ThemodernlanguageshaveonlybeenfittedtometaphysicalinquiriesbyadoptingthisLatindialect,orbyimitatingtheprocesswhichwasoriginallyfollowedinitsformation。ThesourceofthephraseologywhichhasbeenalwaysemployedformetaphysicaldiscussioninmoderntimeswastheLatintranslationsofAristotle,inwhich,whetherderivedornotfromArabicversions,theplanofthetranslatorwasnottoseekforanalogousexpressionsinanypartofLatinliterature,buttoconstructanewfromLatinrootsasetofphrasesequaltotheexpressionofGreekphilosophicalideas。OversuchaprocesstheterminologyofRomanlawcanhaveexercisedlittleinfluence;atmost,afewLatinlawtermsinatransmutedshapehavemadetheirwayintometaphysicallanguage。AtthesametimeitisworthyofremarkthatwhenevertheproblemsofmetaphysicsarethosewhichhavebeenmoststronglyagitatedinWesternEurope,thethought,ifnotthelanguage,betraysalegalparentage。FewthingsinthehistoryofspeculationaremoreimpressivethanthefactthatnoGreek-speakingpeoplehaseverfeltitselfseriouslyperplexedbythegreatquestionofFree-willandNecessity:Idonotpretendtoofferanysummaryexplanationofthis,butitdoesnotseemanirrelevantsuggestionthatneithertheGreeks,noranysocietyspeakingandthinkingintheirlanguage,evershowedthesmallestcapacityforproducingaphilosophyoflaw。LegalscienceisaRomancreation,andtheproblemofFree-willariseswhenwecontemplateametaphysicalconceptionunderalegalaspect。Howcameittobeaquestionwhetherinvariablesequencewasidenticalwithnecessaryconnection?IcanonlysaythatthetendencyofRomanlaw,whichbecamestrongerasitadvanced,wastolookuponlegalconsequencesasunitedtolegalcausesbyaninexorablenecessity,atendencymostmarkedlyexemplifiedinthedefinitionofObligationwhichIhaverepeatedlycited,\"Jurisvinculumquonecessitateadstringimuralicujussolvendaerei。\"
ButtheproblemofFree-willwastheologicalbeforeitbecamephilosophical,and,ifitstermshavebeenaffectedbyjurisprudence,itwillbebecauseJurisprudencehadmadeitselffeltinTheology。Thegreatpointofinquirywhichisheresuggestedhasneverbeensatisfactorilyelucidated。Whathastobedetermined,iswhetherjurisprudencehaseverservedasthemediumthroughwhichtheologicalprincipleshavebeenviewed;
whether,bysupplyingapeculiarlanguage,apeculiarmodeofreasoning,andapeculiarsolutionofmanyoftheproblemsoflife,ithaseveropenednewchannelsinwhichtheologicalspeculationcouldflowoutandexpanditself。Forthepurposeofgivinganansweritisnecessarytorecollectwhatisalreadyagreeduponbythebestwritersastotheintellectualfoodwhichtheologyfirstassimilated。ItisconcededonallsidesthattheearliestlanguageoftheChristianChurchwasGreek,andthattheproblemstowhichitfirstaddresseditselfwerethoseforwhichGreekphilosophyinitslaterformshadpreparedtheway。GreekmetaphysicalliteraturecontainedthesolestockofwordsandideasoutofwhichthehumanmindcouldprovideitselfwiththemeansofengagingintheprofoundcontroversiesastotheDivinePersons,theDivineSubstance,andtheDivineNatures。TheLatinlanguageandthemeagreLatinphilosophywerequiteunequaltotheundertaking,andaccordinglytheWesternorLatin-speakingprovincesoftheEmpireadoptedtheconclusionsoftheEastwithoutdisputingorreviewingthem。\"LatinChristianity,\"saysDeanMilman,\"acceptedthecreedwhichitsnarrowandbarrenvocabularycouldhardlyexpressinadequateterms。Yet,throughout,theadhesionofRomeandtheWestwasapassiveacquiescenceinthedogmaticsystemwhichhadbeenwroughtoutbytheprofoundertheologyoftheEasterndivines,ratherthanavigorousandoriginalexaminationonherpartofthosemysteries。
TheLatinChurchwasthescholaraswellastheloyalpartizanofAthanasius。\"ButwhentheseparationofEastandWestbecamewider,andtheLatin-speakingWesternEmpirebegantolivewithanintellectuallifeofitsown,itsdeferencetotheEastwasallatonceexchangedfortheagitationofanumberofquestionsentirelyforeigntoEasternspeculation。\"WhileGreektheologyMilman,LatinChristianity,Preface,5wentondefiningwithstillmoreexquisitesubtletytheGodheadandthenatureofChrist\"——\"whiletheinterminablecontroversystilllengthenedoutandcastforthsectaftersectfromtheenfeebledcommunity\"——
theWesternChurchthrewitselfwithpassionateardourintoaneworderofdisputes,thesamewhichfromthosedaystothishaveneverlosttheirinterestforanyfamilyofmankindatanytimeincludedintheLatincommunion。ThenatureofSinanditstransmissionbyinheritance——thedebtowedbymananditsvicarioussatisfaction——thenecessityandsufficiencyoftheAtonement——abovealltheapparentantagonismbetweenFree-willandtheDivineProvidence——thesewerethepointswhichtheWestbegantodebateasardentlyasevertheEasthaddiscussedthearticlesofitsmorespecialcreed。WhyisitthenthatonthetwosidesofthelinewhichdividestheGreek-speakingfromtheLatin-speakingprovincestherelietwoclassesoftheologicalproblemssostrikinglydifferentfromoneanother?ThehistoriansoftheChurchhavecomecloseuponthesolutionwhentheyremarkthatthenewproblemsweremore\"practical,\"lessabsolutelyspeculative,thanthosewhichhadtornEasternChristianityasunder,butnoneofthem,sofarasIamaware,hasquitereachedit。Iaffirmwithouthesitationthatthedifferencebetweenthetwotheologicalsystemsisaccountedforbythefactthat,inpassingfromtheEasttotheWest,theologicalspeculationhadpassedfromaclimateofGreekmetaphysicstoaclimateofRomanlaw。Forsomecenturiesbeforethesecontroversiesroseintooverwhelmingimportance,alltheintellectualactivityoftheWesternRomanshadbeenexpendedonjurisprudenceexclusively。Theyhadbeenoccupiedinapplyingapeculiarsetofprinciplestoallthecombinationsinwhichthecircumstancesoflifearecapableofbeingarranged。Noforeignpursuitortastecalledofftheirattentionfromthisengrossingoccupation,andforcarryingitontheypossessedavocabularyasaccurateasitwascopious,astrictmethodofreasoning,astockofgeneralpropositionsonconductmoreorlessverifiedbyexperience,andarigidmoralphilosophy。ItwasimpossiblethattheyshouldnotselectfromthequestionsindicatedbytheChristianrecordsthosewhichhadsomeaffinitywiththeorderofspeculationstowhichtheywereaccustomed,andthattheirmannerofdealingwiththemshouldborrowsomethingfromtheirforensichabits。AlmosteverybodywhohasknowledgeenoughofRomanlawtoappreciatetheRomanpenalsystem,theRomantheoryoftheobligationsestablishedbyContractorDelict,theRomanviewofDebtsandofthemodesofincurring,extinguishing,andtransmittingthem,theRomannotionofthecontinuanceofindividualexistencebyUniversalSuccession,maybetrustedtosaywhencearosetheframeofmindtowhichtheproblemsofWesterntheologyprovedsocongenial,whencecamethephraseologyinwhichtheseproblemswerestated,andwhencethedescriptionofreasoningemployedintheirsolution。ItmustonlyberecollectedthatRomanlawwhichhadworkeditselfintoWesternthoughtwasneitherthearchaicsystemoftheancientcity,northeprunedandcurtailedjurisprudenceoftheByzantineEmperors;
stillless,ofcourse,wasitthemassofrules,nearlyburiedinaparasiticalovergrowthofmodernspeculativedoctrine,whichpassesbythenameofModernCivilLaw。Ispeakonlyofthatphilosophyofjurisprudence,wroughtoutbythegreatjuridicalthinkersoftheAntonineage,whichmay。stillbepartiallyreproducedfromthePandectsofJustinian,asystemtowhichfewfaultscanbeattributedexceptitperhapsaimedatahigherdegreeofelegance,certainty,andprecision,thanhumanaffairswillpermittothelimitswithinwhichhumanlawsseektoconfinethem。
