Amongthepostulateswhichformthefoundationof
InternationalLaw，orofsomuchofitasretainsthefigure
whichitreceivedfromitsoriginalarchitects，therearetwoor
threeofpre-eminentimportance。Thefirstofallisexpressedin
thepositionthatthereisadeterminableLawofNature。Grotius
andhissuccessortooktheassumptiondirectlyfromtheRomans，
buttheydifferedwidelyfromtheRomanjurisconsultsandfrom
eachotherintheirideasastothemodeofdetermination。The
ambitionofalmosteveryPublicistwhohasflourishedsincethe
revivaloflettershasbeentoprovidenewandmoremanageable
definitionsofNatureandofherlaw，anditisindisputablethat
theconceptioninpassingthroughthelongseriesofwriterson
PublicLawhasgatheredrounditalargeaccretion，consistingof
fragmentsofideasderivedfromnearlyeverytheoryofethic
whichhasinitsturntakenpossessionoftheschools。Yetitis
aremarkableproofoftheessentiallyhistoricalcharacterofthe
conceptionthat，afteralltheeffortswhichhavebeenmadeto
evolvethecodeofnaturefromthenecessarycharacteristicof
thenaturalstate，somuchoftheresultisjustwhatitwould
havebeenifmenhadbeensatisfiedtoadoptthedictaofthe
Romanlawyerswithoutquestioningorreviewingthem。Setting
asidetheConventionalorTreatyLawofNations，itissurprising
howlargeapartofthesystemismadeupofpureRomanlaw。
Whereverthereisadoctrineofthejurisconsultaffirmedbythem
tobeinharmonywiththeJusGentium，thepublicistshavefound
areasonforborrowingit，howeverplainlyitmaybearthemarks
ofadistinctivelyRomanorigin。Wemayobservetoothatthe
derivativetheoriesareafflictedwiththeweaknessofthe
primarynotion。InthemajorityofthePublicists，themodeof
thoughtisstill\"mixed。\"Instudyingthesewriters，thegreat
difficultyisalwaystodiscoverwhethertheyarediscussinglaw
ormorality——whetherthestateofinternationalrelationsthey
describeisactualorideal——whethertheylaydownthatwhich
is，orthatwhich，intheiropinion，oughttobe。
TheassumptionthatNaturalLawisbindingonstatesinterse
isthenextinrankofthosewhichunderlieInternationalLaw。A
seriesofassertionsoradmissionsofthisprinciplemaybe
traceduptotheveryinfancyofmodernjuridicalscience，andat
firstsightitseemsadirectinferencefromtheteachingofthe
Romans。Thecivilconditionofsocietybeingdistinguishedfrom
thenaturalbythefactthatinthefirstthereisadistinct
authoroflaw，whileinthelastthereisnone，itappearsasif
themomentanumberofunitswereacknowledgedtoobeynocommon
sovereignorpoliticalsuperiortheywerethrownbackonthe
ulteriorbehestsoftheLawNatural。Statesaresuchunits；the
hypothesisoftheirindependenceexcludesthenotionofacommon
lawgiver，anddrawswithit，therefore，accordingtoacertain
rangeofideas，thenotionofsubjectiontotheprimevalorderof
nature。Thealternativeistoconsiderindependentcommunitiesas
notrelatedtoeachotherbyanylaw，butthisconditionof
lawlessnessisexactlythevacuumwhichtheNatureofthe
jurisconsultsabhorred。Thereiscertainlyapparentreasonfor
thinkingthatifthemindofaRomanlawyerrestedonanysphere
fromwhichcivillawwasbanished，itwouldinstantlyfillthe
voidwiththeordinancesofNature。Itisneversafe，however，to
assumethatconclusions，howevercertainandimmediateinourown
eyes，wereactuallydrawnatanyperiodofhistory。Nopassage
haseverbeenadducedfromtheremainsofRomanlawwhich，inmy
judgment，provesthejurisconsultstohavebelievednaturallaw
tohaveobligatoryforcebetweenindependentcommonwealths；and
wecannotbutseethattocitizensoftheRomanempirewho
regardedtheirsovereign’sdominionsasconterminouswith
civilisation，theequalsubjectionofstatestotheLawof
Nature，ifcontemplatedatall，musthaveseemedatmostan
extremeresultofcuriousspeculation。Thetruthappearstobe
thatmodernInternationalLaw，undoubtedasisitsdescentfrom
Romanlaw，isonlyconnectedwithitbyanirregularfiliation。
TheearlymoderninterpretersofthejurisprudenceofRome，
misconceivingthemeaningofJusGentium，assumedwithout
hesitationthattheRomanshadbequeathedtothemasystemof
rulesfortheadjustmentofinternationaltransactions。This\"Law
ofNations\"wasatfirstanauthoritywhichhadformidable
competitorstostrivewith，andtheconditionofEuropewaslong
suchastoprecludeitsuniversalreception。Gradually，however，
thewesternworldarrangeditselfinaformmorefavourableto
thetheoryofthecivilians；circumstancesdestroyedthecredit
ofrivaldoctrines；andatlast，atapeculiarlyfelicitous
conjuncture，AyalaandGrotiuswereabletoobtainforitthe
enthusiasticassentofEurope，anassentwhichhasbeenoverand
overagainrenewedineveryvarietyofsolemnengagement。The
greatmentowhomitstriumphischieflyowingattempted，itneed
scarcelybesaid，toplaceitonanentirelynewbasis，anditis
unquestionablethatinthecourseofthisdisplacementthey
alteredmuchofitsstructure，thoughfarlessofitthanis
commonlysupposed。HavingadoptedfromtheAntoninejurisconsults
thepositionthattheJusGentiumandtheJusNaturaewere
identical，Grotius，withhisimmediatepredecessorsandhis
immediatesuccessors，attributedtotheLawofNaturean
authoritywhichwouldneverperhapshavebeenclaimedforit，if
\"LawofNations\"hadnotinthatagebeenanambiguous
expression。TheylaiddownunreservedlythatNaturalLawisthe
codeofstates，andthusputinoperationaprocesswhichhas
continuedalmostdowntoourownday，theprocessofengrafting
ontheinternationalsystemruleswhicharesupposedtohavebeen
evolvedfromtheunassistedcontemplationoftheconceptionof
Nature。Thereistoooneconsequenceofimmensepractical
importancetomankindwhich，thoughnotunknownduringtheearly
modernhistoryofEurope，wasneverclearlyoruniversally
acknowledgedtillthedoctrinesoftheGrotianschoolhad
prevailed。IfthesocietyofnationsisgovernedbyNaturalLaw，
theatomswhichcomposeitmustbeabsolutelyequal。Menunder
thesceptreofNatureareallequal，andaccordingly
commonwealthsareequaliftheinternationalstatebeoneof
nature。Thepropositionthatindependentcommunities，however
differentinsizeandpower，areallequalintheviewofthelaw
ofnations，haslargelycontributedtothehappinessofmankind，
thoughitisconstantlythreatenedbythepoliticaltendenciesof
eachsuccessiveage。Itisadoctrinewhichprobablywouldnever
haveobtainedasecurefootingatallifinternationalLawhad
notbeenentirelyderivedfromthemajesticclaimsofNatureby
thePublicistswhowroteaftertherevivalofletters。
Onthewhole，however，itisastonishing，asIhaveobserved
before，howsmallaproportiontheadditionsmadeto
internationalLawsinceGrotius’sdaybeartotheingredients
whichhavebeensimplytakenfromthemostancientstratumofthe
RomanJusGentium。Acquisitionofterritoryhasalwaysbeenthe
greatspurofnationalambition，andtheruleswhichgovernthis
acquisition，togetherwiththeruleswhichmoderatethewarsin
whichittoofrequentlyresults，aremerelytranscribedfromthe
partoftheRomanlawwhichtreatsofthemodesofacquiring
propertyjuregentium。Thesemodesofacquisitionwereobtained
bytheelderjurisconsults，asIhaveattemptedtoexplain，by
abstractingacommoningredientfromtheusagesobservedto
prevailamongthevarioustribessurroundingRome；and，having
beenclassedonaccountoftheirorigininthe\"lawcommontoall
nations，\"theywerethoughtbythelaterlawyerstofitin，on
thescoreoftheirsimplicity，withthemorerecentconceptionof
aLawNatural。TheythusmadetheirwayintothemodernLawof
Nations，andtheresultisthatthosepartsoftheinternational
systemwhichrefertodominion，itsnature，itslimitations，the
modesofacquiringandsecuringit，arepureRomanPropertyLaw——
somuch，thatistosay，oftheRomanLawofPropertyasthe
Antoninejurisconsultsimaginedtoexhibitacertaincongruity
withthenaturalstate。Inorderthatthesechaptersof
InternationalLawmaybecapableofapplication，itisnecessary
thatsovereignsshouldberelatedtoeachotherlikethemembers
ofagroupofRomanproprietors。Thisisanotherofthe
