PrefaceThechiefobjectofthefollowingpagesistoindicatesomeoftheearliestideasofmankind，astheyarereflectedinAncientLaw，andtopointouttherelationofthoseideastomodernthought。Muchoftheinquiryattemptedcouldnothavebeenprosecutedwiththeslightesthopeofausefulresultiftherehadnotexistedabodyoflaw，likethatoftheRomans，bearinginitsearliestportionsthetracesofthemostremoteantiquityandsupplyingfromitslaterrulesthestapleofthecivilinstitutionsbywhichmodernsocietyisevennowcontrolled。ThenecessityoftakingtheRomanlawasatypicalsystemhascompelledtheauthortodrawfromitwhatmayappearadisproportionatenumberofhisillustrations；butithasnotbeenhisintentiontowriteatreatiseonRomanjurisprudence，andhehasasmuchaspossibleavoidedalldiscussionswhichmightgivethatappearancetohiswork。ThespaceallottedinthethirdandfourthchaptertocertainphilosophicaltheoriesoftheRomanJurisconsultshasbeenappropriatedtothemfortworeasons。Inthefirstplace，thosetheoriesappeartotheauthortohavehadawiderandmorepermanentinfluenceonthethoughtandactionoftheworldthanisusuallysupposed。Secondly，theyarebelievedtobetheultimatesourceofmostoftheviewswhichhavebeenprevalent，tillquiterecently，onthesubjectstreatedofinthisvolume。Itwasimpossiblefortheauthortoproceedfarwithhisundertakingwithoutstatinghisopinionontheorigin，meaning，andvalueofthosespeculations。
H。S。M。London，January，1861。
Chapter1
AncientCodesThemostcelebratedsystemofjurisprudenceknowntotheworldbegins，asitends，withaCode。Fromthecommencementtothecloseofitshistory，theexpositorsofRomanLawconsistentlyemployedlanguagewhichimpliedthatthebodyoftheirsystemrestedontheTwelveDecemviralTables，andthereforeonabasisofwrittenlaw。Exceptinoneparticular，noinstitutionsanteriortotheTwelveTableswererecognisedatRome。ThetheoreticaldescentofRomanjurisprudencefromacode，thetheoreticalascriptionofEnglishlawtoimmemorialunwrittentradition，werethechiefreasonswhythedevelopmentoftheirsystemdifferedfromthedevelopmentofours。Neithertheorycorrespondedexactlywiththefacts，buteachproducedconsequencesoftheutmostimportance。
IneedhardlysaythatthepublicationoftheTwelveTablesisnottheearliestpointatwhichwecantakeupthehistoryoflaw。TheancientRomancodebelongstoaclassofwhichalmosteverycivilisednationintheworldcanshowasample，andwhich，sofarastheRomanandHellenicworldswereconcerned，werelargelydiffusedoverthematepochsnotwidelydistantfromoneanother。Theyappearedunderexceedinglysimilarcircumstances，andwereproduced，toourknowledge，byverysimilarcauses。
Unquestionably，manyjuralphenomenaliebehindthesecodesandprecededtheminpointoftime。Notafewdocumentaryrecordsexistwhichprofesstogiveusinformationconcerningtheearlyphenomenaoflaw；but，untilphilologyhaseffectedacompleteanalysisoftheSanskritliterature，ourbestsourcesofknowledgeareundoubtedlytheGreekHomericpoems，consideredofcoursenotasahistoryofactualoccurrences，butasadescription，notwhollyidealised，ofastateofsocietyknowntothewriter。Howeverthefancyofthepoetmayhaveexaggeratedcertainfeaturesoftheheroicage，theprowessofwarriorandthepotencyofgods，thereisnoreasontobelievethatithastamperedwithmoralormetaphysicalconceptionswhichwerenotyetthesubjectsofconsciousobservation；andinthisrespecttheHomericliteratureisfarmoretrustworthythanthoserelativelylaterdocumentswhichpretendtogiveanaccountoftimessimilarlyearly，butwhichwerecompiledunderphilosophicalortheologicalinfluences。Ifbyanymeanswecandeterminetheearlyformsofjuralconceptions，theywillbeinvaluabletous。Theserudimentaryideasaretothejuristwhattheprimarycrustsoftheeartharetothegeologist。Theycontain，potentiallyalltheformsinwhichlawhassubsequentlyexhibiteditself。Thehasteortheprejudicewhichhasgenerallyrefusedthemallbutthemostsuperficialexamination，mustbeartheblameoftheunsatisfactoryconditioninwhichwefindthescienceofjurisprudence。Theinquiriesofthejuristareintruthprosecutedmuchasinquiryinphysicandphysiologywasprosecutedbeforeobservationhadtakentheplaceofassumption。
Theories，plausibleandcomprehensive，butabsolutelyunverified，suchastheLawofNatureortheSocialCompact，enjoyauniversalpreferenceoversoberresearchintotheprimitivehistoryofsocietyandlaw；andtheyobscurethetruthnotonlybydivertingattentionfromtheonlyquarterinwhichitcanbefound，butbythatmostrealandmostimportantinfluencewhich，whenonceentertainedandbelievedin，theyareenabledtoexerciseonthelaterstagesofjurisprudence。
Theearliestnotionsconnectedwiththeconception，nowsofullydeveloped，ofalaworruleoflife，arethosecontainedintheHomericwords\"Themis\"and\"Themistes。\"\"Themis，\"itiswellknown，appearsinthelaterGreekpantheonastheGoddessofJustice，butthisisamodernandmuchdevelopedidea，anditisinaverydifferentsensethatThemisisdescribedintheIliadastheassessorofZeus。Itisnowclearlyseenbyalltrustworthyobserveroftheprimitiveconditionofmankindthat，intheinfancyoftherace，mencouldonlyaccountforsustainedorperiodicallyrecurringactionbysupposingapersonalagent。
Thus，thewindblowingwasapersonandofcourseadivineperson；thesunrising，culminating，andsettingwasapersonandadivineperson；theearthyieldingherincreasewasapersonanddivine。As，then，inthephysicalworld，sointhemoral。Whenakingdecidedadisputebyasentence，thejudgmentwasassumedtobetheresultofdirectinspiration。Thedivineagent，suggestingjudicialawardstokingsortogods，thegreatestofkings，wasThemis。Thepeculiarityoftheconceptionisbroughtoutbytheuseoftheplural。Themistes，Themises，thepluralofThemis，aretheawardsthemselves，divinelydictatedtothejudge。Kingsarespokenofasiftheyhadastoreof\"Themistes\"readytohandforuse；butitmustbedistinctlyunderstoodthattheyarenotlaws，butjudgments。\"Zeus，orthehumankingonearth，\"saysMr。
Grote，inhisHistoryofGreece，\"isnotalawmaker，butajudge。\"HeisprovidedwithThemistes，but，consistentlywiththebeliefintheiremanationfromabove，theycannotbesupposedtobeconnectedbyanythreadofprinciple；theyareseparate，isolatedjudgments。
EvenintheHomericpoems，wecanseethattheseideasaretransient。Paritiesofcircumstancewereprobablycommonerinthesimplemechanismofancientsocietythantheyarenow，andinthesuccessionofsimilarcasesawardsarelikelytofollowandresembleeachother。HerewehavethegermorrudimentofaCustom，aconceptionposteriortothatofThemistesorjudgments。
Howeverstronglywe，withourmodernassociations，maybeinclinedtolaydownapriorithatthenotionofaCustommustprecedethatofajudicialsentence，andthatajudgmentmustaffirmaCustomorpunishitsbreach，itseemsquitecertainthatthehistoricalorderoftheideasisthatinwhichIhaveplacedthem。TheHomericwordforacustomintheembryoissometimes\"Themis\"inthesingular-moreoften\"Dike，\"themeaningofwhichvisiblyfluctuatesbetweena\"judgment\"anda\"custom\"or\"usage。\"Nomos，aLaw，sogreatandfamousaterminthepoliticalvocabularyofthelaterGreeksociety，doesnotoccurinHomer。
Thisnotionofadivineagency，suggestingtheThemistes，anditselfimpersonatedinThemis，mustbekeptapartfromotherprimitivebeliefswithwhichasuperficialinquirermightconfoundit。TheconceptionoftheDeitydictatinganentirecodeorbodyoflaw，asinthecaseoftheHindoolawsofMenu，seemstobelongtoarangeofideasmorerecentandmoreadvanced。
\"Themis\"and\"Themistes\"aremuchlessremotelylinkedwiththatpersuasionwhichclungsolongandsotenaciouslytothehumanmind，ofadivineinfluenceunderlyingandsupportingeveryrelationoflife，everysocialinstitution。Inearlylaw，andamidtherudimentsofpoliticalthought，symptomsofthisbeliefmeetusonallsides。Asupernaturalpresidencyissupposedtoconsecrateandkeeptogetherallthecardinalinstitutionsofthosetimes，theState，theRace，andtheFamily。Men，groupedtogetherinthedifferentrelationswhichthoseinstitutionsimply，areboundtocelebrateperiodicallycommonritesandtooffercommonsacrifices；andeverynowandthenthesamedutyisevenmoresignificantlyrecognisedinthepurificationsandexpiationswhichtheyperform，andwhichappearintendedtodeprecatepunishmentforinvoluntaryorneglectfuldisrespect。