ItisasingularresultofthatignoranceofRomanlawwhichEnglishmenreadilyconfess,andofwhichtheyaresometimesnotashamedtoboast,thatmanyEnglishwritersofnoteandcredithavebeenledbyittoputforwardthemostuntenableofparadoxesconcerningtheconditionofhumanintellectduringtheRomanEmpire。Ithasbeenconstantlyasserted,Asunhesitatinglyasiftherewerenotemerityinadvancingtheproposition,thatfromthecloseoftheAugustaneratothegeneralawakeningofinterestonthepointsoftheChristianfaith,thementalenergiesofthecivilisedworldweresmittenwithaparalysis。
Nowtherearetwosubjectsofthought——theonlytwoperhapswiththeexceptionofphysicalscience——whichareabletogiveemploymenttoallthePowersandcapacitieswhichthemindpossesses。OneofthemisMetaphysicalinquiry,whichknowsnolimitssolongasthemindissatisfiedtoworkonitself;theotherislaw,whichisasextensiveastheconcernsofmankind。
Ithappensthat,duringtheveryperiodindicated,theGreek-speakingprovincesweredevotedtoone,theLatinSpeakingprovincestotheother,ofthesestudies。IsaynothingofthefruitsofspeculationinAlexandriaandtheEast,butI
confidentlyaffirmthatRomeandtheWesthadanoccupationinhandfullycapableofcompensatingthemfortheabsenceofeveryothermentalexercise,andIaddthattheresultsachieved,sofarasweknowthem,werenotunworthyofthecontinuousandexclusivelabourbestowedonproducingthem。NobodyexceptaprofessionallawyerisperhapsinapositioncompletelytounderstandhowmuchoftheintellectualstrengthofindividualsLawiscapableofabsorbing,butalaymanhasnodifficultyincomprehendingwhyitwasthatanunusualshareofthecollectiveintellectofRomewasengrossedbyjurisprudence。\"Theproficiency2*ofagivencommunityinjurisprudencedependsinthelongrunonthesameconditionsasitsprogressinanyotherlineofinquiry;andthechiefofthesearetheproportionofthenationalintellectdevotedtoit,andthelengthoftimeduringwhichitissodevoted。Now,acombinationofallthecauses,directandindirect,whichcontributetotheadvancingandperfectingofasciencecontinuedtooperateonthejurisprudenceofRomethroughtheentirespacebetweentheTwelveTablesandtheseveranceofthetwoEmpires,——andthatnotirregularlyoratintervals,butinsteadilyincreasingforceandconstantlyaugmentingnumber。Weshouldreflectthattheearliestintellectualexercisetowhichayoungnationdevotesitselfisthestudyofitslaws。Assoonasthemindmakesitsfirstconsciouseffortstowardsgeneralisation,theconcernsofevery-daylifearethefirsttopressforinclusionwithingeneralrulesandcomprehensiveformulas。Thepopularityofthepursuitonwhichalltheenergiesoftheyoungcommonwealtharebentisattheoutsetunbounded;butitceasesintime。Themonopolyofmindbylawisbrokendown。ThecrowdatthemorningaudienceofthegreatRomanjurisconsultlessens。ThestudentsarecountedbyhundredsinsteadofthousandsintheEnglishInnsofCourt。Art,Literature,Science,andPolitics,claimtheirshareofthenationalintellect;andthepracticeofjurisprudenceisconfinedwithinthecircleofaprofession,neverindeedlimitedorinsignificant,butattractedasmuchbytherewardsasbytheintrinsicrecommendationsoftheirscience。
ThissuccessionofchangesexhibiteditselfevenmorestrikinglyatRomethaninEngland。TothecloseoftheRepublicthelawwasthesolefieldforallabilityexceptthespecialtalentofacapacityforgeneralship。ButanewstageofintellectualprogressbeganwiththeAugustanage,asitdidwithourownElizabethanera。Weallknowwhatwereitsachievementsinpoetryandprose;buttherearesomeindications,itshouldberemarked,that,besidesitsefflorescenceinornamentalliterature,itwasontheeveofthrowingoutnewaptitudeforconquestinphysicalscience。Here,however,isthepointatwhichthehistoryofmindintheRomanStateceasestobeparalleltotherouteswhichmentalprogresshadsincethenpursued。ThebriefspanofRomanliterature,strictlysocalled,wassuddenlyclosedunderavarietyofinfluences,whichthoughtheymaypartiallybetraceditwouldbeimproperinthisplacetoanalyse。Ancientintellectwasforciblythrustbackintoitsoldcourses,andlawagainbecamenolessexclusivelytheproperspherefortalentthanithadbeeninthedayswhentheRomansdespisedphilosophyandpoetryasthetoysofachildishrace。Ofwhatnatureweretheexternalinducementswhich,duringtheImperialperiod,tendedtodrawamanofinherentcapacitytothepursuitsofthejurisconsultmaybestbeunderstoodbyconsideringtheoptionwhichwaspracticallybeforehiminhischoiceofaprofession。
Hemightbecomeateacherofrhetoric,acommanderoffrontier-posts,oraprofessionalwriterofpanegyrics。Theonlyotherwalkofactivelifewhichwasopentohimwasthepracticeofthelaw。Throughthatlaytheapproachtowealth,tofame,tooffice,tothecouncil-chamberofthemonarch——itmaybetotheverythroneitself。\"
ThepremiumonthestudyofjurisprudencewassoenormousthattherewereschoolsoflawineverypartoftheEmpire,evenintheverydomainofMetaphysics。But,thoughthetransferoftheseatofempiretoByzantiumgaveaperceptibleimpetustoitscultivationintheEast,jurisprudenceneverdethronedthepursuitswhichtherecompetedwithit。ItslanguagewasLatin,anexoticdialectintheEasternhalfoftheEmpire。ItisonlyoftheWestthatwecanlaydownthatlawwasnotonlythementalfoodoftheambitiousandaspiring,butthesolealimentofallintellectualactivity。GreekphilosophyhadneverbeenmorethanatransientfashionabletastewiththeeducatedclassofRomeitself,andwhenthenewEasterncapitalhadbeencreated,andtheEmpiresubsequentlydividedintotwo,thedivorceoftheWesternprovincesfromGreekspeculation,andtheirexclusivedevotiontojurisprudence,becamemoredecidedthanever。AssoonthenastheyceasedtositatthefeetoftheGreeksandbegantoponderoutatheologyoftheirown,thetheologyprovedtobepermeatedwithforensicideasandcouchedinaforensicphraseology。ItiscertainthatthissubstratumoflawinWesterntheologyliesexceedinglydeep。AnewsetofGreektheories,theAristotelianphilosophy,madetheirwayafterwardsintotheWestandalmostentirelyburieditsindigenousdoctrines。ButwhenattheReformationitpartiallyshookitselffreefromtheirinfluence,itinstantlysuppliedtheirplacewithLaw。ItisdifficulttosaywhetherthereligioussystemofCalvinorthereligioussystemoftheArminianshasthemoremarkedlylegalcharacter。
