Thus, nothing in the text indicates that animals ha\e this knowledge or that we see that thev ha\ e. We imagine it.'" Ot course there is a philosophical background to humans thinking about animals sharing in rationalit\’, hut nothing that would iustifv llonore's conelusion that Ulpian, the author of the text, was a NeoPlatonic. M\' translation of 7.1.2. pr. then would he: \arural law i.s that which nature taught all animals. I'or that law is not particular to human kind, hut to all animals that are horn in the skv, <ui the land, in the sea. Fromit descends that mixing together of male and female that we call marriage, from it the procreation and hringing up ot children: tor we imagine the other animals also with knowledge ot this law. \ II To this point 1 ha\ e focused e.xclusix eh’ on y.i.ipr., i and 2, hut a few other texts must he taken into consideration. .7.1.2.11. Sed naturalia quidem iura, quae apud omnes gentes peraeque ser\ - antur, di\ ina quadam pro\ identia constituta, semper tirma atque immutahilia permanent: ea \ ero quae ipsa sihi quaeque ci\ itas constituit, saepe mutari Solent \el tacito consensu populi \el alia postea lege lata. II. Now, natural laws which are followed h\ all nations alike, deri\ ing trom di\ ine providence, remain alwavs constant and immutahle: hut those which each state establishes for itself are liable to frequent change whether hv the tacit consent of the people iir hv subsequent legislation. ‘ More confusion. Inni miturtiliu-'x'^ this plural the same as the singular ins thiruniUr -are followed h\’ all nations. .Vre thee therefore the same as insgentiumor at least include all of the insgeutinm? 1 doubt that this 22 The closest understanding of the text to mine that I know is that of Vinnius, In quattuor libros Institutionumimperialum Commentarius: "Idest, haberi properitis hujus juris, eorums namero adscribi". 23 The translation is again that of Thomas, Institutes, p. 6 32
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=