hile the specific rules of living must have changed
materially, as the Israelites changed their habits of living from
those of wanderers in the wilderness to those adapted to their
early settlements in Canaan and afterward to the settled conditions
under the monarchy, they would still base their laws upon these
earlier principles. Hence it was not unnatural to ascribe the
origin of these laws to Moses, nor is it to-day inaccurate to speak
of them as the Mosaic code, even though they may have been put into
their present form at different periods remote from one another,
and by rulers, prophets and priests whose occupations and attitude
toward life were widely different. Back of practically all these
laws are the fundamental beliefs that the Israelites are the people
chosen of God, that to him they owe allegiance and that from him
they derive, in principle at least, the laws under which they live.

V.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF MODERN LAW.

Not merely the Hebrews, but practically all ancient nations ascribe
the origin of their laws either to a deity or to some great
ancestral hero. As already noted, the code of Hammurabi is
represented as having been given to him directly by the god
Shamash. In the early days of Greek history, the laws of Solon and
Draco were formulated. In India we find the laws of Manu, in China
the teachings of Confucius, and so on throughout all of the great
nations. In some instances, doubtless, many of the laws were
actually formulated under the direction of the person to whom they
are ascribed; but in many others, as perhaps in the case of the
Mosaic code, there was some great judge or king under whose
direction certain principles were laid down and simple laws or
precedents established, and as a result all later developments were
ascribed to him.

In modern times, when legislative bodies are found in limited
monarchies as well as in republics, the methods of legislation are
necessarily different. Although chosen bodies of men come together
to legislate for the benefit of society, as represented by the
state, there is still a normal tendency for the ruling class to
feel that it is to a great extent the state, and it does not forget
its own needs. This class legislation was doubtless existent to a
certain extent even when the laws, supposed to be of divine origin,
were formulated by prophets and priests, for the real public
character of the laws was dependent primarily upon the unselfish
b