It  should,  however,  be  noted  that  at  an  earlier  stage
of  social  and  intellectual  development  this  distinction
is  obscure,  or  but  faintly  perceptible ;  the  penal  loss  of  an
"  eye  for  an  eye,"  or  of  a  "  tooth  for  a  tooth,"  was  commonly
regarded  as  a  kind  of  reparation  to  the  person  originally
maimed.^  And  even  at  the  present  day  in  England,  some
writers,  influenced  by  Bentham,  speak  of  the  "  vindictive
satisfaction"  that  punishment  gives  to  the  individual
injured,  as  an  important  element  of  its  utility.  Thus
Sir  J.  Fitzjames  Stephen  says  that  "  the  benefits  which
criminal  law  produces  are  twofold.  In  the  first  place,  it
prevents  crime  by  terror;  in  the  second  place,  it  regulates,
sanctions,  and  provides  a  legitimate  satisfaction  for  the
passion  of  revenge  ;  the  criminal  law  stands  to  the  passion
of  revenge  in  much  the  same  relation  as  marriage  to  the
sexual  appetite."^  I  think,  however,  that  this  statement  goes
further  in  legitimating  the  passion  of  revenge  than  the
common  moral  sense  of  the  present  age  and  country  can

include  the  prevention  of  crime  by  terror :  but  the  notion  of  retribution  is
most  prominent.
'  It  may  be  noticed — as  an  interesting  point  in  the  history  of  moral
thought  and  feeling — that  in  Aristotle's  conception  of  "  corrective  justice  "
{Ethics,  Book  v. ),  the  notions  of  retribution  and  reparation  appear  to  be  com-
pletely blended.
^  Oeneral  view  of  the  Criminal  Law,  chap.  iv.
io8  ELEMENTS  OF  POLITICS  chap.
