ItbecomesnecessarytoinvestigatetheGreekconceptionsof
natureandherlaw。Theword*@@@@，whichwasrenderedinthe
Latinnaturaandournature，denotedbeyondalldoubtoriginally
thematerialuniverse，butitwasthematerialuniverse
contemplatedunderanaspectwhich——suchisourintellectual
distancefromthosetimes——itisnotveryeasytodelineatein
modernlanguage。Naturesignifiedthephysicalworldregardedas
theresultofsomeprimordialelementorlaw。TheoldestGreek
philosophershadbeenaccustomedtoexplainthefabricof
creationasthemanifestationofsomesingleprinciplewhichthey
variouslyassertedtobemovement，force，fire，moisture，or
generation。Initssimplestandmostancientsense，Natureis
preciselythephysicaluniverselookeduponinthiswayasthe
manifestationofaprinciple。Afterwards，thelaterGreeksects，
returningtoapathfromwhichthegreatestintellectsofGreece
hadmeanwhilestrayed，addedthemoraltothephysicalworldin
theconceptionofNature。Theyextendedthetermtillitembraced
notmerelythevisiblecreation，butthethoughts，observances，
andaspirationsofmankind。Still，asbefore，itwasnotsolely
themoralphenomenaofhumansocietywhichtheyunderstoodby
Nature，butthesephenomenaconsideredasresolvableintosome
generalandsimplelaws。
Now，justastheoldestGreektheoristssupposedthatthe
sportsofchancehadchangedthematerialuniversefromits
simpleprimitiveformintoitspresentheterogeneouscondition，
sotheirintellectualdescendantsimaginedthatbutforuntoward
accidentthehumanracewouldhaveconformeditselftosimpler
rulesofconductandalesstempestuouslife。Toliveaccording
tonaturecametobeconsideredastheendforwhichmanwas
created，andwhichthebestmenwereboundtocompass。Tolive
accordingtonaturewastoriseabovethedisorderlyhabitsand
grossindulgencesofthevulgartohigherlawsofactionwhich
nothingbutself-denialandself-commandwouldenablethe
aspiranttoobserve。Itisnotoriousthatthisproposition——
liveaccordingtonature——wasthesumofthetenetsofthe
famousStoicphilosophy。NowonthesubjugationofGreecethat
philosophymadeinstantaneousprogressinRomansociety。It
possessednaturalfascinationsforthepowerfulclasswho，in
theoryatleast，adheredtothesimplehabitsoftheancient
Italianrace，anddisdainedtosurrenderthemselvestothe
innovationsofforeignfashions。Suchpersonsbeganimmediately
toaffecttheStoicpreceptsoflifeaccordingtonature——an
affectationallthemoregrateful，and，Imayadd，allthemore
noble，fromitscontrastwiththeunboundedprofligacywhichwas
beingdiffusedthroughtheimperialcitybythepillageofthe
worldandbytheexampleofitsmostluxuriousraces。Inthe
frontofthedisciplesofthenewGreekschool，wemightbesure，
evenifwedidnotknowithistorically，thattheRomanlawyers
figured。Wehaveabundantproofthat，therebeingsubstantially
buttwoprofessionsintheRomanrepublic，themilitarymenwere
generallyidentifiedwiththepartyofmovement，butthelawyers
wereuniversallyattheheadofthepartyofresistance。
TheallianceofthelawyerswiththeStoicphilosophers
lastedthroughmanycenturies。Someoftheearliestnamesinthe
seriesofrenownedjurisconsultsareassociatedwithStoicism，
andultimatelywehavethegoldenageofRomanjurisprudence
fixedbygeneralconsentattheeraoftheAntonineCaesars，the
mostfamousdisciplestowhomthatphilosophyhasgivenaruleof
life。Thelongdiffusionofthesedoctrinesamongthemembersof
aparticularprofessionwassuretoaffecttheartwhichthey
practisedandinfluenced。Severalpositionswhichwefindinthe
remainsoftheRomanjurisconsultsarescarcelyintelligible，
unlessweusetheStoictenetsasourkey；butatthesametime
itisaserious，thoughaverycommon，errortomeasurethe
influenceofStoicismonRomanlawbycountingupthenumberof
legalruleswhichcanbeconfidentlyaffiliatedonStoical
dogmas。IthasoftenbeenobservedthatthestrengthofStoicism
residednotinitscanonsofconduct，whichwereoftenrepulsive
orridiculous，butinthegreatthoughvagueprinciplewhichit
inculcatedofresistancetopassion。Justinthesamewaythe
influenceonjurisprudenceoftheGreektheories，whichhadtheir
mostdistinctexpressioninStoicism，consistednotinthenumber
ofspecificpositionswhichtheycontributedtoRomanlaw，butin
thesinglefundamentalassumptionwhichtheylenttoit。After
naturehadbecomeahouseholdwordinthemouthsoftheRomans，
thebeliefgraduallyprevailedamongtheRomanlawyersthatthe
oldJusGentiumwasinfactthelostcodeofNature，andthatthe
PraetorinframinganEdictaljurisprudenceontheprinciplesof
theJusGentiumwasgraduallyrestoringatypefromwhichlawhad
onlydepartedtodeteriorate。Theinferencefromthisbeliefwas
immediate，thatitwasthePraetor’sdutytosupersedetheCivil
LawasmuchaspossiblebytheEdict，toreviveasfarasmight
betheinstitutionsbywhichNaturehadgovernedmaninthe
primitivestate。Ofcourse，thereweremanyimpedimentstothe
ameliorationoflawbythisagency。Theremayhavebeen
prejudicestoovercomeeveninthelegalprofessionitself，and
Romanhabitswerefartootenacioustogivewayatoncetomere
philosophicaltheory。TheindirectmethodsbywhichtheEdict
combatedcertaintechnicalanomalies，showthecautionwhichits
authorswerecompelledtoobserve，anddowntotheverydaysof
Justiniantherewassomepartoftheoldlawwhichhad
obstinatelyresisteditsinfluence。But，onthewhole，the
progressoftheRomansinlegalimprovementwasastonishingly
rapidassoonasstimuluswasappliedtoitbythetheoryof
NaturalLaw。Theideasofsimplificationandgeneralisationhad
alwaysbeenassociatedwiththeconceptionofNature；simplicity，
symmetry，andintelligibilitycamethereforetoberegardedas
thecharacteristicsofagoodlegalsystem，andthetastefor
involvedlanguage，multipliedceremonials，anduseless
difficultiesdisappearedaltogether。Thestrongwill，andunusual
opportunitiesofJustinianwereneededtobringtheRomanlawto
itsexistingshape，butthegroundplanofthesystemhadbeen
sketchedlongbeforetheimperialreformswereeffected。
WhatwastheexactpointofcontactbetweentheoldJus
GentiumandtheLawofNature？Ithinkthattheytouchandblend
throughAEquitas，orEquityinitsoriginalsense；andherewe
seemtocometothefirstappearanceinjurisprudenceofthis
famousterm，EquityInexamininganexpressionwhichhasso
remoteanoriginandsolongahistoryasthis，itisalways
safesttopenetrate，ifpossible，tothesimplemetaphoror
figurewhichatfirstshadowedforththeconception。Ithas
generallybeensupposedthatAEquitasistheequivalentofthe
Greek@@@@@@，i。e。theprincipleofequalorproportionate
distribution。Theequaldivisionofnumbersorphysical
magnitudesisdoubtlesscloselyentwinedwithourperceptionsof
justice；therearefewassociationswhichkeeptheirgroundin
themindsostubbornlyoraredismissedfromitwithsuch
difficultybythedeepestthinkers。Yetintracingthehistoryof
thisassociation，itcertainlydoesnotseemtohavesuggested
itselftoveryearlythought，butisrathertheoffspringofa
comparativelylatephilosophyItisremarkabletoothatthe
\"equality\"oflawsonwhichtheGreekdemocraciesprided
