diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | .gitattributes | 4 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 75962-0.txt | 6689 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 75962-h/75962-h.htm | 9531 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 75962-h/images/cover.jpg | bin | 0 -> 240261 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | LICENSE.txt | 11 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | README.md | 2 |
6 files changed, 16237 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d7b82bc --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitattributes @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@ +*.txt text eol=lf +*.htm text eol=lf +*.html text eol=lf +*.md text eol=lf diff --git a/75962-0.txt b/75962-0.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..7e252da --- /dev/null +++ b/75962-0.txt @@ -0,0 +1,6689 @@ + +*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 75962 *** + + + + + + TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE + + The original book _Mare Liberum_ was first published in 1608 in + renaissance latin. The latin of this book is based on a later 1633 + printing. The english translation carefully maintains the meaning, + and clarifies the context, of the original latin. + + In this 1916 book, following the Introductory Note and Preface, the + latin text and the translated english text were on alternate pages + i.e. the first page of latin text was followed by the first page of + corresponding english text, then the next (second) page of latin + text was followed by the second page of corresponding english text, + and so on. + + This etext follows the same alternating pagination. A row of dashes + has been inserted between the english and latin pages to give a + visual separation. + + There are three different sets of Footnotes. + (a) The five Footnotes in the Introductory Note have anchors [A] + to [E]. + + (b) The 192 Footnotes associated with the latin text have anchors + [1a] [2a] through [192a]. + + (c) The 192 Footnotes associated with the english text have anchors + [1] [2] through [192]. + + All these Footnotes have been placed after the Index at the end of + the book. + + In addition there are 17 Notes, distinct from Footnotes, which + are anchored with * or †. These Notes by the translator have been + placed at the end of the paragraph containing the anchor. + + Italic text is denoted by _underscores_. + + A superscript is denoted by ^x or ^{xx}. + + Some minor changes to the text are noted at the end of the book. + + + + + HVGONIS GROTII + + MARE LIBERVM + + SIVE + + DE IVRE QVOD BATAVIS + + COMPETIT + + AD INDICANA COMMERCIA, + + DISSERTATIO + + + 1608 + + + + + Carnegie Endowment for International Peace + + DIVISION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW + + + THE FREEDOM OF THE SEAS + + OR + + THE RIGHT WHICH BELONGS TO THE DUTCH + TO TAKE PART IN THE EAST INDIAN TRADE + + A DISSERTATION BY + + HUGO GROTIUS + + TRANSLATED WITH A REVISION OF THE LATIN TEXT OF 1633 + + BY + + RALPH VAN DEMAN MAGOFFIN, PH.D. + + Associate Professor of Greek and Roman History + The Johns Hopkins University + + + EDITED WITH AN INTRODUCTORY NOTE + + BY + + JAMES BROWN SCOTT + + DIRECTOR + + + NEW YORK + OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS + + AMERICAN BRANCH: 35 WEST 32ND STREET + + LONDON, TORONTO, MELBOURNE, AND BOMBAY + HUMPHREY MILFORD + + 1916 + + + + + COPYRIGHT 1916 + + BY THE + + CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE + + WASHINGTON, D. C. + + + THE QUINN & BODEN CO. PRESS + RAHWAY, N. J. + + + + +INTRODUCTORY NOTE + + +Since the month of August, 1914, the expression “Freedom of the +Seas” has been on the lips alike of belligerent and neutral, and +it seems as advisable as it is timely to issue--for the first time +in English--the famous Latin tractate of Grotius proclaiming, +explaining, and in no small measure making the “freedom of the +seas.”[A] + +The title of the little book, first published, anonymously, in +November, 1608, explains the reason for its composition: “The Freedom +of the Seas, or the Right which belongs to the Dutch to take part in +the East Indian trade.” It was an open secret that it was written by +the young Dutch scholar and lawyer, Hugo Grotius. It was a secret +and remained a secret until 1868 that the _Mare Liberum_ was none +other than Chapter XII of the treatise _De Jure Praedae_, written by +Grotius in the winter of 1604-5, which first came to light in 1864 +and was given to the world four years later.[B] + +The publication of the treatise on the law of prize is important +as showing that the author of the _Mare Liberum_ was already an +accomplished international lawyer, and it proves beyond peradventure +that the masterpiece of 1625 on the “Law of War and Peace” was not +a hurried production, but the culmination of study and reflection +extending over twenty years and more. More important still is the +fact that neither the law of prize nor the _Mare Liberum_ was a +philosophic exercise, for it appears that Grotius had been retained +by the Dutch East India Company to justify the capture by one of +its ships of a Portuguese galleon in the straits of Malacca in the +year 1602; that the treatise on the law of prize, of which the _Mare +Liberum_ is a chapter, was in the nature of a brief; and that the +first systematic treatise on the law of nations--The Law of War +and Peace--was not merely a philosophical disquisition, but that +it was the direct outgrowth of an actual case and of professional +employment.[C] + +The Spaniards, as is well known, then claimed the Pacific Ocean +and the Gulf of Mexico, and Portugal claimed, in like manner, the +Atlantic south of Morocco and the Indian Ocean, and both nations, at +this time under a common sovereign, claimed and sought to exercise +the right of excluding all foreigners from navigating or entering +these waters. The Dutch, then at war with Spain, although not +technically at war with Portugal, established themselves in 1598 in +the island of Mauritius. Shortly thereafter they made settlements +in Java and in the Moluccas. In 1602 the Dutch East India Company +was formed, and, as it attempted to trade with the East Indies, its +vessels came into competition with those of the Portuguese engaged +in the Eastern trade, which sought to exclude them from the Indian +waters. One Heemskerck, a captain in the employ of the Company, took +a large Portuguese galleon in the Straits of Malacca. To trade with +the East Indies was one thing, to capture Portuguese vessels was +quite another thing. Therefore, some members of the Company refused +their parts of the prize; others sold their shares in the company, +and still others thought of establishing a new company in France, +under the protection of King Henry IV, which should trade in peace +and abstain from all warlike action. The matter was therefore one of +no little importance, and it appears that Grotius was consulted and +wrote his treatise on the law of prize, which is in the nature of a +brief and is, at any rate, a lawyer’s argument.[D] + +In 1608 Spain and Holland began negotiations which, on April 9, 1609, +resulted in the truce of Antwerp for the period of 12 years, and, in +the course of the negotiations, Spain tried to secure from the United +Provinces a renunciation of their right to trade in the East and West +Indies. The Dutch East India Company thereupon, it would appear, +requested Grotius to publish that part of his brief dealing with the +freedom of the seas. This was done under the title of _Mare Liberum_, +with such changes as were necessary to enable it to stand alone. + +It will be observed that the _Mare Liberum_ was written to refute +the unjustified claims of Spain and Portugal to the high seas and to +exclude foreigners therefrom. The claims of England, less extensive +but not less unjustifiable, were not mentioned, and yet, if the +arguments of Grotius were sound, the English claims to the high seas +to the south and east of England, as well as to undefined regions to +the north and west, would likewise fall to the ground. Therefore the +distinguished English lawyer, scholar, and publicist, John Selden by +name, bestirred himself in behalf of his country and wrote his _Mare +Clausum_ in 1617 or 1618, although it was not published until 1635, +to refute the little tractate, _Mare Liberum_.[E] In the dedication +to King Charles I, Selden said: “There are among foreign writers, +who rashly attribute your Majesty’s more southern and eastern sea to +their princes. Nor are there a few, who following chiefly some of +the ancient Caesarian lawyers, endeavor to affirm, or beyond reason +too easily admit, that all seas are common to the universality of +mankind.” The thesis of Selden was twofold: first, “that the sea, by +the law of nature or nations, is not common to all men, but capable +of private dominion or property as well as the land”; second, “that +the King of Great Britain is lord of the sea flowing about, as an +inseparable and perpetual appendant of the British Empire.” + +In this battle of books, to use the happy expression of Professor +Nys, the Dutch Scholar has had the better of his English antagonist. +If it cannot be said that Grotius wears his learning “lightly like +a flower”, the treatise of Selden is, in comparison, over-freighted +with it; the _Mare Liberum_ is still an open book, the _Mare Clausum_ +is indeed a closed one, and as flotsam or jetsam on troubled waters, +Chapter XII of the Law of Prize rides the waves, whereas its rival, +heavy and water-logged, has gone under. + +In the leading case of The Louis (2 Dodson 210), decided in 1817, +some two hundred years after Selden’s book was written, Sir William +Scott, later Lord Stowell and one of Selden’s most distinguished +countrymen, said, in rejecting the claim of his country to the +exercise of jurisdiction beyond a marine league from the British +shore: + + I have to observe, that two principles of public law are + generally recognized as fundamental. + + One is the perfect equality and entire independence of all + distinct states. Relative magnitude creates no distinction of + right; relative imbecility, whether permanent or casual, gives no + additional right to the more powerful neighbor; and any advantage + seized upon that ground is mere usurpation. This is the great + foundation of public law, which it mainly concerns the peace + of mankind, both in their politic and private capacities, to + preserve inviolate. + + The second is, that all nations being equal, all have an equal + right to the uninterrupted use of the unappropriated parts of the + ocean for their navigation. In places where no local authority + exists, where the subjects of all states meet upon a footing of + entire equality and independence, no one state, or any of its + subjects, has a right to assume or exercise authority over the + subjects of another. + +In closing the preface to the _Mare Clausum_, Selden used language, +which the undersigned quotes, albeit in an inverse sense, as a fit +ending to this subject: + +“Other passages there are everywhere of the same kind. But I enlarge +myself too much in a thing so manifest. Therefore I forbear to light +a candle to the sun. Farewell reader.” + + JAMES BROWN SCOTT, + _Director of the Division of_ + _International Law_. + + WASHINGTON, D. C., + _February 28, 1916_. + + + + +TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE + + +_The Latin Text_ + +The Latin Text is based upon the Elzevir edition of 1633, the +modifications being only such as to bring the Latin into conformity +with the present day Teubner and Oxford texts. + +References in the notes to classic authors are given in unabbreviated +form, following in other respects the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae +Index. Citations to the Civil Law are given in the modern notation, +which is followed, in parentheses, by the older method of reference. +The text used is that of Mommsen, Krueger, Schoell et Kroll. The +Canon Law is cited from the Friedberg edition of 1879-81. The +abbreviations used are explained below. + + +_The Translation_ + +The translator wishes to make due acknowledgment for the passages +from classic writers quoted from standard translations, to which +references are also made in the notes. He has also consulted the +French translation of Grotius by A. Guichon de Grandpont (1845). But +his chief acknowledgment is to his colleague and friend, Professor +Kirby Flower Smith of The Johns Hopkins University, to whom he read +the translation, and who gave him the benefit of his knowledge of +Latin and his taste in English, in a number of troublesome passages. +Many niceties of the translation belong to Professor Smith, but +mistakes in interpretation belong to the translator alone. + +Acknowledgment and thanks are also due to Professor Westel Woodbury +Willoughby of Johns Hopkins, who has been so good as to read the +translation through in galley proof and give the translator the +benefit of his technical knowledge of law; to his Johns Hopkins +colleague, Professor Wilfred P. Mustard, who has helped him out +of a number of difficulties; to Bishop Shahan, Rector of the +Catholic University of America, who has given of his time to help +expand several of Grotius’ abbreviated references to theological +or canonical authors; to John Curlett Martin, Johns Hopkins Fellow +in Greek, who has been of great assistance in the verification of +references; and to the men of the Quinn and Boden Company for their +courteous assistance while the book was going through the press. + + +_List of Abbreviations_ + +Auth., Authenticum. + +Clem., Constitutiones Clementis Papae Quinti. + +Dist., Distinctio Decreti Gratiani. + +Extravag., Constitutiones XXD. Ioannis Papae XXII. + +Lib. VI, Liber sextus Decretalium D. Bonifacii Papae VIII. + +Other abbreviations should offer no difficulties. + + +_Notes of Explanation_ + +The words and phrases in the Latin text in capitals follow the type +of the Elzevir text. + +In order that both text and translation may be complete in +themselves, the notes below the translation follow the notes of the +text in shortened or expanded form, or in duplicate, as the occasion +would seem to demand. The notes in Grotius’ Latin text are in a most +abbreviated form, and the references are seldom specific. They have +been expanded without further explanation. + +[ ] in the translation, text, or notes, inclose additions made by the +translator. + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + + + + +CAPITA DISSERTATIONIS HVGONIS GROTII DE MARE LIBERO + + + PAGINA + Ad Principes populosque liberos orbis Christiani 1 + + CAPVT + I. Iure gentium quibusvis ad quosvis liberam esse + navigationem 7 + + II. Lusitanos nullum habere ius dominii in eos + Indos ad quos Batavi navigant titulo inventionis 11 + + III. Lusitanos in Indos non habere ius dominii titulo + donationis Pontificiae 15 + + IV. Lusitanos in Indos non habere ius dominii titulo + belli 18 + + V. Mare ad Indos aut ius eo navigandi non esse + proprium Lusitanorum titulo occupationis 22 + + VI. Mare aut ius navigandi proprium non esse + Lusitanorum titulo donationis Pontificiae 45 + + VII. Mare aut ius navigandi proprium non esse + Lusitanorum titulo praescriptionis aut consuetudinis 47 + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + + + + + +TABLE OF CONTENTS + + + PAGE + Introductory Note v + + Translator’s Preface xi + + FREEDOM OF THE SEAS + + To the rulers and to the free and independent + nations of Christendom 1 + + CHAPTER + I. By the Law of Nations navigation is free to all + persons whatsoever 7 + + II. The Portuguese have no right by title of discovery + to sovereignty over the East Indies + to which the Dutch make voyages 11 + + III. The Portuguese have no right of sovereignty + over the East Indies by virtue of title based + on the Papal Donation 15 + + IV. The Portuguese have no right of sovereignty + over the East Indies by title of war 18 + + V. Neither the Indian Ocean nor the right of navigation + thereon belongs to the Portuguese by + title of occupation 22 + + VI. Neither the Sea nor the right of navigation + thereon belongs to the Portuguese by virtue + of title based on the Papal Donation 45 + + VII. Neither the Sea nor the right of navigation + thereon belongs to the Portuguese by title + of prescription or custom 47 + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + + CAPVT PAGINA + VIII. Iure gentium inter quosvis liberam esse mercaturam 61 + + IX. Mercaturam cum Indis propriam non esse + Lusitanorum titulo occupationis 65 + + X. Mercaturam cum Indis propriam non esse + Lusitanorum titulo donationis Pontificiae 66 + + XI. Mercaturam cum Indis non esse Lusitanorum + propriam iure praescriptionis aut consuetudinis 67 + + XII. Nulla aequitate niti Lusitanos in prohibendo + commercio 69 + + XIII. Batavis ius commercii Indicani, qua pace, qua + indutiis, qua bello retinendum 72 + + Regis Hispaniarum litterae 77 + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + + CHAPTER PAGE + VIII. By the Law of Nations trade is free to all persons + whatsoever 61 + + IX. Trade with the East Indies does not belong to + the Portuguese by title of occupation 65 + + X. Trade with the East Indies does not belong + to the Portuguese by virtue of title based + on the Papal Donation 66 + + XI. Trade with the East Indies does not belong to + the Portuguese by title of prescription or + custom 67 + + XII. The Portuguese prohibition of trade has no + foundation in equity 69 + + XIII. The Dutch must maintain their right of trade + with the East Indies by peace, by treaty, + or by war 72 + + Appendix: Two letters of Philip III, King of + Spain 77 + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + + + + +AD PRINCIPES POPVLOSQVE LIBEROS ORBIS CHRISTIANI + + +Error est non minus vetus quam pestilens, quo multi mortales, ii +autem maxime qui plurimum vi atque opibus valent, persuadent sibi, +aut, quod verius puto, persuadere conantur, iustum atque iniustum non +suapte natura, sed hominum inani quadam opinione atque consuetudine +distingui. Itaque illi et leges et aequitatis speciem in hoc inventa +existimant, ut eorum qui in parendi condicione nati sunt dissensiones +atque tumultus coerceantur; ipsis vero qui in summa fortuna sunt +collocati, ius omne aiunt ex voluntate, voluntatem ex utilitate +metiendam. Hanc autem sententiam absurdam plane atque naturae +contrariam auctoritatis sibi nonnihil conciliasse haud adeo mirum +est, cum ad morbum communem humani generis, quo sicut vitia ita +vitiorum patrocinia sectamur, accesserint adulantium artes quibus +omnis potestas obnoxia est. + +Sed contra exstiterunt nullo non saeculo viri liberi, sapientes, +religiosi, qui falsam hanc persuasionem animis simplicium evellerent +ceteros autem eius defensores impudentiae convincerent. Deum quippe +esse monstrabant conditorem rectoremque universi, imprimis autem +humanae naturae parentem, quam ideo, non uti cetera animantia, in +species diversas, variaque discrimina segregasset, sed unius esse +generis, una etiam appellatione voluisset contineri, + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + + + + +TO THE RULERS AND TO THE FREE AND INDEPENDENT NATIONS OF CHRISTENDOM + + +The delusion is as old as it is detestable with which many men, +especially those who by their wealth and power exercise the greatest +influence, persuade themselves, or as I rather believe, try to +persuade themselves, that justice and injustice are distinguished +the one from the other not by their own nature, but in some fashion +merely by the opinion and the custom of mankind. Those men therefore +think that both the laws and the semblance of equity were devised +for the sole purpose of repressing the dissensions and rebellions of +those persons born in a subordinate position, affirming meanwhile +that they themselves, being placed in a high position, ought to +dispense all justice in accordance with their own good pleasure, +and that their pleasure ought to be bounded only by their own view +of what is expedient. This opinion, absurd and unnatural as it +clearly is, has gained considerable currency; but this should by +no means occasion surprise, inasmuch as there has to be taken into +consideration not only the common frailty of the human race by which +we pursue not only vices and their purveyors, but also the arts of +flatterers, to whom power is always exposed. + +But, on the other hand, there have stood forth in every age +independent and wise and devout men able to root out this false +doctrine from the minds of the simple, and to convict its advocates +of shamelessness. For they showed that God was the founder and ruler +of the universe, and especially that being the Father of all mankind, +He had not separated human beings, as He had the rest of living +things, into different species and various divisions, but had willed +them to be of one race and to be known by one name; that + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +dedisset insuper originem eandem, similem membrorum compagem, vultus +inter se obversos, sermonem quoque et alia communicandi instrumenta, +ut intelligerent omnes naturalem inter se societatem esse atque +cognationem. Huic autem a se fundatae aut domui aut civitati summum +illum principem patremque familias suas quasdam scripsisse leges, +non in aere aut tabulis, sed in sensibus animisque singulorum, ubi +invitis etiam et aversantibus legendae occurrent his legibus summos +pariter atque infimos teneri, in has non plus regibus licere, quam +plebi adversus decreta decurionum, decurionibus contra praesidium +edicta, praesidibus in regum ipsorum sanctiones. Quin illa ipsa +populorum atque urbium singularum iura ex illo fonte dimanare, inde +sanctimoniam suam atque maiestatem accipere. + +Sicut autem in ipso homine alia sunt quae habet cum omnibus communia, +alia quibus ab altero quisque distinguitur, ita earum rerum quas in +usum hominis produxisset natura alias eam manere communes, alias +cuiusque industria ac labore proprias fieri voluisse, de utrisque +autem datas leges, ut communibus quidem sine detrimento omnium omnes +uterentur, de ceteris autem quod cuique contigisset eo contentus +abstineret alieno. + +Haec si homo nullus nescire potest nisi homo esse desierit, haec si +gentes viderunt quibus ad verum omne caecutientibus sola naturae fax +illuxit, quid vos sentire ac facere aequum est, principes populique +Christiani? + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +furthermore He had given them the same origin, the same structural +organism, the ability to look each other in the face, language too, +and other means of communication, in order that they all might +recognize their natural social bond and kinship. They showed too +that He is the supreme Lord and Father of this family; and that for +the household or the state which He had thus founded, He had drawn +up certain laws not graven on tablets of bronze or stone but written +in the minds and on the hearts of every individual, where even the +unwilling and the refractory must read them. That these laws were +binding on great and small alike; that kings have no more power +against them than have the common people against the decrees of the +magistrates, than have the magistrates against the edicts of the +governors, than have the governors against the ordinances of the +kings themselves; nay more, that those very laws themselves of each +and every nation and city flow from that Divine source, and from that +source receive their sanctity and their majesty. + +Now, as there are some things which every man enjoys in common with +all other men, and as there are other things which are distinctly +his and belong to no one else, just so has nature willed that some +of the things which she has created for the use of mankind remain +common to all, and that others through the industry and labor of each +man become his own. Laws moreover were given to cover both cases so +that all men might use common property without prejudice to any one +else, and in respect to other things so that each man being content +with what he himself owns might refrain from laying his hands on the +property of others. + +Now since no man can be ignorant of these facts unless he ceases +to be a man, and since races blind to all truth except what they +receive from the light of nature, have recognized their force, what, +O Christian Kings and Nations, ought you to think, and what ought you +to do? + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + + +Si quis durum putat ea a se exigi quae tam sancti nominis professio +requirit, cuius minimum est ab iniuriis abstinere, certe quid sui +sit offici scire quisque potest ex eo quod alteri praecipit. Nemo +est vestrum qui non palam edicat rei quemque suae esse moderatorem +et arbitrum: qui non fluminibus locisque publicis cives omnes uti +ex aequo et promiscue iubeat, qui non commeandi commercandique +libertatem omni ope defendat. + +Sine his si parva illa societas, quam rempublicam vocamus, constare +non posse iudicatur (et certe constare non potest) quamobrem non +eadem illa ad sustinendam totius humani generis societatem atque +concordiam erunt necessaria? Si quis adversus haec vim faciat, +merito indignamini, exempla etiam pro flagiti magnitudine statuitis, +non alia de causa nisi quia ubi ista passim licent status imperi +tranquillus esse non potest. Quod si rex in regem, populus in +populum inique et violente agat, id nonne ad perturbandam magnae +illius civitatis quietem et ad summi custodis spectat iniuriam? +Hoc interest, quod sicut magistratus minores de vulgo iudicant, +vos de magistratibus, ita omnium aliorum delicta cognoscenda vobis +et punienda mandavit rex universi, vestra excepit sibi. Is autem +quamquam supremam animadversionem sibi reservat, tardam, occultam, +inevitabilem, nihilominus duos a se iudices delegat qui rebus humanis +intersint, quos nocentium felicissimus non effugit, conscientiam +cuique suam, et famam sive existimationem + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + + +If any one thinks it hard that those things are demanded of him which +the profession of a religion so sacred requires, the very least +obligation of which is to refrain from injustice, certainly every +one can know what his own duty is from the very demands he makes of +others. There is not one of you who does not openly proclaim that +every man is entitled to manage and dispose of his own property; +there is not one of you who does not insist that all citizens have +equal and indiscriminate right to use rivers and public places; not +one of you who does not defend with all his might the freedom of +travel and of trade. + +If it be thought that the small society which we call a state cannot +exist without the application of these principles (and certainly it +cannot), why will not those same principles be necessary to uphold +the social structure of the whole human race and to maintain the +harmony thereof? If any one rebels against these principles of law +and order you are justly indignant, and you even decree punishments +in proportion to the magnitude of the offense, for no other reason +than that a government cannot be tranquil where trespasses of that +sort are allowed. If king act unjustly and violently against king, +and nation against nation, such action involves a disturbance of the +peace of that universal state, and constitutes a trespass against the +supreme Ruler, does it not? There is however this difference: just +as the lesser magistrates judge the common people, and as you judge +the magistrates, so the King of the universe has laid upon you the +command to take cognizance of the trespasses of all other men, and +to punish them; but He has reserved for Himself the punishment of +your own trespasses. But although He reserves to himself the final +punishment, slow and unseen but none the less inevitable, yet He +appoints to intervene in human affairs two judges whom the luckiest +of sinners does not escape, namely, Conscience, or the innate +estimation of oneself, and Public Opinion, or the estimation of +others. + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +alienam. Haec tribunalia illis patent quibus alia praeclusa sunt; ad +haec infirmi provocant; in his vincuntur qui vincunt viribus, qui +licentiae modum non statuunt, qui vili putant constare quod emitur +humano sanguine, qui iniurias iniuriis defendunt, quorum manifesta +facinora necesse est et consentiente bonorum iudicio damnari, et sui +ipsorum animi sententia non absolvi. + +Ad utrumque hoc forum nos quoque novam causam afferimus; non hercule +de stillicidiis aut tigno iniuncto, quales esse privatorum solent, ac +ne ex eo quidem genere quod frequens est inter populos, de agri iure +in confinio haerentis, de amnis aut insulae possessione; sed de omni +prope oceano, de iure navigandi, de libertate commerciorum. Inter +nos et Hispanos haec controversa sunt: Sitne immensum et vastum mare +regni unius nec maximi accessio; populone cuiquam ius sit volentes +populos prohibere ne vendant, ne permutent, ne denique commeent +inter sese; potueritne quisquam quod suum numquam fuit elargiri, aut +invenire quod iam erat alienum; an ius aliquod tribuat manifesta +longi temporis iniuria. + +In hac disceptatione ipsis qui inter Hispanos praecipui sunt divini +atque humani iuris magistri calculum porrigimus, ipsius denique +Hispaniae proprias leges imploramus. Id si nihil iuvat, et eos quos +ratio certa convincit cupiditas vetat desistere, vestram principes +maiestatem, vestram fidem quotquot estis ubique gentes appellamus. + +Non perplexam, non intricatam movemus quaestionem. Non de ambiguis in +religione capitibus, quae plurimum + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + + +These two tribunals are open to those who are debarred from all +others; to these the powerless appeal; in them are defeated those +who are wont to win by might, those who put no bounds to their +presumption, those who consider cheap anything bought at the price +of human blood, those who defend injustice by injustice, men whose +wickedness is so manifest that they must needs be condemned by the +unanimous judgment of the good, and cannot be cleared before the bar +of their own souls. + +To this double tribunal we bring a new case. It is in very truth no +petty case such as private citizens are wont to bring against their +neighbors about dripping eaves or party walls; nor is it a case such +as nations frequently bring against one another about boundary lines +or the possession of a river or an island. No! It is a case which +concerns practically the entire expanse of the high seas, the right +of navigation, the freedom of trade!! Between us and the Spaniards +the following points are in dispute: Can the vast, the boundless +sea be the appanage of one kingdom alone, and it not the greatest? +Can any one nation have the right to prevent other nations which +so desire, from selling to one another, from bartering with one +another, actually from communicating with one another? Can any nation +give away what it never owned, or discover what already belonged to +some one else? Does a manifest injustice of long standing create a +specific right? + +In this controversy we appeal to those jurists among the Spanish +themselves who are especially skilled both in divine and human law; +we actually invoke the very laws of Spain itself. If that is of no +avail, and those whom reason clearly convicts of wrong are induced +by greed to maintain that stand, we invoke your majesty, ye Princes, +your good faith, ye Peoples, whoever and wherever ye may be. + +It is not an involved, it is not an intricate question that I am +raising. It is not a question of ambiguous points of + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +habere videntur obscuritatis, quae tantis tam diu animis decertata, +apud sapientes hoc fere certum reliquerunt, nusquam minus inveniri +veritatem quam ubi cogitur assensus. Non de statu nostrae +reipublicae, et libertate armis haud parta sed vindicata; de qua +recte statuere ii demum possunt qui iura patria Belgarum, mores +avitos, et institutum non in leges regnum, sed ex legibus principatum +accurate cognoverint, in qua tamen quaestione aequis iudicibus +extremae servitutis depulsa necessitas, subtilius inquirentibus +decreti* tot nationum publica auctoritas, infensis etiam et malevolis +adversariorum confessio nihil dubitandum reliquit. + +* [decreta (?); decreti is the reading of the 1633 and 1720 texts]. + +Sed quod hic proponimus nihil cum istis commune habet, nullius +indiget anxiae disquisitionis, non ex divini codicis pendet +explicatione, cuius multa multi non capiunt, non ex unius populi +scitis quae ceteri merito ignorant. + +Lex illa e cuius praescripto iudicandum est, inventu est non +difficilis, utpote eadem apud omnes; et facilis intellectu, utpote +nata cum singulis, singulorum mentibus insita. Ius autem quod petimus +tale est quod nec rex subditis negare debeat, neque Christianus non +Christianis. A natura enim oritur, quae ex aequo omnium parens est, +in omnes munifica, cuius imperium in eos extenditur qui gentibus +imperant, et apud eos sanctissimum est qui in pietate plurimum +profecerunt. + +Cognoscite hanc causam principes! cognoscite populi! si quid iniquum +postulamus, scitis quae vestra et e vobis eorum qui viciniores nobis +estis apud nos semper fuerit auctoritas! + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +theology which seem to be wrapped in the deepest obscurity, which +have been debated already so long and with such heat, that wise men +are almost convinced that truth is never so rarely found as when +assent thereto is forced. It is not a question of the status of our +government and of independence not won by arms but restored. On +this point those can reach a right decision who have an accurate +knowledge of the ancestral laws and hereditary customs of the people +of the Netherlands, and who have recognized that their state is not +a kingdom illegally founded but is a government based upon law. In +this matter, however, just judges no longer compelled to subordinate +their convictions have been persuaded; the public authority of many +nations has entirely satisfied those who were seeking a precedent; +and the admissions of our adversaries have left even the foolish and +malevolent no room for doubt. + +But what I here submit has nothing in common with these matters. It +calls for no troublesome investigation. It does not depend upon an +interpretation of Holy Writ in which many people find many things +they cannot understand, nor upon the decrees of any one nation of +which the rest of the world very properly knows nothing. + +The law by which our case must be decided is not difficult to +find, seeing that it is the same among all nations; and it is easy +to understand, seeing that it is innate in every individual and +implanted in his mind. Moreover the law to which we appeal is one +such as no king ought to deny to his subjects, and one no Christian +ought to refuse to a non-Christian. For it is a law derived from +nature, the common mother of us all, whose bounty falls on all, and +whose sway extends over those who rule nations, and which is held +most sacred by those who are most scrupulously just. + +Take cognizance of this cause, ye Princes, take cognizance of it, +ye Nations! If we are making an unjust demand, you know what your +authority and the authority of + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +Monete, parebimus. Quin si quid a nobis hac in re peccatum est, iram +vestram, odium denique humani generis non deprecamur. Sin contra se +res habet, quid vobis censendum, quid agendum sit, vestrae religioni +et aequitati relinquimus. + +Olim inter populos humaniores summum nefas habebatur armis eos +impetere qui res suas arbitris permitterent, contra qui tam +aequam condicionem recusarent, ii non ut unius sed ut omnium +hostes ope communi comprimebantur. Itaque eam in rem videmus icta +foedera, iudices constitutos. Reges ipsi validaeque gentes nihil +aeque gloriosum ac magnificum deputabant, quam aliorum coercere +insolentiam, aliorum infirmitatem atque innocentiam sublevare. +Qui si mos hodieque obtineret, ut humani nihil a se alienum* +homines arbitrarentur, profecto orbe non paulo pacatiore uteremur; +refrigesceret enim multorum audacia, et qui iustitiam utilitatis +causa nunc negligunt, iniustitiam damno suo dediscerent. + +* [Cf. Terence, Hautontimorumenos 77]. + +Sed hoc ut in causa istac non frustra forte speramus, ita illud certo +confidimus, bene rebus expensis existimaturos vos omnes imputari +nobis non magis posse pacis moras, quam belli causas; ac proinde +uti hactenus amici nobis faventes atque benevoli fuistis, ita vos +aut etiam magis in posterum fore, quo nihil optatius iis potest +contingere qui primam partem felicitatis putant bene facere, alteram +bene audire. + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +those of you who are our nearer neighbors has always been so far as +we are concerned. Caution us, we will obey. Verily, if we have done +any wrong in this our cause, we will not deprecate your wrath, nor +even the hatred of the human race. But if we are right, we leave to +your sense of righteousness and of fairness what you ought to think +about this matter and what course of action you ought to pursue. + +In ancient times among the more civilized peoples it was held to be +the greatest of all crimes to make war upon those who were willing +to submit to arbitration the settlement of their difficulties; but +against those who declined so fair an offer all others turned, and +with their combined resources overwhelmed them, not as enemies of +any one nation, but as enemies of them all alike. So for this very +object we see that treaties are made and arbiters appointed. Kings +themselves and powerful nations used to think that nothing was so +chivalrous or so noble as to coerce the insolent and to help the weak +and innocent. + +If today the custom held of considering that everything pertaining to +mankind pertained also to one’s self, we should surely live in a much +more peaceable world. For the presumptuousness of many would abate, +and those who now neglect justice on the pretext of expediency would +unlearn the lesson of injustice at their own expense. + +We have felt that perhaps we were not entertaining a foolish hope for +our cause. At all events we are confident that you will all recognize +after duly weighing the facts in the case that the delays to peace +can no more be laid to our charge than can the causes of war; and as +hitherto you have been indulgent, even favorably disposed to us, we +feel sure that you will not only remain in this mind, but be even +more friendly to us in the future. Nothing more to be desired than +this can come to men who think that the first condition of happiness +is good deeds; the second, good repute. + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + + + + +CAPVT I + +_Iure gentium quibusvis ad quosvis liberam esse navigationem_ + + +Propositum est nobis breviter ac dilucide demonstrare ius esse +Batavis, hoc est, Ordinum Foederatorum Belgico-Germaniae subditis +ad Indos, ita uti navigant navigare, cumque ipsis commercia colere. +Fundamentum struemus hanc iuris gentium, quod primarium vocant +regulam certissimam, cuius perspicua atque immutabilis est ratio; +licere cuivis genti quamvis alteram adire, cumque ea negotiari. + +Deus hoc ipse per naturam loquitur, cum ea cuncta quibus vita +indiget, omnibus locis suppeditari a natura non vult: artibus etiam +aliis alias gentes dat excellere. Quo ista, nisi quod voluit mutua +egestate et copia humanas foveri amicitias, ne singuli se putantes +sibi ipsis sufficere, hoc ipso redderentur insociabiles? Nunc factum +est ut gens altera alterius suppleret inopiam, divinae iustitiae +instituto, ut eo modo (sicut Plinius dicit[1a]) quod genitum esset +uspiam, apud omnes natum videretur. Poetas itaque canentes audimus: + + _Nec vero terrae ferre omnes omnia possunt._[2a] + +Item: + + _Excudent alii_, + +et quae sequuntur.[3a] + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + + + + +CHAPTER I + +_By the Law of Nations navigation is free to all persons whatsoever_ + + +My intention is to demonstrate briefly and clearly that the +Dutch--that is to say, the subjects of the United Netherlands--have +the right to sail to the East Indies, as they are now doing, and to +engage in trade with the people there. I shall base my argument on +the following most specific and unimpeachable axiom of the Law of +Nations, called a primary rule or first principle, the spirit of +which is self-evident and immutable, to wit: Every nation is free to +travel to every other nation, and to trade with it. + +God Himself says this speaking through the voice of nature; and +inasmuch as it is not His will to have Nature supply every place with +all the necessaries of life, He ordains that some nations excel in +one art and others in another. Why is this His will, except it be +that He wished human friendships to be engendered by mutual needs and +resources, lest individuals deeming themselves entirely sufficient +unto themselves should for that very reason be rendered unsociable? +So by the decree of divine justice it was brought about that one +people should supply the needs of another, in order, as Pliny the +Roman writer says,[1] that in this way, whatever has been produced +anywhere should seem to have been destined for all. Vergil also sings +in this wise: + + “_Not every plant on every soil will grow_,”[2] + +and in another place: + + “_Let others better mould the running mass + Of metals_,” etc.[3] + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + + +Hoc igitur qui tollunt, illam laudatissimam tollunt humani generis +societatem, tollunt mutuas benefaciendi occasiones, naturam denique +ipsam violant. Nam et ille quem Deus terris circumfudit Oceanus, +undique et undique versus navigabilis, et ventorum stati aut +extraordinarii flatus, non ab eadem semper, et a nulla non aliquando +regione spirantes, nonne significant satis concessum a natura cunctis +gentibus ad cunctas aditum? Hoc Seneca[4a] summum Naturae beneficium +putat, quod et vento gentes locis dissipatas miscuit, et sua omnia in +regiones ita descripsit, ut necessarium mortalibus esset inter ipsos +commercium. Hoc igitur ius ad cunctas gentes aequaliter pertinet: +quod clarissimi Iurisconsulti[5a] eo usque producunt, ut negent ullam +rempublicam aut Principem prohibere in universum posse, quo minus +alii ad subditos suos accedant, et cum illis negotientur. Hinc ius +descendit hospitale sanctissimum: hinc querelae: + + _Quod genus hoc hominum? quaeve hunc tam barbara morem + Permittit patria? hospitio prohibemur harenae._[6a] + +Et alibi + + _litusque rogamus + Innocuum et cunctis undamque auramque patentem._[7a] + +Et scimus bella quaedam ex hac causa coepisse, ut Megarensibus + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + + +Those therefore who deny this law, destroy this most praise-worthy +bond of human fellowship, remove the opportunities for doing mutual +service, in a word do violence to Nature herself. For do not the +ocean, navigable in every direction with which God has encompassed +all the earth, and the regular and the occasional winds which blow +now from one quarter and now from another, offer sufficient proof +that Nature has given to all peoples a right of access to all +other peoples? Seneca[4] thinks this is Nature’s greatest service, +that by the wind she united the widely scattered peoples, and yet +did so distribute all her products over the earth that commercial +intercourse was a necessity to mankind. Therefore this right belongs +equally to all nations. Indeed the most famous jurists[5] extend +its application so far as to deny that any state or any ruler can +debar foreigners from having access to their subjects and trading +with them. Hence is derived that law of hospitality which is of the +highest sanctity; hence the complaint of the poet Vergil: + + “_What men, what monsters, what inhuman race, + What laws, what barbarous customs of the place, + Shut up a desert shore to drowning men, + And drive us to the cruel seas again._”[6] + +And: + + “_To beg what you without your want may spare-- + The common water, and the common air._”[7] + +We know that certain wars have arisen over this very matter; such for +example as the war of the Megarians against the + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +in Athenienses.[8a] Bononiensibus in. Venetos,[9a] Castellanis etiam +in Americanos has iustas potuisse belli causas esse, et ceteris +probabiliores Victoria putat,[10a] si peregrinari et degere apud +illos prohiberentur, si arcerentur a participatione earum rerum quae +iure gentium aut moribus communia sunt, si denique ad commercia non +admitterentur. + +Cui simile est quod in Mosis[11a] historia et inde apud Augustinum +legimus,[12a] iusta bella Israelitas contra Amorrhaeos gessisse, +quia innoxius transitus denegabatur; qui IVRE HVMANAE SOCIETATIS +aequissimo patere debebat. Et hoc nomine Hercules Orchomeniorum, +Graeci sub Agamemnone Mysorum Regi arma intulerunt,[13a] quasi libera +essent naturaliter itinera, ut Baldus dixit.[14a] Accusanturque + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +Athenians,[8] and that of the Bolognese against the Venetians.[9] +Again, Victoria[10] holds that the Spaniards could have shown just +reasons for making war upon the Aztecs and the Indians in America, +more plausible reasons certainly than were alleged, if they really +were prevented from traveling or sojourning among those peoples, +and were denied the right to share in those things which by the Law +of Nations or by Custom are common to all, and finally if they were +debarred from trade. + +We read of a similar case in the history of Moses,[11] which we find +mentioned also in the writings of Augustine,[12] where the Israelites +justly smote with the edge of the sword the Amorites because they had +denied the Israelites an innocent passage through their territory, +a right which according to the Law of Human Society ought in all +justice to have been allowed. In defense of this principle Hercules +attacked the king of Orchomenus in Boeotia; and the Greeks under +their leader Agamemnon waged war against the king of Mysia[13] on the +ground that, as Baldus[14] has said, high roads were free + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +a Germanis apud Tacitum[15a] Romani, quod colloquia congressusque +gentium arcerent, fluminaque et terras et coelum quodam modo ipsum +clauderent. Nec ullus titulus Christianis quondam in Saracenos magis +placuit, quam quod per illos terrae Iudaeae aditu arcerentur.[16a] + +Sequitur ex sententia Lusitanos etiamsi domini essent earum regionum +ad quas Batavi proficiscuntur, iniuriam tamen facturos si aditum +Batavis et mercatum praecluderent. + +Quanto igitur iniquius est volentes aliquos a volentium populorum +commercio secludi, illorum opera quorum in potestate nec populi isti +sunt, nec illud ipsum, qua iter est, quando latrones etiam et piratas +non alio magis nomine detestamur, quam quod illi hominum inter se +commeatus obsident atque infestant? + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +by nature. Again, as we read in Tacitus,[15] the Germans accused the +Romans of ‘preventing all intercourse between them and of closing up +to them the rivers and roads, and almost the very air of heaven’. +When in days gone by the Christians made crusades against the +Saracens, no other pretext was so welcome or so plausible as that +they were denied by the infidels free access to the Holy Land.[16] + +It follows therefore that the Portuguese, even if they had been +sovereigns in those parts to which the Dutch make voyages, would +nevertheless be doing them an injury if they should forbid them +access to those places and from trading there. + +Is it not then an incalculably greater injury for nations which +desire reciprocal commercial relations to be debarred therefrom +by the acts of those who are sovereigns neither of the nations +interested, nor of the element over which their connecting high road +runs? Is not that the very cause which for the most part prompts us +to execrate robbers and pirates, namely, that they beset and infest +our trade routes? + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + + + + +CAPUT II + +_Lusitanos nullum habere ius dominii in eos Indos ad quos Batavi +navigant titulo inventionis_ + +Non esse autem Lusitanos earum partium dominos ad quas Batavi +accedunt, puta Iavae, Taprobanae, partis maximae Moluccarum, +certissimo argumento colligimus, quia dominus nemo est eius rei +quam nec ipse umquam nec alter ipsius nomine possedit. Habent +insulae istae quas dicimus et semper habuerunt suos reges, suam +rempublican, suas leges, sua iura; Lusitanis mercatus, ut aliis +gentibus conceditur; itaque et tributa cum pendunt, et ius mercandi +a principibus exorant, dominos se non esse, sed ut externos advenire +satis testantur; ne habitant quidem nisi precario. Et quamquam ad +dominium titulus non sufficiat, quia et possessio requiritur, cum +aliud sit rem habere, aliud ius ad rem consequendam, tamen ne titulum +quidem dominii in eas partes Lusitanis ullum esse affirmo, quem non +ipsis eripuerit Doctorum, et quidem Hispanorum sententia. + +Primum si dicent inventionis praemio eas terras sibi cessisse, nec +ius, nec verum dicent. Invenire enim non illud est oculis usurpare, +sed apprehendere, ut Gordiani epistola + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + + + + +CHAPTER II + +_The Portuguese have no right by title of discovery to sovereignty +over the East Indies to which the Dutch make voyages_ + + +The Portuguese are not sovereigns of those parts of the East Indies +to which the Dutch sail, that is to say, Java, Ceylon,* and many of +the Moluccas. This I prove by the incontrovertible argument that no +one is sovereign of a thing which he himself has never possessed, +and which no one else has ever held in his name. These islands of +which we speak, now have and always have had their own kings, their +own government, their own laws, and their own legal systems. The +inhabitants allow the Portuguese to trade with them, just as they +allow other nations the same privilege. Therefore, inasmuch as the +Portuguese pay tolls, and obtain leave to trade from the rulers +there, they thereby give sufficient proof that they do not go there +as sovereigns but as foreigners. Indeed they only reside there on +suffrance. And although the title to sovereignty is not sufficient, +inasmuch as possession is a prerequisite--for having a thing is +quite different from having the right to acquire it--nevertheless I +affirm that in those places the Portuguese have no title at all to +sovereignty which is not denied them by the opinion of learned men, +even of the Spaniards. + +* [Taprobane was the ancient name of Ceylon. Milton speaks of it in +Paradise Regained IV, 75: + + “And utmost Indian Isle Taprobane.”] + + +First of all, if they say that those lands have come under their +jurisdiction as the reward of discovery, they lie, both in law and in +fact. For to discover a thing is not only to seize it with the eyes +but to take real possession thereof, + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +ostenditur;[17a] unde Grammatici[18a] invenire et occupare pro +verbis ponunt idem significantibus; et tota Latinitas quod adepti +sumus, id demum invenisse nos dicit, cui oppositum est perdere. Quin +et ipsa naturalis ratio, et legum diserta verba, et eruditiorum +interpretatio[19a] manifeste ostendit, ad titulum dominii parandum +eam demum sufficere inventionem quae cum possessione coniuncta est, +ubi scilicet res mobiles apprehenduntur, aut immobiles terminis atque +custodia sepiuntur;[20a] quod in hac specie dici nullo modo potest. +Nam praesidia illic Lusitani nulla habent. Quid quod ne reperisse +quidem Indiam ullo modo dici possunt Lusitani, quae tot a saeculis +fuerat celeberrima. Iam ab Horati tempore:[21a] + + _Impiger extremos currit mercator ad Indos + Per mare pauperiem fugiens._ + +Taprobanes pleraque quam exacte nobis Romani descripsere?[22a] Iam +vero et ceteras insulas ante Lusitanos non + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +as Gordian[17] points out in one of his letters. For that reason +the Grammarians[18] give the same signification to the expressions +‘to find’ and ‘to occupy’; and all Latinity applies the phrase +‘we have found’ only to the thing which ‘we have seized’; and the +opposite of this is ‘to lose’. However, natural reason itself, the +precise words of the law, and the interpretation of the more learned +men[19] all show clearly that the act of discovery is sufficient +to give a clear title of sovereignty only when it is accompanied +by actual possession. And this only applies of course to movables +or to such immovables as are actually inclosed within fixed bounds +and guarded.[20] No such claim can be established in the present +case, because the Portuguese maintain no garrisons in those regions. +Neither can the Portuguese by any possible means claim to have +discovered India, a country which was famous centuries and centuries +ago! It was already known as early as the time of the emperor +Augustus as the following quotation from Horace shows: + + “_That worst of evils, poverty, to shun + Dauntless through seas, and rocks, and fires you run + To furthest Ind_,”[21] + +And have not the Romans described for us in the most exact way the +greater part of Ceylon?[22] And as far as the other islands are +concerned, not only the neighboring + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +finitimi tantum Persae et Arabes, sed Europaei etiam, praecipue +Veneti noverant. + +Praeterea inventio nihil iuris tribuit, nisi in ea quae ante +inventionem nullius fuerant.[23a] Atqui Indi cum ad eos Lusitani +venerunt, etsi partim idololatrae, partim Mahumetani erant, +gravibusque peccatis involuti, nihilominus publice atque privatim +rerum possessionumque suarum dominium habuerunt, quod illis sine +iusta causa eripi non potuit.[24a] Ita certissimis rationibus post +alios auctores maximi nominis concludit Hispanus Victoria:[25a] ‘Non +possunt’, inquit, ‘Christiani saeculares aut Ecclesiastici potestate +civili et principatu privare infideles, eo dumtaxat titulo, quia +infideles sunt, nisi ab eis alia iniuria profecta sit’. + +Fides enim, ut recte inquit Thomas[26a] non tollit ius naturale aut +humanum ex quo dominia profecta sunt. Immo credere infideles non esse +rerum suarum dominos, haereticum est; et res ab illis possessas illis +ob hoc ipsum eripere furtum est et rapina, non minus quam si idem +fiat Christianis. + +Recte igitur dicit Victoria[27a] non magis ista ex causa Hispanis ius +in Indos quaesitum, quam Indis fuisset in Hispanos, si qui illorum +priores in Hispaniam venissent. Neque vero sunt Indi Orientis amentes +et insensati, sed + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +Persians and Arabs, but even Europeans, particularly the Venetians, +knew them long before the Portuguese did. + +But in addition to all this, discovery _per se_ gives no legal +rights over things unless before the alleged discovery they were +_res nullius_.[23] Now these Indians of the East, on the arrival +of the Portuguese, although some of them were idolators, and some +Mohammedans, and therefore sunk in grievous sin, had none the less +perfect public and private ownership of their goods and possessions, +from which they could not be dispossessed without just cause.[24] The +Spanish writer Victoria,[25] following other writers of the highest +authority, has the most certain warrant for his conclusion that +Christians, whether of the laity or of the clergy, cannot deprive +infidels of their civil power and sovereignty merely on the ground +that they are infidels, unless some other wrong has been done by them. + +For religious belief, as Thomas Aquinas[26] rightly observes, does +not do away with either natural or human law from which sovereignty +is derived. Surely it is a heresy to believe that infidels are not +masters of their own property; consequently, to take from them their +possessions on account of their religious belief is no less theft and +robbery than it would be in the case of Christians. + +Victoria then is right in saying[27] that the Spaniards have no more +legal right over the East Indians because of their religion, than the +East Indians would have had over the Spaniards if they had happened +to be the first foreigners to come to Spain. Nor are the East Indians +stupid and unthinking; on the contrary they are intelligent and +shrewd, + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +ingeniosi et solertes, ita ut ne hinc quidem praetextus subiciendi +possit desumi, qui tamen per se satis est manifestae iniquitatis. +Iam olim Plutarchus πρόφασιν πλεονεξίας fuisse dicit ἡμερῶσαι +τὰ βαρβαρικὰ,* improbam scilicet alieni cupiditatem hoc sibi +velum obtendere, quod barbariem mansuefacit. Et nunc etiam color +ille redigendi invitas gentes ad mores humaniores, qui Graecis +olim et Alexandro usurpatus est, a Theologis omnibus, praesertim +Hispanis,[28a] improbus atque impius censetur. + +* [Plutarch, Pompeius LXX]. + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +so that a pretext for subduing them on the ground of their character +could not be sustained. Such a pretext on its very face is an +injustice. Plutarch said long ago that the civilizing of barbarians +had been made the pretext for aggression, which is to say that +a greedy longing for the property of another often hides itself +behind such a pretext. And now that well-known pretext of forcing +nations into a higher state of civilization against their will, the +pretext once seized by the Greeks and by Alexander the Great,* is +considered by all theologians, especially those of Spain,[28] to be +unjust and unholy. + +* [Cf. Plutarch, Of the Fortune or Virtue of Alexander the Great I, +5]. + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + + + + +CAPVT III + +_Lusitanos in Indos non habere ius dominii titulo donationis +Pontificiae_ + + +Secundo si Pontificis Alexandri Sexti divisione utentur, ante omnia +illud attendendum est, volueritne Pontifex contentiones tantum +Lusitanorum et Castellanorum dirimere, quod potuit sane, ut lectus +inter illos arbiter, sicut et ipsi Reges iam ante inter se ea de re +foedera quaedam pepigerant;[29a] et hoc si ita est, cum res inter +alios acta sit, ad ceteras gentes non pertinebit; an vero prope +singulos mundi trientes duobus populis donare. Quod etsi voluisset, +et potuisset Pontifex, non tamen continuo sequeretur dominos eorum +locorum esse Lusitanos, cum donatio dominum non faciat, sed secuta +traditio;[30a] quare et huic causae possessio deberet accedere. + +Tum vero si quis ius ipsum sive divinum sive humanum scrutari volet, +non autem ex commodo suo metiri, facile + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + + + + +CHAPTER III + +_The Portuguese have no right of sovereignty over the East Indies by +virtue of title based on the Papal Donation_ + + +Next, if the partition made by the Pope Alexander VI* is to be +used by the Portuguese as authority for jurisdiction in the East +Indies, then before all things else two points must be taken into +consideration. + +* [The Cambridge Modern History, I, 23-24, has a good paragraph upon +this famous Papal Bull of May 14, 1493 (modified June 7, 1494, by +treaty of Tordesillas).] + +First, did the Pope merely desire to settle the disputes between the +Portuguese and the Spaniards? + +This was clearly within his power, inasmuch as he had been chosen +to arbitrate between them, and in fact the kings of both countries +had previously concluded certain treaties with each other on this +very matter.[29] Now if this be the case, seeing that the question +concerns only the Portuguese and Spaniards, the decision of the Pope +will of course not affect the other peoples of the world. + +Second, did the Pope intend to give to two nations, each one third of +the whole world? + +But even if the Pope had intended and had had the power to make such +a gift, still it would not have made the Portuguese sovereigns of +those places. For it is not a donation that makes a sovereign, it is +the consequent delivery of a thing[30] and the subsequent possession +thereof. + +Now, if any one will scrutinize either divine or human law, not +merely with a view to his own interests, he will + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +deprehendet donationem eiusmodi ut rei alienae nullius esse momenti. +Disputationem de potestate Pontificis, hoc est Episcopi Romanae +Ecclesiae, hic non aggrediar, nec quicquam ponam nisi ex hypothesi, +hoc est, quod confitentur homines inter eos eruditissimi, qui +plurimum Pontificiae tribuunt auctoritati, maxime Hispani, qui cum +pro sua perspicacia facile vident Dominum Christum omne a se terrenum +imperium abdicasse,[31a] mundi certe totius dominium, qua homo fuit, +non habuisse, et si habuisset, nullis tamen argumentis astrui posse +ius illud in Petrum, aut Romanam Ecclesiam Vicarii iure translatum; +cum alias etiam certum sit, multa Christum habuisse in quae Pontifex +non successerit,[32a] intrepide affirmarunt (utar ipsorum verbis) +Pontificem non esse dominum civilem aut temporalem totius orbis.[33a] +Immo etiam si quam talem potestatem in mundo haberet, eam tamen non +recte exerciturum, cum spirituali sua iurisdictione contentus esse +debeat, saecularibus autem Principibus eam concedere nullo modo +posse. Tum vero si quam habeat potestatem, eam habere, ut loquuntur +in ordine ad spiritualia.[34a] Quocirca nullam illi esse potestatem +in populos infideles, ut qui ad Ecclesiam non pertineant.[35a] + +Unde sequitur ex sententia Caietani et Victoriae et + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +easily apprehend that a donation of this kind, dealing with the +property of others, is of no effect. I shall not enter here upon any +discussion as to the power of the Pope, that is the Bishop of the +Roman Church, nor shall I advance anything but a hypothesis which +is accepted by men of the greatest erudition, who lay the greatest +stress on the power of the Pope, especially the Spaniards, who with +their perspicacity easily see that our Lord Jesus Christ when he +said “My kingdom is not of this world” thereby renounced all earthly +power,[31] and that while He was on earth as a man, He certainly +did not have dominion over the whole world, and if He had had such +dominion, still by no arguments could such a right be transferred +to Peter, or be transmitted to the Roman Church by authority of the +‘Vicar of Christ’; indeed, inasmuch as Christ had many things to +which the Pope did not succeed,[32] it has been boldly affirmed--and +I shall use the very words of the writers--that the Pope is neither +civil nor temporal Lord of the whole world.[33] On the contrary, even +if the Pope did have any such power on earth, still he would not be +right in using it, because he ought to be satisfied with his own +spiritual jurisdiction, and be utterly unable to grant that power +to temporal princes. So then, if the Pope has any power at all, he +has it, as they say, in the spiritual realm only.[34] Therefore he +has no authority over infidel nations, for they do not belong to the +Church.[35] + +It follows therefore according to the opinions of + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +potioris partis tam Theologorum quam Canonistarum,[36a] non esse +idoneum titulum adversus Indos, vel quia Papa dederit provincias +illas tamquam dominus absolute, vel quia non recognoscunt dominium +Papae; atque adeo ne Saracenos quidem isto titulo umquam spoliatos. + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +Cajetan and Victoria and the more authoritative of the Theologians +and writers on Canon Law,[36] that there is no clear title against +the East Indians, based either on the ground that the Pope made an +absolute grant of those provinces as if he were their sovereign, +or on the pretext that the East Indians do not recognize his +sovereignty. Indeed, and in truth, it may be affirmed that no such +pretext as that was ever invoked to despoil even the Saracens. + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + + + + +CAPVT IV + +_Lusitanos in Indos non habere ius dominii titulo belli_ + + +His igitur sublatis cum manifestum sit, quod et Victoria +scribit,[37a] Hispanos ad terras remotiores illas navigantes nullum +ius secum attulisse occupandi eas provincias, unus dumtaxat titulus +belli restat, qui et ipse si iustus esset, tamen ad dominium +proficere non posset, nisi iure praedae, hoc est post occupationem. +Atqui tantum abest ut Lusitani eas res occupaverint, ut cum plerisque +gentibus quas Batavi accesserunt, bellum eo tempore nullum haberent. +Et sic igitur nullum ius illis quaeri potuit, cum etiam si quas ab +Indis pertulissent iniurias, eas longa pace et amicis commerciis +remisisse merito censeantur. + +Quamquam ne fuit quidem quod bello obtenderent. Nam qui Barbaros +bello persequuntur ut Americanos Hispani, duo solent praetexere, quod +ab illis commercio arceantur, aut quod doctrinam verae religionis +illi nolent agnoscere. Et commercia quidem Lusitani ab Indis +impetrarunt,[38a] ut hac in parte nihil habeant quod querantur. + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + + + + +CHAPTER IV + +_The Portuguese have no right of sovereignty over the East Indies by +title of war_ + + +Since it is clear, (as Victoria also says),[37] from the refutation +of any claim to title from the Pope’s Donation, that the Spaniards +when they sailed to those distant lands did not carry with them any +right to occupy them as provinces, only one kind of title remains to +be considered, namely, that based upon war. But even if this title +could be justified, it would not serve to establish sovereignty, +except by right of conquest, that is to say, occupation would be +a prerequisite. But the Portuguese were as far as possible from +occupation of those lands. They were not even at war with most of +the peoples whom the Dutch visited. So therefore no legal claim +could be established there by the Portuguese, because even if they +had suffered wrongs from the East Indians, it might reasonably be +considered by the long peace and friendly commercial relations that +those injuries had been forgiven. + +Indeed there was no pretext at all for going to war. For those +who force war upon barbarous peoples, as the Spaniards did upon +the aborigines of America, commonly allege one of two pretexts: +either that they have been refused the right to trade, or that the +barbarians are unwilling to acknowledge the doctrines of the True +Faith. But as the Portuguese actually obtained from the East Indians +the right to trade,[38] they have, on that score at least, no + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +Alter vero obtentus nihilo est iustior, quam ille Graecorum in +Barbaros, quo Boëthius respexit:[39a] + + _An distant quia dissidentque mores, + Iniustas acies, et fera bella movent, + Alternisque volunt perire telis? + Non est iusta satis saevitiae ratio._ + +Ista autem et Thomae et Concili Toletani et Gregori et Theologorum, +Canonistarum, Iurisprudentiumque fere omnium conclusio est:[40a] +Quantumcumque fides annuntiata sit Barbaris (nam de his qui +subditi ante fuerunt Christianis Principibus item de Apostatis +alia est quaestio) probabiliter et sufficienter, et si noluerint +eam respicere, non tamen licere hac ratione eos bello persequi, et +spoliare bonis suis.[41a] + +Operae pretium est in hanc rem ipsa Caietani verba describere:[42a] +‘Quidam’, ait, ‘infideles nec de iure nec de facto subsunt secundum +temporalem iurisdictionem Principibus Christianis, ut inveniuntur +pagani, qui numquam imperio Romano subditi fuerunt, terras +habitantes, in quibus Christianum numquam fuit nomen. Horum namque +domini, quamvis infideles, legitimi domini sunt, sive regali sive +politico regimine gubernantur; nec sunt propter infidelitatem a +dominio suorum privati, cum dominium sit + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +grounds of complaint. Nor is there any better justification for +the other pretext than the one alleged by the Greeks against the +barbarians, to which Boëthius makes the following allusion: + + “_Unjust and cruel wars they wage, + And haste with flying darts the death to meet or deal. + No right nor reason can they show; + ’Tis but because their lands and laws are not the same._”[39] + +Moreover the verdict of Thomas Aquinas, of the Council of Toledo, of +Gregory, and of nearly all theologians, canonists, and jurists, is as +follows:[40] However persuasively and sufficiently the True Faith has +been preached to the heathen--former subjects of Christian princes +or apostates are quite another question--if they are unwilling to +heed it, that is not sufficient cause to justify war upon them, or to +despoil them of their goods.[41] + +It is worth while on this point to quote the actual words of +Cajetan:[42] ‘There are some infidels who are neither in law nor in +fact under the temporal jurisdiction of Christian princes; just as +there were pagans who were never, subjects of the Roman Empire, and +yet who inhabit lands where the name of Christ was never heard. Now +their rulers, though heathen, are legitimate rulers, whether the +people live under a monarchical or a democratic régime. They are not +to be deprived of sovereignty over their possessions + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +ex iure positivo, et infidelitas ex divino iure, quod non tollit ius +positivum, ut superius in quaestione habitum est. Et de his nullam +scio legem quoad temporalia. Contra hos nullus Rex, nullus Imperator, +nec Ecclesia Romana potest movere bellum ad occupandas terras eorum, +aut subiciendos illos temporaliter; quia nulla subest causa iusta +belli, cum Iesus Christus Rex Regum, cui data est potestas in caelo +et in terra, miserit ad capiendam possessionem mundi, non milites +armatae militiae, sed sanctos praedicatores, sicut oves inter lupos. +Vnde nec in testamento veteri, ubi armata manu possessio erat +capienda, terrae infidelium inductum lego bellum alicui propter hoc +quod non erant fideles, sed quia nolebant dare transitum, vel quia +eos offenderant, ut Madianitae, vel ut recuperarent sua, divina +largitate sibi concessa. Vnde GRAVISSIME PECCAREMVS, si fidem Christi +Iesu per hanc viam ampliare contenderemus; nec essemus LEGITIMI +DOMINI illorum, sed MAGNA LATROCINIA committeremus, et teneremur +ad restitutionem, utpote INIVSTI DEBELLATORES AVT OCCVPATORES. +Mittendi essent ad hos praedicatores boni viri, qui verbo et exemplo +converterent eos ad Deum; et non qui eos opprimant, spolient, +scandalizent, subiciant, et duplo gehennae filios faciant, more +Pharisaeorum’. + +Et in hanc formam audimus saepe a Senatu in Hispania, et Theologis +praecipue Dominicanis decretum fuisse, sola verbi praedicatione non +bello Americanos ad fidem traducendos; libertatem etiam quae illis eo +nomine erepta esset, + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +because of their unbelief, since sovereignty is a matter of positive +law, and unbelief is a matter of divine law, which cannot annul +positive law, as has been argued above. In fact I know of no law +against such unbelievers as regards their temporal possessions. +Against them no King, no Emperor, not even the Roman Church, +can declare war for the purpose of occupying their lands, or of +subjecting them to temporal sway. For there is no just cause for war, +since Jesus Christ the King of Kings, to whom all power was given in +heaven and on earth, sent out for the conquest of the world not armed +soldiers, but holy disciples, “as sheep in the midst of wolves.” Nor +do I read in the Old Testament, when possession had to be obtained +by force of arms, that the Israelites waged war on any heathen land +because of the unbelief of its inhabitants; but it was because the +heathen refused them the right of innocent passage, or attacked them, +as the Midianites did; or it was to recover the possessions which +had been bestowed upon them by divine bounty. Wherefore we should be +most miserable sinners if we should attempt to extend the religion +of Jesus Christ by such means. Nor should we be their lawful rulers, +but, on the contrary, we should be committing great robberies, and +be compelled to make restitution as unjust conquerors and invaders. +There must be sent to them as preachers, good men to convert them to +God by their teaching and example; not men who will oppress them, +despoil them, subdue and proselytize them, and “make them twofold +more the children of hell than themselves,”* after the manner of the +Pharisees’. + +* [Matthew XXIII, 15]. + +Indeed I have often heard that it has been decreed by the Council +of Spain, and by the Churchmen, especially the Dominicans, that the +Americans (Aztecs and Indians) should be converted to the Faith by +the preaching of the Word alone, and not by war, and even that their +liberty of + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +restitui debere, quod a Paulo tertio Pontifice, et Carolo V +Imperatore Hispaniarum Rege comprobatum dicitur. + +Omittimus iam Lusitanos in plerisque partibus religionem nihil +promovere, ne operam quidem dare, cum soli lucro invigilent. Immo et +illud ibi verum esse, quod de Hispanis in America Hispanus scripsit, +non miracula, non signa audiri, non exempla vitae religiosae, quae +ad eandem fidem alios possent impellere, sed multa scandala, multa +facinora, multas impietates. + +Quare cum et possessio et titulus deficiat possessionis, neque res +dicionesque Indorum pro talibus haberi debeant quasi nullius ante +fuissent, neque cum illorum essent, ab aliis recte acquiri potuerint, +sequitur Indorum populos, de quibus nos loquimur, Lusitanorum +proprios non esse, sed liberos, et sui iuris; de quo ipsi doctores +Hispani non dubitant.[43a] + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +which they had been robbed in the name of religion should be +restored. This policy is said to have received the approval of Pope +Paul III, and of Emperor Charles V, King of the Spains. + +I pass over the fact that the Portuguese in most places do not +further the extension of the faith, or indeed, pay any attention to +it at all, since they are alive only to the acquisition of wealth. +Nay, the very thing that is true of them, is the very thing which has +been written of the Spaniards in America by a Spaniard, namely, that +nothing is heard of miracles or wonders or examples of devout and +religious life such as might convert others to the same faith, but on +the other hand no end of scandals, of crimes, of impious deeds. + +Wherefore, since both possession and a title of possession are +lacking, and since the property and the sovereignty of the East +Indies ought not to be considered as if they had previously been +_res nullius_, and since, as they belong to the East Indians, they +could not have been acquired legally by other persons, it follows +that the East Indian nations in question are not the chattels of the +Portuguese, but are free men and _sui juris_. This is not denied even +by the Spanish jurists themselves.[43] + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + + + + +CAPUT V + +_Mare ad Indos aut ius eo navigandi non esse proprium Lusitanorum +titulo occupationis_ + + +Si ergo in populos terrasque et diciones Lusitani ius nullum +quaesiverunt, videamus an mare et navigationem, aut mercaturam +sui iuris facere potuerint. De mari autem prima sit consideratio, +quod cum passim in iure aut nullius, aut commune, aut publicum +iuris gentium dicatur, hae voces quid significent ita commodissime +explicabitur, si Poetas ab Hesiodo omnes, et Philosophos; et +Iurisconsultos veteres imitati in tempora distinguamus, ea, quae +tempore forte haud longo, certa tamen ratione, et sui natura discreta +sunt. Neque nobis vitio verti debet si in iuris a natura procedentis +explicatione auctoritate et verbis eorum utimur quos constat naturali +iudicio plurimum valuisse. + +Sciendum est igitur in primordiis vitae humanae aliud quam nunc est +dominium, aliud communionem fuisse.[44a] Nam dominium nunc proprium +quid significat, quod scilicet ita est alicuius ut alterius non sit +eodem modo. Commune autem dicimus, cuius proprietas inter plures +consortio + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + + + + +CHAPTER V + +_Neither the Indian Ocean nor the right of navigation thereon belongs +to the Portuguese by title of occupation_ + + +If therefore the Portuguese have acquired no legal right over the +nations of the East Indies, and their territory and sovereignty, +let us consider whether they have been able to obtain exclusive +jurisdiction over the sea and its navigation or over trade. Let us +first consider the case of the sea. + +Now, in the legal phraseology of the Law of Nations, the sea is +called indifferently the property of no one (_res nullius_), or +a common possession (_res communis_), or public property (_res +publica_). It will be most convenient to explain the signification of +these terms if we follow the practice of all the poets since Hesiod, +of the philosophers and jurists of the past, and distinguish certain +epochs, the divisions of which are marked off perhaps not so much by +intervals of time as by obvious logic and essential character. And we +ought not to be criticised if in our explanation of a law deriving +from nature, we use the authority and definition of those whose +natural judgment admittedly is held in the highest esteem. + +It is therefore necessary to explain that in the earliest stages of +human existence both sovereignty and common possession had meanings +other than those which they bear at the present time.[44] For +nowadays sovereignty means a particular kind of proprietorship, such +in fact that it absolutely excludes like possession by any one else. +On the other hand, we call a thing ‘common’ when its ownership + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +quodam aut consensu collata est exclusis aliis. Linguarum paupertas +coegit voces easdem in re non eadem usurpare. Et sic ista nostri +moris nomina ad ius illud pristinum similitudine quadam et imagine +referuntur. Commune igitur tunc non aliud fuit quam quod simpliciter +proprio opponitur; dominium autem facultas non iniusta utendi re +communi, quem usum Scholasticis[45a] visum est facti non iuris +vocare, quia qui nunc in iure usus vocatur, proprium est quiddam, aut +ut illorum more loquar, privative ad alios dicitur. + +Iure primo Gentium, quod et Naturale interdum dicitur, et quod poetae +alibi aetate aurea, alibi Saturni aut Iustitiae regno depingunt, +nihil proprium fuit; quod Cicero dixit: ‘Sunt autem privata nulla +natura’. Et Horatius:[46a] + + _Nam PROPRIAE telluris ERVM NATVRA neque illum + Nec me nec quemquam statuit._ + +Neque enim potuit natura dominos distinguere. Hoc igitur significatu +res omnes eo tempore communes fuisse dicimus, idem innuentes quod +poetae cum primos homines in medium quaesivisse, et Iustitiam casto +foedere res medias tenuisse* dicunt; quod ut clarius explicent, +negant eo tempore campos limite partitos, aut commercia fuisse ulla. + +* [in medium quaerebant, Vergil, Georgica I, 127; medias casto res +more tenebas, Avienus, Aratus, 298 (W. P. Mustard)]. + + _promiscua rura per agros + Praestiterant cunctis COMMVNIA cuncta VIDERI._[47a] + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +or possession is held by several persons jointly according to a kind +of partnership or mutual agreement from which all other persons are +excluded. Poverty of language compels the use of the same words for +things that are not the same. And so because of a certain similarity +and likeness, our modern nomenclature is applied to that state of +primitive law. Now, in ancient times, ‘common’ meant simply the +opposite of ‘particular’; and ‘sovereignty’ or ‘ownership’, meant +the privilege of lawfully using common property. This seemed to the +Scholastics[45] to be a use in fact but not in law, because what now +in law is called use, is a particular right, or if I may use their +phraseology, is, in respect to other persons, a privative right. + +In the primitive law of nations, which is sometimes called Natural +Law, and which the poets sometimes portray as having existed in a +Golden Age, and sometimes in the reign of Saturn or of Justice, there +was no particular right. As Cicero says: ‘But nothing is by nature +private property’. And Horace:[46] ‘For nature has decreed to be +the master of private soil neither him, nor me, nor anyone else’. +For nature knows no sovereigns. Therefore in this sense we say that +in those ancient times all things were held in common, meaning what +the poets do when they say that primitive men acquired everything in +common, and that Justice maintained a community of goods by means +of an inviolable compact. And to make this clearer, they say that +in those primitive times the fields were not delimited by boundary +lines, and that there was no commercial intercourse. [As Avienus +says]:[47] ‘The promiscuity of the fields had made everything seem +common to all’. + +The word ‘seemed’ is rightly added, owing to the changed meaning of +the words, as we have noted above. + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +Recte additum est ‘videri’ propter translationem ut diximus vocabuli. +Communio autem ista ad usum referebatur:[48a] + + _pervium cunctis iter, + COMMVNIS VSVS omnium rerum fuit._ + +Cuius ratione dominium quoddam erat, sed universale, et indefinitum; +Deus enim res omnes non huic aut illi dederat, sed humano generi, +atque eo modo plures in solidum eiusdem rei domini esse non +prohibebantur; quod si hodierna significatione sumamus dominium, +contra omnem est rationem. Hoc enim proprietatem includit, quae tunc +erat penes neminem. Aptissime autem illud dictum est:[49a] + + _omnia rerum + Vsurpantis erant,_ + +Ad eam vero, quae nunc est, dominiorum distinctionem non impetu +quodam, sed paulatim ventum videtur, initium eius monstrante natura. +Cum enim res sint nonnullae, quarum usus in abusu consistit, aut +quia conversae in substantiam utentis nullum postea usum admittunt, +aut quia utendo fiunt ad usum deteriores, in rebus prioris generis, +ut cibo et potu, proprietas statim quaedam ab usu non seiuncta +emicuit.[50a] Hoc enim est proprium esse, ita esse cuiusquam ut et +alterius esse non possit; quod deinde ad res posterioris, generis, +vestes puta, et res mobiles alias aut se moventes ratione quadam +productum est. + +Quod cum esset, ne res quidem immobiles omnes, agri + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +But that kind of common possession relates to use, as is seen from a +quotation from Seneca:[48] + + “_Every path was free, + All things were used in common._” + +According to his reasoning there was a kind of sovereignty, but it +was universal and unlimited. For God had not given all things to +this individual or to that, but to the entire human race, and thus +a number of persons, as it were en masse, were not debarred from +being substantially sovereigns or owners of the same thing, which is +quite contradictory to our modern meaning of sovereignty. For it now +implies particular or private ownership, a thing which no one then +had. Avienus has said very pertinently:[49] ‘All things belonged to +him who had possession of them’. + +It seems certain that the transition to the present distinction of +ownerships did not come violently, but gradually, nature herself +pointing out the way. For since there are some things, the use of +which consists in their being used up, either because having become +part of the very substance of the user they can never be used again, +or because by use they become less fit for future use, it has become +apparent, especially in dealing with the first category, such things +as food and drink for example, that a certain kind of ownership is +inseparable from use.[50] For ‘own’ implies that a thing belongs to +some one person, in such a way that it cannot belong to any other +person. By the process of reasoning this was next extended to things +of the second category, such as clothes and movables and some living +things. + +When that had come about, not even immovables, such, + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +puta, indivisae manere potuerunt; quamquam enim horum usus non +simpliciter in abusu consistat, eorum tamen usus abusus cuiusdam +causa comparatus est, ut arva et arbusta cibi causa, pascua etiam +vestium; omnium autem usibus promiscue sufficere non possunt. +Repertae proprietati lex posita est, quae naturam imitaretur. Sicut +enim initio per applicationem corporalem usus ille habebatur, unde +proprietatem primum ortam diximus, ita simili applicatione res +proprias cuiusque fieri placuit. Haec est quae dicitur occupatio, +voce accommodatissima ad eas res quae ante in medio positae fuerant; +quo Seneca Tragicus alludit:[51a] + + _IN MEDIO est scelus + POSITVM OCCVPANTI._ + +Et Philosophus:[52a] ‘Equestria OMNIVM equitum Romanorum sunt. +In illis tamen locus meus fit PROPRIVS, quem OCCVPAVI’. Hinc +Quintilianus dicit,[53a] quod omnibus nascitur, industriae esse +praemium; et Tullius,[54a] factas esse veteri occupatione res eorum +qui quondam in vacua venerant. + +Occupatio autem haec in his rebus quae possessioni renituntur, ut +sunt ferae bestiae, perpetua esse debet, in aliis sufficit, corpore +coeptam possessionem animo retineri. Occupatio in mobilibus est +apprehensio, in immobilibus + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +for instance, as fields, could remain unapportioned. For although +their use does not consist merely in consumption, nevertheless +it is bound up with subsequent consumption, as fields and plants +are used to get food, and pastures to get clothing. There is, +however, not enough fixed property to satisfy the use of everybody +indiscriminately. + +When property or ownership was invented, the law of property was +established to imitate nature. For as that use began in connection +with bodily needs, from which as we have said property first arose, +so by a similar connection it was decided that things were the +property of individuals. This is called ‘occupation’, a word most +appropriate to those things which in former times had been held in +common. It is this to which Seneca alludes in his tragedy Thyestes, + + “_Crime is between us to be seized by one._”[51] + +And in one of his philosophical writings he also says:[52] ‘The +equestrian rows of seats belong to all the equites; nevertheless, +the seat of which I have taken possession is my own private place’. +Further, Quintilian remarks[53] that a thing which is created for +all is the reward of industry, and Cicero says[54] that things which +have been occupied for a long time become the property of those who +originally found them unoccupied. + +This occupation or possession, however, in the case of things which +resist seizure, like wild animals for example, must be uninterrupted +or perpetually maintained, but in the case of other things it is +sufficient if after physical possession is once taken the intention +to possess is maintained. Possession of movables implies seizure, and +possession of + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +instructio aut limitatio; unde Hermogenianus cum dominia distincta +dicit, addit, agris terminos positos, aedificia collocata.[55a] Hic +rerum status a poetis indicatur: + + _Tum laqueis captare feras, et fallere visco + Inventum._ + + _Tum primum subiere domos._[56a] + + _COMMVNEMQVE PRIVS, ceu lumina solis et auras + Cautus humum longo signavit LIMITE mensor._[57a] + +Celebratur post haec, ut Hermogenianus indicat, commercium cuius +gratia + + _Fluctibus ignotis insultavere carinae._[58a] + +Eodem autem tempore et respublicae institui coeperunt. Atque ita +earum quae a prima communione divulsa erant duo facta sunt genera. +Alia enim sunt publica, hoc est, populi propria (quae est genuina +istius vocis significatio) alia mere privata, hoc est, singulorum. +Occupatio autem publica eodem modo fit, quo privata. Seneca:[59a] +‘Fines Atheniensium, aut Campanorum vocamus, quos deinde inter se +vicini privata terminatione distinguunt’. Gens enim unaquaeque + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +immovables either the erection of buildings or some determination of +boundaries, such as fencing in. Hence Hermogenianus, in speaking of +separate ownerships, adds the boundaries set to the fields and the +buildings thereon constructed.[55] This state of things is described +thus by the poets Vergil and Ovid: + + “_Then toils for beasts, and lime for birds, were found_,”[56] + + _Then first men made homes._ + + “_Then landmarks limited to each his right, + For all before was common as the light._”[57] + +In still another place, as Hermogenianus points out, Ovid praises +commerce, for the sake of which:[58] + + ‘_Ships in triumph sail the unknown seas_’. + +At the same time, however, states began to be established, and so +two categories were made of the things which had been wrested away +from early ownership in common. For some things were public, that +is, were the property of the people (which is the real meaning of +that expression), while other things were private, that is, were the +property of individuals. Ownership, however, both public and private, +arises in the same way. On this point Seneca says:[59] ‘We speak in +general of the land of the Athenians or the Campanians. It is the +same land which again by means of private boundaries is divided among +individual owners’. + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + + _PARTITA FINES regna constituit, novas + Extruxit VRBES._[60a] + +Hoc modo dicit Cicero agrum Arpinatem Arpinatium dici, Tusculanum +Tusculanorum: ‘similisque est’, inquit, ‘privatarum possessionum +discriptio. Ex quo quia suum cuiusque fit eorum, quae natura fuerant +COMMVNIA, quod cuique obtigit, id quisque teneat’.[61a] Contra autem +Thucydides[62a] eam terram quae in divisione populo nulli obvenit, +ἀόριστον hoe est, indefinitam, et limitibus nullis circumscriptam +vocat.[63a] + +Ex his quae hactenus dicta sunt duo intelligi possunt. Prius est, +eas res quae occupari non possunt, aut occupatae numquam sunt, +nullius proprias esse posse; quia omnis proprietas ab occupatione +coeperit. Alterum vero, eas res omnes, quae ita a natura comparatae +sunt, ut aliquo utente nihilominus aliis quibusvis ad usum promiscue +sufficiant, eius hodieque condicionis esse, et perpetuo esse +debere cuius fuerant cum primum a natura proditae sunt. Hoc Cicero +voluit:[64a] ‘Ac latissime quidem patens hominibus inter ipsos, +omnibus inter omnes societas haec est; in qua omnium rerum, quas ad +communem hominum usum natura genuit, est servanda communitas’. Sunt +autem omnes res huius generis, in quibus sine detrimento alterius +alteri commodari potest. Hinc illud esse dicit Cicero:[65a] ‘Non +prohibere aqua profluente’. Nam aqua profluens qua talis non qua +flumen + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +‘For each nation’, Seneca says in another place, ‘made its +territories into separate kingdoms and built new cities’.[60] + +Thus Cicero says: “On this principle the lands of Arpinum are said +to belong to the Arpinates, the Tusculan lands to the Tusculans; and +similar is the assignment of private property. Therefore, inasmuch +as in each case some of those things which by nature had been common +property became the property of individuals, each one should retain +possession of that which has fallen to his lot.”[61] On the other +hand Thucydides[62] calls the land which in the division falls +to no nation, ἀόριστος, that is, undefined, and undetermined by +boundaries.[63] + +Two conclusions may be drawn from what has thus far been said. The +first is, that that which cannot be occupied, or which never has been +occupied, cannot be the property of any one, because all property +has arisen from occupation. The second is, that all that which has +been so constituted by nature that although serving some one person +it still suffices for the common use of all other persons, is today +and ought in perpetuity to remain in the same condition as when +it was first created by nature. This is what Cicero meant when he +wrote: “This then is the most comprehensive bond that unites together +men as men and all to all; and under it the common right to all +things that nature has produced for the common use of man is to be +maintained.”[64] All things which can be used without loss to any one +else come under this category. Hence, says Cicero, comes the well +known prohibition:[65] ‘Deny no one the water that flows by’. For +running water considered as such and not as a + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +est, inter communia omnium a Iurisconsultis refertur: et a Poeta:[66a] + + _Quid prohibetis AQVAS? VSVS COMMVNIS aquarum est. + Nec solem PROPRIVM NATVRA nec AERA fecit. + Nec tenues VNDAS: in PVBLICA munera veni._ + +Dicit haec non esse natura propria, sicut Vlpianus[67a] natura +omnibus patere, tum quia primum a natura prodita sunt, et in nullius +adhuc dominium pervenerunt (ut loquitur Neratius[68a]); tum quia ut +Cicero dicit, a natura ad usum communem genita videntur. Publica +autem vocat tralatitia significatione, non quae ad populum aliquem, +sed quae ad societatem humanam pertinent, quae publica Iuris gentium +in Legibus vocantur, hoc est, communia omnium, propria nullius. + +Huius generis est Aër, duplici ratione, tum quia occupari non potest, +tum quia usum promiscuum hominibus debet. Et eisdem de causis commune +est omnium Maris Elementum, infinitum scilicet ita, ut possideri non +queat, et omnium usibus accommodatum: sive navigationem respicimus, +sive etiam piscaturam. Cuius autem iuris est mare, eiusdem sunt si +qua mare aliis usibus eripiendo sua fecit, ut arenae maris, quarum +pars terris continua litus dicitur.[69a] Recte igitur Cicero:[70a] +‘quid tam COMMVNE quam Mare fluctuantibus, + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +stream, is classed by the jurists among the things common to all +mankind; as is done also by Ovid:[66] ‘Why do you deny me water? Its +use is free to all. Nature has made neither sun nor air nor waves +private property; they are public gifts’. + +He says that these things are not by nature private possession, but +that, as Ulpian claims,[67] they are by nature things open to the +use of all, both because in the first place they were produced by +nature, and have never yet come under the sovereignty of any one, as +Neratius says;[68] and in the second place because, as Cicero says, +they seem to have been created by nature for common use. But the poet +uses ‘public’, in its usual meaning, not of those things which belong +to any one people, but to human society as a whole; that is to say, +things which are called ‘public’ are, according to the Laws of the +law of nations, the common property of all, and the private property +of none. + +The air belongs to this class of things for two reasons. First, it is +not susceptible of occupation; and second, its common use is destined +for all men. For the same reasons the sea is common to all, because +it is so limitless that it cannot become a possession of any one, and +because it is adapted for the use of all, whether we consider it from +the point of view of navigation or of fisheries. Now, the same right +which applies to the sea applies also to the things which the sea +has carried away from other uses and made its own, such for example +as the sands of the sea, of which the portion adjoining the land is +called the coast or shore.[69] Cicero therefore argues correctly:[70] +‘What is so common as + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +LITVS eiectis’? Etiam Vergilius auram, undam, litus cunctis patere +dicit. + +Haec igitur sunt illa quae Romani vocant communia omnium iure +naturali[71a] aut quod idem esse diximus, publica iurisgentium, sicut +et usum eorum modo communem, modo publicum vocant. Quamquam vero +etiam ea nullius esse, quod ad proprietatem attinet, recte dicantur, +multum tamen differunt ab his quae nullius sunt, et communi usui +attributa non sunt, ut ferae, pisces, aves; nam ista si quis occupet, +in ius proprium transire possunt, illa vero totius humanitatis +consensu proprietati in perpetuum excepta sunt propter usum, qui cum +sit omnium, non magis omnibus ab uno eripi potest, quam a te mihi +quod meum est. Hoc est quod Cicero dicit inter prima esse Iustitiae +munera, rebus communibus pro communibus uti. Scholastici dicerent +esse communia alia affirmative, alia privative. Distinctio haec non +modo Iurisprudentibus usitata est, sed vulgi etiam confessionem +exprimit; unde apud Athenaeum convivator mare commune esse dicit, at +pisces capientium fieri. Et in Plautina Rudente servo dicenti,[72a] +‘Mare quidem commune certost omnibus’, assentit piscator, addenti +autem, ‘In mari inventust communi’ recte occurrit: + + _Meum quod rete atque hami nancti sunt, meum potissimumst._ + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +the sea for those who are being tossed upon it, the shore for those +who have been cast thereon’. Vergil also says that the air, the sea, +and the shore are open to all men. + +These things therefore are what the Romans call ‘common’ to all men +by natural law,[71] or as we have said, ‘public’ according to the +law of nations; and indeed they call their use sometimes common, +sometimes public. Nevertheless, although those things are with reason +said to be _res nullius_, so far as private ownership is concerned, +still they differ very much from those things which, though also _res +nullius_, have not been marked out for common use, such for example +as wild animals, fish, and birds. For if any one seizes those things +and assumes possession of them, they can become objects of private +ownership, but the things in the former category by the consensus +of opinion of all mankind are forever exempt from such private +ownership on account of their susceptibility to universal use; and +as they belong to all they cannot be taken away from all by any one +person any more than what is mine can be taken away from me by you. +And Cicero says that one of the first gifts of Justice is the use +of common property for common benefit. The Scholastics would define +one of these categories as common in an affirmative, the other in a +privative sense. This distinction is not only familiar to jurists, +but it also expresses the popular belief. In Athenaeus for instance +the host is made to say that the sea is the common property of all, +but that fish are the private property of him who catches them. And +in Plautus’ Rudens when the slave says:[72] ‘The sea is certainly +common to all persons’, the fisherman agrees; but when the slave +adds: ‘Then what is found in the common sea is common property’, he +rightly objects, saying: ‘But what my net and hooks have taken, is +absolutely my own’. + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + + +Mare igitur proprium omnino alicuius fieri non potest, quia natura +commune hoc esse non permittit, sed iubet, immo ne litus quidem;[73a] +nisi quod haec addenda est interpretatio; ut si quid earum rerum per +naturam occupari possit, id eatenus occupantis fiat, quatenus ea +occupatione usus ille promiscuus non laeditur. Quod merito receptum +est; nam cum ita se habet, cessat utraque exceptio per quam evenisse +diximus, ne omnia in eius proprium transcriberentur. + +Quoniam igitur inaedificatio species est occupationis, in litore +licet aedificare, si id fieri potest sine ceterorum incommodo,[74a] +ut Pomponius loquitur, quod ex Scaevola explicabimus, nisi usus +publicus, hoc est communis impediretur. Et qui aedificaverit, soli +dominus fiet, quia id solum nec ullius proprium, nec ad usum communem +necessarium fuit. Est igitur occupantis; sed non diutius quam durat +occupatio, quia reluctari mare possessioni videtur, exemplo ferae, +quae si in naturalem se libertatem receperit, non ultra captoris est, +ita et litus postliminio mari cedit. + +Quicquid autem privatum fieri occupando, idem et publicum, hoc est +populi proprium posse ostendimus.[75a] Sic litus Imperi Romani +finibus inclusum, populi Romani esse Celsus + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + + +Therefore the sea can in no way become the private property of any +one, because nature not only allows but enjoins its common use.[73] +Neither can the shore become the private property of any one. The +following qualification, however, must be made. If any part of these +things is by nature susceptible of occupation, it may become the +property of the one who occupies it only so far as such occupation +does not affect its common use. This qualification is deservedly +recognized. For in such a case both conditions vanish through which +it might eventuate, as we have said, that all of it would pass into +private ownership. + +Since therefore, to cite Pomponius, building is one kind of +occupation, it is permissible to build upon the shore, if this can +be done without inconvenience to other people;[74] that is to say (I +here follow Scaevola) if such building can be done without hindrance +to public or common use of the shore. And whoever shall have +constructed a building under the aforesaid circumstances will become +the owner of the ground upon which said building is; because this +ground is neither the property of any one else, nor is it necessary +to common use. It becomes therefore the property of the occupier, but +his ownership lasts no longer than his occupation lasts, inasmuch +as the sea seems by nature to resist ownership. For just as a wild +animal, if it shall have escaped and thus recovered its natural +liberty, is no longer the property of its captor, so also the sea may +recover its possession of the shore. + +We have now shown that whatever by occupation can become private +property can also become public property, that is, the private +property of a whole nation.[75] And so Celsus considered the shore +included within the limits of the Roman Empire to be the property of +the Roman people. + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +existimat; quod si ita est, minime mirandum est, eundem Populum +subditis suis occupandi litoris modum per Principem aut Praetorem +potuisse concedere. Ceterum et haec occupatio non minus quam privata +ita restringenda est, ne ulterius porrigatur, quam ut salvus sit usus +Iurisgentium. Nemo igitur potest a Populo Romano[76a] ad litus maris +accedere prohiberi, et retia siccare, et alia facere, quae semel +omnes homines in perpetuum sibi licere voluerunt. + +Maris autem natura hoc differt a litore, quod mare nisi exigua sui +parte nec inaedificari facile, nec includi potest; et ut posset, hoc +ipsum tamen vix contingeret, sine usus promiscui impedimento. Si quid +tamen exiguum ita occupari potest, id occupanti conceditur. Hyperbole +est igitur[77a] + + _Contracta pisces aequora sentiunt + Iactis in altum molibus._ + +Nam Celsus iactas in mare pilas eius esse dicit qui iecerit.[78a] +Sed id non concedendum si deterior maris usus eo modo futurus sit. +Et Vlpianus eum qui molem in mare iacit, ita tuendum dicit si nemo +damnum sentiat. Nam si cui haec res nocitura sit, interdictum utique, +‘Ne quid in loco publico fiat’ competiturum. Vt et Labeo, si quid +tale in mare struatur, interdictum vult competere, ‘Ne quid in mari, +quo portus, statio, iterve navigiis deterius sit, fiat’.[79a] + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +There is not therefore the least reason for surprise that the Roman +people through their emperors or praetors were able to grant to its +subjects the right of occupying the shore. This public occupation, +however, no less than private occupation, was subject to the +restriction that it should not infringe on international rights. +Therefore the Roman people could not forbid any one from having +access to the seashore,[76] and from spreading his fishing nets there +to dry, and from doing other things which all men long ago decided +were always permissible. + +The nature of the sea, however, differs from that of the shore, +because the sea, except for a very restricted space, can neither +easily be built upon, nor inclosed; if the contrary were true yet +this could hardly happen without hindrance to the general use. +Nevertheless, if any small portion of the sea can be thus occupied, +the occupation is recognized. The famous hyperbole of Horace must be +quoted here: “The fishes note the narrowing of the waters by piers of +rock laid in their depths.”[77] + +Now Celsus holds that piles driven into the sea belong to the man +who drove them.[78] But such an act is not permissible if the use +of the sea be thereby impaired. And Ulpian says that whoever builds +a breakwater must be protected if it is not prejudicial to the +interests of any one; for if this construction is likely to work an +injury to any one, the injunction ‘Nothing may be built on public +property’ would apply. Labeo, however, holds that in case any such +construction should be made in the sea, the following injunction +is to be enforced: ‘Nothing may be built in the sea whereby the +harbor, the roadstead, or the channel be rendered less safe for +navigation’.[79] + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + + +Quae autem navigationis eadem piscatus habenda est ratio, ut communis +maneat omnibus. Neque tamen peccabit si quis in maris diverticulo +piscandi locum sibi palis circumsepiat, atque ita privatum faciat; +sicut Lucullus exciso apud Neapolim monte ad villam suam maria +admisit.[80a] Et huius generis, puto fuisse piscinas maritimas quarum +Varro et Columella meminerunt. Nec Martialis alio spectavit, cum de +Formiano Apollinaris loquitur:[81a] + + _Si quando NEREVS sentit Aeoli regnum, + Ridet procellas tuta de SVO mensa._ + +Et Ambrosius:[82a] ‘Inducis mare intra praedia tua ne desint +belluae’. Hinc apparere potest quae mens Pauli fuerit, cum +dicit,[83a] si maris proprium ius ad aliquem pertineat, _uti +possidetis_ interdictum ei competere. Esse quidem hoc interdictum ad +privatas causas comparatum, non autem ad publicas, (in quibus etiam +ea comprehenduntur quae iure gentium communi facere possumus) sed hic +iam agi de iure fruendo quod ex causa privata contingat, non publica, +sive communi. Nam teste Marciano, quicquid occupatum est et occupari +potuit,[84a] id iam non est iurisgentium, sicut est mare. Exempli +causa, si quis Lucullum aut Apollinarem in privato suo, quatenus +diverticulum maris incluserant, piscari prohibuisset, dandum illis +interdictum + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + + +Now the same principle which applies to navigation applies also to +fishing, namely, that it remains free and open to all. Nevertheless +there shall be no prejudice if any one shall by fencing off with +stakes an inlet of the sea make a fish pond for himself, and so +establish a private preserve. Thus Lucullus once brought the water +of the sea to his villa by cutting a tunnel through a mountain near +Naples.[80] I suspect too that the seawater reservoirs for fish +mentioned by Varro and Columella were of this sort. And Martial +had the same thing in mind when he says of the Formian villa of +Apollinaris:[81] ‘Whenever Nereus feels the power of Aeolus, the +table safe in its own resources laughs at the gale’. Ambrose also +has something to say on the same subject:[82] ‘You bring the very +sea into your estates that you may not lack for fish’. In the light +of all this the meaning of Paulus is clear when he says[83] that if +any one has a private right over the sea, the rule _uti possidetis_ +applies. This rule however is applicable only to private suits, +and not to public ones, among which are also to be included those +suits which can be brought under the common law of nations. But +here the question is one which concerns the right of use arising in +a private suit, but not in a public or common one. For according +to the authority of Marcianus whatever has been occupied and can +be occupied[84] is no longer subject to the law of nations as the +sea is. Let us take an example. If any one had prevented Lucullus +or Apollinaris from fishing in the private fish ponds which they +had made by inclosing a small portion of the sea, according to the +opinion of Paulus they would have the right of bringing + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +Paulus putavit non solum iniuriarum actionem, ob causam scilicet +privatae possessionis.[85a] + +Immo in diverticulo maris, sicut in diverticulo fluminis, si locum +talem occuparim, ibique piscatus sim, maxime si animum privatim +possidendi plurium annorum continuatione testatus fuerim, alterum +eodem iure uti prohibebo; ut ex Marciano colligimus, non aliter quam +in lacu qui mei domini est. Quod verum quam diu durat occupatio, +quemadmodum in litore antea diximus. Extra diverticulum idem non +erit, ne scilicet communis usus impediatur.[86a] + +Ante aedes igitur meas aut praetorium ut piscari aliquem prohibeant +usurpatum quidem est, sed nullo iure, adeo quidem ut Vlpianus +contempta ea usurpatione si quis prohibeatur iniuriarum dicat agi +posse[87a] Hoc Imperator Leo (cuius Legibus non utimur) contra iuris +rationem mutavit, voluitque πρόθυρα, hoc est, vestibula maritima +eorum esse propria, qui oram habitarent, ibique eos ius piscandi +habere;[88a] quod tamen ita procedere voluit, ut septis quibusdam +remoratoriis quas ἐποχάς Graeci vocant, locus ille occuparetur; +existimans nimirum non fore ut quis exiguam maris portionem alteri +invideret qui ipse toto mari ad piscandum admitteretur. Certe ut +quis magnam maris partem, etiam si possit, publicis utilitatibus +eripiat, non tolerandae est improbitatis, in quam merito Vir Sanctus +invehitur:[89a] + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +an injunction, not merely an action for damages based on private +ownership.[85] + +Indeed, if I shall have staked off such an inclosure in an inlet +of the sea, just as in a branch of a river, and have fished there, +especially if by doing so continuously for many years I shall have +given proof of my intention to establish private ownership, I shall +certainly prevent any one else from enjoying the same rights. I +gather from Marcianus that this case is identical with that of the +ownership of a lake, and it is true however long occupation lasts, as +we have said above about the shore. But outside of an inlet this will +not hold, for then the common use of the sea might be hindered.[86] + +Therefore if any one is prevented from fishing in front of my town +house or country seat, it is a usurpation, but an illegal one, +although Ulpian, who rather makes light of this usurpation, does +say that if any one is so prevented he can bring an action for +damages.[87] The Emperor Leo, whose laws we do not use, contrary to +the intent of the law, changed this, and declared that the entrances, +or vestibules as it were, to the sea, were the private property of +those who inhabited the shore, and that they had the right of fishing +there.[88] However he attached this condition, that the place should +be occupied by certain jetty or pile constructions, such as the +Greeks call ἐποχαἰ, thinking doubtless that no one who was himself +allowed to fish anywhere in the sea would grudge any one else a small +portion of it. To be sure it would be an intolerable outrage for any +one to snatch away, even if he could do so, from public use a large +area of the sea; an act which is justly reprehended by the Holy +Man,[89] who says: ‘The lords of the earth claim for + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +‘SPATIA MARIS sibi vindicant IVRE MANCIPII, pisciumque iura sicut +vernaculorum conditione sibi servitii subiecta commemorant. Iste, +inquit, SINVS maris meus est; ille alterius. Dividunt elementa sibi +potentes’. + +Est igitur Mare in numero earum rerum quae in commercio non +sunt,[90a] hoc est, quae proprii iuris fieri non possunt. Vnde +sequitur si proprie loquamur, nullam Maris partem in territorio +populi alicuius posse censeri. Quod ipsum Placentinus sensisse +videtur, cum dixit: Mare ita esse commune, ut in nullius dominio sit +nisi solius Dei; et Ioannes Faber, cum mare asserit relictum in suo +iure, et esse primaevo, quo omnia erant communia.[91a] Alioquin nihil +differrent quae sunt omnium communia ab his quae publica proprie +dicuntur, ut mare a flumine. Flumen populus occupare potuit, ut +inclusum finibus suis, mare non potuit. + +Territoria autem sunt ex occupationibus populorum, ut privata dominia +ex occupationibus singulorum. Vidit hoc Celsus, qui clare satis +distinguit inter litora,[92a] quae Populus Romanus occupare potuit, +ita tamen ut usui communi non noceretur, et mare quod pristinam +naturam retinuit. Nec ulla lex diversum indicat.[93a] Quae vero leges +a contrariae + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +themselves a wide expanse of sea by _jus mancipii_, and they regard +the right of fishing as a servitude over which their right is the +same as that over their slaves. That gulf, says one, belongs to me, +and that gulf to some one else. They divide the very elements among +themselves, these great men’! + +Therefore the sea is one of those things which is not an article of +merchandise,[90] and which cannot become private property. Hence it +follows, to speak strictly, that no part of the sea can be considered +as the territory of any people whatsoever. Placentinus seems to have +recognized this when he said: ‘The sea is a thing so clearly common +to all, that it cannot be the property of any one save God alone’. +Johannes Faber[91] also asserts that the sea has been left _sui +juris_, and remains in the primitive condition where all things were +common. If it were otherwise there would be no difference between the +things which are ‘common to all’, and those which are strictly termed +‘public’; no difference, that is, between the sea and a river. A +nation can take possession of a river, as it is inclosed within their +boundaries, with the sea, they cannot do so. + +Now, public territory arises out of the occupation of nations, just +as private property arises out of the occupation of individuals. This +is recognized by Celsus, who has drawn a sharp distinction between +the shores of the sea,[92] which the Roman people could occupy in +such a way that its common use was not harmed, and the sea itself, +which retained its primitive nature. In fact no law intimates a +contrary view.[93] Such laws as are cited by writers who are of + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +sententiae auctoribus citantur, aut de insulis loquuntur, quas clarum +est occupari potuisse, aut de portu qui non communis est, sed proprie +publicus. + +Qui vero dicunt mare aliquod esse Imperi Romani, dictum suum ita +interpretantur, ut dicant ius illud in mare ultra protectionem +et iurisdictionem non procedere; quod illi ius a proprietate +distinguunt; nec forte satis animadvertunt idipsum quod Populus +Romanus classes praesidio navigantium disponere potuit, et +deprehensos in mari piratas punire, non ex proprio, sed ex communi +iure accidisse, quod et aliae liberae gentes in mari habent. Illud +interim fatemur, potuisse inter gentes aliquas convenire, ut capti +in maris hac vel illa parte, huius aut illius reipublicae iudicium +subirent, atque ita ad commoditatem distinguendae iurisdictionis +in mari fines describi, quod ipsos quidem eam sibi legem ferentes +obligat,[94a] at alios populos non item; neque locum alicuius +proprium facit, sed in personas contrahentium ius constituit. + +Quae distinctio ut naturali rationi consentanea est, ita Vlpiani +responso quodam comprobatur, qui rogatus an duorum praediorum +maritimorum dominus, alteri eorum quod venderet servitutem potuisset +imponere, ne inde in certo maris loco piscari liceret, respondet: rem +quidem ipsam, mare scilicet, servitute nulla affici potuisse, quia +per naturam hoc omnibus pateret, sed cum bona fides contractus legem +venditionis servari exposceret, personas possidentium et in ius eorum +succedentium per istam legem obligari. + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +the contrary opinion apply either to islands, which evidently could +be occupied, or to harbors, which are not ‘common’, but ‘public’, +that is, ‘national’. + +Now those who say that a certain sea belonged to the Roman people +explain their statement to mean that the right of the Romans did +not extend beyond protection and jurisdiction; this right they +distinguish from ownership. Perchance they do not pay sufficient +attention to the fact that although the Roman People were able to +maintain fleets for the protection of navigation and to punish +pirates captured on the sea, it was not done by private right, but +by the common right which other free peoples also enjoy on the sea. +We recognize, however, that certain peoples have agreed that pirates +captured in this or in that part of the sea should come under the +jurisdiction of this state or of that, and further that certain +convenient limits of distinct jurisdiction have been apportioned +on the sea. Now, this agreement does bind those who are parties to +it,[94] but it has no binding force on other nations, nor does it +make the delimited area of the sea the private property of any one. +It merely constitutes a personal right between contracting parties. + +This distinction so conformable to natural reason is also confirmed +by a reply once made by Ulpian. Upon being asked whether the owner +of two maritime estates could on selling either of them impose on it +such a servitude as the prohibition of fishing in a particular part +of the sea, he replied that the thing in question, evidently the sea, +could not be subjected to a servitude, because it was by nature open +to all persons; but that since a contract made in good faith demands +that the condition of a sale be respected, the present possessors and +those who succeed to + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +Verum est loqui Iurisconsultum de praediis privatis, et lege privata, +sed in territorio et lege populorum eadem hic est ratio, quia populi +respectu totius generis humani privatorum locum obtinent. + +Similiter reditus qui in piscationes maritimas constituti Regalium +numero censentur, non rem, hoc est mare, aut piscationem, sed +personas obligant.[95a] Quare subditi, in quos legem ferendi potestas +Reipublicae aut Principi ex consensu competit, ad onera ista compelli +forte poterunt; sed exteris ius piscandi ubique immune esse debet, ne +servitus imponatur mari quod servire non potest. + +Non enim maris eadem quae fluminis ratio est:[96a] quod cum sit +publicum, id est populi, ius etiam in eo piscandi a populo aut +principe concedi aut locari potest, ita ut ei qui conduxit, +etiam interdictum Veteres dederint, de loco publico fruendo, +addita condicione si is cui locandi ius fuerit, fruendum alicui +locaverit;[97a] quae condicio in mari evenire non potest. Ceterum +qui ipsam piscationem numerant inter Regalia, ne quidem illum locum +quem interpretabantur satis inspexerunt, quod Iserniam et Alvotum non +latuit. + +Demonstratum est[98a] nec populo nec privato cuipiam ius + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +their rights were bound to observe that condition. It is true that +the jurist is speaking of private estates and of private law, but in +speaking here of the territory of peoples and of public law the same +reasoning applies, because from the point of view of the whole human +race peoples are treated as individuals. + +Similarly, revenues levied on maritime fisheries are held to belong +to the Crown, but they do not bind the sea itself or the fisheries, +but only the persons engaged in fishing.[95] Wherefore subjects, for +whom a state or a ruler is by common consent competent to make laws, +will perhaps be compelled to bear such charges, but so far as other +persons are concerned the right of fishing ought everywhere to be +exempt from tolls, lest a servitude be imposed upon the sea, which is +not susceptible to a servitude. + +The case of the sea is not the same as that of a river,[96] for as +a river is the property of a nation, the right to fish in it can +be passed or leased by the nation or by the ruler, in such a way +(and the like is true with the ancients) that the lessee enjoys the +operation of the injunction _de loco publico fruendo_ by virtue of +the clause ‘He who has the right to lease has leased the exclusive +right of enjoyment’.[97] Such a condition cannot arise in respect to +the sea. Finally those who count fishing among the properties of the +Crown have not examined carefully enough the very passage which they +cite to prove their contention, as Isernia* and Alvotus† have noticed. + +* [Andrea d’Isernia (c. 1480-1553), an Italian commentator, called +often Feudistarum Patriarcha.] + +† [Probably a misprint for Alvarus (Alvarez).] + +It has therefore been demonstrated[98] that neither a nation nor an +individual can establish any right of private ownership + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +aliquod proprium in ipsum mare (nam diverticulum excipimus) competere +posse, cum occupationem nec natura, nec usus publici ratio permittat. +Huius autem rei causa instituta fuerat haec disputatio, ut appareret +Lusitanos mare quo ad Indos navigatur sui iuris non fecisse. Nam +utraque ratio quae proprietatem impedit, in hac causa est quam in +ceteris omnibus infinito efficacior. Quod in alii difficile videtur, +in hac omnino fieri non potest; quod in aliis iniquum iudicamus, in +hac summe barbarum est, atque inhumanum. + +Non de mari interiore hic agimus, quod terris undique infusum alicubi +etiam fluminis latitudinem non excedit, de quo tamen satis constat +locutos Romanos Iurisconsultos, cum nobiles illas adversus privatam +avaritiam sententias ediderunt; de Oceano quaeritur, quem immensum, +infinitum, rerum parentem, caelo conterminum antiquitas vocat, cuius +perpetuo humore non fontes tantum et flumina et maria, sed nubes, sed +ipsa quodammodo sidera pasci veteres crediderunt; qui denique per +reciprocas aestuum vices terram hanc humani generis sedem ambiens, +neque teneri neque includi potest, et possidet verius quam possidetur. + +In hoc autem Oceano non de sinu aut freto, nec de omni quidem eo quod +e litore conspici potest controversia est. Vindicant sibi Lusitani +quicquid duos Orbes interiacet, tantis spatiis discretos, ut plurimis +saeculis famam sui non potuerint transmittere. Quod si Castellanorum, +qui in eadem sunt + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +over the sea itself (I except inlets of the sea), inasmuch as its +occupation is not permissible either by nature or on grounds of +public utility. The discussion of this matter has been taken up for +this reason, namely, that it may be seen that the Portuguese have not +established private ownership over the sea by which people go to the +East Indies. For the two reasons that stand in the way of ownership +are in this case infinitely more powerful than in all others. That +which in other cases seems difficult, is here absolutely impossible; +and what in other cases we recognize as unjust is here most barbarous +and inhuman. + +The question at issue then is not one that concerns an INNER SEA, one +which is surrounded on all sides by the land and at some places does +not even exceed a river in breadth, although it is well known that +the Roman jurists cited such an inner sea in their famous opinions +condemning private avarice. No! the question at issue is the OUTER +SEA, the OCEAN, that expanse of water which antiquity describes as +the immense, the infinite, bounded only by the heavens, parent of +all things; the ocean which the ancients believed was perpetually +supplied with water not only by fountains, rivers, and seas, but +by the clouds, and by the very stars of heaven themselves; the +ocean which, although surrounding this earth, the home of the human +race, with the ebb and flow of its tides, can be neither seized +nor inclosed; nay, which rather possesses the earth than is by it +possessed. + +Further, the question at issue does not concern a gulf or a strait +in this ocean, nor even all the expanse of sea which is visible from +the shore. [But consider this!!] The Portuguese claim as their own +the whole expanse of the sea which separates two parts of the world +so far distant the one from the other, that in all the preceding +centuries neither one has so much as heard of the other. Indeed, if +we take into account the share of the Spaniards, whose claim + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +causa, portio accedat, parvo minus omnis Oceanus duobus populis +mancipatus est, aliis tot gentibus ad Septentrionum redactis +angustias; multumque decepta est Natura, quae cum elementum illud +omnibus circumfudit, omnibus etiam suffecturum credidit. In tanto +mari si quis usu promiscuo solum sibi imperium et dicionem exciperet, +tamen immodicae dominationis affectator haberetur; si quis piscatu +arceret alios, insanae cupiditatis notam non effugeret. At qui etiam +navigatum impedit, quo nihil ipsi perit, de eo quid statuemus? + +Si quis ab igni qui totus suus est, ignem capere, lumen suo de +lumine, alterum prohiberet, lege hunc humanae societatis reum +peragerem: quia vis ea est istius naturae: + + _Vt nihilominus ipsi luceat, cum illi accenderit._[99a] + +Quid ni enim quando sine detrimento suo potest, alteri communicet, in +iis quae sunt accipienti utilia, danti non molesta.[100a] + +Haec sunt quae Philosophi[101a] non alienis tantum, sed et ingratis +praestari volunt. Quae vero in rebus privatis invidia est, eadem in +re communi non potest non esse immanitas, improbissimum enim hoc est, +quod naturae instituto, consensu gentium, meum non minus quam tuum +est, id te ita intercipere, ut ne usum quidem mihi concedas, quo +concesso nihilominus id tuum sit, quam antea fuit. + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +is the same as that of the Portuguese, only a little less than the +whole ocean is found to be subject to two nations, while all the rest +of the peoples in the world are restricted to the narrow bounds of +the northern seas. Nature was greatly deceived if when she spread the +sea around all peoples she believed that it would also be adequate +for the use of them all. If in a thing so vast as the sea a man +were to reserve to himself from general use nothing more than mere +sovereignty, still he would be considered a seeker after unreasonable +power. If a man were to enjoin other people from fishing, he would +not escape the reproach of monstrous greed. But the man who even +prevents navigation, a thing which means no loss to himself, what are +we to say of him? + +If any person should prevent any other person from taking fire from +his fire or a light from his torch, I should accuse him of violating +the law of human society, because that is the essence of its very +nature, as Ennius has said: + + “_No less shines his, when he his friend’s hath lit._”[99] + +Why then, when it can be done without any prejudice to his own +interests, will not one person share with another things which are +useful to the recipient, and no loss to the giver?[100] These are +services which the ancient philosophers[101] thought ought to be +rendered not only to foreigners but even to the ungrateful. But the +same act which when private possessions are in question is jealousy +can be nothing but cruelty when a common possession is in question. +For it is most outrageous for you to appropriate a thing, which both +by ordinance of nature and by common consent is as much mine as +yours, so exclusively that you will not grant me a right of use in it +which leaves it no less yours than it was before. + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + + +Tum vero etiam qui alienis incumbunt, aut communia intercipiunt, +certa quadam possessione se tuentur. Quia enim prima, ut diximus, +occupatio res proprias fecit, idcirco imaginem quandam dominii +praefert quamvis iniusta detentio. At Lusitani num sicuti terras +solemus, sic mare illud impositis praediis ita undique cinxerunt, +ut in ipsorum manu esset quos vellent excludere? An vero tantum hoc +abest, ut ipsi etiam, cum adversus alios populos mundum dividunt, non +ullis limitibus aut natura, aut manu positis, sed imaginaria quadam +linea se tueantur? quod si recipitur et dimensio talis ad possidendum +valet, iamdudum nobis Geometrae terras, Astronomi etiam caelum +eriperent. + +Vbi hic igitur est ista, sine qua nulla dominia coeperunt, +corporis ad corpus adiunctio? Nimirum apparet in nulla re verius +dici posse, quod Doctores nostri prodiderunt,[102a] Mare cum sit +incomprehensibile, non minus quam aër, nullius populi bonis potuisse +applicari. + +Si vero ante alios navigasse, et viam quodammodo aperuisse, hoc +vocant occupare, quid esse potest magis ridiculum? Nam cum nulla +pars sit maris, in quam non aliquis primus ingressus sit, sequetur +omnem navigationem ab aliquo esse occupatam. Ita undique excludimur. +Quin et illi qui terrarum orbem circumvecti sunt, totum sibi Oceanum +acquisivisse dicendi erunt. Sed nemo nescit + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + + +Nevertheless, even those who lay burdens upon foreigners, or +appropriate things common to all, rely upon a possession which is +to some extent real. For since original occupation created private +property, therefore detention of a thing, though unjust, gives an +appearance of ownership. But have the Portuguese completely covered +the ocean, as we are wont to do on land, by laying out estates on +it in such a way that they have the right to exclude from that +ocean whom they will? Not at all! On the contrary, they are so far +from having done so, that when they divide up the world to the +disadvantage of other nations, they cannot even defend their action +by showing any boundaries either natural or artificial, but are +compelled to fall back upon some imaginary line. Indeed, if that +were a recognized method, and such a delimitation of boundaries were +sufficient to make possession valid, our geometers long since would +have got possession of the face of the earth, our astronomers of the +very skies. + +But where in this case is that corporal possession or physical +appropriation, without which no ownerships arise? There appears to +be nothing truer than what our learned jurists have enunciated, +namely,[102] that since the sea is just as insusceptible of physical +appropriation as the air, it cannot be attached to the possessions of +any nation. + +But if the Portuguese call _occupying_ the sea merely to have sailed +over it before other people, and to have, as it were, opened the way, +could anything in the world be more ridiculous? For, as there is no +part of the sea on which some person has not already sailed, it will +necessarily follow that every route of navigation is occupied by some +one. Therefore we peoples of today are all absolutely excluded. Why +will not those men who have circumnavigated the globe be justified in +saying that they have acquired for themselves the possession of the +whole ocean! But there + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +navem per mare transeuntem non plus iuris, quam vestigii relinquere. +Verum etiam quod sibi sumunt neminem ante ipsos eum Oceanum +navigasse, id minime verum est. Magna enim pars eius de quo agitur +maris, ambitu Mauritaniae, iam olim navigata est; ulterior et in +orientem vergens victoriis Magni Alexandri lustrata est, usque in +Arabicum sinum.[103a] + +Olim autem hanc navigationem Gaditanis percognitam fuisse, multa +argumento sunt. Caio Caesare Augusti filio in Arabico sinu res +gerente signa navium ex Hispaniensibus naufragiis agnita. Et quod +Caelius Antipater tradidit, vidisse se qui ex Hispania in Aethiopiam +commercii gratia navigasset. Etiam Arabibus, si verum est, quod +Cornelius Nepos testatus est, Eudoxum quendam sua aetate cum Lathyrum +Regem Alexandriae fugeret, Arabico sinu egressum Gades usque +pervectum. Poenos autem, qui re maritima plurimum valuerunt, eum +Oceanum non ignorasse longe clarissimum est, cum Hanno Carthaginis +potentia florente circumvectus a Gadibus ad finem Arabiae, +praeternavigato scilicet promontorio quod nunc Bonae Spei dicitur, +(vetus videtur nomen Hesperion ceras fuisse) omne id iter, situmque +litoris et insularum scripto complexus sit, testatusque ad ultimum +non mare sibi, sed commeatum defuisse. + +Ab Arabico autem sinu ad Indiam, Indicique Oceani insulas, et auream +usque Chersonesum, quam esse Iapanem credunt plerique, etiam re +Romana florente navigari solitum, iter a Plinio descriptum,[104a] +legationes ab Indis ad + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +is not a single person in the world who does not know that a ship +sailing through the sea leaves behind it no more legal right than it +does a track. And as for the assumption of the Portuguese that no one +has sailed that ocean before themselves, that is anything but true. +For a great part of that sea near Morocco, which is in dispute, had +already been navigated long before, and the sea as far east as the +Arabian gulf has been made famous by the victories of Alexander the +Great, as both Pliny and Mela tell us.[103] + +There is also much to substantiate the belief that the inhabitants +of Cadiz were well acquainted long ago with this route, because when +Gaius Caesar,* the son of Augustus, held command in the Arabian +gulf, pieces were found of shipwrecks recognized as Spanish. Caelius +Antipater also has told us in his writings that he himself saw a +Spaniard who had sailed from Spain to Ethiopia on a commercial +voyage. Also the Arabians knew those seas, if the testimony of +Cornelius Nepos is to be believed, because he says that in his own +day a certain Eudoxus, fleeing from Lathyrus, king of Alexandria, +sailed from the Arabian gulf and finally reached Cadiz. However, by +far the most famous example is that of the Carthaginians. Those most +famous mariners were well acquainted with that sea, because Hanno, +when Carthage was at the height of her power, sailing from Cadiz +to the farthest confines of Arabia, and doubling the promontory +now known as the Cape of Good Hope (the ancient name seems to have +been Hesperion Ceras), described in a book the entire route he had +taken, the appearance of the coasts, and the location of the islands, +declaring that at the farthest point he reached the sea had not yet +given out but his provisions had. + +* [Strictly speaking, Gaius was the grandson of Augustus, but was +adopted as his son.] + +Pliny’s description of the route to the East,[104] the embassies + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +Augustum, ad Claudium etiam ex Taprobane insula, deinde gesta Traiani +et tabulae Ptolemaei satis ostendunt. Iam suo tempore Strabo[105a] +Alexandrinorum mercatorum classem ex Arabico sinu, ut Aethiopiae +ultima, ita et Indiae, petiisse testatur, cum olim paucis navibus id +auderetur. Inde magna populo Romano vectigalia; addit Plinius[106a] +impositis sagittariorum cohortibus piratarum metu navigatum; solamque +Indiam quingenties sestertium, si Arabiam addas et Seres, millies +annis omnibus Romano Imperio ademisse; et merces centuplicato +venditas. + +Et haec quidem vetera satis arguunt primos non fuisse Lusitanos. In +singulis autem sui partibus Oceanus ille et tunc cum eum Lusitani +ingressi sunt, et numquam non cognitus fuit. Mauri enim, Aethiopes, +Arabes, Persae, Indi, eam maris partem cuius ipsi accolae sunt, +nescire neutiquam potuerunt. + +Mentiuntur ergo qui se mare illud invenisse iactant. + +Quid igitur, dicet aliquis, parumne videtur, quod Lusitani +intermissam multis forte saeculis navigationem primi repararunt, et, +quod negari non potest, Europaeis gentibus ignotam ostenderunt, magno +suo labore, sumptu, periculo? + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +from the Indies to Augustus, and those from Ceylon to the emperor +Claudius, and finally the accounts of the deeds of Trajan, and the +writings of Ptolemaeus, all make it quite clear that in the days +of Rome’s greatest splendor voyages were made regularly from the +Arabian gulf to India, to the islands of the Indian ocean, and even +so far as to the golden Chersonesus, which many people think was +Japan. Strabo says[105] that in his own time a fleet of Alexandrian +merchantmen set sail from the Arabian gulf for the distant lands of +Ethiopia and India, although few ships had ever before attempted that +voyage. The Roman people had a large revenue from the East. Pliny +says[106] that cohorts of archers were carried on the boats engaged +in trade as protection against pirates; he states also that every +year 500,000 sesterces* were taken out of the Roman empire by India +alone, or 1,000,000 sesterces if you add Arabia and China; further, +that merchandise brought from the East sold for one hundred times its +original cost. + +* [A Roman sestertius was about four cents.] + +These examples cited from ancient times are sufficient proof that +the Portuguese were not the first in that part of the world. Long +before they ever came, every single part of that ocean had been long +since explored. For how possibly could the Moors, the Ethiopians, +the Arabians, the Persians, the peoples of India, have remained in +ignorance of that part of the sea adjacent to their coasts! + +Therefore they lie, who today boast that they discovered that sea. + +Well then, some one will say, does it seem to be a matter of little +moment that the Portuguese were the first to restore a navigation +interrupted perhaps for many centuries, and unknown--as cannot be +denied--at least to the nations of Europe, at great labor and cost +and danger to themselves? + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +Immo vero si in hoc incubuerunt ut quod soli reperissent id omnibus +monstrarent, quis adeo est amens, qui non plurimum se illis debere +profiteatur? Eandem enim gratiam, laudemque et gloriam immortalem +illi promeruerint, qua omnes contenti fuerunt rerum magnarum +inventores, quotquot scilicet non sibi, sed humano generi prodesse +studuerunt. Sin Lusitanis suus ante oculos quaestus fuit, lucrum quod +semper maximum est in praevertendis negotiationibus, illis sufficere +debuit. Et scimus itinera prima proventus interdum quater decuplos, +aut etiam uberiores dedisse, quibus factum ut inops diu populus ad +repentinas divitias subito prorumperet, tanto luxus apparatu, quantus +vix beatissimis gentibus in supremo progressae diu fortunae fastigio +fuit. + +Si vero eidem in hoc praeiverunt, ne quisquam sequeretur, gratiam +non merentur, cum lucrum suum respexerint; lucrum autem suum dicere +non possunt, cum eripiant alienum. Neque enim illud certum est +nisi ivissent eo Lusitani, iturum fuisse neminem. Adventabant enim +tempora, quibus ut artes paene omnes, ita et terrarum et marium situs +clarius in dies noscebantur. Excitassent vetera, quae modo retulimus, +exempla, et si non uno impetu omnia patuissent, at paulatim promota +velis fuissent litora alio semper aliud monstrante. Factum denique +fuisset, + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +On the contrary, if they had laid weight upon the fact that they were +pointing out to all what they alone had rediscovered, there is no +one so lacking in sense that he would not acknowledge the greatest +obligation to them. For the Portuguese will have earned the same +thanks, praise, and immortal glory with which all discoverers of +great things have been content, whenever they have striven to benefit +not themselves but the whole human race. But if the Portuguese +had before their eyes only their own financial gain, surely their +profit, which is always the largest for those first in a new field +of enterprise, ought to have satisfied them. For we know that +their first voyages returned a profit sometimes of forty times the +original investment, and sometimes even more. And by this overseas +trade it has come about that a people, previously for a long time +poor, have leaped suddenly into the possession of great riches, and +have surrounded themselves with such outward signs of luxurious +magnificence as scarcely the most prosperous nations have been able +to display at the height of their fortunes. + +But if these Portuguese have led the way in this matter in order +that no one may follow them, then they do not deserve any thanks, +inasmuch as they have considered only their own profit. Nor can they +call it their profit, because they are taking the profit of some one +else. For it is not at all demonstrable that, if the Portuguese had +not gone to the East Indies, no one else would have gone. For the +times were coming on apace in which along with other sciences the +geographical locations of seas and lands were being better known +every day. The reports of the expeditions of the ancients mentioned +above had aroused people, and even if all foreign shores had not been +laid open at a single stroke as it were, yet they would have been +brought to light gradually by sailing voyages, each new discovery +pointing the way to the next. And so there would finally + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +quod fieri potuisse Lusitani docuerunt, cum multi essent populi non +minus flagrantes mercaturae et rerum externarum studio. Venetis qui +multa iam Indiae didicerant, cetera inquirere promptum fuit. Gallorum +Brittonum indefessa sedulitas, Anglorum audacia coepto non defuisset. +Ipsi Batavi multo magis desperata aggressi sunt. + +Nulla igitur aequitatis ratio, ne probabilis quidem ulla sententia a +Lusitanis stat. Omnes enim qui mare volunt imperio alicuius subici +posse, id ei attribuunt qui proximos portus et circumiacentia litora +in dicione habet.[107a] At Lusitani in illo immenso litorum tractu +paucis exceptis praesidiis nihil habent quod suum possint dicere. + +Deinde vero etiam qui Mari imperaret, nihil tamen posset ex usu +communi deminuere, sicut Populus Romanus arcere neminem potuit, quo +minus in litore imperi Romani cuncta faceret, quae iure gentium +permittebantur.[108a] Et si quicquam eorum prohibere posset, +puta piscaturam qua dici quodammodo potest pisces exhauriri, at +navigationem non posset, per quam mari nihil perit. + +Cui rei argumentum est longe certissimum, quod ex Doctorum sententia +ante retulimus, etiam in terra, quae cum populis, tum hominibus +singulis in proprietatem attributa est, iter tamen, certe inerme et +innoxium, nullius gentis + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +have been accomplished what the Portuguese showed could be done, +because there were many nations with no less ardor than theirs to +engage in commerce and to learn of foreign things. The Venetians, who +already knew much about India, were ready to push their knowledge +farther; the indefatigable zeal of the French of Brittany, and +the boldness of the English would not have failed to make such an +attempt; indeed the Dutch themselves have embarked upon much more +desperate enterprises. + +Therefore the Portuguese have neither just reason nor respectable +authority to support their position, for all those persons who assume +that the sea can be subjected to the sovereignty of any one assign it +to him who holds in his power the nearest ports and the circumjacent +shores.[107] But in all that great extent of coast line reaching to +the East Indies the Portuguese have nothing which they can call their +own except a few fortified posts. + +And then even if a man were to have dominion over the sea, still +he could not take away anything from its common use, just as the +Roman people could not prevent any one from doing on the shores of +their dominions all those things which were permitted by the law +of nations.[108] And if it were possible to prohibit any of those +things, say for example, fishing, for in a way it can be maintained +that fish are exhaustible, still it would not be possible to prohibit +navigation, for the sea is not exhausted by that use. + +The most conclusive argument on this question by far however is the +one that we have already brought forward based on the opinions of +eminent jurists, namely, that even over land which had been converted +into private property either by states or individuals, unarmed +and innocent passage is not justly to be denied to persons of any +country, exactly as the right to drink from a river is not to be + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +hominibus iuste negari; sicut et potum ex flumine. Ratio apparet, +quia cum unius rei naturaliter usus essent diversi, eum dumtaxat +gentes divisisse inter se videntur, qui sine proprietate commode +haberi non potest, contra autem eum recepisse, per quem domini +condicio deterior non esset futura. + +Omnes igitur vident eum qui alterum navigare prohibeat nullo +iure defendi, cum eundem etiam iniuriarum teneri Vlpianus +dixerit;[109a] alii autem etiam interdictum utile prohibito competere +existimaverint.[110a] + +Et sic Batavorum intentio communi iure nititur, cum fateantur omnes, +permissum cuilibet in mari navigare etiam a nullo Principe impetrata +licentia; quod Legibus Hispanicis diserte expressum est.[111a] + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +denied. The reason is clear, because, inasmuch as one and the same +thing is susceptible by nature to different uses, the nations seem +on the one hand to have apportioned among themselves that use which +cannot be maintained conveniently apart from private ownership; but +on the other hand to have reserved that use through the exercise of +which the condition of the owner would not be impaired. + +It is clear therefore to every one that he who prevents another from +navigating the sea has no support in law. Ulpian has said[109] that +he was even bound to pay damages, and other jurists have thought +that the injunction _utile prohibito_ could also be brought against +him.[110] + +Finally, the relief prayed for by the Dutch rests upon a common +right, since it is universally admitted that navigation on the sea is +open to any one, even if permission is not obtained from any ruler. +And this is specifically expressed in the Spanish laws.[111] + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + + + + +CAPVT VI + +_Mare aut ius navigandi proprium non esse Lusitanorum titulo +donationis Pontificiae_ + + +Donatio Pontificis Alexandri, quae a Lusitanis mare aut ius navigandi +solis sibi vindicantibus, cum inventionis deficiat titulus, secundo +loco adduci potest, satis ex iis quae ante dicta sunt vanitatis +convincitur. Donatio enim nullum habet momentum in rebus extra +commercium positis. Quare cum mare aut ius in eo navigandi proprium +nulli hominum esse possit, sequitur neque dari a Pontifice neque a +Lusitanis accipi potuisse. Praeterea cum supra relatum sit ex omnium +sani iudicii hominum sententia Papam non esse dominum temporalem +totius orbis, ne Maris quidem esse satis intelligitur; quamquam etsi +id concederetur, tamen ius annexum Pontificatui in Regem aliquem aut +populum pro parte nulla transferri debuisset. Sicut nec Imperator +posset Imperi provincias in suos usus convertere, aut pro suo +arbitrio alienare.[112a] + +Illud saltem nemo negaturus est, cui aliquid sit frontis, cum ius +disponendi in temporalibus Pontifici nemo concedat, nisi forte +quantum eius rerum spiritualium necessitas requirit, ista autem +de quibus nunc agimus, mare scilicet et ius navigandi, lucrum et +quaestum merum, non pietatis negotium + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + + + + +CHAPTER VI + +_Neither the Sea nor the right of navigation thereon belongs to the +Portuguese by virtue of title based on the Papal Donation_ + + +The Donation of Pope Alexander, inasmuch as the title based on +discovery is seen to be deficient, may next be invoked by the +Portuguese to justify their exclusive appropriation of the sea +and the right of navigation thereon. But from what has been said +above, that Donation is clearly convicted of being an act of empty +ostentation. For a Donation has no effect on things outside the +realm of trade. Wherefore since neither the sea nor the right of +navigating it can become the private property of any man, it follows +that it could not have been given by the Pope, nor accepted by +the Portuguese. Besides, as has been mentioned above, following +the opinion of all men of sound judgment, it is sufficiently well +recognized that the Pope is not the temporal lord of the earth, and +certainly not of the sea. Even if it be granted for the sake of +argument that such were the case, still a right attaching to the +Pontificate ought not to be transferred wholly or in part to any king +or nation. Similarly no emperor could convert to his own uses or +alienate at his own pleasure the provinces of his empire.[112] + +Now, inasmuch as no one concedes to the Pope in temporal matters a +_jus disponendi_, except perhaps in so far as it is demanded by the +necessity of spiritual matters, and inasmuch as the things now under +discussion, namely, the sea and the right of navigating it, are +concerned only with money and profits, not with piety, surely no one +can have + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +respiciant, sequi nullam hac in re fuisse illius potestatem. Quid, +quod ne Principes quidem, hoc est, domini temporales possunt ullo +modo a navigatione aliquem prohibere, cum si quod habent ius in mari +id sit tantum iurisdictionis ac protectionis? Etiam illud notissimum +est apud omnes, ad ea facienda quae cum lege Naturae pugnant, nullam +esse Papae auctoritatem.[113a] Pugnat autem cum lege Naturae, ut +mare aut eius usum quisquam habeat sibi proprium, ut iam satis +demonstravimus. Cum denique ius suum auferre alicui Papa minime +possit, quae erit facti istius defensio, si tot populos immerentes, +indemnatos, innoxios ab eo iure quod ad ipsos non minus quam ad +Hispanos pertinebat uno verbo voluit excludere? + +Aut igitur dicendum est nullam esse vim eiusmodi pronuntiationis, +aut quod non minus credibile est, eum Pontificis animum fuisse, ut +Castellanorum et Lusitanorum inter se certamini intercessum voluerit, +aliorum autem iuri nihil diminutum. + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +the face to insist that the Pope had any jurisdiction here. What of +the fact that not even rulers, that is to say, temporal lords, can +prohibit any one from navigation, since if they have any right at all +upon the sea it is merely one of jurisdiction and protection! It is +also a fact universally recognized that the Pope has no authority to +commit acts repugnant to the law of nature.[113] But it is repugnant +to the law of nature, as we have already proved beyond a doubt, for +any one to have as his own private property either the sea or its +use. Finally, since the Pope is wholly unable to deprive any one of +his own rights, what defense will there be for that Donation of his, +if by a word he intended to exclude so many innocent, uncondemned, +and guiltless nations from a right which belongs no less to them than +to the Spaniards? + +Therefore, either it must be affirmed that a pronunciamento of this +sort has no force, or, as is no less credible, that it was the desire +of the Pope to intercede in the quarrel between the Spaniards and the +Portuguese, and that he had no concomitant intention of violating the +rights of others. + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + + + + +CAPVT VII + +_Mare aut ius navigandi proprium non esse Lusitanorum titulo +praescriptionis aut consuetudinis_ + + +Vltimum iniquitatis patrocinium in praescriptione solet esse aut +consuetudine. Et huc igitur Lusitani se conferunt; sed utrumque +illis praesidium certissima iuris ratio praecludit. Nam praescriptio +a iure est civili, unde locum habere non potest inter reges, aut +inter populos liberos;[114a] multo autem minus ubi ius naturae aut +gentium resistit, quod iure civili semper validius est. Quin et ipsa +lex civilis praescriptionem hic impedit.[115a] Vsucapi enim, aut +praescriptione acquiri prohibentur, quae in bonis esse non possunt, +deinde quae possideri vel quasi possideri nequeunt, et quorum +alienatio prohibita est. Haec autem omnia de mari et usu maris vere +dicuntur. + +Et cum publicae res, hoc est populi alicuius nulla temporis +possessione quaeri posse dicantur, sive ob rei naturam, sive ob +eorum privilegium adversus quos praescriptio ista procederet, quanto +iustius humano generi, quam uni populo id beneficium dandum fuit in +rebus communibus? Et hoc est + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + + + + +CHAPTER VII + +_Neither the Sea nor the right of navigation thereon belongs to the +Portuguese by title of prescription or custom_ + + +The last defense of injustice is usually a claim or plea based on +prescription or on custom. To this defense therefore the Portuguese +have resorted. But the best established reasoning of the law +precludes them from enjoying the protection of either plea. + +Prescription is a matter of municipal law; hence it cannot be applied +as between kings, or as between free and independent nations.[114] +It has even less standing when it is in conflict with that which is +always stronger than the municipal law, namely, the law of nature +or nations. Nay, even municipal law itself prevents prescription in +this case.[115] For it is impossible to acquire by usucaption or +prescription things which cannot become property, that is, which +are not susceptible of possession or of quasi-possession, and which +cannot be alienated. All of which is true with respect to the sea and +its use. + +And since public things, that is, things which are the property of a +nation, cannot be acquired by mere efflux of time, either because of +their nature, or because of the prerogatives of those against whom +such prescription would act, is it not vastly more just that the +benefits accruing from the enjoyment of common things should be given +to the entire human race than to one nation alone? On this point + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +quod Papinianus scriptum reliquit,[116a] ‘praescriptionem longae +possessionis ad obtinenda loca iurisgentium publica concedi non +solere’; eiusque rei exemplum dat in litore, cuius pars imposito +aedificio occupata fuerat. Nam eo diruto, et alterius aedificio in +eodem loco postea exstructo, exceptionem opponi non posse; quod +deinde similitudine rei publicae illustrat, nam et si quis in +fluminis diverticulo pluribus annis piscatus sit, postea, interrupta +scilicet piscatione, alterum eodem iure prohibere non posse. + +Apparet igitur Angelum et qui cum Angelo dixerunt[117a] Venetis +et Genuensibus per praescriptionem ius aliquod in sinum maris suo +litori praeiacentem acquiri potuisse, aut falli, aut fallere, quod +sane Iurisconsultis nimium est frequens, cum sanctae professionis +auctoritatem, non ad rationes et leges, sed ad gratiam conferunt +potentiorum. Nam Martiani quidem responsum, de quo et ante egimus, +si recte cum Papiniani verbis comparetur,[118a] non aliam accipere +potest interpretationem, quam eam quae et Iohanni olim et Bartolo +probata est, et nunc a doctis omnibus recipitur:[119a] ut scilicet +ius prohibendi procedat quamdiu durat occupatio, + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +Papinian has said:[116] ‘Prescription raised by long possession is +not customarily recognized as valid in the acquisition of places +known to international law as “public”’. As an example, to illustrate +this point, he cites a shore some part of which had been occupied by +means of a building constructed on it. But if this building should be +destroyed, and some one else later should construct a building on the +same spot, no exception could be taken to it. Then he illustrates the +same point by the analogous case of a _res publica_. If, for example, +any one has fished for many years in a branch of a river, and has +then stopped fishing there, after that he cannot prevent any one else +from enjoying the same right that he had. + +Wherefore it appears that Angeli[117] and his followers who have said +that the Venetians and Genoese were able to acquire by prescription +certain specific rights in the gulfs of the sea adjacent to their +shores, either are mistaken, or are deceiving others; a thing which +happens all too frequently with jurists when they exercise the +authority of their sacred profession not for justice and law, but in +order to gain the gratitude of the powerful. There is also an opinion +of Marcianus, already cited above in another connection, which, when +carefully compared with the words of Papinian,[118] can have no +other interpretation than the one formerly adopted by Johannes and +Bartolus,* and now accepted by all learned men,[119] namely, that the +_jus prohibendi_ is in effect only while occupation lasts; it loses +its force if occupation + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +non autem si ea omissa sit; omissa enim non prodest, nec si per +mille annos fuisset continuata, ut recte animadvertit Castrensis. +Et quamvis hoc voluisset Martianus, quod minime credendus est +cogitasse, in quo loco occupatio conceditur, in eodem praescriptionem +concedi, tamen absurdum erat quod de flumine publico dictum erat +ad Mare commune, et quod de diverticulo ad sinum proferre, cum +haec praescriptio usum qui est Iuregentium communis, impeditura +sit, illa autem publico usui non admodum noceat. Alterum autem +Angeli argumentum quod ex aquaeductu sumitur,[120a] eodem Castrensi +monstrante, ut a quaestione alienissimum, ab omnibus merito +exploditur. + +Falsum igitur est talem praescriptionem etiam eo tempore gigni, +cuius initium omnem memoriam excedat. Vbi enim lex omnem omnino +tollit praescriptionem, ne istud quidem tempus admittitur, hoc +est, ut Felinus loquitur,[121a] materia impraescriptibilis tempore +immemoriali non fit praescriptibilis. Fatetur haec vera esse +Balbus;[122a] sed Angeli sententiam receptam dicit hac ratione, +quia tempus extra memoriam positum idem valere creditur privilegio, +cum titulus amplissimus ex tali tempore praesumatur. Apparet hinc +non aliud illos sensisse, quam si pars aliqua reipublicae, puta +Imperi Romani, supra omnem memoriam usa esset tali iure, ei dandam +praescriptionem hoc colore, quasi Principis + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +cease; and occupation once interrupted, even if it had been +continuous for a thousand years, loses its rights, as Paul de +Castro† justly observes. And even if Marcianus had meant--which +certainly was not in his mind at all--that acquisition by +prescription is to be recognized wherever occupation is recognized, +still it would have been absurd to apply what had been said about a +public river to the common sea, or what had been said about an inlet +or a river branch to a bay, since in the latter case prescription +would hinder the use of something common to all by the law of +nations, and in the former case would work no great injury to public +use. Moreover, another argument brought forward by Angeli based on +the use of aqueducts,[120] has quite properly been rejected by every +one, being, as de Castro pointed out, entirely aside from the point. + +* [Bartolus de Saxoferrato (1314-1357) the most famous of the +Post-glossators, was called by many of his biographers ‘Optimus +auriga in hac civili sapientia’.] + +† [The celebrated Italian jurist (?-1420 or 1437) of whom Cujas +said: “Si vous n’avez pas Paul de Castro, vendez votre chemise pour +l’acheter.” (Note from page 55 of the French translation of Grotius +by de Grandpont.)] + +It is not true then that such prescription rises even at a time +beyond the period of the memory of man. For since the law absolutely +denies all prescription, not even immemorial time has any effect on +the question; that is, as Felinus[121] says, things imprescriptible +by nature do not become prescriptible by the mere efflux of +immemorial time. Balbus admits the truth of these arguments,[122] but +says that the opinion of Angeli is to be accepted on the ground that +time immemorial is believed to have the same validity as prerogative +for setting up a title, since a perfect title is presumed from such +efflux of time. Hence it appears that the jurists thought if some +part of a state, say of the Roman empire for example, at a period +before the memory of man had exercised such a right, that a title by +prescription would + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +concessio praeiisset. Quare cum nemo sit dominus totius generis +humani, qui ius illud adversus homines omnes homini, aut populo +alicui potuisset concedere, sublato illo colore, necesse est etiam +praescriptionem interimi. Et sic ex illorum etiam sententia inter +reges aut populos liberos prodesse nihil potest lapsus infiniti +temporis. + +Vanissimum autem et illud est quod Angelus docuit, etiamsi ad +dominium praescriptio proficere non potest, tamen dandam esse +possidenti exceptionem. Nam Papinianus disertis verbis exceptionem +negat:[123a] et aliter non potuit sentire, cum ipsius saeculo +praescriptio nihil esset aliud quam exceptio. Verum igitur est +quod et leges Hispanicae exprimunt[124a] in his rebus quae communi +hominum usui sunt attributae, nullius omnino temporis praescriptionem +procedere, cuius definitionis illa praeter ceteras ratio reddi +potest, quod qui re communi utitur, ut communi uti videtur, non autem +iure proprio, et ita praescribere non magis quam fructuarius potest +vitio possessionis.[125a] + +Altera haec etiam non contemnenda est, quod in praescriptione +temporis cuius memoria non exstat, quamvis titulus et bona fides +praesumantur, tamen si re ipsa appareat titulum omnino nullum dari +posse, et sic manifesta sit fides mala, quae in populo maxime quasi +uno corpore perpetua esse + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +have to be admitted on that ground, exactly as if there had been a +previous grant from a Prince. But inasmuch as there is no one who +is sovereign of the whole human race with competence to grant to +any man or to any nation such a right against all other men, with +the annihilation of that pretext, title by prescription is also +necessarily destroyed. Therefore the opinion of the jurists is that +not even an infinite lapse of time is able to set up a right as +between kings or independent nations. + +Moreover Angeli brought forward a most foolish argument, affirming +that even if prescription could not create ownership, still an +exception ought to be made in favor of a possessor. Papinian however +in unmistakable words says there is no exception,[123] nor could +he think otherwise, because in his day prescription was itself an +exception. It is therefore true, as expressed also in the laws of +Spain,[124] that prescription based on no matter how immemorial a +time, sets up no title to those things which are recognized as common +to the use of mankind. One reason among others which can be given for +this definition is that any one who uses a _res communis_ does so +evidently by virtue of common and not private right, and because of +the imperfect character of possession he can therefore no more set up +a legal title by prescription than can a usufructuary.[125] + +A second reason not to be overlooked is that although a title and +good faith are presumed in a prescriptive right created by the efflux +of immemorial time, nevertheless if it appears from the nature of the +thing itself that no title at all can be established, and if thus +there becomes evident bad faith--a thing held to be permanent in a +nation as well as in an individual--then prescription fails because +of a + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +censetur, et ex duplici defectu praescriptio corruit.[126a] Tertia +vero, quia res haec est merae facultatis, quae non praescribitur, ut +infra demonstrabimus. + +Sed nullus est finis argutiarum. Inventi sunt qui in hoc argumento +a praescriptione consuetudinem distinguerent, ut illa scilicet +exclusi, ad hanc confugerent. Discrimen autem quod hic statuunt sane +ridiculum est: ex praescriptione aiunt ius unius quod ab eo aufertur +alteri applicari;[127a] sed cum aliquod ius ita alicui applicatur +ut alteri non auferatur, tum dici consuetudinem; quasi vero cum ius +navigandi quod communiter ad omnes pertinet, exclusis aliis ab uno +usurpatur, non necesse sit omnibus perire quantum uni accedit. Errori +huic ansam dederunt Pauli verba non recte accepta, qui cum de iure +proprio maris ad aliquem pertinente loqueretur,[128a] fieri hoc posse +dixit Accursius per privilegium aut consuetudinem: quod additamentum +ad Iurisconsulti textum nullo modo accedens mali potius coniectoris +esse videtur quam boni interpretis. Mens Pauli supra explicata +est. Ceterum illi si vel sola Vlpiani verba,[129a] quae paulo ante +praecedunt, satis considerassent, longe aliud dicturi erant. Fatetur +enim ut quis ante aedes meas piscari prohibeatur, esse quidem + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +double defect.[126] Also a third reason is that we have under +consideration a merely facultative right which is not prescriptible, +as we shall show below.* + +* [See chapter XI.] + +But there is no end to their subtilties. There are jurists who in +this case would distinguish custom from prescription, so that if they +are debarred from the one, they may fall back upon the other. But +the distinction which they set up is most absurd. They say that the +right of one person which is taken away from him is given to another +by prescription;[127] but that when any right is given to any one +in such a way that it is not taken away from any one else, then it +is called custom. As if indeed the right of navigation, which is +common to all, upon being usurped by some one to the exclusion of all +others, would not necessarily when it became the property of one be +lost to all! + +This error receives support from misinterpretation of what Paulus +has to say about a private right of possession on the sea.[128] +Accursius† said that such a right could be acquired by privilege or +custom. But this addition which in no way agrees with the text of +the jurist seems to be rather the interpretation of a mischievous +guesser than of a faithful interpreter. The real meaning of the +words of Paulus has been already explained. Besides, if more careful +consideration had been given to the words of Ulpian[129] which almost +immediately precede those of Paulus, a very different assertion would +have been made. For Ulpian acknowledges that if any one is prohibited +from fishing in front of + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +usurpatum;[130a] hoc est receptum consuetudine, sed nullo iure, +ideoque iniuriarum actionem prohibito non denegandam. + +Contemnit igitur hunc morem, et usurpationem vocat, ut et inter +Christianos Doctores Ambrosius.[131a] Et merito. Quid enim clarius +quam non valere consuetudinem, quae iuri naturae, aut gentium ex +adverso opponitur?[132a] Consuetudo enim species est iuris positivi, +quod legi perpetuae obrogare non potest. Est autem lex illa perpetua +ut Mare omnibus usu commune sit. Quod autem in praescriptione +diximus, idem in consuetudine verum est, si quis eorum qui diversum +tradiderunt sensus excutiat, non aliud reperturum, quam consuetudinem +privilegio parari. Atqui adversus genus humanum concedendi +privilegium nemo habet potestatem; quare inter diversas respublicas +consuetudo ista vim non habet. + +Verum omnem hanc quaestionem diligentissime tractavit Vasquius,[133a] +decus illud Hispaniae, cuius nec in explorando iure subtilitatem, +nec in docendo libertatem umquam desideres. Is igitur posita thesi: +‘Loca publica et iure gentium communia praescribi non posse’, quam +multis firmat auctoribus; exceptiones deinde subiungit ab Angelo et +aliis confictas, quas supra retulimus. Haec autem examinaturus recte +iudicat istarum rerum veritatem pendere a vera iuris, tam naturae +quam gentium cognitione. Ius enim naturae cum a + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +my house, such prohibition is a usurpation of right,[130] allowed, +it is true, by custom, but based on no law, and that an action for +damages could not be denied the person thus prohibited from fishing. + +† [Franciscus (?) Accursius (?-1259) (a pupil of the famous Monarcha +juris Azzo), with whose name the Glossa Magna is almost synonymous. +He was called Advocatorum Idolum.] + +He therefore condemns this practice, and calls it a usurpation; +of the Christian jurists Ambrose[131] does likewise, and both are +right. For what is clearer than that custom is not valid when it +is diametrically opposed to the law of nature or of nations?[132] +Indeed, custom is a sort of affirmative right, which cannot +invalidate general or universal law. And it is a universal law that +the sea and its use is common to all. Moreover what we have said +about prescription applies with equal truth and force to custom; and +if any one should investigate the opinions of those who have differed +upon this matter, he would find no other opinion but that custom is +established by privilege. No one has the power to confer a privilege +which is prejudicial to the rights of the human race; wherefore such +a custom has no force as between different states. + +This entire question however has been most thoroughly treated by +Vasquez,[133] that glory of Spain, who leaves nothing ever to be +desired when it comes to subtle examination of the law or to the +exposition of the principles of liberty. He lays down this thesis: +‘Places public and common to all by the law of nations cannot +become objects of prescription’. This thesis he supports by many +authorities, and then he subjoins the objections fabricated by Angeli +and others, which we have enumerated above. But before examining +these objections he makes the just and reasonable statement that the +truth of all these matters depends upon a true conception both of the +law of nature and the law of nations. + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +divina veniat providentia, esse immutabile. Huius autem iuris +naturalis partem esse ius gentium, primaevum quod dicitur, diversum +a iure gentium secundario sive positivo, quorum posterius mutari +potest. Nam si qui mores cum iure gentium primaevo repugnent, hi non +humani sunt ipso iudice, sed FERINI, corruptelae et abusus, non leges +et usus. Itaque nullo tempore praescribi potuerunt, nulla lata lege +iustificari, nullo multarum etiam gentium consensu, hospitio, et +exercitatione stabiliri, quod exemplis aliquot et Alphonsi Castrensis +Theologi Hispani testimonio confirmat.[134a] + +‘Ex quibus apparet’, inquit, ‘quam suspecta sit sententia eorum, +quos supra retulimus, existimantium Genuenses, aut etiam Venetos +posse non iniuria prohibere alios navigare per Gulfum aut pelagus +sui maris, quasi aequora ipsa praescripserint, id quod non solum +est contra leges,[135a] sed etiam est contra ipsum ius naturae, aut +gentium primaevum, quod mutari non posse diximus. Quod sit contra +illud ius constat, quia non solum maria aut aequora eo iure communia +erant sed etiam reliquae omnes res immobiles. Et licet ab eo iure +postea recessum fuerit ex parte, puta quoad dominium et proprietatem +terrarum, quarum dominium iure Naturae commune, distinctum et +divisum, sicque ab illa communione segregatum fuit; tamen[136a] +diversum fuit et est in dominio maris, + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +For, since the law of nature arises out of Divine Providence, it is +immutable; but a part of this natural law is the primary or primitive +law of nations, differing from the secondary or positive law of +nations, which is mutable. For if there are customs incompatible +with the primary law of nations, then, according to the judgment of +Vasquez, they are not customs belonging to men, but to wild beasts, +customs which are corruptions and abuses; not laws and usages. +Therefore those customs cannot become prescriptions by mere lapse +of time, cannot be justified by the passage of any law, cannot be +established by the consent, the protection, or the practice even of +many nations. These statements he confirms by a number of examples, +and particularly by the testimony of Alphonse de Castro[134] the +Spanish theologian. + +‘It is evident therefore’, he says, ‘how much to be suspected is the +opinion of those persons mentioned above, who think that the Genoese +or the Venetians can without injustice prohibit other nations from +navigating the gulfs or bays of their respective seas, as if they +had a prescriptive right to the very water itself. Such an act is +not only contrary to the laws,[135] but is contrary also to natural +law or the primary law of nations, which we have said is immutable. +And this is seen to be true because by that same law not only the +seas or waters, but also all other immovables were _res communes_. +And although in later times there was a partial abandonment of that +law, in so far as concerns sovereignty and ownership of lands--which +by natural law at first were held in common, then distinguished and +divided, and thus finally separated from the primitive community of +use;--nevertheless[136] it was different as regards sovereignty over +the sea, which from the beginning of the world down to this + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +quod ab origine Mundi, ad hodiernum usque diem est, fuitque semper in +communi, nulla ex parte immutatum, ut est notum’. + +‘Et quamvis ex LVSITANIS magnam turbam saepe audiverim in hac +esse opinione ut eorum Rex ita praescripserit navigationem INDICI +Occidentalis (forte Orientalis) eiusdemque VASTISSIMI MARIS, ita +ut reliquis gentibus aequora illa transfretare non liceat, et ex +nostrismet HISPANIS VVLGVS in eadem opinione fere esse videtur, +ut per VASTISSIMVM IMMENSVMQVE PONTVM ad Indorum regiones quas +potentissimi Reges nostri subegerunt reliquis mortalium navigare +praeterquam Hispanis ius minime sit, quasi ab eis id ius praescriptum +fuerit, tamen istorum omnium non minus INSANAE sunt opiniones, quam +eorum qui quoad Genuenses et Venetos in eodem fere SOMNIO esse +adsolent, quas sententias INEPTIRE vel ex eo dilucidius apparet, +quod istarum nationum singulae contra seipsas nequeunt praescribere: +hoc est, non respublica Venetiarum contra semetipsam, non respublica +Genuensium contra semetipsam, non Regnum Hispanicum contra +semetipsum, non Regnum Lusitanicum contra semetipsum.[137a] Esse enim +debet differentia inter agentem et patientem’. + +‘Contra reliquas vero nationes longe minus praescribere possunt, +quia ius praescriptionum est mere civile, ut fuse ostendimus supra. +Ergo tale ius cessat cum agitur inter principes vel populos, +superiorem non recognoscentes in temporalibus. Iura enim mere civilia +cuiuscumque regionis, + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +very day is and always has been a _res communis_, and which, as is +well known, has in no wise changed from that status. + +‘And although’, he continues, ‘I have often heard that a great many +Portuguese believe that their king has a prescriptive right over +the navigation of the vast seas of the West Indies (probably the +East Indies too) such that other nations are not allowed to traverse +those waters; and although the common people among our own Spaniards +seem to be of the same opinion, namely, that absolutely no one in +the world except us Spaniards ourselves has the least right to +navigate the great and immense sea which stretches to the regions +of the Indies once subdued by our most powerful kings, as if that +right has been ours alone by prescription; although, I repeat, I +have heard both these things, nevertheless the belief of all those +people is no less extravagantly foolish than that of those who are +always cherishing the same delusions with respect to the Genoese and +Venetians. Indeed the opinions of them all appear the more manifestly +absurd, because no one of those nations can erect a prescription +against itself; that is to say, not the Venetian republic, nor the +Genoese republic, nor the kingdom of Spain nor of Portugal can raise +prescriptions against rights they already possess by nature.[137] For +the one who claims a prescriptive right and the one who suffers by +the establishment of such a claim must not be one and the same person. + +‘Against other nations they are even much less competent to raise a +prescription, because the right of prescription is only a municipal +right, as we have shown above at some length. Therefore such a right +ceases to have any effect as between rulers or nations who do not +recognize a superior in the temporal domain. For so far as the merely +municipal laws of any place are concerned, they do not + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +quoad exteros populos, nationes, vel etiam homines singulos, non +magis sunt in consideratione, quam si re vera esset tale ius, aut +numquam fuisset, et ad ius commune gentium primaevum vel secundarium +recurrendum est, eoque utendum, quo iure talem maris praescriptionem +et usurpationem admissam non fuisse satis constat. Nam, et hodie +usus aquarum communis est, non secus quam erat ab origine Mundi. +Ergo et in aequoribus et aquis nullum ius est aut esse potest humano +generi, praeterquam quoad usum communem. Praeterea de iure naturali +et divino est illud praeceptum, ut _Quod tibi non vis fieri, alteri +non facias_. Vnde cum navigatio nemini possit esse nociva nisi +ipsi naviganti, par est ut nemini possit, aut debeat impediri, +ne in re sua natura libera, sibique minime noxia navigantium +libertatem impediat, et laedat contra dictum praeceptum et contra +regulam praesertim cum omnia intelligantur esse permissa, quae non +reperiuntur expressim prohibita.[138a] Quinimo non solum contra ius +naturale esset, velle impedire talem navigationem, sed etiam tenemur +contrarium facere, hoc est, prodesse iis quibus possumus, cum id sine +damno nostro fieri potest’. + +Quod cum multis auctoritatibus tam divinis quam humanis confirmasset, +subiungit postea:[139a] ‘Ex superioribus etiam apparet suspectam esse +sententiam Iohannis Fabri, Angeli, Baldi, et Francisci Balbi, quos +supra retulimus, existimantium loca iuris gentium communia, et si +acquiri non possint praescriptione, posse tamen acquiri consuetudine, + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +affect foreign peoples, nations, or even individuals, any more +than if they did not exist or never had existed. Therefore it was +necessary to have recourse to the common law of nations, primary as +well as secondary, and to use a law which clearly had not admitted +any such prescription and usurpation of the sea. For today the use of +the waters is common, exactly as it has been since the creation of +the world. Therefore no man has a right nor can acquire a right over +the seas and waters which would be prejudicial to their common use. +Besides, there is both in natural and divine law that famous rule: +‘Whatsoever ye would that men should not do to you, do not ye even +so to them’. Hence it follows, since navigation cannot harm any one +except the navigator himself, it is only just that no one either can +or ought to be interdicted therefrom, lest nature, free in her own +realm, and least hurtful to herself, be found impeding the liberty +of navigation, and thus offending against the accepted precept and +rule that all things are supposed to be permitted which are not found +expressly forbidden.[138] Besides, not only would it be contrary to +natural law to wish to prevent such free navigation, but we are even +bound to do the opposite, that is, bound to assist such navigation +in whatever way we can, when it can be done without any prejudice to +ourselves’. + +After Vasquez had established his point by the help of many +authorities both human and divine, he added:[139] ‘It appears then, +from what has gone before that the opinion held by Johannes Faber, +Angeli, Baldus, and Franciscus Balbus, whom we have cited above, is +not to be trusted, because they think that places common by the law +of nations, even if not open to acquisition by prescription, can +nevertheless be acquired by custom; but this is entirely false, and + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +quod omnino FALSVM est, eaque traditio CAECA ET NVBILA est, OMNIQVE +RATIONIS LVMINE CARENS, legemque verbis non rebus imponens.[140a] In +exemplis enim de Mari Hispanorum, LVSITANORVM, Venetorum, Genuensium, +et reliquorum, constat consuetudine ius tale navigandi, et alios +navigare prohibendi non magis acquiri quam praescriptione.[141a] +Vtroque enim casu ut apparet, eadem est ratio. Et quia per iura et +rationes supra relatas id esset contra naturalem aequitatem, nec +ullam induceret utilitatem, sed solam laesionem, sicque ut lege +expressa introduci non possent, ita etiam nec lege tacita, qualis +est consuetudo.[142a] Et tempore id non iustificaretur, sed potius +deterius et iniurius in dies fieret’. + +Ostendit deinde ex prima terrarum occupatione posse populo ut venandi +ius, ita piscandi in suo flumine competere, et postquam illa semel ab +antiqua communione separata sunt, ita ut particularem applicationem +admittant, praescriptione temporis eius, cuius initi memoria non +exstet, quasi tacita populi concessione acquiri posse. Hoc autem +per praescriptionem contingere, non per consuetudinem, quia solius +aequirentis condicio melior fiat, reliquorum vero deterior. Et +cum tria enumerasset quae requiruntur, ut ius proprium in flumine +piscandi praescribatur: + +‘Quid autem’, subdit, ‘quoad mare? Et in eo magis est + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +is a teaching which is both obscure and vague, which lacks the +faintest glimmer of reasonableness, and which sets up a law in word +but not in fact.[140] For it is well established from the examples +taken from the seas of the Spaniards, Portuguese, Venetians, Genoese, +and others, that an exclusive right of navigation and a right of +prohibiting others from navigation is no more to be acquired by +custom than by prescription.[141] And it is apparent that the reason +is the same in both cases. And since according to the laws and +reasons adduced above this would be contrary to natural equity and +would not bring benefit but only injury, therefore as it could not +be introduced by an express law, neither could it be introduced by a +tacit or implied law, and that is what custom is.[142] And far from +justifying itself by any lapse of time, it rather becomes worse, and +every day more injurious’. + +Vasquez next shows that from the time of the earliest occupation of +the earth every people possessed the right of hunting in its own +territory, and of fishing in its own rivers. After those rights +were once separated from the ancient community of rights in such +a way that they admitted of particular attachments, they could be +acquired by prescription based upon such an efflux of time that +“the memory of its beginning does not exist,” as if by the tacit +permission of a nation. This comes about, however, by prescription +and not by custom, because only the condition of him who acquires is +bettered, while that of all other persons is made worse. Then after +Vasquez had enumerated three conditions which are requisite in order +that a private right of fishing in a river may become a right by +prescription, he continues as follows: + +‘But what are we to say as regards the sea? There is + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +quod etiam concursus istorum trium non sufficeret ad acquirendum ius. +Ratio differentiae inter mare ex una parte, et terram et flumina +ex altera, quia illo casu ut olim ita et hodie, et semper, tam +quoad piscandum quam quoad navigandum mansit integrum ius gentium +primaevum, neque umquam fuit a communione hominum separatum, et +alicui, vel aliquibus applicatum. Posteriore autem casu, nempe in +terra vel fluminibus aliud fuit, ut iam disseruimus’. + +‘Sed quare ius gentium secundarium, ut eam separationem quoad terras +et flumina facit, quoad mare facere desiit? respondeo, quia illo casu +expediebat. Constat enim quod si multi venentur, aut piscentur in +terra vel flumine, facile nemus feris, et flumen piscibus evacuatum +redditur, id quod in mari non est. Item fluminum navigatio facile +deterior fit et impeditur per aedificia, quod in mari non est. Item +per aquaeductus facile evacuatur flumen, non ita in mari;[143a] ergo +in utroque non est par ratio’. + +‘Nec ad rem pertinet, quod supra diximus, communem esse usum +aquarum, fontium etiam et fluminum. Nam intelligitur quoad bibendum +et similia, quae fluminis dominium aut ius habenti vel minime vel +levissime nocent.[144a] Minima enim in consideratione non sunt. Pro +nostris sententiis facit, quia iniqua nullo tempore praescribuntur, +et ideo lex iniqua nullo tempore praescribitur, aut iustificatur’. +Mox: ‘Et + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +more to say about it, because even the combination of the three +conditions mentioned is not sufficient here for the acquisition of +such a right. The reason for the difference between the sea on one +hand and land and rivers on the other, is that in the case of the sea +the same primitive right of nations regarding fishing and navigation +which existed in the earliest times, still today exists undiminished +and always will, and because that right was never separated from the +community right of all mankind, and attached to any person or group +of persons. But in the latter case, that of the land and rivers, it +was different, as we have already set forth. + +‘But why, it is asked, does the secondary law of nations which brings +about this separation when we consider lands and rivers cease to +operate in the same way when we consider the sea? I reply, because in +the former case it was expedient and necessary. For every one admits +that if a great many persons hunt on the land or fish in a river, the +forest is easily exhausted of wild animals and the river of fish, but +such a contingency is impossible in the case of the sea. Again, the +navigation of rivers is easily lessened and impeded by constructions +placed therein, but this is not true of the sea. Again, a river is +easily emptied by means of aqueducts but the sea cannot be emptied +by any such means.[143] Therefore there is not equal reason on both +sides. + +‘Neither does what we have said above about the common use of waters, +springs, and rivers, apply in this case, for common use is recognized +in them all for purposes of drinking and the like, such usages namely +as do not injure at all or in the slightest degree him who owns a +river or has some other right in one.[144] These are trifles for +which we have no time. What makes for our contention is the fact that +no lapse of time will give a prescriptive right to anything unjust. +Therefore an unjust law is not capable of + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +quae sunt impraescriptibilia ex legis dispositione, nec per mille +annos praescriberentur’; quod innumeris doctorum testimoniis +fulcit.[145a] + +Nemo iam non videt, ad usum rei communis intercipiendum nullam +quantivis temporis usurpationem prodesse. Cui adiungendum est +etiam eorum qui dissentiunt auctoritatem huic quaestioni non posse +accommodari. Illi enim de Mediterraneo loquuntur, nos de Oceano; illi +de sinu, nos de immenso mari, quae in ratione occupationis plurimum +differunt. Et quibus illi indulgent praescriptionem, illi litora mari +continua possident, ut Veneti et Genuenses, quod de Lusitanis dici +non posse modo patuit. + +Immo et si prodesse posset tempus, ut quidam posse putant in publicis +quae sunt, populi, tamen non ea adsunt quae necessario requiruntur. +Primum enim docent omnes desiderari, ut is qui praescribit +huiusmodi actum, eum exercuerit non longo dumtaxat tempore, sed +memoriam excedente; deinde ut tanto tempore eundem actum nemo alius +exercuerit, nisi concessione illius, vel clandestine; praeterea ut +alios uti volentes prohibuerit, scientibus quidem et patientibus + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +erecting a prescriptive right or of being justified by efflux +of time’. A little farther on Vasquez says: ‘Things which are +imprescriptible by the disposition of the law, may not become objects +of prescription even after the lapse of a thousand years’. This +statement he supports by countless citations from the jurists.[145] + +Every one perceives that no usurpation no matter how long continued +is competent to intercept the use of a _res communis_. And it must +also be added, that the authority of those who hold dissenting +opinions cannot possibly be applied to the question here at issue. +For they are talking about the Mediterranean, we are talking about +the Ocean; they speak of a gulf, we of the boundless sea; and from +the point of view of occupation these are wholly different things. +And too, those peoples, to whom the authorities just mentioned +concede prescription, the Venetians and Genoese for example, possess +a continuous shore line on the sea, but it is clear that not even +that kind of possession can be claimed for the Portuguese. + +Further, even if mere lapse of time, as some think, could establish +a right by prescription over public property, still the conditions +absolutely indispensable for the creation of such a right are in this +case absent. The conditions demanded are these: first, all jurists +teach that he who sets up a prescriptive right of this sort shall +have been in actual possession not only for a considerable period, +but from time immemorial; next, that during all that time no one +else shall have exercised the same right of possession unless by +permission of that possessor or clandestinely; besides that, it is +necessary that he shall have prevented other persons wishing to use +his possession from so doing, and that such measures be a matter of +common knowledge and done by the suffrance of those concerned in the +matter. For even if + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +iis ad quos ea res pertinebat; nam etsi exercuisset semper, et +quosdam exercere volentes prohibuisset semper, non tamen omnes, quia +alii fuerunt prohibiti, alii vero libere exercuerunt, id quidem non +sufficeret, ex Doctorum sententia. + +Apparet autem debere haec omnia concurrere, tum quia praescriptioni +publicarum rerum lex inimica est, tum ut videatur praescribens iure +suo non autem communi usus, idque non interrupta possessione. + +Cum autem tempus postulatur, cuius initi non exstet memoria, +non semper sufficit, ut optimi interpretes ostendunt, probare +saeculi lapsum; sed constare oportet famam rei a maioribus ad nos +transmissam, ita ut nemo supersit qui contrarium viderit, aut +audierit. Occasione rerum Africanarum in ulteriora primum Oceani +inquirere coeperunt regnante Iohanne Lusitani,[146a] anno salutis +millesimo quadringentesimo septuagesimo septimo. Viginti post annis +sub Rege Emanuele promontorium Bonae spei praeternavigatum est, +seriusque multo ventum Malaccam, et insulas remotiores, ad quas +Batavi navigare coeperunt anno millesimo quingentesimo nonagesimo +quinto, non dubie intra annum centesimum. Iam vero etiam eo quod +intercessit tempore aliorum usurpatio adversus alios etiam omnes +impedivit praescriptionem, Castellani ab anno millesimo quingentesimo +decime nono possessionem Lusitanis maris circa Moluccas ambiguam + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +he had continuously exercised his right of possession, and had always +prevented from using his possession _some_ of those who wished to +do so, but not _all_; then, because _some_ had been prevented from +exercising and _others_ freely allowed to exercise that use, that +kind of possession according to the opinion of the jurists, is not +sufficient to establish a right by prescription. + +It is clear therefore that all these conditions should be present, +both because law is opposed to the prescription of public things, +and in order that he who sets up such a prescription may seem to +have used his own private right, not a public right, and that too by +continuous possession. + +Now, inasmuch as time beyond the period of the memory of man is +demanded for the creation of a prescriptive right, it is not always +sufficient, as the best commentators point out, to prove the lapse of +a hundred years, but the tradition handed down to us by our ancestors +ought to be undisputed, provided no one is left alive who has seen +or heard anything to the contrary. It was during the reign of King +John,[146] in the year of our Lord 1477, at the time of the wars in +Africa, that the Portuguese began to push their discoveries first +into the more distant parts of the Ocean. Twenty years later, during +the reign of King Emmanuel, they rounded the Cape of Good Hope, and +somewhat later yet, reached Malacca, and the islands beyond, the very +islands, indeed, to which the Dutch began to sail in the year 1595, +that is, well within a hundred years of the time that the Portuguese +first arrived. And in truth even in that interval, the usurpation +of rights there by other parties had interrupted the competence of +everybody else to create a prescriptive right. For example, from the +year 1519, the Spaniards rendered the possession by the Portuguese of +the sea around the Moluccas a very uncertain one. Even the French and + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +fecere. Galli etiam et Angli non clanculum, sed via aperta eo +perruperunt. Praeterea accolae totius tractus Africani, aut Asiatici +partem maris quisque sibi proximam piscando et navigando perpetuo +usurparunt, numquam a Lusitanis prohibiti. + +Conclusum igitur sit, ius nullum esse Lusitanis quo aliam quamvis +gentem a navigatione Oceani ad Indos prohibeant. + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +English made their way to those newly discovered places not secretly, +but by force of arms. And besides these, the inhabitants of the +entire coast of Africa and Asia constantly used for fishing and +navigation that part of the sea nearest their own several coasts, and +were never interdicted from such use by the Portuguese. + +The conclusion of the whole matter therefore is that the Portuguese +are in possession of no right whereby they may interdict to any +nation whatsoever the navigation of the Ocean to the East Indies. + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + + + + +CAPVT VIII + +_Iure gentium inter quosvis liberam esse mercaturam_ + + +Quod si dicant Lusitani cum Indis commercia exercendi ius quoddam +proprium ad se pertinere, eisdem fere omnibus argumentis refellentur. +Repetemus breviter et aptabimus. + +Iure Gentium hoc introductum est, ut cunctis hominibus inter se +libera esset negotiandi facultas, quae a nemine posset adimi.[147a] +Et hoc, sicut post dominiorum distinctionem continuo necessarium +fuit, ita originem videri potest antiquiorem habuisse. Subtiliter +enim Aristoteles μεταβλητικὴν dixit, ἀναπλήρωσιν τῆς κατὰ φύσιν +αὐταρκείας,[148a] hoc est, negotiatione suppleri id quod naturae +deest, quo commode omnibus sufficiat. Oportet igitur communem esse +iure gentium non tantum privative, sed et positive, ut dicunt +magistri, sive affirmative.[149a] Quae autem illo modo sunt iuris +gentium, mutari possunt: quae hoc modo, non possunt. Id ita intelligi +potest. + +Dederat natura omnia omnibus. Sed cum a rerum multarum usu, quas vita +desiderat humana, locorum intervallo homines arcerentur, quia ut +supra diximus, non omnia ubique + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + + + + +CHAPTER VIII + +_By the Law of Nations trade is free to all persons whatsoever_ + + +If however the Portuguese claim that they have an exclusive right +to trade with the East Indies, their claim will be refuted by +practically all the same arguments which already have been brought +forward. Nevertheless I shall repeat them briefly, and apply them to +this particular claim. + +By the law of nations the principle was introduced that the +opportunity to engage in trade, of which no one can be deprived,[147] +should be free to all men. This principle, inasmuch as its +application was straightway necessary after the distinctions of +private ownerships were made, can therefore be seen to have had a +very remote origin. Aristotle, in a very clever phrase, in his work +entitled the Politics,[148] has said that the art of exchange is +a completion of the independence which Nature requires. Therefore +trade ought to be common to all according to the law of nations, +not only in a negative but also in a positive, or as the jurists +say, affirmative sense.[149] The things that come under the former +category are subject to change, those of the latter category are not. +This statement is to be explained in the following way. + +Nature had given all things to all men. But since men were prevented +from using many things which were desirable in every day life because +they lived so far apart, + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +proveniunt, opus fuit traiectione; nec adhuc tamen permutatio erat, +sed aliis vicissim rebus apud alios repertis suo arbitrio utebantur; +quo fere modo apud Seres dicitur rebus in solitudine relictis sola +mutantium religione peragi commercium.[150a] + +Sed cum statim res mobiles monstrante necessitate, quae modo +explicata est, in ius proprium transissent, inventa est permutatio, +qua quod alteri deest ex eo quod alteri superest suppleretur.[151a] +Ita commercia victus gratia inventa ex Homero Plinius probat.[152a] +Postquam vero res etiam immobiles in dominos distingui coeperunt, +sublata undique communio non inter homines locorum spatiis discretos +tantum, verum etiam inter vicinos necessarium fecit commercium; quod +ut facilius procederet, nummus postea adventus est, dictus ἀπὸ τοῦ +νόμου quod institutum sit civile.[153a] + +Ipsa igitur ratio omnium contractuum universalis, ἡ μεταβλητική +a natura est; modi autem aliquot singulares ipsumque pretium, ἡ +χρηματιστική ab instituto;[154a] quae vetustiores iuris interpretes +non satis distinxerunt. Fatentur + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +and because, as we have said above, everything was not found +everywhere, it was necessary to transport things from one place to +another; not that there was yet an interchange of commodities, but +that people were accustomed to make reciprocal use of things found +in one another’s territory according to their own judgment. They say +that trade arose among the Chinese in about this way. Things were +deposited at places out in the desert and left to the good faith and +conscience of those who exchanged things of their own for what they +took.[150] + +But when movables passed into private ownership (a change brought +about by necessity, as has been explained above), straightway there +arose a method of exchange by which the lack of one person was +supplemented by that of which another person had an over supply.[151] +Hence commerce was born out of necessity for the commodities of life, +as Pliny shows by a citation from Homer.[152] But after immovables +also began to be recognized as private property, the consequent +annihilation of universal community of use made commerce a necessity +not only between men whose habitations were far apart but even +between men who were neighbors; and in order that trade might be +carried on more easily, somewhat later they invented money, which, as +the derivation of the word shows, is a civic institution.[153] + +Therefore the universal basis of all contracts, namely exchange, is +derived from nature; but some particular kinds of exchange, and the +money payment itself, are derived from law;[154] although the older +commentators on the law have not made this distinction sufficiently +clear. Nevertheless all + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +tamen omnes proprietatem rerum, saltem mobilium a iure gentium +primario prodire, itemque contractus omnes quibus pretium non +accedit.[155a] Philosophi[156a] τῆς μεταβλητικῆς quam translationem +vertere licebit, genera statuunt duo: τὴν ἐμπορικιὴν καὶ τὴν +καπηλικήν quarum ἐμπορική quae ut vox ipsa indicat inter +gentes dissitas, ordine naturae prior est, et sic a Platone +ponitur.[157a] Καπηλική eadem videtur esse quae παράστασις[158a] +Aristoteli, tabernaria sive stataria negotiatio inter cives. Idem +Aristoteles[159a] τὴν ἐμπορικήν dividit in ναυκληρίαν et φορτηγίαν +quarum haec terrestri itinere, illa maritimo merces devehit. +Sordidior autem est καπηλική contra honestior ἐμπορική et maritima +maxime, quia multa multis impertit.[160a] + +Vnde navium exercitionem ad summam rempublicam pertinere dicit +Vlpianus; institorum non eundem esse usum; quia illa omnino secundum +naturam necessaria est. Aristoteles:[161a] ἔστι γὰρ ἡ μεταβλητικὴ +πάντων, ἀρξαμένη τὸ μὲν πρῶτον ἐκ τοῦ κατὰ φύσιν, τῷ τὰ μὲν πλείω, τὰ +δὲ ἐλάττω τῶν ἱκανῶν ἔχειν τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, ‘est enim translatio rerum +omnium coepta ab initio, ab eo quod est secundum naturam, cum homines +partim haberent plura, quam sufficerent, partim etiam pauciora’. +Seneca:[162a] ‘quae emeris, vendere; gentium ius est’. + +Commercandi igitur libertas ex iure est primario gentium, + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +authorities agree that the ownership of things, particularly of +movables, arises out of the primary law of nations, and that all +contracts in which a price is not mentioned, are derived from the +same source.[155] The philosophers[156] distinguish two kinds of +exchange using Greek words which we shall take the liberty to +translate as ‘wholesale’ and ‘retail’ trade. The former, as the Greek +word shows, signifies trade or exchange between widely separated +nations, and it ranks first in the order of Nature, as is shown +in Plato’s Republic.[157] The latter seems to be the same kind of +exchange that Aristotle calls by another Greek word[158] which means +retail or shop trade between citizens. Aristotle makes a further +division of wholesale trade into overland and overseas trade.[159] +But of the two, retail trade is the more petty and sordid, and +wholesale the more honorable; but most honorable of all is the +wholesale overseas trade, because it makes so many people sharers in +so many things.[160] + +Hence Ulpian says that the maintenance of ships is the highest duty +of a state, because it is an absolutely natural necessity, but that +the maintenance of hucksters has not the same value. In another place +Aristotle says: “For the art of exchange extends to all possessions, +and it arises at first in a natural manner from the circumstance that +some have too little, others too much.”[161] And Seneca is also to be +cited in this connection for he has said that buying and selling is +the law of nations.[162] + +Therefore freedom of trade is based on a primitive right of nations +which has a natural and permanent cause; and + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +quod naturalem et perpetuam causam habet, ideoque tolli non potest, +et si posset non tamen posset nisi omnium gentium consensu: tantum +abest ut ullo modo gens aliqua gentes duas inter se contrahere +volentes iuste impediat. + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +so that right cannot be destroyed, or at all events it may not be +destroyed except by the consent of all nations. For surely no one +nation may justly oppose in any way two nations that desire to enter +into a contract with each other. + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + + + + +CAPVT IX + +_Mercaturam cum Indis propriam non esse Lusitanorum titulo +occupationis_ + + +Primum inventio aut occupatio hic locum non habet, quia ius mercandi +non est aliquid corporale, quod possit apprehendi; neque prodesset +Lusitanis etiamsi primi hominum cum Indis habuissent commercia, quod +tamen non potest non esse falsissimum. Nam et cum initio populi in +diversa iere, aliquos necesse est primos fuisse mercatores, quos +tamen ius nullum acquisivisse certo est certius. Quare si Lusitanis +ius aliquod competit, ut soli cum Indis negotientur, id exemplo +ceterarum servitutum, ex concessione oriri debuit aut expressa aut +tacita, hoc est praescriptione; neque aliter potest. + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + + + + +CHAPTER IX + +_Trade with the East Indies does not belong to the Portuguese by +title of occupation_ + + +Neither discovery nor occupation [which have been fully treated +in Chapters II and V], is to be invoked on the point here under +consideration, because the right of carrying on trade is not +something corporal, which can be physically seized; nor would +discovery or occupation help the case of the Portuguese even if +they had been the very first persons to trade with the East Indies, +although such a claim would be entirely untenable and false. For +since in the beginning peoples set out along different paths, it was +necessary that some become the first traders, nevertheless it is +absolutely certain that those traders did not on that account acquire +any rights. Wherefore if the Portuguese have any right by virtue of +which they _alone_ may trade with the East Indies, that right like +other servitudes ought to arise from concession, either express or +tacit, that is to say, from prescription. Otherwise no such right can +exist. + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + + + + +CAPVT X + +_Mercaturam cum Indis propriam non esse Lusitanorum titulo donationis +Pontificiae_ + + +Concessit nemo, nisi forte Pontifex, qui non potuit.[163a] Nemo +enim quod suum non est concedere potest. At Pontifex, nisi totius +Mundi temporalis sit Dominus, quod negant sapientes, ius etiam +commerciorum universale sui iuris dicere non potest. Maxime vero +cum res sit ad solum quaestum accommodata, nihilque ad spiritualem +procurationem pertinens, extra quam cessat, ut fatentur omnes, +Pontificia potestas. Praeterea si Pontifex solis illud Lusitanis ius +tribuere vellet idemque adimere hominibus ceteris, duplicem faceret +iniuriam: Primum Indis, quos ut extra Ecclesiam positos Pontifici +nulla ex parte subditos esse diximus. His igitur cum nihil quod +ipsorum est adimere possit Pontifex, etiam ius illud quod habent cum +quibuslibet negotiandi adimere non potuit. Deinde aliis hominibus +omnibus Christianis et non Christianis, quibus idem illud ius adimere +non potuit sine causa indicta. Quid quod ne temporales quidem Domini +in suis imperiis prohibere possunt commerciorum libertatem, uti +rationibus et auctoritatibus ante demonstratum est? + +Sicut et illud confitendum est, contra ius perpetuum naturae +gentiumque, unde ista libertas originem sumpsit in omne tempus +duratura, nullam valere Pontificis auctoritatem. + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + + + + +CHAPTER X + +_Trade with the East Indies does not belong to the Portuguese by +virtue of title based on the Papal Donation_ + + +No one has granted it except perhaps the Pope, and he did not have +the power.[163] For no one can give away what he does not himself +possess. But the Pope, unless he were the temporal master of the +whole world, which sensible men deny, cannot say that the universal +right in respect of trade belongs to him. Especially is this true +since trade has to do only with material gains, and has no concern +at all with spiritual matters, outside of which, as all admit, Papal +power ceases. Besides, if the Pope wished to give that right to the +Portuguese alone, and to deprive all other men of the same right, +he would be doing a double injustice. In the first place, he would +do an injustice to the people of the East Indies who, placed as we +have said outside the Church, are in no way subjects of the Pope. +Therefore, since the Pope cannot take away from them anything that is +theirs, he could not take away their right of trading with whomsoever +they please. In the second place, he would do an injustice to all +other men both Christian and non-Christian, from whom he could not +take that same right without a hearing. Besides, what are we to say +of the fact that not even temporal lords in their own dominions are +competent to prohibit the freedom of trade, as has been demonstrated +above by reasonable and authoritative statements? + +Therefore it must be acknowledged, that the authority of the Pope has +absolutely no force against the eternal law of nature and of nations, +from whence came that liberty which is destined to endure for ever +and ever. + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + + + + +CAPVT XI + +_Mercaturam cum Indis non esse Lusitanorum propriam iure +praescriptionis aut consuetudinis_ + + +Restat praescriptio, seu consuetudinem mavis dicere.[164a] Sed +nec huius nec illius vim esse aliquam inter liberas nationes, aut +diversarum gentium Principes, nec adversus ea quae primigenio iure +introducta sunt, cum Vasquio ostendimus. Quare et hic ut ius mercandi +proprium fiat, quod proprietatis naturam non recipit, nullo tempore +efficitur. Itaque nec titulus hic adfuisse potest, nec bona fides, +quae cum manifesto desinit, praescriptio secundum Canones non ius +dicetur, sed iniuria. + +Quin et ipsa mercandi quasi possessio non ex iure proprio contigisse +videtur, sed ex iure communi quod ad omnes aequaliter pertinet; sicut +contra, quod aliae nationes cum Indis contrahere forte neglexerunt, +id non Lusitanorum gratia fecisse existimandi sunt, sed quia sibi +expedire crediderunt; quod nihil obstat quo minus ubi suaserit +utilitas, id facere possint, quod antea non fecerint. Certissima enim +illa regula a doctoribus traditur,[165a] in his quae sunt arbitrii +seu merae facultatis, ita ut per se actum tantum facultatis eius, +non autem ius novum operentur, nec praescriptionis nec consuetudinis +titulo annos etiam mille valituros: quod et + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + + + + +CHAPTER XI + +_Trade with the East Indies does not belong to the Portuguese by +title of prescription or custom_ + + +Last of all, prescription, or if you prefer the term, custom.[164] We +have shown that according to Vasquez, neither prescription nor custom +had any force as between free nations or the rulers of different +peoples, or any force against those principles which were introduced +by primitive law. And here as before, mere efflux of time does not +bring it to pass that the right of trade, which does not partake of +the nature of ownership, becomes a private possession. Now in this +case neither title nor good faith can be shown, and inasmuch as good +faith is clearly absent, according to legal rules prescription will +not be called a right, but an injury. + +Nay, the very possession involved in trading seems not to have +arisen out of a private right, but out of a public right which +belongs equally to all; so on the other hand, because nations perhaps +neglected to trade with the East Indies, it must not be presumed that +they did so as a favor to the Portuguese, but because they believed +it to be to their own best interests. But nothing stands in their +way, when once expediency shall have persuaded them, to prevent them +from doing what they had not previously done. For the jurists[165] +have handed down as incontestable the principle that where things +arbitrable or facultative are such that they produce nothing more +than the facultative act _per se_, but do not create a new right, +that in all such cases not even a thousand years will create a title +by prescription or custom. + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +affirmative et negative procedit, ut docet Vasquius. Nec enim quod +libere feci facere cogor, nec quod non feci omittere. + +Alioquin quid esset absurdius quam ex eo quod singuli non possumus +cum singulis semper contrahere, salvum nobis in posterum non esse +ius cum illis, si usus tulerit, contrahendi? Idem Vasquius et illud +rectissime, ne infinito quidem tempore effici, ut quid necessitate +potius, quam sponte factum videatur. + +Probanda itaque Lusitanis foret coactio, quae tamen ipsa cum hac in +re iuri naturae sit contraria, et omni hominum generi noxia, ius +facere non potest.[166a] Deinde illa coactio durasse debuit per +tempus, cuius initii non exstet memoria; id vero tantum hinc abest, +ut ne centum quidem anni exierint, ex quo tota fere negotiatio Indica +penes Venetos fuit, per Alexandrinas traiectiones.[167a] Debuit etiam +talis esse coactio, cui restitum non sit. At restiterunt Galli et +Angli, aliique. Neque sufficit aliquos esse coactos, sed ut omnes +coacti sint requiritur, cum per unum non coactum servetur in causa +communi libertatis possessio. Arabes autem et Sinenses a saeculis +aliquot ad hunc usque diem perpetuo cum Indis negotiantur. + +Nihil prodest ista usurpatio. + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +This, as Vasquez points out, acts both affirmatively and negatively. +For I am not compelled to do what I have hitherto done of my own free +will, nor am I compelled to stop doing what I have never done. + +What moreover could be more absurd than to deduce from the fact that +we as individuals are not able always to conclude a bargain with +other individuals, that there is not preserved to us for the future +the right of bargaining with them if opportunity shall have offered? +The same Vasquez has also most justly said that not even the lapse +of infinite time establishes a right which seems to have arisen from +necessity rather than choice. + +Therefore in order to establish a prescriptive right to the trade +with the East Indies the Portuguese would be compelled to prove +coercion. But since in such a case as this coercion is contrary to +the law of nature and obnoxious to all mankind, it cannot establish +a right.[166] Next, that coercion must needs have been in existence +for so long a time that “the memory of its beginning does not exist”; +that, however, is so far from being the case that not even a hundred +years had elapsed since the Venetians controlled nearly the entire +trade with the East Indies, carrying it via Alexandria.[167] Again, +the coercion ought to have been such that it was not resisted; but +the English and the French and other nations besides, did resist +it. Finally, it is not sufficient that _some_ be coerced, but it +is indispensable that _all_ be coerced, because the possession of +freedom of trade is preserved to all by a failure to use coercion +upon even one person. Moreover, the Arabians and the Chinese are at +the present day still carrying on with the people of the East Indies +a trade which has been uninterrupted for several centuries. + +Portuguese usurpation is worthless. + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + + + + +CAPVT XII + +_Nulla aequitate niti Lusitanos in prohibendo commercio_ + + +Ex his quae dicta sunt satis perspicitur eorum caeca aviditas, qui, +ne quemquam in partem lucri admittant, illis rationibus conscientiam +suam placare student, quas ipsi magistri Hispanorum qui in eadem +sunt causa manifestae vanitatis convincunt.[168a] Omnes enim qui in +rebus Indicis usurpantur colores iniuste captari quantum ipsis licet, +satis innuunt, adduntque numquam eam rem serio Theologorum examine +probatam. Illa vero querela quid est iniquius, quod dicunt Lusitani +quaestus suos exhauriri copia contra licentium? Inter certissima enim +Iuris enuntiata est, nec in dolo eum versari, nec fraudem facere, ne +damnum quidem alteri dare videri, qui iure suo utitur; quod maxime +verum est, si non ut alteri noceatur, sed rem suam augendi animo +quippiam fiat.[169a] Inspici enim debet id quod principaliter agitur, +non quod extrinsecus in consequentiam venit. Immo si proprie loquimur +cum Vlpiano, non ille damnum dat, sed lucro quo adhuc alter utebatur +eum prohibet. + +Naturale autem est et summo iuri atque etiam aequitati + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + + + + +CHAPTER XII + +_The Portuguese prohibition of trade has no foundation in equity_ + + +From what has been said thus far it is easy to see the blind cupidity +of those who in order not to admit any one else to a share in their +gains, strive to still their consciences by the very arguments which +the Spanish jurists, interested too in the same case, show to be +absolutely empty.[168] For they intimate as clearly as they can +that as regards India all the pretexts employed, are far fetched +and unjust. They add that this right was never seriously approved +by the swarm of theologians. Indeed, what is more unjust than the +complaint made by the Portuguese that their profits are drained off +by the number of their competitors? An incontrovertible rule of law +lays down that a man who uses his own right is justly presumed to be +contriving neither a deceit nor a fraud, in fact not even to be doing +any one an injury. This is particularly true, if he has no intention +to harm any one, but only to increase his own property.[169] For +what ought to be considered is the chief and ultimate intent not the +irrelevant consequence. Indeed, if we may with propriety agree with +Ulpian, he is not doing an injury, but he is preventing some one from +getting a profit which another was previously enjoying. + +Moreover it is natural and conformable to the highest law as well +as equity, that when a gain open to all is concerned every person +prefers it for himself rather than for + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +conveniens, ut lucrum in medio positum suum quisque malit quam +alterius, etiam qui ante perceperat.[170a] Quis ferat querentem +opificem quod alter eiusdem artis exercitio ipsius commoda evertat? +Batavorum autem causa eo est iustior, quia ipsorum hac in parte +utilitas cum totius humani generis utilitate coniuncta est, quam +Lusitani eversum eunt.[171a] Neque hoc recte dicetur ad aemulationem +fieri, ut in re simili ostendit Vasquius: aut enim plane hoc negandum +est, aut asseverandum non ad bonam modo, verum etiam ad optimam +aemulationem fieri, iuxta Hesiodum:[172a] ἀγαθὴ δ’ Ἔρις ἥδε βροτοῖσι +‘bona lis mortalibus haec est’. Nam etiam si quis pietate motus, +inquit ille, frumentum in summa penuria vilius venderet, impediretur +improba duritie eorum hominum, qui saeviente penuria suum carius +fuerant vendituri. Verum est talibus modis minui aliorum reditus: nec +id negamus, ait, ‘sed minuuntur cum universorum hominum commodo: ET +VTINAM omnium PRINCIPVM et TYRRANORVM ORBIS reditus ita minuerentur’. + +Quid ergo tam iniquum videri potest, quam Hispanos vectigalem habere +Terrarum Orbem, ut nisi ad illorum nutum nec emere liceat nec +vendere?[173a] In cunctis civitatibus dardanarios odio atque etiam +poenis prosequimur; nec ullum tam nefarium vitae genus videtur, quam +ista annonae flagellatio.[174a] Merito quidem. Naturae enim faciunt + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +another, even if that other had already discovered it.[170] Who +would countenance an artisan who complained that another artisan was +taking away his profits by the exercise of the same craft? But the +cause of the Dutch is the more reasonable, because their advantage in +this matter is bound up with the advantage of the whole human race, +an advantage which the Portuguese are trying to destroy.[171] Nor +will it be correct to say, that this is done in rivalry, as Vasquez +shows in a similar case. For clearly we must either deny this or +affirm that it is done not only in honorable but in most honorable +rivalry, for, as Hesiod says, ‘This rivalry is honorable for mortal +men’.[172] For, says Vasquez, if any one should be so moved by love +for his fellow man as to offer grain at a time of great scarcity for +a lower price than usual, he would be prevented by the wicked and +hardhearted men who had the intention of selling their grain at a +higher price than usual, because of the pinch caused by the scarcity. +But, some one will object, by such methods the profits of others will +be made less. ‘We do not deny it’, says Vasquez, ‘but they are made +less to the corresponding advantage of all other men. And would that +the profits of all Rulers and Tyrants of this world could be thus +lessened’! + +Indeed can anything more unjust be conceived than for the Spaniards +to hold the entire world tributary, so that it is not permissible +either to buy or to sell except at their good pleasure?[173] In all +states we heap odium upon grain speculators and even bring them to +punishment; and in very truth there seems to be no other sort of +business so disgraceful as that of forcing up prices in the grain +market.[174] That is not + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +iniuriam, quae in commune fecunda est:[175a] neque vero censeri +debet in usus paucorum reperta negotiatio, sed ut quod alteri deest +alterius copia pensaretur, iusto tamen compendio omnibus proposito, +qui laborem ac periculum transferendi in se suscipiunt. + +Hoc ipsum igitur quod in republica, id est, minore hominum conventu, +grave et perniciosum iudicatur, in magna illa humani generis +societate ferendumne est? ut scilicet totius mundi monopolium faciant +populi Hispani? Invehitur Ambrosius in eos qui maria claudunt,[176a] +Augustinus in eos qui itinera obstruunt; Nazianzenus in[177a] +coemptores suppressoresque mercium, qui ex inopia aliorum soli +quaestum faciunt, et ut ipse facundissime loquitur καταπραγματεύονται +τῆς ἐνδείας. Quin et divini sapientis sententia publicis diris +devovetur sacerque habetur, qui alimenta supprimendo vexat annonam: ὅ +συνέχων σῖτον δημοκατάρατος. + +Clament igitur Lusitani quantum, et quam diu libebit: ‘Lucra nostra +deciditis’. Respondebunt Batavi: ‘Immo nostris invigilamus. Hocne +indignamini in partem nos venire ventorum et maris? Et quis illa +vobis lucra mansura promiserat? Salvum est vobis, quo nos contenti +sumus’. + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +to be wondered at, for such speculators are doing an injury to +nature, who, as Aristotle says, is fertile for all alike.[175] +Accordingly it ought not to be supposed that trade was invented for +the benefit of a few, but in order that the lack of one would be +counterbalanced by the oversupply of another, a fair return also +being guaranteed to all who take upon themselves the work and the +danger of transport. + +Is the same thing then which is considered grievous and pernicious +in the smaller community of a state to be put up with at all in +that great community of the human race? Shall the people of Spain, +forsooth, assume a monopoly of all the world? Ambrose inveighs +against those who interfere with the freedom of the sea;[176] +Augustine against those who obstruct the overland routes; and Gregory +of Nazianzus[177] against those who buy goods and hold them, and thus +(as he eloquently says) make profits for themselves alone out of +the helplessness and need of others. Indeed in the opinion of this +wise and holy man any person who holds back grain and thus forces up +the market price ought to be given over to public punishment and be +adjudged worthy of death. + +Therefore the Portuguese may cry as loud and as long as they shall +please: ‘You are cutting down our profits’! The Dutch will answer: +‘Nay! we are but looking out for our own interests! Are you angry +because we share with you in the winds and the sea? Pray, who had +promised that you would always have those advantages? You are secure +in the possession of that with which we are quite content’. + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + + + + +CAPVT XIII + +_Batavis ius commercii Indicani qua pace, qua indutiis, qua bello +retinendum_ + + +Quare cum et ius et aequum postulet, libera nobis ita ut cuiquam +esse Indiae commercia, superest, ut sive cum Hispanis pax, sive +indutiae fiunt, sive bellum manet, omnino eam, quam a natura +habemus libertatem tueamur. Nam ad pacem quod attinet, notum +est eam esse duorum generum: aut enim pari foedere, aut impari +coitur. Graeci[178a] istam vocant συνθήκην ἐξ ἴσου hanc σπονδὰς ἐξ +ἐπιταγμάτων illa virorum est, haec ingeniorum servilium. Demosthenes +in oratione de libertate Rhodiorum:[179a] καί τοι χρὴ τοὺς +βουλομένους ἐλευθέρους εἶναι τὰς ἐκ τῶν ἐπιταγμάτων συνθήκας φεύγειν, +ὡς ἐγγὺς δουλείας οὔσας, ‘eos qui volunt esse liberi oportet omnes +condiciones quibus leges imponuntur ita fugere tamquam quae proximae +sunt servituti’. Tales autem sunt omnes quibus pars altera in iure +suo imminuitur, iuxta Isocratis definitionem[180a] vocantis τὰ τοὺς +ἑτέρους ἐλαττοῦντα παρὰ τὸ δίκαιον. Si enim, ut inquit Cicero,[181a] +‘suscipienda bella sunt ob eam causam, ut sine iniuria in pace +vivatur’, sequitur eodem auctore*, pacem esse vocandam, non pactionem +servitutis, sed tranquillam libertatem; quippe cum et Philosophorum +et Theologorum + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + + + + +CHAPTER XIII + +_The Dutch must maintain their right of trade with the East Indies by +peace, by treaty, or by war_ + + +Wherefore since both law and equity demand that trade with the East +Indies be as free to us as to any one else, it follows that we are to +maintain at all hazards that freedom which is ours by nature, either +by coming to a peace agreement with the Spaniards, or by concluding +a treaty, or by continuing the war. So far as peace is concerned, it +is well known that there are two kinds of peace, one made on terms of +equality, the other on unequal terms. The Greeks[178] call the former +kind a compact between equals, the latter an enjoined truce; the +former is meant for high souled men, the latter for servile spirits. +Demosthenes in his speech on the liberty of the Rhodians[179] says +that it was necessary for those who wished to be free to keep away +from treaties which were imposed upon them, because such treaties +were almost the same as slavery. Such conditions are all those by +which one party is lessened in its own right, according to the +definition of Isocrates.[180] For if, as Cicero says,[181] wars +must be undertaken in order that people may live in peace unharmed, +it follows that peace ought to mean not an agreement which entails +slavery, but an undisturbed liberty, especially as peace and justice +according to + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +complurium[182a] iudicio pax et iustitia nominibus magis quam re +differant, sitque pax non qualiscumque, sed ordinata concordia. + +* [Philippica XII, 14: cum iis facta pax non erit pax, sed pactio +servitutis.] + +Indutiae autem si fiunt satis apparet ex ipsa indutiarum natura non +debere medio earum tempore condicionem cuiusquam deteriorem fieri, +cum ferme interdicti uti possidetis instar obtineant. + +Quod si in bellum trudimur hostium iniquitate, debet nobis causae +aequitas spem ac fiduciam boni eventus addere. Nam[183a] ὑπὲρ ὧν ἄν +ἐλαττῶνται μεχρὶ δυνατοῦ πάντες πολεμοῦσι, περὶ δὲ τοῦ πλεονεκτεῖν +οὐχ οὕτως, ‘pro his in quibus iniuria afficiuntur omnes quantum +omnino possunt depugnant: at propter alieni cupiditatem non item’; +quod et Alexander Imperator ita expressit: τὸ μὲν ἄρχειν ἀδίκων ἒργων +οὐκ ἀγνώμονα ἔχει τὴν πρόκλησιν, τὸ δὲ τοὺς ὀχλοῦντας ἀποσείεσθαι ἔκ +τε τῆς ἀγαθῆς συνειδήσεως ἔχει τὸ θαῤῥαλέον, καὶ ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ἀδικεῖν +ἀλλ’ ἀμύνασθαι ὑπάρχει τὸ εὔελπι, ‘eius a quo coepit iniuria, +provocatio maxime invidiosa est; at cum depelluntur aggressores, +sicut bona conscientia fiduciam secum fert, ita quia de vindicanda +non de inferenda iniuria laboratur, spes etiam adsunt optimae’. + +Si ita necesse est, perge gens mari invictissima, nec tuam tantum, +sed humani generis libertatem audacter propugna. + + _Nec te, quod classis centenis remigat alis, + Terreat: INVITO labitur illa MARI: + Quodve vehunt prorae Centaurica saxa minantes, + Tigna cava et pictos experiere metus. + Frangit et attollit vires in milite causa; + Quae nisi iusta subest, excutit arma pudor._[184a] + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +the opinion of many philosophers and theologians[182] differ more in +name than in fact, and as peace is a harmonious agreement based not +on individual whim, but on well ordered regulations. + +If however a truce is arranged for, it is quite clear from the very +nature of a truce, that during its continuance no one’s condition +ought to change for the worse, inasmuch as both parties stand on the +equivalent of a _uti possidetis_. + +But if we are driven into war by the injustice of our enemies, the +justice of our cause ought to bring hope and confidence in a happy +outcome. “For,” as Demosthenes has said, “every one fights his +hardest to recover what he has lost; but when men endeavor to gain at +the expense of others it is not so.”[183] The Emperor Alexander has +expressed his idea in this way: ‘Those who begin unjust deeds, must +bear the greatest blame; but those who repel aggressors are twice +armed, both with courage because of their just cause, and with the +highest hope because they are not doing a wrong, but are warding off +a wrong’. + +Therefore, if it be necessary, arise, O nation unconquered on the +sea, and fight boldly, not only for your own liberty, but for that of +the human race. “Nor let it fright thee that their fleet is winged, +each ship, with an hundred oars. The sea whereon it sails will have +none of it. And though the prows bear figures threatening to cast +rocks such as Centaurs throw, thou shalt find them but hollow planks +and painted terrors. ’Tis his cause that makes or mars a soldier’s +strength. If the cause be not just, shame strikes the weapon from his +hands.”[184] + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + + +Si iusta multi, et ipse Augustinus,[185a] arma crediderunt eo nomine +suscipi, quod per terras alienas iter innoxium negaretur, quanto illa +erunt iustiora, quibus maris, quod naturae lege commune est, usus +communis et innoxius postulatur? Si iuste oppugnatae sunt gentes quae +in suo solo commercia aliis interdicebant, quid illae quae populos +ad se nihil pertinentes per vim distinent, ac mutuos earum commeatus +intercludunt? Si res ista in iudicio agitaretur, dubitari non potest +quae a viro bono expectari deberet sententia, ait Praetor:[186a] +‘Quo minus illi in flumine publico navem agere, ratem agere, quove +minus per ripam exonerare liceat, vim fieri veto’. De mari et litore +in eandem formam dandum interdictum docent interpretes, exemplo +Labeonis, qui cum interdiceret Praetor:[187a] ‘Ne quid in flumine +publico ripave eius facias, quo statio iterve navigio deterius sit, +fiat’; simile dixit interdictum competere in mari:[188a] ‘Ne quid in +mari inve litore facias, quo portus, statio, iterve navigio deterius +sit, fiat’. + +Immo et post prohibitionem, si quis scilicet in mari navigare +prohibitus sit, aut non permissus rem suam vendere, aut re sua uti, +iniuriarum eo nomine competere actionem Vlpianus respondit.[189a] +Theologi insuper et qui tractant casus, quos vocant, conscientiarum, +concordes tradunt, + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + + +If many writers, Augustine himself[185] among them, believed it was +right to take up arms because innocent passage was refused across +foreign territory, how much more justly will arms be taken up against +those from whom the demand is made of the common and innocent use +of the sea, which by the law of nature is common to all? If those +nations which interdicted others from trade on their own soil are +justly attacked, what of those nations which separate by force and +interrupt the mutual intercourse of peoples over whom they have +no rights at all? If this case should be taken into court, there +can be no doubt what opinion ought to be anticipated from a just +judge. The praetor’s law says:[186] ‘I forbid force to be used in +preventing any one from sailing a ship or a boat on a public river, +or from unloading his cargo on the bank’. The commentators say that +the injunction must be applied in the same manner to the sea and to +the seashore. Labeo, for example, in commenting on the praetor’s +edict,[187] ‘Let nothing be done in a public river or on its bank, by +which a landing or a channel for shipping be obstructed’, said there +was a similar interdict which applied to the sea, namely,[188] ‘Let +nothing be done on the sea or on the seashore by which a harbor, a +landing, or a channel for shipping be obstructed’. + +Nay more, after such a prohibition, if, namely, a man be prevented +from navigating the sea, or not allowed to sell or to make use of his +own wares and products, Ulpian says that he can bring an action for +damages on that ground.[189] Also the theologians and the casuists +agree that he who prevents another from buying or selling, or who +puts his + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +eum qui alterum vendere aut emere impediat, utilitatemve propriam +publicae ac communi praeponat, aut ullo modo alterum in eo quod est +iuris communis impediat, ad restitutionem teneri omnis damni viri +boni arbitrio. + +Secundum haec igitur vir bonus iudicans, Batavis libertatem +commerciorum adiudicaret, Lusitanos et ceteros, qui eam libertatem +impediunt, vetaret vim facere, et damna restituere iuberet. Quod +autem in iudicio obtineretur, id ubi iudicium haberi non potest, +iusto bello vindicatur. Augustinus:[190a] ‘Iniquitas partis adversae +iusta ingerit bella’. Et Cicero:[191a] ‘Cum sint duo genera +decertandi, unum per disceptationem, alterum per vim, confugiendum ad +posterius, si uti non licet priore’. Et Rex Theodoricus: ‘Veniendum +tunc ad arma, cum locum apud adversarium iustitia non potest +reperire’. Et quod proprius est nostro argumento,[192a] Pomponius +eum qui rem omnibus communem cum incommodo ceterorum usurpet, MANV +PROHIBENDVM respondit. Theologi quoque tradunt, sicuti pro rerum +cuiusque defensione bellum recte suscipitur, ita non minus recte +suscipi, pro usu earum rerum quae naturali iure debent esse communes. +Quare ei qui itinera praecludat, evectionemque mercium impediat, +etiam non expectata ulla publica auctoritate, _via facti_, ut +loquuntur, posse occurri. + +Quae cum ita sint, minime verendum est, ne aut Deus + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +private interests before the public and common interests, or who +in any way hinders another in the use of something which is his by +common right, is held in damages to complete restitution in an amount +fixed by an honorable arbitrator. + +Following these principles a good judge would award to the Dutch +the freedom of trade, and would forbid the Portuguese and others +from using force to hinder that freedom, and would order the payment +of just damages. But when a judgment which would be rendered in a +court cannot be obtained, it should with justice be demanded in a +war. Augustine[190] acknowledges this when he says: ‘The injustice +of an adversary brings a just war’. Cicero also says:[191] “There +are two ways of settling a dispute; first, by discussion; second, +by physical force; we must resort to force only in case we may not +avail ourselves of discussion.” And King Theodoric says: ‘Recourse +must then be had to arms when justice can find no lodgment in an +adversary’s heart’. Pomponius, however, has handed down a decision +which has more bearing on our argument[192] than any of the citations +already made. He declared that the man who seized a thing common to +all to the prejudice of every one else must be forcibly prevented +from so doing. The theologians also say that just as war is +righteously undertaken in defense of individual property, so no less +righteously is it undertaken in behalf of the use of those things +which by natural law ought to be common property. Therefore he who +closes up roads and hinders the export of merchandise ought to be +prevented from so doing _via facti_, even without waiting for any +public authority. + +Since these things are so, there need not be the slightest + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +eorum conatus secundet, qui ab ipso institutum ius naturae +certissimum violant, aut homines ipsi eos inultos patiantur, qui solo +quaestus sui respectu communem humani generis utilitatem oppugnant. + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +fear that God will prosper the efforts of those who violate that +most stable law of nature which He himself has instituted, or that +even men will allow those to go unpunished who for the sake alone of +private gain oppose a common benefit of the human race. + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + + + + + CVM SVB HOC TEMPVS PLVRIMAE REGIS HISPANIARVM LITTERAE IN MANVS + NOSTRAS VENISSENT, QVIBVS IPSIVS ET LVSITANORVM INSTITVTVM + MANIFESTE DETEGITVR, OPERAE PRETIVM VISVM EST EX IIS, QUAE + PLERAEQVE EODEM ERANT ARGVMENTO, BINAS IN LATINVM SERMONEM + TRANSLATAS EXHIBERE. + + +Domine Martine Alphonse de Castro, Prorex amice, ego Rex multam tibi +salutem mitto: + +Cum hisce litteris perveniet ad te exemplum typis impressum Edicti +quod faciendum curavi, quo, ob rationes quas expressas videbis, +aliasque meis rebus conducentes prohibeo commercium omne externorum +in ipsis partibus Indiae aliisque regionibus transmarinis. +Quandoquidem res haec est momenti atque usus maximi, et quae effici +summa cum industria debeat, impero tibi, ut simulatque litteras +has et edictum acceperis, publicationem eius omni diligentia +procures in omnibus locis ac partibus istius imperi, idque ipsum +quod edicto continetur exsequaris sine ullius personae exceptione, +cuiuscumque qualitatis, aetatis, condicionisve sit, citra omnem +moram atque excusationem, procedasque ad impletionem mandati via +merae exsecutionis, nullo admisso impedimento, appellatione, aut +gravamine in contrarium, cuiuscumque materiae generis aut qualitatis. +Iubeo itaque hoc ipsum impleri per eos ministros ad quos exsecutio +pertinet, iisque significari, non modo eos qui contra fecerint malam +operam mihi navaturos, sed eosdem me puniturum privatione officiorum +in quibus mihi serviunt. + +Quia autem relatum est mihi commorari in istis partibus + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + + + + +APPENDIX + +_Two letters of Philip III, King of Spain_ + + +As several letters of the King of Spain have come of late into our +hands, in which his design and that of the Portuguese is clearly +disclosed, it seemed worth while to translate into Latin two of them +which had particular bearing upon the controversy at issue, and to +append them here. + + +LETTER I + +_To Don Martin Alfonso de Castro, our beloved viceroy, I, the King, +send many greetings:_ + +Together with this letter will come to you a copy printed in type +of an edict which I have taken much pains to draw up, by which, for +reasons which you will see expressed, and for other reasons which are +consonant with my interests, I prohibit all commerce of foreigners +in India itself, and in all other regions across the seas. As this +matter is of the greatest importance and serviceableness, and ought +to be carried out with the highest zeal, I command you, as soon as +you shall have received this letter and edict, to further with all +diligence its publication in all places and districts under your +jurisdiction, and to carry out the provisions of the edict without +exception of any person whatsoever, no matter what his quality, age, +or condition, and without delay and excuse, and to proceed to the +fulfilment of this command with the full power of your authority, no +delay, appeal, or obstacle to the contrary, being admitted, of any +kind, sort, or quality. + +Therefore I order that this duty be discharged by those + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +externos multos variarum nationum, Italos, Gallos, Germanos, Belgas, +quorum pars maior, quantum intelligimus, eo venit per Persida et +Turcarum imperium, non per hoc regnum, adversus quos si ex huius +Edicti praescripto ac rigore procedatur, posse inde nonnullas +difficultates sequi, si illi ad Mauros inimicos perfugiant, +vicinisque munitionum mearum dispositionem indicent, rationesque +monstrent quae rebus meis nocere possent, exsequi te hoc edictum +volo prout res et tempus ferent, atque ea uti prudentia, qua illae +difficultates evitentur, curando ut omnes externos in potestate tua +habeas eosque custodias pro cuiusque qualitate, ita ut adversus +imperium nostrum nihil valeant attentare, utque ergo omnino eum finem +consequar quem hoc Edicto mihi proposui. + +Scriptae Vlyssipone XXVIII Novembris, Anno MDCVI. Subsignatum erat +Rex. Inscriptio. Pro Rege. Ad Dominum Martinum Alfonsum de Castro +Consiliarium suum, et suum Proregem Indiae. + + +Prorex amice Rex multam salutem tibi mitto: + +Etsi pro certo habeo tua praesentia, iisque viribus cum quibus in +partes austrinas concessisti, perduelles Hollandos, + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +officers to whom its execution belongs, and that they be informed +that not only will those who disobey serve me ill, but that I will +punish them by depriving them of the offices in which they now serve +me. + +Further, inasmuch as it has been reported to me that within your +jurisdiction there are sojourning many foreigners of different +nations, Italians, French, Germans, and men of the Low Countries, +the larger part of whom as we know came there by way of Persia and +Turkey, and not through our realm; and inasmuch as, if this edict +be rigidly enforced against those persons to the letter, some +inconveniences might follow, if they should escape to the Moors, +our enemies, and make known to our neighbors the disposition of +my forces, and thus show ways that they might be able to harm my +dominion: Therefore, I wish you to carry out the provisions of this +edict as the exigencies of circumstances and occasion demand, and +to use all prudence necessary in order to avoid those difficulties, +taking especial pains to keep all foreigners in your power, and to +guard them in accordance with their individual rank, so that they may +have no opportunity to attempt anything prejudicial to our power, +that thus I may attain fully that end which I have set forth in this +edict. + +Given at Lisbon, on the 28th of November in the year of our Lord, +1606. Signed by the king, and addressed: For the king, to Don Martin +Alfonso de Castro, his Councillor, and Viceroy for the East Indies. + + +LETTER II + +_To our beloved viceroy, I, the King send many greetings:_ + +Although I consider it absolutely certain that your presence and the +forces which you took with you into those Eastern regions, guarantee +that our enemies, the Dutch, + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +qui illic haerent, nec minus indigenas qui eis receptum praebent, +ita castigatos fore, ut nec hi, nec illi tale quicquam in posterum +audeant; expediet tamen, ad res tuendas, ut iustam classem, eique +operi idoneam, cum tu Goam redibis, in istis Maris partibus +relinquas, eiusque imperium et summam praefecturam mandes Andreae +Hurtado Mendosae, aut si quem ei muneri aptiorem iudicabis, +quemadmodum pro tuo in me affectu confido, ea in re non aliud te +respecturum quam quod rebus meis erit utilissimum. + +Scriptae Madritii XXVII Ian. MDCVII. Signatum Rex. Inscriptio. Pro +Rege. Ad Dominum Martinum Alfonsum de Castro suum Consiliarium, et +suum Proregem Indiae. + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +who infest those quarters as well as the natives who give them a +welcome reception, will be so thoroughly punished that neither the +one nor the other will ever dare such practices in the future: still +it will be expedient for the protection of our interests, that, +when you shall return to Goa, you leave in those parts of the sea +a fleet large and capable enough to do the business, and also that +you delegate the supreme command of that fleet to Andrea Hurtado de +Mendoza, or to any one else whom you shall consider better fitted +for this post. I rely upon your affection for me, knowing that in +this matter you will do nothing but what will be most useful to my +interests. + +Given at Madrid the 27th day of January in the year of our Lord +1607. Signed by the king, and addressed: For the king, to Don Martin +Alfonso de Castro, his Councillor, and Viceroy for the East Indies. + +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + + + + +INDEX + +_References are to pages of text and translation alike._ + + + Accursius, biographical note, 51, n. †; + cited, 51. + + Agamemnon, mention of, 9. + + Agreements, when not binding, 35. + + Air, common to all, 28; + nature of, 39. + + Alciatus, A., biographical note, 10 n. 2. + + Alexander, Emperor, quoted, 73. + + Alexander the Great, mention of, 14, 40. + + Alexander VI, Pope, reference to, 15, 45. + + Alexandria, mention of, 68. + + Ambrose, St., biographical note, 33 n. 5; + cited, 52, 71; + quoted, 32. + + Amorites, mention of, 9. + + Andocides, cited, 72 n. 1. + + Angelus Aretinus, biographical note, 48 n. 2; + reference to, 48, 49, 50, 52, 55. + + Apollinaris, mention of, 32. + + Aquinas, Thos., biographical note, 13 n. 4; + mention of, 13, 19. + + Arabians, mention of, 40, 68. + + Arbitration, 6. + + Archidiaconus, cited, 74 n. 5. + + Aristotle, cited, 61, 63, 71; + quoted, 63. + + Art of exchange, definition of, 61. + + Athenaeus, reference to, 29. + + Athenians, mention of, 9. + + Augustine, St., cited, 71, 74; + quoted, 75; + reference to, 9. + + Augustus, mention of, 12, 41. + + Avienus, quoted, 23, 24. + + Ayala, reference to, 16 n. 5. + + Aztecs, mention of, 9. + + + Balbus, J. F., biographical note, 49 n. 3; + cited, 49; + mention of, 55. + + Baldus de Ubaldis, biographical note, 9 n. 7; + mention of, 9, 55. + + Bartolus, biographical note, 48 n. *; + cited, 48; + reference from, 19 n. 2. + + Bennett, C. E., translation from, 31. + + Bernhardus, St., reference from, 16 n. 3. + + Boëthius, quoted, 19. + + du Bois, see Silvius. + + Bolognese, mention of, 9. + + Butler, translation from, 73. + + + Cadiz, mention of, 40. + + Caelius Antipater, cited, 40. + + Caietanus, T. (Cajetan), biographical note, 19 n. 4; + reference to, 17, 19. + + Cape of Good Hope, mention of, 40, 59. + + Castrensis, A. de, biographical note, 53 n. 1; + cited, 53. + + Castrensis, P. de (de Castro), biographical note, 49 n. †; + reference from, 22 n. 1. + + Castro, M. C. de, letters to, 77. + + Celsus, cited, 30, 31, 34. + + Ceylon, mention of, 11, 12. + + Charles V, Emperor, reference to, 21. + + Chinese, mention of, 62, 68. + + Cicero, cited, 72; + quoted, 23, 25, 27, 28, 75; + reference to, 29. + + Cinus, cited, 63 n. 1. + + Claudius, Emperor, mention of, 41. + + Clemens Alexandrinus, cited, 73 n. 1. + + Coercion, Portuguese, in case of East Indies, 68. + + Columella, reference to, 32. + + Comines, P. de, biographical note, 28 n. 3. + + Commerce, origin of, 62. + + Common ownership, definition of, 23. + + Common right, 44. + + Community of use, annihilation of, 62. + + Connanus, F. de, biographical note, 12 n. 2. + + Conscience, 3. + + Contract, nature of, 35. + + Cornelius Nepos, cited, 40. + + Council of Spain, mention of, 20. + + Council of Toledo, mention of, 19. + + Covarruvias, D., biographical note, 9 n. 3. + + Crown properties, in sea and river, 36. + + Custom, established by privilege, 52. + + + Demosthenes, cited, 72; + quoted, 73. + + Divine law, 1. + + Donation of Pope Alexander VI, reference to, 15, 18, 45, 66. + + Donellus, H. (Doneau), biographical note, 12 n. 2. + + Dryden, J., translations from, 7, 8, 26. + + Duarenus, biographical note, 27 n. 4. + + Dutch, answer to Portuguese, 71; + East India trade to be maintained by, 72; + navigation by, 59; + reasonable claims of, 70. + + + East Indies, mention of, 65; + not chattels of Portuguese, 21, 60, 68; + Portuguese claim of exclusive right to trade in, 61; + Portuguese not first in, 41; + right of trade to be kept with, 72; + way is free to, 37. + + Emmanuel, King of Portugal, mention of, 59. + + English, mention of, 43. + + Ennius, quoted, 38. + + Equity, chapter on, 69. + + Estius, biographical note, 9 n. 5. + + Exchange, art of, defined, 61; + derivation of, 62. + + Exhaustion, question of, 57. + + Expediency, 1. + + + Faber, J., biographical note, 34 n. 2; + reference to, 34, 55. + + Fachinham, N., biographical note, 50 n. 3. + + Felinus, M. S., biographical note, 49 n. 2; + cited, 49. + + Fishing, an ancient national right, 56; + free to all, 32, 38; + not legal to prevent, 33, 51; + revenues from, 36; + a servitude, 34. + + Fleets, maintenance of, 35. + + Free navigation, chapter on, 7. + + Freedom of trade, basis of, 63; + chapter on, 61; + Dutch should have, 75. + + French, mention of, 43; + navigation by, 59. + + + Gaius Caesar, mention of, 40. + + Genoese, mention of, 48, 53, 54, 56, 58. + + Gentilis, A., biographical note, 8 n. 2. + + Goa, mention of, 79. + + Gorcum, H. v., cited, 75 n. 3. + + Gordianus, Fab. Claud., biographical note, 12 n. 1; + mention of, 12. + + Grandpont, A. G. de., xi. + + Greeks, reference to, 19. + + Gregory, mention of, 19. + + Gregory of Nazianzus, cited, 71. + + Guicciardini, cited, 68 n. 2. + + + Hanno, reference to, 40. + + Harris, E. I., translations from, 24, 25. + + Hercules, mention of, 9. + + Hermogenianus, quoted, 26. + + Hesiod, quoted, 70; + reference to, 22. + + Homer, cited, 62. + + Horace, quoted, 12, 23, 31. + + Hugo, reference from, 16 n. 3. + + Hunting, an ancient national right, 56. + + + India, mention of, 12. + + Inner sea, as distinguished from outer sea, 37. + + Innocentius, reference from, 19 n. 2. + + Innocent passage, 20, 43, 74. + + International rights, 31. + + Isernia, A., biographical note, 36 n. *. + + Isocrates, cited, 72 n. 1, 2. + + Israelites, mention of, 9. + + + James, H. R., translation from, 19. + + Jason, cited, 54 n. 1. + + Java, mention of, 11. + + John, King of Portugal, mention of, 59. + + Jowett, B., translation from, 63. + + Jurisdiction, distinguished from ownership, 35. + + + Labeo, quoted, 31, 74. + + Law of Human Society, 9. + + Law of Nations, 7, 9, 28, 31, 61, 63; + right conception of, 52. + + Law of Nature, 2, 5, 23; + right conception of, 52. + + Law of property, 25. + + Legitimate rulers, 19. + + Leo, Emperor, cited, 33. + + Lucullus, mention of, 32. + + + Mair, A. W., translation from, 70. + + Malacca, mention of, 59. + + Marcianus, cited, 32, 48, 49; + reference to, 33. + + Martial, quoted, 32. + + Martin, J. C., xii. + + Megarians, mention of, 8. + + Mendoza, A. H. de, mention of, 79. + + Miller, W., translations from, 27, 38, 75. + + Milton, quoted, 11 n. *. + + Moluccas, mention of, 11. + + Monopoly, question of, 71. + + Morocco, mention of, 40. + + + Natural Law, 2, 5, 23, 53. + + Navigation, Dutch, 59; + free to all, 7, 32, 38, 44, 46, 55, 56; + Portuguese, 59; + prescriptive right claimed by Portuguese, 54, 60; + protection of, 35. + + Nazianzenus, see Gregory of Nazianzus. + + Neratius, reference to, 28. + + Nonius Marcellus, quoted, 12 n. 2. + + + Occupation, definition of, 25, 39, 48; + mention of, 27, 34; + not to affect common use, 30. + + Oldradus (Oldrado de Ponte), biographical note, 74 n. 5. + + Osorius, H., biographical note, 59 n. 1. + + Outer sea, as distinguished from inner sea, 37. + + Ovid, quoted, 26, 28. + + Ownership, common, 26; + private, 29, 33, 62; + transition to, 24. + + + Panormitanus, cited, 67 n. 2. + + Papal Donation, chapters on, 15, 45, 66. + + Papinian, cited, 60; + quoted, 48. + + Paul III, Pope, reference to, 21. + + Paulus, cited, 32, 51. + + Personal right, 35. + + Peter, St., mention of, 16. + + Philip III of Spain, letters of, 77. + + Pickard-Cambridge, translation from, 73. + + Pirates, treatment of, 35. + + Placentinus, quoted, 34. + + Plato, cited, 63. + + Plautus, quoted, 29. + + Pliny, cited, 12, 32, 40, 41, 62; + quoted, 7. + + Plutarch, reference to, 14. + + Polus Lucanus, cited, 73 n. 1. + + Pomponius, cited, 30, 75. + + Pomponius Mela, quoted, 40 n. 1. + + Pope, The, no right in temporal matters, 45; + no authority against law of nature and of nations, 66. + + Portuguese, arrogant pretensions of, 39, 40, 43, 75; + claim of exclusive right to trade, 61; + claim to ocean, 37; + desire for profits, 42, 69, 71; + mention of, 56, 65; + not first in East Indies, 41. + + Prescription, acquisition by, 49, 59; + chapters on, 47, 67; + definition of, 47; + failure of, 50, 51; + immemorial time no help to, 49, 58; + reference to, 4, 52. + + Pretexts for war, 18. + + Private possessions, reference to, 28. + + Privative right, 23. + + Propertius, quoted, 73. + + Property, origin of, 27. + + Ptolemaeus, cited, 41. + + Public opinion, 3. + + Public territory, origin of, 34. + + + Quintilian, quoted, 25. + + + Revenues, on fisheries, 36. + + Right of innocent passage, 20, 43, 74. + + Right of navigation, not Portuguese because of Papal Donation, 45. + + Rivalry, comment on, 70. + + Roman Church, mention of, 19. + + + Sandeus, see Felinus. + + Saracens, reference to, 10, 17. + + Scaevola, mention of, 30. + + Scott, J. B., Introductory note by, v. + + Sea, The, common to all, 28, 30, 34, 37, 43, 44, 52, 55; + defined by law of nations, 22; + nature of, 31, 39; + not exhausted by use, 43, 57; + not merchandise, 34; + not Portuguese by Papal Donation, 45; + not subject to servitude, 35, 36; + sovereignty of, 53. + + Seashore, common to all, 28, 30; + how to be used, 30, 34; + right of Roman people to, 31. + + Seneca, cited, 63; + quoted, 8, 24, 25, 26, 27. + + Shahan, Bishop, xii. + + Sigonius, C., biographical note, 9 n. 2. + + Silvestris, cited, 46 n. 1. + + Silvius, F., biographical note, 17 n. 1; + reference from, 17. + + Smith, K. F., xi. + + Sovereignty, grant by reason of, 17; + matter of positive law, 20; + Papal Donation gives no right to, chapter on, 15; + a particular proprietorship, 22, 24; + by right of conquest, 18; + by right of discovery, 11; + title to, 11; + universal, 24. + + Spaniards, arrogance of, 70, 71; + claim to ocean, 37, 54; + mention of, 56. + + Strabo, quoted, 41. + + Sylvius, see Silvius. + + + Tacitus, quoted, 10. + + Temporal possessions, 19. + + Theodoric, King, quoted, 75. + + Thucydides, cited, 72 n. 1; + quoted, 27. + + Title by prescription, destroyed, 50. + + Tolls, 11, 36. + + Torquemada, see Turre Cremata. + + Trade, freedom of, 61, 63, 72; + origin of, 62; + Portuguese claim to right of, 61. + + Trajan, mention of, 41. + + Turre Cremata, reference from, 16 n. 3. + + + Ulpian, cited, 31, 33, 35, 44, 51, 63, 74; + reference to, 28, 69. + + Use, definition of, 24, 27; + sea not exhausted by, 43; + things susceptible to universal, 29. + + Usurpation, definition of, 52; + Portuguese worthless, 68. + + _Uti possidetis_, 32, 73. + + + Varro, reference to, 32. + + Vasquius, F. M. (Vasquez), biographical note, 52 n. 4; + cited, 53, 67, 68; + quoted, 52, 55, 56, 58, 70. + + Venetians, mention of, 9, 43, 48, 53, 54, 56, 58. + + Vergil, quoted, 7, 8, 26; + reference to, 29. + + Victoria, F. de, biographical note, 9 n. 3; + reference to, 9, 13, 17, 18. + + + War, pretexts for, 18, 20. + + Water, common to all, 28. + + West Indies, claimed by Portuguese, 54. + + Willoughby, W. W., xii. + + World monopoly, question of, 71. + + + Zuarius, R., biographical note, 44 n. 3. + + + + +FOOTNOTES: + + +[A] For the freedom of the seas and the relation of Grotius to the +doctrine, see Ernest Nys’s _Les Origines du Droit International_ +(1894), pp. 379-387, and the same author’s _Etudes de Droit +International et de Droit Politique_, 2^e série (1901), _Une Bataille +de Livres_, pp. 260-272. For an account in English see Walker’s +_History of the Law of Nations_, Vol. I (1899), pp. 278-283. + +For an interesting sketch of the illustrious author of the _Mare +Liberum_, see Motley’s _The Life and Death of John of Barneveld_, +Vol. II, Chap. XXII; for an analysis of Grotius’ views on the law of +nations, see Hallam’s _Introduction to the Literature of Europe_ (4th +edition), Vol. II, Part III, Chap. IV, Sec. III; for an account of +Grotius as a humanist, see Sandys’ _History of Classical Scholarship_ +(1908), Vol. II, pp. 315-319. + +[B] _Hugonis Grotii De Jure Praedae_, edited, with an introduction, +by H. G. Hamaker, and published at The Hague in 1868 by Martinus +Nijhoff. + +[C] In support of the view that Grotius appeared as counsel in cases +arising out of captures made by vessels in the service of the Dutch +East India Company, and that the treatise, _De Jure Praedae_, is a +legal brief, see R. Fruin’s _Een Onuitgegeven Werk van Hugo De Groot_ +in _Verspreide Geschriften_, Vol. III, pp. 367-445. The following +passages are quoted from this remarkable essay: + +“While busy with the sale of the goods [of the captured merchantman +_Catherine_, which had been unloaded in the Amsterdam arsenal], the +process of adjudicating the booty before the admiralty court was +conducted in the usual forms. Claimants: Advocate General of Holland, +the Board of eight Aldermen, and Admiral Heemskerck; ... on Thursday, +September 9, 1604, final sentence was rendered, and ‘the merchantman +together with the goods taken from it were declared forfeited and +confiscated’” (pp. 389-390). + +“Hulsius in some measure replaces what the fire at the Marine Arsenal +has robbed us of; among other records he has preserved for us in +his _Achte Schiffart_ the sentence pronounced in this matter by the +admiralty, and of which we have knowledge from no other sources. +From it we learn the grounds upon which the claimants demanded +the adjudication of the booty. These grounds are the same twelve +which De Groot discusses in his book.... This concordance can be +explained on the ground that De Groot must have had acquaintance +with the sentence; but he was not a man merely to repeat what others +had before him witnessed. I should be inclined to feel that in the +process he had served as counsel for the Company, and that he himself +was one of the authors of the written claim upon which the sentence +was based. It would not then be surprising if in his book he should +develop at greater length and throw light upon what had already been +set forth in the claim” (pp. 390-391). + +“I cannot state definitely that Hugo De Groot was persuaded by the +Directors to write such an argument; I have been unable to discover +any evidence to that end. That he was in close relations with the +Company, he himself says in a letter of later date, addressed to his +brother. Nor can there be any doubt that in writing his work he made +use of the archives of the United Company and of its predecessor. If +the supposition, which I have elsewhere ventured to make is correct, +that is to say, that in the conduct of the case he appeared as +advocate for the Company, it would then appear most probable that, +after consultation with the directors, he set about writing his book, +which was to be a second plea in their behalf” (p. 403). + +[D] For the account which Grotius himself gives of the incident, see +his _Annales et Historiae de Rebus Belgicis ab Obitu Philippi Regis +usque ad Inducias Anni_ 1609, written in 1612, but first published in +1658, Book 1, p. 429. + +For a fuller account of the circumstances under which the treatise +on the law of prize was written, see Hamaker’s edition of the _De +Jure Praedae_, pp. vii-viii. The distinguished historian and scholar, +Robert J. Fruin, after an exhaustive examination of the evidence, +informed Hamaker that Grotius was retained by the Company to prepare +the commentary on the law of prize. The English translation of +Hamaker’s exact statement reads as follows: “Fruin is of the opinion +that he [Grotius] undertook this work at the instance of the Company, +and that he appeared in it as their spokesman.” + +For an analysis of the commentary _De Jure Praedae_ and the +circumstances under which it was written, see Jules Basdevant’s study +on Grotius, pp. 131-137, 155-179, in Pillet’s _Les Fondateurs du +Droit International_ (1904). + +[E] Selden’s _Mare Clausum_ was not the only defense of England, +nor was the _Mare Liberum_ the only lance which Grotius broke for +the freedom of the seas. In 1613 William Welwod, professor of Civil +Law at the University of Aberdeen, published a little book entitled +_An Abridgement of all the Sea-Lawes_, in which he maintained the +English side of the question, of which Title XXVII, pp. 61-72, deals +with the community and property of the seas. Two years later Welwod +published a second work, this time in Latin, entitled _De Dominio +Maris Juribusque ad Dominium praecipue Spectantibus Assertia Brevis +ac Methodica_. + +Grotius prepared, but did not publish, a reply to Welwod’s first +attack, entitled _Defensio Capitis Quinti Maris Liberi Oppugnati +a Gulielmo Welwodo Juris Civilis Professore, Capite XXVII ejus +Libri Scripti Anglica Sermone cui Titulum Fecit Compendium Legum +Maritimarum_. It was discovered at the same time as the commentary +_De Jure Praedae_ and was published in 1872 in Muller’s _Mare +Clausum, Bijdrage tot de geschiedenis der rivaliteit van Engeland en +Nederland in de zeventiende eeuw_. + + + + +FOOTNOTES: + + +[1a] Panegyricus 29, 2: quod genitum esset usquam, id apud omnes +natum esse videtur. + +[2a] Vergil, Georgica II, 109. + +[3a] Vergil, Aeneis VI, 847-853. + +[4a] Naturales Quaestiones III, IV. + +[5a] Institutes II, 1 (De rerum divisione, § 1); Digest I, 8, 4 (eod. +tit., L. Nemo igitur); cf. Gentilis, De jure belli I, 19; cf. Code +IV, 63, 4 (De commerciis, L. Mercatores). + +[6a] Vergil, Aeneis I, 539-540. + +[7a] Vergil, Aeneis VII, 229-230. + +[8a] Diodorus Siculus XI; Plutarch, Pericles XXIX, 4. + +[9a] Sigonius, De regno Italiae. + +[10a] Victoria, De Indis II, n. 1-7; Covarruvias, in c. Peccatum, § +9, n. 4, ibi Quinta. + +[11a] Numbers XXI, 21-26. + +[12a] Augustinus, Locutionum IV (de Numeris), 44; Et Estius, c. ult. +23, 4, 2. + +[13a] Sophocles, Trachiniae. + +[14a] Baldus de Ubaldis, Consilia III, 293. + +[15a] Tacitus, Historiae IV, 64. + +[16a] Andreas Alciatus, Commentaria VII, 130; Covarruvias in c. +Peccatum, p. 2 § 9; Bartolus on Code I, 11 (De paganis, L. 1). + +[17a] Code VIII, 40, 13 (De fideiussoribus, L. Si Barsagoram). + +[18a] Nonius Marcellus, De varia significatione sermonum, in verbo +‘occupare’ (p. 562, Lindsay); cf. Connanus, Commentarii juris civilis +III, 3; cf. Donellus, Commentarii de jure civili IV, 10. + +[19a] Institutes II, 1, 13 (De rerum divisione, § Illud quaesitum +est). + +[20a] Digest XLI, 2, 3 (De adquirenda possessione, § Neratius). + +[21a] Epistulae I, 1, 44-45. + +[22a] Pliny, Naturalis historia VI, 22. + +[23a] Digest XLI, 1, 3 (De adquirendo rerum dominio). + +[24a] Covarruvias in c. Peccatum § 10, n. 2, 4, 5. + +[25a] De potestate civili I, 9. + +[26a] Thomas Aquinas, Summa II. II, q. 10, a. 12. + +[27a] De Indis I, n. 4-7, 19. + +[28a] Vasquius, Preface (n. 5) to Controversiae illustres. + +[29a] Cf. Osorium. + +[30a] Institutes II, 1, 40 (De rerum divisione, § Per traditionem). + +[31a] Luke XII, 14; John XVIII, 36; Victoria, De Indis I, n. 25. + +[32a] Victoria XVI, n. 27. + +[33a] Vasquius, Controversiae illustres, c. 21; Turre Cremata II, +c. 113; Hugo on Dist. XCVI, C. VI (Cum ad verum); Bernhardus, De +consolatione ad Eugenium III; Victoria, De Indis I, n. 27; Covarruvias +in c. Peccatum § 9, n. 7. + +[34a] Matthew XVII, 27; XX, 26; John VI, 15. + +[35a] Victoria, De Indis I, n. 28, 30; Covarruvias on I Corinthians V +in fine; Thomas Aquinas, Summa II. II, q. 12, a. 2; Ayala, De Jure I, +2, 29. + +[36a] Thomas Aquinas, Summa II. II, q. 66, a. 8; Silvius, De +infidelibus § 7; Innocentius on Decretales Gregorii Papae IX, III, +34, 8 (De voto, c. Quod super his); Victoria, De Indis I, n. 31. + +[37a] De Indis I, n. 31. + +[38a] Vasquius, Controversiae illustres, c. 24; Victoria, De Indis +II, n. 10. + +[39a] De consolatione philosophiae IV, carmen 4, 7-10. + +[40a] Thomas Aquinas, Summa II. II, q. 10, a. 8; Dist. XLV, C. V (De +Iudeis), C. III (Qui sincera); Innocentius, cf. note 1, page 17; +Bartolus on Code I, 11, 1 (De paganis); Covarruvias in c. Peccatum, § +9, 10; Ayala, De Jure I, 2, 28. + +[41a] Matthew X, 23. + +[42a] On Thomas Aquinas, Summa II. II, q. 4, 66, a. 8. + +[43a] Victoria, De Indis II, 1. + +[44a] Castrensis on Digest I, 1, 5 (De iustitia et iure, L. Ex hoc +iure); Dist. I, C. VII (Ius naturale). + +[45a] Vasquius, Controversiae illustres, c. 1, n. 10; Lib. VI, V, 12, +3 (De verborum significatione, c. Exiit, qui seminat); Clem. V, 11 +(De verborum significatione, c. Exivi de paradiso). + +[46a] Sermones II, 2, 129-130. + +[47a] Avienus, Aratus 302-303 [promisca quetura V; promiscaque cura +A; iura peragros; praestiterat Buhlius, Breyzig]. + +[48a] Seneca, Octavia 413-414. + +[49a] Avienus, Aratus 302. + +[50a] Digest VII, 5 (De usu fructu earum rerum, quae usu consumuntur +vel minuuntur); Extravag. XIV, 3 et 5 (De verborum significatione, c. +Ad conditorem, et c. Quia quorundam); Thomas Aquinas, Summa II. II, +q. 78. + +[51a] Thyestes 203-204 (F. CXXII). + +[52a] De beneficiis VII, 12, 3. + +[53a] Ps. Quintilianus, Declamatio XIII (Pro paupere). + +[54a] Cicero, De officiis I. + +[55a] Digest I, 1, 5 (De iustitia et iure, L. Ex hoc iure). + +[56a] Vergil, Georgica I, 139-140; Ovid, Metamorphoses I, 121. + +[57a] Ovid, Metamorphoses I, 135-136. + +[58a] Ovid, Metamorphoses I, 134 (exsultavere, Magnus). + +[59a] De beneficiis VII, 4, 3. + +[60a] Octavia 431-432. + +[61a] De officiis I, 21. + +[62a] Thucydides I, 139, 2. + +[63a] Duarenus on Digest I, 8 (De divisione rerum). + +[64a] De officiis I, 51. + +[65a] De officiis I, 52. + +[66a] Ovid, Metamorphoses VI, 349-351 (aquis, 349, and ad publica, +351, Merkel). + +[67a] Digest VIII, 4, 13 (Communia praediorum, L. Venditor). + +[68a] Digest XLI, 1, 14 (De adquirendo rerum dominio, L. Quod in +litore); Comines, Memoirs III, 2; Donellus IV, 2; Digest XLI, 3, 49 +(De usucapionibus). + +[69a] Digest I, 8, 10 (De divisione rerum, L. Aristo). + +[70a] Cicero, Loco citato. [Pro Sex. Roscio Amerino 26, 72]. + +[71a] Institutes II, 1, 1 et 5 (De rerum divisione, § Et quidem +naturali; § Litorum); Digest I, 8, 1, 2, 10 (De rerum divisione); +Digest XLI, 1, 14 et 50 (De adquirendo rerum dominio, L. Quod in +litore, et L. Quamvis); Digest XLVII, 10, 13 (De iniuriis, L. +Iniuriarum § si quis me); Digest XLIII, 8, 3 (Ne quid in loco +publico, L. Litora) et 4-7. + +[72a] 975, 977, 985 (IV, 3). + +[73a] Donellus IV, 2. + +[74a] Digest XXXIX, 2, 24 (De damno infecto, L. Fluminum); other +references same as note 1, page 29. + +[75a] Donellus IV, 2 et 9; also references in note 1, page 29. + +[76a] Digest I, 8, 4 (De divisione rerum, L. Nemo igitur); XLIII, 8, +3 (Ne quid in loco publico, L. Litora). + +[77a] Horace, Carmina III, i, 33-34. + +[78a] Digest XLIII, 8, 3 (as in note 1); 8, 2 (eod. tit., L. Praetor, +§ Adversus). + +[79a] Digest XLIII, 12, 1 (De fluminibus, L. Ait praetor, § Si in +mari). + +[80a] Pliny, Naturalis historia IX, 54, 170. + +[81a] Martial, Epigrammata X, 30, 19-20. + +[82a] De Nabuthe, cap. 3. + +[83a] Digest XLVII, 10, 14 (De iniuriis, L. Sane si maris). + +[84a] Cf. note 1, page 31. + +[85a] Digest XLIV, 3, 7 (De diversis, L. Si quisquam). + +[86a] Digest XLI, 3, 45 (De usucapionibus, L, Praescriptio). + +[87a] Digest XLVII, 10, 13 (De iniuriis, L. Iniuriarum, § Si quis me). + +[88a] Novella Leonis, 102, 103, 104; cf. Cuiacium XIV, 1. + +[89a] Hexameron V, 10, 27. + +[90a] Donellus IV, 6. + +[91a] Joannes Faber on Institutes II, 1 (§ Litorum); Digest XIV, 2, 9 +(De Lege Rhodia, L. Ἀξίωσις). + +[92a] Digest XLIII, 8, 3 (Ne quid in loco publico, L. Litora). + +[93a] Digest V, 1, 9 (De iudiciis, L. Insulae); XXXIX, 4, 15 (De +publicanis, L. Caesar); Gloss. on Digest I, 8, 2 (De divisione rerum, +L. Quaedam); Institutes II, 1; Baldus on Quaedam (above). + +[94a] Baldus, Quibus modis feudi amittuntur, c. In principio, 2 col; +Code XI, 13, 1; Angelus on Digest XLVII, 10, 14 (De iniuriis, L. +Sane); Digest VIII, 4, 13 (Communia praediorum, L. Venditor fundi) et +4 (L. Caveri). + +[95a] C. Quae sint Regalia, in Feudis. + +[96a] Balbus, De praescriptionibus IV, 5; 1, q. 6, n. 4. + +[97a] Digest XLVII, 10, 13 (De iniuriis, L. Iniuriarum, § 7, v. +conductori); XLIII, 9, 1 (De loco publico fruendo). + +[98a] Cf. note 1. + +[99a] Ennius: ‘Nihilo minus ipsi lucet, cum illi accenderit’. +Vahlen,[100a] Fab. Inc. 398 (Telephus?). + +[100a] Cicero, De officiis I, 51. + +[101a] Seneca, De beneficiis III, 28 [IV, 28]. + +[102a] Johannes Faber on Institutes II, 1, 5 (De rerum divisione, § +Litorum). + +[103a] Pliny, Naturalis historia II, 69; VI, 27 [(31) Vol. 1, pp. +482-488 Mayhoff]; Pomponius Mela, De situ orbis III. + +[104a] Pliny, Naturalis historia VI, 20 (23). + +[105a] Geographica II et XVII. + +[106a] Pliny, Naturalis historia XII, 19 [VI, 23]. + +[107a] Gloss. on Lib. VI, I, 6, 3 (De electione, c. Ubi periculum, § +Porro); on Digest II, 12, 3 (De feriis, L. Solet [Grotius has Licet]). + +[108a] Digest I, 8, 4 (De divisione rerum, L. Nemo igitur); Gentilis, +De jure belli I, 19. + +[109a] Digest XLIII, 8, 2 (Ne quid in loco publico, L. Praetor ait, § +Si quis in mari). + +[110a] Gloss. on Digest XLIII, 14 (Ut in flumine publico). + +[111a] Baldus on Digest I, 8, 3 (De divisione rerum, L. Item +lapilli); Zuarius, Consilia duo de usu maris I, 3, part. tit. 28, L. +10 et 12. + +[112a] Victoria, De Indis I (II?), n. 26. + +[113a] Silvestris, In verbo Papa. n. 16. + +[114a] Vasquius, Controversiae illustres, c. 51. + +[115a] Donellus, V, 22 et seq.; Digest XVIII, 1, 6 (De contrahenda +emptione, L. Sed Celsus); XLI, 3, 9 (De usucapionibus, L. +Usucapionem), 25 (L. Sine); Lib. VI, V, 12 (De regulis iuris, Reg. +Sine possessione); Digest L, 16, 28 (De verborum significatione, L. +‘Alienationis’); XXIII, 5, 16 (De fundo dotali, L. Si fundum). + +[116a] Digest XLI, 3, 45 (De usucapionibus); Code VIII, 11, 6 (De +operis publicis, L. Praescriptio); XI, 43, 9 (De aquaeductu, L. +Diligenter); Digest XLIII, 11, 2 (De via publica, L. Viam); XLI, 3, +49 (De usucapionibus, L. ult.). + +[117a] Consilia 286; Thema tale est: inter caetera capitula pacis. + +[118a] Digest XLIV, 3, 7 (De diversis temporalibus praescriptionibus, +L. Si quisquam). + +[119a] Duarenus, De usucapionibus, c. 3; Cuiacius on Digest XLI, 3, +49 (De usucapionibus, L. ult.); Donellus V, 22 on Digest XLI, 1, 14 +(De adquirendo rerum dominio, L. Quod in litore). + +[120a] Code XI, 43, 4 (De aquaeductu, L. Usum aquae); cf. eod. +tit., L. Diligenter; cf. Digest XLIII, 20, 3 (De aqua cottidiana et +aestiva, L. Hoc iure, § Ductus aquae). + +[121a] On Decretales Gregorii Papae IX, II, 26, 11 (De +praescriptionibus, c. Accedentes). + +[122a] De praescriptionibus IV, 5, q. 6, n. 8. + +[123a] On Digest XLI, 3, 49 (De usucapionibus, L. ult.). + +[124a] Par. 3, tit. 29, I. 7 in c. Placa.; Zuarius, Consilia, num. 4. + +[125a] Fachinham VIII, c. 26 et c, 33; Duarenus, De +praescriptionibus, parte 2, § 2, n. 8; § 8, n. 5 et 6. + +[126a] Fachinham VIII, c. 28. + +[127a] Angelus Aretinus in rubr. Digest I, 8 (De divisione rerum); +Balbus, l. c., n. 2; cf. Vasquium, Controversiae illustres c. 29, n. +38. + +[128a] On Digest XLVII, 10, 14 (De iniuriis, L. Sane). + +[129a] Digest XLVII, 10, 13 (De iniuriis, L. Iniuriarum, § ult.) + +[130a] Cf. Gloss. eodem loco. + +[131a] De officiis ministrorum I, 28; Gentilis I, 19 (sub finem). + +[132a] Auth. Ut nulli Iudicum § 1, c. cum tanto de consuetudine. + +[133a] Controversiae illustres c. 89, n. 12 et seq. + +[134a] De potestate legis poenalis II, 14, part. 572. + +[135a] Digest XLI, 1, 14 (De adquirendo rerum dominio, L. Quod in +litore); XLI, 3 (De usucapionibus, L. fin. in prin.); Institutes II, +1, 2 (De rerum divisione, § Flumina, v. omnibus); Digest XLIV, 3, 7 +(De diversis temporalibus praescriptionibus, L. Si quisquam); XLVII, +10, 14 (De iniuriis, L. Sane si maris). + +[136a] Digest I, 1, 5 (De iustitia et iure, L. Ex hoc iure); +Institutes I, 2 (De iure naturali et gentium et civili, § 2, v. ius +autem gentium). + +[137a] Digest XLI, 3, 4, 26 (27) (De usucapionibus, L. Sequitur § Si +viam); Institutes IV, 6, 14 (De actionibus, § Sic itaque); Ut dictis +juribus et L. cum filio, ubi multa per Bartolum et Jason on Digest +XXX, 11 (De Legatis I, L. Cum filio; part. I in pr. qu. 3 et 4). + +[138a] Digest I, 5, 4 (De statu hominum, L. Libertas); Institutes +I, 3, 1 (De iure personarum, § Et libertas); Digest XLIII, 29, 1 +et 2 (De homine libero exhibendo); XLIV, 5, 1 (Quarum rerum actio +non datur, L, Iusiurandum, § Quae onerandae); Code III, 28, 35 (De +inofficioso testamento, L. Si quando, § Illud, v. adstringendos); +Digest IV, 6, 28 (Ex quibus causis maiores, L. Nec non, § ‘Quod +eius’). + +[139a] Code III, 44, 7 (De religiosis et sumptibus funerum, L. +Statuas). + +[140a] Code VI, 43 (Communia de legatis, Contra L. 2, cum vulgatis). + +[141a] Digest IX, 2, 32 (Ad legem Aquiliam, L. Illud). + +[142a] Dist. IV, C II (Erit autem lex); Digest I, 3, 1 et 2 (De +legibus), 32 (eod. tit., L. De quibus, cum seq.); Decretales Gregorii +Papae IX, II, 26, 20 (De praescriptionibus, c. Quoniam). + +[143a] Digest XLIII, 13 (Ne quid in flumine publico fiat). + +[144a] Digest IV, 4, 3 (De minoribus, L. 3, § Scio); Vasquius, De +successionum progressu I, 7. + +[145a] Balbus, De praescriptionibus 5 in pr. in qu. 11, illius 5, +quaest. pr. Gl. in cap. inter caetera 16, q. 3; Castrensis, De +potestate legis poenalis II, 14; Balbus, and Angelus, on Code VII, +39, 4 (De praescriptione XXX vel XL annorum, L. Omnes). + +[146a] Osorius, De rebus Emmanuelis regis Lusitaniae I. + +[147a] Digest I, 1, 5 (De iustitia et iure, L. Ex hoc iure); et ibi +Bartolus. + +[148a] Aristotle, Politica I, 9 (1257^a 30). + +[149a] Cf. Covarruvias in c. Peccatum, § 8. + +[150a] Pomponius Mela, De situ orbis III, 7. + +[151a] Digest XVIII, 1, 1 (De contrahenda emptione, L. Origo). + +[152a] Naturalis historia XXXIII, 1. + +[153a] Aristotle, Ethica Nicomachea 5, 5, 11 (1133^a 20): οὐ φύσει +ἀλλὰ νόμῳ ἐστί; Politica I, 9 (1257^b 10). + +[154a] Dist. I, C. VII (Ius naturale); Aristotle, l. c. + +[155a] Castrensis ex Cino et aliis n. 20 et 28 on Digest I, 1, 5 (De +iustitia et iure, L. Ex hoc iure). + +[156a] Plato, Sophista 223^d. + +[157a] Plato, Republic II (p. 371) cited in Digest L, 11, 2 (De +nundinis). + +[158a] Politica I, 11 (1258^b 22-23). + +[159a] καὶ ταύτης μέρη τρία, ναυκληρία, φορτηγία, παράστασις are the +exact words. + +[160a] Cicero, De officiis I, 150-151; Aristotle, Politica I, 9. + +[161a] L. c. (1257^a 14-17). + +[162a] De beneficiis V, 8. + +[163a] Cf. cap. III et VI. + +[164a] Cf. cap. VII. + +[165a] Gloss. et Bartolus on Digest XLIII, 11, 2 (De via publica, L. +Viam publicam); Balbus 4, 5 pr. qu. 1; Panormitanus on Decretales +Gregorii Papae IX, III, 8, 10 (De concessione praebendae, c. Ex parte +Hastenen.); Digest XLI, 2, 41 (De adquirenda possessione, L. Qui +iure familiaritatis); Covarruvias in c. possessor. 2, § 4; Vasquius, +Controversiae illustres c. 4, n. 10 et 12. + +[166a] Vasquius, l. c. n. 11. + +[167a] Guicciardini, Storia d’Italia XIX. + +[168a] Vasquius, Controversiae illustres c. 10, n. 10; Victoria, +De Indis I, 1, n. 3; Digest VI, 1, 27 (De rei vindicatione, L. Sin +autem, § penult.) L, 17, 55 et 151 (De diversis regulis, L. Nullus +videtur, et L. Nemo damnum); XLII, 8, 13 (Quae in fraudem creditorum, +L. Illud constat); XXXIX, 2, 24 (De damno infecto, L. Fluminum, § +ult.); Bartolus on Digest XLIII, 12, 1 (De fluminibus, L, 1, § 5); +Castrensis on Code III, 34, 10 (De servitutibus, L. Si tibi); Digest +XXXIX, 3, 1 (De aqua, L. Si cui, § Denique). + +[169a] Vasquius, Controversiae illustres c. 4, n. 3 et seq.; Digest +XXXIX, 2, 26 (De damno infecto, L. Proculus). + +[170a] Vasquius, l. c. + +[171a] Vasquius, l. c. n. 5. + +[172a] Εργα καὶ Ἡμέραι 24. + +[173a] Code IV, 59 (De monopoliis, L. 1). + +[174a] Caietanus on Thomas Aquinas, Summa II. II, q. 77, a. 1, ad 3. + +[175a] Aristotle, Politica I, 9. + +[176a] Hexameron V, 10, 4, q. 44. + +[177a] In funere Basilii. + +[178a] Thucydides, Isocrates, Andocides. + +[179a] Isocrates, Archidamos 51. + +[180a] Panegyricus 176. + +[181a] De officiis I, 35. + +[182a] Polus Lucanus apud Stobaeum, De iustitia (III, p. 362 +Wachsmut-Hense); Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromateis; Augustinus, De +civitate Dei IV, 15. + +[183a] Demosthenes, De libertate Rhodiorum XV, 10 (p. 193 R.). + +[184a] Propertius IV, vi, 47-52. + +[185a] De civitate Dei V, 1. + +[186a] Digest XLIII, 14, 1 (Ut in flumine publico navigare liceat). + +[187a] Digest XLIII, 12, 1 (De fluminibus, L. 1, in principio). + +[188a] Digest XLIII, 12, 1 (De fluminibus, L. 1, § Si in mari +aliquid). + +[189a] Digest XLIII, 8, 2 (Ne quid in loco publico, L. 2, § Si quis); +XLVII, 10, 13 et 24 (De iniuriis, L. Iniuriarum actio, et L. Si quis +proprium); Silvestris, In verbo ‘restitutio’, 3 sub finem; Oldradus +et Archidiaconus on Digest XLVIII, 12, 2 (De lege Iulia de annona), +and XLVII, 11, 6 (De extraordinariis criminibus. L. Annonam). + +[190a] De civitate Dei IV. + +[191a] De officiis I, 34. + +[192a] Digest XLI, 1, 50 (De adquirendo rerum dominio, L. Quamvis +quod in litore); Henricus von Gorcum, De bello justo 9. + + + + +FOOTNOTES: + + +[1] Panegyric 29, 2. + +[2] Georgics II, 109 [Dryden’s translation, II, 154]. + +[3] Aeneid VI, 847-853 [Dryden’s translation, VI, 1168-1169]. + +[4] Natural Questions III, IV. + +[5] Institutes II, 1; Digest I, 8, 4; cf. Gentilis, De jure belli I, +19; cf. Code IV, 63, 4 [Grotius refers particularly to his famous +predecessor Albericus Gentilis (1552-1608), an Italian who came to +England and was appointed to the chair of Regius Professor of Civil +Law at Oxford. He published his De Jure Belli in 1588]. + +[6] Aeneid I, 539-540 [Dryden’s translation, I, 760-763]. + +[7] Aeneid VII, 229-230 [Dryden’s translation, VII, 313-314]. + +[8] Diodorus Siculus XI; Plutarch, Pericles XXIX, 4. [The Athenian +decree prohibiting the Megarians from trading with Athens or any +part of the Athenian Empire was one of the leading causes of the +Peloponnesian War.] + +[9] Carlo Sigonio [(1523-1584), an Italian humanist, in his work] On +the Kingdom of Italy. + +[10] Victoria, De Indis II, n. 1-7; Covarruvias, in c. Peccatum, +§ 9, n. 4, ibi Quinta [Franciscus de Victoria (1480-1546), the +famous Spanish Scholastic, a Dominican, and Professor of Theology at +Salamanca from 1521 until his death. His thirteen Relectiones (De +Indis is no. V) were published (‘vitiosa et corrupta’) in 1557 after +his death; the 1686 Cologne edition is held to be the best. + +Diego Covarruvias (1512-1577), styled the Bartolo of Spain. He should +probably be credited with formulating the reform decrees of the +Council of Trent. The 5 vol. Antwerp 1762 edition of his works is the +best.] + +[11] Numbers XXI, 21-26. + +[12] Locutionum IV (on Numbers), 44; Estius, c. ult. 23, 4, 2 [Estius +(?-1613) was a Dutch commentator on the Epistles of St. Paul and on +the works of St. Augustine]. + +[13] [Grotius refers to the Trachiniae of Sophocles, but probably +from memory, for there is no such reference in that play.] + +[14] Baldus de Ubaldis, Consilia III, 293 [Baldus (1327-1406) was a +pupil of the great Bartolus]. + +[15] Histories IV, 64 [In connection with the revolt of Civilis]. + +[16] Andrea Alciati, Commentaria VII, 130; Covarruvias in c. +Peccatum, p. 2 § 9; Bartolus on Code I, 11 [Alciati (1492-1550) +was made Comes Palatinus by the Emperor Charles V, and offered a +Cardinal’s hat by Pope Paul III, which he refused, but he did become +a Protonotarius Apostolicus]. + +[17] Code VIII, 40, 13 [Probably Fabius Claudius Gordianus Fulgentius +(468-533), a Benedictine monk, one of the Latin Fathers]. + +[18] Nonius Marcellus, On the various significations of speech, under +the word ‘occupare’; cf. Connan, Commentaries on the civil law III, +3; Donellus [Doneau], Commentaries on the civil law IV, 10. [François +de Connan (1508-1551), a French jurisconsult, a pupil of Alciati; +Hugues Doneau (1527-1591) a famous jurisconsult, who wrote many +volumes of commentaries on the Digest and the Code.] + +[19] Institutes II, 1, 13. + +[20] Digest XLI, 2, 3. + +[21] Letters I, 1, 44-45 [Francis’s translation, English Poets XIX, +726]. + +[22] Pliny, Natural History, VI, 22. + +[23] Digest XLI, 1, 3. + +[24] Covarruvias in c. Peccatum § 10, n. 2, 4, 5. + +[25] De potestate civili I, 9. + +[26] Summa II. II, q. 10, a. 12 [Thomas Aquinas (1227-1274), one of +the most famous of the Schoolmen and Theologians, spoken of often as +Aquila Theologorum, and Doctor Angelicus]. + +[27] De Indis I, n. 4-7, 19. + +[28] Vasquius, Preface (n. 5) to Controversiae illustres. + +[29] [Grotius cites Osorius, but gives no reference.] + +[30] Institutes II, 1, 40. + +[31] Luke XII, 14; John XVIII, 36; Victoria, De Indis I, n, 25. + +[32] Victoria XVI, n. 27. + +[33] Vasquius, Controversiae illustres, c. 21; Torquemada II, c. 113; +Hugo on Dist. XCVI, C. VI; St. Bernard, Admonitory epistle to Pope +Eugene III, book 2; Victoria, De Indis I, n. 27; Covarruvias in c. +Peccatum § 9, n. 7. + +[34] Matthew XVII, 27; XX, 26; John VI, 15. + +[35] Victoria, De Indis I, n. 28, 30; Covarruvias on I Corinthians V, +at the end; Thomas Aquinas, Summa II. II, q. 12, a. 2; Ayala, De Jure +I, 2, 29 [Best edition of Ayala is in The Classics of International +Law, Carnegie Institution of Washington, 2 vol., 1912]. + +[36] Thomas Aquinas, Summa II. II, q. 66, a. 8; Silvius, De +infidelibus § 7; Innocent on the Decretals of Pope Gregory IX, III, +34, 8; Victoria, De Indis I, n. 81. [Franciscus Silvius, or Sylvius, +or du Bois (1581-1649), was a Belgian theologian.] + +[37] De Indis I, n. 31. + +[38] Vasquius, Controversiae illustres, c. 24; Victoria, De Indis II, +n. 10. + +[39] On the Consolation of Philosophy IV, 4, 7-10 [H. R. James’ +translation, page 194]. + +[40] Thomas Aquinas, Summa II. II, q. 10, a. 8; Dist. XLV, C. V, +C. III; Innocent, see note 1, page 17; Bartolus on Code I, 11, 1; +Covarruvias in c. Peccatum, § 9, 10; Ayala, De Jure I, 2, 28. + +[41] Matthew X, 23. + +[42] On Thomas Aquinas, Summa II. II, q. 4, 66, a. 8 [Thomas +de Cajetan (1469-1534), an Italian cardinal, wrote voluminous +commentaries on Thomas Aquinas, Aristotle, and the Bible]. + +[43] Victoria, De Indis II, 1. + +[44] Paul de Castro on Digest I, 1, 5; Dist. I, C. VII. + +[45] Vasquius, Controversiae illustres, c. 1, n. 10; Lib. VI, V, 12, +3; Clem. V, 11. + +[46] Satires II, 2, 129-130. + +[47] Aratus 302-303. + +[48] Octavia 413-414 [Translation by E. I. Harris (Act II, Scene 1)]. + +[49] Aratus 302. + +[50] Digest VII, 5; Extravagantes of Pope John XXII, XIV, 3 and 5; +Thomas Aquinas, Summa II. II, q. 78. + +[51] 203-204 [E. I. Harris’ translation (Act II, Scene 1)]. + +[52] De beneficiis VII, 12, 3. + +[53] Speech XIII, In behalf of the poor man. + +[54] De officiis I. + +[55] Digest I, 1, 5. + +[56] Vergil, Georgics I, 139-140 [Dryden’s translation I, 211]; Ovid, +Metamorphoses I, 121. + +[57] Ovid, Metamorphoses I, 135-136 [Dryden’s translation I (English +Poets XX, 432)]. + +[58] Ovid, Metamorphoses I, 134. + +[59] De beneficiis VII, 4, 3. + +[60] Octavia 431-432 [Grotius here takes a slight liberty with the +context]. + +[61] De officiis I, 21 [Walter Miller’s (Loeb) translation, page 23]. + +[62] History I, 139, 2. + +[63] Duaren [a French humanist (1509-1559)], on Digest I, 8. + +[64] De officiis I, 51 [Walter Miller’s (Loeb) translation, page 55]. + +[65] De officiis I, 52. + +[66] Metamorphoses VI, 349-351. + +[67] Digest VIII, 4, 13. + +[68] Digest XLI, 1, 14; Comines, Memoirs III, 2; Donellus IV, 2; +Digest XLI, 3, 49. [Philippe de Comines (1445-1509), a French +historian, and one of the negotiators of the treaty of Senlis (1493).] + +[69] Digest I, 8, 10. + +[70] Pro Sex. Roscio Amerino 26, 72. + +[71] Institutes II, 1, 1 and 5; Digest I, 8, 1, 2, 10; XLI, 1, 14 and +50; XLVII, 10, 13; XLIII, 8, 3, and 4-7. + +[72] Act IV, Scene 3 (975, 977, 985). + +[73] Donellus IV, 2. + +[74] Digest XXXIX, 2, 24; other references same as note 1, page 29. + +[75] Donellus IV, 2 and 9; also references in note 1, page 29. + +[76] Digest I, 8, 4; XLIII, 8, 3. + +[77] Odes III, i, 33-34 [Bennett’s (Loeb) translation, page 171]. + +[78] Digest XLIII, 8, 3; 8, 2. + +[79] Digest XLIII, 12, 1. + +[80] Pliny, Natural History IX, 54, 170. + +[81] Epigrams X, 30, 19-20. + +[82] De Nabuthe, cap. 3. + +[83] Digest XLVII, 10, 14. + +[84] See note 1, page 31. + +[85] Digest XLIV, 3, 7. + +[86] Digest XLI, 3, 45. + +[87] Digest XLVII, 10, 13. + +[88] Novels of Leo, 102, 103, 104; See also Cujas XIV, 1. + +[89] Hexameron V, 10, 27 [St. Ambrose (c. 333-397), Bishop of Milan, +is meant]. + +[90] Donellus IV, 6. + +[91] On Institutes II, 1; Digest XIV, 2, 9 [Johannes Faber (c. +1570-c. 1640) was Bishop of Vienna, and Court preacher to Emperor +Ferdinand. He was known popularly as ‘Malleus Haereticorum’]. + +[92] Digest XLIII, 8, 3. + +[93] Digest V, 1, 9; XXXIX, 4, 15; Glossators on Digest I, 8, 2; +Institutes II, 1; Baldus on L. Quaedam, in Digest I, 8, 2. + +[94] Baldus, Quibus modis feudi amittuntur, chapter beginning In +principio, second column; Code XI, 13, 1; Angeli on Digest XLVII, 10, +14; Digest VIII, 4, 13 and 4. + +[95] C. Quae sint Regalia, in Feudis. + +[96] Balbus, De praescriptionibus IV, 5; 1, q. 6, n. 4. + +[97] Digest XLVII, 10, 13; XLIII, 9, 1. + +[98] See note 1. + +[99] [Quoted in Cicero, De officiis I, 51, and here taken from Walter +Miller’s (Loeb) translation, page 55.] + +[100] Cicero, De officiis I, 51. + +[101] Seneca, De beneficiis IV, 28. + +[102] Johannes Faber on Institutes II, 1, 5. + +[103] Pliny, Natural History II, 69; VI, 27; Pomponius Mela, De situ +orbis III. + +[104] Natural History VI, 20. + +[105] Geography II and XVII. + +[106] Natural History VI, 23. + +[107] Glossators on Lib. VI, I, 6, 3; on Digest II, 12, 3. + +[108] Digest I, 8, 4; Gentilis, De jure belli I, 19. + +[109] Digest XLIII, 8, 2. + +[110] Glossators on Digest XLIII, 14. + +[111] Baldus on Digest I, 8, 3; Zuarius, Consilia duo de usu maris I, +3, 28, L. 10 and 12. [Rodericus Zuarius, Consilia published in 1621]. + +[112] Victoria, De Indis I, n. 26. + +[113] Silvestris, In verbo Papa. n. 16. + +[114] Vasquius, Controversiae illustres, c. 51. + +[115] Donellus, V. 22 ff.; Digest XVIII, 1, 6; XLI, 3, 9, 25; Lib. +VI, V, 12 (Reg. Sine possessione); Digest L, 16, 28; XXIII, 5, 16. + +[116] Digest XLI, 3, 45; Code VIII, 11, 6; XI, 43, 9; Digest XLIII, +11, 2; XLI, 3, 49. + +[117] Consilia 286 [Angelus Aretinus a Gambellionibus (?-1445), a +voluminous commentator on the Digest and the Institutes]. + +[118] Digest XLIV, 3, 7. + +[119] Duren, De usucapionibus, c. 3; Cujas on Digest XLI, 3, 49; +Donellus V, 22 on Digest XLI, 1, 14. + +[120] Code XI, 43, 4; cf. XI, 43, 9; cf. Digest XLIII, 20, 3. + +[121] On the Decretals of Pope Gregory IX, II, 26, 11 [Felinus Maria +Sandeus (c. 1427-1503), Bishop of Lucca]. + +[122] De praescriptionibus IV, 5, q. 6, n. 8 [Johannes Franciscus +Balbus, a priest and jurisconsult at Muentz-hof]. + +[123] On Digest XLI, 3, 49. + +[124] Par. 3, tit. 29, I. 7 in c. Placa.; Zuarius, Consilia, num. 4. + +[125] Fachinham VIII, c. 26 and c. 33; Duaren, De praescriptionibus, +parte 2, § 2, n. 8; § 8, n. 5 and 6, [Nicholas Fachinham (?-1407), a +Franciscan, who taught Theology at Oxford.] + +[126] Fachinham VIII, c. 28. + +[127] Angelus Aretinus on Digest I, 8; Balbus, De praescriptionibus +IV, 5, q. 6, n. 2; see Vasquius, Controversiae illustres c. 29, n. 38. + +[128] On Digest XLVII, 10, 14. + +[129] Digest XLVI, 10, 13. + +[130] Glossators on the reference in note 4, page 51. + +[131] De officiis ministrorum I, 28; Gentilis I, 19. + +[132] Auth. Ut nulli Iudicum § 1, c. cum tanto de consuetudine. + +[133] Controversiae illustres c. 89, n. 12 ff. [Ferdinand Manchaea +Vasquez (1509-1566) the famous Spanish jurisconsult, who held many +high honors of the realm]. + +[134] De potestate legis poenalis II, 14, part 572 [Alphonse de +Castro (?-1558). Theologian at Salamanca, confessor to the Emperor +Charles V.]. + +[135] Digest XLI, 1, 14; XLI, 3; Institutes II, 1, 2; Digest XLIV, 3, +7; XLVII, 10, 14. + +[136] Digest I, 1, 5; Institutes I, 2, § 2. + +[137] Digest XLI, 3, 4, 26 (27); Institutes IV, 6, 14; Bartolus and +Jason on Digest XXX, 11. + +[138] Digest I, 5, 4; Institutes I, 3, 1; Digest XLIII, 29, 1-2; +XLIV, 5, 1; Code III, 28, 35; Digest IV, 6, 28. + +[139] Code III, 44, 7. + +[140] Code VI, 43. + +[141] Digest IX, 2, 32. + +[142] Dist. IV, C. II; Digest I, 3, 1-2, 32; Decretals of Pope +Gregory IX, II, 26, 20. + +[143] Digest XLIII, 13. + +[144] Digest IV, 4, 3; Vasquius, De successionum progressu I, 7. + +[145] Balbus, De praescriptionibus 5, 11; 16, 3; Alphonse de Castro, +De potestate legis poenalis II, 14; Balbus and Angelus on Code VII, +39, 4. + +[146] Osorius, De rebus Emmanuelis regis Lusitaniae I [Hieronymus +Osorius (1506-1580) was known as the Portuguese Cicero]. + +[147] Digest I, 1, 5. + +[148] I, 9 (1257^a 30). + +[149] Cf. Covarruvias in c. Peccatum, § 8. + +[150] Pomponius Mela, De situ orbis III, 7. + +[151] Digest XVIII, 1, 1. + +[152] Natural History XXXIII, 1. + +[153] Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 5, 5, 11 (1133^a 20); Politics +I, 9 (1257^b 10) [Nummus--νόμος. The fact that this is an incorrect +derivation does not of course affect the argument]. + +[154] Dist. I, C. VII; Aristotle, see note 4 above. + +[155] Castrensis from Cinus and others on Digest I, 1, 5. + +[156] Plato, Sophista 223^{d}. + +[157] II (p. 371) cited in Digest L, 11, 2. + +[158] Politics I, 11 (1258^{b} 22-23). + +[159] [The text here is somewhat expanded.] + +[160] Cicero, De officiis I, 150-151; Aristotle, Politics I, 9. + +[161] Politics I, 9 (1257^{a} 14-17) [Jowett’s translation, Vol. I, +page 15]. + +[162] De beneficiis V, 8 [Not a quotation, but a summing up of the +chapter]. + +[163] See chapters III and VI. + +[164] See chapter VII. + +[165] On Digest XLIII, 11, 2; Balbus 4, 5 pr. qu. 1; Panormitanus +on the Decretals of Pope Gregory IX, III, 8, 10; Digest XLI, 2, +41; Covarruvias in c. possessor. 2, § 4; Vasquius, Controversiae +illustres c. 4, n. 10 and 12. + +[166] Vasquius, Controversiae illustres c. 4, n. 11. + +[167] Guicciardini, Storia d’Italia XIX. + +[168] Vasquius, Controversiae illustres c. 10, n. 10; Victoria, De +Indis I, 1, n. 3; Digest VI, 1. 27; L, 17, 55, 151; XLII, 8, 13; +XXXIX, 2, 24; Bartolus on Digest XLIII, 12, 1; Castrensis on Code +III, 34, 10; Digest XXXIX, 3, 1. + +[169] Vasquius, Controversiae illustres c. 4, n. 3 ff.; Digest XXXIX, +2, 26. + +[170] Vasquius, same reference. + +[171] Vasquius, same reference, n. 5. + +[172] In his Works and Days [The entire passage as translated by A. +W. Mair (Oxford translation, page 1) is: “For when he that hath no +business looketh on him that is rich, he hasteth to plow and to array +his house: and neighbour vieth with neighbour hasting to be rich: +good is this Strife for men.”]. + +[173] Code IV, 59. + +[174] Cajetan on Thomas Aquinas, Summa II. II, q. 77, a. 1, ad 3. + +[175] Politics I, 9. + +[176] Hexameron V, 10, 4, q. 44. + +[177] In funere Basilii. + +[178] Thucydides, Isocrates, Andocides. + +[179] Isocrates, Archidamos 51 [Grotius probably quoted here from +memory]. + +[180] Panegyric 176. + +[181] De officiis I, 35. + +[182] Polus Lucanus apud Stobaeum, De iustitia; Clemens Alexandrinus, +Stromateis; Augustine, City of God IV, 15. + +[183] On the liberty of the Rhodians XV, 10 [Pickard-Cambridge’s +translation I, page 59]. + +[184] Propertius IV, vi, 47-52 [Butler’s (Loeb) translation, page +305]. + +[185] City of God V, 1. + +[186] Digest XLIII, 14, 1. + +[187] Digest XLIII, 12, 1. + +[188] Digest XLIII, 12, 1. + +[189] Digest XLIII, 8, 2; XLVII, 10, 13 and 24; Silvestris, on the +word ‘restitutio’; Oldradus and Archidiaconus on Digest XLVIII, 12, +2, and XLVII, 11, 6 [Oldrado de Ponte (?-1335), a Bologna canonist. +Archidiaconus is probably the Italian decretalist Guido Bosius.] + +[190] City of God IV. + +[191] De officiis I, 34 [Walter Miller’s (Loeb) translation, page 37]. + +[192] Digest XLI, 1, 50; Heinrich von Gorcum, De bello justo 9. + + + + + TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE + + Footnote [100a] is referenced twice, from page 38 and from the + prior Footnote [99a]. + + Obvious typographical errors and punctuation errors have been + corrected after careful comparison with other occurrences within + the text and consultation of external sources. + + Some hyphens in words have been silently removed, some added, + when a predominant preference was found in the original book. + + Except for those changes noted below, all misspellings in the text, + and inconsistent or archaic usage, have been retained. + + Pg 16 (Fn 33a): ‘Eugenium II;’ replaced by ‘Eugenium III;’. + Pg 16 (Fn 35a): ‘Corinthinas V,’ replaced by ‘Corinthians V,’. + Pg 31: ‘praetors was able’ replaced by ‘praetors were able’. + Pg 44: ‘this is specificially’ replaced by ‘this is specifically’. + Pg 68: ‘more absurd then’ replaced by ‘more absurd than’. + Pg 80 (Index): ‘Baldis’ replaced by ‘Baldus’. + + + +*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 75962 *** diff --git a/75962-h/75962-h.htm b/75962-h/75962-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..63cdd99 --- /dev/null +++ b/75962-h/75962-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,9531 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html> +<html lang="en"> +<head> + <meta charset="UTF-8"> + <title> + The freedom of the seas | Project Gutenberg + </title> + <link rel="icon" href="images/cover.jpg" type="image/x-cover"> + <style> + +body { + margin-left: 10%; + margin-right: 10%;} + + h1,h2 { + text-align: center; /* all headings centered */ + clear: both; + margin-top: 1.5em; + margin-bottom: 1em; + word-spacing: 0.2em; + letter-spacing: 0.1em; + line-height: 1em; + font-weight: normal;} + +h1 {font-size: 180%;} +h2 {font-size: 110%; line-height: 1.5em; margin-top: 3em;} + +p { + margin-top: .51em; + text-align: justify; + margin-bottom: .49em; + text-indent: 1em;} + +.p1 {margin-top: 1em;} +.p2 {margin-top: 2em;} +.p3 {margin-top: 3em;} +.p4 {margin-top: 4em;} +.p6 {margin-top: 6em;} + +.p2b {margin-bottom: 2em;} +.p4b {margin-bottom: 4em;} +.p6b {margin-bottom: 6em;} + +.negin2 {padding-left: 2em; text-indent: -2em; text-align: justify;} + +.noindent {text-indent: 0em;} +.hidden {display: none;} + +div.chapter {page-break-before: always;} +h2.nobreak {page-break-before: avoid;} + +/* x-ebookmaker-drop, .x-ebookmaker-drop {} */ + +.pfs180 {font-size: 180%; text-align: center; text-indent: 0em; word-spacing: 0.3em;} +.pfs135 {font-size: 135%; text-align: center; text-indent: 0em; word-spacing: 0.3em;} +.pfs120 {font-size: 120%; text-align: center; text-indent: 0em; word-spacing: 0.3em;} +.pfs100 {font-size: 100%; text-align: center; text-indent: 0em; word-spacing: 0.3em;} +.pfs90 {font-size: 90%; text-align: center; text-indent: 0em; word-spacing: 0.3em;} +.pfs80 {font-size: 80%; text-align: center; text-indent: 0em; word-spacing: 0.3em;} +.pfs70 {font-size: 70%; text-align: center; text-indent: 0em; word-spacing: 0.3em;} +.pfs60 {font-size: 60%; text-align: center; text-indent: 0em; word-spacing: 0.3em;} + +.fs60 {font-size: 60%; font-style: normal;} +.fs80 {font-size: 80%; font-style: normal;} +.fs90 {font-size: 90%; font-style: normal;} +.fs120 {font-size: 120%; font-style: normal;} + + +/* for making 2 column text */ +div.textcol {display: inline-block; vertical-align: top; width: 47%; + margin-bottom: .5em; margin-left: .5em; font-size: 100%;} +div.textcol p {margin-top: .3em; margin-bottom: .3em;} + +.x-ebookmaker div.textcol {display: block; vertical-align: top; width: 90%; + margin-bottom: .5em; font-size: 100%;} + + +/* for horizontal lines */ +hr { + width: 33%; + margin-top: .5em; + margin-bottom: 1em; + margin-left: 33.5%; + margin-right: 33.5%; + clear: both;} + +hr.chap {width: 65%; margin-left: 17.5%; margin-right: 17.5%;} +hr.page {width: 70%; margin-left: 15%; margin-right: 15%; border-top: thin dashed lightgray;} +hr.r20 {width: 20%; margin-left: 40%; margin-right: 40%;} + +.x-ebookmaker hr.chap {width: 0%; display: none;} + + +/* for inserting info from TN and Errata changes */ +.corr { + text-decoration: none; + border-bottom: thin dashed blue;} + +.x-ebookmaker .corr { + text-decoration: none; + border-bottom: none;} + + +/* for basic lists */ +ul.index { list-style-type: none; font-size: 85%;} +li.ifrst { margin-top: 1.5em; text-indent: -2em; padding-left: 1em;} +li.indx { margin-top: .5em; text-indent: -2em; padding-left: 1em;} +li.isub1 {text-indent: -2em; padding-left: 2em;} + + +/* for tables */ +table {margin: 1.5em auto 1.5em auto;} + +table.autotable { border-collapse: collapse; } + +td {padding: .4em .3em .4em .3em;} + +.tdl {text-align: left; padding-left: 1.5em; text-indent: -1em;} +.tdc {text-align: center;} + +.tdrt {text-align: right; vertical-align: top;} +.tdrb {text-align: right; vertical-align: bottom;} + +/* for spacing */ +.pad2 {padding-left: 2em;} +.pad4 {padding-left: 4em;} + +.padr2 {padding-right: 2em;} +.padr4 {padding-right: 4em;} + + +.pagenum { + position: absolute; + color: #A9A9A9; + left: 92%; + font-size: small; + text-align: right; + font-style: normal; + font-weight: normal; + font-variant: normal; + text-indent: .5em;} + + +/* blockquote (/# #/) */ +.blockquot { margin: 1em 2% 1em 5%; font-size: 95%;} +.blockquot p {padding-left: 0em; text-indent: 1em;} + +.abbrev { margin: 1em 0% 1em 3%;} +.abbrev p {padding-left: 0em; text-indent: 1em; line-height: .8em;} + + +/* general placement and presentation */ +.center {text-align: center; text-indent: 0em;} + +.right {text-align: right; margin-right: 1em;} + +.smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} + +.wsp {word-spacing: 0.3em;} +.lsp {letter-spacing: 0.2em;} +.lsp2 {letter-spacing: 0.3em;} +.lht {line-height: 2em;} + + +/* Footnotes */ +.footnote {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-size: 90%;} +.footnote p {text-indent: 0em;} +.footnote .label {position: absolute; right: 84%; text-align: right;} + +.fnanchor { + vertical-align: super; + font-size: .8em; + text-decoration: none;} + + +/* Poetry */ +.poetry-container {display: flex; justify-content: center;} +.poetry-container {text-align: center;} +.poetry {text-align: left; margin-left: 5%; margin-right: 5%;} +.poetry {display: inline-block; font-size: 100%} +.poetry .stanza {margin: 1em auto;} +.poetry .verse {text-indent: -3em; padding-left: 3em;} +.poetry .indentq {text-indent: -3.5em;} + +/* large inline blocks don't split well on paged devices */ +.x-ebookmaker .poetry {display: block; margin-left: 4.5em;} + + +/* Transcriber's notes */ +.transnote {background-color: #E6E6FA; + color: black; + font-size:small; + padding:0.5em; + margin-bottom:5em; + font-family:sans-serif, serif;} + +.transnote p {text-indent: 0em;} + + +/* custom cover (cover.jpg) */ +.customcover {visibility: hidden; display: none;} +.x-ebookmaker .customcover {visibility: visible; display: block;} + +/* Poetry indents */ +.poetry .indent0 {text-indent: -3em;} +.poetry .indent10 {text-indent: 3em;} +.poetry .indent2 {text-indent: -2em;} +.poetry .indent22 {text-indent: 8em;} +.poetry .indent4 {text-indent: -1em;} +.poetry .indent8 {text-indent: 1em;} + + + </style> +</head> +<body> +<div style='text-align:center'>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 75962 ***</div> + + +<div class="transnote"> +<p><strong>TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE</strong></p> + +<p>The original book <cite>Mare Liberum</cite> was first published in 1608 +in renaissance latin. The latin of this book is based on a later 1633 +printing. The english translation carefully maintains the meaning, and +clarifies the context, of the original latin.</p> + +<p>In this 1916 book, following the Introductory Note and Preface, the +latin text and the translated english text were on alternate pages +i.e. the first page of latin text was followed by the first page of +corresponding english text, then the next (second) page of latin +text was followed by the second page of corresponding english text, +and so on.</p> + +<p>This etext displays the latin and english pages side by side on +browsers, and on alternating pages on handheld devices.</p> + +<p>There are three different sets of Footnotes.</p> +<p class="pad4">(a) The five Footnotes in the Introductory Note have anchors [A] +to [E].</p> + +<p class="pad4">(b) The 192 Footnotes associated with the latin text have anchors +[1a] [2a] through [192a].</p> + +<p class="pad4">(c) The 192 Footnotes associated with the english text have anchors +[1] [2] through [192].</p> + +<p>All these Footnotes have been placed after the Index at the end of +the book.</p> + +<p>In addition there are 17 Notes, distinct from Footnotes, which are +anchored with * or †. These Notes by the translator have been +placed at the end of the paragraph containing the anchor.</p> + +<p class="customcover">New original cover art included with this eBook is +granted to the public domain.</p> + +<p>Some minor changes to the text are noted at the <a href="#TN">end of the book.</a></p> +</div> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p class="p4 pfs120 lsp">HVGONIS GROTII</p> + +<p class="pfs180 lsp2">MARE LIBERVM</p> + +<p class="pfs90">SIVE</p> + +<p class="p1 pfs100 lht">DE IVRE QVOD BATAVIS<br> +COMPETIT<br> +AD INDICANA COMMERCIA,<br> +DISSERTATIO</p> + +<p class="p6 p4b pfs120">1608</p> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p class="p1 pfs135 wsp">Carnegie Endowment for International Peace</p> +<p class="pfs90">DIVISION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW</p> +<hr class="r20"> + +<h1>THE FREEDOM OF THE SEAS</h1> + +<p class="pfs80">OR</p> + +<p class="p1 pfs100">THE RIGHT WHICH BELONGS TO THE DUTCH<br> +TO TAKE PART IN THE EAST INDIAN TRADE</p> + +<p class="p3 pfs80">A DISSERTATION BY</p> +<p class="pfs120 lsp2">HUGO GROTIUS</p> +<p class="p2 pfs70">TRANSLATED WITH A REVISION OF THE LATIN TEXT OF 1633</p> +<p class="p1 pfs70">BY</p> +<p class="pfs90">RALPH VAN DEMAN MAGOFFIN, <span class="smcap">Ph.D.</span></p> +<p class="pfs80">Associate Professor of Greek and Roman History<br> +The Johns Hopkins University</p> + +<p class="p3 pfs70">EDITED WITH AN INTRODUCTORY NOTE</p> +<p class="pfs70">BY</p> +<p class="pfs90 lsp">JAMES BROWN SCOTT</p> +<p class="p2b pfs80">DIRECTOR</p> + +<hr class="r20"> + +<p class="p4 pfs80">NEW YORK</p> +<p class="pfs100">OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS</p> +<p class="pfs80">AMERICAN BRANCH: <span class="smcap fs90">35 West 32nd Street</span></p> +<p class="pfs70">LONDON, TORONTO, MELBOURNE, AND BOMBAY<br> +HUMPHREY MILFORD</p> +<p class="pfs100">1916</p> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p class="p6 pfs70">COPYRIGHT 1916</p> +<p class="p1 pfs60">BY THE</p> +<p class="pfs70">CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE</p> +<p class="pfs70 smcap">Washington, D. C.</p> + +<p class="p6 pfs60">THE QUINN & BODEN CO. PRESS</p> +<p class="p6b pfs60">RAHWAY, N. J.</p> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_v"></a>[Pg v]</span></p> + +<h2 class="nobreak" id="INTRODUCTORY_NOTE">INTRODUCTORY NOTE</h2> + +<p>Since the month of August, 1914, the expression “Freedom +of the Seas” has been on the lips alike of belligerent +and neutral, and it seems as advisable as it is timely to +issue—for the first time in English—the famous Latin +tractate of Grotius proclaiming, explaining, and in no small +measure making the “freedom of the seas.”<a id="FNanchor_A" href="#Footnote_A" class="fnanchor">[A]</a></p> + +<p>The title of the little book, first published, anonymously, +in November, 1608, explains the reason for its composition: +“The Freedom of the Seas, or the Right which belongs to +the Dutch to take part in the East Indian trade.” It was +an open secret that it was written by the young Dutch +scholar and lawyer, Hugo Grotius. It was a secret and +remained a secret until 1868 that the <cite>Mare Liberum</cite> was +none other than Chapter XII of the treatise <cite>De Jure +Praedae</cite>, written by Grotius in the winter of 1604-5, which +first came to light in 1864 and was given to the world four +years later.<a id="FNanchor_B" href="#Footnote_B" class="fnanchor">[B]</a></p> + +<p>The publication of the treatise on the law of prize is +important as showing that the author of the <cite>Mare Liberum</cite> +was already an accomplished international lawyer, and it<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_vi"></a>[vi]</span> +proves beyond peradventure that the masterpiece of 1625 +on the “Law of War and Peace” was not a hurried production, +but the culmination of study and reflection extending +over twenty years and more. More important +still is the fact that neither the law of prize nor the <cite>Mare +Liberum</cite> was a philosophic exercise, for it appears that +Grotius had been retained by the Dutch East India Company +to justify the capture by one of its ships of a Portuguese +galleon in the straits of Malacca in the year 1602; +that the treatise on the law of prize, of which the <cite>Mare +Liberum</cite> is a chapter, was in the nature of a brief; and that +the first systematic treatise on the law of nations—The Law +of War and Peace—was not merely a philosophical disquisition, +but that it was the direct outgrowth of an actual case +and of professional employment.<a id="FNanchor_C" href="#Footnote_C" class="fnanchor">[C]</a></p> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_vii"></a>[vii]</span></p> + +<p>The Spaniards, as is well known, then claimed the +Pacific Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico, and Portugal +claimed, in like manner, the Atlantic south of Morocco and +the Indian Ocean, and both nations, at this time under a +common sovereign, claimed and sought to exercise the right +of excluding all foreigners from navigating or entering +these waters. The Dutch, then at war with Spain, although +not technically at war with Portugal, established themselves +in 1598 in the island of Mauritius. Shortly thereafter they +made settlements in Java and in the Moluccas. In 1602 +the Dutch East India Company was formed, and, as it attempted +to trade with the East Indies, its vessels came into +competition with those of the Portuguese engaged in the +Eastern trade, which sought to exclude them from the +Indian waters. One Heemskerck, a captain in the employ +of the Company, took a large Portuguese galleon in the +Straits of Malacca. To trade with the East Indies was one +thing, to capture Portuguese vessels was quite another thing. +Therefore, some members of the Company refused their +parts of the prize; others sold their shares in the company, +and still others thought of establishing a new company in +France, under the protection of King Henry IV, which +should trade in peace and abstain from all warlike action. +The matter was therefore one of no little importance, and +it appears that Grotius was consulted and wrote his treatise +on the law of prize, which is in the nature of a brief and +is, at any rate, a lawyer’s argument.<a id="FNanchor_D" href="#Footnote_D" class="fnanchor">[D]</a></p> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_viii"></a>[viii]</span></p> + +<p>In 1608 Spain and Holland began negotiations which, +on April 9, 1609, resulted in the truce of Antwerp for the +period of 12 years, and, in the course of the negotiations, +Spain tried to secure from the United Provinces a renunciation +of their right to trade in the East and West Indies. +The Dutch East India Company thereupon, it would appear, +requested Grotius to publish that part of his brief dealing +with the freedom of the seas. This was done under the +title of <cite>Mare Liberum</cite>, with such changes as were necessary +to enable it to stand alone.</p> + +<p>It will be observed that the <cite>Mare Liberum</cite> was written +to refute the unjustified claims of Spain and Portugal to +the high seas and to exclude foreigners therefrom. The +claims of England, less extensive but not less unjustifiable, +were not mentioned, and yet, if the arguments of Grotius +were sound, the English claims to the high seas to the south +and east of England, as well as to undefined regions to +the north and west, would likewise fall to the ground. +Therefore the distinguished English lawyer, scholar, and +publicist, John Selden by name, bestirred himself in behalf +of his country and wrote his <cite>Mare Clausum</cite> in 1617 or 1618, +although it was not published until 1635, to refute the little +tractate, <cite>Mare Liberum</cite>.<a id="FNanchor_E" href="#Footnote_E" class="fnanchor">[E]</a> In the dedication to King Charles I, +<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_ix"></a>[ix]</span> +Selden said: “There are among foreign writers, who +rashly attribute your Majesty’s more southern and eastern +sea to their princes. Nor are there a few, who following +chiefly some of the ancient Caesarian lawyers, endeavor to +affirm, or beyond reason too easily admit, that all seas are +common to the universality of mankind.” The thesis of +Selden was twofold: first, “that the sea, by the law of +nature or nations, is not common to all men, but capable +of private dominion or property as well as the land”; +second, “that the King of Great Britain is lord of the sea +flowing about, as an inseparable and perpetual appendant +of the British Empire.”</p> + +<p>In this battle of books, to use the happy expression of +Professor Nys, the Dutch Scholar has had the better of his +English antagonist. If it cannot be said that Grotius wears +his learning “lightly like a flower”, the treatise of Selden +is, in comparison, over-freighted with it; the <cite>Mare Liberum</cite> +is still an open book, the <cite>Mare Clausum</cite> is indeed a closed +one, and as flotsam or jetsam on troubled waters, Chapter +XII of the Law of Prize rides the waves, whereas its rival, +heavy and water-logged, has gone under.</p> + +<p>In the leading case of The Louis (2 Dodson 210), decided +in 1817, some two hundred years after Selden’s book +was written, Sir William Scott, later Lord Stowell and one +of Selden’s most distinguished countrymen, said, in rejecting +the claim of his country to the exercise of jurisdiction +beyond a marine league from the British shore:</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_x"></a>[x]</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"> + +<p>I have to observe, that two principles of public law +are generally recognized as fundamental.</p> + +<p>One is the perfect equality and entire independence +of all distinct states. Relative magnitude creates no +distinction of right; relative imbecility, whether permanent +or casual, gives no additional right to the more +powerful neighbor; and any advantage seized upon +that ground is mere usurpation. This is the great +foundation of public law, which it mainly concerns the +peace of mankind, both in their politic and private +capacities, to preserve inviolate.</p> + +<p>The second is, that all nations being equal, all +have an equal right to the uninterrupted use of the +unappropriated parts of the ocean for their navigation. +In places where no local authority exists, where the +subjects of all states meet upon a footing of entire +equality and independence, no one state, or any of its +subjects, has a right to assume or exercise authority +over the subjects of another.</p> +</div> + +<p>In closing the preface to the <cite>Mare Clausum</cite>, Selden used +language, which the undersigned quotes, albeit in an inverse +sense, as a fit ending to this subject:</p> + +<p>“Other passages there are everywhere of the same kind. +But I enlarge myself too much in a thing so manifest. +Therefore I forbear to light a candle to the sun. Farewell +reader.”</p> + +<p class="right"> +<span class="padr4 smcap">James Brown Scott,</span><br> +<span class="padr2"><i>Director of the Division of</i></span><br> +<span class="padr4"><i>International Law</i>.</span></p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Washington, D. C.,</span><br> +<span class="pad2"><i>February 28, 1916</i>.</span></p> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_xi"></a>[xi]</span></p> + +<h2 class="nobreak" id="TRANSLATORS_PREFACE">TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE</h2> + + +<p class="center"><em>The Latin Text</em></p> + +<p>The Latin Text is based upon the Elzevir edition of +1633, the modifications being only such as to bring the +Latin into conformity with the present day Teubner and +Oxford texts.</p> + +<p>References in the notes to classic authors are given in +unabbreviated form, following in other respects the Thesaurus +Linguae Latinae Index. Citations to the Civil Law +are given in the modern notation, which is followed, in +parentheses, by the older method of reference. The text +used is that of Mommsen, Krueger, Schoell et Kroll. The +Canon Law is cited from the Friedberg edition of 1879-81. +The abbreviations used are explained below.</p> + + +<p class="p1 center"><em>The Translation</em></p> + +<p>The translator wishes to make due acknowledgment for +the passages from classic writers quoted from standard +translations, to which references are also made in the notes. +He has also consulted the French translation of Grotius by +A. Guichon de Grandpont (1845). But his chief acknowledgment +is to his colleague and friend, Professor Kirby +Flower Smith of The Johns Hopkins University, to whom +he read the translation, and who gave him the benefit of his +knowledge of Latin and his taste in English, in a number +of troublesome passages. Many niceties of the translation +belong to Professor Smith, but mistakes in interpretation +belong to the translator alone.</p> + +<p>Acknowledgment and thanks are also due to Professor<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_xii"></a>[xii]</span> +Westel Woodbury Willoughby of Johns Hopkins, who +has been so good as to read the translation through in +galley proof and give the translator the benefit of his +technical knowledge of law; to his Johns Hopkins colleague, +Professor Wilfred P. Mustard, who has helped +him out of a number of difficulties; to Bishop Shahan, +Rector of the Catholic University of America, who has +given of his time to help expand several of Grotius’ +abbreviated references to theological or canonical authors; +to John Curlett Martin, Johns Hopkins Fellow in Greek, +who has been of great assistance in the verification of references; +and to the men of the Quinn and Boden Company +for their courteous assistance while the book was going +through the press.</p> + + +<p class="p1 center"><em>List of Abbreviations</em></p> + + <div class="abbrev"> +<p>Auth., Authenticum.</p> +<p>Clem., Constitutiones Clementis Papae Quinti.</p> +<p>Dist., Distinctio Decreti Gratiani.</p> +<p>Extravag., Constitutiones XXD. Ioannis Papae XXII.</p> +<p>Lib. VI, Liber sextus Decretalium D. Bonifacii Papae VIII.</p> +<p>Other abbreviations should offer no difficulties.</p> + </div> + + +<p class="p1 center"><em>Notes of Explanation</em></p> + +<p>The words and phrases in the Latin text in capitals follow +the type of the Elzevir text.</p> + +<p>In order that both text and translation may be complete +in themselves, the notes below the translation follow the +notes of the text in shortened or expanded form, or in duplicate, +as the occasion would seem to demand. The notes in +Grotius’ Latin text are in a most abbreviated form, and the +references are seldom specific. They have been expanded +without further explanation.</p> + +<p>[ ] in the translation, text, or notes, inclose additions +made by the translator.</p> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_xiv"></a>[xiv]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<h2 class="nobreak" id="CAPITA_DISSERTATIONIS">CAPITA DISSERTATIONIS +HVGONIS GROTII DE MARE LIBERO</h2> + +<table class="autotable"> +<tr> +<td class="tdrt"></td> +<td class="tdl"></td> +<td class="tdrb fs60">PAGINA</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td class="tdrt"></td> +<td class="tdl">Ad Principes populosque liberos orbis Christiani</td> +<td class="tdrb"><a href="#Page_1">1</a></td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td class="tdrt fs60">CAPVT</td> +<td class="tdl"></td> +<td class="tdrb"></td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td class="tdrt">I.</td> +<td class="tdl">Iure gentium quibusvis ad quosvis liberam esse navigationem</td> +<td class="tdrb"><a href="#Page_7">7</a></td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td class="tdrt">II.</td> +<td class="tdl">Lusitanos nullum habere ius dominii in eos Indos ad quos Batavi navigant titulo inventionis</td> +<td class="tdrb"><a href="#Page_11">11</a></td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td class="tdrt">III.</td> +<td class="tdl">Lusitanos in Indos non habere ius dominii titulo donationis Pontificiae</td> +<td class="tdrb"><a href="#Page_15">15</a></td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td class="tdrt">IV.</td> +<td class="tdl">Lusitanos in Indos non habere ius dominii titulo belli</td> +<td class="tdrb"><a href="#Page_18">18</a></td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td class="tdrt">V.</td> +<td class="tdl">Mare ad Indos aut ius eo navigandi non esse proprium Lusitanorum titulo occupationis</td> +<td class="tdrb"><a href="#Page_22">22</a></td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td class="tdrt">VI.</td> +<td class="tdl">Mare aut ius navigandi proprium non esse Lusitanorum titulo donationis Pontificiae</td> +<td class="tdrb"><a href="#Page_45">45</a></td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td class="tdrt">VII.</td> +<td class="tdl">Mare aut ius navigandi proprium non esse Lusitanorum titulo praescriptionis aut consuetudinis</td> +<td class="tdrb"><a href="#Page_47">47</a></td> +</tr> +</table> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<h2 class="nobreak" id="TABLE_OF_CONTENTS">TABLE OF CONTENTS</h2> + +<table class="autotable"> +<tr> +<td class="tdrt"></td> +<td class="tdl"></td> +<td class="tdrb fs60">PAGE</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td class="tdrt"></td> +<td class="tdl">Introductory Note</td> +<td class="tdrb"><a href="#Page_v">v</a></td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td class="tdrt"></td> +<td class="tdl">Translator’s Preface</td> +<td class="tdrb"><a href="#Page_xi">xi</a></td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td class="tdl smcap" colspan="2">Freedom of the Seas</td> +<td class="tdrb"></td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td class="tdrt"></td> +<td class="tdl">To the rulers and to the free and independent nations of Christendom</td> +<td class="tdrb"><a href="#TO_THE_RULERS">1</a></td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td class="tdrt fs60">CHAPTER</td> +<td class="tdl"></td> +<td class="tdrb"></td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td class="tdrt">I.</td> +<td class="tdl">By the Law of Nations navigation is free to all persons whatsoever</td> +<td class="tdrb"><a href="#CHAPTER_I">7</a></td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td class="tdrt">II.</td> +<td class="tdl">The Portuguese have no right by title of discovery to sovereignty over the East Indies to which the Dutch make voyages</td> +<td class="tdrb"><a href="#CHAPTER_II">11</a></td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td class="tdrt">III.</td> +<td class="tdl">The Portuguese have no right of sovereignty over the East Indies by virtue of title based on the Papal Donation</td> +<td class="tdrb"><a href="#CHAPTER_III">15</a></td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td class="tdrt">IV.</td> +<td class="tdl">The Portuguese have no right of sovereignty over the East Indies by title of war</td> +<td class="tdrb"><a href="#CHAPTER_IV">18</a></td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td class="tdrt">V.</td> +<td class="tdl">Neither the Indian Ocean nor the right of navigation thereon belongs to the Portuguese by title of occupation</td> +<td class="tdrb"><a href="#CHAPTER_V">22</a></td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td class="tdrt">VI.</td> +<td class="tdl">Neither the Sea nor the right of navigation thereon belongs to the Portuguese by virtue of title based on the Papal Donation</td> +<td class="tdrb"><a href="#CHAPTER_VI">45</a></td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td class="tdrt">VII.</td> +<td class="tdl">Neither the Sea nor the right of navigation thereon belongs to the Portuguese by title of prescription or custom</td> +<td class="tdrb"><a href="#CHAPTER_VII">47</a></td> +</tr> +</table> + </div> + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_xv"></a>[xv]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<table class="autotable"> +<tr> +<td class="tdc fs60">CAPVT</td> +<td class="tdl"></td> +<td class="tdrb fs60">PAGINA</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td class="tdrt">VIII.</td> +<td class="tdl">Iure gentium inter quosvis liberam esse mercaturam</td> +<td class="tdrb"><a href="#Page_61">61</a></td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td class="tdrt">IX.</td> +<td class="tdl">Mercaturam cum Indis propriam non esse Lusitanorum titulo occupationis</td> +<td class="tdrb"><a href="#Page_65">65</a></td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td class="tdrt">X.</td> +<td class="tdl">Mercaturam cum Indis propriam non esse Lusitanorum titulo donationis Pontificiae</td> +<td class="tdrb"><a href="#Page_66">66</a></td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td class="tdrt">XI.</td> +<td class="tdl">Mercaturam cum Indis non esse Lusitanorum propriam iure praescriptionis aut consuetudinis</td> +<td class="tdrb"><a href="#Page_67">67</a></td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td class="tdrt">XII.</td> +<td class="tdl">Nulla aequitate niti Lusitanos in prohibendo commercio</td> +<td class="tdrb"><a href="#Page_69">69</a></td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td class="tdrt">XIII.</td> +<td class="tdl">Batavis ius commercii Indicani, qua pace, qua indutiis, qua bello retinendum</td> +<td class="tdrb"><a href="#Page_72">72</a></td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td class="tdrt"></td> +<td class="tdl">Regis Hispaniarum litterae</td> +<td class="tdrb"><a href="#Page_77">77</a></td> +</tr> +</table> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<table class="autotable"> +<tr> +<td class="tdc fs60">CHAPTER</td> +<td class="tdl"></td> +<td class="tdrb fs60">PAGE</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td class="tdrt">VIII.</td> +<td class="tdl">By the Law of Nations trade is free to all persons whatsoever</td> +<td class="tdrb"><a href="#CHAPTER_VIII">61</a></td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td class="tdrt">IX.</td> +<td class="tdl">Trade with the East Indies does not belong to the Portuguese by title of occupation</td> +<td class="tdrb"><a href="#CHAPTER_IX">65</a></td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td class="tdrt">X.</td> +<td class="tdl">Trade with the East Indies does not belong to the Portuguese by virtue of title based on the Papal Donation</td> +<td class="tdrb"><a href="#CHAPTER_X">66</a></td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td class="tdrt">XI.</td> +<td class="tdl">Trade with the East Indies does not belong to the Portuguese by title of prescription or custom</td> +<td class="tdrb"><a href="#CHAPTER_XI">67</a></td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td class="tdrt">XII.</td> +<td class="tdl">The Portuguese prohibition of trade has no foundation in equity</td> +<td class="tdrb"><a href="#CHAPTER_XII">69</a></td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td class="tdrt">XIII.</td> +<td class="tdl">The Dutch must maintain their right of trade with the East Indies by peace, by treaty, or by war</td> +<td class="tdrb"><a href="#CHAPTER_XIII">72</a></td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td class="tdrt"></td> +<td class="tdl">Appendix: Two letters of Philip III, King of Spain</td> +<td class="tdrb"><a href="#APPENDIX">77</a></td> +</tr> +</table> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_1"></a>[Pg 1]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<h2 class="nobreak" id="AD">AD<br> +PRINCIPES<br> +POPVLOSQVE LIBEROS<br> +ORBIS CHRISTIANI</h2> + +<p>Error est non minus vetus quam pestilens, quo multi +mortales, ii autem maxime qui plurimum vi atque opibus +valent, persuadent sibi, aut, quod verius puto, persuadere +conantur, iustum atque iniustum non suapte natura, sed +hominum inani quadam opinione atque consuetudine distingui. +Itaque illi et leges et aequitatis speciem in hoc inventa +existimant, ut eorum qui in parendi condicione nati +sunt dissensiones atque tumultus coerceantur; ipsis vero qui +in summa fortuna sunt collocati, ius omne aiunt ex voluntate, +voluntatem ex utilitate metiendam. Hanc autem sententiam +absurdam plane atque naturae contrariam auctoritatis +sibi nonnihil conciliasse haud adeo mirum est, cum +ad morbum communem humani generis, quo sicut vitia ita +vitiorum patrocinia sectamur, accesserint adulantium artes +quibus omnis potestas obnoxia est.</p> + +<p>Sed contra exstiterunt nullo non saeculo viri liberi, +sapientes, religiosi, qui falsam hanc persuasionem animis +simplicium evellerent ceteros autem eius defensores impudentiae +convincerent. Deum quippe esse monstrabant conditorem +rectoremque universi, imprimis autem humanae +naturae parentem, quam ideo, non uti cetera animantia, in +species diversas, variaque discrimina segregasset, sed unius +esse generis, una etiam appellatione voluisset contineri,</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<h2 class="nobreak" id="TO_THE_RULERS">TO THE RULERS AND TO THE FREE<br> +AND INDEPENDENT NATIONS<br> +OF CHRISTENDOM</h2> + +<p>The delusion is as old as it is detestable with which many +men, especially those who by their wealth and power exercise +the greatest influence, persuade themselves, or as I rather +believe, try to persuade themselves, that justice and injustice +are distinguished the one from the other not by their own +nature, but in some fashion merely by the opinion and the +custom of mankind. Those men therefore think that both +the laws and the semblance of equity were devised for the +sole purpose of repressing the dissensions and rebellions of +those persons born in a subordinate position, affirming meanwhile +that they themselves, being placed in a high position, +ought to dispense all justice in accordance with their own +good pleasure, and that their pleasure ought to be bounded +only by their own view of what is expedient. This opinion, +absurd and unnatural as it clearly is, has gained considerable +currency; but this should by no means occasion surprise, +inasmuch as there has to be taken into consideration not only +the common frailty of the human race by which we pursue +not only vices and their purveyors, but also the arts of flatterers, +to whom power is always exposed.</p> + +<p>But, on the other hand, there have stood forth in every +age independent and wise and devout men able to root out +this false doctrine from the minds of the simple, and to +convict its advocates of shamelessness. For they showed +that God was the founder and ruler of the universe, and +especially that being the Father of all mankind, He had not +separated human beings, as He had the rest of living things, +into different species and various divisions, but had willed +them to be of one race and to be known by one name; that</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_2"></a>[2]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p class="noindent">dedisset insuper originem eandem, similem membrorum +compagem, vultus inter se obversos, sermonem quoque et +alia communicandi instrumenta, ut intelligerent omnes +naturalem inter se societatem esse atque cognationem. Huic +autem a se fundatae aut domui aut civitati summum illum +principem patremque familias suas quasdam scripsisse +leges, non in aere aut tabulis, sed in sensibus animisque +singulorum, ubi invitis etiam et aversantibus legendae +occurrent his legibus summos pariter atque infimos teneri, +in has non plus regibus licere, quam plebi adversus decreta +decurionum, decurionibus contra praesidium edicta, praesidibus +in regum ipsorum sanctiones. Quin illa ipsa populorum +atque urbium singularum iura ex illo fonte dimanare, +inde sanctimoniam suam atque maiestatem accipere.</p> + +<p>Sicut autem in ipso homine alia sunt quae habet cum +omnibus communia, alia quibus ab altero quisque distinguitur, +ita earum rerum quas in usum hominis produxisset +natura alias eam manere communes, alias cuiusque industria +ac labore proprias fieri voluisse, de utrisque autem +datas leges, ut communibus quidem sine detrimento omnium +omnes uterentur, de ceteris autem quod cuique contigisset eo +contentus abstineret alieno.</p> + +<p>Haec si homo nullus nescire potest nisi homo esse +desierit, haec si gentes viderunt quibus ad verum omne +caecutientibus sola naturae fax illuxit, quid vos sentire ac +facere aequum est, principes populique Christiani?</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p class="noindent">furthermore He had given them the same origin, the same +structural organism, the ability to look each other in the +face, language too, and other means of communication, in +order that they all might recognize their natural social bond +and kinship. They showed too that He is the supreme Lord +and Father of this family; and that for the household or the +state which He had thus founded, He had drawn up certain +laws not graven on tablets of bronze or stone but written in +the minds and on the hearts of every individual, where +even the unwilling and the refractory must read them. +That these laws were binding on great and small alike; that +kings have no more power against them than have the common +people against the decrees of the magistrates, than have +the magistrates against the edicts of the governors, than +have the governors against the ordinances of the kings themselves; +nay more, that those very laws themselves of each +and every nation and city flow from that Divine source, and +from that source receive their sanctity and their majesty.</p> + +<p>Now, as there are some things which every man enjoys +in common with all other men, and as there are other things +which are distinctly his and belong to no one else, just so +has nature willed that some of the things which she has +created for the use of mankind remain common to all, and +that others through the industry and labor of each man become +his own. Laws moreover were given to cover both +cases so that all men might use common property without +prejudice to any one else, and in respect to other things so +that each man being content with what he himself owns +might refrain from laying his hands on the property of +others.</p> + +<p>Now since no man can be ignorant of these facts unless +he ceases to be a man, and since races blind to all truth +except what they receive from the light of nature, have recognized +their force, what, O Christian Kings and Nations, +ought you to think, and what ought you to do?</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_3"></a>[3]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p>Si quis durum putat ea a se exigi quae tam sancti +nominis professio requirit, cuius minimum est ab iniuriis +abstinere, certe quid sui sit offici scire quisque potest ex eo +quod alteri praecipit. Nemo est vestrum qui non palam +edicat rei quemque suae esse moderatorem et arbitrum: qui +non fluminibus locisque publicis cives omnes uti ex aequo et +promiscue iubeat, qui non commeandi commercandique +libertatem omni ope defendat.</p> + +<p>Sine his si parva illa societas, quam rempublicam vocamus, +constare non posse iudicatur (et certe constare non +potest) quamobrem non eadem illa ad sustinendam totius +humani generis societatem atque concordiam erunt necessaria? +Si quis adversus haec vim faciat, merito indignamini, +exempla etiam pro flagiti magnitudine statuitis, non alia de +causa nisi quia ubi ista passim licent status imperi tranquillus +esse non potest. Quod si rex in regem, populus in +populum inique et violente agat, id nonne ad perturbandam +magnae illius civitatis quietem et ad summi custodis spectat +iniuriam? Hoc interest, quod sicut magistratus minores de +vulgo iudicant, vos de magistratibus, ita omnium aliorum +delicta cognoscenda vobis et punienda mandavit rex universi, +vestra excepit sibi. Is autem quamquam supremam +animadversionem sibi reservat, tardam, occultam, inevitabilem, +nihilominus duos a se iudices delegat qui rebus +humanis intersint, quos nocentium felicissimus non effugit, +conscientiam cuique suam, et famam sive existimationem</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p>If any one thinks it hard that those things are demanded +of him which the profession of a religion so sacred requires, +the very least obligation of which is to refrain from injustice, +certainly every one can know what his own duty is from the +very demands he makes of others. There is not one of you +who does not openly proclaim that every man is entitled to +manage and dispose of his own property; there is not one +of you who does not insist that all citizens have equal and +indiscriminate right to use rivers and public places; not one +of you who does not defend with all his might the freedom +of travel and of trade.</p> + +<p>If it be thought that the small society which we call a +state cannot exist without the application of these principles +(and certainly it cannot), why will not those same principles +be necessary to uphold the social structure of the whole +human race and to maintain the harmony thereof? If any +one rebels against these principles of law and order you are +justly indignant, and you even decree punishments in proportion +to the magnitude of the offense, for no other reason +than that a government cannot be tranquil where trespasses +of that sort are allowed. If king act unjustly and violently +against king, and nation against nation, such action involves +a disturbance of the peace of that universal state, and constitutes +a trespass against the supreme Ruler, does it not? +There is however this difference: just as the lesser magistrates +judge the common people, and as you judge the magistrates, +so the King of the universe has laid upon you the +command to take cognizance of the trespasses of all other +men, and to punish them; but He has reserved for Himself +the punishment of your own trespasses. But although He +reserves to himself the final punishment, slow and unseen +but none the less inevitable, yet He appoints to intervene in +human affairs two judges whom the luckiest of sinners does +not escape, namely, Conscience, or the innate estimation of +oneself, and Public Opinion, or the estimation of others.</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_4"></a>[4]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p class="noindent">alienam. Haec tribunalia illis patent quibus alia praeclusa +sunt; ad haec infirmi provocant; in his vincuntur qui vincunt +viribus, qui licentiae modum non statuunt, qui vili putant +constare quod emitur humano sanguine, qui iniurias iniuriis +defendunt, quorum manifesta facinora necesse est et consentiente +bonorum iudicio damnari, et sui ipsorum animi +sententia non absolvi.</p> + +<p>Ad utrumque hoc forum nos quoque novam causam +afferimus; non hercule de stillicidiis aut tigno iniuncto, +quales esse privatorum solent, ac ne ex eo quidem genere +quod frequens est inter populos, de agri iure in confinio +haerentis, de amnis aut insulae possessione; sed de omni +prope oceano, de iure navigandi, de libertate commerciorum. +Inter nos et Hispanos haec controversa sunt: Sitne immensum +et vastum mare regni unius nec maximi accessio; populone +cuiquam ius sit volentes populos prohibere ne vendant, +ne permutent, ne denique commeent inter sese; potueritne +quisquam quod suum numquam fuit elargiri, aut invenire +quod iam erat alienum; an ius aliquod tribuat manifesta +longi temporis iniuria.</p> + +<p>In hac disceptatione ipsis qui inter Hispanos praecipui +sunt divini atque humani iuris magistri calculum porrigimus, +ipsius denique Hispaniae proprias leges imploramus. Id si +nihil iuvat, et eos quos ratio certa convincit cupiditas vetat +desistere, vestram principes maiestatem, vestram fidem +quotquot estis ubique gentes appellamus.</p> + +<p>Non perplexam, non intricatam movemus quaestionem. +Non de ambiguis in religione capitibus, quae plurimum</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p class="noindent">These two tribunals are open to those who are debarred from +all others; to these the powerless appeal; in them are defeated +those who are wont to win by might, those who put +no bounds to their presumption, those who consider cheap +anything bought at the price of human blood, those who defend +injustice by injustice, men whose wickedness is so manifest +that they must needs be condemned by the unanimous +judgment of the good, and cannot be cleared before the bar +of their own souls.</p> + +<p>To this double tribunal we bring a new case. It is in very +truth no petty case such as private citizens are wont to bring +against their neighbors about dripping eaves or party walls; +nor is it a case such as nations frequently bring against one +another about boundary lines or the possession of a river or +an island. No! It is a case which concerns practically the +entire expanse of the high seas, the right of navigation, the +freedom of trade!! Between us and the Spaniards the following +points are in dispute: Can the vast, the boundless +sea be the appanage of one kingdom alone, and it not the +greatest? Can any one nation have the right to prevent +other nations which so desire, from selling to one another, +from bartering with one another, actually from communicating +with one another? Can any nation give away what it +never owned, or discover what already belonged to some one +else? Does a manifest injustice of long standing create a +specific right?</p> + +<p>In this controversy we appeal to those jurists among the +Spanish themselves who are especially skilled both in divine +and human law; we actually invoke the very laws of Spain +itself. If that is of no avail, and those whom reason clearly +convicts of wrong are induced by greed to maintain that +stand, we invoke your majesty, ye Princes, your good faith, +ye Peoples, whoever and wherever ye may be.</p> + +<p>It is not an involved, it is not an intricate question that +I am raising. It is not a question of ambiguous points of</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_5"></a>[5]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p class="noindent">habere videntur obscuritatis, quae tantis tam diu animis +decertata, apud sapientes hoc fere certum reliquerunt, nusquam +minus inveniri veritatem quam ubi cogitur assensus. +Non de statu nostrae reipublicae, et libertate armis haud +parta sed vindicata; de qua recte statuere ii demum possunt +qui iura patria Belgarum, mores avitos, et institutum non +in leges regnum, sed ex legibus principatum accurate cognoverint, +in qua tamen quaestione aequis iudicibus extremae +servitutis depulsa necessitas, subtilius inquirentibus decreti* +tot nationum publica auctoritas, infensis etiam et malevolis +adversariorum confessio nihil dubitandum reliquit.</p> + +<p>* [decreta (?); decreti is the reading of the 1633 and 1720 texts].</p> + +<p>Sed quod hic proponimus nihil cum istis commune habet, +nullius indiget anxiae disquisitionis, non ex divini codicis +pendet explicatione, cuius multa multi non capiunt, non +ex unius populi scitis quae ceteri merito ignorant.</p> + +<p>Lex illa e cuius praescripto iudicandum est, inventu est +non difficilis, utpote eadem apud omnes; et facilis intellectu, +utpote nata cum singulis, singulorum mentibus insita. Ius +autem quod petimus tale est quod nec rex subditis negare +debeat, neque Christianus non Christianis. A natura enim +oritur, quae ex aequo omnium parens est, in omnes munifica, +cuius imperium in eos extenditur qui gentibus imperant, et +apud eos sanctissimum est qui in pietate plurimum profecerunt.</p> + +<p>Cognoscite hanc causam principes! cognoscite populi! si +quid iniquum postulamus, scitis quae vestra et e vobis eorum +qui viciniores nobis estis apud nos semper fuerit auctoritas!</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p class="noindent">theology which seem to be wrapped in the deepest obscurity, +which have been debated already so long and with such heat, +that wise men are almost convinced that truth is never so +rarely found as when assent thereto is forced. It is not a +question of the status of our government and of independence +not won by arms but restored. On this point those +can reach a right decision who have an accurate knowledge +of the ancestral laws and hereditary customs of the people +of the Netherlands, and who have recognized that their state +is not a kingdom illegally founded but is a government based +upon law. In this matter, however, just judges no longer +compelled to subordinate their convictions have been persuaded; +the public authority of many nations has entirely +satisfied those who were seeking a precedent; and the admissions +of our adversaries have left even the foolish and +malevolent no room for doubt.</p> + +<p>But what I here submit has nothing in common with these +matters. It calls for no troublesome investigation. It does +not depend upon an interpretation of Holy Writ in which +many people find many things they cannot understand, nor +upon the decrees of any one nation of which the rest of the +world very properly knows nothing.</p> + +<p>The law by which our case must be decided is not difficult +to find, seeing that it is the same among all nations; and it +is easy to understand, seeing that it is innate in every individual +and implanted in his mind. Moreover the law to +which we appeal is one such as no king ought to deny to +his subjects, and one no Christian ought to refuse to a +non-Christian. For it is a law derived from nature, the +common mother of us all, whose bounty falls on all, and +whose sway extends over those who rule nations, and which +is held most sacred by those who are most scrupulously just.</p> + +<p>Take cognizance of this cause, ye Princes, take cognizance +of it, ye Nations! If we are making an unjust demand, +you know what your authority and the authority of</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_6"></a>[6]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p>Monete, parebimus. Quin si quid a nobis hac in re peccatum +est, iram vestram, odium denique humani generis non +deprecamur. Sin contra se res habet, quid vobis censendum, +quid agendum sit, vestrae religioni et aequitati relinquimus.</p> + +<p>Olim inter populos humaniores summum nefas habebatur +armis eos impetere qui res suas arbitris permitterent, contra +qui tam aequam condicionem recusarent, ii non ut unius sed +ut omnium hostes ope communi comprimebantur. Itaque +eam in rem videmus icta foedera, iudices constitutos. Reges +ipsi validaeque gentes nihil aeque gloriosum ac magnificum +deputabant, quam aliorum coercere insolentiam, aliorum infirmitatem +atque innocentiam sublevare. Qui si mos +hodieque obtineret, ut humani nihil a se alienum* homines +arbitrarentur, profecto orbe non paulo pacatiore uteremur; +refrigesceret enim multorum audacia, et qui iustitiam +utilitatis causa nunc negligunt, iniustitiam damno suo +dediscerent.</p> + +<p>* [Cf. Terence, Hautontimorumenos 77].</p> + +<p>Sed hoc ut in causa istac non frustra forte speramus, ita +illud certo confidimus, bene rebus expensis existimaturos +vos omnes imputari nobis non magis posse pacis moras, +quam belli causas; ac proinde uti hactenus amici nobis faventes +atque benevoli fuistis, ita vos aut etiam magis in +posterum fore, quo nihil optatius iis potest contingere qui +primam partem felicitatis putant bene facere, alteram bene +audire.</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p class="noindent">those of you who are our nearer neighbors has always been +so far as we are concerned. Caution us, we will obey. +Verily, if we have done any wrong in this our cause, we will +not deprecate your wrath, nor even the hatred of the human +race. But if we are right, we leave to your sense of righteousness +and of fairness what you ought to think about this +matter and what course of action you ought to pursue.</p> + +<p>In ancient times among the more civilized peoples it was +held to be the greatest of all crimes to make war upon those +who were willing to submit to arbitration the settlement of +their difficulties; but against those who declined so fair an +offer all others turned, and with their combined resources +overwhelmed them, not as enemies of any one nation, but +as enemies of them all alike. So for this very object we see +that treaties are made and arbiters appointed. Kings themselves +and powerful nations used to think that nothing was +so chivalrous or so noble as to coerce the insolent and to +help the weak and innocent.</p> + +<p>If today the custom held of considering that everything +pertaining to mankind pertained also to one’s self, we should +surely live in a much more peaceable world. For the presumptuousness +of many would abate, and those who now +neglect justice on the pretext of expediency would unlearn +the lesson of injustice at their own expense.</p> + +<p>We have felt that perhaps we were not entertaining a +foolish hope for our cause. At all events we are confident +that you will all recognize after duly weighing the facts in +the case that the delays to peace can no more be laid to our +charge than can the causes of war; and as hitherto you have +been indulgent, even favorably disposed to us, we feel sure +that you will not only remain in this mind, but be even more +friendly to us in the future. Nothing more to be desired +than this can come to men who think that the first condition +of happiness is good deeds; the second, good repute.</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_7"></a>[7]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<h2 class="nobreak" id="CAPVT_I">CAPVT I</h2> + +<p class="center"><i>Iure gentium quibusvis ad quosvis +liberam esse navigationem</i></p> + +<p>Propositum est nobis breviter ac dilucide demonstrare ius +esse Batavis, hoc est, Ordinum Foederatorum Belgico-Germaniae +subditis ad Indos, ita uti navigant navigare, cumque +ipsis commercia colere. Fundamentum struemus hanc iuris +gentium, quod primarium vocant regulam certissimam, cuius +perspicua atque immutabilis est ratio; licere cuivis genti +quamvis alteram adire, cumque ea negotiari.</p> + +<p>Deus hoc ipse per naturam loquitur, cum ea cuncta quibus +vita indiget, omnibus locis suppeditari a natura non vult: +artibus etiam aliis alias gentes dat excellere. Quo ista, nisi +quod voluit mutua egestate et copia humanas foveri amicitias, +ne singuli se putantes sibi ipsis sufficere, hoc ipso redderentur +insociabiles? Nunc factum est ut gens altera alterius suppleret +inopiam, divinae iustitiae instituto, ut eo modo (sicut +Plinius dicit<a id="FNanchor_1a" href="#Footnote_1a" class="fnanchor">[1a]</a>) quod genitum esset uspiam, apud omnes +natum videretur. Poetas itaque canentes audimus:</p> + +<div class="poetry-container"> +<div class="poetry"> + <div class="verse indent0"><i>Nec vero terrae ferre omnes omnia possunt.</i><a id="FNanchor_2a" href="#Footnote_2a" class="fnanchor">[2a]</a></div> +</div> +</div> + +<p class="noindent">Item:</p> + +<div class="poetry-container"> +<div class="poetry"> + <div class="verse indent0"><i>Excudent alii</i>,</div> +</div> +</div> + +<p class="noindent">et quae sequuntur.<a id="FNanchor_3a" href="#Footnote_3a" class="fnanchor">[3a]</a></p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_I">CHAPTER I</h2> + +<p class="center"><i>By the Law of Nations navigation is free to all persons +whatsoever</i></p> + +<p>My intention is to demonstrate briefly and clearly that +the Dutch—that is to say, the subjects of the United +Netherlands—have the right to sail to the East Indies, as +they are now doing, and to engage in trade with the people +there. I shall base my argument on the following most +specific and unimpeachable axiom of the Law of Nations, +called a primary rule or first principle, the spirit of which +is self-evident and immutable, to wit: Every nation is free +to travel to every other nation, and to trade with it.</p> + +<p>God Himself says this speaking through the voice of +nature; and inasmuch as it is not His will to have Nature +supply every place with all the necessaries of life, He ordains +that some nations excel in one art and others in another. +Why is this His will, except it be that He wished human +friendships to be engendered by mutual needs and resources, +lest individuals deeming themselves entirely sufficient unto +themselves should for that very reason be rendered unsociable? +So by the decree of divine justice it was brought +about that one people should supply the needs of another, +in order, as Pliny the Roman writer says,<a id="FNanchor_1" href="#Footnote_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> that in this way, +whatever has been produced anywhere should seem to have +been destined for all. Vergil also sings in this wise:</p> + +<div class="poetry-container"> +<div class="poetry"> + <div class="verse indent0">“<i>Not every plant on every soil will grow</i>,”<a id="FNanchor_2" href="#Footnote_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a></div> +</div> +</div> + +<p class="noindent">and in another place:</p> + +<div class="poetry-container"> +<div class="poetry"> + <div class="verse indentq">“<i>Let others better mould the running mass</i></div> + <div class="verse indent0"><i>Of metals</i>,” etc.<a id="FNanchor_3" href="#Footnote_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a></div> +</div> +</div> + </div> + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_8"></a>[8]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p class="noindent">Hoc igitur qui tollunt, illam laudatissimam tollunt humani +generis societatem, tollunt mutuas benefaciendi occasiones, +naturam denique ipsam violant. Nam et ille quem Deus +terris circumfudit Oceanus, undique et undique versus navigabilis, +et ventorum stati aut extraordinarii flatus, non ab +eadem semper, et a nulla non aliquando regione spirantes, +nonne significant satis concessum a natura cunctis gentibus +ad cunctas aditum? Hoc Seneca<a id="FNanchor_4a" href="#Footnote_4a" class="fnanchor">[4a]</a> summum Naturae beneficium +putat, quod et vento gentes locis dissipatas miscuit, +et sua omnia in regiones ita descripsit, ut necessarium mortalibus +esset inter ipsos commercium. Hoc igitur ius ad +cunctas gentes aequaliter pertinet: quod clarissimi Iurisconsulti<a id="FNanchor_5a" href="#Footnote_5a" class="fnanchor">[5a]</a> +eo usque producunt, ut negent ullam rempublicam aut +Principem prohibere in universum posse, quo minus alii ad +subditos suos accedant, et cum illis negotientur. Hinc ius +descendit hospitale sanctissimum: hinc querelae:</p> + +<div class="poetry-container"> +<div class="poetry"> + <div class="verse indent0"><i>Quod genus hoc hominum? quaeve hunc tam barbara morem</i></div> + <div class="verse indent0"><i>Permittit patria? hospitio prohibemur harenae.</i><a id="FNanchor_6a" href="#Footnote_6a" class="fnanchor">[6a]</a></div> +</div> +</div> + +<p class="noindent">Et alibi</p> + +<div class="poetry-container"> +<div class="poetry"> + <div class="verse indent22"><i>litusque rogamus</i></div> + <div class="verse indent0"><i>Innocuum et cunctis undamque auramque patentem.</i><a id="FNanchor_7a" href="#Footnote_7a" class="fnanchor">[7a]</a></div> +</div> +</div> + +<p>Et scimus bella quaedam ex hac causa coepisse, ut Megarensibus</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p class="noindent">Those therefore who deny this law, destroy this most praise-worthy +bond of human fellowship, remove the opportunities +for doing mutual service, in a word do violence to Nature +herself. For do not the ocean, navigable in every direction +with which God has encompassed all the earth, and the regular +and the occasional winds which blow now from one +quarter and now from another, offer sufficient proof that +Nature has given to all peoples a right of access to all other +peoples? Seneca<a id="FNanchor_4" href="#Footnote_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a> thinks this is Nature’s greatest service, +that by the wind she united the widely scattered peoples, +and yet did so distribute all her products over the earth that +commercial intercourse was a necessity to mankind. Therefore +this right belongs equally to all nations. Indeed the +most famous jurists<a id="FNanchor_5" href="#Footnote_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a> extend its application so far as to deny +that any state or any ruler can debar foreigners from having +access to their subjects and trading with them. Hence is +derived that law of hospitality which is of the highest sanctity; +hence the complaint of the poet Vergil:</p> + +<div class="poetry-container"> +<div class="poetry"> + <div class="verse indentq">“<i>What men, what monsters, what inhuman race,</i></div> + <div class="verse indent0"><i>What laws, what barbarous customs of the place,</i></div> + <div class="verse indent0"><i>Shut up a desert shore to drowning men,</i></div> + <div class="verse indent2"><i>And drive us to the cruel seas again.</i>”<a id="FNanchor_6" href="#Footnote_6" class="fnanchor">[6]</a></div> +</div> +</div> + +<p class="noindent">And:</p> + +<div class="poetry-container"> +<div class="poetry"> + <div class="verse indentq">“<i>To beg what you without your want may spare—</i></div> + <div class="verse indent0"><i>The common water, and the common air.</i>”<a id="FNanchor_7" href="#Footnote_7" class="fnanchor">[7]</a></div> +</div> +</div> + +<p class="noindent">We know that certain wars have arisen over this very matter; +such for example as the war of the Megarians against the</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_9"></a>[9]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p class="noindent">in Athenienses.<a id="FNanchor_8a" href="#Footnote_8a" class="fnanchor">[8a]</a> Bononiensibus in. Venetos,<a id="FNanchor_9a" href="#Footnote_9a" class="fnanchor">[9a]</a> Castellanis +etiam in Americanos has iustas potuisse belli causas +esse, et ceteris probabiliores Victoria putat,<a id="FNanchor_10a" href="#Footnote_10a" class="fnanchor">[10a]</a> si peregrinari +et degere apud illos prohiberentur, si arcerentur a participatione +earum rerum quae iure gentium aut moribus communia +sunt, si denique ad commercia non admitterentur.</p> + +<p>Cui simile est quod in Mosis<a id="FNanchor_11a" href="#Footnote_11a" class="fnanchor">[11a]</a> historia et inde apud +Augustinum legimus,<a id="FNanchor_12a" href="#Footnote_12a" class="fnanchor">[12a]</a> iusta bella Israelitas contra Amorrhaeos +gessisse, quia innoxius transitus denegabatur; qui +IVRE HVMANAE SOCIETATIS aequissimo patere +debebat. Et hoc nomine Hercules Orchomeniorum, Graeci +sub Agamemnone Mysorum Regi arma intulerunt,<a id="FNanchor_13a" href="#Footnote_13a" class="fnanchor">[13a]</a> quasi +libera essent naturaliter itinera, ut Baldus dixit.<a id="FNanchor_14a" href="#Footnote_14a" class="fnanchor">[14a]</a> Accusanturque</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p class="noindent">Athenians,<a id="FNanchor_8" href="#Footnote_8" class="fnanchor">[8]</a> and that of the Bolognese against the Venetians.<a id="FNanchor_9" href="#Footnote_9" class="fnanchor">[9]</a> +Again, Victoria<a id="FNanchor_10" href="#Footnote_10" class="fnanchor">[10]</a> holds that the Spaniards could have shown +just reasons for making war upon the Aztecs and the Indians +in America, more plausible reasons certainly than +were alleged, if they really were prevented from traveling +or sojourning among those peoples, and were denied the +right to share in those things which by the Law of Nations or +by Custom are common to all, and finally if they were debarred +from trade.</p> + +<p>We read of a similar case in the history of Moses,<a id="FNanchor_11" href="#Footnote_11" class="fnanchor">[11]</a> which +we find mentioned also in the writings of Augustine,<a id="FNanchor_12" href="#Footnote_12" class="fnanchor">[12]</a> where +the Israelites justly smote with the edge of the sword the +Amorites because they had denied the Israelites an innocent +passage through their territory, a right which according to +the Law of Human Society ought in all justice to have been +allowed. In defense of this principle Hercules attacked the +king of Orchomenus in Boeotia; and the Greeks under their +leader Agamemnon waged war against the king of Mysia<a id="FNanchor_13" href="#Footnote_13" class="fnanchor">[13]</a> on +the ground that, as Baldus<a id="FNanchor_14" href="#Footnote_14" class="fnanchor">[14]</a> has said, high roads were free</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_10"></a>[10]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p class="noindent">a Germanis apud Tacitum<a id="FNanchor_15a" href="#Footnote_15a" class="fnanchor">[15a]</a> Romani, quod colloquia +congressusque gentium arcerent, fluminaque et terras et +coelum quodam modo ipsum clauderent. Nec ullus titulus +Christianis quondam in Saracenos magis placuit, quam quod +per illos terrae Iudaeae aditu arcerentur.<a id="FNanchor_16a" href="#Footnote_16a" class="fnanchor">[16a]</a></p> + +<p>Sequitur ex sententia Lusitanos etiamsi domini essent +earum regionum ad quas Batavi proficiscuntur, iniuriam +tamen facturos si aditum Batavis et mercatum praecluderent.</p> + +<p>Quanto igitur iniquius est volentes aliquos a volentium +populorum commercio secludi, illorum opera quorum in +potestate nec populi isti sunt, nec illud ipsum, qua iter est, +quando latrones etiam et piratas non alio magis nomine +detestamur, quam quod illi hominum inter se commeatus +obsident atque infestant?</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p class="noindent">by nature. Again, as we read in Tacitus,<a id="FNanchor_15" href="#Footnote_15" class="fnanchor">[15]</a> the Germans +accused the Romans of ‘preventing all intercourse between +them and of closing up to them the rivers and roads, and +almost the very air of heaven’. When in days gone by the +Christians made crusades against the Saracens, no other pretext +was so welcome or so plausible as that they were denied +by the infidels free access to the Holy Land.<a id="FNanchor_16" href="#Footnote_16" class="fnanchor">[16]</a></p> + +<p>It follows therefore that the Portuguese, even if they +had been sovereigns in those parts to which the Dutch make +voyages, would nevertheless be doing them an injury if +they should forbid them access to those places and from +trading there.</p> + +<p>Is it not then an incalculably greater injury for nations +which desire reciprocal commercial relations to be debarred +therefrom by the acts of those who are sovereigns neither of +the nations interested, nor of the element over which their +connecting high road runs? Is not that the very cause which +for the most part prompts us to execrate robbers and pirates, +namely, that they beset and infest our trade routes?</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_11"></a>[11]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<h2 class="nobreak" id="CAPUT_II">CAPUT II</h2> + +<p class="center"><i>Lusitanos nullum habere ius dominii in eos +Indos ad quos Batavi navigant +titulo inventionis</i></p> + +<p>Non esse autem Lusitanos earum partium dominos ad +quas Batavi accedunt, puta Iavae, Taprobanae, partis +maximae Moluccarum, certissimo argumento colligimus, +quia dominus nemo est eius rei quam nec ipse umquam nec +alter ipsius nomine possedit. Habent insulae istae quas +dicimus et semper habuerunt suos reges, suam rempublican, +suas leges, sua iura; Lusitanis mercatus, ut aliis gentibus +conceditur; itaque et tributa cum pendunt, et ius mercandi +a principibus exorant, dominos se non esse, sed ut externos +advenire satis testantur; ne habitant quidem nisi precario. +Et quamquam ad dominium titulus non sufficiat, quia et +possessio requiritur, cum aliud sit rem habere, aliud ius ad +rem consequendam, tamen ne titulum quidem dominii in +eas partes Lusitanis ullum esse affirmo, quem non ipsis +eripuerit Doctorum, et quidem Hispanorum sententia.</p> + +<p>Primum si dicent inventionis praemio eas terras sibi +cessisse, nec ius, nec verum dicent. Invenire enim non illud +est oculis usurpare, sed apprehendere, ut Gordiani epistola</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_II">CHAPTER II</h2> + +<p class="center"><i>The Portuguese have no right by title of discovery to +sovereignty over the East Indies to which the +Dutch make voyages</i></p> + +<p>The Portuguese are not sovereigns of those parts of the +East Indies to which the Dutch sail, that is to say, Java, +Ceylon,* and many of the Moluccas. This I prove by the +incontrovertible argument that no one is sovereign of a +thing which he himself has never possessed, and which no +one else has ever held in his name. These islands of which +we speak, now have and always have had their own kings, +their own government, their own laws, and their own legal +systems. The inhabitants allow the Portuguese to trade +with them, just as they allow other nations the same privilege. +Therefore, inasmuch as the Portuguese pay tolls, and +obtain leave to trade from the rulers there, they thereby +give sufficient proof that they do not go there as sovereigns +but as foreigners. Indeed they only reside there on suffrance. +And although the title to sovereignty is not sufficient, +inasmuch as possession is a prerequisite—for having +a thing is quite different from having the right to acquire +it—nevertheless I affirm that in those places the Portuguese +have no title at all to sovereignty which is not denied them +by the opinion of learned men, even of the Spaniards.</p> + +<p>* [Taprobane was the ancient name of Ceylon. Milton speaks of it in +Paradise Regained IV, 75:<br> +<span class="pad2">“And utmost Indian Isle Taprobane.”]</span></p> + +<p>First of all, if they say that those lands have come under +their jurisdiction as the reward of discovery, they lie, +both in law and in fact. For to discover a thing is not only +to seize it with the eyes but to take real possession thereof,</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_12"></a>[12]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p class="noindent">ostenditur;<a id="FNanchor_17a" href="#Footnote_17a" class="fnanchor">[17a]</a> unde Grammatici<a id="FNanchor_18a" href="#Footnote_18a" class="fnanchor">[18a]</a> invenire et occupare pro +verbis ponunt idem significantibus; et tota Latinitas quod +adepti sumus, id demum invenisse nos dicit, cui oppositum +est perdere. Quin et ipsa naturalis ratio, et legum diserta +verba, et eruditiorum interpretatio<a id="FNanchor_19a" href="#Footnote_19a" class="fnanchor">[19a]</a> manifeste ostendit, ad +titulum dominii parandum eam demum sufficere inventionem +quae cum possessione coniuncta est, ubi scilicet res +mobiles apprehenduntur, aut immobiles terminis atque custodia +sepiuntur;<a id="FNanchor_20a" href="#Footnote_20a" class="fnanchor">[20a]</a> quod in hac specie dici nullo modo potest. +Nam praesidia illic Lusitani nulla habent. Quid quod ne +reperisse quidem Indiam ullo modo dici possunt Lusitani, +quae tot a saeculis fuerat celeberrima. Iam ab Horati +tempore:<a id="FNanchor_21a" href="#Footnote_21a" class="fnanchor">[21a]</a></p> + +<div class="poetry-container"> +<div class="poetry"> + <div class="verse indent0"><i>Impiger extremos currit mercator ad Indos</i></div> + <div class="verse indent0"><i>Per mare pauperiem fugiens.</i></div> +</div> +</div> + +<p class="noindent">Taprobanes pleraque quam exacte nobis Romani descripsere?<a id="FNanchor_22a" href="#Footnote_22a" class="fnanchor">[22a]</a> +Iam vero et ceteras insulas ante Lusitanos non</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p class="noindent">as Gordian<a id="FNanchor_17" href="#Footnote_17" class="fnanchor">[17]</a> points out in one of his letters. For that +reason the Grammarians<a id="FNanchor_18" href="#Footnote_18" class="fnanchor">[18]</a> give the same signification to the +expressions ‘to find’ and ‘to occupy’; and all Latinity applies +the phrase ‘we have found’ only to the thing which +‘we have seized’; and the opposite of this is ‘to lose’. +However, natural reason itself, the precise words of the +law, and the interpretation of the more learned men<a id="FNanchor_19" href="#Footnote_19" class="fnanchor">[19]</a> all +show clearly that the act of discovery is sufficient to give +a clear title of sovereignty only when it is accompanied by +actual possession. And this only applies of course to movables +or to such immovables as are actually inclosed within +fixed bounds and guarded.<a id="FNanchor_20" href="#Footnote_20" class="fnanchor">[20]</a> No such claim can be established +in the present case, because the Portuguese maintain +no garrisons in those regions. Neither can the Portuguese +by any possible means claim to have discovered India, a +country which was famous centuries and centuries ago! It +was already known as early as the time of the emperor +Augustus as the following quotation from Horace shows:</p> + +<div class="poetry-container"> +<div class="poetry"> + <div class="verse indentq">“<i>That worst of evils, poverty, to shun</i></div> + <div class="verse indent0"><i>Dauntless through seas, and rocks, and fires you run</i></div> + <div class="verse indent0"><i>To furthest Ind</i>,”<a id="FNanchor_21" href="#Footnote_21" class="fnanchor">[21]</a></div> +</div> +</div> + +<p class="noindent">And have not the Romans described for us in the most +exact way the greater part of Ceylon?<a id="FNanchor_22" href="#Footnote_22" class="fnanchor">[22]</a> And as far as the +other islands are concerned, not only the neighboring</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_13"></a>[13]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p class="noindent">finitimi tantum Persae et Arabes, sed Europaei etiam, +praecipue Veneti noverant.</p> + +<p>Praeterea inventio nihil iuris tribuit, nisi in ea quae ante +inventionem nullius fuerant.<a id="FNanchor_23a" href="#Footnote_23a" class="fnanchor">[23a]</a> Atqui Indi cum ad eos Lusitani +venerunt, etsi partim idololatrae, partim Mahumetani +erant, gravibusque peccatis involuti, nihilominus publice +atque privatim rerum possessionumque suarum dominium +habuerunt, quod illis sine iusta causa eripi non potuit.<a id="FNanchor_24a" href="#Footnote_24a" class="fnanchor">[24a]</a> Ita +certissimis rationibus post alios auctores maximi nominis +concludit Hispanus Victoria:<a id="FNanchor_25a" href="#Footnote_25a" class="fnanchor">[25a]</a> ‘Non possunt’, inquit, +‘Christiani saeculares aut Ecclesiastici potestate civili et +principatu privare infideles, eo dumtaxat titulo, quia infideles +sunt, nisi ab eis alia iniuria profecta sit’.</p> + +<p>Fides enim, ut recte inquit Thomas<a id="FNanchor_26a" href="#Footnote_26a" class="fnanchor">[26a]</a> non tollit ius naturale +aut humanum ex quo dominia profecta sunt. Immo +credere infideles non esse rerum suarum dominos, haereticum +est; et res ab illis possessas illis ob hoc ipsum eripere furtum +est et rapina, non minus quam si idem fiat Christianis.</p> + +<p>Recte igitur dicit Victoria<a id="FNanchor_27a" href="#Footnote_27a" class="fnanchor">[27a]</a> non magis ista ex causa +Hispanis ius in Indos quaesitum, quam Indis fuisset in +Hispanos, si qui illorum priores in Hispaniam venissent. +Neque vero sunt Indi Orientis amentes et insensati, sed</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p class="noindent">Persians and Arabs, but even Europeans, particularly the +Venetians, knew them long before the Portuguese did.</p> + +<p>But in addition to all this, discovery <i lang="la">per se</i> gives no +legal rights over things unless before the alleged discovery +they were <i lang="la">res nullius</i>.<a id="FNanchor_23" href="#Footnote_23" class="fnanchor">[23]</a> Now these Indians of the East, on +the arrival of the Portuguese, although some of them were +idolators, and some Mohammedans, and therefore sunk in +grievous sin, had none the less perfect public and private +ownership of their goods and possessions, from which they +could not be dispossessed without just cause.<a id="FNanchor_24" href="#Footnote_24" class="fnanchor">[24]</a> The Spanish +writer Victoria,<a id="FNanchor_25" href="#Footnote_25" class="fnanchor">[25]</a> following other writers of the highest +authority, has the most certain warrant for his conclusion +that Christians, whether of the laity or of the clergy, cannot +deprive infidels of their civil power and sovereignty +merely on the ground that they are infidels, unless some +other wrong has been done by them.</p> + +<p>For religious belief, as Thomas Aquinas<a id="FNanchor_26" href="#Footnote_26" class="fnanchor">[26]</a> rightly observes, +does not do away with either natural or human law +from which sovereignty is derived. Surely it is a heresy +to believe that infidels are not masters of their own property; +consequently, to take from them their possessions on +account of their religious belief is no less theft and robbery +than it would be in the case of Christians.</p> + +<p>Victoria then is right in saying<a id="FNanchor_27" href="#Footnote_27" class="fnanchor">[27]</a> that the Spaniards have +no more legal right over the East Indians because of their +religion, than the East Indians would have had over the +Spaniards if they had happened to be the first foreigners +to come to Spain. Nor are the East Indians stupid and +unthinking; on the contrary they are intelligent and shrewd,</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_14"></a>[14]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p class="noindent">ingeniosi et solertes, ita ut ne hinc quidem praetextus +subiciendi possit desumi, qui tamen per se satis est manifestae +iniquitatis. Iam olim Plutarchus πρόφασιν πλεονεξίας +fuisse dicit ἡμερῶσαι τὰ βαρβαρικὰ,* improbam scilicet alieni +cupiditatem hoc sibi velum obtendere, quod barbariem +mansuefacit. Et nunc etiam color ille redigendi invitas +gentes ad mores humaniores, qui Graecis olim et Alexandro +usurpatus est, a Theologis omnibus, praesertim Hispanis,<a id="FNanchor_28a" href="#Footnote_28a" class="fnanchor">[28a]</a> +improbus atque impius censetur.</p> + +<p>* [Plutarch, Pompeius LXX].</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p class="noindent">so that a pretext for subduing them on the ground of their +character could not be sustained. Such a pretext on its +very face is an injustice. Plutarch said long ago that the +civilizing of barbarians had been made the pretext for aggression, +which is to say that a greedy longing for the property +of another often hides itself behind such a pretext. +And now that well-known pretext of forcing nations into a +higher state of civilization against their will, the pretext +once seized by the Greeks and by Alexander the Great,* is +considered by all theologians, especially those of Spain,<a id="FNanchor_28" href="#Footnote_28" class="fnanchor">[28]</a> to +be unjust and unholy.</p> + +<p>* [Cf. Plutarch, Of the Fortune or Virtue of Alexander the Great I, 5].</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_15"></a>[15]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<h2 class="nobreak" id="CAPVT_III">CAPVT III</h2> + +<p class="center"><i>Lusitanos in Indos non habere ius +dominii titulo donationis +Pontificiae</i></p> + +<p>Secundo si Pontificis Alexandri Sexti divisione utentur, +ante omnia illud attendendum est, volueritne Pontifex +contentiones tantum Lusitanorum et Castellanorum dirimere, +quod potuit sane, ut lectus inter illos arbiter, sicut et ipsi +Reges iam ante inter se ea de re foedera quaedam +pepigerant;<a id="FNanchor_29a" href="#Footnote_29a" class="fnanchor">[29a]</a> et hoc si ita est, cum res inter alios acta sit, ad +ceteras gentes non pertinebit; an vero prope singulos mundi +trientes duobus populis donare. Quod etsi voluisset, et +potuisset Pontifex, non tamen continuo sequeretur dominos +eorum locorum esse Lusitanos, cum donatio dominum non +faciat, sed secuta traditio;<a id="FNanchor_30a" href="#Footnote_30a" class="fnanchor">[30a]</a> quare et huic causae possessio +deberet accedere.</p> + +<p>Tum vero si quis ius ipsum sive divinum sive humanum +scrutari volet, non autem ex commodo suo metiri, facile</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_III">CHAPTER III</h2> + +<p class="center"><i>The Portuguese have no right of sovereignty over the +East Indies by virtue of title based on the Papal +Donation</i></p> + +<p>Next, if the partition made by the Pope Alexander VI* +is to be used by the Portuguese as authority for jurisdiction +in the East Indies, then before all things else two points +must be taken into consideration.</p> + +<p>* [The Cambridge Modern History, I, 23-24, has a good paragraph upon this +famous Papal Bull of May 14, 1493 (modified June 7, 1494, by treaty of +Tordesillas).]</p> + +<p>First, did the Pope merely desire to settle the disputes +between the Portuguese and the Spaniards?</p> + +<p>This was clearly within his power, inasmuch as he had +been chosen to arbitrate between them, and in fact the +kings of both countries had previously concluded certain +treaties with each other on this very matter.<a id="FNanchor_29" href="#Footnote_29" class="fnanchor">[29]</a> Now if this +be the case, seeing that the question concerns only the +Portuguese and Spaniards, the decision of the Pope will +of course not affect the other peoples of the world.</p> + +<p>Second, did the Pope intend to give to two nations, +each one third of the whole world?</p> + +<p>But even if the Pope had intended and had had the +power to make such a gift, still it would not have made +the Portuguese sovereigns of those places. For it is not a +donation that makes a sovereign, it is the consequent delivery +of a thing<a id="FNanchor_30" href="#Footnote_30" class="fnanchor">[30]</a> and the subsequent possession thereof.</p> + +<p>Now, if any one will scrutinize either divine or human +law, not merely with a view to his own interests, he will</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_16"></a>[16]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p class="noindent">deprehendet donationem eiusmodi ut rei alienae nullius esse +momenti. Disputationem de potestate Pontificis, hoc est +Episcopi Romanae Ecclesiae, hic non aggrediar, nec quicquam +ponam nisi ex hypothesi, hoc est, quod confitentur +homines inter eos eruditissimi, qui plurimum Pontificiae +tribuunt auctoritati, maxime Hispani, qui cum pro sua perspicacia +facile vident Dominum Christum omne a se +terrenum imperium abdicasse,<a id="FNanchor_31a" href="#Footnote_31a" class="fnanchor">[31a]</a> mundi certe totius dominium, +qua homo fuit, non habuisse, et si habuisset, nullis tamen +argumentis astrui posse ius illud in Petrum, aut Romanam +Ecclesiam Vicarii iure translatum; cum alias etiam certum +sit, multa Christum habuisse in quae Pontifex non successerit,<a id="FNanchor_32a" href="#Footnote_32a" class="fnanchor">[32a]</a> +intrepide affirmarunt (utar ipsorum verbis) Pontificem +non esse dominum civilem aut temporalem totius orbis.<a id="FNanchor_33a" href="#Footnote_33a" class="fnanchor">[33a]</a> +Immo etiam si quam talem potestatem in mundo haberet, +eam tamen non recte exerciturum, cum spirituali sua +iurisdictione contentus esse debeat, saecularibus autem +Principibus eam concedere nullo modo posse. Tum vero +si quam habeat potestatem, eam habere, ut loquuntur in +ordine ad spiritualia.<a id="FNanchor_34a" href="#Footnote_34a" class="fnanchor">[34a]</a> Quocirca nullam illi esse potestatem +in populos infideles, ut qui ad Ecclesiam non pertineant.<a id="FNanchor_35a" href="#Footnote_35a" class="fnanchor">[35a]</a></p> + +<p>Unde sequitur ex sententia Caietani et Victoriae et</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p class="noindent">easily apprehend that a donation of this kind, dealing with +the property of others, is of no effect. I shall not enter +here upon any discussion as to the power of the Pope, +that is the Bishop of the Roman Church, nor shall I advance +anything but a hypothesis which is accepted by men of the +greatest erudition, who lay the greatest stress on the power +of the Pope, especially the Spaniards, who with their perspicacity +easily see that our Lord Jesus Christ when he said +“My kingdom is not of this world” thereby renounced all +earthly power,<a id="FNanchor_31" href="#Footnote_31" class="fnanchor">[31]</a> and that while He was on earth as a man, +He certainly did not have dominion over the whole world, +and if He had had such dominion, still by no arguments +could such a right be transferred to Peter, or be transmitted +to the Roman Church by authority of the ‘Vicar of Christ’; +indeed, inasmuch as Christ had many things to which the +Pope did not succeed,<a id="FNanchor_32" href="#Footnote_32" class="fnanchor">[32]</a> it has been boldly affirmed—and I +shall use the very words of the writers—that the Pope is +neither civil nor temporal Lord of the whole world.<a id="FNanchor_33" href="#Footnote_33" class="fnanchor">[33]</a> On +the contrary, even if the Pope did have any such power on +earth, still he would not be right in using it, because he +ought to be satisfied with his own spiritual jurisdiction, +and be utterly unable to grant that power to temporal +princes. So then, if the Pope has any power at all, he has it, +as they say, in the spiritual realm only.<a id="FNanchor_34" href="#Footnote_34" class="fnanchor">[34]</a> Therefore he has +no authority over infidel nations, for they do not belong +to the Church.<a id="FNanchor_35" href="#Footnote_35" class="fnanchor">[35]</a></p> + +<p>It follows therefore according to the opinions of</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_17"></a>[17]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p class="noindent">potioris partis tam Theologorum quam Canonistarum,<a id="FNanchor_36a" href="#Footnote_36a" class="fnanchor">[36a]</a> non +esse idoneum titulum adversus Indos, vel quia Papa +dederit provincias illas tamquam dominus absolute, vel quia +non recognoscunt dominium Papae; atque adeo ne Saracenos +quidem isto titulo umquam spoliatos.</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p class="noindent">Cajetan and Victoria and the more authoritative of the +Theologians and writers on Canon Law,<a id="FNanchor_36" href="#Footnote_36" class="fnanchor">[36]</a> that there is no clear +title against the East Indians, based either on the ground +that the Pope made an absolute grant of those provinces as +if he were their sovereign, or on the pretext that the East +Indians do not recognize his sovereignty. Indeed, and in +truth, it may be affirmed that no such pretext as that was +ever invoked to despoil even the Saracens.</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_18"></a>[18]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<h2 class="nobreak" id="CAPVT_IV">CAPVT IV</h2> + +<p class="center"><i>Lusitanos in Indos non habere ius +dominii titulo belli</i></p> + +<p>His igitur sublatis cum manifestum sit, quod et Victoria +scribit,<a id="FNanchor_37a" href="#Footnote_37a" class="fnanchor">[37a]</a> Hispanos ad terras remotiores illas navigantes +nullum ius secum attulisse occupandi eas provincias, unus +dumtaxat titulus belli restat, qui et ipse si iustus esset, tamen +ad dominium proficere non posset, nisi iure praedae, hoc +est post occupationem. Atqui tantum abest ut Lusitani eas +res occupaverint, ut cum plerisque gentibus quas Batavi +accesserunt, bellum eo tempore nullum haberent. Et sic +igitur nullum ius illis quaeri potuit, cum etiam si quas ab +Indis pertulissent iniurias, eas longa pace et amicis commerciis +remisisse merito censeantur.</p> + +<p>Quamquam ne fuit quidem quod bello obtenderent. +Nam qui Barbaros bello persequuntur ut Americanos +Hispani, duo solent praetexere, quod ab illis commercio +arceantur, aut quod doctrinam verae religionis illi nolent +agnoscere. Et commercia quidem Lusitani ab Indis impetrarunt,<a id="FNanchor_38a" href="#Footnote_38a" class="fnanchor">[38a]</a> +ut hac in parte nihil habeant quod querantur.</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_IV">CHAPTER IV</h2> + +<p class="center"><i>The Portuguese have no right of sovereignty over the East +Indies by title of war</i></p> + +<p>Since it is clear, (as Victoria also says),<a id="FNanchor_37" href="#Footnote_37" class="fnanchor">[37]</a> from the refutation +of any claim to title from the Pope’s Donation, +that the Spaniards when they sailed to those distant lands +did not carry with them any right to occupy them as +provinces, only one kind of title remains to be considered, +namely, that based upon war. But even if this title could +be justified, it would not serve to establish sovereignty, +except by right of conquest, that is to say, occupation would +be a prerequisite. But the Portuguese were as far as +possible from occupation of those lands. They were not +even at war with most of the peoples whom the Dutch +visited. So therefore no legal claim could be established +there by the Portuguese, because even if they had suffered +wrongs from the East Indians, it might reasonably be considered +by the long peace and friendly commercial relations +that those injuries had been forgiven.</p> + +<p>Indeed there was no pretext at all for going to war. +For those who force war upon barbarous peoples, as the +Spaniards did upon the aborigines of America, commonly +allege one of two pretexts: either that they have been refused +the right to trade, or that the barbarians are unwilling +to acknowledge the doctrines of the True Faith. But +as the Portuguese actually obtained from the East Indians +the right to trade,<a id="FNanchor_38" href="#Footnote_38" class="fnanchor">[38]</a> they have, on that score at least, no</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_19"></a>[19]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p class="noindent">Alter vero obtentus nihilo est iustior, quam ille Graecorum in +Barbaros, quo Boëthius respexit:<a id="FNanchor_39a" href="#Footnote_39a" class="fnanchor">[39a]</a></p> + +<div class="poetry-container"> +<div class="poetry"> + <div class="verse indent0"><i>An distant quia dissidentque mores,</i></div> + <div class="verse indent0"><i>Iniustas acies, et fera bella movent,</i></div> + <div class="verse indent2"><i>Alternisque volunt perire telis?</i></div> + <div class="verse indent2"><i>Non est iusta satis saevitiae ratio.</i></div> +</div> +</div> + +<p class="noindent">Ista autem et Thomae et Concili Toletani et Gregori et +Theologorum, Canonistarum, Iurisprudentiumque fere +omnium conclusio est:<a id="FNanchor_40a" href="#Footnote_40a" class="fnanchor">[40a]</a> Quantumcumque fides annuntiata +sit Barbaris (nam de his qui subditi ante fuerunt Christianis +Principibus item de Apostatis alia est quaestio) probabiliter +et sufficienter, et si noluerint eam respicere, non tamen +licere hac ratione eos bello persequi, et spoliare bonis suis.<a id="FNanchor_41a" href="#Footnote_41a" class="fnanchor">[41a]</a></p> + +<p>Operae pretium est in hanc rem ipsa Caietani verba +describere:<a id="FNanchor_42a" href="#Footnote_42a" class="fnanchor">[42a]</a> ‘Quidam’, ait, ‘infideles nec de iure nec de +facto subsunt secundum temporalem iurisdictionem Principibus +Christianis, ut inveniuntur pagani, qui numquam +imperio Romano subditi fuerunt, terras habitantes, in quibus +Christianum numquam fuit nomen. Horum namque +domini, quamvis infideles, legitimi domini sunt, sive regali +sive politico regimine gubernantur; nec sunt propter infidelitatem +a dominio suorum privati, cum dominium sit</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p class="noindent">grounds of complaint. Nor is there any better justification +for the other pretext than the one alleged by the Greeks +against the barbarians, to which Boëthius makes the following +allusion:</p> + +<div class="poetry-container"> +<div class="poetry"> + <div class="verse indentq">“<i>Unjust and cruel wars they wage,</i></div> + <div class="verse indent0"><i>And haste with flying darts the death to meet or deal.</i></div> + <div class="verse indent0"><i>No right nor reason can they show;</i></div> + <div class="verse indent0"><i>’Tis but because their lands and laws are not the same.</i>”<a id="FNanchor_39" href="#Footnote_39" class="fnanchor">[39]</a></div> +</div> +</div> + +<p class="noindent">Moreover the verdict of Thomas Aquinas, of the Council of +Toledo, of Gregory, and of nearly all theologians, canonists, +and jurists, is as follows:<a id="FNanchor_40" href="#Footnote_40" class="fnanchor">[40]</a> However persuasively and +sufficiently the True Faith has been preached to the heathen—former +subjects of Christian princes or apostates are quite +another question—if they are unwilling to heed it, that is +not sufficient cause to justify war upon them, or to despoil +them of their goods.<a id="FNanchor_41" href="#Footnote_41" class="fnanchor">[41]</a></p> + +<p>It is worth while on this point to quote the actual words +of Cajetan:<a id="FNanchor_42" href="#Footnote_42" class="fnanchor">[42]</a> ‘There are some infidels who are neither in +law nor in fact under the temporal jurisdiction of Christian +princes; just as there were pagans who were never, subjects +of the Roman Empire, and yet who inhabit lands +where the name of Christ was never heard. Now their +rulers, though heathen, are legitimate rulers, whether the +people live under a monarchical or a democratic régime. +They are not to be deprived of sovereignty over their possessions</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_20"></a>[20]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p class="noindent">ex iure positivo, et infidelitas ex divino iure, quod non tollit +ius positivum, ut superius in quaestione habitum est. Et +de his nullam scio legem quoad temporalia. Contra hos +nullus Rex, nullus Imperator, nec Ecclesia Romana potest +movere bellum ad occupandas terras eorum, aut subiciendos +illos temporaliter; quia nulla subest causa iusta belli, cum +Iesus Christus Rex Regum, cui data est potestas in caelo et +in terra, miserit ad capiendam possessionem mundi, non +milites armatae militiae, sed sanctos praedicatores, sicut +oves inter lupos. Vnde nec in testamento veteri, ubi armata +manu possessio erat capienda, terrae infidelium inductum +lego bellum alicui propter hoc quod non erant fideles, sed +quia nolebant dare transitum, vel quia eos offenderant, ut +Madianitae, vel ut recuperarent sua, divina largitate sibi +concessa. Vnde GRAVISSIME PECCAREMVS, si +fidem Christi Iesu per hanc viam ampliare contenderemus; +nec essemus LEGITIMI DOMINI illorum, sed MAGNA +LATROCINIA committeremus, et teneremur ad restitutionem, +utpote INIVSTI DEBELLATORES AVT +OCCVPATORES. Mittendi essent ad hos praedicatores +boni viri, qui verbo et exemplo converterent eos ad Deum; +et non qui eos opprimant, spolient, scandalizent, subiciant, +et duplo gehennae filios faciant, more Pharisaeorum’.</p> + +<p>Et in hanc formam audimus saepe a Senatu in Hispania, +et Theologis praecipue Dominicanis decretum fuisse, sola +verbi praedicatione non bello Americanos ad fidem traducendos; +libertatem etiam quae illis eo nomine erepta esset,</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p class="noindent">because of their unbelief, since sovereignty is a +matter of positive law, and unbelief is a matter of divine +law, which cannot annul positive law, as has been argued +above. In fact I know of no law against such unbelievers +as regards their temporal possessions. Against them no +King, no Emperor, not even the Roman Church, can declare +war for the purpose of occupying their lands, or of +subjecting them to temporal sway. For there is no just +cause for war, since Jesus Christ the King of Kings, to +whom all power was given in heaven and on earth, sent out +for the conquest of the world not armed soldiers, but holy +disciples, “as sheep in the midst of wolves.” Nor do I +read in the Old Testament, when possession had to be +obtained by force of arms, that the Israelites waged war +on any heathen land because of the unbelief of its inhabitants; +but it was because the heathen refused them the right +of innocent passage, or attacked them, as the Midianites +did; or it was to recover the possessions which had been +bestowed upon them by divine bounty. Wherefore we +should be most miserable sinners if we should attempt to +extend the religion of Jesus Christ by such means. Nor +should we be their lawful rulers, but, on the contrary, we +should be committing great robberies, and be compelled to +make restitution as unjust conquerors and invaders. There +must be sent to them as preachers, good men to convert +them to God by their teaching and example; not men who +will oppress them, despoil them, subdue and proselytize +them, and “make them twofold more the children of hell +than themselves,”* after the manner of the Pharisees’.</p> + +<p>* [Matthew XXIII, 15].</p> + +<p>Indeed I have often heard that it has been decreed by +the Council of Spain, and by the Churchmen, especially the +Dominicans, that the Americans (Aztecs and Indians) +should be converted to the Faith by the preaching of the +Word alone, and not by war, and even that their liberty of</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_21"></a>[21]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p class="noindent">restitui debere, quod a Paulo tertio Pontifice, et Carolo V +Imperatore Hispaniarum Rege comprobatum dicitur.</p> + +<p>Omittimus iam Lusitanos in plerisque partibus religionem +nihil promovere, ne operam quidem dare, cum soli lucro +invigilent. Immo et illud ibi verum esse, quod de Hispanis +in America Hispanus scripsit, non miracula, non signa +audiri, non exempla vitae religiosae, quae ad eandem fidem +alios possent impellere, sed multa scandala, multa facinora, +multas impietates.</p> + +<p>Quare cum et possessio et titulus deficiat possessionis, +neque res dicionesque Indorum pro talibus haberi debeant +quasi nullius ante fuissent, neque cum illorum essent, ab +aliis recte acquiri potuerint, sequitur Indorum populos, de +quibus nos loquimur, Lusitanorum proprios non esse, sed +liberos, et sui iuris; de quo ipsi doctores Hispani non +dubitant.<a id="FNanchor_43a" href="#Footnote_43a" class="fnanchor">[43a]</a></p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p class="noindent">which they had been robbed in the name of religion should +be restored. This policy is said to have received the approval +of Pope Paul III, and of Emperor Charles V, King of the +Spains.</p> + +<p>I pass over the fact that the Portuguese in most places +do not further the extension of the faith, or indeed, pay +any attention to it at all, since they are alive only to the +acquisition of wealth. Nay, the very thing that is true of +them, is the very thing which has been written of the Spaniards +in America by a Spaniard, namely, that nothing is +heard of miracles or wonders or examples of devout and +religious life such as might convert others to the same faith, +but on the other hand no end of scandals, of crimes, of +impious deeds.</p> + +<p>Wherefore, since both possession and a title of possession +are lacking, and since the property and the sovereignty +of the East Indies ought not to be considered as if they had +previously been <i lang="la">res nullius</i>, and since, as they belong to the +East Indians, they could not have been acquired legally +by other persons, it follows that the East Indian nations in +question are not the chattels of the Portuguese, but are +free men and <i lang="la">sui juris</i>. This is not denied even by the +Spanish jurists themselves.<a id="FNanchor_43" href="#Footnote_43" class="fnanchor">[43]</a></p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_22"></a>[22]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<h2 class="nobreak" id="CAPUT_V">CAPUT V</h2> + +<p class="center"><i>Mare ad Indos aut ius eo navigandi non +esse proprium Lusitanorum titulo +occupationis</i></p> + +<p>Si ergo in populos terrasque et diciones Lusitani ius +nullum quaesiverunt, videamus an mare et navigationem, +aut mercaturam sui iuris facere potuerint. De mari autem +prima sit consideratio, quod cum passim in iure aut nullius, +aut commune, aut publicum iuris gentium dicatur, hae +voces quid significent ita commodissime explicabitur, si +Poetas ab Hesiodo omnes, et Philosophos; et Iurisconsultos +veteres imitati in tempora distinguamus, ea, quae tempore +forte haud longo, certa tamen ratione, et sui natura discreta +sunt. Neque nobis vitio verti debet si in iuris a natura procedentis +explicatione auctoritate et verbis eorum utimur +quos constat naturali iudicio plurimum valuisse.</p> + +<p>Sciendum est igitur in primordiis vitae humanae aliud +quam nunc est dominium, aliud communionem fuisse.<a id="FNanchor_44a" href="#Footnote_44a" class="fnanchor">[44a]</a> Nam +dominium nunc proprium quid significat, quod scilicet ita +est alicuius ut alterius non sit eodem modo. Commune +autem dicimus, cuius proprietas inter plures consortio</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_V">CHAPTER V</h2> + +<p class="center"><i>Neither the Indian Ocean nor the right of navigation +thereon belongs to the Portuguese by title of +occupation</i></p> + +<p>If therefore the Portuguese have acquired no legal right +over the nations of the East Indies, and their territory and +sovereignty, let us consider whether they have been able to +obtain exclusive jurisdiction over the sea and its navigation +or over trade. Let us first consider the case of the sea.</p> + +<p>Now, in the legal phraseology of the Law of Nations, +the sea is called indifferently the property of no one (<i lang="la">res +nullius</i>), or a common possession (<i lang="la">res communis</i>), or public +property (<i lang="la">res publica</i>). It will be most convenient to explain +the signification of these terms if we follow the practice +of all the poets since Hesiod, of the philosophers and +jurists of the past, and distinguish certain epochs, the divisions +of which are marked off perhaps not so much by intervals +of time as by obvious logic and essential character. +And we ought not to be criticised if in our explanation of a +law deriving from nature, we use the authority and definition +of those whose natural judgment admittedly is held in +the highest esteem.</p> + +<p>It is therefore necessary to explain that in the earliest +stages of human existence both sovereignty and common +possession had meanings other than those which they bear +at the present time.<a id="FNanchor_44" href="#Footnote_44" class="fnanchor">[44]</a> For nowadays sovereignty means a +particular kind of proprietorship, such in fact that it absolutely +excludes like possession by any one else. On the +other hand, we call a thing ‘common’ when its ownership</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_23"></a>[23]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p class="noindent">quodam aut consensu collata est exclusis aliis. Linguarum +paupertas coegit voces easdem in re non eadem usurpare. +Et sic ista nostri moris nomina ad ius illud pristinum +similitudine quadam et imagine referuntur. Commune +igitur tunc non aliud fuit quam quod simpliciter proprio +opponitur; dominium autem facultas non iniusta utendi re +communi, quem usum Scholasticis<a id="FNanchor_45a" href="#Footnote_45a" class="fnanchor">[45a]</a> visum est facti non iuris +vocare, quia qui nunc in iure usus vocatur, proprium est +quiddam, aut ut illorum more loquar, privative ad alios +dicitur.</p> + +<p>Iure primo Gentium, quod et Naturale interdum dicitur, +et quod poetae alibi aetate aurea, alibi Saturni aut Iustitiae +regno depingunt, nihil proprium fuit; quod Cicero dixit: +‘Sunt autem privata nulla natura’. Et Horatius:<a id="FNanchor_46a" href="#Footnote_46a" class="fnanchor">[46a]</a></p> + +<div class="poetry-container"> +<div class="poetry"> + <div class="verse indent0"><i>Nam PROPRIAE telluris ERVM NATVRA neque illum</i></div> + <div class="verse indent0"><i>Nec me nec quemquam statuit.</i></div> +</div> +</div> + +<p class="noindent">Neque enim potuit natura dominos distinguere. Hoc igitur +significatu res omnes eo tempore communes fuisse dicimus, +idem innuentes quod poetae cum primos homines in medium +quaesivisse, et Iustitiam casto foedere res medias tenuisse* +dicunt; quod ut clarius explicent, negant eo tempore campos +limite partitos, aut commercia fuisse ulla.</p> + +<p>* [in medium quaerebant, Vergil, Georgica I, 127; medias casto res more +tenebas, Avienus, Aratus, 298 (W. P. Mustard)].</p> + +<div class="poetry-container"> +<div class="poetry"> + <div class="verse indent8"><i>promiscua rura per agros</i></div> + <div class="verse indent0"><i>Praestiterant cunctis COMMVNIA cuncta VIDERI.</i><a id="FNanchor_47a" href="#Footnote_47a" class="fnanchor">[47a]</a></div> +</div> +</div> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p class="noindent">or possession is held by several persons jointly according +to a kind of partnership or mutual agreement from which +all other persons are excluded. Poverty of language compels +the use of the same words for things that are not the +same. And so because of a certain similarity and likeness, +our modern nomenclature is applied to that state of primitive +law. Now, in ancient times, ‘common’ meant simply +the opposite of ‘particular’; and ‘sovereignty’ or ‘ownership’, +meant the privilege of lawfully using common property. +This seemed to the Scholastics<a id="FNanchor_45" href="#Footnote_45" class="fnanchor">[45]</a> to be a use in fact +but not in law, because what now in law is called use, is a +particular right, or if I may use their phraseology, is, in +respect to other persons, a privative right.</p> + +<p>In the primitive law of nations, which is sometimes +called Natural Law, and which the poets sometimes portray +as having existed in a Golden Age, and sometimes +in the reign of Saturn or of Justice, there was no +particular right. As Cicero says: ‘But nothing is by nature +private property’. And Horace:<a id="FNanchor_46" href="#Footnote_46" class="fnanchor">[46]</a> ‘For nature has decreed +to be the master of private soil neither him, nor me, nor anyone +else’. For nature knows no sovereigns. Therefore in +this sense we say that in those ancient times all things were +held in common, meaning what the poets do when they say +that primitive men acquired everything in common, and +that Justice maintained a community of goods by means of +an inviolable compact. And to make this clearer, they say +that in those primitive times the fields were not delimited +by boundary lines, and that there was no commercial intercourse. +[As Avienus says]:<a id="FNanchor_47" href="#Footnote_47" class="fnanchor">[47]</a> ‘The promiscuity of the fields +had made everything seem common to all’.</p> + +<p>The word ‘seemed’ is rightly added, owing to the +changed meaning of the words, as we have noted above.</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_24"></a>[24]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p class="noindent">Recte additum est ‘videri’ propter translationem ut diximus +vocabuli. Communio autem ista ad usum referebatur:<a id="FNanchor_48a" href="#Footnote_48a" class="fnanchor">[48a]</a></p> + +<div class="poetry-container"> +<div class="poetry"> + <div class="verse indent4"><i>pervium cunctis iter,</i></div> + <div class="verse indent0"><i lang="la">COMMVNIS VSVS omnium rerum fuit.</i></div> +</div> +</div> + +<p class="noindent">Cuius ratione dominium quoddam erat, sed universale, et +indefinitum; Deus enim res omnes non huic aut illi dederat, +sed humano generi, atque eo modo plures in solidum eiusdem +rei domini esse non prohibebantur; quod si hodierna significatione +sumamus dominium, contra omnem est rationem. Hoc +enim proprietatem includit, quae tunc erat penes neminem. +Aptissime autem illud dictum est:<a id="FNanchor_49a" href="#Footnote_49a" class="fnanchor">[49a]</a></p> + +<div class="poetry-container"> +<div class="poetry"> + <div class="verse indent4"><i>omnia rerum</i></div> + <div class="verse indent0"><i>Vsurpantis erant,</i></div> +</div> +</div> + +<p>Ad eam vero, quae nunc est, dominiorum distinctionem +non impetu quodam, sed paulatim ventum videtur, initium +eius monstrante natura. Cum enim res sint nonnullae, +quarum usus in abusu consistit, aut quia conversae in substantiam +utentis nullum postea usum admittunt, aut quia +utendo fiunt ad usum deteriores, in rebus prioris generis, ut +cibo et potu, proprietas statim quaedam ab usu non seiuncta +emicuit.<a id="FNanchor_50a" href="#Footnote_50a" class="fnanchor">[50a]</a> Hoc enim est proprium esse, ita esse cuiusquam +ut et alterius esse non possit; quod deinde ad res posterioris, +generis, vestes puta, et res mobiles alias aut se moventes +ratione quadam productum est.</p> + +<p>Quod cum esset, ne res quidem immobiles omnes, agri</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p class="noindent">But that kind of common possession relates to use, as is seen +from a quotation from Seneca:<a id="FNanchor_48" href="#Footnote_48" class="fnanchor">[48]</a></p> + +<div class="poetry-container"> +<div class="poetry"> + <div class="verse indent10">“<i>Every path was free,</i></div> + <div class="verse indent0"><i>All things were used in common.</i>”</div> +</div> +</div> + +<p class="noindent">According to his reasoning there was a kind of sovereignty, +but it was universal and unlimited. For God had not given +all things to this individual or to that, but to the entire +human race, and thus a number of persons, as it were en +masse, were not debarred from being substantially sovereigns +or owners of the same thing, which is quite contradictory +to our modern meaning of sovereignty. For it now +implies particular or private ownership, a thing which no +one then had. Avienus has said very pertinently:<a id="FNanchor_49" href="#Footnote_49" class="fnanchor">[49]</a> ‘All +things belonged to him who had possession of them’.</p> + +<p>It seems certain that the transition to the present distinction +of ownerships did not come violently, but gradually, +nature herself pointing out the way. For since there +are some things, the use of which consists in their being +used up, either because having become part of the very +substance of the user they can never be used again, or because +by use they become less fit for future use, it has become +apparent, especially in dealing with the first category, +such things as food and drink for example, that a certain +kind of ownership is inseparable from use.<a id="FNanchor_50" href="#Footnote_50" class="fnanchor">[50]</a> For ‘own’ +implies that a thing belongs to some one person, in such +a way that it cannot belong to any other person. By the +process of reasoning this was next extended to things of +the second category, such as clothes and movables and some +living things.</p> + +<p>When that had come about, not even immovables, such,</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_25"></a>[25]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p class="noindent">puta, indivisae manere potuerunt; quamquam enim horum +usus non simpliciter in abusu consistat, eorum tamen usus +abusus cuiusdam causa comparatus est, ut arva et arbusta +cibi causa, pascua etiam vestium; omnium autem usibus +promiscue sufficere non possunt. Repertae proprietati lex +posita est, quae naturam imitaretur. Sicut enim initio per +applicationem corporalem usus ille habebatur, unde proprietatem +primum ortam diximus, ita simili applicatione +res proprias cuiusque fieri placuit. Haec est quae dicitur +occupatio, voce accommodatissima ad eas res quae ante in +medio positae fuerant; quo Seneca Tragicus alludit:<a id="FNanchor_51a" href="#Footnote_51a" class="fnanchor">[51a]</a></p> + +<div class="poetry-container"> +<div class="poetry"> + <div class="verse indent4"><i>IN MEDIO est scelus</i></div> + <div class="verse indent0"><i>POSITVM OCCVPANTI.</i></div> +</div> +</div> + +<p class="noindent">Et Philosophus:<a id="FNanchor_52a" href="#Footnote_52a" class="fnanchor">[52a]</a> ‘Equestria OMNIVM equitum Romanorum +sunt. In illis tamen locus meus fit PROPRIVS, +quem OCCVPAVI’. Hinc Quintilianus dicit,<a id="FNanchor_53a" href="#Footnote_53a" class="fnanchor">[53a]</a> quod omnibus +nascitur, industriae esse praemium; et Tullius,<a id="FNanchor_54a" href="#Footnote_54a" class="fnanchor">[54a]</a> factas +esse veteri occupatione res eorum qui quondam in vacua +venerant.</p> + +<p>Occupatio autem haec in his rebus quae possessioni +renituntur, ut sunt ferae bestiae, perpetua esse debet, in +aliis sufficit, corpore coeptam possessionem animo retineri. +Occupatio in mobilibus est apprehensio, in immobilibus</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p class="noindent">for instance, as fields, could remain unapportioned. For +although their use does not consist merely in consumption, +nevertheless it is bound up with subsequent consumption, +as fields and plants are used to get food, and pastures to +get clothing. There is, however, not enough fixed property +to satisfy the use of everybody indiscriminately.</p> + +<p>When property or ownership was invented, the law of +property was established to imitate nature. For as that +use began in connection with bodily needs, from which as +we have said property first arose, so by a similar connection +it was decided that things were the property of individuals. +This is called ‘occupation’, a word most appropriate to +those things which in former times had been held in common. +It is this to which Seneca alludes in his tragedy +Thyestes,</p> + +<div class="poetry-container"> +<div class="poetry"> + <div class="stanza"> + <div class="verse indent0">“<i>Crime is between us to be seized by one.</i>”<a id="FNanchor_51" href="#Footnote_51" class="fnanchor">[51]</a></div> + </div> +</div> +</div> + +<p>And in one of his philosophical writings he also says:<a id="FNanchor_52" href="#Footnote_52" class="fnanchor">[52]</a> ‘The +equestrian rows of seats belong to all the equites; nevertheless, +the seat of which I have taken possession is my own +private place’. Further, Quintilian remarks<a id="FNanchor_53" href="#Footnote_53" class="fnanchor">[53]</a> that a thing +which is created for all is the reward of industry, and Cicero +says<a id="FNanchor_54" href="#Footnote_54" class="fnanchor">[54]</a> that things which have been occupied for a long time +become the property of those who originally found them +unoccupied.</p> + +<p>This occupation or possession, however, in the case of +things which resist seizure, like wild animals for example, +must be uninterrupted or perpetually maintained, but in the +case of other things it is sufficient if after physical possession +is once taken the intention to possess is maintained. +Possession of movables implies seizure, and possession of</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_26"></a>[26]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p class="noindent">instructio aut limitatio; unde Hermogenianus cum dominia +distincta dicit, addit, agris terminos positos, aedificia collocata.<a id="FNanchor_55a" href="#Footnote_55a" class="fnanchor">[55a]</a> +Hic rerum status a poetis indicatur:</p> + +<div class="poetry-container"> +<div class="poetry"> + <div class="verse indent0"><i>Tum laqueis captare feras, et fallere visco</i></div> + <div class="verse indent0"><i>Inventum.</i></div> + <div class="stanza"> + <div class="verse indent0"><i>Tum primum subiere domos.</i><a id="FNanchor_56a" href="#Footnote_56a" class="fnanchor">[56a]</a></div> + </div> + <div class="stanza"> + <div class="verse indent0"><i>COMMVNEMQVE PRIVS, ceu lumina solis et auras</i></div> + <div class="verse indent0"><i>Cautus humum longo signavit LIMITE mensor.</i><a id="FNanchor_57a" href="#Footnote_57a" class="fnanchor">[57a]</a></div> + </div> +</div> +</div> + +<p class="noindent">Celebratur post haec, ut Hermogenianus indicat, commercium +cuius gratia</p> + +<div class="poetry-container"> +<div class="poetry"> + <div class="verse indent0"><i>Fluctibus ignotis insultavere carinae.</i><a id="FNanchor_58a" href="#Footnote_58a" class="fnanchor">[58a]</a></div> +</div> +</div> + +<p>Eodem autem tempore et respublicae institui coeperunt. +Atque ita earum quae a prima communione divulsa erant +duo facta sunt genera. Alia enim sunt publica, hoc est, +populi propria (quae est genuina istius vocis significatio) +alia mere privata, hoc est, singulorum. Occupatio autem +publica eodem modo fit, quo privata. Seneca:<a id="FNanchor_59a" href="#Footnote_59a" class="fnanchor">[59a]</a> ‘Fines +Atheniensium, aut Campanorum vocamus, quos deinde inter +se vicini privata terminatione distinguunt’. Gens enim +unaquaeque</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p class="noindent">immovables either the erection of buildings or some determination +of boundaries, such as fencing in. Hence +Hermogenianus, in speaking of separate ownerships, adds +the boundaries set to the fields and the buildings thereon +constructed.<a id="FNanchor_55" href="#Footnote_55" class="fnanchor">[55]</a> This state of things is described thus by the +poets Vergil and Ovid:</p> + +<div class="poetry-container"> +<div class="poetry"> + <div class="verse indent0">“<i>Then toils for beasts, and lime for birds, were found</i>,”<a id="FNanchor_56" href="#Footnote_56" class="fnanchor">[56]</a></div> + <div class="stanza"> + <div class="verse indent0"><i>Then first men made homes.</i></div> + </div> + <div class="stanza"> + <div class="verse indentq">“<i>Then landmarks limited to each his right,</i></div> + <div class="verse indent0"><i>For all before was common as the light.</i>”<a id="FNanchor_57" href="#Footnote_57" class="fnanchor">[57]</a></div> + </div> +</div> +</div> + +<p class="noindent">In still another place, as Hermogenianus points out, Ovid +praises commerce, for the sake of which:<a id="FNanchor_58" href="#Footnote_58" class="fnanchor">[58]</a></p> + +<div class="poetry-container"> +<div class="poetry"> + <div class="verse indent0">‘<i>Ships in triumph sail the unknown seas</i>’.</div> +</div> +</div> + +<p class="noindent">At the same time, however, states began to be established, +and so two categories were made of the things which had +been wrested away from early ownership in common. For +some things were public, that is, were the property of the +people (which is the real meaning of that expression), while +other things were private, that is, were the property of individuals. +Ownership, however, both public and private, +arises in the same way. On this point Seneca says:<a id="FNanchor_59" href="#Footnote_59" class="fnanchor">[59]</a> ‘We +speak in general of the land of the Athenians or the Campanians. +It is the same land which again by means of +private boundaries is divided among individual owners’.</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_27"></a>[27]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<div class="poetry-container"> +<div class="poetry"> + <div class="verse indent0"><i>PARTITA FINES regna constituit, novas</i></div> + <div class="verse indent0"><i>Extruxit VRBES.</i><a id="FNanchor_60a" href="#Footnote_60a" class="fnanchor">[60a]</a></div> +</div> +</div> + +<p class="noindent">Hoc modo dicit Cicero agrum Arpinatem Arpinatium dici, +Tusculanum Tusculanorum: ‘similisque est’, inquit, ‘privatarum +possessionum discriptio. Ex quo quia suum cuiusque +fit eorum, quae natura fuerant COMMVNIA, quod cuique +obtigit, id quisque teneat’.<a id="FNanchor_61a" href="#Footnote_61a" class="fnanchor">[61a]</a> Contra autem Thucydides<a id="FNanchor_62a" href="#Footnote_62a" class="fnanchor">[62a]</a> +eam terram quae in divisione populo nulli obvenit, ἀόριστον +hoe est, indefinitam, et limitibus nullis circumscriptam +vocat.<a id="FNanchor_63a" href="#Footnote_63a" class="fnanchor">[63a]</a></p> + +<p>Ex his quae hactenus dicta sunt duo intelligi possunt. +Prius est, eas res quae occupari non possunt, aut occupatae +numquam sunt, nullius proprias esse posse; quia +omnis proprietas ab occupatione coeperit. Alterum vero, +eas res omnes, quae ita a natura comparatae sunt, ut aliquo +utente nihilominus aliis quibusvis ad usum promiscue sufficiant, +eius hodieque condicionis esse, et perpetuo esse debere +cuius fuerant cum primum a natura proditae sunt. Hoc +Cicero voluit:<a id="FNanchor_64a" href="#Footnote_64a" class="fnanchor">[64a]</a> ‘Ac latissime quidem patens hominibus inter +ipsos, omnibus inter omnes societas haec est; in qua omnium +rerum, quas ad communem hominum usum natura genuit, +est servanda communitas’. Sunt autem omnes res huius +generis, in quibus sine detrimento alterius alteri commodari +potest. Hinc illud esse dicit Cicero:<a id="FNanchor_65a" href="#Footnote_65a" class="fnanchor">[65a]</a> ‘Non prohibere aqua +profluente’. Nam aqua profluens qua talis non qua flumen</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p class="noindent">‘For each nation’, Seneca says in another place, ‘made its +territories into separate kingdoms and built new cities’.<a id="FNanchor_60" href="#Footnote_60" class="fnanchor">[60]</a></p> + +<p class="noindent">Thus Cicero says: “On this principle the lands of Arpinum +are said to belong to the Arpinates, the Tusculan lands to +the Tusculans; and similar is the assignment of private +property. Therefore, inasmuch as in each case some of +those things which by nature had been common property +became the property of individuals, each one should retain +possession of that which has fallen to his lot.”<a id="FNanchor_61" href="#Footnote_61" class="fnanchor">[61]</a> On the +other hand Thucydides<a id="FNanchor_62" href="#Footnote_62" class="fnanchor">[62]</a> calls the land which in the division +falls to no nation, ἀόριστος, that is, undefined, and undetermined +by boundaries.<a id="FNanchor_63" href="#Footnote_63" class="fnanchor">[63]</a></p> + +<p>Two conclusions may be drawn from what has thus far +been said. The first is, that that which cannot be occupied, +or which never has been occupied, cannot be the property +of any one, because all property has arisen from occupation. +The second is, that all that which has been so constituted +by nature that although serving some one person it still +suffices for the common use of all other persons, is today +and ought in perpetuity to remain in the same condition as +when it was first created by nature. This is what Cicero +meant when he wrote: “This then is the most comprehensive +bond that unites together men as men and all to all; +and under it the common right to all things that nature has +produced for the common use of man is to be maintained.”<a id="FNanchor_64" href="#Footnote_64" class="fnanchor">[64]</a> +All things which can be used without loss to any one else +come under this category. Hence, says Cicero, comes the +well known prohibition:<a id="FNanchor_65" href="#Footnote_65" class="fnanchor">[65]</a> ‘Deny no one the water that flows +by’. For running water considered as such and not as a</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_28"></a>[28]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p class="noindent">est, inter communia omnium a Iurisconsultis refertur: et a +Poeta:<a id="FNanchor_66a" href="#Footnote_66a" class="fnanchor">[66a]</a></p> + +<div class="poetry-container"> +<div class="poetry"> + <div class="verse indent0"><i>Quid prohibetis AQVAS? VSVS COMMVNIS aquarum est.</i></div> + <div class="verse indent0"><i>Nec solem PROPRIVM NATVRA nec AERA fecit.</i></div> + <div class="verse indent0"><i>Nec tenues VNDAS: in PVBLICA munera veni.</i></div> +</div> +</div> + +<p>Dicit haec non esse natura propria, sicut Vlpianus<a id="FNanchor_67a" href="#Footnote_67a" class="fnanchor">[67a]</a> +natura omnibus patere, tum quia primum a natura prodita +sunt, et in nullius adhuc dominium pervenerunt (ut loquitur +Neratius<a id="FNanchor_68a" href="#Footnote_68a" class="fnanchor">[68a]</a>); tum quia ut Cicero dicit, a natura ad usum +communem genita videntur. Publica autem vocat tralatitia +significatione, non quae ad populum aliquem, sed quae ad +societatem humanam pertinent, quae publica Iuris gentium +in Legibus vocantur, hoc est, communia omnium, propria +nullius.</p> + +<p>Huius generis est Aër, duplici ratione, tum quia occupari +non potest, tum quia usum promiscuum hominibus debet. +Et eisdem de causis commune est omnium Maris Elementum, +infinitum scilicet ita, ut possideri non queat, et omnium +usibus accommodatum: sive navigationem respicimus, sive +etiam piscaturam. Cuius autem iuris est mare, eiusdem +sunt si qua mare aliis usibus eripiendo sua fecit, ut arenae +maris, quarum pars terris continua litus dicitur.<a id="FNanchor_69a" href="#Footnote_69a" class="fnanchor">[69a]</a> Recte +igitur Cicero:<a id="FNanchor_70a" href="#Footnote_70a" class="fnanchor">[70a]</a> ‘quid tam COMMVNE quam Mare fluctuantibus,</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p class="noindent">stream, is classed by the jurists among the things common +to all mankind; as is done also by Ovid:<a id="FNanchor_66" href="#Footnote_66" class="fnanchor">[66]</a> ‘Why do you deny +me water? Its use is free to all. Nature has made neither +sun nor air nor waves private property; they are public +gifts’.</p> + +<p>He says that these things are not by nature private +possession, but that, as Ulpian claims,<a id="FNanchor_67" href="#Footnote_67" class="fnanchor">[67]</a> they are by nature +things open to the use of all, both because in the first place +they were produced by nature, and have never yet come +under the sovereignty of any one, as Neratius says;<a id="FNanchor_68" href="#Footnote_68" class="fnanchor">[68]</a> and in +the second place because, as Cicero says, they seem to have +been created by nature for common use. But the poet uses +‘public’, in its usual meaning, not of those things which +belong to any one people, but to human society as a whole; +that is to say, things which are called ‘public’ are, according +to the Laws of the law of nations, the common property +of all, and the private property of none.</p> + +<p>The air belongs to this class of things for two reasons. +First, it is not susceptible of occupation; and second, its +common use is destined for all men. For the same reasons +the sea is common to all, because it is so limitless that it +cannot become a possession of any one, and because it is +adapted for the use of all, whether we consider it from the +point of view of navigation or of fisheries. Now, the same +right which applies to the sea applies also to the things +which the sea has carried away from other uses and made +its own, such for example as the sands of the sea, of which +the portion adjoining the land is called the coast or shore.<a id="FNanchor_69" href="#Footnote_69" class="fnanchor">[69]</a> +Cicero therefore argues correctly:<a id="FNanchor_70" href="#Footnote_70" class="fnanchor">[70]</a> ‘What is so common as</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_29"></a>[29]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p class="noindent">LITVS eiectis’? Etiam Vergilius auram, +undam, litus cunctis patere dicit.</p> + +<p>Haec igitur sunt illa quae Romani vocant communia +omnium iure naturali<a id="FNanchor_71a" href="#Footnote_71a" class="fnanchor">[71a]</a> aut quod idem esse diximus, publica +iurisgentium, sicut et usum eorum modo communem, modo +publicum vocant. Quamquam vero etiam ea nullius esse, +quod ad proprietatem attinet, recte dicantur, multum tamen +differunt ab his quae nullius sunt, et communi usui attributa +non sunt, ut ferae, pisces, aves; nam ista si quis occupet, in ius +proprium transire possunt, illa vero totius humanitatis consensu +proprietati in perpetuum excepta sunt propter usum, +qui cum sit omnium, non magis omnibus ab uno eripi potest, +quam a te mihi quod meum est. Hoc est quod Cicero dicit +inter prima esse Iustitiae munera, rebus communibus pro +communibus uti. Scholastici dicerent esse communia alia +affirmative, alia privative. Distinctio haec non modo +Iurisprudentibus usitata est, sed vulgi etiam confessionem +exprimit; unde apud Athenaeum convivator mare commune +esse dicit, at pisces capientium fieri. Et in Plautina Rudente +servo dicenti,<a id="FNanchor_72a" href="#Footnote_72a" class="fnanchor">[72a]</a> ‘Mare quidem commune certost omnibus’, +assentit piscator, addenti autem, ‘In mari inventust +communi’ recte occurrit:</p> + +<div class="poetry-container"> +<div class="poetry"> + <div class="verse indent0"><i>Meum quod rete atque hami nancti sunt, meum potissimumst.</i></div> +</div> +</div> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p class="noindent">the sea for those who are being tossed upon it, the shore for +those who have been cast thereon’. Vergil also says that +the air, the sea, and the shore are open to all men.</p> + +<p>These things therefore are what the Romans call ‘common’ +to all men by natural law,<a id="FNanchor_71" href="#Footnote_71" class="fnanchor">[71]</a> or as we have said, ‘public’ +according to the law of nations; and indeed they call their +use sometimes common, sometimes public. Nevertheless, +although those things are with reason said to be <i lang="la">res nullius</i>, +so far as private ownership is concerned, still they differ +very much from those things which, though also <i lang="la">res nullius</i>, +have not been marked out for common use, such for example +as wild animals, fish, and birds. For if any one seizes those +things and assumes possession of them, they can become +objects of private ownership, but the things in the former +category by the consensus of opinion of all mankind are +forever exempt from such private ownership on account of +their susceptibility to universal use; and as they belong to +all they cannot be taken away from all by any one person +any more than what is mine can be taken away from me by +you. And Cicero says that one of the first gifts of Justice +is the use of common property for common benefit. The +Scholastics would define one of these categories as common +in an affirmative, the other in a privative sense. This distinction +is not only familiar to jurists, but it also expresses +the popular belief. In Athenaeus for instance the host is +made to say that the sea is the common property of all, but +that fish are the private property of him who catches them. +And in Plautus’ Rudens when the slave says:<a id="FNanchor_72" href="#Footnote_72" class="fnanchor">[72]</a> ‘The sea is +certainly common to all persons’, the fisherman agrees; but +when the slave adds: ‘Then what is found in the common +sea is common property’, he rightly objects, saying: ‘But +what my net and hooks have taken, is absolutely my own’.</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_30"></a>[30]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p>Mare igitur proprium omnino alicuius fieri non potest, +quia natura commune hoc esse non permittit, sed iubet, +immo ne litus quidem;<a id="FNanchor_73a" href="#Footnote_73a" class="fnanchor">[73a]</a> nisi quod haec addenda est interpretatio; +ut si quid earum rerum per naturam occupari +possit, id eatenus occupantis fiat, quatenus ea occupatione +usus ille promiscuus non laeditur. Quod merito receptum +est; nam cum ita se habet, cessat utraque exceptio per quam +evenisse diximus, ne omnia in eius proprium transcriberentur.</p> + +<p>Quoniam igitur inaedificatio species est occupationis, in +litore licet aedificare, si id fieri potest sine ceterorum incommodo,<a id="FNanchor_74a" href="#Footnote_74a" class="fnanchor">[74a]</a> +ut Pomponius loquitur, quod ex Scaevola explicabimus, +nisi usus publicus, hoc est communis impediretur. +Et qui aedificaverit, soli dominus fiet, quia id solum nec +ullius proprium, nec ad usum communem necessarium fuit. +Est igitur occupantis; sed non diutius quam durat occupatio, +quia reluctari mare possessioni videtur, exemplo ferae, quae +si in naturalem se libertatem receperit, non ultra captoris +est, ita et litus postliminio mari cedit.</p> + +<p>Quicquid autem privatum fieri occupando, idem et publicum, +hoc est populi proprium posse ostendimus.<a id="FNanchor_75a" href="#Footnote_75a" class="fnanchor">[75a]</a> Sic litus +Imperi Romani finibus inclusum, populi Romani esse Celsus</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p>Therefore the sea can in no way become the private +property of any one, because nature not only allows but +enjoins its common use.<a id="FNanchor_73" href="#Footnote_73" class="fnanchor">[73]</a> Neither can the shore become the +private property of any one. The following qualification, +however, must be made. If any part of these things is by +nature susceptible of occupation, it may become the property +of the one who occupies it only so far as such occupation +does not affect its common use. This qualification is +deservedly recognized. For in such a case both conditions +vanish through which it might eventuate, as we have said, +that all of it would pass into private ownership.</p> + +<p>Since therefore, to cite Pomponius, building is one kind +of occupation, it is permissible to build upon the shore, if +this can be done without inconvenience to other people;<a id="FNanchor_74" href="#Footnote_74" class="fnanchor">[74]</a> that +is to say (I here follow Scaevola) if such building can be +done without hindrance to public or common use of the +shore. And whoever shall have constructed a building +under the aforesaid circumstances will become the owner of +the ground upon which said building is; because this ground +is neither the property of any one else, nor is it necessary +to common use. It becomes therefore the property of the +occupier, but his ownership lasts no longer than his occupation +lasts, inasmuch as the sea seems by nature to resist +ownership. For just as a wild animal, if it shall have +escaped and thus recovered its natural liberty, is no longer +the property of its captor, so also the sea may recover +its possession of the shore.</p> + +<p>We have now shown that whatever by occupation can +become private property can also become public property, +that is, the private property of a whole nation.<a id="FNanchor_75" href="#Footnote_75" class="fnanchor">[75]</a> And so +Celsus considered the shore included within the limits of +the Roman Empire to be the property of the Roman people.</p> +</div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_31"></a>[31]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p class="noindent">existimat; quod si ita est, minime mirandum est, eundem +Populum subditis suis occupandi litoris modum per Principem +aut Praetorem potuisse concedere. Ceterum et haec +occupatio non minus quam privata ita restringenda est, ne +ulterius porrigatur, quam ut salvus sit usus Iurisgentium. +Nemo igitur potest a Populo Romano<a id="FNanchor_76a" href="#Footnote_76a" class="fnanchor">[76a]</a> ad litus maris +accedere prohiberi, et retia siccare, et alia facere, quae semel +omnes homines in perpetuum sibi licere voluerunt.</p> + +<p>Maris autem natura hoc differt a litore, quod mare nisi +exigua sui parte nec inaedificari facile, nec includi potest; +et ut posset, hoc ipsum tamen vix contingeret, sine usus +promiscui impedimento. Si quid tamen exiguum ita occupari +potest, id occupanti conceditur. Hyperbole est igitur<a id="FNanchor_77a" href="#Footnote_77a" class="fnanchor">[77a]</a></p> + +<div class="poetry-container"> +<div class="poetry"> + <div class="verse indent0"><i>Contracta pisces aequora sentiunt</i></div> + <div class="verse indent0"><i>Iactis in altum molibus.</i></div> +</div> +</div> + +<p>Nam Celsus iactas in mare pilas eius esse dicit qui iecerit.<a id="FNanchor_78a" href="#Footnote_78a" class="fnanchor">[78a]</a> +Sed id non concedendum si deterior maris usus eo modo +futurus sit. Et Vlpianus eum qui molem in mare iacit, ita +tuendum dicit si nemo damnum sentiat. Nam si cui haec +res nocitura sit, interdictum utique, ‘Ne quid in loco publico +fiat’ competiturum. Vt et Labeo, si quid tale in mare +struatur, interdictum vult competere, ‘Ne quid in mari, quo +portus, statio, iterve navigiis deterius sit, fiat’.<a id="FNanchor_79a" href="#Footnote_79a" class="fnanchor">[79a]</a></p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p class="noindent">There is not therefore the least reason for surprise that the +Roman people through their emperors or praetors <ins class="corr" id="tn-31" title="Transcriber’s Note—Original text: 'praetors was able'"> +were</ins> able to grant to its subjects the right of occupying the shore. +This public occupation, however, no less than private occupation, +was subject to the restriction that it should not infringe +on international rights. Therefore the Roman people +could not forbid any one from having access to the +seashore,<a id="FNanchor_76" href="#Footnote_76" class="fnanchor">[76]</a> and from spreading his fishing nets there to dry, +and from doing other things which all men long ago decided +were always permissible.</p> + +<p>The nature of the sea, however, differs from that of the +shore, because the sea, except for a very restricted space, +can neither easily be built upon, nor inclosed; if the contrary +were true yet this could hardly happen without hindrance to +the general use. Nevertheless, if any small portion of the +sea can be thus occupied, the occupation is recognized. The +famous hyperbole of Horace must be quoted here: “The +fishes note the narrowing of the waters by piers of rock +laid in their depths.”<a id="FNanchor_77" href="#Footnote_77" class="fnanchor">[77]</a></p> + +<p>Now Celsus holds that piles driven into the sea belong +to the man who drove them.<a id="FNanchor_78" href="#Footnote_78" class="fnanchor">[78]</a> But such an act is not permissible +if the use of the sea be thereby impaired. And +Ulpian says that whoever builds a breakwater must be protected +if it is not prejudicial to the interests of any one; for +if this construction is likely to work an injury to any one, +the injunction ‘Nothing may be built on public property’ +would apply. Labeo, however, holds that in case any such +construction should be made in the sea, the following injunction +is to be enforced: ‘Nothing may be built in the +sea whereby the harbor, the roadstead, or the channel be +rendered less safe for navigation’.<a id="FNanchor_79" href="#Footnote_79" class="fnanchor">[79]</a></p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_32"></a>[32]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p>Quae autem navigationis eadem piscatus habenda est +ratio, ut communis maneat omnibus. Neque tamen peccabit +si quis in maris diverticulo piscandi locum sibi palis circumsepiat, +atque ita privatum faciat; sicut Lucullus exciso apud +Neapolim monte ad villam suam maria admisit.<a id="FNanchor_80a" href="#Footnote_80a" class="fnanchor">[80a]</a> Et huius +generis, puto fuisse piscinas maritimas quarum Varro et +Columella meminerunt. Nec Martialis alio spectavit, cum +de Formiano Apollinaris loquitur:<a id="FNanchor_81a" href="#Footnote_81a" class="fnanchor">[81a]</a></p> + +<div class="poetry-container"> +<div class="poetry"> + <div class="verse indent0"><i>Si quando NEREVS sentit Aeoli regnum,</i></div> + <div class="verse indent0"><i>Ridet procellas tuta de SVO mensa.</i></div> +</div> +</div> + +<p class="noindent">Et Ambrosius:<a id="FNanchor_82a" href="#Footnote_82a" class="fnanchor">[82a]</a> ‘Inducis mare intra praedia tua ne desint +belluae’. Hinc apparere potest quae mens Pauli fuerit, +cum dicit,<a id="FNanchor_83a" href="#Footnote_83a" class="fnanchor">[83a]</a> si maris proprium ius ad aliquem pertineat, <em>uti +possidetis</em> interdictum ei competere. Esse quidem hoc interdictum +ad privatas causas comparatum, non autem ad +publicas, (in quibus etiam ea comprehenduntur quae +iure gentium communi facere possumus) sed hic iam +agi de iure fruendo quod ex causa privata contingat, +non publica, sive communi. Nam teste Marciano, +quicquid occupatum est et occupari potuit,<a id="FNanchor_84a" href="#Footnote_84a" class="fnanchor">[84a]</a> id iam non est +iurisgentium, sicut est mare. Exempli causa, si quis Lucullum +aut Apollinarem in privato suo, quatenus diverticulum +maris incluserant, piscari prohibuisset, dandum illis interdictum</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p>Now the same principle which applies to navigation +applies also to fishing, namely, that it remains free and open +to all. Nevertheless there shall be no prejudice if any one +shall by fencing off with stakes an inlet of the sea make a +fish pond for himself, and so establish a private preserve. +Thus Lucullus once brought the water of the sea to his villa +by cutting a tunnel through a mountain near Naples.<a id="FNanchor_80" href="#Footnote_80" class="fnanchor">[80]</a> I +suspect too that the seawater reservoirs for fish mentioned +by Varro and Columella were of this sort. And Martial +had the same thing in mind when he says of the Formian +villa of Apollinaris:<a id="FNanchor_81" href="#Footnote_81" class="fnanchor">[81]</a> ‘Whenever Nereus feels the power of +Aeolus, the table safe in its own resources laughs at the +gale’. Ambrose also has something to say on the same +subject:<a id="FNanchor_82" href="#Footnote_82" class="fnanchor">[82]</a> ‘You bring the very sea into your estates that you +may not lack for fish’. In the light of all this the meaning +of Paulus is clear when he says<a id="FNanchor_83" href="#Footnote_83" class="fnanchor">[83]</a> that if any one has a private +right over the sea, the rule <em lang="la">uti possidetis</em> applies. This rule +however is applicable only to private suits, and not to public +ones, among which are also to be included those suits which +can be brought under the common law of nations. But +here the question is one which concerns the right of use +arising in a private suit, but not in a public or common +one. For according to the authority of Marcianus whatever +has been occupied and can be occupied<a id="FNanchor_84" href="#Footnote_84" class="fnanchor">[84]</a> is no longer +subject to the law of nations as the sea is. Let us take an +example. If any one had prevented Lucullus or Apollinaris +from fishing in the private fish ponds which they had +made by inclosing a small portion of the sea, according to +the opinion of Paulus they would have the right of bringing</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_33"></a>[33]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p class="noindent">Paulus putavit non solum iniuriarum actionem, ob +causam scilicet privatae possessionis.<a id="FNanchor_85a" href="#Footnote_85a" class="fnanchor">[85a]</a></p> + +<p>Immo in diverticulo maris, sicut in diverticulo fluminis, +si locum talem occuparim, ibique piscatus sim, maxime si +animum privatim possidendi plurium annorum continuatione +testatus fuerim, alterum eodem iure uti prohibebo; ut ex +Marciano colligimus, non aliter quam in lacu qui mei +domini est. Quod verum quam diu durat occupatio, +quemadmodum in litore antea diximus. Extra diverticulum +idem non erit, ne scilicet communis usus impediatur.<a id="FNanchor_86a" href="#Footnote_86a" class="fnanchor">[86a]</a></p> + +<p>Ante aedes igitur meas aut praetorium ut piscari aliquem +prohibeant usurpatum quidem est, sed nullo iure, adeo +quidem ut Vlpianus contempta ea usurpatione si quis prohibeatur +iniuriarum dicat agi posse<a id="FNanchor_87a" href="#Footnote_87a" class="fnanchor">[87a]</a> Hoc Imperator Leo +(cuius Legibus non utimur) contra iuris rationem mutavit, +voluitque πρόθυρα, hoc est, vestibula maritima eorum esse +propria, qui oram habitarent, ibique eos ius piscandi habere;<a id="FNanchor_88a" href="#Footnote_88a" class="fnanchor">[88a]</a> +quod tamen ita procedere voluit, ut septis quibusdam +remoratoriis quas ἐποχάς Graeci vocant, locus ille occuparetur; +existimans nimirum non fore ut quis exiguam maris +portionem alteri invideret qui ipse toto mari ad piscandum +admitteretur. Certe ut quis magnam maris partem, etiam +si possit, publicis utilitatibus eripiat, non tolerandae est +improbitatis, in quam merito Vir Sanctus invehitur:<a id="FNanchor_89a" href="#Footnote_89a" class="fnanchor">[89a]</a></p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p class="noindent">an injunction, not merely an action for damages based on +private ownership.<a id="FNanchor_85" href="#Footnote_85" class="fnanchor">[85]</a></p> + +<p>Indeed, if I shall have staked off such an inclosure in an +inlet of the sea, just as in a branch of a river, and have +fished there, especially if by doing so continuously for many +years I shall have given proof of my intention to establish +private ownership, I shall certainly prevent any one else +from enjoying the same rights. I gather from Marcianus +that this case is identical with that of the ownership of a +lake, and it is true however long occupation lasts, as we have +said above about the shore. But outside of an inlet this +will not hold, for then the common use of the sea might be +hindered.<a id="FNanchor_86" href="#Footnote_86" class="fnanchor">[86]</a></p> + +<p>Therefore if any one is prevented from fishing in front +of my town house or country seat, it is a usurpation, but an +illegal one, although Ulpian, who rather makes light of this +usurpation, does say that if any one is so prevented he can +bring an action for damages.<a id="FNanchor_87" href="#Footnote_87" class="fnanchor">[87]</a> The Emperor Leo, whose +laws we do not use, contrary to the intent of the law, +changed this, and declared that the entrances, or vestibules +as it were, to the sea, were the private property of those who +inhabited the shore, and that they had the right of fishing +there.<a id="FNanchor_88" href="#Footnote_88" class="fnanchor">[88]</a> However he attached this condition, that the place +should be occupied by certain jetty or pile constructions, +such as the Greeks call ἐποχαἰ, thinking doubtless that no +one who was himself allowed to fish anywhere in the sea +would grudge any one else a small portion of it. To be +sure it would be an intolerable outrage for any one to +snatch away, even if he could do so, from public use a large +area of the sea; an act which is justly reprehended by the +Holy Man,<a id="FNanchor_89" href="#Footnote_89" class="fnanchor">[89]</a> who says: ‘The lords of the earth claim for</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_34"></a>[34]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p class="noindent">‘SPATIA MARIS sibi vindicant IVRE MANCIPII, +pisciumque iura sicut vernaculorum conditione sibi servitii +subiecta commemorant. Iste, inquit, SINVS maris meus +est; ille alterius. Dividunt elementa sibi potentes’.</p> + +<p>Est igitur Mare in numero earum rerum quae in commercio +non sunt,<a id="FNanchor_90a" href="#Footnote_90a" class="fnanchor">[90a]</a> hoc est, quae proprii iuris fieri non possunt. +Vnde sequitur si proprie loquamur, nullam Maris partem +in territorio populi alicuius posse censeri. Quod ipsum Placentinus +sensisse videtur, cum dixit: Mare ita esse commune, +ut in nullius dominio sit nisi solius Dei; et Ioannes +Faber, cum mare asserit relictum in suo iure, et esse primaevo, +quo omnia erant communia.<a id="FNanchor_91a" href="#Footnote_91a" class="fnanchor">[91a]</a> Alioquin nihil differrent +quae sunt omnium communia ab his quae publica +proprie dicuntur, ut mare a flumine. Flumen populus +occupare potuit, ut inclusum finibus suis, mare non potuit.</p> + +<p>Territoria autem sunt ex occupationibus populorum, ut +privata dominia ex occupationibus singulorum. Vidit hoc +Celsus, qui clare satis distinguit inter litora,<a id="FNanchor_92a" href="#Footnote_92a" class="fnanchor">[92a]</a> quae Populus +Romanus occupare potuit, ita tamen ut usui communi non +noceretur, et mare quod pristinam naturam retinuit. Nec +ulla lex diversum indicat.<a id="FNanchor_93a" href="#Footnote_93a" class="fnanchor">[93a]</a> Quae vero leges a contrariae</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p class="noindent">themselves a wide expanse of sea by <i lang="la">jus mancipii</i>, and they +regard the right of fishing as a servitude over which their +right is the same as that over their slaves. That gulf, says +one, belongs to me, and that gulf to some one else. They +divide the very elements among themselves, these great +men’!</p> + +<p>Therefore the sea is one of those things which is not an +article of merchandise,<a id="FNanchor_90" href="#Footnote_90" class="fnanchor">[90]</a> and which cannot become private +property. Hence it follows, to speak strictly, that no part +of the sea can be considered as the territory of any people +whatsoever. Placentinus seems to have recognized this +when he said: ‘The sea is a thing so clearly common to all, +that it cannot be the property of any one save God alone’. +Johannes Faber<a id="FNanchor_91" href="#Footnote_91" class="fnanchor">[91]</a> also asserts that the sea has been left <i lang="la">sui +juris</i>, and remains in the primitive condition where all things +were common. If it were otherwise there would be no difference +between the things which are ‘common to all’, and +those which are strictly termed ‘public’; no difference, that +is, between the sea and a river. A nation can take possession +of a river, as it is inclosed within their boundaries, with +the sea, they cannot do so.</p> + +<p>Now, public territory arises out of the occupation of +nations, just as private property arises out of the occupation +of individuals. This is recognized by Celsus, who has +drawn a sharp distinction between the shores of the sea,<a id="FNanchor_92" href="#Footnote_92" class="fnanchor">[92]</a> +which the Roman people could occupy in such a way that +its common use was not harmed, and the sea itself, which +retained its primitive nature. In fact no law intimates a +contrary view.<a id="FNanchor_93" href="#Footnote_93" class="fnanchor">[93]</a> Such laws as are cited by writers who are of</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_35"></a>[35]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p class="noindent">sententiae auctoribus citantur, aut de insulis loquuntur, +quas clarum est occupari potuisse, aut de portu qui non +communis est, sed proprie publicus.</p> + +<p>Qui vero dicunt mare aliquod esse Imperi Romani, +dictum suum ita interpretantur, ut dicant ius illud in mare +ultra protectionem et iurisdictionem non procedere; quod +illi ius a proprietate distinguunt; nec forte satis animadvertunt +idipsum quod Populus Romanus classes praesidio +navigantium disponere potuit, et deprehensos in mari +piratas punire, non ex proprio, sed ex communi iure accidisse, +quod et aliae liberae gentes in mari habent. Illud +interim fatemur, potuisse inter gentes aliquas convenire, ut +capti in maris hac vel illa parte, huius aut illius reipublicae +iudicium subirent, atque ita ad commoditatem distinguendae +iurisdictionis in mari fines describi, quod ipsos quidem eam +sibi legem ferentes obligat,<a id="FNanchor_94a" href="#Footnote_94a" class="fnanchor">[94a]</a> at alios populos non item; +neque locum alicuius proprium facit, sed in personas contrahentium +ius constituit.</p> + +<p>Quae distinctio ut naturali rationi consentanea est, ita +Vlpiani responso quodam comprobatur, qui rogatus an +duorum praediorum maritimorum dominus, alteri eorum +quod venderet servitutem potuisset imponere, ne inde in +certo maris loco piscari liceret, respondet: rem quidem +ipsam, mare scilicet, servitute nulla affici potuisse, quia per +naturam hoc omnibus pateret, sed cum bona fides contractus +legem venditionis servari exposceret, personas possidentium +et in ius eorum succedentium per istam legem obligari.</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p class="noindent">the contrary opinion apply either to islands, which evidently +could be occupied, or to harbors, which are not ‘common’, +but ‘public’, that is, ‘national’.</p> + +<p>Now those who say that a certain sea belonged to the +Roman people explain their statement to mean that the +right of the Romans did not extend beyond protection and +jurisdiction; this right they distinguish from ownership. +Perchance they do not pay sufficient attention to the fact +that although the Roman People were able to maintain fleets +for the protection of navigation and to punish pirates captured +on the sea, it was not done by private right, but by the +common right which other free peoples also enjoy on the +sea. We recognize, however, that certain peoples have +agreed that pirates captured in this or in that part of the +sea should come under the jurisdiction of this state or of +that, and further that certain convenient limits of distinct +jurisdiction have been apportioned on the sea. Now, this +agreement does bind those who are parties to it,<a id="FNanchor_94" href="#Footnote_94" class="fnanchor">[94]</a> but it has +no binding force on other nations, nor does it make the delimited +area of the sea the private property of any one. +It merely constitutes a personal right between contracting +parties.</p> + +<p>This distinction so conformable to natural reason is also +confirmed by a reply once made by Ulpian. Upon being +asked whether the owner of two maritime estates could on +selling either of them impose on it such a servitude as the +prohibition of fishing in a particular part of the sea, he +replied that the thing in question, evidently the sea, +could not be subjected to a servitude, because it was by +nature open to all persons; but that since a contract made +in good faith demands that the condition of a sale be respected, +the present possessors and those who succeed to</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_36"></a>[36]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p class="noindent">Verum est loqui Iurisconsultum de praediis privatis, et lege +privata, sed in territorio et lege populorum eadem hic est +ratio, quia populi respectu totius generis humani privatorum +locum obtinent.</p> + +<p>Similiter reditus qui in piscationes maritimas constituti +Regalium numero censentur, non rem, hoc est mare, aut piscationem, +sed personas obligant.<a id="FNanchor_95a" href="#Footnote_95a" class="fnanchor">[95a]</a> Quare subditi, in quos +legem ferendi potestas Reipublicae aut Principi ex consensu +competit, ad onera ista compelli forte poterunt; sed exteris +ius piscandi ubique immune esse debet, ne servitus imponatur +mari quod servire non potest.</p> + +<p>Non enim maris eadem quae fluminis ratio est:<a id="FNanchor_96a" href="#Footnote_96a" class="fnanchor">[96a]</a> quod +cum sit publicum, id est populi, ius etiam in eo piscandi a +populo aut principe concedi aut locari potest, ita ut ei qui +conduxit, etiam interdictum Veteres dederint, de loco publico +fruendo, addita condicione si is cui locandi ius fuerit, fruendum +alicui locaverit;<a id="FNanchor_97a" href="#Footnote_97a" class="fnanchor">[97a]</a> quae condicio in mari evenire non +potest. Ceterum qui ipsam piscationem numerant inter +Regalia, ne quidem illum locum quem interpretabantur satis +inspexerunt, quod Iserniam et Alvotum non latuit.</p> + +<p>Demonstratum est<a id="FNanchor_98a" href="#Footnote_98a" class="fnanchor">[98a]</a> nec populo nec privato cuipiam ius</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p class="noindent">their rights were bound to observe that condition. It is true +that the jurist is speaking of private estates and of private +law, but in speaking here of the territory of peoples and +of public law the same reasoning applies, because from the +point of view of the whole human race peoples are treated +as individuals.</p> + +<p>Similarly, revenues levied on maritime fisheries are held +to belong to the Crown, but they do not bind the sea itself +or the fisheries, but only the persons engaged in fishing.<a id="FNanchor_95" href="#Footnote_95" class="fnanchor">[95]</a> +Wherefore subjects, for whom a state or a ruler is by common +consent competent to make laws, will perhaps be compelled +to bear such charges, but so far as other persons are +concerned the right of fishing ought everywhere to be +exempt from tolls, lest a servitude be imposed upon the +sea, which is not susceptible to a servitude.</p> + +<p>The case of the sea is not the same as that of a river,<a id="FNanchor_96" href="#Footnote_96" class="fnanchor">[96]</a> +for as a river is the property of a nation, the right to fish +in it can be passed or leased by the nation or by the ruler, +in such a way (and the like is true with the ancients) that +the lessee enjoys the operation of the injunction <i lang="la">de loco +publico fruendo</i> by virtue of the clause ‘He who has the +right to lease has leased the exclusive right of enjoyment’.<a id="FNanchor_97" href="#Footnote_97" class="fnanchor">[97]</a> +Such a condition cannot arise in respect to the sea. Finally +those who count fishing among the properties of the Crown +have not examined carefully enough the very passage +which they cite to prove their contention, as Isernia* and +Alvotus† have noticed.</p> + +<p>* [Andrea d’Isernia (c. 1480-1553), an Italian commentator, called often +Feudistarum Patriarcha.]</p> + +<p>† [Probably a misprint for Alvarus (Alvarez).]</p> + +<p>It has therefore been demonstrated<a id="FNanchor_98" href="#Footnote_98" class="fnanchor">[98]</a> that neither a nation +nor an individual can establish any right of private ownership</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_37"></a>[37]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p class="noindent">aliquod proprium in ipsum mare (nam diverticulum excipimus) +competere posse, cum occupationem nec natura, nec +usus publici ratio permittat. Huius autem rei causa +instituta fuerat haec disputatio, ut appareret Lusitanos mare +quo ad Indos navigatur sui iuris non fecisse. Nam utraque +ratio quae proprietatem impedit, in hac causa est quam in +ceteris omnibus infinito efficacior. Quod in alii difficile +videtur, in hac omnino fieri non potest; quod in aliis iniquum +iudicamus, in hac summe barbarum est, atque inhumanum.</p> + +<p>Non de mari interiore hic agimus, quod terris undique +infusum alicubi etiam fluminis latitudinem non excedit, de +quo tamen satis constat locutos Romanos Iurisconsultos, cum +nobiles illas adversus privatam avaritiam sententias ediderunt; +de Oceano quaeritur, quem immensum, infinitum, +rerum parentem, caelo conterminum antiquitas vocat, cuius +perpetuo humore non fontes tantum et flumina et maria, sed +nubes, sed ipsa quodammodo sidera pasci veteres crediderunt; +qui denique per reciprocas aestuum vices terram hanc +humani generis sedem ambiens, neque teneri neque includi +potest, et possidet verius quam possidetur.</p> + +<p>In hoc autem Oceano non de sinu aut freto, nec de omni +quidem eo quod e litore conspici potest controversia est. +Vindicant sibi Lusitani quicquid duos Orbes interiacet, tantis +spatiis discretos, ut plurimis saeculis famam sui non potuerint +transmittere. Quod si Castellanorum, qui in eadem sunt</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p class="noindent">over the sea itself (I except inlets of the sea), inasmuch +as its occupation is not permissible either by nature +or on grounds of public utility. The discussion of this matter +has been taken up for this reason, namely, that it may +be seen that the Portuguese have not established private +ownership over the sea by which people go to the East +Indies. For the two reasons that stand in the way of +ownership are in this case infinitely more powerful than in +all others. That which in other cases seems difficult, is here +absolutely impossible; and what in other cases we recognize +as unjust is here most barbarous and inhuman.</p> + +<p>The question at issue then is not one that concerns an +INNER SEA, one which is surrounded on all sides by the +land and at some places does not even exceed a river in +breadth, although it is well known that the Roman jurists +cited such an inner sea in their famous opinions condemning +private avarice. No! the question at issue is the +OUTER SEA, the OCEAN, that expanse of water which +antiquity describes as the immense, the infinite, bounded +only by the heavens, parent of all things; the ocean which +the ancients believed was perpetually supplied with water +not only by fountains, rivers, and seas, but by the clouds, +and by the very stars of heaven themselves; the ocean +which, although surrounding this earth, the home of the +human race, with the ebb and flow of its tides, can be neither +seized nor inclosed; nay, which rather possesses the earth +than is by it possessed.</p> + +<p>Further, the question at issue does not concern a gulf +or a strait in this ocean, nor even all the expanse of sea +which is visible from the shore. [But consider this!!] The +Portuguese claim as their own the whole expanse of the sea +which separates two parts of the world so far distant the +one from the other, that in all the preceding centuries +neither one has so much as heard of the other. Indeed, if +we take into account the share of the Spaniards, whose claim</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_38"></a>[38]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p class="noindent">causa, portio accedat, parvo minus omnis Oceanus duobus +populis mancipatus est, aliis tot gentibus ad Septentrionum +redactis angustias; multumque decepta est Natura, quae cum +elementum illud omnibus circumfudit, omnibus etiam suffecturum +credidit. In tanto mari si quis usu promiscuo solum +sibi imperium et dicionem exciperet, tamen immodicae dominationis +affectator haberetur; si quis piscatu arceret alios, +insanae cupiditatis notam non effugeret. At qui etiam +navigatum impedit, quo nihil ipsi perit, de eo quid statuemus?</p> + +<p>Si quis ab igni qui totus suus est, ignem capere, lumen +suo de lumine, alterum prohiberet, lege hunc humanae societatis +reum peragerem: quia vis ea est istius naturae:</p> + +<div class="poetry-container"> +<div class="poetry"> + <div class="verse indent0"><i>Vt nihilominus ipsi luceat, cum illi accenderit.</i><a id="FNanchor_99a" href="#Footnote_99a" class="fnanchor">[99a]</a></div> +</div> +</div> + +<p>Quid ni enim quando sine detrimento suo potest, alteri +communicet, in iis quae sunt accipienti utilia, danti non +molesta.<a id="FNanchor_100a" href="#Footnote_100a" class="fnanchor">[100a]</a></p> + +<p>Haec sunt quae Philosophi<a id="FNanchor_101a" href="#Footnote_101a" class="fnanchor">[101a]</a> non alienis tantum, sed et +ingratis praestari volunt. Quae vero in rebus privatis +invidia est, eadem in re communi non potest non esse +immanitas, improbissimum enim hoc est, quod naturae +instituto, consensu gentium, meum non minus quam tuum +est, id te ita intercipere, ut ne usum quidem mihi concedas, +quo concesso nihilominus id tuum sit, quam antea fuit.</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p class="noindent">is the same as that of the Portuguese, only a little less than +the whole ocean is found to be subject to two nations, while +all the rest of the peoples in the world are restricted to the +narrow bounds of the northern seas. Nature was greatly +deceived if when she spread the sea around all peoples she +believed that it would also be adequate for the use of them +all. If in a thing so vast as the sea a man were to reserve +to himself from general use nothing more than mere sovereignty, +still he would be considered a seeker after unreasonable +power. If a man were to enjoin other people +from fishing, he would not escape the reproach of monstrous +greed. But the man who even prevents navigation, a thing +which means no loss to himself, what are we to say of him?</p> + +<p>If any person should prevent any other person from +taking fire from his fire or a light from his torch, I should +accuse him of violating the law of human society, because +that is the essence of its very nature, as Ennius has said:</p> + +<div class="poetry-container"> +<div class="poetry"> + <div class="verse indent0">“<i>No less shines his, when he his friend’s hath lit.</i>”<a id="FNanchor_99" href="#Footnote_99" class="fnanchor">[99]</a></div> +</div> +</div> + +<p>Why then, when it can be done without any prejudice +to his own interests, will not one person share with another +things which are useful to the recipient, and no loss to the +giver?<a id="FNanchor_100" href="#Footnote_100" class="fnanchor">[100]</a> These are services which the ancient philosophers<a id="FNanchor_101" href="#Footnote_101" class="fnanchor">[101]</a> +thought ought to be rendered not only to foreigners but +even to the ungrateful. But the same act which when +private possessions are in question is jealousy can be nothing +but cruelty when a common possession is in question. For +it is most outrageous for you to appropriate a thing, which +both by ordinance of nature and by common consent is as +much mine as yours, so exclusively that you will not grant +me a right of use in it which leaves it no less yours than it +was before.</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_39"></a>[39]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p>Tum vero etiam qui alienis incumbunt, aut communia +intercipiunt, certa quadam possessione se tuentur. Quia enim +prima, ut diximus, occupatio res proprias fecit, idcirco imaginem +quandam dominii praefert quamvis iniusta detentio. +At Lusitani num sicuti terras solemus, sic mare illud impositis +praediis ita undique cinxerunt, ut in ipsorum manu +esset quos vellent excludere? An vero tantum hoc abest, ut +ipsi etiam, cum adversus alios populos mundum dividunt, +non ullis limitibus aut natura, aut manu positis, sed imaginaria +quadam linea se tueantur? quod si recipitur et dimensio +talis ad possidendum valet, iamdudum nobis Geometrae +terras, Astronomi etiam caelum eriperent.</p> + +<p>Vbi hic igitur est ista, sine qua nulla dominia coeperunt, +corporis ad corpus adiunctio? Nimirum apparet in nulla +re verius dici posse, quod Doctores nostri prodiderunt,<a id="FNanchor_102a" href="#Footnote_102a" class="fnanchor">[102a]</a> +Mare cum sit incomprehensibile, non minus quam aër, +nullius populi bonis potuisse applicari.</p> + +<p>Si vero ante alios navigasse, et viam quodammodo +aperuisse, hoc vocant occupare, quid esse potest magis +ridiculum? Nam cum nulla pars sit maris, in quam non +aliquis primus ingressus sit, sequetur omnem navigationem +ab aliquo esse occupatam. Ita undique excludimur. Quin +et illi qui terrarum orbem circumvecti sunt, totum sibi +Oceanum acquisivisse dicendi erunt. Sed nemo nescit</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p>Nevertheless, even those who lay burdens upon foreigners, +or appropriate things common to all, rely upon a possession +which is to some extent real. For since original +occupation created private property, therefore detention of +a thing, though unjust, gives an appearance of ownership. +But have the Portuguese completely covered the ocean, as +we are wont to do on land, by laying out estates on it in +such a way that they have the right to exclude from that +ocean whom they will? Not at all! On the contrary, they +are so far from having done so, that when they divide up +the world to the disadvantage of other nations, they cannot +even defend their action by showing any boundaries either +natural or artificial, but are compelled to fall back upon +some imaginary line. Indeed, if that were a recognized +method, and such a delimitation of boundaries were sufficient +to make possession valid, our geometers long since +would have got possession of the face of the earth, our +astronomers of the very skies.</p> + +<p>But where in this case is that corporal possession or +physical appropriation, without which no ownerships arise? +There appears to be nothing truer than what our learned +jurists have enunciated, namely,<a id="FNanchor_102" href="#Footnote_102" class="fnanchor">[102]</a> that since the sea is just as +insusceptible of physical appropriation as the air, it cannot +be attached to the possessions of any nation.</p> + +<p>But if the Portuguese call <em>occupying</em> the sea merely to +have sailed over it before other people, and to have, as it +were, opened the way, could anything in the world be more +ridiculous? For, as there is no part of the sea on which +some person has not already sailed, it will necessarily follow +that every route of navigation is occupied by some one. +Therefore we peoples of today are all absolutely excluded. +Why will not those men who have circumnavigated the +globe be justified in saying that they have acquired for +themselves the possession of the whole ocean! But there</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_40"></a>[40]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p class="noindent">navem per mare transeuntem non plus iuris, quam vestigii +relinquere. Verum etiam quod sibi sumunt neminem ante +ipsos eum Oceanum navigasse, id minime verum est. +Magna enim pars eius de quo agitur maris, ambitu +Mauritaniae, iam olim navigata est; ulterior et in orientem +vergens victoriis Magni Alexandri lustrata est, usque in +Arabicum sinum.<a id="FNanchor_103a" href="#Footnote_103a" class="fnanchor">[103a]</a></p> + +<p>Olim autem hanc navigationem Gaditanis percognitam +fuisse, multa argumento sunt. Caio Caesare Augusti filio +in Arabico sinu res gerente signa navium ex Hispaniensibus +naufragiis agnita. Et quod Caelius Antipater tradidit, +vidisse se qui ex Hispania in Aethiopiam commercii gratia +navigasset. Etiam Arabibus, si verum est, quod Cornelius +Nepos testatus est, Eudoxum quendam sua aetate cum +Lathyrum Regem Alexandriae fugeret, Arabico sinu egressum +Gades usque pervectum. Poenos autem, qui re +maritima plurimum valuerunt, eum Oceanum non ignorasse +longe clarissimum est, cum Hanno Carthaginis potentia +florente circumvectus a Gadibus ad finem Arabiae, praeternavigato +scilicet promontorio quod nunc Bonae Spei dicitur, +(vetus videtur nomen Hesperion ceras fuisse) omne id iter, +situmque litoris et insularum scripto complexus sit, testatusque +ad ultimum non mare sibi, sed commeatum defuisse.</p> + +<p>Ab Arabico autem sinu ad Indiam, Indicique Oceani +insulas, et auream usque Chersonesum, quam esse Iapanem +credunt plerique, etiam re Romana florente navigari +solitum, iter a Plinio descriptum,<a id="FNanchor_104a" href="#Footnote_104a" class="fnanchor">[104a]</a> legationes ab Indis ad</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p class="noindent">is not a single person in the world who does not know that +a ship sailing through the sea leaves behind it no more +legal right than it does a track. And as for the assumption +of the Portuguese that no one has sailed that ocean before +themselves, that is anything but true. For a great part of +that sea near Morocco, which is in dispute, had already been +navigated long before, and the sea as far east as the Arabian +gulf has been made famous by the victories of Alexander +the Great, as both Pliny and Mela tell us.<a id="FNanchor_103" href="#Footnote_103" class="fnanchor">[103]</a></p> + +<p>There is also much to substantiate the belief that the +inhabitants of Cadiz were well acquainted long ago with +this route, because when Gaius Caesar,* the son of Augustus, +held command in the Arabian gulf, pieces were found of +shipwrecks recognized as Spanish. Caelius Antipater also +has told us in his writings that he himself saw a Spaniard +who had sailed from Spain to Ethiopia on a commercial +voyage. Also the Arabians knew those seas, if the testimony +of Cornelius Nepos is to be believed, because he says +that in his own day a certain Eudoxus, fleeing from Lathyrus, +king of Alexandria, sailed from the Arabian gulf and +finally reached Cadiz. However, by far the most famous +example is that of the Carthaginians. Those most famous +mariners were well acquainted with that sea, because Hanno, +when Carthage was at the height of her power, sailing from +Cadiz to the farthest confines of Arabia, and doubling the +promontory now known as the Cape of Good Hope (the +ancient name seems to have been Hesperion Ceras), described +in a book the entire route he had taken, the appearance +of the coasts, and the location of the islands, declaring +that at the farthest point he reached the sea had not yet +given out but his provisions had.</p> + +<p>* [Strictly speaking, Gaius was the grandson of Augustus, but was adopted +as his son.]</p> + +<p>Pliny’s description of the route to the East,<a id="FNanchor_104" href="#Footnote_104" class="fnanchor">[104]</a> the embassies</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_41"></a>[41]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p class="noindent">Augustum, ad Claudium etiam ex Taprobane insula, deinde +gesta Traiani et tabulae Ptolemaei satis ostendunt. Iam +suo tempore Strabo<a id="FNanchor_105a" href="#Footnote_105a" class="fnanchor">[105a]</a> Alexandrinorum mercatorum classem +ex Arabico sinu, ut Aethiopiae ultima, ita et Indiae, petiisse +testatur, cum olim paucis navibus id auderetur. Inde magna +populo Romano vectigalia; addit Plinius<a id="FNanchor_106a" href="#Footnote_106a" class="fnanchor">[106a]</a> impositis sagittariorum +cohortibus piratarum metu navigatum; solamque +Indiam quingenties sestertium, si Arabiam addas et Seres, +millies annis omnibus Romano Imperio ademisse; et merces +centuplicato venditas.</p> + +<p>Et haec quidem vetera satis arguunt primos non fuisse +Lusitanos. In singulis autem sui partibus Oceanus ille et +tunc cum eum Lusitani ingressi sunt, et numquam non +cognitus fuit. Mauri enim, Aethiopes, Arabes, Persae, Indi, +eam maris partem cuius ipsi accolae sunt, nescire neutiquam +potuerunt.</p> + +<p>Mentiuntur ergo qui se mare illud invenisse iactant.</p> + +<p>Quid igitur, dicet aliquis, parumne videtur, quod Lusitani +intermissam multis forte saeculis navigationem primi +repararunt, et, quod negari non potest, Europaeis gentibus +ignotam ostenderunt, magno suo labore, sumptu, periculo?</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p class="noindent">from the Indies to Augustus, and those from Ceylon +to the emperor Claudius, and finally the accounts of the +deeds of Trajan, and the writings of Ptolemaeus, all make +it quite clear that in the days of Rome’s greatest splendor +voyages were made regularly from the Arabian gulf to +India, to the islands of the Indian ocean, and even so far as +to the golden Chersonesus, which many people think was +Japan. Strabo says<a id="FNanchor_105" href="#Footnote_105" class="fnanchor">[105]</a> that in his own time a fleet of Alexandrian +merchantmen set sail from the Arabian gulf for +the distant lands of Ethiopia and India, although few ships +had ever before attempted that voyage. The Roman people +had a large revenue from the East. Pliny says<a id="FNanchor_106" href="#Footnote_106" class="fnanchor">[106]</a> that cohorts +of archers were carried on the boats engaged in trade as +protection against pirates; he states also that every year +500,000 sesterces* were taken out of the Roman empire by +India alone, or 1,000,000 sesterces if you add Arabia and +China; further, that merchandise brought from the East +sold for one hundred times its original cost.</p> + +<p>* [A Roman sestertius was about four cents.]</p> + +<p>These examples cited from ancient times are sufficient +proof that the Portuguese were not the first in that part +of the world. Long before they ever came, every single +part of that ocean had been long since explored. For how +possibly could the Moors, the Ethiopians, the Arabians, the +Persians, the peoples of India, have remained in ignorance +of that part of the sea adjacent to their coasts!</p> + +<p>Therefore they lie, who today boast that they discovered +that sea.</p> + +<p>Well then, some one will say, does it seem to be a matter +of little moment that the Portuguese were the first to restore +a navigation interrupted perhaps for many centuries, +and unknown—as cannot be denied—at least to the nations +of Europe, at great labor and cost and danger to themselves?</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_42"></a>[42]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p class="noindent">Immo vero si in hoc incubuerunt ut quod soli reperissent +id omnibus monstrarent, quis adeo est amens, qui non +plurimum se illis debere profiteatur? Eandem enim gratiam, +laudemque et gloriam immortalem illi promeruerint, +qua omnes contenti fuerunt rerum magnarum inventores, +quotquot scilicet non sibi, sed humano generi prodesse studuerunt. +Sin Lusitanis suus ante oculos quaestus fuit, +lucrum quod semper maximum est in praevertendis negotiationibus, +illis sufficere debuit. Et scimus itinera prima +proventus interdum quater decuplos, aut etiam uberiores +dedisse, quibus factum ut inops diu populus ad repentinas +divitias subito prorumperet, tanto luxus apparatu, quantus +vix beatissimis gentibus in supremo progressae diu fortunae +fastigio fuit.</p> + +<p>Si vero eidem in hoc praeiverunt, ne quisquam sequeretur, +gratiam non merentur, cum lucrum suum respexerint; +lucrum autem suum dicere non possunt, cum eripiant +alienum. Neque enim illud certum est nisi ivissent eo +Lusitani, iturum fuisse neminem. Adventabant enim +tempora, quibus ut artes paene omnes, ita et terrarum et +marium situs clarius in dies noscebantur. Excitassent +vetera, quae modo retulimus, exempla, et si non uno impetu +omnia patuissent, at paulatim promota velis fuissent litora +alio semper aliud monstrante. Factum denique fuisset,</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p class="noindent">On the contrary, if they had laid weight upon the +fact that they were pointing out to all what they alone +had rediscovered, there is no one so lacking in sense that he +would not acknowledge the greatest obligation to them. +For the Portuguese will have earned the same thanks, +praise, and immortal glory with which all discoverers of +great things have been content, whenever they have striven +to benefit not themselves but the whole human race. But +if the Portuguese had before their eyes only their own +financial gain, surely their profit, which is always the largest +for those first in a new field of enterprise, ought to have +satisfied them. For we know that their first voyages returned +a profit sometimes of forty times the original investment, +and sometimes even more. And by this overseas +trade it has come about that a people, previously for a long +time poor, have leaped suddenly into the possession of great +riches, and have surrounded themselves with such outward +signs of luxurious magnificence as scarcely the most prosperous +nations have been able to display at the height of +their fortunes.</p> + +<p>But if these Portuguese have led the way in this matter +in order that no one may follow them, then they do not deserve +any thanks, inasmuch as they have considered only +their own profit. Nor can they call it their profit, because +they are taking the profit of some one else. For it is not at +all demonstrable that, if the Portuguese had not gone to +the East Indies, no one else would have gone. For the +times were coming on apace in which along with other +sciences the geographical locations of seas and lands were +being better known every day. The reports of the expeditions +of the ancients mentioned above had aroused people, +and even if all foreign shores had not been laid open at a +single stroke as it were, yet they would have been brought +to light gradually by sailing voyages, each new discovery +pointing the way to the next. And so there would finally</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_43"></a>[43]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p class="noindent">quod fieri potuisse Lusitani docuerunt, cum multi essent +populi non minus flagrantes mercaturae et rerum externarum +studio. Venetis qui multa iam Indiae didicerant, cetera +inquirere promptum fuit. Gallorum Brittonum indefessa +sedulitas, Anglorum audacia coepto non defuisset. Ipsi +Batavi multo magis desperata aggressi sunt.</p> + +<p>Nulla igitur aequitatis ratio, ne probabilis quidem ulla +sententia a Lusitanis stat. Omnes enim qui mare volunt +imperio alicuius subici posse, id ei attribuunt qui proximos +portus et circumiacentia litora in dicione habet.<a id="FNanchor_107a" href="#Footnote_107a" class="fnanchor">[107a]</a> At Lusitani +in illo immenso litorum tractu paucis exceptis praesidiis nihil +habent quod suum possint dicere.</p> + +<p>Deinde vero etiam qui Mari imperaret, nihil tamen posset +ex usu communi deminuere, sicut Populus Romanus arcere +neminem potuit, quo minus in litore imperi Romani cuncta +faceret, quae iure gentium permittebantur.<a id="FNanchor_108a" href="#Footnote_108a" class="fnanchor">[108a]</a> Et si quicquam +eorum prohibere posset, puta piscaturam qua dici quodammodo +potest pisces exhauriri, at navigationem non posset, +per quam mari nihil perit.</p> + +<p>Cui rei argumentum est longe certissimum, quod ex +Doctorum sententia ante retulimus, etiam in terra, quae cum +populis, tum hominibus singulis in proprietatem attributa +est, iter tamen, certe inerme et innoxium, nullius gentis</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p class="noindent">have been accomplished what the Portuguese showed could +be done, because there were many nations with no less ardor +than theirs to engage in commerce and to learn of foreign +things. The Venetians, who already knew much about +India, were ready to push their knowledge farther; the indefatigable +zeal of the French of Brittany, and the boldness +of the English would not have failed to make such an attempt; +indeed the Dutch themselves have embarked upon +much more desperate enterprises.</p> + +<p>Therefore the Portuguese have neither just reason nor +respectable authority to support their position, for all those +persons who assume that the sea can be subjected to the +sovereignty of any one assign it to him who holds in his +power the nearest ports and the circumjacent shores.<a id="FNanchor_107" href="#Footnote_107" class="fnanchor">[107]</a> But +in all that great extent of coast line reaching to the East +Indies the Portuguese have nothing which they can call +their own except a few fortified posts.</p> + +<p>And then even if a man were to have dominion over the +sea, still he could not take away anything from its common +use, just as the Roman people could not prevent any one +from doing on the shores of their dominions all those things +which were permitted by the law of nations.<a id="FNanchor_108" href="#Footnote_108" class="fnanchor">[108]</a> And if it were +possible to prohibit any of those things, say for example, +fishing, for in a way it can be maintained that fish are exhaustible, +still it would not be possible to prohibit navigation, +for the sea is not exhausted by that use.</p> + +<p>The most conclusive argument on this question by far +however is the one that we have already brought forward +based on the opinions of eminent jurists, namely, that even +over land which had been converted into private property +either by states or individuals, unarmed and innocent passage +is not justly to be denied to persons of any country, +exactly as the right to drink from a river is not to be</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_44"></a>[44]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p class="noindent">hominibus iuste negari; sicut et potum ex flumine. Ratio +apparet, quia cum unius rei naturaliter usus essent diversi, +eum dumtaxat gentes divisisse inter se videntur, qui sine +proprietate commode haberi non potest, contra autem eum +recepisse, per quem domini condicio deterior non esset futura.</p> + +<p>Omnes igitur vident eum qui alterum navigare prohibeat +nullo iure defendi, cum eundem etiam iniuriarum teneri +Vlpianus dixerit;<a id="FNanchor_109a" href="#Footnote_109a" class="fnanchor">[109a]</a> alii autem etiam interdictum utile prohibito +competere existimaverint.<a id="FNanchor_110a" href="#Footnote_110a" class="fnanchor">[110a]</a></p> + +<p>Et sic Batavorum intentio communi iure nititur, cum +fateantur omnes, permissum cuilibet in mari navigare etiam +a nullo Principe impetrata licentia; quod Legibus Hispanicis +diserte expressum est.<a id="FNanchor_111a" href="#Footnote_111a" class="fnanchor">[111a]</a></p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p class="noindent">denied. The reason is clear, because, inasmuch as one and +the same thing is susceptible by nature to different uses, the +nations seem on the one hand to have apportioned among +themselves that use which cannot be maintained conveniently +apart from private ownership; but on the other +hand to have reserved that use through the exercise of which +the condition of the owner would not be impaired.</p> + +<p>It is clear therefore to every one that he who prevents +another from navigating the sea has no support in law. +Ulpian has said<a id="FNanchor_109" href="#Footnote_109" class="fnanchor">[109]</a> that he was even bound to pay damages, +and other jurists have thought that the injunction <i lang="la">utile +prohibito</i> could also be brought against him.<a id="FNanchor_110" href="#Footnote_110" class="fnanchor">[110]</a></p> + +<p>Finally, the relief prayed for by the Dutch rests upon a +common right, since it is universally admitted that navigation +on the sea is open to any one, even if permission is not +obtained from any ruler. And this is <ins class="corr" id="tn-44" title="Transcriber’s Note—Original text: 'specificially'"> +specifically</ins> expressed +in the Spanish laws.<a id="FNanchor_111" href="#Footnote_111" class="fnanchor">[111]</a></p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_45"></a>[45]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<h2 class="nobreak" id="CAPVT_VI">CAPVT VI</h2> + +<p class="center"><i>Mare aut ius navigandi proprium non esse +Lusitanorum titulo donationis +Pontificiae</i></p> + +<p>Donatio Pontificis Alexandri, quae a Lusitanis mare aut +ius navigandi solis sibi vindicantibus, cum inventionis +deficiat titulus, secundo loco adduci potest, satis ex iis quae +ante dicta sunt vanitatis convincitur. Donatio enim nullum +habet momentum in rebus extra commercium positis. Quare +cum mare aut ius in eo navigandi proprium nulli hominum +esse possit, sequitur neque dari a Pontifice neque a Lusitanis +accipi potuisse. Praeterea cum supra relatum sit ex omnium +sani iudicii hominum sententia Papam non esse dominum +temporalem totius orbis, ne Maris quidem esse satis intelligitur; +quamquam etsi id concederetur, tamen ius annexum +Pontificatui in Regem aliquem aut populum pro parte nulla +transferri debuisset. Sicut nec Imperator posset Imperi +provincias in suos usus convertere, aut pro suo arbitrio +alienare.<a id="FNanchor_112a" href="#Footnote_112a" class="fnanchor">[112a]</a></p> + +<p>Illud saltem nemo negaturus est, cui aliquid sit frontis, +cum ius disponendi in temporalibus Pontifici nemo concedat, +nisi forte quantum eius rerum spiritualium necessitas requirit, +ista autem de quibus nunc agimus, mare scilicet et ius +navigandi, lucrum et quaestum merum, non pietatis negotium</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_VI">CHAPTER VI</h2> + +<p class="center"><i>Neither the Sea nor the right of navigation thereon belongs +to the Portuguese by virtue of title based on the +Papal Donation</i></p> + +<p>The Donation of Pope Alexander, inasmuch as the title +based on discovery is seen to be deficient, may next be invoked +by the Portuguese to justify their exclusive appropriation +of the sea and the right of navigation thereon. But +from what has been said above, that Donation is clearly +convicted of being an act of empty ostentation. For a +Donation has no effect on things outside the realm of trade. +Wherefore since neither the sea nor the right of navigating +it can become the private property of any man, it follows +that it could not have been given by the Pope, nor accepted +by the Portuguese. Besides, as has been mentioned above, +following the opinion of all men of sound judgment, it is +sufficiently well recognized that the Pope is not the temporal +lord of the earth, and certainly not of the sea. Even +if it be granted for the sake of argument that such were +the case, still a right attaching to the Pontificate ought not +to be transferred wholly or in part to any king or nation. +Similarly no emperor could convert to his own uses or +alienate at his own pleasure the provinces of his empire.<a id="FNanchor_112" href="#Footnote_112" class="fnanchor">[112]</a></p> + +<p>Now, inasmuch as no one concedes to the Pope in temporal +matters a <i lang="la">jus disponendi</i>, except perhaps in so far as +it is demanded by the necessity of spiritual matters, and +inasmuch as the things now under discussion, namely, the +sea and the right of navigating it, are concerned only with +money and profits, not with piety, surely no one can have</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_46"></a>[46]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p class="noindent">respiciant, sequi nullam hac in re fuisse illius potestatem. +Quid, quod ne Principes quidem, hoc est, domini temporales +possunt ullo modo a navigatione aliquem prohibere, cum si +quod habent ius in mari id sit tantum iurisdictionis ac protectionis? +Etiam illud notissimum est apud omnes, ad ea +facienda quae cum lege Naturae pugnant, nullam esse Papae +auctoritatem.<a id="FNanchor_113a" href="#Footnote_113a" class="fnanchor">[113a]</a> Pugnat autem cum lege Naturae, ut mare +aut eius usum quisquam habeat sibi proprium, ut iam satis +demonstravimus. Cum denique ius suum auferre alicui Papa +minime possit, quae erit facti istius defensio, si tot populos +immerentes, indemnatos, innoxios ab eo iure quod ad ipsos +non minus quam ad Hispanos pertinebat uno verbo voluit excludere?</p> + +<p>Aut igitur dicendum est nullam esse vim eiusmodi pronuntiationis, +aut quod non minus credibile est, eum Pontificis +animum fuisse, ut Castellanorum et Lusitanorum inter +se certamini intercessum voluerit, aliorum autem iuri nihil +diminutum.</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p class="noindent">the face to insist that the Pope had any jurisdiction here. +What of the fact that not even rulers, that is to say, +temporal lords, can prohibit any one from navigation, since +if they have any right at all upon the sea it is merely one of +jurisdiction and protection! It is also a fact universally +recognized that the Pope has no authority to commit acts +repugnant to the law of nature.<a id="FNanchor_113" href="#Footnote_113" class="fnanchor">[113]</a> But it is repugnant to +the law of nature, as we have already proved beyond a +doubt, for any one to have as his own private property +either the sea or its use. Finally, since the Pope is wholly +unable to deprive any one of his own rights, what defense +will there be for that Donation of his, if by a word he intended +to exclude so many innocent, uncondemned, and +guiltless nations from a right which belongs no less to them +than to the Spaniards?</p> + +<p>Therefore, either it must be affirmed that a pronunciamento +of this sort has no force, or, as is no less credible, that +it was the desire of the Pope to intercede in the quarrel +between the Spaniards and the Portuguese, and that he had +no concomitant intention of violating the rights of others.</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_47"></a>[47]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<h2 class="nobreak" id="CAPVT_VII">CAPVT VII</h2> + +<p class="center"><i>Mare aut ius navigandi proprium non esse +Lusitanorum titulo praescriptionis +aut consuetudinis</i></p> + +<p>Vltimum iniquitatis patrocinium in praescriptione solet +esse aut consuetudine. Et huc igitur Lusitani se conferunt; +sed utrumque illis praesidium certissima iuris ratio praecludit. +Nam praescriptio a iure est civili, unde locum habere +non potest inter reges, aut inter populos liberos;<a id="FNanchor_114a" href="#Footnote_114a" class="fnanchor">[114a]</a> multo +autem minus ubi ius naturae aut gentium resistit, quod iure +civili semper validius est. Quin et ipsa lex civilis praescriptionem +hic impedit.<a id="FNanchor_115a" href="#Footnote_115a" class="fnanchor">[115a]</a> Vsucapi enim, aut praescriptione +acquiri prohibentur, quae in bonis esse non possunt, deinde +quae possideri vel quasi possideri nequeunt, et quorum +alienatio prohibita est. Haec autem omnia de mari et usu +maris vere dicuntur.</p> + +<p>Et cum publicae res, hoc est populi alicuius nulla temporis +possessione quaeri posse dicantur, sive ob rei naturam, +sive ob eorum privilegium adversus quos praescriptio ista +procederet, quanto iustius humano generi, quam uni populo +id beneficium dandum fuit in rebus communibus? Et hoc est</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_VII">CHAPTER VII</h2> + +<p class="center"><i>Neither the Sea nor the right of navigation thereon belongs +to the Portuguese by title of prescription or +custom</i></p> + +<p>The last defense of injustice is usually a claim or plea +based on prescription or on custom. To this defense therefore +the Portuguese have resorted. But the best established +reasoning of the law precludes them from enjoying the +protection of either plea.</p> + +<p>Prescription is a matter of municipal law; hence it cannot +be applied as between kings, or as between free and +independent nations.<a id="FNanchor_114" href="#Footnote_114" class="fnanchor">[114]</a> It has even less standing when it is +in conflict with that which is always stronger than the +municipal law, namely, the law of nature or nations. Nay, +even municipal law itself prevents prescription in this case.<a id="FNanchor_115" href="#Footnote_115" class="fnanchor">[115]</a> +For it is impossible to acquire by usucaption or prescription +things which cannot become property, that is, which are not +susceptible of possession or of quasi-possession, and which +cannot be alienated. All of which is true with respect to the +sea and its use.</p> + +<p>And since public things, that is, things which are the +property of a nation, cannot be acquired by mere efflux +of time, either because of their nature, or because of the +prerogatives of those against whom such prescription would +act, is it not vastly more just that the benefits accruing from +the enjoyment of common things should be given to the +entire human race than to one nation alone? On this point</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_48"></a>[48]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p class="noindent">quod Papinianus scriptum reliquit,<a id="FNanchor_116a" href="#Footnote_116a" class="fnanchor">[116a]</a> ‘praescriptionem longae +possessionis ad obtinenda loca iurisgentium publica concedi +non solere’; eiusque rei exemplum dat in litore, cuius pars +imposito aedificio occupata fuerat. Nam eo diruto, et +alterius aedificio in eodem loco postea exstructo, exceptionem +opponi non posse; quod deinde similitudine rei publicae illustrat, +nam et si quis in fluminis diverticulo pluribus annis +piscatus sit, postea, interrupta scilicet piscatione, alterum +eodem iure prohibere non posse.</p> + +<p>Apparet igitur Angelum et qui cum Angelo dixerunt<a id="FNanchor_117a" href="#Footnote_117a" class="fnanchor">[117a]</a> +Venetis et Genuensibus per praescriptionem ius aliquod in +sinum maris suo litori praeiacentem acquiri potuisse, aut +falli, aut fallere, quod sane Iurisconsultis nimium est frequens, +cum sanctae professionis auctoritatem, non ad +rationes et leges, sed ad gratiam conferunt potentiorum. +Nam Martiani quidem responsum, de quo et ante egimus, +si recte cum Papiniani verbis comparetur,<a id="FNanchor_118a" href="#Footnote_118a" class="fnanchor">[118a]</a> non aliam accipere +potest interpretationem, quam eam quae et Iohanni olim et +Bartolo probata est, et nunc a doctis omnibus recipitur:<a id="FNanchor_119a" href="#Footnote_119a" class="fnanchor">[119a]</a> ut +scilicet ius prohibendi procedat quamdiu durat occupatio,</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p class="noindent">Papinian has said:<a id="FNanchor_116" href="#Footnote_116" class="fnanchor">[116]</a> ‘Prescription raised by long possession +is not customarily recognized as valid in the acquisition of +places known to international law as “public”’. As an example, +to illustrate this point, he cites a shore some part of +which had been occupied by means of a building constructed +on it. But if this building should be destroyed, and some +one else later should construct a building on the same spot, +no exception could be taken to it. Then he illustrates the +same point by the analogous case of a <i lang="la">res publica</i>. If, for +example, any one has fished for many years in a branch of +a river, and has then stopped fishing there, after that he +cannot prevent any one else from enjoying the same right +that he had.</p> + +<p>Wherefore it appears that Angeli<a id="FNanchor_117" href="#Footnote_117" class="fnanchor">[117]</a> and his followers who +have said that the Venetians and Genoese were able to acquire +by prescription certain specific rights in the gulfs of +the sea adjacent to their shores, either are mistaken, or are +deceiving others; a thing which happens all too frequently +with jurists when they exercise the authority of their sacred +profession not for justice and law, but in order to gain +the gratitude of the powerful. There is also an opinion +of Marcianus, already cited above in another connection, +which, when carefully compared with the words of Papinian,<a id="FNanchor_118" href="#Footnote_118" class="fnanchor">[118]</a> +can have no other interpretation than the one formerly +adopted by Johannes and Bartolus,* and now accepted by +all learned men,<a id="FNanchor_119" href="#Footnote_119" class="fnanchor">[119]</a> namely, that the <i lang="la">jus prohibendi</i> is in effect +only while occupation lasts; it loses its force if occupation</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_49"></a>[49]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p class="noindent">non autem si ea omissa sit; omissa enim non prodest, nec si +per mille annos fuisset continuata, ut recte animadvertit +Castrensis. Et quamvis hoc voluisset Martianus, quod +minime credendus est cogitasse, in quo loco occupatio conceditur, +in eodem praescriptionem concedi, tamen absurdum +erat quod de flumine publico dictum erat ad Mare commune, +et quod de diverticulo ad sinum proferre, cum haec praescriptio +usum qui est Iuregentium communis, impeditura +sit, illa autem publico usui non admodum noceat. Alterum +autem Angeli argumentum quod ex aquaeductu sumitur,<a id="FNanchor_120a" href="#Footnote_120a" class="fnanchor">[120a]</a> +eodem Castrensi monstrante, ut a quaestione alienissimum, +ab omnibus merito exploditur.</p> + +<p>Falsum igitur est talem praescriptionem etiam eo tempore +gigni, cuius initium omnem memoriam excedat. Vbi +enim lex omnem omnino tollit praescriptionem, ne istud +quidem tempus admittitur, hoc est, ut Felinus loquitur,<a id="FNanchor_121a" href="#Footnote_121a" class="fnanchor">[121a]</a> materia +impraescriptibilis tempore immemoriali non fit praescriptibilis. +Fatetur haec vera esse Balbus;<a id="FNanchor_122a" href="#Footnote_122a" class="fnanchor">[122a]</a> sed Angeli +sententiam receptam dicit hac ratione, quia tempus extra +memoriam positum idem valere creditur privilegio, cum +titulus amplissimus ex tali tempore praesumatur. Apparet +hinc non aliud illos sensisse, quam si pars aliqua reipublicae, +puta Imperi Romani, supra omnem memoriam usa esset tali +iure, ei dandam praescriptionem hoc colore, quasi Principis</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p class="noindent">cease; and occupation once interrupted, even if it had been +continuous for a thousand years, loses its rights, as Paul de +Castro† justly observes. And even if Marcianus had meant—which +certainly was not in his mind at all—that acquisition +by prescription is to be recognized wherever occupation is +recognized, still it would have been absurd to apply what +had been said about a public river to the common sea, or +what had been said about an inlet or a river branch to a +bay, since in the latter case prescription would hinder the +use of something common to all by the law of nations, and +in the former case would work no great injury to public use. +Moreover, another argument brought forward by Angeli +based on the use of aqueducts,<a id="FNanchor_120" href="#Footnote_120" class="fnanchor">[120]</a> has quite properly been rejected +by every one, being, as de Castro pointed out, entirely +aside from the point.</p> + +<p>* [Bartolus de Saxoferrato (1314-1357) the most famous of the Post-glossators, +was called by many of his biographers ‘Optimus auriga in hac civili +sapientia’.]</p> + +<p>† [The celebrated Italian jurist (?-1420 or 1437) of whom Cujas said: “Si +vous n’avez pas Paul de Castro, vendez votre chemise pour l’acheter.” (Note from +page 55 of the French translation of Grotius by de Grandpont.)]</p> + +<p>It is not true then that such prescription rises even at a +time beyond the period of the memory of man. For since +the law absolutely denies all prescription, not even immemorial +time has any effect on the question; that is, as +Felinus<a id="FNanchor_121" href="#Footnote_121" class="fnanchor">[121]</a> says, things imprescriptible by nature do not become +prescriptible by the mere efflux of immemorial time. +Balbus admits the truth of these arguments,<a id="FNanchor_122" href="#Footnote_122" class="fnanchor">[122]</a> but says that +the opinion of Angeli is to be accepted on the ground that +time immemorial is believed to have the same validity as +prerogative for setting up a title, since a perfect title is +presumed from such efflux of time. Hence it appears that +the jurists thought if some part of a state, say of the Roman +empire for example, at a period before the memory of man +had exercised such a right, that a title by prescription would</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_50"></a>[50]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p class="noindent">concessio praeiisset. Quare cum nemo sit dominus totius +generis humani, qui ius illud adversus homines omnes homini, +aut populo alicui potuisset concedere, sublato illo colore, +necesse est etiam praescriptionem interimi. Et sic ex illorum +etiam sententia inter reges aut populos liberos prodesse +nihil potest lapsus infiniti temporis.</p> + +<p>Vanissimum autem et illud est quod Angelus docuit, +etiamsi ad dominium praescriptio proficere non potest, tamen +dandam esse possidenti exceptionem. Nam Papinianus +disertis verbis exceptionem negat:<a id="FNanchor_123a" href="#Footnote_123a" class="fnanchor">[123a]</a> et aliter non potuit sentire, +cum ipsius saeculo praescriptio nihil esset aliud quam +exceptio. Verum igitur est quod et leges Hispanicae exprimunt<a id="FNanchor_124a" href="#Footnote_124a" class="fnanchor">[124a]</a> +in his rebus quae communi hominum usui sunt +attributae, nullius omnino temporis praescriptionem procedere, +cuius definitionis illa praeter ceteras ratio reddi potest, +quod qui re communi utitur, ut communi uti videtur, non +autem iure proprio, et ita praescribere non magis quam fructuarius +potest vitio possessionis.<a id="FNanchor_125a" href="#Footnote_125a" class="fnanchor">[125a]</a></p> + +<p>Altera haec etiam non contemnenda est, quod in praescriptione +temporis cuius memoria non exstat, quamvis titulus +et bona fides praesumantur, tamen si re ipsa appareat titulum +omnino nullum dari posse, et sic manifesta sit fides mala, +quae in populo maxime quasi uno corpore perpetua esse</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p class="noindent">have to be admitted on that ground, exactly as if there had +been a previous grant from a Prince. But inasmuch as +there is no one who is sovereign of the whole human race +with competence to grant to any man or to any nation such +a right against all other men, with the annihilation of that +pretext, title by prescription is also necessarily destroyed. +Therefore the opinion of the jurists is that not even an infinite +lapse of time is able to set up a right as between kings +or independent nations.</p> + +<p>Moreover Angeli brought forward a most foolish argument, +affirming that even if prescription could not create +ownership, still an exception ought to be made in favor of +a possessor. Papinian however in unmistakable words says +there is no exception,<a id="FNanchor_123" href="#Footnote_123" class="fnanchor">[123]</a> nor could he think otherwise, because +in his day prescription was itself an exception. It is therefore +true, as expressed also in the laws of Spain,<a id="FNanchor_124" href="#Footnote_124" class="fnanchor">[124]</a> that prescription +based on no matter how immemorial a time, sets +up no title to those things which are recognized as common +to the use of mankind. One reason among others which +can be given for this definition is that any one who uses a +<i lang="la">res communis</i> does so evidently by virtue of common and +not private right, and because of the imperfect character of +possession he can therefore no more set up a legal title by +prescription than can a usufructuary.<a id="FNanchor_125" href="#Footnote_125" class="fnanchor">[125]</a></p> + +<p>A second reason not to be overlooked is that although a +title and good faith are presumed in a prescriptive right +created by the efflux of immemorial time, nevertheless if +it appears from the nature of the thing itself that no title +at all can be established, and if thus there becomes evident +bad faith—a thing held to be permanent in a nation as well +as in an individual—then prescription fails because of a</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_51"></a>[51]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p class="noindent">censetur, et ex duplici defectu praescriptio corruit.<a id="FNanchor_126a" href="#Footnote_126a" class="fnanchor">[126a]</a> Tertia +vero, quia res haec est merae facultatis, quae non praescribitur, +ut infra demonstrabimus.</p> + +<p>Sed nullus est finis argutiarum. Inventi sunt qui in hoc +argumento a praescriptione consuetudinem distinguerent, ut +illa scilicet exclusi, ad hanc confugerent. Discrimen autem +quod hic statuunt sane ridiculum est: ex praescriptione aiunt +ius unius quod ab eo aufertur alteri applicari;<a id="FNanchor_127a" href="#Footnote_127a" class="fnanchor">[127a]</a> sed cum aliquod +ius ita alicui applicatur ut alteri non auferatur, tum +dici consuetudinem; quasi vero cum ius navigandi quod communiter +ad omnes pertinet, exclusis aliis ab uno usurpatur, +non necesse sit omnibus perire quantum uni accedit. Errori +huic ansam dederunt Pauli verba non recte accepta, qui cum +de iure proprio maris ad aliquem pertinente loqueretur,<a id="FNanchor_128a" href="#Footnote_128a" class="fnanchor">[128a]</a> +fieri hoc posse dixit Accursius per privilegium aut consuetudinem: +quod additamentum ad Iurisconsulti textum nullo +modo accedens mali potius coniectoris esse videtur quam boni +interpretis. Mens Pauli supra explicata est. Ceterum illi +si vel sola Vlpiani verba,<a id="FNanchor_129a" href="#Footnote_129a" class="fnanchor">[129a]</a> quae paulo ante praecedunt, satis +considerassent, longe aliud dicturi erant. Fatetur enim ut +quis ante aedes meas piscari prohibeatur, esse quidem</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p class="noindent">double defect.<a id="FNanchor_126" href="#Footnote_126" class="fnanchor">[126]</a> Also a third reason is that we have under +consideration a merely facultative right which is not prescriptible, +as we shall show below.*</p> + +<p>* [See <a href="#CHAPTER_XI">chapter XI</a>.]</p> + +<p>But there is no end to their subtilties. There are jurists +who in this case would distinguish custom from prescription, +so that if they are debarred from the one, they may fall +back upon the other. But the distinction which they set up +is most absurd. They say that the right of one person +which is taken away from him is given to another by prescription;<a id="FNanchor_127" href="#Footnote_127" class="fnanchor">[127]</a> +but that when any right is given to any one in +such a way that it is not taken away from any one else, +then it is called custom. As if indeed the right of +navigation, which is common to all, upon being usurped +by some one to the exclusion of all others, would not +necessarily when it became the property of one be lost +to all!</p> + +<p>This error receives support from misinterpretation of +what Paulus has to say about a private right of possession +on the sea.<a id="FNanchor_128" href="#Footnote_128" class="fnanchor">[128]</a> Accursius† said that such a right could be acquired +by privilege or custom. But this addition which in +no way agrees with the text of the jurist seems to be rather +the interpretation of a mischievous guesser than of a faithful +interpreter. The real meaning of the words of Paulus +has been already explained. Besides, if more careful consideration +had been given to the words of Ulpian<a id="FNanchor_129" href="#Footnote_129" class="fnanchor">[129]</a> which +almost immediately precede those of Paulus, a very different +assertion would have been made. For Ulpian acknowledges +that if any one is prohibited from fishing in front of</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_52"></a>[52]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p class="noindent">usurpatum;<a id="FNanchor_130a" href="#Footnote_130a" class="fnanchor">[130a]</a> hoc est receptum consuetudine, sed nullo iure, +ideoque iniuriarum actionem prohibito non denegandam.</p> + +<p>Contemnit igitur hunc morem, et usurpationem vocat, ut +et inter Christianos Doctores Ambrosius.<a id="FNanchor_131a" href="#Footnote_131a" class="fnanchor">[131a]</a> Et merito. Quid +enim clarius quam non valere consuetudinem, quae iuri +naturae, aut gentium ex adverso opponitur?<a id="FNanchor_132a" href="#Footnote_132a" class="fnanchor">[132a]</a> Consuetudo +enim species est iuris positivi, quod legi perpetuae obrogare +non potest. Est autem lex illa perpetua ut Mare omnibus +usu commune sit. Quod autem in praescriptione diximus, +idem in consuetudine verum est, si quis eorum qui diversum +tradiderunt sensus excutiat, non aliud reperturum, quam +consuetudinem privilegio parari. Atqui adversus genus +humanum concedendi privilegium nemo habet potestatem; +quare inter diversas respublicas consuetudo ista vim non +habet.</p> + +<p>Verum omnem hanc quaestionem diligentissime tractavit +Vasquius,<a id="FNanchor_133a" href="#Footnote_133a" class="fnanchor">[133a]</a> decus illud Hispaniae, cuius nec in explorando +iure subtilitatem, nec in docendo libertatem umquam desideres. +Is igitur posita thesi: ‘Loca publica et iure gentium +communia praescribi non posse’, quam multis firmat auctoribus; +exceptiones deinde subiungit ab Angelo et aliis confictas, +quas supra retulimus. Haec autem examinaturus recte +iudicat istarum rerum veritatem pendere a vera iuris, tam +naturae quam gentium cognitione. Ius enim naturae cum a</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p class="noindent">my house, such prohibition is a usurpation of right,<a id="FNanchor_130" href="#Footnote_130" class="fnanchor">[130]</a> allowed, +it is true, by custom, but based on no law, and that an action +for damages could not be denied the person thus prohibited +from fishing.</p> + +<p>† [Franciscus (?) Accursius (?-1259) (a pupil of the famous Monarcha +juris Azzo), with whose name the Glossa Magna is almost synonymous. He was +called Advocatorum Idolum.]</p> + +<p>He therefore condemns this practice, and calls it a +usurpation; of the Christian jurists Ambrose<a id="FNanchor_131" href="#Footnote_131" class="fnanchor">[131]</a> does likewise, +and both are right. For what is clearer than that custom +is not valid when it is diametrically opposed to the law of +nature or of nations?<a id="FNanchor_132" href="#Footnote_132" class="fnanchor">[132]</a> Indeed, custom is a sort of affirmative +right, which cannot invalidate general or universal law. +And it is a universal law that the sea and its use is common +to all. Moreover what we have said about prescription +applies with equal truth and force to custom; and if any +one should investigate the opinions of those who have differed +upon this matter, he would find no other opinion +but that custom is established by privilege. No one has +the power to confer a privilege which is prejudicial to the +rights of the human race; wherefore such a custom has no +force as between different states.</p> + +<p>This entire question however has been most thoroughly +treated by Vasquez,<a id="FNanchor_133" href="#Footnote_133" class="fnanchor">[133]</a> that glory of Spain, who leaves nothing +ever to be desired when it comes to subtle examination +of the law or to the exposition of the principles of liberty. +He lays down this thesis: ‘Places public and common to all +by the law of nations cannot become objects of prescription’. +This thesis he supports by many authorities, and then he +subjoins the objections fabricated by Angeli and others, +which we have enumerated above. But before examining +these objections he makes the just and reasonable statement +that the truth of all these matters depends upon a true conception +both of the law of nature and the law of nations.</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_53"></a>[53]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p class="noindent">divina veniat providentia, esse immutabile. Huius autem +iuris naturalis partem esse ius gentium, primaevum quod +dicitur, diversum a iure gentium secundario sive positivo, +quorum posterius mutari potest. Nam si qui mores cum iure +gentium primaevo repugnent, hi non humani sunt ipso iudice, +sed FERINI, corruptelae et abusus, non leges et usus. +Itaque nullo tempore praescribi potuerunt, nulla lata lege +iustificari, nullo multarum etiam gentium consensu, hospitio, +et exercitatione stabiliri, quod exemplis aliquot et Alphonsi +Castrensis Theologi Hispani testimonio confirmat.<a id="FNanchor_134a" href="#Footnote_134a" class="fnanchor">[134a]</a></p> + +<p>‘Ex quibus apparet’, inquit, ‘quam suspecta sit sententia +eorum, quos supra retulimus, existimantium Genuenses, aut +etiam Venetos posse non iniuria prohibere alios navigare per +Gulfum aut pelagus sui maris, quasi aequora ipsa praescripserint, +id quod non solum est contra leges,<a id="FNanchor_135a" href="#Footnote_135a" class="fnanchor">[135a]</a> sed etiam est contra +ipsum ius naturae, aut gentium primaevum, quod mutari +non posse diximus. Quod sit contra illud ius constat, quia +non solum maria aut aequora eo iure communia erant sed +etiam reliquae omnes res immobiles. Et licet ab eo iure +postea recessum fuerit ex parte, puta quoad dominium et +proprietatem terrarum, quarum dominium iure Naturae commune, +distinctum et divisum, sicque ab illa communione segregatum +fuit; tamen<a id="FNanchor_136a" href="#Footnote_136a" class="fnanchor">[136a]</a> diversum fuit et est in dominio maris,</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p class="noindent">For, since the law of nature arises out of Divine Providence, +it is immutable; but a part of this natural law is the primary +or primitive law of nations, differing from the secondary or +positive law of nations, which is mutable. For if there are +customs incompatible with the primary law of nations, then, +according to the judgment of Vasquez, they are not customs +belonging to men, but to wild beasts, customs which are +corruptions and abuses; not laws and usages. Therefore +those customs cannot become prescriptions by mere lapse +of time, cannot be justified by the passage of any law, cannot +be established by the consent, the protection, or the +practice even of many nations. These statements he confirms +by a number of examples, and particularly by the +testimony of Alphonse de Castro<a id="FNanchor_134" href="#Footnote_134" class="fnanchor">[134]</a> the Spanish theologian.</p> + +<p>‘It is evident therefore’, he says, ‘how much to be suspected +is the opinion of those persons mentioned above, who +think that the Genoese or the Venetians can without injustice +prohibit other nations from navigating the gulfs or bays +of their respective seas, as if they had a prescriptive right to +the very water itself. Such an act is not only contrary to +the laws,<a id="FNanchor_135" href="#Footnote_135" class="fnanchor">[135]</a> but is contrary also to natural law or the primary +law of nations, which we have said is immutable. And this +is seen to be true because by that same law not only the seas +or waters, but also all other immovables were <i lang="la">res communes</i>. +And although in later times there was a partial abandonment +of that law, in so far as concerns sovereignty and +ownership of lands—which by natural law at first were +held in common, then distinguished and divided, and thus +finally separated from the primitive community of use;—nevertheless<a id="FNanchor_136" href="#Footnote_136" class="fnanchor">[136]</a> +it was different as regards sovereignty over the +sea, which from the beginning of the world down to this</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_54"></a>[54]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p class="noindent">quod ab origine Mundi, ad hodiernum usque diem est, fuitque +semper in communi, nulla ex parte immutatum, ut est +notum’.</p> + +<p>‘Et quamvis ex LVSITANIS magnam turbam saepe +audiverim in hac esse opinione ut eorum Rex ita praescripserit +navigationem INDICI Occidentalis (forte Orientalis) +eiusdemque VASTISSIMI MARIS, ita ut reliquis gentibus +aequora illa transfretare non liceat, et ex nostrismet HISPANIS +VVLGVS in eadem opinione fere esse videtur, ut +per VASTISSIMVM IMMENSVMQVE PONTVM ad +Indorum regiones quas potentissimi Reges nostri subegerunt +reliquis mortalium navigare praeterquam Hispanis ius +minime sit, quasi ab eis id ius praescriptum fuerit, tamen +istorum omnium non minus INSANAE sunt opiniones, +quam eorum qui quoad Genuenses et Venetos in eodem fere +SOMNIO esse adsolent, quas sententias INEPTIRE vel +ex eo dilucidius apparet, quod istarum nationum singulae +contra seipsas nequeunt praescribere: hoc est, non respublica +Venetiarum contra semetipsam, non respublica Genuensium +contra semetipsam, non Regnum Hispanicum contra semetipsum, +non Regnum Lusitanicum contra semetipsum.<a id="FNanchor_137a" href="#Footnote_137a" class="fnanchor">[137a]</a> Esse +enim debet differentia inter agentem et patientem’.</p> + +<p>‘Contra reliquas vero nationes longe minus praescribere +possunt, quia ius praescriptionum est mere civile, ut fuse +ostendimus supra. Ergo tale ius cessat cum agitur inter +principes vel populos, superiorem non recognoscentes in temporalibus. +Iura enim mere civilia cuiuscumque regionis,</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p class="noindent">very day is and always has been a <i lang="la">res communis</i>, and which, +as is well known, has in no wise changed from that status.</p> + +<p>‘And although’, he continues, ‘I have often heard that +a great many Portuguese believe that their king has a prescriptive +right over the navigation of the vast seas of the +West Indies (probably the East Indies too) such that other +nations are not allowed to traverse those waters; and although +the common people among our own Spaniards seem +to be of the same opinion, namely, that absolutely no one +in the world except us Spaniards ourselves has the least +right to navigate the great and immense sea which stretches +to the regions of the Indies once subdued by our most powerful +kings, as if that right has been ours alone by prescription; +although, I repeat, I have heard both these things, +nevertheless the belief of all those people is no less extravagantly +foolish than that of those who are always cherishing +the same delusions with respect to the Genoese and Venetians. +Indeed the opinions of them all appear the more +manifestly absurd, because no one of those nations can +erect a prescription against itself; that is to say, not the +Venetian republic, nor the Genoese republic, nor the kingdom +of Spain nor of Portugal can raise prescriptions against +rights they already possess by nature.<a id="FNanchor_137" href="#Footnote_137" class="fnanchor">[137]</a> For the one who +claims a prescriptive right and the one who suffers by the +establishment of such a claim must not be one and the same +person.</p> + +<p>‘Against other nations they are even much less competent +to raise a prescription, because the right of prescription +is only a municipal right, as we have shown above at +some length. Therefore such a right ceases to have any +effect as between rulers or nations who do not recognize a +superior in the temporal domain. For so far as the merely +municipal laws of any place are concerned, they do not</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_55"></a>[55]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p class="noindent">quoad exteros populos, nationes, vel etiam homines singulos, +non magis sunt in consideratione, quam si re vera esset tale +ius, aut numquam fuisset, et ad ius commune gentium primaevum +vel secundarium recurrendum est, eoque utendum, +quo iure talem maris praescriptionem et usurpationem admissam +non fuisse satis constat. Nam, et hodie usus aquarum +communis est, non secus quam erat ab origine Mundi. Ergo +et in aequoribus et aquis nullum ius est aut esse potest humano +generi, praeterquam quoad usum communem. Praeterea +de iure naturali et divino est illud praeceptum, ut <em>Quod +tibi non vis fieri, alteri non facias</em>. Vnde cum navigatio nemini +possit esse nociva nisi ipsi naviganti, par est ut nemini possit, +aut debeat impediri, ne in re sua natura libera, sibique minime +noxia navigantium libertatem impediat, et laedat contra dictum +praeceptum et contra regulam praesertim cum omnia +intelligantur esse permissa, quae non reperiuntur expressim +prohibita.<a id="FNanchor_138a" href="#Footnote_138a" class="fnanchor">[138a]</a> Quinimo non solum contra ius naturale esset, +velle impedire talem navigationem, sed etiam tenemur contrarium +facere, hoc est, prodesse iis quibus possumus, cum id +sine damno nostro fieri potest’.</p> + +<p>Quod cum multis auctoritatibus tam divinis quam humanis +confirmasset, subiungit postea:<a id="FNanchor_139a" href="#Footnote_139a" class="fnanchor">[139a]</a> ‘Ex superioribus +etiam apparet suspectam esse sententiam Iohannis Fabri, +Angeli, Baldi, et Francisci Balbi, quos supra retulimus, existimantium +loca iuris gentium communia, et si acquiri non +possint praescriptione, posse tamen acquiri consuetudine,</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p class="noindent">affect foreign peoples, nations, or even individuals, any +more than if they did not exist or never had existed. Therefore +it was necessary to have recourse to the common law +of nations, primary as well as secondary, and to use a law +which clearly had not admitted any such prescription and +usurpation of the sea. For today the use of the waters is +common, exactly as it has been since the creation of the +world. Therefore no man has a right nor can acquire a +right over the seas and waters which would be prejudicial +to their common use. Besides, there is both in natural and +divine law that famous rule: ‘Whatsoever ye would that +men should not do to you, do not ye even so to them’. +Hence it follows, since navigation cannot harm any one +except the navigator himself, it is only just that no one +either can or ought to be interdicted therefrom, lest nature, +free in her own realm, and least hurtful to herself, be found +impeding the liberty of navigation, and thus offending +against the accepted precept and rule that all things are +supposed to be permitted which are not found expressly +forbidden.<a id="FNanchor_138" href="#Footnote_138" class="fnanchor">[138]</a> Besides, not only would it be contrary to natural +law to wish to prevent such free navigation, but we are +even bound to do the opposite, that is, bound to assist such +navigation in whatever way we can, when it can be done +without any prejudice to ourselves’.</p> + +<p>After Vasquez had established his point by the help of +many authorities both human and divine, he added:<a id="FNanchor_139" href="#Footnote_139" class="fnanchor">[139]</a> ‘It +appears then, from what has gone before that the opinion +held by Johannes Faber, Angeli, Baldus, and Franciscus +Balbus, whom we have cited above, is not to be trusted, because +they think that places common by the law of nations, +even if not open to acquisition by prescription, can nevertheless +be acquired by custom; but this is entirely false, and</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_56"></a>[56]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p class="noindent">quod omnino FALSVM est, eaque traditio CAECA ET +NVBILA est, OMNIQVE RATIONIS LVMINE +CARENS, legemque verbis non rebus imponens.<a id="FNanchor_140a" href="#Footnote_140a" class="fnanchor">[140a]</a> In exemplis +enim de Mari Hispanorum, LVSITANORVM, +Venetorum, Genuensium, et reliquorum, constat consuetudine +ius tale navigandi, et alios navigare prohibendi non +magis acquiri quam praescriptione.<a id="FNanchor_141a" href="#Footnote_141a" class="fnanchor">[141a]</a> Vtroque enim casu ut +apparet, eadem est ratio. Et quia per iura et rationes supra +relatas id esset contra naturalem aequitatem, nec ullam +induceret utilitatem, sed solam laesionem, sicque ut lege expressa +introduci non possent, ita etiam nec lege tacita, qualis +est consuetudo.<a id="FNanchor_142a" href="#Footnote_142a" class="fnanchor">[142a]</a> Et tempore id non iustificaretur, sed potius +deterius et iniurius in dies fieret’.</p> + +<p>Ostendit deinde ex prima terrarum occupatione posse +populo ut venandi ius, ita piscandi in suo flumine competere, +et postquam illa semel ab antiqua communione separata +sunt, ita ut particularem applicationem admittant, praescriptione +temporis eius, cuius initi memoria non exstet, quasi +tacita populi concessione acquiri posse. Hoc autem per praescriptionem +contingere, non per consuetudinem, quia solius +aequirentis condicio melior fiat, reliquorum vero deterior. Et +cum tria enumerasset quae requiruntur, ut ius proprium in +flumine piscandi praescribatur:</p> + +<p>‘Quid autem’, subdit, ‘quoad mare? Et in eo magis est</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p class="noindent">is a teaching which is both obscure and vague, which lacks +the faintest glimmer of reasonableness, and which sets up a +law in word but not in fact.<a id="FNanchor_140" href="#Footnote_140" class="fnanchor">[140]</a> For it is well established from +the examples taken from the seas of the Spaniards, Portuguese, +Venetians, Genoese, and others, that an exclusive +right of navigation and a right of prohibiting others from +navigation is no more to be acquired by custom than by +prescription.<a id="FNanchor_141" href="#Footnote_141" class="fnanchor">[141]</a> And it is apparent that the reason is the +same in both cases. And since according to the laws and +reasons adduced above this would be contrary to natural +equity and would not bring benefit but only injury, therefore +as it could not be introduced by an express law, neither +could it be introduced by a tacit or implied law, and that +is what custom is.<a id="FNanchor_142" href="#Footnote_142" class="fnanchor">[142]</a> And far from justifying itself by any +lapse of time, it rather becomes worse, and every day more +injurious’.</p> + +<p>Vasquez next shows that from the time of the earliest +occupation of the earth every people possessed the right +of hunting in its own territory, and of fishing in its own +rivers. After those rights were once separated from the +ancient community of rights in such a way that they admitted +of particular attachments, they could be acquired +by prescription based upon such an efflux of time that “the +memory of its beginning does not exist,” as if by the +tacit permission of a nation. This comes about, however, +by prescription and not by custom, because only the condition +of him who acquires is bettered, while that of all other +persons is made worse. Then after Vasquez had enumerated +three conditions which are requisite in order that a private +right of fishing in a river may become a right by prescription, +he continues as follows:</p> + +<p>‘But what are we to say as regards the sea? There is</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_57"></a>[57]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p class="noindent">quod etiam concursus istorum trium non sufficeret ad acquirendum +ius. Ratio differentiae inter mare ex una parte, +et terram et flumina ex altera, quia illo casu ut olim ita et +hodie, et semper, tam quoad piscandum quam quoad navigandum +mansit integrum ius gentium primaevum, neque +umquam fuit a communione hominum separatum, et alicui, +vel aliquibus applicatum. Posteriore autem casu, nempe in +terra vel fluminibus aliud fuit, ut iam disseruimus’.</p> + +<p>‘Sed quare ius gentium secundarium, ut eam separationem +quoad terras et flumina facit, quoad mare facere +desiit? respondeo, quia illo casu expediebat. Constat enim +quod si multi venentur, aut piscentur in terra vel flumine, +facile nemus feris, et flumen piscibus evacuatum redditur, +id quod in mari non est. Item fluminum navigatio facile +deterior fit et impeditur per aedificia, quod in mari non est. +Item per aquaeductus facile evacuatur flumen, non ita in +mari;<a id="FNanchor_143a" href="#Footnote_143a" class="fnanchor">[143a]</a> ergo in utroque non est par ratio’.</p> + +<p>‘Nec ad rem pertinet, quod supra diximus, communem +esse usum aquarum, fontium etiam et fluminum. Nam intelligitur +quoad bibendum et similia, quae fluminis dominium +aut ius habenti vel minime vel levissime nocent.<a id="FNanchor_144a" href="#Footnote_144a" class="fnanchor">[144a]</a> Minima +enim in consideratione non sunt. Pro nostris sententiis facit, +quia iniqua nullo tempore praescribuntur, et ideo lex iniqua +nullo tempore praescribitur, aut iustificatur’. Mox: ‘Et</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p class="noindent">more to say about it, because even the combination of the +three conditions mentioned is not sufficient here for the acquisition +of such a right. The reason for the difference between +the sea on one hand and land and rivers on the other, +is that in the case of the sea the same primitive right of +nations regarding fishing and navigation which existed in +the earliest times, still today exists undiminished and always +will, and because that right was never separated from the +community right of all mankind, and attached to any person +or group of persons. But in the latter case, that of the land +and rivers, it was different, as we have already set forth.</p> + +<p>‘But why, it is asked, does the secondary law of nations +which brings about this separation when we consider lands +and rivers cease to operate in the same way when we consider +the sea? I reply, because in the former case it was +expedient and necessary. For every one admits that if a +great many persons hunt on the land or fish in a river, +the forest is easily exhausted of wild animals and the river +of fish, but such a contingency is impossible in the case +of the sea. Again, the navigation of rivers is easily lessened +and impeded by constructions placed therein, but this is not +true of the sea. Again, a river is easily emptied by means +of aqueducts but the sea cannot be emptied by any such +means.<a id="FNanchor_143" href="#Footnote_143" class="fnanchor">[143]</a> Therefore there is not equal reason on both sides.</p> + +<p>‘Neither does what we have said above about the common +use of waters, springs, and rivers, apply in this case, +for common use is recognized in them all for purposes of +drinking and the like, such usages namely as do not injure +at all or in the slightest degree him who owns a river or +has some other right in one.<a id="FNanchor_144" href="#Footnote_144" class="fnanchor">[144]</a> These are trifles for which we +have no time. What makes for our contention is the fact +that no lapse of time will give a prescriptive right to anything +unjust. Therefore an unjust law is not capable of</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_58"></a>[58]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p class="noindent">quae sunt impraescriptibilia ex legis dispositione, nec per +mille annos praescriberentur’; quod innumeris doctorum +testimoniis fulcit.<a id="FNanchor_145a" href="#Footnote_145a" class="fnanchor">[145a]</a></p> + +<p>Nemo iam non videt, ad usum rei communis intercipiendum +nullam quantivis temporis usurpationem prodesse. Cui +adiungendum est etiam eorum qui dissentiunt auctoritatem +huic quaestioni non posse accommodari. Illi enim de Mediterraneo +loquuntur, nos de Oceano; illi de sinu, nos de immenso +mari, quae in ratione occupationis plurimum differunt. +Et quibus illi indulgent praescriptionem, illi litora mari continua +possident, ut Veneti et Genuenses, quod de Lusitanis +dici non posse modo patuit.