Chapter9
　　TheEarlyHistoryofContractTherearefewgeneralpropositionsconcerningtheagetowhichwebelongwhichseematfirstsightlikelytobereceivedwithreadierconcurrencethantheassertionthatthesocietyofourdayismainlydistinguishedfromthatofprecedinggenerationsbythelargenessofthespherewhichisoccupiedinitbyContract。Someofthephenomenaonwhichthispropositionrestsareamongthosemostfrequentlysingledoutfornotice，forcomment，andforeulogy。Notmanyofusaresounobservantasnottoperceivethatininnumerablecaseswhereoldlawfixedaman’ssocialpositionirreversiblyathisbirth，modernlawallowshimtocreateitforhimselfbyconvention；andindeedseveralofthefewexceptionswhichremaintothisruleareconstantlydenouncedwithpassionateindignation。Thepoint，forinstance，whichisreallydebatedinthevigorouscontroversystillcarriedonuponthesubjectofnegroservitude，iswhetherthestatusoftheslavedoesnotbelongtobygoneinstitutions，andwhethertheonlyrelationbetweenemployerandlabourerwhichcommendsitselftomodernmoralitybenotarelationdeterminedexclusivelybycontract。Therecognitionofthisdifferencebetweenpastagesandthepresententersintotheveryessenceofthemostfamouscontemporaryspeculations。ItiscertainthatthescienceofPoliticalEconomy，theonlydepartmentofmoralinquirywhichhasmadeanyconsiderableprogressinourday，wouldfailtocorrespondwiththefactsoflifeifitwerenottruethatImperativeLawhadabandonedthelargestpartofthefieldwhichitonceoccupied，andhadleftmentosettlerulesofconductforthemselveswithalibertyneverallowedtothemtillrecently。
　　Thebiasindeedofmostpersonstrainedinpoliticaleconomyistoconsiderthegeneraltruthonwhichtheirsciencereposesasentitledtobecomeuniversal，and，whentheyapplyitasanart，theireffortsareordinarilydirectedtoenlargingtheprovinceofContractandtocurtailingthatofImperativeLaw，exceptsofaraslawisnecessarytoenforcetheperformanceofContracts。
　　TheimpulsegivenbythinkerswhoareundertheinfluenceoftheseideasisbeginningtobeverystronglyfeltintheWesternworld。Legislationhasnearlyconfesseditsinabilitytokeeppacewiththeactivityofmanindiscovery，ininvention，andinthemanipulationofaccumulatedwealth；andthelawevenoftheleastadvancedcommunitiestendsmoreandmoretobecomeameresurface-stratumhavingunderitaneverchangingassemblageofcontractualruleswithwhichitrarelyinterferesexcepttocompelcompliancewithafewfundamentalprinciplesorunlessitbecalledintopunishtheviolationofgoodfaith。
　　Socialinquiries，sofarastheydependontheconsiderationoflegalphenomena，areinsobackwardaconditionthatweneednotbesurprisedatnotfindingthesetruthrecognisedinthecommonplaceswhichpasscurrentconcerningtheprogressofsociety。Thesecommonplacesanswermuchmoretoourprejudicesthantoourconvictions。ThestrongdisinclinationofmostmentoregardmoralityasadvancingseemstobeespeciallypowerfulwhenthevirtuesonwhichContractdependsareinquestion，andmanyofushavealmostinstinctivereluctancetoadmittingthatgoodfaithandtrustinourfellowsaremorewidelydiffusedthanofold，orthatthereisanythingincontemporarymannerswhichparallelstheLoyaltyoftheantiqueworld。Fromtimetotime，theseprepossessionsaregreatlystrengthenedbythespectacleoffrauds，unheardofbeforetheperiodatwhichtheywereobserved，andastonishingfromtheircomplicationaswellasshockingfromcriminality。Buttheverycharacterofthesefraudsshowsclearlythat，beforetheybecamepossible，themoralobligationsofwhichtheyarethebreachmusthavebeenmorethanproportionatelydeveloped。Itistheconfidencereposedanddeservedbythemanywhichaffordsfacilitiesforthebadfaithofthefew，sothat，ifcolossalexamplesofdishonestyoccur，thereisnosurerinclusionthanthatscrupuloushonestyisdisplayedintheaverageofthetransactionswhich，intheparticularcase，havesuppliedthedelinquentwithhisopportunity。Ifweinsistonreadingthehistoryofmoralityasreflectedinjurisprudence，byturningoureyesnotonthelawofContractbutonthelawofCrime，wemustbecarefulthatwereaditaright。TheonlyformofdishonestytreatedofinthemostancientRomanlawisTheft。
　　AtthemomentatwhichIwrite，thenewestchapterintheEnglishcriminallawisonewhichattemptstoprescribepunishmentforthefraudsofTrustees。TheproperinferencefromthiscontrastisnotthattheprimitiveRomanspractisedahighermoralitythanourselves。Weshouldrathersaythat，intheintervalbetweentheirdaysandours，moralityhasadvancedfromaveryrudetoahighlyrefinedconceptionfromviewingtherightsofpropertyasexclusivelysacred，tolookingupontherightsgrowingoutofthemereunilateralreposalofconfidenceasentitledtotheprotectionofthepenallaw。
　　Thedefinitetheoriesofjuristsarescarcelynearerthetruthinthispointthantheopinionsofthemultitude。TobeginwiththeviewsoftheRomanlawyers，wefindtheminconsistentwiththetruehistoryofmoralandlegalprogress。Oneclassofcontracts，inwhichtheplightedfaithofthecontractingpartieswastheonlymaterialingredient，theyspecificallydenominatedContractsjurisgentium，andthoughthesecontractswereundoubtedlythelatestbornintotheRomansystem，theexpressionemployedimplies，ifadefinitemeaningbeextractedfromit，thattheyweremoreancientthancertainotherformsofengagementtreatedofinRomanlaw，inwhichtheneglectofameretechnicalformalitywasasfataltotheobligationasmisunderstandingordeceit。Butthentheantiquitytowhichtheywerereferredwasvague，shadowy，andonlycapableofbeingunderstoodthroughthePresent；norwasituntilthelanguageoftheRomanlawyersbecamethelanguageofanagewhichhadlostthekeytotheirmodeofthoughtthata"ContractoftheLawofNations"cametobedistinctlylookeduponasaContractknowntomaninaStateofNature。Rousseauadoptedboththejuridicalandthepopularerror。IntheDissertationontheeffectsofArtandScienceuponMorals，thefirstofhisworkswhichattractedattentionandtheoneinwhichhestatesmostunreservedlytheopinionswhichmadehimthefounderofasect，theveracityandgoodfaithattributedtotheancientPersiansarerepeatedlypointedoutastraitsofprimitiveinnocencewhichhavebeengraduallyobliteratedbycivilisation；andatalaterperiodhefoundabasisforallhisspeculationsinthedoctrineofanoriginalSocialContract。TheSocialContractorCompactisthemostsystematicformwhichhaseverbeenassumedbytheerrorwearediscussing。Itisatheorywhich，thoughnursedintoimportancebypoliticalpassions，derivedallitssapfromthespeculationsoflawyers。TrueitcertainlyisthatthefamousEnglishmen，forwhomithadfirsthadattraction，valueditchieflyforitspoliticalserviceableness，but，asIshallpresentlyattempttoexplain，theywouldneverhavearrivedatit，ifpoliticianshadnotlongconductedtheircontroversiesinlegalphraseology。NorweretheEnglishauthorsofthetheoryblindtothatspeculativeamplitudewhichrecommendeditsostronglytotheFrenchmenwhoinheriteditfromthem。Theirwritingsshowtheyperceivedthatitcouldbemadetoaccountforallsocial，quiteaswellasforallpoliticalphenomena。Theyhadobservedthefact，alreadystrikingintheirday，thatofthepositiverulesobeyedbymen，thegreaterpartwerecreatedbyContract，thelesserbyImperativeLaw。Buttheywereignorantorcarelessofthehistoricalrelationofthesetwoconstituentsofjurisprudence。Itwasforthepurpose，therefore，ofgratifyingtheirspeculativetastesbyattributingalljurisprudencetoauniformsource，asmuchaswiththeviewofeludingthedoctrineswhichclaimedadivineparentageforImperativeLawthattheydevisedthetheorythatallLawhaditsorigininContract。Inanotherstageofthought，theywouldhavebeensatisfiedtoleavetheirtheoryintheconditionofaningenioushypothesisoraconvenientverbalformula。Butthatagewasunderthedominionoflegalsuperstitions。TheStateofNaturehadbeentalkedabouttillithadceasedtoberegardedasparadoxical，andhenceitseemedeasytogiveafallaciousrealityanddefinitenesstothecontractualoriginofLawbyinsistingontheSocialCompactasahistoricalfact。
