DE INDIS ET DE IVRE BELLI RELECTIONES
BEING PARTS OF
RELECTIONES THEOLOGICAE XII
By FRANCISCUS DE VICTORIA
Primary Professor of Sacred Theology in the University of Salamanca
THE REVISED TEXT
BY HERBERT FRANCIS WRIGHT
of the Catholic University of America
PREFATORY REMARKS CONCERNING THE TEXT TITLE.
The lectures, De Indis and De iure belli, were delivered by Franciscus de Victoria in 1532, as is clear from the opening paragraph of the De Indis. They were not intended for publication by their author and consequently it is probable that he did not give them titles, but simply recited the Scriptural text upon which he intended to base his lecture. When, however, after the author's death, these two lectures on the Indians of the New World, together with ten other lectures by the same author, were being prepared for publication under the general title, "Relectiones Theologicae XII," the editors perhaps felt the necessity of giving a title to each relectio. Consequently, the first of the two studies on the Indians is entitled "De Indis insulanis" in the first edition, "De Indis recenter inventis" in the second edition, and "De Indis noviter inventis" in the third and subsequent editions. The title of this study as given in the second edition has been retained in the present text in preference to that given in the first edition, because it is the more correct of the two furnished by contemporaries. The second of the two studies on the Indians is entitled "De Indis, sive de iure belli Hispanorum in barbaros" in all editions and by subsequent writers is quoted simply as De iure belli.
Concerning the title of the collection, Relectiones Theologicae XII, Ompteda1 and Morhofius2 erroneously call them Prælectiones instead of Relectiones, while Simon in his edition (Cologne and Frankfort, 1696) gives the title as Relectiones Morales. Simon also gives the number as thirteen and in this is undoubtedly following the Ingolstadt edition of 1580.3 There is also some discrepancy among authorities as to the exact relectiones contained in this work. Antonio,4 whom Hurter5 apparently followed, includes an otherwise unknown work, De silentii obligatione, in the Relectiones Theologicæ XII, but it does not appear in the copies of this work that have been accessible to me. The Nouvelle Bibliographie Générale includes not only the above-mentioned De silentii obligatione, but also an altogether separate work, the Summa Sacramentorum Ecclesiae.6
The first edition of the Relectiones was published at Lyons in 1557, in two volumes, under the title I have given above. The individual relectiones were arranged in the two volumes, precisely as indicated in the Table of Contents of that edition, as follows:
Tomus Primus: De potestate Ecclesiae, prior et posterior.
De potestate civili.
De potestate Papae et concilii.
De Indis prior.
De Indis posterior, sive de iure belli.
De matrimonio. Tomus Secundus: De augmento charitatis.
De eo ad quod tenetur veniens ad usum rationis.
These are substantially the same as those given in subsequent editions. Yet the second edition gives the number as eleven, counting the De Indis and the De iure belli as one relectio. The fourth edition (Lyons, 1586) puts the number at thirteen, counting the two relectiones on the power of the Church as two, and in this is followed apparently by Holland, and avowedly by Walker. Hallam, who saw only the Venetian edition (1626), makes the same mistake and accuses Antonio of perhaps never having seen the work because he gives the number as twelve. Yet the two pairs of relectiones which cause this difference ought not to be considered in the same light. The first pair is clearly on the same subject and ought to be treated simply as two parts of a single relectio, although they were delivered at different times; the second deals with two distinctly different subjects, as the very title itself indicates, although the second is suggested by the first. Therefore they ought to be considered as two relectiones, as in the first edition.
Of this work, it is probable that there are no manuscript copies extant. At least, to the editor of the third printed edition (Ingolstadt, 1580), none was available, for he fails to mention any, and, moreover, states that he had corrected the first edition (Lyons, 1557) by the second edition (Salamanca, 1565), except where this was manifestly wrong, in which case he took counsel with eminent theologians and philosophers. If a manuscript copy of the Relectiones had been extant, it would probably have been in some Spanish or French library and accessible to Spanish and French biographers of Victoria. But Antonio, a Spaniard, in his life of Victoria, makes no mention of any, nor is a manuscript copy mentioned by Victoria's French biographers, Dupin, Touron, and Quétif-Echard. Surely, a manuscript would have been mentioned by one of his later biographers, Hinojosa, Barthélemy, and Hurter, if any had been discovered in the intervening years.
Yet even if there be extant somewhere in obscurity a manuscript of Victoria's Relectiones, it would not materially affect the text as transmitted in the first or second editions, as will appear from the rest of these remarks. To secure a complete understanding of this assertion, it is necessary, first to define the word relectio. At Salamanca it meant a kind of theological exercise not very unlike those disputations which were in use in the most celebrated universities of the Middle Ages under the name of quaestiones quodlibeticae. Those quaestiones, which seemed to be the more difficult and more useful of all that had been discussed in the daily prelections of an entire year, were reconsidered in relectiones in the public assembly of learned men by the same doctor, in order that they might be much more accurately decided than theretofore and receive as it were the finishing touches.
The manuscripts, from which the first and second editions of the Relectiones Theologicae XII were edited, were not written by Victoria, because he never intended publishing the lectures and may have used only notes or outlines in delivering them, but were written by Victoria's students from dictation, probably when the lectures were first delivered, because it is not likely, though certainly possible, that they would have been dictated again in the public assembly at the end of the year. At any rate, there would be as many manuscripts of the Relectiones as there were auditors, and, since none of these manuscripts belonged to the author, the authority of the individual manuscript would be considerably lessened, for it is the consensus of the manuscripts that would give what the author probably dictated. This consensus is represented by the first and second editions and would not in all probability be disturbed by a single manuscript. Moreover, a single manuscript would be subject to all the errors attributable to writing from dictation. These reasons will become clearer from the criticisms of the first and second editions, whose editors saw and used manuscript copies of the text.
A little over ten years after Victoria's death, "par grace & priuilege du Roy est permis à Iacques Boyer libraire de Salamanca, imprimer ou faire imprimer vne fois ou plusieurs ce present liure intitule. Reuerediss. Patris Fratris Francisci de Victoria, ordinis Prædicatorum, sacræ Theologicæ in Salmanticensi Academia quondam primarij Professoris Relectiões duodecim Theologicæ." This, the first edition of the Relectiones, bears the imprint of Lyons, 1557, and was prepared for the following reasons, as Boyer relates in his dedicatory letter to the Inquisitor, Ferdinand Valdez.