themselves——thatequalitywhich，inthebeautifuldrinkingsong
ofCallistratus，HarmodiusandAristogitonaresaidtohavegiven
toAthens-hadlittleincommonwiththe\"equity\"oftheRomans。
Thefirstwasanequaladministrationofcivillawsamongthe
citizens，howeverlimitedtheclassofcitizensmightbe；the
lastimpliedtheapplicabilityofalaw，whichwasnotcivillaw，
toaclasswhichdidnotnecessarilyconsistofcitizens。The
firstexcludedadespot。thelastincludedforeigners，andfor
somepurposesslaves。Onthewhole，Ishouldbedisposedtolook
inanotherdirectionforthegermoftheRoman\"Equity。\"The
Latinword\"aequus\"carrieswithitmoredistinctlythanthe
Greek\"@@@@\"thesenseoflevelling。Nowitslevellingtendency
wasexactlythecharacteristicoftheJusGentium，whichwouldbe
moststrikingtoaprimitiveRoman。ThepureQuiritarianlaw
recognisedamultitudeofarbitrarydistinctionsbetweenclasses
ofmenandkindsofproperty；theJusGentium，generalisedfroma
comparisonofvariouscustoms，neglectedtheQuiritarian
divisions。TheoldRomanlawestablished，forexample，a
fundamentaldifferencebetween\"Agnatic\"and\"Cognatic\"
relationship，thatis，betweentheFamilyconsideredasbased
uponcommonsubjectiontopatriarchalauthorityandtheFamily
considered(inconformitywithmodernideas)asunitedthrough
themerefactofacommondescent。Thisdistinctiondisappearsin
the\"lawcommontoallnations，\"asalsodoesthedifference
betweenthearchaicformsofproperty，Things\"Mancipi\"and
Things\"necMancipi。\"Theneglectofdemarcationsandboundaries
seemstome，therefore，thefeatureoftheJusGentiumwhichwas
depictedinAEquitas。Iimaginethatthewordwasatfirstamere
descriptionofthatconstantlevellingorremovalof
irregularitieswhichwentonwhereverthepraetoriansystemwas
appliedtothecasesofforeignlitigants。Probablynocolourof
ethicalmeaningbelongedatfirsttotheexpression；noristhere
anyreasontobelievethattheprocesswhichitindicatedwas
otherwisethanextremelydistastefultotheprimitiveRomanmind。
Ontheotherhand，thefeatureoftheJusGentiumwhichwas
presentedtotheapprehensionofaRomanbythewordEquity，was
exactlythefirstandmostvividlyrealisedcharacteristicofthe
hypotheticalstateofnature。Natureimpliedsymmetricalorder，
firstinthephysicalworld，andnextinthemoral，andthe
earliestnotionoforderdoubtlessinvolvedstraightlines，even
surfaces，andmeasureddistances。Thesamesortofpictureor
figurewouldbeunconsciouslybeforethemind’seye，whetherit
strovetoformtheoutlinesofthesupposednaturalstate，or
whetherittookinataglancetheactualadministrationofthe
\"lawcommontoallnations\"；andallweknowofprimitivethought
wouldleadustoconcludethatthisidealsimilaritywoulddo
muchtoencouragethebeliefinanidentityofthetwo
conceptions。Butthen，whiletheJusGentiumhadlittleorno
antecedentcreditatRome，thetheoryofaLawofNaturecamein
surroundedwithalltheprestigeofphilosophicalauthority，and
investedwiththecharmsofassociationwithanelderandmore
blissfulconditionoftherace。Itiseasytounderstandhowthe
differenceinthepointofviewwouldaffectthedignityofthe
termwhichatoncedescribedtheoperationoftheoldprinciples
andtheresultsofthenewtheory。Eventomodernearsitisnot
atallthesamethingtodescribeaprocessasoneof\"levelling\"
andtocallitthe\"correctionofanomalies，\"thoughthemetaphor
ispreciselythesame。NordoIdoubtthat，whenonceAEquitas
wasunderstoodtoconveyanallusiontotheGreektheory，
associationswhichgrewoutoftheGreeknotionof@@@@@@began
toclusterroundit。ThelanguageofCicerorendersitmorethan
likelythatthiswasso，anditwasthefirststageofa
transmutationoftheconceptionofEquity，whichalmostevery
ethicalsystemwhichhasappearedsincethosedayshasmoreor
lesshelpedtocarryon。
Somethingmustbesaidoftheformalinstrumentalitybywhich
theprinciplesanddistinctionsassociated，firstwiththeLaw
commontoallNations，andafterwardswiththeLawofNature，
weregraduallyincorporatedwiththeRomanlaw。Atthecrisisof
primitiveRomanhistorywhichismarkedbytheexpulsionofthe
Tarquins，achangeoccurredwhichhasitsparallelintheearly
annalsofmanyancientstates，butwhichhadlittleincommon
withthosepassagesofpoliticalaffairswhichwenowterm
revolutions。Itmaybestbedescribedbysayingthatthemonarchy
wasputintocommission。Thepowersheretoforeaccumulatedinthe
handsofasinglepersonwereparcelledoutamonganumberof
electivefunctionaries，theverynameofthekinglyofficebeing
retainedandimposedonapersonageknownsubsequentlyastheRex
SacrorumorRexSacrificulus。Aspartofthechange，thesettled
dutiesoftheSupremejudicialofficedevolvedonthePraetor，at
thetimethefirstfunctionaryinthecommonwealth，andtogether
withthesedutieswastransferredtheundefinedsupremacyover
lawandlegislationwhichalwaysattachedtoancientsovereigns
andwhichisnotobscurelyrelatedtothepatriarchalandheroic
authoritytheyhadonceenjoyed。ThecircumstancesofRomegave
greatimportancetothemoreindefiniteportionofthefunctions
thustransferred，aswiththeestablishmentoftherepublicbegan
thatseriesofrecurrenttrialswhichovertookthestate，inthe
difficultyofdealingwithamultitudeofpersonswho，notcoming
withinthetechnicaldescriptionofindigenousRomans，were
neverthelesspermanentlylocatedwithinRomanjurisdiction。
Controversiesbetweensuchpersons，orbetweensuchpersonsand
native-borncitizens，wouldhaveremainedwithoutthepaleofthe
remediesprovidedbyRomanlaw，ifthePraetorhadnotundertaken
todecidethem，andhemustsoonhaveaddressedhimselftothe
morecriticaldisputeswhichintheextensionofcommercearose
betweenRomansubjectsandavowedforeigners。Thegreatincrease
ofsuchcasesintheRomanCourtsabouttheperiodofthefirst
PunicWarismarkedbytheappointmentofaspecialPraetor，
knownsubsequentlyasthePraetorPeregrinus，whogavethemhis
undividedattention。Meantime，oneprecautionoftheRomanpeople
againsttherevivalofoppression，hadconsistedinobliging
everymagistratewhosedutieshadanytendencytoexpandtheir
sphere，topublish，oncommencinghisyearofoffice，anEdictor
proclamation，inwhichhedeclaredthemannerinwhichhe
intendedtoadministerhisdepartment。ThePraetorfellunderthe
rulewithothermagistrates；butasitwasnecessarilyimpossible
toconstructeachyearaseparatesystemofprinciples，heseems
tohaveregularlyrepublishedhispredecessor’sEdictwithsuch
additionsandchangesastheexigencyofthemomentorhisown
viewsofthelawcompelledhimtointroduce。ThePraetor’s
proclamation，thuslengthenedbyanewportioneveryyear，
obtainedthenameoftheEdictumPerpetuum，thatis，the
continuousorunbrokenedict。Theimmenselengthtowhichit
extended，togetherperhapswithsomedistasteforitsnecessarily
disorderlytexture，causedthepracticeofincreasingittobe
stoppedintheyearofSalviusJulianus，whooccupiedthe
magistracyinthereignoftheEmperorHadrian。Theedictofthat
Praetorembracedthereforethewholebodyofequity
