JB/015/067/001: Difference between revisions

Transcribe Bentham: A Collaborative Initiative

From Transcribe Bentham: Transcription Desk

Find a new page to transcribe in our list of Untranscribed Manuscripts

JB/015/067/001: Difference between revisions

BenthamBot (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Kdownunder (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 2: Line 2:
'''[{{fullurl:JB/015/067/001|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]'''
'''[{{fullurl:JB/015/067/001|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]'''
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
have place.  The other is that in such a government<lb/>
in the instance <add>person</add> of a king any such quality as poetry<lb/>
if <del>poetry</del> by poetry be understood (as it must if any


''This Page Has Not Been Transcribed Yet''




<p><!-- pencil -->6 July 1816<lb/>
<head>Polit. D</head></p>
<p><del>N</del>
<foreign>Nunquam libertas gratior exstat<lb/>
Quam sub rege pio.</foreign></p>
<p>The passage <add>observation</add> (it is in Claudian) is a celebrated one,<lb/>
it is a plausible, an engaging one:  and very considerable<lb/>
it can scarcely be doubted – has been its influence.</p>
<p>Good in poetry it is proportionably bad in political deontology.<lb/>
In deontology the goodness of the observations depends<lb/>
on their correctness:  in that exactness of their agreement <del>to</del> <add>with</add><lb/>
<del>the truth of thing <gap/> the nature</del> the circumstances <add>particulars</add> of<lb/>
the case whatever it may be:  with good poetry <del>any</del> <add>no</add> such<lb/>
exactness is compatible.</p>
<p>In this passage two suppositions are contended:  neither<lb/>
of them ever exemplified:  neither of them consistent with<lb/>
the nature of the case.  One is – that under a king:  viz. the<lb/>
<del><gap/> only <gap/></del> king of the only sort of government that on<lb/>
that occasion could have been in view, <hi rend="underline">liberty</hi> (and<lb/>
this in the sense in which it is synonymous to political<lb/>
security, security against bad government) liberty could<lb/>
</p>


<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Untranscribed}}
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{In_Progress}}

Revision as of 05:58, 6 August 2022

Click Here To Edit have place. The other is that in such a government
in the instance person of a king any such quality as poetry
if poetry by poetry be understood (as it must if any



6 July 1816
Polit. D

N Nunquam libertas gratior exstat
Quam sub rege pio.

The passage observation (it is in Claudian) is a celebrated one,
it is a plausible, an engaging one: and very considerable
it can scarcely be doubted – has been its influence.

Good in poetry it is proportionably bad in political deontology.
In deontology the goodness of the observations depends
on their correctness: in that exactness of their agreement to with
the truth of thing the nature the circumstances particulars of
the case whatever it may be: with good poetry any no such
exactness is compatible.

In this passage two suppositions are contended: neither
of them ever exemplified: neither of them consistent with
the nature of the case. One is – that under a king: viz. the
only king of the only sort of government that on
that occasion could have been in view, liberty (and
this in the sense in which it is synonymous to political
security, security against bad government) liberty could



Identifier: | JB/015/067/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 15.

Date_1

1816-07-06

Marginal Summary Numbering

Box

015

Main Headings

deontology

Folio number

067

Info in main headings field

polit. d.

Image

001

Titles

Category

text sheet

Number of Pages

1

Recto/Verso

recto

Page Numbering

c3

Penner

jeremy bentham

Watermarks

john dickinson & c<…> 1813

Marginals

Paper Producer

a. levy

Corrections

Paper Produced in Year

1813

Notes public

ID Number

5283

Box Contents

UCL Home » Transcribe Bentham » Transcription Desk
  • Create account
  • Log in