If it be thought that the small society which we call a state cannot exist without the application of these principles (and certainly it cannot), why will not those same principles be necessary to uphold the social structure of the whole human race and to maintain the harmony thereof? If any one rebels against these principles of law and order you are justly indignant, and you even decree punishments in pro- portion to the magnitude of the offense, for no other reason than that a government cannot be tranquil where trespasses of that sort are allowed. If king act unjustly and violently against king, and nation against nation, such action involves a disturbance of the peace of that universal state, and con- stitutes a trespass against the supreme Ruler, does it not? There is however this difference: just as the lesser magis- trates judge the common people, and as you judge the magis- trates, so the King of the universe has laid upon you the command to take cognizance of the trespasses of all other men, and to punish them; but He has reserved for Himself the punishment of your own trespasses. But although He reserves to himself the final punishment, slow and unseen but none the less inevitable, yet He appoints to intervene in human affairs two judges whom the luckiest of sinners does not escape, namely, Conscience, or the innate estimation of oneself, and Public Opinion, or the estimation of others.
4 MARE LIBERVM alienam. Haec tribunalia illis patent quibus alia praeclusa sunt; ad haec infirmi provocant; in his vincuntur qui vincunt viribus, qui licentiae modum non statuunt, qui vili putant constare quod emitur humano sanguine, qui iniurias iniuriis defendunt, quorum manifesta facinora necesse est et con- sentiente bonorum iudicio damnari, et sui ipsorum animi sententia non absolvi.
Ad utrumque hoc forum nos quoque novam causam afferimus; non hercule de stillicidiis aut tigno iniuncto, quales esse privatorum solent, ac ne ex eo quidem genere quod frequens est inter populos, de agri iure in confinio haerentis, de amnis aut insulae possessione; sed de omni prope oceano, de iure navigandi, de libertate commerciorum. Inter nos et Hispanos haec controversa sunt: Sitne immen- sum et vastum mare regni unius nee maximi accessio; popu- lone cuiquam ius sit volentes populos prohibere ne vendant, ne permutent, ne denique commeent inter sese; potuerit ne quisquam quod suum numquam fuit elargiri, aut invenire quod iam erat alienum; an ius aliquod tribuat manifesta longi temporis iniuria.
In hac disceptatione ipsis qui inter Hispanos praecipui sunt divini atque humani iuris magistri calculum porrigimus, ipsius denique Hispaniae proprias leges imploramus. Id si nihil iuvat, et eos quos ratio certa convincit cupiditas vetat desistere, vestram principes maiestatem, vestram fidem quotquot estis ubique gentes appellamus.
Non perplexam, non intricatam movemus quaestionem. Non de ambiguis in religione capitibus, quae plurimum FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 4 These two tribunals are open to those who are debarred from all others; to these the powerless appeal; in them are de- feated those who are wont to win by might, those who put no bounds to their presumption, those who consider cheap anything bought at the price of human blood, those who de- fend injustice by injustice, men whose wickedness is so mani- fest that they must needs be condemned by the unanimous judgment of the good, and cannot be cleared before the bar of their own souls.
To this double tribunal we bring a new case. It is in very truth no petty case such as private citizens are wont to bring against their neighbors about dripping eaves or party walls; nor is it a case such as nations frequently bring against one another about boundary lines or the possession of a river or an island. No! It is a case which concerns practically the entire expanse of the high seas, the right of navigation, the freedom of trade!! Between us and the Spaniards the fol- lowing points are in dispute: Can the vast, the boundless sea be the appanage of one kingdom alone, and it not the greatest? Can any one nation have the right to prevent other nations which so desire, from selling to one another, from bartering with one another, actually from communicat- ing with one another? Can any nation give away what it never owned, or discover what already belonged to some one else? Does a manifest injustice of long standing create a specific right?
In this controversy we appeal to those jurists among the Spanish themselves who are especially skilled both in divine and human law; we actually invoke the very laws of Spain itself. If that is of no avail, and those whom reason clearly convicts of wrong are induced by greed to maintain that stand, we invoke your majesty, ye Princes, your good faith, ye Peoples, whoever and wherever ye may be.
It is not an involved, it is not an intricate question that I am raising. It is not a question of ambiguous points of 5 MARE LIBERVM habere videntur obscuritatis, quae tantis tarn diu animis decertata, apud sapientes hoc fere certum reliquerunt, nus- quam minus inveniri veritatem quam ubi cogitur assensus. Non de statu nostrae reipublicae, et libertate armis baud parta sed vindicata; de qua recte statuere ii demum possunt qui iura patria Belgarum, mores avitos, et institutum non in leges regnum, sed ex legibus principatum accurate cog- noverint, in qua tamen quaestione aequis iudicibus extremae servitutis depulsa necessitas, subtilius inquirentibus decreti tot nationum publica auctoritas, infensis etiam et malevolis adversariorum confessio nihil dubitandum reliquit.
Sed quod hie proponimus nihil cum istis commune habet, nullius indiget anxiae disquisitionis, non ex divini codicis pendet explicatione, cuius multa multi non capiunt, non ex unius populi scitis quae ceteri merito ignorant.
Lex ilia e cuius praescripto iudicandum est, inventu est non difficilis, utpote eadem apud omnes; et f acilis intellectu, utpote nata cum singulis, singulorum mentibus insita. lus autem quod petimus tale est quod nee rex subditis negare debeat, neque Christianus non Christianis. A natura enim oritur, quae ex aequo omnium parens est, in omnes munifica, cuius imperium in eos extenditur qui gentibus imperant, et apud eos sanctissimum est qui in pietate plurimum pro- fecerunt.
Cognoscite hanc causam principes! cognoscite populi! si quid iniquum postulamus, scitis quae vestra et e vobis eorum qui viciniores nobis estis apud nos semper fuerit auctoritas!
FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 5 theology which seem to be wrapped in the deepest obscurity, which have been debated already so long and with such heat, that wise men are almost convinced that truth is never so rarely found as when assent thereto is forced. It is not a question of the status of our government and of inde- pendence not won by arms but restored. On this point those can reach a right decision who have an accurate knowledge of the ancestral laws and hereditary customs of the people of the Netherlands, and who have recognized that their state is not a kingdom illegally founded but is a government based upon law. In this matter, however, just judges no longer compelled to subordinate their convictions have been per- suaded; the public authority of many nations has entirely satisfied those who were seeking a precedent; and the admis- sions of our adversaries have left even the foolish and malevolent no room for doubt.
But what I here submit has nothing in common with these matters. It calls for no troublesome investigation. It does not depend upon an interpretation of Holy Writ in which many people find many things they cannot understand, nor upon the decrees of any one nation of which the rest of the world very properly knows nothing.
The law by which our case must be decided is not difficult to find, seeing that it is the same among all nations; and it is easy to understand, seeing that it is innate in every in- dividual and implanted in his mind. Moreover the law to which we appeal is one such as no king ought to deny to his subjects, and one no Christian ought to refuse to a non-Christian. For it is a law derived from nature, the common mother of us all, whose bounty falls on all, and whose sway extends over those who rule nations, and which is held most sacred by those who are most scrupulously just.
Take cognizance of this cause, ye Princes, take cog- nizance of it, ye Nations! If we are making an unjust de- mand, you know what your authority and the authority of 6 MARE LIBERVM Monete, parebimus. Quin si quid a nobis hac in re peccatum est, iram vestram, odium denique humani generis non deprecamur. Sin contra se res habet, quid vobis censendum, quid agendum sit, vestrae religioni et aequitati relinquimus.
