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
THE REVISED TEXT
BY HERBERT FRANCIS WRIGHT
of the Catholic University of America
PREFATORY REMARKS CONCERNING THE TEXT
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
[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.
ANTONINUS, ST. Summa
Theologica, in Quattuor Partes Distributa. Pars Secunda. Verona, Augustinus
ARISTOTLE. Ethica Nicomachea. (Ed.3 Susemihl-Apelt).
Lipsiæ, Teubner, 1912.
———— . Politica. (Ed. Susemihl-Immisch). Lipsiæ,
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.
———— . 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
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.
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,
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.
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,
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
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.
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),
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,
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),
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.
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,
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