第6章
ThereisanaphorismofSavignywhichhasbeensometimes
thoughttocountenanceaviewoftheoriginofpropertysomewhat
similartothetheoriesepitomisedbyBlackstone。Thegreat
GermanjuristhaslaiddownthatallPropertyisfoundedon
AdversePossessionripenedbyPrescription。Itisonlywith
respecttoRomanlawthatSavignymakesthisstatement，and
beforeitcanfullybeappreciatedmuchlabourmustbeexpended
inexplaininganddefiningtheexpressionsemployed。Hismeaning
will，however，beindicatedwithsufficientaccuracyifwe
considerhimtoassertthat，howfarsoeverwecarryourinquiry
intotheideasofpropertyreceivedamongtheRomans，however
closelyweapproachintracingthemtotheinfancyoflaw，wecan
getnofartherthanaconceptionofownershipinvolvingthethree
elementsinthecanon——Possession，AdversenessofPossession，
thatisaholdingnotpermissiveorsubordinate，butexclusive
againsttheworld，andPrescription，oraperiodoftimeduring
whichtheAdversePossessionhasuninterruptedlycontinued。Itis
exceedinglyprobablethatthismaximmightbeenunciatedwith
moregeneralitythanwasallowedtoitbyitsauthor，andthatno
soundorsafeconclusioncanbelookedforfrominvestigations
intoanysystemoflawswhicharepushedfartherbackthanthe
pointatwhichthesecombinedideasconstitutethenotionof
proprietaryright。Meantime，sofarfrombearingoutthepopular
theoryoftheoriginofproperty，Savigny’scanonisparticularly
valuableasdirectingourattentiontoitsweakestpoint。Inthe
viewofBlackstoneandthosewhomhefollows，itwasthemodeof
assumingtheexclusiveenjoymentwhichmysteriouslyaffectedthe
mindsofthefathersofourrace。Butthemysterydoesnotreside
here。Itisnotwonderfulthatpropertybeganinadverse
possession。Itisnotsurprisingthatthefirstproprietorshould
havebeenthestrongmanarmedwhokepthisgoodsinpeace。But
whyitwasthatlapseoftimecreatedasentimentofrespectfor
hispossession——whichistheexactsourceoftheuniversal
reverenceofmankindforthatwhichhasforalongperiodde
factoexisted——arequestionsreallydeservingtheprofoundest
examination，butlyingfarbeyondtheboundaryofourpresent
inquiries。
Beforepointingoutthequarterinwhichwemayhopetoglean
someinformation，scantyanduncertainatbest，concerningthe
earlyhistoryofproprietaryright，Iventuretostatemyopinion
thatthepopularimpressioninreferencetothepartplayedby
Occupancyinthefirststagesofcivilisationdirectlyreverses
thetruth。Occupancyistheadvisedassumptionofphysical
possession；andthenotionthatanactofthisdescription
confersatitleto"resnullius，"sofarfrombeing
characteristicofveryearlysocieties，isinallprobabilitythe
growthofarefinedjurisprudenceandofasettledconditionof
thelaws。Itisonlywhentherightsofpropertyhavegaineda
sanctionfromlongpracticalinviolabilityandwhenthevast
majorityoftheobjectsofenjoymenthavebeensubjectedto
privateownership，thatmerepossessionisallowedtoinvestthe
firstpossessorwithdominionovercommoditiesinwhichnoprior
proprietorshiphasbeenasserted。Thesentimentinwhichthis
doctrineoriginatedisabsolutelyirreconcilablewiththat
infrequencyanduncertaintyofproprietaryrightswhich
distinguishthebeginningsofcivilisation。Itstruebasisseems
tobe，notaninstinctivebiastowardstheinstitutionof
Property，butapresumptionarisingoutofthelongcontinuance
ofthatinstitution，thateverythingoughttohaveanowner。When
possessionistakenofa"resnullius，"thatis，ofanobject
whichisnot，orhasneverbeen，reducedtodominion，the
possessorispermittedtobecomeproprietorfromafeelingthat
allvaluablethingsarenaturallythesubjectsofanexclusive
enjoyment，andthatinthegivencasethereisnoonetoinvest
withtherightofpropertyexcepttheOccupant。TheOccupantin
short，becomestheowner，becauseallthingsarepresumedtobe
somebody’spropertyandbecausenoonecanbepointedoutas
havingabetterrightthanhetotheproprietorshipofthis
particularthing。
Evenweretherenootherobjectiontothedescriptionsof
mankindintheirnaturalstatewhichwehavebeendiscussing，
thereisoneparticularinwhichtheyarefatallyatvariance
withtheauthenticevidencepossessedbyus。Itwillbeobserved
thattheactsandmotiveswhichthesetheoriessupposearethe
actsandmotivesofIndividuals。ItiseachIndividualwhofor
himselfsubscribestheSocialCompact。Itissomeshifting
sandbankinwhichthegrainsareIndividualmen，thataccording
tothetheoryofHobbesishardenedintothesocialrockbythe
wholesomedisciplineofforce。ItisanIndividualwho，inthe
picturedrawnbyBlackstone，"isintheoccupationofa
determinedspotofgroundforrest，forshade，orthelike。"The
viceisonewhichnecessarilyafflictsallthetheoriesdescended
fromtheNaturalLawoftheRomans，whichdifferedprincipally
fromtheirCivilLawintheaccountwhichittookofIndividuals，
andwhichhasrenderedpreciselyitsgreatestserviceto
civilisationinenfranchisingtheindividualfromtheauthority
ofarchaicsociety。ButAncientLaw，itmustagainberepeated，
knowsnexttonothingofIndividuals。Itisconcernednotwith
Individuals，butwithFamilies，notwithsinglehumanbeings，but
groups。EvenwhenthelawoftheStatehassucceededin
permeatingthesmallcirclesofkindredintowhichithad
originallynomeansofpenetrating，theviewittakesof
Individualsiscuriouslydifferentfromthattakenby
jurisprudenceinitsmatureststage。Thelifeofeachcitizenis
notregardedaslimitedbybirthanddeath；itisbuta
continuationoftheexistenceofhisforefathers，anditwillbe
prolongedintheexistenceofhisdescendants。
TheRomandistinctionbetweentheLawofPersonsandtheLaw
ofThings，whichthoughextremelyconvenientisentirely
artificial，hasevidentlydonemuchtodivertinquiryonthe
subjectbeforeusfromthetruedirection。Thelessonslearnedin
discussingtheJusPersonarumhavebeenforgottenwheretheJus
Rerumisreached，andProperty，Contract，andDelict，havebeen
consideredasifnohintsconcerningtheiroriginalnaturewere
tobegainedfromthefactsascertainedrespectingtheoriginal
conditionofPersons。Thefutilityofthismethodwouldbe
manifestifasystemofpurearchaiclawcouldbebroughtbefore
us，andiftheexperimentcouldbetriedofapplyingtoitthe
Romanclassifications。Itwouldsoonbeseenthattheseparation
oftheLawofPersonsfromthatofThingshasnomeaninginthe
infancyoflaw，thattherulesbelongingtothetwodepartments
areinextricablymingledtogether，andthatthedistinctionsof
thelaterjuristsareappropriateonlytothelater
jurisprudence。Fromwhathasbeensaidintheearlierportionsof
thistreatise，itwillbegatheredthatthereisastronga
prioriimprobabilityofourobtaininganycluetotheearly
historyofproperty，ifweconfineournoticetotheproprietary
rightsofindividuals。Itismorethanlikelythat
joint-ownership，andnotseparateownership，isthereally
archaicinstitution，andthattheformsofpropertywhichwill
affordusinstructionwillbethosewhichareassociatedwiththe
rightsoffamiliesandofgroupsofkindred。TheRoman
jurisprudencewillnothereassistinenlighteningus，foritis
exactlytheRomanjurisprudencewhich，transformedbythetheory
ofNaturalLaw，hasbequeathedtothemodernstheimpressionthat
individualownershipisthenormalstateofproprietaryright，
andthatownershipincommonbygroupsofmenisonlythe
exceptiontoageneralrule。Thereis，however，onecommunity
whichwillalwaysbecarefullyexaminedbytheinquirerwhoisin
questofanylostinstitutionofprimevalsociety。Howfarsoever
anysuchinstitutionmayhaveundergonechangeamongthebranch
oftheIndo-Europeanfamilywhichhasbeensettledforagesin
India，itwillseldombefoundtohaveentirelycastasidethe
shellinwhichitwasoriginallyreared。Ithappensthat，among
theHindoos，wedofindaformofownershipwhichoughtatonce
torivetourattentionfromitsexactlyfittinginwiththeideas
whichourstudiesintheLawofPersonswouldleadusto
entertainrespectingtheoriginalconditionofproperty。The
VillageCommunityofIndiaisatonceanorganisedpatriarchal
societyandanassemblageofco-proprietors。Thepersonal
relationstoeachotherofthemenwhocomposeitare
indistinguishablyconfoundedwiththeirproprietaryrights，and
totheattemptsofEnglishfunctionariestoseparatethetwomay
beassignedsomeofthemostformidablemiscarriagesof