Olim inter populos humaniores summum nef as habebatur armis eos impetere qui res suas arbitris permitterent, contra qui tam aequam condicionem recusarent, ii non ut unius sed ut omnium hostes ope communi comprimebantur. Itaque earn in rem videmus icta foedera, iudices constitutes. Reges ipsi validaeque gentes nihil aeque gloriosum ac magnificum deputabant, quam aliorum coercere insolentiam, aliorum in- firmitatem atque innocentiam sublevare. Qui si mos hodieque obtineret, ut humani nihil a se alienum homines arbitrarentur, profecto orbe non paulo pacatiore uteremur; refrigesceret enim multorum audacia, et qui iustitiam utilitatis causa nunc negligunt, iniustitiam damno suo dediscerent.
Sed hoc ut in causa istac non frustra forte speramus, ita illud certo confidimus, bene rebus expensis existimaturos vos omnes imputari nobis non magis posse pacis moras, quam belli causas; ac proinde uti hactenus amici nobis fa- ventes atque benevoli fuistis, ita vos aut etiam magis in posterum fore, quo nihil optatius iis potest contingere qui primam partem felicitatis putant bene facere, alteram bene audire.
FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 6 those of you who are our nearer neighbors has always been so far as we are concerned. Caution us, we will obey. Verily, if we have done any wrong in this our cause, we will not deprecate your wrath, nor even the hatred of the human race. But if we are right, we leave to your sense of right- eousness and of fairness what you ought to think about this matter and what course of action you ought to pursue.
In ancient times among the more civilized peoples it was held to be the greatest of all crimes to make war upon those who were willing to submit to arbitration the settlement of their difficulties; but against those who declined so fair an offer all others turned, and with their combined resources overwhelmed them, not as enemies of any one nation, but as enemies of them all alike. So for this very object we see that treaties are made and arbiters appointed. Kings them- selves and powerful nations used to think that nothing was so chivalrous or so noble as to coerce the insolent and to help the weak and innocent.
If today the custom held of considering that everything pertaining to mankind pertained also to one's self, we should surely live in a much more peaceable world. For the pre- sumptuousness of many would abate, and those who now neglect justice on the pretext of expediency would unlearn the lesson of injustice at their own expense.
We have felt that perhaps we were not entertaining a foolish hope for our cause. At all events we are confident that you will all recognize after duly weighing the facts in the case that the delays to peace can no more be laid to our charge than can the causes of war; and as hitherto you have been indulgent, even favorably disposed to us, we feel sure that you will not only remain in this mind, but be even more friendly to us in the future. Nothing more to be desired than this can come to men who think that the first condi- tion of happiness is good deeds; the second, good repute.
CAPVT I lure gentium quibusvis ad quosvis liberam esse navigationem Propositum est nobis breviter ac dilucide demonstrate ius esse Batavis, hoc est, Ordinum Foederatorum Belgico-Ger- maniae subditis ad Indos, ita uti navigant navigare, cumque ipsis commercia colere. Fundamentum struemus hanc iuris gentium, quod primarium vocant regulam certissimam, cuius perspicua atque immutabilis est ratio; licere cuivis genti quamvis alteram adire, cumque ea negotiari.
Deus hoc ipse naturam loquitur, cum ea cuncta quibus vita indiget, omnibus locis suppeditari a natura non vult: artibus etiam aliis alias gentes dat excellere. Quo ista, nisi quod voluit mutua egestate et copia humanas f overi amicitias, ne singuli se putantes sibi ipsis sufficere, hoc ipso redderentur insociabiles? Nunc factum est ut gens altera alterius sup- pleret inopiam, divinae iustitiae institute, ut eo modo (sicut Plinius dicit1) quod genitum esset uspiam, apud omnes natum videretur. Poetas itaque canentes audimus: Nee vero terrae ferre omnes omnia possunt* Item: Excudent alii, et quae sequuntur.3 1 Panegyricus 29, 2: quod genitum esset usquam, id apud omnes natum esse videtur.
•Vergil, Georgics II, 109. •Vergil, Aeneid VI, 847-853.