jurisprudence，whichitprobablydisposedinnewandsymmetrical
order，andtheperpetualedictisthereforeoftencitedinRoman
lawmerelyastheEdictofJulianus。
PerhapsthefirstinquirywhichoccurstoanEnglishmanwho
considersthepeculiarmechanismoftheEdictis，whatwerethe
limitationsbywhichtheseextensivepowersofthePraetorwere
restrained？Howwasauthoritysolittledefinitereconciledwith
asettledconditionofsocietyandoflaw？Theanswercanonlybe
suppliedbycarefulobservationoftheconditionsunderwhichour
ownEnglishlawisadministered。ThePraetor，itshouldbe
recollected，wasajurisconsulthimself，orapersonentirelyin
thehandsofadviserswhowerejurisconsults，anditisprobable
thateveryRomanlawyerwaitedimpatientlyforthetimewhenhe
shouldfillorcontrolthegreatjudicialmagistracy。Inthe
interval，histastes，feelings，prejudices，anddegreeof
enlightenmentwereinevitablythoseofhisownorder，andthe
qualificationswhichheultimatelybroughttoofficewerethose
whichhehadacquiredinthepracticeandstudyofhis
profession。AnEnglishChancellorgoesthroughpreciselythesame
training，andcarriestothewoolsackthesamequalifications。It
iscertainwhenheassumesofficethathewillhave，tosome
extent，modifiedthelawbeforeheleavesit；butuntilhehas
quittedhisseat，andtheseriesofhisdecisionsintheLaw
Reportshasbeencompleted，wecannotdiscoverhowfarhehas
elucidatedoraddedtotheprincipleswhichhispredecessors
bequeathedtohim。TheinfluenceofthePraetoronRoman
jurisprudencedifferedonlyinrespectoftheperiodatwhichits
amountwasascertained。Aswasbeforestated，hewasinoffice
butforayear，andhisdecisionsrenderedduringhisyear，
thoughofcourseirreversibleasregardedthelitigants，wereof
noulteriorvalue。Themostnaturalmomentfordeclaringthe
changesheproposedtoeffectoccurredthereforeathisentrance
onthepraetorship，andhence，whencommencinghisduties，hedid
openlyandavowedlythatwhichintheendhisEnglish
representativedoesinsensiblyandsometimesunconsciously。The
checksonthisapparentlibertyarepreciselythoseimposedonan
Englishjudge。Theoreticallythereseemstobehardlyanylimit
tothepowersofeitherofthem，butpracticallytheRoman
Praetor，nolessthantheEnglishChancellor，waskeptwithinthe
narrowestboundsbytheprepossessionsimbibedfromearly
trainingandbythestrongrestraintsofprofessionalopinion，
restraintsofwhichthestringencycanonlybeappreciatedby
thosewhohavepersonallyexperiencedthem。Itmaybeaddedthat
thelineswithinwhichmovementispermitted，andbeyondwhich
thereistobenotravelling，werechalkedwithasmuch
distinctnessintheonecaseasintheother。InEnglandthe
judgefollowstheanalogiesofreporteddecisionsoninsulated
groupsoffacts。AtRome，astheinterventionofthePraetorwas
atfirstdictatedbysimpleconcernforthesafetyofthestate，
itislikelythatintheearliesttimesitwasproportionedto
thedifficultywhichitattemptedtogetridof。Afterwards，when
thetasteforprinciplehadbeendiffusedbytheResponses，heno
doubtusedtheEdictasthemeansofgivingawiderapplication
tothosefundamentalprinciples，whichheandtheother
practisingjurisconsults，hiscontemporaries，believedthemselves
tohavedetectedunderlyingthelaw。Latterlyheactedwholly
undertheinfluenceofGreekphilosophicaltheories，whichat
oncetemptedhimtoadvanceandconfinedhimtoaparticular
courseofprogress。
ThenatureofthemeasuresattributedtoSalviusJulianushas
beenmuchdisputed。Whatevertheywere，theireffectsonthe
Edictaresufficientlyplain。Itceasedtobeextendedbyannual
additions，andhenceforwardtheequityjurisprudenceofRomewas
developedbythelaboursofasuccessionofgreatjurisconsults
whofillwiththeirwritingstheintervalbetweenthereignof
HadrianandthereignofAlexanderSeverus。Afragmentofthe
wonderfulsystemwhichtheybuiltupsurvivesinthePandectsof
Justinian，andsuppliesevidencethattheirworkstooktheform
oftreatisesonallpartsofRomanLaw，butchieflythatof
commentariesontheEdict。Indeed，whateverbetheimmediate
subjectofajurisconsultofthisepoch，hemayalwaysbecalled
anexpositorofEquity。TheprinciplesoftheEdicthad，before
theepochofitscessation，madetheirwayintoeverypartof
Romanjurisprudence。TheEquityofRome，itshouldbeunderstood，
evenwhenmostdistinctfromtheCivilLaw，wasalways
administeredbythesametribunals。ThePraetorwasthechief
equityjudgeaswellasthegreatcommonlawmagistrate，andas
soonastheEdicthadevolvedanequitablerulethePraetor’s
courtbegantoapplyitinplaceoforbythesideoftheold
ruleoftheCivilLaw，whichwasthusdirectlyorindirectly
repealedwithoutanyexpressenactmentofthelegislature。The
result，ofcourse，fellconsiderablyshortofacompletefusion
oflawandequity，whichwasnotcarriedouttillthereformsof
Justinian。Thetechnicalseveranceofthetwoelementsof
jurisprudenceentailedsomeconfusionandsomeinconvenience，and
therewerecertainofthestubbornerdoctrinesoftheCivilLaw
withwhichneithertheauthorsnortheexpositorsoftheEdict
hadventuredtointerfere。Butatthesametimetherewasno
comerofthefieldofjurisprudencewhichwasnotmoreorless
sweptoverbytheinfluenceofEquity。Itsuppliedthejurist
withallhismaterialsforgeneralisation，withallhismethods
ofinterpretation，withhiselucidationsoffirstprinciples，and
withthatgreatmassoflimitingruleswhicharerarely
interferedwithbythelegislator，butwhichseriouslycontrol
theapplicationofeverylegislativeact。
TheperiodofjuristsendswithAlexanderSeverus。From
Hadriantothatemperortheimprovementoflawwascarriedon，as
itisatthepresentmomentinmostcontinentalcountries，partly
byapprovedcommentariesandpartlybydirectlegislation。Butin
thereignofAlexanderSeverusthepowerofgrowthinRoman
Equityseemstobeexhausted，andthesuccessionofjurisconsults
comestoaclose。TheremaininghistoryoftheRomanlawisthe
historyoftheimperialconstitutions，and，atthelast，of
attemptstocodifywhathadnowbecometheunwieldybodyofRoman
jurisprudence。Wehavethelatestandmostcelebratedexperiment
ofthiskindintheCorpusJurisofJustinian。
Itwouldbewearisometoenteronadetailedcomparisonor
contrastofEnglishandRomanEquitybutitmaybeworthwhileto
mentiontwofeatureswhichtheyhaveincommon。Thefirstmaybe
statedasfollows。Eachofthemtended，andallsuchsystems
tend，toexactlythesamestateinwhichtheoldcommonlawwas
whenEquityfirstinterferedwithit。Atimealwayscomesat
whichthemoralprinciplesoriginallyadoptedhavebeencarried
outtoalltheirlegitimateconsequences，andthenthesystem
foundedonthembecomesasrigid，asunexpansive，andasliable
tofallbehindmoralprogressasthesternestcodeofrules
avowedlylegal。SuchanepochwasreachedatRomeinthereignof
AlexanderSeverus；afterwhich，thoughthewholeRomanworldwas
undergoingamoralrevolution，theEquityofRomeceasedto
expand。ThesamepointoflegalhistorywasattainedinEngland
underthechancellorshipofLordEldon，thefirstofourequity
judgeswho，insteadofenlargingthejurisprudenceofhiscourt
byindirectlegislation，devotedhimselfthroughlifeto
