صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

10.

δει δ ̓ ἀνὰ σκάπτῳ Διος αἰετὸς, ὦ
κειαν πτέρυγ ̓ ἀμφοτέρω
δεν χαλάξαις,

̓Αρχὸς οἰωνῶν. κελαινῶ

πιν δ ̓ ἐπί οἱ νεφέλαν

15. Αγκύλῳ κρατὶ, γλεφάρων

*Αδὺ κλαΐστρον, κατέχευας. Ὁ δὲ κνώσσων

Ὑγρὸν νῶτον αἰωρεῖ, τεαῖς

Ριπᾶισι κατασχόμενος. κ. τ. λ.

Α. ά. Κ. β'.

Pind. i., Pyth. vv. 1-18., Ed. Heyne.

Χρύσεα φορμίγξ, Απολλωνός και ιοπλοκάμων

σύνδικον Μοισάν κτέανον τάς ακούει μέν βασις, αγλαίας άρχα,
πειθονται δ' αοιδοί σώμασιν,

αγήσι χορων οπόταν προοίμιων άμβολας τεύχης ελελιζομενα. 5. καί τον αιχματάν κεραυνον σβέννυεις

άεναου πυρος. ευδεί δ' ανα σκαπτῳ Διος αιετος, ωκειάν πτερυγ
ἀμφοτερωθέν χαλάξαις,

άρχος οιωνών, κελαινωπιν δ' επι οι νεφελαν

άγκυλῳ κρατί, γλεφαρων άδυ κλαιστρόν, κατέχευας ο δε κνώσσων υγρον νώτον αιωρέι, τεαις

10. ριπάισι κατασχομένος κ. τ. λ.

Pind. i., Pyth. vv. 1-10, Ed. Boëckh.

In this specimen from Boëçkh's Pindar, we have purposely omitted the ordinary accentual marks, with a view to prevent confusion: those now exhibited, indicate the ictus metricus or rhythmical beat alone, and by an attention to them, the lines can be read in such a way as to form a sufficient notion of Boëckh's system.

Professor Anthon's Indo-Germanic Analogies will not detain us long. They are wholly out of place in a text-book on Greek Metres, and we would have to travel out of our due path, to take any particular notice of them. The subject is a curious and an interesting one, but a student would as soon expect to find Bopp's Vocalismus bound up with Seidler de Versibus Documiacis, as to have Anthon's Indo-Germanic Analogies as the fourth part of a “System of Greek Prosody and Metre."

To return for a moment, before we conclude, to the use which has been made of Sir D. K. Sandford's work. In the commencement of this notice, we expressed our opinion that Professor Anthon had availed himself, to a considerable extent, of Sandford's assistance. We wrote without suspicion, and did not infer that there was any thing which did not meet the eye. But we would now ask, if the work quoted as Sandford's Greek Prosody is not, in truth, the concluding portion of Sandford's larger Greek Exercises. We have not the means by us of verifying this conjecture, as Professor Sandford's work is not to be procured

in this State; but it was our text book in youth,-we committed the whole of it to memory, and some parts of Dr. Anthon's book, where a reference is made to Sandford's Greek Prosody, are in language wonderfully familiar to our ear. We may be mistaken, but we have never heard of any separate work by Sir Daniel on Greek Prosody, nor can we think any thing else is meant than his Greek Exercises, under a disguised name.

2.-De vera Judicii Juratorum origine, natura et indole. Dissertatio inauguralis, quam illustri jurisconsultorum ordini in alma literarum universitate, Ruperto-Carola, Heidelbergensi, ad gradum doctoris summos in Jure civili et Canonice, honores rite obtinendos submisit auctor, THOMAS CAUTE REYNOLDS, Carolina-Americanus. Heidelbergæ: 1842.

THIS dissertation has been already very favourably criticised in some of the ablest periodicals in this country, and in Europe. It has received a complimentary notice in the "Revue étrangere et Française, de Legislation, de Jurisprudence, et d'econemie politique,”- -one of the first journals of the kind in France, published by M. Felix, at Paris.

Mr. Walsh, the Paris correspondent of the National Intelligencer, writes, "that it has been noticed in very flattering terms, in several of the French and German journals-and that, in a recent No. of the "Analytical Review of Bibliography," it was mentioned as a production characterized by "research, candour, and ability," though some exceptions were taken to its Latinity.

