the spirit of laws- 第110部分

34。　It　was　thus　among　the　ancient　Romans。

35。　Among　the　Romans　they　had　the　same　name；　the　cousins…german　were　called　brothers。

36。　It　was　thus　at　Rome　in　the　first　ages；　till　the　people　made　a　law　to　permit　them；　they　were　willing　to　favour　a　man　extremely　popular；　who　had　married　his　cousin…german。　Plutarch's　treatise　entitled　Questions　Concerning　the　Affairs　of　the　Romans。

37。　Collection　of　Voyages　to　the　Indies；　v；　part　1。　An　account　of　the　state　of　the　isle　of　Formosa。

38。　Koran；　chapter　〃On　Women。〃

39。　See　Francis　Pirard。

40。　They　were　considered　as　more　honourable。　See　Philo；　De　Specialibus　legib。　qu？　pertinet　ad　pr？cepta　decalogi；　p。　778；　Paris；　1640。

41。　See　Leg。　8；　Cod。　de　incestis　et　inutilibus　nuptiis。

42。　Edifying　Letters；　coll。　xiv；　p。　403。

43。　〃The　lord　appointed　collectors　to　receive　the　toll　from　the　peasant；　the　gentlemen　were　obliged　to　contribute　by　the　count；　and　the　clergy　to　the　bishop。〃　　Beaumanoir；　25；　§§　13；　17。

44。　De　Leg。；　i。

45。　Politics；　iii。　13。

46。　Hyperbolus。　See　Plutarch；　Aristides。

47。　It　was　found　opposite　to　the　spirit　of　the　legislator。　See　below；　xxix。　7。

48。　Plutarch　in　his　comparison　between　Lycurgus　and　Numa。

49。　Plutarch；　Cato　the　Younger。

50。　Leg。　11　§　ult。；　ff。　ad。　leg。　Jul。　de　adulteriis。

51。　Law　of　the　Visigoths；　iii；　tit。　4；　§　6。

52。　See　Garcilasso　de　la　Vega；　p。　108。

53。　See　v。　14；　viii。　16…20；　ix。　4…7；　and　x。　9；　10。

54。　Venice。

55。　Chapter　14；　part　XII。




Book　XXVII。

1。　Of　the　Origin　and　Revolutions　of　the　Roman　Laws　on　Successions。　This　affair　derives　its　establishment　from　the　most　distant　antiquity；　and　to　penetrate　to　its　foundation；　permit　me　to　search　among　the　first　laws　of　the　Romans　for　what；　I　believe；　nobody　yet　has　been　so　happy　as　to　discover。

We　know　that　Romulus＇1＇　divided　the　land　of　his　little　kingdom　among　his　subjects；　it　seems　to　me　that　hence　the　laws　of　Rome　on　successions　were　derived。

The　law　of　the　division　of　lands　made　it　necessary　that　the　property　of　one　family　should　not　pass　into　another：　hence　it　followed　that　there　were　but　two　orders　of　heirs　established　by　law；　the　children　and　all　the　descendants　that　lived　under　the　power　of　the　father；　whom　they　called　sui　h？redes；　or　his　natural　heirs；　and；　in　their　default；　the　nearest　relatives　on　the　male　side；　whom　they　called　agnati。＇2＇

It　followed　likewise；　that　the　relatives　on　the　female　side；　whom　they　called　cognati；　ought　not　to　succeed；　they　would　have　conveyed　the　estate　into　another　family；　which　was　not　allowed。

Thence　also　it　followed　that　the　children　ought　not　to　succeed　to　the　mother；　nor　the　mother　to　her　children；　for　this　might　carry　the　estate　of　one　family　into　another。　Thus　we　see　them　excluded　by　the　law　of　the　Twelve　Tables：＇3＇　it　called　none　to　the　succession　but　the　agnati；　and　there　was　no　agnation　between　the　son　and　the　mother。

But　it　was　indifferent　whether　the　suus　h？res；　or；　in　default　of　such；　the　nearest　by　agnation；　was　male　or　female；　because；　as　the　relatives　on　the　mother's　side　could　not　succeed；　though　a　woman　who　was　an　heiress　should　happen　to　marry；　yet　the　estate　always　returned　into　the　family　whence　it　came。　On　this　account；　the　law　of　the　Twelve　Tables　does　not　distinguish；　whether　the　person　who　succeeded　was　male　or　female。＇4＇

This　was　the　cause　that；　though　the　grandchildren　by　the　son　succeeded　to　the　grandfather；　the　grandchildren　by　the　daughter　did　not　succeed；　for；　to　prevent　the　estate　from　passing　into　another　family；　the　agnati　were　preferred　to　them。　Hence　the　daughter；　and　not　her　children；　succeeded　to　the　father。＇5＇

Thus　among　the　primitive　Romans；　the　women　succeeded；　when　this　was　agreeable　to　the　law　of　the　division　of　lands；　and　they　did　not　succeed；　when　this　might　suffer　by　it。

Such　were　the　laws　of　succession　among　the　primitive　Romans；　and　as　these　had　a　natural　dependence　on　the　constitution；　and　were　derived　from　the　division　of　lands；　it　is　easy　to　perceive　that　they　had　not　a　foreign　origin；　and　were　not　of　the　number　of　those　brought　into　the　republic　by　the　deputies　sent　into　the　cities　of　Greece。

Dionysius　Halicarnassus　tells　us＇6＇　that　Servius　Tullius；　finding　the　laws　of　Romulus　and　Numa　on　the　division　of　lands　abolished；　restored　them；　and　made　new　ones　to　give　the　old　a　greater　weight。　We　cannot　therefore　doubt　but　that　the　laws　we　have　been　speaking　of；　made　in　consequence　of　this　division；　were　the　work　of　these　three　Roman　legislators。

The　order　of　succession　having　been　established　in　consequence　of　a　political　law；　no　citizen　was　allowed　to　break　in　upon　it　by　his　private　will；　that　is；　in　the　first　ages　of　Rome　he　had　not　the　power　of　making　a　testament。　Yet　it　would　have　been　hard　to　deprive　him；　in　his　last　moments；　of　the　friendly　commerce　of　kind　and　beneficent　actions。

They　therefore　found　a　method　of　reconciling；　in　this　respect；　the　laws　with　the　desires　of　the　individual。　He　was　permitted　to　dispose　of　his　substance　in　an　assembly　of　the　people；　and　thus　every　testament　was；　in　some　sort；　an　act　of　the　legislative　power。

The　law　of　the　Twelve　Tables　permitted　the　person　who　made　his　will　to　choose　which　citizen　he　pleased　for　his　heir。　The　reason　that　induced　the　Roman　laws　so　strictly　to　restrain　the　number　of　those　who　might　succeed　ab　intestato　was　the　law　of　the　division　of　lands；　and　the　reason　why　they　extended　so　widely　the　power　of　the　testator　was　that；　as　the　father　might　sell　his　children；＇7＇　he　might　with　greater　reason　deprive　them　of　his　substance。　These　were　therefore　different　effects；　since　they　flowed　from　different　principles；　and　such　is；　in　this　respect；　the　spirit　of　the　Roman　laws。

The　ancient　laws　of　Athens　did　not　suffer　a　citizen　to　make　a　will。　Solon　permitted　it；　with　an　exception　to　those　who　had　children；＇8＇　and　the　legislators　of　Rome；　filled　with　the　idea　of　paternal　power；　allowed　the　making　a　will　even　to　the　prejudice　of　their　children。　It　must　be　confessed　that　the　ancient　laws　of　Athens　were　more　consistent　than　those　of　Rome。　The　indefinite　permission　of　making　a　will　which　had　been　granted　to　the　Romans；　ruined　little　by　little　the　political　regulation　on　the　division　of　lands；　it　was　the　principal　thing　that　introduced　the　fatal　difference　between　riches　and　poverty：　many　shares　were　united　in　the　same　person；　some　citizens　had　too　much；　and　a　multitude　of　others　had　nothing。　Thus　the　people　being　continually　deprived　of　their　shares　were　incessantly　calling　out　for　a　new　distribution　of　lands。　They　demanded　it　in　an　age　when　the　frugality；　the　parsimony　and　the　poverty　of　the　Romans　were　their　distinguishing　characteristics；　as　well　as　at　a　time　when　their　luxury　had　become　still　more　astonishing。

Testaments　being　properly　a　law　made　in　the　assembly　of　the　people；　those　who　were　in　the　army　were　thereby　deprived　of　a　testamentary　power。　The　people　therefore　gave　the　soldiers　the　privilege　of　making　before　their　companions＇9＇　the　dispositions　which　should　have　been　made　before　them。＇10＇

The　great　assembly　of　the　people　met　but　twice　a　year；　besides；　both　the　people　and　the　affairs　brought　before　them　were　increased；　they　therefore　judged　it　convenient　to　permit　all　the　citizens　to　make　their　will　before　some　Roman　citizens　of　ripe　age；　who　were　to　represent　the　body　of　the　people；＇11＇　they　took　five　citizens；＇12＇　in　whose　presence　the　inheritor　purchased　his　family；　that　is；　his　inheritance；　of　the　testator；＇13＇　another　citizen　brought　a　pair　of　scales　to　weigh　the　value；　for　the　Romans；　as　yet；　had　no　money。＇14＇

To　all　appearance　these　five　citizens　were　to　represent　the　five　classes　of　the　people；　and　they　set　no　value　on　the　sixth；　as　being　composed　of　men　who　had　no　property。

We　ought　not　to　say；　with　Justinian；　that　these　scales　were　merely　imaginary；　they　became；　indeed；　imaginary　in　time；　but　were　not　so　originally。　Most　of　the　laws；　which　afterwards　regulated　wills；　were　built　on　the　reality　of　these　scales：　we　find　sufficient　proof　of　this　in　the　fragments　of　Ulpian。＇15＇　The　deaf；　the　dumb；　the　prodigal；　could　not　make　a　will：　the　deaf；　because　he　could　not　hear　the　words　of　the　buyer　of　the　inheritance；　the　dumb；　because　he　could　not　pronounce　the　terms　of　nomination；　the　prodigal；　because　as　he　was　excluded　from　the　management　of　all　affairs；　he　could　not　sell　his　inheritance。　I　omit　any　further　examples。

Wills　being　made　in　the　assembly　of　the　people　were　rather　the　acts　of　political　than　of　civil　laws；　a　public　rather　than　a　private　right；　whence　it　followed　that　the　father；　while　his　son　was　under　his　authority；　could　not　give　him　leave　to　make　a　will。

Among　most　nations；　wills　are　not　subject　to　greater　formalities　than　ordinary　contracts；　because　both　the　one　and　the　other　are　only　expressions　of　the　will　of　him　who　makes　the　contract；　and　both　are　equally　a　private　right。　But　among　the　Romans；　where　testaments　were　derived　from　the　public　law；　they　were　attended　with　much　greater　formalities　than　other　affairs；＇16＇　and　this　is　still　the　case　in　those　provinces　of　France　which　are　governed　by　the　Roman　law。

Testaments　being；　as　I　have　said；　a　law　of　the　people；　they　ought　to　be　made　with　the　force　of　a　command；　and　in　such　terms　as　are　called　direct　and　imperative。＇17＇　Hence　a　rule　was　formed；　that　they　could　neither　give　nor　transmit　an　inheritance　without　making　use　of　the　imperative　words：　whence　it　followed；　that　they　might　very　justly　in　certain　cases　make　a　substitution；＇18＇　and　ordain；　that　the　inheritance　should　pass　to　another　heir；　but　that　they　could　never　make　a　fiduciary　bequest；＇19＇　that　is；　charge　any　one　in　terms　of　entreaty　to　restore　an　inheritance；　or　a　part　of　it；　to　another。

When　the　father　neither　instituted　his　son　his　heir；　nor　disinherited　him；　the　will　was　annulled；　but　it　was　valid；　though　he　did　not　disinherit　his　daughter；　nor　institute　her　his　heiress。　The　reason　is　plain：　when　he　neither　instituted　nor　disinherited　his　son；　he　did　an　injury　to　his　grandson；　who　might　have　succeeded　ab　intestato　to　his　father；　but　in　neither　instituting　nor　disinheriting　his　daughter；　he　did　no　injury　to　his　daughter's　children；　who　could　not　succeed　ab　intestato　to　their　mother；　because　they　were　neither　sui　h？redes；