explainingandharmonisingit。Ifthephilosophyoflegalhistory
werebetterunderstoodinEngland，LordEldon’sserviceswouldbe
lessexaggeratedontheonehandandbetterappreciatedonthe
otherthantheyappeartobeamongcontemporarylawyers。Other
misapprehensionstoo，whichbearsomepracticalfruit，would
perhapsbeavoided。ItiseasilyseenbyEnglishlawyersthat
EnglishEquityisasystemfoundedonmoralrules；butitis
forgottenthattheserulesarethemoralityofpastcenturies——
notofthepresent-thattheyhavereceivednearlyasmuch
applicationastheyarecapableof，andthatthoughofcourse
theydonotdifferlargelyfromtheethicalcreedofourownday，
theyarenotnecessarilyonalevelwithit。Theimperfect
theoriesofthesubjectwhicharecommonlyadoptedhavegenerated
errorsofoppositesorts。ManywritersoftreatisesonEquity，
struckwiththecompletenessofthesysteminitspresentstate，
committhemselvesexpresslyorimplicitlytotheparadoxical
assertionthatthefoundersofthechanceryjurisprudence
contemplateditspresentfixityofformwhentheyweresettling
itsfirstbases。Others，again，complainandthisisagrievance
frequentlyobserveduponinforensicarguments——thatthemoral
rulesenforcedbytheCourtofChanceryfallshortoftheethical
standardofthepresentday。TheywouldhaveeachLordChancellor
performpreciselythesameofficeforthejurisprudencewhichhe
findsreadytohishand，whichwasperformedfortheoldcommon
lawbythefathersofEnglishequity。Butthisistoinvertthe
orderoftheagenciesbywhichtheimprovementofthelawis
carriedon。Equityhasitsplaceanditstime；butIhavepointed
outthatanotherinstrumentalityisreadytosucceeditwhenits
energiesarespent。
AnotherremarkablecharacteristicofbothEnglishandRoman
Equityisthefalsehoodoftheassumptionsuponwhichtheclaim
oftheequitabletosuperiorityoverthelegalruleisoriginally
defended。Nothingismoredistastefultomen，eitheras
individualsorasmasses，thantheadmissionoftheirmoral
progressasasubstantivereality。Thisunwillingnessshows
itself，asregardsindividuals，intheexaggeratedrespectwhich
isordinarilypaidtothedoubtfulvirtueofconsistency。The
movementofthecollectiveopinionofawholesocietyistoo
palpabletobeignored，andisgenerallytoovisibleforthe
bettertobedecried；butthereisthegreatestdisinclinationto
acceptitasaprimaryphenomenon，anditiscommonlyexplained
astherecoveryofalostperfection——thegradualreturntoa
statefromwhichtheracehaslapsed。Thistendencytolook
backwardinsteadofforwardforthegoalofmoralprogress
producedanciently，aswehaveseen，onRomanjurisprudence
effectsthemostseriousandpermanent。TheRomanjurisconsults，
inordertoaccountfortheimprovementoftheirjurisprudenceby
thePraetor，borrowedfromGreecethedoctrineofaNaturalstate
ofman——aNaturalsociety——anteriortotheorganisationof
commonwealthsgovernedbypositivelaws。InEngland，ontheother
hand，arangeofideasespeciallycongenialtoEnglishmenofthat
day，explainedtheclaimofEquitytooverridethecommonlawby
supposingageneralrighttosuperintendtheadministrationof
justicewhichwasassumedtobevestedinthekingasanatural
resultofhispaternalauthority。Thesameviewappearsina
differentandaquainterformintheolddoctrinethatEquity
flowedfromtheking’sconscience——theimprovementwhichhadin
facttakenplaceinthemoralstandardofthecommunitybeing
thusreferredtoaninherentelevationinthemoralsenseofthe
sovereign。ThegrowthoftheEnglishconstitutionrenderedsucha
theoryunpalatableafteratime；but，asthejurisdictionofthe
Chancerywasthenfirmlyestablished，itwasnotworthwhileto
deviseanyformalsubstituteforit。Thetheoriesfoundinmodern
manualsofEquityareveryvarious，butallarealikeintheir
untenability。MostofthemaremodificationsoftheRoman
doctrineofanaturallaw，whichisindeedadoptedintenourby
thosewriterswhobeginadiscussionofthejurisdictionofthe
CourtofChancerybylayingdownadistinctionbetweennatural
justiceandcivil。
AncientLaw
byHenryMaineChapter4TheModernHistoryoftheLawofNature
Itwillbeinferredfromwhathasbeensaidthatthetheory
whichtransformedtheRomanjurisprudencehadnoclaimto
philosophicalprecision。Itinvolved，infact，oneofthose
\"mixedmodesofthought\"whicharenowacknowledgedtohave
characterisedallbutthehighestmindsduringtheinfancyof
speculation，andwhicharefarfromundiscoverableeveninthe
mentaleffortsofourownday。TheLawofNatureconfusedthe
PastandthePresent。Logically，itimpliedastateofNature
whichhadoncebeenregulatedbynaturallaw；yetthe
jurisconsultsdonotspeakclearlyorconfidentlyofthe
existenceofsuchastate，whichindeedislittlenoticedbythe
ancientsexceptwhereitfindsapoeticalexpressioninthefancy
ofagoldenage。Naturallaw，forallpracticalpurposes，was
somethingbelongingtothepresent，somethingentwinedwith
existinginstitutions，somethingwhichcouldbedistinguished
fromthembyacompetentobserver。Thetestwhichseparatedthe
ordinancesofNaturefromthegrossingredientswithwhichthey
weremingledwasasenseofsimplicityandharmony；yetitwas
notonaccountoftheirsimplicityandharmonythatthesefiner
elementswereprimarilyrespected，butonthescoreoftheir
descentfromtheaboriginalreignofNature。Thisconfusionhas
notbeensuccessfullyexplainedawaybythemoderndisciplesof
thejurisconsults，andintruthmodernspeculationsontheLawof
Naturebetraymuchmoreindistinctnessofperceptionandare
vitiatedbymuchmorehopelessambiguityoflanguagethanthe
Romanlawyerscanbejustlychargedwith。Therearesomewriters
onthesubjectwhoattempttoevadethefundamentaldifficultyby
contendingthatthecodeofNatureexistsinthefutureandis
thegoaltowhichallcivillawsaremoving，butthisisto
reversetheassumptionsonwhichtheoldtheoryrested，orrather
perhapstomixtogethertwoinconsistenttheories。Thetendency
tolooknottothepastbuttothefuturefortypesofperfection
wasbroughtintotheworldbyChristianity。Ancientliterature
givesfewornohintsofabeliefthattheprogressofsocietyis
necessarilyfromworsetobetter。
Buttheimportanceofthistheorytomankindhasbeenvery
muchgreaterthanitsphilosophicaldeficiencieswouldleadusto
expect。Indeed，itisnoteasytosaywhatturnthehistoryof
thought，andtherefore，ofthehumanrace，wouldhavetaken，if
thebeliefinalawnaturalhadnotbecomeuniversalinthe
ancientworld。
Therearetwospecialdangerstowhichlawandsocietywhich
isheldtogetherbylaw，appeartobeliableintheirinfancy。
Oneofthemisthatlawmaybetoorapidlydeveloped。This
occurredwiththecodesofthemoreprogressiveGreek
communities，whichdisembarrassedthemselveswithastonishing
facilityfromcumbrousformsofprocedureandneedlesstermsof
art，andsoonceasedtoattachanysuperstitiousvaluetorigid
rulesandprescriptions。Itwasnotfortheultimateadvantageof
mankindthattheydidso，thoughtheimmediatebenefitconferred
ontheircitizensmayhavebeenconsiderable。Oneoftherarest
qualitiesofnationalcharacteristhecapacityforapplyingand
workingoutthelaw，assuch，atthecostofconstant