After mentioning the fact that the works of the early Fathers had been "truncati, confusi, obscuri, perplexi, ac denique alienis inventis conspurcati," Boyer says that this same fate befell Victoria's writings.
"For one person had mutilated them by making an unhappy transcript, another had read them incorrectly, a third by suppressing Victoria's name had usurped a good and large portion of the work, and many had placed the comments of their foolish mind in the midst of his scrupulous doctrine and singular erudition not otherwise than a counterfeit jewel might be set in gold; and the glory that is due the author certain scoundrels had claimed for themselves with impunity."
In these words he gives the reasons for the necessity of printing for the first time a work, which its own author had never deemed it necessary to print. Of course, we would not consider it cause for blame for the student to adapt the doctrine of his master to suit himself, provided he does not attribute the adaptation to his master, but it is a pity that Boyer did not give more definite information and mention the names of the culprits guilty of the crimes he charged. This would have been extremely interesting and useful in showing the great influence of Victoria and would have made possible a more detailed critique of Boyer's methods.
The value to be attached to Boyer's edition may be deduced from the following facts. Boyer was a contemporary of Victoria and was personally acquainted with him. We would have supposed this, even if he had not said it himself, from the fact that he was librarian at Salamanca. Consequently, he had first-band knowledge of Victoria's doctrine. His text was carefully prepared from the manuscript copies of Victoria's auditors, men who wrote down Victoria's lectures as he dictated them. In fact, he feels so sure of the accuracy of his edition that he believes those who have heard Victoria s lectures will vouch for it and he even invites comparison of his edition with the manuscripts. For the convenience of the reader, Boyer prefixes a summary to each relectio and adds marginal references to some of the passages of Holy Scripture quoted by Victoria.
On the other hand, the text of Boyer is not altogether free from mistakes and has so many misprints that it altogether merits the condemnation heaped upon it by Muñoz and every writer since. These errors are numerous and of many kinds. I shall not give here examples of misprints because they are so numerous and can easily be noticed by the casual reader. I have grouped a few examples, chosen at random, of other errors under several headings.
Substitutions. B has etiam si for et sic, p 221, n. 11; Ieroboam for Ierusalem, p. 255, n. 1; exportantes for importantes, p. 258, n. 14; duabus for ducibus, p. 278, n. 1; proprios for publicos, p. 278, n. 9; iudicandum for indicendum, p. 285, n. 2; tutat for vertat, p. 285, n. 12.
Omissions. B has omitted the words in brackets in the following:
barbari non [habebant dominium, quia semper] erant in peccato mortali, p. 244, n. 13; omnes rescinduntur a fisco [et bona capiuntur ab eodem fisco], p. 228, n. 1; ad vindicandum [iniuriam], p. 279, n. 6; [non] maiorem auctoritatem habet princeps, p. 279, n. 7.
Misreading of abbreviations. B has tum for tamen, p. 225, n. 10; tam for tamen, p. 253, n. 20; quod for qui, p. 225, n. 16; p. 231, n. 8; p. 238, n. 4; p. 239, n. 4; primum for praeterea, p. 237, n. 10; p. 241, n. 5; p. 253, n. 3; quin for quoniam, p. 246, n. 8; constituitur, vocat for constituit, vocatur, p. 257, n. 3; autem for etiam, p. 272, n. 9; nota for notandum, p. 272, n. 8; quaæque for quæ quæstio, p. 278, n. 4; sic for sicut, p. 286, n. 5, and elsewhere; Mediolanenses for Mediolani, p. 287, n. 6; pugnat for pugnant, p. 288, n. 8; qui for quae, p. 295, n. 16; prosequi for persequi, p. 264, n. 5.
There is some evidence that the copy was read to the compositor and that the proof-reading was faulty. For example, B has magnoperepretium (=magnum operae pretium), p. 222, n. 4; inciviliter (=vincibiliter), p. 281, n. 10; victores (=lictores), p. 282, n. 5; iusticia, p. 285; iuvetur (=iubetur), p. 285, n. 8.
It is no wonder, then, that, although Boyer had a ten-year copyright, a second edition was published by Alonso Muñoz, O. P., and printed by Juan de Canova at Salamanca in 1565. He also secured a ten-year copyright, as is clear from the letter in the vernacular which is prefixed to his edition. This letter is followed by a dedicatory letter of Muñoz to the '"Serenissimo atque Augustissimo Hispaniarum Principe Carolo Philippo regis earundem filio," which is very complimentary to Victoria.
In his letter to the reader, Muñoz explains how he came to publish a second edition of Victoria's Relectiones. He was at Salamanca helping Domingo Soto with the correction of proof of the fourth book of the Sentences, then in press, when "there appeared a little book with a most imposing title, but containing countless horrible misprints, absurdities which were disgraceful and insulting to the author as well as the whole theological school. It made one aghast to behold in the tiny body of so small a book so unbelievable an offscouring of close-packed blunders, and ashamed and sorrowful that rascals should seem to have such license towards the masterpieces of most distinguished men, and with impunity, too. This was the title of the book: 'The Relectiones of the Reverend Father, Brother Franciscus de Victoria, of the Order of Preachers, late Primary Professor of Sacred Theology in the University of Salamanca.' You observe how fair and full of promise the inscription is; and indeed in Pliny's words, its bail could be forfeited."
Having found numerous and serious mistakes, Muñoz brought the matter to the attention of Domingo Soto and Melchior Cano, two of Victoria's former students, who prompted him to correct the printed book "according to the most exact copies." Later on the administer of the Holy Inquisition in the matter of examining books joined Domingo Soto in urging Muñoz to undertake the work.
"Although I was aware," says Muñoz, "how unpleasant a business it was, how hard and wearisome the affair, how inglorious the labor of correcting and restoring the monuments of others, especially those so ulcerous, so altogether deranged, so piteously (I had almost said) and hostilely regarded, as these were, yet, moved by the authority of my preceptors as well as induced by love of a very fine work and of its author, Victoria, who was also my dearest of teachers, I put my shoulders under a burden which I have loved."
