Question I

GRATIAN. That he committed ravishment is proved by the authority of many. For Isidore says in book II of the Etymologies, c. 33:

Ravishment is also unlawful intercourse, so called from corrupting; hence one who gains possession by abduction enjoys defilement. Likewise Pope Gelasius:

That law of former rulers said that ravishment was committed where a girl concerning whose marriage nothing had previously been arranged appears to have been led away.

GRATIAN. Therefore, since she was corrupted by unlawful intercourse and was so led away—that is, led from her father’s house—when nothing had previously been arranged concerning her marriage, it cannot be denied that she is to be called ravished. But not every unlawful intercourse, nor the unlawful defloration of any person, is called ravishment. For fornication is one thing, defloration another, adultery another, incest another, and ravishment another.

§ 1. Fornication, although it appears to be the genus of every unlawful intercourse that occurs outside a lawful wife, is nevertheless understood specifically in the use of widows, prostitutes, or concubines.

§ 2. But defloration is properly the unlawful deflowering of virgins: namely, when, no conjugal compact preceding, a virgin is corrupted by the will of both parties, and the father does not immediately take the injury to heart after learning of it.

§ 3. But adultery is violation of another’s bed. Hence adulterium is so called as though ad alterius thorum accessio, “an approach to another’s bed.”

§ 4. Incest is the abuse of blood relatives or affines. Hence those who abuse their blood relatives or affines are called incestuous.

§ 5. Ravishment is committed when a girl is violently led from her father’s house so that she may be possessed as wife after being corrupted, whether it is established that force was inflicted upon the girl alone, upon the parents alone, or upon both. The ravisher is punished by death. But if he flees to a church with the woman ravished, he merits immunity from death through the church’s privilege. Hence it is read in the Council of Orléans, [I, c. 4]:

Concerning ravishers, we judged that this must be established: if a ravisher flees to a church with the woman ravished and it is established that the woman herself suffered violence, let her immediately be freed from the ravisher’s power; and let the ravisher, after immunity from death or penalties has been granted, either be subjected to servitude or have free power to redeem himself. But if it is established that the woman who is ravished has a father and that the girl consented to the ravisher, let her be excused and returned to her father’s power, and let the ravisher be bound to make satisfaction to the father according to the foregoing condition.

GRATIAN. From this authority it is clear that sometimes force is inflicted upon the parents and not upon the girl, when it says, “if the girl consented to the ravisher.” Sometimes both suffer violence, when it is stated before: “if a ravisher flees with the woman ravished and it is established that the woman herself suffered violence.” But force is inflicted upon the girl and not upon the parents when, by the father’s will, the girl is violently led away so that she may suffer the intercourse of one to whose union she never furnished consent. But this man appears to have inflicted force neither upon the parents nor upon the girl, since she was violently led away neither while they prohibited it nor while she resisted. For it is one thing to seduce someone by promises, another to inflict force upon her. Hence, because it is proved that force was inflicted upon neither, this man ought not by law to be called a ravisher.

But plunder is said to occur in two ways: sometimes the thing itself is seized; sometimes only the use of the thing itself is violently taken away. The thing itself is seized when it is violently taken from its owner so that it may be held perpetually; but sometimes the thing itself is not sought, but its use is violently usurped while the owner prohibits it. Therefore, this man committed ravishment because he violently took away the flower of virginity from the resisting girl.