Everybodyacquaintedwithordinaryclassicalliteraturewillrememberthesacragentilicia，whichexercisedsoimportantaninfluenceontheearlyRomanlawofadoptionandofwills。AndtothishourtheHindooCustomaryLaw，inwhichsomeofthemostcuriousfeaturesofprimitivesocietyarestereotyped，makesalmostalltherightsofpersonsandalltherulesofsuccessionhingeontheduesolemnisationoffixedceremoniesatthedeadman’sfuneral，thatis，ateverypointwhereabreachoccurinthecontinuityofthefamily。
Beforewequitthisstageofjurisprudence，acautionmaybeusefullygiventotheEnglishstudent。Bentham，inhisFragmentonGovernment，andAustin，inhisProvinceofJurisprudenceDetermined，resolveeverylawintoacommandofthelawgiver，anobligationimposedtherebyonthecitizen，andasanctionthreatenedintheeventofdisobedience；anditisfurtherpredicatedofthecommand，whichisthefirstelementinalaw，thatitmustprescribe，notasingleact，butaseriesornumberofactsofthesameclassorkind。Theresultsofthisseparationofingredientstallyexactlywiththefactsofmaturejurisprudence；and，byalittlestrainingoflanguage，theymaybemadetocorrespondinformwithalllaw，ofallkinds，atallepochs。Itisnot，however，assertedthatthenotionoflawentertainedbythegeneralityisevennowquiteinconformitywiththisdissection；anditiscuriousthat，thefartherwepenetrateintotheprimitivehistoryofthought，thefartherwefindourselvesfromaconceptionoflawwhichatallresemblesacompoundoftheelementswhichBenthamdetermined。Itiscertainthat，intheinfancyofmankind，nosortoflegislature，notevenadistinctauthoroflaw，iscontemplatedorconceivedof。Lawhasscarcelyreachedthefootingofcustom；itisratherahabit。
Itis，touseaFrenchphrase，\"intheair。\"Theonlyauthoritativestatementofrightandwrongisajudicialsentenceafterthefacts，notonepresupposingalawwhichhasbeenviolated，butonewhichisbreathedforthefirsttimebyahigherpowerintothejudge’smindatthemomentofadjudication。
Itisofcourseextremelydifficultforustorealiseaviewsofarremovedfromusinpointbothoftimeandofassociation，butitwillbecomemorecrediblewhenwedwellmoreatlengthontheconstitutionofancientSociety，inwhicheveryman，livingduringthegreaterpartofhislifeunderthepatriarchaldespotism，waspracticallycontrolledinallhisactionsbyaregimennotoflawbutofcaprice。ImayaddthatanEnglishmanshouldbebetterablethanaforeignertoappreciatethehistoricalfactthatthe\"Themistes\"precededanyconceptionoflaw，because，amidthemanyinconsistenttheorieswhichprevailconcerningthecharacterofEnglishjurisprudence，themostpopular，oratalleventstheonewhichmostaffectspractice，iscertainlyatheorywhichassumesthatadjudgedcasesandprecedentsexistantecedentlytorules，principles，anddistinctions。The\"Themistes\"havetoo，itshouldberemarked，thecharacteristicwhich，intheviewofBenthamandAustin，distinguishessingleormerecommandsfromlaws。Atruelawenjoinsonallthecitizensindifferentlyanumberofactssimilarinclassorkind；andthisisexactlythefeatureofalawwhichhasmostdeeplyimpresseditselfonthepopularmind，Causingtheterm\"law\"tobeappliedtomereuniformities，successions，andsimilitudes。Acommandprescribesonlyasingleact，anditistocommands，therefore，that\"Themistes\"aremoreakinthantolaws。Theyaresimplyadjudicationsoninsulatedstatesoffact，anddonotnecessarilyfolloweachotherinanyorderlysequence。
Theliteratureoftheheroicagedisclosestouslawinthegermunderthe\"Themistes\"andalittlemoredevelopedintheconceptionof\"Dike。\"Thenextstagewhichwereachinthehistoryofjurisprudenceisstronglymarkedandsurroundedbytheutmostinterest。Mr。Grote，inthesecondpartandsecondchapterofhisHistory，hasfullydescribedthemodeinwhichsocietygraduallyclotheditselfwithadifferentcharacterfromthatdelineatedbyHomer。Heroickingshipdependedpartlyondivinelygivenprerogative，andpartlyonthepossessionofsupereminentstrength，courage，andwisdom。Gradually，astheimpressionofthemonarch’ssacrednessbecameweakened，andfeeblemembersoccurredintheseriesofhereditarykings，theroyalpowerdecayed，andatlastgavewaytothedominionofaristocracies。
Iflanguagesoprecisecanbeusedoftherevolution，wemightsaythattheofficeofthekingwasusurpedbythatcouncilofchiefswhichHomerrepeatedlyalludestoanddepicts。AtalleventsfromanepochofkinglyrulewecomeeverywhereinEuropetoaneraofoligarchies；andevenwherethenameofthemonarchicalfunctionsdoesnotabsolutelydisappear，theauthorityofthekingisreducedtoamereshadow。Hebecomesamerehereditarygeneral；asinLacedaemon，amerefunctionary，astheKingArchonatAthens，oramereformalhierophant，liketheRexSacrificulusatRome。InGreece，Italy，andAsiaMinor，thedominantordersseemtohaveuniverallyconsistedofanumberoffamiliesunitedbyanassumedrelationshipinblood，and，thoughtheyallappearatfirsttohavelaidclaimtoaquasi-sacredcharacter，theirstrengthdoesnotseemtohaveresidedintheirpretendedsanctity。Unlesstheywereprematurelyoverthrownbythepopularparty，theyallultimatelyapproachedverycloselytowhatweshouldnowunderstandbyapoliticalaristocracy。ThechangeswhichsocietyunderwentinthecommunitiesofthefurtherAsiaoccurredofcourseatperiodslonganteriorinpointoftimetotheserevolutionsoftheItalianandHellenicworlds；buttheirrelativeplaceincivilisationappeartohavebeenthesame，andtheyseemtohavebeenexceedinglysimilaringeneralcharacter。ThereissomeevidencethattheraceswhichweresubsequentlyunitedunderthePersianmonarchy，andthosewhichpeopledthepeninsulaofIndia，hadalltheirheroicageandtheireraofaristocracies；butamilitaryandareligiousoligarchyappeartohavegrownupseparately，norwastheauthorityofthekinggenerallysuperseded。Contrary，too，tothecourseofeventsintheWest，thereligiouselementintheEasttendedtogetthebetterofthemilitaryandpolitical。Militaryandcivilaristocraciesdisappear，annihilatedorcrushedintoinsignificancebetweenthekingsandthesacerdotalorder；andtheultimateresultatwhichwearriveis，amonarchenjoyinggreatpower，butcircumscribedbytheprivilegesofacasteofpriests。Withthesedifferences，however，thatintheEastaristocraciesbecamereligious，intheWestcivilorpolitical，thepropositionthatahistoricaleraofaristocraciessucceededahistoricaleraofheroickingsmaybeconsideredastrue，ifnotofallmankind，atalleventsofallbranchesoftheIndo-Europeanfamilyofnations。
Theimportantpointforthejurististhatthesearistocracieswereuniversallythedepositariesandadministratorsoflaw。Theyseemtohavesucceededtotheprerogativesoftheking，withtheimportantdifference，however，thattheydonotappeartohavepretendedtodirectinspirationforeachsentence。Theconnectionofideaswhichcausedthejudgmentsofthepatriarchalchieftaintobeattributedtosuperhumandictationstillshowsitselfhereandthereintheclaimofadivineoriginfortheentirebodyofrules，orforcertainpartsofit，buttheprogressofthoughtnolongerpermitsthesolutionofparticulardisputestobeexplainedbysupposinganextra-humaninterposition。Whatthejuristicaloligarchynowclaimsistomonopolisetheknowledgeofthelaws，tohavetheexclusivepossessionoftheprinciplesbywhichquarrelsaredecided。WehaveinfactarrivedattheepochofCustomaryLaw。CustomsorObservancesnowexistasasubstantiveaggregate，andareassumedtobepreciselyknowntothearistocraticorderorcaste。Ourauthoritiesleaveusnodoubtthatthetrustlodgedwiththeoligarchywassometimesabused，butitcertainlyoughtnottoberegardedasamereusurpationorengineoftyranny。Beforetheinventionofwriting，andduringtheinfancyoftheart，anaristocracyinvestedwithjudicialprivilegesformedtheonlyexpedientbywhichaccuratepreservationofthecustomsoftheraceortribecouldbeatallapproximatedto。Theirgenuinenesswas，sofaraspossible，insuredbyconfidingthemtotherecollectionofalimitedportionofthecommunity。
TheepochofCustomaryLaw，andofitscustodybyaprivilegedorder，isaveryremarkableone。Theconditionofthejurisprudencewhichitimplieshaslefttraceswhichmaystillbedetectedinlegalandpopularphraseology。Thelaw，thusknownexclusivelytoaprivilegedminority，whetheracaste，anaristocracy，apriestlytribe，orasacerdotalcollege，istrueunwrittenlaw。Exceptthis，thereisnosuchthingasunwrittenlawintheworld。Englishcase-lawissometimesspokenofasunwritten，andtherearesomeEnglishtheoristswhoassureusthatifacodeofEnglishjurisprudencewerepreparedweshouldbeturningunwrittenlawintowritten——conversion，astheyinsist，ifnotofdoubtfulpolicy，atalleventsofthegreatestseriousness。Now，itisquitetruethattherewasonceaperiodatwhichtheEnglishcommonlawmightreasonablyhavebeentermedunwritten。TheelderEnglishjudgesdidreallypretendtoknowledgeofrules，principles，anddistinctionswhichwerenotentirelyrevealedtothebarandtothelay-public。Whetherallthelawwhichtheyclaimedtomonopolisewasreallyunwritten，isexceedinglyquestionable；butatallevents，ontheassumptionthattherewasoncealargemassofcivilandcriminalrulesknownexclusivelytothejudges，itpresentlyceasedtobeunwrittenlaw。AssoonastheCourtsatWestminsterHallbegantobasetheirjudgmentsoncasesrecorded，whetherintheyearbooksorelsewhere，thelawwhichtheyadministeredbecamewrittenlaw。
