contrary, as we can see by an examination of the law in question. Whatever
may have been the date of the establishment of the cities of refuge, I
suppose that it will not be seriously denied that the law of the covenant
as laid down in Exodus XX, 1, Numbers XXXV, 6, is at least as old as the
age of Moses, in principle, if not in words; and this legal principle is
quite inconsistent with, if not directly antagonistic to, all the
prejudices and regulations, moral, religious, or civil, of a pure nomadic
society, since it presupposes a social condition which, if adopted, would
be fatal to a nomad society.

The true nomad knows no criminal law save the law of the blood feud, which
is the law of revenge, and which prevailed among the Hebrews much earlier.
In the early Saxon law it was expressed by the apothegm "_Factum
reputabitur pro volunte_." The act implies the intent. That is to say,
the tribe is an enlarged family who, since they have no collective system
of sovereignty which gives them common protection by an organized police,
and courts with power to enforce process, have no option but to protect
each other. Therefore, it is incumbent on each member of the tribe or
family to avenge an injury to any other member, whether the injury be
accidental or otherwise; and to be himself the judge of what amounts to an
injury. Such a condition prevailed among the Hebrews at a very early
period; "And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them: ... at the
hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth
man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." [Footnote: Gen. IX, 1, 5,
6.] These customs and the type of thought which sustain them are very
tenacious and change slowly. Moses could not have altered the nomadic
customs of thought and of blood revenge, had he tried, more than could
Canute. It would have been impossible. The advent of a civilized
conception of the law is the work of centuries as the history of England
proves.