Of the numerous complimentary notices made of the treatise in this country, the following only have come to our knowledge, viz. one in the May No. (1843) of the Boston Law Reporter-another in the N. York Tribune another in N. York Evening Post of Dec. 27th--and a very high encomium passed upon it by Judge Story in a private letter. We take shame to ourselves for the late hour at which we refer to this production. The author has particular claims upon us. He is a countryman-a Carolinian-and this fact, apart from the merits of the disquisition, imposes upon us a duty, which, we are pleased to say, is not less pleasant than peculiar. In the language of one of the reviews, it is a production not only creditable to the author, but to his native land. We have been remiss rather than reluctant. Even now, though late, our analysis must be brief. We shall venture upon few details.

As the title imports, the pamphlet before us, is a dissertation upon the origin, nature and true character of the trial by Jury, written by the author, upon his promotion to the degree of Doctor of the Civil and Canon Law, at the University of Heidelberg, Germany. It is dedicated to the much lamented Hugh S. Legaré. The subject is distributed into the

four following divisions, viz. :-The Præface-the Introduction-Part I. and Part II.

I-In the Præfatio, the author lays down the plan of the treatise, and offers an apology for the occasional impure Latinisms, which, from the nature of the subject, he has been compelled to employ. In regard to the former, he remarks,

"Primum quidem illarum sententrarum (i. e. opinions of the English and other nations) præcipuus in introductione exponam, ea, quæ ineis infirma atque manca mihi videantur, libere et ingenue dijudicans. Deinde de vera celeberrimi hujus instituti origine, quid ego sentiam, afferam.

"Extrema dissertationis parte de natura et indole judicii juratorum agam: etc."

This is an abstract of the whole argument.

In reference to a frequent want of classic terms to express his ideas, which has furnished grounds of objection with some learned critics, sufficient justification is offered by the author, when he says,

"Malui verbis minus classicis, sed ad notiones, quus exprimere volo, designandas aptioribus uti, quàm terminos antiquos latinos, qui facile alium sensum admittunt, ad res sive notiones novas declarandos adhibere; malui clarius atque distinctius, ut omnes me recte intelligerent, scribere, quam elegantia quæsita excellere; juris enim scientiam profiteor, non philologium: etc."

If this explanation, thus given in modesty, be not sufficient to silence objections as to mere words or phrases, we deem nothing farther necessary, than to reply to such persons in the language of a writer in a January number of the Richmond Enquirer. "It is improbable," he says, "that so ancient and celebrated an university as that of Heidelberg (the first law school of Germany) would permit an essay to be published under its sanction, and, for its merits, as well as for his other attainments, confer on the author its highest degree, accompanied by the highest additional distinction, which can be connected with it, if its Latinity were objectionable." In addition to the above, the writer of the present article, can add, that he is personally acquainted with the Professor, through whose hands Mr. Reynolds' dissertation passed before publication, and knows him to be a gentleman of much philological learning, and of high classical attainments in general.

II.--According to the plan proposed, the author proceeds in the Introductio to examine the various views of different writers on the origin of the trial by Jury. He criticises freely the opinions of Blackstone, Maurer, Biener, Rogge and others on this subject, and in many respects, differs from these eminent authors. Though to the deeply-read, and scrupulous reader, the author's reasons may not appear entirely satisfactory, yet it must be admitted that he maintains his positions with much ingenuity of argument, and evinces great research into the German and Anglo-Saxon legal antiquities. And here, we would remark, that the reader, who omits, or hurries over the notes in this part of the dissertation, will lose much that is valuable and interesting. So great, indeed,

is the information contained in these notes, and so useful are they in unravelling the mysteries, and explaining the niceties of reasoning to be met with in the conflicting theories of the above-named writers, that many of them might with great advantage, we think, be embodied in the text itself. This will appear the more manifest to him, who is aware of the great obscurity in which this portion of our legal history is involved. To separate the genuine from the spurious, the real from the fabulous, in this period, is indeed a task of no ordinary character. There is a necessity of calling into aid, sharp reason, great research, and judicious criticism. The author was well aware of this, and alludes to it in language as beautiful as the idea which he conveys is just and striking:

"In hac autem Historiæ regione nebulosa, in qua fortuitæ juris institutorum mentiones per monachorum annales, ut ignes fatui, viatorem potius in errores seducere, quam veritatem quærenti gratos luminis radios super semitam caliginosam effundere solent, rationem generis humani, quæ est omnibus temporibus omnibusque in terris una eademque, rerum mortalium, quæ regulis semper iisdem obtemperant, naturam præcipue autem aliorum similibus institutis et iisdem conditionibus utentium populorum analogiam, tamquam duces certos, hand aliter quam acum magneticum navis gubernator, sequi sæpissime necesserit.”

