Chapter 10. The Early History of Delict and Crime
The Teutonic Codes， including those of our Anglo-Saxon ancestors， are the only bodies of archaic secular law which have come down to us in such a state that we can form an exact notion of their original dimensions. Although the extant fragments of Roman and Hellenic codes suffice to prove to us their general character， there does not remain enough of them for us to be quite sure of their precise magnitude or of the proportion of their parts to each other. But still on the whole all the known collections of ancient law are characterised by a feature which broadly distinguishes them from systems of mature jurisprudence. The proportion of criminal to civil law is exceedingly different. In the German codes， the civil part of the law has trifling dimensions as compared with the criminal. The traditions which speak of the sanguinary penalties inflicted by the code of Draco seem to indicate that it had the same characteristic. In the Twelve Tables alone， produced by a society of greater legal genius and at first of gentler manners， the civil law has something like its modern precedence； but the relative amount of space given to the modes of redressing wrong， though not enormous， appears to have been large. It may be laid down， I think， that the more archaic the code， the fuller and the minuter is its penal legislation. The phenomenon has often been observed， and has been explained， no doubt to a great extent correctly， by the Violence habitual to the communities which for the first time reduced their laws to writing. The legislator， it is said， proportioned the divisions of his work to the frequency of a certain class of incidents in barbarian life. I imagine， however， that this account is not quite complete. It should be recollected that the comparative barrenness of civil law in archaic collections is consistent with those other characteristics of ancient jurisprudence which have been discussed in this treatise. Nine-tenths of the civil part of the law practised by civilised societies are made up of the Law of Persons， of the Law of Property and of inheritance， and of the Law of Contract. But it is plain that all these provinces of jurisprudence must shrink within narrower boundaries， the nearer we make our approaches to the infancy of social brotherhood. The Law of Persons， which is nothing else than the Law of Status， will be restricted to the scantiest limits as long as all forms of Status are merged in common subjection to Paternal Power， as long as the Wife has no rights against her Husband， the Son none against his Father； and the infant Ward none against the Agnates who are his Guardians. Similarly， the rules relating to Property and Succession can never be plentiful， so long as land and goods devolve within the family， and， if distributed at all， are distributed inside its circle. But the greatest gap in ancient civil law will always be caused by the absence of Contract， which some archaic codes do not mention at all， while others significantly attest the immaturity of the moral notions on which Contract depends by supplying its place with an elaborate jurisprudence of Oaths. There are no corresponding reasons for the poverty of penal law， and accordingly， even if it be hazardous to pronounce that the childhood of nations is always a period of ungoverned violence， we shall still be able to understand why the modem relation of criminal law to civil should be inverted in ancient. codes.
I have spoken of primitive jurisprudence as giving to criminal law a priority unknown in a later age. The expression has been used for convenience'' sake， but in fact the inspection of ancient codes shows that the law which they exhibit in unusual quantities is not true criminal law. All civilised systems agree in drawing a distinction between offences against the State or Community and offences against the Individual， and the two classes of injuries， thus kept apart， I may here， without pretending that the terms have always been employed consistently in jurisprudence， call Crimes and Wrongs， crimina and delicta. Now the penal law of ancient communities is not the law of Crimes； it is the law of Wrongs， or， to use the English technical word， of Torts. The person injured proceeds against the wrong-doer by an ordinary civil action， and recovers compensation in the shape of money-damages if he succeeds. If the Commentaries of Gaius be opened at the place where the writer treats of the penal jurisprudence founded on the Twelve Tables， it will be seen that at the head of the civil wrongs recognised by the Roman law stood Furtum or Theft. Offences which we are accustomed to regard exclusively as crimes are exclusively treated as torts， and not theft only， but assault and violent robbery， are associated by the jurisconsult with trespass， libel and slander. All alike gave rise to an Obligation or vinculum juris， and were all requited by a payment of money. This peculiarity， however， is most strongly brought out in the consolidated Laws of the Germanic tribes. Without an exception， they describe an immense system of money compensations for homicide， and with few exceptions， as large a scheme of compensations for minor injuries. “Under Anglo-Saxon law，” writes Mr. Kemble （Anglo-Saxons， i. 177）， “a sum was placed on the life of every free man， according to his rank， and a corresponding sum on every wound that could be inflicted on his person， for nearly every injury that could be done to his civil rights， honour or peace； the sum being aggravated according to adventitious circumstances.” These compositions are evidently regarded as a valuable source of income； highly complex rules regulate the title to them and the responsibility for them； and， as I have already had occasion to state， they often follow a very peculiar line of devolution， if they have not been acquitted at the decease of the person to whom they belong. If therefore the criterion of a delict， wrong， or tort be that the person who suffers it， and not the State， is conceived to be wronged， it may be asserted that in the infancy of jurisprudence the citizen depends for protection against violence or fraud not on the Law of Crime but on the Law of Tort.
Torts then are copiously enlarged upon in primitive jurisprudence. It must be added that Sins are known to it also. Of the Teutonic codes it is almost unnecessary to make this assertion， because those codes， in the form in which we have received them，were compiled or recast by Christian legislators. But it is also true that non-Christian bodies of archaic law entail penal consequences on certain classes of acts and on certain classes of omissions， as being violations of divine prescriptions and commands. The law administered at Athens by the Senate of Areopagus was probably a special religious code， and at Rome， apparently from a very early period， the Pontifical jurisprudence punished adultery， sacrilege and perhaps murder. There were therefore in the Athenian and in the Roman States laws punishing sins. There were also laws punishing torts. The conception of offence against God produced the first class of ordinances； the conception of offence against one''s neighbour produced the second； but the idea of offence against the State or aggregate community did not at first produce a true criminal jurisprudence.
Yet it is not to be supposed that a conception so simple and elementary as that of wrong done to the State was wanting in any primitive society. It seems rather that the very distinctness with which this conception is realised is the true cause which at first prevents the growth of a criminal law At all events， when the Roman community conceived itself to be injured， the analogy of a personal wrong received was carried out to its consequences with absolute literalness， and the State avenged itself by a single act on the individual wrong-doer. The result was that， in the infancy of the commonwealth， every offence vitally touching its security or its interests was punished by a separate enactment of the legislature. And this is the earliest conception of a crimen or Crime —— an act involving such high issues that the State， instead of leaving its cognisance to the civil tribunal or the religious court， directed a special law or privilegium against the perpetrator. Every indictment therefore took the form of a bill of pains and penalties， and the trial of a criminal was a proceeding wholly extraordinary， wholly irregular， wholly independent of settled rules and fixed conditions. Consequently， both for the reason that the tribunal dispensing justice was the sovereign state itself and also for the reason that no classification of the acts prescribed or forbidden was possible， there was not at this epoch any Law of crimes， any criminal jurisprudence. The procedure was identical with the forms of passing an ordinary statute； it was set in motion by the same persons and conducted with precisely the same solemnities. And it is to be observed that， when a regular criminal law with an apparatus of Courts and officers for its administration had afterwards come into being， the old procedure， as might be supposed from its conformity with theory， still in strictness remained practicable； and， much as resort to such an expedient was discredited， the people of Rome always retained the power of punishing by a special law offences against its majesty. The classical scholar does not require to be reminded that in exactly the same manner the Athenian Bill of Pains and Penalties， or， survived the establishment of regular tribunals. It is known too that when the freemen of the Teutonic races assembled for legislation， they also claimed authority to punish offences of peculiar blackness or perpetrated by criminals of exalted station. Of this nature was the criminal jurisdiction of the Anglo-Saxon Witenagemot.
It may be thought that the difference which I have asserted to exist between the ancient and modern view of penal law has only a verbal existence. The community it may be said， besides interposing to punish crimes legislatively， has from the earliest times interfered by its tribunals to compel the wrong doer to compound for his wrong， and， if it does this， it must always have supposed that in some way it was injured through his offence. But， however rigorous this inference may seem to us now-a-days， it is very doubtful whether it was actually drawn by the men of primitive antiquity. How little the notion of injury to the community had to do with the earliest interferences of the State through its tribunals， is shown by the curious circumstances that in the original administration of justice， the proceedings were a close imitation of the series of acts which were likely to be gone through in private life by persons who were disputing， but who afterwards suffered their quarrel to be appeased. The magistrate carefully simulated the demeanour of a private arbitrator casually called in.
In order to show that this statement is not a mere fanciful conceit， I will produce the evidence on which it rests. Very far the most ancient judicial proceeding known to us is the Legis Actio Sacramenti of the Romans， out of which all the later Roman Law of Actions may be proved to have grown. Gaius carefully describes its ceremonial. Unmeaning and grotesque as it appears at first sight， a little attention enables us to decipher and interpret it.