postulateswhichlieatthethresholdoftheInternationalCode，
anditisalsoonewhichcouldnotpossiblyhavebeensubscribed
toduringthefirstcenturiesofmodernEuropeanhistory……Itis
resolvableintothedoublepropositionthat\"sovereigntyis
territorial，\"i。e。thatitisalwaysassociatedwiththe
proprietorshipofalimitedportionoftheearth’ssurface，and
that\"sovereignsintersearetobedeemednotparamount，but
absolute，ownersofthestate’sterritory。\"
ManycontemporarywritersonInternationalLawtacitlyassume
thatthedoctrinesoftheirsystem，foundedonprinciplesof
equityandcommonsense，werecapableofbeingreadilyreasoned
outineverystageofmoderncivilisation。Butthisassumption，
whileitconcealssomerealdefectsoftheinternationaltheory，
isaltogetheruntenable，sofarasregardsalargepartofmodern
history。ItisnottruethattheauthorityoftheJusGentiumin
theconcernsofnationswasalwaysuncontradicted；onthe
contrary，ithadtostrugglelongagainsttheclaimsofseveral
competingsystems。Itisagainnottruethattheterritorial
characterofsovereigntywasalwaysrecognised，forlongafter
thedissolutionoftheRomandominionthemindsofmenwereunder
theempireofideasirreconcileablewithsuchaconception。An
oldorderofthings，andofviewsfoundedonit，hadtodecay——
anewEurope，andanapparatusofnewnotionscongenialtoit，
hadtospringupbeforetwoofthechiefestpostulatesof
InternationalLawcouldbeuniversallyconceded。
Itisaconsiderationwellworthytobekeptinviewthat
duringalargepartofwhatweusuallytermmodernhistoryno
suchconceptionwasentertainedasthatof\"territorial
sovereignty。\"Sovereigntywasnotassociatedwithdominionovera
portionorsubdivisionoftheearth。Theworldhadlainforso
manycenturiesundertheshadowofImperialRomeastohave
forgottenthatdistributionofthevastspacescomprisedinthe
empirewhichhadonceparcelledthemoutintoanumberof
independentcommonwealths，claimingimmunityfromextrinsic
interference，andpretendingtoequalityofnationalrights。
Afterthesubsidenceofthebarbarianirruptions，thenotionof
sovereigntythatprevailedseemstohavebeentwofold。Ontheone
handitassumedtheformofwhatmaybecalled
\"tribe-sovereignty。\"TheFranks，theBurgundians，theVandals，
theLombards，andVisigothsweremasters，ofcourse，ofthe
territorieswhichtheyoccupied，andtowhichsomeofthemhave
givenageographicalappellation；buttheybasednoclaimof
rightuponthefactofterritorialpossession，andindeed
attachednoimportancetoitwhatever。Theyappeartohave
retainedthetraditionswhichtheybroughtwiththemfromthe
forestandthesteppe，andtohavestillbeenintheirownviewa
patriarchalsocietyanomadhorde，merelyencampedforthetime
uponthesoilwhichaffordedthemsustenance。PartofTransalpine
Gaul，withpartofGermany，hadnowbecomethecountrydefacto
occupiedbytheFranks——itwasFrance；buttheMerovingianline
ofchieftains，thedescendantsofClovis，werenotKingsof
France，theywereKingsoftheFranks。Thealternativetothis
peculiarnotionofsovereigntyappearstohavebeen——andthis
istheimportantpoint——theideaofuniversaldominion。The
momentamonarchdepartedfromthespecialrelationofchiefto
clansmen，andbecamesolicitous，forpurposesofhisOwn，to
investhimselfwithanovelformofsovereignty，theonly
precedentwhichsuggesteditselfforhisadoptionwasthe
dominationoftheEmperorsofRome。Toparodyacommonquotation，
hebecame\"autCaesarautnullus。\"Eitherhepretendedtothe
fullprerogativeoftheByzantineEmperor，orhehadnopolitical
statuswhatever。Inourownage，whenanewdynastyisdesirous
ofobliteratingtheprescriptivetitleofadeposedlineof
sovereigns，ittakesitsdesignationfromthepeople，insteadof
theterritory。ThuswehaveEmperorsandKingsoftheFrench，and
aKingoftheBelgians。Attheperiodofwhichwehavebeen
speaking，undersimilarcircumstancesadifferentalternative
presenteditself。TheChieftainwhowouldnolongercallhimself
KingofthetribemustclaimtobeEmperoroftheworld。Thus，
whenthehereditaryMayorsofthePalacehadceasedtocompromise
withthemonarchstheyhadlongsincevirtuallydethroned，they
soonbecameunwillingtocallthemselvesKingsoftheFranks，a
titlewhichbelongedtothedisplacedMerovings；buttheycould
notstylethemselvesKingsofFrance，forsuchadesignation，
thoughapparentlynotunknown，wasnotatitleofdignity。
Accordinglytheycameforwardasaspirantstouniversalempire。
Theirmotivehasbeengreatlymisapprehended。Ithasbeentaken
forgrantedbyrecentFrenchwritersthatCharlemagnewasfar
beforehisage，quiteasmuchinthecharacterofhisdesignsas
intheenergywithwhichheprosecutedthem。Whetheritbetrue
ornotthatanybodyisatanytimebeforehisage，itis
certainlytruethatCharlemagne，inaimingatanunlimited
dominion，wasemphaticallytakingtheonlycoursewhichthe
characteristicideasofhisagepermittedhimtofollow。Ofhis
intellectualeminencetherecannotbeaquestion，butitis
provedbyhisactsandnotbyhistheory。
Thesesingularitiesofviewwerenotalteredonthepartition
oftheinheritanceofCharlemagneamonghisthreegrandsons。
CharlestheBald，Lewis，andLothairwerestilltheoretically——
ifitbepropertousetheword——EmperorsofRome。Justasthe
CaesarsoftheEasternandWesternEmpireshadeachbeendejure
emperorofthewholeworld，withdefactocontroloverhalfofit，
sothethreeCarlovingiansappeartohaveconsideredtheirpower
aslimited，buttheirtitleasunqualified。Thesamespeculative
universalityofsovereigntycontinuedtobeassociatedwiththe
ImperialthroneaftertheseconddivisiononthedeathofCharles
theFat，and，indeed，wasneverthoroughlydissociatedfromitso
longastheempireofGermanylasted。Territorialsovereignty——
theviewwhichconnectssovereigntywiththepossessionofa
limitedportionoftheearth’ssurface——wasdistinctlyan
offshoot，thoughatardyone，offeudalism。Thismighthavebeen
expectedapriori，foritwasfeudalismwhichforthefirsttime
linkedpersonalduties，andbyconsequencepersonalrights，to
theownershipofland。Whateverbetheproperviewofitsorigin
andlegalnature，thebestmodeofvividlypicturingtoourselves
thefeudalorganisationistobeginwiththebasis，toconsider
therelationofthetenanttothepatchofsoilwhichcreatedand
limitedhisservices——andthentomountup，throughnarrowing
circlesofsuper-feudation，tillweapproximatetotheapexof
thesystem。Wherethatsummitexactlywasduringthelater
portionofthedarkagesitisnoteasytodecide。Probably，
wherevertheconceptionoftribesovereigntyhadreallydecayed，
thetopmostpointwasalwaysassignedtothesupposedsuccessor
oftheCaesarsoftheWest。Butbeforelong，whentheactual
sphereofImperialauthorityhadimmenselycontracted，andwhen
theemperorshadconcentratedthescantyremainsoftheirpower
uponGermanyandNorthItaly，thehighestfeudalsuperiorsinall
theoutlyingportionsoftheformerCarlovingianempirefound
themselvespracticallywithoutasupremehead。Graduallythey
habituatedthemselvestothenewsituation，andthefactof
immunityputatlastoutofsightthetheoryofdependence；but
therearemanysymptomsthatthischangewasnotquiteeasily
accomplished；and，indeed，totheimpressionthatinthenature
ofthingstheremustnecessarilybeaculminatingdomination
somewhere，wemay，nodoubt，refertheincreasingtendencyto
attributesecularsuperioritytotheSeeofRome。Thecompletion
ofthefirststageintherevolutionofopinionismarked，of
course，bytheaccessionoftheCapetiandynastyinFrance。When
thefeudalprinceofalimitedterritorysurroundingParisbegan，
fromtheaccidentofhisunitinganunusualnumberof
suzeraintiesinhisownperson，tocallhimselfKingofFrance，
hebecamekinginquiteanewsense，asovereignstandinginthe
samerelationtothesoilofFranceasthebarontohisestate，
thetenanttohisfreehold。Theprecedent，however，wasas
influentialasitwasnovel，andtheformofthemonarchyin
Francehadvisibleeffectsinhasteningchangeswhichwere
elsewhereproceedinginthesamedirection。Thekingshipofour
Anglo-Saxonregalhouseswasmidwaybetweenthechieftainshipof
atribeandaterritorialsupremacy，。butthesuperiorityofthe
Normanmonarchs，imitatedfromthatoftheKingofFrance，was
distinctlyaterritorialsovereignty。Everysubsequentdominion
whichwasestablishedorconsolidatedwasformedonthelater
model。Spain，Naples，andtheprincipalitiesfoundedontheruins
ofmunicipalfreedominItaly，wereallunderrulerswhose
sovereigntywasterritorial。Fewthings，Imayadd，aremore
curiousthanthegraduallapseoftheVenetiansfromoneviewto
theother。Atthecommencementofitsforeignconquests，the
republicregardeditselfasanantitypeoftheRoman
commonwealth，governinganumberofsubjectprovinces。Movea
centuryonwards，andyoufindthatitwishestobelookeduponas
acorporatesovereign，claimingtherightsofafeudalsuzerain
overitspossessionsinItalyandtheAEgean。
Duringtheperiodthroughwhichthepopularideasonthe
subjectofsovereigntywereundergoingthisremarkablechange，
thesystemwhichstoodintheplaceofwhatwenowcall
InternationalLawwasheterogeneousinformandinconsistentin
theprinciplestowhichitappealed。OversomuchofEuropeas
wascomprisedintheRomano-Germanempire，theconnectionofthe
confederatestateswasregulatedbythecomplexandasyet
incompletemechanismoftheImperialconstitution；and，
surprisingasitmayseemtous，itwasafavouritenotionof
Germanlawyersthattherelationsofcommonwealths，whether
insideoroutsidetheempire，oughttoberegulatednotbythe
JusGentium，butbythepureRomanjurisprudence，ofwhichCaesar
wasstillthecentre。Thisdoctrinewaslessconfidently
repudiatedintheoutlyingcountriesthanwemighthavesupposed
antecedently；but，substantially，throughtherestofEurope
feudalsubordinationsfurnishedasubstituteforapubliclaw；
andwhenthosewereundeterminedorambiguous，therelaybehind，
intheoryatleast，asupremeregulatingforceintheauthority
oftheheadoftheChurch。Itiscertain，however，thatboth
feudalandecclesiasticalinfluenceswererapidlydecayingduring
thefifteenth，andeventhefourteenthcentury，。andifwe
closelyexaminethecurrentpretextsofwars，andtheavowed
motivesofalliances，itwillbeseenthat，stepbystepwiththe
displacementoftheoldprinciples，theviewsafterwards
harmonisedandconsolidatedbyAyalaandGrotiusweremaking
considerableprogress，thoughitwassilentandbutslow。Whether
thefusionofallthesourcesofauthoritywouldultimatelyhave
evolvedasystemofinternationalrelations，andwhetherthat
systemwouldhaveexhibitedmaterialdifferencesfromthefabric
ofGrotius，isnotnowpossibletodecide，forasamatterof
facttheReformationannihilatedallitspotentialelements
exceptone。BeginninginGermanyitdividedtheprincesofthe
empirebyagulftoobroadtobebridgedoverbytheImperial
supremacy，eveniftheImperialsuperiorhadstoodneutral。He，
however，wasforcedtotakecolourwiththechurchagainstthe
reformer；thePopewas，asamatterofcourse，inthesame
predicament；andthusthetwoauthoritiestowhombelongedthe
officeofmediationbetweencombatantsbecamethemselvesthe
chiefsofonegreatfactionintheschismofthenations。
Feudalism，alreadyenfeebledanddiscreditedasaprincipleof
publicrelations，furnishednobondwhateverwhichwasstable
enoughtocountervailthealliancesofreligion。Inacondition，
therefore，ofpubliclawwhichwaslittlelessthanchaotic，
thoseviewsofastatesystemtowhichtheRomanjurisconsults
weresupposedtohavegiventheirsanctionaloneremained
standing。Theshape，thesymmetryandtheprominencewhichthey
assumedinthehandsofGrotiusareknowntoeveryeducatedman；
butthegreatmarveloftheTreatise\"DeJureBellietPacis，\"
wasitsrapid，complete，anduniversalsuccess。Thehorrorsof
theThirtyYears’War，theboundlessterrorandpitywhichthe
unbridledlicenseofthesoldierywasexciting，must，nodoubt，
betakentoexplainthatsuccessinsomemeasure，buttheydonot
whollyaccountforit。Verylittlepenetrationintotheideasof
thatageisrequiredtoconvinceonethatifthegroundplanof
theinternationaledificewhichwassketchedinthegreatbookof
Grotiushadnotappearedtobetheoreticallyperfect，itwould
havebeendiscardedbyjuristsandneglectedbystatesmenand
soldiers。
ItisobviousthatthespeculativeperfectionoftheGrotian
systemisintimatelyconnectedwiththatconceptionof
territorialsovereigntywhichwehavebeendiscussing。Thetheory
ofInternationalLawassumesthatcommonwealthsare，relatively
toeachother，inastateofnature；butthecomponentatomsofa
naturalsocietymust，bythefundamentalassumption，beinsulated
andindependentofeachother。Iftherebeahigherpower
connectingthem，howeverslightlyandoccasionallybytheclaim
ofcommonsupremacy，theveryconceptionofacommonsuperior
introducesthenotionofpositivelaw，andexcludestheideaofa
lawnatural。Itfollows，therefore，thatiftheuniversal
suzeraintyofanImperialheadhadbeenadmittedeveninbare
theory，thelaboursofGrotiuswouldhavebeenidle。Noristhis
theonlypointofjunctionbetweenmodernpubliclawandthose
viewsofsovereigntyofwhichIhaveendeavouredtodescribethe
development。Ihavesaidthatthereareentiredepartmentsof
internationaljurisprudencewhichconsistoftheRomanLawof
Property。Whatthenistheinference？Itis，thatiftherehad
beennosuchchangeasIhavedescribedintheestimateof
sovereignty——ifsovereigntyhadnotbeenassociatedwiththe
proprietorshipofalimitedportionoftheearth，hadnot，in
otherwords，becometerritorial——threepartsoftheGrotian
theorywouldhavebeenincapableofapplication。
AncientLaw
byHenryMaine
1861Chapter5PrimitiveSocietyandAncientLaw
Thenecessityofsubmittingthesubjectofjurisprudenceto
scientifictreatmenthasneverbeenentirelylostsightofin
moderntimes，andtheessayswhichtheconsciousnessofthis
necessityhasproducedhaveproceededfrommindsofveryvarious
calibre，butthereisnotmuchpresumption，Ithink，inasserting
thatwhathashithertostoodintheplaceofasciencehasfor
themostpartbeenasetofguesses，thoseveryguessesofthe
Romanlawyerswhichwereexaminedinthetwoprecedingchapters。
Aseriesofexplicitstatements，recognisingandadoptingthese
conjecturaltheoriesofanaturalstate，andofasystemof
principlescongenialtoit，hasbeencontinuedwithbutbrief
interruptionfromthedaysoftheirinventorstoourown。They
appearintheannotationsoftheGlossatorswhofoundedmodern
jurisprudence，andinthewritingsofthescholasticjuristswho
succeededthem。Theyarevisibleinthedogmasofthecanonists。
Theyarethrustintoprominencebythoseciviliansofmarvellous
erudition，whoflourishedattherevivalofancientletters。
Grotiusandhissuccessorsinvestedthemnotlesswithbrilliancy
andplausibilitythanwithpracticalimportance。Theymayberead
intheintroductorychaptersofourownBlackstone，whohas
transcribedthemtextuallyfromBurlamaqui，andwhereverthe
manualspublishedinthepresentdayfortheguidanceofthe
studentorthepractitionerbeginwithanydiscussionofthe
firstprinciplesoflaw，italwaysresolvesitselfintoa
restatementoftheRomanhypothesis。Itishoweverfromthe
disguiseswithwhichtheseconjecturessometimesclothe
themselves，quiteasmuchasfromtheirnativeform，thatwegain
anadequateideaofthesubtletywithwhichtheymixthemselves
inhumanthought。TheLockeiantheoryoftheoriginofLawina
SocialCompactscarcelyconcealsitsRomanderivation，andindeed
isonlythedressbywhichtheancientviewswererenderedmore
attractivetoaparticulargenerationofthemoderns；butonthe
otherhandthetheoryofHobbesonthesamesubjectwaspurposely
devisedtorepudiatetherealityofalawofnatureasconceived
bytheRomansandtheirdisciples。Yetthesetwotheories，which
longdividedthereflectingpoliticiansofEnglandintohostile
camps，resembleeachotherstrictlyintheirfundamental
assumptionofanon-historic，unverifiable，conditionofthe
race。Theirauthorsdifferedastothecharacteristicsofthe
prae-socialstate，andastothenatureoftheabnormalactionby
whichmenliftedthemselvesoutofitintothatsocial
organisationwithwhichaloneweareacquainted，buttheyagreed
inthinkingthatagreatchasmseparatedmaninhisprimitive
