Notes on the English text of the Treaty of Westphalia

No scholar of history would discuss the Peace of Westphalia with its English text. The treaty is written in Latin and scholars can have access to the original text or various references about it. However, for many lay people (like me), the English translation on the Internet is virtually the only available text. On this account, it would not be without use to make some comments on the nature of this English version.

For several weeks, I have been working on the translation of the Peace of Westphalia into Japanese. Because of my (very) limited knowledge of Latin, I had to use the English version mainly. As I proceeded, however, I noticed there were several problems in the English text. Some are mere typographical errors, which may either have arisen in preparing the electronic text or have been carried over from the original English translation. Some are relatively harmless omissions. There are, however, several points which may affect the understanding of some details of the Peace of Westphalia.
It goes without saying that the English translation can be considered a kind of historical document itself. So it would not be always advisable to correct part of the translation. But making comments on it would be worth some while.

The English text of the Peace of Westphalia can be found on many websites, among which I used those of The Avalon Project and The Fletcher School. I compared the two texts and found that they were identical apart from one or two (different) typographical errors in the article numbers in either version (as of Sept. 2003).

It cannot be stressed too much that the problems I comment on are not the blame of the above-mentioned websites. They seem to be attributable to the original English translation. Judging from the orthography employed, the translation was done in the 17th or 18th century. (Incidentally, England was not party to the Treaty.) And because the English text was not meant for legal force, the translation seems to have been done in a bureaucratical way.

What is "the Treaty of Westphalia"?

The Treaty of Westphalia is the peace treaty which concluded the Thirty Years War. It is also well-known that it is not a single treaty but a series of treaties concluded in 1648.
Negotiation for peace was conducted in two cities of Munster and Osnabruck in Westphalia, Germany. In January 1648, Spain and the Netherlands signed the Treaty of Munster, which confirmed the independence of the Netherlands. In 24th October 1648, France and the Holy Roman Empire signed the Treaty of Munster, while Sweden and the Empire signed the Treaty of Osnabruck.
The English "Treaty of Westphalia" is the Treaty of Munster on 24th October. It seems, however, the Treaty of Osnabruck is generally regarded as more important (see, for example, Forschungsstelle "Westfalischer Friede"). So it is not very advisable to discuss the Treaty of Westphalia solely based on the text of the Treaty of Munster.

Article Numbering

The article numbers of the English text do not always correspond with those of the Latin version (the original text having no numbering). The differences are as follows:

English Article	Latin Article
1	1
2	2
3	3
4	4 5
5	6
6	7
7	8
8	9
9	10
10	11
11	12
12	13
13	14
14	15
15	16
16	17
17	18
18	19
19	20
20	21
21	22
22	23
23	24
24	25
25	26

English Article	Latin Article
26	27
27	28
28	29
29	30
30	31
31	32
32	33
33	34
34	35 36
35	37
36	36 37 38
37	39
38	39
39	40
40	40
41	41
42	42
43	43
44	44
45	45 46
46	47
47	48
48	49
49	50
50	51

English Article	Latin Article
51	52
52	53
53	54
54	55
55	56
56	57
57	57
58	58
59	59
60	60
61	61
62	62
63	63
64	64
65	65
66	66
67	67
68	68
69	69
70	70 71
71	72
72	73
73	74
74	75
75	76

English Article	Latin Article
76	76
77	76
78	77
79	78
80	79
81	80
82	81
83	82
84	83
85	84
86	85
87	86
88	86
89	86 87
90	88
91	88
92	89
93	90
94	91
95	92
96	93
97	94
98	95
99	95
100	96

English Article	Latin Article
101	97
102	98
103	99
104	100
105	101
106	102
107	103
108	104
109	105
110	106
111	107
112	108
113	109
114	110
115	111
116	112
117	113
118	114
119	115
120	116
121	117
122	118
123	119
124	120
125	121
126	122
127	123
128	124

The article numbers of the Treaty of Osnabruck are completely different. The following are examples taken from Forschungsstelle "Westfalischer Friede" and other places.
Article V Section 30 Territorial rights and sovereignty of the States of the Empire
Article V Section 52 No more majority principle in the Imperial Diet in religious matters
Article VI Recognition of Protestants
Article VIII Section 1 Territorial rights of the States of the Empire
Article VIII Section 2 Right of the States of the Empire to make alliances with foreign powers
Article XIII Section 13 Bishopric of Osnabruck
Article XIV Margrave of Brandenburg
Article XVII Incorporation of the Treaty of Westphalia into the Constitutions of the Empire

Text

The following are the possible problems found in the English translation.

Article IV

after the Disputes between France and Spain (comprehended in this Treaty) shall be terminated
post controversias inter Galliam Hispaniamque sopitas, hac Pacificatione comprehensas
sopitas: pl. acc. of sopitum, p.p. of sopio (to calm)
"Comprehended" here means accession of Spain to the Treaty. A possible alternative is
after the Disputes between France and Spain shall be terminated and she is comprehended in this Treaty

Article XIII

all Acts and Arrests obtain'd for that end, in order to be made void and null
omnia instrumenta desuper obtenta ... ad cassandum et annullandum
cassandum: future passive partiticple of casso (to tear, make void)
The translator inserts "Arrests" from time to time. I wonder if this is really necessary. The "instrumenta" should refer to the documents which proves the right of the Elector of Bavaria.

Article XXI

forty thousand Rixdollars
quadringinta imperialium thalerorum millia
This should be four hundred thousand rixdollars [Reichstalers]. "Quadringinta" is 400. "Quadraginta" is 40.

Article XXI

ten thousand Rixdollars
centena millia
That this is "one hundred thousand" should have been obvious.

Article XXVII

on the Elector of Bavaria, on Baron John Adolph Wolff
ab Electore Bavariae, in Baronem Joannem-Adolphum Wolff
The translation reads as if the Elector of Bavaria was conferred some fief by the Emperor. But the "ab" in Latin shows the fief here was conferred by the Elector to the Baron.
by the Elector of Bavaria on Baron John Adolph Wolff

Article XXXIX

if the Debtors alledge and offer to prove there has been a real Payment
contra debitores veram violentiam et realem solutionem intercessisse allegantes, et se ad probandum offerentes,
There are some omissions in the English translation here and following. The following might better correspond to the Latin text.
if the Debtors allege and offer to prove themselves there have been a true violence against them and a real payment

Article XXXIX

the Debtors shall be oblig'd to produce their Exceptions within the term of two years after the Publication of the Peace, upon pain of being afterwards condemn'd to perpetual Silence.
processu desuper instituto a pacis publicatione infra biennium finiendo sub poena perpetui silentii contumacibus debitoribus imponenda.
processu: Abl. of processus (proceeding, process, lawsuit)
This article sets forth that (in a nutshell) the debts are cancelled. "Exception" here means the case in which the debts are effective. So it must be the creditors who should produce their exceptions. My interpretation is as follows.
filing of the abovementioned proceedings [on the part of the creditors for the exception] must be finished within the term of two years after the publication of the peace, upon pain of perpetual silence towards the contumacious debtors imposed upon them [the creditors].

the Paragraph, Tandemomnes, &c.

$* Tandem omnes, etc. [$* denotes the section symbol]
Here, the translator did his (I presume) job mechanically. This refers to Article XLIII, which could never be identifiable from the English text. In the same Article, there also appears "the Article, which commences, Unanimi, &c." This seems to refer to Article XLIV.
Furthermore, "Tandemomnes" should be "Tandem omnes" with a space. I will hereafter refrain from mentioning this kind of simple typo.

Article LX

the 14th of April, the preceding Year
die decimaquarta mensis Aprilis, proxime elapsi,
The treaty was signed in October of the same year. This should read
the 14th of April last

Article LXV

a Peace of Alliance
pax et foedera
"of" should read "and".

Article LXVII

which ... under what pretext soever they have been done
The subject of "have" is which. So "they" is superfluous.

Article XC

his most Christian Majesty shall pay to the said Lord, the Duke of Mantua, four hundred ninety four thousand Crowns
quadringenta et nonaginta quatuor aureorum millia, ..., Christianissima Majestas praesenti parataque pecunia dicto Domino Duci Mantuae numerari faciet
numerari: passive present infinitive of numero (to pay)
faciet: future 3rd. sing. of facio (to make)
Relatively minor omission. Literally, the original reads:
his most Christian Majesty shall cause four hundred ninety four thousand Crowns to be paid in ready money to the said Lord Duke of Mantua

Article XCVII

Montserrat
Montisferratus
This might cause some confusion to students. At least in today's convention, "Montserrat" is in the West Indies or in Spain and "Monferrato" is in Italy. In those days, "s" was printed with a type somewhat similar to "f."
Probably this is a mere typographical error on preparing the electronic text, but I judged it was worth mentioning here.

Article CVII

his Imperial Majesty shall chuse one or two as he shall think fit
Caesarea Majestas ex iis, quos restituendos nominaverit, unum deliget, aliumque pro suo arbitrio
This is a considerable omission. It should be as follows. (If "restoree" is not English, it should be "those to whom restitution is to be made" as rendered in other parts of this article.)
his Imperial Majesty shall choose one from those whom the restorees shall nominate and another as he shall think fit

Article CXVIII

only each Party shall send to and keep up as many Men in his own Dominion
eo tantum numero in suos cujusque proprios status traducto
numero [Abl.] / suos [adj.Acc.pl.] / ejusque [pron.Gen.sing.] / proprios [Acc.pl.] / status [Acc.pl.] / traducto [sing.Abl.]
Here, my Latin fails. But I strongly feel "send to and keep" is a mistranslation.My interepretation is something like this.
[keeping] only those numbers reduced to their proper state

Information Wanted

Admittedly, I referred to the original Latin text only occasionally, when I had difficulty in understanding the English version. And as my command of Latin is very much limited, there might be misunderstandings on my part. Further information, corrections or any comment are welcome.

Notes on Latin sources of the Treaty of Westphalia

(Added on 12 May 2014) The Latin text of the Treaty of Münster (24 October 1648) is found in Les grands traités du règne de Louis XIV at Internet Archive or Gallica, which also refers to earlier sources in INTRODUCTION.
According to a scholarly work (Akashi Kinji, Acta Pacis Westphalicae Mythos et Veritas (in Japanese)), the Latin text of the Treaties of Münster and Osnabrück are said to be included in:
Acta Pacis Westphalicae Serie III, Abteilung B, Band i (Münster, 1962- )
K. Zeumer, Quellensammulung zur Geshichte der deutchen Reisverfassung in Mittelalter und Neuzeit, 2 Teile, 2. u. vermerte Aufl. (Tübingen, 1913)
Du Mont, Corps universel diplomatique du droit des gens, Tome I, Partie I - Tome VIII, Partie II (Amsterdam/La Haye, 1726-1731) is said to include a Latin text of the Treaty of Osnabrück and a French translation of the Treaty of Münster.
An English translation of the Treaty of Münster (January 1648) is in J. Debrett, A Collection of All the Treaties of Peace, Alliance, and Commerce, Between Great-Britain and Other Powers (1785) (Google; also at Gallica) p.10 ff.

S. Tomokiyo
My Home (mainly Japanese) The Treaty of Westphalia (Japanese version)