The subject of litigation is supposed to be. in Court. If it is moveable， it is actually there. If it be immoveable， a fragment or sample of it is brought in its place； land， for instance， is represented by a clod， a house by a single brick. In the example selected by Gaius， the suit is for a slave. The proceeding begins by the plaintiff''s advancing with a rod， which， as Gaius expressly tells， symbolised a spear. He lays hold of the slave and asserts a right to him with the words， “Hunc ego hominem ex Jure Quiritium meum esse dico secundum suam causam sicut dixi.” and then saying， “Ecce tibi Vindictam imposui，” he touches him with the spear. The defendant goes through the same series of acts and gestures. On this the Praetor intervenes， and bids the litigants relax their hold， “Mittite ambo hominem.” They obey， and the plaintiff demands from the defendant the reason of his interference， “Postulo anne dicas qua ex causa vindicaveris.” a question which is replied to by a fresh assertion of right， “Jus peregi sicut vindictam imposui.” On this， the first claimant offers to stake a sum of money， called a Sacramentum， on the justice of his own case， “Quando tu injuria provocasti， Daeris Sacramento te provoco，” and the defendant， in the phrase “Similiter ego te，” accepts the wager. The subsequent proceedings were no longer of a formal kind， but it is to be observed that the Praetor took security for the Sacramentum， which always went into the coffers of the State.
Such was the necessary preface of every ancient Roman suit. It is impossible， I think， to refuse assent to the suggestion of those who see in it a dramatisation of the Origin of Justice. Two armed men are wrangling about some disputed property The Praetor， vir pietate gravis， happens to be going by， and interposes to stop the contest. The disputants state their case to him， and agree that he shall arbitrate between them， it being arranged that the loser， besides resigning the subject of the quarrel， shall pay a sum of money to the umpire as remuneration for his trouble and loss of time. This interpretation would be less plausible than it is， were it not that， by a surprising coincidence， the ceremony described by Gaius as the imperative course of proceeding in a Legis Actio is substantially the same with one of the two subjects which the God Hephaestus is described by Homer as moulding into the First Compartment of the Shield of Achilles. In the Homeric trial-scene， the dispute， as if expressly intended to bring out the characteristics of primitive society， is not about property but about the composition for a homicide. One person asserts that he has paid it， the other that he has never received it. The point of detail， however， which stamps the picture as the counterpart of the archaic Roman practice is the reward designed for the judges. Two talents of gold lie in the middle， to be given to him who shall explain the grounds of the decision most to the satisfaction of the audience， The magnitude of this sum as compared with the trifling amount of the Sacramentum seems to me indicative of the indifference between fluctuating usage and usage consolidated into law. The scene introduced by the poet as a striking and characteristic， but still only occasional， feature of city-life in the heroic age has stiffened， at the opening of the history. of civil process， into the regular， ordinary formalities of a lawsuit. It is natural therefore that in the Legis Actio the remuneration of the Judge should be reduced to a reasonable sum， and that， instead of being adjudged to one of a number of arbitrators by popular acclamation， it should be paid as a matter of course to the State which the Praetor represents. But that the incidents described so vividly by homer， and by Gaius with even more than the usual crudity of technical language， have substantially the same meaning， I cannot doubt； and， in confirmation of this view， it may be added that many observers of the earliest judicial usages of modern Europe have remarked that the fines inflicted by Courts on offenders were originally sacramenta. The State did not take from the defendant a composition for any wrong supposed to be done to itself， but claimed a share in the compensation awarded to the plaintiff simply as the fair price of its time and trouble. Mr. Kemble expressly assigns this character to the Anglo-Saxon bannum or fredum.
Ancient law furnishes other proofs that the earliest administrators of justice simulated the probable acts of persons engaged in a private quarrel. In settling the damages to be awarded， they took as their guide the measure of vengeance likely to be exacted by an aggrieved person under the circumstances of the case. This is the true explanation of the very different penalties imposed by ancient law on offenders caught in the act or soon after it and on offenders detected after considerable delay some strange exemplifications of this peculiarity are supplied by the old Roman law of Theft. The Laws of the Twelve Tables seem to have divided Thefts into Manifest and Non-Manifest， and to have allotted. extraordinarily different penalties to the offence according as it fell under one head or the other. The Manifest Thief was he who was caught within the house in which he had been pilfering， or who was taken while making off to a place of safety with the stolen goods； the Twelve Tables condemned him to be put to death if he were already a slave， and， if he was a freeman， they made him the bondsman of the owner of the property. The Non-Manifest Thief was he who was detected under any other circumstances than those described； and the old code simply directed that an offender of this sort should refund double the value of what he had stolen. In Gaius''s day the excessive severity of the Twelve Tables to the Manifest Thief had naturally been much mitigated， but the law still maintained the old principle by mulcting him in fourfold the value of the stolen goods， while the Non-Manifest Thief still continued to pay merely the double. The ancient lawgiver doubtless considered that the injured proprietor， if left to himself， would inflict a very different punishment when his blood was hot from that with which he would be satisfied when the Thief was detected after a considerable interval； and to this calculation the legal scale of penalties was adjusted. The principle is precisely the same as that followed in the Anglo-Saxon and other Germanic codes， when they suffer a thief chased down and caught with the booty to be hanged or decapitated on the spot， while they exact the full penalties of homicide from anybody who kills him after the pursuit has been intermitted. These archaic distinctions bring home to us very forcibly the distance of a refined from a rude jurisprudence. The modem administrator of justice has confessedly one of the hardest tasks before him when he undertakes to discriminate between the degrees of criminality which belong to offences falling within the same technical description. It is always easy to say that a man is guilty of manslaughter， larceny， or bigamy， but it is often most difficult to pronounce what extent of moral guilt he has incurred， and consequently what measure of punishment he has deserved. There is hardly any perplexity in casuistry， or in the analysis of motive， which we may not be called upon to confront， if we attempt to settle such a point with precision； and accordingly the law of our day shows an increasing tendency to abstain as much as possible from laying down positive rules on the subject. In France， the jury is left to decide whether the offence which it finds committed has been attended by extenuating circumstances； in England， a nearly unbounded latitude in the selection of punishments is now allowed to the judge； while all States have in reserve an ultimate remedy for the miscarriages of law in the Prerogative of Pardon， universally lodged with the Chief Magistrate. It is curious to observe how little the men of primitive times were troubled with these scruples， how completely they were persuaded that the impulses of the injured person were the proper measure of the vengeance he was entitled to exact， and how literally they imitated the probable rise and fall of his passions in fixing their scale of punishment. I wish it could be said that their method of legislation is quite extinct. There are， however， several modern systems of law which， in cases of graver wrong， admit the fact of the wrong doer leaving been taken in the act to be pleaded in justification of inordinate punishment inflicted on them by the sufferer-an indulgence which， though superficially regarded it may seem intelligible， is based， as it seems to me， on a very low morality.
Nothing， I have said， can be simpler than the considerations which ultimately led ancient societies to the formation of a true criminal jurisprudence. The State conceived itself to be wronged， and the Popular Assembly struck straight at the offender with the same movement which accompanied its legislative action. it is further true of the ancient world though not precisely of the modern， as I shall have occasion to point out —— that the earliest criminal tribunals were merely subdivisions， or committees， of the legislature. This， at all events， is the conclusion pointed at by the legal history of the two great states of antiquity， with tolerable clearness in one case， and with absolute distinctness in the other. The primitive penal law of Athens entrusted the castigation of offences partly to the Archons， who seem to have punished them as torts， and partly to the Senate of Areopagus， which punished them as sins. Both jurisdictions were substantially transferred in the end to the Heliaea， the High Court of Popular Justice， and the functions of the Archons and of the Areopagus became either merely ministerial or quite insignificant. But “Heliaea” is only an old word for Assembly； the Heliaea of classical times was simply the Popular Assembly convened for judicial purposes， and the famous Dikasteries of Athens were only its subdivisions or panels. The corresponding changes which occurred at Rome are still more easily interpreted， because the Romans confined their experiments to the penal law， and did not， like the Athenians， construct popular courts with a civil as well as a criminal jurisdiction. The history of Roman criminal jurisprudence begins with the old Judicia Populi， at which the Kings are said to have presided. These were simply solemn trials of great offenders under legislative forms. It seems， however that from an early period the Comitia had occasionally delegated its criminal jurisdiction to a Quaestio or Commission， which bore much the same relation to the Assembly as a Committee of the House of Commons bears to the House itself， except that the Roman Commissioners or Quaestores did not merely report to the Comitia， but exercised all powers which that body was itself in the habit of exercising， even to the passing sentence on the Accused. A Quaestio of this sort was only appointed to try a particular offender， but there was nothing to prevent two or three Quaestiones sitting at the same time； and it is probable that several of them were appointed simultaneously， when several grave cases of wrong to the community had occurred together. There are also indications that now and then these Quaestiones approached the character of our Standing Committees， in that they were appointed periodically， and without waiting for occasion to arise in the commission of some serious crime. The old Quaestores Parricidii， who are mentioned in connection with transactions of very ancient date， as being deputed to try （or， as some take it， to search out and try） all cases of paricide and murder， seem to have been appointed regularly every year； and the Duumviri Perduellionis， or Commission of Two for trial of violent injury to the Commonwealth， are also believed by most writers to have been named periodically. The delegations of power to these latter functionaries bring us some way forwards. instead of being appointed when and as state-offences were committed， they had a general， though a temporary jurisdiction over such as might be perpetrated. Our proximity to a regular criminal jurisprudence is also indicated by the general terms “Parricidium” and “Perduellio” which mark the approach to something like a classification of crimes.
