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
consideredinconformitywithmodernideasasunitedthrough
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,andattemptedthoughvainlytobesetupinour
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,andwouldifnecessarydeny
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,andifthey
maybejudgedbythehighestnamesamongthemtheirpassionate
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;
andwheneverreligiousobjectionsapartanymindisseento
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。