Posted on 02/07/2011 1:37:31 PM PST by 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>.
As God is my witness, I HATE that search engine....
Thats not quite what I meant. I live in Oregon, I can’t hop on over and walk in the door. I meant physical access, I should have been more clear.
I know one was returned to the New York Library, George Washington neglected to return his copy. His estate was in the news about a year ago with regard to the late fee. Interesting no? He considered it valuable enough to not return it. I don’t think for an instant he forgot it.
The tome was a true masterwork. It gave the best of the best in governments the world over. People call America the great experiment, and Vattel’s work is what that experiment is largely based upon.
I agree, this is a tome worth preserving for the ages.
Chapter XIX...
Who translated the 1787 Edition? The title of the 1787 edition is the same as the 1759/60 English translation.
Back to chapter XIX...
It has the 1758, 1759/60 or the 1797 wording..??
How did you get access to the 1787 Edition...it is not that simple.
I have been drooling over this since I found it.. but alas, I do not have the extra cash to purchase it: http://www.find-a-book.com/member/detail.php3?custnr=&lang=&membernr=1661&booknr=364198570
The reason GW kept the Law of Nations..maybe it was the book he used to take his oath and not the Bible.
The book is probably buried with him in the crypt.
LOL
No, his estate returned it last year: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/04/17/2010-04-17_read_it__weep_by_george_prez_racks_up_300g_late_fee_for_two_books.html
“
He may have never told a lie, but George Washington apparently had no problem stiffing a Manhattan library on two books.
Two centuries ago, the nation’s first President borrowed two tomes from the New York Society Library on E. 79th St. and never returned them, racking up an inflation-adjusted $300,000 late fee.
But Washington can rest easy.
“We’re not actively pursuing the overdue fines,” quipped head librarian Mark Bartlett. “But we would be very happy if we were able to get the books back.”
Washington’s dastardly deed went unknown for almost 150 years.
Then in 1934, a dusty, beaten-up ledger was discovered in a trash heap in the library’s basement.
On its tan pages were the names of all of the people who had borrowed books from the city’s oldest library between July 1789 and April 1792.
At the time, the city was the nation’s capital and the library - then located at Wall and Broad Sts. - was the only one in town.
Aaron Burr, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay all borrowed books, the ledger shows.
They returned them, too.
The library’s boldest bold-faced name wasn’t as cooperative.
On Oct. 5, 1789, Washington borrowed the “Law of Nations,” a treatise on international relations, and Vol. 12 of the “Commons Debates,” which contained transcripts of debates from Britain’s House of Commons.
Beside the names of the books, the librarian wrote on the ledger only, “President.”
The entry, written with a quill pen, contains no return date.
The books were due by Nov. 2, 1789, and have been accruing a fine of a few pennies per day ever since.
This week, Bartlett and his staff became even more convinced the books were filched when librarian Matthew Haugen stumbled upon the long lost 14-volume collection of the “Commons Debates.”
Sure enough, Vol. 12 was missing.
“It’s hard to know what could have happened,” Bartlett said. “There are as many questions for us as there are answers.”
rschapiro@nydailynews.com
++++++++++++++++++++++++
I can’t remember where the article is that tells of the book’s return. I do remember reading that though.
Vattel also says it is different in England than where he is - that the King grants the children of aliens natural born subject status. My main point is that birthers tell me native born and NBC are different, because they don’t like the implications of what it means if native born and NBC are the same.
In the end, the Supreme Court has argued that the meaning of NBC is found in the analogous term natural born subject, and not in Vattel. That is a big hurdle to clear if you want a court to rule that someone born in the USA of parents here legally is ineligible.
Washington was sworn in at the location where the book Law of Nations was located..a Bible was not there.
There are conflicting stories how a Bible for the ceremony was obtained.
The idea forming the 13 states into a republic came from Vattel.
The translator of the 1797 English edition passed away..at least 10 years before it was published. He visited the Colonies..and he had a manuscript.
No they didn't. As usual Ms. Rogers you are wrong. Horrace Gray ignored the intent and meaning behind the 14th Amendment, and in noway did he equate Wong Kim Ark to be a natural born citizen. Not even close.
natural born and native were interchangeable prior to the 14 th amendment. The 14 did in effect create a new class of citizen. A citizen , not natural born ,but still a citizen.
A nation cannot perpetuate itself unless its citizens are born from citizens. A nation should desire this.
Just because a citizen marries a foreigner..has children..before both parents become citizens..does not mean they can change the rules to make their children natural born citizens.
Jefferson wrote...they will come here..and distort our laws..
A lot of distorting going on..to gain citizenship and natural born citizenship.
The corrupt politicians are afraid to say enough is enough.
Subject to jurisdiction...is not limited to foreign diplomats.
We are not challenging you..just asking for clarification..where did you read the book?
Why not take a few photos of this important discovery and post them.
How do you know the book you read is the same as the 1787 edition in Congressional library?
Wow. Thats interesting. No one had so much as a Prayer Devotional? hum. It’s interesting what history remembers and what it does not, isn’t it?
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.