the common law-第3章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！



In　the　Athenian　process　there　is　also；　no　doubt；　to　be　traced　a　different　thought。　Expiation　is　one　of　the　ends　most　insisted　on　by　Plato；　and　appears　to　have　been　the　purpose　of　the　procedure　mentioned　by　Aeschines。　Some　passages　in　the　Roman　historians　which　will　be　mentioned　again　seem　to　point　in　the　same　direction。　/2/

Another　peculiarity　to　be　noticed　is；　that　the　liability　seems　to　have　been　regarded　as　attached　to　the　body　doing　the　damage；　in　an　almost　physical　sense。　An　untrained　intelligence　only　imperfectly　performs　the　analysis　by　which　jurists　carry　responsibility　back　to　the　beginning　of　a　chain　of　causation。　The　hatred　for　anything　giving　us　pain；　which　wreaks　itself　on　the　manifest　cause；　and　which　leads　even　civilized　man　to　kick　a　door　when　it　pinches　his　finger；　is　embodied　in　the　noxoe　deditio　and　＇12＇　other　kindred　doctrines　of　early　Roman　law。　There　is　a　defective　passage　in　Gaius；　which　seems　to　say　that　liability　may　sometimes　be　escaped　by　giving　up　even　the　dead　body　of　the　offender。　/1/　So　Livy　relates　that；　Brutulus　Papins　having　caused　a　breach　of　truce　with　the　Romans；　the　Samnites　determined　to　surrender　him；　and　that；　upon　his　avoiding　disgrace　and　punishment　by　suicide；　they　sent　his　lifeless　body。　It　is　noticeable　that　the　surrender　seems　to　be　regarded　as　the　natural　expiation　for　the　breach　of　treaty；　/2/　and　that　it　is　equally　a　matter　of　course　to　send　the　body　when　the　wrong…doer　has　perished。　/3/

The　most　curious　examples　of　this　sort　occur　in　the　region　of　what　we　should　now　call　contract。　Livy　again　furnishes　an　example；　if；　indeed；　the　last　is　not　one。　The　Roman　Consul　Postumius　concluded　the　disgraceful　peace　of　the　Caudine　Forks　（per　sponsionem；　as　Livy　says；　denying　the　common　story　that　it　was　per　feedus）；　and　he　was　sent　to　Rome　to　obtain　the　sanction　of　the　people。　When　there　however；　he　proposed　that　the　persons　who　had　made　the　＇13＇　contract；　including　himself；　should　be　given　up　in　satisfaction　of　it。　For；　he　said；　the　Roman　people　not　having　sanctioned　the　agreement；　who　is　so　ignorant　of　the　jus　fetialium　as　not　to　know　that　they　are　released　from　obligation　by　surrendering　us？　The　formula　of　surrender　seems　to　bring　the　case　within　the　noxoe　deditio。　/1/　Cicero　narrates　a　similar　surrender　of　Mancinus　by　the　pater…patratus　to　the　Numantines；　who；　however；　like　the　Samnites　in　the　former　case；　refused　to　receive　him。　/2/

It　might　be　asked　what　analogy　could　have　been　found　between　a　breach　of　contract　and　those　wrongs　which　excite　the　desire　for　vengeance。　But　it　must　be　remembered　that　the　distinction　between　tort　and　breaches　of　contract；　and　especially　between　the　remedies　for　the　two；　is　not　found　ready　made。　It　is　conceivable　that　a　procedure　adapted　to　redress　for　violence　was　extended　to　other　cases　as　they　arose。　Slaves　were　surrendered　for　theft　as　well　as　＇14＇　for　assault；　/1/　and　it　is　said　that　a　debtor　who　did　not　pay　his　debts；　or　a　seller　who　failed　to　deliver　an　article　for　which　he　had　been　paid；　was　dealt　with　on　the　same　footing　as　a　thief。　/2/　This　line　of　thought；　together　with　the　quasi　material　conception　of　legal　obligations　as　binding　the　offending　body；　which　has　been　noticed；　would　perhaps　explain　the　well…known　law　of　the　Twelve　Tables　as　to　insolvent　debtors。　According　to　that　law；　if　a　man　was　indebted　to　several　creditors　and　insolvent；　after　certain　formalities　they　might　cut　up　his　body　and　divide　it　among　them。　If　there　was　a　single　creditor；　he　might　put　his　debtor　to　death　or　sell　him　as　a　slave。　/3/

If　no　other　right　were　given　but　to　reduce　a　debtor　to　slavery；　the　law　might　be　taken　to　look　only　to　compensation；　and　to　be　modelled　on　the　natural　working　of　self…redress。　/4/　The　principle　of　our　own　law；　that　taking　a　man's　body　on　execution　satisfies　the　debt；　although　he　is　not　detained　an　hour；　seems　to　be　explained　in　that　way。　But　the　right　to　put　to　death　looks　like　vengeance；　and　the　division　of　the　body　shows　that　the　debt　was　conceived　very　literally　to　inhere　in　or　bind　the　body　with　a　vinculum　juris。

Whatever　may　be　the　true　explanation　of　surrender　in　connection　with　contracts；　for　the　present　purpose　we　need　not　go　further　than　the　common　case　of　noxoe　deditio　for　wrongs。　Neither　is　the　seeming　adhesion　of　liability　to　the　very　body　which　did　the　harm　of　the　first　importance。　＇15＇　The　Roman　law　dealt　mainly　with　living　creatures；　with　animals　and　slaves。　If　a　man　was　run　over；　it　did　not　surrender　the　wagon　which　crushed　him；　but　the　ox　which　drew　the　wagon。　/1/　At　this　stage　the　notion　is　easy　to　understand。　The　desire　for　vengeance　may　be　felt　as　strongly　against　a　slave　as　against　a　freeman；　and　it　is　not　without　example　nowadays　that　a　like　passion　should　be　felt　against　an　animal。　The　surrender　of　the　slave　or　beast　empowered　the　injured　party　to　do　his　will　upon　them。　Payment　by　the　owner　was　merely　a　privilege　in　case　he　wanted　to　buy　the　vengeance　off。

It　will　readily　be　imagined　that　such　a　system　as　has　been　described　could　not　last　when　civilization　had　advanced　to　any　considerable　height。　What　had　been　the　privilege　of　buying　off　vengeance　by　agreement；　of　paying　the　damage　instead　of　surrendering　the　body　of　the　offender；　no　doubt　became　a　general　custom。　The　Aquilian　law；　passed　about　a　couple　of　centuries　later　than　the　date　of　the　Twelve　Tables；　enlarged　the　sphere　of　compensation　for　bodily　injuries。　Interpretation　enlarged　the　Aquilian　law。　Masters　became　personally　liable　for　certain　wrongs　committed　by　their　slaves　with　their　knowledge；　where　previously　they　were　only　bound　to　surrender　the　slave。　/2/　If　a　pack…mule　threw　off　his　burden　upon　a　passer…by　because　he　had　been　improperly　overloaded；　or　a　dog　which　might　have　been　restrained　escaped　from　his　master　and　bit　any　one；　the　old　noxal　action；　as　it　was　called；　gave　way　to　an　action　under　the　new　law　to　enforce　a　general　personal　liability。　/3/　Still　later；　ship…owners　and　innkeepers　were　made　liable　＇16＇　as　if　they　were　wrong…doers　for　wrongs　committed　by　those　in　their　employ　on　board　ship　or　in　the　tavern；　although　of　course　committed　without　their　knowledge。　The　true　reason　for　this　exceptional　responsibility　was　the　exceptional　confidence　which　was　necessarily　reposed　in　carriers　and　innkeepers。　/1/　But　some　of　the　jurists；　who　regarded　the　surrender　of　children　and　slaves　as　a　privilege　intended　to　limit　liability；　explained　this　new　liability　on　the　ground　that　the　innkeeper　or　ship…owner　was　to　a　certain　degree　guilty　of　negligence　in　having　employed　the　services　of　bad　men？　This　was　the　first　instance　of　a　master　being　made　unconditionally　liable　for　the　wrongs　of　his　servant。　The　reason　given　for　it　was　of　general　application；　and　the　principle　expanded　to　the　scope　of　the　reason。

The　law　as　to　ship…owners　and　innkeepers　introduced　another　and　more　startling　innovation。　It　made　them　responsible　when　those　whom　they　employed　were　free；　as　well　as　when　they　were　slaves。　/3/　For　the　first　time　one　man　was　made　answerable　for　the　wrongs　of　another　who　was　also　answerable　himself；　and　who　had　a　standing　before　the　law。　This　was　a　great　change　from　the　bare

permission　to　ransom　one's　slave　as　a　privilege。　But　here　we　have　the　history　of　the　whole　modern　doctrine　of　master　and　servant；　and　principal　and　agent。　All　servants　are　now　as　free　and　as　liable　to　a　suit　as　their　masters。　Yet　the　principle　introduced　on　special　grounds　in　a　special　case；　when　servants　were　slaves；　is　now　the　general　law　of　this　country　and　England；　and　under　it　men　daily　have　to　pay　large　sums　for　other　people's　acts；　in　which　they　had　no　part　and　＇17＇　for　which　they　are　in　no　sense　to　blame。　And　to　this　day　the　reason　offered　by　the　Roman　jurists　for　an　exceptional　rule　is　made　to　justify　this　universal　and　unlimited　responsibility。　/1/

So　much　for　one　of　the　parents　of　our　common　law。　Now　let　us　turn　for　a　moment　to　the　Teutonic　side。　The　Salic　Law　embodies　usages　which　in　all　probability　are　of　too　early　a　date　to　have　been　influenced　either　by　Rome　or　the　Old　Testament。　The　thirty…sixth　chapter　of　the　ancient　text　provides　that；　if　a　man　is　killed　by　a　domestic　animal；　the　owner　of　the　animal　shall　pay　half　the　composition　（which　he　would　have　ha