Whatever is not forbidden is allowable

“Whatever is not forbidden is allowable” is Emily Holcombe’s defense of help in a tile game: because the players had not prohibited assistance, she argues, it was permitted under their own rules. Her maxim turns a dispute over scoring into a compact argument about how rules acquire force—and how much room remains for action when they are silent.

Formulation and Context

Emily Holcombe has calculated the score and asks Arthur Roughtwood to deduct the points for his four tiles away. When he objects that the players never agreed help was permissible, she counters that they never agreed it was forbidden. She states the governing rule directly: “Whatever is not forbidden is allowable.”

She then links the game’s improvised rules to what she calls the sound principle of English law: that everything is permissible unless legally prohibited. By contrast, she describes mainland European practice as permitting nothing unless it has been legally sanctioned. The comparison is part of her argument in the scene, not a general account of legal systems; its immediate purpose is to justify treating the absence of a prohibition as permission.

Use and Significance

The maxim gives Emily Holcombe a practical answer to Arthur Roughtwood’s objection while asserting that the players may make and interpret their own rules. Its force depends on that distinction: Roughtwood treats the lack of an express permission as grounds for objection, whereas Emily treats the lack of an express prohibition as decisive.

The exchange threatens to become uncomfortable, so Emily Holcombe gathers the tiles and puts them back in the bag rather than prolonging the argument. She agrees to take the last score, which still leaves her the winner. The maxim thus resolves the dispute in principle, but the scene ends through a small compromise rather than an extended contest over whose interpretation should prevail.