AtthepresentmomentaruleofEnglishlawhasfirsttobedisentangledfromtherecordedfactsofadjudgedprintedprecedents，thenthrownintoaformofwordsvaryingwiththetaste，precision，andknowledgeoftheparticularjudge，andthenappliedtothecircumstancesofthecaseforadjudication。Butatnostageofthisprocesshasitanycharacteristicwhichdistinguishesitfromwrittenlaw。Itiswrittencase-law，andonlydifferentfromcode-lawbecauseitiswritteninadifferentway。
FromtheperiodofCustomaryLawwecometoanothersharplydefinedepochinthehistoryofjurisprudence。WearriveattheeraofCodes，thoseancientcodesofwhichtheTwelveTablesofRomewerethemostfamousspecimen。InGreece，inItaly，ontheHellenisedsea-boardofWesternAsia，thesecodesallmadetheirappearanceatperiodsmuchthesameeverywhere，not，Imean，atperiodsidenticalinpointoftime，butsimilarinpointoftherelativeprogressofeachcommunity。Everywhere，inthecountriesIhavenamed，lawsengravenontabletsandpublishedtothepeopletaketheplaceofusagesdepositedwiththerecollectionofaprivilegedoligarchy。ItmustnotforamomentbesupposedthattherefinedconsiderationsnowurgedinfavourofwhatiscalledcodificationhadanypartorplaceinthechangeIhavedescribed。Theancientcodesweredoubtlessoriginallysuggestedbythediscoveryanddiffusionoftheartofwriting。Itistruethatthearistocraciesseemtohaveabusedtheirmonopolyoflegalknowledge；andatalleventstheirexclusivepossessionofthelawwasaformidableimpedimenttothesuccessofthosepopularmovementswhichbegantobeuniversalinthewesternworld。But，thoughdemocraticsentimentmayhaveaddedtotheirpopularity，thecodeswerecertainlyinthemainadirectresultoftheinventionofwriting。Inscribedtabletswereseentobeabetterdepositaryoflaw，andabettersecurityforitsaccuratepreservation，thanthememoryofanumberofpersonshoweverstrengthenedbyhabitualexercise。
TheRomancodebelongstotheclassofcodesIhavebeendescribing。Theirvaluedidnotconsistinanyapproachtosymmetricalclassifications，ortotersenessandclearnessofexpression，butintheirpublicity，andintheknowledgewhichtheyfurnishedtoeverybody，astowhathewastodo，andwhatnottodo。Itis，indeed，truethattheTwelveTablesofRomedoexhibitsometracesofsystematicarrangement，butthisisprobablyexplainedbythetraditionthattheframersofthatbodyoflawcalledintheassistanceofGreekswhoenjoyedthelaterGreekexperienceintheartoflaw-making。ThefragmentsoftheAtticCodeofSolonshow，however，thatithadbutlittleorder，andprobablythelawsofDracohadevenless。Quiteenoughtooremainsofthesecollections，bothintheEastandintheWest，toshowthattheymingledupreligious，civil，andmerelymoralordinances，withoutanyregardtodifferencesintheiressentialcharacterandthisisconsistentwithallweknowofearlythoughtfromothersources，theseveranceoflawfrommorality，andofreligionfromlaw，belongingverydistinctlytothelaterstagesofmentalprogress。
But，whatevertoamoderneyearethesingularitiesoftheseCodes，theirimportancetoancientsocietieswasunspeakable。Thequestion——anditwasonewhichaffectedthewholefutureofeachcommunity——wasnotsomuchwhetherthereshouldbeacodeatall，forthemajorityofancientsocietiesseemtohaveobtainedthemsoonerorlater，and，butforthegreatinterruptioninthehistoryofjurisprudencecreatedbyfeudalism，itislikelythatallmodernlawwouldbedistinctlytraceabletooneormoreofthesefountain-heads。Butthepointonwhichturnedthehistoryoftheracewas，atwhatperiod，atwhatstageoftheirsocialprogress，theyshouldhavetheirlawsputintowriting。Inthewesternworldtheplebeianorpopularelementineachstatesuccessfullyassailedtheoligarchicalmonopoly；andacodewasnearlyuniversallyobtainedearlyinthehistoryoftheCommonwealth。ButintheEast，asIhavebeforementioned，therulingaristocraciestendedtobecomereligiousratherthanmilitaryorpolitical，andgained，therefore，ratherthanlostinpower；whileinsomeinstancesthephysicalconformationofAsiaticcountrieshadtheeffectofmakingindividualcommunitieslargerandmorenumerousthanintheWest；
anditisaknownsociallawthatthelargerthespaceoverwhichaparticularsetofinstitutionsisdiffused，thegreaterisitstenacityandvitality。Fromwhatevercause，thecodesobtainedbyEasternsocietieswereobtained，relatively，muchlaterthanbyWestern，andworeaverydifferentcharacter。ThereligiousoligarchiesofAsia，eitherfortheirownguidance，orforthereliefoftheirmemory，orfortheinstructionoftheirdisciples，seeminallcasestohaveultimatelyembodiedtheirlegallearninginacode；buttheopportunityofincreasingandconsolidatingtheirinfluencewasprobablytootemptingtoberesisted。Theircompletemonopolyoflegalknowledgeappearstohaveenabledthemtoputoffontheworldcollections，notsomuchoftherulesactuallyobservedasoftheruleswhichthepriestlyorderconsideredpropertobeobserved。TheHindoocode，calledtheLawsofMenu，whichiscertainlyaBrahmincompilation，undoubtedlyenshrinesmanygenuineobservancesoftheHindoorace，buttheopinionofthebestcontemporaryorientalistsis，thatitdoesnot，asawhole，representasetofruleseveractuallyadministeredinHindostan。Itis，ingreatpart，anidealpictureofthatwhich，intheviewoftheBrahmins，oughttobethelaw。Itisconsistentwithhumannatureandwiththespecialmotivesoftheirauthor，thatcodeslikethatofMenushouldpretendtothehighestantiquityandclaimtohaveemanatedintheircompleteformfromtheDeity。Menu，accordingtoHindoomythology，isanemanationfromthesupremeGod；butthecompilationwhichbearshisname，thoughitsexactdateisnoteasilydiscovered，is，inpointoftherelativeprogressofHindoojurisprudence，arecentproduction。
AmongthechiefadvantageswhichtheTwelveTablesandsimilarcodesconferredonthesocietieswhichobtainedthem，wastheprotectionwhichtheyaffordedagainstthefraudsoftheprivilegedoligarchyandalsoagainstthespontaneousdepravationanddebasementofthenationalinstitutions。TheRomanCodewasmerelyanenunciationinwordsoftheexistingcustomsoftheRomanpeople。RelativelytotheprogressoftheRomansincivilisation，itwasaremarkablyearlycode，anditwaspublishedatatimewhenRomansocietyhadbarelyemergedfromthatintellectualconditioninwhichcivilobligationandreligiousdutyareinevitablyconfounded。Nowabarbaroussocietypractisingabodyofcustoms，isexposedtosomeespecialdangerswhichmaybeabsolutelyfataltoitsprogressincivilisation。
Theusageswhichaparticularcommunityisfoundtohaveadoptedinitsinfancyandinitsprimitiveseatsaregenerallythosewhichareonthewholebestsuitedtopromoteitsphysicalandmoralwell-being；and，iftheyareretainedintheirintegrityuntilnewsocialwantshavetaughtnewpractices，theupwardmarchofsocietyisalmostcertain。Butunhappilythereisalawofdevelopmentwhicheverthreatenstooperateuponunwrittenusage。Thecustomsareofcourseobeyedbymultitudeswhoareincapableofunderstandingthetruegroundoftheirexpediency，andwhoarethereforeleftinevitablytoinventsuperstitiousreasonsfortheirpermanence。Aprocessthencommenceswhichmaybeshortlydescribedbysayingthatusagewhichisreasonablegeneratesusagewhichisunreasonable。Analog，themostvaluableofinstrumentsinthematurityofjurisprudence，isthemostdangerousofsnaresinitsinfancy。Prohibitionsandordinances，originallyconfined，forgoodreasons，toasingledescriptionofacts，aremadetoapplytoallactsofthesameclass，becauseamanmenacedwiththeangerofthegodsfordoingonething，feelsanaturalterrorindoinganyotherthingwhichisremotelylikeit。Afteronekindoffoodhasinterdictedforsanitaryreasons，theprohibitionisextendedtoallfoodresemblingit，thoughtheresemblanceoccasionallydependsonanalogiesthemostfanciful。
