Skip to main content

Full text of "Tractatus de bello, de represaliis et de duello"

See other formats 


m 


V 


X 


THE 

CLASSICS  OF  INTERNATIONAL  LAW 

GENERAL   EDITOR  OF   THE  SERIES 

JAMES  BROWN  SCOTT 

Member  of  the  Institute  of  International  Law 
Secretary  of  the  Carnegie  Endowment  for  International  Peace 


De  Bello,  De  Represaliis  et  De  Duello 

BY  GIOVANNI  DA  LEGNANO 
EDITED  BY  THOMAS  ERSKINE  HOLLAND 


PREFACE  OF  THE  GENERAL  EDITOR 

THE  Carnegie  Institution  of  Washington  has  undertaken  the 
republication  of  the  leading  classics  of  International  Law. 

One  reason  for  the  undertaking  is  the  difficulty  of  procuring 
the  texts  in  convenient  form  for  scientific  study  ;  the  libraries  in 
the  United  States  have  been  searched  with  the  result  /that  few  of 
the  earlier  works  were  to  be  found.  .  Another  reason  is  that  some 
of  the  works  selected  for  republication  have  never  been  translated 
into  English.  The  American  publicist  is  therefore  at  a  disadvantage 
in  consulting  works  of  admitted  authority,  and  when  found  they 
are,  as  it  were,  sealed  books  to  all  but  trained  Latinists.  The 
specialist  is  thus  forced  to  rely  upon  summary  statements  and 
references  to  them  to  be  found  in  treatises  on  International  Law, 
or  is  driven  to  examine  them  in  European  Libraries,  often  a  difficult 
task,  while  the  general  reader  is  practically  barred  from  the  stores 
of  knowledge  locked  up  in  the  earlier  works  on  the  Law  of  Nations. 
The  same  difficulty  exists  in  Latin  America,  Japan,  and  in  a  lesser 
degree  in  many  European  countries. 

Eminent  publicists,  European  and  American,  who  have  been 
consulted  as  to  the  usefulness  of  the  plan  to  republish  the  Classics, 
have  endorsed  the  project  and  have  pledged  their  personal  co- 
operation. The  works  to  be  included  in  the  series  have  not  only 
been  approved  but  suggested  by  them,  so  that  the  undertaking  is 
international  in  scope,  in  selection,  and  in  execution. 

The  underlying  principle  of  selection  has  been  to  reissue  those 
works  which  can  be  said  to  have  contributed  either  to  the  origin 
or  to  the  growth  of  International  Law,  and  the  term  classic  has 
been  used  in  the  broad  rather  than  in  the  narrow  sense,  so  that 
no  work  will  be  omitted  which  can  be  said  to  have  contributed  to 
the  origin  or  growth  of  the  Law  of  Nations.  The  masterpieces 
of  Grotius  will  naturally  be  the  central  point  in  the  series,  but  the 
works  of  his  leading  predecessors  and  successors  will  likewise  be 
included.  The  text  of  each  author  will  be  reproduced  photographi- 
cally, so  as  to  lay  the  source  before  the  reader  without  the  mistakes 

a  2 


IV 

which  might  creep  into  a  newly-printed  text.  In  the  case  of  the 
early  authors  the  pi  phed  text  will  be  accompanied  by  a 

\t  whenever  that  course  shall  seem  desirable.  An  Intro- 
duction will  be  prefixed  to  each  work,  giving  the  necessary  bio- 
graphical details  and  stating  the  importance  of  the  text  and  its  place 
in  International  Law  ;  tables  of  errata  will  be  added,  and  notes 
deemed  necessary  to  clear  up  doubts  and  ambiguities  or  to  correct 
mistakes  in  the  text  will  be  supplied.  Variations  in  successive 
editions  of  the  text  published  in  the  author's  lifetime  will  be  noted, 
but  little  or  nothing  in  the  nature  of  historical  commentary  will 
be  furnished. 

Each  work  will  be  accompanied  by  an  English  version  made 
expressly  for  the  series  by  a  competent  translator. 

It  is  hoped  that  the  series  will  enable  general  readers  as  well  as 
specialists  to  trace  International  Law  from  its  faint  and  unconscious 
beginnings  to  its  present  ample  proportions  and  to  forecast  with 
some  degree  of  certainty  its  future  development  into  that  law  which 
Mirabeau  tells  us  will  one  day  rule  the  world. 

The  present  volume,  containing  the  tractate  by  Legnano,  entitled 
De  BeUo,  De  Reprcsaliis  et  De  Duello,  written  in  1360,  is  edited  by 
the  distinguished  publicist  Thomas  Erskine  Holland,  from  an 
original  manuscript  discovered  by  him  at  Bologna,  dating  appar- 
ently from  the  lifetime  of  the  author. 

JAMES  BROWN  SCOTT. 

H.  D.C.,  ftbnuuy  19,  1917. 


TRACTATUS 

De  Bello,  De  Represaliis  et  De  Duello 

by 

» 

Giovanni  da  Legnano 

l.U.D.  ' 

Professor  of  Civil  and  Canon  Law  in  the  University  of  Bologna 


EDITED    BY 

THOMAS  ERSKINE  HOLLAND 

One  of  His  Majesty's  Counsel 
I.C.D.  Bologna  and  Oxford 

Sometime  Professor  of  International  Law  in  the  University  of  Oxford 
Late  President  of  the  Institute  of  International  Law 


PRINTED  FOR  THE  CARNEGIE  INSTITUTION  OF  WASHINGTON 
AT  THE  Or  FORD  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

1917 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 


PAGE 

I.  INTRODUCTION ix 

1.  Biographical       .........  x 

2.  Bibliographical  .         .         .         .         .         .         .                   .  xxi 

3.  With  special  reference  to  the  work  edited      ....  xxvii 

II.  COLLOTYPE  OF  THE  BOLOGNA  MANUSCRIPT,  with  Editor's  Prefatory 

Note i 

III.  THE  TEXT  OF  THE  SAME,  as  extended  and  otherwise  revised  by  the 

Editor,  with  his  Prefatory  Note     ......  67 

IV.  A  TRANSLATION  OF  THE  TEXT,  as  so  extended  and  revised,  by 

J.  L.  Brierly        .........  207 

V.  A  REPRODUCTION  OF  THE  FIRST  (imperfect)  EDITION  OF  THE  WORK, 

with  a  Prefatory  Note  by  the  Editor      .....  375 

VI.  LISTS  OF  AUTHORITIES  (i)  cited  by  the  Author,  (2)  consulted  by  the 

Editor 455 


INTRODUCTION 


THE  work  of  Legnano,  now  for  the  first  time  printed  in  its 
integrity,  was  the  earliest  attempt  to  deal,  as  a  whole,  with  the 
group  of  rights  and  duties  which  arise  out  of  a  state  of  War. 

No  one  will  be  surprised  to  find  that  the  author,  although  hailed 
by  his  contemporaries  as  "  a  second  Aristotle,"  foremost  in  every 
branch  of  learning,  was  far  from  sharing  in  the  clear-cut  views  upon 
the  scope  and  nature  of  the  "laws  of  war"  to  which  international 
jurists,  after  more  than  five  centuries  of  subsequent  discussion,  have 
at  length  attained.  He  includes  in  his  treatise  much  that  would  now 
be  regarded  as  belonging  to  dogmatic  theology,  to  moral  philosophy, 
or  to  the  code  of  honour,  and  relies  in  support  of  his  statements  upon 
quotations  from  the  Bible,  from  the  Corpus  Juris  Civilis,  the  Corpus 
lurisCanonici,  and  the  Feudal  Customaries,  which,  at  the  present  day, 
would  be  treated  as  irrelevant. 

The  interest  of  the  book  is,  indeed,  largely  due  to  its  remoteness 
from  modern  conceptions.  It  marks  the  terminus  a  quo  from  which 
the  literature  of  the  subject  had  to  start,  in  order  to  arrive  at  the 
terminus  ad  quern  which  has  so  far  been  reached.  In  the  progress  of 
the  centuries,  and  thanks  to  the  labours  of  a  long  succession  of  great 
writers  and  statesmen,  the  Law  of  War,  in  common  with  the  rest  of 
International  Law,  has  been  disentangled  from  theology,  ethics,  the 
legislation  of  Justinian,  the  precepts  of  the  canonists,  and  feudalism, 
all  of  which  usefully  contributed  to  its  earlier  development,  and  has 
been  placed  upon  its  true  foundation,  the  consent  of  the  states  com- 

b 


x  INTRODUCTION 

posing  the  "  Family  of  Nations,"  as  evidenced  by  consistent  courses 
of  conduct,  or  by  generally  accepted  conventions.*  After  these 
preliminary  observations,  we  may  proceed  to  a  detailed  account  of 
Legnano's  life  and  writings. 


A  Biography  of  the  Author. 

It  was  probably  as  early  as  the  thirteenth  century  that  a  family 
deriving  its  name  from  the  small  town  of  Legnano  became  resident 
in  the  neighbouring  great  city  of  Milan,  where  it  continued  to  be  of 
importance  for  several  centuries,  f  It  was  there  that,  early  in  the 
fourteenth  century,  Giovanni  da  Legnano  (lohannes  de  Lignano) 
first  saw  the  light.  His  father,  Giacomo,  bore  the  title  of  Conte 
degli  Oldrendi. 

The  young  Giovanni,  after  studying  philosophy  and  the  liberal 
arts,  and  paying  some  attention  to  medicine,  as  also  to  astrology, 
in  which  he  always  continued  to  take  much  interest,  devoted  himself 
seriously,  at  Bologna,  under  the  guidance  of  Paolo  Liazari,  to  what  was 
to  be  the  work  of  his  life ;  graduating  eventually,  at  an  earlier  date  than 
has  been  generally  stated,  as  Doctor  of  both  the  Civil  and  the  Canon 
Laws.  There  is  reason  to  suppose  that  the  subsequent  residence  of 
the  "  Milanese  "  Legnano  at  the  University  town  was  not  unconnected 
with  the  change  which  took  place  in  the  government  of  Bologna  in 
the  year  1350,  when  the  Pepoli  family,  wearied  out  by  the  hostility 
of  the  citizens,  whom  they  had  oppressed,  and  of  the  Pope,  whose 
rights,  acknowledged  by  Taddeo  Pepoli  ten  years  previously,  they 
had  persistently  ignored,  were  glad,  in  consideration  of  a  payment  of 
220,000  gold  florins,  to  part  with  the  "  Signoria"  to  Giovanni  Visconti, 
Archbishop  of  Milan.  J  In  any  case,  it  is  in  1350,  when  Legnano  is 
first  authentically  heard  of,  that  we  find  him  acting  under  the 
authority  of  the  Visconti  as  member  of  a  commission  for  the  recall 
of  citizens  who  had  been  banished  from  Bologna  by  the  preceding 
regime,  and  as  entitled,  under  the^ame  authority,  to  receive  an  annual 
salary  of  thirty-seven  florins,  sixteen  solidi,  for  a  year's  lectures.  He 

*  On  all  this,  further  remarks  will  be  found  in  part  I II  of  this  Introduction,  p.  xxxi. 

t  See  the  pedigree  at  p.  xviii  infra. 

J  Cf.  Filippo  Bosdari,  Giovanni  da  Legnano,  Bologna,  1901,  p.  i. 


BIOGRAPHICAL  xi 

• 

is  already  described  as  a  "  Legum  Doctor."  *  In  the  following  year 
he  is  described  as  "  Doctor  Utriusque  luris,"  and  was  duly  elected  by 
the  University  to  a  Readership  in  Canon  Law  at  a  salary  of  sixty  lire. 
In  1355  he  was  employed  in  missions  to  Venice  and  elsewhere,  f  and 
in  1358  already  occupied  the  post,  which  he  held  for  many  years 
afterwards,  of  Advocate  for  the  Franciscan  Convent.  J  Though  a 
Lecturer,  he  does  not  appear  to  have  been  a  full  Professor  till  1360, 
when  he  succeeded  to  the  chair  of  Civil  Law  vacated  by  Spinelli, 
becoming  Professor  of  Canon  Law  a  few  years  later. 

Legnano's  first  literary  effort  seems  to  have  been  of  an  astrolo- 
gical character,  treating  of  a  conjunction  of  Jupiter  and  Saturn. § 
It  was  doubtless,  however,  at  an  early  date  that  he  began  to 
write  those  copious  commentaries  upon  the  Decretum,  Decretals 
and  Clementines,  of  which  subsequent  canonists  speak  somewhat 
slightingly.il  But  his  great  reputation  rests  more  largely  upon  the 
important  part  which  he  played  in  public  affairs,  and  upon  those 
of  his  writings  which  deal,  from  a  scientific  point  of  view,  with 
questions,  suggested  by  the  events  of  his  own  time,  as  to  the 
respective  rights  of  the  Popes  and  Emperors ;  the  relations  between 
the  civil  and  ecclesiastical  powers  generally ;  the  special  relations 
between  the  two  powers  in  the  cities  of  the  Romagna,  notably  in 
Bologn* ;  the  validity  of  the  election  of  Pope  Urban  VI  ;  and  the 
rules  which  ought  to  govern  the  wars  by  which  Italy  was,  in  his 
days,  so  constantly  devastated. 

The  story  of  Legnano's  activity,  practical  and  literary,  with 
reference  to  these  questions,  falls  naturally  into  three  chapters, 

*  Ibid.,  Appendices  I  and  II.  In  1352  his  salary  for  lectures  on  the  Decretum  is 
fifty  librae.  In  1353  he  is  to  receive  the  same  sum  for  lectures  on  the  Sext,  and, 
by  order  of  Archbishop  Visconti,  two  hundred  florins  for  lectures  on  the  Decretum. 
Ibid.,  Appendices  III,  IV,  V. 

f  Ibid.,  Appendix  VI. 

J  Fantuzzi,  V,  p.  28. 

§  See  infra,  p.  xxi,  in  Part  II  of  this  Introduction,  treating  of  the  writings  of 
Legnano. 

||  e.  g.  Cardinal  Zabarella,  in  his  commentary  on  the  Clementines,  after  men- 
tioning various  previous  commentators,  goes  on  to  say  :  "  Subinde  lo.  de  Lignano, 
dominus  meus,  multos  ex  praemissis  in  unum  collegit,  quos  saepe  nimium  decurtavit. 
Sed,  quod  magis  improbatur  a  compluribus,  non  apto  retulit  ordine,  ita  ut  a  paucis 
eius  lectura  commendetur.  Et  huic  diligentia  defuit  non  probitas.  Fuit  enim  omnium 
sui  temporis  longe  princeps."  Imola,  another  pupil,  is  quoted  to  the  same  effect  by 
Oudinus  and  Pancirolus.  Cf.  Schulte  II,  p.  257. 


xii  INTRODUCTION 

covering  respectively  :  (i)  the  reigns  of  Popes  Innocent  VI  and 
Urban  V  (1352-70)  ;  (2)  the  reign  of  Gregory  XI  (1370-8)  ;  (3)  the 
earlier  years  of  the  reign  of  Urban  VI  (1378-83).  By  all  these  Popes 
he  was  held  in  great  esteem. 

(i) 

The  misgovernment  of  Bologna  by  Giovanni  Visconti  da  Oleggio, 
on  behalf  of  Archbishop  Giovanni  Visconti,  whose  son  he  was  reported 
to  be,  had  led  to  negotiations,  ending  in  an  arrangement  by  which 
Pope  Clement  VI,  in  the  last  year  of  his  life  (1352),  had  agreed  that  the 
Visconti  should  remain  in  power  at  Bologna  for  twelve  years.  Oleggio 
had  continued  to  act  on  their  behalf,  but  in  1356  had  declared  himself 
to  be  independent  of  them.  By  the  year  1360,  however,  his  position 
had  become  intolerable.  He  was  hated  by  the  citizens,  and  was 
alarmed  to  hear  that  Barnabo  Visconti  was  preparing  a  large  army 
to  expel  him  from  the  city.  He  resolved,  as  the  readiest  way  of 
escape  from  his  difficulties,  to  hand  the  place  over  to  the  ecclesiastical 
power,  and  accordingly  sent  messengers  to  Cardinal  Albornoz,  who 
had  already  reduced  much  of  the  Romagna  to  obedience  to  the  Pope, 
and  was  now  marching  northwards  from  Rome,  offering,  on  terms 
favourable  to  himself,  to  surrender  Bologna  to  the  Cardinal,  as  being 
rightfully  church  property. 

Albornoz,  after  ascertaining  that  Innocent  VI  considered  the 
arrangement  made  by  his  predecessor,  although  it  would  have  still 
had  four  years  to  run,  to  be  no  longer  in  force,  accepted  Oleggio' s 
offer,  and  sent  his  nephew  to  take  possession  of  the  city,  into  which 
he  made  his  own  state  entry  on  the  first  of  October.  On  January  20 
of  the  following  year  the  forces  of  Barnabo  Visconti  were  beaten  off 
in  a  great  battle  outside  the  walls.  A  subsequent  defeat  induced 
Barnabo,  in  return  for  certain  concessions,  to  surrender  to  the  Pope 
the  Visconti  pretensions  over  Bologna. 

So  much  it  has  been  necessary  to  say  of  the  events  of  1360  in 
order  to  explain  the  genesis  of  the  work  now  reproduced,  for  it  was 
in  that  year  that  Legnano  composed,  or  more  probably  only  com- 
pleted, his  book  De  Bello,  and  presented  it  to  Albornox,  with  a  very 
fanciful  dedicatory  preface,  probably  after  the  Cardinal's  triumphal 
entry  into  the  city.*  As  so  presented,  the  work  seems  to  have  been 

*  Or,  possibly,  while  Albornoz  was  waiting  with  his  army,  till  he  could  receive 
from  Avignon  a  reply  to  his  inquiry  as  to  the  continuing  force  of  the  agreement  <  if  1552. 


BIOGRAPHICAL  xiii 

entitled  De  Civitate  Bononice  et  de  Bello.  Its  composition  was  sug- 
gested, as  the  author  tells  us,  by  the  imminence  of  an  attack  upon  the 
city  by  a  powerful  army,  doubtless  that  of  Barnabo  Visconti.  While 
submitting  what  he  has  written  to  the  better  judgement  of  the 
learned,  Legnano  thinks  that  it  may  be  found  a  useful  exercise  for 
students.* 

In  the  Preface  he  touches  upon  six  (?)  episodes  in  the  rebellion 
of  Bologna  against  the  Papal  power,  occurring  between  the  years  1350 
and  1360,  stating  his  intention  to  deal  with  them  in  three  essays,  to  be 
entitled  respectively  "  De  Marte,"  "  De  love,"  and  "  De  Saturno."  He 
has  now  composed  as  the  first  of  these  essays,  the  treatise  "  De  Bello," 
and  hopes  hereafter  to  deal  in  the  second,  "De  love,"  with  the  Church 
and  its  government,  and  in  the  third, "  De  Saturno,"  with  the  Empire, 
especially  in  respect  of  its  dominion,  ecclesiastical  and  temporal,  f 

The  esteem  in  which  Legnano  was  held  by  Urban  V  may  be 
gathered  from  Bulls  of  1364,  1369,  and  1370,  J  granting  lands  to  him, 
and  ordering  additions  to  his  salary.  The  Pope  also  made  him  a 
present  of  a  handsome  set  of  robes.  Not  unnaturally,  Legnano 
testified  his  admiration  for  Urban  in  an  oration  delivered  in  1371, 
which  is  still  extant.  It  is  interesting  to  find  him  in  1366  purchasing 
from  the  executors  of  his  predecessor,  Spinelli,  a  lecture-room,  with 
the  Professor's  chair  and  benches  for  students,  complete. §  Two  years 
later,  the  dignity  of  Count  Palatine  was  conferred  upon  him  by  the 
Emperor  Charles  V.l| 

(2) 

Another  chapter  of  Legnano's  life  opens,  and  closes,  with  the 
Pontificate  of  Gregory  XI  (1370-8),  during  which  he  was  largely 
occupied  with  maintaining  a  good  understanding  between  Bologna 
and  the  Papal  See.  In  1371  we  find  him  employed  in  drawing  the 
deeds  conveying  a  Pepoli  palace  to  the  Pope  for  the  reception  of  his 
newly-founded  "Collegium  Gregorianum ; "  and  in  January,  1376, 
he  was  acting  as  advocate  in  a  suit  between  a  Convent  and  a  Hospital.^] 

*  For  a  detailed  account  of  the  work,  see  Part  III  of  this  Introduction. 

t  These  promises  were,  in  substance,  fulfilled  in  wortfs  mentioned  in  Part  II  of 
this  Introduction,  infra,  at  pp.  xxii-xxviii,  viz.  the  De  FletuEcdesiceand  theDeluribus 
Ecclesia  in  civitalem  Bononiee.  Cf.  Speranza,  Alberico  Gentili,  1910,  pp.  31,  37. 

t  See  them  in  Fantuzzi,  Notizie,  V,  p.  30. 

§  Also  houses  in  the  parish  of  S.  Giacomo  dei  Carbonesi.    Fantuzzi,  V,  p.  29. 

II  The  Bull  is  set  out  in  Bosdari,  p.  75.  f  Cf.  Bosdari,  pp.  37  and  97. 


xiv  INTRODUCTION 

On  March  19  of  that  year,  Bologna,  exasperated  by  the  conduct  of 
the  Legate,  Cardinal  G.  del  Noelletti,  and  emulous  of  the  resistance 
of  Florence  to  the  ecclesiastical  power,  proclaimed  itself  a  Republic 
and  adopted,  amid  scenes  of  wild  enthusiasm,  a  red  flag  embroidered 
with  the  word  Libertas,  which  word  figures  in  the  city  arms  to 
this  day.  Gregory  retaliated  by  sending  an  army  to  devastate  the 
neighbourhood ;  whereupon  Legnano,  together  with  Girolamo 
d'Andreae,  was  despatched  to  Avignon  to  explain  matters.  This  he 
did  so  effectually  that  the  Pope,  convinced  that  the  rebellion  had 
been  caused  by  the  misgovernment  of  his  legate,  pardoned  Bologna, 
which  was,  however,  not  inclined  to  accept  his  proffered  clemency. 
It  was  probably  then  that  Legnano  composed  his  longest  work, 
De  luribus  ecclesice  in  civitatem  Bononiensium,  to  show  that  in  tetn- 
poralibus,  as  well  as  in  spiritualibus,  the  papal  authority  was  supreme 
over  the  cities  of  the  Romagna.*  In  1377  he  was  again  sent  to  nego- 
tiate, on  behalf  of  the  city,  with  Gregory,  who  had  now  once  more 
adopted  Rome  as  the  seat  of  the  government  of  the  Church,  and  was 
spending  the  summer  at  Anagni.  Legnano's  efforts  were  this  time 
crowned  with  complete  success.  Under  an  arrangement  to  last  five 
years,  the  city  returned  to  its  allegiance  to  the  Pope,  to  whom  it  was 
to  pay  10,000  golden  florins  annually.  The  Pope,  on  his  side,  granted 
several  petitions  of  the  citizens,  with  one  of  which,  asking  for  a  Vicar 
"che  fosse  amatore  della  citta,"  he  complied  by  appointing  to  that 
high  office  Giovanni  da  Legnano.  j  This  was  on  December  13, 1377, 
and  the  event  was  celebrated  by  processions  which  lasted  three  days.  J 
So  great  was  the  popularity  of  the  new  Vicar  that,  on  January  15 
of  the  following  year,  the  Council  of  400,  by  363  against  6  votes, 
conferred  upon  him  and  his  descendants  the  citizenship  of  Bologna, 
and  this  event  was  again  joyously  celebrated. § 

*  In  this  work  Gregory  is  spoken  of  as  hodiernus.  Much  space  is  devoted  to 
a  refutation  of  the  Imperialist  views  of  Dante,  as  also  to  the  many  erroneous  meanings 
given  to  the  word  Libertas.  For  a  full  account  of  its  contents,  with  copious 
extracts,  see  Luigi  Rossi,  Dagli  Scritli  inediti  di  Giovanni  da  Legnano.  Bologna, 
1898,  pp.  20-51.  The  work  contains  allusions  to  the  treatise  De  Bella,  ibid.,  p.  25. 

t  Alidosi,  p.  367.  The  wish  of  the  citizens  as  to  a  Vicar  is  somewhat  differently 
recited  in  the  papal  grant,  as  having  been  for  one  "qui  sit  zelator  status  ecclesiae  et 
domini  nostri  et  gratus  populo  Bononiae."  Bosdari,  App.,  p.  105. 

J  Ghirardacci,  Hist.  Bon.,  II,  p.  368. 

§  The  tcnns  of  the  decree  are  printed,  from  the  archives,  in  Ghirardacci,  Ibid. 
P  369- 


BIOGRAPHICAL  xv 

(3) 

With  the  death  of  Gregory  XI,  on  March  27,  1378,  and  the 
election  of  Urban  VI,  on  April  8,  begins  another,  and  the  last,  chapter 
of  the  story  of  Legnano's  life.  The  French  Cardinals,  who  formed  a 
great  majority  of  the  sacred  College,  becoming  dissatisfied  with  their 
choice,  declared  the  election  void,  as  having  been  induced  by  the 
threatening  attitude  of  the  Roman  populace,  and  seceded  to  Anagni, 
with  a  view  to  a  new  conclave.  A  strong  letter  of  remonstrance* 
addressed  by  Legnano,  on  August  18,  to  Cardinal  Peter  de  Luna 
(afterwards  anti-pope,  as  Benedict  XIII)  failed  to  prevent  the 
election,  on  September  30,  of  the  first  of  a  long  line  of  anti-Popes, 
in  the  person  of  Clement  VII ;  thus  inaugurating  the  "  Great  Western 
Schism." 

Legnano,  a  consistent  supporter  of  the  validity  of  the  former 
election,  was  thereupon  sent  by  his  fellow-citizens  to  salute  the  right- 
ful Pope  at  Rome,  and  to  ask  for  three  favours  from  him.  These, 
including  the  creation  of  a  Bolognese  Cardinal,  were  all  granted,  and 
Legnano  returned  the  bearer  of  two  red  hats,  which,  on  behalf  of 
Urban,  he  presented  amid  scenes  of  great  rejoicing,  one  to  Caraffa, 
the  Archdeacon  of  the  city,  and  the  other  to  Bishop  Mezzavacca,  on 
their  promotion  to  the  Cardinalate.  The  oration  made  by  him  is 
still  extant.  |  It  was,  perhaps,  on  the  occasion  of  this  first  embassy 
that  the  Pope  declared  that  he  would  have  retained  Legnano  at 
Rome,  but  that  in  the  absence  of  so  great  a  man  the  schools  of  Bologna 
would  have  been  left  desolate.  Urban  is  said  also  to  have  offered  to 
make  him  a  Cardinal,  provided  that  his  wife  would  retire  to  a  convent, 
which  she  declined  to  do.J  In  1379  Legnano  completed  a  tractate 
in  defence  of  Urban's  election,  entitled  De  Fletu  Ecclesice,  which  the 
Pope  forwarded  to  the  University  of  Paris,  where  it  provoked  various 
replies,  among  them  one  from  the  Abbot  of  St.  Vedast's,  entitled 
De  planctu  bonorum,  consisting  of  a  dialogue  between  a  doctor  of 

*  Partially  printed  by  Raynaldus,  t.  xvii,  sub  anno  1378,  No.  30.  It  mentions 
an  astrological  warning  of  an  approaching  schismatical  movement,  which  had  been 
previously  sent  by  the  writer  to  Pope  Gregory.  Cf.  Fantuzzi,  V,  p.  35. 

f  See  extracts  in  Oudinus,  p.  1073,  who  refers  to  the  Codice  Colbertino,  t.  iii, 
No.  815. 

J  A.  da  Budrio,  on  the  "De  conversatione  coniugatorum,"  Decret.  iii,  32,  quoted 
by  Fantuzzi,  V,  p.  34.  Legnano's  reply  to  this  offer  is  set  out  in  Pancirolus, "  nolle  se 
sanguinem  pauperibus  destinatam  bibere,  sed  ex  sudore  manuum  victurum,"  &c. 


xvi  INTRODUCTION 

Bologna  and  one  of  Paris.  A  second  tract,  Pro  Urbano,  was  said  by 
Legnano's  opponents  to  contain  things  "  valde  venenosae,  licet  super- 
hciales  ct  non  reales."  *  In  what  seems  to  have  been  an  independent 
1 realise, the De  multiplui genere monarchic^,  there  occurs  an  interesting 

•  •rence  to  the  early  \\orkDeBcllo.    Legnanosays  that  In- had  in  that 
work  treated  of  war  generally,  and  of  its  species,  without  discussing  the 
manner  of  practically  carrying  it  on,  which  he  now  proceeds  to  do.  f 

The  author  of  these  Treatises,  who  was,  not  unnaturally,  "molto 
caro  "  to  the  Pope,  was,  in  1380,  again  sent  on  an  embassy  to  him, 
together  with  Baldus  ;  and  a  curious  report  is  preserved  of  a  con- 
\er>ation  which  took  place  between  these  two  great  jurists,  while 
stopping  at  an  inn  in  the  neighbourhood  of  St.  Peter's,  upon  the 
subject  of  the  papal  election.  J  Legnano's  services  were  acknowledged 
in  1381  by  a  renewal  for  one  year  of  his  nearly  expired  appointment 
as  the  Pope's  Vicar  in  Bologna.  He  was  once  more  at  Rome  as 
Ambassador  on  behalf  of  his  fellow  citizens  in  1382,  but  died,  after 
a  >hort  illness,  at  hi>  own  house,  on  February  16  of  the  year  following. 
Whether  or  no  he  fell  a  victim  to  the  plague,  which  in  that  year 
carried  off  so  many  of  his  distinguished  colleagues,  is  not  certain. 

On  February  18  Legnano  was  honoured  by  a  State  funeral, 
attended — all  shops  remaining  closed — by  Cardinal  Caraffa,  by  the 
city  authorities,  and  by  his  colleagues  in  the  Professoriate.§  He  was 
buried  in  the  Church  of  St.  Domenico,  where  his  fine  monument,  the 
work  of  two  celebrated  Venetian  sculptors,  had  been  erected  in  his 
liie-tinie,  "in  St.  Domenico's  chapel,  above  the  door  on  the  right, "|| 
where  it  was  still  standing  at  the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century. ^f  It 
has  since  sustained  great  injury,  but  portions  of  it  may  still  be  seen  in 
the  Museo  Civico  of  Bologna.  They  have  been  somewhat  arbitrarily 
combined,  as  will  appear  from  the  accompanying  photograph. 

*  This  is  textually  printed  in  Raynaldus,  t.  xvii,  App.  I. 

f  "  Viso  de  politia  tempore  pacis  conservanda,  restat  videndum  de  politia 
bcllica,"&c.  Rossi,  Dagli  Scritti  inediti,  p.  58.  An  epitome  of  the  whole  treatise  is 
given  in  pp.  51-9  of  that  work. 

J  Oudinus,  p.  1074.    Cf.  Savigny,  Geschichte,  VI,  p.  273. 

§  It  is  even  recorded  that  the  doctors  of  Civil  Law  took  part  in  the  procession, 
although  it  was  in  honour  of  a  Canonist.  Fantuzzi,  V,  p.  37. 

||  Pancirolus,  p.  439. 

^  "  Ancheoggiesiste,"  wrote  Fantuz/.i,  in  1786,  V,  p.  37,  and  Favolini,  in  1797. 
<  )n  the  monument,  cf.  Vassari,  Operc  I,  p.  444  ;  Bosdari,  p.  80  ;  and  Cavazza,  Le 
Scuole  dell'  aniico  studio  bolognese,  1896,  p.  102. 


o 
o 

I-) 

o 

ffi 


O 

o 


u 
o 

w 
</) 

s 

w 

a 

H 


O 

W 


w 
OS 
a. 

O 


M 

s 
o 

H 
en 

6 


o 

w 


O 

OJ 

2 

w 
EC 


BIOGRAPHICAL  xvii 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  group  of  listening  scholars  were 
on  the  left  hand  of  the  monument,  balanced  by  a  similar  group  on  the 
right  hand,  the  faces  of  both  groups  being  upturned  towards  a  bust  of 
Legnano  surmounting  the  whole.  The  inscription  must  have  been 
placed  below  this  central  figure.  The  coat  of  arms,  so  often  repeated, 
officially  described  as  "  Di  rosso  spaccato  d'argento  col  leopardo 
illeonito  d'oro  ambulante  verso  il  capo,  ed  un  corallo  di  rosso  verso 
la  punta  dello  scudo,"  is  supposed  to  have  been  that  of  the  De 
Oldrendis.  The  inscription,  as  still  fully  legible  to  Fantuzzi,  ran  as 
follows  : 

Frigida  mirifici  tenet  hie  locus  ossa  lohannis.  , 

Ivit  in  astriferas  mens  generosa  domos. 
Gloria  Legnani.     Titulo  decoratus  utroque 

Legibus  et  sacro  canone  dives  erat. 
Alter  Aristoteles,  Hippocras  erat,  et  Tholomei 

Signifer,  etherii  noverat  astra  poli. 
Abstulit  hunc  nobis  inopinae  sincopa  mortis. 
Heu  dolor.     Hie  mundi  portus  et  aura  iacet. 
Anno  MCCCLXXXIII  Die 
xvi  mensis  Februarii. 

Hoc  opus  fecerunt  lacobellus  et  Petrus  Paulus  fratres. 
loanne  Lignano  Bononiae  docente.* 

From  Legnano's  will,  made  on  March  27,  1376,  f  before  starting 
on  his  journey  to  Avignon,  and  from  a  long  codicil  made  on  February 

*  These,  not  impeccable,  Latin  verses  may  be  translated  as  follows  :  "  This  place 
holds  the  cold  bones  of  wondrous  John.  His  liberal  intellect  has  departed  to  the 
starry  habitations  :  all  the  glory  of  Legnano.  He  was  enriched  with  degrees  both  in 
the  civil  and  the  canon  laws.  A  second  Aristotle,  a  Hippocrates  was  he,  and  equipped 
with  Ptolemy's  signs,  he  knew  the  stars  of  the  sky.  We  were  deprived  of  him  by  a 
stroke  of  unexpected  death.  Alas,  the  sorrow  of  it.  Here  lies  the  harbour  and  the 
breeze  of  the  world. 

In  the  year  MCCCLXXXIII  the 

i6th  day  of  February. 

This  work  was  executed  by  lacobello  and  Pier  Paolo  brothers,  while  Giovanno 
Legnano  was  teaching  at  Bologna."  The  last  two  lines  of  the  Latin  are  now  almost 
illegible. 

t  He  had  married,  before  making  the  will  of  1376,  Novella,  daughter  of  Federico 
(son  of  Giovanni)  Andreae,  by  whom  he  then  already  had  a  daughter  Antonia,  and  a 
son  Battista.  Novella  survived  him,  and  was  one  of  his  executors.  Mistakes  as  to  the 
identity  of  Novella  are  numerous,  and  it  is  perhaps  still  not  quite  clear  whether  she  was 
the  daughter  of  a  son,  or  of  an  adopted  son  of  the  same  name,  of  Giovanni  Andreae. 

c 


XV111 


INTRODUCTION 


15,  1383,  the  day  before  his  death,*  we  learn  many  particulars  as  to 
the  members  of  his  family,  and  as  to  the  considerable  property  left 
by  him  in  Legnano  and  Milan,  as  well  as  in  Bologna.  In  the  case  of 
his  son  Battista  dying  without  issue,  which  did  not  happen,  he  left 
funds  for  a  "  Collegium  studiosorum,"  with  preferences  for  duly 
qualified  candidates  belonging  to  certain  localities  and  families,  which 
remind  us  of  foundations  nearer  home.  The  following  pedigree, 
constructed  from  various  authentic  sources,  may  serve  for  the 
identification  of  members  of  the  family  mentioned  in  this  Intro- 
duction, or  elsewhere  : 


Giovanni  Andreas  =^-  Milancia 
(the  famous  jurist, 
ob.  1348) 


Giovanni  Calendrini  =•  Novella           Federico 
(an  adopted        (who  lectured 
son  of  Giov.        for  her  father) 
Andreae. 
A  jurist, 
ob.  1365)  


Girolamo  da  Legnano 
(conte  degli  Old  rend  i) 


Giacomo  da  Legnano 
(conte  degli  Oldrendi) 


Giovanni 


Novella  =F GIOVANNI  DA 
LEGNANO 


Princivallo         Bianco 


I 


Battista 


Antonia 


Marco        Giovamello 
(a  natural  son. 
Canon  &  LL.D., 
Hanged,  1391) 


Cortello 


Gughelmo 


Giorgio 


'>lo  Antonio 

(Lettore  1470.    Editor  of 

the  De  Bella,  as  published  in 

1477,  t;.  infra,  p.  xxviii) 


Antonio  Maria 

(In  his  will,  1512,  a<l<K  in 

Giovanni's  legacies  for  a 

College  at  Bologna) 


Alessandro 


Giovanni  II  =  Francesca  Fendazza 
(had  31  children) 

*  Both  will  and  codicil  are  textually  set  out  by  Bosdari,  App..  V  XXV"  and 
XXVI.  He  is  described  in  the  Codicil  as  formerly  of  the  chapel  of  S.  Proculus,  now 
of  the  chapel  of  S.  Jacobus  de  Carbonensibus. 


BIOGRAPHICAL  xix 

On  law-suits  which  arose  between  the  children  of  Guglielmo  and 
Giorgio  under  the  Will  of  Giovanni,  see  Pancirolus,  De  claris  legum 
interpretibus.  The  Milan  Legnani,  publishers  of  the  De  Bello  in  1514, 
claim  relationship  with  the  author.  A  Captain  Alessandro  Legnani, 
in  1587,  enlarged  the  house  near  the  church  of  S.  Giacomo  into  a 
palazzo,  which  passed  by  the  marriage  of  Teresa  Legnani,  in  1772,* 
to  the  Campeggi  family,  from  whom  it  was  purchased  by  the  Pizzardi, 
and  was  eventually  sold  to  the  Railway,  f  Girolamo,  the  last  of  the 
Legnani  family  at  Bologna,  died  in  1805.  In  1750  Donato  Legnani 
took  the  name  Agucchi,  and  this  branch  of  the  family  is  still  repre- 
sented through  females.  Cf.  Filippo  Bosdari  (who  is  thus  descended) 
in  his  Giovanni  da  Legnano,  1901,  pp.  53,  62  ;  Rossi,  Scrittori  Bolo- 
gnesi,  1888  ;  Pancirolus,  1593  ;  Alidosi,  1620  ;  Ghirardaccius,  1669  ; 
Oudinus,  1722  ;  Argelati,  1745. 

The  following  epitaph  (perhaps  only  suggested)  upon  Paul 
Anthony  Legnano,  by  Emilius  Romanus,  his  contemporary,  occurring 
in  a  codex  of  the  fifteenth  century,  is  cited  by  Fantuzzi :  J 

Lignani  iuvenis  Pauli  monumenta  supersunt 
Consultum  poterant  quanta  decere  senem. 

Cura  frequens  studii  vitam  rapuitque  deditque, 
Hie  cineres.     Animus  summa  quietus  habet. 

Giovanni  da  Legnano,  while  enjoying  the  esteem  and  confidence 
of  four  Popes  in  succession,  was  also  generally  respected  and  beloved. 
He  was  especially  dear  to  the  people  of  Bologna,  as  "amatore  della 
Repubblica  e  de'  poveri."  §  Several  writers  enlarge  upon  his  humility, 
at  the  time  when,  as  Papal  Vicar,  he  was  practically  "  Signore  di 
Bologna,"  in  declining  to  take  precedence  of  the  Anziani  or  Gonfa- 
lonieri.  "Anzi  con  grandissima  modestia  e  riverenza  sempre  si 
mostro  humile  e  benigno  a  tutti  in  tutte  cose,  ascoltando  le  cause 
altrui  con  amorevole  pazienza,  virtu  che  veramente  lo  fecero  grande- 
mente  essere  amato."  IJ  He  was,  however,  not  inclined  to  put  up 
with  any  unmerited  slight,  as  appears  from  an  often-repeated  story 

*  On  which  see  Verses  in  the  BiUiografia  Bolognese,  II,  §  10996. 

f  See  Bosdari,  who  refers  to  a  collection  of  Legnani  papers  preserved  by  the 
Malvezzi  Campeggi  family. 

%  IX,  p.  140. 

§  The  vote  of  citizenship,  set  out  in  Bosdari,  App.  XVI,  p.  in,  recites  the 
important  services  of  Legnano  to  Bologna. 

||  Ghirardacci,  Hist.  Bonon.,  II,  p.  368.    Cf.  Alidosi. 


xx  INTRODUCTION 

to  the  effect  that,  with  a  mind  intent  upon  philosophical  problems, 
he  was  frequently  neglectful  of  his  dress,  which  led  to  his  being 
given  the  lowest  place  at  a  certain  wedding  party.  He  thereupon 
sent  for  a  purple  gown,  which  he  proceeded  to  deposit  on  the  seat 
which  ought  to  have  been  his,  exclaiming  "  You  worship  fine  clothes, 
here  you  have  them,"  and  so  left  the  room,  while  all  the  company 
blushed.* 

For  the  vast  reputation  of  Legnano,  as  teacher,  writer,  and  man 
of  action,  it  will  suffice  to  call  a  few  only  of  the  many  witnesses 
who  speak  of  him  as  having  been  a  universal  genius,  the  glory  of 
his  age. 

lohannes  Garzon,  for  instance,  writing  about  1450,  after  men- 
tioning some  of  Legnano's  merits,  continues :  "  Haec  me  in  earn 
sententiam  impellunt  ut  existimem  aetatem  illam  lohanne  de 
Lignano  nih'il  vidisse  praestantius.  Qui  astrologiam  atque  oratoriam 
cum  iuris  civilis  scientia  coniunxisset,  nullum  me  vidisse  memini. 
Addo  rerum  humanarum  peritiam." 

"  Alter  Aristoteles  sui  temporis  vocari  promeruit.  Andreas 
Siculus  '  maximum  et  illustrem  capitaneum  sacrorum  canonum, 
legum,  et  philosophise  '  vocavit  eum,"  says  Freherus,  writing  in 
1558. 

Somewhat  later  in  the  same  century,  Pancirolus  writes  :  "  Omnes 
disciplinas  tenuisse  creditus  est,  praeterea  divini  humanique  iuris 
scientiam.  Philosophise  naturalis  disciplinae,  arti  medicine  etiam, 
et  astronomiae,  antea  incubuerat  .  .  .  interpretum  iuris  Pontificii 
princeps  habitus  est."  f 

With  Gentili  begins  a  more  critical  appreciation  of  our  author. 
In  his  De  lure  Belli  (1598),  1.  I,  ch.  ii,  speaking  of  the  civil  lawyers 
who  have  written  upon  his  subject,  he  says  :  "  Equidem  praeter 
Lignani  paucula  huius  tractatus,  et  aliorum  nonnulla  sparsim,  legi 
nihil,  et  ea  non  absque  fastidio  legi  omnia.  Sic  sunt  apta  minus, 
minusque  splendida :  ut  praeteream  illud,  esse  in  eorum  libris 
quamplurimum  non  de  bello,  et  de  belli  iure  adversus  hostem,  sed 
de  re  militari,  et  legibus  cum  cive  et  milite  nostro."  And  Grotius, 
De  lure  Belli  (1625),  Prolegomena,  section  37,  speaking  of  the  earlier 

*  Pancirolus,  p.  438. 

f  The  MS.  Cronaca  Bolognctli,  in  the  Biblioteca  Comunale,  goes  so  far  as  to  say  : 
"  Era  dottore  in  legge  e  in  tutte  le  altre  scienze  del  mondo,  e  si  diceva  chc  in  quel 
tempo  non  si  trovava  uno  pan  a  lui  fra  i  Cristiani."  Bosdari,  p.  78: 


BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  xxi 

theologians  and  jurists  (mentioning  Lignanus)  who  have  treated  of 
the  subject,  censures  most  of  them  for  having  mixed  up  and  confused 
"  sine  ordine,  quae  naturalis  sunt  iuris,  quae  divini,  quae  gentium, 
quae  civilis,  quae  ex  canonibus  veniunt." 


II 

The  Writings  of  Legnano. 

The  importance  attached  by  his  contemporaries  to  any  ex- 
pression of  Legnano's  views,  whether  didactic  or  controversial,  is 
sufficiently  attested  by  the  rapid  multiplication  of  all  his  works  in 
manuscript  copies,  which  can  alone  account  for  these  having  found 
their  way  to  widely  distant  European  libraries.  Printing  was,  of 
course,  unknown  in  Legnano's  time,  but  in  the  following  century 
not  a  few  of  his  productions  were  by  means  of  the  new  art  made 
generally  available. 

The  list  of  writings  which  follows  is  derived  from  many  sources, 
and  is  fuller  than  that  supplied  by  any  single  authority.  Pains  have 
been  taken  to  make  it  as  complete  as  possible,  since  it  illustrates  not 
only  the  career  and  character  of  Legnano,  but  also  the  movement  of 
thought  in  the  Italy  of  his  day.  Of  only  a  few  of  these  works  can  the 
composition  be  assigned  to  particular  dates ;  it  has  therefore  been 
thought  best  to  group  them  here  according  to  the  subject-matter 
with  which  they  deal.* 

i.  ASTROLOGICAL. 

Figura  delle  grande  Costellazione,  ovvero  Congiunzione  di  Saturno 
e  di  Giove  nel  segno  dello  Scorpione  I' anno  dull'  Incarnazione  di  Christo 

*  Fantuzzi,  Scrittori  Bolognesi,  t.  v,  p.  28,  follows  the  order  in  which  the  writings 
occur  in  the  Vatican  MS.  No.  2639. 


xxii  INTRODUCTION 

MCCCLV,  a  di  xxii  del  mese  d'  ottobre,  secondo  le  consider  azione  de  messer 
Giovanni  da  Legnano,  sopra  quella  dando  el  giudizio  stto.  (MS.  No.  343 
in  the  Laurentian  Library  at  Florence,  according  to  the  Abate  L. 
XiiiK  lies,  in  his  work  Del  vecchio  e  nuovo  gnomone  Fiorcntino,  1757.) 

De  Cometa,  compiled  in  April,  1368,  in  which  month  the  Comet 
appeared.  (MS.  Vatican  2639.) 

Cf.  the  historical  portions  of  the  Preface  to  the  DeBello,  and  much 
in  Legnano's  other  writings. 


2.  THEOLOGICAL. 

De  Christo :  De  Deo  :  De  Antichrislo :  De  Angelis.  (MS. 
Vatican.)  Contains  passages  from  Ovid  and  Virgil,  and  interprets 
astronomical  occurrences  as  prophetical  of  the  Incarnation. 

Vigilium  maicstatis  divines,  compositum  per  magistrum  omnium 
scientiarum,  etc.,  lo.  de  Lignano,  beginning  "  Primo  tractaturus  de 
Deo  Patre."  (MS.  at  St.  Mark's.)  * 


3.  ON  CANON  LAW.f 

Commentaries  and  Disputations  upon  the  Decretum,  Decretals  and 
Clementines,  &c.  Of  a  Disputation  on  some  Extravagantes  of 
John  XXII,  it  was  said  "est  melius  quam  unquam  fecit  de  iure 
Canonico."  (MSS.  are  in  the  Cathedral  Library  at  Padua,  and  in  the 
Libraries  of  the  Spanish  College  and  of  the  Istituto  at  Bologna.) 


4.  SPECIAL  TREATISES  ON  THE  SAME. 

De  Interdicto  ecclesiastico,  dated  1359,  "  tempore  interdicti  gene- 
ralis  et  suspensionis  studii."  (MSS.  at  the  Vatican  and  at  Turin.) 
Printed,  Mediolani,  without  printer's  name  or  date,  together  with  the 
De  Censura,  with  a  note  "  Scriptus  in  Generali  Concilio  Basiliensi, 
per  me  lo.  Tollenor  de  Dyedem,  A.D.  1436."  Also  in  the  Tractatus 
TractatuUm  of  1549,  t.  xv*»  f°l-  245.  and  m  tna*  of  1584,  t.  xii, 
fol.  335- 

*  See  Valentinclli's  Catalogue,  III,  p.  42,  and  Fantuzzi. 

t  For  a  special  account  of  Legnano's  canonical  writings,  indicating  the  libraries 
in  which  MSS.  of  them  respectively  may  be  found,  and  which  of  them  are  accessible 
in  print,  see  Schulte,  Geschichte  des  Canonischen  Rechts,  ii,  p.  257. 


BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  xxiii 

Tabula  remissoria  de  Inter dictis  ecclesiasticis.  Printed  in  Trac- 
tatus  Tractatuum  of  1549,  t.  xvi,  fol.  246,  and  of  1584,  t.  xiv, 
fol.  336. 

De  Censura  ecclesiastica,  dated  1361.  (MS.  at  the  Vatican, 
St.  Germain,  and  Basel.)  Printed  at  Milan  (with  the  De  Interdicto), 
also  in  Tr.  Tr.  1549,  t-  xvi,  fol.  227,  and  1584,  t.  xiv,  fol.  307. 

De  Beneficiorum  ecclesiasticorum  pluralitate,  iussu  domini 
Urbani  V  (circa  1365).  Printed  at  Louvain  by  John  of  Westphalia, 
1475  (a  copy  is  at  Lambeth) ;  at  Paris  by  Peter  de  Caesaris,  M.A. 
and  John  Stol,  4to,  s.d.  ;  again  at  Paris  in  1512,  and  at  Milan 
in  1515.  Also  in  Tr.  Tr.  1549,  t.  xv,  fol.  127,  and  1584,  t.  xv,  Pars  ii, 
fol.  558. 

De  Horis  Canonicis.  Printed  in  Tr.  Tr.  1549,  *•  xv>  f°l-  411.  and 
1584,  t.  xv,  Pars  ii,  fol.  558.  (Qu.  whether  at  Rome,  by  Barthol. 
Guldinbeck,  in  1475  ?) 

De  Celebratione  Missae,  Repetitio  c.  dignum,  De  Cele.  Miss.,  Cle. 
(i.  e.  Clementinarum  lib.  Ill,  Tit.  xiv,  c.  2).  Printed  at  Pavia  by 
lo.  Ant.  de  Biret  and  Franciscus  Ghyrardengus,  1488. 

De  Appellationibus.    (MS.  at  University  of  Leipsic.) 

De  Arbore  consanguinitatis.    (MS.  in  the  Vatican.) 


5.  ON  CIVIL  LAW. 

De  Permutatione. 

De  Emptione  et  Venditione  ad  cerium  tempus.  (MS.  at  the  Univer- 
sity of  Leipsic.) 

6.  RELATING  TO  BOLOGNA. 

De  Civitate  Bononice  et  De  Bello,  1360. 

See  p.  xii,  supra,  and  Part  III  of  this  Introduction,  infra,  p.  xxvii. 

De  luribus  ecclesice  in  civitatem  Bononice  (circa  1373).  (MSS.  in 
the  libraries  of  the  city  of  Bologna,  and  of  St.  Mark's,  Venice.)  See 
Valentinelli  s  Catalogue,  III,  p.  42,  and  extracts  in  Rossi,  Scritt. 
inediti,  pp.  25-51.  It  contains  allusions  to  the  De  adventu  Christi, 
Somnium,  and  notably  to  the  De  Bello,  v.  supra,  p.  xiii,  n.,  infra,  p.xxv. 

Oratio,  on  delivery  of  the  Red  Hats  in  1378.  (MS.  in  Biblio- 
theque  Nationale.)  Extracts  are  printed  by  Oudinus,  p.  371,  and 
Raynaldus,  t.  xvii. 


xxiv  INTRODUCTION 

7.  ON  WAR,  REPRISALS,  AND  THE  DUEL. 

It  is  not  unlikely  that  before  producing  the  work  in  which  these 
three  topics  are  treated  in  combination  (see  Part  III,  p.  xxvii  of 
this  Introduction)  Legnano  had  treated  of  each  of  them  separately. 
He  seems  thus  to  have  treated  of  "  War  "  only,  in  his  De  Civitate 
Bononits  et  de  Bella  (ibid.). 

The  Biblioteca  Comunale  of  Bologna  possesses  several  MSS.  of 
the  De  Duello,  viz.  MSS.  894  and  2115  of  the  seventeenth  century, 
and,  in  the  University  Library  (?),  B.  1483  and  B.  1470  (entitled 
"  lohannes  de  Lignano  et  lacobus  de  Castillo  De  Duello  ") ;  B.  1483 
and  B.  1470  of  the  eighteenth  century. 

The  De  Represaliis  was  printed  separately  at  Pavia  by  Christo- 
phorus  de  Canibus  in  1484 ;  and  again,  in  the  same  place,  in  1487, 
without  a  printer's  name. 

The  Tractatus  peregrinus  de  Duello,  loh.  de  Lignano  Mediola- 
nensis,  "  nuper  inventus  in  lucem  per  magistrum  lo.  de  Lignano, 
eius  agnatum,"  was  printed  "  ad  utilitatem  posteriorum,"  by 
Ulrichus  Sinzenzeler  (as  appears  by  his  mark,  and  the  letters  V.S.) 
at  Milan,  s.d.  4to.  It  was  reprinted,  "  Mediolani,  apud  Alexandrum 
Minutianum,  impensis  loh.,  lacobi  et  fratrum  de  Lignano,  A.  D.  1508, 
fol." 

For  later  reprints  of  the  last-mentioned  two  works,  see  infra, 
p.  xxix. 

8.  ON  MORAL  AND  POLITICAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

De  Amicitia,  circa  1365.  (MSS.  at  St.  Mark's,  at  Turin,  and  at 
St.  Peter's  Coll.,  Cambridge.)  Printed  at  Bologna,  by  Hugo  de 
Rugeriis,  in  1492.  Also  in  Tr.  Tr.  of  1549,  t.  xvii,  fol.  2,  and  of  1584, 
t.  xii,  fol.  227. 

De  Pace.  (MS.  in  the  Bibliotheque  Nationale.) 
De  virtutibus  generatim  :  "  Circa  circulos  virtutum."  (MSS.,  as 
also  of  the  following  treatises,  at  the  Vatican  and  at  St.  Mark's.) 
De  iustitia  ;  De  vitiis  religioni  oppositis  ;  De  pietate  ;  De  observantia  ; 
De  obedientia  ;  De  gratia  ;  De  retributione  ;  De  ingratitudinc  ;  De 
fortitudine  (begins  :  "  viso  de  lustitia,  videndum  est  de  Fortitudine, 
et  licet  tractavimus  de  Bello,  tamen  adhuc  reassumam  ibi  secundum 
tractatum  de  Temperantia  ")  ;  De  conlinentia  ;  In  Aristotelis  Politi- 
corum  lib.  i,  ii,  Hi.* 

*  See  Valcntinelli's  Catalogue,  111,  p.  4.2,  and  Kossi,  ScriU.  incdtit,  pp.  51-63. 


BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  xxv 

De  Multiplier  genere  Monarchies.  (In  the  Venice  MS.)  Contains 
a  reference  to  the  De  Bella.  It  discusses  the  Politics  of  Aristotle, 
and  has  something  on  naval  warfare.* 

Circulum  (Economic.    (In  the  Venice  MS.)  f 

Circulum  Politicorum.  (In  the  Venice  MS.)  A  commentary  on 
Books  I  and  II  of  Aristotle's  Politics,  f 


9.   ON  THE  GREAT  WESTERN  SCHISM. 

Epistola  ad  Cardinalem  de  Luna,  August  i8th,  1378.  X(MSS.  at 
the  Vatican  and  in  the  Bibliotheque  Nationale.)  Partly  printed  by 
Raynaldus,  t.  xvii,  Nos.  30-35. 

De  Fletu  ecclesice  (Tractatus  pro  Urbano),  written  in  1379.  (MSS. 
at  the  Vatican  and  at  St.  Mark's.)  Partly  printed  by  Raynaldus, 
M.S.,  No.  38. 

Pro  Urbano  tractatus  secundus.  (MS.  in  the  Bibliotheque 
Nationale.)  Printed  by  Raynaldus,  t.  xvii,  Appendix. 


10.  Among  the  writings  of  Legnano  preserved  in  a  MS.,  No.  2639, 
of  the  Vatican  Library,  is  a  treatise  with  no  title,  commencing  :  J 
"  Audite  somnium  per  quod  vidi  solem  et  stellas,  Genes,  xxxvii." 
Citations  from  Levit.  xix  and  Deuteron.  xix  immediately  follow. 
The  body  of  the  work  consists  of  a  long  dialogue  between  a  clericus 
and  a  miles  upon  the  respective  prerogatives  of  the  Pope  and  the 
Emperor.  It  is  dedicated  to  the  Pope,  and  ends  :  "  somniatum 
MCCCLXXIII,  nocte  vi  Feb.,  scriptum  die  x  Martii."  § 

This  treatise  has  remained  in  manuscript.  Not  so  a  distorted  version  of  it, 
which,  since  it  is  dedicated  not  to  the  Pope,  as  an  argument  in  favour  of  Papal 
claims,  but,  at  fulsome  length,  to  King  Charles  V  of  France  (1364-80),  in  support 
of  lay  governments,  must  have  been  put  together,  perhaps  secretly,  by  its 
unknown  writer,  very  shortly  after  the  date  of  the  original  upon  which  it  is 

*  See  Valentinelli  and  Rossi,  ibid, 
't  Ibid. 

J  From  fol.  226. 

§  So  Fantuzzi,  t.  v,  p.  43.  This  Somnium  is  a  quite  different  work  from  the 
Vigilium,  attributed  to  Legnano  in  Valentinelli's  Catalogue  of  the  Library  of  St. 
Mark's,  t.  iii,  p.  42.  See  supra,  p.  xxii. 

d 


xxvi  INTRODUCTION 

modelled.*  It  found  its  way  into  print,  in  both  Latin  and  French,  rather  more 
than  a  century  later,  as  the  Somnium  Viridarii,  or  Le  Songe  du  Vcrgier. 

In  Latin  we  find  :  Somnium.  Aurcm  dc  ntraqiie  potentate  libellits,  taiifionili 
c/  spirituali,  Somnium  Viridarii  niincitpatus,  formam  tenens  dialogi,  in  quo  miles 
e{  clericus  de  ambarum  iurisdictionum  disputabant  potestate.  Cui  Repertorium 
annectitur  ab  .Kgidio  Daurigny  recollectum.  Op.  et  diligentia  lacobi  Pouchin, 
sumptibus  vero  et  expensis  Galioti  Dupre,  Parisiis,  4to,  I5i6.f  This  edition  is 
reprinted  as  "  ab  auctore  incerto,"  in  the  Tractatus  Tractatuum  of  1549.+ 

A  slightly  different  text  is  printed  by  Goldast  in  his  Monarchia  Komani 
Imperii  (1612). §  It  is  entitled  Philothei  Achillini,  consiliarii  Regis,  Somnium 
Viridarii,  de  iurisdiclione  regia  et  sacerdotali.  It  commences  :  "  Audite  som- 
nium  quod  vidi,"  Genes,  xxxvii,  &c.,  is  dedicated  to  Charles  V  of  France,  and 
ends  :  "  Liber  Somnii  Viridarii,  cuius  utilitas  fuscos  usque  celebratur  ad  Indos, 
hie  finem  capit  optatum." 

There  is  no  doubt  that  the  attribution  of  the  work  to  Filoteo  Achillini 
(born  in  1466  and  died  1538),  author  of  the  poem  //  Viridario,  and  founder  of 
an  Academy  similarly  entitled  at  Bologna,  ||  is  a  mere  piece  of  mystification. 

In  French  : 

The  earliest  edition,  entitled  Le  Songe  du  Vergier,  "  lequel  parle  de  la 
disputation  du  clerc  et  du  chevalier,"  is  adorned  with  pictures,  one  of  which 
represents  a  King  (Charles  V),  on  either  side  of  whose  throne  are  Queens, 
symbolical  of  the  spiritual  and  temporal  powers,  another,  a  professor  lecturing. 
It  ends  :  "  imprime  par  Jaques  Maillet  1'an  mil.  cccc  quatre  vintz  et  onze, 
le  20  jour  de  mars." 

This  edition  is  reprinted  in  the  Traitez  des  Droits  de  I'Eglise  Gallicanc, 

MDCCXXXI.]f 

Somewhat  later  appeared  another  edition  of  the  Songe  du  Vergier,  except 
in  size  identical  with  the  former,  and  with  the  same  illustrations,  "  imprime 

*  A  MS.  of  it  is  said  to  exist  in  a  catalogue,  ending  in  1468,  of  S.  Sulpice  in 
Bourges.  See  Traitez,  as  mentioned  below. 

t  The  Royal  Privilege  speaks  of  it  as  "  nouvellement  imprime."  It  was  placed 
in  the  Index  (ordered  at  the  Council  of  1544)  where  viridarius  is  mistakenly 
supposed  to  be  the  name  of  the  writer. 

J  T.  xiv,  fol.  200-60,  in  double  cols. 

§  T.  i,  fol.  58-229.  Goldast's  Preface  contains  a  discussion  on  the  always  dis- 
puted question  of  the  authorship  of  the  Somnium,  and  gives  a  long  list  of  writers  by 
whom  it  has  been  cited. 

||  For  this  information  as  to  the  real  Achillini,  I  am  indebted  to  Professor 
A.  Sorbelli,  of  Bologna. 

K  T.  ii.  Prefixed  to  this  treatise  is  a  Dissertation  upon  its  authorship  :  "  C'est 
un  enigme,"  says  the  writer,  "  fort  au-dessus  de  ma  porUV  .  .  .  je  n'ai  point  chez  moi 
le  Sphinx,  comme  le  disoit  Ciceron."  But  he  disbrli.  vrs  in  its  attribution  to  Philippe 
de  Maisieres,  and  others.  Like  most  of  those  who  have  dealt  with  the  question,  he 
seems  never  to  have  heard  of  Legnano. 


THE  DE  BELLO  xxvn 

a  Paris  par  Le  petit  laurens,  pour  venerable  homme  Jehan  petit,  libraire, 
demeurant  a  Paris,  en  la  rue  St.  Jacques,  a  1'ensigne  du  lyon  d'argent,"  4to, 
(1500).  On  the  half-title  is  the  device  of  Jehan  Petit,  a  tree,  supported  by  two 
monkeys.* 


III. 

The  work  now  reproduced. 

It  was,  as  we  have  already  seen,  f  in  the  year  1360,  while  Bologna 
was  threatened  with  attack  by  the  army  of  Barnabo  Visconti,  that 
Giovanni  da  Legnano  composed,  or  more  probably  only  completed, 
the  treatise  upon  War,  which  he  afterwards  presented,  with  a  dedi- 
catory Preface,  to  Cardinal  Albornoz,  entitling  it  De  Civitate  Bononite 
et  de  Bello.  Whether,  in  this  its  original  form,  the  treatise  dealt  with 
Reprisals  and  the  Duel,  as  well  as  with  War,  is  uncertain.  There  can, 
however,  be  little  doubt  that  the  author's  essays  upon  all  three  topics 
were  at  some  time  or  other  combined  by  himself  into  one  work,  thence- 
forth known  as  his  Tractatus  De  Bello,  De  Represaliis  et  De  Duello.  J 
Of  this  work  manuscripts  are  to  be  found  in  the  following  libraries :  § 

At  Bologna,  in  the  Biblioteca  Comunale  dell'  Archiginnasio.     MS. 
B.   1393   is   of    the   fourteenth   century,   approximately   of 

*  Some  copies  of  this  edition  bear  "  Jehan  Alisot,  libraire,  demeurant  a  Angier." 

f  Supra,  p.  xii. 

J  For  the  separate  histories  of  the  Essays  De  Represaliis  and  De  Duello,  see 
supra,  p.  xxiv. 

§  For  much  of  what  follows,  as  to  manuscripts  and  editions,  I  am  indebted  to 
the  kindness  with  which  my  enquiries  have  been  answered  by  Librarians  of  the 
Bibliotheque  Nationale  at  Paris,  of  the  Biblioteca  Apostolica  Vaticana,  of  the  Ambro- 
siana  at  Milan,  of  the  R.  Biblioteca  Nazionale  at  Turin,  but  most  of  all  to  the 
Librarian  of  the  Biblioteca  Comunale  dell'  Archiginnasio  di  Bologna,  Professor  Albano 
Sorbelli,  and  to  his  learned  colleague  Professor  Giuseppe  Brini,  who  have  been  most 
helpful  in  many  other  ways  to  the  present  publication. 


xxviii  INTRODUCTION 

the  year  1390.  A  reproduction  of  this  MS.  occupies  pp.  1-65 
of  the  present  volume.  Also  an  eighteenth-century  copy  of 
the  table  of  contents  of  the  Vatican  MS.  2639. 

At  Rome,  in  the  Vatican  Library.  MS.  Reg.  Suec.  1873,  Lat. 
No.  369  (2639),  of  the  fifteenth  century,  contains,  it  seems, 
all  three  treatises,  but  omits  much  of  the  Pro&tnium. 

At  Turin,  in  the  Biblioteca  Nazionale,  there  is  a  MS.,  G.  I.  17,  of 
the  fifteenth  century,  lacking  the  Procemium.  It  is  mutilated, 
breaking  off  near  the  end  of  Represalice. 

At  Paris,  in  the  Bibliotheque  Nationale,  is  a  MS.,  No.  12467  (from 
the  Bibliotheca  Colbertina),  probably  of  the  earlier  fifteenth 
century. 

At  St.  Germain  ;  so  Montfaucon,  p.  1127  d. 

At  Bale  ;   so  Fabricius,  and  Montfaucon,  p.  613  b. 

A  translation  into  Italian  by  Paulus  Antonius  de  Lignano, 
mentioned  by  Argelati  (ii,  Part  I,  p.  168),  doubtless  remained  in  MS., 
and  seems  to  have  disappeared. 


About  the  year  1477,  the  above-named  Paulus  Antonius  de 
Lignano,  great-grandson  of  the  author,*  prepared  for  the  press  this 
work  of  his  ancestor.    In  so  doing  he  took  great  liberties  with  the 
text,  suppressing  most  of  the  prefatory  matter,  which  may,  not  un- 
naturally, have  struck  him  as  somewhat  fanciful,  omitting  also  some 
sections  and  paragraphs  of  the  main  treatise,  while  interpolating 
throughout  explanatory  remarks  of  his  own,  which  might  well  have 
been  dispensed  with.     Of  the  text,  as  thus  manipulated,  editions, 
copies  of  all  of  which  are  extremely  rare,  were  printed  as  follows  : 
At  Bologna,  per  Henricum  de  Colonia,  ad  instantiam  Sigismundi 
de  libris,  MCCCCLXXVII,  6  Kal.  Ian.     It  occupies,  in  double 
columns,  75  pages  of  a  folio  volume  which  has  no  general 
title,  containing  eighteen  legal  treatises,  all  dated  between  the 
years  1477  and  1493,  the  first  of  which  is  headed :  "Clarissimi 
iurisconsulti  D.  Lanfranchi  de  Oriano  solennis  utilis  quoti- 
dianus  et  practicabilis  tractatus  de  Arbitris.     Additis  multis 
aliis  questionibus  clarissimorum  doctorum."    Legnano's  work 
is  reproduced  at  the  end  of  the  present  volume  from  the 

*  See  the  pedigree  of  the  family,  supra,  p.  xviii.    It  would  seem  that  a  MS.  of  his 
additions  exists  in  the  Bibliotheque  Nationale. 


THE  DE  BELLO  xxix 

All  Souls  copy  of  this  very  rare  collection,  as  is  explained 
infra,  pp.  xxxvii  and  375. 
At  Pavia,   per  Franciscum  de  Ghirardengis,  MCCCCLXXXIV,  die 

xxvin  maii,  fol. 

Again  at  Pavia,  per  Christophorum  de  Canibus,  MCCCCLXXXVII, 

die  ult.  maii,  fol.     There  is  a  copy  at  Turin,  commencing  : 

'  Tractatus  elegans  De  Bella,  De  Represaliis  et  De  Duello  : 

clarissimi  interprets  domini  lohannis  de  Lignano  Bononien- 

sis,  in  celeberrimo  Bononiensi  Gymnasio  actu  legentis,  cum 

additionibus  domini  Pauli  de  Lignano,  eius  pronepotis." 

At  Milan,  per  loh.  Angelum  Sinzenzeler,  impensis  lohannis  lacobi 

et  fratrum  de  Lignano,  cum  additionibus  domini  Pauli  de 

Lignano  (s.  d.  circa  1500). 

Again  at  Milan,  apud  fratres  de  Lignano,  MDXV,  cum  tractatu 

Paridis  de  Puteo  de  eadem  materia. 
Also  at  Turin,  MDXXV,  4to. 

The  De  Bello,  with  the  De  Represaliis,  but  without  the  dedica- 
tory Preface,  and  without  any  of  the  matter  added  by  Paul  Antony 
Legnano,  is  printed  (as  "  nunc  primum  in  lucem  editus "  !)  in 
vol.  xvi,  from  fol.  371,  of  the  Tractatus  Tractaiuum  of  1584,  which 
had  also  printed  the  De  Duello,  with  the  additions,  separately  in 
vol.  xii,  from  fol.  281.  This  last-mentioned  tract  had  already 
appeared  in  vol.  xii,  from  fol.  281,  of  the  edition  of  1549  °f  the 
Tractatus.  On  the  earlier  separate  editions  of  the  two  last-named 
treatises,  see  supra,  p.  xxiv. 


The  Contents  of  the  work. 

The  Procemium  contains  a  good  deal  of  curious  matter,  most  of 
which  is  omitted  even  in  those  printed  editions  which  contain  some 
of  it.  It  begins  with  an  elaborate  and  over-fanciful  dedication  to 
Cardinal  Albornoz,  whose  exchange  of  his  peaceful  duties  at  the 
Papal  Court  for  the  command  of  armies  is  likened  to  the  action  of 
Ahab,  King  of  Israel,  who  "  changed  his  raiment  and  went  into  the 
war."  Bologna,  the  seat  of  knowledge  of  all  kinds,  especially  of 
law,  and  capital  of  the  states  of  the  Holy  Church,  is  likened  to 
Jerusalem,  the  throne  of  the  Lord.  Like  Jerusalem,  Bologna  had 
been  severely  punished  for  her  sins,  but  looks  for  deliverance  to  the 


xxx  INTRODUCTION 

Cardinal,  to  whom  the  treatise,  concerning  Bologna  and  the  War  in 
which  he  is  engaged,  is  offered  by  the  writer. 

Legnano  then  sketches  the  history  of  Bologna  between  the  years 
1350  and  1360,  under  six  heads,*  of  which  the  first  relates  to  the 
cession  of  the  city  by  Giovanni  Pepoli  to  Giovanni  Visconti,  Arch- 
bishop and  Lord  of  Milan.  The  second  deals  with  the  rule  of  the 
viper  brood, f  of  the  Archbishop,  i.  e.  of  his  three  nephews,  Matteo, 
Galeazzo,  and  Barnabo,  and  of  their  representative,  Giovanni 
Visconti  de  Oleggio.  The  third  deals  with  Oleggio's  assertion  of  his 
independence.  The  fourth  describes  the  misfortunes  which  hence 
resulted,  and  the  fifth  the  recovery  of  Bologna  by  Albornoz  to  the 
see  of  Rome.  The  sixth,  if  such  there  be,  seems  to  consist  of  visionary 
peeps  into  the  future  of  the  city.  Throughout  this  sketch  the  Arch- 
bishop is  described  as  "  Filius  Saturni,"  his  nephews  as  "  the  three 
vipers,"  the  Pope  as  "  lupiter,"  Albornoz  as  "  Frater  lovis." 
Oleggio  as  "  Mercurius,"  Bologna  as  "  Taurus,"  an  army  as  "  Mars." 
Full  information  is  given  as  to  the  position  of  the  heavenly  bodies 
at  the  date  of  each  event,  J  and,  as  has  been  already  explained,!  the 
author  indicates,  with  reference  to  each  of  the  three  periods  into 
which  he  divides  his  subject,  the  book  by  which  he  proposes  to  illus- 
trate it.  Of  these,  only  the  De  Betto  had,  as  yet,  been  written. 

After  this  long  exordium  we  come  to  the  treatise  De  Betto  itself 
(pp.  i  and  67,  infra).  It  consists  of  three  "  Principal  Treatises,"  the 
first  and  second  of  which  are  quite  short,  dealing  respectively  with 
the  definition  of  "  War,"  and  with  the  classification  of  its  species.  The 
third  "  Principal  Treatise  "  occupies  the  rest  of  the  work,  dealing  at 
length,  in^its  six  sections,  with  the  several  species  of  war,  viz. : 

I .  Heavenly  Spiritual  War,  arising  from  the  rebellion  of  Satan 
(chaps,  iii-vi). 

II.  Human  Spiritual  War,  i.  e.  the  conflict  between  morality 
and  self-interest  (chaps,  vii-viii). 

III.  Universal  Corporeal  War,  i.  e.  war  in  the  usual  sense  of  the 
term,  considered  under  six  heads  (chaps,  ix-lxxvii),  treating  respec- 
tively of  :  (i)  the  justifiability  of  war  (chaps,  x,  xi)  ;  (2)  those  by, 

*  The  Bolognese  MS.  says  six,  tin  Vatican  MS.  five. 

t  The  viper  occurs  in  the  Visconti  arms. 

%  Dr.  Kambaut,  the  Radcliffe  Observer  at  Oxford,  has  been  good  enough  to  look 
at  the  positions  so  attributed  to  the  sun,  moon  and  planets  in  the  zodiacal  signs,  and 
pronounces  them  to  be  practically  com  §  Supra,  p.  xiii. 


THE  DE  BELLO  xxxi 

and  against,  whom  war  may  be  waged  (chaps,  xii-xvi)  ;  (3)  the 
elements  of  warfare  (chaps,  xvii-xxx),  with  excursuses  upon  the 
cohort,  legion,  &c.,  upon  the  mutual  duties  of  troops  and  commanders, 
and,  at  tedious  length,  upon  courage  and  the  list  of  virtues  generally  ; 
(4)  the  rights  and  duties  of  troops  who  are  obliged  to  serve,  or  who 
do  so  voluntarily,  from  various  motives,  and  in  particular  as  to  the 
service  of  stipendiaries,  whose  position  is  discussed  at  inordinate 
length  (chaps,  xxxi-lviii)  ;  (5)  plunder,  prisoners,  stratagems,  and 
other  incidents  of  warfare  (chaps,  lix-lxxv)  ;  (6)  the  seven  kinds  of 
wars  (chaps.  Ixxvi-lxxvii),  without  mention  that  these  kinds  had 
been  already  so  distinguished  in  the  previous  century  by  St/Thomas 
Aquinas  in  the  Sec.  Secundce,  Quaestio  40,  and  by  Henry  of  Segusia 
(Hostiensis)  in  lib.  i.  rubr.  3  of  his  Aurea  summa. 

IV.  Corporeal  Private  War,  in  self-defence  (chaps.  Ixxvii-cxxi). 
V.  Corporeal  Private  War,  in  defence  of  the  State  (the  ""mysti- 
cal body  "),  i.  e.  Reprisals  (chaps,  cxxii-clxvii). 

VI.  Corporeal  Private  War,  for  clearing  one's  character,  i.  e.  the 
Duel  (chaps,  clxviii-clxxiv). 


Estimate  of  the  work. 

It  must  be  abundantly  clear,  from  the  preceding  analysis  of  the 
work,  that  what  would  now  be  considered  to  be  questions  of  Inter- 
national Law  occupy  but  a  small  place  in  it.  Putting  aside  Tracts  I 
and  II,  upon  "  Spiritual  War,  Celestial  and  Human,"  as  also  Tracts 
IV,  V,  and  VI,  devoted  to  the  several  species  of  "Private  Corporeal 
War,"  viz.  "Self-defence,"  "Reprisals,"  and  the  "  Duel,"  we  may 
concentrate  our  attention  upon  Tract  III,  the  longest  of  all,  which 
deals  with  War  properly  so  called,  described  by  Legnano  as  "Uni- 
versal Corporeal  War." 

Even  here,  the  author  is  primarily  a  canonist,  astrologer,  theo- 
logian, and  moralist ;  constantly  preoccupied  with  the  claims  of  the 
Papacy  and  the  exceptional  position  of  the  clergy.  In  support  of  his 
arguments  he  quotes  occasionally  from  Greek  and  Roman  writers, 
but  his  pages  are  throughout  crowded,  one  may  perhaps  also  venture 
to  say  disfigured,  by  a  superfluity  of  references  to  the  civil  and  canon 
laws,  while  his  style,  here  as  elsewhere,  is  not  unfrequently  open  to 
the  criticism  of  Rabelais  upon  that  of  the  Glossators,  as  "  latin  de 


xxxii  INTRODUCTION 

cuisinier  et  mannitt  u.\,  non  de  jurisconsulte."  At  the  same  time, 
the  work  throws  much  light  upon  fourteenth-century  views  and 
practices,  as,  for  instance,  the  employment  of  German  mercenaries, 
the  treatment  of  Jews  and  Saracens,  the  rivalry  between  Popes  and 
Emperors,  the  recognition  of  clergy  and  laity  as  forming  "  two 
peoples  "  ;  and,  intermingled  with  all  this,  we  do  find  much  that  is 
recognizable  as  appertaining,  in  a  rudimentary  way,  to  an  Inter- 
national Law  of  War.  We  are  thus  justified  in  looking  upon  Legnano's 
book  as  being  the  first  in  which  an  attempt  is  made  to  deal  with  that 
subject  as  a  whole.  He  discusses  the  lawful  causes  of  War,  the 
authority  by  which  it  may  be  declared,  the  distinction  between  war 
and  reprisals,  the  distribution  of  booty,  the  employment  of  stratagems, 
the  treatment  of  prisoners,  of  non-combatants,  of  enemy  troops  who 
have  surrendered  and,  in  particular,  of  enemy  commanders.  It  will 
be  noticed  that  he  has  here  nothing  to  say  as  to  hostilities  carried  on 
at  sea,  a  topic  which  he,  however,  appears  to  have  handled  subse- 
quently.* 

His  quotations  from  Roman  classics  are  scanty,  but  he  shows  a 
wide  acquaintance  with  the,  already  translated,  writings  of  Aris- 
totle, to  whom  he  always  refers  merely  as  "  the  Philosopher."  His 
citations  of  the  Fathers  are  for  the  most  part  derived  from  the  Corpus 
luris  Canonici,  which  indeed,  with  the  jurists  who  comment  upon  it, 
is  his  chief  source  of  inspiration,  f  He  is,  of  course,  also  familiar  with 
the  Corpus  luris  Civilis,  with  the  Feudal  Constitutions,  and  with  the 
Lex  Lombarda. 


It  is  a  pleasure,  as  well  as  a  duty,  to  express  my  gratitude  for 
assistance  received,  in  the  performance  of  what  has  been  a  by  no 
means  easy  task,  from  my  friends  Professors  Brini,  Da  Costa  and 
Sorbelli  of  Bologna,  especially  from  the  last  named,  in  his  capacity 
of  head  of  the  library  of  the  University  and  City.  I  am  also 

*  In  the  De  muUiplici  gentre  monarchic,  see  Rossi,  Dagli  Scritti  incditi,  p.  59. 

f  He  relies  constantly,  as  might  be  expected,  upon  Causa  XXIII,  De  re  militari 
el  de  bello,  and  Causa  XXXIII,  Qusestio  iii,  De  paenitentia,  of  the  second  Part  of  the 
Decretum  ;  upon  the  Title,  De  Treuga  et  Pace,  in  the  Decretals,  lib.  V,  tit.  34  ;  and 
upon  the  titles  inscribed  De  Homicidio,  in  the  Decretals,  lib.  V,  tit.  12,  in  the  Sexl, 
lib.  V,  tit.  4,  and  in  the  Clementines,  lib.  V,  tit.  4:  also  upon  a  long  list  of  canonists, 
and  upon  the  Sccunda  Secundte,  Quaestio  40,  of  St.  Thomas  Aquinas.  See  the 
Index  of  Authorities,  infra,  p.  457. 


INTRODUCTION  xxxiii 

indebted  to  the  authorities  of  many  other  public  libraries,  for 
information  courteously  supplied  in  response  to  my  enquiries  ;  and 
to  Dr.  Rambaut,  for  kindly  ascertaining  the  general  correctness  of 
the  astronomical  statements  occurring  on  pp.  73-78  of  the  extended 
text.  I  have  been  fortunate,  for  a  second  time,  in  securing  the 
valuable  services,  as  translator,  of  my  friend  Mr.  Brierly,  and,  not 
least,  in  having  been  permitted  by  the  Carnegie  Institution  to 
entrust  the  production  of  a  work  abounding  in  technicalities  to  the 
artistic  accuracy  of  the  Oxford  University  Press. 

T.  E.  HOLI^ND. 
May  ii,  1917. 


TRACTATVS  DE  BELLO 

d.  lo.  de  Lignano  de  Mediolano  Juris  Vtriusque  Doct. 


Collotyped  by  the  Oxford  University  Press  from  a  photograph  of 

the  thirteenth-century  manuscript,  B.  1393,  preserved  in  the 

Biblioteca  comunale  dell'  Archiginnasio  di  Bologna 


(See  the  Editor's  Prefatory  Note  which  follows) 


PREFATORY  NOTE 


THE  original  intention  of  the  Carnegie  Institution  was  to  adopt 
for  its  edition  of  the  De  Bella  the  text  of  the  Treatise  as  first  published. 
Having  ascertained  that  the  first  edition  of  the  work  appeared  at 
Bologna  in  1477,  the  editor  procured  its  reproduction  from  a  very 
rare  volume,  lent  for  the  purpose  by  All  Souls  College  to  the  Oxford 
University  Press. 

His  further  enquiries,  however,  addressed  to  many  European 
libraries,  resulted  in  the  receipt  of  information,  courteously  supplied 
by  Professor  Brini  of  Bologna,  in  March,  1912,  as  to  a  manuscript 
of  the  Treatise,  believed,  on  good  evidence,  to  have  been  written  in 
the  lifetime  of  the  author.  It  was  thereupon  decided  to  make  this 
manuscript  the  foundation  of  the  present  edition,  and  to  relegate 
the  very  imperfect  and  much  altered  version  of  it,  printed  in  1477, 
to  the  end  of  the  volume,  to  which  it  may  be  regarded  as  a  sort 
of  Appendix,  commencing  at  p.  375  infra. 

In  a  letter  to  the  editor  of  February  13,  1913,  Professor  A. 
Sorbelli,  the  accomplished  librarian  of  the  Biblioteca  Comunale 
dell'  Archiginnasio  di  Bologna,  wrote  as  follows  : 

'  II  nostro  interessantissimo  manoscritto  e  indubbiamente  il  piu 
antico  e  il  piu  autorevole  dell'  opera  del  Legnano.  Da  un  esame  accu- 
rate che  ho  fatto,  e  dal  giudizio  di  parecchi  competenti,  si  pu6  fissar 
la  data  del  manoscritto  nostro  (B.  1393)  al  finire  del  secolo  xiv,  e  cioe 
intorno  al  1390.  A  circa  questo  anno  corrispondono  la  "littera",  o 
scrittura,  che  e  Bolognese,  e  percio  assai  nota  qui ;  la  filigrana  della 


xxxviii  EDITOR'S  PREFATORY  NOTE 

carta  che,  come  pu6,  confrontando  il  Briquet,  stabilirsi,  e  appunto 
a  un  di  presso  di  quell'  anno  o  di  due  a  tre  anni  addietro ;  ed  il 
confront©  con  altri  manoscritti  datati.' 

He  goes  on  to  confirm  the  early  date  assigned  to  the  manuscript  by 
an  inscription  placed  upon  it  by  a  notary  of  Bologna,  Rolandus  de 
Castellanis,  who  was  living  in  1420,  to  the  effect  that  he  had  bought 
it  from  lo.  Bitini  de  Brissia,  executor  of  Luca  Cantarelli. 

The  pages  which  follow  were  collotyped  by  the  Oxford  University 
Press  from  a  photograph  of  the  manuscript  taken  at  Bologna  in  1912. 

For  the  text,  as  '  extended '  and  otherwise  revised  by  the 
editor,  with  his  explanatory  note  prefixed,  see  infra,  pp.  67-205.  For 
Mr.  Brierly's  English  Translation  of  the  same,  see  infra,  pp.  207-374. 

T.  E.  H. 


/^viv^f:^TU^^le^^ctJm^^ld<?^^  ti,.«r«pr.  Wre-^T*     <3*1'- 

|«fr  r*fiM  »Z  *jjM|*W«i;  tT^fcSK^  L&  f&t  [Sn-Hnfe. 

;i :,  <jfl-|>ai-n«mt«  |»4c«JwA7W  «?«R*-/mr'cnp««9cft-in4)-Tr<«fir,rt  autw»  ^cmSic-       Ck*l'« 

jjjjijjic-  utt*  tt«atwi  vt-  ^*m?- — ~ 

!u-i  <t>    o> . .    .x»        . . -.    ^ 


tt^. 


•i-pcTiwnM*    «T»MI  «w  ccj-o  e*iecn«n.F-.  curr-  ip»  f^n^iu^rfti^ 
•j^rtcip'ii  <a!rmit^*''^"  $W<zH'  ^*W>  »»&  -C-  "Sb"  &tv  fr*mt>o  yvC--  f- 

rt|»pofit6rrtV  f&xve,  jr,i! c-  Cmtmt?S?t  wwStie  j,jv4)  ^H^ 
«  Un-  c-  rtttc-  rttTfr  ftivfW  eft-  tn^U  ftfieytv  eft-'    -rxrfrac  e<t<tm- 


yvst'm. 


ISBS? 

' 


^erotfcmc-  ipHrtnj^O.mtttt^&mSw*  pmanj'fat  en*  inpftmtiw*,  ouCrtcvo-^ttn  ' 
jjtruf  ^mtr-  C»iMt*tcn?*2hmo<&n?.«rvrc£'  Wors  <&  <«ccr£V  '-m^rtme  v»  ITI*- inAr\  if- 
^)n»|  tnuWtt*  <r  «!xJ  mvoti^  *^*  C*- <lfi>ccti6tii  ArmM^cnt  •tnev&vcc ^x^jjj" ,  AH* A.  ft^< 


Ct-  cv  en 
/  cOrmcne"  ftjrfto  ^tOTt^  fir  c 


^^ 


Ror  Rtir  rt-ntne^T*1*  <»)«*?•  1?uS  JTX^I ' 

rt^.  'P-  <J«Muirm>  m  <ttt«tc  f-w\-  ">'  -1 
***  *^        '      *\ 

~»  F^^it  *-«l«4>^     >*—  .  «•  \»<«»  .    *T*  .«*«*«..«  .    lL»^»rfi\K» 


fft**??**! c<11^  **"     *  ^p  !p  *- 

^  ^r-  otwGfc  tpS-  rvu-ttvni  ^ftw*  <w|* 


•K*aM«bfi 

^«l:»    CVCmOMMl/  TJCC 

--      ^  A.  f>      C— 


^vtt-.nmT.  tvftr  evnfitiir 


twr  Quc-nur  t#Wr  -mc**«?imft 


0  A 


IIP  .  v^i""  «»i^7rn*|n'»''c|^  cWiui/  vwoprfl  mi  in  A^eCrC  ft»a<  on'^*v|S|o 

u/A 


Ku>e 
^ftc 
eft-  06fhme  •  fi 
c«e-i  i 
'  etc 


ftfr 


Ac 


<MV«iVi' 


r* 


.l-m*9*i«  Alt1  ;iv- 

«<>tmf)w 


ort«~  -gr-tivm-  <r)-^Yiiij- JM 
till-   9cn««.  "' 


«?**  *~°  y*n*n» 


et-  ofrii*^*-  cvt>ftt«rrflb  rmu 


>""      *•   4l<O-'irti^»  C<tn 


vWitv  ^flC\»Vnu£  on 


wmir. 


far  yen 
nw**,/,* 


I 

«Vtt* 


^owT^.,^1 


rrw  ofwnw  T         •»»-,."      <-.«7     »~PM(*  <AfT>utt«i  im'J>¥  *     X    ^  *rt>       Jo.  —  •-'     T^ 

t™*^  ««f,^  tn«.9tcr^  P-hffimO  ftfl*  Sfc^rfbTft  ,  ^TcT0  ^^  fr  ' 

«CnA^  «w,,tfh  *f^  r-  KM  iyKSwJt/S-SC  ^fc8^0  rr^ 
^sh  A^TJk-^  *»f^«Sw2ffly!s 

r. IL.^'iwif  r*,^  t,,rV  wftrfnr SkwW,  te  JTn  Wrtft'!"  «"V«  ftufe 

^f  '"*«f  «mr  «- 1^^,-  „,  ^^ 


emtc  -m<v<u»:t^  intvrt 

' --p1****- 


4kr  mtrn^  ^rBof 

-mlfitt-  crti\6vi 


eo<Vtttr«rtnm-  et- 


i-flMMffcrrt 
irmiti]lu«. 


~un- 


tnotiictt« 


^r«wv  m  _ 

'nWVi  tflmn*    bT  -yTl-rt>  y?ii).  Wa«« 

<N    ' 
f>  «?•»)• 


n<vfi^  ^ 

W«»l  «•»•  wfi- 
L    — . 


*v. ff  Sb- «« 
C  <mt-C-  oQtTj       vcjh-fj* 


*JU*vT««  iioftiifirfc-  ftmmft  m»j*<f««»«  t*mgj»ii»*  m  veqlo  ^Jv+an^i*  Prtt^R^ 
jlotut/|-eriT>fittx*<N-fVr<mttit?,jp  pij£u»i}  no  4p«|ipt-.  rfj  crii  cmmtif  *i»*eo  ^Lnmw 


Aty9t^-  nr«N  «eto&t:t~M0fttit7.i&cnx0  vcRrnd  hnC  «cx<t  ^Mvn<thi^ , 

.    *T  i_  .  /*    ^     _  -.  _  i^" ...    u.  .^  •.  4^  i   -        _ .  J^L.  rf*w '  A—  —  --    .  ^  _  .  ^  *B    i-ff  _ - 


x1  '  7 


£t-  ft*vtr  no  ecr  wcrvn* 

r    nJ  C*T",    _    .>.       .^^     j 

bcUo 


iw*  •%scvtl?rn««n««'--nirj  (^ 


A«WtMt£»_nmt  «>rniH»«/ 


wfiow-'fljrt"*  ^^^^jwr^t^jolVW^rtBUn.ja^T^*^^^^  ^frni^-ftcut-^ST 
feiu>  ^nWKCtni*  Aiii-^ncmM:  |Vn^>i  -pno-paw  t**yr«fli  .'J^ffc-t^  <n$»n^  x&  ftfcwe  -  Aercft-^5 

fl8««i.  9<ww*  n««CT^n9ii^i  »tntx»ff>«ti«e  <&£, 


•  ? 


3k 


'ofcfrrfUj         -    \  '" 


»*-**p™o*    am«   cfl-  •fttf 
»^c«-»r<H.^t?       ^ntrfffw 


rt-£«,t-r  *>£«•*<?  /^Kji 


n    cjh  menia 


«iu\  vctot$xuvri«.  -mur  fcmv 


»  --- 

me«n A*t»  117  we** 


k£t*«  «*6 «dH}»& fccnn*  vwma  tp-mmaKT <$ef^0m-  c-  rii-  oj« «w#  cm*/  <*^**  trfuewt^ 

f^^^^ftJ^n^J^M^ii  9*+  &•*}  wt""***'^  '  «^  »*»«"7x«XSr 
tranVlUv  Onioi'm- ^  -  X»  s*Y*rm<U  <»^  muAtjMAgl^-  «p«  pftin*  A*Mttm»  - 
!n*n h«  0««t'  £  -m tvft  (a(R  rt  m  r5»  f  *-  6<xnw^  «tl\  <u;rio*5- ^o^/mi*    Si»ftoU/prn«^ 
v<»t«  ««i*i#«- ' -LaftftiA-t%t«ei^  tyts^rtnVJCf0*?*^^1*177)^*"^0110  c^**l}  «*<»a*M*-  «s«£trj£ftec- 


»vrm«t  cr  ifrnr« 
imo  ti rv 


,,.fh  Kn^rrr^ecnn  oc^t.  t^»  ^ofim^^^ml-J^^tMr^mtiia.  n*t>,  ornJ^UMOPton^ 

«»rt?-?br.n  wfrttw  ^fiivfii^cn-'WbftiSbTi*  rt^'RiTumlT.jAwO. ,.  !•«•«.  ^  J^/.^ 

minor  nnn?  «iyi-«>   fir«^«-uc{F«tn  twpMTn  trn^it"  17 fibnu >  n«T»;  rrn'9i«-  rn  j^^n  j 


UT 


ct- 

rnmen. 
CT-vv>tn*n?o  -Jwo 


flc 
ftono*  imtiduin*  cicv 


it-  tn«W9  elvft-  9"1' 


-nrtft  aytr'*''  90***"  4'  «Pi  •piiflPub  eft-  (^itmezo  <?o 


fjlj*  tsefleiTin 


mo  rmffrt  trtimv*  yme 


I-  rff  Ac 

c  cvcetnir  <f  ev^f  cfr-m&ierJrn'int- 
ifli>'  ft«U-  Tn*9i<vr»«*  *ii*€Rr  t>ri«rrtiift«  fim»#  V*»m 


inBrnyM 
*  Bu*       cr(H«rt<-/ 


'T 

>• 

t«  eft-  •m& 


<?o«vpp4  •  ?ir  >f*f  <•«*" 
m  IMHM*/  MC-  qfKrHdt  5 


p^rt-.fuesM- 

U?rV  f  ^l*^*115^ 


&  v 


X«<l  tft-  «nn?l'  w0iTnTTWi '  f  f  «"*  O'^r  T^1'  .  QhtUy^K^  V***«  T^^ 

^^'^gl^JIg^i 


oj)Vi»rt  o»«ftf*^n^flnA  ,_ 
iiftnc"^&"^-  f^"  f*^0^" 


^JL-     *,'.       ^ 

{(*>  mrtf^r""  TMlUt 
twS'&m-wMn- 
ifil 


/          I 


-mum*-  TTffi&t  vcgvmmrt 


c?ofr'«U)riM*"  *t~ 

r:-nftrnJJ«ftW  f  n\^r\mK"v>$jwtm<t  ^Ctnu* 


fyirin 
ct-  6d 


nxrrt  IJ«in«\  Oiictocrr)  •niipyro/  ft 

-J^PrtWg    fe«»^oerufKtf  wfijWltufnoT,... 

n'AhirHtfe  ohtrfdO'f- "-  ^Vt^V  Mb  c^ynaW  Ami-  iiiT^^JT" 
iwi-  «>  GcCW  ftnr  iritjco^4**!!  in£_fl«nni«'.v«t-^A^tt'-l'^»-l»0^cn 
<r  niu<-  ff^  i«fh-  ->i«i~  ^7  0*8,  ^»  gc?0i»  *«v?  ftitctft  i13  efe 


-no 


«>e/,^mo  fW]9_'::><lt 
«  ****  -nWen*.- 


ii^tirnur 


ix- 


ftr  -m 


rft- 
itifttv 


t  vcfoftrw  Ct- 


fit 


Ct\2T«vvcv«|m*W 
Rcr  A 


fjF 


/ 


<^f«?  m^^mn^OTt^ 
^u.f  ft^fM^Vnulfrtlfr  <«. 
feeate-.TX. 


(Tr  K 


^ 

<nTt 


,ft*  ftotfl*  t»t*«"r»r  ii<v&*f  /«t-*t^inW«*-xC9'ir<iwr?^Mt«nt«\c  *»*«  ftif9r>o  en-^JlmSfc  <f«f- 
£«^  J»**l*n*nr'  Pc  «ro<*   f  "T^^1^  iaEwe  t«fefKi«-TMjWW  «  ^PTAno 
«• ,  A  ,n««nrt«>«  mt«tfU»  <*im«»1(^«  -n^Rfr  .nfomt-  Cv  .u^^jri^u1  ,  ^Ortinmn-rtrSPt 
.    —     . _ftl.^r^ft-«w-,4.w*-    *r>.   a a-.    _A. o  _  * 


nKUU/«nttA  t4*Prnr  -rrulCf-  SfcftST 

' 


»    \ 


K&A  fhrf*C  «5**vtvT  <yV* -maCtfhrKr  jwwuino*  r,,6>«6  "-if-wSr  <**^?  (^i«vn)  ^,(<\«-  im!-.^ 

rj^j^c-^^t**-  7T,»ju*fcij»<*t»  r«U«-.ar(jfM0«|u«- •««««•*«•  Tt»*£*-«««»  ?  ftyfoi'/tf 

fc.^^^f^-f^"!*0*  ®**  ^T-8***1- AC frt^g«i  £: m^SetW    9«^^»-m|t«:«>v>.  .«^ip<ai, 


^ 
vomam* 


*nj  tfV  «t»  9w^  fiiTi  f     l|jfl  •/"- 
<O-«i9.iTn  -no  o8f9&*~  *r>  WMi 


•V  (V 


ml 


*«* 


fiW 

Binr  f» 


ct- 


<V  >Cfi> 


•ff^E  m»»<l»^«n4,  uEf+vr^no  ja  itmxU»g  nt  vA«Mr^  4 ^17  .ifli 
ftW;Vt«%fiLWai'.  ^^-^-'W^^  jtf./e  ^fia^titH*- 
9o- 1«  fWt-  ^  *«a|^4i5r.  ti< "^ on m<  An*  trniAiw*  firrnA*  J 


.im  m'&crvv  .mt.iV 


1-CO. 


«r.  «»*~ 


•^ 


noniTM 


****** 


•!•/ 


mi-  M4« 


.m.. 
tf  ttntt'eai*! 


Vtn* 


no"  -t>ot     mi> 


,     ;r 

T**.m^i  .^5,« 

^       *""  -/    J^L 

c. 


n/ni 


Jf^JSl^  n.«i-  3«  o,».  !3S  ^«  AWJV-  "^««~{  w  «M,,.r  WT%^'^-^^    /<c 

Xft^A^J^f^o  ,,rf^«»«rt.  r,;^mt-|HKf^^f^^^^          f^*^ 

iJJKii^/pi&i^v^cMr1**"'  «*V«la>-M6«-rF  TL^r  '^'^»«- 

p     >i    «     t      .^- '.«  cjyvff  ,ri.     tf  •vrr^tcvM' t£f>9  <ipat»Bf^M  «itf  ocefTiTTn  p^  ce-  Acom«7<itu  v*i- 
«J^6*Sitt»-  tnwHtrri  «t-  rtffi''nf  fler  ftfe  qycfmg'cye  'o****'  ttf  fi»t>r-  v»uojP-<*!$^*C-  t«»n^- 


iw^  C-  t*iwe  ft-IV»ttn5en«otVUr- 
ltuucui     f  xkte*  mMf.^tmt^,C 


ft-  impi  c-  n« 
«  rtitl'  a\  TTUI  f./tf 


t-  v,.  ,n,aK.  i:.  -  ff-^f  ef  tnifi  •  MT 
' 


cume  TI 
,  et-  P-  «»•  wti&*>u-<r«   tf.&m*»  f- 

.— J  A . __ .  *^ 

-n*c 


tf  W  yo.i?-  ^  aufi*^  -n<nj  tmiu 
^Su?  <ma)tu  ^fl>D  ««*tSt«n*-    &, 


-K-       -Ti^Sn^rtW  k& 


»    V 


.  p^t*^***^*11*  9*e**0  -no  <£•  «•**"«  ym0Vtt«M«*  4>-pft*tuUt»  finvtt* 
^w,n«P^Wv  ,,„*  eft-  ,j ^^    ff  fc-  trfh-  fc  M&  «£».  «•?-  „«. a-  tit •  8fe  7i.7e  V  WJmUU  vft.vdAfl 
V-fri-*  b-^-^-fAmM^  ft^   ?^.  ^  .^^  ^rJM^Ip  AfP«.^«p/5nSiT«-  „„,' 

'0-  P  ^^a.  nT  cp-  ..na  fc«m«  .*A«^  <W n,.n«  .^2  \fM  un.«»4«  o^pn'tiJ/Ufe  9.hie 
«rp«w.«  Mf  T(I  <$|.p.p...  S-^JjcnA.  eVj)**;  p>  ffenniS.ni  oipriiThM-/  mi<tAt«/  erhrcnut ->. 
m«m,^mV<ft.Tn,5W«.hn,f,(«t-rtw9«w*  .sf-^rtMe  ,,, rt«4«Ab  «y«."«p-4^h,e  i^f^J 


..       - 

t^ 


t-  ftrnw"  A4^vcfl»cttii  um 


/""""* 


^".'  (  "L»r»*^ 


^  ^V- 


I  ptTr»«*  t-  *»•  v«|-i-  RtvrtPO"  ^-  f>rtp  ftvihi  .  v>9<\t\ve  m  ITU* -"<*")  »i?rtrtM  ft*ff«co    t»»  jpoiCl  rttcnn«* 
j  Jpitu/infflnrtt-  fi*^  rtV  f"«VnnvMi-kftr  \,£«k  «*£  tr>  Cefli"*  ««nfim«-  ^61  fm.m  it*  <»u«-  cfh tt» 
•I  ycctuojh  c^^tcn«em»TmA*-^cv|>wm4ut*«ofM/V'vni»  -"^  «7"^«f>-JfmiP^t'«^  A«nm«»5ili« 
iTtcfttuir  ^n^cSiiw,  et-  tflrtc^miynr«aj  ^ATKV  ^rrtrtift  tWwuJ^wSrt^^R**'  <>ptwm»«_- 

ftor  fir  ^ftnil-   tirnoj  ef  <tu$4tu>  fntth  vnffWnc^  omtviC/  fa**"&  <r4-«»r»»««  *«*S*'  /)-  <rp-  rm*un4 


ficr  pcjpQant-  tirnmjr  nnfatiA  fntth  p«^t#nc«  ^rravriC/  f»x**«%*^  cf"1I1^' 

rtlhjt3«w»i|»Prt«ut  -rvt  tmuntuFmir  «*^rn*'*mJtn*  rt^  <u*yn«fn»»r  util*  <n'««»»  ten««-  nVurmifTxn 
rfhmMe    <S- ftr  9tr«M6  tntnucn*  Hm«v«"  rtM^tf  wJT««-  ty.  Conpt-m*^-  V**"*^  m*»\4f<f*  ^t^ 
firtTH^rtltn*-    CV^tn*«  eft-  Ant«  rtaj«  unit*  eft-  Vir*u«,  iimTpj  v  km  rt^  fin  Alt  /•l1u<.'9cf>-i«xP 

J»CN  ."  .       ft.          «-.-._     a,  <SU-     'TTC.       k,A      —A      CV       <^/»"'V'.l<.»      -lO      _^ 

i^-  CK-  qci»7 .  r  it 


-  1  <h«  ow  -ff^nx  •  -vM.  a*.  ««mwwynoc-  tulfift-  >p 

'  •' 


»r  .yt««>  g,  flr-naf.m*?",  fc 


r<M«mi<^ 
^"n»Ticr4*WT>7  n»  «r»W*l--ct- 


niT  p^f.^iwe  n*cA»t  «vmrt-  «im.<»  rt"Jtt-/«»^W  timW  «r«AMM  A*  p»out-  un  u  <^rVHron« 
E»«««<a-«jr»t«$Ke<jcf»»<Sb*c  ^flnnnOcojw*'  c]Vtiw7piofvinHpiti^rtTiC  MP«"?.ur^iTT,i»-r 
i- crrpi*.  c^ftrtc  H?«ft-,«iw,It»  njj.tnn^  ftiVr'^^r  fctrm  w  •"?•  <1*  «»»rfn««n»rtA»rt:Vn^ 

»*  ^<^»  A.     *w  — .     _   -^  !     -.*  '1-  «-kA-.__  -.    \J  A^_. 

If 


m^     /la 


iUr»£vtcni*  Ainum)  ynif    <r>antycA ?t*<8nAi*  cMdt«n  rnlRmfl  Anrntfnt* 

,^T  «*ftft.   C55W   V?/^4-i  <»4*lA.    O   ^L    A <_>^S  ,  CT^.  ,%-  U.__Jj— I    .     .  ..     CN  A  ..  .  ^  . 


IW-  ^7 pint-  «wirut«  «, «$  -f- 
lhu»«,  ««-fc 
uciepstu*/  (MMH  -ftmtt  itnft- 


•  "•  A* 


«kv  Aft*  n*nf<*h.  „«*  «•  &UGT  &?v  <r  ^**VTm^l^r*  *^*|JV  rr^  f«««« 

Art£»M»*;<Cm«nt»?{Wren<?>-  <*-  tflUP  fw^  f  "^^  ^"^  Tn<t  M  •<'^1"'1S»>«-  '"f)v^  ..u^fv 

tyii-o*  ^m»«'mi»tfaMf  '(\ftu5' eft-  tit1  vi ic»  6^"»»  A«wicfV«"ti  T2nT»*"0  ***  Vtv*»tfr  ou^hHtut    (tv  <|«-  ' 
i-?i4t»Uo^  •  <^t««-  c«*n fulfi*- •  tft-  trtJiit  pmt- rV»r««**<  'W*f4&P    ^^"'is  P*^  *»*">'  ^P"1 '  o»*~  fiA(mfimt\uf- 

C«-  fitftl?   -n«  funtr  Vtv'*»«*t*  cnvST«AP<«   mTecwT-nii*!^  n»n^»«^»«*fi   o«n"»I?  <vjf«m!-   ftt**e\t& 


rutftf   -r»«  r«rH-VtV«»««t*  rnvR^A^'P   mT«cxA-nii«£«  ntn^»«^»«*fi 


art -vm*- ««** -ft*"  funt- rrv*8n<tfV<J 
frnt  '. 


n<rm 


? 


"^.T "     c»    •«'V%fl«^     iniiOMV      £T  CV-  *»41f  •  II-  VI'    *•    r»"-    TT  »^«^^  v^»»*'»"  »•«*  V21&X4  pn|M — 

fvV^^  cc  rVtKJfic\t(V  t^oUrc*   t^«itnih  ^o A  OVKTT?- ip  U t"  u« f  tr^  fv^Xu^l    ^J*»C"C"  l*tclt*1dn^  <iV<^A*vC 
-^ictiisii^  ct-  <-Vt««-n^n5t««i  i^CTj/t*  fU<rxm%  -niAW  o*^W  ^n«f-  tvi^Tct  <fV  m*f«  .-nofnu  flwo^ow^ 

i«nH  tv«|fe  <vvo*^«^w  S^r^^r*.   c.«tyc   rtiM^o^fioiM^f^-  6»ri«7  rtU?-««?  <|H«ii>  c(>-  ^tmcfVi?  rfV- 
CffeMCnSu^  R«w>  uhO  «^?W«rtAf,  .^cMrAu  ««  *tifu>n4fl»  ftf«a«nR*  <f>-n»t«..  v^.'«-,-  fnpiti,' 

VTM"|-<I -ii)  ft  Ac#.  <ra-frt  pvn  o»IVrf^,,t*  ft^crue-  ^in^wn.we-^^ir^W^'t.  ^,/ 

1.     - ,  *—     ...i  «H          ,  ^    f*f*  V*t  A  ^-—      A  .     *—s  *^ 


<X\(hlffc^ff!r«S«-ptMfho'<«--*'M  •V')-  o^wOhffimfli^.-p^F  cn^fYCTn^V^BrfNitimSinf  nSp 
jg  nnwx^frftflV"^  ***-**l*'tC"  ffr^Pr^^^f»i^«»«8^.i**-ty«^b»oec«Jr'«'t-<t  ftn^t-. 
^jnf»v  *T*'  t**  w^jptwinf'  y  "nrlretnriUrt  (i<c  ^ef^rl&^»-  frrrvj^mtxA   vjrsti- ^"V-  T><>  ^vr-««-  <r-nc<~ 


. a -rt  ^x      ^  - 


>0 


i-»».ifio'   RcrpAit«»**'   rxvm  ^HcnlifiM^  eft-  #7  faccvt 


*«, 


•mi 


T  ^    '          ^_^.f^  /*      • 


-uc  rt«fc%4ur  "ln 

L. 


.5  • '  - 


t  » 


'hut-  A«*t-  «» fe»nu  *i»icur3i4t-  Aft«cTmTiu>T/  uKffm  m  rti  »6  woete-  <»m?  6btuT  e>yt>Ti^iiUi4iv  «*-- 
(V«jjh»«it  <fH.ri*  api^ni*  rtt  n^  mn^  ft^,u  rtfW.  «r  muf**^^  «»tSi«m  A0i  «Si«- /<rr?A. 
«fiU>  rttC|«»^6ft»»-^i(R*y«A-  t«i-  r«Ar<L<r^>-  <h«?  >  ^««A/.«:tfnfiv'mrt?n<«1ll>/^^,^«ltu^«- 

F&m  tlOX*  rtiVvtrtMOftfirflTTIt   miflir^t    ».Ai>Ax  J.      «  &*fri  .      .  -  -T-r   A ft   _ 


^ 

ncartfimrf  ^-mcie.mV  «  «K*wjt> 
movff  «ftnftr  Sffrvvr  n  ^-^'irt    A  tflc-  ri* 


no  £$3-  nif, 
u,     oc-cwJ^crt-,        | 


u.ioiv  *"iv««s<itTiifwitnt**'  Xa»4-r«*T.w*  cocfWrtft^/TnA^Jl  ^T'r*-' 

^ £££«&zl~*  r-^>  fwZS;  &.  £tS73£±l 

(  Qrpimcti^"  t^rnd  <vcvO  fifYMttt/Yi^ni  «  *-  S^  '  rt*    *-  «^  ™in> » 


T*fy 


n'i 


s — •  ^     ^    -_  -^          ^  ^111  I 

v    ^»  ~»  |Vr  .<.{,  *.««+«•  *«****•  Ktino  funr  stttucn*"  n#*n 

T  A«tn,i(W  (Ti -ff  «"•*"  f; 

rfetiet  ni^n»«ft  \nti»  aFM^ 

t ffWrwrtfir  •pr*v«»n«    vvtni*i.   p.^.j—  -.- . .-p^.^  urw^ci-  .tuauta rttrrmjtnnn  «rrw  HT|«TTH 

,<r  mrtn&thta  wna^'OjjR"-  tf*  ^^^'P    P^Pf^ui*    yvii.^.'ii.  r.^  £.*  ^.\n-i<iv^rt 
(^o"  rtiiftr  «••?.  UH-mMlMtnPi^    frVTnm«*«i*»(<r  ^J4nau«n<i  'u>  p^v<h<Tmrt4r«^r  rwnrt  rtiw^ti^ 
v^tjrr  l-r\5rcfH<\£    ?t  iritpim  \>ch?viM"  «ir»-t"-rtv  <"***;Urtfv\Av<i''^(_fr»  ifl/tTt^^^^'  '*^  tv^oo^icv' 

^W-**  rv  <r\  A 1T2\ ^      „  fL*Cf~     tt    *iJL  —  Lf*  y^^  />          v     . —  »*-v   /Jl. .  '.        P   \ 


6r&au?«>  fii-tVcn«rt«rcS^^  ^          az,ti»n*^jv-«n,r^, 

<4t-     /»ni<*  rtrt'Rix*^    .«n  ^Vtl«tW  V'lnltft>wM6t  <W"  in!S*i*»^  '< 

.rtl^t^v:  •  *£f"*t'*:*?Z£lZ$"  ^l"*  P-^*^  ^P1  ffw-  'V^l-ftp 
«r'.  »i,.««  fiw*-  "7  <lt«-mAn«  vfr|>     n^^ctsofr  ndp^-o^oi«-  fir  ^uVniflrtH^ 

tiP-  fici»TnV^rlt'"ncr'n%:^  "**  TX™6™**^*1  Oi***  t»v.T»«r<TiMnt^.  •fflftn'htv    r-..np  Po 
'       ^  A_  jt j,,   ^M^.  .««.•*»-) .  ***-  fl?  ^*-'i4>*A.  ^ .  fs^L    —  _n  -f  _ .  *^  . *  ._  tx  oi  A 


Ct-»*m««nt 
fhum-ur 


e-V.  cT-  i    C^IM.  <T<mtv<n:tu~et~ 


i>  ••»-'«.  A..V « Tr       ""r«*v«W£»  rtm{r 

,,«t«r  £s**^i  -«*f«  "^r^j^eSSuJf^^i^^ 

V>,,r  T 2k  pF  JWT,  «t  on    A,  ».V..«.i-  V^  ,n^A  f^'*^' M»n ,p  .nW^.^  .SS*  ' 

>_.f^^.tt  «.Er«-.«,«.  P*-P  fi.-n^yo^f^mw  ^«^>VA  C-?,.  Am  «,,„  li^J 

.I<M-  v^rtn«-^€|r^fKmh»  f,fi<r  rhU,»  ^rrfSTSfe 
t»*M**>  p.o«.  psfiw^  )Ui  Hp-*;»t'Sj^^ifi^ 

:  •rsf'  Hr'9  (fe^fe^rssf JF^IMM 


W  1    •  rt  F    *^T  "I 


wr.  M«— 
•MMflj 

«"»    ..f'ft-iftntRftftSrAettftnlift 
«•»•»  ^T  1      *~      •» 


-.  €W^ 
/  ifikdl  «ftf  " 


f-  R  A 
J»ft 
S.^rmP'  yp-io  mo tM / rtnv^itfnh^  t^ iflTg 


v^^ 


«*»**i  <>>^  -y mo  '  ame* 


effvtat  <w»r-m*rw 

A.     ^> 


CM     f»»»»  ••**    «**T  WWT"-* 

ti^M  ««^fi  rAn^i  ««-  ffcr  <©  exc 
k<*»ir  vfc&wK&fc/ 1«  «r-fttfcrr 


r'r          -•  f..  o-«     n  '  ri.  -  '     C-^»  "•  n*g>«" 

r-^«vp  «r  ^Wvftnft  m«wfi^(^^r*^ *Jbfe«* v  w ,flU  t^T 

««r  ^  ^w  ^  g*«»*ix8kf  .pftufl)  ^-*44^jKM--jjIJ52: 

^  ^fror/Bexetm,^  ftUMM^H^  «L0V^-M&  ^«t-  7T«3L 
»/«  *  AttoiMn«.A,<JA ?y^_      S  _^ii-r/fr  *r!T  7 T  o^1'  dv?6r 


—    rtl  *T  *  ^  ••  •  ••  »fTi».»  *MT7  f 

^lf£ «£T^^Plf-x*"r  rr  ^«^^ 
jvj^-iawu.2  «^j^«r^v^^T- 

r*y*«sw  •*rvH<"  **•»*<•  ^*wirfx-rtte«H«i  -«^.« 

'«*_-^A  /tn<H"*:«f*»"f*«^«/ 


A     •*          •>-' 

E^ 


. 


ff  ^ 


-  nr><> 


vmttt   mn6« 

*  ftr  11* 


Slttr?  «*  nftfm  rt&fvu fflUwfi't  ^offi  yitV *apnrU- &£»**•  ttft  ifi«i*  fhPrtrm  yDifi»«*il>mi 
*Mft^,»«-fiin»-rhp<^S<*c«|-'^^'<}t:  rfl^%Ti»4t  xTc^.ift^iO^  fiifitttJT rftp>K yCaBesf- 
L <«  rtttcnSr  J#«n*  m»fer«tx4^  ct-ftur .wt-dV-i7;|»«ShP  cr^mtfl*  dUui&fi.  <^Tu|tV«iu-  r<? 

i  VV-rm*  nt*<  £Xn»v    rtvtn*  r^ri*   m**^u«i*'  "*  P»-  V  «*••  -m«A-<m*.^  oiiT   Amtd  ^fhUvt^T~ 
irMrptl-offtoir-ttt-  r-  toft-  f\»*6  <r  Sb-  a^lv»-  ftns«ff»(^<i<**eiMr^(i^<9i*«Jrt«  wmjinw  rvtef 


-.n4ift 


r  or 


ftri<r 


?««»•  cl 


A 
•«••  c* 


-te 


iv 
* 
vomSi<n»-  rt(T«^u/» 


i  ft?  t*ti*r»P<Mf 
Im,. 


mi  hmr 


f  iff*  tfvc  j$tnt 


ft 


,»»«» 


Hf  P 


f»r  ftym»  fW_» 


«^«  tAvr  in  n«utf  m«*»m*- 


tC^lU-tT  MA*  4jt~ ''&$>•  TM40&4  5> 


t-  t*r^  *wte»«!44r*t-jc7_ 


BaH!**'  *jr««1-  <y^**r  4'  ^?  yftttttM  «7  *  _ 

C<mfe«U*n^«.V  ..JB  AG'«M»  »«  flc«»'  ?f5«u*««  rfl1  W^  t««wtn^»u^  M^MM^I»<A 

—  ^-S»  £Cft|ld  »4f -<!&^ 7-flW  ft^«-«>  *****  *<£.&  f+y  +£S*mk»- 

7   _  __  &-4P-       J^»_    L         .  _  *_<-      jjflJLB  Yi^C^*^^1*1*"41^  ^fc^fcl"M^    fc^M'      ^v*£<J.  _  A     .  f\  A     J* 


.  -hif  ^ 


•  »X»n-  <|-^»J-  <T  8***- 

« 


-6r-4 


vcm*-- 


ffS* 


*f  * 


ntui  Wv<:-_  " 

k  *v«  _    -  — '  —  _r"^» 


'T11* 


fterWniTffrutnWiTn  <}»  fK"  <nir,  rtTtiCb  tvrruw*-  •»«**»*«> 

R-  «r«t£K«9  C  <cplt«u  u«- Aiw<r.<>r6rt*-  ^*j''f*Mr  ^A*)1^4 

«*  jPJcvif  m9«*v*  fefffiin;  ^tvA  vti^oP-  '.^r^ftrj  CcrtM  C 

^»*V(fi*r«w-tor-  ^fnif  <i-V»tt-'9« 

. .  #i  •  ^  _' _      ^  i  ^^ 

P  *tt-£>  tD 


MCu 


*|*      v***M**«»*  »-* 

v      ^j  -^  -—  _  -r--^ — -"**9  5lnp«>u«l»6tf~ 

^,A  ^ormma*  AttrnxvAtwU/.  er&tn&mJ- 
flnHiAc/pr«r«  rt^PiW  <t£>«<w)n4n&m -»&tnf.«5^ 
,   .  ,  l»«vr.iAin»*.ti£«*yflr-  tfrcc/ «•-<>•  -ntptf-^ir «»trf- 

pnr  «yWlT  &ft!»v  rt»rj»jjrtft»»/  ^|S"^»»«it^<Tr  m»Jt-  pnf  •YV.'A'  Qi&na 

(/  er  ft«  lufhi  <rfh.  SrfirJ 


wm«4 


-  man 


*  <*«<«£•  JXcxt-  Airrrut  mfn««- 
it?  rfu«-  ft^  .xrmw  •&£  Vj. 
*»n^Ro^-n<irmm  ct  (<(iAn 


ct-  « 


*• 


hrrr,  <W 


ivr  -TfVf-  «M»    f*r  '  ft**«  it*icrt«  *u  Vffen6*vf  qtifvtc-  jtCtaMH  *».«    m  Vrw^^Mf  ^.y^.&i.  ^ftrt 

(*rin«v  >->••*!   <f  f  ir>  ^rn-  ^cr  jwuevwr  >v»«rvicv«-  ,>A>  ^  ***ufi-«5>wni  <j-n3  ft<-r«tr  w<v<r-  *>»(i{ifr<ft- 

«  «to  eueS<r<»ft>.  •ri«9u««-tt*v|«ril*^«yt**>rl^fv-rt^<  for-'ft-i^mojtc.  itt*-rt««»»  c|V f\o«Ti^  ,i*v^  ' 

•fSmni  flit'  <!*"  (jpTHc*  <Tlv<mt»  -ftTfcpmJV»  A"  iirni*  <j^  ^winftntfn  *«t^>   vroPrttnv   mrtiOt / runn 

curttr'K^  re*m  oerfttR«»*i-  mud  R^-  rtmt*  Cwyr  5i»»»'>rt  ue*ntf£n»'  ewm  .fe  (b-n3  amUi<Ui«f  m" 

A        r  t.  .--    «v      .. _—  _  ...if  t>    f>_,.   *-A.~J-  a^-  vx^-^  a'.. i  «i.«i_ 


ci»rtr"«^  tx*m  «jp«««*tt»«'  MMMVW  «m«e  U?t^r  <x»  '^ew-rrj  »**  pr-no  <)mui<ui«f  m 

»«A>,  OIIT-  fw  il'S  r.tn*Jinicnnt  f^w|l»^  ftci«  -^li^iT)/  ft<^-  S-jac^-  A-iil  Atu^xtii  «-.<>.  otviM« 
JvHr'mi<<*'  «»v3WtV  «-fr»»  trrati£-<u  tv»^?p-4?'-«»Sitn'Jf'A««»w/  »"»nOtr,t-n<%n,C0*n4H^  .j^n.^  „»- 
Ji«e*  cf>  Ktrttre*  >*)onn«  ftau  «r.vm-M*-  ma»tf  injtmifc  cr  r-r»n& S^y^.^.M.  cr.vom^Ani 


t    no  tonRrm  l^er 
Vt- 
.  AM  covn*    vm* 


^fcftVitrtttTb  »i«t  MM*  ten^k-  ow|t>J^»  JXain*  mfi 
M'L.in.-riMv  <*ui  Rr  fir  t«w*  «r»8ra?  at-«RiTnM*  1 


7TWU*r/  ri<  &JfC  ^wtn«t  -ftij^uti, 


Pi^itu  i  ?A»n**r  71 
Wln^U-  tft-ftmth 


^  ,p>^  m«S\{i*nr<t-«fV 


p  "**.»--^^-  ^K7~ft%V*V%V>HV«7 

^«r  f*«"  1?  «TM»»*U»*  Si|!rH4-*«Si  -n*  W  tvni  ht«»  MI 
KA  fi  w»*  *ct«*  Tn«5\fWnt-  tt-wrtfceti**-^  fhxmwn^ 


MM«<*MViMMVV  *.^cryw  <%u-«nOO  -nATuf  umtt»«  »n 

At&r  oBitrr,  «r««^"/Wo  <»pit/<>T>TjTi«-|r»T»*»fiA  ^  »^*  »«t»4*  Tn«5\fWnr-  ct-ucft^nar-/^  rtvcmttiOp* 
W^KtenS    Tn*5UT<«fpo6.rnS6.  «4«-  f«A  C^>  Tn*r*tie<  ?^  ctft^  -\*««-  «-  Tie  ^tf«r9>iun4  tn&£c«vt 
»of>UV  SkfenfrtTT)  p«  >f^4«   £T*«m*  iCt.*-  «.«c\4»-  «tfi  .npincni  nf  tr>m&  ft|>rucr*r-*«tir  «<C 


«rflvw  »t«e*  vmti»M»r,  ^  ^T 

/^vrf"  ffeiSE  A«»-^^W-in  ir»8W«c, 

•  r  •••*  «T"*  1J**«"  of  ftcftt.-  «ff  SS&*S»in,  •a»»t»<'c«»&n«<,  Stn,tt>,  o-^ 

'  VsBSS^JCwSCM  ~*~  f^-'^r^Hur^  fr*«3 

f>m^  ^T^r        *T'""w^'^f1«^«N^^^V^3?-n»ftiS2 

^smSrS  ffliiL^rK*  ^^-"r^^^^A  -MMtoj^SLw. 

m  nC  fefftmf  ^><\fi  rtH  rtuuHio  ovic  nl|rntr'n»m  ,(t«  COKWM  -hi"  lt»n«- r^rcv«*IM< 


<>TrM«v*t-r  <T  fcnA 

*  ^^-  «•*•  m« 


£Vl    Jefcw**:  *0»-  «n'c(VnJ.f  fcv»»f»e&ftwmrt' f»«»p  fcr  fl«wt  <>t*m<m£*  <,M*0  r*n*M-J 

^£rrW n^JSn*'  «-3Sf « W^vj "f"r>  3-4*-  «rp  Sr nuW  mV" 

T^LJ  feflt  W*  ^eT**52^  *«?«*«»«"»  ft  ^mwR^,  ^mx-  o^-  rojlfl.-  ift*j  f,fl>^fU« 

4^SmS^r^  jrpr"'  R««-^f<Mifn"  ^"^  fe^fczy  "^   ft*mr'-t!WJ^E 


tiCr»«'m 


•prtrtr 

Ml 


i  ^nTre-fSfic  <fia*  rtffi.       .... 

t  T>uffuTt7  *>frt«u "  on,,  ft«-  J^^r  .6jrv*  ^W 
1  <^.»U).-\M«  -miflr<*»i>  tnvtyi'TnvnTU?'  mciJ^*- 


T^^^y    '•"    •[•-"•j-»  f     I*'*"'    *i  ••  ••  •  •:  »  •»^FT''»     •'^  F  ••*^*B  ^^ 

t($*f«  PU^^r^miJ^^w/a^WrtufanftvU-  ft-*^?n&n&' 

— -  4—1^  -,,  A^,if»?ifj0U  S-  <!•„  fe  ffl^mf ,  rfVnjiJ^  fJ»*«  »p*»,  nT 

•  CM4M«  AMAC-  -MtfmO  J»W»U-/  tt«-tyr£v  AltipCnUl  ^»«f. 

— -Sn.c&m-AfiMrtffU*/  *«»•  n^ttfT^w^f 

><U-  «€^  Ann  wfiWt*/  ^ 


y  *4*  nj 


s 
a 


n  cHMiit  f*  RltHrtn*^  oiSrmnt*,  tnnngmt*'  6cm  m 
cr>flWn)  p(h»n<rv«    «ut  ft  in  eff 


<ai.rtrrt>  fir  Mp 
a  ftcrvtmcnt/e  <if>  At 


cu    >KVU  I 


i4smi* 


'  <st*vii 


irtfi'  u* 


R«**iAiwU*/m«n 

Wttu  5V«W-lt 
^-  J(»Frt<-  defile  al 
- 


miflln.fr 


/  ft 


t»«<?«« 

c-->  «  »— 

lrt-nj  Vt«rt  et-n«t  fine-  <r>  \xtvatoo- 


erfic 


-more  fotcv&t*,  jpfiattur-mrti^i*.  71<»tf>  ^oc  cfr  r<£ptP« 


JltStmt-  rttr<*  Rirnf  r^uirT(t&»tj>n<nc*mu« 


««Tt«rtt.«   hSr    o  rta  ef 


nfi«-:t^c««»>4"<*^*»t/  «w***UTnfVn«-»r»«.  o*M*. 

«,!vtrin*Vt**  Mh«»-««fi»r«*^yw»>  s  «•  .^ 


mfh-  t^w^ 


cr 


nifl 


ff  * 


Hf  -<3-  m-       rtt)  JW-** 


-ore- 


^•!t4?' 


,, 


»-fh»  Vt^.  «?T  iVj-n**  P*f»W«« 


CT-C 


«*. 

i«tvt  vmUw*-  ifo 


i»n<t  iM 


In  T-T-  f*f.    .  m 

«n«  piriiCl**    truinPrt*»  Twelfth  ft«v  f*n'p»t-.<71i»r  linnim^r  rtffirt  -ix-rul^-p  ftmfl  ft  wCpOtmnrtfl    Ot- 
"  AurfUn  t-  oi«m  71u<-  evncx  itj  n 

~  r 


ti»*ic 


r  fim 

_ 


tflt 


>ormtt»»rt 


4\*  i-p 


<*»•  €*y  Per  fw>  pw**  IM&  opi-^-V  &«•  m*»9iot-  «•  in&ftvwrff  ^cnpti^nme  ^tc?j9o|IW 
Tiif  P«r  tr8M[b«»e«r  no  eft-  tw-v  .-n<itT»  fUnr  r*»*  itjrttiifr  trt«w  «M>  ft««-  rt***^  pi«  rtaiTrttPct^ 
-  ^tmrut  'prtflfc-  tr^oxTnvBrvMtiflrtw,  lntr,ii««Cj'*ftrtl*J1*«s«<r'  P»"*«ft  't^ 


rt|t»rn4%j  Mrruujptcv  t>atv^«M 


•"*XX-  q-iiv 
'.  f        ' 


12 


«r 


tin  TV*  "pen 

pMr/^rA9uft(t«i 

.  r*  ^   ^  fr  -  flP. 


rft^ww*<vk- ft i*-***- !*!••*£ ^" 4*"1? ^^T*K^T^r   - 

u*\*fl  **/  <W  Vi*">f*  *»fWW-<  &«*"  "I  «J*"*«1  •««  «•*•  ^»  »n*iUa*,'  flnt«4«-  ^rtOu> 

^rr^sw^^ 

ZTJ3K5  P4  R-irtf-rf*^  fff^^'^^^T^f^r1?^* 

^  C  ^^SMxI  Sn^cVrioHT  n^  Wr4  cwwfflVw r  f?  ^r^WWp^Urf  ^ 

•jjt^tWw'  Irt*  ^  O  «l»l*^  I  *••»*»  j^li  k         A  _  i     »  ^          'A 

^    "  ('        J    <t _fv      BP  . .  ,t,  _*_  OJ    «•.  <nMw5^^*rr  i-n-tn^it  »nA^wi/»  rt&t.iU 


T  i-n-mWC  tT?<ujr»i^  <^W-lU 


„      /7«l_«-»M^'^». 
hfWfc^KT  AM^mtfiwu 
y^y  ™»---"~-    •r^fivvTv^n vwv^  i 

«/  "_-^*  f  t»«ty  v^-^frr.^y^Vjtn^n^  OO^CT^  m^cv^Tnm^  ,nnt^,rttr  run^  A<ma|^-fTt 
nt44hfU?«-  cwttrrjpen*  mwrvTrtii«T»«ve  tp-^fS^vneevc  -rx«m<i'«i^  Vi»hAji  v^prAcr^  cvvmv^ 
*  -ihrujmt-  -fcjn;  tscprf^cnl?  «tfie»e-,  Hf.  iHMtolUt^W  iWJftfnl?  cKMt^-  ^<tid'1i.i<«inifti«4 
•^wiu>  nft  ftff-<Ko<u-  nr-m/^ruxmrn*  >nnifptur  4ii«*£^  .y«i4Hf  n*  Mxftv«r<^3?-|i^nif 


rflf" 


-  Jn  *V«M 


tn  (Vfl»vn>fn6  ^fc  ftemutv  n<*n?  i  A  trw 

/^*      *v  ^  _--^T"   ,_    ,"~. 

,  lta.fi 


fhotrtp 

Jrf^P'  -  -  _ 


et 


tufix  ,r^A 


ur  e 


vcfli-  fto 
•n* 


et  ftor  fiuwtt" 


ttto- 


«w<w 

p«A$bit**t)-rtM<>,  r^.  cj-mj.  tf^ 
"  ' 


-^  ct-*  ffcti-  epa* vtetC/ 


.n     n,ot«*-at*«^-w-  ..  t    «« 

«WTA«  jlUi^    r  tf V.  WrfW^c/  e^.m  mAmminf  T 


~  ? 


•  u  - 


nto?  4<tii  Stolen  *t>  tvrtf  cw<r&r>& 


VV^^Ato.f.W.&y^^,^.  ^  JSWVft.1 
«&.,  *P  cvqm  rn  ^.^cfi  c  ~fX£Sm  ^  n>  L^  tflu{8w  fm^  ^CJ  J? 

^^r^i^^f,,,  T^  w  rtfw«/^««S  ttf^'-^^-^.F -H»»« ••*•<&**••  , 

Ir$  1   T^-nfr'lnU<o^        T1-fm  mfh)lu**^*'<f»/rt»«^<>'-  'pi  Y**M*-  vwvw'fcvf'U  »r 
>-i*(cfct  ur»vtfi,(^-<iP,RrV:3.A'^VphmtfouoX)mt.  OMI£rtn>  ...^^f,^  joft-'CUlWi  mfcqtut 


X 


-^t-  ^A  • 

*?  ff»Vi^  CIJSKS^  i~  v  -   - 

>w> 


^/mujS'no  fjtrt-  ,.»-  f  r          ^ 


mwi.S  ^cweU&A 


PTZ-U.  *.  pS^  ^I""^^^^^Cl^o^ 
•«-->4r-»«fcJCff^  l><^5<tu  H^^«#^553SS^H^ 
-^u^  J  ISSSSC  BKhj'^'-'S'SSt  S?    ~S^f 


~    /^    ~. , 


C«Mt*K-      IH* 


- 


<*£»>  V>W  -n?«i£w«tt»*- 
V  F^fx-nwrnw,  n^  Cu««^ 

£p**-it tA     «•    n  .  |  ra ^"**  ^ 

^^  J~7  ^*^*n»'fWlr  C 


f- 


f 


«K  w»w 


£j£J 


M*  P  nwfoviA  ff  *^  •*«*••  fvt™'"'"  A< 
*4  ^/F"!*1  <T"  ftm«  <roftmru< 

irtW£tr-  iit-  rnj>t«Tioiv  ct-vwhtctvnttii1  tr  »>t»»n«riii  tr\-»hrc«M  t 
fTttoep  «» vtvv«f«.k«-  ATnt'Rn^ii7f4i«r>  C|»«tn  H»«r  atonA  « 

^|. ,  -  •  «\ '  *  o 

_..xt  r..nr  >nWrn*    nt-    r7tr»inn»-  rt-  MMtunnntf  .n  tr^%-tH»*ui   <^<i 


•  liiiii     W-T'  '-     t»*    »    (VTii£»xirt    rr    ••*  f  */i 

jfTJij  %<ppfif  fimj»fint%,nSrt<-  c$***jDfftnrZ&.™  fxnfivnciA  ^HHttwtc  oiumnp  ;?,.„•«  fr' 
iriftftr^ijt- m^tA-non-  c«-v*S«oVnntf  tri  ***H*n«rtij  tr\-»hnr«M  o«Mhih6  in5inrn«e    ViiFiH^J,,- 


i  flia»tiu-«i'it,c«wtt1?fi1^«||Hl.MS^1,  hitvr 


ctu  n 


ton  t -,  ff  ••»•  OCCM-  h,-  P  ft  Ufpu>fcv« 
Of        m«»   Is- 


j- 


«       -r 


f  "^  •»»^^*»VWr    JWttr   fM*tM    ^^  -*^k^^  • 

{•  <CMUT T fw  ^  ^ ^«  ^  ^^r  4^^.. «.  ^T^^^v^'  •JT^ 
^^/]^r:*.<^*^Xfl.^  f,  ^^^a  ,;^S<^tu^' 
u^t,»  A  «y~u  »««-  ,^  ;n/K«ri,Xr ,  r^L 

St-,JL_ c5--^-*— -ac-        <^-*p-  ~^i— Is  =^A_l/7      f"tt*r7»o-i»tnc5*,  „.  « 


' 


-jgfwtir 

if?"^n»- 

*«•!*/ 


--hu 


,0.       .  «  "'" "  "*"    "**<H«tMV/ 

***-£*.  m^^  Ar«rcun*v|> 
c-  HOM^AM-^Jb^^     Lo,. 


- 


o  •    >w«i 

ft  vcnSfcr  t^?  ^ 
/i.L    ...{>,.  A    r^ 


»S^3S3stea 


*J"7-«Jfc,SU 

i"l^ter>k>~.;2~ 


^Afc 


t  nw^-^i  ^rr^^^S^"^^^^- 


^^^^   ">Ttc>lCTt?''li»T'L*~     vvZ»Ti^   j 

^fe??-?^  r-^-^-SS 

m8t  ^Ar^U.  <9MrtHII ^r^TT* 


M  ^nr  y**K  ASST     W'P*' 

A    *^         ^  *T  *-'  *TCJotk».  tf*   *        iv*  C^ 

'W^LW^J 


J 


nrtir  ttft4H*«k  OHO»p»«r-«t*Tu*nSlrtU-fiftUo7  i^tUnft,    t. _..„ 

!«.^r.rt«9  ^i»fh»  £*flUn)  ftertS^  &  <ClRj  "  jrnirt^^Sc  BMM«|  mcwCcut^A^  ^ 

iy^««4»  tc  fi*rtr  c.^  ffcft*«-  •^TPP«7!Sr*^^  «  flS'fr'AJ*!"*  ^f^Si 
J^MM  o«  .»Ct«-A ^w»%?vUH«^  «^  cUtwfr  [W^  atpotar  wtf^MM  o  tl&mouvoM?'^ 
>t>t«f  JUtf, 


riH~wt  »*1?t-«Uf1-  «^U*»h^»«>  OrWrHG    Jp  t»t<  ^(Ct    fMMMf    MT  «H4f<N^*4>/ wffVt  iffc 

4<flfci»«<-  *Ptfl«  f*^in»(^i^iJ-  l|fcN^,-»*WjW  -ja^J-  «m.jr,,tr  'a^vrt,7;  iff  W?*^ 
<5%ff»4  TitTf>*«v*<M  ,nt^R^i*»«t-  ^f^*r  Wlc  &*e  if*i*  «*v  ^wftfi<n<»  jr.rt<^cM« 
V?t  r«X  tt -Cp*UMi*  JSn)^**  Kf»*hl«^  fljVpH.tf  1fcm#l   tCMfrt^^fivA,  ttxrv    * 
i?(ftf«»«5'Tt*«rM*  ^*  %Cfc**«9 '  •«« t*»«  •  •'BMW*  rtTvn<|»»4*  -o^-«r^!  ftn«V-  C  jH»ifv»^H  <rf.  „<> 
^...  ,«-C  in*»Ct  flT- ««9m«»nt- 


-  .^3VvevO  qm  i»vo  ptrmi^.rr,. 


vri-nAv  por 
v  <a^cT«iy>ho 


^ 
**"   •"***  «"ni""itctl  • 


ff$~ 


nTfo.mdti7,  er^m?i<uir-»tt**-»nr*P'*?i;  ct-fi£e^  <^-«ffiT 
SI^T?  . , ie£ f  f  ,m*  ,«£.  flfr^j.  A,,;* '  «*M*.  '«--?->**<»  «^W 
«<*-  <*,£<! 4w^toF,  JV*?  iifta-^A^^  «pr  ii-p^  fap 


tt4m*-.  ur»«vrv  Per  «•  muiSw  -tMw^iAfc*-  •Mi»«»4il*uA»4^iftwettir/  vmovn^j  /lnn*Lj  ««-tn«£      , 

Jfltt  trT?^^  l9l^U«  JeoUW!  tnmrfuU*  W' 

.    *^r     A    .^tol    —  -  •&     ,&«  ^.^  i^  ^^     _      >w»    ^Z  _     *^"  .  >^  ^     - 


VU<Vi  ^fl^T^lTAnnpr^t****^^  ^_ 

ft«m  fiv-r«<JWttcK^  ,<9<ni*l&  wce«->u«*vi£r.  ft  i?;" ««»  y«n«  »m  <^  •wcvnwjnluut  tn^M'- 

. -.     «'  i-v  -     -  < —      -  r>!       /vlK  f~-     '  A  •—      '        o   -  *   ~    -     - 

fWiK*  Vi 


ft€e«M  AtfPt*v4M.y^.ft^,n.  Stjn^je-ot-^-^HfcuAcSZmoCoi:.  «•  <C  fVoU- cm  R^crur  S  •*j.<st- 
^ff^  if  ctfrceap-  ymc  «i-^W^i  Pec  cA^wwi*  %mofi»-*Ti»*  0«-  Am  tfflhmr  ^8»  tm»ttlj- 

iftfijKMM*  Ant7ft>  *nmo.^S"Ctt>KnoBi:w«»if  n/kfUSfic  iAit»n-  ft^fWf^wj 
-rn  «,    <~«  rM  'rr^-ft*,-'         _'«. 


/ ,.»-  SL_     ft 
1 


^jviiwttjr  STuuum  <|nayft«-  yp  jtioxnA  mtyoSutm  pf  «uv»Ti<iC-  fl«Tnt>ft>j>  mfHnd"  "ife.  g»  fen' 
Bvittwg^tu^<ennr/fr  ^<?fU- fl>3&f«S"'9irt»vi«-  <**«$>£«-  mvtiMuo  fccctiw»«.&r<viu>  mtx-  in«c0 
*r^5>nr  5?  Slwffi1  <**«£    "rKutmn  ct-  ^  m*« -mflifr«"    <ft-9ih>  <rtyrcnu«  SWw  Q*V  nMvoJWnT 


w-_- 


t    . 


V. 


Qmfh- 


tff 


h- 


Fe  VnnifT 
* 


<#.«,& 
*i«<toV 


•n? 


Hti**tfrnei  / ci*fc  ^t*c- 
£  Pt    mfh-  <*-n-  m  Jm-  yyXif/^i'  fiofyttv^ftt'  V&imif 

"*" *  ^  *P      r*  *    L    "*^  rtf 

^^  "  y  ^ 

^^*    ^        -i    T 

to 


rntncv 


ct- 


•  ftcr-    cn 


'   *m«  cr 


)*m« 


-nf 


»M«r  uf-Tc^  P 
^  ^er  1%5  «f- 
u^^KwIt^m^i 
ft*  «  rw«nnS" 
*  -tncvirtCee>  '  TJ^C  ctwp  c^nna  /Imftn/n^m  iiur^<^nu 


neve- 


TiiMt»»trf<BjiS><w  ^jrcSwmv  W  cpjn*nn2"rt*;ne  £Mtrtnft   ut- rtxpcti^wii;^  <M^t  »• 
<Gg^v^fcf*cJ^t»$&i\^  ^^A.m»t  ^>IIM 

6cv^n*x««.»,ctP»tnf<D4t!^An'«^l3rf5ta»n^5f  |pi;-rjo  cw*&nW*  pi£cff?  vt*>tfiiwj  TU 


**f 


ftmitni?  *rftor>«hUTrc.A-mf    r 


.ttXfe  "git*  CtWi    tM^r 


tit- 


riM»H»-mn*r»v<» 
(mifc  cfoMtR  .^^ 
t»x«tntre^  fiftp^  %**»*(    IIA  Acr 


t<tr 


ucm* 


V-    ft«- 


At<- 


,jrntl«  Per  }*'*$*t  tr^o  ff 


mio 


-  U 


i>e 


P<Vr?  n^tri;?"  i"? 


.ft.*|. 


T- 


ft  P&  crftcvi 


n  r/A   - 


•CV?*-  T111  f^1**'4*  V1fV«*x4V  cf  tevaA  vmwM  ouctSfhu  MttMfnf*  <u*tv»  <t«n<^-mmr 
-'  ^^nln"*!  ««(jmA   rtf^jij  •»TT*»Ht  rfrrtoi  <caft  rtui&O^  f«?«*i£u*  J3ffcrtno>  UMMW-^^ 

^Vw^Ml**'  ^  V7"'^  rtSRl*  r*V^yrn4  eumpt&ine™  «CR*-  ^M^  •«» p»*fcr*m«/yiM 
tfu  tcn<?  x^Tmtcfctt"  'cc^^^  <^JHC"  Hit*  f*^ni  ^72  Sf^i^"  iuiuttn  ^t^rw*  jj7tt%*ffc '  rtti^^tt^  r»KT<vrtt~ 


'-rw»P«-  etc  <f  f»*nen:>  cr  i-n 


f  -  t^-JK*  • 


Kent- 


•"".  ( 

trite*-'   wti^cn?t>-i«e--ir>-unij 
,!*•  »f  Pom-  ai"W& 


7*  . 


"vmo 
vSMiro  •"*«<!**»  ••»«*" 

>     J        rf-«»  &  . 

rrtVW 
<M-»< 


Vf&frnSkr  7 
'L,rU<^->-' 

HftKsin!!^^ 

^^5^  5c  f    ^  ^*^*^ 

^^^"'"^  ' 


fiOnA 


«*-'  iP> 

«i«-t>-«fFt?4lAt<u<' 


? 


o«7««»  •is^v.ft,^-  J7  fa*£n 

Own,  owj^rtm 


^***-  -mil?-  f-*l 
o»&n<M* 


U| 

~£: 


p  ft»M<eTi0  A<-rti««TnS«*n-i4t-.  Is  fleet-  rr>^i-  flF-  ru\  m   (hi 
**   UoTtn*  a«  fcr  o«xu»»»Tt<t««  «*"  ^ilt<>  P«l''»«*&«i 


of 


ftr.  o..u*W 

ChfiLH** 

M6ftnT 


Q.^i(<tVcrcv\*«T*»-*  oiler**  TiMf»i^*»^    T^  Tr  ^"V-MHI  c-vfyvj n  '  i»  ••wuri 

,Hfi5W  tcrt*  «un»iF»4n*    ^r  «•?  yf'f  «*8mfh»v  o*Timi*JU  ««»««  Oftnof^   Hr^vfT-  fl.m-c 
rtitr.ff -*r*  tuvfif-(«te-in? <«  n3^n*5^et-^*-e»«TT»vn^rti?  ^»ri(«»obdftt  Bo-  mjUtu  H*-«UM 
'M*»<-c».«>yTn.miTt;  pflH'f'icx  «»«&"«  Ct^Wt^  tpW,  «mtcn1»»TTv«t-^rt>  rtvfttru>  u^toc  rT 
?fir  u^WfT*'*<T''arft'  <r-«tfc-rt.if.«».m^-  flr*i«f-*A-P-«-^cnS'  «,  n.trpiRrtni  «o 


F 

•no 


trm-  fm«-  rtf^n.^^ »j4i-^-«  <J«uS»"  ff  ^  H^cr 
)*™*  *v«^  ««v  P9)-vft«-  M«-^p',Hwr  Rcme*c»^ 


f,^  VA^A- ctgvrt^ftfpfVte-ptTOU-  CwfirmAtti*-  n«"«t?(«<^  oF.ltfhfVmn  yn^tv   t^t-  rT, 
u.t.-itr-O^twe  c^-Confrtnitwr/^-P-f  ^*ni   ,T •*-ft*uPr.  «t  P-TnAfr  0^M(ft«toi  fi-  f . 
ai WTn  •  ff  ^  nirtn^  Jr  ^"""  fh«*  -P-  mfUanKt,  ff-  m*  ^. JP-AF mrpiP-  .tA  r(U<-  few-  ^*^ri 


iff  ** 


r.r.ri*.  en-  c 

fU-  fir  Ah£  afcrtntvf  •  Cont»vi*»«  cv<       u<vu. 

'  ^m  ifu  *t  iffc  «<^tr.  <j»  far 


«c(>rt> 


t 


pcrx-   fT-1*  rt»«tr.  «-f»»«-  fe^r.Tx,  <f  «n«-^  «"  ma&f' flffi*,  c,>  „  f-  i.e.Ut.Cftgi,,;- 
l^ic  tencr  grwM&xr  |**lMl*>-M<  «^0NN  o«&  oxrvJ-^i  T- in  fet»oiu«  >  fT-^u  ^-.  «4#«M*rf 

r^w^tnrf  «--ot».cr^n't«*5?»-  CTJ"  J^o.r  «etvi<«  ^to«lpuDr,  %cmtrw  pr  41;  d^fcti^: 
otnme   .4«nt<tt    «Vc  vntcfTuv*-  -0^  p<tS.tm-..  (ft-fiTntft  mo  fij^v  fb-'pmtfe  d^ I  fittt^o 

*          A       C\  I  V  *^  ~ 

3fr  ,»«t*  lVmfcirtir»  uf  Ot«>nv»  •  Jeu^Jvae 

t-  trartwm^  ci  Ww  AyifCtti<£>  « tn* 

•o   w(w< "1  ~~ "'     

1 


nrt  irt  ftv 
iV.jp  «<"  tibi  V 


^ftftmrt  VAvf-f  ati\ 


MJWH^F  <jw««-  ffrw^ynX 

&oiw{*  rrtrin'v  Ti'ifC"' 

^^t-*—"i-- 


ft**  yturwfW  klfc 


-  ».  <tmtmn     ^ 
Vio(Wteuttt« 


iCtviiT  k>  tCTo  rptl  '  ; 


<«-<mSwf,  et 


r  tn<tt*TiiAfi 


Mr  cr  «et  /  4rAri 
tntfn  ir>  Rrfli^xu* 

o'  ^^     • 


i    M*  «ftn<mt 


Piamf-  mc^nip  uti 


iomft  ccrft 
vr  ft  Wi'/'ct-  fi' 


rtco 


- , 


tfw9«0U«9  r*z 

'rt-  -rr  mufti*  nlT»)p  rrtir-  ^  fiftun;  <vi(>m 

J^rf*.  ft*.^.  '  *^.  _   * 

•A 


^  .In  f>nh«m  tv^tati^quo  twuc^jj, fifi,^ 
banoM-  ^ pA*vc feTm^Hcn te -  wfpfr^rw 
^T  fi(\um  «viftmlviT}  cv  roc«H«or>«*  CWM.  wh«i 


»«*  cutuub9 


^»  I«w     -••  /\  «i       * 

n  «•  ixftiUO'  <)*ecwn^ 


i  A  «ntttnj^m«v4/  ct  /i 


aAfenttt-qr  ioftev<ta«uj  r*- 


. 

p.i-ift.1    yiirl'  "i,  <OM«^MWM 
-r««<-  I 


**  w^ou^,  ,^fU^^- 


65 


ftctncul 

<<?'8wK«'itn  pfTt 
~* 


IOHANNIS  DE  LIGNANO 

Tractatus  de  Bello 


The  text  of  the  Bologna  Manuscript,  MS.  Miscell.  B.  1393, 
as  "extended"  and  otherwise  revised 

by 
The  Editor 


(See  the  Prefatory  Note  which  follows) 


[I] 


PREFATORY  NOTE 

THE  preparation  of  the  "  extended  "  text  which  follows  has  cost 
the  editor,  even  with  the  preliminary  aid  of  an  expert  in  the 
decipherment  of  contractions  (Miss  E.  Barker),  a  very  serious  ex- 
penditure of  time  and  labour. 

To  begin  with,  he  had  to  break  up  the  continuous  wording  of  the 
manuscript  into  punctuated  paragraphs,  using  capital  letters  where 
called  for.  Then  began  the  far  more  serious  work  of  correcting  the 
mistakes  of  the  original  copyist,  and  of  checking,  and  re-writing  on 
a  uniform  system,  the  endless  quotations  made  by  the  author  from 
the  Bible  and  the  Civil  and  Canon  Laws.  The  biblical  quotations, 
curiously  enough,  proved  to  be  the  most  faulty.  The,  much  more 
numerous,  legal  citations  were  generally  right,  but  needed  endless 
typographical  amendment  in  order  to  render  each  distinguishable  from 
its  neighbours,  and  its  parts  distinguishable  inter  se.  The  following 
statement  will  explain  the  difficulties  of  the  task,  and  the  steps  taken 
to  surmount  them.  It  may  also  not  be  unwelcome  to  readers  un- 
familiar with  Civil  and  Canon  Law. 

The  mediaeval  method  of  citing  the  Civil  Law  is  comparatively 
simple.  First  comes  a  mention  of  the  collection  from  which  the  quo- 
tation is  taken,  whether  from  Justinian's  Digest,  Code,  Institutes,  or 
Novels,  or  from  the  Libri  Feudorum  ;  indicated  respectively  by  "  ff.", 
"  C.",  "  Inst.",  "  Authent.",  or  "  Feud.".  Next  comes  a  clue  to  the 
'  Title  "  of  the  Digest,  the  Code,  or  the  Institutes,  indicated  by  setting 
out  its  head-line.  Last  comes  a  mention  of  the  specific  "  law  "  to 
which  reference  is  made,  indicated,  as  a  rule,  not  by  its  number  within 
the  "  Title  "  but  by  its  initial,  or  catch,  words.  Citations  from  the 
Novels  or  the  Feudal  laws  are  somewhat  differently  managed. 

The  system  of  the  Canon  Law  is  more  complex.  The  large  col- 
lections, cited  by  Legnano,  are:  the  "  Decretum  Gratiani",  the 
"  Decretales  Gregorii  Papae  IX  ",  the  "  Liber  Sextus  Decretalium  ", 
and  the  "  Constitution es  dementis  Papae  V  ".  The  two  last  named 
collections  are  respectively  indicated  by  "  Lib.  VI  "  and  "  Clem.", 
but  the  source  of  citations  from  the  "  Decretum  "  or  "  Decretals  "  has 
to  be  inferred  otherwise  than  from  abbreviated  descriptions  of  those 
works,  except  that  the  "  Decretals  "  are  sometimes  indicated  by  the 
word  "  Extra  ". 

The  Decretum  consists  of  three  "  Books  ",  the  first  of  which  con- 
tains 101  "  Distinctiones  "  ;  the  second  36  "  Causae  ",  each  sub- 

69 


70  PREFATORY  NOTE 

divided  into  "  Quaestiones  "  ;  the  third,  entitled  "  De  Consecratione  ", 
contains  5  "Distinctiones".  References  are  made  to  Book  I  by 
"  dist."  or  "  di.",  preceded  by  a  numeral ;  to  Book  II  by  "q.",  pre- 
ceded and  followed  by  a  numeral  ;  to  Book  III  by  the  words  "  De 
Consecratione,"  "dist."  or  "  di.",  followed  by  a  numeral.  References 
to  the  Decretals,  Sext,  and  Clementines,  without  any  mention  of  the 
"  Books  "  into  which  they  are  divided,  specify  merely  the  "  Title  " 
in  question,  indicated  only  by  its  head-line,  e.  g.  "  De  lureiurando", 
or  "  De  Sent.  Excomm.",  with  which  the  canonist  is  presumed  to 
be  familiar. 

The  ultimate  reference  in  the  case  of  Book  I  of  the  Decretum 
is  to  a  "  canon  ",  in  the  other  cases  to  a  "  chapter  ",  and  is  made  as  a 
rule  by  setting  out  the  initial,  or  catch,  words  of  the  canon  or  chapter. 

The  preceding  statements  must  not  be  taken  as  exhaustive,  e.  g., 
the  third  Quaestio  of  Causa  33  constitutes  an  independent  treatise, 
entitled  "  De  Poenitentia  ",  consisting  of  several  Distinctiones,  and  is 
so  quoted. 

In  this  "  extension  ",  pains  have  been  always  taken  to  commence 
the  head-line  of  a  "  Title  "  with  a  capital  letter  ;  to  distinguish  be- 
tween "  canons  "  and  "  chapters  "  ;  to  print  the  catchwords  of  the 
ultimately  cited  "  lex  ",  "  canon  ",  or  "  chapter  ",  in  italics  ;  and  to 
mark  the  termination  of  each  quotation,  where  it  does  not  end  a  sen- 
tence, by  a  semicolon.  It  is  hoped  that  the  search  for  a  quoted  pas- 
sage may  have  thus  been  rendered,  to  a  reader  armed  with  the  indices 
of  catchwords  to  be  found  in  good  editions  alike  of  the  Corpus  luris 
Civilis  and  the  Corpus  luris  Canonici,  not  prohibitively  difficult.  Such 
wrong  references  as  have  been  detected  have  been  sometimes  indi- 
cated by  a  mark  of  interrogation,  (?)  ;  sometimes  they  have  been 
enclosed  in  brackets  [  ],  after  which  the  right  reference  has  been 
inserted. 

The  original  treatise  is  not  divided  into  chapters,  but,  for  con- 
venience of  reference,  the  chapter  divisions  occurring  in  the  print  of 
1477  have  been  inserted  in  brackets,  so  far  as  they  are  applicable,  in 
the  margin  of  this  extension. 

T.  E.  H. 


INCIPIT  TRACTATVS  DE  BELLO  DOMINI 
IOHANNIS  DE  LIGNANO 

DE  MEDIOLANO  IVRIS  VTRIVSQVE  DOCTORIS 


REx  Israel  mutavit  habitura  et  ingress  us  est  bellum,"  iii  Regum  xxii 
capitulo.  Israel  est  solium  Domini  et,  ut  scribitur  leremiae  iii  cap., 
"  vocabunt  Israel  solium  Domini."  Et  hoc  est  patrimonium  sanctae  Romanae 
Ecclesiae,  cuius  caput  est  lerusalem,  id  est  alma  civitas  Bononiae,  quae  vere 
vocari  potest  lerusalem.  Nam  in  ipsa  quorumcunque  scibilium,  et  maxime 
iuris,  dilucidata  est  veritas.  De  hac  scribitur,  Zachariae  viii  cap.,  "  Vocabitur 
lerusalem  Civitas  veritatis."  Haec  "  formosa  sicut  lerusalem,"  Cantici  vi 
capitulo.  De  hac  etiam  clamat  Propheta,  Sophoniae  i  cap.,  "  scrutabor  lerusa- 
lem in  lucernis  "  ;  et  Actuum  v  cap.,  "  Replevistis  lerusalem  doctrina  vestra." 
De  hac  etiam  scribitur  Apocalypsis  xxi  cap.,  "  Vidi  Civitatem  sanctam  lerusa- 
lem," et  ibidem  xxi  cap.,  "  Ostendit  mihi  Civitatem  sanctam  lerusalem  de- 
scendentem  de  ccelo,"  id  est  Bononiam.  Et  vere  de  ccelo  descendit,  Cum  ibi 
fons  veritatis,  iurium  quae  adeo  per  ora  principum  promulgantur,  viii  di.,  quo 
iure  ;  C.  De  longi  temporis  praescriptione,  1.  ultima.  De  hac  scribit  Apostolus 
ad  Hebraeos  xii  cap.,  "  Civitatem  Dei  viventis  lerusalem  ccelestem."  Et  idem 
Apostolus  ad  Galatas  iv  cap.,  "  Quae  autem  sursum  est  lerusalem  libera  est." 
De  hac  etiam  scribitur,  ii  Paralipomenon  vi  cap.,  "  Elegi  lerusalem  ut  ibi  foret 
nomen  meum." 

Verum  etiam,  permittente  Altissimo,  et  superius  disponentibus  corporibus, 
haec  Civitas  Bononiae,  ut  lerusalem,  ad  extremum  mutata  est  et  devastata,  et 
propter  inhabitantium  delicta  innumera,  odia  mutua,  diu  comminatus  est 
Altissimus  ipsius  destructionem,  ut  scribitur  [ludicum  xxix]  iv  Regum  xxi 
cap.,  "  Delebo  lerusalem  sicut  deleri  solent  tabulae."  De  insidiis  inhabitantium 
scribitur  ii  Paralipomenon  xxv  cap.,*  "  Descenderunt  insidiae  in  lerusalem." 


*  In  fine,  "  tetenderunt  ei  insidias  in  lerusalem." 

71 


72  DE  IVRE  BELLI 

Et  propter  superbiam  inhabitantium  comminatus  c^t  Dominus  per  Prophetam, 
dicens,  "  Computrescere  faciam  superbiam  ludae  et  superbiam  lerusalem 
multam,"  leremiae  xiii  capitulo.  Et  propter  hanc  clamat  Propheta  contra  in- 
habitantes,  dicens:  "Dabo  lerusalem  in  acervos  arenae."  Et  alibi  propter 
hoc  clamat  Propheta,  dicens,  "  Ponam  [lerusalem]  Samariam  quasi  acervum 
lapidum,"  Michaeae  i  capitulo.  Et  propter  hoc  clamat  Propheta  contra  nutritos 
in  ea,  dicens,  "  Contristatis  lerusalem  nutricem  vestram,"  Baruch  iv  capitulo. 
Et  propter  hoc,  scilicet  inhabitantium  excessus,  factum  est  ut  exercitus  regis 
Babyloniae  obsident  lerusalem.  leremiae  xxii  capitulo.  Et  propter  hoc 
factum  est  quod  scribitur  Ezechielis  v  cap.,  "  Haec  est  lerusalem  in  medio 
gentium,"  id  est  hostium.  Poenae  causa  factum  est  etiam  quod  scribitur 
Threnor.  i  cap.,  "  Facta  est  Jerusalem  sicut  quasi  polluta." 

Alma  igitur  ci vitas  Bononiae  vere  lerusalem  nuncupatur,  et  caput  solii, 
id  est  patrimonii,  sanctse  matris  Ecclesis.  Rex  autem  actu  regens  et  gubernans 
est  Reverendissimus  in  Christo  pater  et  dominus,  dominus  Egidius,  misera- 
tione  divina  Sabinensis  Episcopus.  Hie  enim  mutavit  habitum  et  ingre^u- 
est  bellum.  Nam  de  throno  pacifico,  id  est  sac  ratissimo  Collegio  Cardinalium, 
et  de  latere  dextro  sanctissimi  Papae  Innocentii  Sexti  destinatus  est  ad  recu- 
perationem  lerusalem,  id  est  patrimonii  penitus  deperditi,  et  ni  ipsius  recupera- 
tione  mutavit  habitum.  Nam,  relicta  pontifical!  quiete,  ingressus  est  bellum, 
et  bellum  forte  ut  princeps  serenissimus.  Nam  ante  ipsum  non  erat  Rex  in 
lerusalem,  ut  scribitur  ludicum  [xxii]  xxi  cap.,  "  in  diebus  illis  non  erat  Rex." 
Et  propter  ea  dixit  Dominus  ad  eum,  scilicet  dominum  Egidium,  "  misi  te 
regere  super  populum  Domini,"  ludicum  ix  capitulo^.  Et  ipse  dicere  pott •>! 
"  elegit  me  Dominus  ut  essem  Rex,"  primo  Paralipomenon,  xxviii  capitulo. 
"  Et  ipsum  constituit  Dominus  Regem  super  universum  Israel,"  i  Paralipo- 
menon xii  capitulo <".  Et  iste  "  Rex  surrexit  de  solio  Domini,"  lonae  iii  capitulo. 
Et  bene  ingressus  est  bellum  et  feliciter.  Nam  ut  allatus  ala  duplici,  scilicet 
summae  prudentiae  et  fortitudinis  inclitae,  omnia  iura  sacrosanctae  Romanae 
Ecclesiae,  tyrannice  usurpata,  de  nihilo  produxit  ad  esse,  de  tenebris  ad  lucem, 
ut  dici  possit  quod  de  nihilo  aliquid  fecerit,  Genesis  i  cap.,  et  lex  unica  in  prin- 
cipio,  C.  De  rei  uxoriae  actione.  Vere  igitur,  ut  Rex  Israel,  mutavit  habitum  et 
ingressus  est  bellum. 

Quia  igitur  Rex  Israel,  id  est  patrimonii,  et  maxime  civitatis,  Bononiae, 
quae  est  vere  caput  patrimonii,  et  quae,  sic  ut  supra  dictum  est,  de  extremo  ad 
extremum  deducta,  mutavit  habitum  et  ingressus  est  bellum,  et  hoc  diebus 
nostris,  immo  et  pendet,  satis  videretur  incongruum  hoc  sub  silentio  penitus 
pertransire. 

Idcirco  ego,  lohannes  de  Lignano  de  Mediolano,  minimus  inter  ceteros 
iuris  utriusque  doctor,  ad  vos  Reverendissimum  in  Christo  patrem  et  dominum 
meum,  dominum  Egidium,  miseratione  divina  Episcopum  Sabinensem  in 
partibus  Italia:,  pro  sancta  Romana  Ecclesia  Vicarium  Generalem,  et  verum 
Regem  lerusalem,  transmittendum  concepi  tractatum  facere  de  lerusalem,  id 


DE   CIVITATE   BONONIAE  73 

est  de  civitate  Bononiae,  et  de  Bello,  quod  habitum  mutando  estis  ingressus, 
hoc  ordine.  Nam  de  civitate  Bononiae  ponam  sex  causas  implicantes  quae 
acriter  contingerunt  dictam  civitatem,  ab  anno  domini  MCCCL  usque  ad 
MCCCLX,  maxime  propter  quae  insurrexit  dominii  mutatio,  et  cum  quotis 
temporum  et  aspectibus  annorum  circa  meridies  dierum  quibus  haec  con- 
tingerunt, non  autem  horarum.  Et  haec  appono  quia  in  aliquibus  tractatibus 
intendo  iuris  metas  excedere,  explicando  aliqua  quae  forte  evenient,  et  cuilibet 
causae  submittam  unum  tractatum  vel  plures,  ut  occurret.  Aliquos  tractatus 
transibo  sub  silentio,  aliquos  explicabo,  unum  solum  exnunc  publicabo,  vide- 
licet tractatum  De  Bello,  promittens,  Domino  annuente,  singulos  tradere  expli- 
cates, tempore  congruo,  et  causa  cessante  inhibitionis,  supplicans  eidem  Reve- 
rendissimo  Patri  ut  imbecillitatem  intellectus  supportare  dignemini;  et  hoc,  ut 
modicum  suscipere  exordium,  corrigendum  si  placuerit  et  reformandum,  iuxta 
gentilium  Sapientis  auctoritatem  :  "  Exiguum  munus,  etc."  Descendo  igitur 
ad  themata,  et  ex  causa  ponam  in  figura.  Et  ecce. 


SEdente  love  clavigero,  clementiam  *  Sexto  ferente,  super  cathedram  pisca- 
toris,  ex  eius  edicto  praepropere  Mars  f  accessit,  ut  libere  ingrederetur 
viride  et  floridum  Tauri  pabulum.  J  Hoc  fuit  annis  Domini  MCCCL,  die  viii 
lulii.  Tune  Sol  in  Cancro,  Grad.  xxiii,  Min.  xxxii.  Luna  cum  Leone,  Grad. 
xxviii,  Min.  xxi.  Draco  capite  geminabat,  Grad.  xxvi,  Min.  ix.  Saturnus  in 
Ariete,  Grad.  xxvi,  Min.  xxxii.  lupiter  cum  Cancro,  Grad.  xxviii,  Min.  li. 
Mars  in  Libra,  Grad.  xi,  Min.  xviii.  Venus  retrogradabat  in  Cancro,  Grad. 
xxix,  Min.  xx.  Mercurius  Venerem  sequebatur  in  Cancro,  Grad.  ix,  Min.  x. 
Et  tune  altissimus  filiorum  Saturni,  §  circulum  ||  gestans  a  love.^j  interius 
viperatus,  ex  limbis  lateralibus  tribus  **  altis  viperis  exsurgentibus,  a  septen- 
trione  descendens,  intercedente  Mercurio  ff  lovem,  cum  Marte  pervenit  in 
pabulo,  et  in  pastorem  perpetuum  gregis  Taurini  exstitit  assumptus.JJ  Et 
hoc  fuit  annis  Domini  MCCCL,  die  xxiv  Octobris,  Sole  .  .  ,  Luna  in  Cancro, 
Grad.  ix,  Min.  1,  Saturno  in  Ariete,  Grad.  xxii,  Min.  xix,  love  in  Leone,  Grad. 
xviii,  Min.  xiii,  Marte  in  Sagittario,  Grad.  xxiii,  Min.  xxxii,  Venere  in  Virgine, 
Grad.  xxv,  Min.  xx,  Mercurio  in  Libra,  Grad.  xxi,  Min.  xxv,  Capite  Draconis 
in  Geminis,  Grad.  xx,  Min.  xix,  Cauda,  etc. 

Post  temporis  lapsum,  operante  lovis  clementia,§§  necnon  et  circulo  |||| 
quern  Saturni  filius  ab  eo  susceperat,  factum  est  quod  Saturni  films  lovem  in 
pabulo  verbaliter  suscepit,^  et  ipsum  primum  gregis  pastorem  recognovit. 


*  id  est,  Clemente  Papa  VI  regnante.  **  id  est,  tribus  nepotibus  scilicet  M.  B.  et  G. 

•(•  id  est,  exercitus  comitis  Romandiolae  pro  ff  id  est,  dominus  Johannes  de  Pepoli. 

Ecclesia.  It  id  est,  in  dominum  est  electus. 

t  id  est,  Bononiam.  §§  id  est,  Papa  Clemente. 

§  id  est,  Archiepiscopus  Mediolanensis.  ||||  id  est,  pontifical!  dignitate. 

||  id  est,  dignitatem  pontificalem.  flU  id  est,  Archiepiscopus  Pap  am  in  dominum 
II  id  est,  Papa.                                                           recognovit. 


74  DE   IVRE  BELLI 

Hoc  fuit  annis  Domini  MCCCLII,  die  vii  SepU-mbris,  Sole  in  Virginc,  Grad. 
xxiii,  Min.  x,  Luna  in  Virgine,  Grad.  ii,  Min.  xxx,  Capita  in  Tauro.  Grad. 
xiv,  Min.  xvii,  Saturno  in  Tauro,  Grad.  xxiv,  Min.  xxvii,  love  in  Virgiiu , 
Grad.  xxix,  Min.  xvii,  Marte  in  Sagittario,  Grad.  vi,  .  .  .  Min.  xx,  Vent-re  in 
Virgine,  Grad.  ii,  Min.  viii,  Mercuric  in  Libra,  Grad.  xxvii,  Min.  .  .  . 

Ecce  Taurus  hoc  tempore  modico  trinum  contraxit  matrimonium,  nee 
rrubuit,  vivente  coniuge,  nunc  hunc  nunc  ilium  meretricali  more  appetendo 
prorumpere,  ut  did  possit  de  te  quod  scribitur  Isaiae  [iii]  i  cap.  "  quomodo  facta 
est  merctrix  civitas  fidclis  plena  iudicii  ?  lustitia  habitabat  in  ea,  nunc  autem 
homicidia.  Argentum  versum  est  in  scoriam.  Vinum  tuum  mixtum  est  aqua. 
Principes  tui  infideles,  socii  furum.  Omnes  diligunt  munera,  sequuntur  re- 
tributiones.  Pro  pupillo  non  iudicant.  Causa  viduae  non  ingreditur  ad  eos. 
Propter  hoc  ait  Dominus  exercituum  fortis  Israel,  Heu  ego  consolabor  super 
hostibus  et  vindicabor  de  inimicis  meis,  et  convertam  manum  meam  ad  te,  et 
excoquam  ad  purum  scoriam  tuam,  et  auferam  omne  stannum  tuum  et  resti- 
tuam  iudices  tuos,  sicut  fuerunt  prius,  et  consiliarios  tuos,  sicut  fucrunt  anti- 
quitus.  Post  haec  vocaberis  civitas  lustitiae."  Sic  contingit  et  continget  de  te 
Taure,  cum  tripartitus  fiet  semicirculus,  surget  quies,  fluet  motus,  senectus  est 
obstans,  sed  vitiorum  iuventus  hoc  operatur. 

Huic  causae  subicio  tres  tractatus  :  unum  de  Marte,  id  est  de  Bello.  Istum 
publico.  Alium  de  love,  id  est  de  Ecclesia,  et  ipsius  gubernatione  per  pastores 
suos,  et  per  aspectus  narrates,  quis  exitus  ipsius  prosperitatis  et  adversitatis, 
maxime  respectu  huius  temporis,  patrimonii.  Alium  dc  Saturno,  id  est  de 
Imperio  ct  ipsius  gubernatione  per  proceres  hodiernos,  et  quis  exitus  prosper! 
et  adversi,  maxime  respectu  regiminis  ecclesiastici  et  teraporalis  Italici,  licet 
aliqualiter  transcendant  metas  iuris.  Hos  tamen  nunc  non  publico,  ut  praedixi, 
donee  cesset  causa  urgens. 


Secunda  Causa. 

POst  hoc,  Saturni  filio  combusto,*  elevatis  tribus  supra  nominatis  viperis.t 
Saturnum  aquilinum  {  in  cordis  centre  gestantibus,  et  combusti  thronum 
ascendentibus,§  ipsi  indivisim  in  pabuli  pastores  ||  suscipiuntur,  Et  hoc  fuit 
annis  Domini  MCCCLIV,  die  xi  Octobris.  Tune  librabat  Sol  Grad.  xxvi,  Min. 
xxii,  Luna  rugiebat  cum  Leone,  Grad.  xvi,  Min.  xlv,  Draco  caput  tegebat  in 
Ariete,  Grad.  iii,  Min.  Iviii,  Saturnus  geminabat,  Grad.  xxiii,  Min.  xxiv,  lupiter 
librabat,  Grad.  xxii,  Min.  xvii,  Mars  in  Capricorno,  Grad.  xxv,  Min.  iv,  Venus 
luxuriabat  in  Scorpione,  Grad.  xvi,  Min.  xiv,  Mercurius  in  Scorpione,  Grad.  xi, 
Min.  xlvi,  Draco  caput  tegebat  in  Tauro  m,  Grad.  iii,  Min.  lix. 


*  id  est,  mortuo  Archicpiicopo.  $  id  est,  suocrdentibus  Archiepiscopo. 

f  id  est,  nepotibui.  ||  id  est,  in  dominot  Bononiensrs. 

t  id  est,  aquilam  imperialcm. 


DE  CIVITATE  BONONIJE  75 

Post  parum  temporis,  sorte  posita  super  hereditate  combust!,*  maior 
ex  viperis  f  in  pabulum  solus  elevatur.  Hie  non  do  quotam,  quia  non  pondero 
ad  sequentia.  Post  haec,  Mercurius, {  a  viperis  penitus  exterminari  perti- 
mescens,  intra  pabulum  ut  pastor  assumitur.  Ecce  hoc  tempore  brevissimo  hie 
Taurus,  luxuria  furens,  aliud  trinum  matrimonium  contrahere  non  erubuit. 
Et  quia  sic  luxuria  furens  in  totuplici  contrahendo  contubernio,  naturam  pur- 
gabilis  excessisti  luxuriae,  pluit  Dominus  super  te  sulfur  et  ignem  a  Domino 
de  coelo,  et  subvertit  te,  et  omnem  contra  te  regionem  et  habitatores,  et  omnia 
virentia  terras,  ut  scribitur  Genesis  xix  capitulo.  Cum  linea  recta  semicircu- 
labitur  quid  tibi  curvum  est  rectificabitur.  Hoc  autem  fuit  annis  Domini 
MCCCLV,  die  xvii  Aprilis,  Sole  in  Tauro,  Grad.  v,  Min.  vii,  Luna  in  Geminis, 
Grad.  xxviii,  Min.  xxxi,  Capite  in  Piscibus,  Grad.  xxiii,  Min.  xlix/Saturno  in 
Geminis,  Grad.  xx,  Min.  xvii,  love  in  Sagittario,  Grad.  xxii,  Min.  xv,  Marte  in 
Geminis,  Grad.  v,  Min.  xxi,  Venere  in  Tauro,  Grad.  xxvii,  Min.  xix,  Mercurio  in 
Ariete,  Grad.  xi,  Min.  xxii. 

Huic  secundae  causes  subicio  tractatus  de  temporali  dominio  universaliter 
infra  Imperium,  tractando  ipsius  originem,  ipsius  species,  divisionem,  suc- 
cessionem,  modum  gubernationis  et  conservations,  explicando  unumquodque 
regimen,  a  minimo  usque  ad  summum,  in  toto  universo,  ultra  iuris  metas, 
explicando  qualiter  secundum  varietatem  climatum  mundi  variantur  mundi 
regimina,  et  qualiter  in  eisdem  climatibus,  variatis  superiorum  motibus  et 
aspectibus,  variantur  mundi  regimina,  nam  aliquando  tyrannides,  aliquando 
populus,  aliquando  principatus  naturalis,  communi  et  vulgato  sermone,  ut 
latissime  prosequar,  in  prosecutione  huius  tractatus. 


Tertia  Causa. 

POst  hoc,  evanuit  vipera  maior,  §  et  Mercurius  ||  recognovit  sequentem  ^f 
in  pabulo.  Hoc  fuit  annis  Domini  MCCCLV,  die  xxvii  Septembris  (?>, 
Sol  cum  Capra  salibat,  Grad.  xiv,  Min.  xlvi,  Luna  mordebatur  a  Scorpione, 
Grad.  xxiii,  Min.  xxxi,  Draco  piscabatur  cum  Capite,  Grad.  x,  Min.  xix,  Satur- 
nus  cum  Cancro,  Grad.  ii,  Min.  xlv,  lupiter  cum  Capra  pascebat,  Grad.  vii, 
Min.  xxxiii,  Mars  morsum  patiebatur  Scorpionis,  Grad.  xxi,  Min.  xli,  Venus 
cum  Capra,  Grad.  i,  Min.  liii,  Mercurius  Venerem  praecedebat  super  Capra, 
Grad.  xviii,  Min.  Iv.  Ecce,  inverecunde  Taure,  novum  aliud  matrimonium  sic 
instantanie  non  erubuisti  contrahere,  sed  parum  post  hoc,  huic  dato  libello  ** 
repudii,  O.  revolvit  ad  A.,  et  rediit  cum  Mercurio. ft  Et  hoc  fuit  anno  Domini 
MCCCLVI,  die  xi  Februarii,  et  tune  Sol  piscabatur,  Grad.  oW,  vii,  Min.  Ivii, 
Luna  geminabat,  Grad.  xvii,  Min.  Ivi.  Caput  Draconis  erat  repletum  Piscibus, 


*  id  est,  diviso  dominio  Archiepiscopi.  ||  id  est,  dominus  lo.  de  Olegio. 

t  id  est,  dominus  M.  f  scilicet  dominum  B. 

t  id  est,  dominus  lohannes  de  Olegio,  dubitans          **  id  est,  repulso  domino  B. 

mori.  ft  id   est>   dominus    lo.    de    Olegio   dommium 

§  id  est,  mortuus  est  dominus  M.  reassumpsit  in  solidum. 

[2] 


76  DE  IVRE  BELLI 

Grad.  viii,  Min.  ix,  Saturnus  cum  Cancro  retrocodebat ,  firad.  o,  Min.  xliv, 
lupiter  saltabat  cum  Capra,  Grad.  xvi,  Min.  .  .  .  Mars  Sai;itt;mi  ferebat, 
Grad.  xviii,  Min.  Ixiv,  \Ynusaquamspargebat,  (irad.  xxiv,  Min.  Iviii  Men  urius 
piscabatur,  Grad.  o,  Min.  xxxviii.  Inhonestum  visum  est  Tauro  binos  simul 
coniuges  .  .  .  Vtilius  fuisset  Tauro  binos  simul  pati  .  .  .  quam  per  tot  con- 
tubernia  divagari.  Et  quia  sic  divagata  es,  tibi  continget  quod  scriptum  t->t  : 
"  Adducet  Dominus  super  te  gcntem  de  longinquo  et  dr  extremis  finibuv  terra-, 
in  similitudinem  aquilaa  volantis  cum  impetu,  cuius  linguam  intdligm-  mm 
possis,  gentem  procacissimam  quae  non  deferat  seni  nee  misereatur  parvulo,  et 
devoret  fructus  iumentorum  tuorum  ac  fruges  terrae  tuae,  donee  intrn-as,  et  non 
relinquat  tibi  triticum  et  vinum  et  oleum,  armenta  bovum,  et  gregcs  ovium." 
Haec  allocutus  est  Dominus  ad  populum  praevaricantem,  ut  scribitur  Deuteron. 
xxviii  ca]>itulo.  Cum  quatiTnarium  resolvetur  intcrnarium  tune  tibi  In  t 
mobile  fissum. 

Huic  causae  subiungo  tnutatus  de  concessione  et  rerognitionc  dominii 
temporalis,  explicando  varios  modos  penes  varietatem  dominiorum  et  «>n- 
cedentium  ct  recij)i»-ntium. 

*        •  » 

Ouarta  Causa. 

POst  haec,  constante  matrimonio  Mercurii  cum  Tauro,*  flores  et  viriditas 
pabuli  taurini  fuerunt  regnante  love  clavigero,  innm  intium  Sexto  fe- 
rente,  totaliter  exsiccati.f  et  hoc  fuit  annis  Domini  MCCCLVII,  die  xii  Apri- 
lis.  Tune  Sol  erat  cum  furibundo  Tauro,  Grad.  o,  Min.  xlvi,  Luna  fundebat 
Aquas,  Grad.  v,  Min.  xxix,  Draco  caput  sub  unda  tegebat,  (irad.  iii  <-' ',  Min. 
xxxviii,  Saturnus  cum  Cancro,  Grad.  xv,  Min.  xvi,  lupiter  natabat  in  Aquis, 
Grad.  xxvi,  Min.  xxiii,  Mars  geminabatur,  Grad.  xv,  Min.  xiv,  Venus  ludebat 
cum  Piscibus,  Grad.  xxi,  Min.  xx,  Mercurius  cum  Tauro,  Grad.  xi,  Min.  xxxii. 
O  Taure  inverecundc,  haec  poena  fuit  antiqui  et  temerarii  tui  divortii  a  coniuge 
qui  tecum  constante  matrimonio  auxit  dotes  tuas,  te  acutis  cornibus  super 
quadriennium  elevando  et  de  septentrione  versus  merediem  latissimo  solio 
praeficiendo.  Sed  furore  impatiens,  facto  divortio,  ruptis  cornibus  corruisti. 
Et,  quia  sic  elatus,  inquit  Dominus  ad  te  Taurum  :  "  eo  quod  datum  est  cor 
tuum  quasi  cor  Dei,  idcirco  adducam  super  te  alienos  robustissimos  gentium, 
1 1  nudabunt  gladios  suos  super  pulchritudinem  sapientiae  tuae  et  polluent  deco- 
rem  tuum,  et  interficient  et  trahent  te,  et  morieris  in  introitu  occisorum  in  corde 
maris.  Numquid  dicens  loqueris,  Deus  ego  sum,  coram  intt  i  fu  ientibus  te,  cum 
sis  homo  non  Deus  ?  in  manu  occidentium  te,  in  maim  alicnorum,  morieris,  quia 
ego  locutus  sum,  inquit  Dominus,"  ut  haec  scribuntur  Ezeclm-lis  xxviii  capitulo. 
Cum  lob  cornibus  Tauri  medebitur,  quod  in  centro  est  ad  sphaerae  concavum 
nducetur.  Huic  causae  adiungo  tractatum  De  Ecclesiastic  -a  (Ynsura,  circa 
singulas  species  ipsius  tractatus  explicando  singulariter. 

*  id  c»t,  prz*idente  domino  lohanne  dc  Olcgio. 

f  id  cst,  latum  fuit  interdictum  divinorum  ct  tutpcnsio  stuilii  in  civitate  Bononisr. 


DE   CIVITATE   BONONI^E  77 

Quinta  Causa. 

POst  base  iterum  depascente  Mercuric, f  intra  pabulum  Tauri  secundo 
viperatus  f  in  filium  Saturni  per  adoptionem  assumptus,J  Martem 
motu  veloci,  ut  Tauri  pabulum  ingrederetur  propere  destinavit,§  qui  plures 
gradus  lucidos  et  diurnos  ipsius  est  ingressus.||  Finaliter,  operam  dante 
Mercuric  ^j  altissimus  lovis  frater,**  ab  eo  pontificalia,  a  Saturno  imperialia,  a 
Martc  bellica,  supra  ceteros  Ecclesiae  cardines  gestans,  Martem  f|  directum 
praeveniendo,  intra  pabulum  est  susceptus,J|  ut  circulo  primae  causae  revoluto. 
Sicut  tune  motum  velocem  tarde  gradiens  praevenit  in  termino,  sic  nunc  vice 
versa  volantem  reptilem  praecessit,  sed  tune  praeveniens  virilius  occupavit. 
Circumflexus  circumflectetur,  tandem  vix  eidem  clavibus  aperietur,  clavibus 
clauditur.  Anterius  non  negligat  claviger  quod  posterius,  alis  ten&is  volatile, 
tendit  ad  astra.  Requirit  rugientem  ut  emittat  rugitum  Saturnus.  Retro- 
gradus  nititur  erigi.  Volatus  non  attinget  astra,  sed  terrea  circumspiciet, 
rugitus  non  longe  sonum,  nee  Saturnus  erigetur  ad  summujn.  Tibi,  Taure, 
insperata  net  quies.  Quintus  in  Zodiaco  difformiter  motus  ut  quiesceret  donee 
radiis  iungatur,  nee  circumflectetur  sinet.  Ab  auge  iam  motus,  per  circum- 
ferentiam  epicirculi  fluens  efficitur  unius.  Prius  circumvolet,  post  circumvol- 
vetur,  ruiturus  post  non  sublevetur.  Volatilium  multiplex  reducetur,  et  unum 
vidi  volantem  ad  astra  plumis  contingentem  et  ima.  Vidi  castrametantem 
ubi  non  pugna,  caveat  ne  post  mox  fiat  una.  Post  vidi  alterum  angelum 
volantem  in  manibus  tenentem  evangelium.  Saturnus,  in  circular!  epicirculo 
de  opposito  deductus,  ad  augem  retrogradando  de  auge  deducetur  ad  assem. 
Quod  imum  transduxit  in  summum,  quod  summum  circumducet  in  imum, 
surget  Leo  grandis  et  mixtus  sonitu  scindens  pacifer  venia  tritus.  Concutiet 
fossa,  reducet  summum  ad  ima,  sparsa  redigentur  in  chaos,  ut  ex  ipso  astra 
derivarunt  in  troncos.  Non  lugeat  Taurus  cum  vicinus  quietis  speretur 
eventus.  Currus  transvehitur,  bobus  punctis  occa  subitur..  Catuli  pascuntur, 
uni  primum  vel  alteri  sequens  astute.  Vidi  plumata  in  nido  minuto,  imper- 
fecto,  niveo,  corvino.  Scindetur  nidus  et  solium  obtinet  unus  qui  fuit  trinus, 
post  binus  sextus  et  unus.  Erigitur  tutus,  titubabat  alter,  et  ecce  nullus. 
Video  duos  primos  cceli  consiliarios  ad  grande  colloquium  accessuros.  Fiet 
colloquium  in  loco  humido  et  venenoso.  Ibi  tractabitur  ut  mundus  inferior 
concutiatur.  Ibi  tractabitur  ut  in  mundo  sectetur.  Ib  tractabitur  ut  mundi 
principatus  permutetur.  Ibi  tractabitur  ut  Ecclesia  periclitetur.  Ibi  tracta- 
bitur ut  pestilentiae  et  fames  eleventur.  Ibi  tractabitur  ut  regio  maritima  con- 
quassetur.  Ibi  tractabitur  ut  mundi  princeps  in  sede  permutetur,  net  magna 
concussio.  Tres  autem  inferiores  consiliarii  in  alio  angulo  anteriori  eiusdem 
domus  eodem  tempore  colloquentur  adinvicem,  et  multa  de  mundi  dispositione 
disputabunt,  et  dimnient,  et  hsec  colloquia  fient  annis  Domini  MCCCLXV  de 

*  id  est,  dominus  lohannes  de  Olegio.  II  id  est,  pluribus  fortibus  comitatus. 

t  id  cst,  dominus  B.  II  id  est,  dominus  lohannes  de  Olegio. 

t  id  est,  vicarius  imperialis  effectus.  **  id  est,  dominus  Egidius,  domini  Papa:  legatus. 

§  id  est,  magnum  exercitum  ut  civitatcm  ap-  tt  id  est,  exercitum  domini  B. 

prehcnderet  transmisit.  ti  id  est,  in  dominum  Bononiae  atsumptus. 


;8  DE   IVRE   BELLI 

mense  Octobris.  O  Taure,  oportet  te  attentum  esse  ac  cornibus  paratum,  cum 
mxindi  f ulgor  in  stabulo  tuo  subumbrabitur,  nee  negligas.  Et  net  hoc  MCCCLX 1 
die  v  Maii.  Haec  in  grandi  colloquio  et  multiformi  tractarunt  planetae,  de 
quibus  in  themate  dixi.  Haec  varii  operantur  revolutionum  aspectus,  et 
signandum  est  aliud  in  matrimonium  Tauri.  Nam  annis  revolutis  quibus 
mense  et  die  divertit,  repulso  O.,*  eisdem  reintegravit  recepto  S.f 

O  Taure,  motu  pergens  multiformi,  cum  motus  sit  ordinatus  ut  termi- 
netur  in  quiete,  tibi  inest  ut  motus  terminctur  in  motum,  et  regulariUr  in 
deteriorem.  Tibi  finis  motus  est  principium  motus.  Tibi  quiesccre  est  moveri, 
nunc  imitando  gentilcm  Catonem,  qui  repudiatam  reassumpsit,  regrcdiendo 
unde  diverteres,  inquietis  terminum  dirigere  confidebas.  Sed  adhuc  est  ut 
movearis  donee  Altissimo  placuerit  stabilem  tibi  fingere  modum.  Ingressus 
est  plene  lovis  frater  annis  Domini  MCCCLX,  die  primo  Aprilis.  Tune  Sol 
cum  Ariete,  Grad.  xix,  Min.  xxiv,  Luna  librabat,  Grad.  xi,  Min.  xxi,  Draco 
cum  Capite  sagittabat,  Grad.  xvii,  Min.  xxxvi,  Saturnus  rugiebat  cum  Leone, 
Grad.  xxv,  Min.  viii,  lupiter  cum  Tauro,  Grad.  xxi,  Min.  xviii,  Mars  pi 
batur,  Grad.  vi,  Min.  xxiii,  Venus  Martem  piscando  praeibat,  Grad.  x,  Min. 
h'i,  Mercurius  in  Ariete,  Grad.  xvi,  Min.  x.  Huic  iungam  gesta  Paeis,  cum 
facta  fuerit.  Et  faciam  tractatum  singularem  De  Pace.  Taure,  infirmaris  non 
plectorice,  sed  cathocinie,  et  vere  cathocinie,  quia  humorum  difformitas  et 
excessus  in  quali  diu  provisum  est  in  quanto,  sed  fervor  in  quali  speras  mc'di- 
corum  plurcs  sunt,  ut  tibi  medelam  afferant. 


INCIPIT  TRACTATVS  DE  BELLO 

[c*p.  i.j      In  tractatu  Belli  sic  procedam  : 

Primo,  ponam  descriptionem  Belli  Humani,  de  quo  prim -ipaliter  tractaturus 

sum,  in  genere. 

Secundo,  dividam  Bellum  per  membra. 
Tertio,  prosequar  singula  membra. 


Quid  sit  Bellum,  cl  qualiter  dcscribahir  ? 

Bellum  sic  describitur.  Bellum  est  contentio  exorta  proptcr  aliquid  dis- 
sonum  appetitui  humano  propositum,  ad  dissonantiain  t -\<  -ludendam  tcndens. 

Dixi  "  contentio."  Haec  ponitur  ut  genus,  nam  sub  se  continet  et  bclli- 
cam  contentionem  et  alias  quascumque  ut  1.  s»  usque,  §  fin.,  ff.  De  aqua  pluv. 
arcenda.  Dixi  "  propter  dissonum,"  et  est  causa  unde  oritur  quaelibet  con- 

*  id  e«t,  Hottlenii  legato.  f  Sabincnti  legato. 


DE   DIVISIONE  BELLI  79 

tentio.  Dixi  "  appetitui  humano,"  ad  differentiam  brutorum.  Dixi  "  ad 
dissonantiam,"  etc.,  et  est  causa  finalis  cuiuslibet  belli,  nam  quodlibet  bellum 
tendit  finaliter  ad  tollendam  displicentiam  quaa  fuit  belli  introductoria,  et  sic 
fiunt  bella  propter  pacem,  xxiii,  q.  i,  noli. 


De  divisione  Belli,  et  qualiter  dividatur. 

[Cap.  n.] 

Secundo,  Bellum  sic  dividitur.     Bellum  aliud  Spirituale,  aliud  Corporale. 

Spirituale  aliud  Cceleste,  aliud  Humanum.  Spirituale  Cceleste  est  de  quo 
habetur  lob,  xiv  capitulo(?).  Humanum  est  de  quo  scribitur  Ad  Romanes  vii 
cap.,  ibi  "  video  aliam  legem  repugnantem  legi  mentis  meae  "  ;  xxxii,  q.  v, 
si  Paulus. 

Corporale  aliud  est  Vniversale,  aliud  Particulare.  De  Vniversali  habetur 
ff.  De  captivis,  quasi  per  totum  ;  xxiii,  q.  i,  et  q.  ii. 

Particulare  aliud  fit  ob  tutelam  corporis  sui  et  rerum,  et  de  hoc  habetur  ff. 
De  iustit.  et  iure,  1.  ut  vim;  ff.  De  vi  et  vi  ar.,  1.  i,  §  vim  vi;  et  ff.  Ad  leg. 
Aquil.,  1.  scientiam,  §  qui  cum  aliter ;  et  1.  i,  C.  De  vi  ;  et  cap.  olim,  De  restit. 
spol.  ;  et  in  Clem.,  sifuriosus,  De  homicidio. 

Aliud  fit  ob  tutelam  corporis  mystici,  vel  eius  partis,  propter  defectum 
iurisdictionis,  quod  "  Represalias  "  nuncupatur,  de  quo  in  Authent.,  ut  non  fiant 
pignorationes  ;  et  De  iniuriis,  Lib.  VI.  Aliud  fit  propter  contumaciam  re- 
sistentis  iurisdictioni  iudicis,  de  quo  in  1.  qui  restituere,  ff.  De  rei  vindicatione. 

Aliud  fit  propter  purgationem,  quod  "  Duellum  "  appellatur,  de  quo  C. 
De  gladiatoribus,  1.  una  ;  et  De  pugnantibus  in  duello,  per  totum  titulum. 
Verum  est  quod  posset  dividi  prima  divisione  per  iustum  et  iniustum,  sed  in 
his  modicum  insistendum,  et  singula  membra  singulariter  sunt  explicanda  ex 
ordine  suo. 

Et  primo  de  Bello  Spirituali  Ccelesti,  brevissime  illud  explicando,  et  sic 
de  singulis. 


Ordo  Tractatuum. 

Tractabo  igitur  de  Bello  Spirituali  Ccelesti. 

Secundo,  de  Spirituali  Humano. 

Tertio,  de  Corporali  Vniversali. 

Quarto,  de  Particulari,  quod  fit  ob  tutelam  corporis  sui. 

Quinto,  de  Particulari,  quod  fit  ad  defensam  mystici  corporis,  quod 
"  Represaliae  "  nuncupatur. 

Sexto,  de  Particulari,  quod  fit  ad  purgationem,  quod  "  Duellum  "  nuncu- 
patur. 


8o  DE   IVRE   BELLI 

• 

De  Spiritual!  Hello  Calesti. 

[Cap.  ii.  ] 

Redeundo  ad  singula,  dico  quod  cceleste  bellum  instirrexh  propter  ingra- 
titudinem  insurgentem  propter  defectum  nssionism  carifctis  impressae  a  ( 
tore,  in  intelligent iam  inter  ceteras  sublimion  in  creatam.  Et  huic  non  con- 
gruit  dcscriptio  superius  data.  Vbi  scicndum  est  «juod,  ut  inquit  (ircgorius 
in  Moralibus,  ab  initio  crcationis  angelicae  nature,  Altissimus  omnium  creator 
crcavit  Luciferum  ceteris  angelicis  intelligentiis  cmincntiorcm.  Nam  ipsius 
primatus  non  fuerunt  inferiores  cedris  in  paradiso  Dei,  ut  scribitur  Ezcchiclis 
\\xi,  abietes,  platani,  non  aequarunt  [firmitatem]  summitatem  nee  frondibus 
eiu>,  nain  ipse  speciosus  factus  in  multis  cundensisquc  frondibus  dicitur,  quia, 
praelatum  ceteris  legionibus,  tantaf"  ilium  spiritus  pulchritudinis  reddidit, 
quanta  et  supposita  angelorum  multitudo  decoravit.  Ista  arbor  in  paradis<  »Dei 
tot  quasi  condensas  frondes  habuit  quot  sub  sc  positas  supernorum  spirituum 
legiones  attendit.  Hie  fuit  signaculum  Dei  similitudinis.  Fuit  iste  sic  creatus 
ceteris  eminentior,  sit  ut  et  cetera  foramina  habuit  praeparata  ad  caritatcm 
suscipiendam.  Nam  hie  a  principle  conditionis  suae  capax  caritatis  cst  cou- 
ditus,  quia  si  replcri  voluissct  [samtibus]  sumptibusf<)  angt-lic  is,  tamquam 
positis  in  regio  ornamento  lapidibus,  ]x>t  \iisset  inhaercrr,  M'd  caritatcm  proptor 
superbiam  non  assumpsit.  Si  enim  caritatis  auro  sc  penetrubilnn  prsebuisscl , 
sanctis  angelicis  sociatus,  in  ornamento  regie  lapis  scissus  numsisset.  Habuit 
ergo  foramina,  sed  superbise  vitio  caritatis  auro  non  sunt  repleta. 

Quia  igitur  ceteris  iste  eminentior  fuit,  ut  signaculum  similitudinis  Dei 
creatus,  nee  caritate  propter  superbiae  vitium  repleri  voluit,  idcirco  peccans, 
sine  venia  damnatus  est,  quia  magnus  sine  comparathme  creatus  fuit,  igitur 
propter  hoc  de  paradiso  eiectus,  ut  prolixe  et  pulcherrime  videri  potest  in  cap. 
principium  enim,  De  Pcenit.,  di.  ii.  Et  fuit  Gregorii,  ut  praedixi.  Et  hoc  fuit 
Spirituale  Coeleste  Bellum,  circa  quod,  ut  praemisi,  parum  in.sistendum.  tamrn, 
quia  dixi  ipsum  ceteris  eminentiorem,  est  attcndendum  quod  quagdam  sunt 
collata  angelis  in  principio  creationis  suae  communiter,  sed  differenter,  quaedam 
communiter,  sed  indifferenter.  Collata  communiter  stcl  differenter  fuerunt 
naturae  sive  substantial  subtilitas,  intelligentiae  perspicacitas,  liberi  arbitrii 
habilitas.  Haec  tamen  differenter,  nam  quidam  sunt  in  substantia  subtiliores, 
quidam  in  intelligentia  perspicaciores,  quidam  libertate  arbitrii  habiliun-. 
(  "llata  autem  communiter  sed  indifferenter  fuerunt  spiritualitas,  indissoln- 
bilitas,  indivisibilitas,  immortalitas. 

In  his  omnes  parificantur,  et  per  hoc  intelliges  quibus  Lucifer  fuerit  ceteris 
eminentior,  quia  in  collatis  communiter  sed  differenter. 

Est  etiam  attendendum  quod  Diabolus  fuit  exaltatus  JH-I  naturalem 
praerogativam,  de  qua  dictum  est.  exaltatus  est  etiam  propter  vii  tdiam  quam 
habet  contra  homincm  aliquando  in  bello  quod  gerit  contra  ipsum,  mule  scribi- 
tur in  Psalmo,  "  Exaltasti  dexteram  deprimeutium  cum."  quam  victoiiam 
timens  David  dicebat,  "  Illumina  oculos  meos  ne  unqviam  obdormiam  in 
morte,  ne  quando  dicat  inimicus  meu>.  pKcvalui  adversus  cum."  Exaltatns 
est  etiam  propter  superbiam,  unde  dictum  est  ei  "  clevatum  est  cor  tuum  in 


DE   SPIRITVALI   BELLO   CCELESTI  81 

decore  tuo,"  cum  ipse  dixit,  "  ascendam  in  ccelum,  et  p>onam  thronum  meum 
ad  aquilonem,  et  ero  similis  Altissimo,"  Isaiae  xiv  capitulo(?). 


Qualiter  Spirituale  Bellum  Cceleste  est  metrum  et  mensura  Spiritualis        [Cap.  i 

Humani  Belli. 

Hoc  igitur  fuit  Spirituale  Bellum  quo  eiectus  fuit  Lucifer  de  paradiso 
Altissimi,  et  forte  ex  illo  habuit  ortum  Spirituale  Humanum.  Nam  in  uno- 
quoque  genere  est  de  venire  ad  unum,  quod  sit  primum  et  mensura  eorum  quae 
sunt  in  communi  genere.  In  genere  igitur  repugnantise  bonorum  contra  mala 
est  devenire  ad  primum.  Primum  sunt  principia,  principium  autem  virtutis 
est  Altissimus,  principium  autem  vitiorum  et  princeps  est  Diabolus^  Ipsorum 
igitur  pugna  est  primum  et  mensura  cuiuslibet  inferioris  pugnae  spiritualis 
humanas. 


De  naturali  deductione  Spiritualis  Belli  corporum  ccelestium  ad  icap.  v.j 

bella  terrestria. 

Et  forte,  naturaliter  loquendo,  bella  corporalia  terrestria  habent  bella 
ccelestia  correspondentia,  nam,  ut  dicit  Philosophus,  necesse  est  hunc  [modum] 
mundum  contiguum  esse  superioribus  lationibus,  ut  omnis  virtus  inde  regatur, 
primo  Metaphysicorum,  et  secundo  Cosli  et  Mundi.  Omnis  igitur  actus  inferior 
corporeus  dirigitur  a  superccelestibus,  et  ibi  est  pugna,  id  est  repugnantia  vir- 
tualis,  insurgens  propter  diversitatem  corporum  ccelestium,  et  maxime  plane- 
tarum,  quae  plus  apud  cuncta  operantur  quam  fixae,  et  diuersitatem  aspectuum, 
situum,  et  motuum  eorumdem.  Quibus  forte  attentis,  non  foret  bene  possi- 
bile  mundum  esse  sine  bello.  Et  forte  non  esset  peccatum,  secundum  semitas 
naturalium  et  astrologorum,  tenere  mundum  non  posse  diuturnari  sine  bello 
et  cum  sola  pace,  quod  sic  posset  aperte  demonstrari. 


Qualiter  secundum  theologos  et  naturales  philosophos  necessario  sit  [Cap. 

dare  helium. 

Positis  causis  sumcientibus  et  necessariis  productivis  alicuius  effectus, 
necesse  est  poni  ipsum  effectum,  sed  belli  ponuntur  causes  sufficientes  et  neces- 
sario productorias,  ergo  necesse  est  ponere  ipsum  bellum.  Probatur  maior. 
Nam  effectus  assequitur  causam  suam  quoad  esse  productivum  et  destructi- 
vum,  i,  q.  vii,  quod  pro  remedio  ;  i,  q.  i,  quod  pro  necessitate  ;  Iv  di.,  priscis  ; 
Ixi  di.,  neophitus ;  i,  q.  i,  detrahe ;  De  baptis.,  debitum.  Probatur  minor. 
Nam  secundum  semitam  naturalium  impossibile  est  ccelum  stare,  Physicorum 
vii  et  viii,  immo  ipsius  motus  est  perpetuus,  et  corpora  ccelestia  ex  sui  natura 
operantur  in  hasc  inferiora  effectus  repugnantes,  et  haec  effectuum  repugnantia 
insurgit  hie  inferius  propter  varietatem  aspectuum  corporum  ccelestium  et 
motuum  ipsorum,  quod  patet  ex  sensatis.  Nam,  stricte  in  proposito  dedu- 


82  DE  IVRE  BELLI 

cendo,  propter  vurium  COfrespqpdentiain  corporum  e<i-!eMiuin,  te  in  pore  con- 
structionis  civitatum  snnt  reperta-  <  ivitates  naturaliter  K  <>ilin  liabentes,  et  sic 
amicae,  sic  genealogiae,  sic  et  particulares  homines  qui  se  naturaliter  odio 
habcnt,  non  praeccdontibus  de  mentis  hinc  indc,  sic  et  naturaliter  se  diligentes. 
Cum  igitur  bella  oriantur  propter  odia  et  dissonantias  appetituum,  haec  autem 
necessario  producentur  a  motibus  corporum  ccelestium,  quae  semper  et  n< 
sario  operantur,  infcrtur  bella  fore  de  necessario,  attenta  necessitate  materialis 
et  corporeae  naturae.  Fateor  tamen  quod  potentia  naturalis  non  n« «  ssitatur 
directo,  et  per  se  immo  resistere  posset  Hinc  est  quod  inquit  Ptolemaeus  in 
libro  Centum  Verborum  "  anima  sapiens  dominatur  astris,  quis  est  ille  regu- 
lariter,  et  laudavimus  eum,"  fateor  tamen,  si  theologi  secus  sentiant.  me 
subicere,  in  omnibus  quae  eos  contingunt,  eorum  correctioni. 

De  hoc  tamen  bello  nihil  intendo  tractare,  quia  nimis  foret  iuris  metas 
excedere. 

Causae  autem  theologiae,  propter  quas  non  est  pax  universalis  in  orbe, 
sex  solent  reddi.  Prima,  quia  non  puniuntur  maleficia,  Ecclesiastic!  iv  rapi- 
tulo.  Secunda,  abundantia  rerum  temporalium,  Genesis  [iii]  xiii  cap.,  fact  a  i •>( 
rixa  inter  pastores  Abraham  et  pastores  Loth  ;  lacobi  v,  unde  bella  et  lites, 
etc.  Tertia,  quia  non  occupamur  in  pugna  contra  Daemonem,  ideo  non  pug- 
namus  ut  homines,  Isaiae  xxviii  cap.,  "  percussimus  fcedus  cum  morte  et  cum 
inferno  "  ;  ad  Ephesios  [v]  vi,  "  non  est  colluctatio  adversus  carnem."  Quanta, 
quia  non  considcramus  damna  guerrae  in  qua  perdimus  animam  et  corpus  et 
divitias,  leremiae  Ivi^  capitulo.  Quinta,  quia  non  ponderamus  eventum  belli, 
qui  est  dubius,  primo  Regum  xii.  Sexta,  quia  non  servamus  praecepta  ])<  i 
leremiae  iii  cap.'-',  "  utinam  attendisses  mandata  mea,  etc." 

Ex  praedictis  igitur  infertur  duplex  spirituale  bellum  cceleste.  Primum, 
Creatoris  contra  Luciferum  ipsum,  propter  defectum  caritatis  in  superbiam 
delatum,  penitus  de  throno  ccelesti  ad  centrum  terrae  deducendo.  Et  illud 
fuit  momentaneum,  de  quo  lob  xiv  cap.,  ubi  supra.  Secundum,  virtualis 
repugnantia  corporum  motuum  et  aspectuum  coelestium,  introductoria  for- 
malis  repugnantiae  in  haec  inferiora,  propter  quae  introducuntur  inferiora  bella, 
et  hoc  est  continuum  et  successivum.  A  primo,  theologice  loqucndo,  dependet 
spirituale  bellum  et  humanum,  quod  provcnit  ex  repugnantia  intellectus  ad 
sensum.  Nam  Princeps  Malorum  persuadet  et  inducit  ad  vitia,  ut  deorsum 
emergat,  ad  [Romanos  vii]  Ephesios  vi^,  Princeps  autem  Bonorum  econtra 
ut  ad  superna  elevet.  A  secundo  autem  dependet  bellum  corporale  humanum , 
immo  etiam  spirituale  humanum,  naturaliter  loquendo,  ut  infra  proximo  trac- 
tatu  discutietur. 


De  Spiritual!  Humane  Hello,  sccundum  theologiam. 

[Cap.  vii  1 

Bellum  Spirituale  Humanum  potest  explicari  theologice  et  moraliter. 
Theologice,  est  contentio  exorta  propter  invidam  repugnantiam  Diaboli  con- 
tra rationabilem  creaturam,  habens  fomitem  a  peccato  primi  parentis.  Et  de 


DE  SPIRITVALI  HVMANO  BELLO  83 

hoc  bcllo  spiritual!  loquitur  Apostolus  ad  [Romanes  vii]  Ephesios,  vi  cap., 
sic  inquiens,  "  Induite  vos  armaturam  Dei  ut  possitis  stare  adversus  insidias 
Diaboli."  Et  ilia  armatura  sunt  virtutes  et  bona  opera  quibus  homines  arman- 
tur  contra  vitia,  xi,  q.  iii,  qui  resistit.  Insidias  autem  Diaboli  sunt  innumera- 
biles,  nam,  ut  inquit  Johannes  Papa,  "  Habet  enim  mille  nocendi  modos,  nee 
ignoramus  astutiam  eius.  Conatur  namque  a  principio  ruinae  suae  unitatem 
Ecclesiae  rescindere,  caritatem  vulnerare,  sanctorum  operum  dulcedinem  invi- 
dias  felle  inficere,  et  omnibus  modis  humanum  genus  pervertere  ac  perturbare. 
Dolet  enim  satis  et  erubescit  caritatem,  quam  in  ccelo  nequivit  habere,  homines 
constantes  ex  luti  materia  in  terra  tenere.  Vnde  oportet,  quantum  fragilitati 
nostrae  conceditur,  ut  omnes  aditus  nocendi  eius  versutiae  muniamus,  ne  mors 
ingrediatur  per  portas  nostras."  Haec  habentur  xvi,  q.  ii,  cap.  yisis.  Sic 
alibi  pulcherrime  scribit  Hieronymus  ad  lovinianum,  sic  inquiens,  "  Sic  in 
malis  atque  peccatis  semina  sunt  incentiva  et  perfectio  Diaboli.  Cum  viderit 
nos  supra  fundamentum  Christi  aedificasse  faenum,  ligna,  stipulam,  tune  sup- 
ponit  incendium.  ^dificemus  ergo  aurum,  argentum,  et  lapides  pretiosos, 
et  attemptare  non  audebit,  quamquam  et  in  hoc  certe  non  sit  secura  possessio, 
sedet  quippe  leo  in  insidiis,  ut  in  occultis  interficiat  innocentem,  et  vasa  figuli 
probat  fornax,  homines  autem  iustos  temptatio  tribulationis."  Haec  sunt 
transumpta  De  Poenit.,  di.  ii,  cap.  si  enim,  circa  medium.  Alibi  etiam  scribit 
Alexander  Papa  in  haec  verba,  "  Nam  Diabolus  non  cessat  circuire  quasrens 
quern  devoret,  et  quaerens  quern  ex  fidelibus  perdat,  et  maxime  illos  quos 
ardentiores  in  servitio  Salvatoris  eique  familiares  invenerit."  Haec  sunt  tran- 
sumpta iii,  q.  i,  nulli,  et  cap.  verum^>,  originaliter  [Lucae  xi  et  v  capp.](?); 
prima  Petri  v.  Et  habuit  hoc  bellum  fomitem  a  peccato  primi  parentis,  non 
ut  a  causa  positiva,  sed  ut  a  causa  sine  qua  non.  Nam  si  non  fuisset  peccatum 
primi  parentis,  ad  nihilum  fuisset  haec  pugna. 


De  Spirituals  Humane  Bella,  secundum  moralem  philosophiam.  [Cap.  vi«.] 

Moraliter  autem  intelligendo,  et  secundum  semitam  philosophorum  lo- 
quendo,  Spirituale  Humanum  Bellum  est  contentio  exorta  propter  repugnan- 
tiam  rationis  ad  sensitivum  appetitum.  Vbi  sciendum  quod  secundum  Philo- 
sophum,  secundo  De  Anima,  Anima  habet  quinque  potentias,  scilicet,  vegeta- 
tivam,  sensitivam,  appetitivam,  intellectivam,  et,  secundum  locum,  motivam. 
Appetitiva  dividitur  in  sensitivam  et  rationalem.  Idem  Philosophus,  i  Poli- 
ticorum,  quod  anima  dominatur  corpori  principatu  disposito,  id  est  in  ordine 
ad  servum,  id  est  sicut  dominus  servo.  Intellectus  autem  dominatur  sensui 
principatu  regali,  id  est  in  ordine  ad  liberos,  hoc  est  dicere  quod  anima  domina- 
tur corpori  sicut  dominus  dominatur  servo.  Intellectus  autem  dominatur  sensui 
sicut  superior  subdito  tamen  libero.  Vlterius  attendendum  quod  intellectus 
dicitur  rationalis,  quia  in  se  ipso  habet  formaliter  rationem,  appetitus  autem 
sensitivus  dicitur  rationalis,  non  quia  in  se  ipso  habeat  rationem,  quia  sunt 
potentiae  distinctae  formaliter,  sed  dicitur  rationalis  quia  in  homine  est  aptus 

[3] 


84  DE  IVRK  BELLI 

natus  obcdiro  ration!,  irratiunalis  autt-ni.  (juia  poti-st  mm  obcdiiv  rationi, 
vi-1  ponit  exchisionem  rationis  formaliter.  His  pncmissis,  evidrntcr  appaivl 
quod  appetitus  sensitivus  humanus  aliquando  obviat  rationi,  aliquando  obodit 
rationi.  Vbi  obviat,  est  bellum  et  repugnantia.  Vbi  obedit,  est  pax  et  ron- 
cordia.  Exemplum  patet  in  magno  mundo  ubi  omnia  inferiora  sunt  apta  nata 
obedire  superioribus.  Hinc  est  quod  inquit  idem  Philosophus,  primo  Meta- 
physicorum  et  secundo  Coeli,  necesse  est  hunc  mundum  esse  contiguum  supe- 
rioribus  lationibus  ut  omnis  virtus  inde  regatur,  et  tamen  aliquando  non 
obediunt  propter  indispositionem  materiae,  et  inde  fiunt  aliqua  praeter  inten- 
tionem  agentium  superiorum,  ut  monstra,  sic  sensitivus  appetitus,  ut  inferior, 
aptus  est  obedire.  Hinc  est  quod  dicit  idem  Philosophus,  secundo  De  Aninia 
tractatu,  de  moto  et  de  movente,  si  intellect/us  moveat  appetitum  sensitivum, 
t-t  ipse  eidem  obediat,  motus  est  naturalis,  ac  si  sphaera  superior  moveret 
inferiorem.  Si  autem  econtra,  tune  motus  non  est  naturalis  ac  si  sphaera 
inferior  moveret  superiorem.  Exemplum  patet  in  monarchia  civili,  nam 
aliqui  sunt  subditi  repugnantes  principibus  suis.  Exempla  huius  repugnantise 
tolle  in  continente  et  in  incontinente.  Nam  et  in  continente  appetitus  sensitivus 
inclinat  in  excessivum,  utpote  inordinatum  cibum,  potum,  vel  aliquid  simile. 
Ratio  discat  illud  fugiendum,  ut  nocivum,  et  tamen  in  continente  vincit  intel- 
lectus  et  ratio,  et  proprie  continentia  non  est  virtus  moralis  firmata,  nam,  ut 
inquit  idem  Philosophus,  in  virtuoso  omnia  consonant.  Vnde  cum,  ex  multis 
et  frequentibus  actions,  in  appetitu  sensitivo  firmata  fuerit  promptitudo  quae- 
dam,  inclinans  ipsum  appetitum  sensitivum  in  bonum,  et  conformiter  rationi, 
tune  proprie  est  virtus.  In  incontinente  autem  patens  est  haec  rcpugnantia, 
sed  ibi  vincit  appetitus  sensitivus,  nee  ilia  dicitur  vitium  firmatum,  donee  ex 
frequentibus  actibus  ita  assueverit  inclinarc  in  malum,  quod  sine  aliqua  repug- 
nantia nunc  semper  inclinet.  Haec  repugnantia  proprie  censetur  helium  spiri- 
tuale  humanum,  loquendo  moraliter.  De  hac  repugnantia  etiam  loquitur 
Apostolus  ad  Romanes,  vii  capitulo.  "  Video  aliam  legem  rcpugnantem  le^i 
mentis  meae  "  ;  transumptive,  xxxii,  q.  v,  si  Paulus.  DC  hac  etiam  rcpugnanl  ia 
scribitur  vi  di.,  sed  pensandum  ;  De  constitutionibus,  nam  concupisccntiam. 
Et  de  hoc  spiritual!  bello  loquitur  Gregorius,  xxiii,  q.  i,  >iisi  bclla.  In  li.u 
autem  repugnantia  ab  adolescentia  regulariter  est  inclinatio  in  malum,  nam 
omnis  aetas  ab  adolescentia  prona  est  in  malum.  Genesis  viii  cap.  ;  xii,  q.  i, 
omnis  atas.  Et  ratio  consuevit  multiplex  assignari.  Prima  quia  malum 
potest  quis  per  se,  bonum  autem  non  sine  gratia.  Alia  est  propter  fomitrm 
originalis  peccati  impellentem  ad  malum.  Alia  quia  facilius  pervenerit  ad 
malum  quam  bonum.  Nam  bonum  consistit  in  mcdio  essentialiter,  vitia  amVm 
in  extremitatibus,  ad  medium  autem  transitur  unica  via  recta,  ad  extremum 
autem  multiplicitcr.  Alia  quia  plura  sunt  impedimenta  boni  quam  mali.  Alia 
quia  non  fit  bonum  nisi  cum  iudicio  rationis,  qua  adolescentes  parum  vigent, 
propter  offuscationem  organorum  corporalium.  Et  hanc  credo  veriornn 
rationcm.  Hoc  dc  Bello  Spiritual!,  circa  quod  plura  possent  tractari.  Sed 
prsetermitto,  quia  transcenderent  metas  iuris,  in  quibus  minus  quam  possibile 
sit  intendo  distendere. 


DE  BELLO  CORPORALI  VNIVERSALI  85 

De  Vniversali  Corporali  Bella.  iCap.  «.i 

Tertio,  tractaturus  de  Bello  Vniversali  Corporali,  ipsius  tractatum  expli- 
cabo  per  quastiones  : 

Primo,  quo  iure  ortum  et  inductum  sit  bellum. 

Secundo,  quibus  liceat  indicere  universale  bellum,  subiungendo  contra 
quos. 

Tertio,  quae  sint  aggregantia  bellum,  explicando,  per  modum  summae, 
actus  licitos  et  illicitos  personarum  bellum  aggregantium,  et  formando  quas- 
dam  quaestiones  circa  ipsa. 

Quarto,  quae  sint  persona;  qua;  artari  possunt  ad  bellum,  et  quod  de 
accedentibus  non  astrictis. 

Quinto,  de  his  spoliis  quae  hunt  in  bello,  et  aliis  quibusdam  qliae  in  bello 
fiunt. 

Sexto,  per  modum  tabulae  ad  instructionem  canonistae,  de  quaestionibus 
contingentibus  materiam  belli.  Vbicunque  in  Corpore  luris  Canonici  tracta- 
tum fuerit  per  Glossatores  et  Doctores,  remittam. 

Quo  iure  ortum  habuit  Bellum  Vniversale  Corporate.  [Cap.  1.1 

Redeo  ad  primum,  et  primo  quaero  quo  iure  ortum  habeat  Bellum  Vni- 
versale Corporale.  Solutio.  lure  divino  et  iure  gentium.  lure  divino,  et 
probatur  losuae  viii ;  primo  Regum  xvi  capitulo.  lure  gentium,  ff.  De  iustit.  et 
iure,  1.  ex  hoc  iure. 

.  Qualiter  iure  divino  ortum  habuit  bellum  universale  corporale. 

Dixi  quod  bella  orta  sunt  iure  divino,  ubi  sciendum  quod  bella  nedum 
domino  permittente,  immo  positive  concedente,  inducta  sunt.  Et  hoc  demon- 
strari  potest,  nam  omnis  facultas  tendens  in  bonum  adeo  positive  nedum  per- 
missive derivatur.  Sed  facultas  belli  indicendi  iusti  tendit  in  bonum,  ergo  a 
Deo  positive  provenit.  Probatur  maior,  nam  "  omne  datum  optimum  et 
omne  donum  perfectum  desursum  est  descendens  a  Patre  [hominum]  lumi- 
num,"  lacobi  i ;  i,  q.  ii,  quern  pio.  Probatur  minor,  nam  indictio  belli  iusti 
et  bellum  iustum  tendit  in  bonum,  nam  tendit  in  pacem  et  quietem  universi. 
Hoc  probatur  auctoritate  Augustini  ad  Bonifacium,  sic  inquientis  ;  "  non 
enim  bellum  quasritur  ut  bellum  exerceatur,  sed  bellum  geritur  ut  pax  quaera- 
tur."  Subdit,  "  Esto  ergo  bellando  pacificus,  ut  eos  quos  expugnas  ad  pacis 
utilitatem  vincendo  perducas."  Habentur  xxiii,  q.  i,  noli.  Est  igitur  finis 
belli  pax  et  tranquillitas  universi.  Ergo  infertur  a  Deo  originaliter  et  positive 
provenisse.  Confirmatur.  Nam  omnis  actus  punitivus  malorum  a  Deo  pro- 
venit, sed  indictio  iusti  belli  est  actus  punitivus  malorum  et  rebellium.  Ergo 
a  Deo  positive  provenit.  Probatur  maior.  Nam  scribitur,  "  mihi  vindicta[m], 
ct  ego  rctribuam,"  [Proverbiorum  xxii  c.];  [xxiii,  q.  i,  cap.  item  cum  in 
Proverbiis] ;  et  alibi,  "  meaest  ultio  et  egoretribuam,"  Deuteronomii  xxxii ; 
ad  Hebraeos  x  ;  ad  Romanes  capitulo  [xiii]  xii.  Probatur  minor  auctori- 


86  DE  IVRE  BELLI 

tate  Augustini,  in  Sermone  De  puero  centurionis.  xxiii,  q.  i,  para/us,  ver.  mint 
corripiendo.  Immo  per  hanc  inductionem  com  ludi  po»et  tin  ologice  dr  i.< 
sario  in  universe  fore  malos  et  rebellcs,  nam  maiestati  divirue  insunt  actus  prie- 
miativi  bonorum  et  punitivi  maloruni.  ut  scribitur,  "  nullum  bonum,  etc." 
Tune,  illo  praemisso,  posset  sic  induci,  posito  actu  necessario,  ponitur  obiectum 
tcrminativum  illius  actus.  Hoc  probatur  per  verba  1'liilnsophi  libro  ii  De 
Anima,  nam  posito  actu  visionis  ponitur  obiectum  visibilc.  Item  et  uctu 
auditionis  posito,  ponitur  obiectum  audibile.  Posito  igitur  a  pdndpiocreatioois 
mundi  actu  punitive  in  Deo,  necessario  ponitur  obiectum  punibile,  et  tale  est 
Malum,  ut  supra  deductum  est.  Confirmatur  primum  principale.  Nam  <>miii* 
actus  per  quem  tollitur  nocendi  facultas  a  Deo  positive  provenit.  Sed  indictio 
belli  iusti  est  huiusmodi.  Probatur  hoc  auctoritate  Augustini,  sic  inquientis, 
"  Bella  geruntur  ut  adpietatis,  iustitiae  societatem  victis  consulatur."  Subdit, 
"  nam  cui  licentia  iniquitatis  eripitur,  utilius  vincitur,  quoniam  nihil  est  infe- 
licius  felicitate  peccantium,  qua  poenalis  nutritur  impunitas,  et  mala  volunl;is, 
velut  hostis  interior  roboratur."  Haec  habentur  xxiii,  q.  i,  paratus,  ver.  ac  per 
hoc.  Confirmatur.  Omnis  potestas  est  a  Deo,  iubente  vel  permittente, 
ergo  potestas  bellica  sic  provenit,  sed  non  solum  permittente  sed  et  iubente. 
Ergo  iubente.  Probatur  principale,  ad  Romanes  xiii ;  transumptive,  xxiii,  q.  i, 
quid  culpatur.  Quid  plura  ?  Nonne  hoc  patet,  inspectis  mundi  generationi- 
bus  ?  Nam  a  principio  creationis  mundi  usque  ad  tempora  Noe  Deus  per  se 
ipsum,  et  sine  ministro,  malos  exterminabat,  ut  patet  de  Cain  et  Abel,  et  qui- 
busdam  aliis  regibus,  ut  scribitur  Genesis  iv  et  v  capitulis.  Per  se  igitur  bella 
induxit  punitiva  et  malorum  exterminativa.  Infertur  igitur  ex  praemissis  bella 
iure  divino  inducta  originaliter.  Figuraliter,  immo  forte  naturaliter,  demon- 
strari  posset.  Nam  ut  inquiunt  naturales,  homo  est  parvus  mundus,  et  sicut 
fit  gubernatio  in  parvo  mundo,  sic  in  toto  universali,  similitudine  tracta,  ut 
inquit  Philosophus  viii  Physicorum,  ac  in  regimine  naturali  corporis  constat 
quod  ubi  nullus  est  humorum  excessus,  nulla  est  rcbellio  repugnans  conserva- 
tioni  et  durationi  naturali.  Vbi  autem  humorum  excessus  propter  inordina- 
tam  regimen,  tune  pugna  naturae  tendentis  in  conservationem  contra  excessum 
tendentem  in  destructionem,  et  in  pugna  aliquando  sufncit  naturalis  potentia 
ad  correctionem  repugnantiae,  aliquando  est  impotens,  propter  excessum 
morbi,  et  tune  est  opus  extrinseeo  remedio,  utpote  medicamine  >,i]>iente  natu- 
ram  veneni,  repugnantis  tamen  morbo.  Sic  directe  in  magno  mundo.  Nam 
aliquando  in  regione  et  plaga  mundi  nullus  est  rcbellium  exressus.  et  tune  nulla 
pugna,  immo  uniformitcr  tendit  ipsius  gubernatrix  Natura  '  <  miservationcm. 
Aliquando  est  excessus  rebelliuin.  i<  ndeiitium  in  destructionem  gubernationis 
•inservationis,  et  tune  aliquando  Natura  per  se  corrigit,  ut  monitionibus, 
exhortationibus,  et  aliis  placationibus,  et  tune  non  est  opus  bello,  nee  medi- 
camine  vcncnoso.  Aliquando  in  tantum  exccssit  morbu-.  <|u<id  opus  est  mcdi- 
caminc  vencnoso,  penitus  materiam  morbi  exthpante,  et  tale  medicaineu  est 
l>elluin  eradieativum  et  exteniiiuaiivum  maloium.  SK  igilur  in  p.uvu  inundo. 
rccurrit(?)  proj)t(  i  defn  turn  virtutis  interioris  ad  iiiedinmi,  qui  operatur  n 


QV»  IVRE  ORTVM  ?  87 

dio  extrinseco  et  venenoso,  sicut  in  magno  mundo  gubernator  generalis,  qui 
est  Altissimus  Creator,  et  est  medicus  universi,  tendens  in  ipsius  conserva- 
tionem  et  gubernationem,  cum  in  tantum  excreverunt  humores  tendentes  in 
destructionem  universi,  vel  partis  eius,  Dei  iustitia  [excessiva  et  ulterius  im- 
portabilia] l?)  respectu  conservationis  monarchiae  mundanae,  utitur  remedio  bel- 
lico,  ut  exterminet  vitia  et  excessus,  et  discensia(?)  reducatur  ad  terminum  tem- 
peramenti.  Et,  sicut  in  corpore  humano  isti  humorum  excessus  fiunt  circa 
membra  singula  corporis  humani,  et  etiam  distrosio i?  insurgit,  aliquando  prop- 
ter  humoris  unius  excessum,  quandoque  alterius,  sic  in  universo,  circa  singulas 
regiones  et  mundi  plagas,  quae  sunt  membra  magni  mundi,  fiunt  hi  vitiorum 
excessus,  quae  repugnant  ipsius  gubernationi,  et  aliquando  in  uno,  aliquando 
in  alio,  secundum  vitiorum  varietates.  Et  sic  contingit  plagas  ^undi  ali- 
quando infirmari  propter  vitiorum  excessum,  quae  quandoque  sic  excedunt 
quod  opus  est  medicamine  eradicativo,  quo  eradicabuntur  aliquando  boni  cum 
malis,  sicut  medicina  evellit  etiam  mixtim  bonos  cum  malis.  Immo  aliquando 
propter  dictum  excessum  penitus  exstinguuntur,  ut  mors  contingit  etiam  in 
singularibus  suppositis,  quod  patet  ex  sensatis,  nam  regiones  infinitae  propter 
haec  sunt  penitus  exstinctae  et  inhabitabiles  redditae.  Infinita  possent  recitari 
exempla,  hoc  idem  contingit  in  genealogiis  et  in  regiminibus,  quae  etiam  mi- 
nuuntur  et  penitus  exstinguuntur.  Et  licet  haec  dicta  sint  sic  figuraliter,  tamen 
textibus  legis  divinae  apertissime  demonstrantur,  nam,  ut  legitur  Genesis  xix 
cap.,  propter  excessivum  morbum  Sodomae  Deus  usus  est  medicamine  bellico 
et  eradicativo  contra  Sodomam,  Gomorram,  Seboim,  Segor,  et  Oleale,  licet 
duae  perierint  propter  vicinitatem,  ut  De  Pcenit.,  di.  i,  cap.  sed  continue  ;  et 
cap.  clerici,  De  excessibus  praelat.  ;  et  in  Authent.,  ut  non  luxu.  contra  naturam, 
circa  fin.  coll.  vi.  Possent  induci  innumerabilia  exempla.  De  isto  etiam 
medicamine  bellico,  scribitur  losuae  viii  cap.,  nam  ibi  Dominus  Noster  iubet 
[ad  lesum  nave]  ut  constituat  sibi  retrorsum  insidias.idestinsidiantesbellatores, 
ad  insidiandum  hostibus.  Et  Augustinus,  in  libro  Quaestionum  super  verbis 
losuae,  "  lusta  autem  bella  definiri  solent  quae  ulciscuntur  iniurias,"  id  est 
delictorum  excessus.  Et  subdit,  "  sic  gens  vel  ci vitas  plectenda  est  quae  vel 
vindicare  neglcxerit  quod  a  suis  improbe  factum  est."  Subdit,  "  sed  hoc 
genus  belli  sine  dubio  iustum  est  quod  Deus  imperat,  qui  novit  quod  cuique 
fieri  debeat."  Non  dicit  "  permittit,"  immo  "imperat."  Subdit  "in  quo 
bello  dux  exercitus,  vel  ipse  populus,  non  tarn  auctor  belli  quam  minister  Dei 
iudicandus  est."  Et  sic  clare  demonstratur  Deum,  ut  medicum  altissimum, 
et  conservatorem  universi,  bella  imperare,  ut  eradicentur  delicta.  Haec 
habentur  transumpta  xxiii,  q.  ii,  Dominus  Noster.  De  hoc  etiam  bello  et 
medicamine  eradicativo  scribitur  i  Maccabaeorum  v  cap.,  et  Deuteronomii 
cap.  ii ;  ubi  ex  mandate  Dei  filii  Israel  bella  geruntfur]  contra  Armoraeos,  quod 
etiam  tractat  Augustinus  in  libro  Numerorum,  et  habetur  transumptum  xxiii, 
q.  ii,  cap.  notandum  sane.  De  hoc  etiam  scribitur  ludicum  v  cap.,  ibi  "  elegit 
I  )< .minus  nova  bella."  Loquitur  de  his  eradicantibus  vitiorum  excessibus. 
Scribitur  etiam  [losuae]  Isaiae  xxx,  '  Et  bellis  praecipuis  expugnabit,"  tan- 


88  DE  IVRE  BELLI 

i|u;un  bellator.  De  his  eradicantibus  scribitur  ctiani  i  Ma>  •  aki-unim  iv  tap.. 
"  Confortamini  et  bellate."  Scribitur  etiam  leremiae  xx  cap.,  "  Dominus  est 
imrum  tanquam  bellator."  Hieronymus  super  Sophoniam  pulcherrime  hoc 
describit,  dicens,  "  Si  quis  fortitudincm  latronis  vel  piratae  enervat  et  infirmos 
reddit,  prodest  illis  sua  infirmitas,  debilitata  enim  membra  quibus  prius  non 
bene  utebantur  a  malo  opere  cessabunt."  Conclusio  est  Hieronymi  quod 
sanantur  vitiosi  si  eruatur  morbus  quo  membra  infecta  in  malum  dispone- 
bantur,  et  hoc  fit  bello  eradicativo.  Haec  habcntur  xxiii,  q.  iii,  cap.  si  quis 
fortitudincm.  Hoc  apertc  demonstratur  per  id  quod  scribitur  Lucae  [viij  \ii,  it 
ad  Hebraeos  xiip)  dicit  Dominus,  "  Servus  qui  nescit  voluntatem  doniini  sui 
et  facit  digna  plagis,  vapulabit  paucis,  servus  autem  (jui  scit  voluntatem  do- 
mini,  et  facit  digna  plagis,  vapulabit  multis."  Excedens  igitur  recepit  plagas 
a  Domino.  Haec  sunt  transumpta  xxiii,  q.  iv,  cap.  ea  vindicta.  Hinc  legitur 
quod  Elias  multos  affecerit  morte  prima  manu,  et  igne  divinitus  impetrando, 
i  v  Kegum  i  cap.  ;  et  cap.  ea  vindicta.  Deinde  xxiii,  q.  [v]  iv,  sic  scribitur  de  aliis 
tompore  veteris  legis,  iii  Regum  xvii  et  xviii  cap. ;  sic  scribitur  quod  vt  il» 
Petri,  apostolorum  principis,  Ananias  et  uxor  eius  mortui  ceciderunt,  Actuum 
iv  capitulo.  Transumptive  habetur  xvii,  q.  i,  Ananias;  xxiii,  q.  [v]  iv, 
ca  vindicta,  in  fine.  Et  de  hoc  bello  eradicante,  pulchre  loquitur  Gregorius 
ad  Brunehildam  Francorum  reginam,  sic  inquiens,  "  Ne  si,  quod  non  credimus, 
divinae  ultionis  iracundia  sceleratorum  fuerit  actione  commota,  belli  pest  is 
interimat  quos  delinquentes  ad  rectitudinis  viam  Dei  praecepta  non  revocant  "  ; 
xxiii,  q.  iv,  si  [vos]  quos.  Nonne  inquit  Dominus  ad  Moysen  ;  "  maleficos  non 
patieris  vivere  ",  Exodi  xxii  capitulo?  Moyses  etiam,  qui  legem  acceperat  a 
Domino,  cultores  idoli  morte  punivit,  Exodi  xxxii  capitulo.  Samuel  etiam 
mandate  Doniini  Agag  regem  pinguissimum  in  frusta  occidit,  i  Regum  xv 
capitulo.  Transumpta  habentur  xxiii,  q.  v,  cap.  hinc  apf>aret.  Dominus  etiam 
^Egyptios  fluctibus  submersit,  Exodi  xi v  cap. ;  Israelitarum  cadavera  prostravit 
in  Eremo,  Numerorum  xiv  capitulo.  Transumpta  habentur  xxiii,  q.  v,  quid  ergo. 
Intinita  possent  super  hoc  demonstrando  induci  exempla  veteris  et  nova  legis 
divinse,  sed  haec  sufficiant  ut  ex  his  narratis  sufficiat  concludere  bella  originali- 
ter  ortum  habuisse  ex  Jure  divino,  et  non  solum  Dei  permissione,  immo  et 
positive  ab  ipso,  ut  mundi  gubernatore  et  medico  vitiorum  eradicativo,  prop- 
ter  salutem  et  mundi  conservationem,  et  cum  in  hunc  finem  tcndant  h;cc  bellica 
remedia,  ut  supra  clare  deductum  est,  propter  hanc  autem  [distrasiam  |  <"  et 
vitiorum  multiplicorum  excessum  in  universi  destructione  progrediente,  ex 
sensatis  apparet  altissimum  Creatorem,  tcmporibus  retroactis,  i-t  lioc  eradi- 
cativo remedio  usum  fuisse,  nam  regna  et  mundi  regimina  quam  plura  sunt 
l>t  nitus  enervata  et  quam  plura  remissa.  Quid  de  Troianorum  [assensu]1-'  ? 
Quid  de  Graecorum  imperio  ?  Quid  de  Romanorum  universo  dominio  ?  Par- 
tes  Italia:  temporibus  nostris  febriunt  et  subiciuntur  examini.  Medidna 
paratur  alicubi  minorativa,  alicubi  eradicate  itante  ad  summum,  quo- 

rum habitudines  sunt  fallai  <•>,  iuxta  ilc><  trinam  peritissimi  Hipporratis,  junno 
Aphorismoium.     Hanc  rcgionem  deduxcrunt  ail  niutum,  ut  Altissimus  con- 


QVO  IVRE  ORTVM  ?  89 

gruam  exhibeat  medicinam,  de  cuius  humores  in  quanto  et  quasi  in  tempera- 
mento  plus  discant.f0  cumque  ex  pulmentudine  fiunt  evacuationes,  sanet,  iuxta 
doctrinam  eiusdem^.  Haec  autem  conclusio,  videlicet  quod  bella  proveniant 
a  Deo,  positive  et  originaliter  demonstrari  posset,  attento  divinas  maiestatis 
uniformi  et  perpetuo  instrumento.  Nam  altissimus  omnium  Creator,  median- 
te  coelesti  machina,  in  hanc  terrestrem  machinam  naturaliter  operatur,  licet 
supernaturaliter.  Immediate  ubi  vult  spiret  et  influat,  sed  naturaliter  loquor, 
iuxta  dictum  peritissimi  Philosophi,  primo  Meteororum,  et  secundo  Coeli, 
necesse  est  hunc  mundum  contiguum  esse  superioribus  lationibus,  ut  omnis 
virtus  inde  regatur.  Influit  igitur  Altissimus  naturaliter  in  haec  inferiora, 
mediante  coelesti  et  sphaerico  corpore,  illud  autem  totum  corpus  operatur, 
mediante  motu  et  lumine,  ut  inquit  idem  Philosophus.  Et,  quia  in  ipsa  tota 
machina  coelesti  sunt  partes  diversarum  virtutum  in  influendo,  ut  puta  sphse- 
rarum  varietas,  stellarum  errantium  et  fixarum  diversitas,  a  quibus  propter 
varietatem  naturarum  et  motuum  dependet  effective  omne  genitum  et  cor- 
ruptibile  ;  idcirco  quaelibet  contrarietas  et  naturarum  diversitas,  repugnantia 
hie  inferius  insurgens,  dependens  est  desuper.  Ex  quo  statim  infertur  quod, 
cum  repugnantia  et  difformitas  sunt  inductoria  bellorum,  quod  bella  inde 
oriantur,  immo  experientia  docet  quod,  propter  uniformitatem  et  difformita- 
tem  aspectuum  tempore  nativitatis,  insurgunt  inter  homines  naturales  dilec- 
tiones  et  naturales  inimicitiae.  Hoc  quilibet  experitur,  nam  quis  diliget  statim 
cum  viderit,  nullis  mentis  praecedentibus,  et  sic  odio  habebit,  nullis  demeritis 
praecedentibus.  Sic  inter  civitates  et  villas  et  castra  insurgunt  dilectiones  et 
odia  naturaliter,  propter  uniformitatem  et  difformitatem  aspectuum  tempore 
constructionis  earum,  et  sic  insurgunt  odia  et  bella,  influentia  coelesti,  sic 
et  amicitia  et  paces,  sic  inter  provincias.  Haec  autem  coelestis  natura,  me- 
diante motu,  est  productiva  generationis  et  corruptionis,  in  his  inferioribus 
augmenti  et  diminutions,  nedum  in  singularia  supposita,  immo  in  singulas 
mundi  plagas,  nam  ex  hac  superna  natura  plagae  habitabiles  factae  sunt  in- 
habitabiles,  et  econtra.  Nam,  iuxta  doctrinam  Philosophi,  ubi  mare  fiet 
aridum,  ubi  aridum  net  mare,  ex  hac  naturarum  repugnatione  ac  disposi- 
tionum,  ex  qua  rixae,  contentiones,  bella  particularia  et  universalia  insurgunt. 
Haec,  propter  motuum  et  aspectuum  varietatem,  quaedam  exaltat,  quaedam 
exstinguit,  et  quaedam  deprimit,  mutat  mundi  regimina  universalia  et  particu- 
laria. Et  hoc  demonstrari  potest,  nam,  posita  causa  sufficient!  productiva 
alicuius  effectus,  necesse  est  ilium  effectum  produci,  nisi  adsit  aliquod  extrin- 
secum  impedimentum  productionis,  sed  natura  coelestis  continue  difformatur 
motu  et  aspectu,  et  ipsius  partes  sunt  difformes  ex  sui  natura  in  influendo. 
Ergo  necesse  est  produci  hos  effectus  repugnantes  et  difformes  cum  non  sit 
quod  impedire  possit,  et  per  hoc  inferri  posset  quod  naturaliter  necesse  est 
esse  bella,  nee  aliter  procederet  naturaliter  mundi  gubernatio.  Protestor 
tamen  quod  licet  hoc  coelestis  natura  operetur  in  haec  inferiora,  non  tamen 
per  se  et  directo  intellectu  humano,  immo  durat  libertas  arbitrii,  ut  in  cap. 
Nabuchodonosor,  xxiii,  q.  iv,  et  cap.  de  Tiriis  ;  et  De  Pcenit.,  di.  ii,  cap.  sicut 


90  DK  TYRE  BELLI 

cnnn  ;  et  Philosophus  iii  Ktliicoruni.  Sod  oprratur  in  organo  virtutum  scn- 
Mtivarum,  quaj  nrepta  influent ia  ailniinistrant  intrll«  tuin,  sic  per  indirertuni 
inlhiit.  Hinc  est  quod  seribitur  in  libro  Centum  Yerbonim,  "  aniina  sapiens 
dominatur  astris."  Sed  quia  hoc  tractare  nimis  clongatur  a  terminis  iuris, 
non  ulterius  circa  hanc  dcductionem  insisto,  scd  sufiiciat  illatum  ex  predict  is 
et  demonstratum,  bella  provenisse  a  Deo  positive  et  effective,  licet  ex  hoc 
ultimo  inferatur,  non  immediate,  sed  mediante  machina  ccelesti,  naturaliter 
»]HTando. 


[c«p.x!.i  Qualiter  iure  gentium  ortum  ttabuerit  helium  univcrsale  corporate. 