The true criminal law did not however come into existence till the year B.C. 149， when L. Calpurnius Piso carried the statute known as the Lex Calpurnia de Repetundis. The law applied to cases Repetundarum Pecuniarum， that is， claims by Provincials to recover monies improperly received by a Governor-General， but the great and permanent importance of this statute arose from its establishing the first Quaestio Perpetua. A Quaestio Perpetua was a Permanent Commission as opposed to those which were occasional and to those which were temporary. It was a regular criminal tribunal whose existence dated from the passing of the statute creating it and continued till another statute should pass abolishing it. Its members were not specially nominated， as were the members of the older Quaestiones， but provision was made in the law constituting it for selecting from particular classes the judges who were to officiate， and for renewing them in conformity with definite rules. The offences of which it took cognisance were also expressly named and defined in this statute， and the new Quaestio had authority to try and sentence all persons in future whose acts should fall under the definitions of crime supplied by the law. It was therefore a regular criminal judicature， administering a true criminal jurisprudence.
The primitive history of criminal law divides itself therefore into four stages. Understanding that the conception of Crime， as distinguished from that of Wrong or Tort and from that of Sin， involves the idea of injury to the State or collective community， we first find that the commonwealth， in literal conformity with the conception， itself interposed directly， and by isolated acts， to avenge itself on the author of the evil which it had suffered. This is the point from which we start； each indictment is now a bill of pains and penalties， a special law naming the criminal and prescribing his punishment. A second step is accomplished， when the multiplicity of crimes compels the legislature to delegate its powers to particular Quaestiones or Commissions， each of which is deputed to investigate a particular accusation， and if it be proved， to punish the particular offender. Yet another movement is made when the legislature， instead of waiting for the alleged commission of a crime as the occasion of appointing a Quaestio， periodically nominates Commissioners like the Quaestores Parricidii and the Duumviri Perduellionis， on the chance of certain classes of crimes being committed， and in the expectation that they will be perpetrated. The last stage is reached when the Quaestiones from being periodical or occasional become permanent Benches or Chambers-when the judges， instead of being named in the particular law nominating the Commission， are directed to be chosen through all future time in a particular way and from a particular class and when certain acts are described in general language and declared to be crimes， to be visited， in the event of their perpetration， with specified penalties appropriated to each description.
If the Quaestiones Perpetuae had had a longer history， they would doubtless have come to be regarded as a distinct institution， and their relation to the Comitia would have seemed no closer than the connection of our own Courts of Law with the Sovereign， who is theoretically the fountain of justice. But the imperial despotism destroyed them before their origin had been completely forgotten， and， so long as they lasted， these Permanent Commissions were looked upon by the Romans as the mere depositaries of a delegated power. The cognisance of crimes was considered a natural attribute of the legislature， and the mind of the citizen never ceased to be carried back from the Quaestiones， to the Comitia which had deputed them to put into exercise some of its own inalienable functions. The view which regarded the Quaestiones， even when they became permanent， as mere Committees of the Popular Assembly —— as bodies which only ministered to a higher authority —— had some important legal consequences which left their mark on the criminal law to the very latest period. One immediate result was that the Comitia continued to exercise criminal jurisdiction by way of bill of pains and penalties， long after the Quaestiones had been established. Though the legislature had consented to delegate its powers for the sake of convenience to bodies external to itself， it did not follow that it surrendered them. The Comitia and the Quaestiones went on trying and punishing offenders side by side； and any unusual outburst of popular indignation was sure， until the extinction of the Republic， to call down upon its object an indictment before the Assembly of the Tribes.
One of the most remarkable peculiarities of the institutions of the Republic is also traceable to this dependance of the Quaestiones on the Comitia. The disappearance of the punishment of death from the penal system of Republican Rome used to be a very favourite topic with the writers of the last century， who were perpetually using it to point some theory of the Roman character or of modem social economy The reason which can be confidently assigned for it stamps it as purely fortuitous. Of the three forms which the Roman legislature successively assumed， one， it is well known-the Comitia Centuriata —— was exclusively taken to represent the State as embodied for military operations. The Assembly of the Centuries， therefore， had all powers which may be supposed to be properly lodged with a General commanding an army， and， among them， it had authority to subject all offenders to the same correction to which a soldier rendered himself liable by breaches of discipline. The Comitia Centuriata could therefore inflict capital punishment. Not so， however， the Comitia Curiata or Comitia Tributa， They were fettered on this point by the sacredness with which the person of a Roman citizen， inside the walls of the city， was invested by religion and law； and， with respect to the last of them， the Comitia Tributa， we know for certain that it became a fixed principle that the Assembly of the Tribes could at most impose a fine. So long as criminal jurisdiction was confined to the legislature， and so long as the assemblies of the centuries and of the Tribes continued to exercise co-ordinate powers， it was easy to prefer indictments for graver crimes before the legislative body which dispensed the heavier penalties； but then it happened that the more democratic assembly， that of the Tribes， almost entirely superseded the others， and became the ordinary legislature of the later Republic. Now the decline of the Republic was exactly the period during which the Quaestiones Perpetuae were established， so that the statutes creating them were all passed by a legislative assembly which itself could not， at its ordinary sittings， punish a criminal with death. It followed that the Permanent judicial Commissions， holding a delegated authority， were circumscribed in their attributes and capacities by the limits of the powers residing with the body which deputed them. They could do nothing which the Assembly of the Tribes could not have done； and， as the Assembly could not sentence to death， the Quaestiones were equally incompetent to award capital punishment. The anomaly thus resulting was not viewed in ancient times with anything like the favour which it has attracted among the moderns， and indeed， while it is questionable whether the Roman character was at all the better for it， it is certain that the Roman Constitution was a great deal the worse. Like every other institution which has accompanied the human race down the current of its history， the punishment of death is a necessity of society in certain stages of the civilising process. There is a time when the attempt to dispense with it baulks both of the two great instincts which lie at the root of all penal law. Without it， the community neither feels that it is sufficiently revenged on the criminal， nor thinks that the example of his punishment is adequate to deter others from imitating him. The incompetence of the Roman Tribunals to pass sentence of death led distinctly and directly to those frightful Revolutionary intervals， known as the Proscriptions， during which all law was formally suspended simply because party violence could find no other avenue to the vengeance for which it was thirsting. No cause contributed so powerfully to the decay of political capacity in the Roman people as this periodical abeyance of the laws； and， when it had once been resorted to， we need not hesitate to assert that the ruin of Roman liberty became merely a question of time. If the practice of the Tribunals had afforded an adequate vent for popular passion， the forms of judiciAl procedure would no doubt have been as flagrantly perverted as with us in the reigns of the later Stuarts， but national character would not have suffered as deeply as it did， nor would the stability of Roman institutions have been as seriously enfeebled.