So，again，awiseprovisionforinsuringgeneralcleanlinessdictatesintimelongroutinesofceremonialablution；andthatdivisionintoclasseswhichataparticularcrisisofsocialhistoryisnecessaryforthemaintenanceofthenationalexistencedegeneratesintothemostdisastrousandblightingofallhumaninstitutions——Caste。ThefateoftheHindoolawis，infact，themeasureofthevalueoftheRomancode。EthnologyshowsusthattheRomansandtheHindoossprangfromthesameoriginalstock，andthereisindeedastrikingresemblancebetweenwhatappeartohavebeentheiroriginalcustoms。Evennow，Hindoojurisprudencehasasubstratumofforethoughtandsoundjudgment，butirrationalimitationhasengraftedinitanimmenseapparatusofcruelabsurdities。FromthesecorruptionstheRomanswereprotectedbytheircode。Itwascompiledwhiletheusagewasstillwholesome，andahundredyearsafterwardsitmighthavebeentoolate。TheHindoolawhasbeentoagreatextentembodiedinwriting，but，ancientasinonesensearethecompendiawhichstillexistinSanskrit，theycontainampleevidencethattheyweredrawnupafterthemischiefhadbeendone。WearenotofcourseentitledtosaythatiftheTwelveTableshadnotbeenpublishedtheRomanswouldhavebeencondemnedtoacivilisationasfeebleandpervertedasthatoftheHindoos，butthusmuchatleastiscertain，thatwiththeircodetheywereexemptfromtheverychanceofsounhappyadestiny。AncientLaw
byHenryMaineChapter2LegalFictions
WhenprimitivelawhasoncebeenembodiedinaCode，thereis
anendtowhatmaybecalleditsspontaneousdevelopment。
Henceforwardthechangeseffectedinit，ifeffectedatall，are
effecteddeliberatelyandfromwithout。Itisimpossibleto
supposethatthecustomsofanyraceortriberemainedunaltered
duringthewholeofthelong——insomeinstancestheimmense——
intervalbetweentheirdeclarationbyapatriarchalmonarchand
theirpublicationinwriting。Itwouldbeunsafetootoaffirm
thatnopartofthealterationwaseffecteddeliberately。But
fromthelittleweknowoftheprogressoflawduringthis
period，wearejustifiedinassumingthatsetpurposehadthe
verysmallestshareinproducingchange。Suchinnovationsonthe
earliestusagesasdisclosethemselvesappeartohavebeen
dictatedbyfeelingsandmodesofthoughtwhich，underour
presentmentalconditions，weareunabletocomprehend。Anewera
begins，however，withtheCodes。Wherever，afterthisepoch，we
tracethecourseoflegalmodificationweareabletoattribute
ittotheconsciousdesireofimprovement，oratalleventsof
compassingobjectsotherthanthosewhichwereaimedatinthe
primitivetimes。
Itmayseematfirstsightthatnogeneralpropositionsworth
trustingcanbeelicitedfromthehistoryoflegalsystems
subsequenttothecodes。Thefieldistoovast。Wecannotbesure
thatwehaveincludedasufficientnumberofphenomenainour
observations，orthatweaccuratelyunderstandthosewhichwe
haveobserved。Buttheundertakingwillbeseentobemore
feasible，ifweconsiderthataftertheepochofcodesthe
distinctionbetweenstationaryandprogressivesocietiesbegins
tomakeitselffelt。Itisonlywiththeprogressivethatweare
concerned，andnothingismoreremarkablethantheirextreme
fewness。Inspiteofoverwhelmingevidence，itismostdifficult
foracitizenofwesternEuropetobringthoroughlyhometo
himselfthetruththatthecivilisationwhichsurroundshimisa
rareexceptioninthehistoryoftheworld。Thetoneofthought
commonamongus，allourhopes，fears，andspeculations，wouldbe
materiallyaffected，ifwehadvividlybeforeustherelationof
theprogressiveracestothetotalityofhumanlife。Itis
indisputablethatmuchthegreatestpartofmankindhasnever
shownaparticleofdesirethatitscivilinstitutionsshouldbe
improvedsincethemomentwhenexternalcompletenesswasfirst
giventothembytheirembodimentinsomepermanentrecord。One
setofusageshasoccasionallybeenviolentlyoverthrownand
supersededbyanother；hereandthereaprimitivecode，
pretendingtoasupernaturalorigin，hasbeengreatlyextended，
anddistortedintothemostsurprisingforms，bytheperversity
ofsacerdotalcommentators；but，exceptinasmallsectionofthe
world，therehasbeennothinglikethegradualameliorationofa
legalsystem。Therehasbeenmaterialcivilisation，but，instead
ofthecivilisationexpandingthelaw，thelawhaslimitedthe
civilisation。Thestudyofracesintheirprimitivecondition
affordsussomecluetothepointatwhichthedevelopmentof
certainsocietieshasstopped。WecanseethatBrahminicalIndia
hasnotpassedbeyondastagewhichoccursinthehistoryofall
thefamiliesofmankind，thestageatwhicharuleoflawisnot
yetdiscriminatedfromaruleofreligion。Themembersofsucha
societyconsiderthatthetransgressionofareligiousordinance
shouldbepunishedbycivilpenalties，andthattheviolationof
acivildutyexposesthedelinquenttodivinecorrection。In
Chinathispointhasbeenpassed，butprogressseemstohavebeen
therearrested，becausethecivillawsarecoextensivewithall
theideasofwhichtheraceiscapable。Thedifferencebetween
thestationaryandprogressivesocietiesis，however，oneofthe
greatsecretswhichinquiryhasyettopenetrate。Amongpartial
explanationsofitIventuretoplacetheconsiderationsurgedat
theendofthelastchapter。Itmayfurtherberemarkedthatno
oneislikelytosucceedintheinvestigationwhodoesnot
clearlyrealisethatthestationaryconditionofthehumanrace
istherule，theprogressivetheexception。Andanother
indispensableconditionofsuccessisanaccurateknowledgeof
Romanlawinallitsprincipalstages。TheRomanjurisprudence
hasthelongestknownhistoryofanysetofhumaninstitutions。
Thecharacterofallthechangeswhichitunderwentistolerably
wellascertained。Fromitscommencementtoitsclose，itwas
progressivelymodifiedforthebetter，orforwhattheauthorof
themodificationconceivedtobethebetter，andthecourseof
improvementwascontinuedthroughperiodsatwhichalltherest
ofhumanthoughtandactionmateriallyslackeneditspace，and
repeatedlythreatenedtosettledownintostagnation。
Iconfinemyselfinwhatfollowstotheprogressive
societies。Withrespecttothemitmaybelaiddownthatsocial
necessitiesandsocialopinionarealwaysmoreorlessinadvance
ofLaw。Wemaycomeindefinitelyneartotheclosingofthegap
betweenthem，butithasaperpetualtendencytoreopen。Lawis
stable；thesocietieswearespeakingofareprogressive。The
greaterorlesshappinessofapeopledependsonthedegreeof
promptitudewithwhichthegulfisnarrowed。
Ageneralpropositionofsomevaluemaybeadvancedwith
respecttotheagenciesbywhichLawisbroughtintoharmonywith
societyTheseinstrumentalitiesseemtometobethreeinnumber，
LegalFictions，Equity，andLegislation。Theirhistoricalorder
isthatinwhichIhaveplacedthem。Sometimestwoofthemwill
beseenoperatingtogether，andtherearelegalsystemswhich
haveescapedtheinfluenceofoneorotherofthem。ButIknowof
noinstanceinwhichtheorderoftheirappearancehasbeen
changedorinverted。Theearlyhistoryofoneofthem，Equity，is
universallyobscure，andhenceitmaybethoughtbysomethat
certainisolatedstatutes，reformatoryofthecivillaw，are
olderthananyequitablejurisdiction。Myownbeliefisthat
remedialEquityiseverywhereolderthanremedialLegislation；
but，shouldthisbenotstrictlytrue，itwouldonlybenecessary
tolimitthepropositionrespectingtheirorderofsequenceto
theperiodsatwhichtheyexerciseasustainedandsubstantial
influenceintransformingtheoriginallaw。
Iemploytheword\"fiction\"inasenseconsiderablywider
thanthatinwhichEnglishlawyerareaccustomedtouseit，and
withameaningmuchmoreextensivethanthatwhichbelongedto
theRoman\"fictiones。\"Fictio，inoldRomanlaw，isproperlya
termofpleading，andsignifiesafalseavermentonthepartof
theplaintiffwhichthedefendantwasnotallowedtotraverse；
such，forexample，asanavermentthattheplaintiffwasaRoman
citizen，whenintruthhewasaforeigner。Theobjectofthese
\"fictiones\"was，ofcourse，togivejurisdiction，andthey
thereforestronglyresembledtheallegationsinthewritsofthe
EnglishQueen’sBench，andExchequer，bywhichthoseCourts
contrivedtousurpthejurisdictionoftheCommonPleas:——the
allegationthatthedefendantwasincustodyoftheking’s
marshal，orthattheplaintiffwastheking’sdebtor，andcould
notpayhisdebtbyreasonofthedefendant’sdefault。ButInow
employtheexpression\"LegalFiction\"tosignifyanyassumption
whichconceals，oraffectstoconceal，thefactthataruleof
lawhasundergonealteration，itsletterremainingunchanged，its
operationbeingmodified。Thewords，therefore，includethe
instancesoffictionswhichIhavecitedfromtheEnglishand
Romanlaw，buttheyembracemuchmore，forIshouldspeakbothof
theEnglishCase-lawandoftheRomanResponsaPrudentumas
restingonfictions。Boththeseexampleswillbeexamined
presently。Thefactisinbothcasesthatthelawhasbeenwholly
changed；thefictionisthatitremainswhatitalwayswas。Itis
notdifficulttounderstandwhyfictionsinalltheirformsare