Dixi  secundo  quod  bella  cognita  sunt  iure  gentium.  Hie  tamcn  con- 
sidero  quod,  licet  dicant  iura  quod  bella  sint  introducta  iure  gentium,  ut 
Isidorus,  i  di.,  ius  gen.  ;  et  Hermogenianus  iurisconsultus,  in  1.  ex  hoc  itirc, 
ff.,  De  iustit.  et  iure;  tamen  credo  quod  bella  ortum  habuerint  non  solum 
ex  aequitate  naturalis  humanae  intelligcntiae  creatae,  immo  primordialiter  <  x 
dispositione  naturae  naturantis,  non  solum  influentis  secundum  actus  humanos, 
immo  super  quibuscunque  animantibus  et  etiam  inanimantibus,  ut  sit  verum 
dicere  quod  bella  habeant  ortum  a  iure  naturali,  etiam  ut  distinguitur  a  iure 
gentium.  Quod  qualiter  differat  probat  tcxtus,  in  1.  i,  §  ius  gen.,  et  §  ins  tia/it- 
rale,  et  1.  ex  hoc  iure,  ff.  De  iustit.  et  iure  ;  et  i  di.,  ius  naturalc.  cum  sua  glossa, 
et  cap.  ius  naturale.  Quod  hoc  sit  verum  sic  ostenditur.  Ex  principiis  natu- 
ralibus  cuilibet  enti  naturali  create  est  insita  inclinatio  naturalis  ad  exclu- 
sionem  cuiusque  repugnantis  sure  naturali  dispositioni.  Hoc  patet  inducendo 
in  singulis  naturalibus  simplicibus  et  mixtis,  nam  aqua;  insitum  est  resisterc 
igni,  et  econtra,  propter  repugnantiam  qualitatum.  Sic  in  singulis  dementis, 
sic  in  mixtis,  induci  posset  maxime  hoc  quod  patet  in  brutis,  ubi,  ex  naturali 
repugnantia  complexionum,  unum  inclinatur  naturaliter  ad  occisionem  altcrins, 
et  econtra,  sic  in  rationali  creatura  insita  est  inclinatio  a  natura,  etiam  cir- 
cumscripto  intellectual!  dictamine,  ad  profugandum  quodcunque  sibi  rcpug- 
nans.  Quod  hoc  sit  verum,  ratione  probatur,  nam  natura  omnium  creatornm 
productiva  non  minus  debuit  esse  sollicita  in  conservatione  rationabilis  creatura; 
quam  ccterorum  productorum,  cum  ipsa  sit  nobilior,  ut  cap.  cum  infirm  itas, 
De  pcen.  et  remiss.  ;  et  1.  sancimus,  C.  De  sacrosanctis  eccles.  ;  et  cap.  Inn- 
imago,  xxxiii,  q.  v  ;  et  propter  ipsam,  ut  finem,  omnia  infra  globum  lunarem  sint 
producta,  ut  1.  inpecudum,fi.  Deusuris.  Si  igitur  natura  induxit  inclination  in 
naturalem  in  ceteii-  <  ivatis  ad  quaecunque  sibi  contraria  ]>rofuganda,  quanto 
magis  hoc  debuit  in  rationabili  creatura?  Hoc  idem  sensualiter  patet  per 
singula  supposita  discurrcndo,  nam  quilibet  hoc  in  se  ipso  CXJH ritur,  si  hoc  IN 
principiis  naturalibus  hominibus  insitum  est,  ergo  ex  hac  inclinatione  naturali 
primordialiter  habuit  ortum  bellum,  cum  bellum,  ut  supra  descriptum  est,  sit 
contentio  exorta  propter  tollcndam  repugnantiam.  Infertur  ergo  quod  ilia 
contentio  quae  oritur  propter  tollendum  dissonum  et  repugnans  conservalioni 
suae  fundamentaliter  habct  ortum  a  principiis  naturalibus,  et  sic  in  iure  naturae, 


QVIBVS  ET  CONTRA  QVOS  91 

prout  distinguitur  a  iure  gentium.  Sed  statim  dices,  hsec  destruunt  textus  qui 
dicunt  ex  iure  gentium  oriri,  ubi  advertendum  quod,  licet  a  iure  naturali 
inducta  sit  ilia  inclinatio  naturalis,  circumscripta  naturali  intelligentia,  tamen 
inclinatio  ilia  regulatur  per  dictamen  rationis  et  intelltgentiae  naturalis,  sicut 
dicimus  in  singulis  actibus  qui  debentur  hominibus  naturaliter,  circumscripto 
intellectu,  utpote  inclinatio  ad  cibum  et  potum  et  coitum.  Ista  hominibus 
competunt  naturaliter,  et  tamen  in  homine  regulariter  dictamine  rationis, 
quod  non  est  in  brutis,  qua  carent  illo  dictamine.  Sic  igitur  credo  fuisse  men- 
tem  illorum  textuum,  videlicet  quod  regulatio  illius  inclinationis,  introductae 
a  principiis  naturalibus,  insurgat  ex  iure  gentium,  id  est  ex  aequitate  generali 
naturalis  intelligentiae,  sed  ipsa  inclinatio  est  de  iure  naturali.  Hoc  probat 
glossa  in  1.  ex  hoc  iure,  ft  De  iustit.  et  iure  ;  et  i  di.,  ius  gent.  Nam  glossa 
utrobique  super  verbo  "  bella  "  exponit  iusta  ;  et  sic  intelligit  de  inclinatione 
regulata  per  dictamen  rationis.  Et  licet  dicant  textus  quod  ex  iure  gentium 
insurgunt  bella,  non  tamen  credo  falsum  dicere  bella,  id  est  illas  regulatas 
inclinationes,  habere  ortum  a  iure  civili  et  a  iure  canonico.  Nam  ius  civile 
et  ius  canonicum  non  dicunt  aliam  aequitatem  quam  sit  aequitas  a  iure  gen- 
tium. Immo  sunt(?>  ipsa  aequitas  iuris  gentium,  nam  omne  ius  consistit  in 
quadam  rectitudine,  et  inde  ius  dictum  est,  ut  i  di.,  ius  generate.  Sed  ius 
civile  et  canonicum  sunt  rectitude  vitas  et  aequitas  iuris  gentium.  Sed  addunt 
supra  rectitudinem  illam  quandam  explicationem,  nam  ius  legale  et  canonicum 
habent  specificare  et  explicare  rectitudinem  et  aequitatem  iure  gentium,  quan- 
doque  earn  interminando  per  modos  congruos,  quandoque  applicando  ad 
varies  actus,  quandoque  determinando  per  varies  eventus.  Haec  omnia  pro- 
bantur  per  textum  in  1.  ius  civile,  ff.  De  iustit.  et  iure.  Nam  dicit  ibi  textus, 
"  Ius  est  quod  nee  in  totum  a  naturali  vel  gentium  recedit,  nee  per  omnia  ei 
servit.  Jtaque  cum  aliquid  addimus  vel  detrahimus  iuri  communi,  ius  pro- 
prium  est,  id  est  civile  facimus."  Est  ergo  verum  dicere  quod  bella  sunt  de 
iure  civili  et  canonico,  id  est  de  ipsa  rectitudine,  quae  est  ius  civile  et  canoni- 
cum. Nee  obstant  textus  statim  allegati,  quia  ilia  rectitude,  nihilo  addito  vel 
detracto,  ius  gentium  nuncupatur.  Et  sic  loquuntur  iura  statim  allegata,  sed, 
cum  aliquid  additum  vel  detractum  est,  tune  civile  vel  canonicum  nuncupatur, 
nulli  tamen  dubium  quin  ius  civile  et  canonicum  circa  bella  supra  dictamen 
rationis  generalis  aliquid  addant.  Ex  praedictis  infertur  quo  iure  bella  orta 
fuerunt. 


Quibus  primo  et  principaliter,  et  quo  iure,  et  contra  quos,  bellum  indicere      [Cap. 

liceat  universale. 

Secundo  quaere  quo  iure  licitum  sit  Ecclesiae  indicere  bellum  contra  inn- 
deles,  et  invadere  terras  eorum,  et  propter  hoc  indulgentiam  concedere,  cum 
iura  in  contrarium  disponere  videantur,  nam  nihil  ad  nos  de  his  qui  foris  sunt, 
ii,  q.  i,  multi.  Etiam  quia  origine  possessiones  et  iurisdictiones  sunt  apud  eos. 
Nam  Deus  per  totam  rationabilem  creaturam  hoc  produxit,  nam  apud  bones 

[4] 


92  DE  IVRE  BELLI 

et  malos  facit  solein  uriri,  Maltlia-i  v  et  vi  ad  finem  ;  ctiain  quia  ad  fidem 
cogendi  non  sunt.  cum  omncs  alii  non  incorporati  sint  relinquendi  arbitrin 
suo,  xlv  distinct.,  de  ludeeis.  Immo,  (juod  plus  est,  dimitti  potest  inlulcli  iuris- 
dictio  super  converses  ad  fidem,  dummodo  non  nimis  gravet,  prima  ad  Timo- 
theum,  vi  capitulo.  Secundo  loco,  ut  clare  liqueat,  est  attendcndum  quod  hie 
oportet  primo  praemittere  quae  tetigi  in  materia  represaliarum  in  principle, 
scilicet  unde  Ecclesia  habuerit  iurisdictionem,  et  etiam  unde  Imperator,  quae  hie 
non  prsemitto  quia  ibi  plene  tactum  fuit.  Quo  sic  supposito,  oportet  etiam  attrn- 
dere  quod  in  eadem  civitate  sub  eodem  rege  sunt  duo  populi,  et  secundum  duos 
populos  duae  vitae,  et  secundum  duas  vitas  duo  principatus,  et  secundum  dims 
principatus  duplex  iurisdictionis  ordo.  Eadem  civitas  est  ecclesia,  unns  Ke\ 
c-,t  Christus,  duo  populi  sunt  clerici  et  laici,  duae  vitae,  spiritualis  et  carnalis, 
ct  duo  principatus,  Sacerdotium  et  Imperium,  tamen  unum  est  principale, 
scilicet  Pontificatus.  In  quod  fit  alterius  resolutio,  alias  frivole  demonstraret 
Philosophus  xii  Metaphysicorum,  concludens  unitatem  Creatoris,  sic  demon- 
strans  ;  multitude  principatuum,  mala  t-ntia,  volunt  male  disponi,  unus  • 
princeps,  sic  directe  in  proposito,  etiam  quia  in  quolibet  entium  gener 
dare  unum  primum,  quod  sit  metrum  et  mensura  omnium  aliorum,  ut  idem 
Philosophus.  vSic  in  monarchia  tota  est  devenire  ad  primum,  ergo  sic  etiam 
in  naturalibus  est  devenire  ad  primum  movens  immobile,  ut  idem  Philosophus, 
I'hysicorum  vii  et  viii.  Tale  non  potest  esse  Imperium  respectu  Pontificatus. 
Praetermitto  infinita.  Sunt  haec  allegabilia.  Sufficiat  ergo  inferrc  quod  unus 
est  Dominus  orbis,  vii,  q.  i,  in  apibtts  ;  ix,  q.  iii,  citncta  f>cr  munduw,  et  cap. 
per  principalcm;  ff.  Ad.  leg.  Rhod.  de  iact.,  1.  deprccatio.  Et  iste  est  Papa, 
lit  hie  non  solum  super  fideles,  immo  etiam  super  infideles  habet  iurisdictio- 
nem, quod  luce  clarius  demonstrating  nam  Christ  us  super  omnes  habuit  pote- 
statem,  unde  in  Psalmo  :  "  Deus  iudicium  tuum  regi  da."  Si  Christus  habuit , 
non  fuisset  diligens  paterfamilias,  si,  Petro  constitute  vicario  suo,  curam  non 
(limisisset,  quod  ncfas  est  dicere.  Etiam  Petro  tradidit  claves  regni  roelorum, 
dicens,  "  Quodcunque  ligaveris,  etc."  Matthsei  xvi.  Et  alibi,  "  Pasce  oves 
meas,"  lohannis  ultimo.  Sic  igitur  Papa  de  hire  habet  iurisdictionem  super 
infideles,  licet  non  de  facto.  Hinc  est  quod  si  gentilis,  habens  solum  legem 
naturae,  pcccat  contra  legem  naturae,  puniri  possit  per  Papam.  Nam  scribitur 
<n -nesis  xix  cap.  quod  Sodomitae  puniti  sunt  a  Deo,  ergo  ct  Vicarius  Dei  hoc 
poterit.  Idem  etiam  si  colant  idola,  nam  naturale  est  Creatorcm  colere  et  non 
Minis.  Item  etiam  poterit  punirc  ludaeos,  si  faciant  contra  legem  suam 
in  moralibus,  et  non  puniuntur  a  praelatis  suis.  De  christianis  non  est  dubium 
quin  punire  possit,  si  faciant  contra  legem  cvangclii.  Ex  quibus  infertur  quod 
Papa,  tanquam  vcrus  Priixvps,  potest  bellum  indicerc  infidelibus,  et  indul- 
gentias  concedere  propter  recuperationem  terras  sanctae,  et  maxime  terra;  con- 
secratae  nativitate  Christi,  habitatione  ct  morte  eiusdem,  ubi  non  colitur  Chri- 
stus sed  Mahometus.  Item  terra  sancta  victa  fuit  post  mortem  Christi  iusto 
bello  per  Imperatorem  Romanum,  qui  post  spoliatus  fuit  per  infideles.  Idcirco 
licitum  est  Papae  recuperare  ratione  principatus  quem  obtinet.  In  aliis  autem 


QVIBVS   ET  CONTRA   QVOS  93 

terris  quae  non  sunt  consecratae,  nee  Imperium  vel  Ecclesia  habuit  iurisdictio- 
nem,  de  facto  potest  Papa  facere  praeceptum  quod  non  molestent  christianos 
subditos.  Alias  potest  eos  per  sententiam  privare  iurisdictione  sua,  et  per  hoc 
quae,  ut  in  pluribus  tracta  sunt  de  his,  quae  notavit  Innocentius,  De  voto,  quod 
super  his.  Patet  solutio  ad  primo  quaesitum,  scilicet  de  iustitia  belli  indicti  ab 
Ecclesia  contra  infideles,  ex  quo  infertur  iustificatio  belli  indicti  per  Impera- 
torem  contra  hostes. 


Evidentiale.     Et-discutitur  qui  sunt  Imperatores  contra  quos  bellum  [Cap 

indicere  liceat. 

Vbi  sciendum  est  quod  duo  sunt  populi,  scilicet  populus  Rpmanus  et 
extraneus.  De  populo  Romano,  primo  sunt  omnes  qui  in  totum  obediunt 
Imperio  Romano,  nam  populus  accipitur  pro  toto  Imperio,  ut  lex  Romana, 
Ad  municipalem.  Quidam  non  obediunt  in  totum,  sed  in  aliquibus,  ut  quia 
vivunt  legibus  Imperil  et  fatentur  ipsum  dominum  orbis,  ut  sunt  civitates  Lom- 
bardiae,  et  similes,  et  isti  sunt  de  populo  Romano.  Nam  cum  in  aliquibus 
iurisdictionem  exerceat,  ut  1.  si  prius,  De  aqua.  pluv.  arc.  ;  et  ibi  notandum. 
Quidam  sunt  populi  qui  nullo  modo  obediunt  Imperatori,  nee  vivunt  Imperil 
legibus,  sed  dicunt  se  hoc  facere  ex  privilegio,  ut  sunt  Veneti,  quia  asserunt  se 
hoc  facere  ex  privilegio.  Et  isti  etiam  sunt  de  populo  Romano,  qui  praecario 
hoc  tenent  ab  Imperatore,  et  ipse  revocare  potest  quandocunque  voluerit, 
ut  1.  si  quis  in  principio,  ff.  De  legat.,  iii.  Praeterea  illud  privilegium  eis 
concessum  debet  esse  accommodatum  ut  non  priventur  civilitate  Romana,  ff. 
De  captivis,  1.  in  bello,  §  si  quis  servum.  Quidam  sunt  populi  qui  non  obediunt 
Imperatori,  et  asserunt  hoc  sibi  competere  ex  contractu,  ut  sunt  provinciae 
subditse  Romanae  Ecclesiae,  quae  asserunt  sibi  competere  ex  donatione  Con- 
stantini  et  aliorum  Imperatorum,  et  isti  etiam  sunt  de  populo  Romano,  nam 
Ecclesia  ibi  exercet  iurisdictionem  quam  habebat  Imperium,  unde  non  desi- 
nunt  propterea  esse  cives  Romani.  Idem  dico  de  regibus  qui  non  fatentur  se 
subditos  Imperatori,  ut  rex  Franciae,  Angliae,  Hispaniae,  et  similes,  qui  asse- 
runt hoc  sibi  competere  ex  privilegio  vel  praescriptione.  Et  per  hoc  infero 
quod  omnes  gentes  fere  quae  obediunt  sanctae  matri  Ecclesias  sunt  de  populo 
Romano,  et  si  quis  diceret  Imperatorem  non  esse  dominum,  diceret  contra 
textum  Evangelii,  cum  dicitur  "  exiit  edictum  a  Caesare  Augusto,  etc." 
Populi  autem  extranei  sunt  qui  non  fatentur  Imperatorem  dominum,  ut 
Graeci,  qui  dicunt  suum  Imperatorem  esse  Dominum.  Item  Tartari,  qui 
dicunt  Grancanem  esse  dominum,  et  Saraceni  qui  dicunt  suum  esse  dominum. 
Inter  istos  tamen  est  differentia,  nam  quidam  sunt  nobis  foederati,  ut  Grseci 
contra  Turcos,  quidam  cum  quibus  habemus  pacem,  ut  sunt  Tartari,  nam 
mercatores  nostri  vadunt  ad  illos  et  sui  ad  nos,  quidam  sunt  cum  quibus  nihil 
facere  habemus  ut  ludasi,  quidam  sunt  cum  quibus  habemus  guerram  actualem 
ut  sunt  Saraceni,  et  hodie,  cum  Turcis.  Infertur  ergo  quod,  cum  Imperator 
sit  princeps  saecularis,  superiorem  non  habens  in  saecularibus,  nisi  forte,  ut 


94  DE  IVRE  BELLI 

dixi,  quod  ipse  potest  indicere  bellum  contra  hostes  sues,  et  qui  sint,  post 
statim  patuit.  Et  hoc  est  bellum  de  quo  loquitur  lex  hostes,  ft.  De  captivis  ; 
et  De  verbor.  significatione.  Et  in  hoc  vindicat  sibi  locum  bellum,  ergo  indi- 
citur  a  populo  Romano  vel  Imperatore,  adeo  quod,  si  Imperator  indicat 
bellum  aliquibus  civitatibus  Italiae  rebellibus,  vindicat  sibi  locum  effectus  pub- 
lici  belli,  quia  idem  si  repugnetur  Officiali  Imperatoris,  vel  Papa,  non  propter 
Imperatorem  vel  Papam. 


(C*p.»iT.i  An  aliis  a  principe  bellum  indicere  liceat  universale? 

Et  qusero  numquid  ah'is  a  principe  liceat  bellum  indicere  universale. 
Solutio.  Non  licet  sine  principis  auctoritate,  nam  nemini  sine  principis 
licentia  licet  anna  portare,  C.  Vt  usus  armorum,  in  rubro  ;  et  glossa  in 
Authent.,  De  mand.  princ.,  coll.  iii ;  in  Authent.,  De  armis,  coll.  vi.  Et  est 
ratio,  nam  nemini  sine  principis  licentia  licet  violare  iura  principum.  lus 
autem  violat  qui,  sine  iuris  sollemnitate  manu  regia,  ius  sibi  dicit,  ubi  habeatur 
copia  ius  dicentis,  idcirco  sine  eius  auctoritate  non  licet.  Soli  ergo  Principi 
competit  sua  auctoritate,  cum  non  habeat  superiorem,  ad  quern  recurrat  pro 
iustitia  consequenda.  Hodie  tamen  quia  sunt  populi  non  recognoscentes 
superiorem  de  facto,  non  requiritur  superioris  auctoritas,  cum  non  recogno- 
scant.  Immo  tota  die  bella  indicuntur  a  populo  contra  populum,  nullo  alio 
requisito. 


[c»p.ir.]          An  bellum  motum  per  Imperatorem  contra  Ecclesiam  sit  iustum,  et  an 

teneantur  subditi  ei  in  hoc  obtemperare  ? 

Secundo  quaeritur  numquid  bellum  quod  movet  Imperator  contra  Eccle- 
siam sit  iustum,  et  teneantur  subditi  ei  in  hoc  obtemperare.  Videtur  quod  sic 
quia  sit  principis  auctoritate  vel  mandato,  ergo,  etc.  Etiam,  quia  duae  sunt 
iurisdictiones,  De  iudiciis,  novit ;  Qui  filii  sint  legitimi,  causam,  et  cap.  per 
venerabiUm  ;  De  appell.,  si  duobus.  Etiam  quia  in  pertinentibus  ad  armorum 
usum  subditi  tenentur  obedire  Imperatori,  etiam  schismatico,  [i]  xi,  q.  iii,  [lulii] 
lulianus.  Solutio,  contrarium  est  verum,  nam  Imperator  est  advocatus  Eccle- 
siae,  et  tenetur  earn  defendere,  idcirco  non  potest  earn  impugnare,  De  natis  ex 
libero  ventre,  cap.  unico  ;  De  restit.  spol.,  conquerente.  Immo  indicendo  bellum 
contra  Ecclesiam  meretur  perdere  privilegium  indicendi  bellum,  cum  illo 
abutatur,  xi,  q.  iii,  privilegium  ;  De  decimis,  suggestum  ;  ut  puniatur  in  quo 
deliquit,  DC  translatione,  quanta,  §  tie  autem.  Immo  talis  pertinacia  in 
Principe  non  distal  ab  haeresi,  De  haereticis,  excomtnunicamus,  i,  §  i ;  et  ibi 
notandum.  Etiam  quia  Papa  superior  est,  nam  examinat  Imperatorcm  ipsum, 
reprobat  et  deponit,  De  elect.,  vcncrabilem  ;  De  re  iudic.,  ad  apostolka,  lib.  vi. 
In  hoc  igitur  casu  non  tenentur  subditi  iuvare  Imperatorem  contra  Ecclesiam, 
imino  econtra.  Et  potest  Papa  absolvere  cos  a  vinculo  fidelitatis,  xv,  q.  vi, 


DE   AGGREGANTIBVS   BELLVM  95 

nos  sanctorum,  et  cap.  iuralos  ;  et  nota  De  haereticis,  excommunicamus  ;  i,  De 
poenis,  cap.  ult.  ;  Et  de  hoc  per  Hostiensem,  De  resti.  spoliatorum,  olim. 


Quid  iuris,  cum  Papa  movet  bellum  contra  Imperatorem  ?  (Cap.  «vi.i 

Quarto  quaeritur  quid  econtra  si  Papa  indicat  bellura  contra  Impera- 
torem ?  Solutio  patet  per  praecedentia,  nam  si  Papa  indicat  bellura  contra 
Imperatorem  schismaticum,  haereticum,  vel  alias  usurpantem  iura  et  liber- 
tates  ecclesiarum,  omnes  fideles  tenentur  iuvare  Papam,  et  etiam  vassalli 
Imperatoris  possunt  absolvi  a  iuramento  quo  tenentur,  vel  declarari  non 
teneri,  ut  cap.  iuratos,  et  cap.  nos  sanctorum,  xv,  q.  vi. 


De  aggreganlibus  bellum,  et  ipsum  perficientibus.  [Cap.  xvii] 

Tertio  restat  videndum  de  aggregantibus  bellum,  et  ipsum  perficientibus, 
et  quas  etiam  in  ipso  fieri  debeant. 


De  legione  et  cohorts,  et  qui  et  quot  numero  in  eis  requiruntur. 

In  bello  sunt  legio,  et  habet  vii  millia  c  pedites,  et  septingentos  xix  equites, 
sunt  cohortes,  et  quaelibet  cohors  xx  alas.  Milliaria  habet  pedites  mille  cv, 
equites  cxxxv.  Quinquagenaria  habet  quingentos  quinquaginta  quinque  pedi- 
tes, et  equites  Ixvi.  Ita  notat  glossa,  ff.  De  his  qui  not.  infam.,  1.  ii.  Haec 
igitur  et  dux  et  ordo  faciunt  bellum,  sumendo  bellum  pro  multitudine  apta 
et  ad  bellandum  praeparata,  non  autem  pro  actu  bellandi.  Duo  tamen  princi- 
paliter  fundant  bellum,  scilicet  arma  et  vires.  Haec  dividuntur  in  tres  partes, 
equites,  pedites,  et  classes.  Nam  equitibus  campi,  classibus  maria  et  flumina 
peditibus  colles,  urbes,  plana  abrupta,  servantur.  Hinc  infertur  quod  pedites 
magis  sunt  necessarii  reipublicae  quam  equites,  quia  possunt  undique  prodesse. 


Qualiter  milites  se  debeant  habere  in  bello,  et  cui  obediant,  et  a  quibus        [C 

abstinere  preecipiuntur  ? 

Milites  autem  in  bello  sic  se  habere  debent,  ut  servent  iuramentum  quod 
praestiterunt,  nam  iuraverunt  se  strenue  omnia  facturos  quae  praeceperit  Impe- 
rator  et  nunquam  deserturos  militiam  nee  mortem  recusaturos  pro  defensa 
reipublicae,  ut  ff.  Ex  qui.  caus.  maiores,  1.  paen.  ;  et  C.  De  his  qui  non  implet. 
stipend.,  1.  i,  lib.  x.  Eorum  ducibus  debent  obedire,  ut  1.  cottatores,  in  prin- 
cipio.  Nam  cum  a  Kepublica  amantur  et  aluntur,  solis  debent  insistere  utili- 
tatibus  publicis,  et  esse  in  numero  militiae,  ut  armorum  quotidiano  exercitio 
ad  bella  se  praeparent,  ut  1.  milites,  C.  De  re  militari.  Et  sic  debent  ducibus 


96  DE  IVRE  BELLI 

obtemperare  quod,  si  contra  praeceptum  eorum  aliquid  fecerint,  etiam  bene, 
nihilominus  capita  puniuntur,  fi.  De  re  milit.,  1.  desertorem,  §  in  bello.  Absti- 
nere  debent  ab  agrorum  cultura,  animalium  custodia,  mercimoniorum  quaestu. 
Aliena  non  peragant  negotia,  ad  civiles  curas  non  accedant,  alioquin  militia 
et  eius  privilegiis  nudabuntur,  C.  De  re  milit.,  1.  nemo  milites,  et  1.  qui  mill- 
tares  ;  C.  De  locat.  ct  cond.,  1.  milites ;  C.  De  procur.,  1.  militem.  Non 
emant  praedia  ubi  militant,  et  tempore  quo  militant,  etiam  nee  alieno  nomine, 
alioquin  fisco  vindicantur.  Si  tamen  ante  missionem  non  molestantur,  post 
non  inquietabuntur.  Fallit  ilia  regula  ubi  fiscus  distrahat  eorum  bona  paterna, 
et  ubi  ex  haereditate  quaerunt.  Hoc  autem  inductum  est  ne  studio  culturae  a 
militia  avocentur.  Haec  habentur  £f.  De  re  milit.,  1.  milites. 


[c*p.*ii.  QUee  pertineant  ad  qfficium  duds  belli? 

Ad  ducem  autem  belli  pertinet  militibus  parcissime  commeatum  dare, 
equos  militares  extra  provinciam  duci  non  permittere,  milites  in  castris  reti- 
nere,  ad  armorum  exercitationem  producere,  ad  opus  privatum,  piscatum, 
venatum,  non  mittere,  claves  portarum  suscipere,  vigilias  circumire,  frumen- 
tationibus  commilitonum  interesse,  frumentum  probare,  mensurae  fraudem 
coercere,  delicta  castigare,  querelas  commilitonum  audire,  valetudinarios  in- 
spicere.  Haec  habentur  in  1.  officium,  &.  De  re  militari.  Ad  eius  etiam  perti- 
net officium  in  virentes  fluminis  ripas  legionem  ponere,  et  ut  nullus  omnino 
aquam  fluminis  polluat,  neve  abluendo  equorum  sudorem  publicos  oculos 
maculet,  sed  procul  in  inferioribus  partibus  fluminis  id  facere  permittat.  Haec 
habentur  C.  De  re  milit.,  1.  ingentis.  Ad  ipsius  etiam  officium  pertinet  castra 
ponere  ubilignorum,  pabuli,  aquae  copia  habetur,  et,  ut  diutius  commorandum 
sit,  loci  salubritas  eligatur,  ne  mari  sit  vicinus,  aut  altior  locus  qui  ab  advtr?a- 
riis  captus  possit  efficere.  Considerandum  etiam  ne  torrentibus  inundari  con- 
sueverit  campus.  Haec  Vegetius,  De  re  milit.,  lib.  i,  cap.  xx.  Ad  eius  etiam 
officium  pertinet  secundum  numerum  militum  munire  castra,  ne  maior  multi- 
tude constipetur,  neve  paucitas  in  latioribus  ultra  quam  oportet  cogatur 
extendi.  Ad  bonum  etiam  ducem  pertinet  locum  in  quo  dimicandum  rst 
noscere,  qui  quanto  superior  fuerit  utilior  iudicatur.  Quod  si  victoriam  de 
peditibus  sperat  contra  milites  hostium,  loca  inaequalia,  aspera,  montuosa  debet 
eligere,  si  autem  econtra,  loca  plana,  patentia,  neque  silvis  neque  paludibus 
impedita.  Haec  Vegetius  lib.  iii,  cap.  xiii,  De  re  militari.  Ad  officium  ducis 
pertinet  de  contractibus  et  delictis  militum  cognoscere,  quod  etiam  pertinet 
ad  specialem  magistrum  militum,  ut  1.  magistcriie,  C.  De  iurisd.  omn.  iudic.  ; 
et  1.  tarn  cottatores,  C.  De  re  militari. 


DE   FORTITVDTNE  97 

Qualiter  varie  puniuntur  milites  prout  varie  delinquent  ?  [Cap, 

Varie  autem  puniuntur  milites  ut  varie  delinquunt.  Nam  aut  commit- 
tunt  delicta  propria  aut  communia.  Et  in  propriis  puniuntur  pcena  militari, 
et  augetur  poena  gradu  saepe  militiae,  ut  1.  ii,  if.  De  re  militari.  Punitiones 
autem  sunt  pecuniaria  castigatio,  munerum  interdictio,  ignominiosa  de  exer- 
citu  missio,  gradus  deiectio.  In  metallum  autem,  vel  opus  metalli,  non  depu- 
tantur,  sed  decapitantur,  non  enim  pro  milite  sed  pro  hoste  reputatur,  ff.  De 
re  milit.,  1.  iii,  §  i  et  §  is  qui,  et  1.  proditores.  Capite  autem  puniuntur  qui 
praeposito  manus  intulerint,  qui  inobedientes  fuerint,  qui  spectantibus  ceteris 
prior  fugam  arripuerit,  exploratores  qui  secreta  nuntiant  hostibus,  caligatus 
qui  metu  hostium  infirmitatem  simulavit,  qui  commilitonem  gladio  vulneravit, 
qui  sine  causa  se  vulneravit,  vel  mortem  sibi  conscivit.  Secus  si'vitae  taedio, 
vel  doloris  impatientia,  nam  tales  infamia  notantur,  per  vinum  autem  vel 
lasciviam  lapsis  militia  mutatur.  Qui  non  defendit  praepositum  suum,  cum 
potuit,  capite  punitur.  Ei  qui  non  potuit  parcitur.  Haec  habentur  ff.  De  re 
milit.,  1.  omne  delictum,  et  1.  iii,  §  fin.  Item  qui  explorationi  obviavit,  hosti- 
bus insistentibus,  aut  qui  de  fossato  recedit,  capite  punitur,  etiam  si  rem  bene 
gesserit,  ff.  De  re  milit.,  1.  iii.  Item  miles  turbator  pacis  capite  punitur,  ff. 
De  re  milit.,  1.  iii.  Item  si  concitavit  atrocem  seditionem.  Desertor  tempore 
belli  capite  punitur,  tempore  pacis  equitis  gradu  repellitur,  pedes  militiam 
mutat,  ff.  De  re  milit.,  1.  non  omnes.  Non  omnes  tamen  desertores  puniendi 
sunt  aequaliter,  sed  haberi  debet  ratio  gradus,  ordinis,  stipendiorum,  et  alia- 
rum  circumstantiarum.  Qui  excessit  spatium  commeatus,  ut  emansor  vel 
deserter  reputatur.  Habetur  tamen  ratio  dierum  quibus  tardius  vel  citius 
rediit,  vel  si  impediment©  aliquo  detentus,  ff.  De  re  milit.,  1.  iii,  §  fin.,  et  1.  qui 
commeatus,  et  1.  non  omnes.  Habetur  etiam  ratio  ante  actae  vitae.  Emansor 
est  qui  diu  vagatus  a  castris  ad  ipsa  rediit,  desertor  qui  per  prolixum  tempus 
vagatus  ad  castra  reducitur,  ut  1.  iii,  §  emansor,  ff.  eod.  titulo.  Desertor,  si  in 
urbe  inveniatur,  capite  punitur,  alibi  si  ex  prima  desertione  captus  iterate 
deserat,  capite  punitur,  ff.  eod.  tit.,  1.  non  omnes.  Desertorum  defunctorum 
bona  confiscantur,  C.  De  re  milit.,  1.  iv. 

De  fortitudine,  et  ipsius  natura,  et  qua  fortitude  dicaiur  moralis,  et  qua  non,  [Cap. 
et  qua  fortitude  bellum  ducat  ad  finem  rectum,  et  quce  non. 

Sed  quia  dictum  est  quod  fortitude  et  arma  fundant  bellum  principaliter, 
et  quia  in  iure  non  discutitur  natura  fortitudinis  explicite,  expedit  quod  ipsius 
natura  aliqualiter  explicetur.  Et  quaero  primo  an  fortitude  sit  virtus  moralis, 
et  apparet  quod  non.  Nam  fortitude  est  dispositio  corporalis,  ut  1.  i,  C.  De 
athletis,  lib.  xi ;  ff.  De  his  qui  not.  infam.,  1.  athletes  ;  ff.  Ad  leg.  Aquil.,  1.  qua 
actione,  §  si  quis  in  colluctatione ;  De  pugn.  in  duello,  per  totum ;  C.  De  gladia- 
toribus,  1.  una  ;  De  torneamentis,  per  totum.  Ergo  non  est  virtus  moralis, 
cum  dispositio  corporalis  differat  ab  habitu  seu  dispositione  animae,  et  ipsa 
sit  inferior  gradu,  De  pcen.  et  rem.,  cum  infirmitas  ;  xii,  q.  i,  pracipimus  ;  xxiv, 


98  DE  IVRE  BELLI 

q.  iii,  s»  habes  :   C.  De  sacrosanctis  eccles.,  1.  sancimus.     Sorunclo  sir.  Omnis 
virtus  raoralis  est  conicctatrix  in  passionibus  ct  opcrationibus,  ut  probat  Philo- 
sophus,  ii  Ethicorum.     Sod  fortitude  cst  coniectatrix  in  mcclio,  ut  idem  Philo- 
sophus, iii  Ethicorum.     Tertio  sic.  Quod  non  est  una  virtus,  non  est  virtus, 
immo  virtutes,  quia  pluralis  locutio  ad  minus  duorum  numero  cst  contenta, 
ff.  De  testi.,  1.  ubi  nunterus  ;  causa  iv,  q.  iii,  ubi  numerus  ;  et  regula  pluralis, 
De  reg.  iur.,  lib.  vi.     Et  confirmatur  per  dictum  Philosophum,  primo  Elen- 
chorum,  nam  eadem  est  definitio  praepositionis  et  unius  praepositionis,  sed 
fortitude  non  est  una  virtus.     Probatur  haec  minor.     Nam  una  virtus  opponi- 
tur  duobus  vitiis  extremis,  ut  xli  di.,  sape  ;  De  consuetudine,  ex  parte.     Sed 
fortitudini  opponuntur  quatuor  extrema,  scilicet  intimiditas  et  timiditas,  timor 
et  audacia,  et  defectus  in  audendo,  qui  est  innominatus,  ut  probat  textus  iii 
Ethicorum.     Oppositum  probat  Philosophus,  iii  Ethicorum.     Pro  solutione 
quaestionis  est  advertendum  quod  fortitude  sumitur  aequivoce  pro  fortitudine, 
quae  idem  est  quod  robur  corporis,  et  fortitudine,  quae  est  virtus  moralis. 
Prima  est  potentia  qua  quis  potest  movere,  ut  probat  Philosophus,  primo 
Rhetoricorum,  et  utraque  requiritur  in  bello,  et  sic  sumpta  fuit  generaliter, 
cum  dixi  quod  fortitude,  seu  vires  et  arma,  fundant  bellum,  cum  utraque 
requiratur.     Sed  de  prima,  quae  est  robur  corporis,  non  est  dubium  quod  non 
est  virtus  moralis,  per  supra  allegata,  sed  de  secunda  procedit  quaestio,  et  ilia 
est  virtus  secundum  quam  nos  bene  habemus  circa  timorem  et  audaciam  in 
bellicis  pericuh's.     Et  de  ista  prosequamur,  quia  prima  est  plana  lippis  et  ton- 
soribus.     Pro  intellectu  autem  fortitudinis  animae,  est  attendendum  quod  in 
audendo  et  timendo  contingit  excedere  et  deficere,  et  utrobique  male  agere. 
Contingit  et  medie  se  habere,  et  sic  virtuose.    Differt  tamen  audacia  a  timore, 
nam  audacia  est  passio  appetitus  irascibilis,  secundum  quern  inclinamur  ad 
aggrediendum  terribilia.     Timor  inclinat  ad  fugiendum,  ut  quilibet  experitur 
in  seipso,  sed  utrumque  contingit  bene  agere  et  male,  nam  si  quis  videret  x 
armatos  et  solus  aggrediretur  eos,  male  ageret,  et  si  non  fugeret  male  agori-t, 
et  sic  male,  circa  aggressuram,  et  male,  circa  timorem.     Sic  etiam  in  timendo 
(juis  excedere  potest,  ut  ecce  si  sunt  centum  homines  in  castro,  et  non  videant 
nisi  centum,  si  fugiant,  male  agunt.     Sic  etiam  non  aggrediendo,  ut  si  viderint 
spoliari  civitatem,  si  non  aggrediantur,  male  agunt.     Sic  vides  excessum  in 
non  timendo  cum  expedit,  in  timendo  cum  non  expedit,  in  aggrediendo  cum 
non  expedit,  et  non  aggrediendo  cum  expedit,  et  sic  habes  vitia  extrema,  auda- 
<i;im  et  timorem,  et  utrobique  gradum  ut  supra.     Vlterius  est  notandum  quod 
ubicunque  est  reperire  CXO-.-MIIU  extn-morum  vitiosum  et  vituperabilem,  ibi 
•  -t  reperire  medium  bonum  et  laudabilem,  quia  si  totum  esset  malum  et  vitu- 
perabilem, non  posset  dici  quod  defectus  est  vituperabilis,  nam  defectus  dice- 
ictur  defectus  mali,  et  sic  non  foret  malum.     Expedit  igitur  quod  in  medio 
sit  bonum  cuius  respectu  unum  dicatur  malum  excedendo,  aliud  deficiendo. 
Ex  his  inferuntur  duae  conclusiones  pro  solutione  quaestionis.     Prima,  quod 
fortitudo  animae  est  virtus  moralis.     Secunda,  quod  est  una  virtus.     Probatur 
prima,  nam  omnis  habitus  electivus  medii  laudabilis  est  virtus  moralis.     Fmti- 


DE  FORTITVDINE 


99 


tudo  est  huiusmodi,  ergo  probatur  maior  per  locum  a  definitione,  quae  argu- 
mentatio  est  valida  in  iure,  ff.  De  reg.  iur.,  1.  omnis  definitio  ;  ff.  Depositi, 
1.  i  in  prin.,  et  1.  bona  fides,  eod.  titulo.  Sic  autem  definit  Philosophus  virtutem 
moralem,  ii  Ethicorum.  Probatur  minor,  nam  fortitude  est  habitus  electivus 
medii  circa  timorem  et  audaciam,  ut  probat  idem  Philosophus,  iv  Ethicorum. 
Confirmatur.  Ilia  est  virtus  moralis  quae  generatur  in  nobis  ex  more,  id  est 
consuetudine,  et  hinc  appellatur  moralis.  Fortitudo  est  huiusmodi,  ergo  pro- 
batur maior  per  locum  a  causa  formali,  quae  argumentatio  est  valida  in  iure, 
ff.  Ad  leg.  Falc.,  1.  si  is  qui  quadringenta ,  §  qucedam;  ff.  Locatim,  1.  rei, 
§  opere  ;  ff.  De  verborum  sign.,  1.  czdificia,  §  perfecisse,  et  1.  qua  forma®,  eod. 
tit.  ;  i,  q.  i,  detrahe  ;  De  bapt.,  debitum.  Probatur  minor.  Nam,  in  actu 
bellico  propter  pericula,  appetitus  sensitivus  inclinat  hominem  ad/fugam,  ut 
dicit  Philosophus,  ubi  in  bellicis  vindicat  sibi  locum  ira,  quae  est  impetuosa  et 
sic  nos  inclinat  ad  extrema  vitiosa.  Virtus  autem,  quae  est  promptitudo  appe- 
titus rationalis,  inclinat  ad  medium,  et  ilia  promptitudo  generatur  ex  actibus 
iteratis,  alias  non  delectabiliter  operaremur,  et  sic  non  esset  virtus,  cum  in 
virtuoso  nulla  debeat  esse  appetituum  repugnantia,  ut  idem  Philosophus,  ii 
Ethicorum.  Et  sic  patet  prima  conclusio,  videlicet  quod  est  virtus  moralis. 
Secunda  conclusio  est  quod  est  una  virtus.  Quidam  hoc  sic  probant,  timor  et 
audacia  sunt  passiones  contrariae,  fortitude  est  virtus  media,  ergo  est  tantum 
una.  Consequentia  probatur.  Nam  unumquodque  agens,  intendens  ad  aug- 
mentum  unius  contrariorum,  tendit  ad  remissionem  alterius.  Et  sic  virtus 
mjnuens  timorem  auget  contrarium,  et  econtra.  Confirmatur.  Virtutes 
morales  fortificantur  a  fine,  sed  unicus  est  finis,  ergo  unica  est  virtus.  Primum 
patet  per  locum  a  causa  finali,  quod  est  validum  argumentum  in  iure,  1.  unius, 
§  si  senus,  ff.  De  quaestionibus,  1.  ult.  ;  ff.  De  decur.,  1.  generaliter  ;  C.  De 
episc.  et  cleric.  ;  causa  xvi,  q.  i ;  et  cap.  cum  cessante,  De  appell.  ;  et  cap.  etsi 
Christus,  De  iureiurando.  Patet  secundum.  Nam  finis  fortitudinis  in  belli- 
cis est  bonum  commune.  Et  si  aliquis  bellat  propter  lucrum,  non  est  fortis, 
immo  avarus.  Alii  dicunt  aliter,  videlicet  quod  timor  et  audacia  non  sunt 
passiones  contrariae.  Hoc  probant  sic.  Timor  et  audacia  se  compatiuntur 
in  eodem  respectu  eiusdem,  ergo  non  sunt  contraria.  Tenet  consequentia,  quia, 
posito  uno  contrariorum,  removetur  reliquum,  ff.  De  instit.,  1.  sed  si  pupillus, 
§  si  institoria  ;  ff.  De  reg.  iur.,  1.  ius  nostrum  ;  1.  hac  verba,  De  verb.  sig.  ;  in 
Authent.,  De  mand.  princ.,  coll.  iii ;  xxxii  di.,  hospiliolum,  cum  similibus. 
Primum  patet.  Nam  quis  propter  bonum  honestum  vult  bellare,  sed  timet 
propter  Deum,  etiam  quis  aggreditur,  et  sic  audacia,  et  tamen  timet  ne  laeda- 
tur,  et  sic  timor.  Ista  opinio  est  contra  textum  Philosophi,  ii  Rhetoricorum, 
nee  valet  ipsorum  ratio,  nam  delectatio  et  tristitia  secundum  omnes  sunt  con- 
traria, et  tamen  idem  delectari  potest  et  tristari  circa  eundem  actum.  Tolle 
in  adulterio  delectatur  quis  propter  sensualitatem,  sed  tristatur  propter  in- 
honestatem.  Sic  de  proiciente  merces  in  mari  propter  tempestatem,  sic  in 
proposito  quis  timet  propter  malum  praesens,  audet  propter  spem.  Prima 
igitur  opinio  verior,  unde  Albertus  tenet  quod  licet  sint  quatuor  extrema,  ut 
[5] 


ioo  DE  IVRE  BELLI 

supra,  tamen  non  sunt  nisi  duplicis  mods.  Nam  quicunque  inclinatur  ad  bene 
audendum  non  timet,  et  quicunque  non  inclinatur  ad  bene  timendum  non 
audet,  et  sic  infert  unicam  virtutem.  Alii  dicunt  quod  non  sunt  nisi  duo 
extrema,  nam  si  aliquis  nihil  timet,  nimis  audet,  et  sic  timor  et  audacia  sic 
faciunt  unum  extremum.  Sufficiat  ex  praedictis  concludere  quod  fortitude, 
quae  est  unum  principale  fundans  bellum,  ut  sumitur  pro  corporis  robore,  non 
est  virtus  moralis,  sed,  ut  sumitur  pro  virtute  animae,  est  virtus  moralis,  et 
una,  et  haec  est  ilia  quae  bellum  ad  finem  rectum  perducit. 


x»n.)  An  fortitude  sit  virtus  cardinalis. 

Visum  est  de  fortitudine  quae  fundat  bellum  principaliter,  quae  est  virtus 
moralis  et  una.  Sed  quia  hunc  tractatum  dirigo  ad  Cardinalem,  quaero  utrum 
haec  sit  cardinalis.  Apparet  quod  non,  nam  magnanimitas  non  est  virtus  cardi- 
nalis, ergo  nee  fortitude.  Tenet  consequentia  per  locum  a  maiori,  qui  est 
validus  in  iure,  ut  1.  i,  C.  De  neg.  gest. ;  ff .  De  senatoribus,  1.  qui  indignus  ; 
C.  De  sacrosanctis  eccles.,  Authent.,  multo  magis  ;  ff.  Sol.  matrim.,  1.  ex  diverse, 
§i;  C.  Deepi.  et  cle.,  1.  si  qua  per  calumniam;  xxxii,  q.  v,  si  Paulus  ;  viii,  q.  i, 
si  ergo  ;  vi,  q.  i,  imitare  ;  xl  di.,  qucelibet ;  De  elect.,  cum  in  cunctis.  Sed  magis 
videtur  inesse  quod  magnanimitas  sit  virtus  moralis  quam  fortitude,  quia  nobi- 
lior  et  maior,  ut  dicit  Philosophus  in  Ethicis,  tractatu  de  magnanimitate. 
Patet  primum,  videlicet,  quod  magnanimitas  non  sit  cardinalis,  quia  tune 
cardinales  forent  plures  quatuor.  Solutio  sic.  Tota  humana  conversatio 
non  versatur  circa  fortitudinem,  ut  cardinem,  ergo  non  est  cardinalis,  quia 
inde  cardinalis  nuncupatur.  Tenet  consequentia  per  locum  ab  etymologia,  qui 
est  validus  in  iure,  ff.  De  rebus  creditis,  1.  ii,  §  appellata ;  in  procemio  ff.,  §  disci- 
puli;  C.  De  episc.  et  cler.,  1.  decernimus;  ff.  De  verb,  sig.,  1.  tugurii,  1.  lugu- 
riumm,  eod.  tit. ;  ff.  De  legatis  iii,  1.  librorum,  §  quod  si  papyrus  ;  xxi  di.,  cleros  ; 
xvi,  q.  i,  si  cupis ;  et  cap.  cum  secundum,  De  praebendis.  Patet  primum.  Nam 
fortitude  versatur  solum  circa  pericula  bellica,  sed  pauci  ducunt  vitam  suam 
cum  bellicis  periculis.  Ergo.  In  contrarium  apparet  auctoritate  communiter 
loquentium,  qui  istam  ponunt  in  numero  cardinalium,  inter  quos  est  Seneca, 
qui  fecit  tractatum  specialem,  et  Tullius  in  Rhetoricis  dividebat  virtutem  in 
has  quatuor,  ut  cardinales.  Et  haec  argumentatio  ab  auctoritate  est  valida  in 
iure,  C.  De  sum.  trinit.  et  fid.  cathol.,  Epistola,  inter  claras  ;  C.  De  bonis  quae 
liber.,  1.  cum  mult  a  ;  ff.  De  rer.  div.,  1.  in  tantum,  §  cenotaphium. 


ic«p.  i.iii.j  Vnde  et  qualiter  quatuor  principales  virtutes  dicantur  cardinales  ? 

Pro  evidentia  et  solutione  quaestionis,  primo  est  videndum  unde  et  qualiter 

virtutes  dicantur  cardinales.     Vbi  sciendum  quod,  secundum  Albertum,  quod, 

it  cardines  call  sunt  poli  antarcticus  et  arcticus,  super  quibus  movetur 


DE  FORTITVDINE  101 

coelum,  et  car  dines  ostiorum  et  portanim  super  quibus  revolvuntur,  sic,  a 
simili,  virtutes  illae  dicuntur  cardinales,  super  quibus  versatur  tota  conversatio 
humana,  et  quas  si  quis  habet,  dicitur  simpliciter  bonus,  et  sine  ipsis,  non.  Sic 
etiam  domini  Cardinales  inde,  iudicio  meo,  nomen  sumpserunt,  nam  ipsi  sunt 
mundi  cardines,  super  quibus  tota  mundi  gubernatio  revolvitur  et  fingitur,  et 
ad  ipsos  spectat  sustentare  totum  pondus  mobilis  gubernationis,  et  motui  ipsius 
fixum  praestare  fomentum.  Duobus  polis  numero  contenta  est  ccelestis  natura, 
et  sufficiunt,  stabiles  sunt,  et  immobiles  firmant  ordinem  motus,  non  deviant 
a  loco  fixionis  humani  generis.  Monastica  gubernatio  quatuor  cardinibus 
fuit  contenta,  et  sufficit.  Si  inde  unde  numerus,  unde  varietas,  unde  infirmitas, 
unde  tanta  a  centro  distantia,  attenta  causa,  non  est  nomen  arbitrii,  tamen 
libertas  causa?  posset  fingere  modum.  Sed  quia  de  cardinalatu  dixHn  tractatu 
De  Ecclesiastica  Censura,  nunc  pertranseo,  sed  redeo  ut  discutiam  principale 
propositum.  Et  quia  iure,  ut  dixi,  non  bene  ad  plenum  explicatur  natura  vir- 
tutum  moralium  cardinab'um,  aliquantulum  et  succincte,  propter  fortitudinem 
explicandam,  de  ea  tractabo. 


Quid  sit  virtus  ? 

Sciendum  est  quod,  ut  dicit  Philosophus,  virtus  est  habitus  electivus,  et 
ut  idem  Philosophus  assent,  ii  Rhetoricae,  omne  quod  est  cadit  sub  electione, 
sed  eligibile  est  triplex. 


De  Iriplici  specie  boni,  et  qualiter  virtutes  cardinales  a  bono  eliciuntur.  (Cap 

Bonum  utile,  bonum  delectabile,  et  bonum  honestum,  et  ista  bona  sunt 
per  electionem  appetibilia  et  fugibilia,  et  omnes  virtutes  morales  circa  ista  tria 
versantur.  Explicemus  unumquodque.  Et  primo  bonum  utile,  circa  quod 
versatur  virtus  altero  de  tribus  modis,  aut  expendendo,  aut  accipiendo,  aut 
conservando.  Plures  actus  electivos  non  experitur  homo  in  seipso,  et  ista 
deductio  ab  experientia  est  valida  in  iure,  ut  probatur  in  proremio  ff.,  circa 
princ.  ;  in  Authent.,  De  monachis,  circa  fin.  col.  i ;  ff.  De  legat.  iii,  1.  si  chorus, 
§  his  verbis  ;  C.  De  vet.  iure  enucl.,  1.  ii,  §  qua  omnia  ;  De  elec.,  quam  sit,  Lib. 
VI.  Si  expendendo,  hoc  contingit  dupliciter,  aut  enim  expendit  sua  aut  aliena. 
Si  expendit  sua,  tune  circa  ista  expendendo  versatur  virtus  liberalitatis  et  mag- 
nificentiae,  et  vitia  opposita,  scilicet,  avaritia  et  prodigalitas,  parvicentia  et 
vannasia.  Si  autem  non  sint  stfa,  tune  potest  distribuere  illis  quorum  sunt,  et 
tune  est  iustitia,  ut  ff.  De  iust.  et  iur.,  1.  iustitia  ;  et  Instit.,  eod.  tit.,  §  iustitia  ; 
xii,  q.  ii,  cum  devotissimam  ;  aut  distribuit  illis  quorum  non  sunt,  et  tune  est 
iniustitia,  ut  iuribus  statim  allegatis,  a  contrario,  quod  est  validum  argumen- 
tum,  ut  1.  i,  §  huius  rei,  ff.  De  offi.  eius  cui  mand.  esf  iurisdictio  ;  1.  si  per  pro- 
curatorem,  §  ignorantes,  ff.  Mand.;  et  cap.  cum  a-postolica,  De^his  quae  fi.  a 
prselat.  ;  et  cap.  cum  virum,  De  conversione  coniugatorum.  In  non  reddendo 


102  DE  IVRE  BELLI 

his  quorum  sunt,  homo  dicitur  simpliciter  malus.  xiv,  q.  vi,  si  res  ;  De  usuris, 
cum  tu  ;  fi.  De  usurp.,  1.  sequitur,  §  [cum]  quod  autem.  Patet  quod  iustitia  est 
cardinalis,  quia  non  habendo  ipsam  circa  distributionem  eorum  quae  sua  non 
sunt,  homo  est  simpliciter  malus,  sed  liberalitas  et  magnificentia,  quae  consistunt 
circa  distributionem  eorum  quae  sua  sunt,  non  sunt  cardinales,  quia  quis  male 
distribuendo  sua,  non  est  simpliciter  malus,  sed  bene  diceretur  fatuus,  et  sic 
habes  unam  cardinalem,  scilicet,  iustitiam,  circa  expeditionem  utilis  boni.  Si 
autem  virtus  moralis  versetur  circa  bonum  utile  in  accipiendo,  hoc  contingit 
dupliciter.  Nam  aut  accipit  quae  sua  sunt,  vel  debita,  aut  aliena,  et  sibi  non 
debita.  Si  sua,  vel  sibi  debita,  et  a  quibus  non  debet,  peccat  contra  liberalita- 
tem  et  magnificentiam,  non  tamen  est  simpliciter  malus.  Si  autem  accipiat 
aliena,  talis  est  simpliciter  malus.  Hinc  est  quod  contra  talem  sunt  iuris 
remedia,  ut  interdicta,  Vnde  vi  bon.  rapt.,  ut  ff.  et  C.,  per  illos  titulos  Furti,  et 
condictiones  ex  legibus  et  canonibus  quae  in  singulis  casibus  explicantur  secun- 
dum  varietatem  actuum.  Et  sic  per  explicationem  huius  secundi  actus,  scilicet, 
acccptionis  circa  bonum  utile,  apparet  quod  iustitia  obtinet  cardinalatum,  non 
autem  liberalitas  sive  magnificentia,  cum,  per  oppositum  iustitiae,  dicatur  sim- 
pliciter malus,  non  autem  per  oppositum  liberalitatis  vel  magnificentise.  Si 
autem  versetur  virtus  moralis  in  retinendo  bonum  utile,  hoc  etiam  contingit 
dupliciter,  aut  retinet  et  conservat  sua,  aut  retinet  aliena.  Primo  casu  reti- 
nendo quae  sua  sunt,  et  nulli  dando,  peccat  contra  liberalitatem  et  magnificen- 
tiam, nee  talis  est  simpliciter  malus,  et  si  instes,  si  dives  videat  pauperem  et 
indigentem  et  ad  mortem,  et  nihil  det,  peccat  mortaliter.  Responded  potest 
quod  tune  retinet  non  proprium  sed  commune,  cum  tempore  talis  necessitatis 
sit  fienda  communio,  ut  probat  Clemens  vi  rationibus,  xii,  q.  i,  dilcciissimis,  et 
Augustinus,  ut  transumitur  viii  di.,  quo  iure,  et  §  i.  Si  autem  quis  retinet 
aliena,  simpliciter  est  malus,  et  iniustus  appellatur,  si  invito  domino  retineat, 
et  remedia  iuris  sunt  prodita,  de  quibus  supra.  Circa  igitur  bonum  utile,  elicis 
unam  solam  virtutem  cardinalem,  tam  in  distribuendo,  quam  accipiendo,  quam 
conservando,  quia  per  ipsius  oppositum  homo  est  simpliciter  malus.  Cardi- 
nalis est  iustitia,  non  cardinales  sunt  liberalitas  et  magnificentia,  et  hoc  clarum. 
Dicebam  secundo  quod  erat  secundum  bonum  delectabile,  circa  quod 
versatur  virtus  moralis,  et  circa  hoc  versatur  dupliciter,  aut  largiendo  aut  acci- 
piendo. Si  largiendo,  sic  sunt  virtutes  quae  sunt  in  ludis,  ut  cum  aliquis  largi- 
tur  aliis,  habet  delectationem.  Et  huiusmodi  sunt  amicitia,  affabilitas,  et 
eutrapelia.  Istae  autem  virtutes  non  sunt  cardinales,  quia  non  sunt  de  neces- 
sitate humanae  naturae,  quia  multi  sunt  magni  et  virtuosi  qui  in  talibus  nesciunt 
se  bene  habere.  Si  autem  suscipiendo,  et  hoc  dupliciter,  aut  enim  versatur 
principaliter  circa  delectabile,  tune  dicitur  simpliciter  malus,  et  appellatur 
intemperantia,  et  dico  se  male  habere  excedendo,  nam  insensibilis,  qui  non 
delectatur,  non  est  simpliciter  malus,  sed  excedens,  et  sic  habes  temperantiam 
quae  obtinet  cardinalatum,  quia  per  eius  oppositum  quis  est  simpliciter  malus, 
et  est  de  necessitate  humanae  conservationis.  Si  autem  versetur  simpliciter 
circa  tristabile,  et  hoc  dupliciter,  nam  est  quoddam  tristabile  quod  aptum  est 


DE  FORTITVDINE 


103 


movere  ad  iram,  et  tune  versatur  mansuetudo,  haec  non  est  cardinalis,  quia 
non  est  necessarium  quod  quis  irascatur,  sed  per  actum  remittitur  quominus 
transeat  ad  actum  secundum  exteriorem  iniustitiae.  Si  autem  transiret  ad 
actum  exteriorem,  tune  diceretur  iniustitia.  Si  autem  est  tristabile,  quod 
aptum  est  movere  ad  timorem,  tune  est  fortitudo.  Nam,  sicut  ille  est  simpli- 
citer  malus  qui  non  vult  sustinere  terribile  propter  bonum  virtutis,  et  sic  forti- 
tudo est  virtus  cardinalis,  et  hoc  de  bono  delectabili. 

Dicebam  ulterius  quod  erat  tertium  bonum,  scilicet,  honestum,  et  tale  est 
triplex.  Quoddam  pertinet  ad  virtutem  cognoscitivam,  et  hae  sunt  virtutes 
intellectuals,  et  haec  sunt  scientia,  sapientia,  intellectus,  ars,  et  prudentia. 
Quoddam  pertinet  ad  virtutem  interpretativam,  ut  veracitas  et  falsitas.  Quod- 
dam  pertinet  ad  artem  appetitivam.  / 

Capiamus  secundum  membrum,  scilicet  pertinens  ad  virtutem  interpre- 
tativam, et  dico  quod  ista  veracitas  spectans  ad  virtutem  interpretativam  non 
est  virtus  cardinalis,  quia  non  reddit  hominem  simpliciter  bonum,  nee  eius 
vitium  simpliciter  malum.  Vitium  enim  magis  oppositum  est  iactantia.  Sed 
iactator  est  triplex,  est  enim  iactator  simplex,  et  iste  est  gratia  delectationis, 
alter  gratia  honoris,  alter  gratia  lucri.  Sola  prima  iactantia  opponitur  directe 
veracitati,  aliae  autem  ingrediuntur  aliam  speciem  vitii.  Nam  primus  solum 
peccat  quia  est  mendax,  sed  mendacium  est  duplex,  nam  est  mendacium  quod 
est  simplex  falsa  significatio  vocis,  et  de  illo  dixi  quod  directe  opponitur  vera- 
citati. Aliud  est  falsa  significatio  vocis,  cum  intentione  fallendi,  et  illud  facit 
simpliciter  hominem  malum,  et  incidit  in  speciem  iniustitiae.  Et  has  et  alias 
species  mendaciorum  prosequitur  Augustinus  in  libro  De  Mendacio.  Tran- 
sumptive  habetur  xxii,  q.  ii,  cap.  primum  capitale.  Aliud  est,  ut  dixi,  bonum 
honestum  pertinens  ad  virtutem  appetitivam.  Et  hoc  dupliciter.  Aut  essen- 
tialiter,  et  talia  sunt  virtutes  morales  de  quibus  supra  tactum  est.  Aut  signifi- 
cative, et  talia  sunt  laus,  bona  terrena,  et  circa  istud  bonum  honestum  est 
magnanimitas  et  philominia(?),  et  tales  non  sunt  virtutes  cardinales.  Nam 
etiam  multi  sunt  virtuosi  qui  non  appetunt  honores  quibus  sunt  digni.  Si  autem 
loquamur  de  bono  honesto  quod  spectat  ad  virtutem  cognoscitivam,  tune  sunt 
virtutes  intellectuales,  ut  scientia,  intellectus,  ars,  prudentia.  Primae  tres  non 
sunt  cardinales,  quia  non  sunt  de  necessitate  vitae  humanae,  sed  prudentia  est 
de  necessitate  boni.  Immo  impossibile  est  aliquem  esse  virtuosum  sine  pru- 
dentia. Nam  prudentia  regulat  ceteras  virtutes. 

Ex  his  infertur  qualiter  fortitudo,  propter  quam  fit  sermo,  est  virtus 
cardinalis.  Et  apparet  qualiter  sunt  quatuor,  elicitae  ex  triplici  bono  appe- 
tibili  et  fugibili,  et  triplici  virtute  animae  meae,  scilicet,  iustitia,  temperantia, 
fortitude,  et  prudentia,  quae,  nedum  cardinalis,  immo  inter  ceteras  obtinet 
papatum  et  principatum. 

Fuit  aliqualis  discursio,  sed  sim  supportatus,  quia  non  reputavi  propter 
iuristas,  nee  aliter,  explicare  naturam  fortitudinis,  de  qua  est  principalis  sermo. 


104 

ic»p.  MY.)  Quoinwio  el  qualitcr  gins  possil  did  fnrtis  in  bello. 

Consequenter  quaeritur  an  aliquis  possit  did  fortis,  etiam  si  non  fiu-rit 
exercitatus  circa  pericula  mortis  in  bello.  Apparet  quod  sic,  nam  fortitude 
est  necessaria  bonitati  humanae,  cum  sit  cardinalis,  ut  supra  proxima  quae- 
stione,  quae  bonitas  human, i  haberi  potest  sine  exercitio  bellico.  Ergo  conse- 
quentia  probatur  per  locum  a  coniunctis,  ut  ff.  De  neg.  gest.,  1.  atqui  natura  ; 
iv  di.,  denique  ;  vi  di.,  nunc  de  superfluitatc.  Primum  patet  per  notata  supra 
proxima  quaestione.  Item  Tullius  dicit  quod  fortitude  est  considerata  peri- 
culorum  susceptio  et  laborum  perpessio.  Hoc  autem  potest  esse  sine  bellico 
actu,  ergo  probatur  consequentia  per  locum  a  consequent!  destructo,  quod  est 
validum  argumentum  in  iure,  ff.  De  rebus  creditis,  1.  ii,  §  ii ;  C.  De  furt.,  1.  apud 
aniiqiios,  ver.  quam  ;  ff.  De  in  integr.  restit.,  [nemo]  non  vidctur.  Opposituin 
dicit  Philosophus,  iv  Ethicorum.  Et  propterea  hoc  continetur  in  sacramento 
militis,  cum  attingitur,  scilicet,  non  evitare  mortem,  ut  1.  paen.,  ff.  Ex  quibus 
causis  maior.  ;  et  1.  i,  C.  De  his  qui  non  implc.  stip.,  lib.  [xi]  x.  Pro  solutione 
quaestionis  est  attendendum  quod  fortitude  sumitur  generaliter  pro  omni  fir- 
mitate  animi,  et  haec  est  generalis  ad  omnes  virtutes,  nam  animi  inconstantia 
vituperatur  et  a  iure  reprobatur,  xxxii,  q.  v,  horrendus  ;  De  iureiurando,  qucm- 
admwlum  ;  ff.  De  adulteriis,  1.  si  uxor  ;  ff.  De  decur.,  1.  p.  ;  ff.  De  neg.  gest., 
1.  paen. ;  regula  (?//('</  scmcl,  vi  regula  mutarc,  De  reg.  iur.,  Lib.  VI.  Et  hoc  modo 
non  foret  dubium  quin  talis  possit  fortis  esse  sine  periculo  bellico.  Sumitur 
etiam  stricte  prout  virtus  specialis,  quae  est  inclinans  ad  aggrediendum  et  ex- 
spectandum  pericula,  pro  fugiendo  malo  culpae.  Vnde  triplex  est  malum,  noxium 
quod  opponitur  utili,  triste  quod  opponitur  delectabili,  culpa  quod  opponitur 
honesto.  Bonum  autem  animae  quod  est  honestum  est  praeferendum  bono  utili 
et  delectabili,  sicut  anima  rationalis  praeferenda  est  corpori,  xii,  q.  i,  prtecipi- 
mus;  xxiv,  q.  iii,  si  habes  ;  C.  De  sacrosanctis  ecclesiis,  1.  sancimus;  De  poenit. 
et  rem.,  cum  infirmitas.  Ex  hoc  infertur  quod  tres  sunt  virtutes  morales  neces- 
sariae  ad  hoc,  ut  quis  dicatur  bonus  et  virtuosus.  Vna  quae  praefigat  animum 
ad  praeferendum  bonurn^  honestum  utili,  et  haec  est  iustitia,  Instit.  eodem, 
§  iustitia  ;  xii,  q.  ii,  cum  devotissimam.  Alia  firmans  animum  ad  praeferen- 
dum bonum  honestum  delectabili,  et  haec  est  temperantia,  ut  vi  di.,  sal  pcn- 
sandutn,  pal.  ;  et  De  constit.,  nam  concupiscentiam.  Alia  firmans  animum 
ad  sustinendum  passiones  magis  quam  incurrendum  malum  culpae,  et  haec  est 
fortitude,  ut  C.  De  athlet.,  1.  una,  lib.  x ;  C.  De  his  qui  non  implet.  stip., 
1.  i,  eodem  libro  ;  vii,  q.  i,  §  hinc  etiam.  Et  haec  est  fortitude  de  qua  est 
sermo.  Et  merito  hae  dicuntur  cardinales,  quia  sunt  de  necessitate  bonitatis 
humanae,  et  quaelibet  istamm  custodit  scipsam  et  quamlibet  aliarum.  Tolle 
exemplum.  Mulier  temptata  de  adulterio  per  promissiones  se  defendit  per 
temperantiam,  ff.  De  rit.  nup.,  1.  palam  ii.  Si  temptetur  per  terrorem,  ista  est 
fortitudo,  xxxii,  q.  v,  [Lucretiam]  proposito,  §  Lucretidm,  et  [cap.]  §  [fieri]  non 
Potest  fieri  et  [cap.]  §  finge,  de  pudicitia ;  xxxiv,  q.  i,  non  satis.  Si  autem 
temptetur  per  munera,  ab  ista  se  defendit  per  iustitiam,  xii,  q.  ii,  cum  devotis- 
simam. Potest  etiam  exemplar!  de  fortitudine,  nam  si  propter  timorem  se  de- 


DE  FORTITVDINE  105 

fendit,  dubitat  •'  ab  ista  se  defendit  per  fortitudinem,  ut  in  cap.  [Lucretiam] 
proposito,  et  [cap.]  §  finge,  de  pudicitia,  xxxii,  q.  v.  Si  temptatur  propter 
delectabilia,  tune  defendit  temperantia,  xxxii,  q.  v,  non  potest,  et  cap.  nee 
solo,  et  cap.  qui  viderit,  et  cap.  non  mcechaberis.  Si  propter  munera,  tune  de- 
fendit iustitia,  quia  iniustum  est  vendere  bonum  honestum  tanquam  spirituale 
i,  q.  [i]  ii,  quam  pio ;  De  simonia,  per  totum.  Si  falsis  rationibus,  tune  de- 
fendit prudentia,  et  sic  una  cardinalium  firmat  animum,  ut  praeferatur  bonum 
honestum  utili,  ut  iustitia,  alia  ut  praeferatur  delectabili,  ut  temperantia,  alia 
ad  sustinendum  tristia  propter  bonum  tuendum  et  malum  culpae  excludendum, 
ut  fortitude.  Prudentia  autem  ceteras  regulat,  sic  debet  esse  in  cardinalibus. 


Vlterius  est  sciendum  quod  Bellum  sumitur  dupliciter. 

Vno  modo  pro  actu  bellandi  hinc  inde,  ut  sumitur  ff.  De  capt.  et  postlim. 
revers.,  1.  in  bello,  et  1.  postliminium  ;  C.  De  gladi.,  1.  unica,  lib.  xi.  Alio 
modo  sumitur  pro  qualibet  exspectatione  corporalis  periculi,  etiam  si  non  sit 
actualis  invasio,  et  hoc  si  periculum  esset  cui  posset  verisimiliter  resisti,  alias 
non  esset  bellum,  ut  in  latrone  suspendendo  et  alio  iustitiando. 

Si  bellum  capiatur  pro  actuali  invasione  hinc  inde  facta,  fortitude  non 
est  solum  circa  ilia  pericula,  quia  tune  non  esset  cardinalis,  cum  multi  sint 
virtuosi  qui  non  sunt  in  talibus  exercitati.  Si  autem  sumatur  secundo  modo, 
tune  fortitude  versatur  circa  ilia  pericula  generaliter,  sicut  dicimus  in  muliere 
quae  sustinet  pericula  propter  tuitionem  castitatis.  Ibi  non  est  bellum  primo 
modo  sumptum,  sed  secundo  sic,  et  tamen  est  fortitude.  Notandum  tamen 
quod  fortitude  non  est  circa  quaelibet  pericula  bellica.  Nam,  si  aliquis  invadat 
alium  et  defendat  se,  non  est  fortis,  quia  tune  canis  esset  fortis  fortitudine. 
Sed  quando  sustinet  pericula  tellica  propter  evitare  malum  culpae,  tune  est 
fortis.  Vnde  dicit  Philosophus  quod  non  est  fortis  propter  necessitatem,  hinc 
etiam  causa  xxiii,  q.  iv,  N abuchodonosor ,  et  cap.  de  Tyriis  ;  De  Poenit.,  dist. 
ii,  sic  enitn.  Tune  concluditur  solutio  quaestionis  propositae  cum  quaeritur  an 
fortitude  sit  circa  pericula  mortis  et  bellica,  et  dicendum  quod  non,  ut  exem- 
platum  est  in  muliere.  Secundo  modo,  quod  extremus  actus  fortitudinis  sit 
circa  mortis  pericula,  dicendum  quod  sic,  quia  virtus  est  circa  difficile.  Tertio 
modo,  quod  inclinet  ad  sustinendum  mortis  periculum,  si  casus  occurrat,  et 
dicendum  quod  sic,  quia  virtus  extenditur  circa  ultimum  potentiae,  primo  Cceli 
et  Mundi. 

Quis  sit  principalior  actus  fortitudinis  in  bello  ?  [Cap.«v».] 

Sed  quaeritur  quid  sit  principalius  fortitudinis  bellantium,  an  exspectatio 
hostium,  an  aggressus  eorum  ?  Et  videtur  quod  aggressus  sit  principalior 
actus  fortitudinis.  Primo,  quia,  ut  inquit  Philosophus,  ii  Ethicorum,  tractatu 
de  liberalitate,  virtuosius  est  dare  quam  recipere.  Scribitur  etiam  Ecclesia- 
stici  iv  cap.,  "  Non  sit  manus  tua  porrecta  ad  accipiendum,  et  ad  dandum 


106  DE  IVRE  BELLI 

collecta."  Hinc  est  quod  scribitur,  "  Beatius  est  dare  quam  accipere,"  xvi, 
q.  i,  pradicator  ;  et  De  celebr.  missar.,  cum  Martha ;  De  donat.,  cap.  i.  Ergo, 
a  simili,  virtuosius  est  aggredi  quam  exspectare,  quia  aggrediens  dat,  exspec- 
tans  recipit.  Praeterea  virtuosius  est  bene  facere  quam  bene  recipere,  ut  idem 
Philosophus.  Probatur.  Nam  si  melius  est  facere  quam  pati  in  genere  virtu- 
tum,  ergo  bene  facere  meb'us  quam  bene  pati.  Consequentia  tenet  per  locum 
a  connexis,  quod  est  validum  argumentum  in  iure,  ff.  De  neg.  gest.,  1.  atqui 
natura  ;  iv  dist.,  dcniquc  ;  vi  dist.,  quia  de  superfluitatc.  Sed  aggrediens  bene 
dat,  exspectans  bene  recipit,  ergo  virtuosius  aggredi.  Praeterea  melius  est 
bene  operari  quam  non  operari  turpe,  iuxta  illud  non  sufficit  abstinere  a  malo, 
nisi  et  bonum  faciamus,  nam  et  illud,  scilicet,  bene  operari  bonum,  meliorem 
ducit  finem  cum  in  actibus  is  finis  ponderetur,  et  ab  illo  fiat  denominatio.  Con- 
sequentia tenet  per  locum  a  fine,  qui  est  validus  in  iure,  ut  ff.  De  ritu  nupt.,  1. 
si  quis  ;  ff.  De  iur.  fisci,  1.  non  inlelligitur ,  §  si  quis  palam  ;  ff.  Communia  praed., 
1.  receptum ;  ff.  De  auro  et  arg.  legat.,  1.  et  si  non  sint,  §  perveniamus.  Sed 
aggredi  est  bene  operari,  exspectare  est  non  operari  turpe,  id  est  non  fugere, 
ergo  virtuosius  aggredi  quam  exspectare.  Prasterea  id  virtuosius  est  quod  est 
difficilius.  Nam  et  legis  responsum  aliter  non  emanat  nisi  super  difficili  et 
dubitabili,  ut  1.  quod  Labeo,  ff.  De  Carbon,  edicto ;  et  1.  i  in  fin.,  ff.  Ad 
municipalem.  Sed  aggredi  est  difficilius  quam  exspectare,  nam  homo  fessus 
exspectare  potest,  non  autem  aggredi.  Probatur  maior  per  eundem  Philo- 
sophum,  tractatu  de  fortitudine,  nam  actus  fortitudinis  specialiter  est  circa 
difficilia  et  terribilia.  Praeterea,  illud  virtuosius  quod  amabilius,  nam  actus 
virtutum  de  sui  natura  sunt  amabiles,  ut  idem  Philosophus,  et  probatur  hoc 
De  pcenit.,  dist.  ii,  ergo,  et  cap.  corpus,  et  cap.  proximos.  Sed  aggredi  est 
amabilius.  Quam  plures  utilitates  affert  reipublicae,  et  plura  in  eodem  genere 
praevalent  paucioribus,  in  Authent.,  De  consan.  et  uter.  frat.,  in  princ.  ;  De 
sent,  excom.,  cum  pro  causa  ;  iii,  q.  iv,  Engeltrudam  ;  De  offi.  delegat.,  pruden- 
tiam,  in  princ.  ;  quia  inimicos  expellere  est  utilius  quam  ipsos  exspectare. 
Praeterea  illud  virtuosius  quod  est  laudabilius,  quia  virtus  moralis  est  bonum 
laudabile,  sed  aggredi  est  laudabilius  quam  exspectare.  Nam  regulariter  plus 
laudantur  aggredientes  quam  fugientes.  In  contrarium  est  textus  Philosophi, 
iii  Ethicorum,  tractatu  de  fortitudine,  ubi  dicit  quod  principalior  actus  forti- 
tudinis est  sustinere.  Idem  tenet  ibi  Albertus  et  Custratius. 

Pro  evidentia  huius  quaestionis  est  advertendum  quod  secundum  dicta- 
men  rectae  rationis  non  est  semper  aggrediendum,  nee  semper  fugiendum,  nee 
semper  exspectandum,  nam  quandoque  expedit  aggredi,  quandoque  fugere, 
quandoque  exspectare.  Ex  quo  apparet  quod  fortitudinis  triplex  est  actus, 
scilicet,  aggressura,  fuga,  et  exspectatio.  Et  quod  aliquando  fugiendum  sit 
forti,  patet  ratione,  nam  pericula  supra  hominem  sunt  fugienda.  Si  enim  unus 
solus  vellet  aggredi  mille,  vel  ipsos  aggredientes  exspectare,  non  esset  fortis, 
sed  audax  et  temerarius,  ut  idem  Philosophus  ibidem.  Triplex  est  ergo  actus 
fortitudinis,  scilicet,  aggressus,  fuga,  et  exspectatio.  Et  inter  istos  minimus 
est  fuga.  Hoc  probatur.  Nam  ille  actus  est  inter  ceteros  minimus  qui  inter 


DE  FORTITVDINE  107 

ceteros  est  minus  difficilis,  cum  ars  et  disciplina  sint  circa  difficilia.  At  fugere 
est  facilius  quam  aggredi  vel  exspectare.  Ergo.  Praeterea  ille  actus  est  mini- 
mus. Assimilatur  vitio  peiori.  Probatur  per  locum  ab  extremis,  qui  est 
validus  in  iure,  if.  Communi  divid.,  1.  arbor  ;  et  1.  una,  ff.  Si  quis  ius  die.  non 
obtemp.  ;  et  1.  qucerilur,  ff.  De  stat.  hominum.  Sic  est  in  proposito.  Nam 
per  fugam  assimilatur  timori,  quod  est  peius  vitium  quam  sit  audacia,  ut  idem 
Philosophus,  ibidem. 

Secundo  dico  quod  exspectatio  est  actus  principalior.  Hoc  probatur, 
nam  virtuosius  est  bene  facere  bonum  quam  bene  recipere  bonum.  Ergo  vir- 
tuosius  est  bene  pati  malum  quam  bene  facere  malum.  Tenet  consequentia 
per  locum  a  contrariis,  qui  est  validus  in  iure,  ff.  De  act.  emp.,  1.  lulianus, 
§  procurator  ;  ff.  De  instit.,  1.  sed  si  pupillus,  §  si  institoria  ;  ff.  De  verb,  sig., 
1.  hcec  verba.  Sed  aggrediens  bene  facit  malum  aggresso,  exspectans  autem 
bene  recipit  malum  ab  aggrediente.  Praeterea  ille  actus  est  principalior  qui 
est  dimcilior.  Hoc  pluries  supra  probatum  est.  Sed  exspectatio  est  difficilior 
quam  aggressus.  Probatur  hoc.  Nam  si  fiat  aggressus,  fit  in  modum  fortio- 
ris,  et  cum  spe  de  evadendo,  alias  recta  ratio  non  dictaret  aggressum,  si  non 
esset  spes  evasionis.  Sed  exspectatio  fit  in  modum  minus  fortis  erga  fortio- 
rem.  Sed  difficilius  est  bene  se  habere  cum  fortiori  quam  cum  minus  forti, 
ut  claret.  Confirmatur.  Nam  in  exspectando  oportet  moderari  timorem 
magnum  cum  tristitiis  corporalibus.  At  aggrediendo  non  expedit  tantum 
moderari  timorem.  Ergo. 

Praeterea  exspectatio  et  sustinere  denotant  diuturnitatem  et  perseveran- 
tiam,  et  in  genere  boni  quod  diuturnius  melius,  De  Poenit.,  dist.  iii,  inisor  ;  De 
Pcenit.,  dist.  ii,  pennata,  et  cap.  non  revertebanlur  ;  ff.  De  in  rem  vers.,  1.  si 
pro  patre,  §  et  versum.  Sed  aggressus  denotat  quendam  impetum  parum 
durabilem  provenientem  ab  iracundia,  ut  1.  si  adulterium,  §  imperator,  ff. 
De  adulter.  ;  et  C.  eod.  tit.,  1.  Gracchus  ;  et  regula  quod  calore,  ff.  De  reg. 
iuris. 

Praeterea  exspectatio  facit  pericula  mortis  esse  praesentia,  et  ilia  tune 
difficilia  et  timibilia,  ut  Philosophus,  ii  Rhetoricae.  Ergo. 

Infertur  igitur  exspectationem  actum  principaliorem  fortitudinis,  licet 
vulgares  non  recte  iudicantes,  contrarium  sapiant.  Si  autem,  quod  praedixi, 
fugam  actum (?)  fortitudinis  [videtur]  obstare,  quod  in  hoc  tractatu  scripsi  supra 
in  articulo  de  pertinentibus  ad  ducem  et  milites,  ubi  dixi  quod  milites  servare 
debent  iuramentum  quod  iurarunt,  non  fugere,  etc. 

Solutio  patet  ex  iam  dictis,  nam  ubi  sunt  pericula  supra  hominem,  fugien- 
dum  est,  xxiii,  q.  iv,  displicet,  lohannis  viii,  Matthaei  x,  transumptum,  vii, 
q.  i,  §  hoc  observandum.  Vbi  autem  sunt  pericula  non  supra  hominem,  sed  est 
aliqualis  spes,  tune  procedunt  statim  dicta.  Ad  allegata  in  contrarium  patet 
responsum,  discurrendo  per  singula,  uno  tamen  addito,  videlicet,  quod  vul- 
gares plus  laudant  et  amant  aggredientes  quam  exspectantes.  Hinc  est  quod 
dicit  Philosophus  ibidem,  nihil  prohibet  milites  stipendiaries  in  civitatibus 
utiliores  esse  quam  viros  fortes,  nam  illi  ad  modicum  lucri  vitam  mutant,  et 

[6] 


DE  IVRE  BELLI 

fugiunt  et  aggrediuntur  sine  dictamine  rationis,  viri  autem  fortes  nee  fuginnt 
nee  aggrediuntur  sine  dictamine  rationis. 


Quot  generibus  fortitudinis  quis  utatiir  in  hello? 

Sed  quaero,  quot  generibus  fortitudinis  utatur  quis  in  bello  ?  Solutio. 
Sex  sunt  similitudines  verae  fortitudinis,  quae  cst  virtus  moralis  sita  inter  auda- 
ciam  et  timorem,  et  istis  sex  utuntur  milites  in  bellis. 

Prima  qua  aliqui  viriliter  in  bello  aggrediuntur  propter  gloriam  et  hono- 
rem,  videntes  quod  tales  solent  laudari,  et  timidi  vituperari,  et  de  hac  C.  De 
re  milit.,  libro  xii ;  ff.  Ad  leg.  Aquil.,  1.  qua  actione,  §  JH  colluctatione  ;  De 
pub.  iudic.,  per  totum. 

Secunda  quae  appellatur  politica,  qua  aliqui  sunt  fortes  propter  timorem 
poenae  corporalis  vel  pecuniariae,  quae  imponi  consuevit  timidis  et  fugientibus 
in  bello,  et  ista  vocatur  politica,  quia  inter  cives,  et  talis  servilis  est,  De  Poenit., 
distinct,  ii,  §  sicut  secta. 

Tertia  est  quae  vocatur  militaris,  qua  homines  sunt  fortes,  quia  sciunt 
artes  bellandi,  sicut  Teutonici  et  alii  experti  stipendiarii.  Hanc  inducit  expe- 
rientia,  rerum  magistra,  ff.  De  leg.  iii,  1.  servis,  §  ornatricibus  ;  et  cap.  quam 
sit,  De  elect.,  Lib.  VI ;  et,  ut  dicit  Philosophus  in  tractatu  De  Fortitudine,  stipen- 
diarii pugnant  cum  aliis,  sic  armati  cum  inermibus.  Et  isti  faciles  sunt  ad 
aggrediendum,  et  faciles  ad  fugiendum.  Hodie  tamen  facilius  se  expediunt, 
quia  levant  digitum  et  trahunt  barbutas<B,  et  se  reddunt,  et  statim  dimittuntur, 
ut  est  mos  eorum  inter  se. 

Quarta  est  qua  utuntur  aliqui  propter  furorem,  nam  furor  est  res 
impetuosa  ad  pericula,  et  iste  aliquando  iuvat  in  bellis,  quia  homines  sunt 
audaciores,  et  hanc  inducit  impetus  iracundiae,  ut  1.  si  adiiltcriiim,  §  impera- 
tores,  ff.  De  adulter.  ;  et  1.  Gracchus,  C.  eodem  titulo,  et  1.  quod  calore,  ff. 
De  reg.  iuris. 

Quinta,  qua  aliqui  utuntur  propter  spem.  Nam  aliqui  propter  spem 
victoriae  viriliter  aggrediuntur.  Ibi  enim  praeponderat  spes  potentiae  sensi- 
tivae  rationi,  De  constit.,  nam  concupisccniiam  ;  vi  dist.,  sed  pensandunt. 

Sexta  est  propter  ignorantiam,  nam  aliqui  aggrediuntur  vel  exspectant, 
ignorantcs  pericula  quae  imminent,  qui  tamen  fugerent  hoc  scito.  Ibi  non 
videt  quid  agat,  ad  instar  infantis,  C.  De  fals.  mone.,  Li;  ff.  Ad  leg.  Corn, 
de  sica.,  1.  si  infans. 

Istis  fortitudinibus  milites  regulariter  utuntur  in  bellis.  Inter  istas  autem 
fortitudines,  si  vis  videre  quae  magis  attingit  virtuti,  debes  attendere  quod 
omnes  istae  sunt  similitudinariae  fortitudinis  verae.  Nam  in  vera  fortitudine, 
sicut  in  qualibet  virtute,  oportet  quod  opus  fiat  scienter.  Nam  ignoranter 
operantium  nulla  est  virtus,  quia  prudentia,  quae  est  habitus  intellectus,  regu- 
lare  debet  omne  opus  virtutis.  Secundo,  debet  eligi.  Tertio,  quod  eligatur 
propter  bonum  intrinsecum  virtutis,  non  autem  propter  bonum  extrinsecum. 


DE  FORTITVDINE 


109 


Quarto,  quod  operetur  firme  et  durabiliter.  Quinto,  quod  delectabiliter. 
Sexto,  quod  opus  debet  esse  difficile,  nam  ars  sit  circa  difficilia.  Haec  omnia 
requiruntur  in  vera  fortitudine,  circa  aggressum,  vel  exspectationem  alicuius 
terribilis  et  difficilis.  Per  hoc  patet  quae  supra  dictarum  magis  assimilatur 
verae  fortitudini,  et  quae  non.  Nam  omnes  praeter  ultimam  assimilantur  in  eo 
quod  scienter,  et  sic  ultima  est  minime  similis  in  hoc,  quod  eligens.  Alias  con- 
veniunt  cum  vera,  praeter  illam  quae  fit  ex  furore.  In  eo  autem  quod  propter 
bonum  intrinsecum,  omnes  deficiunt  a  vera,  nam  prima  est  propter  bonum 
extrinsecum,  utpote  gloriam,  alia  propter  fugam  pcenae,  alia  propter  lucra  et 
stipendia,  alia  propter  spem  vincendi.  Prima  autem  politica,  quae  est  propter 
honores  et  gloriam,  magis  assimilatur  verae  propter  finem  honorabiliorem. 
Nam  honores  sunt  significativi  virtutum,  et  isti  plus  operantur,  /tendendo  ad 
bonum  publicum,  nam  virilius  bellis  insistunt,  ut  exemplat  Philosophus  de 
Hectore  in  bellicis  sic  se  habente. 


An  fortis  in  bello  potius  debeat  mortem  exspectare  quam  fugere  ?  [CaP.x*viii.j 

Tertio  quaero,  an  fortis  in  bello  aliquo  casu  magis  debeat  mortem  ex- 
spectare quam  fugere  de  bello,  ubi  per  fugam  evadere  posset.  Et  videtur 
quod  non  sit  mors  exspectanda,  nam  illud  magis  eligendum  quod  est  delecta- 
bilius,  et  illud  minus  quod  minus,  primo  Rhetoricas  dictum  est  Philosophiae. 
Sed  est  delectabilior  vita  quam  mors,  ergo  eligibilius  fugere  et  vivere  quam 
exspectare  et  mori.  Oppositum  videtur  dicere  Philosophus,  iv  Ethicorum, 
tractatu  de  fortitudine,  et  iii,  tractatu  de  voluntario  et  violento,  et  etiam  trac- 
tatu  de  magnanimitate,  ubi  dicit  quod  prius  est  moriendum  quam  aliquid  turpe 
committendum. 

Solutio.  Pro  evidentia  quaestionis  est  advertendum  quod  quaestio  potest 
habere  duplex  fundamentum  ;  unum  veritatis  et  fidei,  ut  supponamus  aliam 
vitam  et  beatitudinem.  Et  secundum  hoc  fundamentum  quaestio  non  haberet 
grande  dubium,  nam  si  aliquis  pugnaret  contra  infideles,  et  propter  fugam 
suam  multi  perirent  fideles,  et  solus  salvaretur,  tune  praeeligenda  esset  ex- 
spectatio  et  mors.  Et  est  ratio,  nam  fugiendo  consequitur  vitam  corporalem, 
exspectando,  moriendo  corporaliter,  consequitur  vitam  animae,  quae  est  sine 
comparatione  nobilior,  ergo  praeeligenda. 

Secundum  fundamentum  potest  esse  naturalium  et  viventium  secundum 
legem  naturae,  ut  non  supponatur  ulterior  vita,  et  tune  quaestio  habet  dubium 
et  opiniones  varias.  Aliqui  dicunt  quod  mors  exspectanda  contingere  potest 
multipliciter.  Vno  modo,  quod  evidenter  certum  sit  mortem  evenire  debere 
cum  exspectatione,  nee  spes  sit  de  salute  nisi  cum  fuga.  Alio  modo,  quod 
licet  sit  aliqua  evidentia  mortis,  tamen  spes  aliqua  haberi  potest  de  vita  sine 
fuga.  Isto  secundo  casu,  dicunt  intelligendas  auctoritates  Aristotelis  et  alio- 
rum  philosophorum,  qui  dicunt  quod  magis  moriendum,  id  est,  viriliter  pugnan- 
dum.  Primo  autem  casu  dicunt  nullo  modo  mortem  exspectandam.  Probant 


no  DE  IVRE  BELLI 

hoc  sic,  nam  de  duobus  mails  minus  malum  est  eligendum,  xiii  dist.,  ncrvi ;  et  est 
principium  in  moralibus.  Sed  minus  malum  est  fugere  quam  exspectare  et  mori. 
Quod  sit  minus  malum  probatur,  nam  illud  est  minus  malum  per  quod  pau- 
ciora  bona  perduntur  quam  illud  per  quod  plura,  sed  in  morte  omnia  tollun- 
tur,  in  Authent.,  De  nupt.,  §  deinceps  ;  et  secundo  Physicorum.  In  fuga  perdi- 
tur  solum  bonum  fortitudinis  moralis.  Ergo.  Praeterea,  si  melius  esset  mori, 
hoc  esset  quia  mori  esset  actus  virtutis,  sed  hoc  est  falsum,  nam  actus  virtutis 
vel  est  felicitas,  vel  ad  actum  felicitatis  tendens.  Sed  more  est  felicitatem 
destruens.  Ergo.  Praeterea  si  hoc  casu  eligenda  esset  mors,  hoc  esset  quia 
fortitude,  quae  est  virtus  moralis,  ad  hoc  inclinaret.  Sed  hoc  est  falsum,  nam 
virtus  moralis  non  tendit  ad  corruptionem  naturae,  immo  ad  conservationem 
ipsius.  Nam  ad  hoc  factae  sunt  leges,  iv  dist.,  facke  sunt ;  sed  mors  tendit  ad 
destructionem,  in  Authent.,  De  nupt.,  §  deinceps.  Praeterea,  si  hoc  quis 
deberet  magis  eligere,  aut  foret  propter  bonum  proprium  aut  alienum.  Non 
propter  proprium,  quia  in  morte  omne  bonum  exstinguitur,  ut  supra  tactum 
est.  Non  alienum,  quia  non  tantum  bonum  alteri  potest  quaerere  quantum  sibi 
perdit,  cum  se  plus  ahis  debeat  diligere,  ut  1.  presses,  C.  De  servit.  et  aqua. 
Confirmatur.  Nam  secundum  veritatem  et  fidem  apparet  quod  virtuosissimi 
mih'tes  fugiebant  in  bello,  ut  tempore  Caroli  Magni. 

AUi  dicunt  totum  econtra,  scilicet,  quod  potius  exspectandum  et  morien- 
dum  quam  fugiendum.  Et  hoc  probant.  Nam  quilibet  scit  de  necessitate  se 
moriturum  esse,  si  ergo  moriatur  fortis,  non  perdit  nisi  id  in  quo  credit  mortem 
praesentem  differre  a  futura.  Sed  istae  non  differunt  in  hoc  quod  est  amittere 
bona  virtutis  et  conservare,  sed  differunt  in  hoc  quod  est  diutius  retinere  et 
minus  diu.  Tune  arguunt  sic,  illud  eligibilius  est  in  quo  plura  bona  ad- 
quiruntur,  et  pauciora  perduntur,  sic  est  in  proposito.  Ergo.  Probatur  haec 
minor.  Nam  si  moriatur,  quaerit  actum  fortitudinis,  qui  est  nobilissimus.  Si 
fugit,  nihil  quaerit,  nisi  continuationem  prius  habitorum  donee  duret  vita,  et 
sic  quaerit  tempus.  Confirmatur.  Nam  certum  est  quod  consistentes  circa  delec- 
tationes  corporales  magis  eligerent  modico  tempore  vivere  delectabiliter  quam 
longo  pcenaliter,  ergo  sic  in  delectationibus  animae  hoc  potius  est  eligendum. 

Opinionem  primam  credo  veram,  nam,  ut  dixi  in  alio  articulo.  actus 
fortitudinis  sunt  aggressus,  fuga,  et  exspectatio.  Nam  non  semper  insequen- 
dum,  nee  semper  fugiendum,  nee  semper  exspectandum,  immo  cum  dictamine 
rationis. 


ic«p.»i».)  An  miles  una  cum  comitiva  sua  viriliter  in  hastes  prorumpens,  et  ipsos  totalitcr 
confringens,  contra  mandatum  duds,  sit  capite  puniendus  ? 

Quarto  quaeritur,  pone  dux  exercitus  mandavit  ne  quis  prorumperet  in 
hostes  sub  pcena  capitis.  Quidam  strenuissimus  miles,  cum  magna  comitiva 
mUitum  quibus  praeerat,  contra  mandatum  ducis,  prorupit  in  hostes,  et  ipsius 
strenuitate  totahter  hostibus  conflictum  dedit.  Quaeritur  an  capite  puniendus 
sit.  Et  videtur  quod  sic,  nam  dicit  textus,  in  bello,  qui  rem  prohibitam  a  ducc 


DE  DVCE  CAPTO  in 

fecit,  aut  mandata  non  servat,  capita  punitur,  etiam  si  rem  bene  gesserit,  ff. 
De  re  militar.,  1.  desertorem,  §  in  bello.  Probatur  per  iura  quae  volunt 
astrictos  obedientia  ad  ipsam  teneri,  ff.  Mandati,  1.  si  remunerandi,  §  si 
[pignus]  passus">,  et  1.  sed  Proculus  ;  ff.  Ad  Macedon.,  1.  sed  etsi,  §  ii(?); 
ff.  Ad  leg.  Aquil.,  1.  si  servus  servum,  §  et  si  puerum ;  C.  De  neg.  gest.,  1. 
ult. ;  cum  similibus.  Confirmatur.  Nam  malum  non  excusatur  propter  bonum 
quod  sequitur,  Ivi  dist.,  can.  undecunque  ;  De  Pcenit.,  dist.  i,  non  sufficit.  Con- 
firmatur. Nam  facta  non  sunt  ab  eventu  notanda,  xv,  q.  i,  ilia,  et  cap.  non  est  ; 
xxiii,  q.  v,  de  occidendis  ;  ff.  De  neg.  gest.,  1.  sed  an  ultra,  §  i ;  ff.  Mand., 
1.  qui  mutuam,  §  sumplus  ;  ff.  De  contraria  tut.,  1.  iii.  Ergo  ab  hoc  eventu 
insigni  non  net  notatio,  immo  ab  obedientia  prsevenienti. 

In  contrarium  videtur.  Nam  propter  peritiam  et  factum  insigne  effectua- 
liter  perpetratum  remittitur  pcena,  qua?  alias  imponi  deberet,  aliquid  attemp- 
tanti  contra  legem  vel  mandatum  principis.  Probat  textus  ff.  De  pcenis,  1. 
ad  bestias  ;  xxii,  q.  ii,  cap.  quceritur  cur  Patriarcha. 

Solutio.  Audio  quod  dominus  Ricardus  Malumbra  terminavit  quod 
delinquens  propter  peritiam  magnam  pcenam  evadit  per  dictani  1.  ad  bestias; 
et  induci  poterat  dictum  cap.  quceritur  cur  Patriarcha.  Tamen  illam  opinionem 
non  credo  veram,  immo  aperte  est  contra  textum  1.  desertorem,  §  in  bello, 
ff.  De  re  militari.  Nee  obstant  iura  in  contra  allegata,  nam  aliud  est  quern 
non  incidere  pcenam  legis  vel  hominis,  aliud  est  post  poenae  commissionem 
ipsam  a  principe  remitti  posse.  Ilia  iura  non  probant  quominus  pcena  com- 
mittatur,  sed  bene  probant  ipsam  a  principe  posse  remitti,  et  sic  supponunt 
illam  commissam,  ut  probat  uterque  textus,  si  bene  inspiciatur. 


An  dud  belli  capto  sit  venia  concedenda  ?  tcap. 

Quinto  quaaritur,  pone  dux  belli  capitur  ab  hostibus,  numquid  ei  est  venia 
concedenda  an  veniat  puniendus  ?  Et  videtur  quod  venia  sit  concedenda  per 
cap.  noli  in  fin.,  xxiii,  q.  i.  Ecce  textus,  "  Sicut  debellanti  et  resistenti  vio- 
lentia  debetur,  sic  victo  vel  capto  venia  conceditur."  Hoc  probatur,  nam  dicit 
textus  quod  tenetur  quis  parcere  hosti  suo,  ii,  q.  [vi]  v,  quanta,  in  fine.  Ecce 
textus,  "  quia  sicut  in  contumacia  persistentibus  severos  nos  esse  convenit,  sic 
humiliatis  et  pcenitentibus  locum  venise  negare  non  debemus." 

In  contrarium  videtur,  nam  captus  efficitur  servus  hostium,  ut  1.  hastes, 
et  1.  hastes,  ff.  De  captivis  et  ff.  De  verb,  significatione. 

Solutio.  Credo  primam  partem  veram,  videlicet,  quod  venia  sit  con- 
cedenda humiliate  et  resistere  nolenti,  nisi  per  venise  concessionem  pacis  per- 
turbatio  timeatur,  tune  enim  venia  plectendus  est.  Hoc  probat  textus  in  cap. 
noli,  in  fin.,  ibi  dum  dicit,  "  maxime  in  quo  perturbatio  non  timetur,"  et 
exponit  Hugo,  et  Archidiaconus,  "  maxime,"  pro  "  tantum,"  ut  sit  sensus 
liters,  quod  solum  sit  concedenda  venia  ubi  non  timetur  pacis  perturbatio,  alias 
non.  Et  fertur  quod  per  illam  expositionem  Carolus  fecit  amputari  caput 
Conradino. 


ii2  DE  IVRE  BELLI 

[Cap.  x»i.)          Dt  his  qui  tcnentur  ad  bellum  accedere,  el  de  accedentibus  non  astrictis. 

Quarto  videndum  restat  de  his  qui  tenentur  ad  bellum  accedere,  et  quid 
de  accedentibus  non  astrictis  ? 

An,  a  domino  molo  iusto  betto,  teneantur  vassalli  accedere  propriis  sumptibus  ? 

Et  quaeritur  primo,  an,  si  dominus  moveat  iustum  bellum,  teneantur  vas- 
salli accedere  cum  armis  et  equis  et  in  expensis  propriis.  Et  videtur  quod  sic, 
quia  vigore  iuramenti  tenentur  iuvare  dominum,  ut  xxii,  q.  v,  de  forma ;  Inno- 
centius,  in  cap.  sicut,  De  iureiur.,  tenet  quod  non  tenetur,  nisi  ex  pacto  speciali 
ad  hoc  sint  obligati,  cum  ipsi  non  teneantur  ad  munera  personalia.  Conclude 
in  hoc  quod  vassalli  de  iure  non  tenentur,  nisi  ad  ea  quae  continentur  in  cap. 
de  forma,  xxii,  q.  v  ;  nisi  ex  speciali  conventione  ad  illud  obligentur  ut. 


[OM>.  «xii.)     An  subditi  uni  baroni,  movcnti  guerram  contra  regem  suum,  teneantur  ipsum 

baronem  iuvare  contra  regem. 

Secundo  quaero,  pone  quod  Baro  Regis  Hispaniae  moveat  guerram  ipsi 
regi,  et  mandet  omnibus  hominibus  suis  ut  iuvent  ipsum  in  bello  contra  Regem, 
numquid  tenentur,  cum  iuraverint  ipsum  iuvare  contra  omnem  hominem. 
Et  videtur  quod  sic,  nam  grave  est  fidem  fallere,  Qui  cleri.  vel  voventes, 
veniens,  et  cap.  sequenti ;  1.  i,  fi.  De  consti.  pecunia.  Etiam  verba  generaliter 
probata  generaliter  sunt  intelligenda,  ff.  De  legat.  praestan.,  1.  i,  §  generaliter. 
Etiam  quia  iuramentum  astringit,  nisi  a  iuramento  absolvantur,  xv,  q.  vi,  cap. 
ii  et  iii.  Contrarium  est  verum,  nam  Baro  movens  guerram  Regi  incidit  in 
legem  lul.  maiestatis,  1.  i  et  1.  ii,  fi.  Ad  leg.  lul.  maiest.  ;  vi,  q.  i,  §  verum, 
versus  quisquis  cum  militibus  ;  Ixxix  dist.,  cap.  ii.  Nam  Rex  Hispaniae  est 
princeps  in  regno  suo.  Etiam  opera  non  fert  qui  ad  peccandum  iuvat,  xiv,  q. 
vi,  si  res ;  nee  prasceptum  illius  ipsos  excusaret,  ff.  De  oblig.  et  act.,  1.  servus  ;  xi, 
q.  iii,  non  semper,  et  cap.  qui  resistit,  et  cap.  si  dominus.  Nee  sacramentum  ad 
hoc  ligat,  quia  non  est  inventum  ut  sit  iniquitatis  vinculum,  xxii,  q.  iv,  inter 
cetera ;  De  iureiur.,  cap.  i,  Lib.  VI ;  faciant  quae  notantur  in  cap.  petitio,  De 
iureiurando. 


[C«p.»«»iii.)    An  subditi  uni  baroni,  mwcnli  gncrnmi  alteri  banmi,  tcncanlur  ipsum  primo, 
an  regem  moventcm  guerram  alteri  regi,  iuvare,  utriusquc 
mandato  uno  concursu  recepto  ? 

Tertio  quaeritur,  Baro  Regis  Hispaniae  movet  guerram  alteri  Baroni, 
Rex  Hispaniae  movet  guerram  regi  Granatje.  Baro  mandat  hominibus  quu- 
tenus  iuvent  ipsum  ;  Rex  autcm  mandat  li^U  in  ut  iuvent  eum  ;  et  concununt 
mandata.  Quern  primo  iuvare  tenentur  ? 

Videtur  quod  primo  Baronem,  nam  Baroni  sunt  subiecti  ratione  iidelitatis 
et  ratione  iurisdictionis,  in  Authent.,  DC  quaestore,  §  si  vero,  Coll.  vi.  Regi 


DE  VASSALLIS  113 

autem  sunt  subiecti  ratione  iurisdictionis  generalis  tantum,  et  sic  duae  rationes 
vincunt  unam,  in  Authent.,  De  consang.  et  uter.  frat.,  §  i ;  De  re  iudic.,  cum 
ezterni,  Lib.  VI ;  xiii  dist.,  can.  i. 

In  contrarium  videtur.  Nam  vocati  a  Rege  sunt  vocati  ad  maius  tri- 
bunal, et  sic  praeferendum,  ff.  De  re  iudic.,  1.  contra  pupillum,  §  fin.  ;  xviii 
dist.,  si  Episcopus.  Etiam  quia  Rex  vocat  pro  communi  bono  et  defensa 
coronae,  et  sic  iure  gentium  obediendum,  ff.  De  iustitia  et  iure,  1.  veluti  ;  i 
dist.,  ius  gentium;  xxiii,  q.  iii,  fortitudo,  et  q.  viii,  cap.  omni,  et  cap.  si  nulla. 
Nam  pro  defensione  patrise  licitum  est  patrem  interficere,  ff.  De  relig.  et 
sumpt.  fun.,  1.  minime.  Et  haec  vera. 


An  vassallus  nonlegius  duorum  dominorum,  uno  concursu  requisitus, 
utrumque  vel  alterum,  et  quern,  iuvare  teneatur  ? 

Quarto  quaeritur,  quid  de  vassallo  nonlegio  duorum,  quod  esse  potest 
ratione  diversorum  feudorum,  De  supl.  negl.  praelat.,  grandi,  Lib.  VI.  Si 
uterque  dominorum  simul  requirat  eum  ut  iuvet  ipsum  in  bello,  tenetur  utrum- 
que, an  alterum,  et  quern,  iuvare  ? 

Apparet  quod  neutrum,  cum  concursu  se  impediant,  ff.  De  usufr.,  1. 
quotient  ;  De  Poenit.,  dist.  i,  §  hoc  idem,  vers.  Christus  ait ;  xxi,  q.  i,  cap.  i. 

Apparet  quod  utrumque,  alias  perdet  feudum,  quia  difncultas  praesta- 
tionis  ex  parte  promissoris  non  perimit  obligationem,  ff.  De  verb,  obi.,  1. 
continuus,  §  illud.  Item  potest  quis  duobus  dominis  servire,  ut  ff.  De  operis 
libert.,  1.  duorum.  Ouidam  dicunt  locum  esse  gratificationi,  exemplo  servi 
duorum  dominorum,  qui  si  viderit  utrumque  dominum  interfici,  iuvare  poterit 
quern  voluerit,  ff.  Ad  Silianum,  1.  si  quis  in  gravi,  §  si  cum  omnes.  Alii  dicunt 
quod  iuvabit  priorem  dominum,  et  cui  primo  iuravit,  ut  in  Vsibus  Feudorum, 
De  prohib.  feud,  alien.,  1.  imperialem,  §  illud  ;  ff.  Locati,  1.  in  operis;  C.  Qui 
potiores  in  pign.  hab.,  1.  ii.  Nam  priorem  fidelitatem  servare  tenetur,  1 
di.,  quia  sanctitas  tua  ;  Qui  cleri.  vel  vov.,  veniens. 

Tutius  tamen  est  quod  primo  serviat  personaliter,  secundo  per  substi- 
tutum,  si  hoc  patiatur  natura  feudi,  C.  De  caduc.  toll.,  1.  una,  §  sin  autem. 
Nee  obstat  quod  iuravit  secundo,  salva  fidelitate  primi,  quod  est  de  natura 
hominis  nonlegii,  quia  serviendo  secundo  per  substitutum  non  nocet  primo, 
quod  salvatum  fuit  in  iuramento  secundi. 


An  vassallus  teneatur  iuvare  dominum  contra  patrem,  vel  pater  [Cap. 

contra  filium  ? 

Quinto  quaeritur,  an  vassallus  teneatur  iuvare  dominum  contra  patrem, 
vel  pater  contra  filium.  Glossa  format  quaestionem,  xxii,  q.  v,  cap.  de  forma, 
et  tenet  quod  sic.  Nam  filius  solum  vinculo  naturae  obligatus  est  patri,  sed 
vassallus  domino  vinculo  iuramenti,  ut  in  praeallegato  cap.  de  forma.  Hoc 


H4  DE  IVRE  BELLI 

probat  textus  in  Vsibus  Feud.,  in  cap.  quemadmodum  feud,  amit.  Glossa 
aliqualiter  sentit  contrarium,  in  cap.  quoniam  milites,  xi,  q.  iii.  Putarem  pon- 
derandam  qualitatem  impendendi  subsidii. 

An  civis  duarum  civitatum  teneatur  unam  iuvare  contra  aliam  ? 

Sexto  quaeritur,  an  civis  duarum  civitatum  teneatur  iuvare  unanf  contra 
aliam.    Solutio.    Die  ut  dictum  est  in  vassallo  duorum  dominorum. 


y4n  vassallus,  vocatus  a  domino,  teneatur  ipsum  sequi  in  partibus  ultramarinis 

ad  pugnandum  contra  barbaros  ? 

Septimo  quaeritur,  dominus  vult  ire  ad  partes  remotas,  pone  ultra  mare, 
ad  pugnandum  cum  barbaris,  numquid  vassallus,  vocatus  ab  eo,  teneatur  ipsum 
sequi  ad  bellum  ?  Solutio.  Si  dominus  est  talis  status  et  conditionis  quod 
praedecessores  sui  et  ipse  consueverunt  illuc  accedere,  et  vassalli  ipsum  sequi, 
et  tune  tenetur  exemplo  liberti,  qui  tcnetur  ad  operas  consuetas,  ff.  De  operis 
lib.,  1.  opere,  et  1.  paen. ;  ff.  De  pign.  act.,  1.  [qui]  vel  universorum.  Praestabuntur 
tamen  a  domino  sumptus  moderati,  arbitrio  boni  viri.  Si  autem  sit  talis  qui 
non  possit  nee  consuevit,  tune  secus,  ff.  De  operis  lib.,  1.  quod  nisi,  §  fin.  ;  ff. 
De  arbit.,  1.  si  cum  dies,  §  si  arbiter.  Haec  etiam  tangit  Speculum  in  Speculo, 
tit.  De  feudis,  §  ipsum. 


[c«p.»xvii.]  An  servi  teneantur  ttbique  sequi  dominum  ad  bellum  ? 

Octavo  quaeritur  de  servis,  an  teneantur  sequi  dominum  ubique  ad  bel- 
lum. De  his  non  est  dubium,  cum  in  eos  dominus  plenam  habeat  potestatem, 
dummodo  non  nimis  saeviat  in  eos,  ff.  De  his  qui  sunt  sui  vel  alien,  iuris, 
1.  i  et  ii.  

[Cap.mvm  ]  An  liberti  vocati  teneantur  sequi  palronum  ad  bellum  ? 

Nono  quaeritur,  quid  de  libertis  ?  Solutio.  Liberti  tenentur  ad  operas 
solitas,  nee  insolitae  possunt  eis  imponi,  ff.  De  operis  lib.,  1.  quod  nisi,  §  si 
vag.  W ;  ff.  De  procur.,  1.  sed  haec,  §  ii. 


[c«p.x»xi>.]  An  agricolte  vocati  teneantur  sequi  dominum  ad  bettum  ? 

Decimo  quaeritur,  quid  de  agricolis,  an  vocati  ad  bellum  a  dominis  acce- 
dere teneantur  ?  Solutio.  Agricolae  dividuntur  in  ascripticios  et  censitos. 
Ascripticii  dicuntur  per  scripturam  solo  astricti,  unde  in  adventiciis  duas  inter- 
veniunt  scripturae,  una  ad  constituendum,  alia  ad  probandum.  Prima  qua 
promittunt  domino  soli  nunquam  a  solo  recedere,  alia  qua  profitetur  se  ascrip- 
ticium,  et  de  his  scripturis  in  1.  scimus,  C.  De  agric.  et  censitis.  Et  inter  hos 


DE  SVBDITIS  115 

et  servos  paene  nulla  est  differentia,  ut  1.  ne  diu,  C.  eod.  titulo.  Et  dico  paene, 
quia  differunt,  quia  servus  alienari  potest  cum  peculio,  et  sine,  ut  denuo®  1. 
ne  diu  ;  ascripticius  non  sine  solo,  ut  1.  ii,  C.  eod.  titulo.  Item  ascripticii  citra 
domini  voluntatem  ordinari  possunt  in  possessionibus  quibus  ascripti  sunt,  in 
Authent.,  De  sanct.  episc.,  §  ascripticios  ;  servi  autem  non.  Item  ascripticii, 
sciente  et  tacente  domino,  contrahunt  matrimonium,  nee  conditionem  mutant, 
ut  C.  De  agricol.  et  censitis,  1.  ult.  ;  servi  autem  contrahentes,  scientibus  domi- 
nis  et  tacentibus,  liberantur  a  servili  conditione,  ut  in  Authent.,  De  nupt., 
§  si  vero.  Ex  quibus  luce  clarius  apparet  quod  ius  quod  habent  domini  in 
ascripticios  est  ius  relatum  ad  possessiones  quibus  ascribuntur.  Et  sic  appa- 
ret quod  provocati  a  domino  ad  extranea  onera  personalia,  non  artantur,  nisi 
ex  conventione  aliud  sit  inductum.  Censiti  autem  sunt  qui  certaa  rei  annuatim 
prsestandae  constituti  sunt,  C.  Ouib.  caus.  coloni,  1.  ii.  Etiam  in  hoc  differunt 
ab  ascripticiis,  quia  ascripticii  sunt  ascripti  ad  incertam  rem  praestandam,  puta 
tertiam  vel  quartam  fructuum,  isti  autem  certae  rei ;  et  de  his  infertur  ut 
supra.  Per  hoc  infertur  quod  nee  coloni  nee  inquilini  necessario  artari  possint. 


An  confederates  possit  dominus  vocare  ut  ipsum  iuvent  in  bello  ?  [Cap.  i 

Vndecimo  quaeritur,  quid  de  confcederatis  et  colligatis,  numquid  dominus 
poterit  confcederatos  provocare  ad  bellum  ut  ipsum  iuvare  teneantur  ?  Solu- 
tio.  Confcederati  sunt  plene  liberi,  licet  ad  aliqua  teneantur  ex  pacto,  ut  1. 
non  dubito,  ff.  De  captivis.  In  his  tamen  ponderanda  est  conventio,  et  con- 
ventionis  modus,  ut  ad  unguem  servetur,  ff.  Depositi,  1.  i,  §  si  convenitur  ; 
et  1.  i,  De  pactis. 

An  subditi  ratione  iurisdictionis  tantummodo  teneantur  ad  bellum  accedere  ?       [Cap. 

Duodecimo  quaeritur,  quid  de  his  qui  ratione  iurisdictionis  tantummodo 
sunt  subditi,  non  autem  sunt  vassalli  ?  Solutio.  Tales  accedere  tenentur,  nee 
agent  ad  deperdita,  quia  hoc  faciunt  ex  debito.  Fallit  hoc  regulare  dictum  in 
quibusdam  personis  quae  excusantur  a  muneribus  personalibus,  quorum  qui- 
dam  excusantur  aetate,  ut  minores  et  senectute  gravati,  ut  C.  Qui  aetate,  in 
rubro  et  nigro ;  quidam  infirmitate,  ut  C.  Qui  morbo,  per  totum ;  quidam 
liberorum  numero,  ut  C.  Qui  numero  liber.,  per  totum  ;  quidam  propter 
professionem,  ut  C.  De  profess,  et  medic. ;  quidam  sexu,  ut  mulieres,  et  con- 
similes.  Alias  stat  regula. 


De  personis  non  astrictis  ad  bellum,  liber e  accedentibus.  [Cap.xm.] 

Haec  autem  dicta  sunt  de  his  personis  quae  sunt  qualitercumque  astrictae. 
Restat  videre  de  personis  plene  liberis  ad  bellum  provocatis.  Pro  cuius 
evidentia,  est  attendendum  quod  accedentibus  ad  bellum  non  necessitate  nee 

[7] 


n6  DE  IVRE  BELLI 

debito  necessario,  nam  cle  debito  accedentibus  supra  tactum  est.  Ouidam 
accedunt  plena  liberalitafe ;  quidam  accedunt  quia  tenentur  ad  antidora ;  qui- 
dam  accedunt  propter  gloriam  quaerendam  et  consequendam  in  bello  ;  quidam 
accedunt  quia  locant  operas  suas,  si  contractus  locati  appellari  potest,  ut  sti- 
pendiarii ;  quidam  accedunt  solum  animo  spoliandi,  ut  nuncupati  "  Sacco- 
manni,"  quasi  manu  arripientes  et  sacco  deferentes,  et  de  his  videamus.  Et 
primo  de  primis,  ut  de  plene  libere  accedentibus. 

An  libere  accedentes  obligent  sibi  ilium  in  cuius  servitium  vadunt,  etc.? 

Et  primo  quaeritur  numquid  accedentes  libere  ad  bellum  obligent  sibi 
ilium  in  cuius  servitium  vadunt,  si  damnum  incidunt,  utpote  si  in  bello  perdant 
arma,  equos,  sive  capiantur,  sive  etiam  eundo  ad  bellum  sive  redeundo  ?  Solu- 
tio.  Hie  est  attendendum  quod  accedentes  libere  aliquando  accedunt  prius 
vocati  et  rogati  a  dominis,  aliquando  motu  proprio,  non  requisiti  a  dominis. 
Si  accedunt  vocati  a  dominis,  tune  habent  actionem  mandati  contra  dominum, 
si  sic,  ut  supra  dictum  est,  contingat,  aliquid  ipsos  perdere,  nisi  appareat  quod 
causa  pietatis,  humanitatis,  vel  parentelae,  hoc  faciant,  xxiii,  q.  iii,  non  [in- 
ferenda]  in  inferenda  ;  xi,  q.  iii,  si  dominus,  et  cap.  lulianus.  Si  autem  opponas, 
et  dicas  dominum  non  teneri,  quia  talia  perdunt  casu  fortuito,  de  quo  quis  non 
tenetur,  De  homici.,  Johannes;  C.  De  pign.  act.,  1.  qua  fortuitis.  Solutio.  Iste 
est  casus  fortuitus  qui  potuit  et  debuit  praevideri,  quia  verisimiliter  haec 
contingunt  in  bellis,  quia  dubius  est  eventus  belli,  et  ita  notat  Innocentius 
in  cap.  sicut,  De  iureiurando. 

[c*p.«iiii.]  An  commodatarius  teneatur  commodanti  equos  et  arma  in  bello 

deperdita  resarcire  ? 

Secundo  quaeritur,  quid  de  commodante  tali  arma  et  equos  pro  eundo  ad 
bellum,  numquid,  si  perdantur,  teneatur  commodatarius  commodanti  ?  Et 
videtur  quod  sic,  argumento  supra  proximo  a  simili,  cum  hoc  etiam  praevideri 
potuerit,  ut  supra.  Solutio.  In  hoc  casu  secus,  secundum  Innocentium,  et  est 
ratio  differentiae,  quia  in  hoc  casu  commodatarius  non  excessit  fines,  quia  non 
est  usus  nisi  ad  usum  ilium  ad  quern  initus  est  contractus,  idcirco  non  tenetur, 
ff.  Commod.,  1.  si  ut  certo,  §  sed  interdum.  In  mandate  autem,  licet  praescirc 
potuerit  quod  perdere  verisimiliter  potuerit,  tamen  sciebat  actionem  mandati 
sibi  competere,  quia  illud  evenit  ex  natura  contractus.  Et  haec  semper  proce- 
dunt,  nisi  ex  pacto  special!  aliud  sit  inductum. 


ic«p.  x«r.]          An  conductor  teneatur  locatori  equos  et  arma  in  bello  deperdita  resarcire? 

Tertio  quaeritur  quid  de  locante  equos  et  arma  ?  numquid,  si  perdantur 
in  bello,  aget  locator  contra  conductorem  ?  Solutio.  Die  ut  supra  in  commo- 
dante, quia  non  aget,  quia  ad  hoc  conduxit,  nee  fines  excessit,  ff.  Locat.  et  con- 
duct., 1.  si  quis  domum.  


DE  ACCEDENTIBVS  117 

A  n  provocans  contra  spoliatorem  provocati  ad  bellum  accedentis  agat  vi  CCaP- ilv-] 

bonorum  raptorum  ? 

Quarto  quaeritur,  quid  si  provocatus  ad  bellum,  in  itinere  accedendo  ad 
eius  subsidium,  spolietur  armis,  et  equis,  et  aliis  rebus  suis  ?  Dictum  est  quod 
mandans  tenetur  mandatario,  sed  numquid  aget  mandans  contra  spoliantem 
vi  bonorum  raptorum,  vel  furti  ?  Apparet  quod  sic,  quia  eius  interest,  quia 
tenetur  actione  mandati  mandatario.  Solutio.  Ei  contra  spoliantem  non  com- 
petunt  actiones  illae.  Et  est  ratio,  quia  vi  bonorum  raptorum  competit  illi  in 
cuius  bonis  erant  rapta,  ff.  Vi  bon.  rapt.,  1.  ii,  §  hac  actione.  Actio  enim  vi 
bonorum  raptorum,  vel  furti  non  competit  nisi  illi  qui  habuit  dominium,  vel 
possessionem,  vel  detentationem,  vel  aliquod  ius  in  re,  ut  est  ille  cui  obligata 
erat  res  pignori,  et  nondum  tradita,  ff.  De  prescript,  verb.,  1.  s*i  gratuitam, 
§  si  quis  ;  ff.  De  furt.,  1.  si  is  qui  rent,  et  1.  is  cui.  Spoliatis,  ergo,  competunt  hse 
actiones,  poterunt  tamen  agere  actione  mandati  contra  mandantem,  et  man- 
dans, cum  solvent,  facere  sibi  cedi  actiones  contra  spoliantem,  et  tune  aget 
iure  cesso,  ut  procurator  constitutus  in  rem  suam,  C.  Mand.,  1.  paen.,  et  1.  fin. 
Hoc  etiam  tenet  Innocentius  in  praeallegato  capitulo,  sicut,  De  iureiurando. 

An  non  vocati  ad  bellum,  sed  proprio  motu  accedentes,  obligent  sibi  ilium  in       [Cap.  xivi.] 

cuius  servitium  vadunt  ? 

Quinto  quaeritur  de  accedentibus  non  provocatis,  sed  motu  proprio. 
Solutio.  Si  animo  donandi,  est  clarum,  ut  puta  pietatis,  humanitatis,  vel 
parentelae.  Tales  non  agent,  xxiii,  q.  iii,  non  [inferenda]  in  inferenda;  xi, 
q.  iii,  si  dominus,  et  cap.  lulianus.  Si  autem  animo  obligandi  eum  cuius 
negotia  gerunt,  tune  agent  actione  negotiorum  gestorum,  et  sufncit  utiliter 
coeptum,  ff.  De  neg.  gest.,  1.  sed  an  ultra. 


An  non  vocati  ad  bellum,  sed  proprio  motu  accedentes  et  utiliter  proficiscentes,      [Cap. 
obligent  sibi  ilium,  etiam  renitentem  et  contradicentem,  in 

cuius  servitium  vadunt  ? 

Sexto  quaeritur  quid  de  accedentibus  proprio  motu,  contradicentibus 
tamen  illis  in  quorum  subsidium  vadunt,  numquid  tales  agent  si  utiliter  inci- 
piant,  et  feliciter  impleant,  ut  magis  procedat  quaestio  ?  Apparet  quod  sic, 
ad  similitudinem  illius  qui  trahit  aliquem  invitum  de  domo  ruitura,  xxiii,  q.  iv, 
ipsa  pietas.  Etiam  quia  invito  concedi  potest  beneficium,  xlv  dist.,  et  qui 
emendat.  Etiam  quia  videtur  fuisse  insanae  mentis  contradicendo  ne  iuvetur, 
ff.  De  condi.  instit.,  1.  quidam  ;  De  Pcenitentia,  dist.  iii,  adhuc  instant;  sic  tenet 
glossa  in  medico  medicante  alicui  contra  voluntatem  suam.  Hoc  notat  Ixxxiii 
dist.,  in  summa.  Contrarium  credo  in  casu  proposito  per  1.  ult.,  C.  De  neg. 
gest. ;  nee  propterea  reprobo  glossam,  immo  credo,  quod  verum  dicat  in  infirmo 
et  medico,  quia  infirmus  praesumitur  insanae  mentis,  cum  non  vult  absolute 
curari.  Sed  iste  qui  contradicit  huic,  ne  veniat  ad  bellum  pro  succursu  suo,  non 
pnesumitur  insanae  mentis,  nam  possibile  est  quod  non  conndit  de  eo,  et 


n8  DE  IVRE  BELLI 

dubitat  ne  prodat  ipsum.  Nee  credo  quod  glossa  procedat  in  casu  in  quo 
infirmus  bene  vellet  sanari,  sed  nollet  istum,  immo  potius  alium,  tune  iudicio 
meo  non  procederet  glossa,  nee  hoc  probant  allegata  supra.  Hoc  de  accedenti- 
bus  libere. 

[C«p.»i>iii]  De  accedentibus  quia  tenentur  ad  antidora,  an  tales  agant  contra  ilium 

quern  iuvant  ? 

Restat  videre  quid  de  his  qui  vadunt  quia  tenentur  ad  antidora,  ut  puta 
quia  simile,  vel  aliud,  subsidium  recepit  ab  eo.  Numquid  tab's  aget  contra 
ilium  quem  iuvat  ad  deperdita,  ut  supra  ?  Solutio.  Si  sic  vadit,  ut  thema 
supponit,  vadit  animo  dissolvendae  obligationis  naturalis,  quae  tamen  non  potest 
deduci  in  civilem,  nee  de  ea  excipi  potest  in  iudicio.  De  qua  ff.  De  petit, 
haered.,  1.  sed  si  lege,  §  consuluit ;  De  testamentis,  cum  in  officiis.  Et  sic  infertur 
quod  vadat  non  animo  obligandi,  cum  idem  actus  uniformiter  sumptus  non 
possit  parere  contraries  effectus,  ff.  De  verbor.  obh'gat.,  1.  si  quis ;  ff.  De 
condict.  indebiti,  1.  cum  pars,  §  heres,  et  1.  cum  heres®.  Et  si  dicas  hie  non 
est  opus  dissolutione,  quia  nulla  nata  obligatio  efficax  ad  agendum,  vel  excipien- 
dum,  et  sic  non  potest  dissolvi,  quod  non  est,  ff.  De  iniusto,  rupto,  irrito  facto 
testam.,  1.  nam;  idem  quod  De  desponsatione  impuberum,  cap.  ad  dissolvendum. 
Solutio.  Licet  non  sit  nata  obligatio  efficax  ad  agendum  vel  excipiendum,  ut 
supra  dictum  est,  tamen  nata  est  talis  naturalis  quae  dissolvi  potest  per  antidoti 
recompensationem,  ut  iuribus  statim  allegatis,  et  iste  animus  dissolvendi 
impedit  nativitatem  obligationis,  cum  in  obligatione  requiratur  animus,  ut 
1.  obligationum,  ff.  De  oblig.  et  act.,  et  1.  nonfigura,  eodem  titulo. 


(Cap.  xifcj  DC  accedentibus  propter  gloriam  consequent} aw. 

Restat  videre  de  accedentibus  propter  gloriam  consequendam  in  bello. 

An  tales  obligent  sibi  ilium  in  cuius  subsidium  vadunt  ? 

An  tales  obligent  sibi  ilium  ad  cuius  succursum  accedunt.  Solutio.  Si 
ob  hoc  solum  accedunt,  non  obligant,  nam  aut  dominus  teneretur  actione  man- 
dati,  aut  neg.  gestorum.  Non  mandati,  cum  nullum  intervenerit  mandatum, 
ut  supponitur  in  themate  quaestionis  propositse,  nee  actio  mandati  oritur  nisi 
intercedentc  mandate,  nam  h'cet  aliqui  dicant  quod  actio  mandati  oriatur  ex 
culpa  vel  dolo  intervenientibus,  iam  suscepto  mandate,  tamen  requiritur  prae- 
cedentia  mandati,  ut  I.  i,  ff.  Mandati.  Vel  si  dicas  quod  oriatur  ex  contractu 
praecedenti,  quod  verius,  sicut  alias  dicimus  in  contractibus  innominatis,  ut  I.  ex 
placito,  [ff.]  C.  De  rerum  permutatione.  Non  negotii  gesti,  quia  non  accessit 
animo  gerendi  negotia  illius,  immo  propria,  licet  in  vim  consequential  alterius 
negotia  gerat,  et  sic  nee  ilia  competet. 


DE  CLERICIS  119 

De  accedentibus  quid  locant  operas  suas.  tc»p.  i.] 

Restat  videre  de  his  qui  locant  operas  suas,  vel  verius  assumuntur  per 
electionem,  constitute  salario. 

An  tales  agant  contra  conductor es  ? 

An  locatores  agant  contra  conducentes  ?  Solutio.  Tales  locant  operas 
et  rem,  et  ideo  si  conductor  utatur  solum  ad  id  ad  quod  conducuntur,  non 
tenetur,  ut  1.  si  quis  domum,  ff.  Locati  et  conducti ;  et  hoc  nisi  aliud  speciale 
pactum  interveniat,  vel  consuetude  aliud  inducat,  ut  est  in  Italia,  scilicet,  quod 
prsestantur  emendae  equorum  deperditorum  in  servitio  conducentis,  alias  stat 
regula,  ut  supra  deductum  est. 


De  accedentibus  animo  spoliandi.    An  talibus  competat  actio  P  [Cap.  11.] 

Restat  etiam  videre  de  his  qui  accedunt  animo  derobandi,  et  de  his  non 
est  dubium  quod  talibus  non  competit  actio,  cum  super  re  turpi  nulla  inducatur 
obligatio,  ff.  De  verbor.  obligation.,  1.  veluti,  et  1.  generaliter  ;  et*  1.  siexplagis, 


An  clerici  ad  bellum  accedere  possint  ?  [Ca 

Vlterius  est  videndum  quid  de  clericis,  an,  scilicet,  possint  ad  bella  acce- 
dere ?  Hanc  quaestionem  terminavit  Gratianus,  xxiii,  q.  viii,  convenior ;  ut 
glossa  ibi  recitat  in  summa.  Circa  hoc  fuerunt  opiniones  variae,  nam  aliqui 
dicunt  quod  clerici  possunt  uti  armis  defensionis,  non  autem  impugnationis,  et 
sic  bellare  propter  defensam.  Alii  quod  omnibus  armis,  dummodo  impug- 
nent  in  continenti,  et  pro  seipsis  tantum  defendendis,  et  non  pro  aliis,  et  pro  se 
in  necessitate  inevitabili  positis,  De  homicidio,  cap.  ii ;  xxiii,  q.  viii,  convenior  ; 
et  eadem  causa  et  q.  i,  in  principio.  Si  autem  alias  evadere  possunt,  tune  non 
possunt,  ut  cap.  suscepimus,  De  homicidio.  Alii  dicunt  quod  auctoritate 
Papse  possunt,  alias  non.  Gandulphus  tenet  quod  personaliter  bellare  non 
possunt,  sed  per  alios  possunt.  Idem  videtur  sentire  Gratianus,  xxiii,  q.  i, 
§  in  registro. 

Concludendo  in  hoc  puncto,  clerici  vocati  a  Papa  possunt  accedere,  nam 
penes  Principem  est  auctoritas  bellandi,  xxiii,  q.  i,  quid  culpatur ;  eadem 
causa  et  q.  ii,  cap.  i,  et  q.  iii,  cap.  Maximianus.  In  bello  autem  eis  non 
est  licitum  occidere  etiam  paganum  propter  metum  irregularitatis,  possunt 
tamen  alios  confortare  ad  bellum,  ut  pugnent,  immo  et  lapides  et  alia 
proicere,  dummodo  ex  eorum  ictibus  nulli  occidantur.  Ita  notat  Inno- 
centius,  De  restit.  spol.,  olim  ;  et  cap.  sententiam,  Ne  cler.  vel  monachi.  Vocati 
ab  aliis,  maxime  principibus  sascularibus,  bellare  non  debent.  Pro  defensa 
autem  propria,  ubi  aliter  evadere  non  possunt,  licitum  est  etiam  occidere, 
etiam  sine  metu  irregularitatis,  ut  in  Clem.,  si  furiosus,  De  homicidio.  Et 

*  Supplendum  'Ad  legem  Aquiliam,'. 


120  DE  IVRE  BELLI 

bene  dice  defensa  propriae  persons,  secus  si  defendat  alium  etiam  in  continent!, 
ut  patrem,  fratrem,  et  similes  personas.  Nee  huic  obstat  quod  notat  Innocentius, 
in  cap.  s»  vero,  i,  De  sent,  excom.  ;  ubi  tenet  quod  percutiens  clericum  hoc 
casu  non  est  excommunicatus.  Nam  irregularitas  contrahitur  etiam  sine 
culpa,  ut  in  iudice  iuste  occidente,  li  dist.,  cap.  i ;  et  nota  in  cap.  inter  opera, 
De  sponsalibus.  Excommunicatio  autem  non  contrahitur  sine  culpa,  immo 
oportet  quod  praecedat  diabolica  persuasio,  xvii,  q.  iv,  si  quis  suadente ;  ita 
notat  Clem.,  in  dicto  cap.,  sifuriosus. 

An  autem  imputari  possit  clerico  qui  non  fugit,  sed  exspectat  invasorem 
et  ipsum  se  defendendo  interficit  ?  Videtur  quod  imputari  debeat,  per  textum 
illius  dementis,  cum  dicit,  "  qui  mortem  aliter  vitare  non  poterat  "  ;  proba- 
tur  per  1.  scientiam,  §  qui  cum  aliter,  ff.  Ad  leg.  Aquil.  ;  unde  sumpta  estp) 
dicta  dementis.  Et  hoc  ad  exemplum  Salvatoris,  qui  fugit  in  ^Egyptum, 
xxiii,  q.  iii,  §  i.  Et  hoc  notat  Bernardus  in  cap.  suscepimus,  De  homicidio. 

Contrarium  credo  per  1.  in  eadem,  ff.  Ex  quibus  causis  maiores  ;  nam 
ibi  aequiparantur  haec  duo,  non  posse  recedere,  et  sine  dedecore  non  posse. 
Fortius  movet,  quia  in  fuga  posset  occurrere  periculum,  utpote  si  caderet,  quod 
frequenter  occurrit  in  fuga,  unde  non  debet  se  tali  periculo  exponere,  Vt  lite 
non  contestata,  accedens,  ii.  In  hoc  tamen  credo  ponderandas  singulas  cir- 
cumstantias,  utpote  periculum  fugae,  qualitatem  personae  fugientis,  et  inva- 
dentis,  ut  si  propter  fugam  verisimiliter  mortis  periculum  incideret,  tune  non 
sit  imputandum,  alias  sic. 

An  stipendiarii  in  Alamannia  assumpti,  constitute  salario  per  conduccntcm, 
agant  contra  eum  qui,  dum  veniunt,  etc.  ? 

Quid  si  stipendiarii  sunt  assumpti,  constitute  salario  habentes  nrmam  per 
vi  menses,  de  Alamannia,  ut  veniant  ad  serviendum  Itah'co,  et,  dum  veniunt, 
Italicus  pcrdit  statum  suum  totaliter,  numquid  stipendiarii  agent  ad  salarium  ? 


[C«p.  iiii.j  An  stipendiarii  assumpti  de  Alamannia  per  civitatem  Italicam,  salario 

constituto  per  annum,  qui  dum  venirent,  ciritas  tyrannicc 
occupata  cst,  agant  ad  salarium  totum,  etc.  ? 

Quid  si  stipendiarii  sunt  assumpti  de  Alamannia  per  civitatem  Italicam, 
constituto  salario.  habentes  nrmam  per  annum,  et  interim  dum  sunt  in  itinere 
veniendi,  civitas  occupatur  per  tyrannum  violenter,  numquid  agent  stipm- 
diarii  ad  salarium  totum,  aut  pro  rata,  vel  ad  quid  ?  Et  videtur  quod  ad 
totum,  et  videntur  textus  hoc  probare,  C.  De  annonis  [et  protocolis] m,  1.  i ; 
C.  De  agent,  in  rebus,  1.  matriculant ;  C.  De  prox.  sacr.  scrinior.,  1.  si  quis  in 
sacris ;  C.  De  primipilo,  1.  i ;  ff.  De  legat.,  1.  legatum ;  ff.  De  var.  et  extra, 
cognitionibus,  1.  i,  §  divus. 

In  contrarium,  quod  pro  rata,  videntur  textus,  C.  De  erog.  milit.  annon.  ; 
1.  his  scholaribus,  et  1.  p.  in  fin. ;  et  1.  post  duos,  C.  De  advoc.  divers,  iudiciorum. 


DE  STIPENDIARIIS  121 

Solutio.  Hie  non  debetur  pecunia  ex  contractu  puro,  immo  debetur  ex 
dispositione  legis,  quia  sunt  elect!  ad  officium,  et  ex  dispositione  legis  munici- 
palis  datur  salarium.  Sic  ergo  non  est  mere  contractus  locati  et  conducti.  Et 
in  talibus  est  attendendum  quod  aliquando  aliqui  eliguntur  ad  officium  quod 
requirit  laborem,  ubi  datur  salarium  pro  labore  principaliter,  ut  sunt  stipen- 
diarii.  Aliquando  eliguntur  ad  officium  ubi  datur  salarium  non  solum  pro 
labore  sed  quia  attenditur  probitas  intellectus  et  scientiae,  ut  est  in  potesta- 
tibus  et  similibus.  Quandoque  eliguntur  ad  officium,  et  datur  salarium  pro 
utroque,  scilicet,  et  pro  labore,  et  pro  probitate  intellectus  et  scientiae,  ut  in 
legatis. 

Primo  casu,  datur  pro  rata  temporis  quo  serviunt,  ut  1.  paen.,  C.  De  erog. 
milit.  annonae.  Secundo  casu,  si  una  prsestatio  tantum  erat,  tune  totum 
datur,  ut  11.  allegatis  in  contrarium.  Si  autem  non  erat  una  praestatio,  habere 
debet  pro  anno  quo  incepit  officium,  ut  1.  post  duos,  C.  De  advoc.  divers, 
iudiciorum. 

Tertio  casu,  aliquando  datum  in  remunerationem  laboris  et  prudentise  est 
indivisibile,  ut  in  advocatis,  doctoribus,  et  legatis,  et  tune  datum  totum,  ut 
supra.  Aliquando  est  divisibile,  ut  in  contestabili  banderiae,  nam  ibi  uterque 
eligitur,  scilicet,  industria  et  labor,  et  recipiunt  divisionem  tune,  ut  stipendiarii 
recipient  pro  rata,  ut  industries!  et  ratione  industries  electi  habent  totum, 
distinguendo,  ut  supra. 

Est  dare  quartum  casum,  ubi  quis  eligitur  ad  dignitatem  principaliter, 
ut  domesticus  Principis.  Tune  habet  totum,  ut  1.  si  quis  in  sacris,  C.  De  proxi. 
sacr.  scri.  ;  et  1.  matriculant,  C.  De  agent,  in  rebus  ;  et  1.  i,  De  principibus. 
Et  transit  salarium  ad  haeredes,  C.  De  domesti.  et  protect.,  1.  fin.,  lib.  xii. 
Per  hoc  solvitur  quaestio  de  Comite  Lando,  capitaneo  societatis  latrunculorum, 
assumpto  pluries  per  dominos  Italicos  ad  stipendium,  facta  firma  certi  tem- 
poris, et  constitute  salario. 


An  in  principio  vel  in  fine  cuiuslibet  mensis  solvi  debeat  stipendiariis  ?          tcap.  HVJ 

Vlterius  quaeritur  quando  debeat  solvi  stipendiariis,  an  in  principio 
cuiuslibet  mensis  an  in  fine.  Glossae  aliquse  videntur  in  advocate  qui  etiam 
militat,  ut  1.  advocati,  C.  De  advoc.  divers,  iudicio.,  quod  debeatur  a  prin- 
cipio. Hoc  tenet  in  1.  i,  §  divus,  ff.  De  extraordin.  cognitionibus.  Idem  sentit 
in  1.  properandum,  §  in  honorariis,  C.  De  iudiciis ;  et  1.  qui  operas,  §  i,  ff.  Locat. 
et  conducti.  Contrarium  tenet  in  1.  i,  C.  De  principibus,  lib.  xii.  Solutio. 
Aliquando  datur  pecunia  magis  pro  sumptibus  quam  pro  mercede  laboris, 
et  tune  debetur  in  principio.  Tolle  exemplum  in  legatis,  probatur  hoc,  ff. 
De  legationibus,  1.  legatum®;  ff.  Hand.,  1.  si  vero  non  remunerandi,  §  si 
[mandalo]  mandavero ;  C.  De  legationibus,  1.  ii,  lib.  x.  Aliquando  debetur 
pecunia  pro  mercede  laboris,  et  tune  ponderari  debet  quid  actum  sit  expresse 
vel  tacite,  nam  si  tacite  actum  sit,  tune  videtur  quod  in  principio.  Ecce  talis 


122  DE  IVRE  BELLI 

est  qui  non  potest  exhibere  operas  promissas  nisi  sibi  detur  pecunia,  tune 
videtur  actum  tacite  quod  debcatur  in  principio,  tune  cnim  semper  inspicimus 
quod  vcrisimilius  est,  ff.  De  regul.  iur.,  1.  semper  in  stipulationibus.  Si  autrm 
non  apparet  ista  verisimilitudo,  tune  ex  obligationibus  quae  descendunt  ex 
contractu  salarium  debetur  in  fine  temporis,  ut  notandum  in  1.  eadem,  C.  Locat. 
et  conduct. ;  et  notanda  ff.  De  stip.  servorum,  1.  si  servus  communis  Mavii, 
§  finalis.  Si  autem  debeatur  ex  dispositione  legis  electis  ad  officia,  de  quibus 
supra,  ut  in  proposito,  tune,  si  est  unum  tantum  salarium,  tune  in  initio  debet 
praestari,  ut  1.  i,  §  divus,  ff.  De  var.  et  extraor.  cognitionibus.  Et  si  intelliguntur 
glossae  hoc  sentientes,  aut  est  annuum  vel  menstruum,  ut  in  stipendiary's  de 
quibus  loquimur,  qui  habent  vii  florenos  in  mense  proposita,  et  tune  debetur 
in  principio,  ut  1.  post  duos,  C.  De  advoc.  diver,  iudic. ;  et  1.  i,  C.  De  principibus, 
lib.  xii.  Puto  tamen  quod  stipendiarii  non  habeant  effectualiter  nisi  pro  rata 
temporis  quo  serviunt,  ut  supra  deductum  est,  et  residuum  teneantur  restituere, 
etiam  ubi  per  casum  extrinsecum  insurgat  impedimentum. 


[Cap.  IT.)  An  stipendiarii,  se  absentantes  tempore  aliquo,  etiam  de  licentia  domini, 

perdant  salarium  pro  tempore  illo  ? 

Quid  si  stipendiarii  pendente  tempore  stipendii  recedunt  aliquo  tempore, 
numquid  pro  illo  tempore  perdent  stipendium,  et  pone  quod  cum  licentia 
domini  ?  Solutio.  Hie  advertendum  quod  operae  aliquando  limitantur  re- 
spectu  temporis  non  certificati.  Tolle  in  advocatis  ecclesiae,  qui  habent  tan- 
tum salarium  pro  qualibet  causa  qua  occurret  ecclesiae  illo  anno,  et  tune  non  est 
dubium  quod  est  una  obligatio  propter  unum  factum  ad  quod  inducitur,  licet 
praestationes  possint  esse  plures.  Idcirco  totum  debetur,  ut  praeallegata,  1.  i, 
§  divus,  ff.  De  extraor.  cognitionibus.  Aliquando  operae  sunt  limitatae  re- 
spectu  certificati  et  certi  temporis,  ut  in  doctore  assumpto  ad  legendum  librum 
certum,  tempore  certo.  Et  tune  aut  promittitur  totum  salarium  simul,  sed  fit 
distributio  solutionis  per  partes  temporis,  et  tune  etiam  una  obligatio,  ut  supra, 
ut  1.  lecta.,  ff.  De  rebus  creditis.  Aliquando  fit  annua  vel  menstrua,  et  tune 
sunt  tot  obligationes  quot  menses,  ut  1.  post  duos,  et  tune  non  habet  pro  toto 
tempore,  immo  singulis  mensibus  quibus  servit  cedunt  dies  obligationum 
singularum. 

(Cap.  M.J       An  stipendiarii,  qui  culpa  sua  nolunt  servire  toto  tempore  firmce  sua,  perdant 
stipendium  totius  temporis,  aut  pro  eo  tantum  quo  non  servierunt  ? 

Quid  si  culpa  sua  nolunt  servire  toto  tempore,  an  perdent  salarium  totius 
temporis,  sic  quod  nihil  habeant  etiam  pro  tempore  quo  servierunt,  an  solum 
perdere  debeant  pro  tempore  quo  non  serviunt  ?  Solutio.  Quaedam  sunt 
officia,  ad  quae  quis  eligitur,  quae  sic  sunt  individua  quod  aliquo  omisso  resi- 
duum nihil  relevat,  et  in  talibus  totum  perditur.  Tolle  exemplum  in  legatis, 


DE  SPOLIIS  ET  CAPTIVIS  123 

ut  C.  De  legationibus,  1.  ii.  Quaedam  sunt  officia  quse  sunt  quoad  hoc  sic 
dividua,  quod  aliquo  omisso  residuum  relevat.  Tolle  exemplum  in  potestate 
in  stipendiario.  Tune  non  reddit  totum,  sed  solum  pro  tempore  future,  tenetur 
tamen  pro  future  tempore  ad  interesse,  ut  si  nihil  intersit,  nihil  solvat,  ff. 
Locat.  et  conduct.,  1.  si  fundus,  versiculus  [verisimilis]  similiter ;  et  not.  in 
1.  Mavia,  ff.  De  annu.  legatis. 


An  stipendiarius  possit  servire  per  substitutum  ?  [Cap.  MI.] 

Quid  si  velit  servire  per  substitutum  ?  Apparet  quod  non  possit,  quia 
electa  industria  personae,  ut  1.  inter  artifices,  ff.  De  solut.  ;  1.  una,  C.  De  caduc. 
tollend.  ;  et  cap.  ult.,  De  offic.  delegat.,  et  cap.  is  cui,  eod.  tit.,  Lib.  VI.  In  con- 
trarium  videtur,  quia  potest  quis  per  alium  quod  per  se,  ut  regula  potest  quis, 
cum  similibus.  Solutio.  Debet  ponderari  modus  assumptionis,  nam  ali- 
quando  dominus  vel  civitas  assumit  contestabilem,  cui  dat  banderiam  et  sti- 
pendium,  et  contestabilis  debet  sibi  eligere  sub  banderia  quos  voluerit,  et  tune 
non  currit  quaestio  inter  civitatem  et  stipendiarios,  quia  civitas  nihil  eligat  nisi 
industriam  et  laborem  contestabilis,  ipsi  tamen  tenentur.  Aliquando  civitas 
eligit  sibi  stipendiarios  quos  reponit  sub  singulis  banderiis,  et  tune  in  contesta- 
bili  eligitur  industria  et  opera.  Ex  capite  industriae  non  posset  dare  substitu- 
tum, ut  iuribus  statim  allegatis.  In  stipendiariis  eligitur  tantum  opera  et  labor, 
tune  in  his  quorum  opera  eligitur,  et  non  industria,  potest  quis  dare  substitu- 
tum, ut  notat  Innocentius,  in  cap.  cum  Bertholdus,  De  re  iudicata.  Hostiensis 
ibi  contrarium.  Credo  opinionem  Innocentii  veriorem,  ponderatis  iuribus 
statim  allegatis,  et  eorum  mente.  Tutius  tamen  est  quod  fiat  cum  consensu 
domini,  ut  salvetur  utriusque  opinio. 


An  stipendiarius  perdat  stipendium  tempore  quo  infirmatur  ?  [Cap.  h-m 

Quid  si  stipendiarius  infirmetur  ?    Solutio.    Servire  videtur,  ut  debeatur 
salarium,  ut  1.  si  heres,  §  Stichus  ro,  ff .  De  statuliberis. 


De  spoliis  et  capturis  quce  sunt  in  bello.    An  aliquis  capiens  in  bello  efficiatur     [Cap.  i 
dominus  personce  captce  et  rei,  et  an  sit  locus  postliminio  ? 

Quinto  videndum  restat  de  spoliis  et  capturis  quae  in  bello  fiunt. 

Et  primo  quaeritur,  an  in  bello  aliquid  capiens  efficiatur  dominus  personae 
captae  et  rei,  et  an  sit  locus  postliminio  ?  Solutio.  In  bello  publico,  auctori- 
tate  Principis  inducto,  de  quo  supra  dictum  est,  haec  omnia  procedunt,  nam 
capiens  efficitur  dominus,  capti  efficiuntur  servi,  ut  1.  hastes,  ff.  De  captivis  ;  et 
1.  hostes,  ff .  De  verb,  significatione.  Si  autem  bellum  non  sit  ex  edicto  Principis, 
licet  alias  iustum,  ut  cum  sit  pro  defensa  rerum  suarum,  tune  si  ille  qui  bellum 
indicit  habet  iurisdictionem  super  eo  pro  quo  bellum  indicit,  potest  statuere 
8 


124  DE  IVRE  BELLI 

quod  quilibet  capiens  aliquid  in  bello  illo  efficiatur  dominus  rerum  captarum,  et 
personam  detineat  donee  praesentet  superior!.  Ita  tenet  Innocentius  in  cap. 
SICK/,  De  iureiurando,  remittens  super  hoc  ad  notam  in  cap.  a  nobis,  De  sent, 
excommunicationis.  Subdit  Innocentius  quod,  si  non  fecerit  aliquam  consti- 
tutionem,  poterit  ilium  damnare  de  invasione  facta  infra  fines  suae  iurisdic- 
tionis,  ut  in  Authent.,  qua  in  provincia,  C.  Vbi  de  crim.  agi  oporteat.  Subdit 
quod,  si  bellum  indicens  nullam  habet  iurisdictionem,  sed  solum  defendit  se  et 
bona  sua,  tune  non  b'cet  sibi  invasorem  suum  capere,  et  captum  detinere,  quia 
solum  licet  sibi  se  defendere,  tamen  cum  moderamine  inculpatae  tutelae,  C. 
Vnde  vi,  1.  i ;  De  restit.  spoliat.,  olim.  Subdit  quod,  si  invadat  res  invasoris 
sui,  quod  invasori  non  competit  vi  bonorum  raptorum,  nee  iniuriarum,  quia 
obstat  exceptio  pans  criminis.  Haec  omnia,  ut  dixi,  notat  Innocentius  in  cap. 
sicut,  De  iureiurando.  Primum  dictum  Innocentii  puto  verum  indistincte, 
quia  dominus  propter  delictum  per  constitutionem  suam  potest  quem  privare 
dominio  rei  suae  et  in  alium  transferre.  Secundum  autem  dictum  non  credo 
verum  indistincte.  Immo  credo  quod,  si  civitas  non  recognoscens  superiorem 
de  facto  indicat  bellum  alii,  etiam  non  recognoscenti,  et  sic  quaslibet  sit  hostis 
populi  Romani,  quod,  sine  aliqua  constitutione,  ibi  vindicet  locum  quod  in 
bello  indicto  ex  edicto  Principis,  nam  hoc  evenit  ex  iure  gentium  antiquis 
moribus  introducto,  salvo  quam  de  personis,  quia  modernis  temporibus  non 
procedit  quod  capti  in  bellis  istis  emciantur  servi  nee  vendantur,  nee  in  talibus 
locus  est  hodie  postliminio.  Tertium  dictum  legendo,  illam  decretalem  ali- 
quando  reprobavi  per  rationem  illam.  Nam  spoliatus  ante  omnia  est  resti- 
tuendus,  nee  opponi  potest  exceptio  criminis,  ut  in  cap.  in  literis,  et  cap.  item 
cum  quis,  De  restit.  spoliatorum.  Non  ergo  excipiet  primus  spoliatus  de 
crimine,  nee  de  alio  etiam  maiori.  Nunc  scribendo  credo  salvari  posse  glossam 
Innocentii  duobus  modis.  Primo,  quia  non  loquitur  Innocentius  in  casu  in 
quo  spoliatus  ultimus  intentat  interdictum  Vnde  vi,  immo  loquitur  in  casu 
in  quo  intentat  Vi  bonorum  raptorum,  vel  Iniuriarum,  quae,  ut  claret,  multum 
differunt.  Vel  die  quod  Innocentius  non  intelligit  quod  opponatur  exceptio 
criminis  in  modum  criminis,  sed  in  modum  alterius  spoliationis,  de  qua  excipi 
potest  contra  agentem  etiam  interdicto  Recuperandae,  ut  repellatur  exceptione 
spoliationis,  ut  probat  textus  in  cap.  super  spoliation* ,  De  ordine  cognitionum. 


[Cap.  u.)  An  capti  in  bello  duarum  civitatum  efficiantur  servi,  et  dominium 

eorum  quaratur  ? 

An  in  istis  bellis  quae  facit  una  civitas  contra  aliam  possint  dici  hostes, 
ut  servi  efficiantur  capti,  et  dominium  eorum  quaeratur  ?  Apparet  quod 
non,  ut  1.  si  quis  ingenuam,  in  fin.,  ff.  De  captivis.  In  contrarium  videtur, 
nam  quaelibet  civitas  per  se  facit  populum,  et  sic  videtur  quod  sint  hostes,  sicut 
populus  Christianus  et  Saracenus.  Solutio.  Quando  est  contentio  inter  duas 
civitates  quae  sunt  sub  eodem  domino,  non  est  locus  captivitati  et  postliminio, 


DE  INSIDIIS  125 

ut  1.  si  quis  ingenuam,  ff.  De  captivis.  Sed  quando  est  contentio  inter  duas 
civitates  quae  non  recognoscunt  superiorem,  et  pono,  ut  tollatur  omne  dubium, 
quod  quaelibet  sit  hostis  Imperil,  quia  rebellis,  tune  iure  gentium,  antiquis  mori- 
bus  introducto,  est  locus  captivitati  et  iuri  postliminii,  sed  secundum  mores 
moderni  temporis,  et  consuetudines  antiquitus  observatas  inter  Christianos, 
quantum  ad  personas  non  servatur  postliminium,  nee  venduntur  personae,  nee 
servae  efficiuntur. 


An  capta  in  hello  ejficiantur  capientiitm  ?  [Cap.  i 

An  capta  in  bello  efficiantur  capientium  ?  Et  videtur  quod  sic,  per  1. 
si  quid  in  bello,  ff.  De  captivis.  Contrarium  videtur  probare  1.  si  captivus,  eod. 
titulo.  Solutio.  Lex  si  quid  in  bello  loquitur  in  rebus  mobilibus,  cfontraria  de 
immobilibus,  sed  opponitur,  scilicet,  quod  mobilia  publicentur,  ut  cap.  dicat, 
xxiii,  q.  v.  Solutio.  Dico  quod  efficiuntur  capientis,  sed  tenetur  ea  assignare 
duci  belli,  qui  distribuet  secundum  merita.  Et  haec  vindicant  sibi  locum  in  his 
in  quibus  non  habet  locum  postliminium,  ut  1.  ii,  ff.  De  captivis. 


An  in  bellis  sit  licitum  insidiari  ?  [c«p-  '»'•) 

Vlterius  quaeritur,  an  in  bellis  sit  licitum  uti  insidiis  ad  victoriam  con- 
sequendam.  Videtur  quod  sic,  nam  inquit  Augustinus  in  libro  Quaestionum, 
"  Cum  bellum  iustum  suscipitur,  utrum  aperte  pugnet  quis,  an  insidiis,  nihil 
ad  iustitiam  interest."  Hoc  probatur  per  id  quod  habetur  losuae  viii  capitulo. 
In  contrarium  videtur,  nam  scribitur  Deuteronomii  xvi,  "  Quod  iustum  est 
iuste  exsequeris."  Sed  per  insidias  exsequi  est  iniuste  exsequi,  cum  sapiat 
dolum,  et  taliter  agitata  per  actionem  de  dolo  rescinduntur,  ut  ff.  De  dolo  ;  C. 
eod.  tit.,  per  totum.  Praeterea  insidias  repugnant  felicitati,  et  rumpunt  fidem 
quae  servanda  est  etiam  hosti,  ut  Augustinus  ad  Bonifacium,  et  transumptum 
in  capitulo,  xxiii,  q.  i,  noli ;  xxxiii,  q.  v,  quod,  Deo  pan  consensu.  Praeterea  scri- 
bitur Matthaei  vii  cap.,  "  Quse  vultis  ut  faciant  vobis  homines,  vos  eisdem 
facite,"  et  in  principle  Decretorum.  Et  hoc  observandum  ad  omnes  proximos. 
Cum  igitur  nullus  vellet  insidias  sibi  fieri,  ergo  nee  aliis  facere  debet.  Solutio. 
Hie  attendendum  est  quod  proprie  insidiae  dicuntur,  quae  tendunt  ad  fallen- 
dum  aliquem,  sed  dupliciter  contingit  aliquem  falli,  verbo,  vel  facto,  alterius. 
Vno  modo,  si  dicatur  falsum,  ut  decipiatur,  vel  ut  aliquid  promissum  non 
attendatur,  et  tune  sic  utendo  insidiis  semper  est  illicitum,  nam  inter  hostes 
sunt  quaedam  fcedera  quae  servanda  sunt,  ut  inquit  Ambrosius  in  libro  De 
Officiis.  Alio  modo  potest  falli,  dicto  vel  facto  nostro,  quia  non  aperimus 
sibi  propositum  nostrum  nee  secreta  nostra.  Et  hoc  modo  licet  fallere,  nam 
nee  semper  secreta  Sacrae  Scriptura  sunt  pandenda,  ne  irrideant,  iuxta  illud 
Matthaei  [x]  vii  cap.,  " Nolite  sanctum  dare  canibus."  Immo  hoc  est  praecipuum 
mandatum  inter  militaria  documenta,  ut  secreta  non  revelentur  hostibus,  et 
sic  etiam  determinat  Beatus  Thomas,  Secunda  Secundse,  quaestione  xl ;  et  glos., 


126  DE  IVRE  BELLI 

xxiii,  q.  tf,  cap.  dominus,  dicit  indistincte,  uti  posse,  dummodo  non  rumpamus 
fidem,  ut  cap.  noli,  eadem  causa,  et  q.  i.  Hoc  idem  tenet  glossa  in  cap.  utilem, 
xxii,  q.  ii  ;  allegat  canon,  in  mandatis,  xliii  dist.  ;  ff.  De  captivis,  1.  nihil  interest ; 
C.  De  commerc.,  1.  ii ;  xiv,  q.  v,  dixit ;  De  consecra.,  dist.  ii,  dixit  dominus. 


[c»p.  Mil.]  Ah  infestis  licitum  sit  bellare  ? 

Consequenter  quaeritur,  an  in  festis  sit  bellandum  ?  Et  videtur  quod  non, 
nam  festa  sunt  inducta  ut  quis  vacet  divinis,  De  consecra.,  dist.  ii,  §  pronun- 
tiandum  ;  De  feriis,  cap.  ult.  ;  C.  eod.  tit.,  1.  dies,  et  1.  ultima,  et  probatur 
Exodi  xx  capitulo.  Praeterea  Isaiae  Iviii  cap.,  reprehenduntur  qui  in  diebus 
iciunii  repetunt  debita,  et  committunt  lites,  pugno  percutientes.  Multo  magis 
igitur  in  festis  bellantes  sunt  reprehendendi.  Praeterea  nihil  inordinate  agen- 
dum est  ad  vitandum  temporale  incommodum.  Ergo.  Praeterea  videtur 
text,  in  cap.  i,  De  treug.  et  pace. 

In  contrarium  videtur,  nam  legitur  primo  Maccabaeorum  ii  cap.,  "  Cogi- 
taverunt  laudabiliter  dicentes,  omnis  homo  qui  venit  ad  nos  in  die  belli,  in  die 
Sabbatorum  pugnemus  adversus  eum."  Solutio.  Beatus  Thomas,  Secunda 
Secundae,  tjuaestione  xl,  tenet  quod  in  festis  bellari  possit,  necessitate  urgente, 
ipsa  autem  cessante,  cessandum  est,  quod  probat  per  id  quod  habetur  lohannis 
vii  cap.,  "  Mihi  indignamini,  qui  totum  hominem  sanavi  in  Sabbato  ?  "  Et 
sic  infert  medicos  medicari  posse  propter  salutem  privatam  hominis,  multo 
magis  autem  procuranda  est  utilitas  publica.  Goffredus  et  Hostiensis,  in  cap. 
i,  De  treug.  et  pace,  dicunt  quod  die  lovis  non  est  bellandum,  quia  Dominus 
ilia  die  ascendit  ad  coelos,  et  ccenam  fecit  cum  discipulis,  De  consecra.,  dist.  i, 
porro;  et  De  consecra.,  dist.  [ii]  iii,  literis.  Die  Veneris  non,  propter  reveren- 
tiam  passionis  Domini ;  die  Sabbati  non,  quia  discipuli  ea  die  latitaverunt 
propter  metum  ludaeorum,  et  quia  corpus  Domini  latuit  in  sepulchre,  De 
consecra.,  dist.  iii,  Sabbato.  Die  Dominico  non,  quia  fere  omne  insigne  fecit 
Dominus  ilia  die,  Ixxv  dist.,  quod  die,  et  propter  reverentiam  resurrectionis. 
Credo  ponderandam  necessitatem  urgentem,  ut  supra  tactum  est.  Textus 
Nicolai  Papae  est  in  cap.  si  nulla,  xxiii,  q.  viii. 


rc«p.  iiir.)      An  consecutus  in  bello  totum  suum  interesse  possit  iterum  adversarium,  etc.  ? 

Consequenter  quaeritur,  quid  si  aliquis  in  bello  consecutus  est  totum  inter- 
esse  suum,  an  iterum  possit  in  iudicio  con  venire  adversarium  suum,  vel  adhuc 
possit  bellum  indicere  contra  eum  ?  Videtur  quod  iterum  convenire  possit, 
nam  captum  in  bello  est  pcena  contumaciae,  ergo  nihilominus  agere  potest,  ff. 
De  tab.  exhib.,  1.  locum,  §  paenultima.  Item  res  non  est  soluta  pro  debito, 
immo  in  bello  quaesivit  dominium,  xxiii,  q.  v,  dicat;  et  q.  vii,  si  de  rebus;  ff. 
De  acquir.  rer.  dom.,  1.  naturaliter.  Item  quia  contra  contumacem  iurari 


DE  REBVS  ECCLESI^E  127 

potest  in  infmitum,  ff.  De  rei  vind.,  1.  qui  restituere.    Glossa  in  cap.  dominus, 
xxiii,  q.  ii,  tenet  contrarium,  per  regulam  bona  fides,  ff .  De  reg.  iuris. 

Ego  non  credo  glossam  veram  indistincte,  immo  distingui  debet  an  ab 
eodem,  an  ab  aliis.  Si  ab  eodem,  procedat  opinio  lohannis,  si  ab  aliis,  aut 
habentibus  causam  ab  eo,  et  tune  idem,  ut  C.  De  evict.,  1.  emptori ;  vel  haberet 
regressum  contra  primum,  ut  C.  De  usur.  rei  iudic.,  1.  ii,  §  finali.  Alias  autem 
licitum  est  pluries  idem  solvi,  ut  1.  iii,  §  condemnatio,  ff.  De  tab.  exhib.  ;  et 
Instit.,  De  legat.,  §  si  res.  Sic  notat  glossa  in  regula  bona  fides,  ff.  De  reg.  iur. ; 
et  ita  etiam  notat  lo.  [Fauc.]  Fauentinus (?)  in  dicto  cap.  dominus. 


An  morientes  in  bello  salventur  ?  ,  [Cap.  i 

An  morientes  in  bello  salventur  ?  Solutio.  Morientes  in  bello  Ecclesiae 
pro  ipsius  defensione  consequuntur  creleste  regnum.  Hoc  probant  duo  textus 
specialiter,  cap.  omni,  xxiii,  q.  viii,  et  fuit  Leonis  Papae  directum  ad  regem 
Francorum  ;  et  cap.  omnium,  xxiii,  q.  v,  et  fuit  Nicolai  directum  exercitui  Fran- 
corum.  Decedentes  autem  in  aliis  bellis  alias  iustis,  etiam  salvantur,  dum- 
modo  decedant  sine  mortali ;  si  autem  in  bello  illicito,  et  cum  illo  solo  mortali 
decedant,  pereunt,  De  Pcen.,  dist.  v,  fratres. 


An  pro  rebus  et  possessionibus  ecclesice  liceat  bello  corporali  bellare,  etc.  ?         [Cap.  i 

An  liceat  bello  corporali  defendere  possessiones  ecclesiae,  et  super  hoc 
convocare  milites  ?  Planum  quod  sic.  Probant  textus  xxiii,  q.  iii,  cap.  Maxi- 
mianus  ;  xv,  q.  vi,  auctoritatem  ;  Ixiii  dist.,  Adrianus  ;  xxiii,  q.  viii,  cap.  igitur, 
et  cap.  hortatu ;  et  glossa  magistra.  in  capitulo  auctoritatem,  xv,  q.  vi.  Probat 
textus  in  cap.  dilecto,  De  sent,  excom.,  Lib.  VI. 


An  liceat  episcopis  ad  bellum  accedere  sine  licentia  Papa?  [Cap.bmi.i 

An  liceat  episcopis  ad  bellum  accedere  sine  licentia  Papse?  Dicunt  qui- 
dam  indistincte  quod  non,  per  canones,  qui  videntur  hoc  expresse  dicere,  xxiii, 
q.  viii,  quo  ausu,  et  cap.  si  vobis,  et  cap.  si  quis  episcopus.  Licet  ilia  capitula 
habeant  varies  intellectus,  tamen  hoc  credo  verum,  si  vocentur,  vel  sponte  ad 
bella  aliena,  maxime  saecularia,  accedant,  secus  si  defendant  iura  sua. 


An  prtzlati  pro  temporalibus  qua  tenent  ab  Imperatore,  etc.?  [Cap.  i*viiy 

An  praelati  pro  temporalibus  quse  tenent  ab  Imperatore  teneantur  solvere 
tributum  pro  bellis  ab  eo  indictis  ?  Et  dicendum  quod  sic,  ut  probatur  xxiii, 
q.  viii,  si,  §  ecce,  cum  duobus  §§  sequentibus,  usque  ad  §  quamvis. 


128  DE  IVRE  BELLI 

[Cap.  iiu.i  An  cap/is  in  hello  iusto  sit  miscrandum  ? 

An  captis  in  bello  iusto  sit  miserandum  ?  Dicendum  quod  sic,  nisi  par- 
cendo  timeatur  perturbatio  pacis.  Probatur  in  cap.  noli,  xxiii,  q.  i,  in  fin.,  et 
per  illud  capitulum  expositum,  nt  intelligebat  Hugolinus,  fuit  amputatum 
caput  Conradino. 

(Cap.iM.]  An  Ecclesia  debeat  indicere  bellum  contra  ludcsos? 

An  Ecclesia  bellum  debeat  indicere  contra  ludaeos  ?  Dicendum  quod 
non,  cum  ubique  parati  sint  servire,  nee  persequantur  Christianos.  Secus  de 
Saracenis,  qui  Christianos  persequuntur.  Hie  est  textus  xxiii,  q.  viii,  dispar, 
et  ibi  notat  glossa  quod  nee  etiam  Saracenis  forent  indicenda,  nisi  Christianos 
persequerentur. 

[c«p. ixxL]  An  degentes  in  bello  qui  pugnare  non  possunt,  etc.? 

An  degentes  in  bello,  qui  pugnare  non  possunt,  gaudeant  immunitatibus 
bellantium  ?  Et  die  quod  sic,  dummodo  alias  consilio  sint  utiles,  ut  nota  in  cap. 
ex  multa,  De  voto. 

icap.  Uiii.]  An  liceat prtelatis  ratione  temporalis  iurisdictionis,  etc.? 

An  liceat  praelatis  ratione  temporalis  iurisdictionis  bella  indicere,  et  eis 
interesse,  et  alios  hortari  ad  prcelium  ?  Et  die  quod  sic,  ut  notat  Innocentius 
in  cap.  quod  in  dubiis,  De  prenis. 


An  liceat  prcelato  pro  iniuria  subditi,  etc.? 

An  liceat  praelato  pro  iniuria  subditi  sui,  de  qua  non  fit  iustitia,  bellum 
indicere,  et  alios  quam  iniuriantes  in  bello  capere  ?  Et  die  quod  sic,  ut  notat 
Innocentius  in  cap.  dilectis,  De  appellat.  ;  et  cap.  sicut,  De  iureiurando. 


ic»p.  buir.)  An  delegatus  Papa  possit  bellum  indicere? 

Hoc  est  dicere,  an  possit  invocare  brachium  saeculare  ?    Quaestio  est  vul- 
gata,  et  tractatur  in  cap.  significasti,  De  offic.  deleg.,  per  Innocentium. 


ic«p. LOT.]  An  bella  indicia  per  Ecclesiam  contra  excommunicatos  sint  meritoria? 

An  bella  quae  indicit  Ecclesia  contra  excommunicatos  sint  meritoria  ?  Et 
dicendum  quod  sic,  et  in  illis  licitum  est  praelatis  ct  singulis  hortari  alios  ad 
pugnandum.  Probant  textus  xxiii,  q.  v,  ad  omnium,  et  cap.  sequcnti ;  ct  q.  viii, 
cap.  igitur,  usque  ad  §  ecce;  et  q.  iv,  cap.  sicut  excellentiam. 


DE  GENERIBVS  BELLORVM  CORPORALIVM         129 

Quot  sint  genera  bellorum  corporalium  ?  [Cap.  i«vi.j 

Consequenter  quaeritur,  quot  sint  genera  bellorum  corporalium,  de  quibus 
reperitur  in  iure  expressum.  Solutio.  Septem  reperiuntur  iure  expressa. 

Primum  Romanum  appellatur,  quod  fideles  contra  infideles,  et  hoc 
iustum  est.  De  haereticis,  excommunicamus,  ii.  Et  dicitur  Romanum  quia 
Roma  caput  fidei,  xxiv,  q.  i,  hcec  est  fides,  et  cap.  quoniam;  De  summa  Trin., 
cap.  paenultima.  Et  sic  potest  intelligi  1.  hostes,  ff.  De  captivis. 

Secundum,  quod  fit  auctoritate  iudicis  legitimi,  habentis  merum  imperium 
contra  contumaces  et  rebelles,  ut  1.  continet,  ff.  Quod  met.  causa  ;  1.  iii  et  1. 
iv,  ff.  De  iurisd.  omn.  iudic. ;  C.  Ne  quis  in  sua  causa,  1.  una.  Et  hi  proprie 
non  dicuntur  hostes,  nam  quod  de  suo  ad  nos  pervenit  nostrum  efficitur.  Non 
autem  e  converse  sic  intelligitur,  1.  v,  §  in  pace,  ff.  De  captivis.  , 

Tertium  dicitur  bellum  praesumptuosum,  quod  faciunt  iudici  inobe- 
dientes,  De  Pcen.,  dist.  iii,  §  i,  ad  finem;  De  maiorit.  et  obed.,  cap.  si  quis 
venerit;  ff.  De  rei  vind.,  1.  qui  restituere;  ff.  Ne  vis  fiat  ei  qui  in  pos.  missus, 
1.  iii ;  C.  De  sedititiosis,  1.  i,  in  fine. 

Quartum  dicitur  bellum,  quod  licitum  est  quandocunque  iuris  auctoritate 
concedatur.  Et  est  licitum  quoad  ilium  cui  conceditur,  ut  xxiii,  q.  ii,  cap.  si 
dominus  ;  De  sent,  excom.,  si  vero  i,  §  nee  ille;  C.  Quando  lie.  unicuique  sine 
iudi.  se  vindicare,  1.  i  et  1.  ii ;  et  etiam  proximi  et  vicini,  ut  De  sent,  excom., 
dilecto,  Lib.  VI. 

Quintum,  illicitum,  quoad  illos  qui  hoc  faciunt  contra  iuris  auctoritatem, 
ut  qui  se  defendit  contra  iudicis  auctoritatem  et  iuris,  ut  De  sent,  excom.,  per- 
pendimus,  et  cap.  contingit,  et  cap.  in  audientia. 

Sextum,  voluntarium,  quo  utuntur  principes  saeculares  nostri  temporis 
sine  principis  auctoritate.  Et  hoc  iniustum,  quia  nee  sine  principis  auctoritate 
licet  arma  portare,  C.  Vt  armor,  usus,  in  rubro  et  nigro,  lib.  [xii]  xi ;  in  Authent., 
De  man.  prin.,  collat.  iii ;  in  Authent.,  De  armis,  collat.  vi.  Immo  contra 
facientes  incidunt  in  legem  luliam  maiestatis,  ff.  Ad  leg.  lul.  maiest.,  1.  iii. 

Septimum  dicitur  necessarium  et  licitum,  quod  faciunt  fideles,  iuris  aucto- 
ritate se  defendendo  contra  ipsos  invadentes,  nam  vim  vi  repellere  licet,  ff. 
De  iustit.  et  iure,  1.  ut  vim,  cum  similibus.  De  his  per  Hostiensem,  De  homi- 
cidio,  pro  humani,  Lib.  VI  ;  per  Archidiaconum,  in  cap.  iustum,  xxiii,  q.  ii. 

Ex  his  infertur  quae  bella  sint  licita,  et  quae  illicita.  Nam  licita  dicuntur 
ratione  indicentis,  illius  contra  quern,  rei,  et  causae,  et  iuris  permittentis.  Illi- 
cita econtra.  Causa  autem  una  generaliter  iustificat,  scilicet,  contumacia  in- 
iuste  resistentis.  Cum  enim  ab  eo  qui  obnoxius  est  iustitia  haberi  non  potest, 
tune  licet  bellum  indicere,  nam  in  subsidium  recurritur  ad  illud  suffragium, 
xxiii,  q.  i,  quid  culpatur,  et  cap.  noli;  xxiii,  q.  viii,  si  nulla  ;  ff.  De  usuf.,  1.  si 
ususfructus.  Et  de  hoc,  scilicet  quod  sit  licitum,  notatur  per  Innocentium,  De 
resti.  spol.,  cum  olim,  i ;  per  Hostiensem,  in  Summa,  De  treu.  et  pace,  §  quid 
si  iustum;  per  Beatum  Thomam,  in  Secunda  Secundae,  quaestione  xl,  articulo 
primo,  secundo,  et  tertio  ;  per  ^Egidium,  in  libro  De  regimine  principum,  in 
fine. 


130  DE  IVRE  BELLI 


V 


tc«p.i«.ii.)  De  Bella  Particular!  quod  Jit  ob  tutelam  sui,  et  est  quart  us  tractatus 

tertii  principalis. 

"Iso  supra,  tertio  proximo  principal!  tractatu,  de  Bello  Vniversali  Corpo- 
rali,  restat  nunc,  quarto,  videre  de  Bello  Particular!  quod  fit  ob  tutelam 
sui,  et  in  ipsius  tractatu  sic  procedam.  Nam  primo  demonstrate,  quid  sit. 
Secundo,  quot  sint  species  eius.  Tertio,  quo  ordine  inductum  sit.  Quarto, 
quibus  liceat.  Quinto,  contra  quos.  Sexto,  pro  quibus  liceat.  Septimo,  quali- 
ter  liceat.  Octavo,  quis  sit  ipsius  finis. 

ic«p.i«Tiii.j  Quid  sit  Particular e  Bettum  ? 

Circa  primum,  cum  quaeritur,  quid  sit  bellum  ob  tutelam  sui  particulariter 
indictum,  dico  quod  est  "  contentio  exorta  propter  difforme  humano  appetitui 
praesentatum  ex  violentiae  particularis  illatione  proveniens,  ad  ipsius  exclu- 
sionem  tendens."  Haec  probantur  mentaliter  per  textum,  1.  id  vim,  ff.  De 
iustit.  et  iure  ;  et  1.  [qui\  scientiam,  §  qui  cum  aliter,  ff.  Ad  leg.  Aquil.  ;  et  1.  i, 
C.  Vnde  vi ;  et  1.  iii,  §  si  quis,  ff .  De  vi ;  et  cap.  olim,  De  resti.  spol.  Et  dixi 
"  contentio,"  nam  contentio  ponitur  pro  genere,  ut  posita  est  in  definitione 
belli  generaliter  sumpti,  ut  supra  primo  tractatu  in  principio.  Secundo  dixi 
"  exorta  propter  difforme,"  etc.,  et  illud  ponitur  loco  differentiae,  nam  per 
hoc  differt  a  bello  universal!  et  aliis  speciebus  belli.  Tertio  dixi  "  ad  ipsius," 
etc.  Hoc  est  causa  finalis  ipsius  belli. 


icap.  i«i«o  Quot  sint  species  Particularis  Belli  ? 

Circa  secundum,  cum  quaeritur,  quot  sint  ipsius  species,  dico  quod  sunt  duae, 
nam  quoddam  iustum,  quoddam  iniustum,  ut  etiam  divisi  Bellum  Vniversale. 
Bellum  autem  Particulare  iustum  est  duplex,  nam  quoddam  fit  propter  tutelam 
veri  corporis,  vel  adhaerentium,  sive  contingentium  verum  corpus.  De  hoc 
in  praesenti  tractatu  discutiam.  Aliud  fit  propter  tutelam  corporis  mystici, 
vel  partis,  ut  dicimus  in  universitate,  quae  appellatur  corpus,  et  singuli  appel- 
lantur  membra  et  partes,  ff.  Quod  cuiuscunque  univer.,  1.  i ;  ff.  Ad  municip.,  1. 
quod  maior  ;  ff.  De  in  ius  vocand.,  1.  sed  si  hac,  §  qui  manumittitur  ;  De  excess, 
praelat.,  1.  cum  dilecta,  et  ibi  nota.  Si  igitur  universitas  propter  defensam 
civis  sui  ab  extraneo  oppressi,  deficiente  iustitia  iudicis  opprimentis,  bellum 
indicat,  hoc  appellatur  "  Particulare  propter  tutelam  mystici  corporis,  sive 
partis,"  et  hoc  appellatur  "  Represalia,"  de  qua  in  Authent.,  Vt  non  fiant 
pignor.,  per  totum ;  De  iniur.,  cap.  uno,  per  totum,  Lib.  VI.  Et  de  hoc  bello 
dicetur  infra  tractatu  proximo.  Bellum  autem  iustum,  particulare,  ob  tutelam 
veri  corporis  indictum,  est  contentio  exorta  propter  difforme  humano  appe- 
titui praesentatum,  proveniens  ex  illatione  violentiae  particularis  a  privata  vel 
publica  persona,  extra  officium  iniuste  inferente,  ad  ipsius  exclusionem  ten- 
dens,  cum  moderamine  inculpatae  tutelae,  ut  haec  probantur  in  1.  i,  C.  Vnde  vi ; 
cum  ibi  nota.  Iniustum  autem  est  ubi  praedicta,  vel  aliquod  praedictorum, 
dcfkiunt,  ut  in  [praecedentibus]  sequentibus  declarabitur. 


DE  BELLO  PARTICVLARI  131 

Quo  iure  introductum  sit  particulare  bellum  ?  [Cap- 

Circa  tertium,  cum  quaeritur,  quo  iure  hoc  proveniat,  et  competat,  glossa 
quae  est  in  1.  ut  vim,  ff.  De  iustit.  et  iure,  super  verbo  "iure,"  dicit  "iure 
fori,  non  iure  coeli."    Si  glossa  intelligit  quod  iure  fori  proveniat  hoc  bellum, 
credo  quod  glossa  non  dicat  verum.    Si  autem  glossa  intelligit  quod  iure  fori 
indici  possit  impune,  credo  quod  glossa  dicat  verum.    In  eo  autem  quod  glossa 
dicit  "  non  iure  coeli,"  credo  quod  glossa  dicat  falsum.    Redeo  ad  singula,  et  dico 
quod  bellum  ob  tutelam  sui  provenit  a  iure  naturali,  non  autem  a  iure  positive, 
civili  vel  canonico.     Quod  hoc  sit  verum  probatur  sic.     Nam  natura  pro- 
ductiva  cuiuscunque  tendit  in  ipsius  conservationem,  donee  se  extendunt  vires 
naturalis  agentis,  et  nititur  in  expulsionem  cuiuscunque  contrarii,  et  si  secus 
contingat,  hoc  contingit  propter  defectum  virium  naturaliter  agentis",  et  super- 
abundantiam  agentium  in  contrarium.     Nequaquam  autem  hoc  contingit  ex 
intentione  agentis  naturalis,  productivi  et  conservativi,  immo  contra  inten- 
tionem,  cum  semper  contrariis  resistat,  quantum  potest.    Hoc  patet  ex  sen- 
satis,  inducendo  per  singula  naturalia.     Nam  in  elementalibus  quae  agunt  et 
patiuntur  adinvicem  hoc  patet.     Nam  passum  resistit  agenti,  et  reagit  in 
ipsum,  solum  ad  finem  conservations  sui  esse,  et  destructionem  agentis  in  con- 
trarium.    Et  agens  corporale  materiale  semper  agendo  repatitur,  ut  inquit 
Philosophus,  iii  Physicorum,  et  secundo  De  generatione.     Hoc  patet  in  istis 
inanimatis,  hoc  in  plantis,  nam  privata  ipsarum  natura  tendit  in  conserva- 
tionem ipsarum  et  vitam,  et  contrariorum  expulsionem,  hoc  in  brutis,  et 
quare  non  sic  in  rationali  creatura  hoc  contingat,  immo  fortius  cum  ipsa 
ceteris  sit  nobilior,  et  in  ipsam,  ut  finem,  alia  ordinentur,  ff.  De  usuris,  1. 
in  pecudum (?).     Provenit  ergo  defensa  ex  instinctu  naturali.     Hoc  probat  tex- 
tus  in  Clem.,  pastoralis,  §  ceterum,  De  sententia  et  re  iudicata.    Ibi  dicit  textus, 
"  defensionis  quae  a  iure  provenit  naturali."    Hoc  sentire  videtur  glossa  quae  est 
in  1.  scientiam,  §  qui  cum  aliter,  ff.  Ad  leg.  Aquiliam.    Ibi  dicit  glossa,  "  iura  per- 
mittunt  eo  ipso  quod  non  prohibent."    Hoc  probat  textus  in  1.  itaque,  ff.  Ad  leg. 
Aquiliam.    Ibi  dicit  textus,  "  adversus  periculum  naturalis  ratio  defendere  per- 
mittit."    Conclude  igitur  ex  hoc  passu  quod  hoc  bellum,  restringendo  ad  indictum 
ob  tutelam  corporis  sui,  provenit  ex  iure  naturali  et  ipsius  instinctu,  sed  ius 
positivum  approbat,  vel  non  prohibet,  ut  dicit  glossa  in  1.  scientiam,  §  qui  cum 
aliter.     Nam  aliqua  provenientia  instinctu  naturae  iura  positiva  puniunt,  ut 
patet  in  carnali  copula  ;  nam  simpliciter  coitus  provenit  ex  naturali  instinctu, 
sed  tamen  quosdam  coitus  damnat  lex.     Et  in  hoc  ius  positivum  limitat  et 
qualificat  actus  provenientes  a  iure  naturali.    Sic  in  singulis  actibus  a  natura 
provenientibus,  nam  naturaliter  quis  appetit  cibum  et  potum,  et  tamen  lex 
canonica  limitat.    Nam  quosdam  cibos  certis  temporibus  inhibet.    Verum  est 
quod  lex  positiva  etiam  qualificat  modum  defensae,  ut  patet  in  1.  i,  C.  Vnde 
vi  ;    et  patebit  per  infra  notanda.     Concluditur  igitur  hoc  provenire  a  iure 
naturali,  sed  approbate  a  iure  positive,  tam  civili  quam  canonico,  et  etiam 
qualificato  et  modificato  eodem.     Et  in  hoc  forte  salvari  potest  glossa  quae 
est  in  1.  ut  vim,  ut  sic  intelligatur, 
[9] 


132  DE  IVRE  BELLI 

Secundo  dicebat  glossa,  "  non  hire  coeli."  Videtur  sontirc  glossa  quod 
iurc  divino  non  pcrmittatur  vim  vi  repellere.  Pro  hac  opinionc  glossae  videntur 
facere  textus,  nam  scribitur  Lucae  vi,  "  Si  quis  te  percusserit  in  unam  maxillam, 
praebe  ei  et  aliam  "  ;  xxiii,  q.  i,  in  principio.  Scribitur  etiam  "  Si  quis  angaria- 
verit  te  mille  passus,  vade  cum  eo  duo  millia,"  [lohannis  vi,  et]  Matthaei  v. 
Scribitur  etiam  ad  Romanos,  xii  cap.,  "  non  vos  defendentes,  sed  date  locum 
irae."  Christus  etiam  dixit  Petro  volenti  eum  defendere,  "  Converte  gladium 
tuum  in  vaginam,"  Matthaei  xxvi  ;  et  habentur  xxiii,  q.  i,  in  principio.  Haec 
potuerunt  movere  glossae  ad  tenendum  quod  non  liceat  iure  poli.  Sed  credo 
quod  glossa  non  dicat  verum,  quod  aperte  demonstrari  potest.  Et  primo  sic. 
Ille  actus  est  licitus  iure  divino  qui  est  consonus  caritati,  sed  defensa  suiipsius 
est  huiusmodi.  Ergo.  Probatur  maior,  nam  caritate  posita,  excluditur  quilibct 
actus  lege  divina  reprobus,  cum  ipsa  se  non  compatiatur  cum  reprobo,  cum 
sit  ipsa  fundamentum  cuiuslibet  b'citi.  Probantur  haec  De  Pcenit.,  dist.  ii,  [si\ 
radicata,  et  cap.  caritas  est,  ui  mihi  videtur.  Et  secundum  in  cap.  quia  radix, 
distinctione  eadem,  probatur  minor.  Nam  praecipuus  actus  caritatis  est  dili- 
gere  proximum  sicut  seipsum,  ut  in  canonibus  proximis,  et  cap.  caritas  est, 
§  proinde,  De  Pcenit.,  dist.  ii,  ergo  implicat  dilectionem  sui,  et  sui  conserva- 
tionem,  si  sic,  ergo  defensam.  Ergo  iure  poli  licet  seipsum  defendere.  Praeterea 
lege  divina  licitum  est  proximum  defendere  a  morte  etiam  contra  voluntatem 
suam.  Ergo  multo  fortius  iure  divino  licet  seipsum  defendere.  Consequentia 
tenet  per  inducta  supra  proximo.  Probatur  antecedens  per  textus  xxiii,  q.  iv, 
ipsa  pietas,  et  cap.  displicet.  Praeterea  lex  divina  inhibet  quern  voluntarie 
tcndere  ad  destructionem  suiipsius.  Hoc  solum  intendo  et  dico.  Hoc  solum 
intendo,  nam  si  ordinate  tendat  in  aliud  lege  divina  approbatum,  licet  illud  con- 
sequendo  consequenter  sequatur  destructio,  hoc  non  est  inhibitum,  utpote  quis, 
ut  consequatur  statum  beatitudinis  aeternae  affligit  corpus  suum,  nulli  dubium 
quin  afflictio  sit  corporis  destructoria,  tamen  non  tendit  in  hoc  finaliter,  sed 
in  fugam  vitiorum  carnalium,  et  consecutionem  status  aeterni.  Sic  etiam  dici 
posset  de  trucidatis  voluntarie  propter  fidem  catholicam,  nam  ipsi  non  inten- 
dunt  finaliter  ad  destructionem  sui  corporis,  immo  defensam  fidei,  [quam] 
pro  qua  voluntarie  exponunt  se  morti  temporali,  quod  licet  lege  divina,  sed 
se  non  defendens  a  morte,  cum  potest,  se  voluntarie  occidit  et  in  destructionem 
sui  tendit,  ergo  lege  divina  inhibitum.  Probatur  maior,  nam  lege  divina 
damnati  reputantur  qui  sic  seipsos  occiderunt,  ut  dicimus  de  luda,  et  similibus. 
Probatur  minor,  nam  se  non  defendens  a  morte,  cum  potest,  nee  subsit  aliquis 
de  casibus  antedictis,  nee  hoc  proveniat  ex  pusillanimitate,  sui  mortem  appetit, 
et  per  alium  se  occidit,  et  sic  perinde  ac  si  per  seipsum,  iuxta  regulam  "  qui  per 
alium,"  ut  regula  qui  per  alium,  De  reg.  iur.,  Lib.  VI.  Praeterea  lex  divina  non 
destruit  totaliter  actus  provenientes  a  iure  naturali,  sed  ipsos  modificat  et 
refraenat.  Hoc  patet  per  singulos  discurrendo,  nam  non  penitus  inhibet  cibum 
et  potum,  non  copulam,  nee  similia,  sed  ipsos  actus  modificat  et  refraenat,  ex- 
tremitates  reiciendo,  medium  approbando,  ut  etiam  lex  moralis,  ii  Ethicorum, 
iii  et  iv.  At  si  lex  divina  inhiberet  totaliter  defensam  suiipsius,  cum  actus  ille 


QVIBVS  PERSONIS  LICET?  133 

proveniat  ab  instinctu  naturae,  totaliter  destrueret  actum  naturae,  quod  est 
absurdum,  ut  supra.  Praeterea  lex  canonica  hoc  permittit,  ergo  divina  non 
inhibet.  Probatur  antecedens  per  De  restit.  spol.,  cap.  olim  ;  et  Clem.,  pasto- 
ralis,  §  ceterum,  De  re  iudic. ;  clarius  per  Clementem,  si  furiosus,  De  homi- 
cidio.  Consequentia  tenet,  nam  lex  canonica  subalternatur  legi  divinae,  et  sic 
sibi  invicem  contra  dicere  non  possunt,  nam  in  eundem  tendunt  finem,  licet 
varie.  Nam  lex  canonica  tractat  de  gubernatione  monarchiae  mundanae,  ut 
societas  humana  conservetur  in  universe,  quod  etiam  tractat  lex  civilis,  sed 
canonica  ulterius  tendit,  scilicet,  disponendo  et  praeparando  ad  statum  aeternae 
beatitudinis,  in  quam  tendit  lex  divina,  et  sic  necesse  est,  indemnitate  finis 
attenta,  omne  inhibitum  lege  divina  fore  inhibitum  lege  canonica.  Et  sic, 
praetermissis  aliis  quae  infinita  possent  induci,  restat  concludendum  quod  glossa 
non  dicat  verum,  cum  dicit  jure  cceli  non  permitti  defensam  suiipsius. 

Ad  auctoritates  autem  in  contrarium  inductas  respondetur,  ut  respondet 
magister  Gratianus,  xxiii,  q.  i,  §  his  ita.  Respondetur,  videlicet,  quod  intel- 
ligantur  de  interiori  cordis  praeparatione,  non  autem  de  interiori  ostensione 
corporis,  nam  interius  debet  humilitatem  cordis  habere,  ut  probat  Augusti- 
nus  in  Sermone  de  puero  centurionis,  sic  inquiens,  "  Paratus  debet  esse,"  etc. 
Vide  in  cap.  paratus,  xxiii,  q.  i. 

Ex  his  infertur  tertium,  videlicet,  unde  insurgat  hoc  bellum,  et  quo  iure 
permittatur. 


Quibus  pcrsonis  liceat  hoc  particulare  bellum  indiccre  ? 

Circa  quartum,  videlicet,  quibus  competat  et  liceat,  est  videndum.  Pro 
cuius  evidentia  praemitto  quod  aliud  est  quaerere  quibus  competat  defensa  sui- 
ipsius, et  aliud  est  quaerere  quibus  competit  bellum  supra  definitum,  inductum 
propter  defensam.  Si  quaeramus  cui  competat  defensio,  dico  quod  omnibus 
entibus  naturalibus  genitis  et  corruptibilibus.  Et  dico  genitis  et  corruptibili- 
bus,  nam  corporibus  ccelestibus  non  competit  defensio,  propterea  quia  non 
possunt  pati  ab  aliquo  contrario  agente,  cum  ilia  corpora  non  sunt  receptiva 
peregrinarum  impressionum,  ut  ait  Philosophus,  secundo  Creli  et  Mundi,  cum 
sint  sine  materia  quae  est  materia  generationis  et  corruptionis,  ut  ibidem.  Et 
sic  non  est  opus  defensa,  cum  sint  impassibilia.  Omnibus  autem  materialibus 
competit  ex  principiis  naturalibus  defensio,  cum  sint  passibilia,  et  provenit  ilia 
defensio  ex  iure  naturali,  quod  est  vis  quaedam  insita  rebus,  similia  de  similibus 
procreans.  Nam  similia  procreando  conservat  seipsam  in  specie  quod  fieri 
non  potest  perpetuo  individualiter,  et  etiam  individualiter  agendo  nititur  cor- 
rumpere  contrarium  sibi  resistens  et  econtra.  Et  iste  est  primus  modus  iuris 
naturalis,  de  quo  glossa  in  can.  ius  naturale,  i  distin.  ;  et  notari  consuevit  in  1.  i, 
§  ius  naturale,  ff.  De  iustit.  et  iure.  Sic  ergo  sui  defensio  competit  quibus- 
cunque  materialibus  naturaliter,  et  provenit  ex  viribus  a  natura  cuilibet  enti 
insitis,  ut  quilibet  posset  sensualiter  inducere,  per  singula  naturalia  discur- 
rendo.  Si  autem  quaeramus  quibus  competat  bellum  supra  definitum,  tune  dico 


134  DE  IVRE  BELLI 

quod  solis  hominibus,  ct  non  aliis,  quod  probat  definitio  belli,  quam  dixi,  "  dif- 
forme  appetitui  humano  propositum,"  etc.  Et  hie  quaerendum  an  omnibus 
hominibus  competat. 

[c*p.taraii.)  An  clericis  competat  hoc  helium  indicere  ? 

Et  prime  quaero  an  clericis  liceat  et  competat  hoc  bellum  indicere.  Quod 
clericis  non  liceat  probatur  per  cap.  suscepimns,  De  homicidio ;  et  per  can. 
seditionarios,  xlvi  dist.  ;  probat  textus  xxiii,  q.  viii,  cap.  i  et  cap.  cum  a  ludais, 
cum  capitibus  sequentibus,  usque  ad  cap.  his.  Ita  respondetur.  Probatur  per 
cap.  convenior,  eadem  causa  et  quaestione.  Quod  h'ceat,  probatur  per  cap. 
olim,  De  restitution,  spol.  ;  et  cap.  si  vcro,  et  cap.  ex  tenorc,  De  sent,  excom.  ; 
i  dist.,  IMS  naturale  ;  ff.  De  iustit.  et  iure,  1.  ut  vim  ;  ff.  De  vi,  1.  iii,  §  si  quis. 
Clarior  textus  in  Clem.,  sifuriosus,  De  homicidio.  Super  hoc  fuerunt  opiniones 
quas  recitat  glossa,  xxiii,  q.  i,  in  summa,  et  eadem  causa  ;  et  q.  viii,  in  summa  ; 
nam  aliqui  dixerunt  quod  nulli,  etiam  laico,  licet  vim  vi  repellere  repercutiendo, 
sed  bene  impediendo.  Hanc  opinionem  reprobat  Clemens,  si  furiosus,  De 
homicidio.  Alii,  quod  laicis  licet  repercutere,  clericis  non,  et  haec  eodem  morbo 
laborat".  Alii  dicunt  quod,  si  vis  inferatur  personae,  licitum  sit  vim  repellere, 
etiam  repercutiendo,  et  clericis.  Hoc  probat  Clem.,  si  furiosus,  si  adsint  ilia 
de  quibus  in  dicto  Clemente.  Si  autem  rebus  inferatur,  tune  secus.  An  autem 
hoc  secundum  sit  verum,  infra  subicietur.  Hugo  noluit  dicere  quod  in  nulla 
necessitate  positus,  etiam  si  aliter  evadere  non  possit,  non  debet  alium  occidere, 
immo  potiusdebet  se  permittere  occidi.  Ita  notavit  in  can.  dehis,  1  distinctionis. 
Glossa  ibi  notat  contrarium  ;  et  in  cap.  sicut  dignum,  De  homicidio.  In  hoc 
non  insisto,  quoniam,  ut  dixi,  est  textus  in  Clem.,  si  furiosus,  De  homicidio,  et 
si  non  foret  textus  super  hoc  expresse  disponens,  pro  vel  contra,  hoc  esset 
tenendum  per  rationes  quas  induxi  ad  probandum,  hoc  non  esse  inhibitum 
lege  divina. 

icap.is»iii.l    An,  elsi  clerico  liceat  se  defcndcre  etiam  occidendo,  hoc  sibi  liceat  in  ecdcsia? 

Secundo  quaero,  an,  si  liceat  clerico  sc  sic  defendere,  etiam  repercutiendo 
et  occidendo,  an  hoc  sibi  liceat  in  ecclesia  ?  Et  videtur  quod  non,  nam  licet 
lex  permittat  generaliter  certos  actus,  inhibentur  tamen  ratione  loci,  unde  gene- 
ralis  permissio  restringitur  per  specialem  provisionem,  ut  1.  sanctio  Icgum,  ff. 
De  poenis  ;  1.  alimenla,  §  basilica,  ff .  De  alim.  leg.  ;  1.  uxorem,  §  felicissimo,  ff . 
De  legat.,  iii ;  et  cap.  pastoralis,  De  rescriptis.  Sufficit  regula  gencri,  Lib. 
VI.  Quod  autem  multi  actus  lege  permittantur  generaliter,  qui  tamen  specia- 
liter  interdicuntur,  probat  textus  in  cap.  decel,  De  immun.  eccles.,  Lib.  VI;  et 
cap.  vendentes,  i,  q.  [i]  iii.  Ergo  sic  in  proposito,  et  multo  fortius,  cum  per  hunc 
actum  possit  pervenire  ad  pollutionem  ecclesiae,  ut  cap.  proposuisti,  De  con- 
seer,  eccles.  vel  altaris;  et  cap.  unico,  eod.  tit.,  Lib.  VI.  Prasterea  rixae  et  con- 
citationes  sunt  generaliter  interdicts  in  ecclesiis,  ut  cap.  deed,  statim  allegato. 


AN  CLERICO  CELEBRANTI  ?  135 

Ergo  ct  hie  actus,  cum  sit  species  rixae.  In  contrarium  iura  hoc  permittentia 
generaliter  loquuntur,  ergo  sic  sunt  intelligenda,  ut  1.  i,  §  generaliter,  ff.  De 
lega.  praestandis.  Hanc  partem  credo  veram,  cum  iste  actus  insurgat  ex  iure 
naturali,  nee  reprobet  lex  divina,  et  ratio  iuris  hoc  inducentis  subsit  generaliter, 
non  habita  distinctione  locorum.  Nam  hoc  induxit  ius  naturale,  ut  seipsum 
conservet  quantum  durant  vires  principiorum  naturalium,  et  haec  ratio  subest 
in  ecclesia  sicut  alibi.  Ad  inducta  in  contrarium  facile  est  respondere,  nam  illi 
actus  inhibiti  in  ecclesia  vel  sunt  de  natura  sui  de  genere  malorum,  vel  sunt  de 
genere  permissorum,  ut  contractus.  Tamen  ipsorum  exclusio,  ne  fiant  in 
ecclesia,  propter  moram  grande  non  inducit  periculum,  cum  extra  ecclesiam 
aeque  fieri  possint  ad  libitum  contrahentium,  cum  sint  a  principle  voluntatis, 
ut  1.  sicut,  C.  De  act.  et  obligationibus.  At  in  proposito,  si  non  liceret  in 
ecclesia  vim  vi  repellere,  ecce  promptum  periculum,  quia  statmv  f aciliter  oc- 
cidetur.  Ad  ah"ud,  cum  dicitur,  sequi  posset  pollutio.  Solutio.  Fortius  est 
consideranda  hominis  conservatio,  cum  sit  irrestaurabilis,  quam  ecclesia,  quae 
reconciliari  potest.  Et  forte  dici  posset  quod  ad  hoc,  ut  polluatur,  requiritur 
effusio  sanguinis  iniuriosi,  ut  nota  in  cap.  unic.,  De  consecra.  eccle.  vel  altaris; 
Lib.  VI. 


An  liccal  clerico  celebranti  invaso  se  defender c,  ct  Decider  ct  ct  sic  continuato       [Cap. i«xiv.i 

officio  celebrare  ? 

Tertio  quaero,  quid  de  clerico  celebrante,  an  ei  sit  licitum  dimisso  officio, 
si  invadatur,  se  defendere,  et  occidere,  et  numquid,  si  sic  se  defendendo  occi- 
deret,  licitum  sit,  continuato  officio,  celebrare  ?  Pro  primo  apparet  quod  non 
debeat  divertere  ab  officio,  immo  ipsum  teneatur  exsequi  donee  possit,  viden- 
tur  textus  vii,  q.  i,  Mud,  et  cap.  nihil.  Praeterea  temporaha  sunt  postponenda 
spiritualibus,  xii,  q.  i,  prcecipimus  ;  De  pcenis  et  rem.,  cum  infirmitas  ;  C.  De 
episcop.  et  cler.,  1.  sancimus.  In  contrarium  probant  textus,  nam  propter 
impedimentum  corporale  superveniens,  officium  inchoatum  dimittitur  inex- 
pletum,  et  propterea  provident  iura  ne  solus  sit  sacerdos  in  ecclesia  ubi  subest 
facultas  bonorum  temporalium.  Probant  textus  in  capitulis  statim  allegatis  ; 
vii,  q.  i,  illud,  et  cap.  nihil.  Vt  unus  suppleat  continuando,  ubi  alter  dimisit, 
De  consecratione,  dist.  ii,  cap.  ult.  ;  nisi  oratio  missae  sit  ccepta  et  non  completa, 
quia  tune  alter  reincipere  tenetur,  cum  ilia  non  recipiat  divisionem,  ut  in  bap- 
tismo  et  ordine,  ut  xxiii  dist.,  quorundam,  et  ibi  nota  glossam,  et  in  cap.  nihil, 
etiam  notanda  glossa.  Sed  si  aliquis  invadat  celebrantem,  ut  ipsum  occidat, 
hie  evenit  impedimentum  celebranti  immo  periculum  mortis,  ut  claret,  ergo 
licitum  praetermittere,  et,  per  consequens,  se  de  periculo  sibi  occurrenti,  si 
potest,  expedire,  etiam  occidendo.  Ad  allegata  in  contrarium  facile  est  re- 
spondere, nam  licet  spiritualia  sint  prseponenda  temporalibus  in  genere,  tamen 
celebratio  spiritualium  hoc  casu  non  est  praeponenda,  cum  hoc  casu,  propter 
damnum  irreparabile,  lex  hoc  permittat  quod  non  contingit  in  spiritual!  post- 
posito,  quia  per  alium  restaurari  potest,  vel  eundem,  periculo  excluso.  De 


136  DE  IVRE  BELLI 

secundo,  sine  argumentis  dico,  quodsi  etiam  occiderit,  se  defendendo,  quod 
poterit  reassumpto  officio  celebrare,  dummodo  affucrint  ilia  de  quibus  loquitur 
Ofin.,  si  furiosus.  Nam  nullum  peccatum,  cum  hoc  fecerit  legis  auctoritatr, 
ruins  auctoritate  nemo  peccat,  ut  in  cap.  qui  pcccat,  xxiii,  q.  iv  ;  unde  nullain 
irregularitatem  incidit,  ut  in  praedicta  Clem.,  si  furiosus.  Ergo  nullum  videtur 
subesse  imj>edimentum  quin  possit  celebrare,  ut  probat  Clemen.,  statim 
inducta. 


tc*p.iM*>.)          An  baptizanti,  ordinanti,  confirnianti,  inungenti,  ct  singula  sacramcnta 

conferenti,  invasis,  licihim  sil  collationem  illorum 
sacramctt/orum  postponere  inchoatam  ? 

Quarto,  sic  posset  quaeri,  argui,  et  solvi,  de  baptizante,  ordinantc,  inun- 
gente,  etiam  in  singulis  sacramentis,  an  sit  licitum  illorum  collationem  post- 
ponere, etiam  si  inchoaverit  propter  tutelam  sui  ?  Et  in  omnibus  die  ut  supra. 


[Cap. !»»•!.]     -4»'  pradigcnda  sit  tnorsW  invasi  saccrdotis,  cum  pucntm  in  mortis  arliculo 

baplizat,  an  vita  eetcrna  ipsius  pncri,  tic  deccdat 
sine  baptismatc  ? 

Quinto  quaero,  sacerdos  baptizat  puerum,  qui  est  in  mortis  periculo,  et 
incidit  invasio  sacerdotis,  ut  occidatur,  quid  praeeligendum  de  iure,  an  pern- 
cere  collationem  sacramenti,  ne  decedat  puer  sine  baptismo,  et  ipse  sacerdos 
occidatur,  vel  econtra,  praeeligendum  mortem  propriam  evadere,  et  permit- 
tere  puerum  mori  sine  baptismate  ?  Sic  forma  quaestionem  de  sacerdote  dif- 
ferente  corpus  Christi  infirmo  in  extremis  laboranti. 

Pro  primo  apparet  quod  sacerdos  potius  debeat  se  permittere  occidi  quam 
puerum  sine  baptismate  mori.  Nam  si  puer  inoritur  sine  baptismate  moritur 
aeternaliter,  ut  probat  Augustinus  ad  Petrum  Diaconum,  De  consecrat.,  dist. 
iv,  firmissimc,  et  cap.  regcncrantc,  eadem  dist.,  et  cap.  ntilla,  eadem  dist. 
Probat  Apostolus  ad  Ephesios  iv  cap.,  propter  delictum  unius  omnes  in 
damnatione.  Sic  originale  peccatum,  cuius  effectus  non  est  exstinctus  per 
sacramentum  baptismatis,  inducit  damnationem  aeternam,  sed  sacerdos  solum 
temporaliter  moritur,  si  alias  necessariis  ad  salutem  aeternam  imbutus,  sed 
mors  temporalis  postponenda  est  spirituali.  Sic  arguit  Augustinus,  xxiii,  q. 
iv,  displicct,  et  cap.  ipsa  piclas  ;  ergo  potius  debet  sacerdos  eligere  mori,  ut 
puer  in  aeternum  non  pereat.  Praeterea  inter  duo  mala  minus  malum  est  eli- 
gendum,  xiii  dist.,  nervi  Icsliculorum,  cum  similibus ;  at  minus  malum  est  mors 
temporalis  quam  aeterna,  ut  cap.  ipsa  piclas,  et  cap.  displicct,  xxiii,  q.  iv.  Et 
mors  pueri  est  aeterna,  ut  cap.  firmissimc,  et  cap.  ntilla,  et  cap.  rcgcncranlc, 
De  consecr.,  dist.  iv.  Mors  autem  sacerdotis  est  temporalis,  ergo  praseligenda. 
Praeterea  praecipuus  actus  caritatis  est  quod  quis  proximum  diligat  sicut  seip- 
sum,  De  Pcenit.,  dist.  ii,  proximos,  et  [cap.]  §  proindc,  et  caj).  caritas  csl,  ut  milii 
i-idctur.  At  hir  sacerdos,  si  pra.-eligat  salutem  aitcrnam  i>uero  vita;  sua-  tempo- 


AN  BAPTIZANTI  ?  137 

rali,  non  diliget  ipsum  sicut  seipsum,  et  sic  caritate  carebit,  quod  probatur. 
Nam  vita  aeterna  sine  comparationc  praecellit  vitam  temporalem.  Ergo  prae- 
eligendo  vitam  temporalem  sibi  vitae  aeternae  proximi  multo  magis  se  diligit 
quam  proximum,  et  sic  remanet  caritate  vacuus.  Praeterea  illud  praeeligendum 
est  ad  cuius  productionem  pauciora  mala  sequuntur,  sed  ad  mortem  sacer- 
dotis  minus  malum  sequitur  quam  ad  mortem  pueri  sine  baptismate,  ergo 
praeeligenda  mors  sacerdotis.  Probatur  maior.  Nam  haec  est  regula  in  mora- 
libus,  quod  plura  mala,  ceteris  paribus,  deteriora  sunt  paucioribus,  et  magis 
fugienda.  Probatur  in  can.  nervi,  xiii  distinctionis.  Probatur  minor,  nam 
si  eligatur  sacerdotis  vita,  sequuntur  duo  mala,  scilicet,  mors  aeterna  pueri, 
ut  supra  deductum  est,  et  neglectus  curae  animarum,  quod  mortale,  ut  in  can. 
cum  sit  ars,  De  aeta.  et  qualitate.  Si  autem  praeeligatur  mors  temporalis 
sacerdotis,  non  sequitur  nisi  illud  malum,  scilicet,  temporalis  mors,  quod, 
etiam  attenta  qualitate  actus  in  se,  sine  comparatione  minus  malum  est  morte 
perpetua,  ergo  inferendum  ut  supra. 

In  contrarium  videntur  textus  qui  loquuntur  generaliter,  concedendo  cui- 
libet  faqiiltatem  se  defendendi  in  casu  necessitatis.  Sufficit  Clem.,  si  furiosus, 
saepius  allegata.  Confirmatur  per  iura  quae  dicunt  caritatem  incipere  a  seipso, 
ut  1.  presses,  C.  De  servit.  et  aqua  ;  et  cap.  petitio,  De  iureiurando. 

Solutio.  Pro  evidentia  huius  quaestionis  et  solutionis  eiusdem  est  exami- 
nare  casus  indubitatos.  Nam  sunt  casus  indubitati  in  themate  proposito. 
Ecce  si  ponamus  quod  puer  per  alium,  etiam  laicum  vel  mulierem,  baptizari 
posset,  esto  quod  sacerdos  diverteret  a  sacramenti  collatione,  non  esset  dubium 
quod  sacerdos  deberet  praeeligere  salutem  suam,  ubi  enim  verisimiliter  puer 
posset  vivere  usque  ad  expeditionem  periculi,  et  hoc  verisimiliter  constaret, 
non  haberem  quaestionem  dubiam,  quominus  sacerdos  haberet  praeeligere  salu- 
tem suam,  nee  rationes  inductee  concludunt  contra  hunc  casum.  Si  poneremus 
quaestionem  in  adulto,  non  autem  in  infante,  qui  adultus,  licet  non  suscipiat 
baptismum  fluminis,  tamen  decedet,  si  veram  habeat  fidem  cum  baptismate 
fluminis.  Adhuc  non  haberem  quaestionem  dubiam,  immo  dicerem,  ut  supra, 
praeeligendam  salutem  sacerdotis.  Sed  quaestio  procedit  in  puero,  de  quo  con- 
stat  quod  morietur  sine  baptismate,  si  sacerdos  divertat.  Vel  quaestio  pro- 
cederet  in  dubio,  ubi,  videlicet,  de  hoc  probabiliter  dubitaretur. 

In  primo  casu,  videlicet,  ubi  de  hoc  constaret,  crederem  praeeligendam 
mortem  sacerdotis  temporalem,  per  iura  supra  inducta,  et  fundor  per  ea  quae 
habentur,  vii,  q.  i,  §  hoc  etiam,  vers.  cum  vero  specialiter.  A  contrario,  et 
quod  ibi  notat  glossa.  Nam  ubi  solus  praelatus  quaeritur,  nee  ecclesia  potest 
esse  tuta,  eo  fugiente,  exponere  debet  se  morti  pro  ipsa,  ut  ibi.  Haec  maxime 
procedunt  in  proprio  sacerdote  et  parochiano,  et  movent  me  rationes  supra 
ad  hoc  inductae. 

Vbi  autem  foret  dubium  probabile  de  morte  vel  de  vita  pueri,  usque  ad 
expeditionem  periculi,  et  constaret  de  morte  presbyteri,  nisi  diverteret,  adhuc 
crederem  praeeligendam  mortem  sacerdotis,  cum  in  incertis  non  certus  locus 
sit  coniecturis,  ut  1.  continuus,  §  illud,  ff.  De  verbor.  obligationibus.  Vbi 


138  DE  IVRE  BELLI 

autem  probabilc  dubium  foret  hinc  inde,  crcderem,  ut  supra  primo  membro 
hoc,  in  sacramento  baptismatis. 

In  corpora  autem  Christi,  si  vcra  esset  glossa  quae  est  in  cap.  quod  in  It, 
De  poenis  et  remiss.,  quae  dicit  viaticum  non  esse  sacramentum  necessitatis, 
tune  quaestio  non  esset  multum  dubia.  Sed  ilia  glossa  non  est  vera,  immo  alia 
glossa  notat  contrarium  in  cap.  veniens,  De  transaction.,  in  prima  glossa,  et 
ilia  est  vera,  ut  notat  De  sacrament,  non  iterand.,  super  rubrica.  Probare 
videtur  textus  in  cap.  omnis,  De  poen.  et  remissionibus.  Tamen  adhuc,  hoc 
supposito  pro  vero,  quod  sit  sacramentum  necessitatis,  adhuc  dicerem  prae- 
eligendam  vitam  temporalem  sacerdotis.  Moveor  ex  hoc,  quia  etiam  si  quis 
decedat  sine  corpore  Christi,  ubi  per  eum  non  stetit,  et  non  contempsit,  non 
moritur  aeternaliter,  sicut  in  baptismo.  Idcirco  in  hoc  casu  non  concludercnt 
rationes  supra  inductae.  Idem  dicerem  in  sacramento  pcenitentias,  quia  etiam 
sine  oris  confessione  decedens,  ubi  per  eum  non  stetit,  sola  contritionis  virtus 
salvat  eum,  ut  notat  De  pcenit.,  dist.  iro,  in  summa,  et  in  §  his  ita.  Idem  per 
onmia  dicerem  in  sacramento  unctionis. 


ap. i*«Yii.]  An  monacho  liceat  se  defendere  sine  licentia  abbatis  sui  ? 

Sexto  quaero,  numquid  monacho  liceat  se  sic  defendere  sine  licentia  praelati 
sui  ?  Videtur  quod  non.  Nam  monachus  non  vibrat,  nee  vibrare  debct 
actum  volitivum,  nisi  de  licentia  praelati  sui,  quia  sine  ipsius  licentia  caret  velle 
et  nolle,  xii,  q.  i,  nolo,  et  cap.  non  dicatis  ;  De  electione,  quorundam,  et  cap. 
si  religiosus,  Lib.  VI;  et  Clem.,  religiosus,  De  procuratoribus.  At  iste  actus 
defensae  provenit  a  mero  hbertatis  arbitrio,  quia  potest  etiam  nolle,  ergo  non 
poterit  sine  licentia  praelati.  Praeterea  monachus  est  mortuus  mundo,  xvi, 
q.  i,  Monachi,  et  cap.  placuit  ;  ergo  sibi  non  competunt  actus  t<  ndentes  ad 
defensionem  vitae.  Praeterea  monacho  interdict!  sunt  actus  etiam  in  bonum 
tendentes  sine  licentia  praelati  sui,  ut  sunt  vovere,  peregrinari,  et  similes  actus, 
per  iura  statim  allegata.  In  contrarium  videtur,  nam  defensio  corporis  sui 
provenit  ex  instinctu  naturali,  nee  reprobatur  lege  divina  nee  altera,  ergo  licet 
monacho,  cum  quantum  ad  naturales  actus  non  sit  mortuus,  sed  solum  quoad 
civiles  actus,  ut  iuribus  supra  inductis. 

Solutio.  Credo  quod,  si  monachus  sine  periculo  moras  possit  se  defendere 
cum  licentia  praelati  sui,  ipsam  petere  debet.  Hoc  probant  iura  inducta  ad 
primam  partem.  Si  autem  non  possit  licentiam  praelati  petere,  quia  non  est 
praesens,  et  periculum  est  in  mora,  tune  poterit  sine  In  t utia  praelati.  Moveor 
ex  hoc,  quia  iste  actus  est  iure  naturali  inductus,  quern  praelatus  non  posset  sine 
causa  totaliter  interdicerc,  immo  forte  nee  Papa,  cum  natura  hoc  induxerit, 
nee  in  his  subditus  tenetur  praelato  suo,  sicut  si  totaliter,  et  sine  causa,  inter- 
diceret  cibum  et  potum.  Movet  me  glossa  quae  est  in  cap.  non  dicalis,  xii,  q.  i. 
Nam  quaerit  ibi  glossa  an  liceat  monacho  facere  eleemosynam  pauperi,  fame 
morienti  nisi  subveniatur  ei,  sine  licentia  praelati,  et  tenet  quod  sic.  Nam  hoc 


AN  BANNITIS  ?  139 

casu  necessitatis  tenetur,  si  providere  potest  alterius  vitae  per  actum  alias  inhi- 
bitum  sibi,  quanto  magis  providere  poterit  vitae  suse  per  actum  sibi  a  naturali- 
bus  insitum.  Non  video  quare,  immo  dicit  Raymundus  in  summa  De  negot. 
saecularibus,  §  sed  quaritur  circa  hoc,  quod,  si  abbas  inhiberet,  ipse  facere 
debet,  quia  tune  non  obediet  homini  sed  Deo,  viii  dist.,  quo  iure. 


An  servo  liceat  se  defenders  sine  iussu  domini  sui  ?  [Cap.ix 

J  ots.\ 

Septimo  quaeritur,  numquid  liceat  servo  sic  se  defendere  sine  iussu  domini 
sui  ?  Videtur  quod  non.  Nam  actus  servorum  pro  nullis  habentur,  ut  1. 
[servus]  servum,  C.  De  rei  vind. ;  et  1.  vix  certis,  ff.  De  iudic. ;  et  1.  si  quis  mihi 
bona,  §  iussum,  ff.  De  acquir.  haereditate.  In  contrarium  videtuf,  nam  hodie 
mors  servorum  non  est  in  potestate  dominorum,  ut  1.  i,  ff.  De  his  qui  sunt  sui 
vel  ali.  iuris.  Confirmatur.  Nam  actus  naturales  non  potest  totaliter  dominus 
interdicere  servo,  per  quorum  interdictionem  servus  pereat,  ut  1.  supra  prox. 
allegata.  Solutio.  Vt  supra  proximo  dictum  est  de  monacho. 


An  bannitis,  qui  per  statuta  civitatum  quandoque  impune  occidi  possunt,  liceat    [Cap. 

se  defendere  ? 

Octavo  quaeritur,  numquid  illis  quos  licitum  est  occidere  impune,  utpote 
bannitis,  de  quibus  aliquando  disponunt  leges  municipales,  quod  impune 
offendi  possint,  licitum  sit  se  defendere  ?  Videtur  quod  non.  Nam,  si  a 
privato  iuste  inferatur  violentia,  non  licet  se  defendere,  ut  1.  iv,  ff.  Ad  legem 
Aquiliam.  At  hie  iuste  infertur,  quia  lege  auctorizante,  ut  1.  iuste,  ff.  De  acquir. 
possessione.  Confirmatur.  Si  violentia  inferatur  a  publica  persona,  non  licet 
se  defendere,  ff.  De  iniur.,  1.  iniuriarum,  §  i  ;  ff .  De  rei  vindic.,  1.  qui  restituere, 
At  hie  iste  gerit  vicem  publicae  persona?,  nam  lex  facit  ipsum  ministrum,  per- 
mittendo  privato  ipsum  punire,  et  hoc  potest  lex,  scilicet,  dare  iurisdictionem 
privato,  ut  1.  et  quia,  ff.  De  iurisd.  omn.  iudic.  ;  et  cap.  primo,  Ne  praelati 
vices  suas,  ubi  notatur.  Ergo  infertur  huic  non  licere  se  defendere. 

In  contrarium  videtur,  quia  hie  est  privatus,  immo  etsi  foret  publica 
persona,  apparet  iniuste  inferri  violentiam  cum  inferatur  iuris  ordine  non 
servato,  et  sic  iniustitia  ordine  attento,  ut  1.  prolatam,  C.  De  sent.  ;  et  cap. 
quoniam  contra,  De  probationibus. 

Secundo,  puto  ponderanda  verba  legis,  nam  aliquando  lex  permittit 
aliquid,  quia  nullo  iure  prohibetur,  ut  xxxi,  q.  i,  hac  ratione.  Aliquando 
lex  permittit  aliquid  contra  constitutiones  humanas,  ut  contrahere  olim  in 
quinto  gradu,  ut  xxxv,  q.  iii,  qu&dam.  Tertio  modo  lex  permittit  tolerando, 
non  quia  faciat  actum  alias  illicitum  licitum,  sed  actum  illicitum,  manentem 
illicitum,  non  punit,  ut  dicit  textus  in  can.  denique,  iv  distinctione.  Nam  come- 
dentes  carnes  in  media  nocte  Dominicae  carniprivii  non  puniuntur,  et  dicit 

[10] 


140  DE  IVRE  BELLI 

tcxtus  permitti,  id  est,  non  puniri  propter  multitudinem  ct  scandalum,  sic  alias 
permittitur  adulterium,  ut  vitetur  homicidium,  xxxiii,  q.  [i]  ii,  si  quod  verius; 
ct  tamen  adulterium  non  fit  licitum  per  legem  sic  permittentcm,  sed,  actu  ma- 
nente  illicito,  poena  remittitur.  Sic  in  proposito,  si  lex  permittat  tolerando,  et 
poenam  remittendo,  actu  manente  illicito,  propter  odium  banniti,  tune  crederem 
bannito  licere  se  defendere,  nee  hunc  articulum  concludunt  supra  allegata.  Si 
autem  lex  permitteret  positive  faciendo  actum  de  illicito  licitum,  tune  secus. 
Et  isti  modi  permissionis  notantur  per  glossam,  iii  dist.,  omnis  autem  lex. 


ic«p.in»iz.]  Contra  quos  liceat  hoc  particulare  helium  indicere  ? 

Circa  quintum,  videlicet,  contra  quos  hoc  particulare  bellum  competat, 
est  videndum.  Et  circa  hoc  quaeritur  de  pluribus. 

An  liceat  contra  superior  em  suum  ? 

Et  primo  quaeritur,  an  licitum  sit  alicui  hoc  bellum  indicere  contra  supe- 
riorem  suum  ?  Et  glossa  in  1.  ut  vim,  ff.  De  iustit.  et  iure,  dicit  quod  non  ; 
per  1.  qui  restituere,  ff.  De  rei  vindic.  ;  et  1.  iniuriarum,  §  i,  ff.  De  iniuriis. 
Probat  textus  in  cap.  qui  resistit,  xi,  q.  iii.  Ego  non  credo  quod  glossa  dicat 
simpliciter  verum,  sed  credo  distinguendum.  Aut  constat  quod  iniuste  agit, 
aut  constat  quod  iuste,  aut  dubitatur.  Primo  casu,  credo  resistendum,  ut  1. 
prohibitum,  C.  De  iure  fisci ;  et  1.  devotum,  C.  De  metatis.  Et  hoc  maxime 
cum  aliquid  extra  officium  suum  agit,  ad  ipsum  non  exspectans.  Secundo  casu 
non  est  resistendum,  ut  1.  qui  restituere,  ff.  De  rei  vindic.  ;  et  1.  qui  iniuriarum, 
§  i,  ff.  De  iniuriis.  Tertio  casu  non  est  resistendum  nisi  tale  sit  factum  quod 
non  possit  post  tempus  restaurari.  Nam  talia  facta  pro  infectis  haberi  non 
possunt,  ut  1.  in  bello,  §  facli,  ff.  De  captivis.  Nam  in  talibus  lex  inhibens 
appellari  ante  definitivam  permittit  appellari,  ut  notatur  in  1.  ante  sententia 
tempus,  C.  Quor.  app.  non  recipiuntur. 


An  liceat  contra  iudicem,  etiam  si  iniuste  aliquid  agat? 

Secundo  quaerit  glossa  in  dicta  lege,  ut  vim,  quid  si  index,  aut  potestas, 
aliquid  iniuste  agat  ?  Respondet  Martinus  quod  non  est  resistendum,  per 
legem  iniuriarum,  §  i,  ff.  De  iniuriis ;  sed  conveniet  magistratum  durante 
officio,  si  est  de  minoribus,  vel  finite  otficio,  si  est  de  maioribus,  ut  ff.  De  iudic., 
1.  pars  litcrarum  ;  et  1.  iii,  ff.  Quod  met.  causa.  Hanc  glossam  non  credo 
veram  in  facto  irreparabili.  Pone  quod  iudex  invadat  me,  ut  occidat,  et  est  de 
maioribus  magistratibus,  numquid  exspectandum  sit  donee  finiatur  officium  ? 
vel,  si  est  de  minoribus,  debetne  exspectari  donee  porrigatur  querela  coram 
praeside  ?  Absit,  quia  talia  facta,  ut  supra  dixi,  sunt  irretractabilia,  ut  praedicta 
1.  t'w  bello,  §facti,  ff.  De  captivis. 


CONTRA  QVOS  ?  141 

An  liceat  filio  contra  patrem  ?  [Cap. 

Tertio  quaeritur,  numquid  licitum  sit  filio  contra  patrem.  Videtur  quod 
non,  propter  ius  patriae  potestatis,  ut  C.  De  pat.  potest.,  per  totum.  Confirma- 
tur.  Nam  non  licet  filio  contra  se,  ergo  nee  contra  patrem,  cum  censeantur 
una  persona,  ut  C.  De  impub.  et  aliis  substit.,  1.  ult. ;  Instit.,  De  inutil.  stip., 
§  ei  qui  ;  C.  De  agric.  et  censi.,  1.  cum  scimus  ;  in  Authent.,  De  iureiurando 
a  moriente  praestando,  §  i.  In  contrarium  videtur.  Nam  haec  defensio  pro- 
venit  a  iure  naturali,  ut  probatum  est  supra,  in  tertio  membro  principal!,  nee 
aliqua  lege  reprobatum,  immo  qualibet  approbatum,  ut  ibi  deductum  fuit. 
Ergo  patria  potestas,  iure  civili  inducta,  illud  ius  filio  competens  non  tollit, 
cum  iura  naturalia  civilibus  non  tollantur.  Instit.,  De  iure  nat.  gent,  et  civili, 
§  naturalia  ;  v  dist.,  ius  naturale. 

Solutio.  Dico  quod,  si  pater  aliquid  agat  contra  filium,  corrigendo  in 
his  quae  permittuntur  ex  iure  patriae  potestatis,  non  excedendo,  quod  non  liceat 
filio  se  defendere,  quia  in  hoc  ius  civile  quod  induxit  patriam  potestatem 
limitat  ius  naturale,  quod  fieri  potest,  ut  supra  deductum  est.  Si  autem  pater 
aliquid  agat  contra  filium,  excedendo  sibi  concessa  ex  iure  patriae  potestatis, 
tune  crederem  licitum  sibi  defendere.  Et  haec  procedunt  in  filio  degente  in 
potestate  patris,  in  emancipate  enim  minor  est  quaestio.  Ad  inducta  in  con- 
trarium patet  solutio  per  iam  dicta. 


An  liceat  monacho  contra  abbatem  suum  ?  [Cap. KM.] 

Quarto  quaeritur,  numquid  monacho  hoc  liceat  contra  abbatem  ?  Videtur 
quod  non,  nam  monachus  caret  vibramine  voluntatis  sine  licentia  abbatis  sui, 
xii,  q.  i,  nolo,  et  cap.  non  dicatis  ;  De  statu  monach.,  cum  ad  monasterium.  Sed 
iste  actus  provenit  ex  imperio  voluntatis,  cum  possit  nolle,  nee  his  intervenit 
licentia  praelati,  immo  tacita  et  ficta  contradictio,  quae  plus  operatur  quam  ver- 
balis,  ff.  De  aedilit.  edict.,  1.  si  tamen,  §  ei  quod  ;  ff.  De  legi.,  1.  de  quibus,  in 
fine  ;  De  appellationibus,  ad  audientiam,  et  cap.  ut  nostrum,  et  cap.  dilecti. 
Confirmatur.  Nam  monachus  mortuus  est  mundo,  xvi,  q.  i,  monachi,  et  cap. 
placuit  ;  et  Authent.,  ingressi,  C.  De  sacrosanctis  ecclesiis.  Ergo  sibi  non  corn- 
petit  actus  defensionis  vitae  mundanae. 

In  contrarium  apparet.  Nam  iste  actus  provenit  ex  iure  naturali,  nulla 
lege  positiva  reprobate,  licet  modificato.  Ergo  non  denegatur  monacho,  qui, 
licet  sit  mortuus  civiliter,  non  tamen  naturaliter,  ut  iuribus  supra  allegatis. 
Solutio.  Si  praelatus  contra  monachum  aliquid  attentet  de  his  quae  permit- 
tuntur a  iure  communi,  in  corrigendo  et  similibus,  vel  ex  constitutionibus 
ordinis,  tune  monacho  non  licet  resistere,  immo  nee  hoc  casu  audiretur  appel- 
lans,  ut  De  appell.,  cum  speciali,  et  cap.  de  prior e.  Si  autem  praelatus  aliquid 
attentet  contra  monachum  in  his  quae  non  pertinent  ad  officium  suum,  iure 
vel  constitutionibus  modificatum,  tune  licet  se  defendere,  maxime  in  his  qua 
propter  moram  periculum  ingerunt,  utpote  si  abbas  monachum  invaderet,  ut 


142  DE  IVRE  BELLI 

ipsum  subito  occideret,  quid  miri  cum  etiam  monacho  liceat  abbatem  impetere, 
accusando,  si  aliquid  contra  debitum  agat,  ut  cap.  ex  parte,  De  accusat.,  et 
cap.  cum  dim,  eod.  titulo. 

lc«p.TciiLi  An  liceat  servo  contra  dominant  ? 

Quinto  quaeritur,  numquid  hoc  liceat  servo  contra  dominum.  Apparet 
quod  non,  cum  omnimodo  potestas  sit  domini  contra  servum,  ut  1.  i,  ff.  De 
his  qui  sunt  sui  vel  alieni  iuris.  Confirmatur.  Nam  servus  tenetur  dominum 
prceh'antem  iuvare,  alias  punitur,  ut  1.  si  quis  in  gravi,  fi,  De  S.  C.  Silaniano. 
Ergo  ipsum  impugnare  non  potent,  ut  cap.  uno,  De  nat.  ex  lib.  ;  et  cap.  con- 
qucerente,  De  restit.  spol.  ;  ff.  Si  servit.  vind.,  1.  altius;  ff.  De  condic.  indebit., 
1.  frater  a  Jratre  ;  xxvi  dist.,  una  tantum  ;  xxv  dist.,  can.  ult.  ;  xvi,  q.  i,  Silve- 
ster ;  ff.  De  fideiuss.,  1.  tutor  ;  ff.  De  admin,  tut.,  1.  quotiens. 

In  contrarium  apparet.  Nam  hodie  restricta  est  potestas  dominorum  in 
servos,  ut  1.  i,  ff.  De  his  qui  sunt  sui  vel  alieni  iuris.  Nam  hodie  non  habent 
potestatem  trucidandi,  nee  acriter  eos  affligendi.  Ergo.  Solutio.  Vt  dictum 
est  de  monacho,  si  dominus  aliquid  attentet  contra  servum  in  his  quae  iura 
permittunt,  non  licet  servo  se  defendere.  Nam  in  hoc  limitatur  actus  a  iure 
naturali  proveniens  a  iure  positive,  limitante  potestatem  dominorum  in  servos. 
Si  autem  attentet  aliquid  ultra  quam  a  iure  permissum  est,  tune  secus,  quia 
in  his,  licet  servi  non  sint  agniti  quoad  actus  civiles,  tamen  quoad  actus  natu- 
rales  sic,  qualis  est  iste. 

Per  hoc  solvuntur  consimiles  quaestiones.  Numquid  vassallo  contra 
dominum  ?  Numquid  discipulo  contra  magistrum  ?  Numquid  militi  contra 
praepositum  ?  Numquid  uxori  contra  maritum  ?  Vniformi  solutione  solvun- 
tur, ut,  si  attentetur  quod  ius  permittit,  non  licet  se  defendere.  Si  autem 
ultra,  et  contra  iuris  debitum,  tune  secus,  ut  supra  plene  tactum  est.  Ex  his 
breviter  infertur  contra  quos,  ex  regula  supra  dicta,  possent  quaestiones  infi- 
nitae  solvi. 

lc«P.  «iv.]  Pro  quibus  personis  liceat  hoc  particulare  bettum  indicere  ? 

Circa  sextum  est  videre,  videh'cet,  pro  quibus  liceat  ?  et  primo  circa  per- 
sonas  pro  quibus  licitum  sit.  Et  pono  indubitatum  quod  pro  defensa  sui 
ipsius.  Hoc  probat  textus  in  1.  ut  vim,  ff.  De  iustit.  et  iure  ;  et  1.  i,  §  vim  vi, 
ff.  De  vi  ct  vi  armata  ;  et  1.  iv,  Ad  leg.  Aquil.  ;  et  1.  scientiam,  §  qui  cum 
aliter,  eod.  tit.  ;  clare  in  Clemen.,  i,  De  homicidio.  De  aliis  vero  infra 
quseritur. 

[Cap.  ICT.J  A  n  liceat  patri  pro  filio  ? 

Et  primo  quaero,  an  liceat  patri  pro  filio  ?  Expediendo  parum  dubia 
sine  argumentationibus,  dicendum  quod  sic.  Nam  pater  filium  ut  seipsuin 
diligit,  ut  1.  isti  quidem,  ff.  Quod  met.  causa.  Nam  propter  hoc  perpetua- 


PRO  QVIBVS  PERSONIS  ?  143 

tur  in  32vo,  ff.  De  verb,  sig.,  1.  liber mum,  in  fine  ;  etiam  quia  una  persona 
censetur,  ut  C.  De  impub.  et  aliis  substit.,  1.  ult.  ;  in  Authent.,  De  iureiur.  a 
moriente  prsestito,  in  principle  ;  Instit.,  De  inutil.  stip.,  §  ei  quern.  Hoc 
clarum.  Idem  econtra,  scilicet,  filius  pro  patre. 


An  liceat  marito  pro  uxore  ?  [Cap. 

Secundo  quaeritur,  numquid  hoc  liceat  marito  pro  uxore  ?  Clarum  est 
quod  sic,  nam  iniuria  uxori  irrogata  est  irrogata  marito,  et  iniuriarum  actio 
sibi  competit,  immo  et  sponso,  ut  1.  item  apud,  §  [si  sponsum]  sponsum,  ff.  De 
iniuriis.  Et  marito  licitum  est  occidere  vilem  repertum  adulterantem  cum 
uxore,  ut  1.  marito,  et  1.  capite  quinto,  ff.  De  adulteriis  ;  et  1.  Gracchus,  C. 
eod.  tit.  ;  immo  et  fabulantem  monitum,  per  iura  Authenticorum,  nee  incidit 
in  capitulum  si  quis  suadente,  xvii,  q.  iv.  Ob  hoc  iniciens  manus  violentas  in 
clericum,  ut  cap.  si  vero,  §  nee  ille,  De  sent,  excommunicationis. 


An  liceat  pro  fratre,  sorore,  et  aliis  coniunctis  personis  ? 

Tertio  quaeritur,  quid  pro  fratre  et  sorore  et  aliis  coniunctis  personis,  et 
non  coniunctis  ?  Et  glossa  in  1.  ut  vim,  ff.  De  iustit.  et  iure,  dicit  ponderan- 
dam  affectionem.  Allegat  1.  isti  quidem,  ff.  Quod  met.  causa  ;  et  1.  cum  ser- 
vus,  ff.  Mandati.  Alii  volunt  dicere  quod  pro  omnibus  coniunctis  licet.  Pro- 
bant  sic,  nam  si  quis  iniuriatur  uni  coniuncto,  omnibus  iniuriari  videtur,  licet 
non  competat  aliis  iniuriarum  actio,  ut  1.  lex  Cornelia,  in  prin.,  ff.  De  iniuriis. 
Confirmant,  nam  pro  defensa  rerum  licet  vim  vi  repellere,  ut  1.  i,  C.  Vnde  vi ; 
et  1.  iii,  §  eum  igitur,  ff.  De  vi  et  vi  armata.  Et  licitum  est  volenti  vim  vi 
repellere,  pro  defensa  rerum,  amicos  et  coniunctos  convocare.  Ergo  licitum 
est  amicos  et  coniunctos  iuvare.  Et  sic  concludunt  pro  coniuncto  indistincte 
hoc  licere.  Haec  opinio  confirmari  videtur.  Nam  homo  homini  ofncium 
debet,  ut  1.  cum  servus,  ff.  De  servis  exportandis.  Ergo  ex  illo  officio  iuvare 
licet.  Confirmatur  per  1.  addictos,  C.  De  appell.  ;  melius,  per  1.  non  tantum, 
ff.  De  appell.  ;  ubi  etiam  extraneus  pro  condemnato  in  criminali  appellat,  etiam 
ipso  nolente.  Probatur  per  1.  iii,  C.  De  liberali  causa.  Dominus  lacobus 
Buttrigarius  in  1.  ut  vim,  distinguit  in  hunc  modum.  Aut  ego,  ut  ego,  sine 
mandate  iniuriati,  volo  defendere  iniuriatum,  et  possum  per  viam  iuris,  non 
autem  facti.  Et  sic  intelliguntur  11.  statim  allegatae,  addictos,  non  tantum; 
et  1.  iii,  C.  De  lib.  causa.  Aut  volo  hoc  facere,  non  ut  ego,  sed  mandante 
iniuriato,  et  tune  potero  etiam  per  viam  facti,  ut  1.  iii,  §  eum  igitur,  ff. 
De  vi  et  vi  arm.  Alii  distinguunt.  Aut  illi  erant  in  comitiva  iniuriam  passi, 
et  possent  tune  propulsare  iniuriam  persons  eius  illatam.  Argumentum,  1. 
item  apud,  §  si  quis  [virginem]  virgines,  ff.  De  iniuriis.  Alias  non,  ut  tenet 
glossa  indistincte  in  1.  i,  Vnde  vi,  ubi  Cinus  hanc  opinionem  recitat  in  ante- 
paenultima  quaestione.  Alii,  ut  lacobus  de  Ravennate,  dicunt  indistincte  quod 


144  I>E  IVRE  BELLI 

licet.  Ratio.  Nam  negotia  mea  possunt  iuvari  per  alium,  ut  1.  i,  if.  De  negot. 
gestis.  Multo  fortius  et  persona  iuvari  poterit,  cum  persona  rebus  praefera- 
tur,  ut  1.  sancimus,  C.  De  sacrosanctis  ecclesiis.  Allegat  pro  casu,  1.  Gracchus, 
C.  De  adulterio ;  et,  si  dicas,  ibi  fuit  filius,  solvit  per  1.  liber  homo,  fi.  Ad  leg. 
Aquiliam.  Non  obstat  1.  cum  fundum,  fi.  De  vi  et  vi  armata.  Nam  ibi  ex 
intervallo  voluit,  quod  etiam  non  licuisset  per  se.  Non  obstat,  secundum  eum, 
1.  ut  vim,  fi.  De  iustit.  et  iure  ;  ubi  dicit  "  ob  tutelam  sui  corporis."  Respon- 
det  per  1.  si  servus,  fi.  De  servis  exportandis.  Hanc  opinionem  videtur  sequi 
Cinus  in  1.  i,  C.  Vnde  vi,  in  quaestione  antepaenultima. 

In  his  tot  et  tantorum,  crederem  ponderandum,  quia  mixtim  formavi 
quaestionem  de  coniunctis  et  extraneis,  quod  quaeri  potest,  an  liceat  coniuncto 
vel  extraneo  alterius  violentiam  vi  repellere,  sicut  liceret  propriam,  ad  evi- 
tandam  poenam  irregularitatis,  si  sit  clericus  vel  laicus,  hoc  casu  occidens  vel 
mutilans.  Potest  etiam  quaeri  de  utrisque,  an  licitum  sit,  ut  non  incidant  aliam 
poenam  legis  vel  canonis.  Si  quaeratur  de  primo,  dico  casum  esse  in  Clement., 
si  furiosus,  De  homicidio,  quod  solum  evitat  poenam  irregularitatis,  si  hoc 
faciat  seipsum  tantummodo  defendendo,  non  autem  alium,  etiam  patrem  vel 
filium.  Hoc  probat  textus,  dicens,  "  Idem  censemus  de  illo  qui,  mortem 
aliter  vitare  non  valens,  suum  occidit  vel  mutilavit  invasorem."  Loquitur 
ergo  de  suo,  non  autem  de  invasore  alterius.  Hoc  ibi  etiam  notat  glossa 
super  verbo  "  suum."  Hoc  ergo  casu  reputo  planum,  ut  ibi.  Si  autem  quaera- 
mus  an  liceat,  ut  vitentur  aliae  pcenae  legales  vel  canonicae,  et  tune  distingue. 
Aut  loquimur  de  pcena  excommunicationis,  si  hoc  casu  percutiat  clericum, 
violentiam  alterius  repellendo  vi,  et  tune  dico  cum  Innocentio  quod,  si  defendat 
patrem,  matrem,  uxorem,  filium,  vel  fih'am,  evadit  sententiam  excommunica- 
tionis. Allegat  ipse  1.  isti  quidem,  fi.  Quod  met.  causa  ;  et  1.  i,  §  si  vir,  fi.  De 
S.  C.  Silaniano.  Et  est  ratio  differentiae  inter  hunc  casum  et  praacedentem,  nam 
irregularitas  contrahitur  etiam  sine  dolo,  ut  est  videre  in  iudice  iuste  occidi 
mandante,  li  dist.,  qui  in  aliqiio.  Sed,  in  excommunicatione  per  ilium  canonem 
lata,  requiritur  diabolica  instigatio,  ut  cap.  si  quis  suadcntc,  xvii,  q.  iv.  In 
extraneis  autem  non  evadit  poenam  illius  canonis,  etiam  si  milies  mandato 
iniuriati  hoc  fecisset.  Aut  loquimur  de  alia  poena  personali  vel  pecuniaria,  et 
tune  distinguo,  aut  volentes  vim  repellere  a  violentiam  passo,  aut  sunt  con- 
iuncti  aut  extranei.  In  coniunctis,  die,  ut  glossa  in  1.  ut  vim,  ff.  De  iustit.  et  iure ; 
earn  limitando  per  1.  in  privatis,  ff.  De  iudic.  ;  et  1.  lex  Cornelia,  in  princip., 
ff.  De  iniuriis.  Aut  loquimur  de  extraneis,  et  tune  aut  illi  extranei  erant  deputati 
pro  comitiva  violentiam  passi,  et  tune  licet,  ut  1.  item  apud  Labeonem,  §  s»  quis 
[virginem]  virgines,  fi.  De  iniuriis  ;  aut  non  erant  deputati  pro  comitiva,  et  tune 
aut  volunt  ex  intervallo  repellere,  et  non  possunt,  ut  1.  cum  fundum,  fi.  De  vi  et 
vi  arm. ;  quia  nee  ipse  propriam  sic  repellere  posset.  Et  hoc  de  defensa  facti. 
Defensam  autem  iuris  facere  possent  etiam  ex  intervallo, ubi  iura  hoc  permittunt, 
ut  L  non  tantum,  fi.  De  appell. ;  et  1.  iii,  De  liber,  causa ;  et  1.  addictos,  C.  De 
appellationibus.  Et  per  hoc  non  puto  veram  opinionem  Domini  lacobi  Buttri- 
garii,  qui  dicit  quod  indistincte  defensam  iuris  facere  possunt.  Nam  hoc 


PRO  QVIBVS  PERSONIS  ?  145 

indistincte  non  est  verum.  Nam  sunt  casus  in  quibus  tertio  non  licet  actionem 
seu  accusationem  proponere  pro  iniuriam  passo.  Tollo  exemplum  regulare 
in  privatis  delictis.  Sic  ergo  solum  ubi  iura  permittunt.  Si  autem  volunt 
incontinenti  repellere,  tune  distinguerem  cum  Domino  lacobo.  Aut  advocantur 
per  violentiam  passum,  et  tune  licet.  Nam  licet  violentiam  passo  advocare 
amicos  pro  defensa  rerum,  ut  1.  iii,  §  sum  igitur,  ff.  De  vi  et  vi  armata  ;  ergo 
pro  defensa  personae,  quae  prasponderat,  ut  1.  sancimus,  C.  De  sacrosanct, 
ecclesiis.  Aut  non  advocantur,  et  tune  licet.  Textus  est  in  cap.  dilecto,  De  sent, 
excom.,  Lib.  VI.  Pro  hoc  faciat  xxiii,  q.  iii,  non  inferenda,  et  cap.  fortitude; 
De  sent,  excom.,  quanta.  Faciant  notata  in  1.  ii,  C.  De  commerc.  et  mercatori- 
bus.  Et  sic  in  hoc  credo  veram  opinionem  lacobi  de  Ravennate.  Textus 
est  in  pradicto  cap.  dilecto.  Nam  dicit  ibi  textus,  "  et  cum  liceat  cuilibet  suo 
vicino  vel  proximo,  pro  repellenda  ipsius  iniuria,  suum  impartiri  auxilium." 


An  quis  teneatur  quern  defender e  ne  occidatur  ?  [Cap. x 

Quarto  quaeritur,  quis  videt  quendam  occidi  nisi  iuvet  ipsum,  an  teneatur 
ipsum  iuvare  ?  Videtur  quod  sic,  per  1.  necare,  ff.  De  agnoscendis  liberis. 
Confirmatur  hoc  ex  officio  quod  debet  homo  homini,  ut  1.  servus,  ff.  De  servis 
exportandis.  Hoc  confirmatur.  Nam  error  cui  non  resistitur  approbari  vide- 
tur,  Ixxxiii  dist.,  error,  et  can.  consentire,  et  can.  quid  enim.  Nam  licitum  est 
alicui  pretium  recipere,  ut  metum  illatum  alteri  excutiat,  ut  ff.  Quod  met. 
causa,  1.  metum,  §  sed  licet.  Confirmatur.  Nam  in  quibusdam  casibus  hoc 
est  speciale,  quod  quis  teneatur  alium  sic  iuvare,  ff.  De  S.  C.  Silaniano,  1.  i, 
§  hoc  autem;  et  1.  ult.,  C.  eod.  titulo.  Ergo  contrarium  ius  commune,  ff.  Ad 
municipalem,  1.  i ;  et  1.  ius  singulare,  ff.  De  legibus.  Glossa  tenet  quod  iuvare 
tenetur  verbo  non  facto,  regula  culpa,  ff.  De  reg.  iuris.  Nee  obstat  officium 
quod  debet  homo  homini,  quia  illud  debet  sine  periculo  sui,  ut  1.  habet,  ff. 
De  oper.  lib.  ;  et  1.  Nepos  Proculo,  ff.  De  verbor.  significatione. 


Quinto  quceritur  de  his  qui  tenentur  violentiam  ab  aliis  propulsare.  [Cap.  xd* 

Et  circa  hoc  quaeritur  de  pluribus. 

An  vassattus  teneatur  iuvare  dominum  suum  ? 

Et  primo  de  vassallo  quaeritur.  Et  non  est  dubium  quia  tenetur  iuvare 
dominum,  alias  perdit  feudum,  ut  in  Vsibus  Feudorum,  Quae  fuit  prima 
causa  beneficii  amittendi,  cap.  prima  autem  causa,  §  item  qui  dominum,  et  § 
sequenti. 

An  servus  teneatur  iuvare  dominum  suum  ?  [Cap.  c.j 

Secundo  quaeritur  de  servo,  et  quod  teneatur  iuvare  dominum  est  textus 
in  1.  i,  §  hoc  autem,  ff.  De  S.  C.  Silaniano  ;  et  1.  ult.,  C.  eod.  titulo. 


146  DE  IVRE  BELLI 

An  miles  Ifticahir  defender e  preepositum  belli  ? 

Tertio  quaeritur  de  praeposito  belli,  et  quod  teneatur  iuvare  praepositum 
belli,  si  potest,  alias  capitc  punitur,  cst  textus  in  1.  otnnc  dclictum,  ff.  De  re 
milit.  ;  et  1.  iii,  §  fin.,  ff.  eodoin. 


IC.P.CH.]          An  vassallus  videns  dominum  invasum  ex  una  parte,  patrem  ex  alia,  etc.  ? 

Quarto  quseritur,  vassallus  videt  dominum  invasum  ex  una  parte,  patrem 
ex  alia,  uterque  pariter  est  in  mortis  periculo,  nisi  iuventur,  nee  iuvare  potest 
nisi  alterum,  quern  iuvabit,  patrem  an  dominum  ?  Glossa  quas  est  xxii,  q.  v,  dc 
forma,  dicit  quod  vassallus  tenetur  iuvare  dominum  contra  filium  proprium. 
Inducit,  quia  filius  tenetur  patri  iure  naturae,  sed  vassallus  domino  vinculo 
iuramenti,  ut  in  Vsibus  Feudorum,  Quas  fuit  prima  causa  benefic.  amittendi, 
cap.  uno.  Et  secundum  hoc  foret  decisa  quaestio,  quia  teneretur  iuvare  domi- 
num cui  plus  astringitur.  In  hac  quaestione  dicerem  contrarium.  Et  moveor 
ex  hoc,  nam  nlius  tenetur  patri  ex  vinculo  naturali,  ex  quo  ab  eo  progenitus  est. 
Tenetur  et  vinculo  civili,  quia  sub  eius  potestate  patria,  domino  autem  tenrtur 
vinculo  civili  tantum,  ut  praedicto  cap.  de  forma,  xxii,  q.  v.  Sed  duo  vincula 
vincunt  unum  in  Authent.,  De  consanguin.  et  uterin.  fratribus,  in  principio. 
Confirmatur  ratione  prioritatis  obh'gationis,  nam  prius  est  vinculum  paternum 
vinculo  dominico.  Ergo  primo  ipsum  iuvare  tenetur,  ut  1.  potior,  et  1.  qui 
balneum,  ff.  Qui  potior.  in  pign.  habeantur.  Confirmatur.  luramentum 
praestitum  domino  intelligitur  salvo  vinculo  praecedenti,  nam  ius  alteri  quas- 
situm  non  tollitur  per  secundam  obligationem,  ut  dicta  1.  qui  balneum,  et  1. 
potior.  Confirmatur  per  cap.  petitio,  De  iurciurando.  Nam  iurando  domino 
de  ipsum  iuvando,  non  intelligitur  iurasse  sic  quominus  seipsum  prius  iuvet 
quam  dominum,  quia  haec  prima  caritas,  ut  1.  prases,  C.  De  servitutibus.  Sed 
pater  est  eadem  persona  cum  filio  iuris  fictione,  ut  1.  ult.  cum  concordantiis, 
C.  De  impub.  et  aliis  substitutionibus.  Ergo. 


ic«p  An  clericus  videns  episcopum  suum  invasum  ex  una  parte,  patrem  ex  alia, 

uterque  pariter,  etc.  ? 

Quinto  quaeritur,  pone  clericus  videt  episcopum  suum  invasum  ex  una 
parte,  patrem  ex  alia,  uterque  pariter  est  in  mortis  periculo  nisi  iuventur,  nee 
iuvare  potest  nisi  alterum,  quern  iuvabit,  episcopum  vel  patrem  carnalem  ? 
Hostiensis  in  cap.  gravem,  De  excess,  prselat.,  arguit  ex  verbo  "  fratri  "  quod 
ibi  ponitur,  quod  plus  astringuntur  patribus  spiritualibus  quam  carnalibus. 
Pro  hoc  facit  cap.  ii,  De  translatione.  Si  ilia  opinio  esset  vera,  soluta  foret 
quaestio.  Sed  tamen  in  hac  quaestione  credo,  ut  supra  proxima  quaestione 
induce,  cap.  fin. m  De  postulatione.  Nam  ibi  dicit  textus,  "  si  postulaverit 
contra  Ecclesiam,  et  non  pro  suis,  perdit  beneficium,"  ergo  e  contrario  pro  suis 


PRO  QVIBVS  REBVS  ?  147 

posset.  Induce,  cap.  petitio,  De  iureiur.  ;  inducendo  ut  supra  proxima  quae- 
stione  induxi,  et  faciant  motiva  supra  proxima  quaestione  inducta,  et  glossa  in 
cap.  pittacium,  xxx,  q.  iii,  super  verbo  "  multo  magis,"  tenet  quod  in  exhibi- 
tione  temporalium  magis  tenemur  patri  carnali  quam  spirituali.  In  exhibitione 
autem  reverentiae,  econtra.  Idem  notat  glossa  xxx  dist.,  can.  i.  Faciant  quae 
notantur  Ixxxvi  dist.,  non  satis;  et  can.  quiescamus,  xlii  distinctione. 


fro  quibus  rebus  licitum  sit  bellum  indicere  ?  [Cap.  civ.] 

Quia  visum  est  supra  hoc  membro,  an,  et  pro  quibus  personis,  liceat  hoc 
bellum  indicere,  nunc  autem  subsequenter  quaeritur,  an  et  pro  rebus  defen- 
dendis  licitum  sit  etiam  hoc  bellum  indicere  ?  Et  circa  hoc  quaeritur  de 
pluribus. 

An  liceat  pro  rebus  iuste  possessis  ? 

Et  primo  de  rebus  iuste  possessis,  et  de  his  non  est  dubium.  Textus  est 
in  1.  i,  C.  Vnde  vi.  Probatur  in  1.  iii,  §  si  quis  autem,  vers.  eum  igitm (?>.  Alias 
est  §,  ff.  De  vi  et  vi  armata  ;  et  cap.  olim,  De  restit.  spoliatorum. 


An  liceat  pro  rebus  iniuste  possessis  ?  [C     cv  -, 

Secundo  quaeritur,  an  pro  rebus  iniuste  possessis  hoc  liceat  ?  Glossa  in 
1.  i,  C.  Vnde  vi,  hoc  tractat.  Et  videtur  quod  non,  a  contrario  sensu  illius 
textus,  quod  est  validum  argumentum,  ut  1.  i,  §  huius  rei,  ff.  De  offic.  eius  cui 
mand.  est  iurisd.,  et  cap.  cum  virum,  [De  convers.  coniugatorum]  De  regu- 
laribus  ;  et  can.  hospitiolum,  xxxii  distinctione.  In  contrarium  videtur  per 
textum,  1.  i,  §  qui  vi  a  me,  ff.  De  vi  et  vi  arm.  ;  et  1.  cum  fundum,  eodem  tit.  ; 
et  1.  si  cum  exceptione,  §  Pedius,  ff.  Quod  met.  causa.  Solutio.  Pro  hac 
legum  apparenti  contrarietate,  glossa  in  dicta  1.  i  dat  plures  solutiones. 
Primo,  quod  ibi  subaudiatur  "  maxime,"  et  tune  cessat  contrarium,  quia  etiam 
pro  vitiosa  possessione  licet.  Secundo,  solvit  quod  iungatur  principium  legis 
cum  fine,  ut  dicatur,  "  recte  licet."  Sed  tune  obstat  quod  dicit  lex  in  medio 
"  sine  vitio."  Ergo,  a  contrario,  secus,  ubi  cum  vitio.  Tertio,  quod  iuste 
possidenti  semper  licet,  sed  vitiose  possidenti  non  licet  semper.  Nam  si  domi- 
nus  incontinenti  veniat,  non  licet  vitioso  possessori  sibi  resistere,  ut  1.  iii,  § 
eum  igitur,  ff.  De  vi  et  vi  armata.  Quarto,  exponendo  recte,  id  est,  non  vi, 
non  clam,  non  precario,  et  haec  non  placet  glossa.  Sed  lacobus  de  Ravennate 
sequitur  earn,  quantum  ad  eum  qui  vult  propulsare,  ut  si  violentia  inferatur 
ab  eo  a  quo  vitiose  possidet,  licet  incontinenti,  non  autem  ex  intervallo.  Si 
autem  ab  alio  vitiose  possideat,  tune  quandocunque  licet.  Et  hoc  est  quod 
dicit  lex,  quod  adversus  extraneos  vitiosa  possessio  prodest,  ff.  Vti  possid.,  1. 
H  ;  ff.  De  acquir.  poss.,  1.  ultima  ;  ff.  Si  servit.  vind.,  1.  loci  corpus,  §  com- 


148  DE  IVRE  BELLI 

petit.  Hie  videtur  sentire  lacobum  quod  clandestinum  possessorem  licitum 
sit  mihi  expcllere,  si  a  me  clam  possideat,  quia  clandestina  possessio  est  vitiosa, 
ut  ff.  De  acquir.  poss.,  1.  cum  quis.  Pro  hac  opinione  facit  1.  si  servus,  fi. 
Quod  cum  eo.  Hanc  opinionem  videtur  sentire  glossa,  ff.  Vti  poss.,  1.  i, 
§  interdictum,  in  medio  magnae  glossae  ibi,  "  nee  tamen  volo,"  etc.  Dinus  ibi 
tenet  contrarium,  cum  nulla  lege  hoc  reperiatur  cautum,  quod  clandestinum 
possessorem  liceat  mihi  expellere.  Praeterea  dicit  lex,  "  vim  vi  repellere  licet," 
sed  qui  clandestinam  ingreditur,  non  infert  vim,  cum  differant  clandestina  et 
violenta,  ut  1.  clam  possidere,  §  qui  ad  nundinas,  ff.  De  acquir.  possessione. 
In  precario  autem  possessore  procedere  posset  opinio  lacobi,  post  denegatam 
restitutionem.  Nam  tune  enim  videtur  spoliare  dominum,  ut  notatur  in  1. 
-ilia,  C.  De  acquir.  possessione. 

In  hac  opinionum  varietate  crederem  secundam  solutionem  glossae  fore 
veram,  quam  etiam  sequitur  Petrus  de  Bellapertica  in  dicta  1.  i,  earn  tamen 
sic  ampliando,  "  Aut  ego  volens  vim  propulsare,  iuste  possideo,  aut  iniuste. 
Si  iuste,  aut  volo  incontinenti  et  cum  moderamine  inculpatae  tutelae,  et  possum, 
ut  dicta  1.  i ;  et  1.  i,  §  vim  vi,  ff.  De  vi  et  vi  arm. ;  aut  ex  intervallo,  et  tune 
non  possum,  ut  1.  iii,  §  si  quis  autem,  vers.  eum  igitur,  ff.  De  vi  et  vi  armata. 
Secundo  casu,  scilicet  cum  iniuste  possideo,  aut  possideo  iniuste  a  te,  contra 
quern  volo  vim  propulsare,  aut  ab  alio.  Si  a  te,  tune  aut  vi,  aut  clam,  aut 
precario.  Si  vi,  tune  aut  statim  venis,  ut  recuperes,  et  non  licet  mihi  re- 
sistere,  et  sic  intelligitur,  1.  i,  a  contrario  sensu,  C.  Vnde  vi."  Et  iste  est  verus 
et  rectus  intellectus  illius,  si  bene  ponderatur,  una  cum  allegatis  in  contrarium. 
Si  autem  venis  ex  intervallo,  tune  licet  resistere,  quia  nee  tibi  ex  intervallo 
licet  recuperare,  auctoritate  propria,  immo  incideres  pcenam  1.  si  quis  in  tan- 
lam,  C.  Vnde  vi ;  et  intellige  ex  intervallo,  ut  notat  glossa  ff.  De  vi  et  vi  arm., 
1.  iii,  §  eum  igitur.  Si  autem  non  possideo  vi,  sed  precario,  tune  post  dene- 
gatam restitutionem  licitum  est  tibi  incontinenti  vim  vi  repellere,  nee  licet  mihi 
resistere.  Nam  denegando  videor  spoliare,  ut  1.  vitia,  C.  De  acquir.  poss.  ; 
et  tune  procedit  quod  vim  vi  repellere  licet,  ante  autem  denegatam  non  pro- 
cederet,  licet  possem  revocare  precarium,  ut  1.  cum  precarium,  ff.  De  pre- 
cario. Si  autem  possideo  clandestine  a  te,  tune  quidquid  dicat  glossa  in  1.  i, 
§  interdictum,  ff.  Vti  poss.,  et  lacobus  de  Porta  Ravennate,  in  1.  i,  C.  Vnde  vi. 
Credo  cum  Dino  quod  non  sit  licitum  tibi  me  expellere,  sed  licet  tibi  ingredi 
et  si  te  non  admisero,  extunc  sit  violenta,  ut  1.  clam,  §  qui  ad  nundinas,  fi.  De 
acquir.  poss. ;  et  tune  procederet.  Si  autem  non  possideo  vitiose  a  te,  sed  a 
tertio,  tune  licet  mihi  contra  te,  quandocunque  volentem  mihi  violentiam  in- 
ferre,  vim  vi  repellere,  ut  1.  Fulcinius,  §  quid  si  adversus,  ff.  Ex  quibus  ca. 
in  poss.  eatur.  Haec  dixi,  salvo  iudicio  tot  et  tantorum  super  hoc  dubio  dispu- 
tantium,  subiciendo  dicta  quorumcunque  correctionibus  veritatem  perqui- 
rentibus. 


AN  CONTRA  CLERICVM  ?  149 

An,  etsi  liceat  res  defendere,  defendens  etiam  cum  moderamine  inculpates  tutelts,    [Cap.  cvi.i 
si  occidat,  vel  mutilet,  evitet  pcenam  irregnlaritatis  ? 

Tertio  quaeritur,  numquid  vim  vi  repellendo  circa  res  suas,  si  contingat 
vim  repellentem  occidere,  vel  mutilare,  vim  inferentem,  evitet  pcenam  irregu- 
laritatis  ?  Et  pono  ubi  hoc  faciat  cum  moderamine  inculpatae  tutelae,  quid  alias 
non  praecederet  quaestio.  Et  videtur  quod  evitet.  Nam  pro  defensa  personae, 
evitat  pcenam  illam,  ut  in  Clem.,  si  Juriosus,  De  homicidio.  Ergo  pro  defensa 
rerum  probatur  consequentia.  Nam  iura  permittentia  vim  vi  repellere  pari- 
ficant  personam  rebus,  quia  utroque  casu  licet,  ut  1.  i,  C.  Vnde  vi  ;  et  1.  i, 
§  vim  vi,  ff.  De  vi  et  vi  arm.  ;  et  1.  scientiam,  §  qui  cum  aliter,  ff.  Ad  legem 
Aquiliam.  In  contrarium  facit  dicta  Clemen.,  si  furiosus,  De  homicidio. 
Nam  ibi  textus  loquitur  stricte  de  occisione  vel  mutilatione  occisoris  et  sui. 
Et  hanc  credo  veram,  et  moveor  ex  hoc.  Nam  irregularitatem  contrahit  quis 
occidendo  vel  mutilando,  et  sine  dolo,  ut  patet  in  iudice,  li  dist.,  qui  in  aliquo  ; 
et  casu  occidente,  ut  notat  1  dist.,  de  his  ;  et  cap.  sicut  dignum,  De  homicid.  ; 
et  cap.  sententiam,  Ne  cler.  vel  monach. ;  et  cap.  in  archiepiscopatu,  De  rapto- 
ribus.  Quilibet  igitur  occidens  qualitercunque  irregularis  efficitur,  nisi  in 
casibus  exceptis  a  iure.  Cum  igitur  excipiatur  casus  defenses,  intelligetur  ille 
casus  stricte  et  modificate,  ut  ius  excipit  cum  sit  ius  exorbitans,  et  sic  stricte 
intelligendum,  ut  regula  quce  a  iure,  De  reg.  iur.,  Lib.  VI. 


An  pro  rebus  suis  defendendis  contra  clericum,  excommunicationem  incidat,       icap. 

manus  iniciendo  ? 

Quarto  quaeritur,  an  pro  rebus  suis  vim  vi  repellendo  contra  clericum 
incidat  excommunicationem,  manus  iniciendo  ?  Apparet  quod  sic,  per  capi- 
tulum  si  quis  suadente,  xvii,  q.  iv  ;  et  cap.  nuper,  cum  ibi  notatis,  De  sent, 
excommunicationis.  Confirmatur.  Nam  incidit  pcenam  irregularitatis,  ut 
supra  proxima  quaestione.  Ergo  et  hanc,  cum  ambae  sint  pcenae  spirituales,  et 
facilius  quis  incidat  excommunicationem  quam  irregularitatem,  ut  claret. 
Solutio.  Innocentius  in  cap.  olim,  De  restit.  spoliatorum,  tenet  quod  non 
incidat  excommunicationem  vim  vi  repellens,  si  alias,  nisi  manus  iniciendo,  non 
possit  vim  repellere,  et  hoc  faciat  cum  moderamine  inculpatae  tutelae.  Hanc 
opinionem  credo  veram,  et  moveor,  quia  et  quis  incidat  excommunicationem 
per  manus  iniectionem  in  clericum  violentam,  debet  subesse  diabolica  persua- 
sio,  quod  probat  textus  in  cap.  si  quis  suadente  diabolo,  xvii,  q.  iv.  Et  si  bene 
discurras  per  iura  infligentia  pcenam  excommunicationis  propter  manum  iniec- 
tam,  non  invenies  quod  manus  iniecta  in  clericum  hoc  casu  sit  aliqua  de  manibus 
de  quibus  iura  exprimunt  sic  puniendo.  Nam  iura  puniunt  manum  violentam, 
ut  praedicto  cap.  si  quis  suadente,  xvii,  q.  iv;  et  De  sent,  excom.,  pet  totum. 
Haec  non  est  talis,  immo  est  violentiae  repulsoria.  Puniunt  temerariam,  ut  in 
cap.  contingit,  De  sent,  excommunicationis.  Haec  non  est  talis,  immo  discreta 
lege  permittente,  puniunt  quasi  violentam  manum,  ut  cap.  nuper,  eod.  titulo. 


150  DE  IVRE  BELLI 

Haec  est  vera  man  us  et  permissa.  Puniunt  necem,  ut  cap.  univcrsitatis,  ut 
cum  mandatur  percuti  ;  et  cap.  cum  quis,  eod.  tit.,  Lib.  VI.  Puniunt  animum, 
ut  dicto  cap.  cum  quis,  ut  cum  ratum  habet  suo  nomine  factum.  Puniunt  neg- 
lectum,  ut  cap.  quanta,  eod.  titulo.  Hie  nihil  de  praedictis. 

Ad  allegata  in  contrarium  facile  est  respondere.     Ad  canonem  s;  quis 
suadente,  est  responsum  per  supra  dicta.    Ad  id  quod  dicitur  de  irreguhuit 
clara  est  ratio  differentiae.    Nam  excommunicationem  nemo  incidit  sine  dolo, 
irregularitatem  sic,  de  quo  dicitur,  ut  notat  glossa,  in  Clem,  si  furiosus,  saepius 
allegata  in  paenultima  glossa. 


[c«P.criH.)      An  pro  rebus  defendendis,  vocatis  amicis,  licitum  sit  subsidiinn  impcndcrc  ? 

Quinto  quaeritur,  an  licitum  sit,  pro  repulsa  violentiae  circa  res,  advocarc 
amicos,  et  eis  licitum  sit  subsidium  impendere  ?  Glossa  in  1.  iii,  §  eum  igitur, 
ff.  De  vi  et  vi  armata,  notat  quod  sic  ;  etiam  illata  violcntia  in  rebus.  Et  hanc 
credo  veram,  et  moveor.  Nam,  ut  dicunt  iura,  licitum  est  obviare  errori,  ubi 
obviari  potest.  Alias  non  obvians  consentire  videtur,  Ixxxiii  dist.,  error,  et  * 
cap.  qui  consentit,  cum  cap.  sequenti.  Igitur  licitum  est  amicis  in  hoc  iuvare 
proximum  suum,  ut  supra  dictum  est,  quia  hoc  provenit  ex  radice  caritatis,  ut 
cap.  proximos,  De  Pcenit.,  dist.  ii.  Et  si  hoc  licitum  est,  statim  solvitur  quae- 
stio  qua  quaeri  posset,  an  incidat  excommunicationem  manus  iniciens  in  cleri- 
cum,  sic  violentiam  propulsando,  pro  rebus  proximi.  Quia  non  incidit,  cum 
non  sit  aliqua  de  punitis  a  canone,  immo  est  permissa. 


(C*P.  rii.]       An  pro  rebus  licitum  sit  contra  omnes  vim  vi  repeUere  contra  quos  licitum  est 

pro  personis  ? 

Sexto  quaeritur,  an  pro  rebus  licitum  sit  contra  omnes  vim  vi  repellere 
contra  quos  licitum  est  pro  personis  ?  Solutio.  Quod  sic,  in  personis  qua; 
valent  habere  bona,  ut  excludam  servos,  monachos,  et  similes.  Fateor  tamrn 
quod  moderamen  tutelae  diversificari  debet,  attenta  varia  personarum  quali- 
tate.  Nam  aliter,  et  mitius,  contra  patrem  quam  contra  penitus  extrancuni, 
et  sic  de  singulis  quae  consideranda  venirent,  inspectis  singulis  circumstantiis, 
cum  non  sint  haec  iure  limitata,  ut  1.  i,  ad  finem,  ff.  De  iure  deliber.  ;  et  cap. 
de  causis,  De  offic.  iud.  delegati. 


(Cap.cz.)  An  pro  rebus  depositis  vel  cotnmodalis  liccat  rim  ri  rcpcllcrc  ? 

Septimo  quaeritur,  an  pro  rebus  depositis  et  commodatis  Mt  licitum  vim 
vi  n  prllnv  ?  Et  videtur  qviod  non,  per  1.  i,  C.  Vnde  vi,  quae  loquitur  de  pos- 
sessis,  et  iuste.  At  haec  non  possidentur  per  commodatarium  vel  depositarium, 
ergo  non  licet  in  hi>  vim  vi  repellere.  Solutio.  In  his  et  similibus,  vindicat 

*  Sfpplenium  "  xi,  q.  iii.". 


QVALITER  LICITVM  ?  151 

sibi  locum  quod  liceat  vim  vi  repellere,  nam  pro  talibus  interdictum  vi  bono- 
rum  raptorum  competit  depositario,  vel  commodatario,  si  haec  sint  rapta,  ut  1. 
prcetor  ait  quce  est  lex,  §  in  hac  actione,  ff.  Vi  bonorum  raptorum.  Ergo  multo 
magis  ipsis  defensa  conceditur,  ut  regula  invitus,  §  cui  damus,  ff.  De  reg. 
iuris  ;  et  1.  una,  ff.  De  fonte ;  regula  qui  ad  agendum,  De  reg.  iur.,  Lib.  VI ; 
etiam  quia  isti  tenentur.  Ergo.  Non  obstat  1.  i,  C.  Vnde  vi,  quia  licet  loqua- 
tur  in  possessione,  non  tollit  tamen  quominus  in  aliis  detentatis,  pro  quibus 
iura  detentantibus  actiones  concedunt,  ut  supra.  Vel  die  quod  verbum  "  pos- 
sidere  "  sumitur  large,  ut  implicet  iustam  detentationem,  ut  1.  officium,  ff. 
De  rei  vindic.  ;  et  nota  in  cap.  pastoralis,  De  causa  possessionis  et  proprietatis. 


Qualiter  liceat  hoc  particulare  bellum  indicere  ?  [Cap.  c»i.) 

Circa  septimum  principaliter  quaesitum,  videlicet,  qualiter  sit  licitum  vim 
vi  repellere  ?  est  videndum. 

Quomodo  licitum  sit  vim  vi  repellere  cum  moderamine  inculpatce  tutelce  ? 
Et  huic  respondet  textus  quod  licet  cum  moderamine  inculpatae  tutelar. 

Quid  sit  "  moderamen  inculpatce  tutelar,"  et  qua  in  eo  requirantur  ? 

Sed  in  dubium  revocatur  quid  velint  haec  verba,  hoc  est,  quas  sunt  ilia 
quae  requiruntur  ad  hoc  moderamen  ?  Communiter  doctores  dicunt  quod  sunt 
ilia  quae  aequivalent  illatae  violentiae,  in  qualitate  armorum,  in  cursu  temporis. 
Item  aequivalentia  in  ipso  actu  violento  ne  alias  excedendo  censeatur  vindicta, 
sed  circa  hoc  dubitatur. 


An  liceat  vili  et  debili  cum  ense  se  defendere  contra  fortem  et  robustum,  pugno     [Cap. «ii.j 

tantum  percutientem  ? 

Et  primo  pone  fortis  et  robustus  homo  vult  me  percutere  pugno,  ego  sum 
vilis,  qui  non  possum  resistere  pugno.  Numquid  liceat  mihi  defendere  me  cum 
ense  ?  Videtur  quod  sic,  quia  aequalitas  ubique  est  ponderanda,  ut  1.  ult.,  C. 
De  fruc.  et  lit.  expen.  ;  et  1.  si  cum  dies,  ff.  De  arbitr.  ;  regula  in  iudiciis,  De 
reg.  iuris,  Lib.  VI.  In  contrarium  videtur.  Nam,  si  quis  vult  mihi  violenter 
surripere,  et  ego,  viribus  corporis  impar,  ipsum  percutio  cum  ense,  impune 
iam  fieret  compensatio  corporis  ad  rem,  quod  esse  non  debet,  ut  1.  ult.,  C.  De 
sacrosanct,  ecclesiis. 

lacobus  de  Arena  distinguit,  aut  quis  vult  propulsare  violentiam  illatam 
personae,  aut  illatam  rebus.  Primo  casu,  licet  et  cum  armis  et  qualitercunque, 
si  res  aliter  reparari  non  potest,  ut  1.  si  quis,  De  appell.,  Codicis.  Nam  si 
possum  occidere  furem  ubi  non  cognosce,  et  si  non  potest  mihi  in  rebus  furatis 
provideri  per  iudicem,  ut  1.  furem,  ff.  Ad  legem  Corneliam  de  sica.  ;  multo 
magis  licet  occidere  ubi  persona  aliter  salva  esse  non  posset.  Secundo  casu 


152  DE  IVRE  BELLI 

quando  pro  rebus,  tune  aut  violentia  rebus  illata  per  viam  iudicii  reparari 
potest,  et  tune  non  licet  qualitercunque,  inimo  cum  qualitate  armorum,  non 
autem  factorum,  quia  non  debeo  personam  percutere  pro  defensione  rei,  ubi 
«tiam  aliter  salva  esse  non  possit,  dummodo  per  viam  iudicii  reparari  possit. 
Si  autem  per  iudicium  non  potest  reparari,  tune  licet  qualitercunque  defen- 
dere,  etiam  personam  occidendo,  ut  1.  furem,  ff.  Ad  legem  Corneliam  de 
sicariis.  Et  sic  intelligitur  1.  i,  C.  Vnde  vi ;  et  1.  iii,  §  eum  igitur,  ff.  De  vi 
et  vi  arm.  Sic  igitur  intcllige  moderamen  inculpatae  tutelae. 


[Cap.  «iii.]  An,  etsi  liceat  incontinenti  se  defendere,  quomodo  intelligatitr 

illud  "  incontinenti  "  ? 

Secundo  quaeritur  circa  concursum  temporis,  quia  dicunt  textus  quod 
debet  fieri  "  incontinenti."  Quaeritur  quando  intelligatur  "  incontinenti." 
Aliqui  dicunt  fieri  incontinenti,  si  fiat  in  ipsa  flagrantia  facti,  si  autem  fiat  iam 
illata  iniuria,  tune  debet  iudicem  adire.  Alii  dicunt  incontinenti  fieri  etiam 
si  fiat  post,  antequam  divertat  ad  actus  extraneos,  ut  1.  quod  ait,  in  fine,  ff. 
Ad  leg.  lul.  de  adulteriis.  lacobus  et  Petrus  distinguunt.  Aut  loquimur  de 
violentia  illata  personae,  et  tune  dicitur  repelli  incontinenti,  si  fiat  in  ipsa  fla- 
grantia facti.  Sic  intelligitur  1.  scientiam,  §  qui  cum  aliter,  ff.  Ad  leg.  Aquil.  ; 
1.  ut  vim,  ff.  De  iustit.  et  iure.  Aut  loquimur  de  violentia  illata  rebus,  et 
tune  dicitur  incontinenti  repelli,  etiam  post  flagrantiam  facti,  dummodo  diver- 
tat  ad  actus  extraneos,  ut  ff.  De  vi  et  vi  armata,  1.  qui  possessionem  ;  et  1.  iii, 
§  eum  igitur,  eodem  titulo.  Ratio  diversitatis  est.  Nam  illata  iniuria  per- 
sonae non  potest  amplius  restaurari,  sed  res  ablata  recuperari  potest,  et  sic  non 
facta  diversione  ad  actus  extraneos,  etiam  si  amicos  quaerat,  et  redeat  ut  recu- 
peret,  dicitur  incontinenti,  ut  notat  glossa  in  dicta  lege  iii,  §  [igitur]  eum  igitur, 
ff.  De  vi  et  vi  armata.  Sic  intellige  moderamen  in  concursu  temporis. 


[Cap.  «iv.|  De  aquivalentia  in  ipso  actu  violento.    Qualiter  fieri  dcbeat? 

Tertio  quaeritur  de  moderamine  in  aequivalcntia  in  actu  violento,  vide- 
licet, quia  fieri  debet  ad  defensionem,  non  autem  ad  vindictam.  Et  licet  varie 
scribatur,  totum  hoc  ponderari  debet  inspectis  conditionibus  personarum. 


icap.cir.)      An  vindicasse  videar,  non  defendisse,  si  spoliatorcm  meum  de  possessione  mea 
expuli,  qui,  antequam  expellerem  eum,  satisdare  volebat 
de  possessione  restituenda  ? 

Quarto  quaeritur,  quis  expulit  me  de  possessione,  et  post  expulsionem 
paratus  est  satisdare  de  restituenda,  si  appareat  eum  iuste  non  fecisse,  sed 
nihilominus  ipsum  expcllo,  numquid  videor  fecisse  ad  vindictam  ?  Glossa 


QVALITER  LICITVM?  153 

tenet  quod  sic,  in  1.  i,  C.  Vnde  vi ;  sed  communiter  glossa  reprobatur.  Nam 
non  debuit  se  committere  illi  fragili  cautioni,  ff.  Ad  Treb.,  1.  quia  poterat, 
et  1.  nam  quod,  cum  similibus. 


An  paratum  ad  me  percutiendum  exspectare  debeam,  vel  eum  prcevenire  ?         V^t-  cxvi-l 

Quinto  quaeritur,  numquid,  si  videam  aliquem  paratum  ad  percutiendum 
me,  an  debeam  exspectare  quod  me  percutiat,  an  debeam  praevenire.  Glossa 
in  dicta  1.  i  arguit  pro  et  contra,  et  determinat  quod  non  debeam  exspectare. 
Petrus  dicit  glossam  intelligendam  habita  distinctione  personarum,  nam  aliqui 
sunt  audaces  et  prompti  ad  percutiendum,  et  tales  non  sunt  exspectandi,  aliqui 
timidi,  et  tales  non  sunt  statim  praeveniendi,  et  sic  modificat  glossim  argutam, 
1.  i,  C.  Si  quis  Imperatori  maledixerit. 


An  miles  quern  vicinus  aggreditur,  censeatur  vim  vi  repellere,  si  exspectet  et        [Cap.  «vii.j 
percutiat,  cum  alias  fugere  valeat  ? 

Sexto  quaeritur,  quidam  egregius  miles  est  aggressus  a  vicino  suo,  et 
evadere  posset  fugiendo,  tamen,  reputans  sibi  ad  vituperium,  exspectat,  et 
resistit,  et  percutit,  numquid  censeatur  vim  vi  repellere  ?  Apparet  quod  non, 
per  1.  scientiam,  §  qui  cum  aliter,  ff.  Ad  leg.  Aquiliam.  Moderni  doctores 
tenent  contrarium  per  1.  in  eadem,  ff.  Ex  quibus  caus.  maiores.  Nee  obstat  § 
qui  cum  aliter,  quia  iste  non  poterat  evadere  sine  periculo  famae  suae  et  honoris 
sui,  qu32  non  possunt  per  iudicem  reparari,  ut  1.  lulianus,  ff.  Si  quis  omissa 
causa  testamenti. 


An  si  vulneratus,  post  vulnera  insequatur  vulnerantem,  et  ipsum  percutiat,  puniri 
debeat  ut  dolosus,  vel  ut  culpabilis  ? 

Septimo  quaeritur,  quidam  vulneratus,  post  vulnera  insequitur  vulneran- 
tem, et  ipsum  percutit,  quod  non  licet,  ut  1.  si  ex  plagis,  §  i,  et  1.  qua  actione, 
§  si  in  colluctatione,  ff.  Ad  leg.  Aquiliam  ;  numquid  punietur  ut  dolosus,  an  ut 
culpabilis  ?  Quidam  dicunt  quod  ut  culpabilis,  quia  inconsultus  calor  vitio 
calumniae  caret,  ff.  Ad  S.  C.  Turpil.,  1.  i,  §  qu&ri ;  ff.  Ad  leg.  Corn,  de  sica., 
1.  [iii]  iv,  §  cum  quidam  ;  ff.  De  pcenis,  1.  respiciendum,  §  delinquunt.  Alii  dicunt 
quod  ut  dolosus,  cum  se  vindicare  non  debuerit.  lacobus  de  Arena  dicit 
primam  opinionem  humaniorem,  ff.  De  pcenis,  1.  interpretatione  ;  ff.  De  reg. 
iur.,  1.  in  totum  ;  secundam  rigidiorem,  C.  De  iniur.,  1.  si  non  convicii.  Credo 
primam  veriorem,  etiam  de  iure,  per  iura  prius  allegata. 


154  DE  IVRE  BELLI 

[Cap.  nix.  i  An  violentia  illata  persona  possit  per  amicos  propulsari  ? 

Octavo  quaeritur,  numquid  violentia  illata  pcrsonae  possit  per  amicos 
propulsari,  sicut  illata  rebus,  ut  notat  glossa  in  §  enm  igitur.  Glossa  in  1.  i, 
C.  Vnde  vi,  dicit  quod  non,  per  1.  cum  fundum,  fi.  De  vi  et  vi  armata.  Alii 
distinguunt,  aut  amici  erant  in  comitiva  violentiam  passi,  aut  non.  Primo 
casu,  licet,  per  1.  item  apud  Labeonem,  §  si  quiz  virgines,  ff.  De  ininriis. 
Secundo  casu,  non  licet.  lacobus  de  Arena  tenet  indistincte  quod  licet.  Nam 
si  negotia  nostra  possunt  per  alios  iuvari,  ut  I.  i,  ff.  De  neg.  gest.,  multo  magis 
persona,  quae  rebus  praefertur,  ut  1.  sancimus,  C.  De  sacrosanct,  ecclesiis.  Pro- 
bare  videtur  textus  in  1.  Gracchus,  C.  Ad  legem  luliam  de  adulteriis.  Non 
obstat  1.  cum  fundum,  quia  ibi  mandabatur  ex  intervallo,  quod  non  liceret 
etiam  principal!.  Huic  opinioni  obstat  textus  1.  ut  vim,  ubi  dicit  textus  "  ob 
tutelam  sui  corporis,"  et  Clem.,  si  furiosus,  De  homicidio. 


(Cap.m.|         An  serviens,  de  mandato  domini  sui,  ipsius  uxorem  interficiens  excusetur  ? 

Nono  quaeritur,  pone  quidam  mandavit  servienti  suo  quod  uxorem  suam, 
quam  habebat  suspectam  de  adulterio,  occideret,  alias  ipsum  occideret,  ser- 
viens interfecit,  numquid  excusatur  ?  Videtur  quod  non.  Nam  potius  debet 
omnia  mala  pati  quam  malo  consentire,  ut  1.  isti  quidem,  in  fine,  ff.  Quod  met. 
causa.  Videtur  textus  in  1.  scientiam,  §  qui  cum  aliter,  ff.  Ad  leg.  Aquiliam. 
In  contrarium  facit  1.  ut  vim,  ff.  De  iustit.  et  iure  ;  nam  hoc  fecit  ob  tutelam 
sui  corporis.  Ergo.  lacobus  de  Ravennate  distinguit,  aut  mulier  erat  alias 
peritura,  aut  non,  ut  1.  si  quis  fumo,  ff.  Ad  leg.  Aquil.  ;  et  1.  si  alius,  §  est  et 
alia,  ff.  Quod  vi  aut  clam.  Petrus  tenet  indistincte  servientem  excusari,  quia 
fecit  ob  tutelam  sui  corporis,  ut  1.  uf  vim  ;  etiam  quia  caritas  incipit  a  seipso, 
ut  1.  presses,  C.  De  servitut.  et  aqua  ;  item  quia  licet  proprium  sanguinem  redi- 
mere,  ut  1.  transigere,  C.  De  transactionibus.  Ego  crederem  distinguendum. 
An  servienti  incumberet  necessario  mortis  propriae  periculum,  nisi  uxorem 
mandantis  interficeret,  et  tune  crederem  opinionem  Petri  veram.  An  foret 
ab'qualis  spes  salutis,  etiam  domino  resistendo,  et  tune  contrarium  crederem, 
per  iura  supra  allegata. 


ICap.  cxxi.)  @MIS  Sl'*  fin*s  Pftfticularis  belli  ? 

Circa  ultimum  principaliter  quaesitum,  videlicet,  quis  sit  finis  huius  belli  ? 
Quaestionis  huius  patet  solutio  per  supra  dicta.  Nam  conservatio  suiipsius 
et  bonorum  est  finis  huius  belli,  et  in  hoc  finah'ter  tendit,  et  propter  hoc  est 
permissum,  ut  clare  patet  per  supra  deducta. 


DE  REPRESALIIS  155 

Quintus  tractatus  tertii  principalis,  scilicet,  de  Particulari  Bella  quod  fit  ob        [Cap.  cxxii.] 
defensam  corporis  mystici,  quod  "  Represalice  "  nuncupatur.    Vnde  et  a 
quo  ortum  habuerint  Represalice,  et  propter  quid  insunexerint  ? 

Ampliando  aliqualiter  quaesitum  et  materiam  represaliarum,  praemit-  [Cap.omii.] 
tarn  fundamentum,  propter  quod  insurrexerunt  represaliae.  Quo  praemisso, 
examinabo  causas  examinandas.  Ecce  Altissimus  Creator  a  principle  creavit 
ccelum  et  terram,  et  quae  in  eis  sunt,  necnon  angelicam  et  humanam  naturam, 
spiritualia  et  temporalia,  et  ipsa  per  seipsum  rexit,  et  homini  quern  creavit 
praecepta  dedit,  et  transgredienti  pcenam  imposuit,  Genesis  ii  capitulo.  Quali- 
ter  autem  per  seipsum  rexerit  apparet,  nam  per  seipsum,  et  non  per  ministrum, 
delicta  puniebat.  Nam  Cain,  Lamech,  et  quosdam  alios  reges,  punivit,  ut 
legitur  Genesis  iv  et  v  capitulis.  Et  haec  mundi  gubernatio  processit  usque 
ad  tempora  Noe.  A  tempore  autem  Noe  crepit  mundum  regere  p'er  ministros, 
quorum  primus  fuit  Noe,  de  quo  quod  fuerit  rector  populi  apparet.  Nam 
Dominus  commisit  sibi  gubernationem  et  administrationem  areas,  Genesis  v 
et  vi  capitulis.  Et  per  arcam  significatur  Ecclesia.  Et  qualiter  Dominus  Noe 
et  filiis  commiserit  gubernationem  legitur  Genesis  ix  capitulo,  et,  licet  Noe 
sacerdos  non  fuerit,  legitur  tamen  officium  sacerdotis  exercuisse,  antequam 
leges  populo  darentur,  Genesis  viii  capitulo.  In  hac  autem  gubernatione  et 
vicaria  successerunt  Patriarchae,  Reges,  et  ludices,  qui  fuerunt  pro  tempore  in 
regimine  populi  ludaeorum.  Et  ilia  duravit  usque  ad  Christum,  qui  fuit  natu- 
ralis  Dominus  et  Rex  Noster,  de  quo  legitur  in  Psalmo,  "  Deus  iudicium  tuum 
regi  da."  Ipse  autem  Christus  duo  luminaria  dimisit  in  terris,  luminare  maius 
et  diurnum,  scilicet,  Summum  Pontificem,  luminare  minus  et  nocturnum,  scili- 
cet, Romanorum  Principem,  quibus  commisit  administrationem  et  guberna- 
tionem mundi,  uni  in  spiritualibus,  et  alteri  in  temporalibus.  Tempore  primi- 
tive, quo  Dominus  per  seipsum  gubernabat,  non  fuit  opus  represaliis,  cum  per 
Dominum  iustitia  exhiberetur.  Tempore  Noe  et  successorum,  in  regimine 
populi  ludaeorum,  non  fuit  opus  represaliis,  cum  per  ministros  iustitia  exhi- 
beretur, et  subditi  de  populo  recognoscerent  superiorem  cui  obtemperabant. 
Tempore  praecedente  Summorum  Pontificum  et  Romanorum  Imperatorum, 
cum  omnes  subiciebantur  et  de  iure  et  de  facto,  non  erat  opus  represaliis,  cum 
per  principes,  iuris  ordine  servato,  iustitiae  complementum  exhiberetur.  Post- 
quam  autem  Imperium  paulisper  crepit  exinaniri,  adeo  quod  sint  qui  de  facto 
nullum  recognoscunt  superiorem,  et  per  eos  iustitia  negligitur,  idcirco  fuit 
opus  subsidiario  remedio,  deficientibus  ordinariis,  quibus  exstantibus,  ad  illud 
nullatenus  recurrendum,  ff.  De  minor.,  1.  in  causes  ;  ff.  De  oper.  nov.  nunci.,  1. 
in  provinciali.  Istud  autem  remedium  extraordinarium  ortum  habuit  ex  iure 
gentium.  Nam  est  quaedam  species  belli  liciti.  Nam  licitum  est  ob  tutelam 
corporis  sui  arma  movere,  ff .  De  iustit.  et  iure,  1.  ut  vim  ;  C.  Vnde  vi,  1.  i ;  De 
restitut.  spoliat.,  cap.  olim  ;  et  nedum  corporis  sui  privati  et  individualis,  immo 
et  mystici.  Nam  universitas  est  unum  corpus,  cuius  partes  sunt  singuli  de 
universitate,  ff.  Quod  cuiuscunque  universit.,  1.  i  ;  et  sic  universitati  licitum  est 
defendere  partes  sui  corporis.  Habuit  etiam  ortum  a  iure  divino,  ut  legitur 

[12] 


156  DE  IVRE  BELLI 

xxiii,  q.  ii,  cap.  Dominus  Nosier.  Ex  praedictis  omnibus  infcrtur  propter  quid 
insurrexerit  istud  remedium.  Nam,  finaliter,  ut  iustitia  debitum  sortiretur 
effectum,  occasionaliter,  propter  defectum  remedii,  insurgens  a  neglectu  gu- 
bernantium  et  rcgentium  populos,  et  carentia  recognitionis  superiorum  de 
facto,  quo  tempore  fuerit  opus  hoc  extraordinario  remedio.  Ex  quo  infertur 
quod  etiam  hodie  raro  hoc  remedium  locum  sibi  vindicat.  Nam,  negligente 
iudicc  saeculari,  recursus  habendus  est  ad  ecclesiasticum,  De  foro  competenti, 
ex  tenore,  et  cap.  licet,  et  cap.  ex  parte  ;  Qui  filii  sint  legitimi,  per  venerabilem  ; 
licet  etiam  de  facto  male  obtemperetur.  Quibus  sic  praediscussis,  restat 
examinandum  quae  sint  causae  represaliarum,  videlicet. 


|Cap.c»iv.|  De  cansis  represaliarum. 

Quae  sit  causa  productiva  ?     Quae  formalis  ?     Quae  finalis  ?     Videndum 
est  etiam  de  quibusdam  quaestionibus  circa  hoc  concurrentibus. 

De  causa  efficiente,  sive  productiva,  represaliarum. 

Ad  primum,  quae  sit  causa  productiva,  hoc  est  quaerere,  quis  possit  indi- 
cere  represalias.  Hie  attendendum  est  quod,  ut  supra  dictum  est,  nulla  lege 
positiva,  canonica  vel  civili,  disponitur  represalias  indici  debere.  Nam 
utraque  lege  disponitur  modus  consequendi  effectus  iustitiae.  Immo  inhibitum 
est  occupare  rem  propriam,  C.  Vnde  vi,  1.  si  quis  in  tantam  ;  et  1.  exstat.  ff. 
Quod  met.  causa.  Immo  etiam  haec  expresse  inhibentur  lege  civili  et  canonica, 
ut  in  Authent.,  Vt  pign.  non  fiant ;  et  cap.  uno,  De  iniur.,  Lib.  VI.  Sed  defi- 
cientibus  iuris  positivi  remediis,  ad  hoc  fuit  habendus  recursus,  ut  fiat  belli 
indictio,  ne  depereat  iustitia.  Haec  autem  belli  indictio  spectat  ad  ilium  solum 
qui  superiorem  non  habet,  ut  1.  hostes,  ff.  De  captivis.  Nam  habens  supe- 
riorem  auctoritate  propria,  non  potest  violare  iuris  remedia.  Ille  ergo  indi- 
cere  potest  qui  superiorem  non  habet,  et  de  iure,  vel  de  facto.  Expedit  etiam 
quod  ille  contra  quem  indicuntur  non  habeat  superiorem,  vel  si  habet,  negligat 
iustitiam  facere.  Ex  quo  quidam  inferunt  quod  potestas  civitatis,  quae  non 
recognoscit  superiorem  de  facto,  non  possit  indicere,  nisi  specialiter  habeat  in 
mandatis,  sed  haberi  debet  recursus  ad  universitatem,  apud  quam  est  plenum 
ius,  et  eius  auctoritate  indicentur.  Istud  non  credo  verum,  ubi  universitas 
transtulerit  omnimodam  potestatem  in  rectorem,  nam  tune  potest  totum  quod 
universitas,  sicut  dicimus  in  habente  generalem  cum  libera,  ut  1.  procurator 
qui,  ff.  De  procuratoribus.  Secus,  si  limitatam.  Inferunt  etiam  quodsi  Comes, 
Marchio,  vel  similis,  subditus  est  Principi,  quod  sine  Principis  auctoritate 
indici  non  poterunt,  argumentum  praedictae  regulae  quam  tradidit  in  cap.  olim, 
i,  De  restit.  spoliatorum.  Et  haec  procedunt  loquendo  de  iure  communi.  Nam, 
si  loquamur  secundum  dispositionem  iurium  municipah'um,  secundum  quae  con- 
ceditur  facultas  indicendi  represalias,  illi  indicere  poterunt  quibus  a  lege  muni- 
cipali  conceditur.  Et  haec,  ut  dixi,  conceduntur  propter  urgentem  necessitatem, 


DE  CAVSIS  REPRESALIARVM  157 

sicut  aliquando  propter  necessitatem  concedit  ius  civile  facultatetn  alicui  ius 
sibi  dicendi,  ff.  Quae  in  fraudem  cred.,  1.  ait  prator,  §  si  debitor  em  ;  ff.  Quod 
vi  aut  clam,  1.  alius,  §  bellissime.  Ex  praedictis  inferri  potest  quo  iure  petatur 
indictio  represaliarum.  Nam  si  vigore  statuti  concedantur  condictiones,  ex 
lege  hoc  petitur,  ff.  De  condict.  ex  lege,  1.  una.  Si  autem  loquamur  secundum 
dispositionem  iuris  communis,  dicunt  quidam  quod  nee  actio  nee  officium  inten- 
tatur.  Ratio.  Nam  solo  iure  gentium  haec  facultas  conceditur,  quo  iure  omnia 
expediebantur  via  regia,  ff.  De  orig.  iuris,  1.  ii,  in  principio.  Sic  dicunt  hodie 
requiri  manum  regiam,  secundum  statuta  divina  et  iure  gentium.  Hoc  non 
credo  verum.  Nam  licet  facultas  non  sit  nisi  servetur  modus  traditus.  Nam 
primo  debet  recurri  ad  remedia  ordinaria,  quibus  deficientibus,  ad  hoc  recur- 
ritur,  et  hoc  constare  debet  iudici  requisite,  ut  indicat  represalias,  et,  si  ille, 
contra  quern  petuntur,  monitus  comparuerit,  auditur  pro  defensut (sic),  et  infra 
dicetur,  et  sequitur  sententia,  qua  pronuntiatur  indicendas,  vel  non.  Quarto 
fuit  opus  actione  vel  officio,  nam  secundum  modum  petitionis  formari  debet 
sententia,  ut  1.  ut  fundum,  ff .  Communi  divid.  ;  et  cap.  licet  Heli,  De  simonia. 
Confirmatur.  Nam  licet  de  iure  gentium  haec  facultas  processerit,  tamen  de 
iure  civili  approbata  est,  ex  mente  ipsius,  licet  non  verbis  expressis.  Nam  est 
ex  mente  iuris  civilis,  immo  etiam  ex  verbis,  quod  contra  rebelles  et  inobe- 
dientes  iuri  procedatur  manu  militari,  ut  1.  qui  restituere,  ff.  De  rei  vindica- 
tione.  Et  sic  proditum  est  remedium  implorationis  officii,  ut  ad  hanc  manum 
militarem  recurratur,  remediis  opportunis  deficientibus. 


De  causa  mater iali  represaliarum.  [CaP.«xv.] 

Restat  examinare  causam  materialem.  De  materiali  ergo  causa  est  viden- 
dum,  de  materia  in  qua,  de  materia  circa  quam,  de  materia  contra  quam,  quae 
est  obiectum,  et  de  materia  ex  qua. 

Quid  sit  materia  in  qua  ? 
Materia  in  qua  est  persona  vel  suppositum,  cui  haec  facultas  conceditur. 

Quid  sit  materia  circa  quam  ? 
Materia  circa  quam  sunt  res  circa  quas  facultas  haec  conceditur. 

Quid  sit  materia  contra  quam  ? 

Materia  contra  quam,  sive  obiectum,  est  suppositum  contra  quod  conce- 
ditur, ut  puta  civitas,  vel  alia  universitas. 

Quid  sit  materia  ex  qua  ? 
Materia  ex  qua  est  causa  ex  qua  haec  facultas  conceditur. 

Redeundo  ad  examinationem,  quaere  quibus  conceditur  haec  facultas  re- 
presaliandi.  Solutio.  Civibus  conceditur,  propter  rationem  superius  tactam. 


158  DE  IVRE  BELLI 

Nam  cives  sunt  pars  mystici  corporis,  id  est,  civitatis,  ut  1.  i,  ff.  Quod  cuius- 
cunque  universitatis.  Hinc  appellata  est  civitas,  quasi  civium  unitas,  ut  nota- 
tur  in  cap.  si  civitas,  De  sent,  excom.,  Lib.  VI.  Et,  ut  supra  deductum  est, 
licitum  est  cuilibet  defendere  corpus  suum,  ut  1.  ut  vim,  ff.  De  iustit.  et  iurc  ; 
et  1.  i,  C.  Vnde  vi.  Et  hoc  procedit  tarn  in  corpore  mystico  quam  in  indi- 
viduali.  Hie  quaestiones  occurrunt. 

An  incolis  represalia  concedantur  ? 

Et  primo  quaeritur  an  incolis  concedi  debcant.  Quidam  hie  distinguunt, 
an  incolae  subeant  onera,  et  tune  concedi  debeant ;  an  non  subeant,  et  tune 
concedi  non  debeant.  Ratio  secundi  membri.  Nam  qui  non  sentit  onus,  nee 
commodum  sentire  debet,  ut  1.  manifestissimi,  §  sed  cum  in  secundam,  C.  De 
furtis  ;  regula  secundum  naturam,  ff.  De  regul.  iuris  ;  et  regula  qui  sentit,  Lib. 
VI.  Probatur  per  1.  qui  sub  prcetextu,  C.  [De  episc.  et  clericis]  De  collegiatis 
lib.  xi ;  et  [1.  i,  C.]  ff.  De  collegiis [lib.  xii],  collegia  si  quafucrint  illicita.  Probatur. 
Nam  non  habet  quis  privilegia  dignitatis,  nisi  re  ipsa  ipsam  gesserit,  C.  De 
consulibus,  1.  nemini,  lib.  xii ;  [C.]  ff.  De  excusat.  [tut.],  1.  sed  et  milites, 
§  [quoniam]  quessitum  ;  ff.  De  testam.  mil.,  1.  paenultima.  Hanc  opinionem 
non  puto  veram  indistincte,  immo  puto  distinguendum  sic.  Aut  incola  non 
subit  onera  propter  eius  contumaciam,  quia  requisitus  non  vult  subire,  ut 
tenetur.  Nam  inter  civitatem  recipientem  quem  ad  incolatum  et  incolam,  tacite 
oritur  quidam  contractus  ultro  citroque  obligatorius,  quo  incola  tenetur 
subire  onera,  ff.  Ad  municip.,  1.  i,  et  1.  incola  ;  et  civitas  tenetur  ad  eius  pro- 
tectionem,  ut  1.  illicitas,  §  ne  potentiores,  ff.  De  offic.  praesidis.  Et  hoc  casu, 
si  denegat  adimplere  contractum  ex  parte  sua,  nee  civitas  tenetur  ipsum 
defendere,  nee  ille  hoc  petere  potest,  ut  1.  lulianus,  §  offerri,  ff.  De  act.  empti. 
Aut  incola  non  subit  onera,  quia  super  hoc  privilegiatus  est  a  civitate,  qua 
hoc  onus  remittere  potuit,  ut  1.  si  quis  in  conscribendo,  C.  De  pactis  ;  et  De 
episcop.  et  cleric.,  vel  a  Principe.  Et  tune  incolae  concedi  debent,  nam  privilegia 
concessa  in  eorum  favorem  redundare  non  debent  in  eorum  laesionem,  C.  De 
legibus,  1.  quod  favor e  ;  regula  quod,  ob  gratiam,  Lib.  VI.  Et  haec  intelligas  de 
privilegiato  post  assumptionem. 


lc«p.c«Yi.)          An  civibus  non  subicctis  iurisdictioni  civitatis,  et  alias  non  facientibus 

factiones,  sint  indicendte  represalice  ? 

Secundo  quaeritur,  an  civibus  non  subiectis  iurisdictioni  civitatis,  et  alias 
non  facientibus  factiones,  sint  indicendae  repraesaliae.  Quidam  distinguunt, 
an  non  sint  subeuntes  subiecti  ex  privilegio,  ut  clerici,  ut  1.  ii  et  Authcnt., 
statuimus,  C.  De  episcop.  et  cleric.  ;  an  propter  dignitatem  saecularem,  ut  1.  ii, 
C.  Vbi  senat.  vel  clarissimi ;  ff.  De  vacat.  mun.,  per  totum  ;  et  talibus  sunt 
concedendae,  an  non  subeant  propter  contumaciam,  et  tune  non.  Ratio  primi, 
ne  redundet  in  eius  laesionem  quod  in  favorem  inductum  est,  et  quia  in  civibus 
ex  nativitate  perficitur  obligatio  inter  ipsum  et  civitatem,  quae  non  potest 


QVIBVS  CONCEDVNTVR?  159 

mutari,  ff.  Ad  municip.,  1.  assumptio.  Secus  in  incola,  quia  in  incola  non 
perficitur  nisi  per  receptionem,  ut  1.  i,  £E.  Ad  municipalem.  Ratio  secundi  est 
propter  contumaciam  suam,  ut  ff.  Ex  quibus  cau.  maior.,  1.  sed  etsi  per  pree- 
torem,  §  sed  si  dum. 


An  civi  per  conventionem  concedantur  represcdice  contra  civitatem  originis  ?       [Cap.oavU.] 

Tertio  quaeritur,  an  civi  per  conventionem  concedantur  represaliae  con- 
tra civitatem  originis  ?  Apparet  quod  non,  nam  ubi  ex  aliquo  facto  ius  mihi 
quaeritur,  si  illud  fiat  meum,  non  obligor,  ut  1.  sed  et  si  quis,  §  et  regulariter, 
ff.  De  usufruct,  legato.  Sed  si  fiat  iniuria  huic  civi  civitati  originis,  quaeritur 
ius  indicendi  represalias,  ergo  contra  earn  non  competit.  Confirmatur.  Quia 
civitas  originis  praefertur,  ut  1.  assumptio,  ff.  Ad  municipalem.  Confirmatur. 
Nam  civitas  originis  poterat  in  subditum  suum  statuere,  antequam  efficeretur 
civis  alterius  per  conventionem,  nee  civitas  per  conventionem  potest  conqueri. 
Confirmatur  a  simili  usufructuarii,  qui  nuntiare  potest  novum  opus  omnibus 
praeterquam  domino,  ut  1.  i,  in  fine,  ff.  De  oper.  nov.  nuntiatione.  Confirmatur 
a  simili.  Nam,  habens  Publicianam  illam,  intentat  contra  omnes  praeterquam 
contra  dominum,  ff.  De  Publiciana,  1.  ult.  Probat  textus  in  1.  de  iure,  ff. 
Ad  municipalem.  Nam  de  his  quae  aguntur  inter  civem  et  civitatem  solum 
coram  iudice  illius  civitatis  agi  debet.  Confirmatur.  Nam  remedium  extra- 
ordinarium  est,  ut  supra  probatum  est,  extraordinaria  autem  remedia  non 
dantur  filio  contra  patrem,  C.  Qui  et  advers.  quos,  1.  finali.  Sed  maior  est 
potestas  civitatis  in  civem  quam  patris  in  filium,  ff.  De  iustit.  et  iure,  1.  ii ;  et 
ff.  De  captivis,  1.  postliminium,  §filius;  ff.  De  castrensi  peculio. 

In  contrarium  probatur.  Nam  si  duo  habent  eundem  subditum,  uterque 
potest  defendere  adversus  iniuriam  quae  ab  alio  infertur.  Nam  civitas  punit 
patrem  offendentem  filium,  ff.  De  patri. l?),  per  totum.  Confirmatur.  Nam 
si  duo  habent  ius  in  re,  licet  unum  ius  sit  debilius  alio,  tamen  habens  ius  debi- 
lius  agit  contra  habentem  ius  potentius,  si  damnificat  rem  in  qua  concurrunt 
ilia  duo  iura,  ff.  Ad  leg.  Aquil.,  1.  item  Mela,  §  fin.,  et  1.  si  dominus  servum, 
eodem  titulo.  Confirmatur.  Nam  si  duo  sunt  domini  eiusdem  servi,  si  unus 
in  eum  delinquat,  potest  per  alium  coerceri,  ff.  Ad  leg.  Aquil.,  1.  i.  Confirma- 
tur. Nam  pro  iniuria  repellenda  licet  convocare  amicos,  ff.  De  vi  et  vi  armat., 
1.  iii,  §  eum  igitur  ;  et  De  homicid.,  significasti  ;  De  sent,  excom.,  dilecto,  Lib.  VI. 
Solutio.  Quidam  dicunt  indistincte  quod  possint  indici,  et  ratio  est  quia 
facultas  indicendi  represalias  succedit  in  locum  deficientis  iurisdictionis.  Sed 
si  civitas  civem  offendit,  licitum  est  superiorem  adire,  ut  1.  metum,  §  animad- 
vertendum,  ff.  Quod  met.  causa.  Ergo  deficiente  iurisdictione  locus  est  re- 
presaliis.  Probatur  per  1.  sed  si  ex  dolo,  ff.  De  dolo.  Confirmatur.  Nam 
quaelibet  potestas  censetur  legitima  potestas,  cum  quis  bene  utitur,  non  autem 
cum  spoliat,  ut  1.  ei  qui  fundum,  §  si  tutor,  ff.  Pro  emptore  ;  ff.  De  furt.,  1. 
interdum,  §  qui  tutelam,  et  sic  dicunt  procedere  hinc  inde  allegata.  Ego  non 
puto  hanc  conclusionem  sic  indistincte  veram,  sed  puto  distinguendum  an 


160  DE  IVRE  BELLI 

iniuria  irrogata  a  civitate  originis  insurgat  ex  facto  precedent!  conventionem, 
per  quam  effectus  est  civis  alterius  civitatis,  an  insurgat  ex  post  commisso. 
Primo  casu,  non  possunt  concedi  represaliae  per  civitatem  conventionis.  Nam 
oportet  quod  sit  pars  corporis  defendendi,  tempore  quo  iniustitiam  patitur. 
Nam  ad  novam  civitatem  non  transit  hoc  ius,  ff.  De  servo  corrupto,  1.  doli, 
§  fin.  ;  ff .  Depositi,  1.  i,  §  si  servus  ;  et  1.  quacunque,  ff.  De  oblig.  et  actionibus. 
Per  quae  infertur  quod  facto  civi  per  conventionem  post  iniustitiam  factam 
non  debent  concedi  represaliae.  Secundo  casu  procedit  praedicta  solutio. 


An  civibus  et  habitis  pro  civibus,  licet  limitate,  represalite  concedantur  ? 

Quarto  qusritur,  quid  de  civibus  et  habitis  pro  civibus,  limitate  tamen  ? 
Ecce  potestas  civitatis  quoad  quid  est  civis,  ut  1.  cives,  C.  De  incolis.  Stipen- 
diarii  etiam,  ubi  merentur  stipendium  conveniuntur,  ut  1.  municipes,  §  fin.,  ff. 
Ad  municipalem.  Scholares  etiam  quoad  quid,  ut  protegantur  a  rectoribus 
civitatum,  ut  in  i,  De  pecunia  constituta  ff. ;  et  Authent.,  habita,  C.  Ne  fil.  pro 
patre.  Numquid  talibus  represaliae  sunt  concedendae  ?  Quidam  dicunt  quod 
pro  his,  et  in  his  in  quibus  habentur  pro  civibus,  limitatae  sunt  concedendae 
represaliae,  ut  si  scholari  fiat  iniuria  in  spectantibus  ad  studium,  et  militi  in 
spectantibus  ad  militiam,  in  aliis  non,  cum  in  aliis  non  reputetur  de  corpore. 


(Cap.  c«ii.j       An  civibus  unius  civitatis,  qui  pacto  vel  statute  tractantur  ut  cives  alterius 

civitatis,  per  eandem  concedi  possint  represalice  ? 

Quinto  quaeritur,  an,  si  ex  pacto  vel  statute  cives  unius  civitatis  tractari 
debeant  ut  cives  alterius,  ipsis  concedi  debeant  represaliae  per  civitatem  in  qua 
tractari  debent  ?  Solutio.  Ponderanda  sunt  verba  pacti  et  statuti,  nam  per 
ilia  verba  tractentur  ut  cives,  non  efficiuntur  cives,  ut  1.  .  .  .  '-"'^  appellatione, 
ff.  De  verb,  significat.  ;  et  ibi  notandum,  et  ibi  per  lacobum  de  Arena.  Ilia 
igitur  verba  intelliguntur  ut  tractantur  in  his  quae  de  iure  communi  fieri 
debent,  ut  1.  ei  qui  fundum,  §  si  tutor,  ff.  Pro  emptore.  Ita  solvunt  quidam. 
Hanc  conclusionem  non  credo  veram,  immo  credo  ipsis  indici  debere.  Nam 
fateor  quod  per  ilia  verba  non  est  effectus  civis,  sed  ei  debentur  quae  debentur 
civi.  Nam  hoc  probant  verba  a  quibus  recedi  non  debet,  nee  eorum  proprio 
significato,  ff.  Qui  et  a  quibus,  1.  prospexit ;  ff.  De  leg.,  iii,  1.  non  aliter  ;  et  1. 
i,  §  is  qui  navem,  ff.  De  exercitoria.  Sibi  ergo  concedantur  quae  civi  conce- 
duntur,  at  illi  conceduntur  represaliae  ut  supra  deductum  est.  Ergo.  Nee 
obstat  quod  dicitur  quod  sibi  concedi  debent  quae  de  iure  communi  competunt, 
nam  hoc  remedium,  servata  debita  forma,  non  est  a  iure  communi  inhibitum. 


ic«p.  cm.]  De  materia  circa  quam. 

Restat  videre  de  materia  circa  quam  conceduntur,  hoc  est  de  rebus,  et 
hoc  est  clarum.  Nam  in  rebus  mobilibus  et  immobilibus  illorum  contra  quos 
conceduntur,  quae  repertas  fuerint  in  territorio  civitatis  concedentis.  Sed  circa 
hoc  quasri  potest  de  pluribus. 


CONTRA  RES  161 

An  contra  res  eorum  qui  capi  non  possunt  vigor e  represaliarum  indici 

possint  represalice  ? 

Et  primo,  an  contra  res  eorum  qui  capi  non  possunt  vigore  represalia- 
rum indici  possint  represaliae  ?  Solutio.  Si  sint  personae  quae  capi  non  pos- 
sunt, propter  inhabilitatem  insurgentem  ratione  aetatis,  vel  furoris,  vel  con- 
similium,  tune  in  eorum  res  exerceri  poterunt  represaliae,  ff.  De  in  ius  vocando, 
1.  satisque  ;  in  Authent.,  Vt  nulli  iudicum,  §  necessarium.  Si  autem  in  per- 
sonas  exerceri  non  possunt,  propter  quandam  praerogativam  eis  a  Jure  conces- 
sam,  ut  sunt  scholares  et  ambasciatores,  tune  nee  etiam  contra  res  eorum  quas 
deferunt,  necessarias  pro  studio  vel  ambasciata,  non  poterunt  exerceri,  in  aliis 
autem  sic,  ut  ff.  De  publican.,  1.  si  publicanus.  Per  hoc  infertur  solutio  alte- 
rius  quaestionis  tritae,  ambasciator  vel  scholaris  defert  secum  res  aliorum,  num- 
quid  in  eas  exerceri  poterunt  represaliae  ?  Die  quod  non,  si  sint  eis  necessariae, 
ut  equi  et  similia,  ut  1.  censoria,  ff.  De  verb,  significatione  ;  aliter  sic. 


An  represalice  simpliciter  indictee  exerceri  possint  contra  bona  existentia  in        iCaP.«Ki.] 
territorio  civitatis  contra  quam  sunt  indictee,  ut  capiantur  et 
reducantur  in  territorium  civitatis  indicentis  ? 

Secundo  quaeritur,  an  represaliae  simpliciter  indictee  exerceri  possint 
contra  bona  existentia  in  territorio  civitatis  contra  quam  sunt  indictee,  ut 
capiantur  et  reducantur  in  territorium  civitatis  indicentis  ?  Quidam  dicunt 
quod  non,  quia  "  extra  territorium,"  etc.,  ut  1.  extra  territorium,  ff.  De  iuris- 
dictione  [omn.  iud.]  ;  et  1.  cum  unus,  §  is  cuius,  ff.  De  rebus  auctor.  iudic. 
possidend.  ;  et  cap.  ii,  De  constit.,  Lib.  VI.  Praeterea  ingredi  territorium  alie- 
num  conceditur  causa  maioris  tumultus.  Ergo  in  dubio  non  videtur  conces- 
sum,  ut  1.  non  est  singulis,  ff.  De  reg.  iuris.  Hanc  conclusionem  non  credo 
veram,  nam  propter  defectum  iurisdictionis  recurritur  ad  manum  regiam, 
deficiente  formula  ius  sollenniter  dicendi,  et  sic  ubique  hoc  fieri  potest,  quia 
ubique  licitum  est  cuilibet  defendere  corpus  suum,  ut  1.  ut  vim,  ff.  De  iustit. 
et  iure  ;  et  1.  i,  C.  Vnde  vi.  Etiam  in  simplici  et  generali  concessione  verba 
debent  operari  generaliter,  ut  proferuntur,  ff.  De  leg.  praestan.,  1.  i,  §  gener ali- 
ter ;  etiam  contingeret  represalias  nihil  operari,  ut  si  contra  civitatem  distan- 
tem,  cuius  cives  nihil  haberent,  nee  cives  accederent  in  civitate  indicente. 
Sic  ergo  intelligantur,  ut  in  omnem  eventum  aliquid  operari  possint,  ff.  De 
legat.,  primo,  1.  si  quando  ;  ff.  De  reb.  dub.,  1.  quotiens ;  De  reg.  iur.,  1. 
quotiens. 

An,  si  una  civitas  inducat  represalias  contra  aliam,  potest  Rector  civitatis         [Cap.  aaii.j 
indicentis,  scribendo  Rectori  civitatis  contra  quam,  exercere 
represalias  in  res  ibi  situatas  ? 

Tertio  quaeritur,  an,  si  una  civitas  indicat  represalias  contra  aliam,  pos- 
sit  Rector  civitatis  indicentis,  scribendo  Rectori  civitatis  contra  quam,  exer- 
cere represalias  in  res  ibi  situatas  ?  Dicunt  quidam  quod,  licet  in  executione 


162  DE  IVRE  BELLI 

sententiae  hoc  contingat,  ut  1.  a  divo  Pio,  ff.  De  re  iudicata,  §  i ;  et  1.  cum  utn<s, 
§  i,  De  rebus  auct.  iudic.  poss.  ;  tamen  hoc  casu  non.  Et  est  ratio.  Nam  in- 
dictio  represaliarum  est  quoddam  particulare  bellum,  ad  quod  non  potest  quis 
compellere  alium  nisi  subditum,  ut  in  Vsibus  Feudorum.  Hie  finitur  lex 
Conradi,  cap.  domino.  Sic  dicere  non  credo.  Nam  supponit  quod  in  execu- 
tione  sentential  possit  iudex  lator  sententiae  compellere  iudicem  bonorum, 
etiam  non  subditum,  ad  exsequendum,  quod  est  falsum,  quia  par  in  parem  non 
habet  imperium,  ff.  De  arbi.,  1.  nam  magistraius  ;  ff.  Ad  S.  C.  Trebellianum,  1. 
ille  a  quo,  §  tempestivum  ;  De  elect.,  cap.  innotuit.  Male  tamen  facit  qui  non 
exsequitur,  adeo  quod  propter  hoc  convenietur  coram  superiore  suo,  nam  donee, 
servata  iuris  dispositione,  iustitia  suum  consequi  potest  effectum,  non  debent 
offendi  iuris  regulae.  In  neutro  igitur  casu  vindicat  sibi  locum  compulsio,  sed 
utroque  casu  honeste  faciet  exsequendo,  quia  sicut  non  deficiente  iurisdictione 
requisitus  debet  exsequi,  sic,  deficiente  iurisdictione,  cum  recurritur  ad  repre- 
salias,  iuvare  debet,  licet  compelli  non  possit.  In  civitatibus  autem  foederatis, 
de  quibus  in  1.  non  dubito,  ff.  De  captivis,  hoc  fatentur  de  piano. 


[c«p.  cmiii.)  De  materia  contra  quam. 

Restat  videre  de  materia  contra  quam,  quod  proprie  appellatur  subiec- 
tum,  circa  quod  plura  quaeruntur. 

An  represalice,  indictee  per  unam  civitatem  contra  homines  alterius  civitatis, 
exerceri  possint  contra  incolas  illius  civitatis  ? 

Et  primo  quaeritur,  an,  si  civitas  Mediolanensis  indixit  represalias  con- 
tra homines  Bononienses,  vel  de  Bononia,  represaliae  exerceri  possint  contra 
incolas  civitatis  Bononiae  ?  Solutio.  Ista  verba  "  Bononienses  "  et  "  de 
Bononia  "  idem  important,  ff.  De  excus.  tut.,  1.  sed  reprobari,  §  amplius, 
et  ibi  glossa.  Sed  ista  verba  "  homines  Bononienses  "  respiciunt  municipes, 
ut  1.  i,  ff.  Ad  municipalem  ;  et  verbum  "  municeps  "  est  genus  ad  cives  et 
incolas,  ut  notat  C.  De  incolis,  1.  cives.  Probat  textus  ff.  Ad  municipalem, 
1.  filii,  §  municeps.  Ergo,  inferendo  de  primo  ad  ultimum,  sequitur  quod, 
ex  natura  verborum,  contra  incolas  exerceri  possint  represaliae.  Et  haec  vera, 
quando  incolae  subeunt  onera,  ut  1.  i,  Ad  municipalem.  Secus,  si  non  subeunt. 


|c«p.cxniT.)       An,  eodem  themate  retcnto,  puta  si  una  civitas  indixerit  represalias  contra 

homines  alterius  civitatis,  exerceri  possint  contra 
eosdem,  alibi  morantes  ? 

Secundo  quaeritur,  retento  eodem  themate,  ut  puta  si  civitas  Mediolanen- 
sis indixerit  represalias  contra  homines  de  Bononia  sive  Bononienses,  an  exer- 
ceri possint  contra  Bononienses  alibi  morantes.  Quidam  dicunt  quod  sic,  quia 


CONTRA  QVOS  ?  163 

origo  non  mutatur,  ut  1.  assumptio,  ff.  Ad  municipalem.  Alii  distinguunt,  an 
indicantur  contra  homines  de  provincia,  et  tune  non  exercentur  contra  alibi 
morantes,  quia  non  censentur  de  provincia,  ut  1.  provinciales,  ff.  De  verbor. 
signific.  ;  aut  contra  homines  de  una  civitate,  et  tune  procedit  prima  opinio. 
Tertii  distinguunt  an  alibi  morentur,  tamen  intra  eandem  provinciam,  et  tune 
contra  illos  exerceri  possunt,  aut  in  alia  provincia,  et  tune  secus,  per  ea  quae 
notat  glossa  in  1.  in  adoptionem,  C.  De  adoptionibus.  Quarti  dicunt  quod, 
secundum  propriam  significationem  vocabuli  "  alibi  morantes,"  censentur 
Bononienses,  sed  secundum  communem  usum  loquendi  secus,  et  communis 
usus  loquendi  praevalet,  ff.  De  legat.,  iii,  1.  librorum,  §  quod  tamen  Cassius  ;  et 
sic  contra  istos  non  poterunt  exerceri.  Alii  dicunt  quod  contra  Bononienses  alibi 
morantes,  onera  tamen  subeuntes  Bononiae,  poterunt  exerceri.  Sixautem  non 
subeant,  secus,  1.  i,  ff.  Ad  municipalem  ;  et  1.  (?>  si  duas,  §  sed  et  reprobari,  § 
amplius,  ff.  De  excusationibus  ;  et  1.  cum  scimus,  in  fine,  C.  De  agric.  et  censitis. 


An  represalia  exerceri  possint  contra  cives  vel  incolas  alicuius  civitatis,  onera      [Cap. 
eiusdem  subeuntes,  qui  etiam  sunt  cives  alterius  civitatis  ? 

Tertio  queeritur,  an  possint  exerceri  represaliae  contra  cives  vel  incolas 
Bononienses,  onera  subeuntes  Bononiae,  qui  etiam  sunt  cives  Mediolani.  Vide- 
tur  quod  possint  contra  eos  exerceri.  Nam  si  potest  civitas  indicere  contra 
non  subditum,  multo  fortius  contra  subditum.  Confirmatur.  Nam  proprie- 
tarius  potest  petere  ut  usufructuario  denegetur  ius  utendi  propter  contuma- 
ciam  suam,  et  econtra,  ut  1.  si  proprietarius,  et  1.  hoc  amplius,  §  si  cum,  et  § 
sequenti,  ff.  De  damno  infecto.  A  simili  ergo  hie,  in  duabus  civitatibus  in 
eundem  civem  ius  praetendentibus.  In  contrarium  tenent  indistincte.  Ratio. 
Nam  hoc  ius  succedit  in  locum  deficientis  iurisdictionis.  Sed  civitas  in  civem 
suum  bene  potest  iurisdictionem  exercere,  ergo  non  subicietur  represaliis,  ut  1. 
i,  §  utique™,  ff.  Si  quis  test.  lib.  esse  iussus.  Praeterea  civitas  tenetur  defen- 
dere  civem  suum,  ergo  represaliae  indictae  non  artabunt  eum,  ut  1.  vindican- 
tem,  ff.  De  evictionibus.  Praeterea,  si  quis  Mediolanensis  artaretur,  tune  civi- 
tas sic  concedens  videretur  contra  seipsam,  contra  id  quod  habetur,  ff.  De 
iur.  fisci,  1.  in  fraudem,  §  neque.  Hanc  conclusionem  non  credo  veram  indi- 
stincte. Immo  si  de  facto  non  possit  artare  civitas  civem  suum,  etiam  civem 
civitatis  contra  quam  indicuntur  represaliae,  optime  contra  eum  exercebuntur 
represaliae,  nam  propter  defectum  iurisdictionis  indicuntur,  ut  supra  pluries 
tactum  est.  Sed  de  iure  non  debet  iurisdictio  deficere,  cum  de  iure  omnes 
subiciantur  Principi,  ff.  Ad  leg.  Rhod.  de  iact.,  1.  deprecatio ;  ix,  q.  iii,  cap. 
cuncla  per  mundum,  et  cap.  per  principalem.  Sed  de  facto  deficit,  quia  de 
facto  non  recognoscunt.  Sicut  igitur  de  facto  deficere  potest  cum^non  subditus 
iniuriatur,  sic  et  de  iure  subditus  de  facto  resistere  potest,  et  sic  recurri  potest 
ad  remedium  extraordinarium.  Fateor  tamen  quod  subditum  non  artabunt, 
donee  specialiter  contra  subditum  processum  fuerit  iuris  ordine  servato,  nee 
processus  sortiri  possit  effectum  propter  facti  rebellionem. 

[13] 


164  DE  IVRE  BELLI 

ic«p. orarii  An  contra  [mililcs]  mulieres  <"  exerceri  possint  represaliee  ? 

Quarto  quaeritur,  an  in  [milites]  mulieres  ^  Bononienses  exerceri  pos- 
sint ?  Apparet  quod  sic,  nam  in  eis  habet  locum  postliminium,  ut  1.  i,  C.  De 
[captivis]  postlitninio  reversis.  Contrarium  est  verum,  nam  in  persona  capi 
non  possunt,  C.  De  offic.  eius  qui  vicem  alic.  iud.  obtinet,  Authent.,  sed  hodie; 
et  C.  De  execut.  rei  iudicatae,  Authent.,  sed  novo  iure.  Et  ilia  facultas,  concessa 
a  iure  gentium,  debet  intelligi  civiliter,  ff.  De  servit.,  1.  si  cut. 


[Cap.n»rii.|  An  contra  clericos  et  alios,  etiam  clericos  coniugatos,  exerceri 

possint  represaliee  ? 

Quinto  quaeritur,  an  contra  clericos  Bononienses  possint  exerceri  ?  Tex- 
tus  est  quod  non,  in  cap.  uno,  De  iniur.,  Lib.  VI.  Quid  de  clericis  coniugatis? 
De  his  dicendum  est,  ut  cap.  uno,  De  iniur.,  Lib.  VI. 


An  Episcopo,  negligente  facere  iustitiam  de  clericis  suis,  cum  haberi  non 

potest  ad  superiorem  recursus,  quia  Episcopus  est  schismaticus, 

possint  indici  represaliee  contra  clericos  eosdem 

per  iudicem  seecularem  ? 

Sexto  quaeritur,  an,  si  Episcopus  negligat  facere  iustitiam  de  clericis 
suis,  nee  haberi  potest  recursus  ad  superiorem,  quia  Episcopus  est  schismati- 
cus, an  possint  contra  clericos  indici  represaliae  per  iudicem  ssecularem  ?  Qui- 
dam  in  hoc  dubitant.  Nee  est  dubitandum,  quia  laicis  nulla  concessa  est  pote- 
stas  contra  clericum,  qualitercunque  delinquentem,  ut  cap.  contingit,  et  cap. 
in  audienlia,  De  sent,  excom. ;  et  cap.  si  iudex  laicus,  eod.  tit.,  Lib.  VI.  Pote- 
runt  ergo  coerceri  per  superiorem  suum,  et  poterit  haberi  recursus  ad  iudicem 
saecularem  per  viam  invocationis,  ut  cap.  i,  De  offic.  iud.  ord. ;  xxiii,  q.  v, 
regum,  et  cap.  administrator es,  et  cap.  principes. 


.)         A  n  contra  Bononienses,  vel  alios  studentes  Bononiee,  euntes  Paduam  pro 

studio,  exerceri  possint  represaliee  ? 

Septimo  quaeritur,  an  contra  Bononienses  euntes  Paduam  pro  studio  pos- 
sint exerceri,  vel  etiam  studentes  Bononiae  ?  Textus  est  quod  non,  in  Authent., 
habita,  C.  Ne  fil.  pro  patre  ;  et  hoc  vindicat  sibi  locum,  si  studeant  iura  in 
locis  privilegiatis,  privilegio  studii,  secus  autem  si  in  aliis  studeant  iura,  ut  in 
prooemio,  ff. ''',  §  hcec  autem  tria.  In  aliis  autem  facultatibus  ubique  doceri 
potest,  ut  1.  si  duas,  §  cum  autem  <*>,  ff.  De  excusationibus.  Et  quod  dictum  est 
de  scholaribus,  idem  dicas  de  scriptoribus,  ct  de  bedellis  et  accedentibus  causa 
scholarium.  Arguit  1.  i,  ff.  De  milit.  testam.  militis  ;  et  1.  una,  De  bon.  poss. 


CONTRA  QVOS  ?  165 

ex  testam.  militis.  Idem  de  patre  et  aliis  agnatis  qui  irent  ad  videndum  filium 
et  agnatum  in  studio,  ff.  De  iudiciis,  1.  ii,  §  item,  in  glossa  super  verbo 
"  venerit." 


An  contra  ambasciatores  indici  possint  represalia  ?  [Cap. 

Octavo  quaeritur,  an  contra  Bononienses  ambasciatores  possint  exerceri  ? 
Solutio.  Non  poterunt,  ut  1.  fin.,  De  legation.  ;  ff.  De  iudic.,  1.  ii,  §  legatis, 
et  nota  C.  De  iurisd.  omn.  iud.  et  de  foro  competenti,  cap.  finali. 


An  contra  euntes  ad  nundinas,  ad  Sanctum  lacobum,  vel  alias  ad  alium  locum     (Cap.  c*i.] 
indulgenticz.    Item  an  contra  navigantes,  et  an  contra  illos  qui 
in  ius  vbcari  non  possunt,  et  multis  aliis  casibus, 
exerceri  possint  represalia  ? 

Nono  quaeritur,  an  contra  Bononienses  euntes  ad  nundinas  possint  exer- 
ceri ?  Textus  est  in  1.  una,  C.  De  nundinis,  quod  non.  An  contra  Bono- 
nienses euntes  ad  Sanctum  lacobum,  vel  aliam  peregrinationem,  possint  exer- 
ceri ?  Respondeo,  non,  ut  De  cleri.  peregri.,  per  totum ;  et  cap.  si  quis  Romi- 
petas,  xxiv,  q.  iii  ;  C.  Communia  de  success.,  Authent.,  omnes  ;  ibi  libere.  Idem 
de  euntibus  ad  locum  indulgentiae,  propter  tenendum  hospitium,  vel  aliquid 
simile,  in  servit'ium  accedentium  pro  indulgentia.  An  contra  Bononiam  navi- 
gantes, qui  vi  ventorum  deferuntur  ad  civitatem  indicentem,  exerceri  pote- 
runt ?  Respondeo,  non,  per  Authent.,  navigia,  C.  De  furtis.  Ad  idem,  C. 
De  naufragiis,  1.  i,  [lib.  xi].  An  etiam  contra  illos  qui  in  ius  vocari  non  possunt 
poterunt  exerceri,  qui  enumerantur  in  1.  ii,  ff.  De  in  ius  vocando  ?  Respondeo, 
non.  Ratio.  Nam  si  forent  condemnati,  non  possent  capi,  multo  minus  pro 
delicto  vel  debito  alterius,  hoc  fieri  potent.  Ex  quo  infertur  quod,  si  Bono- 
niensis  eligeretur  in  potestatem  Mediolani,  ibi  non  posset  detineri  vigore  re- 
presaliarum.  Idem  si  Bononiensis  iret  ad  civitatem  Mediolani  propter  funus 
consanguinei.  Idem  in  similibus  casibus,  qui  enumerantur  in  dicta  leg.  ii,  ff. 
De  in  ius  vocando. 


An  contra  Bononiensem  potestatem,  Mediolani  ibi  iniustitiamfacientem,          [Cap.  c 
possint  concedi  represalite  ? 

Decimo  quaeritur,  an  contra  Bononiensem  potestatem,  Mediolani  ibi 
iniustitiam  facientem,  possint  concedi  represaliae  ?  lacobus  de  Belvisio,  in 
Authent.,  Vt  non  fiant  pignor.,  tenet  quod  sic,  per  1.  i,  ff.  Quod  quisque 
iuris.  Alii  distinguunt,  an  fecerit  talem  iniustitiam  pro  qua  conveniri  non 
possit  officio  durante,  vel  sit  talis  qui  conveniri  non  possit,  ut  1.  pars 
literarum,  ff.  De  iudic.  ;  et  1.  nee  magistratus,  ff.  De  iniuriis ;  et  tune 
non  possunt  indici.  Finite  autem  officio,  poterunt  indici,  prius  requisite 
syndicatore,  nee  debet  requiri  iudex  civitatis  suae,  quia  ibi  non  debet  con- 


i66  DE  IVRE  BELLI 

vcniri  ratione  tails  commissi,  C.  Vbi  de  ratiociniis  agi  oportet,  11.  i  et  ii ;  et 
C.  Vt  omnes  tarn  civil,  quam  militates,  1.  i ;  et  in  Authent.,  Vt  iudi.  sine 
quoque  suff.,  §  necessitate™.  Si  autem  tales  sint  qui  conveniri  possunt,  tune 
poterunt  indici.  Hanc  solutionem  non  puto  veram  in  hoc  secundo  membro, 
nam  represaliae  indicuntur  in  defectum  iurisdictionis  deficientis.  Si  ergo 
durante  officio  conveniri  possunt,  et  in  loco  commissi,  ut  in  1.  ii,  C.  Vbi  de 
ratiociniis ;  et  Vt  omnes  tarn  civil,  quam  militares,  1.  i ;  ad  quid  est  opus  repre- 
saliis  ?  Nee  puto  veram  in  primo  membro,  ubi  dicitur  quod  finito  officio  pos- 
sunt indici,  nam  finito  officio  possunt  conveniri,  et  iuris  forma  servari.  Ergo 
non  est  opus  hoc  remedio.  Fateor  tamen  quod  utroque  casu,  ubi  per  viam 
iuris  non  posset  arceri,  recurrendum  esset  ad  represalias,  et  hoc  casu  non  est 
requirendus  iudex  civitatis  propriae,  quia  super  hoc  non  potest  ius  facere  per 
iura  superius  allegata. 

icap.aiii.]  An  contra  officiates  potestatis,  vel  rectoris,  iniustitiam  facientis,  indici 

possint  represalia  ? 

Vndecimo  quaeritur,  an  contra  officiales  potestatis,  vel  rectoris,  iniusti- 
tiam facientis,  possint  indici  represaliae  ?  lacobus  de  Belvisio  tenet  quod  sic. 
Alii  dicunt  hoc  verum,  ubi  officiales  expresse  iuraverunt ffl  rectorem  ad  facien- 
dam  iniustitiam,  ut  C.  De  advoc.  diver,  iud.,  1.  per  hanc ;  C.  De  excus.  milit., 
1.  paen.,  lib.  x^.  Si  autem  officiales  expresse  contradixerunt,  non  possunt 
contra  tales  indici,  1.  quoniam,  C.  De  appellationibus.  Si  autem  officiales  nee 
consentiunt  nee  contradicunt,  quia  absentes  vel  ignorantes,  tune  etiam  non 
possunt,  ut  1.  i,  in  princ.,  ff.  De  magistr.  conveniendis.  Si  autem  sint  prae- 
sentes,  nee  consentiant  nee  contradicant,  tune  si  sint  officiales  deputati  ad 
merum  officium,  qui  non  vocantur  ad  consilia,  ut  sunt  notarii  et  socii  et  taber- 
narii,  tune  etiam  contra  tales  non  poterunt  indici,  ff .  De  magistr.  conveniendis, 
1.  i.  Et  ratio.  Quia  non  possunt  resistere,  ut  C.  Vt  omnes  tarn  civil,  quam 
militares,  1.  i,  §  officium.  Si  autem  sint  officiales  assumpti  ad  consulendum, 
contra  illos  poterunt  indici. 


[c*p.cxim.)        An  contra  Consults,  Prior es,  civitatis,  iustitiam  facere  denegantes,  indici 

possint  represalia  ? 

Duodecimo  quaeritur,  an  contra  Priores,  Consules,  civitatis,  denegantes 
facere  iustitiam,  possint  indici  ?  lacobus  de  Belvisio  dicit  quod  sic.  Alii 
dicunt  hoc  verum  contra  praesentes,  secus  tamen  contra  absentes,  quia  contra 
eos,  ut  Consules,  indici  non  poterunt,  ut  1.  i,  in  princip.,  ff.  De  magistr. 
conveniendis. 

(C«p.  niiv.)      An  contra  singulares  personas,  penitus  innocents,  proptcr  delidum  domini, 
vel  alterius  privati,  de  quo  iustitia  non  fit,  indici  possint  represalia  ? 

Tertiodecimo  quaeritur,  an  contra  singulares  personas  possint  indici,  qua? 
sint  penitus  innocentes,  propter  delictum  domini,  vel  alterius  privati,  de  quo 


CONTRA  QVOS  ?  167 

non  fit  iustitia  ?  lacobus  de  Belvisio  dicit  quod  non,  quia  non  debet  quis  gra- 
vari  pro  delicto  alterius,  Regula  non  debet,  De  reg.  iuris.,  Lib.  VI.  Alii  contra, 
per  cap.  dominus,  xxiii,  q.  ii.  Nam  sententia  interdict!  puniuntur  singuli,  etiam 
innocentes,  ut  cap.  si  sententia,  De  sent,  excom.,  Lib.  VI.  Etiam  in  bello  iusto 
capiuntur  innocentes,  sed  represaliae  sunt  quoddam  bellum  particulare,  etiam 
licet  captus  sit  innocens,  tamen  civitas  habet  ius  in  eum,  et  hoc  videtur  servari. 


An  contra  homines  subditos,  quoad  quid,  uni  civitati,  non  autem  plene,  possint    [Cap. 

indici  represalice  ? 

Quartodecimo  quaeritur,  an  contra  homines  subditos,  quoad  quid,  civi- 
tati Bononiae,  non  autem  plene,  indici  possint  represaliae  ?  Solutio.  Si  sint 
civitates  vel  universitates  simpliciter  suppositae  civitati  Bononiae,  sed  ex  pacto 
habent  aliquas  exceptiones  vel  iurisdictiones,  contra  istas  indici  non  poterunt, 
quia  non  sunt  subditae  quae  sunt  liberae,  sed  quoad  quaedam  se  subiecerunt.  Et 
contra  istas,  propter  delictum  domini  habentis  eas  subiectas,  non  indicentur 
represaliae,  quia  sunt  liberae,  ut  1.  non  dubito,  ff.  De  captivis ;  sed  propter 
delictum  dictarum  civitatum,  indici  poterunt  represaliae,  sicut  et  bellum  licitum 
fieri  potent. 


An  contra  cerium  genus  hominum,  facer e  iustitiam  denegantium,  indici  icap. 

possint  represalice  ? 

Quintodecimo  quaeritur,  an  contra  certum  genus  hominum,  iustitiam  fa- 
cere  denegantium,  represaliae  possint  indici  ?  et  dicendum  quod  sic,  servata 
forma. 


De  materia  ex  qua.  [Cap.  «ivii.j 

Restat  videre  de  causa  material!  ex  qua  insurgunt  represaliae.  Et  est 
defectus  iurisdictionis.  Nam  primo  debet  requiri  iudex,  qui  si  negligat,  nee 
haberi  potest  recursus  ad  superiorem,  tune  concedi  possunt.  Sed  circa  hoc 
quaeri  potest  de  pluribus. 

An  requiri  debeat  iudex  ut  iustitiam  facial,  antequam  represalice  concedantur  ?     (Cap.  c*iviii.] 

Et  primo  quaeritur,  quis  debeat  requirere  iudicem  ut  iustitiam  faciat  ? 
Solutio.  Pars  iniuriam  passa,  et  iudice  negligente,  debet  adire  Rectorem 
civitatis  propriae,  et  facere  fidem  de  requisitione  et  neglectu,  et  petere  ut 
iterate  requirat  ut  iustitiam  faciat,  et  tune,  eo  negligente,  poterunt  indici. 
Quod  autem  requiratur  partis  requisitio  probatur  in  Authent.,  Vt  differ, 
iudices,  in  princip.,  coll.  iii. 


i68  DE  IVRE  BELLI 

ic*p. nii..j  A n  iudex  ininriam  passi,  qui  non  audet  litigare  in  civitate  iniuriam  inftrcntis, 
possil  scribere,  ut  in  alias  iurisdictionem  proroget,  vel  arbitros  eligat  ? 

Secundo  quaeritur,  an,  si  pars  dubitaret  litigare  in  civitate  iniuriam  in- 
fcrentis,  propter  eius  potentiam,  an  iudex  suus  possit  scribere  ut  in  alios  pro- 
roget iurisdictionem,  vel  eligat  arbitros  iure  civili  pro  certis  personis,  utpote 
miserabilibus  ?  Hoc  clarum  quod  sic,  ut  1.  i,  in  fine,  C.  Quando  Imperator 
inter  pup.  vel  viduas.  lure  canonico  hodie  latius  permissum  est  per  cap. 
staiutum,  §  cum  vero,  De  rescriptis,  Lib.  VI,  quoad  articulum  impetrationis. 


ic«p.  ci.)  Quis  iudex  requiri  debeat  ut  iustitiam  facial  ? 

Tertio  quaeritur,  quis  iudex  requiri  debeat  ut  iustitiam  faciat  ?  Solutio. 
Primo  debet  requiri  iudex  civitatis  iniurantis,  et  tune,  si  negligit  iustitiam 
facere,  adibit  proximum  superiorem,  quo  deficiente,  adibit  Principem,  in 
Authent.,  Vt  differ,  iudic.,  in  principio.  Quibus  omnibus  deficientibus  indi- 
centur  represaliae  per  civitatem  propriam,  quae  succedit  in  locum  deficientis 
iurisdictionis.  Si  autem  non  negligit,  sed  iniustitiam  facit,  pronuntiando 
inique,  tune  si  civitas  habeat  iudicem  appellationis  deputatum  ad  ipsum,  per 
appellationem  adibitur,  et  si  non  habeat,  indicentur  represaliae.  Nam  est 
quid  imputari  civitati  quae  non  deputavit  iudicem  appellationis.  Sin  autem 
duo  iudices  appellationum  iniustitiam  fecerint,  tune  videtur  pars  destituta 
omni  subsidio,  cum  non  liceat  tertio  appellari,  nee  videntur  posse  indici  repre- 
saliae, cum  non  defecerit  iurisdictio.  Sed  dici  potest  quod,  si  ob  gratiam  partis 
inique  pronuntiaverunt,  tune  peti  potent  restitutio,  ut  1.  prcefecti  pratorio,  ff. 
De  minoribus.  Si  autem  ob  gratiam  illorum  qui  regunt,  tune  parti  tenerentur 
ad  interesse,  ut  C.  Ne  liceat  potent.,  1.  i ;  et  De  his  qui  potent.,  1.  i ;  et  sic  ad 
interesse  tenentur  actione  in  factum,  ff.  Pro  socio,  1.  nee  quidquam.  Si  autem 
inique  lata  sit  ex  solo  iudicis  motu,  tune  est  destituta  omni  subsidio,  ut  supra 
deductum  est.  

IC*P.  di.)  Qualis  iniustitia  requiratur,  ut  represalite  concedaniur  ? 

Quarto  quaeritur,  qualis  iniustitia  requiritur  ut  represaliae  indicantur  ? 
Solutio.  Pro  modico  non  indicuntur,  cum  hoc  sit  remedium  extraordinarium, 
quod  non  datur  pro  modico,  ut  1.  scio,  ff.  De  in  integr.  restit. ;  et  1.  si  oleum, 
ff.  De  dolo.  Requiritur  etiam  quod  totaliter  sit  ius  laesum.  Secus,  si  partiali- 
ter,  ut  1.  quotient,  C.  De  preci.  Imperat.  offerendis.  Nam  totaliter  iustitiam 
non  facit,  C.  De  sends  fugit.,  1.  mancipia;  et  1.  iv,  §  in  eum,  ff.  De  damn, 
infecto. 


ic*p.  ciaj         Quando  dicatur  non  posse  haberi  copia  superioris,  ut  sit  locus  represaliis  ? 

Quinto  quaeritur,  quando  dicatur  non  posse  haberi  copia  superioris,  ut 
sit  locus  indictioni  represaliarum  ?  Solutio.  Vbi  non  potest  haberi  de  iure, 
nee  de  facto,  tune  est  opus  represaliis,  ut  cap.  dominus,  xxiii,  q.  ii ;  et  1.  nullus, 


QVIS  POTEST  IMPEDIRE  ?  169 

C.  De  ludseis.  Si  autem  de  iure  haberi  potest,  non  tamen  de  facto,  quia  non 
obediunt,  tune  idem.  Si  autem  haberi  potest  de  facto,  non  de  iure,  ut  quia 
tyrannus  occupavit,  tune  die  ut  notat  Innocentius  in  cap.  nihil,  De  electione. 
Si  autem  haberi  potest  de  iure,  sed  difficile  est  haberi  de  facto,  utpote  Impera- 
tor  cum  sit  valde  distans,  et  pars  est  pauperrima,  tune  etiam  locus  est  repre- 
saliis,  ff.  De  pig.  act.,  1.  si  servos;  ft.  De  divers,  [et]  temp,  praescriptionibus. 


De  causa  formali.  [Cap. 

Restat  videre  de  causa  formali,  et  haec  est  duplex,  nam  est  forma  indi- 
cendarum,  et  est  forma  exercendarum.  Forma  autem  indicendarum  implicat 
formam  defensionis  illius  contra  quern  indicuntur,  et  circa  hoc  etiam  de  pluri- 
bus  quaeritur. 

Quo  iure  represalicz  concedantur  ? 

Et  primo  quaeritur,  quo  iure  concedantur.  Hie  dicunt  aliqui  quod  con- 
cedantur per  illos  qui  non  recognoscunt  superiorem.  Ab  illis  hoc  peti  non 
debet  iure  actionis,  nee  per  officium,  sed  debet  requiri  manus  regia,  per  quam 
omnia  expediebantur,  ut  1.  ii,  ff.  De  orig.  iuris.  Solum  enim  illud  requiritur 
quod  ius  gentium  requirebat,  scilicet,  quod  causa  propter  quam  conceduntur 
sit  vera,  salvis  tamen  defensionibus  illi  contra  quem,  cum  hoc  sit  iuris  naturalis, 
ut  in  Clem.,  pastoralis,  §  ceterum,  De  re  iudicata  ;  et  habenti  represalias  suf- 
ficit  ostendere  concessionem  sine  alio  processu.  Et  recte  praesumuntur  cetera 
agitata,  nam  instar  est  sacrilegii  disputare  de  iudicio  Principis,  ut  1.  disputare 
[sacrilegii],  C.  De  crimine  sacrilegii.  Et  haec  vera  in  territorio  concedentis, 
verum  quia  gens  contra  quam  conceduntur  uti  posset  eodem  iure,  per  titulum 
Quod  quisque  iuris.  Et  finaliter  ex  pacto  de  hoc  deberet^  cognoscere,  ut  puta 
arbitri,  vel  alii.  Incumberet  onus  probandi  illi  cui  sunt  concessae  servata  fore 
ea  quae  iure  gentium  requiruntur.  Ideo  tutius  est  quod  fiat  processus,  et.in 
scriptis  redigatur.  Et  hoc  tenet  Archidiaconus  in  cap.  unico,  De  iniuriis,  Lib. 
VI.  Nam  tenet  quod  praecedere  debet  monitio  et  sententia  super  neglectu,  et 
ita  sentit  Guido,  Concordensis  episcopus.  Si  autem  represaliae  petuntur  ab 
illis  quibus  hoc  concessum  est  a  statutis,  tune  si  statutum  tradit  ordinem,  ille 
debet  servari.  Si  autem  nullum  tradit  ordinem,  tune,  quia  facultas  conce- 
dendi  represalias  procedit  a  jure  civili,  cum  statuta  sint  ius  civile,  ut  1.  omnes 
populi,  ff.  De  iustit.  et  iure ;  tune  debet  implorari  officium  officialis,  libellus 
porrigi,  pars  citari,  et  procedi  ut  disponunt  iura. 


Quis  comparere  possit  ad  impediendum  ne  represaliee  indicantur  ?  [Cap.  ciiv.) 

Secundo  quaeritur,  quis  comparere  possit  ad  impediendum  ne  indicantur  ? 
Solutio.  Quilibet  cuius  interest,  De  testib.,  cap.  veniens  ;  De  re  iudi.,  cap.  cum 
super.  Interest  autem  populi  contra  quem  indicuntur,  sic  ut,  habens  manda- 


J?o  DE  IVRE  BELLI 

turn,  admittetur,  et  quilibet  de  populo  sine  mandate  admit tetur,  quia  cuiuslibet 
interest,  ff.  De  novi  oper.  mint.,  1.  in  provinciali,  §  fin.  Admittentur  etiam 
illi  qui  sunt  de  populo  indicentis,  quia  interest  ne  iniuste  indicantur,  ne  eodem 
iure  utantur  contra  cos,  ff.  Quod  quisque  iuris,  in  rubro,  et  per  totum  nigrum. 


[Cap.  civ.)  Qua  defenses  competunt  illi  contra  quern  indicuntur  ? 

Tertio  quaeritur,  quae  defensae  competunt  illi  contra  quem  petuntur  ? 
Solutio.  Competit  exceptio,  quod  petens  non  habet  ius  petendi,  vel  ratione 
personae,  vel  iuris  incompetentis,  vel  quod  paratus  est  emendare,  ut  cap.  Domi- 
nus  Noster,  xxiii,  q.  ii.  An  possit  pacto  renuntiari  huic  iuri  ?  Ecce  eligitur 
Rector  civitatis  Bononiae  qui  iurat  non  petere  represalias  contra  civitatem, 
numquid  obstabit  exceptio  renuntiationis  ?  Solutio.  Si  passus  est  iniuriam 
propter  iniquam  condemnationem,  tune,  quasi  in  modum  appellationis,  recur- 
ritur  ad  iudicem  proprium,  in  locum  deficientis  iurisdictionis,  sed  sic  renun- 
tiari potest  appellationi,  ut  1.  ult.,  C.  De  temp,  appellationum.  Si  autem 
passus  sit  iniuriam,  tune  pactum  nullum  operatur  effectum,  quia  remitteretur 
dolus  futurus,  ut  1.  si  unus,  §  illud,  ff.  De  pactis ;  et  1.  convenire,  ff.  De  pact, 
dotalibus. 


[Cap.  rivi  i  Qualiter  constabit  de  iniustitia  facia,  vel  ea  denegata  ? 

Quarto  quasritur,  qualiter  constabit  de  iniustitia  facta,  vel  ea  denegata  ? 
Solutio.  Per  acta  primi  iudicis,  vel  per  testes,  et  requiri  potest  primus  iudex, 
ut  faciat  copiam  actorum,  et  si  non  faciat,  hoc  est  iniustitiam  facere,  ut  1.  ii, 
C.  Vt  lite  pendente. 


tc»p. civil.]      An,  si  aliqua  capiantur  vigore  represaliarum,  detineri  valeant,  ut  ex  primo 

decreto,  an  secundo  ? 

Quinto  quaeritur,  an,  si  aliqua  capiantur  vigore  represaliarum,  detineri 
valeant  ut  ex  primo  decreto,  an  ex  secundo.  Solutio.  Si  indictae  sunt  repre- 
saliae,  parte  citata  et  comparente,  et  lata  fuerit  super  hoc  sententia,  tune  ea 
detinentur  ex  causa  iudicati,  ut  ff.  De  re  iudic.,  1.  a  divo  Pio.  Si  autem  non 
compareat,  tune  primo  dabitur  licentia,  ut  capiat  ex  primo  decreto,  ut  affectus 
taedio  veniat,  et  si  contumax  perse veraverit,  tune  dabitur  licentia  detinendi  ex 
secundo  decreto. 


ic«p.  eww.j  De  forma  exercendi  represalias. 

Restat  videre  de  forma  exercendi  represalias  indictas,  et  circa  hoc  quse- 
ritur  de  pluribus. 


DE  PERSONIS  ET  REBVS  CAPTIS  171 

An  liceat  illi  cui  sunt  concessa  represalice,  auctoritate  propria,  vel  per 
ministros  concedentis,  capere  homines  contra  quos  indicuntur  ? 

Et  primo  quaeritur,  an  liceat  illi  cui  sunt  concessse  represaliae  auctoritate 
propria,  vel  per  ministros  capere  homines  contra  quos  indicuntur  ?  Solutio. 
lacobus  de  Belvisio  tenet  quod  non  licet  auctoritate  propria  capere  personas 
nee  res,  sed  iudiciaria,  ut  1.  miles,  ff.  De  re  iudicata.  Supplent  quidam  hoc 
verum,  si  potest  haberi  copia  iudicis,  alias  auctoritate  propria  licebit,  ff.  Quae 
in  fraud,  cred.,  1.  ait  prcetor,  §  si  debitor  em  ;  C.  De  decur.,  1.  generali.  Et 
hoc  puto  verum.  Ponderari  tamen  debet  modus  facultatis  concessae,  et  ille 
servandus,  De  rescriptis,  cum  dilecta  ;  et  1.  diligenter,  ff.  Mandati. 


An  personas  et  res  capias  teneatur  capiens  prcesenlare  iudici,  vel  sibi  retinere?    [Cap.ciu.j 

Secundo  quaeritur,  an  personas  captas  et  res  teneatur  capiens  praesentare 
iudici,  an  possit  retinere  sibi  ?  Solutio.  lacobus  de  Belvisio  tenet  quod  tene- 
tur  praesentare  iudici,  per  1.  non  est  singulis,  ff.  De  regul.  iuris ;  ne  riant 
illicitae  exactiones,  ut  1.  illicitas,  ff.  De  offic.  praesidis.  Alii  dicunt  hoc  pro- 
cedere  in  personis  captis,  quae  debent  ad  iudicem  duci,  ut  1.  generali,  C.  De 
decur.  ;  et  coll.  x m,  De  pace  iuramento  firmata.  Res  autem  capientur  ex 
causa  iudicati,  vel  ex  primo  vel  ex  secundo  decreto,  ut  supra  tactum  est,  et 
remanebunt  penes  capientem,  ut  1.  is  cuius,  §  qui  legatorum,  ff.  Vt  in  poss. 
legatorum.  Et  pro  hoc  non  est  plus  necesse  ire  ad  iudicem,  nam  sufficit  prima 
concessio.  In  his  omnibus  puto  ponderandam  formam  concessionis. 


An  res  captce  vigor e  represaliarum  vendantur,  et  qualiter,  vel  in  solutum          [Cap. 
accipiantur,  vel  eestimentur  ? 

Tertio  quaeritur,  an  et  qualiter  res  captae  vigore  represaliarum  vendan- 
tur, vel  in  solutum  accipiantur,  vel  aestimentur  ?  Solutio.  Dicunt  quidam 
quod  iudicis  auctoritate  venduntur,  ut  1.  miles,  §  ii,  ff.  De  re  iudicata.  JEsti- 
matio  net  per  iudicem,  ut  1.  ii,  C.  De  iure  dot. ;  impetrandum.  et  in  computa- 
tione  net  deductio  impensarum,  ff.  Ad  leg.  Falc.,  1.  in  quantitate ;  et  1.  sci- 
mus,  §  in  computatione,  C.  De  iure  deliberandi.  Et  in  his  etiam  puto  atten- 
dendam  formam  concessionis,  ut  supra. 


An  diebus  feriatis  indictte  represalice  exerceri  possint  ?  [Cap.ci»i.j 

Quarto  quaeritur,  an  diebus  feriatis  indictee  represaliae  exerceri  possint  ? 
Solutio.  In  diebus  feriatis  propter  hominum  necessitatem,  exerceri  possunt, 
sicut  executiones  sententiarum,  ut  c.  ult.,  De  iudiciis.  Si  autem  sunt  feriati  ob 
reverentiam  Dei,  tune  dicunt  aliqui  hoc  fieri  posse  in  casu,  ne  contingat  depe- 


172  DE  IVRE  BELLI 

rire  totam  concessionem,  ut  puta  si  illi  contra  quos  conceduntur  sint  (t),  et  non 
veniant  nisi  diebus  feriatis.  Allegant  1.  i  et  1.  ii,  ff.  De  fer.  ;  et  1.  ii,  C.  eod. 
titulo.  Alias  non,  per  1.  dies,  C.  De  fern's.  Hanc  conclusionem  non  credo 
veram  in  hoc  secundo  mcmbro.  Nam  capta  occasione  represaliarum  capiun- 
tur  aut  ex  primo,  autex  secundo,  decreto,  aut  causa  iudicati,  ut  supra  deduc- 
tum  est.  Et  haec  omnia  inhibentur  tempore  sic  feriato,  ut  1.  dies,  statim  alle- 
gata.  Etiam  lex  ponit  specialiter,  in  feriis  inductis  propter  hominum  neces- 
sitatem,  ut  in  casibus  illis  procedi  possit  illis  diebus,  ut  11.  i  et  ii,  ff.  De  feriis. 
In  feriis  autem  inductis  propter  reverentiam  Dei,  nihil  cxcipitur,  ergo  standum 
regulae. 


(c«p.chm.|  5,'  qu{s  Sgt  vei  res  capias,  vigore  represaliarum  velit  defendere,  qualis 

cognilio  adhibeatur  ? 

Quinto  quaeritur,  si  quis  vult  se  defendere,  vel  res  captas,  vigore  repre- 
saliarum, qualis  cognitio  adhibeatur  ?  Solutio.  Dicunt  quidam  quod,  si  facta 
est  plena  executio,  ut  quia  res  venditae  vel  in  solutum  datae,  tune  est  opus  ordi- 
naria  cognitione,  nee  audietur  omcium  implorans,  ut  1.  a  divo  Pio,  §  si  post 
addictum,  ff  .  De  re  iudicata.  Si  autem  non  sit  executio  plene  facta,  sed  pencK  t  , 
tune  potest  omcium  iudicis  implorare,  per  quod  net  editio  actorum,  vigore 
quorum  indictae  sunt  represaliae,  et  potent  opponere  defectum  iuris  illius  cui 
sunt  concessae,  et  inhabilitatem  personae,  et  alia,  de  quibus  supra  tactum  est. 
Allegant  1.  ii,  C.  De  edendo  ;  et  1.  ii,  C.  Vt  lite  pendente  ;  et  1.  i,  ff.  De 
edendo.  Et  net  super  hoc  summaria  cognitio.  Hanc  conclusionem  non  credo 
veram  in  hoc  secundo  membro.  Nam  si  sint  indictae  represaliae,  parte  citata, 
et  comparente,  et  in  iudicio  persistente,  tune  clarum  quod  dicta  conclusio  non 
procedit,  quia  illae  exceptiones  veniebant  proponendae  a  principio,  nee  opponi 
possunt  post  sententiam,  ut  1.  peremptorias,  C.  Sent,  rescindi  non  posse  ;  et  1. 
si  quidem,  C.  De  except.  ;  et  cap.  pastoralis,  eod.  tit.,  Extra.  Si  autem  indictae 
sunt,  parte  per  contumaciam  absente,  ex  primo  vel  secundo  decreto,  ut  lapsus 
anni  in  reali,  tune  idem,  quia  non  audietur  nisi  per  viam  ordinariam,  ut  1.  si 
finita,  §  si  plures,  ff.  De  damn,  infecto  ;  et  1.  consentaneum,  C.  Quomodo  et 
quando  iudex,  et  ibi  nota  ;  et  cap.  contingit,  De  dolo  et  contumacia.  In  primo 
autem  decreto  procedere  posset. 


ic*p.  chHi.j  De  remediis  exacti. 

Huic  membro  adiungitur  de  remediis  exacti.  Et  circa  hoc  de  pluribus 
quaeritur. 

A  n  exacto  competat  regressus  contra  ilium  propter  cuius  debitum  vel 
delictum  exactus  est  ? 

Et  primo  quaeritur,  an  exacto  competat  regressus  contra  ilium  propter 
cuius  delictum  vel  debitum  ?  lacobus  de  Arena  tenet  in  1.  ii,  ff.  De  verb, 
oblig.,  quod  ei  succurritur  contra  ilium  propter  cuius  indictae  sunt  represaliae. 


DE  IVRE  COMMVNI  NON  PERMISSIS  173 

per  1.  nam  et  Servius,  De  neg.  gest.  ;  ff.  Nautae  caup.  stabul.,  1.  licet,  §  fin. ; 
ff.  De  his  qui  deiec.  vel  effus.,  1.  si  vero,  §  cum  autem.  Alii  dicunt  contra, 
per  glossam  1.  si  quis  dolo,  §  i,  ff.  De  reg.  iuris.  Nam  iste  non  est  exactus 
propter  ilium  privatum,  immo  propter  iudicem,  qui  iustitiam  denegavit,  vel 
iniustitiam  fecit.  Dicunt  ergo  quod  aut  est  exactus  iudex  quia  fecit  iniustitiam, 
et  tune  iudici  non  succurritur,  ut  dicta  1.  si  quis  dolo,  aut  est  exactus  iudex,  quia 
neglexit  iustitiam,  et  tune  succurritur  contra  ilium  de  quo  requirebatur  iustitia, 
ut  C.  De  exact,  trib.,  1.  missi,  in  fine  lib.  x.  Aut  exactus  est  tertius  de  populo, 
et  tune  procedit  opinio  lacobi,  ut  1.  licet,  in  fine,  ff.  Nautae  caup.  stabul.,  etc. 


An  exacto  succurratur  contra  Rector  em,  sicut  contra  debitor  em  principalem  ?       icop. 

Secundo  subsequenter  quaeritur,  an  exacto  succurratur  contra  Rectorem, 
sicut  contra  debitorem  principalem,  ut  supra  dictum  est  ?  Solutio.  Primo 
conveniendus  est  debitor  principalis,  et  si  non  est  solvendo,  tune  Rector,  cum 
ipse  etiam  debitor  fiat,  iustitiam  denegando.  Quod  hie  ordo  sit  servandus 
probatur  ff.  De  magistr.  conven.,  1.  i,  in  princip. ;  et  C.  De  conven.  fisci  debi- 
toribus,  1.  quoniam.  Vltimo  pervenitur  ad  officiales,  qui,  cum  possent  com- 
pellere  Rectorem  ad  iustitiam,  neglexerunt,  ff.  De  tut.  et  rati.  distrahendis,  1. 
i,  §  nunc  tractemus. 


An  captus  vigor  e  represaliarum  possit  auctoritate  propria  homines  illius  [Cap. 

civitatis  caper e  in  qua  fuit  captus  ? 

Tertio  quaeritur,  an  captus  vigore  represaliarum  possit  auctoritate  pro- 
pria homines  illius  civitatis  capere  in  qua  captus  fuit.  Et  videtur  quod  sic,  per 
totum  titulum,  ff.  Quod  quisque  iuris.  Contrarium  est  verum,  nam  titulus, 
Quod  quisque  iuris,  vindicat  sibi  locum  in  iuris  executione,  ut  si  una  civitas 
indixit  represalias  iniuste  contra  aliam,  hoc  idem  licet  alii  contra  primam. 
Non  autem  loquitur  in  executione  facti,  ut,  si  spoliavi  te,  liceat  tibi  spoliare 
me,  quia  sic  permitteretur  vindicta.  Contra  id,  ff.  Ad  leg.  Aquil.,  1.  scien- 
tiam,  §  qui  cum  aliter.  Recurrat  ergo  ad  civitatem  suam,  et  petat  represalias 
contra  illam  civitatem  in  qua  captus  fuit. 


A  n  per  statuta  represalice  concedi  possint,  in  casibus  alias  iure  communi         [Cap.  cixvi.j 

non  permissis  ? 

Quarto  quaeritur,  an  per  statuta  represaliae  concedi  possint,  in  casibus 
alias  non  permissis  iure  communi  ?  Solutio.  Civitas  contra  terras  plene 
subditas  concedere  potest,  etiam  in  casibus  non  permissis  lege  communi,  sed  in 
terras  liberas,  vel  etiam  confoederatas,  de  quibus  loquitur,  1.  non  dubito,  ff. 
De  captivis,  non  potest.  Ratio.  Nam  in  concessione  represaliarum,  vertitur 
in  causae  cognitione  de  iniustitia  facta,  vel  iustitia  denegata,  et  in  hoc  una 


174  DE  IVRE  BELLI 

civitas  non  potest  statuere  contra  aliam,  quia  "  par  in  parem,"  etc.  Secundo 
vertitur,  an  haberi  possit  copia  superioris  denegantis  iustitiam  facere.  Et  de 
hoc  nihil  potest  una  civitas  contra  aliam  statuere.  Nam  non  posset  statuere 
quod  indicantur  represaliae,  non  requisite  superiore  denegantis  iustitiam. 
Nam  hoc  esset  tollere  iurisdictionem  superioris,  De  iureiurando,  venientes. 
Tertio  requiritur  auctoritas  superioris  indicentis,  et  ipsa  non  recognoscens  supe- 
riorem  est  ilia  cuius  auctoritas  requiritur,  et  de  hoc  statuere  potest  civitas  quod 
ea  non  requisita,  et  quod  unus  pro  dcbito  alterius  capiatur,  C.  De  omni  agro 
deserto,  1.  i,  lib.  xi ;  sicut  statuitur  in  casibus  quod  uxor  pro  debito  viri  te- 
neatur,  C.  In  quibus  [modis]  causis  pign.  contrahitur,  1.  satis ;  et  films  pro 
patre,  ut  C.  De  primipilo,  1.  fin.,  lib.  xii. 

An  statutum  civitatis,  quo  cavetur  quod  filius  teneatur  pro  patre  delinqucntc, 

possit  exerceri  contra  filium  existentem  extra  territorium 

civitatis  concedenlis  ? 

Quinto  quaeritur,  an  statutum  civitatis,  quo  cavetur  quod  filius  teneatur 
pro  patre  delinquente,  possit  exerceri  contra  filium  existentem  extra  territo- 
rium civitatis  concedentis.  Solutio.  Aut  filius  erat  natus  tempore  delicti 
commissi  a  patre,  et  tune  aut  quaeritur,  numquid  fieri  possit  executio  statuti 
contra  filium  alibi  existentem.  Et  non  potest,  ut  1.  a  divo  Pio,  §  paenult.,  ff. 
De  re  iudicata;  et  1.  cum  unus,  §  [cum  is]  is  qui,  ff.  De  rebus  auctor.  iudi. 
possidendis.  Aut  quaeritur,  numquid  condictione  ex  illo  statute  agi  possit 
contra  eum.  Et  potest,  quia  actio  ipsum  .sequitur  cui  competit,  C.  De  longi 
temper,  praescriptione,  1.  finali.  Haec  vera,  nisi  filius  ante  delictum  commissum 
contraxisset  alibi  domicilium,  vel  inde  foret  ratione  antiquae  originis,  quia  tune 
ilia  civitas,  ut  praeveniens,  posset  ilium  defendere  ab  illo  statute.  Si  autem 
filius  natus  sit  post  commissum  delictum,  tune  non  agetur  contra  ilium.  Nam 
statutum  intelligitur  de  filiis  tune  habitis,  ff.  De  noxal.,  1.  in  delictis,  §  si  ex- 
traneus  ;  ff.  De  milit.  testamento,  1.  [si]  Titius.  Idem  dice  si  statutum  habet 
quod  unus  de  villa  teneatur  pro  delicto  alterius.  Effectus  de  novo  homo  illius, 
non  tenetur  pro  debitis  antiquis,  ut  C.  De  decur.,  1.  providendum  ;  et  nota 
Dinum  in  1.  incola,  ff.  Ad  municipalem. 


]  An  per  pactum  licite  fieri  possit  ut  unus  pro  alio  teneatur  ? 

Sexto  quaeritur,  an  per  pactum  possit  fieri  licite  ut  unus  teneatur  pro 
alio  ?  Solutio.  Per  pactum  privatorum  expressum,  non  ;  in  Authent.,  Vt 
non  fiant  pignorationes.  Etiam  si  paciscatur  quod  exigatur  alius  in  quo  habet 
ius,  ut  C.  Ne  filius  pro  patre,  per  totum.  Et  licet  hoc  non  possit  dominus, 
iudex  tamen  domini  poterit  facere  capi  homines  sic  conditionatos. 


DE  DVELLO  175 

De  Bella  Particulari  quod  fit  ad  purgationem,  quod  "  Duellum  "  nuncupatur.      [Cap. 

Restat  nunc  videre  de  Duello,  in  cuius  tractatu,  primo  quaeram  quid  sit 
Duellum  ?  Secundo,  quot  sint  species  Duelli  ?  Tertio,  quo  iure  sit  permis- 
sum,  et  quo  inhibitura  ?  Quarto,  propter  quid  sit  permissum,  et  propter  quid 
inhibitum  ?  Quinto,  pro  quibus  causis  licitum  sit  duellum  ?  Sexto,  inter  quos 
sit  licitum  ?  Septimo,  qualiter  duellandum  ? 


Quid  sit  duellum  ?  [Cap. 

Circa  primum  dico  quod  Duellum  est  pugna  corporalis  deliberata  hinc 
inde  duorum,  ad  purgationem,  gloriam,  vel  odii  exaggerationem.  Dixi 
"  pugna."  Hoc  ponitur  ut  genus.  Dixi  "  deliberata  hinc  inde."x  Hoc  poni- 
tur  ad  differentiam  pugnae  quae  fit  ad  necessariam  defensam  sui,  de  qua  in  1. 
ut  vim,  ff.  De  iustit.  et  iure  ;  et  1.  i,  C.  Vnde  vi  ;  et  1.  i,  §  vim  vi,  ff.  De  vi  et 
vi  arm.  ;  et  1.  scientiam,  §  qui  cum  aliter,  ff.  Ad  leg.  Aquil.  ;  et  cap.  olim,  i, 
De  restit.  spoliat. ;  et  Clemen.,  si  furiosus,  De  homicidio.  Nam  in  pugna  ilia 
non  est  deliberatio  ex  parte  aggressi  regulariter,  sed  ex  parte  aggredientis 
tantum,  vel  neutrius,  ut  probatur  in  dicta  Clemen.,  si  furiosus.  In  Duello 
autem  est  utriusque  deliberatio.  Dixi  "  duorum,"  quia  tune  proprie  Duellum 
nuncupatur,  adhaerendo  etymologise  vocabuli,  Instit.,  De  donat.,  §  est  et  aliud  ; 
xvi,  q.  i,  si  cupis  ;  xxi  dist.,  clews  ;  De  praebend.,  cum  secundum.  "  Pugna 
duorum,"  ad  differentiam  contractuum  qui  inter  duos  celebrantur,  ex  mutuo 
partium  consensu,  ut  Instit.,  De  obligationibus,  cum  rescriptis  sequentibus. 
Et  dixi  "  corporalis,"  ad  differentiam  pugnae  iudiciariae,  quae  fit  etiam  inter 
duos,  utpote  actorem  et  reum,  ut  1.  rem  non  novam,  §  patroni,  C.  De  iudic., 
et  1.  properandum,  eod.  tit.  ;  et  cap.  forus,  De  verbor.  signification .  Nam 
ibi  non  contenditur  viribus  corporis,  sed  iuribus,  ut  iuribus  statim  allegatis. 
Dixi  "  ad  purgationem,  gloriam,  vel  odii  exaggerationem."  Nam  per  hoc 
tangitur  finis,  et  eliciuntur  species  Duelli,  ut  infra  sequitur.  Concluditur 
igitur  descriptio  Duelli  in  genere,  per  supra  dicta. 


Quot  sint  species  Duelli  ? 

Circa  secundum  est  advertendum  quod  Duellum,  ut  supra  describitur, 
sumitur  generaliter,  et,  ut  tetigi  in  fine  descriptionis,  species  Duelli  eliciuntur 
per  verba  posita  in  fine,  nam  tres  sunt  species  Duelli.  Fit  enim  Duellum  aut 
propter  odii  exaggerationem,  aut  propter  gloriam  in  publico  consequendam, 
ex  viribus  corporis,  aut  propter  purgationem  alicuius  criminis  iniuncti. 

Qualiter  duellum  fit  propter  odii  exaggerationem  ? 

Propter  igitur  odii  exaggerationem  fit,  cum  aliqui  solo  odio  originaliter 
naturali,  et  naturalitate  singular!,  quae  apud  naturales  "  forma  specifica  " 
appellatur,  inducuntur  ad  se  invicem  exterminandos.  Et  de  hoc  Duello  non 


I7&  DE  IVRE  BELLI 

reperio  aliquid  iure  cautum,  sed  ex  principiis  naturalibus  hoc  evenit,  ut  statini 
prosequar,  et  quia  sensual!  experientia  hoc  est  comprobatum. 


Qualiter  duellum  fit  propter  gloriam  in  publico  consequendam  ? 

Fit  et,  secundo,  propter  gloriam  in  publico  consequendam,  ut  in  publi- 
cis  spectaculis,  cum  duo  vires  corporeas  variis  modis  experiuntur.  Et  de  hoc 
reperio  iure  cautum,  et  civili  et  canonico.  Lege  civili,  ut  1.  hac  actione,  §  si 
quis  in  cottuctatione,  fi.  Ad  leg.  Aquil. ;  et  1.  una,  C.  De  glad,  toll.,  lib.  xi ; 
[C.]  ff.  De  re  iudic.,  1.  commodis;  fi.  De  his  qui  not.  infam.,  1.  athlete;  C.  De 
athletis,  1.  i ;  C.  Quae  res  pign.  obi.  poss.,  1.  spem ;  ff.  De  donat.,  1.  dona- 
tiones.  Nota  glo.  Instit.,  De  haeredit.  quae  intest.  defer.,  §  interdum.  Lege 
canonica,  De  clericis  pugnantibus  in  duello.  Licet  etiam  ibi  fiat  propter  pur- 
gationem,  De  tornea.ni.,  per  totum.  Licet  non  sit  proprie  Duellum,  sed  pan- 
cratium, ut  1.  hac  actione,  §  si  quis  in  colluctatione,  ff.  Ad  leg.  Aquiliam. 


Qualiter  duellitm  fit  propter  purgationem  alicuius  criminis  iniuncti? 

Fit  et  tertio,  propter  purgationem,  scilicet,  cum  aliquod  crimen  alicui 
imponitur,  et  ad  probationem  provocans,  forte  carens  aliis  probationibus,  vel 
etiam  non  carens,  offert  se  probaturum  viribus  corporeis,  duello  suscepto,  et 
provocatus  sic  se  purgat.  Et  de  hoc  habetur  etiam  iure  cautum,  De  cler.  pugn. 
in  duello,  ut  supra  allegavi ;  De  purga.  vulgari,  per  totum  ;  ii,  q.  v,  quasi  per 
totam  illam  quaestionem ;  et  in  Lombarda,  ut  ibi  prosequar,  cum  illud  nu  in- 
brum  discutiam. 


lc»p.ciKi.|  Quo  iure  sit  permissum,  et  quo  inhibitum,  Duellum  ? 

Circa  tertium,  videlicet,  quo  iure  sit  introductum  duellum  ?  Expedit 
singulas  species  duelli  supra  positas  explicare,  declarando  circa  singulas  quo 
iure  inducantur,  et  quo  inhibeantur.  Et  primo  de  duello  proveniente  propter 
odii  naturalis  exaggerationem,  ubi  sciendum  quod  hoc  duellum  introductum 
est  iure  naturali,  ut  sumitur  ius  naturale  pro  instinctu  naturae,  proveniente  ex 
scnsualitate  ad  aliquid  appetendum,  ut  sumitur  in  secundo  suo  signincato,  ut 
notat  glossa,  i  dist.,  ius  naturale;  et  1.  i,  §  ius  autem  naturale,  ff.  De  iustit. 
et  iure.  Et  ipsum  duellum  est  inhibitum  iure  naturali,  ut  sumitur  ius  naturale 
pro  instinctu  naturae,  proveniente  ex  rationabili  intelligentia,  qua?  appellatur 
naturalis  aequitas.  Et  est  tertius  modus  iuris  naturalis,  ut  dicto  canone,  ius 
naturale.  Est  etiam  inhibitum  iure  naturali,  continente  praecepta  moralia 
It^'is  divinae,  ut  sumitur  quarto  modo,  ut  canone  statim  allcgato.  Est  etiam 
inhibitum  hoc  duellum  iure  positive,  scilicet,  canonico  et  civili.  Expedit  enim 
Miiijula  demonstrare. 


DE  DVELLO  PROPTER  ODIVM  177 

Qualiter  duellum  quod  fit  propter  odii  exaggerationem  sit  introductum  iure 

naturali,  sumpto  pro  instinctu  naturce,  proveniente  ex 

sensualitate  ad  aliquid  appetendum  ? 

Dixi  quod  hoc  duellum  est  introductum  iure  naturali,  ut  sumitur  pro 
instinctu  naturae,  proveniente  ex  sensualitate  ad  aliquid  appetendum.  Hoc 
sic  demonstratur.  Quidquid  est  productivum  causae  immediatae  alicuius 
effectus,  per  consequens  est  productivum  illius  effectus.  Sed  istud  ius  natu- 
rale,  originaliter  inclinans  ad  sic  appetendum,  est  causa  inductiva  huius 
sensualis  appetitus  ad  duellandum.  Ergo  est  causa  duelli  inductiva.  Pro- 
batur  maior.  Nam  imprimens  sufficienter  in  causam  causae  productivae  sic 
remote,  imprimit  in  effectum,  ff.  Ad  leg.  Corn,  de  sicar.,  1.  nihil/,  C.  eod. 
tit.,  1.  si  quis  necandi ;  i  di.,  studeat ;  et  can.  si  quis  viduam ;  De  homi- 
cidio,  de  cetera,  et  cap.  presbyterum.  Probatur  minor.  Nam  ex  naturali 
dispositione,  proveniente  a  principiis  naturalibus,  et  superioribus  et  infe- 
rioribus,  provenit  in  hominibus  varia  appetitus  incb'natio.  Nam  circum- 
scripto  quolibet  merito,  vel  demerito,  tibi  naturaliter  placebit  quod  mihi 
displicet,  et  econtra,  et  ex  naturali  dispositione  quis,  circumscripto  accidental! 
quocunque,  diligit  et  odit.  Quilibet  hoc  experiri  potest  in  seipso.  Sed  causa 
huius  est  prompta,  attentis  corporibus  coelestibus.  Nam,  si  aliqui,  tempore 
natalium  in  momento  natalium,  habeant  uniformem  correspondentiam  con- 
figurationis  ccelestis,  et  principia  paterna  conferment  in  complexionibus,  procul 
dubio  sunt  amicissimi  naturaliter.  Sic  si  repugnantes,  hinc  inde  sunt  inimicis- 
simi.  Nam  ab  uniformi  causa  debet  insurgere  uniformis  effectus,  C.  Ad  leg. 
Falc.,  1.  ult.  ;  ff .  Ad  leg.  Aquil.,  1.  illud  ;  ff .  De  fonte,  1.  i ;  De  constit.,  translate  ; 
et  cap.  inter  corporalia,  De  translat.  [praelatorum]  episcoporum.  Et  tamen  est 
hie  attendendum  quod  haec  inimicitia  naturalis  inter  hominem  et  hominem, 
ut  praedixi,  provenit  ex  singulari  naturali  dispositione,  quae  "  forma  specifica  " 
apud  naturales  nuncupatur.  Nam,  attenta  naturali  dispositione  speciei  hu- 
manae,  inter  homines  debet  esse  amicitia,  propter  uniformitatem  complexionis 
relatae  ad  formam  humanam,  et  propter  ea  dicunt  iura  quod  inter  hominem 
et  hominem  est  officium  humanitatis,  hinc  inde  impendendum,  ut  1.  si  servus, 
in  fine,  ff.  De  servis  expor. ;  et  1.  officio,  C.  De  neg.  gest.,  et  ibi  glossa.  Et  sic 
non  insurgit  hoc  ex  naturali  dispositione  speciei,  quia  hoc  naturaliter  non  est 
reperire,  si  quis  recurrat  per  species  singulas  animalium.  Nam  inter  singulas 
species  brutorum  est  quoddam  foedus  coniunctionis  et  cohabitationis  ;  propter 
uniformitatem  complexionis  relatae  ad  formam  specificam.  Sed  inter  speciem 
et  speciem  quandoque  est  extremum  repugnantiae,  inductorium  ad  alterius 
exterminationem,  ut  est  in  accipitre  et  avibus  aucupabilibus,  murilega  et 
muribus,  canibus  et  leporibus.  Et  sic  de  singulis.  Provenit  igitur  hoc  ex 
quadam  repugnantiae  individuali  dispositione  principiorum  superiorum  et 
inferiorum.  Effectum  quilibet  in  se  experitur.  Ilia  tamen  dispositio  non 
inducit  regulariter  immediate  duellum,  sed  per  medios  actus  ad  quos  propere 
proveniunt,  sed  tamen  credo  quod  tanta  posset  esse  repugnantia  individualis 


178  DE  IVRE  BELLI 

dispositions,  quod  subito  ad  id  provenirent.  Et  hoc  provcnit  cum  reguntur 
sola  sensualitatc,  et  nullo  rationis  vibramine.  Ex  his  apparet  conclusum 
qualiter  hoc  duellum  introductum  est  hire  naturae,  sic  sumpto. 


ic*p.ci«ii  |        Qualiter  duellum,  quod  fit  propter  odii  exaggerationem,  sit  inhibition  iure 
naturali,  sumpto  pro  rcUionabili  intelligentia,  et  iure 
divino,  canonico,  et  civili. 

Restat  videre  quod  dicebam  secundo  circa  hoc  membrum.  Dicebam 
cnim,  quod  hoc  erat  inhibitum  iure  naturali,  sumpto  pro  rationabili  intelli- 
gentia, et  sic  iure  gentium  et  iure  naturali,  prout  continet  prascepta  moralia 
legis  divinae,  et  iure  canonico,  et  civili.  Hoc  luce  clarius  demonstrari  potest, 
incipiendo  a  lege  divina.  Nam  hoc  est  unum  de  praeceptis  decalogi,  "  non 
occides,"  et  sic  lege  divina  inhibitum,  et  hoc  est  regulare  praeceptum.  Et  si 
detur  instantia  de  lephte,  qui  occidit  filiam,  nee  tamen  peccavit,  lege  divina, 
ludicum  [v]  xi  cap. ;  xxii,  q.  iv,  unusquisque  ;  xxiii,  q.  v,  si  non  licet ;  et  de  Sam- 
sone,  qui  multos  et  se  occidit,  ludicum  xvi  cap. ;  xxiii,  q.  v,  si  non  licet ;  non 
obstat,  quia  haec  facta  fuerunt  Spiritus  Sancti  inductione,  ut  scribit  Augustinus 
in  libro  primo  De  civitate  Dei.  Transumptive  habetur  in  cap.  si  non  licet, 
xxiii,  q.  v.  Sic  igitur  lege  divina  inhibitum  est  per  illud  praeceptum  "  non 
occides,"  Deuteronomii  v  capitulo.  Est  etiam  inhibitum  lege  canonica,  De 
homicid.  voluntario ;  1  distinc.  ®,  quasi  per  totum  ;  xxiii,  q.  v,  si  non  licet.  Est 
etiam  inhibitum  iure  civili,  ff.  Ad  leg.  Corn,  de  sicar. ;  et  C.  eod.,  per  totum. 
Et  si  dicas  ilia  iura  inhibent  homicidium  voluntarium,  et  sic  hoc  genus  duelli, 
ex  quo  illud  provenit,  sed  homicidium  proveniens  a  duello,  introducto  ex 
naturali  dispositione,  non  est  voluntarium,  ex  quo  naturaliter  est  intro- 
ductum, ergo  ilia  iura  non  astringunt  hunc  casum.  Solutio  est  prompta. 
Nam,  licet  naturalis  dispositio  corporea  hoc  introducat,  tamen  naturalis 
intelligentiae  dictamen  disponit  in  contrarium.  Cui  obtemperandum  est, 
nam  ilia  naturalis  dispositio  non  necessitat,  immo  manet  liberum  arbitrium, 
xxiii,  q.  iv,  De  Tyriis  ;  et  cap.  Nabuchodonosor  ;  et  cap.  sicut  enim,  De  Poenit., 
dist.  ii ;  et  Philosophus,  iii  Ethicorum.  Immo  et  astrologi,  hoc  efficacius 
demonstrantes,  hoc  idem  asserunt.  Vnde  inquit  Ptolemaeus,  in  Centiloquio, 
in  verbo  decimo,  "  anima  sapiens  dominatur  astris."  Sic  igitur,  licet  dispo- 
sitio corporea  proveniat  a  naturali  principio,  tamen  naturalis  intelligentia 
manet,  et  in  contrarium  disponit.  Sic  did  posset  de  singulis  generibus  vitio- 
rum  moralium.  Nam  naturaliter  singuli  homines  ad  singula  inclinantur 
vitia,  ut  quidam  superbi,  quidam  luxuriosi,  quidam  avari,  et  sic  de  singulis. 
Nee  tamen  excusantur,  quia  precise  non  necessitantur,  ut  cap.  Nabuchodono- 
sor, xxiii,  q.  iv.  Hinc  est  quod  dicit  Philosophus,  iii  De  anima,  tractatu  de 
motu,  quod  inter  appetitum  sensitivum  et  intellectualem  est  quandoque  re- 
pugnantia.  Nam  sensitivus  tendit  in  unum,  intellectivus  in  alium,  et,  si  intel- 
lectus  vincat  sensum,  motus  est  rationabilis  et  naturalis,  sisut  si  sphaera  supe- 
rior moveat  inferiorem.  Si  autem  econtra  fiat,  motus  est  contra  naturam,  ac 


DE  DVELLO  PROPTER  GLORIAM  179 

si  sphaera  inferior  moveat  superiorem,  licet  enim  motus  sensus  proveniat  a 
natura,  inclinando  in  vitium,  tamen  fit  contra  naturam,  nisi  obtemperet  sensus 
intellectui,  ut  subditus  domino  suo,  ut  idem  Philosophus,  primo  Politicorum. 
Est  etiam  hoc  genus  duelli  inhibitum  iure  natural! ,  ut  sumitur  pro  naturali 
intelligentia,  quod  idem  est  quod  ius  gentium.  Hoc  probatur  sic.  Nam  ex 
naturali  intelb'gentia  insurgit  communis  et  naturalis  sequitas,  disponens  in  con- 
servationem  Vniversi,  et  inde  habuit  ortum  ius  positivum,  immo,  ut  verius 
loquar,  sunt  ipsamet  aequitas  iuris  naturalis,  aliquo  addito  vel  detracto,  ut  1. 
ius  civile,  ff.  De  iustit.  et  iure.  Cum  igitur  haec  naturalis  aequitas  tendat  in 
conservationem  Vniversi,  ergo  reprobat  hominis  exterminationem,  quae  est 
tendens  ad  mundi  destructionem  ;  et  dico  de  exterminatione  tendente  ad  mundi 
destructionem.  Nam  quaedam,  quorundam  hominum,  exterminationes  ten- 
dunt  ad  mundi  conservationem,  ut  puta  cum  mali  exterminantur.  'Nam  prop- 
ter  hoc  interest  reipublicae,  ut  puniantur,  ut  ff.  De  publ.  et  vecti.,  1.  licitatio  ; 
ff.  Ad  leg.  Aquil.,  1.  it  a  vulneralus,  in  fine  ;  ff.  De  fideiuss.,  1.  si  a  reo  ;  De 
sent,  excom.,  ut  famce.  Ex  his  aperte  concluditur  qualiter  hoc  genus  duelli 
est  inhibitum  iure  divino,  iure  gentium,  canonico,  et  civili. 


Qualiter  duellum  quod  fit  propter  gloriam  introductum  sit  iure  naturali,          [Cap.  ci*xiii.i 
sumpto  pro  instinctu  natura  ex  sensualitate  proveniente. 

Restat  de  duello  quod  fit  propter  gloriam  victoriae  quod  fit  in  publico 
spectaculo,  quo  iure  introductum  est,  et  quo  inhibitum.  Et  dico  quod  hoc 
genus  duelli  est  introductum  iure  naturali,  ut  sumitur  in  secundo  suo  signifi- 
cato,  scilicet,  pro  instinctu  naturae  proveniente  ex  sensualitate,  sed  est  inhibi- 
tum iure  naturali,  sumpto  pro  iure  gentium  et  iure  divino.  Est  etiam  inhi- 
bitum iure  canonico  et  civili,  modificative  tamen,  ut  statim  subiciam.  Decla- 
remus  singula.  Dixi  quod  erat  introductum  iure  naturali,  sumpto  in  secundo 
suo  significato.  Hoc  probatur,  ut  dictum  est  supra  proximo  membro.  Nam 
sensualis  inclinatio  proveniens  a  principiis  naturalibus  induxit  ad  experientiam 
virium  corporalium  solum  ad  gloriam  consequendam.  Ergo  inducit  hoc 
genus  duelli  inde  proveniens,  cum  producens  causa  producat  effectum,  ut  iuri- 
bus  statim  allegatis  in  superiori  membro.  Hoc  tamen  genus  duelli  est  minus 
detestabile  primo  genere,  attento  utriusque  fine.  Nam  primum  genus  duelli 
fit  propter  exterminationem  finaliter,  occasione  inimicitiae  naturalis  manentis. 
Hoc  autem  non  fit  necessario  ad  exterminandum,  sed  vincendum,  quod  con- 
tingere  potest  sine  exterminatione.  Ergo  hoc  minus  detestabile,  cum  actus 
hominum  distinguantur  propter  fines  intentos,  ff.  De  furtis,  1.  verum,  et  1. 
qui  iniurice ;  ff .  De  [fal.]  furtis,  1.  qui  ea  mente ;  xv,  q.  vi,  cap.  i ;  xiv,  q.  v, 
quidquid  ;  De  sent,  excom.,  cum  voluntate.  Hinc  est,  quod  inquit  Philoso- 
phus, iv  Ethicorum,  qui  fornicatur  cum  muliere  ut  pecuniam  inde  detrahat 
non  moechia,  sed  avarus.  Sic  igitur,  fine  ponderato,  hoc  minus  detestabile 
illo.  Confirmatur.  Primum  genus  insurgit  ex  odio,  quod  in  se  detestabile  est 

[15] 


i8o  DE  IVRE  BELLI 

si  sine  causa  rationabili  proveniat,  ut  in  proposito.  At  hoc  genus  duelli  sine 
odio  provenit.  Nam  et  naturales  amici  duellabant  in  spectaculo  ad  finem 
gloriae  consequendae.  Confirmatur.  Illud  est  minus  detestabile  quod  minus 
distat  a  naturali  aequitate,  sed  hoc  secundum  genus  duelli  minus  distat  a  natu- 
rali  aequitate.  Ergo.  Probatur  maior.  Nam  detestatio  et  approbatio  ac- 
tuum  provenit  a  naturali  aequitate,  super  qua  fundantur  inhibitiones  et  per- 
missiones  iuris,  ut  1.  ius  civile,  ff.  De  iustit.  et  iure  ;  et  can.  ius  naturale,  i  di- 
stinctione.  Probatur  minor.  Nam  hoc  duellum  non  distat  ab  aequitate  iuris 
naturalis,  nisi  quia  ex  illo  sequi  posset  hominis  occisio,  qui  actus  tendit  in  de- 
structionem  Vniversi,  super  qua  aequitate  fundatur  inhibitio  legis  novae  civilis, 
ut  1.  una,  C.  De  gladiat.,  lib.  xi.  Cum  tamen  lege  veteri  non  esset  facta  inhi- 
bitio, quia  sic  se  occidentibus  remittebantur  actiones,  ut  1.  [hac]  qua  actione, 
§  si  quis  in  colluctatione,  ff.  Ad  leg.  Aquiliam.  Sed  primum  genus  distat  a 
naturali  aequitate.  Prime,  quia  tendit  ad  necessariam  alterius  vel  utriusque 
exterminationem.  Distat  etiam  in  fomite  odii,  quod  naturalis  aequitas  abhor- 
ret,  si  sine  causa  insurgat.  Ergo  detestabilius.  Confirmatur.  Illud  est  detesta- 
bilius  quod  in  totum  nocet  et  in.nullo  prodest,  illo  quod  partim  prodest  et  par- 
tim  nocet.  Sed  primum  genus  in  totum  nocet,  et  in  nullo  prodest,  hoc  autem 
secundum  partim  prodest.  Maior  clara.  Nam  actus  denominantur  lauda- 
biles  et  vituperabiles  ratione  laudabilitatis  finis,  et  ipsius  vituperabilitatis, 
cum  finis  in  talibus  ponderetur,  ut  ff.  De  ritu.  nupt.,  si  quis  in  senatorio  ;  ff. 
De  iure  fisci,  1.  non  intelligitur ,  §  si  quis  palam  ;  ff.  De  iudiciis,  1.  cumfuriosus. 
Minor  probatur.  Nam  primum  genus  fit  solummodo  propter  extermina- 
tionem mutuam,  et  hoc  nocet,  secundum  autem  fit  in  publico  spectaculo 
propter  laetitiam  et  recreationem  populi.  Et  ob  hoc  ludi  permittuntur  et 
spectacula,  C.  De  spectacul.  et  scaenic.  et  lenon.,  per  totum  titulum,  excepta 
1.  fin.,  lib.  xi ;  et  C.  De  expen.  ludor.,  1.  una.  Est  Graeca  constitutio.  Ex 
his  infertur  hoc  genus  duelli  introductum  iure  naturali,  sumpto  in  secundo 
suo  significato,  et  ipsum  fore  minus  detestabile  primo  genere. 


ic*p.  ciniv.)  Qualiter  duellum  quod  fit  propter  gloriam  inhibitum  sit  iure  divino. 

Restat  videndum  quomodo  hoc  genus  duelli  est  inhibitum.  Et  dicebam 
ipsum  inhibitum  iure  divino,  iure  gentium,  et  iure  positive,  canonico,  vide- 
licet, et  civili.  Quod  autem  iure  divino  sit  inhibitum,  probatur.  Nam  cum 
aliquid  aliquo  iure  inhibctur,  inhibetur  etiam  omne  id  per  quod  pervenitur  ad 
illud.  Sed  iure  divino  inhibetur  homicidium,  ad  quod  pervenitur  per  hoc 
genus  duelli.  Ergo.  Probatur  maior  per  1.  oratio,  ff.  De  sponsal.  ;  ff.  De 
fideius.,  1.  cum  lex  ;  C.  De  usuris,  1.  eos,  in  fine  ;  C.  De  usuris  rei  iudic.,  1.  ult. 
in  fine  ;  ff.  De  pet.  haered.,  1.  sed  si  lege,  §  item  veniunt;  ff.  De  mino.,  1.  iii, 
§  sed  utrum.  Minor  probatur,  Deuteronomii  v  cap.,  "  Non  occides,"  quod 
autem  per  hoc  genus  duelli  perveniatur  ad  homicidium,  luce  clarius  est.  Con- 
firmatur. Ille  actus  a  iure  divino  inhibetur  qui  est  alienus  a  fonte  caritatis, 


DE  DVELLO  PROPTER  GLORIAM  181 

sed  hoc  genus  duellandi  est  huiusmodi.  Ergo,  etc.  Probatur  maior,  nam 
caritas  est  fundamentum  omnium  virtutum,  et  exclusiva  vitiorum,  De  Pcenit., 
dist.  ii,  caritas  est,  et  cap.  ergo,  et  quasi  per  totam  primam  partem  illius 
distinctionis  ;  et  sic  alienum  a  caritate  sapit  naturam  peccati,  et  sic  inhibitum 
iure  divino.  Probatur  minor.  Nam  caritas  est  dilectio  Dei  et  proximi  sicut 
suiipsius,  ut  cap.  proximos,  De  Pcenit.,  dist.  ii  ;  sed  duellans  in  spectaculo 
duellat  ut  devincat  proximum,  et  sic  non  diligit.  Ergo  inhibitum  iure  divino. 


Qualiter  duellum,  inhibitum  propter  gloriam  consequendam,  prohibitum 

sit  iure  gentium. 

Dicebam  etiam  quod  erat  inhibitum  iure  gentium.  Hoc  sic"  probatur. 
Ille  actus  est  inhibitus  iure  gentium  qui  est  tendens  in  destructionem  Vniversi. 
Hoc  genus  duellandi  est  huiusmodi.  Ergo.  Maior  probatur.  Nam  aequitas 
naturalis,  super  qua  fundatur  ius  gentium,  tendit  in  conservationem  et  augmen- 
tum  Vniversi,  ff.  De  iustit.  et  iure,  1.  i,  §  ius  naturale  ;  et  1.  ex  hoc  iure,  ff.  eod. 
titulo.  Probatur  minor.  Nam  hoc  genus  duellandi  tendit  in  destructionem 
et  exterminationem  hominis,  qui  est  nobilissima  pars  Vniversi,  immo  est  finis 
productorum,  ff.  De  usuris,  1.  in  pecudum  ;  ergo  inhibitum  iure  gentium.  Con- 
firmatur.  Ille  actus  est  inhibitus  iure  gentium,  qui  est  repugnans  praeceptis 
naturalis  aequitatis,  quae  est  ipsum  ius  gentium,  vel  ipsius  fundamentum.  Hoc 
genus  duellandi  est  huiusmodi.  Ergo,  etc.  Maior  probatur.  Nam  omne 
illud  est  iure  gentium  inhibitum  cuius  contrarium  est  praeceptum,  cum  con- 
trariorum  sit  eadem  disciplina,  ff.  De  his  qui  sunt  sui  vel  alien,  iuris,  1.  i  ; 
Instit.,  eod.  tit.,  in  princip. ;  xxxii  dist.,  hospitiolum.  Probatur  minor.  Nam 
hoc  est  unum  de  praeceptis  iuris  gentium,  quod  quis  non  locupletetur  cum  aliena 
iactura,  ut  1.  nam  hoc,  ff.  De  condic.  indebiti ;  et  regula  locupletari,  De  regul. 
iur.,  Lib.  VI.  Hoc  etiam  est  unum  praeceptum  iuris  gentium,  quod  tibi  non  vis 
fieri,  alteri  non  facias,  ut  in  principio  Decretorum,  sed  hoc  genus  duellandi 
repugnat  utrique  praecepto.  Et  primo,  primo  prsecepto,  Nam  duellans  quaerit 
gloriam  de  vituperio  socii  et  proximi,  etiam  sibi  fieri  hoc  nollet,  ergo  inhibitum 
iure  gentium.  Confirmatur.  Ille  actus  est  inhibitus  iure  gentium  qui  est 
species  belli  iniusti.  Hoc  genus  duellandi  est  huiusmodi.  Ergo.  Probatur 
maior,  nam  bellum  iustum  solum  est  introductum  iure,  ut  1.  ex  hoc  iure,  ff. 
De  iustit.  et  iure  ;  et  1.  Aostes,  ff.  De  captivis.  Minor  patet.  Nam  hoc  non 
est  indictum  auctoritate  Principis,  nee  propter  necessariam  defensam.  Ergo. 
Ex  his  infertur  hoc  genus  duellandi  inhibitum  iure  gentium.  Sed  statim 
praedictis  opponetur  sic.  Hoc  genus  duellandi  fit  propter  experientiam 
fortitudinis,  quae  fortitude  est  virtus  moralis,  immo  et  cardinalis.  Sed  virtutes 
morales,  nee  earum  exercitia,  sunt  inhibita  iure  gentium.  Ergo  non  procedunt 
statim  allegata.  Quod  autem  hie  sint  actus  verae  fortitudinis,  quae  est  virtus 
moralis,  patet.  Nam  in  hoc  genere  duellandi  fit  exspectatio  et  aggressus. 
Solutio.  Pro  evidentia  huius  contrarii  est  attendendum  quod  reperitur 


i82  DE  IVRE  BELLI 

fortitude  vera,  quae  est  virtus  moralis  et  cardinalis,  et  ilia,  nee  eius  operatio, 
sunt  inhibita  iure  gentium.  Sunt  etiam  fortitudines  similitudinariae,  de 
quibus  Philosophus,  iv  Ethicorum.  tractatu  de  fortitudine,  quae  similitudi- 
nariae participant  actus  aggrediendi  et  exspectandi,  et  sunt  quinque.  Nam 
aliqui  aggrediuntur  propter  timorem  pcenz,  quia  fugientes  de  bello  puniuntur. 
Quidam  aggrediuntur  propter  experientiam  artis  bcllandi,  ut  stipendiarii. 
Et  isti,  ut  faciliter  aggrediuntur,  sic  faciliter  fugiunt,  ut  inquit  Philosophus, 
ubi  supra.  Quidam  aggrediuntur  propter  iram,  non  deliberantes  periculum. 
Quidam  aggrediuntur  propter  spem,  non  credentes  subesse  periculum,  nee  alias 
aggressuri,  si  existimarent  subesse  periculum.  Quidam  aggrediuntur  propter 
gloriam  mundi  consequendam,  quia  fortes  laudari  solent,  timidi  autem 
vituperari.  Istae  sunt  quinque  fortitudines,  similitudinarias  ad  veram  forti- 
tudinem,  quae  est  vera  virtus  moralis,  et  cardinalis  existit.  Ad  hoc  autem 
quod  sit  vera  fortitude,  requiruntur  hae  conditiones,  videlicet,  quod  operetur 
quis  scienter,  nam  opus  ignoratum  non  est  opus  virtutis,  quia  prudentia 
debet  regulare  omne  opus  virtutis.  Secundo  requiritur,  quod  eligens.  Tertio 
requiritur,  quod  eligat  propter  hoc,  id  est,  propter  bonitatem  et  honestatem 
operis  in  se,  non  autem  propter  aliquid  extrinsecum.  Quarto,  requiritur 
quod  operetur  firmiter  et  delectabiliter.  Omnes  similitudinariae,  de  quibus 
supra,  deficiunt  secundum  plus  et  minus  a  vera.  Omnes  tamen  deficiunt 
in  hoc,  quia,  operantes  secundum  illas,  non  operantur  propter  se,  id  est,  propter 
bonitatem  et  honestatem  operis.  Sic  in  proposito.  Isti  operantes  aggrediendo 
et  exspectando  in  hoc  genere  duelli,  hoc  faciunt  propter  gloriam,  non  autem 
propter  bonitatem  ct  honestatem  actus  in  se,  nee  etiam  hie  operantur  circa 
quod  debent.  Haec  colliguntur  ex  his  quae  tractat  Philosophus,  iv  Ethicorum, 
tractatu  de  fortitudine.  Ex  praedictis  igitur  infertur  hoc  genus  duellandi 
inhibitum  iure  gentium. 


Qualiter  duellum  quod  fit  propter  gloriam  inhibitum  sit  iure  cuiionico  et  civili. 

Dicebam  hoc  duelli  genus  inhibitum  iure  canonico  et  civili.  lure  cano- 
nico  est  clarum,  cum  imitetur,  quoad  prohibitionem  et  permissionem,  tra- 
mites  legis  divinas,  qua  hoc  duellum  est  inhibitum,  ut  supra  deductum  est. 
Probat  etiam  nibrum  et  nigrum,  De  pugnan.  in  duello,  licet  ibi  ponatur  cleri- 
cis,  quia  idem  in  omnibus.  Melius  probat  titulus  De  torneamentis,  ubi  dece- 
dentibus  in  torneamentis  denegatur  sepultura.  Hoc  ergo  clarum.  Sed  de  iure 
livili  qualitor  sit  inhibitum,  hie  aliqualiter  est  insistendum,  quia  lege  vetcii 
Digestorum  videtur  permissum  genus  hoc  duelli.  Probat  textus  ff.  Ad  leg. 
Aquil.,  1.  hac  aelione,  §  si  quis  in  colluctalione  sive  in  pancratio ;  ubi  apparet 
cessare  actionem  poenalem  contra  ocridt  nti  in  in  hoc  duello  ubi  pugiles  colluc- 
tantur.  Lege  nova  Codicis  videtur  inhibitum,  ut  probat  textus  C.  De  gladiat., 
1.  una,  lib.  xi.  Quid  ergo  dicemus  ?  Dicemus  ne  legem  veterem  esse  corrcctam 
per  novam,  ut  1.  non  est  novum,  ff.  De  legibus.  Hie  puto  attendendum  quod 


DE  DVELLO  PROPTER  GLORI AM        183 

potest  fieri  pugna  non  cruenta,  ubi  non  tenditur  ad  sanguinis  effusionem,  ut 
cum  aliqui  brachiis  colluctant,  vel  similibus  modis,  et  hoc  genus  colluctandi 
non  reperio  inhibitum  iure  civili,  nee  veteri  nee  novo,  immo  iure  novo  permit- 
tuntur  spectacula,  propter  populi  recreationem,  ut  C.  De  spectac.,  per  totum 
titulum,  excepta  L  lenones,  lib.  xi  ;  et  C.  De  expen.  ludorum,  per  totum  eun- 
dem  librum.  Potest  .et  fieri  pugna  tendens  ad  sanguinis  effusionem,  ut  in 
torneamentis  et  in  duello  ad  mortem  tendente,  et  ista  sine  dubio  iure  novo 
Codicis  est  inhibita,  ut  C.  De  gladiat,,  lib.  xi,  et  ratio  prohibitionis  est  tacta, 
ubi  probatum  est  ipsum  inhibitum  iure  divino  et  iure  gentium.  Lege  autem 
veteri  apparet  permissum,  ut  1.  hac  actione,  §  si  quis  in  colluctatione,  ff.  Ad 
leg.  Aquiliam.  Sed  fortissime  instabis  sic.  Tu  dicis,  hoc  duellum  prohibitum 
iure  gentium,  sed  ius  civile  non  est  alia  aequitas  ab  aequitate  iuris  gentium, 
immo  est  ipsamet  aequitas  iuris  gentium,  addens  specificationerfi  et  limita- 
tionem  ipsius,  ut  1.  ius  civile,  ff.  De  iustit.  et  iure  ;  ergo  si  est  inhibitum  iure 
gentium,  non  poterit  esse  permissum  iure  civili,  alias  ius  civile  repugnabit  iuri 
gentium.  In  hoc  contrario  dubitavi,  sed  ponderavi  verba,  §  si  quis  in  col- 
luctatione, et  mentem  quam  credo  fuisse  legislatoris.  Et  pro  evidentia  pon- 
dero  quod  reperitur  triplex  permissio.  Quaedam  est  permissio  simplex,  quas 
est  remittens  et  indulgens  pcenam,  de  qua  habetur  iv  dist.,  denique,  nam,  ut 
ibi  notat  glossa,  ibi  fit  remissio  poenae,  non  culpae.  Secunda  permissio  est  quae 
tollit  impedimenta  eius  quod  permittitur,  ut  dicit  textus  quod  ludaei  permittun- 
tur  habitantes  inter  nos,  nam  tolluntur  impedimenta,  impedientia  ne  possint  se- 
cundum  eorum  ritus  habitare  nobiscum,  ut  xlv  dist.,  qui  sincera.  Reperitur  et 
tertia  permissio,  quas  praestat  iuvamen  actui  qui  permittitur,  secundum  quod 
dicimus  quod  ecclesia  aliquando  permittit  clericum  occidi  a  iudice  saeculari, 
praestando  iuvamen,  quia  ipsum  positive  tradit,  ut  cap.  cum  non  ab  homine, 
De  iudic. ;  et  cap.  ad  falsariorum,  De  crim.  falsi ;  et  cap.  novimus,  De  verb, 
significatione.  Secunda  permissio  addit  supra  primam,  quia  impedimentum 
tollit,  quod  non  faciebat  prima,  immo  solum  pcenam  remittebat.  Tertia  addit 
supra  secundam,  quia  praestat  iuvamen  actui  permisso,  quod  non  faciebat 
secunda,  immo  solum  impedimenta  tollebat.  Nunc  verba  applicando  ad  pro- 
positum,  si  bene  pondero,  §  si  quis  in  colluctatione,  ibi  textus  remittit  pcenam 
Occident!  in  colluctatione,  et  subditur  ratio,  quia  non  fit  iniuriae  causa.  Erit 
igitur  permissio  prima  pcenae  remissoria,  sed  nullibi  reperio  cautum  iure  quod 
hoc  duellum  sit  permissum  secunda  vel  tertia  permissione.  Haec  autem  non 
repugnant  quod  ius  gentium  inhibeat,  et  civilis  lex  poenam  remittat,  nam  lex 
civilis,  imponens  poenam  pro  homicidio,  imponit  propter  dolum,  et  sic,  quia 
hie  dolus  abest,  lex  civilis  poenam  remittit,  ut  supra  inductum  est.  Ex  his 
infertur  circa  hoc  genus  duelli,  quo  iure  inhibitum  sit,  et  quo  iure  permissum. 


Propter  quid  permissum,  et  propter  quid  inhibitum,  sit  duellum  ? 
Circa  quartum  membrum,  quo  quaerebatur  propter'  quid  sit  permissum 
et  propter  quid  inhibitum,  est  videndum  de  duello  quod  fit  gratia  purgationis, 
quo  iure  sit  inhibitum  et  quo  permissum.    Et  hoc  proprie  et  stricte  "  duellum  " 


184  DE  IVRE  BELLI 

apud  vulgares  nuncupatur.  Et  dico  quod  duellum  est  inhibitum  iure  divino, 
et  hire  gentium,  et  iure  positive.  Canonico,  indistincte.  Civili,  regulariter, 
sed  iure  Lombardo  in  casibus  permittitur,  ut  subdam,  cum  illos  discutiam. 

Qualiter  duellum  purgatorium  inhibitum  sit  iure  divino, 

Quod  iure  divino  inhibitum  sit  hoc  duellum,  probatur  sic.  Ille  actus  est 
inhibitus  iure  divino  per  quern  fit  Dei  temptatio.  Sed  hoc  duellum  est  huius- 
modi.  Ergo.  Probatur  maior  per  illud  prasceptum,  "  Non  temptabis  Do- 
minum  Deum  tuum."  Probatur  minor,  nam  tune  temptatur  Deus,  cum  per- 
quiritur  aliquid  contra  naturam,  quod  non  est  producibile,  nisi  miraculo 
divino,  sic  est  directe  in  hoc  duello  purgationis.  Nam  naturale  est  quod  for- 
tior  et  ingeniosior  vincat  minus  fortem,  et  minus  ingeniosum.  Nee,  econtra, 
fieri  potest  ordine  naturali,  sed  aliquando  minus  fortis  et  minus  ingeniosus 
fovet  iustitiam,  et  per  duellum  quaerimus  ut  victoriam  obtineat,  et  eius  iustitia 
declaretur.  Sic  igitur  Deus  temptatur,  ut  miraculum  faciat.  Confirmatur. 
Ille  actus  est  inhibitus  iure  divino  qui  est  adinventus  fabricante  diabolo.  Hoc 
duellum  est  huiusmodi.  Ergo.  Probatur  maior.  Nam  nihil  commune  Dei 
ad  Diabolum,  lucis  ad  tenebras.  Minor  probatur  per  cap.  Mennam,  ii,  q.  v, 
et  cap.  consuluisti,  eadem  causa  et  quaestione.  Confirmatur.  Ille  actus 
est  inhibitus  iure  divino  per  quern  innocens  damnatur.  Hoc  duellum  est 
huiusmodi.  Ergo.  Probatur  maior.  Nam  Deus  non  vult  damnari  inno- 
centem,  xxii,  q.  ii,  cap.  quceritur.  Probatur  minor  per  cap.  significantibus,  De 
purg.  vulgari.  Ergo. 

Qualiter  duellum  purgatorium  inhibitum  sit  iure  gentium. 

Secundo  dixi,  hoc  duellum  inhibitum  iure  gentium.  Hoc  probatur  >ic. 
Ille  actus  est  inhibitus  iure  gentium  qui  repugnat  naturali  aequitati,  super  qua 
fundatum  est  ius  gentium.  Sed  duellum  purgationis  est  huiusmodi.  Ergo. 
Patet  maior.  Probatur  minor.  Nam  dictat  aequitas  iuris  gentium  delinquen- 
tes  puniri,  insontes  absolvi.  At  in  hoc  duello  contingit  quandoque  econtra. 
Ergo  inhibitum  iure  gentium.  Etiam  repugnat  illi  prascepto  "  quod  tibi  non 
ius,"  in  principio  Decretorum. 

Qualiter  duellum  purgatorium  inhibitum  sit  iure  canonifo. 

Dixi  et  ipsum  inhibitum  iure  canonico.  Hoc  claret  De  purg.  vulg.,  per 
totum  ;  De  pugnan.,  per  totum  ;  ii,  q.  v,  a  capitulo  consuluisti  usque  ad  finem 
quaestionis.  Et  rationes  possent  reddi  quae  redditae  sunt  ad  probandum  quod 
sit  inhibitum  iure  divino,  cum  ius  canonum  imitetur  prohibitiones  et  permissio- 
nes  legis  divinae.  Confirmatur.  Et  per  hoc  probatur  etiam  quod  iure  civili  sit 
inhibitum.  Nam  actus  ille  est  inhibitus  iure  positive,  per  quern  fit  exclusio  ob- 
servantiae  iuris  positivi.  Hoc  duellum  est  huiusmodi.  Ergo.  Probatur  maior. 
Nam  si  observantia  est  mandata  a  lege  positiva,  ergo  observantiae.  exclusio  est 
inhibita,  ut,  sicut  propositum  in  proposito,  ita  oppositum  in  opposite,  ff.  De  his 


DE  DVELLO  PVRGATORIO  185 

qui  sunt  sui  vel  al.  iur.,  1.  i ;  Instit.,  eod.  tit.,  in  princip. ;  xxxii  dist.,hospitiolum. 
Probatur  minor,  nam  iure  positive  introductas  sunt  actiones,  tarn  civiles  quam 
criminates,  et  tota  forma  iudiciaria,  per  quam  proceditur  ad  iura  partium 
declaranda,  ut  1.  properandum,  C.  De  iudiciis  ;  Authent.,  offeratur ;  et  1.  una, 
C.  De  litis  contest. ;  et  1.  prolatam,  C.  De  sentent.  et  interloc.  omn.  iudic. ;  et 
cap.  quoniam  contra,  De  probationibus  ;  ut  unicuique  reddatur  quod  suum  est, 
xii,  q.  ii,  cum  devotissimam ;  et  1.  iustitia,  ff.  De  iustit.  et  iure  ;  et  §  iustitia, 
Instit.,  eod.  titulo.  Sed  duellando  haec  observantia  penitus  excluditur.  Ergo 
hoc  duellum  est  iure  positive  inhibitum.  Confirmatur.  Ille  actus  est  iure 
positive  inhibitus  per  quem  partibus  iustitia  denegatur,  sed  hoc  duellum  est 
huiusmodi.  Ergo.  Probatur  maior,  quia  ad  hunc  finem  promulgata  sunt 
iura  positiva,  divinitus  per  ora  principum,  ut  1.  ult.,  C.  De  long,  tempo, 
prescript. ;  viii  dist.,  quo  iure  ;  xvi,  q.  i,  placuit.  Probatur  miner,  nam  per 
hoc  duellum  aliquando  contingit  innocentem  succumbere  in  duello,  et  sic  sibi 
iniuriam  irrogari,  et  aliquando  contingit  nocentem  obtinere,  et  sic  non  fit 
iustitia  provocanti.  Ex  his  infertur  hoc  genus  duelli  quod  fit  propter  purga- 
tionem  et  criminis  impetitionem  fore  inhibitum  iure  positive  ;  canonico,  in- 
distincte  ;  civili,  regulariter. 

Qualiter  duellum  purgatorium  iure  civili  regulariter  sit  inhibitum. 

Dixi  etiam  regulariter  iure  civili  inhibitum  hoc  duellum.  Fallit  tamen 
in  duobus  casibus  per  Legem  Frederici,  De  pace  tenenda  et  eius  violatoribus, 
ut  puta,  si  quis  intra  tempera  pacis  hominem  occiderit,  et  constet  de  homicidio, 
punitur  prena  capitali,  ut  fractor  pacis,  nisi  per  duellum  probare  voluerit  quod 
hoc  fecerit  se  defendendo,  et  est  ille  specialis  casus  quo  duellum  est  in  optione 
rei.  Alter  casus,  si  intra  tempera  pacis  vulneraverit,  punietur,  nisi  probare 
voluerit  quod  hoc  fecerit  se  defendendo.  Hi  duo  casus  habentur  De  pace 
tenenda  et  eius  violatoribus,  1.  una,  primus  in  §  si  quis  hominem  infra  pacem, 
secundus  in  §  si  quis  alium,  in  eadem  lege.  In  aliis  autem  casibus  permittitur 
iure  Lombardorum,  ut  infra  prosequar.  Ex  his  concluditur  tertium  principale 
membrum  huius  tractatus,  scilicet,  quo  iure  sit  duellum  introductum,  et  quo 
inhibitum,  distinguendo  singulas  species  duelli.  Per  praedicta  igitur  patet 
explicatio  quarti  membri  videlicet,  propter  quid  inhibitum,  et  propter  quid 
permissum.  Nam  duellum  primum  omni  iure  est  inhibitum,  et  nullo  permis- 
sum,  et  propter  quid  supra  apparuit.  Sic  de  secundo,  et  sic  de  tertio,  singula 
tacta  singulis  membris  ad  hoc  propositum  reducendo. 


In  quibus  casibus  duellum  purgatorium  permittatur  ?  [c»P.  ch«i.] 

Circa  quintum  principale,  videlicet,  in  quibus  casibus  permittatur  duel- 
lum, est  videndum.  De  prima  specie  dictum  est  quod  nullo  casu.  De  secunda 
specie  dictum  est  qualiter.  De  tertia  specie  nunc  videndum,  cum  ilia  iure 
Lombardo  pluribus  casibus  permittatur,  et  solum  circa  tertiam  speciem  insi- 
stendum  usque  ad  finem  tractatus. 


186  DE  IVRE  BELLI 

Oualitcr  duellum  f>nrgatorium  iurc  J.ombardo  in  xx  casibus  /tcrmittatur. 

Quaerendum  est  igitur,  quibus  'casibus  hoc  duellum  permittatur,  ultra 
duos  supra  notatos,  qui  habentur  in  Lege  Fredcrici,  De  pace  tenenda  et  eius 
violatoribus  ?  Solutio.  Permittitur  duellum  in  crimine  legis  luliae  maiestatis, 
ruin  quis  alium  impetit  super  illo  crimine,  ut  in  Lombarda,  De  publicis  crimi- 
nibus,  1.  si  ^«is,  et  est  ultima.  Fit  secundo,  cum  dicitur  uxorem  conciliatam 
in  mortem  viri,  ut  in  Lombarda,  De  consilio  mortis,  1.  si  mulier,  et  est  ultima. 
Fit  et  tertio,  in  iniuria  cucurbitationis,  ut  si  quis  aliquem  vocaverit  "  cucur- 
bitam,"  ut  in  Lombarda,  De  conviciis,  1.  si  quis  alium.  Fit  et  quarto  casu, 
de  homicidio  commisso  intra  treugam,  ut  in  Lombarda,  De  homicidio,  1.  qui 
infra  treugam.  Fit  quinto,  pro  homicidio  commisso  in  absconso,  ut  in  Lom- 
barda, De  homicidio,  1.  liber  homo.  Fit  sexto,  in  crimine  parricidii,  si  dicatur 
commissum  propter  cupiditatem  bonorum  ipsius,  ut  in  Lombarda,  De  parri- 
cidio,  1.  ult.,  in  fine.  Fit  septimo,  de  furto  commisso  a  servo,  si  dominus 
negaret  servum  suum  fecisse  furtum,  ut  in  Lombarda,  De  furtis,  1.  si  quis 
alium,  et  fuit  lex  convalcosiana,  secundum  quosdam.  Fit  octavo,  in  crimine 
adulterii,  ut  si  quis  accusetur  adulterasse  uxorem  alterius,  ut  in  Lombarda,  De 
adulterio,  1.  iii.  Fit  nono,  si  quis  dicat  aliquam  mulierem  adulteratam,  et  sic 
probare  velit,  ut  in  Lombarda,  De  iniur.  mulier.,  1.  ii,  incipit  si  quis  puellam. 
Fit  decimo,  si  dicatur  quem  malo  ordine  possedisse  rem  mobilem  sive  immo- 
bilem  xxx  annis,  ut  in  Lombarda,  De  prescript.,  1.  si  quis  alium.  Fit  unde- 
cimo,  inter  contraries  testes,  ut  in  Lombarda,  De  testi.,  1.  si  quis  cum  alter o  ; 
quod  procedit  si  producantur  ab  utraque  parte,  si  autem  ab  eadem  parte,  ncn 
fit  duellum.  Nam  aut  actor  probat,  et  condemnatur  reus,  aut  nihil  probat,  et 
absolvitur  reus.  Sed  si  ab  utraque  parte  producantur,  et  cetera  sint  paria, 
tune  fit  duellum.  Fit  duodecimo,  propter  debitum  paternum,  contra  filium 
negantem,  ut  in  Lombarda,  Qualiter  quis  se  defendat,  et  in  quibus  casibus 
pugna  prohiberi  vel  fieri  debeat,  1.  si  ^wis  post  mortem.  Et  verus  intellectus 
illius  legis  est  quod  intelligatur  debitum  ex  maleficio.  Fit  tertiodecimo,  prop- 
ter incendium,  si  agatur  contra  malefactorem,  ut  in  Lombarda,  Qualiter  quis 
se  defen.,  etc.,  1.  si  quis  alium.  Non  autem  fit  si  agatur  contra  conciliatorem, 
ut  in  Lombarda,  De  consiliis  illicitis,  1.  una,  in  fine.  Fit  quartodecimo,  pro 
adulterio,  ut  si  maritus  dicat  uxorem  suam  adulteram  esse,  ut  in  Lombarda, 
Qualiter  quis  se  defendat,  etc.,  1.  si  quis  uxorem.  Fit  quintodecimo,  si  maritus 
suspicetur  quod  quis  turpiter  se  habuerit  cum  uxore,  et  intelligit  lex  turpiter 
tangendo,  ut  in  Lombarda,  Qualiter  quis  se  defendat,  etc.,  si  quis  amodo.  Fit 
et  sextodecimo  pro  periurio,  ut  in  Lombarda,  Qualiter  quis  se  defendat,  etc., 
1.  de  furto.  Fit  septimodecimo,  etiam  duellum  pro  investitura,  ut  si  quis 
dicat  se  primo  investitum,  et  de  possessione  eiectum,  et  alius  dicat  idem,  ut  1. 
de  investitum.  Fit  octavodecimo,  pro  deposito  negate,  ut  si  depositum  sit 
ultra  solidos  xx,  ut  1.  si  quis  pro  se.  Fit  nonodecimo,  si  dicatur  quod  aliquis 
cartam  per  vim  extorserit,  ut  1.  si  ^«is  dixit,  in  Lombarda,  Qualiter  quis  se 
<li  fcndat,  etc.  Vicesimo  et  ultimo,  fit  duellum  pro  libertate  petita  a  servo, 
ut  1.  si  serous.  Quidam  dicunt  quod  ilia  lex  fuit  convalcosiana. 


QVALITER  FIAT  DVELLVM  ?  187 

Inter  quos  iniri  debeat  duellum  ?  [cap. 

Circa  sextum  principale,  videlicet,  inter  quos  iniri  possit  duellum,  est 
videndum. 

Qualiter  duellum  purgatorium  inter  principales  regulariter  fieri  debeat  ? 

Et  dico  quod  hoc  habet  regula,  attento  iure  Lombardo,  quo  duellum  per- 
mittitur  in  casibus  supra  narratis,  quod  duellum  sit  inter  principales.  Sed  ilia 
regula  fallit  in  octo  casibus.  Primus,  si  iuvenilis  aetas  impediat.  Secundus, 
si  aetas  decrepita,  nam  in  ea  labor  et  dolor.  Tertius,  si  innrmitas  aliqua  duel- 
lare  prohibeat.  Isti  tres  casus  habentur  in  Lombarda,  Qualiter  quis  se  de- 
fendat,  etc.,  1.  quacunque  lege ;  et  De  parricidio,  1.  ultima.  Quartus  est,  si 
servus,  qui  est  in  quasi  possessione  servitutis,  proclamat  in  liberta'tem,  tune 
dominus  duellat  per  campionem,  ut  in  Lombarda,  Qualiter  quis  se  defendat, 
etc.,  1.  si  quis  servus  propter  appetitum.  Quintus,  si  ecclesiastica  sit  persona, 
ut  puta  clericus,  vel  Comes,  causas  habent  adinvicem,  vel  cum  aliis,  tune 
pugnant  per  campionem,  ut  in  Lombarda,  Qualiter  quis  se  defendat,  1.  finali. 
Sextus,  ubi  mulier  accusatur  de  adulterio,  ut  in  Lombarda,  eod.  tit.,  1.  si  quis 
uxorem.  Septimus,  si  testes  actons  sunt  contrarii  testibus  rei,  tune  testes 
actoris  debent  assumere  unum  campionem,  et  testes  rei  assumere  alium,  ex 
testibus  met.  ^  ut  in  Lombarda,  eod.  tit.,  1.  si  quis  cum  altero.  Octavus, 
si  servus  accusetur  de  furto,  ut  in  Lombarda,  De  furtis,  1.  si  servus,  dum  de 
furto.  Hodie  tamen  de  consuetudine  permittitur  cuilibet  habere  campionem. 


Qualiter  fiat  duellum  ?  [Cap.  ^j, 

Circa  septimum  principale,  scilicet,  qualiter  fiat  duellum,  est  videndum. 

Qualiter  duellum  purgatorium  ad  instar  sit  iudicii  contentiosi  ? 

Et  hie  praemitto  quod  duellum  est  redactum  ad  instar  iudicii  contentiosi, 
nam  sicut  in  iudicio  contentioso  sunt  actor,  reus,  iudex,  instrumenta  causam 
instruentia,  per  quae,  largo  modo  sumpta  pro  quibuscunque  causam  instruen- 
tibus,  ut  1.  i,  ff.  De  fide  instrum.,  fit  veritatis  declaratio,  ut  feratur  definitiva 
sententia,  sic  in  duello  sunt  actor  et  reus,  ut  puta  provocans  et  provocatus, 
iudex,  instrumenta,  utpote  arma,  quibus  se  invicem  percutiunt.  Nam  sicut 
in  iudicio  contentioso  quis  alium  convincit  testibus,  scripturis,  et  confessioni- 
bus,  ut  De  restit.  spol.,  cum  ad  sedem,  sic  in  duello  arrm's  corporalibus  con- 
vincit, ut  sicut  in  primo  sic  convictus  est,  in  casu  condemnationis,  sic  a  simili 
convictus  in  hoc.  Ad  similitudinem  igitur  iudicii  contentiosi  quserendum  est 
de  hoc  iudicio,  scilicet,  duellari. 


[16] 

~- 


i88  DE  IVRE  BELLI 

(Cap.  cixxtx.)  An  iuramentiim  de  astu  inter  duellantcs  sit  pr&standum  d  per  quern  ? 

Et  primo  quaere,  utruin  iuramentum  de  astu  sit  praestandum,  et  an  per 
provocantem  et  provocatum,  an  per  alterum,  et  per  quern  ?  Et  iuramentum 
de  astu  in  hoc  iudicio  idem  est  quod  iuramentum  de  calumnia  in  iudicio  con- 
tentioso  fori  civilis  vel  ecclesiastici.  Et  videtur  quod  uterque  iurare  debeat. 
Nam  iuramentum  de  calumnia  praestatur  in  iudicio  contentioso  per  acton  m 
et  reum,  ut  1.  i  et  1.  ii,  C.  De  iur.  calumn.,  et  Authent.,  principalcs,  eod.  tit.  ; 
Extra.,  eod.  tit.,  per  totum.  Ergo  hie  a  simili,  cum  sit  eadem  ratio,  et  ric 
eadem  iuris  dispositio,  ff.  Ad  leg.  Aquil.,  1.  iUud  ;  C.  Ad  leg.  Falc.,  1.  ult.  ; 
De  constitut.,  translate ;  cum  similibus.  Solutio.  Hie  fuerunt  opiniones 
variae,  attento  iure  Lombardo.  Vna  fuit  opinio,  et  fertur  quod  fuit  Mantua- 
norum,  quod  in  hoc  iudicio  duellari  praestatur  sacramentum  de  astu  ab  utroque, 
tarn  ab  actore  quam  a  reo,  et  sic,  secundum  eos,  corriguntur  omnia  iura  loquen- 
tia  de  sacramento  de  astu  non  praestando.  Adducunt,  quod  habetur  in  Lom- 
barda,  Qualiter  quis  se  defendat,  1.  mentio.  Sed  ilia  lex  habet  quatuor  intdl<v 
tus.  Vnus,  quod  intelligatur  in  testibus  contrariis,  ut  potius  fiat  duellum  quam 
periurent.  Secundus,  quod  intelligatur  in  duobus  contendentibus  se  possidere, 
ut  potius  duellent  quam  deirent.  Tertius,  quod  intelligatur  in  eo  contra  quern 
iuratum  est,  quod  furtum  commiserit,  et  ille  vult  iurare  contrarium.  Quartus, 
cum  duo  litigant  coram  iudice,  et  unus  iuravit  de  lato  iuramento,  et  alter  vult 
iurare  contra.  Horum  sententia  reprobari  videtur,  quia  non  est  hoc  cautum 
iure,  immo  contrarium,  ex  parte  rei,  ut  solus  actor  iuret,  ut  in  Lombarda, 
Qualiter  quis  se  defendat,  1.  si  quis  alium  astu.  Fallit  ubi  fit  duellum  propter 
contrarietatem  testium,  ut  in  Lombarda,  De  testi.,  1.  fin.  ;  et  Qualiter  quis 
se  defendat,  1.  si  quis  cum  alio.  Secunda  fuit  opinio  Domini  Caroli  Bene- 
ventani,  qui  voluit  distinguere  an  quis  veniat  ad  duellandum  in  causa  ipsum 
totaliter  contingente,  aut  prorsus  aliena,  an  principaliter  aliena,  secundario  sua. 
In  primo  casu,  utpote  cum  quis  provocat  aliquem  super  furto,  vel  incendio, 
sibi  facto,  vel  adulterio  uxoris  suae,  tune  refert  aut  provocando  dicit,  "  tu  com- 
misisti,"  aut  dicit,  "  suspicor  quod  commiseris."  Primo  casu,  debet  iurare  rem 
ita  esse.  Secundo  casu,  debet  iurare  quod  iustam  habet  suspicionem,  et  cum 
provocat  ratione  suspicionis,  debet  addicere  causam  suspicionis,  utpote  quod 
ipsum  viderit  loqui  cum  uxore  sua,  et  sic  de  aliis.  Si  autem  provocat  ad  duellum 
in  causa  aliena,  id  est,  non  propter  aliquid  commissum  contra  se,  sed  contra 
alium,  utpote  cum  provocat  super  criminc  laesae  maiestatis,  tune,  cum  accedat, 
ut  testis,  debet  iurare  sic  esse,  ut  praestatur  iuramentum  testis,  ut  C.  De  testi.,  I. 
iurisiurandi ;  De  testi.,  cap.  tuis,  et  cap.  cum  nuntius  ;  cum  similibus.  Et  sic 
dicit  in  reo,  ut  iuret  rem  sic  non  esse.  Haec  opinio,  quoad  sacramentum  rei, 
reprobatur,  ut  supra  proxima.  Tertia  fuit  opinio,  et  fertur  fuisse  Papiensium, 
videlicet,  quod  ex  parte  rei  et  provocati  nullum  praestari  debeat  iuramentum, 
sed  ex  parte  actoris.  De  actore  probatur  in  Lombarda,  Qualiter  quis  se  defendat, 
1.  si  quis  astu.  De  reo  probant.  Nam  reus  tenetur  ad  alterum  duorum,  vel 
pugnet,  vel  si  renuit,  condemnetur.  Sic  igitur  iuramentum  pro  parte  rei  nihil 
operatur,  et  sic  ut  superfluum  resecandum,  1.  ampliorem,  §  in  refutatoriis,  C.  De 


DE  CAMPIONIBVS  189 

appel. ;  1.  non  cogendum,  §  Sabinus,  ft.  De  procuratoribus.  Quarta  fuit  opinio, 
et  fuit  cuiusdam  Alberti,  qui  voluit  dicere  quod  actor  semper  iurat  praeterquam 
in  crimine  laesae  maiestatis,  et  testibus  contrariis,  et  investitura  praedii.  In 
reo  concordat  cum  aliis,  praeterquam  cum  Papiensibus.  Et  hoc  credo  in  actore 
verum,  quod  regulariter  praestet,  praeterquam  in  casibus  de  quibus  supra.  Et 
est  ratio  ut  compellatur  reus  se  purgare,  non  praecedente  aliquo  iudicio  contra 
eum.  Immo  volunt  iura,  ad  minus  praecedere  infamiam,  et  deficientibus  pro- 
bationibus  exponitur  purgationi,  De  purgat.  canon.,  per  totum  ;  ii,  q.  iv,  per 
totum  ;  De  accusat.,  qualiter,  ii,  et  ibi  notandum.  Sic  igitur  iure  Lombardo, 
quo  duellum  permittitur  in  casibus  supra  enumeratis,  ad  minus  ex  parte  actoris 
praecedat  iuramentum,  et  iuramentum  debet  esse  conforme  provocationi,  ut 
si  provocat  de  rei  existentia,  sic  iuret  si  de  suspicione,  sic  etiam  iuret  ut  etiam 
differentia  notatur  inter  iuramentum  calumniae  et  veritatis,  ut",  unum  de 
credulitate,  aliud  de  veritate,  ut  dixit  dominus  Carolus.  In  reo  autem  non 
concipio  rationem  necessitatis  iuramenti. 


An  uni  parti  data  campione,  in  casibus  a  iure  permissis,  licitum  sit  alteri  parti 

dare  campionem  ? 

Secundo  quaero,  numquid  si  alicui  partium  detur  campio,  in  casibus  per- 
missis a  iure  Lombardo,  qui  sunt  octo,  ut  supra  notavi,  an  tune  liceat  alteri 
parti  dare  campionem  ?  Solutio.  Hie  fuerunt  opiniones  variae.  Aliqui 
dicunt  quod  sic.  Allegant  quod  habetur  in  Lombarda,  Qualiter  quis  se  defen- 
dat,  1.  quicunque.  Fallit  in  casu  ubi  servus  contendit  contra  dominum. 
Secunda  fuit  opinio,  quod  alteri  parti  non  liceat.  Tune  et  est  ratio.  Nam 
lex  tune  in  tribus  casibus  permittit,  ergo  denegat  in  aliis,  ut  ff.  De  legi.,  1.  ius 
singulare ;  ff.  Ad  municip.,  1.  i  ;  ff.  Solut.  matrimon.,  1.  si  cum  dotem  ;  C.  De 
procur.,  1.  maritus  ;  De  translatione  praelatorum,  cap.  inter  corporalia ;  cum 
similibus.  Ego  credo  hie  ponderandum  quod  in  hoc  [refert]  differt  hoc  iudi- 
cium  duelli  a  iudicio  contentioso,  nam  in  iudicio  contentioso  regulariter  quis 
per  alium  litigat,  et  propter  hoc  inventus  est  procuratorum  usus,  ut  ff.  De 
procurat.,  1.  i,  et  [1.]  §  usus;  sed  in  duello  regulariter  solum  per  se,  et  in  hoc 
aequiparatur  iudicio  criminali,  in  quo  non  intervenit  procurator  ad  causas 
causae  allegandas,  ff.  De  public,  iudic.,  1.  paenult.,  §  qui  ad  crimen  ;  et  1. 
servum  quoque,  §  publice,  ff.  De  procurat.  ;  et  cap.  licet,  et  cap.  veniens,  De 
accusationibus.  Et  est  ratio,  quia  in  persona (?)  procuratoris  non  potest  ferri 
sententia  condemnatoria,  quia  innocens  ;  in  personam  domini,  non,  quia  absens, 
ff.  De  poenis,  1.  absentem  ;  sic  directo  in  duello,  nam  in  duello  duellantes  ad 
prostrationem  personarum  tendunt,  ut  ex  hoc  eliciatur  veritas  per  hoc  genus 
probationis.  Et  sic  regulariter  non  intervenit  campio,  praeterquam  in  casibus 
permissis.  Si  igitur  emergat  casus  dandi  campionis  ex  parte  unius,  et  non 
emergat  ex  parte  alterius,  ille  solus  dabit  campionem.  Si  autem  utrinque 
emergat  casus,  uterque  dabit,  nisi  dicas  propter  aequalitatem  hinc  inde  servan- 


DE  IVRE  BELLI 

dam,  ubi  licitum  uni  det  alter,  ut  1.  terminate,  C.  De  fruct.  et  lit.  expcnsis; 
De  mutuis  petit.,  cap.  i,  et  per  totum  titulum  ;  regula  non  licet,  De  regul.  iur., 
Lib.  VI  ;  et  hoc  sapit  aequitatem,  sed  prius  dictum  verius  de  rigore  iuris. 


lc*p.cUi«L]         Qualiter  in  casibus  hinc  inde,  cum  conceditur  campio,  fiet  ipsorum  datio 

et  concessio  ? 

Tertio  quaero,  qualiter  in  casibus  hinc  inde,  cum  conceditur  campio,  net 
ipsorum  datio  et  concessio  ?  Solutio.  Hie  pondero  quod,  sicut  in  foro  conten- 
tioso  causa  peroratur,  sic  per  campiones  in  iudicio  duellari,  et  sic  infero  quod, 
sicut  in  iudicio  contentioso  fieri  debet  aequa  advocatorum  distributio,  ut  1. 
providendum,  C.  De  postul.,  sic,  ubi  hinc  inde  fit  campionum  concessio,  debet 
fieri  ipsorum  aequa  distributio.  In  principalibus  autem  duellantibus  non  est 
ponderanda  aequalitas,  vel  inaequalitas,  cum  causam  propriam  propriis  viribus 
corporis  sponte  ad  exitum  perducant. 


leap. chxiii.]  An  quilibet  admittatur  pro  campionc  ? 

Quarto  quasro,  an  quilibet  admittatur  pro  campione  ?  Solutio.  Vt  dic- 
tum est,  hie  aequiparatur  campio  advocate,  sicut  igitur  quilibet  admittitur  ad 
postulandum,  nisi  sit  prohibitus,  ut  1.  i,  ff.  De  postul. ;  sic  quilibet  admittitur 
ad  officium  campionatus,  nisi  repellatur  a  iure.  Repellitur  autem  fur,  ut  in 
Lombarda,  Qualiter  quis  se  defendat,  1.  si  ut  campionem.  Et  est  ratio,  quia 
infamis,  ff.  De  furt.,  1.  non  potest ;  et  si  succumbit,  praesumitur]  ratione  proprii 
delicti  succumbere,  sic  et  alii  criminosi  gravibus  criminibus  irretiti,  ratione 
praedicta. 


(Cap.  cUxxiii.]  In  cuius  electione  sit  duellum  ? 

Quinto  quasro,  in  cuius  electione  est  duellum  ?  Solutio.  Kegulariter  in 
electione  actoris,  sicut  dicimus  in  iudicio  contentioso.  Hoc  habetur  in  Lom- 
barda, Qualiter  quis  se  defendat,  1.  si  quis  amodo.  Fallit  in  crimine  laesae 
maiestatis,  ubi  ex  necessitate  cogitur  duellare,  et  si  aliquis  dixerit  "  argam," 
ut  in  Lombarda,  De  publicis  criminibus,  1.  fin.  ;  et  in  Lombarda,  De  iniur. 
mulier.,  1.  ii. 


(Cap.  riuiiv.i  Qualiter  ordinetur  duellum  ? 

Sexto  quaero,  qualiter  ordinari  debeat  duellum  ?  Solutio.  lure  non  est 
cautum,  sed  consuetudine  observatur,  quod  eligatur  locus  parvus  amplus  in 
<  i\  itate  vel  extra,  qui  locus  circumcirca  claudatur  chordis,  ita  ut,  misso  banim, 
nullus  audeat  intrare  nisi  duellantes,  nee  audeat  tumultum  facere,  propter* 


DE  ARMIS  191 

quern  altera  pars  offendi  posset.  Et  iudex  erit  ibi,  in  loco  ut  videre  possit 
utrumque  duellantium,  et  qualiter  unus  alium  recipiat,  ut  finaliter  iudicet  in 
duello  an  quis  succubuerit. 

Quibus  armis  duellari  debeat  ?  [Cap. 

Septimo  quaero,  quibus  armis  duellari  debeat  ?  Solutio.  lure  Lom- 
bardo  permittuntur  scuta,  fustes,  ut  in  Lombarda,  De  testi.,  1.  si  quis  cum 
altero  ;  et  Qualiter  quis  se  defendat,  1.  mentio  ;  et  haec  debent  esse  aequalia  et 
a  iudice  praestari. 

An  si  arma,  seu  fustes,  unius  duellantium  frangantur,  vel  cadant,  [Cap. 

debeant  alia  dari  P 

Octavo  quaero,  quid  si  arma,  seu  fustes,  unius  duellantis  frangantur,  vel 
cadant,  an  debeant  alia  dari.  Et  videtur  quod  sic.  Nam  dicit  textus  quod 
pugna  debet  fieri  cum  fustibus  et  scutis,  ut  in  Lombarda,  Qualiter  quis  se  de- 
fendat, 1.  mentio  ;  et  in  Lombarda,  De  testi.,  1.  si  quis  cum  altero  ;  sed  nisi 
alia  darentur,  non  fieret  cum  fustibus.  Ergo.  Confirmatur.  Nam  fustes  in 
duello  aequiparantur  testibus  et  instruments  in  iudicio  contentioso,  sed  in  foro 
contentioso  fit  multiplicatio  productionis  testium  et  instrumentorum,  etiam 
si  aliquorum  dicta  frangantur  ante  publicationem  et  notitiam  dictorum,  ut  in 
Authent.,  De  testi.,  §  si  vero  ;  De  testi.,  fraternitatis  ;  et  Clemen.,  testibus, 
eod.  titulo.  Quidam  hoc  tenent  in  frangente,  secus  si  cadant,  quia  tune  debet 
imputari  fortunae  suse.  Alii  dicunt  quod  in  nullo  casu  sunt  praestanda,  sed 
imputari  debet  fortunae  suse.  Alii  dicunt  stari  consuetudini  super  hoc.  Ego 
credo  opinionem  secundam  fore  veram,  scilicet,  quod  non  sint  alia  praestanda, 
sive  cadant,  sive  frangantur,  nisi  aliud  habeat  consuetude  quae  operari  potest 
effectum,  ut  lex  ff.  De  legi.,  1.  de  quibus  ;  C.  Quae  sit  long,  consue.,  1.  ii ;  xi 
dist.,  consuetudinis  ;  i  dist.,  consuetudo.  Et  est  ratio.  Nam  in  duello,  ut  dixi 
in  principio  tractatus,  quaeritur  aliquando  quid  contra  naturam,  ut  quod  minus 
fortis,  et  quod  minus  industriosus,  vincat  fortiorem  et  magis  industriosum, 
quod  aliquando  contingat  casu  intercedente.  Ergo  uterque  duellantium  dimit- 
tendus  est  subiectioni  casuum  quibus  se  libere  exposuerunt,  alias  transiret 
natura  duelli  ad  purgationem  indicti.  Confirmatur.  Nam,  si  diceremus  dari 
nova  arma,  ubi  caderent,  sic  a  simili  diceremus  duellantem  cadentem  sublevari, 
quod  est  absurdum.  Nam'propter  hos  casus,  aliquando  contingit  potentiorem 
succumbere,  et  in  hoc  demonstratur  iudicium  divinum. 


Quis  duellantium  primo  percutere  debeat  ?  .  !CaP- 

Nono  quaero,  quis  in  duello  prius  percutere  debeat  ?  Et  videtur  quod 
provocans,  nam  hoc  iudicium  duellare  est  simile  iudicio  contentioso,  ut  supra 
tactum  est  saepius.  Sed  in  iudicio  contentioso  actor  primo  porrigit  libellum 
reo,  et  postea  reus  respondet,  ut  in  Authent.,  offeratur,  C.  De  lit.  contestat.  ;  et 


192  DE  IVRE  BELLI 

cap.  i,  De  libel,  oblatione.  Ergo  a  simili,  provocans  primo  percutiet  provo- 
catum.  In  contrarium  videtur,  reus  favorabilior  est,  ut  1.  Arrianus,  fi.  De 
obi.  et  act.  ;  et  regula  faivrabiliores,  fi.  De  regul.  iur.  ;  regula  in  pcenis,  eod. 
tit.,  lib.  vi.  Solutio.  Credo  primam  partem  veram,  nee  obstant  allegata  in 
contrarium,  quia  ilia  iura  loquuntur  in  finibus  iudiciorum,  cum  non  restat  nisi 
definitiva  sententia,  quia  tune  favendum  est  reo.  Sed  circa  principia  faven- 
dum  est  actori,  ut  1.  si  quis  intentions  ambigua,  fi.  De  iudic.  ;  et  1.  inter  slipu- 
lantem,  §  i,  ff.  De  verb,  obligationibus.  Vel  dici  posset  quod  hie  non  est  ser- 
vandus  ordo,  sed  locus  est  praeventioni  vel  etiam  concursui. 


(Cap.  cimvii,  i          An  dueUum,  prima  die  non  terminatum,  sequenti  die  possit  tcrminari? 

Decimo  quaer,o,  an,  si  duellum  terminari  non  possit  prima  die,  possit  ad 
sequentem  diem  deferri  ?  Solutio.  Dico  quod  sic.  Dico  enim  donee  finiatur 
instaurandum  est.  

ic*p  .ciuxix.]  An  succumbens  in  duello  condemnctur  in  cxpcnsis  ? 

Vndecimo  quaero,  numquid  succumbens  in  duello  debeat  in  expensis  con- 
demnari  adversario  ?  Solutio.  Ad  similitudinem  iudicii  contentiosi,  quo 
victus  victori  condemnatur  in  expensis,  ut  1.  properandum,  §  SIM  autem,  C.  De 
iudiciis  ;  et  1.  terminate,  C.  De  fruct.  et  lit.  expens.  ;  et  cap.  finem,  De  dolo 
et  contum.  ;  cap.  calumniam,  De  prenis.  Posset  sic  in  duello  dici  "  victus  vic- 
tori," etc. 

leap,  cxc.j  An  provocans  in  duello  succumbens  puniaiur  pccna  talionis  ? 

Duodecimo  quaero,  an  provocans  in  duello  succumbens  puniatur  pcena 
talionis  ?  Solutio.  Ad  similitudinem  iudicii  criminalis  contentiosi,  ubi  im- 
ponitur  pcena  talionis  accusanti  succumbenti,  ut  cap.  super  his,  De  accus.  ; 
et  cap.  licet,  eod.  tit.  ;  et  1.  fin.,  C.  De  accusat.  ;  sic  in  duello,  cum  duellatur 
propter  crimen  puniendum  ad  publicam  vindictam. 


|c*p.c«ci)     An  provocatus  ad  duellum  propter  crimen,  succumbens  et  condemnatus,  possit 
de  eodem  crimine  in  iudicio  contentioso  accusari  ? 

Tertiodecimo  quaero,  an  provocatus  ad  duellum  propter  crimen,  succum- 
bens et  condemnatus,  possit  de  eodem  crimine  accusari  in  iudicio  contentioso  ? 
Solutio.  Posset  dici  quod,  cum  hire  civili  duellum  purgatorium  non  approbe- 
tur,  immo  penitus  reprobetur,  ut  1.  una,  C.  De  glad.,  lib.  xi  ;  et  de  Jure  cano- 
nico,  ut  in  De  pugnant.  in  duello  ;  et  De  purg.  vulg.,  per  totum,  ut  etiam  supra 
in  principio  tractatus  tactum  fuit.  Haec  definitio,  lege  reprobata,  paret  praeiu- 
dicium  iuridicae  discussion!,  et  sic  non  obstat  cum  de  delicto  eiusdem  saepius 
non  sit  quaerendum,  ut  1.  licet,  in  fine,  ff.  Naut.  caup.  stabul.  ;  et  cap.  de  his, 
De  accusat.  ;  quia  ilia  iura  loquuntur,  cum  prior  cxaminatio  et  discussio  fuit 
iuridica,  et  sic  infertur  quod  absolutoria  lata  in  duello  non  parat  exceptionem 


AN  PROVOCANS  POSSIT  DESISTERE  ?  193 

rei  iudicatae,  accusare  volenti  in  iudicio  contentioso.  Haec  vera,  nisi  con- 
suetudo  regionis  aliud  induceret,  ut,  videlicet,  servaretur  lus  Lombardum, 
secundum  cuius  dispositionem  consecutus  sum  hunc  passum,  et  sic  limitandae 
sunt  solutiones  praecedentium  quaestionum. 


An  provocans  ad  duellum  propter  crimen  publicum,  desistens  a  duello,  incidat     [Cap. 

pcenam  Turpiliani  ? 

Quartodecimo  qusero,  numquid  provocans  ad  duellum  propter  crimen 
publicum,  desistens  a  duello,  incidat  poenam  Turpiliani  ?  Et  videtur  quod  sic, 
ad  instar  criminalis  iudicii  contentiosi,  ut  1.  i,  §  si  quis  autem,  ff.  Ad  Turpi- 
lianum.  Solutio.  lure  communi  non  procederet  quaestio,  cum  iure  communi 
sit  reprobatum  hoc  iudicium,  ut  supra.  Sed,  iure  quo  permissum,  posset  dici 
ex  eadem  aequitate  ipsum  puniendum,  et  dico  arbitrio  iudicis,  cum  non  sit  iure 
expressa,  De  offic.  iudicis  delegat.,  cap.  de  causis,  in  fine  ;  ff.  De  iur.  delib.  w, 
1.  i.  Poenam  tamen  Turpiliani  non  credo  ipsum  incidere,  cum  poenae  sint 
restringendae,  ut  1.  cum  quidam,  ff.  De  lib.  et  posth.  ;  et  §  pcente,  De  Posnit., 
dist.  i  ;  regula  in  pcenis,  De  reg.  iuris,  lib.  vi.  Haec,  ut  dixi,  iure  Lombardo 
procedunt.  Nam  iure  communi,  recedens  a  duello  non  punitur,  immo  talis 
legi  obtemperat,  et  prosequens  facit  contra  legem. 

An  provocans  ad  duellum  iure  Lombardo  possit  desistere  cum  licentia  iudicis  ?     (Cap. 

Quintodecimo  quaero,  numquid  provocans  ad  duellum  iure  Lombardo 
possit  desistere  cum  licentia  iudicis  ?  Apparet  quod  sic,  ad  instar  accusantis 
abolitionem  impetrantis,  ff.  Ad  Turpil.,  1.  abolitio,  et  1.  si  quis  interveniente, 
et  1.  Domitianus ;  C.  De  abolit.,  per  totum.  Solutio.  lure  communi  hoc 
clarum,  quia  sine  abolitione,  et  bene  facit.  lure  Lombardo  credo  etiam  quod 
iudex  ex  causa  concedere  potest,  ad  instar  accusatoris,  ut  supra  allegatum  est. 


An  provocans  ad  duellum  desistere  possit  sine  pcena  ante  litem  contestatam  ?       [Cap. 
Item  et  quando  in  duello  dicatur  Us  contestari  ? 

Sextodecimo  quaero,  an  provocans  ad  duellum  desistere  possit  sine  poena 
ante  litem  contestatam,  et,  cum  hoc,  etiam  quaero,  quando,  proportionaliter  in 
iudicio  contentioso,  in  duello  lis  dicatur  contestari  ?  Et  videtur  quod  ante 
sine  pcena  possit  desistere.  Nam  ante  litem  contestatam  non  dicitur  quis 
"  agere,"  sed  "  agere  velle,"  ut  1.  amplius,  ff.  Rat.  rem  haberi.  Ergo  ante 
desistere  poterit.  Confirmatur.  Nam  ante  litem  contestatam  desistenti  par- 
citur,  ff.  De  in  ius  vocando,  1.  quamvis.  Ergo.  Confirmatur,  per  1.  sine 
metu,  C.  De  adulter.  ;  et  ff.,  1.  miles,  §  socer,  eod.  tit.  ;  et  1.  qucesitum,  ff.  Ad 
Turpilianum.  In  contrarium  facit  1.  in  senatus,  §  qui  post,  ff.  Ad  Turpilia- 
num,  ubi  probat  textus  quod  desistens  ab  accusatione  ante  litem  contestatam 
incidat  in  Turpilianum.  Idem'  probat  1.  paenult,  C.  De  calumniatoribus, 


194  DE  IVRE  BELLI 

Solutio.  Haec  quaestio  praesupponit  alterius  quaestionis  decisionem,  scilicet, 
quando  lis  proportionaliter  contestari  dicatur  in  hoc  iudicio  duellari.  l.t 
videtur  quod  post  unam  percussionem  actons,  et  aliam  rei,  quia  in  iudicio 
contentioso  sic  fit  contestatio  per  petitionem  et  contradictionem  secutam,  ut  1. 
rem  non  novatn,  §  patroni,  C.  De  iudiciis  ;  et  Authent.,  offeratur,  C.  De  litis 
contestat.  ;  et  cap.  uno,  eod.  tit.,  Extra.  Sed  prima  percussio  habetur  loco 
libelli,  secunda  percussio,  quae  fit  a  reo,  est  contradictio,  ergo  sic  fit  litis  con- 
testatio. Contrarium  credo  verum,  scilicet,  quod  fiat  litis  contestatio,  cum 
provocat,  asserendo  quod  crimen  commiserit,  et  ille  negat.  Quod  hoc  sit 
verum  patet.  Nam  post  litem  contestatam  praestatur  iuramentum  de  calum- 
nia,  in  Authent.,  Vt  litigantes  iurent  in  exordio  litis,  in  princip.  ;  et  1.  ii,  C.  De 
[iuramento  calumniae]  iurehirando  propter  calumniam.  Sed  duellantes,  post 
hanc  verbalem  provocationem  et  contradictionem,  iurant  de  astu,  ut  supra 
deductum  est.  Incipit  ergo  duellum  a  verbali  proclamatione,  sed  percussurae 
habentur,  loco  probationum  per  testes  et  instrumenta,  quae  fiunt  post  litem 
contestatam,  Vt  lite  nan  contestata,  per  totum.  Et  sic  modifica  solutionem 
quaestionis  qua  quaesivi  quis  primo  percutere  debeat.  Hac  solutione  praemissa, 
principalis  quaestio  incidit  in  quaestionem  illam,  an  poena  Turpiliani  vindicet 
sibi  locum  ante  litem  contestatam.  Et  glossae  sunt  contrariae.  Vna  est  in  1. 
[si]  miles,  §  socer,  fi.  De  adulteriis,  et  fuit  Hugolini,  et  tenet  quod  non  incidat. 
Alia  est  in  1.  i,  C.  Ad  Turpilianum,  quae  tenet  quod  incidat,  et  fuit  Azonis,  et 
illam  credo  veram  per  1.  in  senatus,  §  qui  post,  fi.  Ad  Turpilianum  ;  et  per 
Authent.,  qui  semel,  C.  Quomodo  et  quando  iudex.  Tamen  dicit  Petrus  quod 
accusator  paenitere  potest  antequam  reus  citatus  veniat ;  sic  intelligit  1.  quasi- 
tum,  fi.  Ad  Turpilianum.  Et  simili  modo  habetur  solutio  praemissae  quaestionis, 
loquendo  de  iure  Lombardo,  ut  supra.  Deo  gratias. 

Explicit  tractatus  De  Bello  compilatus  per  me,  lohannem  de  Lignano 
de  Mediolano,  minimum  juris  utriusque  doctorem,  in  studio  Bononicn- 
si,  MCCCLX,  pendente  forti  exercitu  contra  civitatem,  qui  causam 
dedit  tractatui,  ut  Scholaribus  tune  causa  foret  exercitii,  Doctorum 
autem  subiceretur  correctioni.  Deo  gratias.  Amen. 


TABVLA  TRACTATVS 

TRactatus  iste  De  Bello  prima  sui  divisione  dividitur  in  tres  partes  princi-  [Cap.  i 
pales,  quarum  ultima  in  sex  tractatus  dividitur  et  subdividitur,  prout 
tibi  per  tabulam  istam  clarius  infra  demonstrabitur,  rubricellis  suis  suo  ordine 
collocatis. 

Prima  pars  principalis. 

/ 
Quid  sit  Bellum,  et  qualiter  describatur  ? 


Secunda  pars  principalis.  [Cap.  HJ 

De  divisione  Belli  et  qualiter  dividatur. 


Tertia  et  ultima  pars  principalis 
ponit  ordinem  tractatuum,  et  dividitur  in  sex  principales  tractatus. 

Primus  tractatus. 
De  Spirituali  Bello  Coelesti. 

Qualiter  Spirituale  Bellum  Cceleste  est  metrum  et  mensura  Spiritualis 
Humani  Belli. 

De  naturali  deductione  Spiritualis  Belli  corporum  coelestium  ad  bella 
terrestria. 

Qualiter,  secundum  astrologos  et  naturales  philosophos,  necessario  sit 
dare  bellum. 


Secundus  tractatus. 


De  Spirituali  Humano  Bello,  secundum  theologiam.  [CaPP.  HI -vi 

De  Spirituali  Humano  Bello,  secundum  moralem  philosophiam.  [CaPP.  vii,  v 


Tertius  tractatus,  [Cap.  i 

scilicet,  De  Vniversali  Corporali  Bello, 
et  iste  dividitur  in  sex  tractatus. 

[17]  195 


196  DE  IVRE  BELLI 

ic«p.  *.)  Primus  tractatus,  scilicet,  quo  iure  introductum  sil  ? 

Qualitcr  iure  divino  ortum  habuerit  Bellum  Vniversale  Corporale  ? 
ic«p.  ii.)         Qualiter  iure  gentium  ortum  habuerit  Bellum  Vniversale  Corporale  ? 


iiv.)  Secundiis  tractatus  tertii  principalis,  scilicet,  quibus  liceat  helium 

indicere  universale  ? 

Quibus  primo  et  principaliter,  et  quo  iure,  et  contra  quos,  belluin  indi- 
cere liceat  universale  ? 

ic«p.  iv.]  An  bellum  motum  per  Imperatorem  contra  Ecclesiam  sit  iustum,  et  an 
teneantur  subditi  in  hoc  obtemperare  ? 

[dp. xri ]  Quid  econtra  Juris  sit,  cum  Papa,  scilicet,  movet  bellum  contra  Impera- 
torem ? 


(c«p.  xvii.]         Tertius  tractatus  tertii  principalis,  scilicet,  qua  sint  aggregantia  bellum  ? 

De  legione  et  cohorte,  et  qui  et  quot  numero  in  eis  requirantur  ? 
[Cap.*™.]         Qualiter  milites  se  habere  debeant  in  bello,  et  cui  obediant,  et  a  quibus 

abstinere  praecipiuntur  ? 

[Cap  xi«.)         Quae  pertineant  ad  officium  ducis  belli  ? 
[Cap. «.]         Qualiter  varie  puniuntur  milites,  prout  varie  delinquunt  ? 
[Cap.  «i  ]         De  fortitudine,  et  ipsius  natura,  et  quse  fortitude  dicatur  moralis,  et  quae 

non,  et  quae  bellum  ducit  ad  finem  rectum,  et  quae  non  ? 
[Cap.  MM.)         An  fortitude  sit  virtus  cardinalis  ? 
[Cap.  «iii.)         Vnde  et  qualiter  quatuor  principals  virtutes  dicantur  morales  ? 

Quid  sit  virtus  ? 
[Cap.  xxv  1          De  triplici  specie  boni,  et  qualiter  quatuor  cardinales  virtutes  eliciantur 

a  bono  ? 

[Capp.«v,Mvi.]         Quomodo  et  qualiter  in  bello  quis  possit  dici  fortis  ? 
[Cap.  «vii.)         Quis  sit  principalior  actus  fortitudinis  ? 

Quot  generibus  fortitudinis  quis  utatur  in  bello  ? 

(Cap .  ».iii.|         An  fortis  in  bello  potius  debeat  mortem  exspectare  quam  fugcn-  ? 
(Cap.  »ix.|         An  miles  unacum  comitiva  sua  viriliter  in  hostes  prorumpens,  ct  ipsos 

totaliter  confringens,  contra  mandatum  ducis,  sit  capite  puniendus  ? 
[Cap.  «>.]         An  duci  belli  capto  ab  hostibus  sit  venia  concedenda  ? 

Quartus  tractatus  tertii  principalis,  et  dividitur  in  duas  sui  principales  paries. 

(Cap.  i«i.]  Prima  pars,  scilicet,  qui  teneantur  ad  bellum  accedere  ? 

An  a  domino,  moto  iusto  bello,  teneantur  vassalli  ad  bellum  accedere 
propriis  expensis  ? 

icap.«.ii|         An  subditi  uni  baroni  moventi  guerram  contra  regem  suum,  teneantur 
iuvare  ipsum  baronem  contra  regem  ? 


DE  VNIVERSALI  CORPORALI  BELLO  197 

An  subditi  uni  baroni,  moventi  guerram  alter!  baroni,  teneantur  ipsum  [cap.  xxxiii. 
prime,  vel  regem,  moventem  guerram  alteri  regi,  iuvare  utriusque  mandate 
uno  concursu  recepto  ? 

An  vassallus  non  legius  duorum  dominorum,  utrumque  vel  alterum,  et  [Cap.  xxxiv. 
quern,  iuvare  teneatur  ? 

An  vassallus  teneatur  iuvare  dominum  contra  patrem,  vel  pater  contra  [Cap.  xxxv.] 
filium  ? 

An  civis  duarum  civitatum  teneatur  iuvare  unam  contra  aliam  ? 

An  vassallus  vocatus  a  domino  teneatur  ipsum  sequi  in  partibus  ultra-  [CaP.  xxxvi. 
marinis,  ad  pugnandum  contra  barbaros  ? 

An  servi  teneantur  ubique  sequi  dominum  ad  bellum  ?  leap,  xxxvn. 

An  liberti,  vocati,  teneantur  sequi  patronum  ad  bellum  ?  [Cap.  xxxvm 

An  agricolae,  vocati,  teneantur  sequi  dominum  ad  bellum  ?  [cap.  xx»x. 

An   confederates,   seu  colligates,   possit   dominus   provocare  ut  ipsum  [CaP.  *i.] 
iuvent  in  bello  ? 

An  subditi,  ratione  iurisdictionis  tantum,  teneantur  ad  bellum  accedere  ?  tcap.«ii.] 

Secunda  pars,  scilicet,  de  personis  non  astrictis  ad  bellum  libere  accedentibus,  et    tc«P.  xiii.j 

dividitur  in  sex  principales  partes. 

Prima  pars,  scilicet,  de  libere  accedentibus. 

An  libere  accedentes  obligent  sibi  ilium  in  cuius  servitium  vadunt,  si  dam- 
num  inde  patiantur  ? 

An  commodatarius  teneatur  commodanti  equos  et  arma  in  bello  deper-  [Cap.  xiiii.j 
dita  resarcire. 

An  conductor  teneatur  locatori  equos  et  arma  in  bello  deperdita  re-  [cap.xiiv.] 
sarcire  ? 

An  provocans  contra  spoliatorem  provocati,  ad  bellum  accedentis,  aget  lCaP-  xiv.j 
vi  bonorum  raptorum,  vel  furti  ? 

An  non  vocati,  sed  proprio  motu  accedentes,  ad  bellum  obligent  sibi  [CaP.  xivi.] 
ilium  in  cuius  servitium  vadunt  ? 

An  non  vocati,  sed  proprio  motu  ad  bellum  accedentes,  et  utiliter  profi-  [CaP.  xivii.j 
cientes,  obligent  sibi  ilium  renitentem  et  contradicentem  in  cuius  servitium 
vadunt  ? 

Secunda  pars  de  accedentibus,  quia  tenentur  ad  antidota.  t^p-  *Iviii-J 

An  talis  agat  contra  ilium  quern  iuvat  ? 

Tertia  pars  de  accedentibus  propter  gloriam  consequendam.  [CaP.  xiu.] 

An  tales  obligent  sibi  ilium  in  cuius  subsidium  vadunt  ? 

Quarta  pars  de  accedentibus,  quia  locant  operas  suas.  [CaP.  i.j 

An  tales  agant  contra  conductores  ? 


198  DE  IVRE  BELLI 

[Cap.  H.)  Quinta  pars  de  acccdentibus  aninto  spoliandi. 

An  talibus  actio  competat  ? 

IC«P-  >"•)  Sexta  pars. 

An  clerici  ad  bellum  accedere  possint  ? 

An  stipendiarii  in  Alamania,  constitute  salario  per  conducentem,  agant 
contra  eum,  qui  dum  venirent,  amisit  totaliter  statum  suum  ? 

[Cap.Hii]         An  stipendiarii  assumpti  de  Alamania  per  civitatem  Italicam,  consti- 
tute salario  per  annum,  qui  dum  venirent,  ci vitas  violenter  occupata  est  per 
tyrannum,  agant  ad  salarium  in  totum,  aut  pro  rata,  vel  ad  quid  ? 
[c«p.  iiv.;         An  quando  solvi  debeat  stipendiariis,  an,  scilicet,  in  principio  cuiuslibet 

mensis,  an  in  fine  ? 
[Cap.  u.]         An  stipendiarii  se  absentantes,  etiam  de  licentia  domini,  aliquo  tempore, 

perdant  salarium  pro  illo  tempore  ? 

[c»p.ivi.]         An  si  stipendiarii  culpa  sua  servire  nolint  toto  tempore  firmae  suae,  per- 
dant stipendium  totius  temporis,  an  tantum  pro  tempore  quo  non  servierint  ? 
[Cap.  iriL]         An  stipendiarius  servire  possit  per  substitutum  ? 
[Cap.  iriiij         An  stipendiarius  perdat  stipendium  tempore  quo  infirmatur  ? 


[Cap.  HX.J  Quintus  tractatus  tertii  principalis,  scilicet,  de  spoliis  et  capturis  qua 

fiunt  in  bello. 

An  aliquid  capiens  in  bello  efficiatur  dominus  personae  captas  et  rei,  et  an 

sit  locus  postliminio  ? 
(Cap.  ix.j         An  capti  in  bello  duarum  civitatum  efficiantur  servi,  et  dominium  eorum 

quaeratur  ? 

[Cap.  hi.]         An  capta  in  bello  efficiantur  capientium  ? 
(Cap.  uii.)         An  in  bellis  licitum  sit  insidiis  uti  ? 
[Cap.  MIL]         (Desunt  hie  verba  "  an  in  festis  licitum  sit  bellare  ?  ".) 
[Cap.  iiiv.]         An  consecutus  in  bello  totum  suum  interesse,  possit  iterum  adversarium 

in  iudicio  convenire,  vel  bellum  iterate  contra  eum  indicere  ? 
[Cap.  hn'.}         An  morientes  in  bello  salventur  ? 
[Cap.u»i.]         An  pro  rebus  et  possessionibus  Ecclesiae  corporali  bello  bellare  liceat,  et 

super  hoc  mih'tes  convocare  ? 

leap,  iirii.)         An  liceat  episcopis  ad  bellum  accedere  sine  licentia  Papae  ? 
[Cap.hriu.1         An  praelati  pro  temporalibus,  quae  tenent  ab  Imperatore,  teneantur  sol- 

vere  tributum  pro  beUis  ab  eo  indictis  ? 
[Cap.  i»i«.]         An  captis  in  bello  iusto  sit  miserendum  ? 
[Cap.  i»x.i         An  Ecclesia  bellum  debeat  indicere  ludaeis  ? 
[Cap.i«i.j         An  degentes  in  bello,  qui  pugnare  non  possunt,  gaudeant  immunitatibus 

bellantium  ? 
[Cap.  i«»ii.]         An  liceat  praelatis  ratione  temporalis  iurisdictionis  bella  indicere,  et  eis 

interesse,  et  ad  bellandum  alios  hortari  ? 


DE  BELLO  PARTICVLARI 


199 


An  liceat  praelato,  pro  iniuria  subditi  sui  impunita,  bellum  indicere,  et  [Cap.  i«iii.) 
alios  quam  iniuriantes  capere  ? 

An  delegatus  Papae  possit  indicere  bellum,  id  est,  invocare  brachium  IC!>P-  '«'»•) 
saeculare  ? 

An  bella  indicta  per  Ecclesiam  contra  excommunicates  sint  meritoria  ?        [Cap.  i«vj 


Sextus  et  ultimus  traciatus  tertii  principalis  per  modum  tabula,  scilicet,  quot      [Cap.  ix«i.] 
sint  genera  bellorum  corporalium  de  quibus  reperitur  in  iure  expressum  ? 


Quartus  tractatus  tertii  principalis,  scilicet,  De  Bello  Particulari  qaod  fit  ob      l<-'ap-  ' 
tutclam  sui,  et  dividitur  in  octo  sui  paries  principals. 


Prima  pars. 
Quid  sit  particulare  bellum  ?  [Cap.  i 


Secunda  pars. 
Quot  sint  species  particularis  belli  ?  [Cap.  i 


Tertia  pars. 
Quo  iure  inductum  sit  particulare  bellum  ?  [Ca   |M][ , 


Quarta  pars, 
scilicet,  Quibus  liceat  hoc  particulare  bellum  indicere  ?  tcap.  ixxxi.] 

An  clericis  competat  hoc  bellum  indicere  ?  [CaP.  ixxxii.) 

An  cum  liceat  clerico  se  defendere,  etiam  occidendo,  hoc  sibi  liceat  in  reap.  ixxxiii.) 

ccclesia  ? 

An  liceat  clerico  celebranti  invaso  se  defendere  et  occidere,  et  si  sic  con-  [CaP.  ixxxiv.) 

tinuato  officio  celebrare  ? 

An  baptizanti,  inungenti,  confirmanti,  ordinanti,  et  singula  sacramenta  [CaP;ixxxv.] 

conferenti  invasis,  licitum  sit  collationem  illorum  postponere  inchoatam  ? 

An  praeeligenda  sit  mors^  invasi  sacerdotis,  cum  puerum  in  mortis  articulo  [CaP.  ixxxvi.j 

baptizat,  an  vita  aeterna  ipsius  pueri,  ne  sine  baptismo  decedat  ? 

An  monacho  liceat  se  defendere  sine  licentia  abbatis  sui  ?  [CaP.  ixxxvii.) 

An  servo  liceat  se  defendere  sine  iussu  domini  sui  ?  [CaP.  ixxxvii  *,> 

An  bannitis,  qui  quandoque  per  leges  municipales  occidi  impune  possunt,  [Cap.  i*«viii.]| 

liceat  se  defendere  ? 


DE  IVRE  BELLI 


ICap.  Uxxii.) 


[Cap.  *c.) 

(C«p.  ici.J 

[Cap.  *<*.] 

(Cap.  xciii  | 

(dp.  iciv.) 


Ouinta  pars, 

scilicet,  Contra  quos  liceat  hoc  particulare  bellum  indicere  ? 
An  liceat  contra  superiorem  suum  ? 
An  contra  iudicem,  etiam  si  iniuste  aliquid  agat  ? 
An  filio  contra  patrem  ? 
An  monacho  contra  abbatcm  ? 
An  servo  contra  dominum  ? 


leap.  *c«.) 

[c«p.  «vii 

[Cap.  xc 

[Cap.  *ci«. 

[C»p.  c. 

leap.  ci. 

[Cap.  en. 


|cap.ciii.] 


Sexta  pars, 

scilicet,  Pro  quibus  liceat  hoc  particulare  bellum  indicere, 
et  dividitur  in  duas  sui  paries  principals. 

Prima  pars,  scilicet,  pro  quibus  personis  liceat  ? 

An  liceat  patri  pro  filio  ? 

An  marito  pro  uxore  ? 

An  pro  fratre,  sorore,  et  aUis  coniunctis  personis  ? 

An  quis  teneatur  quern  defendere  ne  ab  alio  occidatur  ? 

An  vassallus  teneatur  iuvare  dominum  suum  ? 

An  servus  teneatur  defendere  dominum  suum  ? 

An  miles  teneatur  defendere  praepositum  suum  ? 

An  vassallus  videns  dominum  invasum  ex  una  parte,  patrem  ex  alia, 
utrumque  pariter  in  mortis  articulo  nisi  iuventur,  nee  iuvare  potest  nisi  alte- 
rum,  quaeritur  quern  iuvabit  ? 

Quid  iuris,  eodem  themate  retento,  in  clerico,  qui  videns  episcopum 
suum  invasum  ex  una  parte,  patrem  ex  alia,  utrumque  pariter  in  mortis  arti- 
culo nisi  iuventur,  nee  iuvare  potest  nisi  alterum,  quaeritur  quem  iuvabit  ? 


(Cap.  i.  v  i  Secunda  pars,  scilicet,  pro  quibus  rebus  liceat  ? 

An  liceat  pro  rebus  iuste  possessis  ? 
leap.  «.]          An  pro  iniuste  possessis  ? 
[Cap.  cvi.j         An  et  si  liceat  res  defendere,  defendens  etiam  cum  moderamine  incul- 

patae  tutelae,  si  occidat  vel  mutilet,  irregularitatem  incurrat  ? 
icap.cvii.]         An,  pro  rebus  suis  defendendis  contra  clericum,  excommunicatiom  in 

incidat  manus  iniciendo  ? 
leap.  «iii.)         An  pro  rebus  defendendis  vocatis  amicis  licitum  sit  subsidium  impen- 

dere  ? 
icap.cn.)         An  pro  rebus  defendendis  licitum  sit  sic  contra  omnes  vim  vi  repellere, 

sicut  contra  quos  licitum  est  pro  personis  ? 
[Cap.  ex.)         An  pro  rebus  depositis  vel  commodatis  liceat  vim  vi  repellere  ? 


IC.p.  cmi.) 


Septima  pars, 

scilicet,  Qualiter  liceat  hoc  particulare  bellum  indicere  ? 
An  liceat  cum  moderamine  inculpats  tutelae  ? 
Quid  sit  moderamen  inculpatae  tutelae,  et  qua;  in  eo  rcquirantur  ? 


DE  REPRESALIIS  201 

An  liceat  vili  et  debili  cum  ense  se  defendere  contra  fortem  et  robustum  [CaP.c*ii.] 
pugno  tantum  percutientem  ? 

An   et   si   liceat   incontinenti   se   defendere,    qualiter   intelligatur   illud  [Cap.  cxiu.] 
"  incontinenti "  ? 

Qualiter  intelligatur  aequivalentia  in  ipso  actu  violento  ?  [Cap.  «iv.j 

An  vindicasse  videar,  non  defendisse,  si  spoliatorem  meum  de  posses-  tcap.  cxv.] 
sione  mea  expuli,  qui  ante  satisdare  volebat  de  possessione  restituenda. 

An  paratum  ad  me  percutiendum  exspectare  debeam,  vel  eum  praevenire  ?  [Cap.  cxvi.j 

An  miles  quern  vicinus  aggreditur  censeatur  vim  vi  repellere,  si  exspectet  [CaP.«vii.) 
et  percutiat,  cum  tamen  alias  fugere  posset  ? 

An  si  vulneratus  post  vulnera  insequatur  vulnerantem,  et  ipsum  percu-  [cap.cxviii.] 
tiat,  quod  tamen  non  licet,  puniri  debeat  ut  dolosus,  vel  ut  culpabilis  ? 

An   violentia   illata   personae   possit   per  amicos   propulsari  -feicut   illata  [CaP.  cxix.i 
rebus  ? 

An   serviens,  de  mandate   domini   sui,  uxorem  ipsius   interficiens,  ex-  [CaP.  cxx.j 
cusetur  ? 


Octava  et  ultima  pars  quarti  tractatus  tertii  principalis.  '^P-  c«'-i 

Quis  sit  finis  particularis  belli  ? 


Quintus  tractatus  tertii  principalis,  [Cap. 

scilicet,  De  Particular!  Bello  quod  fit  ad  defensam  mystici  corporis,  quod 
"  Represaliae  "  nuncupatur, 

et  dividitur  iste  tractatus,  prima  sui  divisione,  in  duas  paries  principales. 

Prima  pars  ponit  unde,  et  a  quo,  ortum  habuerunt  represaliee  ?  (Cap.  c 

Secunda  pars,  scilicet,  de  causis  represaliarum.    De  causa  productiva  sive        IC«P- 

efficiente  represaliarum. 

Tertia  pars,  scilicet,  de  causa  materiali,  et  dividitur  in  quatuor  paries  iCaP. 

principales. 

Prima  pars,  scilicet,  de  materia  in  qua. 

Quid  sit  materia  in  qua  ? 
Quid  sit  materia  circa  quam  ? 
Quid  sit  materia  contra  quam  ? 
Quid  sit  materia  ex  qua  ? 

Quibus  personis  concedatur  facultas  represaliandi  ? 
An  incolis  represaliae  concedantur  ? 

An  civibus  non  subiectis  Jurisdiction!  civitatis,  et  alias  non  f acientibus  [CaP.  c 
factiones,  sint  indicendae  represaliae  ? 


202  DE  IVRE  BELLI 

ic«p.  c«»ii.i  An  civi  per  conventionem  concedantur  represaliae  contra  civitatem 
originis  ? 

ic*p.c«.iiii  An  civibus,  et  habitis  pro  civibus,  limitatse  tamen,  represalias  concedan- 
tur ? 

ic»p.  c«ix.i  An  civibus  unius  civitatis,  qui  pacto  vel  statute  tractantur  ut  cives  alte- 
rius  civitatis,  per  eandem  concedi  possint  represaliae  ? 

(Cap.  em.)  Secunda  pars,  scilicet,  de  materia  circa  quam. 

An  contra  res  eorum  qui  capi  non  possunt  vigore  represaliarum  possint 

indici  represaliae  ? 
[Cap.c«ji.]         An  represaliae,  simpliciter  indictae,  exerceri  possint  contra  bona  existen- 

tia  in  territorio  civitatis  contra  quam  sunt  indictae,  ut  capiantur  et  reducantur 

intra  territorium  civitatis  indicentis  ? 
iCap.  CM*!).]         An  si  una  civitas  indicat  represalias  contra  aliam,  possit  rector  civitatis 

indicentis,  scribendo  rectori  civitatis  contra  quam,  exercere  represalias  in  res 

ibi  situatas  ? 

(Cap.  cxMiii.i  Teriia  pars,  scilicet,  de  materia  contra  quam. 

An  represaliae  indictae  per  unam  civitatem  contra  homines  alterius  civi- 
tatis, exerceri  possint  contra  incolas  illius  civitatis  ? 

[Cap.c«»iv.]         An  represaliae,  indictae  per  unam  civitatem  contra  homines  alterius  civi- 
tatis, exerceri  possint  contra  homines  illius  civitatis  alibi  morantes  ? 
iCap.cxw.)          An  represaliae  exerceri  possint  contra  cives  vel  incolas  unius  civitatis, 

onera  subeuntes  eiusdem,  qui  etiam  sint  cives  alterius  civitatis  ? 
(C«p.rxxxvi.]          An  contra  mulieres  exerceri  possint  represaliae  ? 

icap.cxxxvii.1  An  contra  clericos  non  coniugatos,  item  et  an  contra  coniugatos,  exerceri 
valeant  represaliae  ?  * 

An  episcopo,  negligente  de  clericis  suis  iustitiam  facere,  nee  haberi  pos- 
sit recursus  ad  superiorem,  possint  indici  represalite  contra  clericos  eosdem 
per  iudicem  saecularem  ? 
(Cap.  cxuviii.]          An  contra  Bononienses,  vel  etiam  alios  studentes  Bononiae,  euntes  Pa- 

duam  pro  studio,  exerceri  possint  represaliae  ? 
(Cap.  emit.]         An  contra  ambasciatores  exerceri  possint  represaliae  ? 

[Cap.cxij         An  contra  euntes  ad  nundinas,  ad  Sanctum  lacobum,  vel  ad  alium  locum 
indulgentiae,  item  an  contra  navigantes,  et  an  contra  illos  qui  in  ius  vocari 
non  possunt,  et  in  multis  aliis  casibus,  exerceri  valeant  represaliae  ? 
icap.r*ii.i          An  contra  Bononiensem  potestatem,  Mediolani  ibi  iniustitiam  facientem, 

possint  represaliae  concedi  ? 
[cup.  r.iii.]         An  contra  officiates  potestatis  vel  rectoris,  iniustitiam  facientes,  possint 

represaliae  indici  ? 
ic«p.  oiiii.)         An  contra  consules,  priores,  civitatis,  iustitiam  facere  denegantes,  possint 

indici  represaliae  ? 

ic«p.  c*uv.i         An  contra  singulares  personas,  penitus  innocentes,  propter  delictum  do- 
mini,  vel  alterius  privati,  de  quo  non  fit  iustitia,  indici  possint  represaliae  ? 


DE  REPRESALIIS  203 

An  contra  homines,  quoad  quid  tantum,  non  autem  plene,  uni  civitati  [Cap.  adv.] 
subditos,  indici  possint  represaliae  ? 

An  contra  certum  genus  hominum,  facere  iustitiam  denegantium,  indici  [CaP.  «ivi.] 
•possint  represaliae  ? 

Quarta  pars,  scilicet,  de  materia  ex  qua,  qua  insurgit  ex  defectu  iurisdictionis,     [CaP.  cxivii.i 
quia  primo  requiri  debet  iudex  antequam  represalice  concedantur. 

An  requiri  debeat  iudex  ut  iustitiam  faciat  antequam  represaliae  conce-  [Cap.  aiviii.) 

dantur  ? 

An  iudex  iniuriam  patientis,  qui  non  audet  litigare  in  civitate  iniuriam  [C»P.  «iu.j 

inferentis,  possit  scribere,  ut  in  alios  iurisdictionem  prorogent,  vel  arbitros 

eligant  ? 

Quis  iudex  requiri  debeat  ut  iustitiam  faciat  ?  tcaP.  ci.i 

Qualis  iniustitia  requiratur,  ut  represaliae  indicantur  ?  [CaP.  cii.i 

Quando  dicatur  non  posse  haberi  copia  superioris,  ut  locus  sit  represa-  [Cap.  cin.j 

liarum  indictioni  ? 

Quarta  pars  principalis,  scilicet,  de  causa  formali,  et  dividitur  in  duas  [CaP.  ciuij 

paries  principals. 

Prima  pars,  scilicet,  de  forma  indicendarum  represaliarum. 

Quis  comparere  possit  ad  hoc,  ne  indicantur  represaliae  ?  [cap.  ciiv.i 

Qualitef  constabit  de  iniustitia  facta,  vel  ea  denegata  ?  tcaPP.  civ,  civ 

An  si  aliqua  capiantur  vigore  represaliarum,  detineri  valeant,  ex  primo  ica?.  ci™.] 
decreto,  an  secundo  ? 

Secunda  pars,  scilicet,  de  forma  exercendi  represalias.  ic*p.  civiii.i 

An  liceat  illi  cui  sunt  concessae  represaliae,  auctoritate  propria,  vel  per 
ministros  concedentis,  exerceri  ? 

An  personas  et  res  captas  teneatur  capiens  iudici  prsesentare,  vel  sibi  [CaP.  ciix.i 
retinere  ? 

An  res  captae  vigore  represaliarum  vendantur,  vel  in  solutum  accipiantur,  [Cap.  ci*.] 
vel  aestimentur  ? 

An  diebus  feriatis  possint  represaliae  exerceri  ?  [CaP.  cixi.j 

An,  si  quis  vult  se  defendere,  vel  res  captas,  qualis  cognitio  adhibeatur  ?  [CaP.  cixii.) 

An  exacto  competat  regressus,  contra  ilium  propter  cuius  debitum  vel  [CaP.  cixuLi 
deh'ctum  exactus  est  ? 

An  exacto  succurratur  contra  rectorem  sicut  contra  debitorem  princi-  [Cap.  cixiv.] 
palem  ? 

An  captus  vigore  represaliarum  possit,  auctoritate  propria,  homines  [CaP.  cUv.j 
illius  civitatis  capere  in  qua  captus  fuit  ? 

An  per  statuta  represaliae  concedi  possint  in  casibus  aliter  a  iure  non  per-  [CaP.  ci™.] 
missis  ? 

[18] 


204 


DE  IVRE  BELLI 


An  statutum  civitatis  quo  cavctur  quod  filius  teneatur  pro  patre  delin- 
quente  possit  exerceri  contra  filiiun  existentem  extra  territorium  civitatis 
condentis  ? 
tcap.  cbmi.)         An  per  pactum  possit  licite  fieri  quod  unus  teneatur  pro  alio  ? 


(Cap.  clxviii] 


Sexlus  et  ultimus  tractatus  tertii  principalis  huius  operis, 
scilicet,  De  Particular!  Bello  quod  fit  ad  purgationem,  quod  "  Duellum  " 

nuncupatur, 
et  dividitur,  prima  sui  divisione,  in  septem  paries  principals. 


Quid  sit  Duellum  ? 


Prima  pars. 


ic«p.  ci«.j 


[Cap.  ci«i.] 


Secunda  pars,  scilicet,  quot  sint  species  Duelli  ? 
Qualiter  duellum  fit  propter  odii  exaggerationem  ? 
Qualiter  fit  duellum  propter  gloriam  in  publico  consequendain  ? 
Qualiter  fit  duellum  propter  purgationem  alicuius  criminis  iniuncti  ? 

Tertia  pars,  scilicet,  quo  iure  sit  inductum  et  quo  inhibitum  ? 
Quah'ter  duellum,  quod  fit  propter  odii  exaggerationem  sit  introductum 
iure  naturali,  sumpto  pro  instinctu  naturae,  proveniente  ex  sensualitate  ad  ali- 
quid  appetendum  ? 

[Cap.ci«ii.j         Qualiter  duellum,  quod  fit  propter  odii  exaggerationem,  sit  inhibitum 
iure  naturali,  sumpto  pro  rationabili  intelligentia,   et  sic  iure  gentium  et 
divino,  canonico  et  civili  ? 
[Cap.  el.™.]         Qualiter  duellum,  quod  fit  propter  gloriam,  sit  inductum  iure  naturali, 

sumpto  pro  instinctu  naturae  ex  sensualitate  proveniente  ? 
(Cap.  ciniv.]         Qualiter  duellum,  quod  fit  propter  gloriam,  sit  inhibitum  iure  divino  ? 

Qualiter  duellum,  quod  fit  propter  gloriam,  sit  inhibitum  iure  gentium  ? 
Qualiter  duellum,  quod  fit  propter  gloriam,  sit  inhibitum  de  iure  cano- 
nico et  civili  ? 


[Cap. 


[Cap.  cinm.) 


(Cap.  ci«vii.) 


Quarta  pars,  scilicet  propter  quid  duellum  purgatorium  sit  pertnissum,  et 

propter  quid  prohibitum  ? 

Qualiter  duellum  purgatorium  inhibitum  sit  iure  divino  ? 
Qualiter  duellum  purgatorium  inhibitum  sit  iure  gentium  ? 
Qualiter  duellum  purgatorium  inhibitum  sit  iure  canonico  ? 
Qualiter  duellum  purgatorium  sit  inhibitum  regulariter  iure  civili  ? 

Quinta  pars,  scilicet,  in  quibus  casibus  pcrmiltatur  duellum  purgatorium  ? 
Qualiter  duellum  iure  Lombardo  in  viginti  casibus  permittatur  ? 

Sexta  pars,  scilicet,  inter  quos  iniri  possit  duellum  ? 
Qualiter  duellum  purgatorium  inter  principales  regulariter  fieri  debeat  ? 


DE  DVELLO  205 

Septima  et  ultima  pars,  scilicet,  qualiter  fiat  duellum.  [Cap.  cix*vm.] 

Qualiter  duellum  purgatorium  ad  instar  sit  iudicii  contentiosi  ? 

An  iuramentum  de  astu  inter  duellantes  sit  prastandum,  et  per  quern  ?       [Cap.  ci«ix.] 

An  uni  parti  campione  dato,  in  casibus  a  iure  permissis,  liceat  etiam  [CaP.  CUM.] 

alteri  parti  dare  campionem  ? 

Qualiter,  in  casibus  hinc  inde,  cum  campio  conceditur,  net  ipsorum  datio  [c»P.  cix«u 

et  concessio  ? 

An  quilibet  admittatur  pro  campione  ?  [CaP-  <=i™»-] 

In  cuius  electione  sit  duellum  ?  [Cap.  cimiu.] 

Qualiter  ordinetur  duellum  ?  [Cap-  cixniv.] 

Quibus  armis  duellari  debeat  ?  icap.  <=UHV.] 

An,  si  arma  seu  fustes  unius  duellantium  frangantur,  vel  cadant,  debeant  [Cap.  cimvi.j 

alia  dari  ? 

Quis  duellantium  prius  percurrere  debeat  ?  (CaP- 

An  duellum,  prima  die  non  finitum,  sequenti  die  terminari  possit  ?  (Cap.  cinxv 

An  in  duello  succumbens  in  expensis  condemnetur  ?  [Cap.  ciixxi 

An  provocans  in  duello,  succumbens,  puniatur  poena  talionis  ?  [Cap.  «c.j 

An  provocatus  ad  duellum  propter  crimen,  succumbens  et  condemnatus,  [Cap.  cxci.] 

possit  de  eodem  crimine  accusari  in  iudicio  contentioso  ? 

An  provocans  ad  duellum  propter  crimen  publicum,  desistens  a  duello,  [CaP.  mcii.] 

incidat  posnam  Turpiliani  ? 

An  provocans  ad  duellum  iure  Lombardo  possit  de  iudicis  licentia  de-  [Cap.  aciii.] 

sistere  ? 

An  provocans  ad  duellum  possit,  sine  poena,  ante  litem  contestatam  de-  [Cap.  cxdv.i 

sistere,  item  an,  et  quando,  in  duello  dicatur  lis  contestari  ? 

Explicit  Tabula  super  libello  tractatus  De  Bello  Domini  lohannis 
de  Lignano.    Deo  gratias.    Amen.    Amen.    Amen. 


THE  TRACTATUS  DE  BELLO 

Of  Giovanni  da  Legnano 

Translated  from  the  preceding  extended  text 

by 
James  Leslie  Brierly,  M.A.,  B.C.L. 

Fellow  of  Trinity  College  and 

Late  Fellow  of  All  Souls  College,  Oxford 

Of  Lincoln's  Inn,  Barrister-at-Law 


HERE  BEGINS  THE  TREATISE  ON  WAR  OF  GIOVANNI  DA  LEGNANO 
OF  MILAN,  DOCTOR  OF  THE  CANON  AND  OF  THE  CIVIL  LAW. 

"  The  King  of  Israel  changed  his  raiment  and  entered  into  war,"  i  Kings, 
ch.  xxii.  Israel  is  the  throne  of  the  Lord,  and,  as  it  is  written  in  Jeremiah, 
ch.  iii,  "  they  shall  call  Israel  the  throne  of  the  Lord."  And  this  is'the  patri- 
mony of  the  Holy  Roman  Church,  whose  head  is  Jerusalem,  this  kindly  city  of 
Bologna,  which  may  truly  be  called  Jerusalem.  For  in  her  is  manifested  the 
truth  of  all  things  knowable,  and  especially  of  law.  Of  her  it  is  written  in 
Zechariah,  ch.  viii,  "  Jerusalem  shall  be  called  a  city  of  truth."  She  is  "  comely 
as  Jerusalem,"  Song  of  Solomon,  ch.  vi.  Of  her  also  the  Prophet  exclaims  in 
Zephaniah,  ch.  i,  "  I  will  search  Jerusalem  with  candles  "  ;  and  in  Acts,  ch.  v, 
"  ye  have  filled  Jerusalem  with  your  doctrine."  Of  her  also  it  is  written  in 
Revelation,  ch.  xxi,  "  I  saw  the  holy  city,  Jerusalem  "  ;  and  in  the  same 
chapter,  "  he  shewed  me  the  city,  the  holy  Jerusalem,  descending  out  of  heaven," 
to  wit,  Bologna.  And  truly  she  has  descended  out  of  heaven,  since  there  is  the 
fountain  of  truth,  of  the  laws  which  indeed  are  promulgated  by  the  mouths  of 
princes,  dist.  viii,  quo  iure  ;  C.  De  longi  temporis  praescriptione,  the  last  law. 
Of  her  the  Apostle  writes  to  the  Hebrews,  in  ch.  xii,  "  the  city  of  the  living  God, 
the  heavenly  Jerusalem."  And  the  same  Apostle,  in  Galatians,  ch.  iv,  says, 
' '  But  Jerusalem  which  is  above  is  f ree. ' '  Of  her  also  it  is  written  in  2  Chronicles, 
ch.  vi,  "  I  have  chosen  Jerusalem,  that  my  name  might  be  there." 

But  with  the  permission  of  the  Most  High  and  by  the  disposition  of  the 
heavenly  bodies,  this  city  of  Bologna,  like  Jerusalem,  has  been  utterly  changed 
and  devastated,  and  for  the  innumerable  offences  of  her  inhabitants,  and  their 
mutual  hatreds,  the  Most  High  has  long  threatened  her  destruction,  as  it  is 
written  in  2  Kings,  ch.  xxi,  "  I  will  wipe  Jerusalem  as  a  man  wipeth  a  dish." 
Of  the  conspiracy  of  the  inhabitants  it  is  written  in  2  Chronicles,  ch.  xxv,* 
"  a  conspiracy  descended  on  Jerusalem."  And  because  of  the  pride  of  the 
inhabitants  the  Lord  threatened  by  the  mouth  of  his  Prophet,  saying,  "  I  will 
mar  the  pride  of  Judah  and  the  great  pride  of  Jerusalem,"  Jeremiah,  ch.  xiii. 
And  because  of  this  pride  the  Prophet  exclaims  against  her  inhabitants,  saying, 
"  I  will  make  Jerusalem  heaps  of  sand."  And  in  another  place  a  Prophet 
exclaims  because  of  this,  saying,  "  I  will  make  Jerusalem  as  an  heap  of  stones," 
Micah,  ch.  i.  And  because  of  this  a  Prophet  exclaims  against  those  that  were 
nursed  in  her,  saying,  "  ye  grieved  Jerusalem,  that  nursed  you,"  Baruch,  ch.  iv. 

*  At  the  end,  "  they  made  a  conspiracy  against  him  in  Jerusalem." 

209 


210  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

And  because  of  this,  that  is,  because  of  the  excesses  of  the  inhabitants,  it  came 
to  pass  that  the  armies  of  the  King  of  Babylon  besieged  Jerusalem,  Jeremiah, 
ch.  xxii.  And  because  of  this,  that  which  is  written  in  Ezekiel,  ch.  v,  came  to 
pass,  "  This  is  Jerusalem  in  the  midst  of  the  nations,"  that  is,  in  the  midst  of 
her  enemies.  By  way  of  penalty  there  has  come  to  pass  also  that  which  is 
written  in  Lamentations,  ch.  i,  "Jerusalem  has  become  as  a  woman  denied." 

Therefore  the  kindly  city  of  Bologna  is  rightly  called  Jerusalem,  and  the 
head  of  the  throne,  that  is  of  the  patrimony,  of  the  Holy  Mother  Church.  But 
the  king  who  in  fact  rules  and  governs  her  is  the  Most  Reverend  Father  and 
lord  in  Christ,  the  lord  Egidio,  by  divine  compassion  Bishop  of  Sabina.  For 
he  changed  his  raiment  and  entered  into  war.  For  he  was  appointed  from  the 
throne  of  peace,  that  is,  from  the  most  sacred  College  of  Cardinals,  and  from 
the  right  hand  of  the  most  holy  Pope  Innocent  VI,  for  the  recovery  of  Jerusalem, 
that  is,  of  the  patrimony  which  had  been  utterly  lost ;  and  in  its  recovery  he 
changed  his  raiment.  For  he  left  the  pontifical  peace  and  entered  into  war, 
into  strong  war  like  a  most  serene  prince.  For  before  him  there  was  no  king 
in  Jerusalem  ;  as  it  is  written  in  Judges,  ch.  xxi,  "  in  those  days  there  was  no 
king."  And  for  that  reason  the  Lord  said  to  him,  that  is,  to  the  lord  Egidio, 
"  I  have  sent  thee  to  rule  over  the  people  of  the  Lord,"  Judges,  ch.  ix^.  And 
he  himself  may  say,  "  the  Lord  chose  me  to  be  king,"  i  Chronicles,  ch.  xxviii. 
"  And  the  Lord  set  him  as  king  over  all  Israel,"  i  Chronicles,  ch.  xii  > .  And 
"  the  king  arose  from  the  throne  of  the  Lord,"  Jonah,  ch.  iii.  And  he  entered 
into  war  well  and  prosperously.  For  like  one  borne  on  the  two  wings  of  highest 
wisdom  and  illustrious  bravery,  he  brought  all  the  rights  of  the  Holy  Roman 
Church,  which  had  been  tyrannically  usurped,  from  nothingness  into  existence, 
from  darkness  to  light,  so  that  it  may  be  said  that  he  has  created  something 
out  of  nothing,  Genesis,  ch.  i  ;  and  C.  De  rei  uxoriae  actione,  the  single  law,  at 
the  beginning.  Truly,  therefore,  like  the  King  of  Israel,  he  has  changed  his 
raiment  and  entered  into  war. 

Because,  therefore,  the  King  of  Israel,  that  is  of  the  patrimony,  and  above 
all  of  the  city  of  Bologna,  which  is  indeed  the  head  of  the  patrimony,  and  which, 
as  was  shown  above,  was  brought  from  extremity  to  extremity,  changed  his 
raiment  and  entered  into  war,  and  this  war  is  in  our  own  days,  and  is  even 
still  pending,  it  would  seem  somewhat  unfitting  to  pass  it  over  in  complete 
silence. 

So  therefore  I,  Giovanni  da  Legnano  of  Milan,  the  least  of  all  doctors  of 
the  canon  and  civil  law,  have  conceived  a  treatise  to  be  dedicated  to  you,  the 
Most  Reverend  Father  in  Christ  and  my  lord  Egidio,  by  divine  compassion 
Bishop  of  Sabina  in  the  parts  of  Italy,  Vicar  General  for  the  Holy  Roman 
Church,  and  true  King  of  Jerusalem,  concerning  Jerusalem,  that  is,  the  city  of 
Bologna,  and  concerning  the  war  into  which,  changing  your  raiment,  you 
entered,  in  the  following  order.  I  shall  set  forth  six  cases  touching  the  city  of 
Bologna,  which  have  keenly  concerned  that  city,  from  the  year  of  our  Lord 
1350  up  to  1360,  especially  those  whcrefrom  a  change  of  government  arose, 


BOLOGNA  211 

together  with  the  marks  of  the  seasons  and  the  aspects  of  the  years  about 
noon-time  of  the  days  on  which  these  things  befell,  but  not  the  aspects  of  the 
hours.  And  I  add  these  things  because  I  intend  in  some  treatises  to  exceed 
the  bounds  of  law,  explaining  some  things  which  will  perchance  happen  ;  and 
to  each  case  I  shall  devote  one  treatise  or  more,  as  occasion  demands.  Some 
treatises  I  shall  pass  over  in  silence,  others  I  shall  explain  in  detail.  I  shall 
publish  one  only  at  the  present  time,  a  treatise  on  War,  promising,  if  the  Lord 
will,  to  expand  and  deliver  them  severally  at  a  fitting  time,  and  when  the  cause 
of  the  prohibition  ceases,  and  praying  the  same  Most  Reverend  Father  to  deign 
to  overlook  the  poverty  of  my  intellect,  and  to  accept  this  poor  exordium,  to  be 
corrected  and  reformed  as  it  shall  please  you,  according  to  the  authority  of  the 
Wise  Man  of  the  Gentiles,  "  a  poor  gift,"  &c.  I  pass,  then,  to  my  subjects  ; 
and  I  shall  set  them  forth  from  the  cause  in  a  figure. 


While  Jupiter  the  key-bearer,  the  Sixth  bearer  of  clemency,2  was  sitting 
on  the  seat  of  the  fisherman,  Mars  3  by  his  command  hastily  approached,  that 
he  might  freely  enter  into  the  green  and  flowery  pasture  4  of  Taurus.  This  was 
in  the  year  of  our  Lord  1350,  on  the  8th  day  of  July.  The  Sun  was  then  in 
Cancer,  23°  32'  ;  the  Moon  was  with  Leo,  28°  21'  ;  the  Head  of  Draco  was  in 
Gemini,  26°  9'  ;  Saturn  was  in  Aries,  26°  32'  ;  Jupiter  with  Cancer,  28°  51'  ; 
Mars  in  Libra,  11°  18'  ;  Venus  was  retiring  in  Cancer,  29°  20'  ;  Mercury  was 
following  Venus  in  Cancer,  9°  10'.  And  then  the  tallest  of  the  sons  of  Saturn,5 
bearing  a  circlet  6  from  Jupiter,7  full  of  vipers  within,  with  three  tall  vipers  8 
springing  from  his  sides,  descending  from  the  north  on  the  intercession  of 
Mercury,9  came  with  Mars  into  the  pasture,  and  was  chosen  perpetual  shepherd 
of  the  Taurine  herd,  that  is  to  say,  was  elected  lord.  And  this  was  in  the  year 
of  our  Lord  1350,  on  the  24th  day  of  October,  the  Sun  . . .  ;  the  Moon  in  Cancer, 
9°  50'  ;  Saturn  in  Aries,  22°  19' ;  Jupiter  in  Leo,  18°  13' ;  Mars  in  Sagittarius, 
23°  32' ;  Venus  in  Virgo,  25°  20'  ;  Mercury  in  Libra,  21°  25' ;  the  Head  of 
Draco  in  Gemini,  20°  19' ;  his  Tail,  &c. 

After  a  lapse  of  time,  by  the  working  of  the  clemency10  of  Jupiter,  and  of 
the  circlet n  which  the  son  of  Saturn  had  received  from  him,  it  came  to  pass 
that  the  son  of  Saturn  received 12  Jupiter  in  the  meadow  with  words,  and  recog- 
nized him  as  the  first  shepherd  of  the  herd.  This  was  in  the  year  of  our  Lord 
1352,  on  the  7th  day  of  September  ;  the  Sun  in  Virgo,  23°  10' ;  the  Moon  in 
Virgo,  2°  30' ;  the  Head  in  Taurus,  14°  17' ;  Saturn  in  Taurus,  24°  27' ;  Jupiter 

in  the  reign  of  Pope  Clement  VI.  8  i.  e.,  his  three  nephews,  Matteo,  Bernabo,  and 


fo    the  Church.  •  i.  e.,  Giovanni  da  Pepoli. 


the  army  of  the  Count  of  the  Romagna       Galeazzo. 


[19] 


Bologna.  10  i.  e.,  Pope  Clement. 

the  Archbishop  of  Milan.  n  i.  e.,  the  priestly  dignity. 

the  priestly  dignity.  l*  i.  e.,  the  Archbishop  recognized  the  Pope  as 

the  Pope.  lord. 


212  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

in  Virgo,  29°  17'  ;  Mars  in  Sagittarius,  6°  20' ;  Venus  in  Virgo,  2°  8' ;  Mercury 
in  Libra,  27°  .  .  .'. 

Now,  behold,  in  this  short  time  Taurus  contracted  a  triple  wedlock,  and 
blushed  not,  his  spouse  still  living,  to  break  forth  into  illicit  desire  now  for  this 
and  now  for  that  one,  so  that  there  may  be  said  of  you  that  which  is  written 
in  Isaiah,  ch.  i,  "  How  is  the  faithful  city  full  of  judgement  become  an  harlot ! 
Righteousness  lodged  in  it,  but  now  murderers.  Thy  silver  is  become  dross, 
thy  wine  mixed  with  water.  Thy  princes  are  rebellious,  and  companions  of 
thieves.  Every  one  loveth  gifts,  and  followeth  after  rewards.  They  judge  not 
the  fatherless,  neither  doth  the  cause  of  the  widow  come  unto  them.  Therefore 
saith  the  Lord,  the  Lord  of  hosts,  the  mighty  One  of  Israel,  Ah,  I  will  ease  me 
of  mine  adversaries,  and  avenge  me  of  mine  enemies  ;  and  I  will  turn  my  hand 
upon  thee,  and  purely  purge  away  thy  dross,  and  take  away  all  thy  tin  ;  and 
I  will  restore  thy  judges  as  at  the  first,  and  thy  counsellors  as  at  the  beginning  : 
afterward  thou  shalt  be  called  the  city  of  righteousness."  So  it  happens  and 
will  happen  concerning  thee,  O  Taurus,  when  the  semicircle  shall  become 
tripartite,  peace  arise,  and  motion  flow ;  age  resists,  but  a  youth  of  vices  brings 
this  to  pass. 

To  this  case  I  devote  three  treatises  :  one  on  Mars,  that  is  on  War,  and 
this  I  publish ;  another  on  Jupiter,  that  is  on  the  Church,  and  its  government 
by  its  pastors,  and  by  the  aspects  mentioned,  showing  what  is  the  issue  of  its 
prosperity  and  adversity,  and  especially  in  regard  to  this  present  time,  of  the 
patrimony  ;  another  on  Saturn,  that  is  on  the  Empire  and  its  government  by 
the  rulers  of  to-day,  and  what  is  the  issue  of  its  prosperity  and  adversity, 
especially  in  regard  to  ecclesiastical  and  temporal  rule  in  Italy,  although  in 
some  ways  these  things  pass  the  bounds  of  law.  The  last  two,  however,  I  do 
not  publish  at  present,  as  I  said  before,  until  the  urgent  reason  ceases. 


Second  Case. 

After  this,  when  the  son  of  Saturn  had  been  consumed  with  fire  13  and  the 
three  vipers14  above  mentioned  had  been  raised  up,  bearing  Saturn  of  the 
eagles 1S  also  in  the  centre  of  their  heart,  and  ascending  the  throne  of  him  who 
had  been  consumed,16  they  were  received  indivisibly  as  shepherds  into  the 
pasture."  This  was  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  1354,  on  the  nth  day  of  October. 
At  that  time  the  Sun  was  in  Libra,  26°  22' ;  the  Moon  .  .  .  with  Leo,  16°  45'  ; 
Draco  was  covering  his  Head  in  Aries,  3°  58' ;  Saturn  was  in  Gemini,  23°  24' ; 
Jupiter  was  in  Libra,  22°  17' ;  Mars  in  Capricorn,  25°  4' ;  Venus  was  wantoning 
in  Scorpio,  16°  14' ;  Mercury  in  Scorpio,  n°  46' ;  Draco  was  covering  his  Head 
in  Taurus,  3°  59'. 

11  i.  e.,  the  Archbishop  being  dead.  "  i.  e.,  succeeding  the  Archbishop. 

14  i.  c.,  his  nephews.  "  i.  e.,  as  lords  of  Bologna. 

11  i.  e.,  the  imperial  eagle. 


BOLOGNA  213 

After  a  little  time,  the  lot  was  cast  for  the  inheritance  18  of  liim  who  had 
been  consumed  with  fire,  and  the  elder  of  the  vipers  19  was  raised  alone  into 
the  pasture.  Here  I  give  no  mark,  because  I  do  not  regard  it  as  important  for 
what  follows.  After  this,  Mercury,20  fearing  he  might  be  utterly  exterminated 
by  the  vipers,  was  taken  within  the  pasture  as  a  shepherd.  See  now  how,  in 
this  short  space  of  time,  Taurus,  raging  in  wantonness,  blushed  not  to  contract 
another  triple  wedlock.  And  because  thou  didst  so  rage  in  the  wantonness  of 
manifold  concubinage,  and  therein  didst  exceed  all  wantonness  that  admits 
of  expiation,  the  Lord  rained  upon  thee  brimstone  and  fire  from  the  Lord  out 
of  heaven,  and  overthrew  thee,  and  all  the  region  over  against  thee  and  the 
inhabitants,  and  all  the  green  things  which  grew  upon  the  ground,  as  it  is 
written  in  Genesis,,  ch.  xix.  When  a  straight  line  shall  be  semicircular,  then 
that  which  is  crooked  shall  be  made  straight  for  thee.  Now  this  was  in  the  year 
of  our  Lord  1355,  on  the  I7th  day  of  April.  The  Sun  was  in  Taurus,  5°  7'  ; 
the  Moon  in  Gemini,  28°  31' ;  the  Head  in  Pisces,  23°  49' ;  Saturn  in  Gemini, 
20°  17' ;  Jupiter  in  Sagittarius,  22°  15'  ;  Mars  in  Gemini,  5°  21' ;  Venus  in 
Taurus,  27°  19'  ;  Mercury  in  Aries,  11°  22'. 

To  this  second  case  I  append  treatises  on  temporal  dominion  throughout 
the  world  under  the  Empire,  treating  of  its  origin,  its  species,  division,  succession, 
mode  of  government,  and  conservation  ;  explaining  each  single  government, 
from  the  lowest  to  the  highest,  in  the  whole  world,  beyond  the  bounds  of  law  ; 
explaining  how  the  governments  of  the  world  vary  according  to  the  variety  of 
its  qlimates,  and  how  in  the  same  climates  the  governments  of  the  world  vary 
with  the  varied  motions  and  aspects  of  superior  bodies,  for  sometimes  they  are 
tyrannies,  sometimes  democracies,  sometimes  natural  principalities ;  using 
common  and  popular  language,  in  order  that  in  the  prosecution  of  this  treatise 
I  may  follow  the  subject  to  its  farthest  limits. 


Third  Case. 

After  this  the  elder  viper  a  vanished,  and  Mercury  22  recognized  the  next 23 
in  the  pasture.  This  was  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  1355,  on  the  27th  day  of 
September ;  the  Sun  was  leaping  with  Capra,  14°  46' ;  the  Moon  was  being 
bitten  by  Scorpio,  23°  31' ;  the  Head  of  Draco  was  in  Pisces,  10°  19' ;  Saturn 
was  with  Cancer,  2°  45'  ;  Jupiter  was  grazing  with  Capra,  7°  33' ;  Mars  was 
bearing  the  bite  of  Scorpio,  21°  41' ;  Venus  was  with  Capra,  i°  53'  ;  Mercury 
was  preceding  Venus  over  Capra,  18°  55'.  And  now,  behold,  0  shameless 


u  i.  e.,   the   dominion    of    the  Archbishop  was  a  i.  e.,  the  lord  Matteo  died, 

divided.  "  i.  e.,  the  lord  Giovanni  del  Olegio. 

"  i.  e.,  the  lord  Matteo.  °  i.  e.,  the  lord  Bernabo. 
10  i.  e.,  Giovanni,  lord  of  Olegio,  fearing  death. 


214  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

Taurus,  thou  didst  not  blush  at  once  to  contract  another  new  wedlock,  but  soon 
afterwards  the  spouse  was  given  a  bill  of  divorcement,84  O.  revolved  to  A.  and 
returned  with  Mercury.25  And  this  was  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  1356,  on  the 
nth  day  of  February  ;  at  which  time  the  Sun  was  in  Pisces,  7°  57'  ;  the  Moon 
was  in  Gemini,  17°  56'  ;  the  Head  of  Draco  was  fill.  ,1  with  Pisces,  8°  9'  ;  Saturn 
was  withdrawing  with  Cancer,  o°  44'  ;  Jupiter  was  leaping  with  Capra,  16°  .  .  .' ; 
Mars  was  bearing  the  Arrow,  18°  64'  ;  \Ymis  was  sprinkling  Aqua,  24°  58' ; 
Mercury  was  in  Pisces,  o°  38'.  It  seemed  shameful  for  Taurus  .  .  .  two  spouses 
at  the  same  time.  ...  It  had  been  better  for  him  to  endure  the  two  together  .  .  . 
than  to  wander  through  so  many  illicit  unions.  And  because  thou  didst  so 
wander,  there  shall  happen  to  thee  that  which  is  written,  "  the  Lord  shall  bring 
a  nation  against  thee  from  far,  from  the  end  of  the  earth,  as  swift  as  the  eagle 
flieth  ;  a  nation  whose  tongue  thou  shalt  not  understand  ;  a  nation  of  fierce 
countenance,  which  shall  not  regard  the  person  of  the  old,  nor  shew  favour  to 
the  young  :  and  he  shall  eat  the  fruit  of  thy  cattle,  and  the  fruit  of  thy  land, 
until  thou  be  destroyed  :  which  also  shall  not  leave  thee  either  corn  wine,  or 
oil,  or  the  increase  of  thy  kine,  or  flocks  of  thy  sheep."  Thus  spake  the  Lord 
to  His  disobedient  people,  as  it  is  written  in  Deuteronomy,  ch.  xxviii.  When 
four  shall  be  resolved  into  three,  then  shall  that  which  is  fixed  for  thee  become 
movable. 

To  this  case  I  append  treatises  on  the  grant  and  recognition  of  temporal 
dominion,  explaining  the  various  modes  according  to  the  variety  of  dominions, 
and  of  those  who  grant  and  receive  them. 


Fourth  Case. 

After  this,  while  the  marriage  of  Mercury  with  Taurus  26  was  subsisting, 
the  flowers  and  greenness  of  the  Taurine  pasture,  during  the  reign  of  Jupiter 
the  key-bearer,  the  Sixth  bearer  of  innocence,  were  utterly  dried  up  ; 27  and  this 
was  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  1357,  on  the  lath  day  of  April.  The  Sun  was  then 
with  raging  Taurus,  o°  46' ;  the  Moon  was  pouring  Aquae,  5°  29'  ;  Draco  was 
covering  his  Head  under  the  wave,  3°  38'  ;  Saturn  was  with  Cancer,  15°  16' ; 
Jupiter  was  swimming  in  Aqua,  26°  23' ;  Mars  was  in  Gemini,  15°  14' ;  Venu> 
was  playing  with  Pisces,  21°  20' ;  Mercury  was  with  Taurus,  n°  32'.  O  shame- 
less Taurus,  this  was  the  punishment  for  that  old  and  rash  divorce  of  thine 
from  thy  spouse,  from  her  who,  while  the  marriage  with  thee  subsisted,  in- 
creased thy  dowry,  raising  thee  on  sharp  horns  for  a  space  of  more  than  four 


M  i.  e.,  the  lord  Bernabo  was  driven  out.  **  i.  c.,  an  interdict  on   divine  services  and  a 

**  i.  c.,  the  lord  Giovanni  del  Olegio  reastumcd       suspension  of  studies  in  the  city  of  Bologna  were 

the  sole  dominion.  declared. 

M  i.  e.,  while  the  lord  Giovanni  del  Olegio  was 

in  power. 


BOLOGNA  215 

years,  and  setting  thee  on  the  broadest  throne  from  the  north  towards  the 
meridian.  But  thou  in  impatient  rage  didst  divorce  thy  spouse  and  fall  with 
broken  horns.  And  because  thou  wast  so  lifted  up,  the  Lord  said  unto  thee, 

0  Taurus,  "  because  thine  heart  is  lifted  up,  like  the  heart  of  a  god,  therefore 

1  will  bring  strangers  upon  thee,  the  terrible  of  the  nations  :   and  they  shall 
draw  their  swords  against  the  beauty  of  thy  wisdom,  and  they  shall  defile  thy 
brightness,  and  they  shall  kill  thee  and  drag  thee  down  ;   and  thou  shalt  die 
the  deaths  of  them  that  are  slain  in  the  midst  of  the  seas.    Wilt  thou  yet  say 
before  them  that  slay  thee,  I  am  God,  when  thou  art  a  man  and  not  God  ? 
By  the  hand  of  them  that  slay  thee,  by  the  hand  of  strangers,  thou  shalt  die, 
for  I  have  spoken  it,  saith  the  Lord."    This  is  written  in  Ezekiel,  ch.  xxviii. 
When  Job  shall  be  healed  by  the  horns  of  Taurus,  that  which  is  in  the  centre 
shall  be  turned  to  the  concave  of  the  sphere. 

To  this  case  I  append  a  treatise  on  Ecclesiastical  Censure,  explaining  its 
several  kinds  in  separate  treatises. 


Fifth  Case. 

After  this,  while  Mercury 28  was  again  browsing  within  the  pasture  of 
Taurus,  the  second  viper  29  adopted  by  Saturn  as  a  son,30  hastily  urged  Mars 
with  swift  motion  to  enter  the  pasture  of  Taurus,31  .  .  .  Finally,  by  Mercury's  32 
contrivance,  the  most  high  brother33  of  Jupiter,  receiving  the  papal  insignia 
from  him,  the  imperial  from  Saturn,  the  warlike  from  Mars,  pre-eminent  above 
all  the  other  "  hinges  "  of  the  Church,  forestalling  swift  Mars,34  was  received 
within  the  pasture  ;  3S  and  so  the  circle  of  the  first  case  completed  its  revolution. 
.  .  .  [Here  follow  twenty-three  lines  of  which  the  text  is  practically  unintelligible.'] 
I  see  two  foremost  counsellors  of  heaven  about  to  come  to  a  grand  conference. 
The  conference  will  be  held  in  a  damp  and  poisonous  place.  There  they  will 
treat  of  the  shaking  of  the  world  below.  There  they  will  treat  .  .  .  There  they 
will  treat  of  change  in  the  government  of  the  world.  There  they  will  treat  of 
danger  to  the  Church.  There  they  will  treat  of  the  raising  up  of  pestilences 
and  famines.  There  they  will  treat  of  the  shaking  of  the  region  of  the  sea.  There 
they  will  treat  of  the  changing  of  the  prince  of  the  world  in  his  seat,  of  the 
making  of  a  mighty  commotion.  But  three  lower  counsellors  in  another 
anterior  corner  of  the  same  house  will  converse  together  at  the  same  time,  and 
many  things  they  will  dispute  and  determine  concerning  the  disposition  of 
the  world,  and  these  conferences  shall  be  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  1365,  in  the 


28  i.  c.,  the  lord  Giovanni  del  Olegio.  3i  i.  e.,  the  lord  Giovanni  del  Olegio. 

**  i.  e.,  the  lord  Bernabo.  M  i.  e.,  Egidio  Albornoz,  the  papal  legate. 

30  i.  e.,  appointed  imperial  vicar.  31  i.  e.,  the  army  of  the  lord  Bernabo. 

31  i.  e.,  sent  a  great  army  to  seize  the  city.  35  i.  e.,  was  chosen  lord  of  Bologna. 


216  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

month  of  October.  O  Taurus,  it  behoves  thee  to  be  ready  and  prepared  with 
thy  horns,  for  the  brightness  of  the  world  will  be  overshadowed  in  thy  stall, 
and  do  not  thou  disregard  it.  And  this  shall  be  in  the  year  1361,  on  the  5th  day 
of  May.  Of  these  things  the  planets  treated  in  grand  and  multiform  conference, 
of  which  I  have  spoken  in  my  treatise.  These  things  the  various  aspects  of 
their  revolutions  bring  to  pass,  and  there  is  to  be  noted  another  wedlock  of 
Taurus.  For  with  the  revolution  of  the  years,  on  the  month  and  day  on  which 
he  turned  aside  by  expelling  O.,38  he  has  begun  anew  by  receiving  S.37 

O  Taurus,  proceeding  with  multiform  motion,  though  it  has  been  ordained 
that  motion  should  end  in  rest ,  it  is  in  thy  heart  that  motion  should  end  in  motion, 
and  ordinarily  in  worse.  For  thee  the  end  of  motion  is  the  beginning  of  motion. 
For  thee  to  be  at  rest  is  to  be  moved,  and  now,  imitating  the  gentile  Cato,  who 
took  again  her  whom  he  had  divorced,  and  returning  whence  thou  didst  turn 
aside,  thou  wast  trusting  to  reach  the  end  of  unrest.  But  still  thou  shalt  be 
moved,  until  it  please  the  Most  High  to  fashion  for  thee  a  stable  habit.  The 
brother  of  Jupiter  fully  entered  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  1360,  on  the  ist  day 
of  April.  The  Sun  was  then  with  Aries,  19°  24'  ;  the  Moon  was  in  Libra, 
li°  21' ;  the  Head  of  Draco  was  in  Sagittarius,  17°  36' ;  Saturn  was  .  .  .  with 
Leo,  25°  8' ;  Jupiter  was  with  Taurus,  21°  18' ;  Mars  was  in  Pisces,  6°  23' ; 
Venus  was  going  before  Mars  in  Pisces,  10°  52' ;  Mercury  was  in  Aries,  16°  10'. 

To  this  I  shall  append  the  deeds  of  peace,  when  they  shall  have  come  to 
pass.  And  I  shall  compose  a  separate  treatise  on  Peace.  .  .  . 


HERE  BEGINS  THE  TREATISE  ON  WAR. 

[Ch.  i.] 

In  the  treatise  on  War  I  shall  proceed  as  follows  : 

First,  I  shall  give  a  description  of  Human  War,  concerning  which  I  shall 

principally  treat,  in  genus. 
Secondly,  I  shall  divide  War  into  heads. 
Thirdly,  I  shall  pursue  the  several  heads. 


What  War  is,  and  how  it  is  to  be  described. 

War  is  described  thus  :  It  is  a  contention  arising  by  reason  of  something 
discordant  offered  to  human  desire,  tending  to  exclude  the  discordancy. 

I  said  "  contention."  This  I  give  as  the  genus,  for  it  contains  in  itself 
both  warlike  contention  and  all  other  contentions ;  ff.  De  aqua  pluv.  arcenda, 
1.  si  usque,  last  section.  I  said  "  by  reason  of  something  discordant,"  and 
this  is  the  cause  whence  any  contention  arises.  I  said  "  to  human  desire,"  to 

**  i.  e.,  the  legate  of  Ottia.  •'  i.  e.,  the  legate  of  Sabina. 


DIVISION  OF  WAR  217 

differentiate  it  from  a  contention  of  brutes.  I  said  "  to  exclude  the  discor- 
dancy," &c.,  and  this  is  the  final  cause  of  any  war ;  for  any  war  tends  finally 
to  destroy  the  displeasure  which  introduced  it,*and  so  wars  are  made  for  the  sake 
of  peace  ;  xxiii,  q.  i,  noli. 


Of  the  Division  of  War,  and  how  it  is  to  be  divided. 
[Ch.  ii.] 

Secondly,  War  is  divided  thus  :   It  is  either  Spiritual  or  Corporeal. 

Spiritual  War  is  either  Celestial  or  Human.  Celestial  Spiritual  War  is 
that  referred  to  in  Job,  ch.  xiv (?).  Human  is  that  of  which  it  is  written  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans,  ch.  vii,  "  I  see  another  law  warring  against  the  law  of 
my  mind  "  ;  xxxii,  q.  v,  si  Paulus. 

Corporeal  War  is  either  Universal  or  Particular.  Universal  War  is  referred 
to  in  ff.  De  captivis,  throughout ;  xxiii,  q.  i,  and  q.  ii. 

Of  Particular  War  one  form  is  waged  for  the  protection  of  one's  own  body 
and  property,  and  this  is  referred  to  in  ff.  De  iustit.  et  iure,  1.  ut  vim  ;  ff.  De 
vi  et  vi  ar.,  1.  i,  §  vim  vi  ;  and  ff.  Ad  legem  Aquiliam,  1.  scientiam,  §  qui  cum 
aliter ;  and  C.  De  vi,  1.  i ;  and  De  restit.  spol.,  ch.  olim  ;  and  Clem.,  De 
homicidio,  si  furiosus. 

Another  is  waged  for  the  protection  of  a  mystical  body,  or  a  part  of  it,  on 
account  of  a  defect  of  jurisdiction  ;  this  is  called  "  Reprisals,"  and  is  referred 
to  in  Authentics,  ut  non  fiant  pignorationes  ;  and  Sext,  De  iniuriis. 

Another  is  waged  on  account  of  the  contumacy  of  one  who  resists  the 
jurisdiction  of  a  judge  ;  ff .  De  rei  vindicatione,  1.  qui  restituere. 

Another  is  waged  for  "  compurgation  " ;  this  is  called  "Duel";  C.  De 
gladiatoribus,  the  single  law  ;  and  De  pugnantibus  in  duello,  the  whole  title. 

It  is  true  that  our  first  division  might  be  into  "  lawful  "  and  "  unlawful  " 
war  ;  but  on  these  little  need  be  said,  and  the  several  heads  must  be  explained 
severally  in  their  order. 

And  first  of  Celestial  Spiritual  War,  explaining  it  very  briefly,  and  so  of 
each  in  turn. 


Order  of  the  Treatises. 

I  shall  treat  therefore  of  Celestial  Spiritual  War. 

Secondly,  of  Human  Spiritual  War. 

Thirdly,  of  Universal  Corporeal  War. 

Fourthly,  of  Particular  War  for  the  protection  of  one's  own  body. 

Fifthly,  of  Particular  War  for  the  defence  of  a  mystical  body,  which  is 

called  "  Reprisals." 
Sixthly,  of  Particular  War  for  "  compurgation,"  which  is  called  "  Duel." 


2i8  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

Of  Celestial  Spiritual  War. 
[Ch.  iii.] 

Returning  to  these  subjects  severally,  I  say  that  Celestial  War  arose 
because  of  ingratitude  arising  from  a  defect  in  the  impress  of  charity 
stamped  by  the  Creator  on  an  intelligence  the  most  sublime  of  all  created 
intelligences.  And  with  this  the  description  given  above  does  not  agree.  Here 
we  must  know,  that,  as  Gregory  says  in  the  Moralia,  in  the  beginning  of  the 
creation  of  the  angelic  nature  the  Most  High  Creator  of  all  created  Lucifer  to  be 
more  eminent  than  the  other  angelic  intelligences.  For  his  pre-eminence  was 
not  lower  than  the  cedars  in  the  garden  of  God,  as  is  written  in  Ezekiel,  ch.  xxxi, 
"  the  fir  trees,  the  plane  trees  did  not  equal  his  strength,  nor  his  branches  '  ; 
for  he  is  described  as  "  made  fair  in  the  multitude  of  his  thick  branches," 

He  was  the  seal  of  the  similitude  of  God.  He  was  therefore  created  more 
eminent  than  the  rest,  as  he  had  also  other  openings  prepared  for  the  admission 
of  charity.  For  from  his  first  creation  he  was  made  capable  of  charity  ;  and 
had  he  but  consented  to  be  filled  therewith, .  .  .  but  he  chose  not  charity  because 
of  pride.  For  had  he  shown  himself  penetrable  to  the  gold  of  charity,  he  would 
have  remained  among  the  holy  angels,  a  cut  stone  in  a  royal  diadem.  He  had 
then  the  openings,  but  because  of  the  vice  of  pride  they  were  not  filled  with  the 
gold  of  charity. 

Inasmuch,  therefore,  as  he  was  more  eminent  than  the  rest,  as  being 
created  the  seal  of  the  similitude  of  God,  and  yet  he  would  not  be  filled  with 
charity  because  of  the  vice  of  pride,  therefore  he  sinned  and  was  condemned 
without  pardon,  because  he  was  created  great  without  comparison  ;  therefore 
for  this  he  was  cast  out  from  paradise,  as  may  be  seen  at  length  and  in  most 
noble  words  in  De  Pcenit.,  dist.  ii,  ch.  principium  enini.  The  passage  is  by 
Gregory,  as  I  said  above.  This  was  the  Celestial  Spiritual  \Yar,  upon  which, 
as  I  said  before,  I  shall  say  but  little  ;  yet  as  I  said  that  Lucifer  was  more 
eminent  than  the  rest,  we  must  note  that  certain  qualities  were  conferred  on 
angels  at  their  first  creation,  in  common  but  in  different  degrees,  and  certain 
others  in  common  but  indifferently.  Those  which  were  conferred  in  common 
but  in  different  degrees  were  subtlety  of  nature  or  substance,  clearness  of 
intelligence,  ability  of  free  will.  Yet  these  qualities  they  have  in  different 
degrees  ;  for  some  are  more  subtle  than  others  in  substance,  some  are  clearer 
in  intelligence,  some  are  freer  of  will.  The  qualities  conferred  in  common  but 
indifferently  were  spirituality,  indissolubility,  indivisibility,  immortality.  In 
these  all  are  made  equal ;  and  by  this  you  will  understand  in  what  respects 
Lucif'  r  via-  ini'iv  ( mint  nt  than  the  rest,  becaust  lie  was  more  eminent  in  the 
qualities  that  are  conferred  in  common  but  in  different  degrees. 

We  must  note,  too,  that  the  Devil  was  exalted  by  natural  prerogative,  of 
which  it  has  1  ccn  said  that  he  was  exalted  also  because  of  the  victory  which  he 
sometimes  has  against  man  in  the  war  which  he  wages  against  him,  whence  it  is 
written  in  a  Psalm,  "  Thou  hast  exalted  the  right  hand  of  them  that  oppress 


CELESTIAL  SPIRITUAL  WAR  219 

him."  David  feared  this  victory  when  he  said,  "  Lighten  my  eyes  lest  I  sleep 
the  sleep  of  death,  lest  mine  enemy  say,  I  have  prevailed  against  him."  He 
was  exalted,  too,  because  of  pride,  whence  it  was  said  to  him,  "  Thine  heart  was 
lifted  up  because  of  thy  beauty  " ;  for  he  himself  said,  "  I  will  ascend  into  heaven, 
and  will  set  my  throne  to  the  north  ;  and  I  will  be  like  the  Most  High,"  Isaiah, 
ch.  xiv. 


How  Celestial  Spiritual  War  is  the  mete  and  measure  of  Human 

Spiritual  War. 

[Ch*  iv.] 

This,  then,  was  the  Spiritual  War  whereby  Lucifer  was  cast  out  from  the 
paradise  of  the  Most  High,  and  perhaps  from  it  Human  Spiritual  War  had  its 
origin.  For  in  every  genus  it  is  possible  to  arrive  at  one  thing  which  is  the  first 
and  the  measure  of  all  things  within  the  common  genus.  So  in  the  genus  of 
the  conflict  of  good  against  evil  we  may  arrive  at  the  first  thing.  The  first  thing 
is  the  beginnings  ;  but  the  beginning  of  virtue  is  the  Most  High,  and  the  begin- 
ning and  the  prince  of  vices  is  the  Devil.  Their  conflict,  then,  is  the  first  thing 
and  the  measure  of  any  lower  human  spiritual  conflict. 

Of  the  natural  influence  of  the  Spiritual  War  of  celestial  bodies  on 

terrestrial  wars. 
[Ch.  v.] 

Now  it  may  be,  if  I  may  speak  in  terms  of  natural  philosophy,  that  ter- 
restrial corporeal  wars  have  celestial  wars  corresponding  to  them  ;  for,  as  the 
Philosopher  says,  this  world  is  necessarily  in  contact  with  the  higher  motions, 
in  order  that  all  virtue  may  be  directed  thence ;  Metaphysics,  i,  and  De  Ccelo 
et  Mundo,  ii.  Every  lower  corporeal  act,  therefore,  is  directed  by  celestial  ones 
above,  and  there  is  a  conflict  above,  that  is  to  say,  virtual  opposition,  springing 
from  the  diversity  of  the  celestial  bodies,  and  especially  of  the  planets,  whose 
influence  is  more  all- pervading  than  that  of  the  fixed  stars,  and  from  the  diversity 
of  the  aspects,  positions,  and  motions  of  the  same.  Perhaps  if  we  observe  these 
we  shall  see  that  the  world  could  not  well  be  without  war.  And  perhaps  it 
would  not  be  wrong,  according  to  the  teachings  of  natural  philosophers  and 
astrologers,  to  hold  that  the  world  could  not  continue  without  war  and  with 
peace  alone,  which  might  clearly  be  shown  as  follows. 


How,  according  to  theologians  and  natural  philosophers,  it  is  necessary  to 
assume  the  existence  of  war. 

[Ch.  vi.] 

If  the  sufficient  and  necessary  productive  causes  of  any  effect  are  estab- 
lished, the  effect  itself  must  necessarily  be  established  ;  but  the  sufficient  and 
necessarily  productive  causes  of  war  are  established,  therefore  war  itself  must 

[20] 


220  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

necessarily  be  established.   The  major  premise  is  proved.    For  an  effect  follows 
its  cause  as  regards  being  productive  and  destructive  ;    i,  q.  vii,  quod  pro 
remedio  ;   i,  q.  i,  quod  pro  necessitate;  dist.  lv,  priscis ;   dist.  Ixi,  neophitus ; 
i,  q.  i,  detrahe ;   De  baptis.,  debitum.    The  minor  premise  is  proved.     For 
according  to  the  teaching  of  natural  philosophers  it  is  impossible  for  the 
heaven  to  stand  still.  Physics,  vii  and  viii ;    on  the  contrary  its  motion  is 
perpetual,  and  the  celestial  bodies  by  their  own  nature  work  opposing  effects 
upon  these  lower  bodies,  and  this  opposition  of  effects  arises  here  below  by 
reason  of  the  variety  of  the  aspects  of  the  celestial  bodies  and  their  motions, 
as  our  sensations  show  us.    For,  to  deduce  the  proposition  strictly,  by  reason 
of  the  varied  correspondence  of  the  celestial  bodies  at  the  time  of  the  construc- 
tion of  states,  some  states  are  found  hating  one  another  naturally,  others  are 
friendly  or  akin ;   and  so  too  there  are  men  who  hate  one  another  naturally, 
not  because  of  preceding  deserts  on  one  side  or  the  other,  and  others  who  love 
one  another  naturally.    Since,  therefore,  wars  arise  by  reason  of  hatreds  and 
discordances  of  desires,  and  these  are  necessarily  produced  by  the  motions  of 
the  celestial  bodies,  which  are  always  and  necessarily  active,  we  infer  that  there 
will  necessarily  be  wars,  having  regard  to  the  necessity  of  material  and  cor- 
poreal nature.    I  admit,  however,  that  natural  power  is  not  directly  neces- 
sitated, and  of  itself  might  even  resist.     Hence  the  saying  of  Ptolemy  in  the 
Centiloquium,  "  the  wise  soul  dominates  the  stars,  .  .  .  and  we  have  praised 
him."     I  confess,  however,  that  if  the  theologians  think  otherwise,  I  submit 
myself,  in  all  that  concerns  them,  to  their  correction. 

Of  this  war,  however,  I  do  not  intend  to  treat,  because  it  would  be  to 
exceed  the  bounds  of  law  too  far. 

Now  six  theological  causes,  which  prevent  there  being  universal  peace  on 
the  earth,  are  usually  given.  The  first  is  because  offences  are  not  punished, 
Ecclesiasticus,  ch.  iv.  The  second  is  the  abundance  of  temporal  things,  Genesis, 
ch.  xiii,  "  there  was  a  strife  between  the  herdmen  of  Abraham  and  the  herdmen  of 
Lot " ;  James,  ch.  [v]  iv,  "whence  wars  and  disputes,"  &c.  The  third  is  because 
we  are  not  occupied  in  the  fight  against  the  Devil,  so  that  we  do  not  fight  like 
men,  Isaiah,  ch.  xxviii,  "  we  have  made  a  covenant  with  death  and  with  hell  "  ; 
Ephesians.ch.  vi,  "  we  wrestle  not  against  flesh."  The  fourth  is  because  we  do  not 
consider  the  losses  of  war,  in  which  we  lose  life  and  body  and  riches,  Jeremiah, 
ch.  Ivi  &.  The  fifth  is  because  we  do  not  weigh  the  issue  of  war,  which  is  doubtful, 
i  Samuel,  ch.  xii.  The  sixth  is  because  we  do  not  keep  the  precepts  of  God, 
Jeremiah,  ch.  iii'7',  "  would  that  thou  hadst  hearkened  to  my  commands,"  &c. 

We  see,  then,  from  what  I  have  said,  that  celestial  spiritual  war  is  two- 
fold. The  first  is  the  war  of  the  Creator  against  Lucifer  himself,  springing  from 
defect  of  charity  turned  into  pride,  drawing  him  down  from  his  celestial  throne 
to  the  centre  of  the  earth.  And  this  war  lasted  but  a  moment  ;  see  Job,  ch.  xiv, 
above.  The  second  is  the  virtual  opposition  of  the  motions  and  aspects  of 
celestial  bodies,  which  introduces  formal  opposition  in  these  lower  bodies, 
whereby  the  lower  wars  are  introduced,  and  this  is  continuous  and  successive. 


HUMAN  SPIRITUAL  WAR  221 

On  the  first,  in  terms  of  theology,  depends  Human  Spiritual  War,  which  pro- 
ceeds from  the  opposition  of  intellect  to  sense.  For  the  Prince  of  Evil  persuades 
and  induces  to  sin,  that  he  may  draw  us  down,  Ephesians,  ch.  vi  ;  but  the 
Prince  of  Good,  on  the  contrary,  strives  to  raise  us  upwards.  On  the  second 
depends  Human  Corporeal  War,  and  even  Human  Spiritual  War,  to  speak  in 
the  terms  of  natural  philosophy,  as  will  be  discussed  in  the  treatise  next 
following. 


Of  Human  Spiritual  War,  according  to  Theology. 

[Ch.  vii.] 

Human    spiritual  war    may  be    explained    theologically   and   morally. 
Theologically  it  is  a  contention  arising  by  reason  of  the  envious  opposition 
of  the  Devil  against  a  reasonable  creature,  having  its  impetus  in  the  sin  of 
our  first  parent.    And  of  this  spiritual  war  the  Apostle  speaks  in  Ephesians, 
ch.  vi,  saying,  "  Take  unto  you  the  armour  of  God,  that  ye  may  be  able  to 
withstand  the  deceits  of  the  Devil."    And  this  armour  is  the  virtues  and  good 
works  wherewith  men  are  armed  against  the  vices  ;  xi,  q.  iii,  qui  resistit.    Now 
the  deceits  of  the  Devil  are  innumerable,  for,  as  Pope  John  says,  "  he  has  a 
thousand  ways  of  injuring,  and  we  know  his  cunning.     For  from  his  first  fall 
he  tries  to  break  the  unity  of  the  Church,  to  wound  charity,  to  poison  the  sweet- 
ness of  holy  works  with  the  gall  of  envy,  and  in  all  manner  of  ways  to  pervert 
and  perturb  the  human  race.    For  he  is  sorely  troubled  and  shamed  that  men 
formed  of  clay  should  keep  charity  on  earth,  which  he  could  not  have  in  heaven. 
Hence  ought  we,  so  far  as  our  frailty  will  allow,  to  fortify  all  approaches  of 
injury  against  his  cunning,  lest  death  enter  by  our  doors."    These  words  are 
in  xvi,  q.  ii,  ch.  visis.    So  in  another  place  Jerome  writes  most  beautifully  to 
Jovinian  in  these  words,  "  Thus  in  evils  and  sins  are  the  inciting  seeds  and  the 
working  of  the  Devil.    When  he  sees  that  we  have  built  on  the  foundation  of 
Christ  hay,  wood,  and  stubble,  then  he  applies  fire.    Let  us  build  therefore  gold, 
silver,  and  precious  stones,  and  he  will  not  dare  to  attack  ;   although  even  in 
this  is  no  sure  possession,  for  the  lion  lurks  in  ambush,  that  he  may  kill  the 
innocent  in  the  secret  places,  and  the  furnace  proves  the  potter's  vessels,  but 
just  men  are  proved  by  the  temptation  of  tribulation."    These  words  are  taken 
from  De  Poenit.,  dist.  ii,  ch.  si  enim,  about  the  middle.    In  another  place,  too, 
Pope  Alexander  writes  in  these  words  :    "  For  the  Devil  does  not  cease  to  go 
about  seeking  whom  he  may  devour,  and  seeking  whom  of  the  faithful  he  may 
destroy,  and  especially  those  whom  he  finds  more  ardent  in  the  service  of  the 
Saviour  and  devoted  to  Him."    These  words  are  taken  from  iii,  q.  i,  nulli,  and 
ch.  verum,  originally  from  i  Peter,  ch.  v.    And  this  war  had  its  impetus  in  the 
sin  of  our  first  parent,  not  as  a  positive  cause,  but  as  a  necessary  one.    For  if 
our  first  parent  had  not  sinned,  this  conflict  would  have  come  to  naught. 


222  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

Of  Human  Spiritual  War,  according  to  Moral  Philosophy. 

[Ch.  viii.] 

Now  Human  Spiritual  War,  if  we  understand  it  in  a  moral  sense,  and  speak 
after  the  manner  of  philosophers,  is  a  contention  arising  by  reason  of  the  opposi- 
tion of  reason  to  sensitive  appetite.    Here  we  must  note  that,  according  to  the 
Philosopher,  in  De  Anima,  ii,  the  soul  has  five  potentialities,  vegetative,  sensi- 
tive, appetitive,  intellectual,  and,  according  to  place,  motive.    The  appetitive 
is  divided  into  sensitive  and  rational.    The  same  Philosopher,  in  Politics,  i, 
shows  that  the  soul  dominates  the  body  with  a  rule  disposed  or  ordered  like  that 
of  a  master  over  a  slave.    But  the  intellect  dominates  the  sense  with  a  royal 
rule,  that  is,  a  rule  ordered  over  free  persons  ;  that  is  to  say,  the  soul  dominates 
the  body  as  a  master  his  slave,  but  the  intellect  dominates  the  sense  as  a  superior 
dominates  one  who  is  subject  to  him,  though  free.    Further,  we  must  observe 
that  the  intellect  is  called  rational  because  it  formally  contains  reason  in  itself  ; 
but  the  sensitive  appetite  is  called  rational,  not  because  it  contains  reason  in 
itself,  for  they  are  formally  distinct  potentialities,  but  it  is  called  rational 
because  in  man  it  is  created  ready  to  obey  reason,  and  irrational  because  it  is 
capable  of  not  obeying  reason,  or  formally  admits  of  the  exclusion  of  reason. 
From  these  premises  it  clearly  appears  that  sensitive  human  appetite  sometimes 
resists  reason,  and  sometimes  obeys  it.    When  it  resists,  there  is  war  and  opposi- 
tion ;   when  it  obeys,  there  is  peace  and  concord.    The  example  in  the  great 
universe  is  clear,  where  all  lower  things  are  created  apt  to  obey  the  higher 
things.    Hence  the  saying  of  the  same  Philosopher  in  Metaphysics,  i,  and  in 
De  Ccelo,  ii,  that  this  world  is  necessarily  in  contact  with  the  higher  motions 
in  order  that  all  virtue  may  be  thence  directed,  and  yet  sometimes  it  does  not 
obey  because  of  the  disarrangement  of  matter,  and  thence  come  things  contrary 
to  the  intention  of  the  superior  agents,  such  as  monsters  ;    so  the  sensitive 
appetite,  being  lower,  is  apt  to  obey.    Hence  what  the  same  Philosopher  says 
in  De  Anima,  ii,  about  that  which  is  moved  and  that  which  moves,  that  if  the 
intellect  moves  the  sensitive  appetite,  and  is  obeyed  by  it,  the  motion  is  natural, 
as  it  is  when  a  higher  sphere  moves  a  lower.    But  if  the  contrary,  then  the 
motion  is  not  natural,  as  if  a  lower  sphere  were  to  move  a  higher.    The  example 
in  a  civil  monarchy  is  clear,  for  some  subjects  oppose  their  princes.    Consider 
the  examples  of  this  opposition  in  the  continent  and  the  incontinent  man.    For 
even  in  the  continent  man  the  sensitive  appetite  inclines  to  excess  ;  for  example, 
to  inordinate  food,  drink,  or  the  like.     Reason  teaches  that  excess  is  to  be 
avoided  as  injurious,  and  in  the  continent  man  intellect  and  reason  prevail ; 
so  that,  properly  speaking,  continence  is  not  an  established  moral  virtue,  for, 
as  the  same  Philosopher  says,  in  the  virtuous  man  all  things  are  harmonious. 
Hence,  when,  after  many  and  frequent  acts,  a  kind  of  readiness  has  been 
established  in  the  sensitive  appetite,  inclining  the  sensitive  appetite  itself  to 
the  good,  and  to  conformity  with  reason,  then  virtue  really  exists.    But  in  the 


UNIVERSAL  CORPOREAL  WAR  223 

incontinent  man  this  opposition  is  obvious,  but  in  him  the  sensitive  appetite 
prevails  ;  yet  his  incontinence  is  not  called  an  established  vice  until,  after 
frequent  acts,  it  has  become  so  accustomed  to  incline  to  evil  that  it  now  always 
inclines  that  way  without  any  opposition.  This  opposition  is  what  we  mean  by 
Human  Spiritual  War  in  the  strict  sense,  speaking  in  the  terms  of  moral  philo- 
sophy. Of  this  opposition,  too,  the  Apostle  speaks  to  the  Romans,  ch.  vii, 
"  I  see  another  law  warring  against  the  law  of  my  mind  "  ;  quoted  in  xxxii, 
q.  v,  si  Paulus.  This  opposition  is  also  referred  to  in  dist.  vi,  sed  pensandum; 
De  constitutionibus,  nam  concupiscentiam.  And  Gregory  speaks  of  this 
spiritual  war  in  xxiii,  q.  i,  nisi  bella.  Now  in  this  opposition  there  is  regularly, 
from  youth  upwards,  an  inclination  to  evil ;  for  every  age,  from  youth  up- 
wards, is  prone  to  evil ;  Genesis,  ch.  viii  ;  xii,  q.  i,  omnis  cetas.  And  many 
reasons  have  been  assigned  for  this.  The  first  is  because  one  can  do  evil  of 
oneself,  but  good  only  by  grace.  Another  is  on  account  of  the  impetus  of 
original  sin  which  impels  us  to  evil.  Another  is  because  evil  is  easier  than  good. 
For  good  consists  essentially  in  a  mean,  but  vices  in  extremes  ;  and  there  is 
only  one  straight  way  to  the  mean,  but  many  ways  to  the  extreme.  Another 
is  because  there  are  more  obstacles  to  good  than  to  evil.  Another  is  because 
good  can  only  be  done  with  the  judgement  of  reason,  in  which  young  men  are 
deficient,  because  of  the  darkening  of  their  bodily  organs.  And  this  I  believe 
to  be  the  true  reason.  So  much  of  Spiritual  War,  as  to  which  more  might  well 
be  written  ;  but  I  pass  it  by,  because  it  would  overstep  the  bounds  of  law,  to 
which,  as  far  as  possible,  I  intend  to  confine  myself. 


Of  Universal  Corporeal  War. 
[Ch.  ix.] 

In  the  third  place,  as  I  am  to  treat  of  Universal  Corporeal  War,  I  shall  set 
forth  my  treatment  of  the  subject  in  the  form  of  questions  : 

Firstly,  by  what  law  war  had  its  origin  and  introduction. 

Secondly,  who  may  declare  universal  war,  and  against  whom  it  may  be 
declared. 

Thirdly,  what  are  the  means  of  making  war,  briefly  explaining  what 
acts  are  lawful  and  what  unlawful  in  persons  making  war,  and  formu- 
lating certain  questions  on  those  subjects. 

Fourthly,  what  persons  may  be  compelled  to  fight,  and  of  those  who 
participate  in  a  war  without  compulsion. 

Fifthly,  of  the  spoils  of  war,  and  of  certain  other  incidents  of  war. 

Sixthly,  by  means  of  a  table  for  the  instruction  of  the  canonist,  of  questions 
touching  the  matter  of  war.  Whenever  a  subject  has  been  treated  in 
the  Corpus  luris  Canonici  by  the  glossators  and  doctors,  I  shall  omit  it. 


224  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

By  what  law  Universal  Corporeal  War  had  its  origin. 
[Ch.  *.] 

I  return  to  my  first  question,  and  I  ask  by  what  law  Universal  Corporeal 
War  had  its  origin.  Solution.  By  the  divine  law  and  the  law  of  nations.  By 
the  divine  law  ;  this  is  proved  by  Joshua,  ch.  viii  ;  I  Samuel,  ch.  xvi.  By  the 
law  of  nations  ;  ff.  De  iustit.  et  iure,  1.  ex  hoc  iure. 


How  Universal  Corporeal  War  had  its  origin  in  Divine  Law. 

I  said  that  wars  arose  by  divine  law  ;  here  we  must  note  that  wars  wen- 
introduced  not  only  with  the  permission,  but  by  the  positive  allowance,  of  the 
Lord.  And  this  may  be  proved  ;  for  every  power  tending  to  good  is  so  derived 
positively,  and  not  merely  permissively.  But  the  power  of  declaring  lawful 
war  tends  to  good  ;  therefore  it  proceeds  positively  from  God.  The  major  is 
proved  ;  for  "  every  good  gift  and  every  perfect  gift  is  from  above  and  cometh 
down  from  the  Father  of  lights,"  James,  ch.  i ;  i,  q.  ii,  quern  pio.  The  minor 
is  proved  ;  for  a  declaration  of  a  lawful  war  and  a  lawful  war  itself  tend  to 
the  good,  for  they  tend  to  the  peace  and  quiet  of  the  world.  This  is  proved  by 
the  authority  of  Augustine  to  Boniface,  who  says,  "  war  is  not  sought  that  war 
may  be  practised,  but  war  is  waged  that  peace  may  be  sought."  He  adds, 
"  be  therefore  peaceful  in  war,  and  by  your  victory  lead  those  whom  you  over- 
throw to  the  blessings  of  peace."  These  words  are  in  xxiii,  q.  i,  noli.  The  end 
of  war,  then,  is  the  peace  and  tranquillity  of  the  world.  Therefore  we  conclude 
that  it  proceeded  originally  and  positively  from  God.  This  is  confirmed  :  For 
every  act  punishing  evil  persons  proceeds  from  God,  but  the  declaration  of 
a  lawful  war  is  an  act  punishing  evil  and  rebellious  persons.  Therefore  it 
proceeds  positively  from  God.  The  major  is  proved  thus  :  For  it  is  written, 
'  To  me  belongeth  vengeance,  and  I  will  repay  "  ;  [Proverbs,  ch.  xxii]  ;  [xxiii, 
q.  i,  ch.  item  cum  in  Proverbiis]  ;  and  in  another  place,  "  vengeance  is  mine, 
and  I  will  repay,"  Deuteronomy,  ch.  xxxii  ;  Hebrews,  ch.  x  ;  Romans,  ch. 
[xiii]  xii.  The  minor  is  proved  by  the  authority  of  Augustine  in  the  Sermon 
on  the  Centurion's  Son,  xxiii,  q.  i,  paratus,  at  the  words  nam  corripiendo. 
We  might  even  infer  from  this  reasoning  that  it  is  theologically  necessary  that 
there  should  be  evil  and  rebellious  persons  in  the  world  ;  for  in  the  divine 
majesty  are  acts  rewarding  the  good  and  punishing  the  evil,  as  it  is  written, 
"  nullum  bonum,"  &c.  Further,  on  that  assumption  it  might  be  argued  thus, 
that,  assuming  an  activity,  there  must  necessarily  be  assumed  an  object  of 
that  activity.  This  is  proved  by  the  words  of  the  Philosopher  in  DC  Anima, 
book  ii ;  for,  assuming  an  act  of  vision,  a  visible  object  must  be  assumed.  So 
too,  assuming  an  act  of  hearing,  an  audible  object  must  be  assumed.  Assuming, 
therefore,  from  the  first  creation  of  the  world,  an  act  of  punishment  in  God, 


ITS  ORIGIN  IN  DIVINE  LAW  225 

it  is  necessary  to  assume  an  object  of  punishment,  and  that  is  Evil,  as  I  showed 
above.     The  first  principal  proposition  is  confirmed  :    For  every  act  whereby 
the  power  of  injuring  is  taken  away  proceeds  positively  from  God.     But  a 
declaration  of  lawful  war  is  such  an  act.    This  is  proved  by  the  authority  of 
Augustine,  who  says,  "  Wars  are  waged  in  order  to  bring  the  vanquished  to  the 
fellowship  of  piety  and  justice."     He  adds,  "  For  defeat  is  beneficial  to  one 
from  whom  it  wrests  the  power  to  do  iniquity,  since  nothing  is  more  unhappy 
than  the  happiness  of  sinners,  which  nourishes  penal  impunity,  and  strengthens 
the  evil  will,  like  an  enemy  within."    These  words  are  in  xxiii,  q.  i,  paratus, 
at  the  words  ac  per  hoc.    This  is  confirmed :  All  power  is  from  God,  by  His 
command  or  permission  ;  therefore  warlike  power  proceeds  from  Him,  but  it  so 
proceeds  not  only  by  His  permission,  but  also  by  His  command.     Therefore  He 
commands.     The  principal  proposition  is  proved  ;  Romans,  ch.  xifi ;  quoted  in 
xxiii,  q.  i,  quid  culpatur.     In  short,  is  not  this  clear  if  we  regard  the  generations 
of  the  world  ?  for  from  the  first  creation  of  the  world  down  to  the  times  of  Noah, 
God  by  His  own  act  and  without  assistant  was  destroying  the  evil,  as  appears 
from  the  story  of  Cain  and  Abel,  and  certain  other  princes,  in  Genesis,  chs.  iv 
and  v.    Of  Himself,  therefore,  He  introduced  wars  to  punish  and  destroy  the 
bad.     We  conclude  therefore,  from  the  premises,  that  wars  were  originally 
introduced  by  divine  law.     Metaphorically,  or  rather  perhaps  naturally,  it 
might  be  demonstrated  thus  :    For  as  the  natural  philosophers  say,  man  is 
a  small  world,  and  as  government  goes  on  in  the  small  world,  so  it  does  in 
the  universal  whole,  if  the  analogy  be  traced,  as  the  Philosopher  says  in  Physics, 
book  viii ;   and  in  the  natural  ordering  of  the  body  it  is  clear  that,  when  there 
is  no  excess  of  humours,  there  is  no  rebellion  opposed  to  natural  conservation 
and  duration.    But  when  there  is  excess  of  humours  arising  from  disordered 
control,  then  there  is  a  struggle  of  nature  tending  to  conservation  against 
excess  tending  to  destruction  ;   and  in  the  struggle  the  natural  power  is  some- 
times strong  enough  to  correct  the  opposition,  sometimes  it  is  powerless  because 
of  the  excess  of  the  disease,  and  then  there  is  need  of  an  extrinsic  remedy,  of 
a  medicament  partaking  of  the  nature  of  poison,  but  of  one  which  is  opposed 
to  the  disease.    So  exactly  in  the  great  world.    For  sometimes,  in  a  territory 
and  region  of  the  world,  there  is  no  excess  of  rebellious  persons,  and  then  there 
is  no  conflict,  or  rather  the  guiding  hand  of  Nature  tends  uniformly  to  its 
conservation.    Sometimes  there  is  excess  of  rebellious  persons,  tending  to  the 
destruction  of  government  and  of  conservation,  and  then  sometimes  Nature 
corrects  it  of  itself,  by  monitions,  exhortations,  and  other  soothing  processes, 
and  then  there  is  no  need  of  war,  or  poisonous  medicament.    Sometimes  the 
disease  has  advanced  so  far  that  a  poisonous  medicament  is  needed,  extirpating 
the  matter  of  the  disease  entirely,  and  such  a  medicament  is  a  war  to  eradicate 
and  exterminate  the   bad.     So,  then,  in  the  small  world,  when  the  inner 
virtue  fails  we  turn  to  a  doctor,  who  operates  by  a  remedy  which  is  extrinsic 
and  poisonous,  just  as  in  the  great  world  the  general  governor,  who  is  the 
Most  High  Creator,  and  the  doctor  of  the  universe,  tending  to  its  conservation 


226  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

and  government,  when  the  humours  which  tend  to  its  destruction  or  the 
destruction  of  a  part  of  it  have  grown  so  great  .  .  .  uses  the  remedy 
of  war  to  exterminate  vices  and  excesses,  and  to  reduce  ...  to  the  proper 
temperature.  And  as  in  the  human  body  these  excesses  of  humours  attack 
the  several  members  of  the  human  body,  and  even  dissolution  begins, 
sometimes  because  of  excess  of  one  humour,  sometimes  of  another,  so  in 
the  universe  the  several  territories  and  regions  of  the  world,  which  are 
the  members  of  the  great  world,  are  attacked  by  these  excesses  of  vices, 
which  oppose  its  government,  sometimes  in  one  place,  sometimes  in  another, 
according  to  the  varieties  of  vices.  And  so  it  happens  that  the  regions 
of  the  world  are  sometimes  weakened  by  excess  of  vices,  which  sometimes 
grow  so  great  that  there  is  need  of  a  medicament  which  will  eradicate  the  good 
with  the  bad,  just  as  medicine,  too,  drives  out  good  and  bad  together.  Nay, 
sometimes  this  excess  leads  to  utter  extinction,  like  death  in  individuals,  as 
we  may  see  for  ourselves  ;  for  innumerable  regions  have  been  utterly  extin- 
guished and  rendered  uninhabitable  for  these  reasons.  Innumerable  examples 
might  be  cited  ;  and  this  same  thing  happens  in  families  and  governments, 
which  also  are  reduced  and  utterly  extinguished.  And  though  what  I  have 
said  has  been  metaphorical,  yet  it  is  most  clearly  proved  by  texts  of  the  divine 
law  ;  for  we  read  in  Genesis,  ch.  xix,  that  on  account  of  the  excessive  disease 
of  Sodom,  God  used  the  eradicatory  medicament  of  war  against  Sodom, 
Gomorrah,  Zeboim,  Zoar,  and  Admah,  though  two  of  these  perished  because 
of  their  neighbourhood;  De  Poenit.,  dist.  i,  ch.  sed  continue;  De  excessibus 
praelat.,  ch.  clerici  ;  and  Authentics,  coll.  vi,  ut  non  luxu.  contra  naturam,  near 
the  end.  Innumerable  examples  might  be  cited.  This  medicament  of  war,  too, 
is  referred  to  in  Joshua,  ch.  viii,  for  there  our  Lord  orders  Joshua  to  lay  himself 
an  ambush  behind,  that  is,  to  set  warriors  in  ambush  to  lie  in  wait  for  the 
enemy.  And  Augustine,  in  the  Liber  Quaestionum,  says  of  the  words  of  Joshua, 
"  Wars  are  called  lawful  which  avenge  injuries,"  that  is,  excesses  of  offences. 
And  he  adds,  "  So  a  people  or  a  city  must  be  made  to  suffer  which  has  neglected 
to  punish  the  wrong-doing  of  its  own  men."  He  adds,  "  but  this  kind  of  war 
is  undoubtedly  lawful,  because  God,  Who  knows  what  is  every  man's  due, 
ordains  it."  He  does  not  say  "  permits,"  but  "  ordains."  He  adds,  "  in  such 
a  war,  the  general  of  the  army  or  the  people  itself  should  be  regarded  not  so 
much  as  the  author  of  the  war  as  the  minister  of  God."  And  thus  it  is  clearly 
proved  that  God,  as  the  most  high  doctor  and  preserver  of  the  universe,  ordains 
wars  in  order  that  offences  may  be  rooted  out.  These  passages  are  quoted  in 
xxiii,  q.  ii,  Dominus  Nosier.  Of  this  war  and  eradicatory  medicament  it  is  also 
written  in  i  Maccabees,  ch.  v,  and  Deuteronomy,  ch.  ii,  where,  by  the  command 
of  God,  the  sons  of  Israel  wage  wars  against  the  Amorites  ;  and  Augustine  also 
treats  of  it  in  the  book  of  Numbers,  quoted  in  xxiii,  q.  ii,  ch.  nolandum  sane. 
Of  it  also  it  is  written  in  Judges,  ch.  v,  "  the  Lord  appointed  new  wars," 
referring  to  wars  which  eradicate  excesses  of  vices.  Isaiah,  too,  writes  in 
ch.  xxx,  "  and  in  battles  of  shaking  will  he  fight,"  like  a  warrior.  Of  those  who 


ITS  ORIGIN  IN  DIVINE  LAW  227 

eradicate,  it  is  written  also  in  i  Maccabees,  ch.  iv,  "  take  heart  and  fight." 
And  in  Jeremiah,  ch.  xx,  also  it  is  written,  "  The  Lord  is  with  me  as  a  warrior." 
Jerome,  on  Zephaniah,  describes  it  most  beautifully  in  the  words,  "  if  a  man 
enfeebles  the  strength  of  a  robber  or  a  pirate  and  renders  them  weak,  their 
weakness  advantages  them  ;  for  the  weakened  members,  which  formerly  they 
used  ill,  will  cease  from  evil  works."  Jerome's  conclusion  is  that  the  vicious 
are  made  healthy  by  the  expulsion  of  the  disease  which  disposed  their  infected 
members  to  evil,  and  this  is  done  by  an  eradicatory  war.  This  passage  is  xxiii, 
q.  iii,  ch.  si  quis  fortitudinem.  This  is  clearly  proved  by  what  is  written  in 
Luke,  ch.  xii,  and  in  Hebrews,  ch.  xii,  where  the  Lord  says,  "  That  servant 
which  knows  not  his  lord's  will  and  commits  things  worthy  of  stripes,  shall  be 
beaten  with  few  stripes  ;  but  that  servant  which  knows  his  lord's  will  and 
commits  things  worthy  of  stripes,  shall  be  beaten  with  many  stripes."  So  he 
who  exceeds  received  stripes  from  the  Lord.  This  passage  is  cited  in  xxiii, 
q.  iv,  ch.  ea  vindicta.  Hence  we  read  that  Elijah  put  many  to  death  by  his  own 
hand  and  with  fire  obtained  from  heaven  ;  2  Kings,  ch.  i.;  and  ch.  ea  vin- 
dicta. Further,  in  xxiii,  q.  iv,  it  is  so  written  of  others  in  the  time  of  the  old 
dispensation  ;  i  Kings,  chs.  xvii  and  xviii ;  and  so  it  is  written  that  Ananias 
and  his  wife  fell  dead  at  the  words  of  Peter,  the  chief  of  the  Apostles  ;  Acts, 
ch.  iv.  This  is  quoted  in  xvii,  q.  i,  Ananias  ;  and  xxiii,  q.  iv,  ea  vindicta,  at 
the  end.  And  Gregory  has  a  beautiful  passage  about  this  eradicating  war, 
written  to  Brunhilda,  queen  of  the  Franks,  in  which  he  says,  "  lest,  if,  because 
of  our  unbelief,  the  anger  of  the  divine  vengeance  should  be  stirred  by  the  acts 
of  the  wicked,  the  plague  of  war  should  destroy  sinners  whom  the  precepts  of 
God  do  not  recall  to  the  path  of  rectitude  "  ;  xxiii,  q.  iv,  si  quos.  Does  not 
the  Lord  say  to  Moses,  "  thou  shalt  not  suffer  malefactors  to  live  "  ?  Exodus, 
ch.  xxii.  Moses,  too,  who  had  received  the  law  from  the  Lord,  punished  the 
worshippers  of  the  idol  with  death  ;  Exodus,  ch.  xxxii ;  and  Samuel,  by  the 
Lord's  command,  hewed  in  pieces  Agag,  the  richest  of  kings  ;  i  Samuel,  ch.  xv. 
These  passages  are  quoted  in  xxiii,  q.  v,  ch.  hinc  apparel.  The  Lord  also 
drowned  the  Egyptians  in  the  waves  ;  Exodus,  ch.  xiv  ;  and  he  scattered  the 
corpses  of  the  Israelites  in  the  desert ;  Numbers,  ch.  xiv.  These  passages  are 
cited  in  xxiii,  q.  v,  quid,  ergo.  Innumerable  examples  might  be  cited  to  prove 
this  from  the  old  and  the  new  divine  dispensations  ;  but  these  are  sufficient  to 
establish  the  conclusion  that  wars  originally  had  their  origin  in  divine  law,  and 
not  merely  by  God's  permission,  but  rather  positively  from  God  Himself,  as 
the  governor  of  the  world,  and  the  doctor  who  eradicates  its  vices,  for  the  sake 
of  the  salvation  and  conservation  of  the  world,  and  because  these  remedies  of 
war  tend  to  this  end,  as  I  clearly  showed  above  :  and  we  can  see  for  ourselves 
that,  because  of  this  .  .  .  and  excess  of  manifold  vices  in  the  advancing 
destruction  of  the  universe,  the  Most  High  Creator  in  times  past  used  this 
eradicatory  remedy  ;  for  how  many  kingdoms  and  governments  of  the  world 
have  been  utterly  destroyed,  how  many  brought  low  ?  What  of  the  empire 
of  the  Trojans  ?  or  that  of  the  Greeks  ?  or  the  universal  dominion  of  the 

[21] 


228  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

Romans  ?    Parts  of  Italy  in  our  own  times  are  in  fever  and  are  being  subjected 
to  trial.    The  medicine  is  being  prepared  ;  .  .  .  according  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
most  learned  Hippocrates,  in  the  first  book  of  the  Aphorisms.  .  .  .    But  this 
conclusion,  that  wars  proceed  positively  and  originally  from  God,  might  be 
proved  by  observing  the  uniform  and  perpetual  instrument  of  the  divine 
majesty.    For  the  Most  High  Creator  of  all  works  through  the  mediation  of 
the  celestial  frame  on  this  terrestrial  frame  naturally,  howbeit  supernaturally. 
When  He  wills,  He  inspires  and  influences  it  immediately  ;    but  I  speak  in 
terms  of  natural  philosophy,  following  the  saying  of  the  most  learned  Philo- 
sopher, in  De  Meteoris,  i,  and  De  Coelo,  ii,  that  it  is  necessary  that  this  world 
should  be  in  contact  with  the  higher  motions,  in  order  that  all  virtue  may  be 
directed  thence.    Therefore  the  Most  High  influences  naturally  these  lower 
regions  by  the  mediation  of  a  celestial  and  spherical  body,  while  that  whole  body 
works  by  the  mediation  of  motion  and  light,  as  the  same  Philosopher  says. 
And  because  in  the  whole  celestial  frame  itself  there  are  parts  which  have 
virtues  of  diverse  influence,  as  the  variety  of  spheres,  the  diversity  of  wander- 
ing and  fixed  stars,  on  which,  by  reason  of  the  variety  of  their  natures  and 
motions,  every  created  and  corruptible  thing  effectively  depends,  therefore  a 
certain  contrariety  and  diversity  of  natures,  an  opposition  arising  here  below, 
is  dependent  on  that  above.    Whence  it  may  be  at  once  inferred  that,  as  opposi- 
tion and  difformity  are  the  causes  introducing  wars,  wars  arise  thence  ;   and 
more,  experience  teaches  that  uniformity  and  difformity  of  aspects  at  the 
time  of  birth  give  rise  to  natural  affections  and  natural  enmities  between  men. 
This  any  one  may  experience  ;    for  one  will  love  another  at  sight,  with  no 
antecedent  merits,  and  one  will  hate  another  in  the  same  way,  with  no  ante- 
cedent demerits.    So  affections  and  hatreds  arise  naturally  between  cities  and 
towns  and  camps,  on  account  of  the  uniformity  and  difformity  of  aspects  at 
the  time  of  their  construction  ;   and  so  from  celestial  influence  arise  hatreds, 
and  wars,  and  friendship,  and  peace,  and  it  is  the  same  between  provinces. 
But  this  celestial  nature,  by  the  mediation  of  motion,  is  productive  of  genera- 
tion and  corruption,  of  growth  and  diminution  in  these  lower  things  ;    and 
its  influence  is  felt  not  only  on  single  things  below,  but  on  whole  regions  of 
the  world,  for  by  this  higher  nature  habitable  regions  have  been  made  unin- 
habitable, and  uninhabitable  habitable.     For,  according  to  the  teaching  of  the 
Philosopher,  when  the  sea  shall  become  dry,  .  .  .  from  this  opposition  of  natures 
and  dispositions  from  which  arise  quarrels,  contentions,  wars  particular  and 
universal.    This  opposition,  on  account  of  the  variety  of  motions  and  aspects, 
exalts  some,  extinguishes  others,  depresses  others,  and  changes  the  governments 
of  the  world,  universal  and  particular.    And  this  may  be  proved  ;   for  if  the 
sufficient  productive  cause  of  any  effect  is  established,  the  effect  must  needs 
be  produced,  unless  something  extrinsic  is  present  to  hinder  its  production  ; 
but  the  celestial  nature  is  continually  changing  in  motion  and  aspect,  and  its 
parts  differ  by  their  own  nature  in  influence.    Therefore  these  opposed  and 
different  effects  must  needs  be  produced,  since  there  is  nothing  to  hinder  them, 


ITS  ORIGIN  IN  THE  LAW  OF  NATIONS  229 

and  from  this  we  might  infer  that  wars  must  needs  be  in  the  course  of  nature 
and  that  otherwise  the  government  of  the  world  would  not  proceed  naturally. 
Yet  I  protest  that  although  the  celestial  nature  has  this  effect  on  these  lower 
things,  yet  it  does  not  work  of  itself  and  directly  upon  the  human  intellect, 
but  the  freedom  of  the  will  endures  ;  xxiii,  q.  iv,  ch.  Nabuchodonosor,  and  ch. 
de  Tiriis;  De  Pcenit.,  dist.  ii,  ch.  sicut  enim;  and  the  Philosopher,  Ethics,  iii. 
But  it  works  on  the  organ  of  the  sensitive  virtues,  which  receive  the  influence 
and  direct  the  intellect,  and  thus  its  influence  is  indirect.  Hence  what  is 
written  in  the  Centiloquium,  "  the  wise  soul  dominates  the  stars."  But  inas- 
much as  to  treat  of  this  subject  would  take  me  too  far  from  the  bounds  of  law, 
I  say  no  more  about  this  conclusion  ;  but  let  it  suffice  that  we  have  inferred 
and  proved,  by  what  has  been  said,  that  wars  have  proceeded  from  God  posi- 
tively and  effectively,  although  the  last  discussion  shows  us  that  they  came 
not  immediately,  but  by  the  mediation  of  the  celestial  frame,  by  the  operation 
of  natural  causes. 


How  Universal  Corporeal  War  had  its  origin  in  the  Law  of  Nations. 

[Ch.  xi.] 

I  said,  secondly,  that  wars  were  recognized  by  the  law  of  nations.  Now 
here,  although  the  laws  say  that  wars  were  introduced  by  the  law  of  nations — 
as,  for  instance,  Isidore,  dist.  i,  ius  gen.  ;  and  the  jurist  Hermogenianus  in 
ff.  De  iustit.  et  iure,  1.  ex  hoc  iure — yet  I  think  that  wars  had  their  origin  not 
only  in  the  equity  of  natural  human  created  intelligence,  but  primordially  in 
the  disposition  of  creative  Nature,  which  influences  not  only  human  actions, 
but  all  other  things  animate  and  inanimate  also  ;  so  that  it  is  true  to  say  that 
wars  have  their  origin  in  natural  law,  even  as  distinguished  from  the  law  of 
nations.  As  to  how  these  differ,  I  may  refer  to  ff .  De  iustit.  et  iure,  1.  i,  §  ius  gen., 
and  §  ius  naturale,  and  1.  ex  hoc  iure  ;  and  dist.  i,  ius  naturale,  with  the  gloss 
thereto,  and  ch.  ius  naturale.  That  this  is  true  may  be  shown  thus  :  Natural 
first  principles  have  implanted  in  every  created  natural  entity  a  natural  in- 
clination to  exclude  everything  opposed  to  its  natural  disposition.  This  is 
clear  if  we  look  at  particular  natural  entities,  simple  and  mixed  ;  for  resistance 
to  fire  is  implanted  in  water,  and  resistance  to  water  in  fire,  because  of  the 
opposition  of  their  qualities.  This  which  is  true  of  single  elements  might  be 
shown  to  be  true  of  things  mixed  ;  but  it  is  especially  clear  in  the  brutes,  where, 
from  a  natural  opposition  of  complexions,  one  is  inclined  naturally  to  kill 
another,  and  the  other  to  kill  it.  Thus,  in  a  rational  creature  Nature  has 
implanted  an  inclination,  even  circumscribing  the  dictates  of  the  intellect,  to 
hunt  whatever  is  repugnant  to  itself.  That  this  is  true,  reason  shows  ;  for 
Nature,  the  producer  of  all  created  things,  must  be  not  less  solicitous  in  the 
conservation  of  a  rational  creature  than  of  its  other  products,  since  the  former 
is  itself  nobler  ;  De  pcen.  et  remiss.,  ch.  cum  infirmitas  ;  and  De  sac.  sane, 
eccles.,  1.  sancimus ;  and  xxxiii,  q.  v,  ch.  hcec  imago  ;  and  for  its  sake,  as  the 


230  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

end,  all  things  below  the  lunar  globe  were  produced  ;  ff.  De  usuris,  1.  I'M  pecudum. 
If,  therefore,  Nature  has  implanted  a  natural  inclination  in  all  other  created 
things  to  hunt  whatever  is  opposed  to  themselves,  how  much  stronger  must 
this  inclination  be  in  a  rational  creature  ?  The  same  thing  is  clear  to  our 
senses  if  we  examine  particular  instances,  for  any  one  experiences  this  in  himself, 
if  this  instinct  is  implanted  in  men  by  natural  first  principles  ;  and  therefore 
war  had  its  origin  primordially  in  this  natural  inclination,  since  war,  as  above 
described,  is  a  contention  arising  for  the  sake  of  destroying  opposition.  We 
may  infer,  therefore,  that  this  contention  which  arises  for  the  sake  of  destroying 
what  is  discordant  and  opposed  to  one's  own  conservation  has  its  origin  funda- 
mentally in  natural  first  principles,  and  so  in  the  law  of  nature,  as  distinguished 
from  the  law  of  nations.  But  you  will  say  at  once  that  this  conflicts  with  the 
texts  which  say  that  it  arises  from  the  law  of  nations  ;  but  as  to  that,  we  must 
observe  that,  although  this  natural  inclination  is  introduced  by  natural  law, 
our  natural  intelligence  being  limited,  yet  the  inclination  is  regulated  by  the 
dictates  of  reason  and  natural  intelligence  ;  just  as  we  say  of  particular  acts 
which  are  proper  to  men  by  nature,  their  intellect  being  limited,  such  as  the 
inclination  to  food  and  drink  and  sexual  intercourse,  that  these  acts  are  natural 
to  men,  and  yet  in  a  man  they  are  regulated  by  the  dictates  of  reason,  which  is 
not  the  case  with  the  brutes,  for  they  lack  that  dictation.  So,  then,  I  believe 
that  the  meaning  of  those  texts  was  that  the  regulation  of  that  inclination, 
introduced  by  natural  first  principles,  arises  from  the  law  of  nations,  that  is, 
from  the  general  equity  of  natural  intelligence,  but  the  inclination  itself  is 
from  natural  law.  This  is  proved  by  the  gloss  on  ff.  De  iustit.  et  iure,  1.  ex  hoc 
iure  ;  and  dist.  i,  ius  gent.  For  the  gloss  in  both  passages  to  the  word  "  wars  " 
adds,  by  way  of  explanation,  "  lawful,"  and  so  understands  the  text  to  refer 
to  an  inclination  regulated  by  the  dictates  of  reason.  And  although  the  texts 
say  that  wars  arise  from  the  law  of  nations,  yet  I  do  not  think  it  false  to  say 
that  wars,  that  is,  these  regulated  inclinations,  have  their  origin  in  the  civil 
law  and  in  the  canon  law.  For  the  civil  and  the  canon  laws  do  not  speak  of 
an  equity  different  from  the  equity  of  the  law  of  nations  ;  rather  they  are 
that  equity  itself,  for  all  law  consists  in  a  kind  of  rectitude,  and  that  is  why 
it  is  called  "  ius  "  ;  dist.  i,  ius  generate.  But  the  civil  and  the  canon  laws  are 
the  rectitude  of  life  and  the  equity  of  the  law  of  nations.  But  they  add  to 
that  rectitude  a  kind  of  explanation,  for  they  have  to  specify  and  explain  the 
rectitude  and  equity  of  the  law  of  nations,  sometimes  by  limiting  it  in  suitable 
modes,  sometimes  by  applying  it  to  various  acts,  sometimes  by  determining 
it  by  various  events.  All  these  points  are  proved  by  the  text  in  ff.  De  iustit. 
et  iure,  1.  ius  civile.  For  the  text  there  says  "  the  civil  law  is  a  law  which 
is  neither  wholly  distinct  from  natural  law  or  the  law  of  nations,  nor  wholly 
subordinate  to  them  ;  and  so  when  we  add  anything  to  or  take  anything 
from  the  comnlon  law,  we  make  it  special,  that  is,  civil,  law."  It  is  therefore 
true  to  say  that  wars  come  from  the  civil  and  the  canon  laws,  that  is,  from 
rectitude  itself,  which  is  the  i  ivil  and  the  canon  laws.  Nor  are  the  texts  just 


WHO  MAY  DECLARE  IT  ?  231 

cited  opposed  to  this,  because  that  rectitude,  with  nothing  added  or  taken 
away,  is  called  the  law  of  nations.  And  so  the  laws  just  cited  say  ;  but  when 
something  has  been  added  or  taken  away,  then  it  is  called  civil  or  canon  law  ; 
no  one,  however,  doubts  that  the  civil  and  canon  laws  do  add  something  on 
the  subject  of  wars  to  the  dictates  of  general  reason.  The  foregoing  discussion 
shows  us  in  what  law  wars  had  their  origin. 


Who,  first  and  chiefly,  may  declare  Universal  War,  and  by  what  Law,  and 

against  whom  .- 
[Ch.  xii.] 

I  ask,  secondly,  what  law  allows  the  Church  to  declare  war  against 
infidels,  and  to  invade  their  territories,  and  to  grant  indulgence  on 
this  account,  since  the  laws  seem  to  ordain  the  contrary  ;  for  those  who 
are  outside  the  Church  are  nothing  to  us ;  ii,  q.  i,  multi.  Also  by  origin 
their  possessions  and  jurisdictions  belong  to  them.  For  God  so  arranged 
throughout  the  whole  rational  creation,  for  he  makes  the  sun  to  rise  on  the 
just  and  on  the  unjust  ;  Matthew,  chs.  v  and  vi,  at  the  end.  Also  men  are 
not  to  be  compelled  to  the  faith,  for  all  others  who  have  not  been  incorporated 
are  to  be  left  to  their  own  will ;  dist.  xlv,  De  ludceis.  And  what  is  more, 
jurisdiction  may  be  delegated  to  the  infidel  over  those  who  are  converted  to 
the  faith,  provided  it  do  not  burden  them  too  heavily  ;  i  Timothy,  ch.  vi.  In 
the  second  place,  to  make  the  matter  clear,  we  must  observe  that  I  ought 
here,  in  the  first  place,  to  set  out  the  matters  which  I  have  treated  on  the 
subject  of  reprisals  at  the  beginning,  namely,  whence  the  Church  had  its 
jurisdiction,  and  also  whence  the  Emperor  had  his  ;  but  I  do  not  set  out 
these  matters  here,  because  they  have  been  fully  treated  there.  On  this 
understanding,  then,  we  ought  also  to  observe  that  in  the  same  community 
and  under  the  same  king  there  are  two  peoples,  and  for  the  two  peoples  two 
lives,  and  for  the  two  lives  two  governments,  and  for  the  two  governments 
a  twofold  order  of  jurisdiction.  The  community  is  the  Church,  the  one  King 
is  Christ,  the  two  peoples  are  the  clergy  and  the  laity,  the  two  lives  are  the 
spiritual  and  the  carnal,  and  the  two  governments  are  the  priesthood  and  the 
Empire  ;  but  of  these  one  is  supreme,  namely,  the  Papacy,  to  which  the  other 
is  subordinated.  Otherwise  the  argument  of  the  Philosopher  in  Metaphysics, 
book  xii,  showing  the  unity  of  the  Creator,  would  be  absurd.  He  says  that 
a  multitude  of  governments,  evil  entities,  tend  to  be  ill-disposed,  therefore 
there  is  one  head  ;  and  so  precisely  in  the  question  before  us  ;  also  because, 
in  any  class  of  entities,  it  is  possible  to  postulate  one  that  is  first,  which  is  the 
mete  and  measure  of  all  the  others,  as  the  same  Philosopher  shows.  So  in 
a  whole  monarchy  it  is  possible  to  arrive  at  the  head  ;  and  so,  too,  in  natural 
objects  it  is  possible  to  arrive  at  the  primary  motionless  motive  power,  as 
the  same  Philosopher  shows  in  Physics,  books  vii  and  viii.  The  Empire  cannot 


232  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

stand  in  such  a  relation  to  the  Papacy.    I  pass  over  innumerable  arguments, 
and  merely  cite  the  following,  which  will  suffice  to  show  that  there  is  one  Lord 
of  the  earth  :   vii,  q.  i,  in  apibi4s  ;  ix,  q.  iii,  cuncta  per  mundum,  and  ch.  per 
principalem  ;  ff.  Ad  leg.  Rhod.  de  iact.,  1.  deprecatio.    And  he  is  the  Pope.    He 
has  jurisdiction  not  only  over  the  faithful,  but  also  over  infidels,  as  is  shown 
more  clearly  than  day ;    for  Christ  had  power  over  all,  whence  the  passage 
in  the  Psalm:   "O  God,  give  thy  judgement  to  the  king."    If  Christ  had  it, 
He  would  not  have  been  a  loving  father,  if,  when  He  constituted  Peter  His 
vicar,  He  had  not  entrusted  the  charge  to  him,  which  it  is  sinful  to  suppose. 
Also  He  handed  to  Peter  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  saying,  "  what- 
soever thou  shalt  bind,"  &c.  ;    Matthew,  ch.  xvi.    And  in  another  passage, 
"  Feed  my  sheep,"  in  the  last  chapter  of  John.    So,  therefore,  the  Pope,  as  a 
matter  of  law,  has  jurisdiction  over  infidels,  though  not  as  a  matter  of  fact. 
Hence  it  is  that  if  a  barbarian,  who  has  only  the  law  of  nature,  sins  against  the 
law  of  nature,  he  may  be  punished  by  the  Pope.    For  it  is  written  in  Genesis, 
ch.  xix,  that  the  Sodomites  were  punished  by  God  ;  therefore  the  Vicar  of  God 
also  has  this  power.    The  same,  too,  if  they  worship  idols ;   for  it  is  natural 
to  worship  the  Creator  and  not  His  creatures.    So,  too,  he  may  punish  Jews, 
if  they  act  contrary  to  their  own  law  in  matters  of  morality,  and  are  not 
punished  by  their  governors.    There  is  no  doubt  that  he  may  punish  Christians, 
if  they  act  contrary  to  the  law  of  the  Gospel.    From  all  this  we  infer  that  the 
Pope,  like  a  true  prince,  may  declare  war  against  infidels,  and  grant  indul- 
gences for  the  recovery  of  the  Holy  Land,  and  especially  of  the  land  consecrated 
by  the  birth  of  Christ,  by  His  habitation,  and  death,  where  Christ  is  not  wor- 
shipped, but  Mahomet.    Also,  the  Holy  Land  was  conquered,  after  the  death 
of  Christ,  in  a  lawful  war  by  the  Roman  Emperor,  who  was  afterwards  robbed 
of  it  by  the  infidels.    Therefore  the  Pope  may  recover  it  by  reason  of  the  princi- 
pality which  he  holds.    But  in  other  lands  which  are  not  consecrated,  and 
where  neither  the  Empire  nor  the  Church  had  jurisdiction,  the  Pope  may 
in  fact  command  that  they  do  not  molest  their  Christian  subjects.    Otherwise 
he  may  by  a  judgement  deprive  them  of  their  jurisdiction,  and  thereby  .  .  . 
which  Innocent  noted,  De  voto,  quod  super  his.     The  solution  of  the  first 
question  is  clear,  namely,  of  the  justice  of  a  war  declared  by  the  Church  against 
infidels  ;  and  from  this  may  be  inferred  the  justification  of  a  war  declared  by 
the  Emperor  against  enemies. 


Evidential.    And  a  discussion  as  to  who  are  the  emperors  against  whom  war 

may  be  declared. 

[Ch.  xiiL] 

Here  we  must  note  that  there  are  two  peoples,  the  Roman  people,  and 
strangers.  To  the  Roman  people  belong,  first,  all  who  are  in  complete  obedience 
to  the  Roman  Empire,  for  the  people  means  the  whole  Empire  ;  Ad  munici- 


AGAINST  WHOM  DECLARED  ?  233 

palem,  I.  Roma.    Some  are  not  in  complete,  but  only  in  partial  obedience  to  it, 
as  when  they  live  according  to  the  laws  of  the  Empire  and  admit  the  Emperor 
to  be  lord  of  the  earth,  like  the  cities  of  Lombardy  and  the  like  ;  and  these, 
too,  belong  to  the  Roman  people,  since  it  exercises  jurisdiction  in  some  matters  ; 
De  aqua  pluv.  arc.,  1.  si  prius  ;  and  this  passage  should  be  noted.    There  are 
some  peoples  who  neither  obey  the  Emperor  nor  live  according  to  the  laws  of 
the  Empire  at  all,  but  say  that  they  have  this  position  by  privilege,  like  the 
Venetians,  who  assert  that  they  have  it  by  privilege.    These,  too,  belong  to 
the  Roman  people,  because  they  hold  their  privilege  at  the  will  of  the  Emperor, 
and  he  can  revoke  it  whenever  he  will ;  ff.  De  legat.,  iii,  1.  si  quis  in  principle. 
Moreover  this  privilege,  when  granted  to  them,  ought  to  be  so  ordered  as  not 
to  deprive  them  of  Roman  citizenship  ;    ff.  De  captivis,  1.  in  bello,  §  si  quis 
servum.    There  are  other  peoples  who  do  not  obey  the  Emperdr  and  assert 
that  they  have  this  immunity  by  contract,  like  the  provinces  subject  to  the 
Roman  Church,  which  assert  that  it  belongs  to  them  by  the  gift  of  Constantine 
and  other  Emperors  ;    and  these,  too,  belong  to  the  Roman  people,  for  the 
Church  exercises  there  the  jurisdiction  which  the  Empire  had,  and  hence  they 
do  not  on  that  account  cease  to  be  Roman  citizens.     I  say  the  same  of  the 
kings  who  do  not  admit  that  they  are  subjects  of  the  Emperor,  as  the  King 
of  France,  of  England,  of  Spain,  and  the  like,  who  assert  that  they  are  inde- 
pendent by  privilege  or  prescription.     And  by  this  I  conclude  that  almost 
all  nations  which  obey  the  Holy  Mother  Church  belong  to  the  Roman  people  ; 
and  any  who  should  say  that  the  Emperor  is  not  lord  would  be  contradicting 
the  text  of  the  Gospel,  when  it  says,  "  there  went  out  an  edict  from  Gesar 
Augustus,"  &c.     But  there  are  foreign  peoples  who  do  not  admit  that  the 
Emperor  is  lord,  like  the  Greeks,  who  say  that  their  emperor  is  lord.    So,  too, 
the  Tartars  say  that  Grancanes  is  lord,  and  the  Saracens  say  that  their  emperor 
is  lord.    Among  those  peoples,  however,  there  is  a  distinction,  for  some  of  them 
are  allied  to  us,  as  the  Greeks  against  the  Turks  ;  there  are  others  with  whom 
we  are  at  peace,  like  the  Tartars,  for  our  merchants  go  to  them  and  theirs 
come  to  us  ;   there  are  others  with  whom  we  have  no  dealings,  like  the  Jews  ; 
and  others  with  whom  we  are  at  actual  war,  like  the  Saracens,  and  to-day,  the 
Turks.    We  infer,  then,  that,  since  the  Emperor  is  the  secular  head,  having  no 
superior  in  secular  matters,  except  perhaps  in  the  instances  I  have  mentioned 
he  may  declare  war  against  his  enemies  ;  and  who  these  are  was  clear  from  the 
passage  immediately  following.     And  this  is  the  war  which  is  spoken  of  in 
ff.  De  captivis,  1.  hastes  ;  and  De  verbor.  significatione.    And  herein  war  claims 
its  place,  and  therefore  it  is  declared  by  the  Roman  people  or  Emperor,  so  that, 
if  the  Emperor  declares  war  on  any  rebellious  cities  of  Italy,  that  war  ranks 
as  a  public  war,  because  to  resist  an  official  of  the  Emperor  or  of  the  Pope, 
if  the  resistance  is  not  in  the  name  of  the  Emperor  or  the  Pope,  is  one  and 
the  same  thing. 


234  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

Whether  universal  war  may  be  declared  by  others  than  a  prince  ? 

[Ch.  xiv.] 

I  ask  whether  universal  war  may  be  declared  by  others  than  a  prince. 
Solution  :  It  may  not  be  declared  without  the  authority  of  a  prince,  for 
no  one  may  bear  arms  without  a  prince's  licence  ;  C.  Vt  usus  armorum, 
in  red;  and  the  gloss  on  Authent.,  De  mand.  princ.,  coll.  iii  ;  and  on 
Authent.,  De  armis,  coll.  vi.  And  the  reason  is  that  no  one  may  violate  the 
laws  of  princes  without  the  prince's  licence.  But  one  who,  without  the 
solemnity  of  law,  with  kingly  authority,  makes  law  for  himself,  when  he 
might  resort  to  a  lawgiver,  does  violate  the  law  ;  therefore  it  is  not  lawful 
without  the  prince's  authority.  The  prince,  then,  alone  may  declare  war 
by  his  own  authority,  since  he  has  no  superior  to  whom  he  may  resort  to  obtain 
justice.  To-day,  however,  because  there  are  peoples  who  do  not  recognize  a 
superior  in  fact,  the  authority  of  a  superior  is  not  required,  since  they  do  not 
recognize  one.  Nay,  every  day  wars  are  declared  by  one  people  against 
another,  without  asking  the  leave  of  any  one. 


Whether  war  tnade  by  the  Emperor  against  the  Church  is  lawful,  and  whether 
subjects  are  bound  to  obey  him  therein  ? 

[Ch.  xv.] 

The  second  question  is  whether  a  war  which  the  Emperor  makes  against 
the  Church  is  lawful,  and  whether  subjects  are  bound  to  obey  him  therein. 
It  appears  so,  because  it  is  by  the  authority  or  command  of  the  prince  ;  there- 
fore, &c.  Also  because  there  are  two  jurisdictions  ;  De  iudiciis,  novit ;  Qui 
filii  sunt  legitimi,  causam,  and  ch.  per  venerabilem  ;  De  appell.,  si  duobus.  Also 
because  subjects  are  bound  to  obey  the  Emperor  in  matters  concerning  the 
use  of  arms,  even  if  he  be  schisnjatic  ;  xi,  q.  iii,  lulianus.  Solution  :  The 
contrary  is  true,  for  the  Emperor  is  the  Church's  advocate  and  is  bound  to 
defend  it  ;  therefore  he  may  not  attack  it  ;  De  natis  ex  libero  ventre,  the  single 
chapter  ;  De  restit.  spol.,  conquer  ente.  Moreover,  by  declaring  war  against  the 
Church  he  deserves  to  lose  the  privilege  of  declaring  war,  since  he  abuses  it  ; 
xi,  q.  iii,  privilegium  ;  De  decimis,  suggestum  ;  so  that  he  may  be  punished 
for  his  offence  ;  De  translatione,  quanta,  §  ne  autem.  Nay,  such  obstinacy  in 
the  prince  does  not  differ  from  heresy;  De  haereticis,  excommunicamus,  i,  §  i ; 
and  this  passage  should  be  noted.  Also  because  the  Pope  is  his  superior  ;  for 
he  examines,  reproves,  and  deposes  the  Emperor  himself  ;  De  elect.,  venerabi- 
lem ;  Sext.,  De  re  iudic.,  ad  apostolicee.  In  this  case,  therefore,  subjects  are 
not  bound  to  help  the  Emperor  against  the  Church,  but  rather  the  contrary. 
And  the  Pope  may  absolve  them  from  the  bond  of  fealty ;  xv,  q.  vi,  nos 
sanctorum,  and  ch.  iuratos ;  and  note  De  haereticis,  excommunicamus  ;  De  pcenis, 
last  chapter  ;  and  in  this  matter,  Hostiensis,  De  resti.  spoliatorum,  olim. 


MEANS  OF  MAKING  WAR  235 

What  is  the  law  when  the  Pope  makes  war  against  the  Emperor  ? 

[Ch.  xvi.] 

The  fourth  question  is  what,  on  the  other  hand,  if  the  Pope  declares  war 
against  the  Emperor  ?  The  solution  appears  from  what  precedes  ;  for  if  the 
Pope  declares  war  against  an  Emperor  who  is  schismatic,  heretic,  or  otherwise 
usurping  the  rights  and  liberties  of  churches,  all  the  faithful  are  bound  to  help 
the  Pope,  and  even  vassals  of  the  Emperor  may  be  absolved  from  the  oath 
which  binds  them,  or  may  be  declared  not  to  be  bound ;  xv,  q.  vi,  iuratos,  and 
ch.  nos  sanctorum. 


Of  the  means  of  making  war  and  carrying  it  on.       , 

[Ch.  xvii.] 

Thirdly,  it  remains  to  consider  the  means  of  making  war  and  carrying 
it  on,  and  also  what  should  be  done  in  actual  war. 


Of  the  legion  and  the  cohort,  and  who  and  how  many  are  required  therein. 

In  war  there  are  legions,  and  a  legion  has  seven  thousand  one  hundred 
foot-soldiers,  and  seven  hundred  and  nineteen  horsemen.  There  are  cohorts, 
and  a  cohort  has  twenty  companies.  A  "  milliaria  "  cohort  has  one  thousand 
one  hundred  and  five  foot-soldiers,  and  a  hundred  and  thirty-five  horsemen. 
A  "  quinquagenaria  "  cohort  has  five  hundred  and  fifty-five  foot-soldiers,  and 
sixty-six  horsemen.  So  the  gloss  notes  in  ff.  De  his  qui  not.  infam.,  1.  ii. 
These,  then,  with  a  general  and  discipline,  make  a  war,  taking  war  in  the 
sense  of  a  multitude  apt  and  prepared  for  war,  and  not  merely  of  the  act  of 
making  war.  But  the  two  chief  foundations  of  a  war  are  arms  and  strength. 
These  are  divided  into  three  parts,  cavalry,  infantry,  and  fleets.  For  cavalry 
protect  the  plains  ;  fleets,  the  seas  and  rivers ;  and  infantry,  the  hills,  cities, 
and  steep  plains.  Hence  we  may  infer  that  infantry  are  more  necessary  to  the 
commonwealth  than  cavalry,  because  they  are  useful  everywhere. 


How  soldiers  should  conduct  themselves  in  war,  whom  they  should  obey,  and  from 
what  they  are  commanded  to  abstain. 

[Ch.  xviii.] 

Now  soldiers  should  so  conduct  themselves  in  war  as  to  keep  the  oath 
which  they  have  taken  ;  for  they  have  sworn  that  they  will  strenuously  perform 
all  the  orders  of  the  Emperor,  and  will  never  desert  their  service,  nor  shrink 
from  death  in  the  defence  of  the  commonwealth  ;  ff.  Ex  qui.  caus.  maiores, 
the  last  law  but  one  ;  and  C.  De  his  qui  non  implet.  stipend.,  book  x,  1.  i.  They 

[22] 


236  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

ought'  to  obey  their  generak  ;  1.  collatores,  at  the  beginning.  For  since  the 
commonwealth  cherishes  and  supports  them,  they  ought  to  devote  themsch v- 
to  the  public  interests  alone,  and  do  their  service  by  preparing  themselves 
for  war  by  the  daily  practice  of  arms  ;  C.  De  re  militari,  1.  milUes.  And  so  they 
ought  to  obey  their  generals,  because,  if  they  disobey  their  commands,  even 
in  a  good  cause,  they  are  punished  with  death  none  the  less  ;  ff.  De  re  milit., 
1.  desertorem,  §  in  bello.  They  ought  to  abstain  from  the  cultivation  of  the  land, 
from  the  care  of  animals,  from  trade  in  commodities.  They  should  not  manage 
the  business  of  other  people,  nor  engage  in  civil  duties  ;  otherwise  they  will  be 
deprived  of  their  service  and  its  privileges  ;  C.  De  re  milit.,  1.  nemo  milites,  and 
1.  qui  militares  ;  C.  De  locat.  et  cond.,  1.  milites  ;  C.  De  procur.,  1.  militcm.  They 
should  not  buy  lands  in  the  places  where  they  serve,  and  at  the  time  of  their 
service,  not  even  on  another's  account ;  otherwise  they  are  forfeited  to  the 
treasury.  However,  if  they  are  not  disturbed  before  their  discharge,  they  will 
not  be  interfered  with  afterwards.  There  'are  exceptions  to  this  rule  when  the 
treasury  is  administering  the  insolvent  estate  of  their  parents,  and  when  they 
claim  by  inheritance.  The  reason  of  the  rule  is  that  they  may  not  be  distracted 
from  their  military  duties  by  agricultural  pursuits.  See  ff.  De  re  milit.,  1. 
milites. 


What  belongs  to  the  office  of  a  general  in  war  ? 

[Ch.  xix.] 

A  general  in  war  should  be  very  sparing  in  giving  supplies  to  his  troops ', 
should  not  allow  the  military  horses  to  be  taken  out  of  the  province  ;  should 
keep  his  troops  in  camp,  train  them  to  the  practice  of  arms,  not  send  them 
on  his  private  business,  fishing,  or  hunting  ;  should  carry  the  keys  of  the  gates, 
go  round  the  watches,  concern  himself  with  the  foraging  of  his  troops,  approve 
their  food,  punish  fraudulent  measurement,  chastise  offences,  hear  the  com- 
plaints of  the  troops,  inspect  the  sick.  On  these  matters  see  ff.  De  re  militari, 
1.  officium.  It  is  also  his  duty  to  place  his  legion  on  the  green  banks  of  a  river, 
and  to  see  that  no  man  pollutes  the  water  of  the  river  in  any  way,  or  offends 
the  public  eye  by  washing  off  the  sweat  of  horses,  but  to  permit  this  to  be  done 
at  a  distance  in  the  lower  parts  of  the  river.  See  C.  De  re  milit.,  1.  ingentis. 
It  is  also  his  duty  to  pitch  the  camp  where  there  is  plenty  of  wood,  fodder, 
and  water  ;  and  for  a  stay  of  any  length,  he  should  choose  a  healthy  place  not 
too  near  to  the  sea,  or  an  elevated  place  not  likely  to  be  captured  by  the  enemy. 
He  should  consider,  also,  whether  the  field  is  wont  to  be  flooded  by  torrents. 
For  this  see  Vegetius,  De  re  milit.,  book  i,  ch.  xx.  It  is  also  his  duty  to  fortify 
the  camp  according  to  the  number  of  his  men,  that  a  large  number  may  not 
be  too  confined,  nor  a  small  number  obliged  to  extend  itself  too  widely.  A  good 
general  will  also  recognize  a  place  in  which  to  fight,  which  is  considered  better 
the  higher  it  is.  But  if  he  hopes  for  victory  against  the  enemies'  soldiers 
from  his  infantry,  he  should  choose  places  which  are  uneven,  rough,  and  hilly ; 


PUNISHMENTS  OF  SOLDIERS  237 

if  not,  places  which  are  level  and  open,  and  not  impeded  by  woods  and  marshes. 
See  Vegetius,  De  re  militari,  book  iii,  ch.  xiii.  It  is  a  general's  duty  to  take 
cognizance  of  the  contracts  and  delicts  of  his  men  ;  but  this  is  also  the  duty 
of  the  special  "  magister  militum  "  ;  C.  De  iurisd.  omn.  iudic.,  1.  magisterice ; 
and  C.  De  re  militari,  1.  tarn  collatores. 


How  soldiers  are  punished  differently,  according  to  their  different  offences. 

[Ch.  xx.] 

Now  soldiers  are  differently  punished,  according  to  their  different  offences. 
Their  offences  are  either  special  or  common.  And  in  their  special  o'ffences  they 
are  punished  by  military  penalties,  and  the  penalty  is  often  increased  with  the 
grade  of  service  ;  ff.  De  re  militari,  1.  ii.  The  punishments  are  pecuniary  fines, 
deprivation  of  rewards,  ignominious  discharge  from  the  army,  degradation 
of  rank.  A  soldier  is  not  condemned  to  the  mines,  nor  to  work  in  the  mines,  but 
is  beheaded  ;  for  he  is  regarded,  not  as  a  soldier,  but  as  an  enemy  ;  ff.  De  re 
milit.,  1.  iii,  §  i,  and  §  is  qui,  and  1.  proditores.  Death  is  the  punishment  for  those 
who  lay  hands  on  an  officer,  who  are  disobedient,  who  are  the  first  to  take  to 
flight  in  the  sight  of  the  others  ;  for  spies  who  betray  secrets  to  the  enemy  ; 
for  malingerers  who  feign  illness  from  fear  of  the  enemy  ;  for  those  who  wound 
a  comrade  with  a  sword,  who  wound  themselves  without  cause,  or  attempt  to 
commit  suicide.  Not  however  if  they  do  so  from  weariness  of  life  or  impatience 
of  pain,  for  these  are  made'"  infamous  "  ;  whereas  those  who  offend  through 
drunkenness  or  lust  are  discharged  from  the  service.  One  who  does  not  defend 
his  officer  when  he  could  do  so  is  punished  with  death.  One  who  could  not  is 
spared.  See  ff.  De  re  milit.,  1.  omne  delictum,  an'd  1.  iii,  last  section.  Also  one 
who  refuses  to  go  scouting  when  the  enemy  are  pressing  on,  or  who  retires  from 
a  trench,  is  punished  with  death,  even  if  he  acted  with  good  intention  ;  ff. 
De  re  milit.,  1.  iii.  Also  a  soldier  who  disturbs  the  peace  is  punished  with  death  ; 
ff.  De  re  milit.,  1.  iii.  Also  one  who  stirs  up  a  serious  sedition.  A  deserter  in 
time  of  war  is  punished  with  death  ;  in  time  of  peace  a  horseman  is  degraded, 
a  foot-soldier  is  discharged  ;  ff.  De  re  milit.,  1.  non  omnes.  Not  all  deserters, 
however,  should  be  punished  equally  ;  but  regard  should  be  had  to  their 
rank,  length  of  service,  and  other  circumstances.  One  who  goes  beyond  the 
space  for  foraging  is  regarded  as  an  absentee  or  a  deserter.  But  the  number  of 
days  by  which  he  has  returned  sooner  or  later  is  taken  into  account,  or  any 
obstacle  which  may  have  detained  him  ;  ff.  De  re  milit.,  1.  iii,  last  section,  and 
1.  qui  commeatus,  and  1.  non  omnes.  His  previous  record  is  also  taken  into 
account.  An  absentee  is  one  who  has  wandered  from  the  camp  but  returned 
to  it ;  a  deserter  is  one  who,  after  wandering  for  a  long  time,  is  brought  back 
to  camp ;  ff .  same  title,  1.  iii,  §  emansor.  A  deserter,  if  found  in  a  city,  is  punished 
with  death  ;  if  found  elsewhere,  and  if  he  deserts  again  after  being  captured 


238  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

in  his  first  desertion,   he  is  punished  with  death  ;    ff.    same  title,  1.   now 
omnes.     The  goods  of  d.  are  confiscated  after  their  death  ;   C.  De  re 

milit.,  1.  iv. 

Of  fortitude  and  its  nature,  and  when  fortitude  is  to  be  called  moral  and  when  not, 
and  when  fortitude  conducts  war  to  a  right  end,  and  when  not  ? 

[O  .  xxi.] 

But  as  it  has  been  said  that  fortitude  and  arms  are  the  chief  foundations 
of  war,  and  as  in  law  the  nature  of  fortitude  is  not  explicitly  discussed,  it  is 
desirable  that  its  nature  should  to  some  extent  be  explained.  And  I  ask,  first, 
whether  fortitude  is  a  moral  virtue  ;  and  it  appears  that  it  is  not.  For  forti- 
tude is  a  disposition  of  the  body  ;  C.  book  xi,  De  athletis,  1.  i ;  ff.  De  his  qui 
not.  infam.,  1.  athleta  ;  ff.  Ad  leg.  Aquil.,  1.  qua  actione,  §  si  quis  in  colluctatione  ; 
De  pugn.  in  duello,  throughout  ;  C.  De  gladiatoribus,  the  single  law  ;  De 
torneamentis,  throughout.  Therefore  it  is  not  a  moral  virtue,  since  a  disposi- 
tion of  the  body  differs  from  a  habit  or  disposition  of  the  soul,  and  is  itself 
inferior  in  degree;  De  pren.  et  rem.,  cum  infirmitas ;  xii,  q.  i,  pracipimus  ; 
xxiv,  q.  iii,  si  habes ;  C.  De  sacrosanctis  eccles.,  1.  sancimus.  Secondly,  it 
seems  to  be  a  moral  virtue.  Every  moral  virtue  aims  at  a  mean  in  feeling  and 
action,  as  the  Philosopher  proves  in  Ethics,  book  ii  ;  but  fortitude  aims  at  a 
mean,  as  he  also  shows  in  Ethics,  book  iii.  Thirdly,  that  which  is  not  a  virtue 
is  not  virtue,  but  rather  virtues,  since  the  plural  number  is  satisfied  by  the 
number  two  at  least ;  ff.  De  testi.,  1.  ubi  numerus  ;  causa  iv,  q.  iii,  §  ubi  numerus  ; 
and  De  reg.  iur.,  book  vi,  rule  pluraUs.  And  this  is  confirmed  by  the  Philosopher, 
in  the  Elenchi,  book  i,  for  the  definition  of  preposition  and  of  a  preposition  is 
the  same,  but  fortitude  is  not  a  virtue.  This  minor  premise  is  proved.  For 
a  virtue  is  opposed  to  two  extreme  vices ;  dist.  xli,  stepe  ;  De  consuetudine, 
ex  parte.  But  four  extremes  ire  opposed  to  fortitude,  namely,  fearlessness  and 
timidity  or  fear,  and  audacity  and  deficiency  in  audacity,  which  has  no  proper 
name,  as  the  text  shows  in  Ethics,  book  iii.  The  Philosopher  proves  the 
opposite  in  Ethics,  book  iii.  For  the  solution  of  the  question  we  must  observe 
that  the  meaning  of  "  fortitude  "  is  equivocal ;  it  may  refer  either  to  the  forti- 
tude which  is  the  same  thing  as  strength  of  body,  or  to  the  fortitude  which  is 
moral  virtue.  The  first  is  a  power  which  enables  one  to  move  a  thing,  as  the 
Philosopher  proves  in  Rhetoric,  book  i  ;  and  both  kinds  are  required  in  war  ; 
and  so  when  I  said  that  fortitude,  or  strength,  and  arms  are  the  foundations 
of  war,  I  used  the  word  generally,  since  both  kinds  are  required.  But  as  to 
the  first,  which  is  the  strength  of  the  body,  there  is  no  doubt  that  it  is  not  moral 
virtue,  for  the  reasons  given  above  ;  but  as  to  the  second,  the  question  must 
be  continued  ;  and  it  is  the  virtue  which  makes  us  behave  aright  in  the  matter 
of  fear  and  audacity  in  the  dangers  of  war.  Let  us  pursue  this  kind  of  fortitude, 
for  the  first  is  plain  to  the  blear-eyed  and  to  barbers.  Now  for  the  understanding 
of  the  fortitude  of  the  soul,  we  must  observe  that,  in  the  matter  of  daring  and 
fearing,  one  may  exceed  or  fall  short ;  and  in  either  case  one  acts  wrongly. 


FORTITUDE  239 

One  may  also  keep  oneself  to  the  mean,  and  so  act  virtuously.  Audacity, 
however,  differs  from  fear  ;  for  audacity  is  a  feeling  of  the  irascible  appetite, 
inclining  us  to  attack  what  is  terrible.  Fear  inclines  us  to  flee,  as  any  one  may 
experience  in  himself.  But  either  may  be  a  good  or  a  bad  act  ;  for  if  a  man 
were  to  see  ten  armed  men  and  attack  them  alone,  that  would  be  a  bad  act  ; 
and  if  he  were  not  to  flee,  it  would  be  a  bad  act,  bad  as  regards  the  attacking, 
and  also  bad  as  regards  fear.  So,  again,  a  man  may  exceed  in  fearing ;  as, 
for  instance,  if  there  are  a  hundred  men  in  a  fortified  place,  and  they  see  only 
a  hundred  men  against  them  and  flee — that  is  a  bad  act.  So,  too,  by  not 
attacking  ;  as  if  they  see  a  city  being  spoiled  and  do  not  attack — that  is  a  bad 
act.  So  you  have  illustrations  of  excess  in  not  fearing  when  fear  is  expedient, 
in  fearing  when  fear  is  not  expedient,  in  attacking  when  attack  is  not  expedient, 
and  in  not  attacking  when  attack  is  expedient ;  and  so  you  have-the  extreme 
vices,  audacity  and  fear,  and  degree  in  each  case,  as  above.  Further,  it  is  to  be 
noted  that,  wherever  we  find  vicious  and  blameable  excess  of  extremes,  there 
we  may  find  a  mean  which  is  good  and  laudable  ;  because  if  the  whole  were 
bad  and  blameable,  we  could  not  say  that  the  defect  was  blameable,  for  the 
defect  would  be  a  defect  of  bad,  and  so  would  not  be  bad.  It  is  right,  there- 
fore, that  in  the  mean  there  should  be  a  good  with  respect  to  which  one  quality 
is  said  to  be  bad  by  exceeding,  another  bad  by  falling  short.  From  these  argu- 
ments, two  conclusions  for  the  solution  of  the  question  may  be  inferred.  The 
first  is,  that  fortitude  of  the  soul  is  moral  virtue.  The  second,  that  it  is  a  virtue. 
The  first  is  proved  ;  for  every  habit  of  choosing  a  laudable  mean  is  moral 
virtue.  Fortitude  is  such  a  habit ;  therefore  the  major  is  proved  by  the  argu- 
ment from  definition,  which  is  a  valid  argument  in  law  ;  ff.  De  reg.  iur.,  1. 
omnis  definitio  ;  ff.  Depositi,  1.  i,  at  the  beginning,  and  same  title,  1.  bona  fides. 
But  the  Philosopher  so  defines  moral  virtue  in  Ethics,  book  ii.  The  minor  is 
proved  ;  for  fortitude  is  a  habit  of  choosing  the  mean  with  regard  to  fear  and 
audacity,  as  the  same  Philosopher  proves  in  Ethics,  book  iv.  The  argument 
is  confirmed  thus  :  Moral  virtue  is  that  which  is  bred  in  us  by  "  mos,"  that  is, 
by  custom,  and  that  is  why  it  is  called  "  moral."  Fortitude  is  so  bred  in  us  ; 
therefore  the  major  is  proved  by  the  argument  from  the  formal  cause,  which 
is  a  valid  argument  in  law  ;  ff.  Ad  leg.  Falc.,  1.  si  is  qui  quadringenta,  §  qucedam  ; 
ff.  Locati^,  1.  rei,  §  o-pere  ;  ff.  De  verborum  sign.,  1.  cedificia,  §  perfecisse,  and 
same  title,  1.  quce  format ;  i,  q.  i,  detrahe ;  De  bapt.,  debitum.  The  minor  is 
proved.  For  in  an  act  of  war  the  sensitive  appetite,  on  account  of  the  dangers, 
inclines  a  man  to  flight,  as  the  Philosopher  says,  and  in  war  anger,  which  is 
an  impetuous  feeling  and  so  inclines  us  to  vicious  extremes,  claims  a  place  for 
itself.  But  virtue,  which  is  a  rational  promptitude  of  the  appetite,  inclines  us 
to  the  mean  ;  and  this  promptitude  is  bred  by  repeated  acts  ;  otherwise  we 
should  not  act  gladly,  and  so  it  would  not  be  virtue,  since  in  the  virtuous  man 
there  ought  to  be  no  opposition  of  appetites,  as  the  same  Philosopher  says  in 
Ethics,  book  ii.  And  so  the  first  conclusion  is  clear,  namely,  that  fortitude  is 
moral  virtue.  The  second  conclusion  is  that  it  is  a  virtue.  Some  authorities 


240  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

prove  this  as  follows :  Fear  and  audacity  are  opposite  feelings ;  fortitude  is 
the  virtue  between  them  ;  therefore  it  is  only  one.  The  consequence  is  proved 
thus  :  For  every  agent  which  tends  to  the  increase  of  one  of  two  opposites, 
tends  to  the  decrease  of  the  other.  And  so  virtue  which  decreases  fear,  in- 
creases the  opposite,  and  conversely.  This  is  confirmed  thus  :  Moral  virtues 
are  fortified  by  their  end  ;  but  the  end  is  single  ;  therefore  the  virtue  is  single. 
The  first  point  is  clear  by  the  argument  from  the  final  cause,  which  is  a  valid 
argument  in  law  ;  ff.  De  quzestionibus,  1.  unius,  §  si  servus  ;  ff.  De  decur.,  1. 
generaliter  ;  C.  De  episc.  et  cleric. ;  causa  xvi,  q.  i ;  De  appell.,  ch.  cum  cessante; 
and  De  iureiurando,  ch.  etsi  Christus.  The  second  is  clear.  For  the  end  of 
fortitude  in  war  is  the  common  good.  And  any  man  who  makes  war  for  the 
sake  of  gain  is  not  brave,  but  rather  avaricious.  Others  hold  a  different  view, 
and  say  that  fear  and  audacity  are  not  opposite  feelings.  They  prove  it  thus  : 
Fear  and  audacity  are  compatible  with  one  another  in  the  same  respect  of  the 
same  thing ;  therefore  they  are  not  opposites.  The  consequence  holds, 
because,  if  one  of  two  opposites  is  established,  the  other  is  excluded  ;  ff.  De 
instit.,  1.  sed  si  pupillus,  §  si  institoria  ;  ff.  De  reg.  iur.,  1.  IMS  nostrum  ;  De 
verb,  sig.,  1.  fuec  verba ;  Authent.,  coll.  iii,  De  mand.  princ.  ;  dist.  xxxii, 
hospitiolum  ;  and  similar  passages.  The  first  point  is  clear.  For  a  man  may 
well  wish  to  make  war  for  the  sake  of  what  is  good  and  honourable,  and  yet 
fear  because  of  God  ;  or  he  may  make  an  attack,  and  thus  audacity  is  present, 
and  yet  fear  that  he  may  be  injured,  and  thus  fear  is  present.  This  opinion 
is  against  the  text  of  the  Philosopher  in  Rhetoric,  book  ii,  nor  is  their  reasoning 
valid,  for  pleasure  and  pain  are  opposites  in  all  cases  ;  and  yet  the  same  act 
may  give  the  same  man  both  pleasure  and  pain.  For  example,  in  adultery 
the  sensual  enjoyment  may  give  pleasure,  but  the  dishonour,  pain.  So  of  one 
who  throws  merchandise  overboard  into  the  sea  because  of  a  storm  ;  and  so 
in  the  case  in  hand  the  man  fears  because  of  the  evil  present,  and  dares  because 
of  his  hope.  The  first  opinion,  therefore,  is  the  truer  ;  and  hence  Albertus 
holds  that,  although  there  are  four  extremes,  as  above,  yet  they  only  indicate 
two  characters.  For  whoever  is  inclined  to  dare  rightly,  does  not  fear  ;  and 
whoever  is  not  inclined  to  fear  rightly,  does  not  dare  ;  and  so  he  infers  a  single 
virtue.  Others  say  that  there  are  only  two  extremes  ;  for  if  a  man  fears 
nothing,  he  dares  too  much,  and  so  fear  and  audacity  make  one  extreme. 
Suffice  it  to  conclude  from  the  foregoing  discussion  that  fortitude,  which  is 
one  of  the  chief  foundations  of  war,  taken  in  the  sense  of  strength  of  body, 
is  not  moral  virtue  ;  but  taken  in  the  sense  of  a  virtue  of  the  soul,  it  is  moral 
virtue,  and  a  single  moral  virtue  ;  and  it  is  this  which  conducts  war  to  a 
right  end.  

Whether  fortitude  is  a  cardinal  virtue  ? 

[Ch.  xxii-l 

We  have  discussed  the  fortitude  which  is  a  chief  foundation  of  war,  and 
have  seen  that  it  is  moral  virtue  and  a  single  virtue.    But  as  I  address  this 


THE  CARDINAL  VIRTUES  241 

treatise  to  a  Cardinal,  I  ask  whether  it  is  a  cardinal  virtue.  It  appears  that 
it  is  not.  For  magnanimity  is  not  a  cardinal  virtue  ;  therefore  fortitude  is 
not.  The  inference  holds  by  the  argument  from  the  major,  which  is  valid 
in  law  ;  C.  De  neg.  gest.,  1.  i ;  ff.  De  senatoribus,  1.  qui  indignus  ;  C.  De  sacro- 
sanctis  eccles.,  Authent.,  multo  magis  ;  ff.  Sol.  matrim.,  1.  ex  diverse,  §  i ;  C. 
De  epi.  et  cle.,  1.  si  qua  per  calumniam  ;  xxxii,  q.  v,  si  Paulus  ;  viii,  q.  i,  si 
ergo  ;  vi,  q.  i,  imitare  ;  dist.  xl,  qucelibet  ;  De  elect.,  cum  in  cunctis.  But  there 
seems  to  be  more  moral  virtue  in  magnanimity  than  in  fortitude,  because  it 
is  nobler  and  greater,  as  the  Philosopher  says  in  Ethics,  in  the  treatise  on 
magnanimity.  The  first  point  is  clear,  namely,  that  magnanimity  is  not  cardinal, 
because  then  there  would  be  more  than  four  cardinal  virtues.  The  solution 
is  this  :  The  whole  of  human  conduct  does  not  turn  on  fortitude,  like  a  hinge  ; 
therefore  it  is  not  a  cardinal  virtue,  because  the  word  "  cardinal'"  is  derived 
from  "  cardo,"  a  hinge.  The  consequence  holds  by  the  argument  from  ety- 
mology, which  is  valid  in  law  ;  ff.  De  rebus  creditis,  1.  ii,  §  appellata  ;  ff.  in 
procemio,  §  discipuli ;  C.  De  episc.  et  cler.,  1.  decernimus  ;  ff.  De  verb,  sig.,  1. 
tugurii;  same  title,  1.  tugurium  W;  ff.  De  legatis  iii,  1.  librorum,  §  quod  si  papyrus; 
dist.  xxi,  cleros  ;  xvi,  q.  i,  si  cupis  ;  and  De  praebendis,  ch.  cum  secundum. 
The  first  point  is  clear.  For  fortitude  has  to  do  only  with  the  dangers  of  war  ; 
but  few  men  pass  their  lives  in  the  company  of  such  dangers.  Therefore,  etc. 
The  contrary  is  supported  by  the  authority  of  common  speech,  which  places 
it  among  the  cardinal  virtues,  and  Seneca,  who  wrote  a  special  treatise  on  it, 
agrees  with  this  ;  and  Cicero,  in  the  Rhetoric,  divided  virtue  into  these  four 
as  cardinal.  And  this  argument  from  authority  is  valid  in  law  ;  C.  De  sum. 
trinit.  et  fid.  cathol.,  Epistola,  inter  claras  ;  C.  De  bonis  quae  liber.,  1.  cum 
multa  ;  ff.  De  rer.  div.,  1.  in  tantum,  §  cenotaphium. 


Why  and  in  what  sense  the  four  principal  virtues  are  called  cardinal  ? 

[Ch.  xxiii.] 

As  evidence  for  the  solution  of  the  question  we  must  first  consider  why 
and  in  what  sense  they  are  called  cardinal.  Here  we  must  note  that,  according 
to  Albertus,  just  as  the  antarctic  and  the  arctic  poles  are  the  hinges  on  which 
the  heaven  moves,  and  the  hinges  on  which  its  doors  and  gates  revolve,  so, 
by  analogy,  those  virtues  are  called  "  cardinal  "  on  which  the  whole  of  human 
conduct  turns,  which  if  a  man  possesses,  he  is  called  simply  "  good,"  and 
without  which  he  is  not  good.  So,  too,  in  my  opinion,  the  lords  Cardinals  are 
so  called  because  they  are  the  hinges  of  the  world,  on  which  the  whole  govern- 
ment of  the  world  is  revolved  and  fashioned  ;  and  to  them  it  looks  to  sustain 
the  whole  weight  of  its  moving  government  and  to  supply  the  appointed  im- 
petus for  its  motion.  The  celestial  sphere  is  content  with  two  poles,  and  these 
are  enough  ;  they  are  stable  and  immovable  ;  they  strengthen  the  order  of 
its  motion  and  do  not  deviate  from  the  place  where  the  human  race  is  fixed. 


242  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

Monastic  government  was  content  with  four  hinges,  and  these  sufficed.  If, 
when  we  look  for  the  cause  of  number,  variety,  infirmity,  our  great  distance 
from  the  centre,  we  have  no  name  for  it,  yet  the  freedom  of  the  will  might 
supply  some  kind  of  cause.  But  as  I  have  spoken  of  the  Cardinalate  in  my 
treatise  on  Ecclesiastical  Censure,  I  pass  by  the  subject  now,  and  return 
to  discuss  the  principal  question.  And  because  law,  as  I  said,  does  not  fully 
explain  the  nature  of  the  cardinal  moral  virtues,  I  will  give  some  brief  treatment 
of  it  in  order  to  explain  fortitude. 


What  is  virtue  ? 

We  must  know  that  virtue,  as  the  Philosopher  says,  is  a  habit  of  choice, 
and  as  he  also  lays  down  in  the  second  book  of  the  Rhetoric,  everything  that 
exists  falls  under  choice,  but  that  which  may  be  chosen  is  threefold. 


Of  the  threefold  species  of  good,  and  how  the  cardinal  virtues  are  derived 

from  the  good. 

[Ch.  xxiv.] 

The  good  includes  the  expedient,  the  pleasurable,  and  the  honourable  ;  and 
these  goods  may  be  either  sought  after  or  avoided  by  choice  ;  and  all  moral 
virtues  have  to  do  with  these  three.  Let  us  explain  each  in  turn.  And  first  the 
good  which  is  expedient,  with  which  virtue  is  concerned  in  one  of  three  ways, 
either  by  bestowing  it,  or  by  receiving  it,  or  by  preserving  it.  A  man  experi- 
ences in  himself  no  acts  of  choice  other  than  these  ;  and  this  inference  from 
experience  is  valid  in  law,  as  is  proved  in  ff .  in  procemio,  about  the  beginning ; 
Authent.,  coL  i,  De  monachis,  about  the  end ;  ff.  De  legat.  iii,  1.  si  chorus, 
§  his  verbis  ;  C.  De  vet.  iure  enucl.,  1.  ii,  §  qua  omnia ;  Sext,  De  elac.,  quatn  sit. 
As  to  bestowing  the  expedient,  this  happens  in  two  ways  ;  for  a  man  bestows 
either  what  is  his  own  or  what  is  another's.  If  he  bestows  what  is  his  own,  then 
the  virtues  of  liberality  and  magnificence  are  practised,  and  the  vices  opposed 
to  them,  namely,  avarice  and  prodigality,  meanness  and  vulgarity.  But  if  he 
bestows  what  is  not  his  own,  then  he  may  either  distribute  it  to  those  to  whom 
it  belongs,  and  this  is  justice  ;  ff.  De  iust.  et  iur.,  1.  iustitia  ;  and  Instit.,  same 
title,  §  iw.s/i'/i'tf  ;  xii,  q.  ii,  cunt  devotissimam  ;  or  he  may  distribute  it  to  those 
to  whom  it  does  not  belong,  and  this  is  injustice,  as  appears  from  the  converse 
of  the  laws  just  cited,  which  is  a  valid  argument  ;  ff.  De  offi.  eius  cui  mand. 
est  iurisdictio,  1.  i,  §  liuius  rei  ;  ff.  Mand.,  1.  s»  per  procuratorem,  §  ignorantes  ; 
and  De  his  quae  fi.  a  praelat.,  ch.  cum  apostolica ;  and  De  conversatione  con- 
iugatorum,  ch.  cum  virum.  In  not  rendering  things  to  those  to  whom  they 
belong  a  man  is  said  simply  to  be  "  bad  "  ;  xiv,  q.  vi,  si  res  ;  De  usuris,  cum  tu  ; 
ff.  De  usurp.,  1.  sequitur,  §  quod  autcm.  It  is  clear  that  justice  is  cardinal,  because 


VIRTUE  243 

if  a  man  has  not  justice  when  he  distributes  what  is  not  his  own,  he  is  simply 
"  bad,"  whereas  liberality  and  magnificence,  which  concern  the  distribution 
of  what  is  one's  own,  are  not  cardinal,  because  one  who  distributes  his  own 
ill,  is  not  simply  "  bad,"  but  might  well  be  called  "  foolish  "  ;  and  so  you  have 
one  cardinal  virtue,  justice,  concerned  with  the  bestowal  of  the  good  which  is 
expedient.  Again,  if  moral  virtue  is  concerned  with  the  act  of  receiving  the 
expedient,  this  may  occur  in  two  ways.  For  a  man  either  receives  what  is  his 
own  or  owing  to  him,  or  what  is  another's  and  not  owing  to  him.  If  he  receives 
what  is  his  own  or  owing  to  him,  and  from  one  from  whom  he  ought  not  to 
receive  it,  he  sins  against  liberality  and  magnificence,  yet  he  is  not  simply 
"  bad."  But  if  he  receives  what  is  another's,  he  is  simply  "  bad."  Hence  the 
law  gives  remedies  against  such  a  person,  such  as  the  interdicts,  "  Vnde  vi  bon. 
rapt."  ;  ff .  and  C.,  under  that  title  ;  actions  of  theft,  and  condictions,  in  accor- 
dance with  laws  and  canons  which  are  explained  in  each  case  according  to  the 
variety  of  acts.  And  so  by  an  examination  of  this  second  act,  namely,  the  act 
of  receiving  the  good  which  is  expedient,  it  appears  that  justice  has  a  cardinal 
character,  whereas  liberality  and  magnificence  have  not,  since  the  opposite 
of  the  just  man  is  called  simply  "  bad,"  whereas  the  opposite  of  the  liberal  or 
magnificent  man  is  not.  Again,  if  moral  virtue  is  concerned  with  the  act  of 
retaining  the  good  which  is  expedient,  this  also  may  happen  in  two  ways  ;  for 
a  man  retains  and  preserves  either  what  is  his  own,  or  what  is  another's.  In 
the  first  case  by  retaining  what  is  his  own,  and  giving  it  to  no  one,  he  sins 
against  liberality  and  magnificence  ;  but  such  a  man  is  not  simply  "  bad," 
although,  if  you  press  the  question,  a  rich  man  who  sees  a  poor  man  dying  of 
want  and  gives  him  nothing,  sins  mortally.  The  answer  may  be  that  he  then 
retains  what  is  not  his  own,  but  common,  since  at  a  time  of  such  need  there 
should  be  community  of  goods,  as  Clement  proves  by  six  reasons,  xii,  q.  i, 
dilectissimis,  and  Augustine,  quoted  dist.  viii,  quo  hire,  and  §  i.  But  if  a  man 
retains  what  is  another's,  he  is  simply  "  bad,"  and  is  called  "  unjust,"  pro- 
vided that  he  retains  it  against  the  owner's  will ;  and  the  law  provides  remedies 
against  him,  as  to  which  see  above.  So  in  the  matter  of  the  good  which  is 
expedient,  you  arrive  at  one  sole  cardinal  virtue,  in  distributing,  in  receiving, 
and  hi  preserving  it,  because  its  opposite  makes  a  man  simply  "  bad." 
Justice  is  cardinal ;  liberality  and  magnificence  are  not  cardinal ;  and  this 
is  clear. 

I  said  in  the  second  place  that  there  was  a  second  kind  of  good,  the  pleasur- 
able, with  which  moral  virtue  is  concerned  ;  and  it  is  concerned  with  it  in  two 
ways,  either  by  bestowing  it  or  by  receiving  it.  In  the  matter  of  bestowing  it, 
there  are  the  virtues  which  are  found  in  games,  when  one  bestows  pleasure 
on  others.  And  such  are  friendship,  affability,  and  wit.  But  these  virtues 
are  not  cardinal,  because  they  are  not  necessary  to  human  nature,  because 
many  persons  are  great  and  virtuous  who  do  not  know  how  to  conduct  them- 
selves aright  in  such  matters.  As  to  receiving  the  pleasurable,  this  also  may 
happen  in  two  ways  ;  for  either  a  man  is  chiefly  concerned  with  what  is 

[23] 


244  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

pleasurable,  and  then  he  is  called  simply  "  bad,"  and  the  quality  is  called 
"  intemperance  "  ;  and  I  mean  that  a  man  is  "  bad  "  by  exceeding,  for  the 
"  insensible  "  man,  the  man  who  takes  no  pleasure,  is  not  simply  "  bad,"  but 
the  man  who  exceeds  is  ;  and  so  you  have  temperance  as  a  cardinal  virtue, 
because  its  opposite  makes  a  man  simply  "  bad,"  and  temperance  is  neces- 
sary to  human  preservation.  But  if  he  is  simply  concerned  with  what  is 
sorrowful,  this  again  may  happen  in  two  ways  ;  for  there  are  some  sorrowful 
things  which  are  apt  to  stir  a  man  to  anger,  and  then  "  gentleness  "  comes 
in  ;  but  this  is  not  cardinal,  because  it  is  not  necessary  that  a  man  should  be 
angry,  but  he  is  saved  by  the  act  from  passing  to  the  second  external  act  of 
injustice.  But  if  he  should  pass  to  the  external  act,  then  it  would  be  called 
injustice.  But  there  are  also  sorrowful  things  whose  effect  is  to  inspire  fear, 
and  then  fortitude  comes  in.  For  as  the  man  who  will  not  bear  what  is  terrible 
for  the  sake  of  the  good  of  virtue  is  simply  "  bad,"  fortitude  is  a  cardinal  virtue. 
So  much  as  to  the  pleasurable  good. 

I  said,  further,  that  there  was  a  third  good,  the  honourable,  and  this  is 
threefold.  One  kind  concerns  "  cognizant  "  virtue,  and  these  are  the  intellec- 
tual virtues  ;  and  they  are  knowledge,  wisdom,  intellect,  art,  and  prudence. 
Another  concerns  "  interpretative  "  virtue,  involving  questions  of  veracity 
and  falsity.  Another  concerns  "  appetitive  "  art. 

Let  us  take  the  second  form,  that  which  concerns  interpretative  virtue. 
I  say  that  the  veracity  which  regards  interpretative  virtue  is  not  a  cardinal 
virtue,  because  it  does  not  make  a  man  simply  "  good,"  nor  does  its  vice  make 
him  simply  "  bad."  For  the  vice  opposed  to  it  is  rather  "  boastfulness."  But 
the  boaster  is  of  three  kinds  :  for  he  may  be  a  simple  boaster,  one  who  boasts 
for  the  sake  of  pleasure  ;  or  one  who  boasts  for  the  sake  of  honour  ;  or  one  who 
boasts  for  the  sake  of  gain.  The  first  kind  of  boasting  alone  is  directly  opposed 
to  veracity  ;  the  others  approach  another  kind  of  vice.  For  the  first  man  sins 
only  because  he  is  mendacious  ;  but  there  are  two  kinds  of  mendacity  :  for 
there  is  the  mendacity  which  is  a  simple  false  signification  of  the  voice,. and  of 
that  I  have  said  that  it  is  directly  opposed  to  veracity  ;  the  other  is  a  false 
signification  of  the  voice  with  the  intention  of  deceiving,  and  that  makes 
a  man  simply  "  bad,"  and  falls  under  the  head  of  injustice.  Augustine,  in  his 
book  "  De  Mendacio,"  treats  both  of  these  and  of  other  species  of  mendacity. 
It  is  quoted  in  xxii,  q.  ii,  ch.  primunt  capitalc.  Another  form  of  the  honourable 
good  is,  as  I  said,  that  which  concerns  appetitive  virtue.  And  it  concerns  it 
in  two  ways.  Either  "  essentially,"  and  such  are  the  moral  virtues  which 
I  mentioned  above.  Or  "  significatively,"  and  such  are  glory,  and  worldly 
goods  ;  and  the  virtues  concerned  with  this  form  of  the  honourable  good  are 
magnanimity  and  ,  and  these  are  not  cardinal  virtues.  For  many 

men  are  virtuous  who  do  not  desire  tin  honours  whieh  they  deserve.  But  if  we 
speak  of  the  honourable  good  which  concerns  cognizant  virtue,  then  there  are 
the  intellectual  virtues  :  knowledge,  intellect,  art,  prudence.  Hie  first  three 
are  not  cardinal,  because  they  are  not  necessary  to  human  life  ;  but  prudence 


THE  BRAVE  MAN  245 

is  necessary  to  the  good.  Nay,  it  is  impossible  that  any  one  should  be  virtuous 
without  prudence  ;  for  prudence  regulates  the  other  virtues. 

These  considerations  show  us  how  fortitude,  which  is  the  object  of  the 
discussion,  is  a  cardinal  virtue.  And  we  see  how  they  are  four  in  number,  and 
deducible  from  the  threefold  good  which  may  be  either  sought  after  or  avoided, 
and  the  threefold  virtue  of  the  soul,  namely,  justice,  temperance,  fortitude, 
and  prudence,  which  last  is  not  only  cardinal,  but  is  head  and  chief  among 
them  all. 

This  has  been  in  some  measure  a  digression  ;  but  I  may  be  excused,  because 
I  have  not  presumed  for  jurists  alone  to  explain  the  nature  of  fortitude,  which 
has  been  the  principal  subject  of  the  discussion. 


How  and  in  what  sense  a  man  may  be  called  "  brave  "  in  war. 

[Ch.  xxv.] 

My  next  question  is  whether  a  man  may  be  called  "  brave,"  even  though 
he  has  not  been  trained  in  the  dangers  of  death  in  war.  It  appears  that  he 
may  ;  for  fortitude  is  necessary  to  human  goodness,  since  it  is  cardinal,  as 
I  showed  in  the  last  question,  and  human  goodness  is  possible  without  warlike 
training.  Therefore  the  consequence  is  proved  by  the  argument  from  con- 
junction ;  ff.  De  neg.  gest.,  1.  atqui  natura  ;  dist.  iv,  denique  ;  dist.  vi,  mine  de 
superfluitate.  The  first  point  is  clear  from  the  citations  to  the  last  question. 
Also  Cicero  says  that  fortitude  is  the  deliberate  facing  of  dangers  and  endurance 
of  hardships.  But  this  is  possible  without  any  warlike  act ;  and  so  the  con- 
sequence is  proved  by  the  argument  from  consequence  destroyed,  which  is  a 
valid  argument  in  law  ;  ff.  De  rebus  creditis,  1.  ii,  §  ii ;  C.  De  furt.,  1.  apud 
antiques,  the  word  quam  ;  ff.  De  in  integr.  restit.,  [nemo]  non  videtur.  The 
Philosopher  says  the  contrary  in  the  fourth  book  of  Ethics.  And  this  is  why 
the  oath  of  the  soldier  contains  a  promise  not  to  shrink  from  death  ;  ff.  Ex 
quibus  causis  maior.,  the  last  law  but  one  ;  and  C.  book  x,  De  his  qui  non 
imple.  stip.,  1.  i.  For  the  solution  of  the  question  we  must  observe  that  the  word 
"  fortitude  "  is  commonly  used  to  denote  all  firmness  of  mind,  and  this  is  a 
quality  common  to  all  the  virtues  ;  for  inconstancy  of  mind  meets  with  re- 
proach and  with  the  reprobation  of  law  ;  xxxii,  q.  v,  horrendus  ;  De  iure- 
iurando,  quemadmodum  ;  ff.  De  adulteriis,  1.  si  uxor  ;  ff.  De  decur.,  the  last 
law  but  one  ;  ff.  De  neg.  gest.,  the  last  law  but  one  ;  De  reg.  iur.,  book  vi,  rule 
quod  semel,  and  rule  mutare.  And  in  this  sense  there  could  be  no  doubt  that 
a  man  might  be  brave  without  meeting  the  dangers  of  war.  But  the  strict 
meaning  of  "  fortitude  "  is,  a  special  virtue  which  inspires  a  man  to  meet  and 
await  dangers  for  the  sake  of  avoiding  the  evil  of  dishonour.  Now  the  bad  is 
threefold  :  the  injurious  which  is  opposed  to  the  expedient,  the  sorrowful  which 
is  opposed  to  the  pleasurable,  dishonour  which  is  opposed  to  the  honourable. 
But  the  good  of  the  soul  which  is  honourable  is  to  be  preferred  to  the  expedient 


246  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

and  the  pleasurable  goods,  just  as  the  rational  soul  is  to  be  preferred  to  the  body ; 
xii,  q.  i.  prtecipimus  ;  xxiv,  q.  iii,  si  habes  ;  C.  De  sacrosanctis  ecclesiis,  1.  san~ 
cimus ;  De  poenit.  et  rem.,  cum  infirmitas.  This  leads  us  to  the  conclusion 
that  there  are  three  moral  virtues  which  are  necessary  before  a  man  can  be 
called  good  and  virtuous.  There  is  one  which  fixes  his  mind  to  prefer  the  honour- 
able to  the  expedient,  and  this  is  justice  ;  Instit.,  §  iiisti/ia  ;  xii,  q.  ii,  cum 
devotissimam.  Another  strengthens  his  mind  to  prefer  the  honourable  to  the 
pleasurable,  and  this  is  temperance  ;  dist.  vi,  pal.,  sed  poisandum  ;  and  De 
constit.,  nam  concupiscentiam.  Another  strengthens  his  mind  to  bear  sufferings 
rather  than  incur  the  evil  of  dishonour,  and  this  is  fortitude  ;  C.  book  x,  De 
athlet.,  the  single  law  ;  C.  De  his  qui  non  implet.  stip.,  1.  i,  in  the  same  book  ; 
vii,  q.  i,  §  hinc  etiam.  And  this  is  the  fortitude  which  is  the  subject  of  our 
discussion.  And  these  are  rightly  called  cardinal,  because  they  are  necessary 
to  human  goodness,  and  any  one  of  them  defends  itself  and  any  one  of  the 
others.  Take  an  example.  A  woman  tempted  to  adultery  by  promises  defends 
herself  by  temperance  ;  ff.  De  rit.  nup.,  1.  palam  ii.  If  she  is  tempted  by  terror, 
she  defends  herself  by  fortitude  ;  xxxii,  q.  v,  [Lucretiam]  proposito,  §  Lucretiam, 
and  [ch.]  §  [fieri]  non  polesl  fieri  and  [ch.]  §  finge,  dc  pudicitia  ;  xxxiv,  q.  i, 
non  satis.  But  if  she  is  tempted  by  rewards,  she  defends  herself  therefrom 
by  justice  ;  xii,  q.  ii,  cum  devotissimam.  Fortitude  may  also  be  illustrated 
in  this  way ;  for  if  she  hesitates  on  account  of  fear,  she  defends  herself  by 
fortitude ;  xxxii,  q.  v,  ch.  [Lucretiam]  proposito,  and  [ch.]  §  finge,  de  pudicitia. 
If  she  is  tempted  by  the  pleasurable  sensations,  then  she  defends  herself  by 
temperance  ;  xxxii,  q.  v,  non  potest,  and  ch.  nee  solo,  and  ch.  qui  viderit,  and 
ch.  non  mcechaberis.  If  by  rewards,  then  she  defends  herself  by  justice,  because 
it  is  as  unjust  to  sell  the  good  which  is  honourable  as  that  which  is  spiritual ; 
i,  q.  ii,  quam  pio  ;  De  simonia,  throughout.  If  she  is  tempted  by  false  reasons, 
then  she  defends  herself  by  prudence  ;  and  so  one  of  the  cardinal  virtues 
strengthens  her  mind  to  prefer  the  honourable  to  the  expedient,  namely, 
justice ;  another,  to  prefer  it  to  the  pleasurable,  namely,  temperance  ;  another, 
to  bear  sorrows  for  the  sake  of  guarding  the  good  and  excluding  the  evil  of 
dishonour,  namely,  fortitude.  But  prudence  regulates  the  others,  and  so  ought 
to  be  included  among  the  cardinal  virtues. 


//  is  further  to  be  noted  that  war  is  undertaken  in  two  ways. 

[Ch.  xxvi.] 

It  is  undertaken  in  one  way  because  of  an  act  of  war  on  one  side  or  the 
other;  ff.  De  captivis,  1.  in  bcllo,  and  1.  postliinininm ;  C.  book  xi,  DC  gladi., 
the  single  law.  It  is  undertaken  in  another  way  because  of  an  expectation 
of  bodily  danger,  even  without  actual  attack,  but  only  if  there  should  be 
a  danger  which  might  probably  be  resisted  ;  otherwise  it  would  not  be  a  war, 
just  as  it  is  not  war  when  a  robber  is  hanged  or  any  one  else  is  brought  to  justice. 


ACTS  OF  FORTITUDE  247 

If  war  is  undertaken  for  an  actual  attack  on  one  side  or  the  other,  fortitude 
is  not  concerned  with  those  dangers  only,  for  then  it  would  not  be  cardinal, 
since  many  men  are  virtuous  who  have  had  no  training  in  such  dangers.  But 
if  it  is  undertaken  in  the  second  way,  then  fortitude  is  concerned  with  those 
dangers  generally,  as  we  say  of  a  woman  who  faces  dangers  in  order  to  protect 
her  chastity.  In  her  case  there  is  no  war  in  the  first  sense,  but  in  the  second 
there  is,  and  yet  fortitude  is  present.  We  must  note,  however,  that  fortitude 
is  not  concerned  with  all  warlike  dangers.  For  if  one  man  attacks  another  and 
defends  himself,  he  is  not  brave  ;  otherwise  we  should  have  to  say  that  a  dog 
is  brave  and  shows  fortitude.  But  when  a  man  faces  warlike  dangers  for  the 
sake  of  avoiding  the  evil  of  dishonour,  then  he  is  brave.  Hence  the  Philosopher 
says  that  a  man  is  not  made  brave  by  necessity  ;  hence,  also,  cause  xxiii,  q.  iv, 
Nabuchodonosor,  and  ch.  de  Tyriis  ;  De  Poenit.,  dist.  ii,  sic  enirn.  Thus  we 
reach  a  solution  of  the  question  proposed  when  we  ask  whether  fortitude  is 
concerned  with  the  dangers  of  death  and  war;  and  we  must  say  that  it 
is  not,  as  was  illustrated  in  the  case  of  the  woman.  In  a  second  sense, 
inasmuch  as  the  extreme  act  of  fortitude  is  concerned  with  the  dangers  of 
death,  we  must  say  that  it  is,  because  virtue  is  concerned  with  what  is  diffi- 
cult. In  a  third  sense,  inasmuch  as  it  inclines  us  to  meet  the  danger  of  death, 
should  occasion  arise,  we  must  say  that  it  is,  because  virtue  extends  to  the 
limits  of  a  man's  power  ;  De  Coelo  et  Mundo,  book  i. 


Which  is  the  chief  act  of  fortitude  in  war  ? 

[Ch.  xxvii.] 

But  I  ask,  which  is  the  chief  act  of  fortitude  in  those  who  are  at  war, 
awaiting  the  enemy,  or  attacking  them  ?  And  it  seems  that  attack  is  the  chief 
act  of  fortitude.  Firstly,  because,  as  the  Philosopher  says  in  the  second  book 
of  the  Ethics,  in  the  treatise  on  liberality,  it  is  more  virtuous  to  give  than  to 
receive.  Also  it  is  written  in  Ecclesiasticus,  ch.  iv,  "  let  not  thine  hand  be 
stretched  out  to  receive,  and  closed  when  thou  shouldest  repay."  Hence  the 
text,  "  it  is  more  blessed  to  give  than  to  receive  "  ;  xvi,  q.  i,  prcedicator  ;  and 
De  celebr.  missar.,  cum  Martha  ;  De  donat.,  ch.  i.  Therefore,  by  analogy, 
it  is  more  virtuous  to  attack  than  to  await,  because  one  who  attacks  gives,  and 
one  who  awaits  receives.  Moreover  it  is  more  virtuous  to  do  well  than  to  receive 
well,  as  the  same  Philosopher  shows.  This  is  proved  thus  :  For  if  it  is  better 
to  do  than  to  suffer  in  the  virtues  generally,  it  follows  that  it  is  better  to  do 
well  than  to  suffer  well.  The  consequence  holds  by  the  argument  from  con- 
nexion, which  is  a  valid  argument  in  law  ;  ff.  De  neg.  gest.,  1.  atqui  natura  ; 
dist.  iv,  denique  ;  dist.  vi,  quia  de  superfluitate.  But  he  who  attacks  gives  well, 
he  who  awaits  receives  well ;  therefore  it  is  more  virtuous  to  attack.  More- 
over, it  is  better  to  do  well  than  not  to  do  ill ;  and  in  this  connexion  it  is  not 


248  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

enough  to  abstain  from  evil,  unless  we  also  do  good  ;  for  this  act  of  doing  good 
leads  to  a  better  end,  since  in  actions  it  is  the  end  that  is  weighed,  and  from 
that  the  action  takes  its  name.  The  consequence  holds  by  the  argument  from 
the  end,  which  is  valid  in  law  ;  ff.  De  ritu  nupt.,  1.  si  quis  ;  ff.  De  iur.  fisci, 
1.  non  intelligitur,  §  si  quis  palam  ;  ff.  Communia  praed.,  1.  receptum  ;  ff.  De 
auro  et  arg.  legat.,  1.  et  si  non  sint,  §  perveniamus.  But  to  attack  is  to  do  well. 
to  await  is  not  to  do  ill,  that  is,  not  to  flee  ;  therefore  it  is  mmv  virtuous  to 
attack  than  to  await.  Further,  that  which  is  more  difficult  is  more  virtuous. 
For  even  an  opinion  on  a  law  is  only  given  on  a  difficult  and  doubtful  matter  ; 
ff.  De  Carbon,  edicto,  1.  quod  Labeo  ;  and  ff.  Ad  municipalem,  1.  i,  at  the  end. 
But  to  attack  is  more  difficult  than  to  await  ;  for  a  tired  man  can  await,  but 
he  can  not  attack.  The  major  is  proved  by  the  same  Philosopher,  in  the  treatise 
on  fortitude,  for  an  act  of  fortitude  is  specially  concerned  with  what  is  difficult 
and  terrible.  Moreover,  that  which  is  more  lovable  is  more  virtuous  ;  for  acts 
of  virtue  are  by  their  nature  lovable,  as  the  same  Philosopher  says ;  and  this 
is  proved  by  De  Poenit.,  dist.  ii,  ergo,  and  ch.  corpus,  and  ch.  proximo*.  But  to 
attack  is  more  lovable.  And  observe  how  it  brings  more  advantages  to  the 
commonwealth,  and  more  things  in  the  same  genus  are  preferred  to  fewer  : 
Authent.,  De  consan.  et  uter.  frat.,  at  the  beginning  ;  De  sent,  excom.,  cum  pro 
causa  ;  iii,  q.  iv,  EngeUrudam  ;  De  offi.  delegat.,  prudentiam,  at  the  beginning  ; 
because  to  expel  the  enemy  is  more  useful  than  to  await  them.  Moreover,  a 
thing  which  is  more  praiseworthy  is  more  virtuous,  because  moral  virtue  is  a 
praiseworthy  good ;  but  to  attack  is  more  praiseworthy  than  to  await.  For, 
as  a  rule,  those  who  attack  are  more  praised  than  those  who  flee.  To  the 
contrary  is  the  text  of  the  Philosopher  in  Ethics,  book  iii,  in  the  treatise  on 
fortitude,  where  he  says  that  the  greater  act  of  fortitude  is  to  endure.  Albertus 
and  Custratius  hold  the  same  opinion  on  the  point. 

By  way  of  evidence  on  this  question,  we  should  observe  that,  according 
to  the  dictates  of  right  reason,  it  is  not  right  always  to  attack,  nor  always  to 
flee,  nor  always  to  await  ;  for  sometimes  it  is  expedient  to  attack,  sometimes 
to  flee,  sometimes  to  await.  From  which  it  appears  that  acts  of  fortitude 
are  threefold  ;  namely,  attack,  flight,  and  waiting.  And  that  a  brave  man 
should  sometimes  flee  is  obvious  by  reason,  for  one  should  flee  from  dangers 
which  are  beyond  a  man's  strength.  For  if  one  man  alone  should  wish  to 
attack  a  thousand,  or  to  await  their  attack,  he  would  not  be  brave,  but 
audacious  and  rash,  as  the  same  Philosopher  says  in  the  same  passage.  Acts 
of  fortitude,  then,  are  threefold  ;  namely,  attack ,  flight,  and  waiting.  And 
among  these  the  least  is  flight.  This  is  proved  thus :  For  an  act  which  is 
less  difficult  than  others  is  the  least  of  those  acts,  since  art  and  discipline  are 
concerned  with  difficult  things.  But  to  flee  is  easier  than  to  attack  or  await. 
Therefore,  &c.  Moreover,  an  act  which  is  assimilated  to  a  worse  vice  is  the 
i  act.  This  is  proved  by  the  argument  from  extremes,  which  is  valid  in  law  ; 
ff.  Communi  divid.,  1.  arbor ;  and  ff.  Si  quis  ius  die.  non  obtemp.,  1.  i;  and 
ff.  De  stat.  hominum,  1.  quarilur.  So  it  is  in  the  case  proposed.  For  by  flight 


ACTS  OF  FORTITUDE  249 

a  man  is  assimilated  to  fear,  which  is  a  worse  vice  than  audacity,  as  the  same 
Philosopher  says  in  the  same  passage. 

Secondly,  I  say  that  waiting  is  the  more  important  act.  This  is  proved ; 
for  it  is  more  virtuous  to  do  good  aright  than  to  receive  it  aright.  Therefore 
it  is  more  virtuous  to  suffer  evil  aright  than  to  do  it  aright.  The  consequence 
holds  by  the  argument  from  opposites,  which  is  valid  in  law  ;  ff.  De  act.  emp., 
1.  lulianus,  §  procurator  ;  ff.  De  instit.,  1.  sed  si  pupittus,  §  si  institoria  ;  ff.  De 
verb,  sig.,  1.  hcec  verba.  But  one  who  attacks  does  evil  rightly  to  the  attacked, 
whereas  one  who  awaits  an  attack,  suffers  evil  rightly  from  the  attacker. 
Further,  an  act  which  is  more  difficult  is  more  important.  This  has  been 
proved  above  many  times.  But  waiting  is  more  difficult  than  attacking.  This 
is  proved  thus  :  For  if  an  attack  is  made,  it  is  made  after  the  manner  of  one 
who  is  stronger,  and  with  the  hope  of  escaping  ;  otherwise,  if  ttlere  were  no 
hope  of  escape,  right  reason  would  not  dictate  an  attack.  But  in  waiting,  it 
is  the  less  strong  who  awaits  the  stronger.  But  it  is  more  difficult  to  conduct 
oneself  rightly  in  face  of  a  stronger  than  in  face  of  one  less  strong,  as  is  obvious. 
This  is  confirmed  thus  :  For  in  waiting,  one  has  to  control  great  fear  amid  bodily 
sufferings.  But  in  attacking,  one  need  not  control  so  great  a  fear.  Therefore,  &c. 
Further,  waiting  and  enduring  denote  continuance  and  perseverance,  and 
in  the  genus  of  what  is  good  that  which  is  more  continuing  is  better  ;  De 
Poenit.,  dist.  iii,  irrisor  ;  De  Pcenit.,  dist.  ii,  pennata,  and  ch.  non  revertebantur  ; 
ff.  De  in  rem  vers.,  1.  si  pro  patre,  §  et  versum.  But  attack  denotes  an  impetus 
of  short  duration  proceeding  from  anger  ;  ff.  De  adulter.,  1.  si  adulterium,  §  im- 
perator  ;  C.  same  title,  1.  Gracchus  ;  and  ff.  De  reg.  iuris,  rule  quod  calore. 

Moreover,  waiting  brings  one  face  to  face  with  the  dangers  of  death, 
and  they  are  then  difficult  and  fearful,  as  the  Philosopher  says  in  Rhetoric, 
book  ii.  Therefore,  &c. 

We  infer,  then,  that  waiting  is  the  more  important  act  of  fortitude, 
although  .the  vulgar,  who  judge  incorrectly,  are  of  the  contrary  opinion.  But 
if  what  I  said  about  flight  being  an  act  of  fortitude  appears  inconsistent 
with  what  I  wrote  above  in  this  treatise,  in  the  article  on  the  duties  of 
a  general  and  soldiers,  where  I  said  that  soldiers  ought  to  keep  the  oath  by 
which  they  have  sworn  not  to  flee,  &c.,  the  solution  is  clear  from  what  has 
already  been  said ;  for  where  dangers  are  beyond  a  man's  strength,  he  ought 
to  flee  ;  xxiii,  q.  iv,  displicet ;  John,  ch.  viii,  Matthew,  ch.  x,  quoted  vii,  q.  i, 
§  hoc  observandum.  But  where  dangers  are  not  beyond  a  man's  strength,  but 
there  is  some  small  hope,  then  what  I  have  just  said  holds.  The  answer  to  the 
citations  to  the  contrary  is  clear  if  we  run  through  them  singly ;  but  we  must 
add  one  thing,  which  is,  that  the  vulgar  applaud  and  love  those  who  attack 
more  than  those  who  wait.  Hence  what  the  Philosopher  says  on  the  same 
subject,  that  nothing  prevents  hired  soldiers  being  more  useful  in  states  than 
brave  men,  for  the  former  barter  their  life  for  a  trifling  gain,  and  flee  and  attack 
without  the  dictation  of  reason,  whereas  brave  men  neither  flee  nor  attack 
without  the  dictation  of  reason. 


250  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

Haw  many  kinds  of  fortitude  are  practised  in  war  ? 

But  I  ask,  how  many  kinds  of  fortitude  are  practised  in  war  ?  Solution  : 
There  are  six  likenesses  of  true  fortitude,  which  is  a  moral  virtue  between 
audacity  and  fear,  and  these  six  are  practised  by  soldiers  in  war. 

The  first  is  that  which  inspires  men  to  attack  manfully  in  war  for  the 
sake  of  glory  and  honour,  seeing  that  men  applaud  those  who  do  so,  and  blame 
the  timid  ;  and  on  this  see  C.  book  xii,  De  re  milit.  ;  ff.  Ad  leg.  Aquil.,  1.  qua 
actione,  §  in  colluctatione  ;  De  pub.  iudic.,  throughout. 

The  second,  which  is  called  "  political,"  is  that  which  makes  men  brave 
because  of  the  fear  of  bodily  or  pecuniary  punishment,  which  is  imposed  on 
the  timid  and  those  who  flee  in  war ;  and  this  is  called  "  political,"  because  it 
is  found  among  citizens,  and  such  fortitude  is  servile ;  De  Pcenit.,  dist.  ii, 
§  sicut  secta. 

The  third  is  that  which  is  called  "  military,"  by  which  men  are  brave 
because  they  know  the  arts  of  war,  like  the  Teutons  and  other  expert  mer- 
cenaries. Experience,  the  mistress  of  things,  induces  this  kind  of  fortitude ; 
ff.  De  leg.  iii,  1.  servis,  §  ornatricibus  ;  and  Sext,  De  elect.,  ch.  quam  sit ;  and 
as  the  Philosopher  says  in  the  treatise  on  fortitude,  mercenaries  fight  with 
others  like  armed  men  with  unarmed.  And  they  are  ready  to  attack  and  ready 
to  flee.  To-day,  however,  they  extricate  themselves  more  easily,  because  they 
lift  a  finger  and  pull  down  visors,  and  they  surrender,  and  are  dismissed  at  once, 
as  is  their  custom  among  themselves. 

The  fourth  is  the  fortitude  inspired  by  rage ;  for  rage  is  a  thing  that 
impels  men  to  danger,  and  it  is  sometimes  helpful  in  war,  because  men  are 
bolder,  and  the  impulse  of  anger  induces  this  kind  of  fortitude  ;  ff.  De  adulter., 
1.  si  adulterium,  §  imperatores  ;  and  C.  same  title,  1.  Gracchus ;  and  ff.  De  reg. 
iuris,  1.  quod  calore. 

The  fifth  is  that  which  hope  inspires ;  for  some  men  attack  manfully 
because  of  the  hope  of  victory,  for  in  them  the  hope  of  power  is  stronger 
than  the  sensitive  reason  ;  De  constit.,  nam  concupiscentiam ;  dist.  vi,  sed 
pensandum. 

The  sixth  arises  from  ignorance  ;  for  men  sometimes  attack  and  await 
in  ignorance  of  the  dangers  which  threaten  them,  who  would  nevertheless  flee 
if  they  knew  of  them.  In  this  case  a  man  is  like  an  infant,  and  does  not  see 
what  he  is  doing  ;  C.  De  fals.  mone.,  1.  i ;  ff.  Ad  leg.  Corn,  de  sica.,  1.  si  infans. 

These  are  the  kinds  of  fortitude  ordinarily  practised  by  soldiers  in  war. 
But  if  you  wish  to  know  which  among  them  approaches  most  nearly  to  virtue, 
you  should  observe  that  they  are  all  merely  likenesses  of  true  fortitude ;  for 
in  true  fortitude,  as  in  any  virtue,  the  act  must  be  done  consciously.  For  there 
is  no  virtue  in  those  who  act  in  ignorance,  because  prudence,  which  is  a  state 
of  the  intellect,  ought  to  control  every  act  of  virtue.  Secondly,  virtue  must  be 
chosen.  Thirdly,  it  must  be  chosen  because  of  its  own  intrinsic  goodness,  and 
not  because  of  any  extrinsic  good.  Fourthly,  the  act  must  be  steadfast  and 


DUTY  OF  A  BRAVE  MAN  251 

lasting.  Fifthly,  it  must  be  done  gladly.  Sixthly,  it  should  be  difficult,  for  art 
concerns  difficult  things.  All  these  qualities  are  required  in  true  fortitude, 
whether  in  attacking,  or  in  awaiting  anything  terrible  and  difficult.  These 
considerations  show  us  which  of  the  above  more  nearly  resembles  true  fortitude, 
and  which  does  not.  For  all  except  the  last  resemble  it  in  being  conscious, 
and  so  the  last  is  least  like  it  in  this  point.  In  the  point  of  being  deliberately 
chosen,  the  others  agree  with  true  fortitude,  except  that  which  arises  from  rage. 
But  in  the  need  for  being  chosen  for  its  intrinsic  goodness,  they  all  fall  short 
of  true  fortitude  ;  for  the  first  is  chosen  for  an  extrinsic  good,  namely  glory, 
another  for  the  sake  of  avoiding  a  penalty,  another  for  gain  and  pay,  another 
for  hope  of  victory.  But  the  first,  or  "  political,"  fortitude,  which  is  chosen  for 
honours  and  glory,  is  nearer  to  true  fortitude,  because  of  its  more;  honourable 
end.  For  honours  are  significant  of  the  virtues,  and  such  men  do  more  towards 
the  public  good,  for  they  devote  themselves  more  manfully  to  wars,  as  in  the 
example  given  by  the  Philosopher,  of  Hector,  who  conducted  himself  thus  in 
affairs  of  war. 


Whether  a  brave  man  in  war  ought  to  await  death  rather  than  to  flee  ? 

[Ch.  xxviii.] 

Thirdly,  I  ask  whether  a  brave  man  in  war  ought  in  some  cases  to  await 
death  rather  than  to  flee  from  the  war,  when  by  flight  he  might  escape  it.  And 
it  seems  that  he  should  not  wait  for  death  ;  for  one  ought  to  choose  that  which 
is  more  pleasurable  rather  than  that  which  is  less  so,  as  the  Philosopher  says 
in  Rhetoric,  book  i.  But  life  is  more  pleasurable  than  death  ;  therefore,  flight 
and  life  should  be  chosen,  rather  than  waiting  and  dying.  The  Philosopher 
seems  to  say  the  contrary  in  Ethics,  book  iv,  in  the  treatise  on  fortitude,  and 
in  book  iii,  in  the  treatise  on  the  voluntary  and  the  involuntary,  and  also  in 
the  treatise  on  magnanimity,  where  he  says  that  a  man  should  die  rather  than 
commit  a  base  act. 

Solution  :  We  must  observe  for  our  guidance  that  the  question  may  have 
a  double  foundation.  One  is  the  foundation  of  truth  and  faith,  based  on  our 
belief  in  another  life  of  blessedness.  And  according  to  this  foundation  the 
question  would  not  admit  of  serious  doubt ;  for  if  a  man  were  fighting  against 
the  infidels,  and  if  his  flight  would  cause  the  death  of  many  of  the  faithful  and 
save  himself  alone,  then  he  should  rather  choose  to  wait  and  die.  And  the 
reason  is,  that  by  fleeing  he  wins  his  bodily  life,  whereas  by  waiting  and  meeting 
the  death  of  the  body,  he  wins  the  life  of  the  soul,  which  is  without  comparison 
nobler,  and  therefore  to  be  chosen. 

The  second  foundation  of  the  question  concerns  those  who  live  according 
to  the  law  of  nature,  without  belief  in  a  future  life  ;  and  then  the  question 
admits  of  doubt  and  various  opinions.  Some  say  that  the  death  to  be  expected 
may  happen  in  many  ways.  In  one  case  it  may  be  quite  certain  that  death 
must  happen  if  a  man  waits,  and  there  may  be  no  hope  of  safety  except  in 

[24] 


252  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

flight.  In  another  case,  although  there  may  be  some  probability  of  death,  yet 
there  may  be  some  hope  of  life  without  flight.  In  this  second  case  they  say 
that  a  man  should  observe  the  authority  of  Aristotle  and  other  philosophers, 
who  say  that  he  ought  rather  to  die,  that  is.  to  fight  like  a  man.  But  in  the 
first  case  they  say  that  he  ought  in  no  wise  to  wait  for  death.  They  prove 
this  by  the  argument  that  of  two  ills  the  less  should  be  chosen  ;  dist.  xiii,  nervi  ; 
and  this  is  a  first  principle  of  morals.  But  flight  is  a  less  ill  than  waiting  to 
die.  That  it  is  a  less  ill  is  proved  by  the  argument  that  a  thing  which  causes 
the  loss  of  fewer  good  things  is  a  less  ill  than  that  which  causes  the  loss  of 
more  ;  but  death  destroys  everything  ;  Authent.,  De  nupt.,  §  deinceps  ;  and 
Physics,  book  ii.  In  flight,  the  only  good  thing  lost  is  moral  fortitude.  There- 
fore, &c.  Moreover,  if  it  were  better  to  die,  it  could  only  be  because  to  die  is 
an  act  of  virtue  ;  but  this  is  false,  for  an  act  of  virtue  either  is  happiness,  or 
tends  to  an  act  of  happiness.  But  death  destroys  happiness.  Therefore,  &c. 
Moreover,  if  in  this  case  death  ought  to  be  chosen,  it  would  be  because  fortitude, 
which  is  a  moral  virtue,  inclined  to  this  course.  But  this  is  false,  for  moral 
virtue  does  not  tend  to  the  corruption  of  nature,  but  rather  to  its  conservation. 
For  laws  have  been  made  with  this  object ;  dist.  iv,  facUe  sunt ;  but  death 
tends  to  destruction  ;  Authent.,  De  nupt.,  §  deinceps.  Moreover,  if  a  man 
ought  rather  to  choose  this  course,  it  would  be  for  the  sake  either  of  his  own 
good  or  of  another's.  It  is  not  for  his  own,  because  death  extinguishes  all  good, 
as  was  shown  above.  It  is  not  for  another's,  because  he  cannot  win  for  another 
as  great  a  good  as  he  loses  for  himself,  since  he  ought  to  love  himself  more  than 
others ;  C.  De  servit.  et  aqua,  1.  presses.  The  conclusion  is  thus  confirmed. 
For  it  appears  that  the  most  virtuous  soldiers  used  to  flee  in  war,  without 
sacrificing  truth  and  faith,  as  in  the  time  of  Charles  the  Great. 

Others  hold  exactly  the  opposite  view,  namely,  that  a  man  ought  to  wait 
and  die  rather  than  flee.  And  they  prove  it  thus  :  For  any  man  knows  that 
he  must  needs  die  ;  therefore,  if  he  dies  bravely,  he  only  loses  that  in  which  he 
believes  a  present  to  differ  from  a  future  death.  But  these  two  do  not  differ 
in  any  matter  of  losing  or  preserving  the  good  things  of  virtue,  but  only  in 
retaining  them  for  a  longer  or  shorter  time.  They  also  argue  that  a  thing 
whereby  more  good  things  are  acquired  and  fewer  lost  is  more  to  be  chosen  ; 
and  so  it  is  in  the  case  proposed.  Therefore,  &c.  This  minor  premise  is  proved 
thus  :  For  if  a  man  dies,  he  wins  an  act  of  fortitude,  which  is  most  noble.  If 
he  flees,  he  wins  nothing,  save  a  continuance  of  what  he  had  before  as  long  as 
his  life  lasts,  and  so  he  wins  time.  The  conclusion  is  thus  confirmed.  For  it  is 
certain  with  regard  to  the  pleasures  of  the  body  that  men  would  rather  choose 
to  live  a  short  time  pleasurably  than  a  long  time  in  pain  ;  therefore  this  should 
rather  be  chosen  where  the  question  concerns  the  pleasures  of  the  soul. 

I  believe  the  first  opinion  to  be  true,  because,  as  I  said  in  another  article, 
the  acts  of  fortitude  are  attack,  flight,  and  waiting.  For  a  man  should  not 
always  be  pressing  on,  nor  always  fleeing,  nor  always  waiting  ;  he  should  rather 
follow  the  dictation  of  reason. 


DUTY  OF  OBEDIENCE  253 

Whether  a  soldier  should  be  punished  with  death,  who  bravely  charges  the  enemy 
with  his  company  and  utterly  routs  them,  contrary  to  the  commands  of 

the  general  ? 

[Ch.  xxix.] 

Fourthly,  I  ask  this  :  Suppose  the  general  of  an  army  has  commanded 
that  no  one  should  charge  the  enemy  on  pain  of  death.  A  certain  very  active 
soldier,  with  a  large  company  under  him,  contrary  to  the  general's  command, 
charged  the  enemy,  and  by  his  activity  utterly  routed  them.  The  question  is, 
whether  he  should  be  punished  with  death.  And  it  seems  that  he  should ; 
for  the  text  says  that  in  war  one  who  does  a  thing  forbidden  by  the  general, 
or  disobeys  his  commands,  is  punished  with  death,  even  if  what  he  does  turns 
out  well ;  ff.  De  re  militar.,  1.  desertorem,  §  in  bello.  This  is  proved  by  the  laws 
which  secure  that  persons  bound  to  obey  should  be  held  to  obedience  ;  ff. 
Mandati,  1.  si  remunerandi,  §  si  [j)ignus]  passus <?),  and  1.  sed  Proculus  ;  ff.  Ad 
Macedon.,  1.  sed  etsi,  §  ii  ?) ;  ff.  Ad  leg.  Aquil.,  1.  si  servus  servum,  §  et  si  puerum  ; 
C.  De  neg.  gest.,  last  law  ;  and  similar  passages.  It  is  thus  confirmed  :  For  an 
evil  is  not  excused  because  of  a  good  which  follows  from  it  ;  dist.  Ivi,  unde- 
cunque  ;  De  Pcenit.,  dist.  i,  non  sufficit.  It  is  also  confirmed  thus  :  For  acts 
are  not  to  be  judged  by  the  event ;  xv,  q.  i,  ilia,  and  ch.  non  est ;  xxiii,  q.  v, 
de  occidendis  ;  ff.  De  neg.  gest.,  1.  sed  an  ultra,  §  i ;  ff .  Hand.,  1.  qui  mutuam, 
§  sumptus  ;  ff.  De  contraria  tut.,  1.  iii.  Therefore  the  signal  event  in  this  case 
will  not  be  considered,  but  rather  the  preceding  obedience. 

Arguments  to  the  contrary  are  these  :  A  penalty  which  ought  otherwise 
to  be  imposed  on  one  who  attempts  a  thing  forbidden  by  a  law,  or  by  the  com- 
mand of  the  prince,  is  remitted  for  the  sake  of  skill  and  a  great  service  effectively 
rendered.  This  is  proved  by  ff.  De  poenis,  1.  ad  bestias  ;  xxii,  q.  ii,  ch.  quceritur 
cur  Patriarcha, 

Solution  :  I  hear  that  the  lord  Richard  Malumbra  determined  that  an 
offender  should  escape,  for  his  great  skill,  the  penalty  imposed  by  the  said  law 
ad  bestias  ;  and  the  ch.  quceritur  cur  Patriarcha  might  also  be  quoted.  Yet 
I  do  not  think  that  this  opinion  is  true ;  nay,  it  is  obviously  contrary  to  the 
text  ff.  De  re  militari,  1.  desertorem,  §  in  bello.  Nor  do  the  laws  cited  to  the 
contrary  conflict ;  for  it  is  one  thing  that  a  man  should  not  incur  a  penalty 
imposed  by  a  law  or  by  a  man,  another  thing  that  after  the  penalty  has  been 
incurred  it  may  be  remitted  by  the  prince.  Those  laws  do  not  prove  that  the 
penalty  is  not  incurred ;  but  they  rightly  prove  that  it  may  be  remitted  by 
the  prince,  and  so  they  assume  that  it  has  been  incurred,  as  both  texts  prove, 
if  properly  examined. 


Whether  quarter  should  be  granted  to  the  general  of  a  war  when  captured  ? 

[Ch.  xxx.] 

Fifthly,  I  ask  this  :  Suppose  the  general  of  a  war  is  captured  by  the  enemy, 
should  quarter  be  granted  to  him,  or  should  he  be  punished  ?    And  it  seems 


254  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

that  quarter  should  be  granted,  by  xxiii,  q.  i,  ch.  noli,  at  the  end.  For  example, 
the  text,  "  as  violence  is  rightly  meted  out  to  one  who  fights  on  and  resists, 
so  quarter  is  granted  to  the  vanquished  or  the  captured."  This  is  proved,  for 
a  text  says  that  one  is  bound  to  spare  one's  enemy  ;  ii,  q.  v,  quanta,  at  the 
end.  For  example,  the  text,  "  because,  just  as  it  is  right  that  we  should  be 
severe  on  those  who  persist  in  their  contumacy,  so  we  ought  not  to  refuse  pardon 
to  the  humbled  and  the  penitent." 

An  argument  to  the  contrary  is  that  a  captive  becomes  the  slave  of  the 
enemy  ;  ff.  De  captivis,  1.  hostes  ;  and  ft  De  verb,  significatione. 

Solution :  I  believe  the  first  statement  to  be  true,  namely,  that  quarter 
should  be  granted  to  one  who  humbles  himself  and  does  not  try  to  resist,  unless 
the  grant  of  quarter  gives  reason  for  fearing  a  disturbance  of  the  peace,  in  which 
case  he  must  suffer.  This  is  proved  by  the  text  in  ch.  noli,  at  the  end,  where 
it  says,  "  especially  when  disturbance  is  not  feared  "  ;  and  Hugo  and  the 
Archdeacon  explain  that  "  especially  "  is  used  for  "  only,"  so  that  the  sense 
of  the  passage  is  that  quarter  is  to  be  granted  only  when  disturbance  of  the 
peace  is  not  feared,  and  otherwise  not.  And  it  is  said  that  on  that  interpreta- 
tion Charles  caused  Conradin  to  be  beheaded. 


Of  those  who  are  bound  to  participate  in  war,  and  of  those  who 
participate  without  being  bound. 

[Ch.  xxxi.] 

Fourthly,  it  remains  to  consider  those  who  are  bound  to  participate  in 
war,  and  those  who  participate  without  being  bound. 


Whether  vassals  are  bound  to  participate  at  their  own  expense,  when 
a  lawful  war  is  begun  by  their  lord  ? 

And  I  ask,  first,  whether,  if  a  lord  begins  a  lawful  war,  his  vassals  are 
bound  to  join  in  it  with  arms  and  horses,  and  at  their  own  expense.  And  it 
seems  that  they  are,  because  they  are  bound  by  the  force  of  their  oath  to  help 
their  lord  ;  xxii,  q.  v,  de  forma.  Innocent,  in  De  iureiur.,  ch.  sicut,  holds  that 
they  are  not  bound,  unless  they  have  undertaken  this  obligation  by  special 
agreement,  since  they  are  not  bound  to  render  personal  services.  Conclude  on 
this  point  that  vassals  are  not  bound  by  law,  except  to  the  duties  contained 
in  xxii,  q.  v,  ch.  de  forma,  unless  they  have  undertaken  the  obligation  by  special 
agreement. 


PARTICIPATORS  IN  WAR  255 

Whether  the  subjects  of  a  baron,  who  begins  a  war  against  his  king,  are 
bound  to  help  the  baron  against  the  king  ? 

[Ch.  xxxii.] 

Secondly,  I  ask  this  :  Suppose  a  baron  of  the  King  of  Spain  begins  a  war 
against  the  king  himself,  and  commands  all  his  men  to  help  him  in  the  war 
against  the  king,  are  they  bound,  when  they  have  sworn  to  help  him  against  all 
men  ?  And  it  seems  that  they  are,  for  it  is  a  serious  thing  to  break  faith  ;  Qui 
cleri.  vel  voventes,  veniens,  and  the  following  chapter ;  ff.  De  consti.  pecunia, 
1.  i.  Also  general  words  are  to  be  understood  generally  ;  ff.  De  legat.  praestan., 
1.  i,  §  generaliter.  Also  because  an  oath  is  binding,  unless  one  is  absolved  from 
it ;  xv,  q.  vi,  chs.  ii  and  iii.  The  contrary  is  true  ;  for  a  baron  who  begins  a 
war  against  the  king  breaks  the  lex  lulia  maiestatis  ;  ff.  Ad  legv  lul.  maiest., 
1.  i,  and  1.  ii ;  vi,  q.  i,  §  verum,  the  words  quisquis  cum  militibus  ;  dist.  Ixxix, 
ch.  ii.  For  the  King  of  Spain  is  the  prince  in  his  own  kingdom.  Also,  one  who 
helps  another  to  sin  does  not  give  help  at  all ;  xiv,  q.  vi,  si  res  ;  nor  would  his 
command  excuse  them  ;  ff.  De  oblig.  et  act.,  1.  servus  ;  xi,  q.  iii,  non  semper, 
and  ch.  qui  resistit,  and  ch.  si  dominus.  Nor  does  the  oath  bind  to  this,  because 
it  was  not  meant  to  be  a  bond  of  iniquity ;  xxii,  q.  iv,  inter  cetera  ;  Sext,  De 
iureiur.,  ch.  i ;  and  the  notes  to  De  iureiurando,  ch.  petitio. 


Whether  subjects  are  bound  to  help  first  a  baron  who  begins  a  war  against 

another  baron,  or  the  king  who  begins  a  war  against  another 

king,  both  commands  being  received  at  the  same  time  ? 

[Ch.  xxxiii.] 

My  third  question  is  this  :  A  baron  of  the  King  of  Spain  begins  a  war 
against  another  baron,  and  the  King  of  Spain  begins  a  war  against  the  King 
of  Granada.  The  baron  summons  men  to  help  him  ;  but  the  king  summons 
the  same  men  to  help  him  ;  and  the  summonses  are  simultaneous.  Whom 
are  they  bound  to  help  first  ? 

It  seems  that  they  should  first  help  the  baron,  for  they  are  his  subjects 
by  reason  of  fealty  and  by  reason  of  jurisdiction  ;  Authent.,  coll.  vi,  De  quae- 
store,  §  si  vero.  But  they  are  the  king's  subjects  only  by  reason  of  his  general 
jurisdiction,  and  so  the  two  reasons  prevail  over  one  ;  Authent.,  De  consang. 
et  uter.  frat.,  §  i ;  Sext,  De  re  iudic.,  cum  ceterni  ;  dist.  xiii,  can.  i. 

To  the  contrary  is  the  argument  that  persons  summoned  by  the  king 
are  summoned  to  a  higher  tribunal,  and  so  this  summons  should  be  preferred  ; 
ff.  De  re  iudic.,  1.  contra  pupillum,  last  section  ;  dist.  xviii,  si  Episcopus.  Also 
because  the  king  summons  them  for  the  common  good  and  the  defence  of  the 
crown,  and  so  they  are  bound  by  the  law  of  nations  to  obey  ;  ff.  De  iustitia  et 
iure,  1.  veluti  ;  dist.  i,  ius  gentium  ;  xxiii,  q.  iii,  fortitude,  and  q.  viii,  ch.  omni, 
and  ch.  si  nulla.  For  in  defence  of  one's  country  it  is  lawful  to  kill  a  father  ;  ff. 
De  relig.  et  sumpt.  fun.,  1.  minime.  And  this  is  the  true  view. 


256  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

Whether  the  non-liege  vassal  of  two  lords,  summoned  by  both  at  the  same  time, 
is  bound  to  help  both,  or  one,  and  if  so,  which  ? 

[Ch.  xxxiv.] 

My  fourth  question  concerns  a  non-liege  vassal  of  two  lords,  a  case  which 
may  arise  by  reason  of  different  fiefs ;  Sext,  De  supl.  negl.  praelat.,  grandi. 
If  each  of  the  lords  requires  him  at  the  same  time  to  help  him  in  war,  is  he 
bound  to  help  both,  or  one,  and  if  so,  which  ? 

It  appears  that  he  need  help  neither,  since  the  two  claims  cancel  one 
another  by  their  coincidence  ;  ff.  De  usufr.,  1.  quoticns  ;  De  Pcenit.,  dist.  i, 
§  hoc  idem,  words  Christus  ait  ;  xxi,  q.  i,  ch.  i. 

It  appears  that  he  must  help  both  ;  otherwise  he  will  lose  his  fief,  because 
a  difficulty  of  performance  on  the  part  of  the  promisor  does  not  discharge  an 
obligation  ;  ff.  De  verb,  obi.,  1.  continuus,  §  illud.  Also,  a  man  can  serve  two 
masters  ;  ff.  De  operis  libert.,  1.  duorum.  Some  say  that  he  may  choose,  on 
the  analogy  of  the  slave  of  two  masters,  who,  if  he  sees  both  masters  being 
killed,  may  help  which  he  likes  ;  ff.  Ad  Silianum,  1.  si  quis  in  gravi,  §  si  cum 
omnes.  Others  say  that  he  must  help  that  master  to  whom  he  first  took  an 
oath  ;  Vsus  Feudorum,  De  prohib.  feud,  alien.,  1.  imperialem,  §  illud  ;  ff.  Lo- 
cati,  1.  in  operis  ;  C.  Qui  potiores  in  pign.  hab.,  1.  ii.  For  he  is  bound  to  keep 
the  earlier  fealty  ;  dist.  1,  quia  sanctitas  tua  ;  Qui  clcri.  vel  vov.,  venicns. 

It  is  safer,  however,  for  him  to  serve  the  first  personally,  and  the  second 
by  means  of  a  substitute,  if  the  nature  of  the  fief  allows  this  ;  C.  De  caduc.  toll., 
the  single  law,  §  sin  autem.  Nor  does  it  matter  that  his  oath  to  the  second  saved 
his  fealty  to  the  first,  which  is  of  the  nature  of  a  non-liege  man,  because  by 
serving  the  second  by  means  of  a  substitute  he  does  not  injure  the  first,  which 
was  what  the  oath  to  the  second  saved. 


Whether  a  vassal  is  bound  to  help  his  lord  against  his  father,  or  a  father 

against  his  son  ? 

[Ch.  xxxv.] 

My  fifth  question  is  whether  a  vassal  is  bound  to  help  his  lord  against  his 
father,  or  a  father  against  his  son.  The  gloss  on  xxii,  q.  v,  ch.  dc  forma,  puts 
the  question  and  holds  that  he  is.  For  a  son  is  bound  to  his  father  only  by  the 
tie  of  nature,  but  a  vassal  is  bound  to  his  lord  by  the  tie  of  an  oath  ;  see  the 
chapter  de  forma,  above  cited.  The  text  in  Vsus  Feud.,  ch.  qucmadnwdum  feud. 
amit.,  proves  this.  The  gloss  on  xi,  q.  iii,  ch.  quoniam  milites,  somewhat 
inclines  to  the  contrary  view.  I  should  think  that  the  quality  of  the  assistance 
to  be  rendered  should  be  considered. 


PARTICIPATORS  IN  WAR  257 

Whether  a  citizen  of  two  states  is  bound  to  help  one  against  the  other  ? 

My  sixth  question  is  whether  a  citizen  of  two  states  is  bound  to  help  one 
against  the  other.    Solution  :  Apply  what  was  said  of  a  vassal  with  two  lords. 


Whether  a  vassal  summoned  by  his  lord  is  bound  to  follow  him  in  parts 
beyond  the  sea  to  fight  against  barbarians  ? 

[Ch.  xxxvi.] 

My  seventh  question  is  this  :  A  lord  wishes  to  go  to  remote  parts,  say 
beyond  the  sea,  to  fight  with  the  barbarians  ;  is  a  vassal,  summoned  by  him, 
bound  to  follow  him  to  the  war  ?  Solution  :  If  the  lord  is  of  such  status  and 
condition  that  his  predecessors  and  he  himself  have  been  accustomed  to  make 
such  expeditions,  and  his  vassals  to  follow  him,  then  the  vassal  is  bound,  on 
the  analogy  of  the  freedman,  who  is  bound  to  render  the  usual  services  ;  ff .  De 
operis  lib.,  1.  opere,  and  the  last  law  but  one  ;  ff.  De  pign.  act,  1.  [qui]  vel  univer- 
sorum.  A  reasonable  allowance  for  moderate  expenses,  however,  will  be  made 
by  the  lord.  But  if  his  status  is  such  that  he  cannot  and  has  not  been  accus- 
tomed to  make  such  expeditions,  then  the  answer  is  the  contrary  ;  ff.  De 
operis  lib.,  1.  quod  nisi,  last  section  ;  ff.  De  arbit.,  1.  si  cum  dies,  §  si  arbiter. 
This  subject  is  also  treated  in  Speculum  in  Speculo,  tit.  De  feudis,  §  ipsum. 


Whether  slaves  are  bound  to  follow  their  lord  to  war  everywhere  ? 

[Ch.  xxxvii.] 

My  eighth  question  is  whether  slaves  are  bound  to  follow  their  lord  to 
war  everywhere.  About  them  there  is  no  doubt,  since  the  lord  has  full  power 
over  them,  provided  he  does  not  treat  them  with  excessive  cruelty  ;  ff.  De  his 
qui  sunt  sui  vel  alien,  iuris,  1.  i  and  1.  ii. 


Whether  freedmen,  when  summoned,  are  bound  to  follow  their 
patron  to  war  ? 

[Ch.  xxxviii.] 

My  ninth  question  concerns  freedmen.  Solution  :  Freedmen  are  bound 
to  render  the  usual  services,  and  unusual  services  cannot  be  imposed  on  them  ; 
ff.  De  operis  lib.,  1.  quod  nisi,  §  si  vag.  <?);  ff.  De  procur.,  1.  sed  haec,  §  ii. 


258  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

Whether  cultivators,  when  summoned,  are  bound  to  follow  their  lord  to  war  ? 

[Ch.  zxxix.] 

My  tenth  question  is  whether  cultivators  are  bound  to  go  to  war  when 
summoned  by  their  lords.  Solution  :  Cultivators  are  divided  into  "  ascripticii  " 
and  "  censiti."  Those  who  are  bound  to  the  soil  by  a  written  document  are 
called  "  ascripticii,"  and  two  documents  are  concerned,  one  to  constitute,  the 
other  to  prove,  their  status.  By  the  first  they  promise  the  lord  of  the  soil 
never  to  depart  from  it ;  by  the  other  they  confess  themselves  "  ascripticii  "  ; 
and  as  to  these  documents  see  C.  De  agric.  et  censitis,  1.  cum  scimus.  And 
between  these  and  slaves  there  is  practically  no  difference  ;  C.  same  title,  1.  ne 
diu.  And  I  say  "  practically,"  because  they  do  differ  in  this,  that  a  slave  may 
be  alienated  either  with  his  "  peculium  "  or  without  ;  1.  ne  diu  ;  an  "  ascrip- 
ticius,"  only  with  the  soil ;  C.  same  title,  1.  ii.  Also,  "  ascripticii "  may  be 
ordained,  even  without  the  consent  of  their  lord,  in  the  possessions  to  which 
they  are  "  ascripti "  ;  Authent.,  De  sanct.  episc.,  §  ascripticios  ;  but  slaves 
may  not.  Also,  "  ascripticii "  contract  a  marriage,  with  the  knowledge  and 
silence  of  their  lord,  without  changing  their  condition  ;  C.  De  agricol.  et  censitis, 
last  law  ;  but  slaves  who  contract  marriage,  with  the  knowledge  and  silence 
of  their  lords,  are  freed  from  the  servile  condition ;  Authent.,  De  nupt.,  §  si 
vero.  From  this  it  is  as  clear  as  day  that  the  right  which  lords  have  over 
"  ascripticii  "  is  a  right  related  to  the  possessions  to  which  they  are  "  ascripti." 
And  so  it  appears  that,  if  they  are  summoned  by  the  lord  to  extraneous 
personal  services,  they  are  not  bound  to  obey,  except  by  special  agreement 
to  that  effect.  "  Censiti,"  however,  are  those  who  are  bound  to  render  some- 
thing certain  annually ;  C.  Quib.  caus.  coloni,  1.  ii.  They  also  differ  from 
"  ascripticii  "  in  this,  that  "  ascripticii "  are  bound  to  render  something 
uncertain,  for  instance,  a  third  or  a  fourth  of  the  fruits,  whereas  "  censiti  "  are 
bound  to  render  a  thing  certain  ;  and  our  conclusion  in  their  case  is  as  above. 
We  may  infer  from  this  that  neither  "  coloni  "  nor  "  inquilini "  can  be  compelled. 


Whether  a  lord  may  summon  those  who  are  allied  with  him 
to  help  him  in  war  ? 

[Ch.  xl.] 

My  eleventh  question  is  whether  a  lord  may  summon  those  who  are  allied 
and  leagued  with  him  to  war,  so  that  they  will  be  bound  to  help  him.  Solution  : 
Allies  are  fully  free,  although  they  are  bound  to  certain  things  by  agreement ; 
ff.  De  captivis,  1.  non  dubito.  In  these  cases,  however,  the  agreement  and  the 
mode  of  agreement  must  be  considered  and  observed  to  the  letter  ;  ff.  Depositi, 
1.  i,  §  si  convenitur  ;  and  De  pactis,  1.  i. 


VOLUNTARY   PARTICIPATORS  259 

Whether  those  who  are  subjects  by  reason  of  jurisdiction  only 
are  bound  to  participate  in  war  ? 

[Ch.  xli.] 

My  twelfth  question  concerns  those  who  are  subjects  by  reason  of  juris- 
diction only,  and  are  not  vassals.  Solution  :  They  are  bound  to  participate, 
nor  will  they  have  an  action  to  recover  their  losses,  because  they  act  under 
an  obligation.  There  is  an  exception  to  this  rule  in  the  case  of  certain  persons 
who  are  excused  from  personal  services,  of  whom  some  are  excused  on  the 
ground  of  age,  as  minors  and  old  people  ;  C.  Qui  aetate,  in  red  and  black  ;  some 
by  infirmity ;  C.  Qui  morbo,  throughout ;  some  by  the  number  of  their 
children  ;  C.  Qui  numero  liber.,  throughout  ;  some  because  of  their  profession ; 
C.  De  profess,  et  medic. ;  some  by  their  sex,  as  women,  and  so  onv  Otherwise 
the  rule  stands. 


Of  persons  not  bound,  who  voluntarily  participate  in  a  war. 

[Ch.  xlii.] 

What  I  have  said  relates  to  persons  who  are  in  some  sort  bound.  It 
remains  to  consider  persons  fully  free  who  are  summoned  to  war.  In  this 
inquiry  we  must  observe  that  we  confine  ourselves  to  persons  who  go  to  war 
from  no  necessity  or  obligation,  for  those  who  go  under  obligation  have  been 
treated  above.  Some  go  out  of  mere  generosity  ;  some  because  they  are  bound 
to  return  a  service  ;  some  to  seek  and  win  glory  in  war ;  some  because  they 
let  out  their  services  as  mercenaries,  if  this  can  be  called  a  contract  of  letting ; 
some  go  simply  in  the  hope  of  booty,  like  the  so-called  "  saccomanni,"  persons 
who  seize  "  manu,"  with  the  hand,  and  carry  off  in  a  sack  ;  and  these  persons 
we  must  consider.  And  first  let  us  take  the  first  class,  those  who  go  absolutely 
voluntarily. 

* 

Whether  those  who  voluntarily  participate  place  him  in  whose  service  they  go 
under  an  obligation  to  themselves,  &c.  ? 

And  my  first  question  is,  whether  those  who  voluntarily  participate  in  a 
war  place  him  in  whose  service  they  go  under  an  obligation  to  themselves,  if 
they  incur  loss  ;  as,  for  instance,  if  they  lose  their  arms  in  the  war,  or  horses, 
or  are  taken  prisoners,  even  in  going  to  or  returning  from  the  war.  Solution  : 
Here  we  must  observe  that  voluntary  participators  are  sometimes  first  sum- 
moned and  asked  by  their  lords ;  sometimes  they  join  on  their  own  motion, 
without  being  so  summoned.  If  they  are  summoned  to  go  by  a  lord,  then 
they  have  an  "  actio  mandati  "  against  him,  if,  as  I  said  above,  they  happen 
to  lose  something,  unless  it  appears  that  they  are  acting  from  a  sense  of  duty, 
or  humanity,  or  relationship ;  xxiii,  q.  iii,  non  in  inferenda  ;  xi,  q.  iii,  si  dominus, 
and  ch.  lulianus.  If  you  object,  and  say  that  the  lord  is  not  bound,  because 
such  loss  is  caused  by  accident,  for  which  no  one  is  liable,  De  homici.,  lohannes; 

[25] 


260  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

• 

C.  De  pign.  act.,  1.  qua  fortuitis,  the  answer  is  that  it  is  an  accident  which 
might  have  been  and  ought  to  have  been  foreseen,  because  such  events  are 
probable  in  wars,  because  the  issue  of  war  is  doubtful ;  and  so  Innocent  notes 
in  De  iureiurando,  ch.  sicut. 


Whether  a  borrower  is  liable  to  the  lender  to  replace  horses  and 
arms  lost  in  war  ? 

[Ch.  xliii.] 

My  second  question  is,  What  if  a  man  lends  another  arms  and  horses  to  go 
to  war,  and  they  are  lost ;  is  the  borrower  liable  to  the  lender  ?  And  it  seems 
that  he  is,  by  analogy  with  the  last  argument,  since  this,  too,  might  have 
been  foreseen,  as  above.  Solution  :  In  this  case  he  is  not  liable,  according  to 
Innocent ;  and  the  reason  of  the  difference  is  that  in  this  case  the  borrower 
did  not  exceed  the  terms  of  the  contract,  because  he  only  put  them  to  the  use 
for  which  the  contract  was  entered  into,  and  so  he  is  not  liable  ;  ff.  Commod., 
1.  si  ut  certo,  §  sed  interdum.  But  in  "  mandatum,"  although  a  man  might 
have  known  beforehand  that  he  might  probably  lose  them,  yet  he  knew  that 
an  "  actio  mandati  "  would  lie,  because  that  follows  from  the  nature  of  the 
contract.  And  this  is  always  the  rule,  unless  it  is  excluded  by  a  special 
agreement. 

Whether  a  hirer  is  liable  to  a  letter  to  replace  horses  and  arms  lost  in  war  ? 

[Ch.  xliv.] 

My  third  question  is,  What  of  one  who  lets  out  horses  and  arms  ?  if  they 
are  lost  in  war,  will  the  letter  have  an  action  against  the  hirer  ?  Solution  : 
Apply  what  I  said  of  the  lender ;  the  letter  will  have  no  action,  because  the 
hirer  hired  them  for  this  purpose,  and  he  has  not  exceeded  the  terms  of  the 
contract ;  ff.  Locat.  et  conduct.,  1.  si  quis  domum. 


Whether,  if  one  man  summons  another  to  a  war,  and  the  other  is  robbed  on  his 

way  to  the  war,  the  summoner  can  sue  the  robber  by  the 

"  actio  vi  bonorum  raptor um  "  ? 

[Ch.  xlv.] 

My  fourth  question  is,  What  if  a  man  who  has  been  summoned  to  a  war  is 
robbed  of  his  arms,  horses,  and  other  things  on  his  way  to  give  assistance  ? 
I  have  said  that  the  "  mandator  "  is  liable  to  the  "  mandatarius,"  but  has 
the  "  mandator  "  an  action  "  vi  bonorum  raptorum,"  or  an  action  of  theft, 
against  the  robber  ?  It  appears  that  he  has,  because  his  interests  are  affected 
by  the  robbery,  inasmuch  as  he  is  liable  to  the  "  mandatarius  "  in  an  "  actio 


VOLUNTARY  PARTICIPATORS  261 

mandati."  Solution  :  These  actions  are  not  competent  to  him  against  the 
robber.  And  the  reason  is  that  the  "  actio  vi  bonorum  raptorum  "  is  only 
competent  to  the  person  upon  whose  goods  the  robbery  was  committed  ;  ff.  Vi 
bon.  rapt.,  1.  ii,  §  hac  actione.  For  the  "  actio  vi  bonorum  raptorum,"  or  the 
action  of  theft,  is  only  competent  to  one  who  had  ownership,  or  possession, 
or  detention,  or  some  right  in  the  thing,  as  has  one  to  whom  the  thing  was 
pledged  and  not  yet  delivered  ;  ff.  De  prsescript.  verb.,  1.  si  gratuitam,  §  si  quis  ; 
ff.  De  furt.,  1.  si  is  qui  rem,  and  1.  is  cui.  The  persons  robbed,  therefore,  have 
these  actions,  but  they  will  be  able  to  sue  the  "  mandator  "  by  an  "  actio 
mandati,"  and  the  "  mandator/'  when  he  has  paid,  will  be  able  to  call  for 
a  cession  of  the  actions  against  the  robber,  and  then,  after  the  cession,  he  may 
sue,  as  a  "  procurator  in  rem  suam  "  ;  C.  Hand.,  the  last  law  but  one,  and  the 
last  law.  This  is  also  the  view  of  Innocent  in  the  chapter  above  cited,  De 
iureiurando,  sicnt. 


Whether  those  who  are  not  summoned  to  a  war,  but  go  of  their  own  motion, 
place  him  in  whose  service  they  go  under  an  obligation  to  themselves  ? 

[Ch.  xlvi.] 

My  fifth  question  regards  those  who  go  without  being  summoned,  and  of 
their  own  motion.  Solution  :  If  they  go  with  the  intention  of  making  a  gift 
of  their  services,  for  example,  from  a  sense  of  duty,  or  humanity,  or  relationship, 
the  case  is  clear.  Such  persons  will  not  have  an  action  ;  xxiii,  q.  iii,  non  in 
inferenda  ;  xi,  q.  iii,  si  dominus,  and  ch.  lulianus.  But  if  they  go  with  the 
intention  of  putting  the  person  in  whose  affairs  they  engage  under  an  obligation, 
then  they  will  have  the  "  actio  negotiorum  gestorum  "  ;  and  it  is  enough  if  the 
enterprise  has  been  effectively  begun  ;  ff.  De  neg.  gest.,  1.  sed  an  ultra. 


Whether  those  who  are  not  summoned  to  a  war,  but  go  of  their  own  motion  and 
make  an  effective  start,  place  the  person  in  whose  service  they  go  under  an 
obligation  to  themselves,  even  though  he  may  object  to  and  forbid  their  going  ? 

[Ch.  xlvii.] 

My  sixth  question  is,  What  if  persons  go  to  a  war  of  their  own  motion,  but 
after  being  expressly  forbidden  by  those  to  whose  assistance  they  go  ?  Will 
such  persons  have  an  action,  if  they  effectively  begin  the  service,  and  if  they 
complete  it  successfully,  to  carry  the  question  further  ?  It  appears  that  they 
will,  on  the  analogy  of  one  who  drags  an  unwilling  person  out  of  a  falling 
house  ;  xxiii,  q.  iv,  ipsa  pietas.  Also,  a  benefit  may  be  conferred  on  a  man 
against  his  will ;  dist.  xlv,  et  qui  emendat.  Also,  to  forbid  a  man  to  help  one 
seems  to  show  that  the  other  was  mad  ;  ff.  De  condi.  instit.,  1.  quidam  ;  De 
Prenitentia,  dist.  iii,  adhuc  instant;  so  the  gloss  holds  of  the  doctor  who  treats 
a  person  against  his  will.  This  is  noted  in  dist.  Ixxxiii,  in  the  summary.  I 


262  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

believe  the  contrary  in  the  present  case,  because  of  C.  De  neg.  gest.,  the  last 
law  ;  but  I  do  not  on  that  account  reject  the  gloss  ;  I  believe  that  it  is  true  of 
the  sick  man  and  the  doctor,  because  a  sick  man  is  presumed  to  be  mad,  if  he 
does  not  wish  to  be  absolutely  cured.  But  a  man  who  forbids  another  to  come 
to  a  war  for  his  assistance,  is  not  presumed  to  be  mad,  for  it  is  possible  that 
he  does  not  trust  him,  and  suspects  that  he  may  betray  him.  Nor  do  I  believe 
that  the  gloss  would  apply  to  a  case  in  which  a  sick  man  was  anxious  to  be 
well  healed,  but  did  not  wish  for  that  doctor,  but  for  another ;  then,  in  my 
opinion,  the  gloss  would  not  apply,  nor  do  the  passages  cited  above  prove  that 
it  would. 

So  much  for  those  who  participate  voluntarily. 


Of  those  who  participate  because  they  are  bound  to  return  a  service.    Whether  such 
persons  may  have  an  action  against  the  person  whom  they  help  ? 

[Ch.  xlviii.] 

It  remains  to  consider  those  who  go  because  they  are  bound  to  return 
a  service,  for  instance,  because  they  have  received  the  like  or  other  assistance 
from  the  person  whom  they  help.  Will  such  a  person  have  an  action  to  recover 
his  losses  as  above,  against  the  person  whom  he  helps  ?  Solution  :  If  he  goes 
in  the  way  our  case  supposes,  he  goes  with  the  idea  of  discharging  a  "  natural " 
obligation,  which,  however,  cannot  be  transformed  into  a  "  civil  "  obligation, 
nor  used  as  an  "  exceptio  "  in  a  trial ;  ff.  De  petit,  hatred.,  1.  sed  si  lege,  §  constt- 
luit ;  De  testamentis,  cum  in  qfficiis.  And  so  we  infer  that  he  does  not  go 
with  the  intention  of  imposing  an  obligation,  since  the  same  act  uniformly 
undertaken  cannot  bear  contrary  effects;  ff.  De  verbor.  obligat.,  1.  si  quis ; 
ff.  De  condict.  indebiti,  1.  cum  pars,  §  si  heres,  and  1.  cum  heres.  And  if  you 
say  that  there  is  no  need  to  discharge  this  obligation,  because  no  obligation 
upon  which  either  an  action  or  an  "  exception  "  could  be  founded  was  ever 
created,  and  that  which  does  not  exist  cannot  be  discharged,  ff.  De  iniusto, 
rupto,  irrito  facto  testam.,  1.  nam,  and  De  dispensatione  impuberum,  ch.  ad 
dissolvendum,  the  solution  is  this  :  Although  no  obligation  upon  which  an 
action  or  an  "  exception  "  could  be  founded  was  created,  yet,  as  I  said  above, 
there  was  created  a  "  natural  "  obligation  capable  of  being  discharged  by 
a  return  of  service  ;  see  the  laws  just  cited  ;  and  this  intention  of  discharging 
prevents  the  creation  of  an  obligation,  since  intention  is  required  in  obligation  ; 
ff.  De  oblig.  et  act. ;  1.  obligationum  ;  and  same  title,  1.  non  figura. 


Of  those  who  participate  for  the  sake  of  winning  glory. 
[Ch.  xlix.] 

It  remains  to  consider  those  who  participate  for  the  sake  of  winning  glory 
in  war. 


PARTICIPATORS  IN  WAR  263 

Whether  such  persons  place  the  person  to  whose  assistance  they  go  under 
an  obligation  to  themselves  ? 

Do  such  persons  place  the  person  to  whose  succour  they  go  under  an 
obligation  to  themselves  ?  Solution  :  If  this  is  their  sole  object  in  going, 
they  do  not  ;  for  the  lord  would  be  liable  either  in  an  "  actio  mandati  "  or  an 
"  actio  negotiorum  gestorum."  He  cannot  be  liable  in  an  "  actio  mandati," 
since  no  mandate  was  given  in  the  circumstances  supposed  by  our  question, 
and  an  "  actio  mandati  "  does  not  lie  without  a  preceding  mandate  ;  for 
although  some  say  that  an  "  actio  mandati  "  lies  for  negligence  or  deliberate 
wrongful  act,  when  a  mandate  has  once  been  undertaken,  yet  the  preceding 
mandate  is  always  required  ;  ff.  Mandati,  1.  i.  Or  if  you  say  that,  the  "  actio 
mandati  "  requires  a  preceding  contract,  that  is  more  correct,  as  I  show  else- 
where in  dealing  with  the  "  innominate  "  contracts  ;  C.  De  rerum  permutatione, 
1.  ex  placilo.  Again,  he  cannot  be  liable  in  an  "  actio  negotiorum  gestorum," 
because  the  other  did  not  come  with  the  intention  of  engaging  in  his  affairs,  but 
rather  for  his  own  purposes,  although,  as  a  necessary  consequence,  he  does 
engage  in  them-;  and  so  the  "  actio  negotiorum  gestorum  "  will  not  lie  either. 


Of  those  who  participate  because  they  let  out  their  services. 

[Ch.  1.] 

It  remains  to  consider  those  who  let  out  their  services,  or,  more  accurately, 
those  who  are  voluntarily  enlisted  at  an  agreed  salary. 

Whether  such  persons  have  an  action  against  their  hirers  ? 

Have  the  letters  an  action  against  the  hirers  ?  Solution  :  Such  persons 
make  a  contract  of  "  locatio  operarum  et  rei  "  ;  and  therefore,  if  the  hirer 
uses  them  only  for  the  purpose  for  which  they  are  hired,  he  is  not  liable  ; 
ff.  Locati  et  conducti,  1.  si  quis  domum  ;  and  this  is  so,  unless  there  is  a  special 
term  in  the  contract,  or  a  custom  to  the  contrary,  as  there  is  in  Italy,  namely 
that  compensation  should  be  given  for  horses  lost  in  the  service  of  the  hirer ; 
otherwise  the  rule  stands,  as  above. 


Of  those  who  participate  with  the  intention  of  getting  booty.    Whether  an  action 
is  competent  to  such  persons  ? 

[Ch.  li.] 

It  remains  also  to  consider  those  who  go  with  the  intention  of  plundering  ; 
and  as  to  them,  there  is  no  doubt  that  no  action  is  competent  to  them,  since  no 
obligation  arises  from  a  dishonourable  transaction  ;  ff.  De  verbor.  obligation., 
1.  veluti,  and  1.  generaliter,  and  1.*  si  ex  plagis. 


Supply  Ad  legem  Aquiliam. 


264  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

Whether  clerks  may  participate  in  war  ? 
[Ch.  lii.] 

Further,  we  must  see  whether  clerks  may  participate  in  wars.  This  question 
was  determined  by  Gratian,  xxiii,  q.  viii,  convenior ;  as  the  gloss  there  recites 
in  the  summary.  There  have  been  various  opinions  on  it.  For  some  say  that 
clerks  may  use  arms  of  defence,  but  not  of  offence,  and  so  may  make  a  defensive 
war.  Others  say  that  they  may  use  all  kinds  of  arms,  provided  that  they 
attack  at  once,  and  only  in  defence  of  themselves,  and  not  of  others,  and  when 
they  are  placed  in  a  position  of  imperative  necessity ;  De  homicidio,  ch.  ii ; 
xxiii,  q.  viii,  convenior  ;  and  the  same  cause,  q.  i,  at  the  beginning.  But  if  they 
can  escape  by  other  means,  then  they  may  not  ;  De  homicidio,  ch.  suscepimus. 
Others  say  that  they  may  only  do  so  with  the  authority  of  the  Pope.  Gandul- 
phus  holds  that  they  may  not  make  war  in  person,  but  may  do  so  vicariously. 
Gratian  seems  to  be  of  the  same  opinion  ;  xxiii,  q.  i,  §  in  registro. 

We  may  conclude  this  question  by  saying  that  clerks  summoned  by  the 
Pope  may  participate  ;  for  the  prince  has  authority  to  make  war ;  xxiii,  q.  i, 
quid  culpatur  ;  same  cause,  q.  ii,  ch.  i,  and  q.  iii,  ch.  Maximiaims.  But  in  a  war 
they  may  not  kill  even  a  pagan,  because  of  the  fear  of  "  irregularity,"  though 
they  may  encourage  others  to  fight,  and  may  even  hurl  stones  and  other  missiles 
provided  that  none  are  killed  by  their  shots.  This  is  noted  by  Innocent,  De 
restit.  spol.,  olim  ;  and  Ne  cler.  vel  monachi,  ch.  sententiam.  If  summoned  by 
others,  especially  by  secular  princes,  they  ought  not  to  go  to  war.  But  for 
their  own  defence,  when  they  cannot  escape  by  other  means,  they  may  even 
kill,  even  without  fear  of  "  irregularity  "  ;  Clem.,  De  homicidio,  si  furiosus. 
And  I  say  defence  of  their  own  person  advisedly  ;  it  is  otherwise  if  they  are 
defending  another,  even  on  the  instant,  such  as  a  father,  a  brother,  and  the  like. 
The  note  of  Innocent  in  De  sent,  excom.,  ch.  si  vero,  i,  where  he  holds  that  one 
who  strikes  a  clerk  in  this  case  is  not  excommunicated,  is  not  in  conflict  with 
this.  For  "  irregularity  "  is  contracted  even  without  fault,  as  where  a  judge 
puts  a  person  to  death  lawfully  ;  dist.  Ii,  ch.  i  ;  and  note  on  De  sponsalibus, 
ch.  inter  opera.  But  excommunication  is  not  incurred  without  fault ;  indeed 
it  must  be  preceded  by  some  persuasion  of  the  devil ;  xvii,  q.  iv,  si  quis 
suadente  ;  so  Clement  notes  in  the  chapter  quoted,  si  furiosus. 

But  can  a  clerk  be  blamed  who  does  not  flee,  but  waits  for  one  who  is 
attacking  and  kills  him  in  self-defence  ?  It  seems  that  he  must  be,  by  the  text 
of  Clement,  where  he  says  "  who  could  not  avoid  death  by  other  means  "  ;  this 
is  proved  by  ff.  Ad  leg.  Aquil.,  1.  scicntiam,  §  qui  cum  aliter,  whence  the  passage 
in  Clement  was  taken.  And  this  is  following  the  example  of  our  Saviour,  who 
fled  into  Egypt  ;  xxiii,  q.  iii,  §  i.  And  this  is  noted  by  Bernard  in  De  homicidio, 
ch.  suscepimus. 

I  believe  the  contrary  to  be  true  on  the  authority  of  ff.  Ex  quibus  causis 
maiores,  1.  in  eadcm ;  for  there  these  two  things,  not  to  be  able  to  withdraw, 
and  not  to  be  able  to  withdraw  without  dishonour,  are  treated  as  the  same. 


MERCENARIES  265 

I  am  confirmed  by  the  consideration  that  danger  might  occur  in  flight,  for 
instance,  if  he  were  to  fall,  as  often  happens  in  flight,  and  therefore  he  ought 
not  to  expose  himself  to  such  a  danger  ;  Vt  lite  non  contestata,  accedens,  ii. 
But  in  this  I  think  we  must  weigh  all  the  circumstances,  the  danger  of  flight, 
the  quality  of  the  person  fleeing,  and  of  the  person  attacking,  so  that,  if  by  flight 
a  man  would  probably  incur  a  danger  of  death,  then  he  is  not  to  be  blamed ; 
otherwise  he  is. 


Whether  mercenaries  enlisted  in  Germany,  at  a  fixed  salary  by  one  who  hires 

them,  will  have  an  action  against  one  who,  while 

they  are  on  the  way,  &c.  ? 

[Ch.  liii.] 

Suppose  mercenaries  have  been  enlisted,  at  a  fixed  salary,  with  an  engage- 
ment for  six  months,  to  come  from  Germany  to  serve  an  Italian,  and,  while 
they  are  coming,  the  Italian  loses  his  status  absolutely  ;  can  the  mercenaries 
bring  an  action  for  their  salary  ? 

Whether  mercenaries  enlisted  in  Germany  by  an  Italian  city,  at  a  fixed  salary 

yearly,  if  the  city  is  seized  by  a  tyrant,  while  they  are  on  the  way, 

may  bring  an  action  for  their  whole  salary,  &c. 

Suppose  mercenaries  have  been  enlisted  in  Germany  by  an  Italian  city, 
at  a  fixed  salary,  with  an  engagement  for  a  year,  and  while  they  are  on  the 
way,  the  city  is  forcibly  seized  by  a  tyrant ;  can  the  mercenaries  bring  an 
action  for  the  whole  salary,  or  for  a  rateable  part,  or  for  what  ?  The  following 
texts  seem  to  prove  that  they  can  claim  the  whole  :  C.  De  annonis,  1.  i ;  C.  De 
agent,  in  rebus,  1.  matriculam  ;  C.  De  prox.  sacr.  scrinior.,  1.  si  quis  in  sacris  ; 
C.  De  primipilo,  1.  i ;  ff.  De  legat.,  1.  legatum  ;  ff.  De  var.  et  extra,  cognitionibus, 
1.  i,  §  divus. 

On  the  contrary,  the  following  texts  seem  to  show  that  they  can  only 
claim  a  rateable  part  :  C.  De  erog.  milit.  annon.,  1.  his  scholaribus,  and  the  last 
law  but  one,  at  the  end  ;  C.  De  advoc.  divers,  iudiciorum,  1.  post  duos. 

Solution  :  In  this  case  the  debt  does  not  arise  from  a  pure  contract,  but 
rather  from  a  disposition  of  a  law,  because  the  men  are  appointed  to  an  office, 
and  the  salary  is  given  by  the  disposition  of  a  municipal  law.  Hence  it  is  not 
merely  a  contract  of  "  locatio  conductio."  And  in  such  cases  we  must  observe 
that  persons  are  sometimes  appointed  to  an  office  which  requires  labour, 
where  the  salary  is  given  primarily  for  the  labour  ;  and  this  is  the  case  with 
mercenaries.  Sometimes  they  are  appointed  to  an  office  where  the  salary  is 
given  not  for  the  labour  only,  but  because  high  intellect  and  knowledge  are 
required,  as  in  magistracies  and  the  like.  Sometimes  they  are  appointed  to 
an  office,  and  the  salary  is  given  for  both  ;  that  is  to  say,  both  for  the  labour, 
and  for  high  intellect,  and  knowledge,  as  in  the  case  of  ambassadors. 


266  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

In  the  first  case,  it  is  given  rateably  according  to  the  time  of  service  rendered ; 
C.  De  erog.  milit .  annonae,  last  law  but  one.  In  the  second  case,  if  a  single  act 
was  done  in  performance,  then  the  whole  is  due ;  see  the  laws  quoted  above 
to  the  contrary.  But  if  there  was  no  performance  at  all,  he  ought  to  have  the 
salary  for  the  year  in  which  he  entered  on  the  office  ;  C.  De  advoc.  divers, 
iudiciorum,  1.  post  duos. 

In  the  third  case,  what  is  given  as  remuneration  for  labour  and  skill  is 
sometimes  indivisible,  as  in  the  case  of  advocates,  doctors,  and  ambassadors ; 
and  then  the  whole  is  given  as  above.  Sometimes  it  is  divisible,  as  in  the  case 
of  the  constable  of  the  standard  ;  for  there  the  man  is  chosen  on  both  grounds, 
for  his  skill  and  for  his  labour,  and  these  admit  of  division  ;  so  that  mercenaries 
will  receive  a  rateable  part,  whereas  skilled  persons,  chosen  by  reason  of  their 
skill,  have  the  whole,  the  distinction  being  as  above. 

I  may  add  a  fourth  case,  where  a  man  is  chosen  primarily  for  rank,  as  the 
attendant  of  a  prince.  Then  he  has  the  whole ;  C.  De  proxi.  sacr.  scri.,  1.  si 
quis  in  sacris  ;  C.  De  agent,  in  rebus,  1.  matriculant ;  De  principibus,  1.  i.  And 
the  salary  passes  to  his  heirs  ;  C.  book  xii,  De  domesti.  et  protect.,  last  law. 
This  solves  the  question  of  Count  Landi,  captain  of  a  company  of  brigands, 
who  was  several  times  engaged  as  a  mercenary  by  Italian  lords,  with  an  engage- 
ment for  a  fixed  time  and  at  a  fixed  salary. 


Whether  mercenaries  ought  to  be  paid  at  the  beginning  or  at 
the  end  of  a  month  ? 

[Ch.  liv.] 

A  further  question  is,  When  ought  mercenaries  to  be  paid,  at  the  beginning 
or  at  the  end  of  a  month  ?  There  are  some  glosses  dealing  with  an  advocate 
who  also  acts  as  a  soldier,  which  seem  to  show  that  it  is  due  at  the  beginning  ; 
C.  De  advoc.  divers,  iudicio.,  1..  advocati.  This  is  supported  by  ff.  De  extraordin. 
cognitionibus,  1.  i,  §  divus ;  C.  De  iudiciis,  1.  properandum,  §  in  honorariis; 
and  ff.  Locat.  et  conducti,  1.  qui  operas,  §  i.  C.  book  xii,  De  principibus,  1.  i, 
is  to  the  contrary.  Solution  :  Sometimes  money  is  given  rather  for  expenses 
than  as  the  pay  for  labour,  and  then  it  is  due  at  the  beginning.  Take  as  an 
illustration  the  case  of  ambassadors  ;  ff.  De  legationibus,  1.  legatum;  ff.  Mand., 
1.  si  vero  non  remunerandi,  §  si  mandavero ;  C.  book  x,  De  legationibus,  1.  ii. 
Sometimes  money  is  due  as  pay  for  labour,  and  then  we  must  consider  the 
intention  of  the  parties,  express  or  implied  ;  for  if  there  was  an  implied  inten- 
tion to  that  effect,  then  it  seems  that  it  is  due  at  the  beginning.  For  instance, 
if  a  man  cannot  perform  his  promised  services  unless  money  is  given  him, 
then  it  appears  to  have  been  impliedly  agreed  that  it  should  be  due  at  the  begin- 
ning, for  in  such  cases  we  always  look  for  what  is  the  more  probable ;  ff.  De 
regul.  iur.,  1.  semper  in  stipulationibus.  But  if  this  probability  does  not  appear, 
then  the  rule  is,  that  in  obligations  arising  out  of  contract  the  salary  is  due  at 


MERCENARIES  267 

the  end  of  the  time  ;  C.  Locat.  et  conduct.,  1.  eadem  ;  and  ff.  De  stip.  servorum, 
1.  si  servus  communis  Meevii,  last  section.  But  if  the  money  is  due  by  disposi- 
tion of  law  to  persons  appointed  to  office  (as  to  whom  see  above),  as  it  is  in  the 
present  case,  then,  if  there  is  one  single  salary,  it  should  be  paid  at  the  beginning; 
ff.  De  var.  et  extraor.  cognitionibus,  1.  i,  §  divus.  And  if  the  glosses  to  this 
effect  are  noticed,  the  salary  may  be  either  annual  or  monthly,  as  it  is  in  the 
case  of  the  mercenaries  of  whom  we  are  speaking,  who  have  seven  florins  a 
month,  and  then  it  is  due  at  the  beginning  ;  C.  De  advoc.  diver,  iudic.,  1.  post 
duos  ;  and  C.  book  xii,  De  principibus,  1.  i.  I  think,  however,  that  mercenaries 
cannot  retain  it  except  rateably  for  the  time  for  which  they  serve,  as  I  showed 
above ;  and  they  are  bound  to  restore  the  residue,  even  when  the  impediment 
is  caused  by  an  extrinsic  event. 


Whether  mercenaries  who  absent  themselves  for  a  time,  even  with  the 

licence  of  their  lord,  lose  their  salary  for  that  time  ? 

[Ch.  lv.1 

Suppose  that  mercenaries  during  the  time  of  their  service  withdraw  for 
a  time  ;  will  they  lose  their  pay  for  that  time  ?  And  suppose  that  they  do  so 
with  the  licence  of  their  lord  ?  Solution  :  We  must  observe  that  services  are 
sometimes  defined  with  respect  to  a  time  that  is  not  specified.  Take  the  case 
of  advocates  of  a  church,  who  have  a  fixed  salary  to  cover  any  cause  which 
may  affect  the  church  during  the  year  ;  in  that  case  there  is  no  doubt  that 
there  is  a  single  obligation,  because  there  is  a  single  duty  imposed,  although 
there  may  be  several  acts  of  performance.  Therefore  the  whole  sum  is  due  ; 
see  the  passages  cited  above  ;  ff.  De  extraor.  cognitionibus,  1.  i,  §  divus.  Some- 
times services  are  defined  with  respect  to  a  specified  and  fixed  time,  as  in  the 
case  of  a  learned  doctor  employed  to  read  a  certain  book  in  a  certain  time. 
And  then  either  the  whole  salary  is  promised  at  once,  although  payment  may 
be  distributed  over  the  period  ;  and  even  then  there  is  a  single  obligation, 
as  above  ;  ff.  De  rebus  creditis,  1.  lecta.  Or  sometimes  payment  is  made  by 
the  year  or  by  the  month,  and  then  there  are  as  many  obligations  as  there  are 
months ;  1.  post  duos ;  and  payment  cannot  be  claimed  for  the  whole  time, 
but  the  instalments  become  payable  severally  for  each  month  of  service. 


Whether  mercenaries,  who  wilfully  refuse  to  serve  the  whole  time  of  their 

engagement,  lose  their  pay  for  the  whole  time,  or  only 

for  that  which  they  have  not  served  ? 

[Ch.  Ivi.] 

Suppose  they  wilfully  refuse  to  serve  the  whole  time,  will  they  lose  their 
salary  for  the  whole  time,  so  that  they  will  have  nothing  even  for  the  time  which 
they  have  served,  or  should  they  only  lose  it  for  the  time  they  do  not  serve  ? 

[26] 


268  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

Solution :  There  are  some  offices  to  which  a  man  is  appointed,  which  are  so 
indivisible  that  if  one  thing  is  left  undone,  the  rest  is  of  no  avail,  and  in  such 
cases  the  whole  salary  is  lost.  Take  the  example  of  ambassadors,  C.  De  lega- 
tionibus,  1.  ii.  There  are  other  offices  which  are  divisible  to  the  extent  that, 
if  one  thing  is  left  undone,  the  rest  is  of  value.  Take  the  example  of  a  mer- 
cenary. He  need  not  return  the  whole,  but  only  the  part  attributable  to  the 
future  ;  yet  he  is  liable  for  any  damage  caused  by  his  refusal  to  serve  in  the 
future,  so  that  if  no  damage  is  caused,  he  pays  nothing  ;  ff.  Locat.  et  conduct., 
1.  sifundus,  §  verisimilis;  and  notes  on  ff.  De  annu.  legatis,  1.  Mavia. 


Whether  a  mercenary  may  serve  by  a  substitute? 
[Ch.  Ivii.) 

What  if  he  wishes  to  serve  by  a  substitute  ?  It  appears  that  he  cannot, 
because  he  was  enlisted  for  his  personal  skill  ;  ff.  De  solut.,  1.  inter  arti- 
fices ;  C.  De  caduc.  tollend.,  the  single  law  ;  and  Sext,  De  offic.  delegat., 
the  last  chapter,  and  ch.  is  cui.  On  the  other  hand,  any  one  can  do  by  another 
what  he  can  do  by  himself  ;  rule  potest  quis,  and  similar  passages.  Solution  : 
The  mode  of  appointment  should  be  considered  ;  for  sometimes  a  lord  or  a  city 
appoints  a  constable,  and  gives  him  a  standard  and  pay,  and  the  constable  has 
to  enlist  for  himself  those  whom  he  will  have  to  serve  under  the  standard; 
in  this  case  no  question  runs  between  the  city  and  the  mercenaries,  because 
the  city  enlists  nothing  except  the  skill  and  labour  of  the  constable,  yet  the 
mercenaries  are  themselves  bound.  Sometimes  a  city  enlists  mercenaries  for 
itself  and  places  them  under  the  several  standards,  and  then  it  chooses  a  con- 
stable for  his  skill  and  services.  In  respect  of  skill,  a  man  could  not  give 
a  substitute,  as  appears  by  the  laws  just  cited.  The  mercenaries  are  chosen 
only  for  their  services  and  labour  ;  and  persons  who  are  chosen  for  services, 
and  not  for  skill,  may  appoint  a  substitute,  as  Innocent  notes  in  De  re 
iudicata,  ch.  cum  Bertholdus.  Hostiensis  has  an  opinion  to  the  contrary  in 
that  passage.  I  think  Innocent  is  right,  having  regard  to  the  laws  just  cited 
and  their  true  intent.  But  it  is  safer  to  do  it  with  the  lord's  consent,  so  that 
both  opinions  may  be  respected. 


Whether  a  mercenary  loses  pay  during  the  time  when  he  is  ill  ? 

[Ch.  Iviii.] 

What  if  a  mercenary  is  ill  ?    Solution  :    He  is  deemed  to  be  serving,  so 
that  his  salary  is  due  ;  ff.  De  statuliberis,  1.  si  hcres,  §  Stichusm. 


SPOILS  OF  WAR  269 

Of  spoils  and  captures  in  war.    Whether  one  who  makes  a  capture  in  war  becomes 

owner  of  the  person  or  thing  captured,  and  whether  the  doctrine  of 

"  postliminium  "  applies  ? 

[Ch.  lix.] 

Fifthly,  it  remains  to  consider  spoils  and  captures  made  in  war. 

And  in  the  first  place  I  ask  whether  one  who  captures  anything  in  war 
becomes  owner  of  the  person  or  thing,  and  whether  the  doctrine  of  "  post- 
liminium "  applies.  Solution  :  In  a  public  war,  made  by  the  authority  of 
a  prince,  which  I  have  discussed  above,  this  is  so.  For  the  captor  becomes 
owner  ;  the  persons  captured  become  slaves  ;  ff .  De  captivis,  1.  hostes  ;  and  ff . 
De  verb,  sigm'ficatione,  1.  hostes.  But  if  the  war  does  not  proceed  from  the 
edict  of  a  prince,  although  it  may  be  otherwise  lawful,  as  when  it  is  in  defence 
of  one's  own  property,  then,  if  he  who  declares  war  has  jurisdiction  over  him  on 
whose  account  he  declares  it,  he  may  decree  that  any  one  capturing  anything 
in  the  war  shall  become  owner  of  things  captured,  and  shall  detain  persons  until 
he  can  present  them  to  his  superior.  So  Innocent  holds  in  De  iureiurando,  ch. 
sicut,  referring  on  this  subject  to  the  note  on  De  sent,  excommunicationis, 
ch.  a  nobis.  Innocent  adds  that  even  without  making  any  decree,  he  may 
condemn  him  for  invading  the  bounds  of  his  jurisdiction  ;  Authent.,  qua  in 
provincia,  C.  Vbi  de  crim.  agi  oporteat.  He  adds  that  if  the  person  declaring 
war  has  no  jurisdiction,  but  is  merely  defending  himself  and  his  property, 
then  he  may  not  capture  and  detain  the  assailant,  because  he  is  only  allowed 
to  defend  himself,  and  that  only  within  the  limits  of  justifiable  defence  ;  C. 
Vnde  vi,  1.  i ;  De  restit.  spoliat.,  olim.  He  adds  that  if  he  attacks  the  property 
of  his  assailant,  the  assailant  cannot  succeed  in  an  "  actio  vi  bonorum  raptorum" 
nor  in  an  "  actio  iniuriarum,"  because  he  may  be  met  with  an  "  exceptio  paris 
criminis,"  setting  up  a  like  offence  on  his  own  part.  All  this,  as  I  said,  is  noted 
by  Innocent  in  De  iureiurando,  ch.  sicut.  I  think  Innocent's  first  statement  is 
true  without  qualification,  because  a  lord  may  punish  an  offence  by  a  decree 
depriving  a  man  of  the  ownership  of  his  property  and  transferring  it  to  another. 
But  I  think  the  second  statement  requires  qualification.  I  think,  rather,  that 
if  a  state  which  recognizes  no  superior  in  fact,  and  so  is  an  enemy  of  the  Roman 
people,  declares  war  on  another,  which  also  recognizes  no  superior,  no  decree 
is  required,  any  more  than  in  a  war  declared  by  edict  of  the  prince  ;  for  this 
rule  comes  from  the  law  of  nations,  which  is  derived  from  ancient  customs, 
except  that  the  part  which  concerns  persons  no  longer  holds,  because  in  modern 
times  persons  captured  in  wars  of  that  kind  do  not  become  slaves  and  are  not 
sold,  and  the  doctrine  of  "  postliminium  "  does  not  apply  in  such  cases  to-day. 
On  reading  his  third  statement,  I  have  sometimes  been  led  to  disapprove  of 
that  decretal  for  the  following  reason  :  One  who  has  been  despoiled  is  entitled, 
above  all  things,  to  restitution,  and  the  "  exceptio  criminis  "  cannot  be  set 
up  against  him  ;  De  restit.  spoliatorum,  ch.  in  literis,  and  ch.  item  cum  quis. 
The  person  first  despoiled,  therefore,  will  not  be  able  to  set  up  the  "  exceptio 


270  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

criminis,"  nor  any  other  even  more  stringent  "  exceptio."  Now,  as  I  write, 
I  think  that  Innocent's  gloss  may  be  saved  in  two  ways.  First,  because 
Innocent  does  not  speak  of  a  case  in  which  the  person  last  despoiled  brings  the 
interdict  "  unde  vi  "  ;  he  speaks,  rather,  of  a  case  where  he  brings  the  "  actio 
vi  bonorum  raptorum  "  or  the  "  actio  iniuriarum,"  which  are  obviously  vt  TV 
different.  Or,  secondly,  we  may  say  that  Innocent  does  not  mean  that  an 
"  exceptio  criminis  "  in  the  strict  sense  is  set  up,  but  an  "  exceptio  "  alleging 
the  other's  act  of  spoliation,  which  is  allowed  even  against  one  who  brings  a 
"  recuperative  "  interdict,  so  that  he  may  be  defeated  by  an  "  exceptio  spolia- 
tionis,"  as  the  text  in  De  ordine  cognitionum,  ch.  super  spoliatione,  proves. 


Whether  persons  captured  in  a  war  between  two  states  become  slaves,  and 
whether  ownership  is  acquired  over  them  ? 

[Ch.  lx.) 

When  one  state  makes  war  against  another,  can  men  be  called  "  enemies," 
in  the  sense  that  if  captured  they  will  become  slaves,  and  ownership  over  them 
be  acquired  ?  It  appears  not  ;  ff.  De  captivis,  1.  si  quis  ingenuam,  at  the  end. 
On  the  contrary,  a  state  of  itself  makes  a  people,  and  so  it  appears  that  they 
are  "  enemies,"  just  as  are  the  Christian  and  the  Saracen  peoples.  Solution  : 
When  the  dispute  is  between  two  states  which  are  under  the  same  lord,  the 
rules  of  captivity  and  "  postliminium  "  do  not  apply ;  ff.  De  captivis,  1.  st  quis 
ingenuam.  But  when  it  is  between  two  states  that  do  not  recognize  a  superior 
— and  I  assume,  to  remove  all  doubt,  that  one  is  an  enemy  of  the  Empire,  as 
being  rebellious — then,  by  the  law  of  nations,  which  is  derived  from  ancient 
customs,  the  rules  of  captivity  and  "postliminium  "  apply, except  that,  according 
to  the  customs  of  modern  times,  and  the  practices  observed  among  Christians 
from  an  early  age,  "  postliminium  "  does  not  apply  to  persons,  and  persons 
are  not  sold,  and  do  not  become  slaves. 


Whether  filings  captured  in  war  become  the  properly  of  the  captors? 

[Ch.  Ixi.] 

Do  things  captured  in  war  become  the  property  of  the  captors  ?  It  set  ins 
that  they  do,  by  ff.  De  captivis,  1.  si  quid  in  bello.  The  contrary  seems  to  be 
proved  by  the  same  title,  1.  si  captivus.  Solution  :  The  law  si  quid  in  bello 
speaks  of  movable  things  ;  the  law  opposed  to  it  of  immovables.  But  it  is 
objected  that  movables  become  public  property  ;  xxiii,  q.  v,  ch.  dicat.  Solu- 
tion :  I  say  that  they  become  the  property  of  the  captor ;  but  he  is  bound  to 
assign  them  to  the  general  of  the  war,  who  will  distribute  them  according 
to  deserts.  And  this  rule  applies  wherever  the  doctrine  of  "  postliminium  " 
does  not  apply  ;  ff.  De  captivis,  1.  ii. 


STRATAGEMS  271 

Whether  trickery  is  allowed  in  wars  P 

[Ch.  Ixii.] 

A  further  question  is  whether  one  may  use  trickery  to  win  victory  in  wars. 
It  seems  that  one  may  ;  for  Augustine  says,  in  the  book  of  Quaestiones,  "  when 
a  lawful  war  is  undertaken,  justice  has  no  concern  with  the  question  whether 
one  fights  in  the  open  or  by  trickery."  This  is  supported  by  Joshua,  ch.  viii. 
To  the  contrary  seems  to  be  what  is  written  in  Deuteronomy,  ch.  xvi,  "  that 
which  is  just  shalt  thou  follow  justly."  But  to  follow  a  thing  by  trickery 
is  to  follow  it  unjustly,  since  it  savours  of  deceit,  and  such  practices  are 
restrained  by  the  "  actio  de  dolo  "  ;  ff.  De  dolo ;  C.  same  title,  throughout. 
Moreover,  trickery  is  opposed  to  happiness,  and  it  breaks  the  faith,  which  should 
be  kept  even  with  an  enemy  ;  see  Augustine  to  Boniface,  quoted  in  xxiii,  q.  i, 
ch.  noli;  xxxiii,  q.  v,  quod  Deo  pan  consensu.  Moreover,  it  is  written  in 
Matthew,  ch.  vii,  "  whatsoever  ye  would  that  men  should  do  to  you,  do  ye  even 
so  to  them,"  and  in  the  beginning  of  the  Decretum.  And  this  rule  must  be 
observed  towards  all  our  neighbours.  Since,  therefore,  no  one  would  wish 
trickery  to  be  used  to  himself,  it  follows  that  he  ought  not  to  use  it  to  others. 
Solution  :  We  must  observe  here  that  the  word  "  trickery  "  properly  means 
anything  which  tends  to  deceive  another  ;  but  there  are  two  ways  in  which 
a  person  may  be  deceived  by  the  word  or  act  of  another.  One  way  is  if  a  false 
statement  is  made  in  order  that  another  may  be  deceived,  or  in  order  that 
some  promise  may  not  be  observed,  and  such  a  use  of  trickery  is  always  un- 
lawful ;  for  between  enemies  there  are  certain  bonds  which  must  be  observed, 
as  Ambrose  says  in  the  book  De  Officiis.  In  the  other  way,  a  man  may  be 
deceived  by  our  words  or  acts  merely  because  we  do  not  disclose  to  him  our 
intentions  or  our  secrets.  This  mode  of  deceit  is  lawful ;  for  not  even  the  secrets 
of  Holy  Scripture  are  at  all  times  to  be  disclosed,  lest  men  scoff  at  them,  accord- 
ing to  the  passage  in  Matthew,  ch.  [xjvii,  "Give  not  that  which  is  holy  unto  the 
dogs."  Moreover,  it  is  a  special  instruction  among  military  documents,  that 
secrets  are  not  to  be  revealed  to  enemies,  and  so,  too,  the  Blessed  Thomas  lays 
down  in  the  Second  book  of  the  Second  part,  question  xl ;  and  the  gloss  on 
xxiii,  q.  ii,  ch.  dominus,  says  without  qualification  that  we  may  use  this  kind 
of  deceit,  provided  we  do  not  break  faith  ;  same  cause,  q.  i,  ch.  noli.  The  gloss 
on  xxii,  q.  ii,  ch.  utilem,  is  to  the  same  effect ;  it  quotes  dist.  xliii,  can.  in  man- 
datis  ;  ff .  De  capt.,  1.  nihil  interest ;  C.  De  commerc.,  1.  ii ;  xiv,  q.  v,  dixit ;  De 
consecra.,  dist.  ii,  dixit  dominus. 


Whether  it  is  lawful  to  make  war  on  feast  days  ? 

[Ch.  Ixiii.] 

The  next  question  is  whether  one  may  make  war  on  feast  days.  And 
it  seems  that  one  may  not,  for  feast  days  were  introduced  in  order  that  one 
might  have  leisure  for  divine  things  ;  De  consecra.,  dist.  ii,  §  pronuntiandum  ; 


272  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

De  feriis,  last  chapter  ;  C.  same  title,  1.  dies,  and  the  last  law ;  and  this  is 
supported  by  Exodus,  ch.  xx.  Moreover,  in  Isaiah,  ch.  Iviii,  those  who  claim 
debts  on  days  of  fasting,  and  engage  in  quarrels,  smiting  with  their  fists,  are 
reproved.  Much  more,  then,  should  those  who  make  war  on  feast  days  be 
reproved.  Further,  no  irregularity  may  be  committed  in  order  to  avoid  a 
temporal  inconvenience.  Therefore,  &c.  Moreover,  the  text  of  De  treug.  et 
pace,  ch.  i,  seems  to  confirm  this  view. 

On  the  contrary  side,  we  read  in  i  Maccabees,  cli.  ii,  "  they  took  counsel 
laudably  saying,  Whosoever  shall  come  against  us  to  battle  on  the  sabbath 
day,  let  us  fight  against  him."  Solution  :  The  Blessed  Thomas,  in  the  Second 
book  of  the  Second  part,  question  xl,  holds  that  one  may  make  war  on  feast 
days  in  case  of  urgent  necessity,  but  on  the  necessity  ceasing,  one  must  cease 
from  the  war  ;  and  he  supports  this  by  the  passage  in  John,  ch.  vii,  "  are  ye 
angry  at  me,  because  I  have  made  a  man  every  whit  whole  on  the  sabbath 
day  ?  "  And  so  he  argues  that  doctors  may  heal  for  the  sake  of  a  man's  private 
health,  but  the  public  advantage  is  an  object  of  much  greater  importance. 
Goffredus  and  Hostiensis,  in  De  treug.  et  pace,  ch.  i,  say  that  on  Thursday 
wr  should  not  make  war,  because  on  that  day  the  Lord  ascended  into  Heaven, 
and  made  the  supper  with  the  Disciples  ;  De  consecra.,  dist.  i,  porro  ;  and  De 
consecra.,  dist.  ii,  literis ;  nor  on  Friday,  out  of  reverence  for  the  Passion  of  the 
Lord  ;  nor  on  Saturday,  because  the  Disciples  on  that  day  hid  for  fear  of  the 
Jews,  and  because  the  body  of  the  Lord  lay  in  the  sepulchre  :  De  consecra., 
dist.  iii,  Sabbato  ;  nor  on  Sunday,  because  the  Lord  did  almost  all  His  notable 
acts  on  that  day  ;  dist.  Ixxv,  quod  die  ;  and  out  of  reverence  for  the  Resurrec- 
tion. I  believe  that  the  urgency  of  the  necessity  must  be  considered,  as  men- 
tioned above.  The  text  of  Pope  Nicholas  is  in  xxiii,  q.  viii,  ch.  si  nulla. 


Whether  one  who  has  recovered  in  a  war  the  whole  of  his 
loss,  may  still,  &c.  ? 

[Ch.  Ixiv.] 

The  next  question  is,  What  if  a  man  has  recovered  in  a  war  the  whole 
of  his  loss ;  may  he  still  bring  an  action  against  his  adversary,  or  may  he 
still  declare  war  against  him  ?  It  seems  that  he  may  bring  an  action  ;  for 
what  is  captured  in  war  is  the  penalty  of  contumacy,  and  so  it  would  seem 
that  he  may  bring  an  action  none  the  less  ;  ff.  De  tab.  exhib.,  1.  locum,  the 
penultimate  section.  Also,  the  thing  was  not  paid  in  satisfaction  of  a  debt, 
but  the  ownership  of  it  was  obtained  by  war  ;  xxiii,  q.  v,  dicat;  and  q.  vii, 
si  de  rebus ;  ff.  De  acquir.  rer.  dom.,  1.  naturaliter.  Also  because,  against  one 
who  is  contumacious,  an  oath  may  be  taken  an  unlimited  number  of  times ; 
ff.  De  rci  vind.,  1.  qui  restituere.  The  gloss  on  xxiii,  q.  ii,  ch.  dominus,  holds  the 
contrary,  on  the  authority  of  ff.  De  reg.  Juris,  rule  bona  fides. 

I  do  not  think  that  the  gloss  is  true  without  qualification,  but  a  distinction 
should  be  drawn  according  as  the  loss  was  recovered  from  the  same  person 


WAR  AND  THE  CHURCH  273 

or  from  others.  If  from  the  same,  the  opinion  of  Johannes  holds ;  if  from  others, 
or  .  .  .  ,  and  then  the  rule  is  the  same;  C.  De  evict.,  1.  emptori;  or  he  might 
have  a  right  of  recourse  against  the  first  ;  C.  De  usur.  rei  iudic.,  1.  ii,  the  last 
section.  But  otherwise  it  is  allowable  for  the  same  debt  to  be  paid  several  times 
over;  ff.  De  tab.  exhib.,  1.  iii,  §  condenmatio ;  and  Instit.,  De  legat.,  §  si  res. 
So  the  gloss  notes  on  ff.  De  reg.  iur.,  rule  bona  fides;  and  so,  too,  notes 
lo.  Faventinus  p)  on  the  ch.  dominus,  already  quoted. 


Whether  those  who  die  in  war  are  saved  ? 
[Ch.  Ixv.] 

Are  those  who  die  in  war  saved  ?  Solution  :  Those  who  die  in  a  war  for 
the  defence  of  the  Church  obtain  the  heavenly  kingdom.  Two  texts  in  par- 
ticular prove  this,  xxiii,  q.  viii,  ch.  omni,  which  was  addressed  by  Pope  Leo  to 
the  King  of  the  Franks;  and  xxiii,  q.  v,  ch.  omnium,  which  was  addressed  by 
Nicholas  to  the  army  of  the  Franks.  But  those  who  fall  in  other  lawful  wars 
are  also  saved,  provided  they  die  without  mortal  sin  ;  but  if  they  fall  in  an 
unlawful  war,  though  that  be  their  only  mortal  sin,  they  perish  ;  De  Pcen., 
dist.  v,  fratres. 


Whether  it  is  lawful  to  wage  corporeal  war  on  behalf  of  the  property 
and  possessions  of  the  Church,  &c.? 

[Ch.  Ixvi.] 

Is  it  lawful  to  defend  the  possessions  of  the  Church  by  corporeal  war, 
and  for  this  purpose  to  assemble  troops  ?  Obviously  it  is.  It  is  proved  by 
the  texts  xxiii,  q.  iii,  ch.  Maximianus;  xv,  q.  vi,  auctoritatem ;  dist.  Ixiii, 
Adrianus ;  xxiii,  q.  viii,  ch.  igitur,  and  ch.  hortatu  ;  and  the  gloss  magistra  on 
xv,  q.  vi,  ch.  auctoritatem.  Also  by  the  text  of  Sext,  De  sent,  excom.,  ch.  dilecto. 


Whether  bishops  may  go  to  war  without  the  licence  of  the  Pope  ? 

[Ch.  Ixvii.] 

May  bishops  go  to  war  without  the  licence  of  the  Pope  ?  Some  say  they 
may  not,  without  any  qualification,  on  the  authority  of  canons  which  appear 
to  lay  this  down  expressly  ;  xxiii,  q.  viii,  quo  ausu,  and  ch.  si  vobis,  and  ch.  si 
quis  episcopus.  Though  those  chapters  admit  of  various  meanings,  yet  I 
think  this  is  true,  if  they  are  summoned,  or  if  they  join  of  their  own  accord  in 
the  wars  of  others,  particularly  secular  wars ;  otherwise,  if  they  are  defending 
their  own  rights. 


274  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

Whether  prelates,  for  the  temporalities  which  they  hold  from  the 
Emperor,  6-c.P 

[Ch.  lxviii-1 

Are  prelates  bound  to  pay  tribute  for  the  temporalities  which  they  hold 
from  the  Emperor  for  wars  declared  by  him  ?  We  must  say  that  they  are,  as 
is  proved  by  xxiii,  q.  viii,  §  ecce,  with  the  two  following  sections,  down  to 
§  quamvis. 

Whether  mercy  should  be  shown  to  persons  captured  in  a  lawful  war? 

[Ch.  bux.] 

Should  mercy  be  shown  to  persons  captured  in  a  lawful  war  ?  We  must 
say  that  it  should,  unless  by  sparing  them  there  is  fear  of  a  disturbance  of 
the  peace.  This  is  proved  by  xxiii,  q.  i,  ch.  noli,  at  the  end  ;  and  on  the 
authority  of  that  chapter,  as  understood  by  Hugolinus,  Conradine  was  be- 
headed. 


Whether  the  Church  should  declare  war  against  the  Jews  ? 

[Ch.  Ixx.] 

Should  the  Church  declare  war  against  the  Jews  ?  We  must  say  not, 
since  everywhere  they  are  prepared  to  serve,  and  do  not  persecute,  Christians. 
Otherwise  of  the  Saracens,  who  do  persecute  Christians.  This  is  the  text. 
xxiii,  q.  viii,  dispar;  and  the  gloss  there  notes  that  it  would  not  be  necessary 
to  declare  war  even  against  the  Saracens,  if  they  did  not  persecute  Christians. 


Whether  those  who  attend  in  a  war,  but  who  cannot  fight,  G-c.? 

[Ch.  Ixxi.] 

Should  those  who  attend  in  a  war,  but  who  cannot  fight,  enjoy  the  im- 
munities of  combatants  ?  Say  that  they  should,  provided  that  they  are  useful 
in  counsel  in  other  ways  ;  see  the  note  on  De  voto,  ch.  ex  multa. 


Whether  prelates,  by  reason  of  temporal  jurisdiction,  may,  &c.? 

[Ch.  Ixxii.] 

May  prelates  declare  wars,  and  take  part  in  them,  and  encourage  others 
to  battle,  by  reason  of  their  temporal  jurisdiction  ?  Say  that  they  may,  as 
Innocent  notes  in  De  pcenis,  ch.  quod  in  dubiis. 


KINDS  OF  CORPOREAL  WAR  275 

Whether  a  prelate,  for  the  injury  of  a  subject,  may,  &c.  ? 

[Ch.  Ixxiii.] 

May  a  prelate  declare  war  for  an  injury  done  to  his  subject,  for  which 
justice  is  not  done,  and  capture  in  the  war  persons  other  than  the  wrong- 
doers ?  Say  that  he  may,  as  Innocent  notes  in  De  appellat.,  ch.  dilectis  ;  and 
De  iureiurando,  ch.  sicut. 

Whether  the  Pope's  delegate  may  declare  war  ? 

[Ch.  Ixxiv.] 

That  is  to  say,  may  he  invoke  the  secular  arm  ?  The  question  has  been 
much  discussed,  and  is  treated  in  De  offic.  deleg.,  ch.  significasti,  by  Innocent. 


Whether  wars  declared  by  the  Church  against  excommunicated 
persons  are  meritorious  ? 

[Ch.  Ixxv.] 

Are  wars  which  the  Church  declares  against  excommunicated  persons 
meritorious  ?  We  must  say  that  they  are,  and  it  is  lawful  for  prelates  and 
individuals  to  encourage  others  to  fight  in  them.  This  is  proved  by  the  texts 
xxiii,  q.  v,  ad  omnium,  and  the  following  chapter  ;  and  q.  viii,  ch.  igitur,  down 
to  §  ecce;  and  q.  iv,  ch.  sicut  excellentiam. 


How  many  are  the  kinds  of  corporeal  wars  ? 

[Ch.  Ixxvi.] 

The  next  question  is  how  many  are  the  kinds  of  corporeal  wars  which  are 
recognized  in  law.  Solution  :  Seven  kinds  are  recognized  by  law. 

The  first  is  called  "  Roman,"  and  is  that  which  the  faithful  wage  against 
the  infidels  ;  and  this  is  lawful ;  De  hsereticis,  excommunicamus,  ii.  And  it  is 
called  Roman,  because  Rome  is  the  head  of  the  Faith  ;  xxiv,  q.  i,  hcec  est  fides, 
and  ch.  quoniam  ;  De  summa  Trin.,  the  penultimate  chapter.  And  in  this 
sense  may  be  understood  ff.  De  captivis,  1.  hostes. 

The  second  is  that  which  is  made  on  the  authority  of  a  lawful  judge, 
having  mere  jurisdiction  against  the  contumacious  and  rebellious  ;  ff.  Quod 
met.  causa,  1.  continet ;  ff.  De  iurisd.  omn.  iudic.,  1.  iii,  and  1.  iv  ;  C.  Ne  quis 
in  sua  causa,  the  single  law.  And  these  are  not  strictly  called  enemies,  for 
although  that  which  we  acquire  from  them  becomes  ours,  yet  the  converse  is 
not  true  ;  ff.  De  captivis,  1.  v,  §  in  pace. 

The  third  is  called  "  presumptuous  "  war,  and  is  that  made  by  persons 
who  disobey  a  judge  ;  De  Pcen.,  dist.  iii,  §  i,  at  the  end  ;  De  maiorit.  et  obed., 
ch.  si  quis  venerit;  ff.  De  rei  vind.,  1.  qui  restituere;  ff.  Ne  vis  fiat  ei  qui  in 
pos.  missus,  1.  iii ;  C.  De  seditiosis,  1.  i,  at  the  end. 

[27] 


276  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

The  fourth  is  the  war  which  is  lawful  whenever  it  is  allowed  by  authority 
of  law.  And  it  is  lawful  as  regards  the  person  to  whom  the  authority  is  given  ; 
xxiii,  q.  ii,  ch.  si  dominus;  De  sent,  excom.,  si  vero,  i,  §  nee  ilk  ;  C.  Quando 
lie.  unicuique  sine  iudi.  se  vindicare,  1.  i,  and  1.  ii ;  and  also  his  relations  and 
neighbours  ;  Sext,  De  sent,  excom.,  dilecto. 

The  fifth,  which  is  unlawful,  is  war  made  against  the  authority  of  law,  as 
where  a  man  defends  himself  contrary  to  the  authority  of  a  judge  and  of  the 
law  ;  De  sent,  excom.,  perpendimus,  and  ch.  contingit,  and  ch.  in  audientia. 

The  sixth,  or  "  voluntary  "  war,  is  that  which  the  secular  princes  of  our 
time  make  without  the  authority  of  the  emperor.  And  this  is  unlawful,  because 
without  the  authority  of  the  emperor  it  is  not  even  lawful  to  bear  arms ;  C.  book 
xi,  Vt  armor,  usus,  in  red  and  black  ;  Authent.,  coll.  iii,  De  man.  prin. ; 
Authent.,  coll.  vi,  De  armis.  Moreover,  those  who  do  so  violate  the  lex  lulia 
maiestatis  ;  ff.  Ad  leg.  lul.  maiest.,  1.  iii. 

The  seventh,  which  is  called  "  necessary  "  and  lawful  war,  is  war  made 
by  the  faithful,  when  they  defend  themselves  by  the  authority  of  the  law 
against  those  who  attack  them  ;  for  to  repel  force  by  force  is  lawful ;  ff.  De 
iustit.  et  iure,  1.  ut  vim,  and  similar  passages.  On  these  subjects  see  Hostiensis, 
Sext,  De  homicidio,  pro  humani  ;  and  the  Archdeacon,  xxiii,  q.  ii,  ch.  iustum. 

From  this  we  see  what  wars  are  lawful,  and  what  are  unlawful.  For 
wars  are  said  to  be  lawful  by  reason  of  the  person  declaring  them,  the  person 
against  whom  they  are  declared,  the  thing,  and  the  cause,  and  the  law  which 
allows  them  ;  and  they  are  unlawful  in  the  converse  cases.  But  generally 
there  is  one  justifying  cause,  the  contumacy  of  one  who  resists  unlawfully. 
Forwhen  justicecannot  be  had  from  one  who  is  liable,  then  war  maybe  declared, 
for  recourse  is  had  to  that  instrument  for  help  ;  xxiii,  q.  i,  quid  culpatur,  and 
ch.  noli ;  xxiii,  q.  viii,  si  nulla  ;  ff.  De  usuf.,  1.  si  ususfructus.  And  on  this 
question  of  what  wars  are  lawful,  there  are  notes  by  Innocent,  De  resti.  spol., 
cum  olim,  i ;  by  Hostiensis,  in  Summa,  De  treu.  et  pace,  §  quid  si  iustum;  by 
the  Blessed  Thomas,  in  the  Second  book  of  the  Second  part,  question  xl,  the 
first,  second,  and  third  articles  ;  and  by  ^Egidius,  in  the  book  De  regimine 
principum,  at  the  end. 

Of  particular  war  which  is  waged  in  self-defence  ;  being  the  Fourth  Treatise 
of  the  Third  Principal  Part. 

[Ch.  Ixxvii.] 

Universal  corporeal  war  having  been  considered  above,  in  the  third  pre- 
ceding principal  treatise,  it  now  remains  to  consider,  fourthly,  particular  war 
which  is  waged  in  self-defence  ;  and  in  treating  it  I  shall  proceed  as  follows  : 
I  shall  first  show  what  it  is.  Secondly,  how  many  are  its  kinds.  Thirdly, 
by  what  authority  it  was  introduced.  Fourthly,  who  may  use  it.  Fifthly, 
against  whom.  Sixthly,  on  whose  behalf.  Seventhly,  in  what  manner. 
Eighthly,  what  is  its  end. 


PARTICULAR  WAR  277 

What  is  particular  war  ? 

[Ch.  Ixxviii.] 

As  to  the  first  question,  what  is  the  war  declared  "  particularly  "  in 
self-defence,  I  say  that  it  is  "a  contention  arising  on  account  of  something 
alien  presented  to  human  desire,  proceeding  from  the  infliction  of  particular 
violence,  and  tending  to  its  exclusion."  This  definition  is  supported  in  sub- 
stance by  the  text  of  ff.  De  iustit.  et  iure,  1.  ut  vim  ;  ff.  Ad  leg.  Aquil.,  1.  [qui] 
scientiam,  §  qui  cum  aliter  ;  C.  Vnde  vi,  1.  i ;  ff .  De  vi,  1.  iii,  §  si  quis  ;  and  De 
resti.  spol.,  ch.  olim.  I  said  "  contention,"  for  contention  is  taken  as  the  genus, 
as  it  was  in  the  definition  of  war  undertaken  generally,  in  the  first  treatise 
above,  at  the  beginning.  Secondly,  I  said  "  arising  on  account  of  something 
alien,"  &c.  ;  this  supplies  its  differentia,  for  herein  it  differs  from  universal 
war,  and  other  species  of  war.  Thirdly,  I  said  "  tending  to  its  exclusion." 
This  is  the  final  cause  of  the  war  itself. 


How  many  are  the  kinds  of  particular  war  ? 

[Ch.  Ixxix.] 

As  to  the  second  question,  which  asks  how  many  are  its  kinds,  I  say 
that  they  are  two  ;  for  I  divide  it  into  "  lawful,"  and  "  unlawful,"  as  I  also 
divided  universal  war.  But  lawful  particular  war  is  of  two  kinds.  For  one 
kind  is  waged  in  defence  of  the  true  body,  or  what  belongs  to  or  concerns 
the  true  body.  This  I  shall  discuss  in  the  present  treatise.  Another  kind  is 
waged  in  defence  of  a  mystical  body,  or  a  part  of  it,  meaning  a  community, 
which  is  called  a  body,  and  the  individuals  who  compose  it  are  called  its  limbs 
and  parts  ;  ff.  Quod  cuiuscunque  univer.,  1.  i ;  ff.  Ad  municip.,  1.  quod  maior  ; 
ff .  De  in  ius  vocand.,  1.  sed  si  hac,  §  qui  manumittitur  ;  De  excess,  praelat.,  1.  cum 
dilecta,  and  the  note  on  that  passage.  If,  therefore,  a  community  declares  war 
in  defence  of  one  of  its  citizens,  who  is  oppressed  by  a  stranger,  in  default  of 
justice  being  rendered  by  the  judge  of  the  oppressor,  this  is  called  "  Particular 
War  in  defence  of  the  mystical  body,  or  a  part  of  it  "  ;  and  this  is  called 
"  Reprisals,"  as  to  which  see  Authent.,  Vt  non  fiant  pignor.,  throughout ; 
Sext,  De  iniur.,  the  single  chapter,  throughout.  And  this  war  will 
be  discussed  in  the  treatise  next  following.  But  lawful  particular  war, 
declared  in  defence  of  the  true  body,  is  a  contention  arising  on  account  of 
something  alien  presented  to  human  desire,  proceeding  from  the  infliction  of 
particular  violence  by  a  private  or  public  person,  acting  unlawfully  outside 
his  office,  tending  to  its  exclusion,  within  the  limits  of  justifiable  defence  ;  and 
this  is  supported  by  C.  Vnde  vi,  1.  i,  with  the  note  on  that  passage.  But  it  is 
unlawful  when  the  foregoing  conditions,  or  any  of  them,  are  wanting,  as  will 
be  shown  in  the  following  discussion. 


278  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

By  what  law  was  particular  war  introduced  ? 
[Ch.  Ixxx.] 

As  to  the  third  question,  which  asks  from  what  law  this  war  proceeds, 
and  what  law  makes  it  competent,  the  gloss  on  ff.  De  iustit.  et  iure,  1.  ut  vim, 
on  the  word  "  iure,"  says,  "  by  the  law  of  the  courts,  not  by  the  law  of  hravrn." 
If  the  gloss  means  that  this  war  proceeds  from  the  law  of  the  courts,  I  think 
that  the  gloss  is  not  true.  If  it  merely  means  that  the  law  of  the  courts  allows 
it  to  be  declared,  I  think  it  is  correct.  But  when  the  gloss  says,  "  not  by  the 
law  of  heaven,"  I  think  it  is  false.  I  return  to  the  particular  points  ;  and  I 
say  that  war  in  self-defence  proceeds  from  natural  law,  and  not  from  positive 
law,  civil  or  canon.  And  that  this  is  true  may  be  proved  as  follows  :  For  the 
nature  that  produces  a  thing  tends  to  its  conservation,  so  long  as  the  strength 
of  the  natural  agent  lasts,  and  strives  to  expel  anything  hostile  to  it  ;  and  if 
this  is  not  so,  the  cause  is  a  failure  of  the  strength  of  the  natural  agent,  and  an 
excess  of  those  acting  against  it.  But  this  is  not  caused  by  intention  of  the 
natural  agent,  productive  and  conservative,  but  contrary  to  intention,  since 
it  always  resists  its  opposites,  so  far  as  it  can.  This  is  obvious  from  experience, 
if  we  argue  by  natural  instances.  For  it  is  obvious  in  the  elements,  which  act 
and  are  acted  upon  in  turn.  For  a  thing  acted  upon  resists  the  thing  acting, 
and  reacts  upon  it,  solely  to  the  end  of  its  own  conservation,  and  the  destruction 
of  the  thing  acting  against  it.  And  a  material  corporeal  agent  is  always  acted 
upon  in  acting  itself,  as  the  Philosopher  says  in  the  third  book  of  the  Physics, 
and  the  second  of  De  generatione.  This  is  obvious  in  inanimate  things,  such 
as  plants,  for  their  special  nature  tends  to  their  own  conservation  and  life, 
and  to  the  expulsion  of  their  opposites  ;  and  also  in  animals,  and  why  not 
also  in  a  rational  creature  ?  in  whom,  rather,  the  process  is  even  more  marked, 
because  the  creature  himself  is  nobler,  and  other  things  are  ordained  to  his 
service,  as  their  end  ;  ff.  De  usuris,  1.  in  pecudum.  Defence,  therefore,  pro- 
ceeds from  natural  instinct.  The  text  of  Clem.,  De  sententia  ct  re  iudicata, 
pastoralis,  §  ceterum,  supports  this.  The  text  there  speaks  of  defence  which 
proceeds  from  natural  law.  This  seems  to  be  the  meaning  of  the  gloss  on  ff. 
Ad  leg.  Aquiliam,  1.  scientiam,  §  qui  cum  alitcr.  The  gloss  there  says  that  the 
laws  permit,  in  that  they  do  not  forbid.  This  is  supported  by  the  text  of 
ff.  Ad  leg.  Aquiliam,  1.  itaque.  The  text  there  says  that  natural  reason  allows 
one  to  defend  oneself  against  danger.  I  conclude  therefore,  from  this  reasoning, 
that  this  war,  limiting  it  to  war  declared  in  defence  of  one's  person,  proceeds 
from  natural  law  and  one's  own  instinct,  but  that  positive  law  approves  it, 
or  does  not  forbid  it,  as  the  gloss  on  1.  scientiam,  §  qui  cum  aliter,  says.  For  some 
things  which  proceed  from  natural  instinct  are  punished  by  positive  laws,  as 
in  carnal  intercourse  ;  for  intercourse,  as  such,  proceeds  from  natural  instinct, 
yet  some  unions  are  condemned  by  statute.  And  in  this  positive  law  limits 
and  qualifies  acts  which  proceed  from  natural  law.  So  in  other  instances  of 
acts  proceeding  from  nature  ;  for  one  naturally  desires  food  and  drink,  and 


LAWFULNESS  OF  PARTICULAR  WAR  279 

yet  the  canon  law  limits  this  desire.  For  it  forbids  certain  foods  at  certain 
times.  It  is  true  that  positive  law  also  qualifies  the  mode  of  defence,  as  appears 
in  C.  Vnde  vi,  1.  i,  and  as  will  appear  in  the  citations  below.  We  conclude,  then, 
that  this  war  proceeds  from  natural  law,  but  that  it  is  approved  by  positive 
law,  both  civil  and  canon,  and  also  qualified  and  regulated  by  them.  And 
perhaps  if  understood  in  this  way  the  gloss  on  1.  ut  vim  may  be  saved. 

Secondly,  the  gloss  said,  "  not  by  the  law  of  heaven."  The  gloss  seems 
to  mean  that  the  divine  law  does  not  allow  violence  to  be  repelled  by  violence. 
This  view  of  the  gloss  seems  to  be  supported  by  certain  texts  ;  for  it  is  written 
in  Luke,  ch.  vi,  "  unto  him  that  smiteth  thee  on  the  one  cheek  offer  also  the 
other  " ;  xxiii,  q.  i,  at  the  beginning.  It  is  also  written,  "  whosoever  shall 
compel  thee  to  go  a  mile,  go  with  him  twain  "  ;  Matthew,  ch.  v.  It  is  also 
written  in  Romans,  ch.  xii,  "  avenge  not  yourselves,  but  rather  give  place 
unto  wrath."  Christ  also  said  to  Peter,  when  he  wished  to  defend  Him,  "  put 
up  again  thy  sword  into  his  place,"  Matthew  xxvi ;  quoted  in  xxiii,  q.  i,  at  the 
beginning.  These  passages  might  move  us  to  agree  with  the  gloss  in  holding 
that  it  is  forbidden  by  the  law  of  heaven.  But  I  think  that  the  gloss  is  wrong, 
as  may  be  clearly  shown.  And  first  as  follows.  An  act  which  is  consonant  with 
charity  is  lawful  by  divine  law,  and  defence  of  oneself  is  such  an  act.  There- 
fore, &c.  The  major  is  proved  ;  for  charity  excludes  any  act  which  is  at 
variance  with  divine  law,  since  it  is  incompatible  with  such  an  act,  being  itself 
the  foundation  of  everything  that  is  lawful.  This  is  proved  by  De  Pcenit., 
dist.  ii,  [si]  radicata,  and  ch.  caritas  est,  ut  mihi  videtur.  And  the  second  point, 
the  minor  premise,  is  proved  by  the  same  "  distinctio,"  ch.  quia  radix.  For 
the  chief  act  of  charity  is  to  love  one's  neighbour  as  oneself,  as  appears  in  the 
next  canons,  and  De  Pcenit.,  dist.  ii,  ch.  caritas  est.  §  proinde ;  therefore  it 
implies  self-love  and  self-conservation,  and  if  so,  self-defence.  Therefore  the 
law  of  heaven  allows  one  to  defend  oneself.  Moreover,  the  divine  law  allows 
one  to  defend  one's  neighbour  from  death,  even  against  his  will.  Therefore 
much  more  does  it  allow  one  to  defend  oneself.  The  consequence  follows  by 
the  reasoning  last  given.  The  antecedent  is  proved  by  the  text  in  xxiii,  q.  iv, 
ipsa  pietas,  and  ch.  displicet.  Moreover,  the  divine  law  forbids  a  man  volun- 
tarily to  strive  after  his  own  destruction.  What  I  mean  by  that  is  merely 
this  :  that  if  he  duly  strives  after  some  other  thing  approved  by  the  divine 
law,  even  though  in  gaining  that  thing  self-destruction  follows  as  a  consequence 
—that  is  not  forbidden ;  as  where  a  man,  in  order  to  obtain  the  state  of  eternal 
blessedness,  afflicts  his  own  body,  no  one  doubts  that  the  affliction  is  destructive 
of  the  body,  yet  this  is  not  its  final  end,  but  the  avoiding  of  carnal  vices,  and 
the  obtaining  of  the  eternal  state.  The  same  might  also  be  said  of  those  who 
have  allowed  themselves  to  be  slain  for  the  sake  of  the  catholic  faith  ;  for  their 
final  purpose  is  not  the  destruction  of  their  body,  but  the  defence  of  the  faith, 
for  the  sake  of  which  they  voluntarily  expose  themselves  to  temporal  death, 
which  the  divine  law  allows.  But  one  who  does  not  defend  himself  from  death, 
when  he  can,  voluntarily  kills  himself  and  compasses  his  own  destruction  ; 


280  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

and  so  this  is  forbidden  by  divine  law.  The  major  is  proved  ;  for  those  who 
kill  themselves  in  this  way  are  regarded  as  condemned  by  the  divine  law,  as  we 
say  of  Judas  and  those  like  him.  The  minor  is  proved ;  for  one  who  does  not 
defend  himself  from  death,  when  he  can,  and  does  not  come  under  the  cases 
above  mentioned,  and  does  not  fail  to  do  so  merely  from  cowardice,  desires 
his  own  death,  and  kills  himself  by  another's  hand ;  which  is  just  as  if  he  killed 
himself  by  his  own  hand,  according  to  the  rule  qui  per  alium,  Sext,  De  reg. 
iuris.  Moreover,  the  divine  law  does  not  absolutely  forbid  acts  which  proceed 
from  natural  law,  but  modifies  and  controls  them.  This  is  clear  from  illustra- 
tions ;  for  it  does  not  altogether  forbid  food  and  drink,  or  sexual  intercourse, 
or  the  like,  but  modifies  and  controls  those  actions,  rejecting  extremes,  and 
approving  the  mean,  as  does  the  moral  law  also  ;  Ethics  ii,  iii,  and  iv.  But  if 
the  divine  law  were  absolutely  to  forbid  self-defence,  since  that  action  proceeds 
from  an  instinct  of  nature,  it  would  absolutely  destroy  an  act  of  nature,  which 
is  absurd,  for  the  reasons  given  above.  Moreover,  the  canon  law  allows  it ; 
therefore  the  diyine  law  does  not  forbid  it.  The  antecedent  is  proved  by  De 
restit.  spol.,  ch.  olim;  Clem.,  De  re  iudic.,  pastoralis,  §  ceterum ;  and  more 
clearly  by  Clement,  De  homicidio,  si  furiosus.  The  consequence  holds  ;  for 
the  canon  law  is  interchangeable  with  the  divine  law,  and  so  they  cannot 
contradict  one  another ;  for  they  tend  to  the  same  end,  though  in  different 
ways.  For  the  canon  law  treats  of  the  government  of  the  earthly  kingdom, 
that  human  society  may  be  preserved  in  the  world,  which  is  also  the  subject 
of  the  civil  law  ;  but  the  canon  law  goes  further,  for  it  disposes  and  prepares 
for  the  state  of  eternal  happiness,  to  which  the  divine  law  leads  ;  and  so  it  is 
necessary,  if  we  observe  the  identity  of  their  end,  that  everything  which  the 
divine  law  forbids,  should  be  forbidden  by  the  canon  law.  Accordingly,  we 
may  pass  over  other  arguments  which  might  be  adduced  without  number,  and 
conclude  that  the  gloss  is  not  correct  in  saying  that  the  law  of  heaven  does  not 
allow  self-defence. 

To  the  authorities  cited  to  the  contrary,  the  true  answer  is  that  given 
by  Gratian  in  xxiii,  q.  i,  §  his  ita.  The  answer  is,  that  they  arc  to  be  understood 
to  refer  to  the  inner  preparation  of  the  heart,  not  the  conduct  of  the  body ; 
for  a  man  ought  to  have  humility  of  heart  within,  as  Augustine  shows  in  the 
Sermon  on  the  Centurion's  Son,  when  he  says,  "  a  man  ought  to  be  prepared," 
&c.  See  xxiii,  q.  i,  ch.  paralus. 

This  discussion  gives  us  the  answer  to  our  third  question  as  to  whence 
this  war  arises,  and  what  law  allows  it. 


What  persons  may  declare  this  particular  war? 
[Ch.  Ixxxi.] 

We  must  consider  the  fourth  question,  namely,  Who  may  declare  it  ? 
On  this  subject  I  begin  by  saying  that  it  is  one  thing  to  ask  who  may  defend 
himself,  and  another  to  ask  who  may  declare  the  war  above  defined,  the  object 


WHO  MAY  DECLARE  IT  ?  281 

of  which  is  defence.  If  we  ask  to  whom  defence  is  allowed,  I  say  that  it  is 
allowed  to  all  natural  created  and  corruptible  beings.  And  I  say  "  created 
and  corruptible,"  because  it  is  not  allowed  to  the  heavenly  bodies,  because 
they  cannot  be  acted  upon  by  any  hostile  agent,  since  their  bodies  are  not 
receptive  of  foreign  impressions,  as  the  Philosopher  says  in  De  Coelo  et  Mundo, 
book  ii,  since  they  are  not  composed  of  the  matter  which  is  the  matter  of 
generation  and  corruption.  And  so  there  is  no  need  of  defence,  since  they 
cannot  suffer.  But  to  all  material  things  defence  is  allowed  by  natural  first 
principles,  since  they  are  accessible  to  suffering  ;  and  such  defence  proceeds 
from  natural  law,  which  is  a  force  inborn  in  things,  creating  like  from  like. 
For  by  creating  its  like  a  thing  preserves  itself  in  its  kind,  which  cannot  be 
done  for  ever  in  the  individual ;  and  also  by  its  individual  action,  it  strives  to 
destroy  its  opposite,  which  resists  it,  and  conversely.  And  this  is  the  first 
mode  of  natural  law,  as  to  which  see  the  gloss  on  dist.  i,  can.  ius  naturale  ;  and 
it  is  commonly  noted  in  ff.  De  iustit.  et  iure,  1.  i,  §  ius  naturale.  So,  then, 
self-defence  is  allowed  naturally  to  all  material  things  ;  and  it  proceeds  from 
the  strength  placed  by  nature  in  any  being,  as  any  one  may  perceive  by  his 
senses  by  taking  natural  illustrations.  But  if  we  ask  who  may  make  the  war 
above  defined,  then  I  say  that  men  only  may  do  so,  and  not  other  creatures, 
as  the  definition  of  the  war  proves,  when  I  said,  "  something  alien  presented 
to  human  desire,"  &c.  And  now  we  must  ask  whether  all  men  may  make  it. 


Whether  clerks  may  declare  this  war  ? 

[Ch.  Ixxxii.] 

And  first,  I  ask  whether  clerks  may  declare  this  war.  That  clerks  may 
not  do  so  is  proved  by  De  homicidio,  ch.  suscepimus  ;  by  dist.  xlvi,  can.  sedi- 
tionarios  ;  and  by  the  texts  of  xxiii,  q.  viii,  ch.  i,  and  ch.  cum  a  ludceis,  with 
the  chapters  following,  down  to  ch.  his.  Such  is  the  answer  given.  It  is  proved 
by  ch.  convenior,  in  the  same  cause  and  question.  That  they  may  do  so  is 
proved  by  De  restitution,  spol.,  ch.  olim  ;  De  sent,  excom.,  ch.  si  vero,  and 
ch.  ex  tenore  ;  dist.  i,  ius  naturale  ;  ff.  De  iustit.  et  iure,  1.  ut  vim  ;  ff.  De 
vi,  1.  iii,  §  si  quis.  The  text  in  Clem.,  De  homicidio,  si  furiosus,  is  clearer.  On 
this  there  have  been  the  opinions  recited  by  the  gloss  on  xxiii,  q.  i,  in  the 
summary,  and  the  same  cause,  q.  viii,  in  the  summary  ;  for  some  have  said 
that  no  one,  not  even  a  lay  person,  is  allowed  to  repel  force  with  force  by  striking 
back,  but  only  by  preventing.  This  opinion  is  disapproved  by  Clement,  De 
homicidio,  si  furiosus.  Others  say  that  laymen  may  strike  back,  but  not 
clerks,  and  this  view  suffers  from  the  same  defect.  Others  say  that  if  force  is 
used  to  a  person,  it  is  lawful  to  repel  it,  even  by  striking  back,  and  even  for 
clerks.  This  is  approved  by  Clem.,  si  furiosus,  provided  the  conditions  which 
he  mentions  are  satisfied.  But  if  the  force  is  used  to  things,  then  the  answer 
is  otherwise.  But  whether  this  second  statement  is  true,  I  shall  discuss  below. 


282  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

Hugo  refused  to  say  that  a  man  ought  in  no  circumstances,  however  great  the 
necessity  in  which  he  was  placed,  and  even  if  he  could  not  escape  by  any  other 
means,  to  kill  another,  but  rather  to  allow  himself  to  be  killed.  He  has  a  note 
to  this  effect  on  dist.  1,  can.  de  his.  The  gloss  there  notes  the  contrary ;  and  on 
De  homicidio,  ch.  sicut  dignum.  I  do  not  insist  on  this,  since,  as  I  said,  there 
is  the  text  in  Clem.,  De  homicidio,  sifuriosus;  and  even  if  there  were  no  text 
on  the  subject,  expressly  deciding  it  for  or  against,  we  should  be  led  to  the  same 
conclusion  by  the  reasons  which  I  adduced  to  prove  that  it  is  not  forbidden 
by  divine  law. 

•• 

Whether,  although  a  clerk  may  defend  himself  even  by  killing  another, 

he  may  do  this  in  a  church  ? 

[Ch.  Ixxxiii.] 

Secondly,  I  ask  whether,  if  a  clerk  may  defend  himself  in  this  way,  even 
by  striking  back  and  killing  another,  he  may  do  this  in  a  church.  And  it  seems 
that  he  may  not  ;  for  although  a  law  may  permit  certain  acts  generally,  yet 
they  may  be  forbidden  by  reason  of  the  place,  so  that  the  general  permission 
is  restricted  by  the  special  provision  ;  ff.  De  poem's,  1.  sanctio  legum  ;  ff .  De 
alim.  leg.,  1.  alimenta,  §  basilica;  ff.  De  legat.  iii,  1.  uxorem,  §  felicissimo ; 
and  De  rescriptis,  ch.  pastoralis.  Sext,  rule  generi,  suffices.  That  many  acts 
are  permitted  generally  by  a  law,  which  are  none  the  less  forbidden  in  special 
circumstances,  is  proved  by  the  texts  of  Sext,  De  immun.  eccles.,  ch.  decet ;  and 
i,  q.  [i]  iii,  ch.  vendentes.  So,  therefore,  in  the  case  proposed,  and  much  more, 
since  this  is  an  act  by  which  the  church  may  be  polluted  ;  De  consecr.  eccles.  vel 
altaris,  ch.  proposuisti;  and  Sext,  same  title,  the  single  chapter.  Moreover, 
quarrels  and  brawls  generally  are  forbidden  in  churches  ;  ch.  decet,  just  cited. 
Therefore  this  act  must  be  forbidden,  since  it  is  a  kind  of  brawl.  To  the  con- 
trary, it  may  be  urged  that  the  laws  which  permit  it  speak  in  general  terms, 
and  therefore  they  ought  to  be  so  understood  ;  ff.  DC  lega.  praestandis,  1.  i, 
§  generaliter.  This  part  I  believe  to  be  true,  since  the  action  arises  from 
natural  law,  and  it  is  not  disapproved  by  divine  law,  and  the  reason  of  the 
law  sanctioning  it  is  of  general  application,  without  distinction  of  places. 
For  natural  law  introduced  it  in  order  that  a  man  might  preserve  himself  as 
long  as  the  strength  of  natural  first  principles  lasts,  and  this  reason  applies 
in  a  church  as  much  as  anywhere  else.  It  is  easy  to  answer  the  authorities 
cited  to  the  contrary,  for  the  acts  forbidden  in  a  church  are  either  acts  which, 
from  their  nature,  belong  to  the  class  of  bad  acts,  or  which  belong  to  the  class 
of  permitted  acts,  such  as  contracts.  Yet  their  exclusion  from  a  church  does 
not  cause  great  danger  on  the  ground  of  delay,  since  they  may  be  performed 
equally  well  outside  the  church,  at  the  pleasure  of  the  contracting  parties, 
since  they  have  their  origin  in  the  will  of  the  parties  ;  C.  De  act.  et  obliga- 
tionibus,  1.  sicut.  But  in  the  present  case,  if  a  man  were  not  allowed  to  repel 
force  with  force  in  a  church,  the  danger  would  be  immediate,  because  he  would 


PARTICULAR  WAR  AND  THE  CHURCH  283 

easily  be  killed  at  once.  As  to  the  other  argument,  that  pollution  might 
follow,  the  solution  is  this :  The  preservation  of  a  man,  which  cannot  be 
restored,  is  more  to  be  considered  than  a  church,  which  may  be  resanctified. 
And  perhaps  we  might  say  that,  for  a  church  to  be  polluted,  the  spilling  of 
the  offender's  blood  is  necessary  ;  see  the  note  on  Sext,  De  consecra.  eccle.  vel 
altaris,  the  single  chapter. 


Whether  a  clerk,  attacked  in  the  act  of  celebration,  may  defend  himself, 
and  kill  his  assailant,  and  so  continue  to  celebrate  the  office  ? 

[Ch.  Ixxxiv.] 

Thirdly,  I  ask  whether,  if  a  clerk  is  attacked  in  the  act  of  celebration, 
he  may  leave  the  office,  defend  himself,  and  kill  the  assailant  ;  and  whether, 
if  he  kills  him  in  thus  defending  himself,  he  may  continue  to  celebrate  the 
office.  As  to  the  first  point,  it  appears  that  he  ought  not  to  leave  the  office, 
but  that  he  is  bound  to  perform  it  as  long  as  he  can  ;  see  the  text  in  vii, 
q.  i,  illud,  and  ch.  nihil.  Moreover,  temporal  things  are  to  be  postponed  to 
spiritual  ;  xii,  q.  i,  preecipimus  ;  De  pcenit.  et  rem.,  cum  infirmitas  ;  C.  De 
episcop.  et  cler.,  1.  sancimus.  The  contrary  view  is  supported  by  other  texts  ; 
for  an  office  begun  may  be  left  uncompleted  because  of  some  physical  impedi- 
ment supervening,  and  for  that  reason  the  laws  provide  that  the  priest  should 
not  be  alone  in  a  church  where  there  is  a  store  of  temporal  goods.  This  is 
proved  by  the  texts  in  the  chapters  just  cited  ;  vii,  q.  i,  illud,  and  ch.  nihil. 
The  object  of  this  is  that  one  man  may  take  the  place  of  another  and  continue 
the  celebration,  when  the  other  has  left  it  ;  De  consecratione,  dist.  ii,  the  last 
chapter  ;  unless  the  words  of  the  mass  have  been  begun  and  not  completed, 
because  then  he  is  bound  to  begin  again,  since  they  must  not  be  divided,  as 
in  baptism  and  ordination  ;  dist.  xxiii,  quorundam,  and  note  the  gloss  there, 
and  ch.  nihil,  where  the  gloss  should  also  be  noted.  But  if  a  man  attacks  the 
celebrant,  to  kill  him,  this  is  an  impediment,  nay,  it  is  clearly  a  mortal  danger 
to  the  celebrant  ;  and  therefore  he  may  leave  the  office,  and  consequently  may 
rid  himself  of  the  danger  threatening  him,  if  he  can,  even  by  killing  the  assailant. 
The  authorities  quoted  to  the  contrary  are  easily  answered  ;  for  although 
it  is  true,  as  a  general  rule,  that  spiritual  things  are  to  be  preferred  to 
temporal,  yet  in  this  case  the  celebration  of  the  spiritual  office  is  not  to  be 
preferred,  since  the  law  allows  this,  on  account  of  the  irreparable  damage  that 
would  follow,  and  it  does  not  result  in  the  postponement  of  the  spiritual  office, 
because  the  office  may  be  completed  by  another,  or  by  the  same  celebrant, 
after  the  danger  has  been  averted.  As  to  the  second  point,  I  say  without 
arguments  that  if  he  does  kill  the  assailant  in  defending  himself,  he  may 
resume  the  celebration  of  the  office,  provided  the  conditions  mentioned  in 
Clem.,  si  furiosus,  are  satisfied.  For  what  he  has  done  is  no  sin,  since  he  did 
it  by  the  authority  of  the  law,  and  by  that  authority  no  man  sins  ;  xxiii,  q.  iv, 

[28] 


284  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

ch.  qui  peccat ;  hence  he  does  not  commit  an  irregularity ;  see  the  passage 
of  Clem.,  si  furiosus,  above  cited.  So  there  seems  to  be  no  impediment  to 
prevent  him  celebrating,  as  Clement  proves  in  the  passage  quoted. 


Whether  one  who  is  attacked  while  baptizing,  ordaining,  confirming,  anointing, 
or  celebrating  the  several  sacraments  may  postpone  the  celebration  of  those 
sacraments,  though  begun  ? 

[Ch.  btxxv.] 

In  the  fourth  place,  the  same  question,  arguments,  and  solution  apply 
to  one  who  is  baptizing,  ordaining,  anointing,  or  celebrating  the  several 
sacraments.  May  he  postpone  their  celebration  for  the  sake  of  his  own 
protection,  even  if  he  has  begun  it  ?  And  in  all  these  cases  the  answer  is  the 
same  as  above. 


Which  is  to  be  preferred,  the  death  of  a  priest  who  is  attacked  while  he  is  baptizing 
a  child  at  the  point  of  death,  or  the  eternal  life  of  the  child,  lest  he  should  die 
without  baptism  ? 

[Ch.  Ixxxvi.] 

My  fifth  question  is  this  :  A  priest  is  baptizing  a  child  who  is  at  the 
point  of  death,  and  an  attack  is  made  on  him  with  intent  to  kill  him  ;  which 
should  he  rightly  choose,  to  finish  the  celebration  of  the  sacrament,  that  the 
child  may  not  die  without  baptism,  and  himself  to  be  killed  ?  or,  on  the 
contrary,  should  he  choose  to  save  his  own  life,  and  to  allow  the  child  to  die 
without  baptism  ?  In  the  same  way,  put  a  question  of  a  priest  delaying  the 
Body  of  Christ  to  a  sick  person  at  the  point  of  death. 

As  to  the  first  question,  it  appears  that  the  priest  ought  rather  to  allow 
himself  to  be  killed  than  the  child  to  die  without  baptism.  For  if  the  child 
dies  without  baptism,  he  dies  eternally,  as  Augustine  proves,  writing  to  Peter 
the  Deacon,  De  consecrat.,  dist.  iv,  firmissime,  and  ch.  regenerante,  and  ch. 
nulla,  in  the  same  "  distinctio."  The  Apostle  shows,  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Ephesians,  ch.  iv,  that  all  are  condemned  for  the  offence  of  one.  Thus  original 
sin,  if  its  effect  is  not  extinguished  by  the  sacrament  of  baptism,  leads  to 
eternal  damnation ;  but  the  priest  only  dies  temporally,  provided  that  he 
has  the  other  requisites  for  eternal  salvation  ;  but  temporal  death  is  to  be 
accounted  less  than  spiritual.  So  Augustine  argues  ;  xxiii,  q.  iv,  displicet, 
and  ch.  ipsa  pietas  ;  therefore  the  priest  should  rather  choose  to  die,  in  order 
that  the  child  may  not  perish  eternally.  Moreover,  of  two  evils  the  less  is 
to  be  preferred  ;  dist.  xiii,  nerui  testiculorum,  and  similar  passages  ;  but 
temporal  death  is  a  less  evil  than  eternal ;  xxiii,  q.  iv,  ch.  ipsa  pietas,  and  ch. 
displicet.  And  the  death  of  the  child  is  eternal ;  De  consecr.,  dist.  iv,  ch. 
firmissime,  and  ch.  nulla,  and  ch.  regenerante.  But  the  death  of  the  priest 


PARTICULAR  WAR  AND  THE  CHURCH  285 

is  temporal,  and  therefore  to  be  preferred.  Moreover,  the  greatest  act  of 
charity  is  that  one  should  love  one's  neighbour  as  oneself  ;  De  Poenit.,  dist.  ii, 
proximos,  and  §  proinde,  and  ch.  caritas  est,  ut  mihi  videtur.  But  if  this 
priest  should  prefer  his  own  temporal  life  to  the  eternal  salvation  of  the  child, 
he  would  not  be  loving  him  as  himself,  and  so  would  lack  charity,  as  is  proved. 
For  eternal  life  excels  temporal  life  beyond  all  comparison.  Therefore,  by 
preferring  temporal  life  for  himself  to  the  eternal  life  of  his  neighbour,  he  loves 
himself  far  more  than  his  neighbour,  and  so  abides  without  charity.  Moreover, 
that  course  which  is  followed  by  the  fewer  evils  is  to  be  preferred  ;  but  the 
death  of  the  priest  is  followed  by  a  less  evil  than  the  death  of  the  boy  without 
baptism  ;  therefore  the  death  of  the  priest  is  to  be  preferred.  The  major  is 
proved.  For  the  rule  in  morals  is  this,  that  more  evils,  other  /things  being 
equal,  are  worse  than  fewer  evils,  and  more  to  be  avoided.  This  is  proved  by 
dist.  xiii,  can.  nervi.  The  minor  is  proved  ;  for  if  the  priest's  life  should  be 
preferred,  two  evils  follow,  namely,  the  eternal  death  of  the  child,  as  I  showed 
above,  and  neglect  of  the  cure  of  souls,  which  is  a  mortal  sin  ;  De  aeta.  et 
qualitate,  can.  cum  sit  ars.  But  if  the  priest's  temporal  death  should  be  pre- 
ferred, only  one  evil  follows,  namely,  temporal  death,  which,  if  regard  is  had 
also  to  the  quality  of  the  act  in  itself,  is  beyond  comparison  a  less  evil  than 
perpetual  death  ;  and  so  we  must  conclude  as  above. 

The  contrary  view  seems  to  be  supported  by  the  texts  which  speak  in 
general  terms  of  allowing  any  man  to  defend  himself  in  case  of  necessity. 
I  need  only  quote  Clem.,  si  furiosus,  a  passage  often  cited  above.  This  is 
confirmed  by  the  laws  which  say  that  charity  begins  with  oneself  ;  C.  De 
servit.  et  aqua,  1.  prases  ;  and  De  iureiurando,  ch.  petitio. 

Solution  :  In  the  examination  and  solution  of  this  question  we  must 
examine  cases  which  are  free  from  doubt.  For  there  are  such  cases  in  the 
problem  before  us.  Thus,  if  we  suppose  that  the  child  might  be  baptized 
by  another,  even  a  layman  or  a  woman,  in  case  the  priest  should  leave  the 
celebration  of  the  sacrament,  there  would  be  no  doubt  that  the  priest  ought 
to  prefer  his  own  safety  ;  for  where  the  child  might  probably  live  until  the 
danger  had  been  dealt  with,  and  where  this  is  practically  certain,  I  should 
consider  it  beyond  all  question  that  the  priest  should  prefer  his  own  safety ; 
nor  do  the  reasons  cited  conclude  the  case  to  the  contrary.  Let  us  suppose 
the  question  to  arise,  not  in  the  case  of  an  infant,  but  of  an  adult,  who,  though 
he  does  not  receive  the  baptism  of  water,  will  none  the  less  die,  if  he  has  the 
true  faith,  with  the  baptism  of  water.  Still  I  should  not  consider  the  question 
doubtful,  but  I  should  rather  say,  as  above,  that  the  safety  of  the  priest  should 
be  preferred.  But  we  have  to  discuss  the  case  of  a  child  who  is  certain  to  die 
without  baptism,  if  the  priest  leaves  the  ceremony.  Or  the  question  might  be 
doubtful,  where  there  was  a  probable  doubt  on  the  matter. 

In  the  first  case,  where  the  matter  is  certain,  I  should  consider  that  the 
temporal  death  of  the  priest  should  be  preferred,  on  the  authority  of  the 
laws  above  cited  ;  and  I  base  my  opinion  on  vii,  q.  i,  §  hoc  etiam,  the  words  cum 


286  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

vero  speciality,  arguing  from  the  converse  case,  and  the  note  of  the  gloss  there. 
For  where  the  question  is  of  a  single  bishop,  and  the  church  cannot  be  pre- 
served if  he  flees,  he  ought  to  expose  himself  to  death  for  its  sake,  as  in  the 
passage  cited.  This  applies  with  great  force  to  the  case  of  a  priest  and  his 
own  parishioner,  and  I  am  moved  to  this  conclusion  by  the  reasons  above 
given. 

But  where  there  is  a  reasonable  doubt  whether  the  child  will  die  or  will 
live  until  the  danger  is  over,  whereas  the  death  of  the  priest,  if  he  should 
not  leave  the  ceremony,  is  certain,  I  should  still  think  that  the  death  of  the 
priest  is  to  be  preferred,  since,  when  matters  are  uncertain,  there  is  no  certain 
place  for  conjecture  ;  ff.  De  verbor.  obligationibus,  1.  continuas,  §  illud.  But 
where  there  is  reasonable  doubt  on  both  sides,  I  should  be  of  the  same  opinion 
as  in  the  first  case  above,  as  regards  the  sacrament  of  baptism. 

But  in  the  sacrament  of  the  Body  of  Christ,  if  the  gloss  on  De  pcenis  et 
remiss.,  ch.  quod  in  te,  which  says  that  the  viaticum  is  not  a  sacrament  of 
necessity,  were  true,  then  the  question  would  not  be  very  doubtful.  But 
that  gloss  is  not  true,  and  is  contradicted  by  another  gloss  on  De  transaction., 
ch.  veniens,  the  first  gloss  ;  and  the  latter  is  true,  as  is  noted  on  De  sacrament, 
non  iterand.,  in  the  rubric.  The  text  of  De  posn.  et  remissionibus,  ch.  omnis, 
seems  to  support  this.  Nevertheless,  even  assuming  it  to  be  true  that  it  is 
a  sacrament  of  necessity,  I  should  still  say  that  the  temporal  life  of  the  priest 
should  be  preferred.  I  am  moved  by  the  consideration  that,  even  if  a  man 
dies  without  receiving  the  Body  of  Christ,  the  omission  not  being  his  own 
fault,  nor  due  to  his  contempt,  he  does  not  die  eternally,  as  in  baptism.  For 
this  reason  the  present  case  is  not  concluded  by  the  reasons  above  given.  I 
should  say  the  same  of  the  sacrament  of  penance,  because  a  man  who  dies 
even  without  oral  confession,  where  this  is  not  his  own  fault,  is  saved  by  the 
virtue  of  repentance  alone,  as  is  noted  in  De  Poenit.,  dist.  i';),  in  the  summary, 
and  in  §  his  ita.  I  should  say  exactly  the  same  of  the  sacrament  of  unction. 


Whether  a  monk  may  defend  himself  without  the  licence  of  his  abbot  ? 

[Ch.  Ixxxvii.] 

Sixthly,  I  ask  whether  a  monk  may  defend  himself  without  the  licence 
of  his  superior.  It  seems  that  he  may  not.  For  a  monk  does  not  meditate, 
and  ought  not  to  meditate,  an  act  of  volition,  except  by  the  leave  of  his 
superior,  because  without  his  leave  he  lacks  the  faculty  of  willing  and  not 
willing  ;  xii,  q.  i,  nolo,  and  ch.  non  dicatis  ;  Sext,  De  electione,  quorundam, 
and  ch.  si  religiosus  ;  and  Clem.,  De  procuratoribus,  religiosus.  But  this 
act  of  defence  proceeds  from  mere  free  choice,  because  a  man  can  choose 
not  to  defend  himself ;  therefore  he  may  not  do  so  without  the  leave  of  his 
superior.  Moreover,  a  monk  is  dead  to  the  world  ;  xvi,  q.  i,  Monachi,  and 


PARTICULAR  WAR  AND  THE  CHURCH  287 

ch.  placuit ;  therefore  acts  which  tend  to  the  defence  of  life  are  not  com- 
petent to  him.  Moreover,  even  acts  which  tend  to  good  are  forbidden  to 
a  monk  without  the  leave  of  his  superior,  such  as  making  vows,  travelling 
abroad,  and  the  like,  by  the  laws  just  cited.  An  argument  to  the  contrary 
is  that  the  defence  of  one's  own  person  is  an  act  arising  from  natural  instinct, 
and  not  disapproved  by  law  divine  or  other  ;  therefore  it  is  lawful  for  a  monk, 
since  he  is  not  dead  to  natural  acts,  but  only  to  civil  acts,  as  appears  from 
the  laws  above  cited. 

Solution  :  I  think  that  if  a  monk  can  obtain  the  leave  of  his  superior  to 
defend  himself  without  the  delay  being  dangerous,  he  ought  to  ask  it.  This 
is  proved  by  the  laws  cited  in  the  first  part  of  the  discussion.  But  if  he  can- 
not obtain  the  leave  of  his  superior,  because  the  latter  is  not  present,  and 
there  is  danger  in  delay,  then  he  may  defend  himself  without  the  leave  of 
his  superior.  My  reason  is,  that  this  is  an  act  allowed  by  natural  law,  which 
the  superior  could  not  without  cause  absolutely  forbid,  perhaps  even  the 
Pope  could  not,  since  nature  has  sanctioned  it,  and  in  these  matters  he  is  not 
regarded  as  being  subject  to  his  superior,  any  more  than  he  would  be  if  the 
superior  were  absolutely  and  without  cause  to  forbid  him  food  and  drink. 
I  rely  on  the  gloss  on  xii,  q.  i,  ch.  non  dicatis.  For  the  gloss  there  asks 
whether  a  monk  may  give  alms  to  a  poor  man  who  will  die  of  hunger,  unless 
he  receives  aid,  without  the  leave  of  his  superior,  and  it  holds  that  he  may. 
For  he  is  bound,  in  a  case  of  necessity  like  this,  to  provide,  if  he  can,  for  the 
life  of  another  by  an  act  otherwise  forbidden  to  him  ;  how  much  more,  then, 
may  he  provide  for  his  own  life  by  an  act  dictated  to  him  by  nature  !  I  see 
no  reason  why  he  should  not  ;  and  Raymond  even,  in  the  summary  of  De 
negot.  saecularibus,  §  sed  quaritur  circa  hoc,  says  that  if  the  abbot  should 
forbid  him,  he  still  ought  to  do  it,  because  then  he  would  be  obeying,  not 
man,  but  God  ;  dist.  viii,  quo  iure. 


Whether  a  slave  may  defend  himself  without  the  command  of  his  master  ? 

[Ch.  Ixxxvii 


The  seventh  question  is,  whether  a  slave  may  defend  himself  in  this 
way  without  the  command  of  his  master.  It  seems  that  he  may  not.  For 
the  acts  of  slaves  are  deemed  null  ;  C.  De  rei  vind.,  1.  seruum  ;  ff.  De  iudic., 
1.  vix  certis  ;  ff.  De  acquir.  haereditate,  1.  si  quis  mihi  bona,  §  iussum.  On 
the  contrary,  at  the  present  day  masters  have  no  power  of  death  over  their 
slaves  ;  ff.  De  his  qui  sunt  sui  vel  ali.  iuris,  1.  i.  This  is  confirmed.  For  a 
master  cannot  absolutely  forbid  natural  actions  to  his  slave,  if  the  prohibition 
would  cause  the  death  of  the  slave  ;  see  the  law  last  above  cited.  Solution  : 
as  in  the  last  chapter  in  the  case  of  a  monk. 


288  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

Whether  persons  outlawed,  who  may  sometimes,  according  to  the  statutes 
of  states,  be  killed  with  impunity,  may  defend  themselves  ? 

[Ch.  Ixxxviii.] 

The  eighth  question  is,  whether  persons  whom  any  one  may  kill  with 
impunity,  such  as  outlaws,  concerning  whom  municipal  laws  sometimes 
ordain  that  they  may  be  attacked  with  impunity,  may  defend  themselves. 
It  seems  that  they  may  not.  For  if  violence  is  lawfully  inflicted  by  a  private 
person,  it  is  not  lawful  to  defend  oneself ;  ff.  Ad  legem  Aquiliam,  1.  iv. 
But  here  it  is  lawfully  inflicted,  because  a  law  gives  authority  ;  ff.  De  acquir. 
possessione,  1.  iuste.  This  is  confirmed  thus  :  If  violence  is  inflicted  by  a 
public  person,  it  is  not  lawful  to  defend  oneself;  ff.  De  iniur.,  1.  iniuriarum, 
§  i ;  ff.  De  rei  vindic.,  1.  qui  restituere.  But  here  the  private  person  is  in  a 
quasi-public  position  ;  for  a  law  makes  him  its  servant  by  allowing  him  to 
punish  ;  and  a  law  can  do  this — I  mean,  it  can  give  jurisdiction  to  a  private 
person  ;  ff.  De  iurisd.  omn.  iudic.,  1.  et  quia  ;  and  Ne  prselati  vices  suas,  ch.  i, 
where  the  point  is  noted.  Therefore,  we  may  infer  that  it  is  not  lawful  for 
him  to  defend  himself. 

To  the  contrary  is  the  argument  that  this  is  a  private  person  ;  and  even 
if  he  were  a  public  person,  it  appears  that  violence  is  inflicted  unlawfully  when 
it  is  inflicted  without  the  due  course  of  law  being  observed  ;  C.  De  sent., 
1.  prolatam  ;  and  De  probationibus,  ch.  quoniam  contra. 

Secondly,  I  think  the  words  of  the  law  must  be  considered ;  for  some- 
times a  law  permits  a  thing  in  the  sense  that  no  law  forbids  it ;  xxxi,  q.  i, 
hoc  ratione.  Sometimes  a  law  permits  a  thing  contrary  to  human  ordinances, 
as  formerly  to  contract  a  marriage  in  the  fifth  degree  ;  xxxv,  q.  iii,  qucedam. 
In  a  third  sense,  a  law  permits  a  thing  in  the  sense  that  it  tolerates  it  ;  it  does 
not  make  an  act  otherwise  unlawful  lawful,  but  it  does  not  punish  an  unlawful 
act  which  remains  unlawful,  as  the  text  says  in  dist.  iv,  can.  dcnique.  For 
those  who  eat  flesh  at  midnight  of  Sunday  are  not  punished  ;  and  the  text 
says  the  act  is  permitted,  meaning  that  it  is  not  punished  because  of  the  numbers 
and  the  scandal.  So  in  other  cases  adultery  is  permitted,  in  order  to  avoid 
homicide  ;  xxxiii,  q.  iii,  si  quod  verius  ;  and  yet  adultery  is  not  made  lawful 
by  the  law  which  permits  it  in  this  sense,  but  the  act  remains  unlawful,  and 
only  the  penalty  is  remitted.  So  in  the  case  proposed  ;  if  the  law  permits  the 
act  in  the  sense  of  tolerating  it,  and  remitting  the  penalty,  the  act  remaining 
unlawful,  because  of  the  odium  attached  to  the  outlaw,  then  I  should  think  that 
the  outlaw  may  defend  himself ;  and  the  citations  given  above  do  not  conclude 
this  question.  But  if  the  law  should  permit  the  act  in  the  sense  of  positively 
making  it  lawful  instead  of  unlawful,  then  the  answer  would  be  different. 
These  modes  of  permission  are  noted  by  the  gloss  on  dist.  iii,  omnis  autem  lex. 


AGAINST  WHOM  DECLARED  ?  289 

Against  whom  may  this  particular  war  be  declared  ? 

[Ch.  Ixxxix.] 

We  must  consider  the  fifth  question,  which  is,  against  whom  this  par- 
ticular war  is  allowed.    And  as  to  this,  many  questions  arise. 


Is  it  lawful  against  a  superior  ? 

And  the  first  question  is,  whether  a  man  may  declare  this  war  against 
his  own  superior.  The  gloss  on  ff.  De  iustit.  et  iure,  1.  ut  vim,  says  not  ;  it  is 
based  on  ff.  De  rei  vindic.,  1.  qui  restituere  ;  and  ff.  De  iniuriis,  1.  iniuriarum, 
§  i.  The  text  of  xi,  q.  iii,  ch.  qui  resistit,  supports  this.  I  think  that  the 
gloss,  as  it  stands,  is  not  quite  accurate,  but  that  a  distinction  must  be 
drawn.  Either  it  is  clear  that  the  superior  is  acting  unlawfully,  or  it  is 
clear  that  he  is  acting  lawfully,  or  there  is  a  doubt.  In  the  first  case,  I  think 
resistance  should  be  offered ;  C.  De  iure  fisci,  1.  prohibitum ;  and  C.  De 
metatis,  1.  devotum.  And  this  is  especially  so  when  what  he  does  is  something 
outside  his  office,  not  concerning  himself.  In  the  second  case,  resistance 
should  not  be  offered  ;  ff.  De  rei  vindic.,  1.  qui  restituere  ;  and  ff.  De  iniuriis, 
1.  qui  iniuriarum,  §  i.  In  the  third  case,  it  should  only  be  offered  if  what 
has  been  done  is  something  which  cannot  later  be  repaired.  For  such  things, 
when  once  done,  cannot  be  regarded  as  undone  ;  ff.  De  captivis,  1.  in  bello, 
§  facti.  For  in  such  cases  the  law  which  forbids  an  appeal  before  final  judge- 
ment allows  an  appeal,  as  is  noted  in  C.  Quor.  app.  non  recipiuntur,  1.  ante 
sententics  tempus. 


Is  it  lawful  against  a  judge,  even  if  he  acts  unjustly  ? 
[Ch.  xc.] 

Secondly,  the  gloss  on  the  said  law,  ut  vim,  asks,  What  if  a  judge  or 
magistrate  acts  unjustly  ?  Martinus  answers  that  no  resistance  should  be 
offered,  relying  on  ff .  De  iniuriis,  1.  iniuriarum  ;  but  action  should  be  brought 
against  the  magistrate,  during  his  term  of  office  if  he  is  one  of  the  lower  magis- 
trates, or  after  it  is  over  if  he  is  one  of  the  higher  ;  ff.  De  iudic.,  1.  pars  lite- 
rarum  ;  and  ff.  Quod  met.  causa,  1.  iii.  I  do  not  think  this  gloss  is  true  where 
the  act  is  an  irreparable  one.  Suppose  that  a  judge  attacks  me  with  the 
intention  of  killing  me,  and  that  he  is  one  of  the  higher  magistrates,  am  I  to 
wait  until  his  term  of  office  is  over  ?  or,  if  he  is  one  of  the  lower  magistrates, 
must  I  wait  until  my  complaint  can  be  brought  before  the  president  ?  Certainly 
not ;  because  such  acts,  as  I  said  above,  are  irremediable  ;  ff.  De  captivis,  1.  in 
bello,  §  facti. 


290  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

7s  it  lawful  for  a  son  against  a  father? 
[Ch.  xci.] 

The  third  question  is,  whether  it  is  lawful  for  a  son  against  a  father. 
It  seems  that  it  is  not,  because  of  the  right  of  "  patria  potestas  "  ;  C.  De  pat. 
potest.,  throughout.  This  view  is  confirmed.  For  a  son  may  not  attack 
himself,  therefore  he  may  not  attack  his  father,  since  they  are  regarded  as 
one  person  ;  C.  De  impub.  et  aliis  substit.,  the  last  law  ;  Instit.,  De  inutil. 
stip.,  §  ei  qui  ;  C.  De  agric.  et  censi.,  1.  cum  scimus  ;  Authent.,  De  iureiurando 
a  moriente  pnestando,  §  i.  To  the  contrary  is  the  argument  that  this  mode 
of  defence  comes  from  natural  law,  as  I  proved  above  in  the  third  principal 
part  ;  and  it  is  not  disapproved  by  any  law,  but  rather  approved  by  all,  as 
I  there  showed.  Therefore  "  patria  potestas,"  being  an  institution  of  civil 
law,  does  not  destroy  this  right  belonging  to  a  son,  since  natural  rules  are 
not  destroyed  by  civil.  Instit.,  De  hire  nat.  gent,  et  civili,  §  naturalia  ;  dist. 
v,  ius  natural  c. 

Solution  :  I  say  that  if  a  father  does  something  to  the  son  to  correct 
him,  the  act  being  one  that  is  permitted  by  the  right  of  "  patria  potestas,"  and 
does  not  exceed  that  right,  the  son  may  not  defend  himself,  because  herein 
the  civil  law  which  introduced  "  patria  potestas  "  limits  natural  law,  which 
it  can  do,  as  I  showed  above.  But  if  the  father  does  something  to  the  son 
which  exceeds  the  rights  allowed  him  by  "  patria  potestas,"  then  I  should 
think  that  he  may  defend  himself.  And  this  applies  to  a  son  living  in  "  patria 
potestas  "  ;  for  if  a  son  has  been  emancipated,  the  question  is  simpler.  The 
answer  to  the  citations  to  the  contrary  appears  from  what  has  already  been 
said. 


7s  it  lawful  for  a  monk  against  his  abbot  ? 

[Ch.  xcii.] 

The  fourth  question  is,  whether  it  is  lawful  for  a  monk  against  his 
abbot.  It  seems  that  it  is  not,  for  a  monk  cannot  exercise  his  will  without 
the  licence  of  his  abbot ;  xii,  q.  i,  nolo,  and  ch.  non  dicatis  ;  De  statu  monach., 
cum  ad  monasterium.  But  this  act  is  controlled  by  the  will,  since  the  monk 
can  refrain  from  it  ;  and  the  superior  does  not  give  his  licence,  but  rather 
a  tacit  and  implied  prohibition,  which  has  more  weight  than  a  verbal  one  ; 
ff.  De  aedilit.  edict.,  1.  si  tamen,  §  ei  quod  ;  ff.  De  legi.,  1.  de  quibus,  at  the  end  ; 
De  appellationibus,  ad  audientiam,  and  ch.  ut  nostrum,  and  ch.  dilecti.  This  is 
confirmed  thus  :  For  a  monk  is  dead  to  the  world  ;  xvi,  q.  i,  monachi,  and  ch. 
placuit ;  and  Authent.,  C.  De  sacr.  sanct.  ecclesiis,  ingressi.  Therefore  an 
act  in  defence  of  his  earthly  life  is  not  competent  to  him. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  appears  that  this  act  proceeds  from  natural  law, 
and  that  no  positive  law  disapproves  of  it,  although  it  is  limited  thereby. 
Therefore  it  is  not  denied  to  a  monk,  who,  though  he  is  civilly  dead,  yet  is 


AGAINST  WHOM  DECLARED  ?  291 

not  so  naturally,  as  appears  from  the  laws  above  cited.  Solution  :  If  the 
superior  attempts  to  do  something  to  the  monk  which  the  common  law  allows 
him  to  do,  by  way  of  correction  or  the  like,  or  in  accordance  with  the  rules 
of  the  order,  then  the  monk  may  not  resist ;  nor  in  this  case  should  he  even 
be  heard  on  appeal  ;  De  appell.,  cum  speciali,  and  ch.  de  prior e.  But  if  the 
superior  attempts  to  do  something  to  the  monk  which  does  not  belong  to  his 
office,  as  regulated  by  law  or  by  the  rules  of  the  order,  then  he  may  defend 
himself,  especially  where  delay  would  be  dangerous,  as  if  the  abbot  should 
attack  the  monk  to  kill  him  on  the  spot  ;  which  is  only  natural  when  we 
remember  that  a  monk  may  even  lay  an  accusation  against  an  abbot,  if  he 
does  anything  contrary  to  his  duty  ;  De  accusat.,  ch.  ex  parte,  and  same  title, 
ch.  cum  olim. 

Is  it  lawful  for  a  slave  against  a  master  ? 

[Ch.  xciii.] 

The  fifth  question  is,  whether  it  is  lawful  for  a  slave  against  a  master. 
It  appears  that  it  is  not,  since  a  master  has  absolute  power  over  a  slave  ; 
ff.  De  his  qui  sunt  sui  vel  alieni  iuris,  1.  i.  This  is  confirmed  thus  :  For 
a  slave  is  bound  to  help  his  master  in  war  ;  otherwise  he  is  punished  ;  ff.  De 
S.  C.  Silaniano,  1.  si  quis  in  gram.  Therefore  he  may  not  attack  him  ;  De  nat. 
ex  lib.,  the  single  chapter  ;  and  De  restit.  spol.,  ch.  conquarente  ;  ff.  Si  servit. 
vind.,  1.  altius  ;  ff.  De  condic.  indebit.,  1.  frater  a  fratre  ;  dist.  xxvi,  una 
tantum  ;  dist.  xxv,  the  last  canon  ;  xvi,  q.  i,  Silvester  ;  ff.  De  fideiuss.,  1.  tutor  ; 
ff.  De  admin,  tut.,  1.  quotiens. 

To  the  contrary  :  At  the  present  day  the  power  of  masters  over  slaves 
has  been  restricted  ;  ff.  De  his  qui  sunt  sui  vel  alieni  iuris,  1.  i.  For  to-day 
they  have  no  power  to  put  them  to  death,  nor  to  treat  them  with  extreme 
severity.  Therefore,  &c.  Solution  :  As  I  said  of  the  monk,  so  here,  if  the 
master  attempts  to  do  something  to  the  slave  which  the  laws  permit  him  to 
do,  the  slave  may  not  defend  himself.  For  in  this  an  act  which  proceeds 
from  natural  law  is  limited  by  positive  law,  which  limits  the  power  of  masters 
over  slaves.  But  if  he  attempts  to  do  something  which  is  beyond  what  the 
law  allows,  then  the  answer  is  otherwise,  because  here,  although  slaves  are 
not  recognized  as  regards  civil  acts,  yet  as  regards  natural  acts  they  are,  and 
this  is  a  natural  act. 

This  helps  us  to  the  solution  of  similar  questions.  Is  it  lawful  for  a 
vassal  against  his  lord  ?  a  pupil  against  his  master  ?  a  soldier  against  his 
officer  ?  a  wife  against  her  husband  ?  These  questions  admit  of  a  uniform 
solution,  which  is,  that  if  the  act  attempted  is  one  which  the  law  permits, 
defence  is  not  lawful.  If  it  goes  beyond  this,  and  is  contrary  to  legal  duty, 
then  otherwise,  as  I  showed  fully  above.  This  brief  discussion  shows  us 
against  whom  defence  is  lawful,  and  the  rule  above  given  will  solve  an  infinite 
number  of  questions. 

[29] 


292  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

On  behalf  of  what  persons  is  it  lawful  to  declare  this  particular  war  ? 

[Ch.  xciv.] 

The  sixth  point  which  we  have  to  consider  is  this :  On  whose  behalf 
is  it  lawful  ?  And  first  as  to  the  persons  on  whose  behalf  it  is  lawful.  And 
I  take  it  as  undoubted  that  it  is  lawful  in  defence  of  oneself.  This  is  proved 
by  the  text  of  ff.  De  iustit.  et  hire,  1.  ut  vim  ;  and  ff.  De  vi  et  vi  armata,  1.  i, 
§  vim  vi,;  and  Ad  leg.  Aquil.,  1.  iv  ;  and  the  same  title,  1.  scientiam,  §  qui  cum 
aliter  ;  and  clearly  in  Clemen.,  De  homicidio,  i.  Other  cases  are  examined 
below. 

Is  it  lawful  for  a  father  on  behalf  of  his  son  ? 

[Ch.  xcv.] 

And  first  I  ask  whether  it  is  lawful  for  a  father  on  behalf  of  his  son. 
Treating  subjects  which  admit  of  no  doubt  without  arguments,  we  must  say 
that  it  is.  For  a  father  loves  his  son  as  himself  ;  ff.  Quod  met.  causa,  1.  isti 
quidem.  For  the  son  carries  on  his  personality  into  the  future  ;  ff.  De  verb, 
sig.,  1.  liber orum,  at  the  end  ;  also  because  they  are  regarded  as  one  person  ; 
C.  De  impub.  et  aliis  substit.,  the  last  law  ;  Authent.,  De  iureiur.  a  moriente 
prsestito,  at  the  beginning  ;  Instit.,  De  inutil.  stip.,  §  ei  quern.  This  point  is 
clear.  Equally  so  is  the  converse  case  of  a  son  on  behalf  of  his  father. 


Is  it  lawful  for  a  husband  on  behalf  of  his  wife  ? 

[Ch.  xcvi.] 

The  second  question  is,  whether  it  is  lawful  for  a  husband  on  behalf 
of  his  wife.  Clearly  it  is,  for  an  injury  inflicted  on  a  wife  is  inflicted  on  the 
husband,  and  he  may  bring  an  "  actio  iniuriarum  "  for  it ;  and  even  a  be- 
trothed person  may  do  so ;  ff.  De  iniuriis,  1.  item  apud,  §  [si  sponsum 
sponsum].  And  a  husband  may  kill  a  wretch  found  committing  adultery 
with  his  wife  ;  ff.  De  adulteriis,  1.  marito,  and  1.  capite  quinto  ;  C.  the  same 
title,  1.  Gracchus  ;  even  one  who  gossips  with  her  after  being  warned,  according 
to  the  Authentics,  and  he  does  not  contravene  xvii,  q.  iv,  si  quis  suadente. 
As  to  one  who  lays  violent  hands  on  a  clerk  for  this  cause,  see  De  sent, 
excommunicationis,  ch.  si  vero,  §  nee  ille. 

Is  it  lawful  on  behalf  of  a  brother,  sister,  and  other  relations  ? 

[Ch.  xcvii.] 

The  third  question  is,  whether  it  is  lawful  on  behalf  of  a  brother,  a 
sister,  and  other  relations,  and  persons  who  are  not  related.  And  the  gloss 
on  ff.  De  iustit.  et  hire,  1.  ut  rim,  says  that  the  affection  should  be  considered. 
It  quotes  ff.  Quod  met.  causa,  1.  isti  quidem  ;  and  ff.  Mandati,  1.  cum  servus. 


DEFENCE  OF  PERSONS  293 

Others  prefer  to  say  that  it  is  lawful  on  behalf  of  all  relations.  Their  argu- 
ment is,  that  if  a  man  does  an  injury  to  one  relation,  he  is  regarded  as  doing 
it  to  all,  although  the  others  cannot  bring  the  "  actio  iniuriarum  "  ;  ff.  De 
iniuriis,  1.  lex  Cornelia,  at  the  beginning.  They  confirm  this  view  by  the 
argument  that  it  is  lawful  to  repel  force  by  force  in  defence  of  property  ; 
C.  Vnde  vi,  1.  i ;  and  ff.  De  vi  et  vi  armata,  1.  iii,  §  eum  igitur.  And  one  who 
wishes  to  repel  force  by  force  in  defence  of  his  property  may  summon  his 
friends  and  relations.  Therefore  he  may  help  his  friends  and  relations.  And 
so  they  conclude  that  it  is  lawful  on  behalf  of  a  relation,  without  any  qualifica- 
tion. This  opinion  seems  to  be  confirmed.  For  man  owes  a  duty  to  man  ; 
ff.  De  servis  exportandis,  1.  cum  servus.  Therefore,  in  accordance  with  that 
duty,  he  may  help  him.  This  is  confirmed  by  C.  De  appell./l.  addictos  ; 
better  by  ff.  De  appell.,  1.  non  tantum  ;  where,  too,  a  stranger  appeals  on  behalf 
of  a  person  condemned  in  a  criminal  trial,  even  against  that  person's  wish. 
This  is  supported  by  C.  De  liberali  causa,  1.  iii.  Jacobus  Buttrigarius,  on  the 
law  ut  vim,  draws  the  following  distinction :  Either  I  desire  to  defend  the  in- 
jured person  of  my  own  motion,  and  without  request  from  him,  and  I  can  do 
this  by  way  of  legal  process,  but  not  by  an  act ;  and  in  this  sense  are  under- 
stood the  laws  just  quoted,  addictos,  non  tantum,  and  C.  De  lib.  causa,  1.  iii ;  or 
I  desire  to  do  this,  not  of  my  own  motion,  but  at  the  request  of  the  injured 
person,  and  then  I  may  do  so  even  by  an  act ;  ff .  De  vi  et  vi  armata,  1.  iii,  §  eum 
igitur.  Others  draw  a  distinction.  Either  the  assistants  belonged  to  the 
company  of  the  injured  person,  and  then  they  might  repel  an  injury  inflicted 
on  his  person  ;  the  proof  of  this  is  in  ff.  De  iniuriis,  1.  item  apud,  §  si  quis 
virgines  ;  otherwise  they  may  not,  as  the  gloss  on  Vnde  vi,  1.  i,  lays  down 
without  qualification,  where  Cinus  quotes  this  opinion  in  the  antepenultimate 
question.  Others,  like  Jacobus  of  Ravenna,  say  without  qualification  that 
it  is  lawful ;  and  they  give  this  reason  :  Another  may  help  me  in  my  affairs  ; 
ff.  De  negot.  gestis,  1.  i.  Much  more  may  he  help  my  person,  since  the  person 
is  to  be  preferred  to  things  ;  C.  De  sacrosanctis  ecclesiis,  1.  sancimus.  He 
quotes  in  support  C.  De  adulterio,  1.  Gracchus  ;  and  if  you  say  that  in  that  case 
at  was  a  son,  he  meets  the  difficulty  by  ff.  Ad  leg.  Aquiliam,  1.  liber  homo. 
No  difficulty  is  raised  by  ff .  De  vi  et  vi  armata,  1.  cum  fundum.  For  there 
the  person  wished  to  act  after  an  interval  of  time,  which  even  the  injured 
person  himself  would  not  have  been  allowed  to  do.  No  difficulty  is  raised, 
according  to  him,  by  ff.  De  iustit.  et  iure,  1.  ut  vim,  where  it  says,  "  for  the 
protection  of  one's  own  body."  He  meets  this  by  ff.  De  servis  exportandis, 
1.  si  servus.  This  opinion  seems  to  be  followed  by  Cinus  in  C.  Vnde  vi,  1.  i, 
in  the  antepenultimate  question. 

In  this  conflict  of  authority,  I  should  think  we  ought  to  consider,  inas- 
much as  I  have  framed  the  question  to  refer  indifferently  to  relations  and 
to  strangers,  whether  a  relation  or  a  stranger  may  repel  violence  done  to 
another  with  force,  as  he  might  violence  to  himself,  while  avoiding  the 
penalty  of  irregularity  whether  it  be  a  clerk  or  a  layman  who  kills  or  wounds 


294  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

another  in  this  case.     A  question  may  also  be  asked,  in  both  cases,  whether 
they  may  do  so  without  incurring  some  other  penalty  of  statute  or  canon.     If 
we  take  the  first  question,  I  say  that  according  to  Clement.,  De  homicidio, 
s»  furiosus,  a  man  only  avoids  the  penalty  of  irregularity  if  he  does  the 
act  in  defence  of  himself,  not  in  defence  of  another,  even  a  father  or  son. 
The  text  shows  this  by  the  words,  "  we  hold  the  same  of  one  who,  not  being 
able  to  avoid  death  otherwise,  kills  or  wounds  his  own  assailant."     It  speaks, 
then,  of  his  own  assailant,  not  of  the  assailant  of  another.     This  is  also  noted 
by  the  gloss  there  on  the  word  "  suum  ".     In  this  case,  then,  I  think  the 
answer  plain,  as  it  is  in  the  text.     But  if  we  ask  whether  he  may  act  in  this 
way,  and  avoid  other  penalties,  statutory  or  canonical,  we  must  first  make 
a  distinction.     Either  we  speak  of  the  penalty  of  excommunication,  if  a  man 
strikes  a  clerk  in  this  way,  in  the  act  of  forcibly  repelling  violence  done  to 
another  ;    and  then  I  agree  with  Innocent  that,  if  he  is  defending  father, 
mother,  wife,  son,  or  daughter,  he  escapes  the  sentence  of  excommunication. 
He  quotes  ff .  Quod  met.  causa,  1.  isti  quidem  ;  and  ff .  De  S.  C.  Silaniano,  1.  i, 
§  si  vir.    And  the  reason  of  the  difference  between  this  case  and  the  one 
preceding  is,  that  irregularity  may  be   contracted  even  without  wrongful 
intention,  as  may  be  seen  where  a  judge  gives  a  lawful  order  for  a  man  to  be 
put  to  death  ;  dist.  li,  qui  in  aliquo.     But  excommunication  under  that  canon 
requires  an  instigation  of  the  devil ;   xvii,  q.  iv,  ch.  si  quis  suadente.     But  if 
the  person  is  assisting  a  stranger,  he  does  not  escape  the  penalty  of  that  canon, 
though  he  may  have  acted  at  the  request  of  the  injured  person  a  thousand 
times  over.     Or  we  may  speak  of  another  penalty,  personal  or  pecuniary ;  and 
then  I  draw  a  distinction,  according  as  those  who  desire  to  repel  force  from  one 
who  has  suffered  violence  are  related  to  him  or  are  strangers.     If  they  are 
related,  I  follow  the  gloss  on  ff.  De  iustit.  et  iure,  1.  ut  rim;  limiting  it  by 
ff.  De  iudic.,  1.  in  privatis;  and  ff.  De  iniuriis,  1.  lex  Cornelia,  at  the  beginning. 
If  they  are  strangers,  then  they  may  either  be  members  of  the  company  of  the 
person  who  suffered  the  violence,  and  then  it  is  lawful  ;   ff.  De  injuriis,  1.  item 
apud  Labeonem,  §  si  quis  virgines  ;  or  they  may  be  not  members  of  his  company, 
or  they  may  desire  to  repel  the  violence  after  an  interval,  and  then  they 
cannot  do  it ;  ff .  De  vi  et  vi  arm.,  1.  cum  fundum ;  because  not  even  the  injured 
man  himself  could  do  so.     What  I  have  said  applies  to  defence  by  act.     But 
they  might  make  a  legal  defence  even  after  an  interval,  where  the  laws  allow 
this  ;  ff.  De  appell.,  1.  non  tantum ;  De  liber,  causa,  1.  iii ;  and  C.  De  appella- 
tionibus,  1.  addictos.    And  for  this  reason  I  do  not  think  that  the  opinion  of 
Jacobus  Buttrigarius  is  true,  when  he  says  without  qualification  that  they 
may  make  a  legal  defence.     For  this  is  not  true  without  qualification.     For 
there  are  cases  in  which  a  third  party  may  not  bring  an  action  or  an 
accusation  on  behalf  of  one  who  has  suffered  injury.     I  take  an  ordinary 
example  in  private  delicts.     So,  then,  it  is  true  only  where  the  law  allows  it. 
If,  however,  the  defenders  desire  to  repel  the  violence  at  once,  then  I  should 
draw  the  same  distinction  as  Jacobus.     Either  they  are  summoned  by  the 


DEFENCE  OF  PERSONS  295 

person  who  has  suffered  the  violence  ;  and  then  it  is  lawful.  For  one  who 
suffers  violence  may  summon  his  friends  to  defend  his  property  ;  ff.  De  vi  et 
vi  armata,  1.  iii,  §  eum  igitur  ;  therefore  he  may  do  so  to  defend  his  person, 
which  is  far  more  important  ;  C.  De  sacrosanct,  ecclesiis,  1.  sancimus.  Or 
else  they  are  not  summoned,  and  then  it  is  lawful.  The  text  is  in  Sext,  De 
sent,  excom.,  ch.  dilecto.  This  is  supported  by  xxiii,  q.  iii,  non  infer  enda,  and 
ch.  fortitude  ;  De  sent,  excom.,  quanta.  Also  by  the  notes  on  C.  De  commerc. 
et  mercatoribus,  1.  ii.  And  so  I  think  that  in  this  matter  the  opinion  of  Jacobus 
of  Ravenna  is  true.  The  text  is  in  ch.  dilecto,  already  cited.  For  the  text 
there  says,  "  since  any  one  is  allowed  to  give  his  help  to  his  neighbour  or 
relation,  to  repel  an  injury  from  him." 


Whether  a  man  is  bound  to  defend  another  against  being  killed  ? 

[Ch.  xcviii.] 

The  fourth  question  is,  whether  one  who  sees  that  another  is  about  to 
be  killed  unless  he  helps  him,  is  bound  to  help  him.  It  seems  that  he  is  by 
ff.  De  agnoscendis  liberis,  1.  necare.  This  is  confirmed  by  the  duty  which  one 
man  owes  to  another  ;  ff.  De  servis  exportandis,  1.  servus.  It  is  confirmed 
again  thus  :  An  error  which  is  not  opposed  seems  to  be  approved  ;  dist. 
Ixxxiii,  error,  and  can.  consentire,  and  can.  quid  enim.  For  one  may  receive  a 
reward  for  relieving  another  from  duress  ;  ff.  Quod  met.  causa,  1.  metum,  §  sed 
licet.  This  is  confirmed  thus  :  In  some  cases  there  is  a  special  provision  that 
a  man  is  bound  so  to  help  another  ;  ff.  De  S.  C.  Silaniano,  1.  i,  §  hoc  autem  ; 
and  C.  the  same  title,  the  last  law.  Therefore  the  common  law  is  the  converse ; 
ff.  Ad  municipalem,  1.  i  ;  and  ff.  De  legibus,  1.  IMS  singulare.  A  gloss  holds 
that  a  man  is  bound  to  help  by  word,  but  not  by  act  ;  ff.  De  reg.  iuris,  rule 
culpa.  Nor  is  the  duty  which  one  man  owes  to  another  an  objection,  because 
he  only  owes  it  if  he  can  act  without  danger  to  himself;  ff.  De  oper.  lib.,  1.  habet; 
and  ff.  De  verbor.  significatione,  1.  Nepos  Proculo. 


The  fifth  question  relates  to  those  who  are  bound  to  defend  others  from  violence. 

[Ch.  xcix.] 

And  as  to  this  many  questions  arise. 

Whether  a  vassal  is  bound  to  help  his  lord  ? 

And  the  first  question  relates  to  a  vassal.  And  there  is  no  doubt  that  he 
is  bound  to  help  his  lord  ;  otherwise  he  loses  his  fief  ;  see  the  Usus  Feudorum, 
Quae  fuit  prima  causa  beneficii  amittendi,  ch.  prima  autem  causa,  §  item  qui 
dominum,  and  the  following  section. 


296  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

Whether  a  slave  is  bound  to  help  his  master  ? 
[Ch.  c.] 

The  second  question  relates  to  a  slave  ;  and  it  is  clear  that  he  is  bound 
to  help  his  master,  from  the  text  of  ff.  De  S.  C.  Silaniano,  1.  i,  §  hoc  autem  ; 
and  C.  the  same  title,  the  last  law. 


Whether  a  soldier  is  bound  to  defend  an  officer  in  a  war  ? 

[Ch.  ci.l 

The  third  question  relates  to  an  officer  in  a  war  ;  aTid  it  is  clear  that 
a  soldier  is  bound  to  help  him,  if  he  can  ;  otherwise  he  is  punished  with  death  ; 
see  the  text  of  ff.  De  re  milit.,  1.  omne  delictum  ;  and  ff.  the  same  title,  1.  iii, 
the  last  section. 


Whether  a  vassal,  seeing  his  lord  attacked  on  one  side,  and  his 

father  on  the  other,  &c.  ? 

[Ch.  cii.l 

The  fourth  question  is  this  :  A  vassal  sees  his  lord  attacked  on  one  side, 
and  his  father  on  the  other,  and  each  is  equally  in  mortal  danger  unless 
he  is  helped,  and  the  vassal  can  help  only  one  of  them  ;  whom  should  he 
help,  his  father  or  his  lord  ?  The  gloss  on  xxii,  q.  v,  de  forma,  says  that  a 
vassal  is  bound  to  help  his  lord  against  his  own  son.  The  argument  is  that 
a  son  is  bound  to  his  father  by  the  law  of  nature,  but  a  vassal  is  bound  to 
his  lord  by  the  bond  of  his  oath  ;  Vsus  Feudorum,  Quae  fuit  prima  causa 
benefic.  amittendi,  the  single  chapter  ;  and  according  to  this  the  question 
would  be  decided,  because  he  would  be  bound  to  help  the  lord,  to  whom  he 
is  more  closely  bound.  On  this  question  I  should  say  the  opposite.  And 
I  am  moved  by  the  consideration  that  a  son  is  bound  by  a  natural  bond  to 
the  father,  of  whom  he  was  begotten.  He  is  also  bound  by  a  civil  bond, 
because  he  is  under  his  "  patria  potestas  "  ;  but  he  is  bound  to  his  lord  by 
a  civil  bond  only,  as  appears  from  xxii,  q.  v,  ch.  de  forma,  already  quoted. 
But  two  bonds  are  stronger  than  one  ;  Authent.,  De  consanguin.  et  uterin. 
fratribus,  at  the  beginning.  This  is  confirmed  by  reason  of  the  priority 
of  the  obligation,  for  the  paternal  bond  is  prior  to  that  of  the  lord.  There- 
fore he  is  bound  first  to  help  his  father ;  ff.  Qui  potior.  in  pign.  habeantur, 
1.  potior,  and  1.  qui  balneum.  This  is  confirmed  thus  :  The  oath  to  the 
lord  is  understood  to  save  any  precedent  obligation  ;  for  a  right  acquired 
by  one  person  is  not  destroyed  by  a  second  obligation  ;  see  the  passages 
quoted,  1.  qui  balneum,  and  1.  potior.  It  is  also  confirmed  by  De  iureiurando, 
ch.  petitio  ;  for  in  swearing  to  help  his  lord,  he  is  not  taken  to  have  sworn  not 
to  help  himself  before  his  lord,  because  that  is  his  first  duty  ;  C.  De  servi- 


DEFENCE  OF  PROPERTY  297 

tutibus,  1.  prases.  But  by  fiction  of  law  the  father  is  the  same  person  as  the 
son  ;  C.  De  impub.  et  aliis  substitutionibus,  the  last  law,  with  others  to  the 
same  effect.  Therefore,  &c. 


Whether  a  clerk,  seeing  his  bishop  attacked  on  one  side,  and  his  father  on 
the  other,  each  being  equally,  &c.  ? 

[Ch.  cm.] 

The  fifth  question  is  this  :  Suppose  a  clerk  sees  his  bishop  attacked  on 
one  side,  and  his  father  on  the  other,  and  each  is  equally  in  mortal  danger 
unless  he  is  helped,  and  the  clerk  can  help  only  one  of  them  ;  whom  should 
he  help,  the  bishop  or  the  carnal  father  ?  Hostiensis,  on  De  excess,  praelat., 
ch.  gravem,  argues  from  the  word  "  fratri,"  which  is  there  used,  that  clerks 
are  more  closely  bound  to  their  spiritual,  than  to  their  carnal  fathers.  He 
supports  this  by  De  translatione,  ch.  ii.  If  that  opinion  were  true,  the 
question  would  be  solved.  But  on  this  question  my  own  view  is  the  same  as 
on  the  last.  I  cite  De  postulatione,  the  last  chapter  P).  For  the  text  there 
says,  if  a  clerk  brings  an  action  against  the  Church,  and  not  on  behalf  of  his 
own  kindred,  he  loses  his  benefice  ;  therefore  it  is  clear  that  he  might  do  so 
on  behalf  of  his  own  kindred.  I  cite  De  iureiur.,  ch.  pelitio,  arguing  as  I  did 
on  the  last  question  ;  and  I  am  moved  by  the  reasons  given  in  the  last  question  ; 
and  the  gloss  on  xxx,  q.  iii,  ch.  pittacium,  on  the  words  "  multo  magis,"  holds 
that  in  rendering  temporal  services  we  are  more  bound  to  a  carnal  father  than 
to  a  spiritual.  But  in  rendering  reverence,  the  contrary  is  the  case.  The 
same  point  is  noted  by  the  gloss  on  dist.  xxx,  can.  i.  This  is  supported  by 
the  notes  on  dist.  Ixxxvi,  non  satis  ;  and  dist.  xlii,  can.  quiescamus. 


For  what  things  is  it  lawful  to  declare  war  ? 
[Ch.  civ.] 

As  we  have  considered  above  in  this  part  of  our  subject  whether,  and 
for  what  persons,  it  is  lawful  to  declare  this  war,  our  next  question  now  is, 
whether  it  is  also  lawful  to  declare  this  war  for  the  defence  of  things  ?  And 
many  questions  arise  about  this. 


Whether  it  is  lawful  for  things  lawfully  possessed  ? 

And  first  as  to  things  lawfully  possessed ;  and  as  to  these  there  is  no 
doubt.  The  text  is  in  C.  Vnde  vi,  1.  i.  It  is  supported  by  1.  iii,  §  si  quis  autem, 
the  words  eum  igitur.  Besides  these,  there  is  a  section  in  ff .  De  vi  et  vi  armata ; 
and  De  restit.  spoliatorum,  ch.  olim. 


298  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

Whether  it  is  lawful  for  things  unlawfully  possessed  ? 
[Ch.cv.] 

The  second  question  is,  whether  it  is  lawful  for  things  unlawfully  pos- 
sessed. The  gloss  on  C.  Vnde  vi,  1.  i,  treats  of  this  question.  And  it  seems 
that  it  is  not,  arguing  from  the  converse  sense  of  that  text,  which  is  a  valid 
argument  ;  ff.  De  offic.  eius  cui  mand.  est  iurisd.,  1.  i,  §  huius  rei ;  De  regulari- 
bus,  ch.  cum  virum  ;  and  dist.  xxxii,  can.  hospitiolum.  Arguments  to  the 
contrary  are  afforded  by  ff.  De  vi  et  vi  arm.,  1.  i,  §  qui  vi  a  me  ;  and  the  same 
title,  1.  cum  fundum  ;  and  ff .  Quod  met.  causa,  1.  si  cum  exceptione,  §  Pedius. 
Solution  :  For  this  apparent  conflict  of  the  laws,  the  gloss  on  the  said  1.  i  gives 
several  solutions.  The  first  is,  that  the  word  "  maxime  "  is  to  be  understood 
there  ;  and  this  gets  rid  of  the  contradiction,  because  it  makes  it  lawful  even 
for  a  wrongful  possession.  The  second  is,  that  the  beginning  of  the  law  is  to 
be  taken  with  the  ending,  so  that  it  reads,  "  recte  licet."  But  the  objection  to 
this  is  that  the  law  says  in  the  middle,  "  sine  vitio."  Therefore  it  implies  that 
the  result  would  be  different  when  the  possession  is  "  cum  vitio."  The  third 
is,  that  it  is  always  lawful  for  a  lawful  possessor,  but  not  always  for  a  wrongful 
possessor.  For  if  the  owner  should  come  at  once,  a  wrongful  possessor  may 
not  resist  him  ;  ff.  De  vi  et  vi  armata,  1.  iii,  §  eum  igitur.  The  fourth  is,  that 
the  correct  interpretation  is,  "  neither  by  force,  nor  secretly,  nor  by  licence  "  ; 
but  this  gloss  is  not  approved.  Jacobus  of  Ravenna,  however,  follows  it  so 
far  as  concerns  one  who  wishes  to  defend  his  possession,  so  that  if  force  is  used 
by  the  person  from  whom  the  other  is  wrongfully  detaining  the  possession,  the 
other  may  defend  it  at  the  time,  but  not  after  an  interval.  But  if  he  is  wrong- 
fully detaining  it  from  another,  then  he  may  defend  it  at  any  time.  And 
this  is  what  the  law  means  by  saying  that  wrongful  possession  is  good  against 
strangers;  ff.  Vti  possid.,  1.  ii ;  ff.  De  acquir.  poss.,  the  last  law;  ff.  Si 
servit.  vind.,  1.  loci  corpus,  §  competit.  Here  Jacobus  seems  to  think  that 
I  may  eject  a  clandestine  possessor,  if  his  clandestine  possession  is  against 
me,  because  clandestine  possession  is  wrongful  ;  ff.  De  acquir.  poss.,  1. 
cum  quis.  For  this  opinion  he  cites  ff.  Quod  cum  eo,  1.  si  servus.  This 
opinion  seems  to  be  shared  by  the  gloss  on  ff.  Vti  poss.,  1.  i,  §  interdictum,  in 
the  middle  of  the  big  gloss  on  that  passage,  "  nee  tamen  volo,"  etc.  Onus 
there  holds  the  contrary,  on  the  ground  that  no  law  can  be  found  which  provides 
that  I  may  eject  a  clandestine  possessor.  Moreover,  the  law  says  I  may  repel 
force  with  force  ;  but  one  who  enters  clandestinely  does  not  use  force,  since 
secrecy  and  force  differ  ;  ff.  De  acquir.  possessione,  1.  clam  possidere,  §  qui  ad 
nundinas.  The  opinion  of  Jacobus  might  be  true  of  a  possessor  by  licence, 
after  he  has  refused  to  restore  possession.  For  then  he  appears  to  be  robbing 
the  owner,  as  is  noted  in  C.  De  acquir.  possessione,  1.  vitia. 

In  this  variety  of  opinions,  I  should  think  the  second  solution  of  the 
gloss  would  be  true  ;  and  this  is  also  the  one  followed  by  Petrus  de  Bellapertica, 
on  the  said  1.  i,  who,  however,  amplifies  it  as  follows  :  "I,  who  wish  to  repel 


DEFENCE  OF  PROPERTY  299 

force,  possess  either  lawfully,  or  unlawfully.  If  lawfully,  either  I  wish  to  repel 
it  at  the  time  and  within  the  limits  of  justifiable  defence,  and  this  I  can  do  ;  see 
the  said  1.  i ;  and  ff.  De  vi  et  de  vi  arm.,  1.  i,  §  vim  vi  ;  or  after  an  interval,  and 
then  I  cannot  do  it ;  ff.  De  vi  et  vi  armata,  1.  iii,  §  si  quis  autem,  the  words  eum 
igitur.  In  the  second  case,  that  is  to  say  when  I  possess  unlawfully,  either  I 
possess  unlawfully  as  against  you,  whose  force  I  wish  to  repel,  or  as  against 
another.  If  against  you,  then  my  possession  is  either  forcible,  or  secret,  or  by 
licence.  If  forcible,  then  either  you  come  to  recover  it  at  once,  in  which  case 
I  may  not  resist  you,  as  appears  from  C.  Vnde  vi,  1.  i,  if  we  argue  from  the  con- 
verse sense."  And  this  is  its  true  and  correct  meaning,  if  it  is  rightly  considered, 
together  with  the  passages  cited  to  the  contrary.  But  if  you  come  after  an 
interval,  then  I  may  resist  you,  because  you  may  not  recover  it/on  your  own 
authority  after  an  interval,  and  you  would  even  incur  a  penalty  by  doing  so ; 
C.  Vnde  vi,  1.  si  quis  in  tantam  ;  and  understand  the  phrase  "  after  an  interval " 
in  the  sense  given  by  the  gloss  on  ff.  De  vi  et  vi  arm.,  1.  iii  §  eum  igitur.  But 
if  my  possession  is  not  forcible,  but  by  licence,  then  after  I  have  refused  to  give 
it  up  you  may  at  the  time  repel  force  with  force,  and  I  may  not  resist.  For  by 
my  refusal  I  am  deemed  to  rob  you  ;  C.  De  acquir.  poss.,  1.  vitia  ;  and  from 
that  it  follows  that  you  may  repel  force  with  force  ;  but  before  my  refusal,  you 
may  not,  although  I  may  revoke  the  licence  ;  ff.  De  precario,  1.  cum  precarium. 
But  if  my  possession  is  clandestine  as  against  you,  then  whatever  the  gloss  on 
ff.  Vti  poss.,  1.  i,  §  interdictum,  and  Jacobus  of  Ravenna  on  C.  Vnde  vi,  1.  i  say, 
I  agree  with  Cinus  that  you  may  not  eject  me,  but  you  may  enter,  and  if  I  do 
not  admit  you,  my  possession  thereupon  becomes  forcible  ;  ff.  De  acquir.  poss., 
1.  clam,  §  qui  ad  nundinas  ;  and  then  you  may  eject  me.  But  if  my  possession 
is  not  wrongful  as  against  you,  but  as  against  a  third  person,  then  if  you  try 
to  use  violence  against  me  at  any  time,  I  may  repel  your  force  with  force  ;  ff. 
Ex  quibus  ca.  in  poss.  eatur,  1.  Fulcinius,  §  quid  si  adversus.  I  have  put 
forward  these  views  with  all  respect  to  the  opinion  of  the  many  distinguished 
persons  who  dispute  on  this  doubtful  point,  submitting  the  opinions  of  all  alike 
to  corrections  which  seek  after  truth. 


Whether  one  who  has  a  right  to  defend  property,  and  defends  it  within  the 

limits  of  justifiable  defence,  escapes  the  penalty  of  irregularity , 

if  he  kills  or  wounds  another  ? 

[Ch.  cvi] 

The  third  question  is  whether,  if  a  man,  in  repelling  force  with  force  in 
defence  of  his  own  property,  happens  to  kill  or  wound  the  assailant,  he  escapes 
the  penalty  of  irregularity.  And  I  suppose  him  to  act  within  the  limits  of 
justifiable  defence  ;  otherwise  the  question  would  not  arise.  And  it  seems  that 
he  does  escape  it.  For  one  who  is  defending  his  person  escapes  that  penalty  ; 
Clem.,  De  homicidio,  sifuriosus.  Therefore  the  conclusion  applies  to  the  defence 
of  property.  For  the  laws  which  allow  force  to  be  repelled  with  force  do  not 

[30] 


300  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

distinguish  between  \H  rs<>n  and  property,  but  ;illo\v  it  in  either  case  ;  C.  Vmle 
vi,  1.  i  ;  and  ff.  De  vi  et  vi  arm.,  1.  i,  §  vim  vi  ;  and  ff.  Ad  legem  Aquiliam,  1. 
scientiam,  §  qui  cum  aliter.  Opposed  to  this  is  the  passage  in  Clemen.,  De 
homicidio,  si  furiosus,  quoted  above.  For  the  text  there  speaks  strictly  of  the 
killing  or  wounding  of  one  who  is  himself  a  killer.  And  I  think  this  view  is 
true,  for  the  following  reason :  For  a  man  commits  irregularity  by  killing  or 
wounding,  even  without  a  guilty  intention,  as  appears  in  the  case  of  a  judge  ; 
dist.  li,  qui  in  aliquo  ;  even  by  killing  accidentally,  as  is  noted  in  dist.  1,  de  his  ; 
and  De  homicid.,  ch.  sicut  dignum  ;  and  Ne  cler.  vel  monach.,  ch.  sententiam  ; 
and  De  raptoribus,  ch.  in  archiepiscopatu.  Any  one,  therefore,  who  kills  in 
any  manner  whatsoever,  becomes  "  irregular,"  except  in  the  cases  excepted 
by  law.  So  when  the  case  of  defence  is  excepted,  the  exception  must  be  under- 
stood strictly  and  in  a  limited  sense  ;  for  the  law  makes  an  exception  only  when 
the  law  is  anomalous,  and  so  the  exception  is  to  be  strictly  understood  ;  Sext, 
De  reg.  iur.,  rule  qua  a  iure. 


Whether  a  man  incurs  excommunication  by  laying  hands  on  a  clerk,  in 
defence  of  his  own  property  ? 

[Ch.  cvii.] 

The  fourth  question  is,  whether  a  man  incurs  excommunication  by  laying 
hands  on  a  clerk  in  repelling  force  with  force,  in  defence  of  his  own  property. 
It  appears  that  he  does,  by  xvii,  q.  iv,  ch.  si  quis  suadente  ;  and  De  sent,  ex- 
communicationis,  ch.  nuper,  with  the  notes  to  that  passage.  This  is  confirmed. 
For  he  incurs  the  penalty  of  irregularity,  as  in  the  last  question.  Therefore 
he  should  incur  this  too,  since  both  are  spiritual  penalties,  and  one  incurs 
excommunication  more  easily  than  irregularity,  as  is  obvious.  Solution  : 
Innocent,  in  De  restit.  spoliatorum,  ch.  olim,  holds  that  one  who  repels  force 
with  force  does  not  incur  excommunication,  provided  that  he  cannot  repel  it 
otherwise  than  by  laying  hands  on  the  assailant,  and  that  he  acts  within  the 
limits  of  justifiable  defence.  I  think  this  opinion  true  ;  and  my  reason  is,  that 
to  incur  excommunication  by  the  violent  laying  of  hands  on  a  clerk,  there  must 
be  present  the  persuasion  of  the  devil,  as  is  proved  by  the  text  of  xvii,  q.  iv, 
eh.  si  quis  suadente  diabolo.  And  if  you  rightly  examine  the  laws  which  inflict 
the  penalty  of  excommunication  on  one  who  lays  hands  on  another,  you  will 
not  find  that  the  laying  of  hands  on  a  clerk  in  this  case  is  one  of  the  cases  for 
which  the  laws  declare  this  penalty.  For  the  laws  punish  violence  ;  xvii,  q.  iv, 
ch.  st  quis  suadente,  already  quoted  ;  and  De  sent,  excom.,  throughout.  This 
is  not  violence,  but  repelling  violence.  They  punish  recklessness  ;  De  sent . 
excommunicationis,  ch.  contingit.  This  is  not  such;  indeed,  by  permission 
of  a  separate  law,  they  punish  it  as  if  it  were  violence;  the  same  title,  cli. 
nuper.  This  is  an  honourable  and  permitted  act.  They  punish  murder,  as  when 
instructions  are  given  for  a  man  to  be  smitten  ;  ch.  universitatis  ;  and  Sext, 


DEFENCE  OF  PROPERTY  301 

the  same  title,  ch.  cum  quis.  They  punish  intention,  as  when  one  ratines  what 
was  done  in  one's  name  ;  ch.  cum  quis,  above.  They  punish  negligence  ;  the 
same  title,  ch.  quanta.  Here  none  of  these  conditions  is  present. 

The  citations  to  the  contrary  are  easily  answered.  The  answer  to  the 
canon  si  quis  suadente  has  been  given  above.  As  to  what  is  said  about  irregu- 
larity, the  reason  of  the  difference  is  clear.  For  no  one  incurs  excommunica- 
tion without  wrongful  intention ;  but  one  may  incur  irregularity,  as  to 
which  see  the  penultimate  gloss  on  Clem.,  si  Juriosus,  often  quoted  above. 


Whether  one  may  summon  one's  friends  to  help  in  the  defence  of 

one's  property  ? 

[Ch.  cviii.] 

The  fifth  question  is,  whether  one  may  summon  friends  to  repel  violence 
done  to  one's  property,  and  whether  they  may  give  help.  The  gloss  on  ff.  De 
vi  et  de  vi  armata,  1.  iii,  §  eum  igitur,  notes  that  this  is  allowed,  even  when  the 
violence  is  done  to  property.  I  think  this  is  true  ;  and  my  reason  is,  that  one 
may  oppose  an  error,  as  the  laws  say,  wherever  it  is  possible  to  oppose  it. 
Otherwise,  one  who  does  not  oppose  seems  to  consent  to  it ;  dist.  Ixxxiii,  error, 
and  *  ch.  qui  consentit,  with  the  following  chapter.  Therefore  friends  may  help 
their  neighbour  in  this,  as  I  said  above,  because  to  do  so  proceeds  from  the 
root  of  charity  ;  De  Poenit.,  dist.  ii,  ch.  proximos.  And  if  this  is  allowed,  the 
question  is  at  once  solved  which  might  ask  whether  a  man  incurs  excommunica- 
tion by  laying  hands  on  a  clerk,  while  defending  the  goods  of  a  neighbour 
against  violence.  Because  he  does  not  incur  it,  since  this  is  not  one  of  the  things 
which  are  punished  by  the  canon,  but  rather  permitted. 


Whether,  in  defending  property,  one  may  repel  force  with  force  against  all 
those  against  whom  one  may  use  force  in  defending  persons  ? 

[Ch.  cix.] 

The  sixth  question  is  whether,  in  defending  property,  one  may  repel 
force  with  force  against  all  those  against  whom  one  may  use  force  in  defending 
persons.  Solution  :  One  may  do  so,  among  persons  capable  of  holding  property ; 
I  exclude  slaves,  monks,  and  the  like.  But  I  admit  that  the  limits  of  defence 
ought  to  vary  with  the  various  quality  of  persons.  For  one  should  act  differently 
and  more  gently  against  a  father  than  against  an  absolute  stranger  ;  and  so 
with  each  relationship  which  comes  up  for  consideration,  all  the  circumstances 
are  to  be  regarded,  since  these  are  not  denned  by  law  ;  ff.  De  iure  deliber., 
1.  i,  at  the  end  ;  and  De  offic.  iud.  delegati,  ch.  de  causis. 


Supply  xi,  q.  iii. 


302  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

Whether  one  may  repel  force  with  force  in  defence  of  things 
deposited  or  lent  ? 

[Ch.  ex.] 

The  seventh  question  is,  whether  one  may  repel  force  with  force  in  defence 
of  things  deposited  and  lent.  And  it  seems  that  one  may  not,  by  C.  Vnde  vi, 
1.  i,  which  speaks  of  things  possessed,  and  rightly.  But  these  things  are  not 
"  possessed  "  by  a  borrower  or  deposit ee  ;  therefore  he  may  not  repel  force 
with  force  in  such  cases.  Solution  :  In  these  and  the  like  cases  we  claim  that 
a  man  may  repel  force  with  force  ;  for  the  interdict  "  vi  bonorum  raptorum  " 
is  allowed  to  a  depositee  or  a  borrower  if  such  things  are  forcibly  seized  ;  ff.  Vi 
bonorum  raptorum,  1.  prator  ait  qua  est  lex,  §  in  hac  actione.  Much  more,  then, 
is  a  right  of  defence  allowed  them  ;  ff.  De  reg.  iuris,  rule  invitus,  §  cut  damus  ; 
and  ff.  De  fonte,  the  single  law  ;  Sext,  De  reg.  iur.,  rule  qui  ad  agendum  ;  also 
because  they  are  under  a  liability.  Therefore,  &c.  C.  Vnde  vi,  1.  i,  is  not 
opposed  to  this,  because  although  it  uses  the  phrase  "  in  possessione,"  yet  it 
does  not  exclude  other  forms  of  "  detention,"  for  which  the  laws  allow  actions 
to  the  detainers,  as  above.  Or  we  may  say  that  the  word  "  possidere  "  is  to  be 
taken  in  a  wide  sense,  to  include  lawful  detention  ;  ff.  De  rei  vindic.,  1.  officium  ; 
and  the  note  on  De  causa  possessions  et  proprietatis,  ch.  pastoralis. 


How  may  this  particular  war  be  declared  ? 
[Ch.  cxi.] 

We  must  consider  the  seventh  principal  question,  which  is,  how  force  may 
be  repelled  with  force. 


How  may  force  be  repelled  with  force  within  the  limits  of 
justifiable  defence  ? 

And  the  text  answers  this  by  saying  that  it  is  allowed  within  the  limits  of 
justifiable  defence. 

What  are  the  "  limits  of  justifiable  defence,"  and  what  is 
required  therein  ? 

But  the  meaning  of  these  words  is  ambiguous ;  what  are  the  conditions 
required  for  these  limits  ?  Doctors  agree  that  they  are  those  which  equal  the 
violence  inflicted,  in  quality  of  arms,  and  in  length  of  time.  Also  there  must 
be  equivalence  in  the  violent  act  itself,  lest,  by  exceeding,  it  be  regarded 
as  revenge  ;  but  this  is  a  doubtful  point. 


LIMITS  OF  JUSTIFIABLE  DEFENCE  303 

Whether  a  poor  and  feeble  man  may  defend  himself  with  a  sword  against 
a  strong  and  vigorous  man  who  strikes  him  only  with  the  fist  ? 

[Ch.  cxii.] 

And  in  the  first  place  suppose  a  strong  and  vigorous  man  strikes  me  with 
his  fist,  and  I  am  a  poor  fellow  who  cannot  stand  up  to  him  with  the  fist.  May 
I  defend  myself  with  a  sword  ?  It  seems  that  I  may,  because  equality  is 
always  to  be  regarded  ;  C.  De  fruc.  et  lit.  expen.,  the  last  law ;  ff.  De  arbitr.,  1.  si 
cum  dies;  Sext,  De  reg.  iuris,  rule  in  iudiciis.  On  the  other  hand,  if  a  man 
tries  to  rob  me  by  violence,  and  I,  being  no  match  for  him  in  strength  of  body, 
strike  him  with  a  sword,  that  would  be  compensation  on  a  person  for  injury  to 
property,  which  ought  not  to  be  ;  C.  De  sacrqsanct.  ecclesiis,  the  last  law. 

Jacobus  de  Arena  draws  a  distinction.  One  wishes  to  repel  either  violence 
to  the  person,  or  violence  to  property.  In  the  first  case  I  may  use  arms  and 
any  means  whatsoever,  if  matters  cannot  otherwise  be  set  right  ;  C.  De  appell., 
1.  si  quis.  For  if  I  may  kill  a  thief  when  I  do  not  recognize  him,  or  when  I 
cannot  get  a  judge  to  help  me  as  to  the  stolen  goods  ;  ff.  Ad  legem  Corneliam 
de  sica.,  1.  fur  em  ;  much  more  may  I  kill  a  man  when  that  is  the  only  way  of 
saving  my  person.  In  the  second  case,  of  violence  to  property,  either  the  violence 
done  may  be  redressed  by  resorting  to  law,  in  which  case  I  may  not  defend  my 
property  in  any  way  I  like,  but  only  with  certain  arms,  and  not  with  acts, 
because  I  ought  not  to  strike  a  person  in  defence  of  a  thing,  even  when  the  thing 
cannot  be  saved  in  any  other  way,  provided  the  wrong  is  capable  of  being 
redressed  by  law.  But  if  it  is  not,  then  I  may  defend  my  property  in  any  way 
whatsoever,  even  by  killing  the  assailant  ;  ff.  Ad  legem  Corneliam  de  sicariis, 
1.  furem.  And  in  this  sense  is  understood  C.  Vnde  vi,  1.  i ;  and  ff.  De  vi  et  vi 
arm.,  1.  iii.  \  eum  igitur.  Understand,  therefore,  the  phrase  "the  limits  of 
justifiable  defence  "  in  this  sense. 


Assuming  that  a  man  may  defend  himself"  incontinent,"  in  what  sense 
is  the  phrase  "  incontinenti  "  to  be  understood  ? 

[Ch.  cxiii.] 

The  second  question  relates  to  the  passage  of  time,  because  the  texts  say 
that  it  must  be  done  "  incontinenti."  What  does  this  phrase  mean  ?  Some 
say  that  an  act  is  done  "  incontinenti  "  if  it  is  done  while  the  offence  is  being 
actually  committed,  but  if  the  injury  has  already  been  inflicted,  then  we  ought 
to  resort  to  a  judge.  Others  say  it  is  done  "  incontinenti  "  even  if  it  is  done 
afterwards,  before  one  turns  to  other  business  ;  ff.  Ad  leg.  lul.  de  adulteriis, 
1.  quod  ait,  at  the  end.  Jacobus  and  Petrus  draw  a  distinction.  Either  we  speak 
of  violence  to  the  person,  and  then  we  are  said  to  repel  it  "  incontinenti  "  if 
we  do  so  during  the  actual  commission  of  the  act.  In  this  sense  is  understood 
ff.  Ad  leg.  Aquil.,  1.  scientiam,  §  qui  cum  aliter  ;  De  iustit.  et  iure,  1.  ut  vim.  Or 
we  speak  of  violence  to  things,  and  then  we  are  said  to  repel  it  "  incontinenti  " 


3<X|  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

even  after  the  commission  of  the  act,  provided  we  do  so  before  turning  to  other 
business  ;  ff.  De  vi  et  vi  armata,  1.  qui  possessionem  ;  and  the  same  title,  1.  iii, 
§  eum  igitur.  The  reason  of  the  distinction  is,  that  injury  to  the  person  cannot 
afterwards  be  repaired,  but  a  thing  taken  away  can  be  recovered  ;  and  so  if 
one  has  not  turned  to  other  business,  even  if  one  seeks  one's  friends  and  returns 
to  recover  the  thing,  one  is  said  to  act  "  incontinenti,"  as  is  noted  by  the  gloss 
on  ff.  De  vi  et  vi  armata,  1.  iii,  §  eum  igitur,  already  quoted.  Understand  the 
limitation  in  the  passage  of  time  in  this  sense. 


Of  equivalence  in  the  act  of  violence  itself.     How  should  the  act  be  done  ? 

[Ch.  cxiv.] 

The  third  question  relates  to  limitation  in  the  matter  of  equivalence  in  the 
violent  act  ;  that  is  to  say,  it  must  be  defensive,  not  vindictive.  And  although 
the  subject  is  treated  in  various  ways,  it  should  be  considered  throughout  in 
relation  to  the  conditions  of  the  persons. 


Am  I  deemed  to  have  acted  vindictively,  and  not  defensively,  if  I  have  expelled 
my  despoiler  from  my  possession,  when,  before  I  expelled  him,  he  offered 
to  give  security  for  the  restoration  of  possession  ? 

[Ch.  exv.J 

The  fourth  question  is  this :  A  man  has  expelled  me  from  possession, 
and  after  the  expulsion  he  is  prepared  to  give  security  for  its  restoration, 
if  it  should  appear  that  he  has  not  acted  lawfully ;  but  none  the  less  I  expel 
him  ;  am  I  deemed  to  have  acted  vindictively  ?  The  gloss  on  C.  Vnde  vi, 
1.  i,  holds  that  I  am  ;  but  the  gloss  is  generally  disapproved.  For  one  ought 
not  to  trust  oneself  to  that  weak  security  ;  ff.  Ad  Treb.,  1.  quia  poterat,  and 
1.  nam  quod,  and  similar  passages. 


Whether  I  ought  to  await  one  who  is  prepared  to  strike  me,  or  to 

anticipate  him  ? 

[Ch.  cxvi.] 

The  fifth  question  is  whether,  if  I  see  a  man  prepared  to  strike  me,  I  ought 
to  wait  for  him  to  strike  me,  or  to  anticipate  him.  The  gloss  on  1.  i,  quoted 
above,  argues  for  and  against,  and  determines  that  I  ought  not  to  wait  for  him. 
Petrus  says  that  in  interpreting  the  gloss  we  must  distinguish  between  persons. 
For  some  are  bold  and  ready  to  strike,  and  such  persons  are  not  to  be  waited 
for  ;  others  are  timid,  and  these  are  not  at  once  to  be  anticipated  ;  and  in  this 
way  he  limits  a  clear  gloss ;  C.  Si  quis  Imperatori  maledixerit,  1.  i. 


LIMITS  OF  JUSTIFIABLE  DEFENCE  305 

Whether  a  soldier  attacked  by  his  neighbour  is  deemed  to  repel  force  with  force  if  he 
waits  for  him,  and  strikes  him,  although  he  might  run  away  ? 

[Ch.  cxvii.] 

The  sixth  question  is  this  :  A  good  soldier  is  attacked  by  his  neighbour, 
and  might  avoid  him  by  running  away  ;  but  thinking  shame  of  that,  he  waits 
for  him,  resists  him,  and  strikes  him  ;  is  he  deemed  to  repel  force  with  force  ? 
It  appears  that  he  is  not,  by  ff.  Ad  leg.  Aquiliam,  1.  scientiam,  §  qui  cum  aliter. 
Modern  jurists  hold  the  contrary,  on  the  authority  of  ff.  Ex  quibus  caus. 
maiores,  1.  in  eadem.  The  section  qui  cum  aliter  is  not  inconsistent,  because 
the  man  could  not  avoid  him  without  injury  to  his  own  repute  and  honour, 
which  are  things  that  cannot  be  repaired  by  a  judge  ;  ff.  Si  quis  omissa  causa 
testamenti,  1.  lulianus. 


If  a  wounded  man,  after  the  wounds  have  been  inflicted,  pursues  his  assailant,  and 
strikes  him,  should  he  be  punished  as  "  malicious,"  or  as  "  culpable  "  ? 

[Ch.  cxviii.] 

The  seventh  question  is  this  :  A  wounded  man,  after  the  wounds  have 
been  inflicted,  pursues  his  assailant,  and  strikes  him,  which  is  not  lawful  ; 
ff.  Ad  leg.  Aquiliam,  1.  si  ex  plagis,  §  i,  and  1.  qua  actione,  §  si  in  colluctatione  ; 
is  he  to  be  punished  as  "  malicious,"  or  as  "  culpable  "  ?  Some  say  as  "  cul- 
pable," because  an  unpremeditated  heat  does  not  involve  "  calumnia  "  ;  ff. 
Ad  S.  C.  Turpil.,  1.  i,  §  quceri  ;  ff.  Ad  leg.  Corn,  de  sica.,  1.  iv,  §  cum  quidam ,' 
ff.  De  prenis,  1.  respiciendum,  §  delinquunt.  Others  say  as  "  malicious,"  since 
he  ought  not  to  have  revenged  himself.  Jacobus  de  Arena  says  that  the  first 
view  is  more  humane  ;  ff.  De  posnis,  1.  interpretatione  ;  ff.  De  reg.  iur.,  1.  in 
totum  ;  and  the  second  is  stricter  ;  C.  De  iniur.,  1.  si  non  convicii.  I  think  the 
first  is  truer,  even  as  a  matter  of  law,  on  the  authority  of  the  laws  first  cited. 


Whether  violence  to  (he  person  may  be  repelled  by  friends  ? 

[Ch.  cxix.] 

The  eighth  question  is,  whether  violence  to  the  person  may  be  repelled 
by  friends,  like  violence  to  things,  as  the  gloss  on  §  eum  igitur  notes.  The 
gloss  on  C.  Vnde  vi,  1.  i,  says  not,  on  the  authority  of  ff.  De  vi  et  de  vi  armata, 
1.  cum  fundum.  Others  draw  a  distinction.  Either  the  friends  were  attendant 
on  the  person  who  suffered  the  violence,  or  they  were  not.  In  the  first  case 
it  is  lawful ;  ff.  De  iniuriis,  1.  item  apud  Labeonem,  §  si  quis  virgines.  In  the 
second  case  it  is  not  lawful.  Jacobus  de  Arena  holds  that  it  is  lawful  in  any 
case.  For  if  others  may  help  us  in  our  affairs,  as  appears  from  ff.  De  neg. 
gest.,  1.  i,  much  more  may  they  help  our  person,  which  is  preferred  before 


306  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

things;  C.  De  sacrosanct,  ecclesiis,  1.  sancimus.  The  text  of  C.  Ad  legem 
luliam  de  adulteriis,  1.  Gracchus,  seems  to  support  this.  The  law  cumfundum 
is  not  inconsistent,  because  there  the  mandate  was  given  after  an  interval, 
which  would  not  be  lawful  even  for  the  principal.  The  text  of  1.  ut  vim  is  opposed 
to  this  view,  when  it  says  "  for  the  protection  of  one's  own  person,"  and  Clem., 
De  homicidio,  si  furiosus. 


Whether  a  slave  is  excused,  who  kills  his  master's  wife  on  the  order 

of  his  master  ? 

[Ch.  cxx.] 

The  ninth  question  is  this  :  Suppose  a  man  orders  a  slave  to  kill  his  wife, 
whom  he  suspects  of  adultery,  and  threatens  that  otherwise  he  will  kill  the 
slave,  and  the  slave  kills  her  ;  is  he  excused  ?  It  seems  that  he  is  not.  For 
one  ought  to  bear  all  evils  rather  than  consent  to  evil ;  ff.  Quod  met.  causa, 
1.  isti  quidem,  at  the  end.  This  seems  to  be  supported  by  ff.  Ad  leg.  Aquiliam, 
1.  scientiam,  §  qui  cum  aliter.  To  the  contrary  is  ff.  De  iustit.  et  iure,  1.  ut  vim  ; 
for  he  did  the  act  in  defence  of  his  own  person.  Therefore,  &c.  Jacobus  of 
Ravenna  draws  a  distinction.  Either  the  woman  would  have  perished  in  any 
case,  or  she  would  not  ;  ff.  Ad  leg.  Aquil.,  1.  si  quisfumo  ;  and  ff.  Quod  vi  aut 
clam,  1.  si  alius,  §  est  et  alia.  Petrus  holds  that  the  slave  is  excused  in  any  case, 
because  he  did  it  in  defence  of  his  own  person  ;  1.  ut  vim  ;  also  because  charity 
begins  with  oneself  ;  C.  De  servitut.  et  aqua,  1.  presses  ;  also  because  it  is 
lawful  to  redeem  one's  own  life  ;  C.  De  transactionibus,  1.  transigere.  I  should 
think  a  distinction  ought  to  be  made.  If  the  danger  of  his  own  death  would 
inevitably  befall  the  slave  unless  he  killed  the  wife  of  his  master,  then  I  should 
think  the  opinion  of  Petrus  true.  If  there  should  be  some  hope  of  his  safety, 
even  if  he  resisted  his  master,  then  I  should  be  of  the  contrary  opinion,  on  the 
authority  of  the  laws  above  cited. 


What  is  the  end  of  particular  war  ? 

[Ch.  cxxi.] 

As  regards  the  last  principal  question,  which  is,  What  is  the  end  of  this 
war  ?  the  solution  of  this  question  is  clear  from  what  has  been  said  above. 
For  the  preservation  of  oneself  and  of  one's  property  is  the  end  of  this  war, 
and  this  is  its  final  tendency,  and  the  reason  why  it  is  allowed,  as  clearly 
appears  from  the  arguments  above. 


REPRISALS  307 

The  fifth  treatise  of  the  third  principal  part,  treating  of  particular  war  which 
is  waged  in  defence  of  the  mystical  body,  and  called  Reprisals. 

[Ch.  cxxii.] 

Whence  and  in  what  have  Reprisals  their  origin,  and  why  were  they  introduced  ? 

[Ch.  cxxiii.] 

As  I  shall  deal  in  some  detail  with  the  question  and  matter  of  reprisals, 
I  will  first  set  forth  the  foundation  upon  which  the  introduction  of  reprisals 
rests.  Having  done  so,  I  will  examine  causes  which  need  examination. 

Now  the  Most  High  Creator  in  the  beginning  created  the  heaven  and  the 
earth,  and  the  things  which  are  in  them,  and  angelic  and  human  nature,  spiritual 
things  and  temporal  things,  and  ruled  them  in  His  own  person  ;  and  to  man, 
whom  He  created,  He  gave  precepts,  and  on  the  transgressor  He  imposed  a 
penalty  ;  Genesis,  ch.  ii.  And  how  He  ruled  them  in  His  own  person  is  apparent, 
for  He  punished  offences  Himself,  and  not  by  a  minister.  For  He  punished 
Cain,  Lamech,  and  certain  other  princes,  as  we  read  in  Genesis,  chs.  iv  and  v. 
And  this  government  of  the  world  proceeded  down  to  the  times  of  Noah.  But 
from  the  time  of  Noah  He  began  to  rule  the  world  by  ministers,  of  whom  the 
first  was  Noah  ;  and  that  Noah  was  the  ruler  of  the  people  is  clear.  For  the 
Lord  committed  to  him  the  government  and  administration  of  the  Ark  ; 
Genesis,  chs.  v  and  vi.  And  by  the  Ark  is  signified  the  Church.  And  we  read 
in  Genesis,  ch.  ix,  how  the  Lord  committed  the  government  to  Noah  and  to 
his  sons  ;  and  although  Noah  was  not  a  priest,  yet  we  read  that  he  exercised 
the  office  of  priesthood,  before  laws  were  given  to  the  people  ;  Genesis,  ch.  viii. 
But  in  this  government  and  vicariate  succeeded  Patriarchs,  Kings,  and  Judges, 
who  were  for  a  time  rulers  over  the  people  of  the  Jews.  And  that  government 
lasted  to  the  time  of  Christ,  Who  was  our  natural  Lord  and  King,  of  Whom 
we  read  in  the  Psalm,  "  O  God,  give  thy  judgement  to  the  king."  But  Christ 
Himself  put  two  lights  on  the  earth — a  greater  light  for  the  day,  which  is  the 
supreme  Pontiff,  and  a  lesser  light  for  the  night,  which  is  the  Emperor  of  the 
Romans,  to  whom  He  committed  the  administration  and  government  of  the 
world,  to  the  one  in  spiritual  matters,  and  to  the  other  in  temporal.  In  the 
early  time,  when  the  Lord  governed  in  His  own  person,  there  was  no  need  of 
reprisals,  since  justice  was  administered  by  the  Lord.  In  the  time  of  Noah  and 
his  successors  in  the  government  of  the  people  of  the  Jews,  there  was  no  need 
of  reprisals,  since  justice  was  administered  by  ministers,  and  subjects  among 
the  people  recognized  a  superior  whom  they  obeyed.  In  the  early  days  of  the 
supreme  Pontiffs  and  the  Roman  Emperors,  when  all  were  in  subjection  both 
in  law  and  in  fact,  there  was  no  need  of  reprisals,  since  the  complement  of 
justice  was  administered  by  princes,  with  observance  of  the  due  order  of  law. 
But  when  the  Empire  began  gradually  to  be  exhausted,  so  that  now  there  are 
some  who  in  fact  recognize  no  superior,  and  by  them  justice  is  neglected,  the 
need  arose  for  a  subsidiary  remedy,  when  the  ordinary  remedies  fail,  but  which 


308  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

is  on  no  account  to  be  resorted  to  when  they  exist ;  ff.  De  minor.,  1.  in  causes  ; 
ff.  De  oper.  nov.  nunci.,  1.  in  provinciali.  But  this  extraordinary  remedy  had 
its  origin  in  the  law  of  nations.  For  it  is  a  form  of  lawful  war.  For  it  is  lawful 
to  take  arms  in  defence  of  one's  own  body  ;  ff.  De  iustit.  et  iure,  1.  ut  rim  ; 
C.  Vnde  vi,  1.  i ;  De  restitut.  spoliat.,  ch.  olim ;  and  not  only  in  defence  of 
one's  private  and  individual  body,  but  also  of  the  mystical  body.  For  a  com- 
munity is  one  body,  whose  parts  are  the  several  members  of  the  community  ; 
ff.  Quod  cuiuscunque  universit.,  1.  i  ;  and  so  a  community  may  defend  the 
parts'of  its  own  body.  It  had  its  origin,  too,  in  divine  law,  as  we  read  in  xxiii, 
q.  ii,  ch.  Dominus  Noster.  From  all  that  has  been  said,  we  may  infer  the  reason 
of  the  introduction  of  this  remedy.  For  its  final  object  is  that  justice  may 
obtain  its  due  effect,  and  its  occasion  is  when  there  is  a  failure  of  remedy, 
arising  from  the  neglect  of  those  who  govern  and  rule  peoples,  and  the  absence 
of  recognition  of  superiors  in  fact,  at  which  time  this  extraordinary  remedy 
is  needed.  From  this  we  infer  that  even  to-day  this  remedy  rarely  claims 
a  place.  For  if  the  secular  judge  neglects  his  office,  recourse  is  to  be  had  to  the 
ecclesiastical ;  De  foro  competenti,  ex  tenore,  and  ch.  licet,  and  ch.  ex  parte  ; 
Qui  filii  sint  legitimi,  per  venerabilem  ;  although  he  also  is  in  fact  ill  obeyed. 
After  this  preface,  it  remains  to  examine  what  are  the  causes  of  reprisals,  as 
follows. 


Of  the  causes  of  reprisals. 

[Ch.  cxxiv.] 

What  is  the  efficient  cause  ?    the  formal  cause  ?    the  final  cause  ?     We 
must  also  consider  certain  questions  arising  on  this  subject. 


Of  the  efficient,  or  productive,  cause  of  reprisals. 

The  first  question,  What  is  the  productive  cause  ?  is  the  same  thing  as 
asking  who  may  declare  reprisals.  Here  we  must  observe  that,  as  was  said 
above,  no  positive  law,  canon  or  civil,  ordains  that  reprisals  should  be  declared. 
For  both  laws  ordain  a  mode  of  obtaining  the  effects  of  justice.  It  is  even  for- 
bidden to  seize  one's  own  property  ;  C.  Vnde  vi,  1.  si  quis  in  tantam  ;  and  ff. 
Quod  met.  causa,  1.  exstat.  Moreover,  they  are  even  expressly  forbidden  by 
civil  and  canon  law  ;  Authent.,  Vt  pign.  non  fiant  ;  and  Sext.  De  iniur.,  the 
single  chapter.  But  when  the  remedies  of  positive  law  fail,  it  lias  been  necessary 
to  resort  to  this  device  of  a  declaration  of  war,  lest  justice  should  perish.  But 
this  declaration  of  war  belongs  only  to  one  who  has  no  superior  ;  ff.  De  captivU. 
1.  hostes.  For  one  who  has  a  superior  cannot  violate  the  remedies  of  law  on  his 
own  authority.  Therefore  only  one  who  has  no  superior,  both  in  law  and  in 
fact,  may  declare  reprisals.  Also  he  against  whom  they  are  declainl  should 


THE  CAUSES  OF  REPRISALS  309 

have  no  superior,  or,  if  he  has,  that  superior  should  neglect  to  do  ustice.  From 
which  some  people  infer  that  the  magistrate  of  a  state  which  recognizes  no 
superior  in  fact,  cannot  declare  reprisals  unless  he  is  specially  empowered 
to  do  so,  but  that  recourse  should  be  had  to  the  community,  with  whom  the 
full  sovereignty  resides,  and  they  should  be  declared  on  its  authority.  I  do 
not  think  this  is  true  where  a  community  has  transferred  all  power  to  a  ruler ; 
for  then  he  can  do  anything  that  the  community  can  do,  as  we  say  where  the 
ruler  has  general  and  unlimited  power  ;  ff.  De  procuratoribus,  1.  procurator  qui. 
Otherwise,  if  the  power  transferred  is  limited.  They  also  argue  that  if  a  count, 
margrave,  or  the  like  is  subject  to  the  Emperor,  reprisals  cannot  be  declared 
without  the  Emperor's  authority,  arguing  from  the  rule  mentioned  above  in 
De  restit.  spoliatorum,  ch.  olim.  And  this  holds  if  we  speak  of  common  law. 
For  if  we  speak  according  to  the  disposition  of  municipal  laws,  according  to 
which  the  right  of  declaring  reprisals  is  allowed,  we  must  say  that  those  persons 
may  declare  them  to  whom  a  municipal  law  grants  the  right.  And  they  are 
granted,  as  I  said,  on  the  ground  of  urgent  necessity,  just  as  sometimes  the 
civil  law,  on  the  ground  of  necessity,  grants  a  man  the  right  to  take  the  law 
into  his  own  hands  ;  ff.  Qua?  in  fraudem  cred.,  1.  ait  prater,  §  si  debitorem  ;  ff. 
Quod  vi  aut  clam,  1.  alius,  §  bellissime.  From  what  has  been  said,  we  may  infer 
by  what  law  a  declaration  of  reprisals  is  obtained.  For  as  "  condictions  "  are 
granted  by  force  of  a  statute,  so  this  privilege  is  obtained  from  a  law  ;  ff.  De 
"  condictv  ex  lege,  the  single  law.  But  if  we  refer  to  the  disposition  of  the  common 
law,  some  say  that  neither  the  action  nor  the  office  is  intended.  Their  reason 
is,  that  this  power  is  granted  only  by  the  law  of  nations,  and  that  by  that  law 
all  things  were  directed  by  the  power  of  a  king  ;  ff.  De  orig.  iuris,  1.  ii,  at  the 
beginning.  So  they  say  that  to-day  the  hand  of  a  king  is  required,  according 
to  the  divine  statutes  and  by  the  law  of  nations.  I  do  not  think  this  is  true. 
I  admit  that  there  is  no  power  unless  the  traditional  form  is  observed.  For 
recourse  must  first  be  had  to  the  ordinary  remedies,  and  only  if  they  fail,  to 
this  remedy  ;  and  this  should  be  ascertained  by  a  judge  who  is  asked  to  declare 
reprisals  ;  and  if  the  person  against  whom  they  are  claimed  appears  after  notice 
given,  he  is  heard  for  the  defence,  as  will  be  shown  below,  and  judgement  follows, 
either  awarding  or  refusing  the  declaration.  Fourthly,  the  action  or  the  office 
was  necessary,  for  the  form  of  the  judgement  ought  to  follow  the  mode  of  peti- 
tion ;  ff.  Communi  divid.,  1.  ut  fundum  ;  and  De  simonia,  ch.  licet  Heli.  This 
is  confirmed.  For  although  this  power  proceeded  from  the  law  of  nations,  yet 
it  has  been  approved  by  the  civil  law,  by  implication,  though  not  by  express 
words.  For  the  civil  law  implies,  or  rather  it  expressly  declares,  that  rebels 
and  those  who  disobey  the  law  may  be  proceeded  against  by  military  force  ; 
ff.  De  rei  vindicatione,  1.  qui  restituere.  And  so  it  has  provided  a  remedy  by 
way  of  request  to  a  magistrate  to  allow  recourse  to  be  had  to  this  military  force, 
when  the  appropriate  remedies  fail. 


3io  Till     LAW  OF  WAR 

Of  the  material  cause  of  reprisals. 

[Ch.  cxxv.] 

It  remains  to  examine  the  material  cause.  As  to  the  material  cause,  then, 
we  must  consider  the  "  matter  in  which,"  the  "  matter  about  which,"  the 
"  matter  against  which,"  or  the  object,  and  the  "  matter  from  which." 

What  is  the  "matter  in  which"? 

The  "  matter  in  which  "  is  the  person  or  subject  to  whom  this  power  is 
granted. 

What  is  the  "matter  about  u'hich  "? 

The  "  matter  about  which  "  is  the  things  about  which  this  power  is 
granted. 

What  is  the  "matter  against  which"  ? 

The  "  matter  against  which,"  or  the  object,  is  that  against  which  it  is 
granted,  as,  for  instance,  a  state,  or  other  community. 

What  is  the  " matter  from  which"? 
The  "  matter  from  which  "  is  the  cause  from  which  the  power  is  granted. 


Returning  to  the  examination,  I  ask  to  whom  this  power  of  taking  reprisals 
is  granted.  Solution  :  It  is  granted  to  citizens  for  the  reason  given  above. 
For  citizens  are  a  part  of  the  mystical  body,  that  is,  of  the  state  ;  ff.  Quod 
cuiuscunque  universitatis,  1.  i.  Hence  the  state  is  called  "  civitas,"  as  being 
a  unity  of  "  cives,"  as  is  noted  in  Sext,  De  sent,  excom.,  ch.  si  civitas.  And,  as 
was  shown  above,  any  man  is  allowed  to  defend  his  own  body  ;  ff.  De  iustit.  et 
iure,  1.  «/  vim  ;  and  C.  Vnde  vi,  1.  i.  And  this  is  true  alike  of  the  mystical  and 
of  the  individual  body.  As  to  this  questions  arise. 


Are  reprisals  to  be  granted  to  residents? 

And  the  first  question  is,  whether  they  ought  to  be  granted  to  residents. 
Sorne  authorities  draw  a  distinction  here,  and  say  that  if  the  residents  bear  the 
burdens  of  the  state,  then  reprisals  ought  to  be  granted  to  them  ;  if  they  do 
not,  then  they  ought  not  to  be  granted.  The  reason  of  the  second  statement  is, 
that  one  who  does  not  share  a  burden  ought  not  to  share  a  benefit  either ; 
C.  De  furtis,  1.  manifestissimi ,  §  sed  cum  in  secundam;  ff.  De  regul.  iuris,  rule 
secundum  naturam  ;  and  Sext,  rule  qui  sentit.  It  is  supported  by  C.  [De  episc. 


THE  RIGHT  TO  REPRISALS  311 

et  clericis]  De  collegiatis,  book  xi,  1.  qui  sub  prcetexlu;  and  ff.  [C.]  De  collegiis 
[book  xii,  1.  i],  collegia  si  quce  fuerint  illicita.  It  is  further  supported  by  the  rule 
that  a  man  does  not  enjoy  the  privileges  of  an  office,  unless  he  has  in  fact  held 
it;  C.  book  xii,  De  consulibus,  1.  nemini ;  [C.]  ff.  De  excusat.  [tut.],  1.  sed  et 
milites,  §  qucesitum;  ff.  De  testam.  mil.,  the  penultimate  law.  I  do  not  think 
this  opinion  true  without  qualification,  but  I  think  a  distinction  must  be  made 
as  follows.  Either  a  resident  bears  no  burdens  by  reason  of  his  contumacy, 
because,  although  called  upon,  he  will  not  bear  them,  as  he  is  bound  to  do.  For 
between  a  state  which  admits  a  man  to  reside  and  the  resident,  there  arises  an 
implied  contract,  binding  on  both  sides,  whereby  the  resident  is  bound  to  bear 
burdens  ;  ff.  Ad  municip.,  1.  i,  and  1.  incola  ;  and  the  state  is  bound  to  protect 
him  ;  ff.  De  offic.  praesidis,  1.  illicitas,  §  ne  potentiores.  And  in  this  case,  if  he 
refuses  to  fulfil  the  contract  on  his  side,  the  state,  for  its  part,  is  not  bound  to 
defend  him,  nor  can  he  demand  that  it  should  ;  ff.  De  act.  empti,  1.  lulianus, 
§  offerri.  Or,  again,  the  resident  bears  no  burdens  because  the  state,  which 
was  able  to  remit  the  burden,  has  conferred  this  privilege  on  him ;  C.  De  pactis, 
1.  si  quis  in  conscribendo  ;  and  De  episcop.  et  cleric.,  vel  a  Principe.  And  then 
reprisals  ought  to  be  granted  to  the  resident,  for  privileges  granted  in  his 
favour  should  not  result  in  injury  to  him ;  C.  De  legibus,  1.  quod  favor e  ; 
Sext,  rule  quod  ob  gratiam.  And  you  must  understand  this  to  refer  to  a 
privileged  person  after  the  assumption  of  his  privileges. 


Whether  reprisals  should  be  declared  for  citizens  who  are  not  subject  to  the 
jurisdiction  of  a  state,  and  are  otherwise  not  part  of  it  ? 

[Ch.  cxxvi.] 

The  second  question  is,  whether  reprisals  should  be  declared  for  citizens 
who  are  not  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of  a  state,  and  are  otherwise  not  part 
of  it.  Some  authorities  draw  a  distinction.  If  they  are  excepted  from  the 
jurisdiction  by  privilege,  like  clerks  ;  Authent.,  1.  ii ;  C.  De  episcop.  et  cleric., 
statuimus  ;  or  because  of  secular  rank  ;  C.  Vbi  senat.  vel  clarissimi,  1.  ii ;  ff. 
De  vacat.  mun.,  throughout  ;  reprisals  should  be  granted  them.  If  they  are 
not  subject  by  reason  of  their  own  contumacy,  then  reprisals  should  not  be 
granted.  The  reason  of  the  first  statement  is,  that  a  privilege  introduced  in 
their  favour  should  not  result  in  injury  to  them,  and  because  among  citizens 
an  obligation  is  formed  at  birth  between  the  citizen  and  the  state,  which  cannot 
be  changed  ;  ff.  Ad  municip.,  1.  assumptio.  Otherwise  with  a  mere  resident, 
because  in  his  case  an  obligation  is  formed  only  by  his  admission  ;  ff.  Ad  muni- 
cipalem,  1.  i.  The  reason  of  the  second  statement  is  their  own  contumacy  ; 
ff.  Ex  quibus  cau.  maior.,  1.  sed  etsi  per  prcstorem,  §  sed  si  dum. 


312  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

Whether  reprisals  should  be  granted  to  a  citizen  "  by  cvm-cnlion  "  against 

the  state  of  his  origin  ? 

[Ch.  cxxvii.j 

The  third  question  is,  whether  reprisals  should  be  granted  to  a  citi/ni 
"  by  convention  "  against  the  state  of  his  origin.  It  appears  that  they  should 
not  ;  for  where  I  claim  a  right  from  some  fact,  I  am  not  under  a  liability  if  1 
acquire  the  right  ;  ff.  De  usufruct,  legato,  1.  sed  ct  si  quis,  §  et  regulariter.  But 
if  an  injury  is  done  to  this  citizen,  the  state  of  his  origin  acquires  a  right  of 
declaring  reprisals  ;  therefore  reprisals  cannot  be  declared  against  it.  This  view 
is  confirmed  by  the  rule  that  the  state  of  origin  is  preferred  ;  ff .  Ad  municipalem, 
1.  assumptio.  Also  by  the  consideration  that  the  state  of  origin  might  have 
legislated  for  its  own  subject,  before  he  became  a  citizen  of  the  other  state  by 
convention,  and  his  state  by  convention  cannot  complain.  It  is  confirmed  by 
the  analogy  of  the  usufructuary,  who  may  make  an  "  operis  novi  nuntiatio  " 
to  all  except  the  owner  ;  ff.  De  oper.  nov.  nuntiatione,  1.  i,  at  the  end.  It  is 
confirmed  by  a  further  analogy.  For  one  who  has  the  Publician  action  may  use 
it  against  all  except  the  owner  ;  ff.  De  Publiciana,  the  last  law.  The  text  of 
ff.  Ad  municipalem,  1.  de  iure,  supports  this.  For  the  relations  between  a  citi/.cn 
and  a  state  should  be  put  in  suit  only  before  a  judge  of  that  state.  This  is 
confirmed.  For  reprisals  are  an  extraordinary  remedy,  as  I  showed  above; 
but  extraordinary  remedies  are  not  given  to  a  son  against  a  father  ;  C.  Qui  et 
advers.  quos,  the  last  law.  But  the  power  of  a  state  over  a  citizen  is  greater 
than  that  of  a  father  over  a  son  ;  ff.  De  iustit.  et  iure,  1.  ii ;  and  ff.  De  captivis, 
1.  postliminium,  §  filius  ;  ff .  De  castrensi  peculio. 

The  contrary  view  is  supported  by  the  consideration  that  if  two  have  the 
same  subject,  each  may  defend  him  against  injury  inflicted  by  the  other.  For 
a  state  punishes  a  father  who  offends  against  his  son  ;  ff.  De  patri.,  throughout. 
This  is  confirmed  thus  :  For  if  two  have  rights  over  a  thing,  although  one  right 
may  be  weaker  than  the  other,  yet  the  man  who  has  the  weaker  right  may 
bring  an  action  against  the  man  who  has  the  stronger,  if  he  injures  the  thing 
in  which  those  two  rights  meet  ;  ff.  Ad  leg.  Aquil.,  1.  item  Mela,  the  last  section  ; 
and  the  same  title,  1.  si  dominus  scrvum.  It  is  confirmed  thus  :  For  if  two  men 
are  owners  of  the  same  slave,  and  one  does  him  a  wrong,  he  may  be  restrained 
by  the  other  ;  ff.  Ad  leg.  Aquil.,  1.  i.  It  is  confirmed  thus  :  For,  to  repel  an 
injury,  friends  may  be  summoned  ;  ff.  De  vi  et  de  vi  armat.,  1.  iii,  §eum  igitur  ; 
and  De  homicid.,  significasti ;  Sext,  De  sent,  excom.,  dilccto.  Solution:  Some 
authorities  say  without  qualification  that  reprisals  may  be  declared,  their 
reason  being  that  the  power  of  declaring  reprisals  takes  the  place  of  defective 
jurisdiction.  But  if  a  state  injures  a  citizen,  he  may  appeal  to  a  superior ; 
ff.  Quod  met.  causa,  1.  metum,  §  animadvertendum.  Therefore,  when  jurisdiction 
fails,  there  is  a  place  for  reprisals.  This  is  supported  by  ff.  De  dolo,  1.  sed  si  ex 
dolo.  It  is  confirmed  thus  :  For  any  power  is  deemed  to  be  legitimate,  when 
it  is  rightly  used,  but  not  when  it  is  used  for  spoliation ;  ff.  Pro  emptore,  1. 


THE  RIGHT  TO  REPRISALS  313 

ei  qui  fundum,  §  si  tutor  ;  ff.  De  furt.,  1.  inter  dum,  §  qui  tutelam  ;  and  so  they 
say  the  citations  on  one  side  and  on  the  other  hold.  I  do  not  think  this  conclu- 
sion is  true  in  this  unqualified  form  ;  but  I  think  we  must  distinguish  between 
cases  where  the  injury  inflicted  by  the  state  of  origin  arises  from  some  act 
prior  to  the  convention,  whereby  the  man  became  a  citizen  of  the  other  state, 
and  cases  where  it  arises  from  something  done  afterwards.  In  the  first  case, 
reprisals  may  not  be  granted  by  the  state  of  convention.  For  the  man  ought 
to  be  a  part  of  the  body  to  be  defended,  at  the  time  when  he  suffers  the  injustice. 
For  this  right  does  not  pass  to  the  new  state  ;  ff.  De  servo  corrupto,  1.  doli,  the 
last  section  ;  ff .  Depositi,  1.  i,  §  si  servus  ;  and  ff.  De  oblig.  et  actionibus,  1. 
qucecunque.  From  which  I  infer  that  reprisals  ought  not  to  be  granted  to  one 
who  becomes  a  citizen  by  convention  after  the  injustice  is  committed.  In  the 
second  case,  the  solution  above  given  holds. 


Whether  reprisals  should  be  granted  to  citizens,  and  to  those  who  are 
regarded  as  citizens,  but  whose  citizenship  is  limited  ? 

[Ch.  cxxviii.] 

The  fourth  question  concerns  citizens  and  those  who  are  regarded  as 
citizens,  but  whose  citizenship  is  limited.  As  to  the  power  of  a  state  to  determine 
who  is  a  citizen,  see  C.  De  incolis,  1.  cives.  Even  mercenaries  are  included,  when 
they  earn  pay  ;  ff.  Ad  municipalem,  1.  municipes,  the  last  section.  Also  students, 
to  the  extent  that  they  receive  protection  from  the  rulers  of  states  ;  ff .  De 
pecunia  constituta,  i ;  and  Authent.,  habita,  C.  Ne  fil.  pro  patre.  Are  reprisals 
to  be  granted  to  such  persons  ?  Some  say  that  limited  reprisals  should  be 
granted  on  their  behalf,  and  in  those  matters  in  which  they  are  regarded  as 
citizens,  as  where  an  injury  is  done  to  a  student  in  matters  regarding  his  studies, 
and  to  a  soldier  in  matters  regarding  his  service  ;  but  not  in  other  matters, 
since  in  other  matters  they  are  not  regarded  as  members  of  the  body. 


Whether  a  state  may  grant  reprisals  to  the  citizens  of  another  stale,  who 
by  agreement  or  statute  are  treated  as  its  own  citizens  ? 

[Ch.  cxxix.J 

The  fifth  question  is  whether,  if  by  agreement  or  statute  the  citizens  of 
one  state  ought  to  be  treated  as  citizens  of  another,  reprisals  should  be  granted 
to  them  by  the  state  in  which  they  ought  to  be  so  treated.  Solution  :  The 
words  of  the  agreement  and  statute  are  to  be  weighed.  For  those  words  say 
they  are  to  be  treated  as  citizens  ;  they  do  not  make  them  citizens  ;  ff.  De 
verb,  significat.,  1.  ...  appellatione  ;  and  the  note  there  by  Jacobus  de  Arena 
should  be  observed.  Those  words,  then,  are  understood  as  meaning  that  they 
are  treated  as  citizens  in  matters  belonging  to  the  common  law  ;  ff .  Pro  emptore, 


314  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

1.  ei  qtd  fundum,  §  si  tutor.  This  is  one  solution.  I  do  not  accept  this  conclusion, 
and  I  even  believe  that  reprisals  should  be  declared  for  them.  For  I  admit  that 
those  words  do  not  make  a  man  a  citizen,  but  they  give  him  a  right  to  all  that 
the  citizen  has  a  right  to.  For  this  is  proved  by  the  words,  which  ought  not  to 
be  departed  from,  nor  deprived  of  their  proper  meaning  ;  ff.  Qui  et  a  quibus,  1. 
prospexit ;  ff.  De  leg.,  iii,  1.  non  aliter ;  and  ff.  De  exercitoria,  1.  i,  §  is  qui 
navem.  Hence,  there  should  be  granted  to  him  all  that  is  granted  to  a  citizen ; 
but  reprisals  are  granted  to  a  citizen,  as  I  showed  above.  Therefore,  &c.  Nor 
is  this  inconsistent  with  saying  that  there  should  be  granted  to  him  all  that 
belongs  to  a  man  by  the  common  law  ;  for  this  remedy,  if  the  due  formalities 
are  observed,  is  not  forbidden  by  the  common  law. 


Of  the  "  matter  about  which." 
[Ch.  cxxx.] 

It  remains  to  consider  the  "  matter  about  which  "  they  are  granted, 
which  is  property  ;  and  this  is  clear.  For  they  affect  the  property,  movable 
and  immovable,  of  those  against  whom  they  are  granted,  which  is  found  in 
the  territory  of  the  state  which  grants  them.  But  in  regard  to  this  many 
questions  may  be  raised. 


Whether  reprisals  can  be  declared  against  the  property  of  those  whose  persons 
cannot  be  seized  on  the  strength  of  reprisals  ? 

And  firstly,  can  reprisals  be  declared  against  the  property  of  those  whose 
persons  cannot  be  seized  on  the  strength  of  reprisals  ?  Solution  :  If  they  are 
persons  who  cannot  be  seized  on  account  of  some  difficulty  caused  by  reason 
of  age,  or  madness,  or  the  like,  then  reprisals  can  be  executed  against  their 
property  ;  ff.  De  in  ius  vocando,  1.  satisque  ;  Authent.,  Vt  nulli  iudicum,  §  ncccs- 
sarium.  But  if  they  cannot  be  executed  against  the  persons  because  of  some 
privilege  allowed  .them  by  law,  as  in  the  case  of  students  and  ambassadors, 
then  the  reprisals  cannot  be  executed  on  the  property  necessary  for  their 
studies  or  embassy,  which  they  bring  with  tin  'in,  but  on  their  other  property 
they  may  ;  ff.  De  publican.,  1.  si  pvblicanus.  This  also  affords  a  solution  of 
a  third  question  :  If  an  ambassador  or  a  student  brings  with  him  property 
belonging  to  others,  can  reprisals  be  executed  against  this  ?  We  must  say  that 
they  cannot,  if  the  things  are  necessary  to  them,  as  horses  and  the  like  ;  ff.  De 
verb,  signification,  1.  ccnsoria  ;  otherwise  they  can. 


EXECUTION  OF  REPRISALS  315 

Whether  a  simple  declaration  of  reprisals  may  be  executed  against  property  exist- 
ing in  the  territory  of  the  state  against  which  the  reprisals  are  declared,  so 
that  it  may  be  seized  and  brought  into  the  territory  of  the  state  declaring 
them  ? 

[Ch.  cxxxi.] 

The  second  question  is,  whether  a  simple  declaration  of  reprisals  may  be 
executed  against  property  existing  in  the  territory  of  the  state  against  which 
the  reprisals  are  declared,  so  that  it  may  be  seized  and  brought  into  the  territory 
of  the  state  declaring  them.  Some  say  it  may  not,  because  the  property  is 
"  outside  the  territory  "  ;  ff.  De  iurisdictione  [omn.  iud.],  1.  extra  territorium  ; 
and  ff.  De  rebus  auctor.  iudic.  possidend.,  1.  cum  unus,  §  is  cuius  ;  and  Sext, 
De  constit.,  ch.  ii.  Moreover,  to  enter  the  territory  of  others  is' allowed  to 
be  a  cause  of  greater  disturbance.  Therefore,  as  the  point  is  doubtful,  it  does 
not  seem  to  be  allowed  ;  ff.  De  reg.  iuris,  1.  non  est  singulis.  I  cannot  accept 
this  conclusion  ;  for  resort  is  had  to  the  royal  authority  on  account  of  a  failure 
of  jurisdiction,  because  the  formula  of  a  solemn  judgement  has  failed  ;  and 
accordingly  this  may  be  done  anywhere,  because  a  man  may  anywhere  defend 
his  own  body  ;  ff.  De  iustit.  et  iure,  1.  ut  vim  ;  and  C.  Vnde  vi,  1.  i.  Also,  in  a 
simple  and  general  grant  the  words  ought  to  operate  generally  according  to 
their  tenor  ;  ff.  De  leg.  praestan.,  1.  i,  §  generaliter  ;  also  the  result  might  be 
that  reprisals  would  have  no  effect,  as  when  they  are  used  against  a  distant 
state,  whose  citizens  have  no  property  in,  and  do  not  come  to,  the  state  declaring 
them.  Hence  the  declaration  must  be  understood  in  a  sense  in  which  it  may 
have  its  effect  in  any  event ;  ff.  De  legat.,  i,  1.  si  quando  ;  ff.  De  reb.  dub.,  1. 
quotiens  ;  De  reg.  iur.,  1.  quotiens. 


Whether,  if  one  state  declares  reprisals  against  another,  the  ruler  of  the  state 

declaring  them,  after  writing  to  the  ruler  of  the  other,  may  execute 

the  reprisals  against  property  situated  there  ? 

[Ch.  cxxxii.] 

The  third  question  is  whether,  if  one  state  declares  reprisals  against 
another,  the  ruler  of  the  state  declaring  them  may,  after  writing  to  the  ruler 
of  the  other  state,  execute  the  reprisals  against  property  there  situated.  Some 
authorities  say  that,  although  this  may  be  done  in  execution  of  a  judgement ; 
see  ff.  De  re  iudicata,  1.  a  divo  Pio,  §  i ;  and  De  rebus  auct.  iudic.  poss.,  1.  cum 
unus,  §  i ;  yet  in  this  case  it  may  not.  And  their  reason  is  this  :  For  a  declara- 
tion of  reprisals  is  a  form  of  particular  war,  to  which  no  one  can  compel 
another  unless  he  is  a  subject  :  Vsus  Feudorum,  Hie  finitur  lex  Conradi,  ch. 
domino.  I  do  not  believe  that  this  is  the  correct  meaning.  For  it  supposes  that 
in  the  execution  of  a  judgement  the  judge  who  gives  the  judgement  can  compel 
another  judge,  even  one  who  is  not  a  subject,  to  execute  it,  which  is  false, 
because  equal  has  no  power  over  equal ;  ff.  De  arbi.,  1.  nam  magistratus  ;  ff. 

[32] 


3i6  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

Ad  S.  C.  Trebellianum,  1.  itte  a  quo,  §  tcmpestivum  ;  De  elect.,  ch.  innotuit. 
None  the  less,  the  other  does  wrong  if  he  does  not  execute  it,  so  that  he  may  be 
proceeded  against  before  his  superior  on  that  account ;  for  as  long  as  justice 
can  obtain  its  effect  by  observing  due  process  of  law,  the  rules  of  law  should  not 
be  broken.  Hence,  in  neither  case  is  there  a  question  of  compulsion,  but  in 
each  case  the  other  will  act  rightly  if  he  executes  the  judgement :  because, 
just  as  when  there  is  no  failure  of  jurisdiction  he  ought  to  execute  a  judgement 
on  request,  so,  when  there  is  a  failure  of  jurisdiction,  and  reprisals  are  resorted 
to,  he  ought  to  assist,  though  he  cannot  be  compelled.  But  in  federated  states, 
as  to  which  see  ff.  De  captivis,  1.  non  dubito,  this  is  clearly  admitted. 


Of  the  "matter  against  which." 

[Ch.  cxxxiii.] 

It  remains  to  consider  the  "  matter  against  which  "  reprisals  may  be 
executed,  which  is  properly  called  the  subject,  as  to  which  many  questions 
arise. 


Whether  reprisals,  declared  by  one  state  against  the  men  of  another,  may  be 
executed  against  residents  of  that  state  ? 

And  the  first  question  is  whether,  if  the  state  of  Milan  has  declared  re- 
prisals against  the  Bolognese,  or  the  men  of  Bologna,  the  reprisals  may  be 
executed  against  residents  in  the  state  of  Bologna.  Solution  :  The  words 
"  Bolognese  "  and  "  men  of  Bologna  "  have  the  same  meaning  ;  ff.  De  excus. 
tut.,  1.  sed  reprobari,  §  amplius,  and  the  gloss  there.  But  the  word  "  Bolognese  " 
means  the  burgesses  ;  ff.  Ad  municipalem,  1.  i;  and  the  word  "  burgess  "  is 
the  genus  of  "  citizen  "  and  "  resident,"  as  is  noted  in  C.  De  incolis,  1.  cives. 
This  is  supported  by  the  text  of  ff.  Ad  municipalem,  Lfilii,  §  municeps.  There- 
fore, arguing  from  the  first  to  the  last,  it  follows  from  the  nature  of  the  words, 
that  reprisals  may  be  executed  against  the  residents.  And  this  is  true,  when 
residents  bear  the  burdens  of  the  state  ;  Ad  municipalem,  1.  i.  Otherwise,  if 
they  do  not. 


The  same  subject  continued  ;  whether,  if  one  state  has  declared  reprisals 

against  the  men  of  another  state,  they  can  be  executed  against  men 

of  that  state  living  elsewhere  ? 

[Ch.  cxxxiv.] 

The  second  question,  which  continues  the  same  subject,  is  whether,  if, 
for  instance,  the  state  of  Milan  has  declared  reprisals  against  the  men  of 
Bologna  or  against  the  Bolognese,  they  can  be  executed  against  Bolognese 
living  elsewhere.  Some  authorities  say  they  can,  because  the  place  of  origin 


EXECUTION  OF  REPRISALS  317 

is  not  changed  ;  ff.  Ad  municipalem,  1.  assumptio.  Others  make  a  distinction 
according  to  whether  the  reprisals  are  declared  against  the  men  of  a  province  ; 
and  then,  they  say,  they  cannot  be  executed  against  those  who  live  elsewhere, 
because  they  are  not  considered  to  belong  to  the  province  ;  ff.  De  verbor. 
signific.,  1.  provinciates  ;  or  against  the  men  of  a  single  state  ;  and  then  the 
first  view  prevails.  A  third  party  make  a  distinction  according  to  whether  the 
persons  are  living  elsewhere,  but  within  the  same  province  ;  and  then,  they  say, 
the  reprisals  may  be  executed  against  them  ;  or  in  another  province  ;  and  then 
they  may  not.  They  rely  on  the  reasons  noted  in  the  gloss  on  C.  De  adoptioni- 
bus,  1.  in  adoptionem.  A  fourth  party  say  that  according  to  the  proper  meaning 
of  the  word,  those  who  live  elsewhere  are  regarded  as  Bolognese  ;  but  according 
to  the  common  use  of  speaking,  they  are  not,  and  the  common  use  prevails  ; 
ff.  De  legat.,  iii,  1.  librorum,  §  quod  tamen  Cassius  ;  and  so  reprisals  cannot  be 
executed  against  them.  Others  say  they  can  be  executed  against  Bolognese 
who  live  elsewhere,  but  who  are  subject  to  the  burdens  of  Bologna.  But  if 
they  are  not  subject,  then  otherwise  ;  ff.  Ad  municipalem,  1.  i ;  ff.  De  excusat. 
tut.,  1.  si  duas,  §  sed  et  reprobari,  §  amplius  ;  and  C.  De  agric.  et  censitis,  1.  cum 
scimus,  at  the  end. 

Whether  reprisals  can  be  executed  against  the  citizens  or  residents  of  a  state,  who 
are  subject  to  its  burdens,  but  are  also  citizens  of  another  state  ? 

[Ch.  cxxxv.] 

The  third  question  is,  whether  reprisals  can  be  executed  against  citizens 
or  residents  of  Bologna,  who  are  subject  to  the  burdens  of  Bologna,  but  who 
are  also  citizens  of  Milan.  It  seems  that  they  ran  be  executed  against  them. 
For  if  a  state  can  declare  reprisals  against  one  who  is  not  its  subject,  much  more 
may  it  declare  them  against  a  subject.  This  is  confirmed.  For  an  owner 
may  claim  that  a  usufructuary  should  forfeit  his  right  of  use  on  account  of 
his  misconduct,  and  conversely  ;  ff.  De  damno  infecto,  1.  si  proprietarius,  and 
1.  hoc  amplius,  §  si  cum,  and  the  following  section.  Similarly  then  here,  where 
two  states  claim  jurisdiction  over  the  same  citizen.  Some  hold  the  contrary 
opinion  without  qualification.  Their  reason  is,  that  this  right  takes  the  place 
of  defective  jurisdiction.  But  a  state  can  well  exercise  jurisdiction  over  its  own 
citizen  ;  therefore  he  will  not  be  subjected  to  reprisals  ;  ff.  Si  quis  test.  lib. 
esse  iussus,  1.  i,  §  utique^.  Moreover,  a  state  is  bound  to  defend  its  own 
citizen  ;  therefore  reprisals,  if  declared,  will  not  constrain  him  ;  ff.  De  evictioni- 
bus,  1.  vindicantem.  Moreover,  if  a  Milanese  were  to  be  constrained,  then  the 
state  making  the  grant  of  reprisals  would  appear  to  be  acting  against  itself, 
contrary  to  ff .  De  iur.  fisci,  1.  in  fraudem,  §  neque.  This  conclusion  I  cannot 
accept  without  qualification.  Nay,  if  a  state  cannot  in  fact  constrain  its  own 
citizen,  who  is  also  a  citizen  of  the  state  against  which  reprisals  are  declared, 
they  will  most  properly  be  executed  against  him  ;  for  they  are  declared  because 
of  a  failure  of  jurisdiction,  as  has  often  been  said  above.  But  as  a  matter  of  law, 


3i8  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

jurisdiction  ought  not  to  fail,  since  in  law  all  are  subject  to  the  emperor ;  ff. 
Ad  leg.  Rhod.  de  iact.,  1.  deprecatio  ;  ix,  q.  iii,  ch.  cuncta  per  mundum,  and  ch. 
per  principalem.  But  in  fact  it  fails,  because  in  fact  men  do  not  recognize  him. 
Therefore,  just  as  in  fact  jurisdiction  may  fail  when  a  non-subject  does  a  wrong, 
so,  too,  one  who  in  law  is  a  subject  may  resist  in  fact,  and  so  resort  may  be  had 
to  the  extraordinary  remedy.  I  admit,  however,  that  they  will  not  constrain 
a  subject  until  he  has  been  specially  proceeded  against  by  due  process  of  law, 
and  the  process  is  ineffective  because  of  his  actual  rebellion. 


Whether  reprisals  can  be  executed  against  [soldiers]  women  ? 

[Ch.  c«xvi.] 

The  fourth  question  is,  whether  they  can  be  executed  against  the  [soldiers] 
women  of  Bologna  ?  It  appears  that  they  can,  for  the  doctrine  of  postliminium 
applies  to  them  ;  C.  De  [captivis]  postliminio  reversis,  1.  i.  The  contrary 
is  true,  for  they  cannot  be  seized  in  person  ;  C.  De  offic.  eius  qui  vicem  alic. 
iud.  obtinet,  Authent.,  sed  hodie  ;  and  C.  De  execut.  rei  iudicatae,  Authent., 
sed  novo  iure.  And  that  power,  allowed  by  the  law  of  nations,  ought  to  be 
understood  according  to  the  civil  law  ;  ff.  De  servit.,  1.  si  cui. 


Whether  reprisals  can  be  executed  against  ckrks  and  others,  even 

married  clerks  ? 

[Ch.  cxxxvii.] 

The  fifth  question  is,  whether  they  can  be  executed  against  Bolognese 
clerks  ?  The  text  says  not,  in  Sext,  De  iniur.,  the  single  chapter.  What 
about  married  clerks  ?  As  to  them  we  must  follow  Sext,  De  iniur.,  the  single 
chapter. 

Whether,  when  a  bishop  neglects  to  do  justice  on  his  clerks,  and  recourse  cannot 

be  had  to  his  superior,  because  the  bishop  is  schismatic,  reprisals  can  be 

declared  against  the  same  clerks  by  a  secular  judge  ? 

The  sixth  question  is  whether,  if  a  bishop  neglects  to  do  justice  on  his 
clerks,  and  recourse  cannot  be  had  to  his  superior,  because  the  bishop  is  schis- 
matic, reprisals  can  be  declared  against  the  clerks  by  a  secular  judge.  Some 
authorities  are  doubtful  on  this  point.  We  need  have  no  doubt,  because  the 
laity  have  been  granted  no  power  over  a  clerk,  however  delinquent ;  De  sent, 
excom.,  ch.  contingit,  and  ch.  in  audientia  ;  and  Sext,  the  same  title,  ch.  si 
iudex  laicus.  They  may  therefore  be  coerced  by  their  superior,  and  recourse 
may  be  had  to  a  secular  judge  by  way  of  invocation  ;  De  offic.  iud.  ord.,  ch.  i ; 
xxiii,  q.  v,  regum,  and  ch.  administrator es,  and  ch.  principes. 


EXECUTION  OF  REPRISALS  319 

Whether  reprisals  can  be  executed  against  Bolognese  students,  or  other 
students  of  Bologna,  on  their  way  to  Padua  for  study  •> 

[Ch.  cxxxviii.] 

The  seventh  question  is,  whether  they  may  be  executed  against  Bolognese 
going  to  Padua  for  study,  or  even  against  students  of  Bologna.  The  text 
says  not,  in  Authent.,  Ne  fil.  pro  patre,  ch.  habiia;  and  this  applies  if  they 
study  law  in  privileged  places,  by  the  privilege  of  the  university,  but  not  if 
they  study  law  in  other  places  ;  ff.  In  procemio,  §  hcec  autem  tria.  But  in  other 
faculties  the  instruction  may  be  given  anywhere  ;  ff.  De  excusationibus,  1.  si 
duas,  §  cum  autem.  And  what  has  been  said  of  students,  applies  also  to  writers, 
and  bedels,  and  others  who  go  for  the  sake  of  the  students.  This  is  proved  by 
ff.  De  milit.  testam.  militis,  1.  i ;  and  De  bon.  poss.  ex  testam.  militis,  the  single 
law.  It  also  applies  to  a  father  and  other  relatives  going  to  see  a  son  and  rela- 
tive in  the  university  ;  ff.  De  iudiciis,  1.  ii,  §  item,  in  the  gloss  on  the  word 
"  venerit." 

Whether  reprisals  can  be  declared  against  ambassadors  ? 

[Ch.  cxxxix.] 

The  eighth  question  is,  whether  they  may  be  executed  against  Bolognese 
ambassadors.  Solution  :  They  may  not  ;  De  legation.,  the  last  law  ;  ff.  De 
iudic.,  1.  ii,  §  legatis;  and  note  C.  De  iurisd.  omn.  iud.  et  de  foro  competent!, 
the  last  chapter. 

Whether  reprisals  can  be  executed  against  those  who  are  going  to  a  festival,  to 
the  Church  of  St.  James,  or  to  other  place  of  indulgence ;  also  whether  they 
can  be  executed  against  those  at  sea,  and  against  those  who  cannot  be  summoned 
into  court,  and  in  many  other  cases  ? 

[Ch.  cxJ.] 

The  ninth  question  is,  whether  they  may  be  executed  against  Bolognese 
on  their  way  to  a  festival.  The  text  in  C.  De  nundinis,  the  single  law,  says 
not.  Can  they  be  executed  against  Bolognese  on  their  way  to  St.  James'  or 
on  another  pilgrimage  ?  I  answer,  no  ;  De  cleri.  peregri.,  throughout  ;  xxiii, 
q.  iii,  si  quis  Romipetas  ;  C.  Communia  de  success.,  Authent.,  omnes  ;  there 
fully.  The  rule  is  the  same  for  those  going  to  a  place  of  indulgence,  because  of 
the  hospitality  and  the  like  which  should  be  shown  to  persons  going  for  an 
indulgence.  Can  they  be  executed  against  persons  sailing  to  Bologna,  who  are 
carried  by  the  wind  to  the  state  declaring  them  ?  I  answer,  no  ;  Authent., 
navigia,  C.  De  furtis.  To  the  same  effect,  C.  book  xi,  De  naufragiis,  1.  i.  Or 
can  they  be  executed  against  those  who  cannot  be  summoned  into  court,  who 
are  enumerated  in  ff.  De  in  ius  vocando,  1.  ii  ?  I  answer,  no.  The  reason  is, 
that  if  they  should  be  condemned,  they  could  not  be  seized  ;  much  less  could 


320  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

this  be  done  for  the  wrong  or  debt  of  another.  From  which  it  follows  that  if 
a  Bolognese  were  appointed  to  an  office  at  Milan,  he  could  not  be  detained 
there  on  the  strength  of  reprisals.  So,  too,  if  a  Bolognese  were  to  go  to  the  city 
of  Milan  for  the  funeral  of  a  relative.  So,  too,  in  similar  cases  which  are 
enumerated  in  ff.  De  in  ius  vocando,  1.  ii,  already  quoted. 


Whether  reprisals  can  be  granted  against  a  Bolognese  magistrate  of  Milan, 

who  does  injustice  there  ? 

[Ch.  cxli.] 

The  tenth  question  is,  whether  reprisals  may  be  granted  against  a  Bolognese 
magistrate  of  Milan,  who  does  injustice  there.  Jacobus  de  Belvisio,  on  Authent., 
Vt  non  fiant  pignor.,  holds  that  they  may,  on  the  authority  of  ff.  Quod  quisque 
Juris,  1.  i.  Others  draw  a  distinction.  The  injustice  done  may  be  one  for  which 
he  cannot  be  sued  during  his  office,  or  he  may  be  a  magistrate  who  cannot  be 
sued  ;  ff.  De  iudic.,  1.  pars  liter  arum;  ff.  De  iniuriis,  1.  nee  magistrates  ;  and 
then  they  cannot  be  declared.  But  when  his  office  is  finished,  they  can  be 
declared,  if  leave  has  first  been  asked  of  the  syndic  ;  nor  ought  resort  to  be  had 
to  a  judge  of  his  own  state,  because  he  ought  not  to  be  sued  there  for  an  act  of 
this  kind  ;  C.  Vbi  de  ratiociniis  agi  oportet,  1.  i,  and  1.  ii ;  and  C.  Vt  omnes  tam 
civil,  quam  militares,  1.  i ;  and  in  Authent.,  Vt  iudi.  sine  quoque  suff.,  §  neccs- 
sitatem.  But  if  he  is  a  person  who  can  be  sued,  then  reprisals  may  be  declared. 
I  do  not  accept  the  second  part  of  this  solution,  for  reprisals  are  declared  to 
supply  a  failure  of  jurisdiction.  If,  therefore,  he  can  be  sued  during  his  office, 
and  in  the  place  of  the  offence  ;  C.  Vbi  de  ratiociniis,  1.  ii ;  and  Vt  omnes  tam 
civil,  quam  militares,  1.  i  ;  why  are  reprisals  necessary  ?  Nor  do  I  accept  the 
first  part,  where  it  says  that  reprisals  may  be  declared  when  the  office  is  finished; 
for  when  the  office  is  finished,  he  may  be  sued,  and  the  form  of  law  observed. 
Hence  this  remedy  is  not  necessary.  I  admit,  however,  that  in  either  case, 
where  there  is  no  legal  means  of  coercing  him,  recourse  might  be  had  to  reprisals; 
and  then  it  would  not  be  necessary  to  resort  to  a  judge  of  his  own  city,  because 
such  a  judge  has  no  jurisdiction  in  the  case  by  the  laws  above  cited. 


Whether  reprisals  can  be  declared  against  the  officials  of  a  magistrate  or 

ruler  who  does  injustice? 

[Ch.  cxlii.] 

The  eleventh  question  is,  whether  reprisals  may  be  declared  against  the 
officials  of  a  magistrate  or  ruler  who  does  injustice.  Jacobus  de  Belvisio  holds 
that  they  may.  Others  say  that  this  is  true  where  the  officials  have  expressly 
taken  an  oath  to  the  ruler  to  commit  the  act  of  injustice  ;  C.  De  advoc.  diver, 
iud.,  1.  per  hanc  ;  C.  book  x,  De  excus.  milit.,  the  penultimate  law<?>.  But  if 


EXECUTION  OF  REPRISALS  321 

the  officials  have  expressly  opposed  it,  reprisals  cannot  be  declared  against 
them  ;  De  appellationibus,  1.  quoniam.  But  if  they  neither  consent  nor  oppose, 
because  of  absence  or  ignorance,  then,  too,  reprisals  cannot  be  declared  ;  ff.  De 
magistr.  conveniendis,  1.  i,  at  the  beginning.  But  if  they  are  present,  and 
neither  consent  nor  oppose,  then,  if  they  are  officials  appointed  to  a  mere 
office,  who  are  not  called  to  the  counsels  of  the  ruler — such  as  notaries,  and 
associates,  and  accountants — then,  too,  reprisals  may  not  be  declared  against 
them  ;  ff.  De  magistr.  conveniendis,  1.  i.  And  the  reason  is  because  they 
cannot  oppose  ;  C.  Vt  omnes  tarn  civil,  quam  militares,  1.  i,  §  officium.  But  if 
they  are  officials  admitted  to  counsel,  reprisals  may  be  declared  against  them. 


Whether  reprisals  can  be  declared  against  the  consuls  and  the  leaders  of  a 
state,  who  refuse  to  do  justice  ? 

[Ch.  cxliii.] 

The  twelfth  question  is,  whether  they  can  be  declared  against  the  leaders 
and  consuls  of  a  state,  who  refuse  to  do  justice.  Jacobus  de  Belvisio  says  that 
they  may.  Others  say  that  this  is  true  only  when  such  persons  are  present, 
but  not  if  they  are  absent,  because  reprisals  cannot  be  declared  against  them 
in  their  capacity  of  consuls  ;  ff .  De  magistr.  conveniendis,  1.  i,  at  the  beginning. 


Whether  reprisals  can  be  declared  against  private  persons,  who  are  absolutely 

innocent,  because  of  an  offence  of  their  lord,  or  of  another  private 

person,  for  which  justice  is  not  done  ? 

[Ch.  cxliv.] 

The  thirteenth  question  is,  whether  they  can  be  declared  against  private 
persons,  who  are  absolutely  innocent,  because  of  an  offence  of  their  lord,  or  of 
another  private  person,  for  which  justice  is  not  done.  Jacobus  de  Belvisio 
says  not,  because  a  man  ought  not  to  be  punished  for  another's  offence  ;  Sext, 
De  reg.  iuris,  rule  non  debet.  Others  take  the  opposite  view,  on  the  authority 
of  xxiii,  q.  ii,  ch.  dominus.  For  individuals,  even  though  innocent,  are  punished 
by  a  sentence  of  interdict ;  Sext,  De  sent,  excom.,  ch.  si  scntentia.  Also,  in 
a  lawful  war  innocent  persons  are  made  prisoners,  but  reprisals  are  a  kind  of 
particular  war ;  also,  although  a  prisoner  may  be  innocent,  yet  the  state 
has  jurisdiction  over  him  ;  and  this  seems  to  be  the  rule. 


Whether  reprisals  can  be  declared  against  persons  who  are  partially,  but 
not  fully,  subject  to  a  state  ? 

[Ch.  cxlv.] 

The  fourteenth  question  is,  whether  reprisals  can  be  declared  against 
persons  partially,  but  not  fully,  subject  to  the  state  of  Bologna.     Solution  : 


322  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

If  the  states  or  communities  are  merely  dependent  on  the  state  of  Bologna,  but 
have  certain  exceptions  or  jurisdictions  by  agreement,  reprisals  cannot  be 
declared  against  them,  because  states  which  are  free,  and  have  merely  sub- 
mitted themselves  in  certain  respects,  are  not  subject.  And  reprisals  will  not 
be  declared  against  them  because  of  the  offence  of  the  lord  who  has  them  in 
subjection,  because  they  are  free  ;  ff .  De  captivis,  1.  non  dubito  ;  but  reprisals 
can  be  declared  for  an  offence  by  these  states,  just  as  war,  too,  may  lawfully 
be  made  against  them. 

Whether  reprisals  can  be  declared  against  a  certain  class  of  persons, 
who  refuse  to  do  justice  ? 

[Ch.  cxlvi.] 

The  fifteenth  question  is,  whether  reprisals  can  be  declared  against  a 
certain  class  of  persons,  who  refuse  to  do  justice.  And  we  must  say  that  they 
can,  if  the  due  form  is  observed. 


Oftlie  "  matter  from  which." 

[Ch.  cxlvii.] 

It  remains  to  consider  the  material  cause  from  which  reprisals  arise.  And 
it  is  a  failure  of  jurisdiction.  For  in  the  first  instance  a  judge  ought  to  be 
applied  to  ;  and  if  he  neglects  to  deal  with  the  matter,  and  recourse  cannot  be 
had  to  a  superior,  then  reprisals  may  be  granted.  But  as  to  this  many  questions 
may  be  asked. 

Whether  a  judge  ought  to  be  required  to  do  justice,  before  reprisals 

are  granted? 

[Ch.  cxlviii.] 

And  the  first  question  is.  Who  ought  to  require  a  judge  to  do  justice  ? 
Solution  :  The  party  who  has  suffered  the  injury ;  and  if  the  judge  neglects 
to  give  redress,  he  ought  to  apply  to  the  ruler  of  his  own  state,  and  make  oath 
of  his  requisition  and  the  judge's  neglect,  and  ask  the  ruler  again  to  require 
the  judge  to  do  justice  ;  and  then,  if  he  neglects,  reprisals  may  be  declared. 
But  that  a  requisition  from  the  party  is  required,  appears  in  Authent.,  coll.  iii, 
Vt  differ,  iudices,  at  the  beginning. 


Whether,  when  a  man  who  has  suffered  an  injury  dares  not  litigate  in  the  state 

of  the  person  inflicting  the  injury,  his  own  judge  may  write,  asking  to  have 

the  jurisdiction  transferred  to  others,  or  arbitrators  chosen  ? 

[Ch.  cxlix.] 

The  second  question  is  whether,  if  a  party  should  hesitate  to  litigate  in 
the  state  of  the  person  inflicting  the  injury,  because  of  that  person's  influence, 


MATERIAL  CAUSE  OF  REPRISALS  323 

his  own  judge  may  write,  asking  to  have  the  jurisdiction  transferred  to  others, 
or  arbitrators  chosen  by  the  civil  law  applying  to  certain  persons  in  misfortune. 
It  is  clear  that  he  may  ;  C.  Quando  Imperator  inter  pup.  vel  viduas,  1.  i,  at  the 
end.  By  canon  law  to-day  a  wider  permission  is  given  by  Sext,  De  rescriptis, 
ch.  statutum,  §  cum  vero,  as  regards  the  article  of  request. 


What  judge  ought  to  be  required  to  do  justice  ? 
[Ch.  cl.] 

The  third  question  is,  What  judge  ought  to  be  required  to  do  justice  ? 
Solution  :  In  the  first  place,  a  judge  of  the  state  of  the  wrong-doer  ought  to 
be  required  ;  and  then,  if  he  neglects  to  do  justice,  the  injured  party  will  apply 
to  the  next  superior  ;  and  if  he  fails,  he  will  apply  to  the  prince  ;  in  Authent., 
Vt  differ,  iudic.,  at  the  beginning.  If  all  these  fail,  reprisals  will  be  declared  by 
his  own  state,  which  succeeds  to  the  place  of  the  jurisdiction  which  has  failed. 
But  if  the  judge  does  not  neglect  to  do  justice,  but  does  injustice  by  pronounc- 
ing an  unjust  judgement,  then,  if  the  state  has  a  judge  of  appeal  appointed 
over  him,  he  will  be  applied  to  by  way  of  appeal ;  and  if  it  has  not,  reprisals 
will  be  declared.  For  some  blame  must  be  imputed  to  a  state  which  has  not 
appointed  a  judge  of  appeal.  But  if  two  judges  of  appeals  do  injustice,  then 
it  seems  that  the  party  is  without  any  remedy,  since  no  third  appeal  is  allowed  ; 
nor  does  it  appear  that  reprisals  may  be  declared,  since  there  has  been  no 
failure  of  jurisdiction.  But  it  may  be  said  that  if  they  pronounced  unjust 
judgements  from  favour  to  the  other  party,  then  "  restitutio  in  integrum  "  may 
be  claimed ;  ff.  De  minoribus,  1.  prcefectiprcetorio.  But  if  the  reason  was  favour 
to  the  rulers,  then  they  would  be  liable  to  the  party  for  the  loss  caused  him ;  C. 
Ne  liceat  potent.,  1.  i ;  and  De  his  qui  potent.,  1.  i  ;  and  accordingly  they  are 
liable  for  the  loss  in  an  "actio  in  factum";  ff.  Pro  socio,  1.  nee  quidquam.  But 
if  the  unjust  judgement  arose  from  the  judge's  sole  motion,  then  the  party 
is  without  any  remedy,  as  I  showed  above. 


What  degree  of  injustice  is  required  before  reprisals  will  be  granted  ? 

[Ch.  cli.] 

The  fourth  question  is,  What  degree  of  injustice  is  required  before  reprisals 
will  be  declared  ?  Solution  :  They  are  not  declared  for  a  slight  cause,  since 
this  is  an  extraordinary  remedy,  which  is  not  given  for  slight  cause  ;  ff.  De  in 
integr.  restit.,  1.  scio  ;  and  ff.  De  dolo,  1.  si  oleum.  Also,  a  complete  failure  of 
justice  is  required.  Otherwise,  if  the  failure  is  partial  only  ;  C.  De  preci. 
Imperat.  offerendis,  1.  quotiens.  For  reprisals  do  not  completely  do  justice  ;  C. 
De  servis  fugit.,  1.  mancipia  ;  and  ff.  De  damn,  infecto,  1.  iv,  §  in  eum. 

[33] 


324  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

When  is  it  to  be  said  that  resort  to  a  superior  is  impossible,  so  that  an 
occasion  arises  for  reprisals  ? 

[Ch.  dii.] 

The  fifth  question  is,  When  is  it  to  be  said  that  resort  to  a  superior  is 
impossible,  so  that  an  occasion  arises  for  a  declaration  of  reprisals  ?  Solution  : 
When  it  is  impossible  both  in  law  and  in  fact,  then  reprisals  are  necessary ; 
xxiii,  q.  ii,  ch.  dominus  ;  and  C.  De  ludaeis,  1.  nullus.  But  if  it  is  possible  in 
law,  but  not  in  fact,  because  they  do  not  obey,  then  the  answer  is  the  same. 
But  if  it  is  possible  in  fact,  but  not  in  law — as,  for  instance,  because  a  tyrant 
has  seized  the  government — then  follow  the  note  of  Innocent  on  De  electione, 
ch.  nihil.  But  if  it  is  possible  in  law,  but  difficult  in  fact — for  instance,  when 
the  Emperor  is  far  away,  and  the  party  is  very  poor — then,  too,  occasion 
arises  for  reprisals ;  ff.  De  pig.  act.,  1.  si  servos  ;  ff.  De  divers,  [et]  temp, 
praescriptionibus. 

Of  the  formal  cause. 

[Ch.  cliii.] 

It  remains  to  consider  the  formal  cause  ;  and  this  is  twofold  :  for  there 
is  the  form  of  declaring,  and  the  form  of  executing,  the  reprisals.  But  the  form 
of  declaring  them  involves  the  form  of  defence  of  the  party  against  whom  they 
are  declared  ;  and  on  this,  too,  many  questions  arise. 


By  what  law  reprisals  are  granted  ? 

And  the  first  question  is,  by  what  law  they  are  granted.  Here  some  say 
that  they  are  granted  by  those  who  do  not  recognize  a  superior.  They  should 
not  be  claimed  from  such  persons  by  right  of  action,  nor  through  an  office  ; 
but  the  royal  power,  whereby  all  things  were  disposed,  should  be  invoked  ; 
ff.  De  orig.  iuris,  1.  ii.  For  all  that  is  required  is  that  which  the  law  of  nations 
required,  namely,  that  the  cause  for  which  they  are  granted  should  be  true, 
without  prejudice,  however,  to  the  defences  of  the  person  against  whom  they 
are  granted,  since  this  belongs  to  natural  law ;  Clem.,  De  re  iudicata,  pastoralis, 
§  ceterunt ;  and  it  is  enough  for  one  who  has  obtained  reprisals  to  show  the 
grant,  without  other  process  of  law.  And  there  is  a  presumption  that  every- 
thing has  been  duly  done,  for  it  is  like  sacrilege  to  dispute  a  judgement  of  the 
prince  ;  C.  De  crimine  sacrilegii,  1.  disputare.  And  this  is  true  in  the  territory 
of  the  authority  granting  the  reprisals,  though  the  nation  against  whom  they 
are  granted  might  retaliate  ;  ff .  Quod  quisque  iuris.  And  finally,  any  agreement 
on  the  subject  ought  to  be  recognized  ;  for  example,  to  submit  to  an  arbitrator 
or  other  person  ;  and  the  burden  of  proving  that  all  things  required  by  the 
law  of  nations  have  been  duly  observed  would  rest  upon  the  person  to  whom 


FORMAL  CAUSE  OF  REPRISALS  325 

the  reprisals  are  granted.  Hence  it  is  safer  to  have  a  legal  process,  and  to  reduce 
it  to  writing.  This  is  the  view  of  the  Archdeacon  in  Sext,  De  iniuriis,  the  single 
chapter.  For  he  holds  that  monition  and  sentence  after  the  refusal  ought  to 
precede  ;  and  Guido,  Bishop  of  Concordia,  agrees.  But  if  reprisals  are  claimed 
by  persons  to  whom  the  right  has  been  granted  by  statutes,  then,  if  the  statute 
prescribes  an  order,  that  order  ought  to  be  observed.  But  if  it  prescribes  no 
order,  then,  inasmuch  as  the  power  of  granting  reprisals  proceeds  from  civil 
law,  since  statutes  are  civil  law  ;  ff.  De  iustit.  et  hire,  1.  omnes  populi  ;  then 
the  office  of  an  official  ought  to  be  invoked,  a  statement  of  claim  delivered, 
the  party  cited,  and  proceedings  taken  as  the  laws  ordain. 


Who  may  appear  to  oppose  the  declaration  of  reprisals  ? 

[Ch.  cliv.] 

The  second  question  is,  Who  may  appear  to  oppose  the  declaration  ? 
Solution  :  Any  one  who  has  an  interest  ;  De  testib.,  ch.  veniens  ;  De  re  iudi., 
ch.  cum  super.  But  the  people  against  whom  they  are  declared  have  an  interest, 
so  that  any  person  instructed  on  their  behalf  should  be  heard  ;  and  any  member 
of  the  people  should  be  heard,  even  without  instructions,  because  all  have  an 
interest ;  ff.  De  novi  oper.  nunt.,  1.  in  provinciali,  the  last  section.  Also  members 
of  the  people  of  the  state  declaring  reprisals  should  be  heard,  because  they  are 
interested  in  preventing  an  unjust  declaration,  for  fear  of  retaliation  ;  ff.  Quod 
quisque  iuris,  in-the  red,  and  the  black  throughout. 


What  defences  are  allowed  to  one  against  whom  they  are  declared  ? 

[Ch.  civ.] 

The  third  question  is,  What  defences  are  allowed  to  one  against  whom 
reprisals  are  claimed  ?  Solution  :  He  may  plead  as  an  "  exceptio,"  that 
the  claimant  has  not  the  right  to  claim,  either  by  reason  of  some  personal 
incapacity,  or  of  incompetency  of  the  jurisdiction,  or  because  he  is  ready  to 
make  amends  ;  xxiii,  q.  ii,  ch.  Dominus  Nosier.  Can  this  right  be  renounced 
by  agreement  ?  For  example,  suppose  a  ruler  of  the  state  of  Bologna  is 
elected,  who  swears  not  to  claim  reprisals  against  a  state,  will  this  renuncia- 
tion be  available  by  way  of  "  exceptio  "  ?  Solution  :  If  the  claimant  has 
suffered  an  injury  by  reason  of  an  unjust  condemnation,  then  he  must  resort 
to  his  own  judge,  by  way  of  appeal,  to  supply  the  failure  of  jurisdiction  ; 
but  an  appeal  may  be  renounced  in  this  way  ;  C.  De  temp,  appellationum, 
the  last  law.  But  if  he  has  suffered  an  injury,  then  the  agreement  has  no 
effect,  because  a  wilful  wrong  would  thereby  be  remitted  by  anticipation  ; 
ff.  De  pactis,  1.  si  unus,  §  illud  ;  ff.  De  pact,  dotalibus,  1.  convenire. 


326  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

How  the  commission  of  injustice,  or  the  denial  of  justice,  is  to  be  proved. 

[Ch.  dvi.] 

The  fourth  question  is,  how  the  commission  of  injustice,  or  the  denial 
of  justice,  is  to  be  proved.  Solution  :  By  the  records  of  the  first  judge,  or 
by  witnesses  ;  and  the  first  judge  may  be  required  to  produce  his  records,  and 
if  he  does  not  do  so,  that  is  an  act  of  injustice  ;  C.  Vt  lite  pendente,  1.  ii. 


Whether,  if  property  is  seized  on  the  strength  of  reprisals,  it  may  be  detained, 

by  virtue  either  of  the  first  decree,  or  of  the  second  ? 

[Ch.  clvii.] 

The  fifth  question  is,  whether,  if  property  is  seized  on  the  strength  of 
reprisals,  it  may  be  detained,  by  virtue  of  the  first  decree,  or  of  the  second. 
Solution  :  If,  on  the  declaration  of  reprisals,  the  party  was  cited  and  ap- 
peared, and  judgement  was  given  on  the  matter,  then  it  is  detained  by  virtue 
of  the  judgement ;  ff.  De  re  iudic.,  1.  a  divo  Pio.  But  if  he  does  not  appear, 
then,  in  the  first  place,  licence  to  seize  will  be  given  by  the  first  decree,  in 
order  that  the  annoyance  may  induce  the  party  to  appear  ;  and  if  he  remains 
contumacious,  then  licence  to  detain  will  be  given  by  the  second  decree. 


Of  the  form  of  executing  reprisals. 

[Ch.  clviii.] 

It  remains  to  consider  the  form  of  executing  reprisals  declared,  and 
on  this  many  questions  arise. 


Whether  one  to  whom  reprisals  are  granted  may,  on  his  own  authority,  or 

by  the  servants  of  the  magistrate  granting  them,  seize  persons 

against  whom  they  are  declared  ? 

And  the  first  question  is,  whether  one  to  whom  reprisals  are  granted 
may,  on  his  own  authority,  or  by  servants,  seize  persons  against  whom  they 
are  declared.  Solution :  Jacobus  de  Belvisio  holds  that  he  may  not  seize 
persons  or  property  on  his  own  authority,  but  only  by  judicial  authority ; 
ff.  De  re  iudicata,  1.  miles.  Others  add  that  this  is  true  only  if  recourse  can 
be  had  to  a  judge  ;  otherwise  he  may  act  on  his  own  authority ;  ff.  Quae  in 
fraud,  cred.,  1.  ait  prestor,  §  si  debitor  em ;  C.  De  decur.,  1.  generali.  And 
I  think  this  true.  Yet  the  conditions  of  the  grant  should  be  weighed  and 
observed  ;  De  rescriptis,  cum  dilecta  ;  and  ff.  Mandati,  1.  diligen/er. 


FORMAL  CAUSE  OF  REPRISALS  327 

Whether  one  who  seizes  persons  and  property  is  bound  to  present  them  to 
the  judge,  or  may  retain  them  for  himself? 

[Ch.  clix.] 

The  second  question  is,  whether  one  who  seizes  persons  and  property 
is  bound  to  present  them  to  the  judge,  or  may  retain  them  for  himself.  Solu- 
tion :  Jacobus  de  Belvisio  holds  that  he  is  bound  to  present  them  to  the 
judge  ;  ff.  De  regul.  iuris,  1.  non  est  singulis  ;  the  object  being  to  prevent 
illegal  exactions  ;  ff.  De  offic.  prsesidis,  1.  illicitas.  Others  say  that  this  applies 
to  persons  captured,  who  ought  to  be  brought  before  the  judge  ;  C.  De  decur., 
1.  generali ;  and  coll.  x(?),  De  pace  iuramento  firmata.  But  property  will 
be  seized  by  reason  of  the  judgement,  on  the  strength  either  ef  the  first 
or  of  the  second  decree,  as  was  explained  above,  and  will  remain  with  the 
captor  ;  ff.  Vt  in  poss.  legatorum,  1.  is  cuius,  §  qui  legatorum.  And  for  this 
there  is  no  more  need  to  go  before  a  judge,  for  the  first  grant  suffices.  In  all 
these  matters  I  think  the  form  of  the  grant  should  be  weighed. 


Whether  property  seized  on  the  strength  of  reprisals  should  be  sold,  and 
how,  or  whether  it  should  be  accepted  in  payment,  or  be  valued  ? 

[Ch.  clx.] 

The  third  question  is,  whether  and  how  property  seized  on  the  strength 
of  reprisals  should  be  sold,  or  whether  it  should  be  accepted  in  payment,  or 
be  valued.  Solution  :  Some  authorities  say  it  is  sold  by  the  authority  of 
a  judge  ;  ff.  De  re  iudicata,  1.  miles,  §  ii.  A  valuation  will  be  made  by  the 
judge  on  request ;  C.  De  iure  dot.,  1.  ii ;  and  in  arriving  at  the  amount  an 
allowance  will  be  made  for  expenses  ;  ff.  Ad.  leg.  Falc.  1.  in  quantitate  ;  and 
C.  De  iure  deliberandi,  1.  scimus,  §  in  computatione.  And  in  these  matters, 
too,  I  think  that  the  form  of  the  grant  should  be  observed,  as  above. 


Whether  a  declaration  of  reprisals  can  be  executed  on  holidays  ? 

[Ch.  clxi.] 

The  fourth  question  is,  whether  a  declaration  of  reprisals  can  be  exe- 
cuted on  holidays.  Solution  :  They  can  be  executed  on  days  which  are  holidays 
because  of  human  needs,  just  as  judgements  can  ;  C.  De  iudiciis,  the  last  law. 
But  if  the  days  are  holy  out  of  reverence  to  God,  then  some  authorities  say 
that  this  may  be  done  to  prevent  the  loss  of  the  whole  grant,  for  instance, 
if  the  persons  against  whom  they  are  granted  are  ....  and  only  come  on  holidays. 
They  quote  ff.  De  fen,  1.  i,  and  1.  ii ;  and  C.  the  same  title,  1.  ii.  Otherwise  not ; 
C.  De  feriis,  1.  dies.  I  cannot  accept  the  second  part  of  this  conclusion.  For 
things  seized  on  the  occasion  of  reprisals  are  seized  by  virtue  either  of  the  first 


328  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

or  of  the  second  decree,  or  on  the  strength  of  the  judgement,  as  was  shown 
above.  And  all  these  are  forbidden  during  such  holidays ;  1.  dies,  already 
quoted.  Also  the  law  specially  lays  down  that  on  holidays  held  for  human 
needs,  proceedings  may  be  taken  in  those  cases ;  ff.  De  feriis,  1.  i,  and  1.  ii. 
But  on  days  which  are  holy  out  of  reverence  to  God,  no  exception  is  made, 
and  therefore  the  rule  must  be  observed. 


//  a  man  wishes  to  defend  himself,  or  properly  seized  on  the  strength  of 
reprisals,  what  jurisdiction  should  be  invoked  ? 
[Ch.  clxii.] 

The  fifth  question  is,  If  a  man  wishes  to  defend  himself,  or  property 
seized  on  the  strength  of  reprisals,  what  jurisdiction  should  be  invoked  ? 
Solution  :  Some  authorities  say  that  if  a  full  execution  has  been  made — if,  for 
instance,  the  property  has  been  sold  or  given  in  payment — then  the  ordinary 
jurisdiction  is  the  proper  one,  and  a  man  will  not  be  heard  if  he  invokes 
the  extraordinary  ;  ff.  De  re  iudicata,  1.  a  divo  Pio,  §  si  post  addictum.  But 
if  full  execution  has  not  been  made,  but  is  still  pending,  then  he  may  invoke 
the  extraordinary  jurisdiction  of  the  judge,  which  will  cause  an  extract  to 
be  made  of  the  records  on  the  strength  of  which  the  reprisals  were  declared, 
and  he  may  set  up  a  defect  in  the  claim  of  the  person  to  whom  they  were 
granted,  or  a  personal  incapacity,  or  any  of  the  other  pleas  which  were 
mentioned  above.  They  cite  C.  De  edendo,  1.  ii  ;  and  C.  Vt  lite  pendente, 
1.  ii ;  and  ff.  De  edendo,  1.  i.  And  on  this,  summary  jurisdiction  will  be  done. 
I  cannot  accept  the  second  part  of  this  conclusion.  For  if,  when  the  reprisals 
were  declared,  the  party  was  cited,  and  appeared,  and  took  the  usual  steps 
in  the  proceedings,  then  it  is  clear  that  this  conclusion  cannot  stand,  because 
those  "  exceptions  "  should  have  been  put  forward  from  the  first,  and  cannot 
be  raised  after  judgement ;  C.  Sent,  rescindi  non  posse,  1.  peremptorias  ;  and 
C.  De  except.,  1.  si  quidem  ;  and  Extra.,  the  same  title,  ch.  pastoralis.  But 
if,  when  they  were  declared,  the  party  was  contumaciously  absent  from  the 
first  or  second  decree,  then  the  result  is  the  same  as  that  caused  by  the  lapse 
of  a  year  in  a  real  action,  because  he  will  not  be  heard  except  by  the  ordinary 
procedure  ;  ff.  De  damn,  infecto,  1.  si  finita,  §  s»  plures  ;  and  C.  Quomodo  et 
quando  iudex,  1.  consentaneum,  and  the  note  there  ;  and  De  dolo  et  contu- 
macia,  ch.  contingit.  But  it  might  be  allowed  at  the  first  decree. 


Of  the  remedies  of  the  person  from  whom  the  exaction  is  made. 

[Ch.  clxiii.] 

The  remedies  of  the  person  from  whom  the  exaction  is  made  belong 
to  this  part  of  the  subject.    And  on  this  many  questions  arise. 


REMEDIES  FOR  REPRISALS  329 

Whether  the  person  from  whom  the  exaction  is  made  has  a  remedy  against 
the  person  for  whose  debt  or  wrong  it  was  made  ? 

And  the  first  question  is,  whether  the  person  from  whom  the  exaction 
is  made  has  a  remedy  against  the  person  for  whose  wrong  or  debt  it  was 
made.  Jacobus  de  Arena  holds,  on  ff.  De  verb,  oblig.,  1.  ii,  that  he  has  a 
remedy  against  the  person  on  whose  account  reprisals  were  declared  ;  De  neg. 
gest.,  1.  nam  et  Servius  ;  ff.  Nautae  caup.  stabul.,  1.  licet,  the  last  section  ;  ff. 
De  his  qui  deiec.  vel  effus.,  1.  si  vero,  §  cum  autem.  Others  say  the  contrary, 
on  the  authority  of  ff.  De  reg.  iuris,  1.  si  quis  dolo,  §  i.  For  he  suffered  the 
exaction,  not  because  of  the  private  person,  but  because  of  the  judge  who 
denied  justice,  or  did  injustice.  They  say,  therefore,  that  either  the  judge  is 
the  person  from  whom  the  exaction  is  made,  because  he  did  injustice,  and  then 
the  judge  has  no  remedy  ;  1.  si  quis  dolo,  above  ;  or  because  he  neglected  to 
do  justice,  and  then  he  has  a  remedy  against  the  person  of  whom  justice  was 
required  ;  C.  book  x,  De  exact,  trib.,  1.  missi,  at  the  end.  Or,  thirdly,  he  is 
one  of  the  people,  and  then  the  opinion  of  Jacobus  holds ;  ff .  Nautae  caup. 
stabul.,  1.  licet,  at  the  end,  &c. 


Whether  the  person  from  whom  the  exaction  is  made  has  a  remedy  against  the 
ruler,  as  well  as  against  the  principal  debtor  ? 

[Ch.  clxiv.] 

The  second  question  is,  whether  the  person  from  whom  the  exaction  is 
made  has  a  remedy  against  the  ruler,  as  well  as  against  the  principal  debtor, 
as  was  shown  above.  Solution  :  The  principal  debtor  must  first  be  sued ; 
and  if  he  is  not  solvent,  then  the  ruler,  since  he,  too,  himself  becomes  a  debtor 
by  refusing  justice.  That  this  order  must  be  observed  appears  from  ff.  De 
magistr.  conven.,  1.  i,  at  the  beginning  ;  and  C.  De  conven.  fisci  debitoribus, 
1.  quoniam.  Lastly,  resort  may  be  had  to  the  officials,  who  might  have  obliged 
the  ruler  to  do  justice,  but  neglected  to  do  so  ;  ff.  De  tut.  et  rati.  distrahendis, 
1.  i,  §  nunc  tractemus. 

Whether  a  person  seized  on  the  strength  of  reprisals  may,  on  his  own 

authority,  seize  persons  belonging  to  the  state  in 

which  he  was  seized  ? 

[Ch.  clxv.] 

The  third  question  is,  whether  a  person  seized  on  the  strength  of  reprisals 
may,  on  his  own  authority,  seize  persons  belonging  to  the  state  in  which  he 
was  seized.  And  it  seems  that  he  may,  from  ff.  Quod  quisque  iuris,  the  whole 
title.  The  contrary  is  the  true  view  ;  for  the  title  Quod  quisque  iuris  applies 
in  the  execution  of  law,  as,  for  instance,  if  one  state  has  unlawfully  declared 


330  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

reprisals  against  another,  the  other  may  do  the  like  against  the  first.  But  it 
does  not  apply  in  the  execution  of  an  act  and  say  that  if  I  have  robbed  you, 
you  may  rob  me,  because  that  would  be  allowing  retaliation.  Against  this, 
ff.  Ad  leg.  Aquil.,  1.  scienliam,  §  qui  cum  aliter.  He  must  return,  therefore, 
to  his  own  state,  and  demand  reprisals  against  the  state  in  which  he  was  seized. 


Whether  reprisals  can  be  granted  by  statutes,  in  cases  not  otherwise 
permitted  by  the  common  law  ? 

[Ch.  elxvi.] 

The  fourth  question  is,  whether  reprisals  may  be  granted  by  statutes, 
in  cases  not  otherwise  permitted  by  the  common  law.  Solution  :  A  state 
may  grant  them  against  countries  fully  subject  to  itself,  even  in  cases  not 
permitted  by  the  common  law  ;  but  not  against  countries  which  are  inde- 
pendent, or  even  allied,  as  to  which  see  ff.  De  captivis,  1.  non  dubito.  The 
reason  is,  that  a  grant  of  reprisals  depends  on  the  determination  of  a  cause 
about  injustice  done,  or  justice  denied,  and  in  this  one  state  cannot  make 
rules  against  another,  because  "  like  against  like,"  &c.  Secondly,  it  depends 
upon  whether  recourse  can  be  had  to  a  superior  of  the  party  refusing  to  do 
justice.  And  on  this  matter  one  state  cannot  make  rules  against  another. 
For  it  could  not  make  a  rule  that  reprisals  should  be  declared,  without  appeal 
having  been  made  to  the  superior  of  the  party  refusing  to  do  justice.  For 
that  would  be  to  destroy  the  jurisdiction  of  the  superior  ;  De  iureiurando, 
venientes.  Thirdly,  the  authority  of  the  superior  who  declares  the  reprisals 
is  required,  this  authority  being  one  which  does  not  itself  recognize  a  superior  ; 
and  on  this  a  state  may  rule  that,  without  that  authority  being  appealed  to, 
one  person  may  be  seized  for  another's  debt  ;  C.  book  xi,  De  omni  agro  deserto  ; 
just  as  there  is  a  rule  that  in  certain  cases  a  wife  is  liable  for  the  debt  of  her 
husband;  C.  In  quibus  [modis]  causis  pign.  contrahitur,  1.  satis;  and  a  son 
for  his  father  ;  C.  book  xii,  De  primipilo,  the  last  law. 


Whether  a  statute  of  a  state,  which  ordains  that  a  son  is  liable  for  the  wrong 

of  his  father,  may  be  executed  against  a  son  living  outside  the 

territory  of  that  state  ? 

The  fifth  question  is,  whether  a  statute  of  a  state,  which  ordains  that 
a  son  is  liable  for  the  wrong  of  his  father,  may  be  executed  against  a  son 
living  outside  the  territory  of  that  state.  Solution  :  Either  the  son  was 
born  at  the  time  of  the  father's  wrongful  act ;  and  then  either  the  question  is 
whether  the  statute  can  be  executed  against  the  son  living  elsewhere,  and  it 
cannot ;  ff.  De  re  iudicata,  1.  a  divo  Pio,  the  penultimate  section  ;  and  ff.  De 
rebus,  auctor.  iudi.  possidendis,  1.  cum  unus,  §  [cum  is]  is  qui  ',  or  the  question 


THE  DUEL  33i 

is  whether  a  "  condiction  "  can  be  brought  against  him  on  the  statute  ;  and  it 
can,  because  an  action  follows  the  person  against  whom  it  lies  ;  C.  De  longi 
tempor.  praescriptione,  the  last  law.  This  is  true,  unless  the  son  had  acquired 
a  domicile  elsewhere  before  the  commission  of  the  wrong,  or  was  absent  by 
reason  of  a  domicile  of  origin,  because  then  the  other  state,  as  having  priority, 
might  protect  him  from  the  statute.  But  if  the  son  is  born  after  the  com- 
mission of  the  wrong,  then  no  action  will  lie  against  him.  For  the  statute  must 
be  understood  to  refer  to  sons  then  existing  ;  ff.  De  noxal.,  1.  in  delictis,  §  si 
extraneus  ;  ff.  De  milit.  testamento,  1.  [si]  Titius.  My  answer  is  the  same, 
if  the  statute  ordains  that  one  citizen  is  liable  for  the  wrong  of  another.  A 
person  newly  become  a  citizen  is  not  liable  for  old  debts  ;  C.  De  decur.,  1. 
providendum  ;  and  note  Dinus  on  ff.  Ad  municipalem,  1.  incola.  , 


Whether  it  may  lawfully  be  agreed  that  one  person  is  to  be  liable  for  another  ? 

[Ch.  clxvii.] 

The  sixth  question  is,  whether  it  may  lawfully  be  agreed  that  one  person 
is  to  be  liable  for  another.  Solution  :  By  express  agreement  of  private  persons, 
no  ;  in  Authent.,  Vt  non  fiant  pignorationes.  Even  if  one  agrees  that  another 
over  whom  one  has  jurisdiction  is  to  be  liable ;  C.  Ne  films  pro  patre,  throughout. 
And  although  a  lord  cannot  do  this,  yet  the  lord's  judge  may  cause  persons  of 
such  a  condition  to  be  seized. 


Of  particular  war  waged  for  compur gallon,  which  is  catted  the  "  duel." 

[Ch.  clxviii.] 

It  remains  now  to  consider  the  duel,  in  treating  of  which  I  shall  first  ask 
what  a  duel  is  ;  secondly,  how  many  kinds  of  duel  there  are  ;  thirdly,  by  what 
law  it  is  allowed,  and  by  what  forbidden  ;  fourthly,  for  what  reason  it  is 
allowed,  and  for  what  forbidden  ;  fifthly,  for  what  causes  a  duel  is  lawful ; 
sixthly,  between  whom  it  is  lawful ;  seventhly,  how  it  should  be  waged. 


What  is  a  duel  ? 

[Ch.  clxix.] 

As  regards  the  first  question,  I  say  that  a  duel  is  a  corporeal  fight  between 
two  persons,  deliberate  on  both  sides,  designed  for  compurgation,  glory,  or 
exaggeration  of  hatred.  I  said  a  "  fight."  This  is  the  genus  to  which  it  belongs. 
I  said  "  deliberate  on  both  sides."  This  distinguishes  it  from  a  fight  in  neces- 
sary self-defence,  as  to  which  see  ff .  De  iustit.  et  iure,  1.  ut  vim  ;  C.  Vnde  vi,  1.  i  ; 
ff.  De  vi  et  vi  arm.,  1.  i,  §  vim  vi  ;  ff.  Ad  leg.  Aquil.,  1.  scientiam,  §  qui  cum 
aliier  ;  De  restit.  spoliat.,  ch.  olim,  i  ;  and  Clemen.,  De  homicidio,  si  furiosus, 

[34] 


332  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

For  in  a  fight  of  that  kind  there  is  ordinarily  no  deliberation  on  the  part  of  the 
attacked,  but  only  on  the  part  of  the  attacker,  or  on  the  part  of  neither, 
as  appears  from  Clemen.,  si  furiosus,  just  cited.  But  in  a  duel  there  is 
deliberation  on  both  sides.  I  said  "  between  two  persons,"  because  a  fight 
is  then  properly  called  a  duel,  following  the  etymology  of  the  word;  Instit., 
De  donat.,  §  est  et  aliud  ;  xvi,  q.  i,  si  cupis  ;  dist.  xxi,  cleros  ;  De  praebend., 
cum  secundum.  "  A  fight  between  two  persons,"  to  distinguish  it  from 
contracts  formed  between  two  persons  by  mutual  agreement  of  the  parties ; 
Instit.,  De  obligationibus,  with  the  rescripts  following.  And  I  said 
"  corporeal,"  to  distinguish  it  from  a  judicial  fight,  which  also  takes  place 
between  two  persons,  as  plaintiff  and  defendant ;  C.  De  iudic.,  1.  rem 
non  novam,  §  patroni ;  and  the  same  title,  1.  properandum ;  and  De 
verbor.  significatione,  ch.  forus.  For  there  the  contest  is  not  fought  by 
the  strength  of  the  body,  but  by  the  laws  ;  see  the  laws  just  cited.  I  said 
"  designed  for  compurgation,  glory,  or  exaggeration  of  hatred  "  ;  for  this 
touches  the  end,  and  indicates  the  kinds  of  duel,  as  follows  below.  This,  then, 
concludes  the  description  of  the  genus  of  duel. 


How  many  kinds  of  duel  are  there  ? 

[Ch.  clxx.] 

As  regards  the  second  question,  it  must  be  noted  that  the  duel,  as  above 
described,  is  regarded  generally,  and,  as  I  suggested  at  the  end  of  the  descrip- 
tion, the  kinds  of  duel  are  indicated  by  the  words  placed  at  the  end  ;  for  there 
are  three  kinds  of  duel.  For  a  duel  is  fought  either  for  exaggeration  of  hatred, 
or  to  win  public  glory  by  the  strength  of  the  body,  or  for  the  compurgation  of 
some  accusation  brought. 

How  a  duel  is  fought  for  exaggeration  of  hatred. 

It  is  fought  then  for  exaggeration  of  hatred,  when  men  are  induced  by 
mere  hatred,  natural  in  its  origin,  and  of  that  singular  naturalness  which 
natural  philosophers  call  the  "  specific  form,"  to  exterminate  one  another. 
And  I  do  not  find  that  tliis  duel  is  regulated  by  legal  rules ;  but  it  springs 
from  natural  first  principles,  as  I  shall  at  once  show,  and  because  it  is  approved 
by  sensual  experience. 

How  a  duel  is  fought  to  win  public  glory. 

It  is  fought,  secondly,  to  win  public  glory,  as  in  public  spectacles,  when 
two  men  prove  their  bodily  strength  in  various  ways.  I  find  that  this  form  of 
duel  is  regulated  by  both  civil  and  canon  law.  By  civil  law  :  ff.  Ad  leg.  Aquil., 
1.  hoc  actions,  §  si  quis  in  colluctatione  ;  C.  book  xi,  De  glad,  toll.,  the  single 
law  ;  C.  De  re  iudic.,  1.  commodis  ;  ff.  De  his  qui  not.  infam.,  1.  athlctce  ;  C. 


THREE  KINDS  OF  DUEL  333 

De  athletis,  1.  i ;  C.  Quae  res  pign.  obi.  poss.,  1.  spem  ;  ff.  De  donat.,  1.  dona- 
tiones.  Note  the  gloss  on  Instit.,  De  haeredit.  quae  intest.  defer.,  §  interdum. 
By  canon  law  :  De  clericis  pugnantibus  in  duello.  But  there  it  is  also  for 
compurgation  ;  De  torneam.,  throughout.  But  it  is  not  properly  the  duel,  but 
the  "  pancratium  "  ;  ff.  Ad  leg.  Aquiliam,  1.  hac  actione,  §  si  quis  in  colluctatione. 


How  a  duel  is  fought  for  the  compurgation  of  an  accusation. 

It  is  also  fought,  thirdly,  for  compurgation  ;  that  is  to  say,  when  an 
accusation  is  laid  on  a  person,  and  the  party  challenging  to  the  proof,  either 
with  or  without  other  proofs,  offers  to  prove  it  by  his  bodily  strength,  and  a 
duel  is  fought,  and  the  person  challenged  "  purges  "  himself  in  this' way.  And 
this  also  is  regulated  by  law  ;  De  cler.  pugn.  in  duello,  cited  above  ;  De  purga. 
vulgari,  throughout  ;  ii,  q.  v,  the  whole  question  ;  and  in  the  Lombard  law, 
to  which  I  shall  return  when  I  discuss  that  part  of  the  subject. 


By  what  law  is  the  duel  permitted,  and  by  what  forbidden  ? 

[Ch.  clxxi.] 

As  regards  the  third  question,  namely,  by  what  law  the  duel  is  introduced, 
it  is  well  to  explain  the  several  kinds  of  duel  above  set  forth,  showing,  as  to 
each,  by  what  law  it  is  permitted,  and  by  what  forbidden.  And  first,  of  the 
duel  which  arises  on  account  of  exaggeration  of  natural  hatred,  as  to  which 
we  must  understand  that  this  duel  was  introduced  by  natural  law,  in  the  sense 
of  an  instinct  of  nature  proceeding  from  sensuality  to  some  desired  object, 
this  being  the  second  signification  of  the  term,  as  the  gloss  notes  on  dist.  i, 
IMS  naturale  ;  and  ff .  De  iustit.  et  iure,  1.  i,  §  ius  autem  naturale.  And  the  duel 
itself  is  forbidden  by  natural  law,  in  the  sense  of  an  instinct  of  nature  proceeding 
from  rational  intelligence,  which  is  called  natural  equity.  There  is  also  a  third 
meaning  of  natural  law  ;  see  the  canon  quoted,  ius  naturale.  It  is  also  forbidden 
by  natural  law  in  the  sense  of  the  law  containing  the  moral  precepts  of  divine 
law,  which  is  a  fourth  meaning  of  the  term  ;  see  the  canon  just  quoted.  This 
duel  is  also  forbidden  by  positive  law  ;  that  is  to  say,  by  canon  and  civil  law. 
Each  of  these  points  must  be  proved. 


How  the  duel  which  is  fought  for  exaggeration  of  hatred  is  introduced  by  natural 
law,  in  the  sense  of  an  instinct  of  nature,  proceeding  from  sensuality  towards 
some  desired  object. 

I  said  that  this  form  of  duel  is  introduced  by  natural  law,  in  the  sense  of 
an  instinct  of  nature,  proceeding  from  sensuality  towards  some  desired  object. 
This  is  demonstrated  as  follows  :  Whatever  is  productive  of  the  immediate 
cause  of  an  effect  is  consequently  productive  of  that  effect.  But  this  natural 


334  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

law,  originally  inclining  towards  such  desire,  is  the  inducing  cause  of  this 
sensual  desire  for  duelling.  Therefore  it  is  the  inducing  cause  of  the  duel.  The 
major  premise  is  proved.  For  whatever  sufficiently  imprcss<  >  itself  on  the 
cause  of  the  productive  cause  thus  remotely,  impresses  itself  on  the  effect ; 
ff.  Ad  leg.  Corn,  de  sicar.,  1.  nihil;  C.  the  same  title,  1.  si  quis  nolandi ;  dist.  i, 
studeat  ;  and  can.  si  quis  viduam  ;  De  homicidio,  de  cetera,  and  ch.  presbytcrum. 
The  minor  premise  is  proved.  For  from  natural  disposition  proceeding  from 
natural  first  principles,  both  higher  arid  lower,  come  the  various  inclinations 
of  men's  desires.  For,  if  any  personal  merit  or  demerit  is  eliminated,  that 
which  displeases  me  will  naturally  please  you,  and  conversely  ;  and  it  is  from 
natural  disposition,  if  any  accidental  quality  is  eliminated,  that  a  man  loves 
and  hates.  Any  one  can  test  this  in  himself.  But  the  cause  of  this  is  easily 
discovered,  if  we  observe  the  celestial  bodies.  For  persons  who,  at  the  tin 
their  birth  and  at  the  moment  of  their  birth,  have  a  uniform  corresponded  e 
of  the  heavenly  configuration,  and  whose  paternal  origins  agree  in  complexion, 
are  undoubtedly  by  nature  the  firmest  friends.  So  if  these  signs  are  repugnant, 
they  are  one  another's  bitterest  enemies.  For  uniform  effect  must  follow  from 
uniform  cause  ;  C.  Ad  leg.  Falc.,  the  last  law  ;  ff.  Ad  leg.  Aquil.,  1.  illud  ;  ff. 
De  fonte,  1.  i  ;  De  constit.,  translate  ;  and  De  translat.  episcoporum,  ch.  inter 
corporalia.  And  yet  here  we  must  note  that  this  natural  enmity  between  man 
and  man,  as  I  said  before,  proceeds  from  a  singular  natural  disposition,  which 
natural  philosophers  call  "  the  specific  form."  For  if  we  observe  the  natural 
disposition  of  the  human  species,  there  ought  to  be  friendship  between  men, 
on  account  of  the  uniformity  of  complexion  related  to  the  human  form  ;  and 
on  this  account  the  laws  say  that  between  man  and  man  there  is  a  duty  of 
humanity,  to  be  observed  on  one  side  and  the  other  ;  ff.  De  servis  expor.,  1. 
si  servus,  at  the  end  ;  and  C.  De  neg.  gest.,  1.  officio,  and  the  gloss  there.  And 
so  this  does  not  arise  from  the  natural  disposition  of  the  species,  because  \\< 
do  not  find  it  existing  naturally  if  we  refer  to  the  several  species  of  animals. 
For  between  the  several  species  of  brutes  there  is  a  sort  of  treaty  of  union  and 
cohabitation,  because  of  the  uniformity  of  complexion  related  to  the  specific 
form.  But  between  species  and  species  there  is  sometimes  the  extremity  of 
repugnance,  inducing  one  to  exterminate  the  other ;  for  instance,  between 
hawks  and  birds  that  are  good  for  fowling,  cats  and  mice,  dogs  and  hares 
and  so  on.  It  proceeds,  therefore,  from  some  individual  disposition  of  repug- 
nance of  first  principles,  higher  and  lower.  Any  one  may  experience  the  effect 
in  himself.  Yet  this  disposition  does  not  ordinarily  induce  a  duel  immediately, 
but  only  through  intermediate  acts  to  which  the  persons  quickly  proceed, 
though  I  believe  that  the  repugnance  of  individual  disposition  might  be  so 
strong  that  men  might  proceed  to  a  duel  at  sight.  And  this  happens  when  men 
are  ruled  by  sensuality  alone,  and  not  by  any  consideration  of  reason.  From 
this  discussion  we  may  infer  how  this  form  of  duel  is  introduced  by  natural 
law,  understood  in  the  sense  explained. 


THE  DUEL  OF  HATRED  335 

How  the  duel  which  is  fought  for  exaggeration  of  hatred,  is  forbidden  by  natural 
law,  in  the  sense  of  rational  intelligence,  and  by  divine  law,  canon  law,  and 
civil  law. 

[Ch.  clxxii.] 

It  remains  to  consider  what  I  said  in  the  second  place  on  this  subject. 
For  I  said  that  this  duel  was  forbidden  by  natural  law,  in  the  sense  of  rational 
intelligence,  and  therefore  by  the  law  of  nations  ;  and  by  natural  law  in  so  far 
•  as  it  contains  the  moral  precepts  of  the  divine  law  ;  and  by  canon  law,  and 
civil  law.  This  may  be  demonstrated  more  clearly  than  day,  beginning  with 
the  divine  law.  For  one  of  the  precepts  of  the  Decalogue  is,  "  Thou  shalt  not 
kill  "  ;  and  thus  it  is  forbidden  by  the  divine  law,  and  this  is  the  ordinary  rule. 
And  if  the  instance  of  Jephthah  be  cited,  who  killed  his  daughter,  and  yet  did 
not  sin,  by  divine  law  ;  Judges,  ch.  xi  ;  xxii,  q.  iv,  unusquisque  ;  xxiii,  q.  v, 
si  non  licet ;  and  of  Samson,  who  killed  many  persons,  and  himself  ;  Judges, 
ch.  xvi ;  xxiii,  q.  v,  si  non  licet  ;  they  prove  nothing  to  the  contrary,  because 
these  acts  were  inspired  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  Augustine  writes  in  the  first 
book  of  the  De  Civitate  Dei,  quoted  in  xxiii,  q.  v,  ch.  si  non  Heel.  So,  therefore, 
it  is  forbidden  by  divine  law  by  the  precept,  "  Thou  shalt  not  kill  "  ;  Deutero- 
nomy, ch.  v.  It  is  also  forbidden  by  canon  law  ;  De  homicid.  volunt.,  dist.  i, 
throughout ;  xxiii,  q.  v,  si  non  licet.  It  is  also  forbidden  by  civil  law  ;  ff.  Ad 
leg.  Corn,  de  sicar.  ;  and  C.  the  same  title,  throughout.  And  if  you  say  that 
those  laws  forbid  voluntary  homicide,  and  therefore  the  kind  of  duel  from  which 
voluntary  homicide  arises,  but  that  homicide  arising  from  the  duel  which  is 
introduced  by  natural  disposition  is  not  voluntary,  being  introduced  naturally, 
and  that  therefore  those  laws  do  not  conclude  this  case,  the  solution  is  ready 
to  hand.  For  although  it  is  introduced  by  a  natural  bodily  disposition,  yet 
the  dictates  of  natural  intelligence  dispose  to  the  contrary.  And  the  latter 
should  be  obeyed  ;  for  the  natural  disposition  does  not  compel,  but  the  will 
remains  free ;  xxiii,  q.  iv,  De  Tyriis  ;  and  ch.  Nabuchodonosor  ;  and  De  Pcenit., 
dist.  ii,  ch.  sicut  enim  ;  and  the  Philosopher,  Ethics,  iii.  Even  astrologers  too, 
who  demonstrate  this  more  effectively,  assert  the  same.  Hence  Ptolemy  says, 
in  the  Centiloquium,  tenth  phrase,  "  a  wise  soul  dominates  the  stars."  So, 
therefore,  although  the  bodily  disposition  proceeds  from  a  natural  first  principle, 
yet  natural  intelligence  remains,  and  disposes  to  the  contrary.  So  it  might  be 
said  of  the  several  kinds  of  moral  vices.  For  particular  men  are  naturally 
inclined  to  particular  vices  :  some  are  proud,  some  luxurious,  some  miserly, 
and  so  on.  Yet  they  are  not  excused,  because  they  are  not  actually  compelled  ; 
xxiii,  q.  iv,  ch.  Nabuchodonosor.  Hence  the  saying  of  the  Philosopher  in  De 
anima,  iii,  the  treatise  on  motion,  that  between  sensitive  and  intellectual 
appetite  there  is  sometimes  opposition.  For  the  sensitive  tends  in  one  direc- 
tion, the  intellectual  in  another ;  and  if  the  intellect  prevails  over  sense,  the 
motion  is  rational  and  natural,  as  if  a  higher  sphere  moves  a  lower.  But  if  the 
contrary  happens,  the  motion  is  contrary  to  nature,  as  if  a  lower  sphere  moves 


336  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

a  higher  ;  for  although  the  motion  of  sense  proceeds  from  nature,  inclining  to 
vice,  yet  it  is  contrary  to  nature,  if  sense  does  not  obey  intellect,  as  a  subject 
its  lord,  as  the  same  Philosopher  says  in  the  first  book  of  the  Politics.  This 
kind  of  duel  is  also  forbidden  by  natural  law,  in  the  sense  of  natural  intelligence, 
which  is  the  same  thing  as  the  law  of  nations.  This  is  proved  as  follows  :  For 
common  and  natural  equity  springs  from  natural  intelligence,  disposing  it  to 
the  conservation  of  the  universe  ;  and  thence  positive  law  had  its  origin,  nay, 
it  would  be  truer  to  say,  it  is  itself  the  equity  of  natural  law  with  some  additions 
or  omissions  ;  ff.  De  iustit.  et  hire.  1.  ius  civile.  Since,  therefore,  this  natural 
equity  tends  to  the  conservation  of  the  universe,  it  reprobates  the  extermina- 
tion of  a  man,  which  is  a  thing  tending  to  the  destruction  of  the  world ;  and  I 
speak  of  extermination  tending  to  the  destruction  of  the  world,  because  the 
extermination  of  some  men  tends  to  the  conservation  of  the  world,  for  instance, 
when  bad  men  are  exterminated.  For  on  this  account  it  is  in  the  interest  of  the 
commonwealth  that  they  should  be  punished  ;  ff .  De  publ.  et  vecti.,  1.  licitatio  ; 
ff.  Ad  leg.  Aquil.,  1.  it  a  vulneratus,  at  the  end  ;  ff.  De  fideiuss.,  1.  si  a  reo  ;  De 
sent,  excom.,  utfamce.  From  this  discussion  we  may  clearly  infer  how  this  kind 
of  duel  is  forbidden  by  divine  law,  by  the  law  of  nations,  by  canon  law,  and 
by  civil  law. 

How  the  duel  which  is  fought  for  the  sake  of  glory  is  introduced  by  natural 
law,  in  the  sense  of  an  instinct  of  nature  proceeding  from  sensuality. 

[Ch.  clxxiii.] 

It  remains  to  consider  what  law  introduced,  and  what  forbids,  a  duel 
fought  for  the  sake  of  the  glory  of  victory  at  a  public  spectacle.  And  I  say 
that  this  kind  of  duel  was  introduced  by  natural  law,  in  the  second  signification 
of  the  term — that  is  to  say,  an  instinct  of  nature  proceeding  from  sensuality — 
but  that  it  is  forbidden  by  natural  law  in  the  sense  of  the  law  of  nations  and 
the  divine  law.  It  is  also  forbidden  by  canon  law  and  civil  law — with  qualifi- 
cations, however,  as  I  shall  show  presently.  Let  us  demonstrate  each  of  these 
statements.  I  said  that  it  was  introduced  by  natural  law  in  its  second  significa- 
tion. This  is  proved  by  the  arguments  set  forth  in  the  last  section.  For  sensual 
inclination  proceeding  from  natural  first  principles  induced  to  the  trial  of  bodily 
strength  merely  to  win  glory.  Therefore  it  induces  this  kind  of  duel  which 
proceeds  from  that  cause,  since  a  producing  cause  produces  its  effect ;  see  the 
laws  cited  in  the  last  section.  This  kind  of  duel,  however,  is  less  hateful  than 
the  first  kind,  if  we  regard  the  end  of  each.  For  the  first  kind  of  duel  has 
extermination  for  its  end,  by  reason  of  abiding  natural  enmity.  But  the  present 
kind  does  not  necessarily  lead  to  extermination,  but  to  victory,  which  may  be 
won  without  extermination.  Therefore  it  is  less  hateful,  since  men's  acts  are 
distinguished  according  to  the  ends  intended  ;  ff.  De  furtis,  1.  verum,  and  1.  qui 
iniuries  ;  ff.  De  [fal.]  furtis,  1.  qui  ea  mente  ;  xv,  q.  vi,  ch.  i ;  xiv,  q.  v,  quidquid  ; 
De  sent,  excom.,  cum  volunlate.  Hence  it  is  that  the  Philosopher  says  in  Ethics, 


THE  DUEL  OF  HONOUR  337 

iv,  that  one  who  commits  fornication  with  a  woman  that  he  may  get  money 
thereby,  is  not  an  adulterer,  but  a  miser.  It  follows,  therefore,  that  if  we 
weigh  the  end,  this  kind  is  less  hateful  than  the  former.  This  is  confirmed  by 
the  following  consideration  :  The  first  kind  arises  from  hatred,  which  in  itself 
is  detestable,  if  it  arises  without  reasonable  cause,  as  it  does  there.  But  this 
kind  of  duel  arises  without  hatred.  For  even  natural  friends  would  fight  duels 
at  a  spectacle  to  the  end  of  winning  glory.  It  is  confirmed  as  follows  :  A  thing 
which  is  less  far  removed  from  natural  equity,  is  less  hateful ;  but  this  second 
kind  of  duel  is  less  far  removed  from  natural  equity.  Therefore,  &c.  The 
major  premise  is  proved.  For  detestation  and  approbation  of  acts  proceed 
from  natural  equity,  on  which  are  founded  the  prohibitions  and  permissions 
of  the  law  ;  ff.  De  iustit.  et  iure,  1.  IMS  civile  ;  and  dist.  i,  can.  ius  nafurale.  The 
minor  premise  is  proved.  For  this  duel  departs  from  the  equity  of  natural  law 
only  because  the  killing  of  a  man  might  follow  from  it,  which  is  an  act  tending 
to  the  destruction  of  the  universe,  upon  which  equity  the  prohibition  of  the 
new  civil  law  is  founded  ;  C.  book  xi,  De  gladiat.,  the  single  law.  But  it  was 
not  prohibited  by  the  old  law,  because  proceedings  against  persons  killing  one 
another  in  this  way  were  remitted  ;  ff.  Ad  leg.  Aquiliam,  1.  [hac]  qua  actione, 
§  si  quis  in  colluctatione.  But  the  first  kind  is  far  removed  from  natural  equity. 
In  the  first  place,  because  it  tends  to  the  necessary  extermination  of  one  or 
both.  It  differs  also  in  being  inspired  by  hatred,  which  natural  equity  abhors, 
if  it  arises  without  cause.  Therefore  it  is  more  detestable.  This  is  confirmed 
as  follows  :  That  which  is  wholly  injurious  and  beneficial  in  nothing,  is  more 
hateful  than  that  which  is  partly  beneficial  and  partly  injurious.  But  the 
first  kind  is  wholly  injurious,  and  beneficial  in  nothing  ;  but  this  second  kind 
is  partly  beneficial.  The  major  is  clear.  For  acts  are  classed  as  laudable  and 
blameworthy  by  reason  of  the  laudability  and  blameworthiness  of  their  ends, 
since  in  such  matters  the  end  is  weighed  ;  ff.  De  ritu  nupt.,  si  quis  in  senatorio  ; 
ff.  De  iure  fisci,  1.  non  intelligitur ,  §  siquispalam  ;  ff.  De  iudiciis,  1.  cumfuriosus. 
The  minor  is  proved.  For  the  first  kind  has  for  its  sole  object  mutual  extermina- 
tion, which  is  injurious  ;  but  the  second  takes  place  in  a  public  spectacle  for 
the  pleasure  and  recreation  of  the  people.  And  this  is  why  games  and  spectacles 
are  permitted  ;  C.  book  xi,  De  spectacul.  et  scaenic.  et  lenon.,  the  whole  title, 
except  the  last  law  ;  and  C.  De  expen.  ludor.,  the  single  law  ;  a  Greek  consti- 
tution. This  discussion  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  this  kind  of  duel  was  intro- 
duced by  natural  law,  in  the  second  signification  of  the  term,  and  that  it  is 
less  hateful  than  the  first  kind. 


How  the  duel  which  is  fought  for  the  sake  of  glory  is  forbidden 
by  divine  law. 

[Ch.  clxxiv.] 

It  remains  to  consider  how  this  kind  of  duel  is  forbidden.    And  I  said  that 
it  was  forbidden  by  divine  law,  by  the  law  of  nations,  and  by  positive  law, 


338  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

that  is,  by  canon  law  and  civil  law.  Now  that  it  is  forbidden  by  divine  law 
may  be  proved  thus  :  For  when  a  thing  is  forbidden  by  any  law,  everything 
which  leads  to  that  thing  is  also  forbidden.  But  homicide  is  forbidden  by 
divine  law,  and  this  kind  of  duel  leads  to  homicide.  Therefore,  &c.  The  major 
premise  is  proved  by  ff.  De  sponsal.,  1.  oratio  ;  fi.  De  fideius.,  1.  cum  lex  ;  C.  De 
usuris,  1.  eos,  at  the  end  ;  C.  De  usuris  rei  iudic.,  the  last  law,  at  the  end  ;  ff.  De 
pet.  haered.,  1.  sed  si  lege,  §  item  veniunt ;  ff.  De  mino.,  1.  iii,  §  sed  utrum.  The 
minor  is  proved  by  Deuteronomy,  ch.  v,  "Thou  shalt  not  kill."  But  that 
this  kind  of  duel  leads  to  homicide  is  clearer  than  day.  This  is  confirmed 
as  follows :  An  act  which  is  alien  from  the  fountain  of  charity,  is  forbidden 
by  divine  law;  and  this  kind  of  duelling  is  so  alien.  Therefore,  &c.  The 
major  is  proved  ;  for  charity  is  the  foundation  of  all  the  virtues,  and  excludes 
the  vices  ;  De  Pcenit.,  dist.  ii,  cantos  est,  and  ch.  ergo,  and  the  first  part 
of  that  "distinctio"  throughout;  and  so  a  thing  which  is  alien  from 
charity  savours  of  the  nature  of  sin,  and  is  therefore  forbidden  by  divine 
law.  The  minor  is  proved.  For  charity  is  the  love  of  God,  and  of  one's 
neighbour  as  oneself;  De  Poenit.,  dist.  ii,  ch.  proximos;  but  one  who  fights 
a  duel  at  a  spectacle  fights  in  order  to  conquer  his  neighbour,  and  so  loves  him 
not.  Therefore  it  is  forbidden  by  divine  law. 


How  the  duel  which  is  fought  for  the  sake  of  glory  is  forbidden 
by  the  law  of  nations. 

I  said,  too,  that  it  was  forbidden  by  the  law  gf  nations.  This  is  proved 
as  follows  :  An  act  which  tends  to  the  destruction  of  the  universe  is  forbidden 
by  the  law  of  nations.  This  kind  of  duelling  is  such  an  act.  Therefore,  &c.  The 
major  is  proved  as  follows  :  Natural  equity,  on  which  the  law  of  nations  is 
founded,  tends  to  the  conservation  and  increase  of  the  universe  ;  ff.  De  iustit. 
et  iure,  1.  i,  §  ius  naturale  ;  and  ff.  the  same  title,  1.  ex  hoc  iure.  The  minor 
is  proved  thus :  This  kind  of  duelling  tends  to  the  destruction  and  extermina- 
tion of  a  man,  who  is  the  noblest  part  of  the  universe,  nay,  who  is  the  end  of 
things  created  ;  ff.  De  usuris,  1.  in  pecudum  ;  therefore  it  is  forbidden  by  the 
law  of  nations.  This  is  confirmed  thus  :  An  act  which  is  opposed  to  the  pre- 
cepts of  natural  equity,  which  is  the  law  of  nations  itself,  or  its  foundation, 
is  forbidden  by  the  law  of  nations.  This  kind  of  duelling  is  so  opposed.  There- 
fore, &c.  The  major  is  proved  thus  :  Everything  whose  opposite  is  commanded 
is  forbidden  by  the  law  of  nations,  since  the  same  rule  applies  to  opposites  ; 
ff.  De  his  qui  sunt  sui  vel  alien,  iuris,  1.  i ;  Instit.,  the  same  title,  at  the  beginning ; 
dist.  xxxii,  hospitiolum.  The  minor  is  proved  thus  :  It  is  one  of  the  precepts 
of  the  law  of  nations,  that  a  man  is  not  to  be  enriched  at  another's  expense ; 
ff.  De  condic.  indebiti,  1.  nam  hoc  ;  and  Sext,  De  regul.  iur.,  rule  locupletari. 
It  is  also  a  precept  of  the  law  of  nations,  that  you  should  not  do  to  another 
what  you  do  not  wish  to  be  done  to  yourself ;  see  the  beginning  of  the  Decreta  ; 


THE  DUEL  OF  HONOUR  339 

but  this  kind  of  duelling  is  opposed  to  both  precepts.  And  in  the  first  place, 
it  is  opposed  to  the  first  precept  because  the  duellist  seeks  glory  from  the 
disgrace  of  his  fellow  and  neighbour,  and  he  would  not  wish  this  to  be  done  to 
himself  ;  therefore  it  is  forbidden  by  the  law  of  nations.  This  is  confirmed 
thus  :  An  act  which  is  a  kind  of  unlawful  war  is  forbidden  by  the  law  of  nations. 
This  kind  of  duelling  is  so.  Therefore,  &c.  The  major  is  proved,  because  only 
lawful  war  has  been  introduced  by  law  ;  ff.  De  iustit.  et  iure,  1.  ex  hoc  iure  ; 
and  ff .  De  captivis,  1.  hostes.  The  minor  is  obvious.  For  a  duel  is  not  a  war 
declared  by  the  authority  of  a  prince,  nor  for  necessary  defence.  Therefore,  &c. 
From  this  we  may  infer  that  this  kind  of  duelling  is  forbidden  by  the  law  of 
nations.  But  the  following  objection  will  at  once  be  raised  to  the  foregoing 
arguments.  This  kind  of  duelling  takes  place  for  a  test  of  fortitude,  and 
fortitude  is  a  moral  virtue,  nay,  even  a  cardinal  virtue.  But  neither  moral 
virtues  nor  their  exercise  are  forbidden  by  the  law  of  nations.  Therefore  the 
conclusions  just  reached  do  not  stand.  But  that  there  are,  here,  acts  of  true 
fortitude,  which  is  a  moral  virtue,  is  obvious.  For  in  this  kind  of  duelling 
there  are  waiting  and  attack.  Solution  :  In  the  examination  of  this  contrary 
conclusion  we  must  observe  that  there  is  a  true  fortitude,  which  is  a  moral  and 
a  cardinal  virtue,  and  that  neither  it  nor  its  operation  is  forbidden  by  the  law 
of  nations.  There  are  also  counterfeit  forms  of  fortitude,  as  to  which  see  the 
Philosopher,  Ethics,  iv,  treatise  on  fortitude,  which  participate  in  the  acts  of 
attacking  and  awaiting,  and  are  five  in  number.  For  some  men  attack  on 
account  of  the  fear  of  punishment,  because  those  who  flee  from  a  war  are 
punished.  Others  attack  on  account  of  their  experience  in  the  art  of  war,  as 
mercenaries  ;  and  these,  as  they  readily  attack,  so  they  readily  flee,  as  the 
Philosopher  says  in  the  passage  above  cited.  Others  attack  on  account  of 
anger,  without  weighing  the  danger.  Others  attack  on  account  of  hope,  not 
believing  in  the  presence  of  danger,  and  would  not  attack  if  they  thought 
that  danger  was  present.  Others  attack  for  the  sake  of  winning  the  world's 
applause,  because  it  is  usual  to  praise  the  brave,  and  to  scorn  the  timid.  These 
five  qualities  are  counterfeit  imitations  of  true  fortitude,  which  is  a  true  moral 
and  cardinal  virtue.  But  for  true  fortitude  these  conditions  are  required  ; 
namely  :  that  a  man  should  act  knowingly,  for  an  act  done  in  ignorance  is 
not  an  act  of  virtue,  because  prudence  ought  to  control  every  act  of  virtue  ; 
secondly,  he  must  act  from  choice  ;  thirdly,  he  must  choose  the  act  for  its  own 
sake,  that  is  to  say,  for  the  sake  of  the  goodness  and  worth  of  the  act  in  itself, 
and  not  for  the  sake  of  something  extrinsic  to  it ;  fourthly,  he  must  act  firmly 
and  gladly.  All  the  counterfeit  forms  mentioned  above  fall  short,  more  or  less,  of 
the  true  form.  But  they  all  fall  short  in  this,  that  those  who  act  according  to 
them,  do  not  act  for  the  sake  of  the  act  itself,  that  is,  for  the  sake  of  its  goodness 
and  worth.  So  in  the  case  proposed  ;  those  who  do  the  acts  of  attacking  and 
awaiting  in  this  kind  of  duel,  do  them  for  the  sake  of  glory,  not  for  the  sake 
of  the  goodness  and  worth  of  the  act  in  itself ;  nor,  again,  are  they  acting 
herein  in  performance  of  any  duty.  These  arguments  are  collected  from  the 

[35] 


340  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

Philosopher's  treatise  on  fortitude,  Ethics,  iv.  We  may  conclude,  therefore, 
from  the  foregoing,  that  this  kind  of  duelling  is  forbidden  by  the  law  of 
nations. 


How  the  duel  which  is  fought  for  the  sake  of  glory  is  forbidden  by  canon 

and  civil  law. 

I  said  that  this  kind  of  duel  is  forbidden  by  canon  and  civil  law.  Clearly 
it  is  so  by  canon  law,  since  that  law,  in  its  prohibitions  and  permissions, 
imitates  the  paths  of  divine  law,  by  which  this  duel  is  forbidden,  as  I  showed 
above.  It  is  also  proved  by  De  pugnan.  in  duello,  the  red  and  black,  although 
there  clerks  are  referred  to,  because  the  same  rule  applies  to  all.  It  is  better 
proved  by  the  title  De  torneamentis,  where  burial  is  denied  to  those  who  die 
in  tournaments.  This,  then,  is  clear.  But  how  it  is  forbidden  by  civil  law 
must  be  considered  at  some  length,  because  this  kind  of  duel  seems  to  have 
been  allowed  by  the  old  law  of  the  Digest.  This  is  proved  by  the  text  of 
ff .  Ad  leg.  Aquil. ,  1.  hoc  actione,  §  si  quis  in  colluctatione  site  in  pancratia,  where 
it  appears  that  a  penal  action  does  not  lie  against  one  who  kills  another  in 
a  duel  of  pugilists.  It  appears  to  be  forbidden  by  a  new  law  of  the  Code,  as 
is  proved  by  the  text  of  C.  book  xi,  De  gladiat.,  the  single  law.  What,  then, 
shall  we  say  ?  Shall  we  say  that  the  old  law  has  been  amended  by  the  new  ? 
ff.  De  legibus,  1.  non  esl  novum.  Here  I  think  we  should  observe  that  a  fight 
is  not  necessarily  bloody,  where  it  does  not  tend  to  the  shedding  of  blood,  as 
when  men  wrestle  with  their  arms,  or  the  like  ;  and  I  do  not  find  that  this 
kind  of  wrestling  is  forbidden  by  the  civil  law,  either  old  or  new  ;  nay,  the 
new  law  even  permits  spectacles  for  the  recreation  of  the  people  ;  C.  book  xi, 
De  spectac.,  the  whole  title,  except  1.  lenones  ;  and  C.  the  same  book,  De  ex- 
pen,  ludorum,  throughout.  But  a  fight  may  tend  to  the  shedding  of  blood,  as 
in  tournaments  and  in  a  duel  to  the  death  ;  and  this  is  undoubtedly  forbidden 
by  the  new  law  of  the  Code  ;  C.  book  xi,  De  gladiat. ;  and  the  reason  of  the 
prohibition  is  suggested  when  it  is  proved  that  it  is  forbidden  by  divine  law, 
and  by  the  law  of  nations.  But  it  appears  to  be  permitted  by  the  old  law  ; 
ff.  Ad  leg.  Aquiliam,  1.  hac  actione,  §  si  quis  in  colluctatione.  But  perhaps  you 
will  make  the  following  objection.  You  will  say  that  this  duel  is  forbidden 
by  the  law  of  nations  ;  but  the  civil  law  is  not  an  equity  different  from  the 
equity  of  the  law  of  nations  ;  it  is  the  equity  of  the  law  of  nations  itself,  with 
details  and  limitations  of  its  own  added  ;  ff.  De  iustit.  et  iure,  1.  ius  civile  ; 
therefore,  if  it  is  forbidden  by  the  law  of  nations,  it  cannot  be  permitted  by 
the  civil  law  ;  otherwise  the  civil  law  will  be  opposed  to  the  law  of  nations. 
I  have  hesitated  at  this  opposition  ;  but  I  have  weighed  the  words,  §  si  quis 
in  colluctatione,  and  the  intention  which  I  believe  the  legislator  to  have  had. 
And  by  way  of  evidence  I  observe  that  permission  may  be  of  three  kinds. 
It  may  be  a  simple  permission,  which  remits  and  waives  a  penalty ;  dist.  iv, 
dcnique;  for,  as  the  gloss  there  notes,  a  remission  of  penalty,  not  of  blame, 


THE  DUEL  OF  COMPURGATION  341 

is  there  made.  The  second  form  of  permission  removes  the  obstacles  to  that 
which  is  permitted,  as  the  text  says  that  Jews  are  permitted  to  dwell  among 
ourselves,  for  the  obstacles  which  hinder  them  from  being  able  to  dwell  with 
us  according  to  their  rites  are  removed  ;  dist.  xlv,  qui  sincera.  A  third  form 
of  permission  is  also  found,  which  assists  the  act  which  is  permitted  ;  for 
example,  we  say  that  the  Church  sometimes  permits  a  clerk  to  be  put  to  death 
by  a  secular  judge,  by  affording  assistance,  because  it  actually  hands  him 
over,  De  iudic.,  ch.  cum  non  ab  homine  ;  De  crim.  falsi,  ch.  ad  falsariorum  ; 
and  De  verb,  significatione,  ch.  novimus.  The  second  form  of  permission  adds 
something  to  the  first,  because  it  removes  an  obstacle,  which  the  first  did  not, 
for  it  only  remitted  a  penalty.  The  third  adds  something  to  the  second, 
because  it  assists  the  permitted  act,  which  the  second  did  not,  for  it  only 
removed  obstacles.  Now  to  apply  the  words  to  the  case  in  point,  if  I  rightly 
understand  the  section,  §  si  quis  in  colluctatione,  the  text  there  remits  the 
penalty  on  one  who  kills  another  in  a  wrestle,  and  it  adds  the  reason,  which 
is  that  the  injury  is  not  intentional.  The  permission  given  will  therefore  be 
the  first  form,  which  remits  a  penalty,  but  I  nowhere  find  the  law  providing 
that  this  duel  is  permitted  by  the  second  or  third  forms  of  permission.  But 
there  is  no  opposition  if  the  law  of  nations  forbids,  and  the  civil  law  remits 
the  penalty  ;  for  the  civil  law,  which  imposes  a  penalty  for  homicide,  imposes 
it  for  an  intentional  act  ;  and  so,  as  intention  is  here  wanting,  the  civil  law 
remits  the  penalty,  as  shown  above.  From  this  discussion  we  may  infer  by 
what  law  this  kind  of  duel  is  forbidden,  and  by  what  it  is  permitted. 


For  what  reason  is  the  duel  permitted,  and  for  what  is  it  forbidden  ? 

[Ch.  clxxv.] 

In  the  fourth  division  of  the  subject,  which  asks  for  what  reason  it  is 
permitted,  and  for  what  forbidden,  we  must  consider  what  law  forbids,  and 
what  permits,  the  duel  of  compurgation.  And  this  is  properly  and  strictly 
called  "  duel  "  in  ordinary  usage.  And  I  say  that  the  duel  is  forbidden  by 
divine  law,  and  by  the  law  of  nations,  and  by  positive  law.  By  the  canon 
law,  without  exception.  By  the  civil  law,  as  a  general  rule  ;  but  it  is  permitted 
in  certain  cases  by  the  Lombard  law,  as  I  shall  show  when  I  discuss  them. 


How  the  duel  of  compurgation  is  forbidden  by  divine  law. 

That  this  duel  is  forbidden  by  divine  law  is  proved  as  follows  :  An  act 
which  is  a  temptation  of  God  is  forbidden  by  divine  law.  But  this  duel  is  so. 
Therefore,  &c.  The  major  is  proved  by  the  precept,  "  Thou  shalt  not  tempt 
the  Lord  thy  God."  The  minor  is  proved  ;  for  God  is  tempted  when  anything 
against  nature,  which  is  not  possible  except  by  a  divine  miracle,  is  asked  of 


342  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

Him,  as  it  is  directly  in  this  duel  of  compurgation.  For  it  is  natural  that 
a  stronger  and  more  skilful  man  should  conquer  a  less  strong  and  less  skilful  ; 
nor  can  the  contrary  happen  in  the  natural  order  of  things.  But  sometimes 
the  less  strong  and  less  skilful  has  justice  on  his  side  ;  and  by  the  duel  we  ask 
that  he  may  obtain  the  victory,  and  his  justice  be  declared.  So,  therefore, 
God  is  tempted  to  work  a  miracle.  This  is  confirmed  thus  :  An  act  which  is 
invented  by  the  contrivance  of  the  Devil  is  forbidden  by  divine  law.  This 
duel  is  so.  Therefore,  &c.  The  major  is  proved.  For  nothing  is  common  to 
God  and  the  Devil,  to  light  and  darkness.  The  minor  is  proved  by  ii,  q.  v,  ch. 
Mennam;  and  ch.  consuluisti,  in  the  same  cause  and  question.  This  is  con- 
firmed thus  :  An  act  by  which  an  innocent  person  is  condemned,  is  forbidden 
by  divine  law.  This  duel  is  such  an  act.  Therefore,  &c.  The  major  is  proved. 
For  God  does  not  wish  the  innocent  to  be  condemned  ;  xxii,  q.  ii,  ch.  quterilur. 
The  minor  is  proved  by  De  purg.  vulgari,  ch.  significantibus.  Therefore,  &c. 


How  the  duel  of  compurgation  is  forbidden  by  the  law  of  nations. 

Secondly,  I  said  that  this  duel  is  forbidden  by  the  law  of  nations.  This 
is  proved  as  follows  :  An  act  which  is  opposed  to  natural  equity,  on  which 
the  law  of  nations  is  founded,  is  forbidden  by  the  law  of  nations.  But  the 
duel  of  compurgation  is  such  an  act.  Therefore,  &c.  The  major  is  clear.  The 
minor  is  proved  ;  for  the  equity  of  the  law  of  nations  dictates  that  offenders 
should  be  punished,  the  innocent  acquitted.  But  in  this  duel  the  reverse 
sometimes  occurs.  Therefore  it  is  forbidden  by  the  law  of  nations.  It  is 
also  opposed  to  the  precept,  "  quod  tibi  non  ius,"  at  the  beginning  of  the 
Decreta. 


How  the  duel  of  compurgation  is  forbidden  by  canon  law. 

I  said  that  it  was  also  forbidden  by  canon  law.  This  is  clear  from  De  purg. 
vulg.,  throughout ;  De  pugnan..  throughout ;  ii,  q.  v,  from  ch.  consuluisti  to 
the  end  of  the  question.  And  the  same  reasons  might  be  given  which  were 
given  to  prove  that  it  is  forbidden  by  divine  law,  since  canon  law  follows  the 
prohibitions  and  permissions  of  divine  law.  This  is  confirmed.  And  this 
proves  also  that  it  is  forbidden  by  civil  law.  For  an  act  which  excludes  the 
observance  of  positive  law  is  forbidden  by  positive  law.  This  duel  does  so. 
Therefore,  &c.  The  major  is  proved.  For  if  an  observance  is  ordained  by 
positive  law,  it  follows  that  the  exclusion  of  the  observance  is  forbidden  ;  for 
as  one  rule  governs  one  case,  the  opposite  rule  governs  the  'opposite  case  ; 
ff.  De  his  qui  sunt  sui  vel  al.  iur.,  1.  i  ;  Instit.,  the  same  title,  at  the  beginning ; 
dist.  xxxii,  hospitioltim.  The  minor  is  proved  ;  for  positive  law  has  provided 
actions,  both  civil  and  criminal,  and  a  whole  judicial  system,  whereby  it  pro- 
ceeds to  declare  the  rights  of  parties  ;  C.  DC  iudiciis,  1.  propcrandum  ;  Authcnt., 


THE  DUEL  OF  COMPURGATION  .        343 

offeratur  ;  C.  De  litis  contest.,  the  single  law;  C.  De  sentent.  et  interloc.  omn. 
iudic.,  1.  prolatam;  and  De  probationibus,  ch.  quoniam  contra;  so  that  every 
man  may  receive  his  due ;  xii,  q.  ii,  cum  devotissimam  ;  ff .  De  iustit.  et  iure, 
1.  iustitia  ;  and  Instit.,  the  same  title,  §  iustitia.  But  duelling  utterly  excludes 
this  observance.  Therefore  this  duel  is  forbidden  by  positive  law.  This  is 
confirmed  thus  :  An  act  whereby  justice  is  denied  to  parties  is  forbidden  by 
positive  law  ;  but  this  duel  is  such  an  act.  Therefore,  &c.  The  major  is  proved, 
because  positive  laws  are  promulgated  to  this  end  by  divine  permission  through 
the  mouths  of  princes  ;  C.  De  long,  tempo,  prescript.,  the  last  law  ;  dist.  viii, 
quo  iure  ;  xvi,  q.  i,  placuit.  The  minor  is  proved,  because  in  this  duel  it 
sometimes  happens  that  the  innocent  falls,  and  thus  a  wrong  is  inflicted  on 
him  ;  and  it  sometimes  happens  that  the  guilty  prevails  and  so  justice  is  not 
done  to  the  challenger.  This  discussion  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  this  kind 
of  duel,  the  object  of  which  is  the  compurgation  of  an  accusation,  will  be 
forbidden  by  positive  law ;  by  canon  law,  without  exception ;  by  civil  law, 
as  a  general  rule. 

How  the  duel  of  compurgation  is  forbidden  by  civil  law,  as  a  general  rule. 

I  said,  also,  that  as  a  general  rule  this  duel  is  forbidden  by  civil  law. 
It  is  allowed,  however,  in  two  cases  by  the  Lex  Frederici,  De  pace  tenenda 
et  eius  violatoribus  ;  for  example,  if  a  man  kills  another  in  times  of  peace, 
and  there  is  no  doubt  about  the  homicide,  he  is  punished  by  capital  punish- 
ment as  a  breaker  of  the  peace,  unless  he  wishes  to  prove  by  a  duel  that  he 
did  the  act  in  self-defence,  and  this  is  a  special  case  in  which  the  accused  has 
an  option  of  the  duel.  The  other  case  is,  that  if  a  man  wounds  another  in 
times  of  peace,  he  will  be  punished,  unless  he  wishes  to  prove  that  he  did  it 
in  self-defence.  These  two  cases  are  in  De  pace  tenenda  et  eius  violatoribus, 
the  single  law,  the  first  in  §  si  quis  hominem  infra  pacem,  the  second  in  §  si  quis 
alium,  in  the  same  law.  But  the  Lombard  law  allows  it  in  other  cases,  as 
I  shall  show  below.  This  concludes  the  third  principal  part  of  this  treatise, 
on  the  question  what  law  introduced  the  duel,  and  what  law  forbids  it,  the 
several  kinds  of  duel  being  distinguished.  From  the  above,  therefore,  the 
explanation  of  the  fourth  part  is  clear,  namely,  for  what  reasons  it  is  forbidden 
and  permitted.  For  the  first  duel  is  forbidden  by  every  law,  and  permitted 
by  none  ;  and  the  reasons  have  appeared  above.  So  in  treating  of  the  second, 
and  of  the  third,  I  reduce  the  several  matters  debated  in  the  several  parts  to 
this  proposition. 


In  what  cases  is  the  duel  of  compurgation  permitted  ? 

[Ch.  clxxvi.] 

We  must  consider  the  fifth  principal  head,  namely,  in  what  cases  the 
duel  is  permitted.     Of  the  first  kind,  I  have  said  that  it  is  permitted  in  no 


344  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

case.  Of  the  second  kind,  I  have  said  in  what  sense  it  is  permitted.  We  must 
now  consider  the  third  kind,  since  the  Lombard  law  permits  it  in  several 
cases,  and  devote  the  rest  of  the  treatise  to  this  third  kind  alone. 


How  the  Lombard  law  permits  tlu  duel  of  compurgation  in  twenty  cases. 

We  must  ask,  then,  in  what  cases  this  duel  is  permitted,  besides  the  two 
noted  above,  which  are  found  in  the  Lex  Frederici,  De  pace  tenenda  et  eius 
violatoribus.  Solution  :  Duel  is  permitted  on  a  charge  under  the  lex  lulia 
maiestatis,  when  one  man  brings  that  charge  against  another  ;  Lombarda, 
De  publicis  criminibus,  1.  si  quis,  the  last  law.  Secondly,  when  a  wife  is  charged 
with  having  been  privy  to  the  death  of  her  husband  ;  Lombarda,  De  consilio 
mortis,  1.  si  mulier,  the  last  law.  Thirdly,  in  the  wrong  of  "  cucurbitatio,"  if 
one  calls  another  "  cucurbita  "  ;  Lombarda,  De  conviciis,  1.  si  quis  alium. 
The  fourth  case  is  where  a  homicide  is  committed  during  a  truce  ;  Lombarda, 
De  homicidio,  1.  qui  intra  treugam.  The  fifth  is  for  a  homicide  committed  by 
stealth  ;  Lombarda,  De  homicidio,  1.  liber  homo.  The  sixth  is  in  a  charge  of 
parricide,  if  it  is  said  to  have  been  committed  out  of  desire  for  the  dead  man's 
goods  ;  Lombarda,  De  parricidio,  the  last  law,  at  the  end.  The  seventh  con- 
cerns a  theft  by  a  slave,  if  the  master  should  deny  that  his  slave  committed 
the  theft  ;  Lombarda,  De  furtis,  1.  si  quis  alium,  which,  according  to  some, 
was  a  law  "  convalcosiana."  The  eighth  is  on  a  charge  of  adultery,  as  if  one 
is  accused  of  having  committed  adultery  with  another's  wife  ;  Lombarda, 
De  adulterio,  1.  iii.  The  ninth  is  if  a  man  says  that  adultery  has  been  com- 
mitted with  a  woman,  and  wishes  to  prove  it  in  this  way  ;  Lombarda,  De 
iniur.  mulier.,  1.  ii,  si  quis  puellam.  The  tenth  is  if  it  is  said  that  a  man  has 
wrongfully  possessed  a  movable  or  immovable  thing  for  thirty  years  ;  Lom- 
barda, De  praescript.,  1.  si  quis  alium.  The  eleventh  is  between  conflicting 
witnesses  ;  Lombarda,  De  testi.,  1.  si  quis  cum  altero  ;  which  is  allowed  if  the 
witnesses  are  called  by  opposite  parties ;  if  by  the  same  party,  there  is  no  duel. 
For  either  the  plaintiff  proves  his  case,  and  the  defendant  is  condemned,  or 
he  proves  nothing,  and  the  defendant  is  acquitted.  But  if  they  are  called  by 
opposite  parties,  and  in  other  respects  the  sides  are  equal,  then  a  duel  takes 
place.  The  twelfth  case  is  for  a  father's  debt,  against  a  son  who  denies  it ; 
Lombarda,  Qualiter  quis  se  defendat,  et  in  quibus  casibus  pugna  prohiberi  vel 
fieri  debeat,  1.  si  quis  post  mortem.  And  the  true  meaning  of  that  law  is  that 
it  refers  to  a  debt  arising  from  delict.  The  thirteenth  case  is  for  arson,  if 
action  is  brought  against  the  wrong-doer  ;  Lombarda,  Qualiter  quis  se  defcn., 
etc.,  1.  si  quis  alium.  But  a  duel  does  not  take  place  if  action  is  brought  against 
an  accessory  ;  Lombarda,  De  consiliis  illicitis,  the  single  law,  at  the  end.  The 
fourteenth  is  for  adultery,  as  if  a  husband  says  that  his  wife  is  an  adulteress  ; 
Lombarda,  Qualiter  quis  se  defendat,  etc.,  1.  si  quis  uxorem.  The  fifteenth 
is  if  a  husband  suspects  that  another  has  misconducted  himself  with  his  wife  ; 


THE  DUEL  IN  LOMBARD  LAW  345 

and  by  misconduct  the  law  means  carnal  intercourse  ;  Lombarda,  Qualiter 
quis  se  defendat,  etc.,  si  quis  amodo.  The  sixteenth  is  for  perjury ;  Lombarda, 
Qualiter  quis  se  defendat,  etc.,  1.  de  furto.  The  seventeenth  case  is  a  duel  for 
"  investiture,"  as  when  one  man  says  that  he  was  invested  first,  and  was 
ejected  from  possession,  and  another  says  the  same  ;  1.  de  investitura.  The 
eighteenth  is  for  the  denial  of  a  deposit,  as  where  more  than  twenty  solidi 
have  been  deposited  ;  1.  si  quis  pro  se.  The  nineteenth  is  where  a  man  is 
accused  of  having  extorted  a  charter  by  violence  ;  Lombarda,  Qualiter  quis 
se  defendat,  etc.,  1.  si  quis  dixit.  The  twentieth  and  last  case  is  a  duel  on 
a  claim  for  a  slave's  freedom  ;  1.  si  servus.  Some  say  that  this  law  was 
"  convalcosiana." 

X' 

Between  whom  should  a  duel  be  fought  ? 

[Ch.  clxxvii.] 

We  must  consider  the  sixth  principal  head,  namely,  between  whom  a  duel 
may  be  fought. 

How  the  duel  of  computation  should  generally  be  fought  between  principals. 

And  I  say  that  the  rule  of  the  Lombard  law,  which  allows  a  duel  in  the 
cases  above  mentioned,  is  that  a  duel  should  be  between  principals.  But  to 
this  rule  there  are  eight  exceptions.  First,  if  youth  forbids  it.  Second,  if 
the  decrepitude  of  age,  for  therein  is  labour  and  pain.  Third,  if  some  infirmity 
prevents  a  party  from  fighting  a  duel.  These  three  cases  are  found  in  Lom- 
barda, Qualiter  quis  se  defendat,  etc.,  1.  quacunque  lege  ;  and  De  parricidio, 
the  last  law.  The  fourth  is  if  a  slave,  who  is  in  the  quasi-possession  of  servitude, 
claims  his  freedom  ;  then  the  master  fights  by  a  champion  ;  Lombarda, 
Qualiter  quis  se  defendat,  etc.,  1.  si  quis  servum  propter  appetitum.  The  fifth 
is  if  the  person  is  ecclesiastical ;  for  instance,  where  clerks  or  counts  have 
causes  against  one  another,  or  against  others  ;  then  they  fight  by  champion  ; 
Lombarda,  Qualiter  quis  se  defendat,  the  last  law.  The  sixth  is  where  a  woman 
is  accused  of  adultery  ;  Lombarda,  the  same  title,  1.  si  quis  uxorem.  The 
seventh  is  if  the  witnesses  of  the  plaintiff  contradict  the  witnesses  of  the  defen- 
dant ;  then  the  witnesses  of  the  plaintiff  should  choose  a  champion,  and  the 
witnesses  of  the  defendant  another  .  .  . (?) ;  Lombarda,  the  same  title,  1.  si 
quis  cum  altero.  The  eighth  is  if  a  slave  is  accused  of  theft  ;  Lombarda,  De 
furtis,  1.  si  servus,  dum  de  furto.  To-day,  however,  by  custom  any  one  is 
permitted  to  have  a  champion. 


How  is  a  duel  to  be  fought  ? 

[Ch.  clxxviii.] 

We  must  consider  the  seventh  principal  head,  namely,  how  a  duel  is  to 
be  fought. 


346  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 


How  the  duel  of  computation  is  modelled  on  a  contentious  trial. 

And  here  I  premise  that  a  duel  is  modelled  on  a  contentious  trial ;  for 
just  as  in  a  trial  there  are  plaintiff,  defendant,  judge,  instruments  supporting 
the  case,  by  means  of  which,  taken  in  the  wide  sense  as  including  everything 
which  supports  the  case  ;  ft  De  fide  instrum.,  1.  i ;  a  declaration  of  the  truth 
is  arrived  at,  so  that  a  definite  judgement  may  be  pronounced,  so  in  a  duel 
there  are  plaintiff  and  defendant,  that  is,  challenger  and  challenged,  judge, 
and  "  instruments,"  that  is,  arms,  with  which  the  parties  strike  one  another. 
For  just  as  in  a  trial  one  party  convicts  the  other  by  means  of  witnesses, 
documents,  and  confessions  ;  De  restit.  spol.,  cum  ad  sedem  ;  so  in  a  duel  he 
convicts  him  by  bodily  arms  ;  and  as  in  the  trial  one  is  convicted  in  the  event 
of  condemnation,  so  in  like  manner  one  is  convicted  in  the  duel.  We  must 
therefore  examine  this  trial  by  duel,  on  the  analogy  of  a  contentious  trial. 


11  "hether  an  oath  "  de  astu  "  should  be  taken  in  a  duel,  and  by  whom  ? 

[Ch.  clxxix.] 

And  first  I  ask  whether  an  oath  "  de  astu  "  should  be  taken,  and  whether 
by  the  challenger  and  the  challenged,  or  by  one  of  them,  and  by  whom  ? 
Now  an  oath  "  de  astu  "  in  this  trial  is  the  same  thing  as  an  oath  "  de  calumhia  " 
in  a  contentious  trial  in  a  civil  or  ecclesiastical  court.  And  it  appears  that  both 
should  swear  an  oath.  For  the  oath  "  de  calumnia  "  is  taken  in  a  contentious 
trial  by  the  plaintiff  and  the  defendant  ;  C.  De  iur.  calunm.,  1.  i,  and  1.  ii  ; 
and  Authent.,  the  same  title,  principals  ;  Extra.,  the  same  title,  throughout. 
So  in  like  manner  here,  since  there  is  the  same  reason,  there  is  the  same  dis- 
position of  law  ;  ff.  Ad  leg.  Aquil.,  1.  illud  ;  C.  Ad  leg.  Falc.,  the  last  law ; 
De  constitut.,  translate;  and  similar  passages.  Solution  :  There  have  been 
various  opinions  on  this  point,  if  we  regard  the  Lombard  law.  One  opinion, 
said  to  have  been  that  of  the  Mantuans,  was  that  in  this  trial  by  duel  an  oath 
"  de  astu  "  is  taken  by  both  parties,  both  plaintiff  and  defendant  ;  and 
according  to  them,  all  laws  which  speak  of  not  taking  the  oaith  "  de  astu  " 
are  amended.  They  cite  Lombarda,  Qualiter  quis  se  defendat,  1.  mentio.  But 
that  law  has  four  possible  meanings.  One,  that  it  refers  to  conflicting  wit- 
nesses, that  there  should  rather  be  a  duel  than  they  should  perjure  themselves. 
The  second,  that  it  refers  to  two  persons  claiming  to  be  in  possession,  that  they 
should  fight  a  duel  instead  of  giving  up  possession.  The  third,  that  it  refers 
to  one  against  whom  an  oath  that  he  has  committed  theft  has  been  taken, 
who  wishes  to  swear  the  contrary.  The  fourth,  when  two  persons  are  litigating 
before  a  judge,  and  one  swears  that  he  has  taken  an  oath,  and  the  other  wishes 
to  swear  the  contrary.  Their  view  seems  to  be  disapproved,  because  the  law 
did  not  require  an  oath  from  the  defendant,  so  that  the  plaintiff  only  takes  an 


TRIAL  BY  DUEL  347 

oath  ;    Lombarda,  Qualiter  quis  se  defendat,  1.  si  quis  alium  astu.    There  is 
an  exception  when  a  duel  is  fought  because  of  a  conflict  of  witnesses  ;   Lom- 
barda, De  testi.,  the  last  law  ;   and  Qualiter  quis  se  defendat,  1.  si  quis  cum 
olio.     A  second  opinion  was  that  of  Carolus  Beneventanus,  who  wished  to 
distinguish  between  one  who  comes  to  the  duel  in  a  cause  entirely  concerning 
himself,  and  one  who  comes  in  a  cause  directly  concerning  another,  or  con- 
cerning another  primarily  and  himself  only  secondarily.     In  the  first  case, 
as  when  a  man  challenges  another  for  theft  or  arson  done  to  himself,  or 
adultery  with  his  wife,  he  says  it  is  material  to  note  whether  the  challenger 
says,  "  you  have  committed,"  or  "  I  suspect  that  you  have  committed."    In 
the  first  case,  he  ought  to  swear  that  the  thing  is  so.    In  the  second  case,  he 
ought  to  swear  that  he  has  a  just  suspicion  ;  and  when  he  challenges-on  grounds 
of  suspicion,  he  ought  to  adduce  the  reason  of  his  suspicion  ;    for  instance, 
that  he  saw  the  man  speaking  with  his  wife,  and  so  on.    But  if  a  man  challenges 
another  to  a  duel  in  a  cause  which  concerns  another — that  is,  not  for  any 
wrong  committed  against  himself,  but  for  one  against  another,  as  when  a  man 
challenges  on  a  charge  of  treason — then,  when  he  comes  forward  as  a  witness, 
he  ought  to  swear  that  the  thing  is  so,  just  as  a  witness  takes  an  oath  ;  C.  De 
testi.,  1.  iurisiurandi  ;   De  testi.,  ch.  tuis,  and  ch.  cum  nuntius  ;   and  similar 
passages.     And  so  he  says  that  the  defendant  should  swear  that  the  thing 
is  not  so.    This  opinion,  so  far  as  it  concerns  the  oath  of  the  defendant,  is 
disapproved,  as  I  showed  just  now.    A  third  opinion,  said  to  have  been  that 
of  the  Papienses,  was,  that  no  oath  should  be  taken  by  the  defendant  and 
the  challenged,  but  only  by  the  plaintiff.    As  to  the  plaintiff,  this  is  proved  by 
Lombarda,  Qualiter  quis  se  defendat,  1.  si  quis  astu.     As  to  the  defendant, 
it  is  proved  thus  :    The  defendant  is  bound  to  one  of  two  things,  either  to 
fight,  or,  if  he  refuses,  to  be  condemned.    Therefore  an  oath  on  his  part  has 
no  effect,  and  so  should  be  omitted  as  superfluous  ;  C.  De  appel.,  1.  ampliorem, 
§  in  refutatoriis  ;  ff .  De  procuratoribus,  1.  non  cogendum,  §  Sabinus.    A  fourth 
opinion,  which  was  that  of  a  certain  Albertus,  was  that  the  plaintiff  always 
takes  an  oath  except  on  a  charge  of  treason,  and  when  witnesses  are  in  conflict, 
and  on  a  question  of  the  investiture  of  an  estate.    As  to  the  accused,  he  agrees 
with  the  others,  except  with  the  Papienses.    And  I  believe  it  is  tnie  that  the 
plaintiff  takes  an  oath  as  a  general  rule,  except  in  the  cases  above  mentioned. 
And  the  reason  is,  that  the  defendant  may  be  compelled  to  clear  himself, 
although  there  is  as  yet  no  judgement  against  him ;  but  the  laws  indeed  require 
that  he  should  at  least  be  "  infamis,"  and  then,  if  his  proofs  fail,  he  is  liable 
to  compurgation  ;  De  purgat.  canon.,  throughout;   ii,  q.  iv,  throughout;  De 
accusat.,  qualiter  ii,  and  this  passage  should  be  noted  there.    So,  then,  by  the 
Lombard  law,  which  permits  a  duel  in  the  cases  above  enumerated,  an  oath, 
at  least  on  the  part  of  the  plaintiff,  should  precede  ;    and  the  oath  should 
conform  to  the  terms  of  the  challenge,  so  that,  if  the  challenge  asserts  a  fact, 
he  should  swear  to  a  fact ;   if  a  suspicion,  he  should  swear  to  this,  just  as 
a  difference  is  noted  between  an  oath  "  de  calumnia  "  and  an  oath  "  de 
[36] 


348  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

veritate,"  the  one  asserting  belief,  the  other  a  fact,  as  Carolus  pointed 
out.  But  as  to  the  defendant,  I  can  conceive  no  reason  for  an  oath  being 
necessary. 


Whether  when  one  party  has  a  champion  in  the  cases  allowed  by  law,  the 
other  party  may  have  one  too  ? 

[Ch.  clxxx.] 

Secondly,  I  ask  whether,  if  one  of  the  parties  has  a  champion,  in  the 
cases  allowed  by  the  Lombard  law,  which  are  eight  in  number,  as  I  noted 
above,  the  other  party  may  then  have  a  champion  too.  Solution  :  There 
have  been  various  opinions  on  this  question.  Some  authorities  say  that  he 
may.  They  cite  Lombarda,  Qualiter  quis  se  defendat,  1.  quicunque.  There 
is  an  exception  in  the  case  where  a  slave  contends  against  his  master.  A 
second  opinion  was  that  the  other  party  may  not.  The  reason  given  is  this  : 
For  the  law  allows  a  champion  in  three  cases  ;  therefore  it  refuses  it  in  others  ; 
ff.  De  legi.,  1.  ins  singulare  ;  ff.  Ad  municip.,  1.  i ;  ff.  Solut.  matrimon.,  1. 
si  cum  dotem  ;  C.  De  procur.,  1.  maritus  ;  De  translatione  pralatorum,  ch. 
inter  corporalia  ;  and  similar  passages.  I  think  that  here  we  must  observe 
that  this  trial  by  duel  differs  from  a  contentious  trial  in  this,  that  in  a  con- 
tentious trial  a  party  is  ordinarily  represented  by  another,  and  for  this  reason 
the  use  of  "  procurators"  was  introduced;  ff. Deprocurat.,1.  i,  [and  1.]  §MS«S  ; 
but  in  a  duel  the  party  ordinarily  appears  in  person,  and  in  this  a  duel  resembles 
a  criminal  trial,  in  which  a  "  procurator  "  does  not  appear  to  plead  the  cause  ; 
ff.  De  public,  iudic.,  the  penultimate  law,  §  qui  ad  crimcn  ;  and  ff .  De  procurat., 
L  servum  quoque,  §  publice  ;  and  De  accusationibus,  ch.  licet,  and  ch.  veniens. 
And  the  reason  is,  that  sentence  of  condemnation  cannot  be  pronounced  on 
the  procurator,  because  he  is  innocent ;  nor  on  the  principal,  because  he  is 
absent ;  ff.  De  pcenis,  1.  absentem.  It  is  exactly  the  same  in  the  duel ;  for 
duellists  fight  to  overthrow  one  another,  in  order  that  the  truth  may  be  elicited 
by  this  mode  of  proof.  And  so,  as  a  rule,  a  champion  does  not  appear,  except 
in  the  permitted  cases.  If,  then,  a  case  arises  in  which  one  party  has  the  right 
to  a  champion,  but  the  other  has  not,  the  former  alone  will  have  a  champion. 
But  if  both  parties  have  the  right,  they  will  both  have  champions,  unless  we 
are  to  say  that  in  order  to  preserve  equality  on  the  two  sides,  wherever  one 
is  allowed  a  champion  the  other  may  have  one  too  ;  C.  De  fruct.  et  lit.  expensis, 
1.  terminalo  ;  De  mutuis  petit.,  ch.  i,  and  throughout  the  title  ;  Sext,  De  regul. 
iur.,  rule  non  licet ;  and  this  latter  view  is  more  equitable ;  but  the  former, 
which  observes  the  rigour  of  the  law,  is  more  correct. 


DUEL  BY  CHAMPIONS  349 

How  are  champions  to  be  given  and  assigned  in  cases  where  both 

parties  are  allowed  them  ? 

[Ch.  clxxxi.] 

Thirdly,  I  ask,  How  are  champions  to  be  given  and  assigned  in  cases 
where  both  parties  are  allowed  them  ?  Solution  :  Here  I  observe  that  cham- 
pions in  a  trial  by  duel  are  like  advocates  in  a  contentious  court,  and  so  I  infer 
that,  just  as  there  ought  to  be  an  equal  assignment  of  advocates  in  a  conten- 
tious trial;  C.  De  postul.,  1.  providendum  ;  so  there  ought  to  be  an  equal 
assignment  of  champions  when  both  sides  are  allowed  them.  But  when  the 
principals  fight,  equality  or  inequality  is  not  to  be  regarded,  since  they  conduct 
their  own  case  to  an  issue  by  their  own  bodily  strength.  / 


Whether  any  one  may  be  allowed  as  a  champion  ? 

[Ch.  clxxxii.] 

Fourthly,  I  ask  whether  any  one  may  be  allowed  as  a  champion.  Solution  : 
As  was  said  above,  a  champion  is  here  like  an  advocate  ;  and  therefore,  just 
as  any  one  is  admitted  to  plead,  unless  he  is  a  prohibited  person  ;  ff.  De  postul., 
1.  i ;  so  any  one  is  admitted  to  the  office  of  champion,  unless  he  is  disqualified 
by  law.  But  a  thief  is  disqualified  ;  Lombarda,  Qualiter  quis  se  defendat, 
1.  si  ut  campionem.  And  the  reason  is,  because  he  is  "  infamis  "  ;  ff.  De  furt., 
1.  non  potest  ;  and  if  he  is  defeated,  it  is  presumed  to  be  by  reason  of  his  own 
wrong-doing  ;  so,  too,  other  persons  convicted  of  grave  crimes  are  disqualified 
for  the  same  reason. 


In  whose  election  is  the  duel  ? 

[Ch.  clxxxiii.] 

Fifthly,  I  ask,  In  whose  election  is  the  duel  ?  Solution  :  As  a  rule,  it  is 
in  the  election  of  the  plaintiff,  on  the  analogy  of  a  contentious  trial.  See 
Lombarda,  Qualiter  quis  se  defendat,  1.  si  quis  amodo.  There  is  an  exception 
in  a  charge  of  treason,  where  the  plaintiff  may  be  compelled  to  fight  ;  and 
where  one  has  used  the  expression  "  arga  "  ;  Lombarda,  De  publicis  criminibus, 
the  last  law  ;  and  Lombarda,  De  iniur.  mulier.,  1.  ii. 


How  is  the  duel  to  be  ordered  ? 

[Ch.  clxxxiv.] 

Sixthly,  I  ask,  how  the  duel  ought  to  be  ordered.  Solution :  The  law  does 
not  ordain,  but  custom  prescribes,  that  a  small  but  ample  place  should  be 
chosen,  in  the  city  or  outside  ;  and  this  place  should  be  enclosed  with  ropes, 


350  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

so  that,  when  the  word  is  given,  no  one  except  the  duellists  may  presume  to 
enter,  nor  to  make  a  disturbance,  which  might  distract  one  of  the  parties. 
And  the  judge  will  be  there,  in  a  place  whence  he  can  see  both  combatants, 
and  how  one  meets  the  other,  in  order  that  at  the  end  he  may  pronounce 
whether  one  has  been  defeated  in  the  duel. 


With  what  arms  should  the  duel  be  fought  ? 

[Ch.  drav.] 

Seventhly,  I  ask  with  what  arms  the  duel  should  be  fought.  Solution  : 
The  Lombard  law  allows  shields  and  clubs ;  Lombarda,  De  testi.,  1.  si  quis 
cum  altero  ;  and  Qualiter  quis  se  defendat,  1.  mentio  ;  and  these  ought  to  be 
equal  and  presented  by  the  judge. 


Whether,  if  the  arms  or  the  club  of  one  of  the  combatants  are  broken,  or 
fall,  others  ought  to  be  given  him  ? 

[Ch.  cboocvi.] 

Eighthly,  I  ask  whether,  if  the  arms  or  the  club  of  one  combatant  are 
broken  or  fall,  others  ought  to  be  given  him.  And  it  seems  that  they  ought. 
For  the  text  says  that  the  fight  is  to  be  with  clubs  and  shields  ;  Lombarda, 
Qualiter  quis  se  defendat,  1.  mentio ;  and  Lombarda,  De  testi.,  1.  si  quis  cum 
altero  ;  but  if  others  should  not  be  given  him,  it  would  not  be  with  clubs. 
Therefore,  &c.  This  is  confirmed.  For  clubs  in  a  duel  are  like  witnesses  and 
documents  in  a  contentious  trial ;  but  in  a  contentious  court  witnesses  and  docu- 
ments may  be  produced  again,  if  the  testimony  of  some  of  them  is  lost  before 
publication  and  the  making  up  of  the  depositions;  Authent.,  De  testi.,  §  si 
vero ;  De  testi.,  fraternitatis  ;  and  Clemen.,  the  same  title,  testibus.  Some 
authorities  agree  to  this  if  the  arms  are  broken,  but  not  if  they  fall ;  for  then, 
they  say,  the  mishap  should  be  imputed  to  the  luck  of  the  party.  Others  say 
that  in  no  case  are  fresh  arms  to  be  given,  but  that  any  mishap  is  a  matter  of 
luck.  Others  say  that  the  matter  depends  on  custom.  I  think  that  the  second 
opinion  is  true  ;  that  is  to  say,  that  other  arms  should  not  be  given,  whether 
the  first  set  fall,  or  are  broken,  unless  there  is  a  custom  which  can  operate 
to  the  contrary  ;  ft  De  legi.,  1.  de  quibus  ;  C.  Quae  sit  long,  consue.,  1.  ii ;  dist. 
xi,  consuetudinis ;  dist.  i,  consuetudo.  And  the  reason  is  this:  For  in  a  duel, 
as  I  said  at  the  beginning  of  the  treatise,  we  sometimes  ask  for  what  is  contrary 
to  nature,  namely,  that  the  less  strong  and  less  active  of  the  parties  should 
defeat  the  stronger  and  more  active  ;  and  this  sometimes  happens  by  the 
intervention  of  chance.  Therefore  each  of  the  combatants  should  be  left  to 
submit  to  the  chances  to  which  they  have  freely  exposed  themselves  ;  otherwise 
the  character  of  the  dud  of  compurgation  would  be  lost.  This  is  confirmed. 


PROCEDURE  IN  THE  DUEL  351 

For  if  we  should  say  that  new  arms  should  be  given,  when  the  old  arms  fall, 
then  by  the  like  reasoning  we  should  say  that  a  combatant  who  falls  should 
be  raised  up,  which  is  absurd.  For  by  these  chances  it  sometimes  happens 
that  the  stronger  is  defeated,  and  herein  the  judgement  of  heaven  is  shown. 


Which  of  the  combatants  ought  to  strike  first  ? 

[Ch.  clxxxvii.] 

[  Ninthly,  I  ask,  Who  ought  to  strike  first  in  a  duel  ?  And  it  seems  that  the 
challenger  should  ;  for  this  trial  by  duel  is  like  a  contentious  trial,  as  I  have 
often  mentioned  above.  But  in  a  contentious  trial  the  plaintiff  first  delivers 
his  "  libel  "  to  the  defendant,  and  the  defendant  replies  later  ;  C.  De  lit.  con- 
testat.,  in  Authent.,  offeratur  ;  and  De  libel,  oblatione,  ch.  i.  Therefore,  by 
parity  of  reasoning,  the  challenger  will  first  strike  the  challenged.  On  the 
other  side  is  the  argument  that  greater  favour  is  to  be  shown  to  the  defendant ; 
ff.  De  obi.  et  act.,  1.  Arrianus  ;  ff.  De  regul.  iur.,  rule  favorabiliores  ;  Sext,  the 
same  title,  rule  in  pcenis.  Solution  :  I  think  the  first  view  is  true,  notwith-  • 
standing  the  citations  to  the  contrary,  because  those  laws  refer  to  the  end  of 
the  trial,  when  there  remains  only  the  definitive  judgement;  because  then  it  is 
true  that  the  defendant  should  be  favoured.  But  at  the  beginning  the  plaintiff 
is  to  be  favoured  ;  ff.  De  iudic.,  1.  si  quis  intentione  ambigua  ;  and  ff.  De  verb, 
obligationibus,  1.  inter  stipulantem.  Or  we  might  say  that  no  order  is  to  be 
observed  in  this,  but  that  the  combatants  should  be  allowed  to  anticipate  one 
another,  or  even  to  strike  at  the  same  time. 


Whether  a  duel  not  ended  on  the  first  day,  may  be  ended 
on  the  following  day  ? 

[Ch.  clxxxviii.] 

My  tenth  question  is,  whether,  if  a  duel  cannot  be  ended  on  the  first  day, 
it  may  be  adjourned  to  the  following  day.  Solution  :  I  say  that  it  may ;  for 
I  say  that  it  should  be  renewed  until  it  is  finished. 


Whether  one  who  fails  in  a  duel  is  to  be  condemned  to  pay  costs  ? 

[Ch.  clxxnx.] 

My  eleventh  question  is,  whether  one  who  fails  in  a  duel  ought  to  be 
condemned  to  pay  his  adversary's  costs.  Solution  :  On  the  analogy  of  a  con- 
tentious trial,  in  which  the  vanquished  is  condemned  to  pay  the  victor's 
costs  ;  C.  De  iudiciis,  1.  proper andum,  §  sin  autem  ;  C.  De  fruct.  et  lit.  expens., 
1.  terminato  ;  De  dolo  et  contum.,  ch.  finem  ;  De  poem's,  ch.  calumniam  ;  so 
in  the  duel  we  might  say,  "  victus  victori,"  &c. 


352  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

Whether,  if  the  challenger  fails  in  a  duel,  he  is  to  be  punished  by  the 
penally  of  retaliation  ? 

[Ch.  cxc.] 

My  twelfth  question  is,  whether,  if  the  challenger  fails  in  a  duel,  he  is  to 
be  punished  by  the  penalty  of  retaliation.  Solution  :  On  the  analogy  of  a 
criminal  contentious  trial,  where  the  penalty  of  retaliation  is  imposed  on  the 
accuser  if  he  fails;  De  accus.,  ch.  super  his;  the  same  title,  ch.  licet;  and 
C.  De  accusat.,  the  last  law;  so  in  a  duel,  when  it  is  fought  for  public 
vindication,  to  punish  one  who  has  made  an  accusation. 


Whether  one  who  has  been  challenged  to  a  duel  on  account  of  an  accusation,  and 

has  been  defeated  and  condemned,  may  be  charged  with  the  same 

accusation  in  a  contentious  trial? 

[Ch.  cxci.] 

My  thirteenth  question  is,  whether  one  who  has  been  challenged  to  a  duel 
on  account  of  an  accusation,  and  has  been  defeated  and  condemned,  may  be 
charged  with  the  same  accusation  in  a  contentious  trial.  Solution :  It  might  be 
said  that  he  may,  since  the  civil  law  does  not  approve,  but  utterly  disapproves, 
of  the  duel  of  com  purgation  ;  C.  book  xi,  De  glad.,  the  single  law  ;  and  so  does 
the  canon  law  ;  De  pugnant.  in  duello  ;  and  De  purg.  vulg.,  throughout  ;  as 
I  have  often  pointed  out  above,  at  the  beginning  of  the  treatise.  This  phrase, 
"  disapproved  by  law,"  precludes  juridical  discussion,  and  therefore  it  is  no 
objection  to  say  that  the  wrongful  act  of  a  person  is  not  to  be  enquired  into 
more  than  once  ;  ff.  Naut.  caup.  stabul.,  1.  licet,  at  the  end  ;  and  De  accusat., 
ch.  de  his  ;  because  those  laws  refer  to  a  case  in  which  the  former  examination 
and  discussion  have  been  juridical,  and  so  we  may  conclude  that  an  acquittal 
by  duel  does  not  give  rise  to  an  "  exceptio  rei  iudicatae  "  against  one  who 
wishes  to  bring  an  accusation  in  a  contentious  trial.  This  is  true,  unless  the 
custom  of  the  district  is  to  the  contrary,  so  that  the  Lombard  law,  for 
instance,  is  to  be  observed,  whose  disposition  I  have  followed  herein  ;  and  the 
solutions  of  the  preceding  questions  are  to  be  limited  accordingly. 


Whether  one  who  challenges  another  to  a  duel  on  account  of  a  public  accusation, 
and  withdraws  from  the  duel,  incurs  the  Turpilian  penalty  ? 

[Ch.  cxcii.] 

My  fourteenth  question  is,  whether  one  who  challenges  another  to  a  duel 
on  account  of  a  public  accusation,  and  withdraws  from  the  duel,  incurs  the 
Turpilian  penalty.  And  it  seems  that  he  does,  on  the  analogy  of  a  criminal 
contentious  trial ;  ff.  Ad  Turpilianum,  1.  i,  §  si  quis  autem.  Solution  :  At 
common  law  the  question  would  not  arise,  since  the  common  law  disapproves 
of  this  mode  of  trial ;  see  above.  But,  according  to  the  law  which  allows  it, 


CHALLENGE  TO  THE  DUEL  353 

we  might  say  that  on  the  same  equitable  grounds  the  man  should  be  punished  ; 
and  I  say  that  the  matter  is  in  the  discretion  of  the  judge,  since  the  law  is 
silent  ;  De  offic.  iudicis  delegat.,  ch.  de  causis,  at  the  end  ;  ff.  De  iur.  delib., 
1.  i.  But  I  do  not  think  he  incurs  the  Turpilian  penalty,  since  penalties  are 
not  to  be  enlarged  ;  ff.  De  lib.  et  posth.,  1.  cum  quidam  ;  and  dist.  i,  De  Poenit., 
§  pcence  ;  Sext,  De  reg.  iuris,  rule  in  pcenis.  These  conclusions,  as  I  said, 
proceed  from  Lombard  law.  For,  at  common  law,  one  who  withdraws  from 
a  duel  is  not  punished ;  nay,  he  obeys  the  law  in  doing  so,  and  breaks  it  if 
he  goes  on. 

Whether  one  who  challenges  another  to  a  duel  by  Lombard  law  may  withdraw 

with  the  leave  of  the  judge  ? 

[Ch.  cxciii.] 

My  fifteenth  question  is,  whether  one  who  challenges  another  to  a  duel 
by  Lombard  law  may  withdraw  with  the  leave  of  the  judge.  It  appears 
that  he  may,  on  the  analogy  of  a  prosecutor  asking  for  discontinuance  ; 
ff.  Ad  Turpil.,  1.  abolitio,  and  1.  si  quis  interveniente,  and  1.  Domitianus  ;  C.  De 
abolit.,  throughout.  Solution  :  At  common  law  this  is  clear,  because  he  may 
withdraw  without  discontinuance,  and  he  does  right  to  do  so.  By  Lombard 
law,  too,  I  think  that  the  judge  may  allow  it  for  good  reason,  on  the  analogy 
of  a  prosecutor,  quoted  above. 


Whether  one  who  challenges  another  to  a  duel  may  withdraw  without  penalty  before 
joinder  of  issue  ?  and  also  when  should  issue  be  said  to  be  joined  in  a  duel  ? 

[Ch.  cxciv.] 

My  sixteenth  question  is,  whether  one  who  challenges  another  to  a  duel 
may  withdraw  without  penalty  before  joinder  of  issue  ;  and  herein  I  also 
ask  what  is  the  point  of  time  in  a  duel  which  corresponds  to  joinder  of  issue 
in  a  contentious  trial.  And  it  seems  that  he  may  withdraw  before  that  time 
without  penalty.  For  before  joinder  of  issue  one  is  not  said  to  be  "bringing 
an  action,"  but  to  be  "  intending  to  bring  an  action  "  ;  ff.  Rat.  rem  haberi, 
1.  amplius.  Therefore,  up  to  that  time  he  may  withdraw.  This  is  confirmed. 
For  before  joinder  of  issue  one  who  withdraws  is  excused  ;  ff .  De  in  ius  vocando, 
1.  quamvis.  Therefore,  &c.  It  is  confirmed  by  C.  De  adulter.,  1.  sine  metu  ; 
ff.  the  same  title,  1.  miles,  §  socer  ;  and  ff.  Ad  Turpilianum,  1.  qucesitum.  In 
the  opposite  sense  is  ff.  Ad  Turpilianum,  1.  in  senatus,  §  qui  post,  where  the 
text  proves  that  one  who  withdraws  from  an  accusation  before  joinder  of 
issue  is  liable  to  the  Turpilian  penalty.  To  the  same  effect  is  C.  De  calum- 
niatoribus,  the  penultimate  law.  Solution  :  This  question  presupposes  the 
decision  of  another  question,  namely,  what  is  the  point  of  time  in  this  trial 
by  duel  which  corresponds  to  joinder  of  issue.  And  it  seems  to  be  after  one 


354  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

blow  of  the  plaintiff,  and  one  of  the  defendant,  because  in  a  contentious  trial 
issue  is  joined  by  the  claim  and  the  defence  which  follows  it ;   C.  De  iudiciis, 
1.  rem  non  nbvam,  §  palroni  ;  C.  De  litis  contestat.,  Authent.,  offcratur  ;   and 
Extra.,  the  same  title,  the  single  chapter.    But  in  a  duel  the  first  blow  takes 
the  place  of  the  claim  ;  the  second,  which  is  by  the  defendant,  is  the  defence  ; 
and  so  issue  is  thus  joined.    I  believe,  however,  that  the  true  view  is,  that  issue 
is  joined  when  one  party  challenges,  asserting  that  the  other  has  committed 
the  crime,  and  the  other  denies  it.    And  it  is  obvious  that  this  is  the  true  view. 
For  the  oath  "  de  calumnia  "  is  taken  after  joinder  of  issue  ;    Authent.,  Vt 
litigantes  iurent  in  exordio  litis,  at  the  beginning  ;    and  C.  De  iureiurando 
propter  calumniam,  1.  ii.    But  combatants  in  a  duel  take  the  oath  "  de  astu  " 
after  this  verbal  challenge  and  contradiction,  as  I  showed  above.    Therefore 
the  duel  begins  with  the  verbal  proclamation,  but  the  blows  correspond  to 
the  proofs  by  witnesses  and  documents,  which  come  after  joinder  of  issue  ; 
Vt  lite  non  contestata,  throughout.    And  so  we  must  modify  the  solution  of 
tin.-  question  in  which  I  asked  who  should  strike  first.    If  we  adopt  this  solution, 
the  principal  question  becomes  a  question  whether  the  Turpilian  penalty 
applies  before  joinder  of  issue.    And  the  glosses  are  conflicting.    There  is  one, 
by  Hugolinus,  on  ff.  De  adulteriis,  1.  si  miles,  §  socer,  which  holds  that  it  does 
not  apply.    There  is  another,  by  Azo,  on  C.  Ad  Turpilianum,  1.  i,  which  holds 
that  it  does  ;  and  this  I  believe  to  be  true,  by  ff.  Ad  Turpilianum,  1.  in  scna/us, 
§  qui  post  ;  and  C.  Quomodo  et  quando  iudex,  Authent.,  qui  semel.    Yet  Petrus 
says  that  the  accuser  may  change  his  mind  up  to  the  time  when  the  defendant 
appears  after  citation  ;    he  so  understands  ff.  Ad  Turpilianum,  1.  qucesitum. 
And  in  like  manner  we  may  reach  a  solution  of  the  previous  question,  speaking 
of  the  Lombard  law,  as  above.    Thanks  be  to  God. 

End  of  the  treatise  on  War,  compiled  by  me,  Giovanni  da  Legnano 
of  Milan,  least  worthy  of  the  doctors  of  canon  and  civil  law,  in 
the  University  of  Bologna,  in  the  year  1360,  at  a  time  when  a  strong 
army  lay  before  the  city,  which  furnished  the  cause  of  my  treatise, 
that  it  might  provide  a  matter  of  exercise  for  the  students  at  that 
time,  but  be  submitted  to  the  correction  of  the  doctors.  Thanks  be 
to  God.  Amen. 


A  TABLE  OF  THE  TREATISE 

[ch. ;.] 

This  treatise  on  War,  in  its  first  division,  is  divided  into  three  principal 
parts,  of  which  the  last  is  divided  into  six  treatises,  and  subdivided  as  will 
be  made  clear  to  you  by  the  table  below,  which  arranges  its  titles  in  their 
order. 

First  principal  part, 

What  war  is,  and  how  it  is  to  be  described. 


Second  principal  part. 

[Ch.ii.] 
Of  the  division  of  war  and  how  it  is  to  be  divided. 


The  third  and  last  principal  part 
gives  the  order  of  the  treatises,  and  is  divided  into  six  principal  treatises. 

First  treatise.. 
Of  celestial  spiritual  war. 

How  celestial  spiritual  war  is  the  mete  and  measure  of  human  spiritual 
war. 

Of  the  natural  influence  of  the  spiritual  war  of  celestial  bodies  on  terrestrial 
wars. 

How,  according  to  astrologers  and  natural  philosophers,  it  is  necessary 
to  assume  the  existence  of  war. 


Second  treatise. 

[Ch«.  iii-vi.] 

Of  human  spiritual  war,  according  to  theology. 

[Chs.  vii,  viii.] 

Of  human  spiritual  war,  according  to  moral  philosophy. 


[37] 


356  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

Third  treatise. 

[Ch.ix.] 

Of  universal  corporeal  war. 
divided  into  six  treatises 

First  treatise  :  On  the  law  whereby  it  is  introduced. 
[Ch.  x.] 

How  universal  corporeal  war  had  its  origin  in  divine  law. 

[Ch. «.] 
How  universal  corporeal  war  had  its  origin  in  the  law  of  nations. 


Second  treatise  of  the  third  principal  treatise  :  On  who  may  declare 

universal  war. 

[Cta.  xii-xiv.] 

Who  first  and  chiefly  may  declare  universal  war,  and  by  what  law,  and 
against  whom  ? 

[Ch.  xv.] 

Whether  war  made  by  the  Emperor  against  the  Church  is  lawful,  and 
whether  subjects  are  bound  to  obey  him  therein  ? 

[Ch.  xvi.] 

What,  on  the  other  hand,  is  the  law,  when  the  Pope  makes  war  against 
the  Emperor  ? 


Third  treatise  oj  the  third  principal  treatise  :  Of  the  means 
of  making  war. 

[Ch.  xvii.] 

Of  the  legion  and  the  cohort,  and  who  and  how  many  are  required  therein. 

[Ch.  xviii.] 

How  soldiers  should  conduct  themselves  in  war,  whom  they  should  obey, 
and  from  what  they  are  commanded  to  abstain. 


A  TABLE  OF  THE  TREATISE  357 

[Ch.  xix.] 

What  belongs  to  the  office  of  a  general  in  war  ? 

[Ch. xx.] 
How  soldiers  are  punished  differently,  according  to  their  different  offences. 

[Ch.  xxi.] 

Of  fortitude  and  its  nature  ;  and  when  fortitude  is  to  be  called  moral,  and 
when  not ;  and  when  fortitude  conducts  war  to  a  right  end,  and  when  not. 

/ 

[Ch.  xxii.] 

Whether  fortitude  is  a  cardinal  virtue  ? 

[Ch.  xxiii.] 

Why,  and  in  what  sense,  the  four  principal  virtues  are  called  cardinal. 
What  is  virtue  ? 

[Ch.  xxiv.] 

Of  the  threefold  species  of  good,  and  how  the  four  cardinal  virtues  are 
derived  from  the  good. 

[Ch*.  zxv,  xxvi.] 

How,  and  in  what  sense,  a  man  may  be  called  brave  in  war. 

[Ch.  xxvii.] 

Which  is  the  chief  act  of  fortitude  ? 

How  many  kinds  of  fortitude  are  practised  in  war  ? 

[Ch.  xxviii.] 

Whether  a  brave  man  in  war  ought  to  await  death  rather  than  to  flee  ? 

[Ch.  xxix.] 

Whether  a  soldier  should  be  punished  with  death,  who  bravely  charges 
the  enemy  with  his  company,  and  utterly  routs  them,  contrary  to  the  commands 
of  the  general  ? 

[Ch.  xxx.] 

Whether  quarter  should  be  granted  to  the  general  of  a  war,  when  captured 
by  the  enemy  ? 


358  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

Fourth  treatise  of  the  third  principal  treatise,  divided  into 
two  principal  parts. 

First  part :  Who  are  bound  to  participate  in  a  war  ? 
[Ch.  xxxi.] 

Whether  vassals  are  bound  to  participate  in  a  war  at  their  own  expense 
when  a  lawful  war  is  begun  by  their  lord  ? 

[Ch.  xxxii.] 

Whether  the  subjects  of  a  baron,  who  begins  a  war  against  his  king,  are 
bound  to  help  the  baron  against  the  king  ? 

[Ch.  xxxiii.] 

Whether  subjects  are  bound  to  help  first  a  baron  who  begins  a  war  against 
another  baron,  or  the  king  who  begins  a  war  against  another  king,  both  com- 
mands being  received  at  the  same  time  ? 

[Ch.  xxxiv.] 

Whether  the  non-liege  vassal  of  two  lords  is  bound  to  help  both,  or  one, 
and  if  so,  which  ? 

[Ch.  xxxv.] 

Whether  a  vassal  is  bound  to  help  his  lord  against  his  father,  or  a  father 
against  his  son  ? 

Whether  a  citizen  of  two  states  is  bound  to  help  one  against  the  other  ? 

[Ch.  xxxvi.] 

Whether  a  vassal  summoned  by  his  lord  is  bound  to  follow  him  in  parts 
beyond  the  sea,  to  fight  against  barbarians  ? 

[Ch.  xxxvii.] 

Whether  slaves  are  bound  to  follow  their  lord  to  war  everywhere  ? 

[Ch.  xxxviii.] 

Whether  freedmen,  when  summoned,  are  bound  to  follow  their  patron 
to  war  ? 

[Ch.  xxxix.] 

Whether  cultivators,  when  summoned,  are  bound  to  follow  their  lord 
to  war  ? 

[Ch.  xl.] 

Whether  a  lord  may  summon  those  who  are  allied  or  leagued  with  him 
to  help  him  in  war  ? 

[Ch.  xli.] 

Whether  those  who  are  subjects  by  reason  of  jurisdiction  only  are  bound 
to  participate  in  war  ? 


A  TABLE  OF  THE  TREATISE  359 

Second  part :  Of  persons  not  bound  to  participate  in  war,  who  do  so  voluntarily  ; 

divided  into  six  principal  parts. 

First  part :  Of  those  who  participate  voluntarily. 
[Ch.  xlii.] 

Whether  those  who  voluntarily  participate  place  him  in  whose  service 
they  go  under  an  obligation  to  themselves,  if  they  incur  loss  thereby  ? 

[Ch.  xliii.] 

Whether  a  borrower  is  liable  to  the  lender  to  replace  horses  and  arms 

lost  in  war  ? 

[Ch.  xliv.] 

Whether  a  hirer  is  liable  to  a  letter  to  replace  horses  and  arms  lost  in  war  ? 

[Ch.  xlv.] 

Whether,  if  one  man  summons  another  to  a  war,  and  the  other  is  robbed 
on  his  way  to  the  war,  the  summoner  can  sue  the  robber  by  the  "  actio  vi 
bonorum  raptorum,"  or  the  action  of  theft  ? 

[Ch.  xlvi.] 

Whether  those  who  are  not  summoned,  but  participate  in  a  war  of  their  own 
motion,  place  him  in  whose  service  they  go  under  an  obligation  to  themselves  ? 

[Ch.  xlvii.] 

Whether  those  who  are  not  summoned,  but  participate  in  a  war  of  their 
own  motion,  and  make  an  effective  start,  place  the  person  in  whose  service  they 
go  under  an  obligation  to  themselves,  though  he  objects  to  and  forbids  their 
going  ? 

Second  part :  Of  those  who  participate  because  they  are  bound  to  return  a  service. 

[Ch.  xlviii.] 

Whether  such  a  person  has  an  action  against  the  person  whom  he  helps  ? 

Third  part :  Of  those  who  participate  for  the  sake  of  winning  glory. 

[Ch.  xlix.] 

Whether  such  persons  place  the  person  to  whose  assistance  they  go  under 
an  obligation  to  themselves  ? 

Fourth  part :  Of  those  who  participate  because  they  let  out  their  services. 

[Ch.  1.] 
Whether  such  persons  have  an  action  against  their  hirers  ? 


360  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

Fifth  part :   Of  those  who  participate  with  the  intention  of  getting  booty. 

[Ch.  li.] 
Whether  an  action  is  competent  to  such  persons  ? 

Sixth  part. 
[Ch.  lii.] 

Whether  clerks  may  participate  in  a  war  ? 

Whether  mercenaries  enlisted  in  Germany  at  a  fixed  salary  by  one  who 
hires  them,  have  an  action  against  one  who,  while  they  are  on  the  way,  has 
absolutely  lost  his  status  ? 

[Ch.  liii.] 

Whether  mercenaries  enlisted  in  Germany  by  an  Italian  city,  at  a  fixed 
salary  yearly,  may  bring  an  action  for  their  whole  salary,  or  for  a  rateable  part, 
or  for  what,  if  the  city  is  seized  by  a  tyrant,  while  they  are  on  the  way  to  it  ? 

[Ch.  liv.] 

Whether  mercenaries  ought  to  be  paid  at  the  beginning  of  a  month,  or 
at  the  end  ? 

[Ch.  lv.] 

Whether  mercenaries  who  absent  themselves,  even  with  the  licence  of 
their  lord,  for  a  time,  lose  their  salary  for  that  time  ? 

[Ch.  ivi.] 

Whether,  if  mercenaries  wilfully  refuse  to  serve  the  whole  time  of  their 
engagement,  they  lose  their  pay  for  the  whole  time,  or  only  for  the  time  which 
they  have  not  served  ? 

[Ch.  Ivii.) 

Whether  mercenaries  may  serve  by  a  substitute  ? 

[Ch.  Iviii.] 

Whether  a  mercenary  loses  his  pay  during  the  time  when  he  is  ill  ? 


Fifth  treatise  of  the  third  principal  treatise  :  Of  spoils  and  captives 

made  in  war. 
[Ch.  lix.] 

Whether  one  who  makes  a  capture  in  war,  becomes  owner  of  the  person 
or  thing  captured,  and  whether  the  doctrine  of  "  postliminium  "  applies  ? 


A  TABLE  OF  THE  TREATISE  361 

[Ch.  be.] 

Whether  persons  captured  in  a  war  between  two  states  become  slaves, 
and  whether  ownership  is  acquired  over  them  ? 

[Ch.  Ixi.] 

Whether  things  captured  in  war  become  the  property  of  the  captors  ? 

[Ch.  bdi.] 
Whether  the  use  of  trickery  is  allowed  in  wars  ? 

[Ch.  Ixiii.] 

[Desunt  verba  :  Whether  it  is  lawful  to  make  war  on  feast  days  ?] 

[Ch.  Ixiv.] 

Whether  one  who  has  recovered  in  a  war  the  whole  of  his  loss,  may  still 
bring  an  action  against  his  adversary,  or  again  declare  war  against  him  ? 

[Ch.  Ixv.] 
Whether  those  who  die  in  war  are  saved  ? 

[Ch.  Ixvi.] 

Whether  it  is  lawful  to  wage  corporeal  war  on  behalf  of  the  property  and 
possessions  of  the  Church,  and  for  this  purpose  to  assemble  troops  ? 

[Ch.  Ixvii.]* 
Whether  bishops  may  go  to  war  without  the  licence  of  the  Pope  ? 

[Ch.  Ixviii.] 

Whether  prelates  are  bound  to  pay  tribute  for  the  temporalities  which 
they  hold  from  the  Emperor,  for  wars  declared  by  him  ? 

[Ch.  Ixix.] 

Whether  mercy  should  be  shown  to  persons  captured  in  a  lawful  war  ? 

[Ch.  Ixx.] 

Whether  the  Church  should  declare  war  on  the  Jews  ? 

[Ch.  Ixxi.] 

Whether  those  who  follow  a  war,  but  cannot  fight,  enjoy  the  immunities 
of  combatants  ? 

[Ch.  Ixxii.] 

Whether  prelates  may  declare  wars,  and  take  part  in  them,  and  encourage 
others  to  war,  by  reason  of  their  temporal  jurisdiction  ? 


362  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

[Ch.  Ixxiii.] 

Whether  a  prelate  may  declare  war  for  an  injury  done  to  his  subject,  which 
is  unpunished,  and  capture  persons  other  than  the  wrong-doers  ? 

[Ch.  Ixxiv.] 

Whether  the  Pope's  delegate  may  declare  war  ;  that  is  to  say,  invoke  the 
secular  arm  ? 

[Ch.  Ixxv.] 

Whether  wars  declared  by  the  Church  against  excommunicated  persons 
are  meritorious  ? 


Sixth  and  last  treatise  of  the  third  principal  treatise,  in  the  form  of  a  table  :  On 
how  many  are  the  kinds  of  corporeal  wars  which  are  recognized  in  law. 

[Ch. 


Fourth  treatise  of  the  third  principal  part :  Of  particular  war  which  is  waged 
in  self-defence,  divided  into  eight  principal  parts. 

[Ch.  Ixxvii.] 

First  part. 

[Ch.  Ixxviii.] 

What  is  particular  war  ? 


Second  part. 
[Ch.  Ixxix.] 

How  many  are  the  kinds  of  particular  war  ? 


Third  part. 

[Ch.  Ixxx.] 

By  what  law  particular  war  was  introduced. 


A  TABLE  OF  THE  TREATISE  363 

Fourth  part  : 

[Ch.  Ixxxi.] 

Who  may  declare  this  particular  war  ? 
[Ch.  Ixxxii.] 

Whether  clerks  may  declare  this  war  ? 

[Ch.  Ixxxiii.] 

Whether,  since  a  clerk  may  defend  himself,  even  by  killing  another,  he 
may  do  this  in  a  church  ? 

[Ch.  Ixxxiv.] 

Whether  a  clerk,  attacked  in  the  act  of  celebration,  may  defend  himself, 
and  kill  his  assailant,  and  so  continue  to  celebrate  the  office  ? 

[Ch.  Ixxxv.] 

Whether  one  who  is  attacked  while  baptizing,  anointing,  confirming, 
ordaining,  or  celebrating  the  several  sacraments  may  postpone  their  celebra- 
tion, though  begun  ? 

[Ch.  Ixxxvi.] 

Which  is  to  be  preferred,  the  death  of  a  priest  who  is  attacked  while  he 
is  baptizing  a  child  at  the  point  of  death,  or  the  eternal  life  of  the  child,  lest 
he  should  die  without  baptism  ? 

[Ch.  Ixxxvii.] 

Whether  a  monk  may  defend  himself  without  the  licence  of  his  abbot  ? 


[Ch.  Ixxxvii  W».] 

Whether  a  slave  may  defend  himself  without  the  command  of  his  master  ? 

[Ch.  Ixxxvii:.] 

Whether  persons  outlawed,  who  may  sometimes  by  municipal  laws  be 
killed  with  impunity,  may  defend  themselves  ? 


Fifth  part  : 
Against  whom  may  this  particular  war  be  declared  ? 

[Ch.  Ixxxix.] 

Is  it  lawful  against  a  superior  ? 

[Ch.  xc.] 

Is  it  lawful  against  a  judge,  even  if  he  acts  unjustly  ? 
[38] 


364  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

[Ch.  xd.] 

Is  it  lawful  for  a  son  against  a  father  ? 

[Ch.  xcii. 

Is  it  lawful  for  a  monk  against  an  abbot  ? 

[Ch.  xciii.] 

Is  it  lawful  for  a  slave  against  a  master  ? 


Sixth  part  : 

For  what  causes  is  it  lawful  to  declare  this  particular  war  ? 

divided  into  two  principal  parts. 

[Ch.  xciv.] 

First  part :  On  behalf  of  what  persons  is  it  lawful  ? 
[Ch.  xcv.] 

Is  it  lawful  for  a  father  on  behalf  of  his  son  ? 

[Ch.  xcvi.] 

For  a  husband  on  behalf  of  his  wife  ? 

[Ch.  xcvii.] 

On  behalf  of  a  brother,  sister,  and  other  relations  ? 

[Ch.  xcviii.] 

Whether  a  man  is  bound  to  defend  another  against  being  killed  by  a  third  ? 

[Ch.  xcix.] 

Whether  a  vassal  is  bound  to  help  his  lord  ? 

[Ch.  c.] 

Whether  a  slave  is  bound  to  defend  his  master  ? 

[Ch.  ci.] 

Whether  a  soldier  is  bound  to  defend  his  officer  ? 

[Ch.  di.] 

If  a  vassal  sees  his  lord  attacked  on  one  side,  and  his  father  on  the  other, 
each  being  equally  in  mortal  danger  unless  he  is  helped,  and  the  vassal  can  only 
help  one  of  them — the  question  is,  Whom  should  he  help  ? 


A  TABLE  OF  THE  TREATISE  365 

[Ch.  ciii.] 

The  same  subject  continued  :  What  is  the  law  if  a  clerk  sees  his  bishop 
violently  attacked  on  one  side,  and  his  father  on  the  other,  each  being  equally 
in  mortal  danger  unless  he  is  helped,  and  the  clerk  is  able  to  help  only  one  of 
them — the  question  is,  Whom  should  he  help  ? 

Second  part :  For  what  things  is  it  lawful  ? 

[Ch.  civ.] 

Whether  it  is  lawful  in  defence  of  things  lawfully  possessed  ? 

[Ch.  or.]  x 

In  defence  of  things  unlawfully  possessed  ? 

[Ch.  cvi.] 

Whether  one  who  has  a  right  to  defend  property,  and  defends  it  within  the 
limits  of  justifiable  defence,  incurs  irregularity,  if  he  kills  or  wounds  another  ? 

[Ch.  cvii.] 

Whether  a  man  incurs  excommunication  by  laying  hands  on  a  clerk,  in 
defending  his  own  property  ? 

[Ch.  cviii.] 

Whether  one  may  summon  one's  friends  to  help  in  defending  one's  property  ? 

[Ch.  cix.] 

Whether,  in  defending  property,  one  may  repel  force  with  force  against 
all  those  against  whom  one  may  use  force  in  defending  persons  ? 

[Ch.  ex.] 

Whether  one  may  repel  force  with  force  in  defending  things  deposited 
or  lent  ? 


Seventh  part : 

How  may  this  particular  war  be  declared  ? 
[Ch.  ad.] 

Whether  it  is  lawful  within  the  "  limits  of  justifiable  defence  "  ? 

What  are  the  "  limits  of  justifiable  defence,"  and  what  is  required  therein? 

[Ch.  cxii.] 

Whether  a  poor  and  feeble  man  may  defend  himself  with  a  sword,  against 
a  strong  and  vigorous  man  who  strikes  him  only  with  the  fist  ? 


366  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

[Ch.  cxiii.] 

If  a  man  may  defend  himself  "  incontinent!,"  in  what  sense  is  the  phrase 
"  incontinent!  "  to  be  understood  ? 

[Ch.  cxiv.] 

What  is  the  meaning  of  "  equivalence  in  the  act  of  violence  itself  "  ? 

[Ch.  ocv.] 

Am  I  deemed  to  have  acted  vindictively,  and  not  defensively,  if  I  have 
expelled  my  despoiler  from  my  possession,  when  he  first  offered  to  give  security 
for  the  restoration  of  possession  ? 

[Ch.  ocvi.] 

Whether  I  ought  to  await  one  who  is  prepared  to  strike  me,  or  to  anticipate 
him  ? 

[Ch.  cxvii.] 

Whether  a  soldier,  attacked  by  his  neighbour,  is  deemed  to  repel  force  with 
force,  if  he  waits  for  him,  and  strikes  him,  although  he  might  run  away  ? 

[Ch.  cxviii.] 

If  a  wounded  man,  after  the  wounds  have  been  inflicted,  pursues  his 
assailant,  and  strikes  him,  which  is  not  lawful,  should  he  be  punished  as 
"  malicious,"  or  as  "  culpable  "  ? 

[Ch.  cxix/l 

Whether  violence  to  the  person  may  be  repelled  by  friends,  like  violence 
to  things  ? 

[Ch.  cxx.] 

Whether  a  slave  is  to  be  excused,  who  kills  his  master's  wife  on  the  order 
of  his  master  ? 


Eighth  and  last  part  of  the  fourth  treatise  of  the  third  principal  part. 

[Ch.  cxxi.] 

What  is  the  end  of  particular  war  ? 


Fifth  treatise  of  the  third  principal  part, 

[Ch.  cxxii.] 

Of  particular  war  waged  in  defence  of  the  mystical  body,  which  is  called 

"  Reprisals," 

and  this  treatise  is  divided,  in  its  first  division,  into  two  principal  parts. 


A  TABLE  OF  THE  TREATISE  367 

[Ch.  cxxiii.] 

The  First  part  sets  out  whence,  and  in  what,  reprisals  had  their  origin. 


[Ch.  cxxiv.] 

Second  part :   Of  the  causes  of  reprisals.    Of  the  productive  or  efficient 

cause  of  reprisals. 


Third  part :  Of  the  material  cause,  divided  into  four  principal  parts. 
First  part :  Of  the  "  matter  in  which." 

[Ch.  cxxv.] 

What  is  the  "  matter  in  which  "  ? 

What  is  the  "  matter  about  which  "  ? 

What  is  the  "  matter  against  which  "  ? 

What  is  the  "  matter  from  which  "  ? 

To  what  persons  is  the  power  of  taking  reprisals  to  be  granted  ? 

Are  reprisals  to  be  granted  to  residents  ? 

[Ch.  cxxvi.] 

Whether  reprisals  should  be  declared  for  citizens  who  are  not  subject  to 
the  jurisdiction  of  a  state,  and  are  otherwise  not  part  of  it  ? 

[Ch.  cxxvii.] 

Whether  reprisals  should  be  granted  to  a  citizen  "  by  convention," 
against  the  state  of  his  origin  ? 

[Ch.  cxxviii.] 

Whether  limited  reprisals  should  be  granted  to  citizens,  and  to  those  who 
are  regarded  as  citizens  ? 

[Ch.  cxxix.] 

Whether  a  state  may  grant  reprisals  to  the  citizens  of  another  state,  who 
by  agreement  or  statute  are  treated  as  its  own  citizens  ? 

Second  part :  Of  the  "  matter  about  which." 
[Ch.  cxxx.] 

Whether  reprisals  can  be  declared  against  the  property  of  those  whose 
persons  cannot  be  seized  on  the  strength  of  reprisals  ? 

[Ch.  cxxxi.] 

Whether  reprisals,  simply  declared,  can  be  executed  against  property  in 
the  territory  of  the  state  against  which  they  are  declared,  so  that  it  may  be 
seized  and  brought  within  the  territory  of  the  state  declaring  them  ? 


368  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

[Ch.  cxxxii.j 

Whether,  if  one  state  declares  reprisals  against  another,  the  ruler  of  the1 
state  declaring  them,  on  writing  to  the  ruler  of  the  state  against  which  they 
are  declared,  can  execute  the  reprisals  on  property  there  situated  ? 

Third  part :  Of  the"  matter  against  which." 

[Ch.  cxxxiii.] 

Whether,  if  one  state  has  declared  reprisals  against  the  men  of  another 
state,  they  can  be  executed  against  residents  of  that  state  ? 

[Ch.  cxxxiv.] 

Whether,  if  one  state  has  declared  reprisals  against  the  men  of  another 
state,  they  can  be  executed  against  men  of  that  state  living  elsewhere  ? 

[Ch.  cxxxv.] 

Whether  reprisals  can  be  executed  against  the  citizens  or  residents  of 
a  state,  who  are  subject  to  its  burdens,  but  are  also  citizens  of  another  state  ? 

[Ch.  cxxxvi.] 

Whether  reprisals  can  be  executed  against  women0? 

[Ch.  cxxxvii.] 

Whether  reprisals  can  be  executed  against  unmarried  clerks,  and  also 
whether  they  can  be  executed  against  married  clerks  ? 

Whether,  when  a  bishop  neglects  to  do  justice  on  his  clerks,  and  recourse 
cannot  be  had  to  his  superior,  reprisals  can  be  declared  against  the  same  clerks 
by  a  secular  judge  ? 

[Ch.  cxxxviii.] 

Whether  reprisals  can  be  executed  against  Bolognese  students,  or  even 
against  other  students  of  Bologna,  on  their  way  to  Padua  for  study  ? 

[Ch.  cxxxix.] 

Whether  reprisals  can  be  executed  against  ambassadors  ? 

[Ch.  cxl.] 

Whether  reprisals  can  be  executed  against  those  who  are  going  to  a 
festival,  to  the  Church  of  St.  James,  or  to  other  place  of  indulgence ;  also 
whether  they  can  be  executed  against  those  at  sea,  and  against  those  who 
cannot  be  summoned  into  court,  and  in  many  other  cases  ? 

[Ch.  cxli.] 

Whether  reprisals  can  be  granted  against  a  Bolognese  magistrate  of  Milan, 
who  does  injustice  there  ? 


A  TABLE  OF  THE  TREATISE  369 

[Ch.  cxlii.] 

Whether  reprisals  can  be  declared  against  the  officials  of  a  magistrate 
or  ruler  who  does  injustice  ? 

[Ch.  cxliil.] 

Whether  reprisals  can  be  declared  against  the  consuls  and  the  leaders  of 
a  state  who  refuse  to  do  justice  ? 

[Ch.  cxliv.] 

Whether  reprisals  car  be  declared  against  private  persons,  who  are 
absolutely  innocent,  because  of  an  offence  of  their  lord,  or  of  another  private 
person,  for  which  justice  is  not  done  ? 

[Ch.  cxlv.] 

Whether  reprisals  can  be  declared  against  persons  who  are  partially,  but 
not  fully,  subject  to  a  state  ? 

\ 

[Ch.  cxlvi.] 

Whether  reprisals  can  be  declared  against  a  certain  class  of  persons  who 
refuse  to  do  justice  ? 

[Ch.  cxlvii.] 

Fourth  part :   Of  the  "  matter  from  which,"  which  arises  from  a  failure  of  juris- 
diction, because  a  judge  ought  first  to  be  appealed  to,  before  reprisals  are  granted. 

[Ch.  cxlviii.] 

Whether  a  judge  ought  to  be  required  to  do  justice,  before  reprisals  are 
granted  ? 

[Ch.  cxlix.] 

Whether,  when  a  man  who  suffers  an  injury  dares  not  litigate  in  the 
state  of  the  person  inflicting  the  injury,  his  own  judge  may  write,  asking  to 
have  the  jurisdiction  transferred  to  others,  or  arbitrators  chosen  ? 

[Ch.  d.] 

What  judge  ought  to  be  required  to  do  justice  ? 

[Ch.  cli.] 
What  degree  of  injustice  is  required,  before  reprisals  will  be  granted  ? 

[Ch.  clii.] 

When  is  it  to  be  said  that  resort  to  a  superior  is  impossible,  so  that  an 
occasion  arises  for  the  declaration  of  reprisals  ? 


370  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

Fourth  principal  part :  Of  the  formal  cause,  divided  into  two  principal  parts. 

[Ch.  cliii.] 

First  part :  Of  the  form  of  declaring  reprisals. 

[Ch.  cliv.] 

Who  may  appear,  to  oppose  the  declaration  of  reprisals  ? 

[Ch$.  civ,  clvi.] 

How  the  commission  of  injustice,  or  the  denial  of  justice  is  to  be  proved 

[Ch.  clvii.] 

Whether,  if  property  is  seized  on  the  strength  of  reprisals,  it  may  be 
detained,  by  virtue  either  of  the  first  decree,  or  of  the  second  ? 

Second  part :  Of  the  form  of  executing  reprisals. 

[Ch.  clviii.) 

Whether  one  to  whom  reprisals  are  granted  may  execute  them  on  his 
own  authority,  or  by  the  servants  of  the  magistrate  granting  ihem  ? 

[Ch.  clix.] 

Whether  one  who  seizes  persons  and  property  is  bound  to  present  them 
to  the  judge,  or  may  retain  them  for  himself  ? 

[Ch.  chc.] 

Whether  property  seized  on  the  strength  of  reprisals  should  be  sold,  or 
whether  it  should  be  accepted  in  payment,  or  be  valued  ? 

[Ch.  clxi.] 

Whether  a  declaration  of  reprisals  can  be  executed  on  holidays  ? 

[Ch.  cbrii.] 

If  a  man  wishes  to  defend  himself,  or  property  seized,  what  jurisdiction 
should  be  invoked  ? 

[Ch.  clxiii.] 

Whether  the  person  from  whom  the  exaction  is  made  has  a  remedy 
against  the  person  for  whose  debt  or  wrong  it  is  made  ? 

[Ch.  clxiv.] 

Whether  the  person  from  whom  the  exaction  is  made  has  a  remedy 
against  the  ruler,  as  well  as  against  the  principal  debtor  ? 

[Ch.  clxv.] 

Whether  a  person  seized  on  the  strength  of  reprisals  may,  on  his  own 
authority,  seize  persons  belonging  to  the  state  in  which  he  was  seized  ? 


A  TABLE  OF  THE  TREATISE  371 

[Ch.  clxvi.] 

Whether  reprisals  can  be  granted  by  statutes,  in  cases  not  permitted 
by  law  ? 

Whether  a  statute  of  a  state,  which  ordains  that  a  son  is  liable  for  the 
wrong  of  his  father,  can  be  executed  against  a  son  living  outside  the  territory 

of  that  state  ? 

[Ch.  dxvii.] 

Whether  it  may  lawfully  be  agreed  that  one  person  is  to  be  liable  for 
another  ? 


Sixth  and  last  Treatise  of  the  third  principal  part  of  this  work  :  Of"  Particular  " 

war  waged  for  compurgation,  which  is  catted  "the  Duel" ,  divided,  in  its  first 

division,  into  seven  principal  parts. 

[Ch.  clxviii.] 


What  is  a  duel  ? 


First  part. 

[Ch.  clxix.] 


Second  part :  How  many  kinds  of  duel  are  there  ? 

[Ch.  clxx.] 

How  a  duel  is  fought  for  exaggeration  of  hatred. 

How  a  duel  is  fought  to  win  public  glory. 

How  a  duel  is  fought  for  the  compurgation  of  an  accusation. 


Third  part :  By  what  law  is  the  duel  permitted,  and  by  what  forbidden  P 

[Ch.  clxxi.] 

How  the  duel  which  is  fought  for  exaggeration  of  hatred  is  introduced 
by  natural  law,  in  the  sense  of  an  instinct  of  nature,  proceeding  from  sensuality 
towards  some  desired  object. 

[Ch.  clxxii.] 

How  the  duel  which  is  fought  for  exaggeration  of  hatred  is  forbidden 
by  natural  law,  in  the  sense  of  rational  intelligence,  and  so  by  the  law  of 
nations,  and  by  divine  law,  canon  law,  and  civil  law. 

[Ch.  clxxiii.] 

How  the  duel  which  is  fought  for  the  sake  of  glory  is  introduced  by 
natural  law,  in  the  sense  of  an  instinct  of  nature  proceeding  from  sensuality. 

[39] 


372  I  HE  LAW  OF  WAR 

[Ch.  clxxiv.] 

How  the  duel  which  is  fought  for  the  sake  of  glory  is  forbidden  by 
divine  law. 

How  the  duel  which  is  fought  for  the  sake  of  glory  is  forbidden  by  the 
law  of  nations. 

How  the  duel  which  is  fought  for  the  sake  of  glory  is  forbidden  by  canon 
and  civil  law. 


Fourth  part :  For  what  reason  is  the  duel  of  compurgation  permitted,  and 

for  what  is  it  forbidden  ? 

[Ch.  clxxv.] 

How  the  duel  of  computation  is  forbidden  by  divine  law. 

How  the  duel  of  compurgation  is  forbidden  by  the  law  of  nations. 

How  the  duel  of  compurgation  is  forbidden  by  canon  law. 

How  the  duel  of  compurgation  is  forbidden  by  civil  law,  as  a  general  rule. 


Fifth  part :  In  what  cases  is  the  duel  of  compurgation  permitted  ? 

[Ch.  clxxvi.] 

How  the  Lombard  law  permits  the  duel  of  compurgation  in  twenty  cases. 


Sixth  part :  Between  whom  may  a  duel  be  fought  ? 

[Ch.  clxxvii.] 

How  the  duel  of  compurgation  should  generally  be  fought  between 
principals. 


Seventh  and  last  part :  How  is  a  duel  to  be  fought  ? 

[Ch.  clxxviii.] 

How  the  duel  of  computation  is  modelled  on  a  contentious  trial. 

[Ch.  clxxix.] 

Whether  an  oath  "  de  astu  "  should  be  taken  in  a  duel,  and  by  whom  ? 

[Ch.  clxxx.] 

Whether,  when  one  party  has  a  champion  in  the  cases  allowed  by  law, 
the  other  party  may  have  one  too  ? 


A  TABLE  OF  THE  TREATISE  373 

[Ch.  clxxxi.] 

How  are  champions  to  be  given  and  assigned  in  cases  where  both  parties 
are  allowed  them  ? 

[Ch.  clxxxii.] 

Whether  any  one  may  be  allowed  as  a  champion  ? 

[Ch.  clxxxiii.] 

In  whose  election  is  the  duel  ? 

[Ch.  clxxxiv.] 

How  is  the  duel  to  be  ordered  ? 

[Ch.  clxxxv.] 

With  what  arms  should  the  duel  be  fought  ? 

[Ch.  clxxxvi.] 

Whether,  if  the  arms  or  the  club  of  one  of  the  combatants  are  broken, 
or  fall,  others  ought  to  be  given  him  ? 

[Ch.  clxxxvii.] 

Which  of  the  combatants  ought  to  strike  first  ? 

[Ch.  clxxxviii.] 

Whether  a  duel  not  ended  on  the  first  day  may  be  ended  on  the  following 
day  ? 

[Ch.  clxxxix.] 

Whether  one  who  fails  in  a  duel  is  to  be  condemned  to  pay  costs  ? 

[Ch.  cxc.] 

Whether,  if  the  challenger  fails  in  a  duel,  he  is  to  be  punished  by  the 
penalty  of  retaliation  ? 

[Ch.  cxci.] 

Whether  one  who  has  been  challenged  to  a  duel  on  account  of  an  accusa- 
tion, and  has  been  defeated  and  condemned,  may  be  charged  with  the  same 
accusation  in  a  contentious  trial  ? 

[Ch.  cxcii.] 

Whether  one  who  challenges  another  to  a  duel  on  account  of  a  public 
accusation,  and  withdraws  from  the  duel,  incurs  the  Turpilian  penalty  ? 


374  THE  LAW  OF  WAR 

[Ch.  cxciii.] 

Whether  one  who  challenges  another  to  a  duel  by  Lombard  law  may 
withdraw  with  the  leave  of  the  judge  ? 

[Ch.  cxciv.] 

Whether  one  who  challenges  another  to  a  duel  may  withdraw  without 
penalty  before  joinder  of  issue  ?  Also  whether,  and  when,  issue  should  be 
said  to  be  joined  in  a  duel  ? 

End  of  the  Table  to  the  book  of  the  treatise  on  War  of  Giovanni 
da  Legnano.    Thanks  be  to  God.    Amen.    Amen.    Amen. 


TRACTATUS 

De  Bello,  De  Represaliis  et  De  Duello 

Domini  lohannis  de  Lignano, 
cum  additionibus  Domini  Pauli  de  Lignano 


Impressus  Bononiae,  ad  instantiam  Sigismundi  de  libris,  per  me 

magistrum  Henricum  de  Colonia,  xvi  die  Kal.  Ian.,  Anno 

a  Domini  incarnatione  millesimo  quadringentesimo 

septuagesimo  septimo. 

Laus  Deo 


(See  the  Editor's  Prefatory  Note  which  follows) 


PREFATORY   NOTE 

THE  pages  which  follow  are  a  reproduction  by  the  Oxford 
University  Press  of  Giov.  da  Legnano's  work,  as  first  printed,  in 
1477,  with  many  omissions  and  interpolations  due  to  its  editor, 
Paolo  Antonio  da  Legnano,  great-grandson  of  the  author. 

The  original  is  included  in  a  rare  volume,  having  no  general 
title-page,  for  the  loan  of  which  I  was  indebted  to  All  Souls  College, 
containing  eighteen  legal  treatises,  dating  from  1477  to  1493,  by 
various  authors.  The  first  of  these  treatises,  printed  at  Milan  in 
1483  by  Elldericus  Sinzenzeler,  is  headed  by  the  words :  "  Clarissimi 
iurisconsulti  D.  Lanfranchi  de  Oriano  solennis  utilis  quotidianus  et 
practicabilis  tractatus  de  Arbitris.  Additis  multis  aliis  questionibus 
clarissimorum  doctorum." 

T.  E.  H. 


379 


tracutua  dejbeQd.cklUprefalita  i<k 
Duello  domini  Jobannis  de  lignano  cti  ad 
ditiraibw  domini  &aulidc  lignaao. 


5n  regum  xiii.  opfrad  . 

eft  folium  domini.  6  tut 
fcribftur  jxremun  cipi-uocabunt  pfrael  b 
lium  domini.i  hoc  ell  patrimonium  fanctc 
Ttomancccckfic  cuiuacaputeft  yernfolcn 
idefttima  Ciuitaa  Bonomc  queucrc  uc^ 
uri  poCeft  jtrufakm.'flam  in  ipfa  quorum' 
ciiqjfcibiluim  mm  me  iuris  ditucidata  eft 
ueritas.De  hoc  fcribicur  sacbarie  viii.c.  no 
Cibitur  jTcr  u:  alcm  Cwttas  ucruatts.hcc  for 
mob  ficut  jvrufalem  canti.vuu.dc  IMC  tti 
am  climat  propixta  fopbi.Ua.fcrutator  jx 
rufalem  in  luce  n  actoii  t.a.rcpicfti  jreriu 
f  ilan  doctrina  noftri.£r  dc  bac  etti  (rribu 
turapoca.rii.c.wdi  GuiUtcm  fancti  jpe- 
ruiilcm  t  ibidem  iii-  oftedit  mibc  ciuitatc 
(inccam  ^crulaUm  dcfccdcntc  dc  celo.i.bo 
nonum  i  acre  de  cdodcTceadit  cu  ibi  fona 
uoriutis  iuriu  quc  adco  per  art  prmcipum 
jnuilsicur  Tiii.di.quo  iurc.  L.dc  lon.tcp. 
pKfcrip.l.ptnuIti-debac  lu'ibic  apfua  ad  c^ 
tocos  lii.c.Ciuit  ate  oci  uiuctts.  jtrufilt  o> 
Uftcm.  t  c  idc^  apl'ua  ad  5ala.iiiUC.QjK  out 
furfuin  c  pcrufikm  litxra  Cit.dc  luc  etia  Icri 
birw  palipon  vtca.  £Ugi  pcrufakm  ut  ibi  fo 
ret  noncn  mea.iKTom  ctcni  pmittentc  altif 
flmoi  fiipcriusdifponentibas  corpojtb'bcc 
ciuitas  £»nonu  ut  j^ml'ilcm  id  cxtrcmum 
muuta  eft  i  de  uaflata  i  poptcr  in  babuL 
tiumoclicuin  muocrtodia  mutua  comini 
conitMtua  cit  iltutunus  ipius  octractloncin 
ut  fcri  jitur  iudicu  xxix  .c.dcldw  fcrufalcm 
fioit  ixlcri  (blent  ttbolc  dc  infidiis  in  habit  aU 
rium  (cribitur  ni.palipo.xrv.c.  Dcfcendc^ 
raat  inudk  in  jrcrufaltm  i  pptcr  fupcrbitm 
in  babitintiiim  cominatua  at  per  pzopbctaj 
diccnte  copnQcfccrc  faciam  iupcrbiam  itida. 
i  fupcrbum  jrtruiakm  multi  j^erc.  xiu.c  j. 
£t  ptopur  boc  clamat  ptopbcta  p7optcr  in 
habitants  diccna  dabo  yaaMan  miter  noa 
barcne  i  alibi  p:optcr  hoc  clamat  pzopix  ti 
diccna  ponam  pcruialcm  quafi  iccrmi  Upidd 
mibcc.i.C3.£tp?optarlMC  clamat  propixta 
contra  rjutnccsin^a.diccns  cotriftatiape 
rufakm  nutriccm  ucftram.  barutb^uarto  . 
ttppterl>xfiinbabiuntiuciuiTu3  factit 
dluterercituababilonu  rcgnum  obftdcrat 
vcrulaUm  jxrc.xxii.c.1  p  boc  hctu  eft  qtf 
fcribic  c^tculia  v.c.i  eft  jxrufaUm  i  media 
Bcnna-n.i.bo^ium  pcnc  tamcn  faaum  eft  i 
etiim  quo  J  fcribic  trcnay..i.c.facta  e 
dlcnficatpuloou 


oie  acre  rmilaic  nuncupitur  t  capot  foltui 
piimonii  Icc.'Roe  cccl'ic.'Rci  tut  ktu  regcfl 
i  gubcrn.ina  eft  reiKKndttfunusin  crifto  pr 
i  diTs.ajminus  cgidiu j  mtlcraticnc  diuint 
©abincn.epusjsic  ct  mutautt  habit  urn  1  in 
grciluacft  bcllum.  TUm  cc  trona  pxifico-t. 
ucratiiTime  colkgio  Cardtnalium  1 0"  latcre 
ccxtro  fanctiifimo  papc  Jnnoc.vi.  deftinat' 
eft  id  rtcupationcm  perufalem.upatrimonil 
pcnitusOcpcrditi  i  in  ipTusVccupcrattone 
mutauit  btbitu.ltam  rdicta  potificati  getc  i 
grelTus  eft  belluni  i  bcllum  forte  ut  priccpa 
ItrcnuuTimus.  Ham  ante  ipfum  non  erac 
rex  fn  jxrul'akm  ut  fcrilxi.ini.c.  Jn  dieb> 
illts  ncn  erat  rex  i  pptcrea  Quit  due  ad  cii 
r.dilm£$idiamm(literc5cm  (up  populum 
diii.  :Judit.ii.c.£tipkdiccrepot.  tie 
git  me  duo  ut  clTem  rex  pmo  p  alipo  .xxfiu* 
c.t t  Lie  rex  iurrcut  Odblio  diu  -3o-iii.c. 
£t  hcnc  ingrefiuo  eft Ixllum  i  felicitir.11a> 
ur  alat.dupl'r.f.lliine  p.'udcntic  i  rbrtitudia 
inclice  oia  iura  fac  re  fanctc  cccleHe  Komane 
tu'amdc  ulurpite  dc  nbdo.pduxit  ad  eiTe  d 
tcnetoia  ad  lucem  ut  dici  polfit  9>  de  uibilo 
aiiquid  (tcerat  gcn.i.ca.i  .I.unica  in  p:tn.C 
Oc  rei  uio.act.Uerc  igit  1  Her  jrl'rael  miu 
tauit  habitnm  i  ingrcflus  eft  bcllum.  Quia 
igit  rcc  p'racl.i.patrimonii  t  quc  fit  ut.a. 
Dictum  tftoccxtrciro  ad  crtremu  Ocduc^ 
ta  mutanit  bobitum  i  ingrtitua  eft  Ixllum  i 
bee  diebus  nollru  pnmo  ut  pcndet  fatia  ut 
dec  incogruum  bee  tub  iiicntio  penkuo  ptri 
In  ejdcirco  ego  jfobanes  Oc  lignanc  De  Bo 
noniamim'  icer  ccteros  turis  utriuiijj  ooc 
toes  ad  U03  ptatum  d  n  j  meum  dfy  cgidiunt 
tf  albwnocio  d  citite  jcefi  mtf  atoc  dina  epj 
toabuien.in  partibua  jrtalie  pzo  (ancta  r53 
ccclclu  uicarium  gcncrakmn  ucrum  regcm 
jrerufalcm  trinfmtttcndo  coctpi  tractatum 
friure  oc  leruJalem  i  DC  ciuitatc  Bononie. 
i » ilb  quod  mutido  cftis  ingiclTus  boc  o.v 
dine.nam  oc  ciuitatc  Bononie  ponaj  fcx  cau 
fas  implicantea  quc  acritcr  contingerunt  di 
ctam  ciuitatcm.  M  .^illcri.ccc.l.  afcv  ad 
2Dil{c.ccc.lx.maximequc  infurrcxtt  co.mi 
nii  mutatio.1  ci  quorumcunqj  tepcnum  i  • 
fptctibu-j  an  norom  contra  mcridicsdicrum 
quibua  bee  contigcrunt  no  autem  bjiarunu 
n  bcc  appono.q?  in  atiquibus  tracutibuain 
tc  Jo  iurii3  mctta  t  laderc  -cxplirjdo  aliqua 
quc  tote  cucment  t  cuilibet  ca  A  fob  mate 
rta  unum  tract  atom  uel  plurcs  ut  occurrcC 
tliquoa  trac  tatua  tranlibo  fub  file  tio  aliquoa 
cxplicando.unum  folu  nunc  publicaboutdc^ 
licet  tractatum  DC  bcllo  p:omittcna  domino 
inucnte  Tingulos  trader  e  explicatoa  tempo 
re  cogrno  i  cauta  ceuante  ibtbttionte.  &up 
pUcuna  tidcm  reuerenditi'imo.p.ut  imtxctU 
Utatcm  intcllcaua  fupportare  dignctur.  i 
boc  ut  modicum  lufcipcexoidium  corrigcn^ 
dd  ft  piacuerit  t  rcfomundum  iuxta  gctiliii 
lapicntic  autorimJ^xiguum  munue  :c  Iu 

•I 


380 


poofcr*  CM  Jpmt  •flBBono.BKit  ver* 
Won9»7trufalembic  captfarprociukate 
fed  eto  no  infctaa  <j>  per  qHtnor  lento  fine 
intellect*}  facn  foripcara  erponitur  p  bi- 
ftoricom  per  one  res  ad  lirteram  gefta  red 
taorperalegaicuinper  qucmibtttbalto 
fumitur  intdlectiup.T  tropotojfajm  i  mo 
ratew  per  cpiem  mores  caiantar  peranigogi 
cum  ab  ana  quod  eft  fur  lum  per  qoe  celeftta 


amcftciuitJ3.utinboc  rractatu.capanrfe 
cuJvd  alcg«icnm  fcripturam.fanctaecck 
fuxnottturiccundu-ntropoiogiim  fignifl' 
at  qwUbct  fiddem  tiam  fccundum  anago, 
giom  Hgnificat  curia  cdeftcm.  "boc  notuic 
bofti.Jo.an.t.d.ant.in.c.i.in.  £.i.oc  facra 
oncrune'i  oe  (ingolia  ibi  aUegantur  iuri  ut 
ce5to,in.ca.ktuniumlrxvi.dt.i  glo.in.c. 
nonne  irrw.dL  la  pomkra  nimirom 
ipmaouaiMwdklC^  Bono.oefccndit  ce 
coo  cam  bononk  ooantor  tura  qae  •  dtp  p 
bj»  pnndpamfmolgantur.'nain  inftinctu 
fpiritua  Cincti  tnacnti  func  cinoncs.a.ub 
Ucorcd  rrv.q.U.fi.ea.q.i  ci.  c.fi  quia'di 
aconae.l.di.i  in  a.fi  iOce.di.pcr  d.ibb.in 
c  .  in  ciaitttc  oc  ufaris  cum  Ugca  que  sppeL 
Untur  facriri/Ttmc  ibi  mintKfkntur.  Llcgea 
C.oc  Iegifau8.i  bcntilTunc  fnnt.U.tf  .s  ua 
riia  i  eto2di.?gni.i  bononie  noti  rcddanc 
inn  per  quorum  inttrpxtationcm  mundaa 
illunin  itur  -  td  obedtcndum  ceo  icius  mu 
niltria  utu  fobkctotum  intommtur  ut  i  au 
tcn.biu.C.ncfiliao(nopatre  iper  abb.ia 
c.fi.tnfi.bonomectiam  tonaod  fciliccc-nt 
UginturlcgeaqiK  Tunt  com  ccintnotaan 
lji.ff.oc  Ic^ib1  1  per  abb.pofl  doc.inx.quia 
cs  nvrjiftria  m.d.c.ilU  noaoc  pigtu  .  11am 
(dim  bononie  nuniMtintar  i  ocdarantur 
minditadioini.c.ccquibafdjm  xxrvii.dt. 
potfemoa  per  bcrculcm  alie.de  legali  fcic  ti  i 
Bind  quod  par  aceronem  fcribitnr  fm  i  o». 
Dane  p»  ralo  Ucinio  B*cfaia.pocta.1ljm  o^ 
rtre  res  n;^  tempontm  funt  .necp  etatti  om 
nium.nccpbcozumbccftudu  •dokfcentii 
•gont  fcnectutej  oblettint  pjop;iaa  rcscu 
nmctdocriia  pjofugiom  atcy  fblaciom  p?c 
bent  deUctant  tomi.non'  impediunc  fotis/ 
pernottant-noWcum  .peregrinantor  .  rafti 
caotnr  . 

CtpTn  pruiuinu 

T!  tracratu  bdli  fie  pwccdam  . 
ptimoponant  txfaiptbDtm  bel 
li  bumani  defa^;  ptidpiUter  trie 
tttnraa  in  gentre.  Sccundo  diuidd  bellum 
per  mcm!na.Cardo  piokquar  fingola  man 
bit.    ftcllum  fie  defcribitur.Bdlu5  eft  co 
tcptioejco:  tapper  alt  ^d  dtfonii  sppetimi 
biioo  ppoitii  t  ddi'Toaitii  er  duiedi  tcdea 
oi  ti  conuntio  bx  panic  at  genua   Tiam  t 
(ubfecontinet  ibdlicamc5tftiontia!u3 
t.l.fuifcp.f  .fi.ix  aqua  plo.arctn 


Oiri  jppttr  oWonum  T  tfl  cJoCa  unde  eoitur 
contctio  diti  appedtui  btiano  ad  D:iam  b?tix 
to^  Din  ad  Diibmmtiam  tc.i  ilta  tit  caufa 
finilie  cuui(ltb5  lxlli.lb.ii  qolibet  Ullii  ten 
Oit.ftnaliCiT  ad  colkndjm  Difplicentiim  quo 
fuit  belli  mtroducrosU  i  fit  iut  bella  pptcr 
paam.itui.q.i.noli.  Uultum  rim  'bloat 
pjuus  mtUB  cum  nemo  tocc turn  qd  fit  bellii 
mtlTus  fdtrit  Oiftinirc  time  biI.i.l.unio.C. 
dc  cadu.to'.len.Oicit  cj>  bellum  ell  pditio  ak 
i  corpis  allegtt  glo. m.l.i.C.ut  publice  led 
tk  li .rii.fed  bee  •*!  potius fonat  in  cifectu 
beili  ip  in  diffinit  ionem  bcUi.ru  pondera  <j» 
bellum  portk  fie  Otffintn  non  ttmcn  fp?eta 
Oiffimtcv-  paui  mcibdlun  eft  qucda;  animi 
generollras  o?ta  ad  tmuritm  ppull'andi  ud 
ad  uindtctim  mttrcndim  ar.tct-irtiii.q. 
i.in  funu.  Jn  quo  autc  {nuus  mcuo  dicit 
^fumtpptcrpicembella  adde  lullium  Oc 
offtc'ia  ii.i.pdidtem  quare  I'ufcipieda  bells 
fun  t  cqdcm  ob  com  cam  ut  fine  iniuria  i  pace 


QfJL 

£cundo  belluii  fie  diuidic  belld 
aliud  fpua!e  altnd  tpale-Spuile 
aliud  celefte  attud  buanum  £>pi 
rituale  celetle  eft  D  quo  babe  t  Job.xiiii.'bu 
manum  eft  Ot  quo  fcribit  ad  rom.vii.  5bi  ui 
dt  alum  legm  repugnantcm  tegi  metis  mce 
vi-d  i.e.  teftamcntum.  CorpaU  aliud  eft 
nniuerfale  aliud  pt  iculirc  de  uniiurfali  babe 
tui-.ff.dc  optii  poftil.rcucrf  ql  p  totum  t 
xxii  Lq.i.t  xni  -  f^trticularc  aliud  eft  ob 
tutclam  corpi  9  fui  i  reft  dc  boc  bibet  .ff . 
dcniiui  ar.l.i.f.vim  vi.rf.ad.l.aquir.l. 
(ciam.^.qui  cum  aliter  i.l.i.C*  vndc  vi.  i 
cu)lim  dc  refti.fpolij.i  in  clem. ft  furiofus  0 
bomicio*.  9liud  fit  ob  tutclam  cozpia  mit 
tict  uel  cios  ptiappter  dtfectum  iurtfdtctio 
nio  que  rcpnl'ilic  nuncupanf  dc  quo  in  au' t. 
•t  nan  font  pignorattoncsi  de  iniuf.c.i.li. 
tl.  3  liud  At  ppter  contumatiam  rcfiften 
tium  iurifdicrioniiudicisdc  quo  in.I.q  refti 
tucrc.ff.dc  ret  vcn.  Bliudfitpptcrpur^ 
gitunem  quod  duellum  appdlat  dc  quo  .C. 
dc  gladiatorfaw.l.  viu  U.ri.7  ti  pugnatib* 
in  duelbp  totum  t irulum.  Vky.  eft  quod 
poffct  diuidi  pzima  dinifio  p  tuftum  i  iinfbi 
S>ed  in  bis  modicum  inftftendum  ^  fingub 
mcmteafingrrfunferplicddaero:dint  fuo 
£t  pnmo  dc  beflo  cclclliali  celefti  tucuitftmc 
illud  erplicaho  i  fie  dc  fingulia .  tracta 
bo  ijitur  pzimodcbello  I'puili  celefti. &e 
cundo  dc  fpiriruali  celefti  buma  no.Icrtio  ti 
coTpaliuniucrfali.  Quarto  depticulariqo 
fit  ob  tutclam  cotpis  fui.Qui  to  dc  pticulari 
quod  fit  ob  deftnfam  mifttci  coTpie  qo  rcpn 
&licnuncuplt.i=7trtodcp.irticulari  quod 
fttadpurgarioncmquodduclJum  nuncupac 
Cwnira  diuifionem  belli  non  fpxta  diuilioc 
pnui  met  quam  oio  ncceffariuj  eft  kg  pprcr 


381 


vilerlt  belta  Tbrima  crat  romanti  Sccudii 
ojdmcm  fractal'  tamen  boffi.dicebat  quod 
iudicuie  tertiu  pufuinptuojum  Quarnili 
citumQuintutemerariu  Stiru  uolurariu 
Septimii  ntceflariu  que'fequit  Jo.an.in.c. 
i.de  bomid.li.  vi.  "boHi-banc  diuiftonc? 
pofutt  in  films  dt  trcugi  t  pace.  £.  quid  fit 
iullum.d-sbb-i  moderni  in.c.ficur  i.J.Oe 
tare  iuran.fcqmitur  bofti.iubdir  tame  abb. 
g>  portet  did  9  bellum  quoddam  eft  pwp«ii 
quoddam  inp?op.'iu<n  dcctaransibi  aliquid 
fit  bellum  pjopiium  i  impjcuium.  DC  d^ 
niftone  Wli  uide  in  fumm  i  gb.auq.ii.uide 
auctozcm.J.in.c.lxrti  . 


Cdomdo  adringula.dico<j>ce* 
Idle  txllum  iniurrcrit  pjopter  f 
gjatinidinem  furgentem  ppter 
txftctum  fictions  cariutia  impjerts  a  crea 
to*  m  lucifcrum  cuj  intelligent!!  inter  ccte 
roe  fubUmtai  creatu.£  t  talc  non  congiuit 
DcicrlpciofufxriiWidjts.ubi  fciendii  $  ut  in 
quit  Qxgoiiud  in  moralibns.aLiniCio  CTeati 
ontsangelice  nature  aldiTtmusentm  crea.. 
toi  creauir  lucifirum  cctti  is  angel  iciaintcl 
liSentiiseminetiorc.Tlam  ipruispiimat*  no 
faeruntinferiouace4]ifcilic5t  paradilboci 
ut  fcribttur  c^cbklia  51  .abietes  pUntauk  A 
tqiorunt  fummitatem  nee  frondibus  eiua  ^ 
tUm  ipk  fpeciofus  fKtus  i  mnUis  condefifq; 
frondibasdiatur.qjpjcbtum  ceterislesio 
nibus  tanta  ilium  fpintua  pulcbritndia  qua 
u  t  fuppofita  angelorum  nialtttudo  cccoia^ 
uitjftc  arbo)  in  paradifo  oA  toe  quad  coden 
{bsffondcsbabuitquot&ib  fcpoTttas  fuper^ 
nomm  Ipirituii  legionca  attendant,  bic  fuit 
bgnacalii  oci  fuk  itte  Tic  crat'  atezif  t  mir.c 
tto?ficut  TcctiTaflnaminalubuit  ppuata 
ad  ciriutem  fofcutendam  .'Tlambic  apiia 
cips?  condinonis  lue  capar  uritatis  eft  con 
ditud  qaafi  rcplcri  uolmiTci  ftatibua  angelia 
tanc^  tn  regno  pofitb  omamcnto  Upidib-'  po 
tuiifet  inbcrcre.lcd  caritatcm  pwptcr  luccr 
biam  non  olfumpfit  £ji  cnij  caritati  auro  pe 
netrabiu  it  preboiitet  Hinctis  anijdis  fociat  » 
inotnamcntor^tolapidid  fixua  imnfufct. 
bibutt  ergo  fo  jamiu.  fc  d  lupcrbic  uicio  caru- 
tace  auro  non  fun  t  repkta.  Quii  utc  cc 
teria  emincntk»  niit  ut  ugnaculu  Ibiilitudt 
nijCctcratns.nccantateproptcr  fuper^ 
bieuiciumrcpleriuoluit.  jdcircopcccla 
fine  uenia  dimpnitus.qj  magnns  .fint  ccpa- 
ratione  dimpnitua  fuit.  3gitur  pzoptcr  hoc 
cc  paradifo  eiectus  ut  pzohre  i  pulcbcrrime 
oidertpdtin.c.pnncipiumeui3.ix  pcnt.di. 
it.i  fuit  §>e5oiii  ut  dtiu  £t  boc  fait  fpale  cc 
lede  bclU.Circaqo  utpmiliparu  infutcda 
JTamcn  qaii  dixi  ipfhm  CCKI  is  emtnctiorc 
£ft  atteudendu  cp  qucdam  funt  colbta  age 
Us  in  (nicipio  creationid  fuc  colter  fed  diftc 


renter  qucdam  indifTerenter  fed  coiter.Coi 
ter  fed  drifter  fucrunt  natnrc  Gue  lubliitk 
&abtilitad7nteUigeriafrofpiacita8  XU 
bcriarbimibjblttas  "bcctame  dirftrunt. 
Tlim  quidam  funt  infuWbntu  fubtiliorea 
qutdam  in  intilligcntia  pfpiutioiea  quidam 
libcri  arfaitr  ii  abUkaes-Colltta  autem  cotter 
fed  indrntcr  fueront  fpiritualius  indiltoliu 
tditas  idiuifibilitas  imwulitas.  3nj)ia  oca 
purincantur.£  t  pbx  tntcUigco  in  gbuo  lu- 
cifcr  fuit  cminentitt  quia  in  coUaLcoiter  fj 
drnterjSftettamartendedum  $>  diabolua 
fuit  cxalatus  p  ntturalem  progatiua  t>  qua 
dictum  eftJ^Mltatuselt  ctiimpptu  uio 
toiiam  quam  babet  contra  bomine  aUquado 
in  bello  3>  gcrit  contra  ipfum  undc  fcribttur 
exaltafti  cuteri  ocpimentiu  earn  qua  uict o 
rum  Omens  dauid  dicebat.  jllumiiuocoloa 
meoe  ne  unqua  obocnmiain  in  mojte  nc^do 
dicatuiimicusmeus  pualui  aducrfua  cum- 
£xaltatue  eft  etiam  pptcr  fupbia  uno  dUx 
tomeftdi  J£l<uatumtftc«tuuminde- 
COK  too  aim  ipfe  dixiu  Sfcendam  'in  u 
turn  T  ponam  trpoum  mcum  ad  aglonem  t 
ero  ttmilia  alriJTimo-yfetejclu-c.  tupc-de 
ra  g>  diabolus  fua  I upbu  eiectus  eft  cc  celot 
11am  p  fuam  conditionc  minime  fed  per  hi 
uoluntatem  tictus  eft  malua  at  in.c.g  cpua 
i iiii.di.1  fie  non  debuit  c.tcufari  cu  lilxru j 
babuit  arbttrinm  i  bodic  etum  babet  fed  ad 
modun  tantu  ficut  angcli  babcnt  ad  bonum 
tan tii  fed  boiea  ad  bonnm  i  ad  malu5  ut  no. 
ui  die to.c.quicpua  vide  toc.Tmaiimc  co 
mtnum  ibb.in.c.i.cc  fiima  trim,  n  fide  a. 
1  fci  in.c.i.di-  g>  dtmoncs  bcne  a  dco  creatt 
erant  boni  fed  ipTl  p  le  facti  bint  malfbomo 
•fo  diaboli  fugsdlionc  pt  ccaui  t.£  t  pondera 
ctiam  9>  dtaboloa  non  fuit  eiectue  a  b^atit  u- 
dinc  titum  quam  tutic  babebat  t  ab  ilia  rutt 
etiam  eiectua  ad  qmm  bobcndant  erat  crea 
tua.c^r  bts  omnuV .  xivii.q.ii.'foomo  enij 
qui  eft  inter  cetera  animalia  liinte  imbeciUi 
tads  indicia  fcirc  nfbi!  fine  doctnna  no  fa^ 
ri  non  ingrtdi  non  uefii  B?cuitcr  rftbtl  alind 
a  nitura  conlegt  5>  flere  i  at  quafl  fiimum 
bonum  contepnerc  uidc.it  at^>  altifl'lmii  di, 
ftathodk  qua  pens  eiuapuniat  lupbu  duu 
bdi  penam  cognofcendo  qui  fua  fupjxa  a  en 
ria  c  ejcpullua  cckfti  o  pni .  di.u.i .  c.jjd  ergo 

CipTm.iiii . 

DC  igitur  fait  fpirituik  bcllitj 

in  quo  eiectus ifuit  luciwr  depa 

r.idiio  alcuTuni.i  tote  tn  illo  01 

turn  babuit  fpit  itualc  bumannnu  nam  i  uno 

qaocg  genere  eft  deuenire  ad  tinum  quod  It  c 

ptimum  i  menhir  a  cozum  que  font  in  coma 

nigcnere.    Jngenere  igitur  repuguantic 

bonim  contra  maU  eft  deoenire  ad  pjimora 

tiiimum  font  ptincipia.  phncipium  autem 

uicioiuj  eft  pnucepa  i  diaboluo.  iptwu  "go 


382 


1  mofcri  cmaftibrt  tnfe  - 
lions  pMgnei>afit)Uu0  bunucj  frondo 
ri  9  ucrum  dl  qMd  ptcAcK  'pMMda  mc> 
rmmocham  in  pxfcnti  oiri  longe  mtfa  con 
tinniM  nobis  tnfcrunt  btUum  in.c.(piriG» 
(nctne  cc  confccra.di  Xlmk  fcribirur  tiuc 
f.B.q.xiuq.  dfabdi  bona  fcpirtime  Went  con 
ocrtcre  in  nulum  i  in  clectts  macuUm  po« 
nerc.nam  cdTontqnippe  qaererequoeex 
fiddibospcrdint  n  miameifloe  qawardc 
tiatcs  in  (ermtto  on  «drant  at  in.c.naKi  du- 
bium.iiLq.i.n  ipfe  lathanas  tranfrigurat  fc  I 
tngdam  lucignt  homines  occiput  ut  fa.c.e 
pifcopi  xxxi.q.v.bjbct'em^  mille  moJoe  no 
cendl  quibua  ctiam  ntifur.cjiifia.xu.q.u.di 
•tolas  cnim  UtiiK  cwmjtur  fait  pater  men 
(bcnquJamendiciamdiritncqiu^  moric, 
mimfedmtufictitdiifctttcBbjmimi  mi 
lam  bibctur  in  ncterildbmentp  in  gcneLf 
doc.c.dampium'  DC  fummi  ttini.i  nurime 
•bbJn  penal.co)..g'o.in.cj.i.q.i.in  euinge^ 
domloqaitur  men  Jiciam  ct  ft  loquirur.qi 
nrnidar  eft  i  pater  mcndacit-Hsm  i  diabo 
la  3  in  jidct  bomint  1  1tmpcr  eum'decipcre  ni 
titur  fecundum  dominnm«bb.iu.c4i.ne  ck 
ud  mo.fii  t  cnim  pnncipiu  noftre  furtire  dip 
nitionis  nilt  per  lignum  literati  fuitfcmug. 
Jim  dubolus  dicitnr  bomo  ab  enentu  q  nia 
ccuicit  bcmincm  fecundum  gb-in.c.ii.  cc  e/- 
kc.nim  ucrum  dl  uicifTie  bominon  fed  per 
tlti/Ttmi  dnguincm  foiifc  recuperatnm  cm  fit 
pienti  dubiunufcd  (at  fnpatu  uicit  ct  iam  fe 
ipfiun.qi  fait  a  parsdifo  ckctus  com  fuisfox 
ciis.  ruir  cqnilcm  ciccta  txcimi  angdonim 
pars  at  no.rri.q-i.in.cj.  OCCUK  erant  qoe 
•  psradil'o  crnlea  incternom  qua  Ugitur  fti 
UK  One  uenu  dampmtos.o;  pcnc-  di.ii.m.c 
piincipiamfiutMKn&gtcitatcnu  fblertia 
fuia  infidiis  mul  t  i  bqueatur  boc  i  tcterrima 
mujido.£tt<fto2Kuego  txuil'oclignano 
q>  cuperem  diWm  t  ctfe  can  jpo  at  doctoi 
cinit  gentium  . 


C  forte  ritionabilitcr  loqutndo 
bella  coipoalia  terrcft  r  it  bebct 
belb  okftia  CMfetpondentia. 
Itam  didt  chi  .txccrte  (ft  bone  mundu  conti 
yxao  tSk  upcr  ialbus  Utronibua  ut  omnia 
•btaaindc  rcgitnr  pjimomttroni  i  fecun 
do  cdi.1  mondi  omnis  i^itur  actuo  inferioi 
corpoKae  dihgitur  a  fujxr  cddbbua.  i  U 
eft  pagM.i.rcpugmcia  uirtuilia.7nfur5e3 
proptcr  diucrCtstrm  cxaporum  ceUftinm  i 
mirime  pUnttarum  apt)  ctiaa  opcrantur  ^ 
fiir  i  cfaerfiutcm  afpcctuum  fitmiimora 
qaibua  f«te  atentis.  no  tot 


CjpTm.tl. 

Ofu  ia  ciia  fufficit  tib'  i  necefTi 
riis  nccc  t  poi  ipfii  effec  nL©j 
bdli  ponunt  cauie  fmfictenf  ca  ntcclTario  p^ 
ductojje  ergo  necelfe  eft  pcmcre  tpfum  btlln  j 
pb*t  maioi.Ttlm  cffcctna  artequit  caufa?  fu 
•m  qaoid  eife  pductiou5  1  ocftrucriottm.L 


di.prifd8.lri.c.n'.i.q.t.0etrabe  O'baptifmo 
Debitum  pbai  minor  -Tlam  f  m  fcmitam  nt> 
mraliom  unpolfibilc  eft  celum  ftare  pbiconi 
vii.T.xiii.)?mmo  ipfuia  mot?  ppetuua  T  col 
proa  celdlu  ex  (in  natura  opanf  in  ba  ink 
rion  cffcctuorcpugnantea  t  erccitiui  repa 
gnanti  i  infurgit  bic  iofirius  ppter  uarict&« 
tern  afpectuam  owpoy  cekftinm  1  motuaj 
ipfaf  ^.pjtxfenCiti*.  Him  ftricte  in  p 
pofito  Ot-dncen  Jo  .ppter  vsriam  camfpo** 
cknt  jam  corpof  ukftium  tpe  conftructcia 
chtitatam  lunt  reptc  ciuiraree  natorattttr 
fc  odio  habcntes  -i  fie  amice  i  fie  gendogie 
fie  i  particuliresbomines  gk  naturalitcr 
odio  babcnt  non  pcedt  nribugt)  mentis  bic 
inde  fie  i  naturalitcr  fe]diligcnte&  Cum 
igicSdUtRtanc  jppter  oOia  i  dilfonantiaa 
appetitnum  bee  autem  necefforio  pdocanf 
motibus  ovpos  cdrftiom  quc  temp  i  necef 
fario  opanf  infer  falls  fox  o"  necelTario  ate 
tancceffitaunaturaltfli  coipoxe  nature 
iatco:  tamcn  9  potcntia  rationale  non  ne 
<etTitat  oirecto  i  p  k  fmmo  rcfiftcrc  poitit 
hinceft(>Dicitptoleroeiwintibio  centum 
•wrbof  9nima  fapiens  dominabit'  aftru  93 
eft  tile  regiAiriter  t  Uodabimat  eti  g>  teftet 
tamcn  fi  tlxulogi  fecna  fcntiant  me  fufaiccre 
inlomnintjqueeoacontingutecn  conecd 
oni.  beboctamenbcUonihilintedotrac 
tare  quu  nimb  foret  meas  metis  excedere 
Caotc  antem  tbtokxpe  pptcr  qnte  no  e  pax 


bcoc  po(Iib«I«  mandd  ertic  fine  bdlo.i  font  R 
ctct  peccatnm  Iccundora  femiua  natoriliaj 
i  iiirdoyjtm\  centre  mandu;  non  po(Te  di 
pact  quod  ftcap 


qoia  non  paniunt  makftcia  ealtfufti.iiii.c. 
fecconda  babundantu  res  tpalium  gencf  » 
rii.c.fjtta  eft  riu  inter  po&xes  atcaara 
n  paftoKa  loth,  terta  ga  non  occnpamor 
4npi>5na  contra  Dcmoocm  idnonpognam' 
at  homines  jHik  .xxvtit.c.  pcutfunus  cm 
mcote  i  in  inferno  ad  cpfoefecs-uii-  "Pon  eft 
confultatio  aduer  Qis  carncm.  Quarta  quk 
non  confiderimna  dapna  guerre  in  qua  pdl 
mod  annum  i  ccopaa  i  dLiriaa-^ere.  Ivt. 
c.Qmnto  quia  non  confidcramos  euentnm 
bdli  qoi  eft  dubtus.ii.rcgum.xii.c.  &cxti 
qua  nS  f  uamue  pccpta  Oei.jrrt.iii.c.  xtini 
ettcndtltes  mandata  mea.ic.  £x  pdictia 
igitur  (nfcrc  duplex  fpnak  bcttum  cclefte  pi 
mum  crcato:is  contra  Incikp  tpfa^pptcr  tf 
fcctii  ctritatis  in  fupbii  datum  penitoe  de 
trono  ccL-fti  ad  cent^  tcire.£t  illud  futt  de 
quo  7ab.sttB.cibi  top  xirtudie  repugn  jtu 


383 


iu  t  afpectuuceleftiuintrofJuc 
toiia  fotmalia  rcpugnantie  tivbec  infcrioJJ. 
pjoptrr  qua  intKidacuntur  inferioa  bdla  i 
hoc  n  continmj  i  fuccerftua  a  prin.  tbeolw 
ce!oquendo.£t3bboep:ocediti  Kpendel 
rpirituale  bellum  i  bumanum  qnod  perueit 
ex  rcpugnantia  intellcctne  ad  fenfum.  TUm 
p:  inccpa  nulonim  perfuadc  t  1  in  ducir  ad  ui 
cia  ut/mtrgat  ad  "Raprincepaautem  bono 
rum  t  contra  ot  ad  fuper  na  cleue  t  .  a  fee  an  do 
autemJrpcndet  bdlam  ccrpcnale  bumanum 
material!  tcr  loqucndo  ut.)  -proximo  tracta 
tu  ducutktur.  t>otcli  qoUqj  mediocri^ 
ter  p.'udcna  cognofart  proaunm  mcum  oma 
fcicntba  pcaluifle  at  fuia  apparct  in  opcrib' 
tdco  in  v.i  TI.  ca.tranko  fimplkitcr  cu  ei' 
toctrina  Ugitnr  in  biftoitid  9>  com  qmntna 
mnrinslouoUuatts  UgumDctart  prefab 
confiikbarorad  fariumicaielramquibuic 
fcientic  dcdiri  ertnt  confulrojca  rdcicbant 
nhde  015  bic  pioauus  excedit  lore  ractaa  ad 
ram  mauscm  mcum  me  rcmitto.  feed  dam 
allegat  fei  cau&a  propter  qnas  »cddit  bdla 
dicaa  hoc  uohri(Tcglo-3o.an.ui.cajpcftoU- 


Caprm.vit. 

£Rom  FpirituaU  bnmanum  pot 
trplicantixolo^cen  mcsilu 
tcr.  Ibcoloycccft  contents 
tjo«a.p7opttnnuidiatm  zcpugmnti  j  d« 
aboS  contra  rationabilem  crcatoram  babea 
tmicemapecutopiifflipaunda.  £tcc 
hoc  bello  ipiri  tuali  loquitur  apTos  ad  ro.rii. 
ca.fic  inqukne  mduite  ooe  armatur  j  eci  ut 
utportitisfbre  adutrfoa  infidUadiaboli. 
£t  ilia  armatura  font  uircutcs  i  bona  opera 
quibiB  Iwminea  armantor  contra  aicia  xi.q 
iii.qui  rtfiftir.^nfidic  auton  diabdi  font  uv 
numcrabiUa-Quam  iquit  iobannea  t>apa  bt 
bet  cni-n  millc  nxend*.  modos  necignoum' 
lituciam  ciua-Conacur  namcy  a  psincipb  rn 
ine  fue  tmitatem  cddtem  refcindere  carita 
tern  nulncrarc  (anctwum  opcrum  dulcedicj 
(nuidct  {die  miicere  ne  fkrcnt.i  omnil/  mo 
die  bumanum  genua  perucrtcre  ac  per  turba 
re  aolct  enim  fcientk  i  erobefcit  caritat  c; 
qui  in  alo  neqaiuit  babcre  bominea  conftan 
tea  cr  luti  materia  in  terra  tcnere.  Unde  c, 
pcBUt  5>  qoatenue  fagiatari  conceduur  at 
omnes  audit'  noitri  nocendi  ei'  uerfucie  mu 
niamas  tic  mo28  ingxdiatuT  perpojtasno> 
ftraa.'bcc  babentur  rfi.q.it.uina  1  1  ali 
bipulcfxrrimt  fcribtt  pcre.ad  iontanu  lie  In 
qakn3-S>ic  in  iliiaatqj  oeccatis  femina  no 
ftra  font  intcntiua  t  pcrfticio  dkboluCum 
niOent  nos  fapra  fundamentii  edificafte  fenfi 
(lipola  ligna-tunc  fupponit  Jnandiom  edifi 
camas  ergo  aur  am  argcittu  lapides  pxciotof 
i  ccmptare  non  audcbit  qutc§  in  hoc  cor  re 
DO  6t  lecara  podcdio.  &edct  qutppe  ko  in  I 


lidiisut  inoccuttis  interficiatuinocentcm 
i  uafa  figuli  probat  foinax  .  bominea  acton 
iuftos  tcmptatio  tribubtionnio  .  "bee 
funt  tranlTumptioc  pe.di.ii.capitu.11  enim 
circa  medtum.BIibi  etiam  fcribit  alex^mfcr 
papa  in  bee  ^ba.tlam  diabolus  no  ccflat  cir 
cuirc  quercns  quern  ccnotet  i  queres  qnoa 
ei  tidclibuo  pdst  i  maxime  illoe  quoa  arde 
t  io7C8  in  r  dirio  falua  toife  ciqj  familiarcs  inx 
Denerit.lJcc  font  trilTumpt  jin.q-.i.nullui 
§.^m  oiigiaTr  Iua.xuxxviii.ca.  £c  babott 
hoc  pecatum  fomitc  a  pecato  pjimi  pntia 
non  autem  a  caufa  poTitiua  fed  ut  a  caufa  (v- 
ne  qua  aliter  crtc  non  pototfTet.  Ham  fi  non 
fuiiTct  peccatiim  p:imi  pntia  ad  nibihi  fuilTet 
bee  pngna.Dic  ut  Otxi  fup  in.iiiuc.  £t  app 
bo  diiftnitccm  belli  fra  tbcologw  bic  rclataj 
per  jauum  mcum. 


Dnlitcr  autem  inttlligendum  . 
•t  fm  fcmitam  pboa  ioqueftdo 
fpuaU  bumanum  faellum  r  ft  con* 
ttntiocxoJta.pptcr  repugnant  :am  roia  ad 
fcnfum  appeti  tiuii  \bi  I'cicndum  g>  fm  pkim 
fo  Oc  anima.3nim  j  babet  gncy  potentias.f. 
vegetatiuam  fcnfitiaam  appetitiuam  inUlkc 
tintm  n  f  m  locum  motiaam.  SppetitinO 
dinidic  in  fenfttiuam  i  roabJrm.Jdcm  phis 
pjimopoiltticof  dicit9>anima  dnat  cotpi 
piincipatu  difpol'itiao  in  o:di  nc  ad  PUUJTI  .i.fi 
cut  Ofia  hic.3nttllecru8  autcj  dnat  ur  fenfui 
principatu  rcgali-i.m  ozdine  ad  liberoe  hoc 
eft  Okcre  q>  anima  Oriaf  c«pi  al  ficu$  ona 
fuo  Intellecf  aiit  diuc  fenfui  fioit  fupcrioi 
cum  fubdito  libcros.  Oltcriua  at  tcndcdu 
cf  intellectas  dictt  roalia  non  quia  in  fcipfo 
bobcat  rocm  qa  funt  potcntu  diftincte  fbtx 
mali  tcr  fed  dick  roalis  non  quia  (nCupkba 
bat  roem  ga  funt  potentk  difttn  c  tt  fbimix 
liter  fed  dtcit  roalis  quis  in  bomine  eft  apt' 
natoeobedn-racicniirrationabtlis  quiapot 
non  obedire  roi  uel  ponit  ciciuftonem  ronia 
fonnzltter.  'bbpmiffte  eutdenter  apparet 
9>appetitusftnfitiuosl]uanus3tiqfi  obuiat 
roi  SUqnado  obedit  roinbi  obuiat  eft  bel!u$ 
i  repugnantia  obi  cbtdit  eft  pax  t  ponduu 
£rcplumpj  inmiijnomundij  afaiomnuin 
fcrwi  funt  aptt  rejtB  obedire  fupio.'te'  latio 
nibudutcMYtusmdertcat.  £tcumaliqn 
non  obcdiunt  ppter  diifpc.f  ttoem  matcrie  i 
indt  fiun  t  aitqua  pter  intt  utionem  agctium 
fupic»  at  monftra.  trie  fenfi  tiuus  appc^ 
tituBBtinftrk»  eft  aptue  obedire  bic  eft  g> 
dk.fJws  it  P  anima  tractata  oc  motu  t  ma 
nente  li  inteUectns  moueat  appcrituj  (cu  fiti 
uum  i  ipfc  eidem  obediat  motua  eft  nafalia 
ac  ft  fpcra  fnpio?  monerct  inferiorem^  £in^ 
autem  ccouf  motua  tune  non  eft  naturalu 
ac  fi  fpj  inferior  moueret  tnftriore.  £jccpld 
pat;  in  monarcbu  ciuili.  Ham  slig  (unt 

•4 


fuMiti  repasnintca  prtncibus  futa.e 
buius  rnpajnintie  colfr  inconcinente.TUm 
in  incontinence  appettcua  fcnfitiuu3incliat 
in  eiceffttti  utpate  in  oidinicum  cibum  po^ 
tun  utl  aliquid  (imile.'Ratio  diaat  illud  fu^ 
gkndim  ut  uocraii  i  incontinence  ainciti 
tcUcctu«.i  rack)  i  p?opiie  continentia  non 
eft  uirruj  moralis  fojmata.nam  ut  (quit  idc 
pbiia  in'uirtuolb  aninu  coulon.it.  unde  cum 
cr  mulcts  i  frequentibur.  actibua  in  apperL 
tu  fcoficiuo  ftrmata  merit  p?omptitudo  quc- 
dam  indinans  ipfum  apprtitum  fenfituu  in 
bonum  t  comoimiur  roi  tune  propju  c  uir 
tna.  3n  incontinence  tute  patens  eft  bee 
repugiuntu.fedtbi.uincit  appericua  fenfiti 
u»w  ncc  ilia  dicitur  uicium  firmatum  donee 
it  freq  jentibos  acetous  in  titum  aiTucuerit 
incliiurc  bcllum  fpintmlc  bumanum  toque 
do  inorilitcr.  DC  repu;nantu  etiam  loq^ 
tur  apt  us  id  roma.vti.uidco  a!ium.l.repu5x 
nintem  legi  mentis  met  trinitumpCe  ntii. 
q.n.ted  pcnfandum  tkconlti.nim  cocupiO 
antum  t  a:  hoc  fpiricuali  bello  loquif  g:e^ 
goitus  iviu.q.i.nil'i  bello.  Jnbic  iutt>  re 
pugmntii  ab  ido'cl'centia  rcguli  eft  inclina 
tio  in  rnalum.nim  omnis  era^  ab  adolelcen 
tia  piona  cit  in  ttulum  jenci'u?  vi'i.ca.  tii.q. 
LMinisctJs.JEt  ratio  confueuit  mulitplez 
aiTignari.  0  jiina  op  iratu^  pot  quie  per  fe  bo 
num  intern  fine  gratia.  3lu  eft  px>pter  tomi 
tcm  cuiginalis  peccati  unpellctem  ad  malum 
Blu  q>  facilius  ad  nulum  bonum.Tlam  con 
fiftit  in  medioelfcntialiter.  uicia  autem  i  cr 
trtmitntibuj.ad  medium  aut  trlfttur  tmica 
uu.Sdcrtremumiutemmultiplcr.^liaq? 
plura  (unc  impedimctaboni  $  ma!t.9ha  qz 
non  fit  bonum  nili  cu  tudkio  r  aton  ia.  q  ado 
Ufctntcspsrum  uiocnc  poptcr  offufcatioej 
oiginoruin  i.o3po?alium.£  t  credo  ucrioiem 
ritiontn  tec  DC  b»Uo(pirifiuliqt>  circa 
pJun  poftit  trtctari.  fed  pzetermittp  q?  traf 
ctntorcnt  metis  iurk?  in  quibos  minus  qoi 
portibtte  fit  intrude  diicedere.  tranicocti 
pioiuuomeo  i  nrionea  quc  We  allcgantur 
per  eu  quire  a  dolefcentu  fic^magia  pwna  id 
malum  q>  id  bonum  alle^at  ctu  proanuo  me 
us  in  p:obe.cle.in.ii.dum  glo.ibi  dicit  q>  per 
fcnfuaUtJtfm  ippetimuoarkctabilia  cojpoji 
i  fogimas  nociaa.n  ponit  ett  am  pjoau-'  me1 


CapTm  is. 

£rcio  rraccaturusl'um  oc  bello 

uniuer(alico:po»U.i  ipiuetric 

Utuam  explicate  p  qonea.pjimo 

quo  mv  ojtu  i  induccum  fit  bellii.  Sjeciido 

quib'jaliceit  indicere  uniuerfale  bellii.  Tub 

iungmdo  contra  quos.tercio  quc  fmt  tye 

gltia.bcUii  expUcando  p  modu  ftue  act;  lid 

toaTdlicitospfonani  bellii  ag^cgitiu.  £c 

fomindo  quifdam  qoca  circa  ipi'j.  Quarto 


quc  Tint  pjbnt  qut  accedcre  pcffi  nt  ad  bdlu 
fc  t  quid  ci  accidetibua  non  aftrictie.  Quito 
cc  bis  fpoliia  que  faint  in  bello  i  alii*  qbufdi 
qix  in  bello  faint.  &ejcto  p  modum  tabulc 
p  inftructoc  csnonifte  Oc  queftionib'  con- 
tin§:ntfbu6  maceriam  belli  ulncucy  in  c«pe 
iuris  c»n6ict  rractatum  fuent  p  glai  txic. 
remittent.  Opere  pitciii  eft  ut  fequamtir 
diinlnnem  belli  vniuerfatu?  co:palia  traditi 
P  jMuom  meum  hie  qa  cius  o:  dine  tg  bcm' 

.Ca.  x. 

£deo  ad  piimom.  £t  p?imo  qro 
quo  iure  oKum  lubuit  bdlu  xni 
uerlale.  iooTo  mv  diutno  i  inf 
gentium  ftiuino  ut  pbat  3o.viii.p?imo  regu 
vi.c.iuvgemiu.ff.  ccinfti.  i  iute.l.ex  hoc 
iurc.  txxi  <j>  betla  ojta  func  iure  oiuino 
obi  fcie  ndum  eft  q>  bella  nedum  dno  pmittc 
tefmmoporitiueconcedentem  introduces 
funt  i  hoc  Oemonftran  poreft.  lUmomnis 
ficultas  tendens  in  bonum  a  cvo  poTitiue  ne 
dum  pmiifmc  ctriuat  J5ed  facultaa  belli  in, 
ducendi  tufti  tendit  ad  bonu  ergo  a  Oeo  pofi 
tiue  piunit  ,pbat  mib.v  11am  omne  datum 
optimum  t  omne  Ponum  pfcctum  oel'urfum 
eft  Defcendens  a  patre  luminum  .  Jaco.i.i.q. 
i.<p  pie.  t^Jobst  mine?.  Tbm  indactio  bel 
li  iufti  i  txllum  tultum  tendit  ad  bonn^.lli 
tendit  ad  pacem  i  qutctem  vniuerfi  hoc  p* 
bat  auctomace  Buguft.  ad  fionihcium  He 
inquiens.  lion  entm  bellum  querit  ut  bt\ 
(urn  ctcrceat  led  bellum  qtierit  ur  pax  qr«t 
T  [ubdit£ftoergobelljndopactfica6  utcos 
quoBerpu^nasadpscisutilitatem  vinccdb 
pduc8t3.t>ccl5abtr'.rxui.q.nolt.  £ftigit 
finis  belli  pax  i  tranqllitaa  vniuerfi  ergo  in 
feruntadeoaigtnaliter  i  pofitiuc  puenulci 
Confirmtt  mm  omnu  actua  puniriu'  malo 
ruma  dco  pnenit.Scd  inductio  belli  iufti  c 
punitmusmalof  i  rebellijm  ergo  a  Oeo  po 
fitiue  pucn  it.  6  :ob«t  nuu*.  Him  fciibic 
mibi  ui.-i  diet  am  i  ego  retribaam  ^uer.xxii. 
i  .xtiii.q.i.  'item  cum  in  puerbiis  i  «libi 
mca  c  vlcio  i  ego  retrJbua  Oaitrono.xxxii. 


aut.ttuguftini  in  f  mone  Oe  puero  ccturicta 
xxiii-q.i.parat*  ^.non  cajjipjendo  pnmo  p 
bine  inducticncmcondudi  port;  tjxologicc 
Oe  neceifino  in  uniucrfofore  maloe  T  itbeL 
ka.  11am  maieftati  Oiirine  infunt  .ict'  pie 
mut  iui  bonoti  i  puniatiiii  nulo^  ut  Icribic 
Jnt  ellecru  bonnm.tc.  Tune  illo  pjemiiTo 
pofTet  dc  induci  poUto  accu  neceiTario  panic' 
obuctum  terminatiuus  illiusactnt3boc>pbJ 
tur  p\'bapbdol'opbili.ii.0c  aninu.  llani 
pofitoactutirionis  ponit  obiectam  nifibik. 
3  tcm  i  acruauditionispofito  ponit  obiectu 
uddxle  po&tocrgo  a  pimcipto  crcatow  muV 
Oiactupunitiuo  in  Oeo  neccd'ario  ponit  do, 
iectu"  punibile  T  tale  eft  malii  ut  .u.dictu  cit 


385 


Confirms  pMmump:mdpa!e.  tlamomnia 
actuap  quern  tolUt'nocendt  ficultaa  idea 
pofitiuc  puenit.  £>ed  indue  tio  belli  iufti  eft 
buiufmodt.pjobatur  bee  aut.sug.tk  inqnie- 
tiabelU  geruntur  ut  ad  pietatis  tufticie  fa- 
cietatem  uictus  confoUtur.Subdit.na  com 
IkentU  Iniquitatis  capitur-utilia  uincttur 
qm  nibil  ell  fJidus  felicitate  peccant iu;  q 
pcnalia  nutritur  impunitas  i  maUnoliitaa 
uelut  interim  boftiaroboiatur.  "foec  babent 
xriii.q.i.  v'.at  .per  boc.  Confirmatur  omnis 
potcllu  eft  a  ceo  iubente  uel  pcrmittente . 
£  rsifjtclbs  txllica  fie  pwacnit  fed  non  t> 
lumpcrmittente.  fed  lubente  ergo  iubente. 
fuobitur  pjmcipaliter'ad  roma.x  ui.tranfup 
riiKxiiii.q.i.quidcuIpatur.    D.'u:dplura 
mm  ut  boc  pattt  infpectis  mundi.'gcncrat  to 
tub  as.llam  a  pnncipw  creationis  miidi  ufqj 
ad  tempon  noe  ecus  per  feipm  t  fine  miftro 
maloa  males  exterminabat  ut  pat  5  DC  cbajti 
1  lamccb  i  quibui'djm'aliis  regibus  ut  fcri- 
btnirgenc.im.xivui.ca.p:r(i:  ergpbellain 
duxtt  panitiua  T  mak»nm  exterminating. 
Sntatur  ergo  ex p:cmtiTie  bello  iurc  diuino  I 
dacta  iMiginalitcr  fyuralircr .  jrmmo  fone 
Kmonftrari  poiTct.tlam  inqutunt  naturalef 
boc  eft  paraua  mundus  T  lie  fit  gutxrnatto  i 
poo  mundo  fie  in  toto  uniuerfo  Umili tudine 
tricra.ut  inquit  pb  j'  viii.pbi.  i  in  regione 
naturalisccspoJiBbumaniccflat^  ubtnul 
lua  tfi.  bumotum  (xce(Tus  nulla  eft  rebellio  f 
pugnana  conieruattoni  naturali.ubi  aiit  bu- 
moJumexceiTuspJoprcrinoidinacUin  rcgu 
nem  tune  pagiu  nature  tcndcnt  is  in  cofcr^ 
uationem  contra  exceltum  tendentem  in  Dfx 
ftructioncm  i  in  pugna.  aliqiudo  fufficit  na 
turalidpotenuaidcojrcctioncm  repugnan 
tie.aliquando  eft  impotcns  p;opter  excciTu  j 
mozbi  i  tune  eft  opus  cxtimfeco  remcdio . 
utpotc  medkaminc  fapiente  naturam  neneni 
repugruntia  cum  rnnbo.  Sic  indirecteto 
magno  mundo.Tlan  aliquando  in  regione  i 
plagi  mundi  nullos  eft  rebellinm  cxceltus  i 
tune  nulla  pugna  jnnmo  unifomiter  tendit 
tpfiasgubcrnatr ix naturam  conferuationc 
aiiquandoeft  excetTue  rebellinm  tendenni 
in  Dcftructionem  gubernationis  i  conicrua 
tionb  i  aliia  placaticmbus  i  tone  non  eft 
opua  bello  nee  medicaie  uencnofe.  Sliqn  m 
Untnn  excelTit  mcsbus  g>  opua  eft  medicaie 
venenolb  pcnittio  mater  u  mo?bi  exftirpahte 
£t  talc  medtcamen  eft  beUumcradiutiuum 
1  extermination;  malof .  t>ie  igitur  in  poo 
mundo  recurru  ppter  detcctum  vtotis  infe 
rv»ia  ad  modicum  q  cquipst  remedb  extrl 
fcco  n  venenofo.&ic  in  magno  mundo  gOx 
bnnatot  gencralia  qui  eft  a! tufimus  aeatoi 
i  eft  medicus  aniuerft  tendens  in  ipfuis  con 
fenutoe  f  gubernatoe  cum  intantum  excre 
oount  humoKs  tendentes  in  ocftructionem 
vmuerfi  ucl  ptia  ciul'dem  .i.uicia  excelTim  1 
•Itcrius  impwtabilia  refpectu  conhiatwnw 


monarcbk  mundane  utif  remedio  bellico  nt 
exterminet  vicia  i  excciTua  ut  difcrofta  re- 
dacat  id  urminos  tcmpamenti.fet  (teut  in 
cojpc  bununo  ifti  bumof  exceiTue  fiunt  ctr- 
ca  membza  fingula  co:pis  bumant  i  etii  difx 
crofia  infurgit  aliqoldo  ppter  bumcaes  vni7 
exceiTuum  qncu  alterius.  £ic  in  vniuerfa 
ftngulas  regionee  t  mundi  plagaa  que  fun  t 
meinbsa  msgni  mundi  fiunt  hie  vicio^t  ex^ 
cedusquc  repugnant  ipfius  c:iibcrnationi  i 
alrqn  in  uno  aliqn  in  alio  fm  ulcios:  uarteta 
teai  ftccontingit  pbgas  mundi  inhrmari 
fpter  viciof  cxcelTus  que  qfiq,-  fie  cxcedut 
g>  opus  eft  medicamine  eradicatiuo  quo  era 
dtcabun t  aliquado  bont  cum  malia  ficut  me- 
dkina  eucllit  etiam  mixtim  bonoa  cu  malia 
ymmo  ppter  Dictum  excelTum  penit*  extig 
uitutmojocontingitetum  inungularibiia 
fuppofitia  qt>  patee  ex  fenfatia  nam  regicnw 
infinite  ppter  boc  funtpenrtua  extinete  i 
inbabicabiles  redditc.    Jnfinita  portent  re 
citari  excmpla  "boc  idem  conttngit  in  gene 
logiia  i  in  regiminibuaxiue  ctiam  minrit'nt 
penitua  ocftciant.    £t  licet  bee  Tint  diets 
fie  figurafr  tamen  textibaa  legia  diuine  ap- 
tilTimc  Oimonftrant.    TUm  ut  legit  genef 
jcijc.c.ppier  exceiTiutun  mozbii  fodomie  Oc' 
ufus  eft  medicamiue  billico  i  eradicatiuo  ?t 
&odomam.&obori.&egar.i  £leale.licet 
doe  perirent  ppter  vieinitate  utt>e  pe.dU. 
5..  fed  continuo  i  .c.cl'ici  Oe  excel.  p?ela.  i 
in  aut.ut  non  luxurknt  cotra  nitura  circa 
fi.colr.yii-     extent  induci  inniiera  excm 
pU  Oe  ifto  etiam  medtumme  bellico.  j  OHK. 
vui.c.  11am  Ibi  &iia  noftrr  iubet  ad  Jelum 
nouc  uc  conftit uat  Hbi  retrnftpn  infidiia  1 
infidianteebeUatcreaadinfidiandii  bcftib7 
£t  a  a^uft.in  lib w  qonum  fup  v'bis  jofue. 
5ufta  ante  bell*  diffinirt  Iblcnt  que  Yicifcut 
iniuriaa  n  Oclictof  exceil'ue.  £t  fubdit  gea 
ucl  ciuita-o  pleetenda  eft  que  uel  uindieare 
negUxerit  qo  a  fuis  impiobe  f.ictum  c.£ub 
dirfj  boc  gen'  belli  fine  dubio  iuftum  eft  qo' 
imperat  qui  nouit  quod  cuiq;  fieri  Kbeat.no 
dicit  pcrmittit  pnmo  imperat .  Srubdi t  in 
quo  bello  dux  exercitua  uel  ipfe  populue  non 
UmactoJ  belli  ^miniftercei  iudicanduee 
£t  fie  dare  ocmonftratur  ccum  i  medicum 
alttflimuoi  conferuatotem  untuerfi  bella  im 
pare  i  eradi  &dicta.'boc  babentur  t  rail'iip 
n  xxiii.q.ii.  tominue'nofter.'    De  boc  ec 
bello  i  medtcamine  craducatiao  Tcribii  ma 
cbabeozum  T.CJ.I  CCTtrono.esp_ii.  ubi  ex 
mandato oci  filii  ifrael  bclia  gelterunt  cctra 
amezcoa  quod  ettam  traetat  augu.in  lib?o 
mu.£ t  babetur  tranlTumptum  xxin .q.ii.ca 
notandum.&anetx  boc  etiam  fcrtbituriu 
dtcumv.ca.ubiekgit  tx>minuc  nouabclU 
loquitur  tt  bie  erradicantibue  uickuumci 
tt(Tu8.&cribitur  etiam  yfak  cxxx.i  beliia 
pcipuiaexpugnaoat  logtur  0'  bieeradicatib' 
©cribitur  etiam  in  iDacbabeoJU  iJiLca.C5 


386 


totsmmi  t  bdlttt.  Gcribicur  ctti 
x  x.a.aomiiMB  eft  muii  t*n§>  bcllatw.)* 
ttmk  (apcr  (ofbmom  prfdwrimc  txc  fcri 
HtdkwsfiquiBfanKtaemlatroBia  uTpir 
rttc  enamcnt  i  infirmod  pjodeft  illis  wi  i 
flttatr  enim  m  dr«  quibna  non 


bene  metmndir  •  malo  oprre  celTubunt.  C5 
clofc)  eft  ierontmi  9  Ibnanc  mciofi  ft  cernic" 
moribwqttortieaitwinfcctain  nuludilpoc 
bantnr  ibpcfifbdloeradicatioo^'becfai 
b:nmr  i  mi.  q.tii.ca.  fi  qni«  fotituiinc  bee 
•pcrtc  acmonftratur  luce  vii.id  cbrcoe  xii  . 
diat  n  tominna  (era1  qm'nefcir  aabkatcm 
tt>mini  fui  t»cit  digna  p'.agia  uipulabitpiu 
cia.^cru'  autejn  qui  fti{  aoluntate5  somf 
nt  fui  i  non  ficir  digna 


cedeiMigitnr.recipit  plagis  a  asmino.  bee 
fuiutraniTumptaxxiiiq.v.ea  uindicta. 
ft  ic  legitur  <j>  ellas  maltos  afftcerit  mate 
pwpza  nunn  i  igiK  dimnitus  impetrato  iiii 


&tc  fciibitur  cc  aliia  tanpoK  ncttris  kgfe 
iin'.rcgam  xxilj.i.)5fitil.ca.  &ic  fcribtar 
puirbumpcmapTonim  principia  aniniw 
i  uro?  CUB  tradidcrunt  actoii  iiii.a.  rranf 
fumptmc  bi'xcnr  ivii.q.i.  aniniis  xviii.q. 
V.M  uindicta  in  finc.Dc  hoc  beflo  cr  jdica> 
ttuo  palcbrc  loquitur  g:cgo:iU8  ad  arunicb! 
dim  francoJum  rcgin  am  fie  inqokne  ne  fnj> 
•on  crcdimiB  diinnc  ukkmia  iraoindufce 
Ur  jtoJum  Qne  accioru  comota  belli  pcdia  tf 
tcrri-nac  quosKlinqucntedad  rccfitudinia 
uum  cci  pjcapra  non  renocant  xxiit.7).  v. 
ft  q-joe  inquit  nonne  comin  '  ad  mopkn  mi 
Uftcop  no  picurifl  uiiure  exodtxxii-/Do^ 
fesrttwiqai  Itgcm  acctpcrat  a  tomtnocul 
totes  Idoli  oololc  puniri  ut  uodi  xxiti.ca- 
£>a  nucl  ctiain  mand  jto  Domini  agnc  rcgcj 
pinguilfin»um  in  fruftra  confcidit  i  regum. 


bine  apparet.Do-nmne  erum  cgiprios  flucti 
tma  fubmerfit  exodi  xiiii.ca.  Jfribelitarum 
oidiucr.1  poftrauit  in  bermjo.nume.xiiu.c 
tranlTumpta  batxntur  xxai.q .v.  quid  ergo 
JnSmta  po.'Tunt  fupcr  hoc  ocmonftrsndo  in 
duciexempla  arterial  uouelegia  diuinc. 
Scd  be  c  fufftclut.ut  ex  bia  enumeratuj  l'uf> 
ftciit  conclu  iircbclla  oHginaltter  02015  fao^ 
buiile  ex  lure  diuino  i  non  folam  cci  pmik 
ftone  jmmoi  pofitiue  ab  iplb  mundi  gubcr- 
na ten  t  mcdko  u!cb?U5  cradicat iuo  p?opter 
filutcmji  mundi  conlcnwion^.£t  cum  in 
bunc  fincm  tendunt  belli  ca  rcmedia  ut  fupia 
dare  dictum  eft.  fciopter  bane  autemde 
traftam  i  uicioium  multiplicatum  exceduj 
inaniuerfiocftructionem  p7og?edient<5  ex 
fcnfatis  ipparet  altilftmum  creatorcm  tempo 
ribua  retro  teds  i  boc  eradicattuo  remcdto 
ufum  foifte.  Tim  rcgni  i  mundi  regimix 
lu  q-aim  plma  penitua  eneruati  at  quim 
plura  remilt)  quid«  £roranonm  a/ienfu 
quid  DC  grccof  Jmpio  Quid  ot  romanojum 


TniucrfoWminiopjrtceltalk  tcmpobw 
noftri-j  febkunt  i  fubiciunt  cximini  medi, 
cina  parat  aticubi  minoiattoa  alien!  cradica 
du(xercitatci>idluinumquc2a3  babitudi 
BesfuntfalUcesiutrt  axtrinam  pitiiftmi 
ffxcjiio  i  anpborilmo?  bine  reguDcm  di 
ouxft  ad  mofum  ut  alt iltimus  congruam  ad 
bixit  mcdicinam  ut  cuius  bumoiee  in  qnato 
i  qu  Uu  tempi  men  to  plus  cum  qui  ex  pleni- 
tude merit  c uicuatio  fanct  iuxta  tott  rtni 
eiufdcm.     1x~c  mtcm  x'.ufio  uidelicct  cf> 
bdlapueniantatMopotulune  io?iginaliter 
Ocmonftriri  poiTet  atento  Oiuinc  mitcfbtia 
vniwmi  t  ppttuo  minillerio.     Tla5  altilTt 
mue  omnium  crtatoj  mtdiante  akftintcbi 
na  in  bine  terrcftrem  madn'nam  nttaraltta 
opa t  fed  fupnaturaliter  imcdiate  ub'i  uu'.t  fpi 
rat  i  infiuj  t  ted  naturalitcr  loquw  Dictum 
pttiiftmi  pbi  t>:imo  metbauiftce  i  fo  celi.ne 
ccrte  eft  bunc  mundum  contiguum  clfe  I'upio 
rib'  btionitad  ut  omnre  'feu  3  mde  rcgator< 
3 nfluitaltiiTimua  natural r  in  Ixc  inferior 
mediantc  ccldti  i  fperico  co?pe.3Hud  autcj 
totum  co:pusop3t  mediante  motu  i  lumine 
ut  inquid  idem  pl»9.    £t  quia  in  ip!a  tots 
micoiiu  cclciti  funt  ptce  Oiucrf^  iitutum 
influendoutputa  Up.itim  uirietatee  fteilip 
erratium  i  nxaf  diuerfitas  a  quibua^prer 
uarictatem  naturaru;  i  motimm  fepcndet 
effcctnu  omne  gcnitum  i  cottuptibilc.  3d» 
circo  quclib;  contrarictas  i  nat uraf  Oiucr 
ut«e  i  repugnantia  Me  mfcruis  infurgcna  t> 
pendenseftOefuper.    £xquolbtimmfa 
tnr4>cum  repugnantii  t  Diftnmirao  Tint 
o;dinato:ra  belief  feu  introductcma  5.  bella 
inde  ozianc  jruuno  expicn tia  Oocet  9>  ppter 
vnifjimititcnnoirfctfmitatc  al'pectuuu  tpe 
nitiuititis  infurgunt  inter1  famines  natura 
Its  dikctdee  i  n ales  inimicitie.'boc  qlibct 
expi  t  ."ihm  quta  Oiltgct  ftstum  cum  uidcrit 
nullis  meritid  pcedetibus  i  fie  odio  babrbit 
nuilis  cc  mentis  pjeadcribua-Siic  tnter  ci 
uitates  t  villas  i  oftrj  infurgunt  Dilcoea 
natura'.iui' ppter  vnitwrnitatcm  t  diffor^ 
mitaccm  afpectuumtempoie  conftructbnia 
earum  i  fie  infurgunt  odu  i  bcllacx  infiu 
entu  Cclefti.     &ic  1  amidcic  T  paces 
inter  p:ouinciaj.        'Ixx  autem  celcftia 
naturi  mediante  motu  eft  p:oductiua  gene 
ratioms  n  corrupt ionia  i  bis  infcrio:iixis  au 
gumentii  diminurionunedum  fingularu 
mppoTita  v-mmo  in  fmgulae  mundi  pligas . 
11am  ex  bic  fuperna  natura  plage  babitabi 
lee  i  econtra  iuxta  doctrinam  pbi.ubi  mare 
fiet  aridum  ubi  aridum  fict  nure.£x  bac  ni 
turarum  repugnantia  i  difpofitionumcx  q 
rite  contenttonea  i  bulb  porticularia  i  u 
niucrf jlia  infurgunt  bee  p.'optcr  motuum  i 
afpeetuum  uartetttcm.qucdjm  exoltatque 
dam  cxtinguit  i  quedam  JcpJcmit.rDntat 
mundi  rcgu  uniucrfalu  i  particularii . 
IcbttOcmooftraripotcTt  TUmpofiuci 


387 


fuflcieri  pJictiuaaUcuiuaeffectns  ntccffc 
eft  ilium  erfcctii.pdati  nil!  iilk  aliquodei 
trinfecum  impedimentum  pductionis.  S$ 
natura  celeftts  ?tinet  diftemal'r  motn  i  iT> 
pectn  i  ipfiua  ptea  funt  oiffomea  ex  natuf 
fui  tnflacdo  ergo  necclTc  eft  pdaci  bos  effcc 
tus  rcpagn  antes  i  diffoimcs  cum  non  fit  9* 
impedmpoffct.  fit  hoc  inferri  pctfct  na> 
turoli tcr  neceffc  eft  eft;  belli,  nee  alitcr  pio 
cedera  naturalker  mundi  gubertutio  fit* 
fta  tamen  licet  3*  bee  celeftis  natnra  oper« 
tur  in  bee  Inferior  non  Umen  oc  perfc  t  di 
recto  in  intdlcctuj  Irjmanum  pi  mo  durat 
libcrtas  srbirrii  ut  in-ca.  nabucbodonofw. 
xxiii.q.iiii-i  ca.oe  tiniatoepe.di.ii.ca. 
ficut  enim  t  pbiia  in  etbi.Sed  opcrat  in  ox 
gana  aircatum  fenfitiuaram  que  recepta  (flu 
entia  adminiftrant  intellntui.  1 1  fie  per  in 
dircctumimUiitbiceft$>  fcribitnr  inlitno 
centum  oerbomm.Bninu  fapiens  dominabi 
turjftru.  fecdqubhoctriccarcnimise^ 
Jon^tur  a  Krmima  iuria  non  ultcri'  crca 
b  jnc  ccdactionem  tnfifbx@ed  fufficbt  tlfa 
tarn  c  %  pxdtctis  t  ccmonftrat  urn  txlla  p:o 
BtnifTc  a  dec  pofiuue  i  dfcctiiK  licet  er  boc 
uldmoinftrtturnon  in  mediate  micbin^a 
Idmnataralitcropcrando.  Jnquofcribit 
p?oauo3  mtaa  tbcolojrce  in.r  .ca-po(Tc  coclu 
ui  nccdfaib  tee  maloa  i  rebeUoa  K.  fcribic 
tamcn  rxiii.qucftio.v.in  capitu.no  iblu5  f 
bonum  eft  cite  rcmonca  quia  funt  ultous  ire 
dci  in  bia  qoi  milum  optrantur .  nam  per  na 
bttcbodonofo:  i  per  antbiocum  i  per  pnnci 
pes  romanoium  t  per  nonuUoa  rcgcs  genri 
lium  popnlam  ifrabeltdcom  delinqacntc  cU 
tiiTunusaliqtuodopuniutut  p  belle  fcrtbic 
•mbzoiiud  tranrtumptiue  xxii^.v-in  ca.lt 
TUmptonentisfatxiicnum  defutnator  aL 
tarectoram  ca.fi  Ixrct icua.it. q.vii-i  in.c 
i.ca  .cula  i  q  Klbonc  in  v .  ft  quid  plura  p 
proauum  meum  fcribitur  fcribani  doctote* 
in  ca/c.d:  tee  c5pe.i.refbant  g>  ocua  a  pn 
cipio  creiuit  cdtim  i  terram  n  omnia  qoe  i 
eid  I'unt  anylicnm  n  bonunim  natnri.fpiri 
tuiliai  no  IpiritualU  i  bx  rcjcit  p  feipbirn 
pieccpta  o:iit  i  tranfjrediend  pen!  impo 
bit  per  ftipm  fcilicj  ade  i  euc.pnniik  cba/ 
yn  i  quotda^  olios  ofque  ad  noc .  tempoie 
Oena  cepit  revere  per  miniftros  £  t  noc  fuit 
oui  deiu  Bedk  giibernationem  arcbe  i  i  bac 
rectoib  lucceifer un t  patriarch-:  re#a  t  alii 

00  nini  boc  dor auit  ul tj  ad  Criftom  qui  fm  t 
ntturalia  dommua  £t  in  nicarium  poftea 
conftttuit  pctrum  per  ilia  ucrba  Io  ea  petr' 
•t  6iper  bane  petram  edit"  icabo  ecdeOas  ma 

1  tibi  dabo  clauea  re^ni  celo7um.11oca  i.c. 
in  none  xrt.dt .riiii.q.i. loquitur,  item  du 
tliric  acope  fpiritum  (anctii  quonim  rtrnife 
rida  peccata  reautentor  eia  3o.  r  r  .c.sd  tf 
monluandam  $>  petroot  cipiti  fcojfuj  dixit 
pare  pifccoata  mesa  io.nlnnoca.  £tlk 
noWt  0(0  deo  j  9>  pttraa  fwKa.  omnibue  i 


diet  ccpbas  ct  capatpsindpiam  ixii.dlce 
ters  qae  in  boc  ca.dicunmr  p  pjowum  me- 
wimibipiobtntnr. 

CapTmxi 


Itilecando  g>E^lI«  orta  (unt 
lore  gcnrium  bic  tamcn  ?fidera 
<j>  licet  dicant  inra  o^  txlla  Tint 
introducta  iuregentinm  ut  }7fid«us.i.di. 
ins  gentium  t  bermogeman'  iurifconfultua 
in.l.ex  boc  turc.ff.  Oc  inftui  iurc  tfi  credo 
g>  bella  oztum  babucrint  non  fblum  ex  cgta 
tc  nitora[  humane  intclligtotk  i  create 
ymmopmojdiilitercr  difpofuionc  nature 
lutorentia  non  I'olum  injluentis  fup  act'  bo 
nsnoa  ymmo  fup  qui  jfoiq*  animttie  T  it 
inanimatia  ut  fit  ne^  dicer  c  g>  bobcant  bell  a 
crtum  a  inre  nali  eoam  ut  djrtingait  a  iurc 
gentium  (j.  qhccr  Oirterant  flat  tex-in.l.i. 
^.ii)9  gentium  i.^.ius  nale  i.l.ex  hoc  ture 
ff.ix  iufti.n  tore  i  pma  oi.lue  n*k  cum  liu 
glo.i.c.iusnale.Qtfbociitferu^ftcondit 
cxpiinciptisniUbuscuiuflitxt  nali  create 
eft  inftta  nilis  inclinatio  ad  exdufionem  cu 
tufoicy  repuguantia  fue  nali  difpoitoi  hoc  p5 
inOuccndo  in  lingulia  na  turalibus  funplicu 
boa  i  itiixcia.Tbm  aquc  infitum  eft  ignt  re- 
Gftere  i  econr  ppter  repugnantiam  qualits 
turn  fie  in  fingolie  eUmcntie  fie  in  mixtia  id 
ouci  ponent  bee  9>  p5  in  bnitia  ubi  tx  nali 
repugnantu  compkxionum  xuum  inclinat 
nifr  ad  occiiionem  altcrius  i  econtra  ftcut 
in  rfcli  crratura  infita  eft  inclinat  io  a  tiaf  a 
etiam  circufcripto  intdlectnalt  dictamine 
ad  pfugandurp  qdciicp  fibi  repognana  quod 
bocfit-«f  roe.pbai.    Ttamnaturaomnid 
creatof  pdiictiua  non  minus  Oebuit  efle  fbl 
iKita  in  f  uationc  rationabillfl  creature  9  ce 
tero^  com  ipla  ceteria  fit  nobilioi  ut.  c.  cum 
inftrnuuaOe  pe.i  remiif  .i.l.fanccim'.C. 
Oc  facrofanc.tcde-7  .c.lx-c  imago.xxxii.q. 
•w.i  .ppter  ipiam  omnia  infra  glofauj  luinare 
font  pducta  ut.  1-  3n  pecudum  .(f.  DC  ufuv. 
Si  igti  natura  induxit  i  ndinationemtiSle  j 
in  ceteita  aeatnrid  ad  quaky  fibi  cotraria 
p:of  Uganda  qnanto  magia  boc  Oebuit  in  r«u 
btlicreatura  hoc  idem  fenfualiter  patct  per 
fmgnlafuppofitadiioirrendo.    Tlam  glibj 
bx  in  (eipto  cxptt  fiboc  ex  princtpiis  n.iluV 
bominib'  infitum  eft  ergo  ex  bac  indinat  ice 
nali  pnwjdinarr  babuit  ratum  helium.  Cum 
bcllam  ut  Tupia  furiptum  eft  fit  contcntio  ex 
oita  .ppter  tolUndam  repugnantum.    5n 
fjrc  ergo  g>  ilia  contentio  que  wit  ,ppter  tol 
UndumOi/Tonumi  repugnana  conleruatoi 
foe  fundamen  taliter  babuit  oitu"  a  principiis 
nalibua  ut  fie  a  inre  n.ie  put  diftingutt  a  iuf 
gentium.     &ed  ftatim  diaa  bee  odtruut 
ttxt7  qui  Oiuit  ex  iure  geft.oziri  vbi  aduer 
tendum  9>  licet  a  Jure  nali  inducta  lit  ifta  in 
clinatio  nllis  ctr  oifcripu  nali  intelligent!! 


c  indfamb  ilk  regulsf  p  oictamc  roe 
i  intelligent*  naturalie  ficut  dicim'  in  fin 
gdn  Kdfaw  qa  octxncur  bonu  nifaus  n  itn  > 
ralittr  orcumfcripto  tnulkuu  utppte 
indinatio  a i  cibttm  i  potum  t  coTtum  ifta 
bjminibus  competent  nituralitor  i  tamcn 
infantine  rcgoLuttcr  dictaminc  rationis  qd 
nan  cft'in  piut  u  quo  arent  fllo  dicumtnc. 
©tc  ergo  credo  faille  mentem  ilto:um  tcr., 
tu$  uiddiat  g»  inclmatio  Situs  inclirutioia 
inrroducte  a  pnncipiis  naturaUbua  infurgit 
ex  iurcgcntumuux  cquitate  generali  ratio 
maintd%:ntif.Sedg>ipfa  indinatio  ik 
dc  jgrc  naturali  boc  piobat  g!o  .in.  l.cx  hoc 
uirc.ff.oc  iufti.1  iure  i.U  duintgentium . 
Ham  gLwitrobictt  ponic  fie  ifta  nertn  fie  in» 
tcUigit  cc  indinotione  rcgulata  per  dictaro 
nnonia.£t  UCct  dkunt  Krtua  q>  tx  iurege 
nun  inforgunt  bdU  no  tamen  credo  blfam 
dkcrc  bdU  idcft  illaa  indinataa.indintiox 
neabobotoitnmiiureciuilii  icanontco 
tUm  his  ctuik  i  IDS  unonicum  no  dicunt 
alum  cquiutcm  qutm  fit  equttts  iurifgtnti 
nm.'lbm  otnnc  ius  confiftit  in  qoadam  rec- 
t itudinc  i  indc  tua  dictum  c  ur.i.di.  ius  nt 
c  jrak.^cd  iua  ciutle  1  anontcu5  funt  rec 
titudo  uite  i  cquitas  iurifgentium.  &td  (i 
addunt  1'up.u  rccritudincm  illim  aliquaic  ex 
pkunonc  tune  dicitur  ius  ctuik  uel  canoni 
cu  n.nim  iua  Ifgalc  i  ius  canonicum  babcc 
Ijxafiure  explicarc  rccticudinem  i  equiu 
tern  uiritgcntium  quandocp  cam  Kttrmina^ 
do  ad  uarioe  actoa  quandoqj  octcrmintndo 
pa*  uarios  cucntusJxc  omnu  p:obantur  per 
tcrUn.Liusciuiie.ff.O^iulli.i  iure.Iamcn 
dicic  ibi  tcxtua  toe  ciutle  dt  9*  nee  in  totuj 
aiuturaliiKlfjoitiumiuredifcrcpat  nccp 
omnu  d  kruit  ita^i  cum  allquid  addinws  [ 
DctraiMmns  luri  comuni.ius  p?op:iu.i.ciuilc 
facimas.£ft  ergo  uerum  diarc  9>  bdla  func 
cv  iure  ciuili  i  canonico.i.cc  ipfa  rcctiudinc 
quc  eft  ius  ciuilc  i  canonici|5  T)ec  ob(t5c 
K  r  cu-j  llatlm  allcgati.quia  ills  rectitudo  ni 
biloaddiroud  cccracto  htf^cnttum  nuncu 
pitur.fct  flc  loquiitur  iura  ftatim  alkgata. 
&cd  cum  atiquid  additum  ml  cctractum  c 
One  ciuik  ml  canonicum  nuncupatur.TIul 
liQmca  dabtan  qoooiim  iua  ctmle  i  cincv 
•ion  circa  btlta  lupu  dktamen  rarioie  ge 
ncralisaliqutd  aodant^xptedictisinltrrur 
quo  iure  belli  otta  fucrint .  frmuup  me' 
in  hoc.ca. tenet  9>  bella  cnta  iuncta  dtTpofiti 
one  nature  natnrantis  no  a  turegent  ium  r i 
men  bar.n  baLt  alii  antiqui  i  modcrnt  in 
Lex  hoc  iurc.ff.oc  iuftt.i  iure  tenent  t  iure 
gentium  otta  funt  bclla  per  ilium  tex-docj 
^.iu^cntium.tnlh.oc  iufti.i  iure  t  doc.in 
ca.ta^cntium.udi.pio  iltie  fjcit.nam  dtcto 
denotat  caulam  i  mtdiati.l.i.f  .fi.tx  iccdto 
r«uaMfirt.fcd  Jtcitur  per  iunicoTultumcx 
boc  nregentium  oJta  funt  txlla.  £rgo 
<j>  fiuus  meus  multom  fapieter 


loqaif  magi0  alte  afpickn  Jo  $  iuriftc  i  cjx 
noniflc  T  qd.l-ei  Kx  iure  Oclx.it  iutdligi 
pwuripfcintelligitardiaTemua  conr  iura 
TI jm  fie  ut  pmedcre  i  bibcre  eft  coe  omniuj 
BninMlium  ita  etiam  cuilibj  animati  ctia  bia« 
toeftinfuanJilisindinario  ad  exiluTioncm 
cuiuloicvidetpu^nintwfiK  nili  difpoitioi 
ergo  boc  non  conucnit  fb!i  Ixxnint  nimif  fi 
non  uidet  padere  ex  iure  gentium  (5  ymmo 
ex  iure  naturali  pmcuo  ^  hoc  fit  vcf  in  bnt 
tis  fbtt in. l.i.  J. cum  anetc8.ff.ft  quadra, 
pauoic  fccutc  dicaf. 

CM* 

£cundoqucro  quo  tare  lidtum 
fit  bcltnm  contra  infideleei  in 
uadcre  terraseof  i  pprcr  hoc 
indulgentiam  concedere  cuiur 
Incotririum  Difponere  uideanc.  Ill  nihil 
ad  nos  Oe  bis  qui  fee  id  funt.ii.q.i.multi  etii 
quia  oiigtne  poiTefTiones  i  iunfdictixs  funt 
•pud  eoa.nam  Oeus  ppter  totam  roalem  ere 
atu;am  bee  pduxit  TUm  apud  bonos  tmax 
lod  facit  folcm  021:1.  Z1?attxi  v.i  xi.ad  fine 
etiam  qui  ad  ftdon  aggregati  no  funt  cu  til 
a[  omnes  inco?p«ati  fmt  rclinqndi  irbitrio 
xlv.di.oc  mdeis  ymmo  qDplus  eft  Ptmitti 
poteft  infidcli  iar il'dicrio  fup conucrfoe  ad  fi 
Oem  Ounodo  non  nimis  grauet  "Oiimo  ad 
tbimocb.vt.c.scroTo  ut  dare  liquea  eft  atte 
pendum9>bicoponetpmictcre  que  tetigi 
in  matorii  rcpnlaliaf  in  prin.f.undc  ctian: 
bobcat  mrifdicttoncm  i  etiam  vnt>  Jmpotot 
que  bic  ptermitto  quia  ibi  pUne  tactum  fuit 
Quo  ftc  pl'uppofitoaiam  attcndendum  9  in 
ttdanciuitatefubcodemrege  TuntOuopo- 
pulit  rm  duos  populoa  due  vitcifm  Ouaa 
vitas duoa  pjincipat '  i  f m  Duos  pzincipax 
tus  oupiex  iurifdictionid  ado.  £adcm  ci 
uitaseft  ccdeiu.Unus  rex  eft  ips.  Duo  po 
pali  funt  c[ici  i  laj? ci.Due  uite  font  fpcialu 
i  carnalis.  Duoprincipatus  faccrdotium  t 
impium  Umen  vnum  dt  pjtncioale.f.pontu 
ficatus  3n  quo  nt  refoTo  alteriu*  a[  FruioU  tf 
monftraret  pbua.xii.metbipbif.concludena 
vnitatem  acatob  fie  Demoftrds  multitudo 
p?incipanium  mala  entia  male  uolunt  Difpoi 
Tnua  ergo  pjtnops  Pic  dicit  etiam  in^pofi 
to  qa  in  quolify  cnttum  gcnerc  eft  dare  unuj 
piimum  g>  fit nut^  i  mcnlura  omniii  altop 
ut  idem  pbus  Tie  in  monarcbta  tota  eft  Oeue 
nbc  ad  (uimum  mouens  unobile  ut  tdc>  pinis 
pbiftcoy  vit.i  viii.taU  non  poteft  cffc  ?mpi 
om  refpectu  pontificatud  ptermitto  mnnita 
fuper  boc  allcgabilia.  Suificiat  ergo  inrcrrc 
<f  vnuseft  Dominuaoibtfl  rii.qoe.i.in  apib' 
ii.q.iii.cuncta  per  mundum  i.c.p  p:incipa 
lem.ff.ad.l.Kod.dc.iictu.l.Oepcatio  t  ifte 
eft  papa  i  boc  non  folum  fup  fiddes  pnmo 
ettam  fapinftdelcsbalxtiurifdictofm  quod 
ciarius  oemonftrat.  Tlam  xps  taper  omnea 


bsbmt  poteftate  tndcinpWmk&cusiudi 
cium  tuum  regi  Oi  £?i  r  pa  bibuit  no  fuufet 
diligena  patcrromi.fi  petro  coniteuro  vica- 
no  I'uo  curam  non  oimifulet  q>  nepbaseft  di 
cere  com  petro  tradiditclauesdicens  qbV 
cikfc  tig  jiKrU.ic  iDatbd  xvi.1  alibi  pafce 
oms  mas  io.ultimo.  Sic  tat ur  p.ip.i  bibet 
b  iureiu2ii'4ictionemfuperinfide!e;3  licet  n 
tc fact  o.'binc  eft  q>  gentiles  babentes  folu 
legem  nature  peccant  contra  legem  nature 
poniri  poterunt  per  pipam.  11am  fcribic  ge- 
ne fu  xix.ca.g*  bdomitt  puniti  Hit  a  deo  cr- 
go  t  uicarms  oei  bee  potcrir.Idcm  fi  cotant 
idola .  n  im  luturale  dt  cratozcm  colcrc  4 
DO  creaturas.3dem  potent  ctiam  punire  UL» 
deos  fi  bciunt  contra  legcm  fium  in  moult 
bus  i  no  puniuntur  a  pjelatis  fuis.  £r  de 
rpisni3  no  eft  dubium  quin  punui  potfint  II 
ficianc  contra  Itgcm  eusngdu.£  r  quibua  i 
knot  Q>  p  jpa  tan£  ucrus  princcpa  pot  Ixl- 
I  urn  tndiccre  infiddtbos  n  indulgentiis  con 
cedcre  pjoptcr  recupcr«tiorK5  terre  fincu 
i  nuiime  tcrrc  confecrate  natiuitate  tpi 
bibccatione  i  mo;  re  eiufdcm  ubi  non  colitur 
cbriftudfedmacbjmctus.  3  tern  terra  fac 
ta  uicta  fait  poft  mo.' tern  r  pi  iufto  bcllo  per 
Jmperacawn  Ronuimimqui  poftfpoliatua 
fuit  per  inndilea.  5dcircolicitumeft{upe 
rccuperare  ration  e  pnncipatuj  quod  optU 
nuit .  5n  aliis  autcm  urris  quc  non  fun  c 
conlccrau  ncc  impcrius  nee  ccclcfiahobuit 
lurildict  bncm  d«  facto  poccft  pipa  facerc 
pKccptu>  i  cbzniianos  iubdttoj  al  poteft  coa 
per  fcntrntiam  piiuarc  turil'dictionc  foi.t  c 
per  bee  aide  que  ut  in  pluribuj  tncu  (tint 
Oe  bis  que  nojnno.dc  uoto  <j>  (uper  bid  pi 
tct  fbtutio  ad  primum  qwlitum  fcilicct  6  iu 
facia  belli  induct!  ab  ccclcfia  contra  inftdc 
Us.  tiqaoinfcrtur  lultificitio  belli  in' 
Ouctiper  3mpcnto2cm  contra  bodes. 
De  bu  q«  bic  oicuntur  per  proiuum  mcuj 
tur.iit.l.boftc9.ff.  de  ciptiuu  i  poTtliminb 
rcucrlis.red  remittit  a  J  dicta  Jnno.in.c.g* 
fupj  bis  dc  uoto.i  bal.in.l .er  boc  lore.  ff. 
d: iuilt.t  iure.Jdem  (kit  in  Ucturt  anti- 
qua  t  commas  abb.i  alii  in.c.  I'icut .  f  .0  iu 
re  turtn.te  paritcr  remittit  ad  dicta  Jnno. 
piimo  non  eft  dubiu  4>  ciuitatcs  que  fucrut 
languinc  ch?Uti  confccrate  non  dcbent  in 
mantboseffe  inftddmncummulti  Jmpcra 
tcata  acquifuerunt  ouminio  cbnfti-inojutn 
pzopter  IMS  ciuitates  recuperandas  a  frapa 
teoeris  potelt  bcllum  ioici  boc  cocludit  to* 
tt  fcola  iurucanonici  uidc  bjr.in.l.xpiania 
C.oe  p.iganU.Oeinde  mno.in  dicto.c.^  fa 
per  bi  3  co;idudic  9>  infiddes  Ucite  tenet  w 
mmu  K  pjincipjtus  i  alia  bona .  q?  no  eft 
diftinctio  pi'ona*  apud  ocum  i  fine  caul's  n 
Ddxntaipunismoldbri.fKec  t»mcntj> 
ft  tnfideUs  xlinqmmt  p  ipi-pxefl  bcllum  in 
Dtcere  contra  eo j-Sed  bjfti.  tenet  if  ft  in  * 
ftdelca  non  rccognofcunt  Ofim  ccclefx  Ucicc 


poffuut  bonis  fpoluri  fed  fi  recognofcunt  to 
mtnum  ecckfk  i  xpiinis  non  tunt  in&fti 
poflct  fententia  toller  art.  Jnno.  jjbat'  in  -c. 
di^ptr  xriii.q.  viii-opi.Mli.indcr  nous  ,ppc 
tei.cum  gto.in.c.ll  Oe  rekas  .xxiii.  q.  vti. 
Iu  pondcraqDeftetincducnkns^tnfidef 
diim  non  rccognofccret  i  gjudere  t  ea  Dig^. 
nitate  g>  ciTet  alicuiue  ciuitarb  rominM  ii 
eis  inter  dicte  funt  Oignitates  ut  bjbe  t  in  .1 
fLCOe  iudeis  i  ibi  bar.  llullus  cnim  pot 
babere  imifdtctioncm  tempo2ale5  nifi  fit  xpi 
anus  bar.in  rub:ica  de  iulti.n  iure  glo.in.l. 
fifpadonem.^.iowtc.rf.cv-cxcu.tu.  &ed 
bene  poflict  ftato  in  ciuitatibua  babere  ppu 
i  non  debcrent  moLcftar  i  led  qb  poflent  ba 
bere  ali^ncm  ptincipatum  boc  no  feteoz  nee 
oliqti  cominiu  ciuicatis  quia  ,tuiic  tobercc 
vim  dijiiicatis.  ibonderamtantumin^tuj 
pcoauud  mcus  dkit  q>  infidcles  dclinquc  tea 
puniunt  p  ptpam  i  lie  (cquii  5nnoc.in  dcd 
C)>  fup  bis  qui  videt  tot  am  iuritdictocm  in 
fidelium  attribucrc  pipe  9>  nonuidetxe^ 
fro  dutn  abb.ibi  11am  eium  funt  lab  ronu 
no  3mpb  ut.c.de  mdeis  T.C.DC  pagania  per 
totum  die  quedam  dint  crimina  ccckfiftica 
i  comiffa  per  infideles  i  punien  t  per  popam 
9  ut^miifa  funt  peos  crimina  noetlaftica 
1  punient  p  jmpaco:em  rm  diim  abb  .ibi  1 
poA'et  dici  diuifum  Jmpium  cum  joue  ccbr. 
babet  ramcnpe.Dc  ancba.in  reg.ea  que  in 
ti-<f  concludit  g>  tcclefia  dcbj  infidcles  pu 
nirc  vide  tuminum  abtun.c.gaudemusccdi 
uoz.vtde  abb.in.c.oc  inAdeubus  K  confang. 
i  affmi.i  an  papiiiiu-i  Uycoa  infideles  la- 
beat  mnldicrioiicm  vide  diim  abb-in.c.conx 
I'uluit  Oeappcl.  11»m  infideles  imediate  fut 
tub  tempali  cominto  ut  y  Jo.in  in  dicto.c. 
5«udemu3  p  abb.in.c  .  in  nonullia  Oe  iudeis. 
vide  abb.in.c.p  mifabtlem  K  vfia  vide  glo. 
in  clen.pma  a:  tcftibiu  in  v.pncipu  glo.  in 
de.li.oc  rc.tudi.in  vo  rpiani  slo.fi-in  clc.fi. 
0  iudeia  vUc.c.^tituit  j  vii.q-iiii.i  ibi  ^U 


Cbfl, 

Bi  fcL-ndumcft  <}>  duo  funt  po 
pu!i.f:romanus  i  populusetne^ 
ua.De  populo  roJiint  pamo  oca 
qui  in  totum  obcdiunt  j  mpio  romano.  llaj 
populus  accipttur  p  toto  jmpio  ut  .l.roma. 
ad  municipales.  Quidam  non  obcdiunt  in 
totum.fed  in  aliquibus  ut  qui  uiuut  legibua 
imperil  t  fktentur  ipfum  cominum  o:bie  uc 
funt  ctuitares  lombardie  t  fimilea.  n  ifti  fiit 
in  populo  romano.  llamcuminaliquibus 
iurifdictbnem  excrccit  ipfam  retinet  ut.l. 
fi  piius  dc  aqua  plu.arccn.i  ibi  no.Quidam 
(unt  popaii  qui  nullo  modo  obcdiunt  impera 
to?i  nee  uiuut  imperil  legibus.fed'dicunt  boc 
f  jcere  ex  pjiuilcgio  ut  uenc  t  i  qui  alTerunt  k 
boc  facerc  ex  pjiuilegio-S  t  ifti  c  turn  funt  d 
populo  romano.  q  i  pwario  boc  tenet  ab  im 


pmtox  i  ipToreuoureporeftqff  oolnmt 
ut-I.ftqoieinpon.ff.dcUgi.iii.  t>xrtm 
filed  poHtfjium  eie  concelTum  dcbet  cfTcac* 
cdmodatum  at  nan  piiucnt  cunttK  ronuna 


dM  font  popaUqtti  non  obedfantjmpatori 
•urteiunt  hoc  fibi  competerr  er  contractu 
utfunrpuincicromineeccrie  que  alterant 
hoc  fibi  competere  ex  wnitione  Conftltini 
i  ilionun  }mpatoni.£  t  ifti  ettam  font  tf  po 
polo  romino.Tlam  eccUria  ibl  erercet  imifx 
dfctione  qui  babcbot  3mpiU5  vnd  11  Oefinut 
popccra  dfc  dutt  fortuni.  Udcmdicorf 
regfeaa  qui  no  hitentor  fc  (ubditus  imperix 
tori  at  rex  francie  Snglk  'bjrfpanie  i  l«i 
lea  qui  ilterunt  hoc  fibi  competere  ex  print. 
Icgio  ad  piefcr  iptione  .  £t  per  hx  infcro 
3>  omncs  grntcs  fcre  qut  obediiit  fanctc  ma 
Cre  ecdefte  He  font  tx  popalo  romino  £e 
i  qafa  diceret  Jmpcratttem  non  clTt  domi^ 
mm  dkatt  contra  tertum  nungdii.dum 
diot  etht  edictum  i  ccfare  Ztugufto.  TSapu 
li  antem  ertrinti  funt  qui  no  f  jtentur  tmpc 
racorcm  dominum  ut  p«d  qui  dicuntToum 
inpcratoKm  tlfc  tominum.  iJron  tirtL- 
ri  qui  dicnnt  gzancincm  dfe  cominom.  £t 
brrtccnt  qni  dicnnt  dTe  fin  txxnimim  Ibidi 
lumjntcr  iftos  tomen  eft  dtfftrtntia  -flam 
qnidjtmftmtnobisfafcratiutgxd  contra 
ti>irco9.Qutdfm  cam'qnibus  bitxmus  pt* 
can  at  funt  tirttrinam  meratorcs  noftri 
uiduntadiftoanfuiadnod.  Qoida  tint 
cum  quibus  nibfl  fictre  Nbcmoe  ut  iudci. 
Quidim  funt  cam  qafcoegaerram  ictuale 
ut  funt  farraceni  i  hodk  cu  turd)ia.  Jn, 
knar  ergo  9*  com  p2inccpa  fit  (ccularis  fu^ 
per  wxm  non  hibene  in  fccularibua  ntfi  for 
u  at  dirt  9>  ipie  pot  indBcere  bellum  contra 
boftcs  fuos  i  qui  font  poft  fhtim  patuir.£t 
hoc  eft  bcQam  DC  quo  loqnitar.UhodesUf  .tf 
cipriuis  t  de  ufrJig.l.bofks  t  in  hoc  nedi 
ut  libi  locum  beBam  quod  tnducitur  i  popa 
lo  romino  of  onpcratoje  adco  q>  fi  imperato2 
bdkit  odium  cmltatibus  aliqnibus  italic  re 
Wlibue  uendkat  fibi  locum  cffcc  tus  public! 
belli,  q?  tDem  ft  rcpugnttur  off  icbli  impcra 
toidudpapcnonpjoptcr  impcritwcm  ,utl 
papora  adungucbar.in.l.hoftea.  decap 
ttea  i  poftliminio  rcnerfns  fcquitur  ad  qtf 
bkpKdiatur  per  pxmim  rncom. 

CapTmriiiL 


id  alfoi  pjind 

pe  licet  bellum  indtcere  uniucr 
feikioolutio  no  licet  fine  pin 
dp«  automate.  Tlamnemini  fine  pincipia 
Kondalket  arma  p«tare.ut.  Cut  nfus  ar 
ia  rtho  i  tiffo.i  ^o-ln  anLtJ  mi. 


oUat  qui  fine  oris  folcmpnttate  maimgia 
ins  fibi  picttubibabctur  copia  iue  dicetla 
iddrco  fine  etue  aun to:i tate  non  licet  Soli 
ergopjincipicompetittoaauctoritate  cum 
non  babeat  fupcriorem  ad  quern  recurratp 
iufhcia.  toodie  tamen  quia  funt  populi  non 
recognofccntcs  fuperkncm  de  facto  non  re 
quiritur  in  QUs  fnpcriotts  anctomaa  o>  non 
recognofcantpunototadkbcUa  inducun 
tur  a  populo  cotra  ppfm  nlFo  xojito.pffnno 
dictum  ^aui  tnd  p.  ea  que  uoluit  oldra  in  c5 
filio.ccxxxt.incipicntc  ut  etuatx  quo  qucri 
taraliqualienoticJanc.ubi  dtiit  yficutin 
»aationefactaimpato:iiielab  impatorefi 
reqoirk' infinaatto  ot  in  autjdem  eft  -Coc 
tDna.no.gio.in.l.pe.c.ri.  ?ta  crit  in  Unax 
tione  regie  feu  alterius  comini  DC  facto  trnc 
Os locum  impatojis  in  terra  fuis  alfat.d.l. 
pf t-uide  io.an.tn  addic-fpeUn  ti.  Oe  inftrS 
rum  edicoe  .^.poJJo  in  ultima  addic.n  io.d 
pio.m.c.cum  contingat  Oetare  iaran.  in 
penft-carta  t  aliquid  p  bal  -in.I.fcim-'.C-  4 
t»na.uiJc.c.p  venerabilem qui  Wit  fmr  le, 
gittimi  uide  lur.m.l.i.Oc  Oecre.Occu.U.x 
invcoT.vidc.d.abb.m.c.fupquibutdim  De 
v.figni.tn.iii.coir.arfaipfimultumlate  in 
repeti.mca.I.ccturio.ff.oe  vulga.i  pup.nc 
£t  pondera  9>  Ulod  qd  bic  oicit  per  pauum 
meum appjobat  p.d.abb.in.c.0iem  i .).  oe 
bare  iuran.in  .liiUor.videt  de  meu  3nnoc. 
in.c.olimOereftit.^olL 


pTtndpi  coflajd  t  in  aut^k  armis.$. 
coUa.xi.-t  eftrado  nam  nemhn  One  pinci 
pb  licentb  licet  hra  uUare.  Jura  piiadpd 


Iccriusqoero  nugbdellnmqd 
pnouet  3mpato:  con?  ecclefii 
lit  iu(  tum  i  teneaut  fubditi  ei  in 
tec  obtcmperare  xidct  9.  fie  ga 
fit  p:incipia  auc.uel  mandate  ergo  i  c.  £  tia 
quia  Oat  iarifdictionee  Oe  iuOi.c.nouit  qui 
filii  fmt  Ic.cij  i.c  per  Vcncrabikm  Oe  appT 
fi  duobuj  etum  qua  in  pcrtincnttbue  ad  ar 
mop  ufum  fubditi  Ocbcnt  t  tcnent  obedire 
tmpcratoii  ctiam  fcifmatico  .  i.q.  iii.  5oT. 
&oTo  contrarium  eft  uqr.  TIam  imperotoi 
eft  aduocatus  eccf  te  i  tenet  earn  Ocfendcrc 
idcirr  o  no  poteft  ejm  impu^nare  de  utis  ex 
libcro  wn.c.vno  de  rcfti.fpoli.c.  coqYente 
ymmo  bducendo  Ixllum  contta  ecclefiam 
incrct  perdere  puilegium  tndicendi  bellum 
cum  illo  abutac.ii.q.iu.pailegiu  de  decimia 
fuhgeftum  ut  punbt  in  quo  delioquit  ti  tnf 
ac.qunto.f  .ne  lutom  )muno  talia  ptinacia 
in  pnncipe  non  diftat  ab  btti  de  hereticis  ex 
cmpli6camua.i.f.i.-i  ibino.Hdisquu  pap 
fuperioteft  .TUm  eraminat  impcratore  ipj 
repiobat  i  deponit  o  elect.x«neraUc  0'  re 
iudi .  apfi .  li.vi.  7nboc  i^ttur  cafu  non 
tenentur  fubditi  iouare  unpenroxm  cotra 
ecclefiam pnmoe  central  pot  popaibW 
oerc coea  uinculo  fidelitadsr*.  q.vi.  noa 
(mxonm  i.u.inretoa  n  nota  oc  brreticM 


391 


excoranmamna.pcpe.c.11. 

a  pjoamw  meo  qjomodo  pcteft  Jntpenoa 
induccrc  bdlom  contra  pjpira  i  (ubditi  ba 
bcbjnt  d  obedire.  bicaa  (ecundum  3o.an.i 
boftuitca.oiim  Dircfti  fpoli.  Oone  impcra^ 
tojeftbomoiniquiis  i  peccatwmoninwfe 
non  cojrigit  fed  pern  commitnt  i  tandem 
excomunicstur  per  papam  i  omnu  cotemp 
niter  n  mooet  bettom  p:opter  hoc  contra  ec 
clefunt  n  condudunt  polka  cum  pjoauoo 
meo  bic  <j>  non  fit  iuftum  bellum.Uiie  tomi 
num  abb.tn.ca.ficut  i.J.oc  jure  iuran.i  vi, 
co.Luidj  oominam  abbat.  in  capitulo  ncnit 
teiudic. 

Cunt 

Lteriiiaqncruur  qnidecontra 

fipipi  inducat  bellum  contra 

Smperatorcm  fcii'nuticum  here 

ticum  oel  alias  ofurpantem  iura 

1  liberates  ecclefurum  omnes  fiddea  t  cnc 

tor  inrare  papam  n  etiam  uafalli  imperatcu 

ris  abfdui  poffunt  a  ioramcnto  quo  taunt 

oel  KcUrari  non  teneri  ot  ca.noa  fanctoni 

n  o.tnraroe  xviii.q.  Vi.    la  ponderi  qi 

idem  tenet  tominus  abbas  in.ca.  ficuc  t  J* 

K  tore  IUT  .in  vi.coll  .t»de.ca.  ucnaabikm 

be  clcctts  i  in  ca.pzo  bumani  oc  bomici. 

docin  ca.cr  0dltsdede.no  refi.bodic 

tit  quod  bibctur  in  cctraiugante  boniucii 

qnc  incipit  onam  (anctam . 

GuxriL 

Itcriuadl  uidcndum  DC  aggie 
Sannboa i ipfum  bellumpxftci 
enttousqooipie  fieri  ocbeant. 
Jnbdiofunt  Ugio.i  bbct  kp/- 
tern  mSU  centuin  pedttea  i  (cpdngctos  six 
euukca.Suit  cotxMtca  i  quelib^  cobonba 
bet  xx. alas. tt  prims  uocatur  miliaria.  £t 
babetpeditcamilklLequitescxxxi.  fee 
cunda  qumgcncutria  dicitur  i  hibj  l-ci.ira 
no.glo.ff  .x  bid  qui  no.in  u-Lti.  in  piin.ixx 
igitur  i  dur  i  o?do  faciontbeUun  famine 
doptomultkadineapU  i  ab  beUumpxp* 
tanonautempcraaabdlandu  Dootam 
(niucipaliur  rundin  t  bcllum  fcilicet  arma  1 
mrcs.  btc  diuidttur  in  tres  partea.  cquitta 
ptditesi  claatB-Tlameqairibue  ampiclif 
fibas  marini  i  flumini.  peditiboa  coIUs  or 
bco  plans  arbuta  fcruentur  *bincin(drtu> 
cf>  peditea  msgts  font  ncalfiril  ret  puUtce 
qoameqattea  q>  pofTont  undiqj  pjodelk. 
Cupondcrabar.fequitur  .d.l.ti.'alkgat 
bic  per  pjoauommettmi  alii  doc.  ipofca 
dtcas  9>  pedttea  i  equkca  babet  k  ut  exec 
dentia  excdfa  refpecta  babito  ad  quilitatc 
tempo2U3 1  loci.ar^lo.l.apud  antiquoe.C. 
cc  far.com  (unilibua.&c  legione  uidc  slotam 
in.c.i-nt  fedt  uocan . 


5lites  autem  in  bello"  fie  fe  babe 
re  ocbeant  at  lenient  inramctu 
quod  pieftiterant.tlam  iurent 
Te  fbrennuc  omnia  facturos  q 
piecipit  impcrato:  i  nun§  tcfertoroa  mill 
ciam  ncc  moTtemrecaTaturoepoc&nfard 
poblice.fT.ex  quibus.ca.ma.Lpcnu.C.dc  bia 
qui  non  imp!c.fti.I.p2ima  libo-x.  £onnn 
dncibua  Kbent  obedire  at  lege  coilatoKS 
inpjinctpio .  71am  com  a  re  publtca 
amantur  -.  alantur  folia  cxbent  inttftere 
urilitititaa  i  etk  in  nnrnero  mtlitk  ut  arnto 
ram  quotiduno  cxcrcitio  ad  bella  fe  pparet 
ur.l.  militca.C.Oc  K.milita.i  fie  Oebct  da 
cibuaobtemparc^fi  contra  pceptumeof 
fcceriut  ettim  bcne  r.ibibminus  capitepu<> 
niinf.tf.Ocrc-mili.l.OcPtorcm.^.in  hello. 
Sbftinere  Oebent  ab  aggof  cultura  animali 
umcofbittmercimonuquefbi  aliena  non 
peragant  ncgocia.S  d  ciuilea  cur Ja  non  at* 
cedant  altoqoin  militia  i  etus  piimlegiia 
nudabunt  t  oc  re.mili.Lnemo  mUites.C.d 
pjocuf.l.  militcm.  Tlon  emant  predia  ubi 
militant  i  tempe  quo  militant  nee  eti^ali 
cno  non  molefiant  toft  non  inquiet sbunt 
gallic  ilia  regula  ubi  nfcbos  oiftrabit  coium 
bona paternal  ubi  ex  bereditateqoerunt 
hoc  autem  inducrum  eft  nc  Ibjdio  culture  a 
militia  adoocent  bee  babenf.ff.  de  ze.mili.l. 
nulitea.  tender  a  3.  fex  font  necelTana 
in  milicr .  t>jimo  ut  non  fit  negotiate!*  Jtc 
3>  pilot  fjcrimentum  pergenium  piincipis 
9>  mortem  reipubl.caafa  non  euitabk.3tem 
cnfisd  cingat.  Jtemftigma.(.not»pti)lka 
Oebct  eis  in  bracbiis  inftgi  1  infer  ibi  i  poni 
l.iu.C.o"  fibticc.ite  i  nuoaliop  poi  i  fcribi 
Oc  bis  per  glo.in  oi.LpcTt.i  per  glo.  in  ru* 
twica  mlti.be  tlnulitia  vide  glo.  pmam.ii. 
q.i.in.c.pbibct  i  ea  q  bfft  r.Ufi-C.locaftt 

Cap.xix. 

Dducem  autem  belli  pertinet 
militibua  parcuTunc  comeatam 
dare  equoa  militarea  extia  pjo^ 
uint  iam  due  i  non  per  mitten:  mi 
u'tes  in  caftrts  rctincrc  ad  armoium  exercu 
tationcm  pduccre  ad  opus  piioatam  pifcatii 
venir  um  non  mittere  claocs  ponarum  fufci 
pere  vigUtas  ctrcuire  rurmcntationi  comilU 
lonum  in  tererte  frumentum  menfure  fraude 
cobercere  cklicta  caftigare  querelas  comili 
tonum  audirc  valitudinsnoa  tnfpicere  'bee 
babcnt  in.l-officium.ff.de  re  miUta.  3d 
eiua  etiam  pertinet  oftuium  iu  vircntia  flu- 
minis  ripaa  Ugtonem  pone  re.  £  t  ut  omnino 
nullus  aquam  polluat  ne  at  abluendo  qucou 
fudoxm  puWicce  oculos  macultt  fed  pzocul 
in  inferioJibuo  partibus  fluminis  id  facere  p^ 
mktat.'bcc  bobcDt'.C.dc  re  miiU.  ingtntu 


392 


3d  ipfiw  eriim  offictam  pminct  calrra  po* 
nmubilignoppabnliaqiKCopijbaba-i  ut 
diutuM  comoianda>  fit  lod  TilatKita*  eligi 
tur  mire  fit  mcinos got  attiot  locus  qui  ab 
HoerlariiscaptuspoiVit  cfhccre.     Confix 
dcundum  ctiam  nc  r<s:;ntiba3  intidari  con 
fucuent  campus  hoc  wgctius  dc  re  mili.l.i. 
c.ir.    Sdciuaetiamofffciuinprrttnetfin 
names  militam  caftramentari  caftra  nc  mi 
b:ma!titadjconllipct  nee  ne  pwciraain 
litioiita?  altn  q>  opoitet  rogaf  ertcdi.Hd 
bonum  ctiam  daccm  ptinct  in  quo  loco  du 
micandam  eft  nofccrc  qui  quanro  fupcrio; 
fjerit  uti'io;  iadicat  <j>  ft  uictoiia;  o"  pcditib1 
fpcrac  contra  militca  boftium  Ioc§  in  cqusu 
lu  afpera  montuob  ocbct  eligcre.Stn  aute 
ccontralocapUnipotcntia  nccy  films  nci^ 
paUidtbuaimpedica-bcc  ue*ciM.iii.c.riii. 
cv  re  mili.~boc  ad  offidum  ducts  pertinent 
«d  fpecialem  magiftcriu  milirum  ut.l.magU 
fterie.C.tx  iure  om.iudi.T.l.t  cola.K  re  mi 
li.    lbondcri()>ccu5durccbctomntiqtK 
fiint  in  hdlo  qoe  fuut  c«ufa  uoluptatboidia 
tt  MtRtirt  ut  pcregir  puWtua  coincli'  flipio. 
i  alii  impmtoiesefficiantnr  dari  i  no  cw 
licsti  ut  noftrb  legitur  in  bifto:iio  m3 rime 
in  uilcrioin.ca.ocmilitari  difdplina.Ciru 
multa  i  mm  ddxt  edit  doc tua  impcrata  be, 
ftcsftrire.p-'cfidia  igitare  nibil  mctncrc  ni, 
(i  tarpon  ftmem  bjTtmc?  t  tlbtcm  iuxta  pa 
ti  bumi  rcquicfccrc  codem  in  t  cpo:c  in  opia 
T  bbojem  roUerare  per  faluftmm  iugartio 
Inpitmisimpetatca  fciencu  ret  milliraris 
ocbet  pollerc  ciceroin  o?atione  p:o  pomptio 
Undc  ocg(Ctu3  de  re  milit  jri  dictt  nullos  c 
qixm  opcutest  aet  plun  ucl  mdioa  fcire  q> 
imptratorcm  Cuius  aoctrina  debct  omnib' 
ptxktit  futucctia.llam  turpceflpatncioui 
roignojartio8mqT»«rfctur.l.ii.^.  ferui* 
auttm  fulpicius  .ff.dc  o:igine  Lai  is  deb;  ee 
litrerarua.  TlamfoticueeftdiccrcCafo^ 
plus r<i  pnHtce  pjodeft  qui  difciplhum  mili 
nre  confuTt  cum  li'is.  Ham'  fecundum  utge 
cium  lih.a.iu-libri  bonam  impcratwcm  c5 
uenit  nofarc  jpfiim  locum  in  quo  dunkadu 
eft.fc t  alii  uide  dt'qnibua ibi .  3 tern  cicero  ( 
o;jtionc  pompeiana  fie  loquitur  uirtuteoim 
pitoiKuulsocrttexilbmantur  fc5  labor  in 
ncgottisfoititudoin  periculis.  induftrb  in 
agendo.ccleritaeinconfitendo  confcilium 
iopiouidtndo. 

CtpTm  ex- 

9rieautem  puniuntur  militia 

ut  lurk  ddinqnut-namut  con 

mittunt  dclicta  pjopjia  aot  coia 

£t  in  profciis  puniuntur  pent 

milltari  i  igct  pent  gzadu  (epe  milieu:  ut.L 

ii.ff.de  re  milita.    ^unitioncs  autem  font 

petunUf  caftigstio.    Jntarbiu;  inter  die 

do  i$nommt  miftto  ab  crercitu  mifTio  gad> 


ttticctiojn  metillum  ante^  ucl  opoe  mctalli 
non  Oepurat  kd  Oecapit it  non  enim  pio  mi 
(in  fed  p:o  bolte  reputant.ff.de  re  mili.l.ii. 
^.i.i.$.l3qut.T.l.pditcoe0.  Capiteaut 
pnniunt  qui  ppofito manus  tntnknt  qui  in^ 
otxdicntcs  fatrint  qui  I'pectintibu.'  ceterig 
pjio;  fu^5  arripaerit  eiploiatoiea  qui  fccre 
ta  nuntiant  boftiuw  qal  mctu  boftium  mhr^ 
mintcm  fimuUnt  quikomiUronc5  gladio  \ul 
nerauit  qui  fine  caufa  f<  vulncrauic  uel  my. 
tern  bbi  confciuit  feeua  fi  vite  tedio  ucl  doJo 
ria  in  patitntia.  tlam  take  infamu  uont 
Tberviimmautcm  autpcr  bfcuilam  lapfue 
mi!i  tii  mot  at  qui  non  dcfendit  ppofttum  fud 
cum  potult  capitc  punitqui  non  potult  i  pai 
citur.  "bee  babcrur.ff.dt  re  mili4.  omne 
deJictumi.l.iii.^.fi.  Jtemquierplo^ato 
r«  ctaiiuit  boftibua  infiftentibue  aut  de  foffa 
to reccdic  capire  punitur  etiam  fi  rcm  bene 
gdTcrit.ff.de  re  milU.hu  Jton  fi  cdcita- 
uit  ttrocem  fcditioncm  dclcrto;  tcmpc  belli 
capitc  punitur  tcmpc  pacts  equisgradu  re> 
pdllt  ptdcsmtlitiam  mutat.ff.de  re  militg.l. 
non  omncs  tamen  drfro«a  puniendi  font  e 
qualirer  (;  baberi  debct  ratio  gradua  rodinia 
ftipr ndioiz  i  aliarum  eircumdantiarum  qui 
exud'it  pifcui  comcatus  ut  cmanfbz  uel  Oc^ 
fertoi  rcpntatni  Iwbct  tamen  ro  quibus  tarx 
dius  ucl  citiud  rediit  ucl  ft  impkmcntoaliv 
quo-ff.de  n  mili.l.'fi.f  .fi.i.l.  qui  corneat* 
T.L non  omnca.'babtt  ctiam  ro  ante  acte 
xitc.  fcmafcu  eft  qai  diu  vaganw  a  caftris 
ad  ipii  rcdut  deftrto:  qut pluu  tempos  \a, 
gttus  td  caftra  rcducit.l  Jii.remanfcz.ff.  eo 
cUferto;  fi  in  urbc  inueniatur  capitc  punitur 
alibi  fie  c  pnma  delcrrionc  eaptus  iterate  dc 
fcratcapiUpumf.ff.e.ti.l.non omncs  defer 
toium  dcfanctof  bona  confifcafur.C.  de  re 
mil  i-  |>ondcra  9-  afensffe  arma  gr«ue  eft 
crimcn  i  (intfc  eft  tiftrtioni  i  bac  fi  omnia 
arnu  alwniuit.  Si  vo  tibtik  IK!  bumcrale 
alicnauit.vbcnhue  a-dendusfft.&i  *>Jori 
cam  fcutum  ^  gladium  dcfertoii  ipfc  eft  firm 
Lquicomctad  (pacium.ff.de  re  militari.  5n 
omnibaoqacbicdicunc  per  pauum  mcum. 
T^arccndum  tamen  eft  tironibus.l.iu.  f .  (I 
plarea.ff.e-ti.T  to-l.qui  cumuno.$.fi.e.ri« 
itcrito  delincjret  ic.  ut  ibi. 

Cap.rxL 

£d  qub  dictu  eft  fup  in.c.jrvii. 

pttrito  ibi  ulterirecft  uidenduj 

dt  as^rcgatibus  ic.  in  fine  cap. 

i)>  fbnitudo  ucl  uircs  t  arma  fu 
dint  bellum  fuincipalitcr  i  quia  in  uue  non 
difcudtur  natura  totitudinis  erpliciteei^ 
pcdit  o/  tpfiua  lutur*  aliqualitcr  cxplicetur 
i  per  modicoj  qucftiones  cum  quibus  ciua 
natura  conclu  Jatur.  1 1  quero  primo  an 
fcutitudo  fit  virtus  moialis  i  apparct  op  no 
Ham  fatkudo  eft  difpofitio  cwpalis  uf.l.i. 


393 


C.dt  Mblct.li.xit.di  bia  g  no.infa.I.atHete 

ff.id.Uquil.quaactione.^.fiqutein  collu 

catione  de  pug.in  duello  .per  totii.C.degla 

duto. Li. ergo  non  eft  uirtuemoralis  ciidil 

pofttio  ccrponlis  differ  at  ab  babitu  feu  difpo 

fitione  anime  i  fie  infmo2  fftdu.dc  depeni 

i  rcmif.l.cum  infirmitas  xti.q.  i.p«cipim* 

xiiiii.qjiii.ft>abt8.C  Jc  facroianc-iccie.!. 

fanctimas.    &ecundo  Ac  cmma  ain'  mo 

raits  eft  conUctatr  ix  in  pafi'iombuo  i  open 

tionibua  ut  p2ob.it  pbtia  ii.ettnco.Scd  foiti 

tudo  dl  coniectatrix  in  medio  ut  idem  pbi. 

ergo,    tercio  ftc  g>  non  eft  una  uiruio  .no 

eft  utrtuu  ymmo  uirtutea .  q»  pluralis  bca 

tioao  minus  duozum  numcro  eft  contents. 

if.de  tclti.l.  ubt  nunurns  i  regula  pluralis. 

de  regu.iur.li.vi.JEt  confirmatur  per  dictii 

pi5i.p2imodfnco2um.Tlam  eadein  eft  diff mi 

tio  p2opo2 tionia  i  unius  pzopofitionia  op  tot 

tirudo  no  fit  una  utrtus  ptobii  bic  muwj.ni 

una  uirtus  oppomtur  duob9  uiciia  eitremia 

lit  xll.di.lepc  de  confuc.  ex  ptc .  £>ed  foil 

tirudini  opponu  ntur  quacuu  'cxtrema  kill 

cet  intimiditaa  i  timitaa  times  n  audatia. 

i  dcfc ecus  in  audendo  qui  eft  ignozites  at 

p2obat  tex  i  ctb.Oppodtu  pjobat  pbi.iiixtbi 

£ro  folutione  queftkmiaeft  aduertendum 

9>  fb2titudo  fumitur  equiuoce  p2o  fortUudie 

que  idem  eft  3>robo*a»pojisi  fatirudine 

que  eft  uirtus  mo2«lis.  p2ima  eft  'potentia  q 

quis  potcft  moaert  utpobat  pbtis  p:imc  rex 

tb«.  lutraqjreperiturinbdloi  fie  lump 

ta  fuit  generaliter  cum  dixi  q>  toitudo  leu 

utrcs  i  ar  ma  f  undant  bellum  cum  utraq;  re 

quiratur  fed  oc  (»ima  que  eft  robot  ccvpoiia 

no  eft  dubium  9>  no  elt  uirtus  mozalis  p  fax 

pja  allrgata.Std  oc  lecunda  pocedit  qo  t 

ilia  eft  uirtua  fecundum  quam  nos  bene  ba^ 

bemus  circa  timcecm  i  audaciam  in  bellicia 

per  Uulis  T  K  «fta  pzoftq  uamur  qz  [«ima  eft 

plana  in  modis  t  tempoitbua.     f>rointtL 

Itctuautcmfoititudintsanimeeft  attende 

dendum  <p  in  audcndo  i  timendo  contingit 

cxerccrc  i  ceficere  i  utrobiqi  male  agere. 

ContingU  i  medic  fe  babcre  i  fie  uirtuo 

k.    Diflfcrt  tamcn  audacia  a  timote .  11am 

•udacijeftpul'ioapprtitua  irracionabilia  fe 

cundum  quern  inclinsmua  ad  ag2edtendum 

terribilu.timor  tndinat  ad  fugicndum  i  Q 

libet  exper  i  tur  in  fcipb.fed  utract<  cbntingic 

bcne  agere  i  malc.llam  (i  quis  uidcret  axe 

armatos  i  foloa  iggxderetur  eos .  mak  cir 

ca  aggtelTuram  i  male  circa  timoiem  agerct 

Sic  etiam  in  timendo  quid  exccdere  pottft 

utcxemplum  ft  fint  centum  homines  inagiit 

i  no  uideant  nui  centum  i  rugiu  t  male  caf. 

feic  etiam  110  as^cdkndout  fiuideritfpo 

lure  ciuitateafi  non  aggiedUtur  male  agut 

£t  fie  aides  cxceffum  in  no  timendo  cum  ex 

pcdtt-in  timendo  cum  expedit.in  agg2cdie 

do  cum  noexpedit  i  no  aggrediendocuec 

pcdit.£t*lic  bobea  uicia  cxtrema  audacia  i 


ttmorcm  i  utrobtci,;  gradum  ut  fup».CQterl 
us  e  notandii  cj>  ubiciiq?  i  Kpirc  cxcefTu  ex 
tremof  viciofum  i  vitupabflem  ibi  eft  repif 
medium  bonum  i  laudabilon  qfi  efTet  totum 
malum  i  vitup.  abtle.  tl»<n  poffet  oici  f 
Oefectus  eft  vicupabilis.  Ham  Oefectua 
Oiceret'  Oeftctua  mali  i  fie  non  foret  maloj 
£xpcdi  t  igif  cj>  in  mcdio  fit  bonum  cuius  re 
fpectu  vnum  Oicac  malum  cxccdendo  aliud 
Oenckndo.  /Exbisinfcruntouequeftccs 
leu  due  conclufiones  p  fblutoe  qois.  Nima 
<f  fo2titudo  animc  dt  vtus  mo2iilia.  £cC)a 
9>eft^avtrtu3.pbsturpjima.  Tlamomnia 
babitua  electiuus  mcdii  !  wdabilia  eft  uirtua 
mmalis  fed  f«  t  itwdo  eft  buiufmoi  ergo  ptu  t 
maicu  9  locum  a  Oiffinitione  que  argumcw* 
tio  eft  valida  in  iure.ff  .oc  rcg.  iuv.ff.6  polli 
l.i.in  pan.i.l.bonafide6.e.ti.Sicautem 
difftnit  pbiia  <tutem  mc2aUm  t'm  ctbi.pbac 
minoi.tlam  tetitudo  eft  batrit  us  intellects 
uua  mcdti  circa  timoran  tjaudaciam  ut  $* 
bat  pixie.iii.etbicof  .  Confirmatur  ilia  eft 
^ruemojaliaque  generic  innobts  in  mac 
idcftconfuetudine  1  1xcappellatur  mcaalia 
f  o!  t  itudo  eft  buinfmodi  ergo  ic^bat  maioi 
p  locum  a  caufa  totnali  que  argumcntatio  c 
valida  in  iure.ff  .ad.l.fal.l.  fi  is  qui  quadra* 


...  ....... 

figni.l.edificia.$.perfectiiTime  T.I.  q  toma 
e.tu.q.  i.cctralx  OC  baptu  wbitum.  t>2obac 
minca.Tlam  in  actu  bellico  pzopter  pcrioita 
•ppctttus  tenfttiuua  inclinat  bomincm  ad  tu 
685  ut  dicit  pbus  ubt  in  bellicts  vendicat  fibi 
locii  its  i  ad  ca  que  funt  impetuola  t  Tic  nos 
inclinat  ad  extrems  xiciofa  ttus  autem  que 
eft  pmptitudo  appetitus  rat  ionabilis  incliat 
ad  medium  i  ilia  pnptitudo  general  ex  V^ 
tibus  iteratis  alias  non  ddccubilem  oparef 
n  fie  non  effet  virtus  cum  in  virtuofo  nulls 
debttedeappetituum  rcpugnantta  ut  idem 
plwsfcooetbi.ipatetpjimacondurio  vib 
lictt  9>  eft  virtns  moftlis.  Sf  cunda  coci'o 
eft  cj>  eft  vna  firtua.Quidam  Ixx  fie  ybtnt 
rimoz  i  audacia  funt  paifiones  central  ie 
foiticudo  eft  uirtua  media  ergo  eft  tantum 
una  confeqtuntia  ^batur.llam  unum  qnod 
q^agensintendens  ad  argumentum  umua 
contrariop  tcndit  ad  remi  luone  j  alterius  i 
fie  ^tua  minucns  timoum  augct  cotrarium 
ilecontra.Confirmat  uirtutes  mojalca  Ipc* 
cificanturafinefeedunicue  eft  finis  ergo 
onica  eft  uirtuo.1i>Jimu5  patet  per  toeii  •  ca 
ftnali  quod  eft  ualidum  in  iure  a.l.  vnius.^. 
fi  Puu8.ff.oe  con!U.l.ulrim8.ff.scecuv.Uge 
neraliter.C.oc  cpi.i  cleri.  xvi-  q.i.c  .  cum 
cellfante  oc  appeLi.c.i  fi  xpuaK  iure  iur.pj 
fco'm.  11am  finis  foinrudtnta  in  bellicis  e 
bonum  corpoit  i  fi  nfs  bellat  pptcr  lucrum 
non  dt  fa  t  is  j?mmc  auarus.3lii  dteunt  al'r 
uiddket  q>  timta  i  audacia  non  funt  palfio- 
nes  contrarie  hoc  pbatur  ftc.  3-imo?  i  au* 
Oacia  Te  compatinntur  in  code  refpcctu  eiuf 

b 


304 


Otm  ergo  non  font  contraro  tenet  jkqntt 
qi  pjfito  uno  coatrariona  rcaonctur  rdt, 
qnu.ff  .oc  tnfti.Lfcd  ft  pupilliu.  f  fi  inftito* 
ru.ff.arigu.iw.l.iuanoftram-i.l.bcc  v"* 
ba.ff.oc  acrbo.fig.io  tuc.cc  nun.f  .ii.coLiii 
*  xii.di.bofpkksum  cum  fu  Cwmam  pit  5 
MM  qob  pwpCcr  bon  om  boneftum  bdlare  « 
led  timer  pnjptcr  dampnum  cttam  quid  jgie 
ditur  i  fie  audacia.i  non  timet  ne  Icdatur 
i  tlmoj.£t  Tic  ifta  opuft  contra  tmu5  pbi 
(ccundo  retbo-nec  ualct  jpknom  ratio,  mm 
Ddegario  T  triftitia  tcundum  omnesdnt 
contram  i  eanwn  idem  ockctaripot  n  tru 
(hri  circ.i  cundcm  actum.toilc  in  adulterio 
Klectatarpioptcr  fcnfiulicattm.£t  fictcp 
bibitionc  nurcca  in  nuri  p:optcr  tempcfti- 
tem.Sic  in  pwpoTito  quis  tim?  piopter  nu 
lampxlenaaadetpwpterfpein  fcnma 
fetar  opi.uerin.nnde  tlbertua  tenet  g>  licj 
not  qoatuoi  ertrcm  j  at  fupra  non  tame  fat 
rift  duplices.  nam  quknnq?  ichnatur  ad  be 
ne  aodendum  non  timcL£t  quicunqt  non  tn 
dtnaturadfxiuaiidcndiimnoniudeM  fie 
infer  t  un  i  cam  uirtutem.  3  Lit  dicunt  q>  a 
funt  nib  Duo  c  ctrema.TIa5  Pi  aliqufa  nihil  ti 
met  ntmis  audet.£t  Tic  timo:  i  audjcu  raci 
nnt  fit  unum  citremum  (p  fufficiit  «p:t  di 
ctb  conclodere  g>  fo:dtudo  quc  eft  unu  pri 
cipakfundandlxUum  ut  iumitur  p?o  coipo*- 
risroboienonc/t  uirtns  moolis.fed  utfa 
micnr  p;o  nirtute  anime  i  uirtus  moialia  eft 
una.^tbccfftiruqnc  bcllum  adtmcmrm 
pjoductt.  tfjnncnjanfffltitudofituir 
cue  nunalis  tangu  pbi.optimc  in  ilutbico. 
£t  Octatitudine  uide  tulium  li.i.tx  offkia 
in  u.in  quo  de  ca  tractat  quod  quidam  ca. 
iacipit  incdligendum  cftauttmcumpjopo 
PiU  Tint  genera  qoatuot  2C.uide  fane  turn  tbo 
Rmm  in  ftcunds  fccundc  qoeftkme  cuiii.p 
totum  i  ttxologi  in  iiLlcntetiaru  di.iixi«. 

CipTm  xiii  . 

Jfum  eft  oc  todtudine  que  fun 
dant  bdlurn  pnncipjlicer  que  e 
uirtua  mozalis  i  una.Scd  quia 
tractatum  dirigo  id'Cardinalc 
Ouerotttram  bee  fit  cardinalb  apparet  g>  ft 
nam  magninimitaa  no  eft  uirtua  cardinalia 
ergo  ncc  foititudo  tenet  cofequentia  per  lo 
cam  a  maioai  qui  eft  utlidua  in  iurc'ut  legc.i 
C  .oc  neg.geftff.oc  (enatoJ-qui  in  dignns-C. 
oc  tcro.tanccccLaut.multo  magis  faljna. 
Us  diatrfa.$.i.C.«qp«.i  ckJ.fi  qua  p  a 
lompniam  ijiiuq.T.fipaulua  vULq.LTur 
90-Mi.q.ijn  mare  xl.Ouqudilxt  tc  decked 
in  canctia.&d  magis  uidttur  incffc  q>  ma, 
gnanimitaa  fit  uirt'  mcoalia  9  totitudo  cp 
•obilun  t  main  at  Oick  pbos  in  etbicis  tra 


arduulw  cp  tone 
cird/atki  ferax  plarce  iia  .Sdutio  fie  to 


ti  human*  connerfttw  non  oerfatur  circt 
forntudine  ut  cardine-ergo  non  eft  urdia 
IUq?  indt  cardiiulid  nuncupjtor.  tcnet*co 
fequenria  per  locum  ab  ctbimo!ogia.qi  eft  ua 
lidos  in  iurc.ff.fi  ccr.pe.Uii.  $.  appellata  in 
<pbcio.ff.$.DifcipalLC.t>'cpt.i  clerLLOeccr 
nim'.ff.o'aer.fig.l.rigurii.t.t.i  .l.Uxornj 
j.p  fi  papir  .xxi.on.clero3.rci-q.i.fi  cup. 
n.c.cumfmt)cp.aen.patetp;imom.  TUm 
fbttitodoucrfaf  Hum  circa  picala  bellica. 
&td  piuci  ducunt  uitam  foam  cum  bellicia 
picaliaergo.  Jncontrarinm  apparet  auc- 
totitate  comunitcr  loquentium  qui  iftam  po 
nunt  in  nomero  cirdi nalinm  inter  qooe eft 
leneca  qui  fecit  tractatum  fpeciatem  i  toll' 
inrctboiicis  diuidebat  uirtntcs  inbaa.uii. 
cardiales  i  bee  ar.sb  auetwitatc  eft  ualida 
in  iurc.C.tf  fiima  trui  fide  catbo-cpTa  iter 
claraa.Ct$  bo.q<  li.l.ca  mlta.ff.0  re.di-l.ix 
»nm.£.5cnotopui.  Cxmdera  ga  t5  ^tutfcus 
his  quatuo?  pzicipilibia  fatia  p'jellc  tractat 
li.i.oPficionim  fit  mentio  per  gb.in  cle.i.te 
fummi  trini.i  fide  catbo.  T  fubdit  ibi  qoe 
oiantur  virtutes  tbeologicc  i  pondcra  Ci 
ccroncm  in  li.iit.r<tbo:ico:nm  ad  extrcmum 
ubi  tractat  quid  fit  piudcntia  5uftiria  fotix 
tudot  moiftia.nampJudentiacftcalJidt 
tag  qae  roe  quadam  poteft  Oclectom  tabcre 
bonorum  i  maloium  i  appellat  (nud^ntti 
multarum  rerum  memoria i  ufue plunuj  ne 
gociwum  3ufticia  eft  cquitac  iusvnicuiqae 
tri'aucns  f  o:ticudo  eft  rerun  magnarum  ap 
petitio  i  rcrum  butnilium  contcntio  i  labo 
ria  cum  utilitatie  roe  perptfu.XDoddtu  c 
in  animo  conttncna  mixkrado  cupiditatum 
i  Oe  bie  ctiam  l)ibet  in.c.cx  l*3-xx  viii.q.  ii 
vide  glo.in  aiit.ut  omnee  obediant  iudk  ibuf 
in  pjin.t  t  pondera  quid  fit  virtus  qma  vt' 
dtbabitne  elections  fm  pbos  ut  refert  bic 
poaaua  mcus-flam  virtus  eft  que  babente 
pjoftat  t  opiuciusbonum  reddit  fm  pbum 
gte.fi.in  de.p](ma  Oe  fumma  trini.i  fide  ca 
tbo.Scd  Cicero  hoc  fctfo  andqnoiii  retbo- 
r  ico?  Oicit  i}>  v'tus  eft  animi  babitus  nataf 
modo  atq;  roi  con(cntaoeud  i  bify  quatuoi 
ptea.f.pndentiam  tufbtlam  fodtudinem  t 
tempantiam  i  oiffinit  ringularitcr  eas  i  po 
nit  carom  pteo.  Dicunt  emm  ^tutes  quad 
virnm  tucrca  i  pfcruantee a uiciie  f m  glo. 
in  dc.p.-iiii  De  fumma  trint.i  fide  catboli. 
£t  pondcra  <j>  <jtos  aliqn  capitur  p  fine  at 
bibct  in-LUgb  ^tua-ff-Oe  legibus 

Cap-xxiiL 

fto  tuidc t ia  i  foToe  qdis  ptbne 

eft  vidcndum  unde  t  quue  uir^ 

tuteadicanturCardinales  Ubi 

fciedum  f  m  albertu  5.  ficut  car^ 

dines  celt  font  poli  uidelicj  anurdcus  i  ar 

ticos  Taper  qutbus  mouetur  cdu?  i  cardies 

boftiorum  i  portarum  fupcr  quibua  rcuoluu 


395 


tur  .  Sic  a  fimi!  i  uirtutes  i!k  dicuntur  cardi 
nalcs  fuper  quibua  uerlatur  tots  conucrlatio 
bornaiu  i  quas  i  (i  quisbabs  dicitur  fimpli 
citer  bonus  i  in  ipfia  non.  Sic  etiatn  oo^ 
mini  cardi  n.ilcs  inde  iudicbmco  nome  flip 
fcrunt.nam  ipfi  (ant  miidi  car  dines  quibus 
tote  mundi  gubcrnato  reuoluitur  i  fingitur 
i  adipicwipcctatlubftcntirc  totumpond' 
mobttis  gobernationia  t  mot  um  ipfius  fiium 
pnrftsrc  fomentum  dodns  polls  numero  co 
tenta  eft  celeftis  macbcnj  i  futficiunt  (bbi,. 
les.firmant  or  dint5  motuo  non  ccuian  t  a  lo 
co  fixionie  humani  generis  monaliica  gu^ 
bnnato  quatuctt  cardinibns  fuit  concent*  i 
fnfficit.Si  inde  unde  numerua  undc  uarte^ 
tas-unde  infirmitas.undt  tanta  a  centro  di 
ftautia  a  tanta  Tuple  dicimua  earn  non  eft  no 
menarbttrii.  Scd  q?  ee  cardinalatu  dixi 
In  tractatu  Oe  ecclefiafiici  ccnfura  nunc  per 
trsnfeo  ut  reddam  ut  dilcutiim  pjincipale  p 
pofitum.t  t  q:  iure  ut  dixi  non  plene  exphx 
caturadpknum  naturalium  aliquantulutn 
fucdncte  piopter  fottitudinem  expltcandaj 
A  eo  tractate  . 

Capl'm  riiiii. 

Ckndu5  eft  ergo  9>utdtcitpbL 

airtuscftbabitus  electiuusuti 

dem  pbad  aiterit  fecundo  rctbox 

rice  oe  quod  eft  cadit  fub  electi 

one  .1  eligibilc  eft  triplex  o."  triplici  (pccic 

benc  pioucmena.uidclicct  bonum  utile.bomi 

deUctabite  i  bonum  boneftum.  £t  tfta  funt 

per  clectbncm  appctabilii  i  fugabtlta.n  oca 

nirtutes  morales  circa  ifta  tria  uerfantur. 

£  xplicemuri  unum  quodq;.  tt  primii  bo 

num  uti'.c  circa  quod  ucrfetur  ui;tusiltero 

de  tribus  modie.aut  expendendo.aut  accipi 

endo-aut  confcruando    fMuresactuselec 

tion  is  non  experttur  homo  in  fcipfo  i  ifta  d 

ducdo  ab  experiencia  ualida  eft  in  iurc  i  p 

bitur  in  pzolxmio.ff  .circa  p.'in.in  aut  b  mo 

nac.urca  pjin.fli.de  le.iU-l.fi  dwiua.f  big 

nerbb  i  de  oeteri  iure  cnuck.l.ii.$.que  oia 

de  ekct.^  fit  li.  vi.*»i  cxptndcndo  hoc  con 

tingit  duplic  i  ter  .  ?3ut  enim  (tpendit  fua  at 

aliena.&i  expeudit  (ua  tune  circa  ifta  expc 

dcndo  uiitua  l&ra'  icatis  i  magniftccntia. 

utciaoppoftta  fciliut  auaritia  i  pzodigaiitao 

pcruificcntis  i  bcninuntia.    fein  autcm 

non  funt  fua  tune  potcft  difbibucre  illisquo 

rum  funt  t  tune  eft  iufticU  ut.ff.de  iufti.t 

iure.l.iufticia  i  infti.e.$.iu!ticu.ii.q.ii.cii 

dcuotiiTima.But  diftribuit  illis  quorum  no 

font  t  tune  eft  in  Ulrica  ut  in  iuribna  ftati 

allegatU  a  contrario  quod  eft  ualidum  iigu 

mentum  ut  .I.i.$.buiu6  rci.lf.de  offi.ei'  cut 


tes.ff.de  man  Jati.t.c.cnm'  apTicam  de  bis 
qo:  nut  a  p.i  .c  .oi  mni.o  couer.piuga  .i  no 
redden  Jo  i  Ilia  quorum  funt  iwmo  die  it  fim^ 


pliclter  malts  xxiii.q-vi.fi  rta  Oe  ufuris  cu 
tu.ff.oe  ufuf  .l.fequit.$.ct;  an  patet  g>  iufti^ 
cia  eft  cardinalis  quia  non  fabendo  ipam  cir 
ca  dtftrtbutionem  cozum  que  fua  non  funt  bo 
eft  fimplicttcr  malus.Sed  libcrtas  i  magni 
ficentu  que  confiftunc  circa  diftributione; 
co:um  que  funt  fua  non  funt  fua  non  funt  ca 
dinalcs  quia  quis  male  diftribuendo  fua  non 
eft  fimpliciter  mains  fed  benc  Okie  fstuus. 
i  ftc  btbcs  anam  cardtnalem.f.iuftitia  circa 
expeditioncm  iuutilisboni.Sinaute  uirtuf 
mroslis  vlatur  circa  annum  utile  in  accipie 
do  boc  con  tingit  dupfr .    Tlam  aut  acciptt 
que  fua  (unt  uel  dcbita  uel  aliena  n  fibi  non 
Oebita.£t  ft  fua  uel  fibi  Orbits  t  a  quibus  no 
Oebetpetat  contra  liberaltutcm  magnincc 
tiam.Tbn  f  amen  eft  fimpfr  milus.'binc  eft 
9.  contra  taltm  funt  iuris  rcmedia  intro, 
ducta  wde  t\.  vi-bo.rap.ff^i  .C-pa  iUoa  ti 
tulos  furti.i  dc  condic.cx-1- 1  canoibusq 
in  fmgulis  eafibudexpUcintur  f  m  uarietate 
actuum  t  fie  p  eiplicat ioncm  unius  ri  actus 
f-except oia  circa  bonu  utile  apoet  Of  iuftitia 
obtinc  t  cirdnaiitum  non  autem  liberalitas 
fine  magnificentia  com  per  oppofitum  iurti- 
tk  dieatur  fimpfr  malus  non  autcm  p  oppcv 
fitum  libcralitatis  uel  magnificcn.  &inaute 
Vfetur  uirtus  monlie  in  retinendo  bonii  uti 
le  boc  ctiam  eontmgit  dupUciter.But  rett 
net  i  conferuet  fua  aut  rrtinet  aliena.  p?imo 
cafu  retinendo  que  fua  funt  i  nulli  dando  p 
det  contra  liberalitatem  i  nugnificcntiam 
nee  tails  eft  fimpliciter  malus  - 1 1  ft  tnftes 
Sidmeavidcnt  p.iupercm  indigentem  ad 
mo:tem  i  nibil  det  peecat  moualircr  rfidc 
ri  poteft  'j.  tune  retinet  non  piopzium  f<;  eoc 
cum  tcmpc  tails  necelfitatis  fit  fienda  ?mu^ 
nio  ut  ptiat  clemcns  kr  roibua.xti.q.i.dilec 
tiflimuB  i  aug.ut  tranuimit  viii.di.  quo  iur 
$.i.    £>inautcm  quis  retinet  aliena  ftmpfr 
eft  malua  T  iniuftusappellat  ft  inuito  dno  re 
tineat  -  p;odita  funtremedia  iuris dc  quiiv 
c.    Circa  igic  bonum  uti'.c  clieis  unqua  bo- 
nam  (olam  vtutem  cardinakm  tarn  in  diftru 
bucndo  op  in  accipicndo  Sp  etiam  conf nando 
quia  per  tpfum  oppofitu;  bomo  eft  fimpliciter 
malus  alie  autem  non  funt  eardinales  quia 
P  eazum  oppofitum  bomo  non  eft  flmpTv  ma- 
lus.Cardinalis  (ft  iullitia  no  ardinales  ftit 
liberalitas  i  magnificenda  i  bod  clarum. 
biccbam  fo  q>  boc  erat  f  m  bonum  delectabi 
le  circa  qdvfatuirtuamoJalisT  circa  boc 
vfatur  uirtus  mojalia  i  circa  boc  uerbtur 
dupl'r  aut  lanjicndo  I'icut  funt  uirtuteo  que 
funt  in  ludia  i  cum  aliquis  largit  ur  aiiis  dr^ 
lectationem  habet.  £t  buiufmodi  funt  amici 
cia  iffabiu'tas  t  cutropdias.     Jfte  aute  uir 
tutes  non  funt  eardinales  quia  non  fuut  Oc 
necelfitate Iwmane nature  quia  multifont 
magni  i  virtuoTi  qui  in  raiibu ;  nekiiit  (c  t»i 
bre.Quinautc  fufcipiedo  i  boc  dupTr.fi  ut 
enim  vfatur  principalitcr  circa  dclectabik 

b) 


396 


we  dkitur  fimplicitcr  i  apptllatnr  in  tex 
perancia.i  dico  k  nuk  babert  eidndmdo. 
mm  infcnfibiUe  qm  non  odettatur  no  e  Bm 
plicircr  malus  kd  excedena  Ik  babes  tempt 
rantiam  que  optinet  cardtnaliatum  q>  p  tin 
oppofitum  quia  fimpUciter  cd  nulua.£  t  eft 
KntCfrtitJtt  bumancconkriMtionis.  Sin 
tfr?i  ucrfctur  fimplici  ter  circa  triftabik.i 
hocdupticiter-nameft  quodOam  mftibiU 
qoodipcum  cd  moueread  iram  i  tune  ixr^ 
farur  manfuctudo  bcc  non  eft  cardmalia.qi 
non  eft  neceiJjrium  ft  quis  irafc  «ur  per  ac- 
tarn  remittitnr  quo  minus  trauicit  ad  acni 
fccundumextertojciniu!ticu.!m  autcmtra 
ftret  ad'actum  e  iter  iojcm  non  diccretur  ia 
fticu.    Sin  autem  eft  triftabile  quod  eft 
aptum  mooere  ad  timoiem  i  tune  eft  ftsti 
tado-lbm  ficut  die  eft  fimplicitcr  malua  g  n 
twit  fnbftinere  terribile  pour  bohum  fatui 
tum.£t  fie  fonitudoeftoirtua  cardinalb  -i 
bcc  oc  bono  cdcenbOL    fticcbim  ulterius 
9>  eft  bonom  tcrcinm  fcOicet  boneftom.'£C 
tale'eft  triplcr  qooddam  pcmm  ad  uirtutc 
cognofcithum  .    £tixdunt  airfares  in  tel 
Icccaalcs.!  Ixc  funt  fckntia.tjpientia.intd 
lectus-aWii  fwndcntii.    Ouoddam  fvrti 
net  ad  uhrtuton  interpKUtiufl  uc  ueracitas 
•t  fjlfi  tas-Qu  odd  Jm  pertincc  ad  uirtotc  ap 
pctatiuam.    Capwmus  fecundum  memfan 
fcilicet  penioena  ad  uir  tatem  intcrpKtari 
uim  t  dico  $  ifta  ueraciias  fpectana  id  uir 
totem  in  terp:etatiaam  non  eft'uirtus  carJi 
nalis  qi  no  reddit  bomincm  fimpliciter  bond 
nee  eua  oicii  fipliciter  malu  i  eui  uictii  ma 
gboppotttum  c  iactantie.  £red  iactatm  eft 
triplex  •    £ft  entm  iactato?  (impler  ifte  e 
gntta  Ddcaatkmis.ilttr  bonoria  alter  g:a 
tia  lnori.Ua  prinu  uctitta  opponttur  direc 
te  ncracitati.  9Iie  ante;  ing?edujnrur  aliam 
fpfciem  uioi  nan  cuimos  (olom  fpcctat  cp  e 
mcndajr.led  mendidam  eft  duplex  nam  eft 
tnendadum  qd  eft  llmplcx  filfa  fignificatio 
uocia.t  cc  illo  dixi  <j>  directe  opponiturue 
racitari.aiiud  e  fella  fignificatio  uocis  cum 
intentione£t(lendu£tillad  (tdtbbminem 
Implidter  nulam  i  incidk  in  (peaan  iiafti 


fcqakur  aug.in  ILmcndacimm  trinbnpd 

ne  bgbetnr  ixiLq  Ji.a  -piimum  capitale. 
8lkd  eft  ut  dixt  bonam  honcftnm  pertines 
aduirttttemappetitiuam.i  hoc  Juplicitcr. 
am  ertent  iilitcr  t  tTta  font  uirtutee  monlef 


i  taila  dmt  booot  laus  bona  terrtm.  £t  cir 
caiftudbonnmboneftum  emagnanimitae. 
et  tales  non  fant  utrtutee  ordintlca.  Ham 
multi  funt  mrtuofi  qui  etiam  non  appetont 
bonoxaquifauBfttntdignu  Binauremlo 
qtaMT  de  bow  bonefto  quod  focctat  ad  uir 
Mm  cognoJdtiam.  Tune  funt  nittuteg 
intrflfctialee  ir  fcKntii  .  intellectuo  ara 
i  cuadcana.t»imc  trcs  non  Cardiiuka  a* 


non  funt  OcnecefTitateuiu  humane.  Sed 
prad<ntia  eft  de  neccffifatc  boni  ymmo  im, 
porfihtlc  elt  aliquem  c(Tc  mrruoiiim  fine  p:ude 
tu.Tlam  p;ndcntia  regulat  cctcras  uirtutc  3 
£  t  bid  inftrt  qualiter  foiti  tudc  Copter  qua 
fit  too  eft  virtue  cardinalien  apparet  qlt 
terquatuoj  lunt  clkiriue  er  triplici  bono 
appctibi'ii  fran^ibtlitripticiuirtute  animc 
anime  noftrc.f.iuftitia  tempantia  foititudo 
i  pnjdt  tia  qoe  ncdum  Cardiuales  f;  ymmo 
inter  ceteraspbtincCpapatumT  p;incipjru 
fit  aliqualia  oit'curlio  fed  fie  foppoitat.  quia 
non  Oepuuui  turiftae  p:onunc  af  r  crplkarc 
nituram  fottitudinis  de  qua  c  psicipiT  f  mo. 


Onlequenter  querttur  3n  ali, 
quia  poffit  dici  totis  eriaj  fi  no 
fuit  ercrcitat  '  circa  picula  mot 
tie  in  bello  apparet  cj»  fie.  Ham 
fortitude  eft  nccelTiria  bonitad  bumauc  cuj 
fit  ardtnalid  at  Tup  prims  queftionc  q  boni 
taa  human  i  babcri  poteft  fine  exercitio  belli 
co  ergo  confcqnentia  pzobatur  a  coniunctis 
(f  .Oe  neg.geU.at  qui  natura.iiii.di.0cmq.-. 
vtdi  nunc  oc  fupcrrluitatc.  t-zimum  pstet  p 
nota.5.pxima  qudbone.     3tcm  Tulliua 
oicic  9  totitudo  eft  confiderata  piculoium 
fufceptio  n  labozum  ppdfio  'bocaurempot 
tSk  fine  bclUco  actu  ergo  .pbatur  conficqntia 
p  locum  a  fcqucnti  Ocftructo  <p  eft  ualidum 
in  iareargunKntum.if.ricer.pe.l.ii.^.u.C. 
de  furt.Lapud  antiquoa  v.qm.ff.de  in  tnte. 
refti.l.non  vidctur.  Oppofttum  dicit  phua 
tiu.cdxco^  3>  pjopterea  boc  continctur  in 
racrementoroilitis  cum  accingitur  non  eui 
tare  monem.Lp.lf.ex  qui.a.ma.T  .l.i.C.d 
bis  que  non  impIe.ftip.Li.li.xi.     t»o  fbToe 
queftioniaeftittendendnm  q>  fomtudo  fa' 
MtargeneraTrpomnifirmttateanimi.  £e 
beccftgeneralbadomnea^tutea.     Ttam 
animi  inconftantia  vitupei  af  i  jure  rcpioba 
tur.xxii.q.vJwwnduade  iurc  iuri.quem 
admodum.ff.dc  jdult.l.fi  mclTcr  .(f  .b  decur 
l.p.tf  -Oe  neg.gcf.l.pap.  'Regulaquodlrmel 
n  regala  mutare  Oc  reg.iuf.(uvi.£t  boc  mo 
tset  dubium  qnando  taUe'pctfit  cifc  fine  pu 
cuio  belico.    Sumirur  etiam  ftricte  p;out 
•cirrus  fpflia  qoe  eft  indiuado  ad  aggrcdien 
dam  i  expectandum  picula  pjofugicdo  max 
lorn  culpevndc  triplex  eft  maturn  nociuum 
quod  apponif  utili  trifte  quod  apponitur  do 
lectabiliturpequodapponit  bonefto  bonus 
aaton  anime  quod  eft  honeftum  eft  pfcredu 
bono  utili  t  DciectabiU  ficut  anima  ronalu 
pjeferedaeftc«poji.xu.q.i.pcipim'.xxiiu 
q.iiii.  ft  bibtd  .C.  Oe  fac.  fane,  ecclc.  (anc- 
cim'  tfpeni.i  remif.c.eu  inrmitaa.£x  bx 
mftrtur  q>  funt  tree  uirtutco  moialea  necef 
Cult  ad  boc  ut  quia  dtcatur  bonus  uirtuof' 
uru  quc  pieftgat  animnm  ad  piefercndum  bo 


397 


mint  boneftum  naEUEt  bee  c  iufticia.ffte  in 
fti  .ct  iure.l.iufticia  infti.e.^.iuftich  xii.q. 
ii.cimireuotttTima.iUiafirmana  animus  ad 
p:eferedum  bonum  i  boneftum  5'lcctabili  t 
bee  eft  tempanria  ut  vi.Oitti.  fed  penknduj 
c  palam  Oe  confat.nam  cocupifcentia.  91ia 
firmans  ammum  ad  fubftinedum  palficnes  q> 
incurrcndum  malu  culpe  i  bcc  eft  fbiritudo 
C.«arhlet.l.i.li.r.C-Ce  bisque  non  imple. 
ftipen.U.vii.q.i.f  Jnnc  ctiam  i  bee  foititu 
do  oc  qua  eft  krmo.fc  t  mcrito  bcc  di  cuntur 
cardina'.cG  qt  font  ce  neceffitate  bcit  atia  bu 
mane  i  quelibet  iftarum  cuilodit  fcipfum.i 
qualibtt  aliarum  folk  uel  tollit  eiemplnm. 
mulicr  tcmptata  a  adultei  io  per  p:omifl'io- 
nbfcDeienditptrtcinperantiam  .ff.ccritu. 
nupt.Lpalamfiicemptctur  per  terro:em  ab 
Sfto  fe  defendit  per  foKirudmcm  xxxii.q.v. 
lucrecia  i.a.fieri.T.ca.fin5c.rxiiu.q.i.nS 
fariB.Sin  autem  temptetur  per  numcra  ab 
iftxfc  dctendit  per  iulticiam  rti  .  qai.cum  tf 
uocifTimam.  Ibotefledim'ercmplificari^ 
fcacicudine.nam  li  p:optcr  tttno;cm  dubirat 
ab  ifta  fc  dcfcndit  p:opt<:r  foititudintm  ut  I 
ca.lucrccia  i  cj.ftngc  xxiii.q.v.  .£>t  te 
ptatur  per  deUctabtlia  tune  ccfenditurpcr 
temperantum  xiii.q  v.non  pot  t  cap.  nee 
folo.i  ca.qui  uidcrit  i  no  micbjberis.  @i 
piopccr  munera  tune  defendit  mfttcia  q:  iu 
Hum  eft  dt  findcrc  bonum  bondtum  ta"§  fpi 
ricuak.Lq.i.qua  pie.de  fpmonw  per  totum 
£j\  ftuTia  rationlbus  tune  defendit  fe  prude 
cia  i  fie  una  cardiiulium  ftrmat  antmum  ut 
P?cfcratnr  bonum  bonellum  utili  ut  iulticia. 
9lia  ut  pnfcratur  delectabtli  ut  temperatia 
9liaadfub(linendump70pter  bonum  tucn 
dum  i  malum  culpe  excladendum  ut  foitu 
tudo.pjouident  ia  autem  cetaras  rcgubt  lie 
debetelTcin  cardmaltbue. 


Xteriuadl  fcicndumq>bcllum 

fumttur  dapliciter  unomodop 

acta  bclUndi  bine  inde  ut  hunt 

tnr.ff.de  captiuis  t  poftli.re*. 

I.  in  beQp  i.Lpoftliminiu5.C.deg!idkl.una 

li.xi.aiio  mode  fumitur  pzo  qualibet  cxpccx 

tatbne  coipozalu  perkuli  etiam  fi  non  fie  ac 

tualis  in  uifio  i  toe  fi  pericotu  eltct  cui  pof 

ftc  uerifiuiiliccr  rci'tlli  alias  non  eltet  ixllum 

ut!in  latrone  I'ufpcndcndo  i  alto  iudificau- 

Oo.Si  bellum  accipiatur  p:o  actuali  inuali 

one  bine  indefactafojtitudo  nondlfolum 

circa  illi  pcricula.qz  tune  non  effct  cardina 

lis  cum  malti  lant  uirtuofi  qut  in  talibus  ex^ 

erdrati  non  Cunt-    Sin  autem  (umatur'fe 

cnndomodotunc  fottitudounfatur  circa 

ilta  pericubgcneralitcr  ficut  dicimua  i  mnli 

ere  qoc  fubftinet  perieula  ptopter  eu;ct  ioncj 

caftitatie.i.non  eft  bellum  pnmo  mode  fum 

ptum  led  lecundo  He  i  tamen  tit  fortitude. 


Tktandum  tamen  ej>  tedrado  non  eft  cbci 
quelibetbdlicap«icuU.11amfi  aliqutslui 
die  aliquem  i  dcfcndit  fe  non  eft  tods  quia 
tone  canis  elfet  fotis  todtudine .  f;  qn  tub 
ftinet  picub  bellici  ppter  cuitaf  malu  culpe 
tee  finds ^ndeoicitpbus  cj>  noncfttotia 
pjpptcr  necelfitaten  Me  etiam  can.xxiii. q 
iiii-llabuefaodonofo  t.c.0e  tiriis  de  pe.di. 
ii.  Sic  enim  tune  coneludit  foTo  qucftio 
ntspTopoltta  cum  quern:  an  foztitudo  fit  cir 
ca  picula  majtw  i  bellica  i  dicendum  eft  q> 
non  ut  eiemplsstum  eft  in  muliere.»  rcudo 
modo  9>  ejttremus  actus  fo:tit udinw  fit  cir 
ca  morns  picula  tidctur  <$  fie  quia  vtus  eft 
circa  diiftaleXertiomd  q>  inclinat  ad  fufti 
nendum  mat  is  f  iculu,  li  cafus  occurrat  di 
cendom  <p  fie  i  ertcdkur  circa  ukimu?  po 
tentie  piimo  cell  i  modi.  1>ondtra  in  quo 
dicit  g>  circa  m«  tia  piculum  eft  actus  extre 
mua  fcidtudinis.llam  more  conftantuTimof 
tercf-  animos  i  eft  ppzia  palfio  in  reni  fbrtu 
n  ultimum  ttrrihilium  f m  pbum  i  vide  pbm 
tertio  eticborum  dum  dixit  foidtudo  eft  ag 
Sreffb  terribilium  ubt  mcas  imineat  p:opter 
bonum  comune  fa'uandum.  £t  pcdera  3» 
Onajpamtsmeus  fapientcr  loquif  mwetuo 
dum  dicit  fccundo  modo  inclinat  adfubftU 
nendum  molds  piculnm  ft  cafua  oceurrat^ 
twndera  verbum  ft  cafus  occurrat  (i  trade, 
ret  fe  qullptam  mo2ti  ut  k  oftcnderet  totem 
non  effet  tods  ut  intiqoi  faeicbant  quU  ad 
boc  ut  fojtitudo  fit  ^tus  requirit  q>  tendat 
ad  Oebitnm  finem  ut  vfcis  utar  tur.in.Lfi  o/ 
fiiio.$.eiua  qui.ff.Oe  intufto  i  irrito  tefto. 
vnde  folitus  fum  dtcere  g>  Oeus  eft  remucn 
tat  aduerbiwum  nonautem  sdiectiuoffm 
glc.in.c.i.Dc  collu.0etegcn.gl.in.c<  mocbi 
xvi.q.i.vndequw  tods  non  adeft  fi  femet 
ipfum  occidit  quia  circa  moitem  bene  ft  at  it 
•ctufortitudinis  Sed  fi  uoluntate  dei  ad 
mo?rcm  deuenio  i  dato  9>  nobia  ut  inquit 
pbiia  fit  niturafr  inllitucus  appetitus  uite 
tamen  alrio?a  infpiciens  i  bic  infcricoa  uilix 
pcndens  Oicere  cozdc  i  oje.Cuplo  dilTolui  t 
efle  cum  xpo  ut  nugnus  aiebat  apoftdus  tuc 
cfic?  fotde  quia  fonitudinis  actu  bn  uiderer 
circa  moztem.uti.  Ham  non  fufficit  ieiux 
narafedopoJtet  bcne  iciunare. 

Cap.xxtll. 

£d  queritur  quid  fit  piineipali 
us  fbmtudinie  bellantium  an  ex 
peetatio  bodiii  an  aggrefTus  toy, 
fit  uidctur  g>  aggreffus  fit  pnncipalipt  act' 
foiritudinis.  tnimo  quia  ut  ingt  pbus  fctfo 
etbicof  tractatn oe  liberalitate  virtuofioa 
eft  dare  §  accipc-  Seribitur  ctiam  ccclefi- 
afti.iiii.c.17on  fit  manua  tua  ad  aeciptedu; 
pozzccta  i  ad  Oindum  collecta  'bine  quod 
feribitur  beanus  eft  dare  ^  acci.pe  xvi.q.i. 
pdieatoz  de  donat  .c.i.crgo  a  limtli  ytuofiua 


398 


dt«sgrt<ii$erpectir<quuaggr<diea  del 
cxpecttmrecipit  pterea  uirruofoa  eft  txnc 
(•ore  quim  bent  redprre  ut  idc  pbflofopb. 
pJobit.Tla.-n  fi  meliua  eft  ficcrc  <j>  pati  in  ge 
ncrc  irirtufum.ergo  benc  facew  mclius  9-  be 
nc  pjti.confcqucmia  tenet  per  locum  a  con 
ncttsquieftualidusiniurc.ff.*  neg.geft. 
I.fuperfluiute.Scd  aggwdies  bcneditcjc 
pectans  bcne  rcciptt  ergo  uirtuoftus  eft  ag^ 
gwdf .  t>Ktere«  tft  inelius  bene  operari 
<J>  non  opcrari  turpc.  Juxta  illud  no  futficit 
abftinere  i  male  nift  1  bonum  faciamu8.Tta5 
illud  fcilicct  bene  operari  bonum  mclioJcm 
dudt  fjiem.Cum  in  acribua  bis  finis  pondex 
retur  ab  illo  fiat  nomi  natio  quim  tenet  p  lo 
com  a  fine  qui  eft  ualidus  in  iure.ff  .oc  re  mi 
li  .1 .  fi  quia.ff  .DC  iurc  filu  non  intclligitur.f . 
fi  quia  paUm.ff  .comunu  p?e.l.receptum.ff. 
oc  auru  i  ar.lcJ.fi  non  fit.$.pcruenumu9. 
£xd  aggiedi  eft  bcne  operari  cxpcctare  eft 
non  operari  turpe.i.non  fugcrc.crgo  uirtno 
fiuseftaggKdi^expectare.  (b?«terea  <ftu 
oTius  e  qo'  Oiffidlim.  TU  i .  l.rcfponlum  ifr 
non  emtnit  mil  fupcr  difficili  i  oubitabili. 
ut.I.quod  labeo.ff.tx  car.  cdi.n  -l-i.in  fi.ff< 
ad  monicip.Scd  ag?«di  eft  dtih'cilius  qw? 
»pecta7c.TU5  bpmo  felTus  ecpecrtre  poteft 
noautemiggKdi.p?obaturmflio:pereundc 
pbi.tractatu  oc  to t icudtnc  VT1  im  actne  for 
tiradinis  Ipedaliter  eft  circa  diffictlia  i  ter 
ribifa.'frtterea  illud  uirruoTue  f>  imabili' 
TUm  actns  uirtatum  Or  fui  naturt  fiit  ama 
bileent  idem  pbi.ipnbatnr.boc  de  pe.di.ii. 
T  .ca.proiimos.fecO  aggjcdi  eft  amibilmn 
qz  plures  ut  ilitatcs  afferiit  ret  poblice^t  plu 
ra  in  eodem  generc  pxuaUnt  paucicttbue  in 
outen.de  confsng.i  uti.fra.  in  pjin.dt  fen. 
cxcomumca.cum  p.'ocuratw  iiii.q.iiiLcngcl 
tcndum  dtoffi.dclcg.fuudcnti.im  in  piincu 
qzimmkojcrpcllcrccft  utilmay  ipfoeex 
pe  eta .  fretcrca  illud  uirtuofius  qnod  eft 
(tudabiliua  q?  uirtuu  mcjalis  eft  bonus  lauda 
bile  (ed  nggicdi  eft  laudabilina  §  expcctarc. 
TUm  rcguUriter  plus  landantur  aggtedicn 
tes^fugientes.  Jnccmtratium  eft  text' 
pbi.iiiUti>icom;n  tract ituD«  foJtitudicubi 
dicic  <}>  piincipalio?  ictus  fmtitudinie  eft  (a 
ftinere.^demtbialbertusi  cuftecbius. 
tbioeuidentia  buiua  qudncmiaeft  aduertcn 
dum  5>  fccundum  dictamen  rationc  ratioia 
non  fempcr  eft  ag^xdkndum  nee  (empcr  fa 
gkndum  nee  femper  expectandum .  ymmo 
qui ioc^  cxpedit  a^giedi  quadocy  fugci  qfiqj 
crpectare.£xquoapparet9>  ioHitudistri 
pkx  eft  sctne  fcilkct  agg^efTua  fuga  i  cxpe 
aatio  i  aliquado  fugkn  fit  foiti.pattt.nam 
pcricula  fupja  bominem  font fugknda.  & 
enim  unua  Una  udlct  aggredi  uf  ipfoe  agjK 
dientwetpectarencmelTctfoitiafs  audix. 
i  temeritiuautukmpbud  ibidem  dicit. 
Triplex  eft  ergo  acme  oititudtnia  fcUic;  ag 
gJcfTua  fuga  i  exptcotio  t  inter  ift*  minus 


eft  fugi  hoc  p:objtur.    Tbmilleactuequi 

eft  inter  cetcroa  minimus  eft  inter  ceteroa 

miniu  oitfKtlis.    Gun  are  i  Oifciplini 

(it  circa  dirtu t!ii  ut  fugcrc  c  facilr  §  aggre 

di  i  Lxpcctarc  ergo  ic.  frcterea  tile  actua 

dt  minua  x'luofus  qui  alfimulatur  vicio  p>ix 

mu?  pbatur  quia  uirtus  ailiniulat ur  uicio  pe 

iozi  ^batur  p  locum  ab  extremis  qui  eft  uali 

due  in  iurc  ut.tf.comuni  di.l.arbo>i.l.i  Jf.fi 

quia  hi  ma  di.non  obtempera.-i.Lqnare.ft. 

Jx  fta.bo.^ric  eft  in  ppoli to.llam  p  fugtm 

alfimulatur  timoii  quod  eft  prui9  uicium  qua 

fit  audacia  ut  idem  pbiia  ibidem.  Sct'o  dico 

^cxpectatioeftactusprincipalicv  boc^tu 

tur.TUm  vt  uol  iuu  dl  bene  faccrc  bonum  ip 

benc  recipe  bonum  ergo  viituoftus  eft  bn  pj 

a  g>  bene  hcere  malum  tenet  conicqucntia 

per  locum  a  contrariia  qui  tft  uaiidue  in  hire 

ft.cvract.emp.l.iur.^.pcur.ff.Deinftitc .(. 

fed  fi  pupiir.^.d  inftitojia.rt.b  V.figni.Llxc 

vba-Sedaggrediens  bcne  f/icit  malum  ag* 

greffocxpeainaautem  bene  recipit  malum 

abagrtdkntc.     C^ttrcailicsctuaeftpjin 

cipalkn  quicftdiificilio}becpluru8.g.fiba 

turn  eft.    feed  cxpectato  eft  Oift'icilto?  <j- 

aggrelTud.'brobarur  Ixx.'Uam  fist  aggrelfut 

fit  in  modum  foitioiie  i  in  Ipc  Oc  cuadendo 

af  autcm  ro  non  Oitaret  aggrciTum  ft  non 

eifct  fpcs  cuafiouis  fed  expectatio  fit  in  mo* 

dum  minus  totem  erga  fc.t ioxm-fitd  diffic  i 

UHS  eft  bene  fe  babere  cum  tot  ioil  g>  cu  mi^ 

nusfcttdutctareconfirmatttr.  11am  in  cx^ 

pectando  opoitet  modcrari  timcuem  magnti 

cum  trifticiis  co;po?alibus.€>ed  aggredicn« 

do  non  cxpedit  tat  urn  modcrari  ergo  iccfa. 

t^Ktereaexpcctatbt  fubftincre  OcnotanC 

ointurnitatcm  i  pleuerantiam  i  in  generc 

bom  dititurg»0iuturni  mclius  Oepe.dLqui 

irrtfoi  i.c.penata  i.c.non  reuerttbatur.ff. 

dc  inrem  uerfo.l.fippstre.$.i  verfuj.  Sj 

aggreffus  denotat  quendam  impetum  parum 

durtbilem  puenicntem  ab  iracundU  ut  -I. ft 

adultcrium.^.fi  5mpato2es.tf.de  adult.  t.L 

grccua.C.eo.T  reguJaquodcoloie  deregf. 

iuf .  I^Ktzrca  expeccatio  fvcit  picula  moiris 

clfc  af  caufc  p»ftntia  i  ilia  tune  ditftcilia  t 

timibtUs  ut  dicit  pbus  ro  retbo:ic«um  ergo 

3nkrturerpectationemactum  p?incipt 

liorem  fbrtitudinis  licet  vulgarca  non  tra  in 

dicantes  contrarium  fapknt.&i  autcm  qo' 

p:edi  ri  fugam  act.  foiritudinio  uidetur  obfta 

re  in  boc  cractatu  fcripfuf-in  articulo  ti  pd 

nent ibus  ad  ducem  i  militca  ubi  dixi  g,  mili 

tes  ^uare  debent  iuramctum  quo  lurauciut 

non  ic.fbTo  patct  ex  iam  Otctia.   TUm  ubi 

fiint  picula  fup  bominem  fugiendu  clbixiiL 

q.iui.difp!ica  Jo-viii.ZDatbd.x.  trUlump 

turn,  vii.q  j.$".boc  (cruandum.  Ubi  autc  fut 

pcriculanon  fu^lxxninem  fed  eft  aliqualb 

fpcs  tune  .pccdunt  ftatim  Dicta.  30  all'i  ta 

in  contrarium  patct  rfifb  Difcurrendo  p  fin 

gula  uno  t  amen  addit  j  uidcu'cct  $  vulgar  ca 


399 


pliMlauMnt  t  amant  aggredkntea  $>  afpec 
tantes  bine  eft  $>  o'icit  phis  ibidem  nibil  f, 
bibetrmltteaftipcndsrKwee  quajuiroa  fates 
Tlam  illi  ad  modicum  lucri  uitam  mutant  i 
fugiunt  *t  aggjcdiuntur  fine  dictaminc  rat  i 
cms.    Sed  qucro  quot  gradibus  fonitu, 
dinis  quie  utatur  in  bello .  Solutio  fex  funt 
rimiikudines  mere  fortitudinis  que  eft  uirt* 
mottlisftta  Inter  airfaciami  timotem.  £t 
iftifr  lex  utuntur  milites  in  bello.pzima  ftmili 
tudo  piopter  qusm  militea  uiriliter  agKdtiu 
tur  ell  pwpter  gloriim  7  bonorem  uidentoa 
9>  tales  folent  laudari  t  timtdi  uituperari  3 
bac.C.Kremilitarililvo  xii.tUd.l.aquiT. 
kgc  qua  action*.  $.  ft  quis  incolliicx 
tationeeiepu.inoic.perrotum.    Sccan 
Oa  eft  qz  aliqui  font  totes  piopter  timowm 
pern  awpoMiliand  peconiarie  que  imponi  3 
faemc  timidis  i  fngentibaa  in  bello  i  ifta  uo 
catur  poliitica  qt  inter  does  i  tnlis  leruilia 
eftoe pe.Oi.ii.  ftcut  iccta .    tcrcla  c  qne 
uocatur  militaria  q?  homines  font  foteo  qa 
bciunt  artea  bellanOi  ftcut  theotonki  i  alii 
expert!  fttpcnOajii  mducit  experientu  rqs 
migiftra.ff.  K  legibas.l.fejnua.^.onwtitci 
bos  i  .c.§  fit  ce  elect. H.  vi .    1 1  ut  t>icic 
pbi.in  tnctatu  ce  fwtitudinc  ftipendar  ii  pa 
gnant  cum  sliis  ucut  armad  cum  incrmiins 
i  ifta  faciks  lunt  ad  adfugien dum.  bodie  t n 
k  flciUua  exptdiont  quia  leuant  diatom  i 
trabtnt  birburam  t  fe  rcddunt  i  ftatim  dU 
mittancur  ut  eft  moo  eoium  inter  fe. 
Quatta  eft  qua  utuntur  aliqui  popter  fauo 
rem.Tlam  fu  rcr  eft  res  impetuola  ad  pericn 
U.iifU  aliquando  iutut  in  bellia  qi  bomica 
funtaudatkseaTbancinducit  impetus  ira 
cundic  ut.t.fi  »dulteiium.$.imprratoic8-ff . 
cradu[tcr.i.l.gjaccua.C.c.T.l.quod  calor 
fiJX  rtg.iur .    Quinta  firm! kudo  eft  9*  bo 
mines  utuntnr  fo:  titudine  in  txllis  pjopter 
rpem.nim  aliqui  puptcr  (pem  uif  toiie  nirili 
ter  agrc  ii  an  tur  1 51  tur  enirn  ppondtnt  fpe( 
potentk  fenfiriue  rom  oc  coaftunam  concu^ 
ptfctntiam  \\.  di-penfandam.    Sex  ta  eft 
propter  ignounttam.nam  aliqui  aggiediui 
txpcctancur  uiriliter  ignorantes  pcncula  I* 
miner  i  qui  tamcn  fogercnt  hoc  fcito  ibi  non 
uident  quid  agunt  ad  inftar  mfint  .C.K  ful. 
mo.l.i.flr,id.l.co3ne.a:ricca.l.infano  Jftia 
(imilituotnibus  milites  reguUriter  utuntur 
in  bellis.5  n  ter  iftas  autem  fo:  titudinca  ft  uif 
uidere  qjie  magia  attingunt  uirtuttccbes  at 
tenderer omnesifte  funt  runilitudinaric 
rwtitudmia  nature. nam  in  utra  fbrtitudlc 
ficut  irt  qualibct  uirt ute  oponet  9>  opus  fiat 
fcknterjiam  ignozsncer  optrantium  nulla 
eft  uirtus  q?  pzudcnt u  que  eft  hibi tua  i  teU 
Iectu3.regulare  abet  omne  opus  mrtutis. 
Secando  ocbet  elegLtcrdo  q>  ch'gatur  pro 
pter  booum  intrinfccam^uar  to  <j>  operetur 
firme  1 0urabUittr.quintc  q>  ocUctabiUter 
fcitejopugdibetertidifticile.llamaraftc 


circa  dtff  idti.hcc  omnia  requlruntur  in  uc 
ra  fotidine  circa  aggxlTum  uel  expectation 
new  aitcuius  tcmbUis  -I  ditftciUs  per  boc  p$ 
que  fupjadktarus  ntagis  sflimtlat  ur  uere  tot 
tituoini  n  quc  non.n  j  omrca  pieter  ultima 
alfunolaotur  in  eo  quod  fcientcr  i  fie  ultima 
(ft  nunc  fimilie  in  eo  qt>  eligens.  eilic  cbnue 
niunt  cum  ucra  Dieter  illam  que  fit  ex  furo 
re.  Jn  eo  ontem  qtf  yptcr  bonum  intrmfccu 
omnes  dcfidutaiitra.Tlamprimaeftfpter 
bonum  extrinfecumutpotegloriam.  9!ia 
piopter  fugom  pene.  9lu  ppter  (pem  uin 
ccn&'&rima  autem  pollitia  que  eft  p:opt« 
honored  t  gtomj  magis  aifimubt  ur  oerc  pp 
ter  ftnem  Ixmozflbikm.  11am  bomwes  lut 
fignificatiui  uirtutum  i  ifti  plus  operantur 
tcndendoad  bonum  publicum.  tlam  va"i 
lius  bellia  inliftunc  ut  exemplar  pbtia  de  bee 
torembeUidficlitebente.  ^TuponacraQj 
ekbcremuc  lakrc  rationem  tempia  ad  anim 
adocrtendum  quia  dicatur  fwtioJ  acrus  foz 
titudiiiis  an  aggrcfTio  an  expectatio  an  niga 
11am  glo.in.1.  apud  an  tiquoe.C-  de  fur. 
dixit  diftingne  tempa  ,t  concordabia  fcripx 
turas  vide.c.fra  ternitatig-xxxiiii.di.ciuetn 
tcx.alfat  abbas  in.  c.  non  dcbet  dc  confang. 
i  affini.  11am  ficut  medicus  obf  nat  tcpa 
ita  i  iurifpitus  nam  bodie  unum  eft  licit  urn 
quod  eras  ci  it  illicitum  ideo  Icx-unu;  bodie 
ftituit  alia  die  oppoficu.l.i.C.de  cadu.tolT* 
n  ibi  bal.num  fines  occidit  bominem  n  rc» 
putitum  fait  ad  iuftkiam  ratione  tcmpoiis 
atnaam  non  folum  bomicida  (ed  filkida  pla 
cuit  deo  i  boc  refpkiendo  non  ad  opera  fed 
ad  tempus.rul!iu«  ad  petum  fcritons  diiit 
munio  me  ad  bee  tempa  i  tere  ait  nam  bic 
cties  aliam  mtaf  affert  i  alios  moice  expoftu 
Ut  -»nde  lapientcr  dixit  lullius  li.i.  offo?u$ 
dum  mutantur  tempoia  mutatur  i  orficium 
nam  ratione  tempozis  aliquando  piedoru5 
eft  fogcre  Sp  agredi  i  econtra  t  fie  de  fingu 
Iwunde  Icgitur  in  Scipiont  affrtcano  ibif 
toiiis  f[>  cum  Ixftc  non  alitcr  debere  jfligcf 
§>  aut  fi  occafio  adocnulet  aut  necelfitaa  in  ^ 
ciduTct  i  Tic  in  iftis  uidetur  anirnii  ad  tpits 
babuiife  fed  none  fsbiusmaximus  cu'crando 
i  ut  ita  dicam  fugkndo  reftituit  jfmpaium 
romanie  ut  noltre  canunt  biltek.  j  n  religa 
feqoo2  omnium  fcientiarum  illuminatoie  do 
minti  puium  meum.  JStfiquilpummuidua 
diceretmemendaciumpiedkarc  boc  quod 
retuli  foa  compiobit  ftudia  paritcr  i  opera 
quein.-nanituarelkta  funt  noftrie. 


£rtioquero3n  fortisfn  belto 

aliquo  cafu  magie  debeat  expec^ 

tare  nu»  tern  9  nigere  de  bello 

ubi  pfagam  euadere  polTet.  £t 

ntdetur^nonittmorsexpectanda.  Ham 

Lftod  magie  eft  eligendum  qo'deltctabilius 


400 


i  illud  minus  qtf  minus  piimo  rethwicdtuT 
dictum  eft  pbiWbpbi-  ©ed  eft  Odcctabilj 
oj  mta  $  mo:ej:rgo  eligibtlius  eft  fugcf  i  ui 
•ere  ^.expcctirc  i  moji.  Oppofitun*  W" 
detnr  dicerc  pbiia  nii.etbiconm  tiactttu  oc 
fbjtimdine  t  tcrciotractatu  ocuolunterio 
i  ubUnto  i  ctiam  trac  wtu  de  masnanimi  * 
Utc  obi  dicit  $  piiua  eft  mo!kndu5  $  aliqd 
tnrpc  cSmiftcndum.  Solutio  pro  eutdcn 
th  qocftbn is  eft  aduertcndum  9>  queftiopo 
teft  baberc  duplex  fnndamcntU!n.utui  uerita 
ris  i  ficki.ut  fupponamas  aliam  uitam  i  be 
atitu  iraem  t  fecuudum  boc  fundamentii  qo 


giuret  contra  infidclcs  t  pwptcr  fogim  fua 
molti  penret  fideles  i  Tolas  blmrctar  die 
pjceligenda  elTet  erpect  atio  i  mors  .4£  t  eft 
ratio  turn  fogiendo  confcquitur  uitam  co?po 
rakm.E  tpectando  confcquitur  uitam  aie  q 
eft  fine  compara  tionc  nobil  k»  ergo  piecligen 
di,  Sccun  Jum  fundjmentum  poteft  etfe 
niturolium  i  uiuentiom  fccundam  UgeiM 
ore  at  non  fupponatur  ulttrioi  uiti  .t  tuc 
queftjo  babet  diibium  i  opiniones'oarus. 
Bliqui  dicunt  <j>  mois etpectanda  c  g>  con 
tinyrc  potcit  mult  ip'.icitcr.uno  modo  9>  eui 
dentcr  ccrtum  fit  mo?tem  euentrc  ivbcrc  oi 
ciptctatione  ncc  fpes  fit  DC  f.ilute  non  tatu$ 
fugi.Hlto  modo  g> licet  fit  iliqiu  euidentu 
moztis  tunen  fpes  aliqua  baberi  poteft  tc  ui 
taficutfuga.7ftofeamdo  afu  dicunt  Intel 
ligcndnauctowatee  Sriftottlis  i  aticnnm 
pbi.qui  dicnnt  q>  magiaeft  mojkndum-i.tti 
rilttcr  pugnindom.  t>;imo  autem  ctfu  di 
cunt  nullo  modo  ma'tcm  expcctandam.pra 
banfboc  fic.ram  de'duobus  malis  minus  eft 
eligcndum  xiii.Oi.uerum  T  pjincipium  imo 
ralibus.&ed  minus  malum  eft  fugere'^  ex 
pectarc  i  mo:i  ergo 9*  fit  minus  malum  p 
bitur.nam  illud  eft  minus  malom  per  quod 
pancion  bom  perduntur  op  illud  per  qtf  plu 
ra.Sct)  in  moife  omnu  totluntur  ut  in  au 
tcn.de  nupt.^.deinupa  i  ii.!pbiAconi . 
Jn  fug*  pcrditur  folum  bonum  fotttudinis 
moulis  ergo  ?c.  t>rtterca  Pi  nidi'  cet  mo 
ri  hoc  cffct  qj  moii  elTet  actue  uirtatia.  fe^ 
hoc  eft  fjlfum.Tlam  sctus  uirtutia  eft  fcu'ci 
taa  ud  ad  fcltcitatem  ttnde0.£cd  mo7seft 
feUcitatemdeftrnescrgoK.  ibrcterad 
hoc  c  jfu  cligenda  effct  mars  hoc  erfet  cp  foiti 
tudo  qae  eft  uutus  moults  ad  hoc  idinarct 
fed  hoc  eft  fall'um  nam  uirtus  monlie  no  tc 
dit  ad  co?rup  tionem  nature  fed  pnmo  ad  ? 
feriutioncm  ipfuts  no  ad  hoc  facte  tit  legea 
iuLdi.fiictc  funded  more  tendit  ad  deftruc 
tionem  in  auten.Oe  nup.f  .fed  txinceps.  p 
tcrei  Q  boc  deberet  quia  magiaeligtrc .  aut 
boc  for;  pjopter  bonu  pjopiiu  ant  alienu.no 
proptcr  pioprium  qi  in  moJte  omne  bonum 
eitmaauur  ut  lupii  tactim  eft.no  alienum 
qi  no  tantii  bonum  pot  alter;  conuenienter 
qorrcre  §tum  (ibi  pcrdit  cum  fcipfum  plua 


aliie  dcbeat  dilferrc  ut.I.p?cfeo.C  .de  fcrui. 
i  aqua.ConhYmttur.nam  fccundum  ucriti 
tern  i  fidem  appiret  9  uirtuofilfimi  militca 
fugiebint  in  bcllo  ut'tempcoe  karuli  migni. 
aiii  dicunt  totum  econtra  fcilicet 
g>  potiuscrpectandam  i  moikndum  §  ftu 
gkndum  i  boc  {font  4  Ham  quilibct  fcit 
fc  ttf  necelTitate  mo?innum  eite  &i  ergo 
moriatur  forda  no  pcrdit  nifi  id  in  quo  ere 
dit  mortem  pefcntcm  Oiffcrre  a  futuro.  Ss 
non  Oifferunt  in  boc  g>  eft  amittere  bon  j  -i* 
tutioi.conferuire.  ©ed  Oiffenit  in  iboc  q> 
eft  Oiurius  rcttnere  i  minus  oimittiint  ttic 
trgimn  t  Tic  illud  clegibiliua  effc  in  quo  plura 
bona  icquiruntur  i  paucio?a  pcrdunt.  Sic 
eftinppof(toergo.t^>obafbicmino;.  Him 
fi  momtur  queritur  actus  totitudinis  qui  e 
nobililtim'  ft  fiigk  querit  nifi  conttnuitdcj 
pziue  babitcaum  Donee  Ooret  vita  i  ftc  qrit 
tcmpua  .  Conhrmatur.  Ttam  ccrtum  e  ?> 
confiftentes  circs  Oclectationcs  co^oralea 
magis  cligcrunt  $  modico  temoc  viuere  pc^ 
nafr.  £rgo  fie  in  Oelectationibue  animo 
boc  potius  eft  cligcndum.Opinione  pnmam 
credo  ueram.  TlunutdijciinalioarticFo 
actus  foititudinia  funt  aggreffus  fnga  i  ft* 
pcctstio.Tlsm  non  Temper  infequendum  ncc 
femper  fugiendum  ncc  fcmp  cxpcctandum 
jTmmo  cum  Oictaminc  rationis.  biftincue  ut 
(uppiimo.c.T  feqooj  pauum  meumbic.TIa 
uirtuofius  eft  aliquando  cuitare  mo:rcm  d<w> 
to  Of  Oebeat  mo?t  ut  magn'  fecit  paulus  apTs 
cum  ttmeret  interlici  a  iudeis  pet  lit  militca 
a  p:cto;c  quorum  pfidio  illefus  feruarctur  i 
tame  nibti  aliud  cupicbat  nift  moii  i  cffc  of 
xpo  Jdco  illud  cgit  quia  tempus  no  fuade^ 
bat  no  longe  cxcptapetamus.  TUm  piifl'im* 
faloatoj  nofter  quiuenit  cruciftxue  occidl 
bocinmundopnobis  pcccatotibus  tamen 
cum  a  iudcta  lapidibue  moleftaretur  abfcon^ 
dit  fc  t  eriuit  Oc  tempfo  cum  tcmpis  qualu 
tasboc  fuafit  quia  nondum  ucncrat  Cfllix 
pafTtonis.  Sliquando  pukbtiuoeft  moii 
nam  utfolitus  cftoc  Catbonc  diccre  Ui, 
feriua  magnum  IxminbusOediftiOocumcn 
turn  o  Cst  1x3  Sf  to  pot  ioi  Oefact  clTc  pbu  dig«- 
nitas  fine  vita  $  vira  fine  oignitatc  t  nc  oi 
fccdast  Oiltinctcc  tcmpojie  p?ifata  tibi  fit 
cura  rogo. 


Unto  qucrini}  pone  dux  cicr- 

cirusmandautt  ncquisfnipat 

in  boftes  fub  pena  capitis  quidaj 

ftrcnuilfimus  miles  cum  magna 

comitiua  militum  quibus  imperat  cotra  man 

datum  ducis  pionipit  in  bodes  i  ipftus  ftre 

nuitatc  totalitcr  hoftibus  confacrum  Ocdit 

queritur  an  capttc  puniendus  fit  utdet  ^  fie 

Thm  Oicit  rex-  in  bcllo  qui  rcm  inlxbttam  a 

Once  fecit  aut  mindjta  no  fcruat  capite  pu 

nitur  ctia  fi  rcm  bcne  gcn'erit.ff.Oc  re  mUi. 


4Oi 


l.fcfcrtoron.f  .in  bello  pbitur  piuria  q  uox 

lunt  .iftrictus  obedtcntu  ad  ipfom  tener  i.ff . 
mandati.Lfiremuncnnti.f.fipignus  tJ. 
rtpculu3.ff.idmacc.!.fi-di  ft.$.ti.ff.  ad.l. 
acquil'.l-fi  (emus  ferunm.$.fipuerum.C.Oe 
neg.gef.Ufi.Confirmatur.Tlam  malua  no  ex 
cuUtur  .ppttr  bonum  quod  fequit  .Lvi.Di.c 
vfi  Oe  pe.OM.non  fufficit.  Cofirma 

tm  Thm  facu  non  funubcuentunonda 
xi.ei.c.non  ell  xxiii.q.v.Oe  occipendis.ff. 
JX  neg.gef.l.fedan  ult».$.i.ff.  man.l.qat 
mutttam.$.lbpt.£rgoabbocenetninligni. 
non  fiet  notatio  j>mmo  ab  obedkntu  prene,- 
nienti  3  n  contraruun  uidetur .  nam  pjop 
ter  per  icurn  i  factum  in  figno  effcctualiter 
perpetra  turn  remtttitur  pena  quc  alias  ipcv 
ni  Kberet  aliquid  attemptanti  contra  legcm 
uel  mandatum  principle  piobat  tcx-ff.ocpt, 
nia.l.ad  beftias  jcxii.q.iLqut  cu  patriarch* 
©olutio  audio  ^ajininusncbardutj  malo 
b»Kurminautt9>  odiquespioptermagnl 
periciam  penam  coaOit  per.!  jd  fac(tua.i  :in 
ducipotcratdtctum-Cquicum  patriarcbg 
r«nwn  illam  opunon  puto  ueram  ymmo  tg 
te  eft  contra  teitum.l.ocfcrtcsem^-i  bello 
ft.ccremili,  ttec  obftant  iura  in  contra 
nnmalkgata-namaliucieft  quern  inciOere 
in  pcnam.t -atl  bominie.3Uad.eft  pod  pene 
cdmitfioncm  iptam  a  pticipi  rcmitti  poffe  ilia 
non  probant  quo  minus  pena  comittatur.f; 
bene  p:obant  ipfam  a (uincipe  poffe  rcmitti 
ill*  iura  non  p:obm  t  qaomtnua  pena  comity 
tatur.fed bene  pzobsnt  iphm  a  pzincipe  pof 
fercmitti.£tficfupponpnt  illam  comitfam 
at  (nobat  vuvy  textae  fi  bene  infpiciatur. 
Xu  ponderi  qz  (apkncer  loquitur  tominua 
p2oMU6mcu3.iurafuapiobanft  refponfio, 
ncsadcontrariababent  fpiritum  i  copzoto 
biftojia.nampoftumiuedictatoi  aulumpox 
flomium  filium.qi  non  I'uo  iuffu  led  fm  fpon 
te  pxfidb  progzea'uo  Ixidee  f uderat  uictae 
fecnriftririiiriTit.'t  tamencum  puerumlna 
i  luuenem  armis  initruxtr»t  :c.  3tc  ma^ 
h  itwquad  Udno  bello  hluis  com  dTet  yao* 
cttus  ageminto  mecio  duce  t  afculanca  115  ad 
Dimiandum  patre  ignaro  oelccderat  n  gio 
riobm  uictoium  repoitautrat  irripi  a  btto 
re  t  in  modamboftic  pater  tuffit  feririi 
mactarix. 

CspTmxxx. 

Clintoquero  pone  dux  belli  ca 

pitur  »bboftibU8  nunquio  e  ue 

nia  concedenda  ao  uenutpuni 

enda3.£t  uidetur  9>  uenia  fit  p 

ceOenda  per  capiculum  noli  in  fi.  r  xiii.q.u 

£  cce  tcx.licut  oc  bellati  i  refiftcti  uioUtu 

orbeturfic  uictoticapto  uein  conccoitur. 

hoc  pMbitar.  Tlam  dicit  textus^  tenet ur 

quis  par  cere  boft  t  fno  ai.q.  T  i.  quanto  i  n  ft . 

Ccce  tex.quia  (icut  incontumacia  pfiftc  tib' 


fccuoa  non  dfe  conuenit  Tic  bumilibue  t  pe^ 
niten  tibaa  locum  uenie  negare  non  Oebem7. 
3n  coutrartum  ficetur.  Ham  captus  effictc 
leruus  boftiu  ut.I.lxjfca.ff  .oc  captiuis  i.ff. 
t»e  ^Jigni-S-oFo.  Czcdo  pimam  parte  vaj 
nidelicct  3:  ucnia  lit  concedenda  humiliate 
n  refifcrc  uolcnti  n  p  wnk  concefTtonc  pax 
cJspnturbatiotimeatiir  func  enim  \cnia 
piectedus  eft  hoc  {bat  tex.m.c.nolit  in  fi. 
ibi  dum  dicit  maxime  in  quo  pacts  pturbatS 
non  timetnr.£t  exponiit  bug.n  arcbi.max^ 
imep  tatum  ut  fit  lenfus  Ire  g>  folum  fit  con 
cedcnda  uenia  ubi  non  timetur  pacia  pturta 
t  b  afs  non  fcrtur  $  p  illam  cxpofit  ionc  'ka 
rolua  fecit  amputari  capud  Conradino.  Iii 
pondera  quia  dominus  jiaaus  me  us  bn  logt. 
Tlam  Bncua  t>ompetus  regi  Srmenk  dgra 
ni  ptpa't  t  dia  Jema  qt$  abiecerat  capiti  re* 
ppnere  iufftt  iudiana  eque  pulcbrum  tile  i 
nincere  rcgeo  t  faccre  reges 


bebisqui  sdbcllam  accedcre 
tencntur  t  de  accidentibus  non  ftriais. 

Cap.xxri. 

£xto  mdendii  relbt  t5  bia  9 

tenentur  ad  bcllum  accedere 

£tquid  de  accidentibus  no 

aftrictie.  £t  queritur  pjimo 

3n  A  cominus  moueat  iuftii 

bcflum  teneanturvafalli  accedere  cu  armis 

i  equis  n  in  expenfts  p?op:U3  1  uidetur  q> 

Tic  qnta  tigoie  iuramenti  tenent  iuuare  dnj 

ut  .xrii.q-  v.tx  fema  Jnnoc.  in.c.  ficut  DC 

iure  iuran.tenent  9>  non  tenant  nifi  ex  pac 

to  fpecialt  ad  hoc  ut  Pint  obtigatt  cum  ipfi  no 

tenentur  ad  munera  pfonalia.Conclude  boc 

9>  vafalli  non  tenentur  0*  iure  nifi  id  ea  quc 

condnentur  de  cafu  in  fomi.xxu'-q.v.  nifi 

ei  fpcciali  conuentione  ad  aliud  oUigentur. 

Copboopiniontmdiiipauimci  gadipcdiis 

(ina  quis  militare  non  debet.c.cum  ex  officit 

de  pfcript.fm  dfim  abb.in.c.i.ne  pjclati  ut> 

cea  fuas  .     Tlam  dignus  eft  mercenarius' 

mercede  fua  ut  magn7  piedicabat  apoftolus 

in.c.quiou^.xii.q.ii.de.q.inde  fpe.m  ti.de 


QpTrnxriii- 

£cundoquerirnr  pone^baro 

regis  ffpanie  moueat  guerram 

ipfi  regi  i  mandct  omnibus  fuis 

ut  tuuent  ipfum  in  bello  contra 

regem-nunquid  tenentur  cum  iurauerit  tp5 

iuuare  contra  omnent  bominem  i  Uidetur  cj> 

fie  nam  gzaue  eft  (idem  fallere  tn  ca.i-tv  peis 

ca-acniens  i  ca.fe.Kiureiuran.Li.ff.cxco 

ftt.pec.l.i.ff.depenis.£tiamucrba  genera 

litcz  pjolata  generaliter  funt  intelligeda.ff. 

dcle.[«ell8n.UL$.jgeneralita.  £tiam  quu 


•nmtntmu  tftringitnon  aiuramcntofcl 
•anturxv.q.'oi.ci.lut.ut.  Conrrarium 
eft  aerura/n«m  biro  moutnagutrri^  regi 
incidit  in.Liuu.mMcftaJ.i.'i.u.ff.ad.l.iul. 
nwicf  .fi.q.i.f -ixrum  fci  (juilquuj  cum  mili 
tins  lt«t.cHxfl.a.,'nam  rtx  "bj^fptnie  eft 
p:mccpdinrcgnofuoetumop:m  noftrtq 
«d pcctidum  iiiuai  rhii.q.vi.fcd  rco  nec'p 
ceptnm  illuiscoecrcufarct.ff.cc  act.  i  oHi. 
I.fcruue  xi.q.iii.non  fcmpcr  t  ca.qut  ttfiftit 
i.ca.fitDminusncc  Itatim  ad  hoc  licyt.qi 
non  eft  imjeiitum  at  fit  inkjuiratis  uinculu^ 
rrii.q.iui.lntcr  cetera  Kiurciuran.cu. 
iJ.vi.fKiunt  que  nojn.ca.peticio  a:  iure  hi. 
£u  pondera  q>  opt.tomini  p.'ciut'mci  no  c 
infuauB  quii'inquolfceriuramcntointdlu 
gitur  ejccepta  publica  utilitac  uidctur  exclu 
(a  maieftie  oci  pipe  ad  tmperato;is  ut  in  c. 
pcritio  tc  iure  iunn.£  t  p!ob.itur  tn.l.impe 
ralrm.^.fi.ccpjobulk.ftud  .per  fcde.n  W 
baLdtcens  c>  in  quolibct  iurimcnto  intdligi 
tnr  etccpta  peribtu  rcgb  fi  illud  iarumentu 
p«(bturafabditorcgi80pinioncm  fuamte 
net  fpcc.in  titu-dt  fcudJ6.f  ojuoniam  ^f-xv. 
querirur. 

CapTm  xxjcitu 

£rcioqiKntur  baroregtsb^C 
pink  mouct  gucrra5  alteri  baro 
ni.'Rcx  byfpanic  mooct  gucrra; 
rcgi  gTdnatc.baro  mandat  bomi 
lubttdquaterauinucntipfum'Rcx  autcm-5 
dat  eifdcm  ut  iuucnt  eum  i  concurrun t  mi 
data.qucmp?imo  iuoarc  tcncntur .  uidcrur 
^pjimobjroncm.nambaronifunt  fubicctt 
ration*  ftdelitatis  i  ratione  ioris  dictionia 
ut  in  aate.ocqiKftu^.rt  uero  colla.vt  "Rcgi 
autcm  font  fubkcn  ratioue  iurifdictionu  gc 
nrralia  tantum.i  fie  due  ratbncs  uincunt 
unam.uttnauten.dcconh.n  uteri. fre.$.i 
DC  re  iudi.ca.cum  eteni.ILvi.  xiii.di.  ca.i. 
3n  contrarium  uidetur.Tlam  uocati  a  re 
gc  font  uocati  ad  mama  tribunal,  i  ficpjefe 
rendam  ut.ff.de  rc.bt.coatri.pupilloe.^. 
fi.xvii  i.di.i.fi  epifcopue. .  £tum  qj  rex  no 
caCprocomuni  bom  i  dcfefa  ccnonc.  £t  fie 
iurcjen.obcdicudum.ff.dt  iufti.i  iurc  uelu 
ti.Ldi.iufgcntium  xniii.q.iiufotitudo  i. 
q.vni.ca.CHnnium  i  apitulo  dimiiTi.  Tlam 
p70  defenfionc  pitrte  licitum  eft  patrcm  iter 
ukcre.ff.de  rcli.i  fup.fun.l.nummc.  t  bee 
oeri.  rcneoopLpTpjuimtii  cum  tenet 
ljxc.intttulod»:fcudja.^.quoniam  ^.xvi. 
querirur. 

Capfm  xxxiiii. 

Uirto  querirur  quid  dcuafaffo 
nonligioducaum  9  e(Tc  pott  ft 
ratione  diucrfof  fcudorumOe 


(i  uteri};  dominccum  fimul  re  quirint  cum  ut 
iautt  ipfiim  in  bclloan  tenetur  utnkg  an  al 
teruji  quern  iuuarc  tcnctur.  9pparctg> 
ncuci  urn  cum  ccncurlu  fc  impediant  -ff.  dc 
ulun-.t.quotUnadepe.di.i.^.bccidcm  V- 
xpu8ait.i.q.i.c.pmo.3ppjrct  c>  utnuv  ali 
aa  pderet  fvudum  quia  diificultaa  pft  ationia 
ex  p>c  pmirtkmia  no  pimit  oblicat  ionem  .ff. 
dc  ^.oblucontinuus.$.illud.  '5tq  pot  gs 
duob'  dominie  feruire  ut.ff.dr  op.lc.l.duof 

Qaidam  dicunt  locum  t(k  gntificaticmi 
er  eplo  hti  duof  dominoni  qut  fi  utdcrent 
utnicy  dominii  fc  tntcrfici  UIMTC  potcnnt 
quern  uolucrint.ff.ut  fuT.l.lt  quid  in  grauL$ 
Pi  cum  omnee.  tllii  dicunt  op  iuuabit  piiore 
do-ninum  i  cui  p:imo  iuraui  t  ut  in  ufi  fru.b 
pzobibi  feu  alic.i-imptalcm.  ^.illud.tf  .loca.L 
in  opie.C-qui  po.in  pi.ba  -l.it.  tlam  p:io.'f  m 
fidcftratcm  fcruarc  tcnet'.l.di.quu  tua  q,de 
uel  moiu  -c.vnico.  tutius  time  eft  g  p?imo 
feruut  pcrfomlitcr  Srecundo  per  fubftitutu" 
fi  hoc  potiitur  natura  feudi.C.de  udu.tdr 
Lu^.fin  mtcm.llec  ckft.it  q>  iurauit  (cuido 
fatiu  fidclitate  (uimi  qd  eft  dc  natura  homia 
non  ligii  quia  I'cruicn  do  f  o  per  ftibft  irutii  no 
nocet  pjimo  qo'  fait  faluatum  iuramcto  fco'i 

txmdcra  qb  dixit  bal.in.l.i.^'.neautcm 
C.dc  cadu.toUcn.in.iiii.co!.  1  1  pcmdera 
3>  foite  deberct  elfe  locus  gratificatbni  p.c. 
cum  autcm  dc  iure  patro.in  ar.  ucl  dcbtret 
Ibrte  rcrminari  ar.upH  brs.xXTi.q.ii.vu> 
quoddixitpctrusdcancbjranoin.c.i  .dco 
qui  tnit.in  por.li.vf.vide  no.in.c.in  noftra 
dc  teftibua  i  forte  non  elTct  inconacniea  di 
cere  9>  deberet  iuuarc  ilium  qut  iuftum  mo^ 
ucret  bcllum  contra  alium  dominii  ar.  capl'i 
pmi.xxiui.q.vi.in  ^fi.ncncnimopcm  fcrt. 
1C.  6t  fit  dclxrct  fubuenire  mclioji  per  ea  q 
babcntur  in  loeuantetiictis. 


Utnto  querirur  an  uafallue  to 
neaturiiuurc  dominum  contra 
pttrcm  uel  patron  contra  AliU5 
£ta.fomat  qucftionem.xxii.q 
T.c.dc  fomi.i  tenet  g»  fie.  flan  ftliiwWu 
uniculo  nature  obligatue  eft  parrt.&cd  u.i 
faliua  domino  uniculo  iuromcti  ut  in  pdicto 
c.de  (bima  probat  tex.in  ufi  ftu.iu  tLquead 
modum  frajmit  ^lof.i  aUqualitcr  fern  it  con 
trariumin.cqupnianimulto9xiq.iti.  p*u 
tarcinpanderaudumqaalitatcm  imjvndcn 
di  fubfioii  an  cuiua  duarum  ciuitatum  tcnca 
tur  unam  tuuare  contra  aliam.  &olutio  die 
at  dictum  eft  in  uafallo  ducaum  tomino;um 
twndcra  quc  no.no.doct.i  maxime  comin' 
abtun  cjpitulo  pcttcio.de  turc  iuran.  fct  Ho 
cum  opi.tomini  abb.ibi  . 


CapTm 


403 


JEpiimo  qucritur  dominus  rule 
ire  idpartcs  rcmotas.pone'oL 
tra  mare  ad  pugnan9um  oi  bar 
b.irisnunquiduafallus  uocatus 
ab  co  tcnetur  ipfum  fequi  a9  bellom.  Solu^ 
tio.li  tomimw  eft  ta'.is  ftatus  t  conditions 
9>  p?cceiTo?cs  n  ipi'i  confueucrunt  illuc  acce 
dere  i  uafalli  ipfum  kqui  tune  tcncntor  vs. 
eplo  libcrtt  qui  tenctur  ad  operas  confuetas 
ff.ccoperis  liber  .Loperc  i.l.penul  .ff.tcpt 
gno.act.l.qui  uniuerfbrum  pefbbuntur  tii 
B  aomino  fumpt.moOcntl  arbitrio  boni  airi 
£  tn  aunem  fit  tulis  qui  non  pofTet  nee  con 
fueuit  tune  fecu8.ff.tc  oper.liber.l.  quod  ni 
fi-$.fi.ff  .cc  arbi-l.fi  cum  dles-f  .  ft.  arbitri. 
fconden  qi  fpe.idemty  pzoaaua  me'  bic 
tenet  amplectitur  in  titulo  Dcfeudid.$.qm 
nerfi.xxiMumtur.Uide  quod  ilwu'li  fcri 
birurpcidoc.maiimeper  oominum  ato.in 
ca.i.oc  comugiolepjofonm  dum  fecit  qucfi 
turn  an  uio;  xlxat  fcqai  uirum  uagabundii 
uide  abb-in  ca.cic  tuc  dt  den.non  rcfi.cirx 
ca  fi.uioc  glo.xx  rui  .q.ii.licut  cuitifailc.ui  • 
dc  ronw.in  rubiica.ff-ib.ma.uide  bal-in.I.g 
nunumittunrur.C.oc  operis  libn  jrmo.i  ru. 
If  .fo.nva.oidc  que  Ixtbcntur  in.ci.qui  mi  t. 
accufirc  pat  iiii.q.ii.c.umqueq!pcr  Cf.i» 
l.iii  .C-Oc  lufo:ibus  mil<:.bar.m.l.mema.f. 
i.dc  annuuU.bal.1  angc.in.l.fi  cum  dotej 
^  .(i  maritu3.ff.folu  ma.uide  glo  in.ca.fi  ui 
o:em  juti.q.v.uiJe  nico.de  ncapo.  in.l.9> 
nifi.^.v.ik  opcr  is  liber.  per  fpc.in  ri.de  com 
pe.iadutdicio.$.t.  uer.fed  quid  h  debitoz 
uagit  ur  jc.bar.in  .l.i.C-de  colonis  tracenfi 
bns  li-xi  £  t  pondera  unum  quoO  di  i  it  bal.i 
c».i.f  .i.quo  tempoK  mika  inuclliruram  pe 
tere  Oebct  in.itii.col.ubt  ft  comin'  uolat  ui 
blluBDondebccaohre. 

Captaxxtvii. 

C  tauo  qucritur  quid  de  te  an 

teneintur  ubiqac  feqai  Oominu 

idbeUum  de  bis  non  eft  dubiam 

cum  in  eoa  domini  plenim  babe 

altt  potefbtem  dumodo  domini  non  ferujct 

in  eos.ff  .0;  bia  qui  funt  fui  uel  alie  iui'.l.i  .1 

ii.    S  co  cum  pauonuo  bicn  dc  liter  co 

adde  91  Uberti  debent  p»fbre  obfeqotii  diio 

pcctibile  i  non  durum  i  impoitabik  ut  in 

Llibcrtoe.C.de  obfeqmis. 


bine  .$ 


Ono  queritur  quid  de  libcrtfa. 
feolutio  liber  ti  tenentur  ado^ 
perasimpoTitasncc  tnfoliueia 
podunt  imponi.ff.de  ope.  liber. 
gc  tjt 


QpTm 


£cimo  queritur  qutd'de  agricot 
•n  uocati  ad  bellum  a  dominio 
teneatur  acccdere.  &oTo  diui- 
dut  i  afcripticioa  i  ccfitosafcripticii  dtoit 
p  fcr  iptui'5  folo  afcriptf  vnd--  in  afcripticiis 
due  interueniant  fcripture  vua  adconftitu 
endum  alia  ad  rtondum.  tuima  q;u  ,pmtcx 
tunt  domino  foli  nnn$  a  folo  recedere.  tUia 
qua  p:otitetur  le  afcripticium  t  de  IMS  ft  rip 
tuns  in. 1. cum  fcimua  .C.  dc  agri.  i  cen.i 
iter  bcw  n  fuos  pene  nlfa  c  dria  ut.l.ne  dtu 
C.e.£t  dice  pene  quia  diftenit  iualiquocja 
feruus  alien jripotdt  cum  peculion  fineut 
dicta.l.ne  diu  afcripttcius  non  Tine  folo  ut.l 
ii.C.e-    5tem  afcripticii  citra  domini  uo!ii 
luutatem  oi  dinari  pollunt  in  polTeiTionib''  §•- 
bus afcripti  funt  in  aiit.de  fanctilfunie  epi. 
f.afcriptiosieruiautcmnon.    3tC5afcrip 
cii  fciente  i  tacente  domino  contrabant  ma 
trtnonium  nee  conditionem  mutant  ut  .C. 
De  igri.i  ccn.l.fi.    Serui  autem  contra/ 
ben  tea  fcicntibua  dominis  i  taceutibus  libe 
ranrur  a  feruili  conditione  in  aut.  de  r  apt. 
$.fi'vo.£x  quib7  luce  dariue  appsret  $  ius 
quod  iubent  in  afcrtpticios  i  cius  relaru  ad 
poTieffioncij  quibu3  afcribimtur  i  fie  infcrc 
9>prouocatiidi'ioadexnea  onera  pfbnslia 
non  artantut  nisi  aliud  ex  conuetione  fit  re 
ductum  -Ccnfiti  autem  (tint  qui  ccrte  rei  p- 
ftandc  anuflti?  confti  tut  i  funt.C.quibus  ca. 
colriiwt  iam  in  boc  oiffcrunt  ab  afcripticiia 
quii  afcripticu  func  afcripti  adcertam  rein 
ptdttndam  puta  terciam  uel  quart  am  true-- 
tounu    3  fti  autem  ccrte  rci  i  de  bis  infert 
ut.5.    t>jobocmferturij>  nee  cobmncc 
inquilini  neceilar  io  artari  pctfu't.    S  to  cii 
pjoauomco^nequiparent  afcripticii  Ti'ui 
£tan  equiparetur  afcripticii  i  colonifcrip 
fi  in  repetir.rubric.9e  teftis  boc.c.quam  cd' 
pofui  Oum  pnblice  fextum  legerem  Bononie 

Cap.  wcxx 

tldecimo  qutritur  quid  de  con -• 

fedcratis  T  colligatis  llunquid 

dominuapoccritcofederatos  fu 

03  prouocare  ad  bellum  ut  ipfu; 

iuuarc  teneantur  Solo    Confederati  funt 

piene  libcri  licet  ad  aliqua  teneantur  ex  pac 

to  ut.l.  non  dubito.ff.0e  cap.t  poftli.  rcutrr 

Jn  bis  ijitur  tamen  ponderanda  eft  con- 

nentio  i  conuenttonia  modus  at  ad  ungucm 

fcruetur  J.De  boJiber.$.fi  non  uenerit.ff.9e 

polTti.iJJ.9e  pact.    Ucriip^edicatpauus 

meua  9>  non'9ebemus  a  conuentionibus  re^ 

cedere.c.Loe  pact  is  J.Ltt.  De  conft  it.  pecu.i 

pfalmuea  que  piocedunt  9e  labtis  meis  non 

ficiamirrita.    Sed  pondera  cj>  ft  emirates 

funt.30  inuicem'confederate  blnitua  0'  una 

nonintelligiturbinitusOcalia  ciuitate  fm 

tar.inJ.non  dufaito.C.Oc  capd.  1 1  an  lint 

licite  confederitiones  que  quotidic  fiunt  in. 


404 


tcr  cioiMtta  cl  apod  HOB  noantur  lige  ttdi 
bir  iiU  MA;  colUalUctus. 

CipTm  xxxxu 


quid  dc  bfa  g  fat 
luboiti  r  itionc  iurifdictioma  tan, 
nimo  non  funt  mtcrn  tuTillL  £rox 
lurio  tslcd  agerc  i  Kuicrt  tcncntur  ncc  a 
gent  ad  pcrdiu  qz  hoc  faciunt  ex  debito  hi 
lit  bx  regular*  dictum  in  quibnfdam  poiois 
qn;  crcufan  tar  a  mancribus  pcrfonilib'  quo 
rum  qtridaro  excufintur  ctate  ut  minofcs  t 
ffncctuteg«toatiut.C.quiet:itc  inrubwt 
nijjw.Quida  n  iaftrmiratc  ut.C.qui  moite 
per  totii  qda  libc.nu.ut  .Cq  libcioni  p  rotii 
Quidam  p:op  tcr  profcfTioixm  ut.C  .a:  pfcf. 
i  mdids.QuOam  fexu  utmulkrcsi  fimi 
ka  alias  (tat  rccpib.  ftondcra  quia  ratio 
eft  utna.Tbro  infcruMts  ocbcnt  fas  fuperkri 
bos  obedire  co.ii.tc  imio.i  obe.i  in  lumma 
xciii  dt.i  in  u.a  fubducono  t  uidc.ca.iul. 
xi.q.ui.ui*:  oio  QMiintt;  »bb-  i  n  ci.  ficut  t 
infra  ccujrciurtn.  circa  ftncm  ubi  loquitur 
ccusulIis-iDcfubicctincumin  omnibus 


CapTni  xlii. 

£c  wtcn  dicti  fane  Of  bis  per 
fonisqucfunt  qtuUtcrcnnqra, 
fbicu.Kcllituidcredc  lilxria 
pknei  •dbdlamprauocatas.p 
cuiJ3tiUdcnttacllittendcndum^>  accede 
dum  ad  btllum  non  dencccflitatc  njc'ex  dc, 
bito  qi  dc  iftts  fopra  tactU5  eft.  Q-uidam  ac 
ccdunt  pltna  libcralitate  quidam  acadunt 
q?  tcncntur  ad  antidoia.  Quidam  acccdiit 
proptcr  gloziam  quercndam  i  confcqucnda 
in  kilo.  O.'uidam  accedunt  qt  locant  opaa 
fui3  fi  ccntractus  locati  apptllari  pottft  llu- 
ptndiiun  .Quidam  accedant  folum  animo  fpo 
lisndi  tit  nuncupati  faconuni  quafi  manu  cri 
pientcsut  faccodtfcrcntC8.ttdcb»8  uidou. 
musphrodtpjimisntdt  plcbelibereacrc 
dcntibus  .fln  libcrt  accedcntcs  obligent  fi 
bi  ilium  in  cmuafmaciumuaduntjc.  tt 
pjimo  qucritnr  nunquid  accedcntcs  Tibtre 
ad  bdlam  obligent  fibi  ilium  in  cube  feruici 
MI  uadnnt  fi  dampnum  inaduut  puta  fed  in 
bdlo  pcrdont  arma  cquoe  ftue  capidn  tur  ft- 
at  ctiim  cundo  ad  bcUum  f  iuc  rcdcundo. 
Solutio  bic  eft  attendendum  9>  academes 
libcrc  aliquando  accedunt  pii'  uocati  T  ro 
gtUadomimsaliquindomotu  pjopjionon 
rcquifitiaoominis.  fei  scccdant  uocari  a 
toministuncbabcntactioncin  mandati  co 
tr<  dnm.i  fie  ut.fl.dictii  cotingit  eoe  aigd 
pdtrc  nifi  tpptrcat  9*  ci  pikUtisbiiinitatif 
ud  parctdc  hoc  toumt  xxtii.q.iu.no  infac 
01  ir..q.iii.fi  one  i  ca-iudicii.  &in«uUm 
opponis  i  bicts  ooninn  n6  tram  qz  talk 
pcrount  cau  fntuito  K'quo  quw  no  tcnctur 


Ocbomici.7obSn«0.C.dc  pigno.ict.  I.qut 
fo:ruit.&ol.i/ltoafuofc?tuitua  quipotuit 
i  txba.it  pKuideri  qr  umlimilitor  bcc  conx 
tingit  in  btllis  qi  dubtne  e  eucntus  belli  iti 
DO.lnno.in  capitulo  flcut  DC  iurc  iurando. 
Oondcra  tamcn  ij>ti  bdlu;  fuiifct  illicitu 
non  poffent  agcrc  nudad  q:  rci  turpis  nullii 
eft  mandjtum.LG  r^mnncridi  gratia.$.rci 
tui-pia.lf  -manditi  iu  condudit  triam  bofti. 
1  5nnoc.i  modcrni  in.c.Qcut  T.J.  oc  iure 
laran.  6t  Okit  5nnoc.in.c.  (i  xtro  oe  fcnt. 
crc6munic.T.J».abfa.in.c.fiLut  t.J.  de  turc 
tur.tj'  vocad  poffunt  agtre  contra  uount<5 
actionc  mandati  qac  contingunt  cafu  fbnri 
todumodo^ififrcontingcrepotuiflct  qtufi 
uocans  boc  Ocbuit  cogit»rc  a  pzimo.  £rfic 
dcbct  intdligi.l.  inter  cis.^.  non  omnia  .ff* 
nundati  fccua  Si  dampna  cottgiffcnt  ex  ca 
fufoKuituqui  ^iftfr  non  fuifTct  ccgitatua 
ut.d.  §  .non  omnia.  toe  $x  funt  multu  no. 
t  mqgaifacit  ca  abbas  in  dicto.c.ficut  i  .J. 

CapTm  xliii. 

£ecndo  qoeritur  quid  Ac  como 
dante  tali  srmc  i  equos  f  cudo 
ad  bdlum  nunquid  f:  perdantur 
unctu  r  comodatarius  comodax 
ti  i  videtur  g>  fic.ar.S.pr  .1  (milt  cum  ic. 
SooTo  in  boc  cafu  fecue  fm  5  nnoc  .£  t  eft  ro 
Ofk  quia  i  hoc  cafu  comodatan'  no  ciccdic 
fines  mandati  quia  non  eft  nfoa  n  id  ad  ufum 
ilium  ad  quern  initus  eft  con  tra  ct  us  tdcirco 
non  tcrKtur.ff.ccmod-I.fi  ut  certo.$.led  in 
terdum.  Jnmindttoautem  licet  pftire 
potaerit  tamen  fcicbat  fibi  actioncm  madit  i 
conuxure  quia  illud  euenit  ex  natura  con- 
t  rictus  l  bcc  temper  pzoccdimt  nifi  ex  pao 
tofpedalialitidritindictum.  1>c>dcr»qa 
alu  ooccoxs  in  dicto.c.ficut  i  .  j  .fcqauntu 
Id  qtf  bic  dicitur  p  ptoauum  menm  t  .d.abb. 
ibi  in.  x.  cof-  Tkk.l.fi.  i  ibtbar.ff.cdmod.ubi 
comodataruH  non  tenctur  flbi  line  culpa  fm 
nfu«eftrecomocUta  ad  ufum  ad  quern  fuit 
cdmodatA. 


£rrio  queritur  quid  tx  lodnte 

eqooaiarnu  Hanquid  fipdlt 

in  bcUoaget  locito?  contra  con 

ductoK.tooTo  die  at.o.i  coma 

dante  quia  non  aget  quia  ad  boc  ?duxit  nee 

hnea  excdftt  Jf.kxa.i  conduc.l.fi  quis  do 

man.     Opinioncm  pauimeifequitur  Jn- 

noc.t  abb.in  .d.c  .ficat  dignum  i  .J.de  uirc 

iuran.in.x.  coT. 

Cap.rlv. 

Uarto  qucntnr  quid  fi  puocat' 
ad  bdlum  in  uincre  acadtndo 
adeiuc  fufafidium  fpolictur  armif 
eqois  t  aliia  rcboa  fuis  Deinde 


405 


eftpnvindanatenctnrnundarario.  Sed 
nuuquid  agct  nundatarius  contra  fpoluute 
ti  bononim  raptwum  uel  furt  i  apparet  q>  fie 
quia  eiud  intereft  accbac  mandati  mandata 
rio.  Sofo.fi  contra  fpoliantem  competunt 
actiones  Ule  t  ratio'quia  fi.bo.rap.  copetit 
UUin  cuiusbonis  rrant  npta.ff.vi.bo.rap.l 
it.f  .qua  actioiK.3  ctio  cnim  vi.bo.  rap.  ucl 
furtt  non  competit  nift  illi  qui  babuit  Domini 
am  uel  poffefficsiem  uel  Octentionem  ucl  all. 
quodiusinreuteftiUecui  reaeft  pignori 
oUigata  i  nondnm  tradit  a.ff  .Oe  pfcrip.  <(. 
Lfi  g?atuiMm.$.fi  quis.ff  .  K  fur.I-fi  is  qui 
ran  i  .Lie  cui  fpoUatns  ergo  competunt  bee 
BCttones.fcoternnttameagere  mandati  co 
tra  mandantem  mandans  cum  folucrtt  facer 
fibi  reddi  i  cedi  action;s  contra  fpoliantcj 
£  t  tune  agct  iure  cefTo  ut  pwcurata  confti 
tutus  in  ran  luam.C.mandatiLpe.  i  fubec 
etiam  i  tenet  Jnno-in  pjealkgato  a.ikuto 
tare  iuran.  tbondera  q?  tominus  abb.w 
ca.ltcut  i  infca  DC  iure  iunn.kquitar  ofini 
ooem  pjoauimei. 


CapTui 


U'nto  queritur  DC  acdden  ttbna 
no  pTouocatis  led  motu  pi-opzio 
Sol  ut  io  (i  animo  tonadt  eft  cU 


rum  ut  puts  pktatis 

tia  uel  parentele  tales  non  egent  xxiiuq.iii 
Don  mfirciido  li.q.iii.fi  wminua  1  u.iul* 
©i  lutem  ammo  obligando  ilium  cuiua 
negoaa  gcrunt  tune  agent  neg.gdl.  led  in 
ultjo.  tbondcra  g>  uirili  tcr  eft  gcftum  no 
minealicuiuaquiscogiturbabere  ritumfe> 
Cun  Jam  9>  no.  bar.i  b:nc  in.I.pompomua. 
(f.de  neg-geft-tn  -x.col  . 

Ca^tnilvfi. 

£xto  qucrtrur  quid  re  acctden* 
ttbus  p;op;io  motu  T  ille  i  cuius 
fubfidiu-n  m  Jit  tcnuit  T  contra 
dtcit  noniuult  ilium  ft  tails  icccdena  utilitcr 
incipit  i  fcltcitcr  pidh  an  baixat  ilium  i  C 
fubfi  Jium  ant  obligitum  actione  negocic?uj 
gcfto7um  apparet  ^ftcad  fimilitutidincm 
tllins  qui  trabit  aliqucj  inuicum  cc  como  ru 
itura  txiii.q.uiuipfa  pictas.ctiam  qj  inuu 
to  cedt  poteft  bemficium  xl  v.di.i  qz  emen 
dtt.ctlam  qi  uidetur  fuifte  in  fane  mentis  ? 
trsdtccndout  iuuctur.ff.a:  conoi.  tnfti.I. 
quidam  cc  pe.Oi.iii.adbec  inftanter. 
Sic  tenet  gio.in  medico  raendicante  clique 
contra  uoluntatem  (uam  bee  no.  liiiiti.di. 
tnfummi.  Contrarium  credo  in  cafu  p:o 
pofitopjr.l.ultimim.C.ccnej.gcft.  Tlec 
pzopterea  rop:obo  gb.^mmb  credo  g>  uerum 
dicat  in  innrmo  i  medico  q?  infirmuj  p?cfu 
mitur  in  fane  mentis  cum  non  uult  abfolute 
curari  fed  ifte  qui  contradicit  buic  non  ucx 


matin  fccur  fu  Too  ad  beRum  nanjnefumitur 
fanementis.Tlampoffifaileeftg'non  confi- 
di  t  de  to  i  Onbitat  ne  pertnt  ipfum.ncc  ere 
do  of  glo.ptoceOat  in  cafu  in  quo  ftrmus  be 
ne  aellet  fansri.fcd  nolkt  iftum  mcdicum  fj 
aliunt  pociu9,tunc  iudicio  meo  non  p?occde 
ret  glofa  .nee  bee  pzob.in  t  allegata  fup:a 
l^ondera  ea  que  dtxi  erunt  doc.in  dicta.l. 
fi.C.dc  neg  .geft.i  pondeta  <j>  due  limttati 
ones  utdentur  dare  per  pioauum  meu5  aO.I 
fLC.de  ncg.  gctt  .  SO  Jc  aliif  .l.no  tm  .ff.de 
appef  .ubi  ,p  dampnato  ad  mottem  pofln;  ap 
pellare  etiam  eo  inuito  i  tencbitur  mibt  ex- 
penfasreftcere.  Jtemaducrtcalbmlita, 
tionem  quam  tradit  bjr.in.l.(ticu8.ff  .Oe  pe 
cul.i  io.an.in.c.cum.c.bj'cua  Ocfojoppe. 
f.0e  eo  qui  condcmpnatus  erat  ad  oecej  qoe 
fi  non  folucrct  infra  mcnfcm  amputaret  ma^ 
nus  q>  poflum  eo  inuito  bluere  ULi-r  .  T  poft 
ea  ib  co  repetere  nee  poteft  dtccre  ppdue  nox 
kbim  9>  mibi  amputaretur  manus  itc  It  ta  p 
Ukd  i  ml',  f  -g>  dicitur.ff.ad  mace.ubt  logf 
Oe  eo  qui  mutnauit  filiofa.pecunias.bene  ftu 
dcti  contra  patris  uoluntatem  quia  a  dicto 
patre  inlet  repetere.  jtemineoquifepc- 
lit  Oefunctum  contra  bcredia  uolunt.it  c  qrii 
repctct  impenfa5.l.led  i  fiquis.$.?de  labeo 
ff.Oe  rdigiofis.  £t  uiJc  roma.in.l.quauis.ff 
Wu.ma.i  no.in.l.fimulkr  inprt.coT.ff.fo 
lu.ma. 


£ftatuidereOebisqui  wdunt 
adbcilum  quiatenentur  ad  an 

tidoja  utputa  quia  fimilc  uel  ali^ 
udfuW-dium  recepitabeonun^ 
quid  tales  agent  contra  ilium  quern  tuuet  ad 
p  Jita.Sofo  fi  fie  uadunt  ut  tbema  fupponit 
uadunt  animo  OifToluendc  obligations  natu 
ralis  que  tamen  non  poffunt  OednciincL 
uilem  nee  pe  ea  excipi  poteft  in  iudicio.l.&e 
qua.ff.0e  iudic.ff  .oc  bcrcdi.pc  .l.f  5  fi  Iegc.$ 
confuluit  Oe  teftis  in  off  ic.£  t  fie  infcrtur  9. 
uadat  no  animo  obligan  Ji  cum  idem  act'  urn 
foimiterfumptusnonporTitpati  contrarioa 
effectU8.ff  -Oe  v.ob!i.l.quis.x.de  condunde 
l.cum  pars.  $.fi  Ixres  i  .  l.cum  beres.  £  t  fi 
diea3  hie  non  eft  opus  di/fol'oe  quia  nulla  na 
ta  obligfttio  efficax  ad  agcnd  tu  uel  excipien 
dum  i  fie  non  poteft  diftolui  quod  non  eft  tf 
iniuftoru.i  irri.tefto.l.Tlam  idem  quod  de 
fpon.in  pup.c.ad  diflfoluendum-Solo  licet 
non  Tit  nata  obligatio  efficax  ad  a0cndu;  uel 
exeipiendum  ut  fupia  dictum  eft  tame  nata 
eft  talis  naturalis  que  diffolui  poteft  p  an  ti- 
dozam  recopcfattonem  ut  mribae  ftatim  al- 
legatist  fie  animus  diffoluendi  natinitatem 
obligst  ionis  cum  in  obligation  requirit  ani 
nuts  ut.l.obligationum.ff  -de  act.n  oUi.l.l. 
non  ngura.e.d.  Ta  pondera  quia  de  obli 
gatione  adantidoia  uide  glo.in.cap.cum  in 
oific.dc  teftie  l  glo.in.c.i  fi  qoeude  fjrmo. 


<o6 


ii  -tbo  not  petenti  ceded  i  ctUm  tnxtur  ftd 
tntidoii  fm  glo.in.c.ccckrufticia  .xii.q.iL 
ni  de  gto.dc  mfia  in.l.t  t  hoc  iarc.ff.de  iufti. 
n  jure  bir.tn-l.15.cx  tefto  .f.i.ff.  de  fideto. 
bir.uide  in  d.l.cr  hoc  inrt  in.vi.coT.  i  vii. 
TiOe  dominam  tbb.in.c.ai  creator*  K  cde 
bra.mula?  aide  abtMn.c.cum  in  ccclcfiis  0" 
fymo. 

QpTm  xh'r. 

£  (lit  ui&ere  quio  oe  accident! 
bus  p?oprer  gloJtsm  conieqaen 
din  inbeUoan'talcaoyigent  fi 
bi  ilium  in  cube  fubfidui;  oidiit 
Solutb.fi  ob  hoc  foluj  accedant  ut  obliiut 
Him  aut  sominua  tcncrcrur  man&ati.  aut 
negodojum  geftwam.non  mindatt  cum  nul 
bim  intcrucnerit  mandatum  at  fupponitnr  i 
tbematequeftiomspiopofitenec  act  io  mix 
dati  O7itur  mfi  intcrcedente  manOato-Tlaj 
licet  aliqoi  dicunt  q>  actio  mandati  ozutur 
cxtoioudculpc  intoocnicntibus  ismfuf, 
ccpto  mandate  tune  requiritur  pKccOetia 
mandati  Bt.I.i.ff .msndsti.  ucl  fi  dices <J» o* 
ritur  tt  contractu  pKCtdenti  quod  c  ucri' 
ficut  alias  didmu8  in  contnct  ibus  innomt 
nat  is  ut  .Lex  placi  fo.C.K  re  permutata  no 
n«g.gfft.q?  non  accdftt  animo  gcrendi  ne, 
Q3f.it  illma  pnmo  p:op:ia.lktt  in  uim  confc 
quctie  altcriusncgocia  gerat  t  Tic  ncc  ilia 
compctet  Ibondcra  <j>  ifto  cafu  non  av 
petit  actio  ncg.gcftoium.ut  bic  p:cdicar  p 
auii3  mcus-q;  magia  hoc  fsc  tu  per  petratum 
A  pwptcr  fuam  gloium  op  nomine  alicuiua 
arj?lo.l.ftfinita.$.fuam  ruerut.ff.  DC  damp. 
Infecadem  fi  gctfuTtt  attquidex  nccdTitatc 
qi  non  competent  actio  ncgociorum  gcfto 
run  ut  condudtt  bar.in.l.cotcm.f  -fuin  fi. 
ff.tcpublica.i  bar.m.I.dampiiiin.  f.iijT.d 
damp.infa.uide  gbjn.l.fupia  iter.£.  calfi' 
ff.txaquaplu.arcands. 

CtpTni.1. 

£(latuidere  ccbte  qui  Iccant 
opeia  uel  ucriua  altumuntnr  p  c 
Icctionem  conltituto  Ibbrioan 
tales  agant  contra  conducteces 
Sdutio  tales  locant  opera  i  ran.  n  ideo  It 
conductco  utatur  blum  ad  id  ad  quod  con 
duoitur  no  tenet ur  ut.l  -ft  quis  Wmu.  ff -lo 
ca.i  conduc.i  hoc  ntfl  fpeciale  pactum  (ter 
neniat  uT'confuct  n.-io  aliud  induat  at  (ft  in 
jrttlu  fcilicet  q>  pidbntur  emendo  equnu5 
(xditorum  in  (eruicio  conducctis  aT  ftat  w 
gulant.o.ccdtctumeft.  tSindcra  q?hoc 
narntum  cft.o.in  ca.rUiiui  nullius  c  ehffi 
cultatia.1  ego  tenco  idem  q>  praauas  meua 
(equeti  ca.pcr  aug.in  difpu.cx  orta  guem. 
fit  an  fi  ftif  ;nd«rtuG  (i  amifit  arma  ul'  equoa 
an  ptcciom  reputat  a  wnducente  aide  bar. 


iiuLi.C.oc  re  nuli.bal.tn.LfLK  codUifcrdeJ 
CipTm.li. 

6  (lit  ctitm  uidere  de  bis  qni  ac 

cedunt  animo  robandi.    £ttf 

bis  non  eft  dubtum  g>  talibusff 

compctit  actio  cum  fupcr  turpi 

nulta  inducatur  oUigitio.ff .  dt  uerbo.oblL 

Lueluti  n.Ugeneraliter  i.l.li  ex  plagb. 

CapTmlti. 

Iterius  uidcndum  eft  quid  dc 
ckricia  an  .f.poltint  ad  bella  acx 
cedere  bane  queftionem  deterx 
miniuit  gracianus.xciii.q.iii. 
Conuenioi  at  glo.ibi  reciat  in  fiimi  i  iJ  boe 
per  bofti.de  refli.fpolia.c.olim .  f  ucrunt 
opinioncs  uartc.llam  aliqui  dicunt  q>  cleiv 
ciutpofTuntarmiaOeKniionid  non  ante  im 
pugni tionis  i  Pic  bellare  pp te r  OcfenHaiU 
tf>  o-nnibns  armis  dumodo  mpugnent  fncon 
tincnti  n  p  feipfis  tantum  Oefcndendia  non 
pioalib  T  p  fe  in  ncccdttatc  euitabili  pofltia 
tebomU.ti.xriii.q.viii.Conuenk»  i  cade 
cli  qucftionc.i.inpiin.&inautcm  its  tat 
dere  polTunt  tune  no  poffunt  ut.c.fufccpim' 
ubomicidio.  31ii  Oicunt  q>  auctoiittte 
pope  poffunt  afs  non  gandulfua  tenet  ^  per 
fonalitcr  bellare  non  poflunt  p  albs  porfunt 
3dem  uidetur  fcnrire  gradanus.xriui.ci.i. 
$.in  rcgidro.  Concludendo  in  hoc  pucto 
clerici  uocati  a  papa  g>  poffunt  accedcre  na 
penes  principcm  eft  aua.beUindi.xxiii.q.i. 
qut8culparur.e.ca.q.ii;C.LT.q.iii.c.  mart 
munua.  ?nbe[loautemnoneftlicirupax 
ganum  accedere  pptcr  mecu^  irrcguUriutif 
poffunt  tamen  alioj  confonare  ad bellum  ut 
pugnent  ymmo  i  lapides  i  alia  p?obtcerc  dii 
modo  c  t  e«um  ictiboa  non  occidator.  Jib 
no.Jnnoc.Oe  reftt.fpoli.olim  T  .c.fcntctiaj 
nc  clerici  nel  mo.uocati  ab  aliis  maxime  pii 
cipibos  fecularibus  bcllare  non  dcbent  ,p  tx 
fcnfa  aut  em  ppiia  ubi  al'r  eoadere  non  polut 
licioimeftetiam  occiderc  fine  metutrregUx 
laritatis  ut  in  de.fi  fnriofua  de  bomi.  i  bene 
dicoOcftnhpiopTkpfonc  (ecus  fldcfrndat 
alium  ctUm'mcor.tiiu-nti  ut  pattern  uelfrcj 
ucl  lunilcs  pfonaa.Tlcc  buic  obftat  quod  no. 
Jnnoc.in.c.fi  vo  a  de  fen.exc6i.ubi  tenet  q> 
pcutiens  cTicum  boc  cafu  non  eft  cxcoicatus 
Tlam  irregulariter  contrabitur  1 1(15  fine  cl 
pa  ut  in  iudice  iuftc  occidente.l.ud.c.i.£t 
no.in cni.opj.de  fpon.txc5icatb.iulc  no 
trabitur  fine  culpa  ymmo  opoitct  q>  pccdat 
dfjbotta  pfiurio.xvu.q.iiu.  fi  quid  f.ude  tc 
ita  no.glo.in.dicta cle.fi  furiofus.  tin  autej 
imputan  poftlt  clerico  qui  non  fugir  fed  ex^ 
pectat  Jnualorem  t  ipfum  fe  Oefcndendo  in- 
terrecit  uulet  qd  imputari  debcat  per  te.Ttu; 
illiua  clcm.dum  dicit  qui  moncm  alitcr  uita 


407 


re  iion  potcrat  ptarur  p.I.fcictia3.f.qtii  cti 
arr.ff.ad.l.aqmr.unde  fumptaelt  dicra  dc. 
i  hoc  ad  excmpiu  faluatais  qui  fugi t  in  egip 
tum.ttiii.q.iii.^.i.  i  hoc  no  bernardus  ia 
.c.fufcepini'  de  bomici.  Contrariu  credo 
p.[.ineadem  .ff.exqui.ca.m.TUmibiequi 
parantar  bee  duo  non  poiie  re  cede  re  i  fine 
dcdecoK  no  pc(Te  recedere  fcutius  mouct  ga 
in  fuga  ppffit  occurrere  perkulu  utpcte  fi  ca 
dcretqd  frequenter  occurrit  in  fuga  unde 
non  debet  le  tali  piculo  exponcre  ut  lit .  non 
corns  f-accedenale-ti. In  boc  tn  credo  pode 
randasfingiilas  circumftantias.  otputa  peri 
culum  fuge-qualiratcm  pcrfone  fugknttsi 
tnuaocntis  ut  i'l  pjopttr  fujam  uerifimiliter 
mentis pcricolum  incideret.  tune  non  fit  i 
putandum  alias  lie.  Sntc  otnnia  pondaa 
qoe  diiit  fianctus  tbomas  fecunda  fecunde. 
q.xl.articulojuubiao  tlericospminetdif 
ponere  i  tnducere  al'aa  adbclla  iofta  uide  so 
mtnorn  abbatcm  in.ca.pctitio  X  iurc.iuran. 
cleric', pbibec  pugnar  oi  ifideuV  gd  beant 
agcre  cterici  quandobcllum  eft  tuftuj  oebet 
o: tare  alioa  ut  pugnent  led  ipfi  non  debcnt 
pognare  ut  ibi  per  abbatem.i  per  dominant 
Bbb.in.c.$>  in  dabcis  De  pen.0c  mauria  uide 
d.3bt.in.e.cUrici  oc  utta  i  bo.cl'icof  mdc 
ca.quia.l.diftuic.t>oiTunt  cnim  clerict  mo- 
nere  helium  ad  eotum  ct  fcnfionem.  polTunt  i 
terate  bdlii  fcd  non  polTunt  p?op:iis  manib' 
poguare  fed  beuc  danure  e  jlw  tari  jc.Sed 
caueant  n<  Oicant  occidite  pe:  ea  quc  bbc^ 
tur  in  ci-fignificafti  elfccundo  DC  bomici. i 
iu  ca.cx  Iris  de  e  xccf.pjcb  .uide  glo.  in  a. 
(cu'cttatusvii.q.uiqu&j  U^turina.cx 
raultj  txuoto  i  quod  ucluit  tominus  abb.m 
a.ficut  i  infra  oe  tare  iurando.v.eoLUidi 
tocin  ca.cum  dim  de  reltuljpglu 

dpfmliii. 

Uid  ft  ftipendarii  funt  ad'ompti 
Oe  aiamanu  per  ciuitatem  ua 
IJcimuel  tDfflinum  conitituto 
falariobsbenteaftrinas  cerrite 
pojiajnterim  dum  Qint  in  ttinere  uenundt 
ctttasoccupatnr  per  tiraanom  uel  oornm' 
perdit  fhtum  fuum  nunquid  agent  ftipenda 
rii  ad  fjbriom  uel  p?o  rata  ucl.ad.quid . 
fit  utdetur  9>  ad  totum.nam  uidctur  ttx.p 
bo:  pjuno.C.cx  anno.pcr  to.coI.l.pzima.C . 
dt  ajen-in  rebna.l.nutriculanuo.o«  pzepo. 
facrotum  ferinc.l.fiquid  in  focris.C  .de  pji- 
ue.l.i.ff  .de  le.LUgatum.ff.de  uer.i  extra« 
oi  eo.l.i.§.fcimna.  3ncontnrium  uiden 
Cur  tex-C.de  cro.mili.ano.l-in  fcoUribus  i 
l.pc.ia  fui.t.pofl oood.  C.de  adup.  dmer« 
off.  &o(utio  bic  debetur  peeunia  ex  con 
tricn  puro.wnmo  debetur  ex  diipofittone 
L  quia  funt  electi  ad  oifidttm  i  exdifpofttio 
ne.Lmumcipiliadatur  falariuuj  ergo  non  e 
mere  eontraetua  loead  i  coducti.  1 1  i  tali 


bos  eit  aduerrendum  fy  nTiquando  alkiui  eli 
gunturad  officium  quod  requirit  lobotem 
ubi  datur  falartum  p  labwe  pnneipalitcr  ut 
funt  ftipendurii  Siiquandocliguntadof 
ficium  ubi  o.itur  falarium  non  [dum  p  labox 
re  fed  quia  attenditur  .pbttas  intellectus  t 
fcie  tk  ut  in  potcftatibus  *i  fimilibus.  Oiiq; 
eliguntur  ad  officium  i  datur  falarium  p:o 
vtroq?-f.labo:e  i  ftatateintelkctusn  fde 
tkutinlegatis.  t>jimocafu  datur  prata 
tempoiisquo  feruiunt  ut.l.pc.C.Oejero.mi 
li.anno.  •  £t  no.que  dicit. J-fi.capri  cti  ff . 
&ecundo  cafu  fi  una  pftat  io  tantii  erat  tuc 
totum  datur  ut  in  leg.aU'atis  in  contrar ium 
&inautcm  non  crat  una  picftatto  bine 
Oebet  p  anno  quo  incepit  officium  ut  .Lpcft 
duos.C.Oe  offi.aduo.dJU  iudt.Ierto  cafu  ali 
quando  datur  in  remunerationem  labojis  i 
pjuden t  ie  i  tune  aut  eft  indiuifibik  ut  in  ad 
uocadsdoctccibusi  legatisi  tuncdatrotu 
at  fupja  babica  oiftinc.an  fit  una  pllatio  uel 
p'urco  ut.9.aiiqu jndo  eft  piuifibile  ut  in  co 
teilabili  banderie  nam  .Uuf  cp  cligitur  -f.in- 
daftria  i  labn  a  recipiunt  diuifionem  tune 
ut  ftipendarii  recipient  p  rata  ut  Indultrioft 
i  racione  indoftrie  electi  Ixibet  totum  diftig 
ocndout.8.  tftoarequarfumcafumubi 
quis  cligitur  ad  dignitatem  piincipaUtcr  ut 
Ocmeftictts  pjincipia  tune  babct  totum  ut-U 
fi  quis  in  facria  -COe  ppo  facrof  ferine,  t 
LmatricnlanuC.Oe  agcn.in  rebus  i.l.i.De 
puile.1  tranftt  lalarium  adberede8ut.C,Oe 
Oomcft.i  ptct  .1.  fi.li.xii.  l^er  bee  foluit 
qd  Oe  comite  Oe  Undo  ilium  p  to  capuaneo  la 
t  ruculoy  focietatis'pluric  o  aliumpto  p  dnos 
3taUcoead  fUpendiumfactanrmaccrtite, 
poiia  i  conitituto  falario.  Oondcra  ep  bar. 
in.l.i.$.duiU3.ff -de  uariis  T  extraojdi.cog 
ni.iil.iiiii.co!.(equitur  opi.  p7oauimei.  £c 
fozte  non  cfl'et  nalum  dicerc  $>  in  quacunqt 
loantc  opera j  fl  pei  eum  non  Itat  quomin* 
feruiat  fed  ttat  per  conductorcm  uel  per  ca 
fumfoJtuitumOebctlociitoi  femper  babere 
integ7nm  falar ium.l.  out  operaa.1.  fed  t  ade 
ek8.$.pcnul.ff.loca.unde  poteftae  qui  non 
(ua  culpa  fed  culpa  ciuom  non  potuit  exer 
cere  officium  nibilomiuus  debet  babere  intc 
gram  lalarium  fcd  bal.  in  ca.de  ftuOp  guir 
dk.uide  btr.tn.l  i.$  diuus  fV.cc  nai  iis  T  ex 
trio!.cogni.quando  loquitur  Oe  aduocato 
qui  Defitcaufam  culpa  clienttsuo  aut  fua. 

CapFm  liiii. 

Iteriuacmeritur  qoatido  deat 

folui  rtipcndiariisan  in  piincipio 

cuiuflibet  menfia  .an  in  fine  glo. 

oliquando  uideutur  dkire  i  ad 

aocato  guietiam  militat  ut.  I.aduocati.  C- 

detfJuoca.diuerfo.iudi.quod  debcatur  a  pil 

cipio  hoc  tenet  in.l.i-f. diuus.ff.de  uariisi 

«traM.cosni.    3t«mfentkin.l.)pperadi| 

ct 


408 


{.in  boncwriw.C.fe  hidt.I.qui  opd9.$.i.ff 
loo-i  condac.  Contr«rium  terct  in.l.i. 
C.de  pwipif  .li  .xtl.  SoTo  iliqinndo dtc 
pecunu  rngis  4}  fumptitoa  £  p  mercede !« 
boriai  rancdebefinpim.tolleeiempliHin 
It&txa  pbaturlwcff.c*  legU.lcgani.ff  .mJL 
dsti.l.U  vo  non  rc.f.fi  mandflta.C.CC  Icg.L 
ii.li.r.  Sliquandowbtfpecunia.pmer' 
cede  Ubcoia  i  hmc  dcbrt  p5dcrari  gdacrt 
fitori'iertieueltactte.  Tlam  (i  tacite  actm 
fit  tune  uidctiir  <?  in  priucipio.  t  cee  tails' c 
oui  non  potcft  c tbibcre  operas  pTomuTas  nU 
ft  fibi  dcrur  pecuma.runc  uukrur  actum  ra 
cite  $  sbcarur  in  principle  rune  cnim  rcmp 
infpicimuequod  uaifimilibus  cft.ff.srreg. 
iiois J.fcmper  in  ftipubrionibus.  Sinjutc 
non  apparet  iftj  fimilitudo.runc  in  obligst. 
qoc  ttfccndit  ex  conmctu  fafariu?  cvtvt  ur 
in  fine  temporum  ut  no.in.l .cdcn.  C.Eoci.t 
conduci  no.ff.dcfti.fcruuo.lJcruna  comu 
iuamaiii.$.fimiU.  Siniutem  orbatur 
ex  difpofitione  Icgb  eke  tig  ad  officia  dc  qui 
bos  fupra  in  p?opofao  tune  II  ell  unum  tun^ 
turn  falarium  iniciodebet  pit  ftari.l.i.  f.dl^ 
uiti.ff.oc  uariie  n  «ruao;.ccg.i  fic'intclligii 
turgfo.hft  (tnticntts.nattfl  annuuTme 
ftruum  ut  in  ft  ipendariis  de  qutbus  logmur 
qui  tint  vii.flc.i  menfe  piopofta.T  riic'.rtbct 
in  prin.ut.l.poft  duos£.de  aduoa.diuorfo. 
iu.i  .(cge  piima  Cxfc  p7iud.  ti.iii.  tu  to 
nmcn  q>  (tipendarii  non  bobcant  nifi  pio  r« 
t»  tcmpozw cffcctiulitcr  quo feruiunt  ut  fu 
pi  dicra^  eft  i  refiduum  tcncartur  rcftitu 
cre.ub»  criam  pioptcr  coufam  intrinfecam  i, 
furgit  impedimcntum.  bonders  Cf>  dirit 
bar.in  legc  per  bane'.C  .de  aduoca.  diufrfo- 
rum  iudicuunm  i  ibi  bal.ctiam  g>  in  medb 
anni  cetxt  iblut  (alarki  uide  glo.i.c.u  cdetes 
uq.iii.ubi  uidct  <p  fa/aria doctoiitas  in  piin 
inni  fo!ui  orbennmr .  tc.  uide  bal.in.l.ii.C. 
Lxati  uide  btr.m.I.quynfubm.^.qui  cdcn. 
ff  .loeat.'ride  bar.inJ.i.f  .oiutts  o  vaf.i  cr 
ecdi.cog.fn  rt.coT. 

3n  ftipendiarii  fe  abfentantea  tempoie 
•Uquoctiamoclicentiaaomini  ptrdantfti. 
pcndium  po  tcmpoic  ilto. 

Ci.lv. 

Uidfiftipendurii  pendentetpe 

ftipendii  recedant  .iliquo  tcmpc 

Tlunquid  p  illo  tempoie  ptrdet 

ftipcndium  i  pone  q>  cum  liccn- 

tia  Wmini .     feofo  T3ic  aducrtendum  q> 

opealiqoando  limitantur  refpcctu  tcropoiu^ 

non  ccrri  fieri  tdle  in  adaoatis  ecclc Ik  qui 

bibem  tint um  fibrtum  p  qualibct  caufa  q 

ocoirret  ecclefie  illo  ano  tune  non  eft  dubiti 

9>  eft  una  obligitw  pptcr  unnm  factu  ad  qO' 

inducitur  licet  pftationce  portent  effeplu* 

reaidcircototumofbetnr  utinpalr.l.i.f. 


ope  Cunt  limitite  Kpectu  certi  fecti  i  ccrti 
1  1  mpoJts  ut  in  cvxtore  affumpf  o  ad  kge  dii 
lib^  tpc  certo  i  tune  aut  omittif  tctu  fata 
Hum  (tmul  fed  fit  Oiftnbutio  foiuc.  p  partea 
tempotum  i  tune  ctiam  UM  obligitioeft  ut 
o.Uecti-ff  .(i  ccr.pe.  Biiqnandofitanua 
ud  menftrua  i  rue  funt  roc  oblisitdee  quot 
dint  mcnfca  ut.l.poft  Duos  i  tune  non  b.ibj 
pio  toto  rcmpic  pnmo  flngnlie  mcnnbue  g/af 
icruit  ccdunt  Dies  oblige  ionum  fingularum. 
tbondera  qua  idem  uidetur  tenere  bar. 
in.I.i.$-diuud.ff.Dc  viriis  t  exoj.cogni.pof 
(ct  tamen  allcgari  glo.in.l-cmoics  .§;  fi  ad 
Ott.ff  .DC  iure  ftfci.^.  Ittpcnduriuo  q  rcceiTit 
p  .iliqo  temp  J3  cum  liccnt  h  conductona  05 
b«bere  interim  falarium  .tc.  a  maioii  poflet 
alTtri  Of  eutit  bal.i.Ufi-C.6  .Jdi.infertia  i  fi, 


Utdficulpi  fuanolunt  fcruire 
toto  tempoie  9n  pdant  Talaria 
tothia  tempoJio  Tie  g>  ntbil  bobc> 
ant  pio  tempoie  quo  feruiuenit 
3n  folum  pdere  ocbeant  p  tvnpcot  quo  non 
feruiant.  QxXo  queda5  fant  otficia  ad  quc 
quia  cligitur  quc  funt  mdintdua  pio  aliquo 
obmifTo  rcfiduum  rcUuat  toll:  cxcmphim  in 
poteftate  in  ftipcndiirio  tune  non  redit  to* 
turn  fed  fblum  piotempore  future  tenet  tn* 
p  fot'o  tpe  ad  (tee  ut  fi  nibil  it  fit  nibil  bluat 
ff.bcj.i  co.l/i  (ud'  v.fifia  i  nccinJ  meuia.ff 
Oean.Iega.  C>ebocpondcrainfimiliquoO 
dintlhal.in.l.ii.C-liXiti.i  lul.inJ.edemx. 
ti.in  iiii.col.uide  bartolum  in.l.fi'tundue.lf 
Ioa>d.uide  bartolum  in  lego  p:(mj.f  .diuae  i 
fiiK.ff.de  uariis  i  extrsoi. 


Capfm  l\ii. 

did  fi  uolit  foruiro  per  fu'oftftn 
turn  appurct  g>  non  poTiicqicIc 
eta  eft  induftria  perlbnc'ut.l.in 
tor  ortificefl.ff.de  folu.  6t  J-unc 
C.dc  c«du.toUen.i  cajiltimoCteoffCdele.t 
capitulo  la  cuf  co.ti.li.vi.  Jn  eontrarium 
uidetur  qi  potcft  quis  per  alium  quod  per 
ft  ut  rogula  potcft  qub  cum  ff.  £c!utio 
dob:t  ponder  ari  modua  a  fumpt  ionis.  11am 
iliquindo  tominus  uoi  ciuitao  alfumit  cone 
Ibbilem  cui  Oat  bincrum  1  1tipindiuj  i  co 
ncftobilu)  dobot  fibul'igere  fubbaiuria^uoe 
uoluerit  tune  non  currtt  queftio  inter  ciui> 
titcm  i  ftipendiariosq?  ciuitaa  nibil  digit 
nifi  indult:iini  i  laboicm  i  conucftibilid  ip 
fc  tamcn  teoctur.  JKljquando'cttiitaecltx 
git  fiU  ftipcnOiariosquosreponit  lubTingu 
Iwbatt  i  tun:  in  conucftabili  elijitur  indu 
fbia  i  opera  i  ej?  capito  indultrie  non  prtTj 
Oare  fubftitnt  um  ut  iuribua  ftatim  alkgatia 
iiiftipknduriijtamondiaitur  opera  t 


409 


Mw.tnnc  in  bis  quorum  opera  labca 
induibia  eligttur  potcft  qnfe  dare  fubftitut  d 
utno.Inno.in  ca.com  bcrtoldua  derciudi. 
bofti-ibi  contra-Credo  opi.Jnno.  oerioKm 
pcndcratta  iuribua  ftatim  allrgade  t  conm 
menu  .r ucios  tamcn  eft  $  fiat  ami  conftn 
futominiutfcruaurutnufcEopimo.  fa 
bac  mattru  pondcra  q>  dixit  bar  t  .m  .l.i.  $. 
doras  oc  uariis  i  extraor.  co&ubi  fi  c  eked 
induftrii  per fona  non  potcft  feruire  per  fufa 
ftftatum  ft  tmpeditur  pzopter dignitatem  fa 
pcrocmcntem  potcft  feruire  per  tubfiftutom 
&i  enim  non  tenetnr  dare  fubfiftutum  re, 
BuhnurDccoaoKanpolTitper  fubfiftutri 
legere.uide  bar.i  n.l.intcr  artiftces-ff  .cc  fo 
iu.i  abb.m  ca.i.de  fumma-tri.i  ui  col.cc  ua 
fallo.  uide  sb.in.l.quifquic.C  .tx  epuor  c!e. 
glo.ln  a  .la  tojcm  xxxtii .q -ii.c  t  in  quis  ua 
[cat  feruirc  per  fubfiftutum  aide  glo.in.i.  nf 
IU3.C.K  curio  ti.x-5lo.tb.ir.tn  I.contin*. 
us.$  .fi  ab  co.ff.de  uer.oHi.inJ.i.in  metaU 
tom.ff  -de  pcni8.b4r.m.!.neminem  Oe  cu.lt. 
r.uidcbal.in.l.ad  Mitttdinan.ff.de epi. 
t  ck.utdtfol.in.l.i.^.ncautem.  Cde  ca. 
bu.tdkn-uid£.$.qui  aut.in  auttn  Oe  fanct. 
jpi(copi3Tin.j.aicripricioe.  £t  pondo 
ra  g>  qaando  g/e  poteft  feruire  p  fobfiftntum 
fubfiftutua  debet  c(fc  eque  fdoneus  nt  fcrip 
toi  qui  pwmiTu  ftribere  libnmnon  potcft 
kriberc  Oifcipulom  fed  glo.in.  LftipoUtiou 
nee  commodutbnttm.lf.de  uer-obli.  £t  ide 
uolait'gIoJn.LC.de  manci.  i  coto.pfimc. 
lLx-£c  aide  ibi  g>  lapknter  dixit  bar.mdc 
io^n.in  rc.qoi  tici  t  Oc  rc.itt.li.Ti-i  mercu. 

CapTmlviii. 

did  fi  ftipcduri'  infirmrf.So. 

fuire  uiict  at  bab.'f  oebcit  falari 

ran  utJJi  btfa-^JbcboaJf A  fU 

tu  liboria.    Oondcra  qo"  dixlt 

gloanJ  jrfaaib'.$.dc  illo.ff.de  ufair  uctn-uiri 

bjr.in.Ui  anou^jam  qaidam  in  (Uf  JocajiU 

de  biran.lj3pere.ff.de  ufufruc.I*.  bal.  in .!. 

camqutdamiCDccondunlertu  in  1  vide 

Oftjabbuucldededaiesroonte. 

Caprmlvtui. 

Uinto  uidendum  reftat  ek^oli 

is  t  captiuia  quc  in  bello  ftunt 

£tpnmoin  inbdloaliquidca 

piens  cfficutur  oominoa  pcrbc 

capte  i  rei.ct  in  fit  locos  poftiminio.  So 

(otto  mbdlo  publico  aoctoritate  ptincipia 

in'dkto  de  quo  (upia  dicta  e  bee  omnia  pio 

cedunt  mm  cupiciw  cfhcit  at  commas  cap 

ti  efficiuntui  fcrui  ut.l.!>oftc8-ff  .de  captiuia 

i.(Jx3fteadcaerbo.rigni.    Siniutembel 

bnnaafkcxcdicto  piinupis-licet alias iu 

fom  at  cam  (it  juc  dcienfi  reram  jTaaru  tuc 

i  ilk  qui  bdlon  in dicit  babet 


fopcr  eo  p»  qno  Wlom  mdtcft  poteft  (blue 
re  <j>  quilibct  apkna  iliqnid  in  bello  illo  effi 
citar  reram  captarumt  pabiarumreten 
tot  donee  pzefcntct  fupcr  io:i  ita  tenet  inno. 
in.c.dciure  turin.  remit t:ns  fuper  bcc  ad 
ro.in.ca.a  ncbts  de  tcmen.cxco.  &ubdit 
3nno-9>finonfcccrit  aliquam  conftitutio 
nem  potcrit  iUumcoudempntre  de  inuaftoe 
facta  infra  fines  uie  turifdictionisutiau. 
q  in  .puicu-C-ubi  de  crimi.is<  opt5-  fubdit 
9>  fi  bdlum  indicena  nullam  babet  iurifdic  t  i 
onem  (ed  Uum  oefendet  fie  i  booa  fua  tune 
non  licet  libi  inoaibiem  fuu5  cipcre  n  captii 
cctuicre  quia  (blum  licet  fibi  fe  KfendtTe  C4$ 
modtramine  inculpate  tutele.C.unde  vtJ.i 
Krefti.lix)li.olim.Subditcu  fiinuadit  res 
inualbjis  I'ut  9>  inuatei  non  conipctit  -ci-bo. 
rapt,  nee  iniuriay-  quia  obftat  exceptio  parif 
criminis  bee  omnia  ft  dixi  no.Inno.  in.c. 
Scot  Oeiai'eiuran.^imumOictvmSnno. 
puto  m  indJlincte  qoia  oominua  propter 
Oelictum  per  conftitationem  fuam  potcft  q$ 
pnoare  tuminio  be  rd  i  in  aliom  tranfftrf 
feccJm  mtcm  oictum  non  credo  vcrum  in, 
Oiftin  c te  pnmo  credo  3>  fi  ciuitas  reco^nof 
cene  fupioJcm  Oc  facto  inducat  bdlum.  91ii 
etum  non  recognofceti  i  fie  qlibs  (it  boftis 
popolt  romani  9>  fine  aliqua  conftitutoe  ucn 
OJotlocum^inbcUoindicto  excdictopte 
toria-llam  hoc  .puenit  ex  iore  gentium  unti 
qaiamojibueintroduCto  Uuo  $0ep(onia 
quit  modernie  tcmporine  non  pioccdit  q> 
capti  in'btlUs  efficiintur  ferat  nee  ocndatiu 
nee  in  talibue  bodie  locus  e  poftuminio.Ier 
tium  tHctatn  Icgeado  illim  Oecretakm  aliqfi 
repzobaui  p  rocm  illam.  Ha  fpolbtus  ante 
omnia  eft  reftiraendua  nee  opponi  potcft  ex 
ceptio  tempoium  nt  in.c.in  li is  i  .c.  Jtcm 
com  quia  Oe  refti  t.fpoli.  Tic  excipict  pJl 
mus  fpolutue  Oe  criminc  nee  be  alio  i  maio 
ri.  Tluncfcribendo  credo  faluari  poflc  fil 
ttiripo(feg!o.3nno.0oobu8  modia.  t>nmo 
quia  non  loquitur  3  nnoc.in  cah  in  quo  fpoli 
tus  uttimus  intentet  interdictum\R%i. 
ymmo  loquitur  in  cifu  in  quo  in tentat  vi . 
bo.rap.ud  iniururnm  quc  at  dare  uiui  oiffc 
rant  uel  oic  qo*  3  nnoc-npn  intdligitur  qtf 
opponatur  exceptio  criminis  in  modum  crix 
minis  led  in  modum  titcrine  fpoliationre  Oe 
quo  excipi  potcft  contra  agentcm  ettim  in, 
terdicto  recupande  ut  rcpellatur  exceptonc 
fpotiationia  at  piobat  tcx.in.  c.  lap  Ipoliatce 
IX  o;di.co.1^>ondciM  q6  Oixit  bar.!  JJxftef 
ff.0c  captiuia  T  ppftturcucif  utdc  bar.  in.I. 
Oiuu8.tf.0cturcr.fa.  £tbar.in.l.quitb 
tronibus.ff.0e  teftis.£  t  abb.in.c.i.  de  conx 
neri)one  infidelium  vide  glo.in.c.iua  militaf 
udi.  vide  bar.tn.(.nalem.$.fi.ff.  de  acquir. 
ref  oo.bar.p!cne  ir  Ll'i  quid  in  bdlo.ff.  de 
captia  vide  q  dixit  3o.an.in  rutwica  J>  rape 
bal.inJ.nam  t  faiue.(f.de  negot.gef.bal.m 
ci.de  milite  uafiQoqoi  contu-elt  i  bal.  in 


4io 


Ub  bofttoa  U  B.i  fa.l.cns  non.C.K  eapti 
ma  p  aige.  m  oifpu  .renouata  gucrra  p  Inno. 
in  .c.oliin.e.li.oc  ref&fpolup  abb.ln.c.ficut 
i.J.»n.fhlcof.oc  jure  iuran.  vide  ingc.in.$ 
3«  aatcmgenriu  «fti.cc  jure  n3i.tn.iucof. 
l  ange.in.$.ab  boftibaa  infti.quibaa  media 
ins  patrk  po.foluitur  i  'pcmden  an  in  too  ? 
fcicntie  liust  capra  in  btUo  rctinerc.  Uidc 
bit.in  ca.ux  milite  lufaLqui  conru.eft.  £c 
an  ixc  babcant  locum  in  btllo  ciuili.bil.inJ. 
tin  pjin.oc  udu-tollen. 

CapCm  If. 

Ulurina  qoero  an  iftia  btllis  4 
facit  uiu  ciuitia  contra  alii  pol 
fine  diet  boftca  T  fcrui  eflckn 
turcaptii  coming  twu5  quc 
raror.apparct  $  non.Ufi  quid  in  genium  in 
fi.ff.s  up.  Jn  contrarium  uidctur . nam 
qucibcc  ctuitaa  per  fc  bdt  populum  i  (ic  oi 
detur  ^  fuu  boftca  Beat  popuLts  xpianus  i 
fjrraanua-cjol.qoandcdt  contcntio  itcr 
duas  ciaitatcs  quc  font  (ubcodcm  tomioo  ri 
tit  locua  captioiuct  i  polbiminb  ut.l.fi  qs 
in  gcnuam  .ff .  de  cipt.Scd  quando  :lt  con 
tencioinurdiudciuitatca  quenon  rccog^ 
oot'conc  fuptrwem  i  pono  ut  toUatnr.  one 
dabbm  <f  qucltbct  fit  boftia  imperil  qi  rdxl 
Uatunciuregcniiumanriqnis  mo:ibusitro 
ductocft  bead  uptiuitati  i  iure  poftlimi- 
nii.^ed  lecuudum  motes  iptoum  i  confue 
tudinisiutiqiutiwobfcruitua  intra  jcpiioa 
quintum  a J  perforate  non  fcquacur  poftlimi 
nium  nee  ucnduntur  pcrtrK  ncc  (true  cffki 
•near,  ^ondcra  9>  bar.in.  IJxftea.ff-dc 
cjpttnB  in  fine  fcntit  id  quod  pnouua  OKIU 
bic  bar.in.l.nullua,C.di'  indds  tc. 

CapTmlii. 

£d  an  capta  in  Ixllo  dfi  ciant  ur 

upknttum  uidctur  9>'fic  po".l. 

d  quid  in  bcllo.ff.dc  cap.     Co 

craruis  uidctur  prabire.l.B  cap 

iiuus.ff.t.titubiooUitio.Lfiquidin  bdlo 

loquitur  in  rcbaa  mobilibua.     Scdoppo. 

q>  mobilia  puWiccntur  Dt.c.dicat  nt  iii.  q. 

i.@o.dico  g>  tificiiintnr  upkntia.  fed  it, 

nctor  a  artignarc  ouci  belli  qui  diltrihuit  lie 

condum  mcrica.  £t  boc  pjoccdunt  in  his  in 

qdbas  no  ocndicat  ftbi  locum  poftliminium 

LiUf.oe  captiuia.     t>ondtra  qnc  alkgaui 

fupja  ad  boc  pjopofitum  in  ci.lvitii.poft  yio 

aaummettmpxdjrum  uiram. 

CapTmtxii. 

Itenu9  qucritur  an  in  bdlia  lit 
licicum  mfidtia  uti  ad  uicto?n  j 
confcqucndjm  uidetnr  <j>  fie. 
Him  inquit  aog-in  b.  qndbpna 


cu  bcllum  iuftum  incipttar  utrum  i  pre  pug 
net  quis  in  ex  inftdiis  nibil  ad  wftitiam  in, 
u.-Jt  hoc  p?obatur  per  io  quod  bahcrur  io^ 
fuc  vik  .a.  7n  contrarium  uidcttu.nom 
Icribirur  dcutro.tTi.ca.quod  iultum  eft  in, 
ftcciequcris.rcdpinfidiiscftiufti  excqui 
cii  fapiat  solus  talker  igitata  p  act.  0'  tola 
Kfcidit  -ft.  n.C.ri  oolo'ptotu.pteralfidie 
rpugnit  Wicirati  i  rumpanc  tide  q  f  uanda 
A  bolti.i  ang.ad  botlt  .dum  trafTumptis  in 
can.iixm.q.i.noli.iriiuq.  v.^>  Dcopitri. 
p-ietcrca  fcnbitur  ZDatbei.Tii.c.O:uc  vul 
tis  ut  feciani  \obia  bomined  roa  cifdcm  feet 
te  ut  in  prin.Oecrctcaum  tbocobfujndum 
ad  omncapximo-j-Cum  igjtur  nullua  ucllct 
infidiaa  fibi  fkri ergo  nee  aliis  faccrc  Ocbat 
&ol'o  bic  attcdendum  eft  <p  pp;ic  infidie 
Dicanrur  quc  tendunt  at  fallcndum  aliqucj 
©ed  OupTr  con tingi t  aliquc  filli  vbo  i  he 
to  alterius  vno  mode  dicatur  hlfum  ut  Occi 
piarur  udaliqnidpmin'um  non  attndstur. 
£t  tune  Tic  utcndo  ini'idiio  fcmp  dl  illicitn^ 
Ttam  inter  hoftes  font  qucdam  (vden  quc  f^ 
uanda  lunt  ut  inquit  tJmbwfms  in  It.o'ofti. 
3Lio  modo  potdt  filli  oicro  uel  facto  ut  quia 
non  aperimus  (ibi  ypofitum  nofrrum  nee  k^ 
crcta  noftrs  i  boc  modo  licet  fallcrc.  11am 
pec  fcmpcr  facre  fcripture  funt  pandcda  ne 
irrideantur  iuxta  illud  2Datbi.x.c.  Hoiitt 
(enun  dare  canibua.c.li.  tit  pncipuum  mi 
datum  intra  militaria  tocumcnta  ut  fecreta 
non  rcuelcntur  Iwlttbus.  1 1  fie  etlam  Occls, 
rat  beatus  tbomao  fa  fc.q.;l.i  gio.xxiiiu) 
U.tominus  oicit  indifttnctc  uti  po(Tc  Ounv 
modo  non  runpamua  fukm  ut.c.  noli  eadem 
ca  T.q.i.boc  idem  tenet  glo.in .c.urilc. r rii 
q.ii.alfat  calum  in  mundati8.xliiii.&i.ff.0c 
cap.l.nibil.l.inttreft.  C.  de  jm.Lii.riiJi.qj 
vtii.ditit  de  confc.di.ii.diiit  cominMbon 
dcra  qo"  dixit  glo.in.l.i.in  vertw  boftca  .ft. 
de  cob  i  ui.c  ibi  bartolum . 

CipJxiii. 

OnlcqucntcruideBdiim  eft  3n 

in  fcftislicitum  ut  bclbrc  i  uu 

detur  9>  non  quia  fella  funt  in 

dm  La  ut  qa  uacet  diuinia  0  Co. 

di.iii.pnnncundum  de  rci  .c. ultimo  -C^o. 

d.Ldiea  i  .Luft.i  pbot  exeplo.  jrr.c .  Cat 

tcrea  j*ie  Iviii.c.rcpicbcduntur  qui  in  die 

bne  tctuniia  rcpctunt  debita  •uomittn't  litea 

pugnopcutkntcs  multomagis  igitur  in  fcftif 

bcllantcarcpjebendcndifunt.     |i>J«ereani 

Jxl  ioidinate  agendum  eft  ad  uttandum  tntc 

ptbile  incomodum  ergo.    t>Kter<a  uidec 

tex.incapropiiinodetreugai  pja.    'Jo 

eontranuj  uidcf  .17am  legitur  piimo  nucba 

tKorum.c.u.Cositaucrnnt  liudabiu'tcr  dkc 

tts-Omnb  bomoqui  ueic  ad  noa  in  die  belli 

mdn:fab««um  pugncmua  adiurfua  eum. 

tocfo  btatua-rbomaa  fcOa  fcdc.q.xL  tj 


q>  in  fcftis  bellari  poteft  neaftttate  nrgente 


i J  quod  babec  ?o.  vii.c.  iDtbi  indignamini 
qm  totum  bominem  fanaut  in  labfaato.£t  He 
infcrt  medicos  medkari  polte  in  feftojjptcr 
bittern  piiuatam  bominia  multamagis  ante 
(nooiranda  eftjalutoitas  publica.goff.i  tax. 
tn.c.f.a  trcuga  i  pacc.Dicunt  <j>  die  3onia 
non  eft  bdlandum  quU  commas  ilia  ok  ak 
audit  ad  aloe  i  cemm  fecit  euro  oil  apTe 
Kcok.Oui.1  ccnfc.Oi-iii.Iii9.dieO<neri9 
non  pptir  reoiienram  panipnie  oxnini  oie 
Sabbiri  non  ga  a  dk  oifcipuli  lati  tancru  t 
ptopttr  mctttm  iudf  ozum  i  quia  capusOfil 
latnit  in  kpuktwo  Oe  conic,  di.iit.  fabtuto. 
dk  bominico  non  quia  fere  omnes  infigne 
fecit  tomi noa  ilia  dk  lrtv.0i.quo  Oic  T  pp 
tcr  rentrentum  refurrcttionb  .Credo  pon, 
derandom  iKUlfititcm  ur^ntcm  ut  I'upja 
t ictum  eft  ux. nicoUi  pipe  eft  in.c.  It  nulla 
xiiii.q.vtii.  txmin  quu  oominua  abbas 
moderni  boc  examinant  in  capitulo  pzimo 
creuga  i  pace. 

CapTmliiiii. 

Cnfcqucnter  queritur  quid  (I 
altquis  in  bello  totum  fuum  iter 
elk  dt  conkcuttts.  on  iteru  po( 
fitinludicio  coooenirc  fuiiad^ 
nerbriumneladbucpolttt  bcllum  indiccrc 
contra  eum.otdetur  <j>  iterum  poitit  comic- 
nirc.TUm  ciptom  in  bdto  ett  pen  a  cotunu> 
ck  ergo  nilxlomm' agcre  potclLff .s  ta.cr 
-  bUJocum.  §jpc.  item  res  non  eft  (olutt 
pw  xbito  pmmo  in  bcUo  qucTitam  cominiu; 
x  r  iii  jq.-c.diut.  n  .q.-cii.U  cc  rcbusJf  .oc  icg 
ren.re.coJ.naturalitcr.  3 tern  q?  contra 
contnnucem  in  infinitum  iarari  potcitff.de 
rei  ijcn.l.qui  rcftitacre  glo.in  a.wmunis. 
xzilq.tuenet  contrarium  per  rcguUm  bo- 
nafidwjf.rcrcgulisiu.  £30  non  credo  <f 
glo.oera  fit  indiltincte  pnmo  diftingni  Oe- 
bet  abeodem  an  ab  aliia.  Si  ab  eodern  pioce 
du  opinio  Jo.  01  ab  sttid  aut  bibttibus  cl; 
ab  eo  i  tune  idem  uc.C-  oc  cuict.l.empto:i 
ilits  bibcret  reg}dTum  contra  pimun  ut  .C 
t)cafuri3rciiudi.Uu.$.fauli  alias  autera  e 
licitum  plurtea  idem  (olai  .ut.l.iii  .$.con  , 
dempnate.ff  .oc  tu.exbi/i  ialli.0£k.$.fi  rea 
feicno-inregulabonafidcedereg-iur.  £c 
iu  etiam  no.  jo.fiue  in  dicto.c.wmlnua. 

CipTmti-c- 

tl  monentea  in  bello  (bliKntur 

So.mojicntwm  bello  ecctcfie 

puipfinaocfenfone  conkquan 

tur  celefte  regnum-'boc  pzob.it 

daoteituatpcciaUter  ci.oHm  xxiui-q  viti. 

i  fait  leonis  pipe  directum  Ml  rcgem  fran^ 

caum  n  a.omnium  inii  .q.v.i  tuit  nico/ 

In  directum  cxercuui  francoimn  ixcdttca 


antcm  in  affiafacllts  alias  iuftis  etam  laluan 
tar  dummodo  fine  mcstalt  Kcedant  pccctx 
iO(kpcn.duv.fratrc8. 

QpTmlxvi. 


repoiTclTioea  ecdefie  i  fagboc 

connocare  militca  planum  eft  g» 

Oc  pubant  tet  .  xiiii.q.iii.c. 

mir  imianua  i  v.q.  vi-aiit  v5  adrun'.«iii. 

q.  viii.c.igitur  i  .c-oJtatu  i  glc.magfi  i  can 

auctoritate.q.  vi-.pbat  tex  .m.c.Dikct<j.Oe 


CapTj-lxviU 

It  liceat  cpt  fcopis  td  bdlu 
dere  fine  Ucentkpape  .  Dicunt 
qui  dam  q>  no  indlftinc  te  p  cad. 
qut  utdentur  expzcifc  boc  okoe 
q.tiiu  q  aufn  .c.  fi  nobis  i.e.  fi  quia 
epil'copus  licet  ilia  capTa  babeit  oarioa  intf 
UctnsUmen  boc  credo  uey  li  uoccntur  utl 
Ipont  e  ad  bella  alkna  maxima  (ecularu  acce 
dan  t  (ecus  fi  Defendant  iura  lot 

CapTmlwi. 

11  prdari  p  tempalims  que  tt, 
nent  ab  j  mpatow  teneantur  W 
uere  tributii  pbellia  ab  co  indie 


xxtii.q.'cuuc.i.^.ccce  cum  OuobuscapTis 
(equentibus  nfq;  ad.f  .^uia.  t>onOera  ^ 
babct  uuc.li  (TibRtu  i  in.c.maguu  .xi-q.u 

Capfm  bcviitu 

ncapcis  inbclloiufto  Gtmifc> 

renduni  Dicendu  5  9>  Tic  nifl  par 

undo  timeaturpturbatiopacif 

ptobitur  in.c.noli.xxiii.q.m.in 

(tl  per  fllb.c.cxpofitu  ut  intcllycbat  bus- 

tuit  ampucatum  capuc  Conradino. 

CopTmlxx. 

Tl  eccleCu  wfact  indicere-  beDo$ 
iudeia.  DtcenOum9>  non  cum 
ub;  y  paroti  funt  fcruire  ncc  pfc 
quant  ur  xpianos  .  S*cns  oc  b 

raccnuqui  p:otcquutur  xptanos  .bic  t  tex. 

j«iii.q.TiiLdirpar  i  ibi  nc.slo.f  nee  etiam 

farracenisfoentindicenOanili  xpianceg 

reqnerentur  . 

Cap.IxxU 

H  oegentea  in  bello  qni  pugnare 
non  poil'unt  gaudant  imuitatib' 
bellantium  i  die  9>  fie  dumodo 
aliad  conl'ilio  fint  ittilca  ut  noon 


412 


capWortwitai  Ktoto.  tx>nA-nquod 
<firit  tomiraw  tbb.in  ditto  o.ex  mult  a.f. 
<»>poUcu»confUio  non  diciturinixibilia  aJ 
pogninJum.ln.ct  cwpojc  pugnire  non  poL 
fcr.undi  cr  foto  confilioquiamcurrit  irregu 
lantatem  addito  horn  icidio  per  cap^li  quig 
wdwm.I.di.i  iliisuinbuetbiixr  eumaOc' 
git  i3.Und«  noii  oiribwac  uclotitatibue  at 
celeriritr  co?po?is  ra  majne  gttuntur  .fed 
confilioiiKtojitatcT  fcntcnti*  quiboenon 
wiiin  fe  J  iiiiyri  ftncctns  fokr.ita  pNchrc 
fcripntabat  Se  doquctit  !  litoo  o"  feixctutt 

Optra  Uxi 

17  licMt  pjeUtb  ration*  tempo 

ralis  iurifdictionia  belU  indu 

cert  i  ad  ca  intcrefle  T  coartax 

ri  id  p;diiim.dic  g>  tic  tie  notat 

Jnno.inca.quod  in  dubiia  ocpcnia    ton 

drr«<j>l»fti.indictocfl.3>in  dubtukquic 

bxtriium  5nno.tuminu6tbb.ibi  concludit 

9>iicaiiLidiftnrioni8«dd"ti  noneftwcr(fi 

tas  in  cuitdbilid.tunc  ft  fcquirnr  mow  er  p 

cafionc  i'iu  cfficirur  irrcgularia.Bccua  fi  n 

ci  pocuffiont  fiu  fed  iluwum  diii.6.  i.c.Uu 

CUoft 

11  Uceic  (bebto  pto  iniuria  (ub 

did  fui  a  quo  no  fit  iultiaibel 

lu  n  indiccrc  i  ilioj  9  imurua 

tea  in  bcllo  cipcrc.£t  die  9>  lie 

ut  no.lruw.in  capitulo  otlectua  d-:  'appcll* 

•>  upitulo  ficuc  DC  iurc  iurando  . 


n  wkgitua  pnpe  portk  kllum  i 

OictJc  boc  eft  in  pofti  inaoiuc 

br«dxum  feculare.  auc/lwcft 

uuljirt  i  tractitur  in  ca.figni 

Scafti  (k  offi.cklc.ptr  Jnno.    t>ondcra  qi 

comttnUtr  conclooitnr  9.  non  pot  indkere 

bdlu-n  contra  rdiftcnru.cp  boc  c  foluw  i  pn 

cipis  xriiLq.ii.ca.pjimo  i  iuKdmoocre  05 

irma.kd  dj  rccnrrere  adbncbium  fcculare 

CapTm  .Urr. 

H  bclla  qut  indicit  tcdefia  cont 

eicomuiucatoa  font  mtrirojia 

6t  diandum  eft  q>  he  £t  in  iU 

_______      lia  Ucitum  eft  (Mdatis  T  ftngul' 

bortariiHoBad  pagnanduj  pjobat  tcx 
q-T.ad  omnom  ca.ftq.t.q.?i,i.c. 


CtpTmlxiTU 


Oalirqaairer  qucrit  ur  qaot  Git 
gcncrt  Ixllcmm  coipalui5 1>  qb' 
repitur  in  iurc  cxpjrluim.©oTo 
Sci  rcquiriitur  in  iurc  cxprti. 
tiitmum  romanoium  iippcllatur  qd  fidc> 
Ice  contra  mfidclcu  i  hoc  iultum  dl  Oc  her. 
cicdicar.ii. 6t  dicinir  rwi«num  quia  rome 
capst  fidci  xriiii-q.i.hcc  eft  fldee  i.c.qm  t> 
limatrini.c.penrr.  Sicpoteft  intdligi.I. 
bcftcs.ff.&c  capt.Stcundum  q>  fit  nuctccL 
tau  iudicis  leyitttmi  babcntu;  nuni  Jmpiu? 
contra  contumdcea  t  rcbdlcaut.l.condnct 
ff.quoJ  me.ci.  .iii.i.l.iiit.Oe  inf.o.iudt.C- 
IK  QS in  Tin  c«.l.una.  £i bii  y^v. n  dnr  bof 
t£s  na..-.  quod  cc  luo  sd  m«a  pucnit  noftrum 
cfficitur  non  autcm  cconncrlb.  &icintdTr 
1.  v.  vin  pacc.ff.a  captmis.  rcrtium  oidt 
bdlum ptcfumptuolum  $>  fadunt  iudiccs  m^ 
oixdknlcs  x  pc .  di.iti.  $.1 .  ad  fi.o>ma.  T  obe 
di.c.tl  qub  uencrit.ff.ct  ret  oen.l.  q«i  rcfti 
tuere.ff.nc  atsfiatti.l.tii.C.ciffdic.l.i.in  fi 
Qmrtum  bititur  bdlnm  qt)  licirum  eft 
quantumcuqj  iurisauctoiitttc  conccdjf  .£  t 
eftlicitum  quoad  ilium  cui  conaditur.xx}ii 
q.ii.Jomirws  x  kn.ercji.c.d  non.i.^.ncc 
UU.C.qaindo  licc.cuiq,' fine  iu.Tin.U.i  J 
ii.i  (torn  pximl  i  \itw\  ut  cvfen.cxco.  oi 
(ccro  U.vi.Quintum  illkit  urn  quoad  illoeg 
boc  fecmnt  contra  auctozitatc  iudicis  T  iiu 
ria  ut  DC  fe  n  ten  .excolppendimna  T  .  c.con* 
tinsit  T  .c.audacia     ©cxoim  vduntaiii 
quo  utuntur  pitncipea  cj>  non  eft  lititum  oi 
nonnonimrmcpjinciptgauctoritate  Ucejt 
•rm«  portsrc.C.ne  armorum  nfua  in  rubw 
i  msro  li.x.in  aut.ce  ma.pjin.coliat.iil  in 
•it.Otarmisco'I.vi.j'mmocotra  fentictca 
incidunt  in.l.i  a'-mdef-ut-ff  .ad.I.inr.m«icf 
l.iii.&cprimum  dicuur  neceflarium  i  Ikix 
turn  quod  faciunt  fi  kits  niris  auctoiit«te  k 
txfcndtn  to  contra  tpfesinuadcntes.  Tlam 
vim  uircpdkrelicet.ff.de  iufti.i  iurc.l.uti 
uim  ca^fjc.dc  btspbofti.de  l)oniici..pbuaiw 
li.vi.p.  Mtbi.in.c.  ioltum.  rnii.q.ii.     £x 
bis  inferntrque  bella  fmt  illictta  i  que  licitt 
TJamlicitadicuuturroc  ius  ditentia  illius 
contra  qwm  T  rationc  re  i  T  caufe  i  iurc  p 
mitrcntis  illicita  ccontra  caufa  autej  una  ge 
ncrafr  tuftificat  .f.cotunutw  miuftc  rcfifte 
tia  cii  eni  ab co  qui obnoxius c  iulricia  b(i  n 
pot  tuc  15  bellu  indiccf  na  i  fubfidiu  recurrit 
id  illud  fuffragium  xxui.q.uquid  cufpatur. 
i  ta.noljxiiii.q.'piiufinulb.ff.dcufufr.l. 
ufufructua.    £t  dc  boc  9.  fcflicct  fit  licini 
no.per  3nno.0c  rdht.fpoiia.ca.olim.£t  p 
bofti.io  fumna  dc  trengj  i  pace.f  fi  quj3ia 
ftum  per  beatum  tbomam  fa  fc.jl.  q.3ni  p 
mo  i.i.iii.p  cgidui  i  li.dc  regie  pjmci.  in  ft. 

Capfm  Ixxvii. 

Jio  lupra  ttrcb  p?oximo  p?inci 
pili  trjctitp  d«  bcUo  umuerrili 
Helhitnunc  quarto 


413 


e  o*  hello  particular!  quod  fit  ob  tutcli 
ha  T  i  ipfms  tracntu  Tic  pjoccdom.  Ham  pji 
mo  domonftraboquiD  fit.icooquot  fuut  fpe^ 
cicseiud-tcrcio  quo  ozdine  induction  fit. 
qiurtoquibualiceat.quinto  contra  queo 
fcxtopioquibu?.fcptimo  qualitcr  licat.cc. 
taao  quis  fit  tpfuw  finis. 

CapFm  Ixxviii. 

3rca  pzimum  queritur  quid  fit 
bcllum  ofa  turcbm  lui  particular 
inductnm.dico  op  eft  contctio 
ex  «ta  pwpter  diftwme  bumix 
noafpecruip^cfcnntumciiuoiciuu  parti* 
cularromiUatiouepJouenienaad  ipfiuscx^ 
dufionem  tendens.bec  p.'cbantur  mentalu 
ttr  per  tcxon.l.ut  uim.ff.de  iufti.1  fare  -L 
kkntiim.f  .qui  cum  aliter.ff j»d.Uagli.n  .1. 
i-C.undc  ui  i  J.iii.$.li  quis.fi  &  ui  i  uiar» 
mj.i  u.olim  ex  relti.lpolia.£t  did  contt» 
tio.  Ibm  contcntio  ponitur  p:o  gcuere  at 
pofita  in  dirt  iuitione  belli  gencraluer  iumpx 
ti  ut  lupn  p^imo  trictato  in  p?incipio.  feed 
do  dni CIOJM  proptcr  ditfcame  k  i  tUb po 
nitur  loco  diffcrctK  .11am  per  hoc  dificrt  a 
bello  uniurrfaln  aludfpccubiij  Ixlli. tercio 
diii  id  ipiuj  jc  Ixc  dl  u  finalb  ipiuo  belli. 

CapTmlnix. 

3  rca  fccunOa-n  qucritur'qnot 

funt  ipfios  (pcika.dico  quot  flit 

due. Horn  quoddam  iuftuquod 

dam  imullum.funt  etum  diuiii 

bcllum  uniiKrtalc.lxllum  autcm  partlculare 

iullum  eft  duplex. nam  qnoddim  fit  p:optcr 

tutclflin  lui  cotpoiis  uel  ad  berentium  fane  9 

tingendini  utrum  GMpus. i  Deboc  in  p?efe 

ri  craccacu  difcutimn.    Bliuo  (it  popter 

tutelar  co»po:is  milhci  uel  partis  ut  dicim' 

in  uniuerfitate  que  appellantur  memb;a  i 

pjrtes.ff.?.  uniuerb.lj.ffjO  manicipaJ.qO 

maioz.ff.de  mune.i  bono.Lfcdriiwc.^.cjui 

manumittihir  de  (xu(f.p7cla.ba.cim  diLc 

t n  ibi  no .  &i  ergo  uniwrfi CM  p;opcct  DC 

fenfe  cutus  fui  ab  extraneo  opp?efti  ocficicnu 

lulticia  uidicta  opp:uncn  tis  Ixtlum  indicac. 

boc  appelbtur  pirticulare  popter  tutebm 

miliici  cojpo-'ia  ptime  pirtis  i  bee  appellan 

tur  rcpxniiiUa.cc  qua  in  aut  .ut  rem  ptgno. 

pcrtotumctiniieu.uno  li.xi.  fttxboc 

b:UootceturintnctatupJoximo.    Ibelld 

lut&n  iuftam  porticularc  ob  tute'c  ocri  coj 

pcwu  in  oictum  t!  t  contcntio  excnta  propter 

diAorc  bamao  appeticoi  pxlentattutn  p;ouci 

cnsii  idatxme  uiolcntie  particuiaridapii 

iuca  uel  publica  perbu  extra  ofHcium  i  mf 

UoKerentcadipQuj  exduftonem  tcndena 

cum  mcxkramin".  inculpate  fntek  n  bee  p* 

bint  ur  in.l.i.c .  unoc  ui  .cum  ibi  no.  iiuiluj 

late  ui;  pieoicta  uel  aliqd  pdictciu  ccfick 


«t  in  icqucntibuoccdarabir'.  Ibod 
cum  mo  Je  ramine  inculpate  tu  tele .  £  t  aide 
omnino  bar.in.l.ut  uim.ff  .cc  tuftu  t  tur.  in 
fi.i  bar.polt  ^lo.in.l.i.C.vnd  vi.in.iii.cot 
tt.d.attb.poit  aliod in.c.  fignificafti  oc bo> 
mici.in.uii.colr.i9bb.in.c.ni(ccpimue.eo- 
ti.in.ii.coH'.uuk  pauum  meumin  cle.i.  ce 
bomicid.pofr.gcugc.abba.in.c.  olim  ccrcfti. 
fpoli.ui.x.cor.uide  tar.in.Lfure.ff.ix  ficca 
aug.in.^.inaaufem  gentium  in.iii.  ccT.  Oc 
iurc  naturali  scn.n  ciuili  uide  plcne  p  ,pauu 
meun  .J.in.c.quod  incipit  circa  leptimum 
pjincipnle  nc.cum  fexapTu  diioifcurritp 
cmnea  fpecke  moderaminis  inculpate  tutek 
i  tocungont  in  locia  tltatis. 

Cap.lxxx. 

Jrcatertiiiqucrit  quo  iure  Ixx 
ptoueubt  i  opetat  glc-qae  eft 
in .l.ut  vin.iT.oc  iulli. i  iuv  lap 
vbo  iui'  oidt  iurctb-'i  no  iure  celi 
intclligic  <?  iure  ftni  .pueniat  boc  ere 
q>  glo.non  Oust  uerum.  feinjutcm  glo. 
intelligat  q>  iuf  tei  iudici  poflit  impuni  tuc 
credo  9  glo.  dicat  ucf -j  n  co  autem  g>  glofa 
oicat  non  iure  celi  credo  9>  glo.Oicat  faifnj 
"Rcdeo  ad  fingula  i  Oico  cp  bcllum  ob  tutdi 
fui  puenit  a  iurc  narurali  non  autem  a  iurc 
pjfuiuo  ciuili  uel  canonico  q>  boc  fit  uernm 
pwbatur  fic.llam  natura  fdaaiw  cuiul'ni 
qj  tendit  in  ipfiuo  confer oationem  conecfe 
r xtendunt  uirea  amentia  naturalis  i  nititur 
In  expulfionem  cmul'cuq?  contrarii-£t  li  fe, 
cus  contmsat  boc  continent  ^jpter  Oefccni5 
norium  agentis  i  fup  babun J.intiam  agetiu 
5n  cont r ai'iam  ut  qua^  boc  contingk  ex  in 
tentwne  agent  Li  natur  aim. pductii  confer 
natiui  jpmmo  contra  intent  tonem  cum  (emp 
contrnriis  refilh t  quantum  poteft  hoc.  pats 
ex  ftnfenfatisindnctndc  p  fingula  elemetax 
nuTlimineleinentaritsqueaguntT  patiu 
tar  ad  inuicrm  boc  patet.lle;  paffim  rel'iftit 
asenti  T  reagit  m  ipfumfotum  ad  fincm  con 
fcrua  t  BOB  tut  etfc  &f  ftruct  ioncm  agentis  in 
contrai  iom  i  agtna  coipak .  JDattnale 
fapagendorcpauc  utmqait  pbu8  fecundo 
oc  gt  nerat  ioct  -\ .  lii  .plxficojum  boc  patet  in 
u  t  is  inanimantia  boc  in  pUutie.'llaj  piiuati 
ipfaium  natara  in  conferuation;  ipUrum  i 
uitam  i  contrartoium  expulfionem  Ixc  in 
b>utts.£t  quare  non  fit  in  racionabili  crea, 
tar  j  boc  contingat  ^mmo  fotius  cum  ip(a 
cetcrtofit  nobilio:  i  ad  ipdun  ut  ad  line  cia 
oidinantur  ut.l.  in  pccudum  -ft.  Oe  ufuris. 
D?oucni:  ergo  oeftnla  ex  inftinctu  tali 
boc  jjtut  tex.in  clfmen-paftozflfo-^.tttcru 
Oe  re  iuduobi  dtcic  tex.Oefrnfionia  que  a  iu 
re  puenic  naturali  bocfentire  uideturglo. 
ejueell  in.Lfcicntiam.$.cu  al'r.ff^d.l.agf. 
3u  dicic  tti.aduerf  piculum  nalit  ro  defen 
dere  pernuuit .  Loncludo  ergo  ex  boc 


P*lTu  qood  hoc  bcHum  reftringendo  ftd 
iadiKtum  ob  tutelam  co?fv>?b  fupcrucnit ex 
tare  Mturtli  t  ipfus  inftincru.Sed  IIB  ap 
pofititium  «pp?obat  ad  non  probilxt  ut  dicit 
gk>.mLfckndam.$.qu(Cumalifer.  TUm 
iliqaa  pwuinciaex  inftinchi  nitnra  iure  po 
fitiua  puniunt  ut  patet  in  cmnali  copula.nS 
fimpJicitcr  coitus  poenit  ex  naturjlii  dap 
nit  ten  in  Kx  iuapofttuium  limit  at  nq 
lificat  ictus  pwut nicntcs  a  lure  naturali  fie 
infingutis  ictibaa  nature  pjouenienribua. 
Thm  naturalitcr  quia  appctit  cibum  potoj 
i  nmcnlciQinoniuliiniut.  Ttamquof 
dim  obis  certia  tempojibua  inbibtt.  ucrnm 
eft  q>  let  pofctiua  crum  qualificit  modum  0* 
fcnl'c  at  pata  in.l.i  C.unde  ut.  i  patcbit  p  I 
franottnda.  Concluditur  (you  boc  pat 
nirc  a  mrc  niturali  feO  ippwbarp  a  iure  po 
fitiuo  tarn  ciuili  <?  canonico  i  etiam  qiuliri 
catum  i  mcdmcatu  n  rildem.  £tboc  fo.'te 
(aluari  poccft  glo.que  eft  in.l.ut  uim.i  fie  in 
telligatur.  Scd  diccbat  glo.non  iure  ce* 
li  uiderur  (entire  9  DC  u»e  diuino  non  pav 
mittatur  uim  ut  repelUnc.'C>er  Me  opi.  glo. 
ui Jcnnir  uidentur  f.uc?e  ter  lua  r i.  Si 9 
pcrcuiTit  in  unam  maxillam  pjcbcrc  ci  t  afs 
iriii.q.i.mpanapio.&cribitur  etiam  fiqa 
au^uriiuerit  tc  milk.milk  paflus  naoe  cum 
eomiUapaiTuu3o.vt.i  matixixi.&cribo 
tur  etiam  3D  roma  xii.non  uoa  ccftndtre5 1  j 
dire  locum  ire  cbritboa  ctiam  dixit  pctro  no 
lenti  cum  xkndcrc.Conucrtcrc  glidiii  tni 
in  uaginim  tDatbct  xxxi.n  Ixibet  xxiii.q 
i.in  prinupb  bee  potucrunt  moucre  glo.ad 
tenendum  9>  non  liccat  iure  poni.  Scd 
credo  9>  gb.non  dicat  uerum  quoO  aperte 
ex monff rari  poted.piimo  Tic  tile  actuo  eft  I 
cit  us  iure  diujno  qui  eft  conforms  cariud.  i 
©cd  irfcnfs  fui  ipfius  eft  buiufinodi  ergo  JC 
pjobatur  maioz  nam  caritatc  pofttaercludi 
oitur  quiitbet  actus  leg^  diuttn  repiobua  g 
cumiptalenoncompacMtur  cumrepiabini 
fit  T  ipfa  fit  fundamentum  cuiuflitxt  liciti 
pioCatur  hoc  DC  pe.di.ti.icd  radicata  i.ca. 
ritw eft  ut  mibi  uidetur-  tei.in.c.  q:  radix 
ei-di.pjobitur  mino:  mm  pKcipimua  caiix 
tatiseft  dtligcre  pioximum  Ptcut  fcipfum'ut 
capinilo  pioximcw  i  ca.ptoinde  de  pc.di oi. 
ego  implicit  dilatioiKmlui.i  futconlcrua^ 
tionem  fi  fie  ergo  acfenbm  ergo  iure  poli  M* 
ce  t  feipfum  dcfendere.  C>rctcrea  Icge  du 
um  i  licitum  eft  pttiimu;  Dcfendere  anwtc 
£  tiam  contra  uotuntatcm  fuam.crgo  multo 
fartiusiurc  diuino  licet  feipfum  trfendcrc 
^•tjpiducti  fupjapioiimo.pi-otuturailu 
dcaptes.ixiii-qJiiupa  pictao  i-qucft-u 
dUplicuit.  t>retcrct  lex  diutna  inbibec 
qucm  joluntaric  tcndcnrem  ad  dcftructocm 
foi  ipfius  boc  folum  intcndeudo  .Tlam  ft  «di 
nite  tcndit  in  alio.l.diuina  app?obitum  licj 
iftud  conkquendo  conttquentcr  fequstur  dt 
ftroctio  bx  non  eft  inhibit^  utpote  quis  ut 


confeqnirur  ftatnm  beatitu  Jinis  afflidt  ca 
pua  fuum  llulli  Oubiam  quin  .ifflictio  It  cot 
pojtsccfrructojiicumiion  intendit  in  boc 
finihtcr  fed  in  fagtm  vidof  urfet  octracu 
oatio  uoluntarie  ppter  fidem  catbolicj  Ttoj 
ipu  non  intcndunt  ftnaliter  ad  cilbuuocm 
fui  cotpoiis  jrmmo  sfenfa  ftdei  pjo  qua  uold 
tarie  cxpcmunt  (e  moJti  tcmpali  op  licet  Uge 
Oiuina.€iedfcnontxrendensanK»re  cum 
poteft  fe  uoluntark  occidit  1  in  oeftructoej 
fui  tcndir  erao.l.Oiuina  tnlxbitum  pbac  ma- 
ioz.Tlam.l.aiuinaoampnarireputarur  fife 
ipioo  ocddcrunt  ut  oicimus  oc  iuda  i  tiff 
fbaturmiaoJ.TIamfenoOefendca  imcote 
com  poteft  nee  Wit  aliquie  Oc  cafibue  ante 
Oictis  nee  boc  pueniat  ex  pufillanimitate'lui 
mortem  apperit  T  p  aliam  fc  occidk  T  fie  p^ 
ind;  ac  fi  per  fe  ipfum.  Juxn  regulam  qui  p 
aUum»\'  rcj.iur  .li.  vi.  t>xterea  L  x  diuil 
non  oderutt  totafi  actus  puententea  a  iure 
noturali  fed  jplbs  modified  1 1  reformat  bx 
patet  per  finguloa  dikurrendo.  11am  no  pt- 
nitus  inbibf  t  cibum  i  potum  no  copula  nee 
fiTia  fed  ipfos  achra  modificat  i  rcfo?mat  ex 
tremitates  rednendo  t  mtdutm  apptobindo 
ut  etia;  let  moialts  fcbo  et  Ixc.tiiJt.&i  lex 
diuinj  tnbiberct  totaTr  dcfcn!i>  fua  ipTi'  cu 
tctQ9  ille  pucnin  ab  inftinctu  nature  tottx 
liter  deftruere  actum  nature  (p  eft  abfurdus 
ut.s.  ibKtcrea  lex  canoica  boc  limitat  er 
50  lex  dtuina  non  inbibe  t  .plut  iir  antetedca 
p.c.oltRiderefti.rpoli.T  ckm.poftour.$.cc 
terum  de  re.iudi.cbriua  p  clcm.in.c.fi  furi 
ofua  dc  bomici.llam  lex  canoica  fuqaltcrnat 
legi  diuine  i  fibi  inutccm  contradiccre  non 
pofifunt.llam  ad  cun  Jem  tcndunt  fincm  lie; 
uaric.Tlam  lex  canoica  tract  at  dc  gubernex 
done  monarchic  mundane  ut  (ccktjs  rxiana 
conucrfetur  in  uniuerfo  q>  etUm  tractat  lex 
ciuilia.'Sed  cinonicn  ulteriua  tendit.f.  dif 
ponendo  i  pparando  ad  ftaruj  bcttttndinia 
cterne  in  qua  t  edit  (ex  diuim.£t  fie  necelTe 
eft  idempdtite  finis  atenta  omne  inhibi  turn 
lege  diuina  fox  inbtttu)  lege  anonica  i  fie 
pjcteriiiiffie  sliis  quc  infinira  poffun  t  induci 
'Rcftat  concludcnduoi  op  glo.non  dicat  ncf 
cum  dicit  iure  celi  non  pmitti  dcfcnfam  fui- 
tpfut3.  3d  auct07it3tc3 autcm  in  cotrariu 
inductao  (\ndumcllutrcfpondu  magiftcr 
granuatxtii-q.i.^.i'i  is  ita  uid£l>  g>  itclfanf 
0*  inttriof  coidia  pgotoe  non  aut  de  iterkffi 
cwpoTta  aftrkdone.  Tlam  interiua  debet 
bumilitntemcoidiobabcreut  ptobattuguf. 
in  fermone  dc  puero  ccnrurionis  ftc  iquica 
paratua  debet  cite  ?c  uide  i  cspitnb  paratoa 
xniii.q-i.  £xbiainferturterctumuide 
licet  undc  tafurgat  boc  bellum  T  quo  iure  p 
mittatur  :c.  Ibrokcto  ego  in  omnibus  fc 
quo?  opi.pioaui  mei  qui  loquitur  longc  fapi 
enter  i  cj>  mrc  naturali  fit  it roductn  dcfen 
fb.etum  tenuit  bar.l.ut  uim.lf.de  mlli.i  m 
rt  i  ibt  aide  bailed  dc  ma  ter  u  uide  etiara 


tar.ln.l.ffiuffe.ff.&  Ajn».iirinte  iura  bar. 
in.l.facultaa  it.  iure  fifci  li.x.bar.in.1.  cum 
malkr.if.foLmatriiinJi.cot. 

CapTm.  Ixxxi. 

3  rca  quota  i  Ueett  e  uidendii 
pro  arias  cuukntia  piemittocp 

ardcftquertrequib'  com  pet  at 

ccfcnfa  fui  ipfu»-£t  aliud'e  que 

ucrequibua  competat  indifinite  indictum 

pjoptcr  Dffcn&nu    Si  queramus  quibus  9 

petit  Dcfcnfio.dico  3>  omnibus  cntiboa  n«x 

taralfcus  genitusex  cccrnptibilibufl.Celefti 

bus  non  compet  it  defenfio.pjopterea  q;  non 

portant  pati  ab  aliquo  contrario  agente  cum 

Bla  ccapoja  non  Gnt  receptiua  pereg:inc»um 

impxlTionum.ut  sit  phus  fecudo  cell  i  miix 

di-cum  fint  fine 'nuter  ia  que  eft  mater  gene 

rationis  i  comtptionis  ut  ibidem.  1 1  Tic  no 

eft  opus  defefa  cum  Tint  in  capt  ibilia-omnib' 

totem  natural ib9  competit  ex  pjtncipiie  na 

turalibus  dtfenfio  com  CmtpaffibiUa.  i  put 

nit  ilia  defenfio  ex  Jure  natural!  quoO  c  uia 

quedam  infita  rebus  fimilia  oc  ftmilibus  pto^ 

creatia-Tlam  fimilia  p:ooreando  conlcruaC 

[often  in  fpecie  quod  fieri  ncnpoteftperpe 

tuo indt  uidualucr  .inOiuidualiter  agindo. 

nititnr  ogrumpcrc  contrarium  (tbi  rcftftca 

1 1  con  tra .  £  t  iile  eft  pjfauus  mo&us  iui  ie  m 

toralis  de  quo  glo.in  ca.tua  naturile.piuna 

di.1  not»riconfuoiitin.l.!.$.iu»n9turale. 

if.de  iaftl.i  are.     Die  ergo  fi  afen  fio  co 

petit  quifcanq<  materialibus  naturulittr  i 

prrucntt  er  oihbas  a  naturt  cuilibtt  end  in 

[itis.1  quilifaet  fenfualitcr  tOicere  fingula  na 

turalii  Dlfcurrendo.    Sinautcm  qucrim' 

quiboa  competit  bellom  fcilicet  diffmitum. 

tune dico  q>  folia  bomimbuei  non aliia  ^ 

probat  ditfinitio  txl  li  cum  diri  diffame  appe 

titni  Iximano  p;opoTitum  K.£t  bic  connoti 

dum  t ft  an  omnibus  boniinbuscompctat.i 

ideo  an  deride  competat  . 

CapTm  l«xii . 

Rimoqucro  in  dericis  liccat 
bellum  p«rricolarc  indicerere 

filkndo  i  rcpcucicndo  uidctur 
^nonpcra.fufcepimus.Dcbomici.1  per.c 
feoicionarioa  xlvi.dt.p?abant  ttf.  x  riii.q. 
fui.f.un  cam  a  iudeia.i  a.l'cqucn.ufqiid 
$.bis  ita.refpondetur .  pfeuur  in  ca-comcx 
nun  eadtm  caub  i  queftion*.  Quod  lice 
at.probnur  p  ca-olim  Oe  rcfti.fpoli.  i  fi  ue 
ro  i  ca.cr  tenoie  DC  fen.excomunt.i.di.iua 
naturalc.ft.de  iufti.i  iurd.ut  uuim.ff.d  ui 
i  uiar.l.iti.f.fiquisclarioj  tcx.inckme. 
Sfuriofuadcboini.  feapsrbocfuenitopi 
qiuuecitatglo.xiiii.q.i.m.fumm3.  tlam 
aliqni  dixerunt  g>  nulli  criam  Upco  licet 
ui  rcptUere  repocuciendo.banc  opi  .re 


demtn.  uofttt  fi  furioliis  dc  bomicidiis. 

aiiijlapcislicjrepcrcutere  clericis  fi 
n  bpc  code  moTbo  labcrat.  Slii  dicut  $  II 
atain&raturpcrlbnaUcitn  fit  aim  repelkre 
(turn  repcutiendo  etiam  clcricis  hoc  pzoba  t 
clem.piedicta  Sinautcm  rebus  infert  nic 
(ecus.  3n  antem  hoc  (ctfm  ftt  ueru;  iufre 
iubictendobuginoluitdicere  3.  in  nulls 
celfitate  pofitua  ctiam  fi  air  euadere  n 
non  Oebct  alia;  occidcre  jmmo  potiue  Oeb) 
fe  permittcre  occtdi  5ta  no.in.c.Cc  bta.l.di 
glo.i.no-contrarium  i  in.c.ficut  dignaj  tc 
bomici.in  hoc  non  infifto  quonia;  ut  dixi  eft 
tex.in  ckm.fi  furbfus  X  bomici  i  fi  no  font 
tex.niper  hoc  expzcfo  Oi^onens  p  ucl  con  t 
boc  ertet  tenendom  per  roes  quae  induxi  ad 
pjobandum  boc  effe  inl)ibicum.l.diuina.  t>o 
dera  9*  oixit.0.ibb.in.c.(isnificafti  &e  bomi 
din  pzin.i  uide  eundc5  ibijn.tiii.  coT.in  fi. 
t  in  ponft.cor.ui  de.0.abb.m.c.oli5  0'  rcftL 
fpo-in.xii.col'.iudc.d.abb.in.c.  licut  dignus 
in.c.o'  bomici.in.iiit.cof.uide.Cide  eo.n  gl. 
in.c.dc  htscl  Co  .l.di.ibidoc.tc.uidf  abb.m 
c.i.df  clcrt.pugnan.  in  duello. 

Cip.lxxxiii. 

toidoqucro  Snliccat  clerico 

(e  Tic  dcfcudcre  ctiam  repcutkn 

do  •<  occidendo  i  an  boc  liccat 

fibi  in  cede  fia  i  uide  tur  of,  non 

tlam  licet  lex  permittat  general  r  certoa 

ectos.  3  nbilxn  tur  tamcn  roe  loci  nnde  gent 

ralispmiiTioreftringitur  p  fpaUm  pmufio 

ncm  ut.I.fancrio  legum.ff.de  penis.Ulimen 


feltciffime-tf.de  le.iii.T.c.palbrar.  de  rupt. 
Sufficit  rcgula  generi  li.  vi.  Quod  antem 
midti  actus  lege  permittantur  generali  qui 
tameu  fpalr  inter  dicunt  pb.it  tex.in.  c.decj 
de  imu.ccde.li.vi.T.c.v«ndcritCB.i.q.i.erx 
go  k  in  ,ppofito  i  multo  foztius  cumpbiic 
ictum  poifu;  pucniri  ad  pollutionem  ccdefie 
at  in.c.ppofuifti  dc  conic.ecclc.  uelalta.  1 
c.  vno-e.tuli-vi.  l^eterea  rixc  i  excitix 
tbnes  lunt  genoatiter  hiterdicte  oi  ftt  (pee 
rixc  ergo.  3n  cotrarium  aidetur  quu  iuf 
boc  pcnmttctii  gencraliter  loquuntur  ergo 
fie  fiit  generaliter  intellig«nda.ut.l.i.^.ge* 
neraliter.ff.de.le.pftan.  ftanc  parti  ore 
do  -iim  cum  iftc  actua  inlurgat  ex  Jure  nail* 
nee  rcpobat  le'x  dintna  i  ratio  iuf  boc  indu 
centia  fubfit  generalito  non  babi  ta  difcrtt. 
loco^  nam  boc  tnduxit  iua  naturale  at  quis 
felpfum  conf'uet  quantum  durant  Tires  piin 
cipbiun  natnraltum.£t  bee  ro  fubcft  in  ec^ 
clefts  ficut  alibi.  3d  inOucta  incotrariuj 
facile  eft  refpondere.  Tlam  illi  actue  inhibit  i 
in  ecclcfu  ucl  funt  de  natura  fui  Oe  generc 
malcuum  uel  funt  de  gencre  pminbf  ut  con 
tractuo  tn  ipfojum  exclufio  ne  ftunt  in  eccle 
fUpptermwam  frundi  no  inductii  piculu 


4i6 


con  extri  ecckGm  equc  fieri  poffinr ad  li- 
bitum  contrabentium  com  Tint  a  piln.nolut.. 
expoft  fecto  occeffav.ut.t.ficut  de  act.i  oU 
3t  in  ppofirc  Ii  fl  liccrct  in  cccUlta  vim 
•d  rtpdtrc  ccce  pptum  piculum  qnta  ftad; 
ftdltttf  ad  iliod  cam  Oidtur  iequi  pofTj  pol 
(ooo-'oolntio  forthwconfenandai  ponde 
randa  eft  bominis  oonfcriwt  )o  Cum  fit  inre^ 
ftwrabtlis  if  ecdelk  que  rtconcfliar  i  pot. 
£  t  fb*e  did  poteft  q>  ad  hoc  ut  polliuf  fanx 
gotnia  tniarioli  non  requir  itur  (angnfatb  itu 
iuriofu-ifufcutno.in.c.uacx  contcaati. 
ecde.uclalu.Ii.Ti. 

Cap.'.sijriiii- 

£rtio  qvero  quid  oc  derico  cek 
bunte  3n  ei  Ucitum  fit  oimuto 
offtdo  fiinaadaturfeocfcndere 
i  ft  occideret  Ucitum  fit  contt- 
nuatio  officio  aldnarc .  I>;  imo  apparet  q>  A 
atet  dincrtere  ab  officio  ymtno  ipfe  tencat 
exeqai  3>ncc  poffit  videt'rex  -vii-q-i-  ilhid 
1 .  c.mbil.  t«c  tcrca  tp«U«  font  pofqxmc 
Dafpiritatlibns.xii.q.i.pcipinMMOepe.i  re 
nUum  inlfrmitae  -i  DC  cpi.f  ck-fencimus. 
Jncontrariom  pbat  tcx  n«  pptcr  impe 
Oimentuni  tempcnale  fuperucniena  officmm 
incboatum  oimktif  inexpktu;.£t,pptcrca 
<.-nc  lura  ut  (blue  fit  faccrdoe  in  cede- 
tcmpaUu  pbat 
i.c.nibilut 
unua  bpplett  continuando  ubi  alter  fcimifit 
nifi  OMCIO  miile  fit  cepta  i  non  compkta  qj 
Cone  alter  reincipcre  tcnetur  cum  ilia  non  f 
rcdpiant  diuifionem  ut  in  baptiuno  n  oidie 
xxuldl.qttonmdam  i  ibi  no.glo.in  ca  nibil 
ctiam  no.glo.  Si  aliquts  inuadat  aldai 
tern  ut  ipfum  occidat  bic  cuenic  impedimen 
tarn  tticbrantujpinmo  periiulum  mwtisut 
claret  ergo  Ucitum  pictermittetur  T  per? 
fequens  lie  ce  periculo  fibi  occurrenti  tt  poC 
expcdirc  ctiam  occidcndo.  3d  alkgata  i 
contrarium  bale  eft  ref^ondere .  nam  licet 
(pirituBlialmtp;oponenoa  tempo?alibus  in 
gcnere  tomcn  ceLdnatio  hoc  cam  non  eft'p- 
Ltamenboc  cifupiopterdampnum 
non 


in^eituaUpoftpoluoaUocafuqz 
ptraliumtdlauraripottft  od  per  cundcm. 
pcriculcciclulb.^licundo  fiuc  argumento 
dico  g>  ft  ctiam  occidcrit  k  txtcndedo  q>  po 
urit  rcalTumptoofficio  olcbtare  'dummodo 
adfmt  iBaoc  quib'  lo.cle.fi  funofus.1li  nu! 
lam  pcccatwn  com  hoc  fcccr it  itgts  luctoti 
tatc  cuiuesnctoiitatt  ncmopcccat  xxiiuq. 
iiiuiulbmirrcijubri totem  inciditut  in^we 
dktadcmen.fi  ruriofue  ergo  nullam  uidet 
fabdfc  impcduncntum  cum  pofftt  ceUbiarc 
at  piobjt  cle.  "boc  dktum  pjojui  mci  re 
lmutp»cUrum  Tle^mtur  oominiwabb. 
in  capitulo  ckricia  in  piinupio  oc  utta  t  bo 


ncftitccUrkononK. 

C«pTm  Ixxx  v . 

Unto  portct  qucri  argui  t  folol 
Kbaptifanu  oidiionte  i  conx 
fii'mantc  i  inunge nte  etiam  in 
ftngolie  fjcramentis.Bn  lit  lici 
turn cof  coHackmcm  pofbonere  ct urn  Pi  in* 
dxuucrit  pptcr  tuttbm  mi.  1 1  in  omnibna 


Ok  at  fup?i. 


Cip.lixxvi. 


Ointo  qro .  ©accrdoe  baptifat 
poef  qaJeftinitvMtiapicalo  i 
incidit  imufto  facer  dotia  utoc^ 
cidatar  .Quid  peligendum  s  iu 
re«n  perflcere  coUationcm  facramenti  nc  d 
ccdat  pner  fine  baptifmo  i  ipfc  laccrdos  occi 
datur  uel  ccontra  p*l!5cndd  mwrcm  ppriij 
euadere  t  pmtttcre  pucru5  mo:i  line  bapttU 
mate.&ic  R»tna  qucftioncm  DC  facer  doted 
ferente  coipus  xpi  inftrmo  in  extremis  lafao. 
rsn t Lf>2o  p? imo  apparct  cp  faccrdoe  potius 
Kbwc  te  pmitti  occidcre  $  paty.  \\nc  baptif 
momoji.  "Ham  fipaerrnojitur  line  taptik 
mate  monrur  eicinali te»  ut  pbat  fluguf.ad 
pctf  diicouum  c<  confe.oi.  ii  ii.  firmiflimc  i 
c.fegenertnte.e.c.i.c.nulU.e.&L  .pbat  i- 
poftoius  ad  cpbcf.iiu. pptcr  odic turn  vniua 
omnes  in  Oampnatione  He  o:iginale  pccatii 
cuius  erf  cc  t  us  non  eft  extinctue  p  facramen 
turn  baptifmatia  indm.it  condemnationcm 
cternam.&edliacerdodfolum  tempcnaliter 
majiturfialiiaiKctifariis  pfalutcm  imbut. 
S*d  mots  tempoitlis  ppftponenda  eft  fpiiali 
&ic  argutt  'fluguft-xxiii  .q.iiii.  difpticct  i 
c.ipia  pjctae.£rgo  potius  eligere  tvb5  facer 
toamoJincpucrmcternumnpcreit  t^K 
tcrea  inter  Ouo  mala  minus  malam  eft  cligc 
Oum.tiu.di.ncrui  telticuloium  c u,  ll.  ct  mi 
nusDulueftmoistpalis^etcrnaut  canoe 
ipfa  pittas  t  .c.Difplicvx  xiii.q .  iiii.  mow  out 
facerdotia  tcmpcualis  erijo  ptli^cndj .  lb:cci 
paud  actu  coriuti j  eft  9*  quit)  .piinm  Oili> 
git  Dc.pc.Oi.ii.primo8T.c.pindc  t.c.ciri 
t  w  cli  ut  mibi  uidctur  ad  hoc  nifi  lacevdcw 
digit  (alutcm  eternam  l>u-:ri  uite  t  non 
fuam  tgtkm  non  oiligic  ipi'uj  licut  Ic ipfum  i 
Tic  caricate  urebitqo'  pbac.lli  uit.)  eterna 
fine  copamtwncpieiuletui  tarn  tempoialfj 
ergo  piecligcndo  uitam  tcmpoialem  fib/  .uite 
ctcr  ne  proximi  miUo  nugis  fc  diligit  quam 
p:oxinmm  i  fk  rcmanct  caritatc  uacuua. 
OKtcrca  iilud  piedigtnOum  eft  ad  cm' 
p:oductioncm  paucioia  nub  fequiitur  f,  ad 
mootcm  facerdotisminua  malum  fcquitur 
$  ad  moitem  pocri  fine  batifmate  .ergo  peli 
gendamoTsfacerdotispiobJturnuioi  nam 
btcexregulainmcualibus  ^>pliira  ccteria 
paribus  octeruwa  lunt  paucunibusT  magia 
fujknda  pjobatur  to  caoc  txrum  xiii.  Oi. 


pjotetnrminoj.nam  fieligiturfacerdotis 

nita  fequu'rur  duo  nub  utdelicet  mcuo  cter- 

na  poeri  ut  fup»  dictum  eft.i  neglect'  cor 

Bninuruniquodmonalf  eftutin  cv.-ciifit 

ara  cc  eta.i  quili.    feinautem  pzeeligatut 

mojgrempoHiistaccrdotb  non  icquitur  ni 

ft  iltud  malum  fcilicet  tempojslis  mortis  qo 

atfentu  qualitatc  ictus  in  fc  fine  comparati 

one  minus  milmn  eft  mojte.perpetua  ergo  i 

feroiOum  ut  fupia.    Jnconnarium  uidcn 

tor  textus  qui  loquutur  generator  conce, 

dendo  cuiliixt  ficutarcm  it  oeftndendi  i  ca 

fu  mr  ceffitatii;  fuffkit  ck.fi  fur  ioi'tis  kpi'  al 

kgitis.    Confirmatur  pu  tun  qne  dicunt 

ctritatem  in  ciperc  a  fcipfb  ut.!.  pjefes.  C.de 

feruii.1  aqua  i  la.pcticb  DC  ture  iuran. 

©outtiopzojeuioenuabuiusqucfuonisn  (a 

lurioniseiufoemeftexaminare  cafusundu,. 

bitato3.nam  func  caltw  indubitati  in  tlxma 

re  p;opo(ttc.6ccc  fi  ponamue  g>  pucr  p  alitt 

ctiam  Upcum  ud  multereir.  baptilari  pofftt. 

clto $  facerdcH  dimituret  a  (acramentt  col 

lat.non  eft  dobium  q>  facer  dos  ocberec  pje^ 

eltgcre  falutem  fuam.ubi  cttim  pucr  uertftri 

tcr  ncn'pofl'ct  uiuer<  afq;  ad  cipeditione  pe 

rtculi  i  ixxuerifimiliter  conftarei  non  ton, 

Ivrem  qucl  tione  dubu;  quo  minus  ficcrdol' 

b.itxrct  DKeligcrc  faiutem  foam  nee  ration 

inducte  erc'mderenr  contra  bane  cifam. 

fri  pon^remus  queltioncm  in  aoulto  non  au 

tern  in  (ante  qui  adulcus  liat  no  fapiat  tops 

tifmumfiumimstamcnKceDat  fiuaamlxi 

but  (idem  cum  baptifmate  fluminis.3dbuc 

non  babcrcm  qaellionem  dutnam  pnmo  dt 

cercm  ut  lup?a  piedigcndam  lalutcm  facer, 

dotis.Sed  quclbo  pzocedit  in  puero  0*  quo 

conftat(j.mo?utur!iiiebapt[fmatc.  &ifa^ 

cerdoa  diner  tat  ac  hoc  piobabiliter  dubitare 

turin  pjimo  cafu  ubi  ^5  ccboc  conlhi^c 

Oiccrcm  pjccligcndim  moitem  Umpo.'akm 

per  iura  fupn  indncta  t  ftidor  per  ca  que  ixi 

bcntur  •cii.q.i.^.binc  in  uer.cum  uero  fpeci 

•liter  a  contrario  i  qood  ibi  no.cb.  Ha  ubi 

Iblua  pjclatus  qiuricur  ncc  ccclclta  uita  pot 

die  tuta.eofug)cnu  cxponcre  debct  fe  mo; 

tipioipfauttnJxc  mixime  pnxedunt  in 

pioprio  four  dote  ^  parrocbiano.  i  mount 

me  racionofupa  ad  hoc  inducte  .ubiautq 

fbKt  dubium  piobabile  oc  m«te  nel  uin  pue 

nuftyidexpeditionc  pcricuti  i  conlbrct 

DC  mone  pKtbitcri  nifi  diuerteret.  B  d  buc 

crederem  pretltgendam  mortem  facer dotia 

cum  mtncertia  non  certia  locisftt  conku 

tureJ.contimiua.f  .illud.rf .  de  ucr.obli. 

Ubi  aucem  probibile  dubium  fore t  bine  inde 

aedtrem  at  fupri  primo  membro  i  bee  de 

(acramentobaptilmatis.  3n  corpore  uttem 

cbrifti.fi  utrieikt  glofa  que  e  i  ti.quoO  i  tc 

Oe  pcni.1  remif.que  dicit  vuticum  nonelTe 

bcnmen turn  necelfitatia  tune  qodlio  ri  eft 

mult  urn  d  jbii-r^td  ilia  gio.non  e  4 4  jmuno 

alia  3lo.ndt  eontrarinm  tn.c  uenicadc  trli 


ict.in  primi  glo.n  illi  gb.tft  ^a  T  no  dc  ia 
crament.no  te  fuper  rubrica  pbare  uidctur 
tex.ln.c.omca  6  pent.  i  hnif.  trt  adbuc  boc 
fuppop  vo^ritfacrametuncceiraatif  ad 
bucoicerem  pdigedamoium  tcmpalemia 
cerdotis  moneoj  ex  boc  qub  etiarri  fi  quis  oc' 
udat  fine  coipe  cbjilti  obi  per  cum  no  Itc  tit 
n  non  contempt  it  no  mceitur  etcrnat'r  licut 
in  baptifmate.  jdcirco  in  boc  eaft  nococUi« 
derent  roja  -e.inducte.  3d*m  diccrc5  ifl 
facramenco  penitent  ie  quiactiam  One  cam 
confeilione  tccedcna  ubi  per  cum  non  ftct  i  t 
bla  tontritiontd  virtus  faluat  eum  ut  no.oe 
pe.dui.7u  lu'ma  i  in.^.bis  ita.  3dem  per 
omnia  Piccrcm  in  facraiwnto  unccoia  91.0. 


£xroquero  nunqaid  monacbo 

liceat  fe  fir  ocfedere  fine  licetit 

pelari  fui  uidetur  ep  non  Horn 

monacbus  non  iubeat  nee  nteaf 

ccbcat  aetum  uduncarium  nifi  dc  UcitU  fui 

p.\!ati  quia  fine  licentia  caret  uctlc  i  nolle. 

xu.q.i.volo.ic.T.c.  non  cicatis  Oe  elect. 

quoiundam  i.c.ft  rdigiofus  li.vti  clc.reti 

giolus  cc  pan  a.  Jit  iltc  actuo  cwfenlc  ^  ue^ 

nit  a  mcro  litvi  tatiu  .irbirrio  quu  potelt  cri 

am  uelle  ergo  non  pottrit  fmc  licet  ia  ptdati 

t>retereo  mpnacbitd  eft  mortuua  tniido.x  v« 

q.i.monadM  n.c.pl»cuitergofibi  ftcopetiit 

actus 


rea  monacbo  interdict!  font  etiam  actus  in 
uanum  tendentea  line  liuntia  pjebti  ut  fut 
vpuere  pegrinari  i  funiks  actue  per  iura  ft> 
tim  alfata/jn  eontrarium  videtnr-  Ham  DC 
fcnfio  cojpais  fui  pucnit  ex  natural!  ifticta 
oec  repzobituTa  Icge  oiuina  nee  altcra  ergo 
licet  monacbo  rum  quantum  ad  naturalee  ac 
tus  aft  ad  tue  rule  non  fit  mcatuns  fed  quo 
•d  ciiiles  folnm  ut  tunbuo  .6  alfatis.  tooTo  • 
credo  <$  fi  moacbue  fine  piculo  mortis  potftt 
fc  ckfcndere  i  licetia  pKlatt  fui  petere  potTit 
ipfam  pctcre  detKt  boc  ykat  iura  inducta  ad 
pjiniaprcj.  Stiuutej  fi  polttt  licentia  pl» 
ti  petcre  quia  non  eft  picfcns  i  quia  rjiculuj 
eft  in  mora  tune  poterit  fine  licentia  pielati 
ZDouco?  ex  boc  q>  ilte  actus  eft  iurc  natura 
li  inductua  quern  piclatus  non  polTet  totalu 
tcr  fine  aufa  itedicere  j^mmo  foitc  nee  pap 
cum  ni  boc  indu  tent  ncc  in  bis  fubdimt 
nentur  prekto  fuo.ficut  totalitcr  i  Tine  can 
fa  inter  dicera  cibum  i  potum  mouet  me  gl. 
qiie  eft  in  ca.  non  dicatis.  xii.q.i.  11am 
querit  ibi  glo.au  liceat  monacbo  ckmofinatn 
tacerepiupertfame  morientinili  fubleuiaf 
ei  Tint  lice  t  b  prelari  i  tenet  q>  fit  .Tlaj  boc 
ca(unece(fitatistenetur.  £>icrgo,puidtrc 
poteft  alter  ma  uttc  per  actum  alias  ibibituj 
libi  quanta  magts  puidere  poterit  uitc  fue  p- 
actum  fibi  a  natnralibus  inl'ituj  n  uidco  qre 
fmmo  dicit  nymundm  ia  fuma  de  neg.kcn 


4i8 


hrtM.f  fcd  ej*riwr  circa  bee  9  G  •fate 
ubftxrs  ipfc  monicbaa  ftccrc  deh  q*a  tnc 
ipk  nSobeJkt  bomini  lied  deo  .  vui.  dt.  quo 
iarc.  &oniera<j>dirit»minu8abb.in.c 
dcrid  oc  a{a  t  boocfbtc  clenconim  in  pe 


Cap.Ixxx\ti. 

£ptimo  qurritur  nunqntd  fno 
Itcoat  fie  fie  defendcrc  fine  tulTu 
Wmim  nideretur  g>  non.  Tlun 
actuafcruoium  pjona'rbjbenf 
nt.Lfcraos.C.ecrdnen.i  .Luis  ccrtia.ff. 
oc  iudi.  T  .l.fi  qnia  mibi  bona.^.imTum  .ft.cc 
acquircn.pof.  5n  contrarium  utdtrur.nl 
bodk  ntowfenorom  non  eft  in  poteftatc  to 
minonm  utJ-i.ff.Klna  qui  funt  fai  ncl  ilk. 
faria.  Confirmatur  nam  acme  naturales 
nonpoteft  DomiiWtotalitcr  inter  dicere 
fcruao  per  quomm  interdictioncm  fcruus  pe 
rat  ut.l.i.fup?a  p:ora'.r.So.at  fupti  px. 
Oictnm  eft  cc  monacbo.  t-on  dcrs  q:  be- 
nt loquitur  (noaiius  mcue.dicendo  9>  nde; 
dtfrj  nc  t  io  bic  Oari  ocbet  quc  Data  eft  fupia 
in  monaclw.qz  conutninnt  adinniccm  iced 
dum  bar  in.!.  cum  fundua.^.fcraum  in  fi.ff 
fi  cu.fx.uide  Jnno.in  at.cam  o!im  cc  pitni. 
uidclMr.m.l.i.fT.acftip.liriiojnm  tinj.li 
liber  bomoeode.ti. 

Ca.  IrxicviJL 

Ctauo  qucritur  rragd  fllis  qooe 
licicum  eft  cccidcrc  impune  ut> 
pott  binnitis.  ce  qutbua  ar.difx 
ponunt  legts.  municip.ilea  <f  in 
pone  offend!  pedant  ut  licitum  fir  fe  defends 
re.oidttar  9>  non.nam  Q  a  piiuato  iufte  infe 
ratnr  uiolencia  non  licet  fe  defender  c  ut.!. 
liii.rf.sn.l.acqMil.  3t  bic  iufte  inftrtur  .  qt 
kge  jutwii'jntc  ut.  l.iuftc.ff.  de  tcquiren. 
pot  Confirmatur  fiuiotntu  infcrjtura 
publiaperfana  non  licet  Ce  CxfcndereJf.Oe 
tniarJ.iniuriarum.^.t.ff.dc  rci'uenJ.qui  re 
(bruere  li.q.iii.qui  rcliftit.SU  iftc  bic  gerit 
nicempnbliceperfonc.Tlamlafacit  ipuitn 
miniftrum  pcrmittcndo  piuuto  ipTum  puni 
rc.£tOe  hoc  potcftkjc  dare  turildictioncj 
prfantont.Li  qaia.ff.de  iur^.iudi.i  in.c. 
i.ne  pjelari  nlcea  fnia  obi  ncurgo  infot1  buicr 
nonllceredefenekre.  Jncontranumui, 
detur  Q>  bk  eft  piiuitua  ymmo  i  fi  fo:et  po 
Wict  perfona  apparet  iniulh  iferri  uioientii 
cominferatur  tur  w  codinc  non  fcruato  i  fie 
contra  iuftkiamoidineattcn^ut.I^nela^ 
um.C.deftnteiUiiei.uquoniamdepw 
bat.  So.puto  ponder  jndum  uerba  legia' 
Him  aliqujndoU):  perm  L  ttit  aliquid  quod 
nullo  iure  p:ohibctnr  rxi.q.i.  bac  ratione. 
BUqoando  lex  permittic  aliquid  cont?a  con 
rtitutioncabomiMsat  contrabere  matrimo 


nium  In  qnrto  gttdn  mr.q.ra.qoedaiii. 
rercio  nodo  lex  permitt it  tolleraodo  n6 
e>  facie  acturaal  il!icitum.fed  ictumillici 
torn  mantntem  tllicirnm  non  punk  ut  dicit 
tes.tn.c.dent9>  iui.di.  Ham  comnwdentca 
carats  in  nocte  tominia  arnio  piiuu'non 
panontnr.i  dicit  tex.permitti.t.  non  pun  i 
ripiopttr  mnltitadtnerm  fandalumficut 
fif  per  mi  ttiru.  ad  ulterium  ut  uittnir  bomi 
cidittm  xr riii.q.Lfi  qd  utncria  i  tamen  ad 
ukerium  no  eftjicitii  p  lege  Tic  pmittete  fj 
actumancnteiUicitopenaremittitur.  feic 
in  pcwdro  fit  lex  pmittat  tolkrando  i  pena 
remtttcnda  actu  manetc  illicito  ppter  odia 
bannidunccrcdcrcmbinitolkoe  feOefc 
Ocre  ncc  babent  ar  ticulum  codudunt  fupia 
atr«a.Sin  autem  lex  pmittertt  potent  fax 
ciendoactumtKillicitoUcitnm  tune  (ecus 
i  ifti  modi  pmiittonia  no.pcr  gto.iii.dl.omtf 
autem  lex-Io.  t»5dtTa  quod  oixit  bar. i 
bal.in.l.ut  vim  ctiufti.i  iure  in.ii.coT.  £t 
pondtra  quia  uidttur  cp  pofTtt  (etxfendcre 
qaia  non  potfanr  ei  tolli  quc  funt  iuria  nUia 
fed  orfcnflo  eft  (uria  nilia  ck.pafto.'alia  tf  re 
iudi.ixboc  uidebar.in.Llibcrttt8.ff  oe  in  iua 
aocan.qoefequitur  fulgouidcwc.in.c.caj 
inter .ccexccpt.uidcqiKdixk  bar.in.l.oc 
pupilb  in.f  .i.ff  .QTopis  00.1  bar.in.l.fi  fide 
iuffiK.^.fi  ncttffaria.ff.qui  fitifdi-cogin.  ui 
Oe  doc. in. c.oilccti  except. 

CapJc. 

Jrcaqnintum  vj  contra  quoe 
competatboc  pticulare  beUum 
eft  uidendum  circa  qtf  qneritui 
Oepluribiw.  £t  pjtmo  querirur 
an  licitum  fit  alicui  refifterc  contra  utpioK; 
&nm  i  glo.in.l.ut  vOn.ff.Oe  iofti.i  iurc  die 
9>  non  p.Lqui  reftituere.ff.0t  reiocn.  i.l> 
iniin'iirum.^.i.ff.Ociniuriiapbattex.in.c. 
qui  rcfiftit.xi.q.iii.  £90  non  credo  q>  gl. 
timpfr  Oicat  im  fed  credo  diftinguendu"  aut 
con/tit  q>  iniufte  ajit  Sat  conftit  q>  iufte 
3ut  dubttiter.  t>rtmoafu  credo  refifteo 
dam  utj.ptoif  um.C.dc  tare  fifci.T.i.deuo, 
tum.C.O'nvta.li.r-  tttwcmitimccuali' 
quid  ex  offtcium  fuum  agit  ad  ipfii  fi  fpectao 
Secnndo  ctfa  non  eft  refiftendom  ut.l.qui 
reftituerc.ff.o'rei  ucn.i.l.iniuharum.$.u 
ff.dc  iniur .lertio  cafu  non  eft  reftftcndum 
nifi  fit  tale  factum  eft  non  poffit  poft  tempuf 
rcftiorari  nam  talia'facta  p»  infectia  baberi 
non  poffant  nt.l.in  bdlo-^.facto.ff.tf  capt. 
TIamin  talibus.UnbibcnaippcUarifltediffi 
nitinam  permittit  appellari  ut.t.antc  fnk  tc 
pus.tf  .quojum  appe.non  reri.  Iu  ponde* 
ra  quod  dixit  bar.in.l.ut  vim  in.ii.colr.de 
lufhcia  i  iure  T  ibi  bil.uide  notatl  in.l. pbl 
bitum.C.b  iure  fifci.Ii.T.i  ibi  bar.viek  aft 
fapicnterlocutuseftCj'.in.l.i.C.  nnde  vi. 
vide  Jonoc.in.c.fi  qndo  rf  offudclc  Jonoc 


4IQ 


in.c.di!eeto  de  fen  etco.1LtLgl.in.ccf  Ifif 
dtoffo  dele  vide  no.in.l.qm.C.(kjpptr. 

Ceprmlxxxx- 

£cnndo  qneru'gl  .tn.d.t.ut  mm 

quid  ft  index  ant  poteftae  aligd 

inittfte  agat'TUipondet  IDar. 

q>  non  cft'refiftendum  p.Unin> 

riarum .  f.i.ff  .oe  tore iuran.    £5  conuenit 

nugratum  Ourintt  officio  ft  eft  Oe  minoHb* 

uelfiniroofficiorufta:  maioribo8uUf.de 

iuai.l.fi  pare  If  arum  i.l.iii-ff.quoO  me.au 

"foancigki.nonputoneramin  facto  in  re 

parabil  i.pone  g>  index  in  uadat  me  nt  occt 

Dtt  i  eft  ee  maioribus.  nanqnid  expectsn^ 

dum  fit'tontc  ftniatur  orticium  nel  fi  eft  dc 

minorifaos  dcfaet  expectui  oonec  parigatai 

qnerelfl  coiam  pefidU  abfit  qi  alia  facra  ot 

p*diriin.t.mbello.$.fictcKcape. 

Ca.lxxxri 

£rcioqueritnrnunquid  licito; 

fit  filio  contra  patron,  uidetor 

q>  non.fttoptcr  ius  patrie  pore, 

ftattt.C.dc  patria  potef.  pier  to 

tarn.    Confbvnaturnam  non  licet  fiiio  co, 

tra  (e  ergo  nee  contra  patron  cum  cenfcan 

tur  nnaperfona.C.ddn  pu.-r  at  fuWHJ-ul. 

inftude  inurfi  ftipa.*.d  qui.C  .de  tgri.l 

cen.l.cum  fcimos  in  auc.de  iure  iuran.amo. 

pxfti.f  J.    3n  contranum  uidetur.  "Ham 

bee  Ocfenfio  peruenit  a  iurc  naturali  ut  p»u 

tutum  eft  .i  Jn  ttrcio  memtoo  pjincipali  nee 

aliqu  legt  repxtatom  nt  ibi  dtductu?  ergo 

patria  potefbitia  lore  cintti  intwcta  iliud  uif 

filio  compctens  non.tollit  cum  tura  naton, 

liaciuilifcus  non  tolUntarinftide  iurc  natu 

rail  gen.i  d$.natnralu.^.<!t.iu8naturale 

Solutio  dico  ff  Ti  patri  aliquid  agat  con 

tn  filiom  owi  igcndo  in  bis  que  pcrmittunt 

alurepatrkpoteftatid  ncncrceocndo^n 

Iioeitftliofc!xftnoerctqiibociu3cinil«9> 

tomtit  patriam  poteftatem  limitat  ins  natu 

rak  quod  fai  potert  ut.e.  dcductnm  e  -ftn 

aucem  pater  aliquid  agat  contra  hlium  cf* 

ccdendo  (ibi  conceiTi  ei  iure  pan  ic  poteftax 

tia.tunc  crtdcrem  Itcitum  tifc  defcndcrc: 

£t  bee  pKxcdun  t  in  filio  degente  in  potefta 

tcpatrte.}ncnunciparuautcm  minojcqo 

admductaincontririumpatct  Wuticpcr 

urn  dicta,    tu  ponder  a  quod  dtxk  bar.Ll 

at  aim  de  tuftun  iure.qui  uidetur  condade 

re  quod  pater  nerberana  filium  ocl  tominoa 

ferunm  pzefumkur  fxere  non  animo  in  iura 

di  (ed  antmo  co^ijen  di.  £  t  ideo  pzcTamidir 

aerbcratb  Ucita.i-ko  non  ell  licitnm  refife 

rcic     Sedqueftiocftqiuodoellctinlid 

t»  i  iandtnata  tone  appwbo  dirbnctionem 

ptoam  mei  i  portct  allegari  illud  quod  fcribi 

tar  ia  ar  jiucefto  fubkctne  K-c.di.fi  pater 


non babrtfilinmtnfiltum. ergo  filtua  earn 
nonbabebkinpatrero. 

CapTm  jcri. 

Oar  ro  qaero  nnnqirfd  monacbo 
boc  Uceat  cotra  abbate  iridctnr 
g>  non.TU5  monacbne  caret  vl 
batkme  udunratia  fine  lice  til 
abtatb  fuLsii.q.Lnclo  i.c.non  OicatieOe 
ftatn.monn.cnm  ad  monafterium.Sed  ifte 
actue  pucnit  er  3mplo  noluntatis  ga  poiTet 
aeUe.TUc  btc  interuenk  lice  t  ia  plati  ymmo 
tacit  i  facta  contradic  rio  qne  plus  opatur  aj> 
"fcalU-ff  JK  edfli  edicto.Lfi  tamcn.^.  ei  qd 
If  jot  Icgi.  Lcc  qnibus  in  ft.ee  appci .  c.  ad  andi 
entiam  i.cat nodrnm  T.c.oilccti.  COM 
ftrmatur  Tlam  monacbns  mojtaos  eft  mudo 
xvi.q-i.monacbi  T.c.placuitt  aiit.  ingrdfi 
C.0c  fee.  fenccccle.erso  (ibi  nan  competit 
•ctue  Deftnfionia  uitc  mtidanc.rf  n  confrin^ 
•pparet  .Tlam  ifte  actue  puenit  ex  iure  nali 
nutla  Icgc  pod  t  iua  reptobato  licet  modificato 
ergo  ro  txnegacu)  monacbo  qui  lies  tit  mot 
tans  ciuilita  in  iuribos  fnpn  alTatis.  SoTo 
fi  pidanis  contra  monacbnm  aliquid  atrip- 
tat  Oe  bis  qne  pmit  t  on  tur  a  iure  coi  in  corx 
rigendc  i  fimilibue  ud  ex  conftttuttonbie 
tadints  tune  monacbo  non  licet  refiftere  ym 
no  nee  boc  cafu  andietur  appellans  ut  de  ap 
pdlat.cum  fpali  i  -c.cum  piiox .  Sinautc5 
pxlatasaliqmd  atteptet  contra  monacbu 
in  bfe  que  non  pertinent  ad  offtcium  fnum 
iure  ucl  conftttutionhis  modifttanuti  rune 
Iket  (c  dcfcndere  nuxime  in  MB  qne  pwpter 
moiam  periculum  ingcrunt  utpote  (i  abbas 
monadwm  inuaderct  ut  ipfum  fubiro  occidc 
ret  quid  miri  cum  etiam  monacbum  Uceat 
tbbitem  impetere  accnftndo  ft  aliquid  cotr« 
debitum  agat  nt.c.  ex  ptc  de  accu&t.  T  .c. 
eumolim.e.  tt> 

Cap.rcui. 

Uintoqnerirnrminquidboclke 
at  fcrno  contra  domtnii  appuret 
g>  non  cam  poteftas  fitdomuii 
contra  (eruum  ut.l.i.ff -de  bis  9 
funt  fui  ucl  alie  iuri8 .  Confirmatur.  Ham 
fc7ou6  tenetur  dominnm  pklirantem  iaoarc 
•f  punitur  at.Lfi  quis  in  grani  ad  filf.  ergo 
ipfum  impugnare  non  potent  at  .c.  vno  de 
narisex  fib.ven.i.c.coneroerentede  reftL 
fpdi.ff.fi  feruif  «n.l.altiaaff.de  condLin 
de.Lfrater  a  fratrt  .xxti  .*-vna  tin  .xxr. 
di.c.ultra.XTUt.i.Wucftcr.ff.  dc  ftdemf.l. 
tDtoi.ff.de  admi.  tu.l.quotiens.  Jn  com, 
riumapparet.  Tlam  bodkreftricta  eft  po 
ttftas  dominoram  in  f  nos.LL(f .6  bis  g  font 
fui  ucl  alit  hjf  .Tlam  bodie  non  babent  potef- 
tatem  trucidaudi  nee  acriter  eo  s  affltge  di 
ergo,  ©oluriout  dictum  eft  de  monacbo 


420 


fico  ninne  ili^uiO  attnnptet  contra  fern* 
bifafaMpcrmittuntnon  licet  fcruuofcde 
fenderc/Him  in  hoc  timitantnr  JCWB  a  fare 
rutnrali  pwoenientea  i  hire  pofitiao  Itmiti 
tt  pot  eft  item  duoram  in  feruoe.  Si  rau 
ton  atttmpKt  liquid  nlrra  $  a  tare  pmik 
fan  dttnnc  fecua  qi  in  bia  lie*  fcrni  n5  But 
cognttiquoadnaturalea  qmliaeft  iftt.i 
bee  fotu'inror  confimilcs  qacftionca.  lid 
quid  uafalb  contra  wminum.  nuquid  difci 
pub  contra  magiftmm.ntiquid  militi  con.. 
tra  pjopofitum-miqnid  uxcui  contra  maru 
ru-n  unifcumc  folurionea  bluotur  ut  ft  attep 
cctur  qood  luayermittit  non  Uce  k  defendc 
x.&imotem  ultra  T  contra  inria  debituj 
rone  fecua  at  (iipM  ptenc  tactum  eft.  £f 
bia  bxniter  inltr  tur  contra  qooo  ex  regnli 
fopia  dicta  portent  qJnca  infinite  (blut 


qbus  liaat.     6t  piimo  circa  p 

Jbnaapoqmb'ritttcitut  pone 

in  dubitarom  pjo  defcnfi  Tut  ifv 

I5aahocpJctattex.inJ.utuiui.ff.ix  iu(li. 

i  hn-(.£  t-U.  f  -uim  ut  de  ui  i  ui  ar.f.I.utf 

(f  .ad.Uauil.i.l-fcientiam.^ui  com  aTr. 

to.  ti.  cUrc  in  cle.i.cc  bomkute  aliis  qucro. 

rupondcrabic  qocdixit  ptoioosmeoa 

i  bic  feq.capit.fcfliat  cc  marito  oga  uicne 

DC  fratre  t  aliia  coniimctis  :c.  nam  barrto. 

tangit  iml.utnim.lT.de  iuftt.n  tore  in  .iiil. 

coLfci  bal.uide  comtnom  sbbitem  in  ca^>ll 

ce  rcfU  i  fpolU  xii.coLuioc  glo.xiii.q.  viii. 

m  fummi.fi  t  uioe  Jnno.  in  ca.fi  aero  i  (en* 

ttndia  crcomuni.uidf  ibi  tominum  abbatt$ 

aliqaid  per  aominum  abbatem  in  cipitu.  tU 

rici  cr  uita  i  boneftatc  ckricorom  nt  tibt 

(it  moldlum.uide  oiobar.tn.l.tntffi.$.fi  to 

toiiitimtcua.ff.afufpcc.tuton  draft.  per 

eumibi.uide  birt!».in.l.  Itxccanelia.ff.&t 

inioriiB  uidc  bal  in.  l.raptojcs  in.  ii.co(.C. 

«  epi.i  ckri.uide  oominum  in  capitdo  dU 

kcto  DC  fentcn  excomnnf  .  Ifco  fexto  in  liii. 

coLUide  cy.luLi  fili.in.l.i.C.  ondeui.uu 

dc  angt.i.f  .iur.pKfepti  cc  tuftln  fareJbar 

baJ.fi  quis  in  kruitute.ff  At  furde  K. 

CapTm  xcv. 

rpiimoquero  Snliceatpatri 

pro  filio  ejpediendo  par»5  dnbic 

fine  argumentis  dictndom  o/  fie 

Him  pater  fJium  ut  fcipfu3  dilu 

git  ttt.Lifti  qmdon.ff  -9>  me.ca.nam  .ppter 

hue  ppetnatnT  ineanm.ff.K  ^.(kntlibeltea 

in  ft.ctiam  quia  una  pcrfona  ctnietiir  .C.  oe 

bnpu.t  tltta  fubfti.I.fuin  aat.oc  inreiorsn. 

amo.  p?<fti.in  p;in.i!ifttt.cc  inutfli  ftip.$.ei 

qncm  hoc  damn  ide  contri.C.nc  ffli'p  pre 


Cap.jccvt 

£cimdoqucritur  Tlonquidboc 

(iccat  nurito  ,p  uiccc  claru^  til 

9>  lie    11am  tniuria  axoria  feu 

UEOiiirrogttaefl  illati  marito 

i  imnriapactioObi  competit  ymmo-i  fjjofb 

ut.!.3tem  apoi.$.fponfum  .ff.  cc  imurtis  i 

marito  !ici turn  eft  occidere  uirum  repertom 

adulterantem  cum  uxox.Lmarito  i  .L.  ctpi 

re  quinto.ff.!X  adult. T.I.  graccua.C.t.  ti. 

ymmo  i  bbolantem  monttns  f  luri  ant  nee 

inctdit  in  canonem  fi  quia  fuadinte.x  vii.q. 

iiii.obboc  mittenamanus  uiolentaein  ctioi 

ut  .c.fi  oero.$.nec  illc  DC  fen.cxcoicat. 

CapT.jccvtL 

TI  lice  at  p  fratre  t  aliia  ccianc 

tia  pu tip. uta  pfojcse  i  aliia  per 

fboia-i  non  coniiictia  i  g(o.in.L 

ut  aim  .ff.Oe  iufti .  i  iure  Oictt 

pondera'ndam  atfectionem  allegat .  L  ifti 

quidem.ff.9>  me.ci.i  .1.1  .l.cum  feruue  .ff. 

mandati.    3  lii  uolunt  Dicere  o>  p  'om  nib7 

coniuncria  licet  q>,pbant  fie.    Ham  fi  quia 

iniuriatur  vti  coniuncto  omnibus  inutriari 

iiidctur  licet  non  compettt  aliia  inioriarnm 

actio  ut.l.Iex  ccvtxlia  in  pzin.ff .  Oe  iniortia 

Connrmatur  nam  pOcfenfa  renon  licet 

aim  ui  rcpd!cre.LL$.unde  ui  n  .l.iit^.cam 

igitur.tLsx  ui  i  ui  arma.i  Ikito;  eftuolcri 

uim  id  repellerc  p  Ocfenfa  rerum  amicoa  i 

conianttoeconuocareergolicitum  eftamL 

ci3 1  conianuia  iouare.  fc  t  fie  concludnnt 

pjo  non  coniuncto  tndidinfte  bcc  liccrc. 

"bee  opmb  confirmari  uuictui.flam  ho 

mobcmiiniorticiumdcbct.ut.l.cumfcruua. 

(f  .de  de  Itruis  expcu.ergo  ex  illo  eft  icio  iuua 

relket.    Confirmatur  per.l.  adttoe.C.dc 

appella-mtlia8per.l.non  tm.ff.  deappel.en 

am  e.ttrineuspjo  condentpnato  in  crlmini 

liappellat  ctiam  ipfo  noUnte.p^obatur  per.l 

iu.Cde  Uk.ca.    Daninua^a.bnUn.'.ut 

uim  oiltingmt  bunc  modunuBut  ego  ut  ego 

fine  mandato  iniuruti  uolo  defendere  iniuri 

atum  pcr.uiam  turia  t  poiTum  non  autem  fa 

Ui  i  fie  intclligii tur  leges  (bti  allegateadl 

toa  n  tm  T  .l.iu.C.de  hbe.ca.at  uo'o  boc  & 

cere  non  ut  ego  fed  madante  iniuriato  i  tuc 

podumetum  p  ubm  facti  ut.l.«ii.^.cu5  ffi 

if.Oe  ui  T  ui  trim.    3 Id  diltinguut  aut  illi 

erant  in  cpmfciam  iniuriam  pafTiipoflent 

tuncpoollare  iniuriam  pfone  eiua  flUcif*;  ar 

due  quod  n6.l.3tem  apud  labeonem.$.fi  cp 

uirgmcm.ff.oeiniuriia  at  non  nt  tenet  glo« 

indiftinctt  in  .i.i.C.un dc  ui  obi  Cpn'  bane 

opnionem  rccitat  in  antepenrdma  qltione. 

Slii  nt  Ja.Oe  ra.Oicunt  indiftincte  q>  licet. 

£t  ratio  Tlam  negocia  mca  porfunt  iuuari  p 

alium  ut.Li.ff .oe  neg.gc(t  iDuIto  fottm 

i  POM  umari  potent  cu  plboe  rebua  pfcrtl 


421 


nt.I.ficimtt8.C.&e  bcrobnc-ecdejITat  po 
aftLgnuMJCJt  adult.&i  dias  ibi  fuit 
filiud  Quit  pcr.Utfxr  bomo.ff.ad.l.  acqaif. 
Tlon  obftat.l.cufunda3.ff.  de  ni  T  ui  ar. 
11am  ibi  ex  internallo  ucluit  $>  non  licuut J 
ettjmperfe.    Ttonob(fatfmeu5.l.utvim 
ff.de  iufti.i  iurc  ubi  dicic  ob  tutelam  fui  cot 
pwis  ftnict  p.l.ft  funs  .ff.  de  feruia  expo?, 
"bane  opinionem  utdctur  fequi  C  p.  in.l.i.C. 
vode  vi  in  qde  ante  penfttma.    j  n  bia  tot 
n  tintojum  cvedzrem  pondcrandum  ga  mix 
tim  fwmaui  qoem  de  conjunct  is  i  cxnds  g» 
qucri  poteft.Sn  liceat  coniuncto  uc!  ex neo 
akeriujuiokntiamuirf  pollen:  licut  litcret 
pp:iam  quoad  autandn  pen!  irregularitatia 
f.lit  cUcua  oil  lajxua  boc  caiii  occidcne  ucl 
mutilano .  poteft  etUm  qucri  cc  utriufqj  an 
licitum  fit  ut  non  incidant  slum  pecuniam 
legia  ucl  canon  is.    feed  queramus  DC  pjio 
dtcocaruminclemc.fi  furiofuacc  bomici.lo 
Iitm  euitat  penam  inegularitatis.  (i  boc  raci 
atfeipfamtantumtnodoocfcndendo  nonau 
tern . i! ium  et bra  pat rom  uel  folium  bocpJOx 
bat  tcx.dken3.3dom  cenfemiu cc  Rio  9  mca 
tan  aliter  non  uiknaouOcrc  fuam  intcrfc 
cic  uel  mut i' am?  in  uab:cm  loquitur  *cc  Too 
non  autem  de  inuatee  altejiuj.lxc  ibietum 
not  a  glo-fuper  ucrbc  fuum .  £t  boc  calu  re^ 
puro  planum .    £  in  autcm  queramue  anli 
ccat  ut  uitentur  alt  •  pene  legate  uei  car.oU 
ce  i  tune  dill  ing*  out  loquitur  oc  pen  a  ex 
comuAicationis.£>i  boc  calu  percuciatcleri 
com  alteriua  ublcntum  ui  repclUndo.  tune 
dico  cum  7nno.<|>  ft  defendat  potrcm  mvem 
uxcoem  haam  ucl  oliam  euadit  pcnam  excox 
nuKationtsallcgatiple.l.irti  gdem.ff.  quod 
me.ca.n  .lege.i.  v<-li  uir .ff .  id  fill'.    £t  eft 
ro  diiferentic  inter  bane  caium  i  pzccede te 
Ham  irrcguliriter  contraUtur  et  115  fine  do 
lo  tit  cd  uidcrc  in  iudke  iuftc  occidi  madat  e 
l.fei  qui  in aliquo led  in  excoUatoe  in  ilU; 
cail.lata  requiritnr  diabolica  inftigatio  uc.c 
fiqaia fuadentcrvii.ci. mi.     3n  ejctraneia 
aucem  non  euadit  penam  illiua  canon  is  i  tiaj 
limiricanundatoinmraribccfocuift.  But 
loquimur  de  alia  pt na  plonali  uel  pecuniary 
i  tune diftinguc.3ut  uolcntco  vim repellef 
a  uiolentia  paifo  funt  coniunct  i  »ut  extrinci 
mcouitictiddicutwglo.in.l.utuim  Oiudi. 
n  iuru  ctiam  limttando  p.l.tn  piiuatis.ff.de 
iudi.i.Llex  cm.ff.de  iniuriia  in  pin.  3ut 
loquimur  de  exntis  n  tuc  aut  illi  extranei  t* 
rant  deputarip  comitiaa  uiolentiam  paifi.t 
tune  licet  ot.L    ?tcm  apud  labeonem.$.fi 
quid  v-jinem.ff  .dc  tniuriia.Hut  non  erant  b 
putati  p  comitiua  i  tone  aut  uoluerunt  ex 
intcruallo repeUcrc  i  no  pfit  ut.I.  oi  fundu? 
ff .0'  t  n  vi  arma  ga  nee  ipfc  fie  piofria^  re* 
pellere  poflct  i  boc  dcftnta  hctu  Derenfam 
autem  uirie  ctiam  polTtnt  ex  inter uallo  face 
re  obi  iura  boc  permit  tut  ut.Lno  tm  de  apel 
'  pboc 


non  poto  uc«m 
Oicit  op  indifti  ncte  tcfcnfi  iurie  bcere  pfit. 
Cafos  in  quibua  tertio  non  licet  accoem  Tea 
•ccufarionem  fpcmerc  ptointurtoum  palto 
tolle  exemptum  regularitcr  in  p:iuat  ia  odicx 
tis.Sic  ergo  folu5  ubi  iura  pmittun  t.Sin 
autem  uoluitincottnctircpcllcre  tiic  oiftig 
uerunt  cum  Oomino  3aco.aut  uocantur  per 
uiolentiam  palTum  t  tune  licet.  11a5  tic; 
uiolentiam  paffoaduocare  amices  ptx&nla 
rerum  ut  li.iii.£.cnm  igitur.ft'.x  ui  i  ui  ar. 
ergo  ,p  Oeicnfa  pfone  qne  pponderat  ut-l.lax 
cimos.C.Oe  fic.fanc.ecck.aut  non  3duo> 
cintar  1  tune  licet  tex.eftin.c.&ilectot>e 
kn.exco.li.vi.p  boc  facial  .xxiii.q.iii.  non 
fnfcrenda  t.c.ftntitudo  t>e  fcntcn.  excoic. 
qnante  faciut  n*j.in.Uii.C.t>  conuer.t  mcr 
ou£t  lie  in  boc  credo  vam  opinione  opi-3a. 
de  ra.tex  eft  in.  c.dilccto  .1b  dick  ibi  tex. 
Ham  cum  liceat  cuitibct  fuo  okino  ud  fxio 
f  repeUcnda  ipriue  iniuria  fmi  Igtiri  aujciliu 


Oartciqoen  tar1  quiauidit  quern 
occidi  nifi  iuuct  ipfum  an  tenea 
tor  ijjfuj  tuuare  .uioetur  fie  per 
l.necjre.ff.oc!fo«.ag»o.  Co 
firm.mir  boc  ex  offtdo  quod  octet  bcmo  l»x 
mini  ut.I.  fi  feruus-tf-Ocfcruiscxpo?. 
*boc  cofirmat  ur  ."Ham  errot  cut  n  reftfiitur 
•ppTobari  uidet  lxxxiii.di.erro?  n  ca.coion 
tire  i  ca.quod  enim  3n  ccn  trar  iam  uidc 
tur.llam  licitum  eft  alicuf  pxcium  redpcre 
ut  metum  illatu  altcri  excntiat.ff  .quod  me. 
ca.l.metum.$.(ed  licet.  Confirmatur  naj 
In  cadbas  quibufdam  boc  eft  (p  ale  q>  quis  te 
neatur  alium  fie  luuare  ut.ff  .ad  fiUU.i.$.boc 
intern  i  .l.p..C.eo.ti.crgo  contnrium  i'  co 
muiK.ff.adminU-i.n.l.iniin  ft£ulare.ff.d 
Ugibus  glo-tenct  q>  iuuare  tenetur  uobo  A 
fiao.rcguU  non  culpa.de  regulis  iurkllec 
obftat  9>  dcbet  bomo  bomini  q?  debet  fine  pe 
rienlo  fui  at.Lbabet.ff.de  opc..liberto.i.U 
ncpoeprcculo.ff.Ocutrtw.ftgni.  lupon- 
dera  ca  quc  fapienter  loquutus  eft  bar.  in  re 
gnxulpa  de  reg.iurw  i  bar.in.l.  u^.fcd  ft  C 
ff.ad  fdlo.ange.in.$.iur.pKcepta.  ff.de  tax 
fti.i  lore,  aide  ca.quante  Oe  fen.  crco.do. 
abb.  i  ea-i.dc  offi.dele.in  ii  col.i  n  fimili  uide 
gto.in  fiJxxxvLdi.aideca.negligere  ii.q« 
x  u.cum  glo.eum  ca.lcq.uide  pc^ncba.in.c. 
i.de.confcf.li.\i.bar.in.l.ut  uimin  penult. 
ecLdeiuftii  Jure, 

Caprmxcviiu. 

Uinto  queritur'de  him  qui  tcne 
tur  aliid  uiolentiam  p:o  puliare. 
t  circa  Ixx  querif  de  pluribus. 
£t  piimo  de  uafallo  i  non  e  du 
Warn  qj  ten  Jt  or  iuuare  comioum  ar.prdit 

d 


422 


.  _ 

end  •ni.ta.ctpjfc*  neon  'ci  S  -  item  cj 


OpTmc. 

£  cun  do  queritur  5  fc  ruo.£  t  <J> 
rcnnrur  iuuare  tombing  e  rex. 
in.l.pjima.  $.bec  oncem.ff.ld 
HT.C.eo.I.uitim«. 

QftocJ 

£rcio  qoentiir  dmflire  1  9>  tdf 
•car  iuuare  pjepofitu  belli  fi  po 
teft,alii8  capirc  pnnirur.eft  rex. 
i  n.l  .omni  cdictuj.ff  .  OC  re  mi. 


CapTmcfL 

Uirtoquentur  natal?  aid}  to* 
minam  inmfum  ct  pane  una.t 
pacrem  ex  alia  utercy  parircr  eft 
in  moitis  jxriculo  nifi  iuuetur. 
nee  iuuare  potcft.nifi  alterum  quern  imubit 
patrem  an  flominum  gio.que  eft  xxiii.q.Y. 
K  forma  dicit  q>  oafsllus  tcnctor  imure  10 
minum  conrra  filium  popiium  indacit  q:  fl 
liiw  tenet  ur  path  iure  naCurc.  seed  nifall' 
somino  uinculo  iuramcnti  ut  in  ufu  feu  quc 
foiC  p:ima  caula  bene  amit  .capitulo  quinto. 
no.  £  t  fecondum  hoc  fcuct  otcifa  queft  io 
tp  ttneretur  iuuarc  cominum  cut  plueafti  i 
git  ur.  3n  bic  qucftione  dtcerem  contra. 
r  mm  et  moucot  ex  boc.  Ham  filiiw  tcnetur 
pitri  ex  uinculo  tutursli  ex  quo  ob  eo  pwge 
nitud  tenetur  i  uincnlo  citiili  (\i  fubcius  po 
tclbte  pstria.Uafalliw  autem  romino  tene 
tur  uinculo  ciuili  tantum  ut  pxdicto  capita 
bccfoJma  xiiu.queftioix  quint  3.^5  duo 
uincula  uincunt  unum  in  «uc.oc  confagu.i 
orcri  frttribns  in  piicpio  ergo  conftrmatur 
rat  lone  p7iaiiCitidobligitioni3.  TUm  p:iiw 
t  ft  irinculum  paternum  uinculo  tuminico. 
ergo  piimo  ipfum  tuuarc'tenctur  ut.l.pociot 
i.Lqui  tulneum.ff.qui.po.in  pi.ba.Confir- 
nutnr  raramenCu  pidtini  ualallo.itelligitur 
laluo  uinculo  pxcedentinaiusalren  qoeHx 
Com  no  tollkur  per  (coidarn  ohUgatione  at 
dictj.I.q  balnea  a  .l.potku.Conrnutur  per 
u^xticio  DC  iurc  ioran.na  uiradp  dnob  ipj 
imtido  no  intclligitur  iurafle,'£~  k  qoomin' 
tapfam  inner  $&jminuqj  bee  [niacariri*. 
Bt.Lp«lta.Cde  fcrui.  Qtd  pater  c  eade  p 
(OM  oi  filio  inriffkt  ione  ut  .Lultuna  ui  con 
cordtiuC.de  impu.i  «T  I'ubfti.crgo. 

CapTmciii. 

Uintp  qncrknr  pone  cleric'  epj 
fuu  uidct  in  utfam  ex  una  parre 
alia  ote:qi  parirer  c  in 


moitis  picufo  nifi  imct  nee  ianaf  poterit  ni 
I  alrerri  qoe  tomtit  tpi.an  pa.car  Jxfti.i.c. 
grauem de excef.pjdi.arsnit  uterqii  put 
ibi  ponicnr  plus  aftringunar  patribue  fpuali 
boa  $  carnalibusp  bac  ucir.c.ii.  dc  trjf  a. 

&i  i!U  opueft  &  UuCa  eft  queftto.Sed 
tanen  in  bic  qadtioue  crido  ut.e.pximj.q 

Jadaco  capitnlion  fide  poftn.  11am  iU 
dicic  t ex. y  ft  pcftukurr it  contra  eccletum 
t  non  pra  futs  pcrdit  beneficium  ergo  acon^ 
trariis  p  fub  poflet.  3  nducoj^pttit  io  dc 
iure  luranonduccndo  ut.e.pibna  qiKltione 
tnduxi.  £c  aciant  motiuaJ^pxinu  qucftw 
indocta  i  gloin  ciilpietatum.xxx.  queftioc 
iiLfaper  Au  multomigia  taut  g>  in  eifxbiti 
one  tcmpoialium  magid  tenentur  patricarx 
nati  qtum  (pirituali.  5n  exbibitionc  autC5 
reucrentic  econtra.5dfm  no  dojcxx.du  j 
f  itiant  que  noJxxxvi.Di.ne  fatto  i  capitu- 
loqukfcamoejlu.di. 

OpTmciui. 

Uu  uit'um  eft  fupja  boc  membro 
3n  Tpgb'pfowliccatbocfacl 
lum  mdicere.Tlunc  autcm  fubfe 
qucnter  queritur  an  i  p:o  rcbuf 
tcfcndtndis  licitum  etiim  fit  hoc  bdlu  indu 
ccre.e  t  clra  boc  qucruur  oe  pluribud.£c 
pjimop  rebus  iufttportenw.£t  txbia  non 
eft  oubnim  tex.e  tn.Ui.C.unek  ui  ,ptuc  in.l 
iii.^.fi  quid  autem  *-ccm  i$jtur  af  ell.ff.0e 
ui  i  ui  arma.  i  .c -o!im  Oe  reltit u  Jpoli.  £u 
ponders  <j.  dixie  bar.in.l.uc  uim  dc  iufti.i 
iure  in.ui.coir.uidc.d.abb.in.c.rigniftcalli. 
e.l.ii.de  bomici.ln  prin.  1 1bidem  in  quarto 
cof.in  fi.uidc  bar.in.l.ul$.cum  igit  .ff.d  ui 
i  uiarma.uide.eLabb.in.coUm  dereftufpo 
Uin.it.cof.i  in.xi.coT  ic.  i  in.l.tiii.rf.jd.l 
aquiliam  uide.d.afab.«.c.fufcepitnua  de  bo* 
nuct.i . d.abb.in.c.ude  uita  i  bo.  clericof 
in.ii.cof.tur.in.Lunui.cof.C.undt'uu 

Cap.cv. 

£cundo  queritur  9  n  ,p  reb*  in 
iufte  poildfo  boc  liccat  glo.in.U 
i  .C-urnk  ui  boc  cractac  i  mdet 
g>  tun  t  ^crario  fcnlii  illim  tcx. 
g>  eft  nriidu.n  argumcncum.l.i.$.  buiua  rd 
de  off -eiaa  i.c.uef  dc  conuerfi-coniugu  i 
c.bofpiciofum  xxii.difti.  3n  contrinum 
uidet  p  rex.li.i.$.qui  ui.ff .  de  ui  i  ui  arma. 
i.l. cum  fundam.e.ti.T.l.ii  cumucceptionc 
$.pediud-ff  .}>  mv.Cft-SoTo  p  bic  Icgu  appt 
rtnti  conrrariectce  g'o.in  dicta.l.i.dat  pbj^ 
reafofow.  I>itmft9>ibifubjiulitnuixime-i 
Cue  ccifac  contrarium  quia  et  iam  pio  uiciofc 
podclTione  Uut.&eoido  <f  iungatm  phnci 
pium.l.cum  fi.ut  dicit  roe  licet.  &cd  tune 
obflat  cj>  dicit  lex  in  mcdio  Tim  uicro.  f  cilia 
9>  iafte  portidcri  lemper  licet  Sedukiofc 


423 


potfidenti  non  licet  fcmpc.tllm  It  tomitms 
inccn  tinenti  ucntat  non  licet  niciofo  poffeffo 
ri  fibi  refiftcre  ut.l.iii.tf.cum  igitur.ff.de  ni 
i  ui  armi.   Quarto cxponcndo  ratione.i. 
non  ui  no  clam  no  preario.i  hoc  no  placet 
g!o.£>ed  ta.ix  raJeqnitur  etim  quanta  ad 
cum  qui  milt  piopulfare  at  fi'uioun  tia  infera 
tur  ab  co  a  quo  niciolb  poiTtdet.liat  in  con  ^ 
tbientinoaurcmexintcruallo.  .feiautgb 
alio  uictoic  potfidat  tune  quandoy  liceat  i 
hoc  eft  quod  dicit  t  ex .  9>  tfwtrfus  extrane* 
os  uiciofa  portertio  poOdbff .  (i  fcrui  uenJLIo 
d  c«pOa.$.compait.bic  otoetar  fentire  ia 
to.damdelT.imim  portetfoJem  UtitiQ  fit  mibi 
appdkre  fi  a  me  ctsm  portidest  qz  clamdefti 
na  poffcrtio  eft  uicioCa  dtftdc  acquueapoff . 
l.cum  qoia.    t>robac  opi.facit.lJi  le  runa 
(i.t  cum  eo.mncopi.uidetur  (entire  sJofam* 
If -DtuportlLLf .  inter  dicti^J  n  medio  mg 
neigifiirnectamenooloK.    Dpibitenc, 
tur  contrarium.cu5  Icge  hoc  reperiitur  CM 
turn  q»  clamdeftinum  potfeltctfem  licea  t  mihi 
e  xpeKere.     C>r  imo  dicit  lex  nun  ui  repdkx 
re  liceat  Scd  qui  cltm  tngrcditur  no  infcrt 
mm  cum  different  damdtftims  cltmddht 
i  .uioUnu  nt.I.clam  pofftdere.f .  id  nudiw 
ff  .K  Kqu  iren^wf.    3n  pccar  io  autem  pof 
fefToic  pnxc'derct  i  p?occdcre  poffet  opinio. 
u.poft  ocncgatam  rd^tutionenuTlam  tune 
cnim  uidetur  [pofare  coninum  ut  no.in.l .ui 
cu.  C .  DC  acquiren.polT.     Jn  bac  opLuarie 
tite  credtrcm  fecundum  (o.glo.lbx  uerara. 
quam  etiam  (cquitor  pe.K  bcila  ptia  in  dci 
l.i.etm  taaien  fie  impltstndfl.Sut  ergo  udcf 
utm  pjopullwe  iufte  pofildeo  aut  iniuftc.fei 
tuftc.3ut  uolo  in  cont inenti  i  turn modcri 
mine  in  tulpate  tutclc  i  pofliom  ut  dtcta.lx 
f.uim  ui.tf.oe  ui  i  oi  tr.  9ut  ex  intcruaHo 
i  tune  non  poffam  ut  in.$.fi  quis  autem  v. 
ei  iytur  oe  un  ai  trnu.     Sccundo  foll- 
cet  minftc  pofflCxo.  d  ut  poffidco  i  iulle  •  te 
comtra  qu*m  aolo  uim  p?op^tirt.«ut  ab  afo 
fi  *  u .  tone  mi  t  ui  aut  (uecirio  lut  ckm.fi  ui 
tune  ant  (latim  uente  uf  recuperes  i  non  (i 
cec  miM  ra&tn  i  fie  inreliigatur  .i.pjtma 
a  eontrario  fenfu.  Unde  ut  T  ui  Icge  piima. 
£t  iltc  eft  vue  1  KCDIB  iHtcUectus  illius  (1 
benepodfretunacuallegitig  in  contririu 
Sin  autem  uenis  et  interMllo  non  licet  r<' 
cupcrcre  tuctniute  popiiajmuno  inddcref 
in  ptnwnJ.fi  qua  (n  tantMi£.umk  ui.£t 
mtdlise  ex  inter uallo  ut  no  .gjo.ff .oc  ui  T  u< 
ir.l.iii.f  .cum  igitur.    &in  lutem  nopof 
Tidco  ui  (td  pKcario  tune  poll  ocncgitam  re 
ftinuioMm  Udtnm  eft  tix  in  contintn  ti  uij 
ui  reptile  re  nee  Ucet  mix  refiftere.  Ham  ne 
&>ndo  utieoz  fpoliare  ut.l.uicia.C.a:  acgrt. 
p  j.6t  tune  ptoccdit  9?  aim  ui  repcllcrc  lictx 
at  ante  autem  octugatam  non  p?occderet. 
licet  poiTct  reoocare  pxcarium  ut.Ucum  pie 
uriumff.KpKcaria.     ©in  autem  poflix 
dco  dam&ltinc  a  K.I  tune  quicquid  diuc 


filo.in.l.t.C-unJeuuCredotamen 
tun  fit  ticitnm  tibi  me  repelkre  fed  licet  tL 
bi  ingudi.i  ft  te  no  admifero  i  tune  fit  uio 
Un  tia  «t  .Lclam.  ^.qui  td  nundinae-ff  jtf  ac 
quiren.pof.T  tune  piocederet  5>  uim  ut  re  ^ 
pellere  licet,  fein  autem  non  poJfldco  ui 
dole  ate  fed  a  tercio.tunc  licj  milx  contra 
teqmndocuqjuiolcntemmibi  uidentumin 
ftrre  uim  ui  repellere  ut.LfuIcinuw  .^.  o/  (I 
8dueriu8.ff  .es  qui.ca*in  pof.ea.  Tooc  Oixi 
faluo  iudicio  i  tot  i  tantoznm  fuper  hoc  du 
bb  difpntant  ium  fubickndo  die  t  o  quonicwy 
eonrectionibue  ^itatem  pqmrentibm.  tu 
pondera  ea  quc  p:e  Jicat  bar.in.Li.C.  \ndc 
m  i  allt  doctbi  ni  tun  tur  aliquid  cjcpiimcre. 

CapT.«U 

£  rt  b  queritur  uim  oi  rcpdkre 
circi  res  fuaa.Si  ccringat  uim 
rcpeUentcmoccidere  uelmotiU 
reniminfcrentemeuitet  penam 
irregulaririti3.tr  p:imo  ubi  hoc  racist  cum 
moda"amine  inculpate  tutele  g>queftio  pee 
datirnonpcederctqutftio.  tt  uidetur  q» 
cutter.  Ttam  p  defcnts  perfone  cuirat  i  pc 
ram  illam  1  alios  i  in  clerii.fi  furiofus  de  bo 
mi.crgo  pJo  defend  reru^,  probatur  ?fcqnt  i* 
llam  inra  pmi  t  tent  ia  uim  ui  repetlere  parlfi 
cantperibnamrebneqaiaHtrocB  cafu  licet 
ur.l.i.Coidv  ui  i.l.i.^.uim  ni.ff.  de  ui  i  ui 
ar.i  .Lfcia  j.  ^.q  cu  aCr  4f.»dJLao,r.  Jn  ?triti 
fflcitdcaclcm.fifuriofustibcxnici.  "nam 
ibt  tcjrtusftrictc  loquitur  Qi  occafione  ud 
mntilatbncocdfoiisfui.ftbanc  credo  ue 
ram  i  moueca  ex  boc  .nam  irreguUritatem 
eontrabit  quis  occidendoud  muttlindo  fifi 
Colo  ut  patet  in  ludicc  li.di.de  hike,  ficut 
dignumOclJomici.T  ca.fenteutiam  nedc.C 
mo.i  ca.in  arcbiepifcopatu  de  rap.  Qui 
ergo  occidens  qualitcrcunc^  irregularia 
cfhdtur  nifi  in  caJibus  exccptie  i  lure  cu  igi 
tur.excipiaturcaluaccfcnfe  mtdligcrecrtx 
mus  ilium  cafiun  ftricte  i  modificite  ut  iue 
excipitur  ut  fit  ius  ex  c«bian8.£  t  lie  ftric^ 
te  mtelligendum  ut  regula  qw  a  iars  dc  re 
gK.iurisU.vi  'Dondera  ea  quc  dixit'co. 
abb.  in  ca.olim  DC  refti.1jpoU.in  xi.col.in  fu 


Qarto  queritnr  an  y  fcbus  luia 

uim  ui  repdlando  contra  cjeri- 

cum  incidat  in  cxcomunicatio*. 

ncm  manua  inidtnde  appar;  Q> 

(ic  per  can.fi  quis  fuodentt  xxi.q.iiii.ica. 

nuper.com  ibi  no.K  (entcmcxcomunjca. 

ConSrmatur  nam  incidit  pcnam  irrcgu^ 
Uritatia  u  t  fupja  poxima  quefticne  .ergo  t 
bane  cum  ambe  fin  t  pe  ne  fpiritualea  i  fad  , 
lius  quis  inciDat  excomunicat  ioixm  §  irre 
Bularttattm  ut  claret  £  o.irtiw.in  ca.cll5 

d) 


424 


tc  refti.fpo.tenet  $  non  hddaf  ctconwri 
citiouem  mm  ut  rtpellendo  iaT  manna  non 
inickndo.T1am  poilit  mm  ui  rtpellere  i  hoc 
f  jcit  com  modcramine  inculpate  turtle.  blc 
opinioncm  credo  unrjm  i  motKojqjutqa 
incidit  in  excomunicatipnem  per  m«ni»  in 
itcrtonem  in  ckricum  uiofcntam  ixbet  lub- 
effc  diobo'ica  infpimtio  pwbaf  tcx.infuaden 
tcdfaboloitu.q.iiii.  6t  fllxnrdifcurris 
periarainfligentiapenam  ercomuniutijia 
pjoptcr  minum  in  kctam  no  innenlee  g>  mi 
aw  in  kcts  in  clericu  hoc  cafu  aliq  tf  nuu? 
cc  <jb'  tun  eipjimut  lie  puniedo.  ni  iura  pa 
niunt  manum  uiolentam  ut  dicto.c.fi  90  TIM 
dcntt.r  vii.q.iiii.i  Otfin.trco^i  fofii  bee 
non  eft  tilts  pmmo  eft  iiioletk  repultom  pu 
nicnettmcrarhm  utin.c.contingit  8'  fen. 
crcouloic  non  eft  talia  jmmo  diftricta  lege 
permittenre  puniunt  qiufi  uiokntam  manus 
at.c.nup.e.ti."b<c  eft  ucn  nunus  i  pmilta 
puniunt  uoccmuit.c.umucrlltat  w  T  cd  man 
dinrur  pcuri  i  .c.quU.e.d.H.vi.pur.iunt  a 
nimum  ut.dicto  c.  cum  quls  ut  cum  rafum 
bsbct  fuo  nomine  Ivctttm  punianr  ncglf  ftu^ 
at  a.quinte  rode  titulo.hk  nibil  cc  pcdic 
tie.  3d  nlkyitt  in  contrtrium  fade  c  re 
foondcrc  ad  capitulum  ft  qnis  fuadcntc  eft  » 
fponfum  per  fopra  dicta  ad  id  quod  Of  de  ir 
regabriratecbn  eft  ratio  difference.  Tli 
ercomunkationem  nemo  incidit  fiue  to!o  ir 
regulariratcm  fie  de  quo  dicit  ut  no^Jo.i  de 
mcn.ftluriofaafepiusillegitiin  penultima 
do.  Cx3nd£ra^dititabb.inca.riiu:rod 
fentcn.excominl.in  fi.tlide  plenc  pcj  tomi 
num  abban  ca.olim  de  rcfli.fpoli.i  xti.col. 

Ciplni  c  viiu 

CGnto  qoeritur  in  Ikitum  fit  p 
repjlfart  ublentie  drcareaad 
ooctre  amicos  i  cis  licitum  fit 
fubTidlum  impendere  glo.in.l.iii 
f.cam  igimr.fi  .d<ui  i  uisrma-notar  ?>  fie 
etiim  illicit*  uioUtia  in  rtbue  i  bane  credo 
neron  i  moxot  rum  ut  dicunt  iura  licitum 
eft  obMit  crroii  obi  oboitfe  potcft  aTno  ob 
•ians^fcntire  uidetur  liinii.di.(rroj.i.c 
qui  ftntit  cam  ft  .or  go  licitum  amkie  i  hoc 
buarc  pioiimu  iou  ur.g.dictn  eft  quia  hoc 
paoacnit  es  raoia  cirkatis  at  can.primof 
de  pe.di.ii.£  t  ft  hoc  licitum  i  ftati  foluitur 
qo  qj  qn  ponit  incidit  in  exco.nunu  inidcf 
InciericdficniokmiapjopuKJnOopJorcb' 
pjorimiquuruon  incidit  cum  no  fit  aliqua 
de  pnans  i  ctnone  ymmo  e  ptrmWa. 


nis  que  ualit  bahcre  bona  at  exdodam  foot 
monKfooe.i.rtmilea  fttco)  ttnun  9>  moderi 
mine  tutdc  diucjfiScaji  Octet  attcnta  oaria 
plbne  qualitiCe.lUffl  tT.1  mitioe  ?»a  pfem 
$  pcnitus  cxneum  T  fie  Ot  Pingulia  qoe  ?(L. 
Dewnda  ucnitet  tnfpcctts  Tingulia  cuollbn- 
tfla  cum  non  fmt  hoc  i«J£  limitat  i  ur.LL  id 
fi.ff  .b  we  Oclibe  i  .c.o  uuTte  \S  off  i.Ockgi. 


£  pttmo  quer  itur  B  n  p?o  rcbua 
Dcpofit  ia  i  comodatis  fit  licitn* 
utm  ui  repellere  t  uidetur  g>  no 
p.l.i-C.undc  ui  quo  loquitur  de 
podelfts  i  iufte  K  bee  non  poiftdentur  p  Oc 
pofitannm  ucl  comodatarium  ergo  non  licet 
in  bb  utm  ui  repdlerc.SoTo  in  bis  T  firibua 
oendicat  iibi  locum  q>  [(cat  uim  ui  repellere 
Tbm  p  tatibos  iudiclum  ui  Ixno.raptof  ?pe 
tit  Oepofitario  oc!  commodarario  ft  bee  Pint 
raptaut.t.ptetotait  Qucefttcrtiakr.$4 
in  bac  acrionc  .if  .ui  bo.raptozu  erjo  multo 
nugtaipAs  conceditur  Kfcnfa  ut.l.inuit.^. 
cut  Dam'.ff  .sc  res.iuris  i  .I.una.ff  .oc  fonte 
1  regula  quid  ad  agendum  K  reg.iur.  !L  vi. 
£  tiam  quia  iiti  tenentur  ergo  non  obftat  .1. 
i.C-unde  ui  quk  lie?  loquatur  in  potTcfTione 
non  tollitur  tamcn  quo  minus  in  aliistxtcn 
tttiapquibusiura  octentantibus  actiones 
pceduntut.e.  Uel  die  <?  ibm  poffidere 
fumitur  large  nt  implicit  iuftaj  octctationc 
ut.l.officiu  o"  rci  uen.i  no.in  ca.piitoialw  c» 


Crtoqucrittr  anp7orcbt»(it 

Udtum  contra  omnea  mm  ui  re 

pdkre  ?m  q«oa  Utitum  eft  pro 

' 


CapTmcxi. 

Jrci  fcprimum  pnnciparr  qoeit 

turn  uidelicet  qualiter  uim  ui  re 

pcllere  tamcu  com  modcraminc 

.inculpate  tutek  i  buic  rcfpodj 

tejc.in.l-i.C.  vndk  ut  9>  Ucet  commoderiy 

mine  inculpate  tutele  i  boic  rttdet  tcx.in.L 

t.C.vnde  ni  9>  licet  mo&raminc  inculpate 

tutele  led  reuoutur  in  Ouhium  quid  uclint 

bcc  vba  boc  eft  que  Tint  ilia  que  rcquirut  ad 

hoc  moderomcn  doc.comuiter  dtoit  cf>  funt 

ilia  que  tquiuaknt  illate  uiokntie  in  qualita 

teormorum  T  concurfu  temporis  .3tcm  eg 

uilcnr  inipfoactuulolentoncaliaotxUB^ 

dcnda  ccnfcarur  utndicta. 

CapTmcxii. 

£d  circa  bee  dubitat  ur  an  licet 

vili  1  dtbili  cum  enfe  (c  dcfcndc 

re  contra  fo;  tern  i  robulbim  pu 

to  titumodo  pcmicntem.videt 

Of  fie  quia  equilitas  ubiqt  eft  ponderandj  ut 

Lfi.C.de  fruc.i  ltt.expen.i.l.rictt  dka.ff. 

de  arbi.1  regula  in  iudiciie  li.vt.3n  contra 

rium  uuktur.Hi  ft  qou  uiotentcr  unit  mW 


425 


fubripe  i  egoutribuacapwie  tmpar  ipfum 
percurio  cum  enle  nou  impune  licet.  Tlsm 
fcret  compenfatio  corpwis  .id  rem  9>eiTcn 
ddxt  ut.l.altima.C.de  foc.fanc.ecck.  3a. 
de  are.dift  igutt  aut  quia  uult  ppulfare  aiolc 
tiam  Ulatam  perfonc  aut  iliatas  rcb'.  friimo 
cafu licet  i  cum armis i  quaUtcrcaq;  fires 
aiiter  rcpari  non  poteft  ut.l.fi  quos  .C.  de 
appelT.  llain  fi  poftum  occidere  furem  ubi 
noo  cognofco  %  polTit  mibi  in  rebus  furatis 
per  iadicem  pjouideri  ut.l.nire.rt.ad.l-a». 
de  ficca.lDultomagis  licet  occidere  ubi  per 
foiu  alitcr  falua  cfl'e  non  polflt.£ecundoca 
fu  quando  ulata  eft  rebus  tune  aut  uiolentia 
rebus  tllita  pottft  per  warn  iudi  cii  rcparari 
tune  non  licet  qual'rcunq;  jrmmo  cum  quali 
tate  armozum  non  autem  factwum  quia  non 
debeo perfcnam  pcrcutere  p  uiolentia  facts 
inrepdtfcnfionerei  ubietiam  alitcr  fatal 
cite  non  pofTet  dtitnodo  p  viam  iudicii  repari 
pofiit.Snnautem  per  iudiccm  non  poteft  re 
parari  tune  licet  quiltterciiq-i  defendere  eti 
am  perbnam  occiderc  ut.Lmre.ft.ad.l.cor. 
De  ficcav.fit  fie  inteiligirur.l. unj.C-unb  d 
i  .Liii-f  .cum  igit'.ff  .Oe  pi  i  ui  arm.  £k 
igif  tntcliige  moda jmine  iculpate  tutek  tr 
qualitate  armoJian  i  facto:um. 

CspT-criil 

£  cundo  queritur  Circa  pcurfom 
temporia  quia  Oicunt  tex-9>  ds 
fieri  incontinenti-QueJoquado 
inrdlisatincontincnti.  feolo 
altqui  dicuni  Pi  ante  fiat  illata  iniinia  tuCDe^ 
bet  iadicem  adirc.Blii  dicunt  in  continm  • 
ti  fkruetiam  fi  fiat  poft  antequam  diuertat 
ad  citraneca  actus  ut  .l.j.  ait  in  fi.ft.a:  ad 
ulte.  3a.i  pe.diftingtuit  But  loquimur  b 
uiolentia  illata  perfonc  .1  tune  diciturrc, 
pclli  in  continent!  fi  fiat  in  ipfa  tragratia  be 
tt  Qc  itellt6it.Uci35.$.g  cu  afr-ff-ad-Lacg 
t.l.ucuiJ.Dciufti.i  iu.5t  logmur  oc  uiolc 
cia  illata  rebus  i  tuncdicitur  incontinenti 
rcpeUietum  poft  fraguntia}  facti  dum  non 
Oiucrtat  ad  exncoe  actua.ff.de  ui  7  ui  arms 
LquipofMioncm  i.l.ia.^.cumigitnr  .c.ti. 
'Ratb  diucrfitariaeft-nam  illata iniuriag^ 
Tone  non  poteft  amplius  reftaurari  fed  res  ab 
lata  recuperari  poteft  t  Ik  non  faeta  diuii'i- 
one  10  actoa  cxtr  aoeoe  etiam  fi  amicoe  quc 
rat  i  redeat  ut  recnperet  dicitur  incctine t  i 
urno.glo.in dicta J.iii.f. cum  igiturceuin 
ui  ar.Sic  intelligc  moderamcn  in  concurfu 
tempoiia. 

CapTffl  ciiiiu 

£rcio  queritur  de  modcraminc 
mequuialencia  in  actu  uioleto 
uiddicet  qt  fieri  abet  ad  defen 
fionem  non  attem  ad  ueodictas 


licet  narie  fcr  ibatur  totum  hoc  ponderari  cc 
bet  in  I'pcctio  conditionlbus  perfonarum  IB 
oindicafTe  uideo;  non  dcfcndiifc. 

CapTmcxv* 

C7arto  queritur  quis  expulit  me 

K  poilcll  io  ne  t  poft  expulfioncm 

patus  eft  fitifdare  cc  reftttueda 

n  appareat  ipfii  iniufte  feciffe  fed 

n9)3omtnQs  ipfum  expello  nunquid  uidcoi  & 

cute  ad  uindictam  glo.  tenet  9  fie  in.I.LC. 

xnde  vi.ir  c  d  coker  gto.rep)obatur.  Ham 

non  Ocbuit  k  comittere  illi  fragili  cautione 

(fad  trebeLL.quiaj»t(rat  i.l.na  qtj  cu  ff. 

CapTm.c  m 

Uinto  queritur  .Itunquid  fiuu 

dec  aliquem  paratum  ad  pcutie 

dum  me.  3n  debeam  ejtpectare 

op  me  percutiat  an  Oebeam  pue^ 

nirt.glo.in  oicta.l.i.arguit,pT  contra  1  0" 

tcrminit  q>  non  txbeam  e  ipectare.  t*.oicit 

gb.inteiligendam  batxta  Diftinctionc  perfbx 

narum.tlam  aliqutfunt  audaua  i  pzompti 

ad  pcutkndum  n  take  non  funt  expcctandi 

aiiqui  timidi  1  1  ilea  non  funt  ftatim  pjcue/- 

niendi  i  fie  modificat  glo.ar  .l.i.C.£i  quis 

impa.maledixerit. 


£  i  to  queritur  quidam 

miles  eft  aggzelTusauicino  fuo 

i  euadere  poffct  fugiendatame 

reputane  fibi  ad  uituperium  cr  , 

pectatn  refiftit  n  percutit  nunquid  ceniea 

tur  uim  ui  repeltere  apparet  g>  non  per.U'd 

entiam.^.qmcumal'r.    2Dodernt  doer. 

tenent  contrarium  per.l^aOem.ff.exquib. 

ca.ma.11cc  obltat  .  $.qui  cum  al'r  qi  no  pa- 

terat  euadere  Tine  periculo  fame  fur  i  band- 

risfuiqucncn  poffuntper  iudicem  reparu 

ut.I.iu!.ff.li  quisomt.ci.tefti. 

Capfm  cxvitu 

£ptimoqueritnr  D:uidamuuU 

ncrat  U3  pdt  uulnera  in  fequitur 

uulnerantem  i  tplum  percutit 

quod  non  licet  ut.  Uliex  plagia. 

^.i.i.l.qua  .ictione.f  .  in  colluctationc.ff. 

ad.l.aquil.  nun  quid  punietur  ut  t»!ofus  aut 

culpabilis-  Qui&am  dicunt  <p  at  culpabilis 

q?  in  confultus  calor  uicio  calumpnie  caret 

if  .ad  tur.I.i.  $.queri.ff.ad.l.o».  de  TiccaJ. 

iii.$.cum  qutdam-rf.de  penis-Lrcipicicndu 

6  .de  linquun  t  .  tllii  dicut  <|>  ut.  oolofus  cu 

fe  uindicare  animodebuerit.  3i.de  are.dU 

cit  pttmam  opintonem  liuanionm.ff.de  penis 

l.interpietationem.ff.der£g.iur.l.in  totum 


426 


|rcod*n  rtgidtta.uC.de  MariiaJ.fi  no  co 
•idJ.Credopjiwmoerfcsan  ctMmdcture 
pcranpriisaicgata. 

CapTm  c  x  viii 

Ctaoo  qneritnr  nunqnid  ublen 
ria  illata  perlbne  pofTtt  per  ami  - 
cospwpullitfi  ficutfllati  rebus 
utno.gk>.in.£.cum  igiturglo. 
bi.t.LC-unJe  uf.dicit'$>  nan  per.Lcum  fun 
dnm.ff.de  ui  i  w  ar.  9Iu  Oiftingnut  rat 
amki  crant  in  coMitiu  attendant  patfi-aut 
non.  pjimo  cafu  licet  per  J.  j  teai  per  Ubeo- 
nem.$.G  quis  airginem.lf  .oc  iniuriifu  &c, 
con  Jo  cafo  non  licet.  Ja.dt  are  .tenet  indi 
ftincte  9  fie  ft  negocia  noftra  poffont  p  aliof 
iuuiri  ut.l.i.C.tt  ntg.gct  TDolto  magis p 
(MM  que  Kbus  piefertur  ut.l.lancimus  in  ft 
C.de  (aero  bacxcc^nobare  mdetur  ttx.in 
Lgncciw.C.ad  J.kil  jduk.  lion  obftal-l 
cum  lundum  quia  ibi  mandabatw  ex  iteruil 
bejwodMnliecrttinpnficipali.  "buicopi. 
obftat.l.nt  u'un  vbi  dicit  quod  obtuli  fui  cot 
fOtttt  clc.fi  fuTiofus  de  bomici.  liondt 
ra  tex.in  dicta. i.item  apud labeonem.  f.te 
ixrtinncti  jdo.de  inioiiw  undebaLin.l.ut 
nim.ff .-k  iufti.t  iure.undr  textuj  cum  gb. 
in.c.dileaode  fcn.excomuni.  Ii.  vi.  de  quo 
texcu  fecit  fefbi  baldus  in  ti.oc  pace  tcncch. 

CapTm  c  xx- 

Ono  qneritur  pone  quidam  mi 
dauit  Icruiend  (uo  q>  uxoion  iu 
am  quam  babtbot  fufpectam  oc 
adaltcno  occiocrit  uel  ipfus  cc 
ciJent.Scruunsinterfccit.  nunquidexcu 
Tatur  uidetur  g>  non.  nam  podus  ocbtt  omia 
mala  patt  Sp  mala  confentire  ut  lifti  cjdc  in 
fi.ff.quodmc.caufauidetur  textominkge 
fcienciam.^.qui  cum  alitcr.ff.adJ.  agl.7n 
contrarian  facir.l.nt  uim.ff.de  iufti.i  iure 
Ham  boc  fecit  ad  tutelam  fui  ccopais  ergo. 
f  aco-oc  ra.oiftingnit  aut  muticr  crat  aTs  pi 
Cora  aut  non  ut.l.fi  quid  leruum.ff.ad.LaQr. 
ikl.fi  ali'.$.eft  i  alia.ff.9»  ui  aut  clanutx. 
tenet  indtflincte  fcruient^  excujariqi  fceit 
ob  tutcbm  ut.l.ut  aim  etiam  quia  caritas  hi 
cipit  a  fcipfo  ut.Lpjeles.Co'  fui.1  aqua.?  te 
quu  liot  pnfuium  fanguinem  redimere  ut.l 
tranngere  .C.  K tranlac.  £go  crederem 
diftinguendum  an  kruienti  incumberet  nc 
certario  mojtia  piopik  pcriculum  nifi  urcne 
mandantisinttrfkertt  i  tune  credere  opl 
pe.ueram.aut  erat  aliqoalis  Ipcs/alutw  ctii 
combo  reTiftendo.n  tune  tuncicontrarmm 
crederem  per  iura  fnpja  alkgata.  Iu  pon 
deractiam  qne  dixit  bir.in  kgeut  aim.  ft. 
6c  iufticia  i  iure  in  penult,  cot. 
CapTm  c  xii- 

Hrca  ultunum  pjincipiliter  que 

(it urn  vs  qub  fit  finis  buius  belli 

Qonis  buiua  (oTo  patet  per.e.di 

eta  na  cofcrnatio  foi  ipius  i  boaoy.  i  finfa 


bpc  eft  pMKin  dn  patet  per  fup»  dittfc 


CapTmcjxli. 

£qniturtUere  K  goto  to 
rracntn  tcrtii  pimcipilig 
(.ex  pirticulari  bdlo  quod 
fit  ad  ocfcnfi  coipia  mifti 
ci  quod  repfilk  nucupanf 
Circa  quod  mdcodum  eft 

tikfc  1 1  quo  eotnm  babuerunt  rcpteblk  1 

pwpter  quid  infurrexerunt. 

CtpTcxxin. 

IDpliando  iliquaUter  qutfitu? 
i  miteriam  rcpreblioium  pmit 
Cam  fondamentnm  pwpter  qd 
infurrc  tcnit  reptefalie  quo  p«x 
mttb  etain3bocx3ian.£ccealri(timu9crea 
toia  pncipiocrtauit  ctlu5 1  terra  n  marc  t 
qne  to  eia  font  ntc  non  angdicam  i  bumana 
naturam  fpiritnalia  i  tpaHa  i  ipfa  per  kipfii 
reric  i  bomini  quern  crcautt  pKcepta  Oedit 
i  tranlgredientipenam  imporuir.&civ.ii.c. 
Oiultter  autcm  pa  (cipfum  rexait  apparct. 
Tlampcrkipfuminon  per  minftrum  tvv 
licra  punkiut  .1115  cbapn  i  lamecb  i  quol' 
dam  »Uo8  re§es  pantuit  at  legir  Benef  .iiu. 
-c.i  quinto.  £t  bee  miidi  gubernatio  pccifit 
0(41  ad  tempo.'!  Tloe.H  temporeautcm  Ttoe 
ccpit  .mandum  regcre  per  miniftros  quoium 
pjimui  fuit  noe  oc  quo  q>  fuerit  recto?  popu^ 
Ii  appirct.fbm  Cominua  comifit  Ptbi  admt 
uillratbnem  i  gubernationem  arcc  Bcfi.v 
•t  ri.c.£ t  per  arcfoui  fignincitur  ecclcfia  i 
qiulitcr  cominus  noe  i  filiu  comifit  gufxr^ 
nationem  legitur  Benefo  .ix.capfo  i  licet 
noe  bccrdoa  non  fuerit  legitur  tame  officiu 
facer  dotia  cxcrcaiffc  onte^  leges  populo  Da 
rentur  QciT.viii.cap.  Jn  bjc  autcm  gubcrna 
tione  i  uicarie  fuccelferuut  t-atriari.be  Ke 
gea  i  Sudtrcs  qui  fucrunt  p:c  tempo je  in  re 
giminc  populi  Judccnum  i  ilia  durauit 
ufque,  ad  Qnillum  qui  fuit  natoralis  rx>, 
minus  i  ret  noftcr  ce  quo  legitur  in  plal  * 
mo.Deusiudicium  tuum  regi  tujpfc  autej 
OziftusOuoluminaru  Oimifit  in  terns  la- 
minare  mtiua  1 0iurnum  f.fumum  pontifu 
con  lummare  minus  i  nocturnum  .f.romax 
noium  pjtncipcs  qoibus  comifi  t  adminiftra> 
tioncm  i  gubernationem  mundi  uni  in  fptri 
tuJtois  i  altri  in  tempojalibos.  Z^mpcoc 
pnmiriaoquocominuspcr  Icipfum  gubern* 
tut  non  fuit  opus  rcpzcbliis  .Cum  per  Omim 
tufticu  e  xbibcretur.  fempotc  not  i  fuc  cello 
tarn  non  bit  opus  rep:efa!iis  oi  p  miniftros 
tufticiiexbibcreturi  fubditi  oc  populo  rix 
cognofcercnt  (uperiorem  cuiobccmperabant 
lempox  precedcntium  fiimo.'um  pontincum 
T  bnperatccnm  romanoium  cum  omnes  bb^ 
iciantur  i  oc  tare  n  oc  facto  non  crat  opus 
repjebliiacujpcrprincipcsiurisoJduKkr 


427 


urto  tufticK  complemcntum  exbibererar. 

twfti^  aut  inpniii  paulifpa  cepit  exina- 
niii  idco  <j>  nuc  kit  q  de  f  i  cto  nlfii  vcognof 
ait  fugiojcm  i  p  eos  iuftitia  ncgligit  idcijco 
futt  op'  fubfidiajio  hnedio  dcfidcnttb'  cadi, 
nanis  quib'  extantibus  «d  illud  nullaten'  it 
currendnm.ff.de  mino.Lin  caufe.if.de  ope. 
noui.nuuci.l.in  pjoumcial  t.  3  ftud  autem 
remcdium  extraojdinarium  babuit  citum  it 
iurc  gentium  .  Tlam  eftquedam  (pecks  belB 
licit  i.lbm  heir  um  eft  obtutela  o«po?tafui 
arms  monae.ff.de  iufti.i  iurt.l.ut  uim.l.i. 
C.umk  ui  ca.olim  de  refti.fpe!i.£  t  ne  dum 
cojpis  fui  pjuwri  i  indiuidualia  fed  etiaj  mi 
ftici  11am  nniuerfttaa  eft  umi  cozpua  coins 
parted  funt  finguli  K  tmiucrfitau.ff.  <j>  gfq< 
uniuerfitatia  nomine.l.M  (icuniucrutatiS 
citum  ell  dcfendere  partea  fui  cojpwia. 

*babuit  ctiam  02  turn  t  iure  dtuino  ut  legl 
twxxvi.q.u.tominuenofter.  Cxpxdic 
tis  omnibus  infer  turpwpter  quid  infurrex 
crit  boc  rfmcdium.nam  ftnaliter  ut  iufticit 
debttum  fomrttur  effectam  occafionalitcr 


gleet  ugubcrnantimm  regentinm  populoa 
carencia  recognicionis  fuperiorum  cc  facto 
quo  tempore  fucrirnpushoc  cxtraoidinario 
rcmcdio.  tiquoinfertur  9>ctiambodk 
raro  boc  remedinm  locum  ftbi  nendkitju? 
negligent  iuOice  fecnltri  rccurfua  bibcnd' 
c  ad  ecclefultioi  de  fine  competent  i  ex  teno 
re  i  .ci.ikct  i  apitulo  ex  parte  qui  ftlii  fin  t 
leg.iu.per  uctKrabiUm  licet  ctiam  doficto 
male  optcmpanr.  Quibue  p?ediCcu(fiua  re, 
ftattximinandique  (ant  cure  rc{»cfalioni5 
£u  pondrra  qj  ea  cjae  bic  .narrantur  per 
pTOtuum  meum  ikrunt  p:cdic  ta  ad  aliud  f 
potUum  fupia  in  fa.ttedeoad  piimum  i  pii 
moqucroK.  fcmdera  rationem  pjoptcr 
quam  remedium  repieftliarum  Tint  nobititax 
turn  quAm  allegat  etiam  bar.  in  tractatu  re 
piefaliorum  in  pjincipio. 

CapTm'cxxiuL 

ttc  fit  canfa  piodnctiua  quema 
remits  quefbrmaliaque  nnalts 
Oidendum  eft  etiam  dcquibul'^ 
dam  qudbonibue  area  boc  oc  ^ 
currentibue.  3d  pzimum  que  fit  caufa  p 
duct  iua  repfalioTum  bee  eft  qmie  quib1  pof 
fit  indiccre  repKfalias  bic  attendendum  eft 
9>  ut  fapu  dictum  tit  nulla  L-gt  pofitiua  ca 
nonica  nec^iuili  Oifponitnr  repufaliw  indi 
d  ocberc.nam  utraqi  lege  difponitur  modus 
confeqaenOt  eff  ectus  iulticie  jTmmo  lege  in 
bibitum  occuparc  rem  pttpriim.Cunde  uLl 
Ti  quia  intuit  am  t.l.exftat.fl:.  que  met.ca. 
jrmmo  etum  boc  expiedc  infaiixt  ur  lege  etui 
In  canoica  ut  in  aut.ut'n  fiit  pig.T.c.uno 
cciniurii9[i.vi.S<d  deficient  ibua  torepofi 
dm  rcmedos  ad  boc  fuit  babendas  recorfus 


K  flat  belli  indtciont  3.  apereat  lufticia  bee 

•uttm  belli  indicio  (pectat  ad  ilium  folus  qui 

f  upio:q  non  babet  ut  .I.boilcs.ff  .DC  capduia 

Ham  babens  f  uperioKm  auctcattate  piopm 

non  potcft  uiolarc  iurb'rei.icdia.  jllc  ergo  in 

Cicerc  poteft  qui  fupericaem  non  babet  d  tor 

nee  oc  facto.    £xpedit  etiam  q>  (Uc  cot  ra 

quern  indocuntur  non  bobcat  fuperu»em  ur 

6  babeat  negltgat  iuftictam  ficere.  J£xquo  g 

d3minferunt<j>potefta8  ciuitatis  qui  non 

recognorcitfuperionemde  facto  non  poffit 

indiccre  nifi  fpecialtter  bobcat  in  mandatis. 

&ci  baberi  tcbet  recurGus  ad  uniuerfitatej 

loud  quam  eft  plena;  ius  t  cms  tuctcaitatc 

inducetur.Jftud  non  credo  uernm  ubiunU 

uerfitas  tranftnlertt  omnimodam  potelbte 

in  rectoienuHam  tune  poteft  totum  q>  uni 

ucri'itis  ficut  Okimua  in  babente  generakm 

<um  libera  ut  .L.pcuratoi  qui  .If.  K  pcuf. 

©ecua  It  lim  itatU5  .  3  nfcriit  etil  9>  ft  comes 

mircbioaelflmilesrubdirue  eftpancipi^fi 

IK  pjincipia  auctcuitate  iudici  non  potoenit 

•r.pjedictc  regule  qtum  tradidit  in.c.olim 

oc  reftit.fpolii  bee  .pceduc  loqoendo  o  iuf 

comuni.lbm  ft  loquamur  f  m  Oifpofttionem 

iurium  municipal;  urn  fm  quern  conceditur 

facultaa  idicendt  repfalus.  ?lli  indiccre  po- 

terunt  quite  t  lege  municipali  concedi  t.£  t 

bccut  Bixi  conccduntur  ppter  urgentem 

neceiftta  tern  ficut  aliquando  pzopter  neceffl 

tatan  concedit  we  ciuffr  facultarc?  alicut 

fibi  iua  Oiccndi.rf  ,  oc  bii  que  in  frau.  ere  .1. 


llioa.$.  betliilime.     £x  picdictio  inferri 

poteft  duontm  iure  petatur  indictio  repfalia 

rum.tla  r.  ft  uijore  ftatutcttum  concedantur 

condit.ex.l.lxx  pctitur.ff.Oc  condit.ex  It' 

ge  una.&tnautem  loquamur  f  m  Difpofiricv 

nem  turis  comunio  dicunt  quidam  cj>  net  ac 

do  ncc  off  icium  intentatur  ratb.  Ham  lob 

iuregentium  bee  facultad  conceditur  quo"iu 

re  omnia  expedkbantur  viaregb.fjf.Oe 

aigine  iurb.l.ii.m  piinctpio.  &ic  okunt 

bodie  repu  ti  manum  rcgiam  fm  ftatuta  t>i- 

uina  ut  iuf.gen.£td  non  credo  uert^.Tlaj 

licet  hcultas  non  fit  nifi  leruct  modus  tradt 

tu  j-Quia  p;imo  Ocbet  Kcurri  ad  remedta  o? 

Oinaria  quibus  Deficient  ibus  ad  boc  iccnrri 

ttiri  bx  conftare  Oebet  iudki  requifito  aft 

§  indicit  rcpfatiaa.t  t  ft  ille  contra  quej  pe 

tnntur  monitus  comparueritauditus  i  t»x 

fknfus  ut.J.dicet  T  fegt  (entetia  q'jpnuciat 

indicefidasuelnonnibflomuninue  fuitopua 

actioneueloffido.  tlamkcundnm  moOum 

pctionij  fojmari  debct  (entenuia  ut.Ut  fun 

do.ff  .comuni  dim  i  ca.liat  bdf  de  fjpmo. 

Confirmatur  nam  licet  de  iuregentium  bee 

bcultasprocefftt  ramcn  lure  ciuili  approba 

t«  e  ex  mentt  ipfiua  liC5  non  uerbbexpfTis 

11am  eft  ex  mente  iurie  ciuitis  vmmo  etiam 

ex  uerbiB  $  contra  rtbellea  1  inobedkntea 

tor  pcedunt  manu  milttar  i  uc.l.  qui  rcftituc 


re.ff.de  rd  »rn.  £  t  fie  ptwctu  eft  remediu. 
fanpiorationia  officii  nt  aO  bane  manu  militi 
Tifomtrtmediw  opoJtuniadeficientibug 
twodcra  rolege  dnli  id  canonka  fat  li 
cite  repfcliejmde  hu.in  me  tart  xpTtlua 
abipmitctumintnftmconfckntk  fintU 
cite  jcpfilk  t  boc  in  piima  qudtione  prind 
pili  vide  5o.fn.tn  jegn-non  debet  aliquU  6 
nyMs&vi-tJtctantim  an  in  foro  confcte 
ilkcniconcedm  icpjtlilk  repcat.na  rcg. 
reoxfal  tc  funt  contra  ins  diuinum  canonicd 
1  ciufle  at  rcfert  ange.in  conTtlio  fuo.  quod 
incipit  tr  tbcmitc.auk'qoc  dixit  bar.in.I. 
nulliK.C.cciudets  i  baLin.I.er  bociurc.ff. 
cc  iufti.1  tore  kd  concedontur  to  cafu  quo 
qoisnon  rcperit  tufticiim  apuO  cominu  illi' 
tiuitatie  contra  qium  petuntur  fccundom 
coi.locia  (uperiua  allega  tis.uidi  bal.i  bar. 
in  aur.-T  ufcoC-nt  nro>  pjo'marito  circa  pi 
tipium.oidc  ea  qix  no.g!o.n  doc.in  ci.  Lx 
iniuriis  li.  vi-uidc  bir.in.I.gcncrali.C.x  re 
cu.lt.x.1  bir.in.I.fi.C.Knauirubriiali.rj 
b»r.in.l.p»  bcrede-^.fi.de  acquire  Jxred. 


£fht  criminare  canfam  mttc, 

rialem  cc  nuteriali  autcm  caufi 

eft  dicendum  uel  uidenOum  dc 

materii  in  qua.cc  mater  ia  circa 

Qum.dc  maroria  contra  quam  quc  eft  obkc 

tomdematcriaex  qua.    IDatcriaexqui 

eft  aufa  cr  qua  bee  ficultaaconccdiror. 

TOateria  in  qua  eft  per  Ion  i  ucl  fuppofif  u 
cut  facultis  conaditur  .  fCateru  ctru 
quam  funt  res  area  quas  facuttas  bee  conce 
dinir.  2TTH»terl»  contra  qoi  Hue  oUkctU5 
eft  fuppofitum  contra  quod  conaditur  ut, 
para  ciuiraauel  alia  uniurrfitaa.  Keffion/ 
deo  ad  criminaCioncm.£t  primo  querit  qui 
bos  conccditur.£t  plotter  rationem  fupcri 
us  tactlqz  ut  ciuef  miftici  cojpislciuitiria 
u  t.I.  i  .rf.cj.  cotufq;  uninerfl  bine  appcflata  e 
cuiitaa  quali  ciulum  unitae  ut  noJn  ca.fi  ci 
uita3defcntcn.eicomuni.!i.\iL£tfupJjde 
dncromlicitumuteuilibct  ddkndtre  eoip* 
fiki  ut  .l.ut  utm.ff.de  inftun  lure  iJ.iX3.nfl 
iu.£t  boc  pjocidit  in  ecc  po?t  indiuidualt  cp 
miftico.  t^imo  qucro  an  incolts  concedi 
debeant.  Qnidambiediftinguutanincole 
Uxaot  oner  a  i  tune  concedi  debeant  .an  ft* 
fubcant  i  tune  concedi  nc'debeant.  Hario 
(ccnndi  mcmbn  nam  quo  non  fcnrit  .cuioa 
nee  comodum  (entire  ut.l.manifcftiffimLf  . 
fed  cum  in  (ccunda.C.de  fur  .regula  Cuudti 
Mtvam  dc  ttg.iur.i  regnla  qni  fentit  U.T! 
pjobatur  ptr.l.qui  fub  ptertUiCde  cpif  .t 
ck.i.Li.c.»ecoIleg.Bid.ILxil  t»roba< 
namnonbabetqaJaprfailegia  dignitatisnl 
fircJpfigtrterit.C.deconful.l.ntminemli. 
dndccimo.ff.de  exeu.tu.L  led  i  mflce.$, 
4Mobn.C.dftcftaniU.pe.  tMocopt. 


non  puto  tan  indiftinctc  pi  mo  poto  Diftin 
guendum  fu  aut  fncoU  non  Cubit  poptrr  ci' 
contumieiam  quta  requifitus  non  uult  fubif 
at  tcnerur.llam  inter  eiuitjtcm  recipient  e 
quern  ad  incobtum  i  ipfum  incobm  tacitc 
cattnr  quidam  contractua  ultro  cttrocf  obU 
ptatoa  quo  ineola  teneiur  fubffe  onera  .ff. 
ad  muiucip.Li.i  .Uncola  i  dutUs  tenetur 
id  dna  Dtectionem  ut.l.illieitas.$.ne  pote 
rioKS.ft.cc  officio  p:efidi6.e  r  boc  ufu  ft  cc, 
Degatadimplerecontractuppartefua  nee 
ciuitas  tcnetur  ipfum  octcndere  necillc  hoc 
pttere  poteft  ut  J.uiT.$.offerri.ff  .  cc  actioA 
empti.  Hutincobnonlubitoncraquisfa 
p  boc  puilcgiat  ud  a  duitate  que  opus  remit  x 
terc  potuit  ut  .L  ft  quto  in  confcribcndo  ce 
pacda  n  occpi.1  de.l.a  pnneipe  i  tune  in, 
cok  concedi  ccbent.Tlam  piujtlegia  coceda 
in  eorom  fauoxm  redundare  oonoebentin 
eoium  lefionem.C.Oc  Irgi.Lqnod  fwowrt- 
gala  (}>Srim.!i.vi.£t  bee  intelligia  OcpU 
uilcgbtopoftalTumotionem.  Tupondera 
quod  Outtbir.in  tracraturcpreuiurum  in 
fco'aqueftionepjincipiltba!.  inair.i  idea 
in  tLcoT.C.ne  uxoj  pro  maruo. 


Capfm 


£cundo  qucro  in  chaboa  no  fub 
iectis  iuriTdictoi  ciuitarisi  aC 
non  fckntibus  fictoes  lint  con 
odcde  reprdalic.Q  uida  difrig 
t.'Sut  non  funt  njbcunted  fubucriei  pi 
aiL'gio  ut  <Dd  ut.Lii.1  aut.ftatuim'.C.Oe 
epi.T  tlc.Sutpjoptcr  dignitatem  fccubrcj 
ut  .l.ti.C.ubi  (cna.ucl  clari.ff  .  Oe  uaca.mu. 
per  tot  um  T  talibus  fint  concedende.But  A 
fubeunt  pprer  contnmaclam  n  tune  non."K5 
p:imteftncrcdundetinciosleiicmem  quod 
in  fjuorem  conceifum  eft  £t  quta  in  ciuibus 
er  natiuttate  pficitur  obit  jjtio  inter  ipfuj  i 
ctuitttem  qae  non  pottft  motari.ff.ad  muni 
ci(>ar.!.arf  umptto  tow  in  incola  quiaincoU 
tun  non  perficitur  njfi  per  receptionem  at.L 
tff  .ad  ir.unicipar.'Ratio  fccandi  eft  poptcr 
contunucUm  fmm.ff.ex  qut.ca.ma.Lfcd  t 
flpcmpto7cm.$.ledflOum.  'Cnpondcni 
que  dirit  bar.  in  tractam  repjcfaliar  tun  in 
v.qncftioncpincipjU. 

CapTmcxxTti. 

£rcio  qneritur  ar  etui  per  con 

ncnttonem  concedantor  repw 

Talk  contra  ciuitatem  cwiatnia. 

oppare  t  $  non.  na  ubi  ex  aliquo 

bete  ius  mibi  queritur  ft  Bind  fait  mcnm  no 

cblign  nt.l.lcd  T  fi  qins.$.T  generalir.er.ff 

de  afufruc.lega.£<d  ft  fiat  in  iuria  butc  cui 

CtnitatioJiginwquerituj  iiu  inoiccndi  rep 

fiLts  ergo  eontra  earn  non  compctit 

CvO&rmitur  quia  ciuttis  ojiginw 


429 


ut.l.afTumptio.ff.ad  mnnidp .    CbnftYmal 
flam  ciuitas  o:igtnJ3  poterat  in  fubditu?  fail 
ftatuere  ante§  efficeretur  ciuis  altcri'  per 
conuentionero  me  ciuitaa  per  couentipnem 
poteft  co.iqucji.    Conftrmatur  a  fimtti  ufu 
fructuari-'  qui  nucurc  poteft  nomi  op'  oib' 
ptcr$  torn  io  ut  .l.i.in  fi.ff.de  ope.no.nuct, 
Confirmatur  i  fimili  nam  batons  publicia 
nam  illamintcr.tat  contra  omnes  prefer^ 
contra  tominum  ut.ff.de  publi-l.pcnultima 
pwbat  tex.in.l.de  iure.ff  .ad  numici.Tla  j  d 
bis  quc  aguntur  inter  dues  t  ciuitarem  fciii 
ceuam  iudice  i'.Lma  tiuitatis  .131  Oebct. 
Coufirmatur  namremedium  extracudinariii 
eft  ut  (upja  pjcbatumeft-eitra  oidinaria  au 
tern  renudia  dantur  non  ftlio  cotitra  patres 
C.qui  i  aduerfu9qttcs.l.fi.fed  nuica  e  po- 
teftas  ciuitatie  in  ciucm  §>  patrie  in  filuq.ff 
tcialii.1  iure.l.u.iJ.poftliminui.$.ftliis.ff 
<iecaftr?n.pccu.3ncontrjrium  pbaturan 
fi  duo  bnt  eudc  (ubditii  utqicii  Ocfcdt r  ad'f . 
tniuria?  q  ib  ilto  inferrcft.ni  duitaspunit 
pre^offedente  filiii.ff.O  parici  p  totiLCofir 
mat.llam  fi  Quo  babet  ius  in  re  licet  iinum 
iua  At  ccbiltus  alio  tamcn  bobens  toa  scfailiua 
t$t  contra  babentem  ius  potcntius  fi  Djpni 
fitat  rem  in  qua  concmrunt  lib  Duo  lun.ff, 
ad.l.aquir.l.5tem  mella  .$.fl.l.  ft  oominue 
fcruum.c.ti-Cofirmjtur.     11am  li  Ouo  Cut 
comini  ciufJem  ierui  fi  unue  in  cum  belinqt 
potdl  per  alium  coberceri.ff.ad.l.aqaiT.l.i. 
Confirmitur.    Tbm  p  iniuria  repelleda  15 
conuocarc  amico8.ff.ac  vi  i  \i  ar.l.i.^.cu5 
igitur  i  oc  bomici.fignificafti  oc  fenten.eX' 
coi.wlkto.Solutio-Quidi  Oicunt  indiltic 
tt  g>  poflint  conadi  i  ratio  eft  quia  facultaf 
indicendi  repredliaa  fuccedit  in  looi  cxfici 
entia  iurifdictionij .  Sed  fi  ciuitas  offendit 
ciucm  licitum  eft  fupcrioitm  adirc  ut.l.me  - 
tum.f  •animaducrtcndum.ft'.'j;  mc.c.i.  ergo 
ccnoente  iarifdictione  locua  eft  repzcfaluy. 
pjob.itur  per -I.fed  ft tx  doloJf .cc  ddo. 
ConSrnutur  nas  qoelibet  potedie  ccnl'etur 
kgittinu  poteftaa  cum  quid  bcne  utitur  no 
niton  cum  fpo'iat  ut.l.ei  cum  qui  miduj.$ 
tntoi.ff.pioempto.lf.de  mrt.Linterdii.$.g 
tutelam.£t  ftc  dicut  pzocedere  bine  inDe  al 
legata.    £50  non  puto  bane  conclulionem 
fie  in  Jdtincte  ucram.&edputo  diftinjuen^ 
duan  iniuria  irrogtti  a  ciuitate  onginU  in 
furg it er  facto pzccedentl  conuemionc  per 
qui  effectua  eft  cuiua  altenua  ciuitade.Sn 
inlurg  it  ex  pod  comiffo.  pjimo  cafu  no  po(- 
fine  concedi  repjefalie  per  ciuitatem  ccuen- 
ttoni  j.nam  apparet  q>  fit  pars  cwpojio  defe 
dendi  tempos  quo  iufticiam  pantur.  Tlam 
aliter  ao  nouam  ciuicatem  non  tranfit  boc 
iua.ff.de  feroocoirup.toli.$.fiiff.,ocpofiti« 
IJ.'J.fi  (eruuaiXqueoiqi.tf.ocac.i  obit. 
t>cr  quon  infer tnrg>  facto  did  p  conuedo 
iiem  po'l  iufticum  non  ixbent  contedi  rep 
Wie.Secundo  cafu  p?ocedit  p:cdicta  folato 


tu  ponders  que  dixit  bar  jn  tractatu  tt 
pielaliarum  in  quinta  queftione  principal!  f 
uerfuftd  tercium  queritur  . 

CopTm  c  Kviii. 

Uarto  qneritnr  an  dubua  t  ba 
bitig  f  ciuibue  limit  ate  tfu£ccc 
poteftM  diutads  quo  ad  quid  e 
ciuis  ut  .  I  .ciues-C.oe  incolis  ftu- 
ptndiarti  etiam  ubi  merentur  ftipcndium  co 
aeniuntur  ut.l.municipc8.f.fi.ad  municip. 
Declares  etiam  quo  id  quid  ut  ptegantur  a 
rectoribns  ciuitatum  ut  in  pzbna  coftit.ffojs 
i  aut.babita.C-ne  filius  p  pa.nnnquid  tall/ 
bus  reptebenfalie  (unt  concedende  quida  Oi 
cunt  ej>  hi  a  in  quibus  babentur  p  ciuib'  limi 
Ute  (unt  concedende  repfalic  at  ft  fcolari  in 
iuria  inlpectantibus  id  ftudium  fiat  i  miltti 
in  fpecuntibue  ad  miiicum  in  aliis  non  repu 
tentnr  Oe  ccopore.  liondera  que  pdicanf 
8  bar  .in  traccatu  repjcfaliuuj  in  quinta  qoe 
piincipali  in  vfi.  ad  quintum  queritur.  tc. 


Uinto  queritur  3n  lies  pacto 
udfbtutociuesbuius  ciuitatia 
tractari  Oebeant  utduesalreri 
as  ciuitatis  ipfis  concedi  Ocbeat 
rep?efalie  per  ciuiurcm  in  qua  tract  aridnt 
ciues.&d'o.  ib>onderandal'untuerba!egia 
1  1tatuti.  11am  p  ilia  Vbj  trie  tent  ur  ut 
ciues  non  efficiuntur  cities  ut.Lutcis  appeU 
Utione.ff.b  v.%ni.£t  ibi  no  per  ia.oe  are. 
31U  ergo  uerba  intelUguntur  ut  tractentur 
in  bio  que  Oe  iure  cdrnunt  fieri  ixbcnt  ut  .L 
ri  qui  fundom.^.fi  tutoi.fV.  p  empto  ita  fol^ 
uunt  quidam  .'bane  concluliouem  non  ere/ 
do  veram  >-mmo  credo  ipfisiudietdebcre. 
Ib  n  fatten  g>  per  ilia  uerba  non  eft  effec  t  uo 
ciuis  kd  ei  Oebentur  que  Ocbcnt  ur  eiui.Tlaj 
boc  pbant  uerba  a  quibua  reccdi  non  debet 
nee  eojum  ppjio  fignificato.ff  .qui.i  a  qui.l 
pjofperit.ff.de  le.iii.Lnon  aliter  i  .l.u$.fi 
is  qui  nauem.ff.de  ejereito.feibi  ergo  con 
cedantur  rep;efalk  ut  fupia  deducni  eft  ergo 
Tlecobftat  quod  dkttur  g>  fibi  concedi  de, 
bent  que  de  iure  comuni  eopetunt  llaj 
Ivcrcmcdiumferuatadebita  foimanoncfi 
iure  comuni  inhibit  um  Tuponderaquedi 
fit  bar.in  dicta  repiefaliarum  in  v.q.prin 
cipaliinuerfi.advi.qucriturbaljii  aute.i 
ideo.C.ne  uxo:  pzo  maritoin  vii.eol  .  fe> 
unum  pondero  quod  no  tetigit  pjoauua  me'' 
meus  ?5  ei  qui  poft  j  palTus  eft  in  iufticiam 
f  ictus  eft  ciuis  lint  rep?efalie  concedende 
n  coneluditur  g>  non.  Tlam  eft  quodda  cca 
pua  mi.ttum  ut  eft  una  ciuitas  i  collegium  q 
dppellantur  co/poja  ut  babetur  p  gio.in  nu 
bJiea.ff.de  colle.illid.unde  ciuitas  f»oeog> 
tft  dc  co:pc«e  iuo.arfendendo  ab  intiRiispo 


430 


reft  concede  re  rqncUks  non  ante*  poto 
quod  eft  ertra  corpus  fuu.  Jorta  iHn  J 
qud  cnim  td  nwce  bisque  forts  font  tudu 
care  ca.gandrma*  oc  oimn  .  £rgo  d  qni  ten 
poKCtBegattiuftickerat  fooi  fie  licet  po- 
ftca  effkiatur  ctui».non  potfunt'de  iure  con 
cedi  repieWie  ar.i.l.i.f  .fi  fcru'.ff  .rcpofiti. 
ui  1-  QIK  di  tie  fur.in  tractatn  rcptcfatiarum 
inquinta.q.p:in<:ipaUinuer.ad  quartumq 
ritor.  Sed  p?cdicta  Kmita  nili  infcrarctur 
in  iufticfa  actn  prrnuncns  pota  fi  qoia  tene 
tur  in  ran  fmra.TIam  tencre  eft  acraa  con, 
tinous  ideo  rations  prelcntie  in  iuftick  babj 
iaapetenii  rep?elilijs.fecundnm  baUn  an, 
ten.i  (dco.C.nc  nicHpwmarito.Uide.l.fl 
cominium.ff.&fortiaK.  3  tern  pondcra 
tn  bominea  confederati  poiTint  impctrarc  re 
p7efalu8;7bm  ft  eft  fedua  ptoptcr  quod  una 
ci  uitaa  fubtft  aUcri  quo  id  piotectionem  t 
tone  idem  iidicandom  eft  quod  ck  propb 
cinc.tt  i&copoffunt  confcqui  rtpjcCjiijs. 
uidcbilintuten.-t  iko.Cncuxozpromari 
ta.iridc.Unon  dubitoJf.dk  captiuie.gcquid 
ibi  Oixerit  bar  . 


£ftat  oiderc  K  mtorfa  drca  $ 
concediiturboce 


contra  qoos  conceduntur  que 
rcper  tt  facrunt  in  territorio  dukatis  con  ce 
dentfa.  'S«d  circa  hoc  qotripotcftdtpto 
rfcus-pjimoan  contra  rcoe  contm  qui  capi 
non  pofTont  oigoK  rcptcfoliaum  tuDici  pof 
fint  rcpttUk  feolu  tio  It  Pint  perlone  qoc 
opt  non  poitunt  popter  in  babditatem  ifar 
gtottm  ratione  ctatis  utl  forrnb  uel  confili 
om.tuncineonnnreaerexen  potcruntre 
pjcfalk.ff  .de-iua  uo-l-fatis  g>  hi  aut.at  nulli 
iad.^.nccdtiriom.&iiiantemin  perfonaa 
exerceri  non  podunt  proptrr  qnldim  p?cro 
gatiusm  eis  a  iure  concclta;  uc  funt  fcolajea 
i  imbjfiatoKa.  tone  ntc  etiam  contra  rea 
eonm  quia  ddtrunt  txccifarue  p?o  ftuoio 
ad  imboTuta  non  potmint  ewrcerUn  ifa 
au  tern  (Jc.ff  .«  paUi-LpubUcan  .  txr  I  we 
inftrtor  fohitio  altcriua  qonie  £ca  ambafu 
taadfcdtriafccumdefcrtreeatioiumrea 
aliojum-nanqnid  in  Uas  exerceri  potcrunt 
itpje&lie  die  9  non  ft  font  rea  ncceifcric  ut 
cejoTad  ftniii  ntJ-anfarit-lf  .  de  uerb.fig. 
aliw  fie.  tondera  tt  qne  dirit  bir.intn 
cratu  rcpxUia^  in  tiiLqoe  pindpali  i  <1 
3d  pjbram  cnwitur  n  in  nerJUd  fecundum 
qocrit  nd<  bal.in  aut.n  idcoo.no  ox.  po 
ma.  in  octaai  coL 

CapTm.c.TrxL 

£cndoqneritnrn  repjdalk 
nrnpfr  indicte  cxcrccri  .portint 
cootrt  boat  oHfttotk  i  tcnito 


rio  ciuttit ia  cotra  qua  tut  iductr  at  capinrf 
•t  rtducat  irra  tcratwiii  ciuitatie  (dacetu 
Q."aid  im  oicunt  9>  no  quucxtra  tcrritorid 
ic.ut.l.ex  ttrritoiium.ff.  Oe  iure  o.indL  T 
Lcum  nnuo.$.is  cuias-tf .  Oe  bo.aucr.  indi. 
po(F.i.c.ii.Oecofti.li.\i,  t>xttreaingre 
di  terrttoiium  alicnum  concedirur  ii  maio, 
ris  tumultuB  crgoin  oobio  non  uidctur  con 
ctfTom  ot.l.non  eft  fingulis.ff.Oe  rcg.iuris, 

"bane  coucltifioncm  nan  credo  ucram 
Tlampiopterctefecniminhfdicrionis  recur 
ritur  ad  nunum  rcgum  txricicntc  fomiula 
tU3  Ucmpnitcr  Oictndi- 1 1  tic  ubiqi  hoc  f  c. 
ripotcfl  quia  uhi^licitmn  eft  cuiJilxt  ocfcn 
ore  corpus  fuum  ur.Lut  uim.ff.D"  iufti.  i  ia 
rei.Ui.C.andeuietuminrimplicii  gcnc« 
rait  conceifione  vba  operari  txbcn  t  gcncrafr 
nt  pfjruntar.ff  .tx  le.pft.l.t.$.5cueralttcr. 
ctiim  ojnrinjitct  rqnelilus  nM  opxi  ut  fi 
contra  cioitatcm  oifttntem  cuiudciucanu 
W  hjScrcnt  nee  ciucsacccdcrcnt  in  ctntta 
te  indicente.  sok  ergo  intclli jintur  ut  ia 
omnem  euentum  aliquid  opari  pdTmt.ff.  DC 
k.l.l-fi  qiundo.ff.de  re.  du  .L  qootiena  de 
regf.iar.l.qaottcns.  t>ondcra  dicra  per 
bar.in  cractatu  repfiliaf  •  in  octtoa  queftio- 
nepiincipjli  in  <j.ad  tertium  qucritur. 

CapTm  c  mil. 

Crtio  qneritnr  3q  fi  una  CIQL. 
tu  indicat  rep:cdlua  ?tra  aliaj 
potfit  rectoii  ciuitaris  indicetta 
fcnbendo  rcctoJt  ciottatta  cotra 
quam  exercere  reptetaltaa  in  rce  ibt  fuuuaa 
fcicunt  qui dim  >}»  licet  fi  in  cjccurionc  Ink 
hoc  facial  ut.l.a  ditto  pio  .$.l.ff.  de  re  ia  .L 
cam  unutj. ^.i-ff-di  bo.  auc.iudi  pafi  tamcn 
hoc  cafu  non  eft  ratio- Tbm  indict  b  rcpfali 
arum  eft  qttoddam  par riculare  bcllum  ad  qo 
non  potcft  qua  compdlerc  alium  q>  fabditu ' 
ut  in  udbua  f.'udoram  bic  finitui  lex  Coradi 
c.?ominuoi.S>L"  diccre  non  cre'do .    Ham 
fupponit  o>  in  crccurionc  fiiie  poifit  tudex  U 
to:  fnk  compclUre  mdiccm  bononm  etum 
non  fubditum  ad  excqucndii  cp  eft  blitim  qi 
pir  in  parem  non  babct  impcrmm  ut.tf.de  ar 
bU.ium  magritua.ff.ad  trcbcir.Lillc  aquo 
$".ttmpcftinum  de  ckct.c.innocuit.  JfDak 
tame  £icit  qui  e  xequitur  adeo  q>  ppttr  boc 
conuenitur  eoiam  fupioie  fuo .  11am  toncc 
ficruaca  ioris  difporttionc.  Jufticia  fitu;  coleg 
pptcft  erfectum  non  debcnt  offendi  Juris  re, 
gitle.Jn  ncutro  ergo  cafu  ntndtcat  fibi  loco 
compuirto.£«d  utroqt  cafu  boncfte  fodat 
cxequendo  quia  ficut  non  dcfkknte  iurifdic 
tione  cum  recurritur  ad  :ep?cfiilua  ddxt  iu 
utri  licet  compclli  non  potto  in  cimtatiboa 
autem  kderatis  de  quboa  in.l.no  dubito.ff . 
de  optiula  by  «tentor  de  piano.  t>ondera 
dicta  p  bai.tn  nacutu  xpfalia^.  inoctaui 
qucftione  principal!  Jn  4.  ad  qrtnm  querit'. 


43i 


CapTmcxKiiii. 

£(bt  uidere  ccmatoia  contra 
qiu;  quod  pp:k  appcllat  fubicc 
tum.Circaquod  pluaaquaun^ 
JEt  piimo  qumtur  an  fi  ciuitas 
medionalcnfe  repzffaliaa  indixerit  cetra  bo 
nonienfes  ucl  homines  DC  faono.  poffint  cxcr 
cm  contra  incolae  cinitattebononie  ucloc 
bononia.  Solurio  iifo  ucrba  bonomcnfo 
i  oeboncnia  idem  impo7tant.ff.dccxcu.tu. 
Lfed  rcpzobari.^.ampliua  T  ibtg!o.£oluto 
ftBuerbauoccsbononienfesrefpiciunt  muni 
cipes  ut.l.i.ff  .ad  municip.£  t  ixrbum  mum 
ceos  eft  genus  ad  ctueai  incolas  ut  nc-.C. 
dc  inculis.Luuca-pJobat  tcx.ft.ad  muntd. 
Isffliu^.municipcMrgo  inferendo  dc  pjimo 
ad  ulttmum  fcquitur  g>  ex  natura  utr  bojum 
contra  incoba  polTmt  exerceri  s'epjcialie.t 
bee  uera  quado  incoie  Cube  ant  oncra  ut.l.i. 
ad  munkip.  fecusfinonfubeu.it.  tupon* 
dera  ea  que  dixit  bar.in  tractatu  repKfallu 
rum  in  xii  qucfdone  pjmcipali  in  v.  ad  ?ii- 
mm  queritur.  uide  bal.tn  aur.i  ideo.Cne 
uxot  poDuritoinviiUcLuifine;. 

CapTm  c  xxxirii-, 

£  cundo  queritur  retento  code 
tbemate  ut  putt  fi  ciuitas  rcedi 
onalenfiainduxerit  repxfaliaa 
contra  homines  DC  hinonia  fmc 
boncmtenfea.an  exerceri  poffmt  contra  bo* 
nknSca  alibi  mwintcs.  qutoam  diuit  3^  lie 
quu  o:igo  non  mutatur.l.  ailumptio.ff.  ad 
munidp.  aitioiftin^iuitan  tnducantur 
contra  Ixunince  de  (uouincu.1  tune  non  ex 
cruntur  contra  alibi  mo:anua  qi  non  an 
fcntur  de  p^ouincia  ut.l  .pxnunctalea.  ff.cc 
ucrix.fig.  But  contra  bominesocunacu 
vitate  i  tune  (oocedit  una  opi.Iacti  DilUn 
guut  an  alibi  mozentur  tamen  contra  eandc 
pioutncum  i  tune  cotraalioa  exerceripof 
fmt.aut  in  alia  pjouincia  i  cunc  fecua  prr  ea 
qne  no.glo.in.l.adoptionibus.  C.de  opt. 
Qoutt  dicunt  q?  lecundum  p?opjiam  i  igni 
ficationem  uocabuli  alibi  morarttcd  ccfcntur 
bononienfc8.&cd  (ecundum  comunem  ufum 
loqoendt.kcus  i  comnnienfua  loqucndi  p 
uaUt.ff  .tx  lcjii.Llib:o7um.$.9>  tamen  calti 
>w.  tt  fie  contra  ides  non  poterunc 
cxercerL  Slii  dicunt  9-  contra  bono* 
nienfca  alibi  motantes  oncra  tamen  fubcutea 
bonoie  poterunt  exerure  Sinaute  noa  Tub 
cant  fccua  uU.i.ff .ad  municip.iJ.fcd  i  ro 
P«*ari.$  .amplia9.(f.«  excu.tuto.i  .Lcum 
fcimug  in  fuC.cc  igri.i  ceo.  Tbondera  ta 
que  tractantur  per  bar.in  tractatu  repCaiii 
rum  iii.fii.queftion.:  pzincipali  in  4.  ad  f  m 
queritur  nide  biLin  atit.i  ideo  .C.  ne  uxoi 
p»  marito  in  vii.  coT.uide  angt .  inft  i .  Oe  tuf 
rali.J.fcd  oaturalia  in  fine  bar.in.L^- 


dnctaled.ff.je  ^.(ignlJo.K  inota  In  rubiL 
lblii.ma.io.an.in  addLfpe.tn  ti.de  iniuriia  i 
Dampno  Oato  bal.in.l.fi  eadem.ff.  Oeofficio 
l/Tellbtum  baLin.c.i.£>c  foznu  fideli  co.in.c, 
fbtutum.  v.cum  comen  in  ultia  cof.  tJ^rpN 
bar.in. Li.ff-9>  qaifc^  iuv.bal.in.l.adoptionc 
C-Oe  idept.pc.De  ancba.  in.c.u  o«  iniuriia 
1  damp.  o.no  li.vi.pau.de  caftro  in  dicta.U 
fi  eadem  bar.in.l.butufmodi.  £.  Ugatum  .ff. 
de  l£.i-bar.in.LtuuLi8.  J'.fi.lf  .0"  capudimi. 

CapTmcxxxt. 

£rtb  qnerltur  3n  polfint  exer 

ceri  repjcfalie  contra  ciuee  i  in^ 

colas  boncnicnfco  oncra  iutxunx 

tes  bononic  qui  et  iam  funt  ciuo 

mediolane  fes  utdctur  g>  podit  cotra  eos  ex 

cr  cert,    llam  fi  poteft  cum  as  indiccre  cot 

non  fubditum  Confirm.uur.nani  ,ppiietari*. 

potelt  petere  ut  ufufructiuriodenegctur  ius 

utcndi  ppttr  concumaciam  lium  i  ccontra 

ut.l.fi  .ppzietarius  i.Lboc  amp!iue.$.fi  cuj 

i.^.fcqui.ff. dcJampnoinfcc.tl  fimiliergo 

Gc  bic  in  duabus  ciuttattboe  in  cundcm  cine 

iuaptendentibua.    5n  ccntrarium  tenet  9 

dam  indiltinctc  ratio.     Horn  Ixx  tiw  fno 

cedit  in  locum  defickntis  iurifdiaionte  fed 

ciukisin  ciuemfuum  benepptcftiurifdto 

ttoncm  exerccre  ergo  no  fubicic  t  ur  rcpfaliu 

nt.Ui.$.utq}  .ff.ft  quia  te  li.elTe  iufr.     £>z« 

urea  ciuitaa  tcnetur  defcndere  ciuem  fuiua. 

firgo  repieialic  indictc  non  artabunt  eus  ut 

LiKndicantem.ff.de  euia..  ^eterca  fiduif 

mediolancnrisartareturtuncciuitao  cotra 

feipla  ?dere  uideret  ?t  id  qti  bctur.ff.0*  iure 

fifcUi  nraude.f  .na>'."bac  cccl'one  no  putp 

neram  indiftmctc.jTmmo  fi  cc  facto  no  poU 

fit  ciuitas  artare  ciuem  fuu.ctiam  ciues  ciui 

titis  contra  quam  inOncuntur  rep;efalic  op 

time  contra  cum  cxercebuntur  Vcptcfalie. 

Tlam  pjopttr  dcfcctum  mrifdictionis  inou 

cunturutfupraplaricstactumcft.    feed 

K  iure  non  debit  iurifdictio  deficere  cum  6 

iure  omnca  fubiciantur  principlff.  ad.l.ro, 

de  iac.I  dcpKcario  ix.q.iti.c.ciwicto  p  mun 

4um  n  ca.per  prmcipalem  fed  de  facto,  pefi 

citgade  facto  non  cognof cunc  ficut  igitur 

4e  facto  defiare  poteft  cum  non  fubditus  in 

iurutur  -Sic  T  de  lure  fubditus  de  facto  re 

fiftere  pot.fct  fie  recurri  pot  ad  remedui  ex 

«d  tnajui.f  auoz  tn  9*  fubditii  n  aitabut  do 

nee  fpalit«  conua  non  fabditum  p.'occflum 

fncrit  utieoidinc  (ouato  nee  ptoceff  fcntbi 

potr  cffectii  ppte:  facti  :ebcUione.tu  podeir 

dicta  per  bar.in  tractatu  reprefaliarum  ( vii 

q.principolt  in  ^.ad  terdumqneritur. 

CapT  cxxxvi. 

Urto  quero  an  in  mulieree  bo* 

nonienleaexcrceripoffint  appa 

ret  9>  fic.llam  m  cid  babet  locu 

ci 


432 


t.li  .C.  «  captt  Contra 
rfoi  eft  term,  nam  in  perfonam  capi  non 
po(jimt.C.K  offLetas  qni  olcts  site  gent  to 
ten.fed  Sodie  i  .C.<k  ex  ce.re.m.aut.  (5  no 
ao  lare.t  flU  ficultas  concdTa  *  hire  gen. 
octet  intelUgi  ctuflitfr.ff.de  fcroi.l.ri  cuL 

t-onden  ej  que  pieJicantur  a  bir.in  rri 
etatu  repefaliarum  in  viLq.piincipali  in'<$. 
ad  quirrum  quotas'  • 

Cap.  c-mrii. 

Uinto  qnero.cl  n  conm  deri, 
coalwnon.poltit  exerceri  rei.e 
<j>  no  ia  ca.uno  x  iniuriia  li  .ti 
ttuid'cc  clericia'comugatiaoe 
bfodianJuatu.unodecle.coniusi.li.'vl 
3  n  eoifcopo  negligent*  facm  iufticia  0« 
clericus  fuia  com  bibcri  non  potcft  ad  fuperi 
Ktm  reoorfaa  a?  epua  <ft  fcifmaticns  potfmt 
iudici  rcp?cfalu  contra  dcricos  eodkm  pof 
Judiccm  feaiUran-Quidam  in  boc  diAitat 
ncc  eft  ddbitandum  null*  eft  cocdTa  ptas  co 
tra  ckricum  quilitcrcuncptslincjuentc  .uC 
ca.conting(t  i  in  audiencia  df  fen.  txco.n 
ca.fi  iuOex  lafcuaeo.  ti.tUl.  poterunt.po 
umnt  ergo  cobcrctri  per  fupcrtoem  fnum 
n  potent  bbcri  recurfue  ad  fuperio«m  luOt 
am  (ccuUrcm  per  uiam  rcuocationis  ut  a. 
i.deotfi.oJl>i.wiii.q.i  regum  .n  ca.»d  mif 
tratocce  i  c».piinccpa.    Tbondera  narrt 
ti  p--r  bar  .in  tractitu  repieWurum  in  ner  . 
ad  qnintum  queritur  in  tti-q^incipalluid 
to  .waojefl  fa  dicto  cj.Uck  iniuriis  U.TU 


£pttmoqucritar  etncontrabo 

nonicnlea  euntespaOua;  p?o  Ibi 

db  polttnt  excrceri  .ucl  etia  (bi 

dentesbonoic.tet.cft  9>  non  in 

jutrn  .bibita.C-nc  filiuo  pro  patre  i  boc  uc 

dicat  fibi  locu^  li  (bidcant  iura  in  locia  p:cui 

kgiatis  priuilcgio  lladiia.&ecus  autcm  in 

•lib  (rudant  iura  .  at  in  puixmio.  ftoii.^. 

bee  aatan  trio.  Jnaliisaatem  facultatibus 

ubt$  toceri  potcft  ut  J.fi  duos.^.cum  aute 

ff  .oe  eicu.  tu.    t  r  quod  dictum  eft  de  fco 

bribastdemdicitdercripto}ibusf  bidcllis 

i  Kcidentibue  can.  fcolarium  ut  .LLC.de 


de  patre  i  altia  agnatia  qui  ircnt  ad  uiten, 
dam  ftlium  t  agaitum  in  lbidio.ff.de  iudi. 
l.ii.  f  .idem  in  glo-faper  onto  uencrir. 
t^ondcra  ci  que  narrantur  fpcr  bar  an  trac 
tatu  replaliaram  in  iti.q^nincipali  in  v.ad 
fextum  queritur  :c.uioc  bar.in.ii.$.legatia 
ff  .di  iudi.iia. 

Capfm  cxxrix< 

Ctauo  qurrituu  an  contra  bono 
nic  .imbirutcus  podint  exerct 


ri  So.noo  porenjnr  ut.Lfl.ff  -  A  legaticni 
bii8Jf.de iudi.l.iii^.UgarisT  mdeocfoJo? 
pe.ca.  n.  tondera  ca  que  pjedictntur  a 
bar. in  tractitu  de  rcp:eWUrum  in  vii.qoc. 
principal!  in  utrfi.ad  fcpti-num  quentu:  ui 
Oe  bar  in.Lpjim.1  .$4cs«is.ff.dk  iu  Jicii*. 

Cipfm  c  xl . 

Ono  queritur  3n  cotra  Bono* 
nurnfcacuntcsadnundinaa  pof 
Tint  cxerceriux.cft  in.f.una.C 
cc  nundinis  op  non.    9  n  ?tra 
cjntes  ad  bnctu-n  lacobum  uel  »d  aliam  pe 
gruutbncm  pofltnt  excrcri.  rfideo  no  ut  DC 
clei'i.pesri.pcrtotum.C.comuuu  Dcfucce. 
•utenric.  omnes  ibi  liberi .      Jdem  oc  cnn 
tibua  ad  locum  indulg^ntie  pwpur  tenenx 
dum  Ixitpiciam  uel  illiquid  limile  in  f  uicium 
•ccedentium  p:o  indulgcntia.    3n  contra 
Bononicnfw  rajantCB  qui  vi  witwum  De 
feruntur  a J  ciuitatcm  indicentem  excrceri 
polTmt  rnd*  ^  no  p  aiit.nauisia.C.ix  furr. 
SdiJcmocnaafra.l.i.ti.xi.    3netia?tra 
illos  qui  in  iu9  uocari  non  poffunt  potcrunr 
exerceriquienumeratur  in.I.it.flf.  Oe  iniua 
uoc.riidco  non.  'Ratio  Thm  fi  iiwent  condtx 
pnati  non  polTant  capi  multo  minus  p  Oelic 
Co  ul  debito  alterius  Ixx  fieri  potent.    £x 
quo  infi  rrur  q>  ft  Bononienfts  eligererur  in 
potdbatem  me  Jblancnfcm  ibi  non  poffet  Oe- 
tineri  vt^oK  reprefaliarum.St  fi  Bononicf 
Iret  ad  ciratatcm  21!>edioUn.pJopter  funua 
confajumci.  1 1  idem  in  ftmilibus  caGbue  qui 
cnumerantur  in  Dicta  .l.ii.ff .  Oe  inios  uoc. 
t^ondcra  noti  per  bar-in  tractatu  repje^ 
&Iiarum  in  xiLqueftione  piincipjli  in  v-  ad 
octauum  queritur  i  in  v.»d  nonu  queritur 
•t  in  v.ad  Oecimum  querirur  cum  fen.de  pe 
grinis  vide  bar.in  aut.  oes  peg  int  .C.  ecu 
de  fucccff.baj.in.l.ii.^.legit  is.ft.de  iudi. 

CapTm  c  xtL 

£cimo  querirur  3n  contra  bo 
nonicnfem  poteftatem  midiolax 
ni  ibi  in  iuftici*;  facientc  poiTit 
conccdi  repiefalk  5a.de  bel.  in 
aut  at  non  fi.pijno.tenet  9*  fie  p  .l.Lff.  g» 
quilcy  iuv.    3lii  diftiiiguunt  an  fecerit  ti 
km  iniufticiim  p  qua  conucnin  non  pcifit 
otftcio  dnriute  uel  fit  talia  qua  conueniri  no 
polTit  ut.l.para  Iras-  de  iudi.1  .l.ne  magrat' 
ff.de  iniuriisT  tune  non  polfunt  indicL  f  ini 
to  aute  n  offtcio  potcrant  indici  piius  rcqui 
fito  fmdic.ito:e  ncc  dcbetrcquiri  iudex  etui 
titid  foe  qm  ibi  conueiri  no  debet  rone  talia 
omiifuC.ubi  de  ratij.a-ji  opo?tet.l.i.i  .ii.  i 
C.ut  omncstam  ciuiles  y  cnmi.l.  uni  i  in 
•ut.uciudi.fiiK  quoquofuffni.f.neceirirax 
tern.    Sinautem  talia  fitquacouciripof 
fmt  tune  poterunt  indici.  t^anc  lolutiuncm 
non  puto  ucram  to  hoc  fccu'Jj  mon'jJo.lUi 


433 


rqsefalk  tndicnnrnr  in  deftctii  iurifdkteui 
defickntis.£!i  ergo  durante  offido  gucniri 
porfunt  i  in  loco  comilfi  ut  in.l.ii.C.  ubi  a. 
ratiojgi  oport,  i  ut  oca  ta?  ciuilee  e>  cru  i 
Li.ad  gd  i'loC  repfaliis.Tti  puto  uerl  i  pi. 
mcbio  ubi  df  q>  finite  officio  poffit  idici  na  ft 
niro  pnt  ?ocniri.T  iur.for  fuari  ergo  n  e  op» 
hoc  rcmcdio.  f  arcoz  tamen  q>  utroqj  cal'u 
ubi  per  utam  tut  is  non  pellet  arccri.rccurre 
dum  ellet  ad  KpKlaltas  i  boccafu  non  eft 
rcqmrcndus  iudc  jc  ciuitatia  pzopzie  qz  i'upcr 
hoc  non  potcft  ius  bcere  per  iura  fupa  alk. 
gata.  fcondcra  no.pcr  bar.in  tractatu-re 

pjcia!  iarum  in  \i.q.pjincipali  in  ucrlicuto  . 

adpjitnum  qucntur. 

CapTmcljiu. 

Tldecimo  qucntur  an  contra  of 
ficwka  potcftatis  uel  rccto:ta  in 
iufticbm  facicntia-poiTmt  indu 


(tc.  Bliidicunthocncrumubioffi-cxptTe 
iurauenit  rectcuc  ad  fidcdu  uillicii  ut.  C-0 
aduo.diuer.iudi.l4xr  lac.C.de  crccu.milL 
l.pc.li.  r  .  feinautcm  otticuL's  cxpiclTe  cd 
tradircrunt  non  pofilnt  contra  tales  indid 
Lquoniam.C.deappeL  feinauttm  ofhcu 
Us  nee  confcntiunt  nee  coUadicunt  quii  ab 
(enU9  ud  ignonntts  tune  etiam  non  politic 
tU.i-in  piin.ff.dt  mi.couc.  iriniute  (it 
pjciciitco  ncc  confcntiunt  ncc  contradicut 
tune  l"i  funt  officiates  Xputati  iO  mcrii  ofh^ 
ciu;  Qui  i°n  uountur  ad  cofilu  ut  funt  no 
tariii  lixubaro.irii.tunc  etiam  contra  ti 
ke  non  potcruut  indici.ff.ee  ma-cooue.l.i» 
£t  ratio  q:  no  potcruut  rcftlkre.  Cut  oma 
tamciuilcsijcrimt.l.i.^xifticium.  Sinx 
aurcm  laut  officklts  affumpti  ad  confute  dti 
tune  contra  tilw  poterunt  indict.  Oide 
bar.in  tractatu  rcpzelauarum  in  vi-qutltio. 
p  j  i  ncipili  in  ucr  ti.ad  fccundum  qucrit  ur  . 

CipTm  cUiii.     . 

UoJccimo  qucrit  ur  an'ectra  co 

fules  p:ioK8  ciuitatis  tcnegin* 

tcdfeccrere  iuitieiam  Doffint  in 

diet  ?i.b  bcl.dicit  f  fx.aiii  di 

cut  hoc  nrru  cotra'p:efeiitcs.Seci!n  tamen 

contra  abfentcs  q?  contra  ceo  ut  confuka  in 

dici  non  poterunt  ut.Li.ff.ix  ma.quc  in  p:i 

cipio.    t>oudcra  quc  narrantiu  per  bar.in 

tractatu  rtpjdiiuru}  in  ferta  qucftione  pn 

cipoli  in  neiftculo  id  terctum  queritur. 

CapTm  c  liuii. 

£crcio  oceimo  an  contra  fingu- 
Urea  perfonas  pojfmt  indict  pc 
nitua  innoantes  pioptcr  cdic^ 
ctum  cominiucl  alteriuspiiui 
U  DC  qao  non  fit  iufticia  Jaeo  A  faeUici  1  9. 


iwn.cp  no  celxt  qufe  yaosn  p:odc!k  to  altc 
rius  rcgula  non  trbet  de  regulis  iuris  li.vu 
ZIlii  contra  per  ca.Wminnsixiii  q.ii.nam 
in  fcntcntU  intcroieti  puniuntur  finguli  c  t 
inoccnrca  ut  ca.fi  fcntcntudcfcntecia  ex 
co.li.vi.3n  belle  tufto  rcpcriuntu:  innocen^ 
tes.fed  rep;cfalk  funt  quoddam  bellum  par- 
ticulare  etiam  licet  captusfit  tnnoceneta 
mem  c iuitie  babct  ius  in  cum  i  hoc  uidetur 
feruan.  !>ondcra  no.pci  bar  in  tractu  repze 
faliarum  in  •vuq.ptin.in.v.ad  qituj  qritur 

CspFm  e'xlv. 

Uartodeeimo  quero  3n  contra 
bomined  fubditos  quoad  quid  ci 
uitati  bon.non  aute  pkne  indid 
portint.Soluto  ft  lint  ciuitatea 
r  aniuerfttateB  fimplicitcr  (uppoite  ciuitat. 
bonon.led  ex  pacto  bobent  aliquaa  c  rcmptio 
IKS  t  iurifdict  iones  contra  iftos  indiei  pote 
runt  quU  non  funt  fubiccte  fed  fi  quo  ad  qdi 
fc  fiibiccerun 1 1  contra  iftos  ^prcv  aclictum 
tominihabcntis  eas  fubiectas  non  induccTe 
tur  rep.'cfalic  quia  funt  libcre  ut.l  .non  dubi 
to.ff.cc  eaptiuis  fed  .ppter  cclietum  Dictay 
ciuitatum  indiei  poterunt  ftcut  i  bellum  \l> 
tit  urn  fieri  pour  it .  ftondcra  nota  p  bar. 
in  tractatu  repiefaliaf  in  vi.  qudttone  pin 
tipjli  in  v  fi.ad  qaintum  queritor. 

CapTcrivl.. 

Uintod.-ctmo  queritnr  Hn  ?tra 

cenum  genua  bominumfacere 

iufticiam  Ocnegantiu  indiei  poC. 

Tint  rcpfalk.£t  Oicedum  ell  9 

fie  feruata  fojma .    In  pockra  ncta  p  bar. 

f n  tractatu  rcp:cfalurum  in  \i.  qucftione 

pineipalim  v.ad  Icxtum  queritnr 

Capktulum.eil«ii. 

fdatuidere  Oe  caufa  matcmli 

ec  qua  infurgunt  rtpelalk  i  e 

Ocfcctusiurifdictbnis.     Tlam 

p:imo  Ciibc t  requiri  iudc  j:  qui  fi 

negligat  nee  haberi  poteft  recurfus  ad  fupto 

remtunccocedipoffunt.    Circa  boc  qneri 

poteft  oe  plurbus-Bn  requiri  Oebeat  index 

Ut  iuftjciam  facut  an  te$  repfalk  conccdat. 

Captm  c  xlviii  - 

tpitmo  qiKritur.Quis  Oebeat 

inquirere  iudicem  ut  iuftieia  fa  - 

ciat.p.pars  inrariam  pafla  i  iu 

dice  negligence  Oebct  odire  rcc 

teaem  ciuitatis  ,ppjk  i  faecrc  fidcm  DC  regx 

fitoe  T  neglectu  i  petere  ut  fgrat  ittrato  ut 

iuftici*  fciat  i  tc  co  neglige  tc  poteriit  idici 

9.  nit  rcquiraf  ptia  rcquifito  pbat  in  aut -ut 


4.)  4 


diftrtntte  fud.in  pincpio  con.HL  tondere 
tiqutno-bar-intTJCtata  rcpxfaliarum  in 
(ecunda.q.pnncipali  in  utr.ad  pjimu  qnerif 

CapTmcxlix. 

£omdo  qucrirur  an  ft  p.ir?  do, 

bit  am  litigarc  in  ciuirare  iniur 

rtam  infcrcntia  pjoprer  ciuepo 

tcnti.i.3n  ttidcx  foua  potfit  fcri 

btrc  at  I  alias  pwet  iurifdi.F  dipt  ar.iure 

ciuili.pw  ctrtis  pfonia  utpurc  mifcrabilibua 

hoc  thrum  g>  Pic  ur.Li.in  ft.C.quando?nu 

ixratcw  into"  pu.T  uidu.iurc  canonico  lad' 

pmifTum  eftbodk  per  ouftitutu^.ui  uero 

deppt.li.Ti.cttJoad  articulum  imperratL 

onis.  t>ondera  a  que  narratur  a  bar.in  tra 

ctatu  repxfaliarum  in  fecunda  qocftionc  pa 

dpali  in  uerlkuload  fecundum  queritur. 

CapfmcL 

frctoqueroquiiiudet  rcquirt 
dcbctutiufticiam,faciflt.  Ben 
Kbet  pjimo  rcquiri  index  chrita 
tia  iniuruntis  t  tune  ft  negligit 
iufticum  ficerc  aObibit  piorimum  fupcrio:e 
quo ocficicnte  adhibit  pjincipcm  in  autc.ut 
djffe.iudt.in  p:incipioiiuibus  modup  Dcftci 
cntiboe  omnibus  Intmctntur  rqneUlkpd 
ukatem  p:op?iam  que  fucudit  in  locum  or^ 
ficientis iurifdictionift.  £in autcm none 
gli&u  led  in  iufticiam  faciat  pjonunciando  i 
iqoe.tuncnciuitaebabeat  iadiccm  opptlla 
tionbocputacum  ad  ipfum  per  appcllatione 
additur.  £t  Ci  non  babeat  indicentur  rep 
(alie.nam  ell  quod  imputari  poterit  c  iuitati 
9>  non  ocputtuit  iodicem  appcllatbnis. 
^inautcmiudiccsappcllarionisbis  iufticil 
fcarunt  tune  uidetur  parsocftituta  oi  fubfi 
dio  cum  noliceit  rcrtio  appclbri  nee  uidef 
poffc  dici  rcpjefilie  cum  non  txftcerit  turia 
dictio  (cd  dici  pot  eft  g>'f\  ob  gram  ptis  iniq? 
pniicuuit  tuc  poterit  pet  i  reftituto  ut.l.p^ 
fccti  pto.ff.Dcmincn'.Srinaut  obgia;  illcaj 
qui  rejunt  tune  pti  tenet ur  ad  inttrelTt  ut 
C.nc  lict.po.l.i.n  ocbiaquipo.U.  i  Tic  id 
interclTe  tenentur  actione  in  fictum.ff.p  (b 
cto.l.quicquam.  &maurem  mique  lata  He 
ex  Iblo  iud-motu  tune  eft  Jxftiruta  omni  Tub 
(idio  ut  fupia  dictum  eft  -  T>ondera  narra 
taper  bar  .i  tractatu  repfaliarum  in  .ii.qoc 
principali  in  uer  ficulo.ad  terciun  queritur. 

Ci-clL 

Uartp  queritur  qiulin  iniufticia 

rcquiritur  ut  rcpjcfjlic  induci 

turioo.pmodiconon  indicun 

tor  cum  hoc  fit  remcdium  extra 

tndiMriam  quod  non  datur  MO  moOico  ut.I 

tto.ff.oc  in  inttjrcflit.i  .Lfi  oloi  ff.de  t»!o 


requHtur  rtfam  tf  totnliter  fit  i'  Ufd  k(?  fi 
parnalitrr.t.qiKXics-C.tx  preci.impe.offc. 
11am  rotahrer  tuftiuum  non  facit  .C.  Oe 
feruw  hi.Lmancipia  n.l.iii  .^.  in  cum.ff.  tx 
tMmp.infecto.  la  pondera  ea  quc  pdicit* 
a  Nr.in  tractatu  rcpfoliarum  in  .h.  qVHow 
pnncipali  in  tfuad  quart«5  queritur. 

Capfm  ctii. 

ttintoqu:ro3n  oiotur  no  pof 

fe  babcri  copia  fupioJW  ut  fit  la. 

ens  iurifdictioni  repiefalurum 

SolutS  ubi  non  poteft  baberi  cc 

far  nee  6  facto  tc  e  op' nt.c.ons.xxiii.q-ii. 

T  -l.nirii8X;.tf  iudtt8.£inaut  o  ture  bibcri 

poteft  non  tamcn  dc  facto  quia  non  obcdiut 

tuc  idem.      Sinaurem  babcri  poteft  b  iuf 

fed  difficile  eft  baberi  de  facto  utpute  Jmpox 

to?  cum  Pit  ualde  dilbns  i  pars  eft  paup)U 

ma  tune  etil eft  locus.lf.de  pig.act .I.fi  fuus 

ff.de  oiucrfB  ^  tempali  piefcrip.    'toderi 

ea  que  tractantur  a  bar.in  tracta.rcpCalia? 

in  fecunda  qucftione  pnncipali  in  \  (iculo  ad 

tcrtmm  queritur  ic. 

Capfm  ctiii. 

£ftat  uidere  t>c  caufa  tomali  i 
bee  eft  Oupiex.Tlam  eft  brma  tn 
Oiccndarum  i  eft  ftwma  exerce 
darum.fo?m.iautem  indicedfl 
rum  impiicat  tomam  CcfenfionL?  illius  cotra 
quern  indicunrnr.  fit  circa  hoc  etiam  b  plu^ 
ribus  qucrendu5.  £tpiimo  queritur  quo 
lure  concedantur  bic  dioit  aliqui  quod  ft  co^ 
adantur  p  il'.os  qui  non  recognofcunt  fupio 
rcm  ab  illia  "hoc  peri  non  debet  hire  actionif 
nee  per  offidu^  fed  dcbet  requiri  man7  regia 
per  qnam  omnia  cxpcdiebanmr  ut.Lii.ff.de 
o?isine  toria.&olu  enix  tllud  regrit  <\0  iua 
gctiu  vgrcbat.f.o^  ci  pp'qui  ?cedar  fit  uera 
faliistame  defenfionibusilHi  ?tra  quern  015 
hoc  Pit  iurc  naturilis  ut  in  cle.paftcnalis.  $. 
cctcrum  DC  re  iudi.T  babcnti  repxfaliaa  fuf, 
ficit  offender e  conceiTionem  Pine  a!io  puocef 
fu  i  lecrc  p:efumuntur  cetera  agirata.Ttam 
Inftar  rft  facii!egii.C-Ce  facrikg.£t  bee  eft 
nera  in  territcnio  conccdentis  ueru5.qi  ge« 
contra  quam  conccduntur  uti  poltet  eodcm 
lore  per  tit  nlum  $  quilq<  Juris.  £t  Pi  aliter 
ex  wcto  oc  IMC  debcret  cognofcere  .ut  pura 
arbiter  uelalii  ineumberet  cuiu8p,'obandi 
i'li  cui  funt  concefTc  feruata  foima  eoni  que 
iurcgcntium  rtquiruntur.  ?deotuciuacq» 
fiat  pjoceltuo  in  fcriptis  rcdigatur.i  boc  te 
netarcbi.mcA.unodeinuir.ILvi.  TIjmte 
net  9  pjccedere  Dcbet  monitio  T  fentencia 
fupcr  ntglcctu.fi t  ka icntit guide  concoix 
dUnPu epifcopw-  Sinautem  repjcfalic  pc.* 
dntur  ab  bis  quibue  boc  conalTum  eft  a  fta 
tntia-tunc  Pi  ftatutum  traoit  oidtncm  tune 


435 


q?  facultas  concedendi  rcpjtfjlias  ptoccdit 
a  iuvc  ciuili  aim  fhtuta  fine  tue  ciuilc  ut.L 
omnespopuli.ff.tKiufti-T  iurc  tnnctxbjitm 
plcnrictficiuniotfichlislitxllus  poijigipa 
citari  i  pcedi  ut  oifponunt  iura.  fcondcra 
nota  p  bar.m  tractatu  repiefaliazum  in  ter> 
tja  qudbonc  principal!  in  tfi.ad  primii  qrit 

CapTm  cliiii. 

£cundo  qucrirur  quis  compare 
re  portit  ad  impediendum  ut  idu 

cantor.-  Solatia  quiltUt  c' 
intereft  DC  tdti.c.uerucns  dc  re 
iudi.CD.cumlupcr.  Jntcreft  autcm  pqrulj 
contra  quc5  tndicuntur  i  bibcns  mandatu 
ab  co i  quiiibct  K poputo  admitteretur  fm 
mandate  qoia  cuiuflibct  intereft.  ft  .ccope. 
noui  anun.l.  i  pouindali-f  .ft.  Hdmittc 
tor  etiam  tlli  qui  fun t  cc  popolo  indicentis. 
qjinttrdineiniuite  iudtcantur  uteodcm 
fare  Dtnntur  contra  cos  .fi.cp  quity  ions  i 
rubio.i  per  totum  nignn;.  I  u  pondcra  4 
di  t  ic  bar.in  tractatu  rcpdal  urum  i  n  .ijiuq. 
ptinciptli  in  oaftculojd  iu.qucritur . 

Caprmc.lv. 

£  r  cic  qua*  itnr  q«  dcfbife  com 
petanttlli  contra  qoempetunf 
&dutio.copctit  »ceptio9>pe 
tens  no  (oUim  bobcat'  ms  pcttn 
di  uel  rationc  pcrfone  uel  iure  compctentisl 
9>  paratiu  eft  emendare  utxa.tominuB  no^ 
lur  niii.q.u.  feed  an  portit  picto  rmi 
tiari  buic  iuri£cce  cligitur  recto:  duitat. 
bononie  qui  torat'non  pctere  rquefalua  cc 
trictuttatem niiquid oblobit  exccprio re* 
nutiacionis  So.pjitus  (ft  p:optt r  uiiqui 
ccndcmpnationem  tune  quafi  in  modum  ap^ 
pcllat  iony  recurritur  ad  iudkem  p:op:ium 
in  locum  Deficient! ;  iurifdictbnls.kd  fie  pa 
tt  It  appdladoni  ut.l.fi.C^c  tempo.ippel. 
£nn  jutcm  pufus  fie  iniuria;  tune  pacni 
non  operator  effcctum  q;  renutteretor  U)x 
las  fucujus  ut.l.fi  unas  .^.illad.ff.de  pact. 
i.l.conutncnt.ff.ocpactiaoota.  Donde 
rano.per  ba;.in  tractatu  rcpjcfilunim  .in 
iui.qttdtkne  ptictpaii in  v.ad  quartii  qrit. 

CapFmclvi. 

Oartoqueritur  qailiter  confti 

bit  oc  iniufticia  facta  uT  oc  ea  ne 

gati.^jol.pcr  acta  piimi  ludicta 

uel  per  tefles  requiri  pot  p?im' 

iuOt  x  ut  faciat  copiam  actoium  t  f  i  non  fa  * 

ciat  hoc  eft  iniufticia  faore  ut.l.ii.C-ut  lite 

pen.    ftondcra  nota.per  tur.in  tractatu  r 

poialiarum  in  iiu'.q.pim  .in  v.ad  <jntu  qrit. 

Capfmcltu. 


CKnto  qneritnr.  an  R  aliqua  ci, 

piantur  uigo:c;rcpjefaliarum  dc 

tineri  ualcat  ut  ex  (Rimo  an  ex 

fecnndodecreto.    &o.fiidcc 

font  repfalie  pte  cttata  et  romparente  i  la. 

tafotritfuper  hoc  fcntentia  tune  ta  dctine 

tor  ex  cl  iudi.ut.ft.de  re  iadi.La.di.pio.fin 

lot  n  compareat  tc  pmo  dibit  (nil  a  fcapiat 

ex  pnmo  dccrcto  ut  affectus  tcdio  ucbt.6  1 

fie  contumax  per  fcueraueri  t  tune  djbitur  li 

cent  u  dcrinendi  ex  fctfo  dccrcto.    tSm^ 

dera  omnino  a  que  ptedicitor  a  bar  .in  trac 

taturepji:laliaramin;iiii.qutftton£  pjindpa 

i  in  <  .ad  fcxtum  quczitu?. 

Capittulum.c  I^iii. 

£ftatuidcrcdefc«ma  exercedi 

repfaliasindictas  i  cb'cabocq 

rendum  eft  oc  plurib'.  £t  pibno 

an  Uccatiili  cui  font  concede 

rqRdalk  auctcnitate  pp:b  od  per  mintftroT 

concedentia  ape  homines  contra  quostndi 

cuntur.©olutio  iaco.de  beluifo  tenet  j»  no 

licet  auctoiitate  onia  cape  ptrfonas  nee  ref 

fed  iudiciarb  ut.l.fi  miles  .ff.  Oc  re  iudi. 

©uppkntquidambocvcrum  fipoteftbabe 

ri  copia  iudicte  afe  auctoritatc  .pjnia  lictbit 

ff  .que  in  fran.credU.ait  picto7.$.fi  txtttox 

rcm.C  .K  decuri.l.generili.£  t  hoc  puto  uc 

rum  pondcrari  enim  Oeb?  modus  facuUatis 

concdTc  t  ilk  feruandos&c  refcripxom  t»u 

lectaT.l.Oiliscntcr.ft.mandati.    t>odera 

nota  p  tur  .in  tractatu  reptefoliaru)  in  nona 

qudtione  princtpali  in  ^fu»d  pnui  queritur 

CipTmch-iui. 

£cundo  queritur  .  3n  per  fonaa 
captas  T  resteneatur  capknsp 
fen  tare  tndici.3n  pofftt  reuenif 


tenetur  pntarc  iudici  pcr.l.no  eft  fingulia.ff 
Oe  reg.iur.ne  fiant  illicite  exactiones  ut  .1. 
lllidtas.ff.oeoffi.pjcfi.  3liit»icunt?tra 
pudere  in  perfonts  captis  que  pebent  ad  iu 
diccm  duci  ut.l.gcncrali.C-dc  decuri.  i  dc 
paceiura.fir.cor.x.'ftesaiitem  quecapient 
ex  caufatadicatiuelexp>inK>  uel  ex  feciido 
ekcretout.e.tacnmeftremanebunt  penes 
capiente5  ut.l.ia  cuius.  <J.qui  Icgato^.ff.ut 
inpof.lega.£tperboc  non  eft  necefleplus 
ire  ad  iudiccm.  TUm  fufftcit  p?ima  confelfio. 
3n  bia  omnibus  puto  ponderidam  foimaj 
conceirionisnt.e.pxtmcdixi.  Eupodera 
no.perbar.in  tractatu  repjefaliarum  inix. 
queftione  pincipali  in  ^fi.ad  fco'm  queritur 
bjr.m.l.generali.C.d  dccuri.Ii.x. 

CapfcJx. 

£rtioquerietur.  9n  i  qualiter 
res  captc  uigoK  rcpTefaliaru  nen 

dantur  uel  in  folutum  accipiant 
ud  eitimantur.  Joofo.  Dicnnt 


436 


qditan  >  indicia  mcMiwe  uendunrur  at 
I  .«iBe«.  $.ii.ff .  dc  iutf.  £  itumtio  fut  per 
ittdicein.l.ii.C.de  fare  do.i  njxmi.  1  in  c6x 
pBtatione  fut  dednctioexpefap  .ff.ad.l.faL 
l.in  qnanritate  T  .1.  fcimua.  $.  tn  ppntatione 
Cde  we  do!i  .£QW  bis  ct  um  puto  attendc 
dim  foimim  conceflionis.  t^odetacaqoc 
piedicantn?  a  bvin  nactatu  xpiefaliani;  in 
noni  qoc  panctptli  in  Vfi.  ad  tejtiu  querit. 

CapTmclxl. 

Uirto  qacrituj.3  n  diebus  krii 
tig  poffint  indicte  »ep?efalk  ex 
ejceii.Solutio.in  dieb'  ftmtia 
piopta  bominum  neccffiutrm 
potfant  ficut  ejcecutionea  fententia?  ut  .c. 
ritinodeiuti.  £>i  autcm  cc  fcriari  ob  reut- 
rcntum  sa  tune  dicunt  aliqui  hoc  fieri  po(Te 
in  ufu  ne  centime  oc  poire  totum  concelli 
ontm  ut  puta.fi  ill!  contra  quoeconccdonc 
fiat  i  n  iifnk'c  nifi  diebas  Krutis  allegant.l 
LlUi.ff.ocferiie.  1?jnc  conclufioncmfl 
credo  oeram  tn  txx.r.memiKO.  ,Tlam  cnpta 
occafione  rcp;cfiliiruiri  capiuntur.  tuit  ex  p 
mo  aut  cxiccundo  xcrcro.  tnt  caufi  iudica 
ti  ut  fupJt  deductum  clt.  1 1  bee  omnia  inbix 
kncur  ttmpoie  fcruto.ut.l.oua  (btimalx 
kgita.£tiimlcxpomrfpccwliter  inferlis 
i  ductia  ptoptcr  ixnninum  ncccditatem  ut  (n 
caiibas  illis  p.-oadi  poifit  illts,  ditbu9  ut.l.i 
lJi.ff.d<  fmU.  De  fcriis  autem  indultia 
obrcuercnciamtxinilexcipitur  ergofladii 
regale.  luponderiadeiqaebtcloquitur 
(uoiaus  meu  j  noti.pcr  bar  .in  tract*.  rcp:c, 
faiurum  in  ix.q.p:incipali  in  utrfi.ad  quar^ 
tan  qucritur  bar.in  auun.i  iOeo.  C-nc  ux 
m  po  marito  in  penult.col< 

CapTnt  c  txii. 

Umro  qucritur  tt  qiria  aolt  fe  6 

fcndcrc  uel  rtd  captas  uigox  re 

pufalitrum  qualia  cognicb  idb( 

beatur.  So.dicunt  qoioim  9> 

i  fatti  eli  executio  plena  de  qua  res  ncdtte 

uel  wlblutum  date  tune  eft  opus  oidinuu 

cognicione  nee  audietur  rtftcium  imptorana 

ut  .1.1  diuo  pio.$.fi  poft  addini  .ff.de  f.'iudii 

Siautem  non  fit  trcufatio  plene 

ifcctaTedpendet  tune  pot  officium  ihidic. 

mplorare.pir  quod  far  edictio  actoram.  ui 

9nc>qnoru  inOicti  funt  repicfalte  i  potent 

opponere  ad  Oeftctum  Juris  illiua  cui'lunt  co 

cm  i  bibilttatem peribm  i  adaliadcqui 

bus  fupja  aaum  allegit  Liii.C.de  eden.t.1 

ii.C.ut  lite  pen.i  .LLff.de  eden.£t  fiet  Tup 

bx  fummaru  cognicio .     "bjnC  condufw 

•m  noo  credo  oeram  in  hoc  iiccundo  mebw 

Tlai  fi  Tint  indict*  repwtok  pwte  citata  t 

compirenu  i  in  iudicioperrulente.tucdi 

rm eft  9>  died  wndufw  pwcedit  qi  tile  ex 


{epttoncs  oeniebant  pjopontndi  a  pitndpio. 
Ttec  opponi  potetl  poll  lentcntiam  nt.l  .pu 
emptojus.C.fenuntum  refcin.non  pofle  i 
Lquidem-COe  except.!  c.pafto?alie  extra 
eo.ti.  &  ancem  in  dicte  funt  partef  p  co 
tumacum  abfcnte  ex  primo  n  fecudo  deue 
to.&i  tntt.ucmr  fccundum  tecretum  uel  e 
quiiulcnn  fecudo  decrcto  ut  lapfiu  anni  in  f 
ali.tunc  idem  q;  non  auditur  nifi  per  uu  01 
dinamm.Umn.^.Ci  plurea.ff.de  dampno. 
inf<c.£t.i.con(entaneumqttomodoT  qaan 
do  iuicx  i  ibi  no.i  .ccdtingit  d^'colo  i  co 
to.  5nprimoautdecrcto'p7ocedcrcpoiT5 
t^ondera  no.pcr  bar. In  tractctu  rcpuli 
arum  in  ix.q.in  <o.ad  quinni  queritur. 

CspTmcIxia. 

Uic  mnnbio  adiugitur  tx  reme 
Oiis  exacti£tcirca  boc  de  pluri 
bus  queritur  £t  (uimbqucritur 
3n  ex  acto  competat  regrelTua 
contra  Olum  pptcr  cuiua  Debirum  ncl  dclio 
torn  etact-eft. Jaco.oc  are  tenet  in.l.u.ff .0 
^.obli.9>  ci  fuccurritur  contra  ilium  ppter 
emus  deUcrum  ha  dcbitum  indictc  fun:  rep 
falk  p.l.raj  t  fuus.ff  .6  ncg.gefjf.nau.cau. 
fttbu.l.licet.f  fj.ff.de'bis  qut  dek.udeffu.l 
trftvo.^.cumautcm  3  lii  dicunt  contra 
per  glofam.ff.de  rcg.i'jrb.I.fi  quia;dolo.$.i. 
Hamifte  noneflexactua.pptcr  iUupuatd 
j7mmo,pfteriu<iicemqmiufticu  denegaoit 
uel  imuftiuam  fecit.  Dicunt  ergo  q>  ant  eft 
exactuaiudexquia  fecit  iniulticUm  i  tiic 
iudici  no  fuccurritur  ut  dicta.l.fi  quia  db!a 
9ut  eft  exactus  iudex  quti  negtexk  iufH 
tiom  t  tune  fuccurritur  contra  ilium  o*  quo 
requirebotur  miticu  ut.C.dt  exac.  tribu.I. 
mi/funfUt.x.  3ut  eft  exactus  txTtioetf 
populo  tune  pcedtt  opi.ia.de  arc.t.Ucet  in  (i 
nau.cau.ftabii.id.  fcondera  ea  qne  pjedi 
cantur  a  bar.in  tnctatu  rcp?efjliarum  injc. 
qneftoc  p:incipj!i  in  vfl.ad  (Uimu;  queritur 
uide  bar.tn.l.ii.f.  fi.ff.de  ^.obli-uitf  bir.iri 
ant  ut  non  fiant  pigno:a  lur.i  ange.tn.Lni 
i  Fuiuj  .ff.de  neg.gef.bat.in  aiit.i  io.C.  ne 
nxoi  p  ma.angc.ln.l.fulf.Q  fa.fiirtu;  feci/Te 
dicat  uide  baLin  dicu.l.tt.f  Ji.ff.de  v.obli. 

CapTmclxiui. 

£cundo  uibfcquttcr  queric.Sa 

cxacto  fuccurratirr  contra  rec, 

tOKm  ficut  contra  debitorem 

piincipalem  at  fupa  dictum  eft 

SoTo.Ccnucniendus  eft  debitoi  pjincipalia 

T  fi  non  eft  bloendo  tone  rectoJ  oi  ipfe  etti 

dcbiloj.  bcit  iuftkiam  denegido.^  btc  otdo 

fit  kruandiB  pbit'.ff  .de  ma.c6oe.t-i  .in  piin 

de  core.filci.debi.Lquonum.    Ultimo  per 

uenitur  ad  officiiks  qui  com  po-tin  t  impeOcf 

rectotcm  ad  iulliciam  faciendam  negUjccnit 


437 


ff.deoMra.J(.!.i.f  nuncrrKtemufc  to 
pondera  ea  que  pttdicantur  a  bar.in  tracts 
tu  repfalii?  in.x.qoe  pzincipali  m  wHaJ 
fecuiidum  queritur. 


£rcio  queritar  3n  captus  uigo 
rerepjcfaliarumpotfet  auctori* 
tate  piapm  homines  tlliaa  ciul- 
tatis  upere'in  qua,  captns  fine 
l  uidetnr  q>  fie  per  totum  ti.  <)>  quid*'  tuna 
ff  .  Contrarium  eft  uerum.  nam  titutus  g> 
quifqt  Juris  uendicat  _fibi  locum  in  Juris  tw 
cutione  ut  (i  una  ciuitaa  induxit  repjetoiaa 
iniufte  contra  alunu*boc  idem  licet  alii  ca- 
mp: imam,  nonauton  loquitur  in  executi 
one  facti  ut  fi  fpoliam  te.  hceat  titri  fpdbre 
me  .  qj  fk  pamitteretur  umdicta  contra 
toquod  r».ff.ad.Uqutt.l.(ciam.$.qui  com 
aCr.rccurrat  ergo  ad  ciuir  a  tern  fua;  i  pc  tat 
reptefiibs  contra  illam  xiuitatem  i  qua  cap 
tua  Ant  .  txmdcrj  ea  que  pedicantur  a 
bar.in  tract  it  u  repjefaltarum  id  x.queftwc 
pjindpali  in  uerli.ad  tcrciu  qtieritnr  bar.in 
l.i.ff  -9>  quifcj,'  lurta  ange.in.i.fi.C.  cc  nsui. 
nJubita  nc  films  pio  patre  in  pji. 


Onto  queritur.  Sn  per  ftabtta 
repxfalk  conadj  potluit  in  cafi 

txuarnopmitfis  aiurccomunj 
&oTo.Ciuita6c6tra  terras  pic 
ne  fobJitus  potelt  pcrmittente  .l.comuni. 
&ed  in  terras  litxras  ucl  etil  confederatas 
de  quibnj  loquitur.l.non  dubico.ff.de  pact. 
non  poteft.Katb.Tlam  in  concdfione  repjt 
faliarum  urituT  in  caufe  cognitoe  de  iniutti- 
difictiiKliufticUdenegata.  £tficinbpc 
una  ciuitaa  not)  pouft  ftatucre  contra  aliaj 
quia  par  in  parem.TC.©o.uertitur-3n  ba^ 
beri  potfit  copta  (upiom  dcnegantia  iufticii 
fa  cere  i  de  hoc  nib(  poteft  una  ciukaa  ?cra 
alum  ftitucrc.  Tlam  non  poteft  Ibtucre  9* 
indicantur  reprelalk  non  requilko  luptrio- 
re  dencgint  ia  iufti  ciam-Tlam  boc  fo?et  toik 
re  lur  ii'  die  tbnem  fuperiozb  de  inn  iuran.ue 
nientcs.£ertio  etiam  queritur  aut.  topiaia 
indtccntia  i  ipb  non  rcco^not'ceno  fuperiO' 
rem  i  ilia  cuiua  auctttitas  reyrif  .£t  de  boc 
potelt  itatnere  ciuitas  q>  am  requifita  ea  i 
9»  onus  pio  ocbito  alteriue  capiatur  ,CJX  oi 
agw.cxferto.i.i.lLt.ri(.ut  (latuitor  in  cafibus 
9>  nioi  pzo  dcbito  niri  tencaturXI.  qui-mo; 
pi.ta.cptraba  .Uatia  i  fUios  (no  pitre  ut.C 
t^pjiui.l.&.li.iu.  Ultio  queritur  an  ftatu 
tarn  dnitatis  quo  cauetar  9>  lUiua  tencatur 
pw'pitre  odinqucn  te  podit  ejerccn  contra 
ftlium  ciiftentem  extra  terntcuium  ciuira^ 
tfeconcedentia.  &pt.aatfiluwnatu8ierat 
tempoie  oeUai  comiiTi  a  patre  i  tune  ant 
qocritur  ntiquid  fkri  pofftt  ezccotio  ftituti 


contrifltet  alibi  triftentejntnnc  poteft 
ut.1.3  diuo  pb.^^cnul.ff  .de  re  iudi.n  .Uum 
umi8.^.cum  bis.ff.cc  bo.auc.iudi.pcf  . 

9  ut  quaitur  nuquid  condi.ex  lege  ex  U 
lo  ftatuto  agi  polTit  contra  cum  i  poteft  .qi 
actio  ipfum  fcquitur  cui  compct  it.C.oc  Ion. 
temp.pjcfcrip-l.fi.  *bec  uera  nifi  fill-'  m, 
te  cclictum  cdmutum  'contraxiffet  alibi  to 
miciUumuel  tndeteet  ratione  antique  ozi 
gtnia  qi  tune  ilia  ciuitasutpjeucnuiis  pofT; 
ilium  ccfendex  ab  illo  ftatuto.  Si  au  tej 
fiiius  na  tus  Tit  poft  comifTam  dclictum  .  t  lie 
non  aget  ur  contra  iUum.tlam  ftatutum  in 
teltisitur  cc  fUiis  ante  babitiaff  .  oc  no  «.U 
in  delictia.f  fi  extrancoa.ff.  oc  mili.te.Ufi 
t  •  ciua.  3  tem  dico  q>  fi  (btutum  babet  ^ 
onus  oc  una  uilla  teneatur  pto  dzlieto  altoi 
us.£(fectU9denouobomoiUiua  uilleno  te 
tutor  pio  debitia  antiquia.t.0e  decurLLp 
uidendum  i  no.df.in.l.incola.ff.ad  muni. 

Oondcra  no.  (apienter  per  bar  an  tracta 
brepKfalUruminprimaqueftionepiincipa 
U  in  ucr  fi.ad  tercium  queritur  i  in  ueru'co. 
adquartwn  queritur. 


£  x  to  queritur.  9  n  per  pJctuM 
polTit  fieri  licite  ut  unuf  teneat" 
pro  alio.So.  t>er  pactum  pjiua 
twum  expjeif  urn  non  ut  no  fiat 
pigno-ttiam  G  pacifcatur  §  exigatur  alluo  in 
quo  babet  iue  ut.C.  ne  ftlius  pjo  patre  p  totii 
£t  licet  boc  no  polTet  oomin  us  index  tam£ 
dm  poterit  facere  uel  cjpt  bomines  Tic  condi 
cionatos.  twnderaea  quepedicantttra 
bar.in  tractatu  repiefaliarum  inpamaqoe 
pjincipoli  in'vTi.ad  quintus  queritur.nc.6t 
de  materb  repiefaUani  poodera  que  no-bar 
in  dicto  tractatu  i  bal.in  aut.i  io.C.ne  ut 
02  .p  marito.  ttb.de  beluifo  in  aiit-ut  non  fi 
ant  ptgno;a.£t  io.an.in  regula  non  debet  tf 
regnliii  iuris.li.  vi.£t  doc.in.c.i.de  iniuriia 
li.vi.£t  poft  lecturam  oomini  jjjui  mei  qro 
Bn  aominus  poffit  concedere  reptefahaa  ?f 
•niuerlttatem  fibi  lubditam  p:elbtur  rcfpon 
film  9>  non.  ttam  fi  poteft  ture  ozdinario  co« 
her  cere  talem  uniuerfitatem  cefl'at  remediuj 
exoJdinarium.l.in'puinciali.  $.i.ff  .tf  operia 
noui  nuncia-pcr  bar.in.  L.admonendi  .ff.  de 
lure  iuran.in  vfi.nemo.TC.I.in  caufe.ff.  de 
mino-cumfjr.mjximccumexojdinar^  eft 
contra  ins  comune  tlun^  poteft  cocurrere 
cumoidinario?mglo.in.l.i.5».undc  quertt 
if.de  puWicania.fes  ?certb  rcpjefaliaru  nlfo 
fare  jadit  Ij  in  inbfidiii  ut.9.  9cluni5  p  du  j 
piunm  nwi  ergo  non  poterit  noftro  cafu  re 
prelatiarum  fieri  ctnce|Tio.£  t  in  bat  opi  .ad 
tft  bar.inJa.f  .babet  itaqt-ff  .fi  quis  te  liber 
eric  iaffua  fbtt.£t  il'tlsnalcitur  no  in  fuauiia 
ilocio  9>  duius  non  poteft  concedere  repre 
tliaapropterfjctumlui  fubditique  poteft 

r 


438 


iurtcodfaartscobercert. 


tsrar.-nu-nc. 

videre  de  dacllo  incniw 

tract*tn  pjimoqucntnr. 

Qoid  fit  duello.  Sccudo 

quot  RnC  fpca  ducllLtcr, 

tio  QUO  tore  fit  pmuta;  da 

cHnm.6  1  QUO  tntobitum.Qnarto  popfcr  gd 

fit  permit}  t  pptw  quid  in(xbtru.Quinto 

pw  qnibus  ciufia  licitum  fit  dueflm.£>exto 

inter  qua  (k  licituau  &ept  imo  qTr  doclla 

dun  fit. 

CapTm  ctxU  . 

Q.1rid  (it  duellum. 

Jr  u  pximum  dico  ^  dacDn  (ft 

puga  »  cwpanlis  delibertra  bine 
inde  duo?  ad  purga  I  ioncm  glcu 
rum  udodii  cxagcntioncm. 
Wri  pogna.'boc  poniror  ut  gcuua.Dixi  de 
litxratj  bincindc  .  "boc  ponit  id  diffcre  tii$ 
pugne  que  fit  id  nccdtarum  fut  dcfcnfiencj 
nt.Lututnt.ff.de  iufti.i  iurc  t.Li.C.  undc 
ui  i  .[.i.^.uim  ui.ff  .ck  ui  i  ui  armi.l.fLUj 
f.qot  cum  sfr  .  ff  .  ad  Laqmfc.olim  b  rtftir. 
fpolb.n  clf.fi  furioCos  de  bomici.lla;  pugni 
illi  n  e  ddfixritio  ex  partt  iggrdfi  regTaf  . 
(cd  ei  piftc  agxdicntis  bcnc.ucl  iKutruu  . 
utpwbaturm  dicta  clt.fi  fur  iofua.  3nOu 
dlo  ntcm  utriufq)  criibcratio.  t<i  r  i  ouoru^ 
4}  tune  propzic,duclliL  £  t  id<  Owllii  nun  cu 
pirur  ad  bcrcndo  ctbimotogic-uocabulunftt. 
a  aona.^.cft  i  altud  xvi-q.  i.fi  cupis  xxi. 
Ot.citro8  oc  pjctxn.cum  fu  £  t  dirt  pugx 
na  duoiom  ad  diflfcrcntum  tractatuii  qui  i* 
ur  ducu  ccktKir;ur  ex  mutoo  pardum  cox 
cdb  ut  iolt  -Oe  oWu  com  ruteids  fcqucn  t  u 
bus.  £r  dixi  co?poiatiaad  dirfcKntiam 
pngnc  mdicurk  qnc  fit  ctiam  inter  duce  ut 
potcotactoKi  rcum  ut.ljcm  non  nouam. 
^.patroni  i  .Lpopcrandum.C-tc  iudi.  i  .c. 
fcut.x  uerboJig.Ha  ibi  no  con  tcnditur  wri 


kgatis.  DixiidpwgatbnemgkKUmnr 
odii  exagerationcm.Tlam  p:r  hoc  tangi  tur 
finis  i  eUtiuntur  Ipecice  daclli  ut.J  .  tquit. 
Concludif  ur  igirur  de  picfaiptionc  duclli  I 
5  mere  ut  fapia  dictum  eft.  Iu  ponder  • 
qjQJminuepjoauuB  menscgregk  quid  fit 
dudlam  diffink  fecundum  raf.de  pena  fold 
diccbit  9>  dutllum  p?opJic  ell  ftnguldrie  pug 
na  inter  aliquoe  ad  piobationcm  neritatu. 
uide  bl  i  ca.i'.de  (ace  tent  -in  viii.col.meli 
oadidicerc  inter  duoe§  inter  aliquoa.qi 
piopjk  dodlrnn  eft  duonm  (ecundum  ange. 
in.Lmilttt8.C^k  tefto  miUri  . 


CapTm  clxx. 

Qailitcr  duellnm  fumatur  1  quota 
plex  fitdutllum. 

5rci  (ecundom  eft  aduertendu 
Of  ditcllum  at  lup;a  dcfcribitur 
fumitur  generalua  ut  retigi  in 
ftnedcfcriptioig.  Specks  da 
till  cli  dnntur  per  ucrbi  poTtu  in  fine.  Ham 
irca  fimt  fpccics  duelli.fit  cnim'ducllum  pp 
ter  odii  exjgerationem  aut  p:opter  gloiiam 
bnpublicum  confequendam  e  t  utribus  cojpo 
ris.  Butpraptcrpurgitionem  alicui' 
criminia  iniuncti.  t^topter  igirur  odd 
exa^crarioncm  fit  tome  aliqui  Oolo  odio  ori. 
ginil'r  naturali  t  nituralitcr  fingnlari  que 
apud^nituraUs  forma  fptcifica  uppellatur  in 
ducuntnr  (t,  inuicem  cxccrminandos.  £t  DC 
boc  Duello  non  rcpio  iliquid  iurc  cauru?  led 
ex  ptincipiia  naturalibud  boc  enenit  ut  ftatij 
piolcqooi  t  quia  fenfuili  expkntia  boc  eft 
coTnprobatum.fit  fccundo  pjoptcr  gtouj  in 
puWtco  confcqucndam  ut  in  publkia  Ipecta^ 
culia  cu5  Quo  utrca  coiporid  uariia  modis  ex 
piuntur.Dc  bic  rcperio  iurc  cautuj  i  ciuili 
1  cinonicoL-gc  ciuili.(f.ad.l.jquiliavl.qua 
actione.$,fi  quia  in  colluctatioe  i.l.  unica 
C.de  gladutoiibus.li.xi.de  re  iuD.t.  jmodif 
(f.tfbis  qai  no.in  (H.Latbletia.l.i.C.qucref 
piS-ofa.p  jf.l.fpcdc  no  glo.infti.de  bcretf  que 
ob  intcf.dc.^  .interdum.  Ie§e  canonica  de, 
cUrttur  licet  id  Ait  etiam  ppter  purjaf  ocm 
K  to?n«unentis  p  totum  licet  non  fit  pp:ie 
Oucllum  fed  pwcracium  ut.Lqua  actione.f. 
ft  quia  in  colluctadone  .i.alUgati.  fit  i 
tcr rip  ppter  purgirioncm  .f.cti  aliq£>  crime 
alicut  imponitur  t  ad  pbationem  conuouna 
fccte  carens  aliis  pbationibus  ucl  etum  non 
carcnaofcrt  fe  ptuturu)  in  uiribue  ccnpotis 
oacllo  fufccpto -;  puocatudftt  fe  purgitnt 
ctiam  babctur  in  re  cautom  ccpugna  in  duel 
lione  ut.a.ill  aui  i  .ii.q.v.quali  p  totom  illi 
queltionum  i  in  lombar.  ut.j. pt'cquo:  cum 
illud  membtum  dil'cut  kt  ur.  £u  poderi  ca 
que  diri  ut  lul-in-l-ex  IXM:  iurc.tf.  Oc  iulti. 
t  iurc  ID  v-octauo quero  uuj  biLin  rubjka 
cc  cditicia  libotatc  toUeo.in  h-per  tul .  i  n.c 
uocpacc  tenen.ubi  Otxit  etiam  <p  toitura  ft 
per  mitt  i  tar  nift  picccdentibaa  iu  Jicii  a.  7ta 
ncc  dudlum  ic.vidc  ofim  abb.poft  coc-m.c 
U  mfi.De  clcricid  pugnintibus  in  Ouello  Tide 
dim  anto.in.c.i.K  cozpo.iucu. 

Quo  iurc  fit  introductu  duellum. 
Capfm  clxxi. 

Irca  torcium  uidelicet  quo  jure 
fit  introductum  duellum.  £xx 
pedit  ftnguba  fpeckd  dudli  .9- 
poucaaexplicarc  ccclarando. 


439 


ciJca  fingulas  quo  inrc  interducltur  t  quo 
i  uri  mbibeantnr .    £  t  prime  de  duello  pro 
ucnknte  pwpta  odii  naturalist!  agcratioj 
ubifckndum  q>  boc  dutUum  eft  introduc^ 
turn  iure  naturali.£ t  fumitur  ius naturale 
pro  idiftinctn  nature  puenkntc  exfenfuat! 
tare  ad  aliqffldappeKndumut  fumitur  ius 
naturale  pjo  inftinctu  nature  poueniete  ex 
racionab&i  in  tcl!i«cntij  que  ccmparatur  na 
rural  i  eq  tiititc.  ct  eft  tcr  due  modus  iuus  ci 
uilis  ut  dicto  caous  naturak.  £lt  etiam  ibt^ 
bitum  iure  naturali  cotinente  pecepta  mo- 
ra!is  legia  diuinc  ut  uimitur  quarto  modo  ut 
ca.ftatimallegato.    £ft  etiam  inbitus  boc 
dud!um  iure  pofitiuo  fcj  canonito  t  ciuili. 
£rpcditenim  (f  P"  Ctngnla  Kmonftretur. 
Dili  cf>  hoc  ducllum  eft  mrroductU5  iure  na 
tarali  at  fumitur  pio  tnftinctu  njtnre  p:o 
ueniente  er  fcnfaalitate  ad  aliquid  appeteo 
dum  boc  Tic  ocmonftratur.Quscquid  eft  p- 
ductiunm  aufe  in  mediate  alicuiueefitctua 
per  confcqueiw i  eft  pioductiauaillius  efkc* 
tu8.Std  iftud  ius  naturak  cuiginolkcT  idi 
nans  ad  Ik  appeteadum  eft  canfa  inductiua 
buius  knfualis  appetitus  ad  duellnm  ergo  c 
aub  duelli  in  ductiua  probatur  makn.nam  i 
pimena  futficknter  in  caulam  caule  podnc 
tiue  Tic  remote  imp:imir  effetuum.if.id.Lui 
IU.K  ficc.I.nM.C-co.ti.i.fi  quis  uocandu 
l.duftudeat  icj.fi  quid  uiduam  ocbomicL 
tx  cetero  in  ca.pK(btter    C>rob.i  tur  minot 
Hamexnatnrali  difpoTitbne  piouenkntea 
p:incipiia  luturalftwa  t  fuperio:ibue  i  infe^ 
rioiitws  pjoucnit  in  boir.inibus  uarta  appcri 
tnsindinitio.Tbm  circumfcriptoqucitibet 
mcrito  uf  cc  merito  tibi  naturaliter  placebit 
quod  mibi  otfplicet  i  econtra  ex  naturs U 
di/poTitioncquis  crcomfcripto  atcidentali 
quocunqt  odigit  i  odit.quilibct  boc  erper i 
ri  pot  in  fcipfo.Scd  caula  buiua  eft  p:opttx 
rcaattcntiscoipoiibuecdcftibua.  Ham  & 
aliqui  tempoK  nataltum  in  momento  nataliu 
tobeant  onifome  cotrefpondentfamconft 
gurationem  celeftb  i  pincipia  patcrnaco 
firment  in  comptetionibua  piocul  dubiofut 
amaciiTimt  nann'aliter.ftc  K  repngnitee  btc 
(nde  (nnt  uicutimi.llam  ab  uniiwmitatt  d 
betinturgtre  unifojmiacffectusut.C.ad-L 
W.Lultjni.ff.ad.Laqutl.l.iiludi    tttame 
cbicittededu  o^bectnimicicianaturausi 
ter  bomiiKm  i  bominem  ut  pxdui  p:ouenit 
ci  fingulari  naturali  difpofitbne.qiK  foima 
fpednca  apud  natales  nucupatnr  JUm  at  ten 
U  natural!  difpofuione  fpeciei  bnmane  inter 
homines  abet  dtc  amicitia  ptoptcr  unifwmi 
tttem  complexiouia  relate  ad  fnmambuma 
n  im.£ t  piopttrca  dicot  tura  9>  inter  bole; 
i  borat  nea  eft  offkium  buma  nitat  is  hincin  de 
at  tcndtndum  ntJ.fi  icruus  inJUf.de  (ami. 
tx  poj.i  ofticio.ff.de  neg.geft.i  ibi  gb.£t 
no  infurgk  boc  a  naturali  dupoCtiont  fpei 
qt  boc  naturiuttr  noa  eft  rcperire  fi  quis  K 


currat  p  fpccko  Itnguks  aialium.Tlam  inter 
fpcs  fmgulae  bJutoiii  c  qbdam  fed'  Duetto 
nit)  i  ccMtaticisppt'  unifwmitate  pplcjrtois 
relate  ad  fojtnam  fpcc ificam.  £ed  inter  fpe- 
ciem  i  fpecie  quandoq;  eft  extremu;  repugx 
natk  introductum  ad  alterius  extimatoem 
ut  eft  in  ancipttre  T  auibus  aucupabtlib'  mu 
r  ilcgj  t  murib'  otnibus  i  lepcuibua  T  dc  fin 
gulin  puenit  ergo  ex  quadanrrepugnltk  in  ^ 
oiuiduili  Oirpofitione  piindpic^r  fuperiojum 
i  infcrbzain  effectum  ut  quiltbct  in  it  expit 
ilia  tamen  difpofirio  non  inducit  regular  im 
mediite  duellum  fed  p  medics  actus  ad  quof 
fpi'u  jnuniunt.&ed  tamen  credo  cj>  tanta 
poifct  cifc  repnjnantia  indiuidualia  Difpoftt  L 
oiiie  ip  fubi  to  ad  id  pncntrent  i  boc  puenit 
cum  reguntur  (da  fenfualitate  i  nullo  ratio 
nia  liberamine.£x  bis  oppaitt  conclufum  q 
liter  boc  duellum  introductum  eft  lure  n« 
tctnmpta 

CapTmcUxiu 

£fttt  ut dt re  quod  dlcebt;  fctJm 
cira  boc  mcmbjum  dicebaj  cnij 
3»  hoc  erat  inbibitum  ture  na  t  u^ 
rili  fumpto  pntionali  intelli* 
gentia  t  Tic  inrc  gettum  i  lure  natnralt  p» 
ut  continent  pcepta  mojalia  Ugis  diuinei 
iure  canonko  i  ciuili  boc  luce  clarius  ccmo 
ftrari  poteft  inctpiendo  a  lege  Oiuina.  tlam 
tec  eft  unum  oe  pxaptis  cccalogi.  no  occu 
des.£t  fie  lege  diuina  inbibirum  n  boc  rego 
'.are  picccprum  n  fie  dct  inftantia  de  j*pte. 
q  ui  ocddtt  llliam  nee  tamen  non  peccauit  in 
lege  oiuina  3udioi.xxi.c-  xxiii-q-fli  no  Ij. 
lion  obftat  op  bee  facta  fuer  fpuffanct  i  in 
ducttone  at  fcribit  ^uguf.in  lt.i.de  ciuifate 
tri  trarutumpdue  babet  in.c.fi  no  licet.xx-r. 
q.  v-ioic  ergo  lege  diuina  inbibitum  eft  per 
Olud  pccptum.Tlon  occides.ben  tro.v.cap. 
(Eft  ctiam  inbibitum  lege  canonica  de  Ixxni. 
uotunt.pcr  totum.l.di.quafi  9  totum.xxiii- 
q. v.  £>i  non  licet.  £ft  ctiam  inbibitti  itu 
re  ciuili.ff.ad.LcoJ.de  ficc.i.i.C.per  totum 
£t  fi  Oius  ilia  iur.i  mbifaent  bomicidium 
ooumtarium.  £t  Tic  boc  genus  duelli  ex  quo 
illud  peruenit-Si  bomicidium  pcrucnicns  • 
duello  introducto  ex  naturali  difpofitionc  fi 
eft  uodmtarium  ex  quo  naturaliter  eft  im  ro 
ductu.  £rgo  ilia  tura  fi  aftringunt  bunc  cafo 
SoTo  eft  pmpta.TIam  licet  natural  is  difpox 
fit  io  ccnpoica  hoc  introdncit  cum  naturales 
inrelligcntk  die  tamen  duponit  contrarium 
cui  obtcmpandum  eft.  ITam  ilia  naturalie  dtf 
politic  non  ne  ctflitat  jrmmo  manet  liberum 
arbitrium. xxiii.q-iiii.de  tiitis.ic-llibucb, 
odonofo:  i^Jicnt  cnim  de  pe.di.ii.  i  pbua 
in  ctbicia.  pmmo  1  Sftrdogi  boc  effkari 
ua  Oemonftrantce  boc  idem  altcrut  tnde  ia- 
quit  birtb.  in  tent iloquic  in  vcrbo  decunou 
Sninu  Cipkns  tominotur  aftria.  £>iccrgo 
Hcet  difpolitb  wpcaea  pjoucniat  a  naturaU 

It 


440 


contrarfam  difponit.bid  poitit  ck  fingulis 
gcncribw  ticaam  •odBam.TUm  nature 
liter  finguHbo*toe8  id  fingula  indinantur 
nidi  at  qutdam  luperbt-  Quidam  luxuriofi. 
Qnidam  nuri  i  fie  o'  fmguUs.Tlec  tone  ex 
cafmtur  q:  ptcdfc  necemtsntur  at.c.niba 
chodonofo?  txiii-q.iiii.  t>itt  (ft  e>  didt 
phus terdo  DC  infma  tr icm  s  motn  quod  in 
ter  ippetitum  fcnfitiuu  i  intellectua'em  eft 
qmnJoqj  repugnantia.  11am  fenlitiu7  tedit 
in  unu  itetlectuatiain  a!iud.£t  ft  intellect1 
unctt  fcnfum  motus  eft  rationaWu  i  natu 
nlia.fic  Pi  fpera  fuperioi  mouet  inftfia'em. 
Si  JUtem  econtra fiat  eft  motus  centra  ni 
ruram.et  ft  (pert  tnkria  mooeat  foperkne 
licet  enim  moCns  fenfus  perucniat  a  natura  i 
dinando  in  uicium  tmcn  fit  contrz  nitux 
ram  nil!  obtemperet  fen  fua  inte  Ikcrui  at  Tub 
dims  aomino  (not  idem  pbusfwimopolu 
£  (t  etiam  hoc  genus  doelli  inlxbitum  for 
itttorali  i  fum ttur  pro  nituroli  tnrdligctia 
idem  eft  Of  ins  gentium Jxx  pjobjtur  fie.  nj 
ex  luturtUintciligentia  infurgit  comnnia  ^ 
luturaltecquitas  dilponenain  coleruatiox 
ncm  uniuerfi  t  indc  hibaitcntom  iuspoltri 
uum  fmmo  i  uertus  loqiur  fiit  ipfa  tret  equi 
taa  iore  natunlb  aliqno  addito  ucl  de  cre^ 
to  ut.l.ius  cinile.ff.ee  tuft  it  far.  Cum  er 
go  naturalis  cquitas  tcndit  in  conkruatio 
nem  uninerTuergo  rcpnbat  bominis  extima 
tionem  que  eft  tcndene  ad  mundi  ocflmctio 
nenuTIam  queOam  qoornndam  bominuexti 
iMtionesttndunt  ad  mundi  conferuatbx 
ncm  utpota  cum  mali  ex  terminantur -tlam 
puptcr  hoc  intcreft  reipoblice  ut  puniantui 
ff.x  publi.l.lidtatu.ff  .I.aquil.l.ita  uulncra 
tus  hi  (Jf.de  fidciufT.Lfi  areo  de  fen  t  e  .etco. 
cs.utfame,  £xbasaparteconduditurq 
liter  boc  genus  duelli  i  inbibitnm  Jure  diui 
nogtndum  canonicot  ciuili. 

CapTmclxxiiL 

De  OueHo  quod  fit  per  gteiam  quo  m 
it  fie  introductum.i  quo  tare  Tit  inbibitu. 

£ftat  mdendum  Oe  duello  quod 

lit  pjopter  gtoiam  uict one  qt> 

in  poblko  fpcctaculo  quo  iure  i 

troductum  eft  T  quo  tnbibitum 

£  t  dico  3>  genaa  d  jelli  eft  in  troductum  iuf 

natural!  ut  fumitur  in  fuo  figninuto  fc^  <p 

po  inftinctu  nature  proucnkntc  ex  fenfujli 

tire.Sed  eft  inhibition  iure  natnrali  Tupto 

(no  iurcgen.i  iure  diuino.  £ft'etiam  tnbibi 

tan  inrc  canonico  i  iure  ciuili  mooificutio 

ne  tame  ut  ftatim  fubiciam.  Declaremua  fin 

pah  it  dixt    bixi  g>  erat  introducni  iuf 

•HUipto  i  (crfo  bo  fignifkato  boc  jptot  ut 

dicta  c.i.px:mo  mcbto.  TH  fenfualis  incli 

woo  fomtma  t  pincipits  nacnr  tlibuo.  3* 


clnctt  ti  tt  perientiam  uirium  cojpcjsliu  fo^ 
lu-n  conlequendam  ergo  inducit  hoc  genus 
daclli  indc  pocnkns  cum  pducens  caubm 
pdudCdfectumntiaribua  ftatim  allegacis 
in  fupion  membro.'boc  tamen  genus  duellii 
eft  minus  detefbbilepri'no  genere  attento 
utriuftv.  Ham  pnmum  genus  duelli  fit  pp 
tcrcctimarioncmfiniliter  ocuuone  inimt 
tick  naturtlis  mancnt is "boc  aiit  no  fit  nc- 
celTino  ad  erdngucndum  fed  uinccdum  qo' 
contingerc  potelt  fine  exftinctione  ergo  boc 
minus  tcteftabile  tamen  actua  nominii  tefta 
tur  i  diltinguentur  .pptcr  fines  in  ten  to  j-ff 
de  furria.l.ueram  i.l.qni  ininrie  i.I.qui  ci 
mente  xv.q.i.\i.c.i.xiin.q.x.  quicquid  de 
Ientent.exc5i-ciimuo!untate.  l^inceft  cj> 
tnqnid  pbiis.iui.etbico>u5  qui  roznicatnr  cu 
muliere  ut  pecnniim  tnde  trabit  non  mecbia 
lied  auini3.Si  131  tur  fine  pondcratobpc  mi 
nus  tefbbtle  eft  ilIo.Connrmatur.  £>:imum 
gcnaj  infurjit  ex  odio  quod  in  (c  deteftjbiie 
eft  (i  fine  cauf.i  racbnali  pucniat  ut  in  px. 
3t  boc  genus  duelli  fine  odiopuenit.  Tlam 
l  luturalesamid  duelhbintin  ffxctaculo 
id  finem  glotie  confequcndc.  Ganftrmatur 
Sllud  eft  minus  deteftabtk  qd  minus  diftat 
a  niturali  equitatc  (3  boc  hi  gen7  duclli  mP 
diftat  a  iw!i  cqtitc  cr^o  ptutur  maio.-.lUm 
detcftitio  t  .ipp:ob4tio  ictuu^  pucniit  a  na 
turali  eqnit  st  r.  fupcr  qua  fund.intur  inbibi  ti 
ones  T  pmiitioncs  iuria  ut .L  ius  ciuile  .ff.  de 
iufti.i  iuf  T.c.niturale  t>:ima difti.pbat. 
mi  nor.Tlim  boc  duellum  non  diftat  ib  cyta 
te  iuria  naturalis  nifi  quia  extllo  feqni  pofkt 
boninis  occifio  qui  ictus  tendit  indcftruo 
tiones  uniucr  I'l  .I'jper  qui  estate  fundatur  in 
bibitioleg.noiK  duilis  ut.Uuna.Cde  gbdia. 
li.ti-Cum  tamen.l.ueteri  non  edict  ficu  ia, 
bfiiitioquiificfeocdientibus  remit ttbitur 
icttones  ut-l.qiu  actoe.<i  .l'i  quia  in  colluc^ 
tatione.ff.ad.l.acquil.  Gotd  piimum  gcnua 
diitit  a  naturj'.i  equitate.  l>?imo  quia  tcdlt 
•0  ncceiTir  urn  alterius  uf  utriudp  examina 
tionem  net  extinctoem .  Diftat  etiam  quia 
in  fomite  odii  qd  nacuralia  eqnitas  abbomt 
6  fine  canfa  infurgatcrgo  boc  detefbbtliua. 
Confinnatur.JUud  eft  dctdbbflius  quod  in 
totum  nocec.  Sed  primnm  genus  in  totum 
nocet  i  in  nulb  prodcft  iDoc  aute5  fecundu 
p.irtim  .pdcft  ZDaioJ  dara.  Tlimaccusde 
nominantur  Uudobiles  i  uttuperabiles  rid 
one  laudabilitatis  finis  i  mtupabilitatis  tn 
finis  in  t.ilibue  ponderetur.ff.de  ritu  nupt. 
.[.fiquis  in  (enatoiio.ff.de  iure  nfci.l-non  in 
tdligitur  .^.nqutspalam.ff.deiud.legccii 
furbfus.n^inorprohitur.  11amp:imum 
genua  fit  fed um  piopter  examinations  mu 
tuamboc  nocct.iecundum  autcm  fit  in  pub 
lico  fpectaculo  p:opter  lericUm  i  recrutio 
nem  populi.1  obboc  ludus  pcrmittuntur  i 
fpccti.C.ocfpecn.i  ferui.n  leno.per  totum 
tuxcepta.Ln.li.x.T.C.expcnJudo:um.l. 


441 


ttos.eft.gKca  ccnfa'tutio,  '£  x  bis  Infer* 
hoc  gen'  duclli  introduc  turn  iure  naturali 
[umptomfeundofuofignicaton  ipfumfof 
minus  i  ccteftabile  pimo  genere  . 

CapTm  c  Ixxiiii  . 

Quo  tore  duellum'per  glatam 
fie  inbibt  turn. 

£ftat  uidere  quo  iure  hoc  gen* 

duelli  eft  inbibttu  m.  £t  diceba  j 

ipm  inbibitu  iare  dtuio  iure  gen. 

iure  pcfitiao  canouico  vj  i  ciot 

(i.    Quod  atttem  tare  diuino  (it  inbtbitum 

pjotatur.nara  com  aliquio  aliquo  iure  inbu- 

bcturctiamomncidperquodperucnkurad 

illud.  feed  iure  diuino  inbibctur  fxxnicidid 

td  quod  perueniturper  bcc  genus  duelllpja 

batur  mai«  per.Lotatio.ff.  DC  fpo.ff.de  ride, 

turf.  Lcum.(.C.de  ufuriaJ.eos  in  ftC.de  u, 

toris  jei  m.l.ft.m  fi.ff.de  bercdi.pe.  L  15  1  ft 

kge.$.3tem  ueniunt.ff.de  mili.tc.  Lpiims 

$.ut  fupia.2Din«  praterur  deutro.c.viii. 

non  occidea.    Qt>  autq  per  boc  genus  du 

dli  pueniatur  ad  bomicidiu  luce  clarius  dt, 

Confirmatur  ille  actas  iure  diuino  inbftxbu 

qui  eft  alienus  a  fonte  caritatia.Sed  hoc  ge 

ooa  ductUndi  eft  buiufmodi  ergo-^iobacur 

maiw.TUm  caiitia  eftfundametumomnia 

uiitntum  i  ejcdufiua  uiciozum  depe.  di.ii. 

caricaa  eft  i  .c.ergo  t  quaft  per  10015  ("i"1* 

partem  illius  diftimtionie  i  fie  alknum  a  ca 

ritace  Cipit  naturam  peccati.£t  fie  inbibitii 

iare  diuino.!>iobjt  mino?.  11am  cantas  eft 

ddcccatio  dci  i  pximi  ut.c.  cariua  ftatim 

*Uegato.£t  ddectto  piimi  ficut  fuiipftus  in 

ci.pzc  r  imoa  sc  pe.di.  ii.Scd  dueilans  i  I'pec 

taciib  duellat  ut  uincat  praximum.  £  t  fie  n 

diUgit  ergo  inbibitum  iure  diuino.      DU 

ctbin  etum  <$  crat  inbibitum  iure  gendun 

qui  eft  ten  dens  ad  ocftructknum  uniucrfi. 

"boc  genus  dueUandi  eft  buufiaodUcgo  mi 

\t»  piobjtur.lljm  equttaa  nituralis  fuper  q 

lundatnr  ius  gencium  ten  dtt  in  conieruat  io- 

nem  i  augumentum  uniuerll  «  iufti.i  iure 

Li.  ^  .io8  nacnrale  t  .Lei  boc  iare  eo.tuf  . 

t>rob8tur  minoi.tlam  boc  genus  duelbndi 

tendk  in  sfti'uctionem  1  exdnutiontm  bo 

minis  qui  e  ncbiliffima  p  ire  uniuer  fi.^mmo 

eft  finis  pjoductoju.-rf.ff.ee  ufuris.  Lin  pecu, 

d  am.ergo  inbibitum  Uirigentium-Confirma 

fur  ille  actus  eft  inbibi  tus  iure  gentium  qui 

eft  repugnans  pteceptia  naruralia  equitaria 

que  c  ipl'um  iua  gcntiii  uel  eius  ftwdamen  td 

boc  genus  du^Uandi  eft  buiufmodi  ergo  ma, 

lot  piohitur.TUm  omne  illud  eft  iure  genti 

Mi  nbibkum  contrarium  cuius  eft  pjcaptu 

aijtwiowadein  (U  difciplina.ff  .9  (utjnji 


(piciolum.    t>robJtur  minoj  nas  boc  e  unii 
de  pjeceptisiorifgentiuin  9*  quia  noo  loco* 


pitta  cam  aliens  iactura  ut.l.nam  nature 
ff.a:  condi.lnde.1  regula  locupktari  DC  re, 
guLiur.li.vL  ttocetiimeftunujprecep 
torn  iurifgent turn  quod  tifai^non  uia  fieri  alte 
ri  no  facias  ut  in  piindpto  aecretoJum.Sj 
boc  genus  duellandi  repugnat  utric^  peep' 
to  ergo.TUm  pjimo  pjecepto  repugnat  i  boc 
Tlam  duellans  querit  gUuiam  de  uituperb  fb 
cit  piorimi.i  omeil  fw  boc  fieri  noU^crgo 
inbtbitum  iuregentiam.  Conftrmatur  ille  ac 
tus  eft  inbibi  tus  iuregentium  qui'ert  Tpeciea 
belli  in  iuftt.boc  genus  dueUandi  eft  bui'mo 
di  ergo  pzobatur  msioj.  nam  bellum  iuftt!  fo 
lorn  in  troductum  eft  iaregen.nt.Ux  boc  iu 
re.ff.de iufti.i  iare  i.U boftee.ff.de  captL 
i  poftltminio  reuer fis.  ZPinoj  pete't  nij 
hoc  non  eft  indnctum  auctoiitate  pjincipia 
net  pjopter  neceiTar  iam  defenCam  ergo. 

£  i  bis  infertur  boc  genua-  duellandi  inbi 
bitum  iuregentium.  Sed  ftati?  predict  ia 
opponetur  ftc.  hoc  genus  duellandi  fit  pp 
tererperienriamfoJtitudtnw  quefbititudo 
tftuirtttsmoialtspnmo  cardinalis.  £>ed 
uircutes  nunales  nee  carom  cxercicii  funt  i 
bibita  iuregentium  ergo  no  pjocedunt  ftatis 
allegita.  Quod  autem  bic  fit'ac  tua  ucre  foi, 
tituoiniaquc  eft  uirtus  mojalio.  nam  in  boc 
genere  duellandi  fit  expectatto  aggjeffus. 
ioolutio  pjo  euidentii  bniua  contra  rii  eft  at 
tendendum  cp  repcritur  fjwtitudo  ucra  que 
eft  uirtua  mojalis  i  cirdinaUs.n  ilia  nee  if 
opationes  funt  inbibita  iurcgtn.&ant  etiaj 
fottttudines  ftmiUtudinarie  dtquibus  pbus 
in  ctbicis  tractatu  de  fojtitudinc  que  fimiiu 
tudinarie  pdcipat  act'  aggrediedi  i  expec 
tadi  (ant  quinq;.tla  alig  aggrediut  pjopter 
ttmojcm  quit  fugkntes  de  bcllo  putiiuntur. 
Qnidam  aggrcdiuntur  pjopterexpericdam 
arttetxilandiutftipediarifniftiutfaciliter 
•ggrediuntur  fie  faciliter  fugiunt  ut  inquid 
pHus  ubi.e  J^uidjm  tggredtont  ptopte  iram 
non  deUxrtncca  periculum.Quidam  aggre, 
diuntur  pjopter  (pent  non  credentes  fubefle 
paiculum.Quidamaggitduint.ppter  glori 
ammundiconkquedamquu  totes  taudari 
Iblenttimidiautemuituperan.  5fte  lunt 
qoinquc  fi»titu4ines  fimilitudinark  ad  ueri 
fwtit udine j  que  eft  ucra  uirt?  mc«alio  i  car 
diniliaeriftit.  9dboc«utem  o/fUuera 
tetitudorequiriturbecconditio  uidelicct 
9> operctur  feienter qui8.  11a5  opustgno 
ratn  ft  e  opj  v  t  u  t  i  a  ya  pjudctu  deb;  regitla 
rcomneop'vtutia.  Scdoregrit  ^ehges 
Xcrcb  requiritur.9>  eligat  piopter  bou.,pp 
ter  bonitacem  i  boneftjtem  opefia  in  fe  non 
aotem  pjoptec  aliquod  r  xtrinfceu?  J^iarto 
requiritur  9>  oper  etur  ftrmit«  i  ctlectabili 
ter  omnea'ftmiiitudinark  de  quibua  (uj»a.d 
ficit fetuudum plus T  minj  a utr»  pmncetn 
dcfteiunt  in  boc  quia  opcrantee  (ecundum  il 
las  no  opcrantur  pjoptej  k.i.pzoptcr  boni, 
ca  tern  i  boneftatem  operia.Snc  in  popofito 


442 


ifti  oporantes  ingxdiendo  i  erpecrando 
hoc  genere  dnelli  hoc  faeiunt  p:oc*cr'gio?i  a$ 
tun  wte<n  pjoptcr  jonitatem  i  bonoftatem 
•cms  in  fcjuc  awn  bic  opcrantur  circa  qd 
dobent"bcccolliguntur  hi  bfe  que  tractat 
phu3.iiii.ttbi  co?  tract  Jtu  1:  fotitudtne* 
£  jc  pxdictfe  ergo  infertur  hoc  genus  dudli 
diinbtttum  fare  gentium.  Diatom  boc 
dnelli  gone  tnbibitu;  ture  cmonico  i  ciuili 
Hare  canonico  darmn  eft  tamen  remittet  ur 
qtwid  jibibicioncm  i  pmitfrone}  tractat'kg. 
diuinc  qiu  bx  duellum  eft  inbibitum  ut.e. 
dductameltpbitctijmniwuin  i  nigrum 
de  pagna  in  dudlione  liq  fci  ponatnr  cficia 
qua  idem  in  omnibus.  tRelius  cbat  titulua 
de  tomeamente  ubi  dccenribus  m  tancamc 
tie  dcnegat  ecckfuftka  fcpoltura.  hoc  ago 
di^.Sicdde  tare  duOJqliter  fit  tnbibioi  bic 
iliqaaUter  infiftendnm  quia  kge  net  -ffojum 
•idetur  pmiiTum  boc  genus  daellt  fbit.ttt. 
ff.ad.LaquuM.q  actoe.$.  fi  93  i  coUttCNtoc 
EK  in  paocratio  obi  ipparet  cetfare  actionej 
ptnakm  cotn  jccetkntcm  in  boc  duello  obi 
pugiks  colluct  incur  .Uge  nom  .C.inbibitu5 
nt  pioiuttei.C-dcsIaduto.l.una  li:jrf.gd 
cficcmu 3  at  k jem  uctercm  clTc  co?rectam  p 
nottlm  ut.l.non  eft  nouu.ff.dc  legible  puto 
•daertcndam  <j>  pot  fieri  pugna  no  cruenra 
ubi  non  tenditnr  ad  (inguts  e(f  ufionis  nt  09 
aliqirituacbiiacollucrantQel  fimilibua  mo- 
di s  i  boc  genae  colltiaaadi  no  rcperio  tare 
ciuili  nee  uttcri  nee  nouo  prohibitu  .^mmo 
inre  noao  prrmtttutur  fpcctjculapioptcr  po 
puli  recrettioncm  ut  C.cc  fpe.i  fti.l.kno.p 
totum  ti.excepta.I.lcnoniijli.xi.fct  crpcn. 
ludttfum  per  totum  c.lib'o.  &>t  ttim  fieri 
pugna  tendcns  ad  fanguie  dfoltonem  at  i  toe 
neamtntis  i  in  duello  ad  mottem  tendente 
i  iib  fine  dubio  iu:e  noiro.C.e  inbibite.!.unt 
ci  C.de  glidi»to.li.rl£t  ratio  inWxriotiLi 
eft  racu  ubi  piobatum  t  ipfum  inbibitii  iure 
diuino  i  iurcsentium  Icgc  aiit  uitcn  ippr; 
permlfom  pote?ir'ciTc  iure  ciuili  albs  ius  cu 
oik  repu^ubit  iurcgentium.  3n  boc  con 
trario  dubit aui- ©cd  ponder Jui .  $.(t  QS  i  col 
luctatione  t  mente  qui  credo  t'uLJe  Icgia  la 
Co:ia.£t  pw  euidentia  pondcra  q>  rrpcritur 
tripks  permiiTio  qucdam  eft  pmufto  fimpkr 
qiKdi  eft  rcmittcns  i  in Juigcne  pcna  de  q 
bibctur  uii.dt.ca.di-mcu.  Ila5  ut-ibi  no.gL 
ixfttremilfiopenenoculpe.  £>cd  permilTio 
eft  que  tollit  impedimenta  cius  quod  pmitri 
tur  ut  dicit  tex>9>  iudei  pcrmittutur  babiti 
re  inter  DOS.  Ham  tolluntur  impedimenta 
faipedictu  ne  polfint  fccundii  coium  rituo.bi 
bitarc  nobifcum  ut  jclv.di.qui  fincera.  "Re 
peritor  n  tercia  pmiffio  q  pftat  iuuam  actut 
g  pmirtic  fm  <f  did'  <jp  ccd.  iliqn  pmttdt 
ck.occidi'  i  iadict  (ccnlari  pftado  iuuam  91 
ipfaw  pofidae  trtdit  at.c.cn  non  ab  bomine 
de  bidic.i  .cad  Wfarioium  de  cri.  fal.  i  .c. 
nooerit  de  ^.figni.&ctfa  pmifTio  quu  impe 


dknoitu  tollit  oft  non  fickblt  pjima  rtnmo 
folum  pena;  remittdut.  tertia  addit  fcilic^ 
fccundjm  quia  pftat  iuuamentum  pcrmirib 
qt>  non  fjctebat  fccunda  ymmo  Wum  impt- 
dimenta  tollebit.  Ttunc  vtu  applkado  ad 
{Ropohtum  fi  bcne  pondero.  f  .fi  quis  in  col- 
loctatione  ibt  tet.rcmirtic  pcntm  occidcuti 
tn  colluctatione  i  ibi  (ubditur  r  jtio  qnu  no 
fit  iniuric  cauia  erit ergo  pmiitw  p:im j  penc 
rcmiiTotia  fed  nullibi  repio  caucus  iui  9*  boc 
ctodlum  lit  pmiiTom  kDa  net  tcrtia  pmutioe 
in  boc  autem  non  repugnant  q>  ius  gentium 
inbixat  i  ciuilis  let  pcnam  remittat  ut.a. 
dictum  dt.  £r  bid  infertur  circa  boc  ge> 
dudii  quo  iure  ia'nbini  lit  i  quo  mi  pmiiTuj 

t>zopter  pmiiTum  i  ppter  quid  inbibitnj 
Rt  duellum. 

CapTcJrxr.. 

?rc  3  qu  irrum  membnm  quo  cV 
rcbirur  pptct  qnid  fit  pmufum 
t  ppter  quid  fit  inbibitum  eft  ni 
dcnd  jm  de  duello  qo  fit  ctuta 
pnrsttionis  quo  jure  (it  inbittu  od  pmifej 
n  boc  pp:ic  t  ftricte  datlla;  apud  uulgires 
nuncupatur.£t  dicp  q>  duellum  eft  inbibtni 
iure  dmino  iure  gentium  T  iure  pofiduo  ca^ 
nonico  indiftincte  iure  ciuilt  regular.  &cd 
Sure  lombardo  in  ciibos  pmit  t  it  at  fabdam 
cum  illos  difcutiam.Qua'.itcr  duellu  boc  pur 
gitoMum  iulxbitu;  fit  iure  ditiino  ,pbatur  Ik 
ilk  act  us  eft  inbibttuo  iure  diuino  p  que  fit 
dei  umptatio.  £xd  Ixx  duellu  eft  buiufmot 
ergo  pbitur  maio:  p  illud  pceptu.  lion  tc  p 
tabis  dominum  dcii  tmi.  Ibjobn  minot.TU; 
tune  temptatur  deua  cum  pcrquiritur  iliqd 
contra  naturam  9*  no  eft  pduct  ibilc  nifi  mi 
nculo  diuino  ftc  eft  dicere  in  hoc  duello  put 
gatbnid.  11am  naturak  eft  cp  foitiot  i  in 
g:iiwfu:  aincat  minua  fo-'tcm  i  minus  ingc 
niofum  nee  ccontra  fieri  poteft  adtnc  nit'ali 
Sj  aliqn  minus  fo:tia  i  min'  ingcniofus  fb 
net  iofticiim  t  per  Oucllu  qrim'  ut  uLto?ii 
obtineat  ut  ipiius  iufticii  scUrct  i»ic  ergo 
dc '  teptat  ut  miracnlnm  bciac.  Lonfur^ 
marur  illcactutu-ft  inbibitus  iure  diuino  9 
eft  ad  i  uentus  fabiicante  dtibolo.  "boc  dud 
turn  eft  buiufmodi.crgopiobJturmaio?.nJ5 
nil  comune  dei  ad  dubotuj  Incis  ad  tcncbaa 
TDinoi  pzobatnr  per  ca.monomacbui.q-T. 
n  a.confuloifti  ea.ci  i  quddone.  Con 
firmatur  Ok  actua  eft  inbibitus  iure  diuino 
per  que  inoccns  dampnatur  .boc  duellu  eft 
bui'raoOi^rgopiobt  mai».Tlam  de'  omio 
milt  dampnari  inocente}  tiii.q.u'.ca.que 
ritur  per  ca-l"isn.uib'  de  purg.ud  ergo, 
feccudo  oiti  boc  dudlu  inbibini  iure  gctiu 
TDX  pbjc  fie  Jllc  actua  eft  inhibit'  iure  gen 
tiu  Q  rcpugntt  n  )li  estate  fupcr  quo  fudatn 
eftiuagcntiii.  &cd  Ouellu  purgatwiu  eft 
bnuiunodi  ergo  pitct  maio?.  t>roJjat  nunoj. 


443 


Ham  Oictat  cqtas  tuf  gentian  Oelinqorotes 
puntri  innocetcs  abfolui  ac  in  hoc  bdto  cotv 
1(1151 1  qu  T  doq:  ccontra  ergo  inMbUiHarege 
tiun.£tiam  rcpugnat  illi  preceptc  qb  tibifi 
msinpjincipiodccretwum.      Cwlpium 
ihibitii  iurc  canoUxx  dam  de  pur.tnl.per 
totii.de  dcpugn  a .!  duello  per  ii.q.  v.ca-con 
fuluifti  nfcy  ad  fincrn  queftionis  T  orat tones 
portent  reddi  que  reddite  funt  adprobandii 
g>  fit tnbibiru  iure  diuino  cii  ius  canonicum 
tmitetur  ibtoitiones  i  pcrmuTbnes  Icgia  di 
uine.    Confirmatur  i  per  bocpbal  etiam 
<j>  iurc  diuino  fit  inbibifiLTlam  i ctue  i!!c  eft 
inbibitus  iure  poftiuo  per  que  fit  exclufio  ob 
fcruantic  iurie  pofuiui  hoc  duellii  tit  b»modi 
ergo  probatur  mawj.llam  fi  obfcruantia  eft 
mandataalcgepofitiua  ergoobfcrusticcx- 
clafio  eft  inhibit a.ut  ficut  p?opofitii  in  j?po 
fire  fie  opp.i  oppoito.ft .  t>  bis  Q  tu  fui  T  aluin. 
li.iftuo.in  pnn.xxii.di.bofpicblil.trtobaf 
minw.nam  iure  pofitiuo  introducte  funt  ac 
tionc8tamciui!<99>criminale6t  totatox 
ma  mdiciaria  per  qua  p?oc«ditur  ad  iura  p- 
tinet  sxclaranda  uc.l.propcrandiuut  t.of^ 
feratur  ->  .l.uni.C.dc  Ut.omtef.i.1  polati 
C.CK  lenten.i  u.3>  contra de  pjota-t  nni 
cu\ff,  reddatur  quod  fiui  rii.q  .ii.ai  OCDodfx 
fimi  T.l-iufticia.ff.txiufti.i  iure  n.^-tufti 
cia  inftit.co.ti.  Sed  dudlando bee  obfcrua 
tia  penitus  excluditur.crgo  dodlii  c  iure  po 
fitiuoinbibitum.    Connrmatur  ille  actoa 
eftiuKpoluiuoinbibitue  perque  panibra 
uftkiaccnegator  .1  etfde  inturu  irro^atur 
&ed  l»c  duellum  e  huiufmodi  trgppidnt 
maim  q:  ad  buc  fine  pJomitUitt  Cut  iura  pp 
fitiua  dminitnsper  «fl  p?mcipuin  ur.l.ult. 
C.dc  Iongi.tempo.p7efcrip.vtii-di.cnio  iure 
jrvi-qj-placau:.     ibrcbitur  mtnot  na  boc 
duellum  aliqutdo  cotin^it  innoccntc  fuccii 
bcre  in  duello  i  fie  (ibi  in  iuriam  irrosari  i 
iliquindocodngit  nocente.  obtincre  i  fie 
no  At  tufticia  pj ouocit i.    £  r  bid  in fcrtur 
boc  genus  duclli  quod  fit  per  purgacionem 
criminis  in  oericlone  tcue  inbibitum  iure  po 
(iciuo  canonico  indiftincte  ciuili  reguUriter 
Did  etiam  rcjiilaritcr  iure  ciuili  inl)ibU 
turn  bx  puellum  fallit  tanun  in  duobua  call 
buapcr.l.rdcriu  de  pice  tenenda  n  ciuaui 
olatoiibua  uc  puta  1 1  quis  intra  tempoia  pa^ 
cbbominemocciderici  confttt  debomicU 
dio  punitur  pcni  capital!  ut  ft  actca  paciajii 
ft  per  duellum  pjobjr  c  uoiucnr  g>  boc  fc  de* 
fcndcndoKcicT  cit  ilU  Ipecblis  cafusquo 
duJ.lum  eft  in  rei  option*.  3lter  ofua  ft  in 
tr  a  tpa  pace  vulnerauait  puict  nifi  p  due!!. 
p;obarc  uolucru  quod  Ixic  tccent  k  d;f<:n, 
dcndo.  'biiduocafudbobentur&e 

pace  tcnendj  t  etjs  uiolato?ibua.  Icge  una 
t>;imua  in.$.fi  quiabomtneoi  inira  pacem. 
&ecundu3  in.$.fi  quie  alium  in  cadem  .1. 
3n  aliia  ante  cafibua  pmittitur  iure  lombir- 
Oorum  ut.  J  .plequir .    £x  bis  conduditur 


tercium  pzincipale  numbnon  buius  merit* 
f.qnc  iure  fit  oucllum  tntroductu  i :  quo  iuf 
Inbibitum  oifti  ngucn  do  fmgulas  fpes  duelli 
t«r  pjedict  s  ergo  patet  c  jplicat  io  quar  ^ 
ti  mernbii  uideltcet  ppter  quid  inbifaitu  lit. 
n  ppter  quid  pmiifum.Ham  dudlum  pjimti 
omni  iure  eft  inbibitum  i  nullo  permiltum  1 
pptei-  quid.3.apparuit.  Si  oe  Tecundp  i  ft 
K  terriojinsula  tactu  fingulie  memtttis  ad 
boc  ippo!itum  reducendo.    ftrpondera  ga 
per  pauum  meum  tangit  late  bic  cum  capfia 
pcedcntibu8quotetr«  Introductum  fit  Oud 
lam  quo  iure  pbibitumj  quo  iure  pcrmiffum. 
uidc  aliqdd  per  bat.ifkc.oe  pace  tenenda  in 
viii-col'-bal-inrubjica.  cc  cdititb  libertate 
rdkn.in  n.ubi.dirit  i}>  kgbaa  regulariter 
bdfumcft  odicfum  icat(it.l.i.C.  B  gladia^ 
totibu9li.jci.uide  glo.in.l.cum  filiue.^ftff 
Oe  le.ii.  Bngc-infli.  cc  libcrrints  .ffi.in  ft. 
uidc  bar.tn.l.qu.1  gctione.f.rt  quis  .ff  .adJ. 
aquilbm  uidc  baLin.Let  hoc  iurs.ff  .0'  iuftl 
i  iurc.et  q>  tint  pbibita  uide.O^bb.in.c.ii. 
o:  cl'i.pug.in  OncUo.£t ibi  fubdit  3-  ifta  On 
clla  ruerunt  inuenta  diabolo  (uadente.  Jdcm 
bilit  in.c.i.co.  ti.in  fi.unde  CHxit  abb.m.c. 
i.Dcpurga.uuIgir!  9>  per  ifta  Ouella  Kuaur 
temptiriideopbibita  i  m.c.ii.eo.ti.  in.ii. 
cor.T.D.abb.in.c.iu.co.ti.mdi;.d.abb.  port 
toc.m.c.LiDc  toineimenris  i  5> non  fit  Iki 
torn  }roimo  pbitntum  uide  (an  c  rum  tbomam 
kd*  fcOe.q.rxx'.uide.O.Carui  in  ck.pafto 
ralisct:  re  iudi  in  v.q.uide  ^enge  in  efuaga* 
iobania.ncii.que  incipit  quia  in  futurowi  ubi 
con  dudit  9.  Ouellum  eft  .pbt&itum  1 UIB  cU 
die  in  boc  fubicii  iuri  canonico  uide.c.  nuv 
flomacljiam.u.q.T.1  queibipiedicaotur. 

CapTmcIjcxvu 

Jn  gbuscftfibua  purgatoJium  Ouetlum 
pcrmittatur. 

3  rca  quintu5  p2inctpale  uideltc5 
in  quiinis  ctl'ibua  pcrmittit  Du^ 
cllum  eft  uidendum  cc  pjtma  fpc- 
cit  ok ni  eft  op  nullo  cafu  d  fc b« 
(peck  Oictum  eft  qltrer  be  ttrtia  fpecle  mic 
nidendii  QJ  ilia  iura  lombarde  plurtb7  cafibua 
permittat'  t  folu  circa  tcrtia  (pq  infifteduj 
okf  ad  fine  tractat'  Qiieredu  eft  igitur 
quibus  caitbue  IMC  duellum  permittatur.ul 
traduoauifca  nomtnatosqui  btbeturin.1. 
federici  de  pace  tenenda  i  eiusuiolatoribua 
©o.permirt  itur  duellum  in  crimine  lefe  ma 
ieftatiacumqutsaliuf  impcdtfuperillocri 
mine  ut  i  lombarda  de  publlcis  crtmU.fi  30 
i  eft  ultima,  fit  fccanOo  cu  Oicitur  uxo.'tm 
confdliatam  in  mootm  uiriut  i  lombar.i? 
folio  mo?tis  -l.l'i  muiicr  i  eft  ultima,  fit 
tercb  cnopter  iiurum  conturbitatia  comu, 
niautfiquisaliqucmuoauerit  conturbiti 
ut  in  lornbir.de  conuitiis.U'i  quis  Blu?fi 
fit  i  quarto  caTu.de  bomicidto  comiifo  itee 


444 


trngntm  at  in  lamMr.Oc  bomicU.libcr  b5 

fit  qainto  in  crimine  pericldii  i  fi  dicat" 
cdaiifanrfBoptcr  cnpiditatem  bonwum  Ip 
tKtitllombir.ipcruidua.Lfi.  fitter 
to  pugna  de  fartoi  fcruno  comiflb  qui  eft  in 
toga  ii  Domirara  acllet  negare  feruum  fed  tie 
farrom  uc  in  lombir.d  furria.l  .fi  quia 

t  c  dicunt  qui  dam  g>  fuit  bee  J.coualcC' 
fttnu  fccundum  quolJam.i.imquitatid.xido 
licet  <f  commas  tenettur  pugnarc  p7o  f  uo. 

fie  fcpttmoin  criminc  adult crii  ut  fi  quia 
•ccufetur  adulterate  urorem  litmus  i  lorn 
bar-*  jdultcriw-l.iii.  fit  octwo  ft  gs  dicat 
aliqui  mulierem  adulteratum  i  Ik  pjoture 
IK  lit  at  in  lombardj.cc  iniitriis  mmlicrii  j.iu 
incipttde  iniurifemulii:rum.l.piieUanu 
3tem  fit  rono  pugna  fi  quis  coucniif?)  mi* 
lo  01  dine  rent  moWcm  fine  imobilem  pottide 
it  xxx.an.ut  in  lobar.dc  pfcriptie-l.fi  quid 
aliom  iT.t.u.  f  it  decimo  inter  cotrarioa 
tdtca  ut  in  Iombar.de  tefabus  ft  quia  cii  aL 
tero  qaod  pracedi  t  fi  pjoduc  t  at  ur  ab  atracy 
porte.  ©inautemabodemptetuncncn 
fit  dutllum.Tlflm  tut  actw  p:cbat  i  codep 
nacur  .3ut  nibil  pjobat  i  abibluitur  rcus. 
&cd  fi  ab  utraqt  pte  pioducantm^t  crttra 
fine  pjru  cue  fit  ducllum.  fit  undcdmo 
p?oprcr  dcbttum  paternum  contra  filtum  ne 
gantem  ut  in  lombar.  quilttcr  quie  k  defui 
d*t .l.ii  quia  port  mcetcm.  t  c  uerue  intcllec 
tus  lUiua.l-dt  9>  tnteUigatur  dcbitu>  ex  mi 
Undo,  fit  duodedmo  piopter  incendium 
fi agatur  cotr j  makfactort  nt  i  lombar^tu 
Uur  quia  k  dcfcn.Lt't  quio  iliu  .Tlon  aurem 
lit  fi  agatur  contra  confultotem  ut  i  lombar 
deUltconfimilU.unaiiifu  f  it  trededmo 
pto  adulterio  ut  fi  maritue  dicat  uxcac  fuam 
adulterate  uk  ut  i  lombar.  quahtcr  quis  fe 
dcKn.zcl.fi  quisurae-  fitdedmoqrro 
fi  maritua  fulpicktur  9-  90  turpiter  fe  baba 
ait  ai  uro?c.£  t  in tclligit  lex  turpiter  rage 
do  ut  in  lombar.qualiter  quia  fc  deitndac  ic 
fi  quia  a  mo.  f  ic  quint odccimop?o  pi r  iu 
cuut  in  lombar.  qualiter  quis  fcdcixn.  I.de 
fttfto.  fit  detimo  kx  to  etiam  ducllum  p ! 
uerlitura  ut  fi  quid  dicat  fe  piimo  inudlitu; 
i  de  pollclfiooe  ciectum  i  aUcuiua  idem  di 
Ut  DC  1. idem  de  inftitura 

fit  dccimo  feptimo  pw  depoTito  negate. 
ut  fi  depoittu  tit  ultra  Widoe  xx-ut.  l.fi  ga 
pjo  ft.  fit  decimo  octauo  ft  dtcatur  g>  go 
carta  per  aim  extoifit  ut.l.  fi  quid  dixenM 
lobar.qliter  quia  lie <Jefon.:c.  fitdcdcno. 
f  Uxrtue  pctiri  i  fuo.l.fi.ge  ruus-Quidij 
dicut  9>  illi.Lruit  canualcoftana-tu  podera 
9  dne  pauue  me'  bic  logtur  mdtii  fapie  ter 
l  boc  tigjt  tal-in  ti.dc  pace  tcneda  i  ca.i.i 
mcoLoi  lie  iligd  pbaLc.de  cditi.liber  toL 
in  tmde  b«Lin.l.negitea,C.de  act.i  obti. 
laocco.to  ca.cu.'olim  de  re 


Inter  quoa  iniri  debeat  ducllum. 
CtpTm  c  Ixrstt. 

?rca  feirum  p:iucipate  uiddicj 
inter  quoa  iniri  pcntit  Oucllu  eft 
oidcndum  qualiter  Oucllii  purga 
twium  inter  pjincipales  regufr 
fieri  acbeat  J£  t  Dico  q>  lx>c  bakt  re^ula  tc  to 
iurc  lombar  do  quo  duellum  pmittit  in  cafib' 
fcipiu?  ntrratts  q>  Oucllum  fit  infer  principa 
Us.St  J  ila  rcgfa  fallit  in  octo  alibu:-..d:i 
musfi  mucnilid  etas  impedit.  Scoid'  fi  ctaa 
cccrcpita.  11am  in  ca  laboj  i  ooloi.rcrri 
us  G  infirmi  tas  aliqua  OucUare  pbibcat.Jfte 
trea  cafus  babcntur  in  lomharda  qualitcr  ga 
fe  ccrcn.ic.l.qu>cu§  legc  i  oc  picio.I.ultii 
Qusrtus  eft  fi  ruus  qui  c!t  in  quafl  poflciTioe 
f  uitutw  pclamat  in  libcrtatcm.  11am  tiic 
txxnmusOuclUt  p  cmpionem  ut  in  lombar. 
qualitcr  quis  fc  often  .1  .  ft  quia  ruua  pptcr  ap 
petitum.  Quintus  ft  ccclcftiltica  (it  pbna 
puta  clencus  uel  comes  cairfas  babent  ad  in 
uicem  ucl  cum  aliis  tune  pugnant  p  campuv 
mm  ut  tn  lombar.qualitcr  quia  fc  cvrtnj.fi. 
txrtus  ubi  mulicr  accubtnr  b  adultcrio 
utinlombar.e.ti.l.dquisura'cm.  &epx 
timus  ft  Kites  acto?ia  funt  contririi  teftib' 
rei  tone  ttftcs  acto?u  ocbent  aiTumcrc  umi 
campiwx  i  teftcs  ret  aiTumcre  aliu  ex  tcftix 
bus  met  lit  Ui  Lomlwr  .c.t  i.l't  quts  cum  altero 
Oct  ouua  Si  uruus  sccufctur  K  furto  in 
lombar  -  K  fur  .1.  fl  hius  ocminum  cc  furto 
bodk  tamen  oc  confuctudinc  pmittit  ur  g!U 
bet  baberc  Campionem. 


Ooaiitcr  fiat  Buellum. 

5rcaft:ptimump:tncipiU  fciticj 
qualitcr  fiat  Oucllum  eft  uidcdii 
t  fie  picmttto  <f  CHjcllum  dt  re 
tactum  ad  inftar  todicit  conrc 
tiofi.  Tlam  ficut  In  iudicio  conten  tiofo  fut 
act  01  1  reue  tudcx  inftja  caufam  inltrutn 
t  U  p  quc  largo  mo  Jo  fumptti  p  q  mbufcumy 
caufam  inlti'uentihU3  ur.l.i.tf.  cc  fide  inltro. 
fitucricitiactclaratio  ut  kratur  OWtnitiui 
ftnttntb.^ic  in  oucllo  funt  actoi  i  rcua. 
utputa  puocana  i  puocatua.tudcx  inlti'-a  ut 
potc  arma  quibna  fci  nuicem  pc  u  tiiit  .  Tla 
ucut  in  iudicio  contcntiofo  quia  iliquando 
coauincir  tcftibus  rcriptur  ia  i  confeflionib* 
ut  Oe  rciti-fpo.c.c  urn  ad  fcdcm.ioic  in  duel 
loqaiaaltquindoarmidconuiucit  ccopoialt 
bus  ut  ficut  in  pnmo  fit  <j>  fie  cciuictua  i  in 
cafu  condempnationia  Ac  a  fimili  conuictw 
in  boc.  3d  fimilitudinem  igitur  iudkii  co 
tcnttoTt  quercndum  eft  de  boc  iudicio.f.ducl 
lari  .  bonder  a  in  Punili  ca  qur.  dixit  bar-in 
LUC.dc  Uucootdta.io.ii.cor. 


445 


CapTm  clxtix. 

Snfuramentumdcaftu  Inter  dncllan 
Its  Ik  pxftandnini  per  quern. 

rprimoquero  Sn  iiiramentuj 
dc  aftu  fit  pwftandu.  6 1  an  per 
pjoaocantem  i  pjonocatu  -  Bn 
per  altqt  i  per  quern.  £  t  iu 
rsmen  tii  de  aftu  Cc  hoc  iudicio  idem  (ft  op  it 
r amentum  dc  calumpma  in  iudicio  contcn, 
tiofi  fore  ciuflre  ad  ecdefwftici.  i  uidetur  g> 
utractdurarcKbeat.  Tlam  iuramcntum  cc 
calumpnu  p;cfhrur  in  (udkio  contentiofo 
per  actctfem  i  rrum  ut.I.i.i  .ii.C  de  iuram 
to  calump.  i  auct-piincipalea  co.  ti.ei  1. 1. 
per  totum.£rtyO  bit  a  fimili  cum  lit  cade;  r* 
tio  *r  Tic  cadem  iaria  difpofit  lo.tf  .ad.l.  aquiL 
l.illud.C-ad.l.fjlci. I  .ultima  K  confti  .t:af> 
ftctocnrnfi.  SolutiobtcfijGuiopi.iurie 
attcn  to  iore  lombardo  una  fuit  opt.  t  krcur 
g>  futt  mantuancTum  tp  in  hoc  iudicio  dud. 
lari  pieftatur  (aeranKntnj  de  aftu.  sb  ntrocjj 
tamcn  ab  actoie  ip  a  reo.  ft  fit  feamdii  eos 
comjuntur  umnia  iuraloquenciadeaftn. 
non  prefbwdo.idducun  t  q>  babentur  in  Ic^ 
bar  .qualir  cr  Qnis  fe  defcndat.L  me  tio . 
feed  ilia  let  babet  quituo?  mtcllarue-unua 
gp  hitdligatur  in  ttfttbua  contrariisvtpoci 
us  fiat  ducllum  y  per  iurcnt.  Qtomdaa 
g>  intelligitnr  in  duoboa  contcndtntibus  (r 
prtTidcrc  ut  pocine  duclknt  g>  dekrenr. 
rerciusgitntclliganir  in  eo  contra  quehu 
rani  eft  <?  furtus  comifir.i  iUe  uult  iurare  ? 
trarium.  Quartus  com  duo  litigant  co?a 
Indice  i  una«  iurauit  dda  to  iuramtnto  i  al 
tcr  udt  iurare  contririum.  txnumfen, 
tencia  repnbari  uidet  ur  q?  non  eft  hoc  ciu, 
torn  '.'ire  pmmo  contrsrium  ctparte  rei  .ut 
Wug  actoi  iuret  m  in  lombar .qual ittr  quia 
k  de  rtndad.fi  qua  alium  afrn .  fallit  ubi 
fit  ducltum  piopter  contrarktatem  tedium 
ut  in  lombar.de  tcftibua.l.fLi  quitter  qua 
fedefen.l.fictuiacaaltcro.  feaur.tia  mir 
opi.car.bcncuenTamquiuoluit  diftinguere 
anqubuenUtaddudlandumin  cuifjipfifj 
toti'iter  continsence.aut  piozfus  alicotu 
But  pjincipatocr  alkna.  fccun  dario  fua. 

5npnmocafunrpot«cum  quiapwuocat 
aliqaem  fuper  ftato  ud  inandio  fibi  (acto  uT 
ad  ulurio  avoiis  fue.nk  refcrt  ant  piouocan 
do  ipTum  diet  t  tu  com  ififti.iut  dick  fufpkot 
q>c6mi(cri8pjimocafu  ds  iurare  Kjeffe  in 
e  ite.kcundo  cafn  debet  iurare'cp  iuftam  bix 
bet  fufpicioiKm.i  com  piouocar  ratione  fox 
fpicianu  debct  adiccrc  cauEun  fupi t ionis  ut 
pote  <)>  ip(u5  uidtrtt  log  cri  UXOK  fua  i  Tic  0" 
3lii3.Qui  aiit  ikooocat  ad  dtKlIn-i  ca  alica.i 
no  pptcr  aliquid  ^mLTu  cotra  fc  -fj  jt?a  illu 
K  pote  bper  oriminc  cum  Jmocat  fup  crimi 
ne  We  mtkditis  tune  com  wcccUt  at  tclt if 
dcbet  iurare  fie  die  ut  pieftatur  iuramentnj 


teftw  ut.C.de  teftU.fuHurandi  de  tefti  .c. 
tuia  t.c.cura  niicius  en  fy.i  dicic  in  reo  ut 
iuret  rem  fie  non  cite.'bec  opi.quoad  (icrax 
mentom  rd  rcpjobatur  ur.s.  pxima-Ienu 
bit  opi  ,1  fcrtur  f  u  i(fe  paptettf  uidelic  5  e>  ex 
prtercit  jwocadnollum  pxftaridebeat. 
Sed  ec  parte  actttfe  de  actoic  pbat  in 
lombirda  qlitrr  quis  fe  de&n.l.fl  quic  aftu. 
bercopbaiit.  tlam  reua  tenetur  ad  alte 
mm  Onorom  net  pugnet  uel  rcnnuat  t  con, 
Oempnetur.  Sic  igiwr  iarainentum  pro 
parte  rd  nibil  operator  i  fie  ut  fupfluom  re 
fccandum  ut.l.a;nptioKtn.  ^.in  refutatoitts. 
C.Oe  appdr.l.non  cosendum.^.lflbinus  .tf. 
tx  pcuf  .  Quart!  futtopt.1  fuit  cuiufdam 
^Ibcrti  qoi  uoluk  oiore  9>  actoj  lempiurat 
p»ter$  in  crimnu  lefe  maieftatif  i  tcftibus 
contrariia  i  tnueftitura  pjdu.  3n  reo  ?co;, 
dat  cum  oltis  pter$  cum  papienlibua  T  txx 
credo  i  aerate  ircp  9*  regulirit  pftct  ptercp 
in  uftbus  fupzadktUn  eft  ratio  ut  compella 
tur  reus  fe  purgart  non  pKcedcntc  aliquo  tu 
Okio  contra  enn  j^mmo  uolunt  iura  ad  mu 
nue  pjeccdert  infamiam  i  cvfiikntibusjp- 
tutbnibasciponitur  purgationi  Oepurga. 
canonica.ii.q.  iiii.pcr  totum  QC  accufat.qlu 
ter  Ouo  ut  ibi  nota*  £>ic  igitur  hire  lorn- 
bardo  qu>3  Outllum  pmittitur  incafibu8.§. 
cnumeratis  ad  minus  ex  parte  actoita  pee- 
dat  iuramentum  i  iuramentu;  abet  e(k  co 
fcumepuocationiutpuocat  ccrdciiltetia 
fie  ctum  iuret  ut  cttam  on  notatur  inter  iu 
r  amentum  calupnie  nneritatis  utunumce 
credulitatr  aliud  b  ueritate  at  Oixit  t»min» 


Ctpfn  eixxx. 

3nreo  wrem  non  conclpio  rattontm 
nectflttatisiuramenti. 

3n  Oato  csmpione  nni  parti  in  afibua 
a  iure  pmiiTu  fit  licttnm  dare  altcru 

£cundoqutro  raiquid  fi  Jicul 

par  t  ium  Derur  campio  in  caftbuf 

pm  ilfia  a  tare  tombardo  qui  fun  t 

octo  nt  .S.notaui  an  tune  Ucot 

alteri  parti  Oarecampionem.  feoTo.  tic 

fuernnt  opio.  uarie.  Hliqui  otcunt  j»  lie  aL> 

legint  g>  babctur;in  lombjr.cualiter  quis  fe 

D-fen.l.qnociiq;.     S  allit  in  cafu  ubi  feruua 

contendit  contra  commit;.    &ccudafuit 

opi.  9>  attcri  parri  non  (iccat  tune  eft  ratio. 

Tlam  l:x  tune  in  trifms  cafibue  ptrmirt  it 

ergo  ocnegat  in  aUu.ff.ix'  Isg-I-ins  flngularc 

ff.ad  municipar.l.i.ff  .W.mat.Uiicum  tute5 

C.OC  .pcuf.t.marito  Cc  tranflac.pjela.intcr 

cojpojaliacumfimilibua.     £  go  credo  hoc 

ponderandum  ej>  in  boc  refert  hoe  indicium 

ouclli  a  iudicio  o>iitencbfo.     Ham  in  iudi 

cio  contencblb  regufr  quia  per  al  iu^  Itttgat 

i  jppter  boc  inuentus  eft  pcuratoiu  ufua-tf 


446 


cepcurat.!.i.i.I.«fi».S?c 
Itrircr  I'dum  per  fe  i  in  boc  cquiparatur  iux 
dicio  crimiali  in  quo  non  tnrcruenit  piocara 
r»  mfi  ad  canfi-3  auk  allcsinDaeJf.de  pu. 
in<f  i.Lpc.f  ^)ai  od  crimcn.  t  .L(crm>5  Qtiocy 
$.puHico.ff.dep:ociir.i  ca.liceti  a.ueni 
ens  deacn.£t  eft  ratio  <p  in  perfonam  pro^ 
cnr.nonpotcftferricondcmpn:jrc*ia  fentcn 
ctj.q?  innocens  in  pcrfonam  oomini  ratio. 
q?  abfcne.ff.de  pcnio.l.jb^ntcm.&ic  dircc 
to  i  n  dndlo.TUm  in  duello  dnclljntes  ad  p 
fhr.itioncm  perfonarum  tcndunt  ur  a  hoc  c 
Ucuturtk-ritis  per  hoc  genus  pTobationisi 
fie  reguljritcr  no  inrerutnit  campio  prefer 
qua  in  cafibu  J  p.'emilfta.  €>i  igitur  cmcrgat 
cafiw  dandi  campionia  ei  parte  umue  i  non 
cmtrgjt  c  t  parre  alrmua.i'.Ic  fo'ua  dibit  ci 
pionem.©i  rate  utruv  emergat  cafus  utriQj 
dahtnirnifidicaspiopter  eqnjlitatem  binci 
ck  Ccroandim  obi  licitum  uni  det  alreri  ut.l. 
tcrminiro.C.dc  JTUC.T  lit.f  xpen.dt  mut.pe 
ri  l.i.i  per  totum-regula  non  licet  dc  rccu. 
iur.Ii.<pi.n  bee  fapit  cqnir  jtem  fed  pjius  die 
tumocrinsdc 


CapTm.clxxii. 

Kn  campioncs  dentur  cqualiter  ubt 
boicimk  dandifunt. 

£rtio  qucro  qiuli  tcr  in  calibua 

btndndc  cum  conceditur  capio 

fet  ipforu  Oatio  t  concettio. 

SoTo-tXc  pondtro  g>  Kcut  per 

IduKttoa  in  fow  conttnciofo  cauia  per  CMC 

fie  po  campionea  in  iudicio  Duellaji.  £tfic 

inforo  <j>  (icut  in  mdicio  contcciofo  fieri  dtv 

bet  cqua  aduotatoJum  dulributb  ut.l..put 

dcndMuC.de  poftu.Sk  ubi  bincinde  fit  ca 

pionum  conceiTio  fieri  dcbere  equa  ipfccum 

diltribut  io.    Jn  pjincipalibua  autcm  Due!' 

lantibua  non  eft  ponderanda  equa'itas  cum 

caubm  pjnLi^  .ppjiia  uiribue  coipweie  fpcte 

•dexkompducunt. 

Hn  quililvt  admtttatuv  adcimpiomm. 
CapTmclxxxii. 

Chrto  quero  in  quQibct  admit  ^ 

tatur  f  cjpione.SoTo  ut  dictu 

cft."bicequipatur  campbaduo 

ato.Sicut  ergo  quilibct  admit 

tltnr  id  poftulandum  nifi  Tit  iui  .pl^ibit'  ut 

l.i.ff.dc  poftu.feic  quilibet  admittitur  ad 

officium  camptonatue  nil)  rcpcllatur  a  lure 

ttepcllitur  autem  fur  ut  in  lombarda  quafr 

q«bkdeftndat.l.ampflnione}.£teftr»t5 

q?  in  famia.ff.de  fur.Lnon  poteft.£t  fie  fuc 

combit  pjcfumirur  rat  bnc  piopiii  delicti  (uc 

cohere  i  aid  criminofi  grauibus  crimintbua 

bcretkirationepxdkta. 


CafTmclxxnl. 
3  a  caiusdrctionc  eft  dudlum . 

Uintoqutrc  in  cuius  clatiooe 

eft  t>uellnm.'2ro(utio  regTaritcr 

in  clcoide  actoit?  ficut  Oicimua 

imiudicb  contentiofo.bochabex 

tor  in  lombir.qualitcr  qui^  fe  ccrcn.l.fi  quia 

amo.     f alUt  in  criminc  Icfc  maieftitia  ubi 

ex  ncceffitate  co?itur  Oucllire  £t  (i  aliquia 

fcixcrit  agarn  ut  in  lombar.K  po  cri.l.a-1  d 

imuriid  mu[u.Tam.1.ii.    fcondera  ctU5  que 

pJicauit  bol.tn.c.i.rf  pice  tcneda  i.ix.  coT. 

Dpr  c.lxxxiiii. 
Qualttcrixbeatotdinari. 

£xto  quiTo  qnaliter  ocbcat  otdi 

nari  Oucl!um.SoTo  lure  non  eft 

ctutum  fed  confuctudme  fiutui 

9>  eii^tur  locua  amplius  in  ciid 

tatc  nel  extra  qui'locua  circuclandatur  co?x 

dis.  Ira  miiTo  banno  nullua  audeat  tntrarc  p 

teroucllantconecaudeattumultum  fjccre 

ptoprer  qncin  alrera  para  offendi  poffct.  £t 

htdcx  crit  ibi  in  loco  ex  quo  uidcrc  poitit 

urrucy  Ooellantium  i  qiu'.ircr  unua  alii«  re 

cipiit  ut  finalitcr  iudicet  in  Ouello.  Bn  qub 

fuccubuerit.    tbondera  ea  que  Ixc  dicuntm 

per  proiutim  mcum  quia  funt  m;mo:u  digna 

Tucrumpzedicatoicenabicleruiriconfucx 

tadine.TIam  ita  uidi  obferoari  jrmoU. 

CapTm  c  Ixxxt. 
Quito?  armts  debcat  ductlari . 

£ptimo  quero'  quibus  armis  dc 
beat  duellari.  &dut  io  iure  lorn 
bar.  permittuntur  fpata  fuftce 
u  t  in  lombar.de  refti.  Lfi  quia  cii 
altero  i  quilitcr  quis  fe  dercn.l 

mentio  t  hoc  dcbent  effe  cqiulia  i  'a  iudict 

pjtftari. 

CapTm  c  Ixxxvi 

Bn  li  irma  fran^antur  ucl  udant  dc 
bein  t  ilu  dan  nel  fuWcuari. 

Ctauo  qucro  qui  d  n  arma  fen  fu 

ftesuniusducllantis  frangutut 

ucl  cadant.Bn  dcbc.it  alb  dart. 

£  t  uidctur  q>  fie.  n.i>  dicit  rex 

rusq>pugna  debet  fieri  cum  fufti  hue  i  feu 

tie  ut  inlombar.qualiter  quis  fe  dcfcn.I.mc 

tio  i  jn  lombor.de  tefti.l.fi  quis  cum  altero 

fed  nifi  aha  darcntur  nonfurcnt  cumfuftix 

biw  ergo.    Connrmatur.  Tlam  fuftca  in  do 

dloequtpirantur  tefti.i  inftrumcnjia  it]  ij 

dicio  contenriofo-fed  in  fvo  cvjntcnrioti  fit 


447 


mu!tip!ic»tbpductionis  tcftiu;  "  tnftrume 
tozum  ctum  fi  diqaojum  dicta  fragiifur  an 
te  publicationem  i  noticiam  Dict«U5  ut  in 
ttit.de  tofti.  $.ft  ucro  de  teftt.fmitatts  i  cL 
dc  tcfti.e.ti  .  Quid.™  hoc  tenet  in  fri 
genre  (ecus  ft  caebnt  quia  tune  debet  impa- 
rari  fortune.  alii  Dicut  g>  in  nullo  ca,. 
fufuntp^ftondafcdimputaridebet  fcstiie 
Cue.  aiiidictuitftariconfttetudinf.  Sup 
boc  ego  credo  opi.fc&am  fox  ucram  -f.g>  no 
Tint  alh  pjeftanda  fine  cadant  fiuc  frangand 
nil'i  aliud  babeat  confuetudo  qne  operari  pot 
efftaum  utdicit  Ux.tf  .K  UgU.ccquibne. 
C.que  fit  lon.confue.l.ii.xi.di.  ccnfuc  tudio 
i.dt.conluetudo.  £t  eft  ratio,  nam  in  da 
ello  ut  dtxi  in  p.'indpio  tractgtus  queritur 
nliquando  g>  contra  naturam  ut  g>  mm'  rot 
tie  t  minus  mduftriotua  uincat  Kutiwcm. 
i  magis  indiiftriofum  quod  aliquandoconr 
dngit  calu  incidentc  crgoutcrq.'  ducllantui 
dimittenduscd  fubkctioni  caluu  quibua  ft 
libcre  compofucrunt  aliae  tranftrent.  na  du 
elliadpurgationemindicti.  Confirinatur 
mm  (i  diceremua  dare  noua  arma  ubi  .  cade^ 
rcnt.fic  a  ftmili  dicercmue  dudlantcm  cade 
tern  fub!euari  quod  eft  ab  furdum.  Tlam  f  p 
tcr  boe  cafuoaliquando  condngtt  potcntio, 
ran  fubcumbcre  i  in  boc  monftratur  iudicJ 
urn  diuinnm  . 


3n  It  term!  mri  no  poteft  ono  dk  alio 
i  .9  uc  nutria  gtich  pUua  V>» 


aul'p:iuape:cutert  dcbtat. 

Cnoqacroquisin  duello  per* 
cutere  ocbeat.  i  uidctur  op  yao 
(ja.nl  boc  iudiciu  dudlare  eft  Q 
miliaiadicio  contencioiout.i. 
tactum  eft  fepma  .td  in  iudtcio  contentio* 
fo  icto74>>io  ponigit  Uxllu  reo  i  poftea  re' 
poirigit  rcfponftonee  at  in  auten.  onxratur 
C  .dc  lit.contcft.1  ca.ua;  Ubelli  obla.crgo  a 
funili  ftfouccans  prinw  percaciet  prouacaoi 
3n  contrarium  uidetnv  q:  reus  fioorabt 
lior  eft  ut  .Uruaus.ff.ccact.1  oblLi  rcgu 
la  fauotabiluuea  .If  .DC  regulia  tarie.  1\egul< 
in  per.ic  de  regciis  iurts  li.vi.  ©d.crcdo 
piimim  parttm  aurwi  nee  obftint  alUgata 
in  contrarium  qi  ilia  tura  loquutar  in  nnib' 
tudkioTum  cum  n  reftat  nil'i  indiffinitiua  (e 
tendt  qj  tune  foocndum  e  reo  .  S<d  tuca 
p.'incipia  fauendim  eft  acton  ut  .1.  fi  quis  in 
undone  imbigua  .ff.de  iudti  .  (.inter  ftipa 
lantq.f.i.ff  .de  uer  .ob  Jiel  dici  poteft  q>  bic 
non  eft  feroandus  oido  fed  locus  eft  pxuen 
tioni  uel  ctiam  concur  fui  .  frmdera  quii 
bic  que  dicuntur  p:r  poauum  meum  iure  no 
pKfaintitr  ftamoe  ergo  ad  confuctudini  qua 
medburc  fcruirc  tur  ultima  opi.  pzoaui  mci. 
1  itt  Mdi  feruar  .  in  conun^ntia-foctt  . 


CapTm 


£  cimo  quero.Hn  ft  Dndlum  GOT 

minart  non  poiT.  t  pnnu  Ok  pof- 

(it  ad  fcqucntcm  P  icm  Defer  rt. 

tooluto.d  ico  q>  Pic  bic  cnim  to 

necfMaturinftaurandumeft.    lupodcf 

Dicta  per  baLin.c.uin  ti.  cc  pace  tentn.  in 

tt.cof. 

CipTm  ctr^cix. 

3  n  fuccumbena  Defeat  in  expcnf  con< 
Ccmpnari. 

Tldecimo  quero.Tlanquid  fucdi 

bens  in  oac'.b  Dcbeit  in  expend 

condcmpnari  aducrfarip.&ofo. 

ad  ftmilitudinem  iudicii  conteti 

odquouictucuktcai  condtoipiutnr  ineXx 

penlls  ut.Lppcrandum.^.ruiautcm.C.ce  in 

Ott-Uterminato.  cs  fruc.  i  lit.cxpenfis  i 

c.rinem  DC  rolo  i  coaQima.l.c.calumpnia; 

cc  pcnia.  tbortst  (ic  in  Duello  Dici  victue  uic 

tai.ic.    Iu  pondera  3>  (tote  non  e(Tet  Ie^ 

uc  otccre  $•  non  cvbeat  in  expenfis  condep 

narimaxiwcmnurtumcoeaftu  utfupja 

tctigit  ojminus  pauua  meoa  i  fuerit  quail 

codcmpiutiw  ex  pTumptianibu3.f.  ex  Duello 

Ham  iodex  ocbet  eifc  mitipt  quando  pec 

Ditur  ex  pjcfumptionibua  N  bal.in  aiit.ge- 

ncraliKr.C.Dcepi.1  cUrLin4iti.cor.ereo> 

Ca?Tm.c.Iwxx. 
8n  fuccubena  panutur  pena  talionis. 

Oodccimoqucro.  3npoocane 

in  Duello  (uccumbens  puniatnr 

pena  tatbnis.teoTo.a  d  fimilix 

tudmcm  iudicii  criminals  ton- 

tentiofl  ubi  imponitnr  pena  talionis  accuflx 

ti  Cuccumbcnti  ut.c.fupcr  bis  cc  accufac.  i 

c.luet.c.ti.i.l.a.C.ocaccufat.  fit  in  Duello 

cu  n  Buelhtur  .pptcr  crimen  punicdomad 

publicamuindictam. 

Caprm.clxxiju 

9n  fuccambenspolfit  w  eodem  KOU 
fan  in  iudtcio  contcntiofo. 

£rtiodecimo  quei'o.3  n  puocia 

•d  Duellandum  piopter  crimen 

fuccumbtei  condepnatnspok 

fit  DC  eodem  crimine  accniariin 

iudicio  contendofo.  iooiutu.  ibotTet  Oici  qf 

cum  iure  ciuiti  Ducllum  purgatcttiun  non  ip 

piobatur  pmmo  penitua'fpjotxtur  ut.l.nni 

C.D  gbdiito-li.ii.i  iuf  canoico  ut  d  pu$na 

i  Duello  1  parg.  vul.p  totii  i  it  i  pii.f  ctar' 

e.fuit  tactubec  oi.fit6.!.f,pbata  pcret  piudi 

cumiurWicedi)cenrioni.gtl'u:nonobftat3» 

DC  dclicto  ciuldein  fepuu  noil  litquerenduj 

II 


jt.l.liat  in  fi.ff  .nau.cau.to.-t  tc.it  bio  dt 
•ccafotio.q:  ilia  iurt  loquitur  cum  piioi  er 
mimtio  i  difoiifio  Tint  iuridica.  £t  Tic  in 
brew  <J>  abUutoJid  latu  in  duello  non  parif 
exceptionem  rci  Ljdi.iccuforc  uo'.cnci  in  iu^ 
dicio  contccbfo.  "bcc  ucra  nifi  cc  nfuttu- 
do  regtoms  tliud  ind«eret  ut  utdelicet  fcr  ^ 
uareturitwlombardonim  fccundu;  cuiuadi 
(pofitionem  pcrlecntua  fum  bunc  palTum.  £  t 
fie  limititc  font  foluiioncc  pjccedcntium  q* 
ftk>nu5.  fu  pondera  cp  a  que  btc  narratur 
pa  oominum  pjoauum  mcam  detiduntque 
quc  per  cum  ranguntur  fupi.i  proximo  capi. 
quail  non  fit  locus  in  fcnptioni  mfi  ex  con* 
bctudine  fcruaretur  ias  lombirdojum . 

CspTm  ctxxxxtt. 

3n  dcliilenc  a  duello  incidat 
incurpillianum . 

dirto  accimc  qucro.  "ttunquid 
pjouoans  ad  ducllum  psoptcr 
crimcn  puHicudefifttnaa  duello 
incidat  ptnam  turpitl.£c  nidec 
e>  lie  ad  inlbr  criminalw  iudich  contentioli 
urJ.i.^'.ft  quis  autcm.lf.3d  tur.^o.iure  coi 
n  paJcjj  <p  cu  iu.co.lic  f.pfc  it  fi  boc  iudiciti 
ut.e.^5  quo  mrc  pmiltu  pciTct  did  ex  ctde 
equiutc  ipfum  punkndum  .1  dice  arbitrio 
iud.cum  no  (it  iure  cxpxlfj  dc officio  dc  le. 
c.di  cauftd  in  fi.ff.de  libci'an.l.i.  ?n  penam 
cnim  turpill-  non  credo  ipfum  incidcre  cii  pe 
nc  fine  reibingende  utJ.com  quidam.  ff.de 
luxcep.i.^.pcne.de  pc.di.i.regub  in  pets 
dc  rcgu.ium ! i.ri-bcc  ut  dit i  ture  lombar, 
do  pioccdnnt.Tlam  iurecomuni  recede  ns  a 
duello  non  punitur  ymmo  talis  Ugi  ob  tcnu 
purat  i  p:i3lequei)a  facie  contra  kffi. 

CapTm  c  txxxxiii . 
3n  poifit  deMere  cum  licctu  tudicia 

Uinro  dccimo  quero .  tlunquid 

piouocons  ad  Duellum  iurc  lorn 

bar  do  potfit  Oefillere  cum  liccn- 

eta  iudicis  apparct  9>  fie  ad  in, 

Ihraccufantis  impetrantis  abolicioncm.  ff . 

id  turpillianum.l.abolicio  i-Ufiquisinurx 

ucneniente  TJ.dcmiriamu8.C-Oc  tboliciep 

totum.      &olut  to  lore  comuni  hex:  dart  t 

qua  PICK  abolitione  potdl  i  bene  fadt  iure 

lombardo.  CreDo  etiam  q>  iudcx  ex  cauh  ? 

cederepoceft  ad  infbr  accufotcu'i*;  utfupja 

tllegatum  eft.    Iu  pondera  qi  idem  tcnuit 

bal.m  capitulopjimo  dc  pace  tcnendj. 

Ulrimum  capTm. 

8n  pwoocans  deftftere  pofflt  ante 
HtacoauftatcmfuKpaM. 


Cttodecimoqnero. 
cins  ad  ducllum  defiftere  polftt 
fine  pcna  ante  (item  contcfb.t 
com  ctum  qucro  qinnpo  ptopoi 
cioilit  ftcut  i  iudicio  jtctej  duello  Its  diuc 
conteltari.  £t  uidctur  q>  ante  poftit  fine  pe 
ni  dcTiftere.nam  ante  lit.contcft.non  dicit 
gsagcre  (3  agerc  tulle  re  ra.baj.boc  apli'  er 
go»n  defiltere  no  poterit.Cofirmatur  ni'sfl 
Ut.conteft.Dcfrtenti  pcitur.ff.de  in  ius  \o. 
l.^uiaergo.  ConftinuturpJ.Umetu.C 
oradultcr.TJ.mi!e9-$.foar.ff.e.ti.i.!.qri 
tum.ff  .ad  turpilf.  ?n  contrarium  facir  J. 
3  n  fenatu9.$.qui  poft.ff.ad  turpiir.ubt.pbat 
tex.q>  a&lftens  ab  accufationc  ante  lit.con^ 
teft.inddat  in  turpilr.Idem  ,pbat  J.pcr.C. 
cc  alump.Sol'o.  toec  qucftio  picfupponlt 
CcdHoiKm  alteriud  queftionia  J.  qiundo  lis 
PpoKbnilitcr  tncatur  conteftari  hi  boc  uu 
dicio  Ouellart  vi  Jet  cj>  pod  nnam  pcmtioncs 
actoiia  1  aliam  rci  quia  in  iudicio  contctiox 
fa  fie  fit  contelbtb  per  petitionem  i  contra 
Oiccioncm  fecutam  nt.l.rem  non  nouim.f . 
pJtroni.C.a:  iudi.i  .l.una.C.Oe  lit.contcf. 
T.Lum.c.tui.  Scdp-'imapen-ulTioba 
beturlocolibcUi.  Sccunda  queftarco 
eft  contradictto  ergo  tc  At  liri  j  contdtatio. 
Contrarium  credo<ucrum  videlicet  g>  fiit  li 
tie  contcfb tie  cum  puocat  aiTcrendo  quod 
crimcn  comiferit  i  ille  negat  q>  boc  fit  uerii 
pitet.llam  poll  litcm  cotcjt.pzcftatur  facra 
mentii  &e  calumpnia  in  nir.ut  Hti.iu.iii  me. 
lit.inpMn.i.l.ii.C.Oeuiracalump.  &ed 
Oucllanrcs  pod  bine  v'tulcm  puocttionc5 1 
contradict  ioncm  mrint  rf  aftu  ut  fuptt  Oic 
turn  ell.  ifncipit  ergo  Oucllum  a  vhili  puo 
cationc  led  pcrcuffionea  babentur  loco  pbati 
onum  p  tcllca  i  indrumcnti  quc  fiunt  port 
lit. conr.ur lit. noiicont.p.T  totum.  ttlk 
modtfica  fo!  at  unc-,  q  ucltiocif  qua  qucfiui  93 
p:inw  percutere  debeat.  "bx  folutionc  p 
miifi  [uinctpalis  qucftio  Incidat  in  qudloem 
illj.Sn  pern  turil!.  uendicet  fihi  locum  ante 
Kt.ainteft.i  glo.funt  contrarie  vn.i  eft  in. I 
miles. $.(occr.ff.de adult. i. fait Ixi.i  tenet 
e|>  non  incidat.  Sliaeftinlt.i.C.  ad  tor, 
pilf.  £t  fuit  jwiii3  qui  tenet  q>  inciiat  i 
ilfam  credo  ueram  pJ.mfcnatuc.^.qui  poft 
ff.ad  turpflr.  £t  per  autenricaqui  fcmel.C. 
quomodo  i  quando  index-  Tamen  dick 
pe.g>uccufaro:  pcnitcrc  poteft  ante$>  reua 
citatueucniat.  ©icintelligit.l.qucfitum 
ff.ad  turpiir.  £t  fimili  mo  Jo  bah:  tu?  Wut  io 
pmirte  qucftioniij  loqucndo  de  iure  lonbardo 
utl'upja.  lupofttractatum  pondera  qtf 
in  federict  conibtu.fub  rub;ica  dc  pjelbndo 
turamento  a  campiom'bus  auetur  cp  poft^ 
umpioncs  circulum  pugnatomm  fcccrunt 
pToot  eft  moiis  ingrdti  coipoMlii  fubeant  fi 
cramenta  tuxta  pjobabiletn  credu'itatem  co 
rum  crcdunt  axninm  PJO  qutbue  pugium  in 
trauerint  ucritaum  foocrc  i  (ecus omoi  t« 


449 


&  pagntturoe  pso  dominis  Paid  nee  petfunt 
pad  a  cj>  non  dimicabunt  talii  talimodo 
puta  doit  icwu.2-  ed  ad  confnlfonej  alferiua 
alter  ex  toto  portc  const ur  de  quo  uide  boU 
in.c.i  .<k  pace  tcnen.  m.r.coT..  £t  poekr* 
quu  in  fcqucnti x.ponitur  dc  peiia  falfi  urn 
pionia  T  £  Wminus  uictaa  p  pen.n  falfi  cam 
ptonie  pot  in  intcgru  m  reftitui  licut  It  eflct 
uterus  per  falioe  tcftea.  Item  $  folio  campio 
ni  qui  fcknttr  crierauerit  Kbet  mutilari  ma 
iiDti  iure  ccmuni  Kberet  puniri  pena  qu» 
fuilfa  punitus  row  cc  uimine  intentatc.l. 
Lpoft  pim.ft.de  iicca.  3  tcm  pondcra  q* 
fr  idci  ictio  in  quadam  conllitut  ione  c,uc  uu 
cipir  confocrudtncm  .dicit  <j>  ft  miica  RKTtC 
is  qut  ad  ptignom  impel  it  ur  ct  equea  ft  uoluc 
ric  defender e.  /3diur  fariue  ctns  $ufe  mtUs  rt 
non  fit  cqucs  ftmpli  citcr  cum  impugnet. 

Eteconuerfo  (i  pedce  fuerit  qoi  detvndc 
re  nicitur  Uctc  ia  qui pugnam  obtukr it  fue 
ric  mike,  non  at  miles  fed  ut  quililxt  pugil 
ali ton  incufitnm  impttgn<t.i  hoc  uidct ur  p 
bari  per  textam  ibi  dcfenden  tia.Tlam  txixt 
eiTt  dtctio  qualiter  mchus  fe  defcndcre  ua- 
Uat.  £ t  ponders  qi  codcm  in  loco  oRen^ 
ditur  g>  babens  duosoculoe  ftpuoocat  ad 
ducUim  babcntcm  unum  ocuiom  tantum  x, 
btt  unus  ocolita  ci  cliudi.  £t  idem  indlgi 
t>!  i  aliis  in  memteia  at  ibidem.  £t  pon 
ocrai^illequi  tctigit  fotagefimum  annum 
nel  eft  minoj  11  v-ann ;  pJu  fe  pugnire  mini , 
me  tcnctur.£>cd  px>  ful  difcnfionc  polTj  po 
Kit  campkmtm.dide  bal.in  ca.pjimoin  ti. 
dc  pace  Rnenda.  Oaolus'de  lignano  iiu 
(Is  utriufcy  Doctoz . 

£  rpticit  trictattta  de  Bello  CompiU 
tue  per  me  5obanne5  d«  Lignano  minimti  iu 
he  utriufty  Docto»m  Jn  lludb  Bononien 
fi./D.ccc.ljc.pxcedente  fbni  ejcerdtu  cm 
tra  Ci  Jitatcm  qui  cauhm  dedit  traccatoi  at 
&colinbad  ctuu  font  excr  ckii  Doctwum 
•utcm  fabiiretur  coircct ioni.  Deo  giitiaa 
l  uirgtni  gbhofe  eioa  iDatri  finctufime . 
tiuj  fponfc  'kjdxrine  totic^  cdttti  curu . 


rasaia. 

r*acrsras>.j©r£. 

K  bello  pjlnu  fui  tiaafant  Oi 

uiditur  in  tree  panes  pjincl 

paka  Quarum  ultima  in  fejc 

tractitns  Oiuiditur  i  fubdix 

oiditur  prone  tibi  per  tabuUm  iftam  clarioa 

cemonftratur  rnbticellis  foia  fuo  otdine  coU 

locatis 

t>7im3  pars  (RincipaIt3.Q'uid  fit  bcllnm. 
n  qoaliter  ccfcribatur. 

S»ccunii  pars  piincipalis  teoiuifioue 
belli  i  qualiter  oiutdatnr. 

tenii  i  ultima  para  pjincipalis  ponit  o» 
dinem  tractatuum.  £t  oiniditur  in  fejc  pjin 
cipiicGtractatus. 

tttimua  tractatns  DC  fpcciali  kilo  celedi. 
Qualiter  bellum  fpeciale  cdcftc  eft  inuenni 
i  mcnfuri  rpeciallabumani  belli  Dcnatnrali 
tcdnctionefpualis  belli  co^cmm  alcftiam 
idbdlatemfbtu 

Qualiter  fecundum  aftrologoe  n  natu 
rales  pboe  ncccfTario  It  dare  bellum. 


trictatus. 
&<  fpujli  bamono  bcllo.f'm  tlxologum. 
De  fpiiali  bumano  bello  rm  mwakm  pbil5 

£ertiu0tractatu9. 

be  uniuerfali  coiponli  bdlo.£t  iftc  oiui* 
ticurinfextractatus. 

t^iimm  Qwlirer  iure  gentium  babuerit 
oJtam  bellum  uniucrfale  co^wa'.e. 

Qcomdoa  trictatua  tertii  pjincipalie.t, 
quibus  liceat  bdlum  indiccre  uniaerfale. 

Quibus  pziino  i  pjincipalitcr  i  quo  iure 
•t  caitra  quoj  bellum  liceat  indtcere  wilier 
(ale. 

an  aliia  a  pjiu.lica  t  bdlum  indtcere  uni 


Bn  bdlum  motnm  g  5mpato:tm  contra 
ecdefum  fit  iuftum.  t:  an  teneantur  fubditi 
inbocobtemperare. 

Quid  econtra  iuris  Tit  cum  C>apa  kllum 
nouet  contra  Jmpatoicnu 

ttrtiaa  tracutua  tertii  piicipata.l'.  quc 
fimtaggregatiua  belli. 

DC  Icgbne  i  cobmtc  191  quot  necelrio 
ioeiarequirantur. 

QuaUtcr  militesfe  babere  Oebetnt  i  cui 
obedtant  i  a  quibua  aWlinerc  pcipiiitur. 

Q.UC  ptineant  ad  offkiuj  Oucta  belli. 

Qoiliter  uark  puniuntnr  militea  $  nt  ua 
rfc  txlinquut. 

be  foiticudine  i  ipfius  natum  t  quc  fot 
t(  tudo  dicatar  mcialis  i  que  uo.que  belln$ 
dncic  ad  finem  rectum  t  que  non. 

3n  foit  itudo  fit  uirtus  cardinalia 
vft.  i  gcneraliter  nirtatea  tiii.pjincipa!ea  di 
cantnr  motalce. 

Quid  fit  uirtaa. 

II 


450 


be  nyid  iptcic  boij  t  gmatliter  .  5L 
or  dUtricj  airtwta  elidtntar  i  bona  . 

Ooo  i  qUtcr  qab  b  beOo  poifs  diet  fotia 

Data  fit  jnkipJioi  acnw  fatitudinia  . 

Q-wt  generibw  foitirudinu  qoisoUtar 
fatbcBo. 

3n  fo.'t  u  in  Mb  de'xat  poems  cifpcca 


BnmiUccsuni  cumcomituu  Gauirflu 
tcr  in  boftcs  pwumpena  i  ipfbs  totaliter  c5 
frtngca  ?tr  j  midatu  iudicia  fit  capita  pant 

3  a  dud  bello  capto  ab  boftibaa  fit'nenU. 
conaden. 

Qu  irtas  tractitae  terdi  printipalis.£  t 
diaidttur  in  Daaa  fui  pjincipales  pitcs. 

fcHa  pe.f.qj  ttncatur  ad  betlu  accedere. 

Snaoominomoto  iufto  bello  rencJtur 
ublli  ad  brllum  acccdcrc  pjopzits  crpcnfe. 

3n  fubditi  unt  bsroui  moaend  gucrram 
contrt  rcgcm  foam  tcnantar  iuture  ipamf 
ftbronem  contra  rcgem  . 

3  n  fubiiti  vni  baroni  mooenti  gueiT;im 
tltcro  baroni  tenuntur  ipfum  pjimo  ucl  riv 
gem  moacum  guerri  tlteri  rcgi  iiuwre  utri 
ufcu  mandate  vno  concnrfa  rcapto. 

3n  Tafallud  non  liwu-j  OuoJum  cominoy 
u  trang>  ucl  alterti  n  quc  iouare  tcneatur. 

ttninfallujttncaturumare  tominum? 
tr  a  pat  rim  utl  pater  contra  filinm  . 
3n  ciuia  dua?am<.iaitatom  tcncitur  iuuaf 
unam  contr.i  aliam. 

ttnuafallua  uocatus  i  domino  teneatur 
ipfun  fcqm  in  partbue  ultra  marinia  ad  po- 
gnandnm  contra  turbaroe  . 

3n  fcrui  ubky  tcnean^  leg  dnm  ad  bellus 

3n  liberti  uocatt  fequi  teneantur  patrox 
num  a£  bcllum  . 

3n  agzicolc  uocati  tenontur  fequi  tomi 
nom  ad  bellum. 

3n  confdffitoa  feu  olligatoe  poffit  domt 
nas  p;ouocar<  ut  ipfum  iuuent  in  bello. 

3nfubOiti  i  qni  ratione  iurifdictionw 
tantum  tcneintur  ad  bcllom  acctdtre. 

Si  pars  fc5  dc  pericnia  nonaftrictiaad 
bellmn  Ifccre  acccdcntibua  otuiditnr  in  fci 
piincipalcapiites. 

trtima  pars  K  iibcrc  acccdcnribu?. 

3n  Iibcrc  acccdena  oUiget  fibi  ilium  i  c' 
fernician  uidunt  (i  dampna  indc  paciiitur. 

3nc5modatariu8  tenestur  conwdanti  e 
qooB  anna  in  bello  depdit  i'rclarcire. 

3n  prouocane  contra  fpoliatoJcm  p:ouo 
cati  ad  btllum  acccdcn  tie  agct  ui  bo.rop.uf 
furti. 

3n  non  uocati  Ted  fuopw  motu  acccdcn 
tea  ad  bcllum  oUtgcnt  libt  ilium  in  cimw  f, 
oicium  ujdunt  . 

an  non  oociti  to  pjopiio  motu  accedcn 

tC8adtxliu.il  -  uiriliter  pjofiltcnteaobligct 

Ibi  com  ilium  in  cuius  (erutcuim  uadunt  rc^ 

nucntcm  t  contradiccntcm. 

ioecunda  pare  dc  acccdcntiboeqj  tcne 


turadantidoJi. 

an  t  alia  agst  contra  II«  qnc  hnut 

3T« tij  pjra  DC  accedcntibtu  pnter  gloti 
am  confcqucndtnu 

Sntikaotf-iacntfibi  ilium  incuiistcrx 
nitium  uadunt. 

D.oarta  para  DC  accedcnribos  qnu  loca^ 
uerant  operas  fdM. 

3n  tales  agant  contra  conductoiem. 

Q'jin t j  para cc  aoxdentibua  ammo  fpo- 
iiandi. 

3n  talfcaa  ictio.compctat. 

©ertapira. 

3n  ckrici  a  J  bcllum  acccdcre  polftnt. 

anftipcnduruia  3bmania  conftitato 
fjlario  per  Ouuntcm  aginc  contra  cum  qut 
Oum  vcnircnt  imiftr  totaliter  datum  fuum. 

3  n  ft ipe ndrar ii  aftumpd  in  3 lamanu  pcj 
ciaitotcm  5  talicim  confiituto  falarb  p  an, 
num  q:ii  dum  ucnircnt  ciuitaa  ublenttr  ocx 
capaca  eft  per  tfrinom  agant  ad  t'ibrium  in 
totum  ucl  pjo  rsta  ucl  ad  quid. 

Quindo  folui  ccbcat  ftipcndtariis  an  in 
pincipio  mentis  cuiuflibet  anni  an  tn  fine. 

an  Itipcndiarii  fc  abfentantes  etiam  dc  li. 
ccnth  tnmini  aliqflo  tempoK  pcrdant  filari 
umpil'otcmpoic. 

stnftipendiariiquicnlpi  P uire  nolut  tato 
tcmpc  firm:  fue  perdJt  ftipendiu;  todus  tc^ 
pojio  an  tantum  pjotpc  quo  non  fukrunt. 

an  (lipcndiar  ius  (ernirc  polftt  per  fubftitu 
turn. 

an  fti  pendurius  pdjt  ftipen  dium  ttpox 
qoofnfirmarur. 

Quintus  tractatus  tertii  pjincipjlia.f.bc 
fpoliia  i  opduid  qui  fiunt  in  bello. 

an  capK 03  in  bello  cfficiatur  aominue  ^ 
lone  capte  i  rd  i  an  fit  locus  poftlimtnio. 

anciptiinbdloduarum  ciuitatum  effici 
antur  fcrui  i  dominum eoium  qucratnr. 

an  opta  in  bcllo  cff  iciitur  capkntiom. 

an  in  bdlis  lidtum  fit  infidiis  uri. 

an  conkcutu  j  in  bello  tocom  funm  irtcr- 
ctte  poiTit  iternm  aducrfaricn  in  iuduio  con 
uoiirc  ucl  bcllum  iterato  contra  cu  iniicere 

an  mo?icntcs  in  bello  hlucntur. 

an  p  rebus  n  pofTctTionibua  ccclcfic  coroa 
li  bello  belUrc  liccat  i  fupcr  hoc  militcs  con 
uocare. 

on  liccat  epi(copis  ad  bcllu5  acccdere  fine 
liccntia  pape. 

an  pielati  p  tcmposaUwa  que  tencnt  ab 
jfmpatojc  teneantur  foloere  tribotum  p  bcl 
toabeo  indicto. 

an  capto  in  bello  iudo  fit  mifitrendum. 

anccdclhocbeattellum  indiccrc  iudew. 

flndfgcntesinbeUpqulpugnare  nopofx 
funt  giudcant  in  muniratibuebeUanciu^. 

an  liccat  pjclatis  ratione  tcmpojalia  iorif 
diuionis  bella  indi  cere  at  cod  intet  cflfc  i  ad 
bellum  iliosoitari. 


jn  (teat  peUto  pro  tuiitrb  fubditifuim 
pun  i  a  bdlum  indkere  n  alias  $  iniurif  tea 
inbdlocapere. 

in  delegatns  pape  poffkindicere  beUunu 
idcft  inuocare  twacbifi  fecularc  . 

an  bella  tiidicti  per  ecclcfiam  contra 
excomonicatosttnt  inejcitojia. 

Sextos  i  ultimas  trac  tat'  tcrcii  pn 
cipalis  per  modiim  tabuk  fa  qnot  funt  ge- 
nen  beltoiam  DC  quibus  repcr  itur  i  iurc  ex 
pTtlTum. 

Quartos  tractatua  te:cii  pzincipalis 
fcilicet  de  bello  particular!  quod  fit  pb  tuteli 
fut  i  dnnditor  in  octo  par  tes  principal^. 


Quidfit  pardcnlare  bellum  . 

feecundapara. 

Qaot  Tint  (pecies  particulars  belli 

tcrciapars. 

Quo  iore  tnducoi  (it  particular  bellri 

Qoarta  pars  fcilicet  quifaus  liccat  boc 
particularc  bclium  indices. 

in  dericue  copctat  boc  bcllu  indiure 

•n  cum  liceat  tUrico  fe  defuidcrc  etii 
oc  cldendo  boc  fibi  Ike  .it  in  ccdefta. 

an  liceat  clcrico  cekluanti  inuafo  fc  d 
fcndcre  t  occidere  i  He  conttnnato  oftido 
ctietonc  . 

an  bipdianti  confirmanti  i  in  ungcn^ 
tindinanti  i  flmilia  facrnmcnta  cooferend 
inaafwlicitnmfit  collationcm  illwumpuft 
poneremcboatum. 

an  pKcligenda  lit  mas  in  u!u  faccrdo 
tiocumpucruminmojtit"  articulo  baptitat 
an  uita  cterna  pucri  ipfiusneOnebaptifmo 
tcccdat. 

an  monicbo  Uccat  fe  cef.m  Jere  floe  li/ 
centiaabbatisfui. 

an  bannitia  qui  quanta)?  p  kgca  mu^ 
nicip.impuae  occidi  pitt  Ucrat  fe  defender  < 
Quinta  pars.f.cotra  qooa  liceat  boc  pr 
tkulare  bellum  indiccre. 
an  liceat  contra  (upertoem  fnum. 
an  contra  tudicem  etia,  fi  iniafte  altquid 
agat. 

an  filio  contra  patrem. 

an  monacho  contra  abbatem. 

an  (cruo  contra  dominum. 

Scxta  pars  (cilicct  p:o  liceat  boc  pa? 
ticuljre  indiccre.gc  diuiditur  in  duasfui^p 
tespincipaka. 

t>:ima  pars  fcilicet  y  quibus  perfiwia 
liceat. 

an  liceat  patri  p:o  fflio. 

an  marito  pzo  uro«. 

an  p  fratre  faoie  i  aliia  coiuncds  per 
fonis. 

anquisteneatur  quern  defenderenc 
ftbalio  ocodatur. 

an  uafallus  teneatariuuarc  tuminum 
funm. 

as  fcruas  tcneatur  defendei  c 


fooav. 

an  m&es  tznestur  defendere  ppofitum 
•Mi 

antufaUusvidens  comir.um  iniufum 
n  parte  \m  pstrem  ex  alia  utrn$  panter 
inmoitis  articulo  nifimuentar  neciunare 
potefl  nif!  altcram  quern  iuuabit. 

Quid  iufls  eodem  tixmite  retcnto  in 
clerico  qui  nidens  epifcopum  fuum  in  uafum 
si  nna  parte  patrem  ex  alia.utrunq<  pariter 
inmonisardculo  nifiiuuentur  nee  iuuare 
poterit  nif  i  alternm  quern  iuuabit . 

Secunda  pars  fciliot  p?o  quibus  rtx 
bis  hceat. 

an  Uccat  po  rebus  iuftc  poffcff ia, 

an  pzo  iniufte  poffefTis . 

an  T  ft  iiceat  res  defendtre  defendens 
cum  moderamine  in  culpate  tutele.&i  occi 
det  alias  inutilat  trregularitatcm  incurrat* 

an  pto  rebus  futs  ocftndendis  contra 
cloitum  excomuDicattonem  incidat  maaua 
in  iecendo . 

an  [»o  rebus  defcndendis  uocads  ami 
da  licitum  fit  fublidium  impendcre . 

in  (no  rebus  defcnden dis  licitum  Ik  « 
fie  contra  omnes  aim  ui  repellere  ficut  cortx 
traquos  licitum  cftpzo.pcrfonis. 

an  p;o  rebus  depofitis  uel  comodatie 
Uceat  Dim  ui  repellere. 

©epttma  pars  fcilicet  qnilitcr  Uceat 
boc  pardcularc  bellum  tndicere. 

an  liceat  cum  moderamine  inculpate 
cutele. 

Quid  fit  modcttmen  inculpate  tutcle 
1  que  {ncorequirantiu'i 

an  liceat  vili  i  dcbili  cum  cnfc  fe  defc 
dere  contra  totem  i  robuftum  percutietes 
Cantumpugno. 

an  T  fi  liceat  in  condnend  fe  defende 
re  qualiter  intelligatur  in  continent!. 

Dmaliter  intelligatur  equiualcutia  in 
ipfoactu  vWento. 

annindicaffeuideatur  non'dcfendifle 
fi  fpo!iato?em  meuj  de  poffefTione  mea  expuli 
qui  ante  fatifJare  uolcbat  Oe  poiteffione  refti 
taenda. 

anparatumadmcpcrcutiendum  tt, 
pectirc  Dcbcam  uel  eum  preuenh  e. 

•n  miles  quern  uicinus  aggreditur  cc 
fcatnr  vim  vi  repellere  fi  expectac  i  pcuti> 
at  enm  cum  at 8  fugere  poffit. 

an  fi  vulneratus  poft  valuers  illata  in 
fcquitur  tuliierante  t  ipfum  percudat  g>  tfi 
non  licet  puniri  ocbeat  ut  colofue  uel  ut  cul 
pabilis, 

an  uiolcntta  illata  perfone  poffit  p  ami 
cosfpulfari  ficut  illata  rebus. 

an  feruicns  cc  mandate  tomtni  fui  ux 
OKm  interftckns  excufetur. 

Cctaua  t  ultima  pars  quarti'tractat1 
tercii  pjincipalis. 

Qots  Gt  finis  patkularis  belli . 


Quintan  traccatos  tercii  principals 
fcflicct  dc  particulirifixllo  quod  fit  ad  Oefe 
hm  miibci  coiporis  i  repjeCi'.k  nncnpantur 
£t  duriditur  flic  tract:tu>  primi  fui  diuifio 
n<  in  duas  partcs  principalcs . 

Oiimipsrs. 

Unde  i  a  quo  atom  bibuerit  repfilk 

Sccundi  pirs  fc5  cv  csufisrepYaltap 

t>:  c.i  pjjcriua  fiuc  cfticicte  repfalia? 

rerria  ps  fcj  ccaufa  materialist  di 
uiditnr  in  quatas  partca  piincipales. 

toima  pars  oc  majeru  in  qua. 

Quit)  fit  matcria  inqua. 

Quid  fit  materii  circa  quam . 

Quid  ll  Oc  mitcria  ex  qua 

Qtiibas  pcribnis  conccdatur  fecultaa 
rcpzcfalinrum . 

tin  incplis  repjcfalie  coucedantur. 

9n  ciuibus  no  fubicctis  iurifdktionis 
ciuitatis  i  alii-'  non  ficicntibae  factiones 
fint  indiccnde  repjelalk. 

an  cum  per  conuentbncm  concedan^ 
tor  rqacfalic  contra  ciuitatem  csiginis . 

an  cnilfbet  i  babiris  p?o  cinibus  Umi« 
titc  tamen  rqneblk  conccdantur 

an  ciuibus  unius  ciu  i  c  at  is  $  pacto  od 
ftatuto  tract  jntur  ut  ciucs  per  candcm  co^ 
fcdi  prtfmt  rcpjcfalic- 

&ecunda  pe  dc  matcria  circa  qaim. 

9n  contra  red  eo:um  qui  capi  potTunt 
uigojc  rcpjcfaliarum  prtfmt  indici  repfalic. 

3n  rcpjtlalk  fimpliciter  indictccrcr 
ceri  poffint  contra  bom  cxiftentibus  inter^ 
nto?iociuitatfe  contra  quam  funt  indict c 
ufcaptantur  i  reducantur  interr  itceium  ci 
uicatio  indiccntis . 

3n  ft  una  ciuitas  indicat  rcpTtlaliaap 
tra  aliam  potl'tt  recto  ciuitat  is  idtccntts  fcri 
bere  rcctoii  ouitatis  contra  qua$  ut  coerce 
at  rep Jtfaliag  in  rebus  ibi  fituat is. 

Zxrcia  pars  de  matcria  cctra  quam 

3n  rcpjcfalie  indictc  per  unam  ciuita 
tern  contra  homines  altoiua  tioitatieeicr- 
ceri  poltint  incoUs  Ulins  ciuitatia. 

Sn  rcpicfalie  indictc  per  nnam  ciui- 
tatcm  contra  bominesalterius  ciuitatis  ex 
erccri  pofltnt  contra  bomines  illius  ciuitat  io 
alibi  conxnantes. 

3n  rcpjcfalic  occraripoflint  contra 
ciaes  ud  incoUa  unius  ciuitatis  oncra  iubcu 
teacmfdcm  quietiam  funt  ciuce  alteriusdut 
tide. 

3 n  contra  mulicrca  cxcrccri  pcifint 
rcpwfalic. 

9n  contra  ckricos  non  coniogatos. 

Item  i  an  contra  conjugate*  exercc 
riualcantrcpicblk 

3n  cpiTcopo  negligcntc  de  clericis  futa 
ioftkjtj  hare  nee  babcrl  portit  rccurfae  ad 
faperiojcm  poiTint  indici  rcpieWic  cotri  cle 
ricot  coHcm  per  iudicem  kculartm . 

9  n  contra  bono-ud  ctiam  alioe  (hide 


tesbono.euntes  piducpjo  ftodio  eicrccri 
pcltmt  rcp.-cfalu;. 

9  u  contra  imbalTatoJcs  occrceri  pof 
fint  rcpjcfalk 

3n  contra  cuntcs  ad  nundinaa  ad  fie 
torn  ucobum  ucl  ad  alium  locum  indulge tk. 

3 tern  an  contra  nauigantes  i  an  con^ 
traillo3quiuocarinonpo.1mt  i  in  multis 
aliis  cafibus  ualcint  c«rccri  rcp?cfalk. 

3rt  contra  bonon.potc'ftatcm  mcdiola 
nt  fct  iniudiciam  tackntcm  poffint  cocedi  re 
piefalk 

9n  contra  cflfi.potcftitia  ucl  rectxnls 
iniufticiam  Uckntia  poffint  indici  rcpttfalk. 

9n  contra  confutes  pzioxa  ciuitatis 
tuftidam  faccrc  ctnegantcs  poflint  indici  re 
pTtfalk- 

3n  contra  finguhrw  pcrfonas  pcnit' 
innocences  proptcrcdktumtxjmini  uelaL 
terfus pjiuati  re, quo  non  fit  iufticia  Si  Oici 
poffint  rcp:c(alif. 

9n  cotra  certum  genns  bomlnam  fa^ 
ccreiufiiciamixncgantium  indici  poffint  re 
pxlalk. 

Q.uarta  para.f.ix  materia  ex  qua  quc 
infurgit  ex  cvfcctu  iurifdictionis  quia  p?imo 
requiri  ccbet  iudex  antefrepTefalk  ?adat. 

9orequtriocbeitiudex  ut  iuftitiam 
feciat  ante^  repxlalk  concedantor. 

9n  iudex  tniurlam  pacientis  qni  non 
andet  litigare  in  ciuitate  iniuritm  inferctia 
pofflt  fcribete  ut  in  alios  iurudictionem  $n, 
getncarbitroedigat. 

Quis  indcxiTequin  ocbeat  at  iuftkiij 
facial. 

Qualis  iufticia  rcquiratur  ut  rcpxfa^ 
Ik  indicantur. 

Qoando  tMcatur  non  poffc  babrri  co, 
pUfuperiopot  locus  (it  repxlaliof  indictoi 

Qoarta  pars  principalis.f.tx  caufa  to 
malL6t  txuUitur  in  duas  p:incipaks 

tbiima  pars  ccfwma  indiccndarum 
repxlalianim 

Quo  iure  concedantur  rcpicfilk. 

Quis  comparere  pofTtt  ad  impediendu 
ut  indicentur. 

Que  Ocfcot'compctant  illi  cotra  qni 
petantur . 

Qnalitcr  conftabit  oc  iniuftici a  beta 
ud  dencgata. 

9n  ft  aliqua  capiantur  nigoie  rcpjcfsu 
Uoram  dedneri  ualeant  at  ex  primo  decreto 
on  fecundo. 

SecundaparsfcilicetOe  fojmaexer 
cendirepefoliad. 

9n  Uccat  illi  cm  Pint  concede  rcpab 
Ik  aactoiitate  p:opm  uel  per  minifhoa  con 
ceOentisexerccri. 

9n  perfonas  t  res  captus  teneitur  ca 
picns  iudici  pxfentare  uel  fibi  retinere. 

i3n'res  c.iptc  uigo?c  repcfaliarum  ue 
dantur  ucl  infotutum,iiccipiantur  ud  cxfti . 


453 


Buntut*. 

3n  qufe  Oiebus  feriatia  poffit  rcpjcfa- 
liasexerccre. 

Sn  &  qua  Tult  fe  Kfcdere  uF  res  cap 
tas  qualia  cognitio  adbibeatur. 

3n  exacto  compcut  regret  contra  il 
Iitm  fitcr  cuiuo  Kbitum  uel  odictum  aiact . 
eft. 

Sn  exicto  fuccurratur  contra  recto- 
ran  licut  contra  ccbitoiem  pjincipalon. 

tlncaprueuigojerepjefaliarum  point 
juctwitatf  psia  homines  tlliua  duitatis  ca 
pereinquacaptnsfmt. 

3n  per  ffatnta  reprcfalie  concedi  pof 
fint  in  cafiboa  aTa  a  iiire  non  pmiflia, 

3n  ftatutii  ciuitatia  quo  cauetur  3*  ft 
Hue  tencatur  ,p  paue  oclinquete  po(fmt.et 
ocoi  conm  &lium  exiftcntctn  extta  tenito 
jium  duitatb 

an  per  pKtam  pofimt  licite  fkri  tit  u^ 
mutcnaturpwalio. 

'  ©extus  i  nltimuBtrictaf  ttrcii  pn 
clpaliatodus  opens  fc5dc  particularc  bcllo 
quoO  fit  ad  purgationem  quod  dudlum  nun 
cupatur.£tdiaiditurp:tm;ifua  diuifionein 
vii.parteapincipata. 

C)  jim  j  pare. 

Quid  fit  durilum. 

Secundaparafcilictt  quotrmtfpc, 
cksdudli. 

Ooaliter  duellum  fit  ptopur  odtl  ex- 

agentionem. 

Qualiterfitdudlum  pjopterglomm 
in  poWicc  confequendam 

Cltulitcr  duellum  Copter  purgitione 
I'icuiuscriminia. 

terda  para  fc5  quo  inre  fit  intTOOacy 
tunnquoinbtbitum.. 

Qualiter  diullum  qood  ft  t  pjop  ter  o* 
diiexagaitJonem  fit  introducrnm  iure  na^ 
turili  fampto  pw  inftinctu  nature  pjoucnkn 
a  ex  fcnfiiilit ate  ad  aliquid  appjetendum 

Qjialiter  duellum  qood  nt  ptopter  0* 
dii  ci  agcr icionem  fit  inbiMtum  iure  natu- 
ral! fumpto  pro  racionibili  intelltgcntia  i  lie 
iuregcncium  i  diuino  canonico  n  ciuili. 

Qniktcr  duellum  quod  fit  propt  gkv- 
ramintroductum  fit.  iure  natural!  fumpto 
po  inftr  uct  bnc  tf.  fenftwlit  ate  ptouenknte 

Qualiter  duellum  9>  fit  propter  glozi 
am  fit  iubifaitum  iure  diuino. 

Qualiter  duellum  quod  fit  piopter  glo 
rum  (it  inbibttum  iurcgentmnu 

qu^kerdocUumquod  fitpwpterglo 
riamfitlinbifaitumuuredinino  canonkoi 
ctniU. 

quarta  pars  piopter  quid  duellum  par 
gatoiium  (it  permulum  i  pjcptcr  quid  in  ^ 
httxtuni .  - 

quiliter  duellum  purgitotunn  inlxbi, 
tin  6t  iure  diuino. 

qmlker  iabibitnm  fit  taregentium. 


qitaliter inbibttum  (it iure  canonico* 

qiulttcr  inbibitum  fit  reguUritcr  iure 
ciuili. 

quints  pars  fctltcettn  qutbus  cations 
permittatur  duellum  purgatoiium . 

Qualiter  Oudlum  purgatotium  iure 
lombardo  in  .xx-cifibus  permittatur. 

«c  r  ta  pars  inter  quoa  iniri  poffit  Oa 
ellum. 

Qualiter  Ouellum  pursatoiium  inter 
pjincipaleo  regulariter  fieri  ccbtat. 

&eptima  i  ultima  p.ra.f.  quatiter  &, 
atOuclIum. 

Qualiter  Ouellnm  purgatowm  ad  in^ 
ftar  fit  uuiicti  contention. 

an  iuramentum  cc  aftu  inter  Sucllatef 
lit  p?eftandum  i  per  quern. 

an  untpartl  camptone  Oato  In  caftbua 
a  iure  pcrmiifie  liceat  etia>  alteri  rait*  oarr 
campioncm. 

Qualiter  in  caftbua  bincinde  /•  45  capJb 
conceditur  net  ipfaum  Oatio  t  concefl'to. 

an  quiltbet  admittatur  p:o  campione. 

?n  cuiua  electionc  fit  Ouellum. 

Qualiter  otdinetur  Duellum. 

QuibuG  armia  Ouellarioxbeat. 

an  Garmi  feu  fuftes  unite  tmcllandus 
Iringantur  ucl  caiiut  ceekant  nlia  Oari. 

ants  Ouellanttum  pjiu-3  percuterc  Oe 
beat. 

antmcllumpjimotrie  non  finitum  k, 
queutt  Die  tcrmtnari  poAlt. 

an  in  Ouello  fiiccumfaena  i  expend  conx 
Kmpnetur. 

an  .puocis  in  duello  fucaflxna  puuiat 
penatalionia. 

an  puocoa  ad  duellum  fpter  crimen 
(uccubcns  i  condempnatus  poffit  de  eodcm 
crimine  accufari  in  iudiclo  contcntiofo 

an  jiuocans  ad  duellum  ppter  crimen 
publicum  defiltena  a  duello  incidat  in  penas 
turpiir. 

an  paocanaad  duellum  (are  lombardo 
poifit  de  licenda  iudicts  defiftere. 

in  paocans  ad  duellu;  poltit  fine  pens 
ante  lir.conteft.defiftere. 

3  tern  i  qoando  in  duello  lis  dicatur 
contelbrL 


fiononie  ad  inftamiim 
mundi  de  liteie  per  me  magiftrum  "benricu; 
deCobnia  xvi  W .7an.3nup  a  tomtni  in- 
carnatione  ZDillrftmoquadringcnteftmofep 
tuageftmofeptimo.  Xaua&eo. 


LISTS  OF  AUTHORITIES 

I.    CITED  BY  THE  AUTHOR 
II.    CONSULTED  BY  THE  EDITOR 


[457] 


I. 

CLASSIFIED  LIST  OF  AUTHORITIES  CITED  BY 
THE  AUTHOR 

(With  references  to  the  pages  of  the  extended  text). 


BIBLIA  SACRA,  passim. 
AUCTORES  CLASSICI. 
Aristoteles,  84,  89,  101,  106. 
De  Anima,  83,  84,  86,  178. 
De  Ccelo  et  Mundo,  81,  84,  89,  133. 
Ethica,  90,  98,  99, 100, 104, 105, 106, 

108,  109,  132,  178,  182. 
De  Generatione,  131. 
Metaphysica,  81,  84,  92. 
De  Meteoris,  89. 
Physica,  81,  86,  92,  no,  131. 
Politica,  83,  179. 
Rhetorica,  98,  99,  101,  107,  109. 
Soph.  Elenchi,  98. 
Cicero,  100,  104. 
Hippocrates,  88. 
Philosophus,  vide  Aristoteles. 
Ptolemaus,  82,  90,  178. 
Seneca,  100. 
Vegetius,  96. 

CORPUS  IURIS  CIVILIS,  passim. 
CORPUS  IURIS  CANONICI,  passim. 
Usus  FEUDORUM,  114,  143,  146,  162. 
LEX  LOMBARDA,  176,  184,  i86,  187,  188, 

189,  191,  193,  194. 
LEX  FRIDERICI,  185,  186. 
JURISTS. 

jEgidius  de  Rosate,  129. 
Albertus,  99,  106,  189. 
Archidiaconus,  in,  129,  169. 
Azo,  194. 
Bernardus,  120. 
Buttrigarius,  lacobus,  143. 
Carolus  Beneventanus,  188,  189. 
•    Cinus,  143. 
Custratius,  106. 
Dinus,  148,  174. 


IURIST<F.  (continued). 
Gandulphus,  119. 
Goffredus,  126. 
Gratianus,  119,  153. 
Guide,  169. 
Hermogenianus,  90. 
Hostiensis,  95,  123,  126,  129,  146. 
Hugo,  in,  134. 
Hugolinus,  128,  194. 
lacobus  de  Arena,  151,  152,  153,  154, 

160,  172. 

lacobus  de  Belvisio,  165, 166, 167,  171 . 
lacobus  de  Porta  Ravennate,  143,  145, 

147,  148,  154. 

Joannes  de  Lignano,  76,  101. 
Martinus,  140. 
Petrus  de  Bellapertka,  148,  152,  153, 

154,  194- 
Raymundus,  139. 
Ricardus  Malumbra,  in. 

SCRIPTORES   ECCLESIASTICI. 

Alexander  (Papa),  83. 

Ambrosius  (S.),  125. 

Aquinas  (B.),  126,  129. 

Augustinus  (S.),  85,  86,  87,  102,  103, 

125,  136. 

Bernardus  (S.),  120. 
Clemens  V  (Papa),  102,  120,  131,  133, 

134,  136,  137,  138. 
Gregorius  (S.),  80,  84,  88. 
Innocentius  III  (Papa),  93,  112,  116, 

119,   120,   123,   124,   128,   129, 

144,  149,  169. 

lohannes  (Papa),  83,  127,  144. 
Isidorus  (S.),  90. 
Leo  (Papa),  127. 
Nicholas  (Papa)    126,  127. 


[458] 


II. 

SOME  OF  THE  AUTHORITIES  CONSULTED  BY  THE 
EDITOR  FOR  THE  LIFE  AND  WRITINGS  OF  GIOV.  DA 
LEGNANO 


Alidosi,  G.  N.,  Li  Dottori  Bolognesi  di 
Legge  Canonica  e  Civile,  Bologna, 


Argellati,  I.  F.,  Oratio  de  pneclaris  iuris 

Consultis  Bononiensibus  (N.  D.) 
Baluzius,  Steph.,  Vitae  Paparum  Avonien- 

sium,  Parisiis,  1693. 
Bosdari,  Filippo,  Giovanni  da  Legnano, 

Canonista  e  uomo  politico  del  1300, 

Bologna,  1901. 
Fantuzzi,  Giov.,   Notizie  degli  Scrittori 

Bolognesi,  Bologna,  1783-1790,  tt.  V, 

IX. 
Frati,    Luigi,    Opere    della    Bibliografia 

Bolognese,     Bologna,     1889.      (See 

Nos.  5982,  5984,   5988-5990,  7223, 

10996.) 
Freherus,  Paulus,  Theatrum  virorum  con- 

ditione    clarorum,    Norimb.,     1688. 

(He  derives    from   Ghilinus,   Hier., 

Theatrum  virorum  literatorum.) 
Garzoni,  GioV.  (Prof.  Med.  at  Bologna, 

1466-1506).      De    dignitate    urbis 

Romae  (first  published  by  Muratori, 

Script.  Med.  Rer.  Ital.  1732,  t.  XXI). 
Ghirardacci,    Cherub.,    Historia  di   vari 

Successi  d'ltalia,  Bonon.,  1669,  t.  II, 

pp.  250,  367. 
Goldast,  Monarchia  S.  Romani  Imperii, 

Hanovise,  Francofurti,  1612-1621. 
H.iin,  Ludov.  (and  his  continuators),  Re- 

pertorium  bibliographicum  usque  ad 

annum  MD,  Stuttgardiae,  1826. 
Matthei  de  Griffonibus,  Memoriale  Histo- 

riarum  de  rebus  Bononiensibus.  (In 

Muratori,  u.  s.,  t.  XVIII,  p.  106.) 
Montfaucon,     Bernard    de,    Bibliotheca 

Bibliotliecarum   MSS.,    Paris,    1739, 

t.  I. 


Muratori,  u.  s.,  t.  XVIII,  pp.  106,  242  ; 

t.  XXI,  p.  1161. 
Oudinus,  loh.,  Commentationes  de  Scrip- 

toribus  Ecclesias  Antiquis.  usque  ad 

1460,  Lipsiae,  1722,  t.  III. 
Pancirolus,  Gudius,  De  Claris  letjum  inter- 

pretibus,  Venetiis,  1637. 
Raynaldus,  Odericus,  Annales   Ecclesia- 

stici,  Luccae,  1752,  t.  VII,  No.  30  ; 

t.  XII,  pp.  510-528 ;   t.  XVII,  Nos. 

29-35  and  Append.  No.  i. 
Ricci,    Corrado,    Monumenti    Sepolcrali 

di   Lettori  dello    Studio    Bolognese 

nei  Secoli    XIII,    XIV,    XV,    con 

31     Tavole     fotografiche,    Bologna, 

1888 

Rossi,  Luigi,  Gli  scrittori  politici  Bolo- 
gnesi, Bologna,  1888. 
Dagli   scritti   inediti   giuridico-politici 

di  Giovanni  da  Legnano,  Bologna, 

1898. 
Rotuli  dei  Lettori  (from  1384),  Bologna, 

1888. 
Savigny,  F.  C.,  Geschichte  des  Romischen 

Rechts,  Heidelberg,  1815-1831,  Bd.  I, 

Bd.  VI. 
Schulte,  v.,  Geschichte  des  Canonischen 

Rechts,  Stuttgart,  1875. 
Sepulveda,  Genesius,  in  /Egidii  Albernotii 

Cavilli  Conchensis  gestorum  librum, 

libri  tres,  Opera,  t.  V,  p.  44. 
Speranza,  Gius.,  Alberico  Gentili,  Studi, 

Parte  seconda,  Roma,  1910. 
Tiraboschi,  G.,  Historia  della  Letteratura 

Italiana,  Padova,  1772-1784,  t.  III. 
Valentinelli,  Catalogo  della  Biblioteca  di 

S.  Marco,  t.  Ill,  pp.  42,  142. 
Vassari,  Giorgio,  Vita,  etc.,  Firenze,  1568, 

t.  I. 


OTHER  works,  useful,  but  not  directly  consulted,  arj  :  Cavazza,  Le  scuole  del- 
1'antico  studio  Bolognese,  Milano,  1896  ;  Fo.itaaa,  Gins.,  Amphitheatrura  legate,  Parmae, 
1688  ;  Patavinus,  Marsilius,  Tractatus  de  Translatione  Imperii  ;  Sorbelli,  Albano,  LJ 
Croaache  Bolognese  del  sec.  xiv  ;  Valentiaelli,  '  >lei  mss.  esistenti  nella  Biblioteca 

Marciana  di  \enezia.  Further  informatiu.i  m.iy  be  Cleaned  from  MSS.  preserved  at 
Bologna  in  the  libraries  of  the  City,  of  the  Istituto  and  of  the  Spanish  College  ;  as  also 
in  the  archives  of  the  Legnano  family. 


University  of  Toronto 
Library 


DO  NOT 

REMOVE 

THE 

CARD 

FROM 

THIS 

POCKET 


Acme  Library  Card  Pocket 
Made  by  LIBRARY  BUREAU