Anglo-Indianadministration。TheVillageCommunityisknowntobe
ofimmenseantiquity。Inwhateverdirectionresearchhasbeen
pushedintoIndianhistory，generalorlocal，ithasalwaysfound
theCommunityinexistenceatthefarthestpointofitsprogress。
Agreatnumberofintelligentandobservantwriters，mostofwhom
hadnotheoryofanysorttosupportconcerningitsnatureand
origin，agreeinconsideringittheleastdestructible
institutionofasocietywhichneverwillinglysurrendersanyone
ofitsusagestoinnovation。Conquestsandrevolutionsseemto
havesweptoveritwithoutdisturbingordisplacingit，andthe
mostbeneficentsystemsofgovernmentinIndiahavealwaysbeen
thosewhichhaverecogniseditasthebasisofadministration。
ThematureRomanlaw，andmodernjurisprudencefollowingin
itswake，lookuponco-ownershipasanexceptionalandmomentary
conditionoftherightsofproperty。Thisviewisclearly
indicatedinthemaximwhichobtainsuniversallyinWestern
Europe，Nemoincommunionepotestinvitusdetineri("Noonecan
bekeptinco-proprietorshipagainsthiswill")。ButinIndia
thisorderofideasisreversed，anditmaybesaidthatseparate
proprietorshipisalwaysonitswaytobecomeproprietorshipin
common。Theprocesshasbeenadvertedtoalready。Assoonasa
sonisborn，heacquiresavestedinterestinhisfather’s
substance，andonattainingyearsofdiscretionheiseven，in
certaincontingencies，permittedbytheletterofthelawtocall
forapartitionofthefamilyestate。Asafact，however，a
divisionrarelytakesplaceevenatthedeathofthefather，and
thepropertyconstantlyremainsundividedforseveral
generations，thougheverymemberofeverygenerationhasalegal
righttoanundividedshareinit。Thedomainthusheldincommon
issometimesadministeredbyanelectedmanager，butmore
generally，andinsomeprovincesalways，itismanagedbythe
eldestagnate，bytheeldestrepresentativeoftheeldestlineof
thestock。Suchanassemblageofjointproprietors，abodyof
kindredholdingadomainincommon，isthesimplestformofan
IndianVillageCommunity，buttheCommunityismorethana
brotherhoodofrelativesandmorethananassociationof
partners。Itisanorganizedsociety，andbesidesprovidingfor
themanagementofthecommonfund，itseldomfailstoprovide，by
acompletestaffoffunctionaries，forinternalgovernment，for
police，fortheadministrationofjustice，andforthe
apportionmentoftaxesandpublicduties。
TheprocesswhichIhavedescribedasthatunderwhicha
VillageCommunityisformed，mayberegardedastypical。Yetit
isnottobesupposedthateveryVillageCommunityinIndiadrew
togetherinsosimpleamanner。Although，intheNorthofIndia，
thearchives，asIaminformed，almostinvariablyshowthatthe
Communitywasfoundedbyasingleassemblageofblood-relations，
theyalsosupplyinformationthatmenofalienextractionhave
always，fromtimetotime，beenengraftedonit，andamere
purchaserofasharemaygenerally，undercertainconditions，be
admittedtothebrotherhood。IntheSouthofthePeninsulathere
areoftenCommunitieswhichappeartohavesprungnotfromone
butfromtwoormorefamilies；andtherearesomewhose
compositionisknowntobeentirelyartificial；indeed，the
occasionalaggregationofmenofdifferentcastesinthesame
societyisfataltothehypothesisofacommondescent。Yetin
allthesebrotherhoodseitherthetraditionispreserved，orthe
assumptionmade，ofanoriginalcommonparentage。Mountstuart
Elphinstone，whowritesmoreparticularlyoftheSouthernVillage
Communities，observesofthem(HistoryofIndia，i。126):"The
popularnotionisthattheVillagelandholdersarealldescended
fromoneormoreindividualswhosettledthevillage；andthat
theonlyexceptionsareformedbypersonswhohavederivedtheir
rightsbypurchaseorotherwisefrommembersoftheoriginal
stock。Thesuppositionisconfirmedbythefactthat，tothis
day，thereareonlysinglefamiliesoflandholdersinsmall
villagesandnotmanyinlargeones；buteachhasbranchedout
intosomanymembersthatitisnotuncommonforthewhole
agriculturallabourtobedonebythelandholders，withoutthe
aideitheroftenantsoroflabourers。Therightsofthe
landholdersaretheircollectivelyand，thoughtheyalmostalways
haveamoreorlessperfectpartitionofthem，theyneverhavean
entireseparation。Alandholder，forinstance，cansellor
mortgagehisrights；buthemustfirsthavetheconsentofthe
Village，andthepurchaserstepsexactlyintohisplaceandtakes
upallhisobligations。Ifafamilybecomesextinct，itsshare
returnstothecommonstock。"
Someconsiderationswhichhavebeenofferedinthefifth
chapterofthisvolumewillassistthereader，Itrust，in
appreciatingthesignificanceofElphinstone’slanguage。No
institutionoftheprimitiveworldislikelytohavebeen
preservedtoourday，unlessithasacquiredanelasticity
foreigntoitsoriginalnaturethroughsomevivifyinglegal
fiction。TheVillageCommunitythenisnotnecessarilyan
assemblageofblood-relations，butitiseithersuchan
assemblageorabodyofco-proprietorformedonthemodelofan
associationofkinsmen。Thetypewithwhichitshouldbecompared
isevidentlynottheRomanFamily，buttheRomanGensorHouse。
TheGenswasalsoagrouponthemodelofthefamily。itwasthe
familyextendedbyavarietyoffictionsofwhichtheexact
naturewaslostinantiquity。Inhistoricaltimes，itsleading
characteristicsweretheverytwowhichElphinstoneremarksin
theVillageCommunity。Therewasalwaystheassumptionofa
commonorigin，anassumptionsometimesnotoriouslyatvariance
withfact；and，torepeatthehistorian’swords，"ifafamily
becameextinct，itssharereturnedtothecommonstock。"Inold
Romanlaw，unclaimedinheritancesescheatedtotheGentiles。It
isfurthersuspectedbyallwhohaveexaminedtheirhistorythat
theCommunities，liketheGentes，havebeenverygenerally
adulteratedbytheadmissionofstrangers，buttheexactmodeof
absorptioncannotnowbeascertained。Atpresent，theyare
recruited，asElphinstonetellsus，bytheadmissionof
purchasers，withtheconsentofthebrotherhood。Theacquisition
oftheadoptedmemberis，however，ofthenatureofauniversal
succession；togetherwiththesharehehasbought，hesucceedsto
theliabilitieswhichthevendorhadincurredtowardsthe
aggregategroup。HeisanEmptorFamiliae，andinheritsthelegal
clothingofthepersonwhoseplacehebeginstofill。Theconsent
ofthewholebrotherhoodrequiredforhisadmissionmayremindus
oftheconsentwhichtheComitiaCuriata，theParliamentofthat
largerbrotherhoodofself-styledkinsmen，theancientRoman
commonwealth，sostrenuouslyinsistedonasessentialtothe
legalisationofanAdoptionortheconfirmationofaWill。
Thetokensofanextremeantiquityarediscoverableinalmost
everysinglefeatureoftheIndianVillageCommunities。Wehave
somanyindependentreasonsforsuspectingthattheinfancyof
lawisdistinguishedbytheprevalenceofco-ownershipbythe
intermixtureofpersonalwithproprietaryrights，andbythe
confusionofpublicwithprivateduties，thatweshouldbe
justifiedindeducingmanyimportantconclusionsfromour
observationoftheseproprietarybrotherhoods，evenifno
similarlycompoundedsocietiescouldbedetectedinanyother
partoftheworld。Ithappens，however，thatmuchearnest
curiosityhasbeenveryrecentlyattractedtoasimilarsetof
phenomenainthosepartsofEuropewhichhavebeenmostslightly
affectedbythefeudaltransformationofproperty，andwhichin
manyimportantparticularshaveascloseanaffinitywiththe
EasternaswiththeWesternworld。TheresearchesofM。de
Haxthausen，M。Tengoborski，andothers，haveshownusthatthe
Russianvillagesarenotfortuitousassemblagesofmen，norare
theyunionsfoundedoncontract；theyarenaturallyorganised
communitieslikethoseofIndia。Itistruethatthesevillages
arealwaysintheorythepatrimonyofsomenobleproprietor，and
thepeasantshavewithinhistoricaltimesbeenconvertedintothe
predial，andtoagreatextentintothepersonal，serfsofthe
seignior。Butthepressureofthissuperiorownershiphasnever
crushedtheancientorganisationofthevillage，anditis
probablethattheenactmentoftheCzarofRussia，whois
supposedtohaveintroducedserfdom，wasreallyintendedto
preventthepeasantsfromabandoningthatco-operationwithout
whichtheoldsocialordercouldnotlongbemaintained。Inthe
assumptionofanagnaticconnectionbetweenthevillagers，inthe
blendingofpersonalrightswithprivilegesofownership，andin
avarietyofspontaneousprovisionsforinternaladministration，
theRussianVillageappearstobeanearlyexactrepetitionof
theIndianCommunity；butthereisoneimportantdifferencewhich
wenotewiththegreatestinterest。Theco-ownersofanIndian
village，thoughtheirpropertyisblended，havetheirrights
distinct，andthisseparationofrightsiscompleteandcontinues
indefinitely。Theseveranceofrightsisalsotheoretically
completeinaRussianvillage，butthereitisonlytemporary。
Aftertheexpirationofagiven，builtnotinallcasesofthe
same，periodseparateownershipsareextinguished，thelandof
thevillageisthrownintoamass，andthenitisre-distributed
amongthefamiliescomposingthecommunity，accordingtotheir
number。Thisrepartitionhavingbeeneffected，therightsof
familiesandofindividualsareagainallowedtobranchoutinto
variouslines，whichtheycontinuetofollowtillanotherperiod
ofdivisioncomesround。Anevenmorecuriousvariationfromthis
typeofownershipoccursinsomeofthosecountrieswhichlong
formedadebateablelandbetweentheTurkishempireandthe
possessionsoftheHouseofAustria，InServia，inCroatia，and
theAustrianSclavonia，thevillagesarealsobrotherhoodsof
personswhoareatonceco-ownersandkinsmen；buttherethe
internalarrangementsofthecommunitydifferfromthoseadverted
tointhelasttwoexamples。Thesubstanceofthecommonproperty
isinthiscaseneitherdividedinpracticenorconsideredin
theoryasdivisible，buttheentirelandiscultivatedbythe
combineDlabourofallthevillagers，andtheproduceisannually
distributedamongthehouseholds，sometimesaccordingtotheir
supposedwants，sometimesaccordingtoruleswhichgiveto
particularpersonsafixedshareoftheusufruct。Allthese
practicesaretracedbythejuristsoftheEastofEuropetoa
principlewhichisassertedtobefoundintheearliest
Sclavonianlaws，theprinciplethatthepropertyoffamilies
cannotbedividedforaperpetuity。
Thegreatinterestofthesephenomenainaninquirylikethe
presentarisesfromthelighttheythrowonthedevelopmentof
distinctproprietaryrightsinsidethegroupsbywhichproperty
seemstohavebeenoriginallyheld。Wehavethestrongestreason
forthinkingthatpropertyoncebelongednottoindividualsnor
eventoisolatedfamilies，buttolargersocietiescomposedon
thepatriarchalmodel；butthemodeoftransitionfromancientto
modernownerships，obscureatbest，wouldhavebeeninfinitely
obscurerifseveraldistinguishableformsofVillageCommunities
hadnotbeendiscoveredandexamined。Itisworthwhiletoattend
tothevarietiesofinternalarrangementwithinthepatriarchal
groupswhichare，orweretillrecently，observableamongraces
ofIndo-Europeanblood。ThechiefsoftheruderHighlandclans
used，itissaid，todoleoutfoodtotheheadsofthehouseholds
undertheirjurisdictionattheveryshortestintervals，and
sometimesdaybyday。Aperiodicaldistributionisalsomadeto
theSclavonianvillagersoftheAustrianandTurkishprovincesby
theeldersoftheirbody，butthenitisadistributiononcefor
allofthetotalproduceoftheyear。IntheRussianvillages，
however，thesubstanceofthepropertyceasestobelookedupon
asindivisible，andseparateproprietaryclaimsareallowed
freelytogrowup，butthentheprogressofseparationis
peremptorilyarrestedafterithascontinuedacertaintime。In
India，notonlyistherenoindivisibilityofthecommonfund，
butseparateproprietorshipinpartsofitmaybeindefinitely
prolongedandmaybranchoutintoanynumberofderivative
ownerships，thedefactopartitionofthestockbeing，however，
checkedbyinveterateusage，andbytheruleagainstthe
admissionofstrangerswithouttheconsentofthebrotherhood。It
isnotofcourseintendedtoinsistthatthesedifferentformsof
theVillageCommunityrepresentdistinctstagesinaprocessof
transmutationwhichhasbeeneverywhereaccomplishedinthesame
manner。But，thoughtheevidencedoesnotwarrantourgoingso
farasthis，itrenderslesspresumptuoustheconjecturethat
privateproperty，intheshapeinwhichweknowit，waschiefly
formedbythegradualdisentanglementoftheseparaterightsof
individualsfromtheblendedrightsofacommunity。Ourstudies
intheLawofPersonsseemedtoshowustheFamilyexpandinginto
theAgnaticgroupofkinsmen，thentheAgnaticgroupdissolving
intoseparatehouseholds；lastlythehouseholdsupplantedbythe
individual；anditisnowsuggestedthateachstepinthechange
correspondstoananalogousalterationinthenatureof
Ownership。Iftherebeanytruthinthesuggestion，itistobe
observedthatitmateriallyaffectstheproblemwhichtheorists
ontheoriginofPropertyhavegenerallyproposedtothemselves。
Thequestion——perhapsaninsolubleonewhichtheyhavemostly
agitatedis，whatwerethemotiveswhichfirstinducedmento
respecteachother’spossessions？Itmaystillbeput，without
muchhopeoffindingananswertoit，intheformofanyinquiry
intothereasonswhichledonecompositegrouptokeepalooffrom
thedomainofanother。But，ifitbetruethatfarthemost
importantpassageinthehistoryofPrivatePropertyisits
gradualeliminationfromtheco-ownershipofkinsmen，thenthe
greatpointofinquiryisidenticalwiththatwhichliesonthe
thresholdofallhistoricallaw——whatwerethemotiveswhich
originallypromptedmentoholdtogetherinthefamilyunion？To
suchaquestion，Jurisprudence，unassistedbyothersciences，is
notcompetenttogiveareply。Thefactcanonlybenoted。
Theundividedstateofpropertyinancientsocietiesis
consistentwithapeculiarsharpnessofdivision，whichshows
itselfassoonasanysingleshareiscompletelyseparatedfrom
thepatrimonyofthegroup。Thisphenomenonsprings，doubtless，
fromthecircumstancethatthepropertyissupposedtobecomethe
domainofanewgroup，sothatanydealingwithit，inits
dividedstate，isatransactionbetweentwohighlycomplex
bodies。IhavealreadycomparedAncientLawtoModern
InternationalLaw，inrespectofthesizeandcomplexityofthe
corporateassociations，whoserightsanddutiesitsettles。As
thecontractsandconveyancesknowntoancientlawarecontracts
andconveyancestowhichnotsingleindividuals，butorganised
companiesofmen，areparties，theyareinthehighestdegree
ceremonious；theyrequireavarietyofsymbolicalactsandwords
intendedtoimpressthebusinessonthememoryofallwhotake
partinit；andtheydemandthepresenceofaninordinatenumber
ofwitnesses。Fromthesepeculiarities，andothersalliedto
them，springstheuniversallyunmalleablecharacterofthe
ancientformsofproperty。Sometimesthepatrimonyofthefamily
isabsolutelyinalienable，aswasthecasewiththeSclavonians，
andstilloftener，thoughalienationsmaynotbeentirely
illegitimate，theyarevirtuallyimpracticable，asamongmostof
theGermanictribes，fromthenecessityofhavingtheconsentof
alargenumberofpersonstothetransfer。Wherethese
impedimentsdonotexist，orcanbesurmounted，theactof
conveyanceitselfisgenerallyburdenedwithaperfectloadof
ceremony，inwhichnotoneiotacanbesafelyneglected。Ancient
lawuniformlyrefusestodispensewithasinglegesture，however
grotesque；withasinglesyllable，howeveritsmeaningmayhave
beenforgotten；withasinglewitness，howeversuperfluousmaybe
histestimony。Theentiresolemnitiesmustbescrupulously
completedbypersonslegallyentitledtotakepartinthem，or
elsetheconveyanceisnull，andthesellerisre-establishedin
therightsofwhichhehadvainlyattemptedtodivesthimself。
Thesevariousobstaclestothefreecirculationofthe
objectsofuseandenjoyment，beginofcoursetomakethemselves
feltassoonassocietyhasacquiredevenaslightdegreeof
activity，andtheexpedientsbywhichadvancingcommunities
endeavourtoovercomethemformthestapleofthehistoryof
Property。Ofsuchexpedientsthereisonewhichtakesprecedence
oftherestfromitsantiquityanduniversality。Theideaseems
tohavespontaneouslysuggesteditselftoagreatnumberofearly
societies，toclassifypropertyintokinds。Onekindorsortof
propertyisplacedonalowerfootingofdignitythantheothers，
butatthesametimeisrelievedfromthefetterswhichantiquity
hasimposedonthem。Subsequently，thesuperiorconvenienceof
therulesgoverningthetransferanddescentofthelowerorder
ofpropertybecomesgenerallyrecognised，andbyagradualcourse
ofinnovationtheplasticityofthelessdignifiedclassof
