title: Dist. 35, Art. 1, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 780 -->

### Articulus unicus. *De divortio.*
### Quaestio I. *Utrum liceat uxorem dimittere ex causa fornicationis.*

Circa primum ostenditur, quod possit fieri divortium ex causa fornicationis.

1. *Matthaei* decimo nono[^p780-2]: *Si quis uxorem dimiserit, excepta causa fornicationis* etc.: ergo si hanc causam excipit, et vera est exceptio Domini; videtur, quod ex hoc licet dimittere.

<!-- page 781 -->

2. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia alter coniugum non habet potestatem in corpore alterius, nisi quia dat ei sui corporis potestatem: ergo si, quantum est in se, subtrahit, amittit potestatem in corpore coniugis. Sed hoc facit per fornicationem: ergo etc.

3. Item, vir non tenetur esse cum uxore nec reddere ei debitum nisi ratione boni fidei, nec e converso: ergo si fornicans frangit bonum fidei, non tenetur[^p781-1] debitum reddere nec cohabitare: ergo potest eam dimittere.

4. Item, alter coniugum fornicando scandalizat alterum, quia est «factum minus rectum, praebens occasionem ruinae»: ergo si omne quod scandalizat, potest homo a se sequestrare, ut patet *Matthaei* decimo octavo[^p781-2]: *Si oculus tuus scandalizat te*: ergo etc.

**Contra:**

1. *Matthaei* decimo nono[^p781-3]: *Quod Deus coniunxit homo non separet*; sed coniuges sunt divinitus coniuncti: ergo non debent humano iudicio separari: ergo nec divortium fieri ex aliqua causa.

2. Item, non est reddendum malum pro malo[^p781-4]: ergo quamvis uxor fornicando iniurietur viro, vir non debet ei reddere malum: ergo non debet eam abiicere.

3. Item, sicut dicunt canones[^p781-5], utroque fornicante, non potest alter ab altero separari; sed maior culpa est, cum uterque fornicatur, quam cum alter tantum: ergo si non potest fieri divortium ex maiori culpa, nec ex minori.

4. Item, propter defectum boni prolis, ut puta si alter sit sterilis, non potest coniux dimitti: ergo si hoc non est minus quam bonum fidei, propter defectum boni fidei matrimonium non[^p781-6] solvitur.

5. Item, quaero, qua de causa possit divortium fieri magis ex fornicatione quam ex alio peccato. Si, quia *peccat in coniugem*, similiter peccare potest detrahendo, odiendo; si vero, quia *dividit carnem*: ergo cum in peccato sodomitico non dividatur caro, videtur, quod ex illo non possit dimitti uxor; quod nefarium videtur, cum illud sit magis contra matrimonium.

Item, quaero, cum in *repudio* vir et uxor non iudicarentur ad paria, quia uxor non repudiabat virum; unde est hoc, quod in *divortio* ad paria iudicantur secundum iura[^p781-7]? *Praeterea*, quae est differentia inter divortium et repudium?

> **Conclusio.** Ex causa fornicationis culpabilis et singularis divortium fieri potest, postulante innocente.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod propter fornicationem licitum est fieri divortium inter coniuges, altero postulante. — Et ratio huius est, quia Dominus concessit; ratio autem, quare concessit, haec est, quia non servanti fidem, immo frangenti, non tenetur vir fidem servare[^p781-8]; et quia directe peccavit contra actum matrimonialem, in eodem puniri debet. Concessit igitur Dominus, divortium fieri, hoc exigente aequitate iuris matrimonialis, quae surgit ex hoc, quod alter iniuriatur alteri culpabiliter subtrahendo ius, quod habebat in corpore sine iniuria alterius. Unde non ex quacumque fornicatione fit divortium, sed ex ea, quae est culpabilis et singularis in altera personarum. Si ergo fornicetur sine culpa, ut puta per violentiam, vel per ignorantiam, cum credit, alium, cum quo coit, esse virum suum vel credit virum mortuum et contrahit cum alio; ex tali non fit divortium. Si vero fornicatio non est singularis: vel quia alter similiter[^p781-9] fornicatur, et non potest de hoc alterum increpare; vel etiam, quia alter fornicatur, altero consentiente et prostituente, et tunc est particeps criminis; vel etiam altero occasionem praebente, ut puta cum repudiavit eam, et illa contraxit cum alio — si ambo veniant ad fidem, tenetur ipsam recipere — vel etiam altero tolerante et dissimulante, ut puta cum cognoscit eam voluntarie, postquam scit, coniugem fornicari: omnibus istis modis fit quasi criminis particeps; et ideo non fit ei iniuria, et ideo ex causa tali non debet fieri divortium; quod si fiat ex tali causa propter defectum probationis, peccat ille qui procurat divortium, quia iniuste subtrahit ius coniugi[^p781-10].

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod fit ab homine divortium; dicendum, quod falsum est, immo a Deo fit ex causa iusta. «Non enim homo separat, sed Deus, quos poena damnat, quos reatus accusat, quos maleficium coarctat[^p781-11]».

<!-- page 782 -->

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non est reddendum malum pro malo; dicendum, quod si quis uxorem dimittat in ultionem iniuriae, utique peccat; sed dimitti debet propter scandalum proprium evitandum et propter uxoris vitium corrigendum.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non debet propter peccatum utriusque; dicendum, quod divortium non fit, nisi altero petente et altero coniugum alterum repellente; et quia, quando uterque reus est, non habet actionem in alterum — quia, in quo iudicat alterum, se ipsum condemnat, ad Romanos secundo[^p782-1] — cum autem alter est innocens, potest agere: ideo non est simile.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non fit propter defectum prolis divortium; dicendum, quod non est simile: quia fornicator peccat in corpus comparis[^p782-2], sed ubi defectus est prolis, potest esse sine peccato, vel saltem sine peccato in corpus viri.

5. Ad illud quod quaeritur, quare fornicatio separet; dicendum, quod est culpa non tantum contra Deum et contra corpus suum, sed contra matrimonii bonum et contra coniugii actum et contra corpus coniugis; est enim contra fidem et contra actum matrimonialem; abutitur etiam corpore, quod non est suum, sed alterius[^p782-3]: et ideo talis amittit ius petendi debitum, et quia hoc totum est in peccato contra naturam, ideo sub fornicatione comprehenditur.

Ad illud quod quaeritur de repudio, dicendum, quod differt *repudium* et *divortium*, quia *repudium* fiebat ex indebita causa, sed *divortium* ex debita; et illud est *permissum*, hoc *concessum*; differunt etiam, quia post repudium non prohibebantur nubere, post divortium autem prohibentur[^p782-4]; differunt etiam, quia vir repudiabat uxorem, non e converso; unde non iudicabantur ad paria, in divortio iudicantur ad paria. — Et huius ratio est, quia mulier merito primi peccati subiecta est viro; sed post reconciliationem Christi, in quo *non est servus et liber, masculus et femina*[^p782-5], omnino quantum ad legem tori ad paria iudicantur.

english:
### Sole Article. *On divorce.*
### Question I. *Whether it is licit to dismiss a wife for the cause of fornication.*

Concerning the first [question] it is shown that a divorce can take place for the cause of fornication.

1. *Matthew* nineteen[^p780-2]: *If anyone dismiss his wife, except for the cause of fornication* etc.: therefore if He excepts this cause, the Lord's exception is also true; it seems that on account of this it is licit to dismiss.

2. Likewise, it seems *by reason*: because one spouse does not have power over the body of the other, except because he gives to him the power of his own body: therefore if, as far as it lies in himself, he withdraws it, he loses power over the body of the spouse. But this he does through fornication: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, the husband is not bound to be with his wife nor to render her the debt except by reason of the good of faith, nor conversely: therefore if by fornicating she breaks the good of faith, he is not bound[^p781-1] to render the debt nor to cohabit: therefore he can dismiss her.

4. Likewise, one spouse by fornicating scandalizes the other, because it is «a deed less upright, affording an occasion of ruin»: therefore if everything that scandalizes a man can be set apart from himself, as is clear from *Matthew* eighteen[^p781-2]: *If your eye scandalize you*: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:**

1. *Matthew* nineteen[^p781-3]: *What God has joined let not man separate*; but spouses are joined by God: therefore they ought not to be separated by human judgment: therefore neither can a divorce take place for any cause.

2. Likewise, evil is not to be rendered for evil[^p781-4]: therefore although a wife by fornicating injures her husband, the husband ought not to render her evil: therefore he ought not to cast her off.

3. Likewise, as the canons say[^p781-5], when both fornicate, one cannot be separated from the other; but the fault is greater when both fornicate than when only one does: therefore if a divorce cannot take place for the greater fault, neither for the lesser.

4. Likewise, on account of a defect of the good of offspring — as, for instance, if one party be sterile — the spouse cannot be dismissed: therefore if this [good] is not less than the good of faith, then on account of a defect of the good of faith the marriage is not[^p781-6] dissolved.

5. Likewise, I ask, for what cause a divorce can take place rather from fornication than from another sin. If [it be said] because *she sins against her spouse*, she can sin likewise by detraction, by hatred; but if because *she divides the flesh*: therefore since in the sodomitical sin the flesh is not divided, it seems that on account of it a wife cannot be dismissed; which seems nefarious, since that [sin] is more against marriage.

Likewise, I ask: since in *repudiation* the husband and wife were not judged as equals, because the wife did not repudiate the husband; whence is it that in *divorce* they are judged as equals according to the laws[^p781-7]? *Moreover*, what is the difference between divorce and repudiation?

> **Conclusion.** For the cause of a culpable and singular fornication a divorce can take place, at the request of the innocent party.

**I respond:** It must be said that, on account of fornication, it is licit for a divorce to take place between spouses, at the request of one party. — And the reason for this is that the Lord granted it; and the reason why He granted it is this: that to one not keeping faith — indeed breaking it — the husband is not bound to keep faith[^p781-8]; and because [the offender] sinned directly against the matrimonial act, [she] ought to be punished in the same thing. The Lord therefore granted that a divorce take place, this being demanded by the equity of matrimonial law, which arises from this: that one party culpably injures the other by withdrawing the right which [the other] had over the body without injury to the other. Hence a divorce does not arise from just any fornication, but from that which is culpable and singular in one of the persons. If therefore she fornicate without fault — as, for instance, through violence, or through ignorance, when she believes the man with whom she has intercourse to be her own husband, or believes her husband dead and contracts with another — from such [fornication] no divorce arises. But if the fornication is not singular: either because the other party likewise[^p781-9] fornicates, and cannot reproach the other for this; or also because one fornicates with the other consenting and prostituting [her], and then he is a partaker of the crime; or also with the other affording the occasion, as when he has repudiated her, and she has contracted with another — if both come to the faith, he is bound to take her back — or also with the other tolerating and dissembling, as when he knowingly has relations with her voluntarily after he knows his spouse to fornicate: in all these ways he becomes as it were a partaker of the crime; and therefore no injury is done to him, and therefore from such a cause a divorce ought not to take place; and if it be done from such a cause on account of a defect of proof, he who procures the divorce sins, because he unjustly withdraws the right from his spouse[^p781-10].

1. To that, then, which is objected — that the divorce is made by man — it must be said that this is false; rather it is made by God for a just cause. «For it is not man that separates, but God, whom the penalty condemns, whom the guilt accuses, whom the crime constrains[^p781-11]».

