1 files changed, 6689 insertions, 0 deletions

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 ***