---
Title: Exzerpte aus Henry Sumner Maine, „Lectures on the Early History of Institutions“ (1881)
Description: Marx’ Exzerpte und Bemerkungen zu H. S. Maine, Lectures on the Early History of Institutions (London 1875).
Author: Karl Marx
URL: https://marxismo.school/archivo/marx-engels/originales/1881%20Exzerpte%20aus%20Henry%20Sumner%20Maine%2C%20Lectures%20on%20the%20Early%20History%20of%20Institutions
---


*Nach der Handschrift, MEGAdigital (MEGA² IV/27).[^lic] [Traducción al español](https://marxismo.school/archivo/marx-engels/1881%20Extractos%20de%20Henry%20Sumner%20Maine%2C%20Lecciones%20sobre%20la%20historia%20antigua%20de%20las%20instituciones)*

## Sir Henry Sumner Maine: „Lectures on the Early History of Institutions. London, 1875.“

In den Uebersetzten der *Brehon Laws* – an assemblage of law tracts – [die] wichtigsten:

*Senchus Mor* (Great Book of the Ancient Law), and the *Book of Aicill.* Nach Mr. *Whitley Stokes* das erstere compiled in od. kurz vor *11 Jhdt*; das Buch v. *Aicill* ein Jhdt früher. (12)

*Edmund Spenser: „View of the State of Ireland“.*

*Sir John Davis.*

*Laws of Wales.*

*Brehons* a class of professional Irish *Lawyers*, whose occupation became hereditary.

*B. G. Caesar. VI, 13, 14:*

The learned writer of one of the modern prefaces prefixed to the Third Volume of the Ancient Laws contends that the administration of the Brehon system consisted in references *to arbitration*. (p. 38) (See: *„Ancient Laws of Ireland“*) Will ein vornehmer Mann seine Schuld (a claim upon him) nicht discharge, *Senchus Mor* tells you to *„fast upon him“*. (39; „Ancient Laws etc“ vol. I, p. 113) Dies identisch mit was die Hindu call *„sitting dharna“*. (39, 40)

Alle Pfaffenautorität in Irld ging natürlich, nach der conversion der Irish Celts, über an die *„tribes of the saints“* (the missionary monastic societies founded on all parts of the island) u. die multitude of bishops dependent on them. Der religious Theil der old Laws daher superseded, ausser so far as the *legal rules* exactly coincided with the rules of the new Christian code, the *„law of the letter“*. (38) The one object of the Brehons was to force disputants to refer their quarrels to a Brehon, or to some person in authority advised by a Brehon, and thus a vast deal of the law tends to run into the *Law of Distress*, which declares the various methods by which a man can be compelled through seizure of his property to consent to an arbitration. (38, 39) The Brehon appears to *have invented* (durch hypothetische Conjecturen, i.e. purely hypothetical cases) the facts which he used as the framework for his legal doctrine. His *invention necessarily limited by his experience*, and hence the cases suggested in the law tracts … throw light on the society amid which they were composed. (44) The *„law of nature“* meint das ancient law \ (custom) explained by the Brehons, u. dies bindend as far as it coincided with the *„law of the letter“* (i.e. dem christlichen Kram). (50) The Brehon did claim that St. Patrick and other great Irish Saints had sanctioned the law which he declared, and that some of them even revised it. (51)

Durch die Churchmen, die mit notions of *roman law* ⦗rather direct of *canonical law*⦘ more or less imbued, kam auch der *röm. Einfluss* (– so far as it goes –) on Brehon law. (55) Daraus im Interesse der Kirche *Testament* derived (*»Will«*); ebenso conception of *»Contract«* (the »sacredness of promises« etc sehr wichtig für Pfaffen). Eine Unterabtheilung (published) des *Senchus Mor*, nämlich *Corus Bescna* chiefly concerned mit *»Contract«* u. zeigt sich darin that *the material interests of the Church* furnished one principal motive for (its) compilation. (56)

Nach dem Brehon law giebts 2 Sorten of *»contract«*: „a *valid contract, and an invalid contract*“ … Anciently the power of contract is limited on all sides … by the rights of family, distant kinsmen, co-villagers, tribe, chief, and, if you contract (später mit Christenthum) adversely to the Church, by the rights of the Church. The Corus Bescna is in great part a treatise on these ancient limitations. (57, 58)

The *„Book of Aicill“* provides for the legitimation not only of the bastard, but of the adulterine bastard, and measures the compensation to be paid to the putative father. The tract on *„Social Connections“* appears to assume that the *temporary cohabitation of the sexes* is part of the accustomed order of society, and on this assumption it minutely regulates the mutual rights of the parties, showing an especial care for the rights of the woman, even to the extent of reserving to her the value of her domestic services during her residence in the *common dwelling*. (59) Dieser tract on „Social Connections“ notices a *„first“* wife. (61) Dies hält Maine für Kircheneinfluss, kommt aber überall in higher state of savagery vor, z. B. bei Red Indians. The common view seems to have been that (die christliche) chastity … the *professional* virtue of a special class (monk, bishop etc). (61) (die folgenden »Extracts« zeigen, einerseits, dass Herr *Maine* sich noch nicht aneignen konnte was *Morgan* noch nicht gedruckt hatte, andrerseits, dass er Sachen, die sich u. a. schon bei *Niebuhr* finden, darzustellen sucht as »pointed out« by the identical *Henry Sumner Maine!)* –: »From the moment when a *tribal community* settles down *finally* (dies »finally«! absurd, da der tribe, wie wir sehr oft finden, having once settled down, migrates de nouveau and *settles again*, either voluntarily, or forced to do so, somewhere else) *upon a definite space of land*, the *Land* begins to be the base of Society in place of the Kinship. The change is extremely gradual etc.« (72) ⦗Dies zeigt nur, wie wenig er den *point of transition* kennt⦘ Er fährt fort: »The constitution of the *Family* through actual blood-relationship is of course *an observable fact*, but, for *all groups of men larger than the Family*, the Land on which they live tends to become the bond of Union between them, at the expense of Kinship, ever more and more vaguely conceived.« (72, 73) ⦗Dies zeigt, wie wenig die *Gens* a fact observed by the identical Maine is!⦘ »*Some years ago I pointed out* (!) („Ancient Law“, p. 103 sq.) the evidence furnished by the history of International Law that the *notion of territorial sovereignty*, which is the basis of the international system, and which is inseparably connected with dominion over a definite area of land, very slowly substituted itself for the notion of tribal sovereignty.« (73)

Nach Herrn Maine, *first*: *Hindoo Joint Family*, 2nd) *Household Community of the Southern Slavonians*, 3d) *the true Village Community as found first in Russia and next in India*. ⦗dies »first« u. »next« bezieht sich nur auf die relative periods worin diese things dem great Maine bekannt geworden⦘ (78)

Ohne den collapse der »smaller social groups« and the decay of the authority which, whether popularly or autocratically governed, they possessed over the men composing them, we, sagt der würdige Maine, »should never have had *several great Conceptions* which lie at the base of our stock of thought« (86) u. zwar sind diese great conceptions: »the conception of land as an *exchangeable commodity*, differing only from others in the limitation of the supply«, (86, 87) »*the theory of Sovereignty*, or (in other words) of *a portion in each community possessing unlimited coercive force over the rest*«, »the theory of Law as exclusively the command of a sovereign One or Number«, »the ever increasing activity of legislation« u. – o asinus! – der »test of the value of legislation« … viz: »the greatest happiness of the greatest number«. (87)

The form of private ownership in land which grew out of the *appropriation of portions of the tribal domain to individual households of tribesmen* is plainly recognized by the Brehon lawyers; yet the rights of private owners are limited by the controlling rights of a brotherhood of kinsmen, and the control is in some respects even more stringent than that exercised over separate property by an Indian village community. (89, 90) »Dasselbe Wort: *„Fine“* or Family (?) is applied to all the subdivisions of the Irish Society, von dem *Tribe* in its largest extension u. all intermediate bodies down to the Family (in the present sense), and even for *portions of the Family*«. *(Sullivan. Brehon Law. „Introduction“)* (90) *Sept* = sub-tribe, or *Joint Family* in den Brehon tracts. (91) The chief for the time being was, as the Anglo-Irish judges called him in the famous „Case of Gavelkind“, the *caput cognationis*. (91) Not only was the Tribe or Sept named after its eponymous ancestor, but the territory which it occupied also derived from him the name which was in commonest use, – so wie „O’Brien’s Country“ or „Macleod’s Country“. (l.c.) Von portions des land occupied by *fragments of the tribe* some are under minor chiefs or *„flaiths“*. (93) All the unappropriated tribe-lands are in a more especial way the property of the tribe as a whole, and no portion can theoretically be subjected to more than a temporary occupation. (93) Among the holders of tribe-land … groups of men calling themselves tribesmen, bilden in reality associations formed by contract, chiefly for the purpose of pasturing cattle. (l.c.) Auf dem „waste“ – common tribeland not occupied – Stücke beständig brought under tillage or permanent pasture by settlements of tribesmen, and upon it cultivators of servile status are permitted to squat, particularly towards the border. It is the part des territory worüber die authority des Chief tends steadily to increase, u. here he settles his „ *fuidhir* “, or stranger-tenants, a very important class – the outlaws and „broken“ men from other tribes who come to him for protection … are only connected with their new tribe by their dependence on its chief, and through the responsibility which he incurs for them. (93)

Particular families manage to elude the theoretically periodical re-division of the common patrimony of the group; others obtain allotments with its consent as the reward of service or the apanage of office; and there is a constant transfer of lands to the Church, and an intimate intermixture of tribal rights with ecclesiastical rights … Brehon law shows that by the time it was put into shape, causes etc tending to result in Several Property … had largely taken effect. (95) »The severance of land from the common territory appears most complete in the case of Chiefs, many of whom have large private estates held under ordinary tenure in addition to the demesne specially attached to their signory.« (l.c.)

Dieser asinus bildet sich ein dass »*modern research … conveys a stronger impression than ever of a wide separation between the Aryan race and races of other stocks* (!), but it suggests that many, perhaps most, of the differences in kind alleged to exist between Aryan sub-races are really differences merely in degree of development.« (96)

*Anfang des XVII Jhdts* erklären die *Anglo-Irish Judges* the *English Common Law* to be in force throughout Ireland, u. so seit dem lausigen *James I* all land to *descend to the eldest son* of the last owner, unless its devolution was otherwise determined by settlement or will. Der *Sir John Davis* »in seinem report of the case u. der arguments before the Court, recites that hitherto all land in Ireland had descended under the *rule of Tanistry* oder *those of Gavelkind*.« Was dieser Davis sich einbildet as *system of inheritance* called Gavelkind, he (Davis) describes so: »When a landowning member of an *Irish Sept* died, its chief *made a re-distribution* of *all the lands of the Sept*. He did not divide the estate of the *dead man among his children*, but used it to increase the allotments of the various households of which the Sept was made up.« Aber was diesen English judges nur als »system of succession« erscheint, war ancient »mode of enjoyment during life«. (99) So in the Hindoo *Joint Undivided Family* the *stirpes or stocks*, dem European law nur bekannt as *branches* of *inheritors*, are *actual divisions of the family*, and *live together in distinct parts* of *the common dwelling*. (*Calcutta Review, July 1874*, p. 208) (100)

*Rundale* holdings in part of Ireland; jetzt meist common form: *arable land held in severalty* (dies beschreibt die Sache falsch!), while pasture u. bog are in common. Aber noch vor 50 Jahren, *cases were frequent* wo das arable land divided in farms which *shifted among the tenant-families* periodically, and sometimes annually. (101) Nach Maine »the Irish holdings „in rundale“ are *not forms of property*, but *modes of appropriation* «, aber der Bursche selbst bemerkt: »*archaic kinds of tenancy* are constantly evidence of *ancient forms of proprietorship*. … *Superior ownership* arises through purchase from small allodial proprietors (?), through colonisation of village waste-lands become in time the lord’s waste, or (in an earlier stage) *through the sinking* of *whole communities of peasants into villeinage*, and through a consequent transformation of the legal theory of their rights; aber selbst wenn a Chief or Lord has come to be recognised as legal owner of the whole tribal domain, or great portions of it, the accustomed methods of occupation and cultivation« are not altered. (102)

Der chief Brehon law tract setting forth the mutual rights of the *collective tribe* and of individual tribesmen or households of tribesmen in respect of tribal property, is called the *Corus Bescna*, printed in the third volume of the official edition. (103) Das was die ganze Sache verdunkelt ist the »strong and palpable bias of the compiler towards the interest of the Church; indeed, part of the tract is avowedly devoted to the law of Church property and of the organisation of religious houses. When this writer affirms that, under certain circumstances, a tribesman may grant or contract away tribal land, his ecclesiastical leaning constantly suggests a doubt as to his legal doctrine.« (104)

»In the Germanic countries, their (der christl. Pfaffen) ecclesiastical societies were among the earliest and largest grantees of public or „folk“ land.« (*Stubbs: „Constitutional History“* v. I, p. 154) The Will, the Contract, and the Separate Ownership, were in fact indispensable to the Church as the donee of pious gifts. (l.c.) All the Brehon writers … have a bias towards private or several, as distinguished from collective, property. (105)

Weiter über the „Tribe“ or „Sept“ see *„Ancient Laws of Ireland“* II, 283, 289, III, 49–51; II, 283; III, 52, 53, 55. III, 47, 49. III, 17. III, 5. Der collective brotherhood of tribesmen, wie der *Agnatic kindred in Rome*, some ultimate *right of succession appears to be reserved*. (111, 112)

The *„Judgments of Co-Tenancy“* is a Brehon law tract, noch unpublished (1875), wovon sich aber Herr Maine, der nur die *Uebersetzung* kennt, nicht den *Text*, so pfiffig war sich vor der Publication folgendes mittheilen zu lassen: der tract fragt: „Whence does Co-Tenancy arise?“ Answers: „From several heirs and from their increasing on the land“; dann bemerkt der tract: »the land is, in the first year, to be tilled by kinsmen just *as each pleases*; in the second year they are to exchange lots; in the 3d year the boundaries are to be fixed u. the *whole process of severance is to be consummated in the 10th year*.« (112) Maine bemerkt richtig, dass die Zeitbestimmungen ideales arrangement des Brehon lawgiver, aber der Inhalt: »First a *Joint Family* (dies statt *gens*, weil der Herr *Maine* die *Joint Family* wie sie in Indien existirt fälschlich als unsprüngliche Form betrachtet), composed of „several heirs increasing on the land“, is found to have made a settlement. In the earliest stage the various households reclaim the land without set rule. (!) Next comes the system of exchanging lots. Finally, the portions of land are enjoyed in severalty.« (113)

Herr *Whitley Stokes* has dem Maine 2 passages occuring in non-legal Irish literature mitgetheilt. The *„liber Hymnorum“* (soll v. 11t Jhdt sein) contains folio 5A: „Numerous were the human beings in Ireland at that time (i.e. the time of the sons of *Aed Slane A.D. 658–694*) and such was their number that they used not to get but thrice 9 ridges for each man in Ireland to wit, *9 of bog* and *9 of smooth* (arable), and *9 of wood*.“ (114) Another Irish Mscpt, believed of the 12. century, the *„Lebor na Huidre“* says that „there was not ditch, nor fence, nor stone-wall round land, till came the period of the sons of Aed Slane, but (only) smooth fields. Because of the abundance of the households in their period, therefore it is that they introduced boundaries in Ireland.“ (114) Beide schreiben a change from a system of collective to a system of restricted enjoyment zu dem „growth of population“. The periodical allotment to each household of a definite portion of bog land, wood land, u. arable land gleicht sehr dem apportionment of pasture and wood and arable land still going on under the communal rules of the Swiss Allmenden. (l.c.)

Herr Maine als blockheaded Englishman geht nicht von gens aus, sondern vom Patriarch, der später Chief wird etc Albernheiten. (116–18) (Dies passt namentlich für die älteste Form der gens! – Dieser Patriarch – z. B. bei den kriegerischen Iroquois, wo die *gens* in female descent!)

Der Blödsinn Maine’s gipfelt in dem Satz: »Thus all the branches of human society may or may not have been developed from *joint families* ⦗wo er grade die jetzige Hindooform der letzteren im Aug hat, die sehr sekundären Character hat, u. desshalb auch – *ausserhalb* der village communities thront, namentlich in den *Städten*!⦘ which arose out of an original patriarchal cell; but, wherever the Joint Family is an Institution of the Aryan race (!), *we* (who?) see it springing from such a cell, and when it dissolves, we see it dissolving into a number of such cells.« (118)

*Property of Land* has had a twofold (?) origin … *partly* from the *disentanglement of the individual rights* of the *kindred or tribesmen* from the *collective rights of the Family or Tribe*, … partly from the *growth* and *transmutation of the Sovereignty of the Tribal Chief*. ⦗also nicht 2 fold origin; sondern nur 2 ramifications of the *same source*, the tribal property u. tribal collective body, which includes the tribal chief⦘ … Beide in most of Western Europe passed through the crucible of feudalism … the first (the sovereignty of the Chief) re-appeared in some well marked characteristics of *military or knightly tenures* … the other in the *principal rules of non-noble holdings*, and amongst them of *Socage*, the distinctive tenure of the free farmer. (120) In sehr oberflächlicher Weise: »The *Status of the Chief* … left … one bequest in the rule of *Primogeniture*, which, however, has long lost its most ancient form; … in the *right to receive certain dues* and to *enforce certain monopolies*; and drittens *in a specially absolute form of property* … *once exclusively enjoyed by the chief* (?), and after him by the Lord, in a *portion of the tribal territory which formed his own dominion*.« Andrerseits: *Out of tribal ownership in various forms of decay* have sprung *several systems of succession after death*, among them *the equal division of the land between the children* u. has left *another set of traces* … in a number of *minute customary rules which govern tillage and* occasionally *regulate the distribution of the produce*. (120, 121)

*Nach Arthur Young (Travels: 1787, 88, 89, p. 407) more than* ⅓ of France *„small properties*, that is *little farms belonging to those who cultivate them“ (says A. Young)*. Nach *Tocqueville („Ancien Régime“* »the proportion was growing, durch die extravagance der nobles which Court life fostered u. compelled them to *sell their domains to peasants in small parcels*.« (121, 122) The *law of equal or nearly equal division after death was the general law of France; primogeniture* was allzumeist confined *to lands held by knightly tenure*. In *Südfkch* the custom of equal division verstärkt durch die *identical rule of Roman jurisprudence* u. dort die *privileges des eldest son* nur gesichert durch Anwendung der Ausnahmsregeln des Roman law giving the benefit to *milites* (soldiers on service) when making their wills or regulating their successions, and by laying down that every *chevalier*, u. every noble of higher degree, was a *miles* im Sinn der röm. Jurisdiction. ⦗(*122*. Das röm. Gesetz – 12 Tafeln – lässt absolute Freiheit der Verfügung dem *testator*; gleiche Theilung nur bei intestate (sui heredes), später erst das Recht der Kinder etc dagegen (die Willcühr des testator) secured etc⦘

*Tocqueville* (I, 18) *„Ancien Régime“* has explained that the *right to receive feudal dues* and to *enforce petty monopolies* made up almost the entire means of living für die *majority der French nobility*. A certain number of nobles had, besides their feudal rights, their *terres* (domain, belonging to them in absolute property, and sometimes of enormous extent; der rest lived *mainly*, not *on rent*, but *on their feudal dues*, and eked out a meagre subsistence by serving the king in arms. (123, 124)

In Folge der fzs. Revolution: the *land-law of the people superseded the land-law of the nobles*; in *Engld* der umgekehrte Process; *primogeniture*, once applying only to knightly holdings, came to apply to the great bulk of English tenures, ausser dem *Gavelkind of Kent* u. einiges andre Lokale. (124) Dieser change was rapidly proceeding *zwischen Zeit of Glanville* ⦗wahrscheinlich *33d year of Henry’s reign*, hence *1186*; *Henry II (1154–1189)* ⦘ u. *Bracton* ⦗wahrscheinlich nicht later als *52nd year of Henry III* i.e. *1270*; *Henry III (1216–1272)* ⦘ *Glanville* schreibt as if the general rule of law *caused lands held by free cultivators in soccage*, to be divided equally between all the male children at the death of the last owner; *Bracton*, as if the rule of primogeniture applied universally to military tenures and generally to socage tenures. (125) Optimist *Maine* findet dass andrerseits »the transmutation of customary and *copyhold* into *freehold property* … proceeding for about 40 years under the *Conduct of the Copyhold and Enclosure Commissioners*« u. dies betrachtet dieser comfortable Bursch as the *English equivalent of the French Revolution*. Risum teneatis! (see den fellow p. 125)

Dieser lächerliche Bursche macht die röm. Form des absolute landed property zur *»English form of ownership«*, u. fährt dann fort:

»… to the principle of several and absolute property in land ⦗das überall in occidental Europe *mehr* existirt als in England⦘ I hold this country to be committed … there can be *no material advance in civilization* unless landed property is held by groups at least as small as Families; … we are indebted to the *»peculiarly« absolute English form of ownership* for such an *achievement as the cultivation of the soil of North America*.« (*126*, wo grade alles *Spezifisch Englische* in landed Property vernichtet! O, du Philister!)

The *Norman nobles* who first settled in Ireland are well known to have *become in time Chieftains of Irish tribes* … it is suggested that they were the first to forget their duties to their tenants and to think of nothing but their privileges. (128)

Even according to the (Irish) texts apparently oldest, *much of the tribal territory* appears *to have been permanently alienated to sub-tribes, families*, or dependent chiefs … die glosses u. commentaries show that, before they were written, this process had gone very far indeed. (129) The *power of the Chief* grows first through the process anderswo called *„Commendation“*, wodurch the free tribesmann becomes *„his man“*, and remains in a state of dependence having various degrees … ferner durch *his increasing authority over the waste lands of the tribal territory* u. *from the servile or semi-servile colonies he plants* there; endlich *from the material strength* he acquires *through the numbers of his immediate retainers u. associates*, most of whom stand to him in more or less servile relations. (130)

»The Manor with its Tenemental lands held by the free tenants of the Lord and with its Domain which was in immediate dependence on him, was the *type of all feudal sovereignties in their complete form*, whether the ruler acknowledged a superior above him or at most admitted one in the Pope, Emperor, or God himself.« (130–31)

Der abominable *Freeman* (*„Norman Conquest“* I, 88) erklärt sich die Verwandlung der tribe chiefs in feudal lords etc leicht, indem er voraussetzt was er entwickeln soll, nämlich dass die privileged class *always* formed a *distinct class or section of the community*, sagt, l.c. *„the difference between eorl und ceorl* is *a primary fact from which we start.“* (131)

Die chief source of nobility seems to have been the respect of the *co-villagers or assemblages of kinsmen for the line of descent* in which the purest blood of each little society was believed to be preserved. (132) „Every chief“, says the text, „rules over his land, whether it be great or whether it be small.“ (132)

Aber the Brehon law shows the way in which a *common freeman* may *become a chief* u. zugleich ist diese *position to which he attains »the presidency of a group of dependents«*. (Später wurden diese Burschen erst Glieder einer besonderen Classe) (133) Wo aristocracies a *section* of *the community from the first*, besondre Umstände, die notabene selbst schon derivativ sind, nämlich, wo an *entire tribal group conquers or imposes its supremacy upon other tribal groups also remaining entire*, oder wo an *original body of tribesmen*, villagers, or citizens, *gradually gathers round itself a miscellaneous assemblage of protected dependants*. In *Scottish Highlands* some *entire septs or clans* stated to have been enslaved to others; u. ebenso frühest in Ireland met a *distinction between free u. rent-paying tribes*. (133)

Im Brehon law a *Chief* vor allem *a rich man* (133), nämlich reich – *nicht in Land*, sondern in *flocks u. herds, sheep*, vor allem *Ochsen*. Die Opposition zwischen *birth* u. *wealth*, bes. *wealth other than landed property*, ganz modern. See Homer’s u. Niebelungen Helden; in späterer *griech. Literatur pride of birth* identified mit pride in 7 wealthy ancestors in succession, *ἕππτα πάπποι πλούσιοι*, in Rom rasch die *Geldaristokratie* assimilirt mit *Blutaristokratie*. (134)

Im tract (Brehon Laws): *„Cain-Aigillne“* (p. 279) heissts that „the head of every tribe should be the man of the tribe who is the most experienced, the most noble, the *most wealthy*, the most learned, the most truly popular, the most powerful to oppose, the *most steadfast to sue for profits and to be sued for losses*.“ Also *personal wealth* ⦗aber Herr Maine, dies only in *Upper Status of Barbarism*, far from being *archaic*⦘ the principal condition of the Chief’s maintaining his position and authority. (134, 135)

Brehon Law zeigt dass durch die acquisition of such wealth the *road was always open to chieftainship*. Portion of the *Danish nobility originally peasants* u. in early English laws some traces of a process wodurch a *Ceorl* might become a *Thane*. (135)

Brehon law speaks of the *Bo-Aire* (the *cow-nobleman*). Ist simply a peasant, *grown rich in cattle*, probably through obtaining the use of large portions of tribe-land. (135) Die true nobles – the *Aires* getheilt [into seven grades]. ⦗(von den Pfaffenjuristen, den *Brehons* notabene; dies wie alle alten Pfaffenbücher (Menu f.i.) voller fictions in Interesse der chiefs, höheren Stände etc, schliesslich all das wieder in Interesse der Kirche. Ausserdem sind sie wie Juristen aller Sorten bei der Hand mit fictive classifications)⦘ Jeder *Grad* unterschieden von den andern durch the *amount of wealth* possessed by the Chief belonging to it, by the weight attached to his evidence, by the power of binding his tribe by contracts (literally of *„knotting“*), by the dues he receives in kind from his vassals, by his *Honor-Price*, or *special damages incurred by injuring him*. At the bottom of the scale is the *Aire-Desa*; u. das Brehon law provides dass wenn der *Bo-Aire* has acquired 2× the wealth of an *Aire-Desa*, and has held it for a certain number of generations, he becomes an *Aire-Desa* himself. „He is an inferior chief – says the *Senchus Mor* – whose father was not a chief.“ (136) Enormous importance of wealth u. specially *wealth in cattle* reflected in the Brehon tracts. (137)

Wahrscheinlich the first *aristocracy springing from kingly favour* consisted of the *Comitatus*, or *Companions of the King*. (138) Major Domus bei den Franken ward König; das blood des *Steward* (od. Great Seneschal) *of Scotland* runs in the veins of the Kings of England. Noch in England the *great officers of the Royal Council u. Household* haben Vorrang vor allen Pairs, od. mindest of all Peers of their own degree. Alle diese hohen Würden ⦗dies hat *Maurer* u. z. Th. schon *Hüllmann* lang gewusst vor Maine⦘, wenn nicht marking an office originally clerical, *point to an occupation … at first … menial*. (139) Der *Household* sprang von very humble beginnings. (139) Der stubbige *Stubbs („Constitutional History“)* states that *„the gesiths of an (English) king were his guard and private council“*, wobei er bemerkt, dass *„the free household servants of a ceorl are also in a certain sense his gesiths.“* Die *Companions des king* in the Irish legal literature *nicht noble*, u. associated mit des *king’s body-guard* which is *essentially servile*.

Wahrscheinlich dass in a particular stage of society, der *personal service to the Chief or King* was überall rendered in expectation of a reward in the shape of a gift of land. Die *Companions* der Teutonic kings shared largely in the *Benefices*, grants of Roman provincial land fully peopled u. stocked; in ancient Engld selbe class *largest grantees* (nach Pfaffen s’il vous plaît) of public land; u. dies part of the secret of the *mysterious change* wodurch a new nobility of Thanes, deriving dignity u. authority from the King, *absorbed the older nobility of the Eorls*. (141) Aber in countries *lying beyond the northern u. western limits of the Roman Empire*, or just within them, [Land] war plentiful. Es war noch im Mittelalter die *„cheapest commodity“*. Die practical difficulty was *not to obtain land*, but *the instruments* for *making it productive*. (141, 42). Der Chief (Irish) war vor allem reich in *flocks u. herds*; he was *military leader*; great part of his wealth was *spoil of war* u. in his civil capacity he multiplied *his kine* through his growing *power of appropriating the waste for pasture*, and durch a system of dispersing his herds among the tribesmen. Der *Companion*, der followed him to the foray etc auch enriched by his bounty; if already noble, he became greater; if not noble, the way to nobility lay through wealth. (142) (Vergl. *Dugmore: „Compendium of Kafir Laws and Customs.“*)

Whenever legal expression has to be given to the relations of *the Comitatus to the Teutonic kings*, the portions of the Roman law selected are uniformly those which declare the *semi-servile relation of the Client or Freedman to his Patron*. Nach den texts des Brehon Law a Chief of high degree is always suspected to surround himself with *unfree dependants* u. das *retinue* eines King of Erin was to consist not only of *free tribesmen* but *of a bodyguard of men* bound to *him by servile obligations* … Auch … wenn die Comitatus or Companions of the Chief *freemen*, nicht nothwendig od. gewöhnlich his near kindred. (145)

In den *Brehon Laws* spielen grosse Rolle *horned cattle, i.e. bulls, cows, heifers, and calves*; auch *horses, sheep, swine, dogs, bees* (the latter: the producers of the greatest of primitive luxury); vor allem aber *kine* (cows). *Capitale* – kine reckoned by the head, *cattle* has given birth to one of the most famous terms of law and one of the most famous terms of political economy, *Chattels* and *Capital*. *Pecunia*. (147) The Primitive Roman law places *oxen* in highest class of property, mit *land* u. *slaves* as items of the *Res mancipi*. *Kine*, which the most ancient Sanscrit literature shows to have *been eaten as food*, became at some unknown period sacred and their flesh forbidden; u. two of the chief „Things which required a Mancipation at Rome“, oxen and landed property, had their counterpart in the *sacred bull of Siva* and the *sacred land* of India. (148) Horned cattle showed their greatest value when groups of men *settled on spaces of land and betook themselves* to the *cultivation of food-grain*. (l.c.) Erst für ihr flesh u. milk valued, schon in very early times a *distinct special importance belonged to them as instrument or medium of exchange*; bei Homer sind sie *a measure of value*; traditional story dass das earliest *coined money* known at Rome stamped with the figure of an ox; *„pecus“* u. *„pecunia“*. (149) In *Brehon laws* figurirt horned cattle als *means of exchange*; *fines, dues, rents u. returns are calculated in live-stock*, not exclusively in kine, but nearly so. Beständig referred to *two standards of value*, *„sed“* u. *„cumhal“*; cumhal soll originaliter have meant a *female slave*, aber *„sed“* plainly used for *an amount or quantity of live stock*. Aber, später, cattle haupsächlich valued for their *use in tillage, their labour and their manure*. Erst nach u. nach as *beasts of plough* ersetzt durch *Pferde in Western Europe* (auch hier nicht überall); in still large portions of the world *horse* noch ausschliesslich employed, wie wohl ursprünglich überall, *for war, pleasure*, or the *chase*. (150) Oxen waren so fast einziger *Representative* of what now called *Capital*. (l.c.) The same causes which altered the position of the ox and turned him into an animal partially *adscriptus glebae*, undoubtedly produced also a *great extension of slavery* … Enormous importation of slaves into the central territories of the Roman Commonwealth, and the wholesale degradation of the free cultivating communities of Western Europe into assemblages of villeins. (150, 151)

Die Schwierigkeit – in ancient Ireland – *not to obtain land, but the means of cultivating it*. Die great owners of cattle were the various Chiefs, whose primitive superiority to the other tribesmen in this respect was probably owing to their natural functions as military leaders of the tribe. Andrerseits scheint aus den Brehon laws zu folgen that the Chiefs pressed by the difficulty of finding sufficient pasture for their herds. Hatten zwar growing power over the waste-land der particular group worüber sie präsidirten, aber die most fruitful portions of the tribal territory wahrscheinlich those which the free tribesmen occupied. Hence das *system of giving u. receiving stock*, to which 2 sub-tracts des *Senchus Mor* are devoted, the *Cain-Saerrath* u. der *Cain-Aigillne*, the *Law of Saer-Stock tenure* u. the *Law of Daer-Stock Tenure*. (152)

In Feudalgesellschaft everybody has become the subordinate of somebody else higher than himself and yet exalted above him by no great distance. (153)

Nach *Stubbs* (*„Constit. History“*. I, 252) Feudalism has „grown up from 2 great sources, the *Benefice* and the practice of *Commendation.“* (154) *Commendation*, in particular, went on all over Western Europe. (155) Der *Chief (Irish)* – sei er einer der many *tribal rulers* whom the Irish records call *kings*, or one of those heads of *joint-families* whom the Anglo-Irish lawyers at a later period called the *Capita Cognationum*, – is *not owner of the tribal land*. His own land he may have, consisting of private estate or of official domain, or of both, and over the *general tribal land he has a general administrative authority*, ever growing greater over that portion of it which is *unappropriated waste*. He is meanwhile the military [leader] of his tribesmen, and probably in that capacity … has acquired *great wealth in cattle*. It has somehow become of great importance to him to place out portions of his herds among the tribesmen, and they on their part occasionally find themselves through stress of circumstance in pressing need of cattle for employment in tillage. Thus the Chiefs appear in the *Brehon law* as perpetually *„giving stock“* and the tribesmen as *receiving it*. (157) By taking stock the *free Irish tribesman* becomes the *Ceile* or *Kyle*, the *vassal or man of his Chief*, owing him not only rent but service and homage. The exact effects of „commendation“ are thus produced. (158) Je *mehr stock* der tribesman accepts from his Chief, desto tiefer der status zu dem er herabsinkt. Hence die 2 classes of *Saer* und *Daer tenants* (entsprechend dem status der free und higher base tenants of an English manor). Der *Saer-Stock tenant* erhält nur *limited amount* of stock from the Chief, bleibt *freeman*, retains his *tribal rights* in their integrity; the *normal period of his tenancy* was *7 years*, and at the end of it he *became entitled to the cattle which had been in his possession*. In der Zwischenzeit *hatte er the advantage of employing* them in tillage, and the Chief erhielt the *growth and increase* ⦗*i.e. the young and the manure*⦘ *and* milk. Zugleich it is expressly laid down dass der Chief überdem *entitled to receive homage and manual labour*; manual labour is explained to mean the *service of the vassal in reaping the Chief’s harvest* and in *assisting to build his castle or fort*; u. it is stated that, in lieu of manual labour, the vassal might be required to follow his *Chief to the wars*. (158, 159)

*Daer-stock tenancy* gebildet, wenn entweder any large addition to the stock deposited with the Saer-Stock tenant, od. an *unusual quantity accepted in the first instance by the tribesman*. Der Daer-Stock tenant had *parted with some portion of his freedom* u. his *duties invariably referred to as very onerous*. Der Stock, den er vom Chief erhielt, bestand aus 2 portions, wovon *die eine entsprechend dem Rang des Empfängers*, die andre der *rent in kind* to which the tenant became liable. Der technical standard seines Rangs war des tenant *„honor-price“*, d.h. *the fine or damage payable for injuring him*, variable mit the dignity of the person injured. Mit *Bezug auf die rent* heisst’s im *Brehon law*: „The proportinate stock of a calf of the value of a sack with its accompaniments, and refections for three persons in the summer, and work for three days, is three *‘sam-haisc’* heifers or their value“ (*Cain-Aigillne*, p. 255/257), in andern Worten: Deponirt der Chief beim tenant 3 heifers, so wird er »entitled to the calf, the refections, and the labour«. Ferner: „*The proportionate stock of a ‛dartadh’ heifer with its accompaniment, is 12 ‘seds’“* – explained to mean *12 „sam-haisc“ heifers, or 6 cows* etc etc. Diese *rent in kind*, od. *food-rent* hatte, in dieser ihrer ältesten Form, *nichts zu thun mit der value of the tenant’s land, but solely to the value of the Chiefs stock deposited with the tenant*; sie entwickelte sich erst später in *a rent payable in respect of the tenant’s land*. Die lästigste imposition des Daer-Stock tenant sind die *„refections“*; dies war nämlich das Recht des Chief, der den stock gegeben hatte, to come with a company of a certain number, and feast at the Daer-stock tenant’s house, at particular periods, for a fixed number of days. Der Irish chief war wahrscheinlich, sagt Herr Maine, little better housed and almost as poorly furnished out, wie seine tenants, and could not have managed to consume at home the provisions to which his gifts of stock entitled him. The Brehon law defines and limits the practice narrowly on all sides; but its inconvenience u. abuse manifest; from it doubtless descended *those oppressions* which revolted such English observers of Ireland as *Spenser* and *Davies* (!), the „coin and livery“, and „cosherings“ of the Irish Chiefs which they ⦗these self-righteous English canaille!⦘ denounce with such indignant emphasis (!) Der würdige Maine, vergessend die Rundreisen der englischen Könige u. ihrer Höflinge *(see Anderson u. Macpherson*) (vgl. auch *Maurer*) hat die Frechheit zu vermuthen: »Perhaps there was no Irish usage which seemed to Englishmen (!) so amply to justify … the entire judicial or legislative abolition of Irish customs« (!) (159–161) Nach den Brehon lawyers *the relation* out of which *Daer-stock tenancy* and its peculiar obligations arose, *was not perpetual*. After food-rent and service had been rendered for 7 years ⦗Zeit die *Jacob* zu dienen hatte?⦘, if the Chief died, the tenant became entitled to the stock; wenn andrerseits der tenant starb, waren seine heirs theilweis, obgleich nicht ganz, relieved from their obligation. Wahrscheinlich die Daer-stock tenancy, beginning in the necessities of the tenant, was often from the same cause rendered practically permanent. (162)

The *Heriot of English Copyhold tenure*, the „best beast“ taken by the Lord on the death of a base tenant, has been explained as an *acknowledgment of the Lord’s ownership of the cattle* with which he anciently stocked the lands of his villeins, just as the *Heriot of the military tenant* is believed to have had its origin in a deposit of arms. Adam Smith recognized the great antiquity of the *Metayer tenancy*, wovon er noch zu seiner Zeit found in Scotland one variety, the *„steelbow“*. (162). In einer der *prefaces der official translation der Brehon* **laws** Vergleichung gemacht zwischen *Metayer tenancy* u. *the Saer u. Daer-stock tenancy* of ancient Irish law. Die Differences aber: In Metayage giebt landlord *land* u. *stock*, der *tenant* nur Arbeit u. skill; in Saer u. Daer-Stock tenancy the *land* belonged to the tenant. Ferner: die ancient Irish relation produced nicht allein a *contractual liability*, sondern a *status*; the tenant had his social u. tribal position distinctly altered by accepting stock. ⦗Wie leicht in ancient times mere *contractual liability* umschlägt, oder kaum zu ändern ist von *status*, Beweis z. B. Russld wo *persönlicher Dienst* direct in *Sklaverei* umschlägt u. selbst freiwillige *Feldarbeit* etc nur mit Mühe vor selbem Umschlag zu schützen. *Sieh darüber* das *Weitere in den russ. Quellen*.⦘ (163) In Ireland the *acceptance of stock* not always voluntary; a tribesman, in one stage of Irish custom at all events, was bound to receive stock from his own *„King“* … i.e. the *Chief of his tribe* in its largest extension. In einigen cases *the Tribe* wozu der intending tenant gehörte had *a veto on his adoption* of the new position … Um dem Tribe opportunity to geben to interpose whenever it had legal power to do so, the *acceptance of stock had to be open and public*, and the consequences of effecting it surreptitiously are elaborately set forth by the law. Hence one of the rules: „no man should leave a rent on his land which he did not find there.“ (163, 164)

Gehörten der Chief der den stock gab u. der Ceile der ihn accepted zum selben Tribe, so relation geschaffen verschieden von der tribal connection u. much more to the advantage of the chief. Aber dieser Chief war nicht immer der Chief of the tribesman’s own Sept or Tribe. Brehon law sucht Schwierigkeiten in den Weg zu legen wo attempt dies *vassalage Verhältniss zu etabliren zwischen a tribesman and a strange Chief*. Aber abundant admissions that dies vorkam. Jeder nobleman assumed to be as a rule rich in stock, u. having the Zweck to disperse his herds by the practice of giving stock. Der enriched peasant, der *Bo-aire*, had Ceiles who accepted stock from him. Hence the *new groups* formed in this way were manchmal ganz distinct von den old groups composed of the Chief and his Clan. Auch die new relation nicht confined auf *Aires*, or noblemen, u. *Ceiles* (i.e. free, but non noble tribesmen). The Bo-aire certainly, and *apparently* the *higher Chiefs* also, accepted stock on occasion from chieftains more exalted than themselves, and in the end to „give stock“ came to mean the same thing wie anderswo *„Commendation“* … *by fiction* the *Brehon* Law represents the King of Ireland as *„accepting stock“* from the *Emperor*. Es sagt: „Wenn the *King of Erin is without opposition“* – wovon the explanation runs: when he holds the *ports of Dublin*, *Waterford*, and *Limerick*, which were usually in the hands of the Danes – *„he receives stock from the King of the Romans“ (Senchus Mor. II, 225)*. The commentary goes on to say, that sometimes „it is by the *successor of Patrick* ⦗dies statt »Pope«⦘ that the stock is given to the King of Erin“. (164–166)

This *natural growth of feudalism* was not, as some eminent recent writers have supposed, entirely distinct from the process by which the authority of the Chief or Lord over the Tribe or Village was extended, but rather formed part of it. While the *unappropriated waste lands* were falling into his domain, the villagers or tribesmen were coming through *natural* (?) agencies under his personal power. (167)

The law-tracts (Brehon) give a picture of an *aristocracy of wealth in its most primitive form*; cf. über die Gallic Celts *Caesar* B. G. I. 4, u. VI. 13. In ancient world finden wir sehr early *plebejan classes deeply indebted to aristocratic orders*. (167) *Athenian commonalty the bondslaves through debts of the Eupatrids*; so the Roman Commons in money bondage to the Patricians. (167, 168) In very ancient times *land was a drug*, while capital was extremely perishable, added to with the greatest difficulty, and lodged in very few hands … The ownership of the *instruments of tillage other than the land itself* was thus, in early agricultural communities, a power of the first order … it may be believed (!) that a *stock of the primitive capital larger than usual* was very generally obtained by plunder … mostly, daher, in the hands of noble classes whose occupation was war and who at all events had a monopoly of the profits of office. The advance of capital at usurious interest, and the helpless degradation of the borrowers, natural results of such economical conditions. (168, 169). Die Brehon writers des Cain-Saerrath u. Cain-Aigillne, durch their precise u. detailed statements, plainly intend to introduce certainty and equity into a naturally oppressive system. (169)

*„Eric-fines“*, or *pecuniary composition* for violent crime (170); by this customary law, the sept or family to which the perpetrator of a crime belonged etc had to pay (in *cattle*, später Geld) dies fine. (171)

*Feodum, Feud, Fief*, von *Vieh*, cattle. Ebenso *Pecunia* u. *Pecus*. Wie die Roman lawyers tell that pecunia became the most comprehensive term for all a man’s property, so *„feodum“* – originally meaning „cattle“. (171, 172)

Nach Dr. Sullivan *feodum* of Celtic Sprachursprung; he connects it with *fuidhir*. Nämlich das territory jedes Irish tribe seems to have had settled on it, *neben den Saer und Daer Ceiles*, certain classes of persons, deren status nearer to slavery than to that of the Saer u. Daer tribesmen. Diese classes genannt *Senclethes, Bothachs* und *Fuidhirs*; diese 2 letzten classes wieder subdivided in *Saer* u. *Daer Bothachs* und *Saer u. Daer Fuidhirs*. Ersichtlich aus den tracts u. namentlich dem noch unpublicirten *„Corus Fine“*, dass die servile dependants, gleich den freemen des territory, had a family or Tribal organization; and indeed *all fragments of a society like that of ancient Ireland take more or less the shape of the prevailing model*. Die position der classes, obscurely indicated in *Domesday* u. other English records as *Cotarii* und *Bordarii*, wahrscheinlich sehr ähnlich denen der Sencleithes u. Bothachs; in beiden Fällen had diese servile orders wahrscheinlich *an origin distinct from that of the dominant race*, and belonged to the *older or aboriginal inhabitants of the country*. Ein Theil der families or subtribes formed out of them were certainly in a condition of special servitude to the Chief or dependence on him; diese either engaged in *cultivating his immediate domain-land and herding his cattle*, or were *planted by him in separate settlements* on *the waste land of the tribe*; *rente* or *service which* they paid scheint von Willkühr des Chief abhängig gewesen zu sein. (172, 173)

Der wichtigste Theil dieser Klassen der settled by the Chief *on the unappropirated tribal lands*. Diese *Fuidhirs*, u. ausserdem *strangers or fugitives* from other territories, in fact *men* who had *broken* the *original tribal bond* which gave them a place in the community. Aus *Brehon law* sichtbar, dass diese Klasse zahlreich; spricht à diverses reprises von the *desertion of their lands by families or portions of families*. Unter gewissen Umständen wurden the *rupture of the tribal bond* u. die *Flucht derer who break it* als »eventualities« von dem Gesetz behandelt. Die *Verantwortlichkeit* von *tribes, subtribes*, u. *families for die crimes ihrer Glieder* u. even to some extent *of civil obligation* derselben – might be *prevented* by *compelling* or *inducing a member of the group to withdraw from its circle*; and the *Book of Aicill* gives the legal procedure which is to be observed in the expulsion, the tribe paying certain fines to the Chief and the Church and proclaiming the fugitive. … Result probably to fill the country with „broken men“ u. diese could find a home and protection by becoming *Fuidhir tenants*; alles tending to disturb the Ireland der Brehon Laws tended to multiply this particular class. (173, 174)

Der *Fuidhir tenant* exclusively dependant of the *Chief* u. nur durch letzteren connected mit dem Tribe; Chief wurde auch responsible für sie; sie kultivirten *sein* Land; sie daher the first *„tenants at will“* known to Ireland.

The *„three rents“*, says the *Senchus Mor*, are the *„rackrent from a person of a strange tribe* ⦗diese person undoubtedly the *Fuidhir*⦘, a *fair rent from one of the Tribe*, and the *stipulated rent which is paid equally by the tribe and the strange tribe.“* In einer der glosses, was „rackrent“ übersetzt ist, verglichen *»to the milk of a cow which is compelled to give milk every month to the end of the year.«* (174, 175) Andrerseits hatte Chief grosses Interesse to encourage diese *Fuidhir tenants*. Heisst in one of the tracts: *„He brings in Fuidhirs to increase his wealth.“* Die interests really injured *were those of the tribe* … which suffered as a body *by the curtailment of the waste land available for pasture*. Vgl. *Hunter’s „Orissa“* wo shown wie das *„hereditary peasantry“* of Orissa beschädigt durch die broken *„migratory husbandmen“* etc. (Sieh *Orissa, I, 57, 58*) (175–177) Cf. *Edmund Spenser* (writing not later than *1596*) u. *Sir John Davis*, writing *before 1713*.

⦗Für den comfortable Maine die Irish Tenant Question »was *settled only the other day*«. (178) Mit seinem gewöhnlichen Optimismus die Sache settled durch den *Act of 1870* (!)⦘

The *general bias der writers der Brehon Tracts* rather towards the exaggeration of the privileges of the Chiefs than towards overstatement of the immunities of tribesmen. (180)

The power of the Irish Chiefs u. their severity to their tenants in the 16 th century being admitted, have been accounted for by the *Norman nobles* – the *Fitzgeralds, Burkes, Barrys* – becoming gradually clothed with Irish chieftainship had first abused it u. thus set an evil example to all the Chiefs in Ireland. (181) Better *Theory of Dr Sullivan* (in his *Introduction* p. CXXVI) wonach dies régime determined *»by the steady multiplication of Fuidhir tenants*«. (182) Und causes at work, powerfully u. for long periods of time, to increase the numbers of this class: *Danish piracies, intestine feuds, Anglo-Norman attempts at conquest*, the existence of the *Pale*, u. the policy directed from the Pale *of playing off against one another the Chiefs beyond its borders*. Durch dies civil war etc *tribes far u. wide broken up*, dies implies a *multitude of broken men*. (183) Dann wie in *Orissa* die immigrated cultivators at the disposal of the Zemindars make greatly rise for das ancient tenantry the standard of rent u. die exactions der landlords – selben Einfluss die Fuidhir tenants in Ireland; altered seriously for the worse the position of the tenants by Saer-Stock u. by Daer-Stock Tenure. (183, 184)

*Spenser: „View of the State of Ireland“*.

In der übrigens sonst kritisch nicht erwähnenswerthen: *„History of Ireland, Ancient and Modern“ (Dublin 1867)* von *Martin Haverty*, wird bemerkt: *»tanaisteacht (or tanistry)«*, a law of succession, bezog sich auf *»transmission of titles, offices, and authority«*. *Says Professor Curry*: „There was no invariable rule of succession … but according to the general tenor of our ancient accounts *the eldest son succeeded the father* to the exclusion of all collateral claimants, unless it happened that he was disqualified etc. The eldest son, being thus recognised and the *presumptive heir and successor to the dignity*, was denominated *tanaiste*, that is, *minor or second*, while all the other sons, or persons that were eligible in case of his failure, were simply called *righdhamhna*, i.e. *king-material, or king-makings*. This was the origin of *tanaiste*, a successor, and *tanaisteacht*, successorship. The tanaiste had a separate [maintenance] and establishment, as well as distinct privileges and liabilities. He was inferior to the king or chief, but above all the other dignitaries of the State. … Tanistry, in the Anglo-Norman sense, was not an original, essential element of the law of succession, but a condition that might be adopted or abandoned at any time by the parties concerned; and it does not appear that it was at any time universal in Erinn, although it prevailed in many parts of it. … alternate tanaisteacht did not involve any disturbance of property, or of the people, but only affected the position of the *person himself*, whether *king, chief, or professor of any of the liberal arts*, as the case might be; u. it was often set aside by force.“ ⦗*Prof. Curry* in: *Introduction to the battle of Magh Leana, printed for the Celtic Society, Dublin, 1855*; quoted in *Haverty, Hist. of Irld*, p. 49, wo es weiter heisst: »The primitive intention was that the inheritance should descend „to the oldest and most worthy man of the same name and blood,“ but practically this was giving it to the strongest, and *family feuds* and intestine wars were the inevitable consequence.« (*Haverty*, p. 49)⦘

By *gavelkind* (or *gavail-kinne*) ⦗common also to the Britons, Anglo-Saxons, Francs etc⦘ the *property* was divided equally between all the sons, whether legitimate or otherwise …; but in addition to his own equal share, which the eldest son obtained in common with his brothers, he received the dwelling house and other buildings, which would have been received by the father or *kenfinè* – ⦗Dies Wort *»Kenfinè«* oder *»Cean-fine«* was (nach Prof. Curry) only applied to the heads of minor families, and never to any kind of chieftains⦘, if the division was made, as it frequently was, in his own life-time. This extra share was given to the eldest brother *as head of the family*, and in *consideration of certain liabilities which he incurred for the* security of the family in general. If there were no sons, the property was divided equally among the next male heirs of the deceased, ⦗*nach Curry*: in default of any male issue *daughters were allowed a life interest in property*.⦘ whether uncles, brothers, nephews or cousins; but the female line was excluded from the inheritance. Sometimes *a repartition of the lands of a whole tribe, or family of several branches, became necessary, owing to the extinction of some of the branches*; but it does not appear that any such confusion or injustice resulted from the law, *as is represented by Sir John Davis and by other English lawyers* who have adopted his account of it. (p. *50*. He quotes: *„Dissertation on the Laws of the Ancient Irish“*, written *by Dr. O’Brien*, author of the Dictionary, but published anonymously by *Vallencey* in the *3d number* of the *„Collectanea de Reb. Hib.“*)

*The Tenure of land* in Ireland was essentially a *tribe or family right* … all the members of a tribe or family in Ireland had an equal right to their proportionate share of the land occupied by the whole. The equality of title and blood thus enjoyed by all must have created a sense of individual self-respect and mutual dependence, that could not have existed under the Germanic and Anglo-Norman System of vassalage. The tenures of whole tribes were of course frequently disturbed by war; and whenever *a tribe was driven or emigrated into a district where it had no hereditary claim*, if it obtained land it *was on the payment of a rent to the King of the district*; these rents being in some instances so heavy as to compel the strangers to seek for a home elsewhere. (l.c. p. 50) (*cf.* ib. *p. 28 Note* angeblich ein Beispiel aus der Zeit der *Queen Mab* !)

Die Hünde v. Engländern – man kennt die *Humanität dieser Bestien aus den Zeiten Henry’s VIII, Elizabeth’s u. James I* ! – machten gross Geschrei über Irish compositio od. *»eric«*; vergessend dass sich selbiges findet in *Laws of Athelstan, Leges Wallicae* (Howell Dda’s) etc. (see l.c. *p. 51 u. daselbst Note †*.)

*fosterage* prevailed, up to a comparatively recent period; *Engl. gvt.* machte oft *stringent laws dagegen*, to prevent the intimate friendships which sprung up between the Anglo-Irish families and their „mere“ Irish *fosterers*. By the *statute of Kilkenny, 40 Ed. III* (a.d. *1367*) wurden *Fosterage* and *gossipred* ⦗»*gossipred* or compaternity, by the canon law, is a spiritual affinity; and the juror, that was gossip to either of the parties, might, in former times, have been challenged as not indifferent.« (*Davies on Ireland*, bei Dr. *Johnson Dict. sub voce: gossipred.*)⦘ as well as *intermarriages, with the native Irish*, declared to be treason. Says *Giraldus Cambrensis (Top. Hib. Dist. 3, ch. 23*) „if any love or faith is to be found among them (the Irish), you must look for it among the fosterers and their foster-children.“ *Stanihurst, De reb. hib.* p. 49, says, the Irish loved and confided in their foster-brothers more than their brothers by blood: „Singula illis credunt; in eorum spe requiescunt; omnium consiliorum sunt maxime conscii. Collactanei etiam eos fidelissime et amantissime observant.“ See also *Harris’s Ware, v. II*, p. 72. (p. 51, 52 l.c.)

Eh wir fortfahren mit dem Maine, zunächst zu bemerken dass *4 Juli 1605* der elende Jacob I ⦗der zur Zeit der Elizabeth, before his accession den Katholikenfreund gespielt u., wie *Dr. Anderson*: „ *Royal Genealogies.* p. 786“ sagt, „assisted the Irish privately more than Spain did publicly“⦘ issued a proclamation, formally promulgating für Irland the Act of Uniformity *(1 Eliz.)*, and commanding the „Popish clergy“ to depart from the realm. Im selben Jahr the ancient Irish customs of *tanistry* u. *gavelkind* were abolished by a judgment of the *Court of King’s Bench*, and the inheritance of property was subjected to the rules of Englich law. ⦗Die lumpacii affirmed the illegality of the *native Irish tenures of land*; declared the English common law to be in force in Ireland, u. von da the eldest son succeeded, as heir-at-law, both to lands which were attached to a *Signory* and to *estates* which had been divided according to the peculiar Irish custom of *Gavelkind. Maine.* 185⦘ Der lausige *Sir John Davis* was King James ’ *Attorney-General for Ireland* u. für diesen Posten war natürlich entsprechender Lump gewählt – ein ebenso »vorurtheilsfreier« u. uninterssirter Patron wie der Elizabeths Arsch küssende Poet *Spencer. („State of Ireland“)* His remedy for the ills of Ireland, *the employment of* large masses of troops „to tread down all that standeth before them on foot, and lay on the ground all the *stiff-necked people of that land*,“ u. zwar sollte that war nicht nur im Sommer, sondern auch im Winter geführt werden, u. fährt dann fort: *„the end will be very short“* u. describes in proof what he himself had witnessed in „the late wars of Munster“ etc. (see den weiteren *Cannibalismus dieses Poeten* bei *Haverty*, l.c. p. 428 Note.)

Der bewusste Zweck des *James* was »looting«, was der Bursche *Colonisation* nannte. Vertreibung u. Unterjochung der Irish, u. Confiscation ihres Lands u. Habe, alles das unter dem Prätext von Anti-Popery. *1607 O’Neill* u. *O’Donnell*, noch in possession of vast tracts of country, the last great Irish chieftains, crushed. *1608* die Chiefs im Norden, Sir *Cahir O’Doherty* etc crushed (ihr Revolt). Nun 6 *counties of Ulster* – *Tyrone, Derry, Donegal, Fermanagh, Armagh* u. *Cavan* – confiscated to the Crown u. *parcelled out among adventurers from England and Scotland*. Dazu benutzt *Sir Arthur Chichester* (Bacon’s plan gefiel nicht dem beastly fool James I), the lord deputy, der zum Dank erhielt the wide lands of *Sir Cahir O’Doherty* for his share in this wholesale spoliation. (see *O’Donovan „Four Masters“*). Die reichen Spiessbürger der *London City were the largest participators in the plunder*. They obtained *209,800 acres* and rebuilt the city (i.e. *Derry*) since then called *Londonderry*. Nach dem plan finally adopted for the *„plantation of Ulster“* the lots into which the lands were divided were classified into those containing *2000 acres*, which were reserved for *rich **undertakers*** and the *great servitors of the crown*; those containing *1500 acres*, which were allotted to *servitors of the crown in Ireland*, with permission to take either *English or Irish tenants*; and, thirdly, *those containing 1000 acres*, to be distributed with still less restriction. The exclusion of the ancient inhabitants, and the proscription of the Catholic religion, were the fundamental principles to be acted on as far as possible in this settlement. *Cox* says that *in the instructions*, printed for the direction of the settlers, it was especially mentioned „that they should not suffer any laborers, that would not take the oath of supremacy, to dwell upon their land.“ (p. 497–500 l.c.)

*Irish Parlament*, berufen angeblich für *„Protestant Ascendancy“*, aber namentlich auch um Geld für *James I* zu pressen (whose »insatiable rapacity« u. stete Geldnoth notorious). (p. 501–503 l.c.)

Da der Raub vermittelst der *„plantation“* so gut gelungen, suchte James I Sache jetzt auf andre Theile Irlands auszudehnen; *appointed* commission of inquiry to scrutinize the titles and determine the rights of *all the lands in Leinster*; commissioners worked so rapidly, that in a little time land to the extent of 385,000 acres placed at James’s disposal ⦗dieser »silly, pedantic fool«, der *„British Solomon“* lauded by *Hume* ⦘ for distribution. (Weiters darüber p. 501–505 l.c.) See *Leland*. Der puritanisch thuende ruffian Arthur *Chichester* ⦗der für jede neue *Infamy* additional grant of Irish lands erhielt u. den Title: Baron of Belfast, hatte *1616* sein Werk gethan u. withdrew from the Irish government⦘ laid down *as the punishment of jurors who would not find for the King on „sufficient evidence“* was the Star-Chamber; sometimes they were „pilloried with loss of ears, and bored through the tongue, and sometimes marked on the forehead with a hot iron etc.“ (*Commons’ Journal. V. I, p. 307.)* (l.c. p. 505, note †).

Der folgende Passus in einem der »famous« (why not »infamous«?) cases in which the Anglo-Irish Judges affirmed the illegality of the native Irish tenures of land: „Before the establishment of the (English) common law, all the possessions within the Irish territories ran either in course of *Tanistry or in course of Gavelkind. Every Signory or Chiefry with the portion of land which passed [with] it went without partition to the Tanist*, who always came in *by election* or with *the strong hand*, and *not by descent*; but *all inferior tenanties were partible between males in Gavelkind.‟ (Sir J. Davis’ Reports; „Le Cas de Gavelkind“, Hil. 3, Jac. 1, before all the Judges.)* (p. 185)

⦗Dass *Tanistry* (see die vorigen Ausz. aus *Haverty*) eine *ältere Form* (archaische) der *Primogenitur*, ist keine Entdeckung des Herrn Maine, sondern wie die Auszüge aus Haverty zeigen war von Dr. *O’Brien, Prof. Curry* etc lang vorher als fact angenommen. Es beruht einfach darauf, dass der Chef – sei es der gens, sei es des tribe – theoretisch *gewählt*, praktisch vererbbar in der Familie (u. *für tribe*, rather die gens) der der defunct Chief angehört; meist ältester Sohn, relativ Onkel (modificirt durch descent linie); ist bereits *eignes Land* verbunden mit der function, so geht dies natürlich mit der Function.⦘

Von *Gavelkind* sagt Sir John Davis: „By *the Irish custom of Gavelkind*, the *inferior tenanties were partible among all the males of the Sept*, both Bastards and Legitimate; and, after partition made, if *any one of the Sept had died, his portion was not divided among his sonnes*, but the *Chief of the Sept made a new partition of all the lands belonging to that Sept*, and *gave every one his part according to his antiquity*.“ (186) ⦗Die *Irish Sept = Gens*.⦘ *Skene* citirt observation eines engl. Engineer officer in den Highlands about 1730: „They (the Highlanders) are divided into *tribes or clans* under chiefs or chieftains, and *each clan is again divided into branches from the main stock, who have chieftains over them*. They are *subdivided into smaller branches of 50 or 60 men, who deduce their original from their particular chieftains*.“ (*Skene: „Highlanders“* I, p. 156) Was Davis describes passirt ähnlich in a *Hindoo Joint Family* in case of death of one of its members. (187) Dort nämlich, all the property being brought into the „common chest or purse“, the lapse of any one life would have the effect, potentially if not actually, of distributing the dead man’s share among all the kindred united in the family group. And if, on a dissolution of the Joint family, the distribution of its effects were not *per capita* but *per stirpes*, this would correspond to *Davis’s* Chief giving to each man *„according* to his antiquity“. (p. 187, 188) Gavelkind entspringt aus der gleichen od. period. Theilung des Landes in rural commune; zuletzt »the descendants (aber vorher dies auch *schon bei Lebzeit*) of the latest holder take his property, to the exclusion of everybody else u. die rights of the portion of the community outside the family dwindle to a *veto on sales*, or to a right of controlling the modes of cultivation.« (189)

Das was in Davis’ Report (sieh oben) in Widerspruch scheint mit den *Brehon Laws*, u. a. mit *Corus Bescna* (which deals with rights over tribal lands) ist dass er ausser rule of Tanistry *nur die* of »Gavelkind« kennt, während in Brehon laws andre (nicht tribal oder gentilician) »property« excluding the »Sept«. *Dr. Sullivan* in *Introduc.* (Breh. Laws, *p. CLXX*) says: „According to the Irish custom, property descended at first only to the male heirs of the body, each son receiving an equal share … Ultimately, however, daughters appear to have become entitled to inherit all, if there were no sons.“ (Dies analog dem *Gavelkind of Kent*.) *Corus Bescna* implies that under certain circumstances *land might be permanently alienated*, at all events to *the Church*. (191) Ist möglich, dass in certain time the *Irish Gavelkind* (in dem strict sense der *Vertheilung unter Sept* des Landes des defunct), the modern Gavelkind known to Kent, and many forms of succession intermediate between the two, co-existed in Ireland. The *Brehon writers* als lawyers u. *friends of the Church* ⦗»Comfortable« *Maine* adds in his usual Pecksniff unctuosity: »and (it may be) as *well-wishers to their country*«.⦘ sehr biassed für descent of property in individual families. (193)

Beständig kam vor in *Irland* u. *schott. Highlands* dass a Chief, ausser *domain* appertaining to his office, had *a great estate* held under what the English lawyers deemed *the inferior tenure*. 2 Beispiele on record wo 2 grosse Irish Chiefs *distributed such estates among their kindred*. Im *14 Jhdt Connor More O’Brien* assigned the *bulk of the estate to the various families of the Sept formed by his own relatives* (Also *Gens*), behielt sich nur ½ of a 3d = ⅙ vor, u. dies ⅙ divided er unter his 3 sons, *reserving only a rent to himself*. Am *Ende des 15. Jhdts Donogh O’Brien*, son of *Brien Duff*, son of *Connor*, King of Thomond, *divided all his land unter seine 11 sons*, reservirte für sich nur mansion u. the demesne in his vicinity. Diese 2 cases getrennt durch a century. Im ersten Fall das land had remained in a *state of indivision* während several generations; im 2ten had been periodically divided. Der Connor More O’Brien distributed the inheritance of a Sept; *Donogh O’Brien* that of a *family*. (*Vallancey: „Collectanea de Rebus Hibernicis“* I, 264, 265. Cf. Haverty. Maine exploits former Irish writers without naming them.)

Connor More O’Brien scheint (!) to have paid regard to the various *stirpes* or *stocks*, worin die gens sich branched out; entsprechend was Davis sagt dass der chief divided a lapsed share *between the members of a sept „according to their antiquity“*. In der most archaic form der *Joint Family* (soll heissen *Gens*) u. der institution which grew out of it, the *Village-Community*, diese distributions *per capita*, später distribution *per stripes*, wo careful attention is paid to the lines into which the descendants of the ancestor of the *joint-family* (read: *gens*) have separated, and separate rights are reserved to them. Finally, the *stocks themselves* escape from the sort of shell constituted by the Joint Family (Gens); each man’s share of the property, now *periodically divided*, (diesen *Uebergang* der period. *gleichen Theilung* erklärt Maine nicht) is distributed among his direct descendants at his death. *At this* point, *property in its modern form has been established*; but the Joint family has not wholly ceased to influence successions. ⦗keineswegs ist dadurch »property in its modern form« established; see *Russian communes* f.i.⦘ Fehlen direct descendants, it is even now the rules of the Joint Family which determine the taking of its inheritance. *Collateral successions*, when distant, follow the more primitive form – *per capita*; when they are *those of the nearer kindred* … *per stirpes*. (193–96)

Die *Theilung bei Lebzeiten*, die sich bei beiden Chiefs findet, auch in *Hindoo Joint-Family*; auch *Laertes* in *Odyssee*, the Old Chief, wenn krackschelig, parts with his power u. retains but part of the property he has administered; dagegen der *»poorer freeman«* wird einer der *„Senior“* pensioners des tribe *so often referred to in the tracts* (Brehon). (196)

⦗Es ist *modernes* Vorurtheil die *Theilung post mortem*, hervorgegangen aus der *testamentarischen Erbschaft*, als etwas Specifisches zu betrachten. Das Eigenthum an Land z. B., common selbst nach *Verwandlung in privates Familieneigenthum*, nämlich common property der family, worin jeder seinen ideellen Antheil hat, bleibt so nach Tod, sei es dass die Familie zusammenbleibt, sei es dass sie *faktisch theilt*; folgt daher dass die *Theilung*, wenn der Chief der family (od. wie bei Hindoo *joint-family* der gewählte od. erbliche *Repräsentant* der family dazu gezwungen wird durch die co-parceners) will, bei seinen Lebzeiten stattfindet. Die ganz falsche Vorstellung des *Maine*, der die *Privatfamilie*, wenn in Indien auch in der Form, worin sie dort existirt, – u. zwar in den Städten mehr als auf dem Land, u. bei den Grundrentbeziehern mehr als bei den wirklichen arbeitenden Gliedern einer village community – als die *Basis betrachtet*, woraus sich *Sept* u. *Clan* entwickeln etc, zeigt sich auch in folgender Phrase: Nachdem er gesagt, dass die *»power of distributing inheritances vested in the Celtic Chiefs«* essentially dieselbe Institution sei, die dem »Hindoo father« reserved ist durch die *»Mitakshara«*, fährt er fort: »It is part of the *prerogative* (eselhafter Ausdruck für die gens u. Tribeverhältnisse) belonging to the representative of the poorest blood in the joint family; but in proportion as the *Joint Family, Sept*, or *Clan becomes more artificial*, the *power of distribution* tends more and more to look like mere *administrative authority*.« (196, 197) Die Sache ist grad umgekehrt. Für Maine, der sich die English Private family after all nicht aus dem Kopf schlagen kann, erscheint diese *ganz natürliche Function des Chief of gens, weiter of Tribe*, natürlich grade weil er ihr *Chief* ist (u. theoretisch immer »gewählter«) als »artificial« u. »mere administrative authority«, während die Willkühr des modernen *pater familias* grade *»artificial«* ist, wie die Privatfamily selbst, vom archaischen Standpunkt.⦘

In einigen systems of *Hindoo law*, hat der Vater, der bei Lebzeiten das Eigenthum vertheilt, das *Recht to retain a double share* u. nach einigen Hindoo customs, nimmt der *älteste Sohn*, wenn das patrimony theilend mit seinen Brüdern, *2×* grösseren Antheil als die anderen. Aehnlich *„the birthright“* of the Hebrew patriarchal history. Dies nicht zu verwechseln mit Recht *of the rule of Primogeniture*. ⦗Sieh oben *Haverty*, zum Beweis, dass die *irischen* Vorgänger des Herrn Maine *dies lange vor* ihm constatirt hatten, wo sie diese *Ungleichheit bei Gavelkind sehr genau scheiden von Tanistry u. auf Pflichten des ältesten Sohns* etc reduciren.⦘ Er sucht sich dann the double share plausible zu machen (sie sei »reward or security for impartial distribution« (!)) u. bemerkt, das sei oft coupled with the right to take exclusively such things *deemed incapable of division*, the *family house*, f.i., and *certain ustensils*. Statt des *ältesten Sohns* dies Privileg manchmal dem *jüngsten Sohn* zufallend. (197) *Primogenitur* unbekannt *Griechen* u. *Römern* u. *Semiten*. (*Juden* u. a. auch) Aber wir *finden* als familiar fact dass des *letzten Königs ältester Sohn* ihm folgt; die *griech. Philosophen* speculiren auch dass in älterem status of society, smaller groups of men, *families u. villages*, governed by eldest son after eldest son. (198)

Auch beim Einfall der *Teutonic Barbars* in *West Europa* Primogenitur nicht die gewöhnliche Regel der Nachfolge. Das *Allodial Property des Teutonic freeman* – theoretisch der share he had got bei original Erobrungssettlement des tribe etc, wenn getheilt, *gleich getheilt zwischen Söhnen* od. auch *zwischen Söhnen u. Töchtern*. Doch erscheint erst mit diesen Barbaren Primogenitur rasch ausgebreitet über Westeuropa. Und nun findet Maine neue Schwierigkeit, die jedoch nur aus seiner Unbekanntschaft mit *Wesen der Gens* herstammt, nämlich dass statt ältesten Sohns *the eldest male relative of the deceased* eintritt (dies bei *Vorherrschen der gens das Normale*, da der eldest male relative – wo female descent also superseded – näher dem *Vater des deceased* als der son des deceased) oder dass *neither the succesion of the eldest son nor that of the eldest relative could take effect without election or confirmation by the members of the aggregate group to which they belong*. (199) ⦗Dies ist noch *normaler* als alles andere; dass der Chief immer theoretisch *elective* bleibt, only selbstverständlich, within the gens, resp. within the tribe.⦘ Um sich letzteren Punkt klar zu machen, flüchtet Herr Maine wieder zu seiner beliebten *Hindoo Joint Family*, wo nach Tod des Familienhaupts, wenn die Familie separates, gleiche Theilung stattfindet; wenn nicht, *election*, meist ältester Sohn; wenn dieser als improper set aside, nicht sein Sohn, sondern meist der brother of deceased [zum] manager gewählt; so sort of *mixture of election and doubtful succession*, was auch gefunden wird in the early examples of European primogeniture. (200) So der *Tribe* Chief gewählt from the Chieftain’s family »as representing the purest blood of the entire brotherhood« ⦗Blödsinn, wenn von wirklich primitive communities Rede. See *f.i.* Red Indian *Iroquois*. Umgekehrt, weil meist die Wahl traditionell in derselben, od. gewissen gentes fortführt u. dann wieder in einer bestimmten Familie derselben gens, mag diese später, unter changed circumstances als »representing the purest blood« gelten.⦘ u. instances of the choice being systematically made from 2 families in succession. (200) Ist auch reine Fiktion des Herrn Maine, dass der *war chief* ursprünglich der Tribe chief ist. Dieser wurde umgekehrt nach seinen individual capacities gewählt. *Spenser*, aus dem Maine folgende Stelle citirt, ist authority good enough for stating the facts he saw, but their origin cannot be elucidated from Spenser’s plausible reasons for the facts observed. Folgendes die Stelle aus Spenser: „It is a custom among all the Irish that presently after the death of any of their chief lords or captains, they do presently assemble themselves to a place generally appointed and known unto them to choose another in his stead, where they *do nominate and elect for the most part*, not *the eldest son*, nor any of the children of the lord deceased, but *the next to him* of blood that *is eldest and worthiest*, as commonly the *next brother* if he have any, or the *next cousin*, [and so forth,] as any is elder in that kindred or sept; and then, *next to him, they choose the next of the blood to be Tanaist, who shall succeed him in the said Captaincy* if he live thereunto … For when their Captain dieth, if the Signory should descend to his child, and he perhaps an infant, another might peradventure step in between or thrust him out by strong hand, being then unable to defend his right and to withstand the force of a forreiner; and therefore they do appoint the eldest of the kin to have the Signory, for that commonly he is a man of stronger years and better experience to maintain the inheritance and to defend the country … And to this end the Tanaist is always ready known, if it should happen to the Captain suddenly to die, or to be slain in battle, or to be out of the country, to defend and keep it from all such dangers.“ *(Spenser: „View of the State of Ireland“)* (bei *Maine* p. 201, 202) Maine, der gar nicht erwähnt (cp. oben *Haverty*) was die Irisch writers gesagt, giebt als seine Entdeckung: »*Primogeniture*, considered as a rule of succession to property, appears to me a *product of tribal leadership in its decay*.« (202) *Glanville* (unter Henry II, wahrscheinlich *1186*) writes mit Bezug auf English *military tenures*: „When anyone dies, leaving a younger son and a grandson, the child of his eldest son, a great doubt exists as to which of the two the law prefers in the succession to the other, whether the son or the grandson. Some think the younger son has more right to the inheritance than the grandson … but others incline to think that the grandson ought to be preferred to his uncle.“ (Glanville, VII, 3) Ebenso disputes among Highland families about the title to the chieftaincy of particular clans. (l.c. 203) Maine versteht den ganzen case nicht; meint der Onkel z. B. gewählt, weil mehr wehrhaft; dagegen sobald times had become friedlicher unter central authority of a king »the *value of strategical capacity in the humbler chiefs would diminish*, and in the smaller brotherhoods the *respect for purity of blood would have unchecked play*.« (203) ⦗Dies reiner Blödsinn. Die Sach’ ist allmälig Ueberwiegen (zusammenhängend mit Entwicklung v. Privatgrundeigenthum) der *Einzelfamilie* über die *Gens*. Des Vaters Bruder näher dem ihnen beiden gemeinschaftlichen Stammhaupt als irgend einer der Söhne des Vaters; also der Onkel der Söhne näher als einer von diesen selbst. Nachdem schon mit Bezug auf die Familie die Kinder des Vaters theilen, u. die gens nur noch wenig od. gar nicht an der Erbschaft betheiligt, kann für öffentliche Funktionen, also gens chief, tribe chief etc *noch die alte gens rule* vorwiegend bleiben; nothwendig entsteht aber struggle zwischen beiden.⦘ Dieselbe Streitfrage arose zwischen den descendants of daughters in der controversy zwischen Bruce u. Baliol über Krone von Schottland. (204) (*Edward I* liess für Baliol entscheiden; danach die descendants of an elder child must be exhausted before those of the younger had a title.) *Sobald der älteste Sohn statt des uncle* folgte to »the humbler chieftaincies«, he doubtless also obtained that „portion of land attached to the Signory which went without partition to the Tanaist“. (204) So »the ›demesne‹, as it was afterwards called, assumed more and more the character of mere property descending according to the rule of primogeniture.« (p. 204)

Nach u. nach dann this principle of primogeniture extended from the demesne to all the estates of the holder of the Signory, however acquired, and ultimately determined the law of succession for the privileged classes throughout feudalised Europe. (204, 5) French *„Parage“* under which the near kinsmen of the eldest son still took an interest in the family property, but held it of him as his Peers. (205)

Unter act of the *12th year of Elizabeth* (1570) the Lord Deputy was empowered to take surrenders and regrant estates to the Irishry. „The Irish Lords“, says *Davis*, „made surrenders of entire countries and obtained grants of the whole again to themselves only, and none other, and all in demesne. In passing of which grants, *there was no care taken of the inferior septs of people* … So that upon every such surrender or grant, there was *but one freeholder made in a whole country, which was the lord himself*; all the rest *were* ⦗made durch Elizabeth’s Act⦘ but tenants at will, or rather *tenants in villenage*.“ (bei *Maine* p. 207)

*In Brehon Laws (Book of Aicill)* namentlich, Third Vol. *Irish family* getheilt in *Geilfine, Deirbhfine, Iarfine* u. *Indfine* (wovon die 3 letzteren übersetzt: the *True*, the *After* u. die *End Families*). Der Editor des Third Volume (*Brehon Laws*, worin das *Book of Aicill*) sagt: „Within the Family, 17 members were organized in 4 divisions, of which the *junior class*, known as the *Geilfine division*, consisted of 5 persons; die *Deirbhfine* – 2nd in order, *Iarfine* – 3d in order, and the *Indfine* – the *senior of* all – consisted respectively of 4 persons. The whole organization consisted, and could only consist, of 17 members. ⦗(3×4+5.)⦘ If *any person was born into the Geilfine division*, its *eldest member* was promoted into the Deirbhfine, the *eldest member of the Deirbhfine* passed into the *Iarfine*, the eldest member of the Iarfine moved into the Indfine, and the eldest member of the Indfine passed out of the organization altogether. It would appear that this transition from a lower to a higher grade took place upon the *itroduction of new members, not upon the death of* the seniors.“ (citirt bei Maine, 209)

Nach Maine (Bei diesem Bursch nöthig die Irländer zu vergleichen): any *member of the Joint-family* or Sept might be selected as the starting[-point], and become a root from which sprung as many of these groups of 17 men as he had sons. Sobald einer dieser Söhne 4 Kinder hat, ist a full *Geilfine sub-group* formed of 5 persons; wird ein neues male Kind (Sohn) zugeboren, diesem Sohn or to any of his male descendants, so das *älteste Glied der Geilfine sub-group* – provided always he were not the person from whom it had sprung – sent into the Deirbhfine. A succession of such births completed the Deirbhfine Division, and went on to form the Iarfine and the Indfine, the After and the End Families; die *5te Person in der Geilfine division* soll sein the parent von dem die 16 descendants spring; er scheint to be referred to in the tracts as the Geilfine Chief. (210)

The *Geilfine group* is several times stated by the Brehon lawyers to be at once the *highest and the youngest*. *Whitley Stokes* told dem Maine, dass *Geilfine* = *hand-family*; nämlich *„Gil“* sei = *hand* (also the rendering of *O’Curry*) and sei in fact = χείρ; u. *hand* in several Aryan languages = *power*, namentlich für family or patriarchal power; so, in Greek, ὑποχείριος u. χέρης, for the person under the hand; *latin. „herus“ (master)* von an old word, cognate to χείρ; ebenso lat. *manus, in manu* etc., in Celtic *„Gilla“*. (a servant, bei Walter Scott *„Gillie“*) (216, 217) Hence der gewaltige Gedanke des Maine, dass hinter dieser Irish distribution der Family die *Patria Potestas* u. founded (die Eintheilung) on the *order of emancipation von Paternal authority*. The *Geilfine*, die Hand family, consists of father u. 4 natural or adoptive sons immediately under his power; die other groups of *emancipated descendants* diminishing in dignity in proportion to their distance from the group which … constitutes the true or representative family. (217) Aehnlich in *Roman family*, wo die emancipated members der family underwent a capitis diminutio. (218)

The Irish division of the Family seems only to have been wichtig mit Bezug auf law of succession after death. Aber dies rule in all societies. When the *ancient constitution of the Family has ceased to affect anything else*, it affects inheritance. (219)

Die authors *der Brehon law tracts* oft *compare the Geilfine Division* der family der *human hand*. Dr. *Sullivan* says: „as they represented the roots of the spreading branches of the Family, they were called the *cuic mera na Fine* or the *‘five fingers of the Fine’*.“ (p. 220) Patria potestas referred to in the Irish tracts as the father’s power of „judgment, proof, and witness“ over his sons. (l.c.) See *Tylor* über *»Finger-Counting«*, in „Primitive culture“. Weil menschliche Hand *5 Finger* zählt, 5 a primitive natural maximum number. *Early English Township* represented by the *Reeve* and the 4 men; the Indian *punchayet*. (221)

*„Borough English“*, unter which law *the youngest son* and not *the eldest* succeeds to the *burgage-tenements* of his father. (222) *Blackstone*, um dies zu erklären, citirt von Duhalde that the *custom of descent to the youngest son prevails among the Tartars*; sobald die älteren Sons fähig to lead a pastoral life, verliessen sie den father to migrate *»with a certain allotment of cattle«*, and go to seek a new habitation. Der youngest, who continues longest with his father, is naturally the heir of his house, the rest being already provided for. (222) In den *leges Wallicae*, diese Gewohnheit für all welsh cultivating villeins: „Cum *fratres inter se dividant haereditatem, junior debet habere tygdyn*, i.e. *aedificia patris sui, et octo acras de terrâ, si habuerint*“. (*L. Wall.* v. II, p. 780), ausserdem certain ustensils; the other sons are to divide what remains. (223). Der youngest, *remaining under patria potestas*, preferred to the others. (l.c.) Primogeniture … comes … from the Chief (of Clan); „Borough English“ wie *„Geilfine“* dagegen von ancient conception of family as linked with patria potestas. (223, 224)

Das Irish word *Fine* – in the Brehon Laws – used for die family in present sense, für den *Sept*, für *Tribe* etc. (231)

Irish family liess *Adoption* zu. The *Sept* admitted Strangers on stated conditions, the *Fine Taccair*; der Tribe included refugees from other tribes, die nur in Zusammenhang mit ihm durch Chief. (231, 232)

In Dr. Sullivan’s introduction he traces the origin of *Guilds* to the *grazing partnerships* common among the ancient Irish; the *same words* used to describe *bodies of co-partners*, formed by contract, and bodies of co-heirs or co-parceners formed by common descent. (232)

„Tribe of Saints“ or Verwandtschaftsideen applied to monastic house with its monks and bishops, ebenso to the collective assemblage of *religious houses* etc. (p. 236, sq.) the abbot of the parent house and all the abbots of the minor houses are the *„comharbas“ od. co-heirs of the saint*. (l.c.) An entire *sub-tract* in the *Senchus Mor* devoted to the *Law of Fosterage*, setting out with the greatest minuteness the rights and duties attaching to all parties when the children of another family were received for nurture and education. (241) It is classed with *»Gossipred«* (religious Verwandtschaft). (p. 242) ⦗the *same mother’s milk* given to children of different origin. Dies reminds one das *Mutterrecht* and the rules flowing from it; but *Maine* noch unbekannt hiermit, it seems.⦘ *»Literary Fosterage«.* (p. 242, sq.) Die *Brehon lawyers* selbst sind betrachtet by the English writers who have noticed them as a *caste*. Nach evidence der Irish records jedoch anyone who went through a particular training might become a Brehon. Zur Zeit wo Ireland began to be examined by English observers, the art and knowledge der Brehon had become *hereditary in certain families* attached to or dependent on the Chiefs of particular tribes. Dieser selbe change has obviously occurred with a vast number of *trades and professions* in India, jetzt popularly called *castes*. Mit a native Indian schwer zu verstehn why z. B. a son should *not* succeed to the learning of his father, and consequently his office and duties. In den *States von Engl. Indien governed by native princes*, it is still praktisch allgemeine rule that *office is hereditary*. Aber dies erklärt nicht the growth of *those castes* which *are definite sections of great populations*. Nur eine einzige dieser *castes* really survives in *India, that of the Brahmins* u. it is strongly suspected that the whole *literary theory of Caste, which* is *of Brahmin origin, is based on the existence of the Brahmin caste alone*. (245) Bei den Irish gesehn wie all sorts of *groups* of men considered as connected through blood relationship (247); so »associations of kinsmen shading off into assemblages of partners and guild-brothers – foster parentage, spiritual parentage, and preceptorship (Teacher and pupil) taking their hue from natural paternity – ecclesiastical organization blending with tribal organization.« (248)

*Grösster Theil des Senchus Mor* – the largest Brehon law tract – handelt v. *Distress*. Es handelt sich hier um *Procedur*, die bei den Rechtsanfängen das wichtigste.

Im Anfang des *Book IV* des *1816* von Niebuhr disinterred manuscript of *Gajus* fragmentary u. imperfect account of the old *Legis actiones*.

*actio* generally = Handlung, Vollbringung, That. (*Cic. N.D.* »Deos spoliat motu et *actione* divina.« *actio vitae id*. Off. I. 5 (= *vital action*); ferner =actiones = public functions or duties, *wie actio consularis*; dann: *negotiation, deliberation* wie: »discessu consulum *actio de pace* sublata est etc«; *political measures or proceedings, addresses of the magistrates to the People*;

nun kommen wir aber zum sense worin *legis actio*: an *action, suit, process* with a defining *genitive*: *actio furti* action for theft; auch mit *de*: *»actio de repetundis«* action (prosecution) for refunding money extorted by magistrates. *actionem alicui intendere, actionem instituere* (bring an action against somebody). »Multis *actiones (processes, suits)* et *res* (the property in suit) peribant.« *Liv.*)

Daher allgemein: *a legal formula* or *form of process* (procedure) »inde illa *actio*: ope consilioque tuo, furtum ajo factum esse«. *actiones Manilianae*, forms relative to purchase and sale. »*Dare alicui actionem*«, Permission to bring an action, which was the office of the Prätor. *»Rem agere ex jure, lege, causa etc«* to bring an action, to manage a cause or suit.

*Lege*, respective *legem* – *agere*, to *proceed according to law, mode of executing law*, to *execute* a sentence. »Lege egit in hereditatem paternam exheres filius.« *(Cic. De Orat. I, 38.)*

*Bentham* unterscheidet zwischen *Substantive Law*, the law declaring rights and duties, and *Adjective law*, the rules wonach that law is administered. In älteren Zeiten rights and duties rather the *adjective of procedure* als umgekehrt. Difficulty in such times not in conceiving what a man was *entitled to*, but in *obtaining it*; so that *the method*, violent or legal, *by which an end was obtained*, was of more consequence than the nature of the end itself. … das wichtigste sehr lange Zeit the *»remedies«*. (252)

Die first dieser alten (Roman) actiones ist die: *Legis Actio Sacramenti*, the undoubted parent of all the Roman actions u. daher of most of the *civil remedies* now in use in the world. ⦗*sacramentum* in *law*: *the sum* which the *parties* to a suit at first *deposited with the tresviri capitales*, but for which they subsequently gave security to the praetor, so called because *the sum deposited by the losing party was used for religious purposes*, esp. for the *sacra publica*; or rather, perhaps, because *the money* was deposited in *sacred place*. *Festus*. »*ea pecunia, quae in judicium venit in litibus*, sacramentum a sacro. Qui petebat et qui infitiabatur, de aliis rebus utrique quingenos aeris ad pontem deponebant, de aliis rebus item certo alio legitimo numero assum; qui judicio vicerat, suum sacramentum e sacro auferebat, victi ad aerarium redibat.« *Varro*.⦘

Diese Actio sacramenti is a dramatisation of the Origin of Justice; 2 Bewaffnete Männer ringen mit einander, Prätor geht vorbei, interposes to stop the contest; die disputants state him their case, agree that he shall arbitrate; arrangirt dass der loser, ausser resigning the subject of the quarrel, shall pay a sum of money to the umpire (the Prätor). (p. 253)(Dies scheint rather Dramatisation of how law disputes were becoming a source of profit \ *fees* to lawyers! u. dies nennt Herr Maine, als a lawyer, *»the Origin of Justice«* !)

In dieser dramatisation the claimant holds a *wand in his hand*, der nach Gajus *a spear* repräsentirt, the emblem of the strong man armed, served as the *symbol of property* held absolutely and against the world (rather the symbol of Gewalt als origin of Roman u. other property!) in Roman u. several Western societies. *Quarrel between plaintiff u. defendant* ⦗assertions u. reassertions – formal dialogue dabei⦘ was a mere pretence among the Romans, long remained *a reality* in other societies u. survived in the *Wager of Battle*, der als English Institution erst »finally abolished in our fathers’ day«. (255)

The disputants staked a sum of money – the Sacramentum – on the merits of their quarrel, and the stake went into the public exchequer. The *money thus wagered*, das erscheint in a large number of archaic legal systems, is the *earliest representative of Court Fees* … ⦗Die Legis Actio Sacramenti so conducted, u. dies wieder showing the intimate nature of the *Lawyer* – dass die Lex, das geschriebene Recht, aber auch *literally* – nicht der Geist, sondern der Buchstabe des Gesetzes, die Formel das Wichtigste⦘ So sagt *Gajus*: If you sued by *Legis Actio* for injury to your vines, and *called them vines*, you would fail; you must call them *trees*, because the *Text of the 12 Tables* speaks only of Trees. Ebenso enthält die alte collection of *Teutonic legal formulas* – the *Malberg gloss* – provisions von genau derselben Natur. If you sue for a *bull*, you will miscarry if you describe him as a bull; you must give him his ancient juridical designation of *„leader of the herd“*. You must call the fore-finger the *„arrow“ finger*, the *goat* the *„browser upon leeks“*. (255, 256)

Folgt bei Gajus the *Condictio* ⦗in Digests: demand for *restitution*⦘; er sagt sie sei gegründet, soll aber nur regulated worden sein durch 2 Roman Statutes of the *6th Century B.C.*, the *Lex Silia* u. the *Lex Calpurnia*; bekam Namen von a notice die der Kläger dem Beklagten gab in 30 Tagen vor Prätor zu erscheinen, damit ein *judex oder referee* might be nominated. ⦗*condicere* to speak with, agree upon, decide, *appoint*, ansagen. »condicere tempus et locum coeundi«. »condicere rem« demand restitution, »*pecuniam alicui*« (Ulp.)⦘ Nach der condictio the parties entered into *„sponsio“* u. *„restipulatio“*. ⦗*Sponsio*, a solemn promise or engagement, guarantee, security. »*sponsio* appellatur omnis stipulatio promissioque.« *Paul. Dig.* »non *foedere* pax Caudina sed *per sponsionem* (by giving surety) facta est.« (*Liv.*) Speciell in *civil* Suits, ein agreement between 2 parties in a suit, dass der der *den Process verliert, should pay a certain sum to him who gains* it. »*Sponsionem facere.*« (*Cic.*) Endlich: *a sum of money deposited according to agreement*, a *stake* (Einsatz beim Spiel, bei Wette, that which is laid down, as the amount of a wager etc.)

*Restipulatio.* A counter-engagement or obligation (*Cic.*) *restipulor* to stipulate or engage in return⦘

Nachdem diese condictio gegeben, the parties entered into a „sponsio“ and „restipulatio“, i.e. laid *a formal wager* (distinct from the so called Sacramentum) on the justice of their respective contentions. Die sum so staked almost = ⅓ of the amount in dispute, went in the end to the successful litigant, and not, like Sacramentum, to the State. ⦗Hat ausserdem den innern ironischen Sinne, dass die Parteien des Processes dasselbe unsichre Hazardspiel treiben wie beim Wetten, doch dies ein der röm. jurisprudens unbewusster Witz!⦘

Gajus proceeds von der *Condictio* zur *Manus Injectio* u. *Pignoris Capio*, actiones legis die nichts mit modernem Begriff von actio gemein haben. Manus injectio ausdrücklich stated to have been *originally the Roman mode of execution against the person of a judgment debtor*; war the *instrument der Cruelties praktizirt durch röm. Aristokratie on their defaulting plebejan debtors*, gab so impetus to *series of popular movements* affecting the whole history of Roman commonwealth. Die *Pignoris Capio* war zuerst ein völlig *extra-judicial proceeding*. Die Person die es anwandte, *seized* (beschlagnamte) in certain cases *the goods* of a fellow citizen, against whom he had a claim, *but against whom he had not instituted a suit*. Dies zuerst beschränkt – diese power of seizure – auf *soldiers against public officers bound to supply them with pay, horse, or forage*; ditto auf *seller* of a *beast for sacrifice* against a defaulting purchaser; später extended to demands for *overdue arrears of public revenue*. Etwas Aehnliches in *Plato’s leges*, auch als remedy for breach of public duties connected with military service or religious observance. (Dies dem Maine verrathen von *Poste*)

Gajus sagt dass die *Pignoris Capio* could be resorted to in the *absence of the Prätor* and generally of the *person under Liability*, and also that it *might be carried out even when the Courts were not sitting*. (256–59)

The Legis actio sacramenti assumes that the quarrel is at once referred to *a present arbitrator*; the *Condictio*, dass die Referenz is to the decision of an arbitrator nach 30 days’ [interval], aber *meantime* the parties have entered into a *separate wager* on the merits of their dispute. Noch zu Cicero’s Zeit, als *condictio* eine der most important Roman actions geworden, an *independent penalty attached to the suitor* in dieser Klage. (260)

Glaubt, dass die *Pignoris Capio*, obgleich dies schon veraltet zur Zeit der 12 Tables, taking *forcible possession der moveable property* des adversary and detain it till he submits. (260)

So im English Law *Power of Distraint* or *Distress* – (womit connected als Remedy das so called *Replevin*) – z. B. heut zu Tag landlord’s right to *seize the goods of his tenants for unpaid rent*, and the right of the lawful possessor of land to *take and impound stray beasts* which are damaging his crops or soil. (261, 262) Im letztren Fall cattle kept bis satisfaction made for the injury. (l.c.)

Aelter als Norman Conquest in Engld the practice of Distress, – of taking *nams*, word erhalten im law-term *withernam*. (262, 63) Zur Zeit v. *Henry III* confined to certain specific claims u. wrongs. Damals: Person seizes the goods (almost always *cattle*) der Person von der er sich benachtheiligt glaubt; treibt die beasts to *a pound* (von angelsächsisch *pyndan*), an enclosed piece of land reserved for the purpose, and generally open to the sky … eine der ältesten Institutionen Englands: the *Village-Pound*, far older than the King’s Bench, and probably than the Kingdom. While the cattle were on their way to the poundthe owner had a limited right of rescue which the law recognised, but which he ran great risk in exercising. Once lodged within the enclosure, the *impounded beasts*, when the *pound was uncovered*, had to be *fed by the owner* and not by the distrainor; this rule only altered in the present reign. (263) Wenn der Eigner des cattle altogether denied the distrainor’s right to distrain, or [the latter] refused to release the cattle, on *security being tendered to him*, dann der cattle owner might apply to the King’s Chancery for a writ commanding the Sheriff to *„make replevin“*, or he might verbally complain himself to the Sheriff, who would then proceed at once to „replevy“. (264)

⦗*Reple′vin* (to) *Spenser*, to *„reple′vy“*; *replegio* low latin, of *re* u. *plevir* or *plegir*, fr. *to give a pledge* bedeutet nach Johnson: to take back or set at liberty, upon security, anything seized; er citirt aus *Hudibras*:

„That you’re a beast, and turn’d to grass,  
Is no strange news, nor ever was;  
At least to me, who once, you know,  
Did from the *pound* replevin you.“⦘

In der action of Replevin, wenn die Sache vor Gerichtshof kam, der owner des distrained cattle war der Kläger u. der distrainor was the defendant. (265) *„Taking in withernam“* of Old Engl. Law means, wenn der distrainor dem *Sheriff* das distrained cattle nicht zeigen wollte od. es in distance out of his jurisdiction removed, so erhob dieser wegen Brechen of King’s Peace »hue u. cry« wider ihn u. *seized von* des *distrainors cattle double the value of the beasts which were not forthcoming*; letztres *„taking in withernam“*. (264) Dies seizure, rescue u. counter-seizure ursprünglich *disorderly proceeding* which the law steps in to regulate. (265) In *der Form of impounding*, wo die person distrained must *feed the cattle* (als Zeichen of deren continued *ownership*), Verbot für distrainor to work them – *Distress becomes* a *semi-orderly contrivance for extorting satisfaction*. (266) *Blackstone* hat bemerkt, that *the modified exemption of certain classes of goods from distraint* – z. B. *plough-oxen* u. *instruments of trade*, ursprünglich nicht intended als *kindness to owner*, sondern weil *ohne die instruments of tillage or handicraft* the debtor could never pay his debt. (l.c.) Das letzte – u. auch historisch letzt entwickelte incident des proceeding, ist: *the King steps in*, durch his deputy, den *Sheriff*; selbst wenn dieser obtains his view, he can do nothing *unless the cattle owner* is prepared with *security* that he will try the question between himself u. dem distrainor in a *Court of Justice*; dann erst steps in the judicial Power of the Commonwealth; its jurisdiction *acquired* through the act *of the Sheriff in restoring the cattle* upon pledge given. Der distrainor has lost his material security, the cattle; the owner of the cattle has become personally bound; so both placed under a compulsion which drives them in the end to a judicial arbitration. (267) ⦗Das ganze Proceeding implies dass die Power of State – i.e. *Court of Justice* – noch nicht so firmly settled, dass people de *prime abord* submit to its judicial authority.⦘

Fast alle *Leges Barbarorum* refer to *Pignoratio* od. *distraint of goods*. Die *Lex Visigothorum verbietet* es ausdrücklich; die *lex Lombardorum* permits it after simple demand of payment. Das *Salic Law* – nach den neusten deutschen Autoritäten redigirt zwischen Tacitus Zeit u. der Zeit der Invasion des Roman Empire durch die Franken, enthält sehr genaue Bestimmungen die zuerst fully interpreted by *Sohm*. In diesem System *Distress* not yet a judicial remedy; ist noch *an extrajudicial mode of redress*, but it has been incorporated with a regular and highly complex procedure. Eine succession of notices to be given in solemn form durch den complainant der Person über die sich der would be distrainor beklagt u. whose property he proposes to seize. Er kann nicht saisiren bevor er jene person vor das *Volksgericht* geladen u. bevor der Popular Officer dieses Gerichts, der Thunginus, pronuncirt hat eine Formel licensing distraint. Dann erst kann er *distress* auf seinen Gegner machen. Entsprechend eine *Ordonanz von Canute* that no man is to take *nams* unless he has demanded [right] 3 times in the Hundred; erhält er das 3t mal keine justice, so geht er zum *Shire-gemot*; der Shire appoints him a 4th time, u. when that fails, he may take the distress. (269, 270)

Das fragment of the system which has survived in the English *Common Law* (and it is to this that it probably owes its survival) was *from the first* pre-eminently *a remedy by which the lord compelled his tenants to render him their services*. Was *archaischer* im engl. Gesetz als in den *leges barbarorum*: *notice of the intention to distrain* was never in England *essential to the legality of distress*, obgleich das *Statute-law renders it necessary* to make *a sale* of *the distrained property legal*; ebenso im ältesten State des Common Law, obgleich distraint sometimes followed a proceeding in the lord’s Court, yet it did not necessarily presuppose or require it. (270–71) Die Frankish procedure was completely at the disposal of the complainant. It is a procedure *regulating extrajudicial redress*. Beobachtet der complainant the proper forms, so ist the part of the Court in licensing seizure purely passive. … when the defendant submitted or was unsuccessful in attacking the proceedings of the other side, he paid not only the original debt but *various additional penalties* entailed by neglect to comply with previous notices to discharge it. Dies founded *on the assumption that plaintiffs are always in the right* u. *defendants always in the wrong*, während the *modern* principle *compels the complainant to* establish at all events a *prima facie* case. Früher the man most likely to be in the right the man who faced the manifold risks attending the effort to obtain redress, to complain to the Popular Assembly, to cry for justice to the King sitting in the gate. … In einem Fall, wo King Kläger, die Presumption dass Kläger in the right lang aufrechterhalten in engl. Recht u. hence the *obstinate dislike of (Engl.) lawyers* to *allowing prisoners to be defended by Counsel*. (271–73)

*Gajus* sagt v. den *Legis Actiones* im allgemeinen dass „sie in Discredit fielen, weil wegen der excessive subtlety der ancient lawyers things came to such a pass that he who *committed the smallest error* failed altogether.“

Ebenso *Blackstone* remarks on English Law of Distress: „The many particulars which attend the taking of distress used formerly to make it a hazardous kind of proceeding; for, if any one irregularity was committed, it vitiated the whole.“ (273)

⦗Diese excessive *technicality of ancient law* zeigt Jurisprudenz als feather of the same bird, als die religiösen Formalitäten z. B. bei Augurs etc, od. der Hokus Pokus des medicine-man der savages!⦘

Nach *Sohm* the power of seizing a man’s property extrajudicially in satisfaction of your demand mit grossen risks verbunden; ging der complainant who sought to distress nicht durch *alle acts u. words* required by the law with the most rigorous accuracy so, besides failing in his object, incurred a variety of penalties, which could be just as harshly exacted as his own original demand. (273, 74) Hauptsache bei den Barbaren to compel the *appearance of the defendant* and *his submission to jurisdiction*, was damals noch keineswegs selbstverständlich. (275) In dem *Fränkischen Gesetz*, wenn *in gewissen cases* auch selbe von Anfang an bis judgment judicially tried, so noch nicht *the judgment by its own force operative*. Hat der defendant *ausdrücklich erklärt to obey it*, the *Count or royal deputy*, on being properly summoned, will execute it; but *if no such promise has been made, the plaintiff has no remedy except an application to the King in person*. (275)

Später sobald die Franks settled in Roman Empire, the *royal deputy* will execute the judgment *ohne promise des defendant to submit*. In England dieser change u. die Macht der Courts *greatly due to the development of royal justice at the expense of popular justice*. Doch savoured Engl. judicial proceedings noch long of the old practices. Hence on the smallest provocation the King *constantly took the lands of the defendant into his hands* or *seized his goods, simply to compel or perfect his submission to the royal jurisdiction*. ⦗See bei *Walter Scott*, dass ein Mann wegen Schulden eingesperrt wird wegen der Fiction seines *contempt of the King*⦘

Das survival of *distress* in Engld den Herrn landlords zu lieb. *The modern* – dem Ursprünglichen ganz widersprechende *theory of distress*: ist that a landlord is allowed to distrain because *by the nature of the case he is always compelled to give his tenant credit*, and that he can distrain without notice because every man is supposed to know when his rent is due. (277) Ursprünglich *distress treated as wilful breach* of the peace, ausser wo it was connived at so far as it served to *compel the submission of defendants* to *the jurisdiction of courts*. (278)

Ueber Hälfte des *Senchus Mor* taken up with *the Law of Distress*. Senchus Mor pretends to be the Code of Irish Law prepared unter the influence of St. Patrick upon the introduction of Christianity in Ireland. (279)

Es gleicht sehr den *Teutonic Laws* u. *English Common Law*. *Putting in a pound* kommt auch darin vor. Speciality drin: „If the defendant or debtor were a person of chieftain grade, it was necessary not only to give notice, but also *to fast upon him*. The fasting upon him consisted in going to his residence and waiting there a certain time without food. If the plaintiff did not within a certain time receive satisfaction for his claim, or a pledge therefor, he forthwith, accompanied by a law-agent, witnesses, and others; seized his distress“ etc (p. 280–81 cf. *Senchus Mor. 1st vol.* remark of the Editor) Erlaubte der Schuldner nicht his cattle to go to pound u. gab er „a sufficient pledge, e.g. *his son*, or some article of value, to the creditor, that he would within a certain time try the right to the distress by law, the creditor was bound to receive such pledge. If he did not go to law, as he so undertook, *the pledge became forfeited for the original debt*.“ (p. *282*) ⦗Noch heut zu Tag bei distress in *Oudh* der creditor landlord takes *ausser cattle* (dies vor allem etc) auch *Personen* als Sklaven. *See The Garden of India* von *Irwin*.⦘ ⦗Im *Wesentlichen* das Irische law hier mehr identisch mit den *Leges Barbarorum* als mit dem Englischen.⦘ »The distress of the Senchus Mor is not, like the Distress of the English Common Law, a remedy confined in the main to *demands of the lord on his tenants*; as in the *Salic* u. andren *Leges Barbarorum* it extends to *breaches of contract* u., so far as the Brehon law is already known, it would appear to be the universal method of prosecuting claims of all kinds.« (p. 283) The Irish *stay of proceedings (Dithim)* entspricht einigen provisions in den *leges barbarorum*. In einigen derselben when a person’s property is about to be seized he makes a mimic resistance; im *Salic law* he protests against the injustice of the attempt; im *Ripuarian law* he goes through the formality of standing at his door with a *drawn sword*. Thereupon the *seizure is interrupted* u. opportunity given for enquiring into the regularity of the proceedings etc. (284) Mit dem English law hat das *Irische* speciell gemein – was ganz absent from the Teutonic procedures – the *»impounding«*, the „taking in withernam“ u. namentlich dass nicht required »assistance od. permission from any Court of Justice«. (284) (Dies nur im *Lombardic law* (unter den *leges barbarorum*) (285)) Ferner – u. dies in England erst durch *Statute Law* eingeführt – im *Brehon Law* the *seizure of cattle* nicht nur als a method of satisfaction, sondern it provides for their *forfeiture in discharge of the demand for which they are taken*. (285)

*Sohm* sucht zu beweisen dass die *Fränkischen Volksgerichte nicht ihre eignen Dekrete exequirten*; versprach der defendant to submit to an award, the local deputy of the King might be required to enforce it, aber, when no such promise, the plaintiff was forced to *petition the King in person* … in den älteren Zeiten, vor full development der kgl. Gewalt, Courts of Justice existed less for the purpose of doing right generally than for the purpose of *supplying an alternative to the violent redress of wrong* … The *Norse literature* (see Mr. *Dasent*) shows that *perpetual fighting* and *perpetual litigation may go on side by side*, and that a *highly technical procedure* may be scrupulously followed at a time when homicide is an everyday occurrence … *contention in Court takes the place of contention in arms*, but only gradually takes its place … in our days, when a wild province is annexed to the British Indian Empire, there is … *a rush* of *suitors to the Courts* which are immediately established … the men who can no longer fight go to law instead … hasty appeals to a judge succeed hurried quarrels, and hereditary law-suits take the place of ancestral blood-feuds. (288, 289)

Im Allgem. probable that, in proportion as Courts grow stronger, they first take under their control the *barbarous* (aber die *Sache bleibt ja*, nur in’s legale übersetzt) practice of making reprisals on a wrongdoer by seizing his property and ultimately they absorb it into their own procedure. (290)

Das Irish Law of Distress offenbar in Zeit wo action of Courts of Justice feeble and intermittent. (291) Statt dieser – der *law agent* (Brehon lawyer) die grosse Rolle spielend. (l.c.)

The Irish used the *remedy of distress, because they knew no other remedy*, u. die Hunde von Engländern made *it a capital felony* (mit Todesstrafe) *in an Irishman to follow the only law with which he was acquainted*. (294 cp. *Spenser: „View of the State of Ireland“*.) Nay, those very subtleties of Old English Law which, as Blackstone says, made the taking of distress „a hazardous sort of proceeding“ to the civil distrainor, might bring an Irish man to the gallows, if in conscientiously attempting to carry out the foreign law he fell into the smallest mistake. (*l.c.* Also gehangen, wenn er seinem native law nach handelte, ditto gehangen wenn er sich dem aufgezwungnen englischen zu adaptiren suchte!)

Mit Bezug auf d as *„fasting upon“ the debtor* heisst es in *Senchus Mor*: „*Notice* precedes every distress in the case of the inferior grades except it be by persons of distinction or upon persons of distinction. *Fasting precedes distress in their case*. He who does *not give a pledge to fasting* is an evader of all; he who disregards all things shall not be paid by God or Man.“

Dies, wie *Whitley Stokes* zuerst pointed out, diffused *over the whole East*, entspricht dem Hindoo *„sitting dharna“*. (cf. *Strange: Hindoo Law.*) (297) Heute noch sehr striking examples davon in *Persien*, wo a man intending to *enforce payment of a demand by fasting begins by sowing some barley at his debtor’s door* and *sitting down in the middle*. (l.c.)

Das Wort *dharna* soll exact equivalent sein von Roman *„capio“*, and meaning „detention“ or „arrest“. Soll VIII, 49 bei *Manu* vorkommen. (l.c.) Im *Vyavahara Mayukha* Brihaspiti is cited as enumerating, among the *lawful modes of compulsion by which the debtor can be made to pay, „confining his wife, his son, or his cattle, or watching constantly at his door.“* (298)

⦗See *Lord Teignmouth’s* description (in *Forbes „Oriental Memoirs“ II, 25*) der form dieses „*watching* constantly at the door“ in British India vor Ende des 18. Jhdts. ⦘

In einem *Law of Alfred* heissts:

„Let the man who knows his foe to be *homesitting* fight not before he have demanded justice of him. If he have power to beset his foe and besiege him in his house, let him keep [him] there for 7 days but not attack him if he will remain indoors. If then, after seven days, he be willing to surrender and give up his weapons, let him be kept safe for thirty days, and let notice be given to his kinsmen and friends. But if the plaintiff have no power of his own, let him ride to the Ealdorman, and, if the Ealdorman will not aid him, let him ride to the King before he fights.“ Schliesslich kommt dann a provision »that if the *man who is homesitting be really shut up in his house with the complainant’s wife, daughter, or sister, he may be attacked and killed without ceremony*.« (Dies letztere auch *in 324. Code Pénal* des Herrn Napoleon…) The *Anglo-Saxon rule* is to be enforced by the civil power, the Ealdorman of the King; the *Hindoo Brahminical rule* by the fear of punishment in another world. (303, 4) *„Sitting dharna“*, placed under the ban of the Brit. law, still common in the Native Indian States, u. dort hauptsächlich an expedient *resorted to by soldiers* to *obtain arrears of pay*, wie *„pignoris capio“* beim *Gajus* surviving in 2 cases, wovon einer the default of a military paymaster. (304, 5)

In *Lecture XI „The Early History of the Settled Property of Married Women“* hat comfortable Maine noch keine Bekanntschaft mit *Mutterrecht* (Bachofen etc) gemacht, hatte auch *Morgan’s* Buch noch nicht für »elegante« Vermöblung seinerseits.

A man of *continuous servile occupation* in a *Roman household* wurde durch *Usucapio* (was später Prescriptio) a slave of the paterfamilias. (315) Später die ordinary Roman marriage a *voluntary conjugal society, terminable at the pleasure of either side by divorce*. (317) Nach dem *Ancient Irish Law* women had some power of *dealing with their own property without the consent of their husbands*, and this was one of the institutions *expressly declared by the ⦗English blockheaded⦘ Judges to be illegal at the beginning of the 17th century*. (324) Die Brahminical Indian Lawyers haben ganz ausgearbeitet (u. dies beginnt in fact with Manu) the *doctrine of »Spiritual Benefit«*, as they call it. Inasmuch as the *condition of the dead could be ameliorated by proper expiatory rites, the property descending or devolving on a man* came to be regarded by them partly *as a fund for paying the expenses of the ceremonial* by which *the soul of the person from whom the inheritance came could be redeemed from suffering or degradation*, and partly *as a reward for the proper performance of the sacrifices*. (331, 332)

Ebenso *Catholic Church*: the first and best destination of a *dead man’s goods to purchase masses for his soul*, u. out of these views grew the *whole testamentary* and intestate jurisdiction of the Ecclesiatical Courts. (332)

Im *Mitakshara* heissts: „The *wealth of a regenerate man* is designed for religious uses, and a woman’s succession to such property is unfit because she is not competent to the performance of religious rites.“ (332, 33)

Die Gunst der indischen Gesetzgebung für die Frauen, die sich bis jetzt in dem *Stridhan* (settled property of a married woman, incapable of alienation by her husband) u. ebenso darin ausspricht, dass die Habe der Frau auf die Töchter od. die female members ihrer family übergeht (cf. *Strange*: *„Hindoo Law“*) etc – alles dies von Herrn Maine nicht richtig gedeutet, weil ihm alle Einsicht in *gens* u. daher auch *ursprüngliche Vererbung in female* – nicht *male line of descent* – abgeht. Der Esel sagt selbst mit welchen *gefärbten Brillen* er sieht: »Among the Aryan ⦗the devil take this »Aryan« cant!⦘ sub-races, the Hindoos *may be as confidently asserted as the Romans* to have had their society organized as *a collection of patriarchally governed families*. ⦗Aus Niebuhr konnte er schon wissen, dass die *röm. family* noch eingehüllt in der *gens*, selbst nachdem sie in ihrer specif. Form mit der patria potestas ausgebildet⦘ If, (a nice »If«, only resting upon Maine’s own *»confident assertion«*) *then*, (dies »then« Pecksniffian), at *any early period*, ⦗Maine transports his »patriarchal« Roman family into the very beginning of things⦘ the married woman had among the Hindoos *her property altogether enfranchised from her husband’s control* ⦗»enfranchised«, that is to say, from Maine’s »confident assertion«⦘, it is not easy to give a reason why the *obligations of the family despotism* ⦗a principal pet-doctrine of blockheaded John Bull to revel in original »despotism«⦘ were relaxed in this one particular.« (323)

Maine citirt folgende Stelle aus dem *treatise Mitakshara* u. zwar Stelle, schon citirt von *Sir Thomas Strange „Hindu Law“* (see daselbst t. I, p. 26–32) u. Strange’s Buch, (obgleich schon *1830 publicirt u. zwar als 2nd edit.* seines Werks: *„Elements of Hindu Law“*) enthält viel *vollständigere Quellenangaben* u. Ausseinandersetzung über diesen Punkt. Man ersieht ferner aus dem was Strange aus den Quellen angiebt, dass schon in *Mitakshara*, nicht zu sprechen von späteren Hindu juristischen Commentaren, ihr *Verfasser* den Ursprung der *Stridhana* nicht mehr versteht u. sich selbe ganz so falsch rationalistisch plausibel zu machen sucht, wie etwa die röm. Juristen aus Cicero’s Zeit ihnen unverständliche altrömische (für sie »archaische«) Rechtsgebräuche od. Formeln. Eine solche rationalistische Erklärung ist es z. B., wenn in *Mitakshara* das »fee« der Braut »what is given her in her bridal procession, upon the final ceremony, when the marriage already contracted and solemnized, is about to be consummated, the bride having hitherto remained with her mother« (*Strange.* t. I, p. 29); Strange bemerkt of this *domi-ductio*, this bringing of the bride home, which, with the Hindoos, is a *consequence only of the antecedent contract*, that, among the Romans, it was an ingredient wanting to its completion; till when, the bride was *„sponsa“* only; becoming *„uxor*, statim atque *ducta* est, quamvis nondum in cubiculum mariti venerit“; und, fährt *Strange* fort: »The *fee* of a Hindu wife has moreover this *anomaly* attending it, that, upon her death, it descends in a *course of inheritance peculiar to itself*.« Diese *»anomaly«* ist nur fragmentarisches, auf bestimmten Theil des Vermögens reducirtes, *survival* der alten *normalen rule*, die gegründet auf *descent der gens in der female line*, dem primitiven. So verhält es sich allzumeist mit den »Anomalien« im Recht etc (in der Sprache die *Ausnahmen* auch allzumeist *Ueberbleibsel* des älteren ursprünglicheren). Die alte Norm erscheint im veränderten relativ modernen Zustand als »Anomalie«, als unverständliche *Ausnahme*. Sämtliche indische Rechtsquellen u. Commentare verfasst, nachdem die *descent in female line* schon seit lange übergegangen in *descent in male line*. Aus *Strange* ferner ersichtbar, dass in *verschiednen Theilen Indiens* die *Anomalie mehr od. minder »vollständiges« Ueberbleibsel*.

Die von Maine citirte Stelle aus *Mitakshara* lautet:

„That which is given (to the wife) by the father, the mother, the husband, or a brother, at the time of the wedding, before the nuptial fire.“ Aber der compiler of the Mitakshara adds a proposition not found elsewhere: „also property which she may have acquired by inheritance, purchase, partition, seizure, or finding, is denominated by Manu and the others *‚woman’s property‘*.“ (*Mit.* XI, 2) (p. 322)

Hierüber heftige controversies unter den Brahminical commentators. u. a. erklärt sich der pfiffige Maine die Sache wie folgt:

Unter den Aryan Communities findet man »the earliest traces of the separate property of women in the widely diffused ancient institution known as *Bride-Price*. Part of this price, which was paid by the bridegroom either at the wedding or the day after it, went to the bride’s father as *compensation* (!) *for the Patriarchal or Family authority which was transferred to the husband*, but another part went *to the bride herself* and was generally enjoyed by her separately and kept apart from her husband’s property. It further appears that under a certain number of Aryan customs the *proprietary rights of other kinds which women slowly acquired* were assimilated to their rights in their portion of the *Bride-price*, probably (!) as being the only existing type of women’s property.« (324)

Richtig dagegen was Maine sagt: »There are in fact clear indications of a sustained *general effort on the part of the Brahminical writers on mixed law and religion*, to limit the privileges of women which they seem to have found *recognised by older authorities*.« (325. In Rom selbst die Stellung der patria potestas vis-à-vis der Frau exaggerated in opposition to the old *contrary tradition*)

Die Sauerei der Brahminen gipfelt in dem *»Suttee«* or *Widow-burning*. Dass diese practice »malus usus«, nicht »law« sagt schon *Strange*, da sich bei *Manu* u. other high authorities nichts davon finde; dieser »as the condition on which the widow may aspire to Heaven, have simply required that she should, on the decease of her husband, live a life of seclusion, privation, and decency.« (*Post*, p. 245) Im *Shaster* auch noch das *suttee* nur recommended. (Strange l.c. p. 241) Aber sieh oben, wie die *Brahminen* selbst die Sache erklären *(„property designed for religious uses“)* u. das *Interesse der Burschen*, denen sie die Nachlassenschaft zuwälzen (*die dafür have to pay the expenses of the ceremonial*). Strange spricht ausdrücklich of *»designing Brahmins«* u. *»interested relatives«*. (l.c. p. 239)

Nämlich: *»the wife surviving her husband, succeeds as heir to him*, in *default of male issue.«* (*Strange* t. I, p. 237) Ausserdem »her *claim to be maintained by his* (the defunct husband’s) *representatives*«. (l.c. p. 246) Mit Ausnahme der *»Stridhana«*, die sie in her own right besitzt, geht das was sie von ihrem husband ererbt, (sofern dieser kein male issue hatte) über to her »*husband’s heirs*, not the immediate ones merely, but the whole living at the time«. (p. 247) Hier die Sache klar: das *suttee* einfacher *religiöser Mord*, um die Erbschaft theils für religiöse Feierlichkeiten (für den Verstorbnen) in Hände der Brahmanen (geistlichen) zu bringen, theils der durch die brahmin. Gesetzgebung an Beerbung der Wittwe interessirten gens, nearer family *des husband*. Hence die *violence* u. *infamies*, meist von Seiten der »connexions« to bring the widow to Flammentod. (239, 240 *Strange.* t. I)

Herr Maine selbst fügt dem, was man schon bei Strange findet nichts zu. Und selbst wenn er generalisirt, dass »the Hindoo laws, religious and civil, have for centuries been undergoing transmutation, development, and, in *some* ⦗! *Maine* always mild when speaking of clergy and lawyers! and higher class people generally!⦘ points, depravation at the hands of successive Brahminical expositors«, (326) so weiss dies *Strange* auch, setzt aber hinzu, dass die Kirchenpfaffen es anderswo nicht besser machten!

Das ganze Primitive fasst der englische Philister *Maine* auf as *»the despotism of groups over the members composing them«* (p. 327)! Damals hatte *Bentham* – nämlich in den Urzeiten – noch nicht die nach *Maine* merkwürdig die Neuzeit repräsentirende Formel u. Treibwerk der »modernen« Gesetzgebung erfunden: *»The greatest happiness of the greatest number«.* O Du Pecksniff!

Wir haben gesehn, dass wenn der Mann *ohne issue* stirbt, *the widow comes in for her life* (diese Herabsetzung auf *tenure for life* auch erst später, wie genaue Musterung der von Strange angeführten Quellen zeigt) *before the collateral relatives* (*of her husband, not her own*, was Maine zu sagen vergisst; ihre eignen Verwandten hatten beim Suttee blos das Interesse, dass sie sich »religiös« bewährte). »At the present moment, *marriages among the upper classes of Hindoos being very commonly infertile*, a *very considerable portion of the wealthiest Indian province* (Bengal) *is in the hands of widows as tenants for life*. But it was exactly in *Bengal proper* that the English, on entering India, found the *Suttee … not merely an occasional, but a constant and almost universal practice with the wealthier classes*, ⦗*Strange*, dessen Buch 45 Jahr älter als das des Maine, u. der *Chief Justice of Madras* gewesen war, u. *1798 entered upon the administration of justice, at the Presidency of Madras* (*l.c. Preface* VIII) wie er selbst uns in Vorrede seines Buchs erzählt, sagt dagegen mit Bezug natürlich auf die Präsidentschaft v. Madras: »It (the custom of Suttee) *is confined pretty much to the lower classes*; – a proof, that it has no deeper root in the religion, than it has in the law of the country.« (*t. I*, p. 241)⦘ and, as a rule, it was only the childless widow, and never the widow with minor children, who burnt herself on her husband’s funeral pyre. There is no question that there was the closest connection between the law and the religious custom, and the widow was made to sacrifice herself in order that *her tenancy for life might be got out of the way*. The anxiety of *her family* ⦗Umgekehrt: *of her husband’s family*, die erbte; nur die *weiblichen Glieder ihrer family* waren interessirt in her *Stridhana*; im übrigen konnte *ihre* family nur durch religiösen Fanatismus u. Einfluss der Brahminen interessirt sein⦘ that the rite should be performed, which seemed so striking to the first English observers of the practice, was, in fact, explained by the coarsest motives; but the *Brahmins* ⦗ausser den ecclesiastical Brahmins could, namentlich in den higher classes, die Verwandtschaft des Mannes u. musste es grossentheils aus *weltlichen* Brahminen bestehn!⦘ who exhorted her to the sacrifice were *undoubtedly* ⦗! naiver *Maine*!⦘ influenced *by a purely professional dislike to her enjoyment of property*. The ancient ⦗i.e. dies auch modificirtes survival von Archaischem⦘ rule of the civil law, which *made her tenant for life*, could not *be got rid of*, but it was combated by the modern institution which made it her duty to devote herself to a frightful death.« (335, 336)

⦗Obgleich *Suttee* eine *Neuerung*, v. den Brahminen eingeführt, hindert dies nicht, dass in den Brahminenköpfen die *Neuerung* selbst wieder auf Reminiscenz auf älterer Barbarei (Begraben des Mannes mit seinem Eigenthum) beruhte! Namentlich in den Pfaffenköpfen revive die urältesten Greuel, aber ihrer Naiven Ursprünglichkeit beraubt.⦘

Wenn Herr Maine sagt: »There can be no serious question that, in its ultimate result, the *disruption of the Roman Empire* was very unfavourable to the personal and proprietary liberty of women« (337), so dies verdammt cum grano salis zu nehmen. Er sagt: »the place of women under *the new system* (der Barbaren) when fully organised (d.h. nach Entwicklung des Feudalwesens) was worse than it was under Roman law, and *would have been very greatly worse but for the efforts of the Church*« (337) so dies abgeschmackt, considering dass die Church den *divorce* (röm.) aufhob od. so viel als möglich erschwerte u. überhaupt die Ehe, obgleich sacrament, als Sünde behandelte. Mit Bezug auf »proprietary right« hatte die Güterschleichende Kirche allerdings Interesse den Weibern einiges zu sichern. (umgekehrtes Interesse wie die Brahminen!)

Herr *Maine* in *Lecture XII* theilt dem erstaunten Europa mit, dass England das Privileg der dort s.g. *»Analytical Jurists«* besitzt, wovon die bedeutendsten *Jeremy Bentham* u. *John Austin*. (343) *Austin’s: „Province of Jurisprudence Determined“* has long been one of the higher classbooks in this *University*. (345) (andre lectures des Kerls more recently given to the world.) Seine Vorgänger *Bentham* u. *Hobbes*. Folgendes die grosse Entdeckung selbigen John Austin’s:

„If (says the immense John Austin) *a determinate human superior*, not in the habit of obedience to a like superior, *receive habitual obedience* from the *bulk of a given society*, that determinate superior is *Sovereign* in that society, and the *society*, including the superior, is a society political and independent.“ „To *that superior* the other members of the society are *subject*; or *on that determinate superior* the other members of the society are dependent. The *position of its other members towards that determinate superior is a state of subjection or a state of dependence*. The *mutual relation* which subsists between that superior and them, may be styled the *relation* of *Sovereign and Subject*, or the Relation of Sovereignty and Subjection.“ (citirt bei Maine p. 348, 349) Der »determinate human superior« – der Sovereign is »an individual or a collegiate Sovereign« (diese Phrase für single person or group auch eine Erfindung des Austin). (349) Herr Maine erklärt die Ansichten des Austin weiter dahin: If the community be violently or voluntarily divided into a number of separate fragments, then, as soon as each fragment has settled down (perhaps after an interval of anarchy) into a state of equilibrium, the Sovereign will exist and will be discoverable in each of the now independent portions. (349, 350) Das gemeinsame Charaktermal aller shapes of d. Sovereignty – whether the Sovereign a person or a combination of persons –, ist, dass er has *the possession of irresistible force, not necessarily exerted but capable of being exerted.* Ist der Sovereign a *single person*, so nennt ihn Austin a *Monarch*; if a *small group* – *Oligarchy*; if a group of considerable dimensions, an *Aristocracy*; if very large and numerous, a *Democracy*. Austin hates the name of *»Limited Monarchy«*, in his days more fashionable than now, u. das *Government of Great Britain* he classes with *Aristocracies*. Was *alle forms of Sovereignty* gemein haben, is *the power* (but not necessarily the will) *to put compulsion without limit on subjects or fellow-subjects*. (350) Wo kein solcher sovereign erkennbar – *Anarchie*. (351) The question of determining his (the Sovereign’s) character ⦗in a given society⦘ is always a *question of fact* … *never a question of law or morals*. (l.c.)

Der Sovereign must be a *determinate* human superior. Besteht aus mehren Personen, so he must be a number of persons *capable of acting* in *a corporate or collegiate* capacity. … since the Sovereign must *effect his exertions of power, must issue his orders, by a definite exercise of his will*. The *possession of physical power* unentbehrliches Merkmal. (351) The *bulk of the society must obey the superior* who is to be called Sovereign. *Not the whole of the Society*, for in *that case sovereignty would be impossible*, but *the bulk, the large majority, must obey*. (352)

The *Sovereign* must *receive an habitual obedience from the bulk of the community*. (353) Ferneres characteristic desselben: is *immunity from the control of every other human superior*. (l.c.)

⦗Dies dem Grundtext nach, wie Maine selbst zugiebt, v. Austin, wie so weit damit identisch, von Bentham aus *Hobbes* (*Leviathan*: *Ch. De Cive*, first published in Latin, in the *Elementa Philosophiae*)⦘

Aber sagt *Maine*: Hobbes’ Object war politisch; das des Austin *»strictly scientific«* ⦗*355. Scientific*! doch nur in der Bedeutung, die dies Wort im Kopf of blockheadish British lawyers haben kann, wo altmodische Classification, Definition etc als *scientific* gilt. *Vgl.* übrigens 1) *Machiavelli* u. 2) *Linguet*.⦘ Ferner: *Hobbes* will origin of *Staat* (*Government* u. *»Sovereignty«*) ergründen; dies Problem existirt für lawyer Austin nicht; für ihn dies *fact* gewissermassen *a priori* vorhanden. ⦗Dies sagt *Maine, p. 356*. Der unglückliche *Maine selbst hat keine Ahnung* davon, dass da wo *Staaten* existiren (after the primitive Communities etc), i.e. eine *politisch* organisirte Gesellschaft, der Staat keineswegs das *Prius* ist; er *scheint* nur so.⦘

Herr Maine bemerkt über Austin’s Ausgabe der Hobbes’schen »force« theory:

If all the members of the community had equal physical strength and were unarmed, the power would be a mere result from the superiority of numbers; but, as a matter of fact, *various causes, of which much the most important* have been the superior physical strength and *the superior armament of portions of the community* have conferred on *numerical minorities* the power of applying *irresistible pressure* to the individuals who make up the community as a whole. (358)

Die assertion … which the great »Analytical Jurists« (Bentham u. Austin) cannot be charged with making, but which some of their disciples go very near to hazarding, that the Sovereign person or group *actually wields the stored-up force of society by an uncontrolled exercise of will*, is certainly never in accordance with fact. *The vast mass of influences*, which we may call for shortness *moral*, ⦗dies »moral« zeigt, wie wenig Maine von der Sache versteht; soweit diese influences (*economical* before everything else) *»moral«* modus of existence besitzen, ist dies immer ein abgeleiteter, secundärer modus u. nie das *prius*⦘ perpetually shapes, limits, or forbids the *actual direction* of the forces of society by its Sovereign. (359) The Austinian view of Sovereignty really ist – that *it is the result of Abstraction*. ⦗Maine ignores das viel Tiefere: dass die scheinbare supreme selbständige Existenz des *Staats* selbst nur *scheinbar* u. dass er in allen seinen Formen eine *excrescence of society* is; wie seine *Erscheinung* selbst erst auf einer gewissen Stufe der gesellschaftlichen Entwicklung vorkömmt, so verschwindet sie wieder, sobald die Gesellschaft eine bisher noch nicht erreichte Stufe erreicht hat. Erst Losreissung der Individualität von den ursprünglich *nicht despotischen Fesseln* (wie blockhead Maine es versteht), *sondern befriedigenden u. gemüthlichen Banden der Gruppe*, der primitiven Gemeinwesen, – u. damit die einseitige Herausarbeitung der Individualität. Was aber die wahre Natur der letzteren zeigt sich erst wenn wir den Inhalt – die *Interessen* dieser »letzteren« analysiren. Wir finden dann, dass diese Interessen selbst wieder gewissen gesellschaftlichen Gruppen gemeinsame u. sie charakterisirende Interessen, *Klasseninteressen* etc sind, also diese Individualität selbst Klassen- etc Individualität ist u. diese in letzter Instanz haben alle *ökonomische Bedingungen* zur Basis. Auf diesen als Basen baut sich der Staat auf u. setzt sie voraus.⦘ »It is arrived at by throwing aside all the characteristics and attributes of Government and (!) Society except one, and by *connecting* all *forms of political superiority* together through *their common possession of force*. ⦗Das ist nicht der Grundfehler; dieser ist, dass die *political superiority*, whatever its peculiar shape, and whatever the ensemble of its elements, is taken als etwas über der Gesellschaft stehendes, auf sich selbst beruhendes.⦘ The elements neglected in the process are always important, sometimes of extreme importance, for they consist of all *the elements controlling human action except force directly applied or directly apprehended*; ⦗z. B. die *bessere Bewaffnung* ist schon ein direct auf *Fortschritt in den Productionsmitteln* (diese fallen z. B. bei Jagd u. Fischfang direct zusammen mit *Zerstörungsmitteln*, Kriegsmitteln) beruhendes Element⦘ but the operation of *throwing them aside for purposes of classification* is … perfectly legitimate«. (359) We reject in the process of abstraction by which the conception of Sovereignty is reached … *the entire history of each community* … the *mode* in *which the result has been arrived at*. (360)

Seine flache Kritik, die er unter zum Theil richtig klingender Phraseologie verbirgt, windet sich ab erstens in folgender Phrase: »It is its history (des Gemeinwesens), the *entire mass* of its historical antecedents, which in each community determines how the Sovereign shall exercise or forbear from exercising his irresistible coercive power«, (p. 360) aber diese ganze Geschichte löst sich bei Maine in so called »moral elements« auf, denn er fährt wieder, als echter Jurist u. Ideolog, *unmittelbar* fort: »All that constitutes this – the whole enormous aggregate of *opinions, sentiments, beliefs, superstitions*, and *prejudices of all kinds*, hereditary and acquired, some produced by institutions and some by the *constitution of human nature* – is rejected by the Analytical Jurists. And *thus* it is that, so far as the restrictions contained in their definition of Sovereignty are concerned, the Queen and Parliament of our own country might direct all weakly children to be put [to] death or establish a system of *lettres de cachet*.« (p. 360) (such as the English now have established by their *coercion bill in Irld* (Dies geschrieben Juni 1888)) ⦗Gutes Beispiel der halbverrückte Iwan IV. Während wüthend gegen Bojaren u. auch gegen rabble in Moskau, sucht er, u. muss er, sich halten als *Vertreter* der *Bauerninteressen*.⦘

Dagegen werden die »assertions« des Austin »self-evident propositions«, sobald man weiss dass »in *his system the determination of Sovereignty* ought to *precede the determination of Law*«, it being once understood »that the Austinian *conception of Sovereignty* has been reached through mentally uniting *all forms of Government* in a group by conceiving them *to be stripped of every attribute except coercive force*, and (hier zeigt sich wieder der *Eselsfuss*) when it is steadily borne in mind that the deductions from an abstract principle *are never from the nature of the case completely exemplified in facts*«. (362)

Weitere Dogmen des Austin: »Jurisprudence is the science of *Positive Law*. Positive Laws are *Commands*, addressed by Sovereigns to their *Subjects*, imposing a *Duty*, or condition of obligedness, or obligation, on those Subjects, and threatening a *Sanction*, or *Penalty*, in the event of disobedience to Command. A *Right* is the faculty or power conferred by the Sovereign on certain members of the community to draw down the sanction on a fellow-subject violating a Duty.« (362)

Alle diese kindischen Trivialitäten – Höchste *Obrigkeit* ist, wer die Macht hat zu zwingen, *Positive Gesetze* sind *Befehle* der Obrigkeit an ihre *Unterthanen*; sie legt dadurch diesen Unterthanen Verpflichtungen auf, u. dies ist *Pflicht*, u. droht mit Strafe für Ungehorsam gegen den Befehl; *Recht* ist die Macht welche die Obrigkeit gewissen Gliedern der Gesellschaft überträgt pflichtwidrig handelnde Gesellschaftsglieder zu strafen – dies Kindische, u. viel mehr kann selbst ein *Hobbes* aus der blossen obrigkeitlichen Gewaltstheorie nicht herausklauben – dies von *John Austin* ernsthaft doctrinair Gepredigte nennt Maine eine „Procedur“ der analytischen Juristen, die closely analog sei mit der in Mathematik u. der Politischen Oekonomie befolgten u. »strictly scientific«! Alles dreht sich hier nur um die *formelle Seite*, die natürlich für einen Juristen überall die Hauptsache.

»*Sovereignty*, for the purposes of Austin’s system, has no *attribute but force*, and consequently the view here taken of „law“, „obligation“ u. „right“ is a view of them regarded exclusively as products of coercive force. The „sanction“ (penalty) thus becomes the primary and most important member of [the] series of notions and gives its colour to all the others.« (363) Niemand, sagt Maine, wird es schwer finden dies zuzugeben (»allowing«) »that laws have the character given to them by Austin, so far as such laws have proceeded from formal Legislatures« (l.c.), aber manche Personen protestiren dagegen z. B. with regard »to the customary law of all countries which have not included their law in Codes, and specially the English Common Law«. (l.c.) The way in which *Hobbes* and he (Austin, the great Pompejus!) bring such bodies of rules as the Common Law under their system by insisting on a maxim which is of vital importance to it: *„Whatever the Sovereign permits, he commands.“* (p. 363) Until customs are enforced by Courts of Justice, they are merely „positive morality“, rules enforced by opinion, but, as soon as courts of Justice enforce them, they become commands of the Sovereign, conveyed through the Judges who are his delegates or deputies. (364) ⦗Hier Austin, ohne es zu wissen (sieh oben *Sohm* p. 155–59) hat als engl. Jurist das engl. fact in Knochen, dass die normänn. Könige in Engld durch ihre *normänn. courts of justice* erzwangen (Aenderungen in Rechtsverhältnissen), die sie auf legislativem Weg nicht hätten erzwingen können.⦘ Der Herr Maine erklärt dies weiter: »They *command*« (die Sovereigns) what they permit, »because, *being by the assumption possessed of uncontrollable force, they could innovate without limit at any moment*. The Common law consists of their commands because they can repeal or alter or re-state it at pleasure.« (364) Law is (by Austin) regarded as *regulated force*. (365)

Der comfortable Maine glaubt: »The one doctrine of this school of jurists which is repugnant to lawyers would lose its air of paradox if an assumption were made which, *in itself theoretically unobjectionable* (!), manifestly approximates to practical truth as the course of history proceeds – the *assumption that* what the Sovereign *might* (!) *alter, but does not alter*, he *commands*.« (366) Dies die Mainesche Ausgabe von *Hobbes* u. his little man *Austin*. Dies blosse scholastische Spielerei. Die Frage ist »what he *might* alter«. Nehmen wir selbst etwas juristisch Formelles. *»Laws«*, ohne abgeschafft zu werden, fallen in *»desuetude«*. Da »positive laws« commands des Sovereign, so bleiben sie sein command, so lange sie existiren. Da he not alters them – he »might« do so, because the fact of their falling into »desuetude« proves, that the social state has outgrown them: shall we now say, that he *commands* them, because he does not abrogate them, though he »might« do so, as Maine’s panacea runs; or shall we say, that he *commands* them to fall into *»desuetude«*, because he does not enforce them? In that case he *commands* that his *positive commands* shall not be obeyed, i.e. executed, which shows that his »command« is a very imaginary, fictive sort of command. Austin’s » *own ethnical creed* … *was Utilitarianism in its earlier shape*«. (*368.* Benthamism ganz würdig des Mannes)

The 2nd, 3d, and 4th Lectures (of Austin) are occupied with an attempt to identify the *law of God* and the *law of Nature* (so far as these last words can be allowed to have any meaning) with the rules required by the *theory of utility* … the identification … is quite gratuitous and valueless for any purpose. (369) The jurist, properly so called, has nothing to do with any ideal standard of law or morals. (*p. 370* Very true this! as little as theology has!)

### Lecture XIII. Sovereignty and Empire. (Dies letzte Lecture des Maine’schen Buchs)

The word *„law“* has come down in close association with two notions, the notion of *»order«* and the notion of *»force«*. (371)

The principal writings of Austin are not much more than 40 years old. (373)

From the point of view of the Jurist, *law* is only associated with order through the necessary condition of every *true law* that it must prescribe *a class of acts or omissions*, or a number of acts and omissions determined *generally*; the *law which prescribes a single act* not being a *true law*, but being distinguished as an *„occasional“* or *„particular“* command. Law, thus defined and limited, is the subject-matter of Jurisprudence as conceived by the Analytical Jurists. (375)

Austin in his treatise examines »a number of existing governments or (as he would say), *forms of political superiority and inferiority*, for the purpose of determining the *exact seat of sovereignty* in each of them.« (375, 376)

Austin recognizes the existence of communities, or aggregates of men, in which no dissection could disclose a person or group answering to his definition of a Sovereign. D’abord, er, wie Hobbes (whose little man he is) fully allows that there is a *state of anarchy*. *Wherever such a state is found*, the *question of Sovereignty is being actively fought out*, u. er giebt als Beispiel that which was never absent from Hobbes’s mind, the struggle zwischen Charles I u. his Parliament. An acute critic of Hobbes u. Austin, der gewaltige *Fitzjames Stephen*, insists that there is a condition of *dormant* anarchy, z. B. United States (das Beispiel v. Maine) before the War of Secession. (377) Dies alles most characteristic of »acute« English jurists! Grausser Maine seinerseits declares »there may be deliberate abstinence from fighting out a question known to be undecided, and I (Maine him selber!) see no objection to call the temporary equilibrium thus produced a state of dormant anarchy.« (p. 377)

Austin further admits the theoretical possibility of a *state of nature*; giebt ihm nicht die Wichtigkeit wie Hobbes u. andre, aber allows its existence, wherever a number of men, or of groups not numerous enough to be political, have not as yet been brought under any common or habitually acting community. (378)

*Austin sagt, p. 237, Ist vol., 3d ed.:*

„Let us suppose that a single family of savages lives in absolute estrangement from every other community. And let us suppose that the father, the chief of this isolated family, receives habitual obedience from the mother and children. Now, since it is not a limb of another and larger community, the society formed by the parents and children, is clearly an *independent society*, and, since the rest of its members habitually obey its chief, this independent society would form *a society political*, in case the number of its members were not extremely minute. But, since the number of its members *is* extremely minute, it would, I believe, be esteemed a *society in a state of nature*; that is, a *society consisting of persons not in a state of subjection*. Without an application of the terms, which would somewhat smack of the ridiculous, we could hardly style the society a society *political* and independent, the imperative father and chief a *monarch* or *sovereign*, or the obedient mother and children *subjects.“* (Sehr tiefe!)

Dies so far Wasser auf die Mühle Maine’s, »since, wie er sagt, the form of authority about which it is made, the *authority of the Patriarch* or *Paterfamilias* over his family, is, at least according to one (Maine’s u. consorts) modern theory, the element or germ out of which all permanent power of man over man has been gradually developed.« (379)

Aber nun kommt Maine mit »schwerem Geschütz«. Der *Punjaub*, after passing durch every conceivable phase of anarchy and dormant anarchy, fell, about 25 Jahre vor seiner Annexation, under the tolerably consolidated dominion of a half military, half religious oligarchy, known as the Sikhs; sie selbst reduced to subjection by a single chieftain belonging to their order, Runjeet Singh. Dieser allgewaltiger Despot. He took, as his revenue, a prodigious share of the produce of the soil. He harried villages which recalcitrated at his exactions, and he executed great numbers of men. He levied great armies; he had all material of power, and exercised it in various ways. *But he never made a law*. The rules which regulated the life of his subjects were derived from their immemorial usages, and these rules were administered by domestic tribunals, in families or village-communities. (380, 381) Runjeet Singh *never did* or *could* (!) have dreamed of changing the civil rules under which his subjects lived. Probably he was as strong a believer in the independent obligatory force of such rules as the elders themselves who applied them. An Eastern or Indian theorist in law, to whom the assertion was made that Runjeet Singh *commanded* these rules, would etc feel it etc absurd etc. (382)

Dieser state des Punjab under Runjeet Singh may be taken as the type of all Oriental communities in their native state, during their rare intervals of peace and order. They have ever been despotisms etc die commands der despots at their head, harsh and cruel as they might be, [have always been] implicitly obeyed. But then these commands, save in so far as they served to *organize administrative machinery for the collection of revenue*, have not been true laws; were of the class called by Austin occasional or particular commands. The truth is that *the one solvent of local and domestic usage* … has been not *the command* of the Sovereign but the supposed command of the Deity. In India, the influence of the Brahminical treatises on mixed law and religion *in sapping the old customary law of the country* has always been great, and in some particulars … it has become greater under English rule. (382, 383)

Die *Assyrian, Babylonian, Median u. Persian Empires*, for occasional wars of conquest, levied vast armies from populations spread over immense areas; verlangten absolute obedience to their occasional commands, punished disobedience with the utmost cruelty; dethroned petty kings, transplanted whole communities etc. Aber mit all dem interfered but little with the every day religious or civil life of the groups to which their subjects belonged. The *„royal statute“* and *„firm decree“* preserved to us as a sample of *„law of the Medes and Persians which altereth not“*, ist kein law in modernem Sinn, sondern a „particular command“, a sudden, spasmodic, and temporary interference with ancient multifarious usage left in general undisturbed. Selbst das Athenian empire, so weit es nicht Attica betraf, sondern die subject cities u. islands was clearly a *tax-taking* Empire wie die asiatischen, nicht a *legislating Empire*. (384, 385)

A new order of *legislation* introduced into the world durch das *empire of the Romans*. (386)

Nach dem Burschen Maine der *origin of the political communities called States* is that they were formed by the *coalescence of groups*, the *original group* having been in no case *smaller than the patriarchal family*. *(Again!)* Aber dies coalescence was soon arrested. (386)

In a later stage, political communities … often of very great territorial extent, are constructed by one *community conquering another* or *one chieftain, at the head of a single community or tribe*, subjugating great masses of population. But … the separate local life of the small societies included in these great States was not extinguished or even much enfeebled. (386, 387)

The »completer trituration in modern societies of the groups which once lived with an independent life has proceeded concurrently with *much greater activity in legislation*.« (387)

If the powers of the Village Council (später Athenian Ekklesia etc) must be described by modern names, that which lies most in the background is *legislative power*, that which is most distinctly conceived is *judicial power*. The laws obeyed are regarded as having always existed, and usages really new are confounded with the really old. (388, 389) The village-communities of the Aryan (! again this nonsense!) race do not therefore exercise true legislative power so long as they remain under primitive influences. Nor again is legislative power exercised in any intelligible sense of the words by the Sovereigns of those *great States*, now confined to the East, which preserve the primitive local groups most nearly intact. *Legislation, as we conceive it, and the break up of local life appear to have universally gone on together*. (389)

The Roman Empire was the source of the influences which have led, immediately or ultimately, to the formation of highly-centralised, actively legislating, States. It was the first great dominion which did *not merely tax*, but *legislated* also. The process was spread over many centuries. … its commencement and completion, I should place … roughly at the issue of the first *Edictum Provinciale*, and at the *Extension of the Roman citizenship to all subjects of the Empire*. But, in the result, a vast and miscellaneous mass of customary law was broken up and replaced by new institutions. … It (the Roman Empire) devoured, brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with its feet. (390, 391)

Dann wirkte das Roman Empire u. sein law auf die neuen durch die Barbaren gegründeten Reiche etc. (391)

*Customary law* … is not obeyed, as enacted law is obeyed. When it obtains over small areas and in small natural groups, the penal sanctions on which it depends are partly opinion, partly superstition, but to a far greater extent an instinct almost as blind and unconscious as that which produces some of the movements of our bodies. *The actual constraint* which is required to secure conformity with usage is unconceivably small. When, however, the rules which have to be obeyed once emanate from an *authority external to the small natural group* and forming no part of it, they wear a character wholly unlike that of a customary rule. They lose the assistance of superstition (par exemple Christian Religion, Roman Church?), probably that of opinion, certainly that of spontaneous impulse. The *force* at *the back of law* comes therefore to be *purely coercive force* to a degree quite unknown in societies of the more primitive type. Moreover, in many communities, *this force has to act at a very great distance from the bulk of the persons exposed to it*, and thus the Sovereign who wields it *has to deal with great classes of acts and with great classes of persons*, rather than with isolated acts and with individuals. Daher die indifferency, inexorableness, u. generality ihrer »laws«. (392, 93)

Their generality (of the Laws) and their dependence on the coercive force of a Sovereign are the result of the great territorial area of modern States, of the comminution of the sub-groups which compose them, and above all of the Roman Commonwealth etc. (394)

We have heard of a village Hampden, but a village Hobbes is inconceivable. Flüchtet v. England wegen civil disturbance; auf continent sah der Bursche *governments rapidly centralising* (i.e. was Maine zu tief zu sagen: Richelieu, Mazarin etc), local privileges und jurisdictions in extreme decay, the old historical bodies, such as the French Parliaments, tending for the time to become furnaces of anarchy, the only hope discoverable in kingly power. These were among the palpable fruits of the wars which ended in the Peace of Westphalia. The old multiform local activity of feudal or quasi-feudal society was everywhere enfeebled or destroyed. (Dagegen hingegen *Locke Holland* vor Augen, ebenso wie Petty) Was dahingegen den graussen Bentham betrifft, was hatte er hinter sich: (Französ. Revol. u. Napoleon) A Sovereign who was a democrat commenced, and a Sovereign who was a despot completed, the *Codification of the laws of France*. There had never before in the modern world been so striking an exemplification of the proposition that, what the Sovereign permits, he commands, because he could at any time substitute an express command for his tacit permission, nor so impressive a lesson in the far-reaching and on the whole *most beneficial results* (!) which might be expected from the increased activity of Sovereigns in legislation proper. (396)


[^lic]: Text nach MEGAdigital (Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften), MEGA² IV/27, Lizenz CC BY-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/); der editorische Apparat der MEGA ist nicht wiedergegeben.