conditionfrommaninsociety，andthisnotionwecannotdoubt
thattheyborrowed，consciouslyorunconsciously，fromthe
Romans。Ifindeedthephenomenaoflawberegardedinthewayin
whichthesetheoristsregardedthem——thatis，asonevast
complexwhole——itisnotsurprisingthatthemindshouldoften
evadethetaskithassettoitselfbyfallingbackonsome
ingeniousconjecturewhich(plausiblyinterpreted)willseemto
reconcileeverything，orelsethatitshouldsometimesabjurein
despairthelabourofsystematization。
Fromthetheoriesofjurisprudencewhichhavethesame
speculativebasisastheRomandoctrinetwoofmuchcelebrity
mustbeexcepted。Thefirstofthemisthatassociatedwiththe
greatnameofMontesquieu。Thoughtherearesomeambiguous
expressionsintheearlypartoftheEspritdesLois，whichseem
toshowitswriter’sunwillingnesstobreakquiteopenlywiththe
viewshithertopopularthegeneraldriftofthebookiscertainly
toindicateaverydifferentconceptionofitssubjectfromany
whichhadbeenentertainedbefore。Ithasoftenbeennoticed
that，amidstthevastvarietyofexampleswhich，initsimmense
widthofsurvey，itsweepstogetherfromsupposedsystemsof
jurisprudence，thereisanevidentanxietytothrustinto
especialprominencethosemannersandinstitutionswhichastonish
thecivilisedreaderbytheiruncouthness，strangeness，or
indecency。Theinferenceconstancysuggestedis，thatlawsare
thecreaturesofclimate，localsituation，accident，orimposture——
thefruitofanycausesexceptthosewhichappeartooperate
withtolerableconstancy。Montesquieuseems，infact，tohave
lookedonthenatureofmanasentirelyplastic，aspassively
reproducingtheimpressions，andsubmittingimplicitlytothe
impulses，whichitreceivesfromwithout。Andherenodoubtlies
theerrorwhichvitiateshissystemasasystem。Hegreatly
underratesthestabilityofhumannature。Hepayslittleorno
regardtotheinheritedqualitiesoftherace，thosequalities
whicheachgenerationreceivesfromitspredecessors，and
transmitsbutslightlyalteredtothegenerationwhichfollows
it。Itisquitetrue，indeed，thatnocompleteaccountcanbe
givenofsocialphenomena，andconsequentlyoflaws，tilldue
allowancehasbeenmadeforthosemodifyingcauseswhichare
noticedintheEspritdesLois；buttheirnumberandtheirforce
appeartohavebeenoverestimatedbyMontesquieu。Manyofthe
anomalieswhichheparadeshavesincebeenshowntorestonfalse
reportorerroneousconstruction，andofthosewhichremainnota
fewprovethepermanenceratherthanthevariablenessofmaw’s
nature，sincetheyarerelicsofolderstagesoftheracewhich
haveobstinatelydefiedtheinfluencesthathaveelsewherehad
effect。Thetruthisthatthestablepartofourmental，moral，
andphysicalconstitutionisthelargestpartofit，andthe
resistanceitopposestochangeissuchthat，thoughthe
variationsofhumansocietyinaportionoftheworldareplain
enough，theyareneithersorapidnorsoextensivethattheir
amount，character，andgeneraldirectioncannotbeascertained。
Anapproximationtotruthmaybeallthatisattainablewithour
presentknowledge，butthereisnoreasonforthinkingthatisso
remote，or(whatisthesamething)thatitrequiressomuch
futurecorrection，astobeentirelyuselessanduninstructive。
Theothertheorywhichhasbeenadvertedtoisthehistorical
theoryofBentham。Thistheorywhichisobscurely(and，itmight
evenbesaid，timidly)propoundedinseveralpartsofBentham’s
worksisquitedistinctfromthatanalysisoftheconceptionof
lawwhichhecommencedinthe\"FragmentonGovernment，\"andwhich
wasmorerecentlycompletedbyMrJohnAustin。Theresolutionof
alawintoacommandofaparticularnature，imposedunder
specialconditions，doesnotaffecttodomorethanprotectus
againstadifficulty——amostformidableonecertainly——of
language。Thewholequestionremainsopenastothemotivesof
societiesinimposing。thesecommandsonthemselves，astothe
connexionofthesecommandswitheachother，andthenatureof
theirdependenceonthosewhichprecededthem，andwhichthey
havesuperseded。Benthamsuggeststheanswerthatsocieties
modify，andhavealwaysmodified，theirlawsaccordingto
modificationsoftheirviewsofgeneralexpediency。Itis
difficulttosaythatthispropositionisfalse，butitcertainly
appearstobeunfruitful。Forthatwhichseemsexpedienttoa
society，orrathertothegoverningpartofit，whenitaltersa
ruleoflawissurelythesamethingastheobject，whateverit
maybe，whichithasinviewwhenitmakesthechange。Expediency
andthegreatestgoodarenothingmorethandifferentnamesfor
theimpulsewhichpromptsthemodification；andwhenwelaydown
expediencyastheruleofchangeinlaworopinion，allwegetby
thepropositionisthesubstitutionofanexpresstermforaterm
whichisnecessarilyimpliedwhenwesaythatachangetakes
place。
Thereissuchwide-spreaddissatisfactionwithexisting
theoriesofjurisprudence，andsogeneralaconvictionthatthey
donotreallysolvethequestionstheypretendtodisposeof，as
tojustifythesuspicionthatsomelineofinquirynecessarytoa
perfectresulthasbeenincompletelyfollowedoraltogether
omittedbytheirauthors。Andindeedthereisoneremarkable
omissionwithwhichallthesespeculationsarechargeable，except
perhapsthoseofMontesquieu。Theytakenoaccountofwhatlaw
hasactuallybeenatepochsremotefromtheparticularperiodat
whichtheymadetheirappearance。Theiroriginatorscarefully
observedtheinstitutionsoftheirownageandcivilisation，and
thoseofotheragesandcivilisationswithwhichtheyhadsome
degreeofintellectualsympathy，but，whentheyturnedtheir
attentiontoarchaicstatesofsocietywhichexhibitedmuch
superficialdifferencefromtheirown，theyuniformlyceasedto
observeandbeganguessing。Themistakewhichtheycommittedis
thereforeanalogoustotheerrorofonewho，ininvestigatingthe
lawsofthematerialuniverse，shouldcommencebycontemplating
theexistingphysicalworldasawhole，insteadofbeginningwith
theparticleswhichareitssimplestingredients。Onedoesnot
certainlyseewhysuchascientificsolecismshouldbemore
defensibleinjurisprudencethaninanyotherregionofthought。
Itwouldseemantecedentlythatweoughttocommencewiththe
simplestsocialformsinastateasnearaspossibletotheir
rudimentarycondition。Inotherwords，ifwefollowedthecourse
usualinsuchinquiries，weshouldpenetrateasfarupaswe
couldinthehistoryofprimitivesocieties。Thephenomenawhich
earlysocietiespresentuswitharenoteasyatfirstto
understand，butthedifficultyofgrapplingwiththembearsno
proportiontotheperplexitieswhichbesetusinconsideringthe
bafflingentanglementofmodernsocialorganisation。Itisa
difficultyarisingfromtheirstrangenessanduncouthness，not
fromtheirnumberandcomplexity。Onedoesnotreadilygetover
thesurprisewhichtheyoccasionwhenlookedatfromamodern
pointofview；butwhenthatissurmountedtheyarefewenough
andsimpleenough。Buteveniftheygavemoretroublethanthey
do，nopainswouldbewastedinascertainingthegermsoutof
whichhasassuredlybeenunfoldedeveryformofmoralrestraint
whichcontrolsouractionsandshapesourconductatthepresent
moment。
Therudimentsofthesocialstate，sofarastheyareknown
tousatall，areknownthroughtestimonyofthreesortsaccounts
bycontemporaryobserversofcivilisationslessadvancedthan
theirown，therecordswhichparticularraceshavepreserved
concedingtheirprimitivehistory，andancientlaw。Thefirst
kindofevidenceisthebestwecouldhaveexpected。Associeties
donotadvanceconcurrently，butatdifferentratesofprogress，
therehavebeenepochsatwhichmentrainedtohabitsof
methodicalobservationhavereallybeeninapositiontowatch
anddescribetheinfancyofmankind。Tacitusmadethemostof
suchanopportunity；buttheGermany，unlikemostcelebrated
classicalbooks，hasnotinducedotherstofollowtheexcellent
examplesetbyitsauthor，andtheamountofthissortof
testimonywhichwepossessisexceedinglysmall。Thelofty
contemptwhichacivilisedpeopleentertainsforbarbarous
neighbourshascausedaremarkablenegligenceinobserving
therein，andthiscarelessnesshasbeenaggravatedattimesby
fear，byreligiousprejudice，andevenbytheuseofthesevery
terms——civilisationandbarbarism——whichconveytomost
personstheimpressionofadifferencenotmerelyindegreebut
inkind。EventheGermanyhasbeensuspectedbysomecriticsof
sacrificingfidelitytopoignancyofcontrastandpicturesqueness
ofnarrative。Otherhistoriestoo，whichhavebeenhandeddownto
usamongthearchivesofthepeopletowhoseinfancytheyrelate，
havebeenthoughtdistortedbytheprideofraceorbythe
religioussentimentofanewerage。Itisimportantthento
observethatthesesuspicions，whethergroundlessorrational，do
notattachtoagreatdealofarchaiclaw。Muchoftheoldlaw
whichhasdescendedtouswaspreservedmerelybecauseitwas
old。Thosewhopractisedandobeyeditdidnotpretendto
understandit；andinsomecasestheyevenridiculedanddespised
it。Theyofferednoaccountofitexceptthatithadcomedownto
themfromtheirancestors。Ifweconfineourattention，then，to
thosefragmentsofancientinstitutionswhichcannotreasonably
besupposedtohavebeentamperedwith，weareabletogaina
clearconceptionofcertaingreatcharacteristicofthesociety
towhichtheyoriginallybelonged。Advancingastepfurther，we
canapplyourknowledgetosystemsoflawwhich，liketheCodeof
Menu，areasawholeofsuspiciousauthenticity；and，usingthe
keywehaveobtained，weareinapositiontodiscriminatethose
portionsofthemwhicharetrulyarchaicfromthosewhichhave
beenaffectedbytheprejudices，interests，orignoranceofthe
compiler。Itwillatleastbeacknowledgedthat，ifthematerials
forthisprocessaresufficient，andifthecomparisonsbe
accuratelyexecuted，themethodsfollowedareaslittle
objectionableasthosewhichhaveledtosuchsurprisingresults
incomparativephilology。
Theeffectoftheevidencederivedfromcomparative
jurisprudenceistoestablishthatviewoftheprimevalcondition
ofthehumanracewhichisknownasthePatriarchalTheory。There
isnodoubt，ofcourse，thatthistheorywasoriginallybasedon
theScripturalhistoryoftheHebrewpatriarchsinLowerAsia；
but，ashasbeenexplainedalready，itsconnexionwithScripture
rathermilitatedthanotherwiseagainstitsreceptionasa
completetheory，sincethemajorityoftheinquirerswhotill
recentlyaddressedthemselveswithmostearnestnesstothe
colligationofsocialphenomena，wereeitherinfluencedbythe
strongestprejudiceagainstHebrewantiquitiesorbythe
strongestdesiretoconstructtheirsystemwithouttheassistance
ofreligiousrecords。Evennowthereisperhapsadispositionto
undervaluetheseaccounts，orrathertodeclinegeneralisingfrom
them，asformingpartofthetraditionsofaSemiticpeople。It
istobenoted，however，thatthelegaltestimonycomesnearly
exclusivelyfromtheinstitutionsofsocietiesbelongingtothe
Indo-Europeanstock，theRomans，Hindoos，andSclavonians
supplyingthegreaterpartofit；andindeedthedifficultyat
thepresentstageoftheinquiry，istoknowwheretostop，to
sayofwhatracesofmenitisnotallowabletolaydownthatthe
societyinwhichtheyareunitedwasoriginallyorganisedonthe
patriarchal。model。Thechieflineamentsofsuchasociety，as
collectedfromtheearlychaptersinGenesis，Ineednotattempt
todepictwithanyminuteness，bothbecausetheyarefamiliarto
mostofusfromourearliestchildhood，andbecause，fromthe
interestonceattachingtothecontroversywhichtakesitsname
fromthedebatebetweenLockeandFilmer，theyfillawhole
chapter，thoughnotaveryprofitableone，inEnglishliterature。
Thepointswhichlieonthesurfaceofthehistoryarethese:——
Theeldestmaleparenttheeldestascendant——isabsolutely
supremeinhishousehold。Hisdominionextendstolifeanddeath，
andisasunqualifiedoverhischildrenandtheirhousesasover
hisslaves；indeedtherelationsofsonshipandserfdomappearto
differinlittlebeyondthehighercapacitywhichthechildin
bloodpossessesofbecomingonedaytheheadofafamilyhimself。
Theflocksandherdsofthechildrenaretheflocksandherdsof
thefather，andthepossessionsoftheparent，whichheholdsin
arepresentativeratherthaninaproprietarycharacter，are
equallydividedathisdeathamonghisdescendantsinthefirst
degree，theeldestsonsometimesreceivingadoubleshareunder
thenameofbirthright，butmoregenerallyendowedwithno
hereditaryadvantagebeyondanhonoraryprecedence。Aless
obviousinferencefromtheScripturalaccountsisthattheyseem
toplantusonthetracesofthebreachwhichisfirsteffected
intheempireoftheparent。ThefamiliesofJacobandEsau
separateandformtwonations；butthefamiliesofJacob’s
childrenholdtogetherandbecomeapeople。Thislookslikethe
immaturegermofastateorcommonwealth，andofanorderof
rightssuperiortotheclaimsoffamilyrelation。
IfIwereattemptingforthemorespecialpurposesofthe
juristtoexpresscompendiouslythecharacteristicsofthe
situationinwhichmankinddisclosethemselvesatthedawnof
theirhistory，Ishouldbesatisfiedtoquoteafewversesfrom
theOdysseeofHomer:
\"Theyhaveneitherassembliesforconsultationnorthemistes，but
everyoneexercisesjurisdictionoverhiswivesandhischildren，
andtheypaynoregardtooneanother。\"Theselinesareapplied
totheCyclops，anditmaynotperhapsbeanaltogetherfanciful
ideawhenIsuggestthattheCyclopsisHomer’stypeofanalien
andlessadvancedcivilisation；forthealmostphysicalloathing
whichaprimitivecommunityfeelsformenofwidelydifferent
mannersfromitsownusuallyexpressesitselfbydescribingthem
asmonsters，suchasgiants，oreven(whichisalmostalwaysthe
caseinOrientalmythology)asdemons。Howeverthatmaybe，the
versescondenseinthemselvesthesumofthehintswhichare
givenusbylegalantiquities。Menarefirstseendistributedin
perfectlyinsulatedgroups，heldtogetherbyobediencetothe
parent。Lawistheparent’sword，butitisnotyetinthe
conditionofthosethemisteswhichwereanalysedinthefirst
chapterofthiswork。Whenwegoforwardtothestateofsociety
inwhichtheseearlylegalconceptionsshowthemselvesasformed，
wefindthattheystillpartakeofthemysteryandspontaneity
whichmusthaveseemedtocharacteriseadespoticfather’s
commands，butthatatthesametime，inasmuchastheyproceed
fromasovereign，theypresupposeaunionoffamilygroupsin
somewiderorganisation。Thenextquestionis，whatisthenature
ofthisunionandthedegreeofintimacywhichitinvolves。Itis
justherethatarchaiclawrendersusoneofthegreatestofits
servicesandfillsupagapwhichotherwisecouldonlyhavebeen
bridgedbyconjecture。Itisfull，inallitsprovinces，ofthe
clearestindicationsthatsocietyinprimitivetimeswasnotwhat
itisassumedtobeatpresent，acollectionofindividuals。In
fact，andintheviewofthemenwhocomposedit，itwasan
aggregationoffamilies。Thecontrastmaybemostforcibly
expressedbysayingthattheunitofanancientsocietywasthe
Family，ofamodernsocietytheIndividual。Wemustbeprepared
tofindinancientlawalltheconsequencesofthisdifference。
Itissoframedastobeadjustedtoasystemofsmall
independentcorporations。Itisthereforescantybecauseitis
supplementedbythedespoticcommandsoftheheadsofhouseholds。
Itisceremonious，becausethetransactionstowhichitpays
regard。resembleinternationalconcernsmuchmorethanthequick
playofintercoursebetweenindividuals。Aboveallithasa
peculiarityofwhichthefullimportancecannotbeshownat
present。Ittakesaviewoflifewhol1yunlikeanywhichappears
indevelopedjurisprudence。Corporationsneverdie，and
accordinglyprimitivelawconsiderstheentitieswithwhichit
deals，i。e。thepatriarchalorfamilygroups，asperpetualand
inextinguishable。Thisviewiscloselyalliedtothepeculiar
aspectunderwhich，inveryancienttimes，moralattributes
presentthemselves。Themoralelevationandmoraldebasementof
theindividualappeartobeconfoundedwith，orpostponedto，the
meritsandoffencesofthegrouptowhichtheindividualbelongs。
Ifthecommunitysins，itsguiltismuchmorethanthesumofthe
offencescommittedbyitsmembers；thecrimeisacorporateact。
andextendsinitsconsequencestomanymorepersonsthanhave
sharedinitsactualperpetration。If，ontheotherhand。the
individualisconspicuouslyguilty，itishischildren，his
kinsfolk，histribesmen，orhisfellow-citizens，whosufferwith
him，andsometimesforhim。Itthushappensthattheideasof
moralresponsibilityandretributionoftenseemtobemore
clearlyrealisedatveryancientthanatmoreadvancedperiods，
for，asthefamilygroupisimmortal，anditsliabilityto
punishmentindefinite，theprimitivemindisnotperplexedbythe
questionswhichbecometroublesomeassoonastheindividualis
conceivedasaltogetherseparatefromthegroup。Onestepinthe
transitionfromtheancientandsimpleviewofthemattertothe
theologicalormetaphysicalexplanationsoflaterdaysismarked
bytheearlyGreeknotionofaninheritedcurse。Thebequest
receivedbyhisposterityfromtheoriginalcriminalwasnota
liabilitytopunishment，butaliabilitytothecommissionof
freshoffenceswhichdrewwiththemacondignretribution；and
thustheresponsibilityofthefamilywasreconciledwiththe
newerphaseofthoughtwhichlimitedtheconsequencesofcrimeto
thepersonoftheactualdelinquent。
Itwouldbeaverysimpleexplanationoftheoriginof
societyifwecouldbaseageneralconclusiononthehint
furnishedusbytheScripturalexamplealreadyadvertedto，and
couldsupposethatcommunitiesbegantoexistwhereverafamily
heldtogetherinsteadofseparatingatthedeathofits
patriarchalchieftain。InmostoftheGreekstatesandinRome
therelongremainedthevestigesofanascendingseriesofgroups
outofwhichtheStatewasatfirstconstituted。TheFamily，
House，andTribeoftheRomansmaybetakenasthetypeofthem，
andtheyaresodescribedtousthatwecanscarcelyhelp
conceivingthemasasystemofconcentriccircleswhichhave
graduallyexpandedfromthesamepoint。Theelementarygroupis
theFamily，connectedbycommonsubjectiontothehighestmale
ascendant。TheaggregationofFamiliesformstheGensorHouse。
TheaggregationofHousesmakestheTribe。Theaggregationof
TribesconstitutestheCommonwealth。Areweatlibertytofollow
theseindications，andtolaydownthatthecommonwealthisa
collectionofpersonsunitedbycommondescentfromthe
progenitorofanoriginalfamily？Ofthiswemayatleastbe
certain，thatallancientsocietiesregardedthemselvesashaving
proceededfromoneoriginalstock，andevenlabouredunderan
incapacityforcomprehendinganyreasonexceptthisfortheir
holdingtogetherinpoliticalunion。Thehistoryofpolitical
ideasbegins，infact，withtheassumptionthatkinshipinblood
isthesolepossiblegroundofcommunityinpoliticalfunctions；
noristhereanyofthosesubversionsoffeeling，whichweterm
emphaticallyrevolutions，sostartlingandsocompleteasthe
changewhichisaccomplishedwhensomeotherprinciple——suchas
that，forinstance，oflocalcontiguity——establishesitselffor
thefirsttimeasthebasisofcommonpoliticalaction。Itmaybe
affirmedthenofearlycommonwealthsthattheircitizens
consideredallthegroupsinwhichtheyclaimedmembershiptobe
foundedoncommonlineage。WhatwasobviouslytrueoftheFamily
wasbelievedtobetruefirstoftheHouse，nextoftheTribe，
lastlyoftheState。Andyetwefindthatalongwiththisbelief，
or，ifwemayusetheword，thistheory，eachcommunitypreserved
recordsortraditionswhichdistinctlyshowedthatthe
fundamentalassumptionwasfalse。WhetherwelooktotheGreek
states，ortoRome，ortotheTeutonicaristocraciesinDitmarsh
whichfurnishedNiebuhrwithsomanyvaluableillustrations，or
totheCelticclanassociations，ortothatstrangesocial
organisationoftheSclavonicRussiansandPoleswhichhasonly
latelyattractednotice，everywherewediscovertracesof
passagesintheirhistorywhenmenofaliendescentwereadmitted
to，andamalgamatedwith，theoriginalbrotherhood。Advertingto
Romesingly，weperceivethattheprimarygroup，theFamily，was
beingconstantlyadulteratedbythepracticeofadoption，while
storiesseemtohavebeenalwayscurrentrespectingtheexotic
extractionofoneoftheoriginalTribesandconcerningalarge
additiontothehousesmadebyoneoftheearlykings。The
compositionofthestate，uniformlyassumedtobenatural，was
neverthelessknowntobeingreatmeasureartificial。This
conflictbetweenbeliefortheoryandnotoriousfactisatfirst
sightextremelyperplexing；butwhatitreallyillustratesisthe
efficiencywithwhichLegalFictionsdotheirworkintheinfancy
ofsociety。Theearliestandmostextensivelyemployedoflegal
fictionswasthatwhichpermittedfamilyrelationstobecreated
artificially，andthereisnonetowhichIconceivemankindtobe
moredeeplyindebted。Ifithadneverexisted，Idonotseehow
anyoneoftheprimitivegroups，whateverweretheirnature，
couldhaveabsorbedanother，oronwhattermsanytwoofthem
couldhavecombined，exceptthoseofabsolutesuperiorityonone
sideandabsolutesubjectionontheother。Nodoubt，whenwith
ourmodernideaswecontemplatetheunionofindependent
communities，wecansuggestahundredmodesofcarryingitout，
thesimplestofallbeingthattheindividualscomprisedinthe
coalescinggroupsshallvoteoracttogetheraccordingtolocal
propinquity。buttheideathatanumberofpersonsshould
exercisepoliticalrightsincommonsimplybecausetheyhappened
tolivewithinthesametopographicallimitswasutterlystrange
andmonstroustoprimitiveantiquity。Theexpedientwhichin
thosetimescommandedfavourwasthattheincomingpopulation
shouldfeignthemselvestobedescendedfromthesamestockas
thepeopleonwhomtheywereengrafted；anditispreciselythe
goodfaithofthisfiction，andtheclosenesswithwhichit
seemedtoimitatereality，thatwecannotnowhopetounderstand。
Onecircumstance，however，whichitisimportanttorecollect，is
thatthemenwhoformedthevariouspoliticalgroupswere
certainlyinthehabitofmeetingtogetherperiodically，forthe
purposeofacknowledgingandconsecratingtheirassociationby
commonsacrifices。Strangersamalgamatedwiththebrotherhood
weredoubtlessadmittedtothesesacrifices；andwhenthatwas
oncedonewecanbelievethatitseemedequallyeasy，ornotmore
difficult，toconceivethemassharinginthecommonlineage。The
conclusionthenwhichissuggestedbytheevidenceis，notthat
allearlysocietieswereformedbydescentfromthesame
ancestor，butthatallofthemwhichhadanypermanenceand
solidityeitherweresodescendedorassumedthattheywere。An
indefinitenumberofcausesmayhaveshatteredtheprimitive
groups，butwherevertheiringredientsrecombined，itwasonthe
modelorprincipleofanassociationofkindred。Whateverwere
thefact，allthought，language，andlawadjustedthemselvesto
theassumption。Butthoughallthisseemstometobeestablished
withreferencetothecommunitieswithwhoserecordsweare
acquainted，theremainderoftheirhistorysustainstheposition
beforelaiddownastotheessentiallytransientandterminable
influenceofthemostpowerfulLegalFictions。Atsomepointof
time——probablyassoonastheyfeltthemselvesstrongenoughto
resistextrinsicpressure——allthesestatesceasedtorecruit
themselvesbyfactitiousextensionsofconsanguinity。They
necessarily，therefore，becameAristocracies，inallcaseswhere
afreshpopulationfromanycausecollectedaroundthemwhich
couldputinnoclaimtocommunityoforigin。Theirsternnessin
maintainingthecentralprincipleofasystemunderwhich
politicalrightswereattainableonnotermswhateverexcept
connexioninblood，realorartificial，taughttheirinferiors
anotherprinciple，whichprovedtobeendowedwithafarhigher
measureofvitality。Thiswastheprincipleoflocalcontiguity
nowrecognisedeverywhereastheconditionofcommunityin
politicalfunctions。Anewsetofpoliticalideascameatonce
intoexistence，which，beingthoseofourselves，our
contemporaries，andingreatmeasureofourancestors，rather
obscureourperceptionoftheoldertheorywhichtheyvanquished
anddethroned。
TheFamilythenisthetypeofanarchaicsocietyinallthe
modificationswhichitwascapableofassuming；butthefamily
herespokenofisnotexactlythefamilyasunderstoodbya
modern。Inordertoreachtheancientconceptionwemustgiveto
ourmodernideasanimportantextensionandanimportant
limitation。Wemustlookonthefamilyasconstantlyenlargedby
theabsorptionofstrangerswithinitscircle，andwemusttryto
regardthefictionofadoptionassocloselysimulatingthe
realityofkinshipthatneitherlawnoropinionmakesthe
slightestdifferencebetweenarealandanadoptiveconnexion。On
theotherhand，thepersonstheoreticallyamalgamatedintoa
familybytheircommondescentarepracticallyheldtogetherby
commonobediencetotheirhighestlivingascendant，thefather，
grandfather，orgreat-grandfather。Thepatriarchalauthorityofa
chieftainisasnecessaryaningredientinthenotionofthe
familygroupasthefact(orassumedfact)ofitshavingsprung
fromhisloins；andhencewemustunderstandthatiftherebeany
personswho，howevertrulyincludedinthebrotherhoodbyvirtue
oftheirblood-relationship，haveneverthelessdefactowithdrawn
themselvesfromtheempireofitsruler，theyarealways，inthe
beginningsoflaw，consideredaslosttothefamily。Itisthis
patriarchalaggregate——themodernfamilythuscutdownonone
sideandextendedontheotherwhichmeetsusonthethresholdof
primitivejurisprudence。OlderprobablythantheState，the
Tribe，andtheHouse，itlefttracesofitselfonprivatelaw
longaftertheHouseandtheTribehadbeenforgotten，andlong
afterconsanguinityhadceasedtobeassociatedwiththe
compositionofStates。Itwillbefoundtohavestampeditselfon
allthegreatdepartmentsofjurisprudence，andmaybedetected，
Ithink，asthetruesourceofmanyoftheirmostimportantand
mostdurablecharacteristics。Attheoutset，thepeculiaritiesof
lawinitsmostancientstateleadusirresistiblytothe
conclusionthatittookpreciselythesameviewofthefamily
groupwhichistakenofindividualmenbythesystemsofrights
anddutiesnowprevalentthroughoutEurope。Therearesocieties
opentoourobservationatthisverymomentwhoselawsandusages
canscarcelybeexplainedunlesstheyaresupposednevertohave
emergedfromthisprimitivecondition；butincommunitiesmore
fortunatelycircumstancedthefabricofjurisprudencefell
graduallytopieces，andifwecarefullyobservethe
disintegrationweshallperceivethatittookplaceprincipally
inthoseportionsofeachsystemwhichweremostdeeplyaffected
bytheprimitiveconceptionofthefamily。Inoneall-important
instance，thatoftheRomanlaw，thechangewaseffectedso
slowly，thatfromepochtoepochwecanobservethelineand
directionwhichitfollowed，andcanevengivesomeideaofthe
ultimateresulttowhichitwastending。And，inpursuingthis
lastinquiry，weneednotsufferourselvestobestoppedbythe
imaginarybarrierwhichseparatesthemodernfromtheancient
world。ForoneeffectofthatmixtureofrefinedRomanlawwith
primitivebarbaricusage，whichisknowntousbythedeceptive
nameoffeudalism，wastorevivemanyfeaturesofarchaic
jurisprudencewhichhaddiedoutoftheRomanworld，sothatthe
decompositionwhichhadseemedtobeovercommencedagain，andto
someextentisstillproceeding。
Onafewsystemsoflawthefamilyorganisationofthe
earliestsocietyhasleftaplainandbroadmarkinthelifelong
authorityoftheFatherorotherancestoroverthepersonand
propertyofhisdescendants，anauthoritywhichwemay
convenientlycallbyitslaterRomannameofPatriaPotestas。No
featureoftherudimentaryassociationsofmankindisdeposedto
byagreateramountofevidencethanthis，andyetnoneseemsto
havedisappearedsogenerallyandsorapidlyfromtheusagesof
advancingcommunities。Gaius，writingundertheAntonines，
describestheinstitutionasdistinctivelyRoman。Itistrue
that，hadheglancedacrosstheRhineortheDanubetothose
tribesofbarbarianswhichwereexcitingthecuriosityofsome
amonghiscontemporaries，hewouldhaveseenexamplesof
patriarchalpowerinitscrudestform；andinthefarEasta
branchofthesameethnicalstockfromwhichtheRomanssprang
wasrepeatingtheirPatriaPotestasinsomeofitsmosttechnical
incidents。Butamongtheracesunderstoodtobecomprisedwithin
theRomanempire，Gaiuscouldfindnonewhichexhibitedan
institutionresemblingtheRoman\"PoweroftheFather，\"except
onlytheAsiaticGalatae。Therearereasons，indeed，asitseems
tome，whythedirectauthorityoftheancestorshould，inthe
greaternumberofprogressivesocieties，veryshortlyassume
humblerproportionsthanbelongedtoitintheirearlieststate。
Theimplicitobedienceofrudementotheirparentisdoubtlessa
primaryfact，whichitwouldbeabsurdtoexplainawayaltogether
byattributingtothemanycalculationofitsadvantages；but，at
thesametime，ifitisnaturalinthesonstoobeythefather，
itisequallynaturalthattheyshouldlooktohimforsuperior
strengthorsuperiorwisdom。Hence，whensocietiesareplaced
undercircumstanceswhichcauseanespecialvaluetobeattached
tobodilyandmentalvigour，thereisaninfluenceatworkwhich
tendstoconfinethePatriaPotestastothecaseswhereits
possessorisactuallyskilfulandstrong。Whenweobtainour
firstglimpseoforganisedHellenicsociety，itseemsasif
supereminentwisdomwouldkeepalivethefather’spowerin
Personswhosebodilystrengthhaddecayed；buttherelationsof
UlyssesandLaertesintheOdysseeappeartoshowthat，where
extraordinaryvalourandsagacitywereunitedintheson，the
fatherinthedecrepitudeofagewasdeposedfromtheheadshipof
thefamily。InthematureGreekjurisprudence，theruleadvances
afewstepsonthepracticehintedatintheHomericliterature；
andthoughverymanytracesofstringentfamilyobligation
remain，thedirectauthorityoftheparentislimited，asin
Europeancodes，tothenonageorminorityofthechildren，or，in
otherwords，totheperiodduringwhichtheirmentalandphysical
inferioritymayalwaysbepresumed。TheRomanlaw，however，with
itsremarkabletendencytoinnovateonancientusageonlyjustso
farastheexigencyofthecommonwealthmayrequire，preserves
boththeprimevalinstitutionandthenaturallimitationtowhich
Iconceiveittohavebeensubject。Ineveryrelationoflifein
whichthecollectivecommunitymighthaveoccasiontoavail
itselfofhiswisdomandstrength，forallpurposesofcounselor
ofwar，thefiliusfamilias，orSonunderPower，wasasfreeas
hisfather。ItwasamaximofRomanjurisprudencethatthePatria
PotestasdidnotextendtotheJusPublicum。Fatherandsonvoted
togetherinthecity，andfoughtsidebysideinthefield；
indeed，theson，asgeneral，mighthappentocommandthefather，
or，asmagistrate，decideonhiscontractsandpunishhis
delinquencies。ButinalltherelationscreatedbyPrivateLaw；
thesonlivedunderadomesticdespotismwhich，consideringthe
severityitretainedtothelast，andthenumberofcenturies
throughwhichitendured，constitutesoneofthestrangest
problemsinlegalhistory。
ThePatriaPotestasoftheRomans，whichisnecessarilyour
typeoftheprimevalpaternalauthority，isequallydifficultto
understandasaninstitutionofcivilisedlife，whetherwe
consideritsincidenceonthepersonoritseffectsonproperty。
Itistoberegrettedthatachasmwhichexistsinitshistory
cannotbemorecompletelyfilled。Sofarasregardstheperson，
theparent，whenourinformationcommences，hasoverhischildren
thejusvitaenecisque，thepoweroflifeanddeath，anda
fortioriofuncontrolledcorporalchastisement；hecanmodify
theirpersonalconditionatpleasure；hecangiveawifetohis
son；hecangivehisdaughterinmarriage；hecandivorcehis
childrenofeithersex；hecantransferthemtoanotherfamilyby
adoption；andhecansellthem。LateintheImperialperiodwe
findvestigesofallthesepowers，buttheyarereducedwithin
verynarrowlimits。Theunqualifiedrightofdomestic
chastisementhasbecomearightofbringingdomesticoffences
underthecognisanceofthecivilmagistrate；theprivilegeof
dictatingmarriagehasdeclinedintoaconditionalveto；the
libertyofsellinghasbeenvirtuallyabolished，andadoption
itself，destinedtolosealmostallitsancientimportanceinthe
reformedsystemofJustinian，cannolongerbeeffectedwithout
theassentofthechildtransferredtotheadoptiveparentage。In
short，wearebroughtveryclosetothevergeoftheideaswhich
haveatlengthprevailedinthemodernworld。Butbetweenthese
widelydistantepochsthereisanintervalofobscurity，andwe
canonlyguessatthecauseswhichpermittedthePatriaPotestas