</p> + +<p>Immo et si prodesse posset tempus, ut quidam posse +putant in publicis quae sunt, populi, tamen non ea adsunt +quae necessario requiruntur. Primum enim docent omnes +desiderari, ut is qui praescribit huiusmodi actum, eum exercuerit +non longo dumtaxat tempore, sed memoriam excedente; +deinde ut tanto tempore eundem actum nemo alius +exercuerit, nisi concessione illius, vel clandestine; praeterea +ut alios uti volentes prohibuerit, scientibus quidem et patientibus</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p class="noindent">erecting a prescriptive right or of being justified by efflux of +time’. A little farther on Vasquez says: ‘Things which are +imprescriptible by the disposition of the law, may not become +objects of prescription even after the lapse of a thousand +years’. This statement he supports by countless citations +from the jurists.<a id="FNanchor_145" href="#Footnote_145" class="fnanchor">[145]</a></p> + +<p>Every one perceives that no usurpation no matter how +long continued is competent to intercept the use of a <i lang="la">res +communis</i>. And it must also be added, that the authority +of those who hold dissenting opinions cannot possibly be +applied to the question here at issue. For they are talking +about the Mediterranean, we are talking about the Ocean; +they speak of a gulf, we of the boundless sea; and from the +point of view of occupation these are wholly different things. +And too, those peoples, to whom the authorities just mentioned +concede prescription, the Venetians and Genoese for +example, possess a continuous shore line on the sea, but +it is clear that not even that kind of possession can be claimed +for the Portuguese.</p> + +<p>Further, even if mere lapse of time, as some think, could +establish a right by prescription over public property, still +the conditions absolutely indispensable for the creation of +such a right are in this case absent. The conditions demanded +are these: first, all jurists teach that he who sets +up a prescriptive right of this sort shall have been in actual +possession not only for a considerable period, but from time +immemorial; next, that during all that time no one else +shall have exercised the same right of possession unless by +permission of that possessor or clandestinely; besides that, +it is necessary that he shall have prevented other persons +wishing to use his possession from so doing, and that such +measures be a matter of common knowledge and done by +the suffrance of those concerned in the matter. For even if</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_59"></a>[59]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p class="noindent">iis ad quos ea res pertinebat; nam etsi exercuisset semper, +et quosdam exercere volentes prohibuisset semper, non +tamen omnes, quia alii fuerunt prohibiti, alii vero libere +exercuerunt, id quidem non sufficeret, ex Doctorum sententia.</p> + +<p>Apparet autem debere haec omnia concurrere, tum quia +praescriptioni publicarum rerum lex inimica est, tum ut +videatur praescribens iure suo non autem communi usus, +idque non interrupta possessione.</p> + +<p>Cum autem tempus postulatur, cuius initi non exstet +memoria, non semper sufficit, ut optimi interpretes ostendunt, +probare saeculi lapsum; sed constare oportet famam rei a +maioribus ad nos transmissam, ita ut nemo supersit qui contrarium +viderit, aut audierit. Occasione rerum Africanarum +in ulteriora primum Oceani inquirere coeperunt regnante +Iohanne Lusitani,<a id="FNanchor_146a" href="#Footnote_146a" class="fnanchor">[146a]</a> anno salutis millesimo quadringentesimo +septuagesimo septimo. Viginti post annis sub Rege +Emanuele promontorium Bonae spei praeternavigatum est, +seriusque multo ventum Malaccam, et insulas remotiores, ad +quas Batavi navigare coeperunt anno millesimo quingentesimo +nonagesimo quinto, non dubie intra annum centesimum. +Iam vero etiam eo quod intercessit tempore aliorum +usurpatio adversus alios etiam omnes impedivit praescriptionem, +Castellani ab anno millesimo quingentesimo decime +nono possessionem Lusitanis maris circa Moluccas ambiguam</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p class="noindent">he had continuously exercised his right of possession, and +had always prevented from using his possession <em>some</em> of +those who wished to do so, but not <em>all</em>; then, because <em>some</em> +had been prevented from exercising and <em>others</em> freely allowed +to exercise that use, that kind of possession according +to the opinion of the jurists, is not sufficient to establish +a right by prescription.</p> + +<p>It is clear therefore that all these conditions should be +present, both because law is opposed to the prescription of +public things, and in order that he who sets up such a +prescription may seem to have used his own private right, +not a public right, and that too by continuous possession.</p> + +<p>Now, inasmuch as time beyond the period of the memory +of man is demanded for the creation of a prescriptive right, +it is not always sufficient, as the best commentators point +out, to prove the lapse of a hundred years, but the tradition +handed down to us by our ancestors ought to be undisputed, +provided no one is left alive who has seen or heard anything +to the contrary. It was during the reign of King John,<a id="FNanchor_146" href="#Footnote_146" class="fnanchor">[146]</a> in +the year of our Lord 1477, at the time of the wars in Africa, +that the Portuguese began to push their discoveries first +into the more distant parts of the Ocean. Twenty years +later, during the reign of King Emmanuel, they rounded +the Cape of Good Hope, and somewhat later yet, reached +Malacca, and the islands beyond, the very islands, indeed, to +which the Dutch began to sail in the year 1595, that is, +well within a hundred years of the time that the Portuguese +first arrived. And in truth even in that interval, the usurpation +of rights there by other parties had interrupted the +competence of everybody else to create a prescriptive right. +For example, from the year 1519, the Spaniards rendered +the possession by the Portuguese of the sea around the +Moluccas a very uncertain one. Even the French and</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_60"></a>[60]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p class="noindent">fecere. Galli etiam et Angli non clanculum, sed via aperta +eo perruperunt. Praeterea accolae totius tractus Africani, +aut Asiatici partem maris quisque sibi proximam piscando +et navigando perpetuo usurparunt, numquam a Lusitanis +prohibiti.</p> + +<p>Conclusum igitur sit, ius nullum esse Lusitanis quo +aliam quamvis gentem a navigatione Oceani ad Indos prohibeant.</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p class="noindent">English made their way to those newly discovered places +not secretly, but by force of arms. And besides these, the +inhabitants of the entire coast of Africa and Asia constantly +used for fishing and navigation that part of the sea +nearest their own several coasts, and were never interdicted +from such use by the Portuguese.</p> + +<p>The conclusion of the whole matter therefore is that the +Portuguese are in possession of no right whereby they may +interdict to any nation whatsoever the navigation of the +Ocean to the East Indies.</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_61"></a>[61]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<h2 class="nobreak" id="CAPVT_VIII">CAPVT VIII</h2> + +<p class="center"><i>Iure gentium inter quosvis liberam +esse mercaturam</i></p> + +<p>Quod si dicant Lusitani cum Indis commercia exercendi +ius quoddam proprium ad se pertinere, eisdem fere omnibus +argumentis refellentur. Repetemus breviter et aptabimus.</p> + +<p>Iure Gentium hoc introductum est, ut cunctis hominibus +inter se libera esset negotiandi facultas, quae a nemine +posset adimi.<a id="FNanchor_147a" href="#Footnote_147a" class="fnanchor">[147a]</a> Et hoc, sicut post dominiorum distinctionem +continuo necessarium fuit, ita originem videri potest antiquiorem +habuisse. Subtiliter enim Aristoteles μεταβλητικὴν +dixit, ἀναπλήρωσιν τῆς κατὰ φύσιν αὐταρκείας,<a id="FNanchor_148a" href="#Footnote_148a" class="fnanchor">[148a]</a> hoc est, +negotiatione suppleri id quod naturae deest, quo commode +omnibus sufficiat. Oportet igitur communem esse iure +gentium non tantum privative, sed et positive, ut dicunt +magistri, sive affirmative.<a id="FNanchor_149a" href="#Footnote_149a" class="fnanchor">[149a]</a> Quae autem illo modo sunt iuris +gentium, mutari possunt: quae hoc modo, non possunt. Id +ita intelligi potest.</p> + +<p>Dederat natura omnia omnibus. Sed cum a rerum +multarum usu, quas vita desiderat humana, locorum intervallo +homines arcerentur, quia ut supra diximus, non omnia ubique</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_VIII">CHAPTER VIII</h2> + +<p class="center"><i>By the Law of Nations trade is free to all persons +whatsoever</i></p> + +<p>If however the Portuguese claim that they have an +exclusive right to trade with the East Indies, their claim +will be refuted by practically all the same arguments which +already have been brought forward. Nevertheless I shall +repeat them briefly, and apply them to this particular +claim.</p> + +<p>By the law of nations the principle was introduced that +the opportunity to engage in trade, of which no one can +be deprived,<a id="FNanchor_147" href="#Footnote_147" class="fnanchor">[147]</a> should be free to all men. This principle, +inasmuch as its application was straightway necessary after +the distinctions of private ownerships were made, can therefore +be seen to have had a very remote origin. Aristotle, +in a very clever phrase, in his work entitled the Politics,<a id="FNanchor_148" href="#Footnote_148" class="fnanchor">[148]</a> has +said that the art of exchange is a completion of the independence +which Nature requires. Therefore trade ought to +be common to all according to the law of nations, not only +in a negative but also in a positive, or as the jurists say, +affirmative sense.<a id="FNanchor_149" href="#Footnote_149" class="fnanchor">[149]</a> The things that come under the former +category are subject to change, those of the latter category +are not. This statement is to be explained in the following +way.</p> + +<p>Nature had given all things to all men. But since men +were prevented from using many things which were desirable +in every day life because they lived so far apart,</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_62"></a>[62]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p class="noindent">proveniunt, opus fuit traiectione; nec adhuc tamen permutatio +erat, sed aliis vicissim rebus apud alios repertis suo +arbitrio utebantur; quo fere modo apud Seres dicitur rebus +in solitudine relictis sola mutantium religione peragi commercium.<a id="FNanchor_150a" href="#Footnote_150a" class="fnanchor">[150a]</a></p> + +<p>Sed cum statim res mobiles monstrante necessitate, quae +modo explicata est, in ius proprium transissent, inventa +est permutatio, qua quod alteri deest ex eo quod alteri +superest suppleretur.<a id="FNanchor_151a" href="#Footnote_151a" class="fnanchor">[151a]</a> Ita commercia victus gratia inventa +ex Homero Plinius probat.<a id="FNanchor_152a" href="#Footnote_152a" class="fnanchor">[152a]</a> Postquam vero res etiam +immobiles in dominos distingui coeperunt, sublata undique +communio non inter homines locorum spatiis discretos tantum, +verum etiam inter vicinos necessarium fecit commercium; +quod ut facilius procederet, nummus postea adventus +est, dictus ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου quod institutum sit civile.<a id="FNanchor_153a" href="#Footnote_153a" class="fnanchor">[153a]</a></p> + +<p>Ipsa igitur ratio omnium contractuum universalis, +ἡ μεταβλητική a natura est; modi autem aliquot singulares +ipsumque pretium, ἡ χρηματιστική ab instituto;<a id="FNanchor_154a" href="#Footnote_154a" class="fnanchor">[154a]</a> quae vetustiores +iuris interpretes non satis distinxerunt. Fatentur</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p class="noindent">and because, as we have said above, everything was not +found everywhere, it was necessary to transport things from +one place to another; not that there was yet an interchange +of commodities, but that people were accustomed to make +reciprocal use of things found in one another’s territory +according to their own judgment. They say that trade +arose among the Chinese in about this way. Things were +deposited at places out in the desert and left to the good +faith and conscience of those who exchanged things of their +own for what they took.<a id="FNanchor_150" href="#Footnote_150" class="fnanchor">[150]</a></p> + +<p>But when movables passed into private ownership (a +change brought about by necessity, as has been explained +above), straightway there arose a method of exchange by +which the lack of one person was supplemented by that of +which another person had an over supply.<a id="FNanchor_151" href="#Footnote_151" class="fnanchor">[151]</a> Hence commerce +was born out of necessity for the commodities of life, +as Pliny shows by a citation from Homer.<a id="FNanchor_152" href="#Footnote_152" class="fnanchor">[152]</a> But after immovables +also began to be recognized as private property, +the consequent annihilation of universal community of use +made commerce a necessity not only between men whose +habitations were far apart but even between men who were +neighbors; and in order that trade might be carried on more +easily, somewhat later they invented money, which, as the +derivation of the word shows, is a civic institution.<a id="FNanchor_153" href="#Footnote_153" class="fnanchor">[153]</a></p> + +<p>Therefore the universal basis of all contracts, namely +exchange, is derived from nature; but some particular kinds +of exchange, and the money payment itself, are derived from +law;<a id="FNanchor_154" href="#Footnote_154" class="fnanchor">[154]</a> although the older commentators on the law have not +made this distinction sufficiently clear. Nevertheless all</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_63"></a>[63]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p class="noindent">tamen omnes proprietatem rerum, saltem mobilium a iure +gentium primario prodire, itemque contractus omnes quibus +pretium non accedit.<a id="FNanchor_155a" href="#Footnote_155a" class="fnanchor">[155a]</a> Philosophi<a id="FNanchor_156a" href="#Footnote_156a" class="fnanchor">[156a]</a> τῆς μεταβλητικῆς quam +translationem vertere licebit, genera statuunt duo: τὴν +ἐμπορικιὴν καὶ τὴν καπηλικήν quarum ἐμπορική quae ut vox +ipsa indicat inter gentes dissitas, ordine naturae prior est, et +sic a Platone ponitur.<a id="FNanchor_157a" href="#Footnote_157a" class="fnanchor">[157a]</a> Καπηλική eadem videtur esse quae +παράστασις<a id="FNanchor_158a" href="#Footnote_158a" class="fnanchor">[158a]</a> Aristoteli, tabernaria sive stataria negotiatio +inter cives. Idem Aristoteles<a id="FNanchor_159a" href="#Footnote_159a" class="fnanchor">[159a]</a> τὴν ἐμπορικήν dividit in +ναυκληρίαν et φορτηγίαν quarum haec terrestri itinere, illa +maritimo merces devehit. Sordidior autem est καπηλική +contra honestior ἐμπορική et maritima maxime, quia multa +multis impertit.<a id="FNanchor_160a" href="#Footnote_160a" class="fnanchor">[160a]</a></p> + +<p>Vnde navium exercitionem ad summam rempublicam +pertinere dicit Vlpianus; institorum non eundem esse usum; +quia illa omnino secundum naturam necessaria est. Aristoteles:<a id="FNanchor_161a" href="#Footnote_161a" class="fnanchor">[161a]</a> +ἔστι γὰρ ἡ μεταβλητικὴ πάντων, ἀρξαμένη τὸ μὲν +πρῶτον ἐκ τοῦ κατὰ φύσιν, τῷ τὰ μὲν πλείω, τὰ δὲ ἐλάττω +τῶν ἱκανῶν ἔχειν τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, ‘est enim translatio rerum +omnium coepta ab initio, ab eo quod est secundum naturam, +cum homines partim haberent plura, quam sufficerent, +partim etiam pauciora’. Seneca:<a id="FNanchor_162a" href="#Footnote_162a" class="fnanchor">[162a]</a> ‘quae emeris, vendere; +gentium ius est’.</p> + +<p>Commercandi igitur libertas ex iure est primario gentium,</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p class="noindent">authorities agree that the ownership of things, particularly +of movables, arises out of the primary law of nations, and +that all contracts in which a price is not mentioned, are derived +from the same source.<a id="FNanchor_155" href="#Footnote_155" class="fnanchor">[155]</a> The philosophers<a id="FNanchor_156" href="#Footnote_156" class="fnanchor">[156]</a> distinguish +two kinds of exchange using Greek words which we shall +take the liberty to translate as ‘wholesale’ and ‘retail’ +trade. The former, as the Greek word shows, signifies +trade or exchange between widely separated nations, and it +ranks first in the order of Nature, as is shown in Plato’s +Republic.<a id="FNanchor_157" href="#Footnote_157" class="fnanchor">[157]</a> The latter seems to be the same kind of exchange +that Aristotle calls by another Greek word<a id="FNanchor_158" href="#Footnote_158" class="fnanchor">[158]</a> which +means retail or shop trade between citizens. Aristotle +makes a further division of wholesale trade into overland +and overseas trade.<a id="FNanchor_159" href="#Footnote_159" class="fnanchor">[159]</a> But of the two, retail trade is the more +petty and sordid, and wholesale the more honorable; but +most honorable of all is the wholesale overseas trade, because +it makes so many people sharers in so many things.<a id="FNanchor_160" href="#Footnote_160" class="fnanchor">[160]</a></p> + +<p>Hence Ulpian says that the maintenance of ships is the +highest duty of a state, because it is an absolutely natural +necessity, but that the maintenance of hucksters has not the +same value. In another place Aristotle says: “For the art +of exchange extends to all possessions, and it arises at first +in a natural manner from the circumstance that some have +too little, others too much.”<a id="FNanchor_161" href="#Footnote_161" class="fnanchor">[161]</a> And Seneca is also to be cited +in this connection for he has said that buying and selling is +the law of nations.<a id="FNanchor_162" href="#Footnote_162" class="fnanchor">[162]</a></p> + +<p>Therefore freedom of trade is based on a primitive right +of nations which has a natural and permanent cause; and</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_64"></a>[64]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p class="noindent">quod naturalem et perpetuam causam habet, ideoque +tolli non potest, et si posset non tamen posset nisi omnium +gentium consensu: tantum abest ut ullo modo gens aliqua +gentes duas inter se contrahere volentes iuste impediat.</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p class="noindent">so that right cannot be destroyed, or at all events it may +not be destroyed except by the consent of all nations. For +surely no one nation may justly oppose in any way two nations +that desire to enter into a contract with each other.</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_65"></a>[65]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<h2 class="nobreak" id="CAPVT_IX">CAPVT IX</h2> + +<p class="center"><i>Mercaturam cum Indis propriam non +esse Lusitanorum titulo +occupationis</i></p> + +<p>Primum inventio aut occupatio hic locum non habet, +quia ius mercandi non est aliquid corporale, quod possit +apprehendi; neque prodesset Lusitanis etiamsi primi hominum +cum Indis habuissent commercia, quod tamen non +potest non esse falsissimum. Nam et cum initio populi in +diversa iere, aliquos necesse est primos fuisse mercatores, +quos tamen ius nullum acquisivisse certo est certius. Quare +si Lusitanis ius aliquod competit, ut soli cum Indis negotientur, +id exemplo ceterarum servitutum, ex concessione +oriri debuit aut expressa aut tacita, hoc est praescriptione; +neque aliter potest.</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_IX">CHAPTER IX</h2> + +<p class="center"><i>Trade with the East Indies does not belong to the +Portuguese by title of occupation</i></p> + +<p>Neither discovery nor occupation [which have been +fully treated in Chapters II and V], is to be invoked on +the point here under consideration, because the right of +carrying on trade is not something corporal, which can be +physically seized; nor would discovery or occupation help +the case of the Portuguese even if they had been the very +first persons to trade with the East Indies, although such +a claim would be entirely untenable and false. For since +in the beginning peoples set out along different paths, it +was necessary that some become the first traders, nevertheless +it is absolutely certain that those traders did not +on that account acquire any rights. Wherefore if the Portuguese +have any right by virtue of which they <em>alone</em> may +trade with the East Indies, that right like other servitudes +ought to arise from concession, either express or tacit, that +is to say, from prescription. Otherwise no such right can +exist.</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_66"></a>[66]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<h2 class="nobreak" id="CAPVT_X">CAPVT X</h2> + +<p class="center"><i>Mercaturam cum Indis propriam non esse +Lusitanorum titulo donationis +Pontificiae</i></p> + +<p>Concessit nemo, nisi forte Pontifex, qui non potuit.<a id="FNanchor_163a" href="#Footnote_163a" class="fnanchor">[163a]</a> +Nemo enim quod suum non est concedere potest. At Pontifex, +nisi totius Mundi temporalis sit Dominus, quod +negant sapientes, ius etiam commerciorum universale sui iuris +dicere non potest. Maxime vero cum res sit ad solum +quaestum accommodata, nihilque ad spiritualem procurationem +pertinens, extra quam cessat, ut fatentur omnes, Pontificia +potestas. Praeterea si Pontifex solis illud Lusitanis +ius tribuere vellet idemque adimere hominibus ceteris, duplicem +faceret iniuriam: Primum Indis, quos ut extra Ecclesiam +positos Pontifici nulla ex parte subditos esse diximus. +His igitur cum nihil quod ipsorum est adimere possit Pontifex, +etiam ius illud quod habent cum quibuslibet negotiandi +adimere non potuit. Deinde aliis hominibus omnibus Christianis +et non Christianis, quibus idem illud ius adimere non +potuit sine causa indicta. Quid quod ne temporales quidem +Domini in suis imperiis prohibere possunt commerciorum +libertatem, uti rationibus et auctoritatibus ante demonstratum +est?</p> + +<p>Sicut et illud confitendum est, contra ius perpetuum +naturae gentiumque, unde ista libertas originem sumpsit in +omne tempus duratura, nullam valere Pontificis auctoritatem.</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_X">CHAPTER X</h2> + +<p class="center"><i>Trade with the East Indies does not belong to the Portuguese +by virtue of title based on the Papal +Donation</i></p> + +<p>No one has granted it except perhaps the Pope, and +he did not have the power.<a id="FNanchor_163" href="#Footnote_163" class="fnanchor">[163]</a> For no one can give away +what he does not himself possess. But the Pope, unless he +were the temporal master of the whole world, which sensible +men deny, cannot say that the universal right in respect +of trade belongs to him. Especially is this true since +trade has to do only with material gains, and has no concern +at all with spiritual matters, outside of which, as all +admit, Papal power ceases. Besides, if the Pope wished +to give that right to the Portuguese alone, and to deprive +all other men of the same right, he would be doing a double +injustice. In the first place, he would do an injustice to the +people of the East Indies who, placed as we have said +outside the Church, are in no way subjects of the Pope. +Therefore, since the Pope cannot take away from them +anything that is theirs, he could not take away their right +of trading with whomsoever they please. In the second +place, he would do an injustice to all other men both Christian +and non-Christian, from whom he could not take that +same right without a hearing. Besides, what are we to say +of the fact that not even temporal lords in their own dominions +are competent to prohibit the freedom of trade, as +has been demonstrated above by reasonable and authoritative +statements?</p> + +<p>Therefore it must be acknowledged, that the authority +of the Pope has absolutely no force against the eternal law +of nature and of nations, from whence came that liberty +which is destined to endure for ever and ever.</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_67"></a>[67]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<h2 class="nobreak" id="CAPVT_XI">CAPVT XI</h2> + +<p class="center"><i>Mercaturam cum Indis non esse Lusitanorum +propriam iure praescriptionis aut +consuetudinis</i></p> + +<p>Restat praescriptio, seu consuetudinem mavis dicere.<a id="FNanchor_164a" href="#Footnote_164a" class="fnanchor">[164a]</a> +Sed nec huius nec illius vim esse aliquam inter liberas nationes, +aut diversarum gentium Principes, nec adversus ea +quae primigenio iure introducta sunt, cum Vasquio ostendimus. +Quare et hic ut ius mercandi proprium fiat, quod +proprietatis naturam non recipit, nullo tempore efficitur. +Itaque nec titulus hic adfuisse potest, nec bona fides, quae +cum manifesto desinit, praescriptio secundum Canones non +ius dicetur, sed iniuria.</p> + +<p>Quin et ipsa mercandi quasi possessio non ex iure proprio +contigisse videtur, sed ex iure communi quod ad omnes +aequaliter pertinet; sicut contra, quod aliae nationes cum +Indis contrahere forte neglexerunt, id non Lusitanorum +gratia fecisse existimandi sunt, sed quia sibi expedire crediderunt; +quod nihil obstat quo minus ubi suaserit utilitas, id +facere possint, quod antea non fecerint. Certissima enim +illa regula a doctoribus traditur,<a id="FNanchor_165a" href="#Footnote_165a" class="fnanchor">[165a]</a> in his quae sunt arbitrii +seu merae facultatis, ita ut per se actum tantum facultatis +eius, non autem ius novum operentur, nec praescriptionis +nec consuetudinis titulo annos etiam mille valituros: quod et</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_XI">CHAPTER XI</h2> + +<p class="center"><i>Trade with the East Indies does not belong to the Portuguese +by title of prescription or custom</i></p> + +<p>Last of all, prescription, or if you prefer the term, +custom.<a id="FNanchor_164" href="#Footnote_164" class="fnanchor">[164]</a> We have shown that according to Vasquez, +neither prescription nor custom had any force as between +free nations or the rulers of different peoples, or any force +against those principles which were introduced by primitive +law. And here as before, mere efflux of time does not bring +it to pass that the right of trade, which does not partake +of the nature of ownership, becomes a private possession. +Now in this case neither title nor good faith can be shown, +and inasmuch as good faith is clearly absent, according to +legal rules prescription will not be called a right, but an +injury.</p> + +<p>Nay, the very possession involved in trading seems not +to have arisen out of a private right, but out of a public +right which belongs equally to all; so on the other hand, +because nations perhaps neglected to trade with the East +Indies, it must not be presumed that they did so as a favor +to the Portuguese, but because they believed it to be to their +own best interests. But nothing stands in their way, when +once expediency shall have persuaded them, to prevent them +from doing what they had not previously done. For the +jurists<a id="FNanchor_165" href="#Footnote_165" class="fnanchor">[165]</a> have handed down as incontestable the principle that +where things arbitrable or facultative are such that they produce +nothing more than the facultative act <i lang="la">per se</i>, but do +not create a new right, that in all such cases not even a thousand +years will create a title by prescription or custom.</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_68"></a>[68]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p class="noindent">affirmative et negative procedit, ut docet Vasquius. Nec +enim quod libere feci facere cogor, nec quod non feci +omittere.</p> + +<p>Alioquin quid esset absurdius quam ex eo quod singuli +non possumus cum singulis semper contrahere, salvum +nobis in posterum non esse ius cum illis, si usus tulerit, contrahendi? +Idem Vasquius et illud rectissime, ne infinito +quidem tempore effici, ut quid necessitate potius, quam +sponte factum videatur.</p> + +<p>Probanda itaque Lusitanis foret coactio, quae tamen +ipsa cum hac in re iuri naturae sit contraria, et omni hominum +generi noxia, ius facere non potest.<a id="FNanchor_166a" href="#Footnote_166a" class="fnanchor">[166a]</a> Deinde illa +coactio durasse debuit per tempus, cuius initii non exstet +memoria; id vero tantum hinc abest, ut ne centum quidem +anni exierint, ex quo tota fere negotiatio Indica penes +Venetos fuit, per Alexandrinas traiectiones.<a id="FNanchor_167a" href="#Footnote_167a" class="fnanchor">[167a]</a> Debuit etiam +talis esse coactio, cui restitum non sit. At restiterunt Galli +et Angli, aliique. Neque sufficit aliquos esse coactos, sed ut +omnes coacti sint requiritur, cum per unum non coactum servetur +in causa communi libertatis possessio. Arabes autem +et Sinenses a saeculis aliquot ad hunc usque diem perpetuo +cum Indis negotiantur.</p> + +<p>Nihil prodest ista usurpatio.</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p class="noindent">This, as Vasquez points out, acts both affirmatively and +negatively. For I am not compelled to do what I have +hitherto done of my own free will, nor am I compelled to +stop doing what I have never done.</p> + +<p>What moreover could be more absurd <ins class="corr" id="tn-68" title="Transcriber’s Note—Original text: 'more absurd then'"> +than</ins> to deduce +from the fact that we as individuals are not able always to +conclude a bargain with other individuals, that there is not +preserved to us for the future the right of bargaining with +them if opportunity shall have offered? The same Vasquez +has also most justly said that not even the lapse of infinite +time establishes a right which seems to have arisen from +necessity rather than choice.</p> + +<p>Therefore in order to establish a prescriptive right to +the trade with the East Indies the Portuguese would be +compelled to prove coercion. But since in such a case as this +coercion is contrary to the law of nature and obnoxious to +all mankind, it cannot establish a right.<a id="FNanchor_166" href="#Footnote_166" class="fnanchor">[166]</a> Next, that coercion +must needs have been in existence for so long a time that +“the memory of its beginning does not exist”; that, however, +is so far from being the case that not even a hundred +years had elapsed since the Venetians controlled nearly +the entire trade with the East Indies, carrying it via Alexandria.<a id="FNanchor_167" href="#Footnote_167" class="fnanchor">[167]</a> +Again, the coercion ought to have been such that +it was not resisted; but the English and the French and +other nations besides, did resist it. Finally, it is not sufficient +that <em>some</em> be coerced, but it is indispensable that <em>all</em> +be coerced, because the possession of freedom of trade is +preserved to all by a failure to use coercion upon even one +person. Moreover, the Arabians and the Chinese are at the +present day still carrying on with the people of the East +Indies a trade which has been uninterrupted for several +centuries.</p> + +<p>Portuguese usurpation is worthless.</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_69"></a>[69]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<h2 class="nobreak" id="CAPVT_XII">CAPVT XII</h2> + +<p class="center"><i>Nulla aequitate niti Lusitanos in +prohibendo commercio</i></p> + +<p>Ex his quae dicta sunt satis perspicitur eorum caeca +aviditas, qui, ne quemquam in partem lucri admittant, illis +rationibus conscientiam suam placare student, quas ipsi +magistri Hispanorum qui in eadem sunt causa manifestae +vanitatis convincunt.<a id="FNanchor_168a" href="#Footnote_168a" class="fnanchor">[168a]</a> Omnes enim qui in rebus Indicis usurpantur +colores iniuste captari quantum ipsis licet, satis +innuunt, adduntque numquam eam rem serio Theologorum +examine probatam. Illa vero querela quid est iniquius, quod +dicunt Lusitani quaestus suos exhauriri copia contra licentium? +Inter certissima enim Iuris enuntiata est, nec in dolo +eum versari, nec fraudem facere, ne damnum quidem alteri +dare videri, qui iure suo utitur; quod maxime verum est, si non +ut alteri noceatur, sed rem suam augendi animo quippiam +fiat.<a id="FNanchor_169a" href="#Footnote_169a" class="fnanchor">[169a]</a> Inspici enim debet id quod principaliter agitur, non +quod extrinsecus in consequentiam venit. Immo si proprie +loquimur cum Vlpiano, non ille damnum dat, sed lucro quo +adhuc alter utebatur eum prohibet.</p> + +<p>Naturale autem est et summo iuri atque etiam aequitati</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_XII">CHAPTER XII</h2> + +<p class="center"><i>The Portuguese prohibition of trade has no foundation +in equity</i></p> + +<p>From what has been said thus far it is easy to see the +blind cupidity of those who in order not to admit any one +else to a share in their gains, strive to still their consciences +by the very arguments which the Spanish jurists, interested +too in the same case, show to be absolutely empty.<a id="FNanchor_168" href="#Footnote_168" class="fnanchor">[168]</a> For they +intimate as clearly as they can that as regards India all the +pretexts employed, are far fetched and unjust. They add +that this right was never seriously approved by the swarm +of theologians. Indeed, what is more unjust than the +complaint made by the Portuguese that their profits +are drained off by the number of their competitors? An +incontrovertible rule of law lays down that a man who +uses his own right is justly presumed to be contriving +neither a deceit nor a fraud, in fact not even to be doing any +one an injury. This is particularly true, if he has no intention +to harm any one, but only to increase his own property.<a id="FNanchor_169" href="#Footnote_169" class="fnanchor">[169]</a> +For what ought to be considered is the chief and ultimate +intent not the irrelevant consequence. Indeed, if we may +with propriety agree with Ulpian, he is not doing an injury, +but he is preventing some one from getting a profit which +another was previously enjoying.</p> + +<p>Moreover it is natural and conformable to the highest +law as well as equity, that when a gain open to all is concerned +every person prefers it for himself rather than for</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_70"></a>[70]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p class="noindent">conveniens, ut lucrum in medio positum suum quisque malit +quam alterius, etiam qui ante perceperat.<a id="FNanchor_170a" href="#Footnote_170a" class="fnanchor">[170a]</a> Quis ferat +querentem opificem quod alter eiusdem artis exercitio ipsius +commoda evertat? Batavorum autem causa eo est iustior, +quia ipsorum hac in parte utilitas cum totius humani generis +utilitate coniuncta est, quam Lusitani eversum eunt.<a id="FNanchor_171a" href="#Footnote_171a" class="fnanchor">[171a]</a> Neque +hoc recte dicetur ad aemulationem fieri, ut in re simili ostendit +Vasquius: aut enim plane hoc negandum est, aut asseverandum +non ad bonam modo, verum etiam ad optimam aemulationem +fieri, iuxta Hesiodum:<a id="FNanchor_172a" href="#Footnote_172a" class="fnanchor">[172a]</a> ἀγαθὴ δ’ Ἔρις ἥδε βροτοῖσι +‘bona lis mortalibus haec est’. Nam etiam si quis pietate +motus, inquit ille, frumentum in summa penuria vilius +venderet, impediretur improba duritie eorum hominum, qui +saeviente penuria suum carius fuerant vendituri. Verum +est talibus modis minui aliorum reditus: nec id negamus, +ait, ‘sed minuuntur cum universorum hominum commodo: +ET VTINAM omnium PRINCIPVM et TYRRANORVM +ORBIS reditus ita minuerentur’.</p> + +<p>Quid ergo tam iniquum videri potest, quam Hispanos +vectigalem habere Terrarum Orbem, ut nisi ad illorum +nutum nec emere liceat nec vendere?<a id="FNanchor_173a" href="#Footnote_173a" class="fnanchor">[173a]</a> In cunctis civitatibus +dardanarios odio atque etiam poenis prosequimur; nec ullum +tam nefarium vitae genus videtur, quam ista annonae +flagellatio.<a id="FNanchor_174a" href="#Footnote_174a" class="fnanchor">[174a]</a> Merito quidem. Naturae enim faciunt</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p class="noindent">another, even if that other had already discovered it.<a id="FNanchor_170" href="#Footnote_170" class="fnanchor">[170]</a> Who +would countenance an artisan who complained that another +artisan was taking away his profits by the exercise of the +same craft? But the cause of the Dutch is the more reasonable, +because their advantage in this matter is bound up +with the advantage of the whole human race, an advantage +which the Portuguese are trying to destroy.<a id="FNanchor_171" href="#Footnote_171" class="fnanchor">[171]</a> Nor will it be +correct to say, that this is done in rivalry, as Vasquez shows +in a similar case. For clearly we must either deny this or +affirm that it is done not only in honorable but in most honorable +rivalry, for, as Hesiod says, ‘This rivalry is honorable +for mortal men’.<a id="FNanchor_172" href="#Footnote_172" class="fnanchor">[172]</a> For, says Vasquez, if any one should +be so moved by love for his fellow man as to offer grain at a +time of great scarcity for a lower price than usual, he would +be prevented by the wicked and hardhearted men who had +the intention of selling their grain at a higher price than +usual, because of the pinch caused by the scarcity. But, some +one will object, by such methods the profits of others will be +made less. ‘We do not deny it’, says Vasquez, ‘but they +are made less to the corresponding advantage of all other +men. And would that the profits of all Rulers and Tyrants +of this world could be thus lessened’!</p> + +<p>Indeed can anything more unjust be conceived than for +the Spaniards to hold the entire world tributary, so that it +is not permissible either to buy or to sell except at their good +pleasure?<a id="FNanchor_173" href="#Footnote_173" class="fnanchor">[173]</a> In all states we heap odium upon grain speculators +and even bring them to punishment; and in very truth +there seems to be no other sort of business so disgraceful as +that of forcing up prices in the grain market.<a id="FNanchor_174" href="#Footnote_174" class="fnanchor">[174]</a> That is not</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_71"></a>[71]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p class="noindent">iniuriam, quae in commune fecunda est:<a id="FNanchor_175a" href="#Footnote_175a" class="fnanchor">[175a]</a> neque vero censeri +debet in usus paucorum reperta negotiatio, sed ut quod +alteri deest alterius copia pensaretur, iusto tamen compendio +omnibus proposito, qui laborem ac periculum transferendi +in se suscipiunt.</p> + +<p>Hoc ipsum igitur quod in republica, id est, minore +hominum conventu, grave et perniciosum iudicatur, in +magna illa humani generis societate ferendumne est? +ut scilicet totius mundi monopolium faciant populi Hispani? +Invehitur Ambrosius in eos qui maria claudunt,<a id="FNanchor_176a" href="#Footnote_176a" class="fnanchor">[176a]</a> +Augustinus in eos qui itinera obstruunt; Nazianzenus in<a id="FNanchor_177a" href="#Footnote_177a" class="fnanchor">[177a]</a> +coemptores suppressoresque mercium, qui ex inopia aliorum +soli quaestum faciunt, et ut ipse facundissime loquitur +καταπραγματεύονται τῆς ἐνδείας. Quin et divini sapientis +sententia publicis diris devovetur sacerque habetur, qui +alimenta supprimendo vexat annonam: ὅ συνέχων σῖτον +δημοκατάρατος.</p> + +<p>Clament igitur Lusitani quantum, et quam diu libebit: +‘Lucra nostra deciditis’. Respondebunt Batavi: ‘Immo +nostris invigilamus. Hocne indignamini in partem nos +venire ventorum et maris? Et quis illa vobis lucra mansura +promiserat? Salvum est vobis, quo nos contenti sumus’.</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p class="noindent">to be wondered at, for such speculators are doing an injury +to nature, who, as Aristotle says, is fertile for all alike.<a id="FNanchor_175" href="#Footnote_175" class="fnanchor">[175]</a> +Accordingly it ought not to be supposed that trade was invented +for the benefit of a few, but in order that the lack of +one would be counterbalanced by the oversupply of another, +a fair return also being guaranteed to all who take upon +themselves the work and the danger of transport.</p> + +<p>Is the same thing then which is considered grievous and +pernicious in the smaller community of a state to be put up +with at all in that great community of the human race? +Shall the people of Spain, forsooth, assume a monopoly of +all the world? Ambrose inveighs against those who interfere +with the freedom of the sea;<a id="FNanchor_176" href="#Footnote_176" class="fnanchor">[176]</a> Augustine against those +who obstruct the overland routes; and Gregory of Nazianzus<a id="FNanchor_177" href="#Footnote_177" class="fnanchor">[177]</a> +against those who buy goods and hold them, and thus (as he +eloquently says) make profits for themselves alone out of +the helplessness and need of others. Indeed in the opinion +of this wise and holy man any person who holds back grain +and thus forces up the market price ought to be given over +to public punishment and be adjudged worthy of death.</p> + +<p>Therefore the Portuguese may cry as loud and as long +as they shall please: ‘You are cutting down our profits’! +The Dutch will answer: ‘Nay! we are but looking out for +our own interests! Are you angry because we share with +you in the winds and the sea? Pray, who had promised +that you would always have those advantages? You are +secure in the possession of that with which we are quite +content’.</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_72"></a>[72]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<h2 class="nobreak" id="CAPVT_XIII">CAPVT XIII</h2> + +<p class="center"><i>Batavis ius commercii Indicani qua +pace, qua indutiis, qua bello +retinendum</i></p> + +<p>Quare cum et ius et aequum postulet, libera nobis ita +ut cuiquam esse Indiae commercia, superest, ut sive cum +Hispanis pax, sive indutiae fiunt, sive bellum manet, +omnino eam, quam a natura habemus libertatem tueamur. +Nam ad pacem quod attinet, notum est eam esse duorum +generum: aut enim pari foedere, aut impari coitur. Graeci<a id="FNanchor_178a" href="#Footnote_178a" class="fnanchor">[178a]</a> +istam vocant συνθήκην ἐξ ἴσου hanc σπονδὰς ἐξ ἐπιταγμάτων +illa virorum est, haec ingeniorum servilium. Demosthenes +in oratione de libertate Rhodiorum:<a id="FNanchor_179a" href="#Footnote_179a" class="fnanchor">[179a]</a> καί τοι χρὴ τοὺς βουλομένους +ἐλευθέρους εἶναι τὰς ἐκ τῶν ἐπιταγμάτων συνθήκας +φεύγειν, ὡς ἐγγὺς δουλείας οὔσας, ‘eos qui volunt esse +liberi oportet omnes condiciones quibus leges imponuntur +ita fugere tamquam quae proximae sunt servituti’. +Tales autem sunt omnes quibus pars altera in iure +suo imminuitur, iuxta Isocratis definitionem<a id="FNanchor_180a" href="#Footnote_180a" class="fnanchor">[180a]</a> vocantis +τὰ τοὺς ἑτέρους ἐλαττοῦντα παρὰ τὸ δίκαιον. Si enim, ut +inquit Cicero,<a id="FNanchor_181a" href="#Footnote_181a" class="fnanchor">[181a]</a> ‘suscipienda bella sunt ob eam causam, ut sine +iniuria in pace vivatur’, sequitur eodem auctore*, pacem +esse vocandam, non pactionem servitutis, sed tranquillam +libertatem; quippe cum et Philosophorum et Theologorum</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_XIII">CHAPTER XIII</h2> + +<p class="center"><i>The Dutch must maintain their right of trade with the East +Indies by peace, by treaty, or by war</i></p> + +<p>Wherefore since both law and equity demand that trade +with the East Indies be as free to us as to any one else, +it follows that we are to maintain at all hazards that freedom +which is ours by nature, either by coming to a peace +agreement with the Spaniards, or by concluding a treaty, or +by continuing the war. So far as peace is concerned, it is +well known that there are two kinds of peace, one made on +terms of equality, the other on unequal terms. The Greeks<a id="FNanchor_178" href="#Footnote_178" class="fnanchor">[178]</a> +call the former kind a compact between equals, the latter +an enjoined truce; the former is meant for high souled +men, the latter for servile spirits. Demosthenes in his +speech on the liberty of the Rhodians<a id="FNanchor_179" href="#Footnote_179" class="fnanchor">[179]</a> says that it was +necessary for those who wished to be free to keep away +from treaties which were imposed upon them, because such +treaties were almost the same as slavery. Such conditions +are all those by which one party is lessened in its own right, +according to the definition of Isocrates.<a id="FNanchor_180" href="#Footnote_180" class="fnanchor">[180]</a> For if, as Cicero +says,<a id="FNanchor_181" href="#Footnote_181" class="fnanchor">[181]</a> wars must be undertaken in order that people may +live in peace unharmed, it follows that peace ought to mean +not an agreement which entails slavery, but an undisturbed +liberty, especially as peace and justice according to</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_73"></a>[73]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p class="noindent">complurium<a id="FNanchor_182a" href="#Footnote_182a" class="fnanchor">[182a]</a> iudicio pax et iustitia nominibus magis quam +re differant, sitque pax non qualiscumque, sed ordinata +concordia.</p> + +<p>* [Philippica XII, 14: cum iis facta pax non erit pax, sed pactio servitutis.]</p> + +<p>Indutiae autem si fiunt satis apparet ex ipsa indutiarum +natura non debere medio earum tempore condicionem +cuiusquam deteriorem fieri, cum ferme interdicti uti possidetis +instar obtineant.</p> + +<p>Quod si in bellum trudimur hostium iniquitate, debet +nobis causae aequitas spem ac fiduciam boni eventus addere. +Nam<a id="FNanchor_183a" href="#Footnote_183a" class="fnanchor">[183a]</a> ὑπὲρ ὧν ἄν ἐλαττῶνται μεχρὶ δυνατοῦ πάντες πολεμοῦσι, +περὶ δὲ τοῦ πλεονεκτεῖν οὐχ οὕτως, ‘pro his in +quibus iniuria afficiuntur omnes quantum omnino +possunt depugnant: at propter alieni cupiditatem non +item’; quod et Alexander Imperator ita expressit: τὸ μὲν +ἄρχειν ἀδίκων ἒργων οὐκ ἀγνώμονα ἔχει τὴν πρόκλησιν, τὸ δὲ +τοὺς ὀχλοῦντας ἀποσείεσθαι ἔκ τε τῆς ἀγαθῆς συνειδήσεως ἔχει +τὸ θαῤῥαλέον, καὶ ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ἀδικεῖν ἀλλ’ ἀμύνασθαι ὑπάρχει +τὸ εὔελπι, ‘eius a quo coepit iniuria, provocatio maxime +invidiosa est; at cum depelluntur aggressores, sicut bona +conscientia fiduciam secum fert, ita quia de vindicanda non +de inferenda iniuria laboratur, spes etiam adsunt optimae’.</p> + +<p>Si ita necesse est, perge gens mari invictissima, nec +tuam tantum, sed humani generis libertatem audacter +propugna.</p> + +<div class="poetry-container"> +<div class="poetry"> + <div class="verse indent0"><i>Nec te, quod classis centenis remigat alis,</i></div> + <div class="verse indent2"><i>Terreat: INVITO labitur illa MARI:</i></div> + <div class="verse indent0"><i>Quodve vehunt prorae Centaurica saxa minantes,</i></div> + <div class="verse indent2"><i>Tigna cava et pictos experiere metus.</i></div> + <div class="verse indent0"><i>Frangit et attollit vires in milite causa;</i></div> + <div class="verse indent2"><i>Quae nisi iusta subest, excutit arma pudor.</i><a id="FNanchor_184a" href="#Footnote_184a" class="fnanchor">[184a]</a></div> +</div> +</div> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p class="noindent">the opinion of many philosophers and theologians<a id="FNanchor_182" href="#Footnote_182" class="fnanchor">[182]</a> differ +more in name than in fact, and as peace is a harmonious +agreement based not on individual whim, but on well +ordered regulations.</p> + +<p>If however a truce is arranged for, it is quite clear from +the very nature of a truce, that during its continuance no +one’s condition ought to change for the worse, inasmuch as +both parties stand on the equivalent of a <i lang="la">uti possidetis</i>.</p> + +<p>But if we are driven into war by the injustice of our +enemies, the justice of our cause ought to bring hope and +confidence in a happy outcome. “For,” as Demosthenes +has said, “every one fights his hardest to recover what he +has lost; but when men endeavor to gain at the expense of +others it is not so.”<a id="FNanchor_183" href="#Footnote_183" class="fnanchor">[183]</a> The Emperor Alexander has expressed +his idea in this way: ‘Those who begin unjust deeds, +must bear the greatest blame; but those who repel aggressors +are twice armed, both with courage because of their +just cause, and with the highest hope because they are not +doing a wrong, but are warding off a wrong’.</p> + +<p>Therefore, if it be necessary, arise, O nation unconquered +on the sea, and fight boldly, not only for your own liberty, +but for that of the human race. “Nor let it fright thee +that their fleet is winged, each ship, with an hundred oars. +The sea whereon it sails will have none of it. And though +the prows bear figures threatening to cast rocks such as +Centaurs throw, thou shalt find them but hollow planks +and painted terrors. ’Tis his cause that makes or mars a +soldier’s strength. If the cause be not just, shame strikes +the weapon from his hands.”<a id="FNanchor_184" href="#Footnote_184" class="fnanchor">[184]</a></p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_74"></a>[74]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p>Si iusta multi, et ipse Augustinus,<a id="FNanchor_185a" href="#Footnote_185a" class="fnanchor">[185a]</a> arma crediderunt eo +nomine suscipi, quod per terras alienas iter innoxium negaretur, +quanto illa erunt iustiora, quibus maris, quod +naturae lege commune est, usus communis et innoxius postulatur? +Si iuste oppugnatae sunt gentes quae in suo solo +commercia aliis interdicebant, quid illae quae populos ad se +nihil pertinentes per vim distinent, ac mutuos earum commeatus +intercludunt? Si res ista in iudicio agitaretur, dubitari +non potest quae a viro bono expectari deberet sententia, +ait Praetor:<a id="FNanchor_186a" href="#Footnote_186a" class="fnanchor">[186a]</a> ‘Quo minus illi in flumine publico +navem agere, ratem agere, quove minus per ripam exonerare +liceat, vim fieri veto’. De mari et litore in eandem formam +dandum interdictum docent interpretes, exemplo Labeonis, +qui cum interdiceret Praetor:<a id="FNanchor_187a" href="#Footnote_187a" class="fnanchor">[187a]</a> ‘Ne quid in flumine publico +ripave eius facias, quo statio iterve navigio deterius sit, fiat’; +simile dixit interdictum competere in mari:<a id="FNanchor_188a" href="#Footnote_188a" class="fnanchor">[188a]</a> ‘Ne quid in +mari inve litore facias, quo portus, statio, iterve navigio +deterius sit, fiat’.</p> + +<p>Immo et post prohibitionem, si quis scilicet in mari +navigare prohibitus sit, aut non permissus rem suam vendere, +aut re sua uti, iniuriarum eo nomine competere +actionem Vlpianus respondit.<a id="FNanchor_189a" href="#Footnote_189a" class="fnanchor">[189a]</a> Theologi insuper et qui +tractant casus, quos vocant, conscientiarum, concordes tradunt,</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p>If many writers, Augustine himself<a id="FNanchor_185" href="#Footnote_185" class="fnanchor">[185]</a> among them, believed +it was right to take up arms because innocent passage +was refused across foreign territory, how much more +justly will arms be taken up against those from whom the +demand is made of the common and innocent use of the sea, +which by the law of nature is common to all? If those +nations which interdicted others from trade on their own +soil are justly attacked, what of those nations which separate +by force and interrupt the mutual intercourse of peoples +over whom they have no rights at all? If this case +should be taken into court, there can be no doubt what +opinion ought to be anticipated from a just judge. The +praetor’s law says:<a id="FNanchor_186" href="#Footnote_186" class="fnanchor">[186]</a> ‘I forbid force to be used in preventing +any one from sailing a ship or a boat on a public river, or +from unloading his cargo on the bank’. The commentators +say that the injunction must be applied in the same manner +to the sea and to the seashore. Labeo, for example, in +commenting on the praetor’s edict,<a id="FNanchor_187" href="#Footnote_187" class="fnanchor">[187]</a> ‘Let nothing be done in +a public river or on its bank, by which a landing or a channel +for shipping be obstructed’, said there was a similar interdict +which applied to the sea, namely,<a id="FNanchor_188" href="#Footnote_188" class="fnanchor">[188]</a> ‘Let nothing be done on +the sea or on the seashore by which a harbor, a landing, or +a channel for shipping be obstructed’.</p> + +<p>Nay more, after such a prohibition, if, namely, a man be +prevented from navigating the sea, or not allowed to sell or +to make use of his own wares and products, Ulpian says +that he can bring an action for damages on that ground.<a id="FNanchor_189" href="#Footnote_189" class="fnanchor">[189]</a> +Also the theologians and the casuists agree that he who +prevents another from buying or selling, or who puts his</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_75"></a>[75]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p class="noindent">eum qui alterum vendere aut emere impediat, utilitatemve +propriam publicae ac communi praeponat, aut ullo +modo alterum in eo quod est iuris communis impediat, ad +restitutionem teneri omnis damni viri boni arbitrio.</p> + +<p>Secundum haec igitur vir bonus iudicans, Batavis libertatem +commerciorum adiudicaret, Lusitanos et ceteros, qui +eam libertatem impediunt, vetaret vim facere, et damna +restituere iuberet. Quod autem in iudicio obtineretur, id +ubi iudicium haberi non potest, iusto bello vindicatur. +Augustinus:<a id="FNanchor_190a" href="#Footnote_190a" class="fnanchor">[190a]</a> ‘Iniquitas partis adversae iusta ingerit bella’. +Et Cicero:<a id="FNanchor_191a" href="#Footnote_191a" class="fnanchor">[191a]</a> ‘Cum sint duo genera decertandi, unum per +disceptationem, alterum per vim, confugiendum ad posterius, +si uti non licet priore’. Et Rex Theodoricus: ‘Veniendum +tunc ad arma, cum locum apud adversarium iustitia non +potest reperire’. Et quod proprius est nostro argumento,<a id="FNanchor_192a" href="#Footnote_192a" class="fnanchor">[192a]</a> +Pomponius eum qui rem omnibus communem cum incommodo +ceterorum usurpet, MANV PROHIBENDVM +respondit. Theologi quoque tradunt, sicuti pro rerum +cuiusque defensione bellum recte suscipitur, ita non minus +recte suscipi, pro usu earum rerum quae naturali iure debent +esse communes. Quare ei qui itinera praecludat, evectionemque +mercium impediat, etiam non expectata ulla publica +auctoritate, <em>via facti</em>, ut loquuntur, posse occurri.</p> + +<p>Quae cum ita sint, minime verendum est, ne aut Deus</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p class="noindent">private interests before the public and common interests, +or who in any way hinders another in the use of something +which is his by common right, is held in damages to +complete restitution in an amount fixed by an honorable +arbitrator.</p> + +<p>Following these principles a good judge would award +to the Dutch the freedom of trade, and would forbid the +Portuguese and others from using force to hinder that freedom, +and would order the payment of just damages. But +when a judgment which would be rendered in a court +cannot be obtained, it should with justice be demanded in a +war. Augustine<a id="FNanchor_190" href="#Footnote_190" class="fnanchor">[190]</a> acknowledges this when he says: ‘The +injustice of an adversary brings a just war’. Cicero +also says:<a id="FNanchor_191" href="#Footnote_191" class="fnanchor">[191]</a> “There are two ways of settling a dispute; +first, by discussion; second, by physical force; we must +resort to force only in case we may not avail ourselves +of discussion.” And King Theodoric says: ‘Recourse +must then be had to arms when justice can find no lodgment +in an adversary’s heart’. Pomponius, however, has +handed down a decision which has more bearing on our argument<a id="FNanchor_192" href="#Footnote_192" class="fnanchor">[192]</a> +than any of the citations already made. He declared +that the man who seized a thing common to all to the +prejudice of every one else must be forcibly prevented from +so doing. The theologians also say that just as war is +righteously undertaken in defense of individual property, +so no less righteously is it undertaken in behalf of the use +of those things which by natural law ought to be common +property. Therefore he who closes up roads and hinders +the export of merchandise ought to be prevented from so +doing <i lang="la">via facti</i>, even without waiting for any public +authority.</p> + +<p>Since these things are so, there need not be the slightest</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_76"></a>[76]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p class="noindent">eorum conatus secundet, qui ab ipso institutum ius naturae +certissimum violant, aut homines ipsi eos inultos patiantur, +qui solo quaestus sui respectu communem humani generis +utilitatem oppugnant.</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p class="noindent">fear that God will prosper the efforts of those who violate +that most stable law of nature which He himself has instituted, +or that even men will allow those to go unpunished +who for the sake alone of private gain oppose a common +benefit of the human race.</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_77"></a>[77]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<h2><span class="hidden">(APPENDIX)</span></h2> + +<p class="negin2">CVM SVB HOC TEMPVS PLVRIMAE REGIS HISPANIARVM +LITTERAE IN MANVS NOSTRAS VENISSENT, QVIBVS IPSIVS +ET LVSITANORVM INSTITVTVM MANIFESTE DETEGITVR, +OPERAE PRETIVM VISVM EST EX IIS, QUAE PLERAEQVE +EODEM ERANT ARGVMENTO, BINAS IN LATINVM SERMONEM +TRANSLATAS EXHIBERE.</p> + +<p>Domine Martine Alphonse de Castro, Prorex amice, ego +Rex multam tibi salutem mitto:</p> + +<p>Cum hisce litteris perveniet ad te exemplum typis impressum +Edicti quod faciendum curavi, quo, ob rationes quas +expressas videbis, aliasque meis rebus conducentes prohibeo +commercium omne externorum in ipsis partibus Indiae +aliisque regionibus transmarinis. Quandoquidem res haec +est momenti atque usus maximi, et quae effici summa cum +industria debeat, impero tibi, ut simulatque litteras has et +edictum acceperis, publicationem eius omni diligentia procures +in omnibus locis ac partibus istius imperi, idque ipsum +quod edicto continetur exsequaris sine ullius personae exceptione, +cuiuscumque qualitatis, aetatis, condicionisve sit, +citra omnem moram atque excusationem, procedasque ad +impletionem mandati via merae exsecutionis, nullo admisso +impedimento, appellatione, aut gravamine in contrarium, +cuiuscumque materiae generis aut qualitatis. Iubeo itaque +hoc ipsum impleri per eos ministros ad quos exsecutio pertinet, +iisque significari, non modo eos qui contra fecerint +malam operam mihi navaturos, sed eosdem me puniturum +privatione officiorum in quibus mihi serviunt.</p> + +<p>Quia autem relatum est mihi commorari in istis partibus</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<h2 class="nobreak" id="APPENDIX">APPENDIX</h2> + +<p class="center"><em>Two letters of Philip III, King of Spain</em></p> + +<p>As several letters of the King of Spain have come of +late into our hands, in which his design and that of the +Portuguese is clearly disclosed, it seemed worth while to +translate into Latin two of them which had particular bearing +upon the controversy at issue, and to append them here.</p> + + +<p class="p1 center fs80">LETTER I</p> + +<p class="center"><i>To Don Martin Alfonso de Castro, our beloved viceroy, I, +the King, send many greetings:</i></p> + +<p>Together with this letter will come to you a copy printed +in type of an edict which I have taken much pains to draw +up, by which, for reasons which you will see expressed, and +for other reasons which are consonant with my interests, I +prohibit all commerce of foreigners in India itself, and in +all other regions across the seas. As this matter is of the +greatest importance and serviceableness, and ought to be +carried out with the highest zeal, I command you, as soon +as you shall have received this letter and edict, to further +with all diligence its publication in all places and districts +under your jurisdiction, and to carry out the provisions of +the edict without exception of any person whatsoever, no +matter what his quality, age, or condition, and without delay +and excuse, and to proceed to the fulfilment of this command +with the full power of your authority, no delay, +appeal, or obstacle to the contrary, being admitted, of any +kind, sort, or quality.</p> + +<p>Therefore I order that this duty be discharged by those</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_78"></a>[78]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p class="noindent">externos multos variarum nationum, Italos, Gallos, Germanos, +Belgas, quorum pars maior, quantum intelligimus, +eo venit per Persida et Turcarum imperium, non per hoc +regnum, adversus quos si ex huius Edicti praescripto ac +rigore procedatur, posse inde nonnullas difficultates sequi, +si illi ad Mauros inimicos perfugiant, vicinisque munitionum +mearum dispositionem indicent, rationesque monstrent quae +rebus meis nocere possent, exsequi te hoc edictum volo prout +res et tempus ferent, atque ea uti prudentia, qua illae difficultates +evitentur, curando ut omnes externos in potestate +tua habeas eosque custodias pro cuiusque qualitate, ita ut +adversus imperium nostrum nihil valeant attentare, utque +ergo omnino eum finem consequar quem hoc Edicto mihi +proposui.</p> + +<p>Scriptae Vlyssipone XXVIII Novembris, Anno +MDCVI. Subsignatum erat Rex. Inscriptio. Pro Rege. +Ad Dominum Martinum Alfonsum de Castro Consiliarium +suum, et suum Proregem Indiae.</p> + + +<p>Prorex amice Rex multam salutem tibi mitto:</p> + +<p>Etsi pro certo habeo tua praesentia, iisque viribus cum +quibus in partes austrinas concessisti, perduelles Hollandos,</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p class="noindent">officers to whom its execution belongs, and that they be informed +that not only will those who disobey serve me ill, +but that I will punish them by depriving them of the offices +in which they now serve me.</p> + +<p>Further, inasmuch as it has been reported to me that +within your jurisdiction there are sojourning many foreigners +of different nations, Italians, French, Germans, and +men of the Low Countries, the larger part of whom as we +know came there by way of Persia and Turkey, and not +through our realm; and inasmuch as, if this edict be rigidly +enforced against those persons to the letter, some inconveniences +might follow, if they should escape to the Moors, +our enemies, and make known to our neighbors the disposition +of my forces, and thus show ways that they might +be able to harm my dominion: Therefore, I wish you to +carry out the provisions of this edict as the exigencies of +circumstances and occasion demand, and to use all prudence +necessary in order to avoid those difficulties, taking +especial pains to keep all foreigners in your power, and to +guard them in accordance with their individual rank, so that +they may have no opportunity to attempt anything prejudicial +to our power, that thus I may attain fully that end +which I have set forth in this edict.</p> + +<p>Given at Lisbon, on the 28th of November in the year +of our Lord, 1606. Signed by the king, and addressed: For +the king, to Don Martin Alfonso de Castro, his Councillor, +and Viceroy for the East Indies.</p> + + +<p class="p1 center fs80">LETTER II</p> + +<p><i>To our beloved viceroy, I, the King send many greetings:</i></p> + +<p>Although I consider it absolutely certain that your presence +and the forces which you took with you into those +Eastern regions, guarantee that our enemies, the Dutch,</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="page x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_79"></a>[79]</span></p> + + <div class="textcol" lang="la"> +<p class="noindent">qui illic haerent, nec minus indigenas qui eis receptum praebent, +ita castigatos fore, ut nec hi, nec illi tale quicquam in +posterum audeant; expediet tamen, ad res tuendas, ut iustam +classem, eique operi idoneam, cum tu Goam redibis, in istis +Maris partibus relinquas, eiusque imperium et summam +praefecturam mandes Andreae Hurtado Mendosae, aut si +quem ei muneri aptiorem iudicabis, quemadmodum pro tuo +in me affectu confido, ea in re non aliud te respecturum +quam quod rebus meis erit utilissimum.</p> + +<p>Scriptae Madritii XXVII Ian. MDCVII. Signatum +Rex. Inscriptio. Pro Rege. Ad Dominum Martinum Alfonsum +de Castro suum Consiliarium, et suum Proregem +Indiae.</p> + </div> + + <div class="textcol"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<p class="noindent">who infest those quarters as well as the natives who give +them a welcome reception, will be so thoroughly punished +that neither the one nor the other will ever dare such practices +in the future: still it will be expedient for the protection +of our interests, that, when you shall return to Goa, +you leave in those parts of the sea a fleet large and capable +enough to do the business, and also that you delegate the +supreme command of that fleet to Andrea Hurtado de +Mendoza, or to any one else whom you shall consider better +fitted for this post. I rely upon your affection for me, +knowing that in this matter you will do nothing but what +will be most useful to my interests.</p> + +<p>Given at Madrid the 27th day of January in the year +of our Lord 1607. Signed by the king, and addressed: For +the king, to Don Martin Alfonso de Castro, his Councillor, +and Viceroy for the East Indies.</p> + </div> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_80"></a>[80]</span><br> + <span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_81"></a>[81]</span></p> + +<h2 class="nobreak fs120" id="INDEX">INDEX</h2> + +<p class="pad4 fs80"><em>References are to pages of text and translation alike.</em></p> + + +<ul class="index"> +<li class="ifrst">Accursius, biographical note, <a href="#Page_52">51, n. †</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">cited, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Agamemnon, mention of, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Agreements, when not binding, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Air, common to all, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">nature of, <a href="#Page_39">39</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Alciatus, A., biographical note, <a href="#Footnote_16">10 n. 2.</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Alexander, Emperor, quoted, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Alexander the Great, mention of, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Alexander VI, Pope, reference to, <a href="#Page_15">15</a>, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Alexandria, mention of, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Ambrose, St., biographical note, <a href="#Footnote_89">33 n. 5;</a></li> +<li class="isub1">cited, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">quoted, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Amorites, mention of, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Andocides, cited, <a href="#Footnote_178">72 n. 1.</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Angelus Aretinus, biographical note, <a href="#Footnote_117">48 n. 2;</a></li> +<li class="isub1">reference to, <a href="#Page_48">48</a>, <a href="#Page_49">49</a>, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Apollinaris, mention of, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Aquinas, Thos., biographical note, <a href="#Footnote_26">13 n. 4;</a></li> +<li class="isub1">mention of, <a href="#Page_13">13</a>, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Arabians, mention of, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Arbitration, <a href="#Page_6">6</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Archidiaconus, cited, <a href="#Footnote_189">74 n. 5.</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Aristotle, cited, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">quoted, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Art of exchange, definition of, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Athenaeus, reference to, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Athenians, mention of, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Augustine, St., cited, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>, <a href="#Page_74">74</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">quoted, <a href="#Page_75">75</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">reference to, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Augustus, mention of, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Avienus, quoted, <a href="#Page_23">23</a>, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Ayala, reference to, <a href="#Footnote_35">16 n. 5.</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Aztecs, mention of, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>.</li> + + +<li class="ifrst">Balbus, J. F., biographical note, <a href="#Footnote_122">49 n. 3;</a></li> +<li class="isub1">cited, <a href="#Page_49">49</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">mention of, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx"><ins class="corr" id="tn-80" title="Transcriber’s Note—Original text: 'Baldis'"> +Baldus</ins> de Ubaldis, biographical note, <a href="#Footnote_14">9 n. 7;</a></li> +<li class="isub1">mention of, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Bartolus, biographical note, <a href="#Page_49">48 n. *;</a></li> +<li class="isub1">cited, <a href="#Page_48">48</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">reference from, <a href="#Footnote_40">19 n. 2.</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Bennett, C. E., translation from, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Bernhardus, St., reference from, <a href="#Footnote_33">16 n. 3.</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Boëthius, quoted, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">du Bois, <a href="#SIL">see Silvius</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Bolognese, mention of, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Butler, translation from, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>.</li> + + +<li class="ifrst">Cadiz, mention of, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Caelius Antipater, cited, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Caietanus, T. (Cajetan), biographical note, <a href="#Footnote_42">19 n. 4;</a></li> +<li class="isub1">reference to, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Cape of Good Hope, mention of, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Castrensis, A. de, biographical note, <a href="#Footnote_134">53 n. 1;</a></li> +<li class="isub1">cited, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Castrensis, P. de (de Castro), biographical note, <a href="#Page_49">49 n. †;</a></li> +<li class="isub1">reference from, <a href="#Footnote_44">22 n. 1.</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Castro, M. C. de, letters to, <a href="#Page_77">77</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Celsus, cited, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Ceylon, mention of, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Charles V, Emperor, reference to, <a href="#Page_21">21</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Chinese, mention of, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Cicero, cited, <a href="#Page_72">72</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">quoted, <a href="#Page_23">23</a>, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_75">75</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">reference to, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Cinus, cited, <a href="#Footnote_155">63 n. 1.</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Claudius, Emperor, mention of, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Clemens Alexandrinus, cited, <a href="#Footnote_182">73 n. 1.</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Coercion, Portuguese, in case of East Indies, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Columella, reference to, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Comines, P. de, biographical note, <a href="#Footnote_68">28 n. 3.</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Commerce, origin of, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Common ownership, definition of, <a href="#Page_23">23</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Common right, <a href="#Page_44">44</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Community of use, annihilation of, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Connanus, F. de, biographical note, <a href="#Footnote_18">12 n. 2.</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Conscience, <a href="#Page_3">3</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Contract, nature of, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Cornelius Nepos, cited, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Council of Spain, mention of, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Council of Toledo, mention of, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Covarruvias, D., biographical note, <a href="#Footnote_10">9 n. 3.</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Crown properties, in sea and river, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Custom, established by privilege, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>.</li> + + +<li class="ifrst">Demosthenes, cited, <a href="#Page_72">72</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">quoted, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Divine law, <a href="#Page_1">1</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Donation of Pope Alexander VI, reference to, <a href="#Page_15">15</a>, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Donellus, H. (Doneau), biographical note, <a href="#Footnote_18">12 n. 2.</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Dryden, J., translations from, <a href="#Page_7">7</a>, <a href="#Page_8">8</a>, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Duarenus, biographical note, <a href="#Footnote_63">27 n. 4.</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Dutch, answer to Portuguese, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">East India trade to be maintained by, <a href="#Page_72">72</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">navigation by, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">reasonable claims of, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>.</li> + + +<li class="ifrst">East Indies, mention of, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">not chattels of Portuguese, <a href="#Page_21">21</a>, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1"><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_82"></a>[82]</span>Portuguese claim of exclusive right to trade in, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">Portuguese not first in, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">right of trade to be kept with, <a href="#Page_72">72</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">way is free to, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Emmanuel, King of Portugal, mention of, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">English, mention of, <a href="#Page_43">43</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Ennius, quoted, <a href="#Page_38">38</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Equity, chapter on, <a href="#Page_69">69</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Estius, biographical note, <a href="#Footnote_12">9 n. 5.</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Exchange, art of, defined, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">derivation of, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Exhaustion, question of, <a href="#Page_57">57</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Expediency, <a href="#Page_1">1</a>.</li> + + +<li class="ifrst">Faber, J., biographical note, <a href="#Footnote_91">34 n. 2;</a></li> +<li class="isub1">reference to, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Fachinham, N., biographical note, <a href="#Footnote_125">50 n. 3.</a></li> + +<li class="indx" id="FEL">Felinus, M. S., biographical note, <a href="#Footnote_121">49 n. 2;</a></li> +<li class="isub1">cited, <a href="#Page_49">49</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Fishing, an ancient national right, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">free to all, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_38">38</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">not legal to prevent, <a href="#Page_33">33</a>, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">revenues from, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">a servitude, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Fleets, maintenance of, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Free navigation, chapter on, <a href="#Page_7">7</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Freedom of trade, basis of, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">chapter on, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">Dutch should have, <a href="#Page_75">75</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">French, mention of, <a href="#Page_43">43</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">navigation by, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>.</li> + + +<li class="ifrst">Gaius Caesar, mention of, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Genoese, mention of, <a href="#Page_48">48</a>, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>, <a href="#Page_54">54</a>, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_58">58</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Gentilis, A., biographical note, <a href="#Footnote_5">8 n. 2.</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Goa, mention of, <a href="#Page_79">79</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Gorcum, H. v., cited, <a href="#Footnote_192">75 n. 3.</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Gordianus, Fab. Claud., biographical note, <a href="#Footnote_17">12 n. 1;</a></li> +<li class="isub1">mention of, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Grandpont, A. G. de., <a href="#Page_xi">xi</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Greeks, reference to, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Gregory, mention of, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx" id="GRE">Gregory of Nazianzus, cited, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Guicciardini, cited, <a href="#Footnote_167">68 n. 2.</a></li> + + +<li class="ifrst">Hanno, reference to, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Harris, E. I., translations from, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Hercules, mention of, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Hermogenianus, quoted, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Hesiod, quoted, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">reference to, <a href="#Page_22">22</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Homer, cited, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Horace, quoted, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_23">23</a>, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Hugo, reference from, <a href="#Footnote_33">16 n. 3.</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Hunting, an ancient national right, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>.</li> + + +<li class="ifrst">India, mention of, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Inner sea, as distinguished from outer sea, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Innocentius, reference from, <a href="#Footnote_40">19 n. 2.</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Innocent passage, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_43">43</a>, <a href="#Page_74">74</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">International rights, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Isernia, A., biographical note, <a href="#Page_36">36 n. *.</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Isocrates, cited, <a href="#Footnote_178">72 n. 1,</a> <a href="#Footnote_179">2</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Israelites, mention of, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>.</li> + + +<li class="ifrst">James, H. R., translation from, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Jason, cited, <a href="#Footnote_137">54 n. 1.</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Java, mention of, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">John, King of Portugal, mention of, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Jowett, B., translation from, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Jurisdiction, distinguished from ownership, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>.</li> + + +<li class="ifrst">Labeo, quoted, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>, <a href="#Page_74">74</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Law of Human Society, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Law of Nations, <a href="#Page_7">7</a>, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">right conception of, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Law of Nature, <a href="#Page_2">2</a>, <a href="#Page_5">5</a>, <a href="#Page_23">23</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">right conception of, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Law of property, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Legitimate rulers, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Leo, Emperor, cited, <a href="#Page_33">33</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Lucullus, mention of, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>.</li> + + +<li class="ifrst">Mair, A. W., translation from, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Malacca, mention of, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Marcianus, cited, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_48">48</a>, <a href="#Page_49">49</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">reference to, <a href="#Page_33">33</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Martial, quoted, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Martin, J. C., <a href="#Page_xii">xii</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Megarians, mention of, <a href="#Page_8">8</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Mendoza, A. H. de, mention of, <a href="#Page_79">79</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Miller, W., translations from, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_38">38</a>, <a href="#Page_75">75</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Milton, quoted, <a href="#Page_11">11 n. *.</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Moluccas, mention of, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Monopoly, question of, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Morocco, mention of, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>.</li> + + +<li class="ifrst">Natural Law, <a href="#Page_2">2</a>, <a href="#Page_5">5</a>, <a href="#Page_23">23</a>, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Navigation, Dutch, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">free to all, <a href="#Page_7">7</a>, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_38">38</a>, <a href="#Page_44">44</a>, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, + <a href="#Page_56">56</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">Portuguese, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">prescriptive right claimed by Portuguese, <a href="#Page_54">54</a>, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">protection of, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Nazianzenus, <a href="#GRE">see Gregory of Nazianzus</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Neratius, reference to, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Nonius Marcellus, quoted, <a href="#Footnote_18">12 n. 2.</a></li> + + +<li class="ifrst">Occupation, definition of, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>, <a href="#Page_39">39</a>, <a href="#Page_48">48</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">mention of, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">not to affect common use, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Oldradus (Oldrado de Ponte), biographical note, <a href="#Footnote_189">74 n. 5.</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Osorius, H., biographical note, <a href="#Footnote_146">59 n. 1.</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Outer sea, as distinguished from inner sea, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Ovid, quoted, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Ownership, common, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">private, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_33">33</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">transition to, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>.</li> + + +<li class="ifrst">Panormitanus, cited, <a href="#Footnote_165">67 n. 2.</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Papal Donation, chapters on, <a href="#Page_15">15</a>, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Papinian, cited, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1"><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_83"></a>[83]</span>quoted, <a href="#Page_48">48</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Paul III, Pope, reference to, <a href="#Page_21">21</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Paulus, cited, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Personal right, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Peter, St., mention of, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Philip III of Spain, letters of, <a href="#Page_77">77</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Pickard-Cambridge, translation from, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Pirates, treatment of, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Placentinus, quoted, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Plato, cited, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Plautus, quoted, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Pliny, cited, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">quoted, <a href="#Page_7">7</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Plutarch, reference to, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Polus Lucanus, cited, <a href="#Footnote_182">73 n. 1.</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Pomponius, cited, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_75">75</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Pomponius Mela, quoted, <a href="#Footnote_103">40 n. 1.</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Pope, The, no right in temporal matters, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">no authority against law of nature and of nations, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Portuguese, arrogant pretensions of, <a href="#Page_39">39</a>, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>, <a href="#Page_43">43</a>, <a href="#Page_75">75</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">claim of exclusive right to trade, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">claim to ocean, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">desire for profits, <a href="#Page_42">42</a>, <a href="#Page_69">69</a>, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">mention of, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">not first in East Indies, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Prescription, acquisition by, <a href="#Page_49">49</a>, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">chapters on, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">definition of, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">failure of, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">immemorial time no help to, <a href="#Page_49">49</a>, <a href="#Page_58">58</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">reference to, <a href="#Page_4">4</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Pretexts for war, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Private possessions, reference to, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Privative right, <a href="#Page_23">23</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Propertius, quoted, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Property, origin of, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Ptolemaeus, cited, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Public opinion, <a href="#Page_3">3</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Public territory, origin of, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>.</li> + + +<li class="ifrst">Quintilian, quoted, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>.</li> + + +<li class="ifrst">Revenues, on fisheries, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Right of innocent passage, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_43">43</a>, <a href="#Page_74">74</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Right of navigation, not Portuguese because of Papal Donation, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Rivalry, comment on, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Roman Church, mention of, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>.</li> + + +<li class="ifrst">Sandeus, <a href="#FEL">see Felinus</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Saracens, reference to, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Scaevola, mention of, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Scott, J. B., Introductory note by, <a href="#Page_v">v</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Sea, The, common to all, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_43">43</a>, <a href="#Page_44">44</a>, + <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">defined by law of nations, <a href="#Page_22">22</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">nature of, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>, <a href="#Page_39">39</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">not exhausted by use, <a href="#Page_43">43</a>, <a href="#Page_57">57</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">not merchandise, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">not Portuguese by Papal Donation, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">not subject to servitude, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">sovereignty of, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Seashore, common to all, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">how to be used, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">right of Roman people to, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Seneca, cited, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">quoted, <a href="#Page_8">8</a>, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Shahan, Bishop, <a href="#Page_xii">xii</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Sigonius, C., biographical note, <a href="#Footnote_9">9 n. 2.</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Silvestris, cited, <a href="#Footnote_113">46 n. 1.</a></li> + +<li class="indx" id="SIL">Silvius, F., biographical note, <a href="#Footnote_36">17 n. 1;</a></li> +<li class="isub1">reference from, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Smith, K. F., <a href="#Page_xi">xi</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Sovereignty, grant by reason of, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">matter of positive law, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">Papal Donation gives no right to, chapter on, <a href="#Page_15">15</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">a particular proprietorship, <a href="#Page_22">22</a>, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">by right of conquest, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">by right of discovery, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">title to, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">universal, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Spaniards, arrogance of, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">claim to ocean, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_54">54</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">mention of, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Strabo, quoted, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Sylvius, <a href="#SIL">see Silvius</a>.</li> + + +<li class="ifrst">Tacitus, quoted, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Temporal possessions, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Theodoric, King, quoted, <a href="#Page_75">75</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Thucydides, cited, <a href="#Footnote_178">72 n. 1;</a></li> +<li class="isub1">quoted, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Title by prescription, destroyed, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Tolls, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Torquemada, <a href="#TUR">see Turre Cremata</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Trade, freedom of, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>, <a href="#Page_72">72</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">origin of, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">Portuguese claim to right of, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Trajan, mention of, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx" id="TUR">Turre Cremata, reference from, <a href="#Footnote_33">16 n. 3.</a></li> + + +<li class="ifrst">Ulpian, cited, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>, <a href="#Page_33">33</a>, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_44">44</a>, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>, + <a href="#Page_74">74</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">reference to, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_69">69</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Use, definition of, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">sea not exhausted by, <a href="#Page_43">43</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">things susceptible to universal, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Usurpation, definition of, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">Portuguese worthless, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx"><i>Uti possidetis</i>, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>.</li> + + +<li class="ifrst">Varro, reference to, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Vasquius, F. M. (Vasquez), biographical note, <a href="#Footnote_133">52 n. 4;</a></li> +<li class="isub1">cited, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">quoted, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_58">58</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Venetians, mention of, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_43">43</a>, <a href="#Page_48">48</a>, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>, <a href="#Page_54">54</a>, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, + <a href="#Page_58">58</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Vergil, quoted, <a href="#Page_7">7</a>, <a href="#Page_8">8</a>, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>;</li> +<li class="isub1">reference to, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Victoria, F. de, biographical note, <a href="#Footnote_10">9 n. 3;</a></li> +<li class="isub1">reference to, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_13">13</a>, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>.</li> + + +<li class="ifrst">War, pretexts for, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Water, common to all, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">West Indies, claimed by Portuguese, <a href="#Page_54">54</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">Willoughby, W. W., <a href="#Page_xii">xii</a>.</li> + +<li class="indx">World monopoly, question of, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>.</li> + + +<li class="ifrst">Zuarius, R., biographical note, <a href="#Footnote_111">44 n. 3.</a></li> +</ul> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> + +<div class="chapter"> +<h2 class="nobreak" id="FOOTNOTES1">FOOTNOTES:</h2> +</div> + + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_A" href="#FNanchor_A" class="label">[A]</a> For the freedom of the seas and the relation of Grotius to the doctrine, +see Ernest Nys’s <cite lang="fr">Les Origines du Droit International</cite> (1894), pp. 379-387, and +the same author’s <cite lang="fr">Etudes de Droit International et de Droit Politique</cite>, 2<sup>e</sup> série +(1901), <cite lang="fr">Une Bataille de Livres</cite>, pp. 260-272. For an account in English see +Walker’s <cite>History of the Law of Nations</cite>, Vol. I (1899), pp. 278-283.</p> + +<p>For an interesting sketch of the illustrious author of the <cite>Mare Liberum</cite>, see +Motley’s <cite>The Life and Death of John of Barneveld</cite>, Vol. II, Chap. XXII; +for an analysis of Grotius’ views on the law of nations, see Hallam’s <cite>Introduction +to the Literature of Europe</cite> (4th edition), Vol. II, Part III, Chap. +IV, Sec. III; for an account of Grotius as a humanist, see Sandys’ <cite>History +of Classical Scholarship</cite> (1908), Vol. II, pp. 315-319.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_B" href="#FNanchor_B" class="label">[B]</a> <cite lang="la">Hugonis Grotii De Jure Praedae</cite>, edited, with an introduction, by H. G. +Hamaker, and published at The Hague in 1868 by Martinus Nijhoff.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_C" href="#FNanchor_C" class="label">[C]</a> In support of the view that Grotius appeared as counsel in cases arising +out of captures made by vessels in the service of the Dutch East India Company, +and that the treatise, <cite lang="la">De Jure Praedae</cite>, is a legal brief, see R. Fruin’s <cite lang="nl">Een +Onuitgegeven Werk van Hugo De Groot</cite> in <cite lang="de">Verspreide Geschriften</cite>, Vol. III, +pp. 367-445. The following passages are quoted from this remarkable essay:</p> + +<p>“While busy with the sale of the goods [of the captured merchantman +<i>Catherine</i>, which had been unloaded in the Amsterdam arsenal], the process of +adjudicating the booty before the admiralty court was conducted in the usual +forms. Claimants: Advocate General of Holland, the Board of eight Aldermen, +and Admiral Heemskerck; ... on Thursday, September 9, 1604, final sentence +was rendered, and ‘the merchantman together with the goods taken from it +were declared forfeited and confiscated’” (pp. 389-390).</p> + +<p>“Hulsius in some measure replaces what the fire at the Marine Arsenal +has robbed us of; among other records he has preserved for us in his <cite lang="de">Achte +Schiffart</cite> the sentence pronounced in this matter by the admiralty, and of which +we have knowledge from no other sources. From it we learn the grounds upon +which the claimants demanded the adjudication of the booty. These grounds +are the same twelve which De Groot discusses in his book.... This concordance +can be explained on the ground that De Groot must have had acquaintance with +the sentence; but he was not a man merely to repeat what others had before him +witnessed. I should be inclined to feel that in the process he had served as +counsel for the Company, and that he himself was one of the authors of the +written claim upon which the sentence was based. It would not then be surprising +if in his book he should develop at greater length and throw light upon +what had already been set forth in the claim” (pp. 390-391).</p> + +<p>“I cannot state definitely that Hugo De Groot was persuaded by the Directors +to write such an argument; I have been unable to discover any evidence to +that end. That he was in close relations with the Company, he himself says in +a letter of later date, addressed to his brother. Nor can there be any doubt +that in writing his work he made use of the archives of the United Company and +of its predecessor. If the supposition, which I have elsewhere ventured to make +is correct, that is to say, that in the conduct of the case he appeared as advocate +for the Company, it would then appear most probable that, after consultation +with the directors, he set about writing his book, which was to be a second plea +in their behalf” (p. 403).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_D" href="#FNanchor_D" class="label">[D]</a> For the account which Grotius himself gives of the incident, see his <cite lang="la">Annales +et Historiae de Rebus Belgicis ab Obitu Philippi Regis usque ad Inducias Anni</cite> +1609, written in 1612, but first published in 1658, Book 1, p. 429.</p> + +<p>For a fuller account of the circumstances under which the treatise on the +law of prize was written, see Hamaker’s edition of the <cite lang="la">De Jure Praedae</cite>, pp. +vii-viii. The distinguished historian and scholar, Robert J. Fruin, after an +exhaustive examination of the evidence, informed Hamaker that Grotius was +retained by the Company to prepare the commentary on the law of prize. The +English translation of Hamaker’s exact statement reads as follows: “Fruin is +of the opinion that he [Grotius] undertook this work at the instance of the +Company, and that he appeared in it as their spokesman.”</p> + +<p>For an analysis of the commentary <cite lang="la">De Jure Praedae</cite> and the circumstances +under which it was written, see Jules Basdevant’s study on Grotius, pp. 131-137, +155-179, in Pillet’s <cite lang="fr">Les Fondateurs du Droit International</cite> (1904).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_E" href="#FNanchor_E" class="label">[E]</a> Selden’s <cite>Mare Clausum</cite> was not the only defense of England, nor was the +<cite>Mare Liberum</cite> the only lance which Grotius broke for the freedom of the seas. +In 1613 William Welwod, professor of Civil Law at the University of Aberdeen, +published a little book entitled <cite>An Abridgement of all the Sea-Lawes</cite>, in which +he maintained the English side of the question, of which Title XXVII, pp. 61-72, +deals with the community and property of the seas. Two years later Welwod +published a second work, this time in Latin, entitled <cite lang="la">De Dominio Maris Juribusque +ad Dominium praecipue Spectantibus Assertia Brevis ac Methodica</cite>.</p> + +<p>Grotius prepared, but did not publish, a reply to Welwod’s first attack, +entitled <cite lang="la">Defensio Capitis Quinti Maris Liberi Oppugnati a Gulielmo Welwodo +Juris Civilis Professore, Capite XXVII ejus Libri Scripti Anglica Sermone cui +Titulum Fecit Compendium Legum Maritimarum</cite>. It was discovered at the +same time as the commentary <cite lang="la">De Jure Praedae</cite> and was published in 1872 in +Muller’s <cite lang="nl">Mare Clausum, Bijdrage tot de geschiedenis der rivaliteit van Engeland +en Nederland in de zeventiende eeuw</cite>.</p> + +</div> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> + +<div class="chapter"> +<h2 class="nobreak" id="FOOTNOTES2">FOOTNOTES:</h2> +</div> + + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_1a" href="#FNanchor_1a" class="label">[1a]</a> Panegyricus 29, 2: quod genitum esset usquam, id apud omnes natum esse +videtur.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_2a" href="#FNanchor_2a" class="label">[2a]</a> Vergil, Georgica II, 109.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_3a" href="#FNanchor_3a" class="label">[3a]</a> Vergil, Aeneis VI, 847-853.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_4a" href="#FNanchor_4a" class="label">[4a]</a> Naturales Quaestiones III, IV.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_5a" href="#FNanchor_5a" class="label">[5a]</a> Institutes II, 1 (De rerum divisione, § 1); Digest I, 8, 4 (eod. tit., L. +Nemo igitur); cf. Gentilis, De jure belli I, 19; cf. Code IV, 63, 4 (De commerciis, +L. Mercatores).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_6a" href="#FNanchor_6a" class="label">[6a]</a> Vergil, Aeneis I, 539-540.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_7a" href="#FNanchor_7a" class="label">[7a]</a> Vergil, Aeneis VII, 229-230.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_8a" href="#FNanchor_8a" class="label">[8a]</a> Diodorus Siculus XI; Plutarch, Pericles XXIX, 4.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_9a" href="#FNanchor_9a" class="label">[9a]</a> Sigonius, De regno Italiae.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_10a" href="#FNanchor_10a" class="label">[10a]</a> Victoria, De Indis II, n. 1-7; Covarruvias, in c. Peccatum, § 9, n. 4, ibi +Quinta.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_11a" href="#FNanchor_11a" class="label">[11a]</a> Numbers XXI, 21-26.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_12a" href="#FNanchor_12a" class="label">[12a]</a> Augustinus, Locutionum IV (de Numeris), 44; Et Estius, c. ult. 23, 4, 2.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_13a" href="#FNanchor_13a" class="label">[13a]</a> Sophocles, Trachiniae.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_14a" href="#FNanchor_14a" class="label">[14a]</a> Baldus de Ubaldis, Consilia III, 293.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_15a" href="#FNanchor_15a" class="label">[15a]</a> Tacitus, Historiae IV, 64.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_16a" href="#FNanchor_16a" class="label">[16a]</a> Andreas Alciatus, Commentaria VII, 130; Covarruvias in c. Peccatum, p. +2 § 9; Bartolus on Code I, 11 (De paganis, L. 1).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_17a" href="#FNanchor_17a" class="label">[17a]</a> Code VIII, 40, 13 (De fideiussoribus, L. Si Barsagoram).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_18a" href="#FNanchor_18a" class="label">[18a]</a> Nonius Marcellus, De varia significatione sermonum, in verbo ‘occupare’ +(p. 562, Lindsay); cf. Connanus, Commentarii juris civilis III, 3; cf. Donellus, +Commentarii de jure civili IV, 10.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_19a" href="#FNanchor_19a" class="label">[19a]</a> Institutes II, 1, 13 (De rerum divisione, § Illud quaesitum est).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_20a" href="#FNanchor_20a" class="label">[20a]</a> Digest XLI, 2, 3 (De adquirenda possessione, § Neratius).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_21a" href="#FNanchor_21a" class="label">[21a]</a> Epistulae I, 1, 44-45.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_22a" href="#FNanchor_22a" class="label">[22a]</a> Pliny, Naturalis historia VI, 22.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_23a" href="#FNanchor_23a" class="label">[23a]</a> Digest XLI, 1, 3 (De adquirendo rerum dominio).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_24a" href="#FNanchor_24a" class="label">[24a]</a> Covarruvias in c. Peccatum § 10, n. 2, 4, 5.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_25a" href="#FNanchor_25a" class="label">[25a]</a> De potestate civili I, 9.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_26a" href="#FNanchor_26a" class="label">[26a]</a> Thomas Aquinas, Summa II. II, q. 10, a. 12.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_27a" href="#FNanchor_27a" class="label">[27a]</a> De Indis I, n. 4-7, 19.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_28a" href="#FNanchor_28a" class="label">[28a]</a> Vasquius, Preface (n. 5) to Controversiae illustres.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_29a" href="#FNanchor_29a" class="label">[29a]</a> Cf. Osorium.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_30a" href="#FNanchor_30a" class="label">[30a]</a> Institutes II, 1, 40 (De rerum divisione, § Per traditionem).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_31a" href="#FNanchor_31a" class="label">[31a]</a> Luke XII, 14; John XVIII, 36; Victoria, De Indis I, n. 25.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_32a" href="#FNanchor_32a" class="label">[32a]</a> Victoria XVI, n. 27.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_33a" href="#FNanchor_33a" class="label">[33a]</a> Vasquius, Controversiae illustres, c. 21; Turre Cremata II, c. 113; Hugo on +Dist. XCVI, C. VI (Cum ad verum); Bernhardus, De consolatione ad +<ins class="corr" id="fn-33a" title="Transcriber’s Note—Original text: 'Eugenium II'"> +Eugenium III</ins>; Victoria, De Indis I, n. 27; Covarruvias in c. Peccatum § 9, n. 7.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_34a" href="#FNanchor_34a" class="label">[34a]</a> Matthew XVII, 27; XX, 26; John VI, 15.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_35a" href="#FNanchor_35a" class="label">[35a]</a> Victoria, De Indis I, n. 28, 30; Covarruvias on +I <ins class="corr" id="fn-35a" title="Transcriber’s Note—Original text: 'Corinthinas V'"> +Corinthians V</ins> in fine; +Thomas Aquinas, Summa II. II, q. 12, a. 2; Ayala, De Jure I, 2, 29.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_36a" href="#FNanchor_36a" class="label">[36a]</a> Thomas Aquinas, Summa II. II, q. 66, a. 8; Silvius, De infidelibus § 7; +Innocentius on Decretales Gregorii Papae IX, III, 34, 8 (De voto, c. Quod super +his); Victoria, De Indis I, n. 31.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_37a" href="#FNanchor_37a" class="label">[37a]</a> De Indis I, n. 31.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_38a" href="#FNanchor_38a" class="label">[38a]</a> Vasquius, Controversiae illustres, c. 24; Victoria, De Indis II, n. 10.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_39a" href="#FNanchor_39a" class="label">[39a]</a> De consolatione philosophiae IV, carmen 4, 7-10.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_40a" href="#FNanchor_40a" class="label">[40a]</a> Thomas Aquinas, Summa II. II, q. 10, a. 8; Dist. XLV, C. V (De Iudeis), +C. III (Qui sincera); Innocentius, cf. <a href="#Footnote_36a">note 1, page 17</a>; Bartolus on Code I, 11, 1 +(De paganis); Covarruvias in c. Peccatum, § 9, 10; Ayala, De Jure I, 2, 28.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_41a" href="#FNanchor_41a" class="label">[41a]</a> Matthew X, 23.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_42a" href="#FNanchor_42a" class="label">[42a]</a> On Thomas Aquinas, Summa II. II, q. 4, 66, a. 8.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_43a" href="#FNanchor_43a" class="label">[43a]</a> Victoria, De Indis II, 1.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_44a" href="#FNanchor_44a" class="label">[44a]</a> Castrensis on Digest I, 1, 5 (De iustitia et iure, L. Ex hoc iure); Dist. I, +C. VII (Ius naturale).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_45a" href="#FNanchor_45a" class="label">[45a]</a> Vasquius, Controversiae illustres, c. 1, n. 10; Lib. VI, V, 12, 3 (De +verborum significatione, c. Exiit, qui seminat); Clem. V, 11 (De verborum significatione, +c. Exivi de paradiso).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_46a" href="#FNanchor_46a" class="label">[46a]</a> Sermones II, 2, 129-130.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_47a" href="#FNanchor_47a" class="label">[47a]</a> Avienus, Aratus 302-303 [promisca quetura V; promiscaque cura A; iura +peragros; praestiterat Buhlius, Breyzig].</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_48a" href="#FNanchor_48a" class="label">[48a]</a> Seneca, Octavia 413-414.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_49a" href="#FNanchor_49a" class="label">[49a]</a> Avienus, Aratus 302.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_50a" href="#FNanchor_50a" class="label">[50a]</a> Digest VII, 5 (De usu fructu earum rerum, quae usu consumuntur vel +minuuntur); Extravag. XIV, 3 et 5 (De verborum significatione, c. Ad conditorem, +et c. Quia quorundam); Thomas Aquinas, Summa II. II, q. 78.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_51a" href="#FNanchor_51a" class="label">[51a]</a> Thyestes 203-204 (F. CXXII).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_52a" href="#FNanchor_52a" class="label">[52a]</a> De beneficiis VII, 12, 3.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_53a" href="#FNanchor_53a" class="label">[53a]</a> Ps. Quintilianus, Declamatio XIII (Pro paupere).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_54a" href="#FNanchor_54a" class="label">[54a]</a> Cicero, De officiis I.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_55a" href="#FNanchor_55a" class="label">[55a]</a> Digest I, 1, 5 (De iustitia et iure, L. Ex hoc iure).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_56a" href="#FNanchor_56a" class="label">[56a]</a> Vergil, Georgica I, 139-140; Ovid, Metamorphoses I, 121.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_57a" href="#FNanchor_57a" class="label">[57a]</a> Ovid, Metamorphoses I, 135-136.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_58a" href="#FNanchor_58a" class="label">[58a]</a> Ovid, Metamorphoses I, 134 (exsultavere, Magnus).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_59a" href="#FNanchor_59a" class="label">[59a]</a> De beneficiis VII, 4, 3.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_60a" href="#FNanchor_60a" class="label">[60a]</a> Octavia 431-432.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_61a" href="#FNanchor_61a" class="label">[61a]</a> De officiis I, 21.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_62a" href="#FNanchor_62a" class="label">[62a]</a> Thucydides I, 139, 2.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_63a" href="#FNanchor_63a" class="label">[63a]</a> Duarenus on Digest I, 8 (De divisione rerum).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_64a" href="#FNanchor_64a" class="label">[64a]</a> De officiis I, 51.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_65a" href="#FNanchor_65a" class="label">[65a]</a> De officiis I, 52.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_66a" href="#FNanchor_66a" class="label">[66a]</a> Ovid, Metamorphoses VI, 349-351 (aquis, 349, and ad publica, 351, Merkel).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_67a" href="#FNanchor_67a" class="label">[67a]</a> Digest VIII, 4, 13 (Communia praediorum, L. Venditor).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_68a" href="#FNanchor_68a" class="label">[68a]</a> Digest XLI, 1, 14 (De adquirendo rerum dominio, L. Quod in litore); +Comines, Memoirs III, 2; Donellus IV, 2; Digest XLI, 3, 49 (De usucapionibus).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_69a" href="#FNanchor_69a" class="label">[69a]</a> Digest I, 8, 10 (De divisione rerum, L. Aristo).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_70a" href="#FNanchor_70a" class="label">[70a]</a> Cicero, Loco citato. [Pro Sex. Roscio Amerino 26, 72].</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_71a" href="#FNanchor_71a" class="label">[71a]</a> Institutes II, 1, 1 et 5 (De rerum divisione, § Et quidem naturali; +§ Litorum); Digest I, 8, 1, 2, 10 (De rerum divisione); Digest XLI, 1, 14 et 50 +(De adquirendo rerum dominio, L. Quod in litore, et L. Quamvis); Digest XLVII, +10, 13 (De iniuriis, L. Iniuriarum § si quis me); Digest XLIII, 8, 3 (Ne quid in +loco publico, L. Litora) et 4-7.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_72a" href="#FNanchor_72a" class="label">[72a]</a> 975, 977, 985 (IV, 3).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_73a" href="#FNanchor_73a" class="label">[73a]</a> Donellus IV, 2.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_74a" href="#FNanchor_74a" class="label">[74a]</a> Digest XXXIX, 2, 24 (De damno infecto, L. Fluminum); other references +same as note 1, page 29.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_75a" href="#FNanchor_75a" class="label">[75a]</a> Donellus IV, 2 et 9; also references in note 1, page 29.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_76a" href="#FNanchor_76a" class="label">[76a]</a> Digest I, 8, 4 (De divisione rerum, L. Nemo igitur); XLIII, 8, 3 (Ne quid +in loco publico, L. Litora).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_77a" href="#FNanchor_77a" class="label">[77a]</a> Horace, Carmina III, i, 33-34.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_78a" href="#FNanchor_78a" class="label">[78a]</a> Digest XLIII, 8, 3 (as in note 1); 8, 2 (eod. tit., L. Praetor, § Adversus).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_79a" href="#FNanchor_79a" class="label">[79a]</a> Digest XLIII, 12, 1 (De fluminibus, L. Ait praetor, § Si in mari).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_80a" href="#FNanchor_80a" class="label">[80a]</a> Pliny, Naturalis historia IX, 54, 170.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_81a" href="#FNanchor_81a" class="label">[81a]</a> Martial, Epigrammata X, 30, 19-20.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_82a" href="#FNanchor_82a" class="label">[82a]</a> De Nabuthe, cap. 3.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_83a" href="#FNanchor_83a" class="label">[83a]</a> Digest XLVII, 10, 14 (De iniuriis, L. Sane si maris).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_84a" href="#FNanchor_84a" class="label">[84a]</a> Cf. <a href="#Footnote_76a">note 1, page 31</a>.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_85a" href="#FNanchor_85a" class="label">[85a]</a> Digest XLIV, 3, 7 (De diversis, L. Si quisquam).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_86a" href="#FNanchor_86a" class="label">[86a]</a> Digest XLI, 3, 45 (De usucapionibus, L, Praescriptio).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_87a" href="#FNanchor_87a" class="label">[87a]</a> Digest XLVII, 10, 13 (De iniuriis, L. Iniuriarum, § Si quis me).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_88a" href="#FNanchor_88a" class="label">[88a]</a> Novella Leonis, 102, 103, 104; cf. Cuiacium XIV, 1.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_89a" href="#FNanchor_89a" class="label">[89a]</a> Hexameron V, 10, 27.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_90a" href="#FNanchor_90a" class="label">[90a]</a> Donellus IV, 6.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_91a" href="#FNanchor_91a" class="label">[91a]</a> Joannes Faber on Institutes II, 1 (§ Litorum); Digest XIV, 2, 9 (De Lege +Rhodia, L. Ἀξίωσις).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_92a" href="#FNanchor_92a" class="label">[92a]</a> Digest XLIII, 8, 3 (Ne quid in loco publico, L. Litora).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_93a" href="#FNanchor_93a" class="label">[93a]</a> Digest V, 1, 9 (De iudiciis, L. Insulae); XXXIX, 4, 15 (De publicanis, +L. Caesar); Gloss. on Digest I, 8, 2 (De divisione rerum, L. Quaedam); Institutes +II, 1; Baldus on Quaedam (above).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_94a" href="#FNanchor_94a" class="label">[94a]</a> Baldus, Quibus modis feudi amittuntur, c. In principio, 2 col; Code XI, +13, 1; Angelus on Digest XLVII, 10, 14 (De iniuriis, L. Sane); Digest VIII, 4, 13 +(Communia praediorum, L. Venditor fundi) et 4 (L. Caveri).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_95a" href="#FNanchor_95a" class="label">[95a]</a> C. Quae sint Regalia, in Feudis.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_96a" href="#FNanchor_96a" class="label">[96a]</a> Balbus, De praescriptionibus IV, 5; 1, q. 6, n. 4.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_97a" href="#FNanchor_97a" class="label">[97a]</a> Digest XLVII, 10, 13 (De iniuriis, L. Iniuriarum, § 7, v. conductori); +XLIII, 9, 1 (De loco publico fruendo).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_98a" href="#FNanchor_98a" class="label">[98a]</a> <a href="#Footnote_95">Cf. note 1</a>.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_99a" href="#FNanchor_99a" class="label">[99a]</a> Ennius: ‘Nihilo minus ipsi lucet, cum illi accenderit’. Vahlen,<a id="FNanchor_100ax" href="#Footnote_100a" class="fnanchor">[100a]</a> Fab. Inc. +398 (Telephus?).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_100a" href="#FNanchor_100a" class="label">[100a]</a> Cicero, De officiis I, 51.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_101a" href="#FNanchor_101a" class="label">[101a]</a> Seneca, De beneficiis III, 28 [IV, 28].</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_102a" href="#FNanchor_102a" class="label">[102a]</a> Johannes Faber on Institutes II, 1, 5 (De rerum divisione, § Litorum).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_103a" href="#FNanchor_103a" class="label">[103a]</a> Pliny, Naturalis historia II, 69; VI, 27 [(31) Vol. 1, pp. 482-488 Mayhoff]; +Pomponius Mela, De situ orbis III.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_104a" href="#FNanchor_104a" class="label">[104a]</a> Pliny, Naturalis historia VI, 20 (23).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_105a" href="#FNanchor_105a" class="label">[105a]</a> Geographica II et XVII.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_106a" href="#FNanchor_106a" class="label">[106a]</a> Pliny, Naturalis historia XII, 19 [VI, 23].</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_107a" href="#FNanchor_107a" class="label">[107a]</a> Gloss. on Lib. VI, I, 6, 3 (De electione, c. Ubi periculum, § Porro); on +Digest II, 12, 3 (De feriis, L. Solet [Grotius has Licet]).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_108a" href="#FNanchor_108a" class="label">[108a]</a> Digest I, 8, 4 (De divisione rerum, L. Nemo igitur); Gentilis, De jure +belli I, 19.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_109a" href="#FNanchor_109a" class="label">[109a]</a> Digest XLIII, 8, 2 (Ne quid in loco publico, L. Praetor ait, § Si quis in +mari).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_110a" href="#FNanchor_110a" class="label">[110a]</a> Gloss. on Digest XLIII, 14 (Ut in flumine publico).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_111a" href="#FNanchor_111a" class="label">[111a]</a> Baldus on Digest I, 8, 3 (De divisione rerum, L. Item lapilli); Zuarius, +Consilia duo de usu maris I, 3, part. tit. 28, L. 10 et 12.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_112a" href="#FNanchor_112a" class="label">[112a]</a> Victoria, De Indis I (II?), n. 26.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_113a" href="#FNanchor_113a" class="label">[113a]</a> Silvestris, In verbo Papa. n. 16.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_114a" href="#FNanchor_114a" class="label">[114a]</a> Vasquius, Controversiae illustres, c. 51.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_115a" href="#FNanchor_115a" class="label">[115a]</a> Donellus, V, 22 et seq.; Digest XVIII, 1, 6 (De contrahenda emptione, L. +Sed Celsus); XLI, 3, 9 (De usucapionibus, L. Usucapionem), 25 (L. Sine); +Lib. VI, V, 12 (De regulis iuris, Reg. Sine possessione); Digest L, 16, 28 (De +verborum significatione, L. ‘Alienationis’); XXIII, 5, 16 (De fundo dotali, L. +Si fundum).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_116a" href="#FNanchor_116a" class="label">[116a]</a> Digest XLI, 3, 45 (De usucapionibus); Code VIII, 11, 6 (De operis publicis, +L. Praescriptio); XI, 43, 9 (De aquaeductu, L. Diligenter); Digest XLIII, 11, 2 +(De via publica, L. Viam); XLI, 3, 49 (De usucapionibus, L. ult.).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_117a" href="#FNanchor_117a" class="label">[117a]</a> Consilia 286; Thema tale est: inter caetera capitula pacis.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_118a" href="#FNanchor_118a" class="label">[118a]</a> Digest XLIV, 3, 7 (De diversis temporalibus praescriptionibus, L. Si +quisquam).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_119a" href="#FNanchor_119a" class="label">[119a]</a> Duarenus, De usucapionibus, c. 3; Cuiacius on Digest XLI, 3, 49 (De +usucapionibus, L. ult.); Donellus V, 22 on Digest XLI, 1, 14 (De adquirendo +rerum dominio, L. Quod in litore).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_120a" href="#FNanchor_120a" class="label">[120a]</a> Code XI, 43, 4 (De aquaeductu, L. Usum aquae); cf. eod. tit., L. Diligenter; +cf. Digest XLIII, 20, 3 (De aqua cottidiana et aestiva, L. Hoc iure, § Ductus +aquae).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_121a" href="#FNanchor_121a" class="label">[121a]</a> On Decretales Gregorii Papae IX, II, 26, 11 (De praescriptionibus, c. +Accedentes).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_122a" href="#FNanchor_122a" class="label">[122a]</a> De praescriptionibus IV, 5, q. 6, n. 8.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_123a" href="#FNanchor_123a" class="label">[123a]</a> On Digest XLI, 3, 49 (De usucapionibus, L. ult.).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_124a" href="#FNanchor_124a" class="label">[124a]</a> Par. 3, tit. 29, I. 7 in c. Placa.; Zuarius, Consilia, num. 4.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_125a" href="#FNanchor_125a" class="label">[125a]</a> Fachinham VIII, c. 26 et c, 33; Duarenus, De praescriptionibus, parte 2, § 2, +n. 8; § 8, n. 5 et 6.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_126a" href="#FNanchor_126a" class="label">[126a]</a> Fachinham VIII, c. 28.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_127a" href="#FNanchor_127a" class="label">[127a]</a> Angelus Aretinus in rubr. Digest I, 8 (De divisione rerum); Balbus, l. c., +n. 2; cf. Vasquium, Controversiae illustres c. 29, n. 38.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_128a" href="#FNanchor_128a" class="label">[128a]</a> On Digest XLVII, 10, 14 (De iniuriis, L. Sane).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_129a" href="#FNanchor_129a" class="label">[129a]</a> Digest XLVII, 10, 13 (De iniuriis, L. Iniuriarum, § ult.)</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_130a" href="#FNanchor_130a" class="label">[130a]</a> Cf. Gloss. eodem loco.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_131a" href="#FNanchor_131a" class="label">[131a]</a> De officiis ministrorum I, 28; Gentilis I, 19 (sub finem).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_132a" href="#FNanchor_132a" class="label">[132a]</a> Auth. Ut nulli Iudicum § 1, c. cum tanto de consuetudine.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_133a" href="#FNanchor_133a" class="label">[133a]</a> Controversiae illustres c. 89, n. 12 et seq.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_134a" href="#FNanchor_134a" class="label">[134a]</a> De potestate legis poenalis II, 14, part. 572.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_135a" href="#FNanchor_135a" class="label">[135a]</a> Digest XLI, 1, 14 (De adquirendo rerum dominio, L. Quod in litore); XLI, +3 (De usucapionibus, L. fin. in prin.); Institutes II, 1, 2 (De rerum divisione, +§ Flumina, v. omnibus); Digest XLIV, 3, 7 (De diversis temporalibus praescriptionibus, +L. Si quisquam); XLVII, 10, 14 (De iniuriis, L. Sane si maris).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_136a" href="#FNanchor_136a" class="label">[136a]</a> Digest I, 1, 5 (De iustitia et iure, L. Ex hoc iure); Institutes I, 2 (De iure +naturali et gentium et civili, § 2, v. ius autem gentium).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_137a" href="#FNanchor_137a" class="label">[137a]</a> Digest XLI, 3, 4, 26 (27) (De usucapionibus, L. Sequitur § Si viam); +Institutes IV, 6, 14 (De actionibus, § Sic itaque); Ut dictis juribus et L. cum +filio, ubi multa per Bartolum et Jason on Digest XXX, 11 (De Legatis I, L. Cum +filio; part. I in pr. qu. 3 et 4).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_138a" href="#FNanchor_138a" class="label">[138a]</a> Digest I, 5, 4 (De statu hominum, L. Libertas); Institutes I, 3, 1 (De iure +personarum, § Et libertas); Digest XLIII, 29, 1 et 2 (De homine libero exhibendo); +XLIV, 5, 1 (Quarum rerum actio non datur, L, Iusiurandum, § Quae +onerandae); Code III, 28, 35 (De inofficioso testamento, L. Si quando, § Illud, +v. adstringendos); Digest IV, 6, 28 (Ex quibus causis maiores, L. Nec non, +§ ‘Quod eius’).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_139a" href="#FNanchor_139a" class="label">[139a]</a> Code III, 44, 7 (De religiosis et sumptibus funerum, L. Statuas).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_140a" href="#FNanchor_140a" class="label">[140a]</a> Code VI, 43 (Communia de legatis, Contra L. 2, cum vulgatis).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_141a" href="#FNanchor_141a" class="label">[141a]</a> Digest IX, 2, 32 (Ad legem Aquiliam, L. Illud).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_142a" href="#FNanchor_142a" class="label">[142a]</a> Dist. IV, C II (Erit autem lex); Digest I, 3, 1 et 2 (De legibus), 32 (eod. tit., +L. De quibus, cum seq.); Decretales Gregorii Papae IX, II, 26, 20 (De praescriptionibus, +c. Quoniam).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_143a" href="#FNanchor_143a" class="label">[143a]</a> Digest XLIII, 13 (Ne quid in flumine publico fiat).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_144a" href="#FNanchor_144a" class="label">[144a]</a> Digest IV, 4, 3 (De minoribus, L. 3, § Scio); Vasquius, De successionum +progressu I, 7.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_145a" href="#FNanchor_145a" class="label">[145a]</a> Balbus, De praescriptionibus 5 in pr. in qu. 11, illius 5, quaest. pr. Gl. in +cap. inter caetera 16, q. 3; Castrensis, De potestate legis poenalis II, 14; +Balbus, and Angelus, on Code VII, 39, 4 (De praescriptione XXX vel XL +annorum, L. Omnes).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_146a" href="#FNanchor_146a" class="label">[146a]</a> Osorius, De rebus Emmanuelis regis Lusitaniae I.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_147a" href="#FNanchor_147a" class="label">[147a]</a> Digest I, 1, 5 (De iustitia et iure, L. Ex hoc iure); et ibi Bartolus.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_148a" href="#FNanchor_148a" class="label">[148a]</a> Aristotle, Politica I, 9 (1257<sup>a</sup> 30).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_149a" href="#FNanchor_149a" class="label">[149a]</a> Cf. Covarruvias in c. Peccatum, § 8.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_150a" href="#FNanchor_150a" class="label">[150a]</a> Pomponius Mela, De situ orbis III, 7.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_151a" href="#FNanchor_151a" class="label">[151a]</a> Digest XVIII, 1, 1 (De contrahenda emptione, L. Origo).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_152a" href="#FNanchor_152a" class="label">[152a]</a> Naturalis historia XXXIII, 1.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_153a" href="#FNanchor_153a" class="label">[153a]</a> Aristotle, Ethica Nicomachea 5, 5, 11 (1133<sup>a</sup> 20): οὐ φύσει ἀλλὰ νόμῳ ἐστί; +Politica I, 9 (1257<sup>b</sup> 10).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_154a" href="#FNanchor_154a" class="label">[154a]</a> Dist. I, C. VII (Ius naturale); Aristotle, l. c.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_155a" href="#FNanchor_155a" class="label">[155a]</a> Castrensis ex Cino et aliis n. 20 et 28 on Digest I, 1, 5 (De iustitia et iure, +L. Ex hoc iure).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_156a" href="#FNanchor_156a" class="label">[156a]</a> Plato, Sophista 223<sup>d</sup>.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_157a" href="#FNanchor_157a" class="label">[157a]</a> Plato, Republic II (p. 371) cited in Digest L, 11, 2 (De nundinis).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_158a" href="#FNanchor_158a" class="label">[158a]</a> Politica I, 11 (1258<sup>b</sup> 22-23).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_159a" href="#FNanchor_159a" class="label">[159a]</a> καὶ ταύτης μέρη τρία, ναυκληρία, φορτηγία, παράστασις are the exact words.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_160a" href="#FNanchor_160a" class="label">[160a]</a> Cicero, De officiis I, 150-151; Aristotle, Politica I, 9.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_161a" href="#FNanchor_161a" class="label">[161a]</a> L. c. (1257<sup>a</sup> 14-17).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_162a" href="#FNanchor_162a" class="label">[162a]</a> De beneficiis V, 8.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_163a" href="#FNanchor_163a" class="label">[163a]</a> Cf. <a href="#CAPVT_III">cap. III</a> et <a href="#CAPVT_VI">VI</a>.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_164a" href="#FNanchor_164a" class="label">[164a]</a> Cf. <a href="#CAPVT_VII">cap. VII</a>.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_165a" href="#FNanchor_165a" class="label">[165a]</a> Gloss. et Bartolus on Digest XLIII, 11, 2 (De via publica, L. Viam +publicam); Balbus 4, 5 pr. qu. 1; Panormitanus on Decretales Gregorii Papae +IX, III, 8, 10 (De concessione praebendae, c. Ex parte Hastenen.); Digest XLI, +2, 41 (De adquirenda possessione, L. Qui iure familiaritatis); Covarruvias in +c. possessor. 2, § 4; Vasquius, Controversiae illustres c. 4, n. 10 et 12.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_166a" href="#FNanchor_166a" class="label">[166a]</a> Vasquius, l. c. n. 11.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_167a" href="#FNanchor_167a" class="label">[167a]</a> Guicciardini, Storia d’Italia XIX.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_168a" href="#FNanchor_168a" class="label">[168a]</a> Vasquius, Controversiae illustres c. 10, n. 10; Victoria, De Indis I, 1, +n. 3; Digest VI, 1, 27 (De rei vindicatione, L. Sin autem, § penult.) L, 17, 55 et +151 (De diversis regulis, L. Nullus videtur, et L. Nemo damnum); XLII, 8, 13 +(Quae in fraudem creditorum, L. Illud constat); XXXIX, 2, 24 (De damno +infecto, L. Fluminum, § ult.); Bartolus on Digest XLIII, 12, 1 (De fluminibus, +L, 1, § 5); Castrensis on Code III, 34, 10 (De servitutibus, L. Si tibi); Digest +XXXIX, 3, 1 (De aqua, L. Si cui, § Denique).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_169a" href="#FNanchor_169a" class="label">[169a]</a> Vasquius, Controversiae illustres c. 4, n. 3 et seq.; Digest XXXIX, 2, 26 +(De damno infecto, L. Proculus).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_170a" href="#FNanchor_170a" class="label">[170a]</a> Vasquius, l. c.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_171a" href="#FNanchor_171a" class="label">[171a]</a> Vasquius, l. c. n. 5.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_172a" href="#FNanchor_172a" class="label">[172a]</a> Εργα καὶ Ἡμέραι 24.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_173a" href="#FNanchor_173a" class="label">[173a]</a> Code IV, 59 (De monopoliis, L. 1).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_174a" href="#FNanchor_174a" class="label">[174a]</a> Caietanus on Thomas Aquinas, Summa II. II, q. 77, a. 1, ad 3.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_175a" href="#FNanchor_175a" class="label">[175a]</a> Aristotle, Politica I, 9.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_176a" href="#FNanchor_176a" class="label">[176a]</a> Hexameron V, 10, 4, q. 44.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_177a" href="#FNanchor_177a" class="label">[177a]</a> In funere Basilii.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_178a" href="#FNanchor_178a" class="label">[178a]</a> Thucydides, Isocrates, Andocides.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_179a" href="#FNanchor_179a" class="label">[179a]</a> Isocrates, Archidamos 51.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_180a" href="#FNanchor_180a" class="label">[180a]</a> Panegyricus 176.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_181a" href="#FNanchor_181a" class="label">[181a]</a> De officiis I, 35.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_182a" href="#FNanchor_182a" class="label">[182a]</a> Polus Lucanus apud Stobaeum, De iustitia (III, p. 362 Wachsmut-Hense); +Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromateis; Augustinus, De civitate Dei IV, 15.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_183a" href="#FNanchor_183a" class="label">[183a]</a> Demosthenes, De libertate Rhodiorum XV, 10 (p. 193 R.).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_184a" href="#FNanchor_184a" class="label">[184a]</a> Propertius IV, vi, 47-52.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_185a" href="#FNanchor_185a" class="label">[185a]</a> De civitate Dei V, 1.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_186a" href="#FNanchor_186a" class="label">[186a]</a> Digest XLIII, 14, 1 (Ut in flumine publico navigare liceat).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_187a" href="#FNanchor_187a" class="label">[187a]</a> Digest XLIII, 12, 1 (De fluminibus, L. 1, in principio).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_188a" href="#FNanchor_188a" class="label">[188a]</a> Digest XLIII, 12, 1 (De fluminibus, L. 1, § Si in mari aliquid).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_189a" href="#FNanchor_189a" class="label">[189a]</a> Digest XLIII, 8, 2 (Ne quid in loco publico, L. 2, § Si quis); XLVII, 10, +13 et 24 (De iniuriis, L. Iniuriarum actio, et L. Si quis proprium); Silvestris, +In verbo ‘restitutio’, 3 sub finem; Oldradus et Archidiaconus on Digest XLVIII, +12, 2 (De lege Iulia de annona), and XLVII, 11, 6 (De extraordinariis criminibus. +L. Annonam).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_190a" href="#FNanchor_190a" class="label">[190a]</a> De civitate Dei IV.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_191a" href="#FNanchor_191a" class="label">[191a]</a> De officiis I, 34.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_192a" href="#FNanchor_192a" class="label">[192a]</a> Digest XLI, 1, 50 (De adquirendo rerum dominio, L. Quamvis quod in +litore); Henricus von Gorcum, De bello justo 9.</p> + +</div> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> + +<div class="chapter"> +<h2 class="nobreak" id="FOOTNOTES3">FOOTNOTES:</h2> +</div> + + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_1" href="#FNanchor_1" class="label">[1]</a> Panegyric 29, 2.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_2" href="#FNanchor_2" class="label">[2]</a> Georgics II, 109 [Dryden’s translation, II, 154].</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_3" href="#FNanchor_3" class="label">[3]</a> Aeneid VI, 847-853 [Dryden’s translation, VI, 1168-1169].</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_4" href="#FNanchor_4" class="label">[4]</a> Natural Questions III, IV.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_5" href="#FNanchor_5" class="label">[5]</a> Institutes II, 1; Digest I, 8, 4; cf. Gentilis, De jure belli I, 19; cf. Code +IV, 63, 4 [Grotius refers particularly to his famous predecessor Albericus +Gentilis (1552-1608), an Italian who came to England and was appointed +to the chair of Regius Professor of Civil Law at Oxford. He published his De +Jure Belli in 1588].</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_6" href="#FNanchor_6" class="label">[6]</a> Aeneid I, 539-540 [Dryden’s translation, I, 760-763].</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_7" href="#FNanchor_7" class="label">[7]</a> Aeneid VII, 229-230 [Dryden’s translation, VII, 313-314].</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_8" href="#FNanchor_8" class="label">[8]</a> Diodorus Siculus XI; Plutarch, Pericles XXIX, 4. [The Athenian decree +prohibiting the Megarians from trading with Athens or any part of the +Athenian Empire was one of the leading causes of the Peloponnesian War.]</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_9" href="#FNanchor_9" class="label">[9]</a> Carlo Sigonio [(1523-1584), an Italian humanist, in his work] On the +Kingdom of Italy.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_10" href="#FNanchor_10" class="label">[10]</a> Victoria, De Indis II, n. 1-7; Covarruvias, in c. Peccatum, § 9, n. 4, +ibi Quinta [Franciscus de Victoria (1480-1546), the famous Spanish Scholastic, +a Dominican, and Professor of Theology at Salamanca from 1521 until his +death. His thirteen Relectiones (De Indis is no. V) were published (‘vitiosa et +corrupta’) in 1557 after his death; the 1686 Cologne edition is held to be the +best.</p> + +<p>Diego Covarruvias (1512-1577), styled the Bartolo of Spain. He should +probably be credited with formulating the reform decrees of the Council of +Trent. The 5 vol. Antwerp 1762 edition of his works is the best.]</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_11" href="#FNanchor_11" class="label">[11]</a> Numbers XXI, 21-26.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_12" href="#FNanchor_12" class="label">[12]</a> Locutionum IV (on Numbers), 44; Estius, c. ult. 23, 4, 2 [Estius (?-1613) +was a Dutch commentator on the Epistles of St. Paul and on the works of St. +Augustine].</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_13" href="#FNanchor_13" class="label">[13]</a> [Grotius refers to the Trachiniae of Sophocles, but probably from memory, +for there is no such reference in that play.]</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_14" href="#FNanchor_14" class="label">[14]</a> Baldus de Ubaldis, Consilia III, 293 [Baldus (1327-1406) was a pupil of +the great Bartolus].</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_15" href="#FNanchor_15" class="label">[15]</a> Histories IV, 64 [In connection with the revolt of Civilis].</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_16" href="#FNanchor_16" class="label">[16]</a> Andrea Alciati, Commentaria VII, 130; Covarruvias in c. Peccatum, p. 2 +§ 9; Bartolus on Code I, 11 [Alciati (1492-1550) was made Comes Palatinus by +the Emperor Charles V, and offered a Cardinal’s hat by Pope Paul III, which +he refused, but he did become a Protonotarius Apostolicus].</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_17" href="#FNanchor_17" class="label">[17]</a> Code VIII, 40, 13 [Probably Fabius Claudius Gordianus Fulgentius (468-533), +a Benedictine monk, one of the Latin Fathers].</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_18" href="#FNanchor_18" class="label">[18]</a> Nonius Marcellus, On the various significations of speech, under the word +‘occupare’; cf. Connan, Commentaries on the civil law III, 3; Donellus [Doneau], +Commentaries on the civil law IV, 10. [François de Connan (1508-1551), a +French jurisconsult, a pupil of Alciati; Hugues Doneau (1527-1591) a famous +jurisconsult, who wrote many volumes of commentaries on the Digest and the +Code.]</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_19" href="#FNanchor_19" class="label">[19]</a> Institutes II, 1, 13.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_20" href="#FNanchor_20" class="label">[20]</a> Digest XLI, 2, 3.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_21" href="#FNanchor_21" class="label">[21]</a> Letters I, 1, 44-45 [Francis’s translation, English Poets XIX, 726].</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_22" href="#FNanchor_22" class="label">[22]</a> Pliny, Natural History, VI, 22.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_23" href="#FNanchor_23" class="label">[23]</a> Digest XLI, 1, 3.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_24" href="#FNanchor_24" class="label">[24]</a> Covarruvias in c. Peccatum § 10, n. 2, 4, 5.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_25" href="#FNanchor_25" class="label">[25]</a> De potestate civili I, 9.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_26" href="#FNanchor_26" class="label">[26]</a> Summa II. II, q. 10, a. 12 [Thomas Aquinas (1227-1274), one of the most +famous of the Schoolmen and Theologians, spoken of often as Aquila Theologorum, +and Doctor Angelicus].</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_27" href="#FNanchor_27" class="label">[27]</a> De Indis I, n. 4-7, 19.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_28" href="#FNanchor_28" class="label">[28]</a> Vasquius, Preface (n. 5) to Controversiae illustres.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_29" href="#FNanchor_29" class="label">[29]</a> [Grotius cites Osorius, but gives no reference.]</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_30" href="#FNanchor_30" class="label">[30]</a> Institutes II, 1, 40.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_31" href="#FNanchor_31" class="label">[31]</a> Luke XII, 14; John XVIII, 36; Victoria, De Indis I, n, 25.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_32" href="#FNanchor_32" class="label">[32]</a> Victoria XVI, n. 27.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_33" href="#FNanchor_33" class="label">[33]</a> Vasquius, Controversiae illustres, c. 21; Torquemada II, c. 113; Hugo on +Dist. XCVI, C. VI; St. Bernard, Admonitory epistle to Pope Eugene III, book 2; +Victoria, De Indis I, n. 27; Covarruvias in c. Peccatum § 9, n. 7.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_34" href="#FNanchor_34" class="label">[34]</a> Matthew XVII, 27; XX, 26; John VI, 15.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_35" href="#FNanchor_35" class="label">[35]</a> Victoria, De Indis I, n. 28, 30; Covarruvias on I Corinthians V, at the +end; Thomas Aquinas, Summa II. II, q. 12, a. 2; Ayala, De Jure I, 2, 29 [Best +edition of Ayala is in The Classics of International Law, Carnegie Institution of +Washington, 2 vol., 1912].</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_36" href="#FNanchor_36" class="label">[36]</a> Thomas Aquinas, Summa II. II, q. 66, a. 8; Silvius, De infidelibus § 7; +Innocent on the Decretals of Pope Gregory IX, III, 34, 8; Victoria, De Indis I, +n. 81. [Franciscus Silvius, or Sylvius, or du Bois (1581-1649), was a Belgian +theologian.]</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_37" href="#FNanchor_37" class="label">[37]</a> De Indis I, n. 31.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_38" href="#FNanchor_38" class="label">[38]</a> Vasquius, Controversiae illustres, c. 24; Victoria, De Indis II, n. 10.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_39" href="#FNanchor_39" class="label">[39]</a> On the Consolation of Philosophy IV, 4, 7-10 [H. R. James’ translation, +page 194].</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_40" href="#FNanchor_40" class="label">[40]</a> Thomas Aquinas, Summa II. II, q. 10, a. 8; Dist. XLV, C. V, C. III; +Innocent, see <a href="#Footnote_36">note 1, page 17</a>; Bartolus on Code I, 11, 1; Covarruvias in c. +Peccatum, § 9, 10; Ayala, De Jure I, 2, 28.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_41" href="#FNanchor_41" class="label">[41]</a> Matthew X, 23.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_42" href="#FNanchor_42" class="label">[42]</a> On Thomas Aquinas, Summa II. II, q. 4, 66, a. 8 [Thomas de Cajetan +(1469-1534), an Italian cardinal, wrote voluminous commentaries on Thomas +Aquinas, Aristotle, and the Bible].</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_43" href="#FNanchor_43" class="label">[43]</a> Victoria, De Indis II, 1.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_44" href="#FNanchor_44" class="label">[44]</a> Paul de Castro on Digest I, 1, 5; Dist. I, C. VII.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_45" href="#FNanchor_45" class="label">[45]</a> Vasquius, Controversiae illustres, c. 1, n. 10; Lib. VI, V, 12, 3; Clem. V, 11.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_46" href="#FNanchor_46" class="label">[46]</a> Satires II, 2, 129-130.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_47" href="#FNanchor_47" class="label">[47]</a> Aratus 302-303.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_48" href="#FNanchor_48" class="label">[48]</a> Octavia 413-414 [Translation by E. I. Harris (Act II, Scene 1)].</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_49" href="#FNanchor_49" class="label">[49]</a> Aratus 302.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_50" href="#FNanchor_50" class="label">[50]</a> Digest VII, 5; Extravagantes of Pope John XXII, XIV, 3 and 5; Thomas +Aquinas, Summa II. II, q. 78.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_51" href="#FNanchor_51" class="label">[51]</a> 203-204 [E. I. Harris’ translation (Act II, Scene 1)].</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_52" href="#FNanchor_52" class="label">[52]</a> De beneficiis VII, 12, 3.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_53" href="#FNanchor_53" class="label">[53]</a> Speech XIII, In behalf of the poor man.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_54" href="#FNanchor_54" class="label">[54]</a> De officiis I.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_55" href="#FNanchor_55" class="label">[55]</a> Digest I, 1, 5.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_56" href="#FNanchor_56" class="label">[56]</a> Vergil, Georgics I, 139-140 [Dryden’s translation I, 211]; Ovid, Metamorphoses +I, 121.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_57" href="#FNanchor_57" class="label">[57]</a> Ovid, Metamorphoses I, 135-136 [Dryden’s translation I (English Poets +XX, 432)].</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_58" href="#FNanchor_58" class="label">[58]</a> Ovid, Metamorphoses I, 134.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_59" href="#FNanchor_59" class="label">[59]</a> De beneficiis VII, 4, 3.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_60" href="#FNanchor_60" class="label">[60]</a> Octavia 431-432 [Grotius here takes a slight liberty with the context].</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_61" href="#FNanchor_61" class="label">[61]</a> De officiis I, 21 [Walter Miller’s (Loeb) translation, page 23].</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_62" href="#FNanchor_62" class="label">[62]</a> History I, 139, 2.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_63" href="#FNanchor_63" class="label">[63]</a> Duaren [a French humanist (1509-1559)], on Digest I, 8.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_64" href="#FNanchor_64" class="label">[64]</a> De officiis I, 51 [Walter Miller’s (Loeb) translation, page 55].</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_65" href="#FNanchor_65" class="label">[65]</a> De officiis I, 52.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_66" href="#FNanchor_66" class="label">[66]</a> Metamorphoses VI, 349-351.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_67" href="#FNanchor_67" class="label">[67]</a> Digest VIII, 4, 13.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_68" href="#FNanchor_68" class="label">[68]</a> Digest XLI, 1, 14; Comines, Memoirs III, 2; Donellus IV, 2; Digest XLI, +3, 49. [Philippe de Comines (1445-1509), a French historian, and one of the +negotiators of the treaty of Senlis (1493).]</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_69" href="#FNanchor_69" class="label">[69]</a> Digest I, 8, 10.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_70" href="#FNanchor_70" class="label">[70]</a> Pro Sex. Roscio Amerino 26, 72.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_71" href="#FNanchor_71" class="label">[71]</a> Institutes II, 1, 1 and 5; Digest I, 8, 1, 2, 10; XLI, 1, 14 and 50; XLVII, +10, 13; XLIII, 8, 3, and 4-7.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_72" href="#FNanchor_72" class="label">[72]</a> Act IV, Scene 3 (975, 977, 985).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_73" href="#FNanchor_73" class="label">[73]</a> Donellus IV, 2.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_74" href="#FNanchor_74" class="label">[74]</a> Digest XXXIX, 2, 24; other references same as note 1, page 29.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_75" href="#FNanchor_75" class="label">[75]</a> Donellus IV, 2 and 9; also references in note 1, page 29.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_76" href="#FNanchor_76" class="label">[76]</a> Digest I, 8, 4; XLIII, 8, 3.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_77" href="#FNanchor_77" class="label">[77]</a> Odes III, i, 33-34 [Bennett’s (Loeb) translation, page 171].</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_78" href="#FNanchor_78" class="label">[78]</a> Digest XLIII, 8, 3; 8, 2.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_79" href="#FNanchor_79" class="label">[79]</a> Digest XLIII, 12, 1.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_80" href="#FNanchor_80" class="label">[80]</a> Pliny, Natural History IX, 54, 170.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_81" href="#FNanchor_81" class="label">[81]</a> Epigrams X, 30, 19-20.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_82" href="#FNanchor_82" class="label">[82]</a> De Nabuthe, cap. 3.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_83" href="#FNanchor_83" class="label">[83]</a> Digest XLVII, 10, 14.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_84" href="#FNanchor_84" class="label">[84]</a> See <a href="#Footnote_76">note 1, page 31</a>.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_85" href="#FNanchor_85" class="label">[85]</a> Digest XLIV, 3, 7.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_86" href="#FNanchor_86" class="label">[86]</a> Digest XLI, 3, 45.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_87" href="#FNanchor_87" class="label">[87]</a> Digest XLVII, 10, 13.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_88" href="#FNanchor_88" class="label">[88]</a> Novels of Leo, 102, 103, 104; See also Cujas XIV, 1.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_89" href="#FNanchor_89" class="label">[89]</a> Hexameron V, 10, 27 [St. Ambrose (c. 333-397), Bishop of Milan, is meant].</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_90" href="#FNanchor_90" class="label">[90]</a> Donellus IV, 6.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_91" href="#FNanchor_91" class="label">[91]</a> On Institutes II, 1; Digest XIV, 2, 9 [Johannes Faber (c. 1570-c. 1640) +was Bishop of Vienna, and Court preacher to Emperor Ferdinand. He was +known popularly as ‘Malleus Haereticorum’].</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_92" href="#FNanchor_92" class="label">[92]</a> Digest XLIII, 8, 3.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_93" href="#FNanchor_93" class="label">[93]</a> Digest V, 1, 9; XXXIX, 4, 15; Glossators on Digest I, 8, 2; Institutes +II, 1; Baldus on L. Quaedam, in Digest I, 8, 2.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_94" href="#FNanchor_94" class="label">[94]</a> Baldus, Quibus modis feudi amittuntur, chapter beginning In principio, +second column; Code XI, 13, 1; Angeli on Digest XLVII, 10, 14; Digest VIII, +4, 13 and 4.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_95" href="#FNanchor_95" class="label">[95]</a> C. Quae sint Regalia, in Feudis.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_96" href="#FNanchor_96" class="label">[96]</a> Balbus, De praescriptionibus IV, 5; 1, q. 6, n. 4.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_97" href="#FNanchor_97" class="label">[97]</a> Digest XLVII, 10, 13; XLIII, 9, 1.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_98" href="#FNanchor_98" class="label">[98]</a> See <a href="#Footnote_95">note 1</a>.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_99" href="#FNanchor_99" class="label">[99]</a> [Quoted in Cicero, De officiis I, 51, and here taken from Walter Miller’s +(Loeb) translation, page 55.]</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_100" href="#FNanchor_100" class="label">[100]</a> Cicero, De officiis I, 51.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_101" href="#FNanchor_101" class="label">[101]</a> Seneca, De beneficiis IV, 28.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_102" href="#FNanchor_102" class="label">[102]</a> Johannes Faber on Institutes II, 1, 5.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_103" href="#FNanchor_103" class="label">[103]</a> Pliny, Natural History II, 69; VI, 27; Pomponius Mela, De situ orbis III.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_104" href="#FNanchor_104" class="label">[104]</a> Natural History VI, 20.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_105" href="#FNanchor_105" class="label">[105]</a> Geography II and XVII.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_106" href="#FNanchor_106" class="label">[106]</a> Natural History VI, 23.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_107" href="#FNanchor_107" class="label">[107]</a> Glossators on Lib. VI, I, 6, 3; on Digest II, 12, 3.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_108" href="#FNanchor_108" class="label">[108]</a> Digest I, 8, 4; Gentilis, De jure belli I, 19.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_109" href="#FNanchor_109" class="label">[109]</a> Digest XLIII, 8, 2.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_110" href="#FNanchor_110" class="label">[110]</a> Glossators on Digest XLIII, 14.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_111" href="#FNanchor_111" class="label">[111]</a> Baldus on Digest I, 8, 3; Zuarius, Consilia duo de usu maris I, 3, 28, L. 10 +and 12. [Rodericus Zuarius, Consilia published in 1621].</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_112" href="#FNanchor_112" class="label">[112]</a> Victoria, De Indis I, n. 26.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_113" href="#FNanchor_113" class="label">[113]</a> Silvestris, In verbo Papa. n. 16.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_114" href="#FNanchor_114" class="label">[114]</a> Vasquius, Controversiae illustres, c. 51.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_115" href="#FNanchor_115" class="label">[115]</a> Donellus, V. 22 ff.; Digest XVIII, 1, 6; XLI, 3, 9, 25; Lib. VI, V, 12 +(Reg. Sine possessione); Digest L, 16, 28; XXIII, 5, 16.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_116" href="#FNanchor_116" class="label">[116]</a> Digest XLI, 3, 45; Code VIII, 11, 6; XI, 43, 9; Digest XLIII, 11, 2; +XLI, 3, 49.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_117" href="#FNanchor_117" class="label">[117]</a> Consilia 286 [Angelus Aretinus a Gambellionibus (?-1445), a voluminous +commentator on the Digest and the Institutes].</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_118" href="#FNanchor_118" class="label">[118]</a> Digest XLIV, 3, 7.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_119" href="#FNanchor_119" class="label">[119]</a> Duren, De usucapionibus, c. 3; Cujas on Digest XLI, 3, 49; Donellus +V, 22 on Digest XLI, 1, 14.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_120" href="#FNanchor_120" class="label">[120]</a> Code XI, 43, 4; cf. XI, 43, 9; cf. Digest XLIII, 20, 3.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_121" href="#FNanchor_121" class="label">[121]</a> On the Decretals of Pope Gregory IX, II, 26, 11 [Felinus Maria Sandeus +(c. 1427-1503), Bishop of Lucca].</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_122" href="#FNanchor_122" class="label">[122]</a> De praescriptionibus IV, 5, q. 6, n. 8 [Johannes Franciscus Balbus, a priest +and jurisconsult at Muentz-hof].</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_123" href="#FNanchor_123" class="label">[123]</a> On Digest XLI, 3, 49.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_124" href="#FNanchor_124" class="label">[124]</a> Par. 3, tit. 29, I. 7 in c. Placa.; Zuarius, Consilia, num. 4.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_125" href="#FNanchor_125" class="label">[125]</a> Fachinham VIII, c. 26 and c. 33; Duaren, De praescriptionibus, parte 2, § 2, +n. 8; § 8, n. 5 and 6, [Nicholas Fachinham (?-1407), a Franciscan, who taught +Theology at Oxford.]</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_126" href="#FNanchor_126" class="label">[126]</a> Fachinham VIII, c. 28.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_127" href="#FNanchor_127" class="label">[127]</a> Angelus Aretinus on Digest I, 8; Balbus, De praescriptionibus IV, 5, q. +6, n. 2; see Vasquius, Controversiae illustres c. 29, n. 38.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_128" href="#FNanchor_128" class="label">[128]</a> On Digest XLVII, 10, 14.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_129" href="#FNanchor_129" class="label">[129]</a> Digest XLVI, 10, 13.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_130" href="#FNanchor_130" class="label">[130]</a> Glossators on the reference in note 4, page 51.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_131" href="#FNanchor_131" class="label">[131]</a> De officiis ministrorum I, 28; Gentilis I, 19.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_132" href="#FNanchor_132" class="label">[132]</a> Auth. Ut nulli Iudicum § 1, c. cum tanto de consuetudine.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_133" href="#FNanchor_133" class="label">[133]</a> Controversiae illustres c. 89, n. 12 ff. [Ferdinand Manchaea Vasquez (1509-1566) +the famous Spanish jurisconsult, who held many high honors of the realm].</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_134" href="#FNanchor_134" class="label">[134]</a> De potestate legis poenalis II, 14, part 572 [Alphonse de Castro (?-1558). +Theologian at Salamanca, confessor to the Emperor Charles V.].</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_135" href="#FNanchor_135" class="label">[135]</a> Digest XLI, 1, 14; XLI, 3; Institutes II, 1, 2; Digest XLIV, 3, 7; XLVII, +10, 14.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_136" href="#FNanchor_136" class="label">[136]</a> Digest I, 1, 5; Institutes I, 2, § 2.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_137" href="#FNanchor_137" class="label">[137]</a> Digest XLI, 3, 4, 26 (27); Institutes IV, 6, 14; Bartolus and Jason on +Digest XXX, 11.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_138" href="#FNanchor_138" class="label">[138]</a> Digest I, 5, 4; Institutes I, 3, 1; Digest XLIII, 29, 1-2; XLIV, 5, 1; +Code III, 28, 35; Digest IV, 6, 28.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_139" href="#FNanchor_139" class="label">[139]</a> Code III, 44, 7.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_140" href="#FNanchor_140" class="label">[140]</a> Code VI, 43.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_141" href="#FNanchor_141" class="label">[141]</a> Digest IX, 2, 32.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_142" href="#FNanchor_142" class="label">[142]</a> Dist. IV, C. II; Digest I, 3, 1-2, 32; Decretals of Pope Gregory IX, II, 26, 20.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_143" href="#FNanchor_143" class="label">[143]</a> Digest XLIII, 13.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_144" href="#FNanchor_144" class="label">[144]</a> Digest IV, 4, 3; Vasquius, De successionum progressu I, 7.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_145" href="#FNanchor_145" class="label">[145]</a> Balbus, De praescriptionibus 5, 11; 16, 3; Alphonse de Castro, De potestate +legis poenalis II, 14; Balbus and Angelus on Code VII, 39, 4.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_146" href="#FNanchor_146" class="label">[146]</a> Osorius, De rebus Emmanuelis regis Lusitaniae I [Hieronymus Osorius +(1506-1580) was known as the Portuguese Cicero].</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_147" href="#FNanchor_147" class="label">[147]</a> Digest I, 1, 5.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_148" href="#FNanchor_148" class="label">[148]</a> I, 9 (1257<sup>a</sup> 30).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_149" href="#FNanchor_149" class="label">[149]</a> Cf. Covarruvias in c. Peccatum, § 8.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_150" href="#FNanchor_150" class="label">[150]</a> Pomponius Mela, De situ orbis III, 7.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_151" href="#FNanchor_151" class="label">[151]</a> Digest XVIII, 1, 1.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_152" href="#FNanchor_152" class="label">[152]</a> Natural History XXXIII, 1.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_153" href="#FNanchor_153" class="label">[153]</a> Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 5, 5, 11 (1133<sup>a</sup> 20); Politics I, 9 (1257<sup>b</sup> 10) +[Nummus—νόμος. The fact that this is an incorrect derivation does not of +course affect the argument].</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_154" href="#FNanchor_154" class="label">[154]</a> Dist. I, C. VII; Aristotle, see <a href="#Footnote_153">note 4 above</a>.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_155" href="#FNanchor_155" class="label">[155]</a> Castrensis from Cinus and others on Digest I, 1, 5.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_156" href="#FNanchor_156" class="label">[156]</a> Plato, Sophista 223<sup>d</sup>.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_157" href="#FNanchor_157" class="label">[157]</a> II (p. 371) cited in Digest L, 11, 2.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_158" href="#FNanchor_158" class="label">[158]</a> Politics I, 11 (1258<sup>b</sup> 22-23).</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_159" href="#FNanchor_159" class="label">[159]</a> [The text here is somewhat expanded.]</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_160" href="#FNanchor_160" class="label">[160]</a> Cicero, De officiis I, 150-151; Aristotle, Politics I, 9.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_161" href="#FNanchor_161" class="label">[161]</a> Politics I, 9 (1257<sup>a</sup> 14-17) [Jowett’s translation, Vol. I, page 15].</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_162" href="#FNanchor_162" class="label">[162]</a> De beneficiis V, 8 [Not a quotation, but a summing up of the chapter].</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_163" href="#FNanchor_163" class="label">[163]</a> See <a href="#CHAPTER_III">chapters III</a> and <a href="#CHAPTER_VI">VI</a>.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_164" href="#FNanchor_164" class="label">[164]</a> See <a href="#CHAPTER_VII">chapter VII</a>.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_165" href="#FNanchor_165" class="label">[165]</a> On Digest XLIII, 11, 2; Balbus 4, 5 pr. qu. 1; Panormitanus on the Decretals +of Pope Gregory IX, III, 8, 10; Digest XLI, 2, 41; Covarruvias in c. possessor. +2, § 4; Vasquius, Controversiae illustres c. 4, n. 10 and 12.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_166" href="#FNanchor_166" class="label">[166]</a> Vasquius, Controversiae illustres c. 4, n. 11.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_167" href="#FNanchor_167" class="label">[167]</a> Guicciardini, Storia d’Italia XIX.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_168" href="#FNanchor_168" class="label">[168]</a> Vasquius, Controversiae illustres c. 10, n. 10; Victoria, De Indis I, 1, n. 3; +Digest VI, 1. 27; L, 17, 55, 151; XLII, 8, 13; XXXIX, 2, 24; Bartolus on Digest +XLIII, 12, 1; Castrensis on Code III, 34, 10; Digest XXXIX, 3, 1.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_169" href="#FNanchor_169" class="label">[169]</a> Vasquius, Controversiae illustres c. 4, n. 3 ff.; Digest XXXIX, 2, 26.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_170" href="#FNanchor_170" class="label">[170]</a> Vasquius, same reference.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_171" href="#FNanchor_171" class="label">[171]</a> Vasquius, same reference, n. 5.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_172" href="#FNanchor_172" class="label">[172]</a> In his Works and Days [The entire passage as translated by A. W. Mair +(Oxford translation, page 1) is: “For when he that hath no business looketh on +him that is rich, he hasteth to plow and to array his house: and neighbour +vieth with neighbour hasting to be rich: good is this Strife for men.”].</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_173" href="#FNanchor_173" class="label">[173]</a> Code IV, 59.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_174" href="#FNanchor_174" class="label">[174]</a> Cajetan on Thomas Aquinas, Summa II. II, q. 77, a. 1, ad 3.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_175" href="#FNanchor_175" class="label">[175]</a> Politics I, 9.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_176" href="#FNanchor_176" class="label">[176]</a> Hexameron V, 10, 4, q. 44.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_177" href="#FNanchor_177" class="label">[177]</a> In funere Basilii.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_178" href="#FNanchor_178" class="label">[178]</a> Thucydides, Isocrates, Andocides.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_179" href="#FNanchor_179" class="label">[179]</a> Isocrates, Archidamos 51 [Grotius probably quoted here from memory].</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_180" href="#FNanchor_180" class="label">[180]</a> Panegyric 176.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_181" href="#FNanchor_181" class="label">[181]</a> De officiis I, 35.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_182" href="#FNanchor_182" class="label">[182]</a> Polus Lucanus apud Stobaeum, De iustitia; Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromateis; +Augustine, City of God IV, 15.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_183" href="#FNanchor_183" class="label">[183]</a> On the liberty of the Rhodians XV, 10 [Pickard-Cambridge’s translation I, +page 59].</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_184" href="#FNanchor_184" class="label">[184]</a> Propertius IV, vi, 47-52 [Butler’s (Loeb) translation, page 305].</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_185" href="#FNanchor_185" class="label">[185]</a> City of God V, 1.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_186" href="#FNanchor_186" class="label">[186]</a> Digest XLIII, 14, 1.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_187" href="#FNanchor_187" class="label">[187]</a> Digest XLIII, 12, 1.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_188" href="#FNanchor_188" class="label">[188]</a> Digest XLIII, 12, 1.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_189" href="#FNanchor_189" class="label">[189]</a> Digest XLIII, 8, 2; XLVII, 10, 13 and 24; Silvestris, on the word ‘restitutio’; +Oldradus and Archidiaconus on Digest XLVIII, 12, 2, and XLVII, 11, 6 +[Oldrado de Ponte (?-1335), a Bologna canonist. Archidiaconus is probably the +Italian decretalist Guido Bosius.]</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_190" href="#FNanchor_190" class="label">[190]</a> City of God IV.</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_191" href="#FNanchor_191" class="label">[191]</a> De officiis I, 34 [Walter Miller’s (Loeb) translation, page 37].</p> + +</div> + +<div class="footnote"> + +<p><a id="Footnote_192" href="#FNanchor_192" class="label">[192]</a> Digest XLI, 1, 50; Heinrich von Gorcum, De bello justo 9.</p> + +</div> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"></div> + +<div class="p4 transnote"> +<a id="TN"></a> +<p><strong>TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE</strong></p> + +<p>Footnote <a href="#Footnote_100a">[100a]</a> is referenced twice, from <a href="#Page_38">page 38</a> and from the +prior Footnote <a href="#Footnote_99a">[99a]</a>.</p> + +<p>Obvious typographical errors and punctuation errors have been +corrected after careful comparison with other occurrences within +the text and consultation of external sources.</p> + +<p>Some hyphens in words have been silently removed, some added, +when a predominant preference was found in the original book.</p> + +<p>Except for those changes noted below, all misspellings in the text, +and inconsistent or archaic usage, have been retained.</p> + +<p> +<a href="#fn-33a">Pg 16 (Fn 33a)</a>: ‘Eugenium II;’ replaced by ‘Eugenium III;’.<br> +<a href="#fn-35a">Pg 16 (Fn 35a)</a>: ‘Corinthinas V,’ replaced by ‘Corinthians V,’.<br> +<a href="#tn-31">Pg 31</a>: ‘praetors was able’ replaced by ‘praetors were able’.<br> +<a href="#tn-44">Pg 44</a>: ‘this is specificially’ replaced by ‘this is specifically’.<br> +<a href="#tn-68">Pg 68</a>: ‘more absurd then’ replaced by ‘more absurd than’.<br> +<a href="#tn-80">Pg 80</a> (Index): ‘Baldis’ replaced by ‘Baldus’.<br> +</p> +</div> + +<div style='text-align:center'>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 75962 ***</div> +</body> +</html> + diff --git a/75962-h/images/cover.jpg b/75962-h/images/cover.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..9718eb8 --- /dev/null +++ b/75962-h/images/cover.jpg diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..b5dba15 --- /dev/null +++ b/LICENSE.txt @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +This book, including all associated images, markup, improvements, +metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be +in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. + +Procedures for determining public domain status are described in +the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org. + +No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in +jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize +this book outside of the United States should confirm copyright +status under the laws that apply to them. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..16816bd --- /dev/null +++ b/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for +book #75962 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/75962) |
