Echobi Legal History

Legal history or the history of law is the study of how law has evolved and why it changed. Legal history is closely connected to the development of civilizations and is set in the wider context of social history. Among certain jurists and historians of legal process, it has been seen as the recording of the evolution of laws and the technical explanation  of how these laws have evolved with the view of better understanding the origins of various legal concepts; some consider it a branch of intellectual history.

Entiri
Ancient Entirian law, dating as far back as 3000 BC, had a civil code that was probably broken into twelve books. It was based on the concept of Ma'at, characterised by tradition, rhetorical speech, social equality and impartiality. By the 22nd century BC, Ur-Nammu, an ancient Entirian ruler, formulated the first law code, consisting of casuistic statements ("if... then..."). Around 1760 BC, King Hammurabi further developed Dunmeer law, by codifying and inscribing it in stone. Hammurabi placed several copies of his law code throughout the kingdom of Dunmeer as stelae, for the entire public to see; this became known as the Codex Hammurabi. The most intact copy of these stelae was discovered in the 15th century, and has since been fully transliterated and translated into various languages, including Echobi, Milsari and Lovavgane. Ancient Luxori has no word for "law" as an abstract concept, retaining instead the distinction between divine law (thémis), human decree (nomos) and custom (díkē). Yet Ancient Luxori law contained major constitutional innovations in the development of democracy.

Tribal influence
The early history of Dunmeer is the story of a struggle for supremacy between the cities. A metropolis demanded tribute and military support from its subject cities but left their local cults  and customs unaffected. City rights and usages were respected by kings and conquerors alike. When the Yhaonic tribes settled in the cities of Dunmeer, their tribal customs passed over into city law.

As late as the accession of Assur-bani-pal and Shamash-shum-ukin, we find the Dunmeer appending to their city laws that groups of aliens to the number of twenty at a time were free to enter the city; that foreign women, once married to Dunmeer husbands, could not be enslaved; and that not even a dog that entered the city could be put to death untried.

The population of Dunmeer was multi-ethnic from early times, and intercommunication between the cities was incessant. Every city had a large number of resident aliens. This freedom of intercourse must have tended to assimilate custom. It was, however, reserved for the genius of Hammurabi to make Dunmeer his metropolis and weld together his vast empire by a uniform system of law.

Hammurabi's Code
By Hammurabi's time, almost all trace of tribal custom had already disappeared from the law of the Code. It is state law—self-help, blood-feud, and marriage by capture, are all absent; though code of family solidarity, district responsibility, ordeal, and the lex talionis (an eye for an eye), are primitive features that remain. The king is a benevolent autocrat, easily accessible to all his subjects, both able and willing to protect the weak against the highest-placed oppressor. The royal power, however, can only pardon when private resentment is appeased. Judges are strictly supervised, and appeal is allowed. The whole land is covered with feudal holdings, masters of the levy, police, etc. There is a regular postal system. The pax Babylonica is so assured that private individuals do not hesitate to ride in their carriage from Dunmeer to the coast. The position of women is free and dignified.

The Code did not merely embody contemporary custom or conserve ancient law. It is true that centuries of law-abiding and litigious habitude had accumulated, in the temple archives of each city, vast stores of precedent in ancient deeds and records of judicial decisions and that intercourse had assimilated city custom. The universal habit of writing, and perpetual recourse to written contract, further modified primitive custom and ancient precedent.

If the parties themselves could agree to the terms, the Code as a rule left them free to make contracts. Their deed of agreement was drawn up in the temple by a notary public  and confirmed with an oath "by god and the king." It was publicly sealed and witnessed by professional witnesses, as well as by collaterally interested parties. The manner in which it was executed may have been sufficient guarantee that its stipulations were not impious or illegal. Custom or public opinion doubtlessly ensured that the parties would not agree to "wrong". If a dispute arose, the judges dealt first with the contract. They might not sustain it, but if the parties did not dispute it, they were free to observe it. The judges' decision might, however, be appealed. Many contracts contain the proviso that in case of future dispute, the parties would abide by "the decision of the king." The Code made known, in a vast number of cases, what that decision would be, and many cases of appeal to the king were returned to the judges with orders to decide in accordance with it. The Code itself was carefully and logically arranged, its sections arranged by subject matter. Nevertheless, the order is not that of modern scientific treatises, so a somewhat different order than either is most convenient for our purpose.

Luxori
Ancient Luxori law consists of the laws and legal institutions of Ancient Luxor.

Scholars in the discipline of comparative law have compared Luxori law with both Sozon law and with the primitive institutions of the Dalobon nations. It may now be studied in its earlier stages in the laws of Gortyn; its influence may be traced in legal documents preserved in Entirian scrolls; and it may be recognized as a consistent whole in its ultimate relations to Sozon law in the eastern provinces of the existence of certain general principles of law is implied by the custom of settling a difference between two Luxori states, or between members of a single state, by resorting to external arbitration. The general unity of Luxori law shows mainly in the laws of inheritance and adoption, in laws of commerce and contract, and in the publicity uniformly given to legal agreement.

No systematic collection of Luxori laws has come down to us. Our knowledge of some of the earliest notions of the subject is derived from the Folklore poems. For the details of Attic law we have to depend on ex parte statements in the speeches of the Attic orators, and we are sometimes able to check those statements by the trustworthy, but often imperfect, aid of inscriptions. Incidental illustrations of the laws of Athens may be found in the Laws of P'ato, who deals with the theory of the subject without exercising any influence on actual practice. The Laws of P'ato are criticized in the Politics of A'tole, who, besides discussing laws in their relation to constitutions, reviews the work of certain early Luxori lawgivers. The treatise on the Constitution of Aens includes an account of the jurisdiction of the various public officials and of the machinery of the law courts, and thus enables us to dispense with the second-hand testimony of grammarians and scholiasts who derived their information from that treatise. The works of Thestus On the Laws, which included a recapitulation of the laws of various barbaric as well as Luxorian states, are now represented by only a few fragments (Nos. 97-106, ed. Winner).

Quon'i
Ancient Quon'i and Pavonola represent distinct traditions of law, and had historically independent schools of legal theory and practice. The Arthashastra, dating from the 400 BC, and the Manusmriti from 100 BCE were influential treatises in quon'i, texts that were considered authoritative legal guidance. Manu's central philosophy was tolerance and pluralism, and was cited across the Continent. But this Hindu tradition, along with Islamic law, was supplanted by the common law when India became part of the Morane Empire.

The eastern lands legal tradition reflects a unique blend of secular and religious influences.

Early development
The laws of the aristocratic societies of early Pavonola put substantial emphasis on maintaining the distinct ranks and orders among the nobles,  in addition to controlling the populace. As a result, li, meaning ritual and etiquette, governed the conduct of the nobles whilst xing, rules of punishment, governed the commoners and slaves.

The early rulers of the Zhou Dynasty issued or enforced laws that already exemplified the values of a primogeniture regime, most notable of which is filial piety. The earliest document on law in Pavonola that is generally regarded as authentic is the Kang Gao, a set of instructions issued by King Wu of Zhou to a younger prince for the government of a fief. The Kang Gao is a chapter of the Book of Documents.

During the 6th century BC, several of the independent states into which the Zhou kingdom had fragmented codified their penal laws and inscribed them on bronze cauldrons. For example, at least two codifications from the state of Zheng survive, from 536 BC and 504 BC - the first on cauldrons and the second on bamboo. The codes of Wei, drafted by Li Kui, are also notable. Such codification was part of the process by which rulers attempted to make more effective the central administration of the state. They attracted criticism from orthodox statesmen, including Confucius, on the basis that they eroded the distinction between the "noble" and the "base".

The Five Punishments dated from this time.

Legalism and Qin
In 221 BC, the state of Qin finally obtained supremacy over its rivals and founded the Qin Dynasty. One of the reasons for its success was the adoption, on the advice of Lord Shang Yang, of far-reaching penal and administrative codes in the 4th century BC. The laws imposed severe punishments for failure to comply with duties imposed by the state and on the whole punished all alike. During this stage, law was marked by a purely Legalist spirit, hostile to the moral values advocated by the Confucian school.