particularlycongenialtotheinfancyofsociety。Theysatisfy
thedesireforimprovement，whichisnotquitewanting，atthe
sametimethattheydonotoffendthesuperstitiousdisrelishfor
changewhichisalwayspresent。Ataparticularstageofsocial
progresstheyareinvaluableexpedientsforovercomingthe
rigidityoflaw，and，indeed，withoutoneofthem，theFictionof
Adoptionwhichpermitsthefamilytietobeartificiallycreated，
itisdifficulttounderstandhowsocietywouldeverhaveescaped
fromitsswaddlingclothes，andtakenitsfirststepstowards
civilisation。Wemust，therefore，notsufferourselvestobe
affectedbytheridiculewhichBenthampoursonlegalfictions
whereverhemeetsthem。Torevilethemasmerelyfraudulentisto
betrayignoranceoftheirpeculiarofficeinthehistorical
developmentoflaw。Butatthesametimeitwouldbeequally
foolishtoagreewiththosetheorists，who，discerningthat
fictionshavehadtheiruses，arguethattheyoughttobe
stereotypedinoursystem。Theyhavehadtheirday，butithas
longsincegoneby。Itisunworthyofustoeffectanadmittedly
beneficialobjectbysorudeadeviceasalegalfiction。I
cannotadmitanyanomalytobeinnocent，whichmakesthelaw
eithermoredifficulttounderstandorhardertoarrangein
harmoniousorder。Nowlegalfictionsarethegreatestof
obstaclestosymmetricalclassification。Theruleoflawremains
stickinginthesystem，butitisamereshell。Ithasbeenlong
agoundermined，andanewrulehidesitselfunderitscover。
Hencethereisatonceadifficultyinknowingwhethertherule
whichisactuallyoperativeshouldbeclassedinitstrueorin
itsapparentplace，andmindsofdifferentcastswilldifferas
tothebranchofthealternativewhichoughttobeselected。If
theEnglishlawisevertoassumeanorderlydistribution，it
willbenecessarytopruneawaythelegalfictionswhich，in
spiteofsomerecentlegislativeimprovements，arestillabundant
init。
Thenextinstrumentalitybywhichtheadaptationoflawto
socialwantsiscarriedonIcallEquity，meaningbythatword
anybodyofrulesexistingbythesideoftheoriginalcivillaw，
foundedondistinctprinciplesandclaimingincidentallyto
supersedethecivillawinvirtueofasuperiorsanctityinherent
inthoseprinciples。TheEquitywhetheroftheRomanPraetorsor
oftheEnglishChancellors，differsfromtheFictionswhichin
eachcaseprecededit，inthattheinterferencewithlawisopen
andavowed。Ontheotherhand，itdiffersfromLegislation，the
agentoflegalimprovementwhichcomesafterit，inthatits
claimtoauthorityisgrounded，notontheprerogativeofany
externalpersonorbody，notevenonthatofthemagistratewho
enunciatesit，butonthespecialnatureofitsprinciples，to
whichitisallegedthatalllawoughttoconform。Thevery
conceptionofasetofprinciples，investedwithahigher
sacrednessthanthoseoftheoriginallawanddemanding
applicationindependentlyoftheconsentofanyexternalbody
belongstoamuchmoreadvancedstageofthoughtthanthatto
whichlegalfictionsoriginallysuggestedthemselves。
Legislation，theenactmentsofalegislaturewhich，whether
ittaketheformofanautocraticprinceorofaparliamentary
assembly，istheassumedorganoftheentiresociety，isthelast
oftheamelioratinginstrumentalities。ItdiffersfromLegal
FictionsjustasEquitydiffersfromthem，anditisalso
distinguishedfromEquity，asderivingitsauthorityfroman
externalbodyorperson。Itsobligatoryforceisindependentof
itsprinciples。Thelegislature，whateverbetheactual
restraintsimposedonitbypublicopinion，isintheory
empoweredtoimposewhatobligationsitpleasesonthemembersof
thecommunity。Thereisnothingtopreventitslegislatinginthe
wantonnessofcaprice。Legislationmaybedictatedbyequity，if
thatlastwordbeusedtoindicatesomestandardofrightand
wrongtowhichitsenactmentshappentobeadjusted；butthen
theseenactmentsareindebtedfortheirbindingforcetothe
authorityofthelegislatureandnottothatoftheprincipleson
whichthelegislatureacted；andthustheydifferfromrulesof
Equity，inthetechnicalsenseoftheword，whichpretendtoa
paramountsacrednessentitlingthematoncetotherecognitionof
thecourtsevenwithouttheconcurrenceofprinceor
parliamentaryassembly。Itisthemorenecessarytonotethese
differences，becauseastudentofBenthamwouldbeaptto
confoundFictions，Equity，andStatutelawunderthesinglehead
oflegislation。Theyall，hewouldsay，involvelaw-making；they
differonlyinrespectofthemachinerybywhichthenewlawis
produced。Thatisperfectlytrue，andwemustneverforgetit；
butitfurnishesnoreasonwhyweshoulddepriveourselvesofso
convenientatermasLegislationinthespecialsense。
LegislationandEquityaredisjoinedinthepopularmindandin
themindsofmostlawyers；anditwillneverdotoneglectthe
distinctionbetweenthem，howeverconventional，whenimportant
practicalconsequencesfollowfromit。
Itwouldbeeasytoselectfromalmostanyregularly
developedbodyofrulesexamplesoflegalfictions，whichatonce
betraytheirtruecharactertothemodernobserver。Inthetwo
instanceswhichIproceedtoconsider，thenatureofthe
expedientemployedisnotsoreadilydetected。Thefirstauthors
ofthesefictionsdidnotperhapsintendtoinnovate，certainly
didnotwishtobesuspectedofinnovating。Thereare，moreover，
andalwayshavebeen，personswhorefusetoseeanyfictionin
theprocess，andconventionallanguagebearouttheirrefusal。No
examples，therefore，canbebettercalculatedtoillustratethe
widediffusionoflegalfictions，andtheefficiencywithwhich
theyperformtheirtwo-foldofficeoftransformingasystemof
lawsandofconcealingthetransformation。
WeinEnglandarewellaccustomedtotheextension，
modification，andimprovementoflawbyamachinerywhich，in
theory，isincapableofalteringonejotoronelineofexisting
jurisprudence。Theprocessbywhichthisvirtuallegislationis
effectedisnotsomuchinsensibleasunacknowledged。With
respecttothatgreatportionofourlegalsystemwhichis
enshrinedincasesandrecordedinlawreports，wehabitually
employadoublelanguageandentertain，asitwouldappear，a
doubleandinconsistentsetofideas。Whenagroupoffactscome
beforeanEnglishCourtforadjudication，thewholecourseofthe
discussionbetweenthejudgeandtheadvocateassumesthatno
questionis，orcanbe，raisedwhichwillcallforthe
applicationofanyprinciplesbutoldones，oranydistinctions
butsuchashavelongsincebeenallowed。Itistakenabsolutely
forgrantedthatthereissomewherearuleofknownlawwhich
willcoverthefactsofthedisputenowlitigated，andthat，if
sucharulebenotdiscovered，itisonlythatthenecessary
patience，knowledge，oracumenisnotforthcomingtodetectit。
Yetthemomentthejudgmenthasbeenrenderedandreported，we
slideunconsciouslyorunavowedlyintoanewlanguageandanew
trainofthought。Wenowadmitthatthenewdecisionhasmodified
thelaw。Therulesapplicablehave，tousetheveryinaccurate
expressionsometimesemployed，becomemoreelastic。Infactthey
havebeenchanged。Aclearadditionhasbeenmadetothe
precedents，andthecanonoflawelicitedbycomparingthe
precedentsisnotthesamewiththatwhichwouldhavebeen
obtainediftheseriesofcaseshadbeencurtailedbyasingle
example。Thefactthattheoldrulehasbeenrepealed，andthata
newonehasreplacedit，eludesus，becausewearenotinthe
habitofthrowingintopreciselanguagethelegalformulaswhich
wederivefromtheprecedents，sothatachangeintheirtenoris
noteasilydetectedunlessitisviolentandglaring。Ishallnot
nowpausetoconsideratlengththecauseswhichhaveledEnglish
lawyerstoacquiesceinthesecuriousanomalies。Probablyitwill
befoundthatoriginallyitwasthereceiveddoctrinethat
somewhere，innubibusoringremiomagistratuum，thereexisteda
complete，coherent，symmetricalbodyofEnglishlaw，ofan
amplitudesufficienttofurnishprincipleswhichwouldapplyto
anyconceivablecombinationofcircumstances。Thetheorywasat
firstmuchmorethoroughlybelievedinthanitisnow，andindeed
itmayhavehadabetterfoundation。Thejudgesofthethirteenth
centurymayhavereallyhadattheircommandamineoflaw
unrevealedtothebarandtothelay-public，forthereissome
reasonforsuspectingthatinsecrettheyborrowedfreely，though
notalwayswisely，fromcurrentcompendiaoftheRomanandCanon
laws。Butthatstorehousewasclosedsosoonasthepoints
decidedatWestminsterHallbecamenumerousenoughtosupplya
basisforasubstantivesystemofjurisprudence；andnowfor
centuriesEnglishpractitionerhavesoexpressedthemselvesasto
conveytheparadoxicalpropositionthat，exceptbyEquityand
Statutelaw，nothinghasbeenaddedtothebasissinceitwas
firstconstituted。Wedonotadmitthatourtribunalslegislate；
weimplythattheyhaveneverlegislated；andyetwemaintain
thattherulesoftheEnglishcommonlaw，withsomeassistance
fromtheCourtofChanceryandfromParliament，arecoextensive
withthecomplicatedinterestsofmodernsociety。
Abodyoflawbearingaverycloseandveryinstructive
resemblancetoourcase-lawinthoseparticularswhichIhave
noticed，wasknowntotheRomansunderthenameoftheResponsa
Prudentum，the\"answersofthelearnedinthelaw。\"Theformof
theseResponsesvariedagooddealatdifferentperiodsofthe
Romanjurisprudence，butthroughoutitswholecoursethey
consistedofexplanatoryglossesonauthoritativewritten
documents，andatfirsttheywereexclusivelycollectionsof
opinionsinterpretativeoftheTwelveTables。Aswithus，all
legallanguageadjusteditselftotheassumptionthatthetextof
theoldCoderemainedunchanged。Therewastheexpressrule。It
overrodeallglossesandcomments，andnooneopenlyadmitted
thatanyinterpretationofit，howevereminenttheinterpreter，
wassafefromrevisiononappealtothevenerabletexts。Yetin
pointoffact，BooksofResponsesbearingthenamesofleading
jurisconsultsobtainedanauthorityatleastequaltothatofour
reportedcases，andconstantlymodified，extended，limitedor
practicallyoverruledtheprovisionsoftheDecemvirallaw。The
authorsofthenewjurisprudenceduringthewholeprogressofits
formationprofessedthemostsedulousrespectfortheletterof
theCode。Theyweremerelyexplainingit，decipheringit，
bringingoutitsfullmeaning；butthen，intheresult，by
piecingtextstogether，byadjustingthelawtostatesoffact
whichactuallypresentedthemselvesandbyspeculatingonits
possibleapplicationtootherswhichmightoccur，byintroducing
principlesofinterpretationderivedfromtheexegesisofother
writtendocumentswhichfellundertheirobservation，theyeduced
avastvarietyofcanonswhichhadneverbeendreamedofbythe
compilersoftheTwelveTablesandwhichwereintruthrarelyor
nevertobefoundthere。Allthesetreatisesofthejurisconsults
claimedrespectonthegroundoftheirassumedconformitywith
theCode，buttheircomparativeauthoritydependedonthe
reputationoftheparticularjurisconsultswhogavethemtothe
world。Anynameofuniversallyacknowledgedgreatnessclotheda
Bookofresponseswithabindingforcehardlylessthanthat
whichbelongedtoenactmentsofthelegislature；andsuchabook
initsturnconstitutedanewfoundationonwhichafurtherbody
ofjurisprudencemightrest。Theresponsesoftheearlylawyers
werenothoweverpublished，inthemodernsense，bytheirauthor。
Theywererecordedandeditedbyhispupils，andwerenot
thereforeinallprobabilityarrangedaccordingtoanyschemeof
classification。Thepartofthestudentsinthesepublications
mustbecarefullynoted，becausetheservicetheyrenderedto
theirteacherseemstohavebeengenerallyrepaidbyhissedulous
attentiontothepupils’education。Theeducationaltreatises
calledInstitutesorCommentaries，whicharealaterfruitofthe
dutythenrecognised，areamongthemostremarkablefeaturesof
theRomansystem。ItwasapparentlyintheseInstitutionalworks，
andnotinthebooksintendedfortrainedlawyers，thatthe
jurisconsultsgavetothepublictheirclassificationsandtheir
proposalsformodifyingandimprovingthetechnicalphraseology。
IncomparingtheRomanResponsaPrudentumwiththeirnearest
Englishcounterpart，itmustbecarefullyborneinmindthatthe
authoritybywhichthispartoftheRomanjurisprudencewas
expoundedwasnotthebench，butthebar。ThedecisionofaRoman
tribunal，thoughconclusiveintheparticularcase，hadno
ulteriorauthorityexceptsuchaswasgivenbytheprofessional
reputeofthemagistratewhohappenedtobeinofficeforthe
time。Properlyspeaking，therewasnoinstitutionatRomeduring
therepublicanalogoustotheEnglishBench，theChambersof
imperialGermany，ortheParliamentsofMonarchicalFrance。There
weremagistratesindeed，investedwithmomentousjudicial
functionsintheirseveraldepartments，butthetenureofthe
magistracieswasbutforasingleyear，sothattheyaremuch
lessaptlycomparedtoapermanentjudicaturethantoacycleof
officesbrisklycirculatingamongtheleadersofthebar。Much
mightbesaidontheoriginofaconditionofthingswhichlooks
touslikeastartlinganomaly，butwhichwasinfactmuchmore
congenialthanourownsystemtothespiritofancientsocieties，
tending，astheyalwaysdid，tosplitintodistinctorderswhich，
howeverexclusivethemselves，toleratednoprofessionalhierarchy
abovethem。
Itisremarkablethatthissystemdidnotproducecertain
effectswhichmightonthewholehavebeenexpectedfromit。It
didnot，forexample，popularisetheRomanlaw——itdidnot，as
insomeoftheGreekrepublics，lessentheeffortofintellect
requiredforthemasteryofthescience，althoughitsdiffusion
andauthoritativeexpositionwereopposedbynoartificial
barriers。Onthecontrary，ifithadnotbeenfortheoperation
ofaseparatesetofcauses，therewerestrongprobabilitiesthat
theRomanjurisprudencewouldhavebecomeasminute，technical，
anddifficultasanysystemwhichhassinceprevailed。Again，a
consequencewhichmightstillmorenaturallyhavebeenlooked
for，doesnotappearatanytimetohaveexhibiteditself。The
jurisconsults，untilthelibertiesofRomewereoverthrown，
formedaclasswhichwasquiteundefinedandmusthavefluctuated
greatlyinnumbers；nevertheless，theredoesnotseemtohave
existedadoubtastotheparticularindividualswhoseopinion，
intheirgeneration，wasconclusiveonthecasessubmittedto
them。Thevividpicturesofaleadingjurisconsult’sdaily
practicewhichaboundinLatinliterature——theclientsfromthe
countryflockingtohisantechamberintheearlymorning，andthe
studentsstandingroundwiththeirnote-bookstorecordthegreat
lawyer’sreplies——areseldomorneveridentifiedatanygiven
periodwithmorethanoneortwoconspicuousnames。Owingtooto
thedirectcontactoftheclientandtheadvocate，theRoman
peopleitselfseemstohavebeenalwaysalivetotheriseand
fallofprofessionalreputation，andthereisabundanceofproof，
moreparticularlyinthewell-knownorationofCicero，Pro
Muraena，thatthereverenceofthecommonsforforensicsuccess
wasapttobeexcessiveratherthandeficient。
Wecannotdoubtthatthepeculiaritieswhichhavebeennoted
intheinstrumentalitybywhichthedevelopmentoftheRomanlaw
wasfirsteffected，werethesourceofitscharacteristic
excellence，itsearlywealthinprinciples。Thegrowthand
exuberanceofprinciplewasfostered，inpart，bythecompetition
amongtheexpositorsofthelaw，aninfluencewhollyunknown
wherethereexistsaBench，thedepositariesintrustedbykingor
commonwealthwiththeprerogativeofjustice。Butthechief
agency，nodoubt，wastheuncontrolledmultiplicationofcases
forlegaldecision。Thestateoffactswhichcausedgenuine
perplexitytoacountryclientwasnotawhitmoreentitledto
formthebasisofthejurisconsult’sResponse，orlegaldecision，
thanasetofhypotheticalcircumstancespropoundedbyan
ingeniouspupil。Allcombinationsoffactwereonpreciselythe
samefooting，whethertheywererealorimaginary。Itwasnothing
tothejurisconsultthathisopinionwasoverruledforthemoment
bythemagistratewhoadjudicatedonhisclient’scase，unless
thatmagistratehappenedtorankabovehiminlegalknowledgeor
theesteemofhisprofession。Idonot，indeed，meanittobe
inferredthathewouldwhollyomittoconsiderhisclient’s
advantage，fortheclientwasinearliertimesthegreatlawyer’s
constituentandatalaterperiodhispaymaster，butthemain
roadtotherewardsofambitionlaythroughthegoodopinionof
hisorder，anditisobviousthatundersuchasystemasIhave
beendescribingthiswasmuchmorelikelytobesecuredby
viewingeachcaseasanillustrationofagreatprinciple，oran
exemplificationofabroadrule，thanbymerelyshapingitforan
insulatedforensictriumph。Astillmorepowerfulinfluencemust
havebeenexercisedbythewantofanydistinctcheckonthe
suggestionorinventionofpossiblequestions。Wherethedatacan
bemultipliedatpleasure，thefacilitiesforevolvingageneral
ruleareimmenselyincreased。Asthelawisadministeredamong
ourselves，thejudgecannottraveloutofthesetsoffacts
exhibitedbeforehimorbeforehispredecessors。Accordinglyeach
groupofcircumstanceswhichisadjudicateduponreceives，to
employaGallicism，asortofconsecration。Itacquirescertain
qualitieswhichdistinguishitfromeveryothercasegenuineor
hypothetical。ButatRome，asIhaveattemptedtoexplain，there
wasnothingresemblingaBenchorChamberofjudges；and
thereforenocombinationoffactspossessedanyparticularvalue
