Introduction
whether we consider the contrasted figures either from the point of view of personality, method, or ideas. Savigny, aside from being the leader of a great school, was the greatest Romanist of the first half of the nineteenth century. Jhering at the age of 24 had written a doctoral study, “De hereditate possidente” (Berlin, 1842), which already was considered a “remarkable dissertation,” and when in 1852 (at the age of 34) he published the first volume of his “Geist,” the star of Savigny’s genius paled in the glare of Jhering’s rising fame.
The theory of the Historical School, of an unconscious growth of law, was contradicted by Jhering, who insisted on conscious purpose as the dominant factor of legal evolution.[1]
Two observations may be permitted at this point: first, that fundamental theories in the science of law necessarily produce
- ↑ Tanon, “L’Evolution du Droit et la Conscience Sociale” (3d ed., Paris, 1911), p. 44 seq. This part of Judge Tanon’s essay has been translated as an appendix to Jhering, “Law as a Means,” etc. (see note p. ix, supra); Alessandro Levi, “Contributi ad una Teoria filosofica dell’ ordine giuridico,” Sec. 34, p. 402 seq.
xiv
