawyerscalledresnullius——thingswhichhave
notorhaveneverhadanowner——canonlybeascertainedby
enumeratingthem。Amongthingswhichneverhadanownerarewild
animals，fishes，wildfowl，jewelsdisinterredforthefirst
time，andlandsnewlydiscoveredorneverbeforecultivated。
Amongthingswhichhavenotanowneraremoveableswhichhave
beenabandoned，landswhichhavebeendeserted，and(ananomalous
butmostformidableitem)thepropertyofanenemy。Inallthese
objectsthefullrightsofdominionwereacquiredbythe
Occupant，whofirsttookpossessionofthemwiththeintentionof
keepingthemashisown——anintentionwhich，incertaincases，
hadtobemanifestedbyspecificacts。Itisnotdifficult，I
think，tounderstandtheuniversalitywhichcausedthepractice
ofOccupancytobeplacedbyonegenerationofRomanlawyersin
theLawcommontoallNations，andthesimplicitywhich
occasioneditsbeingattributedbyanothertotheLawofNature。
Butforitsfortunesinmodernlegalhistorywearelessprepared
byaprioriconsiderations。TheRomanprincipleofOccupancy，and
therulesintowhichthejurisconsultsexpandedit，arethe
sourceofallmodernInternationalLawonthesubjectofCapture
inWarandoftheacquisitionofsovereignrightsinnewly
discoveredcountries。Theyhavealsosuppliedatheoryofthe
OriginofProperty，whichisatoncethepopulartheory，andthe
theorywhich，inoneformoranother，isacquiescedinbythe
greatmajorityofspeculativejurists。
IhavesaidthattheRomanprincipleofOccupancyhas
determinedthetenorofthatchapterofInternationalLawwhich
isconcernedwithCaptureinWar。TheLawofWarlikeCapture
derivesitsrulesfromtheassumptionthatcommunitiesare
remittedtoastateofnaturebytheoutbreakofhostilities，and
that，intheartificialnaturalconditionthusproduced，the
institutionofprivatepropertyfallsintoabeyancesofaras
concernsthebelligerents。AsthelaterwritersontheLawof
Naturehavealwaysbeenanxioustomaintainthatprivateproperty
wasinsomesensesanctionedbythesystemwhichtheywere
expounding，thehypothesisthatanenemy’spropertyisres
nulliushasseemedtothemperverseandshocking，andtheyare
carefultostigmatiseitasamerefictionofjurisprudence。But，
assoonastheLawofNatureistracedtoitssourceintheJus
Gentium，weseeatoncehowthegoodsofanenemycametobe
lookeduponasnobody’sproperty，andthereforeascapableof
beingacquiredbythefirstoccupant。Theideawouldoccur
spontaneouslytopersonspractisingtheancientformsofWarfare，
whenvictorydissolvedtheorganisationoftheconqueringarmy
anddismissedthesoldierstoindiscriminateplunder。Itis
probable，however，thatoriginallyitwasonlymoveableproperty
whichwasthuspermittedtobeacquiredbytheCaptor。Weknowon
independentauthoritythataverydifferentruleprevailedin
ancientItalyastotheacquisitionofownershipinthesoilofa
conqueredcountry，andwemaythereforesuspectthatthe
applicationoftheprincipleofoccupancytoland(alwaysa
matterofdifficulty)datesfromtheperiodwhentheJusGentium
wasbecomingtheCodeofNature，andthatitistheresultofa
generalisationeffectedbythejurisconsultsofthegoldenage。
TheirdogmasonthepointarepreservedinthePandectsof
Justinian，andamounttoanunqualifiedassertionthatenemy’s
propertyofeverysortisresnulliustotheotherbelligerent，
andthatOccupancy，bywhichtheCaptormakesthemhisown，isan
institutionofNaturalLaw。TheruleswhichInternational
jurisprudencederivesfromthesepositionshavesometimesbeen
stigmatisedasneedlesslyindulgenttotheferocityandcupidity
ofcombatants，butthechargehasbeenmade，Ithink，bypersons
whoareunacquaintedwiththehistoryofwars，andwhoare
consequentlyignoranthowgreatanexploititistocommand
obedienceforaruleofanykind。TheRomanprincipleof
Occupancy，whenitwasadmittedintothemodernlawofCapturein
War，drewwithitanumberofsubordinatecanons，limitingand
givingprecisiontoitsoperation，andifthecontestswhichhave
beenwagedsincethetreatiseofGrotiusbecameanauthority，are
comparedwiththoseofanearlierdate，itwillbeseenthat，as
soonastheRomanmaximswerereceived，Warfareinstantlyassumed
amoretolerablecomplexion。IftheRomanlawofOccupancyisto
betaxedwithhavinghadperniciousinfluenceonanypartofthe
modernLawofNations，thereisanotherchapterinitwhichmay
besaid，withsomereason，tohavebeeninjuriouslyaffected。In
applyingtothediscoveryofnewcountriesthesameprinciples
whichtheRomanshadappliedtothefindingofajewel，the
Publicistsforcedintotheirserviceadoctrinealtogether
unequaltothetaskexpectedfromit。Elevatedintoextreme
importancebythediscoveriesofthegreatnavigatorofthe
fifteenthandsixteenthcenturies，itraisedmoredisputesthan
itsolved。Thegreatestuncertaintywasveryshortlyfoundto
existontheverytwopointsonwhichcertaintywasmost
required，theextentoftheterritorywhichwasacquiredforhis
sovereignbythediscoverer，andthenatureoftheactswhich
werenecessarytocompletetheadprehensioorassumptionof
sovereignpossession。Moreover，theprincipleitself，conferring
asitdidsuchenormousadvantagesastheconsequenceofapiece
ofgoodluck，wasinstinctivelymutiniedagainstbysomeofthe
mostadventurousnationsinEurope，theDutch，theEnglish，and
thePortuguese。Ourowncountrymen，withoutexpresslydenyingthe
ruleofInternationalLaw，neverdid，inpractice，admitthe
claimoftheSpaniardstoengrossthewholeofAmericasouthof
theGulfofMexico，orthatoftheKingofFrancetomonopolise
thevalleysoftheOhioandtheMississippi。Fromtheaccession
ofElizabethtotheaccessionofCharlestheSecond，itcannotbe
saidthattherewasatanytimethoroughpeaceintheAmerican
waters，andtheencroachmentsoftheNewEnglandColonistsonthe
territoryoftheFrenchKingcontinuedforalmostacentury
longer。Benthamwassostruckwiththeconfusionattendingthe
applicationofthelegalprinciple，thathewentoutofhisway
toeulogisethefamousBullofPopeAlexandertheSixth，dividing
theundiscoveredcountriesoftheworldbetweentheSpaniardsand
PortuguesebyalinedrawnonehundredleaguesWestofthe
Azores；and，grotesqueashispraisesmayappearatfirstsight，
itmaybedoubtedwhetherthearrangementofPopeAlexanderis
absurderinprinciplethantheruleofPubliclaw，whichgave
halfacontinenttothemonarchwhoseservantshadfulfilledthe
conditionsrequiredbyRomanjurisprudencefortheacquisitionof
propertyinavaluableobjectwhichcouldbecoveredbythehand。
Toallwhopursuetheinquirieswhicharethesubjectofthis
volumeOccupancyispre-eminentlyinterestingonthescoreofthe
serviceithasbeenmadetoperformforspeculative
jurisprudence，infurnishingasupposedexplanationoftheorigin
ofprivatepropertyItwasonceuniversallybelievedthatthe
proceedingimpliedinOccupancywasidenticalwiththeprocessby
whichtheearthanditsfruits，whichwereatfirstincommon，
becametheallowedpropertyofindividuals。Thecourseofthought
whichledtothisassumptionisnotdifficulttounderstand，if
weseizetheshadeofdifferencewhichseparatestheancientfrom
themodernconceptionofNaturalLaw。TheRomanlawyershadlaid
downthatOccupancywasoneoftheNaturalmodesofacquiring
property，andtheyundoubtedlybelievedthat，weremankindliving
undertheinstitutionsofNature，Occupancywouldbeoneoftheir
practices。Howfartheypersuadedthemselvesthatsucha
conditionoftheracehadeverexisted，isapoint，asIhave
alreadystated，whichtheirlanguageleavesinmuchuncertainty；
buttheycertainlydoseemtohavemadetheconjecture，whichhas
atalltimespossessedmuchplausibility，thattheinstitutionof
propertywasnotsooldastheexistenceofmankind。Modem
jurisprudence，acceptingalltheirdogmaswithoutreservation，
wentfarbeyondthemintheeagercuriositywithwhichitdwelt
onthesupposedstateofNature。Sincethenithadreceivedthe
positionthattheearthanditsfruitswereonceresnullius，and
sinceitspeculiarviewofNatureledittoassumewithout
hesitationthatthehumanracehadactuallypractisedthe
Occupancyofresnulliuslongbeforetheorganisationofcivil
societies，theinferenceimmediatelysuggesteditselfthat
Occupancywastheprocessbywhichthe"noman’sgoods"ofthe
primitiveworldbecametheprivatepropertyofindividualsinthe
worldofhistory。Itwouldbewearisometoenumeratethejurists
whohavesubscribedtothistheoryinoneshapeoranother，and
itisthelessnecessarytoattemptitbecauseBlackstone，whois
alwaysafaithfulindexoftheaverageopinionsofhisday，has
summedthemupinhis2ndbookand1stchapter。
"Theearth，"hewrites，"andallthingsthereinwerethe
generalpropertyofmankindfromtheimmediategiftofthe
Creator。Notthatthecommunionofgoodsseemsevertohavebeen
applicable，evenintheearliestages，toaughtbutthesubstance
ofthething；norcouldbeextendedtotheuseofit。For，bythe
lawofnatureandreasonhewhofirstbegantouseitacquired
thereinakindoftransientpropertythatlastedsolongashe
wasusingit，andnolonger；ortospeakwithgreaterprecision，
therightofpossessioncontinuedforthesametimeonlythatthe
actofpossessionlasted。Thusthegroundwasincommon，andno
partwasthepermanentpropertyofanymaninparticular；yet
whoeverwasintheoccupationofanydeterminedspotofit，for
rest，forshade，orthelike，acquiredforthetimeasortof
ownership，fromwhichitwouldhavebeenunjustandcontraryto
thelawofnaturetohavedrivenhimbyforce，buttheinstant
thathequittedtheuseofoccupationofit，anothermightseize
itwithoutinjustice。"Hethenproceedstoarguethat"when
mankindincreasedinnumber，itbecamenecessarytoentertain
conceptionsofmorepermanentdominion，andtoappropriateto
individualsnottheimmediateuseonly，buttheverysubstanceof
thethingtobeused。"
Someambiguitiesofexpressioninthispassageleadtothe
suspicionthatBlackstonedidnotquiteunderstandthemeaningof
thepropositionwhichhefoundinhisauthorities，thatproperty
intheearth’ssurfacewasfirstacquired，underthelawof
Nature，bytheoccupant；butthelimitationwhichdesignedlyor
throughmisapprehensionhehasimposedonthetheorybringsit
intoaformwhichithasnotinfrequentlyassumed。Manywriters
morefamousthanBlackstoneforprecisionoflanguagehavelaid
downthat，inthebeginningofthings，Occupancyfirstgavea
rightagainsttheworldtoanexclusivebuttemporaryenjoyment，
andthatafterwardsthisright，whileitremainedexclusive，
becameperpetual。Theirobjectinsostatingtheirtheorywasto
reconcilethedoctrinethatinthestateofNatureresnullius
becamepropertythroughOccupancy，withtheinferencewhichthey
drewfromtheScripturalhistorythatthePatriarchsdidnotat
firstpermanentlyappropriatethesoilwhichhadbeengrazedover
bytheirflocksandherds。
Theonlycriticismwhichcouldbedirectlyappliedtothe
theoryofBlackstonewouldconsistininquiringwhetherthe
circumstanceswhichmakeuphispictureofaprimitivesociety
aremoreorlessprobablethanotherincidentswhichcouldbe
imaginedwithequalreadiness。Pursuingthismethodof
examination，wemightfairlyaskwhetherthemanwhohadoccupied
(BlackstoneevidentlyusesthiswordwithitsordinaryEnglish
meaning)aparticularspotofgroundforrestorshadewouldbe
permittedtoretainitwithoutdisturbance。Thechancessurely
arethathisrighttopossessionwouldbeexactlycoextensive
withhispowertokeepit，andthathewouldbeconstantlyliable
todisturbancebythefirstcomerwhocovetedthespotand
thoughthimselfstrongenoughtodriveawaythepossessor。But
thetruthisthatallsuchcavilatthesepositionsisperfectly
idlefromtheverybaselessnessofthepositionsthemselves。What
mankinddidintheprimitivestatemaynotbeahopelesssubject
ofinquiry，butoftheirmotivesfordoingititisimpossibleto
knowanything。Thesesketchesoftheplightofhumanbeingsin
thefirstagesoftheworldareeffectedbyfirstsupposing
mankindtobedivestedofagreatpartofthecircumstancesby
whichtheyarenowsurrounded，andbythenassumingthat，inthe
conditionthusimagined，theywouldpreservethesamesentiments
andprejudicesbywhichtheyarenowactuated，——although，in
fact，thesesentimentsmayhavebeencreatedandengenderedby
thoseverycircumstancesofwhich，bythehypothesis，theyareto
bestripped。