Tatsushi Genka:

Some critical comments on the rubric of C. 15 q. 1 c. 8 of Gratian's Decretum^*

I. Introduction
II. Problems of the Friedberg edition - An illustration
III. The Lachmann method and Friedberg's editorial framework
IV. Difficulties involved in interpreting a living text
V. Conclusion
Appendix 1. The manuscripts and the abbreviations used in this article
Appendix 2. The rubrics of the C. 15 q. 1

I. Introduction

In C. 15 q. 1 of his Decretum, Gratian discusses the case of a priest who suffered from mental disorder and killed someone¹. Gratian asks if the priest should be held responsible for his act². The answer is clear enough: the priest should not be held responsible³. What is not so clear is the way Gratian reached this conclusion. The present paper discusses this problem by focusing on the rubric of C. 15 q. 1 c. 8, for which there are two important variants in the manuscript tradition.

In the following I first ask a question whether the current edition, i.e. the one edited by Emil Friedberg in 1879, is useful for a reader to know Gratian's way of thinking in C. 15 q. 1. It may seem superfluous to ask this question at all, because the weaknesses of the Friedberg edition have been widely known ever since Stephan Kuttner published his article "De Gratiani opere noviter edendo" in 1948⁴. This edition is still used just because a new critical edition is still far out of our reach. However, there is also an argument which calls the very need of a new edition itself into question, the argument that a new "critical" edition, the enormous work involved notwithstanding, would not be much different from the Friedberg edition⁵. Therefore, a reader must first assess the reliability of this edition.

If the Friedberg edition turns out to be unreliable, we lose a practical solution to the textual problems of the Decretum, and any attempt to know Gratian's way of thinking remains precarious, because there are no criteria for choosing manuscripts on which a reader's interpretation should be based. However, I believe an attempt is still worth making even with a small number of manuscripts chosen more or less arbitrarily, because only through such an attempt will we come to know precisely what kind of difficulties we face⁶.

II. Problems of the Friedberg edition - An illustration

C. 15 q. 1 c. 8 was incorporated into the Decretum in the second recension⁷ from the pseudo-Ivonian collection Tripartita B (Trip. 3. 18. 4)⁸. The text in the Friedberg edition is as follows:

(R) Inobedientia uel concupiscentia non habet culpam in corpore non consentientis.

(I) Item Augustinus I. lib. de ciuitate Dei.

Si concupiscentia uel inobedientia, que adhuc in membris moribundis habitat, preter nostrae uoluntatis legem quasi lege sua mouetur, si absque culpa est in corpore dormientis, quanto magis absque culpa est in corpore non consentientis⁹.

This Chapter provides that a person is without guilt (absque culpa) if he/she did not give consent to concupiscence which went out of control, because even a person who is asleep, that is, someone who does not even try to resist concupiscence, is without guilt (sine culpa). This text has originally nothing to do with criminal responsibility of a man who killed someone in his insanity. In fact the same text is found in the formal source (fons formalis) in the section entitled De nocturna illusione (Trip. 3. 18).

According to Friedberg's footnote to the last word of the rubric consentientis, four of his eight manuscripts (BDEH), including one of his best manuscripts (B), have a variant reading sentientis¹⁰. This means that the other four (ACFG) including the other best manuscript (A) should have consentientis. Therefore, there is just as much evidence for sentientis as for consentientis. The question is how Friedberg made his decision and whether it can be justified.

As can be seen from the underlined parts of the text, the rubric is a combination of the first and the last part of the auctoritas. It is common for Gratian to formulate his rubrics by using parts of auctoritates. Also this particular rubric with the reading consentientis seems to represent the auctoritas precisely. Even the editors of the official edition of the Catholic Church, the editio romana (1582), and the others ever since have chosen consentientis.

However, the auctoritas also says that a person who is asleep is without guilt ([...] si absque culpa est in corpore dormientis [...]), so that sentientis too reflects the contents of the text, even if it gives a different emphasis. It is also a common practice of Gratian to use rubrics to give different meanings to the texts from the ones they might originally have had. Finally, if one considers Chapters 7¹¹ and 9¹², sentientis may be regarded as more suitable than consentientis, as the following rubrics show (Friedberg's readings are indicated by asterisk. For the manuscripts used and the variant readings of the rubrics see Appendices 1 and 2.):

c.7 Veniam habent que ignorantes ebrii committunt* (= the major tradition)

veniam] venia (Fd) Mk

que] quando Cd, qui Cg Fd Hl Md, quem Mz, que u[eni]a Sb(ac)

ignorantes] ignorant[er?] Cd Fd In Md Mm

ebrii] per ebrietatem Cg

committunt] committuntur Pk(ac)

Qui per ebrietatem delinquerit uenia donatur Sa

c.9 Loth non de incestu sed de ebrietate culpatur* (= the major tradition)

incestu] incestis Aa Me, incestus Hk

sed] et Hk

de ebrietate] ebrietate Hl

Loth culpandus est tantum quantum ad ebrietatem Sa

There are many variant readings, and two of the manuscripts clearly show signs of efforts to achieve more precision¹³ or succinctness¹⁴, but the major manuscript tradition agrees with the Friedberg edition. As these rubrics show, Gratian uses these texts to prove that the drunken perpetrator, i.e. non sentiens, cannot be held responsible for his/her acts. If one may assume that these Chapters make a coherent argument, it is plausible to opt for sentientis in Chapter 8.

As is clear from these considerations, there are good grounds for consentientis as well as for sentientis. Therefore, let us look more closely at the manuscript tradition. The following table is a synopsis of the variant readings¹⁵ (The common abbreviation ł for uel and lis is noted only where it should be read lis or regarded as its corrupt form):

Chapter 8 has many variant readings, but they are not as many as to suggest its non-Gratian origin¹⁶. Since Friedberg does not seem to have related the pair of variant readings sentientis/consentientis to those of inobedientia/concupiscentia, let us focus for the moment on sentientis/consentientis:

sentientis: Aa, Bi, Cd, Md(= E), Fd(pc), In, H, Ka(= A), Kb(= B), Mc(= D), Me, Mk, Sb, Tr(ac)

consentientis: Cg, F, Fd(ac?)¹⁷, G, Hk, Hl, Mm(= C), Mz, Pk, Tr(pc)

As is shown here, the reading of Ka (= Friedberg's A) is sentientis. This makes the decision of Friedberg questionable, because sentientis now appears in both of his best manuscripts (his A and B. Ka and Kb in the present article). He could remain faithful to his own editorial principles¹⁸ only if he had opted for sentientis. It is true that blind reliance on the best manuscripts involves a failure of logic, but if one still regards particular manuscripts as the best manuscripts at all, one should opt for their readings in ambiguous cases, even if it is by no means a logical conclusion. In any case Friedberg's decision cannot be supported by A, and even if the reading of CFG is consentientis, it is by no means clear why they should be followed.

Did Friedberg then make a wrong decision? The question still remains open, as the decision cannot be made only on a quantitative basis. So I shall now try to assess the Friedberg edition following the standard of his time as well as the editorial framework he himself set.

III. The Lachmann method and Friedberg's editorial framework

What was the standard of his time? The answer traditionally given is the one associated with the name of a 19^th-century German scholar Carl Lachmann¹⁹: the so-called Lachmann method²⁰. The main characteristic of this method consists in establishing the category recensio as a procedure independent from emendatio. Recensio is a procedure in which one combines research on manuscript tradition with textual criticism and reconstructs the archetype without interpreting a text. Establishing a stemma codicum is essential for this procedure. Emendatio is a procedure in which one fixes up the archetype and reconstructs the Urtext even with the help of text-internal criteria. This method was the ideal of editing a text at the time Friedberg carried out his editorial work.

In view of this, the weaknesses of his edition are obvious. He used only eight manuscripts found exclusively in German libraries. Accordingly he didn't establish a stemma codicum. However, as the best he could do, he divided his manuscripts into three groups, as are shown in the following table²¹:

As regards the pair sentientis/consentientis, the reading sentientis is the major tradition in every group, including the best manuscripts of the first and the third group (ABH)²². Although the Lachmann method in a strict sense is by no means applicable here, one may still conclude that sentientis is the representative reading within the editorial framework of Friedberg. Therefore, he should have opted for sentientis to remain faithful to his own editorial principles, unless he had decisive evidence, which he didn't. The weight of evidence for sentientis is at least equal to that of consentientis.

IV. Difficulties involved in interpreting a living text

The reading sentientis threrefore seems to be the better reading within the editorial framework of Friedberg's. But once we leave his edition and its editorial framework, the real problem of interpreting Chapter 8 still remains unsolved. That is, the problem of interpreting a living text²³.

As is well known, the Lachmann method presupposes a closed recension in which one manuscript is copied faithfully from another without any contamination from any other manuscripts or sources. In other words, it presupposes that the manuscript tradition and the internal history of a text correspond to each other exactly except for the corruptions caused by chance. For Gratian's Decretum, however, one has to deal with an open recension characterized by multiple contaminations even from other sources (e.g. pre-Gratian collections). As a result the manuscript tradition does not yield to a simple classification. Moreover, one cannot presuppose one single starting point. Scholars suspect the existence of several layers in the Decretum²⁴. Here the manuscript tradition and the internal history of a text do not necessarily correspond to each other. The stemmatic method is not applicable. One must first and foremost analyze the internal history of a text even with the help of text-internal criteria²⁵.

As to the rubric of c. 8, the variant readings of inobedientia/concupiscentia possibly reveal this Chapter's internal history, for which there are two possibilities²⁶:

The first one is that either inobedientia concupiscentialis (Aa Fd Kb Sb) or concupiscentialis inobedientia (Cg) was the initial reading, because the formal source (Trip. 3. 18. 4) has the reading Concupiscentialis inobedientia²⁷. Since in most of the manuscripts the rubric of c.8 begins with inobedientia, the reading inobedientia concupiscentialis is the more probable of the two, although this does not mean that Cg necessarily represents a later tradition as regards sentientis/consentientis as well. The problem of this theory is that there is no Gratian manuscript which has the reading concupiscentialis in the auctoritas itself. In the Gratian manuscripts I consulted, the auctoritas always begins with Concupiscentia uel inobedientia. In many manuscripts (Aa Cd Fd Hk Ka Mm Mz Sa Sb Tr), however, the common abbreviation ł for uel and lis is used. This indicates that the reading concupiscentia uel inobedientia in the auctoritas may be a reading caused by a scribal error. If it is in fact the case, the most likely development of the rubric of c. 8 looks as follows:

1a) Inobedientia concupiscentialis .Aa Fd Sb
1b) Concupiscentiał [= concupiscentialis] inobedientia Cg
1c) Inobedientia concupiscentia ł [= concupiscentialis] Kb(= B)
2) Inobedientia concupiscentia Bi(pc) Mc(= D) Mk F
3) Inobedientia uel concupiscentia Cd Hk Hl In Md(= E) Mm(= C) Mz Pk Tr G H
3) Inobedientia et concupiscentia Ka(= A)
3) Inobedientia in concupiscentia Me
3) Inobedientia concupiscentie Bi(ac)

The second possibility is that the most common reading Inobedientia uel concupiscentia was the initial reading. Although there is no Tripartita manuscript which has concupiscentia uel inobedientia, four manuscripts of Ivo's Decretum (9. 123) have this reading²⁸. It is therefore possible that Gratian used a Tripartita manuscript in which this corrupt form appeared.

It is difficult to determine which theory is more likely. In either way, however, they are not decisive for the incidence of the variants sentientis/consentientis. One must therefore turn to text internal criteria.

The formal sources of the chapters are given in the following tables (Texts 1-6 are the auctoritates cited in Gratian's dicta.)²⁹:

1. The first recension

2. The formal sources of each chapter

The first table clearly shows how Gratian worked in the first recension. He had two different types of sources. For the dictum he used first a SN type florilegium and then an unknown one, while for the chapters he used first Tripartita and then 3L³⁰. From each source he selected only a few texts (e.g. 2 out of 9 from Trip. 3. 26) and also changed their arrangements. The second table gives some idea of how Gratian supplied each block of the first recension with additional texts in the second. One may therefore assume that Gratian tried to make some point with these texts. The question is which point he tried to make.

As has been shown, Chapters 7 and 9 deal with the drunken perpetrator, that is, with non sentiens. It is therefore plausible to interpret Chapter 8 in this sense and choose sentientis for its rubric.

However, if one takes Chapters 5³¹ and 6b³² of the first recension into account, a different interpretation becomes possible. Here are the rubrics of cc. 5, 6b:

c.5 Culpa non necessitate sed uoluntate reum constringit* (= the major tradition)

non] om. Md

reum constringit] constringit reum Me

reum] om. Sb(ac)

Reus non constituitur quid [sic] nescit quod fecerit Sa

c.6b Reus uoluntate non necessitate constringitur* (= the major tradition)

Reus] Reum Hl

uoluntate] ex uoluntate Mm Pk

constringitur] constringuitur Hl

Reus non necessitate sed uoluntate constringitur Cd Cg In Md

Qui per furorem aliquem occidit mori debet Sa

In the rubrics of cc. 5, 6b, whose major manuscript tradition agrees with the Friedberg edition, will (uoluntas) and necessity (necessitas) are opposed. In the auctoritates, outrage caused by mental disorder (furor) is named as such a necessity³³. The will, on the other hand, probably means intention, as is indicated by the first sentence of the Chapter 6b (Quod possumus non facere, si uolumus, huius electionem mali potius nobis debemus ascribere quam aliis). If one regards the drunkenness of cc. 7, 9 as yet another necessity as opposed to intention, the reason why the drunken perpetrator cannot be held responsible may not be his/her inability to act, but simply the lack of intention to commit a crime.

Now, in Chapter 8 there is a distinction made between one who is asleep and one who does not give consent to concupiscence. This distinction may correspond to the distinction between inability to act and lack of intention to commit a crime. If it is the lack of intention that matters in Chapters 5, 6b, 7 and 9, consentientis is plausible for the rubric of Chapter 8.

This interpretation can be supported by Chapter 10³⁴, yet another text taken up by Gratian in the second recension. The rubric of c. 10³⁵ clealy shows that Gratian regards guilt (culpa) as dependant exclusively on a perpetrator's will, which should be understood as intention (propria uoluntate = of one's own will):

c.10 Nemo trahitur ad culpam nisi ductus propria uoluntate* Aa Cd Fd Hk In (Md) Mk (Mm) Pk Tr

culpam] penam Md

ductus propria uoluntate] propria uoluntate ductus Mm

Nemo traditur ad culpam nisi ductus propria uoluntate Bi Cg Hl (Ka) Kb Mc Me Mz Sb

ductus] ductus est Ka

Voluntaria commissa sequuntur delicta Sa

V. Conclusion

One could still argue for sentientis on the ground, for example, that Gratian seems to have first chosen texts dealing with specific cases like mental disorder (cc. 5, 6) and drunkenness (cc. 7, 8, 9), and then a text of a more general character (c. 10). It is therefore hard to determine without any ambiguity the reading which must have been at the beginning of the manuscript tradition. As the corrections made in Fd³⁶ or the variant readings of inobedientia/concupiscentia suggest, the very effort of medieval readers and scribes to make better sense out of their text reflects the difficulty involved in interpreting Gratian's way of thinking.

However, one could also argue that the two readings sentientis and consentientis possibly reflect the difficulty Gratian himself faced in interpreting his auctoritates. As demonstrated above (IV), the textual variants sentientis and consentientis have no relationship to the incidence of the variants inobedientia concupiscentialis or inobedientia uel concupiscentia. It is therefore possible that sentientis and consentientis are both initial readings. That is, they should be ascribed to Gratian or the correction(s) made by Gratian himself. If it is in fact the case, these two readings are indeed both "originals", and their very existence vividly reflects Gratian's way of thinking. Accordingly, we can distinguish not only several stages of Gratian's Decretum, but several "originals" of a given stage.

Whether one should use the term "original" in this context is another problem. The idea behind the term, which may be the last legacy of the Lachmann method, has been criticized as unrealistic and is indeed elusive, but it is only through our pursuit of an "original" that we realize the effort exerted in this connection by medieval scribes and possibly by Gratian as well. The Lachmann method has not lost its ability to guide a reader who wishes to be a critical interpreter. It is, I believe, still our starting point.

Appendix 1. The manuscripts and the abbreviations used in this article

Aa = Graz, Benediktiner Stiftsbibliothek Admont 43

Bi = Biberach, Spitalarchiv Biberach an der Riss 3515

Cd = Cambridge, Mass. Harvard Law Library 64

Cg = Cambridge, Gonville and Caius 6/6

Fd = Firenze, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Conv. Soppr. A 1. 402

Hk = Heiligenkreuz, Stiftsbibliothek 44

Hl = Heiligenkreuz, Stiftsbibliothek 43

In = Innsbruck, Universitätsbibliothek 90

Ka = Köln, Dombibliothek 127 (Friedberg's A)

Kb = Köln, Dombibliothek 128 (Friedberg's B)

Mc = München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 4505 (Friedberg's D)

Md = München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 10244 (Friedberg's E)

Me = München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 13004

Mk = München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 28161

Mm = München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 17161 (Friedberg'sC)

Mz = Mainz, Stadtbibliothek II.204

Pk = Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, lat.3890

Sa = Salzburg, Stiftsbibliothek St. Peter, a.XII.9

Sb = Salzburg, Stiftsbibliothek St. Peter, a.XI.9

Sg = St. Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek 673

Tr = Trier, Stadtbibliothek 906 (1141)

F = Leipzig, Universitätsbibliothek, Haenel 17

G = Wolfenbüttel, Landesbibliothek, Helms. 33

H = Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, Stiftung Preussicher Kulturbesitz, Ms lat. 1

Ans. = The Collectio canonum of Anselm of Lucca

Dig. = The Digest of Justinian

SN = Sic et Non of Peter Abelard

Trip. = The pseudo-Ivonian Collectio Tripartita

3L = The Collection in Three Books

3LS = The texts added to Book 3 in the Collection in Three Books

(R) = Rubric

(I) = Inscription

Appendix 2. The rubrics of C.15 q.1

c.1

Non sunt peccata nolentium nisi nescientium X*

Non sunt peccata nolentium nisi scientium Sb

Nonsunt peccata nolentium sed nescientium Kb

Que sint peccata nolentium uel nescientium Cd

Que sint peccata nolentium Sa

* X = Aa Bi Cg Fd Hk Hl In Ka Mc Md Me Mk Mm Mz Pk Tr

c.4

Non propter culpam sed propter memoriam facti pecus occiditur ad quod mulier accedit X*

Non propter culpam sed propter memoriam facti pecus occiditur ad quod mulier non accedit Cg

Non propter culpam sed propter memoriam facti pecus occiditur ad quem mulier accedit Hk

Non propter culpam sed propter memoriam facti pecus ceciditur ad quod mulier accedit Pk

Non propter culpam sed propter memoriam facti pecus occiditur ad quod mulier accesserit Aa

Non propter culpam sed etiam memoriam facti pecus occiditur ad quod mulier accesserit Cd

Non propter culpam sed propter memoriam facti pecus occiditur ad quod mulier accessit Sb

Non propter culpam sed propter memoriam facti pecus occiditur quod mulier accissit Md

Non propter culpam sed propter memoriam facti pecus occidetur In

Pecus occiditur ne indignat facti refugit memoriam Sa(ac)

Pecus occiditur ne indignam(?) facti refugit memoriam Sa(pc)

* X = Bi Fd Hl Ka Kb Mc Me Mk Mm Mz Tr

c.5

Culpa non necessitate sed uoluntate reum constringit X*

Culpa non necessitate sed uoluntate constringit reum Me

Culpa non necessitate sed uoluntate constringit Sb(ac)

Culpa necessitate sed uoluntate reum constringit Md

Culpa non necessitate sed uoluntate reum astringit Mm Pk

Reus non constituitur quid[sic] nescit quod fecerit Sa

* X = Aa Bi Cd Cg Fd Hk Hl In Ka Kb Mc Mk Mz Sb(pc) Tr

c.6

Reus uoluntate non necessitate constringitur X*

Reum uoluntate non necessitate constringuitur Hl

Reus ex uoluntate non necessitate constringitur Mm Pk

Reus non necessitate sed uoluntate constringitur Cd Cg In Md

Qui per furorem aliquem occidit mori debet Sa

* X = Aa Bi Fd Hk Ka Kb Mc Me Mk Mz Sb Tr

c.7

Veniam habent que ignorantes ebrii committunt X*

Venia habent que ignorantes ebrii committunt Mk

Veniam habent quem³⁷ ignorantes ebrii committunt Mz

Veniam habent que ignorant[er?] ebrii committunt In Mm

Venia[m?] habent qui ignoramt[er?] ebrii con committunt Fd

Veniam habent qui ignorant[er?] ebrii committunt Md

Veniam habent qui innocentes(?) ebrii committunt Hl(ac)

Veniam habent qui ignorantes ebrii committung Hl(pc)

Veniam habeant quando ignorant[er?] ebrii committunt Cd

Veniam habent qui ignorantes per ebrietatem aliqua committunt Cg

Qui per ebrietatem delinquerit uenia donatur Sa

* X = Aa Bi Hk Ka Kb Mc Me Pk(pc)³⁸ Sb(pk)³⁹ Tr

c.8

Inobedientia concupiscentialis non habet culpam in corpore non sentientis Aa

Inobedientia concupiscentiał non habet culpam in corpore non sentientis Fd(pc) Sb

Inobedientia concupiscentiał non habet culpam in corpore non consentientis Fd(ac?)

Concupiscentiał inobedientia non habet culpam in corpore non consentientis Cg

Inobedientia concupiscentia ł non habet culpam in corpore non sentientis Kb

Inobedientia concupiscentia⁴⁰ non habet culpam in corpore non sentientis Bi(pc) Mc Mk

Inobedientia ł concupiscentia non habet culpam in corpore non sentientis Cd In

Inobedientia⁴¹ uel concupiscentia non habet culpam in⁴² corpore non sentientis Md Tr(ac)

Inobedientia⁴³ ł concupiscentia non habet culpam in corpore non consentientis Hk Hl Mm Mz

Inobedientia uel concupiscentia non habet culpam in corpore non consentientis Pk Tr(pc)

Inobedientia concupiscentie non habet cuplam in corpore non sentientis Bi(ac)

Inobedientia et concupiscentia non habet culpam in corpore non sentientis Ka

Inobedientia in concupiscentia non habet culpam in corpore non sentientis Me

In membris adhuc moribundis concupiscentia regnat Sa

c.9

Loth non de incestu sed de ebrietate culpatur X*

Loth non de incestu sed ebrietate culpatur Hl

Loth non de incestis sed de ebrietate culpatur Aa Me

Loth non de incestus et de ebrietate culpatur Hk

Loth culpandus est tantum quantum ad ebrietatem Sa

* X = Bi Cd Cg Fd In Ka Kb Mc Md Mk Mm Mz Pk Sb Tr

c.10

Nemo trahitur ad culpam nisi ductus propria uoluntate Aa Cd Fd Hk In Mk Pk Tr

Nemo trahitur ad penam nisi ductus⁴⁴ propria uoluntate Md

Nemo trahitur ad culpam nisi propria uoluntate ductus Mm

Nemo traditur ad culpam nisi ductus propria uoluntate Bi Cg Hl Kb Mc Me Mz Sb

Nemo traditur ad culpam nisi ductus est propria uoluntate Ka

Voluntaria commissa sequuntur delicta Sa

c.11

Minister dei est qui inuitus homicidium facit X*

Minister dei est qui mutus homicidium facit Sb(ac)

Minister dei est qui inuitus homicidius facit Fd

Minister dei est qui inuitus homicidium faciti Md

Minister dei est qui inuitus facit homicidium Cg

Minister dei est qui inuitus homicidium fecerit Cd Hl Mk Mm Pk

Minister dei est qui inuitus hominem occidit Hk

Ubi abominatio aboletur sanctificatio consecratur Sa

* X = Aa Bi In Ka Kb Mc Me Mz Sb(pc) Tr

c.12

In se reuersus penitentiam agat qui insaniens aliquem occidit⁴⁵ Aa Bi Fd Hk Hl Me Mz Pk Sb

In se reuersurus penitentiam agat qui insaniens aliquem occidit Mk

In se reuersus penitentiam agat qui insaniendo aliquem occidit Cd In Md

In se reuersus penitentiam agat qui insaniens aliquem occiderit Cg Kb Mc Mm

In se reuersus penitentiam agat qui insaniens hominem occiderit Ka

In se reuersus penitentiam agat qui insaniens occidit hominem Tr

Per furorem hominem occiderit sanus penitenti[am agat?] Sa

c.13

Innocens est qui non iratus sed propter disciplinam⁴⁶ casu aliquem perimit Aa Bi Fd Hl Me Mz

Innocens est qui non iratus sed propter disciplinam aliquem casu perimit Sb

Innocens est qui non iratus sed propter discipline casu aliquem perimit Kb

Innocens est qui non iratus sed propter discipline casvm aliquem perimit Mc

Innocens est qui non⁴⁷ iratus sed propter disciplinam casu aliquem punit Tr

Innocens est qui non iratus sed propter dieciplinam aliquem percutit Cg

Innocens est qui non iratus sed propter disciplinam casu aliquem occiderit Cd In Md Mm

Innocens est qui non iratus sed propter disciplinam casu aliquem occidit Hk Mk Pk

Innocens est qui non iratus sed propter disciplinam aliquem casu occidit Ka

Gratia uoluntatem requirit, lex uero fractus[sic] specta[t?] Sa

Footnotes: