Selections from Three Works. Francisco Suárez

Selections from Three Works

the preparation of the translation, however, various other editions have been consulted, notably the Paris edition of the Opera Omnia published in 1856–61.1 Several of the separate early editions of the treatises mentioned above were also referred to from time to time,2 as was the Spanish translation of the De legibus prepared by Don Jaime Torrubiano Ripoll.3

Some mention must be made here of the numerous problems encountered in translating the Selections. First of all there is the fact that as both a theologian and a philosophical jurist Suárez dealt with abstract and technical ideas, with fine distinctions and precise definitions. Again, his aim throughout his work was obviously fullness of presentation rather than conciseness

[print edition page xx]

or a terse and sententious style. Then, too, steeped in the learning of the Schoolmen as he was, he naturally employed the scholastic method of exposition, presenting in detail the arguments opposed to his own views. In spite of its formalism there is much to be said in favour of the thoroughness of this method, but it demands of the translator that he accustom himself to the scholastic form of argument and that he keep constantly on the alert lest he find himself mistaking the elaborate statement of an opponent’s theories for the author’s own doctrines. For much the same reason it is hazardous for the reader to attempt a casual survey of Suárez by dipping at random into his pages. Finally, while Suárez was an excellent Latinist, his Latin is characterized by a marked tendency toward elliptical expressions and the habit, not uncommon among scholars of his day in Spain, of endowing Latin words with the meaning of their Spanish derivatives.

In coping with these problems it was necessary to obtain the services of exceptionally competent translators who were qualified to deal not only with Suárez’s subject-matter but with scholastic argument and logic, and who could render his profound and sometimes rather elusive thought into clear English. At the same time it was felt that his language should not be too much modernized in the English version. Suárez was one of the great Schoolmen, and it seemed appropriate that the translation of the Selections should retain a scholastic flavour. The English text therefore reproduces in some measure his formal style of argument and the terms of logic employed by him.

There are, however, certain theological and scholastic terms in the text which are unfamiliar to laymen. To minimize the reader’s perplexity over these terms the translators, and especially the reviser, have added numerous footnotes. Other footnotes have been added with reference to citations, or as guides where Suárez has referred rather loosely to his preceding arguments or propositions.

The treatment of citations, quotations, and certain legal terms calls for a few words of comment. In general the aim has been to give citations in rather full form. This would not have been possible had they been relegated to the margins, as has been done in other volumes in this series. Suárez himself, moreover, had made these citations an integral part of his text. In order, therefore, to avoid confusion and undue abbreviation, which would

[print edition page xxi]

have tended to make such citations unintelligible to the reader, they have been retained in the text of the translation, but are set off from it by parentheses. Within the parentheses, extensions and corrections have been added in square brackets. Where Suárez has, for example, an incorrect reference to Aristotle’s Ethics, the corrected and extended reference is thus added in brackets in the text: (Ethics, Bk. I, chap. ix [Bk. X, chap. ix, § 12]).

Great care has been given to the verification of references and quotations. Biblical citations have been checked against the Latin Vulgate (Paris edition of 1887), and in quotations the language of the Douay version has been employed. In dealing with the many references to St. Thomas Aquinas much use was made of the careful translation of his Summa theologica (2nd ed.) by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Canon law references were for the most part checked against the Friedberg edition (Leipzig, 1879–81) of the Corpus juris canonici, while in verifying and translating Roman law texts recourse was had to the several editions of the Corpus juris civilis by Mommsen, Kreuger, Schoell, and Kroll, published in Berlin, and to S. P. Scott’s translation.4 The texts and translations of the Loeb Classical Library were extensively used in dealing with Suárez’s numerous references to classical authors.

The translators have felt it advisable in certain instances to employ Latin terms in the English text. Thus, in passages where Suárez distinguishes between ius and lex it has seemed best to retain those words in the translation lest the distinction be obscured by the use of the single English equivalent, ‘law’. For a similar reason the words usus, mos, and consuetudo have been retained in certain passages. As regards the term ius gentium, Suárez employs it in both its older and its more modern signification, i.e. as embracing the laws common to various peoples, or as meaning the law applicable to the relations of independent states. Since the Latin term is familiar to readers with any knowledge of law it has not been translated except where Suárez specifically distinguishes the two meanings,5 in which cases ius gentium in the sense of international law has at times been rendered as ‘the law of nations.’

[print edition page xxii]

Various circumstances made it necessary to divide the work of translating among several scholars. Mr. Ammi Brown, whose suggestions regarding the choice of chapters to be included in the Selections were accepted in many instances, also contributed to the project by the preparation of preliminary translations of many chapters. For additional translations, and for the present form of the English version of all of the chapters except those from Book VII of the De legibus, Miss Gwladys L. Williams is responsible. Miss Williams also listed many of the errata in the Latin text. The twenty chapters from the seventh Book were translated independently by Mr. John Waldron. Subsequently the entire translation was carefully read by a noted English Jesuit scholar, Father Henry Davis, who gave special attention to revision and elucidation in connexion with theological terms, and who aided greatly in the verification of references as well as in compiling the Index of Authors and the List of Errata. In addition to assisting in these latter operations and in the editing of the Selections for publication, Mr. Walter H. Zeydel prepared the Subject Index and the Analytical Table of Contents.

[print edition page xxiii]

NOTE ON THIS EDITION

Since the original translation of these works for the Carnegie series Classics of International Law new editions of parts of the original Latin texts of De legibus and of Defensio fidei have appeared in the Corpus Hispanorum de Pace. In addition there is an edition by Karl Deuringer of Suárez’s Roman College lectures De fide, which provides an early version of the material that, subsequently greatly expanded by the author, was published posthumously in 1621 in the treatise on the supernatural virtues. The translations have been checked against these Latin texts, and where necessary some silent corrections have been made. Some explanatory notes have been revised and some further notes have been supplied. The original notes are otherwise retained in square brackets, my additional notes being without brackets.

The bibliography of works cited by Suárez refers to postclassical works, generally in the earliest printed editions. Classical works cited by him can generally be found in Loeb editions. A full list of ancient authors cited can be found in the index to the original Carnegie translation. The further reading includes Scorraille’s life of Suárez and various books and papers that further explain Suárez’s own psychological, moral, and political theory, or the intellectual environment within which he developed his ideas.

I should like to thank Laura Goetz of Liberty Fund for her essential editorial assistance, Professor Knud Haakonssen for his invaluable comments and advice, and Dr. Annabel Brett for her preliminary work on this edition and for very helpful advice.