valuableobjectsiscommunicatedtotheclasseswhichstand
conventionallyhigher。ThehistoryofRomanPropertyLawisthe
historyoftheassimilationofResMancipitoResNecMancipi。
ThehistoryofPropertyontheEuropeanContinentisthehistory
ofthesubversionofthefeudalisedlawoflandbytheRomanised
lawofmoveables；and，thoughthehistoryofownershipinEngland
isnotnearlycompleted，itisvisiblythelawofpersonalty
whichthreatenstoabsorbandannihilatethelawofrealty。
Theonlynaturalclassificationoftheobjectsofenjoyment，
theonlyclassificationwhichcorrespondswithanessential
differenceinthesubject-matter，isthatwhichdividestheminto
MoveablesandImmoveables。Familiarasisthisclassificationto
jurisprudence，itwasveryslowlydevelopedbyRomanlaw；from
whichweinheritit，andwasonlyfinallyadoptedbyitinits
lateststage。TheclassificationsofAncientLawhavesometimesa
superficialresemblancetothis。Theyoccasionallydivide
propertyintocategories，andplaceimmoveablesinoneofthem；
butthenitisfoundthattheyeitherclassalongwith
immoveablesanumberofobjectswhichhavenosortofrelation
withthem，orelsedivorcethemfromvariousrightstowhichthey
haveacloseaffinity。Thus，theResMancipiofRomanLaw
includednotonlyland，butslaves，horses，andoxen。Scottish
lawrankswithlandacertainclassofsecurities，andHindoolaw
associatesitwithslaves。Englishlaw，ontheotherhand，parts
leasesoflandforyearsfromotherinterestsinthesoil，and
joinsthemtopersonaltyunderthenameofchattelsreal。
MoreovertheclassificationsofAncientLawareclassifications
implyingsuperiorityandinferiority；whilethedistinction
betweenmoveablesandimmoveables，solongatleastasitwas
confinedtoRomanjurisprudence，carriedwithitnosuggestion
whateverofadifferenceindignity。TheResMancipi，however，
didcertainlyatfirstenjoyaprecedenceovertheResNec
Mancipi，asdidheritablepropertyinScotlandandrealtyin
England，overthepersonaltytowhichtheywereopposed。The
lawyersofallsystemshavesparednopainsinstrivingtorefer
theseclassificationstosomeintelligibleprinciple；butthe
reasonsoftheseverancemusteverbevainlysoughtforinthe
philosophyoflaw:theybelongnottoitsphilosophy，buttoits
history。Theexplanationwhichappearstocoverthegreatest
numberofinstancesis，thattheobjectsofenjoymenthonoured
abovetherestweretheformsofpropertyknownfirstand
earliesttoeachparticularcommunity，anddignifiedtherefore
emphaticallywiththedesignationofProperty。Ontheotherhand，
thearticlesnotenumeratedamongthefavouredobjectsseemto
havebeenplacedonalowerstanding，becausetheknowledgeof
theirvaluewasposteriortotheepochatwhichthecatalogueof
superiorpropertywassettled。Theywereatfirstunknown，rare，
limitedintheiruses，orelseregardedasmereappendagestothe
privilegedobjects。Thus，thoughtheRomanResMancipiincludeda
numberofmoveablearticlesofgreatvalue，stillthemostcostly
jewelswereneverallowedtotakerankasResMancipi，because
theywereunknowntotheearlyRomans。Inthesamewaychattels
realinEnglandaresaidtohavebeendegradedtothefootingof
personalty，fromtheinfrequencyandvaluelessnessofsuch
estatesunderthefeudalland-law。Butthegrandpointof
interestis，thecontinueddegradationofthesecommoditieswhen
theirimportancehadincreasedandtheirnumberhadmultiplied。
Whyweretheynotsuccessivelyintrudedamongthefavoured
objectsofenjoyment？Onereasonisfoundinthestubbornness
withwhichAncientLawadherestoitsclassifications。Itisa
characteristicbothofuneducatedmindsandofearlysocieties，
thattheyarelittleabletoconceiveageneralruleapartfrom
theparticularapplicationsofitwithwhichtheyarepractically
familiar。Theycannotdissociateageneraltermormaximfromthe
specialexampleswhichmeetthemindailyexperience；andinthis
waythedesignationcoveringthebest-knownformsofpropertyis
deniedtoarticleswhichexactlyresembletheminbeingobjects
ofenjoymentandsubjectsofright。Buttotheseinfluences，
whichexertpeculiarforceinasubject-mattersostableasthat
oflaw，areafterwardsaddedothersmoreconsistentwithprogress
inenlightenmentandintheconceptionsofgeneralexpediency。
Courtsandlawyersbecomeatlastalivetotheinconvenienceof
theembarrassingformalitiesrequiredforthetransfer，recovery，
ordevolutionofthefavouredcommodities，andgrowunwillingto
fetterthenewerdescriptionsofpropertywiththetechnical
trammelswhichcharacterisedtheinfancyoflaw。Hencearisesa
dispositiontokeeptheselastonalowergradeinthe
arrangementsofJurisprudence，andtopermittheirtransferby
simplerprocessesthanthosewhich，inarchaicconveyances，serve
asstumbling-blockstogoodfaithandstepping-stonestofraud。
Weareperhapsinsomedangerofunderratingtheinconveniences
oftheancientmodesoftransfer。Ourinstrumentsofconveyance
arewritten，sothattheirlanguage，wellponderedbythe
professionaldraftsman，israrelydefectiveinaccuracy。Butan
ancientconveyancewasnotwritten，butacted。Gesturesandwords
tooktheplaceofwrittentechnicalphraseology，andanyformula
mispronounced，orsymbolicalactomitted，wouldhavevitiatedthe
proceedingasfatallyasamaterialmistakeinstatingtheuses
orsettingouttheremainderswould，twohundredyearsago，have
vitiatedanEnglishdeed。Indeed，themischiefsofthearchaic
ceremonialareeventhusonlyhalfstated。Solongaselaborate
conveyances，writtenoracted，arerequiredforthealienationof
landalone，thechancesofmistakearenotconsiderableinthe
transferofadescriptionofpropertywhichisseldomgotridof
withmuchprecipitation。Butthehigherclassofpropertyinthe
ancientworldcomprisednotonlylandbutseveralofthe
commonestandseveralofthemostvaluablemoveables。Whenonce
thewheelsofsocietyhadbeguntomovequickly，theremusthave
beenimmenseinconvenienceindemandingahighlyintricateform
oftransferforahorseoranox，orforthemostcostlychattel
oftheoldworld——theSlave。Suchcommoditiesmusthavebeen
constantlyandevenordinarilyconveyedwithincompleteforms，
andheld，therefore，underimperfecttitles。
TheResMancipiofoldRomanlawwereland——inhistorical
times，landonItaliansoil，——slavesandbeastsofburden，such
ashorsesandoxen。Itisimpossibletodoubtthattheobjects
whichmakeuptheclassaretheinstrumentsofagricultural
labour，thecommoditiesoffirstconsequencetoaprimitive
people。Suchcommoditieswereatfirst，Iimagine，called
emphaticallyThingsorProperty，andthemodeofconveyanceby
whichtheyweretransferredwascalledaMancipiumor
Mancipation；butitwasnotprobablytillmuchlaterthatthey
receivedthedistinctiveappellationofResMancipi，"Things
whichrequireaMancipation。"Bytheirsidetheremayhave
existedorgrownupaclassofobjects，forwhichitwasnot
worthwhiletoinsistuponthefullceremonyofMancipation。It
wouldbeenoughif，intransferringtheselastfromownerto
owner，apartonlyoftheordinaryformalitieswereproceeded
with，namely，thatactualdelivery，physicaltransfer，or
tradition，whichisthemostobviousindexofachangeof
proprietorship。SuchcommoditiesweretheResNecMancipiofthe
ancientjurisprudence，"thingswhichdidnotrequirea
Mancipation，"littleprizedprobablyatfirst，andnotoften
passedfromonegroupofproprietorstoanother。While，however，
thelistoftheResMancipiwasirrevocablyclosed，thatofthe
ResNecMancipiadmittedofindefiniteexpansion；andhenceevery
freshconquestofmanovermaterialnatureaddedanitemtothe
ResNecMancipi，oreffectedanimprovementinthosealready
recognised。Insensibly，therefore，theymountedtoanequality
withtheResMancipi，andtheimpressionofanintrinsic
inferioritybeingthusdissipated，menbegantoobservethe
manifoldadvantagesofthesimpleformalitywhichaccompanied
theirtransferoverthemoreintricateandmorevenerable
ceremonial。Twooftheagentsoflegalamelioration，Fictionsand
Equity，wereassiduouslyemployedbytheRomanlawyerstogive
thepracticaleffectsofaMancipationtoaTradition:and，
thoughRomanlegislatorslongshrankfromenactingthattheright
ofpropertyinaResMancipishouldbeimmediatelytransferredby
baredeliveryofthearticle，yeteventhisstepwasatlast
ventureduponbyJustinian，inwhosejurisprudencethedifference
betweenResMancipiandResNecMancipidisappears，andTradition