miscarriagesofabstractjustice，withoutatthesametimelosing
thehopeorthewishthatlawmaybeconformedtoahigherideal。
TheGreekintellect，withallitsnobilityandelasticity，was
quiteunabletoconfineitselfwithinthestraitwaistcoatofa
legalformula；and，ifwemayjudgethembythepopularcourtsof
Athensofwhoseworkingwepossessaccurateknowledge，theGreek
tribunalsexhibitedthestrongesttendencytoconfoundlawand
fact。TheremainsoftheOratorsandtheforensiccommonplaces
preservedbyAristotleinhisTreatiseonRhetoric，showthat
questionsofpurelawwereconstantlyarguedonevery
considerationwhichcouldpossiblyinfluencethemindofthe
judges。Nodurablesystemofjurisprudencecouldbeproducedin
thisway。Acommunitywhichneverhesitatedtorelaxrulesof
writtenlawwhenevertheystoodinthewayofanideallyperfect
decisiononthefactsofparticularcases，wouldonly；ifit
bequeathedanybodyofjudicialprinciplestoposteritybequeath
oneconsistingoftheideasofrightandwrongwhichhappenedto
beprevalentatthetime。Suchajurisprudencewouldcontainno
frameworktowhichthemoreadvancedconceptionsofsubsequent
agescouldbefitted。Itwouldamountatbesttoaphilosophy
markedwiththeimperfectionsofthecivilisationunderwhichit
grewup。
Fewnationalsocietieshavehadtheirjurisprudencemenaced
bythispeculiardangerofprecociousmaturityanduntimely
disintegration。ItiscertainlydoubtfulwhethertheRomanswere
everseriouslythreatenedbyit，butatanyratetheyhad
adequateprotectionintheirtheoryofNaturalLaw。Forthe
NaturalLawofthejurisconsultswasdistinctlyconceivedbythem
asasystemwhichoughtgraduallytoabsorbcivillaws，without
supersedingthemsolongastheyremainedunrepealed。Therewas
nosuchimpressionofitssanctityabroad，thatanappealtoit
wouldbelikelytooverpowerthemindofajudgewhowascharged
withthesuperintendenceofaparticularlitigation。Thevalue
andserviceablenessoftheconceptionarosefromitskeeping
beforethementalvisionatypeofperfectlaw，andfromits
inspiringthehopeofanindefiniteapproximationtoit，atthe
sametimethatitnevertemptedthepractitionerorthecitizen
todenytheobligationofexistinglawswhichhadnotyetbeen
adjustedtothetheory。Itisimportanttootoobservethatthis
modelsystem，unlikemanyofthosewhichhavemockedmen’shopes
inlaterdays，wasnotentirelytheproductofimagination。It
wasneverthoughtofasfoundedonquiteuntestedprinciples。The
notionwasthatitunderlayexistinglawandmustbelookedfor
throughit。Itsfunctionswereinshortremedial，not
revolutionaryoranarchical。Andthis，unfortunately，isthe
exactpointatwhichthemodernviewofaLawofNaturehasoften
ceasedtoresembletheancient。
Theotherliabilitytowhichtheinfancyofsocietyis
exposedhaspreventedorarrestedtheprogressoffarthegreater
partofmankind。Therigidityofprimitivelaw，arisingchiefly
fromitsearlyassociationandidentificationwithreligion，has
chaineddownthemassofthehumanracetothoseviewsoflife
andconductwhichtheyentertainedatthetimewhentheirusages
werefirstconsolidatedintoasystematicform。Therewereoneor
tworacesexemptedbyamarvellousfatefromthiscalamity，and
graftsfromthesestockshavefertilisedafewmodernsocieties，
butitisstilltruethat，overthelargerpartoftheworld，the
perfectionoflawhasalwaysbeenconsideredasconsistingin
adherencetothegroundplansupposedtohavebeenmarkedoutby
theoriginallegislator。Ifintellecthasinsuchcasesbeen
exercisedonjurisprudence，ithasuniformlyprideditselfonthe
subtleperversityoftheconclusionsitcouldbuildonancient
texts，withoutdiscoverabledeparturefromtheirliteraltenour。
IknownoreasonwhythelawoftheRomansshouldbesuperiorto
thelawsoftheHindoos，unlessthetheoryofNaturalLawhad
givenitatypeofexcellencedifferentfromtheusualone。In
thisoneexceptionalinstance，simplicityandsymmetrywerekept
beforetheeyesofasocietywhoseinfluenceonmankindwas
destinedtobeprodigiousfromothercauses，asthe
characteristicsofanidealandabsolutelyperfectlaw。Itis
impossibletooverratetheimportancetoanationorprofession
ofhavingadistinctobjecttoaimatinthepursuitof
improvement。ThesecretofBentham’simmenseinfluenceinEngland
duringthepastthirtyyearsishissuccessinplacingsuchan
objectbeforethecountry。Hegaveusaclearruleofreform。
Englishlawyersofthelastcenturywereprobablytooacutetobe
blindedbytheparadoxicalcommonplacethatEnglishlawwasthe
perfectionofhumanreason，buttheyactedasiftheybelievedit
forwantofanyotherprincipletoproceedupon。Benthammadethe
goodofthecommunitytakeprecedenceofeveryotherobject，and
thusgaveescapetoacurrentwhichhadlongbeentryingtofind
itswayoutwards。
Itisnotanaltogetherfancifulcomparisonifwecallthe
assumptionswehavebeendescribingtheancientcounterpartof
Benthamism。TheRomantheoryguidedmen’seffortsinthesame
directionasthetheoryputintoshapebytheEnglishman；its
practicalresultswerenotwidelydifferentfromthosewhich
wouldhavebeenattainedbyasectoflaw-reformerswho
maintainedasteadypursuitofthegeneralgoodofthecommunity。
Itwouldbeamistake，however，tosupposeitaconscious
anticipationofBentham’sprinciples。Thehappinessofmankind
is，nodoubt，sometimesassigned，bothinthepopularandinthe
legalliteratureoftheRomans，astheproperobjectofremedial
legislation，butitisveryremarkablehowfewandfaintarethe
testimoniestothisprinciplecomparedwiththetributeswhich
areconstantlyofferedtotheovershadowingclaimsoftheLawof
Nature。Itwasnottoanythingresemblingphilanthropy，butto
theirsenseofsimplicityandharmony——ofwhatthey
significantlytermed\"elegance\"——thattheRomanjurisconsults
freelysurrenderedthemselves。Thecoincidenceoftheirlabours
withthosewhichamoreprecisephilosophywouldhavecounselled
hasbeenpartofthegoodfortuneofmankind。
Turningtothemodernhistoryofthelawofnature，wefind
iteasiertoconvinceourselvesofthevastnessofitsinfluence
thantopronounceconfidentlywhetherthatinfluencehasbeen
exertedforgoodorforevil。Thedoctrinesandinstitutions
whichmaybeattributedtoitarethematerialofsomeofthe
mostviolentcontroversiesdebatedinourtime，aswillbeseen
whenitisstatedthatthetheoryofNaturalLawisthesourceof
almostallthespecialideasastolaw，politics，andsociety
whichFranceduringthelasthundredyearshasbeenthe
instrumentofdiffusingoverthewesternworld。Thepartplayed
byjuristsinFrenchhistory，andthesphereofjuralconceptions
inFrenchthought，havealwaysbeenremarkablylarge。Itwasnot
indeedinFrance，butinItaly，thatthejuridicalscienceof
modernEuropetookitsrise，butoftheschoolsfoundedby
emissariesoftheItalianuniversitiesinallpartsofthe
continent，andattempted(thoughvainly)tobesetupinour
island，thatestablishedinFranceproducedthegreatesteffect
onthefortunesofthecountry。ThelawyersofFranceimmediately
formedastrictalliancewiththekingsofthehouseofCapet，
anditwasasmuchthroughtheirassertionsofroyalprerogative，
andthroughtheirinterpretationsoftherulesoffeudal
succession，asbythepowerofthesword，thattheFrench
monarchyatlastgrewtogetheroutoftheagglomerationof
provincesanddependencies。Theenormousadvantagewhichtheir
understandingwiththelawyersconferredontheFrenchkingsin
theprosecutionoftheirstrugglewiththegreatfeudatories，the
aristocracy，andthechurch，canonlybeappreciatedifwetake
intoaccounttheideaswhichprevailedinEuropefardowninto
themiddleages。Therewas，inthefirstplace，agreat
enthusiasmforgeneralisationandacuriousadmirationforall
generalpropositions，andconsequently，inthefieldoflaw，an
involuntaryreverenceforeverygeneralformulawhichseemedto
embraceandsumupanumberoftheinsulatedruleswhichwere
practisedasusagesinvariouslocalities。Suchgeneralformulas
itwas，ofcourse，notdifficultforpractitionersfamiliarwith
theCorpusJurisortheGlossestosupplyinalmostanyquantity。
Therewas，however，anothercausewhichaddedyetmore
considerablytothelawyers’power。Attheperiodofwhichweare
speaking，therewasuniversalvaguenessofideasastothedegree
andnatureoftheauthorityresidinginwrittentextsoflawFor
themostpart，theperemptorypreface，Itascriptumest，seemsto
havebeensufficienttosilenceallobjections。Whereamindof
ourowndaywouldjealouslyscrutinisetheformulawhichhadbeen
quoted，wouldinquireitssource，andwould(ifnecessary)deny
thatthebodyoflawtowhichitbelongedhadanyauthorityto
supersedelocalcustoms，theelderjuristwouldnotprobably
haveventuredtodomorethanquestiontheapplicabilityofthe
rule，oratbestcitesomecounterpropositionfromthePandects
ortheCanonLaw。Itisextremelynecessarytobearinmindthe
uncertaintyofmen’snotionsonthismostimportantsideof
juridicalcontroversies，notonlybecauseithelpstoexplainthe
weightwhichthelawyersthrewintothemonarchicalscale，buton
accountofthelightwhichitshedsonseveralcurioushistorical
problems。ThemotivesoftheauthoroftheForgedDecretalsand
hisextraordinarysuccessarerenderedmoreintelligiblebyit。
And，totakeaphenomenonofsmallerinterest，itassistsus，
thoughonlypartiallytounderstandtheplagiarismsofBracton。
ThatanEnglishwriterofthetimeofHenryIIIshouldhavebeen
abletoputoffonhiscountrymenasacompendiumofpureEnglish
lawatreatiseofwhichtheentireformandathirdofthe
contentsweredirectlyborrowedfromtheCorpusJuris，andthat
heshouldhaveventuredonthisexperimentinacountrywherethe
systematicstudyoftheRomanlawwasformallyproscribed，will
alwaysbeamongthemosthopelessenigmasinthehistoryof
jurisprudence；butstillitissomethingtolessenoursurprise
whenwecomprehendthestateofopinionattheperiodastothe
obligatoryforceofwrittentexts，apartfromallconsideration
oftheSourcewhencetheywerederived。
WhenthekingsofFrancehadbroughttheirlongstrugglefor
supremacytoasuccessfulclose，anepochwhichmaybeplaced
roughlyattheaccessionofthebranchofValois-Angoulemetothe
throne，thesituationoftheFrenchjuristswaspeculiarand
continuedtobesodowntotheoutbreakoftherevolution。Onthe
onehand，theyformedthebestinstructedandnearlythemost
powerfulclassinthenation。Theyhadmadegoodtheirfootingas
aprivilegedorderbythesideofthefeudalaristocracy，and
theyhadassuredtheirinfluencebyanorganisationwhich
distributedtheirprofessionoverFranceingreatchartered
corporationspossessinglargedefinedpowersandstilllarger
indefiniteclaims。Inallthequalitiesoftheadvocate，the
judge，andthelegislator，theyfarexcelledtheircompeers
throughoutEurope。Theirjuridicaltact，theireaseof
expression，theirfinesenseofanalogyandharmony，and(ifthey
maybejudgedbythehighestnamesamongthem)theirpassionate
devotiontotheirconceptionsofjustice，wereasremarkableas
thesingularvarietyoftalentwhichtheyincluded，avariety
coveringthewholegroundbetweentheoppositepolesofCujasand
Montesquieu，ofD’AguesseauandDumoulin。But，ontheotherhand，
thesystemoflawswhichtheyhadtoadministerstoodinstriking
contrastwiththehabitsofmindwhichtheyhadcultivated。The
Francewhichhadbeeningreatpartconstitutedbytheirefforts
wassmittenwiththecurseofananomalousanddissonant
jurisprudencebeyondeveryothercountryinEurope。Onegreat
divisionranthroughthecountryandseparateditintoPaysdu
DroitEcritandPaysduDroitCoutumier；thefirstacknowledging
thewrittenRomanlawasthebasisoftheirjurisprudence，the
lastadmittingitonlysofarasitsuppliedgeneralformsof
expression，andcoursesofjuridicalreasoningwhichwere
reconcileablewiththelocalusages。Thesectionsthusformed
wereagainvariouslysubdivided。InthePaysduDroitCoutumier
provincedifferedfromprovince，countyfromcounty，municipality
frommunicipality，inthenatureofitscustoms。InthePaysdu
DroitEcritthestratumoffeudalruleswhichoverlaytheRoman
lawwasofthemostmiscellaneouscomposition。Nosuchconfusion
asthiseverexistedinEngland。InGermanyitdidexist，butwas
toomuchinharmonywiththedeeppoliticalandreligious
divisionsofthecountrytobelamentedorevenfelt。Itwasthe
specialpeculiarityofFrancethatanextraordinarydiversityof
lawscontinuedwithoutsensiblealterationwhilethecentral
authorityofthemonarchywasconstantlystrengtheningitself，
whilerapidapproacheswerebeingmadetocompleteadministrative
unity，andwhileafervidnationalspirithadbeendeveloped
amongthepeople。Thecontrastwasonewhichfructifiedinmany
seriousresults，andamongthemwemustranktheeffectwhichit
producedonthemindsoftheFrenchlawyer。Theirspeculative
opinionsandtheirintellectualbiaswereinthestrongest
oppositiontotheirinterestsandprofessionalhabits。Withthe
keenestsenseandthefullestrecognitionofthoseperfectionsof
jurisprudencewhichconsistinsimplicityanduniformity，they
believed，orseemedtobelieve，thattheviceswhichactually
infestedFrenchlawwereineradicable:andinpracticetheyoften
resistedthereformationofabuseswithanobstinacywhichwas
notshownbymanyamongtheirlessenlightenedcountrymen。But
therewasawaytoreconcilethesecontradictions。Theybecame
passionateenthusiastsforNaturalLaw。TheLawofNature
overleaptallprovincialandmunicipalboundaries；itdisregarded
alldistinctionsbetweennobleandburgess，betweenburgessand
peasant；itgavethemostexaltedplacetolucidity，simplicity
andsystem；butitcommitteditsdevoteestonospecific
improvement，anddidnotdirectlythreatenanyvenerableor
lucrativetechnicality。Naturallawmaybesaidtohavebecome
thecommonlawofFrance，or，atallevents，theadmissionofits
dignityandclaimswastheonetenetwhichallFrench
practitionersalikesubscribedto。Thelanguageofthe
prae-revolutionaryjuristsinitseulogyissingularly
unqualified，anditisremarkablethatthewritersonthe
Customs，whooftenmadeittheirdutytospeakdisparaginglyof
thepureRomanlaw，speakevenmorefervidlyofNatureandher
rulesthanthecivilianswhoprofessedanexclusiverespectfor
theDigestandtheCode。Dumoulin，thehighestofallauthorities
onoldFrenchCustomaryLaw，hassomeextravagantpassagesonthe