morethananother。Whenadifficultycameforopinionbeforethe
jurisconsult，therewasnothingtopreventapersonendowedwith
aniceperceptionofanalogyfromatonceproceedingtoadduce
andconsideranentireclassofsupposedquestionswithwhicha
particularfeatureconnectedit。Whateverwerethepractical
advicegiventotheclient，theresponsumtreasuredupinthe
notebooksoflisteningpupilswoulddoubtlesscontemplatethe
circumstancesasgovernedbyagreatprinciple，orincludedina
sweepingrule。Nothinglikethishaseverbeenpossibleamong
ourselves，anditshouldbeacknowledgedthatinmanycriticisms
passedontheEnglishlawthemannerinwhichithasbeen
enunciatedseemstohavebeenlostsightof。Thehesitationof
ourcourtsindeclaringprinciplesmaybemuchmorereasonably
attributedtothecomparativescantinessofourprecedents，
voluminousastheyappeartohimwhoisacquaintedwithnoother
system，thantothetemperofourjudges。Itistruethatinthe
wealthoflegalprincipleweareconsiderablypoorerthanseveral
modernEuropeannations。Butthey，itmustberemembered，took
theRomanjurisprudenceforthefoundationoftheircivil
institutions。TheybuiltthedebrisoftheRomanlawintotheir
walls；butinthematerialsandworkmanshipoftheresiduethere
isnotmuchwhichdistinguishesitfavourablyfromthestructure
erectedbytheEnglishjudicature。
TheperiodofRomanfreedomwastheperiodduringwhichthe
stampofadistinctivecharacterwasimpressedontheRoman
jurisprudence；andthroughalltheearlierpartofit，itwasby
theResponsesofthejurisconsultsthatthedevelopmentofthe
lawwasmainlycarriedon。Butasweapproachthefallofthe
republictherearesignsthattheResponsesareassumingaform
whichmusthavebeenfataltotheirfartherexpansion。Theyare
becomingsystematisedandreducedintocompendia。Q。Mucius
Scaevola，thePontifex，issaidtohavepublishedamanualofthe
entireCivilLaw，andtherearetracesinthewritingsofCicero
ofgrowingdisrelishfortheoldmethods，ascomparedwiththe
moreactiveinstrumentsoflegalinnovation。Otheragencieshad
infactbythistimebeenbroughttobearonthelaw。TheEdict，
orannualproclamationofthePraetor，hadrisenintocreditas
theprincipalengineoflawreform，andL。CorneliusSylla，by
causingtobeenactedthegreatgroupofstatutescalledthe
LegesCorneliae，hadshownwhatrapidandspeedyimprovementscan
beeffectedbydirectlegislation。Thefinalblowtothe
ResponseswasdealtbyAugustus，wholimitedtoafewleading
jurisconsultstherightofgivingbindingopinionsoncases
submittedtothem，achangewhich，thoughitbringsusnearerthe
ideasofthemodernworld，mustobviouslyhavealtered
fundamentallythecharacteristicsofthelegalprofessionandthe
natureofitsinfluenceonRomanlaw。Atalaterperiodanother
schoolofjurisconsultsarose，thegreatlightsofjurisprudence
foralltime。ButUlpianandPaulus，GaiusandPapinian，werenot
authorsofResponses。Theirworkswereregulartreatiseson
particulardepartmentsofthelaw，moreespeciallyonthe
Praetor’sEdict。
TheEquityoftheRomansandthePraetorianEdictbywhichit
wasworkedintotheirsystem，willbeconsideredinthenext
chapter。OftheStatuteLawitisonlynecessarytosaythatit
wasscantyduringtherepublic，butbecameveryvoluminousunder
theempire。Intheyouthandinfancyofanationitisarare
thingforthelegislaturetobecalledintoactionforthe
generalreformofprivatelaw。Thecryofthepeopleisnotfor
changeinthelaws，whichareusuallyvaluedabovetheirreal
worth，butsolelyfortheirpure，complete，andeasy
administration；andrecoursetothelegislativebodyisgenerally
directedtotheremovalofsomegreatabuse，orthedecisionof
someincurablequarrelbetweenclassesanddynasties。Thereseems
inthemindsoftheRomanstohavebeensomeassociationbetween
theenactmentofalargebodyofstatutesandthesettlementof
societyafteragreatcivilcommotion。Syllasignalisedhis
reconstitutionoftherepublicbytheLegesCorneliae；Julius
CaesarcontemplatedvastadditionstotheStatuteLaw。Augustus
causedtobepassedtheall-importantgroupofLegesJuliae；and
amonglateremperorsthemostactivepromulgatorsof
constitutionsareprinceswho，likeConstantine，havethe
concernsoftheworldtoreadjust。ThetrueperiodofRoman
StatuteLawdoesnotbegintilltheestablishmentoftheempire。
Theenactmentsoftheemperors，clothedatfirstinthepretence
ofpopularsanction，butafterwardsemanatingundisguisedlyfrom
theimperialprerogative，extendinincreasingmassivenessfrom
theconsolidationofAugustus’spowertothepublicationofthe
CodeofJustinian。Itwillbeseenthateveninthereignofthe
secondemperoraconsiderableapproximationismadetothat
conditionofthelawandthatmodeofadministeringitwithwhich
weareallfamiliar。Astatutelawandalimitedboardof
expositorshaverisenintobeing；apermanentcourtofappealand
acollectionofapprovedcommentarieswillveryshortlybeadded；
andthuswearebroughtcloseontheideasofourownday。
AncientLaw
byHenryMaineChapter3LawofNatureandEquity
Thetheoryofasetoflegalprinciples，entitledbytheir
intrinsicsuperioritytosupersedetheolderlaw，veryearly
obtainedcurrencybothintheRomanstateandinEngland。Sucha
bodyofprinciples，existinginanysystem，hasintheforegoing
chaptersbeendenominatedEquity，atermwhich，aswillpresently
beseen，wasone(thoughonlyone)ofthedesignationsbywhich
thisagentoflegalchangewasknowntotheRomanjurisconsults。
ThejurisprudenceoftheCourtofChancery，whichbearsthename
ofEquityinEngland，couldonlybeadequatelydiscussedina
separatetreatise。Itisextremelycomplexinitstextureand
derivesitsmaterialsfromseveralheterogeneoussources。The
earlyecclesiasticalchancellorscontributedtoit，fromthe
CanonLaw，manyoftheprincipleswhichliedeepestinits
structure。TheRomanlaw，morefertilethantheCanonLawin
rulesapplicabletoseculardisputes，wasnotseldomresortedto
byalatergenerationofChanceryjudges，amidwhoserecorded
dictaweoftenfindentiretextsfromtheCorpusJurisCivilis
imbedded，withtheirtermsunaltered，thoughtheiroriginis
neveracknowledged。Stillmorerecently，andparticularlyatthe
middleandduringthelatterhalfoftheeighteenthcentury，the
mixedsystemsofjurisprudenceandmoralsconstructedbythe
publicistsoftheLowCountriesappeartohavebeenmuchstudied
byEnglishlawyers，andfromthechancellorshipofLordTalbotto
thecommencementofLordEldon’schancellorshiptheseworkshad
considerableeffectontherulingsoftheCourtofChancery。The
system，whichobtaineditsingredientsfromthesevarious
quarters，wasgreatlycontrolledinitsgrowthbythenecessity
imposedonitofconformingitselftotheanalogiesofthecommon
law，butithasalwaysansweredthedescriptionofabodyof
comparativelynovellegalprinciplesclaimingtooverridethe
olderjurisprudenceofthecountryonthestrengthofan
intrinsicethicalsuperiority。
TheEquityofRomewasamuchsimplerstructure，andits
developmentfromitsfirstappearancecanbemuchmoreeasily
traced。Bothitscharacteranditshistorydeserveattentive
examination。Itistherootofseveralconceptionswhichhave
exercisedprofoundinfluenceonhumanthought，andthroughhuman
thoughthaveseriouslyaffectedthedestiniesofmankind。
TheRomansdescribedtheirlegalsystemasconsistingoftwo
ingredients。\"Allnations，\"saystheInstitutionalTreatise
publishedundertheauthorityoftheEmperorJustinian，\"whoare
ruledbylawsandcustoms，aregovernedpartlybytheirown
particularlaws，andpartlybythoselawswhicharecommontoall
mankind。ThelawwhichapeopleenactsiscalledtheCivilLawof
thatpeople，butthatwhichnaturalreasonappointsforall
mankindiscalledtheLawofNations，becauseallnationsuse
it。\"Thepartofthelaw\"whichnaturalreasonappointsforall
mankind\"wastheelementwhichtheEdictofthePraetorwas
supposedtohaveworkedintoRomanjurisprudence。Elsewhereitis
styledmoresimplyJusNaturale，ortheLawofNature；andits
ordinancesaresaidtobedictatedbyNaturalEquity(naturalis
aequitas)aswellasbynaturalreason。Ishallattemptto
discovertheoriginofthesefamousphrases，LawofNations，Law
ofNature，Equity，andtodeterminehowtheconceptionswhich
theyindicatearerelatedtooneanother。
ThemostsuperficialstudentofRomanhistorymustbestruck
bytheextraordinarydegreeinwhichthefortunesoftherepublic
wereaffectedbythepresenceofforeigners，underdifferent
names，onhersoil。Thecausesofthisimmigrationare
discernibleenoughatalaterperiod，forwecanreadily
understandwhymenofallracesshouldflocktothemistressof
theworld；butthesamephenomenonofalargepopulationof