I will mention two more singularities of the Roman Criminal System which were produced by the same theory of judicial authority. They are， the extreme multiplicity of the Roman criminal tribunals， and the capricious and anomalous classification of crimes which characterised Roman penal jurisprudence throughout its entire history. Every Quaestio， it has been said， whether Perpetual or otherwise， had its origin in a distinct statute. From the law which created it， it derived its authority； it rigorously observed the limits which its charter prescribed to it， and touched no form of criminality which that charter did not expressly define. As then the statutes which constituted the various Quaestiones were all called forth by particular emergencies， each of them being in fact passed to punish a class of acts which the circumstances of the time rendered particularly odious or particularly dangerous， these enactments made not the slightest reference to each other， and were connected by no common principle. Twenty or thirty different criminal laws were in existence together， with exactly the same number of Quaestiones to administer them； nor was any attempt made during the Republic to fuse these distinct judicial bodies into one， or to give symmetry to the provisions of the statutes which appointed them and defined their duties. The state of the Roman criminal jurisdiction at this period， exhibited some resemblances to the administration of civil remedies in England at the time when the English Courts of Common Law had not as yet introduced those fictitious averments into their writs which enabled them to trespass on each other''s peculiar province. Like the Quaestiones， the Courts of Queen''s Bench， Common Pleas， and Exchequer were all theoretical emanations from a higher authority， and each entertained a special class of cases supposed to be committed to it by the fountain of its jurisdiction； but then the Roman Quaestiones were many more than three in number， and it was infinitely less easy to discriminate the acts which fell under the cognisance of each Quaestio， than to distinguish between the provinces of the three Courts in Westminster Hall. The difficulty of drawing exact lines between the spheres of the different Quaestiones made the multiplicity of Roman tribunals something more than a mere inconvenience； for we read with astonishment that when it was not immediately clear under what general description a man''s alleged offences ranged themselves， he might be indicted at once or successively before several different Commissions， on the chance of some one of them declaring itself competent to convict him； and， although conviction by one Quaestio ousted the jurisdiction of the rest， acquittal by one of them could not be pleaded to an accusation before another. This was directly contrary to the rule of the Roman civil law； and we may be sure that a people so sensitive as the Romans to anomalies （or， as their significant phrase was， to inelegancies） in jurisprudence， would not long have tolerated it， had not the melancholy history of the Quaestiones caused them to be regarded much more as temporary weapons in the hands of factions than as permanent institutions for the correction of crime. The Emperors soon abolished this multiplicity and conflict of jurisdiction； but it is remarkable that they did not remove another singularity of the criminal law which stands in close connection with the number of the Courts. The classifications of crimes which are contained even in the Corpus Juris of Justinian are remarkably capricious. Each Quaestio had， in fact， confined itself to the crimes committed to its cognisance by its charter. These crimes， however， were only classed together in the original statute because they happened to call simultaneously for castigation at the moment of passing it. They had not therefore anything necessarily in common； but the fact of their constituting the particular subject-matter of trials before a particular Quaestio impressed itself naturally on the public attention， and so inveterate did the association become between the offences mentioned in the same statute that， even when formal attempts were made by Sylla and by the Emperor Augustus to consolidate the Roman criminal law the legislator preserved the old grouping. The Statutes of Sylla and Augustus were the foundation of the penal jurisprudence of the Empire， and nothing can be more extraordinary than some of the classifications which they bequeathed to it. I need only give a single example in the fact that perjury was always classed with cutting and wounding and with poisoning， no doubt because a law of Sylla， the Lex Cornelia de Sicariis et Veneficis， had given jurisdiction over all these three forms of crime to the same Permanent Commission. It seems too that this capricious grouping of crimes affected the vernacular speech of the Romans. People naturally fell into the habit of designating all the offences enumerated in one law by the first name on the list， which doubtless gave its style to the Law Court deputed to try them all. All the offences tried by the Quaestio De Adulteriis would thus be called Adultery.
I have dwelt on the history and characteristics of the Roman Quaestiones because the formation of a criminal jurisprudence is nowhere else so instructively exemplified. The last Quaestiones were added by the Emperor Augustus， and from that time the Romans may be said to have had a tolerably complete criminal law. Concurrently with its growth， the analogous process had gone on， which I have called the conversion of Wrongs into Crimes， for though the Roman legislature did not extinguish the civil， remedy for the more heinous offences， it offered the sufferer a redress which he was sure to prefer. Still， even after Augustus had completed his legislation， several offences continued to be regarded as Wrongs， which modern societies look upon exclusively as Crimes； nor did they become criminally punishable till some late but uncertain date， at which the law began to take notice of a new description of offences called in the Digest crimina extraordinaria. These were doubtless a class of acts which the theory of Roman jurisprudence treated merely as wrongs； but the growing sense of the majesty of society revolted from their entailing nothing worse on their perpetrator than the payment of money damages， and accordingly the injured person seems to have been permitted， if he pleased， to pursue them as crimes extra ordinem， that is by a mode of redress departing in some respect or other from the ordinary procedure. From this period at which these crimina extraordinaria were first recognised， the list of crimes in the Roman State must have been as long as in any community of the modern world.
It is unnecessary to describe with any minuteness the mode of administering criminal justice under the Roman Empire， but it is to be noted that both its theory and practice have had powerful effect on modern society. The Emperors did not immediately abolish the Quaestiones， and at first they committed an extensive criminal jurisdiction to the Senate， in which， however servile it might show itself in fact， the Emperor was no more nominally. than a Senator like the rest. But some sort of collateral criminal jurisdiction had been claimed by the Prince from the first； and this， as recollections of the free commonwealth decayed， tended steadily to gain at the expense of the old tribunals. Gradually the punishment of crimes was transferred to magistrates directly nominated by the Emperor and the privileges of the Senate passed to the Imperial Privy Council， which also became a Court of ultimate criminal appeal. Under these influences the doctrine， familiar to the moderns， insensibly shaped itself that the Sovereign is the fountain of all Justice and the depositary of all Grace. It was not so much the fruit of increasing adulation and servility as of the centralisation of the Empire which had by this time perfected itself. The theory of criminal justice had， in fact， worked round almost to the point from which it started. It had begun in the belief that it was the business of the collective community to avenge its own wrongs by its own hand； and it ended in the doctrine that the chastisement of crimes belonged in an especial manner to the Sovereign as representative and mandatary of his people. The new view differed from the old one chiefly in the air of awfulness and majesty which the guardianship of justice appeared to throw around the person of the Sovereign.
This later Roman view of the Sovereign''s relation to justice certainly assisted in saving modern societies from the necessity of travelling through the series of changes which I have illustrated by the history of the Quaestiones. In the primitive law of almost all the races which have peopled Western Europe there are vestiges of the archaic notion that the punishment of crimes belongs to the general assembly of freemen； and there are some States —— Scotland is said to be one of them —— in which the parentage of the existing judicature can be traced up to a Committee of the legislative body. But the development of the criminal law was universally hastened by two causes， the memory of the Roman Empire and the influence of the Church. On the one hand traditions of the majesty of the Caesars， perpetuated by the temporary ascendency of the House of Charlemagne， were surrounding Sovereigns with a prestige which a mere barbarous chieftain could never otherwise have acquired and were communicating to the pettiest feudal potentate the character of guardian of society and representative of the State. On the other hand， the Church， in its anxiety to put a curb on sanguinary ferocity， sought about for authority to punish the graver misdeeds， and found it in those passages of Scripture which speak with approval of the powers of punishment committed to the civil magistrate. The New Testament was appealed to as proving that secular rulers exist for the terror of evildoers； the Old Testament， as laying down that “Whoso sheddeth man''s blood， by man shall his blood be shed.” There can be no doubt， I imagine， that modern ideas on the subject of crime are based upon two assumptions contended for by the Church in the Dark Ages-first， that each feudal ruler， in his degree， might be assimilated to the Roman Magistrates spoken of by Saint Paul； and next， that the offences which he was to chastise were those selected for prohibition in the Mosaic Commandments， or rather such of them as the Church did not reserve to her own cognisance. Heresy （supposed to be included in the First and Second Commandments）， Adultery， and Perjury were ecclesiastical offences， and the Church only admitted the co-operation of the secular arm for the purpose of inflicting severer punishment in cases of extraordinary aggravation. At the same time， she taught that murder and robbery with their various modifications were under the jurisdiction of civil rulers， not as an accident of their position but by the express ordinance of God.
There is a passage in the writings of King Alfred （Kemble， ii. 209） which brings out into remarkable clearness the struggle of the various ideas that prevailed in his day as to the origin of criminal jurisdiction. It will be seen that Alfred attributes it partly to the authority of the Church and partly to that of the Witan， while he expressly claims for treason against the lord the same immunity from ordinary rules which the Roman Law of Majestas had assigned to treason against the Caesar. “After this it happened，” he writes， “that many nations received the faith of Christ， and there were many synods assembled throughout the earth， and among the English race also after they had received the faith of Christ， both of holy bishops and of their exalted Witan. They then ordained that， out of that mercy which Christ had taught， secular lords， with their leave， might without sin take for every misdeed the bot in money which they ordained； except in cases of treason against a lord， to which they dared not assign any mercy because Almighty God adjudged none to them that despised Him， nor did Christ adjudge any to them which sold Him to death； and He commanded that a lord should be loved like Himself.”