CHAPTER I By the Law of Nations navigation is free to all persons whatsoever My intention is to demonstrate briefly and clearly that the Dutch — that is to say, the subjects of the United Netherlands — have the right to sail to the East Indies, as they are now doing, and to engage in trade with the people there. I shall base my argument on the following most specific and unimpeachable axiom of the Law of Nations, called a primary rule or first principle, the spirit of which is self-evident and immutable, to wit: Every nation is free to travel to every other nation, and to trade with it.
God Himself says this speaking through the voice of nature; and inasmuch as it is not His will to have Nature supply every place with all the necessaries of life, He ordains that some nations excel in one art and others in another. Why is this His will, except it be that He wished human friendships to be engendered by mutual needs and resources, lest individuals deeming themselves entirely sufficient unto themselves should for that very reason be rendered unso- ciable? So by the decree of divine justice it was brought about that one people should supply the needs of another, in order, as Pliny the Roman writer says,1 that in this way, whatever has been produced anywhere should seem to have been destined for all. Vergil also sings in this wise: " Not every plant on every soil will grow" 2 and in another place: " Let others better mould the running mass Of metals" etc.3 1 Panegyric 29, 3.
'Aeneid VI, 847-853 [Dryden's translation, VI, 1168-1169].
7 8 MARE LIBERVM Hoc igitur qui tollunt, illam laudatissimam tollunt human! generis societatem, tollunt mutuas benefaciendi occasiones, naturam denique ipsam violant. Nam et ille quern Deus ten-is circumfudit Oceanus, undique et undique versus navi- gabilis, et ventorum stati aut extraordinarii flatus, non ab eadem semper, et a nulla non aliquando regione spirantes, nonne significant satis concessum a natura cunctis gentibus ad cunctas aditum? Hoc Seneca1 summuni Naturae bene- ficium putat, quod et vento gentes locis dissipatas miscuit, et sua omnia in regiones ita descripsit, ut necessarium morta- libus esset inter ipsos commercium. Hoc igitur ius ad cunctas gentes aequaliter pertinet: quod clarissimi luriscon- sulti2 eo usque producunt, ut negent ullam rempublicam aut Principem prohibere in universum posse, quo minus alii ad subditos suos accedant, et cum illis negotientur. Hinc ius descendit hospitale sanctissimum: hinc querelae: Quod genus hoc hominum? quaeve hunc tarn barbara morem Permittit patria? hospitio prohibemur harenae.* Et alibi litusque rogamus Innocuum et cunctis undamque auramque patentem.* i Et scimus bella quaedam ex hac causa coepisse, ut Me- 1 Naturales Quaestiones III, IV.
1 Institutes II, 1 (De rerum divisione, § 1 ); Digest 1, 8, 4 (eod. tit., L. Nemo igitur); cf. Gentilis, De jure belli I, 19; cf. Code IV, 63, 4 (De com- mercils, L. Merca tores).
• Vergil, Aeneid VII, 229-230.
FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 8 Those therefore who deny this law, destroy this most praise- worthy bond of human fellowship, remove the opportunities for doing mutual service, in a word do violence to Nature herself. For do not the ocean, navigable in every direction with which God has encompassed all the earth, and the regu- lar and the occasional winds which blow now from one quarter and now from another, offer sufficient proof that Nature has given to all peoples a right of access to all other peoples? Seneca 1 thinks this is Nature's greatest service, that by the wind she united the widely scattered peoples, and yet did so distribute all her products over the earth that commercial intercourse was a necessity to mankind. There- fore this right belongs equally to all nations. Indeed the most famous jurists 2 extend its application so far as to deny that any state or any ruler can debar foreigners from having access to their subjects and trading with them. Hence is derived that law of hospitality which is of the highest sanc- tity; hence the complaint of the poet Vergil: " What men, what monsters, what inhuman race. What laws, what barbarous customs of the place, Shut up a desert shore to drowning men, And drive us to the cruel seas again." 3 And: " To beg what you without your want may spare — The common water, and the common air."* We know that certain wars have arisen over this very matter; such for example as the war of the Megarians against the 1 Natural Questions III, IV.
•Institutes II, 1; Digest I, 8, 4; cf. Gentilis, De jure belli I, 19; cf. Code IV, 63, 4 [Grotius refers particularly to his famous predecessor Albericus Gentilis (1552-1608), an Italian who came to England and was appointed to the chair of Regius Professor of Civil Law at Oxford. He published his De Jure Belli in 1558].
9 MARE LIBERVM garensibus in Athenienses,1 Bononiensibus in. Venetos,2 Cas- tellanis etiam in Americanos has iustas potuisse belli causas esse, et ceteris probabiliores Victoria putat,8 si peregrinari et degere apud illos prohiberentur, si arcerentur a partici- patione earum rerum quae iure gentium aut moribus com- munia sunt, si denique ad commercia non admitterentur.
Cui simile est quod in Mosis * historia et inde apud Augustinum legimus,5 iusta bella Israelitas contra Amor- rhaeos gessisse, quia innoxius transitus denegabatur; qui IVRE HVMANAE SOCIETATIS aequissimo patere debebat. Et hoc nomine Hercules Orchomeniorum, Graeci sub Agamemnone Mysorum Regi arma intulerunt,8 quasi libera essent naturaliter itinera, ut Baldus dixit.7 Accusan- JDiodorus Siculus XI; Plutarch, Pericles XXIX, 4. " Sigonius, De regno Italiae.
'Victoria, De Indis II, n. 1-7; Covarruvias, in c. Peccatum, § 9, n. 4, ibi Quinta.
4 Numbers XXI, 21-26.
• Augustinus, Locutionum IV (de Numeris), 44; Et Estius, c. ult. 23, 4, 2.
• Sophocles, Trachiniae.
• Baldus de Ubaldis, Consilia III, 293.
FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 9 Athenians,1 and that of the Bolognese against the Venetians.2 Again, Victoria s holds that the Spaniards could have shown just reasons for making war upon the Aztecs and the In- dians in America, more plausible reasons certainly than were alleged, if they really were prevented from traveling or sojourning among those peoples, and were denied the right to share in those things which by the Law of Nations or by Custom are common to all, and finally if they were de- barred from trade.
We read of a similar case in the history of Moses,* which we find mentioned also in the writings of Augustine,5 where the Israelites justly smote with the edge of the sword the Amorites because they had denied the Israelites an innocent passage through their territory, a right which according to the Law of Human Society ought in all justice to have been allowed. In defense of this principle Hercules attacked the king of Orchomenus in Boeotia; and the Greeks under their leader Agamemnon waged war against the king of Mysia ' on the ground that, as Baldus T has said, high roads were free 'Diodorus Siculus XI; Plutarch, Pericles XXIX, 4. [The Athenian de- cree prohibiting the Megarians from trading with Athens or any part of the Athenian Empire was one of the leading causes of the Peloponnesian War.]
'Carlo Sigonio [(1533-1584), an Italian humanist, in his work] On the Kingdom of Italy.
•Victoria, De Indis II, n. 1-7; Covarruvias, in c. Peccatum, § 9, n. 4, ibi Quinta [Franciscus de Victoria (1480-1546), the famous Spanish Scholastic, a Dominican, and Professor of Theology at Salamanca from 1521 until his death. His thirteen Relectiones (De Indis is no. V) were published (' vitiosa et corrupta") in 1557 after his death; the 1686 Cologne edition is held to be the best.
Diego Covarruvias (1512-1577), styled the Bartolo of Spain. He should probably be credited with formulating the reform decrees of the Council of Trent The 5 voL Antwerp 1762 edition of his works is the best.]
'Numbers XXI, 21-26.
• Locutionum IV (on Numbers), 44; Estius, c. ult. 23, 4, 2 [Estius (?-1613) was a Dutch commentator on the Epistles of St. Paul and on the works of St. Augustine].
' • [Grotius refers to the Trachiniae of Sophocles, but probably from memory, for there is no such reference in that play.]
1 Baldus de Ubaldis, Consilia III, 293 [Baldus (1327-1406) was a pupil of the great Bartolus].
10 MARE LIBERVM turque a Germanis apud Taciturn 1 Romani, quod colloquia congressusque gentium arcerent, fluminaque et terras et coelum quodam modo ipsum clauderent. Nee ullus titulus Christianis quondam in Saracenos magis placuit, quam quod per illos terrae ludaeae aditu arcerentur.2 Sequitur ex sententia Lusitanos etiamsi domini essent earum regionum ad quas Batavi proficiscuntur, iniuriam tamen facturos si aditum Batavis et mercatum praecluderent.
Quanto igitur iniquius est volentes aliquos a volentium populorum commercio secludi, illorum opera quorum in potestate nee populi isti sunt, nee illud ipsum, qua iter est, quando latrones etiam et piratas non alio magis nomine detestamur, quam quod illi hominum inter se commeatus obsident atque infestant?
1 Tacitus, Historiae IV, 64.
•Andreas Alciatus, Commentaria VII, 130; Covarruvias in c. Peccatum, p. 2 § 9; Bartolus on Code 1, 11 (De paganis, L. 1).
FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 10 by nature. Again, as we read in Tacitus,1 the Germans accused the Romans of ' preventing all intercourse between them and of closing up to them the rivers and roads, and almost the very air of heaven '. When in days gone by the Christians made crusades against the Saracens, no other pre- text was so welcome or so plausible as that they were denied by the infidels free access to the Holy Land.2 It follows therefore that the Portuguese, even if they had been sovereigns in those parts to which the Dutch make voyages, would nevertheless be doing them an injury if they should forbid them access to those places and from trading there.
Is it not then an incalculably greater injury for nations which desire reciprocal commercial relations to be debarred therefrom by the acts of those who are sovereigns neither of the nations interested, nor of the element over which their connecting high road runs? Is not that the very cause which for the most part prompts us to execrate robbers and pirates, namely, that they beset and infest our trade routes?
1 Histories IV, 64 [In connection with the revolt of Civilis].
•Andrea Alciati, Commentaria VII, 130; Covarruvias in c. Peccatum, p. 9 § 9; Bartolus on Code I, 11 [Alciati (1492-1550) was made Comes Palatinus by the Emperor Charles V, and offered a Cardinal's hat by Pope Paul III, which he refused, but he did become a Protonotarius Apostolicus].
CAPVT II Lusitanos nullum hdbere ius dominii in eos Indos ad quos Batavi navigant titulo inventionis Non esse autem Lusitanos earum partium dominos ad quas Batavi accedunt, puta lavae, Taprobanae, partis maximae Moluccarum, certissimo argumento colligimus, quia dominus nemo est eius rei quam nee ipse umquam nee alter ipsius nomine possedit. Habent insulae istae quas dicimus et semper habuerunt suos reges, suam rempublican, suas leges, sua iura; Lusitanis mercatus, ut aliis gentibus conceditur; itaque et tributa cum pendunt, et ius mercandi a principibus exorant, dominos se non esse, sed ut externos advenire satis testantur; ne habitant quidem nisi precario. Et quamquam ad dominium titulus non sufficiat, quia et possessio requiritur, cum aliud sit rem habere, aliud ius ad rem consequendam, tamen ne titulum quidem dominii in eas partes Lusitanis ullum esse affirmo, quern non ipsis eripuerit Doctorum, et quidem Hispanorum sententia.
Primum si dicent inventionis praemio eas terras sibi cessisse, nee ius, nee verum dicent. Invenire enim non illud est oculis usurpare, sed apprehendere, ut Gordiani epistola 11 CHAPTER II The Portuguese have no right by title of discovery to sovereignty over the East Indies to which the Dutch make voyages The Portuguese are not sovereigns of those parts of the East Indies to which the Dutch sail, that is to say, Java, Ceylon,* and many of the Moluccas. This I prove by the incontrovertible argument that no one is sovereign of a thing which he himself has never possessed, and which no one else has ever held in his name. These islands of which we speak, now have and always have had their own kings, their own government, their own laws, and their own legal systems. The inhabitants allow the Portuguese to trade with them, just as they allow other nations the same privi- lege. Therefore, inasmuch as the Portuguese pay tolls, and obtain leave to trade from the rulers there, they thereby give sufficient proof that they do not go there as sovereigns but as foreigners. Indeed they only reside there on suf- france. And although the title to sovereignty is not suffi- cient, inasmuch as possession is a prerequisite — for having a thing is quite different from having the right to acquire it — nevertheless I affirm that in those places the Portuguese have no title at all to sovereignty which is not denied them by the opinion of learned men, even of the Spaniards.
First of all, if they say that those lands have come under their jurisdiction as the reward of discovery, THEY LIE, both in law and in fact. For to discover a thing is not only to seize it with the eyes but to take real possession thereof, * [Taprobane was the ancient name of Ceylon. Milton speaks of it in Paradise Regained IV, 75: " And utmost Indian Isle Taprobane."] 11 12 MARE LIBERVM ostenditur; 1 unde Grammatici 2 invenire et occupare pro verbis ponunt idem significantibus; et tota Latinitas quod adept! sumus, id demum invenisse 3 nos dicit, cui oppositum est perdere. Quin et ipsa naturalis ratio, et legum diserta verba, et eruditiorum interpretatio * manifeste ostendit, ad titulum dominii parandum earn demum sufficere inven- tionem quae cum possessione coniuncta est, ubi scilicet res mobiles apprehenduntur, aut immobiles terminis atque cus- todia sepiuntur; 6 quod in hac specie dici nullo modo potest. Nam presidia illuc Lusitani nulla habent. Quid quod ne reperisse quidem Indiam ullo modo dici possunt Lusitani, quae tot a saeculis fuerat celeberrima. lam ab Horati tempore: " Impiger extremes currit mercator ad Indos Per mare pauperiem fugiens.
Taprobanes pleraque quam exacte nobis Romani descrip- sere?' lam vero et ceteras insulas ante Lusitanos non 1 Code VIII, 40, 13 (De ftdeiussoribus, L. Si Barsagoram).
* Nonius Marcellus, De varia significatione sermonum, in verbo ' occupare ' (p. 662, Lindsay); cf. Connanus, Commentarii juris civilis III, 3; cf. Donellus Commentarii de jure civili IV, 10.
* [' invenire esse ' would seem to be the reading demanded rather than ' invenisse.']
4 Institutes II, 1, 13 (De rerum divisione, § Illud quaesitum est). •Digest XLI, 2, 3 (De adquirenda possessione, § Neratius). ' Pliny, Naturalis historia VI, 22.
FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 12 as Gordian * points out in one of his letters. For that reason the Grammarians 2 give the same signification to the expressions ' to find ' or ' to discover ' and ' to take posses- sion of or ' to occupy '; and all the Latin with which I am acquainted tells us that the opposite of ' to find ' 3 is ' to lose '. However, natural reason itself, the precise words of the law, and the interpretation of the more learned men 4 all show clearly that the act of discovery is sufficient to give a clear title of sovereignty only when it is accompanied by actual possession. And this only applies of course to mov- ables or to such immovables as are actually inclosed within fixed bounds and guarded.8 No such claim can be estab- lished in the present case, because the Portuguese maintain no garrisons in those regions. Neither can the Portuguese by any possible means claim to have discovered India, a country which was famous centuries and centuries ago! It was already known as early as the tune of the emperor Augustus as the following quotation from Horace shows: