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