　　Ourowngenerationhasgotridoftheseerroneousjuridicaltheories，partlybyoutgrowingtheintellectualstatetowhichtheybelong，andpartlybyalmostceasingtotheoriseonsuchsubjectsaltogether。Thefavouriteoccupationofactivemindsatthepresentmoment，andtheonewhichanswerstothespeculationsofourforefathersontheoriginofthesocialstate，istheanalysisofsocietyasitexistsandmovesbeforeoureyes；but，throughomittingtocallintheassistanceofhistory，thisanalysistoooftendegeneratesintoanidleexerciseofcuriosity，andisespeciallyapttoincapacitatetheinquirerforcomprehendingstatesofsocietywhichdifferconsiderablyfromthattowhichheisaccustomed。Themistakeofjudgingthemenofotherperiodsbythemoralityofourowndayhasitsparallelinthemistakeofsupposingthateverywheelandboltinthemodernsocialmachinehaditscounterpartinmorerudimentarysocieties。
　　Suchimpressionsramifyverywidely，andmasquethemselvesverysubtly，inhistoricalworkswritteninthemodernfashion；butI
　　findthetraceoftheirpresenceinthedomainofjurisprudenceinthepraisewhichisfrequentlybestowedonthelittleapologueofMontesquieuconcerningtheTroglodytes，insertedintheLettresPersanes。TheTroglodyteswereapeoplewhosystematicallyviolatedtheirContracts，andsoperishedutterly。
　　Ifthestorybearsthemoralwhichitsauthorintended，andisemployedtoexposeananti-socialheresybywhichthiscenturyandthelasthavebeenthreatened，itismostunexceptionable；
　　butiftheinferencebeobtainedfromitthatsocietycouldnotpossiblyholdtogetherwithoutattachingasacrednesstopromisesandagreementswhichshouldbeonsomethinglikeaparwiththerespectthatispaidtothembyamaturecivilisation，itinvolvesanerrorsograveastobefataltoallsoundunderstandingoflegalhistory。ThefactisthattheTroglodyteshaveflourishedandfoundedpowerfulstateswithverysmallattentiontotheobligationsofContract。Thepointwhichbeforeallothershastobeapprehendedintheconstitutionofprimitivesocietiesisthattheindividualcreatesforhimselffewornorights，andfewornoduties。Theruleswhichheobeysarederivedfirstfromthestationintowhichheisborn，andnextfromtheimperativecommandsaddressedtohimbythechiefofthehouseholdofwhichheformspart。SuchasystemleavestheverysmallestroomforContract。Thememberofthesamefamilyforsowemayinterprettheevidencearewhollyincapableofcontractingwitheachother，andthefamilyisentitledtodisregardtheengagementsbywhichanyoneofitssubordinatememberhasattemptedtobindit。Family，itistrue，maycontractwithfamily，chieftainwithchieftain，butthetransactionisoneofthesamenature，andencumberedbyasmanyformalities，asthealienationofproperty，andthedisregardofoneiotaoftheperformanceisfataltotheobligation。Thepositivedutyresultingfromoneman’srelianceonthewordofanotherisamongtheslowestconquestsofadvancingcivilisation。
　　NeitherAncientLawnoranyothersourceofevidencedisclosestoussocietyentirelydestituteoftheconceptionofContract。Buttheconception，whenitfirstshowsitself，isobviouslyrudimentary。Notrustworthyprimitiverecordcanbereadwithoutperceivingthatthehabitofmindwhichinducesustomakegoodapromiseisasyetimperfectlydeveloped，andthatactsofflagrantperfidyareoftenmentionedwithoutblameandsometimesdescribedwithapprobation。IntheHomericliterature，forinstance，thedeceitfulcunningofUlyssesappearsasavirtueofthesamerankwiththeprudenceofNestor，theconstancyofHector，andthegallantryofAchilles。AncientlawisstillmoresuggestiveofthedistancewhichseparatesthecrudeformofContractfromitsmaturity。Atfirst，nothingisseenliketheinterpositionoflawtocompeltheperformanceofapromise。Thatwhichthelawarmswithitssanctionsisnotapromise，butapromiseaccompaniedwithasolemnceremonial。Notonlyareformalitiesofequalimportancewiththepromiseitself，buttheyare，ifanything，ofgreaterimportance；forthatdelicateanalysiswhichmaturejurisprudenceappliestotheconditionsofmindunderwhichaparticularverbalassentisgivenappears，inancientlaw，tobetransferredtothewordsandgesturesoftheaccompanyingperformance。Nopledgeisenforcedifasingleformbeomittedormisplaced，but，ontheotherhand，iftheformscanbeshowntohavebeenaccuratelyproceededwith，itisofnoavailtopleadthatthepromisewasmadeunderduressordeception。ThetransmutationofthisancientviewintothefamiliarnotionofaContractisplainlyseeninthehistoryofjurisprudence。Firstoneortwostepsintheceremonialaredispensedwith；thentheothersaresimplifiedorpermittedtobeneglectedoncertainconditions；lastly，afewspecificcontractsareseparatedfromtherestandallowedtobeenteredintowithoutform，theselectedcontractsbeingthoseonwhichtheactivityandenergyofsocialintercoursedepends。Slowly，butmostdistinctly，thementalengagementisolatesitselfamidthetechnicalities，andgraduallybecomesthesoleingredientonwhichtheinterestofthejurisconsultisconcentrated。Suchamentalengagement，signifiedthroughexternalacts，theRomanscalledaPactorConvention；andwhentheConventionhasoncebeenconceivedasthenucleusofaContract，itsoonbecomesthetendencyofadvancingjurisprudencetobreakawaytheexternalshellofformandceremony。Formsarethenceforwardonlyretainedsofarastheyareguaranteesofauthenticity，andsecuritiesforcautionanddeliberation。TheideaofaContractisfullydeveloped，or，toemploytheRomanphrase，ContractsareabsorbedinPacts。
　　ThehistoryofthiscourseofchangeinRomanlawisexceedinglyinstructive。Attheearliestdawnofthejurisprudence，theterminuseforaContractwasonewhichisveryfamiliartothestudentsofhistoricalLatinity。Itwasnexum，andthepartiestothecontractweresaidtobenexi，expressionswhichmustbecarefullyattendedtoonaccountofthesingulardurablenessofthemetaphoronwhichtheyarefounded。
　　Thenotionthatpersonsunderacontractualengagementareconnectedtogetherbyastrongbondorchain，continuedtillthelasttoinfluencetheRomanjurisprudenceofContract；andflowingthenceithasmixeditselfwithmodernideas。Whatthenwasinvolvedinthisnexumorbond？AdefinitionwhichhasdescendedtousfromoneoftheLatinantiquariansdescribesnexumasomnequodgeriturperaesetlibram，"everytransactionwiththecopperandthebalance，"andthesewordshaveoccasionedagooddealofperplexity。Thecopperandthebalancearethewell-knownaccompanimentsoftheMancipation，theancientsolemnitydescribedinaformerchapter，bywhichtherightofownershipinthehighestformofRomanPropertywastransferredfromonepersontoanother。Mancipationwasaconveyance，andhencehasarisenthedifficulty，forthedefinitionthuscitedappearstoconfoundContractsandConveyances，whichinthephilosophyofjurisprudencearenotsimplykeptapart，butareactuallyopposedtoeachother。Thejusinre，rightinrem，right"availingagainstalltheworld，"orProprietaryRight，issharplydistinguishedbytheanalystofmaturejurisprudencefromthejusadrem，rightinpersonam，right"availingasingleindividualorgroup，"orobligation。NowConveyancestransferProprietaryRights，ContractscreateObligations——howthencanthetwobeincludedunderthesamenameorsamegeneralconception？This，likemanysimilarembarrassments，hasbeenoccasionedbytheerrorofascribingtothementalconditionofanunformedsocietyafacultywhichpre-eminentlybelongstoanadvancedstageofintellectualdevelopment，thefacultyofdistinguishinginspeculationideaswhichareblendedinpractice。WehaveindicationsnottobemistakenofastateofsocialaffairsinwhichConveyancesandContractswerepracticallyconfounded；nordidthediscrepanceoftheconceptionsbecomeperceptibletillmenhadbeguntoadoptadistinctpracticeincontractingandconveying。