tolastaslongasitdidbyrenderingitmoretolerablethanit
appears。Theactivedischargeofthemostimportantamongthe
dutieswhichthesonowedtothestatemusthavetemperedthe
authorityofhisparentiftheydidnotannulit。Wecanreadily
persuadeourselvesthatthepaternaldespotismcouldnotbe
broughtintoplaywithoutgreatscandalagainstamanoffullage
occupyingahighciviloffice。Duringtheearlierhistory，
however，suchcasesofpracticalemancipationwouldberare
comparedwiththosewhichmusthavebeencreatedbytheconstant
warsoftheRomanrepublic。Themilitarytribuneandtheprivate
soldierwhowereinthefieldthree-quartersofayearduringthe
earliercontests，atalaterperiodtheproconsulinchargeofa
province，andthelegionarieswhooccupiedit，cannothavehad
practicalreasontoregardthemselvesastheslavesofadespotic
master；andalltheseavenuesofescapetendedconstantlyto
multiplythemselves。Victoriesledtoconquests，conqueststo
occupations；themodeofoccupationbycolonieswasexchangedfor
thesystemofoccupyingprovincesbystandingarmies。Eachstep
inadvancewasacallfortheexpatriationofmoreRomancitizens
andafreshdraftonthebloodofthefailingLatinrace。Wemay
infer，Ithink，thatastrongsentimentinfavourofthe
relaxationofthePatriaPotestashadbecomefixedbythetime
thatthepacificationoftheworldcommencedontheestablishment
oftheEmpire。Thefirstseriousblowsattheancientinstitution
areattributedtotheearlierCaesars，andsomeisolated
interferencesofTrajanandHadrianseemtohavepreparedthe
groundforaseriesofexpressenactmentswhich，thoughwecannot
alwaysdeterminetheirdates，weknowtohavelimitedthe
father’spowersontheonehand，andontheothertohave
multipliedfacilitiesfortheirvoluntarysurrender。Theolder
modeofgettingridofthePotestas，byeffectingatriplesale
oftheson’sperson，isevidence，Imayremark，ofaveryearly
feelingagainsttheunnecessaryprolongationofthepowers。The
rulewhichdeclaredthatthesonshouldbefreeafterhavingbeen
threetimessoldbyhisfatherseemstohavebeenoriginally
meanttoentailpenalconsequencesonapracticewhichrevolted
eventheimperfectmoralityoftheprimitiveRoman。Buteven
beforethepublicationoftheTwelveTablesithadbeenturned，
bytheingenuityofthejurisconsults，intoanexpedientfor
destroyingtheparentalauthoritywhereverthefatherdesired
thatitshouldcease。
Manyofthecauseswhichhelpedtomitigatethestringencyof
thefather’spoweroverthepersonsofhischildrenaredoubtless
amongthosewhichdonotlieuponthefaceofhistory。Wecannot
tellhowfarpublicopinionmayhaveparalysedanauthoritywhich
thelawconferred，orhowfarnaturalaffectionmayhaverendered
itendurable。Butthoughthepowersoverthepersonmayhavebeen
latterlynominal，thewholetenouroftheextantRoman
jurisprudencesuggeststhatthefather’srightsovertheson’s
propertywerealwaysexercisedwithoutscrupletothefullextent
towhichtheyweresanctionedbylaw。Thereisnothingto
astonishusinthelatitudeoftheserightswhentheyfirstshow
themselves。TheancientlawofRomeforbadetheChildrenunder
Powertoholdpropertyapartfromtheirparent，or(weshould
rathersay)nevercontemplatedthepossibilityoftheirclaiming
aseparateownership。Thefatherwasentitledtotakethewhole
oftheson’sacquisitions，andtoenjoythebenefitofhis
contracts；withoutbeingentangledinanycompensatingliability。
Somuchasthisweshouldexpectfromtheconstitutionofthe
earliestRomansociety，forwecanhardlyformanotionofthe
primitivefamilygroupunlesswesupposethatitsmembersbrought
theirearningsofallkindsintothecommonstockwhiletheywere
unabletobinditbyimprovidentindividualengagements。Thetrue
enigmaofthePatriaPotestasdoesnotresidehere，butinthe
slownesswithwhichtheseproprietaryprivilegesoftheparent
werecurtailed，andinthecircumstancethat，beforetheywere
seriouslydiminished，thewholecivilisedworldwasbrought
withintheirsphere。Noinnovationofanykindwasattemptedtill
thefirstyearoftheEmpire，whentheacquisitionsofsoldiers
onservicewerewithdrawnfromtheoperationofthePatria
Potestas，doubtlessaspartoftherewardofthearmieswhichhad
overthrownthefreecommonwealth。Threecenturiesafterwardsthe
sameimmunitywasextendedtotheearningsofpersonswhowerein
thecivilemploymentofthestate。Bothchangeswereobviously
limitedintheirapplication，andtheyweresocontrivedin
technicalformastointerfereaslittleaspossiblewiththe
principleofPatriaPotestas。Acertainqualifiedanddependent
ownershiphadalwaysbeenrecognisedbytheRomanlawinthe
perquisitesandsavingswhichslavesandsonsunderpowerwere
notcompelledtoincludeinthehouseholdaccounts，andthe
specialnameofthispermissiveproperty，Peculium，wasapplied
totheacquisitionsnewlyrelievedfromPatriaPotestas，which
werecalledinthecaseofsoldiersCastrensePeculium，and
quasi-castrensePeculiuminthecaseofcivilservants。Other
modificationsoftheparentalprivilegesfollowed，whichshoweda
lessstudiousoutwardrespectfortheancientprinciple。Shortly
aftertheintroductionoftheQuasicastrensePeculium，
ConstantinetheGreattookawaythefather’sabsolutecontrol
overpropertywhichhischildrenhadinheritedfromtheirmother，
andreducedittoausufruct，Orlife-interest。Afewmore
changesofslightimportancefollowedintheWesternEmpire，but
thefurthestpointreachedwasintheEast，underJustinian，who
enactedthatunlesstheacquisitionsofthechildwerederived
fromtheparent’sownproperty，theparent’srightsoverthem
shouldnotextendbeyondenjoyingtheirproducefortheperiodof
hislife。Eventhis，theutmostrelaxationoftheRomanPatria
Potestas，leftitfaramplerandsevererthananyanalogous
institutionofthemodernworld。Theearliestmodernwriterson
jurisprudenceremarkthatitwasonlythefiercerandruderof
theconquerorsoftheempire，andnotablythenationsof
Sclavonicorigin，whichexhibitedaPatriaPotestasatall
resemblingthatwhichwasdescribedinthePandectsandtheCode。
AlltheGermanicimmigrantsseemtohaverecognisedacorporate
unionofthefamilyunderthemund，orauthorityofapatriarchal
chief；buthispowersareobviouslyonlytherelicofadecayed
PatriaPotestas，andfellfarshortofthoseenjoyedbytheRoman
father。TheFranksareparticularlymentionedasnothavingthe
RomanInstitution，andaccordinglytheoldFrenchlawyers，even
whenmostbusilyengagedinfillingtheintersticesofbarbarous
customwithrulesofRomanlaw，wereobligedtoprotect
themselvesagainsttheintrusionofthePotestasbytheexpress
maxim，PuyssancedepereenFrancen’alieu。Thetenacityofthe
Rowansinmaintainingthisrelicoftheirmostancientcondition
isinitselfremarkable，butitislessremarkablethanthe
diffusionofthePotestasoverthewholeofacivilisationfrom
whichithadoncedisappeared。WhiletheCastrensePeculium
constitutedasyetthesoleexceptiontothefather’spowerover
property，andwhilehispoweroverhischildren’spersonswas
stillextensive，theRomancitizenship，andwithitthePatria
Potestas，werespreadingintoeverycorneroftheempire。Every
AfricanorSpaniard，everyGaul，Briton，orJew，whoreceived
thishonourbygift，purchase，orinheritance，placedhimself
undertheRomanLawofPersons，and，thoughourauthorities
intimatethatchildrenbornbeforetheacquisitionofcitizenship
couldnotbebroughtunderPoweragainsttheirwill，children
bornafteritandallulteriordescendantswereontheordinary
footingofaRomanfiliusfamilias。Itdoesnotfallwithinthe
provinceofthistreatisetoexaminethemechanismofthelater
RomansocietybutImaybepermittedtoremarkthatthereis
little，foundationfortheopinionwhichrepresentsthe
constitutionofAntoninusCaracallaconferringRomancitizenship
onthewholeofhissubjectsasameasureofsmallimportance。
Howeverwemayinterpretit，itmusthaveenormouslyenlargedthe
sphereofthePatriaPotestas，anditseemstomethatthe
tighteningoffamilyrelationswhichiteffectedisanagency
whichoughttobekeptinviewmorethanithasbeen，in
accountingforthegreatmoralrevolutionwhichwastransforming
theworld。