Henry Sumner Maine
第十章 侵权和犯罪的早期史
“条顿法典”（Teutonic Codes）包括我们盎格鲁－撒克逊的法典在内，是流传到我们手里的唯一的古代世俗法律，关于它原来的规模我们可以形成一个明确的概念。虽然罗马和希腊法典的现存片段足以证明它们的一般性质，但残存的数量不多，还不够使我们十分确切地知道它们到底有多大的篇幅以及各个部分相互的比重。但大体而论，所有已知的古代法的蒐集都有一个共同的特点使它们和成熟的法律学制度显然不同。最显著的差别在于刑法和民法所占的比重。在日耳曼法典中，民事部分的法律比刑事部分范围要狭小得多。德累科法典科处血刑的传统，似乎表明它也有同样的特点。只有在“十二铜表法”（这是一个具有伟大法律天才和一个温良风俗的社会的产物）中，它的民事法律才有些象其现代的先例；但是损害救济方式所占的地位，虽然不是异常巨大，但却是相当大的。我以为可以这样说，法典愈古老，它的刑事立法就愈详细、愈完备。这种现象常常可以看到，并且这样解释无疑地在很大程度上是正确的：由于法律初次用文字写成时，社会中经常发生强暴行为。据说，立法者按照野蛮生活中某一类事件发生次数的多少以分配其工作的比重。但我认为这个说法并不十分完全。应该回想一下，在古代的蒐集中民事法律比较缺少是和本文中所讨论的古代法律学的其他特征相一致的。文明社会所施行的法律的民事部分，有十分之九是由“人法”、“财产和继承法”以及“契约法”组成的。
但是很显然，当我们越接近社会的萌芽时代，这一切法律学领域就愈缩小到更狭小的范围之内。既然一切身分形式都共同从属于“父权”之下，既然“妻”对其“夫”没有任何权利，子对其父也没有任何权利，以及婴儿“受监护人”对作为其“监护人”的“宗亲”，也没有任何权利，这个等于是 “身分法”的“人法”即被限制在最狭小的限度内。同样地，有关“财产”和“继承”的规定决不会很多的，既然土地和财物是在家族内授受，并且，如果真要分配的话，也是在家族的范围内进行的。但是，古代民法中最大的缺口始终是由于缺少“契约”而造成的，在有些古代法典中完全不提到“契约”，而在另一些古代法典中则用一种精细的“宣誓”法律来代替“契约”，这足以证明“契约”所依据的道德观念还没有成熟。至于刑法，则并没有同样的使它贫乏的理由，因此，纵使我们不应冒昧地宣称在国家的幼年时代总是一个无法抑制的强暴时期，我们仍旧应该懂得为什么刑法和民法的现代关系竟在古代法典中颠倒过来。
我曾认为：原始法律学曾以近代所不知道的优先给与犯罪法。这种说法完全是为了方便偏见，但事实上，对古代法典的仔细考察使我们知道，它们以非常的数量揭示的法律并非真正的犯罪法。所有文明制度都一致同意在对国家、对社会所犯的罪行和对个人所犯的罪行之间，应该有所区别，这样区别的两类损害，我称之为犯罪（climina）和不法行为（delicta），虽然我并不认为这两个名词在法律学上是始终这样一致应用的。古代社会的刑法不是“犯罪”法；这是“不法行为”法，或用英国的术语，就是“侵权行为”法。被害人用一个普通民事诉讼对不法行为人提起诉讼，如果他胜诉，就可以取得金钱形式的损害补偿。我们试参考该雅士在“评释”中根据“十二铜表法”对刑事法律学所作的讨论，可以看到，在罗马法所承认的民事不法行为的开头有窃盗罪（Eurtum）。我们在习惯上认为专属于犯罪的罪行被完全认为是不法行为，并且不仅是窃盗，甚至凌辱和强盗，也被法学专家把它们和扰害、文字诽谤及口头诽谤联系在一起。所有这一切都产生了“债”或是法锁，并都可以用金钱支付以为补偿。
但这个特点，最有力地表现在日耳曼部落的统一法律（the consolidated Laws of Germanic tribes）中。它们对杀人罪也不例外有一个庞大的用金钱赔偿的制度，至于轻微损害，除少数例外，亦有一个同样庞大的金钱赔偿制度。垦布尔先生（Mr. Kembles）〔在“盎格鲁－撒克逊”（Anglo－Saxons）卷一，第177页中〕写道：“根据盎格鲁－撒克逊法律，对于每一个自由人的生命，都可以按照他的身分而以一定金钱为赔偿，对于其身受的每一个创伤，对于他的民权、荣誉或安宁所造成的几乎每一种损害，都可以用相当的金钱为赔偿；金额按照偶然情势而增加”。这些和解费明显地被认为是收入的一种有价值的来源；一套高度复杂的规则规定着申请它们的权利和负担它们的责任；并且象我在前面已经说过的那样，如果它们在所属的人死亡时还没有清偿，它们常根据一些特殊的规定而遗传下去。因此，如果一种侵权行为或不法行为的标准是：被认为受到损害的是被损害的个人而不是“国家”，则可断言，在法律学幼年时代，公民赖以保护使不受强暴或诈骗的，不是“犯罪法”而是“侵权行为法”。
于是，在原始法律学中“侵权行为”被大量地扩大了。必须说明，原始法律学也涉及“罪过”。对于条顿法典，我们几乎是毋庸作这样的说明的，因为我们所接受到的这些法典的形式，是经基督教立法者编纂或改写过的。但是，在非基督教的古代法律中，对于某类行为和不行为也往往因为违背了神的指示和命令而加以刑罚。雅典“阿勒乌柏果斯元老院” （Senate of Areopagus）所适用的法律也许是一个特殊的宗教法典，而在罗马，显然从很早的时期起，教长法律学就对通奸罪、渎神罪以及谋杀罪加以刑罚。因此，在雅典和在罗马各省中，法律处罚罪过。他们也有处罚侵权行为的法律。
触犯“上帝”的罪行的概念产生了第一类的律令；触犯邻居的概念产生了第二类的律令；但触犯国家或集成社会的观念，并没有一开始就产生一个真正的犯罪法律学。
但是我们不能就因而假定，对国家做出不法行为这样一种简单而基本的概念，是在任何原始社会中都缺乏的。很可能在最初阻止犯罪法律发展的真正原因，正是由于这个概念被理解得很清楚明白。无论如何，当罗马社会认为它本身受到了损害时，它即绝对按照字面地类推适用当一个个人受到不法行为时所发生的后果，国家对不法行为的个人就用一个单一行为来报复。其结果是，在共和国的幼年时代，对于严重妨害国家安全或国家利益的每一种罪行，都由立法机关制定一个单独法令来加以处罚。这就是对于一个犯罪（crimen）的最古概念——犯罪是一种涉及重要结果的行为，对于这种行为，国家不交给民事法院或宗教法院审判，而专对犯罪者制定一个特别法律（privilegium）加以处理。因此，每一个起诉都用一种痛苦和刑罚状（a bill of pains and penalties）的形式，而审判一个犯人（criminal）所用的一种诉讼程序是完全非常的、完全非正规的、完全离既定的规则和固定条件而独立的。一方面由于执行正义的法院就是主权国家本身，另一方面由于不可能把规定的或禁止的行为加以分类，因此，在这个时代中，就没有任何的犯罪法律、任何的犯罪法律学。所用的程序和通过一条普通法令的形式完全相同；它是由同样的人物提议，并且用完全同样的仪式来进行的。可以注意的是，当一种犯罪法律连同执行它的一套“法院”和官员们在后来出现时，旧的程序可能是由于它符合于理论，仍旧严格地适用着；由于这一种方法不复为人所信任，罗马人民常对触犯国家尊严的人保留着用一种特别法律加以处罚的权力。凡是古典派的学者都能知道，雅典的痛苦和刑罚状（CισαγγCKια）正是完全同样地，在正式法院成立后还继续存在。我们也知道，当条顿民族的自由人集会立法时，他们也主张有权刑罚特别凶残的罪行，或刑罚占有崇高地位的犯人所犯的罪行。具有这种性质的，是“盎格鲁－撒克逊国会”（Anglo－Saxon Witenagemot）的刑事管辖权。
也许有人以为，我所说的古代和现代关于刑法观念上所存在的不同，只是在口头上存在。可以这样说，社会除了用立法的方法来处罚犯罪外，从最早的时代起，它就用它的法院来进行干预，强迫不法行为人补偿其不法行为。如果它是这样做了，那就始终可以假定社会在某些方面由于他造成的罪行而受到了损害。但是，不论这个推论在今天的我们看来是如何严格，它是否真正由原始古代的人们所作出，依旧是一个疑问。国家在最早时代通过其法院而进行干涉，很少是由于国家受到了损害这个观念，这从下述的情况中可以看出，即在原来的司法行政中，它所采用的程序，主要是摹仿私人生活中可能要做的一系列的行为，即人们在生活中发生了争执，但在后来不得不把他们的争执提交和解。高级官吏谨慎地仿效着临时被召唤来的一个私人公断者的态度。
为了要表明这个说法不仅仅是一种幻想，我将提出它所依据的证据。我们所知道的最古的司法程序是罗马人的“誓金法律诉讼”（Legis Actio Sacramenti），所有后期的罗马“诉讼法”（Law of Actions）都是从它发展来的。该雅士曾详尽地描述它的仪式。初看起来，这好象是毫无意义甚至荒谬的，但稍加注意，就可使我们了解它的意义。
涉讼的标的一般认为是应该存缴到法院中的。如果是动产，就用原物。如果是不动产，就以碎片或样品为代替；例如土地用一块泥，房屋用一块砖作代表。在该雅士所选的例子中，诉讼是为了一个奴隶。当诉讼开始时，原告手持一竿前进，这一根竿子据该雅士的说明是象征着一支枪。他抓住了奴隶，并用下述语句主张他的权利，“我根据公民法的规定主张这个人是我所有的”（Hunc ego hominem ex Jure Quiritium meum esse dico secundum suam causam sicut dixi）；接着他用竿触他，说，“现在把枪放在他身上”（Ecce tibi Vindictam imposui）。被告进行着同样的一系列的行为和动作。这时裁判官进而干涉，他吩咐诉讼两造放手，“放开枪”（Mittite ambo hominem）。他们服从了，原告就要求被告提出其干涉的理由，“我请求这物件，你有什么理由主张权利”（Postulo anne dicas gua ex causa vindicaveris），对这个问题所给与的回答是一个新的权利的主张，“我已主张这物件是我所有，所以把枪放在他身上”（Jus peregi sicut vindictam imposui）。到这时，第一个请求人提出一笔称为“誓金”的金钱，作为他提出案件正当的赌注，并说，“你的权利主张没有根据，我愿以誓金决胜负” （Quando tu injuria provocasti，Dris Sacramento te provoco），被告于是说“我也给”（Similiter ego te），接受赌注。这以后的程序已不再是一种正式需要的了，但须注意，裁判官从誓金中提取保证金，这些保证金常被解入国库。
这是每一个古罗马诉讼的必要的开端。有人认为这就是一个戏剧化的“公道的起源”，我以为，这个意见是很难不予同意的。两个带武器的人为了某种引起纠纷的财产而争吵着。裁判官，一个因恭敬谨慎和功绩而受尊敬的人（vir pietate gravis），恰巧经过，居间要求停止争执。争吵的人就把情况告诉他，同意由他公断，他们一致同意失败的一方除了放弃争执的标的物外，并应以一定数量的金钱给付公断人，作为麻烦和时间上损失的酬报。如果不是由于一个意外的巧合，该雅士所描写的一个“法律诉讼”中必要的诉讼程序，实质上是和荷马所描写的给 “火及金属工作之神”（God Hephestus）铸造为亚济里斯盾牌的第一格（first Compartment of the Shiled of Achilles）的两个主题之一完全相同，则这个解释将不象它表面上那样地可信。在荷马所描写的审判剧内，似乎为了特意要表明原始社会的特证，争议不是为了财产，而是为了一个杀人罪的和解费。一个人说他已经付了，另一个人说他从来没有收到过。但是使这幅图画成为古罗马实践的复本的细节就是指定要交给法官的酬金。两个塔仑（talent）的黄金放在中间，这些黄金要付给那个能把判决的理由解释得使听众感到极为满意的人。这个数额，和“誓金”的细小相比，显得十分巨大，这在我看来，表示着变动中的惯例和已经巩固为法律的惯例之间的差别。这被诗人认作是英雄时代城市生活中一个显著的、特有的、但仍旧只是偶然的特点而加以介绍的一幕，在民事诉讼的历史开始时，就被固定而成为一种正式的、通常的诉讼手续。因此，很自然，在一个“法律诉讼”中，“法官”的酬劳会减低到一个合理的数额，并且不再用公决的方法把它公断给许多公断人中的一个人，而视为当然地把它付给裁判官所代表的国家。但我毫不怀疑，荷马如此生动地加以描写，并由该雅士用了比平常粗劣的术语精美得多的术语来描写的这些事件，在实质上它们的意义是完全一致的；为了肯定这个见解，应该附加说明，许多观察现代欧洲最早司法惯例的观察者都认为“法院”加于罪人的罚金原来就是誓金，“国家”并不因为被告对它做了任何不法行为而取得和解费，但从给与原告的赔偿中取得一分作为时间和麻烦的公平代价。垦布尔先生明白地认为盎格鲁－撒克逊的bannum或 fredum具有这种性质。
古代法律还提供了其他证据，证明最古的司法官吏模仿着私人争执中人们的可能行为。在决定陪偿损害时，他们以在该案件的情况下一个被害人可能要采取报复的程度作为他们的指南。这就说明了为什么古代法律对于现行犯或犯罪后不久被捕的犯人以及经过相当时间后被捕的犯人处以很不同的刑罚的原故。在古罗马的“盗窃法”中有几个有关这个特点的奇怪例证。“十二铜表法”似将“盗窃罪”分为“显然的”和“非显然的”两种，并根据罪行归类的不同而处以显著不同的刑罚。 “显然的窃盗”是指在行窃的屋子里被捕的人或是携带赃物向安全处所逃避中被捕的人；如果他原来是一个奴隶，“十二铜表法”判处他死刑，如果他是一个自由人，“十二铜表法”判处他为财产所有人的奴隶。“非显然的窃盗”是指在上述以外其他任何情况下被发现的人；对这一类的罪人，旧法典只是简单地要求他双倍偿囘他所偷窃的价值。
在该雅士时代，“十二铜表法”对“显然的窃盗”的过度严酷，大大减轻了，但是法律仍维持旧的原则，处以四倍于偷窃价值的罚金。至于“非显然的窃盗”则仍旧继续给付双倍。古代立法者无疑地认为，如果让被害的财产所有人自己处理，则在他盛怒之下所拟加的刑罚必将和窃盗在一个相当时期后发觉时，他所能满意的刑罚，完全不同；法律刑罚的等级就是根据这个考虑而调整的。这里边的原则和盎格鲁－撒克逊及其他日耳曼法典所遵循的原则完全相同，这些法典规定人赃并获的窃盗应当场绞杀或斩首，但对于追捕已经中断而仍把他杀死的人，则规定要处以杀人罪的刑罚。古代法律中的这些区别有力地证明一个改进的和一个粗糙的法律学之间的距离。现代司法行政者公认为最感困难的，是对属于同一专门类型的各种罪行，把它们的犯罪程度加以区别。我们很容易说一个人犯了过失杀人罪、窃盗罪或重婚罪，但如果要确定他所犯道德罪过的程度，从而确定他所应受刑罚的轻重，则常常是最感困难的。如果我们企图正确地解决这个问题，我们在决疑上，或在动机的分析上，必将遇到困难；因此，我们今日的法律就开始了一种日益增长的倾向，尽可能对这问题不在现实法上加以规定。在法兰西，当陪审团认为有罪时，究竟这个罪是否有可以减轻的情况，听由陪审团加以决定；在英格兰，准许法官对于刑罚的选择有几乎无限的伸缩范围；所有的国家都对误用法律保留着叫做“赦免特权”的一种最后补救办法，这种权力一般都归“元首”（Chie Magistrate）掌握。很奇怪，原始时代的人们很少受到这些踌躇的若恼，他们完全确信被害人的冲动是他有权要求报复的正当标准，并且他们正确地摹仿他情感的升降以确定他们的量刑标准。我希望能够这样说，他们的立法方法是已过时效的。但有些现代法律制度，在遇到严重不法行为时，承认不法行为者在当场被捕时期所受被害人过度的惩罚是有正当理由的——这一种宽纵，虽然在表面上看来似乎是可以理解的，但据我看来，在实际上是根据于一种很低微的道德观念。
我曾说过，最后引导古代社会形成一个真正犯罪法律学的理由，是非常简单的。国家自以为是受到损害了，“人民议会”就用伴随着立法行为的同一行动直接打击犯人。最古犯罪法院只是立法机关的一部分或委员会——虽然在现代并不完全是如此，我将有机会指出——在古代世界，确实是如此的。无论如何，这是最大的两个古国的法律史所指出的结论，在一个情况中是相当清楚的，而在另一个情况中是绝对明白的。雅典的原始刑法把犯罪的惩罚一部分委托给“执政官”（Archons）作为侵权行为而加以处罚，一部分委托给“阿勒乌柏果斯元老院”，作为罪过而加以处罚。这两个管辖权在最后都移转给“希黎亚”（Helifa）即平民高等法院（the High Court of Popular Justice），而“执政官”和“阿勒乌柏果斯”的职能便成为只是行政的或竟完全无意义的了。但“希黎亚”只是“议会”的一个古字；古典时代的“希黎亚”只是为了司法目的而召集的“人民议会”，著名的雅典“迪卡斯德黎”（Dikasteries）只是它的一部分或是陪审官。在罗马，也发生过相应的变更，这更容易加以解释，因为罗马人把他们的试验限于刑法，他们和雅典人不同，并不使普通法院既有民事的又有刑事的管辖权。罗马犯罪法律学的历史开始于古 “平民法院”（Judicia Populi），据说是由国王主持的。这些全然是在立法形式下对大罪人的庄严审判。但似乎从一个很早的时期起，“民会”有时把它的犯罪管辖权委托一个“审问处”（Questio）或“委员会”，它和“议会”的关系，正和“众议院”的一个“委员会”与“议院”本身的关系一样，只是罗马的“委员”或“审问官” （Questores）不仅对“民会”提送报告，并且也行使该团体本身习惯上行使的一切权力，甚至包括对“被告人”判刑。这样的一个“审问处”只被指定审判一种特殊犯人，但并没有规定不许可二个或三个“审问处”在同时进行审判；很可能，当有几件对社会的严重不法案件同时发生时，有几个“审问处”在同时受到委派。也有迹象表明，有时这些“审问处”非常近似我们“常设委员会”（Standing Committees）的性质，因为它们是定期委任的，不必等待某种严重犯罪行为的发生。在很古的时代的议事录中被提到过的，旧的“弑亲审问官” （Questores Parri cidii）有权审判（或如有的人认为的那样，有权搜索和审判）一切弑亲和谋杀案件，他们似乎是正规地每年选派的；而审判对共和国有严重危害的二人委员会或“叛逆二人委员会”（Duumviri Perduellionis），大多数著者也相信是定期指派的。把这些权力委派给这些官吏，使我们又前进了一步。不再是在对国家犯罪发生时，才被委派，而是在有可能发生时，就已具有一般的、虽然是暂时的审判权。这时已很接近一种正规的犯罪法律学，这也可以从“弑亲”和“判逆”这些一般用语上显示出来，这些用语标志着已临近彷彿是犯罪分类的那种东西。
但真正的犯罪法要到纪元前149年才开始产生，当时古尔潘尼斯披梭（L. Calpurnius Piso）实行了所谓“古尔潘尼亚贪污律”（Lex Calpurnia de Repetundis）的制定法。这个法律适用于有关盗用金钱（Repetundarum Pecuniarum）的案件，这就是，各“省民”（Provincials）对总督（Governor－General）不正当征收的金钱有偿还的请求权，但这个制定法的最大和永久重要性在于它建立了第一个“永久审问处”（Questio Perpetua）。一个“永久审问处”是一个永久的委员会，和那些临时的以及那些暂时的是有区别的。它是一个正规的刑事法院，它的存在从创设它的制定法通过时候起，一直继续到废弃它的另一个制定法通过时候为止。它的成员不是象较早的“审问处”的成员那样特别任命的，而是在组成它的法律中规定由特种法官中选任并按照明确的规定进行更换。它有权审理的罪行也是在条例中明白规定和明白下定义的，新的“审问处”有权在将来审判一切人，如果他的行为符合于法律所规定的犯罪的定义。因此，它是一个正规的犯罪司法机关，行使一种真正的刑事法律学。
因此，原始犯罪法史可分为四个阶段。我们可以了解犯罪的概念和不法行为或侵权行为以及罪过的概念是有区别的，在犯罪的概念中包括着对国家或社会集体所加损害的概念，我们首先发现的是，共和国按照这概念的字面意义由它自己直接干预或由它用单独行为对那些损害国家的人给予报复。这是我们的出发点；每一个公诉状就是一个痛苦和刑罚状，这是一个特别法律，指明犯人的姓名，并规定他的刑罚。
当犯罪种类增加，使立法机关不得不把权力委托给特别“审问处”或“委员会”，它们都有权对一个特定的控告进行调查，并在控告经证明属实后有权对特定犯人加以处罚。这时，第二步方告完成。当立法机关不再等待一个犯罪发生以后方才委托“审问处”，而在某种犯罪有发生的可能以及预防这些犯罪将要发生时，定期的任命象“弑亲审问处”和“叛逆二人委员会”那样的“委员” 时，它又作了另一次运动。至最后阶段，“审问处”从定期的或临时的变为永久的法院——法官们不再由指派委员会的特定法律加以指定，而是规定在将来用一种特定方法和从一个特定阶级中选任——，并把某种行为用普通文字加以说明和宣布为有罪，如果触犯了，就将处以适合于每一种犯罪的刑罚。
如果“永久审问处”有一个较长的历史，它们将无疑的会被认为是一个各别的制度，它们和“民会”的关系将不会比我们自己的法院和君主之间的关系更为密切，君主在理论上是公道的泉源。但帝国暴政在它们的渊源被完全忘却前就把它们全部摧毁，并且，在它们存续的时期内，这些“永久委员会”被罗马人视为仅仅是一种委托权的受托人。犯罪的审判权被认为是立法机关的一种自然属性，而公民的心理总是要从“审问处”回复到“民会”，是民会把它不可分割的职能的一部分委托给“审问处” 执行的。甚至在“审问处”成为永久机关时也认为它只是“平民议会”的“委员会”——只是为一个较高的权威服役的机关——，这个看法有重要的法律后果，其痕迹留在犯罪法中一直到最近的时期。它的直接结果之一是在“审问处”成立了很久之后，“民会”仍继续通过痛苦和刑罚状而行使刑事管辖权。虽然立法机关为了便利偏见，同意把其权力委托于其自身以外的机关，我们并不能就认为它已经完全放弃了这些权力。“民会”和“审问处”继续平行地审判犯人；在平民发生任何不平常的大公愤时，直到共和国消灭时为止，必然地要在“部落民会”（Assembly of the Tribe ）前对其对象提起控诉。
共和国各种制度中最显著的特征之一也来自始“审问处”的依附于“民会”。罗马共和国刑法制度中“死”刑的消灭一向是上一世纪中著者们最喜爱的题目，他们经常利用它指出罗马人的性格和现代社会组织的学说。这种断然地提出的理由，认为它纯粹是出于偶然的。在罗马立法机关陆续采取的三种形式中，为众所习知的一种，即“兵员民会”（Comitia Centuriata），是专门在行军中代表国家的。因此“兵员民众”就具有一个军队指挥官所应有的一切权力，它有权使所有的犯过失的人，遭受一个士兵在违犯纪律时所应得的同样惩戒。因此，“兵员民会”可以科处死刑。但“贵族民会”或“部落民会”（Comitia Tributa）则不然。罗马城中的罗马公民是由宗教和法律赋与神圣性的，由于这一点，这两种民会就都受到了束缚，并且，就这后一种“部落民会”而论，我们确知：根据确定的原则，“部落民会”最多只能科处罚金，既然刑事审判权专属于立法机关，而“兵员民会”和“部落民会”却继续行使着平列的权力，于是很容易就会把比较严重的犯罪向科处较重刑罚的立法机关起诉；但在这时，比较民主的民会即“部落民会”几乎已完全代替了别的民会，成为后期共和国的普通立法机关。共和国的衰落，正当“永久审问处”设立的时候，因此，设立它们的制定法都是由一个立法机关通过，而这个立法机关本身在通常开会时，也不能对一个犯人判处死刑。所以，具有受委托权威的“永久司法委员全”（Permanent Judicial Commissions），在其权力和能力上，受到委派权力给它的团体所具有的权力限度的限制。它们不能做“部落民会”所不能做的事；既然“民会”不能判处死刑，“审问处”也就同样的无权判处死刑。这样达到的变例在古代并不象现代一样用赞成的眼光来看它，并且，真的，罗马人的性格是否会因此而变好，是个疑问，但可以肯定的是，“罗马宪法”竟变得更坏。正如每一个跟随着人类历史一直流传到今日的制度一样，死刑在文明过程的某一些阶段中对社会是必需的。有一个时期，废弃死刑的企图挫败了作为一切刑法根源的两大本能。如果没有了死刑，社会将感觉到它对罪人没有获得充分的报复，同时也将以为刑罚的赦免将不足以阻止别人的仿效。罗马法院不能判处死刑，显然地、直接地引入一个恐怖的革命时期，即称为“公敌宣言”（Proscriptions）的，在这期间内，一切法律都正式停止执行，只因为党派暴行不能为它所渴望的报复找到其他的出路。这种法律的间歇的中止，是使罗马人民政治能力衰败的最有力的原因；并且，一旦到达这样境地，我们可以毫不迟疑地说，罗马自由的毁灭仅仅是一个时间问题，如果“法院”的工作能使人民的热情有一个适当的出口，司法诉讼的形式将无疑地被罪恶昭彰地滥用，象在我国后期斯图亚特（Stuarts）的各个朝代一样，但国民性格将不致于象它在实际上那样深受其害，罗马制度的稳定也不致于象它在实际上那样严重受到削弱。
我还要提一提罗马刑事制度中由这同一的司法权的理论产生的另外两个特点。这两个特点是：罗马刑事法院的非常众多以及犯罪分类的变化繁多和极不规则，这是罗马刑事法律学全部历史中一贯的特色。据说，每一个审问处，不论是否永久的，都以一个各别的制定法为其创始的来源。它从创设它的法律得到权力；它严格遵守其特许状所规定的范围，对于特许状所没有明白规定的各种犯罪是不能过问的。由于组成各种“审问处”的制定法都是为了适应特种紧急需要，事实上每一种制定法都是为了惩罚当时的情况特别令人憎恶和特别危险的一类行为，这些立法在相互之间丝毫没有关系，并且也没有共同原则把它们联系起来。同时存在的不同犯罪法共有二三十种，由数目完全相等的“审问处”来执行它们；在共和国时期内，并没有作过任何企图要把这些各别的司法机关合而为一，或是要把委任它们和规定它们责任的各种制定法中的规定加以匀称。这个时期罗马犯罪管辖权的情况，在某些方面有些象英国的民事救济行政，当时，英国普通法院还没有把那种拟制的证言引用到它们的令状，使它们得相互侵入彼此的特殊的领域中。正和“审问处”一样，后座法院（Court of Queen''s Bench）、民事高等法院（Common Pleas）和理财法院（Exchequer）在理论上都是从一个较高的权威分出来的机关，并且每一个机关都分别主管一类特种案件，这类案件被假定是由其管辖权的泉源委托给它的；不过当时罗马“审问处”在数量上远不止三个，如要把分属于每一个“审问处”审判权的各种行为加以区别，远不及把韦斯敏斯德三种法院的范围加以划分那样便当。在各个不同的“审问处”的范围之间划一条正确分界线是有困难的，因此这样多的罗马法院有时造成了许多不便；我们很惊异地读到，当一个人所犯的罪行不能立即明了究竟应属哪一个类别时，他可同时或连续地在几个不同的“委员会”中被提出控诉，以至有一个“委员会”宣布它有权来认定他有罪；并且，虽然某一个“审问处”的定罪可以排斥其他“审问处”的审判权，但某一个“审问处”所作的无罪开释不能作为另一个“审问处”提出控告时的辩护。这和罗马民事法律的规定直接相反；我们并且可以确定，象罗马人那样对法律学中的变例（或者用他们的意义深长的成语粗野）十分敏感的人民，是不会长期容忍这种情况的，如果不是“审问处”的忧郁的历史使它们被认为是党派手中的暂时武器，而不是惩治犯罪的常设机构。皇帝不久就消除了这种审判权的重复和冲突的现象；但可以注意的是他们并没有消除犯罪法中的另一个特点，这是和“法院”的数量有密切关系的。甚至包括在查斯丁尼安“民法大全”中的犯罪分类也是非常反复多变的。事实上每一个“审问处”都把自己局限于由其特许状委托给它审判的各种罪行。但这些罪行在原来制定法中所以归类在一起，只是因为在这一项制定法通过时这些罪行恰巧同时需要法律加以惩罚。因此，在这些罪之间未必一定有任何共同之点；但是它们在一个特定“审问处”中构成一特定的审判题目，这一个事实很自然地会给群众以深刻的印象，同时在同一制定法中所提到的各种罪行之间的联系又是如此的根深蒂固，甚至在西拉和奥古斯多皇帝正式企图整理罗马犯罪法时，立法者还是保留着旧的分类方法。西拉和奥古斯多的制定法是帝国刑事法律学的基础，这些制定法所传给法律学的有些分类是非常特别的。我试举一个简单的例子，伪证是始终和割伤以及毒杀归类在一起，这无疑是由于一条西拉法律即“哥尼流暗杀和毒杀律”（Lex Cornelia de Sicari is et Vene fi cis）曾把这三种形式的罪行的审判权给与同一个“永久委员会”。同时可以看到，这种罪行的任意归类也影响到罗马人的方言。人民自然地养成这样一种习惯，即把列举在一条法律中的各种罪行用单子上的第一个名称来称呼它，而这个名称也就用来称呼授权审判这些罪行的法院。凡是由“通奸审问处”（Questio De Adulteriis）审判的罪行便都称为“通奸罪”（Adultery）。
我对罗马“审问处”的历史和特征所以不厌其详地加以说明，是因为一个刑事法律学的形成从没有在任何其他地方这样有启发地例证过。最后的一批“审问处”是由奥古斯多皇帝加设的，从这时候起，罗马人可以说已具有一个相当完全的犯罪法了。和它发展的同时，类推的过程继续进行着，我把这个过程称为把“不法行为”改变为“犯罪”，因为，虽然罗马法立机关对于比较凶暴的罪行并没有废止民事救济，它给被害人提供了他一定愿意选择的一种赔偿。但是，即在奥古斯多完成其立法以后，有几种罪行仍继续被视为“不法行为”，而这些罪行，在现代社会看起来，是应该作为犯罪的；直到后来，在一个不能确定的时期，当法律开始注意到一种在“法学汇纂”中称为非常犯罪（crimina extraordinaria）的新的罪行时，它们才成为刑事上可以处罚的罪行。无疑的，有一类行为，罗马法律学理论是单纯地把它们看做不法行为的；但是社会的尊严心日益提高，反对对这些行为的犯罪者在给付金钱赔偿损失以外不加其他较重的处罚，因此，如果被害人愿意时，准许把它们作为非常（extraordinem）犯罪而起诉，即通过一种在某些方面和普通程序不同的救济方式而起诉。从这些非常犯罪第一次被承认的时期起，罗马国家的犯罪表一定和现代世界任何社会中所有的同样地长。
我们没有必要详细描写罗马帝国执行犯罪司法的方式，但须注意，它的理论和实践都对现代社会发生有力的影响。皇帝们并不直接废弃“审问处”，在开始时，他们把一种广泛的刑事审判权交给“元老院”（Senate），虽然事实上它其中可能显得很卑贱，但在这个“元老院”中皇帝在名义上也和其余的人一样只是一个“议员”（Senator）。皇帝在开始时就主张要有某几种并行的犯罪审判权；这种审判权跟着对自由共和国的记忆日益衰退而坚定地扩大着，它占取了古法院的权力。
逐渐地，对犯罪的惩罚权移转给直接由皇帝委派的高级官吏，“元老院”的特权移转到“帝国枢密院”（Emperial Privy Council ），“帝国枢密院”也就成了一个最后刑事上诉法院。在这些影响下，现代人所熟悉的学理在不知不觉中形成了，即君主是一切“公道”的泉源，是一切“美德”的受托人。帝国在这时候已达到完善的地步，这不是不断增长阿谀和卑贱的结果，而是帝国集权的结果。事实上，刑事公道的理论已几乎回到了它开始的出发点。它开始时相信应该由集合体用其自己的手来报复其自己的不法行为；它最后所采的学理则以为犯罪的惩罚在一种特殊方式中属于君主，他是人民的代表和受托人。这种新的见解和旧的见解不同，主要在于公道监护所给予君主个人的敬畏和庄严气概。
罗马人对于君主和公道关系的一个较近的见解，当然有助于使现代社会可以无须经过这一系列的变化，象我在“审问处”的历史中已经例证过了的。在居住于西欧的几乎所有民族的原始法律中，都有这样一个古代概念的迹象，即犯罪的处罚属于自由人的议会，在有些国家中—— 据说苏格兰是其中之——现存司法机关的渊源可以追溯到立法机关的一个“委员会”。但犯罪法普遍由于两种原因而得到更快的发展，这两种原因，即罗马帝国的回忆和教会的影响。一方面，凯撒的威严传统由于查理曼王朝的暂时得势而被保全，使君主具有一个蛮族酋长所决不能获得的一种威望，并使最小的封建主也有了社会保护人和国家代表人的资格。另一方面，教会急于控制凶暴残忍行为，对比较严重的恶行树立惩罚的权威，在“圣经”的有些章节中，有些语句同意以刑罚之权授与民事高级官吏。“新约全书”认为世俗统治者的存在是为了使作恶之人有所恐惧：“旧约全书”认为“流人血者，人亦流其血”。我以为，毫无疑问，对于犯罪问题的各种现代观念，都根据“黑暗时代”教会所主张的两种假定——第一，每一个封建统治者在他的地位上得比拟于圣保罗（Saint Paul）所谈到的罗马高级官吏；其次，他所要惩罚的罪行是“摩西十诫”（Mosaic Commandments）中规定要禁止的，或是教会并不保留在其自己审判权之内的。“异端”（Heresy）（被假定为包括在“第一诫”和“第二诫”中的）、“通奸”和“伪证”是宗教罪行，教会只允许世俗权力在发生非常严重案件时才予以合作以便课以较重的刑罚。同时，它教导我们，各式各样的谋杀和强盗案件之所以都属于民事统治者的管辖，这不是由于他们地位的偶然结果，而是由于上帝的明白命令。
在关于阿尔弗烈德国王（King Alfred）（垦布尔，卷二，第209页）的著作中，有这样一段，特别明显地说明在他的时代关于刑事审判权的起源流行着的各种观念的争论。可以看到，阿尔弗烈德认为它半属于教会权威，半属于“国会议员”（Witan），他明白主张，反叛地主罪可以不受普通规定的管辖，正和罗马“大法”（Law of Majestas）规定反叛凯撒罪应不受普通规定管辖相同。“在这以后”，他说，有许多国家接受了对基督的信仰（有许多宗教会议遍及地球各处，在英国人中当他们接受了基督信仰，不论对神圣主教的，或是对崇高的‘国会议员’的）之后，也是如此。他们于是规定，由于基督的慈悲之心，世俗的君主们在取得他们的许可后，得不犯罪过而对每一恶行取得他们所规定的以金钱表现的博脱（bot）；除了反叛君主外，对于这种情形，他们是不敢给与任何慈悲的，因为‘全能的上帝’对于藐视‘他’的，不为定罪，基督对于把‘他’出卖致死的，也不为定罪，‘他’命令一个君主应该受人爱戴，象‘他自己’受人爱戴一样。
沈景一 译