　　ItmayherebeobservedthatweknowenoughofancientRomanlawtogivesomeideaofthemodeoftransformationfollowedbylegalconceptionsandbylegalphraseologyintheinfancyofJurisprudence。Thechangewhichtheyundergoappeartobeachangefromgeneraltospecial；or，aswemightotherwiseexpressit，theancientconceptionsandtheancienttermsaresubjectedtoaprocessofgradualspecialisation。Anancientlegalconceptioncorrespondsnottoonebuttoseveralmodernconceptions。Anancienttechnicalexpressionservestoindicateavarietyofthingswhichinmodernlawhaveseparatenamesallottedtothem。IfhoweverwetakeupthehistoryofJurisprudenceatthenextstage，wefindthatthesubordinateconceptionshavegraduallydisengagedthemselvesandthattheoldgeneralnamesaregivingwaytospecialappellations。Theoldgeneralconceptionisnotobliterated，butithasceasedtocovermorethanoneorafewofthenotionswhichitfirstincluded。Sotootheoldtechnicalnameremains，butitdischargesonlyoneofthefunctionswhichitonceperformed。Wemayexemplifythisphenomenoninvariousways。PatriarchalPowerofallsortsappears，forinstance，tohavebeenonceconceivedasidenticalincharacter，anditwasdoubtlessdistinguishedbyonename。ThePowerexercisedbytheancestorwasthesamewhetheritwasexercisedoverthefamilyorthematerialproperty——overflocks，herds，slaves，children，orwife。WecannotbeabsolutelycertainofitsoldRomanname，butthereisverystrongreasonforbelieving，fromthenumberofexpressionsindicatingshadesofthenotionofpowerintowhichthewordmanusenter，thattheancientgeneraltermwasmanus。But，whenRomanlawhasadvancedalittle，boththenameandtheideahavebecomespecialised。
　　Powerisdiscriminated，bothinwordandinconception，accordingtotheobjectoverwhichitisexerted。Exercisedovermaterialcommoditiesorslaves，ithasbecomedominium——overchildren，itisPotestas——overfreepersonswhoseserviceshavebeenmadeawaytoanotherbytheirownancestor，itismancipium——overawife，itisstillmanus。Theoldword，itwillbeperceived，hasnotaltogetherfallenintodesuetude，butisconfinedtooneveryspecialexerciseoftheauthorityithadformerlydenoted。ThisexamplewillenableustocomprehendthenatureofthehistoricalalliancebetweenContractsandConveyances。Thereseemstohavebeenonesolemnceremonialatfirstforallsolemntransactions，anditsnameatRomeappearstohavebeennexum。Preciselythesameformswhichwereinusewhenaconveyanceofpropertywaseffectedseemtohavebeenemployedinthemakingofacontract。
　　ButwehavenotveryfartomoveonwardsbeforewecometoaperiodatwhichthenotionofaContracthasdisengageditselffromthenotionofaConveyance。Adoublechangehasthustakenplace。Thetransaction"withthecopperandthebalance，"whenintendedtohaveforitsofficethetransferofproperty，isknownbythenewandspecialnameofMancipation。TheancientNexumstilldesignatesthesameceremony，butonlywhenitisemployedforthespecialpurposeofsolemnisingacontract。
　　Whentwoorthreelegalconceptionsarespokenofasancientlyblendedinone，itisnotintendedtoimplythatsomeoneoftheincludednotionsmaynotbeolderthantheothers，or，whenthoseotherhavebeenformed，maynotgreatlypredominateoverandtakeprecedenceoverthem。Thereasonwhyonelegalconceptioncontinuessolongtocoverseveralconceptions，andonetechnicalphrasetodoinsteadofseveral，isdoubtlessthatpracticalchangesareaccomplishedinthelawofprimitivesocietieslongbeforemenseeoccasiontonoticeornamethem。
　　ThoughIhavesaidthatPatriarchalPowerwasnotatfirstdistinguishedaccordingtotheobjectsoverwhichitwasexercised，IfeelsurethatPoweroverChildrenwastherootoftheoldconceptionofPower；andIcannotdoubtthattheearliestuseoftheNexum，andtheoneprimarilyregardedbythosewhoresortedtoit，wastogivepropersolemnitytothealienationofproperty。ItislikelythataveryslightperversionoftheNexumfromitsoriginalfunctionsfirstgaverisetoitsemploymentinContracts，andthattheveryslightnessofthechangelongpreventeditsbeingappreciatedornoticed。Theoldnameremainedbecausemenhadnotbecomeconsciousthattheywantedanewone；
　　theoldnotionclungtothemindbecausenobodyhadseenreasontobeatthepainsofexaminingit。WehavehadtheprocessclearlyexemplifiedinthehistoryofTestaments。AWillwasatfirstasimpleconveyanceofproperty。Itwasonlytheenormouspracticaldifferencethatgraduallyshoweditselfbetweenthisparticularconveyanceandallotherswhichcausedittoberegardedseparately，andevenasitwas，centurieselapsedbeforetheamelioratorsoflawclearedawaytheuselessencumbranceofthenominalmancipation，andconsentedtocarefornothingintheWillbuttheexpressedintentionsoftheTestator。ItisunfortunatethatwecannottracktheearlyhistoryofContractswiththesameabsoluteconfidenceastheearlyhistoryofWills，butwearenotquitewithouthintsthatcontractsfirstshowedthemselvesthroughthenexumbeingputtoanewuseandafterwardsobtainedrecognitionasdistincttransactionsthroughtheimportantpracticalconsequencesoftheexperiment。Thereissome，butnotveryviolent，conjectureinthefollowingdelineationoftheprocess。LetusconceiveasaleforreadymoneyasthenormaltypeoftheNexum。Thesellerbroughtthepropertyofwhichheintendedtodispose——aslave，forexample——thepurchaserattendedwiththeroughingotsofcopperwhichservedformoneyandanindispensableassistant，thelibripens，presentedhimselfwithapairofscales。Theslavewithcertainfixedformalitieswashandedovertothevendee——thecopperwasweighedbythelibripensandpassedtothevendor。Solongasthebusinesslasteditwasanexum，andthepartieswerenexi；butthemomentitwascompleted，thenexumended，andthevendorandpurchaserceasedtobearthenamederivedfromtheirmomentaryrelation。Butnow，letusmoveasteponwardincommercialhistory。Supposetheslavetransferred，butthemoneynotpaid。
　　Inthatcase，thenexumisfinished，sofarasthesellerisconcerned，andwhenhehasoncehandedoverhisproperty，heisnolongernexus；but，inregardtothepurchaser，thenexumcontinues。Thetransaction，astohispartofit，isincomplete，andheisstillconsideredtobenexus。Itfollows，therefore，thatthesametermdescribedtheConveyancebywhichtherightofpropertywastransmitted，andthepersonalobligationofthedebtorfortheunpaidpurchase-money。Wemaystillgoforward，andpicturetoourselvesaproceedingwhollyformal，inwhichnothingishandedoverandnothingpaid；wearebroughtatoncetoatransactionindicativeofmuchhighercommercialactivity，anexecutoryContractofSale。
　　Ifitbetruethat，bothinthepopularandintheprofessionalview，aContractwaslongregardedasanincompleteConveyance，thetruthhasimportanceformanyreasons。Thespeculationsofthelastcenturyconcerningmankindinastateofnature，arenotunfairlysummedupinthedoctrinethat"intheprimitivesocietypropertywasnothing，andobligationeverything；"anditwillnowbeseenthat，ifthepropositionwererevered，itwouldbenearerthereality。Ontheotherhand，consideredhistoricallytheprimitiveassociationofConveyancesandContractsexplainssomethingwhichoftenstrikesthescholarandjuristassingularlyenigmatical，Imeantheextraordinaryanduniformseverityofveryancientsystemsoflawtodebtors，andtheextravagantpowerswhichtheylodgewithcreditors。Whenonceweunderstandthatthenexumwasartificiallyprolongedtogivetimetothedebtor，wecanbettercomprehendhispositionintheeyeofthepublicandofthelaw。Hisindebtednesswasdoubtlessregardedasananomaly，andsuspenseofpaymentingeneralasanartificeandadistortionofstrictrule。Thepersonwhohaddulyconsummatedhispartinthetransactionmust，onthecontrary，havestoodinpeculiarfavour；andnothingwouldseemmorenaturalthantoarmhimwithstringentfacilitiesforenfordingthecompletionofaproceedingwhich，ofstrictright，oughtnevertohavebeenextendedordeferred。
　　Nexum，therefore，whichoriginallysignifiedaConveyanceofproperty，cameinsensiblytodenoteaContractalso，andultimatelysoconstantbecametheassociationbetweenthiswordandthenotionofaContract，thataspecialterm，MancipiumorMancipatio，hadtobeusedforthepurposeofdesignatingthetruenexumortransactioninwhichthepropertywasreallytransferred。ContractsarethereforenowseveredfromConveyances，andthefirststageintheirhistoryisaccomplished，butstilltheyarefarenoughfromthatepochoftheirdevelopmentwhenthepromiseofthecontractorhasahighersacrednessthantheformalitieswithwhichitiscoupled。Inattemptingtoindicatethecharacterofthechangespassedthroughinthisinterval，itisnecessarytotrespassalittleonasubjectwhichliesproperlybeyondtherangeofthesepages，theanalysisofAgreementeffectedbytheRomanjurisconsults。Ofthisanalysis，themostbeautifulmonumentoftheirsagacity，I
　　neednotsaymorethanthatitisbasedonthetheoreticalseparationoftheObligationfromtheConventionorPact。BenthamandMr。Austinhavelaiddownthatthe"twomainessentialsofacontractarethese:first，asignificationbythepromisingpartyofhisintentiontodotheactsortoobservetheforbearanceswhichhepromisestodoortoobserve。Secondly，asignificationbythepromiseethatheexpectsthepromisingpartywillfulfiltheprofferedpromise。"ThisisvirtuallyidenticalwiththedoctrineoftheRomanlawyers，butthen，intheirview，theresultofthese"significations"wasnotaContract，butaConventionorPact。APactwastheutmostproductoftheengagementsofindividualsagreeingamongthemselves，anditdistinctlyfellshortofaContract。WhetheritultimatelybecameaContractdependedonthequestionwhetherthelawannexedanObligationtoit。AContractwasaPactorConventionplusanObligation。SolongasthePactremainedunclothedwiththeObligation，itwascallednudeornaked。
　　WhatwasanObligation？ItisdefinedbytheRomanlawyersas"Jurisvinculum，quonecessitateadstringimuralicujussolvendaerei。"ThisdefinitionconnectstheObligationwiththeNexumthroughthecommonmetaphoronwhichtheyarefounded，andshowsuswithmuchclearnessthepedigreeofapeculiarconception。TheObligationisthe"bond"or"chain"withwhichthelawjoinstogetherpersonsorgroupsofpersons，inconsequenceofcertainvoluntaryacts。TheactswhichhavetheeffectofattractinganObligationarechieflythoseclassedundertheheadsofContractandDelict，ofAgreementandWrong；butavarietyofotheractshaveasimilarconsequencewhicharenotcapableofbeingcomprisedinanexactclassification。Itistoberemarked，however，thattheactdoesnotdrawtoitselftheObligationinconsequenceofanymoralnecessity，。itisthelawwhichannexesitintheplenitudeofitspower，apointthemorenecessarytobenoted，becauseadifferentdoctrinehassometimesbeenpropoundedbymoderninterpretersoftheCivilLawwhohadmoralormetaphysicaltheoriesoftheirowntosupport。TheimageofavinculumjuriscoloursandpervadeseverypartoftheRomanlawofContractandDelict。Thelawboundthepartiestogether，andthechaincouldonlybeundonebytheprocesscalledsolutio，anexpressionstillfigurative，towhichourword"payment"isonlyoccasionallyandincidentallyequivalent。Theconsistencywithwhichthefigurativeimagewasallowedtopresentitself，explainsanotherwisepuzzlingpeculiarityofRomanlegalphraseology，thefactthat"Obligation"signifiedrightsaswellasduties，theright，forexample，tohaveadebtpaidaswellasthedutyofpayingit。TheRomanskeptinfacttheentirepictureofthe"legalchain"beforetheireyes，andregardedoneendofitnomoreandnolessthantheother。
　　InthedevelopedRomanlaw，theConvention，assoonasitwascompleted，was，inalmostallcases，atoncecrownedwiththeObligation，andsobecameaContract；andthiswastheresulttowhichcontract-lawwassurelytending。Butforthepurposeofthisinquiry，wemustattendparticularlytotheintermediatestage——thatinwhichsomethingmorethanaperfectagreementwasrequiredtoattracttheObligation。ThisepochissynchronouswiththeperiodatwhichthefamousRomanclassificationofContractsintofoursorts——theVerbal，theLiteral，theReal，andtheConsensualhadcomeintouse，andduringwhichthesefourordersofContractsconstitutedtheonlydescriptionsofengagementwhichthelawwouldenforce。ThemeaningofthefourfolddistributionisreadilyunderstoodassoonasweapprehendthetheorywhichseveredtheObligationfromtheConvention。Eachclassofcontractswasinfactnamedfromcertainformalitieswhichwererequiredoverandabovethemereagreementofthecontractingparties。IntheVerbalContract，assoonastheConventionwaseffected，aformofwordshadtobegonethroughbeforethevinculumjuriswasattachedtoit。IntheLiteralContract，anentryinaledgerortablebookhadtheeffectofclothingtheConventionwiththeObligation，andthesameresultfollowed，inthecaseoftheRealContract，fromthedeliveryoftheResorThingwhichwasthesubjectofthepreliminaryengagement。Thecontractingpartiescame，inshort，toanunderstandingineachcase；but，iftheywentnofurther，theywerenotobligedtooneanother，andcouldnotcompelperformanceoraskredressforabreachoffaith。Butletthemcomplywithcertainprescribedformalities，andtheContractwasimmediatelycomplete，takingitsnamefromtheparticularformwhichithadsuitedthemtoadopt。Theexceptionstothispracticewillbenoticedpresently。
　　IhaveenumeratedthefourContractsintheirhistoricalorder，whichorder，however，theRomanInstitutionalwritersdidnotinvariablyfollow。TherecanbenodoubtthattheVerbalContractwasthemostancientofthefour，andthatitistheeldestknowndescendantoftheprimitiveNexum。SeveralspeciesofVerbalContractwereancientlyinuse，butthemostimportantofall，andtheonlyonetreatedofbyourauthorities，waseffectedbymeansofastipulation，thatis，aQuestionandAnswer；aquestionaddressedbythepersonwhoexactedthepromise，andananswergivenbythepersonwhomadeit。Thisquestionandanswerconstitutedtheadditionalingredientwhich，asIhavejustexplained，wasdemandedbytheprimitivenotionoverandabovethemereagreementofthepersonsinterested。TheyformedtheagencybywhichtheObligationwasannexed。TheoldNexumhasnowbequeathedtomaturerjurisprudencefirstofalltheconceptionofachainunitingthecontractingparties，andthishasbecometheObligation。Ithasfurthertransmittedthenotionofaceremonialaccompanyingandconsecratingtheengagement，andthisceremonialhasbeentransmutedintotheStipulation。Theconversionofthesolemnconveyance，whichwastheprominentfeatureoftheoriginalNexum，intoamerequestionandanswer，wouldbemoreofamysterythanitisifwehadnottheanalogoushistoryofRomanTestamentstoenlightenus。
　　Lookingtothathistory，wecanunderstandhowtheformalConveyancewasfirstseparatedfromthepartoftheproceedingwhichhadimmediatereferencetothebusinessinhand，andhowafterwardsitwasomittedaltogether。AsthenthequestionandansweroftheStipulationwereunquestionablytheNexuminasimplifiedshape，wearepreparedtofindthattheylongpartookofthenatureofatechnicalform。ItwouldbeamistaketoconsiderthemasexclusivelyrecommendingthemselvestotheolderRomanLawyersthroughtheirusefulnessinfurnishingpersonsmeditatinganagreementwithanopportunityforconsiderationandreflection。Itisnottobedisputedthattheyhadavalueofthiskind，whichwasgraduallyrecognised；butthereisproofthattheirfunctioninrespecttoContractswasatfirstformalandceremonialinthestatementofourauthorities，thatnoteveryquestionandanswerwasofoldsufficienttoconstituteaStipulation，butonlyaquestionandanswercouchedintechnicalphraseologyspeciallyappropriatedtotheparticularoccasion。
　　Butalthoughitisessentialfortheproperappreciationofthehistoryofcontract-lawthattheStipulationshouldbeunderstoodtohavebeenlookeduponasasolemnformbeforeitwasrecognisedasausefulsecurity，itwouldbewrongontheotherhandtoshutoureyestoitsrealusefulness。TheVerbalContract，thoughithadlostmuchofitsancientimportance，survivedtothelatestperiodofRomanjurisprudence；andwemaytakeitforgrantedthatnoinstitutionofRomanlawhadsoextendedalongevityunlessitservedsomepracticaladvantage。I
　　observeinanEnglishwritersomeexpressionsofsurprisethattheRomansevenoftheearliesttimeswerecontentwithsomeagreaprotectionagainsthasteandirreflection。ButonexaminingtheStipulationclosely，andrememberingthatwehavetodowithastateofsocietyinwhichwrittenevidencewasnoteasilyprocurable，IthinkwemustadmitthatthisQuestionandAnswer，haditbeenexpresslydevisedtoanswerthepurposewhichitserved，wouldhavebeenjustlydesignatedahighlyingeniousexpedient。Itwasthepromiseewho，inthecharacterofstipulator，putallthetermsofthecontractintotheformofaquestion，andtheanswerwasgivenbythepromisor。"Doyoupromisethatyouwilldelivermesuchandsuchaslave，atsuchandsuchaplace，onsuchandsuchaday？""Idopromise。"Now，ifwereflectforamoment，weshallseethatthisobligationtoputthepromiseinterrogativelyinvertsthenaturalpositionoftheparties，and，byeffectuallybreakingthetenoroftheconversation，preventstheattentionfromglidingoveradangerouspledge。Withus，averbalpromiseis，generallyspeaking，tobegatheredexclusivelyfromthewordsofthepromisor。InoldRomanlaw，anotherstepwasabsolutelyrequired；
