Thanks to Barbeyrac, Pufendorf and others, there is a long-familiar picture of Grotius as offering a groundbreaking account of natural law. By now there is also a familiar observation that there is no agreement what makes Grotius’s account innovative. Sometimes this leads to skepticism about how innovative Grotius’s account of natural law really is. Some scholars suggest that Grotius’s account of natural law resembles Suárez’s account. But others continue to argue that Barbeyrac is right to see Grotius as breaking the ice of previous philosophy and laying the groundwork for a distinctively modern moral philosophy. I plan to contribute to the debate by arguing that, properly understood, Grotius’s position is similar to Suárez’s on a range of fundamental questions, and, furthermore, that seeing Grotius as making a radical break with the past violates his own self-conception.

多亏了Barbeyrac，Pupendorf和其他人，人们对Grotius有了一个熟悉的画面，它提供了开创性的自然法则说明。到现在为止，还有一个熟悉的观察发现，就Grotius帐户的创新而言，尚无共识。有时，这导致人们怀疑格罗蒂乌斯对自然法的创新性究竟有多高。一些学者认为，格罗蒂乌斯（Grotius）对自然法的描述与苏亚雷斯（Suárez）的描述相似。但是其他人继续认为，巴尔贝拉克认为格罗蒂乌斯（Grotius）打破了先前哲学的坚冰，为独特的现代道德哲学奠定了基础是正确的。我计划为辩论辩护，认为适当地理解，格罗蒂乌斯在一系列基本问题上的立场类似于苏亚雷斯，而且，