In preparing his text, Muñoz pursued the following plan. He persuaded a fellow-religious, one Petrus ab Añaya, to read aloud the text of Boyer, while he himself ran over in his mind simultaneously the manuscript copies. When any discrepancy occurred, they halted and supplied what was wanting or corrected what was wrong. Doubtful matters were settled by consulting many manuscripts, for there was an abundance of them, and when these failed, by having recourse to the sources used by the author. All of this was done a second time and a third time, so that the editor finally gives the work to the reader with great confidence.
But the criticism which Muñoz so vigorously directs against Boyer's edition can very justly be applied to his own. While Muñoz has corrected many mistakes of the first edition, he has not corrected all of them, and, moreover, falls into errors of his own.
The copy which Muñoz sent to the printer, as he himself states, was Boyer's edition corrected from the manuscripts by reading aloud. One would suppose that this method of preparing copy would cause errors, and it may be due to this that certain mistakes in B have remained uncorrected in M. At any rate, there are errors in M which seem to indicate that the copy was read to the compositor. For instance, M has erant for errant, p. 231, n. 13; aversetur for adversetur, p. 259, n. 7; deincipes for principes, p. 263, n. II; diligendo for dirigendo, p. 263, n. 15; cedes for cædes, p. 279, 1. 25; poenes for penes, p. 281, n. 2; pæna for poena, p. 296, l. 25.
Another source of error was the correction of B according to the authors quoted or cited by Victoria. For example, in a quotation from Sylvester, M has changed pugnat, which is found in B, to pugnavit (p. 294, n. 9) a change which seems to have been made to conform to Sylvester's words. But first of all, the principle underlying this procedure is false, because it is by no means evident that Victoria quoted authorities ad litteram. In fact, he often adapts a quotation, using only some of the exact words For example, in a quotation from the Institutes of Justinian, Victoria deliberately substitutes gentes for homines (p. 257, n. 4). Similar adaptations, perhaps more striking to the casual observer, are to be found in quotations from Gerson (p. 246, n. 7), from the Vulgate (p. 260, n. 6), and elsewhere. Moreover, in cases in which he should, Muñoz does not always act according to the principle which he enunciates. For example, he omits mortalium (p. 277, n. 5), which is found in B as well as in the passage quoted from St. Augustine.
In spite of Muñoz's boasted carefulness in correcting the errors of B, many of these errors remain uncorrected or have been miscorrected. To this class belong the following: magnum operepetium (=magnum operae pretium), p. 222, n. 4; viri (=veri), p. 222, n. 5; quum (=quoniam), p. 246, n. 8; artes (=arces), p. 260, n. 10; erant (=errant), p. 267, n. 8; ipso (=ipsae), p. 267, n. 9; hac disputatione (=hanc disputationem), p. 271, n. 9; sciri: iure videtur (=sciri de iure, videtur), p. 284, n. 3; non dum, p. 286; indiferenter, p. 289; dificultas, p. 291. Of course, many of these uncorrected errors are purely printer's errors, and might easily have passed unnoticed when read aloud, but I mention them here to show what value is to be attached to Muñoz's vaunted triple comparison. Besides, M has also not a few misprints which are its own, yet it is unnecessary to give them in detail here.
One of the most striking differences between B and M, however, is to be found in the substitutions, omissions, and additions made by Muñoz. These may have been made for several reasons.
First, Muñoz may have seen some manuscripts which Boyer did not see; but, since it is more likely that Boyer saw some which Muñoz did not see, seeing that he published his edition nearly ten years nearer the time at which the Relectiones were delivered, we can not argue with any certainty from this reason.
Secondly, Muñoz, in order to avoid a fancied ambiguity, may have deliberately made additions at the suggestion of the administer of the Holy Inquisition, who had suggested the work to Muñoz and had probably had some share in directing it. For example, M adds in re dubia, p. 284, n. 13; moraliter loquendo, p. 286, n. 1. Additions of this kind could have been made with a good conscience, seeing that Muñoz and his assistant were familiar with Victoria's opinions and realized the possibility of omissions of unimportant words on the part of students writing from dictation.
Thirdly, it is not at all unlikely that Muñoz and his collaborator, being members of the same Order as the author, desired nothing to be published under his name that in their opinion seemed illogical, incomplete or inelegant or likely in any other way to cast reflection upon the author. They knew that Victoria never intended his lectures for publication and that, if he had, he would have polished up his language before publication. They also knew that one can speak more quickly than one can write, and consequently, that Victoria's auditors were not apt to be able to write down every word dictated by their lecturer. A principle of this character might account for such changes as the following: Christiana digna (B has simply Christiana), p. 219, n. 6; rex et dominus (B has rex vivus), p, 245, n. 5; super hoc (B has simply hoc), p. 265, n. 14; non esset respublica perfecta (B has non videtur habere Rempublicam perfectam, p. 277, n. 13; ita gladio uti (B has ira gladii uti), p. 279, n. 10; præciperet (B has præceperit), p. 279, n. 11; parandam (B has pariendam), p. 280, n. 5; profligatis (B has profugatis), p. 281, n. 7; oriuntur (B has supersunt), p. 281, n. 9; per accidens (B has Christianis), p. 287, n. 2 There is no doubt that the readings adopted by M in some of these passages are much more logical and much more Ciceronian than those of B.
Fourthly, certain changes which M made, perhaps following some of the manuscripts, may have been caused by the method, used by Victoria, of dictating his lectures. Every professor, lecturing to a class, often stops to render the same thought in other words, not intending the repetition to be a part of his formal lecture, but merely explaining something in other words while his auditors are writing down what he has said first. It may well have happened that some of Victoria's students wrote down repetitions of this sort, not thinking that they might not have been part of the dictation, while others wrote down parts of repeated expressions, and still others, the slow ones, missed a word here and there, perhaps even a sentence. Such may have been the case with the following: p. 223, n. 13; p. 224, n. 9; p. 224, n. 15; p. 229, n. 1; p. 265, n. 13; p. 267, n. 16; p. 271, n. 5; p. 277, n. 13; p. 285, n. 5; p. 289, n. 1; p. 295, n. 3. It would require too much space to give each of these examples in detail here.
Lastly, it must be remembered that, from their very nature, Victoria's Relectiones were delivered twice: first, during the ordinary course of the year, and secondly, at the end of the year in public. Consequently, where difference in verbiage exists between the reading of B and the reading of M, it may be attributable to this source.