III. Having examined the theories of various writers on the subject, and for the most part rejected them, the author in Part I. (de judicii juratorum origine) proceeds to give his own views on the origin of the Jury. And here he advances a somewhat new theory. He supposes the Jury to have originated in the placitum of the Anglo-Saxons, and to have received its first application in England, in the reign of Henry II. Up to this time judicial causes had been tried in the first instance "in vicecomitum placitis," with power of appeal to the feudal courts of the Barons. But about 1166 A. D. Henry II. introduced the "justiciarii itinerantes" (Judges in Eyre,) and now arose a new method of judicial investigation, i. e. a separation of the verdict upon the facts, from the application of the law. The former was left entirely to the placitum, and the latter to the "justiciarii itinerantes." Originally a large concourse of individuals assisted at the placitum, but the number became gradually diminished until only twelve notables came, directed by the vicecomes or sheriff. Here, in the opinion of the author, was the true origin of the Jury. After investigating numerous authorities, and displaying much historical acumen, he closes this part of the subject in the following words, which, as they embrace a sort of abstract of the whole history of the matter, we will subjoin:

"Hac igitur ratione ex placitis antiquis nata sunt judicia juratorum. Justiteariis itinerantibus introductis, judicium de factis a judicio de jure separatum est, quod ipsum ad judicem devenit; ex rerum temporumque natura orta est consuetudo comitatus, præcipue in placitis mandatis (gebotenen Gerichten,) per XII. viros repræsentandi, atque hi viri XII. procedendi modum in placitis retinebant, testibus argumentisque auditis; posteaquam vero ordalia a Papa prohibita sunt, institutum est, ut jurati, quum

retatus sese, 'super patriam poneret,' presentment suum rursus considerarent; quæ facultas cito aliis juratis data est, juratis, qui retavissent, a jurata secunda exclusis: grand jury igitum est comitatus retantis, petit jury comitatus judicantis DEPUTATIO, functionibus et officiis, quæ omnia habebant placita antiqua Anglo-Saxonum, inter judicem, juratam accusantem et juratam facta judicantem devisis."

IV.—In Part II. an enquiry is made concerning the nature and true character of the trial by Jury-De judicii juratorum natura et indole. This part, enriched as it is with many curious and interesting notes, touching the various controversies on this question as they relate to the Anglo-Saxon, Anglo-Norman, and Germanic laws, is, perhaps, the ablest portion of the whole dissertation. The first and principal question proposed for investigation, is, "whether the Jury in making up their verdict, should decide 'secundum impressionem, quam probata in animo producant,' ,'" i.e. according to moral persuasion, “conviction intime,” (“subjectue Ueberzeugung,") or, "secundum diligentem et consideratam actisque fundatam cogitatam et ratiocinationem," i. e. according to external, objective persuasion-("objectine Ueberzeugung,")-in plain English, according to "law and evidence." After a full examination of these points, in which he shows the absolute want of any guaranty of certainty in the decision of a Jury under the former method, the author gives his decided preference for the latter. And in this, he takes side with the English and Americans, against the French. In truth, no better practical commentary on the insufficiency of the method of rendering verdict ex subjectiva persuasione, need be offered, than the many illegal and arbitrary decisions of French Juries, to some of which the author makes allusion. But this results from the very nature of that Jury. All that is asked a Juror in France, is, "avez-vous une irtime conviction?" Now it may be possible for a Juror to have this, without having heard any testimony whatever in court on the subject. To bestow upon a Jury such vague power, is to give rein to the most unbridled injustice. Private feelings and political prejudices, can thereby usurp the places of impartiality and public duty, and consequently, an angry clique may be often set up in the country to administer justice, as too frequently happens in France. To evade the odium, which would naturally fall upon it, in case of an "unrighteous verdict," a French Jury usually adds, "circonstances attenuantes;" but these, in the language of the author, expressed in a note, are, "miserabiles latebræ ad mentem dubiam celandam; tenue perturbatæ conscientiæ velamen ac solamen!"

The question is farther discussed, as to whether the consent of all the Jury should be required, or of a bare majority only, or as is the case in France, of seven of the twelve. The author's remarks on this point, to be found principally in a note, are sound and judicious, and confirmed as they are by the combined experience of the English and American nations, sets the question, for us, at least, entirely at rest.

To those who object altogether to the trial by jury, as inferior to the so-called “Inquisitorial Process,” as do many eminent jurists of Germa

« السابقةمتابعة »