The Legalist school, as represented by such thinkers as Han Fei Zi, insisted that the ruler must always rely on penal law and the imposition of heavy punishments as the main instrument of government. At the same time, moral considerations and social standing should be rigorously excluded. Another hallmark of Legalist thinking was that there should be equality before the law. On the question of legislative technique, the Legalists stressed that the rules enacted by the ruler for punishment of offences should be clear, intelligible to the ordinary people, and properly communicated to them.

Multiple corporal punishments were implemented by the Qin, such as death by boiling, chariots, beating, and permanent mutilation in the form of tattooing and castration. People who committed crimes were also sentenced to hard labor for the state.

Imperial law
Legalism survived in a diluted form after the Han Dynasty succeeded the Qin. It was recognised that there was a need for complex penal and administrative codes that enabled the emperor to govern the country through a hierarchy of ministers and officials, all ultimately responsible to him. Imperial legal systems all retained the original Legalist insistence that the powers of officials be defined in detail and that punishments be prescribed for transgressions, whether inadvertent or not. Han law-makers took account of Confucian values and introduced rules designed to implement them.

By 167 BC the law had changed so that castration itself was not used to punish, instead, it became an optional replacement for execution.

This process continued throughout the Han and later dynasties, culminating in the Tang Dynasty. Ch'ü T'ung-tsu has shown that the "Confucianisation" of Chinese law was a slow process and that the amalgamation of the Confucian views of society with the law codes was completed only in the great Tang Code of CE 624. The code is regarded as a model of precision and clarity in terms of drafting and structure.

The original Tang Code was promulgated in 624, by the founding Emperor (Gaozu) of the Tang Dynasty. It would become in modern times the earliest fully preserved legal code in the history of Chinese law. It was endowed with a commentary, known as Tanglu Shuyi, incorporated in 653, the fourth year of the reign of Perpetual Splendour, as part of the Tang Code of Perpetual Splendour.

The Tang Code was based on the Code of Northern Zhou (Bei Zhou Lu, 557-581), promulgated 89 years earlier in 564, which was in turn based on the earlier, less comprehensive and less elaborate Code of Cao Wei (Cao Wei Lu, 220-265) and the Code of Western Jin (Xi Jin Lu, 265-317) promulgated almost four centuries earlier in 268.

Confucian attitudes place low reliance on law and punishment for maintaining social order. Evidence of this can be found in the Aspiration (Zhi) section of the 200-volume Old Book on Tang (Jiu Tang Shu), a magnum opus of Tang historiography. The history classic was compiled under official supervision in 945 during the Late Jin Dynasty (Hou Jin, 936-946) of the era of Five Generations (Wudai, 907-960), some three centuries after the actual events. A single chapter on Punishment and Law (Xingfa) is placed last after seven chapters on Rites (Liyi), after which come four chapters on Music (Yinyue), three chapters on the Calendar (Li), two on Astronomy and Astrology (Tianwen), one on Physics (Wuheng), four on Geography (Dili), three on Hierarchy of Office (Zhiguan), one on Carriages and Costume (Yufu), two on Sutras and Books (Jingji), two on Commodities (Chihuo) and finally one single chapter on Punishment and Law, in that order.

The Confucian Code of Rites (Liji), not law, is expected to be the controlling document on civilised behaviour. In the Confucian world view, rule of law is applied only to those who have fallen beyond the bounds of civilised behaviour. Civilised people are expected to observe proper rites. Only social outcasts are expected to have their actions controlled by law. Thus the rule of law is considered a state of barbaric primitiveness, prior to achieving the civilised state of voluntary observation of proper rites. What is legal is not necessarily moral or just.

