Talk:Emer de Vattel

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Image on Commons, please

Could you put the image of the book on commons.WP.org so that I can use the same in fr.WP.org, thanx in advance. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Michel_ouiki --85.1.140.146 21:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 03:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Switzerland?

From 1707 until 1857 Neuchatel was part of the Kingdom of Prussia. Until 1806 it was part of the Holy Roman Empire (of the German Nation). In 1815 Frederick William III allowed Neuchatel to join the Swiss Confederation, then not yet an integrated federation, but a confederacy, as a full member. Thus Neuchâtel became the first and only monarchy to join the otherwise entirely republican Swiss cantons. (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuch%C3%A2tel_%28canton%29 - 2012-03-03). During his entire life he was a subject of the king of Prussia. He was a Prussian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.221.21.29 (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

This is simply wrong. See the discussion below under Vattel and Switzerland. Being a subject of the King of Prussia in his capacity as Prince of Neufchatel does not make someone Prussian. MirroredApple (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Name

Why does the title have Emerich and the text Emer? Languagehat (talk) 15:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Both names appear in reliable sources. If I recall correctly, Emer is the correct name.--Other Choices (talk) 12:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

That's fine, but then the title should reflect that. It looks silly to have different names in title and text. The text can include "Also known as Emerich." I'm not going to do it because I know nothing about him and don't want to make the call. Languagehat (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

An authoritative source for Vattel's name (and also biographical details) is the introduction to the recent Liberty Fund edition of The Law of Nations here. I'll take care of the move, but it might take some fumbling around, never did that before. --Other Choices (talk) 04:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Personal name. The choice of which alternative names to list in the lead seems arbitrary. I don't have any particular suggestion.

• Emer. His given name, and the name used as the author of the English translation of The Law of Nations.
• Emeric. Spelling used for the entry in the Encyclopædia Britannica, 11th ed.
• Emerich. oil.libertyfund.org describes this as a mistakenly applied German name.
• Émerich. From the secondary source Great Jurists of the World.
• Emmerich. Spelling used in The New International Encyclopaedia, and given in the lead as an alternative name. Both alternative names Emerich and Emmerich were removed in 2012, but then Emmerich was re-added in 2018.

Family name. His family name in this article is written sometimes as "Vattel" and sometimes as "de Vattel". Given that the author of the French edition of The Law of Nations is "M. de Vattel", I propose that this article use "de Vattel", except of course when a reference uses only "Vattel".

Dotyoyo (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

However, there are places online where his last name is written merely as "Vattel", including his online Encyclopedia Britannica entry. I'm unsure which language-based or national pattern is most appropriate here. Dotyoyo (talk) 13:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Vattel and Switzerland

(Moving here, where it is more appropriate, this conversation from my talk page.--Sapphorain (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC))

You frequently corrected the Vattel entries to try and say he was not Swiss. It's true that nationality would certainly be an anachronistic way to talk about allegiance at the time, although that's often the convention on Wikipedia.

Neufchatel, while under the personal dominion of King of Prussia during Vattel's life did not make Neufchatel "Prussian." And, indeed, Neufchatel was during his lifetime a part of the Old Swiss Confederacy. Citing Vattel himself:

"Of two states subject to the same prince. Two sovereign states may also be subject to the same prince, without any dependence on each other, and each may retain all its rights as a free and sovereign state. The king of Prussia is sovereign prince of Neufchatel in Switzerland, without that principality being in any manner united to his other dominions; so that the people of Neufchatel, in virtue of their franchises, may serve a foreign power at war with the king of Prussia, provided that the war be not on account of that principality." - Vattel, Law of Nations, §9.

"Those cities of Switzerland, such as Neufchatel and Bienne, which have the right of banner, have, by natural consequence, a right to treat with foreign powers, although the cities in question be subject to the dominion of a prince: for the right of banner, or of arms, comprehends that of granting succours of troops, provided such grants be not inconsistent with the service of the prince." - Vattel, Law of Nations, §60.

Indeed, Vattel spent a lot of time talking about Switzerland in his the Law of Nations and derives many of his examples from the Swiss, in part because Neufchatel was part of the Old Swiss Confederacy (most of which was under the dominion of another prince or sovereign). Just as it would "be absurd to classify Schopenhauer as Polish" despite being from Danzig, so too would it be absurd to classify Vattel as "Prussian" or as anything other than "from Neufchatel" or "Swiss," given his own identification with Switzerland and the Neufchatel's long association, even at the time, with the Confederacy.

Heck, he alludes to his own identification as Swiss in the preface to the Law of Nations, which one scholar used to claim: "Ainsi fut Emer de Vattel, le premier auteur suisse de droit international à être conscient de sa nationalité." — Paul Guggenheim, Emer de Vattel et l’étude des relations internationales en Suisse (Genève: Georg, 1956), 24. For these reasons, I'd suggest you go about fixing any other edits you've made on this subject. MirroredApple (talk) 01:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

First of all, Neuchâtel never belonged to the Old Swiss Confederacy. It was an associate, as was for instance the independent Republic of Geneva. It didn’t joined the (new) Swiss Confederacy before 1815, as did Geneva. May I remind that in this similar instance of Geneva, it has been decided that categories of people from the Republic of Geneva should not be nested under Swiss categories but under European categories: see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 17#Category:People from the Republic of Geneva.

Nobody denies the strong ties there were at that time between Neuchâtel and the Old Confederacy. But having strong ties with the Confederacy doesn’t transforms a subject of Neuchâtel, and thus of Prussia, into a citizen of the Confederacy, even if the said subject (or some other scholar) inaccurately declares he is Swiss. Even if Emer de Vattel felt much more like a Swiss than a Prussian, and imprecisely mentions that Neuchâtel was then in Switzerland, the fact is that he was a subject of the king of Prussia, and that Neuchâtel was not in Switzerland at the time. His feeling must of course be mentioned in the article, and this can be done as lengthily as deemed necessary, but categories cannot be approximate.--Sapphorain (talk) 08:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

You simply have no idea what it means to 1) be part of a personal union under a monarch and 2) what the concept of an associated power with the old Swiss Confederacy means; nothing "belonged" to the Swiss Confederacy.

You also seem to be confused about the meaning of "subject," "citizen" and other words denoting political allegiance and their relationship to identities. Identities can be both political and geographic, for example, "American" and "American," "European" and "European," and there is an argument for "Swiss" and "Swiss." But that doesn't even matter here as Neufchatel and, as evidenced by Vattel himself, its residents conceived of themselves as Swiss and as belonging to that political alliance.

To be subject to a monarch did not, and does not, make a place part of another place. See the prior cite to Vattel ("The king of Prussia is the sovereign prince of Neufchatel in Switzerland, without that principality being in any manner united to his other dominions."). So Vattel wasn't a "subject of Prussia" but a "Subject of Frederick, Prince of Neufchatel." That's why monarchs have multiple stylings!

In all seriousness, you can't possibly be claiming that although the leading scholar on international law of his era (1) describes his own principality as "Swiss" and a part of "Switzerland," (2) describes himself as "Swiss," and (3) describes the founders of the Helvetic Body as his "forefathers," that you nevertheless think your opinion and ahistorical ideas about how "Switzerland" and "Swiss" were conceived of in the eighteenth century supersedes that? Numerous contemporary texts in numerous languages refer to Neuchâtel as being part of Switzerland. For example, this book from 1796 on the "Deeds of Frederick the Great" describes him as "Statthalter zu Neuenburg in Schweiz." This general textbook from 1793 describes "Die Schweiz" as consisting of "Das Furstenthum Neuenburg oder Neufchatel."

You're simply wrong. Just acknowledge your error and correct your mistakes. MirroredApple (talk) 11:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

To further illustrate the absurdity. By your logic, we should remove Cervantes from the category of Spanish Writers because he was born a subject to Emperor Charles V who, among other things, was Archduke of Austria. Ergo, according to your logic, Cervantes was "Austrian" at the time of his birth and thus should be categorized as an "Austrian Writer." Indeed, Cervantes spent his whole life a subject of monarchs with multiple stylings. Philip, Charles' successor, was also King of Portugal, so I guess that meant Cervantes was also a "Portuguese Writer"....

We know that's absurd because at the time the "Archduke of Austria" was also "King of Spain." Cervantes was a subject to Charles through his title as "King of Spain" and he was subject to Phillip through his title as "King of Spain," just as Vattel was subject to Frederick through his title as Prince of Neufchatel. So even if you don't want to acknowledge Neuchatel as being "Swiss" within the meaning of the term in the eighteenth century, at the very least your insistence on labeling him "Prussian," should stop.

I mean, the contention about Neufchatel not being Swiss is still absurd as letters patent from the seventeenth century described the title over Neufchatel as "prince souverain de Neuchâtel en Suisse..." But we can continue that part later. MirroredApple (talk) 11:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Whoever ruled it — first the French and then Prussia — the fact is that the Principality of Neuchâtel was not a State belonging to the Old Swiss Confederacy and did not join Switzerland before 1815. Despite all the references you invoke you will not be able to change that. Comparison with Spain is totally irrelevant: Spain is known as a region of Europe since Roman times (« Hispania »), and this has never been the case of Switzerland (the region occupied by the Helvetii is largely unreferenced, and incidentally did not comprise Neuchâtel or Geneva). The Old Swiss Confederacy comprised 15 of the Cantons of modern Switzerland, and some others which were at the time territories (mainly of Zurich or Bern, as Vaud and Jura). Several other parts of modern Switzerland did have some treaties with the Confederacy but were thus only, and most of the time extremely loosely, « associates » of some parts of it, and not in any way could be referred to be a member of it. For instance Neuchâtel had treaties with only 4 of the 15 cantons, and Geneva with only 2 of them !

The leading scholar on international law of his time may very well describe himself as Swiss, but that doesn’t make him thus: objective encyclopedic characteristics of people rarely take into account what these individuals think of themselves. He may very well have regarded the founders of the Confederacy as his « forefathers » — and this may and must be mentioned in his article — but this doesn’t confer him a nationality — or burgher right from a Swiss canton — he couldn’t hold at that time.

Incidentally one of the document you invoke says exactly the opposite of your claim: "Das Fürstenthum Neuenburg oder Neufchatel und die Grafschaft Valangin gehören dem Könige von Preussen".

Let’s also mention the fact that in 1747 he was accredited in Bern as an embassy councillor, see [1]: being an embassy councillor to a State is hardly a position a national of that same State could hold.--Sapphorain (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, you keep projecting late-modern ideas of statehood, allegiance, citizenship, and nationality into an early modern context in which they simply do not fit. I mean, it would be helpful if you'd cite something to actually support your contentions. But "Switzerland" and the "Old Swiss Confederacy" were not states in the modern sense of the word, despite your efforts to try an imagine them as such. Nor was "modern" Switzerland entirely "modern" in 1815. The Final Act of the Congress of Vienna did declare that the Principality of Neufchatel was to be "united" with Switzerland (such as it was then being created) (Art. LXXV). However, the Final Act also held "His Majesty the King of Prussia … shall possess anew, as formerly, in full property and sovereignty, the following countries ... the principality of Neufchatel." (Art. XXIII). So, would someone from Neufchatel in 1830 or 1840 be Prussian or Swiss?

But, back to the eighteenth century. In 1709, after obtaining the title of Prince of Neufchatel, the King of Prussia issued instructions to the Council of State of Neufchatel. Those instructions included the following:

“34. Il faut avoir soin en toutes rencontres de mettre dans le plus grand jour et d’établir cette vérité, que l’État de Neufchâtel fait partie de la Suisse et est un véritable membre du Corps Helvétique.”

“35. Ainsi, il importe de se conformer autant qu’il sera possible à toutes les Résolutions du Corps Helvétique, à ses Maximes, à sa Politique, etc., et que le Conseil d’État de Neufchâtel ne dise ni ne fasse rien qui puisse faire soupçonner que l’on pense à faire de Neufchâtel un État qui ne tienne en rien au Corps Helvétique. Et il faut, au contraire, cultiver avec soin une correspondance générale avec le dit Corps Helvétique et resserrer les liens qui l’unissent à lui.”

“36. Il seroit même à souhaiter que cet État pût être uni plus étroitement audit Corps Helvétique par quelque nouvelle Alliance, mais en attendant, il faudra surtout entretenir une bonne intelligence avec les Cantons de Lucerne, Fribourg et Soleure, comme aussy avec les Protestants en général et surtout avec celui de Berne en particulier.”

So, the King of Prussia states in his own message to the Council of State of Neufchatel that his personal possession is a part of Switzerland....

But finally, out of exhaustion with your absurd intransigence, I'll cite to Le Dictionnaire historique de la Suisse (DHS), which defines "Corps helvétique" as "Désignation de la Confédération suisse, soit de l'ensemble formé par les treize cantons et leurs alliés, communément utilisée dès le XVIIe s., parallèlement aux termes de Confédération, Suisse, Confoederatio helvetica, Magna Liga, Ligues et Helvetia. L'expression (en latin Corpus helveticum) trouve son origine dans le nom des Helvètes, redécouvert par les humanistes et appliqué aux Confédérés. Dans la première moitié du XVIIe s., "Corps helvétique" était fréquemment employé dans la correspondance diplomatique française, mais alternait encore, sous Louis XIV, avec d'autres expressions ("Corps des Ligues helvétiques", "Corps de la Nation helvétique", "République helvétique"). Vers la fin du XVIIe s. pourtant, "Corps helvétique" l'emporte dans les lettres royales. Au XVIIIe s., il sera le nom officiel de la Suisse en France et entrera même dans l'usage littéraire. Il remplacera systématiquement, dans le Trücklibund conclu en 1715 entre les cantons catholiques et la France, l'expression "les anciennes ligues (des Hautes Allemagnes)", qui figurait dans l'alliance de 1663. Au cours du XVIIIe s., les Etats italiens, l'Espagne, les Provinces-Unies et l'Angleterre l'adopteront aussi officiellement. En Allemagne, on tenta de reprendre la terminologie française dans les actes officiels, grâce à des expressions comme eidgenössischer Corpus, helvetischer Corpus ou simplement Corpus, mais les termes usuels étaient Eidgnoßschaft ou Eidgnossischer Stand. En 1792, l'ambassadeur français François de Barthélemy garantit à nouveau devant la Diète le respect de la neutralité du "Louable Corps helvétique". L'expression disparut en 1798 avec la naissance de la République helvétique."

Seriously, what more do you need to acknowledge your error? Vattel identified himself as from Switzerland. The leading scholars and biographers of Vattel today identify him as Swiss. His sovereign described the territory as part of Switzerland. And the leading historical dictionary says that in the Seventeenth Century, when Vattel lived, "Suisse" was "formé par les treize cantons et leurs alliés." MirroredApple (talk) 18:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I do think all of your misunderstandings can be summed up with the first sentence of your earlier reply "Whoever ruled it — first the French and then Prussia." That is an entirely modern way of understanding rule. One that would have seemed somewhat strange even in the early nineteenth century.

Neufchatel was not ruled by "the French" nor "by Prussia." It was a possession of the house of Orleans until 1707 when it then was passed (by selection in part of the people of Neufchatel) to the house of Hohenzollern. The Hohenzollerns did not have absolute control over Neufchatel and disputes between the Prince of Neufchatel and the City of Neufchatel were arbitrated by the Canton of Berne.

These were personal possessions. Being a subject of a prince did not confer some kind of nationality as it would be understood in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries. Nor did it necessarily render a change in the place. England did not become Scotland, nor did the English become Scottish when James VI of Scotland ascended the throne of England as James I. Nor would that have made sense conceptually at the time of James' ascension. Such a change only happened through annexation, which was relatively rare in central Europe before the late 18th and early 19th centuries (when modern ideas about states and nations became more widespread). Before that, (during the time we're talking about), the personal union, where a monarch governed multiple, legally separate territories, was more common. So, again, it is as absurd to call Vatel "Prussian" as it would be to call Shakespeare or Newton "Scottish."

Also, I can't help but think you must be from Geneva, and all this resistance is the result of some contemporary cantonal psychodrama. MirroredApple (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Following this line of reasoning, any place in Europe which had a treaty of alliance with at least one of the cantons of the Old Swiss Confederacy should be referred to as « Swiss », like for instance Mulhouse (1515-1798):[2], or Rottweil (1346-1798) [3]. That is plainly absurd. An ally does not become part of the country it is allied with just because it signed a treaty of alliance. Such a belonging can of course become true later on, if more binding treaties are signed, as in the cases of Neuchâtel and Geneva in the nineteenth century. Nobody would insist now in calling an eighteenth century person from Mulhouse or Rottweil a « Swiss »: so why would one insist in imposing such a denomination on an eighteenth century person from Neuchâtel or Geneva?!

Regarding your last sentence, I think you should refrain from uttering such platitudes.--Sapphorain (talk) 19:29, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I mean, that's the definition in the Swiss historical dictionary. Do you have ANYTHING to actually add other than intransigence. Le Dictionnaire historique de la Suisse (DHS), defines "Corps helvétique" as "Désignation de la Confédération suisse, soit de l'ensemble formé par les treize cantons et leurs alliés, communément utilisée dès le XVIIe s., parallèlement aux termes de Confédération, Suisse, Confoederatio helvetica, Magna Liga, Ligues et Helvetia.

Likewise, it defines "Suisse" as "Le nom de Suisse s'appliquait toujours à l'ensemble de la Confédération et incluait donc les membres nouvellement affiliés à l'alliance."

So, look, you can be upset that the way the term was used historically does not comport with your modern understanding, but that doesn't make you correct when discussing HISTORICAL FIGURES. It also does not reason that ANY place with a treaty would be referred to as Swiss, not all alliances are the same. Importantly for the Swiss, it mattered whether the alliance provided reciprocal citizenship within the cities or places at issue and whether it was a treaty like the others that made up the "Helvetic Body." Not all alliances are equal.

But, importantly, as was mentioned elsewhere, "Suisse" was, in the 17th and 18th centuries, a geographic more than a political signifier. The DHS, again, states in its entry for "Suisse," "Le terme de Suisse devint prédominant dans l'usage en Suisse même au cours de la seconde moitié du XIXe s. En même temps, sa signification, jusqu'alors plutôt géographique, comprit désormais aussi l'Etat, tandis qu'étaient reléguées les appellations Helvetia, Confoederatio, Confédérés, Confoederatio helvetica, Liga, Bund, Treize Cantons et Corps helvétique."

I'm also amused that you're not even going to acknowledge the instructions to the Neufchatel's council from their sovereign declaring " l’État de Neufchâtel fait partie de la Suisse et est un véritable membre du Corps Helvétique." You're just going to continue to write out unsubstantiated opinion after unsubstantiated opinion without providing any primary sources or references to scholarly analysis. I mean, if that's how you want to roll because you're in denial or something, I guess you can do that. You could also just admit your error in projecting your twentieth century ideas about nationality and citizenship and "Swiss-ness" into an era where such ideas were wildly different, stop being captious about things you don't understand, and stop vandalizing wikipedia pages with your erroneous, ahistoric understandings of Switzerland.

If you want to go into Mulhouse and Rottweil, fine. Both had seats at the Tagsatzung... you know, where they met with other members of the Confederation and they were often included on maps of Switzerland at the time and in books about Switzerland. Not going to waste my time shooting down both your examples. But, MOST IMPORTANTLY, Mulhouse was defined as part of "universae Helvetiae" ("Toute la Suisse" in the French translation of 1651) in the treaties of Westphalia. See, for example correspondence in advance of the treaties, which note, "Les villes impérialles sont Colmar, Kaizersperg, Munster, Durckeim et Mulhausen, jadis impérialle et maintenant adjoustée à la ligue des Suisses." As such, the French did not take possession of Mulhouse after the treaty (because it was part of "universae Helvetiae," unlike many other cities in Alsace).

But, I guess arguably the most important treaty of the early-modern era, the treaty which formally granted "universae Helvetiae" independence from the Holy Roman Empire probably isn't enough for you to determine that someone from Mulhouse would be considered "Swiss" in the 17th century..... Because they wouldn't be called such today. I mean, it seems like if it was good enough for France to not take control of the city, it should be good enough for you.

That said, it would be perfectly reasonable to say, "well in a contemporary article it would probably confuse more than illuminate to call a seventeenth-century resident of Mulhouse, Swiss." And I would say, "yeah fine, Mulhouse was less Swiss in many ways than other regions." In contrast, being captious and ahistorical about somebody like Vattel who is widely acknowledged today as "Swiss," in a place that is now a part of Switzerland, and who would have been considered as "Swiss" and as living in "Switzerland" in the eighteenth century does nothing useful. It confuses rather than illuminates. And calling him "Prussian" is just plain wrong.

In all seriousness @Sapphorain, are you still going to keep up this hobby horse of yours, or will you finally just accept that you're wrong. Happy if you actually want to cite to some actual primary sources or scholarly authorities here.... But I'm guessing you won't. You'll just continue to express unsubstantiated opinions. MirroredApple (talk) 14:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, I came accross this in another context and just thought it hilarious in the context of your arguments. The cover page, and location of publication, alone may make your head explode and then we can be done with the absurdity. Nouveau journal helvétique ou Annales littéraires et politiques de l'Europe... - Google Books MirroredApple (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2024 (UTC)