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。