Fifteen years after the appearance of the Salamanca edition there appeared at Ingolstadt another edition (1580) which Hurter terms good and which all the later editions follow. Nothing is known of the editor of this edition other than that he was "one of the Doctors of Sacred Theology in Ingolstadt." In his letter "to the Christian reader," he tells us that there are three points which he wishes to emphasize: (1) the amount of labor and toil expended by him in preparing the edition, (2) the character and greatness of the author of the Relectiones, and (3) the advantage and profit which the perusal of them will bring "even to Germans, who seem to be somewhat strange to the gymnastic and scholastic form of discussion therein employed."
In connection with the first point, the editor quotes parts of the letter, which Muñoz had prefixed to his edition, and then continues:
"But I do not know by what ill-chance it has happened that into this Salamanca edition, so clean, so clear, so gilded, have crept blunders and faults neither few nor trivial. It labors at times under the same faults as the Lyons edition; sometimes under faults of its own, which needs must be corrected either by reference to the Lyons edition or in some other way."
It has already been shown that this criticism of M was justified. It remains now to give a brief description of his own method.
The text of the Ingolstadt edition was prepared in the following manner. The editor and his associate made a careful comparison (probably, by reading aloud) of B and M, making corrections in a copy of B, which was to be sent to the printer, from a copy of M, wherever this was not evidently at fault. When a trivial mistake was found in M, the editor relied on his own judgment, but whenever a serious error was found in M, he consulted skilled theologians and philosophers, in order that by weighing all the words and opinions of the author found in both editions he might understand the mind of the author from the common judgment of many. Sometimes, even after following this plan, he could discover no method of restoring a corrupt passage.
From the above, it is clear that the editor of the Ingolstadt edition had at his command the same materials as I have used, namely, B and M, and it is true that he has made some good emendations (for example, gerit vices et auctoritatem, p. 277, n. 6, where B has both nouns in the plural and M has both in the singular; sciri de iure, videtur, p. 284, n. 3, where B and M have sciri: iure videtur). Nevertheless, his text contains the self-same kinds of errors with which he chides the editors of B and M, as the footnotes to the revised text and the long list of Errata will amply show, if we may believe that Simon's edition (Cologne, 1696) is a faithful copy of the Ingolstadt edition. It is natural to expect that S will have errors peculiar to itself. For instance, pellum (=bellum) and Amprosio seem to indicate that the copy was read to the compositor by a German reader. Yet, on the whole, it is not likely that Simon would intentionally reject readings he found in the Ingolstadt edition for something incorrect.
The other editions of the Relectiones that followed the Ingolstadt edition are professedly based upon it and therefore need not enter into this discussion. In this number are included the editions of Lyons (1586 and 1587), Antwerp (1604), Venice (1626), Salamanca (1680), Cologne and Frankfort (1696), and Madrid (1765).
It has been shown that B was edited from unknown manuscripts (written by Victoria's auditors), some of which were seen by the editor of M and some of which may not have been seen by the editor of M; that M was edited from B and from unknown manuscripts, some of which may not have been seen by the editor of B; that I was edited from B and M without manuscripts; and that all subsequent editions were edited from I. Consequently, since no manuscripts were available in the preparation of the present text, it was necessary to have recourse to the first and second editions, whose editors had used manuscripts in establishing their texts.
For this reason a careful collation was made of B, M, and S, the latter being used as a late representative of the text. Upon a typewritten copy of S, the variant readings of B and M were indicated interlinearly in inks of different colors. The footnotes to the text explain these textual differences, and notwithstanding the presence in this edition of the photographic reproduction of S, the variants of S have generally been given for the purpose of showing where S has made mistakes or proper corrections. Accordingly, unless otherwise stated in the footnotes, the text which follows is the text which appears in B and M, and substantially in S. It is true that many of the footnotes are not necessary in themselves, but they have been retained for reference from some other footnote or to show in general how the different editors have handled the text.
The wording of the footnotes has been made as brief as is consistent with clarity of expression, yet the footnotes themselves differ from those usually employed in critical texts (e. g., the Teubner series or the Oxford series) in that they are somewhat fuller, make explanatory statements, and have corresponding index figures in the text itself. This variance from customary procedure was deemed advisable because of the primary object in including a revised text in the present edition. For this reason also the body of the text in the footnotes is in English instead of Latin and the usual style of type has been reversed by using italics for variant readings and Roman for remarks concerning variants.
The revised text presented herewith falls into three parts: (1) the argument of the author; (2) additions made by editors; and (3) quotations and citations made by the author from the Bible, Canon Law, Civil Law, and other authorities.
With regard to the author's argument, this has been retained in the text throughout, even when a mistake is evident, provided it is probable that the mistake was Victoria's and not that of his auditors or editors (e. g., p. 249, n. 8). Because of the repetitions made by the lecturer and the omissions made by the auditors, it is impossible sometimes to secure with any surety the words uttered by Victoria. In such cases, the readings preferred by the editor of this revised text have been retained in the text and the others have been recorded in the footnotes with any necessary explanation. The orthography, however, has been changed to conform with modem usage. For this purpose. Bennett's The Latin Language (Boston, Allyn & Bacon, 1907) has been followed, as having in the most convenient form in English the material covered by Brambach's Hülfsbüchlein für Lateinische Rechtschreibung and Die Neugestaltung der Lateinischen Orthographie in ihrem Verhältniss zur Schule. Yet i has been retained for i (cons.) and V for capital u (vocal.). Wherever the spelling of a word is not explicitly found in The Latin Language (§§ 57-61), Harper's A New Latin Dictionary (New York, 1895) has been followed; and wherever two forms are allowable, the one found in Victoria's text has been retained.
With regard to additions to Victoria's text made by Boyer and Muñoz and their associates, very little can be established with certainty. Occasionally footnotes have been added suggesting the probability of certain phrases having been added or omitted by the one or the other. However, it is fairly certain that the titles of the individual relectiones were not given by Victoria himself. Moreover, the summaries which precede the text were supplied by Boyer, as he himself states, and the wording of these was changed to a considerable extent by Muñoz and the unknown editor of the Ingolstadt edition. Since this was not the work of Victoria, it could have been omitted from the present text or at least relegated to footnotes. The former would have been unwarrantable so far as the history of the text is concerned; the latter would have been inconvenient and undesirable for the present purpose. Consequently the summaries have been retained as a part of the text. Boyer also added marginal references to some of the citations from the Bible. This was supplemented by Muñoz and further supplemented by the editor of I or a subsequent edition, to the extent of following the argument proof by proof. All of these references have been retained unless manifestly incorrect. However, the orthography has been changed to conform with modem usage.
With regard to quotations made by Victoria, every instance has been verified, where possible, in the original text of the authority quoted. Wherever there is a well-recognized critical edition, the verification has been made according to it, and notes have been added to show differences between the text of the authority quoted and the text of the quotation. Some of these differences may be accounted for from the fact that Victoria probably used a different edition from the one used for verification. For instance, quotations from the Bible were verified by Fillion's edition of the Clementine revision of the Vulgate, whereas this revision was made after the Council of Trent many years after Victoria's death. Moreover, wherever no well-recognized critical edition is available, verification has been made according to an edition ante-dating Victoria, if possible, though in some cases I considered myself fortunate in having access to any edition whatsoever. The orthography of the quotations has been changed to conform with that used by the authority quoted, but the exact words themselves have not been made to so conform.
The exact words of the authority quoted have been given in full in the footnotes. In some cases, this was very desirable, because of the inaccessibility of the work quoted and the frequent use of abbreviations in the original; in other cases, it was desirable merely for purposes of comparison, to show how accurately Victoria used his sources. Consequently, when Victoria quotes someone's opinion, it is precisely as he gives it, unless otherwise stated in the footnotes. Citations have also been verified in the same way, although at times this was extremely difficult, owing to the fact that Victoria sometimes merely mentions the author's name. For instance, he makes no exact reference to the Summa of Agostino Trionfi, a work which is printed in small type with no indention of paragraphs and no index. In some cases, because of their inaccessibility, it was impossible or impracticable for me to make any verification whatsoever. This was the case with the works of the following: Pope Adrian VI, Cardinal Pierre d'Ailly, Jacques Almain, Berosus of Babylon, Conrad of Megenberg (?), Guillaume Durand de Saint Pourçain (?), Richard Fitzralph of Armagh, Guido de Baysio, Guillaume d'Auvergne (?), Guillaume d'Auxerre, Henry of Ghent, Hervaeus Natalis, loannes de landuno, William Occam, Petrus Paludanus and Hugo Vercellensis (?).
In any case, references in the text below to the texts of the authorities quoted have been written in a uniform manner in parentheses and footnotes have been added in order to make the reference as exact as possible without adding anything to the text of Victoria. This statement will become clear from the following explanation of how four of five of the most frequently quoted authorities have been treated in this revised text.
The first of these is the Bible, which Victoria cited by naming the book with varying abbreviations and the number of the chapter. He did not name the number of the verse, because the division into verses was not made by Stephanus until 1545, thirteen years after Victoria delivered the two lectures concerned and probably did not obtain current use for many years thereafter. It would be interesting to find out exactly which edition of the Vulgate Victoria used and knew best, but, aside from mentioning wherein Victoria's quotations differ from the Clementine revision now in general use, it has not been thought worth while to go into the question further. In the text below, the title of the book has been uniformly abbreviated by using the first syllable and the first letter of the second syllable; the chapter has been indicated by its number simply. For example, "Deut., 17," means Chapter 17 of Deuteronomy. The number of the verse and, when not given in the text, the number of the chapter also, are given in the footnotes together with the exact words of the Vulgate, when these differ from those given by Victoria. These differences are to be accounted for partly from the fact that Victoria occasionally quotes from memory or consciously adapts a quotation and partly from the fact that Victoria used an early edition of the Vulgate, perhaps one of the Stephanus editions (e. g., see p. 220, n. 5). The orthography of the exact words of the Vulgate has not been changed except in the use of i to represent i (cons.).
As would be expected in a work of this character, the second most frequently quoted authority is the Corpus Iuris Canonici. Victoria quotes this work in the manner usually employed by writers of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Part I of the Decretum Gratiani is referred to by distinctio and canon and Part II is referred to by the number of the causa, by quaestio and by the opening words of the canon, thus, "I distin., c. ius gentium," and "23, q. 1, quid culpatur." In the present text, the varying abbreviations have been uniformly written, thus, "Dist. 1, can. ius gentium," and "23, qu. 1, can. quid culpatur," while in the footnotes the references are given in the present method of citing the Decretum and a statement is added containing the name of the author and the work from which the canon has been drawn, thus, "Decr., 1, 1, 9, which is an excerpt from St. Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae, lib. 5, cap. 6," and "Decr., 2, 23, 1, 4, which is an excerpt from St. Augustine, Contra Faustum Manichaeum, lib. 22, cap. 75." The Decretales Gregorii Papae IX are referred to by titulus and caput and the Liber Sextus Decretalium D. Bonifacii Papae VIII by titulus and caput with "lib. 6" or "lib. vi" added. These, likewise, have been treated in the manner described above. When the quotation differs from the passage quoted, as given in Friedberg's edition of the Corpus, the footnotes will show wherein they differ. Here, again the differences are attributable partly to the fact that Victoria occasionally quotes from memory or consciously adapts a quotation and partly to the fact that Victoria used an early edition of the Corpus.
The mode of citing the Corpus Iuris Civilis follows, to a great extent, the method of citing the Corpus luris Canonici. The varying abbreviations here likewise have been uniformly written in the text and footnotes have been added using the present method of citing the individual parts of the Corpus: the Institutiones, the Digesta, and the Codex; the other parts of the Corpus do not figure in the present work. When there is a difference between the quotation and the passage quoted, as given in Krueger and Mommsen's edition of the Corpus, the footnotes will show wherein they differ.
References to Aristotle are made by the number of the liber and the title of the work, thus, "tertio Ethicorum," i. e., Book 3 of the Ethics. Abbreviations of this have been extended and uniformly written as in the example given. The Sentences of Peter Lombard are similarly referred to, thus, " Quarto Sententiarum," i. e.. Book 4 of the Sentences, but here the number of the book forms a part of the title, since the work itself is not quoted, but commentaries upon it.
References to the Summa theologiae of St. Thomas Aquinas are made by using the number of the part as title, thus, "Prima Parte," "Secunda Secundae," further reference giving the quaestio and articulus and sometimes the answer to objections, thus, "qu. 10, art. 12, ad secundum."