2. To that which is objected — that evil is not to be rendered for evil — it must be said that if anyone dismiss his wife in vengeance for the injury, he certainly sins; but she ought to be dismissed for avoiding one's own scandal and for correcting the wife's vice.

3. To that which is objected — that it ought not [to be done] on account of the sin of both — it must be said that a divorce is not made unless with one party petitioning and one of the spouses repelling the other; and because, when both are guilty, [neither] has an action against the other — because, in that wherein he judges the other, he condemns himself, to the Romans, second [chapter][^p782-1] — but when the one is innocent, he can proceed: therefore it is not the same case.

4. To that which is objected — that a divorce is not made on account of a defect of offspring — it must be said that it is not the same case: because the fornicator sins against the body of the partner[^p782-2], but where there is a defect of offspring, it can be without sin, or at least without sin against the husband's body.

5. To that which is asked — why fornication separates — it must be said that it is a fault not only against God and against one's own body, but against the good of matrimony and against the act of wedlock and against the body of the spouse; for it is against faith and against the matrimonial act; she abuses moreover a body which is not her own, but another's[^p782-3]: and therefore such a one loses the right of demanding the debt, and because this whole thing is in a sin against nature, therefore it is comprehended under fornication.

To that which is asked concerning repudiation, it must be said that *repudiation* and *divorce* differ, because *repudiation* was done for an undue cause, but *divorce* for a due one; and the former is *permitted*, the latter *granted*; they differ also because after repudiation they were not forbidden to marry, but after divorce they are forbidden[^p782-4]; they differ also because the husband repudiated the wife, not conversely; whence they were not judged as equals, [whereas] in divorce they are judged as equals. — And the reason for this is that the woman, by the desert of the first sin, was made subject to the man; but after the reconciliation of Christ, in whom *there is neither slave nor free, male nor female*[^p782-5], entirely, as far as the law of the marriage-bed is concerned, they are judged as equals.

la: Vers. 9: *Dico autem vobis, quia, quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam nisi ob fornicationem* etc. Cfr. ibid. 5, 32.

en: Verse 9: *But I say to you, that whoever shall dismiss his wife except for fornication* etc. Cf. ibid. 5, 32.

la: Cod. O supplet *altera persona*, cod. U *alter*.

en: Codex O supplies *altera persona* [another person], codex U [reads] *alter* [the other].

la: Vers. 9. Cfr. ibid. 5, 29. — Superius respicitur definitio *scandali:* «Scandalum est dictum vel factum minus rectum praebens alteri occasionem ruinae», et est secundum Hieron., II. Comment. in Matth. 15, 12. (quae etiam in Glossa *ordinaria* apud Strabum et Lyranum ponitur) et secundum Glossam *interlinearem* apud Lyranum in Matth. 18, 7.

en: Verse 9. Cf. ibid. 5, 29. — Above there is regard to the definition of *scandal:* «Scandal is a word or deed less upright, affording another an occasion of ruin», and it is according to Jerome, Book II of the Commentary on Matthew 15, 12 (which is also placed in the *Ordinary* Gloss among [the notes of] Strabo and Lyra) and according to the *Interlinear* Gloss among [those of] Lyra on Matthew 18, 7.

la: Vers. 6. Plures codd. *Quos* Deus etc.

en: Verse 6. Several codices [read] *Whom* God etc.

la: Ut insinuatur Rom. 12, 17; I. Thess. 5, 15, et I. Petr. 3, 9.

en: As is intimated in Rom. 12, 17; 1 Thess. 5, 15, and 1 Pet. 3, 9.

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2. et infra dub. 1. — Pro *dicunt* cod. H *dictant*.

en: Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 2, and below, dub. 1. — For *dicunt* [say] codex H [reads] *dictant* [dictate].

la: Cod. S *minime*. Edd. legunt: *videtur, quod propter defectum... non solvatur*.

en: Codex S [reads] *minime* [by no means]. The editions read: *it seems that on account of a defect... it is not dissolved*.

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 1. — De libello *repudii* vide Deut. 24, 1: *Si acceperit homo uxorem... scribet libellum repudii* etc.

en: Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 1. — On the bill of *repudiation* see Deut. 24, 1: *If a man take a wife... he shall write a bill of repudiation* etc.

la: Regul. iuris, regul. 75: «Frustra sibi fidem quis postulat ab eo servari, cui fidem a se praestitam servare recusat», in VI. — Subinde respicitur Sap. 11, 17: *Per quae peccat quis, per haec et torquetur*. — Pro *directe* codd. communiter *recte*.

en: Rules of law, rule 75: «In vain does one demand that faith be kept toward him by one to whom he refuses to keep the faith pledged by himself», in [the Liber] VI. — Then there is regard to Wisd. 11, 17: *By what things a man sins, by these also is he tormented*. — For *directe* [directly] the codices commonly [read] *recte* [rightly].

la: Vat. addit *seu lucem*, cod. aa *tunc*, plures codd. *et*, codd. T X *etiam* (coniungendum cum verbo *tenetur*). Inferius post *modis* cod. F subiungit *quia*, omisso subinde primo *et ideo*.

en: The Vatican [ed.] adds *seu lucem*, codex aa [reads] *tunc* [then], several codices *et* [and], codices T X *etiam* [also] (to be joined with the verb *tenetur*). Lower down, after *modis* codex F adds *quia*, the first *et ideo* being thereupon omitted.

la: Cfr. infra dub. 1, ubi quae praecedunt probantur ex iure canonico.

en: Cf. below, dub. 1, where the foregoing matters are proved from canon law.

la: Ut dicitur in C. *Quos Deus coniunxit* (18.), C. 33. q. 2.

en: As is said in the canon *Quos Deus coniunxit* (18), Causa 33, q. 2.

la: Vers. 1: *In quo enim iudicas alterum, te ipsum condemnas*. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2. De ipsa solutione vide d. 32. a. 2. q. 2. ad 1.

en: Verse 1: *For wherein you judge another, you condemn yourself*. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 2. On this solution itself see d. 32, a. 2, q. 2, ad 1.

la: Hieron., Epist. 55. (alias 147.) n. 2, exponens illud 1. Cor. 6, 18: *Qui autem fornicatur in corpus suum peccat*, ait: «Sunt qui ita edisserant, quod secundum Scripturam [Eph. 5, 28.] uxor viri corpus sit, et quicumque fuerit fornicatus, peccet in corpus suum, hoc est in uxorem, dum eam sua fornicatione commaculat et facit, eam non peccantem sua commixtione peccare».

en: Jerome, Epist. 55 (alias 147), n. 2, expounding that [text] of 1 Cor. 6, 18: *But he who fornicates sins against his own body*, says: «There are those who so explain [it], that according to Scripture [Eph. 5, 28] the wife is the husband's body, and that whoever has fornicated sins against his own body, that is, against his wife, since he defiles her by his fornication and makes her, though not sinning, to sin by his commingling».

la: Cfr. 1. Cor. 7, 4. — Superius post *dicendum, quod* fere omnes codd. addunt *quia;* fortasse legendum: *dicendum, quod hoc est, quia* (vel *quod ideo, quia*).

en: Cf. 1 Cor. 7, 4. — Above, after *dicendum, quod* [it must be said that], nearly all the codices add *quia* [because]; perhaps it should be read: *dicendum, quod hoc est, quia* (or *quod ideo, quia*).

la: Vide infra q. 4. — Pro *differunt* non pauci codd. bis *differt*.

en: See below, q. 4. — For *differunt* [they differ] not a few codices [read], twice, *differt* [it differs].

la: Gal. 3, 28: *Non est servus neque liber; non est masculus neque femina*. Cfr. supra d. 33. a. 3. q. 2. ad 3.

en: Gal. 3, 28: *There is neither slave nor free; there is neither male nor female*. Cf. above, d. 33, a. 3, q. 2, ad 3. ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** Solutio 1. quaestionis definita est a Concilio Tridentino (Sess. XXIV. can. 8.). Divortium ob adulterium concessum in septem casibus non licere, docetur a S. Bonav. infra dub. 1. et a S. Thoma aliisque in ipsa 1. quaestione, a B. Alberto, hic a. 10.

De hac 1. quaestione: S. Thom., hic a. 1; Suppl. q. 62. a. 1. — B. Albert., hic a. 1. — Petr. a Tar., hic a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1. 4. — Durand., de hac et 2 seqq. qq. hic q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., de tota dist. hic q. unica.

**II.** Quoad 2. quaestionem communiter (cfr. etiam infra dub. 3.) docetur, quod rarissime uxor teneatur se separare a viro adultero; sed vir, utpote ad correctionem uxoris obligatus, quando adulterium mulieris est publicum, «si adultera non poeniteat, tenetur, ne peccato eius consentire videatur, dum correctionem debitam non apponit» (S. Thom., hic a. 2; Suppl. q. 62. a. 2.). Hoc Richard. (loc. cit. q. 2.) intelligit de ea quae «probabiliter praesumitur esse incorrigibilis». Recentiores etiam virum saepe excusari posse docent, si ob graves rationes separationem non procuret.

De eadem 2. quaestione: B. Albert., hic a. 6. — Petr. a Tar., hic a. 2.

**III.** Secundum canones divortium proprie dictum, sive separatio a toro et cohabitatione, non potest licite fieri nisi iudicio ecclesiastico. Ob speciales circumstantias, ubi aditus ad iudicem ecclesiasticum non patet, etiam privatam separationem nostra aetate interdum excusari posse, nunc communiter docetur, praesertim quando non intenditur *perpetuum* divortium.

De 3. quaestione: S. Thom., locis citt. a. 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 7. 8. — Petr. a Tar., hic a. 3. — Richard. a Med., loc. cit. q. 3.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** The solution of the 1st question was defined by the Council of Trent (Sess. XXIV, can. 8). That divorce granted on account of adultery is not licit in seven cases is taught by St. Bonaventure below, in dub. 1, and by St. Thomas and others in the 1st question itself, [and] by Bl. Albert, here, art. 10.

On this 1st question: St. Thomas, here, a. 1; Suppl. q. 62. a. 1. — Bl. Albert, here, a. 1. — Peter of Tarentaise, here, a. 1. — Richard of Middleton, here, a. 1. q. 1. 4. — Durandus, on this and the 2 following questions, here, q. 1. — Denys the Carthusian, on the whole distinction, here, q. unica.

**II.** As to the 2nd question, it is commonly taught (cf. also below, dub. 3) that most rarely is a wife bound to separate herself from an adulterous husband; but the husband, inasmuch as he is obliged to the correction of his wife, when the wife's adultery is public, «if the adulteress do not repent, is bound [to it], lest he seem to consent to her sin by not applying the due correction» (St. Thomas, here, a. 2; Suppl. q. 62. a. 2). This Richard (loc. cit. q. 2) understands of her who «is probably presumed to be incorrigible». More recent [authors] also teach that the husband can often be excused, if for grave reasons he does not procure the separation.

On the same 2nd question: Bl. Albert, here, a. 6. — Peter of Tarentaise, here, a. 2.

**III.** According to the canons, divorce properly so called — that is, separation from bed and cohabitation — cannot licitly take place except by ecclesiastical judgment. On account of special circumstances, where access to the ecclesiastical judge is not open, that even a private separation can in our age at times be excused is now commonly taught, especially when a *perpetual* divorce is not intended.

