With regard to the expression, _de finibus_, M. de Jubainville will have it mean “frontiers between nations.” In this he is doubly wrong, both historically and philologically. To begin with the historical error, Cæsar tells us of numerous quarrels amongst Gallic tribes; and these quarrels are never carried before the Druids. Are we to think that Cæsar said that the Druids settled disputes about frontiers, when he knew perfectly well that Druids did not decide them? It is absolutely incorrect to say that the Druids had the right of judging between tribes.[246] Moreover, when Cæsar enumerates the principal matters which had to be tried, he mentions murder as well as inheritance and boundaries; and it is impossible to doubt that he is thinking of the murder of a single person, the inheritance of a single owner, the boundaries of a single estate. Philologically, M. de Jubainville maintains that the word _fines_ may be used for the boundaries of a nation as well as for those of an estate. No doubt. The word is even used in a philosophical sense, and Cicero wrote a treatise, _De finibus bonorum et malorum_. In every language there are words of wide application; but the student is not misled by this. In philosophy he understands _fines_ in a philosophical sense. If a general at the head of an army is crossing the territory of several nations, he understands _fines_ in the sense of frontiers. If it is a question of private law, he will not doubt that _fines_ is connected with individual rights; that it means the boundaries of an estate or a field. Now the passage in which Cæsar speaks of “suits concerning inheritance and boundaries” is one which deals entirely with law and justice. M. de Jubainville has taken the trouble to count the number of times that _fines_ occurs in the _De Bello Gallico_ as applied to national or tribal frontiers, and finds they are seventy-seven. This is one of those arguments based on statistics which impress most people by an appearance of matter-of-fact appropriateness. But look at it more closely. Is the _De Bello Gallico_ a book of private law? It is a history of military campaigns, and of negotiations between nations; and it is very natural that the author should frequently speak of the frontiers or the territory of these nations. If he had written a work on law, of which he was quite capable, he would have spoken throughout of the boundaries of private estates. Ought one to be surprised at this? Read Thiers’ thirty volumes; make the same calculation that M. de Jubainville did for the _De Bello Gallico_; and, if you follow the same method of reasoning, you will come to the conclusion that the French are unacquainted with boundaries to private property.