ThevastinfluenceofthespecificjurisprudenceofContractproducedbytheRomansuponthecorrespondingdepartmentofmodernLawbelongsrathertothehistoryofmaturejurisprudencethantoatreatiselikethepresent。ItdidnotmakeitselffelttilltheschoolofBolognafoundedthelegalscienceofmodernEurope。ButthefactthattheRomans,beforetheirEmpirefell,hadsofullydevelopedtheconceptionofContractbecomesofimportanceatamuchearlierperiodthanthis。Feudalism,Ihaverepeatedlyasserted,wasacompoundofarchaicbarbarianusagewithRomanlaw;nootherexplanationofitistenable,orevenintelligible。Theearliestsocialformsofthefeudalperioddifferinlittlefromtheordinaryassociationsinwhichthemenofprimitivecivilisationsareeverywhereseenunited。AFiefwasanorganicallycompletebrotherhoodofassociateswhoseproprietaryandpersonalrightswereinextricablyblendedtogether。IthadmuchincommonwithanIndianVillageCommunityandmuchincommonwithaHighlandclan。Butstillitpresentssomephenomenawhichweneverfindintheassociationswhicharespontaneouslyformedbybeginnersincivilisation。Truearchaiccommunitiesareheldtogethernotbyexpressrules,butbysentiment,or,weshouldperhapssay,byinstinct;andnewcomersintothebrotherhoodarebroughtwithintherangeofthisinstinctbyfalselypretendingtoshareinthebloodrelationshipfromwhichitnaturallysprings。Buttheearliestfeudalcommunitieswereneitherboundtogetherbymeresentimentnorrecruitedbyafiction。ThetiewhichunitedthemwasContract,andtheyobtainednewassociatesbycontractingwiththem。Therelationofthelordtothevassalshadoriginallybeensettledbyexpressengagement,andapersonwishingtoengrafthimselfonthebrotherhoodbycommendationorinfeudationcametoadistinctunderstandingastotheconditionsonwhichhewastobeadmitted。ItisthereforethesphereoccupiedinthembyContractwhichprincipallydistinguishesthefeudalinstitutionsfromtheunadulteratedusagesofprimitiveraces。Thelordhadmanyofthecharacteristicsofapatriarchalchieftain,buthisprerogativewaslimitedbyavarietyofsettledcustomstraceabletotheexpressconditionswhichhadbeenagreeduponwhentheinfeudationtookplace。Henceflowthechiefdifferenceswhichforbidustoclassthefeudalsocietieswithtruearchaiccommunities。Theyweremuchmoredurableandmuchmorevarious;
moredurable,becauseexpressrulesartlessdestructiblethaninstinctivehabits,andmorevarious,becausethecontractsonwhichtheywerefoundedwereadjustedtotheminutestcircumstancesandwishesofthepersonswhosurrenderedorgrantedawaytheirlands。Thislastconsiderationmayservetoindicatehowgreatlythevulgaropinionscurrentamongusastotheoriginofmodernsocietystandinneedofrevision。ItisoftensaidthattheirregularandvariouscontourofmoderncivilisationisduetotheexuberantanderraticgeniusoftheGermanicraces,anditisoftencontrastedwiththedullroutineoftheRomanEmpire。ThetruthisthattheEmpirebequeathedtomodernsocietythelegalconceptiontowhichallthisirregularityisattributable;ifthecustomsandinstitutionsofbarbarianshaveonecharacteristicmorestrikingthananother,itistheirextremeuniformity。
NOTES:
1。ThepassagequotedistranscribedwithslightalterationsfromapapercontributedbytheauthortotheCambridgeEssaysfor1856。
2。CambridgeEssays,1856。AncientLaw
byHenryMaineChapter10TheEarlyHistoryofDelictandCrime
TheTeutonicCodes,includingthoseofourAnglo-Saxon
ancestors,aretheonlybodiesofarchaicsecularlawwhichhave
comedowntousinsuchastatethatwecanformanexactnotion
oftheiroriginaldimensions。Althoughtheextantfragmentsof
RomanandHelleniccodessufficetoprovetoustheirgeneral
character,theredoesnotremainenoughofthemforustobe
quitesureoftheirprecisemagnitudeoroftheproportionof
theirpartstoeachother。Butstillonthewholealltheknown
collectionsofancientlawarecharacterisedbyafeaturewhich
broadlydistinguishesthemfromsystemsofmaturejurisprudence。
Theproportionofcriminaltocivillawisexceedinglydifferent。
IntheGermancodes,thecivilpartofthelawhastrifling
dimensionsascomparedwiththecriminal。Thetraditionswhich
speakofthesanguinarypenaltiesinflictedbythecodeofDraco
seemtoindicatethatithadthesamecharacteristic。Inthe
TwelveTablesalone,producedbyasocietyofgreaterlegal
geniusandatfirstofgentlermanners,thecivillawhas
somethinglikeitsmodernprecedence;buttherelativeamountof
spacegiventothemodesofredressingwrong,thoughnot
enormous,appearstohavebeenlarge。Itmaybelaiddown,I
think,thatthemorearchaicthecode,thefullerandtheminuter
isitspenallegislation。Thephenomenonhasoftenbeenobserved,
andhasbeenexplained,nodoubttoagreatextentcorrectly,by
theViolencehabitualtothecommunitieswhichforthefirsttime
reducedtheirlawstowriting。Thelegislator,itissaid,
proportionedthedivisionsofhisworktothefrequencyofa
certainclassofincidentsinbarbarianlife。Iimagine,however,
thatthisaccountisnotquitecomplete。Itshouldberecollected
thatthecomparativebarrennessofcivillawinarchaic
collectionsisconsistentwiththoseothercharacteristicsof
ancientjurisprudencewhichhavebeendiscussedinthistreatise。
Nine-tenthsofthecivilpartofthelawpractisedbycivilised
societiesaremadeupoftheLawofPersons,oftheLawof
Propertyandofinheritance,andoftheLawofContract。Butit
isplainthatalltheseprovincesofjurisprudencemustshrink
withinnarrowerboundaries,thenearerwemakeourapproachesto
theinfancyofsocialbrotherhood。TheLawofPersons,whichis
nothingelsethantheLawofStatus,willberestrictedtothe
scantiestlimitsaslongasallformsofStatusaremergedin
commonsubjectiontoPaternalPower,aslongastheWifehasno
rightsagainstherHusband,theSonnoneagainsthisFather;and
theinfantWardnoneagainsttheAgnateswhoarehisGuardians。
Similarly,therulesrelatingtoPropertyandSuccessioncan
neverbeplentiful,solongaslandandgoodsdevolvewithinthe
family,and,ifdistributedatall,aredistributedinsideits
circle。Butthegreatestgapinancientcivillawwillalwaysbe
causedbytheabsenceofContract,whichsomearchaiccodesdo
notmentionatall,whileotherssignificantlyattestthe
immaturityofthemoralnotionsonwhichContractdependsby
supplyingitsplacewithanelaboratejurisprudenceofOaths。
Therearenocorrespondingreasonsforthepovertyofpenallaw,
andaccordingly,evenifitbehazardoustopronouncethatthe
childhoodofnationsisalwaysaperiodofungovernedviolence,
weshallstillbeabletounderstandwhythemodemrelationof
criminallawtocivilshouldbeinvertedinancient。codes。
Ihavespokenofprimitivejurisprudenceasgivingto
criminallawapriorityunknowninalaterage。Theexpression
hasbeenusedforconvenience’sake,butinfacttheinspection
ofancientcodesshowsthatthelawwhichtheyexhibitinunusual
quantitiesisnottruecriminallaw。Allcivilisedsystemsagree
indrawingadistinctionbetweenoffencesagainsttheStateor
CommunityandoffencesagainsttheIndividual,andthetwo
classesofinjuries,thuskeptapart,Imayhere,without
pretendingthatthetermshavealwaysbeenemployedconsistently
injurisprudence,callCrimesandWrongs,criminaanddelicta。
Nowthepenallawofancientcommunitiesisnotthelawof
Crimes;itisthelawofWrongs,or,tousetheEnglishtechnical
word,ofTorts。Thepersoninjuredproceedsagainstthe
wrong-doerbyanordinarycivilaction,andrecoverscompensation
intheshapeofmoney-damagesifhesucceeds。IftheCommentaries
ofGaiusbeopenedattheplacewherethewritertreatsofthe
penaljurisprudencefoundedontheTwelveTables,itwillbeseen
thatattheheadofthecivilwrongsrecognisedbytheRomanlaw
stoodFurtumorTheft。Offenceswhichweareaccustomedtoregard
exclusivelyascrimesareexclusivelytreatedastorts,andnot
theftonly,butassaultandviolentrobbery,areassociatedby
thejurisconsultwithtrespass,libelandslander。Allalikegave
risetoanObligationorvinculumjuris,andwereallrequitedby
apaymentofmoney。Thispeculiarity,however,ismoststrongly
broughtoutintheconsolidatedLawsoftheGermanictribes。
Withoutanexception,theydescribeanimmensesystemofmoney
compensationsforhomicide,andwithfewexceptions,aslargea
schemeofcompensationsforminorinjuries。\"UnderAnglo-Saxon
law,\"writesMr。KembleAnglo-Saxons,i。177,\"asumwasplaced
onthelifeofeveryfreeman,accordingtohisrank,anda
correspondingsumoneverywoundthatcouldbeinflictedonhis