References to other works and other authors should cause no particular difficulty. Every effort has been made to make the footnotes which explain these as accurate and as clear as possible. In this connection, the use of the words "p. so-and-so of the edition used" means, of course, the edition used by me for verification.
A few words with regard to certain characteristics of the three editions I have been able to consult may be worth while. All diphthongs are ligatured in B, M, and S. A tilde placed over a vowel denotes the omission of an n or m in B, M, and S. Initial u is written v and interior v is written u in M. The enclitic -que is frequently written q; in B and M, less frequently in S. The words et, qui, quia, and quod, are written in the usual abbreviated forms in B and M. This may account for the omission of these words occasionally in one edition or another. Two words are joined together in B as if they were considered as one word: revera, adhoc, econtra, siqua, nosipsos, each of which occurs two or more times. Some spellings peculiar to the time are author, authoritas, etc. (B and M), autor, autoritas, etc. (S); imo (B, M, and S); quatuor (B, M, and S); charitas, charissimi (B, M, and S); caussa (S); foemina (B, M, and S); cæteri (B, M, and S); prælii (B, M, and S); foelicitas (M); and poenitere (B, M, and S). Although this orthography has been changed to conform with modem usage, nothing has been done in the way of conforming the syntax.
In this connection, there are several peculiarities of syntax that are worth mentioning. The extension of quod to verba declarandi et sentiendi to express object sentences, which is unusual in classical Latin, is found quite frequently in Victoria's text, e. g., videtur quod, etc., and notandum quod, etc. This quod is usually repeated, when a subordinate clause intervenes between it and the rest of its clause. For instance, putant quod, si ponamus ignorantian invincibilem de baptismo aut fide Christi, quod statim consequitur quod possit aliquis salvari sine baptismo aut fide Christi, p. 250, § 9; videtur sequi quod, si cessarent omnes isti tituli, ... quod cessaret tota illa peregrinatio et commercium, p. 268, § 18; videtur quod, si unus velit componere et dividere vel compensare pro parte, quod alter tenetur recipere condicionem, p. 284, § 28; Non enim est intellegendum quod. si Galli exciderint unum pagum aut ignobile oppidum Hispaniae, quod liceat Hispanis (etiam si possint) praedari totam Galliam, sed pro modo et qualitate iniuriae arbitrio boni viri, p. 294, § 51; Et intolerabile esset quod, si Galli agerent praedas in pecora Hispanorum vel incenderent pagum unum, quod liceret occupare totum Regnum Francorum, p. 295, § 56. In many instances, M and later editions omit one quod or the other, perhaps unintentionally, because the abbreviation of quod could very easily be overlooked.
This sort of repetition is natural and is to be expected in lectures or any form of oral discourse, where subordinate clauses are apt to intervene. Consequently, other words are similarly repeated. For example, ergo in the following: Cum ergo omnes illi sint non solum in peccatis, sed extra statum salutis, ergo ad Christianos spectat corrigere et dirigere eos, p. 262, § 9; Si ergo hoc ita expedit, ergo spectat ad auctoritatem et potestatem summi Pontificis, p. 262, § 10; Si ergo secundum leges humanas non licet in causa dubia spoliare legitimum possessorem, ergo merito potest obici principibus "Patere legem, quam ipse tuleris; quod enim quisque iuris in alios statuit, ipso eodem iure uti debet," p. 284, § 28. An in the following: Dubitari merito potest an, si plures huiusmodi Respublicae aut principes habeant unum communem dominum aut principem, an possint per se inferre bellum sine auctoritate superioris principis, p. 277, § 8; An, parta iam victoria et ubi periculum non est ah hostibus, an liceat interficere omnes, qui contra arma tulerunt, p. 291, § 45. Vtrum in the following: Vtrum qui ex ignorantia secutus est bellum iniustum, si postea constiterit ei de iniustitia belli, utrum teneatur restituere, sive loquamur de principe sive de subdito, p. 286, § 33. Quin in the following: Sed nullus negat quin incestuosus et raptor et deferens arma Saracenis et non solvens vectigalia quin maneat verus dominus bonorum suorum in foro conscientiae, p. 228, § 14. Quin instead of ut in the following: Vnde non videtur iniquam ut, si oppidum nihil cavendo dedatur, quin mandato principis aut iudicis aliqui, qui fuerunt notiores, occidantur, p. 293, § 49.
Another striking peculiarity is found in the use of correlatives. Ita quod, for example, is found where ita ut would be expected: Haereticus ipso facto perdit dominium bonorum suorum, ita quod in foro conscientiae cadit a dominio, p. 226, § 9; Barbari non ad primum nuntium fidei Christianae tenetur credere, ita quod peccent mortaliter non credentes solum per hoc, etc., p. 250, § 10; Si cessarent omnes isti tituli, ita quod barbari nullam rationem iusti belli darent nec vellent habere Hispanos principes, etc., p. 268, § 18; Bona fide gerunt bellum, ita, inquam, bona fide, quod excusantur ab omni culpa, p. 297, § 59. Talis quod, where talis qualis or talis ut would be expected:
Quando bellum est talis condicionis quod licet spoliare indifferenter omnes hostes et occupare omnia bona illorum, etiam licet ducere in captivitalem omnes hostes, p. 290, § 42.
TEXTS USED TO VERIFY PASSAGES IN AUTHORS REFERRED TO BY VICTORIA.
[The word colophon in brackets means that the information given is derived chiefly from the colophon.]
AMBROSE, ST. Opera. Pars Prima. (Rec. Carolus Schenkl). Vienna, Tempsky, 1897. (Corp. Script. Eccles. Lat.)
ANTONINUS, ST. Summa Theologica, in Quattuor Partes Distributa. Pars Secunda. Verona, Augustinus Caractonius, 1740.
ARISTOTLE. Ethica Nicomachea. (Ed.3 Susemihl-Apelt). Lipsiæ, Teubner, 1912.
. Politica. (Ed. Susemihl-Immisch). Lipsiæ, Teubner, 1909.
AUGUSTINE, ST. De Civitate Dei Libri XXII. (Rec. et comm. crit. instr. Emanuel Hoffman). Vienna, Tempsky, Vol. I, 1898, Vol. II, 1900. (Corp. Script. Eccles. Lat.)
. De Diversis Quaestionibus LXXXIII Liber Unus. In Patrologiæ Cursus Completus (ed. Migne), Tomus XL. Paris, Migne, 1845, pp. 11-100.
. Epistulæ. (Rec. et comm. crit. instr. Al Goldbacher). Vienna, Tempsky, Pars III, 1904, Pars IV, 1911. (Corp. Script. Eccles. Lat.)
. Contra Faustum Manichæum Libri XXIII. In Patrologiæ Cursus Completus (ed. Migne), Tomus XLII. Paris, Migne, 1845, pp. 207-518.
. Contra Litteras Petiliani Libri Tres. (Rec. M. Petschenig). Vienna, Tempsky, 1909. (Corp. Script. Eccles. Lat.)
. Quaestionum in Heptateuchum Libri VII. (Rec. Ios. Zycha). Vienna, Tempsky, 1895, (Corp. Script. Ecclea. Lat.)
. Contra Secundinum Liber. (Rec. Iosephus Zycha). Vienna, Tempsky, 1892. (Corp. Script. Eccles. Lat.)
BAPTISTA TROVAMALA DE SALIS or DE ROSELLIS. Summa casuum conscientiæ utilissima per venerandum patrem fratrem Baptistam de Salis ... noviter compilata, quæ Baptistiniana nuncupatur ... expletum est in Nuremberg imperiali civitate partis Germaniæ per Antonium Koberger inibi concivem, 1488. [Colophon.]
BARTOLOS. Omnium Iuris Interpretum Antesignani Commentaria.... Tomus Sextus.... Venetiis, 1590.
BIBLIA SACRA, juxta Vulgatæ exemplaria et correctioria Romana denuo edidit ... Aloisius Claudius Fillion. Parisiis, Letouzey et Ané, 1887.
CAJETAN, CARDINAL. Look under THOMAS AQUINAS, ST.
CARLETUS, ANGELUS, of Chiavasso. Summa Angelica de casibus conscientiæ per venerabilem fratrem Angelum de Clavasio compilata ... maxima cum diligentia revisa, et fideli studio emendata ... Nurenberge impressa per Anthonium Koberger inibi concivem. Aug. 28, 1488. [Colophon.]
CICERO. De Officiis. (Ed. Miller.) Macmillian, 1913. (Loeb Classical Library.)
CONSTANCE, COUNCIL OF. Acta et decreta generalis concilii Constant diligenter elaborata et impressa in imperiali oppido Hagenow per industrium Henricum Gran inibi incolam. Expensis providi viri Johannis Rynman. April 11, 1500. [Colophon.]
CORPUS IURIS CANONICI. (Ed.2 Richter-Friedberg). Lipsiæ, Tauschnitz, Vol. I, 1879, Vol. II, 1881.
CORPUS IURIS CIVILIS. Vol. I. (Ed.10 Krueger-Mommsen). Berolini, apud Weidmannos, 1905.
DUNS SCOTUS, IOANNES. Opus praeclarissimum in quartum sententiarum ... castigatum per venera bilem Thomam Panchet anglicum.... Impressione, ductu et impensis Anthonii Koburger Nurenberge fideliter exaratum. May 19, 1481. [Colophon.]
EYMERICI, NICOLAUS. Directorium Inquisitorum F. Nicolai Eymerici Ordinis Prædicatorurn. Cum commentariis Francisci Peniae ... iterum emendatum, auctum et.... locupletatum. Venetiis, Apud Marcum Antonium Zalterium, 1595.
DE GERSON, JEAN CHARLIER. Opera omnia, ... in V tomos distributa; ... Quibus accessere ... Petri de Alliaco, ... ac insuper Jacobi Almaini ... Tractatus, partim editi partim inedidi; ... Opera et studio M. Lud. EIlies du Pin, ... Antwerpiæ, Sumptibus Societatis 1706.
HESIOD. Carmina. (Recensuit Aloisius Rzach). Ed. altera. Accedit certamen quod dicitur Homeri et Hesiodi. Lipsiæ, Teubner, 1908.
HORACE. Epistulae. In Carmina. (Ed. Vollmer). Lipsiæ, Teubner, 1912.
HUGO DE S. VICTORE. Opera. (Ed. Thomas Garzon de Bagnacaballo). Moguntiae, pub. by Antonius Hierat, printed by Ioannes Volmar, 1617, 3 vols.
NETTER, THOMAS, of Walden. Thomae Waldensis Anglici Carmelitae, Theologi Praestandssimi, Doctrinale Antiquitatum Fidei Ecclesiæ Catholicæ.... nunc Reverendissimi P. Ioan. Baptistae Rubei, Ravennatis, ... nutu et favore excusum.... Tomus Primus. Venetiis, Apud Iordanum Zilettum, 1571.
SALLUST. De Catilinæ Coniuratione. (Ed.4 R. Dietsch). Lipsiæ, Teubner, 1874.
SYLVESTER. Summa Sylvestrina, quae Summa Summarum merito nuncupitur. (Ed. Petrus Vendra menus). Venetiis, apud Hieronymum et Nicolaum Polum, 1601.
DE' TEDESCHI, NICOLO. Nicolai Tudeschii Catinensis Siculi, Panormi Archiepiscopi, vulgo Abbatis Panormitani, Commentaria Primæ Partis in Secundum Librum Decretalium.... Tomus Tertius, and in Quartum et Quintum Librum Decretalium.... Tomus Septimus. Venetiis 1588, Apud Iuntas.
TERENCE. Eunuchus. In Opera. Vol. I. (Ed. R. Klotz). Leipzig, Schwickert. 1818.
TERTULLIAN. De corona. In Patrotogiæ Cursus Completus (ed. Migne), Tomus II. Paris, Migne, 1845, pp. 74-102.
THOMAS AQUINAS, ST. Opera omnia, iussu impensaque Leonis XIII P. M. edita. Summa Theologiae.
... Romae, ex Typographia Polyglotta, S. C. de Propaganda Fide, vols. V-XII (1889-1906).
This also contains the Commentaries of Cardinal CAJETAN.
. Summa contra Gentiles, seu de Veritate Catholicae Fidei. Ed. nova et emendata. Augustæ Taurinorum, ex Typographia Pontificia et Archiepiscopali, Eq. Petri Marietti, 1886.
. Opera omnia. (Ed. Fretté.) Parisiis, apud L. Vives, 1871-1880, 34 vols.