LawofNature；andhispanegyricshaveapeculiarrhetoricalturn
whichindicatedaconsiderabledeparturefromthecautionofthe
Romanjurisconsults。ThehypothesisofaNaturalLawhadbecome
notsomuchatheoryguidingpracticeasanarticleof
speculativefaith，andaccordinglyweshallfindthat，inthe
transformationwhichitmorerecentlyunderwent，itsweakest
partsrosetothelevelofitsstrongestintheesteemofits
supporters。
Theeighteenthcenturywashalfoverwhenthemostcritical
periodinthehistoryofNaturalLawwasreached。Hadthe
discussionofthetheoryandofitsconsequencescontinuedtobe
exclusivelytheemploymentofthelegalprofession，therewould
possiblyhavebeenanabatementoftherespectwhichit
commanded；forbythistimetheEspritdesLoishadappeared。
Bearinginsomeexaggerationsthemarksoftheexcessiveviolence
withwhichitsauthor’smindhadrecoiledfromassumptions
usuallysufferedtopasswithoutscrutiny，vetshowinginsome
ambiguitiesthetracesofadesiretocompromisewithexisting
prejudice，thebookofMontesquieu，withallitsdefects，still
proceededonthatHistoricalMethodbeforewhichtheLawof
Naturehasnevermaintaineditsfootingforaninstant。Its
influenceonthoughtoughttohavebeenasgreatasitsgeneral
popularity；but，infact，itwasneverallowedtimetoputit
forth，forthecounter-hypothesiswhichitseemeddestinedto
destroypassedsuddenlyfromtheforumtothestreet，andbecame
thekey-noteofcontroversiesfarmoreexcitingthanareever
agitatedinthecourtsortheschools。Thepersonwholaunchedit
onitsnewcareerwasthatremarkablemanwho，withoutlearning，
withfewvirtues，andwithnostrengthofcharacter，has
neverthelessstampedhimselfineffaceablyonhistorybytheforce
ofavividimagination，andbythehelpofagenuineandburning
loveforhisfellow-men，forwhichmuchwillalwayshavetobe
forgivenhim。Wehaveneverseeninourowngeneration——indeed
theworldhasnotseenmorethanonceortwiceinallthecourse
ofhistory——aliteraturewhichhasexercisedsuchprodigious
influenceoverthemindsofmen，overeverycastandshadeof
intellect，asthatwhichemanatedfromRousseaubetween1749and
1762。Itwasthefirstattempttore-erecttheedificeofhuman
beliefafterthepurelyiconoclasticeffortscommencedbyBayle，
andinpartbyourownLocke，andconsummatedbyVoltaire；and
besidesthesuperioritywhicheveryconstructiveeffortwill
alwaysenjoyoveronethatismerelydestructive，itpossessed
theimmenseadvantageofappearingamidanallbutuniversal
scepticismastothesoundnessofallforegoneknowledgein
mattersspeculative。Now，inallthespeculationsofRousseau，
thecentralfigure，whetherarrayedinanEnglishdressasthe
signatoryofasocialcompact，orsimplystrippednakedofall
historicalqualities，isuniformlyMan，inasupposedstateof
nature。Everylaworinstitutionwhichwouldmisbeseemthis
imaginarybeingundertheseidealcircumstancesistobe
condemnedashavinglapsedfromanoriginalperfection；every
transformationofsocietywhichwouldgiveitacloser
resemblancetotheworldoverwhichthecreatureofNature
reigned，isadmirableandworthytobeeffectedatanyapparent
cost。ThetheoryisstillthatoftheRomanlawyers，forinthe
phantasmagoriawithwhichtheNaturalConditionispeopled，every
featureandcharacteristiceludesthemindexceptthesimplicity
andharmonywhichpossessedsuchcharmsforthejurisconsult；but
thetheoryis，asitwere，turnedupsidedown。ItisnottheLaw
ofNature，buttheStateofNature，whichisnowtheprimary
subjectofcontemplation。TheRomanhadconceivedthatbycareful
observationofexistinginstitutionspartsofthemcouldbe
singledoutwhicheitherexhibitedalready，orcouldbyjudicious
purificationbemadetoexhibit，thevestigesofthatreignof
naturewhoserealityhefaintlyaffirmed。Rousseau’sbeliefwas
thataperfectsocialordercouldbeevolvedfromtheunassisted
considerationofthenaturalstate，asocialorderwholly
irrespectiveoftheactualconditionoftheworldandwholly
unlikeit。Thegreatdifferencebetweentheviewsisthatone
bitterlyandbroadlycondemnsthepresentforitsunlikenessto
theidealpast；whiletheother，assumingthepresenttobeas
necessaryasthepast，doesnotaffecttodisregardorcensure
it。Itisnotworthourwhiletoanalysewithanyparticularity
thatphilosophyofpolitics，art，education，ethics，andsocial
relationwhichwasconstructedonthebasisofastateofnature。
Itstillpossessessingularfascinationforthelooserthinkers
ofeverycountry，andisnodoubttheparent，moreorless
remote，ofalmostalltheprepossessionswhichimpedethe
employmentoftheHistoricalMethodofinquiry，butitsdiscredit
withthehighermindsofourdayisdeepenoughtoastonishthose
whoarefamiliarwiththeextraordinaryvitalityofspeculative
error。Perhapsthequestionmostfrequentlyaskednowadaysisnot
whatisthevalueoftheseopinions，butwhatwerethecauses
whichgavethemsuchovershadowingprominenceahundredyears
ago。Theansweris，Iconceive，asimpleone。Thestudywhichin
thelastcenturywouldbesthavecorrectedthemisapprehensions
intowhichanexclusiveattentiontolegalantiquitiesisaptto
betraywasthestudyofreligion。ButGreekreligion，asthen
understood，wasdissipatedinimaginativemyths。TheOriental
religions，ifnoticedatall，appearedtobelostinvain
cosmogonies。Therewasbutonebodyofprimitiverecordswhich
wasworthstudying——theearlyhistoryoftheJews。Butresort
tothiswaspreventedbytheprejudicesofthetime。Oneofthe
fewcharacteristicswhichtheschoolofRousseauhadincommon
withtheschoolofVoltairewasanutterdisdainofallreligious
antiquities；and，morethanall，ofthoseoftheHebrewrace。It
iswellknownthatitwasapointofhonourwiththereasonersof
thatdaytoassumenotmerelythattheinstitutionscalledafter
Moseswerenotdivinelydictated，noreventhattheywere
codifiedatalaterdatethanthatattributedtothem，butthat
theyandtheentirePentateuchwereagratuitousforgery，
executedafterthereturnfromtheCaptivity。Debarred，
therefore，fromonechiefsecurityagainstspeculativedelusion，
thephilosophersofFrance，intheireagernesstoescapefrom
whattheydeemedasuperstitionofthepriests，flungthemselves
headlongintoasuperstitionofthelawyer。
Butthoughthephilosophyfoundedonthehypothesisofa
stateofnaturehasfallenlowingeneralesteem，insofarasit
islookeduponunderitscoarserandmorepalpableaspect，it
doesnotfollowthatinitssubtlerdisguisesithaslost
plausibility，popularity，orpower。Ibelieve，asIhavesaid，
thatitisstillthegreatantagonistoftheHistoricalMethod；
andwhenever(religiousobjectionsapart)anymindisseento
resistorcontemnthatmodeofinvestigation，itwillgenerally
befoundundertheinfluenceofaprejudiceorviciousbias
traceabletoaconsciousorunconsciousrelianceona
non-historic，natural，conditionofsocietyortheindividual。It
ischiefly，however，byallyingthemselveswithpoliticaland
socialtendenciesthatthedoctrinesofNatureandherlawhave
preservedtheirenergy。Someofthesetendenciestheyhave
stimulated，othertheyhaveactuallycreated，toagreatnumber
theyhavegivenexpressionandform。Theyvisiblyenterlargely