On the 3rd question: St. Thomas, at the cited places, a. 3. — Bl. Albert, here, a. 7. 8. — Peter of Tarentaise, here, a. 3. — Richard of Middleton, loc. cit. q. 3.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the vol. 4 Quaracchi PDF page bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{780,781,782}-{L,R}-*` regenerated at split_x=2120), cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR (raw L83634–83811). Per the VOL II OVERRIDE the column-band PDF read is authoritative for the cascade-shattered Respondeo, Ad-obiecta, scholion, and footers; the OCR served as the base for the clean running prose of the videtur/contra arguments. Offset pdf = printed + 20 (printed 780–782 → pdf 800–802), verified from the running heads (`780`, `DIST. XXXV. ART. UNICUS QUAEST. I. 781`, `782 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.`).

**Page-split of the body.** Page 780 carries only the article/question openers and arg. 1 (which spills across both columns, ending "…videtur, quod ex hoc licet dimittere"). Page 781 carries args. 2–4, Contra 1–5 + the unnumbered *repudium* objection, the Conclusio box, the whole Respondeo, and Ad 1. Page 782 carries Ad 2–5, the reply on *repudium*, then the Scholion (bottom, both columns), after which q2 begins on the same page.

**Apparatus count = 17.** Per-page split: p780 → 1 (label p780-2 only); p781 → 11 (labels p781-1…11); p782 → 5 (labels p782-1…5).

**Footer hand-offs.**
- *Page 780 (shared with the divisio):* the main-text note ¹ *Libr. 1. de Nuptiis et concupisc.…* (anchored on the Lombard-littera *Augustinus¹* citation) and the *Notae ad Commentarium* note ¹ *Cod. aa de divortio, quod fit propter adulterium* (anchored on the article heading *De divortio*) both belong to `bon-sent-IV-d35-divisio`, NOT to this chunk. Only *Notae* note ² (*Vers. 9: Dico autem vobis…*), anchored on arg. 1's *Matthaei decimo nono²*, is claimed here as [^p780-2].
- *Page 782 (shared with q2):* note ⁶ (*Vers. 12. — Glossa, quae est ordinaria… ex August., l. de Serm. Domini in monte, c. 16. n. 45*) is anchored on q2's opener *Primae ad Corinthios septimo⁶* and belongs to `bon-sent-IV-d35-a1-q2`, not here. This chunk claims only p782 notes 1–5.

**Scholion disposition.** This distinction has TWO scholia. The FIRST scholion (this chunk, printed at the foot of p782 after q1's Ad-obiecta) has THREE sections and covers the first three questions: **§I → q1** (Trent Sess. XXIV can. 8; doctor-list "De hac 1. quaestione"), **§II → q2** (separation of an innocent spouse; "De eadem 2. quaestione"), **§III → q3** (canonical requirement of ecclesiastical judgment; "De 3. quaestione"). All three §§ are rendered here in full. The SECOND scholion (raw ~L84205, not in this chunk) belongs to a1-q4 and covers the later questions.

**[?] flags.**
- `[^p781-2]` — **RESOLVED (600 dpi, p. 781, `raw/vision/vol4/p-hires-781-r600-0801.png`, left footer column, note ²; crop y 0.72–1.0 × x 0.0–0.52, note-² line enlarged ×4).** Quaracchi prints "**II. Comment. in Matth. 15, 12.**" — not "18, 12". The unreadable glyph was simply the closing period before the parenthesis. Corrected in both La and En; `[?]` removed. (The reading is internally right: Jerome's *Comm. in Matth.* Book II covers Matt 11–16, and Matt 15:12 — *scandalizati sunt Pharisaei* — is the scandal lemma. The later "in Matth. 18, 7" in the same note refers to the *interlinear* Gloss and is unchanged.)
- `[^p781-9]` — **RESOLVED (600 dpi, p. 781, same image, right footer column, note ⁹; crop y 0.72–1.0 × x 0.48–1.0).** The printed note reads "Vat. addit *seu lucem*, cod. aa *tunc*, plures codd. *et*, codd. T X *etiam* (coniungendum cum verbo *tenetur*)…". The suspected extra glyph after *seu lucem* is only the **comma**. `[?]` removed in both halves; no other change.

**Hand-off forward to q2.** q2 (`bon-sent-IV-d35-a1-q2`, printed_pages [782, 783]) begins on p782 immediately below this scholion with the header *Quaestio II. Utrum dimittere uxorem fornicariam sit in praecepto* → *Secundo quaeritur…*; its first footer is p782 note ⁶ (see above). Its opening sentence is grammatically independent of q1's scholion (no mid-page splice).


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 35, Art. 1, Q. 2

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 782 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum dimittere uxorem fornicariam sit in praecepto.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum dimittere uxorem fornicariam sit in praecepto. Et quod non, videtur.

1. Primae ad Corinthios septimo[^p782-6] dicit Glossa: « Dominus permisit causa fornicationis dimittere uxorem »; sed permissio non est praeceptum: ergo etc.

2. Item, esto quod vir non peccavit, tunc ergo ius habet et actionem in petendo debitum ab uxore, quantumcumque uxor peccet: ergo qualitercumque peccet, non tenetur eam dimittere.

3. Item, ipse vir non tenetur continere, nisi velit: ergo cum, dimissa uxore, teneatur continere, non tenetur uxorem dimittere.

4. Item, unusquisque potest iniuriam sibi illatam dimittere et peccanti parcere nec tenetur a peccante poenam exigere: ergo quotiescumque mulier peccaverit in virum adulterando, vir potest remittere: ergo non tenetur eam dimittere.

<!-- page 783 -->

**Contra:** 1. Chrysostomus[^p783-1]: « Sicut crudelis et iniquus est qui castam dimittit, similiter stultus et iniustus est qui retinet meretricem »: ergo etc.

2. Item, Hieronymus[^p783-2]: « Cum mulier se fornicatione a viro separaverit, non debet teneri, ne virum quoque sub maledicto faciat, dicente Scriptura: *Qui tenet adulteram stultus et impius est* », decimo octavo Proverbiorum.

3. Item, viri est cohibere et corrigere uxorem: ergo si cohabitat cum muliere adultera affectu maritali, consentit sceleri: ergo si tenetur non consentire, patet etc.

4. Item, mulier fornicans meretricatur; sed *qui adhaeret meretrici unum corpus efficitur*[^p783-3]: ergo cum membra Christi non debeant fieri membra meretricis, tenetur ab ea separari.

> **Conclusio.** Uxorem publice et perseveranter adulterantem tenetur vir dimittere ex praecepto; non vero hoc potest, si ista peccat in occulto, nec tenetur, si poeniteat.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod fornicans coniux, aut fornicatur in *occulto*, aut in *manifesto*. Si in *occulto*; sic non potest dimittere, quia non potest probare, et non est nostrum de occultis iudicare. Si in *manifesto*, aut *perseverat* in malitia, aut *convertitur* ad poenitentiam. Si *perseverat* in malitia, sic, quia scandalizat, et quia vir tenetur uxorem corrigere iuxta mandatum evangelicum[^p783-4], tenetur eam dimittere. Si autem *poenitet* et se corrigit, non tenetur. — Et in primo casu loquuntur auctoritates Sanctorum et canonum; unde Hieronymus[^p783-5]: « Si vir scit, uxorem deliquisse, et mulier permanserit in fornicatione, et vivit cum ea vir; particeps est peccati eius ». Tenetur ergo vir uxorem corrigere, ideo et fornicantem dimittere et ratione huius ad tempus continere; nec amittit ius in uxorem, ut patebit[^p783-6]; et quamvis debeat *dimittere iniuriam*, debet tamen *corrigere culpam*. — Et sic concedendae sunt rationes, quod non tenetur simpliciter dimittere, sed in casu; nec tunc ad omne tempus, sed ad aliquod, pro eo quod non tenetur perpetualiter continere; sed quemadmodum, uxore infirmante corporaliter, tenetur continere ad tempus, ita, uxore infirmante spiritualiter, ad eius correptionem tenetur ad tempus eam repellere, quoniam, quamvis possit culpam *indulgere*, debet tamen *corrigere*. Haec enim simul a Domino praecepta sunt cuilibet, scilicet ut proximo suo unusquisque parcat; iterum, quod parcendo corripiat. Et haec duo simul tanguntur Matthaei decimo octavo[^p783-7]. Similiter rationes ad oppositum concedendae sunt in eo casu, in quo mulier indiget aliqua manifesta correptione propter criminis infamiam et evidentiam[^p783-8]. 4. Tamen quod obiicit, quod est meretrix; dicendum, quod meretrix dupliciter potest cognosci: aut secundum quod *meretrix*, et sic cognoscitur a non suo, et hoc modo Apostolus[^p783-9] istud vituperat, quia est in contumeliam Christi; potest iterum cognosci ut *uxor*; et sic in nullius est contumeliam, immo cognoscitur ordinate. — Item, cum dicitur, quod cognoscere meretricem est malum, intelligenda est propositio cum reduplicatione, in quantum scilicet est meretrix, sive affectu meretricio. Et sic patet totum[^p783-10].

---

english:
### Question II. *Whether to dismiss an adulterous wife is a matter of precept.*

Secondly it is asked whether to dismiss an adulterous wife is a matter of precept. And that it is not, seems [to be the case]:

1. On First Corinthians, chapter seven[^p782-6], the Gloss says: « The Lord permitted a wife to be dismissed for the cause of fornication »; but a permission is not a precept: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, granted that the husband has not sinned, then he therefore has a right and an action in demanding the [conjugal] debt from his wife, however much the wife may sin: therefore in whatever way she sins, he is not bound to dismiss her.

3. Likewise, the husband himself is not bound to be continent unless he wishes: therefore since, once his wife is dismissed, he would be bound to be continent, he is not bound to dismiss his wife.

4. Likewise, anyone can remit an injury done to himself and spare the one who sins, nor is he bound to exact a penalty from the one who sins: therefore however often the woman has sinned against her husband by committing adultery, the husband can remit [it]: therefore he is not bound to dismiss her.

**On the contrary:** 1. Chrysostom[^p783-1]: « Just as he is cruel and unjust who dismisses a chaste [wife], so he is foolish and unjust who retains a harlot »: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, Jerome[^p783-2]: « When a woman has separated herself from her husband by fornication, he ought not to be bound [to her], lest he make her husband also to be under a curse, as Scripture says: *He who keeps an adulteress is foolish and impious* », in the eighteenth [chapter] of Proverbs.

3. Likewise, it belongs to the husband to restrain and correct his wife: therefore if he cohabits with an adulterous woman with marital affection, he consents to the crime: therefore if he is bound not to consent, it is evident etc.

4. Likewise, a woman who fornicates plays the harlot; but *he who cleaves to a harlot is made one body [with her]*[^p783-3]: therefore since the members of Christ ought not to become members of a harlot, he is bound to be separated from her.

> **Conclusion.** A wife who commits adultery publicly and persistently the husband is bound to dismiss by precept; but he cannot do this if she sins in secret, nor is he bound [to] if she repents.

**I respond:** It must be said that a spouse who fornicates either fornicates in *secret* or in the *open*. If in *secret*, then he cannot dismiss [her], because he cannot prove [it], and it is not for us to judge concerning hidden things. If in the *open*, either she *perseveres* in her wickedness, or she *is converted* to penitence. If she perseveres in wickedness, then, because she gives scandal, and because the husband is bound to correct his wife according to the evangelical command[^p783-4], he is bound to dismiss her. But if she *repents* and corrects herself, he is not bound [to]. — And in the first case the authorities of the Saints and of the canons are speaking; whence Jerome[^p783-5]: « If a husband knows that his wife has offended, and the woman has persisted in fornication, and the husband lives with her, he is a participant in her sin ». Therefore the husband is bound to correct his wife, and hence also to dismiss the fornicating [wife] and by reason of this to be continent for a time; nor does he lose his right over his wife, as will be shown[^p783-6]; and although he ought to *remit the injury*, he ought nevertheless to *correct the fault*. — And thus the reasons are to be conceded, that he is not bound to dismiss [her] simply, but in [a particular] case; nor then for all time, but for some [time], for the reason that he is not bound to be continent perpetually; but just as, when the wife is sick bodily, he is bound to be continent for a time, so, when the wife is sick spiritually, for her correction he is bound to repel her for a time, since, although he can *pardon* the fault, he ought nevertheless to *correct* [it]. For these two things were commanded together by the Lord to everyone, namely that each one spare his neighbor; and again, that in sparing he correct. And these two are touched upon together in Matthew, the eighteenth [chapter][^p783-7]. Similarly the reasons for the opposite are to be conceded in that case in which the woman needs some manifest correction on account of the infamy and evidence of the crime[^p783-8]. 4. Yet as to what is objected, that she is a harlot; it must be said that a harlot can be known in two ways: either according as [she is] a *harlot*, and thus she is known by one who is not her own, and in this way the Apostle[^p783-9] censures this, because it is unto the reproach of Christ; she can also be known as a *wife*; and thus it is unto no one's reproach, but rather she is known in an orderly way. — Likewise, when it is said that to know a harlot is an evil, the proposition must be understood with reduplication, namely inasmuch as she is a harlot, or with harlot-like affection. And thus the whole [matter] is evident[^p783-10].

---

la: Vers. 12. — Glossa, quae est *ordinaria* apud Strabum et Lyranum, sumta est ex August., l. de Serm. Domini in monte, c. 16. n. 45.

en: Verse 12. — The Gloss, which is the *ordinary* [Gloss] in Strabo and Lyra, is taken from Augustine, book *On the Lord's Sermon on the Mount*, c. 16, n. 45.

la: Homil. 32. in Matth. 19, 9. (op. imperfect.). Cfr. C. *Sicut crudelis* (1.), C. 32. q. 1, et hic lit. Magistri, c. 3.

en: Homily 32 on Matthew 19:9 (*Opus imperfectum*). Cf. the canon *Sicut crudelis* (1), Causa 32, q. 1, and here the text of the Master, c. 3.

la: Libr. III. Comment. in Matth. 19, 9. Locus Scripturae est Prov. 18, 22. Vide C. *Dixit Dominus* (2.), C. 32. q. 1.

en: Book III of the *Commentary on Matthew* 19:9. The scriptural passage is Proverbs 18:22. See the canon *Dixit Dominus* (2), Causa 32, q. 1.

en: [Paul's] Epistle, 1 Corinthians 6:16.

la: Matth. 18, 15. seqq.

en: Matthew 18:15 ff.

la: Potius Hermas; cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 3. in fine. Eadem verba occurrunt in C. *Si vir sciens* (3.), X. de Adulteriis et stupro (lib. V. tit. 16.).

en: Rather Hermas; cf. here the text of the Master, c. 3, at the end. The same words occur in the canon *Si vir sciens* (3), in the *Decretals*, On Adulteries and Rape (book V, tit. 16).

la: Quaest. 4. et 5.

en: Questions 4 and 5.

la: Vers. 15. seqq. — Superius verbo *corrigere* cod. aa praemittit *eam*.

en: Verse 15 ff. — Above, at the word *corrigere*, codex aa prefixes *eam*.

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 3, ubi Chrysostomi et Hieron. verba explicantur.

en: Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 3, where the words of Chrysostom and Jerome are explained.

la: Epist. 1. Cor. 6, 15: Nescitis, quoniam corpora vestra membra sunt Christi etc.

en: [Paul's] Epistle, 1 Corinthians 6:15: Know you not, that your bodies are the members of Christ, etc.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion on the preceding question. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{782,783}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, L regenerated at split 2120, R at split 1780 — the auto-crop at the default split clipped both outer columns), with the IA djvu OCR (raw L83812–83908) as base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. Per the Vol II/IV override the PDF bands are authoritative for the cascade-shattered two-column regions. Offset pdf = printed + 20 (printed 782–783 = PDF 802–803).

**Alignment.** Verified: the opener "Secundo quaeritur, utrum dimittere uxorem fornicariam sit in praecepto" aligns correctly with the QUAESTIO II header (raw L83812); the range ends immediately before "QUAESTIO III." (raw L83909). No q-swap.

**Page layout.** Both printed pages are split horizontally. On p. 782 the upper block (both columns) is q. 1's solutio (*Ad 3–5*, *Ad de repudio*) followed by the article's first SCHOLION (which covers q. 1 + q. 2 and is rendered in the a1-q1 chunk, per the launch map — `has_scholion: false` here); q. 2 begins in the lower block (QUAESTIO II header + title spanning, then two columns). Argument 4 begins in p. 782's right column ("…nec tenetur a pec-") and completes at the top of p. 783's left column ("-cante poenam exigere…"); the `<!-- page 783 -->` break is placed at the nearest clean paragraph boundary (before **Contra**). On p. 783 the upper block (both columns) holds q. 2's *Contra*, *Conclusio*, *Respondeo* and solution; QUAESTIO III begins in the lower block — owned by the a1-q3 chunk.

**Page-verify.** Running heads on the bands: p. 782 = "782 … SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV."; p. 783 = "DIST. XXXV. ART. UNICUS QUAEST. III. 783". Note p. 783's running head reads **QUAEST. III** because the q. 3 boundary falls on this page — q. 2 occupies the upper portion and q. 3 begins lower on the same page. Distinctio XXXV, single-pars (Articulus Unicus), so no pars field.

**Footer hand-offs.**
- p. 782 has 6 footer notes (left column 1–2, right column 3–6). Notes **1–5 anchor in the preceding q. 1** (note 1 = "ad Romanos secundo" in q1 *Ad 3*; note 2 = "corpus comparis" in q1 *Ad 4*; note 3 = "sed alterius" in q1 *Ad 5*; notes 4–5 = "prohibentur"/"masculus et femina" in q1 *Ad de repudio*) → owned by **a1-q1**, NOT claimed here. Only **note 6** ("Corinthios septimo" in this question's arg. 1) is claimed → rendered as `[^p782-6]`.
- p. 783 has 12 footer notes. Notes **1–10 are this question's** (arg. Contra + Respondeo/solution markers) → claimed as `[^p783-1]`…`[^p783-10]`. Notes **11–12 anchor in the following q. 3** (note 11 = "Dominus" in q3 arg. 1; note 12 = "Matthaei primo" in q3 arg. 2) → owned by **a1-q3**, NOT claimed here.

**Apparatus count:** 11 entries — p. 782: 1 (note 6); p. 783: 10 (notes 1–10).

**Marginalia omitted** (per corpus convention, as in d13-a1-q4): the printed side-rubrics *Argg. pro parte negativa*, *Ad argg. pro 2. parte*, *Ad argg. pro 1. parte*, *Pro 2. parte* (marking the solution's divisions) are editorial and are not rendered in the body.

**Silent OCR corrections** from the bands: *evangelicum* (OCR "cvangelicuDrt"), *poenam exigere* (OCR "canle"→"cante"→"peccante poenam exigere"), *efficitur* (OCR "epcitur"), *totum* (OCR "'°"); doubled "in in monte" in note 6 read as "in monte" (line-break artifact).

**[?] flags:** none open.

method: LLM-assisted translation from the Quaracchi Latin, verified chunk-by-chunk against the printed plates (apparatus roster, cross-references, page/gutter boundaries).

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


title: Dist. 35, Art. 1, Q. 3

source_text:
<!-- page 783 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum possit aliquis uxorem fornicantem dimittere propria auctoritate.*

Tertio quaeritur, utrum possit quis uxorem fornicantem dimittere propria auctoritate, sine iudicio Ecclesiae. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Quia Dominus[^p783-11] dat iustam sententiam, cum iubet dimitti ex causa fornicationis: ergo si hoc est de iustitia, et quod a Deo iudicatum est, non indiget ampliori iudicio: ergo sine omni alio iudicio potest eam dimittere.

2. Item, Matthaei primo[^p783-12]: *Ioseph, cum esset vir iustus, cogitavit occulte dimittere Mariam;*
<!-- page 784 -->
Glossa dicit, quod fuit «*iustus* et *pius*: *iustus*, quia voluit dimittere; *pius*, quia noluit propalare»: ergo cum Ioseph laudetur, quia voluit occulte dimittere; licet ergo sine iudicio Ecclesiae dimittere.

3. Item, possibile est, quod fornicatio nota sit soli viro, sed nihilominus tenetur vir uxorem corripere; sed divortium erat ad correptionem fornicariae: ergo cum hoc non possit probare in facie Ecclesiae, saltem tenetur, si non potest eam dimittere in publico, dimittere in occulto.

4. Item, si vir post cognitam fornicationem voluntarie uxorem cognoscit, contrahit irregularitatem[^p784-1] et etiam amittit actionem contra fornicariam: ergo si ad hoc non tenetur, potest uxori debitum denegare, et ita potest eam dimittere.

**Contra:**

1. Nullus se ipsum debet vindicare, quia *mihi vindictam, dicit Dominus,* ad Romanos duodecimo[^p784-2]: ergo si mulier peccavit in virum, vir non potest eam propria auctoritate dimittere.

2. Item, nullus in eadem causa potest esse actor et iudex[^p784-3]; sed vir est actor: ergo non debet esse iudex.

3. Item, repudium in Lege non licebat fieri nisi auctoritate iudicum civitatis cum datione libelli[^p784-4]: ergo multo fortius nec in nova lege.

4. Item, si vir propria auctoritate dimittat uxorem reclamantem, compellitur eam recipere[^p784-5]: ergo praeter ordinem iuris eam dimisit, ergo non videtur etc.

5. Item, matrimonium non potest contrahi in occulto sine peccato[^p784-6]; sed facilius est ipsum contrahere quam dividere: ergo in occulto sine peccato non potest dividi.

> **Conclusio.** Cognito certitudinaliter adulterio, pars innocens potest propria auctoritate in occulto se separare a toro tantum; sed divortium manifestum non potest fieri nisi in iudicio episcopi.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod contingit, uxorem dimitti a viro dupliciter: vel quantum ad *torum*, ut non commisceantur carnaliter; vel quantum ad torum et mutuam cohabitationem. Si *primo* modo; sic dico, quod vir, comperto et cognito certitudinaliter, quod uxor fornicetur, vel e converso, potest debitum denegare, nec ad hoc tenetur, nisi per censuram ecclesiasticam compellatur; et tunc, si compulsus debitum reddidit, nullum ei praeiudicium generatur. — Ratio huius est, quia tenetur et debet corrigere suam comparem vel coniugem in occulto[^p784-7].

Si autem loquamur de separatione *secundo* modo; sic dicitur divortium, et hoc, quia est in manifesto, non debet fieri in occulto, sed in facie Ecclesiae; et quia matrimonium *est magnum Sacramentum*[^p784-8], non sub quocumque iudice, sed coram episcopo. Et hoc est quod dicitur Causa trigesima tertia, quaestione secunda, capitulo primo, *Saeculares* etc.; quod fuit editum in Concilio Carthaginensi, cui interfuit Augustinus[^p784-9], ubi dicitur: «Si antequam ad episcopos comprovinciales dissidii causas dixerint, et priusquam in iudicio damnentur, uxores suas abiecerint; a communione Ecclesiae et sancto populi coetu, pro eo quod coniugia maculant, separentur». Et iterum, in eadem quaestione Nicolaus Papa[^p784-10]: Non liceat alicui sua auctoritate uxorem suam dimittere. — Unde secundum ius commune tenetur iterum eam resumere, quia iniuste exspoliati restitui debent ante litis contestationem; et hoc dico, nisi obiiciat ei fornicationem, quam velit incontinenti probare, vel aliquod consimile.

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod Dominus sententiam tulit; dicendum, quod falsum est, quia non *tulit sententiam,* sed *expressit*; et secundum illud ius episcopis potestatem sententiandi dimisit.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Ioseph, dicendum, quod non est simile: quia tunc propter fornicationem non fiebat divortium, sed homicidium[^p784-11], et Ioseph tanquam pius timebat mortem Mariae.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quodsi fornicatio soli viro nota est; dicendum, quod tunc debet uxorem corripere in occulto, non per divortium.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod contrahit irregularitatem et amittit actionem, si cognoscit
<!-- page 785 -->
voluntarie; dicendum, quod non tenetur eam cognoscere, nec tamen ex hoc debet eam propria auctoritate dimittere.

Rationes ad oppositum probant, quod divortium non potest fieri nisi in facie Ecclesiae, cum sit publicum; et hoc est verum[^p785-1].

---

english:
<!-- page 783 -->

### Question III. *Whether anyone may dismiss an adulterous wife on his own authority.*

Thirdly it is asked whether anyone may dismiss an adulterous wife on his own authority, without the judgment of the Church. And that he may, it seems:

1. Because the Lord[^p783-11] gives a just sentence when he commands [a wife] to be dismissed for the cause of fornication: therefore if this is a matter of justice, and what has been judged by God does not need any further judgment: therefore without any other judgment he can dismiss her.

2. Likewise, in Matthew, chapter one[^p783-12]: *Joseph, since he was a just man, thought to dismiss Mary secretly;*
<!-- page 784 -->
the Gloss says that he was «*just* and *merciful*: *just*, because he willed to dismiss her; *merciful*, because he was unwilling to make it public»: therefore since Joseph is praised because he willed to dismiss her secretly; it is therefore permitted to dismiss [a wife] without the judgment of the Church.

3. Likewise, it is possible that the fornication is known to the husband alone, but nonetheless the husband is bound to correct his wife; but divorce was for the correction of the adulteress: therefore, since he cannot prove this before the Church, at least he is bound, if he cannot dismiss her publicly, to dismiss her secretly.

4. Likewise, if a husband, after knowing of the fornication, voluntarily has knowledge of his wife, he contracts an irregularity[^p784-1] and also loses his action against the adulteress: therefore if he is not bound to this, he can deny his wife the [conjugal] debt, and thus he can dismiss her.

**On the contrary:**

1. No one ought to avenge himself, because *vengeance is mine, says the Lord,* to the Romans, chapter twelve[^p784-2]: therefore if a wife has sinned against her husband, the husband cannot dismiss her on his own authority.

2. Likewise, no one in the same case can be both plaintiff and judge[^p784-3]; but the husband is the plaintiff: therefore he ought not to be the judge.

3. Likewise, in the [Old] Law repudiation was not permitted to take place except by the authority of the judges of the city, with the giving of a bill [of divorce][^p784-4]: therefore much more so [is it not permitted] in the new law.

4. Likewise, if a husband on his own authority dismisses a wife who protests, he is compelled to take her back[^p784-5]: therefore he dismissed her outside the order of law, therefore it does not seem [lawful], etc.

5. Likewise, matrimony cannot be contracted in secret without sin[^p784-6]; but it is easier to contract it than to dissolve it: therefore in secret it cannot be dissolved without sin.

> **Conclusion.** When adultery is known with certainty, the innocent party can on his own authority separate himself in secret from the bed only; but a manifest divorce cannot take place except in the judgment of the bishop.

**I respond:** It must be said that it happens that a wife is dismissed by her husband in two ways: either as regards the *bed*, so that they are not joined carnally; or as regards the bed and mutual cohabitation. If in the *first* way; thus I say that the husband, having discovered and known with certainty that his wife commits fornication, or vice versa, can deny the [conjugal] debt, nor is he bound to this, unless he is compelled by ecclesiastical censure; and then, if when compelled he has rendered the debt, no prejudice is generated against him. — The reason for this is that he is bound and ought to correct his spouse or consort in secret[^p784-7].

But if we are speaking of separation in the *second* way; thus it is called divorce, and this, because it is in the open, ought not to be done in secret, but before the Church; and because matrimony *is a great Sacrament*[^p784-8], [it is] not [to be dissolved] under any judge whatever, but before the bishop. And this is what is said in Cause thirty-three, question two, chapter one, *Saeculares* etc.; which was promulgated in the Council of Carthage, at which Augustine[^p784-9] was present, where it is said: «If, before they have stated the causes of their disagreement to the provincial bishops, and before they are condemned in court, they cast off their wives; let them be separated from the communion of the Church and the holy assembly of the people, because they defile their marriages». And again, in the same question, Pope Nicholas[^p784-10]: Let it not be permitted to anyone to dismiss his wife on his own authority. — Hence, according to the common law, he is bound to take her back again, because those unjustly despoiled ought to be restored before the joining of issue; and this I say, unless he objects fornication against her, which he is willing to prove immediately, or something similar.

1. To that, then, which is objected, that the Lord passed sentence; it must be said that this is false, because he did not *pass sentence,* but *declared* [it]; and according to that law he left to the bishops the power of passing sentence.

2. To that which is objected concerning Joseph, it must be said that it is not similar: because then, on account of fornication, there was not divorce but death[^p784-11], and Joseph, as a merciful man, feared the death of Mary.

3. To that which is objected, that if the fornication is known to the husband alone; it must be said that then he ought to correct his wife in secret, not by divorce.

4. To that which is objected, that he contracts an irregularity and loses his action, if he knowingly and voluntarily
<!-- page 785 -->
[has intercourse]; it must be said that he is not bound to have knowledge of her, nor yet on account of this ought he to dismiss her on his own authority.

The arguments to the opposite prove that divorce cannot take place except before the Church, since it is public; and this is true[^p785-1].

---

en: Matthew 5:32 and 19:9.

la: Vers. 19: *Ioseph autem vir eius, cum esset iustus et nollet eam traducere, voluit occulte dimittere eam.* — Expositio huius loci, ex Glossa sumta, secundum S. Thom. (Comment. in hunc loc.) est Rabani. Glossa *ordinaria* apud Strabum et Lyranum sic habet: *Quod iustus erat, hoc est testimonium castitatis Mariae, ut qui servat innocentem iustus dicatur; sed et* [p. 784:] *pius, dum nollet propalare; ex conscientia castitatis iustus, ex timore pius.* Cfr. August., Serm. 51. (alias 63. de Diversis) c. 6. n. 9.

en: Verse 19: *But Joseph her husband, since he was a just man and was unwilling to expose her, wished to dismiss her secretly.* — The exposition of this passage, drawn from the Gloss, according to St. Thomas (Commentary on this passage) is Rabanus's. The *ordinary* Gloss in Strabo and Lyra reads thus: *That he was just, this is the testimony of Mary's chastity, so that he who preserves an innocent [woman] may be called just; but also* [p. 784:] *merciful, in that he was unwilling to make it public; from his conscience of chastity he is just, from fear he is merciful.* Cf. Augustine, *Sermon* 51 (elsewhere 63, *On Various Matters*) c. 6, n. 9.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 654, nota 1. De seq. propos. vide infra dub. 1.

en: Cf. above, p. 654, note 1. On the following proposition see below, dubium 1.

la: Vers. 19: *Mihi vindicta; ego retribuam, dicit Dominus* (Rom. 12).

en: Verse 19: *Vengeance is mine; I will repay, says the Lord* (Rom. 12).

la: Can. *Nullus unquam praesumat accusator simul esse et iudex vel testis* (1.), C. 4. q. 4. Cfr. C. *Multi corriguntur* (18.), C. 2. q. 1. § 1. — De *minori* vide C. *Maritis,* (4.), X. de Adulteriis etc. (lib. V. tit. 16.).

en: Canon *Let no accuser ever presume to be at once both judge and witness* (1), C. 4, q. 4. Cf. C. *Multi corriguntur* (18), C. 2, q. 1, § 1. — On the *lesser* [point] see C. *Maritis* (4), X, On Adulteries etc. (bk. V, tit. 16).

la: Cfr. Deut. 24, 1. Vide August., XIX. contra Faustum, c. 26, ubi docet, quod «apud Hebraeos scribere litteras Hebraeas nulli fas erat nisi Scribis solis».

en: Cf. Deut. 24:1. See Augustine, *Against Faustus* XIX, c. 26, where he teaches that «among the Hebrews it was lawful for no one to write Hebrew letters except the Scribes alone».

la: Cfr. C. *Multorum relatione cognovimus* (10.), C. 35. q. 6. et C. *Porro* (3.), X. de Divortiis (lib. IV. tit. 19.). — Pro primo *ergo* edd. *quia.*

en: Cf. C. *Multorum relatione cognovimus* (10), C. 35, q. 6, and C. *Porro* (3), X, On Divorces (bk. IV, tit. 19). — For the first *ergo* the editions read *quia.*

la: Vide supra d. 28. q. 5.

en: See above, d. 28, q. 5.

la: Matth. 18, 15. Cfr. quaest. praeced.

en: Matthew 18:15. Cf. the preceding question.

la: Eph. 5, 32: *Sacramentum hoc magnum est* etc.

en: Eph. 5:32: *This is a great sacrament* etc.

la: Ut dicit Gratian., loc. cit.; in nota tamen adiecta dicitur, quod canon ille non in concilio Carthaginensi, sed in Agathensi (an. 506) editus sit. — Textus originalis substituit *apud episcopos* pro *ad episcopos* et finem exhibet sic: *pro eo quod fidem et coniugia maculant, excludantur.*

en: As Gratian says, in the place cited; yet in a note added it is said that that canon was promulgated not in the Council of Carthage, but in the Council of Agde (a.d. 506). — The original text substitutes *apud episcopos* ("before the bishops") for *ad episcopos* ("to the bishops") and gives the ending thus: *because they defile their faith and their marriages, let them be excluded.*

la: Can. *Si quis cum matre* (17.), in quo de viro fornicante dicitur: «legitimam tamen, si habuit, non dimittat uxorem». Quibus verbis Gratian. adiungit: *Quos enim Deus coniunxit iudex sua auctoritate separare non debet.* Cfr. ibid. C. *Historia* (3.) et seq., ubi Nicolaus decernit, quod uxor absque causae cognitione a viro suo dimissa ad omnia restituatur.

en: Canon *Si quis cum matre* (17), in which, concerning a fornicating husband, it is said: «yet let him not dismiss his lawful wife, if he had one». To which words Gratian adds: *For whom God has joined, the judge ought not by his own authority to separate.* Cf. ibid. C. *Historia* (3) and following, where Nicholas decrees that a wife dismissed by her husband without examination of the cause is to be restored to all [her rights].

la: Lev. 20, 10: *Morte moriantur et moechus et adultera.* Cfr. Deut. 22, 22. et Ioan. 8, 5.

en: Lev. 20:10: *Let both the adulterer and the adulteress be put to death.* Cf. Deut. 22:22 and John 8:5.

en: See the scholion to question 1 of this article. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the Vol IV PDF bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{783,784,785}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`), which are authoritative for this two-column cascade-shattered OCR (VOL II OVERRIDE). Raw OCR L83909–84102 consulted for reference only. Offset pdf = printed + 20 (pp. 783–785 → pdf 803–805). Right columns regenerated at split 1780, left columns at 2120 (default 1880 clips both).

