Nick obtained a copy of a satirical piece from prior times. I’ll translate it (from Latin), and maybe transcribe it later.

My translation:

Quaeritur: Reverend brother, how many sacraments are there in the Roman Catholic Church?

Resp.: There are eight sacraments, namely: Baptism, Confirmation, etc. … the last is the Sacred order of canons (in the vernacular, Monsignors).

Quaeritur: When and with what words did Christ institute this sacrament?

Resp.: He instituted it on Mount Olivet when he said to his disciples: “Sleep and rest awhile.”

Quaeritur: What qualities are required to receive this sacrament?

Resp.: These three qualities are required:
a) advanced age;
b) pre-eminence of the body (praestantia corporis);
c) poverty of spirit.

Quaeritur: Is every quality necessary for validity or only for liceity in receiving the sacrament?

Resp.: To clarify: The first two are only for liceity, because they are often dispensed from. But the third is altogether required for validity, because it can never be dispensed from.

Quaeritur: Is this renowned sacrament a sacrament of the living or of the dead?

Resp.: It is clearly a sacrament of the living, for it is required that the subject upon whom it is conferred is in already in favor with (in gratia) his Bishop or superior.

Quaeritur: Does this sacrament confer a character?

Resp.: Not at all. On the contrary, it removes all character.

Quaeritur: What are the duties of canons?

Resp.: The duties of canons are enumerated in the Apocalypse of St. John the Apostle, namely: to stand before the throne and like the four animals to say always, “Amen! Amen!”

Quaeritur: With what words and ceremonies does the bishop grant the canonical dignity?

Resp.: The bishop says: Receive a mantle (mantellus) to wear secundum ventum [Literally "following the wind." In its literal sense, it means "when it is windy," but figuratively it means "according to your whims."]

Quaeritur: What are the privileges of this sacrament?

Resp.: In the celebration of Mass, canons can say four times: “Lord, I am not worthy,” etc.

If you’ve been following Nancy Pelosi’s comments lately and the subsequent remarks by bishops and those in the blogosphere, you may have seen that the blog “Aliens in this World” has posted a translation of what St Augustine said.

A friend sent the Latin to me:

Utrum quod in utero formatum adhuc est, animatum posset intellegi.

80. (21, 22–25) Si autem litigabunt duo viri, et percusserint mulierem in utero habentem, et exierit infans eius nondum formatus; detrimentum patietur, quantum indixerit vir mulieris, et dabit cum postulatione.

Mihi videtur significationis alicuius causa dici haec, magis quam Scripturam circa huiusmodi facta occupatam. Nam si illud attenderet, ne praegnans mulier percussa in abortum compelleretur, non poneret duos litigantes viros, cum possit et ab uno hoc admitti, qui cum ipsa muliere litigaverit, vel etiam non litigaverit, sed alienae posteritati nocere volendo id fecerit. Quod vero non formatum puerperium noluit ad homicidium pertinere, profecto nec hominem deputavit quod tale in utero geritur.

Hic de anima quaestio solet agitari, utrum quod formatum non est, ne animatum quidem possit intellegi, et ideo non sit homicidium, quia nec examinatum dici potest, si adhuc animam non habebat.

Sequitur enim et dicit: Si autem formatum fuerit, dabit animam pro anima. Ubi quid aliud intellegitur, nisi, et ipse morietur? Nam hoc et in caeteris ex hac occasione iam praecipit: Oculum pro oculo, dentem pro dente, manum pro manu, pedem pro pede, combustionem pro combustione, vulnus pro vulnere, livorem pro livore: talionis videlicet aequitate. Quae Lex ideo constituit, ut demonstraret quae vindicta debeatur. Nisi enim per Legem sciretur quid vindictae deberetur, unde sciretur quid venia relaxaret, ut dici posset: Dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris? Debitores igitur Lege monstrantur, ut quando ignoscitur appareat quid dimittatur. Neque enim debita dimitteremus, nisi quid nobis deberetur Lege indice disceremus. Si ergo illud informe puerperium iam quidem fuerit, sed adhuc quodammodo informiter animatum (quoniam magna de anima quaestio non est praecipitanda indiscussae temeritate sententiae), ideo Lex noluit ad homicidium pertinere, quia nondum dici potest anima viva in eo corpore quod sensu caret, si talis est in carne nondum formata, et ideo nondum sensibus praedita. Quod autem dixit: Et dabit cum postulatione quod maritus mulieris, informi excluso, dandum constituerit, non est in promptu intellegere: quippe, quod graecus habet, pluribus modis intellegitur, et tolerabilius cum postulatione dictum est, quam si aliud diceretur. Fortassis enim postulabit ut det, ut eo modo satis Deo faciat, etiamsi maritus mulierve non expetat.

This is my own rendering:

Whether what is not yet formed in the womb can be understood as being ensouled.

80. (21, 22-25) “If two men quarrel and strike a pregnant woman, and the child (infans) that is not yet formed is expelled … he will pay whatever penalty the woman’s husband declares, and he will render it upon request.”

It seems to me that this is said for the sake of signifying something rather than that Scripture is concerned about deeds of this kind. For if did address it, so that a pregnant woman who has been struck would not be forced to miscarry, it would not suppose that there were two men fighting since this could also be perpetrated by one, who fought with the woman herself, or even if he did not fight with her, still willingly acted to harm another’s offspring. But it did not wish to regard the death of an unformed child as homicide, nor did it think what is borne in the womb to be a man.

Here the question regarding the soul usually comes up, whether what is not formed cannot be understood as ensouled, and therefore it would not be homicide since it cannot be said to be determined, if it still did not have a soul.

For it goes on to say: “If it was been formed, he will give a life for a life.” What else then should be understood except that he also should die? For it has established this already in the other cases of this type: “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot, a burn for a burn, a would for a wound, a bruise for a bruise”: namely the justice of retribution. So the law established it to show what retributions would be owed. For unless it is known by the Law what retributions are owed, how would it be known what a pardon looses, as can be said: “Forgive us our debts as we forgive those in debt to us”? Debtors, therefore, are shown by the Law, as when it is not known it would be apparent what would be forgiven. For we would not forgive debts unless we had learned what is owed to us as the Law indicates. If therefore the offspring was unformed, but still in a certain way formlessly ensouled (since the great question concerning the soul must not be bound by the fear of an untested opinion), therefore the Law has did not wish to regard it as homicide, because it cannot yet be said that there is a living soul in a body that lacks sense, if it is such, not yet formed in the flesh, and therefore not yet provided with the senses. But, however, it said: “And he will render upon request what the woman’s husband established would be given for the expelled unformed offspring.” It is not easy to understand: naturally “Asioma,” what the Greek holds, is understood in several ways, and “upon request” is said to be more tolerable, than if it were said to be something else. For perhaps he would offer to render something, in order to satisfy God in this way, even if the husband or the woman did not ask.

I didn’t have a lot of time, so there may be errors.

Some of you may know how fond I am of the ancient and medieval bestiaries. From Aristotle to Isidore of Seville to Aberdeen, I love reading the ancient descriptions of animals, seeing the illustrations in the manuscripts, and reading the allegorical Christian interpretation. The Christian bestiaries give such a great sense of the awareness the ancients and medievals had of Christ being the center of cosmology. That awareness is closer to reality. After all, he is the first born of all creation.

I found online today a project which reproduces online the Physiologus among other works. The Physiologus is a very ancient bestiary from which many medieval bestiaries drew. It’s definitely worth it to check out the facsimile of the Physiologus.

I spent the last few days before the ordination/first Mass tour at Saint Louis University’s Pius XII Memorial Library. It’s a fantastic resource, and I honestly don’t know whether I can go back to doing research at Kenrick. It was so nice to be able to get to up-to-date patristic collections like Corpus Christianorum (Kenrick has only a handful of volumes), CSEL, etc. Even the Patrologia Latina at Kenrick is under lock and key in the rare book room¹.

I found some good references that I can use, but I definitely need to go back many times before this is all over.

Here are a few of over a hundred references that I found which I may be able to use:

From an uncertain author. De salutaribus documentis. PL 40:

Pasce, quaeso, animam tuam spiritualibus cibis, id est, fide, spe, charitate, et reliquis virtutibus per quas intelligas Deum amare, et ejus praecepta servare: ut cum extrema dies tibi venerit, Angeli pacis te suscipiant, et de potestate diaboli eripiant, et merearis sanctorum consortio in beata requie perfrui, et vitam aeternam cum omnibus sanctis possidere.

My translation:

Feed, I ask, your soul with spiritual food, that is, with faith, hope, charity, and the rest of the virtues through which you may learn to love God, and to keep his precepts: so that when that last day comes to you, the Angels of peace might receive you, and snatch you from the power of the devil, and you might merit to enjoy the company of the saints in blessed peace and to enjoy eternal life with all the saints.

And, from St. Hilary’s Tract on the Psalms. PL 9:

Nec non et Eliseus absolutissime docuit, humanas infirmitates angelorum auxiliis defendi, et in omnibus periculis, si fides maneat in nobis, adesse spiritalium virtutum defensionem.

My translation:

And also Elisha has absolutely taught that human weaknesses are defended by the aid of angels, and in all dangers, if faith remains in us, the defense of spiritual powers is present.

And again:

Quemadmodum enim haec faciant Angeli, vel potius Deus quemadmodum haec faciat per Angelos suos, et quantum fieri velit etiam per angelos malos

My translation:

For just as the Angels should do these things, or rather just as God does these things through his Angels, and wills as much to be done even through bad angels,

These are just few samples, not even the best ones. Now I need to sit down and sort through all this information.

---

1 To be fair, it is over a hundred years old and kind of a fragile set of books.

Father Z (via I See a Light) links to A YouTube video of Father Reginald Foster speaking in Latin on Latin.

Here’s my (probably imperfect) translation on hearing him:

The Romans did not have the concepts that we have today. So we need to sweat and to work somehow to regain the concepts. This is the difficulty. If we read their daily acts, it’s another language, another way of thinking [habitus mentis]. The Romans did not speak like we do today. This is the difficulty. So, we need to consider, which I like to do, huh. To act, to consider, to contemplate: “What do we say today?” “What did the Romans say?” and “What would the Romans say if they were speaking today?”

The whole history of the western Church is Latin. And this is the greatest difficulty. If someone loses–rather if we lose–if someone loses this connection with the whole history of the Church, something is lost. And if someone can’t open the books of St. Thomas, or even St. Augustine, or the Church, or the Councils, and understand them in Latin, he is excluded, no? He is excluded, cut off, lost. And this is my difficulty. Because still the whole context of our history is the Latin language.

Perhaps I spoke too soon on the question of sacramental form.

Cappello says on the sacrament of Penance (Tractatus Canonico-Moralis de Sacramentis, Editio 4a, Vol. II, p. 65):

67. I. Sacramentalis absolutio verbis proferenda est.

Sane:

1. Omnes libri rituales continent formam absolutionis oralem seu vocalem, quatenus semper exhibent ministrum proferentem ore absolutionem, et nunquam aliter.

2. Concilia Florentinum et Tridentinum docent formam huius sacramenti esse verba: Ego te absolvo etc.; immo non solum indicant huiusmodi verba formam exprimentia, sed etiam doctrinam generalem tradunt, praesertim Florentinum, quod << omnia sacramenta perficiuntur verbis tamquam forma >>.
<< A qua generali regula, scite monet Suarez, non est facienda exceptio neque improprie vel secundum analogiam de aliquo sacramento interpretanda, nisi ubi ex traditione Ecclesiae et consensu antiquorum Doctorum id constiterit >>.

3. Accedit communis doctrina theologorum qui docent absolutionem esse ore proferendam.
<< Solus Deus per auctoritatem et a peccato absolvit, et peccatum remittit; sacerdotes tamen utrumque faciunt per ministerium, in quantum scilicet verba sacerdotis in hoc sacramento instrumentaliter operantur in virtute divina… Unde sicut in Eucharistia sacerdos sola prolatione verborum super materiam perficit sacramentum, ita etiam sola verba sacerdotis absolveventis super poenitentem perficiunt absolutionis sacramentum >>.
Ita S. Thomas.

Quare absolutio scripto vel signo aut nutu dari nequit, etiam in gravissima necessitate. Proinde sacerdos mutus potest absolvere. Hinc apparet distinctio in hac re inter sacramentum poenitentiae et sacramentum matrimonii, in quo forma, nempe consensus, valide exprimi potest etiam signis seu nutu.

68. Non solum ad liceitatem, verum etiam ad valorem absolutionis sacramentalis requiritur, ut ore proferatur.
Verum quidem est, hanc doctrinam probari non posse ex natura rei, scil. ex natura iudicii, cum sententiae iudiciali minime repugnet eam scripto ferri. At sacramentum poenitentiae est positivae institutionis, secundum voluntatem Christi, et non aliter, administrandum; atqui ex Traditione constat voluntatem Christi fuisse, ut absolutio voce humana detur; ergo.

Quidam veteres theologi docebant verba non requiri ad valorem absolutionis, atque idcirco censebant valide confessarium absolvere signo aut scripto, itemque valide tum confessionem tum absolutionem inter absentes peragi posse per litteras. Haec opinio falsa est, ut patet ex dictis ac statem dicendis. Utrum in extrema necessitate confessarius praesans, destitutus omnino usu linguae, valeat poenitenti praesenti impertire absolutionem scripto vel signo, disputatur.

My Translation:

67. I. Sacramental absolution must be given with words.
For:

1. All ritual books contain an oral or vocal form of absolution, insofar as they always present the minister as giving absolution orally, and in no other way.

2. The Florentine and Tridentine Councils teach that the form of this sacrament is the words: I absolve you etc.; indeed they indicate not only the words expressing the form in this way, but they also hand on a general doctrine, especially the Florentine, which states “all sacraments are completed by words as the form.”
“From this general rule, carefully warns Suarez, we must not make an exception nor interpret it regarding some sacrament either improperly or by analogy, except where it is considered as being from the tradition of the Church and the consensus of the ancient Doctors.”

3. The common doctrine of theologians agrees who teach that absolution is to be given orally.
“Only God through his authority absolves from sin and remits sin; nevertheless priests do both through their ministry, inasmuch as the words of the priest are clearly working instrumentally in this sacrament with divine force… Wherefore as in the Eucharist the priest completes the sacrament only by the offering of the words over the matter, so also the words alone of the priest absolving [over] the penitent complete the sacrament of absolution.”
So also St. Thomas.

Wherefore absolution cannot be given by writing or sign or a nod, even in grave necessity. No more can a mute priest absolve. In this matter there appears a distinction between the sacrament of penance and the sacrament of matrimony, in which the form, namely consent, can be validly expressed even by signs or a nod.

68. It is required not only for liceity, but also for the validity of sacramental absolution, that it be given orally.
This is true however, that this doctrine cannot be proven from the nature of the matter, namely from the nature of judgment, since it is not repugnant in the least to a judicial sentence that it be given in writing. But the sacrament of penance is of positive institution, according to the will of Christ, and in no other way, is it to be administered; moreover there is an agreement from the Tradition that it was the will of Christ that absolution be given with the human voice; therefore.
Certain older theologians used to teach that the words are not required for the validity of absolution; and therefore they reckoned that a confessor validly absolved by sign or writing, and moreover that confession and absolution could be validly given through a letter. This opinion is false, as is manifest from the things said and to be said shortly. Whether in extreme necessity a present confessor, absolutely deprived of any use whatsoever of the tongue, would be able to impart absolution to a present penitent by writing or sign is disputed.

Can American Sign Language be used to supply the essential sacramental form of the sacraments? For example, can a priest sign “I absolve you” or “This is my body” or “I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” and validly administer/confect the sacraments of Penance, Eucharist, and Baptism?

This question is not new.

Dr. Ed Peters writes: “Rather, the ASL liturgical language question really comes down to whether a celebrant could offer Mass solely in sign language, without using an approved oral language (here, English) at the same time, even inaudibly.”

Dr. Ed Peters also writes:

Thanks for your kind words, as always, Jimmy. About your question on sacramental form and orality, I have (what I think is) an exhaustive analysis of that topic already finished. It is being juried for the professional journals now. In short, I think what we see is an example of, how to put it, Ecclesiae praxis aliquando docet doctrinam Ecclesiae. It really wasn’t hard to work it all out; St. Thomas, Regatillo, and Cappello provided the necessary tools.

Sacramental Form

Cappello, in the context of the history of the usage of the terms “matter” and “form” as applied analogously to the sacraments, writes (Tractatus Canonico-Moralis de Sacramentis, Editio 4a, Vol. I, p. 12):

Materia est pars determinabilis; forma est pars determinans, ea nempe quae determinat materiam ad rem individuam. Ita pariter in sacramentis: res sensibilis, v. g. aqua, est indeterminata; forma, v. g. verba, materiae applicata specialem significationem ipsi tribuit.

My translation:

Matter is the determinable part; form is the determining part, it is certainly that which determines the matter toward an individual thing. Thus likewise in the sacraments: the sensible thing, e.g. water, is undetermined; the form, e.g., the words, when applied to the matter gives it a special significance.

Cappello says on sacramental form (Tractatus Canonico-Moralis de Sacramentis, Editio 4a, Vol. I, p. 13):

Forma Est pars sacramenti, quae materiam determinat ad effectum sacramentalem producendum; et consistit generatim in verbis a ministro prolatis, vel, pro Matrimonii sacramento, etiam in signis, nutibus, facto, quae verborum locum tenere possunt.

My translation:

Form Is the part of the sacrament, which determines the matter in order to produce the sacramental effect; and it consists generally in the words offered by the minister, or, for the sacrament of Matrimony, even in signs, in nods, or in deed, which can take the place of words.

Regarding the form of Matrimony, Cappello further writes (Tractatus Canonico-Moralis de Sacramentis iuxta Codicem Iuris Canonici, Vol. III, #31):

Diximus verior certissime est, et vix non certa nobis videtur, quia verba Benedicti XIV in Const. << Paucis >>, 19 mart. 1758, sunt clara atque explicita: << Legitimus contractus materia insimul et forma est sacramenti matrimonii, mutua nempe ac legitima corporum traditio verbis ac nutibus interiorem animi sensum exprimentibus materia, et mutua pariter ac legitima corporum acceptatio, forma >> .

My translation:

We have said this is most certainly more true, and it seems scarcely uncertain to us, because the words of Benedict XI in the Constitution “Paucis“, 19 March 1758, are clear and explicit: “The legitimate contract is at once the matter and form of the sacrament of matrimony, indeed the mutual and legitimate giving of bodies by words or nods expressing the interior thought of the mind is the matter, and likewise the mutual and legitimate acceptance of bodies, the form.”

Aquinas says (STh. III, q. 60, a. 6, resp.):

Thirdly, a sacrament may be considered on the part of the sacramental signification. Now Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. ii) that “words are the principal signs used by men”; because words can be formed in various ways for the purpose of signifying various mental concepts, so that we are able to express our thoughts with greater distinctness by means of words. And therefore in order to insure the perfection of sacramental signification it was necessary to determine the signification of the sensible things by means of certain words.

He adds (STh. III, q. 60, a. 6, ad 2um):

And under words are comprised also sensible actions, such as cleansing and anointing and such like: because they have a like signification with the things.

In Latin (according to Corpus Thomisticum) this is:

Sub rebus autem comprehenduntur etiam ipsi actus sensibiles, puta ablutio et unctio et alia huiusmodi, quia in his est eadem ratio significandi et in rebus.

My translation:

Under things, however, are contained even sensible acts themselves, for example washing and anointing and other things of this kind, in these is the same principle of signifying [ratio significandi] as in the things.

My Thoughts

It seems to me, then, that the essence of the concept of form (as applied analogously to the sacraments) is that it determines the proper significance of the matter, that is, it expresses what is to be brought about whereas the matter on its own would be ambiguous in this regard. The notion of expressing the significance of the matter is taken to be objective, that is, even if the recipient of the sacrament does not understand what the words mean or even if the minister (with the proper intention) does not literally understand what the words mean the form is valid. Thus, the words of the form have a certain stable meaning. This is one reason why the Church is so keen on Latin; it guarantees that the meaning of the words does not change.

The issue, then, as regards the concept of what is essentially a “word” seems to me to be whether it is capable of signifying a meaning according to the mode of language. It seems a safe bet to me that older documents from ecclesiastical sources which use the term “word” regarding the form of the sacraments, even if they insist on the spoken character of the word, are presuming that all languages are spoken. Therefore, it does not seem to me to be contrary to these definitions of form to say that signs as employed in American Sign Language are “words.”

American Sign Language is a true, natural language with its own vocabulary and grammar. Thus, it is sufficiently complex to determine properly the significance of the matter of the sacraments.

The collect for Ash Wednesday was this:

Concede nobis, Domine, praesidia militiae christianae sanctis inchoare ieiuniis, ut, contra spiritales nequitias pugnaturi, continentiae muniamur auxiliis. Per Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum Filium tuum, qui tecum vivit et regnat in unitate Spiritus Sancti Deus per omnia saecula saeculorum.

If you went to Mass in English, you heard:

Lord, protect us in our struggle against evil. As we begin the discipline of Lent, make this day holy by our self-denial. Grant this through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God forever and ever.

The English–like many of the collects–is completely different. Now, I’ll admit that the Latin is hard to translate for a number of reasons. Like all collects, it is one sentence containing several clauses. Also, this particular prayer uses extensive military imagery, which really sets the tone for Lent.

A more reasonable English translation might be (though it sounds clumsy):

Grant, O Lord, that we might begin the defense of the Christian army by holy fasting, so that, we who will fight against spiritual evils, might be safeguarded by the reinforcements of continence. Through our Lord Jesus Christ your Son, who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God forever and ever.

Let’s look at the Latin again, with the military terms bolded:

Concede nobis, Domine, praesidia militiae christianae sanctis inchoare ieiuniis, ut, contra spiritales nequitias pugnaturi, continentiae muniamur auxiliis. Per Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum Filium tuum, qui Tecum vivit et regnat in unitate Spiritus Sancti Deus per omnia saecula saeculorum.

praesidium = defense, protection, garrison, detachment, support
militia = army, host, campaign
pugnaturus = about to fight
munire = to fortify, to strengthen, to defend (with a wall)
auxilia = auxiliary troops

In the Breviary, we say the Philippians 2 Canticle fairly often (I Vespers of Sunday Week I and III, to be precise). It’s beautiful in how it describes the Incarnation and the Ascension of Christ.

In the English Liturgy of the Hours, we read:

Though he was in the form of God,
Jesus did not deem equality with God
something to be grapsed at.

Rather, he emptied himself
and took the form of a slave,
being born in the likeness of men.

This is close to what many modern translations read (e.g., I believe the NIV, the NAB, and the RSV), but in the New Vulgate (which matches the Vulgate) the first line reads:

[Iesus] Qui cum in forma Dei esset
non rapinam arbitratus est
esse se aequalem Deo.

That is,

[Jesus] Who, since he was in the form of God
thought that it was not robbery
that he was equal to God.

Doesn’t that sound like almost the opposite idea? In the modern English, it sounds like Jesus was in the form of God but didn’t even begin to imagine that he could be equal with God. In the Latin, it sounds like Jesus was in the form of God and of course he knew that he was equal with God.

To be fair, translating that cum in the Latin is a little tough (the Greek lacks it for simple linguistic reasons but matches the Latin perfectly otherwise). Because esset is subjunctive, cum doesn’t refer to simple time (i.e., it does not just mean “when”), but since there’s not a hint of a tamen or anything else of the sort, the cum can’t be concessive (i.e., it doesn’t mean “though,” which is exactly what the English says). Rather, it seems like it should be causal (i.e., “because” or “since”). However, since the Greek lacks it, it may be better to omit it in English. Thus, something like “Being in the form of God …,” as I believe the Douay-Rheims has it, might be best.

The original reason for starting the website www.ipsissima-verba.org/ was to provide a place to archive Latin texts and translations. I wrote the original PHP software myself, and it was highly specialized for this task.

Once I made the switch to Drupal for content management, I could no longer achieve the same functionality, but the advantage was a stronger and more generic overall architecture.

Having learned a little bit about Drupal module writing for the Kenrick Liturgical Ministries website, I decided to try to improve the Latin Text Archive.

I now have the site in a much more usable configuration. When you view a Latin text, the translations, analysis, etc. that are associated with it appear in the right sidebar. If you view a translation or another piece of associated content, it appears side by side with the original text for comparison.

If I keep up this work, I’d like to develop a specialized way of categorizing texts. Right now, free tagging seems to be the best option since a hierarchy gets quite unwieldy when you have so many contingents (What is it? Which book is it in? Which edition of the book? Where is it in the book? etc.).