orDeliverybecomestheonegreatconveyanceknowntothelaw。
ThemarkedpreferencewhichtheRomanlawyersveryearlygaveto
Traditioncausedthemtoassignitaplaceintheirtheorywhich
hashelpedtoblindtheirmoderndisciplestoitstruehistory。
Itwasclassedamongthe"natural"modesofacquisition，both
becauseitwasgenerallypractisedamongtheItaliantribes，and
becauseitwasaprocesswhichattaineditsobjectbythe
simplestmechanism。Iftheexpressionsofthejurisconsultsbe
pressed，theyundoubtedlyimplythatTradition，whichbelongsto
theLawNatural，ismoreancientthanMancipation，whichisan
institutionofCivilSociety；andthis，Ineednotsay，isthe
exactreverseofthetruth。
ThedistinctionbetweenResMancipiandResNecMancipiis
thetypeofaclassofdistinctionstowhichcivilisationismuch
indebted，distinctionswhichrunthroughthewholemassof
commodities，placingafewoftheminaclassbythemselves，and
relegatingtheotherstoalowercategory。Theinferiorkindsof
propertyarefirst，fromdisdainanddisregard，releasedfromthe
perplexedceremoniesinwhichprimitivelawdelights，andthus
afterwards，inanotherstateofintellectualprogress，thesimple
methodsoftransferandrecoverywhichhavebeenallowedtocome
intouseserveasamodelwhichcondemnsbyitsconvenienceand
simplicitythecumbroussolemnitiesinheritedfromancientdays。
But，insomesocieties，thetrammelsinwhichPropertyistiedup
aremuchtoocomplicatedandstringenttoberelaxedinsoeasya
manner。WhenevermalechildrenhavebeenborntoaHindoo，the
lawofIndia，asIhavestated，givesthemallaninterestinhis
property，andmakestheirconsentanecessaryconditionofits
alienation。Inthesamespirit，thegeneralusageoftheold
Germanicpeoples——itisremarkablethattheAnglo-Saxoncustoms
seemtohavebeenanexceptionforbadealienationswithoutthe
consentofthemalechildren；andtheprimitivelawofthe
Sclavoniansevenprohibitedthemaltogether。Itisevidentthat
suchimpedimentsasthesecannotbeovercomebyadistinction
betweenkindsofproperty，inasmuchasthedifficultyextendsto
commoditiesofallsorts；andaccordingly，AncientLaw，whenonce
launchedonacourseofimprovement，encountersthemwitha
distinctionofanothercharacter，adistinctionclassifying
property，notaccordingtoitsnaturebutaccordingtoits
origin。InIndia，wheretherearetracesofbothsystemsof
classification，theonewhichweareconsideringisexemplified
inthedifferencewhichHindoolawestablishesbetween
InheritancesandAcquisitions。Theinheritedpropertyofthe
fatherissharedbythechildrenassoonastheyareborn；but
accordingtothecustomofmostprovinces，theacquisitionsmade
byhimduringhislifetimearewhollyhisown，andcanbe
transferredbyhimatpleasure。Asimilardistinctionwasnot
unknowntoRomanlaw，inwhichtheearliestinnovationonthe
ParentalPowerstooktheformofapermissiongiventothesonto
keepforhimselfwhateverhemighthaveacquiredinmilitary
service。Butthemostextensiveuseevermadeofthismodeof
classificationappearstohavebeenamongtheGermans，Ihave
repeatedlystatedthattheallod，thoughnotinalienable，was
commonlytransferablewiththegreatestdifficulty。andmoreover，
itdescendedexclusivelytotheagnatickindred。Hencean
extraordinaryvarietyofdistinctionscametoberecognised，all
intendedtodiminishtheinconveniencesinseparablefromallodial
property。Thewehrgeld，forexample，orcompositionforthe
homicideofarelative，whichoccupiessolargeaspaceinGerman
jurisprudence，formednopartofthefamilydomain，anddescended
accordingtorulesofsuccessionaltogetherdifferent。Similarly，
thereipus，orfineleviableonthere-marriageofawidow，did
notenterintotheallodofthepersontowhomitwaspaid，and
followedalineofdevolutioninwhichtheprivilegesofthe
agnateswereneglected。Thelaw，too，asamongtheHindoos，
distinguishedtheAcquisitionsofthechiefofthehouseholdfrom
hisInheritedproperty，andpermittedhimtodealwiththemunder
muchmoreliberalconditions。Classificationsoftheothersort
werealsoadmitted，andthefamiliardistinctiondrawnbetween
landandmoveables；butmoveablepropertywasdividedinto
severalsubordinatecategories，toeachofwhichdifferentrules
applied。Thisexuberanceofclassification，whichmaystrikeus
asstrangeinsorudeapeopleastheGermanconquerorsofthe
Empire，isdoubtlesstobeexplainedbythepresenceintheir
systemsofaconsiderableelementofRomanlaw，absorbedbythem
duringtheirlongsojournontheconfinesoftheRomandominion。
Itisnotdifficulttotraceagreatnumberoftherules
governingthetransferanddevolutionofthecommoditieswhich
layoutsidetheallod，totheirsourceinRomanjurisprudence，
fromwhichtheywereprobablyborrowedatwidelydistantepochs，
andinfragmentaryimportations。Howfartheobstaclestothe
freecirculationofpropertyweresurmountedbysuch
contrivances，wehavenotthemeansevenofconjecturing，forthe
distinctionsadvertedtohavenomodernhistory。AsIbefore
explained，theallodialformofpropertywasentirelylostinthe
feudal，andwhentheconsolidationoffeudalismwasonce
completed，therewaspracticallybutonedistinctionleft
standingofallthosewhichhadbeenknowntothewesternworld——
thedistinctionbetweenlandandgoods，immoveablesand
moveables。Externallythisdistinctionwasthesamewiththat
whichRomanlawhadfinallyaccepted，butthelawofthemiddle
agesdifferedfromthatofRomeindistinctlyconsidering
immoveablepropertytobemoredignifiedthanmoveable。Yetthis
onesampleisenoughtoshowtheimportanceoftheclassof
expedientstowhichitbelongs。Inallthecountriesgovernedby
systemsbasedontheFrenchcodes，thatis，throughmuchthe
greatestpartoftheContinentofEurope，thelawofmoveables，
whichwasalwaysRomanlaw，hassupersededandannulledthe
feudallawofland。Englandistheonlycountryofimportancein
whichthistransmutation，thoughithasgonesomeway，isnot
nearlyaccomplished。Ourown，too，itmaybeadded，istheonly
considerableEuropeancountryinwhichtheseparationof
moveablesfromimmoveableshasbeensomewhatdisturbedbythe
sameinfluenceswhichcausedtheancientclassificationsto
departfromtheonlyonewhichiscountenancedbynature。Inthe
main，theEnglishdistinctionhasbeenbetweenlandandgoods；
butacertainclassofgoodshavegoneasheir-loomswiththe
land，andacertaindescriptionofinterestsinlandhavefrom
historicalcausesbeenrankedwithpersonaltyThisisnotthe
onlyinstanceinwhichEnglishjurisprudence，standingapartfrom
themaincurrentoflegalmodification，hasreproducedphenomena
ofarchaiclaw。
Iproceedtonoticeoneortwomorecontrivancesbywhichthe
ancienttrammelsofproprietaryrightweremoreorless
successfullyrelaxed，premisingthattheschemeofthistreatise
onlypermitsmetomentionthosewhichareofgreatantiquity。On
oneoftheminparticularitisnecessarytodwellforamoment
ortwo，becausepersonsunacquaintedwiththeearlyhistoryof
lawwillnotbeeasilypersuadedthataprinciple，ofwhich
modernjurisprudencehasveryslowlyandwiththegreatest
difficultyobtainedtherecognition，wasreallyfamiliartothe
veryinfancyoflegalscience。Thereisnoprincipleinalllaw
whichthemoderns，inspiteofitsbeneficialcharacter，have
beensoloathtoadoptandtocarrytoitslegitimate
consequencesasthatwhichwasknowntotheRomansasUsucapion，
andwhichhasdescendedtomodernjurisprudenceunderthenameof
Prescription。ItwasapositiveruleoftheoldestRomanlaw，a
ruleolderthantheTwelveTables，thatcommoditieswhichhad
beenuninterruptedlypossessedforacertainperiodbecamethe
propertyofthepossessor。Theperiodofpossessionwas
exceedinglyshortoneortwoyearsaccordingtothenatureofthe
commoditiesandinhistoricaltimesUsucapionwasonlyallowedto
operatewhenpossessionhadcommencedinaparticularway；butI
thinkitlikelythatatalessadvancedepochpossessionwas
convertedintoownershipunderconditionsevenlessseverethan
wereadofinourauthorities。AsIhavesaidbefore，Iamfar
fromassertingthattherespectofmenfordefactopossessionis
aphenomenonwhichjurisprudencecanaccountforbyitself，but
itisverynecessarytoremarkthatprimitivesocieties，in
adoptingtheprincipleofUsucapion，werenotbesetwithanyof
thespeculativedoubtsandhesitationswhichhaveimpededits
receptionamongthemoderns。Prescriptionswereviewedbythe
