IBIB9 
 
 BXCHANOA 
 
 FRANCISCI DE VICTORIA 
 DE IVRE BELLI RELECTIO 
 
 BY 
 
 Herbert Francis Wright 
 
 A DISSERTATION 
 
 Submitted to the Faculty of Letters of the Catholic 
 
 University of America in Partial Fulfillment 
 
 of the Requirements for the Degree 
 
 of Doctor of Philosophy 
 
 r 
 
 WASHINGTON 
 
 PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR 
 I916 
 
FRANCISCI DE VICTORIA 
 DE IVRE BELLI RELECTIO 
 
 BY 
 
 Herbert Francis Wright 
 
 A DISSERTATION 
 
 Submitted to the Faculty of Letters of the Catholic 
 
 University of America in Partial Fulfillment 
 
 of the Requirements for the Degree 
 
 of Doctor of Philosophy 
 
 WASHINGTON 
 
 PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR 
 I916 
 

 PRESS OF GIBSON BROTHERS 
 WASHINGTON, D. C. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 It is no unusual thing now, since the attention of the 
 whole world has been engaged so long by the War in Europe, 
 to hear propounded on all sides such questions as "May 
 Christians make war?'* "Have the people any voice in 
 declaring war?" "When are wars just?" "What may be 
 done in a just war and how far may one proceed against 
 enemies?" And while, at first sight, we may think that 
 these questions, which are suggested by the present war, are 
 new, the fact remains that each and every one of them was 
 discussed and answered by a Spanish moral theologian, 
 Franciscus de Victoria, of the Order of Preachers, in his 
 De lure Belli, published over three hundred and fifty years 
 ago as the fifth of his Relectiones Theologies XII. For, to use 
 the words of Thomas Alfred Walker, "In Victoria's treatment 
 of these problems, the reader, who is unprepared for the 
 surprises of the literature of the Reformation Age, will be 
 astonished to discover the setting forth of principles which 
 the historian of international practice is wont to represent 
 as entirely modern." Victoria was over four hundred years 
 ahead of his age. He boldly advanced opinions which some 
 of the international lawyers of today are just beginning to 
 find courage to uphold. For instance, "If a war is useful to 
 one province or state, but would draw in its train great 
 injuries to the entire world and to Christianity, I think that 
 such a war is unjust," says Victoria. 
 
 Moreover, the canons for waging war properly, as laid 
 down at the end of hi^ De lure Belli, have been formulated 
 
 3 
 
 337698 
 

 4 Preface. 
 
 so wisely that they seem easily able to stand the test of time. 
 These canons are three in number and deal respectively 
 with conduct before war is declared, during the war itself, 
 and after the war has been finished. First, granting that a 
 ruler has the authority to wage war, he ought not to seek 
 occasions and causes of war, but ought to have peace with 
 all men. Secondly, granting that war has arisen from just 
 causes, the ruler ought to wage it not for the destruction of 
 the opposing nation, but for the prosecution of his own right 
 and the defence of his own country, and in such a way that 
 peace and security may eventually be obtained. Thirdly, 
 at the end of the war, the victor should use his victory with 
 moderation and Christian modesty and ought to consider 
 himself as a judge between the wronged nation and the nation 
 doing wrong, and not as a prosecutor. It is difficult to 
 imagine how more prudent or more equitable rules could be 
 formulated than those with which Victoria concludes his 
 De lure Belli, 
 
 It is precisely because of the importance of this scholar 
 and theologian and the importance of his De lure Belli 
 that it has been deemed expedient to present a critical 
 introduction to and analysis of the text of that work. The 
 utility of such a critique becomes more evident when we 
 consider the untrustworthiness of the texts available. By 
 special permission of the Faculty of Letters, the text and 
 critical apparatus are not pubHshed herewith. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Pages. 
 
 Preface 3-4 
 
 I. Victoria's Life and Writings 7-13 
 
 A. The Life of Victoria 7-10 
 
 B. The Writings of Victoria 10-13 
 
 n. Importance of Victoria's De lure Belli. 14-22 
 
 IIL History of the Text of the De lure Belli 23-38 
 
 A. Manuscripts 23-25 
 
 B. First Edition 25-28 
 
 C. Second Edition 28-34 
 
 D. Third Edition 34-37 
 
 E. Other Editions 37-38 
 
 F. Summary 38 
 
 IV. Preparation of Present Text 39-45 
 
 Bibliography of Works consulted in the Preparation 
 
 of this Dissertation 46-49 
 
 Index of Authors referred to by Victoria 50-52 
 
 5 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2007 with funding from 
 
 IVIicrosoft Corporation 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/franciscidevictoOOwrigrich 
 
FRANCISCI DE VICTORIA 
 DE IVRE BELLI RELECTIO 
 
 I. VICTORIA'S LIFE AND WRITINGS. 
 
 A. The Life of Victoria. 
 
 Franciscus de Victoria^ was born at Vittoria, the chief city 
 of Alava, in Old Castile about 1480. While still a boy he 
 moved with his parents to Burgos, where he is said to have 
 received a liberal education under excellent teachers and 
 surpassed his fellows in acuteness of mind. There, too, as 
 a young man he entered the Order of St. Dominic, following 
 the example of an older brother, Didacus de Victoria, who 
 was already professed. After completing his novitiate, he 
 spent some years in the usual philosophical and theological 
 studies and was then sent by the Order to the University of 
 
 ^For a detailed account of Victoria's life and works, see Quetif-Echard, Scrip- 
 tores ordinis pradicatorum, vol. ii, pp. 128-130 (Paris, 1721); Touron, Histoire des 
 hommes illustres de Vordre de S. Dominique, vol, iv, pp. 5Sh55 (Paris, 1747) ; Antonio, 
 Bibliotheca Hispana nova, vol. i, pp. 496-497 (Madrid, 1783); Dupin, Nouvelle 
 bibliotheque des auteurs ecdesiastiques, vol. xiv, pp. 172-175 (Paris, 1703); Wetzer- 
 Welte, Kirchenlexikon, vol. iv, pp. 1837-1839 (Freiburg, 1886); Hurter, Noinen- 
 clator literarius, vol. 11, pp. 1367-1370 (Innsbruck, 1906); and Ehrle, in Katholik, 
 vol. II (1884), p. 505 seqq.y 518 seqq. For the most part I have followed Quetif- 
 Echard for the details of Victoria's life. 
 
 For Victoria's place in the history of international law, see Nys, Le droit de la 
 guerre et les precurseurs de Grotius (Brussels, 1882); Vanderpol, Le guerre devant 
 le christianisme (Paris, 191 1); Hallam, Introduction to the literature of Europe 
 (London, n. d.); Walker, A history of the law of nations , vol. i (Cambridge, 1899); 
 Nys, Les origines du droit international (Brussels, 1894); Barthelemy, Les fonda- 
 teurs du droit international (Paris, 1904), pp. 1-36; and Vanderpol, Le droit de 
 guerre d'apres les theologiens et les canonistes du moy en-age (Paris, 191 1). 
 
 7 
 
8 Victoria s De lure Belli. 
 
 Paris in accordance with an ancient custom, which still 
 prevailed, of selecting men of exceptional ability and great 
 promise from each province for higher studies. At Paris, 
 he studied in the Gymnasium Sanjacoheum (S. Jacques), the 
 Dominican House of Studies affiliated with the University of 
 Paris, under Peter Crockaert of Brussels, who, having for- 
 saken Nominalism for Thomism and become a Dominican, 
 was then interpreting St. Thomas before large and apprecia- 
 tive audiences. Under this teacher, Victoria made such 
 great progress in theology, that he was recommended by the 
 proper authorities of the college to the General Chapter of the 
 Order held at Genoa in 1513 as worthy of being allowed to 
 proceed to the examen ad gradus and was assigned as Lector 
 of the Sentences of Peter Lombard in Studia Generalia for 
 the year 1516. He must have passed the necessary examen 
 Lectoratus satisfactorily, for in the General Chapter held at 
 Naples in 151 5 he was approved as Lector and thereupon 
 began to undertake the work of reading for the Magistratus 
 in S. Theologia,^ which he received in 1522. 
 
 Returning from Paris to his native country he first began 
 to teach at Valladolid in the Dominican Gymnasium San- 
 gregorianum, of which he had been appointed primarius 
 re gens. On the death of Pablo of Leon (Paulus Legionensis), 
 who had occupied the "catedra prima de teologia" at the 
 University of Salamanca for nearly twenty years (i 507-1 526), 
 Victoria obtained this place by the unanimous vote of the 
 
 ^For the requisites for this degree among the Dominicans and for the details of 
 organization and administration in Dominican colleges, see Constitutiones fratrum 
 s. ordinis pradicatorum (ed. nova, Paris, Poussielgue, 1886), sec. 1047 and 11 13 
 and also sec. 1082 et seqq. 
 
Critical Introduction. 9 
 
 University, although he had as opponents in a competitive 
 disputation many men of no httle reputation. Here he 
 lectured for twenty years and obtained universal fame and 
 glory as "the restorer of scholastic theology,"^ because he 
 inaugurated a movement to give to theological science a 
 purer diction and improved literary form and to treat 
 scholastic theology, not in a jejune and uncultivated manner, 
 but in a scholarly and ornate manner, enriching it with 
 every kind of learning, sacred and profane.^ 
 
 While Victoria was making preparations to attend the 
 Council of Trent, which had just (Nov. 19, 1544) been con- 
 voked after several fruitless attempts, he was overtaken by 
 ill-health, which caused him to relinquish his professional 
 duties and finally led to his death in 1546.^ 
 
 No little testimony is given to the greatness of this master 
 of wisdom by his famous and learned disciples, Melchior 
 Cano, Domingo Soto, Thomas of Chaves,* Martin Azpilcueta 
 (Doctor Navarrus),^ and many others. Melchior Cano, for 
 example, says that "Spain has received this eminent profes- 
 sor of theology by a singular gift of God,"^ and he attributes 
 the doctrine, judgment, and eloquence which he possesses 
 
 ^HURTER, Op. Cit.; QUETIF-ECHARD, Of. cit. 
 
 2QuETiF-EcHARD, vol. II, p. 129^; Antonio, vol. I, p. 496. 
 
 ^So HuRTER, Antonio, Wetzer-Welte, and Quetif-Echard; yet Nouvelle 
 Bibliographie General says 1549 and Walker (page 214, footnote 2) says: "Accord- 
 ing to Professor Holland, Victoria died in 1546. Older authorities ascribe his death 
 to 1549." 
 
 ^Chaves, Summa sacramentorum ecclesia, ex doctrina fratris Francisci a Victoria 
 (Rome, apud lulium Accoltum, 1567), ep. ad lector em. 
 
 ^Navarrus, Enchiridion, i, 35, and 16, 19. 
 
 ^"Fratrem Franciscum Victoria . . . quern summum theologies praceptorem Hi- 
 spania Dei singulari munere accepit." De locis theologicis (ed. Serry, 1746), bk. 12, 
 ch. I. 
 
lO Victoria s De lure Belli, 
 
 to his careful heed of Victorians precepts and admonitions. 
 It is such a striking tribute that we append his exact words: 
 
 "Nimirum si doctrinam meam approbet quispiam, quae utinam 
 eruditorum opinione digna esset, si in rerum iudicio prudentiam, 
 quae utinam esset digna nostro cognomine, si orationis cultum, 
 quern elegantiorem adhibere soleo, quam consueverunt scholastici 
 in Ubris suis: in hoc sumus docti, prudentes, et facundi, quo 
 virum hunc rerum earum omnium ducem optimum sequimur atque 
 eius praeceptis monitisque paremus. . . . 
 