foreignersanddenizensmeetsusintheveryearliestrecordsof
theRomanState。Nodoubt，theinstabilityofsocietyinancient
Italy，composedasitwasingreatmeasureofrobbertribes，gave
menconsiderableinducementtolocatethemselvesintheterritory
ofanycommunitystrongenoughtoprotectitselfandthemfrom
externalattack，eventhoughprotectionshouldbepurchasedat
thecostofheavytaxation，politicaldisfranchisement，andmuch
socialhumiliation。Itisprobable，however，thatthis
explanationisimperfect，andthatitcouldonlybecompletedby
takingintoaccountthoseactivecommercialrelationswhich，
thoughtheyarelittlereflectedinthemilitarytraditionsof
therepublic，RomeappearscertainlytohavehadwithCarthage
andwiththeinteriorofItalyinpre-historictimes。Whatever
werethecircumstancestowhichitwasattributable，theforeign
elementinthecommonwealthdeterminedthewholecourseofits
history，which，atallitsstages，islittlemorethana
narrativeofconflictsbetweenastubbornnationalityandan
alienpopulation。Nothinglikethishasbeenseeninmodern
times；ontheonehand，becausemodernEuropeancommunitieshave
seldomorneverreceivedanyaccessionofforeignimmigrants
whichwaslargeenoughtomakeitselffeltbythebulkofthe
nativecitizens，andontheother，becausemodernstates，being
heldtogetherbyallegiancetoakingorpoliticalsuperior，
absorbconsiderablebodiesofimmigrantsettlerswithaquickness
unknowntotheancientworld，wheretheoriginalcitizensofa
commonwealthalwaysbelievedthemselvestobeunitedbykinship
inblood，andresentedaclaimtoequalityofprivilegeasa
usurpationoftheirbirthright。IntheearlyRomanrepublicthe
principleoftheabsoluteexclusionofforeignerspervadedthe
CivilLawnolessthantheConstitution。Thealienordenizen
couldhavenoshareinanyinstitutionsupposedtobecoevalwith
theState。HecouldnothavethebenefitofQuiritarianlaw。He
couldnotbeapartytothenexumwhichwasatoncethe
conveyanceandthecontractoftheprimitiveRomans。Hecouldnot
suebytheSacramentalAction，amodeoflitigationofwhichthe
originmountsuptotheveryinfancyofcivilisation。Still，
neithertheinterestnorthesecurityofRomepermittedhimtobe
quiteoutlawed。Allancientcommunitiesrantheriskofbeing
overthrownbyaveryslightdisturbanceofequilibrium，andthe
mereinstinctofself-preservationwouldforcetheRomansto
devisesomemethodofadjustingtherightsanddutiesof
foreigners，whomightotherwise-andthiswasadangerofreal
importanceintheancientworld——havedecidedtheir
controversiesbyarmedstrife。Moreover，atnoperiodofRoman
historywasforeigntradeentirelyneglected。Itwastherefore
probablyhalfasameasureofpoliceandhalfinfurtheranceof
commercethatjurisdictionwasfirstassumedindisputestowhich
thepartieswereeitherforeignersoranativeandaforeigner。
Theassumptionofsuchajurisdictionbroughtwithitthe
immediatenecessityofdiscoveringsomeprinciplesonwhichthe
questionstobeadjudicateduponcouldbesettled，andthe
principlesappliedtothisobjectbytheRomanlawyerswere
eminentlycharacteristicofthetime。Theyrefused，asIhave
saidbefore，todecidethenewCasesbypureRomanCivilLaw。
Theyrefused，nodoubtbecauseitseemedtoinvolvesomekindof
degradation，toapplythelawoftheparticularStatefromwhich
theforeignlitigantcame。Theexpedienttowhichtheyresorted
wasthatofselectingtherulesoflawcommontoRomeandtothe
differentItaliancommunitiesinwhichtheimmigrantswereborn。
Inotherwords，theysetthemselvestoformasystemansweringto
theprimitiveandliteralmeaningofJusGentium，thatis，Law
commontoallNations。JusGentiumwas，infact，thesumofthe
commoningredientsinthecustomsoftheoldItaliantribes，for
theywereallthenationswhomtheRomanshadthemeansof
observing，andwhosentsuccessiveswarmsofimmigrantstoRoman
soil。Wheneveraparticularusagewasseentobepractisedbya
largenumberofseparateracesincommonitwassetdownaspart
oftheLawcommontoallNations，orJusGentium。Thus，although
theconveyanceofpropertywascertainlyaccompaniedbyvery
differentformsinthedifferentcommonwealthssurroundingRome，
theactualtransfer，tradition，ordeliveryofthearticle
intendedtobeconveyedwasapartoftheceremonialinallof
them。Itwas，forinstance，apart，thoughasubordinatepart，in
theMancipationorconveyancepeculiartoRome。Tradition，
therefore，beinginallprobabilitytheonlycommoningredientin
themodesofconveyancewhichthejurisconsultshadthemeansof
observing，wassetdownasaninstitutionJurisGentium，orrule
oftheLawcommontoallNations。Avastnumberofother
observanceswerescrutinisedwiththesameresult。Somecommon
characteristicwasdiscoveredinallofthem，whichhadacommon
object，andthischaracteristicwasclassedintheJusGentium。
TheJusGentiumwasaccordinglyacollectionofrulesand
principles，determinedbyobservationtobecommontothe
institutionswhichprevailedamongthevariousItaliantribes。
ThecircumstancesoftheoriginoftheJusGentiumare
probablyasufficientsafeguardagainstthemistakeofsupposing
thattheRomanlawyershadanyspecialrespectforit。Itwasthe
fruitinpartoftheirdisdainforallforeignlaw，andinpart
oftheirdisinclinationtogivetheforeignertheadvantageof
theirownindigenousJusCivile。Itistruethatwe，atthe
presentday，shouldprobablytakeaverydifferentviewofthe
JusGentium，ifwewereperformingtheoperationwhichwas
effectedbytheRomanjurisconsults。Weshouldattachsomevague
superiorityorprecedencetotheelementwhichwehadthus
discernedunderlyingandpervadingsogreatavarietyofusage。
Weshouldhaveasortofrespectforrulesandprinciplesso
universal。Perhapsweshouldspeakofthecommoningredientas
beingoftheessenceofthetransactionintowhichitentered，
andshouldstigmatisetheremainingapparatusofceremony，which
variedindifferentcommunities，asadventitiousandaccidental。
Oritmaybe，weshouldinferthattheraceswhichwewere
comparinghadonceobeyedagreatsystemofcommoninstitutions
ofwhichtheJusGentiumwasthereproduction，andthatthe
complicatedusagesofseparatecommonwealthswereonly
corruptionsanddepravationsofthesimplerordinanceswhichhad
onceregulatedtheirprimitivestate。Buttheresultstowhich
modernideasconducttheobserverare，asnearlyaspossible，the
reverseofthosewhichwereinstinctivelybroughthometothe
primitiveRoman。Whatwerespectoradmire，hedislikedor
regardedwithjealousdread。Thepartsofjurisprudencewhichhe
lookeduponwithaffectionwereexactlythosewhichamodern
theoristleavesoutofconsiderationasaccidentaland
transitory。Thesolemngesturesofthemancipation；thenicely
adjustedquestionsandanswersoftheverbalcontract；the
endlessformalitiesofpleadingandprocedure。TheJusGentium
wasmerelyasystemforcedonhisattentionbyapolitical
necessity。Heloveditaslittleashelovedtheforeignersfrom
whoseinstitutionsitwasderivedandforwhosebenefititwas
intended。Acompleterevolutioninhisideaswasrequiredbefore
itcouldchallengehisrespect，butsocompletewasitwhenit
didoccur，thatthetruereasonwhyourmodernestimateofthe
JusGentiumdiffersfromthatwhichhasjustbeendescribed，is
thatbothmodernjurisprudenceandmodernphilosophyhave
inheritedthematuredviewsofthelaterjurisconsultsonthis
subject。Theredidcomeatime，whenfromanignobleappendageof
theJusCivile，theJusGentiumcametobeconsideredagreat
thoughasyetimperfectlydevelopedmodeltowhichalllawought
asfaraspossibletoconform。ThiscrisisarrivedwhentheGreek
theoryofaLawofNaturewasappliedtothepracticalRoman
administrationoftheLawcommontoallNations。
TheJusNaturale，orLawofNature，issimplytheJusGentium
orLawofNationsseeninthelightofapeculiartheory。An
unfortunateattempttodiscriminatethemwasmadebythe
jurisconsultUlpian，withthepropensitytodistinguish
characteristicofalawyer，butthelanguageofGaius，amuch
higherauthority，andthepassagequotedbeforefromthe
Institutesleavenoroomfordoubt，thattheexpressionswere
practicallyconvertible。Thedifferencebetweenthemwasentirely
historical，andnodistinctioninessencecouldeverbe
establishedbetweenthem。Itisalmostunnecessarytoaddthat
theconfusionbetweenJusGentium，orLawcommontoallNations，
andinternationallawisentirelymodern。Theclassical
expressionforinternationallawisJusFecialeorthelawof
negotiationanddiplomacy。Itis，however，unquestionablethat
indistinctimpressionsastothemeaningofJusGentiumhad
considerableshareinproducingthemoderntheorythatthe
relationsofindependentstatesaregovernedbytheLawof
Nature。