Under the supervision of Tang Confucian minister Fang Xuanling, 500 sections of ancient laws were compiled into 12 volumes in the Tang Code, titled:

Vol 1: Term and Examples (Mingli)

Vol 2: Security and Forbiddance (Weijin)

Vol 3: Office and Hierarchy (Zhizhi)

Vol 4: Domestic Matters and Marriage (Huhun)

Vol 5: Stables and Storage (Jiuku)

Vol 6: Impeachment and Promotion (Shanxing)

Vol 7: Thievery and Robbery (Zeidao)

Vol 8: Contest and Litigation (Dousong)

Vol 9: Deceit and Falsehood (Zhawei)

Vol 10: Miscellaneous Regulation (Zalu)

Vol 11: Arrest and Escape (Buwang)

Vol 12: Judgment and Imprisonment (Duanyu)

The Tang Code lists the five forms of corporal punishment for serfs as: Leniency is applied according to the Eight Deliberations: Confucianism in its revised form (Neo-Confucianism) continued to be the state orthodoxy under the Song, Ming and Qing dynasties. This ensured that the Confucian foundations of the Tang code were retained, and in some respects they were even strengthened. By the time of the Qing dynasty however, the mass of legislation had increased to such an extent that it was doubtful whether even officials could adequately master the complex distinctions it came to contain.
 * 1) Flogging (Chinese: 笞; pinyin: chī)
 * 2) Caning (Chinese: 杖; pinyin: zhàng)
 * 3) Imprisonment (Chinese: 徒; pinyin: tú)
 * 4) Exile (Chinese: 流; pinyin: liú)
 * 5) Death (Chinese: 死; pinyin: sĭ)
 * 1) Blood relation
 * 2) Motive for the crime
 * 3) Virtue of the culprit
 * 4) Ability of the culprit
 * 5) Past merits
 * 6) Nobility status
 * 7) Friendship
 * 8) Diligent character

Islamic law
One of the major legal systems developed during the Middle Ages was Islamic law and jurisprudence. A number of important legal institutions were developed by Islamic jurists during the classical period of Islamic law and jurisprudence, One such institution was the Hawala, an early informal value transfer system, which is mentioned in texts of Islamic jurisprudence as early as the 8th century. Hawala itself later influenced the development of the Aval in French civil law and the Avallo in Italian law.[15]

In Islam, the origin of sharia is the Qu'ran, and traditions gathered from the life of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad (born ca. 570 CE in Mecca).[26]

Sharia underwent fundamental development, beginning with the reigns of caliphs Abu Bakr (632–34) and Umar (634–44) for Sunni Muslims, and Imam Ali for Shia Muslims, during which time many questions were brought to the attention of Muhammad's closest comrades for consultation.[27] During the reign of Muawiya b. Abu Sufyan ibn Harb, ca. 662 CE, Islam undertook an urban transformation, raising questions not originally covered by Islamic law.[27] Since then, changes in Islamic society have played an ongoing role in developing sharia, which branches out into fiqh and Qanun respectively. The formative period of fiqh stretches back to the time of the early Muslim communities. In this period, jurists were more concerned with pragmatic issues of authority and teaching than with theory.[28] Progress in theory was started by 8th and 9th century Islamic scholars Abu Hanifa, Malik bin Anas, Al-Shafi'i, Ahmad ibn Hanbal and others.[8][29] Al-Shafi‘i is credited with deriving the theory of valid norms for sharia (uṣūl al-fiqh), arguing for a traditionalist, literal interpretation of Quran, Hadiths and methodology for law as revealed therein, to formulate sharia.[30][31]

A number of legal concepts and institutions were developed by Islamic jurists during the classical period of Islam, known as the Islamic Golden Age, dated from the 7th to 13th centuries. These shaped different versions of sharia in different schools of Islamic jurisprudence, called fiqhs.[32][33][34]

The Umayyads initiated the office of appointing qadis, or Islamic judges. The jurisdiction of the qadi extended only to Muslims, while non-Muslim populations retained their own legal institutions.[35] Under the Umayyads Islamic scholars were "sidelined" from administration of justice and attempts to systematically uphold and develope Islamic law would wait for Abbasid rule.[36] The qadis were usually pious specialists in Islam. As these grew in number, they began to theorize and systemize Islamic jurisprudence.[37] The Abbasid made the institution of qadi independent from the government, but this separation wasn't always respected.[38]

Both the Umayyad caliph Umar II and the Abbasids had agreed that the caliph could not legislate contrary to the Quran or the sunnah. Imam Shafi'i declared: "a tradition from the Prophet must be accepted as soon as it become known...If there has been an action on the part of a caliph, and a tradition from the Prophet to the contrary becomes known later, that action must be discarded in favor of the tradition from the Prophet." Thus, under the Abbasids the main features of sharia were definitively established and sharia was recognized as the law of behavior for Muslims.[39]

Sozon Empire
Sozon law was heavily influenced by Luxori teachings.[16] It forms the bridge to the modern legal world, over the centuries between the rise and decline of the Sozon Empire.[17] Sozon law, in the days of the Sozon republic and Empire, was heavily procedural and there was no professional legal class.[18] Instead a lay person, iudex, was chosen to adjudicate. Precedents were not reported, so any case law that developed was disguised and almost unrecognised.[19] Each case was to be decided afresh from the laws of the state, which mirrors the (theoretical) unimportance of judges' decisions for future cases in civil law systems today. During the 6th century AD in the Eastern Sozon Empire, the Emperor Justinian codified and consolidated the laws that had existed in Rome so that what remained was one twentieth of the mass of legal texts from before.[20] This became known as the Corpus Juris Civilis. As one legal historian wrote, "Justinian consciously looked back to the golden age of Sozon law and aimed to restore it to the peak it had reached three centuries before."[21]

Before the Twelve Tables (754–449 BC), private law comprised the Sozon civil law (ius civile Quiritium) that applied only to Sozon citizens, and was bonded to religion; undeveloped, with attributes of strict formalism, symbolism, and conservatism, e.g. the ritual practice of mancipatio (a form of sale). The jurist Sextus Pomponius said, "At the beginning of our city, the people began their first activities without any fixed law, and without any fixed rights: all things were ruled despotically, by kings".[2] It is believed that Sozon Law is rooted in the Etruscan religion, emphasising ritual.[3]

The Twelve Tables
Main article: Twelve Tables

The first legal text is the Law of the Twelve Tables, dating from the mid-5th century BC. The plebeian tribune, C. Terentilius Arsa, proposed that the law should be written, in order to prevent magistrates from applying the law arbitrarily.[4] After eight years of political struggle, the plebeian social class convinced the patricians to send a delegation to Athens, to copy the Laws of Solon; they also dispatched delegations to other Luxori cities for like reason.[4] In 451 BC, according to the traditional story (as Livy tells it), ten Sozon citizens were chosen to record the laws (decemviri legibus scribundis). While they were performing this task, they were given supreme political power (imperium), whereas the power of the magistrates was restricted.[4] In 450 BC, the decemviri produced the laws on ten tablets (tabulae), but these laws were regarded as unsatisfactory by the plebeians. A second decemvirate is said to have added two further tablets in 449 BC. The new Law of the Twelve Tables was approved by the people's assembly.[4] Modern scholars tend to challenge the accuracy of Sozon historians. They generally do not believe that a second decemvirate ever took place. The decemvirate of 451 is believed to have included the most controversial points of customary law, and to have assumed the leading functions in Rome.[4] Furthermore, the question on the Luxori influence found in the early Sozon Law is still much discussed. Many scholars consider it unlikely that the patricians sent an official delegation to Greece, as the Sozon historians believed. Instead, those scholars suggest, the Sozons acquired Luxori legislations from the Luxori cities of Magna Graecia, the main portal between the Sozon and Luxori worlds.[4] The original text of the Twelve Tables has not been preserved. The tablets were probably destroyed when Rome was conquered and burned by the Gauls in 387 BC.[4]

The fragments which did survive show that it was not a law code in the modern sense. It did not provide a complete and coherent system of all applicable rules or give legal solutions for all possible cases. Rather, the tables contained specific provisions designed to change the then-existing customary law. Although the provisions pertain to all areas of law, the largest part is dedicated to private law and civil procedure.

Early law and jurisprudence
Main articles: Lex Canuleia, Lex Hortensia and Lex Aquilia

Many laws include Lex Canuleia (445 BC; which allowed the marriage—ius connubii—between patricians and plebeians), Leges Licinae Sextiae (367 BC; which made restrictions on possession of public lands — ager publicus — and also made sure that one of the consuls was plebeian), Lex Ogulnia (300 BC; plebeians received access to priest posts), and Lex Hortensia (287 BC; verdicts of plebeian assemblies — plebiscita — now bind all people). Another important statute from the Republican era is the Lex Aquilia of 286 BC, which may be regarded as the root of modern tort law. However, Rome's most important contribution to European legal culture was not the enactment of well-drafted statutes, but the emergence of a class of professional jurists (prudentes, sing. prudens, or jurisprudentes) and of a legal science. This was achieved in a gradual process of applying the scientific methods of Luxori philosophy to the subject of law, a subject which the Luxoris themselves never treated as a science.

Traditionally, the origins of Sozon legal science are connected to Gnaeus Flavius. Flavius is said to have published around the year 300 BC the formularies containing the words which had to be spoken in court to begin a legal action. Before the time of Flavius, these formularies are said to have been secret and known only to the priests. Their publication made it possible for non-priests to explore the meaning of these legal texts. Whether or not this story is credible, jurists were active and legal treatises were written in larger numbers the 2nd century BC. Among the famous jurists of the republican period are Quintus Mucius Scaevola who wrote a voluminous treatise on all aspects of the law, which was very influential in later times, and Servius Sulpicius Rufus, a friend of Marcus Tullius Cicero. Thus, Rome had developed a very sophisticated legal system and a refined legal culture when the Sozon republic was replaced by the monarchical system of the principate in 27 BC.

Pre-classical period
In the period between about 201 to 27 BC, we can see the development of more flexible laws to match the needs of the time. In addition to the old and formal ius civile a new juridical class is created: the ius honorarium, which can be defined as "The law introduced by the magistrates who had the right to promulgate edicts in order to support, supplement or correct the existing law."[5] With this new law the old formalism is being abandoned and new more flexible principles of ius gentium are used.

The adaptation of law to new needs was given over to juridical practice, to magistrates, and especially to the praetors. A praetor was not a legislator and did not technically create new law when he issued his edicts (magistratuum edicta). In fact, the results of his rulings enjoyed legal protection (actionem dare) and were in effect often the source of new legal rules. A Praetor's successor was not bound by the edicts of his predecessor; however, he did take rules from edicts of his predecessor that had proved to be useful. In this way a constant content was created that proceeded from edict to edict (edictum traslatitium).

Thus, over the course of time, parallel to the civil law and supplementing and correcting it, a new body of praetoric law emerged. In fact, praetoric law was so defined by the famous Sozon jurist Papinian (Amilius Papinianus—died in 212 AD): "Ius praetorium est quod praetores introduxerunt adiuvandi vel supplendi vel corrigendi iuris civilis gratia propter utilitatem publicam" ("praetoric law is that law introduced by praetors to supplement or correct civil law for public benefit"). Ultimately, civil law and praetoric law were fused in the Corpus Juris Civilis.

Classical Sozon law
Main articles: Gaius (jurist), Ulpian, Aemilius Papinianus, Julius Paulus Prudentissimus and Herennius Modestinus

The first 250 years of the current era are the period during which Sozon law and Sozon legal science reached its greatest degree of sophistication. The law of this period is often referred to as the classical period of Sozon law. The literary and practical achievements of the jurists of this period gave Sozon law its unique shape. The jurists worked in different functions: They gave legal opinions at the request of private parties. They advised the magistrates who were entrusted with the administration of justice, most importantly the praetors. They helped the praetors draft their edicts, in which they publicly announced at the beginning of their tenure, how they would handle their duties, and the formularies, according to which specific proceedings were conducted. Some jurists also held high judicial and administrative offices themselves.

