{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_75962/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_75962","id":"gutenberg_75962","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/75962","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Early Modern (c. 1450-1750)","Category: Law & Criminology","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Freedom of the seas","Law of the sea"],"text":"TRANSCRIBER\u2019S NOTE\n\n  The original book _Mare Liberum_ was first published in 1608 in\n  renaissance latin. The latin of this book is based on a later 1633\n  printing. The english translation carefully maintains the meaning,\n  and clarifies the context, of the original latin.\n\n  In this 1916 book, following the Introductory Note and Preface, the\n  latin text and the translated english text were on alternate pages\n  i.e. the first page of latin text was followed by the first page of\n  corresponding english text, then the next (second) page of latin\n  text was followed by the second page of corresponding english text,\n  and so on.\n\n  This etext follows the same alternating pagination. A row of dashes\n  has been inserted between the english and latin pages to give a\n  visual separation.\n\n  There are three different sets of Footnotes.\n    (a) The five Footnotes in the Introductory Note have anchors [A]\n        to [E].\n\n    (b) The 192 Footnotes associated with the latin text have anchors\n        [1a] [2a] through [192a].\n\n    (c) The 192 Footnotes associated with the english text have anchors\n        [1] [2] through [192].\n\n  All these Footnotes have been placed after the Index at the end of\n  the book.\n\n  In addition there are 17 Notes, distinct from Footnotes, which\n  are anchored with * or \u2020. These Notes by the translator have been\n  placed at the end of the paragraph containing the anchor.\n\n  Italic text is denoted by _underscores_.\n\n  A superscript is denoted by ^x or ^{xx}.\n\n  Some minor changes to the text are noted at the end of the book.\n\n\n\n\n                            HVGONIS GROTII\n\n                             MARE LIBERVM\n\n                                 SIVE\n\n                         DE IVRE QVOD BATAVIS\n\n                               COMPETIT\n\n                        AD INDICANA COMMERCIA,\n\n                             DISSERTATIO\n\n\n                                 1608\n\n\n\n\n              Carnegie Endowment for International Peace\n\n                    DIVISION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW\n\n\n                       THE FREEDOM OF THE SEAS\n\n                                  OR\n\n                 THE RIGHT WHICH BELONGS TO THE DUTCH\n                TO TAKE PART IN THE EAST INDIAN TRADE\n\n                          A DISSERTATION BY\n\n                             HUGO GROTIUS\n\n         TRANSLATED WITH A REVISION OF THE LATIN TEXT OF 1633\n\n                                  BY\n\n                   RALPH VAN DEMAN MAGOFFIN, PH.D.\n\n            Associate Professor of Greek and Roman History\n                     The Johns Hopkins University\n\n\n                   EDITED WITH AN INTRODUCTORY NOTE\n\n                                  BY\n\n                          JAMES BROWN SCOTT\n\n                               DIRECTOR\n\n\n                               NEW YORK\n                       OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS\n\n                 AMERICAN BRANCH: 35 WEST 32ND STREET\n\n                LONDON, TORONTO, MELBOURNE, AND BOMBAY\n                           HUMPHREY MILFORD\n\n                                 1916\n\n\n\n\n                            COPYRIGHT 1916\n\n                                BY THE\n\n              CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE\n\n                          WASHINGTON, D. C.\n\n\n                     THE QUINN & BODEN CO. PRESS\n                            RAHWAY, N. J.\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTORY NOTE\n\n\nSince the month of August, 1914, the expression \u201cFreedom of the\nSeas\u201d has been on the lips alike of belligerent and neutral, and\nit seems as advisable as it is timely to issue--for the first time\nin English--the famous Latin tractate of Grotius proclaiming,\nexplaining, and in no small measure making the \u201cfreedom of the\nseas.\u201d[A]\n\nThe title of the little book, first published, anonymously, in\nNovember, 1608, explains the reason for its composition: \u201cThe Freedom\nof the Seas, or the Right which belongs to the Dutch to take part in\nthe East Indian trade.\u201d It was an open secret that it was written by\nthe young Dutch scholar and lawyer, Hugo Grotius. It was a secret\nand remained a secret until 1868 that the _Mare Liberum_ was none\nother than Chapter XII of the treatise _De Jure Praedae_, written by\nGrotius in the winter of 1604-5, which first came to light in 1864\nand was given to the world four years later.[B]\n\nThe publication of the treatise on the law of prize is important\nas showing that the author of the _Mare Liberum_ was already an\naccomplished international lawyer, and it proves beyond peradventure\nthat the masterpiece of 1625 on the \u201cLaw of War and Peace\u201d was not\na hurried production, but the culmination of study and reflection\nextending over twenty years and more. More important still is the\nfact that neither the law of prize nor the _Mare Liberum_ was a\nphilosophic exercise, for it appears that Grotius had been retained\nby the Dutch East India Company to justify the capture by one of\nits ships of a Portuguese galleon in the straits of Malacca in the\nyear 1602; that the treatise on the law of prize, of which the _Mare\nLiberum_ is a chapter, was in the nature of a brief; and that the\nfirst systematic treatise on the law of nations--The Law of War\nand Peace--was not merely a philosophical disquisition, but that\nit was the direct outgrowth of an actual case and of professional\nemployment.[C]\n\nThe Spaniards, as is well known, then claimed the Pacific Ocean\nand the Gulf of Mexico, and Portugal claimed, in like manner, the\nAtlantic south of Morocco and the Indian Ocean, and both nations, at\nthis time under a common sovereign, claimed and sought to exercise\nthe right of excluding all foreigners from navigating or entering\nthese waters. The Dutch, then at war with Spain, although not\ntechnically at war with Portugal, established themselves in 1598 in\nthe island of Mauritius. Shortly thereafter they made settlements\nin Java and in the Moluccas. In 1602 the Dutch East India Company\nwas formed, and, as it attempted to trade with the East Indies, its\nvessels came into competition with those of the Portuguese engaged\nin the Eastern trade, which sought to exclude them from the Indian\nwaters. One Heemskerck, a captain in the employ of the Company, took\na large Portuguese galleon in the Straits of Malacca. To trade with\nthe East Indies was one thing, to capture Portuguese vessels was\nquite another thing. Therefore, some members of the Company refused\ntheir parts of the prize; others sold their shares in the company,\nand still others thought of establishing a new company in France,\nunder the protection of King Henry IV, which should trade in peace\nand abstain from all warlike action. The matter was therefore one of\nno little importance, and it appears that Grotius was consulted and\nwrote his treatise on the law of prize, which is in the nature of a\nbrief and is, at any rate, a lawyer\u2019s argument.[D]\n\nIn 1608 Spain and Holland began negotiations which, on April 9, 1609,\nresulted in the truce of Antwerp for the period of 12 years, and, in\nthe course of the negotiations, Spain tried to secure from the United\nProvinces a renunciation of their right to trade in the East and West\nIndies. The Dutch East India Company thereupon, it would appear,\nrequested Grotius to publish that part of his brief dealing with the\nfreedom of the seas. This was done under the title of _Mare Liberum_,\nwith such changes as were necessary to enable it to stand alone.\n\nIt will be observed that the _Mare Liberum_ was written to refute\nthe unjustified claims of Spain and Portugal to the high seas and to\nexclude foreigners therefrom. The claims of England, less extensive\nbut not less unjustifiable, were not mentioned, and yet, if the\narguments of Grotius were sound, the English claims to the high seas\nto the south and east of England, as well as to undefined regions to\nthe north and west, would likewise fall to the ground. Therefore the\ndistinguished English lawyer, scholar, and publicist, John Selden by\nname, bestirred himself in behalf of his country and wrote his _Mare\nClausum_ in 1617 or 1618, although it was not published until 1635,\nto refute the little tractate, _Mare Liberum_.[E] In the dedication\nto King Charles I, Selden said: \u201cThere are among foreign writers,\nwho rashly attribute your Majesty\u2019s more southern and eastern sea to\ntheir princes. Nor are there a few, who following chiefly some of\nthe ancient Caesarian lawyers, endeavor to affirm, or beyond reason\ntoo easily admit, that all seas are common to the universality of\nmankind.\u201d The thesis of Selden was twofold: first, \u201cthat the sea, by\nthe law of nature or nations, is not common to all men, but capable\nof private dominion or property as well as the land\u201d; second, \u201cthat\nthe King of Great Britain is lord of the sea flowing about, as an\ninseparable and perpetual appendant of the British Empire.\u201d\n\nIn this battle of books, to use the happy expression of Professor\nNys, the Dutch Scholar has had the better of his English antagonist.\nIf it cannot be said that Grotius wears his learning \u201clightly like\na flower\u201d, the treatise of Selden is, in comparison, over-freighted\nwith it; the _Mare Liberum_ is still an open book, the _Mare Clausum_\nis indeed a closed one, and as flotsam or jetsam on troubled waters,\nChapter XII of the Law of Prize rides the waves, whereas its rival,\nheavy and water-logged, has gone under.\n\nIn the leading case of The Louis (2 Dodson 210), decided in 1817,\nsome two hundred years after Selden\u2019s book was written, Sir William\nScott, later Lord Stowell and one of Selden\u2019s most distinguished\ncountrymen, said, in rejecting the claim of his country to the\nexercise of jurisdiction beyond a marine league from the British\nshore:\n\n  I have to observe, that two principles of public law are\n  generally recognized as fundamental.\n\n  One is the perfect equality and entire independence of all\n  distinct states. Relative magnitude creates no distinction of\n  right; relative imbecility, whether permanent or casual, gives no\n  additional right to the more powerful neighbor; and any advantage\n  seized upon that ground is mere usurpation. This is the great\n  foundation of public law, which it mainly concerns the peace\n  of mankind, both in their politic and private capacities, to\n  preserve inviolate.\n\n  The second is, that all nations being equal, all have an equal\n  right to the uninterrupted use of the unappropriated parts of the\n  ocean for their navigation. In places where no local authority\n  exists, where the subjects of all states meet upon a footing of\n  entire equality and independence, no one state, or any of its\n  subjects, has a right to assume or exercise authority over the\n  subjects of another.\n\nIn closing the preface to the _Mare Clausum_, Selden used language,\nwhich the undersigned quotes, albeit in an inverse sense, as a fit\nending to this subject:\n\n\u201cOther passages there are everywhere of the same kind. But I enlarge\nmyself too much in a thing so manifest. Therefore I forbear to light\na candle to the sun. Farewell reader.\u201d\n\n                                          JAMES BROWN SCOTT,\n                                          _Director of the Division of_\n                                          _International Law_.\n\n  WASHINGTON, D. C.,\n      _February 28, 1916_.\n\n\n\n\nTRANSLATOR\u2019S PREFACE\n\n\n_The Latin Text_\n\nThe Latin Text is based upon the Elzevir edition of 1633, the\nmodifications being only such as to bring the Latin into conformity\nwith the present day Teubner and Oxford texts.\n\nReferences in the notes to classic authors are given in unabbreviated\nform, following in other respects the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae\nIndex. Citations to the Civil Law are given in the modern notation,\nwhich is followed, in parentheses, by the older method of reference.\nThe text used is that of Mommsen, Krueger, Schoell et Kroll. The\nCanon Law is cited from the Friedberg edition of 1879-81. The\nabbreviations used are explained below.\n\n\n_The Translation_\n\nThe translator wishes to make due acknowledgment for the passages\nfrom classic writers quoted from standard translations, to which\nreferences are also made in the notes. He has also consulted the\nFrench translation of Grotius by A. Guichon de Grandpont (1845). But\nhis chief acknowledgment is to his colleague and friend, Professor\nKirby Flower Smith of The Johns Hopkins University, to whom he read\nthe translation, and who gave him the benefit of his knowledge of\nLatin and his taste in English, in a number of troublesome passages.\nMany niceties of the translation belong to Professor Smith, but\nmistakes in interpretation belong to the translator alone.\n\nAcknowledgment and thanks are also due to Professor Westel Woodbury\nWilloughby of Johns Hopkins, who has been so good as to read the\ntranslation through in galley proof and give the translator the\nbenefit of his technical knowledge of law; to his Johns Hopkins\ncolleague, Professor Wilfred P. Mustard, who has helped him out\nof a number of difficulties; to Bishop Shahan, Rector of the\nCatholic University of America, who has given of his time to help\nexpand several of Grotius\u2019 abbreviated references to theological\nor canonical authors; to John Curlett Martin, Johns Hopkins Fellow\nin Greek, who has been of great assistance in the verification of\nreferences; and to the men of the Quinn and Boden Company for their\ncourteous assistance while the book was going through the press.\n\n\n_List of Abbreviations_\n\nAuth., Authenticum.\n\nClem., Constitutiones Clementis Papae Quinti.\n\nDist., Distinctio Decreti Gratiani.\n\nExtravag., Constitutiones XXD. Ioannis Papae XXII.\n\nLib. VI, Liber sextus Decretalium D. Bonifacii Papae VIII.\n\nOther abbreviations should offer no difficulties.\n\n\n_Notes of Explanation_\n\nThe words and phrases in the Latin text in capitals follow the type\nof the Elzevir text.\n\nIn order that both text and translation may be complete in\nthemselves, the notes below the translation follow the notes of the\ntext in shortened or expanded form, or in duplicate, as the occasion\nwould seem to demand. The notes in Grotius\u2019 Latin text are in a most\nabbreviated form, and the references are seldom specific. They have\nbeen expanded without further explanation.\n\n[ ] in the translation, text, or notes, inclose additions made by the\ntranslator.\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n\n\n\nCAPITA DISSERTATIONIS HVGONIS GROTII DE MARE LIBERO\n\n\n                                                                PAGINA\n  Ad Principes populosque liberos orbis Christiani                   1\n\n  CAPVT\n  I. Iure gentium quibusvis ad quosvis liberam esse\n  navigationem                                                       7\n\n  II. Lusitanos nullum habere ius dominii in eos\n  Indos ad quos Batavi navigant titulo inventionis                  11\n\n  III. Lusitanos in Indos non habere ius dominii titulo\n  donationis Pontificiae                                            15\n\n  IV. Lusitanos in Indos non habere ius dominii titulo\n  belli                                                             18\n\n  V. Mare ad Indos aut ius eo navigandi non esse\n  proprium Lusitanorum titulo occupationis                          22\n\n  VI. Mare aut ius navigandi proprium non esse\n  Lusitanorum titulo donationis Pontificiae                         45\n\n  VII. Mare aut ius navigandi proprium non esse\n  Lusitanorum titulo praescriptionis aut consuetudinis              47\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n\n\n\n\nTABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n\n                                                                  PAGE\n  Introductory Note                                                  v\n\n  Translator\u2019s Preface                                              xi\n\n  FREEDOM OF THE SEAS\n\n  To the rulers and to the free and independent\n  nations of Christendom                                             1\n\n  CHAPTER\n  I. By the Law of Nations navigation is free to all\n  persons whatsoever                                                 7\n\n  II. The Portuguese have no right by title of discovery\n  to sovereignty over the East Indies\n  to which the Dutch make voyages                                   11\n\n  III. The Portuguese have no right of sovereignty\n  over the East Indies by virtue of title based\n  on the Papal Donation                                             15\n\n  IV. The Portuguese have no right of sovereignty\n  over the East Indies by title of war                              18\n\n  V. Neither the Indian Ocean nor the right of navigation\n  thereon belongs to the Portuguese by\n  title of occupation                                               22\n\n  VI. Neither the Sea nor the right of navigation\n  thereon belongs to the Portuguese by virtue\n  of title based on the Papal Donation                              45\n\n  VII. Neither the Sea nor the right of navigation\n  thereon belongs to the Portuguese by title\n  of prescription or custom                                         47\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n  CAPVT                                                         PAGINA\n  VIII. Iure gentium inter quosvis liberam esse mercaturam          61\n\n  IX. Mercaturam cum Indis propriam non esse\n  Lusitanorum titulo occupationis                                   65\n\n  X. Mercaturam cum Indis propriam non esse\n  Lusitanorum titulo donationis Pontificiae                         66\n\n  XI. Mercaturam cum Indis non esse Lusitanorum\n  propriam iure praescriptionis aut consuetudinis                   67\n\n  XII. Nulla aequitate niti Lusitanos in prohibendo\n  commercio                                                         69\n\n  XIII. Batavis ius commercii Indicani, qua pace, qua\n  indutiis, qua bello retinendum                                    72\n\n  Regis Hispaniarum litterae                                        77\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n  CHAPTER                                                         PAGE\n  VIII. By the Law of Nations trade is free to all persons\n  whatsoever                                                        61\n\n  IX. Trade with the East Indies does not belong to\n  the Portuguese by title of occupation                             65\n\n  X. Trade with the East Indies does not belong\n  to the Portuguese by virtue of title based\n  on the Papal Donation                                             66\n\n  XI. Trade with the East Indies does not belong to\n  the Portuguese by title of prescription or\n  custom                                                            67\n\n  XII. The Portuguese prohibition of trade has no\n  foundation in equity                                              69\n\n  XIII. The Dutch must maintain their right of trade\n  with the East Indies by peace, by treaty,\n  or by war                                                         72\n\n  Appendix: Two letters of Philip III, King of\n  Spain                                                             77\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n\n\n\nAD PRINCIPES POPVLOSQVE LIBEROS ORBIS CHRISTIANI\n\n\nError est non minus vetus quam pestilens, quo multi mortales, ii\nautem maxime qui plurimum vi atque opibus valent, persuadent sibi,\naut, quod verius puto, persuadere conantur, iustum atque iniustum non\nsuapte natura, sed hominum inani quadam opinione atque consuetudine\ndistingui. Itaque illi et leges et aequitatis speciem in hoc inventa\nexistimant, ut eorum qui in parendi condicione nati sunt dissensiones\natque tumultus coerceantur; ipsis vero qui in summa fortuna sunt\ncollocati, ius omne aiunt ex voluntate, voluntatem ex utilitate\nmetiendam. Hanc autem sententiam absurdam plane atque naturae\ncontrariam auctoritatis sibi nonnihil conciliasse haud adeo mirum\nest, cum ad morbum communem humani generis, quo sicut vitia ita\nvitiorum patrocinia sectamur, accesserint adulantium artes quibus\nomnis potestas obnoxia est.\n\nSed contra exstiterunt nullo non saeculo viri liberi, sapientes,\nreligiosi, qui falsam hanc persuasionem animis simplicium evellerent\nceteros autem eius defensores impudentiae convincerent. Deum quippe\nesse monstrabant conditorem rectoremque universi, imprimis autem\nhumanae naturae parentem, quam ideo, non uti cetera animantia, in\nspecies diversas, variaque discrimina segregasset, sed unius esse\ngeneris, una etiam appellatione voluisset contineri,\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n\n\n\nTO THE RULERS AND TO THE FREE AND INDEPENDENT NATIONS OF CHRISTENDOM\n\n\nThe delusion is as old as it is detestable with which many men,\nespecially those who by their wealth and power exercise the greatest\ninfluence, persuade themselves, or as I rather believe, try to\npersuade themselves, that justice and injustice are distinguished\nthe one from the other not by their own nature, but in some fashion\nmerely by the opinion and the custom of mankind. Those men therefore\nthink that both the laws and the semblance of equity were devised\nfor the sole purpose of repressing the dissensions and rebellions of\nthose persons born in a subordinate position, affirming meanwhile\nthat they themselves, being placed in a high position, ought to\ndispense all justice in accordance with their own good pleasure,\nand that their pleasure ought to be bounded only by their own view\nof what is expedient. This opinion, absurd and unnatural as it\nclearly is, has gained considerable currency; but this should by\nno means occasion surprise, inasmuch as there has to be taken into\nconsideration not only the common frailty of the human race by which\nwe pursue not only vices and their purveyors, but also the arts of\nflatterers, to whom power is always exposed.\n\nBut, on the other hand, there have stood forth in every age\nindependent and wise and devout men able to root out this false\ndoctrine from the minds of the simple, and to convict its advocates\nof shamelessness. For they showed that God was the founder and ruler\nof the universe, and especially that being the Father of all mankind,\nHe had not separated human beings, as He had the rest of living\nthings, into different species and various divisions, but had willed\nthem to be of one race and to be known by one name; that\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\ndedisset insuper originem eandem, similem membrorum compagem, vultus\ninter se obversos, sermonem quoque et alia communicandi instrumenta,\nut intelligerent omnes naturalem inter se societatem esse atque\ncognationem. Huic autem a se fundatae aut domui aut civitati summum\nillum principem patremque familias suas quasdam scripsisse leges,\nnon in aere aut tabulis, sed in sensibus animisque singulorum, ubi\ninvitis etiam et aversantibus legendae occurrent his legibus summos\npariter atque infimos teneri, in has non plus regibus licere, quam\nplebi adversus decreta decurionum, decurionibus contra praesidium\nedicta, praesidibus in regum ipsorum sanctiones. Quin illa ipsa\npopulorum atque urbium singularum iura ex illo fonte dimanare, inde\nsanctimoniam suam atque maiestatem accipere.\n\nSicut autem in ipso homine alia sunt quae habet cum omnibus communia,\nalia quibus ab altero quisque distinguitur, ita earum rerum quas in\nusum hominis produxisset natura alias eam manere communes, alias\ncuiusque industria ac labore proprias fieri voluisse, de utrisque\nautem datas leges, ut communibus quidem sine detrimento omnium omnes\nuterentur, de ceteris autem quod cuique contigisset eo contentus\nabstineret alieno.\n\nHaec si homo nullus nescire potest nisi homo esse desierit, haec si\ngentes viderunt quibus ad verum omne caecutientibus sola naturae fax\nilluxit, quid vos sentire ac facere aequum est, principes populique\nChristiani?\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nfurthermore He had given them the same origin, the same structural\norganism, the ability to look each other in the face, language too,\nand other means of communication, in order that they all might\nrecognize their natural social bond and kinship. They showed too\nthat He is the supreme Lord and Father of this family; and that for\nthe household or the state which He had thus founded, He had drawn\nup certain laws not graven on tablets of bronze or stone but written\nin the minds and on the hearts of every individual, where even the\nunwilling and the refractory must read them. That these laws were\nbinding on great and small alike; that kings have no more power\nagainst them than have the common people against the decrees of the\nmagistrates, than have the magistrates against the edicts of the\ngovernors, than have the governors against the ordinances of the\nkings themselves; nay more, that those very laws themselves of each\nand every nation and city flow from that Divine source, and from that\nsource receive their sanctity and their majesty.\n\nNow, as there are some things which every man enjoys in common with\nall other men, and as there are other things which are distinctly\nhis and belong to no one else, just so has nature willed that some\nof the things which she has created for the use of mankind remain\ncommon to all, and that others through the industry and labor of each\nman become his own. Laws moreover were given to cover both cases so\nthat all men might use common property without prejudice to any one\nelse, and in respect to other things so that each man being content\nwith what he himself owns might refrain from laying his hands on the\nproperty of others.\n\nNow since no man can be ignorant of these facts unless he ceases\nto be a man, and since races blind to all truth except what they\nreceive from the light of nature, have recognized their force, what,\nO Christian Kings and Nations, ought you to think, and what ought you\nto do?\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n\nSi quis durum putat ea a se exigi quae tam sancti nominis professio\nrequirit, cuius minimum est ab iniuriis abstinere, certe quid sui\nsit offici scire quisque potest ex eo quod alteri praecipit. Nemo\nest vestrum qui non palam edicat rei quemque suae esse moderatorem\net arbitrum: qui non fluminibus locisque publicis cives omnes uti\nex aequo et promiscue iubeat, qui non commeandi commercandique\nlibertatem omni ope defendat.\n\nSine his si parva illa societas, quam rempublicam vocamus, constare\nnon posse iudicatur (et certe constare non potest) quamobrem non\neadem illa ad sustinendam totius humani generis societatem atque\nconcordiam erunt necessaria? Si quis adversus haec vim faciat,\nmerito indignamini, exempla etiam pro flagiti magnitudine statuitis,\nnon alia de causa nisi quia ubi ista passim licent status imperi\ntranquillus esse non potest. Quod si rex in regem, populus in\npopulum inique et violente agat, id nonne ad perturbandam magnae\nillius civitatis quietem et ad summi custodis spectat iniuriam?\nHoc interest, quod sicut magistratus minores de vulgo iudicant,\nvos de magistratibus, ita omnium aliorum delicta cognoscenda vobis\net punienda mandavit rex universi, vestra excepit sibi. Is autem\nquamquam supremam animadversionem sibi reservat, tardam, occultam,\ninevitabilem, nihilominus duos a se iudices delegat qui rebus humanis\nintersint, quos nocentium felicissimus non effugit, conscientiam\ncuique suam, et famam sive existimationem\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n\nIf any one thinks it hard that those things are demanded of him which\nthe profession of a religion so sacred requires, the very least\nobligation of which is to refrain from injustice, certainly every\none can know what his own duty is from the very demands he makes of\nothers. There is not one of you who does not openly proclaim that\nevery man is entitled to manage and dispose of his own property;\nthere is not one of you who does not insist that all citizens have\nequal and indiscriminate right to use rivers and public places; not\none of you who does not defend with all his might the freedom of\ntravel and of trade.\n\nIf it be thought that the small society which we call a state cannot\nexist without the application of these principles (and certainly it\ncannot), why will not those same principles be necessary to uphold\nthe social structure of the whole human race and to maintain the\nharmony thereof? If any one rebels against these principles of law\nand order you are justly indignant, and you even decree punishments\nin proportion to the magnitude of the offense, for no other reason\nthan that a government cannot be tranquil where trespasses of that\nsort are allowed. If king act unjustly and violently against king,\nand nation against nation, such action involves a disturbance of the\npeace of that universal state, and constitutes a trespass against the\nsupreme Ruler, does it not? There is however this difference: just\nas the lesser magistrates judge the common people, and as you judge\nthe magistrates, so the King of the universe has laid upon you the\ncommand to take cognizance of the trespasses of all other men, and\nto punish them; but He has reserved for Himself the punishment of\nyour own trespasses. But although He reserves to himself the final\npunishment, slow and unseen but none the less inevitable, yet He\nappoints to intervene in human affairs two judges whom the luckiest\nof sinners does not escape, namely, Conscience, or the innate\nestimation of oneself, and Public Opinion, or the estimation of\nothers.\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nalienam. Haec tribunalia illis patent quibus alia praeclusa sunt; ad\nhaec infirmi provocant; in his vincuntur qui vincunt viribus, qui\nlicentiae modum non statuunt, qui vili putant constare quod emitur\nhumano sanguine, qui iniurias iniuriis defendunt, quorum manifesta\nfacinora necesse est et consentiente bonorum iudicio damnari, et sui\nipsorum animi sententia non absolvi.\n\nAd utrumque hoc forum nos quoque novam causam afferimus; non hercule\nde stillicidiis aut tigno iniuncto, quales esse privatorum solent, ac\nne ex eo quidem genere quod frequens est inter populos, de agri iure\nin confinio haerentis, de amnis aut insulae possessione; sed de omni\nprope oceano, de iure navigandi, de libertate commerciorum. Inter\nnos et Hispanos haec controversa sunt: Sitne immensum et vastum mare\nregni unius nec maximi accessio; populone cuiquam ius sit volentes\npopulos prohibere ne vendant, ne permutent, ne denique commeent\ninter sese; potueritne quisquam quod suum numquam fuit elargiri, aut\ninvenire quod iam erat alienum; an ius aliquod tribuat manifesta\nlongi temporis iniuria.\n\nIn hac disceptatione ipsis qui inter Hispanos praecipui sunt divini\natque humani iuris magistri calculum porrigimus, ipsius denique\nHispaniae proprias leges imploramus. Id si nihil iuvat, et eos quos\nratio certa convincit cupiditas vetat desistere, vestram principes\nmaiestatem, vestram fidem quotquot estis ubique gentes appellamus.\n\nNon perplexam, non intricatam movemus quaestionem. Non de ambiguis in\nreligione capitibus, quae plurimum\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n\nThese two tribunals are open to those who are debarred from all\nothers; to these the powerless appeal; in them are defeated those\nwho are wont to win by might, those who put no bounds to their\npresumption, those who consider cheap anything bought at the price\nof human blood, those who defend injustice by injustice, men whose\nwickedness is so manifest that they must needs be condemned by the\nunanimous judgment of the good, and cannot be cleared before the bar\nof their own souls.\n\nTo this double tribunal we bring a new case. It is in very truth no\npetty case such as private citizens are wont to bring against their\nneighbors about dripping eaves or party walls; nor is it a case such\nas nations frequently bring against one another about boundary lines\nor the possession of a river or an island. No! It is a case which\nconcerns practically the entire expanse of the high seas, the right\nof navigation, the freedom of trade!! Between us and the Spaniards\nthe following points are in dispute: Can the vast, the boundless\nsea be the appanage of one kingdom alone, and it not the greatest?\nCan any one nation have the right to prevent other nations which\nso desire, from selling to one another, from bartering with one\nanother, actually from communicating with one another? Can any nation\ngive away what it never owned, or discover what already belonged to\nsome one else? Does a manifest injustice of long standing create a\nspecific right?\n\nIn this controversy we appeal to those jurists among the Spanish\nthemselves who are especially skilled both in divine and human law;\nwe actually invoke the very laws of Spain itself. If that is of no\navail, and those whom reason clearly convicts of wrong are induced\nby greed to maintain that stand, we invoke your majesty, ye Princes,\nyour good faith, ye Peoples, whoever and wherever ye may be.\n\nIt is not an involved, it is not an intricate question that I am\nraising. It is not a question of ambiguous points of\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nhabere videntur obscuritatis, quae tantis tam diu animis decertata,\napud sapientes hoc fere certum reliquerunt, nusquam minus inveniri\nveritatem quam ubi cogitur assensus. Non de statu nostrae\nreipublicae, et libertate armis haud parta sed vindicata; de qua\nrecte statuere ii demum possunt qui iura patria Belgarum, mores\navitos, et institutum non in leges regnum, sed ex legibus principatum\naccurate cognoverint, in qua tamen quaestione aequis iudicibus\nextremae servitutis depulsa necessitas, subtilius inquirentibus\ndecreti* tot nationum publica auctoritas, infensis etiam et malevolis\nadversariorum confessio nihil dubitandum reliquit.\n\n* [decreta (?); decreti is the reading of the 1633 and 1720 texts].\n\nSed quod hic proponimus nihil cum istis commune habet, nullius\nindiget anxiae disquisitionis, non ex divini codicis pendet\nexplicatione, cuius multa multi non capiunt, non ex unius populi\nscitis quae ceteri merito ignorant.\n\nLex illa e cuius praescripto iudicandum est, inventu est non\ndifficilis, utpote eadem apud omnes; et facilis intellectu, utpote\nnata cum singulis, singulorum mentibus insita. Ius autem quod petimus\ntale est quod nec rex subditis negare debeat, neque Christianus non\nChristianis. A natura enim oritur, quae ex aequo omnium parens est,\nin omnes munifica, cuius imperium in eos extenditur qui gentibus\nimperant, et apud eos sanctissimum est qui in pietate plurimum\nprofecerunt.\n\nCognoscite hanc causam principes! cognoscite populi! si quid iniquum\npostulamus, scitis quae vestra et e vobis eorum qui viciniores nobis\nestis apud nos semper fuerit auctoritas!\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\ntheology which seem to be wrapped in the deepest obscurity, which\nhave been debated already so long and with such heat, that wise men\nare almost convinced that truth is never so rarely found as when\nassent thereto is forced. It is not a question of the status of our\ngovernment and of independence not won by arms but restored. On\nthis point those can reach a right decision who have an accurate\nknowledge of the ancestral laws and hereditary customs of the people\nof the Netherlands, and who have recognized that their state is not\na kingdom illegally founded but is a government based upon law. In\nthis matter, however, just judges no longer compelled to subordinate\ntheir convictions have been persuaded; the public authority of many\nnations has entirely satisfied those who were seeking a precedent;\nand the admissions of our adversaries have left even the foolish and\nmalevolent no room for doubt.\n\nBut what I here submit has nothing in common with these matters. It\ncalls for no troublesome investigation. It does not depend upon an\ninterpretation of Holy Writ in which many people find many things\nthey cannot understand, nor upon the decrees of any one nation of\nwhich the rest of the world very properly knows nothing.\n\nThe law by which our case must be decided is not difficult to\nfind, seeing that it is the same among all nations; and it is easy\nto understand, seeing that it is innate in every individual and\nimplanted in his mind. Moreover the law to which we appeal is one\nsuch as no king ought to deny to his subjects, and one no Christian\nought to refuse to a non-Christian. For it is a law derived from\nnature, the common mother of us all, whose bounty falls on all, and\nwhose sway extends over those who rule nations, and which is held\nmost sacred by those who are most scrupulously just.\n\nTake cognizance of this cause, ye Princes, take cognizance of it,\nye Nations! If we are making an unjust demand, you know what your\nauthority and the authority of\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nMonete, parebimus. Quin si quid a nobis hac in re peccatum est, iram\nvestram, odium denique humani generis non deprecamur. Sin contra se\nres habet, quid vobis censendum, quid agendum sit, vestrae religioni\net aequitati relinquimus.