 "Quare quantum conniti animo possum, quantum labore conten- 
 dere, si scribendi haec labor est potius quam voluptas, tantum 
 faciam, ut efficiam, ne cum omnia a praeceptore mihi harum rerum 
 principia suppeditata sint, ipse mihi, praeceptori item meo videar 
 defuisse. Huius enim clarissimi viri eruditionem memoriae pro- 
 dimus, atque ei, etsi nequaquam parem illius ingenio, at pro 
 nostro tamen studio meritam gratiam debitamque referimus. 
 Quanquam postulo ab iis, qui haec in manus sument, ut mains 
 quiddam de magistro meo, quam quantum a me exprimi potest, 
 suspicentur."^ 
 
 "Nihil vero de me; de praeceptore dicam libentius, qui Academias 
 Hispanas adeo insigniter ingenio suo et doctrina illustravit; 
 adeoque nostris hominibus et spectabiles et amabiles reddidit, 
 ut in eas certatim non confluxerint modo, sed irruperint. Quod 
 si ille Gallis, Germanis, atque Italis scripsisset, quae erat hominis 
 in disputando perspicuitas, elegantia, et suavitas, non ita nunc 
 apud eas gentes scholae studia iacerent."^ 
 
 B. The Writings of Victoria. 
 
 Victoria is said to have been the first in Spain to recognize 
 the far greater utility of requiring his students to write what 
 he dictated than of requiring them merely to listen to his 
 lectures, a method which had hitherto been customary. 
 Hence it appears that he neglected to publish any of the 
 many treatises which he must have dictated in the twenty 
 
 ^Ihid.y 12, I. ^Ibid.y 12, 5. 
 
Critical Introduction, 1 1 
 
 years of his professorship. Hence also the reason why those, 
 who were fortunate enough to hear his lectures, were all the 
 more careful in transcribing the words that he dictated. 
 In this way there are attributed to him the following works : 
 
 Relectiones Theologies XII. 
 
 Summa Sacramentorum Ecclesics} 
 
 A manual for confessors sometimes called Confesionario, some- 
 times Instruccion y Refugio del Anima^. 
 
 In Universam Summam Theologies Sancti Thomcs Commen- 
 taria. Unpublished MS.^ 
 
 Commentaria in I V Lib. Sententiarum. Unpublished MS.^ 
 
 Concerning the title of the Relectiones TheologiccB Xlly 
 Ompteda^ and Morhofius^ erroneously call them Prcelec- 
 tiones instead of Relectiones^ while Simon in his edition 
 (Cologne and Frankfort, 1696) gives the title as Relectiones 
 Morales. Simon also gives the number as thirteen and in 
 this is undoubtedly following the Ingolstadt edition of 
 1580.^ There is also some discrepancy among authorities 
 as to the exact relectiones contained in this work. An- 
 
 ^MoRHOFius {loc. cit.) erroneously calls this Summa sacrorum ecdesice. I have 
 given the title as it appears in the Rome edition of 1567, mentioned above on 
 page 9, footnote 4. 
 
 ^Latter title given by Didacus de Zuiiiga, according to Antonio, op. cit. 
 
 ^Mentioned by Boyer at the end of his letter to Valdez which is prefixed to his 
 edition and by later biographers, who, however, do not mention the location. 
 SuAREZ, De caritatCy disp. 9, sec. 4, n. 15, and Molina, tr. 4 de iustittay disp. 16, n. i, 
 cite Victoria's manuscript commentary on the Secunda Secunday and Victoria him- 
 self cites his commentary on Prima Secunda in his De Indis. 
 
 ^Mentioned by Boyer at the end of his letter to Valdez which is prefixed to his 
 edition and by later biographers, who, however, do not mention the location. 
 
 ^D. H. L. Ompteda, Litteratur des Folkerrechts (Ratisbon, 1785), p. 169. 
 
 ^Daniel Georgius Morhofius, Polyhistor literariusy philosophicus et practicus 
 (Ed. 3, Lubeck, 1732), vol. 11, i, 14, 41, p. 96. 
 
 '^See the full title of Simon's edition on p. 46. 
 
12 Victoria s De lure Belli. 
 
 tonio,^ whom Hurter^ apparently followed, erroneously in- 
 cludes De silentii ohligatione in the Relectiones Theologicce 
 XII and the Nouvelle Bihliographie Generale includes not only 
 this, but the Summa sacramentorum ecclesice also. 
 
 The first edition of the Relectiones was published at Lyons 
 in 1557 in two volumes, under the title I have given above. 
 The individual relectiones were arranged in the two vol- 
 umes, as follows: 
 
 Tomus Primus: De potestate ecclesice, prior et posterior. 
 De potestate civili. 
 De potestate concilii. 
 De Indis prior. 
 
 De Indis posterior, sive de iure belli. 
 De matrimonio. 
 Tomus Secundus: De augmento charitatis. 
 De temper antia. 
 De homicidio. 
 De simonia. 
 De magia. 
 
 De eo ad quod tenetur veniens ad usum 
 rationis. 
 
 These are substantially the same as those given in sub- 
 sequent editions, with these exceptions. The second edition 
 gives the number as eleven, counting the two relectiones on 
 the Indians as one. The fourth edition (Lyons, 1586) puts 
 the number at thirteen, counting the two relectiones on the 
 power of the Church as two, and in this is followed appar- 
 ently by Holland,^ and avowedly by Walker.^ Hallam,^ 
 who saw only the Venetian edition (1626), makes the same 
 
 ^Antonio, op. cit., p. 497. 
 
 ^HuRTER, op. ciu, p. 1370. 
 
 ^Holland, Studies in international law (Oxford, 1898), p. 51. 
 
 *Walker, op. cit.y p. 214. 
 
 ^Hallam, op. cit., p. 314, column 2, note i. 
 
Critical Introduction. 13 
 
 mistake and accuses Antonio of perhaps never having seen the 
 work because he gives the number as twelve. Yet the two 
 pairs of relectiones which cause this difference ought not 
 to be considered in the same Hght. The first pair is clearly 
 on the same subject and ought to be treated simply as two 
 parts of a single relectio; the second deals with two distinctly 
 different subjects, as the very titles themselves indicate, al- 
 though the second is suggested by the first. Therefore they 
 ought to be considered as tvfo relectiones^ as in the first edition. 
 
 \; 
 
 UNIVERSITY 1, 
 
II. IMPORTANCE OF VICTORIA'S 
 DE IVRE BELLI. 
 
 I have briefly indicated above the high esteem in which 
 Victoria was held by his pupils. This praise is reechoed by 
 other contemporaries and by later scholars. Jacques Boyer, 
 in the Letter to the Reader which is prefixed to his edition 
 (Lyons, 1557) of Victoria's Relectiones says that he not only 
 far surpassed Socrates, but that he left none second to him- 
 self as the defender of honest truth.^ Juan de Canova, the 
 printer of the second (Salamanca, 1565) edition of the 
 Relectiones y states that Victoria was so w^l versed in canon 
 and civil law as well as theology that it is doubtful whether 
 he ought to be praised more as a finished theologian than 
 as a lawyer skilled in both laws.^ It is in no uncertain terms 
 that Alonso Muiioz, the editor of the same edition, hails him 
 as the restorer of scholastic theology of Spain.^ This title 
 is also given to Victoria by Bartholomew de Medina (1527- 
 1581), who also says that Victoria so illumined obscure 
 
 ^** Is enim vir fuit tanta eruditione, tania religioney tanta denique ingenii dexteritate 
 in tractandis sacris eloquiisy ut non solum Socratem ilium umhratilis tantum ac fucata 
 philosophicB authorem longe superaverit, verum etiam sincera veritatis antistitem nut' 
 lum sibi reliquerit secundum" Ep. ad lectorem (p. 9). 
 
 ^". . . Non in pontificio tantum, verum et in Ccesareo iure, tot fecerat progressus, ut 
 non de his solum qua ad munus Imperatoris, sed et ad pontificatus dignitatem admini- 
 strandam pertinere possent, nihil intactum reliquisse videatur. Is is est de quo merito 
 duhitare possemus, num potius perfecti Theologi quam iuris utriusque peritissimi 
 nomine decorate debeamus" Ep. nuncupatoria. 
 
 ^" Multum debet Hispania tota huic prcestantissimo viro, quoniam ipse pluribus 
 nominibus demeritus est, illo prasertim, quod cum theologia apud Hispanos confusanea, 
 puherulenta, aut potius lutulenta, lacera, pannosa, muta, ac pene elinquis iaceret, 
 huius solius ope claritatiy nitori, candorique suo puritati, ac dignitatis venustati, ornaiuit 
 et integritati veluti longo postliminio restituta est. Testimonio sunt huius veritatis non 
 modo centuricBy sed Iliades etiam discipulorum eiusdem, quos schola ipsius quoque 
 versum efudit." 
 
 14 
 
Critical Introduction. 1 5 
 
 passages in St. Thomas that he seemed even to surpass 
 him.^ Nicholas Cleynaerts (Clenardus, b. 1493 or 1494) 
 pays a great tribute to Victoria's lucid Latin style, when he 
 declares that if Victoria were to apply his mind to writing, 
 the fame of his name would spread throughout the world.^ 
 Yet it is not as philosopher or theologian or Latinist that 
 we are concerned with Victoria here, but as one of the 
 founders of international law.^ It is Franciscus de Victoria, 
 in fact, who first admitted into a classification of law inter- 
 national law in its modern acceptation ^^ius inter gentes,^^ 
 although Richard Zouche is commonly considered by most 
 authorities as the creator of this term.* "That which 
 natural reason has estabHshed among all nations is called 
 
 ^*' Doctissimus namque Franciscus Victoria^ vir prceclarus ingenio, eruditions, 
 eloquentiay interpres D. Thomce in Salmanticensi Universitate, sic floruit, ut inter 
 primos merito sit numerandus; qui non solum abdita D. Thomce arcana discipulis 
 patefecit, verum tamen eo ordine et dispositione digessit, ut seipsum superasse videatur, 
 Certe ea ratione et methodo doctrinam scholasticam tradidit, ut restaurator divina 
 Theologice Optimo iure habeatur." Expositio in Primam Secundce Angelici Doctoris 
 D. Thoma Aquinatis (Venice, apud Petrum Dehuchinum, 1580), ep. nuncup.; cf. 
 also Expositio in Tertiam D. Thoma Partem (ed. 2, Venice, Basa, 1590), arg. op. 
 
 ^" {Dicere solebat) neminem se nosse, ne ex iis quidem qui omnem cetatem in Latinis 
 Uteris trivissent, cuius ipsi tam placerent epistola quam Victoria, qui si animum 
 aliquando ad scribendum appelleret, orbem universum fama sui nominis occuparet." 
 (Quoted by Quetif-Echard and Antonio.) 
 
 ^Cf. Charles Perin, Uordre international (Paris, LecofFre, 1888), p. 394, note 2. 
 Vanderpol, op. cit., has shown the development of the law of war in Christian 
 writers from the Fathers of the Church to the scholastic philosophers and theologians 
 and canonists of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, adducing numerous extracts 
 from their works. Fernand Deschamps {La philosophie scolastique et la guerre, in 
 The Dublin Review, vol. 158, no. 317, April, 1916, pp. 230-258) has treated the last 
 phase of this development, proposing the establishment of a school of Christian 
 public law at Louvain under the direction of Cardinal Mercier. Victoria's impor- 
 tance in the history of the development of the law of war is brought out strikingly 
 by both Vanderpol and Deschamps. 
 
 *E. g., Holland, Studies in international law (Oxford, 1898), p. i; but cf. Nys, 
 Les origines du droit international, pp. 8 and 11; Vanderpol, Le droit de guerre 
 d'apres les theologiens et les canonistes du moyen-dge, p. x. 
 
Quod naturalis ratio inter 
 omnes gentes constituit vocatur 
 ius gentium. Victoria, D^/nt/tV, 
 
 2, I. 
 
 1 6 Victoria s De lure Belli. 
 
 international law," says Victoria/ consciously adapting a 
 
 statement of Gaius in the Institutes of Justinian.^ I give 
 
 both statements here in order that the difference may be 
 
 more strikingly shown : 
 
 Quod veto naturalis ratio 
 inter omnes homines constituit, 
 id apud omnes populos peraeque 
 custoditur vocaturque jus gen- 
 tium, quasi quo jure omnes 
 gentes utuntur. Inst.., i, 2, i. 
 