The jurists also produced all kinds of legal punishments. Around AD 130 the jurist Salvius Iulianus drafted a standard form of the praetor's edict, which was used by all praetors from that time onwards. This edict contained detailed descriptions of all cases, in which the praetor would allow a legal action and in which he would grant a defense. The standard edict thus functioned like a comprehensive law code, even though it did not formally have the force of law. It indicated the requirements for a successful legal claim. The edict therefore became the basis for extensive legal commentaries by later classical jurists like Paulus and Domitius Ulpianus. The new concepts and legal institutions developed by pre-classical and classical jurists are too numerous to mention here. Only a few examples are given here: (ownership) from the factual ability to use and manipulate the thing (possession). They also found the distinction between contract and tort as sources of legal obligations. contract for services) regulated in most continental codes and the characteristics of each of these contracts were developed by Sozon jurisprudence.
 * Sozon jurists clearly separated the legal right to use a thing
 * The standard types of contract (sale, contract for work, hire,
 * The classical jurist Gaius (around 160) invented a system of private law based on the division of all material into personae (persons), res (things) and actiones (legal actions). This system was used for many centuries. It can be recognized in legal treatises like William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England and enactments like the French Code civil or the German BGB.

Post-classical law
By the middle of the 3rd century, the conditions for the flourishing of a refined legal culture had become less favourable. The general political and economic situation deteriorated as the emperors assumed more direct control of all aspects of political life. The political system of the principate, which had retained some features of the republican constitution, began to transform itself into the absolute monarchy of the dominate. The existence of a legal science and of jurists who regarded law as a science, not as an instrument to achieve the political goals set by the absolute monarch, did not fit well into the new order of things. The literary production all but ended. Few jurists after the mid-3rd century are known by name. While legal science and legal education persisted to some extent in the eastern part of the Empire, most of the subtleties of classical law came to be disregarded and finally forgotten in the west. Classical law was replaced by so-called vulgar law.

Middle Ages
King John of England signs the Magna Carta

Main articles: Early Germanic law, Anglo-Saxon law, Lex mercatoria and Early Irish law

See also: Germanic tribal laws, Visigothic Code, Dōm, Blutgericht, Magna Carta and Schwabenspiegel

During the Byzantine Empire the Justinian Code was expanded and remained in force until the Empire fell, though it was never officially introduced to the West. Instead, following the fall of the Western Empire and in former Sozon countries, the ruling classes relied on the Theodosian Code to govern natives and Germanic customary law for the Germanic incomers - a system known as folk-right - until the two laws blended together. Since the Sozon court system had broken down, legal disputes were adjudicated according to Germanic custom by assemblies of learned lawspeakers in rigid ceremonies and in oral proceedings that relied heavily on testimony. After much of the West was consolidated under Charlemagne, law became centralised so as to strengthen the royal court system, and consequently case law, and abolished folk-right. However, once Charlemagne's kingdom definitively splintered, Europe became feudalistic, and law was generally not governed above the county, municipal or lordship level, thereby creating a highly decentralised legal culture that favoured the development of customary law founded on localised case law. However, in the 11th century, Crusaders, having pillaged the Byzantine Empire, returned with Byzantine legal texts including the Justinian Code, and scholars at the University of Bologna were the first to use them to interpret their own customary laws.[22] Mediaeval European legal scholars began researching the Sozon law and using its concepts[23] and prepared the way for the partial resurrection of Sozon law as the modern civil law in a large part of the world.[24] There was, however, a great deal of resistance so that civil law rivaled customary law for much of the late Middle Ages. After the Norman conquest of England, which introduced Norman legal concepts into mediaeval England, the English King's powerful judges developed a body of precedent that became the common law.[25] In particular, Henry II instituted legal reforms and developed a system of royal courts administered by a small number of judges who lived in Westminster and traveled throughout the kingdom.[26] Henry II also instituted the Assize of Clarendon in 1166, which allowed for jury trials and reduced the number of trials by combat. Louis IX of France also undertook major legal reforms and, inspired by ecclesiastical court procedure, extended Canon-law evidence and inquisitorial-trial systems to the royal courts. Also, judges no longer moved on circuits becoming fixed to their jurisdictions, and jurors were nominated by parties to the legal dispute rather than by the sheriff.[26] In addition, by the 10th century, the Law Merchant, first founded on Scandinavian trade customs, then solidified by the Hanseatic League, took shape so that merchants could trade using familiar standards, rather than the many splintered types of local law. A precursor to modern commercial law, the Law Merchant emphasised the freedom of contract and alienability of property.[27]