In absolute terras the institution of ownership is ancient, no doubt ; but it is young compared with blood-relationship, the state, or the immortal gods. Especially is it true that its fuller development is relatively late. Not imtil a comparatively late date | in West European history has ownership come to be | emancipated from all restrictions of a non-pecun- ; iary character and to stand in a wholly impersonal position, without admixture of personal responsibility or class prerogative.' Freedom and inviolability of contract has not until recently been the imbroken rule. Indeed, it has not even yet been accepted without qualification and extended to all items owned. There still are impedimenta in the way of certain transfers and certain contracts, and there are exemptions in favor of property held by certain privileged persons, and especially by certain sacred corporations. This applies particularly to the more backward peoples ; but nowhere is the "cash nexus" free from all admixture of alien elements. Ownership is not all-pervading and all-
i Cf., «.?., B. Jeaka, Lata and Folitiet (n the Middle Afe$, ch. VL udTU.
dominant, but it pervades and dominates the affairs of civilized peoples more freely and widely than any other single ground of action, and more than it has ever done before. The range and number of relations and duties that are habitually disposed of on a pecuniary footing are greater than in the past, and a pecuniary settlement is final to a degree unknown in the past. The pecimiary norm has invaded the domain of the older institutions, such as blood-relationship, citizenship, or the church, so that obligations belonging under the one or the other of these may now be assessed and fulfilled in terms of a money payment, although the notion of a pecuniary liquidation seems to have been wholly remote from the range of ideas — habits of thought — on which these relations and duties were originally baaed.