Skip to comments.English Editions of the Law of Nations (1760,1787,1793,1797)
Posted on 02/07/2011 1:37:31 PM PST by devattel
Vattels Law of Nations was translated anonymously into English several times in the eighteenth century. The first edition of 1760 was based on the French original Droit des gens of 1758. A Dublin translation of 1787 is remarkably fluent and elegant, but it does not include the substantive notes of the original nor, more importantly, the notes added to the posthumous French edition of 1773 and intended by Vattel for a second edition he did not live to complete. Several English editions, including the 1916 Classics of International Law edition, are similarly flawed and based on the edition of 1760. However, two English editions from the end of the eighteenth century include Vattels later thoughts. One, from 1793, contains a pagination error. This has been corrected in the revised version, London 1797, and the latter forms the basis for the present edition. The 1797 edition has the benefit of a detailed table of contents and margin titles for subsections.
There is no modern edition of The Law of Nations, but facsimiles of the popular nineteenth-century editions by the London barrister Joseph Chitty have appeared in recent times. These annotated editions (first in 1834) and their reissue with further notes by Edward Ingraham (first in 1852) were based on the 1797 London edition. Chitty helpfully identified the notes that distinguished the 1797 edition from the earlier English translation. He sought, however, to add much more to the text, as he explained in a preface written in Chancery Lane in November 1833:
Many years have elapsed since the original work was published, long before the invaluable decisions of Sir William Scott, Sir C. Robinson, and Sir John Nichol, and other eminent Judges in the Courts of Admiralty, and Prize and other Courts; and the last edition upon which any care was bestowed, was published in ad 1797; since which time, and especially during the last general war, many most important rules respecting the Law of Nations were established. The object of the present Editor has, therefore, been to collect and condense, in numerous notes, the modern rules and decisions, and to fortify the positions in the text by references to other authors of eminence, and by which he hopes that this edition will be found of more practical utility, without interfering with the text, or materially increasing its size.
In consequence, Chittys text is overloaded with legal citations based on the case law of the sea that emerged in the Napoleonic era. Vattels work had become a textbook for law students in both Britain and North America.
Some of Chittys notes remain useful and have on occasion been incorporated into the editorial apparatus for this edition. The present edition includes new footnotes, elucidating dates, events, works, and persons referred to by Vattel. Posthumous additions to the French edition of 1773, which were then translated in the edition of 1797, are identified as such in the new notes. Translations of Vattels Latin citations have come from the best modern editions, particularly from the Loeb Classical Library. For each translation, reference to the edition used can be found in the bibliography of authors cited. In cases where no translation could be found, or where the context of Vattels work required an amended translation, the editors undertook the translation, and this is signaled in the text by trans. Eds. All of the preceding new material has been added to the 1797 text as numbered notes or as double square-bracketed inserts within Vattels original notes.
Chitty lamented in 1833 that he proposed to form an Index, so as to render the work more readily accessible; but, in that desire, he has been overruled by the publishers. The present edition adds bibliographical and biographical details of authors cited in the text, following up Vattels own sometimes obscure references. The bibliography of authors cited includes and explains the short titles employed by Vattel in his footnotes.
Page breaks in the 1797 edition have been indicated in the body of the text by the use of angle brackets. For example, page 112 begins after <112>.
No, WKA wasn’t written by the Founders. Vattel, by the way, was NOT a “Founder”!
WKA does discuss, at length, what the Founders would expect the phrase natural born citizen to mean, based on the common legal terminology at the time of writing. Original intent.
No Vattel wasn’t a founder, he just wrote the tome the founders used extensively in crafting the Constitution, thats all.
WKA is illustrative in marking that there is a difference between Natural Born Citizen, and Citizen.
The rest of your interpretation is a combination of wishful thinking and creative interpretation.
WKA was a citizen, but not a Natural Born Citizen.
Fail Rogers, again.
“Fail Rogers, again.”
Mighty bold talk for someone whose arguments have never, ever prevailed in court...
I’m a ballsey chick, what can I say?
The definition has never been nailed down in any court, so you are in the same boat Mr. Rogers.
No, I got the 1796 edition of the Law of Nations.
The "First American Edition ; Corrected and Revifed from the lateft London Edition."
The 1796 edition maybe rare on the Internet.
The cover page
The title page.
The word "natural" in the phrase 'natural born subject' is a misnomer.
Since Great Britain and its empire is under a monarchy, it was understandable to use the word "natural" as the monarchy wanted to ensure obedience from even the foreigners in their empire.
" 40. Vattel, Droit des Gens, Ed. de 1775, 4º.
2. " " 3 v 12º.Londres, 1758."
The Marshall Court pages 27-28
“that a conflict between an act of Congress and the law of nations must be resolved in favor of the law of nations.”
The "first American version" according to the title page.
I posted a 1796 Law of Nations edition in post #125.
Here is page 162.
The "first American version" according to the title page.
Correct. These were Dumas editions printed in the United States. But they were in French. These editions were corrected reprints of a "faulty" edition shortly after de Vattel's death in 1767. It is not clear whether it was in 1773 or 1775 that this poorly rendered edition was printed prior to the Dumas edition in 1775.
One thing is clear from this passage. Franklin was fluent in reading and speaking French. What is also historically obvious is that Franklin was the Ambassador to France between 1776 and 1785. He was proficient and educated in the advanced art of noble French culture.
Without Franklin's injection of de Vattel's work into both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, the protections of our liberties may have very well been lost today.
Ms. WKA is also clueless of the meaning that he still has his knee-pads strapped on, LOL!!!
Thank you for explaining Vattel’s words/writings, however, you will never gain anything by discussing this with ms. WKA, aka a trolling FINO, aka ms. rogers. You are are just wasting your time with this fifth column, or Quisling!!!
page 4 footnotes @11
the Court has long held, as discussed below, that Congress is not master of, but rather subject to, the law of nations
Has anyone tried contacting Bryan A. Garner, the editor of Black’s Law Dictionary, to inform him of his publication’s massive oversight regarding the meaning of natural born citizen?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.