← Back to Distinction 39

Dist. 39, Art. 2, Q. 2

Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 39

Textus Latinus
The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation. Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering on each printed page; the markers here are renumbered continuously across the chunk. This quaestio opens a fresh per-page footer band at p.870 (nothing is carried over from a2-q1).
p. 870

Quaestio II. Utrum liceat iurare per aliquod creatum.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum liceat iurare per aliquod creatum. Et quod non, videtur:

1. Primo per ipsum textum Matthaei quinto1: Nolite iurare neque per caelum, quia thronus Dei est, neque per terram etc.; ibi Glossa: «Quod perfectionis est docuit, cum dixit: Non iurare omnino; quod vero superstitiosum est resecavit, cum subiunxit: Neque per caelum» etc.: ergo iurare per creaturam est superstitiosum; sed nihil tale est licitum: ergo etc.

2. Item, Pius Papa, Causa vigesima secunda, quaestione prima2: «Si quis per capillum Dei vel caput iuraverit, si in ecclesiastico ordine est, deponatur, si laicus, anathematizetur»: si ergo illicitum est iurare per membra Christi, cum ipsa sint sanctiora omnibus aliis creaturis; videtur, quod per nullam aliam liceat iurare.

3. Item, iurare per Deum est invocare Deum testem3, ergo iurare per creaturam est invocare creaturam in testimonium; sed irrationalis creatura non potest aliquo modo veritati testimonium perhibere: ergo stultum et vanum et inconveniens est per ipsam iurare.

4. Item, qui iurat per idolum committit idololatriam, et hoc non est ob aliud, nisi quia in iurando exhibet idolo quod debet exhibere Deo4: ergo iuratio spectat ad cultum latriae, qui debetur soli Maiestati divinae; sed constat, quod non est licitum creaturam aliquam venerari cultu latriae: ergo nullo modo est licitum per creaturam iurare.

Sed contra: 1. Genesis quadragesimo secundo5, Ioseph iuravit per salutem Pharaonis: si ergo ipse tanquam sanctus homo licitum iuramentum fecit, et salus Pharaonis erat quid creatum; videtur, quod per creaturam iurare sit licitum et concessum.

2. Item, Paulus primae ad Corinthios decimo quinto6: Quotidie morior, per vestram gloriam, fratres; ubi, secundum quod dicit Augustinus, iuravit Apostolus; sed gloria eorum erat quid creatum: ergo etc.

3. Item, forma iuramenti, qua maxime utitur universitas fidelium, est iurare per sancta Dei Evangelia7: sed Evangelium est quid creatum: ergo licitum est iurare per creaturam.

4. Item, quotidie fideles iurant per Sanctos, utpote per beatam Virginem et per beatum Petrum; nec illud iuramentum arguitur: ergo videtur, quod forma iuramenti licita non solum habeat fieri per Creatorem, sed etiam per creaturam.

Iuxta hoc quaeritur: quare magis iuratur per Evangelia quam per creaturas alias? — Quaeritur etiam, utrum qui iurat falsum per lapidem sit periurus. Et quod non, videtur, quia lapidi nulla est exhibenda reverentia. Contrarium autem huius dicit Augustinus super illud ad Romanos primo: Testis est mihi Deus, et habetur in littera8. — Quaeritur ergo, quomodo et qualiter liceat iurare per creaturam.

Conclusio.

Iurare per creaturas, et quidem per omnes, licite fieri potest duobus modis.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod iuramentum assertorium dupliciter habet9 fieri: quoddam per imprecationem, quoddam per ipsius Veritatis testimonii invocationem. — Per imprecationem autem iuratur, cum dicitur: ita vivat filius meus, vel pater, hoc est dicere: nisi ego implevero quod promitto, vel nisi implevero quod iuro, non vivat filius vel pater meus. Et in hac forma iurandi creatura ad testificandum non invocatur, sed potius ipsi Creatori «oppigneratur», secundum quod dicit Augustinus10. Et hoc quidem est licitum, quia, quamvis omnis creatura sit ipsius Creatoris, tamen bonum vel solatium, quod ex creatura percipimus et a Deo nobis concessum est, Deo tanquam nostrum oppignerare possumus; et ideo licita est haec forma, licet «hoc iuramenti genus, secundum quod dicit Augustinus in littera11, sit gravissimum».

p. 871

Illud vero iuramentum fit per ipsius Veritatis testimonii invocationem, quando aliquis iurat per aliquem ad invocandum illum in testem. Potest autem creatura dupliciter advocari12 in testimonium: aut secundum se, aut in quantum est vestigium Veritatis divinae. Si secundum se, hoc modo non licet, quia sic crederetur, quod aliquid numinis esset in ea, ratione cuius veritas dicti possit per huiusmodi testimonium confirmari. Secundo vero modo, in quantum in ea relucet vestigium divinae Veritatis, licitum est iurare per creaturam. Hoc enim nihil aliud est quam iurare per eum qui in creatura relucet; et tunc non veneratur quis creaturam, sed Creatorem. Unde sicut «honor, qui exhibetur imagini, refertur ad prototypum», id est ad exemplar primum, sicut dicit Damascenus13; ita hoc modo iuratio facta per creaturam refertur ad ipsarum creaturarum auctorem. Et hoc est quod dicitur Causa vigesima secunda, quaestione prima14: «Sciendum est, quod Sancti non tam per creaturas quam per creaturarum auctorem iurabant, nec in creaturis aliud quam ipsarum Creatorem venerabantur, sicut Ioseph, qui per Pharaonem iurando hoc in eo venerabatur, quod Dei iudicio positus erat in infimis». Et quoniam in omni creatura isto modo relucet Deus, per omnem creaturam licite potest fieri hoc modo iuramentum15. Quia vero principaliter relucet in Sanctis, et maxime in verbis evangelicae Legis, per quae divina nobis Veritas illuxit; hinc est, quod per Sanctos, et maxime per Evangelia consuevit frequentari forma iurationis, qua quidem iuratur per creaturam. — Concedendum est igitur, quod per creaturam licitum est iurare, sive imprecando, sive Creatorem eius in testimonium invocando. Et sic procedunt rationes ad hanc partem inductae16.

Ad argumenta in oppositum: Ad 1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur in contrarium, quod Dominus prohibet iuramentum per creaturas, et Glossa dicit, illud iuramentum esse superstitiosum; dicendum, quod hoc intelligitur, secundum quod ipsae creaturae secundum se consideratae in veritatis testimonium invocantur; et hoc modo est ibi superstitio, quia eis reverentia ultra debitum exhibetur. Et quantum ad hoc intelligi habet17 Glossa et textus.

Ad 2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de auctoritate Pii Papae, dicendum, quod canon loquitur contra illos qui credebant, Deum secundum divinitatem habere caput et capillos — et tales erant blasphemi — aut certe contra illos qui irreverenter nominant membra Christi et quodam exquisito modo iurandi dividunt ipsum quasi membratim; qui valde rationabiliter sunt arguendi.

Ad 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod qui iurat per aliquid invocat ipsum in testimonium; dicendum, quod illud non est semper verum, immo aliquando invocat ipsum in testimonium, aliquando non ipsum invocat, sed illud potius18, ad quod ipsum refertur: vel etiam obligat et Deo oppignerat. Et his modis, non praemissis, licitum est et concessum iurare per irrationalem creaturam.

Ad 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod qui iurat per idolum veneratur ipsum; dicendum, quod hoc est, quia ille qui iurat per idolum, invocat ipsum in testimonium tanquam Deum; et propterea est ibi idololatriae peccatum. Non sic autem est, quando iurat per alias creaturas, quia iuramentum illud refertur totum ad Veritatem aeternam.

Ad illud vero quod ulterius quaeritur: quare magis iuratur per Evangelia quam per alias creaturas; iam patet responsio per ea quae dicta sunt. Sicut enim crucem Christi magis veneramur, propter hoc quod magis refertur ad ipsum Crucifixum; et Sanctos, quia quadam maiori propinquitate se habent ad Deum19: sic etiam intelligendum est in ipsis Evangeliis, quae directe et immediate ducunt in ipsam aeternam Veritatem. — Et si tu obiicias, quod licet creatura ducat in Creatorem, tamen propter hoc non quaelibet creatura est adoranda, sed illa sola, quae est ad hoc instituta, sicut imago Crucifixi; dicendum, quod non est simile: quia exhibitio honoris et20 cultus latriae respicit illud quod honoratur, secundum illud quod est in eo dignissimum, et hoc est proprium et singulare; sed invocatio in assertione respicit ipsius Veritatis infallibilitatem et luminositatem; et haec in singulis creaturis relucet, sed secundum plus et minus. Ideo non est simile hinc et inde.