TRIONFI, AGOSTINO, of Ancona. Summa de Ecclesiastica potestate edita a fratre Augustino de Ancona.
... Impressa Venetiis arte et ingenio Joannis Leoviler de Hallis. Impensis Octauiani scoti Modoetienum. Sept. 19, 1487. [Colophon.]
VERGIL. Aneidos Libri I-VI. (Apparatu critico in artius contracto iterum recensuit Otto Ribbeck). Lipsiæ, B. G. Teubner, 1895.
DE VICTORIA, FRANCISCUS. REVERENDI ¦ Patris F. Fracisci Victoriæ or ¦ di. Præd. sacræ Theologiæ professoris eximij atq; ¦ in Salmaricensi Academia quondam Chatedræ ¦ primariæ moderatoris prælectorisq; incoparabi ¦ lis Relectiones vndecim. Per R. P. præsentatum ¦ F. Alfonsum Muñoz eiusde ordi, a prodigiosis in ¦ numerabilibusq; vitijs, quibus Boyeri, hoc est pri ¦ ma æditio, plena erat summa cura repurga ¦ tæ, atq; ad germana exemplaria in ¦ tegritati ac sinceritati na ¦ tiuæ restitutæ. ¦ Quarum seriem versa pagella indicabit. ¦ (Vignette) ¦ SALMANTICÆ, ¦ Apud Ioannem a Canoua. ¦ M. D. LXV. ¦ CVM PRIVILEGIO
WYCLIFFE, JOHN. Tractatus de Civili Dominio Liber Primus. (Now first edited from the unique manuscript at Vienna by Reginald L. Poole, M. A.). London, published lor the Wyclif Society by Trubner & Co., 1885.
SIGNS AND ABBREVIATIONS.
B=Boyer's edition. M=Muñoz's edition.
gloss.=glossa, glossator, etc.
I=Ingolstadt edition. S=Simon's edition.
Prob.=Probado, probatur, etc.
Resp.=Responsum, Responsio, etc.
NOTE. The black figures in the inside margin of pages 217-297 indicate the corresponding pages or the Photographic Reproduction included in this edition. The pages of the Photographic Reproduction corresponding to pages 209-116 are unnumbered in the original.
1. D. H. L. OMPTEDA, Litteratur des gesammten sowohl naturlichen als positiven Völkerrechts (Regensberg, 1785), p. 169.
2. D. G. MORHOFIUS, Polyhistor literarius, philosophicus et practicus (Ed. 3, Lubeck, 1732), vol. II, 1, 14, 41, p. 96.
3. See the title page of SIMON'S edition in the Photographic Reproduction in this volume.
4. NICOLAUS ANTONIO, Bibliotheca Hispana nova, vol. I (Madrid, 1783), p. 497.
5. HUGO HURTER, Nomenclator literarius, theologiae Catholicae, vol. II3 (Innsbruck, 1906), p. 1370.
6. Summa Sacramentorum Ecclesiae, ex doctrina fratris Francisci a Victoria, ... Per Reverendum patrem Praesentatum, Fratrem Thomam a Chaues, illus discipulum, ... ex secunda Authoris recognitione ... aucta, locupletata, atque illustrata est (Romae, Apud Iulium Accoltum in platea Peregrini, MDLXVII).
7. T. E. HOLLAND, Studies in international law (Oxford, 1898), p. 51.
8. T. A. WALKER, A history of the law of nations, vol. I, (Cambridge, 1899), p. 114.
9. HENRY HALLAM, Introduction to the literature of Europe in the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries (London, n. d.), p. 314, column 2, note 1.
10. NICOLAUS ANTONIO, op. cit., pp. 496-497.
11. ELLIES DUPIN, Nouvelle bibliotheque des auteurs ecclésiastiques, vol. XIV (Paris, 1703), pp. 172-175.
12. ANTOINE TOURON, Histoire des hommes illustres de l'Ordre de Saint Dominique, vol. IV (Paris, 1747), pp. 55-65.
13. JACQUES QUÉTIF and JACQUES ECHARD, Scriptores Ordinis Praedicatorum, vol. II (Paris, 1721), pp.128-130.
14. EDUARDO DE HINOJOSA, Estudios sobre la historia del dericho español (Madrid, 1903), pp. 179-248.
15. JOSEPH BARTHÉLEMY, François de Vitoria. In Les fondateurs du droit international (Paris, 1904). pp. 1-36.
16. HUGO HURTER, op. cit., pp. 1367-1370.
17. Extrait du Privilege du Roy, first edition of the Relectiones, p. 3.
18. "Cuins ego memoria maxime recreor," says BOYER, Epist. ad Valdesium, prefixed to his edition.
19. Loc. cit.
20. B BOYER'S edition.
21. Extrait du Privilege du Roy, first edition of the Relectiones, p. 3.
22. See page 106.
23. Ad verissima exemplaria.
24. See page 106.
25. The information that follows is found in the same letter of MUÑOZ, but this part is not quoted in Simon's edition.
26. See below, p. 197. M=MUÑOZ'S edition.
27. Cf. above, p. 195.
28. See above, p. 193.
29. I have not seen a copy of this edition. The information I have given concerning it has been drawn from a letter which Simon prefixes to his edition and which purports to be a copy of the one prefixed to the Ingolstadt edition.
30. HUGO HURTER, Nomenclator literarius theologiae Catholicae, vol. 113 (Innsbruck, 1906), p. 1369.
31. See above, pp. 106-107.
32. Sec above, p. 107.
33. S=Simon's edition; I=Ingolstadt edition.
34. A copy of B is to be found in the Woodstock College Library, Woodstock, Md.
35. A copy of M is to be found in the Bouquillon Library of the Catholic University of America Washington, D. C.
36. A copy of S is to be found in the Library of Congress, Washington, D. C., and a photographic reproduction of it is included in this edition.
37. See above, p. 198.
38. See above, p. 191.
39. See above, p. 194.
40. E. g, see below, p. 117, n. 3.
41. See above, p. 200.
42. See GILDERSLEEVE AND LODGE, Latin Grammar (New York, D C Heath & Co. p. 328, § 52 p. 328, note 7.
43. For the use of quin after negative verbs of Saying and Thinking, see GILDERSLEEVE AND LODGE, op. cit., p. 357, § 555, 2.
Previous | Contents | Text Version