★ Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.
Auto loaded |
No edit summary |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''[{{fullurl:JB/096/022/002|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]''' | '''[{{fullurl:JB/096/022/002|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]''' | ||
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
'' | |||
<p><note><hi rend='underline'>To be copied</hi></note> <foreign>"homines constituit, vocatur jus gentium:"</foreign> | |||
<lb/> | |||
he sends us to a non entity: he refers us to a | |||
<lb/> | |||
rule which never did, and, I fear, never will | |||
<lb/> | |||
exist.<lb/></p> | |||
<p>The fact is, the <add>terms</add> law of nations, however allowable | |||
<lb/> | |||
<del>the Phrase may be</del> in common conversation, | |||
<lb/> | |||
should never find a place in a philosophical | |||
<lb/> | |||
discussion of law: and that for this | |||
<lb/> | |||
plain reason, that nations have no common | |||
<lb/> | |||
superior upon earth, from whom — | |||
<lb/> | |||
they can receive a Law. [<add>Note <del>to the end of <gap/> <gap/></del></add> The English language | |||
<lb/> | |||
wants a term to express the idea, | |||
<lb/> | |||
conveyed by the french <del>tongue</del> <add>term</add> of <foreign>droit des | |||
<lb/> | |||
gens.</foreign> and the French writers <del>sho</del> have not availed themselves | |||
<lb/> | |||
of the possession of the term as they might have done | |||
<lb/> | |||
<del><foreign>gens</foreign>.</del>] <del>au.</del><!-- horizontal line from last word and under last line of text, then ... --> end of note<lb/></p> | |||
<!-- another horizontal line --> | |||
<p>'Tis strange how this confusion of terms | |||
<lb/> | |||
disfigures <del>& pe</del> <add>even</add> arguments which <del>had</del> would<lb/></p> | |||
<head>62</head> | |||
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}} | {{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Completed}} | ||
To be copied "homines constituit, vocatur jus gentium:"
he sends us to a non entity: he refers us to a
rule which never did, and, I fear, never will
exist.
The fact is, the terms law of nations, however allowable
the Phrase may be in common conversation,
should never find a place in a philosophical
discussion of law: and that for this
plain reason, that nations have no common
superior upon earth, from whom —
they can receive a Law. [Note to the end of The English language
wants a term to express the idea,
conveyed by the french tongue term of droit des
gens. and the French writers sho have not availed themselves
of the possession of the term as they might have done
gens.] au. end of note
'Tis strange how this confusion of terms
disfigures & pe even arguments which had would
62
|
Identifier: | JB/096/022/002"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 96. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
|
096 |
comment on the commentaries |
||
|
022 |
|||
|
002 |
|||
|
collectanea |
4 |
||
|
recto |
c61 / c62 / c63 / c64 |
||
|
168 |
[[watermarks::gr [quartered royal arms motif]]] |
||
|
[[notes_public::"to be copied" [note not in bentham's hand]]] |
31026 |
||