　　itwasnecessaryforthepromisee，aftertheagreementhadbeenmade，tosumupallitstermsinasolemninterrogation；anditwasofthisinterrogation，ofcourse，andoftheassenttoit，thatproofhadtobegivenatthetrial——notofthepromise，whichwasnotinitselfbinding。Howgreatadifferencethisseeminglyinsignificantpeculiaritymaymakeinthephraseologyofcontract-lawisspeedilyrealisedbythebeginnerinRomanjurisprudence，oneofwhosefirststumbling-blocksisalmostuniversallycreatedbyit。WhenweinEnglishhaveoccasion，inmentioningacontract，toconnectitforconvenience’sakewithoneoftheparties——forexample，ifwewishedtospeakgenerallyofacontractor——itisalwaysthepromisoratwhomourwordsarepointing。ButthegenerallanguageofRomanlawtakesadifferentturn；italwaysregardsthecontract，ifwemaysospeak，fromthepointofviewofthepromisee。inSpeakingofapartytoacontract，itisalwaystheStipulator，thepersonwhoasksthequestion，whoisprimarilyalludedto。ButtheserviceablenessofthestipulationismostvividlyillustratedbyreferringtotheactualexamplesinthepagesoftheLatincomicdramatists。Iftheentirescenesarereaddowninwhichthesepassagesoccurex。gra。Plautus，Pseudolus，ActI。sc。i；ActIV。sc。6；Trinummus，ActV。sc。2，itwillbeperceivedhoweffectuallytheattentionofthepersonmeditatingthepromisemusthavebeenarrestedbythequestion，andhowamplewastheopportunityforwithdrawalfromanimprovidentundertaking。
　　IntheLiteralorWrittenContract，theformalact，bywhichanObligationwassuperinducedontheConvention，wasanentryofthesumdue，whereitcouldbespecificallyascertained，onthedebitsideofaledger。TheexplanationofthisContractturnsonapointorRomandomesticmanners，thesystematiccharacterandexceedingregularityofbookkeepinginancienttimes。ThereareseveralminordifficultiesofoldRomanlaw，as，forexample，thenatureoftheSlave’sPeculium，whichareonlyclearedupwhenwerecollectthataRomanhouseholdconsistedoranumberofpersonsstrictlyaccountabletoitshead，andthateverysingleitemofdomesticreceiptandexpenditure，afterbeingenteredinwastebooks，wastransferredatstatedperiodstoageneralhouseholdledger。Therearesomeobscurities，however，inthedescriptionswehavereceivedoftheLiteralContract，thefactbeingthatthehabitofkeepingbooksceasedtobeuniversalinlatertimes，andtheexpression"LiteralContract"cametosignifyaformofengagemententirelydifferentfromthatoriginallyunderstood。Wearenot，therefore，inapositiontosay，withrespecttotheprimitiveLiteralContract，whethertheobligationwascreatedbyasimpleentryonthepartofthecreditor，orwhethertheconsentofthedebtororacorrespondingentryinhisownbookswasnecessarytogiveitlegaleffect。Theessentialpointishoweverestablishedthat，inthecaseofthisContract，allformalitiesweredispensedwithonaconditionbeingcompliedwith。Thisisanotherstepdownwardsinthehistoryofcontract-law。
　　TheContractwhichstandsnextinhistoricalsuccession，theRealContract，showsagreatadvanceinethicalconceptions。
　　Wheneveranyagreementhadforitsobjectthedeliverofaspecificthing——andthisisthecasewiththelargemajorityofsimpleengagements——theObligationwasdrawndownassoonasthedeliveryhadactuallytakenplace。SucharesultmusthaveinvolvedaseriousinnovationontheoldestideasofContract；
　　fordoubtless，intheprimitivetimes，whenaContractingpartyhadneglectedtoclothehisagreementinastipulation，nothingdoneinpursuanceoftheagreementwouldberecognisedbythelawApersonwhohadpaidovermoneyonloanwouldbeunabletosueforitsrepaymentunlesshehadformallystipulatedforit。But，intheRealContract，performanceononesideisallowedtoimposealegaldutyontheother——evidentlyonethicalgrounds。
　　ForthefirsttimethenmoralconsiderationsappearasaningredientinContract-law，andtheRealContractdiffersfromitstwopredecessorsinbeingroundedonthese，ratherthanonrespectfortechnicalformsorondeferencetoRomandomestichabits。
　　Wenowreachthefourthclass，orConsensualContracts，themostinterestingandimportantofall。FourspecifiedContractsweredistinguishedbythisname:Mandatum，i。e。CommissionorAgency；SocietasorPartnership；EmtioVenditioorSale；andLocatioConductioorLettingandHiring。Afewpagesago，afterstatingthataContractconsistedofaPactorConventiontowhichanObligationhadbeensuperadded，IspokeofcertainactsorformalitiesbywhichthelawpermittedtheObligationtobeattractedtothePact。Iusedthislanguageonaccountoftheadvantageofageneralexpression，butitisnotstrictlycorrectunlessitbeunderstoodtoincludethenegativeaswellasthepositive。For，intruth，thepeculiarityoftheseConsensualContractsisthatnoformalitiesarerequiredtocreatethemoutofthePact。Muchthatisindefensible，andmuchmorethatisobscure，hasbeenwrittenabouttheConsensualContracts，andithasevenbeenassertedthatinthemtheconsentofthePartiesismoreemphaticallygiventhaninanyotherspeciesofagreement。
　　ButthetermConsensualmerelyindicatesthattheObligationishereannexedatoncetotheConsensus。TheConsensus，ormutualassentoftheparties，isthefinalandcrowningingredientintheConvention，anditisthespecialcharacteristicofagreementsfallingunderoneofthefourheadsofSale，Partnership，Agency，andHiring，that，assoonastheassentofthepartieshassuppliedthisingredient，thereisatonceaContract。TheConsensusdrawswithittheObligation，performing，intransactionsofthesortspecified，theexactfunctionswhicharedischarged，intheothercontracts，bytheResorThing，bytheVerbastipulationis，andbytheLiteraeorwrittenentryinaledger。Consensualisthereforeatermwhichdoesnotinvolvetheslightestanomaly，butisexactlyanalogoustoReal，Verbal，andLiteral。
　　IntheintercourseoflifethecommonestandmostimportantofallthecontractsareunquestionablythefourstyledConsensual。Thelargerpartofthecollectiveexistenceofeverycommunityisconsumedintransactionsofbuyingandselling，oflettingandhiring，ofalliancesbetweenmenforpurposesofbusiness，ofdelegationofbusinessfromonemantoanother；andthisisnodoubttheconsiderationwhichledtheRomans，asithasledmostsocieties，torelievethesetransactionsfromtechnicalincumbrance，toabstainasmuchaspossiblefromcloggingthemostefficientspringsofsocialmovement。SuchmotiveswerenotofcourseconfinedtoRome，andthecommerceoftheRomanswiththeirneighboursmusthavegiventhemabundantopportunitiesforobservingthatthecontractsbeforeustendedeverywheretobecomeConsensual，obligatoryonthemeresignificationofmutualassent。Hence，followingtheirusualpractice，theydistinguishedthesecontractsascontractsJurisGentium。YetIdonotthinkthattheyweresonamedataveryearlyperiod。ThefirstnotionsofaJusGentiummayhavebeendepositedinthemindsoftheRomanlawyerslongbeforetheappointmentofaPraetorPeregrinus，butitwouldonlybethroughextensiveandregulartradethattheywouldbefamiliarisedwiththecontractualsystemofotherItaliancommunities，andsuchatradewouldscarcelyattainconsiderableproportionsbeforeItalyhadbeenthoroughlypacified，andthesupremacyofRomeconclusivelyassured。Although，however，thereisstrongprobabilitythattheConsensualContractswerethelatest-bornintotheRomansystem，andthoughitislikelythatthequalification，JurisGentium，stampstherecencyoftheirorigin，yetthisveryexpression，whichattributesthemtothe"LawofNations，"hasinmoderntimesproducedthenotionoftheirextremeantiquity。For，whenthe"LawofNations"hadbeenconvertedintothe"LawofNature，"itseemedtobeimpliedthattheConsensualContractswerethetypeoftheagreementsmostcongenialtothenaturalstate；andhencearosethesingularbeliefthattheyoungerthecivilisation，thesimplermustbeitsformsofcontract。
　　TheConsensualContracts，itwillbeobserved，wereextremelylimitedinnumber。ButitcannotbedoubtedthattheyconstitutedthestageinthehistoryofContract-lawfromwhichallmodernconceptionsofcontracttooktheirstart。Themotionofthewillwhichconstitutesagreementwasnowcompletelyinsulated，andbecamethesubjectofseparatecontemplation；formswereentirelyeliminatedfromthenotionofcontract，andexternalactswereonlyregardedassymbolsoftheinternalactofvolition。TheConsensualContractshad，moreover，beenclassedintheJusGentium，anditwasnotlongbeforethisclassificationdrewwithittheinferencethattheywerethespeciesofagreementwhichrepresentedtheengagementsapprovedofbyNatureandincludedinhercode。Thispointoncereached，wearepreparedforseveralcelebrateddoctrinesanddistinctionsoftheRomanlawyers。OneofthemisthedistinctionbetweenNaturalandCivilObligations。
　　Whenapersonoffullintellectualmaturityhaddeliberatelyboundhimselfbyanengagement，hewassaidtobeunderanaturalobligation，eventhoughhehadomittedsomenecessaryformality，andeventhoughthroughsometechnicalimpedimenthewasdevoidoftheformalcapacityformakingavalidcontract。Thelawandthisiswhatthedistinctionimplieswouldnotenforcetheobligation，butitdidnotabsolutelyrefusetorecogniseit；andnaturalobligationsdifferedinmanyrespectsfromobligationswhichweremerelynullandvoid，moreparticularlyinthecircumstancethattheycouldbecivillyconfirmed，ifthecapacityforcontractweresubsequentlyacquired。AnotherverypeculiardoctrineofthejurisconsultscouldnothavehaditsoriginearlierthantheperiodatwhichtheConventionwasseveredfromthetechnicalingredientsofContract。TheytaughtthatthoughnothingbutaContractcouldbethefoundationofanaction，amerePactorConventioncouldbethebasisofaplea。
　　Itfollowedfromthis，thatthoughnobodycouldsueuponanagreementwhichhehadnottakentheprecautiontomatureintoaContractbycomplyingwiththeproperforms，neverthelessaclaimarisingoutofavalidcontractcouldberebuttedbyprovingacounteragreementwhichhadnevergotbeyondthestateofasimpleconvention。Anactionfortherecoveryofadebtcouldbemetbyshowingamereinformalagreementtowaiveorpostponethepayment。
　　ThedoctrinejuststatedindicatesthehesitationofthePraetorsinmakingtheiradvancestowardsthegreatestoftheirinnovations。TheirtheoryofNaturallawmusthaveledthemtolookwithespecialfavourontheConsensualContractsandonthosePactsorConventionsofwhichtheConsensualContractswereonlyparticularinstances；buttheydidnotatonceventureonextendingtoallConventionsthelibertyoftheConsensualContracts。TheytookadvantageofthatspecialsuperintendenceoverprocedurewhichhadbeenconfidedtothemsincethefirstbeginningsofRomanlaw，and，whiletheystilldeclinedtopermitasuittobelaunchedwhichwasnotbasedonaformalcontract，theygavefullplaytotheirnewtheoryofagreementindirectingtheulteriorstagesoftheproceeding。But，whentheyhadproceededthusfar，itwasinevitablethattheyshouldproceedfarther。TherevolutionoftheancientlawofContractwasconsummatedwhenthePraetorofsomeoneyearannouncedinhisEdictthathewouldgrantequitableactionsuponPactswhichhadneverbeenmaturedatallintoContracts，providedonlythatthePactsinquestionhadbeenfoundedonaconsiderationcausa。
　　PactsofthissortarealwaysenforcedundertheadvancedRomanjurisprudence。TheprincipleismerelytheprincipleoftheConsensual。Contractcarriedtoitsproperconsequence；and，infact，ifthetechnicallanguageoftheRomanshadbeenasplasticastheirlegaltheories，thesePactsenforcedbythePraetorwouldhavebeenstylednewContracts，newConsensualContracts。
　　Legalphraseologyis，however，thepartofthelawwhichisthelasttoalter，andthePactsequitablyenforcedcontinuedtobedesignatedsimplyPraetorianPacts。ItwillberemarkedthatunlesstherewereconsiderationforthePact，itwouldcontinuenudesofarasthenewjurisprudencewasconcerned；inordertogiveiteffect，itwouldbenecessarytoconvertitbyastipulationintoaVerbalContract。
　　TheextremeimportanceofthishistoryofContract，asasafeguardagainstalmostinnumerabledelusions，mustbemyjustificationfordiscussingitatsoconsiderablealength。Itgivesacompleteaccountofthemarchofideasfromonegreatlandmarkofjurisprudencetoanother。WebeginwithNexum，inwhichaContractandaConveyanceareblended，andinwhichtheformalitieswhichaccompanytheagreementareevenmoreimportantthantheagreementitself。FromtheNexumwepasstotheStipulation，whichisasimplifiedformoftheolderceremonial。
　　TheLiteralContractcomesnext，andhereallformalitiesarewaived，ifproofoftheagreementcanbesuppliedfromtherigidobservancesofaRomanhousehold。IntheRealContractamoraldutyisforthefirsttimerecognised，andpersonswhohavejoinedoracquiescedinthepartialperformanceofanengagementareforbiddentorepudiateitonaccountofdefectsinform。
　　Lastly，theConsensualContractsemerge，inwhichthementalattitudeofthecontractorsissolelyregarded，andexternalcircumstanceshavenotitletonoticeexceptasevidenceoftheinwardundertaking。ItisofcourseuncertainhowfarthisprogressofRomanideasfromagrosstoarefinedconceptionexemplifiesthenecessaryprogressofhumanthoughtonthesubjectofContract。TheContract-lawofallotherancientsocietiesbuttheRomaniseithertooscantytofurnishinformation，orelseisentirelylost；andmodernjurisprudenceissothoroughlyleavenedwiththeRomannotionsthatitfurnishesuswithnocontrastsorparallelsfromwhichinstructioncanbegleaned。Fromtheabsence，however，。theofeverythingviolent，marvellous，orunintelligibleinchangesI
　　havedescribed，itmaybereasonablybelievedthatthehistoryofancientRomanContractsis，uptoacertainpoint，typicalofthehistoryofthisclassoflegalconceptionsinotherancientsocieties。ButitisonlyuptoacertainpointthattheprogressofRomanlawcanbetakentorepresenttheprogressofothersystemsofjurisprudence。ThetheoryofNaturallawisexclusivelyRoman。Thenotionofthevinculumjuris，sofarasmyknowledgeextends，isexclusivelyRoman。ThemanypeculiaritiesofthematureRomanlawofContractandDelictwhicharetraceabletothesetwoideas，whethersinglyorincombination，arethereforeamongtheexclusiveproductsofoneparticularsociety。Theselaterlegalconceptionsareimportant，notbecausetheytypifythenecessaryresultsofadvancingthoughtunderallconditions，butbecausetheyhaveexercisedperfectlyenormousinfluenceontheintellectualdiathesisofthemodernworld。
　　IknownothingmorewonderfulthanthevarietyofsciencestowhichRomanlaw，RomanContract-lawmoreparticularly，hascontributedmodesofthought，coursesofreasoning，andatechnicallanguage。Ofthesubjectswhichhavewhettedtheintellectualappetiteofthemoderns，thereisscarcelyone，exceptPhysic，whichhasnotbeenAlteredthroughRomanjurisprudence。ThescienceofpureMetaphysicshad，indeed，ratheraGreekthanaRomanparentage，butPolitics，MoralPhilosophy，andevenTheologyfoundinRomanlawnotonlyavehicleofexpression，butanidusinwhichsomeoftheirprofoundestinquirieswerenourishedintomaturity。Forthepurposeofaccountingforthisphenomenon，itisnotabsolutelynecessarytodiscussthemysteriousrelationbetweenwordsandideas，ortoexplainhowitisthatthehumanmindhasnevergrappledwithanysubjectofthought，unlessithasbeenprovidedbeforehandwithaproperstoreoflanguageandwithanapparatusofappropriatelogicalmethods。Itisenoughtoremark，that，whenthephilosophicalinterestsoftheEasternandWesternworldswereseparated，thefoundersofWesternthoughtbelongedtoasocietywhichspokeLatinandreflectedinLatin。ButintheWesternprovincestheonlylanguagewhichretainedsufficientprecisionforphilosophicalpurposeswasthelanguageofRomanlaw，whichbyasingularfortunehadpreservednearlyallthepurityoftheAugustanage，whilevernacularLatinwasdegeneratingintoadialectofportentousbarbarism。AndifRomanjurisprudencesuppliedtheonlymeansofexactnessinspeech，stillmoreemphaticallydiditfurnishtheonlymeansofexactness，subtlety，ordepthinthought。Foratleastthreecenturies，philosophyandsciencewerewithoutahomeintheWest；andthoughmetaphysicandmetaphysicaltheologywereengrossingthementalenergiesofmultitudesofRomansubjects，thephraseologyemployedintheseardentinquirieswasexclusivelyGreek，andtheirtheatrewastheEasternhalfoftheEmpire。Sometimes，indeed，theconclusionsoftheEasterndisputantsbecamesoimportantthateveryman’sassenttothem，ordissentfromthem，hadtoberecorded，andthentheWestwasintroducedtotheresultsofEasterncontroversy，whichitgenerallyacquiescedinwithoutinterestandwithoutresistance。
　　Meanwhile，onedepartmentofinquiry，difficultenoughforthemostlaborious，deepenoughforthemostsubtle，delicateenoughforthemostrefined，hadneverlostitsattractionsfortheeducatedclassesoftheWesternprovinces。TothecultivatedcitizenofAfrica，ofSpain，ofGaulandofNorthernItalyitwasjurisprudence，andjurisprudenceonly，whichstoodintheplaceofpoetryandhistory，ofphilosophyandscience。SofarthenfromtherebeinganythingmysteriousinthepalpablylegalcomplexionoftheearliesteffortsofWesternthoughtitwouldratherbeastonishingifithadassumedanyotherhue。IcanonlyexpressmysurpriseatthescantinessoftheattentionwhichhasbeengiventothedifferencebetweenWesternideasandEastern，betweenWesterntheologyandEastern，causedbythepresenceofanewingredient。ItispreciselybecausetheinfluenceofjurisprudencebeginstobepowerfulthatthefoundationofConstantinopleandthesubsequentseparationoftheWesternEmpirefromtheEastern，areepochsinphilosophicalhistory。ButcontinentalthinkersaredoubtlesslesscapableofappreciatingtheimportanceofthiscrisisbytheveryintimacywithwhichnotionsderivedfromRomanLawaremingledupwitheverydayideas。Englishmen，ontheotherhand，areblindtoitthroughthemonstrousignorancetowhichtheycondemnthemselvesofthemostplentifulsourceofthestreamofmodernknowledge，oftheoneintellectualresultoftheRomancivilisation。Atthesametime，anEnglishman，whowillbeatthepainstofamiliarisehimselfwiththeclassicalRomanlawisperhaps，fromtheveryslightnessoftheinterestwhichhiscountrymenhavehithertotakeninthesubject，abetterjudgethanaFrenchmanoraGermanofthevalueoftheassertionsIhaveventuredtomake。AnybodywhoknowswhatRomanjurisprudenceis，asactuallypractisedbytheRomans，andwhowillobserveinwhatcharacteristictheearliestWesterntheologyandphilosophydifferfromthephasesofthoughtwhichprecededthem，maybesafelylefttopronouncewhatwasthenewelementwhichhadbeguntopervadeandgovernspeculation。
　　ThepartofRomanlawwhichhashadmostextensiveinfluenceonforeignsubjectsofinquiryhasbeenthelawofObligation，orwhatcomesnearlytothesamething，ofContractandDelict。TheRomansthemselveswerenotunawareoftheofficeswhichthecopiousandmalleableterminologybelongingtothispartoftheirsystemmightbemadetodischarge，andthisisprovedbytheiremploymentofthepeculiaradjunctquasiinsuchexpressionsasQuasi-ContractandQuasi-Delict。"Quasi，"soused，isexclusivelyatermofclassification。IthasbeenusualwithEnglishcriticstoidentifytheQuasi-contractswithimpliedcontracts，butthisisanerror，forimpliedcontractsaretruecontracts，whichquasi-contractsarenot。Inimpliedcontracts，actsandcircumstancesarethesymbolsofthesameingredientswhicharesymbolised，inexpresscontracts，bywords；andwhetheramanemploysonesetofsymbolsortheothermustbeamatterofindifferencesofarasconcernsthetheoryofagreement。ButaQuasi-Contractisnotacontractatall。Thecommonestsampleoftheclassistherelationsubsistingbetweentwopersonsoneofwhomhaspaidmoneytotheotherthroughmistake。Thelaw，consultingtheinterestsofmorality，imposesanobligationonthereceivertorefund，buttheverynatureofthetransactionindicatesthatitisnotacontract，inasmuchastheConvention，themostessentialingredientofContract，iswanting。Thisword"quasi，"prefixedtoatermofRomanlaw，impliesthattheconceptiontowhichitservesasanindexisconnectedwiththeconceptionwithwhichthecomparisonisinstitutedbyastrongsuperficialanalogyorresemblance。Itdoesnotdenotethatthetwoconceptionsarethesameorthattheybelongtothesamegenus。Onthecontrary，itnegativesthenotionofanidentitybetweenthem；butitpointsoutthattheyaresufficientlysimilarforonetobeclassedasthesequeltotheother，andthatthephraseologytakenfromonedepartmentoflawmaybetransferredtotheotherandemployedwithoutviolentstraininginthestatementofruleswhichwouldotherwisebeimperfectlyexpressed。
　　Ithasbeenshrewdlyremarked，thattheconfusionbetweenImpliedContracts，whicharetruecontracts，andQuasiContracts，whicharenotcontractsatall，hasmuchincommonwiththefamouserrorwhichattributedpoliticalrightsanddutiestoanOriginalCompactbetweenthegovernedandthegovernor。Longbeforethistheoryhadclotheditselfindefiniteshape，thephraseologyofRomancontract-lawhadbeenlargelydrawnupontodescribethatreciprocityofrightsanddutieswhichmenhadalwaysconceivedasexistingbetweensovereignsandsubjects。
　　Whiletheworldwasfullofmaximssettingforthwiththeutmostpositivenesstheclaimsofkingstoimplicitobedience——maximswhichpretendedtohavehadtheiroriginintheNewTestament，butwhichwerereallyderivedfromindeliblerecollectionsoftheCesariandespotism——theconsciousnessofcorrelativerightspossessedbythegovernedwouldhavebeenentirelywithoutthemeansofexpressioniftheRomanlawofObligationhadnotsuppliedalanguagecapableofshadowingforthanideawhichwasasyetimperfectlydeveloped。Theantagonismbetweentheprivilegesofkingsandtheirdutiestotheirsubjectswasnever，Ibelieve，lostsightofsinceWesternhistorybegan，butithadinterestforfewexceptspeculativewriterssolongasfeudalismcontinuedinvigour，forfeudalismeffectuallycontrolledbyexpresscustomstheexorbitanttheoreticalpretensionsofmostEuropeansovereigns。Itisnotorious，however，thatassoonasthedecayoftheFeudalSystemhadthrownthemedievalconstitutionsoutofworkingorder，andwhentheReformationhaddiscreditedtheauthorityofthePope，thedoctrineofthedivinerightofKingsroseimmediatelyintoanimportancewhichhadneverbeforeattendedit。ThevoguewhichitobtainedentailedstillmoreconstantresorttothephraseologyofRomanlaw，andacontroversywhichhadoriginallywornatheologicalaspectassumedmoreandmoretheairofalegaldisputation。A
　　phenomenonthenappearedwhichhasrepeatedlyshownitselfinthehistoryofopinion。JustwhentheargumentformonarchicalauthorityroundeditselfintothedefinitedoctrineofFilmer，thephraseology，borrowedfromtheLawofContract，whichhadbeenusedindefenceoftherightsofsubjects，crystallisedintothetheoryofanactualoriginalcompactbetweenkingandpeople，atheorywhich，firstinEnglishandafterwards，andmoreparticularly，inFrenchhands，expandedintoacomprehensiveexplanationofallthephenomenaofsocietyandlaw。Buttheonlyrealconnectionbetweenpoliticalandlegalsciencehadconsistedinthelastgivingtothefirstthebenefitofitspeculiarlyplasticterminology。TheRomanjurisprudenceofContracthadperformedfortherelationofsovereignandsubjectpreciselythesameservicewhich，inahumblersphere，itrenderedtotherelationofpersonboundtogetherbyanobligationof"quasi-contract。"Ithadfurnishedabodyofwordsandphraseswhichapproximatedwithsufficientaccuracytotheideaswhichthenwerefromtimetotimeformingonthesubjectofpoliticalobligation。ThedoctrineofanOriginalCompactcanneverbeputhigherthanitisplacedbyDr。Whewell，whenhesuggeststhat，thoughunsound，"itmaybeaconvenientformfortheexpressionofmoraltruths。"
　　TheextensiveemploymentoflegallanguageonpoliticalsubjectspreviouslytotheinventionoftheOriginalCompact，andthepowerfulinfluencewhichthatassumptionhasexercisedsubsequently，amplyaccountfortheplentifulnessinpoliticalscienceofwordsandconceptions，whichweretheexclusivecreationofRomanjurisprudence。OftheirplentifulnessinMoralPhilosophyaratherdifferentexplanationmustbegiven，inasmuchasethicalwritingshavelaidRomanlawundercontributionmuchmoredirectlythanpoliticalspeculations，andtheirauthorshavebeenmuchmoreconsciousoftheextentoftheirobligation。InspeakingofmoralphilosophyasextraordinarilyindebtedtoRomanjurisprudence，ImustbeunderstoodtointendmoralphilosophyasunderstoodpreviouslytothebreakinitshistoryeffectedbyKant，thatis，asthescienceoftherulesgoverninghumanconduct，oftheirproperinterpretationandofthelimitationstowhichtheyaresubject。SincetheriseoftheCriticalPhilosophy，moralsciencehasalmostwhollylostitsoldermeaning，and，exceptwhereitispreservedunderadebasedforminthecasuistrystillcultivatedbyRomanCatholictheologians，itseemstoberegardednearlyuniversallyasabranchofontologicalinquiry。IdonotknowthatthereisasinglecontemporaryEnglishwriter，withtheexceptionofDr。Whewell，whounderstandsmoralphilosophyasitwasunderstoodbeforeitwasabsorbedbymetaphysicsandbeforethegroundworkofitsrulescametobeamoreimportantconsiderationthantherulesthemselves。Solong，however，asethicalsciencehadtodowiththepracticalregimenofconduct，itwasmoreorlesssaturatedwithRomanlaw。Likeallthegreatsubjectsofmodernthought，itwasoriginallyincorporatedwiththeology。ThescienceofMoralTheology，asitwasatfirstcalled，andasitisstilldesignatedbytheRomanCatholicdivines，wasundoubtedlyconstructed，tothefullknowledgeofitsauthors，bytakinprinciplesofconductfromthesystemoftheChurch，andbyusingthelanguageandmethodsofjurisprudencefortheirexpressionandexpansion。Whilethisprocesswenton，itwasinevitablethatjurisprudence，thoughmerelyintendedtobethevehicleofthought，shouldcommunicateitscolourtothethoughtitself。Thetingereceivedthroughcontactwithlegalconceptionsisperfectlyperceptibleintheearliestethicalliteratureofthemodernworld，anditisevident，Ithink，thattheLawofContract，basedasitisonthecompletereciprocityandindissolubleconnectionofrightsandduties，hasactedasawholesomecorrectivetothepredispositionsofwriterswho，iflefttothemselves，mighthaveexclusivelyviewedamoralobligationasthepublicdutyofacitizenintheCivitasDei。
　　ButtheamountofRomanLawinmoraltheologybecomessensiblysmalleratthetimeofitscultivationbythegreatSpanishmoralists。Moraltheology，developedbythejuridicalmethodofdoctorcommentingondoctor，provideditselfwithaphraseologyofitsown，andAristotelianpeculiaritiesofreasoningandexpression，imbibeddoubtlessingreatpartfromtheDisputationsonMoralsintheacademicalschools，taketheplaceofthatspecialturnofthoughtandspeechwhichcanneverbemistakenbyanypersonconversantwiththeRomanlaw。IfthecreditoftheSpanishschoolofmoraltheologianshadcontinued，thejuridicalingredientinethicalsciencewouldhavebeeninsignificant，buttheusemadeoftheirconclusionsbythenextgenerationofRomanCatholicwritersonthesesubjectsalmostentirelydestroyedtheirinfluence。MoralTheology，degradedintoCasuistry，lostallinterestfortheleadersofEuropeanspeculation；andthenewscienceofMoralPhilosophy，whichwasentirelyinthehandsoftheProtestants，swervedgreatlyasidefromthepathwhichthemoraltheologianshadfollowed。TheeffectwasvastlytoincreasetheinfluenceofRomanlawonethicalinquiry。
　　"Shortly1*aftertheReformation，wefindtwogreatschoolsofthoughtdividingthisclassofsubjectsbetweenthem。ThemostinfluentialofthetwowasatfirstthesectofschoolknowntousastheCasuists，alloftheminspiritualcommunionwiththeRomanCatholicChurch，andnearlyallofthemaffiliatedtooneorotherofherreligiousorders。OntheothersidewereabodyofwriterconnectedwitheachotherbyacommonintellectualdescentfromthegreatauthorofthetreatiseDeJureBellietPacis，HugoGrotius。AlmostallofthelatterwereadherentsoftheReformation，andthoughitcannotbesaidthattheywereformallyandavowedlyatconflictwiththeCasuists，theoriginandobjectoftheirsystemwereneverthelessessentiallydifferentfromthoseofCasuistry。Itisnecessarytocallattentiontothisdifference，becauseitinvolvesthequestionoftheinfluenceofRomanlawonthatdepartmentofthoughtwithwhichbothsystemsareconcerned。ThebookofGrotius，thoughittouchesquestionsofpureEthicsineverypage，andthoughitistheparentimmediateorremoteofinnumerablevolumesofformalmorality，isnot，asiswellknown，aprofessedtreatiseonMoralPhilosophy；itisanattempttodeterminetheLawofNature，orNaturalLaw。Now，withoutenteringuponthequestion，whethertheconceptionofaLawNaturalbenotexclusivelyacreationoftheRomanjurisconsults，wemaylaydownthat，evenontheadmissionofGrotiushimself，thedictaoftheRomanjurisprudenceastowhatpartsofknownpositivelawmustbetakentobepartsoftheLawofNature，are，ifnotinfallible，tobereceivedatalleventswiththeprofoundestrespect。HencethesystemofGrotiusisimplicatedwithRomanlawatitsveryfoundation，andthisconnectionrenderedinevitable——whatthelegaltrainingofthewriterwouldperhapshaveentailedwithoutit——thefreeemploymentineveryparagraphoftechnicalphraseology，andofmodesofreasoning，defining，andillustrating，whichmustsometimesconcealthesense，andalmostalwaystheforceandcogency，oftheargumentfromthereaderwhoisunfamiliarwiththesourceswhencetheyhavebeenderived。Ontheotherhand，CasuistryborrowslittlefromRomanlaw，andtheviewsofmoralitycontendedforhavenothingwhateverincommonwiththeundertakingofGrotius。Allthatphilosophyofrightandwrongwhichhasbecomefamous，orinfamous，underthenameofCasuistry，haditsorigininthedistinctionbetweenMortalandVenialSin。Anaturalanxietytoescapetheawfulconsequencesofdeterminingaparticularacttobemortallysinful，andadesire，equallyintelligible，toassisttheRomanCatholicChurchinitsconflictwithProtestantismbydisburtheningitofaninconvenienttheory，werethemotiveswhichimpelledtheauthorsoftheCasuisticalphilosophytotheinventionofanelaboratesystemofcriteria，intendedtoremoveimmoralactions，inasmanycasesaspossible，outofthecategoryofmortaloffences，andtostampthemasvenialsins。Thefateofthisexperimentismatterofordinaryhistory。WeknowthatthedistinctionsofCasuistry，byenablingthepriesthoodtoadjustspiritualcontroltoallthevarietiesofhumancharacter，didreallyconferonitaninfluencewithprinces，statesmen，andgenerals，unheardofintheagesbeforetheReformation，anddidreallycontributelargelytothatgreatreactionwhichcheckedandnarrowedthefirstsuccessesofProtestantism。Butbeginningintheattempt，nottoestablish，buttoevade——nottodiscoveraprinciple，buttoescapeapostulate——nottosettlethenatureofrightandwrong，buttodeterminewhatwasnotwrongofaparticularnature，——Casuistrywentonwithitsdexterousrefinementstillitendedinsoattenuatingthemoralfeaturesofactions，andsobelyingthemoralinstinctsofOurbeing，thatatlengththeconscienceofmankindrosesuddenlyinrevoltagainstit，andconsignedtoonecommonruinthesystemanditsdoctors。Theblow，longpending，wasfinallystruckintheProvincialLettersofPascal，andsincetheappearanceofthosememorablePapers，nomoralistofthesmallestinfluenceorcredithaseveravowedlyconductedhisspeculationsinthefootstepsoftheCasuists。ThewholefieldofethicalsciencewasthusleftattheexclusivecommandofthewriterswhofollowedGrotius；anditstillexhibitsinanextraordinarydegreethetracesofthatentanglementwithRomanlawwhichissometimesimputedasafault，andsometimesthehighestofitsrecommendations，totheGrotiantheoryManyinquirerssinceGrotius’sdayhavemodifiedhisprinciples，andmany，ofcourse，sincetheriseoftheCriticalPhilosophy，havequitedesertedthem；buteventhosewhohavedepartedmostwidelyfromhisfundamentalassumptionshaveinheritedmuchofhismethodofstatement，ofhistrainofthought，andofhismodeofillustration；andthesehavelittlemeaningandnopointtothepersonignorantofRomanjurisprudence。"
　　Ihavealreadysaidthat，withtheexceptionofthephysicalsciences，thereisnowalkofknowledgewhichhasbeensoslightlyaffectedbyRomanlawasMetaphysics。ThereasonisthatdiscussiononmetaphysicalsubjectshasalwaysbeenconductedinGreek，firstinpureGreek，andafterwardsinadialectofLatinexpresslyconstructedtogiveexpressiontoGreekconceptions。