 Zouche repeats Gaius' statement, omitting the words vero 
 and populos f and after some discussion continues, "Law of 
 this latter kind," that is, of commerce and wars between 
 diflFerent nations, "is called ^jus inter gentes.' "^ Hence 
 the reason why the term is attributed to him. But Vic- 
 toria's alteration of Gaius' words was intentional. "In 
 his system this law is a real law which is based on sociability, 
 because there is a natural society, there are mutual relations, 
 a communion, a bond between peoples. One nation has the 
 right of entering into relations with another nation to such 
 an extent that the denial of the exercise of this right justifies 
 war. In other words, Victoria saw clearly the interde- 
 pendence of nations, their reciprocal rights and duties."^ 
 
 We Indisy 2, i. ^Inst., i, 2, i. 
 
 ^"Quod est posterioris generis^ Jus inter gentes placet appellate." Richard 
 Zouche, luris et ludicii Fecialis, sive luris inter Gentes . . . Explicatio. (Oxford, 
 Hall, 1650) I, I, I. 
 
 *Nys, op. cit., p. II, who shows the importance of this point, as does also 
 Barthelemy, Les fondateurs du droit international (Paris, 1904), especially page 7, 
 where he says: "On pent dire par consequent que c'est chez Fitoria que I' on trouve pour 
 la premiere fois le terme jus inter gentes. Le terme est remarquable: ce qui Vest 
 encore plus, c'est idee a laquelle il correspond, c'est la notion que presente Fitoria de ce 
 jus inter gentes, du lien juridique qu'il etablit entre nations, ou plutot de la societe 
 juridique Internationale dont il est V expression." 
 
Critical Introduction. 17 
 
 It is Victoria also who was one of the most vigorous 
 opponents of three errors commonly found in extremist 
 writers on civil and canon law who preceded him. These 
 were: 
 
 1. Infidels have no right to possess anything and war 
 with them therefore is always just. This was held by Hosti- 
 ensis, Legnano, and a host of canonists. 
 
 2. The Emperor of the Roman Empire is the temporal 
 sovereign of the entire world. Bartolus and his school 
 defended this claim. 
 
 3. The Pope is the temporal sovereign of all the earth. 
 This was sustained by Hostiensis, St. Antoninus (Archi- 
 episcopus), Sylvester, and others. 
 
 It is not my purpose to give here the history of these errors 
 and Victoria's refutation of them; all of this has been excel- 
 lently done by Vanderpol in his Le Droit de Guerre d^apres les 
 Theologiens et les Canonistes du Moyen-dge (pp. 1 51-189). 
 It will be sufficient simply to state the fact that one of the 
 dreams of the Middle Ages was the reconstitution of the 
 Roman Empire, which was to embrace the entire world, and 
 that errors which arose from attempts to reahze this dream 
 were so ably opposed and refuted by Victoria that later 
 writers mention them merely as a memory and as no longer 
 upheld.^ 
 
 But in Victoria's time these were live topics of discussion.^ 
 After the discovery of the New World, the conquerors wished 
 to justify their seizure of lands and their right to use arms 
 
 ^Cf. Vanderpol, op. ciLy p. 152: "Sans doute de son temps (z. e.y of Suarez), 
 (lies n'existaient plus qua I* Hat de souvenir, et n'etaient plus guere soutenues." 
 *Nys, op. cit., pp. 127-128, 152-154. 
 
1 8 Victoria s De lure Belli, 
 
 against the natives who refused to accept their domination. 
 It is at this time that Victoria deHvered his lecture De 
 Indis^ in which he reviews in succession the false and true 
 titles alleged by the conquerors. The frankness, with which 
 he rendered judgments without fear or favor of the Catholic 
 sovereigns of Spain, who had a very keen interest in the 
 subject, is well worth noting. He stands out among the 
 Spaniards and Portuguese as the defender of the proposition 
 that infidels can not be despoiled of civil power or sover- 
 eignty simply because they are infidels.^ He makes his 
 position strikingly clear by declaring that the Spaniards 
 have no more right over the Indians than they would have 
 had over the Spaniards if they had come to Spain.^ Another 
 instance of his fearlessness and lack of bias is the judgment 
 he rendered concerning the contemplated divorce of Henry 
 VIII from Catharine of Aragon.^ 
 
 It is no wonder, then, that Hugo Grotius in his epoch- 
 making work, De jure belli ac pads, calls Victoria a "theo- 
 logian of sane judgment."^ In the prolegomena to this 
 same work, Grotius acknowledges that he has consulted 
 Victoria among other theologians and jurisconsults. "I 
 have seen," he says, "special books on the law of war, some 
 written by theologians, such as Franciscus de Victoria, 
 Henry of Gorcum, Wilhelmus Matthaei, some by juris- 
 consults, as loannes Lopez, Franciscus Arias, loannes de 
 Legnano, Martin of Lodi; but all of these have spoken very 
 
 ^This is Relectio IV oi the Relectiones Theologica XII (Lyons, 1557). 
 ^Nys, op. cit.y pp. 368-369. 
 
 ^he Indian question is treated in his De Indis {Relectio IV) and De iure belli 
 {Relectio V). 
 *This is treated in his De matrimonio {Relectio VI). 
 'Grotius, De jure belli ac pads, III, 12, i. 
 
Critical Introduction. 19 
 
 briefly upon a subject that is exceedingly fruitful, and many 
 in such a way that they commingled and confused without 
 order the rulings of natural law, divine law, law of nations, 
 civil law and canon law/'^ But neither of these criticisms^ 
 ought to be imputed to Victoria as a reason for blame because 
 in the first place, although it is true that Victoria's lecture 
 De iure belli is exceedingly brief, it is ample for the purpose 
 for which it was intended by the author, who had no inten- 
 tion of writing a complete treatise on the right of war, but 
 merely wished to supplement his lecture De Indis, as he 
 himself states in the beginning of his De iure belli^ and as the 
 complete title^ of the work itself attests; and in the second 
 place, his Z)^ iure belli itself is so logical and orderly that it mer- 
 its well the praise that has been accorded to it^ and to its 
 author.^ 
 
 ^Fidi y speciales libros de belli jure partim a Theologis scriptoSy ut a Francisco 
 Victoritty Henrico GorichemOy Wilhelmo Matthceiy partim a doctoribus jurisy ut loanne 
 Lupoy Francisco Arioy loanne de LignanOy Martino Laudensi; sed hi omnes de 
 uberrimo argumento paucissima dixerunty ^ ita pleriquey ut sine ordine qua naturalis 
 suntjurisy qua diviniy qua gentiurriy qua civilis, qua ex canonibus veniunty permiscerent 
 atque confunderent." 
 
 ^Cf. Barthelemy, op. cit.y p. 22, footnote i: "Grotiusy qui a donne a son trait'e 
 les developpements que Von sait, montre quelque dedain pour cette le(on de jure belli. 
 . . . La suite montrera, nous I'esperons, que, dans ce dedainy il y a beaucoup d'in- 
 justice." 
 
 ^". . . Visum est de iure belli brevem disputationem haberey ut ilia (i. e., prior) 
 relectio absolutior videatur." 
 
 *De Indisy sive de iure belli Hispanorum in barbaros. 
 
 ^"Les leqons De Indis et De jure belli Hispanorum in barbaros sont de veritables 
 chefs-d'oeuvre de methode et de science. Un ecrivain anglais a compare un jour les 
 grands travaux de Suarez aux belles creations architecturales des Arabes; iciy nous nous 
 trouvons aussi devant un veritable monumenty ou Von ne sait ce qu'ilfaut le plus admirer 
 la solidite de I'ceuvre ou bien V elegance avec laquelle elle a He executee." Nys, op. cit.y 
 pp. 128 and 129. 
 
 ^"C'etait un maitre incomparable pour la clarte et la lucidite du raisonnementy" 
 etc., Nys, op. cit.y p. 128. 
 
20 
 
 Victoria s De lure Belli. 
 
 A careful scrutiny of Grotius' chief work, De jure belli ac 
 pads, shows that he agrees with nearly every proposition^ laid 
 down in Victoria's De iure belli, although he does not always 
 cite him. The following is an instance wherein Grotius 
 agrees with Victoria on a very important point, yet does not 
 cite him : 
 
 Unica est et sola causa iusta 
 inferendi helium, iniuria illata. 
 Victoria, De iure belli, 13. 
 
 Causa justa belli suscipiendi 
 nulla esse alia potest, nisi in- 
 juria. Grotius, De jure belli 
 ac pacts, II, I, I. 
 
 Yet even where Grotius cites Victoria's De iure belli, and he 
 does this at least forty-four times, he does not use Victoria's 
 exact words. The nearest he approaches to doing this is 
 in the following passage: 
 
 Intolerabile esset quod, si 
 Galli agerent praedas in pecora 
 Hispanorum vel incenderent 
 pagum unum, quod liceret occu- 
 pare totum regnum Francorum. 
 Victoria, De iure belli, 56. 
 
 Nam, ut recta notat sani 
 judicii Theologus, ut propter 
 pecora abacta aut domos aliquas 
 incensas totum regnum vastetur 
 aequitas non fert. Grotius, 
 III, 12, I. 
 
 There is one passage, however, in which Grotius quotes the 
 exact words found in Victoria, but they are not Victoria's 
 own words, but the words of Sylvester quoted by Victoria. 
 
 Ex quo infertur quod capta 
 in hello iusto non compensantur 
 cum debito principali. Vic- 
 toria, De iure belli, 51. 
 
 Et sic accipiendum est quod 
 scribunt Theologi quidam, capta 
 in hello non compensari cum 
 debito principali. Grotius, op. 
 ciU, III, 13, 3. 
 
 ^Grotius disagrees twice; first he denies {De jure belli ac pacts, II, i, 10) that 
 one can slay an aggressor from whom no further danger is to be expected, merely 
 to avoid disgrace (Victoria, De iure belli, 5); secondly, he denies {De jure belli ac 
 pads, I, 3, 4) the right of making war to citizens whose king has been neglectful in 
 vindicating their wrongs (Victoria, De iure belli, 9). 
 
Critical Introduction. 21 
 
 Victoria quotes Sylvester, 
 bellum I, 9, 2 (words given 
 above) and cites: Bartolus in 1. 
 si quid in hello. 
 
 Grotius cites in margin: Sylv. 
 verb, helium n. 10; Vict. n. 51; 
 Bart, in 1. si quid hello, D. de 
 capt. 
 
 Grotius also quotes other relectiones of Victoria in this as 
 well as his other works, though of necessity not so frequently, 
 and sometimes he follows Victoria without mentioning him. 
 For instance, in his Mare liberum, which is a chapter of his 
 De jure prcedce, in discussing Portuguese titles over the 
 Indians of the East, Grotius uses arguments which recall the 
 position of Victoria with regard to Spanish titles over the 
 Indians of the West.^ Nor is this all. Conring goes even 
 so far as to say that, if Grotius "excelled in philosophy and 
 produced the incomparable book, De jure belli ac pads, 
 he owed it to his reading of the Spanish jurists, Ferdinand 
 Vasquez and Diego Covarruvias, who had in their turn 
 made use of the work of their master, Franciscus a Vic- 
 toria."^ In fact, Grotius' direct indebtedness to Victoria 
 may be greater than has hitherto been recognized.^ Until 
 recent years we find scant credit given to any Catholic 
 writers in the histories of international law. " Ever since the 
 Reformation," writes Lorimer,^ "the prejudices of Protes- 
 tants against Roman Catholics have been so vehement as to 
 deprive them of the power of forming a dispassionate opinion 
 of their works, even if they had been acquainted with them, 
 which they rarely were." 
 
 ^Walker, pp. 278-280. 
 
 ^Quoted by Nys in an edition of two of Victoria's Relectiones, soon to be published 
 by the Carnegie Institution of Washington. 
 
 3" Sunt qui eo usum fuisse Grotium in multis autumant, quanquam raro ille alU' 
 getur" says Morhofius, Polyhistor, vol. ii, i, 14, 41, p. 96. 
 
 *The institutes of the law of nations (1883), vol. i, p. 71. 
 
