A68840:2007
Most fruitful [and] learned co[m]mentaries of Doctor Peter Martyr Vermil Florentine, professor of divinity,…Most fruitfull [and] learned co[m]mentaries of Doctor Peter Martir Vermil Florentine, professor of deuinitie,…
Most fruitful [and] learned co[m]mentaries of Doctor Peter Martyr Vermil Florentine, professor of divinity, in the University of Tygure with a very profitable tract of the matter and places. Herein is also added [and] contained two most ample tables, aswell of the matter, as of the words: with an index of the places in the holy scripture. Set forth & allowed, according to the order appointed in the Queens majesties injunctions.Most fruitfull [and] learned co[m]mentaries of Doctor Peter Martir Vermil Florentine, professor of deuinitie, in the Vniuersitye of Tygure with a very profitable tract of the matter and places. Herein is also added [and] contained two most ample tables, aswel of the matter, as of the wordes: wyth an index of the places in the holy scripture. Set forth & allowed, accordyng to thorder appointed in the Quenes maiesties iniunctions.
London: printed by John Day, 1564London: printed by Iohn Day, 1564
Title page typeset from the transcription.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
But what if a maiden will by her own consent be rapt? None of the punishment for all that (saith Justinian) ought to be diminished, it is utterly all one, whither the woman will, or will not. And the reason is added, because if the rapter would abstain from the rapt, it is not very likely that any woman will offer her self of her own accord to be rapt. Wherefore it seemeth probable, that she was won by flattery & deceits. Yea, & the Parents of the maiden, if they consent to the rapt, are commanded to be banished. These things Justinian decreeth in the Code, who yet afterward in the Authentics (where is entreated of women rapt, which marry the rapters) was compelled to make the law new, because there were which cavilled, that if she that was rapt did consent unto matrimony, she might posses the goods of the rapter. For so they interpreted the first law: that the goods of the rapter ought to come unto her that was rapt, if she married him, or if he in his will made her his heir: But we (saith Justinian) meant no such thing: for our laws do not appoint rewards for a wicked crime. Farther, neither can he make any will, forasmuch as he is now condemned to dye, neither do our laws suffer any such matrimony to be of force. And if it be no matrimony, how then can she posses the goods of the rapter in the name of a dowry? wherefore he decreed that such matrimonies should not be ratified. What then shall become of the goods of the rapter? If the maiden (saith he) have parents, which have not thereunto consented, those goods shall come unto them. But if they have consented as it is already said, they were banished without any propriety of goods or lands, which kind of punishment was much more grievous then plain exile. But if the maiden had no Parents, or had those which consented, the goods of the rapter were confiscate to the common treasury. By these things appeareth that in those times rapt was counted a detestable crime.
But what if a mayden wil by her own consent be rapte? None of the punishment for al that (saith Iustinian) ought to be diminished, it is vtterlye al one, whither the woman wil, or wil not. And the reason is added, bicause if the rapter woulde abstayne from the rapte, it is not very likely that any woman wil offer her selfe of her owne accorde to be rapted. Wherfore it semeth probable, that she was won by flattery & deceites. Yea, & the Parents of the maiden, if they consent to the rapte, are cōmaūded to be banished. These things Iustinian decreeth in the Code, who yet afterward in the Authentikes (where is entreated of womē rapted, which mary the rapters) was cōpelled to make ye law new, bicause ther wer which canelled, that if she that was rapted did consent vnto matrimony, she might posses the goods of the rapter. For so they interpreted the first law: yt the goods of the rapter ought to come vnto her that was rapted, if she maried him, or if he in his wil made her his heire: But we (saith Iustinian) ment no such thing: for our lawes do not appoint rewardes for a wicked crime. Farther, neither can he make any wil, for asmuch as he is now condemned to dye, neither do our lawes suffer any such matrimony to be of force. And if it be no matrimony, how thē cā she posses ye goods of the rapter in the name of a dowry? wherfore he decreed that such matrimonies should not be ratefied. What then shal become of the goods of the rapter? If the maiden (saith he) haue parentes, which haue not therunto consented, those goods shall come vnto them. But if they haue consented as it is alredy said, they were banished without anye propritye of goods or landes, which kinde of punishment was much more grieuous then playn exile. But if the mayden had no Parentes, or had those which consented, the goods of the rapter were confiscate to the cōmon treasory. By these thinges appeareth that in those tymes rapte was counted a detestable crime.