English Editions of the Law of Nations (1760,1787,1793,1797)

The Online Library of Liberty ^ | 1758 | Emmerich de Vattel

[devattel]

SYNOPSIS:

Vattel’s 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 Vattel’s 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, Chitty’s text is overloaded with legal citations based on the case law of the sea that emerged in the Napoleonic era. Vattel’s work had become a textbook for law students in both Britain and North America.

Some of Chitty’s 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 Vattel’s 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 Vattel’s 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 Vattel’s 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 Vattel’s 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>.

[devattel]

Now we can see that the first translation of the Law of Nations was completed in 1760, then in 1787, 10 years before the final English version was translated in 1797. Another version appears to have been printed in 1793.

Be wary of un-Constitutional viewpoints with regards to the founding fathers relying on a French translation to lean heavily on de Vattel's masterpiece during the framing the U.S. Constitution. They have alterior motives by attempting to allude the "Natural Born Citizen" translation wasn't available until 1797 since, as they claim, it wasn't translated until then. They would have you believe that the framers did not use this definition because there was none at the time.

Take note that a copy of the 1787 English edition can be found in the Library of Congress rare books room:

http://lccn.loc.gov/41038703

"Natural Born Citizen" is firmly planted in plain english in this edition.

[Danae]

Interesting.

Welcome to FR!

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

I’ve bookmarked the site, and will be reviewing the information there later.

Much appreciated.

[DoughtyOne]

In addition:

Thanks for highlighting the topic of ‘natural born citizen’, with the short commentary on it’s availability and relevance with regard to this work and how it may have played a role in our founding. Very good to know...

[Red Steel]

This is an English translation by Messrs. Berry and Rogers of New York back in 1787

I tried to get a microfilm, PDF, et al copy of this through the Interlibrary Loan system, but someone would not send me the specific requested 1787 Messr. Berry and Rogers edition. They sent me instead the 1796-97 copy.

[SatinDoll]

Hmm...seems suspicious, doesn’t it?

[devattel]

Danae said:

Interesting.

Welcome to FR!

Thank you. It is good to be here.

Red Steel said:

I tried to get a microfilm, PDF, et al copy of this through the Interlibrary Loan system, but someone would not send me the specific requested 1787 Messr. Berry and Rogers edition. They sent me instead the 1796-97 copy.

Yes they will definitely do that as the books are considered "interchangeable". One visit to the Library of Congress is all that's needed. Rest assured all books after 1760 have similar translations. The Law of Nations was originally translated into English in London. At the time, there was no exact similarity to Natural-Born Subject, as the word "subject" was not a part of the citizenship section in question within Law of Nations.

Regardless, sources like Wikipedia are not correct with regards to this phrase being "missing" from earlier English translations. Natives and natural-born citizens are the same. They are interchangeable. They cannot and should not be separated. It is clear from the 1797 edition that it used various English translations to get the final copy of this definition, which for over 200 years, has not been challenged nor changed.

The world is a very different place than it was during the ratification of the Constitution. However, citizenship has remained relatively constant. The inalienable truth that citizenship is an international term where many countries still confer citizenship to children through the father, not the mother.

[bushpilot1]

Welcome to FR.

“Natural Born Citizen” is firmly planted in plain english in this edition.”

How do you know this? Have you seen the actual 1787 Edition? Reading it on a blog does not make it so.

We know there was manuscript of the 1797 English edition floating around years before the 97 edition was published. Cannot recall the translators name this minute.

[Mr Rogers]

“”Natural Born Citizen” is firmly planted in plain english in this edition.”

Really? He uses NBC and explains it meaning in the 1787 edition?

[Mr Rogers]

“Natives and natural-born citizens are the same. They are interchangeable.”

Odd. Birthers keep telling me they have different meanings...

[devattel]

I have seen the 1787 edition. No, there is no image of it online. If you are in the great D.C. metro area you can review the book with the assistance of the Library of Congress on your own time.

[bushpilot1]

When you saw the 1787 edition..did you see and read Chapter XIX?

Can you be more specific..

[devattel]

Mr Rogers said:

"Odd. Birthers keep telling me they have different meanings..."

If they were telling you they have different meanings, they would be incorrect. Emmerich de Vattel was very clear on its meaning. They are interchangeable. Natives, or Natural-Born Citizens, are those who have a right to citizenship to which no law can suppress, redefine, nor qualify. It is an inalienable right. It cannot be granted by a government. It is absolute, and it is certainly not granted via statute such as the 14th Amendment. It is more than where you were born. It is who you are and how you live, your place, your identity. It defines the nation and its people. Without the special nature of people and their society, there is no nation. It is more social than geographical. It is your roots.

In the case of Obama, his roots are clear. His roots lie in Africa. He has returned to his roots and claims these as his roots as he has claimed his father as his roots. He represents a country with a lost identity. Roots are very powerful. Without roots, a nation will fall. Our national roots are no longer clear today. The United States has allowed tangled roots. It has allowed the government which is supposed to represent its identity to dictate who is a natural born citizen instead. We have allowed ourselves to be governed with absolute jurisdiction over a right granted to us by God. This is a dangerous method to identifying our nation, and it is a direct threat to our identity. Hence de Vattel's discussion on this very topic.

[Danae]

Do you have access to the Library of Congress?

Ooooooo this makes me wonder sonething... I have access to the InterLibrary Loan system through American Military University... I wonder.... nah... well, its worth a try. I will check with our librarians and see what information I can get.. but it sounds as if that might be reinventing the wheel.

In some ways this is a moot point, many of the founders were not only fluent in spoken French, they could read it just fine.

[bushpilot1]

http://openlibrary.org/books/OL6428103M/The_law_of_nations_or_Principles_of_the_law_of_nature_applied_to_the_conduct_and_affairs_of_nations_and_soverei

[dinodino]

You beat me to it. Why people assume the Founders couldn’t read French is beyond me. I would assume that most could.

[bushpilot1]

http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?SC=Title&SEQ=20110207200241&PID=bJ24H8ZOTn6h8yeJ8yxVLZn9HQfG&SA=Droit+des+gen

[devattel]

bushpilot1 said: When you saw the 1787 edition..did you see and read Chapter XIX?

Can you be more specific..

Yes. I read the entire book. Yes, it clearly defines what a natural-born citizen, or native, is. Emmerich died in 1767, 20 years before this version was translated from the more recent translation in 1775. There are two English translations we do know existed in 1787:

1.The Law of Nations - Luke White (Dublin Edition)
2.The law of nations, or, Principles of the law of nature applied to the conduct and affairs of nations and sovereigns - Messrs. Berry and Rogers (U.S. Edition)

I encourage everyone to visit the copy at the Library of Congress or anywhere else you might find this. Although the Dublin edition is not as precise on its definition, the U.S. edition, located in the Library of Congress, is. If you wish to review the 1787 Dublin edition, you can purchase a copy here:

The Law of Nations - Luke White (Dublin Edition)

I have yet to see the Messrs. Berry and Rogers edition in electronic form.

[Danae]

I disagree Rogers. We have been rather consistent. A Natural Born Citizen is one with two parents who are citizens, and born upon the soil of their Nation.

Ultimately it comes down to having no other options for citizenship AT ALL. Your complete identity is solely dependent on that singular condition at birth.

[bushpilot1]

Library of Congress Reader Registration

http://catalog.loc.gov/help/registered.htm