Ad illud quod quaeritur, utrum ille qui iurat falsum per lapidem, sit periurus; dicendum, quod sic, secundum quod dicit Augustinus: quoniam iurans per lapidem aut intendit ipsi lapidi reverentiam exhibere, aut auctori lapidis. Et si ipsi lapidi intendat reverentiam exhibere, dupliciter peccat21; si vero auctori lapidis, tunc absque dubio peierat,

p. 872

quia ipsi Creatori lapidis contumeliam facit, dum nomen eius per effectum creaturae intellectum assumit in vanum. — Si quis tamen non serio iuraret, sed quodam modo ludere intenderet, sicut mos est aliquibus per bottas22 suas iurare; non esset dicendum periurium, quia iurare non intendit, sed potius ludere; est tamen talis modus loquendi satis reprehensibilis et caveri debet a viris perfectis23.

---

English Translation
The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation.
p. 870

Question II. Whether it is lawful to swear by some created thing.

Secondly it is asked whether it is lawful to swear by some created thing. And that it is not seems [to be the case]:

1. First, by the very text of Matthew, chapter five1: Do not swear, neither by heaven, for it is the throne of God, nor by the earth etc.; there the Gloss says: «What belongs to perfection He taught when He said: Do not swear at all; but what is superstitious He cut away when He added: Neither by heaven» etc.: therefore to swear by a creature is superstitious; but nothing of that sort is lawful: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, Pope Pius, Cause twenty-two, question one2: «If anyone swears by the hair of God or by [His] head, if he is in an ecclesiastical order, let him be deposed; if a layman, let him be anathematized»: if therefore it is unlawful to swear by the members of Christ, since they are holier than all other creatures; it seems that it is lawful to swear by no other [creature].

3. Likewise, to swear by God is to call God to witness3; therefore to swear by a creature is to call a creature into testimony; but an irrational creature cannot in any way bear witness to truth: therefore it is foolish and vain and unfitting to swear by it.

4. Likewise, whoever swears by an idol commits idolatry, and this is for no other reason than that in swearing he renders to the idol what he ought to render to God4: therefore the act of swearing pertains to the worship of latria, which is owed to the divine Majesty alone; but it is established that it is not lawful to venerate any creature with the worship of latria: therefore in no way is it lawful to swear by a creature.

On the contrary: 1. In Genesis chapter forty-two5, Joseph swore by the welfare of Pharaoh: if therefore he, as a holy man, made a lawful oath, and the welfare of Pharaoh was something created; it seems that to swear by a creature is lawful and permitted.

2. Likewise, Paul, in First Corinthians chapter fifteen6: I die daily, by your glory, brethren; where, according to what Augustine says, the Apostle swore; but their glory was something created: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, the form of oath which the whole body of the faithful most uses is to swear by the holy Gospels of God7: but the Gospel is something created: therefore it is lawful to swear by a creature.

4. Likewise, every day the faithful swear by the Saints, namely by the blessed Virgin and by blessed Peter; nor is such an oath censured: therefore it seems that the lawful form of oath may be made not only by the Creator, but also by a creature.

In connection with this it is asked: why is it sworn rather by the Gospels than by other creatures? — It is also asked whether one who swears falsely by a stone is a perjurer. And that he is not seems [to be the case], because no reverence is to be rendered to a stone. But the contrary of this Augustine says, on that passage to the Romans, chapter one: God is my witness, and it is found in the [Master's] text8. — It is asked therefore how and in what manner it is lawful to swear by a creature.

Conclusion.

To swear by creatures — and indeed by all of them — can be done lawfully in two ways.

I respond: It must be said that an assertory oath can9 be made in two ways: one by imprecation, the other by the invocation of the testimony of Truth itself. — By imprecation one swears when it is said: so may my son live, or my father — that is to say: unless I fulfill what I promise, or unless I fulfill what I swear, may my son or my father not live. And in this form of swearing a creature is not called to bear witness, but rather is «pledged» to the Creator Himself, according to what Augustine says10. And this indeed is lawful, because, although every creature is the Creator's own, nevertheless the good or comfort which we receive from a creature and which has been granted to us by God, we can pledge to God as our own; and therefore this form is lawful, although «this kind of oath, according to what Augustine says in the [Master's] text11, is most grave».

p. 871

But that oath is made by the invocation of the testimony of Truth itself, when someone swears by another in order to call him as witness. Now a creature can be called12 into testimony in two ways: either in itself, or insofar as it is a vestige of divine Truth. If in itself, in this way it is not lawful, because thus it would be believed that there is something of the divine in it, by reason of which the truth of the statement could be confirmed by such testimony. But in the second way, insofar as the vestige of divine Truth shines forth in it, it is lawful to swear by a creature. For this is nothing other than to swear by Him who shines forth in the creature; and then one does not venerate the creature, but the Creator. Hence just as «the honor which is shown to an image is referred to the prototype», that is, to the first exemplar, as Damascene says13; so in this way the oath made by a creature is referred to the author of the creatures themselves. And this is what is said in Cause twenty-two, question one14: «It must be known that the Saints swore not so much by creatures as by the author of creatures, nor did they venerate in creatures anything other than their Creator, as Joseph, who in swearing by Pharaoh venerated this in him, that by God's judgment he had been set over the lowest». And since in every creature God shines forth in this way, by every creature an oath can lawfully be made in this manner15. But because He shines forth principally in the Saints, and most of all in the words of the evangelical Law, through which the divine Truth has shone upon us; hence it is that the form of swearing by which one swears by a creature has come to be used through the Saints, and most of all through the Gospels. — It must therefore be granted that it is lawful to swear by a creature, whether by imprecation, or by invoking its Creator into testimony. And thus proceed the arguments adduced for this side16.

To the arguments on the contrary: To 1. To that which is first objected on the contrary, that the Lord prohibits oaths by creatures, and the Gloss says that such an oath is superstitious; it must be said that this is understood according as the creatures themselves, considered in themselves, are called into the testimony of truth; and in this way there is superstition there, because reverence beyond what is due is shown to them. And as to this the Gloss and the text are to be understood17.

To 2. To that which is objected from the authority of Pope Pius, it must be said that the canon speaks against those who believed that God according to His divinity has a head and hairs — and such men were blasphemers — or else against those who irreverently name the members of Christ and by a certain elaborate manner of swearing divide Him as it were member by member; who are very reasonably to be censured.

To 3. To that which is objected, that whoever swears by something calls it into testimony; it must be said that this is not always true, but rather sometimes he calls it into testimony, sometimes he does not call it, but rather that18 to which it is referred: or he even binds himself and pledges [it] to God. And in these ways, not the aforesaid, it is lawful and permitted to swear by an irrational creature.

To 4. To that which is objected, that whoever swears by an idol venerates it; it must be said that this is so because the one who swears by an idol calls it into testimony as God; and therefore the sin of idolatry is there. But it is not so when one swears by other creatures, because that oath is referred wholly to the eternal Truth.

But to that which is further asked, why one swears rather by the Gospels than by other creatures; the response is already plain from what has been said. For just as we venerate the cross of Christ the more, for the reason that it is the more referred to the Crucified Himself; and the Saints, because they have a certain greater nearness to God19: so also it must be understood in the Gospels themselves, which directly and immediately lead into the eternal Truth itself. — And if you object that, although a creature leads to the Creator, yet for this reason not just any creature is to be adored, but only that which has been instituted for this, like the image of the Crucified; it must be said that it is not similar: because the showing of honor and20 of the worship of latria regards that which is honored according to that which is most worthy in it, and this is proper and singular; but invocation in an assertion regards the infallibility and luminosity of Truth itself; and this shines forth in individual creatures, but according to more and less. Therefore it is not similar on the one side and the other.

