酷兔英语

章节正文

Book XXIX. Of the Manner of Composing Laws

  1. Of the Spirit of a Legislator. I say it, and methinks I have undertaken this work with no other view than to prove it, the spirit of a legislator ought to be that of moderation; political, like moral good, lying always between two extremes.1 Let us produce an example.

  The set forms of justice are necessary to liberty, but the number of them might be so great as to be contrary to the end of the very laws that established them; processes would have no end; property would be uncertain; the goods of one of the parties would be adjudged to the other without examining, or they would both be ruined by examining too much.

  The citizens would lose their liberty and security, the accusers would no longer have any means to convict, nor the accused to justify themselves.

  2. The same Subject continued. Cecilius, in Aulus Gellius,2 speaking of the law of the Twelve Tables which permitted the creditor to cut the insolvent debtor into pieces, justifies it even by its cruelty, which hindered people from borrowing beyond their ability of paying.3 Shall then the cruellest laws be the best? Shall goodness consist in excess, and all the relations of things be destroyed?

  3. That the Laws which seem to deviate from the Views of the Legislator are frequently agreeable to them. The law of Solon which declared those persons infamous who espoused no side in an insurrection seemed very extraordinary; but we ought to consider the circumstances in which Greece was at that time. It was divided into very small states; and there was reason to apprehend lest in a republic torn by intestine divisions the soberest part should keep retired, in consequence of which things might be carried to extremity.

  In the seditions raised in those petty states the bulk of the citizens either made or engaged in the quarrel. In our large monarchies parties are formed by a few, and the people choose to live quietly, In the latter case it is natural to call back the seditious to the bulk of the citizens, and not these to the seditious; in the other it is necessary to oblige the small number of prudent people to enter among the seditious; it is thus the fermentation of one liquor may be stopped by a single drop of another.

  4. Of the Laws contrary to the Views of the Legislator. There are laws so little understood by the legislator as to be contrary to the very end he proposed. Those who made this regulation among the French, that when one of the two competitors died the benefice should devolve to the survivor, had in view, without doubt, the extinction of quarrels; but the very reverse falls out; we see the clergy at variance every day, and like English mastiffs worrying one another to death.

  5. The same Subject continued. The law I am going to speak of is to be found in this oath preserved by Æschines:4 "I swear that I will never destroy a town of the Amphictyones, and that I will not divert the course of its running waters; if any nation shall presume to do such a thing, I will declare war against them and will destroy their towns." The last article of this law, which seems to confirm the first, is really contrary to it. Amphictyon is willing that the Greek towns should never be destroyed, and yet his law paves the way for their destruction. In order to establish a proper law of nations among the Greeks, they ought to have been accustomed early to think it a barbarous thing to destroy a Greek town; consequently they ought not even to ruin the destroyers. Amphictyon's law was just, but it was not prudent; this appears even from the abuse made of it. Did not Philip assume the power of demolishing towns, under the pretence of their having infringed the laws of the Greeks? Amphictyon might have inflicted other punishments; he might have ordained, for example, that a certain number of the magistrates of the destroying town, or of the chiefs of the infringing army, should be punished with death; that the destroying nation should cease for a while to enjoy the privileges of the Greeks; that they should pay a fine till the town was rebuilt. The law ought, above all things, to aim at the reparation of damages.

  6. The Laws which appear the same have not always the same Effect. C?sar made a law to prohibit people from keeping above sixty sesterces in their houses.5 This law was considered at Rome as extremely proper for reconciling the debtors to their creditors, because, by obliging the rich to lend to the poor, they enabled the latter to pay their debts. A law of the same nature made in France at the time of the System proved extremely fatal, because it was enacted under a most frightful situation. After depriving people of all possible means of laying out their money, they stripped them even of the last resource of keeping it at home, which was the same as taking it from them by open violence. C?sar's law was intended to make the money circulate; the French minister's design was to draw all the money into one hand. The former gave either lands or mortgages on private people for the money; the latter proposed in lieu of money nothing but effects which were of no value, and could have none by their very nature, because the law compelled people to accept of them.

  7. The same Subject continued. Necessity of composing Laws in a proper Manner. The law of ostracism was established at Athens, at Argos,6 and at Syracuse. At Syracuse it was productive of a thousand mischiefs, because it was imprudently enacted. The principal citizens banished one another by holding the leaf of a fig-tree in their hands, so that those who had any kind of merit withdrew from public affairs.7 At Athens, where the legislator was sensible of the proper extent and limits of his law, ostracism proved an admirableregulation. They never condemned more than one person at a time; and such a number of suffrages were requisite for passing this sentence that it was extremely difficult for them to banish aperson whose absence was not necessary to the state.8

  The power of banishing was exercised only every fifth year: and indeed, as the ostracism was designed against none but great personages who threatened the state with danger, it ought not to have been the transaction of every day.

  8. That Laws which appear the same were not always made through the same Motive. In France they have received most of the Roman laws on substitutions, but through quite a different motive from the Romans. Among the latter the inheritance was accompanied with certain sacrifices9 which were to be performed by the inheritor and were regulated by the pontifical law; hence it was that they reckoned it a dishonour to die without heirs, that they made slaves their heirs, and that they devised substitutions. Of this we have a very strong proof in the vulgar substitution, which was the first invented, and took place only when the heir appointed did not accept of the inheritance. Its view was not to perpetuate the estate in a family of the same name, but to find somebody that would accept of it.

  9. That the Greek and Roman Laws punished Suicide, but not through the same Motive. A man, says Plato, who has killed one nearly related to him, that is, himself, not by an order of the magistrate, not to avoid ignominy, but through pusillanimity shall be punished.10 The Roman law punished this action when it was not committed through pusillanimity, through weariness of life, through impatience in pain, but from a criminal despair. The Roman law acquitted where the Greek condemned, and condemned where the other acquitted.

  Plato's law was formed upon the Laced?monian institutions, where the orders of the magistrate were absolute, where shame was the greatest of miseries, and pusillanimity the greatest of crimes. The Romans had no longer those refined ideas; theirs was only a fiscal law.

  During the time of the republic, there was no law at Rome against suicides; this action is always considered by their historians in a favourable light, and we never meet with any punishment inflicted upon those who committed it.

  Under the first emperors, the great families of Rome were continually destroyed by criminal prosecutions. The custom was then introduced of preventing judgment by a voluntary death. In this they found a great advantage: they had an honourable interment, and their wills were executed, because there was no law against suicides.11 But when the emperors became as avaricious as cruel, they deprived those who destroyed themselves of the means of preserving their estates by rendering it criminal for a person to make away with himself through a criminal remorse.

  What I have been saying of the motive of the emperors is so true, that they consented that the estates of suicides should not be confiscated when the crime for which they killed themselves was not punished with confiscation.12

  10. That Laws which seem contrary proceed sometimes from the same Spirit. In our time we give summons to people in their own houses; but this was not permitted among the Romans.13

  A summons was a violent action,14 and a kind of warrant for seizing the body;15 hence it was no more allowed to summon a person in his own house than it is now allowed to arrest a person in his own house for debt.

  Both the Roman and our laws admit of this principle alike, that every man ought to have his own house for an asylum, where he should suffer no violence.16

  11. How to compare two different Systems of Laws. In France the punishment for false witnesses is capital; in England it is not. Now, to be able to judge which of these two laws is the best, we must add that in France the rack is used for criminals, but not in England; that in France the accused is not allowed to produce his witnesses, and that they very seldom admit of what are called justifying circumstances in favour of the prisoner; in England they allow of witnesses on both sides. These three French laws form a close and well-connected system; and so do the three English laws. The law of England, which does not allow of the racking of criminals, has but very little hope of drawing from the accused a confession of his crime; for this reason it invites witnesses from all parts, and does not venture to discourage them by the fear of a capital punishment. The French law, which has one resource more, is not afraid of intimidating the witnesses; on the contrary, reason requires they should be intimidated; it listens only to the witnesses on one side, which are those produced by the attorney-general, and the fate of the accused depends entirely on their testimony.17 But in England they admit of witnesses on both sides, and the affair is discussed in some measure between them; consequently false witness is there less dangerous, the accused having a remedy against the false witness which he has not in France. Wherefore, to determine which of those systems is most agreeable to reason, we must take them each as a whole and compare them in their entirety.

  12. That Laws which appear the same are sometimes really different. The Greek and Roman laws inflicted the same punishment on the receiver as on the thief;18 the French law does the same. The former acted rationally, but the latter does not. Among the Greeks and Romans the thief was condemned to a pecuniary punishment, which ought also to be inflicted on the receiver; for every man that contributes in what shape soever to a damage is obliged to repair it. But as the punishment of theft is capital with us, the receiver cannot be punished like the thief without carrying things to excess. A receiver may act innocently on a thousand occasions: the thief is always culpable; one hinders the conviction of a crime, the other commits it; in one the whole is passive, the other is active; the thief must surmount more obstacles, and his soul must be more hardened against the laws.

  The civilians have gone further; they look upon the receiver as more odious than the thief,19 for were it not for the receiver the theft, say they, could not be long concealed. But this again might be right when there was only a pecuniary punishment; the affair in question was a damage done, and the receiver was generally better able to repair it; but when the punishment became capital, they ought to have been directed by other principles.

  13. That we must not separate Laws from the End for which they were made: of the Roman Laws on Theft. When a thief was caught in the act, this was called by the Romans a manifest theft; when he was not detected till some time afterwards, it was a non-manifest theft.

  The law of the Twelve Tables ordained that a manifest thief should be whipped with rods and condemned to slavery if he had attained the age of puberty; or only whipped if he was not of ripe age; but as for the nonmanifest thief, he was only condemned to a fine of double the value of what he had stolen.

  When the Porcian laws abolished the custom of whipping the citizens with rods, and of reducing them to slavery, the manifest thief was condemned to a payment of fourfold, and they still continued to condemn the non-manifest thief to a payment of double.20

  It seems very odd that these laws should make such a difference in the quality of those two crimes, and in the punishments they inflicted. And, indeed, whether the thief was detected either before or after he had carried the stolen goods to the place intended, this was a circumstance which did not alter the nature of the crime. I do not at all question that the whole theory of the Roman laws in relation to theft was borrowed from the Laced?monian institutions. Lycurgus, with a view of rendering the citizens dextrous and cunning, ordained that children should be practised in thieving, and that those who were caught in the act should be severely whipped. This occasioned among the Greeks, and afterwards among the Romans, a great difference between a manifest and a non-manifest theft.21

  Among the Romans, a slave who had been guilty of stealing was thrown from the Tarpeian rock. Here the Laced?monian institutions were out of the question; the laws of Lycurgus in relation to theft were not made for slaves; to deviate from them in this respect was in reality conforming to them.

  At Rome, when a person of unripe age happened to be caught in the act, the pr?tor ordered him to be whipped with rods according to his pleasure, as was practised at Sparta. All this had a more remote origin. The Laced?monians had derived these usages from the Cretans; and Plato,22 who wants to prove that the Cretan institutions were designed for war, cites the following, namely, the power of bearing pain in individual combats, and in thefts which have to be concealed.

  As the civil laws depend on the political institutions, because they are made for the same society, whenever there is a design of adopting the civil law of another nation, it would be proper to examine beforehand whether they have both the same institutions and the same political law.

  Thus when the Cretan laws on theft were adopted by the Laced?monians, as their constitution and government were adopted at the same time, these laws were equally reasonable in both nations. But when they were carried from Laced?mon to Rome, as they did not find there the same constitution, they were always thought strange, and had no manner of connection with the other civil laws of the Romans.

  14. That we must not separate the Laws from the Circumstances in which they were made. It was decreed by a law at Athens that when the city was besieged, all the useless people should be put to death.23 This was an abominable political law, in consequence of an abominable law of nations. Among the Greeks, the inhabitants of a town taken lost their civil liberty and were sold as slaves. The taking of a town implied its entire destruction, which is the source not only of those obstinate defences, and of those unnatural actions, but likewise of those shocking laws which they sometimes enacted.

  The Roman laws ordained that physicians should be punished for neglect or unskilfulness.24 In those cases, if the physician was a person of any fortune or rank, he was only condemned to deportation, but if he was of a low condition he was put to death. By our institutions it is otherwise. The Roman laws were not made under the same circumstances as ours: at Rome every ignorant pretender intermeddled with physic; but among us, physicians are obliged to go through a regular course of study, and to take their degrees, for which reason they are supposed to understand their profession.
关键字:英文版论法的精神
生词表:
  • legislator [´ledʒisleitə] 移动到这儿单词发声 n.立法者 六级词汇
  • moderation [,mɔdə´reiʃən] 移动到这儿单词发声 n.适度;温和;节制 四级词汇
  • speaking [´spi:kiŋ] 移动到这儿单词发声 n.说话 a.发言的 六级词汇
  • debtor [´detə] 移动到这儿单词发声 n.债务人;借方 四级词汇
  • infamous [´infəməs] 移动到这儿单词发声 a.声名狼藉的 六级词汇
  • insurrection [,insə´rekʃən] 移动到这儿单词发声 n.起义,暴动,叛乱 四级词汇
  • apprehend [,æpri´hend] 移动到这儿单词发声 vt.理解;忧虑;逮捕 四级词汇
  • intestine [in´testin] 移动到这儿单词发声 a.内部的;国内的 n.肠 六级词汇
  • retired [ri´taiəd] 移动到这儿单词发声 a.退休的;通职的 六级词汇
  • fermentation [,fə:men´teiʃən] 移动到这儿单词发声 n.发酵;骚动 六级词汇
  • survivor [sə´vaivə] 移动到这儿单词发声 n.未死的人;残存者 六级词汇
  • clergy [´klə:dʒi] 移动到这儿单词发声 n.牧师;教士 四级词汇
  • barbarous [´bɑ:bərəs] 移动到这儿单词发声 a.野蛮的;不规范的 四级词汇
  • reparation [,repə´reiʃən] 移动到这儿单词发声 n.补偿;补救 四级词汇
  • taking [´teikiŋ] 移动到这儿单词发声 a.迷人的 n.捕获物 六级词汇
  • holding [´həuldiŋ] 移动到这儿单词发声 n.保持,固定,存储 六级词汇
  • requisite [´rekwizit] 移动到这儿单词发声 a.需要的;必要的 n.必需品 四级词汇
  • vulgar [´vʌlgə] 移动到这儿单词发声 a.粗俗的;大众的 四级词汇
  • weariness [wiərinis] 移动到这儿单词发声 n.疲倦;厌烦 四级词汇
  • impatience [im´peiʃəns] 移动到这儿单词发声 n.不耐烦,急躁 四级词汇
  • refined [ri´faind] 移动到这儿单词发声 a.精制的;文雅的 四级词汇
  • fiscal [´fiskəl] 移动到这儿单词发声 a.财政的 六级词汇
  • voluntary [´vɔləntəri] 移动到这儿单词发声 a.自愿的;义务的 四级词汇
  • warrant [´wɔrənt] 移动到这儿单词发声 n.根据;委任书;权利 四级词汇
  • asylum [ə´sailəm] 移动到这儿单词发声 n.避难所,收容所 六级词汇
  • drawing [´drɔ:iŋ] 移动到这儿单词发声 n.画图;制图;图样 四级词汇
  • wherefore [´weəfɔ:] 移动到这儿单词发声 ad.为什么;因此 四级词汇
  • innocently [´inəsntli] 移动到这儿单词发声 ad.天真地,单纯地 六级词汇
  • surmount [sə´maunt] 移动到这儿单词发声 vt.克服;越过 四级词汇
  • odious [´əudiəs] 移动到这儿单词发声 a.可憎的;丑恶的 四级词汇
  • beforehand [bi´fɔ:hænd] 移动到这儿单词发声 ad.事先;提前 四级词汇
  • abominable [ə´bɔminəbəl] 移动到这儿单词发声 a.可憎的;极坏的 四级词汇
  • obstinate [´ɔbstinit] 移动到这儿单词发声 a.顽固的;(病)难治的 四级词汇
  • unnatural [,ʌn´nætʃərəl] 移动到这儿单词发声 a.不自然的 四级词汇
  • shocking [´ʃɔkiŋ] 移动到这儿单词发声 a.令人震惊的;可怕的 六级词汇
  • deportation [di:pɔ:´teiʃ(ə)n] 移动到这儿单词发声 n.放逐,驱逐出境 六级词汇



章节正文