modernlawyers，firstwithrepugnance，afterwardswithreluctant
approval。Inseveralcountries，includingourown，legislation
longdeclinedtoadvancebeyondtherudedeviceofbarringall
actionsbasedonawrongwhichhadbeensufferedearlierthana
fixedpointoftimeinthepast，generallythefirstyearofsome
precedingreign；norwasittillthemiddleageshadfinally
closed，andJamestheFirsthadascendedthethroneofEngland，
thatweobtainedatruestatuteoflimitationofaveryimperfect
kind。Thistardinessincopyingoneofthemostfamouschapters
ofRomanlaw，whichwasnodoubtconstantlyreadbythemajority
ofEuropeanlawyers，themodernworldowestotheinfluenceof
theCanonLaw。TheecclesiasticalcustomsoutofwhichtheCanon
Lawgrew，concernedastheywerewithsacredorquasi-sacred
interests，verynaturallyregardedtheprivilegeswhichthey
conferredasincapableofbeinglostthroughdisusehowever
prolonged；andinaccordancewiththisview，thespiritual
jurisprudence，whenafterwardsconsolidated，wasdistinguishedby
amarkedleaningagainstPrescriptions。Itwasthefateofthe
CanonLawwhenheldupbytheclericallawyersasapatternto
secularlegislation，tohaveapeculiarinfluenceonfirst
principles。Itgavetothebodiesofcustomwhichwereformed
throughoutEuropefarfewerexpressrulesthandidtheRomanlaw，
butthenitseemstohavecommunicatedabiastoprofessional
opiniononasurprisingnumberoffundamentalpoints，andthe
tendenciesthusproducedprogressivelygainedstrengthaseach
systemwasdeveloped。Oneofthedispositionsitproducedwasa
disrelishforPrescriptions；butIdonotknowthatthis
prejudicewouldhaveoperatedaspowerfullyasithasdone，ifit
hadnotfalleninwiththedoctrineofthescholasticjuristsof
therealistsect，whotaughtthat，whateverturnactual
legislationmighttake，aright，howlongsoeverneglected，was
inpointoffactindestructible。Theremainsofthisstateof
feelingstillexist。Whereverthephilosophyoflawisearnestly
discussed，questionsrespectingthespeculativebasisof
Prescriptionarealwayshotlydisputed；anditisstillapoint
ofthegreatestinterestinFranceandGermany，whetheraperson
whohasbeenoutofpossessionforaseriesofyearsisdeprived
ofhisownershipasapenaltyforhisneglect，orlosesit
throughthesummaryinterpositionofthelawinitsdesireto
haveafinislitium。Butnosuchscruplestroubledthemindof
earlyRomansociety。Theirancientusagesdirectlytookawaythe
ownershipofeverybodywhohadbeenoutofpossession，under
certaincircumstances，duringoneortwoyear。Whatwastheexact
tenoroftheruleofUsucapioninitsearliestshape，itisnot
easytosay；but，takenwiththelimitationswhichwefind
attendingitinthebooks，itwasamostusefulsecurityagainst
themischiefsofatoocumbroussystemofconveyance。Inorderto
havethebenefitofUsucapion，itwasnecessarythattheadverse
possessionshouldhavebeguningoodfaith，thatis，withbelief
onthepartofthepossessorthathewaslawfullyacquiringthe
property，anditwasfartherrequiredthatthecommodityshould
havebeentransferredtohimbysomemodeofalienationwhich，
howeverunequaltoconferringacompletetitleintheparticular
case，wasatleastrecognisedbythelaw。Inthecasetherefore
ofaMancipation，howeverslovenlytheperformancemighthave
been，yetifithadbeencarriedsofarastoinvolveaTradition
orDelivery，theviceofthetitlewouldbecuredbyUsucapionin
twoyearsatmost。IknownothinginthepracticeoftheRomans
whichtestifiessostronglytotheirlegalgeniusastheuse
whichtheymadeofUsucapion。Thedifficultieswhichbesetthem
werenearlythesamewiththosewhichembarrassedandstill
embarrassthelawyersofEngland。Owingtothecomplexityof
theirsystem，whichasyettheyhadneitherthecouragenorthe
powertoreconstruct，actualrightwasconstantlygetting
divorcedfromtechnicalright，theequitableownershipfromthe
legal。ButUsucapion，asmanipulatedbythejurisconsults，
suppliedaself-actingmachinery，bywhichthedefectsoftitles
topropertywerealwaysincourseofbeingcured，andbywhich
theownershipsthatweretemporarilyseparatedwereagainrapidly
cementedtogetherwiththebriefestpossibledelay。Usucapiondid
notloseitsadvantagestillthereformsofJustinian。Butas
soonaslawandequityhadbeencompletelyfused，andwhen
MancipationceasedtobetheRomanconveyance，therewasno
furthernecessityfortheancientcontrivance，andUsucapion，
withitsperiodsoftimeconsiderablylengthened，becamethe
Prescriptionwhichhasatlengthbeenadoptedbynearlyall
systemsofmodernlaw。
Ipassbywithbriefmentionanotherexpedienthavingthe
sameobjectwiththelast，which，thoughitdidnotimmediately
makeitsappearanceinEnglishlegalhistory，wasofimmemorial
antiquityinRomanlaw。suchindeedisitsapparentagethatsome
Germancivilians，notsufficientlyawareofthelightthrownon
thesubjectbytheanalogiesofEnglishlaw，havethoughtiteven
olderthantheMancipation。IspeakoftheCessioinJure，a
collusiverecovery，inaCourtoflawofpropertysoughttobe
conveyed。Theplaintiffclaimedthesubjectofthisproceeding
withtheordinaryformsofalitigation；thedefendantmade
default；andthecommoditywasofcourseadjudgedtothe
plaintiff。IneedscarcelyremindtheEnglishlawyerthatthis
expedientsuggesteditselftoourforefathers，andproducedthose
famousFinesandRecoverieswhichdidsomuchtoundothe
harshesttrammelsofthefeudalland-law。TheRomanandEnglish
contrivanceshaveverymuchincommonandillustrateeachother
mostinstructively，butthereisthisdifferencebetweenthem，
thattheobjectoftheEnglishlawyerswastoremove
complicationsalreadyintroducedintothetitle，whiletheRoman
jurisconsultssoughttopreventthembysubstitutingamodeof
transfernecessarilyunimpeachableforonewhichtoooften
miscarried。Thedeviceis，infact，onewhichsuggestsitselfas
soonasCourtsofLawareinsteadyoperation，butare
neverthelessstillundertheempireofprimitivenotions。Inan
advancedstateoflegalopinion，tribunalsregardcollusive
litigationasanabuseoftheirprocedure；buttherehasalways
beenatimewhen，iftheirformswerescrupulouslycompliedwith，
theyneverdreamedoflookingfurther。
TheinfluenceofCourtsofLawandoftheirprocedureupon
Propertyhasbeenmostextensive，butthesubjectistoolarge
forthedimensionsofthistreatise，andwouldcarryusfurther
downthecourseoflegalhistorythanisconsistentwithits
scheme。Itisdesirable，however，tomention，thattothis
influencewemustattributetheimportanceofthedistinction
betweenPropertyandPossession——not，indeed，thedistinction
itself，which(inthelanguageofaneminentEnglishcivilian)is
thesamethingasthedistinctionbetweenthelegalrighttoact
uponathingandthephysicalpowertodoso——butthe
extraordinaryimportancewhichthedistinctionhasobtainedin
thephilosophyoflaw。Feweducatedpersonsaresolittleversed
inlegalliteratureasnottohaveheardthatthelanguageofthe
RomanjurisconsultsonthesubjectofPossessionlongoccasioned
thegreatestpossibleperplexity，andthatthegeniusofSavigny
issupposedtohavechieflyproveditselfbythesolutionwhich
hediscoveredfortheenigma。Possession，infact，whenemployed
bytheRomanlawyers，appearstohavecontractedashadeof
meaningnoteasilyaccountedfor。Theword，asappearsfromits
etymology；musthaveoriginallydenotedphysicalcontactor
physicalcontactresumeableatpleasure；but，asactuallyused
withoutanyqualifyingepithet，itsignifiesnotsimplyphysical
detention，butphysicaldetentioncoupledwiththeintentionto
holdthethingdetainedasone’sown。Savigny，followingNiebuhr，
perceivedthatforthisanomalytherecouldonlybeahistorical
origin。HepointedoutthatthePatricianburghersofRome，who
hadbecometenantsofthegreatestpartofthepublicdomainat
nominalrents，were，intheviewoftheoldRomanlaw，mere
possessors，butthentheywerepossessorsintendingtokeeptheir
landagainstallcomers。They，intruth，putforwardaclaim
almostidenticalwiththatwhichhasrecentlybeenadvancedin
EnglandbythelesseesofChurchlands。Admittingthatintheory
theywerethetenants-at-willofthestate，theycontendedthat
timeandundisturbedenjoymenthadripenedtheirholdingintoa
speciesofownership，andthatitwouldbeunjusttoejectthem
forthepurposeofredistributingthedomain。Theassociationof
thisclaimwiththePatriciantenancies，permanentlyinfluenced
thesenseof"possession。"Meanwhiletheonlylegalremediesof
whichthetenantscouldavailthemselves，ifejectedor
threatenedwithdisturbance，werethePossessoryInterdicts，
summaryprocessesofRomanlawwhichwereeitherexpressly
devisedbythePraetorfortheirprotection，orelse，according
toanothertheory，hadinoldertimesbeenemployedforthe
provisionalmaintenanceofpossessionspendingthesettlementof
questionsoflegalright。Itcame，therefore，tobeunderstood
thateverybodywhopossessedpropertyashisownhadthepowerof
demandingtheInterdicts，and，byasystemofhighlyartificial
pleading，theInterdictalprocesswasmouldedintoashapefitted
forthetrialofconflictingclaimstoadisputedpossession。
Thencommencedamovementwhich，asMrJohnAustinpointedout，
exactlyreproduceditselfinEnglishlaw。Proprietors，domini，
begantopreferthesimplerformsorspeediercourseofthe
InterdicttothelaggingandintricateformalitiesoftheReal
Action，andforthepurposeofavailingthemselvesofthe
possessoryremedyfellbackuponthepossessionwhichwas
supposedtobeinvolvedintheirproprietorship。Theliberty
concededtopersonswhowerenottruePossessors，butOwners，to
vindicatetheirrightsbypossessoryremedies，thoughitmayhave
beenatfirstaboon，hadultimatelytheeffectofseriously
deterioratingbothEnglishandRomanjurisprudence。TheRomanlaw
owestoitthosesubtletiesonthesubjectofPossessionwhich
havedonesomuchtodiscreditit，whileEnglishlaw，afterthe
actionswhichitappropriatedtotherecoveryofrealproperty
hadfallenintothemosthopelessconfusion，gotridatlastof
thewholetangledmassbyaheroicremedy。Noonecandoubtthat
thevirtualabolitionoftheEnglishrealactionswhichtook
placenearlythirtyyearssincewasapublicbenefit，butstill
personssensitivetotheharmoniesofjurisprudencewilllament
that，insteadofcleansing，improving，andsimplifyingthetrue
proprietaryactions，wesacrificedthemalltothepossessory
actionofejectment，thusbasingourwholesystemofland
recoveryuponalegalfiction。
Legaltribunalshavealsopowerfullyassistedtoshapeand
modifyconceptionsofproprietaryrightbymeansofthe
distinctionbetweenLawandEquity，whichalwaysmakesitsfirst
appearanceasadistinctionbetweenjurisdictions。Equitable
propertyinEnglandissimplypropertyheldunderthe
jurisdictionoftheCourtofChancery。AtRome，thePraetor’s
Edictintroduceditsnovelprinciplesintheguiseofapromise
thatundercertaincircumstancesaparticularactionora
particularpleawouldbegranted；and，accordingly，theproperty
inbonis，orEquitableProperty，ofRomanlawwasproperty
exclusivelyprotectedbyremedieswhichhadtheirsourceinthe
Edict。Themechanismbywhichequitablerightsweresavedfrom
beingoverriddenbytheclaimsofthelegalownerwassomewhat
differentinthetwosystems。Withustheirindependenceis
securedbytheInjunctionoftheCourtofChancery。Sincehowever
LawandEquity，whilenotasyetconsolidated，wereadministered
undertheRomansystembythesameCourt，nothinglikethe
Injunctionwasrequired，andtheMagistratetookthesimpler
courseofrefusingtogranttotheCivilLawOwnerthoseactions
andpleasbywhichalonehecouldobtainthepropertythat
belongedinequitytoanother。Butthepracticaloperationof
bothsystemswasnearlythesame。Both，bymeansofadistinction
inprocedure，wereabletopreservenewformsofpropertyina
sortofprovisionalexistence，untilthetimeshouldcomewhen
theywererecognisedbythewholelaw。Inthisway，theRoman
Praetorgaveanimmediaterightofpropertytothepersonwhohad
acquiredaResMancipibymeredelivery，withoutwaitingforthe
ripeningofUsucapion。Similarlyheintimerecognisedan
ownershipintheMortgageewhohadatfirstbeenamere"bailee"
ordepositary，andintheEmphyteuta，ortenantoflandwhichwas
subjecttoafixedperpetualrent。Followingaparallellineof
progress，theEnglishCourtofChancerycreatedaspecial
proprietorshipfortheMortgagor，fortheCestuiqueTrust，for
theMarriedWomanwhohadtheadvantageofaparticularkindof
settlement，andforthePurchaserwhohadnotyetacquireda
completelegalownership。Alltheseareexamplesinwhichforms
ofproprietoryright，distinctlynew，wererecognisedand
preserved。ButindirectlyPropertyhasbeenaffectedina
thousandwaysbyequitybothinEnglandandatRome。Into
whatevercornerofjurisprudenceitsauthorspushedthepowerful
instrumentintheircommand，theyweresuretomeet，andtouch，
andmoreorlessmateriallymodifythelawofproperty:Whenin
theprecedingpagesIhavespokenofcertainancientlegal
distinctionsandexpedientsashavingpowerfullyaffectedthe
historyofownership，Imustbeunderstoodtomeanthatthe
greatestpartoftheirinfluencehasarisenfromthehintsand
suggestionsofimprovementinfusedbythemintothemental
atmospherewhichwasbreathedbythefabricatorsofequitable
systems。
ButtodescribetheinfluenceofEquityonOwnershipwouldbe
towriteitshistorydowntoourowndays。Ihavealludedtoit
principallybecauseseveralesteemedcontemporarywritershave
thoughtthatintheRomanseveranceofEquitablefromLegal
propertywehavethecluetothatdifferenceintheconceptionof
Ownership，whichapparentlydistinguishesthelawofthemiddle
agesfromthelawoftheRomanEmpire。Theleadingcharacteristic
ofthefeudalconceptionisitsrecognitionofadouble
proprietorship，thesuperiorownershipofthelordofthefief
co-existingwiththeinferiorpropertyorestateofthetenant。
Nowthisduplicationofproprietaryrightlooks，itisurged，
extremelylikeageneralisedformoftheRomandistributionof
rightsoverpropertyintoQuiritarianorlegal，and(tousea
wordoflateorigin)Bonitarianorequitable。Gaiushimself
observesuponthesplittingofdominionintotwopartsasa
singularityofRomanlaw，andexpresslycontrastsitwiththe
entireorallodialownershiptowhichothernationswere
accustomed。Justinian，itistrue，re-consolidateddominioninto
one，butthenitwasthepartiallyreformedsystemoftheWestern
Empire，andnotJustinian’sjurisprudence，withwhichthe
barbarianswereincontactduringsomanycenturies。Whilethey
remainedpoisedontheedgeoftheEmpire，itmaywellbethat
theylearnedthisdistinction，whichafterwardsboreremarkable
fruit。Infavourofthistheory，itmustatalleventsbe
admittedthattheelementofRomanlawinthevariousbodiesof
barbariancustomhasbeenveryimperfectlyexamined。The
erroneousorinsufficienttheorieswhichhaveservedtoexplain
Feudalismresembleeachotherintheirtendencytodrawoff
attentionfromthisparticularingredientinitstexture。The
olderinvestigators，whohavebeenmostlyfollowedinthis
country，attachedanexclusiveimportancetothecircumstancesof
theturbulentperiodduringwhichtheFeudalsystemgrewto
maturity；andinlatertimesanewsourceoferrorhasbeenadded
tothosealreadyexisting，inthatprideofnationalitywhichhas
ledGermanwriterstoexaggeratethecompletenessofthesocial
fabricwhichtheirforefathershadbuiltupbeforetheir
appearanceintheRomanworld。OneortwoEnglishinquirerswho
lookedintherightquarterforthefoundationsofthefeudal
system，failedneverthelesstoconducttheirinvestigationsto
anysatisfactoryresult，eitherfromsearchingtooexclusively
foranalogiesinthecompilationsofJustinian，orfromconfining
theirattentiontothecompendiaofRomanlawwhicharefound
appendedtosomeoftheextantbarbariancodes。But，ifRoman
jurisprudencehadanyinfluenceonthebarbaroussocieties，it
hadprobablyproducedthegreatestpartofitseffectsbeforethe
legislationofJustinian，andbeforethepreparationofthese
compendia。Itwasnotthereformedandpurifiedjurisprudenceof
Justinian，buttheundigestedsystemwhichprevailedinthe
WesternEmpire，andwhichtheEasternCorpusJurisnever
succeededindisplacing，thatIconceivetohaveclothedwith
fleshandmusclethescantyskeletonofbarbaroususage。The
changemustbesupposedtohavetakenplacebeforetheGermanic
tribeshaddistinctlyappropriated，asconqueror，anyportionof
theRomandominions，andthereforelongbeforeGermanicmonarchs
hadorderedbreviariesofRomanlawtobedrawnupfortheuseof
theirRomansubjects。Thenecessityforsomesuchhypothesiswill
befeltbyeverybodywhocanappreciatethedifferencebetween
archaicanddevelopedlaw。RudeasaretheLegesBarbarorumwhich
remaintous，theyarenotrudeenoughtosatisfythetheoryof
theirpurelybarbarousorigin；norhaveweanyreasonfor
believingthatwehavereceived，inwrittenrecords，morethana
fractionofthefixedruleswhichwerepractisedamongthemselves
bythemembersoftheconqueringtribes。Ifwecanoncepersuade
ourselvesthataconsiderableelementofdebasedRomanlaw
alreadyexistedinthebarbariansystems，weshallhavedone
somethingtoremoveagravedifficulty。TheGermanlawofthe
conquerorsandtheRomanlawoftheirsubjectswouldnothave
combinediftheyhadnotpossessedmoreaffinityforeachother
thanrefinedjurisprudencehasusuallyforthecustomsof
savages。Itisextremelylikelythatthecodesofthebarbarians，
archaicastheyseem，areonlyacompoundoftrueprimitiveusage
withhalf-understoodRomanrules，andthatitwastheforeign
ingredientwhichenabledthemtocoalescewithaRoman
jurisprudencethathadalreadyrecededsomewhatfromthe
comparativefinishwhichithadacquiredundertheWestern
Emperors。
But，thoughallthismustbeallowed，thereareseveral
considerationswhichrenderitunlikelythatthefeudalformof
ownershipwasdirectlysuggestedbytheRomanduplicationof
domainialrights。Thedistinctionbetweenlegalandequitable
propertystrikesoneasasubtletylittlelikelytobe
appreciatedbybarbarians；and，moreover，itcanscarcelybe
understoodunlessCourtsofLawarecontemplatedinregular
operation。Butthestrongestreasonagainstthistheoryisthe
existenceinRomanLawofaformofproperty——acreationof
Equity，itistrue——whichsuppliesamuchsimplerexplanation
ofthetransitionfromonesetofideastotheother。Thisisthe
Emphyteusis，uponwhichtheFiefofthemiddleageshasoften
beenfathered，thoughwithoutmuchknowledgeoftheexactshare
whichithadinbringingfeudalownershipintotheworld。The
truthisthattheEmphyteusis，notprobablyasyetknownbyits
Greekdesignation，marksonestageinacurrentofideaswhich
ledultimatelytofeudalism。ThefirstmentioninRomanhistory
ofestateslargerthancouldbefarmedbyaPaterfamilias，with
hishouseholdofsonsandslaves，occurswhenwecometothe
holdingsoftheRomanpatricians。Thesegreatproprietorsappear
tohavehadnoideaofanysystemoffarmingbyfreetenants。
Theirlatifundiaseemtohavebeenuniversallycultivatedby
slave-gangs，underbailiffswhowerethemselvesslavesor
freedmen；andtheonlyorganisationattemptedappearstohave
consistedindividingtheinferiorslavesintosmallbodies，and
makingthemthepeculiumofthebetterandtrustiersort，who
thusacquiredakindofinterestintheefficiencyoftheir
labour。Thissystemwas，however，especiallydisadvantageousto
oneclassofestatedproprietors，theMunicipalities。
FunctionariesinItalywerechangedwiththerapiditywhichoften
surprisesusintheadministrationofRomeherself；sothatthe
superintendenceofalargeladeddomainbyanItaliancorporation
musthavebeenexcessivelyimperfect。Accordingly，wearetold
thatwiththemunicipalitiesbeganthepracticeoflettingout
agrivectigules，thatis，ofleasinglandforaperpetuitytoa
freetenant，atafixedrent，andundercertainconditions。The
planwasafterwardsextensivelyimitatedbyindividual
proprietors，andthetenant，whoserelationtotheownerhad
originallybeendeterminedbyhiscontract，wassubsequently
recognisedbythePraetorashavinghimselfaqualified
proprietorship，whichintimebecameknownasanEmphyteusis。
Fromthispointthehistoryoftenurepartsintotwobranches。In
thecourseofthatlongperiodduringwhichourrecordsofthe
RomanEmpirearemostincomplete，theslave-gangsofthegreat
Romanfamiliesbecametransformedintothecoloni，whoseorigin
andsituationconstituteoneoftheobscurestquestionsinall
History。Wemaysuspectthattheywereformedpartlybythe
elevationoftheslaves，andpartlybythedegradationofthe
freefarmers；andthattheyprovethericherclassesoftheRoman
Empiretohavebecomeawareoftheincreasedvaluewhichlanded
propertyobtainswhenthecultivatorhadaninterestinthe
produceoftheland。Weknowthattheirservitudewaspredial；
thatitwantedmanyofthecharacteristicsofabsoluteslavery，
andthattheyacquittedtheirservicetothelandlordin
renderingtohimafixedportionoftheannualcrop。Weknow
furtherthattheysurvivedallthemutationsofsocietyinthe
ancientandmodernworlds。Thoughincludedinthelowercourses
ofthefeudalstructure，theycontinuedinmanycountriesto
rendertothelandlordpreciselythesamedueswhichtheyhad
paidtotheRomandominus，andfromaparticularclassamong
them，thecolonimedietariiwhoreservedhalftheproduceforthe
owner，aredescendedthemetayertenantry，whostillconductthe
cultivationofthesoilinalmostalltheSouthofEurope。Onthe
otherhand，theEmphyteusis，ifwemaysointerprettheallusions
toitintheCorpusJuris，becameafavouriteandbeneficial
modificationofproperty；anditmaybeconjecturedthatwherever
freefarmersexisted，itwasthistenurewhichregulatedtheir
interestintheland。ThePraetor，ashasbeensaid，treatedthe
Emphyteutaasatrueproprietor。Whenejected，hewasallowedto
reinstatehimselfbyaRealAction，thedistinctivebadgeof
proprietoryright，andhewasprotectedfromdisturbancebythe
authorofhisleasesolongasthecanon，orquit-rent，was
punctuallypaid。Butatthesametimeitmustnotbesupposed
thattheownershipoftheauthoroftheleasewaseitherextinct
ordormant。Itwaskeptalivebyapowerofre-entryon
nonpaymentoftherent，arightofpre-emptionincaseofsale，
andacertaincontroloverthemodeofcultivation。Wehave，
therefore，intheEmphyteusisastrikingexampleofthedouble
ownershipwhichcharacterisedfeudalproperty，andone，moreover，
whichismuchsimplerandmuchmoreeasilyimitatedthanthe
juxtapositionoflegalandequitablerights。TheHistoryofthe
Romantenuredoesnotend，However，atthispoint。Wehaveclear
evidencethatbetweenthegreatfortresseswhich，disposedalong
thelineoftheRhineandDanube，longsecuredthefrontierof
theEmpireagainstitsbarbarianneighbours，thereextendeda
successionofstripsofland，theagrilimitrophi，whichwere
occupiedbyveteransoldiersoftheRomanarmyonthetermsofan
Emphyteusis。Therewasadoubleownership。TheRomanStatewas
landlordofthesoil，butthesoldierscultivateditwithout
disturbancesolongastheyheldthemselvesreadytobecalled
outformilitaryservicewheneverthestateofthebordershould
requireit。Infact，asortofgarrison-duty，underasystem
closelyresemblingthatofthemilitarycoloniesonthe
Austro-Turkishborder，hadtakentheplaceofthequit-rentwhich
wastheserviceoftheordinaryEmphyteuta。Itseemsimpossible
todoubtthatthiswastheprecedentcopiedbythebarbarian
monarchswhofoundedfeudalism。Ithadbeenwithintheirviewfor
somehundredyears，andmanyoftheveteranswhoguardedthe
borderwere，itistoberemembered，themselvesofbarbarian
extraction，whoprobablyspoketheGermanictongues。Notonly
doestheproximityofsoeasilyfollowedamodelexplainwhence
theFrankishandLombardSovereignsgottheideaofsecuringthe
militaryserviceoftheirfollowersbygrantingawayportionsof
theirpublicdomain；butitperhapsexplainsthetendencywhich
immediatelyshoweditselfintheBeneficestobecomehereditary，
foranEmphyteusis，thoughcapableofbeingmouldedtotheterms
oftheoriginalcontract，neverthelessdescendedasageneral
ruletotheheirsofthegrantee。Itistruethattheholderofa
benefice，andmorerecentlythelordofoneofthosefiefsinto
whichthebeneficesweretransformed，appearstohaveowed
certainserviceswhichwerenotlikelytohavebeenrenderedby
themilitarycolonist，andwerecertainlynotrenderedbythe
Emphyteuta。Thedutyofrespectandgratitudetothefeudal
superior，theobligationtoassistinendowinghisdaughterand
equippinghisson，theliabilitytohisguardianshipinminority，
andmanyothersimilarincidentsoftenure，musthavebeen
literallyborrowedfromtherelationsofPatronandFreedman
underRomanlaw，thatis，ofquondam-masterandquondam-slave。
Butthenitisknownthattheearliestbeneficiarieswerethe
personalcompanionsofthesovereign，anditisindisputablethat
thisposition，brilliantasitseems，wasatfirstattendedby
someshadeofserviledebasement。Thepersonwhoministeredto
theSovereigninhisCourthadgivenupsomethingofthat
absolutepersonalfreedomwhichwastheproudestprivilegeofthe
allodialproprietor。
AncientLawbyHenryMaine