JB/063/042/002: 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/063/042/002: Difference between revisions

Ohsoldgirl (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Ohsoldgirl (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 3: Line 3:
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->


<!-- this double page is organised in two columns with a margin to the left of each column --> <p><note> Every account of<lb/> the pretended Laws<lb/>of Nature must be<lb/> <del><gap/></del> confessed.  But<lb/> if it is possible for<lb/>< one to be more so<lb/> than another, it is<lb/> that of <unclear>Montesquieu</unclear></note></p> <p><del>If it is possible that one account of the pretended<lb/> Laws of Nature can be more <gap/> than another<lb/>it is that of <unclear>Montesquieu</unclear></del>  Darkness itself is Light to it.</p> <p> Ask him what are the Laws of Nature? they are <lb/> <del>such <gap/> steps</del> <add> certain <gap/>, which</add> have something to do<lb/> with a state of Nature.  <del>What, are they</del> rules<lb/> <add>perhaps</add> concerning the steps to be taken by a man in<lb/> the State of Nature?  No, no rule in that case<lb/> they are the <hi rend="underline">steps</hi> themselves &#x2014; <del>what they are</del> <add> <del><gap/> </del> Right &#x2014;</add><lb/> <del>then</del> the steps <del>which</del> <add> which in such a state <!-- symbol --></add> <hi rend="underline">ought</hi> to take?  <del>in this</del><lb/> <del>state?</del> not <add>so &#x2014; </add> ought and ought not <del>have nothing</del> <add> are out of the question</add><lb/> to do <del>with the matter</del> <add> in the affair</add> &#x2014; they are the steps<lb/> <del>they</del> <add> men</add> <hi rend="underline">would</hi> take &#x2014;  <del>They will, then</del> what<lb/><note>Take a number of<lb/> men, put them into<lb/> a state of nature</note> are they <add>then at last? you shall hear &#x2014; </add> third are 4 of them.  In the<lb/>1<hi rend="superscript">st</hi> place, <del>those of</del> <add> ( men ) <add> <del><gap/>Put men in a state of nature</add> would run away<lb/><note>Men, if there come<lb/> a hundred of them<lb?> would all <sic>shew</sic><lb/>each other <add>one another</add> a fair<lb/> pair of heels</note from one another <del>as hard as they could <gap/>:</del><lb/> <del>and there is</del> <hi rend="underline">peace</hi>, <del>&amp; this is one Law</del> <add> that is one Law +</add> of <gap/><lb/> turn.  In the next place they could eat <add>look</add> <lb/> <del>their</del> <add> about <del>them</del> for victuals &#x2014; <del> &amp; then in a second for you</del> <add> to the Law third is for that <gap/> <del>another <gap/></del></add> &amp; <del>there is a second  for you</del><p/> <p>In that 3<hi rend="superscript">d</hi> place they would &#x2014; in that they<lb/>would, that is I suppose the more &amp; <gap/> <gap/></del><lb/>could <gap/> making <add>to</add> each other a certain <gap/><lb/><del>whole</del> species <del>they</del>  his Law goes no farther than<lb/>to the <del>getting together of persons of different</del> <add>bringing the Sexes to a meeting?</add> <lb/><del>Sexes</del></p><!-- line in ink across the column --> <p>And how he comes to take no notice of one <add>one common</add> <lb/> way enough of two persons getting acquainted<lb/> which is by one of them betting <add>or being <hi rend="underline"><sic>deliver'</sic></hi> of</add> the other.</p>   
<!-- this double page is organised in two columns with a margin to the left of each column --> <p><note> Every account of<lb/> the pretended Laws<lb/>of Nature must be<lb/> <del><gap/></del> confessed.  But<lb/> if it is possible for<lb/>< one to be more so<lb/> than another, it is<lb/> that of <unclear>Montesquieu</unclear></note></p> <p><del>If it is possible that one account of the pretended<lb/> Laws of Nature can be more <gap/> than another<lb/>it is that of <unclear>Montesquieu</unclear></del>  Darkness itself is Light to it.</p> <p> Ask him what are the Laws of Nature? they are <lb/> <del>such <gap/> steps</del> <add> certain <gap/>, which</add> have something to do<lb/> with a state of Nature.  <del>What, are they</del> rules<lb/> <add>perhaps</add> concerning the steps to be taken by a man in<lb/> the State of Nature?  No, no rule in that case<lb/> they are the <hi rend="underline">steps</hi> themselves &#x2014; <del>what they are</del> <add> <del><gap/> </del> Right &#x2014;</add><lb/> <del>then</del> the steps <del>which</del> <add> which in such a state <!-- symbol --></add> <hi rend="underline">ought</hi> to take?  <del>in this</del><lb/> <del>state?</del> not <add>so &#x2014; </add> ought and ought not <del>have nothing</del> <add> are out of the question</add><lb/> to do <del>with the matter</del> <add> in the affair</add> &#x2014; they are the steps<lb/> <del>they</del> <add> men</add> <hi rend="underline">would</hi> take &#x2014;  <del>They will, then</del> what<lb/><note>Take a number of<lb/> men, put them into<lb/> a state of nature</note> are they <add>then at last? you shall hear &#x2014; </add> third are 4 of them.  In the<lb/>1<hi rend="superscript">st</hi> place, <del>those of</del> <add> ( men ) <add> <del><gap/>Put men in a state of nature</add> would run away<lb/><note>Men, if there come<lb/> a hundred of them<lb?> would all <sic>shew</sic><lb/>each other <add>one another</add> a fair<lb/> pair of heels</note from one another <del>as hard as they could <gap/>:</del><lb/> <del>and there is</del> <hi rend="underline">peace</hi>, <del>&amp; this is one Law</del> <add> that is one Law +</add> of <gap/><lb/> turn.  In the next place they could eat <add>look</add> <lb/> <del>their</del> <add> about <del>them</del> for victuals &#x2014; <del> &amp; then in a second for you</del> <add> to the Law third is for that <gap/> <del>another <gap/></del></add> &amp; <del>there is a second  for you</del><p/> <p>In that 3<hi rend="superscript">d</hi> place they would &#x2014; in that they<lb/>would, that is I suppose the more &amp; <gap/> <gap/></del><lb/>could <gap/> making <add>to</add> each other a certain <gap/><lb/><del>whole</del> species <del>they</del>  his Law goes no farther than<lb/>to the <del>getting together of persons of different</del> <add>bringing the Sexes to a meeting?</add> <lb/><del>Sexes</del></p><!-- line in ink across the column --> <p>And how he comes to take no notice of one <add>one common</add> <lb/> way enough of two persons getting acquainted<lb/> which is by one of them betting <add>or being <hi rend="underline"><sic>deliver'</sic></hi> of</add> the other.</p>  <!-- line in ink across the column --> <p>One might desire him, before he undertook to<lb/> tell us how they <add>his men and women</add> would behave, to settle with<lb/> himself <del>how what sort of people he would have</del> <add> &amp; tell us in plain <del>lang</del> <gap/> in what condition they should make their</add> <lb/> <del>&amp; in what condition? whether he would</del> <add>appearance &#x2014; <del>What sort of <gap/> he could have</del><lb/><note> how &amp; in what plight<lb/> he would put them <gap/></note><lb/> Whether he would produce <gap/> and the common<lb/> way of generation, or as Adam was:  Whether<lb/> <note>How <del>then</del> he would<lb/> have then been produced<lb/. &#x2014; Whether as<lb/> <add>God made</add> Adam was, or in<lb/> the common way</note> <del>they should be</del> <add>he would have them</add> young or old, <add>respectively</add> strong or weak<lb/> full or fasting <add> clothed or naked fresh or weary? </add> &#x2014;  whether he would have fear<lb/><del>of them</del> or manner of them?  whether <del>they should</del> <add> he would</add> <lb/><del>all of them came from <gap/?> one another</del> <add><del>have this all</del> <add> who since then all of <gap/> to each other</add> bolt in <del><gap/></del><lb/><del>from the clouds at once,</del> or <del>only one 2 or 3</del> <add>drop in by two's and three's</add><lb/> <add>only</add> at a time?</p> <p>To <del><gap/></del> <add> almost any</add> of these questions<lb?> a difference<lb?> and the answer, says<lb/> make a difference<lb/> in the result in<lb/> favour or in <unclear>disprovance</unclear><lb/> of this theory.</note></p> <p>One might ask him whether he has taken the<lb/> spirit <del>as would as</del> <add> if he has taken</add> the words of Hobbis's question?<lb/> And whether <del>therefore</del> <add> his child view of nature</add> <del>the people in question</del> are in <del>touch</del> <add> an established</add> <lb/> Society or no when after having been </p> <p><sic>INTRODUCT.</sic> Montesquieu's Laws of Nature.</p> <!-- end of left hand column --> <p> <Note>It is not to my<lb/>purpose to examine<lb/> the truth  <add> <gap/> or the <gap/></add> of this<lb/> representation: I have<lb/> nothing to do but wish<lb/> <add>my business is only with<lb/> the precision &amp;<lb?> the consistency of it<lb/> <Add>as far as it is game</add><lb/> I shall therefore<lb/> pass over innumerable<lb/> questions that<lb/> might be put</note></p>  <p><del>against what it seems they are always making a<lb/> <gap/> other now</del> <foreign>Au sentiment de su foiblesse, l'Homme jpoinderoit le sentiment de<lb/> ses besoins.  Ainsi une autre Law naturel<lb/> serrit celle que lui inspirerrit de chircter<lb/> de se pourrrir</foreign><p> <p> In the 3<hi rend="superscript">d</hi> place <del><gap/> <gap/> to the <gap/> that <gap/></del> <add> <del>those of different sexes</del> The man &amp; woman would</add><lb/> <del>and woman <gap/> <gap/> <gap/> a certain request</del> <add> begin making a certain little request to one another the natural</add> <lb/> <del>to one another:</del> <add>same <del>they are</del> you secure them</add> always making now:</add> <del> with the <gap/> <gap/><lb/> they would make</del>: <del> and this is a 3 new <add>makes three</add> </del><lb/> <del>for you</del> and now you have Law the 3<hi rend="superscript">d</hi>.</p> <!-- line in ink across the column --> <p><note> One might heap<lb/> question upon question</note></p>




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

Revision as of 09:19, 4 October 2019

Click Here To Edit

Every account of
the pretended Laws
of Nature must be
confessed. But
if it is possible for
< one to be more so
than another, it is
that of Montesquieu

If it is possible that one account of the pretended
Laws of Nature can be more than another
it is that of Montesquieu
Darkness itself is Light to it.

Ask him what are the Laws of Nature? they are
such steps certain , which have something to do
with a state of Nature. What, are they rules
perhaps concerning the steps to be taken by a man in
the State of Nature? No, no rule in that case
they are the steps themselves — what they are Right —
then the steps which which in such a state ought to take? in this
state? not so — ought and ought not have nothing are out of the question
to do with the matter in the affair — they are the steps
they men would take — They will, then what
Take a number of
men, put them into
a state of nature
are they then at last? you shall hear — third are 4 of them. In the
1st place, those of ( men ) <add> Put men in a state of nature would run away
Men, if there come
a hundred of them<lb?> would all shew
each other one another a fair
pair of heels</note from one another as hard as they could :
and there is peace, & this is one Law that is one Law + of
turn. In the next place they could eat look
their about them for victuals — & then in a second for you <add> to the Law third is for that another & there is a second for you

In that 3d place they would — in that they
would, that is I suppose the more &
could making to each other a certain
whole species they his Law goes no farther than
to the getting together of persons of different bringing the Sexes to a meeting?
Sexes

And how he comes to take no notice of one one common
way enough of two persons getting acquainted
which is by one of them betting or being deliver' of the other.

One might desire him, before he undertook to
tell us how they his men and women would behave, to settle with
himself how what sort of people he would have & tell us in plain lang in what condition they should make their
& in what condition? whether he would <add>appearance — What sort of he could have
<note> how & in what plight
he would put them
Whether he would produce and the common
way of generation, or as Adam was: Whether
How then he would
have then been produced<lb/. — Whether as
God made Adam was, or in
the common way
they should be he would have them young or old, respectively strong or weak
full or fasting clothed or naked fresh or weary? — whether he would have fear
of them or manner of them? whether they should he would
all of them came from <gap/?> one another have this all <add> who since then all of to each other bolt in
from the clouds at once, or only one 2 or 3 drop in by two's and three's
only at a time?

To almost any of these questions<lb?> a difference<lb?> and the answer, says
make a difference
in the result in
favour or in disprovance
of this theory.</note>

One might ask him whether he has taken the
spirit as would as if he has taken the words of Hobbis's question?
And whether therefore his child view of nature the people in question are in touch an established
Society or no when after having been

INTRODUCT. Montesquieu's Laws of Nature.

It is not to my
purpose to examine
the truth or the of this
representation: I have
nothing to do but wish
my business is only with
the precision &<lb?> the consistency of it
<Add>as far as it is game

I shall therefore
pass over innumerable
questions that
might be put

against what it seems they are always making a
other now
Au sentiment de su foiblesse, l'Homme jpoinderoit le sentiment de
ses besoins. Ainsi une autre Law naturel
serrit celle que lui inspirerrit de chircter
de se pourrrir

In the 3d place to the that those of different sexes The man & woman would
and woman a certain request begin making a certain little request to one another the natural
to one another: same they are you secure them always making now:</add> with the
they would make
: and this is a 3 new makes three
for you and now you have Law the 3d.

One might heap
question upon question



Identifier: | JB/063/042/002"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 63.

Date_1

Marginal Summary Numbering

Box

063

Main Headings

law in general

Folio number

042

Info in main headings field

introduct. montesquieu's laws of nature

Image

002

Titles

Category

text sheet

Number of Pages

1

Recto/Verso

recto

Page Numbering

Penner

jeremy bentham

Watermarks

[[watermarks::gr [crown motif] [britannia with shield motif]]]

Marginals

Paper Producer

Corrections

Paper Produced in Year

Notes public

ID Number

20231

Box Contents

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