22 Victoria s De lure Belli. 
 
 That Victoria has been able to survive this state of affairs, 
 therefore, may well mean more than is apparent on the 
 surface and weight is added to this view by the fact that 
 Victoria's Relectiones^ went through at least ten editions, 
 six of them appearing within fifty years. Yet in spite of 
 these ten editions, Hallam^ states that it "is a book of 
 remarkable scarcity" and that some of those who since the 
 time of Grotius have mentioned Victoria's writings, lament 
 that they are not to be met with. In fact, it was scarce 
 even in 1696, when Simon published his edition.^ It is this, 
 in addition to the fact that he dictated his lectures and never 
 printed them himself, that explains why this author, who 
 enjoyed such great fame among his contemporaries, until 
 recent years has been little known and rarely quoted. 
 
 ^"It is this collection that establishes the claim of this learned Navarrese to rank 
 among the foremost of the forerunners of Grotius." Walker, p. 215. 
 
 2P. 3 14; cf. HuRTER, op. cit.y and also Vanderpol, Le droit de guerre d'apres les 
 theologiensy etc., p. x: "Sow ouvrage . . . est aujourd'hui presque introuvable." 
 
 3See the full title of Simon's edition on p. 46. 
 
III. HISTORY OF THE TEXT OF THE 
 DE IVRE BELLI. 
 
 The De iure belli is only a portion of the Relectiones 
 Theologies XII, and constitutes the second of two studies on 
 the Indians of the New World, the first of which is entitled, 
 " De Indis insulanis'^ in the first edition, '* De Indis recenter 
 inventis^^ in the second edition, ^^ De Indis noviter inventis^' in 
 the third and subsequent editions; the second, the one with 
 which we are concerned, is entitled *' De Indis, sive de iure 
 belli Hispanorum in barbaros'' in all editions^ and by sub- 
 sequent writers is quoted simply as De iure belli. 
 
 A. Manuscripts. 
 
 Of this work, it is probable that there are no manuscript 
 copies extant. At least, to the editor of the third printed 
 edition (Ingolstadt, 1580), none was available, for he fails 
 to mention any, and, moreover, states that he had corrected 
 the first edition (Lyons, 1557) by the second edition (Sala- 
 manca, 1565), except where this was manifestly wrong, 
 in which case he took counsel with eminent theologians and 
 philosophers. If a manuscript copy of the Relectiones had 
 been extant, it would probably have been in some Spanish 
 or French library. But Nicholas Antonio, a Spaniard, 
 whose life of Victoria appeared in 1783, makes no mention of 
 
 ^Nys, Le droit de la guerre et les precurseurs de Grotius (Brussels, 1882), p. 168, 
 gives this title to the first of the two and calls the second " de bello" but this is 
 clearly a mistake. He himself quotes the second as " de jure belli" on p. 81, notej, 
 and gives the correct titles of both in a later work, Lesorigines du droit international 
 (Brussels, 1894), p. 128. 
 
 23 
 
24 Victoria s De lure Belli. 
 
 any, nor is a manuscript copy mentioned by Victoria's 
 French biographers, Dupin (1703) and Quetif-Echard (172 1). 
 Surely, a manuscript would have been mentioned by one of 
 his later biographers, Wetzer-Welte (1886) and Hurter 
 (1906), if any had been discovered in the intervening years. 
 
 Yet even if there be extant somewhere in obscurity a 
 manuscript of Victoria's Relectiones, it would not materially 
 affect the text as transmitted in the first or second editions, 
 as will appear from the rest of this introduction. To secure 
 a complete understanding of this assertion, it is necessary, 
 first to define the word relectio. At Salamanca it meant a 
 kind of theological exercise not very unlike those disputations 
 which were in use in the most celebrated universities of the 
 Middle Ages under the name of quc^stiones quodliheticce. 
 Those qucBstiones, which seemed to be the more difficult and 
 more useful of all that had been discussed in the daily pre- 
 lections of an entire year, were reconsidered in relectiones 
 in the public assembly of learned men by the same doctor, 
 in order that they might be much more accurately decided 
 than theretofore and receive as it were the finishing touches.^ 
 
 The manuscripts, from which the first and second editions 
 were edited, were written by Victoria's students from dicta- 
 tion, probably when the lectures were first delivered, because 
 it is not likely, though certainly possible, that the lectures 
 would be dictated a second time in the public assembly at 
 the end of the year. At any rate, there would be as many 
 manuscripts of the Relectiones as there were auditors, and, 
 since none of these manuscripts belonged to the author, the 
 
 ^See editor's preface to Ingolstadt edition of 1580. 
 
Critical Introduction. 25 
 
 authority of the individual manuscript would be considerably 
 lessened, for it is the consensus of the manuscripts that would 
 give what the author probably dictated. This consensus 
 is represented by the first and second editions and would not, 
 in all probability, be disturbed by a single manuscript. 
 Moreover, a single manuscript would be subject to all the 
 errors attributable to writing from dictation. These reasons 
 will become clearer from the criticisms of the three editions 
 which I have been able to consult. 
 
 B. First Edition. 
 
 A little over ten years after Victoria's death, "par grace 
 et priuilege du Roy est permis a lacques Boyer libraire de 
 Salamanca, imprimer ou faire imprimer vne fois ou plusieurs 
 ce present liure intitule, Reuerediss. Patris Fratris Fran- 
 cisci de Victoria, ordinis Praedicatorum, sacrae Theologiae 
 in Salmanticensi Academia quondam primarij Professoris 
 Relectides duodecim Theologicae." This, the first edition 
 of the Relectiones, bears the imprint of Lyons, 1557, and was 
 prepared for the following reasons, as Boyer relates in his 
 dedicatory letter to the Inquisitor, Ferdinand Valdez. 
 
 After mentioning the fact that the works of the early 
 Fathers had been "truncati, confusi, obscuri, perplexi, 
 ac denique alienis inventis conspurcati," Boyer says that 
 this same fate befell Victoria's writings. "For one person had 
 mutilated them by making an unhappy transcript, another 
 had read them incorrectly, a third by suppressing Victoria's 
 name had usurped a good and large portion of the work, and 
 many had placed the comments of their foolish mind in the 
 
26 Victoria s De lure Belli, 
 
 midst of his scrupulous doctrine and singular erudition not 
 otherwise than a counterfeit jewel might be set in gold; 
 and the glory that is due the author certain scoundrels had 
 claimed for themselves with impunity."^ In these words he 
 gives the reasons for the necessity of printing for the first 
 time a work, which its own author had never deemed it 
 necessary to print. Of course, we would not consider 
 it cause for blame for the student to adapt the doctrine of 
 his master to suit himself, provided he does not attribute 
 the adaptation to his master, but it is a pity that Boyer did 
 not give more definite information and mention the names of 
 the culprits guilty of the crimes he charged. This would 
 have been extremely interesting and useful in showing the 
 great influence of Victoria and would have made possible 
 a more detailed critique of Boyer's methods. 
 
 The value to be attached to Boyer's edition may be de- 
 duced from the following facts. Boyer was a contemporary 
 of Victoria and was personally acquainted with him. We 
 would have supposed this, even if he had not said it himself,^ 
 from the fact that he was librarian at Salamanca.^ Con- 
 sequently he had first-hand knowledge of Victoria's doctrine. 
 His text was carefully prepared from the manuscript copies of 
 Victoria's auditors, men who wrote down Victoria's lectures 
 as he dictated them. In fact he feels so sure of the accuracy 
 
 ^" Alius transcribendo misere dilaceraviu alius corrwpte recitavity alius suppresso 
 viri nomine bonam magnamque operis partem usurpavit, plures denique mentis insancB 
 commenta, viri illius religiosissimi doctrina ac singulari eruditione, non secus ac 
 gemmam adulterinam auro contexerunt; debitamque authori gloriam sceleratissimi 
 quique impune sibi vendicaverunt." 
 
 ^"Cuius ego memoria maxime recreor" says Boyer, Ep. ad Valdesium, prefixed 
 to his edition. 
 
 ^Supra, p. 25. 
 
, Critical Introduction. 27 
 
 of his edition that he beHeves those who have heard Vic- 
 toria's lectures will vouch for it and he even invites com- 
 parison of his edition with the manuscripts. For the con- 
 venience of the reader, Boyer prefixes a summary to each 
 relectio and adds marginal references to some of the passages 
 of Holy Scripture quoted by Victoria.^ 
 
 On the other hand, the text of Boyer is not entirely 
 free from mistakes and has so many misprints that it alto- 
 gether merits the condemnation heaped upon it by Muiioz 
 and every writer since. These errors are numerous and of 
 many kinds. I shall not give here examples of misprints, 
 because they are so numerous and can easily be noticed by 
 the casual reader. I have grouped a few examples, chosen 
 at random, of other errors under several headings.^ 
 
 Substitutions. — B has proprios redditus for public os red- 
 ditus, 12; tutat for vertat, 17. 
 
 Omissions. — B has omitted the words in parentheses in 
 {non) maiorem authoritatem habet princeps, i^\ ad vindican- 
 dum (iniuriam), 13. 
 
 Failure to extend abbreviations. — B fails to extend not a to 
 notandum, prooem.; quaeque to quce qucsstio, 10; versant to 
 versantur, 36. 
 
 ^"Quantam vero operam dederim ut totum opus tersum ac plane purum in lucem 
 eruereniy iis licebit astimare, qui ipsum authorem aliquando dicentem audiverunt; et 
 its, qui paulo accuratius hanc editionem considerarint atque cum privatis scriptis con- 
 tulerint. Adiecimus prceterea^ ut et nihil ornamenti desiderari posset et lectorem labore 
 non mediocri sublevaremus, Relectionum singularum avaKeipaXaLcaariv quandam^ 
 additionesque locorum sacra scripturce indices." Boyer, Ep. ad Valdesium, prefixed 
 to his edition. 
 
 ^All of the examples given are from the De iure belli; it is probable that similar 
 errors are to be found in the other relectiones. The number is the number of the 
 proposition of the De iure belli in which the passage is found. Prooem. ( = pro- 
 cemium) indicates that part of the De iure belli which precedes proposition i. B = 
 Boyer's edition. 
 
28 Victoria's De lure Belli. 
 
 Incorrect extension of abbreviations. — B has secundo libro 
 contra ManichcE. for lib. cont. Secund. Manichce., i; scilicet 
 Tho. for S. Tho., 13; Mediolanenses for some abbreviation of 
 Mediolani, 33. 
 
 Lack of proper proof-reading. — B has in de fensione sui, 15; 
 inciviliter ( = vincibiliter), 20; victor es { — lictores), 22; iusticia, 
 30; iuvetur ( = iubetur), 31. These may have been caused 
 by the reading of the copy to the compositor. 
 
 C. Second Edition. 
 
 It is no wonder, then, that, although Boyer had a ten- 
 year copyright,^ a second edition was pubHshed by Alonso 
 Munoz, O. P., and printed by Juan de Canova at Salamanca 
 in 1565. He also secured a ten-year copyright, as is clear 
 from the letter in the vernacular which is prefixed to his 
 edition. This letter is followed by a dedicatory letter of 
 Munoz to the "Serenissimo atque Augustissimo Hispania- 
 rum Principe Carolo Philippo regis earundem filio," which is 
 very complimentary to Victoria. 
 
 In his letter to the reader, Munoz explains how he came 
 to publish a second edition of Victoria's Relectiones. He was 
 at Salamanca helping Domingo Soto with the correction of 
 proof of the fourth book of the Sentences, then in press, when 
 "there appeared a little book with a most imposing title, but 
 containing countless horrible misprints, absurdities which 
 were disgraceful and insulting to the author as well as the 
 whole theological school. It made one aghast to behold in 
 
 ^Extrait du Privilege du Roy, editio princeps, p. 3. 
 
Critical Introduction. 29 
 
 the tiny body of so small a book so unbelievable an ofFscour- 
 ing of close-packed blunders, and ashamed and sorrowful that 
 rascals should seem to have such license towards the master- 
 pieces of most distinguished men, and with impunity, too. 
 This was the title of the book: *The Relectiones of the Rever- 
 end Father, Brother Franciscus de Victoria, of the Order of 
 Preachers, late Primary Professor of Sacred Theology in the 
 University of Salamanca.' You observe how fair and full 
 of promise the inscription is; and indeed in Pliny's words, its 
 bail could be forfeited."^ 
 
 Having found numerous and serious mistakes, Munoz 
 brought the matter to the attention of Domingo Soto and 
 Melchior Cano, two of Victoria's former students, who 
 prompted him to correct the printed book "according to 
 the most exact copies."^ Later on the administer of the 
 Holy Inquisition in the matter of examining books joined 
 Domingo Soto in urging Munoz to undertake the work. 
 "Although I was aware," says Munoz, "how unpleasant 
 a business it was, how hard and wearisome the affair, how 
 inglorious the labor of correcting and restoring the monu- 
 ments of others especially those so ulcerous, so altogether 
 
 ^"Cum SalmanticcB agerem, auxiliaremque navarem operam fratri Dominico Soto 
 in emaculanda impressione quarti Sententiarum, qui tunc excudehatur {Candide 
 Lector), libellus quidam prodiit speciosissimo titulo, innumerabiles portentosasque 
 mendas, deliramenta pudenda, atque contumeliosa autori turn etiam toti theologorum 
 scholce continens. Stupori erat in tantillo libelli corpusculo tarn incredibilem vitiorum 
 congestam intueri colluviem, pudori atque dolori quod visebatur tantum licere nebuloni- 
 bus in eximias clarissimorum virorum lucubrationes idque impune. Titulus libri is 
 erat ' Relectiones R. P. Fratris Francisci Victories ordinis prcedicatorum Sacra Theolo- 
 gies in Salmanticensi academia quondam primarii professoris.* Fides inscriptionem 
 pulcherrimam et undecumque pollicitabundam atque adeo propter quam, ut Plinius 
 dixit, vadimonium deseri possit." 
 
 ^Ad verissima exemplaria. 
 
30 Victoria s De lure Belli. 
 
 deranged, so piteously (I had almost said) and hostilely 
 regarded, as these were, yet, moved by the authority of 
 my preceptors as well as induced by love of a very fine 
 work and of its author, Victoria, who was also my dearest 
 of teachers, I put my shoulders under a burden which I 
 have loved. "^ 
 
 In preparing his text, Muiioz pursued the following plan.^ 
 He persuaded a fellow-religious, one Petrus ab Afiaya, to 
 read aloud the text of Boyer, while he himself ran over in his 
 mind simultaneously the manuscript copies. When any 
 discrepancy occurred, they halted and supplied what was 
 wanting or corrected what was wrong. Doubtful matters 
 were settled by consulting many manuscripts, for there was 
 an abundance of them, and when these failed, by having 
 recourse to the sources used by the author. All of this was 
 
 ^"Et quamvis nosserriy quam sit inamoenum negotium, quam dura ac morosa res^ 
 quam inglorius labor, corrigere atque instaurare monumenta aliena, prcssertim tarn 
 ulcer OS a, tarn turhata undique, tarn mis ere, fcencB (sic) dixerim et hostiliter habit a, ut 
 hac ipsa erant; tamen autoritate prcecipientium motus, turn etiam amore pulcherrimi 
 operisy et illustris autoris eiusdemque charissimi mihi preeceptoris mei Victorice adduc 
 tusy humeros amato oneri supposui." 
 
 ^"Rem aggredior assumpto mihi sotio (sic) F. Petro ab Anaya, viro nobili et religioso 
 atque amicissimo, qui mihi pralegebat impressum ilium libellum, ego vero exemplaria 
 mihi ipsi simul mente prcscurrebam, legentis vestigia insequens, et cum quid occurrebat 
 difficultatis vel erroris sistebamus ambo gradum et reponebatur quod deerat, aut corrige- 
 batur quod erat vitiatum. Quod si quando res erat dubia, adhibitis pluribus exemplari- 
 bus manuscriptis, suppetebat enim copia, lis ilia componebatur. Si vero res erat qua 
 nullis talibus exemplaribus adductis, utpote vitiatis et ipsis, posset transigi, ad ipsos 
 fontes recurrebam, unde ipse autor hauserat sive essent divini libri, sive ecclesia vel 
 pontificum decreta, sive antiqui patres, sive sententiarii theologi, sive philosophi, sive 
 historici, sive quicunque alii autores, et sic evidens fiebat germana lectio restituenda. 
 Hunc ipsum laborem secundo assumpsi a capite usque ad calcem libelli, ac tertio veluti 
 sepositam ad tempus picturam revisi, et denique iam ipsum opus libit perhumane 
 lector, tradere audeo, froetus (sic) tuo candore." 
 
Critical Introduction. 3 1 
 
 done a second time and a third time, so that the editor 
 finally gives the work to the reader with great confidence.^ 
 
 But the criticism which Muiioz so vigorously directs 
 against Boyer's edition can very justly be applied to his own. 
 While Munoz has corrected many mistakes of the first edi- 
 tion, he has not corrected all of them, and, moreover, falls 
 into errors of his own. 
 
 The copy which Munoz sent to the printer was Boyer's 
 edition corrected from the manuscripts by reading aloud. 
 One would suppose that this method of preparing copy 
 would cause errors, and it may be due to this that certain 
 mistakes in B have remained uncorrected in M.^ At any 
 rate there are errors in M which seem to indicate that the 
 copy was read to the compositor.^ For instance, M has 
 cedes for c cedes, 14; pcenes for penes, 19; pcena for poena, 58. 
 
 Another source of error was the correction of B according 
 to the authors quoted or cited by Victoria (cf., e. g., qui iuste 
 pugnavit, 51, where the verb is made to conform to Sylvester's 
 words). First of all, the principle underlying this procedure 
 is false, because it is by no means evident that Victoria 
 quoted authorities ad litteram. In fact, he often adapts a 
 quotation, using only some of the exact words (cf., e. g., a long 
 
 ^"Fruere igitur fceliciter (sic) his, quce tibi nostris vigiliis et laborihus paravimus, 
 quibus factum est {absit verbo invidia), ut pro luthulento ante a opere, ne die am luteoy 
 tersum nitidumque habeas atque undique aureum et splendidum, id quod facile experi- 
 mento comperies, si quacunque liber apertus fuerit conferre volueris et perpendere, quid 
 distet noster hie, quem tibi tradimus, ab illo, qui correctus est a nobis, quem videlicet 
 lacobus Boyer excussit Lugduni, Anno domini, 1557. Ante quem nullus erat impres- 
 sus, neque postea ausi sunt illi Tipographi ipsum excudere timentes hanc nostram, 
 quantula eacumque (sic) est, diligentiam, quam non ignorant." 
 
 ^Cf. infra, p. 32; A/ = Munoz's edition. 
 
 ^Cf. supra, p. 28. 
 
32 Victoria s De lure Belli, 
 
 passage from Sylvester in 51). Moreover, Munoz does not 
 always act according to the principle which he enunciates 
 (cf., e. g., mortalium, 6, which he has omitted). 
 
 In spite of Munoz's boasted carefulness in correcting the 
 errors of B^ many of these errors remain uncorrected (cf., 
 e. g., secundo lihro contra ManichcB. { = lib. cont. Secund. 
 Manichcs.), i; sciri: iure videtur { = sciri de iure, videtur), 28; 
 indubio, 30; quod culpatur ( = quid culpatur), 3 1 ; non dum, 33 ; 
 indiferenter, 39; dificultas, 45). Of course, many of these 
 uncorrected errors are purely printer's errors, and might 
 easily have passed unnoticed when read aloud, but I mention 
 them here to show what value is to be attached to Munoz's 
 vaunted triple comparison. Besides, M has also not a few 
 misprints which are its own. Cf., e. g., talli { = tali), 30; 
 indinatus { = indignatus), 38. 
 
 But one of the most striking diflPerences between B and M 
 is to be found in the substitutions and additions made by 
 Muiioz. These may have been made for several reasons. 
 
 First, Muiioz may have seen some manuscripts which 
 Boyer did not see; but, since it is more likely that Boyer 
 saw some that Munoz did not see, seeing that he published 
 his edition nearly ten years nearer the time at which the 
 Relectiones were delivered, we can not argue with any 
 certainty from this reason. 
 
 Secondly, Munoz, in order to avoid a fancied ambiguity, 
 may have deliberately made additions at the suggestion of 
 the administer of the Holy Inquisition, who had suggested 
 the work to Muiioz and had probably had some share in 
 directing it (cf., e. g., in causa matrimoniali {in re duhia 
 
Critical Introduction. 33 
 
 adds M) non tenetur cedere, 30; {mortaliter loquendo adds M) 
 non possit, 31. 
 
 Thirdly, it is not at all unlikely that Munoz and his col- 
 laborator, being members of the same order as the author, 
 desired nothing to be published under his name that in their 
 opinion seemed illogical, incomplete or inelegant, or likely 
 in any other way to cast reflection upon the author. This 
 might account for such changes as the following: non esset 
 respuhlica p erf e eta {B has non videtur habere Rempuhlicam 
 perfectam, which is the more difficult reading), 9; ita gladio 
 uti {B has ira gladii uti), 13; supra extraneos quam {supra 
 adds M) suos, 13; prceciperet {B has prcEceperit, which is 
 defensible), 13; parandam {B has pariendam, which is the 
 more difficult reading), 18 (cf. 48); haheat (B has habet), 19; 
 profligatis {B has profugatis), 19; oriuntur (B has super sunt), 
 20; per accidens {B has Christianis), 36. There is no doubt 
 that the readings adopted by M in these passages are much 
 more logical and much more Ciceronian than those of B. 
 
 Fourthly, certain additions which M made, perhaps fol- 
 lowing some of the manuscripts, may have been caused by 
 the method, used by Victoria, of dictating his lectures. 
 Every professor, lecturing to a class, often stops to render 
 the same thought in other words, not intending the repetition 
 to be a part of his formal lecture, but merely explaining 
 something in other words while his auditors are writing 
 down what he has said first. It may well have happened 
 that some of Victoria's students wrote down some repetitions 
 of this sort, not thinking that they might not have been part 
 of the dictation. While it is true that Boyer also might 
 
34 Victoria's De lure Belli. 
 
 have incorporated some of these repetitions in his text 
 {e. g., a quod is repeated, when a subordinate clause inter- 
 venes between it and its verb, 27; but cf. infra, p. 44), I * 
 have not been able to find a single instance which I could 
 assert with any degree of certainty. I have, however, found 
 several such instances in M, though I can not allege these 
 with absolute certainty. Cf., e. g., sinefraude (etdolo adds M), 
 18; ne (bonis et inserts M) innocentihus noceant, 19; nee 
 clericos (nee religiosos adds M), 36. 
 
 D. Third Edition. 
 
 Fifteen years after the publication of the Salamanca 
 edition there appeared at Ingolstadt^ another edition 
 (1580) which Hurter terms good^ and which all the later 
 editions follow. Nothing is known of the editor of this 
 edition other than that he was "one of the Doctors of Sacred 
 Theology in Ingolstadt." In his letter "to the Christian 
 reader," he tells us that there are three points which he 
 wishes to emphasize: (i) the amount of labor and toil ex- 
 pended by him in preparing the edition, (2) the character and 
 greatness of the author of the Relectiones, and (3) the advan- 
 tage and profit which the perusal of them will bring "even 
 to Germans, who seem to be somewhat strange to the gym- 
 nastic and scholastic form of discussion therein employed." 
 
 In connection with the first point, the editor quotes parts 
 of the letter, which Muiioz had prefixed to his edition, and 
 then continues : *'But I do not know by what ill-chance it has 
 
 ^I have not seen a copy of this edition. The information I have given concern- 
 ing it has been drawn from a letter which Simon prefixes to his edition and which 
 purports to be a copy of the one prefixed to the Ingolstadt edition. 
 
 ^Vol. II, p. 1369. 
 
Critical Introduction. 3 5 
 
 happened that into this Salamanca edition, so clean, so clear, 
 so gilded, have crept blunders and faults neither few nor 
 trivial. It labors at times under the same faults as the Lyons 
 edition; sometimes under faults of its own, which needs must 
 be corrected either by reference to the Lyons edition or in 
 some other way."^ We have already shown that this criti- 
 cism of M was justified. It remains now to show the faults 
 of his own method. 
 
 The text of the Ingolstadt edition was prepared in the 
 following manner. The editor and his associate made a 
 careful comparison (probably, by reading aloud) of B and M, 
 making corrections in a copy of B, which was to be sent to 
 the printer, from a copy of M, wherever this was not evidently 
 at fault. When a trivial mistake was found in M, the editor 
 relied on his own judgment, but whenever a serious error 
 was found in M, he consulted skilled theologians and phil- 
 osophers, in order that by weighing all the words and opinions 
 of the author found in both editions he might understand the 
 mind of the author from the common judgment of many. 
 Sometimes, even after following this plan, he could discover 
 no method of restoring a corrupt passage.^ 
 
 ^"Sed nescio quonam accident casu^ ut in hanc Salmaniicensem editionem tain 
 tersam, tarn nitidam, tarn auream, nee pauca nee levia menda vitiaque obrepserint. 
 Laborat nonnunquam eisdem vitiis quibus Lugdunensis, nonnunquam propriiSf qua 
 vel ex Lugdunensi vel alia ratione aliqua corrigi juerit necessum." 
 
 ^"Ipse et prudens socius, quern assumpseram, utrumque codicem contulimus accu- 
 ratissime et Lugdunensem, qui typographo tradendus erat, ex Salmanticensi, ubicumque 
 hoc nullum habuisset apertum mendum, pro eo ac potuimus, correximus. Vbi vero 
 grave et apertum vitium in Salmanticensi occurrit {nam in levioribus mendis tollendis 
 meo iudicio putavi standum) theologos et philosophos peritissimos consului, ut communi 
 multorum iudicio perpensis in utroque exemplari omnibus et verbis et sententiis autoris, 
 qucB ad eius intelligendam mentem facere viderentur, vitium cdrrigeretur Accidit 
 nonnunquam^ ut omnes simul corrupti alicuius loci restituendi vix rationem aut 
 modum ullum inveniremus." 
 
36 Victoria s De lure Belli. 
 
 From the above, it is clear that the editor of the Ingolstadt 
 edition had at his command the same materials as I have 
 used, namely, B and M, and it is true that he has made som^e 
 good emendations (cf., e. g., gerit vices et authoritateniy 6, 
 where B has both nouns in the plural and M has both in the 
 singular; sciri de iure, videtur, 28, where B and M have sciri: 
 iure videtur). Nevertheless, his text contains the self-same 
 kinds of errors with which he chides the editors of B and M. 
 I shall give a few representative examples of each of several 
 classes of errors, some intended to improve the text, some 
 altogether unintentional. These examples are taken from 
 Simon's edition (Cologne, 1696)^ which professes to be a 
 copy of the Ingolstadt edition. Some of them, therefore, 
 and especially misprints, may belong only to the Cologne 
 edition, but it is not Hkely that Simon would intentionally 
 reject readings he found in the Ingolstadt edition for some- 
 thing incorrect, and even if he had, he would not have done 
 this often. 
 
 Additions. — S has notandum est, prooem., where B has 
 nota and M has notandum; S has Psal. iS, i, where B and M 
 have in Psal. and the passage referred to is in reality in 
 Psal. 81. 
 
 Omissions. — S has omitted et secundo libro contra Manicha. 
 et, I, entirely, probably not understanding how the mistake 
 in these words was to be rectified.^ S has omitted the words 
 in parentheses in the following: (vel) vindicare, i; (de) manu, 
 i; {ad) resarciendum impensam, 17; sive nocentes (sive inno- 
 centes), 42. 
 
 ^5 = Simon's edition; / = Ingolstadt edition. ^CL injra, p. 41. 
 
Critical Introduction. 37 
 
 Substitutions. — S has naturali for naturce^ i; deterrerentur 
 for deterreantur, i ; motu for metu, i ; nulla fide for w^/a fide^ 
 22; possessione for posses sioni, 30. 
 
 Inversion. — S contains at least one example of inversion: 
 se per for ^^r se, 35. 
 
 Misprints. — S has Turces ( = Turcas), prooem.; in quam, i ; 
 liherare { = liberate), i; male factor es, i; omina { = omnia), 17; 
 pellum ( = bellum), 17; ^<2r^^ ( = parte), 32; sequutas { = se- 
 quutus), 33; iniutitics and Amprosio,^6', delectum { — delictum), 
 47. These may have been caused partly by the reading of 
 the copy to the compositor by a German reader and may 
 not have appeared in / at all. 
 
 The examples given above are by no means exhaustive; 
 they were selected at random just to illustrate, here as also 
 in the case of B and M, that the editions are not sufficient 
 to be trusted. 
 
 E. Other Editions. 
 
 The other editions of the Relectiones that followed the 
 Ingolstadt edition are professedly based upon it and therefore 
 need not enter into this discussion. In this number are 
 included the editions of Lyons (1586^ and 1587^), Antwerp 
 (1604),^ Venice (1626),^ Salamanca (1680), Cologne and 
 
 ^This IS the edition used by Walker, op. cit., p. 214: "Relectiones theologica 
 tredecim partibus per varias sectiones in duos libros divisa. Authore R. P. F. Fran- 
 cisco a Victoria ordinis pradicatorum S. S. Theologies Salmanticensis Academies in 
 primaria quondam cathedra professore eximio et incomparabili. Lugd. mdlxxxvi." 
 
 ^Barthelemy says that a copy of this edition is to be found in the Bibliotheque 
 Nationale. 
 
 ^This is the edition used by Schroeder in the Catholic Encyclopedia. 
 
 *This is the edition used by Hallam, who says (p. 314) that this is probably the 
 ast. 
 
38 Victoria s De lure Belli. 
 
 Frankfort (1696),^ and Madrid (1755). Of these, the only 
 one which I have been able to consult is the Cologne edition, 
 which was pubHshed in 1696 by Johann Georg Simon, 
 J. U. D., Professor at the University of Halle. He has pre- 
 fixed to his edition the letter to the reader which appeared 
 in the Ingolstadt edition.^ 
 
 F. Summary. 
 
 To sum up, we have shown that B was edited from 
 unknown manuscripts, some of which {x) may not have been 
 seen by the editor of M; that M was edited from B and from 
 unknown manuscripts, some of which {x^) may not have been 
 seen by the editor of B; that the third edition (/ = Ingolstadt, 
 1580) was edited from B and M without manuscripts; 
 and that all subsequent editions were edited from /. This 
 provenance is graphically shown by the following diagram: 
 
 [x»x^] 
 
 All subsequent editions, including S. 
 
 ^Some authorities, among whom is Barthelemy, give the date of this edition 
 J 1686, but see the full title, which I have given verbatim on p. 46. 
 2Cf. supra, p. 35. 
 
IV. PREPARATION OF PRESENT TEXT. 
 
 In preparing my text, I have made a careful collation of 
 B,^ M^ and S^ using a typewritten copy of S and indicating 
 thereon in different colored inks the variant readings of 5 and 
 M. For the most part, I have retained the readings of B, 
 unless they were unmistakably incorrect. The reasons for 
 this procedure are obvious from my criticisms of B, M, and 
 S above. It seems unnecessary for me to defend passages 
 wherein I have accepted the emendations of M or S, because, 
 before I concluded that any of them ought to be retained, 
 I carefully examined and always rejected it, unless an error 
 of B was removed by the proposed change. I have not 
 changed anything that was in B simply to secure conformity 
 with Ciceronian usage or to obtain what I considered more 
 logical or more complete or more elegant Latin. Nor have 
 I thought that corrections ought to be admitted for any other 
 reason than because something was altogether foreign to the 
 usage of the author's time or because the sense demanded a 
 certain change or transposition or addition or omission. 
 There are, however, a few emendations for which I shall give 
 some explanation or discussion, in order that I might show 
 how I have handled the text and these I shall now treat as 
 briefly as possible. 
 
 Prooem. Visum est de iure belli hrevem disputationem habere, 
 ut ilia relectio absolutior videatur. — ^The obvious meaning of 
 
 ^A copy of B is to be found in the Woodstock College Library, Woodstock, Md. 
 ^A copy of M is to be found in the Bouquillon Library of the Catholic University 
 of America, Washington, D. C. 
 
 ^A copy of S is to be found in the Library of Congress, Washington, D. C. 
 
 39 
 
40 Victoria s De lure Belli. 
 
 this passage is : "I am writing this second study, in order that 
 the first study might be more complete." But we find the 
 readings of B, M, and S different. The reading of M (ut relec- 
 tio superior ahsolutior videatur) gives the proper sense, but it 
 is so different from that of B {ut illce relectiones ahsolutiores 
 videantur), which preceded it, and of S (ut hcec relectiones 
 ahsolutiores videantur), which followed it, that it makes one 
 suspect its genuineness. The emendation I have proposed 
 gives the proper sense and a satisfactory explanation of the 
 existing readings. The reading of 5 I take to be either a 
 dehberate change of Boyer to procure what he thought 
 would make better sense or an incorrect extension ot what 
 he thought were abbreviated words. I do not think Boyer 
 would be guilty of the former; the latter could have happened 
 in the following manner. In a manuscript in which diph- 
 thongs are ligatured it is easy to mistake ilia for illce. Once 
 this mistake was made, it would be easy to think relectio and 
 ahsolutior were abbreviations, and the mistaking of third 
 person singular forms for third person plural forms and vice 
 versa due to the use of the macron to denote the omission of 
 n, is too frequent an occurrence to need further comment 
 {e. g., M has essent for esset, 48; interficiatur for inter ficiantur, 
 49; ^ has pugnat for pugnant, 36). 
 
 Procem. Quantum ad primam. — B, M, and S have primum, 
 which I have rejected in favor of primam, in spite of its being 
 the lectio difficilior, because the author is speaking about the 
 first qucestioy which he has just mentioned and which he is 
 now answering. Furthermore, in speaking of the other three 
 qucestiones later on he uses secunda, tertia, and quarta, although 
 
Critical Introduction. 41 
 
 it is true that with them he uses the word qucestio also. An 
 a in the manuscripts could be very easily mistaken for a w, 
 and the mistake would be difficult to detect, since it makes 
 good sense. 
 
 I. Et lihro Contra Secundinum Manichcsum et. — B and M 
 have et secundo lihro contra Manichce. et, while S has omitted 
 these words entirely. I looked in vain in all of St. Augus- 
 tine's writings against the Manichaeans for the sentiment 
 referred to, but it was in the second book of none of them. 
 Finally, I found the correct solution of the puzzle, as given 
 above. It is easy to account for the mistake in B and M. 
 It is very probable that most of the references to authorities 
 were abbreviated in the manuscripts. The editor of B 
 finding, we may say, et lib. cont. secund. Manicha. et in the 
 manuscripts and thinking it a mistake {cont. and secund. in- 
 verted) transposed secund. to the position in which we find it 
 and extended the abbreviation to secundo. The editor of M, 
 facing the same state of affairs, followed B, while the editor 
 of S, who had not access to the manuscripts, omitted the 
 words apparently as being impossible. 
 
 I. De verbis Domini. — B and M have verb., vfhxch. the manu- 
 scripts probably had. But S, extending the abbreviation, 
 erred by using the singular form (verbo) instead of the plural. 
 
 35. Non licet in Republic a pro delictis malorum punire 
 innocentes. Ergo etiam nee pro iniuria malorum licet inter- 
 ficere innocentes apud hostes. — B has punire innocentes apud 
 hostes and this is followed by M, but in the preceding sentence 
 5 has inter ficere, which M has replaced with punire. The 
 argument of the passage is: It is licit to punish guilty citizens 
 
42 Victoria s De lure Belli. 
 
 of the State and to kill the enemy who wrongs us, but it is 
 not licit to punish innocent citizens because of the crimes of 
 guilty citizens nor to kill the innocent among the enemy 
 because of the wrong done us by the guilty among them. 
 Consequently, M did right in the preceding sentence in 
 replacing interficere, the reading of B with punire, although 
 the reason may have been to have the same verb in both 
 sentences, and may not have been suggested by the manu- 
 scripts, but M did not complete the correction of the trans- 
 position existing in B by making the reciprocal change I 
 have indicated in the text. S adopts the reading of M. 
 
 51. Ex quo infertur quod capta in hello iusto non compen- 
 santur cum dehito principali. — B, M, and .S have infert, but 
 Sylvester, whose words are being quoted, has infert ( = in- 
 fertur), and infert would not make good sense in the quota- 
 tion from Sylvester. Whether the mistake was made by the 
 writers of the manuscripts or the editor of B, it is impossible 
 to say, although the latter is more probable, but it would not 
 be difficult for one to fail to notice a light tilde (cf., e. g., 36, 
 where B has versant for versantur), 
 
 52. Hoc quidem per se non est illicitum. — B had de in 
 place of my conjecture, quidem, and M retains the de but S 
 omits it altogether, apparently as not understanding it. 
 That some word stood between hoc and per in the manu- 
 scripts is indicated by the fact that B has a word there, which 
 is not rejected by M. That de is not the word is evident 
 from its utter lack of sense. What then is the word? 
 I suggest quidem as making good sense (cf. tamen, three lines 
 further on) and as a word from which de could easily be 
 derived {^de). 
 
Critical Introduction. 43 
 
 57. Uhi dicitur quod . . . cunctus populus, qui in ea est, 
 salvahitur. — B, M, and S have dicit, but compare this with 
 mandatur, 35, and prcscipitur, 38, where the same senti- 
 ment is expressed (a paraphrase of Deuteronomy, 20, 10-13), 
 and see my note on infertur, 51, above. 
 
 It might be well to give here also an example or two of 
 instances wherein I have refrained from adopting more 
 logical readings, whether they have been suggested by 
 Mufioz or now occur to me for the first time. 
 
 18. j4d pariendam pacem et securitatem ah hostibus. — ^This 
 is the reading of B. M and S have parandam, which is by 
 far the easier reading. I think that the reading of B ought 
 to be retained, first, because it is the more difficult reading, 
 and secondly, because the same collocation occurs in 48 
 {ad pariendam pacem), where B has pariendam, M has 
 parendum (corrected to parandum in the list of errata prefixed 
 to M), and S has parandam. It is not likely that B would 
 have made the same mistake twice, whereas we know that 
 M occasionally made improvements in the language of the 
 manuscripts.^ S has no value here because its editor never 
 saw the manuscripts. 
 
 20. Communiter enim non contingit quod principes gerant 
 helium mala fide, sed credentes se iustam causam sequi. — B has 
 no negative in this sentence, where one is evidently required. 
 M puts the negative before contingit and in this must have 
 followed the manuscripts, for if there had been no negative 
 in the manuscripts, Munoz would have placed the negative 
 before mala fide, where it logically belongs, since all that 
 
 *Cf. supray p. 33. 
 
44 Victoria s De lure Belli, 
 
 precedes mala fide belongs also to what follows sed. Here 
 I agree with M and S in retaining the more difficult reading. 
 
 33. Stat quod helium sti iustum et licitum per se, illicitum 
 autem Christianis. — B has this reading, which I think ought 
 to be retained, but here again M has substituted the more 
 logical reading {per accidens) for the more difficult reading 
 {Christianis) and in this is followed by S. 
 
 A few words with regard to peculiarities of the three edi- 
 tions I have been able to consult may be worth while. 
 
 All diphthongs are ligatured in B, M, and S. 
 
 When n or mis preceded by a vowel, a tilde is placed over 
 the vowel and the n or m omitted in B, M, and S. 
 
 Initial u is written v and interior v is written u in M. 
 
 The enclitic -que is frequently written ^; in ^ and M, less 
 frequently in S. 
 
 The words qui, quia, and quod, are written in the usual 
 abbreviated form in B and M. 
 
 In compound words, m followed by a dental or guttural 
 becomes n in B, M, and S. 
 
 Joining together of two words by B as if they were con- 
 sidered as one word: r ever a, 4, 19, 38; adhoc, 7, 20; econtra, 7, 
 33> 39; siqua, 9; nosipsos, 21, 60. 
 
 Some spellings peculiar to the time are author, authoritas, 
 etc. {B and M), autor, autoritas, etc. (S); imo {B, M, and S) 
 quatuor {B, M, and S); charitas, charissimi {B, M, and S) 
 caussa (S); fcemina {B, M, and S); ccsteri {B, M, and S) 
 prcelii {B, M, and S); and pcenitere {B, M, and S). 
 
 A peculiarity of syntax that is worth mentioning is the 
 repetition of such words as quod ( = that) and ergo, when a 
 
Critical Introduction. 45 
 
 subordinate clause intervenes between the word and the rest 
 of its clause {e. g., Quo ad ipsos principes, videtur quod, si 
 unus est in legitima possessione, quod, manente dubio, non 
 possit alius hello et armis repetere, 27; Intolerahile esset quod, 
 si Gain agerent prcedas in pecora Hispanorum vel incenderent 
 pagum unum, quod liceret occupare totum regnum Francorum, 
 
 56). 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF WORKS CONSULTED IN 
 
 THE PREPARATION OF THIS 
 
 DISSERTATION. 
 
 I. SOURCES. 
 
 1. Published Editions. 
 
 REVERENDI | PATRIS F. FRANCISCI DE VI|ctoria, ordinis Prsedicatoru, 
 sacrae Theologiae | in Salmanticensi Academia quondam | primarij Profes- 
 soris, Relectiones ] Theologiae XII. in duos | Tomos diuisae: j Quarum 
 seriem uersa pagella indicabit. | SVMMARIIS suis ubique locis adiectis, una 
 cum I INDICE omnium copiosissimo. | (Vignette) \ Lugduni, apud laco- 
 bum Boyerium, \ M. D. LVII. | Cum priuilegio Regis ad decennium. 
 
 REVERENDI ] Patris F. Fracisci Victoriae orjdi. Praed. sacrae Theologiae profes- 
 soris eximij atq; | in Salmaticensi Academia quondam Chatedrae | primariae 
 moderatoris praelectorisq; incoparabijlis Relectiones vndecim. Per R. P, 
 praesentatum | F. Alfonsum Muiioz eiusde ordi. a prodigiosis in|numera- 
 bilibusq; vitijs, quibus Boyeri, hoc est pri|ma aeditio, plena erat summa 
 cura repurga|tae, atq; ad germana exemplaria injtegritati ac sinceritati 
 najtiuae restitutae. | Quarum seriem versa pagella indicabit. | {Vignette) \ 
 SALMANTICiE, I Apud loannem a Canoua. | M. D. LXV. | CVM 
 PRIVILEGIO. 
 
 FRANCISCI de VICTORIA 1 Theologi Hispani celeberrimi | RELECTIONES 1 
 MORALES I Duobus tomis comprehensae, | Quarum seriem versa pagina 
 injdicabit Antea Ingolstadii editae nunc pro|pter exemplarium defectum 
 & rerum nobiltatem ] recognitae & duplice indice ornatae | Opera, | JOH. 
 GEORGII SIMONIS, | J. U. D. Consiliarii & Profess. | Hallensis. | Opus 
 Omnibus tam JureConsultis quam | Theologis imprimis utile. | COLONIZE 
 & FRANCOFVRTI, 1 Sumptibus AUGUSTI BOETII. | M DC XCVI. 
 
 2. Translations. 
 
 Vanderpol, a. La Guerre devant le Christianisme. (Ouvrage suivi d'une traduc- 
 tion du "De lure Belli" de Francois de Victoria). 2™^ Edition. Tralin, 
 Paris, [191 1]. The translation occupies pages 223-274. 
 
 Bate, John Pawley. Relectiones De Indis et De lure Belli, with Introduction by 
 Ernest Nys and Translation of the Text by John Pawley Bate. Carnegie 
 Institution of Washington, Washington, D. C, in press. 
 
 46 
 
Bibliography. 47 
 
 II. WORKS. 
 
 1. General. 
 
 A, Time and Influence. 
 
 Barthelemy, Joseph. Francois de Vitoria. In Les Fondateurs du Droit Inter- 
 national, avec une Introduction de Antoine Pillet. Paris, V. Giard & E. 
 Briere, 1904, pp. 1-36. 
 
 Deschamps, Fernand. La Philosophic Scolastique et la Guerre. In The Dublin 
 Review, vol. 158, no. 317, April, 1916, pp. 230-258. 
 
 Hallam, Henry. Introduction to the Literature of Europe in the fifteenth, six- 
 teenth, and seventeenth centuries. London, n. d. 
 
 Holland, Thomas Erskine. Studies in International Law. Oxford, 1898. 
 
 MoRHOFius, Daniel Georgius. Polyhistor Literarius, Philosophicus et Practicus. 
 Ed. 3, vol. II, Lubeck, 1732. 
 
 Nys, Ernest. Le Droit de la Guerre et les Precurseurs de Grotius. Brussels and 
 Leipzig, C. Muquardt, Merzbach & Falk, 1882. 
 
 Nys, Ernest. Les Origines du Droit International. Brussels, Alfred Castaigne, 
 
 Nys, Ernest. Relectiones De Indis et De lure Belli, with Introduction by Ernest 
 Nys and Translation of the Text by John Pawley Bate. Carnegie Institu- 
 tion of Washington, Washington. D. C, in press. 
 
 Ompteda, Diederich Heinrich Ludwig. Litteratur des gesammten sowohl 
 natiirlichen als positiven Volkerrechts. Ratisbon, Joh. Leop. Montags 
 sel Erben, 1785. 
 
 Perin, Charles. L'Ordre International. Paris, Lecoffre, 1888. 
 
 Vanderpol, a. Le Traite "De Indis" de Francois de Victoria. In Bulletin de la 
 Ligue des Catholiques Fran^ais pour la Paix, No. 13, 3™^ Trim., 1910, pp. 
 
 18-37. 
 Vanderpol, A. Le Droit de Guerre d'apres les Theologiens et les Canonistes du 
 
 Moyen-age. Tralin, Pans, 191 1. 
 Vanderpol, A. La Guerre devant le Christianisme. (Ouvrage suivi d'une traduc- 
 tion du "De lure Belli" de Francois de Victoria), 2™^ Edition. Tralin, 
 
 Paris, [191 ij. 
 Vanderpol, A. Le Droit de Guerre de Francois de Victoria. In Bulletin de la 
 
 Ligue des Catholiques Franfais pour la Paix, No. 20, 2™® Trim., 1912, pp. 
 
 6-23. 
 Walker, Thomas Alfred. A History of the Law of Nations. Vol. I. Cambridge, 
 
 1899. 
 
 B. Language. 
 
 Cooper, F. T. Word Formation in the Roman Sermo Plebeius. New York, 1905. 
 Ducange, Ch. du Fresne. Glossarium ad Scriptores Mediae et Infimae Latinitatis. 
 Paris, C. Osmont, 1733, 6 vols. 
 
48 Bibliography. 
 
 Lewis, Charlton T., and Charles Short. A New Latin Dictionary (Founded 
 on the Translation of Freund's Latin-German Lexicon), Edited by E. A. 
 Andrews. New York, Harper & Bros., 1895. 
 
 Thesaurus Linguae Latinae. Editus Auctoritate et Consilio Academiarum 
 Quinque Germanicarum. Leipzig, Teubner, Vol. I, 1900, Vol. II, 1900- 
 1906; Vol. Ill, 1906-1912; Vol. IV, 1906-1909; Vol. V (five fascicles), 
 1910-1913; Vol, VI (two fascicles), 1913-1915. 
 
 2. Special. 
 
 Antonio, NicoLAUS. Bibliotheca Hispana Nova. Vol.1. Madrid, 1783, pp. 496- 
 
 497- 
 BiBLioGRAPHiE Generale, Nouvelle. Vol. XVIII. Paris, 1858. 
 Catholic Encyclopedia, The. Vol. VI. New York, Robert Appleton Company, 
 
 1909- 
 Dupin, Ellies. Nouvelle Bibliotheque des Auteurs Ecclesiastiques. Vol. XIV. 
 
 Paris, 1703, pp. 172-175. 
 
 Hurter, Hugo. Nomenclator Literarius Theologiae Catholicae, Theologos Exhi- 
 bens Aetate, Natione, Disciplinis Distinctos. Tomus II. Ed. ^ emendata 
 et plurimum aucta. Innsbruck, Wagner, 1906, pp. 1367-1370. 
 
 Quetif, Jacques, et Jacques Echard. Scriptores Ordinis Praedicatorum. Vol. II. 
 Paris, Bullard & Simart, 1721, pp. 128-130. 
 
 TouRON, Antoine. Histoire des Hommes Illustres de I'Ordre de Saint Domi- 
 nique; c'est-a-dire, des Papes, des Cardinaux, des Prelats eminens en 
 Science et en Saintete; des Celebres Docteurs, et des autres grands Per- 
 sonages, qui ont le plus illustre cet Ordre, depuis la Mort du S. Fondateur 
 jusqu'au Pontificat de Benoit XIII. Tome Quatrieme. Paris, Babuty 
 & Quillau, 1747, pp. 55-65. 
 
 Wetzer und Welte's Kirchenlexikon oder Encyklopadie der katholischen Theolo- 
 gie und ihrer Hiilfwissenschaften. (Ed. Hergenrother-Kaulen). Vol. II. 
 Zweite Aufl. Freiburg, 1886, pp. 1837-1839. 
 
 III. TEXTS USED TO VERIFY PASSAGES IN AUTHORS 
 REFERRED TO BY VICTORIA. 
 
 Ambrose, St. Opera. Pars Prima. (Rec. Carolus Schenkl.) Vienna, Tempsky, 
 
 1897. (Corp. Script. Eccles. Lat.) 
 Antoninus, St. Summa Theologica, in Quattuor Partes Distributa. Pars Secunda. 
 
 Verona, Augustinus Carattonius, 1740. 
 Aristotle. Ethica Nicomachea. Ed.^ (Susemihl-Apelt). Leipzig, Teubner, 1912. 
 Aristotle. Politica. (ed. Susemihl-Immisch). Leipzig, Teubner, 1909. 
 Augustine, St. De Civitate Dei Libri XXII. (Rec. et comm. crit. instr. Emanuel 
 
 Hoffman.) Vienna, Tempsky, Vol. I, 1898, Vol. II, 1900. (Corp. Script. 
 
 Eccles. Lat.) 
 
Bibliography. 49 
 
 Augustine, St. De Diversis Quaestionibus LXXXIII Liber Unus. In Patrolo- 
 giae Cursus Completus (ed. Migne), Tomus XL. Paris, Migne, 1845, pp. 
 
 II-IOO. 
 
 Augustine, St. Epistulae. (Rec. et comm. crit. instr. Al. Goldbacher.) Vienna, 
 
 Tempsky, Pars III, 1904, Pars IV, 1911. (Corp. Script. Eccles. Lat.) 
 Augustine, St. Contra Faustum Manichaeum Libri XXIII. In Patrologiae 
 
 Cursus Completus (ed. Migne), Tomus XLII. Paris, Migne, 1845, pp. 
 
 207-518. 
 Augustine, St. Contra Litteras Petiliani Libri Tres. (Rec. M. Petschenig.) 
 
 Vienna, Tempsky, 1909. (Corp. Script. Eccles. Lat.) 
 Augustine, St. Quaestionum in Heptateuchum Libri VII. (Rec. los. Zycha.) 
 
 Vienna, Tempsky, 1895. (Corp. Script. Eccles. Lat.) 
 Augustine, St. Contra Secundinum Liber. (Rec. losephus Zycha.) Vienna, 
 
 Tempsky, 1892. (Corp. Script. Eccles. Lat.) 
 Bartolus. Omnium luris Interpretum Antesignani Commentaria. Tomus Sex- 
 
 tus. Venice, 1590. 
 Cicero. De Officiis. (ed. Miller.) Macmillan, 1913. (Loeb Classical Library.) 
 Corpus Iuris Canonici. Ed. 2 (Richter-Friedberg). Leipzig, Tauschnitz, Vol. I, 
 
 1879, Vol. II, 1 88 1. 
 Corpus Juris Civilis. Vol. I. Ed. " (Krueger-Mommsen). Berlin, Weidmann, 
 
 Horace. Epistulae. In Carmina. (ed. Vollmer.) Leipzig, Teubner, 19 12. 
 Sallust. De Catilinae Coniuratione. Ed. ^ (R. Dietsch). Leipzig, Teubner, 1874. 
 Sylvester. Summa Sylvestrina, quae Summa Summarum merito nuncupatur. 
 
 (ed. Petrus Vendramenus.) Venice, Hieronymus & Nicolaus Polus, 1601. 
 Terence. Eunuchus. In Opera. Vol. I. (ed. R. Klotz.) Leipzig, Schwickert, 
 
 1838. 
 Tertullian. De corona. In Patrologiae Cursus Completus (ed. Migne), Tomus 
 
 II. Paris, Migne, 1845, pp. 74-102. 
 Thomas Aquinas, St. Opera Omnia, (ed. Frette.) Paris, L. Vives, 1871-1880, 
 
 34 vols. 
 Tedeschi, Nicol6. Commentaria Primae Partis in Secundum Librum Decreta- 
 
 lium. Venice, 1588. 
 
INDEX OF AUTHORS REFERRED TO BY 
 VICTORIA. 
 
 [All of the references in the text have been verified in the original texts of the 
 authors cited, except those of Guido de Baysio and Pope Adrian VI, to whose works 
 I had not access. In the list below, the numbers outside of the parentheses indi- 
 cate the passages referred to by Victoria, the numbers inside of the parentheses 
 indicate the propositions of the De lure Belli in which the citation is to be found. 
 Prooem. ( = prooemium) indicates all that portion of the De lure Belli which pre- 
 cedes proposition i.] 
 
 Adrian VI, Pope, QucEstiones quodlibetias, (51); 2, 2(30) 
 Ambrose, St., (56) 
 
 De patriarchisy i, 3 (51) 
 Antoninus, St., of Florence (quoted as Archiepiscopus), Summa, 
 
 II, 7. 8, I (4) 
 Aquinas, Thomas, St., see Thomas Aquinas, St. 
 Archidiaconus, see de Baysio, Guido. 
 Archiepiscopus, see Antoninus, St. 
 Aristotle, Ethics, 2, 6 (20) 
 
 Politics, I, 3-4 (12); 3, I (5); 4, 10 (12) 
 Augustine, St., De civitate Dei, 5 (56) 
 
 De diver sis qucestionihus LXXXIII, 31, i (i) 
 
 EpistulcE, 138, 15 (i); 189, 4 (i); 189, 6 (i) 
 
 Contra Faustum Manichceum, 22, 74-75 (i); 22, 75 (6, 31) 
 
 Contra litter as Petiliani, 2, 43 (51) 
 
 Qucestiones in Heptateuchum, 6, 10 (i, 13) 
 
 Contra Secundinum, 10 (i) 
 
 Sermones, 82 (i) 
 Bartolus, of Sassoferato, On Digest, 48, 8, 9 (4); 48, 19, i (4); 49, 
 
 15. 28 (51) 
 de Baysio, Guido, of Bologna (quoted as Archidiaconus), On 
 
 Decretum, II, 23, 2, 2 (51) 
 Cicero, De officiis, 2, 5 (47) 
 Corpus luris Canonici: 
 
 Decretum, I, i, 9 (51); I, 4, 2 (12); II, 23, i, 2 (i); II, 23, i, 
 3 (i); II, 23, I, 4 (i, 6, 31); II, 23, I, 5 (i); II, 23, 2, 
 2 (i, 13); II, 23, 5, 25 (51); II, 23, 7, 2 (51) 
 
 Decretales, II, 13, 12 (4); IV, 21, 2 (30); V, 39, 44 (30) 
 
 Liber Sextus, 5, 11, 6 (4) 
 
 so 
 
Index. 51 
 
 Corpus luris Civilis: 
 
 Institutiones, 2, i, 17 (51) 
 
 Digesta, i, i, 3 (i, 3); 47, 10, 15 (4); 48, 8, 9 (4); 48, 19, 10 
 (4); 49, 15, 24 (51); 49, 15, 28 (51) 
 Hadrian, see Adrian VI, Pope. 
 Hieronymus, see Jerome, St. 
 Horace, Epistulce, i, 2, 14 (60) 
 Isidore, St., of Seville, Etymologice, V, 6 (12) 
 Jerome, St. (56) 
 New Testament : 
 
 St. James, i, 25 (i), 2, 12 (i) 
 
 S^. /o/in, 19, 15 (26) 
 
 S^. L^^^, 3, 14 (i); 20, 25 (56) 
 
 St. Matthewy 5, 39 (prooem.); 12, 18 (60); 13, 29-30 (37); 18, 
 7 (48); 22, 21 (56); 26, 52 (prooem.) 
 
 i^owflWj,i,32(22);i2, 19 (prooem.) ;i3, 1-7(56); I3» 4 (i» 13); 
 14,23 (23); 15, 4 (34) 
 Old Testament: 
 
 Deuteronomy, 20, 10-14 (35. 3^, 45» 4^, 5^, 57); 20, 14 (51); 
 25, 2 (14, 48) 
 
 Exodus, 23, 7 (35) 
 
 Genesis, 14, 13 (i, 51) 
 
 /oj^^^, 6, 21 (34) 
 
 / Zingj, 6, 21 (34) 
 
 / Machahees, 9, 35-41 (i) 
 
 Psalms, 81, 4 (i) 
 Panormitanus, j^^ Tedeschi, Nicold. 
 Sallust, De Catilince coniuratione, 12 (47); 51 (21) 
 Sylvester, of Prierio, Summa Summarum, s. v. bellum, i, 9, 2 (51) 
 
 1.9.3 (33); I. 10,3 (40,52) 
 Terence, Eunuchus, IV, 7, 19 (21) 
 Tertullian, De corona, 1 1 (prooem.) 
 Thomas Aquinas, St., De regimine principum, 3, 13 (56) 
 
 Summa theologica, II, i, 107, 4 (i); II, ii, 40, i (i, 13); II, 
 ii, 66, 8 (10) 
 Tedeschi, Nicolo, On Decretals, II, 13, 12, 17 (4) 
 
VITA. 
 
 The author of this dissertation was bom in Washington, 
 D. C, March 28, 1892, and received his primary education 
 in the pubHc schools, his high school education in the George- 
 town College Preparatory School (1903-1907), and his col- 
 lege education at Georgetown University (1907-1911), 
 from which institution he received the degree of Bachelor 
 of Arts in June, 191 1. Since October, 191 1, he has been a 
 graduate student at the Catholic University of America 
 under Rev. Dr. John Damen Maguire (Latin Language and 
 Literature), Dr. George Melville Boiling (Greek Language 
 and Literature and Comparative Philology), Dr. John 
 Bartholomew O'Connor (Greek Language and Literature), 
 and Rev. Dr. Thomas Edward Shields (Education), receiving 
 the degree of Master of Arts in June, 191 2. 
 
 S2 
 
RETURN TO the circulation desk of any 
 University of California Library 
 
 or to the 
 
 NORTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 BIdg. 400, Richmond Field Station 
 University of California 
 Richmond, CA 94804-4698 
 
 ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS 
 
 • 2-month loans may be renewed by calling 
 (510)642-6753 
 
 • 1-year loans may be recharged by bringing 
 books to NRLF 
 
 • Renewals and recharges may be made 
 4 days prior to due date 
 
 DUE AS STAMPED BELOW 
 
 SEP 1 2005 
 
 DD20 12M 1-05 
 
 LD 21-100m-7,'33 
 
Gaylord Bros. 
 
 Makers 
 
 Syracuse, N. Y. 
 
 PAT. JAN. 21, 1908 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY