Talk:Termes de la Ley

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Reference works (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Reference works, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Reference worksWikipedia:WikiProject Reference worksTemplate:WikiProject Reference worksReference works articles

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

edit

Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Further details are here:

http://www.archive.org/details/lestermesdelale00unkngoog

?? This is just a link to the 1636 Termes de la Ley. Belastro (talk) 06:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

what is this stuff edit

Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"Duke LJ. said that this book was "a work of very good authority and the application of the common law".[6] He, and Atkin LJ, approved the definition of imprisonment contained in this book.[7]"

What is a "Duke LJ." thing? What is an "Atkin LJ" thing? Assuming that they are some sort of humans because the "Duke LJ" thing is said to have spoken ("said"), why should their opinions matter to a reader?

The Expositions definition of imprisonment did not appear until the 1579 edition, but it subsequently never changed. By then, John Rastell was long gone (1536), and William Rastell was already dead (1565). Thus, who crafted this definition?

In any event, given that what was "said" was said, apparently, in 1918, this was long after the 1579 printing of this definition. The Atkin LJ thing and the Duke LJ thing therefore could not very well have "approved" the definition. It had already long been accepted, and those LJ things must have also accepted it. They may have "approved of" it, or referred to it "approvingly", but they did not "approve" it, they did nothing to allow this definition to be published.

But why is it relevant in an article on Rastell's work to mention that two random LJ things quoted a random definition that was added to an edition printed long after the author(s) had died? How does this enlighten us?

Was this perhaps an attempt to demonstrate a continuing value for this work? Or the continuing influence, centuries later, of Law French? The editor here would then, I suppose, also need to show that the 1579 definition of imprisonment is somehow more germane, at least in some context, than a corresponding definition taken from a 21st-century law dictionary.

Note that this issue is not about the definition of imprisonment found in Les Termes de la Ley, which is actually a fairly nice statement.

Would anyone object to the deletion of this sentence? Belastro (talk) 06:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add topic