person,fornearlyeveryinjurythatcouldbedonetohiscivil
rights,honourorpeace;thesumbeingaggravatedaccordingto
adventitiouscircumstances。\"Thesecompositionsareevidently
regardedasavaluablesourceofincome;highlycomplexrules
regulatethetitletothemandtheresponsibilityforthem;and,
asIhavealreadyhadoccasiontostate,theyoftenfollowavery
peculiarlineofdevolution,iftheyhavenotbeenacquittedat
thedeceaseofthepersontowhomtheybelong。Ifthereforethe
criterionofadelict,wrong,ortortbethatthepersonwho
suffersit,andnottheState,isconceivedtobewronged,itmay
beassertedthatintheinfancyofjurisprudencethecitizen
dependsforprotectionagainstviolenceorfraudnotontheLaw
ofCrimebutontheLawofTort。
Tortsthenarecopiouslyenlargeduponinprimitive
jurisprudence。ItmustbeaddedthatSinsareknowntoitalso。
OftheTeutoniccodesitisalmostunnecessarytomakethis
assertion,becausethosecodes,intheforminwhichwehave
receivedthem,werecompiledorrecastbyChristianlegislators。
Butitisalsotruethatnon-Christianbodiesofarchaiclaw
entailpenalconsequencesoncertainclassesofactsandon
certainclassesofomissions,asbeingviolationsofdivine
prescriptionsandcommands。ThelawadministeredatAthensbythe
SenateofAreopaguswasprobablyaspecialreligiouscode,andat
Rome,apparentlyfromaveryearlyperiod,thePontifical
jurisprudencepunishedadultery,sacrilegeandperhapsmurder。
TherewerethereforeintheAthenianandintheRomanStateslaws
punishingsins。Therewerealsolawspunishingtorts。The
conceptionofoffenceagainstGodproducedthefirstclassof
ordinances;theconceptionofoffenceagainstone’sneighbour
producedthesecond;buttheideaofoffenceagainsttheStateor
aggregatecommunitydidnotatfirstproduceatruecriminal
jurisprudence。
Yetitisnottobesupposedthataconceptionsosimpleand
elementaryasthatofwrongdonetotheStatewaswantinginany
primitivesociety。Itseemsratherthattheverydistinctness
withwhichthisconceptionisrealisedisthetruecausewhichat
firstpreventsthegrowthofacriminallawAtallevents,when
theRomancommunityconceiveditselftobeinjured,theanalogy
ofapersonalwrongreceivedwascarriedouttoitsconsequences
withabsoluteliteralness,andtheStateavengeditselfbya
singleactontheindividualwrong-doer。Theresultwasthat,in
theinfancyofthecommonwealth,everyoffencevitallytouching
itssecurityoritsinterestswaspunishedbyaseparate
enactmentofthelegislature。Andthisistheearliestconception
ofacrimenorCrime——anactinvolvingsuchhighissuesthat
theState,insteadofleavingitscognisancetothecivil
tribunalorthereligiouscourt,directedaspeciallawor
privilegiumagainsttheperpetrator。Everyindictmenttherefore
tooktheformofabillofpainsandpenalties,andthetrialof
acriminalwasaproceedingwhollyextraordinary,wholly
irregular,whollyindependentofsettledrulesandfixed
conditions。Consequently,bothforthereasonthatthetribunal
dispensingjusticewasthesovereignstateitselfandalsofor
thereasonthatnoclassificationoftheactsprescribedor
forbiddenwaspossible,therewasnotatthisepochanyLawof
crimes,anycriminaljurisprudence。Theprocedurewasidentical
withtheformsofpassinganordinarystatute;itwassetin
motionbythesamepersonsandconductedwithpreciselythesame
solemnities。Anditistobeobservedthat,whenaregular
criminallawwithanapparatusofCourtsandofficersforits
administrationhadafterwardscomeintobeing,theoldprocedure,
asmightbesupposedfromitsconformitywiththeory,stillin
strictnessremainedpracticable;and,muchasresorttosuchan
expedientwasdiscredited,thepeopleofRomealwaysretainedthe
powerofpunishingbyaspeciallawoffencesagainstitsmajesty。
Theclassicalscholardoesnotrequiretoberemindedthatin
exactlythesamemannertheAthenianBillofPainsandPenalties,
or,survivedtheestablishmentofregulartribunals。Itisknown
toothatwhenthefreemenoftheTeutonicracesassembledfor
legislation,theyalsoclaimedauthoritytopunishoffencesof
peculiarblacknessorperpetratedbycriminalsofexalted
station。Ofthisnaturewasthecriminaljurisdictionofthe
Anglo-SaxonWitenagemot。
ItmaybethoughtthatthedifferencewhichIhaveasserted
toexistbetweentheancientandmodernviewofpenallawhas
onlyaverbalexistence。Thecommunityitmaybesaid,besides
interposingtopunishcrimeslegislatively,hasfromtheearliest
timesinterferedbyitstribunalstocompelthewrongdoerto
compoundforhiswrong,and,ifitdoesthis,itmustalwayshave
supposedthatinsomewayitwasinjuredthroughhisoffence。
But,howeverrigorousthisinferencemayseemtousnow-a-days,
itisverydoubtfulwhetheritwasactuallydrawnbythemenof
primitiveantiquity。Howlittlethenotionofinjurytothe
communityhadtodowiththeearliestinterferencesoftheState
throughitstribunals,isshownbythecuriouscircumstancesthat
intheoriginaladministrationofjustice,theproceedingswerea
closeimitationoftheseriesofactswhichwerelikelytobe
gonethroughinprivatelifebypersonswhoweredisputing,but
whoafterwardssufferedtheirquarreltobeappeased。The
magistratecarefullysimulatedthedemeanourofaprivate
arbitratorcasuallycalledin。
Inordertoshowthatthisstatementisnotamerefanciful
conceit,Iwillproducetheevidenceonwhichitrests。Veryfar
themostancientjudicialproceedingknowntousistheLegis
ActioSacramentioftheRomans,outofwhichallthelaterRoman
LawofActionsmaybeprovedtohavegrown。Gaiuscarefully
describesitsceremonial。Unmeaningandgrotesqueasitappears
atfirstsight,alittleattentionenablesustodecipherand
interpretit。
Thesubjectoflitigationissupposedtobe。inCourt。Ifit
ismoveable,itisactuallythere。Ifitbeimmoveable,a
fragmentorsampleofitisbroughtinitsplace;land,for
instance,isrepresentedbyaclod,ahousebyasinglebrick。In
theexampleselectedbyGaius,thesuitisforaslave。The
proceedingbeginsbytheplaintiff’sadvancingwitharod,which,
asGaiusexpresslytells,symbolisedaspear。Helaysholdofthe
slaveandassertsarighttohimwiththewords,\"Huncego
hominemexJureQuiritiummeumessedicosecundumsuamcausam
sicutdixi。\"andthensaying,\"EccetibiVindictamimposui,\"he
toucheshimwiththespear。Thedefendantgoesthroughthesame
seriesofactsandgestures。OnthisthePraetorintervenes,and
bidsthelitigantsrelaxtheirhold,\"Mittiteambohominem。\"They
obey,andtheplaintiffdemandsfromthedefendantthereasonof
hisinterference,\"Postuloannedicasquaexcausavindicaveris。\"
aquestionwhichisrepliedtobyafreshassertionofright,
\"Jusperegisicutvindictamimposui。\"Onthis,thefirstclaimant
offerstostakeasumofmoney,calledaSacramentum,onthe
justiceofhisowncase,\"Quandotuinjuriaprovocasti,Daeris
Sacramentoteprovoco,\"andthedefendant,inthephrase
\"Similiteregote,\"acceptsthewager。Thesubsequentproceedings
werenolongerofaformalkind,butitistobeobservedthat
thePraetortooksecurityfortheSacramentum,whichalwayswent
intothecoffersoftheState。
SuchwasthenecessaryprefaceofeveryancientRomansuit。
Itisimpossible,Ithink,torefuseassenttothesuggestionof
thosewhoseeinitadramatisationoftheOriginofJustice。Two
armedmenarewranglingaboutsomedisputedpropertyThePraetor,
virpietategravis,happenstobegoingby,andinterposesto
stopthecontest。Thedisputantsstatetheircasetohim,and
agreethatheshallarbitratebetweenthem,itbeingarranged
thattheloser,besidesresigningthesubjectofthequarrel,