intotheideaswhichconstantlyradiatefromFranceoverthe
civilisedworld，andthusbecomepartofthegeneralbodyof
thoughtbywhichitscivilisationismodified。Thevalueofthe
influencewhichtheythusexerciseoverthefortunesoftherace
isofcourseoneofthepointswhichouragedebatesmostwarmly，
anditisbesidethepurposeofthistreatisetodiscussit。
Lookingback，however，totheperiodatwhichthetheoryofthe
stateofnatureacquiredthemaximumofpoliticalimportance，
therearefewwhowilldenythatithelpedmostpowerfullyto
bringaboutthegrosserdisappointmentsofwhichthefirstFrench
Revolutionwasfertile。Itgavebirth，orintensestimulus，to
thevicesofmentalhabitallbutuniversalatthetime，disdain
ofpositivelaw，impatienceofexperience，andthepreferenceof
aprioritoallotherreasoning。Inproportiontooasthis
philosophyfixesitsgrasponmindswhichhavethoughtlessthan
othersandfortifiedthemselveswithsmallerobservation，its
tendencyistobecomedistinctlyanarchical。Itissurprisingto
notehowmanyoftheSophismesAnarchiqueswhichDumontpublished
forBentham，andwhichembodyBentham’sexposureoferrors
distinctivelyFrench，arederivedfromtheRomanhypothesisin
itsFrenchtransformation，andareunintelligibleunlessreferred
toit。Onthispointtooitisacuriousexercisetoconsultthe
MoniteurduringtheprincipalerasoftheRevolution。Theappeals
totheLawandStateofNaturebecomethickerasthetimesgrow
darker。TheyarecomparativelyrareintheConstituentAssembly；
theyaremuchmorefrequentintheLegislative；inthe
Convention，amidthedinofdebateonconspiracyandwar，they
areperpetual。
Thereisasingleexamplewhichverystrikinglyillustrates
theeffectsofthetheoryofnaturallawonmodernsociety，and
indicateshowveryfararethoseeffectsfrombeingexhausted。
Therecannot，Iconceive，beanyquestionthattotheassumption
ofaLawNaturalweowethedoctrineofthefundamentalequality
ofhumanbeings。That\"allmenareequal\"isoneofalarge
numberoflegalpropositionswhich，inprogressoftime，have
becomepolitical。TheRomanjurisconsultsoftheAntonineeralay
downthat\"omneshominesnaturaaequalessunt，\"butintheireyes
thisisastrictlyjuridicalaxiom。Theyintendtoaffirmthat，
underthehypotheticalLawofNature，andinsofaraspositive
lawapproximatestoit，thearbitrarydistinctionswhichthe
RomanCivilLawmaintainedbetweenclassesofpersonsceaseto
havealegalexistence。Therulewasoneofconsiderable
importancetotheRomanpractitioner，whorequiredtobereminded
that，whereverRomanjurisprudencewasassumedtoconformitself
exactlytothecodeofNature，therewasnodifferenceinthe
contemplationoftheRomantribunalsbetweencitizenand
foreigner，betweenfreemanandslave，betweenAgnateandCognate。
Thejurisconsultswhothusexpressedthemselvesmostcertainly
neverintendedtocensurethesocialarrangementsunderwhich
civillawfellsomewhatshortofitsspeculativetype；nordid
theyapparentlybelievethattheworldwouldeverseehuman
societycompletelyassimilatedtotheeconomyofnature。Butwhen
thedoctrineofhumanequalitymakesitsappearanceinamodern
dressithasevidentlyclotheditselfwithanewshadeof
meaning。WheretheRomanjurisconsulthadwritten\"aequales
sunt，\"meaningexactlywhathesaid，themoderncivilianwrote
\"allmenareequal\"inthesenseof\"allmenoughttobeequal。\"
ThepeculiarRomanideathatnaturallawcoexistedwithcivillaw
andgraduallyabsorbedit，hadevidentlybeenlostsightof，or
hadbecomeunintelligible，andthewordswhichhadatmost
conveyedatheoryconcedingtheorigin，composition，and
developmentofhumaninstitutions，werebeginningtoexpressthe
senseofagreatstandingwrongsufferedbymankind。Asearlyas
thebeginningofthefourteenthcentury，thecurrentlanguage
concedingthebirthstateofmen，thoughvisiblyintendedtobe
identicalwiththatofUlpianandhiscontemporaries，hasassumed
analtogetherdifferentformandmeaning。Thepreambletothe
celebratedordinanceofKingLouisHutinenfranchisingtheserfs
oftheroyaldomainswouldhavesoundedstrangelytoRomanears。
\"Whereas，accordingtonaturallaw，everybodyoughttobeborn
free；andbysomeusagesandcustomswhich，fromlongantiquity，
havebeenintroducedandkeptuntilnowinourrealm，and
peradventurebyreasonofthemisdeedsoftheirpredecessors，
manypersonsofourcommonpeoplehavefallenintoservitude，
therefore，We，etc。\"Thisistheenunciationnotofalegalrule
butofapoliticaldogma；andfromthistimetheequalityofmen
isspokenofbytheFrenchlawyersjustasifitwereapolitical
truthwhichhappenedtohavebeenpreservedamongthearchivesof
theirscience。Likeallotherdeductionsfromthehypothesisofa
LawNatural，andlikethebeliefitselfinaLawofNature，it
waslanguidlyassentedtoandsufferedtohavelittleinfluence
onopinionandpracticeuntilitpassedoutofthepossessionof
thelawyersintothatoftheliterarymenoftheeighteenth
centuryandofthepublicwhichsatattheirfeet。Withthemit
becamethemostdistincttenetoftheircreed，andwaseven
regardedasasummaryofalltheothers。Itisprobable，however，
thatthepowerwhichitultimatelyacquiredovertheeventsof
1789wasnotentirelyowingtoitspopularityinFrance，forin
themiddleofthecenturyitpassedovertoAmerica。TheAmerican
lawyersofthetime，andparticularlythoseofVirginia，appear
tohavepossessedastockofknowledgewhichdifferedchiefly
fromthatoftheirEnglishcontemporariesinincludingmuchwhich
couldonlyhavebeenderivedfromthelegalliteratureof
continentalEurope。Averyfewglancesatthewritingsof
Jeffersonwillshowhowstronglyhismindwasaffectedbythe
semi-juridical，semipopularopinionswhichwerefashionablein
France，andwecannotdoubtthatitwassympathywiththe
peculiarideasoftheFrenchjuristswhichledhimandtheother
coloniallawyerswhoguidedthecourseofeventsinAmericato
jointhespeciallyFrenchassumptionthat\"allmenareborn
equal\"withtheassumption，morefamiliartoEnglishmen，that
\"allmenarebornfree，\"intheveryfirstlinesoftheir
DeclarationofIndependence。Thepassagewasoneofgreat
importancetothehistoryofthedoctrinebeforeus。TheAmerican
lawyers，inthusprominentlyandemphaticallyaffirmingthe
fundamentalequalityofhumanbeings，gaveanimpulseto
politicalmovementsintheirowncountry，andinalessdegreein
GreatBritain，whichisfarfromhavingyetspentitself；but
besidesthistheyreturnedthedogmatheyhadadoptedtoitshome
inFrance，endowedwithvastlygreaterenergyandenjoyingmuch
greaterclaimsongeneralreceptionandrespect。Eventhemore
cautiouspoliticiansofthefirstConstituentAssemblyrepeated
Ulpian’spropositionasifitatoncecommendeditselftothe
instinctsandintuitionsofmankind；andofallthe\"principles
of1789\"itistheonewhichhasbeenleaststrenuouslyassailed，
whichhasmostthoroughlyleavenedmodernopinion，andwhich
promisestomodifymostdeeplytheconstitutionofsocietiesand
thepoliticsofstates。
ThegrandestfunctionoftheLawofNaturewasdischargedin
givingbirthtomodernInternationalLawandtothemodernLawof
War，butthispartofitseffectsmustherebedismissedwith
considerationveryunequaltoitsimportance。
