Why did Sir William Blackstone’s distinction between rights of persons and rights of things draw criticism?

Sir William Blackstone’s distinction between the rights of persons and the rights of things drew criticism because it was based on a misunderstanding of technical terms found in Roman law.1

By categorizing law in this manner, Blackstone implied that inanimate objects—or "things"—possess rights, a conceptual error that highlighted his lack of precision as a scientific jurist. Critics noted that Blackstone often substituted loose, literary phrasing for clearly defined legal terms, leading to irreconcilable contradictions within his work. While his Commentaries on the Laws of England were celebrated for their elegance and clarity, this specific structural division was viewed as a failure to grasp the fundamental principles of legal classification.12