shallpayasumofmoneytotheumpireasremunerationforhis
troubleandlossoftime。Thisinterpretationwouldbeless
plausiblethanitis,wereitnotthat,byasurprising
coincidence,theceremonydescribedbyGaiusastheimperative
courseofproceedinginaLegisActioissubstantiallythesame
withoneofthetwosubjectswhichtheGodHephaestusis
describedbyHomerasmouldingintotheFirstCompartmentofthe
ShieldofAchilles。IntheHomerictrial-scene,thedispute,as
ifexpresslyintendedtobringoutthecharacteristicsof
primitivesociety,isnotaboutpropertybutaboutthe
compositionforahomicide。Onepersonassertsthathehaspaid
it,theotherthathehasneverreceivedit。Thepointofdetail,
however,whichstampsthepictureasthecounterpartofthe
archaicRomanpracticeistherewarddesignedforthejudges。Two
talentsofgoldlieinthemiddle,tobegiventohimwhoshall
explainthegroundsofthedecisionmosttothesatisfactionof
theaudience,Themagnitudeofthissumascomparedwiththe
triflingamountoftheSacramentumseemstomeindicativeofthe
indifferencebetweenfluctuatingusageandusageconsolidated
intolaw。Thesceneintroducedbythepoetasastrikingand
characteristic,butstillonlyoccasional,featureofcity-life
intheheroicagehasstiffened,attheopeningofthehistory。
ofcivilprocess,intotheregular,ordinaryformalitiesofa
lawsuit。ItisnaturalthereforethatintheLegisActiothe
remunerationoftheJudgeshouldbereducedtoareasonablesum,
andthat,insteadofbeingadjudgedtooneofanumberof
arbitratorsbypopularacclamation,itshouldbepaidasamatter
ofcoursetotheStatewhichthePraetorrepresents。Butthatthe
incidentsdescribedsovividlybyhomer,andbyGaiuswitheven
morethantheusualcrudityoftechnicallanguage,have
substantiallythesamemeaning,Icannotdoubt;and,in
confirmationofthisview,itmaybeaddedthatmanyobserversof
theearliestjudicialusagesofmodernEuropehaveremarkedthat
thefinesinflictedbyCourtsonoffenderswereoriginally
sacramenta。TheStatedidnottakefromthedefendanta
compositionforanywrongsupposedtobedonetoitself,but
claimedashareinthecompensationawardedtotheplaintiff
simplyasthefairpriceofitstimeandtrouble。Mr。Kemble
expresslyassignsthischaractertotheAnglo-Saxonbannumor
fredum。
Ancientlawfurnishesotherproofsthattheearliest
administratorsofjusticesimulatedtheprobableactsofpersons
engagedinaprivatequarrel。Insettlingthedamagestobe
awarded,theytookastheirguidethemeasureofvengeancelikely
tobeexactedbyanaggrievedpersonunderthecircumstancesof
thecase。Thisisthetrueexplanationoftheverydifferent
penaltiesimposedbyancientlawonoffenderscaughtintheact
orsoonafteritandonoffendersdetectedafterconsiderable
delaysomestrangeexemplificationsofthispeculiarityare
suppliedbytheoldRomanlawofTheft。TheLawsoftheTwelve
TablesseemtohavedividedTheftsintoManifestand
Non-Manifest,andtohaveallotted。extraordinarilydifferent
penaltiestotheoffenceaccordingasitfellunderoneheador
theother。TheManifestThiefwashewhowascaughtwithinthe
houseinwhichhehadbeenpilfering,orwhowastakenwhile
makingofftoaplaceofsafetywiththestolengoods;theTwelve
Tablescondemnedhimtobeputtodeathifhewerealreadya
slave,and,ifhewasafreeman,theymadehimthebondsmanof
theowneroftheproperty。TheNon-ManifestThiefwashewhowas
detectedunderanyothercircumstancesthanthosedescribed;and
theoldcodesimplydirectedthatanoffenderofthissortshould
refunddoublethevalueofwhathehadstolen。InGaius’sdaythe
excessiveseverityoftheTwelveTablestotheManifestThiefhad
naturallybeenmuchmitigated,butthelawstillmaintainedthe
oldprinciplebymulctinghiminfourfoldthevalueofthestolen
goods,whiletheNon-ManifestThiefstillcontinuedtopaymerely
thedouble。Theancientlawgiverdoubtlessconsideredthatthe
injuredproprietor,iflefttohimself,wouldinflictavery
differentpunishmentwhenhisbloodwashotfromthatwithwhich
hewouldbesatisfiedwhentheThiefwasdetectedaftera
considerableinterval;andtothiscalculationthelegalscaleof
penaltieswasadjusted。Theprincipleispreciselythesameas
thatfollowedintheAnglo-SaxonandotherGermaniccodes,when
theysufferathiefchaseddownandcaughtwiththebootytobe
hangedordecapitatedonthespot,whiletheyexactthefull
penaltiesofhomicidefromanybodywhokillshimafterthe
pursuithasbeenintermitted。Thesearchaicdistinctionsbring
hometousveryforciblythedistanceofarefinedfromarude
jurisprudence。Themodemadministratorofjusticehasconfessedly
oneofthehardesttasksbeforehimwhenheundertakesto
discriminatebetweenthedegreesofcriminalitywhichbelongto
offencesfallingwithinthesametechnicaldescription。Itis
alwayseasytosaythatamanisguiltyofmanslaughter,larceny,
orbigamy,butitisoftenmostdifficulttopronouncewhat
extentofmoralguilthehasincurred,andconsequentlywhat
measureofpunishmenthehasdeserved。Thereishardlyany
perplexityincasuistry,orintheanalysisofmotive,whichwe
maynotbecalledupontoconfront,ifweattempttosettlesuch
apointwithprecision;andaccordinglythelawofourdayshows
anincreasingtendencytoabstainasmuchaspossiblefromlaying
downpositiverulesonthesubject。InFrance,thejuryisleft
todecidewhethertheoffencewhichitfindscommittedhasbeen
attendedbyextenuatingcircumstances;inEngland,anearly
unboundedlatitudeintheselectionofpunishmentsisnowallowed
tothejudge;whileallStateshaveinreserveanultimateremedy
forthemiscarriagesoflawinthePrerogativeofPardon,
universallylodgedwiththeChiefMagistrate。Itiscuriousto
observehowlittlethemenofprimitivetimesweretroubledwith
thesescruples,howcompletelytheywerepersuadedthatthe
impulsesoftheinjuredpersonwerethepropermeasureofthe
vengeancehewasentitledtoexact,andhowliterallythey
imitatedtheprobableriseandfallofhispassionsinfixing
theirscaleofpunishment。Iwishitcouldbesaidthattheir
methodoflegislationisquiteextinct。Thereare,however,
severalmodernsystemsoflawwhich,incasesofgraverwrong,
admitthefactofthewrongdoerleavingbeentakenintheactto
bepleadedinjustificationofinordinatepunishmentinflictedon
thembythesufferer-anindulgencewhich,thoughsuperficially
regardeditmayseemintelligible,isbased,asitseemstome,
onaverylowmorality。
Nothing,Ihavesaid,canbesimplerthantheconsiderations
whichultimatelyledancientsocietiestotheformationofatrue
criminaljurisprudence。TheStateconceiveditselftobewronged,
andthePopularAssemblystruckstraightattheoffenderwiththe
samemovementwhichaccompanieditslegislativeaction。itis
furthertrueoftheancientworldthoughnotpreciselyofthe
modern,asIshallhaveoccasiontopointout——thatthe
earliestcriminaltribunalsweremerelysubdivisions,or
committees,ofthelegislature。This,atallevents,isthe
conclusionpointedatbythelegalhistoryofthetwogreat
statesofantiquity,withtolerableclearnessinonecase,and
withabsolutedistinctnessintheother。Theprimitivepenallaw
ofAthensentrustedthecastigationofoffencespartlytothe
Archons,whoseemtohavepunishedthemastorts,andpartlyto
theSenateofAreopagus,whichpunishedthemassins。Both
jurisdictionsweresubstantiallytransferredintheendtothe
Heliaea,theHighCourtofPopularJustice,andthefunctionsof
theArchonsandoftheAreopagusbecameeithermerelyministerial
orquiteinsignificant。But\"Heliaea\"isonlyanoldwordfor
Assembly;theHeliaeaofclassicaltimeswassimplythePopular
Assemblyconvenedforjudicialpurposes,andthefamous
DikasteriesofAthenswereonlyitssubdivisionsorpanels。The
correspondingchangeswhichoccurredatRomearestillmore
easilyinterpreted,becausetheRomansconfinedtheirexperiments
tothepenallaw,anddidnot,liketheAthenians,construct
popularcourtswithacivilaswellasacriminaljurisdiction。
ThehistoryofRomancriminaljurisprudencebeginswiththeold
JudiciaPopuli,atwhichtheKingsaresaidtohavepresided。
Theseweresimplysolemntrialsofgreatoffendersunder
legislativeforms。Itseems,howeverthatfromanearlyperiod
theComitiahadoccasionallydelegateditscriminaljurisdiction
toaQuaestioorCommission,whichboremuchthesamerelationto
theAssemblyasaCommitteeoftheHouseofCommonsbearstothe
Houseitself,exceptthattheRomanCommissionersorQuaestores
didnotmerelyreporttotheComitia,butexercisedallpowers
whichthatbodywasitselfinthehabitofexercising,evento
thepassingsentenceontheAccused。AQuaestioofthissortwas
onlyappointedtotryaparticularoffender,buttherewas
nothingtopreventtwoorthreeQuaestionessittingatthesame
time;anditisprobablethatseveralofthemwereappointed
simultaneously,whenseveralgravecasesofwrongtothe
communityhadoccurredtogether。Therearealsoindicationsthat
nowandthentheseQuaestionesapproachedthecharacterofour
StandingCommittees,inthattheywereappointedperiodically,
andwithoutwaitingforoccasiontoariseinthecommissionof
someseriouscrime。TheoldQuaestoresParricidii,whoare
mentionedinconnectionwithtransactionsofveryancientdate,
asbeingdeputedtotryor,assometakeit,tosearchoutand
tryallcasesofparicideandmurder,seemtohavebeen
appointedregularlyeveryyear;andtheDuumviriPerduellionis,
orCommissionofTwofortrialofviolentinjurytothe
Commonwealth,arealsobelievedbymostwriterstohavebeen
namedperiodically。Thedelegationsofpowertotheselatter
functionariesbringussomewayforwards。insteadofbeing
appointedwhenandasstate-offenceswerecommitted,theyhada
general,thoughatemporaryjurisdictionoversuchasmightbe
perpetrated。Ourproximitytoaregularcriminaljurisprudenceis
alsoindicatedbythegeneralterms\"Parricidium\"and
\"Perduellio\"whichmarktheapproachtosomethinglikea
classificationofcrimes。
Thetruecriminallawdidnothowevercomeintoexistence
tilltheyearB。C。149,whenL。CalpurniusPisocarriedthe
statuteknownastheLexCalpurniadeRepetundis。Thelawapplied
tocasesRepetundarumPecuniarum,thatis,claimsbyProvincials
torecovermoniesimproperlyreceivedbyaGovernor-General,but
thegreatandpermanentimportanceofthisstatutearosefromits
establishingthefirstQuaestioPerpetua。AQuaestioPerpetuawas
aPermanentCommissionasopposedtothosewhichwereoccasional
andtothosewhichweretemporary。Itwasaregularcriminal
tribunalwhoseexistencedatedfromthepassingofthestatute
creatingitandcontinuedtillanotherstatuteshouldpass
abolishingit。Itsmemberswerenotspeciallynominated,aswere
themembersoftheolderQuaestiones,butprovisionwasmadein
thelawconstitutingitforselectingfromparticularclassesthe
judgeswhoweretoofficiate,andforrenewingtheminconformity
withdefiniterules。Theoffencesofwhichittookcognisance
werealsoexpresslynamedanddefinedinthisstatute,andthe
newQuaestiohadauthoritytotryandsentenceallpersonsin
futurewhoseactsshouldfallunderthedefinitionsofcrime
suppliedbythelaw。Itwasthereforearegularcriminal
judicature,administeringatruecriminaljurisprudence。
Theprimitivehistoryofcriminallawdividesitself
thereforeintofourstages。Understandingthattheconceptionof
Crime,asdistinguishedfromthatofWrongorTortandfromthat
ofSin,involvestheideaofinjurytotheStateorcollective
community,wefirstfindthatthecommonwealth,inliteral
conformitywiththeconception,itselfinterposeddirectly,and
byisolatedacts,toavengeitselfontheauthoroftheevil
whichithadsuffered。Thisisthepointfromwhichwestart;
eachindictmentisnowabillofpainsandpenalties,aspecial
lawnamingthecriminalandprescribinghispunishment。Asecond
stepisaccomplished,whenthemultiplicityofcrimescompelsthe
legislaturetodelegateitspowerstoparticularQuaestionesor
Commissions,eachofwhichisdeputedtoinvestigateaparticular
accusation,andifitbeproved,topunishtheparticular
offender。Yetanothermovementismadewhenthelegislature,
insteadofwaitingfortheallegedcommissionofacrimeasthe
occasionofappointingaQuaestio,periodicallynominates
CommissionersliketheQuaestoresParricidiiandtheDuumviri
Perduellionis,onthechanceofcertainclassesofcrimesbeing
committed,andintheexpectationthattheywillbeperpetrated。
ThelaststageisreachedwhentheQuaestionesfrombeing
periodicaloroccasionalbecomepermanentBenchesor
Chambers-whenthejudges,insteadofbeingnamedinthe
particularlawnominatingtheCommission,aredirectedtobe
chosenthroughallfuturetimeinaparticularwayandfroma
particularclassandwhencertainactsaredescribedingeneral
languageanddeclaredtobecrimes,tobevisited,intheevent
oftheirperpetration,withspecifiedpenaltiesappropriatedto
eachdescription。
IftheQuaestionesPerpetuaehadhadalongerhistory,they
woulddoubtlesshavecometoberegardedasadistinct
institution,andtheirrelationtotheComitiawouldhaveseemed
nocloserthantheconnectionofourownCourtsofLawwiththe
Sovereign,whoistheoreticallythefountainofjustice。Butthe
imperialdespotismdestroyedthembeforetheiroriginhadbeen
completelyforgotten,and,solongastheylasted,these
PermanentCommissionswerelookeduponbytheRomansasthemere
depositariesofadelegatedpower。Thecognisanceofcrimeswas
consideredanaturalattributeofthelegislature,andthemind
ofthecitizenneverceasedtobecarriedbackfromthe
Quaestiones,totheComitiawhichhaddeputedthemtoputinto
exercisesomeofitsowninalienablefunctions。Theviewwhich
regardedtheQuaestiones,evenwhentheybecamepermanent,as
mereCommitteesofthePopularAssembly——asbodieswhichonly
ministeredtoahigherauthority——hadsomeimportantlegal
consequenceswhichlefttheirmarkonthecriminallawtothe
verylatestperiod。OneimmediateresultwasthattheComitia
continuedtoexercisecriminaljurisdictionbywayofbillof
painsandpenalties,longaftertheQuaestioneshadbeen
established。Thoughthelegislaturehadconsentedtodelegateits
powersforthesakeofconveniencetobodiesexternaltoitself,
itdidnotfollowthatitsurrenderedthem。TheComitiaandthe
Quaestioneswentontryingandpunishingoffenderssidebyside;
andanyunusualoutburstofpopularindignationwassure,until
theextinctionoftheRepublic,tocalldownuponitsobjectan
indictmentbeforetheAssemblyoftheTribes。
Oneofthemostremarkablepeculiaritiesoftheinstitutions
oftheRepublicisalsotraceabletothisdependanceofthe
QuaestionesontheComitia。Thedisappearanceofthepunishment
ofdeathfromthepenalsystemofRepublicanRomeusedtobea
veryfavouritetopicwiththewritersofthelastcentury,who
wereperpetuallyusingittopointsometheoryoftheRoman
characterorofmodemsocialeconomyThereasonwhichcanbe
confidentlyassignedforitstampsitaspurelyfortuitous。Of
thethreeformswhichtheRomanlegislaturesuccessivelyassumed,
one,itiswellknown-theComitiaCenturiata——wasexclusively
takentorepresenttheStateasembodiedformilitaryoperations。
TheAssemblyoftheCenturies,therefore,hadallpowerswhich
maybesupposedtobeproperlylodgedwithaGeneralcommanding
anarmy,and,amongthem,ithadauthoritytosubjectall
offenderstothesamecorrectiontowhichasoldierrendered
himselfliablebybreachesofdiscipline。TheComitiaCenturiata
couldthereforeinflictcapitalpunishment。Notso,however,the
ComitiaCuriataorComitiaTributa,Theywerefetteredonthis
pointbythesacrednesswithwhichthepersonofaRomancitizen,
insidethewallsofthecity,wasinvestedbyreligionandlaw;
and,withrespecttothelastofthem,theComitiaTributa,we
knowforcertainthatitbecameafixedprinciplethatthe
AssemblyoftheTribescouldatmostimposeafine。Solongas
criminaljurisdictionwasconfinedtothelegislature,andso
longastheassembliesofthecenturiesandoftheTribes
continuedtoexerciseco-ordinatepowers,itwaseasytoprefer
indictmentsforgravercrimesbeforethelegislativebodywhich
dispensedtheheavierpenalties;butthenithappenedthatthe
moredemocraticassembly,thatoftheTribes,almostentirely
supersededtheothers,andbecametheordinarylegislatureofthe
laterRepublic。NowthedeclineoftheRepublicwasexactlythe
periodduringwhichtheQuaestionesPerpetuaewereestablished,
sothatthestatutescreatingthemwereallpassedbya
legislativeassemblywhichitselfcouldnot,atitsordinary
sittings,punishacriminalwithdeath。Itfollowedthatthe
PermanentjudicialCommissions,holdingadelegatedauthority,
werecircumscribedintheirattributesandcapacitiesbythe
limitsofthepowersresidingwiththebodywhichdeputedthem。
TheycoulddonothingwhichtheAssemblyoftheTribescouldnot
havedone;and,astheAssemblycouldnotsentencetodeath,the
Quaestioneswereequallyincompetenttoawardcapitalpunishment。
Theanomalythusresultingwasnotviewedinancienttimeswith
anythinglikethefavourwhichithasattractedamongthe
moderns,andindeed,whileitisquestionablewhethertheRoman
characterwasatallthebetterforit,itiscertainthatthe
RomanConstitutionwasagreatdealtheworse。Likeeveryother
institutionwhichhasaccompaniedthehumanracedownthecurrent
ofitshistory,thepunishmentofdeathisanecessityofsociety
incertainstagesofthecivilisingprocess。Thereisatimewhen
theattempttodispensewithitbaulksbothofthetwogreat
instinctswhichlieattherootofallpenallaw。Withoutit,the
communityneitherfeelsthatitissufficientlyrevengedonthe
criminal,northinksthattheexampleofhispunishmentis
adequatetodeterothersfromimitatinghim。Theincompetenceof
theRomanTribunalstopasssentenceofdeathleddistinctlyand
directlytothosefrightfulRevolutionaryintervals,knownasthe
Proscriptions,duringwhichalllawwasformallysuspendedsimply
becausepartyviolencecouldfindnootheravenuetothe
vengeanceforwhichitwasthirsting。Nocausecontributedso
powerfullytothedecayofpoliticalcapacityintheRomanpeople
asthisperiodicalabeyanceofthelaws;and,whenithadonce
beenresortedto,weneednothesitatetoassertthattheruinof
Romanlibertybecamemerelyaquestionoftime。Ifthepractice
oftheTribunalshadaffordedanadequateventforpopular
passion,theformsofjudiciAlprocedurewouldnodoubthavebeen
asflagrantlypervertedaswithusinthereignsofthelater
Stuarts,butnationalcharacterwouldnothavesufferedasdeeply
asitdid,norwouldthestabilityofRomaninstitutionshave
beenasseriouslyenfeebled。
IwillmentiontwomoresingularitiesoftheRomanCriminal
Systemwhichwereproducedbythesametheoryofjudicial
authority。Theyare,theextrememultiplicityoftheRoman
criminaltribunals,andthecapriciousandanomalous
classificationofcrimeswhichcharacterisedRomanpenal
jurisprudencethroughoutitsentirehistory。EveryQuaestio,it
hasbeensaid,whetherPerpetualorotherwise,haditsoriginin
adistinctstatute。Fromthelawwhichcreatedit,itderivedits
authority;itrigorouslyobservedthelimitswhichitscharter
prescribedtoit,andtouchednoformofcriminalitywhichthat
charterdidnotexpresslydefine。Asthenthestatuteswhich
constitutedthevariousQuaestioneswereallcalledforthby
particularemergencies,eachofthembeinginfactpassedto
punishaclassofactswhichthecircumstancesofthetime
renderedparticularlyodiousorparticularlydangerous,these
enactmentsmadenottheslightestreferencetoeachother,and
wereconnectedbynocommonprinciple。Twentyorthirtydifferent
criminallawswereinexistencetogether,withexactlythesame
numberofQuaestionestoadministerthem;norwasanyattempt
madeduringtheRepublictofusethesedistinctjudicialbodies
intoone,ortogivesymmetrytotheprovisionsofthestatutes
whichappointedthemanddefinedtheirduties。Thestateofthe
Romancriminaljurisdictionatthisperiod,exhibitedsome
resemblancestotheadministrationofcivilremediesinEngland
atthetimewhentheEnglishCourtsofCommonLawhadnotasyet
introducedthosefictitiousavermentsintotheirwritswhich
enabledthemtotrespassoneachother’speculiarprovince。Like
theQuaestiones,theCourtsofQueen’sBench,CommonPleas,and
Exchequerwerealltheoreticalemanationsfromahigher
authority,andeachentertainedaspecialclassofcasessupposed
tobecommittedtoitbythefountainofitsjurisdiction;but
thentheRomanQuaestionesweremanymorethanthreeinnumber,
anditwasinfinitelylesseasytodiscriminatetheactswhich
fellunderthecognisanceofeachQuaestio,thantodistinguish
betweentheprovincesofthethreeCourtsinWestminsterHall。
Thedifficultyofdrawingexactlinesbetweenthespheresofthe
differentQuaestionesmadethemultiplicityofRomantribunals
somethingmorethanamereinconvenience;forwereadwith
astonishmentthatwhenitwasnotimmediatelyclearunderwhat
generaldescriptionaman’sallegedoffencesrangedthemselves,
hemightbeindictedatonceorsuccessivelybeforeseveral
differentCommissions,onthechanceofsomeoneofthem
declaringitselfcompetenttoconvicthim;and,although
convictionbyoneQuaestiooustedthejurisdictionoftherest,
acquittalbyoneofthemcouldnotbepleadedtoanaccusation
beforeanother。Thiswasdirectlycontrarytotheruleofthe
Romancivillaw;andwemaybesurethatapeoplesosensitiveas
theRomanstoanomaliesor,astheirsignificantphrasewas,to
ineleganciesinjurisprudence,wouldnotlonghavetoleratedit,
hadnotthemelancholyhistoryoftheQuaestionescausedthemto
beregardedmuchmoreastemporaryweaponsinthehandsof
factionsthanaspermanentinstitutionsforthecorrectionof
crime。TheEmperorssoonabolishedthismultiplicityandconflict
ofjurisdiction;butitisremarkablethattheydidnotremove
anothersingularityofthecriminallawwhichstandsinclose
connectionwiththenumberoftheCourts。Theclassificationsof
crimeswhicharecontainedevenintheCorpusJurisofJustinian
areremarkablycapricious。EachQuaestiohad,infact,confined
itselftothecrimescommittedtoitscognisancebyitscharter。
Thesecrimes,however,wereonlyclassedtogetherintheoriginal
statutebecausetheyhappenedtocallsimultaneouslyfor
castigationatthemomentofpassingit。Theyhadnottherefore
anythingnecessarilyincommon;butthefactoftheir
constitutingtheparticularsubject-matteroftrialsbeforea
particularQuaestioimpresseditselfnaturallyonthepublic
attention,andsoinveteratedidtheassociationbecomebetween
theoffencesmentionedinthesamestatutethat,evenwhenformal
attemptsweremadebySyllaandbytheEmperorAugustusto
consolidatetheRomancriminallawthelegislatorpreservedthe
oldgrouping。TheStatutesofSyllaandAugustuswerethe
foundationofthepenaljurisprudenceoftheEmpire,andnothing
canbemoreextraordinarythansomeoftheclassificationswhich
theybequeathedtoit。Ineedonlygiveasingleexampleinthe
factthatperjurywasalwaysclassedwithcuttingandwounding
andwithpoisoning,nodoubtbecausealawofSylla,theLex
CorneliadeSicariisetVeneficis,hadgivenjurisdictionover
allthesethreeformsofcrimetothesamePermanentCommission。
Itseemstoothatthiscapriciousgroupingofcrimesaffectedthe
vernacularspeechoftheRomans。Peoplenaturallyfellintothe
habitofdesignatingalltheoffencesenumeratedinonelawby
thefirstnameonthelist,whichdoubtlessgaveitsstyletothe
LawCourtdeputedtotrythemall。Alltheoffencestriedbythe
QuaestioDeAdulteriiswouldthusbecalledAdultery。
IhavedweltonthehistoryandcharacteristicsoftheRoman
Quaestionesbecausetheformationofacriminaljurisprudenceis
nowhereelsesoinstructivelyexemplified。ThelastQuaestiones
wereaddedbytheEmperorAugustus,andfromthattimetheRomans
maybesaidtohavehadatolerablycompletecriminallaw。
Concurrentlywithitsgrowth,theanalogousprocesshadgoneon,
whichIhavecalledtheconversionofWrongsintoCrimes,for
thoughtheRomanlegislaturedidnotextinguishthecivil,remedy
forthemoreheinousoffences,itofferedthesuffereraredress
whichhewassuretoprefer。Still,evenafterAugustushad
completedhislegislation,severaloffencescontinuedtobe
regardedasWrongs,whichmodernsocietieslookuponexclusively
asCrimes;nordidtheybecomecriminallypunishabletillsome
latebutuncertaindate,atwhichthelawbegantotakenoticeof
anewdescriptionofoffencescalledintheDigestcrimina
extraordinaria。Theseweredoubtlessaclassofactswhichthe
theoryofRomanjurisprudencetreatedmerelyaswrongs;butthe
growingsenseofthemajestyofsocietyrevoltedfromtheir
entailingnothingworseontheirperpetratorthanthepaymentof
moneydamages,andaccordinglytheinjuredpersonseemstohave
beenpermitted,ifhepleased,topursuethemascrimesextra
ordinem,thatisbyamodeofredressdepartinginsomerespect
orotherfromtheordinaryprocedure。Fromthisperiodatwhich
thesecriminaextraordinariawerefirstrecognised,thelistof
crimesintheRomanStatemusthavebeenaslongasinany
communityofthemodernworld。
Itisunnecessarytodescribewithanyminutenessthemodeof
administeringcriminaljusticeundertheRomanEmpire,butitis
tobenotedthatbothitstheoryandpracticehavehadpowerful
effectonmodernsociety。TheEmperorsdidnotimmediately
abolishtheQuaestiones,andatfirsttheycommittedanextensive
criminaljurisdictiontotheSenate,inwhich,howeverservileit
mightshowitselfinfact,theEmperorwasnomorenominally。
thanaSenatorliketherest。Butsomesortofcollateral
criminaljurisdictionhadbeenclaimedbythePrincefromthe
first;andthis,asrecollectionsofthefreecommonwealth
decayed,tendedsteadilytogainattheexpenseoftheold
tribunals。Graduallythepunishmentofcrimeswastransferredto
magistratesdirectlynominatedbytheEmperorandtheprivileges
oftheSenatepassedtotheImperialPrivyCouncil,whichalso
becameaCourtofultimatecriminalappeal。Underthese
influencesthedoctrine,familiartothemoderns,insensibly
shapeditselfthattheSovereignisthefountainofallJustice
andthedepositaryofallGrace。Itwasnotsomuchthefruitof
increasingadulationandservilityasofthecentralisationof
theEmpirewhichhadbythistimeperfecteditself。Thetheoryof
criminaljusticehad,infact,workedroundalmosttothepoint
fromwhichitstarted。Ithadbeguninthebeliefthatitwasthe
businessofthecollectivecommunitytoavengeitsownwrongsby
itsownhand;anditendedinthedoctrinethatthechastisement
ofcrimesbelongedinanespecialmannertotheSovereignas
representativeandmandataryofhispeople。Thenewviewdiffered
fromtheoldonechieflyintheairofawfulnessandmajesty
whichtheguardianshipofjusticeappearedtothrowaroundthe
personoftheSovereign。
ThislaterRomanviewoftheSovereign’srelationtojustice
certainlyassistedinsavingmodernsocietiesfromthenecessity
oftravellingthroughtheseriesofchangeswhichIhave
illustratedbythehistoryoftheQuaestiones。Intheprimitive
lawofalmostalltheraceswhichhavepeopledWesternEurope
therearevestigesofthearchaicnotionthatthepunishmentof
crimesbelongstothegeneralassemblyoffreemen;andthereare
someStates——Scotlandissaidtobeoneofthem——inwhichthe
parentageoftheexistingjudicaturecanbetraceduptoa
Committeeofthelegislativebody。Butthedevelopmentofthe
criminallawwasuniversallyhastenedbytwocauses,thememory
oftheRomanEmpireandtheinfluenceoftheChurch。Ontheone
handtraditionsofthemajestyoftheCaesars,perpetuatedbythe
temporaryascendencyoftheHouseofCharlemagne,were
surroundingSovereignswithaprestigewhichamerebarbarous
chieftaincouldneverotherwisehaveacquiredandwere
communicatingtothepettiestfeudalpotentatethecharacterof
guardianofsocietyandrepresentativeoftheState。Ontheother
hand,theChurch,initsanxietytoputacurbonsanguinary
ferocity,soughtaboutforauthoritytopunishthegraver
misdeeds,andfounditinthosepassagesofScripturewhichspeak
withapprovalofthepowersofpunishmentcommittedtothecivil
magistrate。TheNewTestamentwasappealedtoasprovingthat
secularrulersexistfortheterrorofevildoers;theOld
Testament,aslayingdownthat\"Whososheddethman’sblood,by
manshallhisbloodbeshed。\"Therecanbenodoubt,Iimagine,
thatmodernideasonthesubjectofcrimearebasedupontwo
assumptionscontendedforbytheChurchintheDarkAges-first,
thateachfeudalruler,inhisdegree,mightbeassimilatedto
theRomanMagistratesspokenofbySaintPaul;andnext,thatthe
offenceswhichhewastochastisewerethoseselectedfor
prohibitionintheMosaicCommandments,orrathersuchofthemas
theChurchdidnotreservetoherowncognisance。Heresy
supposedtobeincludedintheFirstandSecondCommandments,
Adultery,andPerjurywereecclesiasticaloffences,andthe
Churchonlyadmittedtheco-operationoftheseculararmforthe
purposeofinflictingsevererpunishmentincasesof
extraordinaryaggravation。Atthesametime,shetaughtthat
murderandrobberywiththeirvariousmodificationswereunder
thejurisdictionofcivilrulers,notasanaccidentoftheir
positionbutbytheexpressordinanceofGod。
ThereisapassageinthewritingsofKingAlfredKemble,
ii。209whichbringsoutintoremarkableclearnessthestruggle
ofthevariousideasthatprevailedinhisdayastotheorigin
ofcriminaljurisdiction。ItwillbeseenthatAlfredattributes
itpartlytotheauthorityoftheChurchandpartlytothatof
theWitan,whileheexpresslyclaimsfortreasonagainstthelord
thesameimmunityfromordinaryruleswhichtheRomanLawof
MajestashadassignedtotreasonagainsttheCaesar。\"Afterthis
ithappened,\"hewrites,\"thatmanynationsreceivedthefaithof
Christ,andthereweremanysynodsassembledthroughoutthe
earth,andamongtheEnglishracealsoaftertheyhadreceived
thefaithofChrist,bothofholybishopsandoftheirexalted
Witan。Theythenordainedthat,outofthatmercywhichChrist
hadtaught,secularlords,withtheirleave,mightwithoutsin
takeforeverymisdeedthebotinmoneywhichtheyordained;
exceptincasesoftreasonagainstalord,towhichtheydared
notassignanymercybecauseAlmightyGodadjudgednonetothem
thatdespisedHim,nordidChristadjudgeanytothemwhichsold
Himtodeath;andHecommandedthatalordshouldbelovedlike
Himself。\"
End