To that which is asked, whether the one who swears falsely by a stone is a perjurer; it must be said that he is, according to what Augustine says: since one swearing by a stone either intends to show reverence to the stone itself, or to the author of the stone. And if he intends to show reverence to the stone itself, he sins doubly21; but if to the author of the stone, then without doubt he perjures himself,

p. 872

because he does insult to the Creator of the stone himself, while he takes up His name, understood through the effect of the creature, in vain. — Yet if someone were not to swear in earnest, but intended in a certain way to jest, as is the custom for some to swear by their bottas22; it ought not to be called perjury, because he does not intend to swear, but rather to jest; nevertheless such a manner of speaking is sufficiently reprehensible and ought to be avoided by perfect men23.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Vers. 34. seq. — Glossa, quae apud Strabum et Lyranum invenitur ut ordinaria in v. 37, sumta est ex Paschasio Radberto, in hunc locum, qui dicit: Sed Dominus docuit quod perfectius est, indulsit quod infirmitatis, resecavit quod superstitiosum erat et noxium. — Inferius pro sed nihil tale est licitum cod. F sed omne tale est vitium.
    Verses 34 ff. — The Gloss, which is found in Strabus and Lyranus as the ordinaria on v. 37, is taken from Paschasius Radbertus on this passage, who says: But the Lord taught what is more perfect, conceded what belongs to weakness, cut away what was superstitious and harmful. — Below, for but nothing of that sort is lawful codex F has but everything of that sort is a fault.
  2. Can. Si quis 10, ubi textus originalis post iuraverit interserit vel alio modo blasphemia contra Deum usus fuerit.
    Canon Si quis 10, where the original text, after swears, inserts or has in some other way used blasphemy against God.
  3. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 7. — Inferius pro stultum cod. A fatuum.
    Cf. here the Master's text, c. 7. — Below, for foolish codex A has silly.
  4. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 8. — De latria cfr. supra d. 9. per totam.
    See here the Master's text, c. 8. — On latria cf. above, d. 9, throughout.
  5. Vers. 15.
    Verse 15.
  6. Vers. 31, ubi codd. et edd. male propter pro per. — Verba August., Serm. 180. (alias 28, de Verbis Apostoli) c. 5. n. 5, sunt: Ut noveritis, verum iurare non esse peccatum, invenimus et apostolum Paulum iurasse: Quotidie morior, per vestram gloriam, fratres, quam habeo in Christo Iesu Domino nostro. Per vestram gloriam iuratio est.
    Verse 31, where the codices and editions wrongly have propter for per. — The words of Augustine, Sermon 180 (otherwise 28, On the Words of the Apostle) c. 5, n. 5, are: That you may know that to swear truly is not a sin, we find that the apostle Paul too swore: I die daily, by your glory, brethren, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord. «By your glory» is an oath.
  7. Cfr. August., Epist. 250. (alias 75.) n. 1.
    Cf. Augustine, Letter 250 (otherwise 75) n. 1.
  8. Hic c. 7. — Textus Scripturae est Rom. I, 9.
    Here c. 7. — The text of Scripture is Romans 1, 9.
  9. Cod. K potest. Edd. I, 2 cum pluribus codd. pro imprecationem perperam substituunt interpretationem, et pro invocationem nonnulli codd. invectionem. Inferius post vivat cod. A subnectit mihi.
    Codex K potest (can). Editions 1 and 2, with several codices, wrongly substitute interpretationem for imprecationem, and for invocationem some codices have invectionem. Below, after vivat codex A appends mihi.
  10. Serm. 180. (alias 28. de Verbis Apostoli) c. 6. n. 7. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 7.
    Sermon 180 (otherwise 28, On the Words of the Apostle) c. 6, n. 7. Cf. here the Master's text, c. 7.
  11. Hic c. 7.
    Here c. 7.
  12. Cod. G invocari. Inferius pro numinis edd. divinum.
    Codex G invocari (be called). Below, for numinis the editions have divinum.
  13. Libr. IV. de Fide orthod. c. 16. Cfr. supra pag. 202, nota 2. — Mox pro auctorem codd. scribunt actorem, codd. A U Z bb substituunt Creatorem.
    Book IV, On the Orthodox Faith, c. 16. Cf. above, p. 202, note 2. — Soon, for author the codices write actorem; codices A U Z bb substitute Creatorem.
  14. Can. Movet te. § 2. Sed sciendum. Pro venerabatur cod. bb cum textu originali veneratus est, plures alii codd. veneratur. Finem testimonii permulti codd. corrupte exhibent his verbis praepositus erat et infimus (alias: Memphis).
    Canon Movet te, § 2, Sed sciendum. For venerabatur codex bb, with the original text, has veneratus est; many other codices veneratur. The end of the testimony very many codices corruptly give in these words: praepositus erat et infimus (otherwise: Memphis).
  15. Isai. 65, 16: Qui iurat in terra iurabit in Deo: Amen. — Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 5.
    Isaiah 65, 16: He who swears on the earth shall swear by God: Amen. — Cf. here the Master's text, c. 5.
  16. Codd. F L U V Z adductae.
    Codices F L U V Z adductae (adduced).
  17. Cod. G potest, cod. K oportet.
    Codex G potest, codex K oportet.
  18. Ex codd. U Z supplevimus potius; multi codd. substituunt sed propter [proprie?] illud; edd. I, 2 cum paucis codd. legunt aliquando vero ipsum invocat, sed propter illud. Mox pro et Deo cod. U quod Deo. Subinde pro Et his modis, non [codd. K M O nunc] praemissis Vat. Ex his modis praemissis.
    From codices U Z we have supplied potius; many codices substitute sed propter [proprie?] illud; editions 1 and 2, with a few codices, read aliquando vero ipsum invocat, sed propter illud (but sometimes he does call it, yet on account of that). Soon, for et Deo codex U has quod Deo. Then, for Et his modis, non [codices K M O nunc] praemissis, the Vatican edition has Ex his modis praemissis.
  19. Cfr. supra d. 9. n. I. q. 3. seq. — Inferius verbis in ipsis Evangeliis permulti codd. praemittunt et.
    Cf. above, d. 9, art. 1, q. 3 ff. — Below, before the words in ipsis Evangeliis very many codices prefix et.
  20. Pro et, quod edd. omittunt, cod. X vel.
    For et (and), which the editions omit, codex X has vel (or).
  21. Peccato scil. idololatriae et periurii. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 7. et 8, ubi etiam verba August. allegantur. — Athenienses dicuntur consuevisse ad lapidem quendam iuramenta facere, cuius consuetudinis mentionem facit Demosthenes, Orat. in Cononem, his verbis: καὶ πρὸς λίθον ἄγοντες καὶ ἐξορκοῦντες, i. e. et ad lapidem agentes et iurantes. Apud Ciceronem, VII. Epist., epist. 12. notatur formula: Iovem lapidem iurare. Festus docet, Romanos iurasse, lapidem tenentes et proiicientes his verbis: Si sciens fallo, tum me Diespiter, salva urbe arceque, bonis eiiciat, uti ego hunc lapidem. Cfr. August., de Vera Relig. c. 2. n. 2; ubi loquitur de Socratis consuetudine iurandi per quamlibet creaturam.
    That is, with the sin of idolatry and of perjury. Cf. here the Master's text, c. 7 and 8, where the words of Augustine are also cited. — The Athenians are said to have been accustomed to make oaths at a certain stone, a custom mentioned by Demosthenes, Oration against Conon, in these words: καὶ πρὸς λίθον ἄγοντες καὶ ἐξορκοῦντες, that is, leading [him] to the stone and making [him] swear. In Cicero, Letters VII, letter 12, the formula is noted: to swear by Jupiter-Stone. Festus teaches that the Romans swore holding and throwing down a stone, in these words: If I knowingly deceive, then may Diespiter, the city and citadel being preserved, cast me out from my goods, as I [cast] this stone. Cf. Augustine, On True Religion c. 2, n. 2, where he speaks of Socrates' custom of swearing by any creature whatever.
  22. Du Cange, Glossarium etc.: Bota, Botta i. e. ocrea. — Mox pro non esset, quod habent codd. A H Z bb, in aliis non est; nostra lectio confirmatur incongrua lectione plurium codd. non esse. Subinde pro loquendi cod. K ludendi, et cod. V timeri pro caveri.
    Du Cange, Glossarium etc.: Bota, Botta, i.e. ocrea (a boot/greave). — Soon, for non esset, which codices A H Z bb have, in others non est; our reading is confirmed by the incongruous reading of several codices non esse. Then, for loquendi codex K has ludendi, and codex V timeri for caveri.
  23. Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.
    See the scholion to the preceding question. ---
← Dist. 39, Art. 2, Q. 1Dist. 39, Art. 2, Q. 3→