\n\nOlim inter populos humaniores summum nefas habebatur armis eos\nimpetere qui res suas arbitris permitterent, contra qui tam\naequam condicionem recusarent, ii non ut unius sed ut omnium\nhostes ope communi comprimebantur. Itaque eam in rem videmus icta\nfoedera, iudices constitutos. Reges ipsi validaeque gentes nihil\naeque gloriosum ac magnificum deputabant, quam aliorum coercere\ninsolentiam, aliorum infirmitatem atque innocentiam sublevare.\nQui si mos hodieque obtineret, ut humani nihil a se alienum*\nhomines arbitrarentur, profecto orbe non paulo pacatiore uteremur;\nrefrigesceret enim multorum audacia, et qui iustitiam utilitatis\ncausa nunc negligunt, iniustitiam damno suo dediscerent.\n\n* [Cf. Terence, Hautontimorumenos 77].\n\nSed hoc ut in causa istac non frustra forte speramus, ita illud certo\nconfidimus, bene rebus expensis existimaturos vos omnes imputari\nnobis non magis posse pacis moras, quam belli causas; ac proinde\nuti hactenus amici nobis faventes atque benevoli fuistis, ita vos\naut etiam magis in posterum fore, quo nihil optatius iis potest\ncontingere qui primam partem felicitatis putant bene facere, alteram\nbene audire.\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nthose of you who are our nearer neighbors has always been so far as\nwe are concerned. Caution us, we will obey. Verily, if we have done\nany wrong in this our cause, we will not deprecate your wrath, nor\neven the hatred of the human race. But if we are right, we leave to\nyour sense of righteousness and of fairness what you ought to think\nabout this matter and what course of action you ought to pursue.\n\nIn ancient times among the more civilized peoples it was held to be\nthe greatest of all crimes to make war upon those who were willing\nto submit to arbitration the settlement of their difficulties; but\nagainst those who declined so fair an offer all others turned, and\nwith their combined resources overwhelmed them, not as enemies of\nany one nation, but as enemies of them all alike. So for this very\nobject we see that treaties are made and arbiters appointed. Kings\nthemselves and powerful nations used to think that nothing was so\nchivalrous or so noble as to coerce the insolent and to help the weak\nand innocent.\n\nIf today the custom held of considering that everything pertaining to\nmankind pertained also to one\u2019s self, we should surely live in a much\nmore peaceable world. For the presumptuousness of many would abate,\nand those who now neglect justice on the pretext of expediency would\nunlearn the lesson of injustice at their own expense.\n\nWe have felt that perhaps we were not entertaining a foolish hope for\nour cause. At all events we are confident that you will all recognize\nafter duly weighing the facts in the case that the delays to peace\ncan no more be laid to our charge than can the causes of war; and as\nhitherto you have been indulgent, even favorably disposed to us, we\nfeel sure that you will not only remain in this mind, but be even\nmore friendly to us in the future. Nothing more to be desired than\nthis can come to men who think that the first condition of happiness\nis good deeds; the second, good repute.\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n\n\n\nCAPVT I\n\n_Iure gentium quibusvis ad quosvis liberam esse navigationem_\n\n\nPropositum est nobis breviter ac dilucide demonstrare ius esse\nBatavis, hoc est, Ordinum Foederatorum Belgico-Germaniae subditis\nad Indos, ita uti navigant navigare, cumque ipsis commercia colere.\nFundamentum struemus hanc iuris gentium, quod primarium vocant\nregulam certissimam, cuius perspicua atque immutabilis est ratio;\nlicere cuivis genti quamvis alteram adire, cumque ea negotiari.\n\nDeus hoc ipse per naturam loquitur, cum ea cuncta quibus vita\nindiget, omnibus locis suppeditari a natura non vult: artibus etiam\naliis alias gentes dat excellere. Quo ista, nisi quod voluit mutua\negestate et copia humanas foveri amicitias, ne singuli se putantes\nsibi ipsis sufficere, hoc ipso redderentur insociabiles? Nunc factum\nest ut gens altera alterius suppleret inopiam, divinae iustitiae\ninstituto, ut eo modo (sicut Plinius dicit[1a]) quod genitum esset\nuspiam, apud omnes natum videretur. Poetas itaque canentes audimus:\n\n      _Nec vero terrae ferre omnes omnia possunt._[2a]\n\nItem:\n\n      _Excudent alii_,\n\net quae sequuntur.[3a]\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\n_By the Law of Nations navigation is free to all persons whatsoever_\n\n\nMy intention is to demonstrate briefly and clearly that the\nDutch--that is to say, the subjects of the United Netherlands--have\nthe right to sail to the East Indies, as they are now doing, and to\nengage in trade with the people there. I shall base my argument on\nthe following most specific and unimpeachable axiom of the Law of\nNations, called a primary rule or first principle, the spirit of\nwhich is self-evident and immutable, to wit: Every nation is free to\ntravel to every other nation, and to trade with it.\n\nGod Himself says this speaking through the voice of nature; and\ninasmuch as it is not His will to have Nature supply every place with\nall the necessaries of life, He ordains that some nations excel in\none art and others in another. Why is this His will, except it be\nthat He wished human friendships to be engendered by mutual needs and\nresources, lest individuals deeming themselves entirely sufficient\nunto themselves should for that very reason be rendered unsociable?\nSo by the decree of divine justice it was brought about that one\npeople should supply the needs of another, in order, as Pliny the\nRoman writer says,[1] that in this way, whatever has been produced\nanywhere should seem to have been destined for all. Vergil also sings\nin this wise:\n\n      \u201c_Not every plant on every soil will grow_,\u201d[2]\n\nand in another place:\n\n      \u201c_Let others better mould the running mass\n      Of metals_,\u201d etc.[3]\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n\nHoc igitur qui tollunt, illam laudatissimam tollunt humani generis\nsocietatem, tollunt mutuas benefaciendi occasiones, naturam denique\nipsam violant. Nam et ille quem Deus terris circumfudit Oceanus,\nundique et undique versus navigabilis, et ventorum stati aut\nextraordinarii flatus, non ab eadem semper, et a nulla non aliquando\nregione spirantes, nonne significant satis concessum a natura cunctis\ngentibus ad cunctas aditum? Hoc Seneca[4a] summum Naturae beneficium\nputat, quod et vento gentes locis dissipatas miscuit, et sua omnia in\nregiones ita descripsit, ut necessarium mortalibus esset inter ipsos\ncommercium. Hoc igitur ius ad cunctas gentes aequaliter pertinet:\nquod clarissimi Iurisconsulti[5a] eo usque producunt, ut negent ullam\nrempublicam aut Principem prohibere in universum posse, quo minus\nalii ad subditos suos accedant, et cum illis negotientur. Hinc ius\ndescendit hospitale sanctissimum: hinc querelae:\n\n      _Quod genus hoc hominum? quaeve hunc tam barbara morem\n      Permittit patria? hospitio prohibemur harenae._[6a]\n\nEt alibi\n\n                            _litusque rogamus\n      Innocuum et cunctis undamque auramque patentem._[7a]\n\nEt scimus bella quaedam ex hac causa coepisse, ut Megarensibus\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n\nThose therefore who deny this law, destroy this most praise-worthy\nbond of human fellowship, remove the opportunities for doing mutual\nservice, in a word do violence to Nature herself. For do not the\nocean, navigable in every direction with which God has encompassed\nall the earth, and the regular and the occasional winds which blow\nnow from one quarter and now from another, offer sufficient proof\nthat Nature has given to all peoples a right of access to all\nother peoples? Seneca[4] thinks this is Nature\u2019s greatest service,\nthat by the wind she united the widely scattered peoples, and yet\ndid so distribute all her products over the earth that commercial\nintercourse was a necessity to mankind. Therefore this right belongs\nequally to all nations. Indeed the most famous jurists[5] extend\nits application so far as to deny that any state or any ruler can\ndebar foreigners from having access to their subjects and trading\nwith them. Hence is derived that law of hospitality which is of the\nhighest sanctity; hence the complaint of the poet Vergil:\n\n      \u201c_What men, what monsters, what inhuman race,\n      What laws, what barbarous customs of the place,\n      Shut up a desert shore to drowning men,\n        And drive us to the cruel seas again._\u201d[6]\n\nAnd:\n\n      \u201c_To beg what you without your want may spare--\n      The common water, and the common air._\u201d[7]\n\nWe know that certain wars have arisen over this very matter; such for\nexample as the war of the Megarians against the\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nin Athenienses.[8a] Bononiensibus in. Venetos,[9a] Castellanis etiam\nin Americanos has iustas potuisse belli causas esse, et ceteris\nprobabiliores Victoria putat,[10a] si peregrinari et degere apud\nillos prohiberentur, si arcerentur a participatione earum rerum quae\niure gentium aut moribus communia sunt, si denique ad commercia non\nadmitterentur.\n\nCui simile est quod in Mosis[11a] historia et inde apud Augustinum\nlegimus,[12a] iusta bella Israelitas contra Amorrhaeos gessisse,\nquia innoxius transitus denegabatur; qui IVRE HVMANAE SOCIETATIS\naequissimo patere debebat. Et hoc nomine Hercules Orchomeniorum,\nGraeci sub Agamemnone Mysorum Regi arma intulerunt,[13a] quasi libera\nessent naturaliter itinera, ut Baldus dixit.[14a] Accusanturque\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nAthenians,[8] and that of the Bolognese against the Venetians.[9]\nAgain, Victoria[10] holds that the Spaniards could have shown just\nreasons for making war upon the Aztecs and the Indians in America,\nmore plausible reasons certainly than were alleged, if they really\nwere prevented from traveling or sojourning among those peoples,\nand were denied the right to share in those things which by the Law\nof Nations or by Custom are common to all, and finally if they were\ndebarred from trade.\n\nWe read of a similar case in the history of Moses,[11] which we find\nmentioned also in the writings of Augustine,[12] where the Israelites\njustly smote with the edge of the sword the Amorites because they had\ndenied the Israelites an innocent passage through their territory,\na right which according to the Law of Human Society ought in all\njustice to have been allowed. In defense of this principle Hercules\nattacked the king of Orchomenus in Boeotia; and the Greeks under\ntheir leader Agamemnon waged war against the king of Mysia[13] on the\nground that, as Baldus[14] has said, high roads were free\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\na Germanis apud Tacitum[15a] Romani, quod colloquia congressusque\ngentium arcerent, fluminaque et terras et coelum quodam modo ipsum\nclauderent. Nec ullus titulus Christianis quondam in Saracenos magis\nplacuit, quam quod per illos terrae Iudaeae aditu arcerentur.[16a]\n\nSequitur ex sententia Lusitanos etiamsi domini essent earum regionum\nad quas Batavi proficiscuntur, iniuriam tamen facturos si aditum\nBatavis et mercatum praecluderent.\n\nQuanto igitur iniquius est volentes aliquos a volentium populorum\ncommercio secludi, illorum opera quorum in potestate nec populi isti\nsunt, nec illud ipsum, qua iter est, quando latrones etiam et piratas\nnon alio magis nomine detestamur, quam quod illi hominum inter se\ncommeatus obsident atque infestant?\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nby nature. Again, as we read in Tacitus,[15] the Germans accused the\nRomans of \u2018preventing all intercourse between them and of closing up\nto them the rivers and roads, and almost the very air of heaven\u2019.\nWhen in days gone by the Christians made crusades against the\nSaracens, no other pretext was so welcome or so plausible as that\nthey were denied by the infidels free access to the Holy Land.[16]\n\nIt follows therefore that the Portuguese, even if they had been\nsovereigns in those parts to which the Dutch make voyages, would\nnevertheless be doing them an injury if they should forbid them\naccess to those places and from trading there.\n\nIs it not then an incalculably greater injury for nations which\ndesire reciprocal commercial relations to be debarred therefrom\nby the acts of those who are sovereigns neither of the nations\ninterested, nor of the element over which their connecting high road\nruns? Is not that the very cause which for the most part prompts us\nto execrate robbers and pirates, namely, that they beset and infest\nour trade routes?\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n\n\n\nCAPUT II\n\n_Lusitanos nullum habere ius dominii in eos Indos ad quos Batavi\nnavigant titulo inventionis_\n\nNon esse autem Lusitanos earum partium dominos ad quas Batavi\naccedunt, puta Iavae, Taprobanae, partis maximae Moluccarum,\ncertissimo argumento colligimus, quia dominus nemo est eius rei\nquam nec ipse umquam nec alter ipsius nomine possedit. Habent\ninsulae istae quas dicimus et semper habuerunt suos reges, suam\nrempublican, suas leges, sua iura; Lusitanis mercatus, ut aliis\ngentibus conceditur; itaque et tributa cum pendunt, et ius mercandi\na principibus exorant, dominos se non esse, sed ut externos advenire\nsatis testantur; ne habitant quidem nisi precario. Et quamquam ad\ndominium titulus non sufficiat, quia et possessio requiritur, cum\naliud sit rem habere, aliud ius ad rem consequendam, tamen ne titulum\nquidem dominii in eas partes Lusitanis ullum esse affirmo, quem non\nipsis eripuerit Doctorum, et quidem Hispanorum sententia.\n\nPrimum si dicent inventionis praemio eas terras sibi cessisse, nec\nius, nec verum dicent. Invenire enim non illud est oculis usurpare,\nsed apprehendere, ut Gordiani epistola\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\n_The Portuguese have no right by title of discovery to sovereignty\nover the East Indies to which the Dutch make voyages_\n\n\nThe Portuguese are not sovereigns of those parts of the East Indies\nto which the Dutch sail, that is to say, Java, Ceylon,* and many of\nthe Moluccas. This I prove by the incontrovertible argument that no\none is sovereign of a thing which he himself has never possessed,\nand which no one else has ever held in his name. These islands of\nwhich we speak, now have and always have had their own kings, their\nown government, their own laws, and their own legal systems. The\ninhabitants allow the Portuguese to trade with them, just as they\nallow other nations the same privilege. Therefore, inasmuch as the\nPortuguese pay tolls, and obtain leave to trade from the rulers\nthere, they thereby give sufficient proof that they do not go there\nas sovereigns but as foreigners. Indeed they only reside there on\nsuffrance. And although the title to sovereignty is not sufficient,\ninasmuch as possession is a prerequisite--for having a thing is\nquite different from having the right to acquire it--nevertheless I\naffirm that in those places the Portuguese have no title at all to\nsovereignty which is not denied them by the opinion of learned men,\neven of the Spaniards.\n\n* [Taprobane was the ancient name of Ceylon. Milton speaks of it in\nParadise Regained IV, 75:\n\n      \u201cAnd utmost Indian Isle Taprobane.\u201d]\n\n\nFirst of all, if they say that those lands have come under their\njurisdiction as the reward of discovery, they lie, both in law and in\nfact. For to discover a thing is not only to seize it with the eyes\nbut to take real possession thereof,\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nostenditur;[17a] unde Grammatici[18a] invenire et occupare pro\nverbis ponunt idem significantibus; et tota Latinitas quod adepti\nsumus, id demum invenisse nos dicit, cui oppositum est perdere. Quin\net ipsa naturalis ratio, et legum diserta verba, et eruditiorum\ninterpretatio[19a] manifeste ostendit, ad titulum dominii parandum\neam demum sufficere inventionem quae cum possessione coniuncta est,\nubi scilicet res mobiles apprehenduntur, aut immobiles terminis atque\ncustodia sepiuntur;[20a] quod in hac specie dici nullo modo potest.\nNam praesidia illic Lusitani nulla habent. Quid quod ne reperisse\nquidem Indiam ullo modo dici possunt Lusitani, quae tot a saeculis\nfuerat celeberrima. Iam ab Horati tempore:[21a]\n\n      _Impiger extremos currit mercator ad Indos\n      Per mare pauperiem fugiens._\n\nTaprobanes pleraque quam exacte nobis Romani descripsere?[22a] Iam\nvero et ceteras insulas ante Lusitanos non\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nas Gordian[17] points out in one of his letters. For that reason\nthe Grammarians[18] give the same signification to the expressions\n\u2018to find\u2019 and \u2018to occupy\u2019; and all Latinity applies the phrase\n\u2018we have found\u2019 only to the thing which \u2018we have seized\u2019; and the\nopposite of this is \u2018to lose\u2019. However, natural reason itself, the\nprecise words of the law, and the interpretation of the more learned\nmen[19] all show clearly that the act of discovery is sufficient\nto give a clear title of sovereignty only when it is accompanied\nby actual possession. And this only applies of course to movables\nor to such immovables as are actually inclosed within fixed bounds\nand guarded.[20] No such claim can be established in the present\ncase, because the Portuguese maintain no garrisons in those regions.\nNeither can the Portuguese by any possible means claim to have\ndiscovered India, a country which was famous centuries and centuries\nago! It was already known as early as the time of the emperor\nAugustus as the following quotation from Horace shows:\n\n      \u201c_That worst of evils, poverty, to shun\n      Dauntless through seas, and rocks, and fires you run\n      To furthest Ind_,\u201d[21]\n\nAnd have not the Romans described for us in the most exact way the\ngreater part of Ceylon?[22] And as far as the other islands are\nconcerned, not only the neighboring\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nfinitimi tantum Persae et Arabes, sed Europaei etiam, praecipue\nVeneti noverant.\n\nPraeterea inventio nihil iuris tribuit, nisi in ea quae ante\ninventionem nullius fuerant.[23a] Atqui Indi cum ad eos Lusitani\nvenerunt, etsi partim idololatrae, partim Mahumetani erant,\ngravibusque peccatis involuti, nihilominus publice atque privatim\nrerum possessionumque suarum dominium habuerunt, quod illis sine\niusta causa eripi non potuit.[24a] Ita certissimis rationibus post\nalios auctores maximi nominis concludit Hispanus Victoria:[25a] \u2018Non\npossunt\u2019, inquit, \u2018Christiani saeculares aut Ecclesiastici potestate\ncivili et principatu privare infideles, eo dumtaxat titulo, quia\ninfideles sunt, nisi ab eis alia iniuria profecta sit\u2019.\n\nFides enim, ut recte inquit Thomas[26a] non tollit ius naturale aut\nhumanum ex quo dominia profecta sunt. Immo credere infideles non esse\nrerum suarum dominos, haereticum est; et res ab illis possessas illis\nob hoc ipsum eripere furtum est et rapina, non minus quam si idem\nfiat Christianis.\n\nRecte igitur dicit Victoria[27a] non magis ista ex causa Hispanis ius\nin Indos quaesitum, quam Indis fuisset in Hispanos, si qui illorum\npriores in Hispaniam venissent. Neque vero sunt Indi Orientis amentes\net insensati, sed\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nPersians and Arabs, but even Europeans, particularly the Venetians,\nknew them long before the Portuguese did.\n\nBut in addition to all this, discovery _per se_ gives no legal\nrights over things unless before the alleged discovery they were\n_res nullius_.[23] Now these Indians of the East, on the arrival\nof the Portuguese, although some of them were idolators, and some\nMohammedans, and therefore sunk in grievous sin, had none the less\nperfect public and private ownership of their goods and possessions,\nfrom which they could not be dispossessed without just cause.[24] The\nSpanish writer Victoria,[25] following other writers of the highest\nauthority, has the most certain warrant for his conclusion that\nChristians, whether of the laity or of the clergy, cannot deprive\ninfidels of their civil power and sovereignty merely on the ground\nthat they are infidels, unless some other wrong has been done by them.\n\nFor religious belief, as Thomas Aquinas[26] rightly observes, does\nnot do away with either natural or human law from which sovereignty\nis derived. Surely it is a heresy to believe that infidels are not\nmasters of their own property; consequently, to take from them their\npossessions on account of their religious belief is no less theft and\nrobbery than it would be in the case of Christians.\n\nVictoria then is right in saying[27] that the Spaniards have no more\nlegal right over the East Indians because of their religion, than the\nEast Indians would have had over the Spaniards if they had happened\nto be the first foreigners to come to Spain. Nor are the East Indians\nstupid and unthinking; on the contrary they are intelligent and\nshrewd,\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\ningeniosi et solertes, ita ut ne hinc quidem praetextus subiciendi\npossit desumi, qui tamen per se satis est manifestae iniquitatis.\nIam olim Plutarchus \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03be\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 fuisse dicit \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u1f70,* improbam scilicet alieni cupiditatem hoc sibi\nvelum obtendere, quod barbariem mansuefacit. Et nunc etiam color\nille redigendi invitas gentes ad mores humaniores, qui Graecis\nolim et Alexandro usurpatus est, a Theologis omnibus, praesertim\nHispanis,[28a] improbus atque impius censetur.\n\n* [Plutarch, Pompeius LXX].\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nso that a pretext for subduing them on the ground of their character\ncould not be sustained. Such a pretext on its very face is an\ninjustice. Plutarch said long ago that the civilizing of barbarians\nhad been made the pretext for aggression, which is to say that\na greedy longing for the property of another often hides itself\nbehind such a pretext. And now that well-known pretext of forcing\nnations into a higher state of civilization against their will, the\npretext once seized by the Greeks and by Alexander the Great,* is\nconsidered by all theologians, especially those of Spain,[28] to be\nunjust and unholy.\n\n* [Cf. Plutarch, Of the Fortune or Virtue of Alexander the Great I,\n5].\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n\n\n\nCAPVT III\n\n_Lusitanos in Indos non habere ius dominii titulo donationis\nPontificiae_\n\n\nSecundo si Pontificis Alexandri Sexti divisione utentur, ante omnia\nillud attendendum est, volueritne Pontifex contentiones tantum\nLusitanorum et Castellanorum dirimere, quod potuit sane, ut lectus\ninter illos arbiter, sicut et ipsi Reges iam ante inter se ea de re\nfoedera quaedam pepigerant;[29a] et hoc si ita est, cum res inter\nalios acta sit, ad ceteras gentes non pertinebit; an vero prope\nsingulos mundi trientes duobus populis donare. Quod etsi voluisset,\net potuisset Pontifex, non tamen continuo sequeretur dominos eorum\nlocorum esse Lusitanos, cum donatio dominum non faciat, sed secuta\ntraditio;[30a] quare et huic causae possessio deberet accedere.\n\nTum vero si quis ius ipsum sive divinum sive humanum scrutari volet,\nnon autem ex commodo suo metiri, facile\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\n_The Portuguese have no right of sovereignty over the East Indies by\nvirtue of title based on the Papal Donation_\n\n\nNext, if the partition made by the Pope Alexander VI* is to be\nused by the Portuguese as authority for jurisdiction in the East\nIndies, then before all things else two points must be taken into\nconsideration.\n\n* [The Cambridge Modern History, I, 23-24, has a good paragraph upon\nthis famous Papal Bull of May 14, 1493 (modified June 7, 1494, by\ntreaty of Tordesillas).]\n\nFirst, did the Pope merely desire to settle the disputes between the\nPortuguese and the Spaniards?\n\nThis was clearly within his power, inasmuch as he had been chosen\nto arbitrate between them, and in fact the kings of both countries\nhad previously concluded certain treaties with each other on this\nvery matter.[29] Now if this be the case, seeing that the question\nconcerns only the Portuguese and Spaniards, the decision of the Pope\nwill of course not affect the other peoples of the world.\n\nSecond, did the Pope intend to give to two nations, each one third of\nthe whole world?\n\nBut even if the Pope had intended and had had the power to make such\na gift, still it would not have made the Portuguese sovereigns of\nthose places. For it is not a donation that makes a sovereign, it is\nthe consequent delivery of a thing[30] and the subsequent possession\nthereof.\n\nNow, if any one will scrutinize either divine or human law, not\nmerely with a view to his own interests, he will\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\ndeprehendet donationem eiusmodi ut rei alienae nullius esse momenti.\nDisputationem de potestate Pontificis, hoc est Episcopi Romanae\nEcclesiae, hic non aggrediar, nec quicquam ponam nisi ex hypothesi,\nhoc est, quod confitentur homines inter eos eruditissimi, qui\nplurimum Pontificiae tribuunt auctoritati, maxime Hispani, qui cum\npro sua perspicacia facile vident Dominum Christum omne a se terrenum\nimperium abdicasse,[31a] mundi certe totius dominium, qua homo fuit,\nnon habuisse, et si habuisset, nullis tamen argumentis astrui posse\nius illud in Petrum, aut Romanam Ecclesiam Vicarii iure translatum;\ncum alias etiam certum sit, multa Christum habuisse in quae Pontifex\nnon successerit,[32a] intrepide affirmarunt (utar ipsorum verbis)\nPontificem non esse dominum civilem aut temporalem totius orbis.[33a]\nImmo etiam si quam talem potestatem in mundo haberet, eam tamen non\nrecte exerciturum, cum spirituali sua iurisdictione contentus esse\ndebeat, saecularibus autem Principibus eam concedere nullo modo\nposse. Tum vero si quam habeat potestatem, eam habere, ut loquuntur\nin ordine ad spiritualia.[34a] Quocirca nullam illi esse potestatem\nin populos infideles, ut qui ad Ecclesiam non pertineant.[35a]\n\nUnde sequitur ex sententia Caietani et Victoriae et\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\neasily apprehend that a donation of this kind, dealing with the\nproperty of others, is of no effect. I shall not enter here upon any\ndiscussion as to the power of the Pope, that is the Bishop of the\nRoman Church, nor shall I advance anything but a hypothesis which\nis accepted by men of the greatest erudition, who lay the greatest\nstress on the power of the Pope, especially the Spaniards, who with\ntheir perspicacity easily see that our Lord Jesus Christ when he\nsaid \u201cMy kingdom is not of this world\u201d thereby renounced all earthly\npower,[31] and that while He was on earth as a man, He certainly\ndid not have dominion over the whole world, and if He had had such\ndominion, still by no arguments could such a right be transferred\nto Peter, or be transmitted to the Roman Church by authority of the\n\u2018Vicar of Christ\u2019; indeed, inasmuch as Christ had many things to\nwhich the Pope did not succeed,[32] it has been boldly affirmed--and\nI shall use the very words of the writers--that the Pope is neither\ncivil nor temporal Lord of the whole world.[33] On the contrary, even\nif the Pope did have any such power on earth, still he would not be\nright in using it, because he ought to be satisfied with his own\nspiritual jurisdiction, and be utterly unable to grant that power\nto temporal princes. So then, if the Pope has any power at all, he\nhas it, as they say, in the spiritual realm only.[34] Therefore he\nhas no authority over infidel nations, for they do not belong to the\nChurch.[35]\n\nIt follows therefore according to the opinions of\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\npotioris partis tam Theologorum quam Canonistarum,[36a] non esse\nidoneum titulum adversus Indos, vel quia Papa dederit provincias\nillas tamquam dominus absolute, vel quia non recognoscunt dominium\nPapae; atque adeo ne Saracenos quidem isto titulo umquam spoliatos.\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nCajetan and Victoria and the more authoritative of the Theologians\nand writers on Canon Law,[36] that there is no clear title against\nthe East Indians, based either on the ground that the Pope made an\nabsolute grant of those provinces as if he were their sovereign,\nor on the pretext that the East Indians do not recognize his\nsovereignty. Indeed, and in truth, it may be affirmed that no such\npretext as that was ever invoked to despoil even the Saracens.\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n\n\n\nCAPVT IV\n\n_Lusitanos in Indos non habere ius dominii titulo belli_\n\n\nHis igitur sublatis cum manifestum sit, quod et Victoria\nscribit,[37a] Hispanos ad terras remotiores illas navigantes nullum\nius secum attulisse occupandi eas provincias, unus dumtaxat titulus\nbelli restat, qui et ipse si iustus esset, tamen ad dominium\nproficere non posset, nisi iure praedae, hoc est post occupationem.\nAtqui tantum abest ut Lusitani eas res occupaverint, ut cum plerisque\ngentibus quas Batavi accesserunt, bellum eo tempore nullum haberent.\nEt sic igitur nullum ius illis quaeri potuit, cum etiam si quas ab\nIndis pertulissent iniurias, eas longa pace et amicis commerciis\nremisisse merito censeantur.\n\nQuamquam ne fuit quidem quod bello obtenderent. Nam qui Barbaros\nbello persequuntur ut Americanos Hispani, duo solent praetexere, quod\nab illis commercio arceantur, aut quod doctrinam verae religionis\nilli nolent agnoscere. Et commercia quidem Lusitani ab Indis\nimpetrarunt,[38a] ut hac in parte nihil habeant quod querantur.\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\n_The Portuguese have no right of sovereignty over the East Indies by\ntitle of war_\n\n\nSince it is clear, (as Victoria also says),[37] from the refutation\nof any claim to title from the Pope\u2019s Donation, that the Spaniards\nwhen they sailed to those distant lands did not carry with them any\nright to occupy them as provinces, only one kind of title remains to\nbe considered, namely, that based upon war. But even if this title\ncould be justified, it would not serve to establish sovereignty,\nexcept by right of conquest, that is to say, occupation would be\na prerequisite. But the Portuguese were as far as possible from\noccupation of those lands. They were not even at war with most of\nthe peoples whom the Dutch visited. So therefore no legal claim\ncould be established there by the Portuguese, because even if they\nhad suffered wrongs from the East Indians, it might reasonably be\nconsidered by the long peace and friendly commercial relations that\nthose injuries had been forgiven.\n\nIndeed there was no pretext at all for going to war. For those\nwho force war upon barbarous peoples, as the Spaniards did upon\nthe aborigines of America, commonly allege one of two pretexts:\neither that they have been refused the right to trade, or that the\nbarbarians are unwilling to acknowledge the doctrines of the True\nFaith. But as the Portuguese actually obtained from the East Indians\nthe right to trade,[38] they have, on that score at least, no\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nAlter vero obtentus nihilo est iustior, quam ille Graecorum in\nBarbaros, quo Bo\u00ebthius respexit:[39a]\n\n      _An distant quia dissidentque mores,\n      Iniustas acies, et fera bella movent,\n        Alternisque volunt perire telis?\n        Non est iusta satis saevitiae ratio._\n\nIsta autem et Thomae et Concili Toletani et Gregori et Theologorum,\nCanonistarum, Iurisprudentiumque fere omnium conclusio est:[40a]\nQuantumcumque fides annuntiata sit Barbaris (nam de his qui\nsubditi ante fuerunt Christianis Principibus item de Apostatis\nalia est quaestio) probabiliter et sufficienter, et si noluerint\neam respicere, non tamen licere hac ratione eos bello persequi, et\nspoliare bonis suis.[41a]\n\nOperae pretium est in hanc rem ipsa Caietani verba describere:[42a]\n\u2018Quidam\u2019, ait, \u2018infideles nec de iure nec de facto subsunt secundum\ntemporalem iurisdictionem Principibus Christianis, ut inveniuntur\npagani, qui numquam imperio Romano subditi fuerunt, terras\nhabitantes, in quibus Christianum numquam fuit nomen. Horum namque\ndomini, quamvis infideles, legitimi domini sunt, sive regali sive\npolitico regimine gubernantur; nec sunt propter infidelitatem a\ndominio suorum privati, cum dominium sit\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\ngrounds of complaint. Nor is there any better justification for\nthe other pretext than the one alleged by the Greeks against the\nbarbarians, to which Bo\u00ebthius makes the following allusion:\n\n      \u201c_Unjust and cruel wars they wage,\n      And haste with flying darts the death to meet or deal.\n      No right nor reason can they show;\n      \u2019Tis but because their lands and laws are not the same._\u201d[39]\n\nMoreover the verdict of Thomas Aquinas, of the Council of Toledo, of\nGregory, and of nearly all theologians, canonists, and jurists, is as\nfollows:[40] However persuasively and sufficiently the True Faith has\nbeen preached to the heathen--former subjects of Christian princes\nor apostates are quite another question--if they are unwilling to\nheed it, that is not sufficient cause to justify war upon them, or to\ndespoil them of their goods.[41]\n\nIt is worth while on this point to quote the actual words of\nCajetan:[42] \u2018There are some infidels who are neither in law nor in\nfact under the temporal jurisdiction of Christian princes; just as\nthere were pagans who were never, subjects of the Roman Empire, and\nyet who inhabit lands where the name of Christ was never heard. Now\ntheir rulers, though heathen, are legitimate rulers, whether the\npeople live under a monarchical or a democratic r\u00e9gime. They are not\nto be deprived of sovereignty over their possessions\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nex iure positivo, et infidelitas ex divino iure, quod non tollit ius\npositivum, ut superius in quaestione habitum est. Et de his nullam\nscio legem quoad temporalia. Contra hos nullus Rex, nullus Imperator,\nnec Ecclesia Romana potest movere bellum ad occupandas terras eorum,\naut subiciendos illos temporaliter; quia nulla subest causa iusta\nbelli, cum Iesus Christus Rex Regum, cui data est potestas in caelo\net in terra, miserit ad capiendam possessionem mundi, non milites\narmatae militiae, sed sanctos praedicatores, sicut oves inter lupos.\nVnde nec in testamento veteri, ubi armata manu possessio erat\ncapienda, terrae infidelium inductum lego bellum alicui propter hoc\nquod non erant fideles, sed quia nolebant dare transitum, vel quia\neos offenderant, ut Madianitae, vel ut recuperarent sua, divina\nlargitate sibi concessa. Vnde GRAVISSIME PECCAREMVS, si fidem Christi\nIesu per hanc viam ampliare contenderemus; nec essemus LEGITIMI\nDOMINI illorum, sed MAGNA LATROCINIA committeremus, et teneremur\nad restitutionem, utpote INIVSTI DEBELLATORES AVT OCCVPATORES.\nMittendi essent ad hos praedicatores boni viri, qui verbo et exemplo\nconverterent eos ad Deum; et non qui eos opprimant, spolient,\nscandalizent, subiciant, et duplo gehennae filios faciant, more\nPharisaeorum\u2019.\n\nEt in hanc formam audimus saepe a Senatu in Hispania, et Theologis\npraecipue Dominicanis decretum fuisse, sola verbi praedicatione non\nbello Americanos ad fidem traducendos; libertatem etiam quae illis eo\nnomine erepta esset,\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nbecause of their unbelief, since sovereignty is a matter of positive\nlaw, and unbelief is a matter of divine law, which cannot annul\npositive law, as has been argued above. In fact I know of no law\nagainst such unbelievers as regards their temporal possessions.\nAgainst them no King, no Emperor, not even the Roman Church,\ncan declare war for the purpose of occupying their lands, or of\nsubjecting them to temporal sway. For there is no just cause for war,\nsince Jesus Christ the King of Kings, to whom all power was given in\nheaven and on earth, sent out for the conquest of the world not armed\nsoldiers, but holy disciples, \u201cas sheep in the midst of wolves.\u201d Nor\ndo I read in the Old Testament, when possession had to be obtained\nby force of arms, that the Israelites waged war on any heathen land\nbecause of the unbelief of its inhabitants; but it was because the\nheathen refused them the right of innocent passage, or attacked them,\nas the Midianites did; or it was to recover the possessions which\nhad been bestowed upon them by divine bounty. Wherefore we should be\nmost miserable sinners if we should attempt to extend the religion\nof Jesus Christ by such means. Nor should we be their lawful rulers,\nbut, on the contrary, we should be committing great robberies, and\nbe compelled to make restitution as unjust conquerors and invaders.\nThere must be sent to them as preachers, good men to convert them to\nGod by their teaching and example; not men who will oppress them,\ndespoil them, subdue and proselytize them, and \u201cmake them twofold\nmore the children of hell than themselves,\u201d* after the manner of the\nPharisees\u2019.\n\n* [Matthew XXIII, 15].\n\nIndeed I have often heard that it has been decreed by the Council\nof Spain, and by the Churchmen, especially the Dominicans, that the\nAmericans (Aztecs and Indians) should be converted to the Faith by\nthe preaching of the Word alone, and not by war, and even that their\nliberty of\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nrestitui debere, quod a Paulo tertio Pontifice, et Carolo V\nImperatore Hispaniarum Rege comprobatum dicitur.\n\nOmittimus iam Lusitanos in plerisque partibus religionem nihil\npromovere, ne operam quidem dare, cum soli lucro invigilent. Immo et\nillud ibi verum esse, quod de Hispanis in America Hispanus scripsit,\nnon miracula, non signa audiri, non exempla vitae religiosae, quae\nad eandem fidem alios possent impellere, sed multa scandala, multa\nfacinora, multas impietates.\n\nQuare cum et possessio et titulus deficiat possessionis, neque res\ndicionesque Indorum pro talibus haberi debeant quasi nullius ante\nfuissent, neque cum illorum essent, ab aliis recte acquiri potuerint,\nsequitur Indorum populos, de quibus nos loquimur, Lusitanorum\nproprios non esse, sed liberos, et sui iuris; de quo ipsi doctores\nHispani non dubitant.[43a]\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nwhich they had been robbed in the name of religion should be\nrestored. This policy is said to have received the approval of Pope\nPaul III, and of Emperor Charles V, King of the Spains.\n\nI pass over the fact that the Portuguese in most places do not\nfurther the extension of the faith, or indeed, pay any attention to\nit at all, since they are alive only to the acquisition of wealth.\nNay, the very thing that is true of them, is the very thing which has\nbeen written of the Spaniards in America by a Spaniard, namely, that\nnothing is heard of miracles or wonders or examples of devout and\nreligious life such as might convert others to the same faith, but on\nthe other hand no end of scandals, of crimes, of impious deeds.\n\nWherefore, since both possession and a title of possession are\nlacking, and since the property and the sovereignty of the East\nIndies ought not to be considered as if they had previously been\n_res nullius_, and since, as they belong to the East Indians, they\ncould not have been acquired legally by other persons, it follows\nthat the East Indian nations in question are not the chattels of the\nPortuguese, but are free men and _sui juris_. This is not denied even\nby the Spanish jurists themselves.[43]\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n\n\n\nCAPUT V\n\n_Mare ad Indos aut ius eo navigandi non esse proprium Lusitanorum\ntitulo occupationis_\n\n\nSi ergo in populos terrasque et diciones Lusitani ius nullum\nquaesiverunt, videamus an mare et navigationem, aut mercaturam\nsui iuris facere potuerint. De mari autem prima sit consideratio,\nquod cum passim in iure aut nullius, aut commune, aut publicum\niuris gentium dicatur, hae voces quid significent ita commodissime\nexplicabitur, si Poetas ab Hesiodo omnes, et Philosophos; et\nIurisconsultos veteres imitati in tempora distinguamus, ea, quae\ntempore forte haud longo, certa tamen ratione, et sui natura discreta\nsunt. Neque nobis vitio verti debet si in iuris a natura procedentis\nexplicatione auctoritate et verbis eorum utimur quos constat naturali\niudicio plurimum valuisse.\n\nSciendum est igitur in primordiis vitae humanae aliud quam nunc est\ndominium, aliud communionem fuisse.[44a] Nam dominium nunc proprium\nquid significat, quod scilicet ita est alicuius ut alterius non sit\neodem modo. Commune autem dicimus, cuius proprietas inter plures\nconsortio\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\n_Neither the Indian Ocean nor the right of navigation thereon belongs\nto the Portuguese by title of occupation_\n\n\nIf therefore the Portuguese have acquired no legal right over the\nnations of the East Indies, and their territory and sovereignty,\nlet us consider whether they have been able to obtain exclusive\njurisdiction over the sea and its navigation or over trade. Let us\nfirst consider the case of the sea.\n\nNow, in the legal phraseology of the Law of Nations, the sea is\ncalled indifferently the property of no one (_res nullius_), or\na common possession (_res communis_), or public property (_res\npublica_). It will be most convenient to explain the signification of\nthese terms if we follow the practice of all the poets since Hesiod,\nof the philosophers and jurists of the past, and distinguish certain\nepochs, the divisions of which are marked off perhaps not so much by\nintervals of time as by obvious logic and essential character. And we\nought not to be criticised if in our explanation of a law deriving\nfrom nature, we use the authority and definition of those whose\nnatural judgment admittedly is held in the highest esteem.\n\nIt is therefore necessary to explain that in the earliest stages of\nhuman existence both sovereignty and common possession had meanings\nother than those which they bear at the present time.[44] For\nnowadays sovereignty means a particular kind of proprietorship, such\nin fact that it absolutely excludes like possession by any one else.\nOn the other hand, we call a thing \u2018common\u2019 when its ownership\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nquodam aut consensu collata est exclusis aliis. Linguarum paupertas\ncoegit voces easdem in re non eadem usurpare. Et sic ista nostri\nmoris nomina ad ius illud pristinum similitudine quadam et imagine\nreferuntur. Commune igitur tunc non aliud fuit quam quod simpliciter\nproprio opponitur; dominium autem facultas non iniusta utendi re\ncommuni, quem usum Scholasticis[45a] visum est facti non iuris\nvocare, quia qui nunc in iure usus vocatur, proprium est quiddam, aut\nut illorum more loquar, privative ad alios dicitur.\n\nIure primo Gentium, quod et Naturale interdum dicitur, et quod poetae\nalibi aetate aurea, alibi Saturni aut Iustitiae regno depingunt,\nnihil proprium fuit; quod Cicero dixit: \u2018Sunt autem privata nulla\nnatura\u2019. Et Horatius:[46a]\n\n      _Nam PROPRIAE telluris ERVM NATVRA neque illum\n      Nec me nec quemquam statuit._\n\nNeque enim potuit natura dominos distinguere. Hoc igitur significatu\nres omnes eo tempore communes fuisse dicimus, idem innuentes quod\npoetae cum primos homines in medium quaesivisse, et Iustitiam casto\nfoedere res medias tenuisse* dicunt; quod ut clarius explicent,\nnegant eo tempore campos limite partitos, aut commercia fuisse ulla.\n\n* [in medium quaerebant, Vergil, Georgica I, 127; medias casto res\nmore tenebas, Avienus, Aratus, 298 (W. P. Mustard)].\n\n              _promiscua rura per agros\n      Praestiterant cunctis COMMVNIA cuncta VIDERI._[47a]\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nor possession is held by several persons jointly according to a kind\nof partnership or mutual agreement from which all other persons are\nexcluded. Poverty of language compels the use of the same words for\nthings that are not the same. And so because of a certain similarity\nand likeness, our modern nomenclature is applied to that state of\nprimitive law. Now, in ancient times, \u2018common\u2019 meant simply the\nopposite of \u2018particular\u2019; and \u2018sovereignty\u2019 or \u2018ownership\u2019, meant\nthe privilege of lawfully using common property. This seemed to the\nScholastics[45] to be a use in fact but not in law, because what now\nin law is called use, is a particular right, or if I may use their\nphraseology, is, in respect to other persons, a privative right.\n\nIn the primitive law of nations, which is sometimes called Natural\nLaw, and which the poets sometimes portray as having existed in a\nGolden Age, and sometimes in the reign of Saturn or of Justice, there\nwas no particular right. As Cicero says: \u2018But nothing is by nature\nprivate property\u2019. And Horace:[46] \u2018For nature has decreed to be\nthe master of private soil neither him, nor me, nor anyone else\u2019.\nFor nature knows no sovereigns. Therefore in this sense we say that\nin those ancient times all things were held in common, meaning what\nthe poets do when they say that primitive men acquired everything in\ncommon, and that Justice maintained a community of goods by means\nof an inviolable compact. And to make this clearer, they say that\nin those primitive times the fields were not delimited by boundary\nlines, and that there was no commercial intercourse. [As Avienus\nsays]:[47] \u2018The promiscuity of the fields had made everything seem\ncommon to all\u2019.\n\nThe word \u2018seemed\u2019 is rightly added, owing to the changed meaning of\nthe words, as we have noted above.\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nRecte additum est \u2018videri\u2019 propter translationem ut diximus vocabuli.\nCommunio autem ista ad usum referebatur:[48a]\n\n          _pervium cunctis iter,\n      COMMVNIS VSVS omnium rerum fuit._\n\nCuius ratione dominium quoddam erat, sed universale, et indefinitum;\nDeus enim res omnes non huic aut illi dederat, sed humano generi,\natque eo modo plures in solidum eiusdem rei domini esse non\nprohibebantur; quod si hodierna significatione sumamus dominium,\ncontra omnem est rationem. Hoc enim proprietatem includit, quae tunc\nerat penes neminem. Aptissime autem illud dictum est:[49a]\n\n          _omnia rerum\n      Vsurpantis erant,_\n\nAd eam vero, quae nunc est, dominiorum distinctionem non impetu\nquodam, sed paulatim ventum videtur, initium eius monstrante natura.\nCum enim res sint nonnullae, quarum usus in abusu consistit, aut\nquia conversae in substantiam utentis nullum postea usum admittunt,\naut quia utendo fiunt ad usum deteriores, in rebus prioris generis,\nut cibo et potu, proprietas statim quaedam ab usu non seiuncta\nemicuit.[50a] Hoc enim est proprium esse, ita esse cuiusquam ut et\nalterius esse non possit; quod deinde ad res posterioris, generis,\nvestes puta, et res mobiles alias aut se moventes ratione quadam\nproductum est.\n\nQuod cum esset, ne res quidem immobiles omnes, agri\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nBut that kind of common possession relates to use, as is seen from a\nquotation from Seneca:[48]\n\n                      \u201c_Every path was free,\n      All things were used in common._\u201d\n\nAccording to his reasoning there was a kind of sovereignty, but it\nwas universal and unlimited. For God had not given all things to\nthis individual or to that, but to the entire human race, and thus\na number of persons, as it were en masse, were not debarred from\nbeing substantially sovereigns or owners of the same thing, which is\nquite contradictory to our modern meaning of sovereignty. For it now\nimplies particular or private ownership, a thing which no one then\nhad. Avienus has said very pertinently:[49] \u2018All things belonged to\nhim who had possession of them\u2019.\n\nIt seems certain that the transition to the present distinction of\nownerships did not come violently, but gradually, nature herself\npointing out the way. For since there are some things, the use of\nwhich consists in their being used up, either because having become\npart of the very substance of the user they can never be used again,\nor because by use they become less fit for future use, it has become\napparent, especially in dealing with the first category, such things\nas food and drink for example, that a certain kind of ownership is\ninseparable from use.[50] For \u2018own\u2019 implies that a thing belongs to\nsome one person, in such a way that it cannot belong to any other\nperson. By the process of reasoning this was next extended to things\nof the second category, such as clothes and movables and some living\nthings.\n\nWhen that had come about, not even immovables, such,\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nputa, indivisae manere potuerunt; quamquam enim horum usus non\nsimpliciter in abusu consistat, eorum tamen usus abusus cuiusdam\ncausa comparatus est, ut arva et arbusta cibi causa, pascua etiam\nvestium; omnium autem usibus promiscue sufficere non possunt.\nRepertae proprietati lex posita est, quae naturam imitaretur. Sicut\nenim initio per applicationem corporalem usus ille habebatur, unde\nproprietatem primum ortam diximus, ita simili applicatione res\nproprias cuiusque fieri placuit. Haec est quae dicitur occupatio,\nvoce accommodatissima ad eas res quae ante in medio positae fuerant;\nquo Seneca Tragicus alludit:[51a]\n\n          _IN MEDIO est scelus\n      POSITVM OCCVPANTI._\n\nEt Philosophus:[52a] \u2018Equestria OMNIVM equitum Romanorum sunt.\nIn illis tamen locus meus fit PROPRIVS, quem OCCVPAVI\u2019. Hinc\nQuintilianus dicit,[53a] quod omnibus nascitur, industriae esse\npraemium; et Tullius,[54a] factas esse veteri occupatione res eorum\nqui quondam in vacua venerant.\n\nOccupatio autem haec in his rebus quae possessioni renituntur, ut\nsunt ferae bestiae, perpetua esse debet, in aliis sufficit, corpore\ncoeptam possessionem animo retineri. Occupatio in mobilibus est\napprehensio, in immobilibus\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nfor instance, as fields, could remain unapportioned. For although\ntheir use does not consist merely in consumption, nevertheless\nit is bound up with subsequent consumption, as fields and plants\nare used to get food, and pastures to get clothing. There is,\nhowever, not enough fixed property to satisfy the use of everybody\nindiscriminately.\n\nWhen property or ownership was invented, the law of property was\nestablished to imitate nature. For as that use began in connection\nwith bodily needs, from which as we have said property first arose,\nso by a similar connection it was decided that things were the\nproperty of individuals. This is called \u2018occupation\u2019, a word most\nappropriate to those things which in former times had been held in\ncommon. It is this to which Seneca alludes in his tragedy Thyestes,\n\n      \u201c_Crime is between us to be seized by one._\u201d[51]\n\nAnd in one of his philosophical writings he also says:[52] \u2018The\nequestrian rows of seats belong to all the equites; nevertheless,\nthe seat of which I have taken possession is my own private place\u2019.\nFurther, Quintilian remarks[53] that a thing which is created for\nall is the reward of industry, and Cicero says[54] that things which\nhave been occupied for a long time become the property of those who\noriginally found them unoccupied.\n\nThis occupation or possession, however, in the case of things which\nresist seizure, like wild animals for example, must be uninterrupted\nor perpetually maintained, but in the case of other things it is\nsufficient if after physical possession is once taken the intention\nto possess is maintained. Possession of movables implies seizure, and\npossession of\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\ninstructio aut limitatio; unde Hermogenianus cum dominia distincta\ndicit, addit, agris terminos positos, aedificia collocata.[55a] Hic\nrerum status a poetis indicatur:\n\n      _Tum laqueis captare feras, et fallere visco\n      Inventum._\n\n      _Tum primum subiere domos._[56a]\n\n      _COMMVNEMQVE PRIVS, ceu lumina solis et auras\n      Cautus humum longo signavit LIMITE mensor._[57a]\n\nCelebratur post haec, ut Hermogenianus indicat, commercium cuius\ngratia\n\n      _Fluctibus ignotis insultavere carinae._[58a]\n\nEodem autem tempore et respublicae institui coeperunt. Atque ita\nearum quae a prima communione divulsa erant duo facta sunt genera.\nAlia enim sunt publica, hoc est, populi propria (quae est genuina\nistius vocis significatio) alia mere privata, hoc est, singulorum.\nOccupatio autem publica eodem modo fit, quo privata. Seneca:[59a]\n\u2018Fines Atheniensium, aut Campanorum vocamus, quos deinde inter se\nvicini privata terminatione distinguunt\u2019. Gens enim unaquaeque\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nimmovables either the erection of buildings or some determination of\nboundaries, such as fencing in. Hence Hermogenianus, in speaking of\nseparate ownerships, adds the boundaries set to the fields and the\nbuildings thereon constructed.[55] This state of things is described\nthus by the poets Vergil and Ovid:\n\n      \u201c_Then toils for beasts, and lime for birds, were found_,\u201d[56]\n\n      _Then first men made homes._\n\n      \u201c_Then landmarks limited to each his right,\n      For all before was common as the light._\u201d[57]\n\nIn still another place, as Hermogenianus points out, Ovid praises\ncommerce, for the sake of which:[58]\n\n      \u2018_Ships in triumph sail the unknown seas_\u2019.\n\nAt the same time, however, states began to be established, and so\ntwo categories were made of the things which had been wrested away\nfrom early ownership in common. For some things were public, that\nis, were the property of the people (which is the real meaning of\nthat expression), while other things were private, that is, were the\nproperty of individuals. Ownership, however, both public and private,\narises in the same way. On this point Seneca says:[59] \u2018We speak in\ngeneral of the land of the Athenians or the Campanians. It is the\nsame land which again by means of private boundaries is divided among\nindividual owners\u2019.\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n      _PARTITA FINES regna constituit, novas\n      Extruxit VRBES._[60a]\n\nHoc modo dicit Cicero agrum Arpinatem Arpinatium dici, Tusculanum\nTusculanorum: \u2018similisque est\u2019, inquit, \u2018privatarum possessionum\ndiscriptio. Ex quo quia suum cuiusque fit eorum, quae natura fuerant\nCOMMVNIA, quod cuique obtigit, id quisque teneat\u2019.[61a] Contra autem\nThucydides[62a] eam terram quae in divisione populo nulli obvenit,\n\u1f00\u03cc\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd hoe est, indefinitam, et limitibus nullis circumscriptam\nvocat.[63a]\n\nEx his quae hactenus dicta sunt duo intelligi possunt. Prius est,\neas res quae occupari non possunt, aut occupatae numquam sunt,\nnullius proprias esse posse; quia omnis proprietas ab occupatione\ncoeperit. Alterum vero, eas res omnes, quae ita a natura comparatae\nsunt, ut aliquo utente nihilominus aliis quibusvis ad usum promiscue\nsufficiant, eius hodieque condicionis esse, et perpetuo esse\ndebere cuius fuerant cum primum a natura proditae sunt. Hoc Cicero\nvoluit:[64a] \u2018Ac latissime quidem patens hominibus inter ipsos,\nomnibus inter omnes societas haec est; in qua omnium rerum, quas ad\ncommunem hominum usum natura genuit, est servanda communitas\u2019. Sunt\nautem omnes res huius generis, in quibus sine detrimento alterius\nalteri commodari potest. Hinc illud esse dicit Cicero:[65a] \u2018Non\nprohibere aqua profluente\u2019. Nam aqua profluens qua talis non qua\nflumen\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n\u2018For each nation\u2019, Seneca says in another place, \u2018made its\nterritories into separate kingdoms and built new cities\u2019.[60]\n\nThus Cicero says: \u201cOn this principle the lands of Arpinum are said\nto belong to the Arpinates, the Tusculan lands to the Tusculans; and\nsimilar is the assignment of private property. Therefore, inasmuch\nas in each case some of those things which by nature had been common\nproperty became the property of individuals, each one should retain\npossession of that which has fallen to his lot.\u201d[61] On the other\nhand Thucydides[62] calls the land which in the division falls\nto no nation, \u1f00\u03cc\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, that is, undefined, and undetermined by\nboundaries.[63]\n\nTwo conclusions may be drawn from what has thus far been said. The\nfirst is, that that which cannot be occupied, or which never has been\noccupied, cannot be the property of any one, because all property\nhas arisen from occupation. The second is, that all that which has\nbeen so constituted by nature that although serving some one person\nit still suffices for the common use of all other persons, is today\nand ought in perpetuity to remain in the same condition as when\nit was first created by nature. This is what Cicero meant when he\nwrote: \u201cThis then is the most comprehensive bond that unites together\nmen as men and all to all; and under it the common right to all\nthings that nature has produced for the common use of man is to be\nmaintained.\u201d[64] All things which can be used without loss to any one\nelse come under this category. Hence, says Cicero, comes the well\nknown prohibition:[65] \u2018Deny no one the water that flows by\u2019. For\nrunning water considered as such and not as a\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nest, inter communia omnium a Iurisconsultis refertur: et a Poeta:[66a]\n\n      _Quid prohibetis AQVAS? VSVS COMMVNIS aquarum est.\n      Nec solem PROPRIVM NATVRA nec AERA fecit.\n      Nec tenues VNDAS: in PVBLICA munera veni._\n\nDicit haec non esse natura propria, sicut Vlpianus[67a] natura\nomnibus patere, tum quia primum a natura prodita sunt, et in nullius\nadhuc dominium pervenerunt (ut loquitur Neratius[68a]); tum quia ut\nCicero dicit, a natura ad usum communem genita videntur. Publica\nautem vocat tralatitia significatione, non quae ad populum aliquem,\nsed quae ad societatem humanam pertinent, quae publica Iuris gentium\nin Legibus vocantur, hoc est, communia omnium, propria nullius.\n\nHuius generis est A\u00ebr, duplici ratione, tum quia occupari non potest,\ntum quia usum promiscuum hominibus debet. Et eisdem de causis commune\nest omnium Maris Elementum, infinitum scilicet ita, ut possideri non\nqueat, et omnium usibus accommodatum: sive navigationem respicimus,\nsive etiam piscaturam. Cuius autem iuris est mare, eiusdem sunt si\nqua mare aliis usibus eripiendo sua fecit, ut arenae maris, quarum\npars terris continua litus dicitur.[69a] Recte igitur Cicero:[70a]\n\u2018quid tam COMMVNE quam Mare fluctuantibus,\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nstream, is classed by the jurists among the things common to all\nmankind; as is done also by Ovid:[66] \u2018Why do you deny me water? Its\nuse is free to all. Nature has made neither sun nor air nor waves\nprivate property; they are public gifts\u2019.\n\nHe says that these things are not by nature private possession, but\nthat, as Ulpian claims,[67] they are by nature things open to the\nuse of all, both because in the first place they were produced by\nnature, and have never yet come under the sovereignty of any one, as\nNeratius says;[68] and in the second place because, as Cicero says,\nthey seem to have been created by nature for common use. But the poet\nuses \u2018public\u2019, in its usual meaning, not of those things which belong\nto any one people, but to human society as a whole; that is to say,\nthings which are called \u2018public\u2019 are, according to the Laws of the\nlaw of nations, the common property of all, and the private property\nof none.\n\nThe air belongs to this class of things for two reasons. First, it is\nnot susceptible of occupation; and second, its common use is destined\nfor all men. For the same reasons the sea is common to all, because\nit is so limitless that it cannot become a possession of any one, and\nbecause it is adapted for the use of all, whether we consider it from\nthe point of view of navigation or of fisheries. Now, the same right\nwhich applies to the sea applies also to the things which the sea\nhas carried away from other uses and made its own, such for example\nas the sands of the sea, of which the portion adjoining the land is\ncalled the coast or shore.[69] Cicero therefore argues correctly:[70]\n\u2018What is so common as\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nLITVS eiectis\u2019? Etiam Vergilius auram, undam, litus cunctis patere\ndicit.\n\nHaec igitur sunt illa quae Romani vocant communia omnium iure\nnaturali[71a] aut quod idem esse diximus, publica iurisgentium, sicut\net usum eorum modo communem, modo publicum vocant. Quamquam vero\netiam ea nullius esse, quod ad proprietatem attinet, recte dicantur,\nmultum tamen differunt ab his quae nullius sunt, et communi usui\nattributa non sunt, ut ferae, pisces, aves; nam ista si quis occupet,\nin ius proprium transire possunt, illa vero totius humanitatis\nconsensu proprietati in perpetuum excepta sunt propter usum, qui cum\nsit omnium, non magis omnibus ab uno eripi potest, quam a te mihi\nquod meum est. Hoc est quod Cicero dicit inter prima esse Iustitiae\nmunera, rebus communibus pro communibus uti. Scholastici dicerent\nesse communia alia affirmative, alia privative. Distinctio haec non\nmodo Iurisprudentibus usitata est, sed vulgi etiam confessionem\nexprimit; unde apud Athenaeum convivator mare commune esse dicit, at\npisces capientium fieri. Et in Plautina Rudente servo dicenti,[72a]\n\u2018Mare quidem commune certost omnibus\u2019, assentit piscator, addenti\nautem, \u2018In mari inventust communi\u2019 recte occurrit:\n\n      _Meum quod rete atque hami nancti sunt, meum potissimumst._\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nthe sea for those who are being tossed upon it, the shore for those\nwho have been cast thereon\u2019. Vergil also says that the air, the sea,\nand the shore are open to all men.\n\nThese things therefore are what the Romans call \u2018common\u2019 to all men\nby natural law,[71] or as we have said, \u2018public\u2019 according to the\nlaw of nations; and indeed they call their use sometimes common,\nsometimes public. Nevertheless, although those things are with reason\nsaid to be _res nullius_, so far as private ownership is concerned,\nstill they differ very much from those things which, though also _res\nnullius_, have not been marked out for common use, such for example\nas wild animals, fish, and birds. For if any one seizes those things\nand assumes possession of them, they can become objects of private\nownership, but the things in the former category by the consensus\nof opinion of all mankind are forever exempt from such private\nownership on account of their susceptibility to universal use; and\nas they belong to all they cannot be taken away from all by any one\nperson any more than what is mine can be taken away from me by you.\nAnd Cicero says that one of the first gifts of Justice is the use\nof common property for common benefit. The Scholastics would define\none of these categories as common in an affirmative, the other in a\nprivative sense. This distinction is not only familiar to jurists,\nbut it also expresses the popular belief. In Athenaeus for instance\nthe host is made to say that the sea is the common property of all,\nbut that fish are the private property of him who catches them. And\nin Plautus\u2019 Rudens when the slave says:[72] \u2018The sea is certainly\ncommon to all persons\u2019, the fisherman agrees; but when the slave\nadds: \u2018Then what is found in the common sea is common property\u2019, he\nrightly objects, saying: \u2018But what my net and hooks have taken, is\nabsolutely my own\u2019.\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n\nMare igitur proprium omnino alicuius fieri non potest, quia natura\ncommune hoc esse non permittit, sed iubet, immo ne litus quidem;[73a]\nnisi quod haec addenda est interpretatio; ut si quid earum rerum per\nnaturam occupari possit, id eatenus occupantis fiat, quatenus ea\noccupatione usus ille promiscuus non laeditur. Quod merito receptum\nest; nam cum ita se habet, cessat utraque exceptio per quam evenisse\ndiximus, ne omnia in eius proprium transcriberentur.\n\nQuoniam igitur inaedificatio species est occupationis, in litore\nlicet aedificare, si id fieri potest sine ceterorum incommodo,[74a]\nut Pomponius loquitur, quod ex Scaevola explicabimus, nisi usus\npublicus, hoc est communis impediretur. Et qui aedificaverit, soli\ndominus fiet, quia id solum nec ullius proprium, nec ad usum communem\nnecessarium fuit. Est igitur occupantis; sed non diutius quam durat\noccupatio, quia reluctari mare possessioni videtur, exemplo ferae,\nquae si in naturalem se libertatem receperit, non ultra captoris est,\nita et litus postliminio mari cedit.\n\nQuicquid autem privatum fieri occupando, idem et publicum, hoc est\npopuli proprium posse ostendimus.[75a] Sic litus Imperi Romani\nfinibus inclusum, populi Romani esse Celsus\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n\nTherefore the sea can in no way become the private property of any\none, because nature not only allows but enjoins its common use.[73]\nNeither can the shore become the private property of any one. The\nfollowing qualification, however, must be made. If any part of these\nthings is by nature susceptible of occupation, it may become the\nproperty of the one who occupies it only so far as such occupation\ndoes not affect its common use. This qualification is deservedly\nrecognized. For in such a case both conditions vanish through which\nit might eventuate, as we have said, that all of it would pass into\nprivate ownership.\n\nSince therefore, to cite Pomponius, building is one kind of\noccupation, it is permissible to build upon the shore, if this can\nbe done without inconvenience to other people;[74] that is to say (I\nhere follow Scaevola) if such building can be done without hindrance\nto public or common use of the shore. And whoever shall have\nconstructed a building under the aforesaid circumstances will become\nthe owner of the ground upon which said building is; because this\nground is neither the property of any one else, nor is it necessary\nto common use. It becomes therefore the property of the occupier, but\nhis ownership lasts no longer than his occupation lasts, inasmuch\nas the sea seems by nature to resist ownership. For just as a wild\nanimal, if it shall have escaped and thus recovered its natural\nliberty, is no longer the property of its captor, so also the sea may\nrecover its possession of the shore.\n\nWe have now shown that whatever by occupation can become private\nproperty can also become public property, that is, the private\nproperty of a whole nation.[75] And so Celsus considered the shore\nincluded within the limits of the Roman Empire to be the property of\nthe Roman people.\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nexistimat; quod si ita est, minime mirandum est, eundem Populum\nsubditis suis occupandi litoris modum per Principem aut Praetorem\npotuisse concedere. Ceterum et haec occupatio non minus quam privata\nita restringenda est, ne ulterius porrigatur, quam ut salvus sit usus\nIurisgentium. Nemo igitur potest a Populo Romano[76a] ad litus maris\naccedere prohiberi, et retia siccare, et alia facere, quae semel\nomnes homines in perpetuum sibi licere voluerunt.\n\nMaris autem natura hoc differt a litore, quod mare nisi exigua sui\nparte nec inaedificari facile, nec includi potest; et ut posset, hoc\nipsum tamen vix contingeret, sine usus promiscui impedimento. Si quid\ntamen exiguum ita occupari potest, id occupanti conceditur. Hyperbole\nest igitur[77a]\n\n      _Contracta pisces aequora sentiunt\n      Iactis in altum molibus._\n\nNam Celsus iactas in mare pilas eius esse dicit qui iecerit.[78a]\nSed id non concedendum si deterior maris usus eo modo futurus sit.\nEt Vlpianus eum qui molem in mare iacit, ita tuendum dicit si nemo\ndamnum sentiat. Nam si cui haec res nocitura sit, interdictum utique,\n\u2018Ne quid in loco publico fiat\u2019 competiturum. Vt et Labeo, si quid\ntale in mare struatur, interdictum vult competere, \u2018Ne quid in mari,\nquo portus, statio, iterve navigiis deterius sit, fiat\u2019.[79a]\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nThere is not therefore the least reason for surprise that the Roman\npeople through their emperors or praetors were able to grant to its\nsubjects the right of occupying the shore. This public occupation,\nhowever, no less than private occupation, was subject to the\nrestriction that it should not infringe on international rights.\nTherefore the Roman people could not forbid any one from having\naccess to the seashore,[76] and from spreading his fishing nets there\nto dry, and from doing other things which all men long ago decided\nwere always permissible.\n\nThe nature of the sea, however, differs from that of the shore,\nbecause the sea, except for a very restricted space, can neither\neasily be built upon, nor inclosed; if the contrary were true yet\nthis could hardly happen without hindrance to the general use.\nNevertheless, if any small portion of the sea can be thus occupied,\nthe occupation is recognized. The famous hyperbole of Horace must be\nquoted here: \u201cThe fishes note the narrowing of the waters by piers of\nrock laid in their depths.\u201d[77]\n\nNow Celsus holds that piles driven into the sea belong to the man\nwho drove them.[78] But such an act is not permissible if the use\nof the sea be thereby impaired. And Ulpian says that whoever builds\na breakwater must be protected if it is not prejudicial to the\ninterests of any one; for if this construction is likely to work an\ninjury to any one, the injunction \u2018Nothing may be built on public\nproperty\u2019 would apply. Labeo, however, holds that in case any such\nconstruction should be made in the sea, the following injunction\nis to be enforced: \u2018Nothing may be built in the sea whereby the\nharbor, the roadstead, or the channel be rendered less safe for\nnavigation\u2019.[79]\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n\nQuae autem navigationis eadem piscatus habenda est ratio, ut communis\nmaneat omnibus. Neque tamen peccabit si quis in maris diverticulo\npiscandi locum sibi palis circumsepiat, atque ita privatum faciat;\nsicut Lucullus exciso apud Neapolim monte ad villam suam maria\nadmisit.[80a] Et huius generis, puto fuisse piscinas maritimas quarum\nVarro et Columella meminerunt. Nec Martialis alio spectavit, cum de\nFormiano Apollinaris loquitur:[81a]\n\n      _Si quando NEREVS sentit Aeoli regnum,\n      Ridet procellas tuta de SVO mensa._\n\nEt Ambrosius:[82a] \u2018Inducis mare intra praedia tua ne desint\nbelluae\u2019. Hinc apparere potest quae mens Pauli fuerit, cum\ndicit,[83a] si maris proprium ius ad aliquem pertineat, _uti\npossidetis_ interdictum ei competere. Esse quidem hoc interdictum ad\nprivatas causas comparatum, non autem ad publicas, (in quibus etiam\nea comprehenduntur quae iure gentium communi facere possumus) sed hic\niam agi de iure fruendo quod ex causa privata contingat, non publica,\nsive communi. Nam teste Marciano, quicquid occupatum est et occupari\npotuit,[84a] id iam non est iurisgentium, sicut est mare. Exempli\ncausa, si quis Lucullum aut Apollinarem in privato suo, quatenus\ndiverticulum maris incluserant, piscari prohibuisset, dandum illis\ninterdictum\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n\nNow the same principle which applies to navigation applies also to\nfishing, namely, that it remains free and open to all. Nevertheless\nthere shall be no prejudice if any one shall by fencing off with\nstakes an inlet of the sea make a fish pond for himself, and so\nestablish a private preserve. Thus Lucullus once brought the water\nof the sea to his villa by cutting a tunnel through a mountain near\nNaples.[80] I suspect too that the seawater reservoirs for fish\nmentioned by Varro and Columella were of this sort. And Martial\nhad the same thing in mind when he says of the Formian villa of\nApollinaris:[81] \u2018Whenever Nereus feels the power of Aeolus, the\ntable safe in its own resources laughs at the gale\u2019. Ambrose also\nhas something to say on the same subject:[82] \u2018You bring the very\nsea into your estates that you may not lack for fish\u2019. In the light\nof all this the meaning of Paulus is clear when he says[83] that if\nany one has a private right over the sea, the rule _uti possidetis_\napplies. This rule however is applicable only to private suits,\nand not to public ones, among which are also to be included those\nsuits which can be brought under the common law of nations. But\nhere the question is one which concerns the right of use arising in\na private suit, but not in a public or common one. For according\nto the authority of Marcianus whatever has been occupied and can\nbe occupied[84] is no longer subject to the law of nations as the\nsea is. Let us take an example. If any one had prevented Lucullus\nor Apollinaris from fishing in the private fish ponds which they\nhad made by inclosing a small portion of the sea, according to the\nopinion of Paulus they would have the right of bringing\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nPaulus putavit non solum iniuriarum actionem, ob causam scilicet\nprivatae possessionis.[85a]\n\nImmo in diverticulo maris, sicut in diverticulo fluminis, si locum\ntalem occuparim, ibique piscatus sim, maxime si animum privatim\npossidendi plurium annorum continuatione testatus fuerim, alterum\neodem iure uti prohibebo; ut ex Marciano colligimus, non aliter quam\nin lacu qui mei domini est. Quod verum quam diu durat occupatio,\nquemadmodum in litore antea diximus. Extra diverticulum idem non\nerit, ne scilicet communis usus impediatur.[86a]\n\nAnte aedes igitur meas aut praetorium ut piscari aliquem prohibeant\nusurpatum quidem est, sed nullo iure, adeo quidem ut Vlpianus\ncontempta ea usurpatione si quis prohibeatur iniuriarum dicat agi\nposse[87a] Hoc Imperator Leo (cuius Legibus non utimur) contra iuris\nrationem mutavit, voluitque \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03b8\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1, hoc est, vestibula maritima\neorum esse propria, qui oram habitarent, ibique eos ius piscandi\nhabere;[88a] quod tamen ita procedere voluit, ut septis quibusdam\nremoratoriis quas \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03c7\u03ac\u03c2 Graeci vocant, locus ille occuparetur;\nexistimans nimirum non fore ut quis exiguam maris portionem alteri\ninvideret qui ipse toto mari ad piscandum admitteretur. Certe ut\nquis magnam maris partem, etiam si possit, publicis utilitatibus\neripiat, non tolerandae est improbitatis, in quam merito Vir Sanctus\ninvehitur:[89a]\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nan injunction, not merely an action for damages based on private\nownership.[85]\n\nIndeed, if I shall have staked off such an inclosure in an inlet\nof the sea, just as in a branch of a river, and have fished there,\nespecially if by doing so continuously for many years I shall have\ngiven proof of my intention to establish private ownership, I shall\ncertainly prevent any one else from enjoying the same rights. I\ngather from Marcianus that this case is identical with that of the\nownership of a lake, and it is true however long occupation lasts, as\nwe have said above about the shore. But outside of an inlet this will\nnot hold, for then the common use of the sea might be hindered.[86]\n\nTherefore if any one is prevented from fishing in front of my town\nhouse or country seat, it is a usurpation, but an illegal one,\nalthough Ulpian, who rather makes light of this usurpation, does\nsay that if any one is so prevented he can bring an action for\ndamages.[87] The Emperor Leo, whose laws we do not use, contrary to\nthe intent of the law, changed this, and declared that the entrances,\nor vestibules as it were, to the sea, were the private property of\nthose who inhabited the shore, and that they had the right of fishing\nthere.[88] However he attached this condition, that the place should\nbe occupied by certain jetty or pile constructions, such as the\nGreeks call \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03c7\u03b1\u1f30, thinking doubtless that no one who was himself\nallowed to fish anywhere in the sea would grudge any one else a small\nportion of it. To be sure it would be an intolerable outrage for any\none to snatch away, even if he could do so, from public use a large\narea of the sea; an act which is justly reprehended by the Holy\nMan,[89] who says: \u2018The lords of the earth claim for\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n\u2018SPATIA MARIS sibi vindicant IVRE MANCIPII, pisciumque iura sicut\nvernaculorum conditione sibi servitii subiecta commemorant. Iste,\ninquit, SINVS maris meus est; ille alterius. Dividunt elementa sibi\npotentes\u2019.\n\nEst igitur Mare in numero earum rerum quae in commercio non\nsunt,[90a] hoc est, quae proprii iuris fieri non possunt. Vnde\nsequitur si proprie loquamur, nullam Maris partem in territorio\npopuli alicuius posse censeri. Quod ipsum Placentinus sensisse\nvidetur, cum dixit: Mare ita esse commune, ut in nullius dominio sit\nnisi solius Dei; et Ioannes Faber, cum mare asserit relictum in suo\niure, et esse primaevo, quo omnia erant communia.[91a] Alioquin nihil\ndifferrent quae sunt omnium communia ab his quae publica proprie\ndicuntur, ut mare a flumine. Flumen populus occupare potuit, ut\ninclusum finibus suis, mare non potuit.\n\nTerritoria autem sunt ex occupationibus populorum, ut privata dominia\nex occupationibus singulorum. Vidit hoc Celsus, qui clare satis\ndistinguit inter litora,[92a] quae Populus Romanus occupare potuit,\nita tamen ut usui communi non noceretur, et mare quod pristinam\nnaturam retinuit. Nec ulla lex diversum indicat.[93a] Quae vero leges\na contrariae\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nthemselves a wide expanse of sea by _jus mancipii_, and they regard\nthe right of fishing as a servitude over which their right is the\nsame as that over their slaves. That gulf, says one, belongs to me,\nand that gulf to some one else. They divide the very elements among\nthemselves, these great men\u2019!\n\nTherefore the sea is one of those things which is not an article of\nmerchandise,[90] and which cannot become private property. Hence it\nfollows, to speak strictly, that no part of the sea can be considered\nas the territory of any people whatsoever. Placentinus seems to have\nrecognized this when he said: \u2018The sea is a thing so clearly common\nto all, that it cannot be the property of any one save God alone\u2019.\nJohannes Faber[91] also asserts that the sea has been left _sui\njuris_, and remains in the primitive condition where all things were\ncommon. If it were otherwise there would be no difference between the\nthings which are \u2018common to all\u2019, and those which are strictly termed\n\u2018public\u2019; no difference, that is, between the sea and a river. A\nnation can take possession of a river, as it is inclosed within their\nboundaries, with the sea, they cannot do so.\n\nNow, public territory arises out of the occupation of nations, just\nas private property arises out of the occupation of individuals. This\nis recognized by Celsus, who has drawn a sharp distinction between\nthe shores of the sea,[92] which the Roman people could occupy in\nsuch a way that its common use was not harmed, and the sea itself,\nwhich retained its primitive nature. In fact no law intimates a\ncontrary view.[93] Such laws as are cited by writers who are of\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nsententiae auctoribus citantur, aut de insulis loquuntur, quas clarum\nest occupari potuisse, aut de portu qui non communis est, sed proprie\npublicus.\n\nQui vero dicunt mare aliquod esse Imperi Romani, dictum suum ita\ninterpretantur, ut dicant ius illud in mare ultra protectionem\net iurisdictionem non procedere; quod illi ius a proprietate\ndistinguunt; nec forte satis animadvertunt idipsum quod Populus\nRomanus classes praesidio navigantium disponere potuit, et\ndeprehensos in mari piratas punire, non ex proprio, sed ex communi\niure accidisse, quod et aliae liberae gentes in mari habent. Illud\ninterim fatemur, potuisse inter gentes aliquas convenire, ut capti\nin maris hac vel illa parte, huius aut illius reipublicae iudicium\nsubirent, atque ita ad commoditatem distinguendae iurisdictionis\nin mari fines describi, quod ipsos quidem eam sibi legem ferentes\nobligat,[94a] at alios populos non item; neque locum alicuius\nproprium facit, sed in personas contrahentium ius constituit.\n\nQuae distinctio ut naturali rationi consentanea est, ita Vlpiani\nresponso quodam comprobatur, qui rogatus an duorum praediorum\nmaritimorum dominus, alteri eorum quod venderet servitutem potuisset\nimponere, ne inde in certo maris loco piscari liceret, respondet: rem\nquidem ipsam, mare scilicet, servitute nulla affici potuisse, quia\nper naturam hoc omnibus pateret, sed cum bona fides contractus legem\nvenditionis servari exposceret, personas possidentium et in ius eorum\nsuccedentium per istam legem obligari.\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nthe contrary opinion apply either to islands, which evidently could\nbe occupied, or to harbors, which are not \u2018common\u2019, but \u2018public\u2019,\nthat is, \u2018national\u2019.\n\nNow those who say that a certain sea belonged to the Roman people\nexplain their statement to mean that the right of the Romans did\nnot extend beyond protection and jurisdiction; this right they\ndistinguish from ownership. Perchance they do not pay sufficient\nattention to the fact that although the Roman People were able to\nmaintain fleets for the protection of navigation and to punish\npirates captured on the sea, it was not done by private right, but\nby the common right which other free peoples also enjoy on the sea.\nWe recognize, however, that certain peoples have agreed that pirates\ncaptured in this or in that part of the sea should come under the\njurisdiction of this state or of that, and further that certain\nconvenient limits of distinct jurisdiction have been apportioned\non the sea. Now, this agreement does bind those who are parties to\nit,[94] but it has no binding force on other nations, nor does it\nmake the delimited area of the sea the private property of any one.\nIt merely constitutes a personal right between contracting parties.\n\nThis distinction so conformable to natural reason is also confirmed\nby a reply once made by Ulpian. Upon being asked whether the owner\nof two maritime estates could on selling either of them impose on it\nsuch a servitude as the prohibition of fishing in a particular part\nof the sea, he replied that the thing in question, evidently the sea,\ncould not be subjected to a servitude, because it was by nature open\nto all persons; but that since a contract made in good faith demands\nthat the condition of a sale be respected, the present possessors and\nthose who succeed to\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nVerum est loqui Iurisconsultum de praediis privatis, et lege privata,\nsed in territorio et lege populorum eadem hic est ratio, quia populi\nrespectu totius generis humani privatorum locum obtinent.\n\nSimiliter reditus qui in piscationes maritimas constituti Regalium\nnumero censentur, non rem, hoc est mare, aut piscationem, sed\npersonas obligant.[95a] Quare subditi, in quos legem ferendi potestas\nReipublicae aut Principi ex consensu competit, ad onera ista compelli\nforte poterunt; sed exteris ius piscandi ubique immune esse debet, ne\nservitus imponatur mari quod servire non potest.\n\nNon enim maris eadem quae fluminis ratio est:[96a] quod cum sit\npublicum, id est populi, ius etiam in eo piscandi a populo aut\nprincipe concedi aut locari potest, ita ut ei qui conduxit,\netiam interdictum Veteres dederint, de loco publico fruendo,\naddita condicione si is cui locandi ius fuerit, fruendum alicui\nlocaverit;[97a] quae condicio in mari evenire non potest. Ceterum\nqui ipsam piscationem numerant inter Regalia, ne quidem illum locum\nquem interpretabantur satis inspexerunt, quod Iserniam et Alvotum non\nlatuit.\n\nDemonstratum est[98a] nec populo nec privato cuipiam ius\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\ntheir rights were bound to observe that condition. It is true that\nthe jurist is speaking of private estates and of private law, but in\nspeaking here of the territory of peoples and of public law the same\nreasoning applies, because from the point of view of the whole human\nrace peoples are treated as individuals.\n\nSimilarly, revenues levied on maritime fisheries are held to belong\nto the Crown, but they do not bind the sea itself or the fisheries,\nbut only the persons engaged in fishing.[95] Wherefore subjects, for\nwhom a state or a ruler is by common consent competent to make laws,\nwill perhaps be compelled to bear such charges, but so far as other\npersons are concerned the right of fishing ought everywhere to be\nexempt from tolls, lest a servitude be imposed upon the sea, which is\nnot susceptible to a servitude.\n\nThe case of the sea is not the same as that of a river,[96] for as\na river is the property of a nation, the right to fish in it can\nbe passed or leased by the nation or by the ruler, in such a way\n(and the like is true with the ancients) that the lessee enjoys the\noperation of the injunction _de loco publico fruendo_ by virtue of\nthe clause \u2018He who has the right to lease has leased the exclusive\nright of enjoyment\u2019.[97] Such a condition cannot arise in respect to\nthe sea. Finally those who count fishing among the properties of the\nCrown have not examined carefully enough the very passage which they\ncite to prove their contention, as Isernia* and Alvotus\u2020 have noticed.\n\n* [Andrea d\u2019Isernia (c. 1480-1553), an Italian commentator, called\noften Feudistarum Patriarcha.]\n\n\u2020 [Probably a misprint for Alvarus (Alvarez).]\n\nIt has therefore been demonstrated[98] that neither a nation nor an\nindividual can establish any right of private ownership\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\naliquod proprium in ipsum mare (nam diverticulum excipimus) competere\nposse, cum occupationem nec natura, nec usus publici ratio permittat.\nHuius autem rei causa instituta fuerat haec disputatio, ut appareret\nLusitanos mare quo ad Indos navigatur sui iuris non fecisse. Nam\nutraque ratio quae proprietatem impedit, in hac causa est quam in\nceteris omnibus infinito efficacior. Quod in alii difficile videtur,\nin hac omnino fieri non potest; quod in aliis iniquum iudicamus, in\nhac summe barbarum est, atque inhumanum.\n\nNon de mari interiore hic agimus, quod terris undique infusum alicubi\netiam fluminis latitudinem non excedit, de quo tamen satis constat\nlocutos Romanos Iurisconsultos, cum nobiles illas adversus privatam\navaritiam sententias ediderunt; de Oceano quaeritur, quem immensum,\ninfinitum, rerum parentem, caelo conterminum antiquitas vocat, cuius\nperpetuo humore non fontes tantum et flumina et maria, sed nubes, sed\nipsa quodammodo sidera pasci veteres crediderunt; qui denique per\nreciprocas aestuum vices terram hanc humani generis sedem ambiens,\nneque teneri neque includi potest, et possidet verius quam possidetur.\n\nIn hoc autem Oceano non de sinu aut freto, nec de omni quidem eo quod\ne litore conspici potest controversia est. Vindicant sibi Lusitani\nquicquid duos Orbes interiacet, tantis spatiis discretos, ut plurimis\nsaeculis famam sui non potuerint transmittere. Quod si Castellanorum,\nqui in eadem sunt\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nover the sea itself (I except inlets of the sea), inasmuch as its\noccupation is not permissible either by nature or on grounds of\npublic utility. The discussion of this matter has been taken up for\nthis reason, namely, that it may be seen that the Portuguese have not\nestablished private ownership over the sea by which people go to the\nEast Indies. For the two reasons that stand in the way of ownership\nare in this case infinitely more powerful than in all others. That\nwhich in other cases seems difficult, is here absolutely impossible;\nand what in other cases we recognize as unjust is here most barbarous\nand inhuman.\n\nThe question at issue then is not one that concerns an INNER SEA, one\nwhich is surrounded on all sides by the land and at some places does\nnot even exceed a river in breadth, although it is well known that\nthe Roman jurists cited such an inner sea in their famous opinions\ncondemning private avarice. No! the question at issue is the OUTER\nSEA, the OCEAN, that expanse of water which antiquity describes as\nthe immense, the infinite, bounded only by the heavens, parent of\nall things; the ocean which the ancients believed was perpetually\nsupplied with water not only by fountains, rivers, and seas, but\nby the clouds, and by the very stars of heaven themselves; the\nocean which, although surrounding this earth, the home of the human\nrace, with the ebb and flow of its tides, can be neither seized\nnor inclosed; nay, which rather possesses the earth than is by it\npossessed.\n\nFurther, the question at issue does not concern a gulf or a strait\nin this ocean, nor even all the expanse of sea which is visible from\nthe shore. [But consider this!!] The Portuguese claim as their own\nthe whole expanse of the sea which separates two parts of the world\nso far distant the one from the other, that in all the preceding\ncenturies neither one has so much as heard of the other. Indeed, if\nwe take into account the share of the Spaniards, whose claim\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\ncausa, portio accedat, parvo minus omnis Oceanus duobus populis\nmancipatus est, aliis tot gentibus ad Septentrionum redactis\nangustias; multumque decepta est Natura, quae cum elementum illud\nomnibus circumfudit, omnibus etiam suffecturum credidit. In tanto\nmari si quis usu promiscuo solum sibi imperium et dicionem exciperet,\ntamen immodicae dominationis affectator haberetur; si quis piscatu\narceret alios, insanae cupiditatis notam non effugeret. At qui etiam\nnavigatum impedit, quo nihil ipsi perit, de eo quid statuemus?\n\nSi quis ab igni qui totus suus est, ignem capere, lumen suo de\nlumine, alterum prohiberet, lege hunc humanae societatis reum\nperagerem: quia vis ea est istius naturae:\n\n      _Vt nihilominus ipsi luceat, cum illi accenderit._[99a]\n\nQuid ni enim quando sine detrimento suo potest, alteri communicet, in\niis quae sunt accipienti utilia, danti non molesta.[100a]\n\nHaec sunt quae Philosophi[101a] non alienis tantum, sed et ingratis\npraestari volunt. Quae vero in rebus privatis invidia est, eadem in\nre communi non potest non esse immanitas, improbissimum enim hoc est,\nquod naturae instituto, consensu gentium, meum non minus quam tuum\nest, id te ita intercipere, ut ne usum quidem mihi concedas, quo\nconcesso nihilominus id tuum sit, quam antea fuit.\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nis the same as that of the Portuguese, only a little less than the\nwhole ocean is found to be subject to two nations, while all the rest\nof the peoples in the world are restricted to the narrow bounds of\nthe northern seas. Nature was greatly deceived if when she spread the\nsea around all peoples she believed that it would also be adequate\nfor the use of them all. If in a thing so vast as the sea a man\nwere to reserve to himself from general use nothing more than mere\nsovereignty, still he would be considered a seeker after unreasonable\npower. If a man were to enjoin other people from fishing, he would\nnot escape the reproach of monstrous greed. But the man who even\nprevents navigation, a thing which means no loss to himself, what are\nwe to say of him?\n\nIf any person should prevent any other person from taking fire from\nhis fire or a light from his torch, I should accuse him of violating\nthe law of human society, because that is the essence of its very\nnature, as Ennius has said:\n\n      \u201c_No less shines his, when he his friend\u2019s hath lit._\u201d[99]\n\nWhy then, when it can be done without any prejudice to his own\ninterests, will not one person share with another things which are\nuseful to the recipient, and no loss to the giver?[100] These are\nservices which the ancient philosophers[101] thought ought to be\nrendered not only to foreigners but even to the ungrateful. But the\nsame act which when private possessions are in question is jealousy\ncan be nothing but cruelty when a common possession is in question.\nFor it is most outrageous for you to appropriate a thing, which both\nby ordinance of nature and by common consent is as much mine as\nyours, so exclusively that you will not grant me a right of use in it\nwhich leaves it no less yours than it was before.\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n\nTum vero etiam qui alienis incumbunt, aut communia intercipiunt,\ncerta quadam possessione se tuentur. Quia enim prima, ut diximus,\noccupatio res proprias fecit, idcirco imaginem quandam dominii\npraefert quamvis iniusta detentio. At Lusitani num sicuti terras\nsolemus, sic mare illud impositis praediis ita undique cinxerunt,\nut in ipsorum manu esset quos vellent excludere? An vero tantum hoc\nabest, ut ipsi etiam, cum adversus alios populos mundum dividunt, non\nullis limitibus aut natura, aut manu positis, sed imaginaria quadam\nlinea se tueantur? quod si recipitur et dimensio talis ad possidendum\nvalet, iamdudum nobis Geometrae terras, Astronomi etiam caelum\neriperent.\n\nVbi hic igitur est ista, sine qua nulla dominia coeperunt,\ncorporis ad corpus adiunctio? Nimirum apparet in nulla re verius\ndici posse, quod Doctores nostri prodiderunt,[102a] Mare cum sit\nincomprehensibile, non minus quam a\u00ebr, nullius populi bonis potuisse\napplicari.\n\nSi vero ante alios navigasse, et viam quodammodo aperuisse, hoc\nvocant occupare, quid esse potest magis ridiculum? Nam cum nulla\npars sit maris, in quam non aliquis primus ingressus sit, sequetur\nomnem navigationem ab aliquo esse occupatam. Ita undique excludimur.\nQuin et illi qui terrarum orbem circumvecti sunt, totum sibi Oceanum\nacquisivisse dicendi erunt. Sed nemo nescit\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n\nNevertheless, even those who lay burdens upon foreigners, or\nappropriate things common to all, rely upon a possession which is\nto some extent real. For since original occupation created private\nproperty, therefore detention of a thing, though unjust, gives an\nappearance of ownership. But have the Portuguese completely covered\nthe ocean, as we are wont to do on land, by laying out estates on\nit in such a way that they have the right to exclude from that\nocean whom they will? Not at all! On the contrary, they are so far\nfrom having done so, that when they divide up the world to the\ndisadvantage of other nations, they cannot even defend their action\nby showing any boundaries either natural or artificial, but are\ncompelled to fall back upon some imaginary line. Indeed, if that\nwere a recognized method, and such a delimitation of boundaries were\nsufficient to make possession valid, our geometers long since would\nhave got possession of the face of the earth, our astronomers of the\nvery skies.\n\nBut where in this case is that corporal possession or physical\nappropriation, without which no ownerships arise? There appears to\nbe nothing truer than what our learned jurists have enunciated,\nnamely,[102] that since the sea is just as insusceptible of physical\nappropriation as the air, it cannot be attached to the possessions of\nany nation.\n\nBut if the Portuguese call _occupying_ the sea merely to have sailed\nover it before other people, and to have, as it were, opened the way,\ncould anything in the world be more ridiculous? For, as there is no\npart of the sea on which some person has not already sailed, it will\nnecessarily follow that every route of navigation is occupied by some\none. Therefore we peoples of today are all absolutely excluded. Why\nwill not those men who have circumnavigated the globe be justified in\nsaying that they have acquired for themselves the possession of the\nwhole ocean! But there\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nnavem per mare transeuntem non plus iuris, quam vestigii relinquere.\nVerum etiam quod sibi sumunt neminem ante ipsos eum Oceanum\nnavigasse, id minime verum est. Magna enim pars eius de quo agitur\nmaris, ambitu Mauritaniae, iam olim navigata est; ulterior et in\norientem vergens victoriis Magni Alexandri lustrata est, usque in\nArabicum sinum.[103a]\n\nOlim autem hanc navigationem Gaditanis percognitam fuisse, multa\nargumento sunt. Caio Caesare Augusti filio in Arabico sinu res\ngerente signa navium ex Hispaniensibus naufragiis agnita. Et quod\nCaelius Antipater tradidit, vidisse se qui ex Hispania in Aethiopiam\ncommercii gratia navigasset. Etiam Arabibus, si verum est, quod\nCornelius Nepos testatus est, Eudoxum quendam sua aetate cum Lathyrum\nRegem Alexandriae fugeret, Arabico sinu egressum Gades usque\npervectum. Poenos autem, qui re maritima plurimum valuerunt, eum\nOceanum non ignorasse longe clarissimum est, cum Hanno Carthaginis\npotentia florente circumvectus a Gadibus ad finem Arabiae,\npraeternavigato scilicet promontorio quod nunc Bonae Spei dicitur,\n(vetus videtur nomen Hesperion ceras fuisse) omne id iter, situmque\nlitoris et insularum scripto complexus sit, testatusque ad ultimum\nnon mare sibi, sed commeatum defuisse.\n\nAb Arabico autem sinu ad Indiam, Indicique Oceani insulas, et auream\nusque Chersonesum, quam esse Iapanem credunt plerique, etiam re\nRomana florente navigari solitum, iter a Plinio descriptum,[104a]\nlegationes ab Indis ad\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nis not a single person in the world who does not know that a ship\nsailing through the sea leaves behind it no more legal right than it\ndoes a track. And as for the assumption of the Portuguese that no one\nhas sailed that ocean before themselves, that is anything but true.\nFor a great part of that sea near Morocco, which is in dispute, had\nalready been navigated long before, and the sea as far east as the\nArabian gulf has been made famous by the victories of Alexander the\nGreat, as both Pliny and Mela tell us.[103]\n\nThere is also much to substantiate the belief that the inhabitants\nof Cadiz were well acquainted long ago with this route, because when\nGaius Caesar,* the son of Augustus, held command in the Arabian\ngulf, pieces were found of shipwrecks recognized as Spanish. Caelius\nAntipater also has told us in his writings that he himself saw a\nSpaniard who had sailed from Spain to Ethiopia on a commercial\nvoyage. Also the Arabians knew those seas, if the testimony of\nCornelius Nepos is to be believed, because he says that in his own\nday a certain Eudoxus, fleeing from Lathyrus, king of Alexandria,\nsailed from the Arabian gulf and finally reached Cadiz. However, by\nfar the most famous example is that of the Carthaginians. Those most\nfamous mariners were well acquainted with that sea, because Hanno,\nwhen Carthage was at the height of her power, sailing from Cadiz\nto the farthest confines of Arabia, and doubling the promontory\nnow known as the Cape of Good Hope (the ancient name seems to have\nbeen Hesperion Ceras), described in a book the entire route he had\ntaken, the appearance of the coasts, and the location of the islands,\ndeclaring that at the farthest point he reached the sea had not yet\ngiven out but his provisions had.\n\n* [Strictly speaking, Gaius was the grandson of Augustus, but was\nadopted as his son.]\n\nPliny\u2019s description of the route to the East,[104] the embassies\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nAugustum, ad Claudium etiam ex Taprobane insula, deinde gesta Traiani\net tabulae Ptolemaei satis ostendunt. Iam suo tempore Strabo[105a]\nAlexandrinorum mercatorum classem ex Arabico sinu, ut Aethiopiae\nultima, ita et Indiae, petiisse testatur, cum olim paucis navibus id\nauderetur. Inde magna populo Romano vectigalia; addit Plinius[106a]\nimpositis sagittariorum cohortibus piratarum metu navigatum; solamque\nIndiam quingenties sestertium, si Arabiam addas et Seres, millies\nannis omnibus Romano Imperio ademisse; et merces centuplicato\nvenditas.\n\nEt haec quidem vetera satis arguunt primos non fuisse Lusitanos. In\nsingulis autem sui partibus Oceanus ille et tunc cum eum Lusitani\ningressi sunt, et numquam non cognitus fuit. Mauri enim, Aethiopes,\nArabes, Persae, Indi, eam maris partem cuius ipsi accolae sunt,\nnescire neutiquam potuerunt.\n\nMentiuntur ergo qui se mare illud invenisse iactant.\n\nQuid igitur, dicet aliquis, parumne videtur, quod Lusitani\nintermissam multis forte saeculis navigationem primi repararunt, et,\nquod negari non potest, Europaeis gentibus ignotam ostenderunt, magno\nsuo labore, sumptu, periculo?\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nfrom the Indies to Augustus, and those from Ceylon to the emperor\nClaudius, and finally the accounts of the deeds of Trajan, and the\nwritings of Ptolemaeus, all make it quite clear that in the days\nof Rome\u2019s greatest splendor voyages were made regularly from the\nArabian gulf to India, to the islands of the Indian ocean, and even\nso far as to the golden Chersonesus, which many people think was\nJapan. Strabo says[105] that in his own time a fleet of Alexandrian\nmerchantmen set sail from the Arabian gulf for the distant lands of\nEthiopia and India, although few ships had ever before attempted that\nvoyage. The Roman people had a large revenue from the East. Pliny\nsays[106] that cohorts of archers were carried on the boats engaged\nin trade as protection against pirates; he states also that every\nyear 500,000 sesterces* were taken out of the Roman empire by India\nalone, or 1,000,000 sesterces if you add Arabia and China; further,\nthat merchandise brought from the East sold for one hundred times its\noriginal cost.\n\n* [A Roman sestertius was about four cents.]\n\nThese examples cited from ancient times are sufficient proof that\nthe Portuguese were not the first in that part of the world. Long\nbefore they ever came, every single part of that ocean had been long\nsince explored. For how possibly could the Moors, the Ethiopians,\nthe Arabians, the Persians, the peoples of India, have remained in\nignorance of that part of the sea adjacent to their coasts!\n\nTherefore they lie, who today boast that they discovered that sea.\n\nWell then, some one will say, does it seem to be a matter of little\nmoment that the Portuguese were the first to restore a navigation\ninterrupted perhaps for many centuries, and unknown--as cannot be\ndenied--at least to the nations of Europe, at great labor and cost\nand danger to themselves?\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nImmo vero si in hoc incubuerunt ut quod soli reperissent id omnibus\nmonstrarent, quis adeo est amens, qui non plurimum se illis debere\nprofiteatur? Eandem enim gratiam, laudemque et gloriam immortalem\nilli promeruerint, qua omnes contenti fuerunt rerum magnarum\ninventores, quotquot scilicet non sibi, sed humano generi prodesse\nstuduerunt. Sin Lusitanis suus ante oculos quaestus fuit, lucrum quod\nsemper maximum est in praevertendis negotiationibus, illis sufficere\ndebuit. Et scimus itinera prima proventus interdum quater decuplos,\naut etiam uberiores dedisse, quibus factum ut inops diu populus ad\nrepentinas divitias subito prorumperet, tanto luxus apparatu, quantus\nvix beatissimis gentibus in supremo progressae diu fortunae fastigio\nfuit.\n\nSi vero eidem in hoc praeiverunt, ne quisquam sequeretur, gratiam\nnon merentur, cum lucrum suum respexerint; lucrum autem suum dicere\nnon possunt, cum eripiant alienum. Neque enim illud certum est\nnisi ivissent eo Lusitani, iturum fuisse neminem. Adventabant enim\ntempora, quibus ut artes paene omnes, ita et terrarum et marium situs\nclarius in dies noscebantur. Excitassent vetera, quae modo retulimus,\nexempla, et si non uno impetu omnia patuissent, at paulatim promota\nvelis fuissent litora alio semper aliud monstrante. Factum denique\nfuisset,\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nOn the contrary, if they had laid weight upon the fact that they were\npointing out to all what they alone had rediscovered, there is no\none so lacking in sense that he would not acknowledge the greatest\nobligation to them. For the Portuguese will have earned the same\nthanks, praise, and immortal glory with which all discoverers of\ngreat things have been content, whenever they have striven to benefit\nnot themselves but the whole human race. But if the Portuguese\nhad before their eyes only their own financial gain, surely their\nprofit, which is always the largest for those first in a new field\nof enterprise, ought to have satisfied them. For we know that\ntheir first voyages returned a profit sometimes of forty times the\noriginal investment, and sometimes even more. And by this overseas\ntrade it has come about that a people, previously for a long time\npoor, have leaped suddenly into the possession of great riches, and\nhave surrounded themselves with such outward signs of luxurious\nmagnificence as scarcely the most prosperous nations have been able\nto display at the height of their fortunes.\n\nBut if these Portuguese have led the way in this matter in order\nthat no one may follow them, then they do not deserve any thanks,\ninasmuch as they have considered only their own profit. Nor can they\ncall it their profit, because they are taking the profit of some one\nelse. For it is not at all demonstrable that, if the Portuguese had\nnot gone to the East Indies, no one else would have gone. For the\ntimes were coming on apace in which along with other sciences the\ngeographical locations of seas and lands were being better known\nevery day. The reports of the expeditions of the ancients mentioned\nabove had aroused people, and even if all foreign shores had not been\nlaid open at a single stroke as it were, yet they would have been\nbrought to light gradually by sailing voyages, each new discovery\npointing the way to the next. And so there would finally\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nquod fieri potuisse Lusitani docuerunt, cum multi essent populi non\nminus flagrantes mercaturae et rerum externarum studio. Venetis qui\nmulta iam Indiae didicerant, cetera inquirere promptum fuit. Gallorum\nBrittonum indefessa sedulitas, Anglorum audacia coepto non defuisset.\nIpsi Batavi multo magis desperata aggressi sunt.\n\nNulla igitur aequitatis ratio, ne probabilis quidem ulla sententia a\nLusitanis stat. Omnes enim qui mare volunt imperio alicuius subici\nposse, id ei attribuunt qui proximos portus et circumiacentia litora\nin dicione habet.[107a] At Lusitani in illo immenso litorum tractu\npaucis exceptis praesidiis nihil habent quod suum possint dicere.\n\nDeinde vero etiam qui Mari imperaret, nihil tamen posset ex usu\ncommuni deminuere, sicut Populus Romanus arcere neminem potuit, quo\nminus in litore imperi Romani cuncta faceret, quae iure gentium\npermittebantur.[108a] Et si quicquam eorum prohibere posset,\nputa piscaturam qua dici quodammodo potest pisces exhauriri, at\nnavigationem non posset, per quam mari nihil perit.\n\nCui rei argumentum est longe certissimum, quod ex Doctorum sententia\nante retulimus, etiam in terra, quae cum populis, tum hominibus\nsingulis in proprietatem attributa est, iter tamen, certe inerme et\ninnoxium, nullius gentis\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nhave been accomplished what the Portuguese showed could be done,\nbecause there were many nations with no less ardor than theirs to\nengage in commerce and to learn of foreign things. The Venetians, who\nalready knew much about India, were ready to push their knowledge\nfarther; the indefatigable zeal of the French of Brittany, and\nthe boldness of the English would not have failed to make such an\nattempt; indeed the Dutch themselves have embarked upon much more\ndesperate enterprises.\n\nTherefore the Portuguese have neither just reason nor respectable\nauthority to support their position, for all those persons who assume\nthat the sea can be subjected to the sovereignty of any one assign it\nto him who holds in his power the nearest ports and the circumjacent\nshores.[107] But in all that great extent of coast line reaching to\nthe East Indies the Portuguese have nothing which they can call their\nown except a few fortified posts.\n\nAnd then even if a man were to have dominion over the sea, still\nhe could not take away anything from its common use, just as the\nRoman people could not prevent any one from doing on the shores of\ntheir dominions all those things which were permitted by the law\nof nations.[108] And if it were possible to prohibit any of those\nthings, say for example, fishing, for in a way it can be maintained\nthat fish are exhaustible, still it would not be possible to prohibit\nnavigation, for the sea is not exhausted by that use.\n\nThe most conclusive argument on this question by far however is the\none that we have already brought forward based on the opinions of\neminent jurists, namely, that even over land which had been converted\ninto private property either by states or individuals, unarmed\nand innocent passage is not justly to be denied to persons of any\ncountry, exactly as the right to drink from a river is not to be\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nhominibus iuste negari; sicut et potum ex flumine. Ratio apparet,\nquia cum unius rei naturaliter usus essent diversi, eum dumtaxat\ngentes divisisse inter se videntur, qui sine proprietate commode\nhaberi non potest, contra autem eum recepisse, per quem domini\ncondicio deterior non esset futura.\n\nOmnes igitur vident eum qui alterum navigare prohibeat nullo\niure defendi, cum eundem etiam iniuriarum teneri Vlpianus\ndixerit;[109a] alii autem etiam interdictum utile prohibito competere\nexistimaverint.[110a]\n\nEt sic Batavorum intentio communi iure nititur, cum fateantur omnes,\npermissum cuilibet in mari navigare etiam a nullo Principe impetrata\nlicentia; quod Legibus Hispanicis diserte expressum est.[111a]\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\ndenied. The reason is clear, because, inasmuch as one and the same\nthing is susceptible by nature to different uses, the nations seem\non the one hand to have apportioned among themselves that use which\ncannot be maintained conveniently apart from private ownership; but\non the other hand to have reserved that use through the exercise of\nwhich the condition of the owner would not be impaired.\n\nIt is clear therefore to every one that he who prevents another from\nnavigating the sea has no support in law. Ulpian has said[109] that\nhe was even bound to pay damages, and other jurists have thought\nthat the injunction _utile prohibito_ could also be brought against\nhim.[110]\n\nFinally, the relief prayed for by the Dutch rests upon a common\nright, since it is universally admitted that navigation on the sea is\nopen to any one, even if permission is not obtained from any ruler.\nAnd this is specifically expressed in the Spanish laws.[111]\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n\n\n\nCAPVT VI\n\n_Mare aut ius navigandi proprium non esse Lusitanorum titulo\ndonationis Pontificiae_\n\n\nDonatio Pontificis Alexandri, quae a Lusitanis mare aut ius navigandi\nsolis sibi vindicantibus, cum inventionis deficiat titulus, secundo\nloco adduci potest, satis ex iis quae ante dicta sunt vanitatis\nconvincitur. Donatio enim nullum habet momentum in rebus extra\ncommercium positis. Quare cum mare aut ius in eo navigandi proprium\nnulli hominum esse possit, sequitur neque dari a Pontifice neque a\nLusitanis accipi potuisse. Praeterea cum supra relatum sit ex omnium\nsani iudicii hominum sententia Papam non esse dominum temporalem\ntotius orbis, ne Maris quidem esse satis intelligitur; quamquam etsi\nid concederetur, tamen ius annexum Pontificatui in Regem aliquem aut\npopulum pro parte nulla transferri debuisset. Sicut nec Imperator\nposset Imperi provincias in suos usus convertere, aut pro suo\narbitrio alienare.[112a]\n\nIllud saltem nemo negaturus est, cui aliquid sit frontis, cum ius\ndisponendi in temporalibus Pontifici nemo concedat, nisi forte\nquantum eius rerum spiritualium necessitas requirit, ista autem\nde quibus nunc agimus, mare scilicet et ius navigandi, lucrum et\nquaestum merum, non pietatis negotium\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\n_Neither the Sea nor the right of navigation thereon belongs to the\nPortuguese by virtue of title based on the Papal Donation_\n\n\nThe Donation of Pope Alexander, inasmuch as the title based on\ndiscovery is seen to be deficient, may next be invoked by the\nPortuguese to justify their exclusive appropriation of the sea\nand the right of navigation thereon. But from what has been said\nabove, that Donation is clearly convicted of being an act of empty\nostentation. For a Donation has no effect on things outside the\nrealm of trade. Wherefore since neither the sea nor the right of\nnavigating it can become the private property of any man, it follows\nthat it could not have been given by the Pope, nor accepted by\nthe Portuguese. Besides, as has been mentioned above, following\nthe opinion of all men of sound judgment, it is sufficiently well\nrecognized that the Pope is not the temporal lord of the earth, and\ncertainly not of the sea. Even if it be granted for the sake of\nargument that such were the case, still a right attaching to the\nPontificate ought not to be transferred wholly or in part to any king\nor nation. Similarly no emperor could convert to his own uses or\nalienate at his own pleasure the provinces of his empire.[112]\n\nNow, inasmuch as no one concedes to the Pope in temporal matters a\n_jus disponendi_, except perhaps in so far as it is demanded by the\nnecessity of spiritual matters, and inasmuch as the things now under\ndiscussion, namely, the sea and the right of navigating it, are\nconcerned only with money and profits, not with piety, surely no one\ncan have\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nrespiciant, sequi nullam hac in re fuisse illius potestatem. Quid,\nquod ne Principes quidem, hoc est, domini temporales possunt ullo\nmodo a navigatione aliquem prohibere, cum si quod habent ius in mari\nid sit tantum iurisdictionis ac protectionis? Etiam illud notissimum\nest apud omnes, ad ea facienda quae cum lege Naturae pugnant, nullam\nesse Papae auctoritatem.[113a] Pugnat autem cum lege Naturae, ut\nmare aut eius usum quisquam habeat sibi proprium, ut iam satis\ndemonstravimus. Cum denique ius suum auferre alicui Papa minime\npossit, quae erit facti istius defensio, si tot populos immerentes,\nindemnatos, innoxios ab eo iure quod ad ipsos non minus quam ad\nHispanos pertinebat uno verbo voluit excludere?\n\nAut igitur dicendum est nullam esse vim eiusmodi pronuntiationis,\naut quod non minus credibile est, eum Pontificis animum fuisse, ut\nCastellanorum et Lusitanorum inter se certamini intercessum voluerit,\naliorum autem iuri nihil diminutum.\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nthe face to insist that the Pope had any jurisdiction here. What of\nthe fact that not even rulers, that is to say, temporal lords, can\nprohibit any one from navigation, since if they have any right at all\nupon the sea it is merely one of jurisdiction and protection! It is\nalso a fact universally recognized that the Pope has no authority to\ncommit acts repugnant to the law of nature.[113] But it is repugnant\nto the law of nature, as we have already proved beyond a doubt, for\nany one to have as his own private property either the sea or its\nuse. Finally, since the Pope is wholly unable to deprive any one of\nhis own rights, what defense will there be for that Donation of his,\nif by a word he intended to exclude so many innocent, uncondemned,\nand guiltless nations from a right which belongs no less to them than\nto the Spaniards?\n\nTherefore, either it must be affirmed that a pronunciamento of this\nsort has no force, or, as is no less credible, that it was the desire\nof the Pope to intercede in the quarrel between the Spaniards and the\nPortuguese, and that he had no concomitant intention of violating the\nrights of others.\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n\n\n\nCAPVT VII\n\n_Mare aut ius navigandi proprium non esse Lusitanorum titulo\npraescriptionis aut consuetudinis_\n\n\nVltimum iniquitatis patrocinium in praescriptione solet esse aut\nconsuetudine. Et huc igitur Lusitani se conferunt; sed utrumque\nillis praesidium certissima iuris ratio praecludit. Nam praescriptio\na iure est civili, unde locum habere non potest inter reges, aut\ninter populos liberos;[114a] multo autem minus ubi ius naturae aut\ngentium resistit, quod iure civili semper validius est. Quin et ipsa\nlex civilis praescriptionem hic impedit.[115a] Vsucapi enim, aut\npraescriptione acquiri prohibentur, quae in bonis esse non possunt,\ndeinde quae possideri vel quasi possideri nequeunt, et quorum\nalienatio prohibita est. Haec autem omnia de mari et usu maris vere\ndicuntur.\n\nEt cum publicae res, hoc est populi alicuius nulla temporis\npossessione quaeri posse dicantur, sive ob rei naturam, sive ob\neorum privilegium adversus quos praescriptio ista procederet, quanto\niustius humano generi, quam uni populo id beneficium dandum fuit in\nrebus communibus? Et hoc est\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\n_Neither the Sea nor the right of navigation thereon belongs to the\nPortuguese by title of prescription or custom_\n\n\nThe last defense of injustice is usually a claim or plea based on\nprescription or on custom. To this defense therefore the Portuguese\nhave resorted. But the best established reasoning of the law\nprecludes them from enjoying the protection of either plea.\n\nPrescription is a matter of municipal law; hence it cannot be applied\nas between kings, or as between free and independent nations.[114]\nIt has even less standing when it is in conflict with that which is\nalways stronger than the municipal law, namely, the law of nature\nor nations. Nay, even municipal law itself prevents prescription in\nthis case.[115] For it is impossible to acquire by usucaption or\nprescription things which cannot become property, that is, which\nare not susceptible of possession or of quasi-possession, and which\ncannot be alienated. All of which is true with respect to the sea and\nits use.\n\nAnd since public things, that is, things which are the property of a\nnation, cannot be acquired by mere efflux of time, either because of\ntheir nature, or because of the prerogatives of those against whom\nsuch prescription would act, is it not vastly more just that the\nbenefits accruing from the enjoyment of common things should be given\nto the entire human race than to one nation alone? On this point\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nquod Papinianus scriptum reliquit,[116a] \u2018praescriptionem longae\npossessionis ad obtinenda loca iurisgentium publica concedi non\nsolere\u2019; eiusque rei exemplum dat in litore, cuius pars imposito\naedificio occupata fuerat. Nam eo diruto, et alterius aedificio in\neodem loco postea exstructo, exceptionem opponi non posse; quod\ndeinde similitudine rei publicae illustrat, nam et si quis in\nfluminis diverticulo pluribus annis piscatus sit, postea, interrupta\nscilicet piscatione, alterum eodem iure prohibere non posse.\n\nApparet igitur Angelum et qui cum Angelo dixerunt[117a] Venetis\net Genuensibus per praescriptionem ius aliquod in sinum maris suo\nlitori praeiacentem acquiri potuisse, aut falli, aut fallere, quod\nsane Iurisconsultis nimium est frequens, cum sanctae professionis\nauctoritatem, non ad rationes et leges, sed ad gratiam conferunt\npotentiorum. Nam Martiani quidem responsum, de quo et ante egimus,\nsi recte cum Papiniani verbis comparetur,[118a] non aliam accipere\npotest interpretationem, quam eam quae et Iohanni olim et Bartolo\nprobata est, et nunc a doctis omnibus recipitur:[119a] ut scilicet\nius prohibendi procedat quamdiu durat occupatio,\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nPapinian has said:[116] \u2018Prescription raised by long possession is\nnot customarily recognized as valid in the acquisition of places\nknown to international law as \u201cpublic\u201d\u2019. As an example, to illustrate\nthis point, he cites a shore some part of which had been occupied by\nmeans of a building constructed on it. But if this building should be\ndestroyed, and some one else later should construct a building on the\nsame spot, no exception could be taken to it. Then he illustrates the\nsame point by the analogous case of a _res publica_. If, for example,\nany one has fished for many years in a branch of a river, and has\nthen stopped fishing there, after that he cannot prevent any one else\nfrom enjoying the same right that he had.\n\nWherefore it appears that Angeli[117] and his followers who have said\nthat the Venetians and Genoese were able to acquire by prescription\ncertain specific rights in the gulfs of the sea adjacent to their\nshores, either are mistaken, or are deceiving others; a thing which\nhappens all too frequently with jurists when they exercise the\nauthority of their sacred profession not for justice and law, but in\norder to gain the gratitude of the powerful. There is also an opinion\nof Marcianus, already cited above in another connection, which, when\ncarefully compared with the words of Papinian,[118] can have no\nother interpretation than the one formerly adopted by Johannes and\nBartolus,* and now accepted by all learned men,[119] namely, that the\n_jus prohibendi_ is in effect only while occupation lasts; it loses\nits force if occupation\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nnon autem si ea omissa sit; omissa enim non prodest, nec si per\nmille annos fuisset continuata, ut recte animadvertit Castrensis.\nEt quamvis hoc voluisset Martianus, quod minime credendus est\ncogitasse, in quo loco occupatio conceditur, in eodem praescriptionem\nconcedi, tamen absurdum erat quod de flumine publico dictum erat\nad Mare commune, et quod de diverticulo ad sinum proferre, cum\nhaec praescriptio usum qui est Iuregentium communis, impeditura\nsit, illa autem publico usui non admodum noceat. Alterum autem\nAngeli argumentum quod ex aquaeductu sumitur,[120a] eodem Castrensi\nmonstrante, ut a quaestione alienissimum, ab omnibus merito\nexploditur.\n\nFalsum igitur est talem praescriptionem etiam eo tempore gigni,\ncuius initium omnem memoriam excedat. Vbi enim lex omnem omnino\ntollit praescriptionem, ne istud quidem tempus admittitur, hoc\nest, ut Felinus loquitur,[121a] materia impraescriptibilis tempore\nimmemoriali non fit praescriptibilis. Fatetur haec vera esse\nBalbus;[122a] sed Angeli sententiam receptam dicit hac ratione,\nquia tempus extra memoriam positum idem valere creditur privilegio,\ncum titulus amplissimus ex tali tempore praesumatur. Apparet hinc\nnon aliud illos sensisse, quam si pars aliqua reipublicae, puta\nImperi Romani, supra omnem memoriam usa esset tali iure, ei dandam\npraescriptionem hoc colore, quasi Principis\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\ncease; and occupation once interrupted, even if it had been\ncontinuous for a thousand years, loses its rights, as Paul de\nCastro\u2020 justly observes. And even if Marcianus had meant--which\ncertainly was not in his mind at all--that acquisition by\nprescription is to be recognized wherever occupation is recognized,\nstill it would have been absurd to apply what had been said about a\npublic river to the common sea, or what had been said about an inlet\nor a river branch to a bay, since in the latter case prescription\nwould hinder the use of something common to all by the law of\nnations, and in the former case would work no great injury to public\nuse. Moreover, another argument brought forward by Angeli based on\nthe use of aqueducts,[120] has quite properly been rejected by every\none, being, as de Castro pointed out, entirely aside from the point.\n\n* [Bartolus de Saxoferrato (1314-1357) the most famous of the\nPost-glossators, was called by many of his biographers \u2018Optimus\nauriga in hac civili sapientia\u2019.]\n\n\u2020 [The celebrated Italian jurist (?-1420 or 1437) of whom Cujas\nsaid: \u201cSi vous n\u2019avez pas Paul de Castro, vendez votre chemise pour\nl\u2019acheter.\u201d (Note from page 55 of the French translation of Grotius\nby de Grandpont.)]\n\nIt is not true then that such prescription rises even at a time\nbeyond the period of the memory of man. For since the law absolutely\ndenies all prescription, not even immemorial time has any effect on\nthe question; that is, as Felinus[121] says, things imprescriptible\nby nature do not become prescriptible by the mere efflux of\nimmemorial time. Balbus admits the truth of these arguments,[122] but\nsays that the opinion of Angeli is to be accepted on the ground that\ntime immemorial is believed to have the same validity as prerogative\nfor setting up a title, since a perfect title is presumed from such\nefflux of time. Hence it appears that the jurists thought if some\npart of a state, say of the Roman empire for example, at a period\nbefore the memory of man had exercised such a right, that a title by\nprescription would\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nconcessio praeiisset. Quare cum nemo sit dominus totius generis\nhumani, qui ius illud adversus homines omnes homini, aut populo\nalicui potuisset concedere, sublato illo colore, necesse est etiam\npraescriptionem interimi. Et sic ex illorum etiam sententia inter\nreges aut populos liberos prodesse nihil potest lapsus infiniti\ntemporis.\n\nVanissimum autem et illud est quod Angelus docuit, etiamsi ad\ndominium praescriptio proficere non potest, tamen dandam esse\npossidenti exceptionem. Nam Papinianus disertis verbis exceptionem\nnegat:[123a] et aliter non potuit sentire, cum ipsius saeculo\npraescriptio nihil esset aliud quam exceptio. Verum igitur est\nquod et leges Hispanicae exprimunt[124a] in his rebus quae communi\nhominum usui sunt attributae, nullius omnino temporis praescriptionem\nprocedere, cuius definitionis illa praeter ceteras ratio reddi\npotest, quod qui re communi utitur, ut communi uti videtur, non autem\niure proprio, et ita praescribere non magis quam fructuarius potest\nvitio possessionis.[125a]\n\nAltera haec etiam non contemnenda est, quod in praescriptione\ntemporis cuius memoria non exstat, quamvis titulus et bona fides\npraesumantur, tamen si re ipsa appareat titulum omnino nullum dari\nposse, et sic manifesta sit fides mala, quae in populo maxime quasi\nuno corpore perpetua esse\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nhave to be admitted on that ground, exactly as if there had been a\nprevious grant from a Prince. But inasmuch as there is no one who\nis sovereign of the whole human race with competence to grant to\nany man or to any nation such a right against all other men, with\nthe annihilation of that pretext, title by prescription is also\nnecessarily destroyed. Therefore the opinion of the jurists is that\nnot even an infinite lapse of time is able to set up a right as\nbetween kings or independent nations.\n\nMoreover Angeli brought forward a most foolish argument, affirming\nthat even if prescription could not create ownership, still an\nexception ought to be made in favor of a possessor. Papinian however\nin unmistakable words says there is no exception,[123] nor could\nhe think otherwise, because in his day prescription was itself an\nexception. It is therefore true, as expressed also in the laws of\nSpain,[124] that prescription based on no matter how immemorial a\ntime, sets up no title to those things which are recognized as common\nto the use of mankind. One reason among others which can be given for\nthis definition is that any one who uses a _res communis_ does so\nevidently by virtue of common and not private right, and because of\nthe imperfect character of possession he can therefore no more set up\na legal title by prescription than can a usufructuary.[125]\n\nA second reason not to be overlooked is that although a title and\ngood faith are presumed in a prescriptive right created by the efflux\nof immemorial time, nevertheless if it appears from the nature of the\nthing itself that no title at all can be established, and if thus\nthere becomes evident bad faith--a thing held to be permanent in a\nnation as well as in an individual--then prescription fails because\nof a\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\ncensetur, et ex duplici defectu praescriptio corruit.[126a] Tertia\nvero, quia res haec est merae facultatis, quae non praescribitur, ut\ninfra demonstrabimus.\n\nSed nullus est finis argutiarum. Inventi sunt qui in hoc argumento\na praescriptione consuetudinem distinguerent, ut illa scilicet\nexclusi, ad hanc confugerent. Discrimen autem quod hic statuunt sane\nridiculum est: ex praescriptione aiunt ius unius quod ab eo aufertur\nalteri applicari;[127a] sed cum aliquod ius ita alicui applicatur\nut alteri non auferatur, tum dici consuetudinem; quasi vero cum ius\nnavigandi quod communiter ad omnes pertinet, exclusis aliis ab uno\nusurpatur, non necesse sit omnibus perire quantum uni accedit. Errori\nhuic ansam dederunt Pauli verba non recte accepta, qui cum de iure\nproprio maris ad aliquem pertinente loqueretur,[128a] fieri hoc posse\ndixit Accursius per privilegium aut consuetudinem: quod additamentum\nad Iurisconsulti textum nullo modo accedens mali potius coniectoris\nesse videtur quam boni interpretis. Mens Pauli supra explicata\nest. Ceterum illi si vel sola Vlpiani verba,[129a] quae paulo ante\npraecedunt, satis considerassent, longe aliud dicturi erant. Fatetur\nenim ut quis ante aedes meas piscari prohibeatur, esse quidem\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\ndouble defect.[126] Also a third reason is that we have under\nconsideration a merely facultative right which is not prescriptible,\nas we shall show below.*\n\n* [See chapter XI.]\n\nBut there is no end to their subtilties. There are jurists who in\nthis case would distinguish custom from prescription, so that if they\nare debarred from the one, they may fall back upon the other. But\nthe distinction which they set up is most absurd. They say that the\nright of one person which is taken away from him is given to another\nby prescription;[127] but that when any right is given to any one\nin such a way that it is not taken away from any one else, then it\nis called custom. As if indeed the right of navigation, which is\ncommon to all, upon being usurped by some one to the exclusion of all\nothers, would not necessarily when it became the property of one be\nlost to all!\n\nThis error receives support from misinterpretation of what Paulus\nhas to say about a private right of possession on the sea.[128]\nAccursius\u2020 said that such a right could be acquired by privilege or\ncustom. But this addition which in no way agrees with the text of\nthe jurist seems to be rather the interpretation of a mischievous\nguesser than of a faithful interpreter. The real meaning of the\nwords of Paulus has been already explained. Besides, if more careful\nconsideration had been given to the words of Ulpian[129] which almost\nimmediately precede those of Paulus, a very different assertion would\nhave been made. For Ulpian acknowledges that if any one is prohibited\nfrom fishing in front of\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nusurpatum;[130a] hoc est receptum consuetudine, sed nullo iure,\nideoque iniuriarum actionem prohibito non denegandam.\n\nContemnit igitur hunc morem, et usurpationem vocat, ut et inter\nChristianos Doctores Ambrosius.[131a] Et merito. Quid enim clarius\nquam non valere consuetudinem, quae iuri naturae, aut gentium ex\nadverso opponitur?[132a] Consuetudo enim species est iuris positivi,\nquod legi perpetuae obrogare non potest. Est autem lex illa perpetua\nut Mare omnibus usu commune sit. Quod autem in praescriptione\ndiximus, idem in consuetudine verum est, si quis eorum qui diversum\ntradiderunt sensus excutiat, non aliud reperturum, quam consuetudinem\nprivilegio parari. Atqui adversus genus humanum concedendi\nprivilegium nemo habet potestatem; quare inter diversas respublicas\nconsuetudo ista vim non habet.\n\nVerum omnem hanc quaestionem diligentissime tractavit Vasquius,[133a]\ndecus illud Hispaniae, cuius nec in explorando iure subtilitatem,\nnec in docendo libertatem umquam desideres. Is igitur posita thesi:\n\u2018Loca publica et iure gentium communia praescribi non posse\u2019, quam\nmultis firmat auctoribus; exceptiones deinde subiungit ab Angelo et\naliis confictas, quas supra retulimus. Haec autem examinaturus recte\niudicat istarum rerum veritatem pendere a vera iuris, tam naturae\nquam gentium cognitione. Ius enim naturae cum a\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nmy house, such prohibition is a usurpation of right,[130] allowed,\nit is true, by custom, but based on no law, and that an action for\ndamages could not be denied the person thus prohibited from fishing.\n\n\u2020 [Franciscus (?) Accursius (?-1259) (a pupil of the famous Monarcha\njuris Azzo), with whose name the Glossa Magna is almost synonymous.\nHe was called Advocatorum Idolum.]\n\nHe therefore condemns this practice, and calls it a usurpation;\nof the Christian jurists Ambrose[131] does likewise, and both are\nright. For what is clearer than that custom is not valid when it\nis diametrically opposed to the law of nature or of nations?[132]\nIndeed, custom is a sort of affirmative right, which cannot\ninvalidate general or universal law. And it is a universal law that\nthe sea and its use is common to all. Moreover what we have said\nabout prescription applies with equal truth and force to custom; and\nif any one should investigate the opinions of those who have differed\nupon this matter, he would find no other opinion but that custom is\nestablished by privilege. No one has the power to confer a privilege\nwhich is prejudicial to the rights of the human race; wherefore such\na custom has no force as between different states.\n\nThis entire question however has been most thoroughly treated by\nVasquez,[133] that glory of Spain, who leaves nothing ever to be\ndesired when it comes to subtle examination of the law or to the\nexposition of the principles of liberty. He lays down this thesis:\n\u2018Places public and common to all by the law of nations cannot\nbecome objects of prescription\u2019. This thesis he supports by many\nauthorities, and then he subjoins the objections fabricated by Angeli\nand others, which we have enumerated above. But before examining\nthese objections he makes the just and reasonable statement that the\ntruth of all these matters depends upon a true conception both of the\nlaw of nature and the law of nations.\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\ndivina veniat providentia, esse immutabile. Huius autem iuris\nnaturalis partem esse ius gentium, primaevum quod dicitur, diversum\na iure gentium secundario sive positivo, quorum posterius mutari\npotest. Nam si qui mores cum iure gentium primaevo repugnent, hi non\nhumani sunt ipso iudice, sed FERINI, corruptelae et abusus, non leges\net usus. Itaque nullo tempore praescribi potuerunt, nulla lata lege\niustificari, nullo multarum etiam gentium consensu, hospitio, et\nexercitatione stabiliri, quod exemplis aliquot et Alphonsi Castrensis\nTheologi Hispani testimonio confirmat.[134a]\n\n\u2018Ex quibus apparet\u2019, inquit, \u2018quam suspecta sit sententia eorum,\nquos supra retulimus, existimantium Genuenses, aut etiam Venetos\nposse non iniuria prohibere alios navigare per Gulfum aut pelagus\nsui maris, quasi aequora ipsa praescripserint, id quod non solum\nest contra leges,[135a] sed etiam est contra ipsum ius naturae, aut\ngentium primaevum, quod mutari non posse diximus. Quod sit contra\nillud ius constat, quia non solum maria aut aequora eo iure communia\nerant sed etiam reliquae omnes res immobiles. Et licet ab eo iure\npostea recessum fuerit ex parte, puta quoad dominium et proprietatem\nterrarum, quarum dominium iure Naturae commune, distinctum et\ndivisum, sicque ab illa communione segregatum fuit; tamen[136a]\ndiversum fuit et est in dominio maris,\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nFor, since the law of nature arises out of Divine Providence, it is\nimmutable; but a part of this natural law is the primary or primitive\nlaw of nations, differing from the secondary or positive law of\nnations, which is mutable. For if there are customs incompatible\nwith the primary law of nations, then, according to the judgment of\nVasquez, they are not customs belonging to men, but to wild beasts,\ncustoms which are corruptions and abuses; not laws and usages.\nTherefore those customs cannot become prescriptions by mere lapse\nof time, cannot be justified by the passage of any law, cannot be\nestablished by the consent, the protection, or the practice even of\nmany nations. These statements he confirms by a number of examples,\nand particularly by the testimony of Alphonse de Castro[134] the\nSpanish theologian.\n\n\u2018It is evident therefore\u2019, he says, \u2018how much to be suspected is the\nopinion of those persons mentioned above, who think that the Genoese\nor the Venetians can without injustice prohibit other nations from\nnavigating the gulfs or bays of their respective seas, as if they\nhad a prescriptive right to the very water itself. Such an act is\nnot only contrary to the laws,[135] but is contrary also to natural\nlaw or the primary law of nations, which we have said is immutable.\nAnd this is seen to be true because by that same law not only the\nseas or waters, but also all other immovables were _res communes_.\nAnd although in later times there was a partial abandonment of that\nlaw, in so far as concerns sovereignty and ownership of lands--which\nby natural law at first were held in common, then distinguished and\ndivided, and thus finally separated from the primitive community of\nuse;--nevertheless[136] it was different as regards sovereignty over\nthe sea, which from the beginning of the world down to this\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nquod ab origine Mundi, ad hodiernum usque diem est, fuitque semper in\ncommuni, nulla ex parte immutatum, ut est notum\u2019.\n\n\u2018Et quamvis ex LVSITANIS magnam turbam saepe audiverim in hac\nesse opinione ut eorum Rex ita praescripserit navigationem INDICI\nOccidentalis (forte Orientalis) eiusdemque VASTISSIMI MARIS, ita\nut reliquis gentibus aequora illa transfretare non liceat, et ex\nnostrismet HISPANIS VVLGVS in eadem opinione fere esse videtur,\nut per VASTISSIMVM IMMENSVMQVE PONTVM ad Indorum regiones quas\npotentissimi Reges nostri subegerunt reliquis mortalium navigare\npraeterquam Hispanis ius minime sit, quasi ab eis id ius praescriptum\nfuerit, tamen istorum omnium non minus INSANAE sunt opiniones, quam\neorum qui quoad Genuenses et Venetos in eodem fere SOMNIO esse\nadsolent, quas sententias INEPTIRE vel ex eo dilucidius apparet,\nquod istarum nationum singulae contra seipsas nequeunt praescribere:\nhoc est, non respublica Venetiarum contra semetipsam, non respublica\nGenuensium contra semetipsam, non Regnum Hispanicum contra\nsemetipsum, non Regnum Lusitanicum contra semetipsum.[137a] Esse enim\ndebet differentia inter agentem et patientem\u2019.\n\n\u2018Contra reliquas vero nationes longe minus praescribere possunt,\nquia ius praescriptionum est mere civile, ut fuse ostendimus supra.\nErgo tale ius cessat cum agitur inter principes vel populos,\nsuperiorem non recognoscentes in temporalibus. Iura enim mere civilia\ncuiuscumque regionis,\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nvery day is and always has been a _res communis_, and which, as is\nwell known, has in no wise changed from that status.\n\n\u2018And although\u2019, he continues, \u2018I have often heard that a great many\nPortuguese believe that their king has a prescriptive right over\nthe navigation of the vast seas of the West Indies (probably the\nEast Indies too) such that other nations are not allowed to traverse\nthose waters; and although the common people among our own Spaniards\nseem to be of the same opinion, namely, that absolutely no one in\nthe world except us Spaniards ourselves has the least right to\nnavigate the great and immense sea which stretches to the regions\nof the Indies once subdued by our most powerful kings, as if that\nright has been ours alone by prescription; although, I repeat, I\nhave heard both these things, nevertheless the belief of all those\npeople is no less extravagantly foolish than that of those who are\nalways cherishing the same delusions with respect to the Genoese and\nVenetians. Indeed the opinions of them all appear the more manifestly\nabsurd, because no one of those nations can erect a prescription\nagainst itself; that is to say, not the Venetian republic, nor the\nGenoese republic, nor the kingdom of Spain nor of Portugal can raise\nprescriptions against rights they already possess by nature.[137] For\nthe one who claims a prescriptive right and the one who suffers by\nthe establishment of such a claim must not be one and the same person.\n\n\u2018Against other nations they are even much less competent to raise a\nprescription, because the right of prescription is only a municipal\nright, as we have shown above at some length. Therefore such a right\nceases to have any effect as between rulers or nations who do not\nrecognize a superior in the temporal domain. For so far as the merely\nmunicipal laws of any place are concerned, they do not\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nquoad exteros populos, nationes, vel etiam homines singulos, non\nmagis sunt in consideratione, quam si re vera esset tale ius, aut\nnumquam fuisset, et ad ius commune gentium primaevum vel secundarium\nrecurrendum est, eoque utendum, quo iure talem maris praescriptionem\net usurpationem admissam non fuisse satis constat. Nam, et hodie\nusus aquarum communis est, non secus quam erat ab origine Mundi.\nErgo et in aequoribus et aquis nullum ius est aut esse potest humano\ngeneri, praeterquam quoad usum communem. Praeterea de iure naturali\net divino est illud praeceptum, ut _Quod tibi non vis fieri, alteri\nnon facias_. Vnde cum navigatio nemini possit esse nociva nisi\nipsi naviganti, par est ut nemini possit, aut debeat impediri,\nne in re sua natura libera, sibique minime noxia navigantium\nlibertatem impediat, et laedat contra dictum praeceptum et contra\nregulam praesertim cum omnia intelligantur esse permissa, quae non\nreperiuntur expressim prohibita.[138a] Quinimo non solum contra ius\nnaturale esset, velle impedire talem navigationem, sed etiam tenemur\ncontrarium facere, hoc est, prodesse iis quibus possumus, cum id sine\ndamno nostro fieri potest\u2019.\n\nQuod cum multis auctoritatibus tam divinis quam humanis confirmasset,\nsubiungit postea:[139a] \u2018Ex superioribus etiam apparet suspectam esse\nsententiam Iohannis Fabri, Angeli, Baldi, et Francisci Balbi, quos\nsupra retulimus, existimantium loca iuris gentium communia, et si\nacquiri non possint praescriptione, posse tamen acquiri consuetudine,\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\naffect foreign peoples, nations, or even individuals, any more\nthan if they did not exist or never had existed. Therefore it was\nnecessary to have recourse to the common law of nations, primary as\nwell as secondary, and to use a law which clearly had not admitted\nany such prescription and usurpation of the sea. For today the use of\nthe waters is common, exactly as it has been since the creation of\nthe world. Therefore no man has a right nor can acquire a right over\nthe seas and waters which would be prejudicial to their common use.\nBesides, there is both in natural and divine law that famous rule:\n\u2018Whatsoever ye would that men should not do to you, do not ye even\nso to them\u2019. Hence it follows, since navigation cannot harm any one\nexcept the navigator himself, it is only just that no one either can\nor ought to be interdicted therefrom, lest nature, free in her own\nrealm, and least hurtful to herself, be found impeding the liberty\nof navigation, and thus offending against the accepted precept and\nrule that all things are supposed to be permitted which are not found\nexpressly forbidden.[138] Besides, not only would it be contrary to\nnatural law to wish to prevent such free navigation, but we are even\nbound to do the opposite, that is, bound to assist such navigation\nin whatever way we can, when it can be done without any prejudice to\nourselves\u2019.\n\nAfter Vasquez had established his point by the help of many\nauthorities both human and divine, he added:[139] \u2018It appears then,\nfrom what has gone before that the opinion held by Johannes Faber,\nAngeli, Baldus, and Franciscus Balbus, whom we have cited above, is\nnot to be trusted, because they think that places common by the law\nof nations, even if not open to acquisition by prescription, can\nnevertheless be acquired by custom; but this is entirely false, and\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nquod omnino FALSVM est, eaque traditio CAECA ET NVBILA est, OMNIQVE\nRATIONIS LVMINE CARENS, legemque verbis non rebus imponens.[140a] In\nexemplis enim de Mari Hispanorum, LVSITANORVM, Venetorum, Genuensium,\net reliquorum, constat consuetudine ius tale navigandi, et alios\nnavigare prohibendi non magis acquiri quam praescriptione.[141a]\nVtroque enim casu ut apparet, eadem est ratio. Et quia per iura et\nrationes supra relatas id esset contra naturalem aequitatem, nec\nullam induceret utilitatem, sed solam laesionem, sicque ut lege\nexpressa introduci non possent, ita etiam nec lege tacita, qualis\nest consuetudo.[142a] Et tempore id non iustificaretur, sed potius\ndeterius et iniurius in dies fieret\u2019.\n\nOstendit deinde ex prima terrarum occupatione posse populo ut venandi\nius, ita piscandi in suo flumine competere, et postquam illa semel ab\nantiqua communione separata sunt, ita ut particularem applicationem\nadmittant, praescriptione temporis eius, cuius initi memoria non\nexstet, quasi tacita populi concessione acquiri posse. Hoc autem\nper praescriptionem contingere, non per consuetudinem, quia solius\naequirentis condicio melior fiat, reliquorum vero deterior. Et\ncum tria enumerasset quae requiruntur, ut ius proprium in flumine\npiscandi praescribatur:\n\n\u2018Quid autem\u2019, subdit, \u2018quoad mare? Et in eo magis est\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nis a teaching which is both obscure and vague, which lacks the\nfaintest glimmer of reasonableness, and which sets up a law in word\nbut not in fact.[140] For it is well established from the examples\ntaken from the seas of the Spaniards, Portuguese, Venetians, Genoese,\nand others, that an exclusive right of navigation and a right of\nprohibiting others from navigation is no more to be acquired by\ncustom than by prescription.[141] And it is apparent that the reason\nis the same in both cases. And since according to the laws and\nreasons adduced above this would be contrary to natural equity and\nwould not bring benefit but only injury, therefore as it could not\nbe introduced by an express law, neither could it be introduced by a\ntacit or implied law, and that is what custom is.[142] And far from\njustifying itself by any lapse of time, it rather becomes worse, and\nevery day more injurious\u2019.\n\nVasquez next shows that from the time of the earliest occupation of\nthe earth every people possessed the right of hunting in its own\nterritory, and of fishing in its own rivers. After those rights\nwere once separated from the ancient community of rights in such\na way that they admitted of particular attachments, they could be\nacquired by prescription based upon such an efflux of time that\n\u201cthe memory of its beginning does not exist,\u201d as if by the tacit\npermission of a nation. This comes about, however, by prescription\nand not by custom, because only the condition of him who acquires is\nbettered, while that of all other persons is made worse. Then after\nVasquez had enumerated three conditions which are requisite in order\nthat a private right of fishing in a river may become a right by\nprescription, he continues as follows:\n\n\u2018But what are we to say as regards the sea? There is\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nquod etiam concursus istorum trium non sufficeret ad acquirendum ius.\nRatio differentiae inter mare ex una parte, et terram et flumina\nex altera, quia illo casu ut olim ita et hodie, et semper, tam\nquoad piscandum quam quoad navigandum mansit integrum ius gentium\nprimaevum, neque umquam fuit a communione hominum separatum, et\nalicui, vel aliquibus applicatum. Posteriore autem casu, nempe in\nterra vel fluminibus aliud fuit, ut iam disseruimus\u2019.\n\n\u2018Sed quare ius gentium secundarium, ut eam separationem quoad terras\net flumina facit, quoad mare facere desiit? respondeo, quia illo casu\nexpediebat. Constat enim quod si multi venentur, aut piscentur in\nterra vel flumine, facile nemus feris, et flumen piscibus evacuatum\nredditur, id quod in mari non est. Item fluminum navigatio facile\ndeterior fit et impeditur per aedificia, quod in mari non est. Item\nper aquaeductus facile evacuatur flumen, non ita in mari;[143a] ergo\nin utroque non est par ratio\u2019.\n\n\u2018Nec ad rem pertinet, quod supra diximus, communem esse usum\naquarum, fontium etiam et fluminum. Nam intelligitur quoad bibendum\net similia, quae fluminis dominium aut ius habenti vel minime vel\nlevissime nocent.[144a] Minima enim in consideratione non sunt. Pro\nnostris sententiis facit, quia iniqua nullo tempore praescribuntur,\net ideo lex iniqua nullo tempore praescribitur, aut iustificatur\u2019.\nMox: \u2018Et\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nmore to say about it, because even the combination of the three\nconditions mentioned is not sufficient here for the acquisition of\nsuch a right. The reason for the difference between the sea on one\nhand and land and rivers on the other, is that in the case of the sea\nthe same primitive right of nations regarding fishing and navigation\nwhich existed in the earliest times, still today exists undiminished\nand always will, and because that right was never separated from the\ncommunity right of all mankind, and attached to any person or group\nof persons. But in the latter case, that of the land and rivers, it\nwas different, as we have already set forth.\n\n\u2018But why, it is asked, does the secondary law of nations which brings\nabout this separation when we consider lands and rivers cease to\noperate in the same way when we consider the sea? I reply, because in\nthe former case it was expedient and necessary. For every one admits\nthat if a great many persons hunt on the land or fish in a river, the\nforest is easily exhausted of wild animals and the river of fish, but\nsuch a contingency is impossible in the case of the sea. Again, the\nnavigation of rivers is easily lessened and impeded by constructions\nplaced therein, but this is not true of the sea. Again, a river is\neasily emptied by means of aqueducts but the sea cannot be emptied\nby any such means.[143] Therefore there is not equal reason on both\nsides.\n\n\u2018Neither does what we have said above about the common use of waters,\nsprings, and rivers, apply in this case, for common use is recognized\nin them all for purposes of drinking and the like, such usages namely\nas do not injure at all or in the slightest degree him who owns a\nriver or has some other right in one.[144] These are trifles for\nwhich we have no time. What makes for our contention is the fact that\nno lapse of time will give a prescriptive right to anything unjust.\nTherefore an unjust law is not capable of\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nquae sunt impraescriptibilia ex legis dispositione, nec per mille\nannos praescriberentur\u2019; quod innumeris doctorum testimoniis\nfulcit.[145a]\n\nNemo iam non videt, ad usum rei communis intercipiendum nullam\nquantivis temporis usurpationem prodesse. Cui adiungendum est\netiam eorum qui dissentiunt auctoritatem huic quaestioni non posse\naccommodari. Illi enim de Mediterraneo loquuntur, nos de Oceano; illi\nde sinu, nos de immenso mari, quae in ratione occupationis plurimum\ndifferunt. Et quibus illi indulgent praescriptionem, illi litora mari\ncontinua possident, ut Veneti et Genuenses, quod de Lusitanis dici\nnon posse modo patuit.\n\nImmo et si prodesse posset tempus, ut quidam posse putant in publicis\nquae sunt, populi, tamen non ea adsunt quae necessario requiruntur.\nPrimum enim docent omnes desiderari, ut is qui praescribit\nhuiusmodi actum, eum exercuerit non longo dumtaxat tempore, sed\nmemoriam excedente; deinde ut tanto tempore eundem actum nemo alius\nexercuerit, nisi concessione illius, vel clandestine; praeterea ut\nalios uti volentes prohibuerit, scientibus quidem et patientibus\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nerecting a prescriptive right or of being justified by efflux\nof time\u2019. A little farther on Vasquez says: \u2018Things which are\nimprescriptible by the disposition of the law, may not become objects\nof prescription even after the lapse of a thousand years\u2019. This\nstatement he supports by countless citations from the jurists.[145]\n\nEvery one perceives that no usurpation no matter how long continued\nis competent to intercept the use of a _res communis_. And it must\nalso be added, that the authority of those who hold dissenting\nopinions cannot possibly be applied to the question here at issue.\nFor they are talking about the Mediterranean, we are talking about\nthe Ocean; they speak of a gulf, we of the boundless sea; and from\nthe point of view of occupation these are wholly different things.\nAnd too, those peoples, to whom the authorities just mentioned\nconcede prescription, the Venetians and Genoese for example, possess\na continuous shore line on the sea, but it is clear that not even\nthat kind of possession can be claimed for the Portuguese.\n\nFurther, even if mere lapse of time, as some think, could establish\na right by prescription over public property, still the conditions\nabsolutely indispensable for the creation of such a right are in this\ncase absent. The conditions demanded are these: first, all jurists\nteach that he who sets up a prescriptive right of this sort shall\nhave been in actual possession not only for a considerable period,\nbut from time immemorial; next, that during all that time no one\nelse shall have exercised the same right of possession unless by\npermission of that possessor or clandestinely; besides that, it is\nnecessary that he shall have prevented other persons wishing to use\nhis possession from so doing, and that such measures be a matter of\ncommon knowledge and done by the suffrance of those concerned in the\nmatter. For even if\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\niis ad quos ea res pertinebat; nam etsi exercuisset semper, et\nquosdam exercere volentes prohibuisset semper, non tamen omnes, quia\nalii fuerunt prohibiti, alii vero libere exercuerunt, id quidem non\nsufficeret, ex Doctorum sententia.\n\nApparet autem debere haec omnia concurrere, tum quia praescriptioni\npublicarum rerum lex inimica est, tum ut videatur praescribens iure\nsuo non autem communi usus, idque non interrupta possessione.\n\nCum autem tempus postulatur, cuius initi non exstet memoria,\nnon semper sufficit, ut optimi interpretes ostendunt, probare\nsaeculi lapsum; sed constare oportet famam rei a maioribus ad nos\ntransmissam, ita ut nemo supersit qui contrarium viderit, aut\naudierit. Occasione rerum Africanarum in ulteriora primum Oceani\ninquirere coeperunt regnante Iohanne Lusitani,[146a] anno salutis\nmillesimo quadringentesimo septuagesimo septimo. Viginti post annis\nsub Rege Emanuele promontorium Bonae spei praeternavigatum est,\nseriusque multo ventum Malaccam, et insulas remotiores, ad quas\nBatavi navigare coeperunt anno millesimo quingentesimo nonagesimo\nquinto, non dubie intra annum centesimum. Iam vero etiam eo quod\nintercessit tempore aliorum usurpatio adversus alios etiam omnes\nimpedivit praescriptionem, Castellani ab anno millesimo quingentesimo\ndecime nono possessionem Lusitanis maris circa Moluccas ambiguam\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nhe had continuously exercised his right of possession, and had always\nprevented from using his possession _some_ of those who wished to\ndo so, but not _all_; then, because _some_ had been prevented from\nexercising and _others_ freely allowed to exercise that use, that\nkind of possession according to the opinion of the jurists, is not\nsufficient to establish a right by prescription.\n\nIt is clear therefore that all these conditions should be present,\nboth because law is opposed to the prescription of public things,\nand in order that he who sets up such a prescription may seem to\nhave used his own private right, not a public right, and that too by\ncontinuous possession.\n\nNow, inasmuch as time beyond the period of the memory of man is\ndemanded for the creation of a prescriptive right, it is not always\nsufficient, as the best commentators point out, to prove the lapse of\na hundred years, but the tradition handed down to us by our ancestors\nought to be undisputed, provided no one is left alive who has seen\nor heard anything to the contrary. It was during the reign of King\nJohn,[146] in the year of our Lord 1477, at the time of the wars in\nAfrica, that the Portuguese began to push their discoveries first\ninto the more distant parts of the Ocean. Twenty years later, during\nthe reign of King Emmanuel, they rounded the Cape of Good Hope, and\nsomewhat later yet, reached Malacca, and the islands beyond, the very\nislands, indeed, to which the Dutch began to sail in the year 1595,\nthat is, well within a hundred years of the time that the Portuguese\nfirst arrived. And in truth even in that interval, the usurpation\nof rights there by other parties had interrupted the competence of\neverybody else to create a prescriptive right. For example, from the\nyear 1519, the Spaniards rendered the possession by the Portuguese of\nthe sea around the Moluccas a very uncertain one. Even the French and\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nfecere. Galli etiam et Angli non clanculum, sed via aperta eo\nperruperunt. Praeterea accolae totius tractus Africani, aut Asiatici\npartem maris quisque sibi proximam piscando et navigando perpetuo\nusurparunt, numquam a Lusitanis prohibiti.\n\nConclusum igitur sit, ius nullum esse Lusitanis quo aliam quamvis\ngentem a navigatione Oceani ad Indos prohibeant.\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nEnglish made their way to those newly discovered places not secretly,\nbut by force of arms. And besides these, the inhabitants of the\nentire coast of Africa and Asia constantly used for fishing and\nnavigation that part of the sea nearest their own several coasts, and\nwere never interdicted from such use by the Portuguese.\n\nThe conclusion of the whole matter therefore is that the Portuguese\nare in possession of no right whereby they may interdict to any\nnation whatsoever the navigation of the Ocean to the East Indies.\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n\n\n\nCAPVT VIII\n\n_Iure gentium inter quosvis liberam esse mercaturam_\n\n\nQuod si dicant Lusitani cum Indis commercia exercendi ius quoddam\nproprium ad se pertinere, eisdem fere omnibus argumentis refellentur.\nRepetemus breviter et aptabimus.\n\nIure Gentium hoc introductum est, ut cunctis hominibus inter se\nlibera esset negotiandi facultas, quae a nemine posset adimi.[147a]\nEt hoc, sicut post dominiorum distinctionem continuo necessarium\nfuit, ita originem videri potest antiquiorem habuisse. Subtiliter\nenim Aristoteles \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74\u03bd dixit, \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2,[148a] hoc est, negotiatione suppleri id quod naturae\ndeest, quo commode omnibus sufficiat. Oportet igitur communem esse\niure gentium non tantum privative, sed et positive, ut dicunt\nmagistri, sive affirmative.[149a] Quae autem illo modo sunt iuris\ngentium, mutari possunt: quae hoc modo, non possunt. Id ita intelligi\npotest.\n\nDederat natura omnia omnibus. Sed cum a rerum multarum usu, quas vita\ndesiderat humana, locorum intervallo homines arcerentur, quia ut\nsupra diximus, non omnia ubique\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII\n\n_By the Law of Nations trade is free to all persons whatsoever_\n\n\nIf however the Portuguese claim that they have an exclusive right\nto trade with the East Indies, their claim will be refuted by\npractically all the same arguments which already have been brought\nforward. Nevertheless I shall repeat them briefly, and apply them to\nthis particular claim.\n\nBy the law of nations the principle was introduced that the\nopportunity to engage in trade, of which no one can be deprived,[147]\nshould be free to all men. This principle, inasmuch as its\napplication was straightway necessary after the distinctions of\nprivate ownerships were made, can therefore be seen to have had a\nvery remote origin. Aristotle, in a very clever phrase, in his work\nentitled the Politics,[148] has said that the art of exchange is\na completion of the independence which Nature requires. Therefore\ntrade ought to be common to all according to the law of nations,\nnot only in a negative but also in a positive, or as the jurists\nsay, affirmative sense.[149] The things that come under the former\ncategory are subject to change, those of the latter category are not.\nThis statement is to be explained in the following way.\n\nNature had given all things to all men. But since men were prevented\nfrom using many things which were desirable in every day life because\nthey lived so far apart,\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nproveniunt, opus fuit traiectione; nec adhuc tamen permutatio erat,\nsed aliis vicissim rebus apud alios repertis suo arbitrio utebantur;\nquo fere modo apud Seres dicitur rebus in solitudine relictis sola\nmutantium religione peragi commercium.[150a]\n\nSed cum statim res mobiles monstrante necessitate, quae modo\nexplicata est, in ius proprium transissent, inventa est permutatio,\nqua quod alteri deest ex eo quod alteri superest suppleretur.[151a]\nIta commercia victus gratia inventa ex Homero Plinius probat.[152a]\nPostquam vero res etiam immobiles in dominos distingui coeperunt,\nsublata undique communio non inter homines locorum spatiis discretos\ntantum, verum etiam inter vicinos necessarium fecit commercium; quod\nut facilius procederet, nummus postea adventus est, dictus \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 quod institutum sit civile.[153a]\n\nIpsa igitur ratio omnium contractuum universalis, \u1f21 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae\na natura est; modi autem aliquot singulares ipsumque pretium, \u1f21\n\u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae ab instituto;[154a] quae vetustiores iuris interpretes\nnon satis distinxerunt. Fatentur\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nand because, as we have said above, everything was not found\neverywhere, it was necessary to transport things from one place to\nanother; not that there was yet an interchange of commodities, but\nthat people were accustomed to make reciprocal use of things found\nin one another\u2019s territory according to their own judgment. They say\nthat trade arose among the Chinese in about this way. Things were\ndeposited at places out in the desert and left to the good faith and\nconscience of those who exchanged things of their own for what they\ntook.[150]\n\nBut when movables passed into private ownership (a change brought\nabout by necessity, as has been explained above), straightway there\narose a method of exchange by which the lack of one person was\nsupplemented by that of which another person had an over supply.[151]\nHence commerce was born out of necessity for the commodities of life,\nas Pliny shows by a citation from Homer.[152] But after immovables\nalso began to be recognized as private property, the consequent\nannihilation of universal community of use made commerce a necessity\nnot only between men whose habitations were far apart but even\nbetween men who were neighbors; and in order that trade might be\ncarried on more easily, somewhat later they invented money, which, as\nthe derivation of the word shows, is a civic institution.[153]\n\nTherefore the universal basis of all contracts, namely exchange, is\nderived from nature; but some particular kinds of exchange, and the\nmoney payment itself, are derived from law;[154] although the older\ncommentators on the law have not made this distinction sufficiently\nclear. Nevertheless all\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\ntamen omnes proprietatem rerum, saltem mobilium a iure gentium\nprimario prodire, itemque contractus omnes quibus pretium non\naccedit.[155a] Philosophi[156a] \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2 quam translationem\nvertere licebit, genera statuunt duo: \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03b9\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae\u03bd quarum \u1f10\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae quae ut vox ipsa indicat inter\ngentes dissitas, ordine naturae prior est, et sic a Platone\nponitur.[157a] \u039a\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae eadem videtur esse quae \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2[158a]\nAristoteli, tabernaria sive stataria negotiatio inter cives. Idem\nAristoteles[159a] \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae\u03bd dividit in \u03bd\u03b1\u03c5\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd et \u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u03b7\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\nquarum haec terrestri itinere, illa maritimo merces devehit.\nSordidior autem est \u03ba\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae contra honestior \u1f10\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae et maritima\nmaxime, quia multa multis impertit.[160a]\n\nVnde navium exercitionem ad summam rempublicam pertinere dicit\nVlpianus; institorum non eundem esse usum; quia illa omnino secundum\nnaturam necessaria est. Aristoteles:[161a] \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f21 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74\n\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f00\u03c1\u03be\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c9, \u03c4\u1f70\n\u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c4\u03c9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f31\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u2018est enim translatio rerum\nomnium coepta ab initio, ab eo quod est secundum naturam, cum homines\npartim haberent plura, quam sufficerent, partim etiam pauciora\u2019.\nSeneca:[162a] \u2018quae emeris, vendere; gentium ius est\u2019.\n\nCommercandi igitur libertas ex iure est primario gentium,\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nauthorities agree that the ownership of things, particularly of\nmovables, arises out of the primary law of nations, and that all\ncontracts in which a price is not mentioned, are derived from the\nsame source.[155] The philosophers[156] distinguish two kinds of\nexchange using Greek words which we shall take the liberty to\ntranslate as \u2018wholesale\u2019 and \u2018retail\u2019 trade. The former, as the Greek\nword shows, signifies trade or exchange between widely separated\nnations, and it ranks first in the order of Nature, as is shown\nin Plato\u2019s Republic.[157] The latter seems to be the same kind of\nexchange that Aristotle calls by another Greek word[158] which means\nretail or shop trade between citizens. Aristotle makes a further\ndivision of wholesale trade into overland and overseas trade.[159]\nBut of the two, retail trade is the more petty and sordid, and\nwholesale the more honorable; but most honorable of all is the\nwholesale overseas trade, because it makes so many people sharers in\nso many things.[160]\n\nHence Ulpian says that the maintenance of ships is the highest duty\nof a state, because it is an absolutely natural necessity, but that\nthe maintenance of hucksters has not the same value. In another place\nAristotle says: \u201cFor the art of exchange extends to all possessions,\nand it arises at first in a natural manner from the circumstance that\nsome have too little, others too much.\u201d[161] And Seneca is also to be\ncited in this connection for he has said that buying and selling is\nthe law of nations.[162]\n\nTherefore freedom of trade is based on a primitive right of nations\nwhich has a natural and permanent cause; and\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nquod naturalem et perpetuam causam habet, ideoque tolli non potest,\net si posset non tamen posset nisi omnium gentium consensu: tantum\nabest ut ullo modo gens aliqua gentes duas inter se contrahere\nvolentes iuste impediat.\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nso that right cannot be destroyed, or at all events it may not be\ndestroyed except by the consent of all nations. For surely no one\nnation may justly oppose in any way two nations that desire to enter\ninto a contract with each other.\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n\n\n\nCAPVT IX\n\n_Mercaturam cum Indis propriam non esse Lusitanorum titulo\noccupationis_\n\n\nPrimum inventio aut occupatio hic locum non habet, quia ius mercandi\nnon est aliquid corporale, quod possit apprehendi; neque prodesset\nLusitanis etiamsi primi hominum cum Indis habuissent commercia, quod\ntamen non potest non esse falsissimum. Nam et cum initio populi in\ndiversa iere, aliquos necesse est primos fuisse mercatores, quos\ntamen ius nullum acquisivisse certo est certius. Quare si Lusitanis\nius aliquod competit, ut soli cum Indis negotientur, id exemplo\nceterarum servitutum, ex concessione oriri debuit aut expressa aut\ntacita, hoc est praescriptione; neque aliter potest.\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX\n\n_Trade with the East Indies does not belong to the Portuguese by\ntitle of occupation_\n\n\nNeither discovery nor occupation [which have been fully treated\nin Chapters II and V], is to be invoked on the point here under\nconsideration, because the right of carrying on trade is not\nsomething corporal, which can be physically seized; nor would\ndiscovery or occupation help the case of the Portuguese even if\nthey had been the very first persons to trade with the East Indies,\nalthough such a claim would be entirely untenable and false. For\nsince in the beginning peoples set out along different paths, it was\nnecessary that some become the first traders, nevertheless it is\nabsolutely certain that those traders did not on that account acquire\nany rights. Wherefore if the Portuguese have any right by virtue of\nwhich they _alone_ may trade with the East Indies, that right like\nother servitudes ought to arise from concession, either express or\ntacit, that is to say, from prescription. Otherwise no such right can\nexist.\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n\n\n\nCAPVT X\n\n_Mercaturam cum Indis propriam non esse Lusitanorum titulo donationis\nPontificiae_\n\n\nConcessit nemo, nisi forte Pontifex, qui non potuit.[163a] Nemo\nenim quod suum non est concedere potest. At Pontifex, nisi totius\nMundi temporalis sit Dominus, quod negant sapientes, ius etiam\ncommerciorum universale sui iuris dicere non potest. Maxime vero\ncum res sit ad solum quaestum accommodata, nihilque ad spiritualem\nprocurationem pertinens, extra quam cessat, ut fatentur omnes,\nPontificia potestas. Praeterea si Pontifex solis illud Lusitanis ius\ntribuere vellet idemque adimere hominibus ceteris, duplicem faceret\niniuriam: Primum Indis, quos ut extra Ecclesiam positos Pontifici\nnulla ex parte subditos esse diximus. His igitur cum nihil quod\nipsorum est adimere possit Pontifex, etiam ius illud quod habent cum\nquibuslibet negotiandi adimere non potuit. Deinde aliis hominibus\nomnibus Christianis et non Christianis, quibus idem illud ius adimere\nnon potuit sine causa indicta. Quid quod ne temporales quidem Domini\nin suis imperiis prohibere possunt commerciorum libertatem, uti\nrationibus et auctoritatibus ante demonstratum est?\n\nSicut et illud confitendum est, contra ius perpetuum naturae\ngentiumque, unde ista libertas originem sumpsit in omne tempus\nduratura, nullam valere Pontificis auctoritatem.\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X\n\n_Trade with the East Indies does not belong to the Portuguese by\nvirtue of title based on the Papal Donation_\n\n\nNo one has granted it except perhaps the Pope, and he did not have\nthe power.[163] For no one can give away what he does not himself\npossess. But the Pope, unless he were the temporal master of the\nwhole world, which sensible men deny, cannot say that the universal\nright in respect of trade belongs to him. Especially is this true\nsince trade has to do only with material gains, and has no concern\nat all with spiritual matters, outside of which, as all admit, Papal\npower ceases. Besides, if the Pope wished to give that right to the\nPortuguese alone, and to deprive all other men of the same right,\nhe would be doing a double injustice. In the first place, he would\ndo an injustice to the people of the East Indies who, placed as we\nhave said outside the Church, are in no way subjects of the Pope.\nTherefore, since the Pope cannot take away from them anything that is\ntheirs, he could not take away their right of trading with whomsoever\nthey please. In the second place, he would do an injustice to all\nother men both Christian and non-Christian, from whom he could not\ntake that same right without a hearing. Besides, what are we to say\nof the fact that not even temporal lords in their own dominions are\ncompetent to prohibit the freedom of trade, as has been demonstrated\nabove by reasonable and authoritative statements?\n\nTherefore it must be acknowledged, that the authority of the Pope has\nabsolutely no force against the eternal law of nature and of nations,\nfrom whence came that liberty which is destined to endure for ever\nand ever.\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n\n\n\nCAPVT XI\n\n_Mercaturam cum Indis non esse Lusitanorum propriam iure\npraescriptionis aut consuetudinis_\n\n\nRestat praescriptio, seu consuetudinem mavis dicere.[164a] Sed\nnec huius nec illius vim esse aliquam inter liberas nationes, aut\ndiversarum gentium Principes, nec adversus ea quae primigenio iure\nintroducta sunt, cum Vasquio ostendimus. Quare et hic ut ius mercandi\nproprium fiat, quod proprietatis naturam non recipit, nullo tempore\nefficitur. Itaque nec titulus hic adfuisse potest, nec bona fides,\nquae cum manifesto desinit, praescriptio secundum Canones non ius\ndicetur, sed iniuria.\n\nQuin et ipsa mercandi quasi possessio non ex iure proprio contigisse\nvidetur, sed ex iure communi quod ad omnes aequaliter pertinet; sicut\ncontra, quod aliae nationes cum Indis contrahere forte neglexerunt,\nid non Lusitanorum gratia fecisse existimandi sunt, sed quia sibi\nexpedire crediderunt; quod nihil obstat quo minus ubi suaserit\nutilitas, id facere possint, quod antea non fecerint. Certissima enim\nilla regula a doctoribus traditur,[165a] in his quae sunt arbitrii\nseu merae facultatis, ita ut per se actum tantum facultatis eius,\nnon autem ius novum operentur, nec praescriptionis nec consuetudinis\ntitulo annos etiam mille valituros: quod et\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI\n\n_Trade with the East Indies does not belong to the Portuguese by\ntitle of prescription or custom_\n\n\nLast of all, prescription, or if you prefer the term, custom.[164] We\nhave shown that according to Vasquez, neither prescription nor custom\nhad any force as between free nations or the rulers of different\npeoples, or any force against those principles which were introduced\nby primitive law. And here as before, mere efflux of time does not\nbring it to pass that the right of trade, which does not partake of\nthe nature of ownership, becomes a private possession. Now in this\ncase neither title nor good faith can be shown, and inasmuch as good\nfaith is clearly absent, according to legal rules prescription will\nnot be called a right, but an injury.\n\nNay, the very possession involved in trading seems not to have\narisen out of a private right, but out of a public right which\nbelongs equally to all; so on the other hand, because nations perhaps\nneglected to trade with the East Indies, it must not be presumed that\nthey did so as a favor to the Portuguese, but because they believed\nit to be to their own best interests. But nothing stands in their\nway, when once expediency shall have persuaded them, to prevent them\nfrom doing what they had not previously done. For the jurists[165]\nhave handed down as incontestable the principle that where things\narbitrable or facultative are such that they produce nothing more\nthan the facultative act _per se_, but do not create a new right,\nthat in all such cases not even a thousand years will create a title\nby prescription or custom.\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\naffirmative et negative procedit, ut docet Vasquius. Nec enim quod\nlibere feci facere cogor, nec quod non feci omittere.\n\nAlioquin quid esset absurdius quam ex eo quod singuli non possumus\ncum singulis semper contrahere, salvum nobis in posterum non esse\nius cum illis, si usus tulerit, contrahendi? Idem Vasquius et illud\nrectissime, ne infinito quidem tempore effici, ut quid necessitate\npotius, quam sponte factum videatur.\n\nProbanda itaque Lusitanis foret coactio, quae tamen ipsa cum hac in\nre iuri naturae sit contraria, et omni hominum generi noxia, ius\nfacere non potest.[166a] Deinde illa coactio durasse debuit per\ntempus, cuius initii non exstet memoria; id vero tantum hinc abest,\nut ne centum quidem anni exierint, ex quo tota fere negotiatio Indica\npenes Venetos fuit, per Alexandrinas traiectiones.[167a] Debuit etiam\ntalis esse coactio, cui restitum non sit. At restiterunt Galli et\nAngli, aliique. Neque sufficit aliquos esse coactos, sed ut omnes\ncoacti sint requiritur, cum per unum non coactum servetur in causa\ncommuni libertatis possessio. Arabes autem et Sinenses a saeculis\naliquot ad hunc usque diem perpetuo cum Indis negotiantur.\n\nNihil prodest ista usurpatio.\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nThis, as Vasquez points out, acts both affirmatively and negatively.\nFor I am not compelled to do what I have hitherto done of my own free\nwill, nor am I compelled to stop doing what I have never done.\n\nWhat moreover could be more absurd than to deduce from the fact that\nwe as individuals are not able always to conclude a bargain with\nother individuals, that there is not preserved to us for the future\nthe right of bargaining with them if opportunity shall have offered?\nThe same Vasquez has also most justly said that not even the lapse\nof infinite time establishes a right which seems to have arisen from\nnecessity rather than choice.\n\nTherefore in order to establish a prescriptive right to the trade\nwith the East Indies the Portuguese would be compelled to prove\ncoercion. But since in such a case as this coercion is contrary to\nthe law of nature and obnoxious to all mankind, it cannot establish\na right.[166] Next, that coercion must needs have been in existence\nfor so long a time that \u201cthe memory of its beginning does not exist\u201d;\nthat, however, is so far from being the case that not even a hundred\nyears had elapsed since the Venetians controlled nearly the entire\ntrade with the East Indies, carrying it via Alexandria.[167] Again,\nthe coercion ought to have been such that it was not resisted; but\nthe English and the French and other nations besides, did resist\nit. Finally, it is not sufficient that _some_ be coerced, but it\nis indispensable that _all_ be coerced, because the possession of\nfreedom of trade is preserved to all by a failure to use coercion\nupon even one person. Moreover, the Arabians and the Chinese are at\nthe present day still carrying on with the people of the East Indies\na trade which has been uninterrupted for several centuries.\n\nPortuguese usurpation is worthless.\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n\n\n\nCAPVT XII\n\n_Nulla aequitate niti Lusitanos in prohibendo commercio_\n\n\nEx his quae dicta sunt satis perspicitur eorum caeca aviditas, qui,\nne quemquam in partem lucri admittant, illis rationibus conscientiam\nsuam placare student, quas ipsi magistri Hispanorum qui in eadem\nsunt causa manifestae vanitatis convincunt.[168a] Omnes enim qui in\nrebus Indicis usurpantur colores iniuste captari quantum ipsis licet,\nsatis innuunt, adduntque numquam eam rem serio Theologorum examine\nprobatam. Illa vero querela quid est iniquius, quod dicunt Lusitani\nquaestus suos exhauriri copia contra licentium? Inter certissima enim\nIuris enuntiata est, nec in dolo eum versari, nec fraudem facere, ne\ndamnum quidem alteri dare videri, qui iure suo utitur; quod maxime\nverum est, si non ut alteri noceatur, sed rem suam augendi animo\nquippiam fiat.[169a] Inspici enim debet id quod principaliter agitur,\nnon quod extrinsecus in consequentiam venit. Immo si proprie loquimur\ncum Vlpiano, non ille damnum dat, sed lucro quo adhuc alter utebatur\neum prohibet.\n\nNaturale autem est et summo iuri atque etiam aequitati\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII\n\n_The Portuguese prohibition of trade has no foundation in equity_\n\n\nFrom what has been said thus far it is easy to see the blind cupidity\nof those who in order not to admit any one else to a share in their\ngains, strive to still their consciences by the very arguments which\nthe Spanish jurists, interested too in the same case, show to be\nabsolutely empty.[168] For they intimate as clearly as they can\nthat as regards India all the pretexts employed, are far fetched\nand unjust. They add that this right was never seriously approved\nby the swarm of theologians. Indeed, what is more unjust than the\ncomplaint made by the Portuguese that their profits are drained off\nby the number of their competitors? An incontrovertible rule of law\nlays down that a man who uses his own right is justly presumed to be\ncontriving neither a deceit nor a fraud, in fact not even to be doing\nany one an injury. This is particularly true, if he has no intention\nto harm any one, but only to increase his own property.[169] For\nwhat ought to be considered is the chief and ultimate intent not the\nirrelevant consequence. Indeed, if we may with propriety agree with\nUlpian, he is not doing an injury, but he is preventing some one from\ngetting a profit which another was previously enjoying.\n\nMoreover it is natural and conformable to the highest law as well\nas equity, that when a gain open to all is concerned every person\nprefers it for himself rather than for\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nconveniens, ut lucrum in medio positum suum quisque malit quam\nalterius, etiam qui ante perceperat.[170a] Quis ferat querentem\nopificem quod alter eiusdem artis exercitio ipsius commoda evertat?\nBatavorum autem causa eo est iustior, quia ipsorum hac in parte\nutilitas cum totius humani generis utilitate coniuncta est, quam\nLusitani eversum eunt.[171a] Neque hoc recte dicetur ad aemulationem\nfieri, ut in re simili ostendit Vasquius: aut enim plane hoc negandum\nest, aut asseverandum non ad bonam modo, verum etiam ad optimam\naemulationem fieri, iuxta Hesiodum:[172a] \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f74 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f1c\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f25\u03b4\u03b5 \u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9\n\u2018bona lis mortalibus haec est\u2019. Nam etiam si quis pietate motus,\ninquit ille, frumentum in summa penuria vilius venderet, impediretur\nimproba duritie eorum hominum, qui saeviente penuria suum carius\nfuerant vendituri. Verum est talibus modis minui aliorum reditus: nec\nid negamus, ait, \u2018sed minuuntur cum universorum hominum commodo: ET\nVTINAM omnium PRINCIPVM et TYRRANORVM ORBIS reditus ita minuerentur\u2019.\n\nQuid ergo tam iniquum videri potest, quam Hispanos vectigalem habere\nTerrarum Orbem, ut nisi ad illorum nutum nec emere liceat nec\nvendere?[173a] In cunctis civitatibus dardanarios odio atque etiam\npoenis prosequimur; nec ullum tam nefarium vitae genus videtur, quam\nista annonae flagellatio.[174a] Merito quidem. Naturae enim faciunt\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nanother, even if that other had already discovered it.[170] Who\nwould countenance an artisan who complained that another artisan was\ntaking away his profits by the exercise of the same craft? But the\ncause of the Dutch is the more reasonable, because their advantage in\nthis matter is bound up with the advantage of the whole human race,\nan advantage which the Portuguese are trying to destroy.[171] Nor\nwill it be correct to say, that this is done in rivalry, as Vasquez\nshows in a similar case. For clearly we must either deny this or\naffirm that it is done not only in honorable but in most honorable\nrivalry, for, as Hesiod says, \u2018This rivalry is honorable for mortal\nmen\u2019.[172] For, says Vasquez, if any one should be so moved by love\nfor his fellow man as to offer grain at a time of great scarcity for\na lower price than usual, he would be prevented by the wicked and\nhardhearted men who had the intention of selling their grain at a\nhigher price than usual, because of the pinch caused by the scarcity.\nBut, some one will object, by such methods the profits of others will\nbe made less. \u2018We do not deny it\u2019, says Vasquez, \u2018but they are made\nless to the corresponding advantage of all other men. And would that\nthe profits of all Rulers and Tyrants of this world could be thus\nlessened\u2019!\n\nIndeed can anything more unjust be conceived than for the Spaniards\nto hold the entire world tributary, so that it is not permissible\neither to buy or to sell except at their good pleasure?[173] In all\nstates we heap odium upon grain speculators and even bring them to\npunishment; and in very truth there seems to be no other sort of\nbusiness so disgraceful as that of forcing up prices in the grain\nmarket.[174] That is not\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\niniuriam, quae in commune fecunda est:[175a] neque vero censeri\ndebet in usus paucorum reperta negotiatio, sed ut quod alteri deest\nalterius copia pensaretur, iusto tamen compendio omnibus proposito,\nqui laborem ac periculum transferendi in se suscipiunt.\n\nHoc ipsum igitur quod in republica, id est, minore hominum conventu,\ngrave et perniciosum iudicatur, in magna illa humani generis\nsocietate ferendumne est? ut scilicet totius mundi monopolium faciant\npopuli Hispani? Invehitur Ambrosius in eos qui maria claudunt,[176a]\nAugustinus in eos qui itinera obstruunt; Nazianzenus in[177a]\ncoemptores suppressoresque mercium, qui ex inopia aliorum soli\nquaestum faciunt, et ut ipse facundissime loquitur \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2. Quin et divini sapientis sententia publicis diris\ndevovetur sacerque habetur, qui alimenta supprimendo vexat annonam: \u1f45\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u03c3\u1fd6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2.\n\nClament igitur Lusitani quantum, et quam diu libebit: \u2018Lucra nostra\ndeciditis\u2019. Respondebunt Batavi: \u2018Immo nostris invigilamus. Hocne\nindignamini in partem nos venire ventorum et maris? Et quis illa\nvobis lucra mansura promiserat? Salvum est vobis, quo nos contenti\nsumus\u2019.\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nto be wondered at, for such speculators are doing an injury to\nnature, who, as Aristotle says, is fertile for all alike.[175]\nAccordingly it ought not to be supposed that trade was invented for\nthe benefit of a few, but in order that the lack of one would be\ncounterbalanced by the oversupply of another, a fair return also\nbeing guaranteed to all who take upon themselves the work and the\ndanger of transport.\n\nIs the same thing then which is considered grievous and pernicious\nin the smaller community of a state to be put up with at all in\nthat great community of the human race? Shall the people of Spain,\nforsooth, assume a monopoly of all the world? Ambrose inveighs\nagainst those who interfere with the freedom of the sea;[176]\nAugustine against those who obstruct the overland routes; and Gregory\nof Nazianzus[177] against those who buy goods and hold them, and thus\n(as he eloquently says) make profits for themselves alone out of\nthe helplessness and need of others. Indeed in the opinion of this\nwise and holy man any person who holds back grain and thus forces up\nthe market price ought to be given over to public punishment and be\nadjudged worthy of death.\n\nTherefore the Portuguese may cry as loud and as long as they shall\nplease: \u2018You are cutting down our profits\u2019! The Dutch will answer:\n\u2018Nay! we are but looking out for our own interests! Are you angry\nbecause we share with you in the winds and the sea? Pray, who had\npromised that you would always have those advantages? You are secure\nin the possession of that with which we are quite content\u2019.\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n\n\n\nCAPVT XIII\n\n_Batavis ius commercii Indicani qua pace, qua indutiis, qua bello\nretinendum_\n\n\nQuare cum et ius et aequum postulet, libera nobis ita ut cuiquam\nesse Indiae commercia, superest, ut sive cum Hispanis pax, sive\nindutiae fiunt, sive bellum manet, omnino eam, quam a natura\nhabemus libertatem tueamur. Nam ad pacem quod attinet, notum\nest eam esse duorum generum: aut enim pari foedere, aut impari\ncoitur. Graeci[178a] istam vocant \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b8\u03ae\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd \u1f10\u03be \u1f34\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 hanc \u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd illa virorum est, haec ingeniorum servilium. Demosthenes\nin oratione de libertate Rhodiorum:[179a] \u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c7\u03c1\u1f74 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b8\u03ae\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b5\u03cd\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd,\n\u1f61\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03b3\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f54\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2, \u2018eos qui volunt esse liberi oportet omnes\ncondiciones quibus leges imponuntur ita fugere tamquam quae proximae\nsunt servituti\u2019. Tales autem sunt omnes quibus pars altera in iure\nsuo imminuitur, iuxta Isocratis definitionem[180a] vocantis \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n\u1f11\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd. Si enim, ut inquit Cicero,[181a]\n\u2018suscipienda bella sunt ob eam causam, ut sine iniuria in pace\nvivatur\u2019, sequitur eodem auctore*, pacem esse vocandam, non pactionem\nservitutis, sed tranquillam libertatem; quippe cum et Philosophorum\net Theologorum\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII\n\n_The Dutch must maintain their right of trade with the East Indies by\npeace, by treaty, or by war_\n\n\nWherefore since both law and equity demand that trade with the East\nIndies be as free to us as to any one else, it follows that we are to\nmaintain at all hazards that freedom which is ours by nature, either\nby coming to a peace agreement with the Spaniards, or by concluding\na treaty, or by continuing the war. So far as peace is concerned, it\nis well known that there are two kinds of peace, one made on terms of\nequality, the other on unequal terms. The Greeks[178] call the former\nkind a compact between equals, the latter an enjoined truce; the\nformer is meant for high souled men, the latter for servile spirits.\nDemosthenes in his speech on the liberty of the Rhodians[179] says\nthat it was necessary for those who wished to be free to keep away\nfrom treaties which were imposed upon them, because such treaties\nwere almost the same as slavery. Such conditions are all those by\nwhich one party is lessened in its own right, according to the\ndefinition of Isocrates.[180] For if, as Cicero says,[181] wars\nmust be undertaken in order that people may live in peace unharmed,\nit follows that peace ought to mean not an agreement which entails\nslavery, but an undisturbed liberty, especially as peace and justice\naccording to\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\ncomplurium[182a] iudicio pax et iustitia nominibus magis quam re\ndifferant, sitque pax non qualiscumque, sed ordinata concordia.\n\n* [Philippica XII, 14: cum iis facta pax non erit pax, sed pactio\nservitutis.]\n\nIndutiae autem si fiunt satis apparet ex ipsa indutiarum natura non\ndebere medio earum tempore condicionem cuiusquam deteriorem fieri,\ncum ferme interdicti uti possidetis instar obtineant.\n\nQuod si in bellum trudimur hostium iniquitate, debet nobis causae\naequitas spem ac fiduciam boni eventus addere. Nam[183a] \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u1f67\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c7\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9, \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\n\u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2, \u2018pro his in quibus iniuria afficiuntur omnes quantum\nomnino possunt depugnant: at propter alieni cupiditatem non item\u2019;\nquod et Alexander Imperator ita expressit: \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd \u1f12\u03c1\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd\n\u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f00\u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f40\u03c7\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03af\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f14\u03ba\n\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b8\u03b1\u1fe4\u1fe5\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f00\u03bc\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f51\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b5\u1f54\u03b5\u03bb\u03c0\u03b9, \u2018eius a quo coepit iniuria,\nprovocatio maxime invidiosa est; at cum depelluntur aggressores,\nsicut bona conscientia fiduciam secum fert, ita quia de vindicanda\nnon de inferenda iniuria laboratur, spes etiam adsunt optimae\u2019.\n\nSi ita necesse est, perge gens mari invictissima, nec tuam tantum,\nsed humani generis libertatem audacter propugna.\n\n      _Nec te, quod classis centenis remigat alis,\n        Terreat: INVITO labitur illa MARI:\n      Quodve vehunt prorae Centaurica saxa minantes,\n        Tigna cava et pictos experiere metus.\n      Frangit et attollit vires in milite causa;\n        Quae nisi iusta subest, excutit arma pudor._[184a]\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nthe opinion of many philosophers and theologians[182] differ more in\nname than in fact, and as peace is a harmonious agreement based not\non individual whim, but on well ordered regulations.\n\nIf however a truce is arranged for, it is quite clear from the very\nnature of a truce, that during its continuance no one\u2019s condition\nought to change for the worse, inasmuch as both parties stand on the\nequivalent of a _uti possidetis_.\n\nBut if we are driven into war by the injustice of our enemies, the\njustice of our cause ought to bring hope and confidence in a happy\noutcome. \u201cFor,\u201d as Demosthenes has said, \u201cevery one fights his\nhardest to recover what he has lost; but when men endeavor to gain at\nthe expense of others it is not so.\u201d[183] The Emperor Alexander has\nexpressed his idea in this way: \u2018Those who begin unjust deeds, must\nbear the greatest blame; but those who repel aggressors are twice\narmed, both with courage because of their just cause, and with the\nhighest hope because they are not doing a wrong, but are warding off\na wrong\u2019.\n\nTherefore, if it be necessary, arise, O nation unconquered on the\nsea, and fight boldly, not only for your own liberty, but for that of\nthe human race. \u201cNor let it fright thee that their fleet is winged,\neach ship, with an hundred oars. The sea whereon it sails will have\nnone of it. And though the prows bear figures threatening to cast\nrocks such as Centaurs throw, thou shalt find them but hollow planks\nand painted terrors. \u2019Tis his cause that makes or mars a soldier\u2019s\nstrength. If the cause be not just, shame strikes the weapon from his\nhands.\u201d[184]\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n\nSi iusta multi, et ipse Augustinus,[185a] arma crediderunt eo nomine\nsuscipi, quod per terras alienas iter innoxium negaretur, quanto illa\nerunt iustiora, quibus maris, quod naturae lege commune est, usus\ncommunis et innoxius postulatur? Si iuste oppugnatae sunt gentes quae\nin suo solo commercia aliis interdicebant, quid illae quae populos\nad se nihil pertinentes per vim distinent, ac mutuos earum commeatus\nintercludunt? Si res ista in iudicio agitaretur, dubitari non potest\nquae a viro bono expectari deberet sententia, ait Praetor:[186a]\n\u2018Quo minus illi in flumine publico navem agere, ratem agere, quove\nminus per ripam exonerare liceat, vim fieri veto\u2019. De mari et litore\nin eandem formam dandum interdictum docent interpretes, exemplo\nLabeonis, qui cum interdiceret Praetor:[187a] \u2018Ne quid in flumine\npublico ripave eius facias, quo statio iterve navigio deterius sit,\nfiat\u2019; simile dixit interdictum competere in mari:[188a] \u2018Ne quid in\nmari inve litore facias, quo portus, statio, iterve navigio deterius\nsit, fiat\u2019.\n\nImmo et post prohibitionem, si quis scilicet in mari navigare\nprohibitus sit, aut non permissus rem suam vendere, aut re sua uti,\niniuriarum eo nomine competere actionem Vlpianus respondit.[189a]\nTheologi insuper et qui tractant casus, quos vocant, conscientiarum,\nconcordes tradunt,\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n\nIf many writers, Augustine himself[185] among them, believed it was\nright to take up arms because innocent passage was refused across\nforeign territory, how much more justly will arms be taken up against\nthose from whom the demand is made of the common and innocent use\nof the sea, which by the law of nature is common to all? If those\nnations which interdicted others from trade on their own soil are\njustly attacked, what of those nations which separate by force and\ninterrupt the mutual intercourse of peoples over whom they have\nno rights at all? If this case should be taken into court, there\ncan be no doubt what opinion ought to be anticipated from a just\njudge. The praetor\u2019s law says:[186] \u2018I forbid force to be used in\npreventing any one from sailing a ship or a boat on a public river,\nor from unloading his cargo on the bank\u2019. The commentators say that\nthe injunction must be applied in the same manner to the sea and to\nthe seashore. Labeo, for example, in commenting on the praetor\u2019s\nedict,[187] \u2018Let nothing be done in a public river or on its bank, by\nwhich a landing or a channel for shipping be obstructed\u2019, said there\nwas a similar interdict which applied to the sea, namely,[188] \u2018Let\nnothing be done on the sea or on the seashore by which a harbor, a\nlanding, or a channel for shipping be obstructed\u2019.\n\nNay more, after such a prohibition, if, namely, a man be prevented\nfrom navigating the sea, or not allowed to sell or to make use of his\nown wares and products, Ulpian says that he can bring an action for\ndamages on that ground.[189] Also the theologians and the casuists\nagree that he who prevents another from buying or selling, or who\nputs his\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\neum qui alterum vendere aut emere impediat, utilitatemve propriam\npublicae ac communi praeponat, aut ullo modo alterum in eo quod est\niuris communis impediat, ad restitutionem teneri omnis damni viri\nboni arbitrio.\n\nSecundum haec igitur vir bonus iudicans, Batavis libertatem\ncommerciorum adiudicaret, Lusitanos et ceteros, qui eam libertatem\nimpediunt, vetaret vim facere, et damna restituere iuberet. Quod\nautem in iudicio obtineretur, id ubi iudicium haberi non potest,\niusto bello vindicatur. Augustinus:[190a] \u2018Iniquitas partis adversae\niusta ingerit bella\u2019. Et Cicero:[191a] \u2018Cum sint duo genera\ndecertandi, unum per disceptationem, alterum per vim, confugiendum ad\nposterius, si uti non licet priore\u2019. Et Rex Theodoricus: \u2018Veniendum\ntunc ad arma, cum locum apud adversarium iustitia non potest\nreperire\u2019. Et quod proprius est nostro argumento,[192a] Pomponius\neum qui rem omnibus communem cum incommodo ceterorum usurpet, MANV\nPROHIBENDVM respondit. Theologi quoque tradunt, sicuti pro rerum\ncuiusque defensione bellum recte suscipitur, ita non minus recte\nsuscipi, pro usu earum rerum quae naturali iure debent esse communes.\nQuare ei qui itinera praecludat, evectionemque mercium impediat,\netiam non expectata ulla publica auctoritate, _via facti_, ut\nloquuntur, posse occurri.\n\nQuae cum ita sint, minime verendum est, ne aut Deus\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nprivate interests before the public and common interests, or who\nin any way hinders another in the use of something which is his by\ncommon right, is held in damages to complete restitution in an amount\nfixed by an honorable arbitrator.\n\nFollowing these principles a good judge would award to the Dutch\nthe freedom of trade, and would forbid the Portuguese and others\nfrom using force to hinder that freedom, and would order the payment\nof just damages. But when a judgment which would be rendered in a\ncourt cannot be obtained, it should with justice be demanded in a\nwar. Augustine[190] acknowledges this when he says: \u2018The injustice\nof an adversary brings a just war\u2019. Cicero also says:[191] \u201cThere\nare two ways of settling a dispute; first, by discussion; second,\nby physical force; we must resort to force only in case we may not\navail ourselves of discussion.\u201d And King Theodoric says: \u2018Recourse\nmust then be had to arms when justice can find no lodgment in an\nadversary\u2019s heart\u2019. Pomponius, however, has handed down a decision\nwhich has more bearing on our argument[192] than any of the citations\nalready made. He declared that the man who seized a thing common to\nall to the prejudice of every one else must be forcibly prevented\nfrom so doing. The theologians also say that just as war is\nrighteously undertaken in defense of individual property, so no less\nrighteously is it undertaken in behalf of the use of those things\nwhich by natural law ought to be common property. Therefore he who\ncloses up roads and hinders the export of merchandise ought to be\nprevented from so doing _via facti_, even without waiting for any\npublic authority.\n\nSince these things are so, there need not be the slightest\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\neorum conatus secundet, qui ab ipso institutum ius naturae\ncertissimum violant, aut homines ipsi eos inultos patiantur, qui solo\nquaestus sui respectu communem humani generis utilitatem oppugnant.\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nfear that God will prosper the efforts of those who violate that\nmost stable law of nature which He himself has instituted, or that\neven men will allow those to go unpunished who for the sake alone of\nprivate gain oppose a common benefit of the human race.\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n\n\n\n  CVM SVB HOC TEMPVS PLVRIMAE REGIS HISPANIARVM LITTERAE IN MANVS\n  NOSTRAS VENISSENT, QVIBVS IPSIVS ET LVSITANORVM INSTITVTVM\n  MANIFESTE DETEGITVR, OPERAE PRETIVM VISVM EST EX IIS, QUAE\n  PLERAEQVE EODEM ERANT ARGVMENTO, BINAS IN LATINVM SERMONEM\n  TRANSLATAS EXHIBERE.\n\n\nDomine Martine Alphonse de Castro, Prorex amice, ego Rex multam tibi\nsalutem mitto:\n\nCum hisce litteris perveniet ad te exemplum typis impressum Edicti\nquod faciendum curavi, quo, ob rationes quas expressas videbis,\naliasque meis rebus conducentes prohibeo commercium omne externorum\nin ipsis partibus Indiae aliisque regionibus transmarinis.\nQuandoquidem res haec est momenti atque usus maximi, et quae effici\nsumma cum industria debeat, impero tibi, ut simulatque litteras\nhas et edictum acceperis, publicationem eius omni diligentia\nprocures in omnibus locis ac partibus istius imperi, idque ipsum\nquod edicto continetur exsequaris sine ullius personae exceptione,\ncuiuscumque qualitatis, aetatis, condicionisve sit, citra omnem\nmoram atque excusationem, procedasque ad impletionem mandati via\nmerae exsecutionis, nullo admisso impedimento, appellatione, aut\ngravamine in contrarium, cuiuscumque materiae generis aut qualitatis.\nIubeo itaque hoc ipsum impleri per eos ministros ad quos exsecutio\npertinet, iisque significari, non modo eos qui contra fecerint malam\noperam mihi navaturos, sed eosdem me puniturum privatione officiorum\nin quibus mihi serviunt.\n\nQuia autem relatum est mihi commorari in istis partibus\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX\n\n_Two letters of Philip III, King of Spain_\n\n\nAs several letters of the King of Spain have come of late into our\nhands, in which his design and that of the Portuguese is clearly\ndisclosed, it seemed worth while to translate into Latin two of them\nwhich had particular bearing upon the controversy at issue, and to\nappend them here.\n\n\nLETTER I\n\n_To Don Martin Alfonso de Castro, our beloved viceroy, I, the King,\nsend many greetings:_\n\nTogether with this letter will come to you a copy printed in type\nof an edict which I have taken much pains to draw up, by which, for\nreasons which you will see expressed, and for other reasons which are\nconsonant with my interests, I prohibit all commerce of foreigners\nin India itself, and in all other regions across the seas. As this\nmatter is of the greatest importance and serviceableness, and ought\nto be carried out with the highest zeal, I command you, as soon as\nyou shall have received this letter and edict, to further with all\ndiligence its publication in all places and districts under your\njurisdiction, and to carry out the provisions of the edict without\nexception of any person whatsoever, no matter what his quality, age,\nor condition, and without delay and excuse, and to proceed to the\nfulfilment of this command with the full power of your authority, no\ndelay, appeal, or obstacle to the contrary, being admitted, of any\nkind, sort, or quality.\n\nTherefore I order that this duty be discharged by those\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nexternos multos variarum nationum, Italos, Gallos, Germanos, Belgas,\nquorum pars maior, quantum intelligimus, eo venit per Persida et\nTurcarum imperium, non per hoc regnum, adversus quos si ex huius\nEdicti praescripto ac rigore procedatur, posse inde nonnullas\ndifficultates sequi, si illi ad Mauros inimicos perfugiant,\nvicinisque munitionum mearum dispositionem indicent, rationesque\nmonstrent quae rebus meis nocere possent, exsequi te hoc edictum\nvolo prout res et tempus ferent, atque ea uti prudentia, qua illae\ndifficultates evitentur, curando ut omnes externos in potestate tua\nhabeas eosque custodias pro cuiusque qualitate, ita ut adversus\nimperium nostrum nihil valeant attentare, utque ergo omnino eum finem\nconsequar quem hoc Edicto mihi proposui.\n\nScriptae Vlyssipone XXVIII Novembris, Anno MDCVI. Subsignatum erat\nRex. Inscriptio. Pro Rege. Ad Dominum Martinum Alfonsum de Castro\nConsiliarium suum, et suum Proregem Indiae.\n\n\nProrex amice Rex multam salutem tibi mitto:\n\nEtsi pro certo habeo tua praesentia, iisque viribus cum quibus in\npartes austrinas concessisti, perduelles Hollandos,\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nofficers to whom its execution belongs, and that they be informed\nthat not only will those who disobey serve me ill, but that I will\npunish them by depriving them of the offices in which they now serve\nme.\n\nFurther, inasmuch as it has been reported to me that within your\njurisdiction there are sojourning many foreigners of different\nnations, Italians, French, Germans, and men of the Low Countries,\nthe larger part of whom as we know came there by way of Persia and\nTurkey, and not through our realm; and inasmuch as, if this edict\nbe rigidly enforced against those persons to the letter, some\ninconveniences might follow, if they should escape to the Moors,\nour enemies, and make known to our neighbors the disposition of\nmy forces, and thus show ways that they might be able to harm my\ndominion: Therefore, I wish you to carry out the provisions of this\nedict as the exigencies of circumstances and occasion demand, and\nto use all prudence necessary in order to avoid those difficulties,\ntaking especial pains to keep all foreigners in your power, and to\nguard them in accordance with their individual rank, so that they may\nhave no opportunity to attempt anything prejudicial to our power,\nthat thus I may attain fully that end which I have set forth in this\nedict.\n\nGiven at Lisbon, on the 28th of November in the year of our Lord,\n1606. Signed by the king, and addressed: For the king, to Don Martin\nAlfonso de Castro, his Councillor, and Viceroy for the East Indies.\n\n\nLETTER II\n\n_To our beloved viceroy, I, the King send many greetings:_\n\nAlthough I consider it absolutely certain that your presence and the\nforces which you took with you into those Eastern regions, guarantee\nthat our enemies, the Dutch,\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nqui illic haerent, nec minus indigenas qui eis receptum praebent,\nita castigatos fore, ut nec hi, nec illi tale quicquam in posterum\naudeant; expediet tamen, ad res tuendas, ut iustam classem, eique\noperi idoneam, cum tu Goam redibis, in istis Maris partibus\nrelinquas, eiusque imperium et summam praefecturam mandes Andreae\nHurtado Mendosae, aut si quem ei muneri aptiorem iudicabis,\nquemadmodum pro tuo in me affectu confido, ea in re non aliud te\nrespecturum quam quod rebus meis erit utilissimum.\n\nScriptae Madritii XXVII Ian. MDCVII. Signatum Rex. Inscriptio. Pro\nRege. Ad Dominum Martinum Alfonsum de Castro suum Consiliarium, et\nsuum Proregem Indiae.\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\nwho infest those quarters as well as the natives who give them a\nwelcome reception, will be so thoroughly punished that neither the\none nor the other will ever dare such practices in the future: still\nit will be expedient for the protection of our interests, that,\nwhen you shall return to Goa, you leave in those parts of the sea\na fleet large and capable enough to do the business, and also that\nyou delegate the supreme command of that fleet to Andrea Hurtado de\nMendoza, or to any one else whom you shall consider better fitted\nfor this post. I rely upon your affection for me, knowing that in\nthis matter you will do nothing but what will be most useful to my\ninterests.\n\nGiven at Madrid the 27th day of January in the year of our Lord\n1607. Signed by the king, and addressed: For the king, to Don Martin\nAlfonso de Castro, his Councillor, and Viceroy for the East Indies.\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n\n\n\nINDEX\n\n_References are to pages of text and translation alike._\n\n\n  Accursius, biographical note, 51, n. \u2020;\n    cited, 51.\n\n  Agamemnon, mention of, 9.\n\n  Agreements, when not binding, 35.\n\n  Air, common to all, 28;\n    nature of, 39.\n\n  Alciatus, A., biographical note, 10 n. 2.\n\n  Alexander, Emperor, quoted, 73.\n\n  Alexander the Great, mention of, 14, 40.\n\n  Alexander VI, Pope, reference to, 15, 45.\n\n  Alexandria, mention of, 68.\n\n  Ambrose, St., biographical note, 33 n. 5;\n    cited, 52, 71;\n    quoted, 32.\n\n  Amorites, mention of, 9.\n\n  Andocides, cited, 72 n. 1.\n\n  Angelus Aretinus, biographical note, 48 n. 2;\n    reference to, 48, 49, 50, 52, 55.\n\n  Apollinaris, mention of, 32.\n\n  Aquinas, Thos., biographical note, 13 n. 4;\n    mention of, 13, 19.\n\n  Arabians, mention of, 40, 68.\n\n  Arbitration, 6.\n\n  Archidiaconus, cited, 74 n. 5.\n\n  Aristotle, cited, 61, 63, 71;\n    quoted, 63.\n\n  Art of exchange, definition of, 61.\n\n  Athenaeus, reference to, 29.\n\n  Athenians, mention of, 9.\n\n  Augustine, St., cited, 71, 74;\n    quoted, 75;\n    reference to, 9.\n\n  Augustus, mention of, 12, 41.\n\n  Avienus, quoted, 23, 24.\n\n  Ayala, reference to, 16 n. 5.\n\n  Aztecs, mention of, 9.\n\n\n  Balbus, J. F., biographical note, 49 n. 3;\n    cited, 49;\n    mention of, 55.\n\n  Baldus de Ubaldis, biographical note, 9 n. 7;\n    mention of, 9, 55.\n\n  Bartolus, biographical note, 48 n. *;\n    cited, 48;\n    reference from, 19 n. 2.\n\n  Bennett, C. E., translation from, 31.\n\n  Bernhardus, St., reference from, 16 n. 3.\n\n  Bo\u00ebthius, quoted, 19.\n\n  du Bois, see Silvius.\n\n  Bolognese, mention of, 9.\n\n  Butler, translation from, 73.\n\n\n  Cadiz, mention of, 40.\n\n  Caelius Antipater, cited, 40.\n\n  Caietanus, T. (Cajetan), biographical note, 19 n. 4;\n    reference to, 17, 19.\n\n  Cape of Good Hope, mention of, 40, 59.\n\n  Castrensis, A. de, biographical note, 53 n. 1;\n    cited, 53.\n\n  Castrensis, P. de (de Castro), biographical note, 49 n. \u2020;\n    reference from, 22 n. 1.\n\n  Castro, M. C. de, letters to, 77.\n\n  Celsus, cited, 30, 31, 34.\n\n  Ceylon, mention of, 11, 12.\n\n  Charles V, Emperor, reference to, 21.\n\n  Chinese, mention of, 62, 68.\n\n  Cicero, cited, 72;\n    quoted, 23, 25, 27, 28, 75;\n    reference to, 29.\n\n  Cinus, cited, 63 n. 1.\n\n  Claudius, Emperor, mention of, 41.\n\n  Clemens Alexandrinus, cited, 73 n. 1.\n\n  Coercion, Portuguese, in case of East Indies, 68.\n\n  Columella, reference to, 32.\n\n  Comines, P. de, biographical note, 28 n. 3.\n\n  Commerce, origin of, 62.\n\n  Common ownership, definition of, 23.\n\n  Common right, 44.\n\n  Community of use, annihilation of, 62.\n\n  Connanus, F. de, biographical note, 12 n. 2.\n\n  Conscience, 3.\n\n  Contract, nature of, 35.\n\n  Cornelius Nepos, cited, 40.\n\n  Council of Spain, mention of, 20.\n\n  Council of Toledo, mention of, 19.\n\n  Covarruvias, D., biographical note, 9 n. 3.\n\n  Crown properties, in sea and river, 36.\n\n  Custom, established by privilege, 52.\n\n\n  Demosthenes, cited, 72;\n    quoted, 73.\n\n  Divine law, 1.\n\n  Donation of Pope Alexander VI, reference to, 15, 18, 45, 66.\n\n  Donellus, H. (Doneau), biographical note, 12 n. 2.\n\n  Dryden, J., translations from, 7, 8, 26.\n\n  Duarenus, biographical note, 27 n. 4.\n\n  Dutch, answer to Portuguese, 71;\n    East India trade to be maintained by, 72;\n    navigation by, 59;\n    reasonable claims of, 70.\n\n\n  East Indies, mention of, 65;\n    not chattels of Portuguese, 21, 60, 68;\n    Portuguese claim of exclusive right to trade in, 61;\n    Portuguese not first in, 41;\n    right of trade to be kept with, 72;\n    way is free to, 37.\n\n  Emmanuel, King of Portugal, mention of, 59.\n\n  English, mention of, 43.\n\n  Ennius, quoted, 38.\n\n  Equity, chapter on, 69.\n\n  Estius, biographical note, 9 n. 5.\n\n  Exchange, art of, defined, 61;\n    derivation of, 62.\n\n  Exhaustion, question of, 57.\n\n  Expediency, 1.\n\n\n  Faber, J., biographical note, 34 n. 2;\n    reference to, 34, 55.\n\n  Fachinham, N., biographical note, 50 n. 3.\n\n  Felinus, M. S., biographical note, 49 n. 2;\n    cited, 49.\n\n  Fishing, an ancient national right, 56;\n    free to all, 32, 38;\n    not legal to prevent, 33, 51;\n    revenues from, 36;\n    a servitude, 34.\n\n  Fleets, maintenance of, 35.\n\n  Free navigation, chapter on, 7.\n\n  Freedom of trade, basis of, 63;\n    chapter on, 61;\n    Dutch should have, 75.\n\n  French, mention of, 43;\n    navigation by, 59.\n\n\n  Gaius Caesar, mention of, 40.\n\n  Genoese, mention of, 48, 53, 54, 56, 58.\n\n  Gentilis, A., biographical note, 8 n. 2.\n\n  Goa, mention of, 79.\n\n  Gorcum, H. v., cited, 75 n. 3.\n\n  Gordianus, Fab. Claud., biographical note, 12 n. 1;\n    mention of, 12.\n\n  Grandpont, A. G. de., xi.\n\n  Greeks, reference to, 19.\n\n  Gregory, mention of, 19.\n\n  Gregory of Nazianzus, cited, 71.\n\n  Guicciardini, cited, 68 n. 2.\n\n\n  Hanno, reference to, 40.\n\n  Harris, E. I., translations from, 24, 25.\n\n  Hercules, mention of, 9.\n\n  Hermogenianus, quoted, 26.\n\n  Hesiod, quoted, 70;\n    reference to, 22.\n\n  Homer, cited, 62.\n\n  Horace, quoted, 12, 23, 31.\n\n  Hugo, reference from, 16 n. 3.\n\n  Hunting, an ancient national right, 56.\n\n\n  India, mention of, 12.\n\n  Inner sea, as distinguished from outer sea, 37.\n\n  Innocentius, reference from, 19 n. 2.\n\n  Innocent passage, 20, 43, 74.\n\n  International rights, 31.\n\n  Isernia, A., biographical note, 36 n. *.\n\n  Isocrates, cited, 72 n. 1, 2.\n\n  Israelites, mention of, 9.\n\n\n  James, H. R., translation from, 19.\n\n  Jason, cited, 54 n. 1.\n\n  Java, mention of, 11.\n\n  John, King of Portugal, mention of, 59.\n\n  Jowett, B., translation from, 63.\n\n  Jurisdiction, distinguished from ownership, 35.\n\n\n  Labeo, quoted, 31, 74.\n\n  Law of Human Society, 9.\n\n  Law of Nations, 7, 9, 28, 31, 61, 63;\n    right conception of, 52.\n\n  Law of Nature, 2, 5, 23;\n    right conception of, 52.\n\n  Law of property, 25.\n\n  Legitimate rulers, 19.\n\n  Leo, Emperor, cited, 33.\n\n  Lucullus, mention of, 32.\n\n\n  Mair, A. W., translation from, 70.\n\n  Malacca, mention of, 59.\n\n  Marcianus, cited, 32, 48, 49;\n    reference to, 33.\n\n  Martial, quoted, 32.\n\n  Martin, J. C., xii.\n\n  Megarians, mention of, 8.\n\n  Mendoza, A. H. de, mention of, 79.\n\n  Miller, W., translations from, 27, 38, 75.\n\n  Milton, quoted, 11 n. *.\n\n  Moluccas, mention of, 11.\n\n  Monopoly, question of, 71.\n\n  Morocco, mention of, 40.\n\n\n  Natural Law, 2, 5, 23, 53.\n\n  Navigation, Dutch, 59;\n    free to all, 7, 32, 38, 44, 46, 55, 56;\n    Portuguese, 59;\n    prescriptive right claimed by Portuguese, 54, 60;\n    protection of, 35.\n\n  Nazianzenus, see Gregory of Nazianzus.\n\n  Neratius, reference to, 28.\n\n  Nonius Marcellus, quoted, 12 n. 2.\n\n\n  Occupation, definition of, 25, 39, 48;\n    mention of, 27, 34;\n    not to affect common use, 30.\n\n  Oldradus (Oldrado de Ponte), biographical note, 74 n. 5.\n\n  Osorius, H., biographical note, 59 n. 1.\n\n  Outer sea, as distinguished from inner sea, 37.\n\n  Ovid, quoted, 26, 28.\n\n  Ownership, common, 26;\n    private, 29, 33, 62;\n    transition to, 24.\n\n\n  Panormitanus, cited, 67 n. 2.\n\n  Papal Donation, chapters on, 15, 45, 66.\n\n  Papinian, cited, 60;\n    quoted, 48.\n\n  Paul III, Pope, reference to, 21.\n\n  Paulus, cited, 32, 51.\n\n  Personal right, 35.\n\n  Peter, St., mention of, 16.\n\n  Philip III of Spain, letters of, 77.\n\n  Pickard-Cambridge, translation from, 73.\n\n  Pirates, treatment of, 35.\n\n  Placentinus, quoted, 34.\n\n  Plato, cited, 63.\n\n  Plautus, quoted, 29.\n\n  Pliny, cited, 12, 32, 40, 41, 62;\n    quoted, 7.\n\n  Plutarch, reference to, 14.\n\n  Polus Lucanus, cited, 73 n. 1.\n\n  Pomponius, cited, 30, 75.\n\n  Pomponius Mela, quoted, 40 n. 1.\n\n  Pope, The, no right in temporal matters, 45;\n    no authority against law of nature and of nations, 66.\n\n  Portuguese, arrogant pretensions of, 39, 40, 43, 75;\n    claim of exclusive right to trade, 61;\n    claim to ocean, 37;\n    desire for profits, 42, 69, 71;\n    mention of, 56, 65;\n    not first in East Indies, 41.\n\n  Prescription, acquisition by, 49, 59;\n    chapters on, 47, 67;\n    definition of, 47;\n    failure of, 50, 51;\n    immemorial time no help to, 49, 58;\n    reference to, 4, 52.\n\n  Pretexts for war, 18.\n\n  Private possessions, reference to, 28.\n\n  Privative right, 23.\n\n  Propertius, quoted, 73.\n\n  Property, origin of, 27.\n\n  Ptolemaeus, cited, 41.\n\n  Public opinion, 3.\n\n  Public territory, origin of, 34.\n\n\n  Quintilian, quoted, 25.\n\n\n  Revenues, on fisheries, 36.\n\n  Right of innocent passage, 20, 43, 74.\n\n  Right of navigation, not Portuguese because of Papal Donation, 45.\n\n  Rivalry, comment on, 70.\n\n  Roman Church, mention of, 19.\n\n\n  Sandeus, see Felinus.\n\n  Saracens, reference to, 10, 17.\n\n  Scaevola, mention of, 30.\n\n  Scott, J. B., Introductory note by, v.\n\n  Sea, The, common to all, 28, 30, 34, 37, 43, 44, 52, 55;\n    defined by law of nations, 22;\n    nature of, 31, 39;\n    not exhausted by use, 43, 57;\n    not merchandise, 34;\n    not Portuguese by Papal Donation, 45;\n    not subject to servitude, 35, 36;\n    sovereignty of, 53.\n\n  Seashore, common to all, 28, 30;\n    how to be used, 30, 34;\n    right of Roman people to, 31.\n\n  Seneca, cited, 63;\n    quoted, 8, 24, 25, 26, 27.\n\n  Shahan, Bishop, xii.\n\n  Sigonius, C., biographical note, 9 n. 2.\n\n  Silvestris, cited, 46 n. 1.\n\n  Silvius, F., biographical note, 17 n. 1;\n    reference from, 17.\n\n  Smith, K. F., xi.\n\n  Sovereignty, grant by reason of, 17;\n    matter of positive law, 20;\n    Papal Donation gives no right to, chapter on, 15;\n    a particular proprietorship, 22, 24;\n    by right of conquest, 18;\n    by right of discovery, 11;\n    title to, 11;\n    universal, 24.\n\n  Spaniards, arrogance of, 70, 71;\n    claim to ocean, 37, 54;\n    mention of, 56.\n\n  Strabo, quoted, 41.\n\n  Sylvius, see Silvius.\n\n\n  Tacitus, quoted, 10.\n\n  Temporal possessions, 19.\n\n  Theodoric, King, quoted, 75.\n\n  Thucydides, cited, 72 n. 1;\n    quoted, 27.\n\n  Title by prescription, destroyed, 50.\n\n  Tolls, 11, 36.\n\n  Torquemada, see Turre Cremata.\n\n  Trade, freedom of, 61, 63, 72;\n    origin of, 62;\n    Portuguese claim to right of, 61.\n\n  Trajan, mention of, 41.\n\n  Turre Cremata, reference from, 16 n. 3.\n\n\n  Ulpian, cited, 31, 33, 35, 44, 51, 63, 74;\n    reference to, 28, 69.\n\n  Use, definition of, 24, 27;\n    sea not exhausted by, 43;\n    things susceptible to universal, 29.\n\n  Usurpation, definition of, 52;\n    Portuguese worthless, 68.\n\n  _Uti possidetis_, 32, 73.\n\n\n  Varro, reference to, 32.\n\n  Vasquius, F. M. (Vasquez), biographical note, 52 n. 4;\n    cited, 53, 67, 68;\n    quoted, 52, 55, 56, 58, 70.\n\n  Venetians, mention of, 9, 43, 48, 53, 54, 56, 58.\n\n  Vergil, quoted, 7, 8, 26;\n    reference to, 29.\n\n  Victoria, F. de, biographical note, 9 n. 3;\n    reference to, 9, 13, 17, 18.\n\n\n  War, pretexts for, 18, 20.\n\n  Water, common to all, 28.\n\n  West Indies, claimed by Portuguese, 54.\n\n  Willoughby, W. W., xii.\n\n  World monopoly, question of, 71.\n\n\n  Zuarius, R., biographical note, 44 n. 3.\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n\n[A] For the freedom of the seas and the relation of Grotius to the\ndoctrine, see Ernest Nys\u2019s _Les Origines du Droit International_\n(1894), pp. 379-387, and the same author\u2019s _Etudes de Droit\nInternational et de Droit Politique_, 2^e s\u00e9rie (1901), _Une Bataille\nde Livres_, pp. 260-272. For an account in English see Walker\u2019s\n_History of the Law of Nations_, Vol. I (1899), pp. 278-283.\n\nFor an interesting sketch of the illustrious author of the _Mare\nLiberum_, see Motley\u2019s _The Life and Death of John of Barneveld_,\nVol. II, Chap. XXII; for an analysis of Grotius\u2019 views on the law of\nnations, see Hallam\u2019s _Introduction to the Literature of Europe_ (4th\nedition), Vol. II, Part III, Chap. IV, Sec. III; for an account of\nGrotius as a humanist, see Sandys\u2019 _History of Classical Scholarship_\n(1908), Vol. II, pp. 315-319.\n\n[B] _Hugonis Grotii De Jure Praedae_, edited, with an introduction,\nby H. G. Hamaker, and published at The Hague in 1868 by Martinus\nNijhoff.\n\n[C] In support of the view that Grotius appeared as counsel in cases\narising out of captures made by vessels in the service of the Dutch\nEast India Company, and that the treatise, _De Jure Praedae_, is a\nlegal brief, see R. Fruin\u2019s _Een Onuitgegeven Werk van Hugo De Groot_\nin _Verspreide Geschriften_, Vol. III, pp. 367-445. The following\npassages are quoted from this remarkable essay:\n\n\u201cWhile busy with the sale of the goods [of the captured merchantman\n_Catherine_, which had been unloaded in the Amsterdam arsenal], the\nprocess of adjudicating the booty before the admiralty court was\nconducted in the usual forms. Claimants: Advocate General of Holland,\nthe Board of eight Aldermen, and Admiral Heemskerck; ... on Thursday,\nSeptember 9, 1604, final sentence was rendered, and \u2018the merchantman\ntogether with the goods taken from it were declared forfeited and\nconfiscated\u2019\u201d (pp. 389-390).\n\n\u201cHulsius in some measure replaces what the fire at the Marine Arsenal\nhas robbed us of; among other records he has preserved for us in\nhis _Achte Schiffart_ the sentence pronounced in this matter by the\nadmiralty, and of which we have knowledge from no other sources.\nFrom it we learn the grounds upon which the claimants demanded\nthe adjudication of the booty. These grounds are the same twelve\nwhich De Groot discusses in his book.... This concordance can be\nexplained on the ground that De Groot must have had acquaintance\nwith the sentence; but he was not a man merely to repeat what others\nhad before him witnessed. I should be inclined to feel that in the\nprocess he had served as counsel for the Company, and that he himself\nwas one of the authors of the written claim upon which the sentence\nwas based. It would not then be surprising if in his book he should\ndevelop at greater length and throw light upon what had already been\nset forth in the claim\u201d (pp. 390-391).\n\n\u201cI cannot state definitely that Hugo De Groot was persuaded by the\nDirectors to write such an argument; I have been unable to discover\nany evidence to that end. That he was in close relations with the\nCompany, he himself says in a letter of later date, addressed to his\nbrother. Nor can there be any doubt that in writing his work he made\nuse of the archives of the United Company and of its predecessor. If\nthe supposition, which I have elsewhere ventured to make is correct,\nthat is to say, that in the conduct of the case he appeared as\nadvocate for the Company, it would then appear most probable that,\nafter consultation with the directors, he set about writing his book,\nwhich was to be a second plea in their behalf\u201d (p. 403).\n\n[D] For the account which Grotius himself gives of the incident, see\nhis _Annales et Historiae de Rebus Belgicis ab Obitu Philippi Regis\nusque ad Inducias Anni_ 1609, written in 1612, but first published in\n1658, Book 1, p. 429.\n\nFor a fuller account of the circumstances under which the treatise\non the law of prize was written, see Hamaker\u2019s edition of the _De\nJure Praedae_, pp. vii-viii. The distinguished historian and scholar,\nRobert J. Fruin, after an exhaustive examination of the evidence,\ninformed Hamaker that Grotius was retained by the Company to prepare\nthe commentary on the law of prize. The English translation of\nHamaker\u2019s exact statement reads as follows: \u201cFruin is of the opinion\nthat he [Grotius] undertook this work at the instance of the Company,\nand that he appeared in it as their spokesman.\u201d\n\nFor an analysis of the commentary _De Jure Praedae_ and the\ncircumstances under which it was written, see Jules Basdevant\u2019s study\non Grotius, pp. 131-137, 155-179, in Pillet\u2019s _Les Fondateurs du\nDroit International_ (1904).\n\n[E] Selden\u2019s _Mare Clausum_ was not the only defense of England,\nnor was the _Mare Liberum_ the only lance which Grotius broke for\nthe freedom of the seas. In 1613 William Welwod, professor of Civil\nLaw at the University of Aberdeen, published a little book entitled\n_An Abridgement of all the Sea-Lawes_, in which he maintained the\nEnglish side of the question, of which Title XXVII, pp. 61-72, deals\nwith the community and property of the seas. Two years later Welwod\npublished a second work, this time in Latin, entitled _De Dominio\nMaris Juribusque ad Dominium praecipue Spectantibus Assertia Brevis\nac Methodica_.\n\nGrotius prepared, but did not publish, a reply to Welwod\u2019s first\nattack, entitled _Defensio Capitis Quinti Maris Liberi Oppugnati\na Gulielmo Welwodo Juris Civilis Professore, Capite XXVII ejus\nLibri Scripti Anglica Sermone cui Titulum Fecit Compendium Legum\nMaritimarum_. It was discovered at the same time as the commentary\n_De Jure Praedae_ and was published in 1872 in Muller\u2019s _Mare\nClausum, Bijdrage tot de geschiedenis der rivaliteit van Engeland en\nNederland in de zeventiende eeuw_.\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n\n[1a] Panegyricus 29, 2: quod genitum esset usquam, id apud omnes\nnatum esse videtur.\n\n[2a] Vergil, Georgica II, 109.\n\n[3a] Vergil, Aeneis VI, 847-853.\n\n[4a] Naturales Quaestiones III, IV.\n\n[5a] Institutes II, 1 (De rerum divisione, \u00a7 1); Digest I, 8, 4 (eod.\ntit., L. Nemo igitur); cf. Gentilis, De jure belli I, 19; cf. Code\nIV, 63, 4 (De commerciis, L. Mercatores).\n\n[6a] Vergil, Aeneis I, 539-540.\n\n[7a] Vergil, Aeneis VII, 229-230.\n\n[8a] Diodorus Siculus XI; Plutarch, Pericles XXIX, 4.\n\n[9a] Sigonius, De regno Italiae.\n\n[10a] Victoria, De Indis II, n. 1-7; Covarruvias, in c. Peccatum, \u00a7\n9, n. 4, ibi Quinta.\n\n[11a] Numbers XXI, 21-26.\n\n[12a] Augustinus, Locutionum IV (de Numeris), 44; Et Estius, c. ult.\n23, 4, 2.\n\n[13a] Sophocles, Trachiniae.\n\n[14a] Baldus de Ubaldis, Consilia III, 293.\n\n[15a] Tacitus, Historiae IV, 64.\n\n[16a] Andreas Alciatus, Commentaria VII, 130; Covarruvias in c.\nPeccatum, p. 2 \u00a7 9; Bartolus on Code I, 11 (De paganis, L. 1).\n\n[17a] Code VIII, 40, 13 (De fideiussoribus, L. Si Barsagoram).\n\n[18a] Nonius Marcellus, De varia significatione sermonum, in verbo\n\u2018occupare\u2019 (p. 562, Lindsay); cf. Connanus, Commentarii juris civilis\nIII, 3; cf. Donellus, Commentarii de jure civili IV, 10.\n\n[19a] Institutes II, 1, 13 (De rerum divisione, \u00a7 Illud quaesitum\nest).\n\n[20a] Digest XLI, 2, 3 (De adquirenda possessione, \u00a7 Neratius).\n\n[21a] Epistulae I, 1, 44-45.\n\n[22a] Pliny, Naturalis historia VI, 22.\n\n[23a] Digest XLI, 1, 3 (De adquirendo rerum dominio).\n\n[24a] Covarruvias in c. Peccatum \u00a7 10, n. 2, 4, 5.\n\n[25a] De potestate civili I, 9.\n\n[26a] Thomas Aquinas, Summa II. II, q. 10, a. 12.\n\n[27a] De Indis I, n. 4-7, 19.\n\n[28a] Vasquius, Preface (n. 5) to Controversiae illustres.\n\n[29a] Cf. Osorium.\n\n[30a] Institutes II, 1, 40 (De rerum divisione, \u00a7 Per traditionem).\n\n[31a] Luke XII, 14; John XVIII, 36; Victoria, De Indis I, n. 25.\n\n[32a] Victoria XVI, n. 27.\n\n[33a] Vasquius, Controversiae illustres, c. 21; Turre Cremata II,\nc. 113; Hugo on Dist. XCVI, C. VI (Cum ad verum); Bernhardus, De\nconsolatione ad Eugenium III; Victoria, De Indis I, n. 27; Covarruvias\nin c. Peccatum \u00a7 9, n. 7.\n\n[34a] Matthew XVII, 27; XX, 26; John VI, 15.\n\n[35a] Victoria, De Indis I, n. 28, 30; Covarruvias on I Corinthians V\nin fine; Thomas Aquinas, Summa II. II, q. 12, a. 2; Ayala, De Jure I,\n2, 29.\n\n[36a] Thomas Aquinas, Summa II. II, q. 66, a. 8; Silvius, De\ninfidelibus \u00a7 7; Innocentius on Decretales Gregorii Papae IX, III,\n34, 8 (De voto, c. Quod super his); Victoria, De Indis I, n. 31.\n\n[37a] De Indis I, n. 31.\n\n[38a] Vasquius, Controversiae illustres, c. 24; Victoria, De Indis\nII, n. 10.\n\n[39a] De consolatione philosophiae IV, carmen 4, 7-10.\n\n[40a] Thomas Aquinas, Summa II. II, q. 10, a. 8; Dist. XLV, C. V (De\nIudeis), C. III (Qui sincera); Innocentius, cf. note 1, page 17;\nBartolus on Code I, 11, 1 (De paganis); Covarruvias in c. Peccatum, \u00a7\n9, 10; Ayala, De Jure I, 2, 28.\n\n[41a] Matthew X, 23.\n\n[42a] On Thomas Aquinas, Summa II. II, q. 4, 66, a. 8.\n\n[43a] Victoria, De Indis II, 1.\n\n[44a] Castrensis on Digest I, 1, 5 (De iustitia et iure, L. Ex hoc\niure); Dist. I, C. VII (Ius naturale).\n\n[45a] Vasquius, Controversiae illustres, c. 1, n. 10; Lib. VI, V, 12,\n3 (De verborum significatione, c. Exiit, qui seminat); Clem. V, 11\n(De verborum significatione, c. Exivi de paradiso).\n\n[46a] Sermones II, 2, 129-130.\n\n[47a] Avienus, Aratus 302-303 [promisca quetura V; promiscaque cura\nA; iura peragros; praestiterat Buhlius, Breyzig].\n\n[48a] Seneca, Octavia 413-414.\n\n[49a] Avienus, Aratus 302.\n\n[50a] Digest VII, 5 (De usu fructu earum rerum, quae usu consumuntur\nvel minuuntur); Extravag. XIV, 3 et 5 (De verborum significatione, c.\nAd conditorem, et c. Quia quorundam); Thomas Aquinas, Summa II. II,\nq. 78.\n\n[51a] Thyestes 203-204 (F. CXXII).\n\n[52a] De beneficiis VII, 12, 3.\n\n[53a] Ps. Quintilianus, Declamatio XIII (Pro paupere).\n\n[54a] Cicero, De officiis I.\n\n[55a] Digest I, 1, 5 (De iustitia et iure, L. Ex hoc iure).\n\n[56a] Vergil, Georgica I, 139-140; Ovid, Metamorphoses I, 121.\n\n[57a] Ovid, Metamorphoses I, 135-136.\n\n[58a] Ovid, Metamorphoses I, 134 (exsultavere, Magnus).\n\n[59a] De beneficiis VII, 4, 3.\n\n[60a] Octavia 431-432.\n\n[61a] De officiis I, 21.\n\n[62a] Thucydides I, 139, 2.\n\n[63a] Duarenus on Digest I, 8 (De divisione rerum).\n\n[64a] De officiis I, 51.\n\n[65a] De officiis I, 52.\n\n[66a] Ovid, Metamorphoses VI, 349-351 (aquis, 349, and ad publica,\n351, Merkel).\n\n[67a] Digest VIII, 4, 13 (Communia praediorum, L. Venditor).\n\n[68a] Digest XLI, 1, 14 (De adquirendo rerum dominio, L. Quod in\nlitore); Comines, Memoirs III, 2; Donellus IV, 2; Digest XLI, 3, 49\n(De usucapionibus).\n\n[69a] Digest I, 8, 10 (De divisione rerum, L. Aristo).\n\n[70a] Cicero, Loco citato. [Pro Sex. Roscio Amerino 26, 72].\n\n[71a] Institutes II, 1, 1 et 5 (De rerum divisione, \u00a7 Et quidem\nnaturali; \u00a7 Litorum); Digest I, 8, 1, 2, 10 (De rerum divisione);\nDigest XLI, 1, 14 et 50 (De adquirendo rerum dominio, L. Quod in\nlitore, et L. Quamvis); Digest XLVII, 10, 13 (De iniuriis, L.\nIniuriarum \u00a7 si quis me); Digest XLIII, 8, 3 (Ne quid in loco\npublico, L. Litora) et 4-7.\n\n[72a] 975, 977, 985 (IV, 3).\n\n[73a] Donellus IV, 2.\n\n[74a] Digest XXXIX, 2, 24 (De damno infecto, L. Fluminum); other\nreferences same as note 1, page 29.\n\n[75a] Donellus IV, 2 et 9; also references in note 1, page 29.\n\n[76a] Digest I, 8, 4 (De divisione rerum, L. Nemo igitur); XLIII, 8,\n3 (Ne quid in loco publico, L. Litora).\n\n[77a] Horace, Carmina III, i, 33-34.\n\n[78a] Digest XLIII, 8, 3 (as in note 1); 8, 2 (eod. tit., L. Praetor,\n\u00a7 Adversus).\n\n[79a] Digest XLIII, 12, 1 (De fluminibus, L. Ait praetor, \u00a7 Si in\nmari).\n\n[80a] Pliny, Naturalis historia IX, 54, 170.\n\n[81a] Martial, Epigrammata X, 30, 19-20.\n\n[82a] De Nabuthe, cap. 3.\n\n[83a] Digest XLVII, 10, 14 (De iniuriis, L. Sane si maris).\n\n[84a] Cf. note 1, page 31.\n\n[85a] Digest XLIV, 3, 7 (De diversis, L. Si quisquam).\n\n[86a] Digest XLI, 3, 45 (De usucapionibus, L, Praescriptio).\n\n[87a] Digest XLVII, 10, 13 (De iniuriis, L. Iniuriarum, \u00a7 Si quis me).\n\n[88a] Novella Leonis, 102, 103, 104; cf. Cuiacium XIV, 1.\n\n[89a] Hexameron V, 10, 27.\n\n[90a] Donellus IV, 6.\n\n[91a] Joannes Faber on Institutes II, 1 (\u00a7 Litorum); Digest XIV, 2, 9\n(De Lege Rhodia, L. \u1f08\u03be\u03af\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2).\n\n[92a] Digest XLIII, 8, 3 (Ne quid in loco publico, L. Litora).\n\n[93a] Digest V, 1, 9 (De iudiciis, L. Insulae); XXXIX, 4, 15 (De\npublicanis, L. Caesar); Gloss. on Digest I, 8, 2 (De divisione rerum,\nL. Quaedam); Institutes II, 1; Baldus on Quaedam (above).\n\n[94a] Baldus, Quibus modis feudi amittuntur, c. In principio, 2 col;\nCode XI, 13, 1; Angelus on Digest XLVII, 10, 14 (De iniuriis, L.\nSane); Digest VIII, 4, 13 (Communia praediorum, L. Venditor fundi) et\n4 (L. Caveri).\n\n[95a] C. Quae sint Regalia, in Feudis.\n\n[96a] Balbus, De praescriptionibus IV, 5; 1, q. 6, n. 4.\n\n[97a] Digest XLVII, 10, 13 (De iniuriis, L. Iniuriarum, \u00a7 7, v.\nconductori); XLIII, 9, 1 (De loco publico fruendo).\n\n[98a] Cf. note 1.\n\n[99a] Ennius: \u2018Nihilo minus ipsi lucet, cum illi accenderit\u2019.\nVahlen,[100a] Fab. Inc. 398 (Telephus?).\n\n[100a] Cicero, De officiis I, 51.\n\n[101a] Seneca, De beneficiis III, 28 [IV, 28].\n\n[102a] Johannes Faber on Institutes II, 1, 5 (De rerum divisione, \u00a7\nLitorum).\n\n[103a] Pliny, Naturalis historia II, 69; VI, 27 [(31) Vol. 1, pp.\n482-488 Mayhoff]; Pomponius Mela, De situ orbis III.\n\n[104a] Pliny, Naturalis historia VI, 20 (23).\n\n[105a] Geographica II et XVII.\n\n[106a] Pliny, Naturalis historia XII, 19 [VI, 23].\n\n[107a] Gloss. on Lib. VI, I, 6, 3 (De electione, c. Ubi periculum, \u00a7\nPorro); on Digest II, 12, 3 (De feriis, L. Solet [Grotius has Licet]).\n\n[108a] Digest I, 8, 4 (De divisione rerum, L. Nemo igitur); Gentilis,\nDe jure belli I, 19.\n\n[109a] Digest XLIII, 8, 2 (Ne quid in loco publico, L. Praetor ait, \u00a7\nSi quis in mari).\n\n[110a] Gloss. on Digest XLIII, 14 (Ut in flumine publico).\n\n[111a] Baldus on Digest I, 8, 3 (De divisione rerum, L. Item\nlapilli); Zuarius, Consilia duo de usu maris I, 3, part. tit. 28, L.\n10 et 12.\n\n[112a] Victoria, De Indis I (II?), n. 26.\n\n[113a] Silvestris, In verbo Papa. n. 16.\n\n[114a] Vasquius, Controversiae illustres, c. 51.\n\n[115a] Donellus, V, 22 et seq.; Digest XVIII, 1, 6 (De contrahenda\nemptione, L. Sed Celsus); XLI, 3, 9 (De usucapionibus, L.\nUsucapionem), 25 (L. Sine); Lib. VI, V, 12 (De regulis iuris, Reg.\nSine possessione); Digest L, 16, 28 (De verborum significatione, L.\n\u2018Alienationis\u2019); XXIII, 5, 16 (De fundo dotali, L. Si fundum).\n\n[116a] Digest XLI, 3, 45 (De usucapionibus); Code VIII, 11, 6 (De\noperis publicis, L. Praescriptio); XI, 43, 9 (De aquaeductu, L.\nDiligenter); Digest XLIII, 11, 2 (De via publica, L. Viam); XLI, 3,\n49 (De usucapionibus, L. ult.).\n\n[117a] Consilia 286; Thema tale est: inter caetera capitula pacis.\n\n[118a] Digest XLIV, 3, 7 (De diversis temporalibus praescriptionibus,\nL. Si quisquam).\n\n[119a] Duarenus, De usucapionibus, c. 3; Cuiacius on Digest XLI, 3,\n49 (De usucapionibus, L. ult.); Donellus V, 22 on Digest XLI, 1, 14\n(De adquirendo rerum dominio, L. Quod in litore).\n\n[120a] Code XI, 43, 4 (De aquaeductu, L. Usum aquae); cf. eod.\ntit., L. Diligenter; cf. Digest XLIII, 20, 3 (De aqua cottidiana et\naestiva, L. Hoc iure, \u00a7 Ductus aquae).\n\n[121a] On Decretales Gregorii Papae IX, II, 26, 11 (De\npraescriptionibus, c. Accedentes).\n\n[122a] De praescriptionibus IV, 5, q. 6, n. 8.\n\n[123a] On Digest XLI, 3, 49 (De usucapionibus, L. ult.).\n\n[124a] Par. 3, tit. 29, I. 7 in c. Placa.; Zuarius, Consilia, num. 4.\n\n[125a] Fachinham VIII, c. 26 et c, 33; Duarenus, De\npraescriptionibus, parte 2, \u00a7 2, n. 8; \u00a7 8, n. 5 et 6.\n\n[126a] Fachinham VIII, c. 28.\n\n[127a] Angelus Aretinus in rubr. Digest I, 8 (De divisione rerum);\nBalbus, l. c., n. 2; cf. Vasquium, Controversiae illustres c. 29, n.\n38.\n\n[128a] On Digest XLVII, 10, 14 (De iniuriis, L. Sane).\n\n[129a] Digest XLVII, 10, 13 (De iniuriis, L. Iniuriarum, \u00a7 ult.)\n\n[130a] Cf. Gloss. eodem loco.\n\n[131a] De officiis ministrorum I, 28; Gentilis I, 19 (sub finem).\n\n[132a] Auth. Ut nulli Iudicum \u00a7 1, c. cum tanto de consuetudine.\n\n[133a] Controversiae illustres c. 89, n. 12 et seq.\n\n[134a] De potestate legis poenalis II, 14, part. 572.\n\n[135a] Digest XLI, 1, 14 (De adquirendo rerum dominio, L. Quod in\nlitore); XLI, 3 (De usucapionibus, L. fin. in prin.); Institutes II,\n1, 2 (De rerum divisione, \u00a7 Flumina, v. omnibus); Digest XLIV, 3, 7\n(De diversis temporalibus praescriptionibus, L. Si quisquam); XLVII,\n10, 14 (De iniuriis, L. Sane si maris).\n\n[136a] Digest I, 1, 5 (De iustitia et iure, L. Ex hoc iure);\nInstitutes I, 2 (De iure naturali et gentium et civili, \u00a7 2, v. ius\nautem gentium).\n\n[137a] Digest XLI, 3, 4, 26 (27) (De usucapionibus, L. Sequitur \u00a7 Si\nviam); Institutes IV, 6, 14 (De actionibus, \u00a7 Sic itaque); Ut dictis\njuribus et L. cum filio, ubi multa per Bartolum et Jason on Digest\nXXX, 11 (De Legatis I, L. Cum filio; part. I in pr. qu. 3 et 4).\n\n[138a] Digest I, 5, 4 (De statu hominum, L. Libertas); Institutes\nI, 3, 1 (De iure personarum, \u00a7 Et libertas); Digest XLIII, 29, 1\net 2 (De homine libero exhibendo); XLIV, 5, 1 (Quarum rerum actio\nnon datur, L, Iusiurandum, \u00a7 Quae onerandae); Code III, 28, 35 (De\ninofficioso testamento, L. Si quando, \u00a7 Illud, v. adstringendos);\nDigest IV, 6, 28 (Ex quibus causis maiores, L. Nec non, \u00a7 \u2018Quod\neius\u2019).\n\n[139a] Code III, 44, 7 (De religiosis et sumptibus funerum, L.\nStatuas).\n\n[140a] Code VI, 43 (Communia de legatis, Contra L. 2, cum vulgatis).\n\n[141a] Digest IX, 2, 32 (Ad legem Aquiliam, L. Illud).\n\n[142a] Dist. IV, C II (Erit autem lex); Digest I, 3, 1 et 2 (De\nlegibus), 32 (eod. tit., L. De quibus, cum seq.); Decretales Gregorii\nPapae IX, II, 26, 20 (De praescriptionibus, c. Quoniam).\n\n[143a] Digest XLIII, 13 (Ne quid in flumine publico fiat).\n\n[144a] Digest IV, 4, 3 (De minoribus, L. 3, \u00a7 Scio); Vasquius, De\nsuccessionum progressu I, 7.\n\n[145a] Balbus, De praescriptionibus 5 in pr. in qu. 11, illius 5,\nquaest. pr. Gl. in cap. inter caetera 16, q. 3; Castrensis, De\npotestate legis poenalis II, 14; Balbus, and Angelus, on Code VII,\n39, 4 (De praescriptione XXX vel XL annorum, L. Omnes).\n\n[146a] Osorius, De rebus Emmanuelis regis Lusitaniae I.\n\n[147a] Digest I, 1, 5 (De iustitia et iure, L. Ex hoc iure); et ibi\nBartolus.\n\n[148a] Aristotle, Politica I, 9 (1257^a 30).\n\n[149a] Cf. Covarruvias in c. Peccatum, \u00a7 8.\n\n[150a] Pomponius Mela, De situ orbis III, 7.\n\n[151a] Digest XVIII, 1, 1 (De contrahenda emptione, L. Origo).\n\n[152a] Naturalis historia XXXIII, 1.\n\n[153a] Aristotle, Ethica Nicomachea 5, 5, 11 (1133^a 20): \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\n\u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u1ff3 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03af; Politica I, 9 (1257^b 10).\n\n[154a] Dist. I, C. VII (Ius naturale); Aristotle, l. c.\n\n[155a] Castrensis ex Cino et aliis n. 20 et 28 on Digest I, 1, 5 (De\niustitia et iure, L. Ex hoc iure).\n\n[156a] Plato, Sophista 223^d.\n\n[157a] Plato, Republic II (p. 371) cited in Digest L, 11, 2 (De\nnundinis).\n\n[158a] Politica I, 11 (1258^b 22-23).\n\n[159a] \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b7 \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b1, \u03bd\u03b1\u03c5\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1, \u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u03b7\u03b3\u03af\u03b1, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 are the\nexact words.\n\n[160a] Cicero, De officiis I, 150-151; Aristotle, Politica I, 9.\n\n[161a] L. c. (1257^a 14-17).\n\n[162a] De beneficiis V, 8.\n\n[163a] Cf. cap. III et VI.\n\n[164a] Cf. cap. VII.\n\n[165a] Gloss. et Bartolus on Digest XLIII, 11, 2 (De via publica, L.\nViam publicam); Balbus 4, 5 pr. qu. 1; Panormitanus on Decretales\nGregorii Papae IX, III, 8, 10 (De concessione praebendae, c. Ex parte\nHastenen.); Digest XLI, 2, 41 (De adquirenda possessione, L. Qui\niure familiaritatis); Covarruvias in c. possessor. 2, \u00a7 4; Vasquius,\nControversiae illustres c. 4, n. 10 et 12.\n\n[166a] Vasquius, l. c. n. 11.\n\n[167a] Guicciardini, Storia d\u2019Italia XIX.\n\n[168a] Vasquius, Controversiae illustres c. 10, n. 10; Victoria,\nDe Indis I, 1, n. 3; Digest VI, 1, 27 (De rei vindicatione, L. Sin\nautem, \u00a7 penult.) L, 17, 55 et 151 (De diversis regulis, L. Nullus\nvidetur, et L. Nemo damnum); XLII, 8, 13 (Quae in fraudem creditorum,\nL. Illud constat); XXXIX, 2, 24 (De damno infecto, L. Fluminum, \u00a7\nult.); Bartolus on Digest XLIII, 12, 1 (De fluminibus, L, 1, \u00a7 5);\nCastrensis on Code III, 34, 10 (De servitutibus, L. Si tibi); Digest\nXXXIX, 3, 1 (De aqua, L. Si cui, \u00a7 Denique).\n\n[169a] Vasquius, Controversiae illustres c. 4, n. 3 et seq.; Digest\nXXXIX, 2, 26 (De damno infecto, L. Proculus).\n\n[170a] Vasquius, l. c.\n\n[171a] Vasquius, l. c. n. 5.\n\n[172a] \u0395\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f29\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9 24.\n\n[173a] Code IV, 59 (De monopoliis, L. 1).\n\n[174a] Caietanus on Thomas Aquinas, Summa II. II, q. 77, a. 1, ad 3.\n\n[175a] Aristotle, Politica I, 9.\n\n[176a] Hexameron V, 10, 4, q. 44.\n\n[177a] In funere Basilii.\n\n[178a] Thucydides, Isocrates, Andocides.\n\n[179a] Isocrates, Archidamos 51.\n\n[180a] Panegyricus 176.\n\n[181a] De officiis I, 35.\n\n[182a] Polus Lucanus apud Stobaeum, De iustitia (III, p. 362\nWachsmut-Hense); Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromateis; Augustinus, De\ncivitate Dei IV, 15.\n\n[183a] Demosthenes, De libertate Rhodiorum XV, 10 (p. 193 R.).\n\n[184a] Propertius IV, vi, 47-52.\n\n[185a] De civitate Dei V, 1.\n\n[186a] Digest XLIII, 14, 1 (Ut in flumine publico navigare liceat).\n\n[187a] Digest XLIII, 12, 1 (De fluminibus, L. 1, in principio).\n\n[188a] Digest XLIII, 12, 1 (De fluminibus, L. 1, \u00a7 Si in mari\naliquid).\n\n[189a] Digest XLIII, 8, 2 (Ne quid in loco publico, L. 2, \u00a7 Si quis);\nXLVII, 10, 13 et 24 (De iniuriis, L. Iniuriarum actio, et L. Si quis\nproprium); Silvestris, In verbo \u2018restitutio\u2019, 3 sub finem; Oldradus\net Archidiaconus on Digest XLVIII, 12, 2 (De lege Iulia de annona),\nand XLVII, 11, 6 (De extraordinariis criminibus. L. Annonam).\n\n[190a] De civitate Dei IV.\n\n[191a] De officiis I, 34.\n\n[192a] Digest XLI, 1, 50 (De adquirendo rerum dominio, L. Quamvis\nquod in litore); Henricus von Gorcum, De bello justo 9.\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n\n[1] Panegyric 29, 2.\n\n[2] Georgics II, 109 [Dryden\u2019s translation, II, 154].\n\n[3] Aeneid VI, 847-853 [Dryden\u2019s translation, VI, 1168-1169].\n\n[4] Natural Questions III, IV.\n\n[5] Institutes II, 1; Digest I, 8, 4; cf. Gentilis, De jure belli I,\n19; cf. Code IV, 63, 4 [Grotius refers particularly to his famous\npredecessor Albericus Gentilis (1552-1608), an Italian who came to\nEngland and was appointed to the chair of Regius Professor of Civil\nLaw at Oxford. He published his De Jure Belli in 1588].\n\n[6] Aeneid I, 539-540 [Dryden\u2019s translation, I, 760-763].\n\n[7] Aeneid VII, 229-230 [Dryden\u2019s translation, VII, 313-314].\n\n[8] Diodorus Siculus XI; Plutarch, Pericles XXIX, 4. [The Athenian\ndecree prohibiting the Megarians from trading with Athens or any\npart of the Athenian Empire was one of the leading causes of the\nPeloponnesian War.]\n\n[9] Carlo Sigonio [(1523-1584), an Italian humanist, in his work] On\nthe Kingdom of Italy.\n\n[10] Victoria, De Indis II, n. 1-7; Covarruvias, in c. Peccatum,\n\u00a7 9, n. 4, ibi Quinta [Franciscus de Victoria (1480-1546), the\nfamous Spanish Scholastic, a Dominican, and Professor of Theology at\nSalamanca from 1521 until his death. His thirteen Relectiones (De\nIndis is no. V) were published (\u2018vitiosa et corrupta\u2019) in 1557 after\nhis death; the 1686 Cologne edition is held to be the best.\n\nDiego Covarruvias (1512-1577), styled the Bartolo of Spain. He should\nprobably be credited with formulating the reform decrees of the\nCouncil of Trent. The 5 vol. Antwerp 1762 edition of his works is the\nbest.]\n\n[11] Numbers XXI, 21-26.\n\n[12] Locutionum IV (on Numbers), 44; Estius, c. ult. 23, 4, 2 [Estius\n(?-1613) was a Dutch commentator on the Epistles of St. Paul and on\nthe works of St. Augustine].\n\n[13] [Grotius refers to the Trachiniae of Sophocles, but probably\nfrom memory, for there is no such reference in that play.]\n\n[14] Baldus de Ubaldis, Consilia III, 293 [Baldus (1327-1406) was a\npupil of the great Bartolus].\n\n[15] Histories IV, 64 [In connection with the revolt of Civilis].\n\n[16] Andrea Alciati, Commentaria VII, 130; Covarruvias in c.\nPeccatum, p. 2 \u00a7 9; Bartolus on Code I, 11 [Alciati (1492-1550)\nwas made Comes Palatinus by the Emperor Charles V, and offered a\nCardinal\u2019s hat by Pope Paul III, which he refused, but he did become\na Protonotarius Apostolicus].\n\n[17] Code VIII, 40, 13 [Probably Fabius Claudius Gordianus Fulgentius\n(468-533), a Benedictine monk, one of the Latin Fathers].\n\n[18] Nonius Marcellus, On the various significations of speech, under\nthe word \u2018occupare\u2019; cf. Connan, Commentaries on the civil law III,\n3; Donellus [Doneau], Commentaries on the civil law IV, 10. [Fran\u00e7ois\nde Connan (1508-1551), a French jurisconsult, a pupil of Alciati;\nHugues Doneau (1527-1591) a famous jurisconsult, who wrote many\nvolumes of commentaries on the Digest and the Code.]\n\n[19] Institutes II, 1, 13.\n\n[20] Digest XLI, 2, 3.\n\n[21] Letters I, 1, 44-45 [Francis\u2019s translation, English Poets XIX,\n726].\n\n[22] Pliny, Natural History, VI, 22.\n\n[23] Digest XLI, 1, 3.\n\n[24] Covarruvias in c. Peccatum \u00a7 10, n. 2, 4, 5.\n\n[25] De potestate civili I, 9.\n\n[26] Summa II. II, q. 10, a. 12 [Thomas Aquinas (1227-1274), one of\nthe most famous of the Schoolmen and Theologians, spoken of often as\nAquila Theologorum, and Doctor Angelicus].\n\n[27] De Indis I, n. 4-7, 19.\n\n[28] Vasquius, Preface (n. 5) to Controversiae illustres.\n\n[29] [Grotius cites Osorius, but gives no reference.]\n\n[30] Institutes II, 1, 40.\n\n[31] Luke XII, 14; John XVIII, 36; Victoria, De Indis I, n, 25.\n\n[32] Victoria XVI, n. 27.\n\n[33] Vasquius, Controversiae illustres, c. 21; Torquemada II, c. 113;\nHugo on Dist. XCVI, C. VI; St. Bernard, Admonitory epistle to Pope\nEugene III, book 2; Victoria, De Indis I, n. 27; Covarruvias in c.\nPeccatum \u00a7 9, n. 7.\n\n[34] Matthew XVII, 27; XX, 26; John VI, 15.\n\n[35] Victoria, De Indis I, n. 28, 30; Covarruvias on I Corinthians V,\nat the end; Thomas Aquinas, Summa II. II, q. 12, a. 2; Ayala, De Jure\nI, 2, 29 [Best edition of Ayala is in The Classics of International\nLaw, Carnegie Institution of Washington, 2 vol., 1912].\n\n[36] Thomas Aquinas, Summa II. II, q. 66, a. 8; Silvius, De\ninfidelibus \u00a7 7; Innocent on the Decretals of Pope Gregory IX, III,\n34, 8; Victoria, De Indis I, n. 81. [Franciscus Silvius, or Sylvius,\nor du Bois (1581-1649), was a Belgian theologian.]\n\n[37] De Indis I, n. 31.\n\n[38] Vasquius, Controversiae illustres, c. 24; Victoria, De Indis II,\nn. 10.\n\n[39] On the Consolation of Philosophy IV, 4, 7-10 [H. R. James\u2019\ntranslation, page 194].\n\n[40] Thomas Aquinas, Summa II. II, q. 10, a. 8; Dist. XLV, C. V,\nC. III; Innocent, see note 1, page 17; Bartolus on Code I, 11, 1;\nCovarruvias in c. Peccatum, \u00a7 9, 10; Ayala, De Jure I, 2, 28.\n\n[41] Matthew X, 23.\n\n[42] On Thomas Aquinas, Summa II. II, q. 4, 66, a. 8 [Thomas\nde Cajetan (1469-1534), an Italian cardinal, wrote voluminous\ncommentaries on Thomas Aquinas, Aristotle, and the Bible].\n\n[43] Victoria, De Indis II, 1.\n\n[44] Paul de Castro on Digest I, 1, 5; Dist. I, C. VII.\n\n[45] Vasquius, Controversiae illustres, c. 1, n. 10; Lib. VI, V, 12,\n3; Clem. V, 11.\n\n[46] Satires II, 2, 129-130.\n\n[47] Aratus 302-303.\n\n[48] Octavia 413-414 [Translation by E. I. Harris (Act II, Scene 1)].\n\n[49] Aratus 302.\n\n[50] Digest VII, 5; Extravagantes of Pope John XXII, XIV, 3 and 5;\nThomas Aquinas, Summa II. II, q. 78.\n\n[51] 203-204 [E. I. Harris\u2019 translation (Act II, Scene 1)].\n\n[52] De beneficiis VII, 12, 3.\n\n[53] Speech XIII, In behalf of the poor man.\n\n[54] De officiis I.\n\n[55] Digest I, 1, 5.\n\n[56] Vergil, Georgics I, 139-140 [Dryden\u2019s translation I, 211]; Ovid,\nMetamorphoses I, 121.\n\n[57] Ovid, Metamorphoses I, 135-136 [Dryden\u2019s translation I (English\nPoets XX, 432)].\n\n[58] Ovid, Metamorphoses I, 134.\n\n[59] De beneficiis VII, 4, 3.\n\n[60] Octavia 431-432 [Grotius here takes a slight liberty with the\ncontext].\n\n[61] De officiis I, 21 [Walter Miller\u2019s (Loeb) translation, page 23].\n\n[62] History I, 139, 2.\n\n[63] Duaren [a French humanist (1509-1559)], on Digest I, 8.\n\n[64] De officiis I, 51 [Walter Miller\u2019s (Loeb) translation, page 55].\n\n[65] De officiis I, 52.\n\n[66] Metamorphoses VI, 349-351.\n\n[67] Digest VIII, 4, 13.\n\n[68] Digest XLI, 1, 14; Comines, Memoirs III, 2; Donellus IV, 2;\nDigest XLI, 3, 49. [Philippe de Comines (1445-1509), a French\nhistorian, and one of the negotiators of the treaty of Senlis (1493).]\n\n[69] Digest I, 8, 10.\n\n[70] Pro Sex. Roscio Amerino 26, 72.\n\n[71] Institutes II, 1, 1 and 5; Digest I, 8, 1, 2, 10; XLI, 1, 14 and\n50; XLVII, 10, 13; XLIII, 8, 3, and 4-7.\n\n[72] Act IV, Scene 3 (975, 977, 985).\n\n[73] Donellus IV, 2.\n\n[74] Digest XXXIX, 2, 24; other references same as note 1, page 29.\n\n[75] Donellus IV, 2 and 9; also references in note 1, page 29.\n\n[76] Digest I, 8, 4; XLIII, 8, 3.\n\n[77] Odes III, i, 33-34 [Bennett\u2019s (Loeb) translation, page 171].\n\n[78] Digest XLIII, 8, 3; 8, 2.\n\n[79] Digest XLIII, 12, 1.\n\n[80] Pliny, Natural History IX, 54, 170.\n\n[81] Epigrams X, 30, 19-20.\n\n[82] De Nabuthe, cap. 3.\n\n[83] Digest XLVII, 10, 14.\n\n[84] See note 1, page 31.\n\n[85] Digest XLIV, 3, 7.\n\n[86] Digest XLI, 3, 45.\n\n[87] Digest XLVII, 10, 13.\n\n[88] Novels of Leo, 102, 103, 104; See also Cujas XIV, 1.\n\n[89] Hexameron V, 10, 27 [St. Ambrose (c. 333-397), Bishop of Milan,\nis meant].\n\n[90] Donellus IV, 6.\n\n[91] On Institutes II, 1; Digest XIV, 2, 9 [Johannes Faber (c.\n1570-c. 1640) was Bishop of Vienna, and Court preacher to Emperor\nFerdinand. He was known popularly as \u2018Malleus Haereticorum\u2019].\n\n[92] Digest XLIII, 8, 3.\n\n[93] Digest V, 1, 9; XXXIX, 4, 15; Glossators on Digest I, 8, 2;\nInstitutes II, 1; Baldus on L. Quaedam, in Digest I, 8, 2.\n\n[94] Baldus, Quibus modis feudi amittuntur, chapter beginning In\nprincipio, second column; Code XI, 13, 1; Angeli on Digest XLVII, 10,\n14; Digest VIII, 4, 13 and 4.\n\n[95] C. Quae sint Regalia, in Feudis.\n\n[96] Balbus, De praescriptionibus IV, 5; 1, q. 6, n. 4.\n\n[97] Digest XLVII, 10, 13; XLIII, 9, 1.\n\n[98] See note 1.\n\n[99] [Quoted in Cicero, De officiis I, 51, and here taken from Walter\nMiller\u2019s (Loeb) translation, page 55.]\n\n[100] Cicero, De officiis I, 51.\n\n[101] Seneca, De beneficiis IV, 28.\n\n[102] Johannes Faber on Institutes II, 1, 5.\n\n[103] Pliny, Natural History II, 69; VI, 27; Pomponius Mela, De situ\norbis III.\n\n[104] Natural History VI, 20.\n\n[105] Geography II and XVII.\n\n[106] Natural History VI, 23.\n\n[107] Glossators on Lib. VI, I, 6, 3; on Digest II, 12, 3.\n\n[108] Digest I, 8, 4; Gentilis, De jure belli I, 19.\n\n[109] Digest XLIII, 8, 2.\n\n[110] Glossators on Digest XLIII, 14.\n\n[111] Baldus on Digest I, 8, 3; Zuarius, Consilia duo de usu maris I,\n3, 28, L. 10 and 12. [Rodericus Zuarius, Consilia published in 1621].\n\n[112] Victoria, De Indis I, n. 26.\n\n[113] Silvestris, In verbo Papa. n. 16.\n\n[114] Vasquius, Controversiae illustres, c. 51.\n\n[115] Donellus, V. 22 ff.; Digest XVIII, 1, 6; XLI, 3, 9, 25; Lib.\nVI, V, 12 (Reg. Sine possessione); Digest L, 16, 28; XXIII, 5, 16.\n\n[116] Digest XLI, 3, 45; Code VIII, 11, 6; XI, 43, 9; Digest XLIII,\n11, 2; XLI, 3, 49.\n\n[117] Consilia 286 [Angelus Aretinus a Gambellionibus (?-1445), a\nvoluminous commentator on the Digest and the Institutes].\n\n[118] Digest XLIV, 3, 7.\n\n[119] Duren, De usucapionibus, c. 3; Cujas on Digest XLI, 3, 49;\nDonellus V, 22 on Digest XLI, 1, 14.\n\n[120] Code XI, 43, 4; cf. XI, 43, 9; cf. Digest XLIII, 20, 3.\n\n[121] On the Decretals of Pope Gregory IX, II, 26, 11 [Felinus Maria\nSandeus (c. 1427-1503), Bishop of Lucca].\n\n[122] De praescriptionibus IV, 5, q. 6, n. 8 [Johannes Franciscus\nBalbus, a priest and jurisconsult at Muentz-hof].\n\n[123] On Digest XLI, 3, 49.\n\n[124] Par. 3, tit. 29, I. 7 in c. Placa.; Zuarius, Consilia, num. 4.\n\n[125] Fachinham VIII, c. 26 and c. 33; Duaren, De praescriptionibus,\nparte 2, \u00a7 2, n. 8; \u00a7 8, n. 5 and 6, [Nicholas Fachinham (?-1407), a\nFranciscan, who taught Theology at Oxford.]\n\n[126] Fachinham VIII, c. 28.\n\n[127] Angelus Aretinus on Digest I, 8; Balbus, De praescriptionibus\nIV, 5, q. 6, n. 2; see Vasquius, Controversiae illustres c. 29, n. 38.\n\n[128] On Digest XLVII, 10, 14.\n\n[129] Digest XLVI, 10, 13.\n\n[130] Glossators on the reference in note 4, page 51.\n\n[131] De officiis ministrorum I, 28; Gentilis I, 19.\n\n[132] Auth. Ut nulli Iudicum \u00a7 1, c. cum tanto de consuetudine.\n\n[133] Controversiae illustres c. 89, n. 12 ff. [Ferdinand Manchaea\nVasquez (1509-1566) the famous Spanish jurisconsult, who held many\nhigh honors of the realm].\n\n[134] De potestate legis poenalis II, 14, part 572 [Alphonse de\nCastro (?-1558). Theologian at Salamanca, confessor to the Emperor\nCharles V.].\n\n[135] Digest XLI, 1, 14; XLI, 3; Institutes II, 1, 2; Digest XLIV, 3,\n7; XLVII, 10, 14.\n\n[136] Digest I, 1, 5; Institutes I, 2, \u00a7 2.\n\n[137] Digest XLI, 3, 4, 26 (27); Institutes IV, 6, 14; Bartolus and\nJason on Digest XXX, 11.\n\n[138] Digest I, 5, 4; Institutes I, 3, 1; Digest XLIII, 29, 1-2;\nXLIV, 5, 1; Code III, 28, 35; Digest IV, 6, 28.\n\n[139] Code III, 44, 7.\n\n[140] Code VI, 43.\n\n[141] Digest IX, 2, 32.\n\n[142] Dist. IV, C. II; Digest I, 3, 1-2, 32; Decretals of Pope\nGregory IX, II, 26, 20.\n\n[143] Digest XLIII, 13.\n\n[144] Digest IV, 4, 3; Vasquius, De successionum progressu I, 7.\n\n[145] Balbus, De praescriptionibus 5, 11; 16, 3; Alphonse de Castro,\nDe potestate legis poenalis II, 14; Balbus and Angelus on Code VII,\n39, 4.\n\n[146] Osorius, De rebus Emmanuelis regis Lusitaniae I [Hieronymus\nOsorius (1506-1580) was known as the Portuguese Cicero].\n\n[147] Digest I, 1, 5.\n\n[148] I, 9 (1257^a 30).\n\n[149] Cf. Covarruvias in c. Peccatum, \u00a7 8.\n\n[150] Pomponius Mela, De situ orbis III, 7.\n\n[151] Digest XVIII, 1, 1.\n\n[152] Natural History XXXIII, 1.\n\n[153] Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 5, 5, 11 (1133^a 20); Politics\nI, 9 (1257^b 10) [Nummus--\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2. The fact that this is an incorrect\nderivation does not of course affect the argument].\n\n[154] Dist. I, C. VII; Aristotle, see note 4 above.\n\n[155] Castrensis from Cinus and others on Digest I, 1, 5.\n\n[156] Plato, Sophista 223^{d}.\n\n[157] II (p. 371) cited in Digest L, 11, 2.\n\n[158] Politics I, 11 (1258^{b} 22-23).\n\n[159] [The text here is somewhat expanded.]\n\n[160] Cicero, De officiis I, 150-151; Aristotle, Politics I, 9.\n\n[161] Politics I, 9 (1257^{a} 14-17) [Jowett\u2019s translation, Vol. I,\npage 15].\n\n[162] De beneficiis V, 8 [Not a quotation, but a summing up of the\nchapter].\n\n[163] See chapters III and VI.\n\n[164] See chapter VII.\n\n[165] On Digest XLIII, 11, 2; Balbus 4, 5 pr. qu. 1; Panormitanus\non the Decretals of Pope Gregory IX, III, 8, 10; Digest XLI, 2,\n41; Covarruvias in c. possessor. 2, \u00a7 4; Vasquius, Controversiae\nillustres c. 4, n. 10 and 12.\n\n[166] Vasquius, Controversiae illustres c. 4, n. 11.\n\n[167] Guicciardini, Storia d\u2019Italia XIX.\n\n[168] Vasquius, Controversiae illustres c. 10, n. 10; Victoria, De\nIndis I, 1, n. 3; Digest VI, 1. 27; L, 17, 55, 151; XLII, 8, 13;\nXXXIX, 2, 24; Bartolus on Digest XLIII, 12, 1; Castrensis on Code\nIII, 34, 10; Digest XXXIX, 3, 1.\n\n[169] Vasquius, Controversiae illustres c. 4, n. 3 ff.; Digest XXXIX,\n2, 26.\n\n[170] Vasquius, same reference.\n\n[171] Vasquius, same reference, n. 5.\n\n[172] In his Works and Days [The entire passage as translated by A.\nW. Mair (Oxford translation, page 1) is: \u201cFor when he that hath no\nbusiness looketh on him that is rich, he hasteth to plow and to array\nhis house: and neighbour vieth with neighbour hasting to be rich:\ngood is this Strife for men.\u201d].\n\n[173] Code IV, 59.\n\n[174] Cajetan on Thomas Aquinas, Summa II. II, q. 77, a. 1, ad 3.\n\n[175] Politics I, 9.\n\n[176] Hexameron V, 10, 4, q. 44.\n\n[177] In funere Basilii.\n\n[178] Thucydides, Isocrates, Andocides.\n\n[179] Isocrates, Archidamos 51 [Grotius probably quoted here from\nmemory].\n\n[180] Panegyric 176.\n\n[181] De officiis I, 35.\n\n[182] Polus Lucanus apud Stobaeum, De iustitia; Clemens Alexandrinus,\nStromateis; Augustine, City of God IV, 15.\n\n[183] On the liberty of the Rhodians XV, 10 [Pickard-Cambridge\u2019s\ntranslation I, page 59].\n\n[184] Propertius IV, vi, 47-52 [Butler\u2019s (Loeb) translation, page\n305].\n\n[185] City of God V, 1.\n\n[186] Digest XLIII, 14, 1.\n\n[187] Digest XLIII, 12, 1.\n\n[188] Digest XLIII, 12, 1.\n\n[189] Digest XLIII, 8, 2; XLVII, 10, 13 and 24; Silvestris, on the\nword \u2018restitutio\u2019; Oldradus and Archidiaconus on Digest XLVIII, 12,\n2, and XLVII, 11, 6 [Oldrado de Ponte (?-1335), a Bologna canonist.\nArchidiaconus is probably the Italian decretalist Guido Bosius.]\n\n[190] City of God IV.\n\n[191] De officiis I, 34 [Walter Miller\u2019s (Loeb) translation, page 37].\n\n[192] Digest XLI, 1, 50; Heinrich von Gorcum, De bello justo 9.\n\n\n\n\n  TRANSCRIBER\u2019S NOTE\n\n  Footnote [100a] is referenced twice, from page 38 and from the\n  prior Footnote [99a].\n\n  Obvious typographical errors and punctuation errors have been\n  corrected after careful comparison with other occurrences within\n  the text and consultation of external sources.\n\n  Some hyphens in words have been silently removed, some added,\n  when a predominant preference was found in the original book.\n\n  Except for those changes noted below, all misspellings in the text,\n  and inconsistent or archaic usage, have been retained.\n\n  Pg 16 (Fn 33a): \u2018Eugenium II;\u2019 replaced by \u2018Eugenium III;\u2019.\n  Pg 16 (Fn 35a): \u2018Corinthinas V,\u2019 replaced by \u2018Corinthians V,\u2019.\n  Pg 31: \u2018praetors was able\u2019 replaced by \u2018praetors were able\u2019.\n  Pg 44: \u2018this is specificially\u2019 replaced by \u2018this is specifically\u2019.\n  Pg 68: \u2018more absurd then\u2019 replaced by \u2018more absurd than\u2019.\n  Pg 80 (Index): \u2018Baldis\u2019 replaced by \u2018Baldus\u2019.","title":"The freedom of the seas : $b or, The right which belongs to the Dutch to take part in the East Indian trade","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":51144}