HISTORY OF LAW 259 



in which the Roman law as represented by the Corpus Juris of Jus- 

 tinian in some form has remained the basis of the law to jj 0( j ern 

 the present time, for even the Mohammedans of Turkey, Jurispru- 

 although governed by the Koran, have found it necessary dence - 

 to accept for juristic purposes the corrupt system of Roman law 

 which they found in use when they made Constantinople the centre 

 of the Turkish Empire; that of Southern Europe, where the Roman 

 law has always been the common law of the people; that of Northern 

 Europe, where the Roman law has become the basis of jurisprudence 

 by reason of its introduction through political association and the 

 extension of the influence of the Corpus Juris ; and that of England 

 and all other countries dominated by the Anglo-Saxons, in which 

 has been developed a Teutonic system under the name of the common 

 law. 



The extension of Anglo-Saxon domination and the peculiarities 

 of the system of law which they developed in England and have 

 carried with them to all parts of the world over which x wo Great 

 they have extended their power, are so marked that Systems, 

 the history of modern jurisprudence may properly be said to be con- 

 cerned with the conflict between two rival judicial systems. The 

 whole civilized world has been divided between the civil law of 

 the Romans and the common law of the Anglo-Saxons. 



The political circumstances surrounding the attempt of bar- 

 barian rulers to assume the garb and authority of Roman emperors 

 served in Northern Europe to put the civil law and the Antagon- 

 Teutonic customary law into relations of antagonism, ism to Civil 

 In Prussia the landrecht prevailed as against the civil Northern 

 law, while in France the civil law was victorious. But Europe, 

 the ultimate result has been that the entire scientific study of law 

 in Northern Europe has been devoted to the civil law, which may 

 properly be said to be the basis of the systematic jurisprudence of 

 every European country. 



In England there have been suggestions of a similar contest; 

 but so far as there has been any real contest it has existed between 

 the canon law and the common law, the former being No such 

 assumed to be an embodiment of the civil law, although Contest in 

 the points in controversy between the canonists and the England< 

 common law lawyers did not relate to matters having reference 

 to the peculiar principles of the civil law. The common law has been 

 a receptive system. There never was any contention on the one hand 

 that the civil law was of authority in England, and consequently 

 there has been no occasion for hostility between the two systems. 

 Authors and judges have been able to appropriate the learning of 

 the civil law and apply its principles in new cases for which they 

 seem to furnish a satisfactory solution without being charged with 