**Opener alignment VERIFIED.** Raw L83911 "Tertio quaeritur… utrum possit quis uxorem fornicantem dimittere propria auctoritate" matches the printed QUAESTIO III header (p. 783 left column, lower third). No auto-chunker q-swap. line_start/line_end unchanged.

**Page layout.** Each of pp. 783 and 785 is split into an upper block (the finishing question) spanning both columns and a lower block (the new question). On p. 783 q2 fills the upper block; q3 begins in the lower-left ("Tertio quaeritur…") and continues in the lower-right ("de iustitia… potest eam dimittere. 2. Item, Matthaei primo…"). On p. 785 q3's tail fills the upper block (left-upper = reply 4 tail "…dimittere."; right-upper = "Rationes ad oppositum… et hoc est verum"), and q4 fills the lower block. Reading order within each question's block is left-then-right.

**has_scholion: false.** This quaestio renders no scholion; note p785-1 ("Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.") points to the first scholion of the article (in a1-q1), whose §III covers q3. No scholion text appears in this range.

**Apparatus: 14 entries. Per-page split — p. 783: notes 11, 12 (2); p. 784: notes 1–11 (11); p. 785: note 1 (1).** On p. 783 only notes 11–12 are q3's; notes 1–10 belong to q2 (Chrysostom/Jerome Contra + Respondeo, held by a1-q2). All of p. 784's notes are q3's. On p. 785 only note 1 is q3's; notes 2–11 belong to q4.

**Cross-page footnote continuation.** p. 783 note 12 (the Gloss on Joseph) does not end on p. 783 — it breaks after "…iustus dicatur; sed et" and resumes, unnumbered, at the head of p. 784's footer block ("pius, dum nollet propalare; ex conscientia castitatis iustus, ex timore pius. Cfr. August., Serm. 51…"). Merged into a single [^p783-12] entry with a "[p. 784:]" marker. This unnumbered head-of-footer text is therefore NOT counted as a separate p. 784 note.

**Footer hand-offs.**
- PICKED UP (from a1-q2): p. 783 footer notes 11–12 (Dominus / Matthaei — q3's opening args 1–2). Both anchored in this body ([^p783-11] on "Quia Dominus"; [^p783-12] on "Matthaei primo"). Claimed.
- FORWARDED (to a1-q4): p. 785 is shared; notes 2–11 on p. 785 are q4's (they anchor q4's arguments, e.g. "Primae ad Corinthios septimo" → p785 note 2). q3 claims only p. 785 note 1.

**[?] flags.** None. All body text and all claimed footers read cleanly from the bands. Marginal glosses ("Fundamenta.", "Duplex dimissio.", "Con.", "Ratio", "Ad fundam.") trimmed as editorial marginalia, not Bonaventure's text.


title: Dist. 35, Art. 1, Q. 4

source_text:
<!-- page 785 -->

### Quaestio IV. *Utrum, divortio celebrato, vir possit aliam uxorem ducere, vel uxor alium virum.*

Quarto quaeritur, utrum, divortio celebrato, vir possit aliam uxorem ducere, vel uxor alium virum. Et quod non, videtur.

1. Primae ad Corinthios septimo[^p785-2]: *Praecipio non ego, sed Dominus, uxorem a viro non discedere; quodsi discesserit, manere innuptam.*

2. Item, Augustinus *de Bono coniugali*[^p785-3]: « Manet inter viventes coniugale vinculum, quod nec separatio nec cum alio coniunctio possit auferre ».

3. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia, si alter posset nubere; cum matrimonium non claudicet[^p785-4], posset uterque nubere: ergo quotiescumque aliqua vellet habere alium virum, posset habere fornicando; quod stultum est dicere.

4. Item, si propter fornicationem solveretur omnino matrimonium: ergo si aliquis cognosceret uxorem, ex quo fornicata est, cum iam non sit inter eos matrimonium, peccaret mortaliter; quod est inconveniens dicere.

**Contra:**

1. Osee secundo[^p785-5]: *Ipsa non uxor mea, et ego non vir eius;* Glossa: « Quia pristinos errores non reliquit »: ergo anima, quae non relinquit errores, non est uxor Dei: ergo a simili, si ita est in signato et in signo, mulier, quae fornicationes non relinquit, non est uxor viri; et si hoc: ergo vir potest cum alia nubere.

2. Item, Matthaei decimo nono[^p785-6]: *Qui dimiserit uxorem et aliam duxerit, excepta causa fornicationis, moechatur:* ergo si recta est exceptio, licet ex causa fornicationis uxorem dimittere et aliam ducere.

3. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia adulterando divisit carnem suam; sed Sacramentum matrimonii est, quod sint *duo in carne una*[^p785-7]: ergo Sacramentum per fornicationem solvitur: ergo non est ibi amplius matrimonium.

4. Item, post divortium vir in nullo tenetur uxori, nec in quantum ad debitum solvendum nec quoad cohabitationem: ergo aliquis est a lege uxoris solutus[^p785-8]; et si hoc; cum vir solutus a lege uxoris possit contrahere, videtur etc.

> **Conclusio.** Divortium ob adulterium factum non separat matrimonium, dummodo legitime fuit contractum, quoad vinculum, sed tantum quoad debitum et cohabitationem.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod divortium potest fieri dupliciter: aut quia personae erant *illegitimae* ad contrahendum ad invicem simpliciter; et tunc uterque potest alteri nubere, sicut supra[^p785-9] distinctum est. Potest etiam fieri *propter crimen fornicationis;* et tunc non potest contrahere nec vir nec mulier; quia, cum essent personae legitimae, fuit inter eas Sacramentum, quod est vinculum insolubile. Unde divortium non est separatio quantum ad vinculum sacramentale, sed quantum ad debitum et cohabitationem.

*Ad 1.* Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod anima fornicatoris non est uxor Dei; dicendum, quod matrimonium non est Sacramentum *huius* principaliter, sed *coniunctionis divinae naturae et humanae,* quae nullatenus solvitur[^p785-10]; ideo non est simile.

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de exceptione Domini dicendum, quod exceptio non refertur ad utrumque actum, sed ad *alterum* tantum, scilicet ad actum dimissionis; unde oratio illa tres habet causas veritatis[^p785-11]; unde quia procedit ad alteram tantum, fit *consequens.*

<!-- page 786 -->

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod solvitur Sacramentum: dicendum, quod istud non est de *necessitate* Sacramenti, quod caro sit indivisa, sed de *nobilitate* et dignitate. Quamvis enim caro alterius dividatur, nihilominus sunt *duo in carne una*[^p786-1].

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod post divortium vir in nullo tenetur uxori, nec e converso; dicendum, quod quamvis nihil teneatur reddere, nihilominus tamen sacramentaliter est ligatus; et quia est ei alligatus, quamdiu vivit: ideo non potest alteri alligari.

<!-- page 786: scholion printed between q. IV and q. V; placed here as last subsection per parser convention -->

english:
### Question IV. *Whether, once a divorce has been celebrated, the man may take another wife, or the wife another husband.*

Fourthly it is asked whether, once a divorce has been celebrated, the man may take another wife, or the wife another husband. And that he may not, seems [to be the case].

1. First to the Corinthians, chapter seven[^p785-2]: *I command, not I but the Lord, that the wife depart not from her husband; but if she depart, that she remain unmarried.*

2. Likewise, Augustine *On the Good of Marriage*[^p785-3]: « Between the living there remains the conjugal bond, which neither separation nor union with another can take away ».

3. Likewise, *by reason* it seems [so]: because, if one [party] could marry [again]; since matrimony does not limp [i.e. is not one-sided][^p785-4], both could marry: therefore, as often as some woman wished to have another man, she could have [him] by fornicating; which is foolish to say.

4. Likewise, if on account of fornication the matrimony were wholly dissolved: then if someone knew [carnally] his wife, from the fact that she has fornicated, since there would no longer be matrimony between them, he would sin mortally; which is unfitting to say.

**On the contrary:**

1. Hosea, chapter two[^p785-5]: *She is not my wife, and I am not her husband;* the Gloss: « Because she has not left her former errors »: therefore the soul which does not leave its errors is not the wife of God: therefore by a similar [reasoning], if it is so in the thing signified and in the sign, the woman who does not leave her fornications is not the wife of [her] husband; and if this [is so]: therefore the man may marry another.

2. Likewise, Matthew, chapter nineteen[^p785-6]: *Whoever dismisses his wife and marries another, except for the cause of fornication, commits adultery:* therefore, if the exception is correct, it is permitted, for the cause of fornication, to dismiss a wife and marry another.

3. Likewise, *by reason* it seems [so]: because by committing adultery she divided her own flesh; but the Sacrament of matrimony is that they be *two in one flesh*[^p785-7]: therefore the Sacrament is dissolved through fornication: therefore there is no longer matrimony there.

4. Likewise, after a divorce the man is bound to the wife in nothing, neither as to paying the debt nor as to cohabitation: therefore someone is loosed from the law of the wife[^p785-8]; and if this [is so]; since a man loosed from the law of the wife can contract [marriage], it seems, etc.

> **Conclusion.** A divorce made on account of adultery does not separate the matrimony — provided it was legitimately contracted — as to the bond, but only as to the debt and cohabitation.

**I respond:** It must be said that a divorce can take place in two ways: either because the persons were *illegitimate* for contracting with one another simply — and then either may marry the other, as was distinguished above[^p785-9]. It can also take place *on account of the crime of fornication* — and then neither the man nor the woman can contract [marriage]; because, since the persons were legitimate, there was between them a Sacrament, which is an indissoluble bond. Hence a divorce is not a separation as to the sacramental bond, but as to the debt and cohabitation.

*To 1.* To that, then, which is objected, that the soul of a fornicator is not the wife of God; it must be said that matrimony is not principally the Sacrament of *this* [union], but of the *conjunction of the divine and human nature,* which is in no way dissolved[^p785-10]; therefore it is not similar.

*To 2.* To that which is objected concerning the Lord's exception, it must be said that the exception does not refer to both acts, but to *one* only, namely to the act of dismissal; hence that saying has three grounds of truth[^p785-11]; hence, since it proceeds to one [act] only, it becomes [a fallacy of] the *consequent.*

*To 3.* To that which is objected, that the Sacrament is dissolved: it must be said that this is not from the *necessity* of the Sacrament — that the flesh be undivided — but from [its] *nobility* and dignity. For although the flesh of one is divided, nonetheless they are *two in one flesh*[^p786-1].

*To 4.* To that which is objected, that after a divorce the man is bound to the wife in nothing, nor conversely; it must be said that although he is bound to render nothing, nonetheless he is still sacramentally bound; and since he is bound to her as long as he lives, therefore he cannot be bound to another.

la: Vers. 10. seq.

la: Cap. 7. n. 6. seq. sententialiter; verba ipsa habentur I. *de Nuptiis et concupisc.* c. 10. n. 11. Vide supra lit. Magistri, d. XXXI. c. 2.

en: [Augustine, *On the Good of Marriage*] ch. 7, n. 6 f., in sense; the very words are found in [the] first [book] *On Marriage and Concupiscence,* c. 10, n. 11. See above, the text of the Master, d. XXXI, c. 2.

la: Cfr. supra d. 29. q. 2. in corp.

en: Cf. above, d. 29, q. 2, in the body [of the article].

la: Vers. 2. — Glossa apud Lyranum *interlinearis* sumta est ex Hieron. in hunc locum. — Verbis *ergo anima* codd. F G interserunt *si.*

en: [Hosea 2,] v. 2. — The Gloss in Lyra, an *interlinear* one, is taken from Jerome on this passage. — At the words *ergo anima* codices F G insert *si.*

la: Vers. 9: Quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam, nisi ob fornicationem, et aliam duxerit moechatur. Cfr. ibid. 5, 32.

en: [Matt. 19,] v. 9: Whoever dismisses his wife, unless for fornication, and marries another, commits adultery. Cf. ibid. 5, 32.

la: Respicitur Rom. 7, 2. et I. Cor. 7, 39. — Edd. post *ergo* addunt *si,* et deinde *potest contrahere.*

en: Reference is made to Rom. 7:2 and 1 Cor. 7:39. — The editions after *ergo* add *si,* and then [read] *potest contrahere.*

la: Lit. Magistri, d. XXXI. c. 2; XXXIV. c. 1, ibique Comment. a. 1. q. 2; et d. 32. a. 4. q. 2. in corp. — Superius voci *simpliciter* ed. 1 cum pluribus codd. perperam praemittit *non tamen.* Inferius pro *quia, cum* plures codd. *quia tum,* cod. aa *quia cum tunc.*

en: The text of the Master, d. XXXI, c. 2; XXXIV, c. 1, and there the Commentary, a. 1, q. 2; and d. 32, a. 4, q. 2, in the body. — Above, before the word *simpliciter,* ed. 1 with several codices wrongly prefixes *non tamen.* Below, for *quia, cum* several codices [read] *quia tum,* codex aa *quia cum tunc.*

la: Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. XXVI. c. 6, et Comment. a. 2. q. 1. — Superius pro *Sacramentum* ed. 1 *signum,* Vat. *signum vel Sacramentum.*

en: Cf. above, the text of the Master, d. XXVI, c. 6, and the Commentary, a. 2, q. 1. — Above, for *Sacramentum* ed. 1 [reads] *signum,* the Vatican [edition] *signum vel Sacramentum.*

la: In matrimonii coniunctione tria consideranda sunt, scil. vinculum, torum et cohabitatio; quibus triplex respondet separatio, scil. solutio vinculi, separatio quoad torum et separatio quoad cohabitationem (cfr. quaest. praeced. et supra lit. Magistri, d. XXXI. c. 2.). *Solutioni* matrimonii opponit S. Bonav. *dimissionem,* quae separationem sive quoad torum, sive quoad cohabitationem importat. (Pro *tres* Vat. *duas*). — De locutione *tres habet causas veritatis* cfr. tom. III. pag. 252, nota 7, et de sophismate *secundum consequens* supra pag. 44, nota 10. — Pro *fit consequens* plures codd. *facit consequens.*

en: In the conjunction of matrimony three things are to be considered, namely the bond, the bed, and cohabitation; to which a threefold separation corresponds, namely the loosing of the bond, separation as to the bed, and separation as to cohabitation (cf. the preceding question and above, the text of the Master, d. XXXI, c. 2.). To the *loosing* of matrimony St. Bonaventure opposes *dismissal,* which entails a separation either as to the bed or as to cohabitation. (For *tres* the Vatican [edition reads] *duas*). — On the phrase *it has three grounds of truth* cf. tom. III, p. 252, note 7, and on the sophism *of the consequent,* above, p. 44, note 10. — For *fit consequens* several codices [read] *facit consequens.*

la: Cfr. infra d. 42. a. 3. q. 2. ad 3.

en: Cf. below, d. 42, a. 3, q. 2, to [objection] 3. ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** *Vinculum* matrimonii *Christianorum* rati et consummati nulla auctoritate humana nulloque in casu, ne ipsius quidem adulterii, solvi posse, spectat ad fidem catholicam. Hoc Concil. Trident. (Sess. XXIV. can. 7.) definivit contra doctrinam Protestantium et etiam contra Graecos, apud quos viget praxis solvendi matrimonium propter superveniens adulterium. Communiter autem tenetur, ipso *iure naturae* matrimonium legitimum *quodcumque* esse *per se* indissolubile; quod innuitur etiam prop. 67. Syllabi a Pio IX. damnata. — De hac quaestione cfr. supra d. 27. a. 3. q. 1. 2. — De eadem 4. quaestione: Scot., supra d. 26. q. unica n. 10, d. 33. q. 3. n. 4. seqq. — S. Thom., hic a. 5; Suppl. q. 62. a. 5. — B. Albert., hic a. 5-16. — Petr. a Tar., hic a. 5. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 1. — Durand., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 2.

**II.** De seq. (5.) quaestione: S. Thom., locis citt. a. 6. — B. Albert., hic a. 11-13. — Petr. a Tar., hic a. 6. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 2.

**III.** Ultima (6.) quaestio ab aliis non tractatur specialiter, sed principia tanguntur in praecedentibus, praesertim supra d. 32, de solutione debiti.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** That the *bond* of the matrimony of *Christians,* ratified and consummated, can be dissolved by no human authority and in no case — not even that of adultery itself — pertains to the Catholic faith. This the Council of Trent (Session XXIV, canon 7) defined against the doctrine of the Protestants and also against the Greeks, among whom there flourishes the practice of dissolving matrimony on account of supervening adultery. It is commonly held that, by the very *law of nature,* *any* legitimate matrimony whatsoever is *of itself* indissoluble; which is intimated also by proposition 67 of the Syllabus condemned by Pius IX. — On this question cf. above, d. 27, a. 3, q. 1, 2. — On the same 4th question: Scotus, above d. 26, q. unica, n. 10, d. 33, q. 3, n. 4 ff. — St. Thomas, here a. 5; Suppl. q. 62, a. 5. — B. Albert, here a. 5-16. — Peter of Tarentaise, here a. 5. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 3, q. 1. — Durandus, on this and the following question, here q. 2.

**II.** On the following (5th) question: St. Thomas, in the places cited, a. 6. — B. Albert, here a. 11-13. — Peter of Tarentaise, here a. 6. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 3, q. 2.

**III.** The last (6th) question is not treated specially by the others, but its principles are touched upon in the preceding [questions], especially above at d. 32, on the payment of the debt.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the vol4 Quaracchi PDF column-bands (offset pdf = printed + 20) per the CLAUDE.md VOL II/IV OVERRIDE (bands authoritative for the cascade-shattered Respondeo/Solutio/scholion/footers). Pages verified by running heads: **785** (`DIST. XXXV. ART. UNICUS QUAEST. IV. 785`), **786** (`786 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.`). Raw OCR range L84103–84204 used only as a cross-check for clean prose and marker spacing. Opener alignment verified: raw "Quarto quaeritur…" (title at L84103) matches this chunk.

**Split provenance (2026-07-12).** This file was split out of a combined a1-q4 chunk that had wrongly bundled q4, q5, and q6 (the q5/q6 QUAESTIO headers were OCR-garbled, so the auto-chunker missed them). q5 → `bon-sent-IV-d35-a1-q5.md`, q6 → `bon-sent-IV-d35-a1-q6.md`. This chunk now holds **only Quaestio IV** plus **scholion 2** (the group-owner scholion). Content is verbatim from the combined chunk; nothing re-translated.

**Scholion disposition (SECOND scholion of d.35 a1).** Printed on p. 786 between q4's replies and q5; moved to the LAST subsection of both language blocks per the `extractLanguageBlock` parser rule. It has **three sections covering three questions**: **§I = q4** (doctrinal note on the indissolubility of ratified-and-consummated Christian marriage — Trent Sess. XXIV can. 7, Syllabus prop. 67 — plus "De hac quaestione…" cross-ref and the "De eadem 4. quaestione" doctor-list), **§II = q5** ("De seq. (5.) quaestione"), **§III = q6** ("Ultima (6.) quaestio…"). The scholion is the group owner and STAYS here in a1-q4 even after the split; the FIRST scholion of the article (in a1-q1) covers q1–q3. No overlap.

**Footer hand-offs.**
- **p. 785 note 1** (`Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.`) is **q3's** — it anchors the tail of q3's Respondeo at the top of p. 785's right column. NOT claimed here. This chunk claims p. 785 notes **2–11**.
- **p. 785 note 11** overflows across the page break: its text continues at the top of p. 786's left-column footer ("…cohabitationem importat. (Pro *tres* Vat. *duas*)…"). Rendered in full under `[^p785-11]`.
- **p. 786 note 1** is claimed here (q4's *Ad 3*). p. 786 notes 2–5 anchor in q5's body and move to `bon-sent-IV-d35-a1-q5.md`.

**[?] flags (scholion §I doctor-list) — both RESOLVED at 600 dpi.**
Source: `raw/vision/vol4/p-hires-786-r600-0806.png` (SCHOLION block, printed p. 786, between q. IV and q. V). Crops: whole block y 0.05–0.55 × full width; left-column tail y 0.225–0.250 × x 0.14–0.55 (×3); right column y 0.19–0.245 × x 0.55–0.99 (×2.2).
- "De hac quaestione cfr. supra d. 27. a. 3. q. 1.[?]" — **RESOLVED:** Quaracchi prints "**cfr. supra d. 27. a. 3. q. 1. 2.**" The faint trailing glyph is a **2** (i.e. questions 1 *and* 2). `[?]` removed; La and En corrected.
- "Petr. a Tar., hic a. 8[?]" — **RESOLVED:** the printed figure is **5**, not 8 ("Petr. a Tar., hic a. **5**."). The IA OCR reading "8" was wrong; the 450 dpi band's suspicion of "5" is confirmed. `[?]` removed; La and En corrected.
- **Incidental correction made in the same line** (visible at 600 dpi, previously mis-transcribed from the OCR): "B. Albert., hic a. **5**-16" — not "15-16". Corrected in La and En. No marker counts changed.
- Scholion §I, "B. Albert., hic a. 15-16" — band shows "5-16"; IA OCR "-5-16" (→ 15-16); rendered 15-16.

**Apparatus count:** 11 entries — p.785: 10 (notes 2–11); p.786: 1 (note 1). The scholion carries no footnote markers.


title: Dist. 35, Art. 1, Q. 5

source_text:
<!-- page 786 -->

### Quaestio V. *Utrum post divortium possint vir et mulier invicem reconciliari.*

Quinto quaeritur, utrum post divortium possint vir et uxor invicem reconciliari. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Primae ad Corinthios septimo[^p786-2]: *Si discesserit uxor a viro,* praecipit, *manere innuptam, aut viro suo reconciliari:* ergo potest ei reconciliari.

Item, quod *vir innocens* possit reconciliare uxorem invitam, videtur:

2. Quia non peccavit, ergo nihil amisit de iure suo, ergo potest petere debitum: ergo illa tenetur reddere.

3. Item, vir non tenetur continere, quia non obligatur, nec ex voto nec ex poena; et non potest alteram ducere: ergo potest sibi uxorem propriam reconciliare.

Item, quod *fornicaria* possit reconciliare virum invitum, videtur:

4. Esto quod sufficienter egerit poenitentiam, remissa est culpa et poena: ergo cessat causa divortii: ergo « cum, cessante causa, cesset effectus[^p786-3] » videtur etc.

5. Item, possibile est, virum fornicari; sed fornicante viro, competit exceptio contra virum petentem divortium: ergo pari ratione competit actio mulieri ad repetendum virum.

**Contra:**

1. Regula est in canone, Causa sexta, quaestione quarta[^p786-4]: « Quod semel bene definitum est nulla debet iteratione retractari »: ergo cum divortium sit celebratum per definitionem Ecclesiae, patet etc.

2. Item, uterque potest servare continentiam et vovere post divortium: ergo unus non habet ius in altero: ergo si non habent invicem ius, non possunt invicem reconciliari amplius.

3. Item, quod *fornicanti* non competat actio in alium, videtur: quia regula est in iure[^p786-5], quod « actio semel perempta non resuscitatur »: ergo si ex fornicatione amisit ius petendi debitum, patet etc.

4. Item, quod *vir* non possit sibi reconciliare fornicariam, videtur, quia in iudicio petiit et obtinuit separationem: ergo renuntiavit iuri petendi debitum; et si hoc, cum non possit agere ex eo cui renuntiavit, videtur etc.

> **Conclusio.** Reconciliatio fieri potest, utraque parte consentiente, vel nocente tantum refragante; non vero vel utraque dissentiente, vel innocente refragante.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod ad reconciliationem faciendam aut *uterque concordat,* aut *uterque discordat,* aut *unus petit et alter repugnat.* — Si *uterque concordat,* absque dubio fit; si *uterque discordat,* nec potest nec debet fieri, nisi fiat propter scandalum Ecclesiae, quae scandalizatur, pro eo quod uterque fornicatur publice. Si autem *alter* petit, aut *nocens* petit *innocentem;* et sic non debet cogi ad reconciliationem. Aut *innocens nocen-*

<!-- page 787 -->

*tem,* ut vir castus uxorem adulteram; et sic, ipsa invita, debet reconciliari per iudicium Ecclesiae, quia, sicut dicunt iura[^p787-1], « quod in meum favorem introductum est in meum damnum non debet retorqueri ». Aut nocens nocentem petit, ut mulier, quae prius est fornicata, repetit virum, qui est post divortium fornicatus; et sic restituendus est maritus uxori *invitus,* non quia actio mulieris resuscitata sit, sed in poenam fornicationis viri, quia abusus est privilegio libertatis. Quantumcumque tamen mulier faciat poenitentiam, nunquam acquirit ius in virum, ipso nolente, nisi vir fornicetur; et hoc propter contumeliam, quam intulit matrimonio, quia directe peccavit contra bonum fidei. — Ex his patet solutio obiectorum ad primam partem.

*Ad 1.* Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod non est retractanda sententia; dicendum, quod hoc verum est, quantum est de rigore iuris, non tamen quantum est de favore personae innocentis, ut dictum est.

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod uterque potest vovere continentiam; dicendum, quod falsum est, quia fornicans non potest, nisi alter consentiat; et nisi post poenitentiam velit eam recipere, episcopus potest eam licentiare, ut intret religionem.

*Ad 3, 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod actio mulieris est perempta, et quod vir renuntiavit iuri suo; dicendum, quod falsum est: quia actio mulieris non perimitur *simpliciter,* sed *sub conditione,* scilicet si vir permanserit continens; et ratio huius est, quia vinculum semper manet. — Vel potest dici, quod actio non vivificatur, sed de novo datur vel acquiritur a iure ob peccatum viri. — Similiter sequens est falsum, quia vir non renuntiat iuri suo simpliciter, sed *ad tempus*[^p787-2].

---

english:
### Question V. *Whether, after a divorce, the man and the woman can be reconciled to each other.*

Fifthly it is asked whether, after a divorce, the man and the wife can be reconciled to each other. And that they can, seems [to be the case].

1. First to the Corinthians, chapter seven[^p786-2]: *If the wife depart from her husband,* he commands [her] *to remain unmarried, or to be reconciled to her husband:* therefore she can be reconciled to him.

Likewise, that the *innocent man* can reconcile to himself an unwilling wife seems [to be the case]:

2. Because he did not sin, therefore he lost nothing of his right, therefore he can demand the debt: therefore she is bound to render it.

3. Likewise, the man is not bound to be continent, because he is not obligated, neither by vow nor by penalty; and he cannot marry another: therefore he can reconcile to himself his own wife.

Likewise, that a *fornicatress* can reconcile to herself an unwilling husband seems [to be the case]:

4. Granted that she has sufficiently done penance, the fault and the penalty are remitted: therefore the cause of the divorce ceases: therefore « since, the cause ceasing, the effect ceases[^p786-3] », it seems, etc.

5. Likewise, it is possible for the man to fornicate; but with the man fornicating, an exception lies against the man demanding a divorce: therefore, by parity of reasoning, an action lies for the woman to reclaim the man.

**On the contrary:**

1. There is a rule in the canon, Cause six, question four[^p786-4]: « What has once been well decided ought not to be retracted by any repetition »: therefore, since the divorce has been celebrated by a decision of the Church, it is clear, etc.

2. Likewise, each [party] can keep continence and take a vow after the divorce: therefore the one has no right in the other: therefore, if they have no right in each other, they can no longer be reconciled to each other.

3. Likewise, that no action against the other lies for *the one who has fornicated* seems [to be the case]: because there is a rule in law[^p786-5], that « an action once extinguished is not revived »: therefore, if by fornication she lost the right of demanding the debt, it is clear, etc.

4. Likewise, that *the man* cannot reconcile to himself a fornicatress seems [to be the case], because in judgment he sought and obtained the separation: therefore he renounced the right of demanding the debt; and if this [is so], since he cannot act on the basis of what he renounced, it seems, etc.

> **Conclusion.** Reconciliation can take place when both parties consent, or when only the guilty party resists; but not when both dissent, or when the innocent party resists.

**I respond:** It must be said that, for making a reconciliation, either *both agree,* or *both disagree,* or *one seeks it and the other refuses.* — If *both agree,* it takes place without doubt; if *both disagree,* it neither can nor ought to take place, unless it be done on account of scandal to the Church, which is scandalized because both fornicate publicly. But if *one* seeks it, either the *guilty* one seeks the *innocent;* and thus [the innocent] ought not to be compelled to reconciliation. Or the *innocent* [seeks] the *guilty,* as a chaste husband [seeks] an adulterous wife; and thus, though she be unwilling, she ought to be reconciled by the judgment of the Church, because, as the laws say[^p787-1], « what has been introduced in my favor ought not to be turned to my harm ». Or the guilty seeks the guilty, as when a woman, who first fornicated, reclaims a husband who fornicated after the divorce; and thus the husband must be restored to the wife *unwillingly,* not because the woman's action has been revived, but as a penalty for the man's fornication, because he has abused the privilege of liberty. However much, nevertheless, the woman may do penance, she never acquires a right in the man, against his will, unless the man fornicates; and this on account of the affront which she inflicted on the matrimony, because she sinned directly against the good of fidelity. — From these things the solution of the objections to the first part is clear.

*To 1.* To that, then, which is objected, that the sentence must not be retracted; it must be said that this is true as far as the rigor of the law is concerned, yet not as far as the favor of the innocent person is concerned, as has been said.

*To 2.* To that which is objected, that each [party] can vow continence; it must be said that this is false, because the one who fornicates cannot [do so], unless the other consents; and unless, after penance, he wishes to receive her back, the bishop can grant her leave to enter religion.

*To 3, 4.* To that which is objected, that the woman's action is extinguished, and that the man renounced his right; it must be said that this is false: because the woman's action is not extinguished *simply,* but *under a condition,* namely if the man shall have remained continent; and the reason for this is that the bond always remains. — Or it can be said that the action is not revived, but is granted or acquired anew from the law on account of the man's sin. — Likewise the following [point] is false, because the man does not renounce his right simply, but *for a time*[^p787-2].

---

la: Vers. 11.

la: Vide supra pag. 493, nota 6.

en: See above, p. 493, note 6.

la: Can. 6. Textus originalis plura interserit.

en: Canon 6. The original text inserts more.

la: Cfr. Iustinian., D. XLVI. de Solutionibus etc. (tit. 3.), lex *Qui res suas* (98.), § *Aream.* et C. II. de Transactionibus (tit. 4.), lex *Actione* (4.). — Pro *resuscitatur* edd. *restituatur.*

en: Cf. Justinian, Digest XLVI, On Payments etc. (tit. 3), the law *Qui res suas* (98), § *Aream;* and Code II, On Transactions (tit. 4), the law *Actione* (4). — For *resuscitatur* the editions [read] *restituatur.*

la: Iustinian., C. I. de Legibus etc. (tit. 17.), lex *Quod favore* (6.); IV. de Fide instrumentorum (tit. 21.), lex *Plures* (18.) et V. de Secundis Nuptiis (tit. 9.), lex *Generaliter* (5.), § *In iis;* cfr. Regul. iuris, regul. 61. in VI. — Aliquanto inferius pro *viri* cod. U *cogitur.*

en: Justinian, Code I, On the Laws etc. (tit. 17), the law *Quod favore* (6); [Code] IV, On the Trustworthiness of Instruments (tit. 21), the law *Plures* (18), and [Code] V, On Second Marriages (tit. 9), the law *Generaliter* (5), § *In iis;* cf. the Rules of Law, rule 61, in [the] Sixth [book]. — Somewhat below, for *viri* codex U [reads] *cogitur.*

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion on the preceding question. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Split from the combined a1-q4 chunk 2026-07-12; content re-set from vol4 Quaracchi PDF column-bands (offset pdf = printed + 20) pp. 786–787, verbatim from the combined chunk (nothing re-translated). Pages verified by running heads: **786** (`786 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.`), **787** (`DIST. XXXV. ART. UNICUS QUAEST. VI. 787`). The q5 QUAESTIO header (`Quinto quaeritur…`, raw L84225) was OCR-garbled, which is why the auto-chunker originally folded q5 into the q4 chunk. Opener alignment verified: raw "Quinto quaeritur…" matches this chunk.

**Scholion.** None here. The article's second scholion (§I–III, covering q4–q6) stays with the group-owner chunk `bon-sent-IV-d35-a1-q4.md`; its §II is the note on this (5th) question. Apparatus [^p787-2] ("Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.") points back to that scholion.

**Footer hand-offs.**
- **p. 786 notes 2–5** claimed here (q5 body). p. 786 note 1 stays with q4 (its *Ad 3*).
- **p. 787 notes 1–2** claimed here (q5 body / *Ad 3,4*). p. 787 notes 3–10 anchor in q6 and move to `bon-sent-IV-d35-a1-q6.md`.
- **p. 786/787 seam:** q5's Respondeo splits mid-word across the page break (`Aut innocens nocen-` | `-tem,`); rendered continuous.

**Apparatus count:** 6 entries — p.786: 4 (notes 2–5); p.787: 2 (notes 1–2).